[00:00.000 --> 00:08.000] The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly [00:08.000 --> 00:15.000] bulletins for the commodity market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop [00:15.000 --> 00:23.000] into the tides of the alternative. [00:23.000 --> 00:30.000] Markets for Wednesday, the 18th of January, 2017, are currently trading with gold at $1,211.45 [00:30.000 --> 00:38.000] an ounce, silver $17.23 an ounce, Texas crude $52.48 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently [00:38.000 --> 00:43.000] sitting at about $878 U.S. currency. [00:43.000 --> 00:53.000] Today in history, the year 2005, the Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial jet to [00:53.000 --> 00:56.000] date, is unveiled at its ceremony in Toulouse, France. [00:56.000 --> 01:01.000] It has roughly 6,000 square feet of usable floor space, can seat up to 853 people in [01:01.000 --> 01:06.000] an all-economy class, and has a flight range of roughly 8,500 nautical miles. [01:06.000 --> 01:11.000] The Airbus A380 didn't get its first commercial flight until later that year in April, but [01:11.000 --> 01:18.000] it was unveiled today in history. [01:18.000 --> 01:22.000] In recent news, President Obama announced his exercise of clemency in commuting the [01:22.000 --> 01:25.000] sentence of Chelsea, formerly Bradley Manning. [01:25.000 --> 01:30.000] Manning had been arrested in 2010 after being outed by former hacker Adrian Lammo for being [01:30.000 --> 01:34.000] the main WikiLeaks source on the hundreds of thousands of sensitive U.S. government [01:34.000 --> 01:38.000] documents filed up, which included Cablegate and collateral murder. [01:38.000 --> 01:44.000] 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage in 2010 in Iraq, which shows two US AH-64 [01:44.000 --> 01:49.000] Apache helicopters indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed civilians, including [01:49.000 --> 01:52.000] two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters. [01:52.000 --> 01:57.000] Manning was held in virtual solitary confinement for 23 hours a day at a Marine Corps brig [01:57.000 --> 01:59.000] and sometimes even stripped completely naked. [01:59.000 --> 02:04.000] In 2013, he was sentenced in a military tribunal to 35 years in prison with the possibility [02:04.000 --> 02:09.000] of parole in the eighth year and dishonorably discharged from the Army. [02:09.000 --> 02:12.000] As a result of Obama's pardon, Manning will be free in May. [02:12.000 --> 02:16.000] To add a twist to all this, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, tweeted last week via [02:16.000 --> 02:21.000] WikiLeaks' Twitter account that, quote, if Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will [02:21.000 --> 02:27.000] agree to U.S. extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of the Department of Justice case. [02:27.000 --> 02:31.000] Assange has spent over four years in hideout at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. [02:31.000 --> 02:36.000] Melinda Taylor, a member of Mr. Assange's legal team, recently stated to the press that [02:36.000 --> 02:39.000] everything that he has said, he's standing by. [02:39.000 --> 02:43.000] The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors and even contributors. [02:43.000 --> 02:47.000] If you have a product or a service you'd like to advertise with us or even want to write [02:47.000 --> 02:53.000] articles and read for us, feel free to give me a call at 210-363-2257. [02:53.000 --> 03:01.000] This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for January 18th, 2017. [03:23.000 --> 03:26.000] I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops. [03:26.000 --> 03:28.000] Psychopathic predators terrorize the neighborhood block. [03:28.000 --> 03:31.000] Decrypt with pepper spray, make-up, tasers and glocks. [03:31.000 --> 03:33.000] They're like serial killers acting out subliminal thoughts. [03:33.000 --> 03:36.000] Forget what you taught, these cops have got a license to kill. [03:36.000 --> 03:38.000] Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will. [03:38.000 --> 03:41.000] Code of silence means that the pigs will never let out a squeal. [03:41.000 --> 03:44.000] And if they go to court, they know the judge will make them a deal. [03:44.000 --> 03:47.000] For real, that's why they stoppin' me, lockin' me up and stoppin' me. [03:47.000 --> 03:49.000] Complicatin' my property, talkin' in my demography. [03:49.000 --> 03:53.000] Makin' the poor commodities, procidin' off of poverty. [03:53.000 --> 03:55.000] And force the police to support the prison economy, yeah. [03:55.000 --> 03:57.000] No one makes money when the violence stops. [03:57.000 --> 03:59.000] Hatin' brutality's the way to make a criminal croc. [03:59.000 --> 04:02.000] Blood in the gutters, how to risk whether they bread at the top. [04:02.000 --> 04:05.000] And that's why this is what happens when you call the cops. [04:05.000 --> 04:07.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:07.000 --> 04:10.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:10.000 --> 04:12.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:12.000 --> 04:15.000] You get your rights violated or you all get shot. [04:15.000 --> 04:18.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:18.000 --> 04:20.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:20.000 --> 04:22.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:22.000 --> 04:26.000] You get your rights violated or you all get shot. [04:26.000 --> 04:28.000] Hey, everyone, what's your agent? [04:28.000 --> 04:30.000] I'm Mr. B. System and these pigs are tryin' to murder me. [04:30.000 --> 04:33.000] They made me, they tamed me, they trained them to hate me. [04:33.000 --> 04:36.000] Degraded, detained me, and changed just like slavery. [04:36.000 --> 04:38.000] Hands up, face down, left hook, right quick. [04:38.000 --> 04:41.000] Throw you down, hold you down, smack you with that nightstick. [04:41.000 --> 04:43.000] Night shift, ride around, see you with your J's on. [04:43.000 --> 04:46.000] You'll get sprayed on over skittles where the trade's on. [04:46.000 --> 04:48.000] All the people sayin' this is crazy down in Florida. [04:48.000 --> 04:51.000] What you sayin' is you playin' this the same in California. [04:51.000 --> 04:53.000] All right, folks, good evening. [04:53.000 --> 04:57.000] This is the Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. [04:57.000 --> 05:02.000] It is Monday night, January 23rd, 2017. [05:02.000 --> 05:06.000] And I am so mad right now that I could chew a 30-pound cannonball [05:06.000 --> 05:11.000] and spit 100-grade chain link logging chain. [05:11.000 --> 05:13.000] I have been reading a case today, [05:13.000 --> 05:17.000] which is a Third Court of Appeals case [05:17.000 --> 05:20.000] dealing with the transportation issue. [05:20.000 --> 05:25.000] Now, I didn't see all the documents that went in in this case, [05:25.000 --> 05:27.000] though I am familiar with the participants in this case. [05:27.000 --> 05:30.000] But for the sake of familiarity and privacy, [05:30.000 --> 05:33.000] I'm going to leave their specific name out of this. [05:33.000 --> 05:36.000] But I want to cover some of the things in this memorandum opinion [05:36.000 --> 05:38.000] by the Third Court of Appeals. [05:38.000 --> 05:43.000] And I am going to show you the entire reason why [05:43.000 --> 05:49.000] I am considering starting a fourth book, okay? [05:49.000 --> 05:53.000] And this one I'm going to title American Injustice. [05:53.000 --> 05:55.000] And the subtitle is going to be [05:55.000 --> 06:01.000] Imprison the Attorneys, Execute Judges, Save America. [06:01.000 --> 06:03.000] And once you hear what I'm going to talk about in this opinion, [06:03.000 --> 06:08.000] you're going to see exactly why that is. [06:08.000 --> 06:11.000] Now, we know that there is judicial incompetence [06:11.000 --> 06:15.000] and corruption in every court in this country. [06:15.000 --> 06:20.000] But the level that some of these Texas courts will stoop to [06:20.000 --> 06:24.000] to undermine the rule of law and the rights of the individual [06:24.000 --> 06:28.000] is astounding. [06:28.000 --> 06:33.000] And they will do it so in your face, [06:33.000 --> 06:37.000] it's as if they're daring you to challenge their ability [06:37.000 --> 06:41.000] to steal away that which is rightfully yours, [06:41.000 --> 06:44.000] like your liberty, for instance, [06:44.000 --> 06:50.000] like for your free use of your own property, for instance. [06:50.000 --> 06:54.000] If we do not do something about this usurpation of power [06:54.000 --> 06:58.000] by these courts and the complete usurpation [06:58.000 --> 07:04.000] of our entire government by this clique of elitist-minded, [07:04.000 --> 07:08.000] self-serving a-holes that we call attorneys, [07:08.000 --> 07:12.000] we are dead in the water and will never fix this country. [07:12.000 --> 07:16.000] Never, ever going to happen as long as any of these people [07:16.000 --> 07:24.000] are allowed to remain at the wheel of any office whatsoever. [07:24.000 --> 07:27.000] If you gave me the go-ahead tomorrow, [07:27.000 --> 07:30.000] I would start paving every driveway in America [07:30.000 --> 07:33.000] with the behinds and bones of every damned attorney [07:33.000 --> 07:36.000] in this country. [07:36.000 --> 07:41.000] They are that worthless to the way the American system [07:41.000 --> 07:44.000] of government is supposed to function. [07:44.000 --> 07:47.000] They are undermining it for their own self-interest, [07:47.000 --> 07:49.000] their own frickin' greed, [07:49.000 --> 07:52.000] and their ability to control the American people [07:52.000 --> 07:54.000] to suit their own ends. [07:54.000 --> 07:58.000] And we need to stop it. [07:58.000 --> 08:01.000] Now, this Third Court of Appeals opinion [08:01.000 --> 08:03.000] goes on to a lot of the points, [08:03.000 --> 08:05.000] some of which I don't know why were made [08:05.000 --> 08:06.000] in the original paperwork, [08:06.000 --> 08:09.000] and some of which I know exactly why they were made, [08:09.000 --> 08:13.000] though I don't know exactly how they were made [08:13.000 --> 08:15.000] because I didn't read the original documents. [08:15.000 --> 08:19.000] All I'm able to get access to is the actual final opinion. [08:19.000 --> 08:24.000] But in this, you will see these idiots. [08:24.000 --> 08:28.000] Now, the Third Court of Appeals has six judges, [08:28.000 --> 08:31.000] one head judge and five justices. [08:31.000 --> 08:34.000] This opinion is rendered by only three of those, [08:34.000 --> 08:38.000] so this was not an in-bank opinion. [08:38.000 --> 08:40.000] But the fact of the matter is, [08:40.000 --> 08:45.000] this opinion contradicts itself so many frickin' times, [08:45.000 --> 08:48.000] it's not even funny. [08:48.000 --> 08:50.000] They will sit here in this opinion, and they will say, [08:50.000 --> 08:53.000] okay, this individual making this appeal [08:53.000 --> 08:56.000] didn't offer any authority for what he's saying. [08:56.000 --> 08:58.000] And then they will render an opinion [08:58.000 --> 09:00.000] and fail to cite any authority [09:00.000 --> 09:02.000] for how they reached the conclusion [09:02.000 --> 09:06.000] that they came to in that opinion. [09:06.000 --> 09:10.000] They will overrule an issue with absolutely no legal authority [09:10.000 --> 09:13.000] as to why they're overruling it. [09:13.000 --> 09:17.000] They will simply conjure up some crap with no support [09:17.000 --> 09:19.000] and say that's their final answer, [09:19.000 --> 09:26.000] as if this is final frickin' jeopardy. [09:26.000 --> 09:28.000] All right, let's go into this. [09:28.000 --> 09:31.000] This case involves a citation that was issued [09:31.000 --> 09:34.000] for failure to stop before entering a crosswalk. [09:34.000 --> 09:35.000] That was the first thing. [09:35.000 --> 09:38.000] They charged the individual with rolling into a crosswalk [09:38.000 --> 09:42.000] at a stop sign. [09:42.000 --> 09:45.000] Now, the parts of this opinion I'm going to read to you, [09:45.000 --> 09:47.000] I'm not going to read to you the whole thing, [09:47.000 --> 09:48.000] it's only two or three pages long, [09:48.000 --> 09:50.000] or actually it's eight pages long printed, [09:50.000 --> 09:56.000] but a lot of this is superfluous BS in the way it does it. [09:56.000 --> 10:00.000] Now, first off, remember that in a municipal court, [10:00.000 --> 10:01.000] the county attorneys are the ones [10:01.000 --> 10:03.000] that are acting as state prosecutors, [10:03.000 --> 10:05.000] both unconstitutionally and unlawfully [10:05.000 --> 10:07.000] in every way, shape, and form. [10:07.000 --> 10:10.000] Municipal attorneys, by constitutional delegation of power, [10:10.000 --> 10:13.000] do not have any authority to prosecute in the name of the state. [10:13.000 --> 10:19.000] A statutory permission by the legislature cannot create a power [10:19.000 --> 10:22.000] that was not delegated to that frickin' office [10:22.000 --> 10:24.000] when it was delegated by the Constitution [10:24.000 --> 10:29.000] to another elected and specific office. [10:29.000 --> 10:32.000] The only people in Texas authorized by the Constitution [10:32.000 --> 10:34.000] to prosecute in the name of the state [10:34.000 --> 10:36.000] are county and district attorneys, [10:36.000 --> 10:40.000] not municipal, for hire, anytime and place, [10:40.000 --> 10:42.000] privately contracted attorneys [10:42.000 --> 10:50.000] with no public liability for their actions. [10:50.000 --> 10:55.000] But again, things not addressed by the morons in these courts. [10:55.000 --> 10:59.000] Not to mention the fact that municipal courts in Texas, [10:59.000 --> 11:02.000] the way they are created under Chapter 30 and Chapter 29 [11:02.000 --> 11:04.000] of the Government Code, [11:04.000 --> 11:08.000] are themselves absolutely unconstitutional. [11:08.000 --> 11:11.000] Well, I told you last week we have a case in Texas [11:11.000 --> 11:16.000] that was decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1921 [11:16.000 --> 11:21.000] that makes it very clear that the legislature is the only body [11:21.000 --> 11:24.000] that can create a court, set that court's jurisdiction, [11:24.000 --> 11:29.000] and set its organization. [11:29.000 --> 11:31.000] And yet, the legislature, [11:31.000 --> 11:34.000] through Chapters 29 and 30 of the Government Code, [11:34.000 --> 11:38.000] attempted to delegate that authority to municipalities [11:38.000 --> 11:43.000] to create courts by ordinance, set their jurisdiction by