[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [00:05.840 --> 00:09.520] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [00:09.520 --> 00:10.920] Our liberty depends on it. [00:10.920 --> 00:14.920] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember [00:14.920 --> 00:16.920] your First Amendment rights. [00:16.920 --> 00:18.520] Privacy is under attack. [00:18.520 --> 00:22.120] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [00:22.120 --> 00:26.680] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [00:26.680 --> 00:32.000] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [00:32.000 --> 00:34.640] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [00:34.640 --> 00:38.920] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search [00:38.920 --> 00:42.480] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [00:42.480 --> 00:44.480] Start over with Startpage. [00:44.480 --> 00:47.760] Spar, it's what fighters do. [00:47.760 --> 00:50.760] It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment. [00:50.760 --> 00:54.360] If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you. [00:54.360 --> 01:01.560] Spar with an extra P. S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, [01:01.560 --> 01:02.920] and R for religion. [01:02.920 --> 01:07.000] Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, [01:07.000 --> 01:10.440] assembly, and religion, but petition for redress is another matter. [01:10.440 --> 01:14.560] We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [01:14.560 --> 01:18.080] It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out [01:18.080 --> 01:20.760] the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail. [01:20.760 --> 01:22.720] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. [01:22.720 --> 01:25.160] More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:25.160 --> 01:36.560] Pressure, we usually associate it with stress and negativity, but sometimes a bit of pressure [01:36.560 --> 01:37.560] can be healing. [01:37.560 --> 01:41.600] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how conditions like nausea can [01:41.600 --> 01:46.560] be cured using the traditional Chinese therapy known as acupressure. [01:46.560 --> 01:48.160] Privacy is under attack. [01:48.160 --> 01:52.560] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy [01:52.560 --> 01:56.560] is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:56.560 --> 02:01.560] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [02:01.560 --> 02:04.320] Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. [02:04.320 --> 02:08.600] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search [02:08.600 --> 02:12.120] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [02:12.120 --> 02:16.240] Start over with StartPage. [02:16.240 --> 02:20.120] Acupressure is an ancient practice that uses finger or hand pressure to cure everything [02:20.120 --> 02:22.240] from headaches to constipation. [02:22.240 --> 02:25.640] The pressure is applied to points known as meridians that are believed to control the [02:25.640 --> 02:27.920] flow of energy in the human body. [02:27.920 --> 02:32.120] Acupressure offers a simple cure for nausea you might try the next time you get a queasy [02:32.120 --> 02:34.920] stomach or a case of motion sickness. [02:34.920 --> 02:38.080] Simply apply moderate pressure to the point known as P6. [02:38.080 --> 02:42.720] You'll find it on the inside of your wrist, about two fingers width down from your palm. [02:42.720 --> 02:47.520] Placing pressure on the P6 point works on the same principle as those pricey anti-nausea [02:47.520 --> 02:50.960] wristbands, but this relief is free and always on hand. [02:50.960 --> 02:55.720] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [03:20.960 --> 03:28.840] Alright folks, good evening, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host [03:28.840 --> 03:29.840] Eddie Craig. [03:29.840 --> 03:33.300] It is February 7th, 2022. [03:33.300 --> 03:36.880] We are live tonight, I want to apologize for my long hiatus. [03:36.880 --> 03:43.800] I have been eyeball deep in getting the new seminar book done and I have just, I mean [03:43.800 --> 03:47.520] just couldn't stop because I had too much going through my head and too much to get [03:47.520 --> 03:50.520] down on paper before I forgot it. [03:50.520 --> 03:55.960] I've also got years worth of notes I've been collecting for this to get this book ready [03:55.960 --> 04:01.000] and to have the research in place and I've been having to go through that document by [04:01.000 --> 04:06.200] document since it's all stored on a computer and there are literally hundreds and hundreds [04:06.200 --> 04:07.280] of them. [04:07.280 --> 04:12.640] So I've had some reading and some organizing and some writing to do and I apologize for [04:12.640 --> 04:15.160] it taking me away from getting the show done. [04:15.160 --> 04:19.280] For all those that have continued to help support me even though I haven't been on the [04:19.280 --> 04:25.160] show here lately, I want to thank you so much, I could not have gotten as far as I have without [04:25.160 --> 04:26.160] your support. [04:26.160 --> 04:32.760] Folks, you know who you are, I wish I could give you direct credit for everything but [04:32.760 --> 04:38.680] I don't want to sound like I'm trying to pit people that are listening against each other, [04:38.680 --> 04:40.280] I don't want to do that. [04:40.280 --> 04:45.160] Just let it be said that for all of you that have sent money in to make sure that I could [04:45.160 --> 04:51.560] meet my bills and still be able to focus on getting this done and feed myself and take [04:51.560 --> 04:59.560] care of my dog and everything, thank you so much, it's been a blessing to have you out [04:59.560 --> 05:04.240] there sponsoring us for that, okay? [05:04.240 --> 05:10.600] That said, I'm supposed to have a friend of mine calling in here shortly, he's been doing [05:10.600 --> 05:15.320] the review and editing of the book if he's able to call in, he hasn't texted me back [05:15.320 --> 05:19.360] to say whether or not he's going to be able to do it but if he does, I'll be on the lookout [05:19.360 --> 05:25.720] for him but the book is coming along, I've been working on several chapters at the same [05:25.720 --> 05:35.120] time because some of the stuff they share is relational to all of it in a way that makes [05:35.120 --> 05:38.080] it necessary to go through it that way. [05:38.080 --> 05:42.820] So I've been working in rotation on each of these documents to get this done. [05:42.820 --> 05:48.560] So I have to go back and reread everything when I switch documents to catch myself back [05:48.560 --> 05:54.480] up to the same mindset that I was in when I was writing it originally. [05:54.480 --> 05:59.400] But again, for everybody that's kept donating and sending in money and everything to keep [05:59.400 --> 06:04.420] us going even while I haven't been here, thank you so much. [06:04.420 --> 06:08.120] We could not be here if not for you folks. [06:08.120 --> 06:12.240] So again, thank you so very, very much. [06:12.240 --> 06:16.760] Now that said, I don't have a lot to talk about at the beginning, at least not until [06:16.760 --> 06:23.760] my friend calls in and we can discuss what he's seen and read in the book. [06:23.760 --> 06:27.480] The reason I think this is important, and I'm going to have a couple of other people [06:27.480 --> 06:33.720] that I've given access to the material that I've written so far for the exact same reasons, [06:33.720 --> 06:40.920] I'm trying to find people that I know who are interested in the information that I put [06:40.920 --> 06:46.280] out but don't have a background in it, experience in it. [06:46.280 --> 06:49.520] They don't know law, they don't know any of this. [06:49.520 --> 06:54.800] So what I'm wanting to do is make sure that I write this in a way where as many people [06:54.800 --> 06:58.220] as possible can understand it. [06:58.220 --> 07:04.360] So I've got several layman friends of mine that have, we've talked about this stuff before, [07:04.360 --> 07:10.720] but they've never had to sit down and read it from a legal aspect, which is what the [07:10.720 --> 07:16.800] book has to do because we cite statutes, administrative rules, all that stuff. [07:16.800 --> 07:21.800] And I go into a discussion on what each one of them is saying, what each one of them means, [07:21.800 --> 07:27.120] how at least together with the other and why, and I'm trying to write it in such a way that [07:27.120 --> 07:30.620] everybody can get that, okay? [07:30.620 --> 07:37.200] Even the ones that are telling me I'm wrong will be able to get that. [07:37.200 --> 07:42.440] I will say it's interesting that we've had, me and the friend I'm discussing, have had [07:42.440 --> 07:50.000] several meetings with a gentleman he met and became friends with who is running for sheriff [07:50.000 --> 07:55.160] and who he invited me to one of these meetups they had to converse about this with him. [07:55.160 --> 08:01.820] And of course he was, being ex-law enforcement, he was somebody that didn't feel like I actually [08:01.820 --> 08:09.520] knew what I was talking about until I started giving him actual writing, explaining what [08:09.520 --> 08:15.200] the statutes were, how they linked together, and showing him what he was missing from his [08:15.200 --> 08:17.520] overall picture. [08:17.520 --> 08:21.280] And it seems I've made a convert, okay? [08:21.280 --> 08:27.400] But again, Jason has more details about that than I do, and he can fill us in on that if [08:27.400 --> 08:30.000] and when I'm able to get him on the show to talk about it. [08:30.000 --> 08:36.880] I'm also going to, at some point or other, get the other gentleman that I've given access [08:36.880 --> 08:41.760] to the material to come on as guests on my show and to talk about their experience with [08:41.760 --> 08:46.640] what they've read in the book and see how much of it they understood and what they think [08:46.640 --> 08:47.720] about it. [08:47.720 --> 08:53.620] And that way you folks will have an idea of what you're getting if you buy the updated [08:53.620 --> 08:55.720] seminar when it's all done. [08:55.720 --> 09:01.400] Now once the book is done, I still got to do all of the legal pleading material. [09:01.400 --> 09:05.720] Everything is going to be rewritten from scratch because we're going to take a whole new approach [09:05.720 --> 09:11.180] to the way we've been using the legal documents, and we're going to do it in a way that locks [09:11.180 --> 09:18.060] the court into having to make a choice, a good one or a bad one. [09:18.060 --> 09:23.360] And I'm expecting them nine times out of 10 to make the bad choice. [09:23.360 --> 09:29.720] But what's bad for them is going to be good for us, okay? [09:29.720 --> 09:35.700] Just like if they chose what's good for them would also be good for us. [09:35.700 --> 09:41.880] Because if you will do what you need to do when they make the bad choice and follow through [09:41.880 --> 09:47.340] with the appeal, they will lose. [09:47.340 --> 09:50.180] You will win. [09:50.180 --> 09:55.560] And if you don't, it's because somebody is not following the law. [09:55.560 --> 09:59.800] So every time they tell you you've lost, you need to make sure you follow through and move [09:59.800 --> 10:02.460] it up the chain, okay? [10:02.460 --> 10:08.060] Go to the next level of appeal because what we've got in Texas and what I've been able [10:08.060 --> 10:17.920] to put down in writing in this book is hard verifiable proof of systemic fraud, okay? [10:17.920 --> 10:22.560] Knowing and willful fraud, which I know I've told you guys ever since I've been doing this [10:22.560 --> 10:23.560] show. [10:23.560 --> 10:25.480] I know that's what I've been telling you. [10:25.480 --> 10:32.080] But everything is linked together in this book that shows how every statute gets its [10:32.080 --> 10:38.520] authority or is relative to what's written in another statute or another administrative [10:38.520 --> 10:40.440] rule. [10:40.440 --> 10:44.080] And I've got several legal questions in the book that we're going to need to make the [10:44.080 --> 10:48.400] courts answer one way or the other. [10:48.400 --> 10:55.440] Just as an example, two of those questions are is when a state administrative agency [10:55.440 --> 11:00.880] is given authority via the administrative code, which is the administrative rules I'm [11:00.880 --> 11:03.680] talking about. [11:03.680 --> 11:10.720] And then that administrative agency is given a statutory scheme that is only written to [11:10.720 --> 11:17.140] be in accordance with the authority they're given in the administrative code for the program [11:17.140 --> 11:23.880] itself that those statutes relate to, such as driver's licensing, for instance. [11:23.880 --> 11:32.440] When the statute authorizes the administrative agency, in this case, the DPS, to enforce [11:32.440 --> 11:38.560] a statute in a way that is contrary to the directives given to the administrative agency [11:38.560 --> 11:42.680] in the administrative rules versus what is written in the statute. [11:42.680 --> 11:49.160] In other words, if the statute directs them in a way that creates a conflict with the [11:49.160 --> 11:56.520] authority they're given in the administrative rules, which one takes precedent and is controlling? [11:56.520 --> 12:03.560] And if it's the statute, then why does the administrative rules even exist, saying this [12:03.560 --> 12:07.080] is what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do and how you're allowed to [12:07.080 --> 12:10.560] do it as an agency? [12:10.560 --> 12:16.440] If the statutory scheme can be read and used in a manner that exceeds the authority granted [12:16.440 --> 12:22.200] to the agency, we've got a bigger problem. [12:22.200 --> 12:27.960] And that, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the things that appears to be the case here. [12:27.960 --> 12:34.120] Either that or I'm right all along and they are knowingly violating the law by rewriting [12:34.120 --> 12:42.320] it to make it appear to do things they cannot legitimately do. [12:42.320 --> 12:46.880] So we're going to have to force the court to give us an answer to that at some point. [12:46.880 --> 12:48.960] All right? [12:48.960 --> 12:56.840] So if you get a traffic citation and you wind up paying a fine, we may be coming to look [12:56.840 --> 13:01.160] for you as a class action member, because what it's going to take to fix this problem, [13:01.160 --> 13:06.080] I can almost guarantee it, is going to be a class action lawsuit against the Texas Department [13:06.080 --> 13:14.280] of Public Safety, because they're the ones that are ultimately responsible for ensuring [13:14.280 --> 13:20.880] that the regulations they are enforcing, that they have given proper notice and information [13:20.880 --> 13:28.040] to the public about what that law is, what it does, and who it does it to, and who it [13:28.040 --> 13:33.640] doesn't mess with at all, and they're not doing that. [13:33.640 --> 13:40.160] And there is United States Supreme Court case law that says that if you have a duty to speak [13:40.160 --> 13:44.560] and you don't, that's an act of fraud by omission. [13:44.560 --> 13:46.100] Okay? [13:46.100 --> 13:54.400] And the DPS most certainly has a public duty to properly inform about the regulations they're [13:54.400 --> 13:55.700] enforcing. [13:55.700 --> 14:00.500] And then they have another public duty to do it correctly. [14:00.500 --> 14:03.800] And they're not. [14:03.800 --> 14:05.280] Okay? [14:05.280 --> 14:11.560] So that's where this book is taking this, and it's going through it subject by object. [14:11.560 --> 14:15.920] I'm not going to refer to these as individual subjects in these chapters, because that would [14:15.920 --> 14:20.360] be a violation of how this law was to be enacted in the first place. [14:20.360 --> 14:26.360] The single subject that governs this is transportation, which y'all know I've also been telling you [14:26.360 --> 14:32.240] for years, because that's exactly what's written into the title of the bill that created the [14:32.240 --> 14:33.240] code. [14:33.240 --> 14:34.240] Okay? [14:34.240 --> 14:40.360] That everything in this code is relative to the subject of transportation. [14:40.360 --> 14:44.640] The courts don't want to hear it, and the courts don't want to acknowledge what transportation [14:44.640 --> 14:51.040] truly is, but we're going to force them to do that. [14:51.040 --> 14:59.640] Now I'm also working on a way where I can be called as an expert witness on these specific [14:59.640 --> 15:06.160] chapters and provisions of the Texas Transportation Code and the Texas Administrative Code, and [15:06.160 --> 15:11.200] the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to how these cases get prosecuted. [15:11.200 --> 15:17.160] I'm going to make it where I can be hired as an expert witness to come testify in cases [15:17.160 --> 15:23.200] to get this stuff thrown out before it ever gets started. [15:23.200 --> 15:29.720] We are going to do our dead level best to make the court's lives a living hell from [15:29.720 --> 15:34.320] this point forward with the new material. [15:34.320 --> 15:40.220] So they're going to chomp at the bit about this, because if we win, they lose millions [15:40.220 --> 15:51.260] upon millions upon millions locally and literally hundreds of millions at state level by being [15:51.260 --> 15:55.800] denied in their ability to continue the fraud. [15:55.800 --> 16:03.320] And because it's done statewide by so many agencies in so many places illegally, it's [16:03.320 --> 16:06.040] a federal racketeering scheme. [16:06.040 --> 16:07.840] It's straight out racketeering. [16:07.840 --> 16:08.840] Why? [16:08.840 --> 16:13.520] How can it be racketeering and be federal instead of just state? [16:13.520 --> 16:18.520] Because some of the people they defraud have out-of-state license plates. [16:18.520 --> 16:24.580] They cross state lines into Texas and get defrauded by the exact same system that the [16:24.580 --> 16:30.240] people of Texas get defrauded by. [16:30.240 --> 16:34.520] That gives us a federal component, because they're doing this to out-of-state as well [16:34.520 --> 16:39.440] as interstate, or interstate and intrastate. [16:39.440 --> 16:47.920] So that said, I've got the caller board on to call in numbers 512-646-1984 if you want [16:47.920 --> 16:52.040] to call and discuss any of this or something you've got on your plate. [16:52.040 --> 17:01.080] Anyhow, we will be right back, so y'all hang in there. [17:01.080 --> 17:05.480] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His [17:05.480 --> 17:06.480] Word? [17:06.480 --> 17:11.640] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture [17:11.640 --> 17:18.040] Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15. [17:18.040 --> 17:22.540] Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly [17:22.540 --> 17:24.960] dividing the Word of Truth. [17:24.960 --> 17:28.920] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse [17:28.920 --> 17:32.240] by verse and discuss the true Gospel message. [17:32.240 --> 17:36.880] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine [17:36.880 --> 17:39.280] and Christian character development. [17:39.280 --> 17:43.800] We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [17:43.800 --> 17:48.160] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness [17:48.160 --> 17:49.640] of our Lord and Savior Jesus. [17:49.640 --> 17:57.040] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com, Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and [17:57.040 --> 18:00.760] motivate your studies of the Scriptures. [18:00.760 --> 18:05.360] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [18:05.360 --> 18:09.520] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. [18:09.520 --> 18:13.840] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you [18:13.840 --> 18:14.840] can win too. [18:14.840 --> 18:19.800] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal [18:19.800 --> 18:25.120] civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to [18:25.120 --> 18:29.640] answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, [18:29.640 --> 18:34.280] how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:34.280 --> 18:39.400] The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:39.400 --> 18:41.560] Personal consultation is available as well. [18:41.560 --> 18:47.080] For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [18:47.080 --> 18:56.480] or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com, that's RuleOfLawRadio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s [18:56.480 --> 19:00.600] at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [19:00.600 --> 19:08.480] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com. [19:08.480 --> 19:38.200] All right, folks. [19:38.200 --> 19:39.200] We are back. [19:39.200 --> 19:46.040] This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984. [19:46.040 --> 19:48.840] If you want to call and let's talk about something. [19:48.840 --> 19:49.920] All right. [19:49.920 --> 19:54.640] So while I'm waiting on some callers to get up on the board here, I'm just going to take [19:54.640 --> 20:01.720] one of the things that's in the new book here, and I'm going to go over it with you. [20:01.720 --> 20:09.240] Now in the book, I address some of what I have dubbed the patron of mythology, okay? [20:09.240 --> 20:17.160] And I do that in a negative way, because people need to know this stuff is not only not accurate, [20:17.160 --> 20:18.160] okay? [20:18.160 --> 20:25.820] It's not at all... [20:25.820 --> 20:29.320] It's absolutely illogical, most of the stuff they come up with. [20:29.320 --> 20:33.840] But one of the things they've come up with is trying to make the argument that the driver's [20:33.840 --> 20:39.200] license is a contract, and that every interaction you have, such as signing the ticket or anything [20:39.200 --> 20:45.240] else, is a further binding step in that same contract. [20:45.240 --> 20:51.600] The problem is, is the courts have already said many times over many, many decades that [20:51.600 --> 20:53.920] it is not a contract. [20:53.920 --> 20:54.920] And it's not. [20:54.920 --> 20:58.600] Not in the complete sense of the word, it's not. [20:58.600 --> 21:02.480] Now it operates similar to an adhesion contract. [21:02.480 --> 21:09.920] But in and of itself, it is not directly a contract. [21:09.920 --> 21:15.040] So I'm just going to go through that particular chapter of the book with you while I'm waiting [21:15.040 --> 21:16.040] on callers. [21:16.040 --> 21:21.640] Joseph, I see you on the board there, so give me just a second and I'll pick you up, okay? [21:21.640 --> 21:26.200] So is the license a legally binding contract? [21:26.200 --> 21:31.760] And then again, well, no, and the higher courts have ruled that a license is not considered [21:31.760 --> 21:33.960] to be an actual contract. [21:33.960 --> 21:40.600] However, that said, a license is obtained and used in a specific way and manner that [21:40.600 --> 21:48.440] operates very similarly to how an adhesion contract is actually established and operates, [21:48.440 --> 21:50.720] which we will discuss in detail shortly. [21:50.720 --> 21:56.200] Below, we can see a perfect example of how the courts in every state have sidestepped [21:56.200 --> 22:01.520] the people's individual constitutional right of liberty, property, and freedom of movement [22:01.520 --> 22:07.960] both within and without the states by appearing to convert these rights into privileges using [22:07.960 --> 22:13.680] the deceptive legal semantics knowingly built into the statutory language. [22:13.680 --> 22:19.760] To wit, the operation of a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a natural absolute [22:19.760 --> 22:25.200] right but a conditional privilege, which may be granted, suspended, or revoked under the [22:25.200 --> 22:27.720] police power of the state. [22:27.720 --> 22:33.800] A driver's license is not a contract or a property right in the constitutional sense, [22:33.800 --> 22:39.040] and therefore, its revocation does not constitute the taking of property. [22:39.040 --> 22:43.920] The privilege is granted to those who are qualified, who comply with reasonable police [22:43.920 --> 22:49.640] power requirements in the interest of public safety and welfare, and is withheld from those [22:49.640 --> 22:55.880] who do not, and that's Bailey v. City of Tulsa, Supra, okay, along with others. [22:55.880 --> 23:02.600] But the case that actually cites all of these is Robertson v. State, X-Rail, Lester, 1972, [23:02.600 --> 23:07.640] Oklahoma, 126, okay, 126 that is, okay? [23:07.640 --> 23:11.840] The thing about this statement from this case is this. [23:11.840 --> 23:16.300] Every time they're talking about the police power, they stick strictly with the statutory [23:16.300 --> 23:22.960] terminology that is playing legal semantics with the language. [23:22.960 --> 23:31.180] Operation and motor vehicle are terms that apply to the regulatory statutes in relation [23:31.180 --> 23:37.560] to only the class of persons that the statutes apply to. [23:37.560 --> 23:46.000] If you are not one of those people in that class, these statutes do not apply to you. [23:46.000 --> 23:57.040] If your automobile or other conveyance is not being used in a manner that fits within [23:57.040 --> 24:03.680] the scope of what is being regulated under transportation, which is in this case a motor [24:03.680 --> 24:12.640] vehicle engaged in transportation by the means of an operator or driver who is either acting [24:12.640 --> 24:19.760] for themselves in their own capacity as a business or are acting on behalf of a carrier [24:19.760 --> 24:25.680] as one of their paid operators or drivers, okay? [24:25.680 --> 24:31.560] So the legal semantics is where they stick when they want to make it sound like they're [24:31.560 --> 24:35.540] telling us this is a privilege. [24:35.540 --> 24:39.960] But it's not what it means when they say it and they know it. [24:39.960 --> 24:43.960] If they don't know it, then that's judicial incompetence. [24:43.960 --> 24:48.200] It means they have not read and studied the law they're ruling upon. [24:48.200 --> 24:57.640] Therefore, the ruling is idiotic because it is not an actual ruling based upon the law [24:57.640 --> 25:00.440] and the facts of the case. [25:00.440 --> 25:03.760] They didn't take the law and apply it to the facts. [25:03.760 --> 25:09.520] They took their opinion of the law and their determination about how the law functions [25:09.520 --> 25:18.160] without any legal basis for the determination, I might add, and stated this is what it is. [25:18.160 --> 25:20.400] That's incompetence, folks. [25:20.400 --> 25:29.160] If that's how you do your job anywhere, that's incompetence, okay? [25:29.160 --> 25:31.800] Lawyers are not immune to incompetence. [25:31.800 --> 25:38.040] Lawyers in fact are probably the first ones to invent incompetence. [25:38.040 --> 25:44.760] So that said, in this example, we can see that whenever the courts are discussing the [25:44.760 --> 25:50.800] privilege of using the highways under the police power of the state, they always refer [25:50.800 --> 25:59.520] to the device that is self-propelled as a motor vehicle or vehicle, terms that exist [25:59.520 --> 26:07.760] only within the regulatory statutes as opposed to the terms automobile, car, truck, or conveyance. [26:07.760 --> 26:08.760] Okay? [26:08.760 --> 26:14.640] Which aren't defined within the statutes at all, and instead of truck, it should really [26:14.640 --> 26:19.080] just say pickup, okay? [26:19.080 --> 26:27.760] Nor are they used in relation to the actual device and subject matter being regulated. [26:27.760 --> 26:34.600] And even if such terms were defined within the statutes for regulatory purposes, it would [26:34.600 --> 26:41.600] still not exclude them from the umbrella of the legislative single subject matter that [26:41.600 --> 26:46.000] controls and limits the legal meaning and interpretation of all such regulatory statutes [26:46.000 --> 26:49.880] and definitions, okay? [26:49.880 --> 26:58.300] So what that means is straight up that even if these terms were defined in statute, okay, [26:58.300 --> 27:09.800] they still have to be used for transportation before they can become a device that is self-propelled [27:09.800 --> 27:14.140] and is registered and licensed and insured and gone through a first sale and everything [27:14.140 --> 27:20.040] else in order to get to the point where it could then be transferred from a self-propelled [27:20.040 --> 27:29.680] device into an actual vehicle, which is what is actually regulated, vehicles, motor vehicles, [27:29.680 --> 27:34.040] and commercial motor vehicles, along with the other regulatory programs, of course. [27:34.040 --> 27:40.200] But in this case, the actual device being regulated is a self-propelled device that [27:40.200 --> 27:48.360] once it's gone through the legal criteria to become so, it is converted into a vehicle. [27:48.360 --> 27:53.640] And once it becomes a vehicle, it can then become, if it meets all of the other statutory [27:53.640 --> 28:00.800] criteria, either a motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle, okay? [28:00.800 --> 28:09.520] But all of these terms begin with the root term device that is self-propelled becoming [28:09.520 --> 28:12.960] a vehicle, okay? [28:12.960 --> 28:16.320] All of this is explained much clearer in the book that I'm doing it now, but I'm just trying [28:16.320 --> 28:20.720] to give you a general overview of it. [28:20.720 --> 28:23.240] Okay. [28:23.240 --> 28:27.640] This is how every court in every state of the union and the federal level has interpreted [28:27.640 --> 28:31.600] and used any given statutory language to write their opinions. [28:31.600 --> 28:36.700] However, this writer is endeavoring to show you exactly how and why the courts have knowingly [28:36.700 --> 28:42.560] and willfully gotten everything about this subject completely wrong for more than a century. [28:42.560 --> 28:47.320] So keep in mind and pay close attention to what you read because you simply won't find [28:47.320 --> 28:52.040] this collection of facts and information anywhere else. [28:52.040 --> 28:56.640] Our judicial system's constant and willful misinterpretation and misapplication of these [28:56.640 --> 29:02.040] regulatory schemes goes to the very heart of something Mr. Thomas Sowell said. [29:02.040 --> 29:07.140] It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by [29:07.140 --> 29:13.140] putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. [29:13.140 --> 29:18.960] And man, these judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement officers could [29:18.960 --> 29:24.000] not be more wrong on the reading and interpretation of the whole body of regulatory statutes and [29:24.000 --> 29:28.680] administrative rules governing these objects and objectives. [29:28.680 --> 29:30.240] Okay? [29:30.240 --> 29:31.600] So it's a big deal. [29:31.600 --> 29:32.600] All right. [29:32.600 --> 29:37.280] We're going to take another break real quick and I will start trying to take callers on [29:37.280 --> 29:38.280] the other side. [29:38.280 --> 29:41.040] We have Joseph in Texas and Eric in California. [29:41.040 --> 29:43.120] I will get to you guys in that order. [29:43.120 --> 29:44.120] So please hang on. [29:44.120 --> 29:49.180] 512-646-1984 is the call-in number. [29:49.180 --> 29:51.240] So give us a call and let's talk. [29:51.240 --> 29:53.120] We are live tonight, folks. [29:53.120 --> 30:15.840] We are not MRECs. [30:15.840 --> 30:17.440] Privacy is under attack. [30:17.440 --> 30:21.040] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [30:21.040 --> 30:25.800] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. [30:25.800 --> 30:30.960] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [30:30.960 --> 30:33.600] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [30:33.600 --> 30:37.880] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search [30:37.880 --> 30:41.400] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [30:41.400 --> 30:43.360] Start over with Startpage. [30:43.360 --> 30:47.000] Ever hear the term fine farming? [30:47.000 --> 30:51.520] It's when cops fine innocent people to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business [30:51.520 --> 30:53.320] in the Sunshine State of Florida. [30:53.320 --> 30:59.720] This case involves breathalyzers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations. [30:59.720 --> 31:04.400] Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated. [31:04.400 --> 31:08.040] State officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing. [31:08.040 --> 31:13.000] In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document [31:13.000 --> 31:14.000] the problem. [31:14.000 --> 31:18.920] A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed, [31:18.920 --> 31:21.760] perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier. [31:21.760 --> 31:23.640] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. [31:23.640 --> 31:30.760] More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:30.760 --> 31:36.120] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. [31:36.120 --> 31:38.240] The government says that fire brought it down. [31:38.240 --> 31:43.160] However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. [31:43.160 --> 31:45.840] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [31:45.840 --> 31:48.640] And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. [31:48.640 --> 31:50.080] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [31:50.080 --> 31:51.080] I'm a structural engineer. [31:51.080 --> 31:52.440] I'm a New York City correctional officer. [31:52.440 --> 31:53.440] I'm an Air Force pilot. [31:53.440 --> 31:55.040] I'm a father who lost his son. [31:55.040 --> 31:57.720] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [31:57.720 --> 32:02.360] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [32:02.360 --> 32:05.120] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. [32:05.120 --> 32:07.520] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society. [32:07.520 --> 32:10.800] And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to [32:10.800 --> 32:12.840] stand and defend our own rights. [32:12.840 --> 32:16.120] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act [32:16.120 --> 32:20.160] in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [32:20.160 --> 32:24.