ordinance, [11:43.000 --> 11:50.000] and to also establish their organization by ordinance. [11:50.000 --> 11:55.000] And that case said very clearly that was unconstitutional, [11:55.000 --> 11:58.000] and yet they're still doing it. [11:58.000 --> 12:02.000] Why? [12:02.000 --> 12:05.000] Now let's get into some of the things that we talk about here. [12:05.000 --> 12:09.000] Let's start with the city attorney's objection to this case. [12:09.000 --> 12:13.000] The city attorney objected saying that the appeal should be [12:13.000 --> 12:16.000] dismissed for this individual because the documents were filed [12:16.000 --> 12:20.000] too late to preserve the right to seek review. [12:20.000 --> 12:25.000] Now, when you look at the dates for when all this occurred, [12:25.000 --> 12:30.000] the ending date, if you counted it by the calendar days, [12:30.000 --> 12:33.000] which is how the Government Code requires calculations of time [12:33.000 --> 12:37.000] to be done as in calendar days, not work days, [12:37.000 --> 12:44.000] the ending 10th day for the appeals process fell on a weekend [12:44.000 --> 12:49.000] in each of the iterations here for each of these that we're talking about. [12:49.000 --> 12:54.000] And so that means, according to the rules of construction for counting days, [12:54.000 --> 13:00.000] that if the ending or beginning day would be on a weekend [13:00.000 --> 13:03.000] or a government-recognized holiday, [13:03.000 --> 13:10.000] then that day cannot be counted against the appeal, okay, [13:10.000 --> 13:17.000] or the preparation of the instrument and filing of the instrument, of course. [13:17.000 --> 13:21.000] So right off the bat, you have city attorneys that don't even know enough [13:21.000 --> 13:26.000] to know that the 10th day falling on a weekend automatically moves [13:26.000 --> 13:32.000] the filing deadline to the next Monday if Monday's not a holiday. [13:32.000 --> 13:38.000] So the court overruled the city attorney's objection to the appellate review [13:38.000 --> 13:43.000] demand in this case and for the appeal, and rightfully so. [13:43.000 --> 13:50.000] That is where the rightful interpretation of Texas law ends, okay? [13:50.000 --> 13:57.000] Now, there's another little caveat to Texas law that I completely find unconstitutional myself. [13:57.000 --> 14:00.000] Find completely unconstitutional. Let me get that right. [14:00.000 --> 14:07.000] And that is where, that if you are assessed a fine under one of these regulatory codes, [14:07.000 --> 14:17.000] less than $100, then you cannot appeal to any of the appellate courts. [14:17.000 --> 14:22.000] So the state and the municipality or the county can steal money from you [14:22.000 --> 14:28.000] in increments of less than $100, and you will never get a chance to appeal [14:28.000 --> 14:33.000] that theft beyond the county court at law. [14:33.000 --> 14:39.000] You get that? Legalized theft of less than $100 by public officials [14:39.000 --> 14:49.000] by denying you the right of appeal if you're found guilty and fined less than $100. [14:49.000 --> 14:52.000] Okay? So let's go through this a little bit. [14:52.000 --> 14:57.000] There were more than 20 challenges raised in this case, [14:57.000 --> 15:01.000] some of which I don't know why they were challenged because knowing what I know [15:01.000 --> 15:05.000] of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the other stuff, this does, [15:05.000 --> 15:07.000] they don't make any sense to me. [15:07.000 --> 15:11.000] But let's go with what we do have in here. [15:11.000 --> 15:18.000] Now, one of these is the fact that the complaint, here we go, [15:18.000 --> 15:23.000] Texas Government Code Section 311, oh, wait a minute, here we go, [15:23.000 --> 15:30.000] that this is a non-case because the state did not prove notice in subject matter jurisdiction. [15:30.000 --> 15:35.000] It relies on the legislature's 1999 repeal of a provision that stated, [15:35.000 --> 15:39.000] proceedings in a municipal court shall be commenced by complaint. [15:39.000 --> 15:47.000] Well, that was removed from the Texas statutes because it's freaking unconstitutional. [15:47.000 --> 15:52.000] It violates Article 5, Section 12B. [15:52.000 --> 15:59.000] It violates Article 5, Section 17. [15:59.000 --> 16:06.000] It violates the right of due process. [16:06.000 --> 16:08.000] It violates the Code of Criminal Procedure. [16:08.000 --> 16:12.000] Nowhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure except for this one place that was repealed [16:12.000 --> 16:17.000] does it say that a complaint invents a court with jurisdiction of a cause. [16:17.000 --> 16:25.000] Now, let me read through what they did write in here so you can see just how far off base these morons really are. [16:25.000 --> 16:31.000] The Code of Criminal Procedure states that a complaint or information for any Class C misdemeanor [16:31.000 --> 16:36.000] may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense. [16:36.000 --> 16:40.000] That's Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 12.02B. [16:40.000 --> 16:43.000] Y'all hang on and I'll pick this up on the other side. [16:43.000 --> 16:47.000] This is going to be a little bit long-winded because of the idiocy in this opinion, [16:47.000 --> 16:49.000] but you'll see what I mean when we get that part. [16:49.000 --> 16:50.000] Y'all hang in there. [16:50.000 --> 16:51.000] We will be right back. [16:51.000 --> 16:54.000] The phones are currently off, so don't worry about that. [16:54.000 --> 16:56.000] Just wait till I announce it and then I'll let you on. [16:56.000 --> 17:24.000] We'll be right back. [17:24.000 --> 17:26.000] We'll be right back. [17:54.000 --> 17:57.000] We'll be right back. [17:57.000 --> 18:25.000] See you soon. [18:25.000 --> 18:27.000] We'll be right back. [18:55.000 --> 18:57.000] We'll be right back. [19:25.000 --> 19:27.000] We'll be right back. [19:55.000 --> 20:05.320] All right, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Now, let's continue on here [20:05.320 --> 20:12.220] with this bit of idiocy called an appellate court opinion. Now, the offenses for which [20:12.220 --> 20:17.140] the individual was convicted were charged as Class C misdemeanors. See Texas Penal Code [20:17.140 --> 20:23.860] Section 12.23, Class C misdemeanors punishable for finally not to exceed $500. The governing [20:23.860 --> 20:28.220] justice and municipal courts provides that for purposes of this chapter, a complaint [20:28.220 --> 20:34.360] is a sworn allegation charging the accused with a commission of a defense, Article 45.018A. [20:34.360 --> 20:41.180] Now, remember, we've talked about the fact that the criminal complaint as it is formed [20:41.180 --> 20:53.020] in Texas cannot be sworn to. It is a hearsay instrument. It is not required to be signed [20:53.020 --> 21:00.220] by someone with personal firsthand knowledge of the facts asserted in it. That alone negates [21:00.220 --> 21:08.060] the fact that it can be sworn to. The second problem is it contains qualifying language, [21:08.060 --> 21:15.220] which the law of affidavit said invalidates it as an affidavit. Therefore, it also can't [21:15.220 --> 21:21.980] be sworn to as being a statement of actual fact. It is a statement of legal conclusions [21:21.980 --> 21:32.140] and presumptions, not facts. And lastly, it does not contain a jurat of being signed under [21:32.140 --> 21:39.720] penalty of perjury. Thus, there is no penalty for making false statements in it. Therefore, [21:39.720 --> 21:47.540] it is not a valid affidavit and cannot be sworn to. So you see the problems of the way [21:47.540 --> 21:54.780] they're treating a complaint here versus the words they're using to describe it? They don't [21:54.780 --> 22:05.620] match. Now, the difference here is that in the Constitution, it does not say complaint. [22:05.620 --> 22:13.500] The Texas Constitution specifically says that what must be sworn to is an affidavit, which [22:13.500 --> 22:20.900] a complaint does not legally qualify as for the multitude of reasons I just gave you and [22:20.900 --> 22:33.620] many more. So there is no way that a criminal complaint as it's formed in Texas is a valid [22:33.620 --> 22:38.620] instrument for the purpose of investing in court with jurisdiction. That's exactly why [22:38.620 --> 22:46.540] there is no law and no constitutional provision that even makes mention of it as something [22:46.540 --> 22:57.300] investing a court with jurisdiction. None. In fact, the only two instruments spoken of [22:57.300 --> 23:05.700] in the Constitution for the state of Texas authorizing a court to be invested with jurisdiction [23:05.700 --> 23:15.180] is an indictment or information. Article 5, Section 17 then tells us that if the indictment [23:15.180 --> 23:24.380] is quashed at the county level, the person can still be held to answer for the criminal [23:24.380 --> 23:35.380] conduct alleged in an information and affidavit. Remember, neither an indictment nor an information [23:35.380 --> 23:43.580] can exist in Texas law without a sworn affidavit. Not just a sworn complaint but an actual affidavit [23:43.580 --> 23:50.540] making the allegation in a complaint. But again, it can't contain the qualifying language. [23:50.540 --> 23:54.540] It must have a jurat and it must be signed by somebody with actual knowledge of the facts [23:54.540 --> 24:04.380] being alleged. Okay? Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be signed by a competent first-hand [24:04.380 --> 24:10.460] in fact witness to the actual crime, but it can be someone that is testifying to the fact [24:10.460 --> 24:19.660] under oath that the evidence that we have investigated and obtained shows the likelihood [24:19.660 --> 24:26.780] that this individual committed the crime alleged against them. And I swear these facts to be [24:26.780 --> 24:35.140] true and correct in relation to the evidence, Mr. blah, blah, blah. Okay? Not the same thing [24:35.140 --> 24:44.860] at all. Now, since they can quash the indictment but not the information, okay, at least there's [24:44.860 --> 24:48.300] nothing in the Constitution that says they can quash the information. Now, they might [24:48.300 --> 24:53.820] say it in law since the Constitution authorizes the legislature to set the requirements for [24:53.820 --> 25:02.100] indictments and information and complaints by law. Okay? And there may be a method within [25:02.100 --> 25:05.860] the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the indictment, but the Constitution doesn't mention [25:05.860 --> 25:12.660] quashing the, I'm sorry, the information, doesn't mention quashing the information or [25:12.660 --> 25:20.340] the affidavit itself. So, what the courts have ignored in relation to that provision [25:20.340 --> 25:26.140] of the Constitution as well as Article 5, Section 12B, and combine 12B with 17 where [25:26.140 --> 25:32.260] you can quash the indictment and you get this. If you take them in paramateria and you read [25:32.260 --> 25:41.420] them accordingly where it says, if the indictment be quashed, the person can still be held to [25:41.420 --> 25:51.940] answer for an information or affidavit. Okay? That tells you right there that the affidavit [25:51.940 --> 25:59.180] alone did not invest the court with jurisdiction. The existence of the indictment and information [25:59.180 --> 26:05.740] is what invested the court with jurisdiction. Once the jurisdiction was invested, it's not [26:05.740 --> 26:13.780] automatically lost if there is reason to believe that the allegation is true and there is a [26:13.780 --> 26:22.580] sworn statement to that effect. The court retains jurisdiction even if the indictment [26:22.580 --> 26:29.100] itself is quashed. There is not a single court in Texas that has ever reviewed that language [26:29.100 --> 26:35.260] and come to that conclusion because they don't freaking read. They have either ignored the [26:35.260 --> 26:45.180] provisions of Article 5, Section 12B, which are absolutely clear so as to create the presumption [26:45.180 --> 26:52.940] of a jurisdiction being afforded a court simply by the signing of a piece of paper. Even if [26:52.940 --> 26:58.580] that piece of paper is not signed under penalty of perjury like that criminal affidavit would [26:58.580 --> 27:08.140] have to be, but a criminal complaint does not. So that's one big problem we got here [27:08.140 --> 27:15.060] right off the bat. It also provides that a defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint [27:15.060 --> 27:19.220] against the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution [27:19.220 --> 27:25.340] of the defendant under the complaint. That's 45.018B as I said, and that in and of itself [27:25.340 --> 27:31.780] is an unequal application and protection of the laws. In any other case, an individual [27:31.780 --> 27:39.500] must have 10 days notice. But in these cases, you only get notice the day before if ever [27:39.500 --> 27:45.220] because these city attorneys routinely, and the county attorneys for that matter and JP [27:45.220 --> 27:51.460] courts, routinely fail to file a complaint until the day of trial. And yet they've done [27:51.460 --> 27:58.140] all of their preliminaries prior to the trial date, all the hearings, all the motions hearings, [27:58.140 --> 28:04.380] all their rulings and everything. And while they've done this by not filing the complaint, [28:04.380 --> 28:10.460] they have managed to suppress the speedy trial clock because the speedy trial clock does [28:10.460 --> 28:20.540] not start until a complaint is sworn to and filed in the court. So how are you supposed [28:20.540 --> 28:27.540] to get a challenge to speedy trial when no complaint was filed against you? And yet it [28:27.540 --> 28:33.540] is allegedly the only instrument that besides an indictment or information that can invest [28:33.540 --> 28:38.300] a court with jurisdiction to conduct a proceeding at all. And it hasn't been filed yet. And [28:38.300 --> 28:45.100] yet they've had all these proceedings. This is a complete and total undermining of the [28:45.100 --> 28:50.820] right to due process and the right to a speedy trial. And there is no way in hell you will [28:50.820 --> 29:01.300] ever convince me that these courts do not know that is exactly what is being done. [29:01.300 --> 29:09.040] They have to know it. It's their duty to know it. And yet they turn a blind eye to it at [29:09.040 --> 29:17.460] every turn. They go on to say, read together these statutes require that a defendant is [29:17.460 --> 29:21.500] entitled to notice of a complaint charging him with a Class C misdemeanor at least the [29:21.500 --> 29:27.300] day before any proceeding in the prosecution under the complaint begins. If we interpreted [29:27.300 --> 29:36.020] the repeal of Article 45.01 as eliminating the complaint only commencement of actions [29:36.020 --> 29:44.060] in the municipal courts, then Articles 45.018 complaint and 45.019 requisites of complaint [29:44.060 --> 29:50.660] would be meaningless surplussage. That is total BS. And I'll explain why on the other [29:50.660 --> 30:02.460] side of this break. So y'all hang in there. [30:02.460 --> 30:07.780] Next time the doctor asks you how you feel, ask him the same question. Why? New research [30:07.780 --> 30:12.700] shows unhappy doctors perform differently than their contented counterparts. I'm Dr. [30:12.700 --> 30:15.980] Catherine Albrecht with details in a moment. [30:15.980 --> 30:20.500] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back [30:20.500 --> 30:26.300] again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [30:26.300 --> 30:32.380] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy [30:32.380 --> 30:37.580] it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by startpage.com, the private [30:37.580 --> 30:44.900] search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage. [30:44.900 --> 30:49.420] We've long suspected it and now a new study confirms it. A doctor's mood impacts their [30:49.420 --> 30:54.900] professional behavior towards patients. A survey of nearly 200 Israeli physicians found [30:54.900 --> 31:00.260] that on bad mood days, doctors spent less time talking with patients, but more prescriptions [31:00.260 --> 31:05.180] ordered more tests and issued more referrals, often unnecessarily. All of this of course [31:05.180 --> 31:09.940] leads to higher healthcare costs. But when the doctors were in a good mood and felt less [31:09.940 --> 31:14.980] burnout, they consulted more with patients, diagnosed their conditions with fewer tests [31:14.980 --> 31:20.580] and prescribed less expensive medicines. Let's see, less caregiver stress, less burnout and [31:20.580 --> 31:25.260] better patient care. Sounds like just what the doctor ordered. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht [31:25.260 --> 31:32.260] for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [31:55.260 --> 32:14.820] We're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right [32:14.820 --> 32:18.260] to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity and [32:18.260 --> 32:22.180] most importantly the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least [32:22.180 --> 32:26.340] expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [32:26.340 --> 32:30.220] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the [32:30.220 --> 32:33.980] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [32:33.980 --> 32:37.980] is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable [32:37.980 --> 32:42.140] material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now [32:42.140 --> 32:45.620] you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus [32:45.620 --> 32:50.020] the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and [32:50.020 --> 32:53.300] other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of [32:53.300 --> 32:57.780] this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the [32:57.780 --> 33:01.260] free society we all want and deserve. [33:01.260 --> 33:07.260] Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com. [33:07.260 --> 33:33.260] I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. [33:33.260 --> 33:41.260] You bet your backside we're on the highway to hell and I can tell you exactly who we've [33:41.260 --> 33:47.820] got to thank for it. Besides being apathetic ourselves in way too many ways, everybody [33:47.820 --> 33:56.980] with a bar card or the ability to maintain a bar card is one of our biggest problems. [33:56.980 --> 34:08.020] There are things this country could do without. Attorneys, judges, politicians and bankers. [34:08.020 --> 34:14.500] And Lord help us when there are those of them that are all of those at the same time. [34:14.500 --> 34:20.660] All right, now continuing on where they say that these two statutes are surpluses. Well [34:20.660 --> 34:27.020] let's start with 45.018B where it says that you are entitled to have a copy of the complaint [34:27.020 --> 34:32.460] no later than one day prior. And the other part of it where it says that it is a sworn [34:32.460 --> 34:38.260] allegation charging an individual with the commission of an offense. Well the whole thing [34:38.260 --> 34:46.060] about it is, is it isn't charging, it's accusing. It is not a proper charging instrument because [34:46.060 --> 34:51.220] the only charging instruments recognized by the Constitution and the statutes of the Code [34:51.220 --> 34:56.900] of Criminal Procedure are indictments and information. They're the only ones that can [34:56.900 --> 35:01.820] invest the court with jurisdiction according to the state constitution, also according [35:01.820 --> 35:08.060] to the Code of Criminal Procedure. So this court's saying that just because the legislature [35:08.060 --> 35:14.660] repealed the specific language saying that a complaint could do this, we're not going [35:14.660 --> 35:20.400] to presume that they intended to alleviate that burden on the people of Texas by saying [35:20.400 --> 35:27.220] it no longer applies because of two sections that don't say a damn thing at all about doing [35:27.220 --> 35:39.620] what was repealed. So by the rendering of this explanation, what they have done is basically [35:39.620 --> 35:48.420] say we hereby undo the repeal of 45.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and maintain [35:48.420 --> 35:58.860] its existence through a malicious interpretation of 45.018 and 45.019 of the Code of Criminal [35:58.860 --> 36:06.940] Procedure in direct violation of the Texas Constitution Article 5, Section 12B and Section [36:06.940 --> 36:20.100] 17. That's what they're saying. Now, they also address the issue and completely [36:20.100 --> 36:25.900] misrepresent the argument, by the way. The three judges on the appellate court misrepresent [36:25.900 --> 36:31.220] the argument. The individual contends by three issues that the deputy clerk's status as a [36:31.220 --> 36:37.540] complaining witness caused reversible error. He contends that the municipal court was disqualified, [36:37.540 --> 36:41.620] that the municipal court should have held a disqualification and recusal hearing and [36:41.620 --> 36:46.140] that the structural due process was violated because the complaining witness is the custodian [36:46.140 --> 36:53.660] of the municipal court's records. And then they say this, but the deputy clerk is not [36:53.660 --> 37:00.300] the complaining witness. Some individual named Michael Tang swore to the allegations before [37:00.300 --> 37:08.420] the deputy clerk. Guess what they fail to address in this motion? That Austin Municipal [37:08.420 --> 37:20.860] Court has approximately 50 deputy clerks. They're all untrained ignoramuses. And Michael [37:20.860 --> 37:29.540] Tang is one of those clerks, just like the clerk that verified his signature on the complaint. [37:29.540 --> 37:36.340] So the third court of appeals is intentionally misrepresenting the fact that a clerk of the [37:36.340 --> 37:48.340] court of the same court that the judge sitting in is presiding over is the accuser in this [37:48.340 --> 37:58.020] case, as well as the verifier of the accuser's signature in this case. Both signatures belong [37:58.020 --> 38:05.980] to deputy clerks, but they completely obscure that by failing to identify who Michael Tang [38:05.980 --> 38:06.980] is. [38:06.980 --> 38:13.580] But he is not one of the cops. He is not the cop that wrote the citation. He is one of [38:13.580 --> 38:19.500] the deputy clerks in the Austin Municipal Court. And they completely ignore that little [38:19.500 --> 38:29.500] agency problem by glossing over who he is. They go on with that little predicament. This [38:29.500 --> 38:34.460] is consistent with state law permitting the complaint to be sworn to before the municipal [38:34.460 --> 38:41.060] judge, the clerk, or deputy clerk, among others. They go completely off tangent on the argument. [38:41.060 --> 38:48.260] What the hell does this being consistent with who the complaint can be sworn before as to [38:48.260 --> 38:54.380] who is doing the swearing in the first place? [38:54.380 --> 39:00.060] How do you reconcile that one deputy clerk is the accuser and another deputy clerk is [39:00.060 --> 39:08.740] the one verifying the signature of the original deputy clerk and say that there is no agency [39:08.740 --> 39:24.300] problem? It is complete buffoonery on the part of these judges. Can they possibly be [39:24.300 --> 39:33.260] this stupid by accident? [39:33.260 --> 39:38.820] They then cite 45.019E of the Code of Criminal Procedure as their authority to say this is [39:38.820 --> 39:44.660] who they could swear it before. They still fail to address at all who Michael Tang is [39:44.660 --> 39:50.820] and why there is an argument about his signature on this to begin with. They instead argue [39:50.820 --> 39:58.940] who verified it, not who signed it. They went completely off tangent on the point that was [39:58.940 --> 40:04.060] raised. Who was the affidavit? Well, let's talk about the person who verified the affidavit [40:04.060 --> 40:17.380] signature, not the affidavit themselves. And that's exactly what they proceed to do. [40:17.380 --> 40:21.740] The individual then argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to [40:21.740 --> 40:26.400] the round robin transfer of his cases. At least three municipal judges held hearings [40:26.400 --> 40:31.620] on aspects of these cases. He asserts that because there are no transfer orders, no one [40:31.620 --> 40:36.420] other than the first judge had authority. But he cites us to and we find no authority [40:36.420 --> 40:40.980] for that proposition that an order transferring his case from one municipal judge to another [40:40.980 --> 40:46.180] is required, despite the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure says that all proceedings [40:46.180 --> 40:54.540] shall be conducted before one magistrate and one judge. [40:54.540 --> 41:00.140] Now they should know this, but here they're acting as if they're in the dark about it [41:00.140 --> 41:05.420] because the accused didn't specifically tell them where this is. They are not going to [41:05.420 --> 41:11.180] go looking, even though he raised the issue. And yet up here they're going and looking [41:11.180 --> 41:19.340] for ways to skew the law and completely obliterate the rights of the individual when it supports [41:19.340 --> 41:25.740] their goal of stealing your liberty. [41:25.740 --> 41:29.540] The individual then goes on to argue that the notice requirements of the Code of Criminal [41:29.540 --> 41:38.980] Procedure conflict. And they throw in 27.11 with 45.018B, where Article 27.11 states that [41:38.980 --> 41:43.620] in all cases the defendant shall be allowed 10 entire days, exclusive of all fractions [41:43.620 --> 41:48.740] of a day after his arrest and during the term of court to file written pleadings. And in [41:48.740 --> 41:54.060] Article 45.018B provides that a defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against [41:54.060 --> 41:58.100] the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution [41:58.100 --> 42:00.140] of the defendant under the complaint. [42:00.140 --> 42:04.460] The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection. The provision [42:04.460 --> 42:09.260] relevant to the municipal courts is more specific and prevails in municipal court. Notice they [42:09.260 --> 42:12.580] don't address the disparity here. [42:12.580 --> 42:20.580] Article 47.11 talks specifically about the accused individual's right to file written [42:20.580 --> 42:27.820] pleadings and to have 10 days to do so. They then go to the fact that the Code of Criminal [42:27.820 --> 42:40.020] Procedure under 45.018B doesn't require notice to be provided except one day prior, which [42:40.020 --> 42:47.020] would be a direct violation of the individual's timeframe in order to file their written pleadings [42:47.020 --> 42:54.940] because without the actual complaint and information, there is no notice of the actual elements [42:54.940 --> 43:03.460] to be proven at trial. A citation does not fit that bill. It is not proper notice of [43:03.460 --> 43:07.600] the elements. It never has been. [43:07.600 --> 43:13.140] And yet these morons that want you to think they know and understand the law are sitting [43:13.140 --> 43:20.500] here with two different statutes that do not discuss at all the same subject matter and [43:20.500 --> 43:26.180] acting as if one has the power to overrule the other, when in fact there is an egregious [43:26.180 --> 43:33.300] conflict in the timeframes allowed to protect the rights of the accused. [43:33.300 --> 43:42.980] Do you see the type of idiocy letting these people run these courts introduces into our [43:42.980 --> 43:51.260] lives? Hang on. I'm going to be way more pissed off as we continue. So y'all hang on and I [43:51.260 --> 43:54.660] will be right back. [43:54.660 --> 44:07.260] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary, [44:07.260 --> 44:13.940] the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by [44:13.940 --> 44:19.620] step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have [44:19.620 --> 44:25.620] a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course [44:25.620 --> 44:32.420] and now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case [44:32.420 --> 44:37.860] winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should [44:37.860 --> 44:43.580] understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive [44:43.580 --> 44:50.940] our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and [44:50.940 --> 44:57.140] much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free [44:57.140 --> 44:58.140] 866-LAW-EZ. [44:58.140 --> 45:09.300] Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com and I would like to invite you to come by our [45:09.300 --> 45:14.660] store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas. I'm Brave New Books and [45:14.660 --> 45:18.660] Chase Payne. To see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes. [45:18.660 --> 45:23.780] Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. [45:23.780 --> 45:27.780] Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our Australian Eme oil, [45:27.780 --> 45:35.900] lotion candles, olive oil, soaps and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find [45:35.900 --> 45:44.340] us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't [45:44.340 --> 46:06.700] forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com. [46:06.700 --> 46:36.420] Alright folks, we are back. Now, let's continue on with this little trot into the world of [46:36.420 --> 46:49.980] legal moronery. Okay. So, they go on with this and they say, in this issue, the individual [46:49.980 --> 46:56.780] contends that Article 45.01B's one-day notice rule violated due process. In addressing a [46:56.780 --> 47:00.620] constitutional challenge, this court must begin with the presumption that the statute [47:00.620 --> 47:05.460] is valid and that the legislature did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in enacting [47:05.460 --> 47:10.740] it. And then they cite State versus Rousseau. The party challenging the statute has the [47:10.740 --> 47:17.300] burden to establish its unconstitutionality. Again, same case. To prevail on a facial challenge, [47:17.300 --> 47:23.100] a party must establish that the statute always operates unconstitutionally in all possible [47:23.100 --> 47:29.440] circumstances. Well, I just did that. I just showed you exactly how it does that in every [47:29.440 --> 47:38.620] instance. How do you file pleadings within a 10-day window without proper notice of the [47:38.620 --> 47:45.220] specific charges and elements required to be proven against you ever being provided? [47:45.220 --> 47:53.900] Guesswork? That's essentially what this court is saying you're required to have, the ability [47:53.900 --> 48:01.660] to foresee and determine for yourself what the State is required to prove. And thus relieving [48:01.660 --> 48:11.300] the State of its burden to provide that notice and to do so in a way that would allow you [48:11.300 --> 48:25.660] meaningful opportunity to respond and rebut. 45.018 does not do that. Doesn't do it. And [48:25.660 --> 48:37.140] it doesn't do it in every single case. Therefore, on its face, it is unconstitutional because [48:37.140 --> 48:46.380] it does not provide adequate, sufficient, and timely notice to the individual. [48:46.380 --> 48:57.500] Now, we go on. The record reflects that he was ticketed, or I'm sorry, let's go back. [48:57.500 --> 49:01.260] To prevail on a facial challenge, a party must establish that the statute always operates [49:01.260 --> 49:06.060] unconstitutionally in all possible circumstances. In this case, appellate knew what he was charged [49:06.060 --> 49:12.580] with well in advance of his trial. The record reflects that he was ticketed on July 5, 2013, [49:12.580 --> 49:16.860] and that the Municipal Court held a hearing on his motion to dismiss those charges on [49:16.860 --> 49:25.000] September 12, 2013, more than three months before the December 18, 2013 trial, in which [49:25.000 --> 49:32.220] he participated fully. The individual has not shown that the statute deprived him of [49:32.220 --> 49:37.060] notice of the charges against him. Well, what did they fail to mention in this? And was [49:37.060 --> 49:42.740] the issue raised? I don't know. But the fact is, the record would show when the complaint [49:42.740 --> 49:47.860] against the individual was actually filed versus when these proceedings took place. [49:47.860 --> 49:55.180] Like I said, there is no way that a citation provides proper, sufficient, and timely notice. [49:55.180 --> 50:01.300] Nowhere is the citation cited as providing notice. Nowhere. Nowhere is the citation required [50:01.300 --> 50:06.420] to have all of the elements that are required to be proven. And it does not have all of [50:06.420 --> 50:12.540] those elements. It does not meet the necessary criteria of a valid complaint under Chapter [50:12.540 --> 50:22.220] 45.0 or Section 45.019 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is inadequate in every possible [50:22.220 --> 50:28.620] way. And yet, they begin with the citation as providing notice. And then they go on to [50:28.620 --> 50:34.000] say that they held hearings on the matter without ever addressing whether or not the [50:34.000 --> 50:41.140] complaint shows it existed at the time those hearings took place. And if it didn't, then [50:41.140 --> 50:46.100] why was their hearings being conducted in the first place in direct violation of their [50:46.100 --> 50:55.380] own rulings? Let's look at the facts here, courts. If you're going to ignore the constitutional [50:55.380 --> 51:00.700] requirements for establishing jurisdiction within a particular court and investing it [51:00.700 --> 51:08.740] with such, and create your own that is not constitutionally valid in any way, shape, [51:08.740 --> 51:17.500] or form, and declare that to be the minimum bar by which jurisdiction is invoked, and [51:17.500 --> 51:25.140] then you come along and say, well, except for when this, in the form of a citation, [51:25.140 --> 51:30.740] which does not meet even the minimum standards of the instrument that didn't meet the minimum [51:30.740 --> 51:37.780] standards of the Constitution, somehow magically investing these morons in these unconstitutional [51:37.780 --> 51:47.860] courts with jurisdiction of a case. You don't need a juris doctorate in law to [51:47.860 --> 51:57.220] understand law. Law, in and of itself, should operate on two things, common sense being [51:57.220 --> 52:04.140] A, number one. If the law itself is the only source of harm, the law is invalid. If the [52:04.140 --> 52:08.860] law acts to deprive an individual of a right when that individual has harmed no one, the [52:08.860 --> 52:17.420] law is invalid. Yesterday in my class, I spent the entire first two hours of that class explaining [52:17.420 --> 52:28.900] unquestionably how it is that a delegated power cannot be used to grant an authority [52:28.900 --> 52:37.460] that would violate a right absence the existence of an actual crime involving an injured party. [52:37.460 --> 52:45.100] It is constitutionally common law impossible for any delegated power to rise to the same [52:45.100 --> 52:53.540] level as the rights of individuals except in that specific instance. And yet, the way [52:53.540 --> 52:59.780] the courts have established their ability to review a balancing test between rights [52:59.780 --> 53:10.060] and delegated powers being moronically stupid on its face was intended to deprive you of [53:10.060 --> 53:14.220] those rights to begin with. And I proved that in class yesterday. [53:14.220 --> 53:21.500] The only reason for the courts to set up this balancing BS is to give them the opportunity [53:21.500 --> 53:30.540] to slowly whittle away at our individual rights for more government power and control. And [53:30.540 --> 53:38.460] I proved that logically. And I'm really going to make the time and effort to get that encoded [53:38.460 --> 53:45.420] to an uploadable size. And I'm putting that one up on YouTube and linking it into my blog [53:45.420 --> 53:52.020] as well as my Facebook page in an article. But I'm going to show you the type of corruption [53:52.020 --> 53:58.020] you're really dealing with from the very beginning of the court system in this country. [53:58.020 --> 54:01.860] Even at the time of the founding fathers, most of the Supreme Court decisions were not [54:01.860 --> 54:08.420] based upon the rights of individuals. They were based upon the idea that if they ruled [54:08.420 --> 54:17.500] in a way that would cause tension between the union states and thus disrupt the union, [54:17.500 --> 54:21.740] they just weren't going to make an opinion that would allow that to happen. [54:21.740 --> 54:27.700] Even if it did what was constitutionally required to protect the rights of the individual, which [54:27.700 --> 54:35.060] was the only mandate they had when it came to the people. It's the only one they've [54:35.060 --> 54:44.860] ever had. And yet here we are, slowly but surely, becoming the servants of those that [54:44.860 --> 54:56.220] are supposed to serve us. Because we choose to remain ignorant of what they're doing and [54:56.220 --> 55:02.860] come up with these cockamamie moronic arguments that don't have a damn thing to do with what [55:02.860 --> 55:08.160] is really happening. [55:08.160 --> 55:17.140] We have allowed a single group of elitist-minded, self-serving sycophants to seize control of [55:17.140 --> 55:23.240] every department of our government and undermine it for their own private profit and gain at [55:23.240 --> 55:30.500] our expense. And you think that some argument on a piece of paper is going to make them [55:30.500 --> 55:38.780] stop? It's not. This opinion right here is proof positive that it will not. Because not [55:38.780 --> 55:43.560] only are they ignoring the state and federal constitution on the right of due process, [55:43.560 --> 55:48.760] they are ignoring the very law they're citing and how they render this opinion. So as to [55:48.760 --> 56:04.480] undermine that law and the rights of the individual in these cases. Every single time. [56:04.480 --> 56:13.020] There are no honest courts in this country. There simply aren't. Because even those that [56:13.020 --> 56:17.800] would try to do it right are going to get steamrolled by the higher courts that say [56:17.800 --> 56:24.980] we're going to overrule you. [56:24.980 --> 56:37.880] You cannot fix this system as it stands. We are going to have to burn it to the ground. [56:37.880 --> 56:46.520] And we are going to have to make it where no one, no one like this can ever get control [56:46.520 --> 56:56.200] of that system again. No one. [56:56.200 --> 57:05.520] If we don't do something, they are going to be, if you have not seen it, let me, they [57:05.520 --> 57:12.080] took Anne Rand's book Atlas Shrugged and converted it into a three part movie. Okay. And even [57:12.080 --> 57:17.520] though it doesn't exactly mirror the concept of what we're talking about, it's dealing [57:17.520 --> 57:22.360] a lot more with capitalism and the individual under capitalism than it is specifically about [57:22.360 --> 57:25.320] individual everything else. [57:25.320 --> 57:31.160] Though it remains more or less true to the book. It was, sometimes it was just kind of [57:31.160 --> 57:38.160] like, okay, I can see how that would be something to think about. But at the same time in that [57:38.160 --> 57:50.480] story you get to see exactly what government is becoming, or I should say has become. It's [57:50.480 --> 57:58.760] not quite as detrimental yet as what it is in that movie, but I guarantee you, you are [57:58.760 --> 58:08.640] not but a tip toe step from having everything that that movie portrays as a system of government. [58:08.640 --> 58:16.000] Now all of you folks that are putting your faith in Trump, I cannot tell you how right [58:16.000 --> 58:25.200] I hope you are that he will do everything that he can properly do to fix the problems. [58:25.200 --> 58:29.920] But I've seen too many promises and too many failures to hold my breath and put all my [58:29.920 --> 58:37.520] eggs in one basket saying he's going to do it. Time will tell whether or not we're going [58:37.520 --> 58:44.040] to remain intact or we're going to go the way of the dodo. All right, folks, we're going [58:44.040 --> 58:50.320] to take a break. We'll be right back. So y'all hang in there. [58:50.320 --> 58:55.720] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated [58:55.720 --> 59:00.960] because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying [59:00.960 --> 59:07.440] the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter [59:07.440 --> 59:13.640] the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the [59:13.640 --> 59:19.960] real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages [59:19.960 --> 59:25.400] are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond [59:25.400 --> 59:30.120] which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you [59:30.120 --> 59:36.080] a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible [59:36.080 --> 59:47.960] is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [59:47.960 --> 01:00:02.760] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [01:00:02.760 --> 01:00:08.480] The following flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly bulletins [01:00:08.480 --> 01:00:15.880] for the commodity market. Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the [01:00:15.880 --> 01:00:27.240] tides of the alternative. Markets for Wednesday, the 18th of January, 2017, are currently trading [01:00:27.240 --> 01:00:37.000] with gold at $1,211.45 an ounce, silver $17.23 an ounce, Texas crude $52.48 a barrel, and [01:00:37.000 --> 01:00:46.760] Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $878 U.S. currency. [01:00:46.760 --> 01:00:52.560] Today in history, the year 2005, the Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial jet to [01:00:52.560 --> 01:00:57.920] date, is unveiled at its ceremony in Toulouse, France. It has roughly 6,000 square feet of [01:00:57.920 --> 01:01:03.760] usable floor space, can seat up to 853 people in an all-economy class, and has a flight [01:01:03.760 --> 01:01:09.080] range of roughly 8,500 nautical miles. The Airbus A380 didn't get its first commercial [01:01:09.080 --> 01:01:18.240] flight until later that year in April, but it was unveiled today in history. [01:01:18.240 --> 01:01:22.480] In recent news, President Obama announced his exercise of clemency in commuting the [01:01:22.480 --> 01:01:27.680] sentence of Chelsea, formerly Bradley Manning. Manning had been arrested in 2010 after being [01:01:27.680 --> 01:01:32.320] outed by former hacker Adrian Lamo for being the main WikiLeaks source on the hundreds [01:01:32.320 --> 01:01:37.080] of thousands of sensitive U.S. government documents filed up, which included Cablegate [01:01:37.080 --> 01:01:42.440] and collateral murder. 