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve [32:24.000 --> 32:25.360] our rights through due process. [32:25.360 --> 32:29.360] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the [32:29.360 --> 32:33.120] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [32:33.120 --> 32:35.200] is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [32:35.200 --> 32:39.520] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and [32:39.520 --> 32:40.840] ordering your copy today. [32:40.840 --> 32:44.080] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, [32:44.080 --> 32:48.640] The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research [32:48.640 --> 32:50.960] documents, and other useful resource material. [32:50.960 --> 32:54.160] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [32:54.160 --> 33:13.080] Order your copy today, and together we can have free society we all want and deserve. [33:13.080 --> 33:34.960] All right, folks, we are back. [33:34.960 --> 33:41.520] This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984. [33:41.520 --> 33:42.760] We're going to start with the callers. [33:42.760 --> 33:45.800] We've got up on the board, which is Joseph in Texas. [33:45.800 --> 33:47.840] Joseph, what can we do for you? [33:47.840 --> 33:49.880] Hey, Eddie, I appreciate it. [33:49.880 --> 34:03.080] I read, I want to say, Supreme Court ruling that stated the state, no, the county is liable [34:03.080 --> 34:10.360] for rights violations, regardless of the state officer or city officer or county officer. [34:10.360 --> 34:17.960] And I had your name with it, so I got it from one of your lectures, and I misplaced it. [34:17.960 --> 34:20.920] I don't recall ever reading a case that said that. [34:20.920 --> 34:21.920] Okay. [34:21.920 --> 34:24.000] So are you sure you got it from me? [34:24.000 --> 34:29.520] Well, I pretty confident it had your name attached to it, you know, like it wasn't you [34:29.520 --> 34:34.920] in the case, but it's like I got it from a folder, all stuff, I, you know, I've listed [34:34.920 --> 34:35.920] it. [34:35.920 --> 34:37.000] It's entirely possible. [34:37.000 --> 34:42.240] I have literally read thousands upon thousands of cases in the years I've been doing this. [34:42.240 --> 34:47.120] Normally, I'm pretty good about remembering the important ones I've read because something [34:47.120 --> 34:48.960] like that would definitely be important. [34:48.960 --> 34:57.960] So, yeah, I mean, I read it, I got ecstatically happy, but then I tried to save it, and apparently [34:57.960 --> 35:03.440] it was a format that my computer was having problems with, but I thought I saved it in [35:03.440 --> 35:08.320] numerous places, which I tried to do on just whatever I got, but anyhow, I haven't been [35:08.320 --> 35:09.320] able to find it. [35:09.320 --> 35:14.000] But anyhow, something I, you know, you talked about that I thought I'd add in just listening [35:14.000 --> 35:15.000] to you. [35:15.000 --> 35:22.840] I want to say it's probably been 15, 20 years ago, I went to a auto dealer here in Huntsville, [35:22.840 --> 35:30.240] wanted a copy of their license, and their license was for automobile dealership. [35:30.240 --> 35:31.240] Right. [35:31.240 --> 35:37.720] And so apparently they sell, you know, their license to sell automobiles, and yet they [35:37.720 --> 35:42.720] somehow send the license to state the guy that come back registered as a motor vehicle. [35:42.720 --> 35:45.680] Well, actually, that's not the way that works. [35:45.680 --> 35:48.280] See, this is how it works. [35:48.280 --> 35:51.640] The dealership is selling an automobile. [35:51.640 --> 35:56.720] It does not become a motor vehicle until it becomes several things. [35:56.720 --> 36:02.600] The object of a first sale, which is not simply buying it from the dealer, by the way, a first [36:02.600 --> 36:06.720] sale in the statute is extremely specific. [36:06.720 --> 36:16.400] The first sale is when the automobile is sold to someone who is purchasing it with the intent [36:16.400 --> 36:20.200] of using it for transportation purposes. [36:20.200 --> 36:28.320] Thus, they become required to register it, license it, insure it, and have a license [36:28.320 --> 36:31.400] to operate or drive it. [36:31.400 --> 36:37.600] And they have to have it inspected when they're using it for transportation. [36:37.600 --> 36:44.560] If it's for that purpose, it now becomes the object of a first sale. [36:44.560 --> 36:51.240] If it's sold to someone for as use as a private automobile or conveyance, it is not a first [36:51.240 --> 36:57.160] sale and you are not required to do any of those things with it. [36:57.160 --> 37:03.480] The simple fact that they have been coerced or tricked by the state into sending it in [37:03.480 --> 37:09.640] and converting it into a motor vehicle without your knowledge or consent and without the [37:09.640 --> 37:15.640] actual use being intended is conspiracy and fraud. [37:15.640 --> 37:18.080] That's RICO, plain and simple. [37:18.080 --> 37:20.400] That's part of what I'm getting at here. [37:20.400 --> 37:25.960] The DPS is the one responsible for making sure the dealer understands the law. [37:25.960 --> 37:29.200] The DPS is not doing that. [37:29.200 --> 37:37.280] The DPS and other state entities, whatever they may be, have convinced automobile dealers [37:37.280 --> 37:43.600] that everything they sell must be registered and licensed and everything else and converted [37:43.600 --> 37:50.000] into a motor vehicle for commercial use by doing so. [37:50.000 --> 37:55.000] It's fraud, either by direct knowledge or omission. [37:55.000 --> 38:02.560] When I asked them for a license and the license they gave me was for an automobile dealer's [38:02.560 --> 38:03.560] license. [38:03.560 --> 38:04.560] Right. [38:04.560 --> 38:11.040] But when I say what you said about contracts earlier, I don't see how anything can be considered [38:11.040 --> 38:17.280] a valid contract when you're contracted with somebody whose policy it is to commit fraud [38:17.280 --> 38:19.080] on a religious basis. [38:19.080 --> 38:23.440] The contract is not valid if fraud was used to make it. [38:23.440 --> 38:24.440] That's the thing. [38:24.440 --> 38:30.680] If fraud was a component of the contract's origin, the contract is unenforceable due [38:30.680 --> 38:32.680] to fraud. [38:32.680 --> 38:40.040] Well, like an unconscionable contract, each party has to have equal bargaining power for [38:40.040 --> 38:41.040] it to be a valid contract. [38:41.040 --> 38:44.360] Now, who's got equal bargaining power with the state? [38:44.360 --> 38:45.360] Nobody. [38:45.360 --> 38:46.360] That's the other point. [38:46.360 --> 38:54.320] I addressed that very thing in the document I was reading before I got callers. [38:54.320 --> 38:59.720] It's actually addressed in the new book. [38:59.720 --> 39:06.040] The actual, compelled contract and fraud, an unconscionable contract, all of that is [39:06.040 --> 39:07.040] disgustedness. [39:07.040 --> 39:08.040] Fully informed, willful consent. [39:08.040 --> 39:23.720] Well, I said, I don't see how any contract could be valid when you're contracted with [39:23.720 --> 39:24.720] the government. [39:24.720 --> 39:29.640] Well, the government can contract just like anybody else can. [39:29.640 --> 39:37.360] But the difference is, is it at least in relation to anything that deals with that contract, [39:37.360 --> 39:42.320] the moment they engage in the contract, they have no immunity claims. [39:42.320 --> 39:44.360] And the courts have already said that. [39:44.360 --> 39:51.560] If the government engages in commerce, then it has no more rights than any other corporation [39:51.560 --> 39:54.000] that has done so. [39:54.000 --> 39:59.720] Unless they use negotiable instruments and a contract, they have the exact same requirements [39:59.720 --> 40:05.840] as any other entity that forms a contract, and they cannot claim immunity from anything [40:05.840 --> 40:08.840] in it. [40:08.840 --> 40:19.120] Well, wouldn't it be fraud by collecting tax when you're using obligations for the United [40:19.120 --> 40:25.920] States Code Title 3163124, or any other state, I won't say the third paragraph. [40:25.920 --> 40:30.560] Collecting tax in what regard? [40:30.560 --> 40:32.200] Collecting tax in what regard? [40:32.200 --> 40:33.680] What kind of tax are we talking about? [40:33.680 --> 40:40.040] Well, like when you go and buy an automobile or buy anything, because you're talking about [40:40.040 --> 40:41.040] the sales tax. [40:41.040 --> 40:46.600] You're talking about the sales tax, the licensing and the insurance and all that, those are [40:46.600 --> 40:47.600] all taxes. [40:47.600 --> 40:55.120] Well, yeah, but what I'm getting at, what I get from reading, you know, I read Court [40:55.120 --> 41:03.320] Ruling Memphis Bank and Trust First Garner, and back then, they used the ruling with United [41:03.320 --> 41:10.240] States Code Title 31, Section 742, but when I tried to look that up, I can't find anything, [41:10.240 --> 41:18.200] but it's like they moved it to United States Code Title 3163124, because it looks like [41:18.200 --> 41:25.440] word for word, it's the same thing as is in that Court Ruling Memphis Bank and Trust First [41:25.440 --> 41:35.240] Garner, which like I said, United States Code 3163124, best I can recall, pretty much states [41:35.240 --> 41:43.360] in the third paragraph, anything you buy, sell, and trade with an obligation is non-taxable, [41:43.360 --> 41:48.760] and I believe it's United States Code Title 18, Section 8, that defines an obligation. [41:48.760 --> 41:50.240] Let's see. [41:50.240 --> 41:59.760] It looks like everything is living under fraud, just about entirely, or that's my belief anyway. [41:59.760 --> 42:06.600] Yeah, I'd have to read it to see exactly what this says, I'm looking at the 3124 statutes [42:06.600 --> 42:13.400] you're talking about in sub-item B, that's where it first mentions obligation, well, [42:13.400 --> 42:18.120] I actually know it says it in A2, the interest on the obligation. [42:18.120 --> 42:25.760] Okay, I'd have to read that to know exactly what you're getting into with that, and find [42:25.760 --> 42:30.040] out where did you say the definition of obligation was for this? [42:30.040 --> 42:35.520] I believe it's United States Code Title 18, Section 8. [42:35.520 --> 42:40.160] Well now, the thing is, if you're entitled 31, I doubt very seriously whether or not [42:40.160 --> 42:45.160] the obligation is defined relative to 31 over an 18. [42:45.160 --> 42:48.600] Did you look at the definitions for 31? [42:48.600 --> 42:50.800] No. [42:50.800 --> 42:54.680] You might want to do that and make sure it's not locally defined before you go looking [42:54.680 --> 42:56.000] for it elsewhere. [42:56.000 --> 43:07.040] Well, that's kind of like in this state, you know, which I was made aware after the fact [43:07.040 --> 43:13.080] more or less, but from what I can recall, in this state legal definition, which is in [43:13.080 --> 43:15.120] Texas, tax code. [43:15.120 --> 43:18.800] It is under the sales and use tax, and that's also in the new book. [43:18.800 --> 43:24.480] It's given as an example of how the term state is defined, and that statute is brought up [43:24.480 --> 43:29.440] in detail in the book and discussed about exactly how the legislature knows what it's [43:29.440 --> 43:36.200] doing when it defines the term state in a way that does not encompass the territory [43:36.200 --> 43:40.480] of Texas at all. [43:40.480 --> 43:45.360] And the thing is, if you look in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, and you look [43:45.360 --> 43:52.480] there for the definition of the term state and the term United States, you will find [43:52.480 --> 43:58.400] out very quickly that everything that's defined as state and United States is actually federal [43:58.400 --> 43:59.400] and native. [43:59.400 --> 44:04.040] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [44:04.040 --> 44:10.880] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course [44:10.880 --> 44:14.640] that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [44:14.640 --> 44:18.480] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [44:18.480 --> 44:22.760] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [44:22.760 --> 44:28.520] Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too. [44:28.520 --> 44:34.440] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [44:34.440 --> 44:39.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the [44:39.000 --> 44:43.280] principles and practices that control our American courts. [44:43.280 --> 44:49.480] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [44:49.480 --> 44:52.000] pro se tactics, and much more. [44:52.000 --> 45:01.320] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ. [45:01.320 --> 45:02.320] I love logos. [45:02.320 --> 45:05.640] Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [45:05.640 --> 45:08.520] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. [45:08.520 --> 45:09.680] I need my truth fake. [45:09.680 --> 45:14.360] I'd be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [45:14.360 --> 45:18.160] I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't [45:18.160 --> 45:21.520] have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. [45:21.520 --> 45:22.840] How can I help logos? [45:22.840 --> 45:24.840] Well, I'm glad you asked. [45:24.840 --> 45:27.920] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos. [45:27.920 --> 45:30.400] You can order new supplies or holiday gifts. [45:30.400 --> 45:32.520] First thing you do is clear your cookies. [45:32.520 --> 45:35.960] Now go to logosradio.network.com. [45:35.960 --> 45:38.920] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [45:38.920 --> 45:44.600] Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. [45:44.600 --> 45:45.600] Do I pay extra? [45:45.600 --> 45:46.600] No. [45:46.600 --> 45:48.200] Do you have to do anything different when I order? [45:48.200 --> 45:49.200] No. [45:49.200 --> 45:50.200] Can I use my Amazon Prime? [45:50.200 --> 45:51.200] No. [45:51.200 --> 45:52.200] I mean, yes. [45:52.200 --> 45:53.200] Wow. [45:53.200 --> 45:57.080] Giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect. [45:57.080 --> 45:58.080] Thank you so much. [45:58.080 --> 45:59.800] We are welcome. [45:59.800 --> 46:00.800] Happy holidays, logos. [46:00.800 --> 46:09.800] I'm searching a thousand dreams They haunt me by a million screens [46:09.800 --> 46:17.800] I can hear them marching feet They're moving into the street [46:17.800 --> 46:25.800] I didn't read the news today They say the danger has gone away [46:25.800 --> 46:33.800] But I can see the fire still lights Burning into the night [46:33.800 --> 46:40.800] There's too many ways Too many people making too many problems [46:40.800 --> 46:43.800] And now I'm bound to love you all right [46:43.800 --> 46:45.800] All right, folks, we are back. [46:45.800 --> 46:50.800] This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984. [46:50.800 --> 46:54.800] All right, real quick, back to Joseph here. [46:54.800 --> 46:57.800] All right, Joseph, listen to this real quick. [46:57.800 --> 47:02.800] This writer is sure that you are asking yourself, wait, even after reading this, I don't fully [47:02.800 --> 47:07.800] understand how is getting and using a license anything at all like an adhesion contract? [47:07.800 --> 47:11.800] So let me try to walk you through the logic one step at a time. [47:11.800 --> 47:16.800] As you read within the information above, an adhesion contract exists if the parties, [47:16.800 --> 47:23.800] which would be you and the state of whatever, are of such disproportionate bargaining power [47:23.800 --> 47:28.800] that the party of weaker bargaining strength, and in parentheses that would be you, could [47:28.800 --> 47:33.800] not have negotiated for variations in the terms of the adhesion contract. [47:33.800 --> 47:41.800] Also be aware that adhesion contracts do not afford consumers, i.e. licensees, a realistic [47:41.800 --> 47:43.800] opportunity to bargain. [47:43.800 --> 47:50.800] The consumers, licensees, are often faced with adhesion contracts on a take-it-or-leave-it [47:50.800 --> 47:57.800] basis, which means that you, as the license recipient, i.e. the consumer, has little to [47:57.800 --> 48:01.800] no ability to negotiate more favorable terms. [48:01.800 --> 48:07.800] This is exactly how every member of the public finds themselves positioned in relation to [48:07.800 --> 48:15.800] obtaining and using a license of pretty much any kind, and a driver's license especially. [48:15.800 --> 48:20.800] Thus, due to the disproportionate bargaining power between an individual and the state [48:20.800 --> 48:27.800] itself, you, as the license recipient, cannot obtain the desired product or service except [48:27.800 --> 48:30.800] by acquiescing in the form contract. [48:30.800 --> 48:34.800] See how that flows into what we were just talking about? [48:34.800 --> 48:36.800] Yes. [48:36.800 --> 48:43.800] I suggested an unconscionable contract, but I recall from my study on unconscionable contract, [48:43.800 --> 48:47.800] I believe each party has to have equal bargaining power. [48:47.800 --> 48:49.800] Well, no, that's an adhesion. [48:49.800 --> 48:54.800] An unconscionable contract is one that is one-sided. [48:54.800 --> 49:00.800] All terms favor one party and one party only with absolutely no benefit of any kind to [49:00.800 --> 49:01.800] the other. [49:01.800 --> 49:06.800] For instance, a contract that says you will place yourself into indentured servitude for [49:06.800 --> 49:11.800] seven years, and you must produce X amount of dollars for the holder of the contract [49:11.800 --> 49:16.800] within that seven years while they are responsible only for feeding and clothing you and not [49:16.800 --> 49:17.800] paying you. [49:17.800 --> 49:22.800] That would be an unconscionable contract. [49:22.800 --> 49:24.800] All right. [49:24.800 --> 49:31.800] But anyhow, well, during that break, I looked up 31 USC 3124, and it is in A what I was [49:31.800 --> 49:32.800] trying to quote a while ago. [49:32.800 --> 49:36.800] I don't know why I said it was in the third paragraph. [49:36.800 --> 49:41.800] Yeah, what you said as far as obligations there, but I need to know how obligations [49:41.800 --> 49:45.800] defined before it will make sense the way you were describing it. [49:45.800 --> 49:48.800] The obligation is defined in 18. [49:48.800 --> 49:50.800] Wait, wait, wait, wait. [49:50.800 --> 49:56.800] You need to check and see if it's defined in 31 before anything else, or if 31 says [49:56.800 --> 50:05.800] that it allows the definition from another place specifically. [50:05.800 --> 50:12.800] You can't take the criminal statutes, which is what Title 18 is, and apply that definition [50:12.800 --> 50:16.800] across the board if there's a local one instead. [50:16.800 --> 50:18.800] Can't do it. [50:18.800 --> 50:21.800] That's true at the federal level as well as the state level. [50:21.800 --> 50:27.800] A local definition is always controlling over a general definition unless there is a local [50:27.800 --> 50:37.800] provision that specifically says in cases of conflict, the general is controlling. [50:37.800 --> 50:38.800] Okay. [50:38.800 --> 50:39.800] So be aware of that. [50:39.800 --> 50:41.800] I'm not knocking your research. [50:41.800 --> 50:46.800] I'm just saying you need to check 31 before you go relying on 18. [50:46.800 --> 50:51.800] Well, like I said, I mostly relied on the Supreme Court ruling Memphis Bank and Trust. [50:51.800 --> 50:52.800] I say that, okay. [50:52.800 --> 50:59.800] Let me rephrase that the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling Memphis Bank and Trust First [50:59.800 --> 51:03.800] Garner is what I was relying on. [51:03.800 --> 51:04.800] Right. [51:04.800 --> 51:09.800] But did they tell you that they're using the definition of obligation from Title 18 in [51:09.800 --> 51:11.800] that opinion? [51:11.800 --> 51:19.800] Well, in that opinion, they were using Title 31, Section 742, which is no longer there. [51:19.800 --> 51:22.800] As the definition or as the statute? [51:22.800 --> 51:23.800] As a statute. [51:23.800 --> 51:24.800] Okay. [51:24.800 --> 51:25.800] Right. [51:25.800 --> 51:27.800] And see, we're talking about two different things. [51:27.800 --> 51:30.800] The statute is there in 3124. [51:30.800 --> 51:33.800] But the definition of obligation is not. [51:33.800 --> 51:36.800] That's going to be buried somewhere else. [51:36.800 --> 51:42.800] So where did the Supreme Court tell you it was getting a definition for obligation in [51:42.800 --> 51:44.800] that opinion? [51:44.800 --> 51:45.800] Okay. [51:45.800 --> 51:49.800] Right, the Tennessee Supreme Court, okay, like it was appealed to the Federal Supreme [51:49.800 --> 51:50.800] Court. [51:50.800 --> 51:57.800] And from what I recall when I read this years ago, one of the justices in the Federal Supreme [51:57.800 --> 52:05.800] Court commented, though the Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in accordance with law, we [52:05.800 --> 52:07.800] cannot have any of that. [52:07.800 --> 52:12.800] I believe from what I recall, that is what one of the Federal Supreme Court justices [52:12.800 --> 52:14.800] stated in the ruling. [52:14.800 --> 52:17.800] Which it really shocked me, but. [52:17.800 --> 52:18.800] Yeah. [52:18.800 --> 52:21.800] Well, they never put anything past the Federal Courts. [52:21.800 --> 52:22.800] Right. [52:22.800 --> 52:26.800] I don't put anything past any court. [52:26.800 --> 52:28.800] That's true, too. [52:28.800 --> 52:29.800] All right. [52:29.800 --> 52:32.800] Well, anything else you want to talk about on this subject here? [52:32.800 --> 52:34.800] That ought to be plenty. [52:34.800 --> 52:35.800] I appreciate it. [52:35.800 --> 52:36.800] Yes, sir. [52:36.800 --> 52:37.800] Thanks for calling in. [52:37.800 --> 52:38.800] All right. [52:38.800 --> 52:40.800] Now we have Eric in California. [52:40.800 --> 52:43.800] Eric, what do you got going on? [52:43.800 --> 52:44.800] Hey, Eddie. [52:44.800 --> 52:45.800] Hey. [52:45.800 --> 52:47.800] Single subject clause question. [52:47.800 --> 52:48.800] Okay. [52:48.800 --> 52:58.800] So I got the 19, I think it's the 59, what they did was they, what did I say here? [52:58.800 --> 53:03.800] They repealed the 1935 California vehicle code and reenacted it. [53:03.800 --> 53:06.800] I think it's 1959. [53:06.800 --> 53:13.800] My question to you is, it says here, they repealed and reenacted the vehicle code [53:13.800 --> 53:20.800] regulating, let's see, relating to the regulation and operation of vehicles. [53:20.800 --> 53:22.800] Is that the single subject clause? [53:22.800 --> 53:25.800] That is. [53:25.800 --> 53:26.800] Okay. [53:26.800 --> 53:27.800] See, here's the thing. [53:27.800 --> 53:28.800] Okay. [53:28.800 --> 53:36.800] If that's exactly how that one reads, then they've got a logic problem when they start [53:36.800 --> 53:45.800] doing it to regulate aircraft, boats, and the roads themselves, because that captures [53:45.800 --> 53:50.800] specifically says it's only regulating vehicles. [53:50.800 --> 53:55.800] So where are they getting multiple subject powers from to put all this other crap in [53:55.800 --> 53:59.800] the same code? [53:59.800 --> 54:01.800] I don't know. [54:01.800 --> 54:05.800] Exactly. [54:05.800 --> 54:10.800] So unless they're actually defining everything as a vehicle, including the road, I think [54:10.800 --> 54:12.800] there's a problem here. [54:12.800 --> 54:18.800] We no longer are operating within the single subject matter clause. [54:18.800 --> 54:20.800] Okay. [54:20.800 --> 54:27.800] But as far as it's concerned to automobiles versus vehicles, if I'm in court, how do I [54:27.800 --> 54:30.800] make the connection that... [54:30.800 --> 54:31.800] Okay. [54:31.800 --> 54:36.800] What is the definition of vehicle in California statute? [54:36.800 --> 54:40.800] Let me pull it up. [54:40.800 --> 54:45.800] See here. [54:45.800 --> 54:50.800] Sorry, I don't have it right in front of me. [54:50.800 --> 54:51.800] That's okay. [54:51.800 --> 54:56.800] I will get it. [54:56.800 --> 55:04.800] I was reading it earlier, and it doesn't exactly make a clear transition, which is why I'm [55:04.800 --> 55:05.800] asking. [55:05.800 --> 55:10.800] It might be clearer than you think if you actually look at the way they've worded it. [55:10.800 --> 55:11.800] But let's see. [55:11.800 --> 55:15.800] If you can find it real quick, we'll listen and see what it is. [55:15.800 --> 55:16.800] Okay. [55:16.800 --> 55:30.800] Yeah, I'm almost there. [55:30.800 --> 55:31.800] All right. [55:31.800 --> 55:32.800] Here we go. [55:32.800 --> 55:40.800] It's CDC 670, a vehicle or device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, [55:40.800 --> 55:47.800] or drawn upon a highway, accepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively [55:47.800 --> 55:50.800] upon stationary rails or tracks. [55:50.800 --> 55:51.800] Okay. [55:51.800 --> 55:56.800] May is a term that is interchangeable with can. [55:56.800 --> 55:58.800] Okay. [55:58.800 --> 56:05.800] I suggest that you look up the definition of can, just like I did here in Texas. [56:05.800 --> 56:06.800] Okay. [56:06.800 --> 56:14.800] One of my arguments here is expressly about the term vehicle and the way I was describing [56:14.800 --> 56:20.800] it a minute ago, because here a vehicle is defined as a device that is self-propelled [56:20.800 --> 56:26.800] that can be used to transport persons or property upon a highway. [56:26.800 --> 56:31.800] Can does not mean with some possibility. [56:31.800 --> 56:36.800] Can means is allowed or permitted to do so. [56:36.800 --> 56:42.800] Well, the only way that a device can be allowed or permitted is if it's been the object of [56:42.800 --> 56:49.800] a first sale, it is registered, it is licensed, it is insured, it is inspected, and a licensed [56:49.800 --> 56:52.800] operator or driver is behind the wheel. [56:52.800 --> 56:57.800] That's the only way it can be used for those things. [56:57.800 --> 56:58.800] Okay. [56:58.800 --> 57:05.800] If it is not any of those things, licensed, registered, insured, inspected, licensed driver, [57:05.800 --> 57:11.800] anything, it does not meet the statutory definition of a vehicle. [57:11.800 --> 57:18.800] Thus, it cannot possibly be in violation of any statute regulating vehicles. [57:18.800 --> 57:21.800] Can it? [57:21.800 --> 57:22.800] No. [57:22.800 --> 57:23.800] There you go. [57:23.800 --> 57:30.800] Law, does it describe the first sale and all the requirements for an automobile to become [57:30.800 --> 57:31.800] a vehicle? [57:31.800 --> 57:33.800] Well, you can just look up first sale. [57:33.800 --> 57:38.800] When you go to the Texas website that's got the statutes on it, it's got a search function [57:38.800 --> 57:39.800] at the top. [57:39.800 --> 57:40.800] Click on that. [57:40.800 --> 57:45.800] In the drop-down, select transportation code, and in the field, in double quotes, put first [57:45.800 --> 57:46.800] sale. [57:46.800 --> 57:53.800] And it will take you right to where every appearance of first sale is in the transportation [57:53.800 --> 57:54.800] code. [57:54.800 --> 57:55.800] Okay. [57:55.800 --> 58:00.800] And then what's the best way to search for the definition of can in California? [58:00.800 --> 58:05.800] It will not be defined in California because it's not defined anywhere else, so you're [58:05.800 --> 58:08.800] going to use the common and ordinary dictionary meaning. [58:08.800 --> 58:10.800] That's exactly what I use. [58:10.800 --> 58:18.800] And how do I make that link in court that that's the actual definition? [58:18.800 --> 58:20.800] Because you're going to cite the definition you look up. [58:20.800 --> 58:29.800] Look it up on either Merriam-Webster's dictionary.com or look it up on Oxford and make sure you [58:29.800 --> 58:30.800] cite. [58:30.800 --> 58:36.800] The beautiful thing about Merriam-Webster's is it's got a citation link at the bottom [58:36.800 --> 58:37.800] of the definition. [58:37.800 --> 58:43.800] When you scroll all the way down, you can select what kind of citation you want to use [58:43.800 --> 58:44.800] and then click it. [58:44.800 --> 58:49.800] It will copy it to memory, and you can paste it into a document and use it that way. [58:49.800 --> 58:55.800] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated [58:55.800 --> 58:57.800] because they struggle to understand it. [58:57.800 --> 59:03.800] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise [59:03.800 --> 59:06.800] the profound meaning of the Scripture. [59:06.800 --> 59:08.800] Enter the recovery version. [59:08.800 --> 59:14.800] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more [59:14.800 --> 59:17.800] than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [59:17.800 --> 59:22.800] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance [59:22.800 --> 59:27.800] into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before. [59:27.800 --> 59:32.800] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [59:32.800 --> 59:42.800] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 [59:42.800 --> 59:46.800] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [59:46.800 --> 59:49.800] That's freestudybible.com. [59:49.800 --> 59:59.800] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [59:59.800 --> 01:00:03.800] The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. [01:00:03.800 --> 01:00:07.800] They guarantee you the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [01:00:07.800 --> 01:00:08.800] Our liberty depends on it. [01:00:08.800 --> 01:00:12.800] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember [01:00:12.800 --> 01:00:15.800] one of your constitutional rights. [01:00:15.800 --> 01:00:17.800] Privacy is under attack. [01:00:17.800 --> 01:00:20.800] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:00:20.800 --> 01:00:25.800] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:00:25.800 --> 01:00:30.800] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [01:00:30.800 --> 01:00:33.800] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [01:00:33.800 --> 01:00:36.800] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, [01:00:36.800 --> 01:00:40.800] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [01:00:40.800 --> 01:00:44.800] Start over with Startpage. [01:00:44.800 --> 01:00:48.800] When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms [01:00:48.800 --> 01:00:51.800] around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug. [01:00:51.800 --> 01:00:55.800] It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, [01:00:55.800 --> 01:00:59.800] arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight. [01:00:59.800 --> 01:01:00.800] Get it? [01:01:00.800 --> 01:01:03.800] Two arms, bear hug, bear arms? [01:01:03.800 --> 01:01:06.800] The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well [01:01:06.800 --> 01:01:07.800] when he said, [01:01:07.800 --> 01:01:12.800] The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, [01:01:12.800 --> 01:01:16.800] one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, [01:01:16.800 --> 01:01:20.800] but which historically has proved to always be possible. [01:01:20.800 --> 01:01:21.800] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. [01:01:21.800 --> 01:01:32.800] More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:01:32.800 --> 01:01:35.800] You may think our brains deteriorate with age, [01:01:35.800 --> 01:01:40.800] but new research shows that as brains get older, they actually work more efficiently. [01:01:40.800 --> 01:01:46.800] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with new research on how aging makes the mind sharper after this. [01:01:46.800 --> 01:01:48.800] Privacy is under attack. [01:01:48.800 --> 01:01:51.800] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:01:51.800 --> 01:01:56.800] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:01:56.800 --> 01:01:58.800] So protect your rights. [01:01:58.800 --> 01:02:02.800] Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:02:02.800 --> 01:02:04.800] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [01:02:04.800 --> 01:02:07.800] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, [01:02:07.800 --> 01:02:11.800] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. [01:02:11.800 --> 01:02:15.800] Start over with StartPage. [01:02:15.800 --> 01:02:20.800] It's a widely held notion that the older people get, the more doddering they become. [01:02:20.800 --> 01:02:25.800] But new research shows that even as our brains age, they can actually become more efficient. [01:02:25.800 --> 01:02:32.800] Scientists asked two groups of volunteers, one age 18 to 35 and the other 55 to 75, [01:02:32.800 --> 01:02:35.800] to associate different words with given topics. [01:02:35.800 --> 01:02:38.800] At one point, they told everyone they'd made a mistake. [01:02:38.800 --> 01:02:42.800] When that happened, the younger group's brains lit up and lost focus, [01:02:42.800 --> 01:02:47.800] but the older group's brains didn't even flinch, and they stayed focused on solving the next task. [01:02:47.800 --> 01:02:50.800] The moral? There's something to be said for