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage in 2010 in Iraq, which shows [01:01:42.440 --> 01:01:49.240] two US AH-64 Apache helicopters indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed civilians, including [01:01:49.240 --> 01:01:55.000] two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters. Manning was held in virtual solitary confinement [01:01:55.000 --> 01:01:59.600] for 23 hours a day at a Marine Corps brig, and sometimes even stripped completely naked. [01:01:59.600 --> 01:02:05.000] In 2013, he was sentenced in a military tribunal to 35 years in prison with the possibility [01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:10.400] of parole in the eighth year and dishonorably discharged from the Army. As a result of Obama's [01:02:10.400 --> 01:02:12.400] pardon, Manning will be free in May. [01:02:12.400 --> 01:02:16.520] To add a twist to all this, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, tweeted last week via [01:02:16.520 --> 01:02:21.400] WikiLeaks' Twitter account that, quote, if Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will [01:02:21.400 --> 01:02:27.640] agree to U.S. extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of the Department of Justice case. Assange [01:02:27.640 --> 01:02:32.440] has spent over four years in hideout at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Melinda Taylor, [01:02:32.440 --> 01:02:36.920] a member of Mr. Assange's legal team, recently stated to the press that everything that he [01:02:36.920 --> 01:02:38.920] has said, he's standing by. [01:02:38.920 --> 01:02:43.680] The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors and even contributors. If you [01:02:43.680 --> 01:02:47.680] have a phonic or a service you'd like to advertise with us, or even want to write articles [01:02:47.680 --> 01:02:54.680] and read for us, feel free to give me a call at 210-363-2257. This is Rick Rodey with your [01:02:54.680 --> 01:02:57.680] Lone Star Lowdown for January 18th, 2017. [01:02:57.680 --> 01:03:06.680] We make our own whiskey and our own smoke, too, and too many things these old boys can [01:03:06.680 --> 01:03:15.680] do. We grow good old tomatoes and homemade wine and country-wide wine. [01:03:15.680 --> 01:03:20.680] All right, folks, we are back. I'm going to get us back on the way here real quick. All [01:03:20.680 --> 01:03:25.680] right, I haven't done yet the show, and I need to do this. The fundraiser for the network. [01:03:25.680 --> 01:03:31.680] The grand prize in the fundraiser is a Spikes Tactical AR-15 rifle sponsored by Central [01:03:31.680 --> 01:03:39.680] Texas Gunworks. Each $25 donation gets you an entry into the drawing for the AR-15. The [01:03:39.680 --> 01:03:46.680] purchase of the seminar gets you 10 entries into that if you don't have the seminar. [01:03:46.680 --> 01:03:53.680] Randy Kelton also has a new e-book, Legal 101. The price for that is $100, and buying [01:03:53.680 --> 01:04:01.680] that gets you four entries into the drawing for the Tactical AR-15. [01:04:01.680 --> 01:04:06.680] So, folks, this is something we need. We need the money for the network. We really do. It's [01:04:06.680 --> 01:04:10.680] what keeps us on the air is your donations and your kind support. [01:04:10.680 --> 01:04:15.680] Individual donations as well as those to the network. Right now, thank all of you who have [01:04:15.680 --> 01:04:21.680] sent donations to me personally. Believe me, I greatly appreciate them, especially some [01:04:21.680 --> 01:04:30.680] of the donors and the amounts that they have sent. Bless you, okay? You have no idea how [01:04:30.680 --> 01:04:35.680] appreciative I am for what you've donated. At the same time, we need to remember the [01:04:35.680 --> 01:04:42.680] network also. Without the network, I'm not here. Without the network, no more this show, [01:04:42.680 --> 01:04:47.680] no more any show. And there's lots of good information from the shows on this network. [01:04:47.680 --> 01:04:54.680] You've admitted to that. You know it's good. So, folks, please, if you haven't acquired [01:04:54.680 --> 01:05:00.680] these things or you haven't donated yet, please do that. We really need to get the funding [01:05:00.680 --> 01:05:06.680] going for this. I know it's more than halfway through January. Debra is really just getting [01:05:06.680 --> 01:05:12.680] this kicked off, but we need to get it going. Okay? We really, really do. So, please, go [01:05:12.680 --> 01:05:18.680] to logosradionetwork.com. Look in the big box to the left side of the screen there. [01:05:18.680 --> 01:05:24.680] Go to the Donate button. Go to the Buy Now button for Randy's book or my seminar or whatever [01:05:24.680 --> 01:05:29.680] it is you want to get and afford. And please, get your name in for the drawing for the AR-15. [01:05:29.680 --> 01:05:35.680] Keep us on the air, folks. We want to be here for you. And let's hope that you want what [01:05:35.680 --> 01:05:41.680] we have to offer. All right. That being said, let's get back to this for the moment. Now, [01:05:41.680 --> 01:05:47.680] again, I apologize for not taking calls yet, but this is just too important to pass up [01:05:47.680 --> 01:05:56.680] the opportunity to discuss. Now, the other thing this court does, okay, is we go into [01:05:56.680 --> 01:06:02.680] the issue of the assertion that the failure to define several terms throughout the process, [01:06:02.680 --> 01:06:07.680] including in the jury charge, demonstrated that the state never had an actual grievance [01:06:07.680 --> 01:06:14.680] or showed standing. The accused further contends that the instructions were inadequate for [01:06:14.680 --> 01:06:19.680] failing to define key semantical commercial terms, vehicle, driver, motor vehicle, and [01:06:19.680 --> 01:06:25.680] operator. Our first duty in analyzing a criminal jury charge issue is to decide whether error [01:06:25.680 --> 01:06:30.680] exists. And then they quote case law again. If error is found, the degree of harm necessary [01:06:30.680 --> 01:06:34.680] for reversal depends on whether the appellate preserved the error by objecting to the complained [01:06:34.680 --> 01:06:42.680] of instruction. Again, case law. If the defendant properly objected to the erroneous jury charge [01:06:42.680 --> 01:06:47.680] instruction, reversal is required if we find some harm to the defendant's rights. If the [01:06:47.680 --> 01:06:53.680] error was not objected to, it must be fundamental and requires reversal only if it was so egregious [01:06:53.680 --> 01:07:00.680] and created such harm that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. Now we [01:07:00.680 --> 01:07:08.680] see another truckload of stupid dumping forth from their pen. The government code instructs [01:07:08.680 --> 01:07:14.680] on how to interpret words used in statute, subsection A. Words and phrases shall be read [01:07:14.680 --> 01:07:20.680] in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. I just [01:07:20.680 --> 01:07:25.680] proved to you earlier, they don't read the Constitution in context, they don't read the [01:07:25.680 --> 01:07:30.680] statutes in context, and they damn sure don't read either of them in paramaterial with the [01:07:30.680 --> 01:07:38.680] relevant parts on the same subject. This is hypocrisy of monumental proportions. Then [01:07:38.680 --> 01:07:47.680] B, words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by [01:07:47.680 --> 01:07:55.680] legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly. Now right here they [01:07:55.680 --> 01:08:01.680] cite the very statute that a little further down in this opinion they are going to completely [01:08:01.680 --> 01:08:11.680] ignore. In case you didn't know, the term transportation is a word of art. It's a term [01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:21.680] of art, okay? As a term of art it has a particular meaning, technical meaning, okay, or industry [01:08:21.680 --> 01:08:30.680] meaning. They're going to ignore that in this opinion. They're also going to misstate what [01:08:30.680 --> 01:08:38.680] these definitions that they just listed are actually defined as. Now listen close. The [01:08:38.680 --> 01:08:42.680] terms at issue, which are the ones I read, motor vehicle, vehicle, blah, blah, the terms [01:08:42.680 --> 01:08:51.680] at issue are used in their ordinary meaning, baloney, absolute fricking baloney. Every [01:08:51.680 --> 01:09:00.680] one of those terms is defined by the statute, therefore they are absolutely not being used [01:09:00.680 --> 01:09:13.680] in their common meaning. Not a one of them. They then go on and there is no indication [01:09:13.680 --> 01:09:18.680] in the record that the jurors were confused by the meaning of these terms or the absence [01:09:18.680 --> 01:09:25.680] of definitions for them. Do you see the fricking hypocrisy of that statement? Well, the jurors [01:09:25.680 --> 01:09:28.680] weren't confused. We didn't tell them what they mean, therefore there was no reason for [01:09:28.680 --> 01:09:34.680] them to be confused. We let them presume what the meaning was and didn't inform them or [01:09:34.680 --> 01:09:40.680] allow the accused to inform them why that meaning was important. That way they wouldn't [01:09:40.680 --> 01:09:50.680] be confused and we would get the guilty verdict we wanted. See? This is a crapload of horse [01:09:50.680 --> 01:10:01.680] manure the size of Mount Everest. Okay? This is complete legal chicanery right here. Total. [01:10:01.680 --> 01:10:07.680] Two of the terms are defined in the transportation code. Oh, wait, there they are. They're defined [01:10:07.680 --> 01:10:12.680] by the code, but they're used in their common meaning. Contradiction in terms right there [01:10:12.680 --> 01:10:19.680] in your face. We have previously rejected this argument that the definition of transportation [01:10:19.680 --> 01:10:25.680] is among the elements that must be proved for these offenses and regardless that it [01:10:25.680 --> 01:10:29.680] requires a commercial purpose for the travel and thus that travel without a commercial [01:10:29.680 --> 01:10:40.680] purpose is not transportation. He did not show that the trial court erred by not defining [01:10:40.680 --> 01:10:47.680] the words transportation, vehicle, motor vehicle, driver or operator. Now, let's look at what [01:10:47.680 --> 01:10:52.680] they're saying here. First they said that transportation is not required to be one of [01:10:52.680 --> 01:11:00.680] the elements alleged. So right here what they're doing is this. They are acting in direct violation [01:11:00.680 --> 01:11:08.680] of Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution in this opinion. Article III, Section 35 [01:11:08.680 --> 01:11:14.680] specifically states that no legislative bill may have more than one subject. It can't contain [01:11:14.680 --> 01:11:22.680] more than one subject. And in the bill that created the transportation code as it exists, [01:11:22.680 --> 01:11:32.680] SB 971 tells you very clearly that transportation is the sole subject matter of the entire transportation [01:11:32.680 --> 01:11:43.680] code. And anything that goes within that code must relate to transportation. If it doesn't, [01:11:43.680 --> 01:11:55.680] it doesn't go in that bill. It's unconstitutional if it goes in that bill. Now watch what they [01:11:55.680 --> 01:12:01.680] do. Other issues rely on the individual's argument that these offenses require proof [01:12:01.680 --> 01:12:09.680] of a commercial aspect to his travel. The individual urges by issue 8.6 that the place [01:12:09.680 --> 01:12:16.680] called, well, again, that argument I'm not getting into. He again relies on this definition [01:12:16.680 --> 01:12:20.680] of transportation as requiring the state to prove a commercial aspect, particularly higher [01:12:20.680 --> 01:12:27.680] in the form of, well, money. He also argues that the state lacks standing because the [01:12:27.680 --> 01:12:32.680] individual never engaged in transportation because his activity lacked a commercial aspect. [01:12:32.680 --> 01:12:36.680] And then he contends that the municipal court shifted the burden of proof because it did [01:12:36.680 --> 01:12:42.680] not require the state to prove that he moves someone from one place to another for hire. [01:12:42.680 --> 01:12:47.680] As discussed above, the statutes defining the offenses against the accused do not contain [01:12:47.680 --> 01:12:54.680] a commercial element. Right there, they have subverted the Constitution in its entirety. [01:12:54.680 --> 01:13:01.680] How? When they say the offenses do not contain a commercial element, they are separating [01:13:01.680 --> 01:13:07.680] the offenses from the actual subject matter of the code in which they are contained. They [01:13:07.680 --> 01:13:15.680] are saying that these offenses stand completely separate from the subject matter under which [01:13:15.680 --> 01:13:28.680] they are defined as offenses and thus violating Article 3, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution. [01:13:28.680 --> 01:13:36.680] They are declaring that the offenses themselves are individual, independent subjects completely [01:13:36.680 --> 01:13:43.680] null and void as having any attachment to the subject matter of transportation, which [01:13:43.680 --> 01:13:55.680] itself specifically is defined by law, United States Supreme Court case law, as being the [01:13:55.680 --> 01:14:04.680] movement of persons, goods, or property by a carrier. Federal law defines carrier because [01:14:04.680 --> 01:14:10.680] carrier in its singular form is not defined in Texas law anywhere either, but it is in [01:14:10.680 --> 01:14:16.680] federal law, which is what these Texas laws under the transportation code depend upon. [01:14:16.680 --> 01:14:21.680] And there are numerous places within the code and the administrative code that make it very [01:14:21.680 --> 01:14:28.680] clear that Title 49 is the source of all of the crap that's in these codes, or in this [01:14:28.680 --> 01:14:36.680] one in particular anyway. A carrier is defined as someone who is engaged in the business [01:14:36.680 --> 01:14:41.680] of transporting persons, goods, or property from one place to another for compensation [01:14:41.680 --> 01:14:55.680] or hire. So once again, we have morons who can't read and comprehend determining our [01:14:55.680 --> 01:15:10.680] life through incompetence. Complete, total fricking incompetence. Now let's go on to [01:15:10.680 --> 01:15:18.680] see this. Other issues rely on the argument that these offenses require proof of the commercial [01:15:18.680 --> 01:15:26.680] aspect, okay, and it goes on and on. Let's see. Similarly, by issue 17, the individual [01:15:26.680 --> 01:15:30.680] contends that the state failed to submit evidence of carrying passengers or cargo or hire and [01:15:30.680 --> 01:15:36.680] therefore failed to prove transportation. He then contends that the lack of proof of [01:15:36.680 --> 01:15:42.680] transportation required that the municipal court dismiss these cases. The police officer [01:15:42.680 --> 01:15:48.680] who testified identified Stevens as the person to whom he issued the citations, as if that [01:15:48.680 --> 01:15:55.680] somehow justifies the fact that he issued the citations. Okay, you get that? The cop [01:15:55.680 --> 01:16:01.680] who testified testified that he identified this individual as the person to whom he issued [01:16:01.680 --> 