experience. [01:02:50.800 --> 01:02:56.800] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:03:01.800 --> 01:03:04.800] Make our own whiskey and our own smoke too. [01:03:04.800 --> 01:03:12.800] Ain't too many things these old boys can't do. [01:03:12.800 --> 01:03:19.800] We grow good old tomatoes and homemade wine and country boy can survive. [01:03:19.800 --> 01:03:27.800] Country folks can survive. [01:03:27.800 --> 01:03:30.800] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:35.800] We've got an hour left in the show, calling number 512-646-1984. [01:03:35.800 --> 01:03:38.800] We are still talking to Eric in California. [01:03:38.800 --> 01:03:39.800] Alright, Eric, real quick. [01:03:39.800 --> 01:03:49.800] Here in Texas, the statute that defines vehicle for the purposes of enforcing the code is section 541.201 sub item 23, okay? [01:03:49.800 --> 01:03:52.800] And the definition is very similar to the one in California. [01:03:52.800 --> 01:04:01.800] Vehicle means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. [01:04:01.800 --> 01:04:06.800] When you look up the definition of can on Merriam-Webster's, [01:04:06.800 --> 01:04:13.800] you will see it's broken into five different categories depending upon whether it's used as an adverb, et cetera, et cetera. [01:04:13.800 --> 01:04:18.800] Well, the very first section is the one that's relevant to the discussion of the statute, okay? [01:04:18.800 --> 01:04:29.800] In that discussion, it shows you that can specifically says admissible or possible according to law, okay? [01:04:29.800 --> 01:04:32.800] That's one of the definitions there. [01:04:32.800 --> 01:04:39.800] And then at the very last one of that section, it says is often interchangeable with the word may, [01:04:39.800 --> 01:04:46.800] which may is a term that should be defined generally for statewide use. [01:04:46.800 --> 01:05:01.800] For instance, here in Texas, it's in chapter 311.005, I believe, is where the definition for may exists. [01:05:01.800 --> 01:05:04.800] And if it's not there, it's a little further down. [01:05:04.800 --> 01:05:07.800] But in any case, it's in there in the Texas government code. [01:05:07.800 --> 01:05:12.800] It specifically says what may means and how it's used in statute. [01:05:12.800 --> 01:05:21.800] And Merriam-Webster's tells us that may and can are interchangeable, all right? [01:05:21.800 --> 01:05:28.800] So all you got to do is find whatever statute in California contains the general definitions [01:05:28.800 --> 01:05:30.800] that are used in all the codes statewide. [01:05:30.800 --> 01:05:39.800] And there should be a chapter for that because the statutory schemes across the state are pretty uniform. [01:05:39.800 --> 01:05:44.800] Do you need a certified copy of the single subject clause? [01:05:44.800 --> 01:05:45.800] Yes, you do. [01:05:45.800 --> 01:05:46.800] Caption title? [01:05:46.800 --> 01:05:51.800] The single subject clause, you need a certified copy of the actual bill or not the whole bill, [01:05:51.800 --> 01:05:55.800] but whatever pages of the bill you're going to use in court. [01:05:55.800 --> 01:06:02.800] And when you're referencing a statute or an ordinance or anything else, including the Constitution, [01:06:02.800 --> 01:06:06.800] you do that by judicial notice. [01:06:06.800 --> 01:06:07.800] Okay. [01:06:07.800 --> 01:06:11.800] And if you file any of that stuff into the court as judicial notice, [01:06:11.800 --> 01:06:16.800] they cannot prevent you from bringing it up. [01:06:16.800 --> 01:06:18.800] Okay. [01:06:18.800 --> 01:06:21.800] And if you also check your state rules of evidence, [01:06:21.800 --> 01:06:26.800] you will find that it specifically says that the Constitution, the statutes, ordinances, [01:06:26.800 --> 01:06:33.800] and so on in the state can be used as evidence in court. [01:06:33.800 --> 01:06:37.800] Okay. [01:06:37.800 --> 01:06:38.800] All right. [01:06:38.800 --> 01:06:39.800] That's it, I guess, for tonight then. [01:06:39.800 --> 01:06:40.800] Okay. [01:06:40.800 --> 01:06:41.800] Well, thanks for calling in. [01:06:41.800 --> 01:06:42.800] All right. [01:06:42.800 --> 01:06:43.800] Thank you. [01:06:43.800 --> 01:06:44.800] Yes, sir. [01:06:44.800 --> 01:06:45.800] All right. [01:06:45.800 --> 01:06:47.800] Now we have Charles in Georgia. [01:06:47.800 --> 01:06:49.800] Charles, what can we do for you? [01:06:49.800 --> 01:06:51.800] How are you doing this evening? [01:06:51.800 --> 01:06:53.800] I'm doing great. [01:06:53.800 --> 01:06:54.800] Good, good. [01:06:54.800 --> 01:06:59.800] Hey, listen, I wanted to bring up two subjects real quick. [01:06:59.800 --> 01:07:03.800] The subject of asset, civil asset forfeiture. [01:07:03.800 --> 01:07:11.800] I wanted to know if you heard about this particular story that happened not too long ago in San Bernardino, California. [01:07:11.800 --> 01:07:17.800] One where the marijuana shops, armored trucks are getting robbed by the sheriff's department? [01:07:17.800 --> 01:07:18.800] Okay. [01:07:18.800 --> 01:07:21.800] Well, yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. [01:07:21.800 --> 01:07:24.800] Yeah, I've heard about it. [01:07:24.800 --> 01:07:25.800] Okay. [01:07:25.800 --> 01:07:26.800] Yeah. [01:07:26.800 --> 01:07:35.800] I've heard the federal court didn't do a damn thing about it when they had every legal obligation requiring them to do something about it and didn't. [01:07:35.800 --> 01:07:36.800] Yeah, they didn't. [01:07:36.800 --> 01:07:42.800] I think the marijuana court either filed some kind of injunction or a... [01:07:42.800 --> 01:07:50.800] Yeah, the actual business that owned the armored trucks and whose money it was. [01:07:50.800 --> 01:07:59.800] Sorry, whose money was in the armored trucks filed for a temporary restraining order against the sheriff's office and the federal court refused to grant it, [01:07:59.800 --> 01:08:11.800] citing that the marijuana companies had not proven that they themselves were in compliance with state law when in fact it was not their obligation to do so. [01:08:11.800 --> 01:08:13.800] Do so, exactly. [01:08:13.800 --> 01:08:18.800] So this once again is the federal courts doing everything backwards, which they're prone to doing. [01:08:18.800 --> 01:08:24.800] When they don't want to make a decision, they intentionally make a stupid one. [01:08:24.800 --> 01:08:38.800] They're trying to force it into the hands of the Supreme Court or the higher level circuit courts for appeal so that they don't get blamed for it one way or the other. [01:08:38.800 --> 01:08:59.800] You know, I mean, could you imagine going into family court and having some domestic violence dispute and the person who's the victim of the domestic violence asking for a restraining order and the judge telling them to prove the harm? [01:08:59.800 --> 01:09:01.800] Because I can't imagine that. [01:09:01.800 --> 01:09:02.800] No. [01:09:02.800 --> 01:09:04.800] And no one with any brain cells can. [01:09:04.800 --> 01:09:10.800] That's how they got to be a federal judge. They didn't have those. [01:09:10.800 --> 01:09:24.800] So I definitely wanted to bring that up on the show and let everybody be aware of how corrupt the system has been and will continue to be until we do something about it. [01:09:24.800 --> 01:09:27.800] Well, here's the kicker to that statement. [01:09:27.800 --> 01:09:33.800] Any system that involves human beings is automatically corrupt. [01:09:33.800 --> 01:09:35.800] No is, no ands, no buts. [01:09:35.800 --> 01:09:42.800] If human hands are in it, corruption is there at some point, somewhere, to some degree. [01:09:42.800 --> 01:09:53.800] The only thing it can do is get less or get worse, but it will never ever get gone as long as humans are involved. [01:09:53.800 --> 01:09:57.800] Yes. [01:09:57.800 --> 01:10:04.800] Now, the next thing I wanted to bring up and ask you about is the, I want to get a land patent. [01:10:04.800 --> 01:10:06.800] I want to do the process of a land patent. [01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:10.800] I just wanted to know if you had any expertise in that. [01:10:10.800 --> 01:10:20.800] Well, I don't do patents, but I know who is supposed to do them, and that is the state land office in whatever state you're in. [01:10:20.800 --> 01:10:30.800] The land office is the one that was responsible for issuing proper patent title to the lands in that state that were granted under patent. [01:10:30.800 --> 01:10:31.800] Okay? [01:10:31.800 --> 01:10:35.800] Or transferred under patent would be a better way of stating it. [01:10:35.800 --> 01:10:39.800] And that was their sole responsibility for even existing. [01:10:39.800 --> 01:10:47.800] They were to ensure that there were no lien holders on the property, and if there were not, and it was, there was an existing patent, [01:10:47.800 --> 01:10:58.800] and this was a portion or the entire patent at issue, excuse me, for the transfer, the land office was responsible for transferring that patent [01:10:58.800 --> 01:11:03.800] or portion of that patent over into the name of the new owner. [01:11:03.800 --> 01:11:11.800] Once they verified there were no liens, now they use title companies, which is not at all the same thing, and they do not do the same thing. [01:11:11.800 --> 01:11:13.800] A title is not a patent. [01:11:13.800 --> 01:11:16.800] Never was, never will be. [01:11:16.800 --> 01:11:27.800] The title is the difference, and a patent are the differences between a legal owner and an equity owner respectively. [01:11:27.800 --> 01:11:30.800] A title makes you a legal owner. [01:11:30.800 --> 01:11:37.800] You have all rights to the property of possession and use, but not destruction and transfer. [01:11:37.800 --> 01:11:38.800] Ha ha ha. [01:11:38.800 --> 01:11:42.800] You get that? [01:11:42.800 --> 01:11:43.800] Yeah. [01:11:43.800 --> 01:11:44.800] Okay? [01:11:44.800 --> 01:11:48.800] A patent, you have every right because you are the equity owner. [01:11:48.800 --> 01:11:58.800] There's nothing you can't do with that property, including burning it to the damn ground or digging it up and shooting it into outer space. [01:11:58.800 --> 01:11:59.800] Ha ha ha. [01:11:59.800 --> 01:12:00.800] Yeah. [01:12:00.800 --> 01:12:03.800] And those are the rights I'm interested in. [01:12:03.800 --> 01:12:04.800] That's what... [01:12:04.800 --> 01:12:07.800] Yeah, but a patent is the only way you're going to get them. [01:12:07.800 --> 01:12:17.800] And the patent, you have to do whatever the procedure was, according to state law or state constitution, dealing with what here is called the land office. [01:12:17.800 --> 01:12:29.800] So whatever it is in California that would be similar, I'm pretty sure it should be the same or similar name because these things have been existed ever since land was being able to be transferred. [01:12:29.800 --> 01:12:37.800] So they would go, people would go into any town and ask for the land office, and that's where they would get sent. [01:12:37.800 --> 01:12:47.800] Land offices are where you staked your claims to property for mining gold, for settling property that was in territories and unclaimed by anyone else, et cetera, et cetera. [01:12:47.800 --> 01:12:53.800] It was always the land office. [01:12:53.800 --> 01:13:00.800] Okay. Now they send, you know, over in Georgia, they send you to the county and the county handles it. [01:13:00.800 --> 01:13:02.800] They don't have a land office there. [01:13:02.800 --> 01:13:03.800] It's just... [01:13:03.800 --> 01:13:04.800] No, no, no. [01:13:04.800 --> 01:13:08.800] The county only handles titles to property. [01:13:08.800 --> 01:13:11.800] Titles slash deeds. [01:13:11.800 --> 01:13:21.800] They do not handle patents, not unless something in state law or state constitution says they do. [01:13:21.800 --> 01:13:24.800] And if you don't believe that, ask them. [01:13:24.800 --> 01:13:29.800] Are you the people that issue patents on land? [01:13:29.800 --> 01:13:30.800] Well, we don't do patents. [01:13:30.800 --> 01:13:32.800] We do deeds and titles. [01:13:32.800 --> 01:13:37.800] That's what I figured. [01:13:37.800 --> 01:13:42.800] Yeah, and I think this needs to be discussed a lot more. [01:13:42.800 --> 01:13:51.800] You know, I'm not just standing on your show because I know what you do, but this needs to be discussed a lot more amongst the community. [01:13:51.800 --> 01:13:58.800] Oh, absolutely, because most people, when they get charged a property tax, are being defrauded by whoever is levying the tax. [01:13:58.800 --> 01:14:04.800] See, here in Texas, the argument is pretty simple because the land patent is very clear. [01:14:04.800 --> 01:14:10.800] The state waived all rights and claims to that property once it was transferred under that patent forever. [01:14:10.800 --> 01:14:16.800] And that patent makes no reservation to the state for the right of taxation. [01:14:16.800 --> 01:14:19.800] Therefore, they cannot tax that property. [01:14:19.800 --> 01:14:21.800] They cannot take it through eminent domain. [01:14:21.800 --> 01:14:31.800] They can't touch it because as far as the patent is concerned and the government of Texas is concerned, that land is not a legitimate part of Texas. [01:14:31.800 --> 01:14:33.800] It is something completely different. [01:14:33.800 --> 01:14:42.800] On a real map of patented lands, Texas would be a map like Swiss cheese. [01:14:42.800 --> 01:14:54.800] Hey, you would have this big outside territorial border and all of these holes on every piece of land within the state that was not publicly owned. [01:14:54.800 --> 01:15:03.800] There'd be all these big holes where private property under patent can't be claimed by the state. [01:15:03.800 --> 01:15:12.800] And so here the argument is, it is a breach of contract by the state to allow the property to be taxed, [01:15:12.800 --> 01:15:25.800] and it is tortious in appearance with that contract with the state for any political subdivision, the county or the city, to attempt to tax it. [01:15:25.800 --> 01:15:30.800] Have you known anybody to ever challenge that and win? [01:15:30.800 --> 01:15:35.800] Not that way. No one has ever challenged it that way. That's my point. [01:15:35.800 --> 01:15:39.800] Everybody's trying to do it as a constitutional issue. [01:15:39.800 --> 01:15:41.800] It's not a constitutional issue. [01:15:41.800 --> 01:15:45.800] It's a flat-out criminal and civil issue. [01:15:45.800 --> 01:15:50.800] It's criminal because it involves gross fraud. [01:15:50.800 --> 01:15:59.800] It's civil because it's a breach of contract and tortious in appearance with a contract, which is what the patent actually is. [01:15:59.800 --> 01:16:03.800] All right. [01:16:03.800 --> 01:16:07.800] This is very important. [01:16:07.800 --> 01:16:09.800] It's extremely important. [01:16:09.800 --> 01:16:18.800] If you don't take the right argument to court, you're going to get your butt kicked. [01:16:18.800 --> 01:16:29.800] Well, man, those are the only two things I wanted to bring up, man, and hopefully that will raise some antennas on the guys and the girls who's listening tonight. [01:16:29.800 --> 01:16:31.800] I hope so. [01:16:31.800 --> 01:16:34.800] All right, buddy. Hey, listen, you have a good night, man, and it's good to hear your voice again. [01:16:34.800 --> 01:16:38.800] You too, Charles. Thanks for calling in, and I appreciate it. [01:16:38.800 --> 01:16:44.800] All right, folks, we've got another break coming up here, and one more caller on the board I need somebody else to talk to. [01:16:44.800 --> 01:16:48.800] 512-646-1984 is the call-in number. [01:16:48.800 --> 01:17:11.800] Y'all hang on, and we will be right back. [01:17:18.800 --> 01:17:24.800] To god, a workman that need is not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [01:17:24.800 --> 01:17:32.800] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse-by-verse and discuss the true gospel message. [01:17:32.800 --> 01:17:39.800] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development. [01:17:39.800 --> 01:17:44.800] We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [01:17:44.800 --> 01:17:50.280] our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus. [01:17:50.280 --> 01:17:56.920] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on localsradionetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and [01:17:56.920 --> 01:18:00.720] motivate your studies of the Scriptures. [01:18:00.720 --> 01:18:05.280] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? [01:18:05.280 --> 01:18:09.520] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [01:18:09.520 --> 01:18:13.820] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you [01:18:13.820 --> 01:18:15.120] can win two. [01:18:15.120 --> 01:18:19.640] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal [01:18:19.640 --> 01:18:25.400] civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer [01:18:25.400 --> 01:18:30.040] letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your [01:18:30.040 --> 01:18:34.240] financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:18:34.240 --> 01:18:39.040] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:18:39.040 --> 01:18:41.520] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:18:41.520 --> 01:18:47.040] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [01:18:47.040 --> 01:18:50.040] or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [01:18:50.040 --> 01:18:59.040] 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 [01:18:59.040 --> 01:19:02.040] collectors now. [01:19:02.040 --> 01:19:28.600] This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:19:28.600 --> 01:19:29.600] We are back. [01:19:29.600 --> 01:19:35.960] This is rule of law radio calling number 512-646-1984. [01:19:35.960 --> 01:19:38.360] Next up on the board, we've got Larry in Arizona. [01:19:38.360 --> 01:19:41.360] Larry, what do you got for us tonight? [01:19:41.360 --> 01:19:45.600] Larry, are you there? [01:19:45.600 --> 01:19:50.000] Yeah, we have another terrible telephone connection tonight. [01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:51.000] Okay. [01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:52.000] Okay. [01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:56.080] Everybody's been talking, been asking you about land patents recently. [01:19:56.080 --> 01:20:01.800] Okay, the western states do not have land offices. [01:20:01.800 --> 01:20:09.080] They all, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, all use the Bureau of Land Management. [01:20:09.080 --> 01:20:10.800] Right, BLM. [01:20:10.800 --> 01:20:15.760] But those because, that's because most of those were unsettled territories that were [01:20:15.760 --> 01:20:20.320] taken over as we progressed in that direction, and they were all federal at the time the [01:20:20.320 --> 01:20:21.800] land was being allocated. [01:20:21.800 --> 01:20:22.800] Yes. [01:20:22.800 --> 01:20:28.800] Yeah, I mean, they took over the government land office. [01:20:28.800 --> 01:20:32.760] So if people want a patent, they can get the original from the BLM. [01:20:32.760 --> 01:20:33.760] Right. [01:20:33.760 --> 01:20:37.360] The BLM will not issue a new patent. [01:20:37.360 --> 01:20:38.360] They tell you. [01:20:38.360 --> 01:20:39.360] Right. [01:20:39.360 --> 01:20:43.320] They can't once they ceded it to the states, but the problem is, is the state can't interfere [01:20:43.320 --> 01:20:49.840] with the patents that the federal government had in place. [01:20:49.840 --> 01:20:52.060] Because that's still the same problem. [01:20:52.060 --> 01:20:58.280] The federal government couldn't nullify the patents they issued simply by saying all land [01:20:58.280 --> 01:21:03.800] that is within this boundary is now the states and under state control, despite our previous [01:21:03.800 --> 01:21:05.720] agreement to the contrary. [01:21:05.720 --> 01:21:10.360] Now granted, the federal government did it to the Indians all the time. [01:21:10.360 --> 01:21:15.720] But the Indians didn't have access to the courts the way the rest of us do either. [01:21:15.720 --> 01:21:18.720] Just as an FYI. [01:21:18.720 --> 01:21:20.720] Okay. [01:21:20.720 --> 01:21:26.720] Eddie, this phone connection is breaking up so bad, I'm going to get off the phone with [01:21:26.720 --> 01:21:27.720] you this evening. [01:21:27.720 --> 01:21:29.720] I can't hold the conversation with you. [01:21:29.720 --> 01:21:30.720] Okay. [01:21:30.720 --> 01:21:31.720] Well, I'm sorry to hear that. [01:21:31.720 --> 01:21:36.720] If you get a better one, let me know. [01:21:36.720 --> 01:21:37.720] All right. [01:21:37.720 --> 01:21:42.360] Now that said, our next caller up is Clackamas, Oregon. [01:21:42.360 --> 01:21:45.120] So I'm going to assume that's truth raider. [01:21:45.120 --> 01:21:46.120] Am I right? [01:21:46.120 --> 01:21:47.120] Bingo. [01:21:47.120 --> 01:21:48.120] Right. [01:21:48.120 --> 01:21:49.120] Thought so. [01:21:49.120 --> 01:21:54.680] But here's the deal, Eddie, you'd be right every time no matter what you get, because [01:21:54.680 --> 01:21:57.880] I'm the only one doing this in Oregon. [01:21:57.880 --> 01:21:59.840] Well, that's not true. [01:21:59.840 --> 01:22:02.120] I've had other callers from Oregon. [01:22:02.120 --> 01:22:05.200] Have you had any reaction? [01:22:05.200 --> 01:22:07.240] Anyone near me at all? [01:22:07.240 --> 01:22:08.240] Anywhere near me? [01:22:08.240 --> 01:22:09.240] I don't know. [01:22:09.240 --> 01:22:13.160] I don't know where Clackamas is in relation to where the rest of them are calling from. [01:22:13.160 --> 01:22:19.400] All it says is Oregon, 10 miles from downtown. [01:22:19.400 --> 01:22:20.400] So anyway. [01:22:20.400 --> 01:22:21.400] Downtown what? [01:22:21.400 --> 01:22:22.400] Talking about Portland. [01:22:22.400 --> 01:22:23.400] Okay. [01:22:23.400 --> 01:22:38.880] So you were talking about on the class when I brought up a statute 801.035 and you looked [01:22:38.880 --> 01:22:44.400] it up and you said, well, there's a conflict between the two. [01:22:44.400 --> 01:22:50.240] That particular statute, let me get this right, that particular statute 801.035, you said [01:22:50.240 --> 01:22:56.080] was struck down or repealed because it was considered to be lawless? [01:22:56.080 --> 01:22:58.280] I don't know if I said it was struck down or appealed. [01:22:58.280 --> 01:23:03.240] I didn't research the statute beyond what it says on the actual legislative website [01:23:03.240 --> 01:23:05.280] for Oregon. [01:23:05.280 --> 01:23:10.720] But I said that what it's got is two provisions that directly conflict and therefore it could [01:23:10.720 --> 01:23:17.720] be argued in court that there's a reconcilable conflict that requires it to be stricken down. [01:23:17.720 --> 01:23:18.720] Yeah. [01:23:18.720 --> 01:23:30.800] Well, that was the statute I was using, 810.4103 paragraph A. I think that's one I was asking [01:23:30.800 --> 01:23:31.800] about. [01:23:31.800 --> 01:23:39.440] And you said that if you read one, paragraph one, it's in direct conflict with 3A. [01:23:39.440 --> 01:23:40.440] Yeah. [01:23:40.440 --> 01:23:43.800] Yeah, that's what that one was. [01:23:43.800 --> 01:23:47.560] But you said the other one that I was using is a big part of my defense. [01:23:47.560 --> 01:23:53.640] You said, well, that was struck down as being lawless. [01:23:53.640 --> 01:23:57.560] Does it say there on the website that it was struck down? [01:23:57.560 --> 01:24:02.320] No, it's something that you looked up, you referenced it when I asked the question during [01:24:02.320 --> 01:24:03.320] class. [01:24:03.320 --> 01:24:10.280] You looked it up and you said that was struck down or repealed as being a lawless statute. [01:24:10.280 --> 01:24:13.400] Well, it's possible. [01:24:13.400 --> 01:24:14.960] I don't remember what we did in class. [01:24:14.960 --> 01:24:16.600] It should all be in the video. [01:24:16.600 --> 01:24:18.400] Whatever I looked up should be there. [01:24:18.400 --> 01:24:22.840] Yeah, I haven't received the last class from two weeks ago. [01:24:22.840 --> 01:24:24.840] I haven't received it yet. [01:24:24.840 --> 01:24:29.960] But you've got the link for where the download is. [01:24:29.960 --> 01:24:33.840] Everything's going in the same downloads folder for the month. [01:24:33.840 --> 01:24:36.320] Every class goes in the same folder for that month. [01:24:36.320 --> 01:24:42.680] Yeah, but I looked at it, you usually send an email saying this is where you... [01:24:42.680 --> 01:24:48.600] No, I only send that at the first class now so that you've got the link. [01:24:48.600 --> 01:24:53.400] Unless someone tells me they never got that email, I don't send it again that same month. [01:24:53.400 --> 01:25:00.600] Because the same link works for every video because it all goes in the same folder that [01:25:00.600 --> 01:25:07.600] that link brings you to. [01:25:07.600 --> 01:25:11.600] Hello? [01:25:11.600 --> 01:25:22.600] All right, Raider, are you going? [01:25:22.600 --> 01:25:26.560] Well, okay then. [01:25:26.560 --> 01:25:27.560] All right. [01:25:27.560 --> 01:25:29.000] Well, it looks like you dropped off. [01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:30.000] All right. [01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:38.120] In any case, the stuff that's going to be in the new book is going to be much more extensive [01:25:38.120 --> 01:25:40.320] and detailed than it was in the first book. [01:25:40.320 --> 01:25:44.400] I've had more time to write it, I've had more time to research it, I've had more time to [01:25:44.400 --> 01:25:45.960] connect the dots. [01:25:45.960 --> 01:25:48.720] I only had two months to do it in the first one. [01:25:48.720 --> 01:25:51.940] I have taken my time on this one for a reason. [01:25:51.940 --> 01:25:59.200] I want to make this as airtight and detailed as I possibly can so that there is no wiggle [01:25:59.200 --> 01:26:02.440] room by the other side trying to say how it is wrong. [01:26:02.440 --> 01:26:04.160] And it's not wrong. [01:26:04.160 --> 01:26:06.600] I know it's not wrong. [01:26:06.600 --> 01:26:10.560] In principle alone, it's not wrong. [01:26:10.560 --> 01:26:20.820] But the fact is, is that both in principle and law, it is absolutely not wrong. [01:26:20.820 --> 01:26:24.800] And yet I guarantee you the other side is going to do everything possible to try and [01:26:24.800 --> 01:26:26.760] explain why it is wrong. [01:26:26.760 --> 01:26:31.760] But what they're going to try to explain it with won't hold water across the board. [01:26:31.760 --> 01:26:33.660] I guarantee it won't. [01:26:33.660 --> 01:26:37.680] For every argument they've got about why it won't work, I've got three that says it will [01:26:37.680 --> 01:26:41.680] because they're not citing the three that proves them wrong. [01:26:41.680 --> 01:26:45.840] They're only citing the one that appears to support their position. [01:26:45.840 --> 01:26:52.040] That's what they've done in every opinion they've ever pinned on this subject. [01:26:52.040 --> 01:26:57.960] Every single court opinion has cherry picked the statute they want to use to make it seem [01:26:57.960 --> 01:27:00.800] like their opinion is legally correct. [01:27:00.800 --> 01:27:05.480] They have not looked at the whole of the law and all of the other statutes that relate [01:27:05.480 --> 01:27:11.320] to the exact same object within the code and through the other codes and the other rules [01:27:11.320 --> 01:27:15.320] and regulations to try and understand it completely. [01:27:15.320 --> 01:27:20.840] They only want to understand it for the point they wish to make and nothing else. [01:27:20.840 --> 01:27:25.040] That ladies and gentlemen is wrong. [01:27:25.040 --> 01:27:26.960] And their own rules say it's wrong. [01:27:26.960 --> 01:27:31.920] Chapter 311 and 312 say it's wrong. [01:27:31.920 --> 01:27:39.520] Every court opinion on statutory interpretation says it's wrong. [01:27:39.520 --> 01:27:44.380] So I'm not making up the rules as I go like they tend to do. [01:27:44.380 --> 01:27:50.520] I'm using their very same rules to say you can't have it both ways. [01:27:50.520 --> 01:27:55.280] But don't put it past them to try to find a way to do that anyhow. [01:27:55.280 --> 01:27:56.280] Okay. [01:27:56.280 --> 01:27:57.280] All right. [01:27:57.280 --> 01:28:01.040] It looks like we got Larry back up on the board. [01:28:01.040 --> 01:28:03.560] Larry, you think your phone's improved? [01:28:03.560 --> 01:28:08.680] Larry, hey, I switched to a high dollar cell phone. [01:28:08.680 --> 01:28:10.800] So try that one for me. [01:28:10.800 --> 01:28:11.800] Okay. [01:28:11.800 --> 01:28:12.800] Okay. [01:28:12.800 --> 01:28:14.400] Larry, I have a couple of questions. [01:28:14.400 --> 01:28:18.520] I've been talking to you for over a year on this land patent deal. [01:28:18.520 --> 01:28:19.520] Right. [01:28:19.520 --> 01:28:26.080] And in my last court appearance a week ago where I had to do an oral argument, I mean, [01:28:26.080 --> 01:28:32.760] I laid on the judge that the state has never had jurisdiction on the property. [01:28:32.760 --> 01:28:36.280] It was torturous interference. [01:28:36.280 --> 01:28:38.680] It's impairment of a contract, the whole thing. [01:28:38.680 --> 01:28:45.160] He just sat there with a smirk on his face and just blew me off. [01:28:45.160 --> 01:28:47.680] I've challenged jurisdiction in writings. [01:28:47.680 --> 01:28:53.480] I challenged jurisdiction that day and he just ignores it. [01:28:53.480 --> 01:28:59.520] Did you file judicial conduct complaints and a motion to disqualify the judge for failing [01:28:59.520 --> 01:29:02.400] to apply the law to the facts? [01:29:02.400 --> 01:29:03.400] Okay. [01:29:03.400 --> 01:29:07.800] That's exactly what I wanted to ask you about tonight. [01:29:07.800 --> 01:29:11.440] I was going to threaten just to sue him. [01:29:11.440 --> 01:29:12.440] Okay. [01:29:12.440 --> 01:29:14.040] Well, here's the deal. [01:29:14.040 --> 01:29:18.160] Number one, are you taking a copy of the patent to court with you? [01:29:18.160 --> 01:29:19.520] Yes. [01:29:19.520 --> 01:29:24.320] Did you file that patent as a judicial notice in the court? [01:29:24.320 --> 01:29:33.640] You need to file a motion for judicial notice and make sure that you cite that patent in [01:29:33.640 --> 01:29:40.000] its entirety and attach a copy of it to the judicial notice. [01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:42.000] Okay. [01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:45.160] And you file it in the court record. [01:29:45.160 --> 01:29:47.400] Now if he ignores it, it won't matter. [01:29:47.400 --> 01:29:51.640] It's now part of the official record and when you appeal it that he failed to apply the [01:29:51.640 --> 01:29:57.860] law to the facts and have any evidence that contradicted what you said, then he is deciding [01:29:57.860 --> 01:29:59.360] outside of the law. [01:29:59.360 --> 01:30:04.600] It seems like everywhere you turn nowadays, someone wants your name, social security number [01:30:04.600 --> 01:30:08.360] and date of birth, but you should think twice before giving away your personal data. [01:30:08.360 --> 01:30:12.280] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll say more in just a moment. [01:30:12.280 --> 01:30:16.920] Google is watching you, recording everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive [01:30:16.920 --> 01:30:19.560] database of your personal information. [01:30:19.560 --> 01:30:20.560] That's creepy. [01:30:20.560 --> 01:30:22.560] But it doesn't have to be that way. [01:30:22.560 --> 01:30:25.720] Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. [01:30:25.720 --> 01:30:30.240] Startpage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking [01:30:30.240 --> 01:30:32.520] cookies and they're third party certified. [01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:37.000] If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage. [01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:39.880] Great search results and total privacy. [01:30:39.880 --> 01:30:42.560] Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:30:42.560 --> 01:30:47.800] Forms, forms, forms, they're everywhere, but just because a piece of paper asks for information [01:30:47.800 --> 01:30:49.320] doesn't mean you have to give it. [01:30:49.320 --> 01:30:54.840] I lay blank spaces on forms all the time or I write N slash A for not applicable and usually [01:30:54.840 --> 01:30:56.600] nobody notices or cares. [01:30:56.600 --> 01:31:01.160] I never give my social security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory [01:31:01.160 --> 01:31:05.480] for employment or a government requirement and I won't give my phone number to a company [01:31:05.480 --> 01:31:09.620] or an organization unless I actually want them to call me and that's pretty rare. [01:31:09.620 --> 01:31:14.760] To preserve our vanishing privacy, we need to practice saying no to random data requests. [01:31:14.760 --> 01:31:18.280] It's like exercising a muscle, it gets easier the more you do it. [01:31:18.280 --> 01:31:31.520] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31:31.520 --> 01:31:32.520] I lost my son. [01:31:32.520 --> 01:31:33.520] My nephew. [01:31:33.520 --> 01:31:34.520] My uncle. [01:31:34.520 --> 01:31:35.520] My son. [01:31:35.520 --> 01:31:36.520] On September 11th, 2001. [01:31:36.520 --> 01:31:39.800] Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th. [01:31:39.800 --> 01:31:43.920] World Trade Center 7, a 47 story skyscraper was not hit by a plane. [01:31:43.920 --> 01:31:47.760] Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7. [01:31:47.760 --> 01:31:52.600] Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more [01:31:52.600 --> 01:31:53.600] to the story. [01:31:53.600 --> 01:31:54.600] Bring justice to my son. [01:31:54.600 --> 01:31:55.600] My uncle. [01:31:55.600 --> 01:31:56.600] My nephew. [01:31:56.600 --> 01:31:57.600] My son. [01:31:57.600 --> 01:31:58.600] Go to buildingwhat.org. [01:31:58.600 --> 01:31:59.600] Why