01:16:07.680] the tickets. How in the hell does that validate the issuance of the tickets at all? Well, [01:16:07.680 --> 01:16:12.680] that's the guy I issued them to. Yeah, but he's saying that it was incorrect for you [01:16:12.680 --> 01:16:17.680] to issue them. Oh, well, that's the guy I issued them to. Oh, well, in that case, he's [01:16:17.680 --> 01:16:28.680] wrong. They go on. He described the offenses. The streets in the city of Austin re-observed [01:16:28.680 --> 01:16:42.680] the offenses and the individual's car. Again, so fricking what? How does that prove transportation? [01:16:42.680 --> 01:16:51.680] How does any of that prove transportation? It doesn't. It's an illegal, unrebuttable [01:16:51.680 --> 01:17:00.680] presumption. All right, folks, hang on. We'll be right back after this break. I love Logos. [01:17:00.680 --> 01:17:04.680] Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted [01:17:04.680 --> 01:17:09.680] to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fixed. I'd be lost without [01:17:09.680 --> 01:17:13.680] Logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer [01:17:13.680 --> 01:17:17.680] as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't have any money to give [01:17:17.680 --> 01:17:23.680] because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. [01:17:23.680 --> 01:17:27.680] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies [01:17:27.680 --> 01:17:33.680] or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. [01:17:33.680 --> 01:17:39.680] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, [01:17:39.680 --> 01:17:45.680] you use that link, and Logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything [01:17:45.680 --> 01:17:51.680] different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes. Wow, giving [01:17:51.680 --> 01:17:56.680] without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. [01:17:56.680 --> 01:18:00.680] You're welcome. Happy holidays, Logos. [01:18:00.680 --> 01:18:05.680] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area [01:18:05.680 --> 01:18:10.680] of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we [01:18:10.680 --> 01:18:16.680] changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment [01:18:16.680 --> 01:18:21.680] is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, [01:18:21.680 --> 01:18:27.680] and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets [01:18:27.680 --> 01:18:33.680] many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust [01:18:33.680 --> 01:18:39.680] Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, [01:18:39.680 --> 01:18:44.680] and many others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve [01:18:44.680 --> 01:18:50.680] as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may [01:18:50.680 --> 01:18:56.680] want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends [01:18:56.680 --> 01:19:01.680] and family, and increase your income. Order now. [01:19:01.680 --> 01:19:10.680] This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:19:22.680 --> 01:19:27.680] As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life and realize [01:19:27.680 --> 01:19:33.680] it's such death, because I've been blasting and laughing so long that even my mama thinks [01:19:33.680 --> 01:19:36.680] that my mind is gone, but I ain't never crossed a path that just... [01:19:36.680 --> 01:19:42.680] All right, folks, we are back at Rule of Law Radio with your host, Eddie Craig. Now, I'm [01:19:42.680 --> 01:19:47.680] going to read you one of the footnotes, which is from the section up here dealing with... [01:19:47.680 --> 01:19:54.680] Let me see if I can find it real quick here. This is so aggravating with these people. [01:19:54.680 --> 01:20:04.680] I mean, just to see how they do this is so infuriating. Now, in the place where I read, [01:20:04.680 --> 01:20:09.680] the terms at issue are used in their ordinary meaning, all right? Now, let's see what footnote [01:20:09.680 --> 01:20:16.680] they attach to that. This is what they wrote as the footnote to that argument they were [01:20:16.680 --> 01:20:22.680] making. The word transportation is not used in the charge, and it does not appear in the [01:20:22.680 --> 01:20:27.680] text of either statute defining the offense as charged here, okay? And then it cites the [01:20:27.680 --> 01:20:33.680] specific sections of the actual charges themselves. Then they go on to say the statutes are in [01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:39.680] the transportation code, but transportation is the title of the code and not a listed [01:20:39.680 --> 01:20:50.680] element of the offense. Now, let me tell you just how disingenuous that statement actually [01:20:50.680 --> 01:20:57.680] is. The transportation code in the charge of speeding, which is not a valid charge under [01:20:57.680 --> 01:21:04.680] Texas law, according to Texas law, the charge of speeding does not state that the complaint [01:21:04.680 --> 01:21:09.680] must list the alleged speed as well as the posted speed. It doesn't say that anywhere [01:21:09.680 --> 01:21:14.680] as far as it being required to be listed as an element, yet the court opinions say very [01:21:14.680 --> 01:21:24.680] that it must be, and it must be proven, okay? So this idiocy that the statute doesn't say [01:21:24.680 --> 01:21:33.680] it's an element is disingenuous for another reason as well. The subject matter context [01:21:33.680 --> 01:21:39.680] of the allegation itself, according to the legislative enactment of the very bill that [01:21:39.680 --> 01:21:47.680] created the code in which it is located, is transportation. Without the context of transportation, [01:21:47.680 --> 01:21:58.680] there is no offense. Therefore, transportation is a necessary element that is required to [01:21:58.680 --> 01:22:07.680] be proven for that offense because the offense cannot exist without it. Again, this little [01:22:07.680 --> 01:22:18.680] thing called imperimateria. The word transport appears in the text of the definition of vehicle, [01:22:18.680 --> 01:22:23.680] but there is no showing that the word is used in any technical sense that differs from its [01:22:23.680 --> 01:22:32.680] ordinary meaning. Yes, there is. The context in which it is written, the transportation [01:22:32.680 --> 01:22:40.680] code, the subject matter of transportation gives it the technical meaning that you are [01:22:40.680 --> 01:22:46.680] required to comply with when you define it and determine what the statute means. You [01:22:46.680 --> 01:22:57.680] morons. [01:22:57.680 --> 01:23:05.680] I'm starting to channel Alex Jones on this case, as you can tell. This is the idiocy, [01:23:05.680 --> 01:23:11.680] folks. This is what we're up against. This is why we're on here working every single [01:23:11.680 --> 01:23:19.680] day to better our knowledge of the laws and the statutes because this is the sort of corrupt [01:23:19.680 --> 01:23:28.680] incompetence and chicanery that you will be facing in these courts. Yet, you think for [01:23:28.680 --> 01:23:33.680] whatever reason that you're going to waltz in there and go, well, there's gold fringes [01:23:33.680 --> 01:23:40.680] around the flag. You can't hear this case. They're going to go, oh, you're right. Bye. [01:23:40.680 --> 01:23:45.680] You're going to go in there and say, my birth certificate has been revoked as a bond and [01:23:45.680 --> 01:23:50.680] I won't let you trade me no more on the stock market so you don't have any jurisdiction [01:23:50.680 --> 01:23:58.680] over me. And you think they're going to go, oh, well, in that case, dismissed. If that's [01:23:58.680 --> 01:24:03.680] your understanding of the way this works and is supposed to work, you're almost as bad [01:24:03.680 --> 01:24:11.680] as the judges I'm talking about here. You get it? [01:24:11.680 --> 01:24:16.680] I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can. I said it last week and I'm going to [01:24:16.680 --> 01:24:23.680] reiterate it here just for all you special people out there. If they are willing to violate [01:24:23.680 --> 01:24:30.680] the very law they swore to uphold, the very constitution that binds them in their duties, [01:24:30.680 --> 01:24:37.680] how in the hell do you think you're going to bind them to an idiotic argument like the [01:24:37.680 --> 01:24:45.680] birth certificate or the Vatican or the bar being the British accreditation registry? [01:24:45.680 --> 01:24:50.680] Find me proof of that, people. Not once have I seen anybody ever prove either of those [01:24:50.680 --> 01:24:58.680] idiotic assertions. Never. [01:24:58.680 --> 01:25:07.680] Corruption does not require validation to exist. Corruption is not beholding to any [01:25:07.680 --> 01:25:18.680] rule of law or it wouldn't be corrupt, would it? [01:25:18.680 --> 01:25:26.680] Think just for a minute. Activate your brain before you activate your mouth and think about [01:25:26.680 --> 01:25:31.680] what you're saying and putting forth with this stupidity. It's as bad as the idiocy [01:25:31.680 --> 01:25:39.680] in this damned opinion. [01:25:39.680 --> 01:25:45.680] And yet we're going to let crap like this stand because we find ways to get out of jury [01:25:45.680 --> 01:25:50.680] duty even though we know we should be serving because we're one of the few that actually [01:25:50.680 --> 01:25:56.680] understands what the hell is going on and why we need to challenge it so that they keep [01:25:56.680 --> 01:26:03.680] putting freaking statist sheep on the juries to keep convicting people of this sort of [01:26:03.680 --> 01:26:09.680] corrupt BS. [01:26:09.680 --> 01:26:14.680] Anytime someone has the gall to tell me, I'm a patriot, I believe in freedom, I got sent [01:26:14.680 --> 01:26:19.680] a jury request the other day and told to appear, but I got to find some way to get off that. [01:26:19.680 --> 01:26:22.680] I just don't want to be on no jury. [01:26:22.680 --> 01:26:26.680] To hell with you then, buddy. [01:26:26.680 --> 01:26:30.680] That's not a patriot. When you're not willing to protect your fellow man from this kind [01:26:30.680 --> 01:26:36.680] of crap by doing your duty to serve on that jury and override this kind of BS, you're [01:26:36.680 --> 01:26:43.680] not serving anybody but yourself. [01:26:43.680 --> 01:26:50.680] I don't owe any man on this planet a living and I don't owe any man on this planet the [01:26:50.680 --> 01:26:55.680] ability to be their victim. [01:26:55.680 --> 01:27:04.680] But I owe myself the duty to protect their rights so that mine are protected as well [01:27:04.680 --> 01:27:09.680] because if I'm willing to undermine theirs today, someone else will be willing to undermine [01:27:09.680 --> 01:27:14.680] mine tomorrow. [01:27:14.680 --> 01:27:20.680] The more you sit at home and bitch, moan, and complain and do nothing to stop this kind [01:27:20.680 --> 01:27:24.680] of crap, the worse it's going to get. [01:27:24.680 --> 01:27:33.680] This is but one example out of millions that have altered the very face of America to be [01:27:33.680 --> 01:27:42.680] the totalitarian fascist republic that it's become. [01:27:42.680 --> 01:27:53.680] And it's your fault because you let it continue. [01:27:53.680 --> 01:27:55.680] Now what? [01:27:55.680 --> 01:28:00.680] There's only so much we can do by giving out information when everybody that we give it [01:28:00.680 --> 01:28:04.680] to fails to use it and act on it. [01:28:04.680 --> 01:28:06.680] What good is it? [01:28:06.680 --> 01:28:13.680] Information unused is useless. [01:28:13.680 --> 01:28:19.680] Imagine if you were given the perfect design for a cold fusion reactor that could power [01:28:19.680 --> 01:28:26.680] an entire metropolis and be the size of a AAA battery and it could power that metropolis [01:28:26.680 --> 01:28:34.680] for a thousand years and yet you do nothing with that information. [01:28:34.680 --> 01:28:35.680] Absolutely nothing. [01:28:35.680 --> 01:28:37.680] You just sit on it. [01:28:37.680 --> 01:28:41.680] You talk about it, but you don't really give out the details enough for anybody else to [01:28:41.680 --> 01:28:43.680] make use of it. [01:28:43.680 --> 01:28:46.680] Then what? [01:28:46.680 --> 01:28:49.680] Same thing with this. [01:28:49.680 --> 01:28:51.680] Not shared, it's not useful. [01:28:51.680 --> 01:28:55.680] Not used, it's not useful. [01:28:55.680 --> 01:29:04.680] We have to get more active in our own system of government and stop playing like it doesn't [01:29:04.680 --> 01:29:08.680] matter because it does matter. [01:29:08.680 --> 01:29:18.680] We're on the very edge of tipping beyond any point of recovering this grand design that [01:29:18.680 --> 01:29:29.680] we began as without a full scale civil war. [01:29:29.680 --> 01:29:34.680] It is not where I want us to have to go, but I am failing to find an alternative route [01:29:34.680 --> 01:29:41.680] to fix the problem the way things are. [01:29:41.680 --> 01:29:45.680] All right, folks, I'm going to turn the phones on now and on the other side I will start [01:29:45.680 --> 01:29:48.680] taking your calls, so y'all get ready. [01:29:48.680 --> 01:29:50.680] We will get that going. [01:29:50.680 --> 01:29:55.680] Anyway, this is your host Eddie Craig calling number 512-646-1984. [01:29:55.680 --> 01:30:00.680] We will be right back. [01:30:00.680 --> 01:30:03.680] Japan is number one in life expectancy, right? [01:30:03.680 --> 01:30:04.680] Well, maybe not. [01:30:04.680 --> 01:30:09.680] Recent discoveries have people wondering if those famous 100-year-old Japanese aren't [01:30:09.680 --> 01:30:10.680] just a scam. [01:30:10.680 --> 01:30:15.680] Hi, Dr. Cameron Albrecht, back with the bizarre details next. [01:30:15.680 --> 01:30:17.680] Privacy is under attack. [01:30:17.680 --> 01:30:20.680] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:30:20.680 --> 01:30:25.680] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:30:25.680 --> 01:30:27.680] So protect your rights. [01:30:27.680 --> 01:30:31.680] Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:30:31.680 --> 01:30:33.680] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [01:30:33.680 --> 01:30:39.680] This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, [01:30:39.680 --> 01:30:40.680] Yahoo, and Bing. [01:30:40.680 --> 01:30:44.680] Start over with Startpage. [01:30:44.680 --> 01:30:47.680] For Japanese investigators, it was a gruesome discovery. [01:30:47.680 --> 01:30:53.680] The bones of an elderly woman thought to be alive were found in a backpack belonging to her son. [01:30:53.680 --> 01:30:57.680] Why had he stashed his mother's remains instead of giving her a decent burial? [01:30:57.680 --> 01:31:01.680] Well, the sordid truth was more about money than gruesomeness. [01:31:01.680 --> 01:31:06.680] As it happens, he never reported his mother's death back in 2001 and had been collecting [01:31:06.680 --> 01:31:08.680] her benefits ever since. [01:31:08.680 --> 01:31:13.680] The discovery is just one of many suggesting the Japanese may not live as long as we thought. [01:31:13.680 --> 01:31:18.680] In a nationwide search, more than 200,000 so-called centenarians [01:31:18.680 --> 01:31:22.680] or 100-year-olds have turned up to be dead or missing. [01:31:22.680 --> 01:31:30.680] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:31:30.680 --> 01:31:36.680] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:31:36.680 --> 01:31:38.680] The government says that fire brought it down. [01:31:38.680 --> 01:31:43.680] However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:31:43.680 --> 01:31:46.680] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, [01:31:46.680 --> 01:31:49.680] and thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. [01:31:49.680 --> 01:31:50.680] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:31:50.680 --> 01:31:51.680] I'm a structural engineer. [01:31:51.680 --> 01:31:52.680] I'm a New York City correction officer. [01:31:52.680 --> 01:31:53.680] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:31:53.680 --> 01:31:55.680] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:31:55.680 --> 01:31:58.680] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [01:31:58.680 --> 01:32:08.680] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:32:28.680 --> 01:32:45.680] And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. [01:32:45.680 --> 01:32:50.680] So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. [01:32:50.680 --> 01:32:56.680] That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. [01:32:56.680 --> 01:32:58.680] Discounts are based on full roof replacement. [01:32:58.680 --> 01:33:03.680] May not actually be kidding about chemtrails. [01:33:03.680 --> 01:33:31.680] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com. [01:33:34.680 --> 01:33:39.680] Good song after monologuing about idiotic attorneys and judges, [01:33:39.680 --> 01:33:43.680] considering that their motto in life is money for nothing. [01:33:43.680 --> 01:33:46.680] We'll steal for free. [01:33:46.680 --> 01:33:47.680] Look it up. [01:33:47.680 --> 01:33:53.680] See what a retainer is according to Texas law when paid to an attorney. [01:33:53.680 --> 01:33:57.680] A retainer is a gift. [01:33:57.680 --> 01:34:08.680] He is not obligated in any way to provide you one second's worth of service for a retainer. [01:34:08.680 --> 01:34:13.680] They wrote that right into law in the Texas government code. [01:34:13.680 --> 01:34:15.680] Look it up. [01:34:15.680 --> 01:34:21.680] And you think that I'm being mean to attorneys. [01:34:21.680 --> 01:34:30.680] Brother, if it was within my power, you would never see the end of mean when it comes to an attorney. [01:34:30.680 --> 01:34:38.680] They would be like a freshly cooked catfish at skinning time if it were up to me. [01:34:38.680 --> 01:34:39.680] All right. [01:34:39.680 --> 01:34:41.680] Let's start taking your calls. [01:34:41.680 --> 01:34:45.680] Call in number 512-646-1984. [01:34:45.680 --> 01:34:48.680] First in line appears to be Olivier. [01:34:48.680 --> 01:34:51.680] Olivier, what you got, man? [01:34:51.680 --> 01:34:55.680] I've been studying. [01:34:55.680 --> 01:35:01.680] I found this right of entry under personal liberty. [01:35:01.680 --> 01:35:04.680] I've been trying to figure it out. [01:35:04.680 --> 01:35:08.680] I think I got it, but I want to make sure I'm looking at it correctly. [01:35:08.680 --> 01:35:27.680] It says that the right of taking or resuming possession of land by entering on it in a peaceable manner. [01:35:27.680 --> 01:35:28.680] Okay. [01:35:28.680 --> 01:35:30.680] What's the question? [01:35:30.680 --> 01:35:33.680] What's the question? [01:35:33.680 --> 01:35:38.680] I've been trying to find the case law on it, and I'm trying to figure out am I understanding this right? [01:35:38.680 --> 01:35:39.680] Well, I don't know. [01:35:39.680 --> 01:35:44.680] What is the context in which that sentence exists? [01:35:44.680 --> 01:35:46.680] That's under your personal liberty. [01:35:46.680 --> 01:35:48.680] That's one of the rights that you have. [01:35:48.680 --> 01:35:49.680] Okay. [01:35:49.680 --> 01:35:50.680] Okay. [01:35:50.680 --> 01:35:54.680] How did you get the context of personal liberty? [01:35:54.680 --> 01:36:00.680] We're reading it through the dictionary and where it stems from. [01:36:00.680 --> 01:36:04.680] Okay, so read it one more time then. [01:36:04.680 --> 01:36:22.680] It says right of entry, E-N-T-R-Y, the right of taking or resuming possession of land by entering on it in a peaceable manner. [01:36:22.680 --> 01:36:23.680] Okay. [01:36:23.680 --> 01:36:33.680] Now, I've heard a lot of people before I started getting into law talk about you could go onto a piece of property and put certain things up and go write paperwork. [01:36:33.680 --> 01:36:39.680] Well, in the days when it was territories and the land was open, that was true. [01:36:39.680 --> 01:36:45.680] Any public land, generally state laws cover any public land for that purpose. [01:36:45.680 --> 01:36:52.680] That public land can be used for private purposes if someone's going to homestead it. [01:36:52.680 --> 01:37:05.680] Like, for instance, Florida used to have a law that if you went onto any piece of public land and you built any structure with a roof and stayed there for six months, you owned the land. [01:37:05.680 --> 01:37:07.680] And the reason for that was very clear. [01:37:07.680 --> 01:37:09.680] The state does not own the land. [01:37:09.680 --> 01:37:13.680] The state can't sell it to you because it doesn't own it. [01:37:13.680 --> 01:37:25.680] The only reason the state existed is to protect your rightful interest in acquiring and using that property free from violation of your rights by others. [01:37:25.680 --> 01:37:27.680] The state didn't own it. [01:37:27.680 --> 01:37:29.680] They never owned it. [01:37:29.680 --> 01:37:35.680] It's just within a geographical region that has been termed the state of. [01:37:35.680 --> 01:37:36.680] Okay. [01:37:36.680 --> 01:37:41.680] But the state government doesn't own the land. [01:37:41.680 --> 01:37:46.680] And where any people got that idea from is completely beyond me. [01:37:46.680 --> 01:37:47.680] But they don't. [01:37:47.680 --> 01:37:58.680] So any public land, at least in certain days and ages, any public land could be homesteaded by building a roof or staking a claim. [01:37:58.680 --> 01:38:15.680] And generally that would be setting up a fence line or something of that sort, building a structure or a marking that defined the limits of the property and make a claim on it and that property became yours if you stayed the required amount of time. [01:38:15.680 --> 01:38:24.680] And you did it without taking that property from someone that was already there by force of arms, hence the peaceable part. [01:38:24.680 --> 01:38:26.680] All right. [01:38:26.680 --> 01:38:31.680] Now, that's the context in which I can see this actually applying. [01:38:31.680 --> 01:38:37.680] I don't know how it would apply in some states right now. [01:38:37.680 --> 01:38:39.680] Do you know how it would apply in some states right now? [01:38:39.680 --> 01:38:46.680] Well, no, because I don't know what the land laws are in a lot of states when it comes to acquiring pieces of public land. [01:38:46.680 --> 01:38:57.680] If they converted it into parks, even though it's public land, they make specific reservations where you can't use that land for homesteading purposes so as to acquire a piece of it. [01:38:57.680 --> 01:39:04.680] I understand. But I mean, people shouldn't be that ignorant to go try to take a park that's being used for the public. [01:39:04.680 --> 01:39:08.680] Well, that's how everybody originally got land to begin with. [01:39:08.680 --> 01:39:12.680] All land was public land. [01:39:12.680 --> 01:39:13.680] Okay. [01:39:13.680 --> 01:39:22.680] It just was managed by the government until it was taken up by someone who managed it for their own private use. [01:39:22.680 --> 01:39:28.680] And if they did everything that was necessary, it became theirs. [01:39:28.680 --> 01:39:30.680] It's still that way now. [01:39:30.680 --> 01:39:40.680] Well, like I said, unless there's a specific law on the books that prohibits you from taking the land because it's been publicly reserved for some other public purpose [01:39:40.680 --> 01:39:45.680] that doesn't allow it to be sectioned off like that, yeah. [01:39:45.680 --> 01:39:52.680] The problem is I don't think you can find any land like that anymore because land is the one thing they ain't making any more of. [01:39:52.680 --> 01:40:01.680] Well, how about, let's say you research and find a property that's abandoned, taxes owed on it, stuff like that. [01:40:01.680 --> 01:40:03.680] Well, that's a different story. [01:40:03.680 --> 01:40:08.680] There, in order to get it, you're going to have to pay the back taxes on it. [01:40:08.680 --> 01:40:10.680] Okay. [01:40:10.680 --> 01:40:13.680] Got you. [01:40:13.680 --> 01:40:14.680] Okay. [01:40:14.680 --> 01:40:17.680] So what other question you got? [01:40:17.680 --> 01:40:18.680] All right. [01:40:18.680 --> 01:40:22.680] So you think I should be able to find case law on that? [01:40:22.680 --> 01:40:34.680] Well, if you're looking for the right kind of case law, acquisition of homestead from public lands, something along that line. [01:40:34.680 --> 01:40:35.680] Acquisition of homestead. [01:40:35.680 --> 01:40:37.680] Yeah. [01:40:37.680 --> 01:40:38.680] I'll go look at that. [01:40:38.680 --> 01:40:39.680] Thank you. [01:40:39.680 --> 01:40:40.680] Okay. [01:40:40.680 --> 01:40:41.680] Anything else? [01:40:41.680 --> 01:40:42.680] No, that's all. [01:40:42.680 --> 01:40:43.680] All right. [01:40:43.680 --> 01:40:44.680] Thanks for calling in. [01:40:44.680 --> 01:40:45.680] All right. [01:40:45.680 --> 01:40:46.680] All right. [01:40:46.680 --> 01:40:50.680] Now, not only was Olivier my first caller, he was my only caller. [01:40:50.680 --> 01:40:53.680] I either put somebody to sleep or scared them off or bored them to tears. [01:40:53.680 --> 01:40:54.680] I don't know which one it was. [01:40:54.680 --> 01:41:02.680] But if you have a call in and you're listening and you want to call in about something, 512-646-1984. [01:41:02.680 --> 01:41:08.680] Now, once again, while we're waiting for another caller to take the place, I'm going to go through the fundraiser for the network again. [01:41:08.680 --> 01:41:20.680] And that is that right now we are giving away a Stryker Tactical AR-15 rifle provided by Central Texas Gunworks for this year's fundraiser. [01:41:20.680 --> 01:41:25.680] Purchase of the traffic seminar gets you 10 entries into the drawing. [01:41:25.680 --> 01:41:33.680] Purchase of Randy's e-book, Law 101 or Legal 101, gets you four entries. [01:41:33.680 --> 01:41:41.680] And every $25 donation gets you one entry into the drawing for the AR-15. [01:41:41.680 --> 01:41:49.680] Now, remember that last year or the year before last, the person who won the AR-15 was someone who bought the seminar. [01:41:49.680 --> 01:41:54.680] They got their name in the hat 10 times with that, and it helped them win the AR. [01:41:54.680 --> 01:41:58.680] So this year, if you don't have the seminar, now would be a good time to get it. [01:41:58.680 --> 01:42:03.680] Be aware that you don't want to wait for me to redo the thing before you do it. [01:42:03.680 --> 01:42:08.680] I'm in the process of trying to get the whole thing restructured, organized, and rewritten. [01:42:08.680 --> 01:42:14.680] But that doesn't mean don't buy it because the price is going to be different or you're not going to be able to upgrade to it. [01:42:14.680 --> 01:42:23.680] Because once you purchase the seminar, any direct changes to the existing seminar as you have it is for life, as long as I'm doing it anyway. [01:42:23.680 --> 01:42:28.680] Now, once I'm not doing it anymore, you got what you got. [01:42:28.680 --> 01:42:29.680] It's up to you at that point. [01:42:29.680 --> 01:42:33.680] But any changes I make to it in the interim, you get for free. [01:42:33.680 --> 01:42:40.680] So don't worry about buying it today and then you having to buy it again after I get this restructuring and rewriting done. [01:42:40.680 --> 01:42:42.680] That's not the way it's going to work. [01:42:42.680 --> 01:42:50.680] Now, when I do new books that were not an original part of the seminar, yes, those will be purchased separately from the original seminar. [01:42:50.680 --> 01:42:55.680] But the fact of the matter is, is that it's a good value. [01:42:55.680 --> 01:43:03.680] We teach you a lot of what I'm talking about on the show tonight dealing with these court opinions as far as what the actual statutes are [01:43:03.680 --> 01:43:16.680] and how they are using case opinion to unconstitutionally legislate from the bench and rewrite our very lives by doing so. [01:43:16.680 --> 01:43:28.680] They are attempting to force all of us into regulated activities that give them control over us [01:43:28.680 --> 01:43:42.680] and allow them to tax us through fines and fees and licensing and registration and all this other stuff unconstitutionally. [01:43:42.680 --> 01:43:43.680] You get that? [01:43:43.680 --> 01:43:52.680] They are stealing money from you through a set of taxing methods that cannot be lawfully applied to you. [01:43:52.680 --> 01:43:56.680] All right, folks, 512-646-1984. [01:43:56.680 --> 01:43:59.680] We will be right back after the break. [01:43:59.680 --> 01:44:04.680] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses? [01:44:04.680 --> 01:44:08.680] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [01:44:08.680 --> 01:44:14.680] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. [01:44:14.680 --> 01:44:20.680] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, [01:44:20.680 --> 01:44:26.680] what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, [01:44:26.680 --> 01:44:33.680] how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:44:33.680 --> 01:44:38.680] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:44:38.680 --> 01:44:40.680] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:44:40.680 --> 01:44:49.680] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [01:44:49.680 --> 01:45:00.680] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:45:00.680 --> 