it fell. [01:31:59.600 --> 01:32:00.600] Why it matters. [01:32:00.600 --> 01:32:01.600] And what you can do. [01:32:01.600 --> 01:32:05.960] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. [01:32:05.960 --> 01:32:09.520] In today's America, we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever [01:32:09.520 --> 01:32:13.680] going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [01:32:13.680 --> 01:32:16.920] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act [01:32:16.920 --> 01:32:20.640] in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [01:32:20.640 --> 01:32:24.800] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve [01:32:24.800 --> 01:32:26.160] our rights through due process. [01:32:26.160 --> 01:32:30.160] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the [01:32:30.160 --> 01:32:33.920] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [01:32:33.920 --> 01:32:36.320] is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law. [01:32:36.320 --> 01:32:40.320] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and [01:32:40.320 --> 01:32:41.640] ordering your copy today. [01:32:41.640 --> 01:32:45.000] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, [01:32:45.000 --> 01:32:49.440] The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research [01:32:49.440 --> 01:32:51.760] documents and other useful resource material. [01:32:51.760 --> 01:32:55.720] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:32:55.720 --> 01:33:16.080] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:55.720 --> 01:34:13.600] Alright folks, we are back, this year's rule of law radio calling number 512-646-1984, [01:34:13.600 --> 01:34:15.480] and we are still talking with Larry in Arizona. [01:34:15.480 --> 01:34:19.200] Alright Larry, let's pick up where we left off there, sorry about that, we got cut in [01:34:19.200 --> 01:34:20.200] the middle of the break. [01:34:20.200 --> 01:34:27.800] That's okay, yeah, so okay, I'll do a motion to recuse and then... [01:34:27.800 --> 01:34:33.560] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, a judge can rule on his own recusal. [01:34:33.560 --> 01:34:42.720] You want to move to disqualify the judge for judicial incompetence and prejudice and failure [01:34:42.720 --> 01:34:47.700] to maintain the appearance of impartiality. [01:34:47.700 --> 01:34:53.520] Okay. [01:34:53.520 --> 01:34:58.680] Because the judge is refusing to apply the law to the facts. [01:34:58.680 --> 01:35:01.200] Okay. [01:35:01.200 --> 01:35:07.640] And the facts are you have evidence proving that the state of Arizona does not have authority [01:35:07.640 --> 01:35:14.560] over the federal property that was bequeathed under the land patent and therefore is acting [01:35:14.560 --> 01:35:22.560] illegally and this court lacks jurisdiction because nothing that they're doing is legal. [01:35:22.560 --> 01:35:32.200] Okay, I will do that. [01:35:32.200 --> 01:35:39.040] And then I'm just curious, I send that motion and how does that proceed? [01:35:39.040 --> 01:35:44.720] Well you have to look up the rules of disqualification for Arizona and find out. [01:35:44.720 --> 01:35:48.680] I know how it works in certain courts here, but I can't tell you how it's going to work [01:35:48.680 --> 01:35:49.680] there. [01:35:49.680 --> 01:35:53.240] Okay, okay, I thought there was just a standard procedure maybe. [01:35:53.240 --> 01:35:57.680] No, every state is going to handle it differently, there'll be a different court, y'all call [01:35:57.680 --> 01:36:02.660] your courts differently than we do at given levels, they're different, so I couldn't tell [01:36:02.660 --> 01:36:05.720] you which court's the proper court either. [01:36:05.720 --> 01:36:10.440] But it has to be one that's at least equal, if not higher than the one this judge is sitting [01:36:10.440 --> 01:36:11.440] in. [01:36:11.440 --> 01:36:14.440] Yes, okay. [01:36:14.440 --> 01:36:21.160] Okay, I guess that answers my questions for this evening, I appreciate your time. [01:36:21.160 --> 01:36:23.000] All right, well thanks for calling in. [01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:26.000] Okay, thank you. [01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:29.720] All right, bye bye. [01:36:29.720 --> 01:36:36.680] Okay, now we have Larry in Arizona, oh I'm sorry, that was Larry, Ted in Washington. [01:36:36.680 --> 01:36:38.680] Ted, what can we do for you? [01:36:38.680 --> 01:36:41.680] Hello, good evening Eddie, can you hear me okay? [01:36:41.680 --> 01:36:42.680] Yes. [01:36:42.680 --> 01:36:45.680] All right, thank you for taking the call. [01:36:45.680 --> 01:36:46.680] Sure, thanks for calling. [01:36:46.680 --> 01:36:49.680] Sure, it's been a while, long time no chat. [01:36:49.680 --> 01:36:54.320] Yeah, I know, like I say, this book's been kicking my butt, especially now that I've [01:36:54.320 --> 01:37:00.960] got a brand new puppy for my boy, my other dog, I've been looking for a mate for him [01:37:00.960 --> 01:37:06.760] for seven years and I finally found one, and she turns 11 weeks old tomorrow. [01:37:06.760 --> 01:37:11.840] Oh, that's exciting, that'll keep you busy along with the book. [01:37:11.840 --> 01:37:16.240] Yep, that's exactly right, nothing like sitting here writing away and then suddenly your toe [01:37:16.240 --> 01:37:19.120] gets chomped on by those little baby needle teeth. [01:37:19.120 --> 01:37:22.120] That's right, suddenly you get the surprise. [01:37:22.120 --> 01:37:29.120] All righty, well thank you sir, I got an easy one I hope, where can I find out for sure [01:37:29.120 --> 01:37:35.800] if in Washington it is required or not to disclose the social security number when getting [01:37:35.800 --> 01:37:39.760] a state ID? [01:37:39.760 --> 01:37:45.200] Well the rules and regulations on that should be in whoever is responsible for issuing [01:37:45.200 --> 01:37:49.000] the ID, but that's the state rules and regulations. [01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:55.280] The state rules have to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, which is federal regulation, [01:37:55.280 --> 01:37:58.440] because the social security number is federal, not state. [01:37:58.440 --> 01:38:05.260] So anything the state does that has to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Privacy [01:38:05.260 --> 01:38:12.720] Act of 1974 says that no state agency can make a social security number a requirement. [01:38:12.720 --> 01:38:16.160] Okay, they have to make it optional. [01:38:16.160 --> 01:38:27.040] If the program they're trying to use it for was not in place prior to 1975. [01:38:27.040 --> 01:38:30.040] That's written right into the Privacy Act. [01:38:30.040 --> 01:38:37.640] I appreciate that, I was hoping you would say something like that. [01:38:37.640 --> 01:38:43.240] Yeah, the state law has to comply with federal law and federal law says that they cannot [01:38:43.240 --> 01:38:50.880] do it unless the program they're using it for was in place and an actual mandatory requirement [01:38:50.880 --> 01:38:53.160] prior to 1975. [01:38:53.160 --> 01:38:56.880] After that, they're not grandfathered in, they can't do it. [01:38:56.880 --> 01:39:01.400] Excellent, thank you. [01:39:01.400 --> 01:39:06.080] That's exactly how I made the state of Texas stop doing it. [01:39:06.080 --> 01:39:10.760] They had to come up with that little exclusion form that you could fill out if you didn't [01:39:10.760 --> 01:39:13.480] have a social security number. [01:39:13.480 --> 01:39:15.480] I understand. [01:39:15.480 --> 01:39:20.480] So for the people that have accidentally surrendered that number. [01:39:20.480 --> 01:39:26.320] You mean accidentally surrendered, you don't accidentally surrender a social security number, [01:39:26.320 --> 01:39:29.320] unless you're talking about to the agency. [01:39:29.320 --> 01:39:36.600] Exactly, so the member was asked for and the person unwittingly gave it up. [01:39:36.600 --> 01:39:39.560] Well, that's not that can't be deemed accidental. [01:39:39.560 --> 01:39:43.760] That's the person that went in without knowing what the agency could literally legally do [01:39:43.760 --> 01:39:46.120] and the agency took advantage. [01:39:46.120 --> 01:39:50.680] And now they're not going to have any recourse because the surrender will be considered voluntary. [01:39:50.680 --> 01:39:51.680] Okay. [01:39:51.680 --> 01:39:59.900] All right, so fine, it's not accidental, but what if we want to help undo that? [01:39:59.900 --> 01:40:03.320] The problem is, I don't know if there is a way to undo that. [01:40:03.320 --> 01:40:08.240] You can go ahead and rescind the social security number at the federal level and then you can [01:40:08.240 --> 01:40:14.840] send a notice to every state agency that has it for a correction of records, which you're [01:40:14.840 --> 01:40:16.440] allowed to do. [01:40:16.440 --> 01:40:21.160] Every state has to give an individual the opportunity to correct any records about them [01:40:21.160 --> 01:40:23.760] that the state's maintaining. [01:40:23.760 --> 01:40:25.760] Okay. [01:40:25.760 --> 01:40:32.160] Okay, so you have to find out what the process for making corrections to those public records [01:40:32.160 --> 01:40:35.360] are and follow that process. [01:40:35.360 --> 01:40:37.360] I understand. [01:40:37.360 --> 01:40:39.360] Okay. [01:40:39.360 --> 01:40:42.760] That's a new pathway to research. [01:40:42.760 --> 01:40:48.400] And that could be something that your county clerk's office might be able to help you with. [01:40:48.400 --> 01:40:51.960] And if not, try your state law library. [01:40:51.960 --> 01:40:55.480] The librarians in the state law library here are excellent. [01:40:55.480 --> 01:40:58.760] They'll even go do all the research for you. [01:40:58.760 --> 01:41:00.760] You just have to tell them what you want. [01:41:00.760 --> 01:41:01.760] Nice. [01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:07.800] Big difference between Washington and Texas. [01:41:07.800 --> 01:41:09.080] That's entirely possible. [01:41:09.080 --> 01:41:11.960] Maybe the wet atmosphere changes the attitude. [01:41:11.960 --> 01:41:12.960] I don't know. [01:41:12.960 --> 01:41:13.960] I love it. [01:41:13.960 --> 01:41:14.960] Good humor. [01:41:14.960 --> 01:41:15.960] All righty, Eddie. [01:41:15.960 --> 01:41:16.960] Well, you've sent me in the right direction. [01:41:16.960 --> 01:41:17.960] It's time for more research. [01:41:17.960 --> 01:41:18.960] Thank you again, sir. [01:41:18.960 --> 01:41:19.960] You're welcome. [01:41:19.960 --> 01:41:20.960] Thanks for calling. [01:41:20.960 --> 01:41:21.960] All righty. [01:41:21.960 --> 01:41:22.960] Good night. [01:41:22.960 --> 01:41:23.960] All right. [01:41:23.960 --> 01:41:24.960] All right. [01:41:24.960 --> 01:41:25.960] Let's see. [01:41:25.960 --> 01:41:26.960] I have E.J. in Cali. [01:41:26.960 --> 01:41:27.960] E.J.? [01:41:27.960 --> 01:41:34.080] E.J.? [01:41:34.080 --> 01:41:37.080] What can I do for you? [01:41:37.080 --> 01:41:38.080] Yes. [01:41:38.080 --> 01:41:39.680] E.J., your connection is not very good. [01:41:39.680 --> 01:41:40.680] Try again. [01:41:40.680 --> 01:41:42.680] Can you hear me okay? [01:41:42.680 --> 01:41:45.680] Now I can, yes. [01:41:45.680 --> 01:41:46.680] Okay. [01:41:46.680 --> 01:41:47.680] Wonderful. [01:41:47.680 --> 01:41:52.880] First question is, I have filed a lawsuit. [01:41:52.880 --> 01:41:57.000] I served the first party. [01:41:57.000 --> 01:41:58.000] I have a second party. [01:41:58.000 --> 01:41:59.000] It's an individual. [01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:04.600] All I know is first name and last name. [01:42:04.600 --> 01:42:05.600] Okay. [01:42:05.600 --> 01:42:06.600] What's the lawsuit? [01:42:06.600 --> 01:42:09.880] Is it a civil lawsuit against a government entity? [01:42:09.880 --> 01:42:10.880] What? [01:42:10.880 --> 01:42:11.880] Yes. [01:42:11.880 --> 01:42:19.360] It's a civil lawsuit on the plaintiff, the hospital, and a security guard, the two, or [01:42:19.360 --> 01:42:21.560] the defendant. [01:42:21.560 --> 01:42:22.560] Hospital was easy. [01:42:22.560 --> 01:42:24.200] They got served last week. [01:42:24.200 --> 01:42:25.200] Okay. [01:42:25.200 --> 01:42:30.520] And the security guard works for the hospital directly or for a security company that's [01:42:30.520 --> 01:42:31.520] contracted to the hospital? [01:42:31.520 --> 01:42:35.520] That's what I don't... Yeah, that's what I don't know. [01:42:35.520 --> 01:42:38.760] Then you need to get in contact with the hospital and find out. [01:42:38.760 --> 01:42:39.760] Okay. [01:42:39.760 --> 01:42:45.560] If the security guard is employed by the hospital, then you can serve him at his place of work. [01:42:45.560 --> 01:42:50.440] If he's employed by a different agency that's contracted to the hospital, then you can serve [01:42:50.440 --> 01:42:55.760] him both at the hospital and at the actual company he works for rather than just his [01:42:55.760 --> 01:42:57.760] home address. [01:42:57.760 --> 01:42:59.120] Wonderful. [01:42:59.120 --> 01:43:00.120] We tried. [01:43:00.120 --> 01:43:03.360] We meaning I hired a process server. [01:43:03.360 --> 01:43:09.880] They went to the corporate office where they're supposed to get served, and they said there's [01:43:09.880 --> 01:43:14.680] no one by that name, so he's no longer under the hospital. [01:43:14.680 --> 01:43:20.560] And they won't give out employee's information if I do call. [01:43:20.560 --> 01:43:22.440] Some kind of stuff. [01:43:22.440 --> 01:43:28.920] Secondly, I did receive the police report, but they redact the name. [01:43:28.920 --> 01:43:33.920] I mean, I redact any pertinent information, like they call it an identifier. [01:43:33.920 --> 01:43:43.960] I don't know any identifiers, but now I'm thinking I need to subpoena the police report [01:43:43.960 --> 01:43:45.680] with all his information. [01:43:45.680 --> 01:43:51.840] Well, you could just list him as a John Doe and attach him to the hospital since that's [01:43:51.840 --> 01:43:55.760] where he was working when he did whatever it is he did you're suing him for, right? [01:43:55.760 --> 01:43:56.960] Hang on just a second. [01:43:56.960 --> 01:44:00.560] Let me take this break, and we'll be right back. [01:44:00.560 --> 01:44:05.160] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area [01:44:05.160 --> 01:44:06.580] of nutrition. [01:44:06.580 --> 01:44:11.320] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that. [01:44:11.320 --> 01:44:17.040] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:17.040 --> 01:44:23.360] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can [01:44:23.360 --> 01:44:25.640] provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:25.640 --> 01:44:30.480] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which [01:44:30.480 --> 01:44:31.480] we reject. [01:44:31.480 --> 01:44:36.840] We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor, along with [01:44:36.840 --> 01:44:39.680] Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:39.680 --> 01:44:46.040] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support [01:44:46.040 --> 01:44:47.040] quality radio. [01:44:47.040 --> 01:44:51.600] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:44:51.600 --> 01:44:57.240] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and [01:44:57.240 --> 01:44:58.240] increase your income. [01:44:58.240 --> 01:44:59.240] Order now. [01:44:59.240 --> 01:45:04.240] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:04.240 --> 01:45:09.560] Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand [01:45:09.560 --> 01:45:14.240] 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:14.240 --> 01:45:18.760] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:18.760 --> 01:45:23.080] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:23.080 --> 01:45:27.920] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:45:27.920 --> 01:45:34.720] Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:34.720 --> 01:45:39.280] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the [01:45:39.280 --> 01:45:43.520] principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:43.520 --> 01:45:49.680] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [01:45:49.680 --> 01:45:52.000] pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:59.880] Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [01:45:59.880 --> 01:46:15.160] All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. [01:46:15.160 --> 01:46:19.000] We are now in the last segment of our Monday night show with your host, Eddie Craig. [01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:25.280] And I have E.J. still on the call to board here and still under discussion with her. [01:46:25.280 --> 01:46:26.280] All right. [01:46:26.280 --> 01:46:31.680] Before we get interrupted by the break, E.J., the security guard can be discovered in one [01:46:31.680 --> 01:46:33.240] of two ways. [01:46:33.240 --> 01:46:38.520] If you filed your lawsuit, you need to file your motions for discovery, including disclosure [01:46:38.520 --> 01:46:45.240] from the hospital of all records relating to contracts with the security agency and [01:46:45.240 --> 01:46:50.420] the names and contact information of all security guards that were operating there within whatever [01:46:50.420 --> 01:46:55.920] time frame it is you need to know about, okay? [01:46:55.920 --> 01:47:04.120] And once you file that as part of your discovery, they can't deny you access to it, provided [01:47:04.120 --> 01:47:06.440] a judge agrees that it's necessary. [01:47:06.440 --> 01:47:10.400] And since you're naming the security guard as a party, it's necessary. [01:47:10.400 --> 01:47:11.400] Okay. [01:47:11.400 --> 01:47:12.400] Got it. [01:47:12.400 --> 01:47:14.000] I got it. [01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:19.720] But you need to first claim that they were acting as an employee of the hospital and [01:47:19.720 --> 01:47:23.000] let the hospital admit that, no, they were not employed by us. [01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:24.960] They were employed by an outside agency. [01:47:24.960 --> 01:47:25.960] Great. [01:47:25.960 --> 01:47:33.320] Then I need all your records relating to that security guard and or that agency, including [01:47:33.320 --> 01:47:37.080] their contact information and the name of the security guard that was on site and working [01:47:37.080 --> 01:47:40.740] that night that's named in this suit or needs to be named in this suit. [01:47:40.740 --> 01:47:46.200] And then you go directly to the employing security company and get his information there [01:47:46.200 --> 01:47:52.680] by doing the same thing, filing a motion for discovery, asking for that information from [01:47:52.680 --> 01:47:57.960] them and them having to comply, including the personal contact information for the security [01:47:57.960 --> 01:48:05.480] guard in question, name, address, telephone number, email, et cetera. [01:48:05.480 --> 01:48:06.480] Okay. [01:48:06.480 --> 01:48:07.480] Wonderful. [01:48:07.480 --> 01:48:18.880] I'll start the motion for discovery this week and to, what do you call it, the serve them [01:48:18.880 --> 01:48:19.880] with that? [01:48:19.880 --> 01:48:20.880] Yes. [01:48:20.880 --> 01:48:22.880] And file it. [01:48:22.880 --> 01:48:27.440] And secondly, I want to give you a success story before this calls over. [01:48:27.440 --> 01:48:28.440] Okay. [01:48:28.440 --> 01:48:29.440] Go ahead. [01:48:29.440 --> 01:48:30.440] I was pulled over. [01:48:30.440 --> 01:48:41.320] I was pulled over in October of last year and at an intersection that I didn't stop. [01:48:41.320 --> 01:48:50.240] But I did a records request and I asked them all the pertinent information who were at [01:48:50.240 --> 01:48:56.280] the scene, their badge number, and guess what, the tickets just went poof. [01:48:56.280 --> 01:49:00.480] The tickets just, I mean, it's not even in their database. [01:49:00.480 --> 01:49:06.600] My friend did a records request, it's called IRM, at the Irvine police here. [01:49:06.600 --> 01:49:07.600] Right. [01:49:07.600 --> 01:49:12.120] And my, the IRM number, I don't know what that stands for, but I haven't done a records [01:49:12.120 --> 01:49:18.200] request from that, what IRM stands for, but my number, the number that they gave me just [01:49:18.200 --> 01:49:19.200] went poof. [01:49:19.200 --> 01:49:22.040] It wasn't even on calendar. [01:49:22.040 --> 01:49:23.760] I signed under duress also. [01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:28.440] They said, ma'am, you have to sign, I said, what are you going to do? [01:49:28.440 --> 01:49:32.200] Another thing was I videotaped them. [01:49:32.200 --> 01:49:33.200] Yeah. [01:49:33.200 --> 01:49:37.360] Actually, I'm willing to bet you California statutes do not require a signature except [01:49:37.360 --> 01:49:40.000] on specific infractions. [01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:41.000] Not all of them. [01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:43.040] Texas is exactly the same way. [01:49:43.040 --> 01:49:47.560] They try to threaten you with getting a signature, even though the law does not require a signature [01:49:47.560 --> 01:49:49.640] for a particular offense. [01:49:49.640 --> 01:49:52.160] Oh, really? [01:49:52.160 --> 01:49:55.080] I do need to start taking your class every month. [01:49:55.080 --> 01:49:57.120] I'm not really a paypal gal. [01:49:57.120 --> 01:50:02.640] So is there any way I can just send you via regular mail? [01:50:02.640 --> 01:50:03.640] Would that be okay? [01:50:03.640 --> 01:50:08.840] Yeah, that would be fine as long as it's either cash or a blank money order with no name on [01:50:08.840 --> 01:50:09.840] it, just an amount. [01:50:09.840 --> 01:50:10.840] Okay. [01:50:10.840 --> 01:50:11.840] I'll just do cash. [01:50:11.840 --> 01:50:14.840] I have success everywhere sending cash. [01:50:14.840 --> 01:50:15.840] Okay. [01:50:15.840 --> 01:50:17.720] So I'll go ahead and do that. [01:50:17.720 --> 01:50:18.720] Just give me your PO box. [01:50:18.720 --> 01:50:19.720] Can I email you? [01:50:19.720 --> 01:50:20.720] I have your email. [01:50:20.720 --> 01:50:27.320] Well, yeah, if you'll send me an email, I will give you the mailing address for everything. [01:50:27.320 --> 01:50:29.360] Okay, sounds good. [01:50:29.360 --> 01:50:32.120] But that's a success story. [01:50:32.120 --> 01:50:33.120] Anyone can do it. [01:50:33.120 --> 01:50:34.120] Yeah. [01:50:34.120 --> 01:50:35.120] Yeah. [01:50:35.120 --> 01:50:38.360] As long as you know your stuff and stick to it, and don't let them intimidate you into [01:50:38.360 --> 01:50:43.160] backing away from it, a lot of the information I put out here can be used in a lot of places [01:50:43.160 --> 01:50:46.080] successfully and has been. [01:50:46.080 --> 01:50:47.080] Yeah. [01:50:47.080 --> 01:50:52.920] I saved myself like, I think, $300 to $500 for that because I wouldn't give them my ID [01:50:52.920 --> 01:50:53.920] either. [01:50:53.920 --> 01:50:54.920] So that's a success. [01:50:54.920 --> 01:50:55.920] Everyone can do it. [01:50:55.920 --> 01:50:56.920] But thank you so much for this information. [01:50:56.920 --> 01:50:57.920] Yes, ma'am. [01:50:57.920 --> 01:50:58.920] Thanks for calling in. [01:50:58.920 --> 01:50:59.920] Thank you. [01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:00.920] All right. [01:51:00.920 --> 01:51:01.920] You have a great night. [01:51:01.920 --> 01:51:02.920] Okay. [01:51:02.920 --> 01:51:03.920] Bye-bye. [01:51:03.920 --> 01:51:04.920] All right. [01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:17.800] Now, all right, we got seven and a half minutes left, and it looks like Raider's back on the [01:51:17.800 --> 01:51:18.800] board. [01:51:18.800 --> 01:51:19.800] Raider, are you alive now? [01:51:19.800 --> 01:51:20.800] Okay. [01:51:20.800 --> 01:51:21.800] I'm alive now. [01:51:21.800 --> 01:51:27.560] I accidentally pressed the button, and it killed me, but I've come back alive. [01:51:27.560 --> 01:51:33.960] So anyway, the question was I was going to ask you before that happened is you were saying [01:51:33.960 --> 01:51:41.360] that there's a contradiction in 810-410, paragraph one, and a contradiction between that in 3A. [01:51:41.360 --> 01:51:47.600] One says an officer cannot arrest or may not arrest a person, but paragraph one says an [01:51:47.600 --> 01:51:56.120] officer is permitted to see for the purpose of issuing a citation. [01:51:56.120 --> 01:51:59.960] How do I properly argue that with the point that I put out there? [01:51:59.960 --> 01:52:00.960] Well, no, wait a minute. [01:52:00.960 --> 01:52:01.960] Wait a minute. [01:52:01.960 --> 01:52:02.960] Wait a minute. [01:52:02.960 --> 01:52:07.360] An arrest and a seizure are not the same thing. [01:52:07.360 --> 01:52:08.360] Okay? [01:52:08.360 --> 01:52:09.360] Okay. [01:52:09.360 --> 01:52:17.440] So, they're trying to make a semantics distinction using different terminology, because one says [01:52:17.440 --> 01:52:26.440] arrest and two says seizure, or does two say arrest, or I'm sorry, three. [01:52:26.440 --> 01:52:31.360] A police officer may not arrest a person before a traffic violation. [01:52:31.360 --> 01:52:33.800] That's one. [01:52:33.800 --> 01:52:36.080] Now read the one it conflicts with. [01:52:36.080 --> 01:52:46.280] Well, the one is A, as in one, a police officer is permitted and may detain for the purpose [01:52:46.280 --> 01:52:54.120] of issuing a citation in a reasonable amount of time. [01:52:54.120 --> 01:52:55.120] And? [01:52:55.120 --> 01:53:02.640] Give me, give me the statute again, Reiter. [01:53:02.640 --> 01:53:05.840] 810.410. [01:53:05.840 --> 01:53:08.640] Okay. [01:53:08.640 --> 01:53:30.000] The conflict is 3A and one. [01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:36.440] One says a police officer may arrest or issue a citation to a person for a traffic crime [01:53:36.440 --> 01:53:42.800] at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which [01:53:42.800 --> 01:53:45.880] the police officer is authorized to act. [01:53:45.880 --> 01:53:52.440] 3A, a police officer, shall not arrest a person for a traffic violation. [01:53:52.440 --> 01:54:00.760] Now, here's the thing. [01:54:00.760 --> 01:54:06.320] One says traffic crime and 3A says traffic violation. [01:54:06.320 --> 01:54:10.320] You need to look at the case law and see if the case law draws a distinction. [01:54:10.320 --> 01:54:11.320] Okay. [01:54:11.320 --> 01:54:13.480] Put that down. [01:54:13.480 --> 01:54:19.960] In either case, it's a warrantless seizure. [01:54:19.960 --> 01:54:25.040] Correct. [01:54:25.040 --> 01:54:29.280] So probable cause has to be at play here. [01:54:29.280 --> 01:54:35.000] If it's not a crime, then we've got a probable cause issue. [01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:40.720] So if violation does not equate to crime, we've got a problem. [01:54:40.720 --> 01:54:41.720] Right. [01:54:41.720 --> 01:54:47.640] So the distinction between the two, the first one says crime, the other one says traffic [01:54:47.640 --> 01:54:48.640] violation. [01:54:48.640 --> 01:54:49.640] Yes. [01:54:49.640 --> 01:54:50.640] But they are admitted. [01:54:50.640 --> 01:54:53.640] No, the first one says traffic crime. [01:54:53.640 --> 01:54:54.640] Right. [01:54:54.640 --> 01:54:59.440] The first one says traffic crime, the other says traffic violation. [01:54:59.440 --> 01:55:00.440] Right. [01:55:00.440 --> 01:55:07.360] I don't know where that would conflict because they're distinctly saying and using the language. [01:55:07.360 --> 01:55:11.560] It would conflict if the court say there is no difference. [01:55:11.560 --> 01:55:12.560] Okay. [01:55:12.560 --> 01:55:22.600] Well, yeah, the court would say that the officer is allowed to do that regardless. [01:55:22.600 --> 01:55:28.800] The crime, full-blown arrest can occur- No, the court can't say that unless they draw [01:55:28.800 --> 01:55:33.640] a distinction between a violation and a crime. [01:55:33.640 --> 01:55:38.920] If they say they're wanting to say, the court cannot ignore what the statute says. [01:55:38.920 --> 01:55:41.240] There's a direct conflict then. [01:55:41.240 --> 01:55:42.240] Right. [01:55:42.240 --> 01:55:46.320] I've never heard them say that they're wanting to say. [01:55:46.320 --> 01:55:47.320] Well, really? [01:55:47.320 --> 01:55:48.320] What? [01:55:48.320 --> 01:55:50.920] You get court podcasts now you can sit and listen to? [01:55:50.920 --> 01:55:53.440] No, I've never heard them say one of that. [01:55:53.440 --> 01:55:54.440] Is this civil or criminal? [01:55:54.440 --> 01:55:55.440] And they say it's civil. [01:55:55.440 --> 01:55:58.440] As far as my, you know- That's not civil. [01:55:58.440 --> 01:56:00.520] That's not the court at issue here. [01:56:00.520 --> 01:56:04.400] It would have to be a precedent-setting court like an appellate court. [01:56:04.400 --> 01:56:08.960] You're going to have to do some legal research on the higher court opinions to see whether [01:56:08.960 --> 01:56:13.400] or not any of them have ever ruled there's a distinction between a traffic crime and [01:56:13.400 --> 01:56:14.400] a traffic violation. [01:56:14.400 --> 01:56:15.400] Okay. [01:56:15.400 --> 01:56:16.400] Got it. [01:56:16.400 --> 01:56:17.400] All right. [01:56:17.400 --> 01:56:18.400] That's what I'll do. [01:56:18.400 --> 01:56:26.080] I'll have to appeal to a higher court and ask them, is there a distinction between the [01:56:26.080 --> 01:56:27.080] two? [01:56:27.080 --> 01:56:31.640] Oh, no, you don't appeal and ask. [01:56:31.640 --> 01:56:37.440] You start looking to see if there's already been a ruling. [01:56:37.440 --> 01:56:40.960] If there isn't, then you can ask. [01:56:40.960 --> 01:56:53.480] So where, okay, let me get this right, if I do this right, where do I go to ask? [01:56:53.480 --> 01:56:57.320] After or after you research whether or not there's an opinion? [01:56:57.320 --> 01:56:58.320] Okay. [01:56:58.320 --> 01:57:02.120] I don't have any cases right now. [01:57:02.120 --> 01:57:03.120] Nothing's going on now. [01:57:03.120 --> 01:57:04.120] It's pretty much left me alone. [01:57:04.120 --> 01:57:07.920] I've only been stopped once in about a year and a half. [01:57:07.920 --> 01:57:14.560] Then you do legal research on existing case law to see if this statute has ever been an [01:57:14.560 --> 01:57:16.560] issue of adjudication. [01:57:16.560 --> 01:57:17.560] Okay. [01:57:17.560 --> 01:57:28.280] State law library, university law library, some law library, somebody with access to [01:57:28.280 --> 01:57:29.280] Lexis. [01:57:29.280 --> 01:57:38.000] And Google Scholar, would that be this maybe, maybe not? [01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:44.760] Google Scholar is going to be way more hit and miss than LexisNexis at a state law library. [01:57:44.760 --> 01:57:48.800] You could find it there, but there's no guarantee and it's not going to have as much case law [01:57:48.800 --> 01:57:51.000] available to it as Lexis does. [01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:52.000] All right. [01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:53.000] All right. [01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:54.000] All library it is. [01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:55.000] All right. [01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:56.000] All right. [01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:57.000] Thank you, sir. [01:57:57.000 --> 01:57:58.000] You're welcome. [01:57:58.000 --> 01:57:59.000] Have a good night. [01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:00.000] Good night out here. [01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:01.000] Have a good time. [01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:02.000] Good night. [01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:03.000] God bless. [01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:04.000] All right, folks. [01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:09.120] This has been the Money.Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig. [01:58:09.120 --> 01:58:12.360] I want to thank all the callers and all the listeners that are out there. [01:58:12.360 --> 01:58:18.200] And again, thanks again to the people that have financially supported us continuously [01:58:18.200 --> 01:58:21.620] through all of this, including the COVID crap and everything else. [01:58:21.620 --> 01:58:22.620] Thank you so much. [01:58:22.620 --> 01:58:25.240] We could not be here doing what we do without you. [01:58:25.240 --> 01:58:27.800] I would have starved to death long ago without you. [01:58:27.800 --> 01:58:31.040] So thank you all very, very much. [01:58:31.040 --> 01:58:35.360] That said, y'all have a great night and a great week. [01:58:35.360 --> 01:58:36.360] Good night and God bless. [01:58:36.360 --> 01:58:56.560] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament [01:58:56.560 --> 01:58:57.760] Recovery Version. [01:58:57.760 --> 01:59:02.760] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9000 footnotes that explain what the Bible [01:59:02.760 --> 01:59:08.400] says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:59:08.400 --> 01:59:11.680] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. [01:59:11.680 --> 01:59:20.680] Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:20.680 --> 01:59:26.360] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus [01:59:26.360 --> 01:59:30.220] charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:30.220 --> 01:59:32.760] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:32.760 --> 01:59:41.160] To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:59:41.160 --> 01:59:51.360] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:51.360 --> 01:59:52.360] Looking for some truth? [01:59:52.360 --> 01:59:54.360] You found it. [01:59:54.360 --> 02:00:00.360] Go to BiblesRadioNetwork.com.