01:45:03.680] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:03.680 --> 01:45:14.680] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:14.680 --> 01:45:18.680] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:18.680 --> 01:45:22.680] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:22.680 --> 01:45:27.680] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too. [01:45:27.680 --> 01:45:33.680] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:33.680 --> 01:45:42.680] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:42.680 --> 01:45:51.680] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:51.680 --> 01:46:00.680] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:00.680 --> 01:46:28.680] Music playing. [01:46:28.680 --> 01:46:43.680] All right, folks, we are back. [01:46:43.680 --> 01:46:44.680] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:46:44.680 --> 01:46:46.680] We are now in the last segment of the show. [01:46:46.680 --> 01:46:52.680] And before I start with the callers that have popped up on the board real quick, I want to throw something out there. [01:46:52.680 --> 01:47:06.680] I have an idea for a project, and what I would like is if anybody that hears this show now or later, [01:47:06.680 --> 01:47:25.680] if you come across this show, this specific one, contact me at Eddie, E-D-D-I-E at ruleoflawradio.com if and only if in relation to this project, [01:47:25.680 --> 01:47:39.680] you are one of these individuals, a retired attorney, a disbarred attorney, a retired judge, a retired prosecutor, [01:47:39.680 --> 01:47:58.680] or an active individual in any of those capacities, and you would be willing to discuss on camera or on air the actual corruption [01:47:58.680 --> 01:48:15.680] and unconstitutionality of the system within which you have operated and found lacking of any merit. [01:48:15.680 --> 01:48:19.680] Now, I know that's kind of a hard pill to swallow, but the fact is, [01:48:19.680 --> 01:48:30.680] there are lots of people out there that know this system is as every bit as corrupt and bogus as a three-card Monte game on a New York street. [01:48:30.680 --> 01:48:44.680] For those of you that were insiders and know this for a fact and can give us true inside information about that, I want to talk to you. [01:48:44.680 --> 01:48:57.680] Contact me at that email address, Eddie, E-D-D-I-E at ruleoflawradio.com, and let's sit down, get your credentials in order, [01:48:57.680 --> 01:49:04.680] okay, such as your jury's doctorate if you've had one, your bar card if you've had one, and so on and so forth, [01:49:04.680 --> 01:49:12.680] so I can verify I'm talking to a legitimate source, and let's talk about what you know. [01:49:12.680 --> 01:49:22.680] Let's expose this system for what I already know and understand it to be, and let's start draining this swamp, [01:49:22.680 --> 01:49:30.680] digging the frogs, killing the carp, and chopping up the snakes. [01:49:30.680 --> 01:49:38.680] It's time to reclaim that marsh for something more useful and productive to the American people. [01:49:38.680 --> 01:49:42.680] All right, that being said, let's start with our callers. [01:49:42.680 --> 01:49:46.680] We have Alden from Texas up on the board. [01:49:46.680 --> 01:49:49.680] Alden, what can I do for you? [01:49:49.680 --> 01:49:51.680] Yes, sir, can you hear me? [01:49:51.680 --> 01:49:53.680] Yes. [01:49:53.680 --> 01:49:57.680] Okay, I have two issues that I'd like to talk to you about. [01:49:57.680 --> 01:50:00.680] First one being a red light camera ticket. [01:50:00.680 --> 01:50:07.680] I know how unlawful and illegal they are, and I have read your different blog posts. [01:50:07.680 --> 01:50:14.680] I've even got your pamphlets, I guess, and I just want to verify some things before I send it all in. [01:50:14.680 --> 01:50:21.680] And for the two, it's basically the City of Humble or whatever city, photo enforcement program. [01:50:21.680 --> 01:50:29.680] The address is just whatever address they have, then obviously your name, your address, and everything else. [01:50:29.680 --> 01:50:34.680] You did look in the – on the articles, you do know there's a letter linked in there, right? [01:50:34.680 --> 01:50:35.680] Are you using that letter? [01:50:35.680 --> 01:50:36.680] Yes. [01:50:36.680 --> 01:50:37.680] Okay. [01:50:37.680 --> 01:50:38.680] Yes, sir, that's the link I – [01:50:38.680 --> 01:50:42.680] Now, there's an original and there's a redone version. [01:50:42.680 --> 01:50:53.680] The redone version comes after the lawsuits were filed and several of these things were declared unconstitutional. [01:50:53.680 --> 01:50:57.680] So just make sure you're using the correct version of the letter. [01:50:57.680 --> 01:50:58.680] Yes, sir. [01:50:58.680 --> 01:50:59.680] Okay. [01:50:59.680 --> 01:51:05.680] I just have to get this notarized once I fill it out and then certify and mail it, right? [01:51:05.680 --> 01:51:06.680] Yes. [01:51:06.680 --> 01:51:07.680] Okay. [01:51:07.680 --> 01:51:08.680] Great. [01:51:08.680 --> 01:51:09.680] Thank you. [01:51:09.680 --> 01:51:19.680] This next issue is, is there any way you can go after like a TSA or something like that? [01:51:19.680 --> 01:51:25.680] Because they have violated multiple rights and I made sure they knew it. [01:51:25.680 --> 01:51:34.680] Well, if you have a proper claim of injury by their actions as far as an individual right or damage to your person or property, [01:51:34.680 --> 01:51:38.680] then you file a proper lawsuit and you go after them. [01:51:38.680 --> 01:51:47.680] But you got to make sure that you count your complaint correctly to make an actual issue that you can claim remedy for or you're going to fail. [01:51:47.680 --> 01:51:49.680] Okay. [01:51:49.680 --> 01:51:57.680] Is there any way – do you think that I would be able to get the footage from the actual airport because they – [01:51:57.680 --> 01:52:02.680] Well, you can file a motion for discovery and you can file a public information request for it. [01:52:02.680 --> 01:52:03.680] Okay. [01:52:03.680 --> 01:52:07.680] You can file either or. [01:52:07.680 --> 01:52:08.680] Awesome. [01:52:08.680 --> 01:52:09.680] That is what I will do. [01:52:09.680 --> 01:52:10.680] Okay. [01:52:10.680 --> 01:52:12.680] Thank you for your time and I'll let someone know. [01:52:12.680 --> 01:52:13.680] Yes, sir. [01:52:13.680 --> 01:52:14.680] Thank you for calling. [01:52:14.680 --> 01:52:15.680] Bye-bye. [01:52:15.680 --> 01:52:16.680] Bye-bye. [01:52:16.680 --> 01:52:17.680] All right. [01:52:17.680 --> 01:52:18.680] Now we're going to Adam in Texas. [01:52:18.680 --> 01:52:19.680] Adam, what can we do for you? [01:52:19.680 --> 01:52:20.680] Hey, Eddie. [01:52:20.680 --> 01:52:21.680] Can you hear me? [01:52:21.680 --> 01:52:22.680] I can. [01:52:22.680 --> 01:52:24.680] You sounded a little tinny, but yeah. [01:52:24.680 --> 01:52:37.680] Oh, is there some rule out there they got to get the trial within 30 days after the pretrial or something, anything like that, Texas? [01:52:37.680 --> 01:52:40.680] No, but there is a speedy trial requirement. [01:52:40.680 --> 01:52:42.680] What exactly is the problem? [01:52:42.680 --> 01:52:46.680] Oh, I don't know. [01:52:46.680 --> 01:52:48.680] They're what? [01:52:48.680 --> 01:52:49.680] Trying to figure it all out. [01:52:49.680 --> 01:53:04.680] Okay, well, what they, according to the case law here in Texas, the speedy trial issue, despite the courts trying to tell you that there's no such thing in Texas that's complete BS, there is, there always has been. [01:53:04.680 --> 01:53:09.680] They just tend to ignore it until you go to the United States Supreme Court to appeal it. [01:53:09.680 --> 01:53:20.680] But the fact of the matter is the Texas case law that does exist on the subject says very plainly that if they get it within three months, they're okay. [01:53:20.680 --> 01:53:32.680] Four is iffy if they can't reasonably justify the delay, and five is a slam dunk violation of the speedy trial requirement for a Class C misdemeanor. [01:53:32.680 --> 01:53:40.680] So depending upon what the offense is will depend upon what timeframe you've actually got to worry about. [01:53:40.680 --> 01:53:53.680] If it's a Class C fine only and they go beyond four months and you are not the reason for the delay, such as asking for a continuance or something of that nature, then they're stuck. [01:53:53.680 --> 01:53:57.680] All you have to do is file a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial. [01:53:57.680 --> 01:54:04.680] They're going to ignore it, but the appellate court does not have a choice based upon the case law to grant it. [01:54:04.680 --> 01:54:13.680] Great. Also, where's my disqualification hearing after I disqualified the second judge? [01:54:13.680 --> 01:54:19.680] Well, first thing you have to determine is first off, did you file the disqualification in writing as required? [01:54:19.680 --> 01:54:20.680] Certainly. [01:54:20.680 --> 01:54:26.680] Okay. And did they forward it to the head administrative judge of the district? [01:54:26.680 --> 01:54:28.680] How do I find that out? [01:54:28.680 --> 01:54:39.680] You send a public information request to the court demanding that they produce any evidence that they have forwarded that motion to the head administrative judge. [01:54:39.680 --> 01:54:42.680] But wouldn't that information be in my record? [01:54:42.680 --> 01:54:46.680] It should be, but that's no guarantee that it is. [01:54:46.680 --> 01:54:55.680] Okay. So they would have been having the head administrative judge outside the record if they did have any communication for them? [01:54:55.680 --> 01:55:02.680] Yeah. They're supposed to send it to the judge in the district, not of that court, but the district. [01:55:02.680 --> 01:55:12.680] Okay. And that judge is required by statute to set a hearing on that motion. [01:55:12.680 --> 01:55:17.680] And they never do it. That's the thing. They never, ever do it. [01:55:17.680 --> 01:55:20.680] Right. [01:55:20.680 --> 01:55:33.680] The first judge I recused, the second one I disqualified, and she took 16 days and then she denied her own disqualification. [01:55:33.680 --> 01:55:41.680] She can't deny her own disqualification. Somebody else has to have a hearing on that to determine whether or not she's disqualified. [01:55:41.680 --> 01:55:43.680] Right. That's what I'm asking. [01:55:43.680 --> 01:55:48.680] File a judicial conduct complaint on her and then she's disqualified for damn sure. [01:55:48.680 --> 01:55:52.680] Right. Okay. [01:55:52.680 --> 01:55:55.680] Hey, the FOIA request. [01:55:55.680 --> 01:56:01.680] FOIA is federal. Public Information Act is Texas. [01:56:01.680 --> 01:56:05.680] Okay. I want to do public information, okay, in Texas. [01:56:05.680 --> 01:56:11.680] No, the State Trooper videos, I can request, you know, like three minutes before, five minutes after. [01:56:11.680 --> 01:56:23.680] Yes, you can. You can request any time range you want to, but let me reiterate that you need to do it through both a PIR and a motion for discovery. [01:56:23.680 --> 01:56:27.680] But I can't have discovery in a Class C. [01:56:27.680 --> 01:56:31.680] Yes, you can. Who the hell told you you couldn't? [01:56:31.680 --> 01:56:34.680] Randy Kelton. [01:56:34.680 --> 01:56:38.680] How are you not entitled to discovery in a Class C? [01:56:38.680 --> 01:56:43.680] I read it somewhere, too, and I just, somebody talked to Randy a couple months ago. [01:56:43.680 --> 01:56:50.680] I haven't ever read anything in the Rules of Discovery that says discovery is not allowed in a Class C misdemeanor. [01:56:50.680 --> 01:56:55.680] Well, okay, then I'm going to have to relook over all that. [01:56:55.680 --> 01:57:01.680] Oh, hey, was the Brady Rule suffice for your seven interrogatories for discovery? [01:57:01.680 --> 01:57:08.680] The interrogatories are for California, states where these are civil infractions. [01:57:08.680 --> 01:57:16.680] Oh, great. Okay, then that doesn't even apply. Okay, so then I'm going to go with Brady Rule for sure. [01:57:16.680 --> 01:57:18.680] Okay. [01:57:18.680 --> 01:57:19.680] Yes, sir. [01:57:19.680 --> 01:57:23.680] Anything else? [01:57:23.680 --> 01:57:29.680] The custodian of the record for the DPS, I would go, when I would do that PIR, that would be to the DPS. [01:57:29.680 --> 01:57:35.680] I would send it to the director of the Department of Public Safety and make sure that I put in there, [01:57:35.680 --> 01:57:44.680] if you are not the proper custodian of record, please forward this to whatever individual within your agency is to be considered the proper custodian of record for this request. [01:57:44.680 --> 01:57:55.680] Okay. And the administrative, where is that administrative process to require the sheriff that has to request that fourth direction? [01:57:55.680 --> 01:58:01.680] Title 37, subchapter 4, rule 4.13C. [01:58:01.680 --> 01:58:05.680] Okay. And then I would PIR the sheriff for that information. [01:58:05.680 --> 01:58:07.680] Yes. [01:58:07.680 --> 01:58:10.680] All right. Thanks, Eddie. Great show, man. [01:58:10.680 --> 01:58:12.680] All right. Thanks for calling in, Adam. [01:58:12.680 --> 01:58:13.680] Have a good one. [01:58:13.680 --> 01:58:14.680] You, too. [01:58:14.680 --> 01:58:17.680] All right, folks. This has been the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show. [01:58:17.680 --> 01:58:26.680] I hope I didn't offend too many people with my anger at the issues tonight that we discussed, but it is what it is. [01:58:26.680 --> 01:58:34.680] I am so tired of having my life intruded upon by this type of idiocy that I can't even begin to describe it. [01:58:34.680 --> 01:58:37.680] You should be, too. [01:58:37.680 --> 01:58:38.680] All right, folks. Thanks again. [01:58:38.680 --> 01:58:49.680] Please keep us in your financial prayers and means, and y'all have a great week. Good night and God bless. [01:58:49.680 --> 01:58:57.680] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version. [01:58:57.680 --> 01:59:07.680] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:59:07.680 --> 01:59:10.680] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. [01:59:10.680 --> 01:59:19.680] Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:19.680 --> 01:59:29.680] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:29.680 --> 01:59:31.680] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:31.680 --> 01:59:40.680] To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:59:40.680 --> 01:59:49.680] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:49.680 --> 01:59:53.680] Looking for some truth? You found it. [01:59:53.680 --> 02:00:01.680] Logosradionetwork.com