[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 --> 00:26.880]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.880 --> 00:31.960]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:31.960 --> 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 --> 00:44.680]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:44.680 --> 00:47.760]  Spar, it's what fighters do.
[00:47.760 --> 00:50.720]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:50.720 --> 00:54.440]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.440 --> 01:01.600]  Spar with an extra P, S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly,
[01:01.600 --> 01:02.960]  and R for religion.
[01:02.960 --> 01:07.040]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press,
[01:07.040 --> 01:10.880]  assembly, and religion, but petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.880 --> 01:14.600]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.600 --> 01:18.120]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out
[01:18.120 --> 01:20.760]  the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:20.760 --> 01:25.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:25.440 --> 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 --> 01:41.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how conditions like nausea
[01:41.440 --> 01:46.560]  can 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 --> 02:28.400]  flow of energy in the human body.
[02:28.400 --> 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 --> 02:42.640]  You'll find it on the inside of your wrist, about two fingers' width down from your palm.
[02:42.640 --> 02:47.520]  Reducing pressure on the P6 point works on the same principle as those pricey anti-nausea
[02:47.520 --> 02:51.080]  wristbands, but this relief is free and always on hand.
[02:51.080 --> 03:13.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:13.520 --> 03:22.440]  This is what happens when you call them the cops, you get your rights violated or you
[03:22.440 --> 03:23.440]  all get shot.
[03:23.440 --> 03:27.640]  I'm seeing people being victimized by criminal cops, psychopathic predators terrorize the
[03:27.640 --> 03:28.640]  neighborhood glocks.
[03:28.640 --> 03:32.480]  Equipped with pepper spray, make-up, tasers, and glocks, they like serial killers acting
[03:32.480 --> 03:33.480]  out subliminal thoughts.
[03:33.480 --> 03:36.480]  Forget what you taught, these cops have got a license to kill.
[03:36.480 --> 03:39.920]  Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will, code of silence means that the
[03:39.920 --> 03:43.840]  police will never let out a squeal, and if they go to court, they know the judge will
[03:43.840 --> 03:44.840]  make them a deal.
[03:44.840 --> 03:47.840]  For real, that's why they stoppin' me, lockin' me up and stoppin' me, confiscatin' my property,
[03:47.840 --> 03:52.840]  doggin' in my demography, makin' the poor commodities, fostering off of polity, enforcing
[03:52.840 --> 03:54.840]  policy, supportin' prison economy.
[03:54.840 --> 03:56.840]  Yeah, no one makes money when the violence stops.
[03:56.840 --> 03:59.840]  Hatin' brutality's the way to make a criminal croc.
[03:59.840 --> 04:02.840]  Blood in the gutters, how to rich butter they bread at the time.
[04:02.840 --> 04:03.840]  All right, folks, good evening.
[04:03.840 --> 04:07.200]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[04:07.200 --> 04:10.480]  It is February 21st, 2022.
[04:10.480 --> 04:17.480]  We are live tonight, and starting the show tonight, I want to do a reading from one of
[04:17.480 --> 04:22.600]  the chapters in the new book dealing with the definition of person.
[04:22.600 --> 04:28.200]  This will take me a segment or two or possibly even three to get through because it's six
[04:28.200 --> 04:34.120]  pages of information, but it's very, very worthwhile information when it comes to understanding
[04:34.120 --> 04:36.600]  what the statutes say and mean.
[04:36.600 --> 04:45.360]  Now, in this particular case, you'll find this in multiple chapters, we're doing comparisons
[04:45.360 --> 04:51.640]  of how the statutes define the term person throughout.
[04:51.640 --> 04:58.000]  And because of how it defines the term person, it changes the way the statute has to be read
[04:58.000 --> 05:04.740]  and applied, something the courts and the prosecutors and the cops are not doing.
[05:04.740 --> 05:09.640]  They're not putting the reading of the statute in its proper context, and they are not following
[05:09.640 --> 05:13.280]  through in accordance with legislative intent.
[05:13.280 --> 05:19.040]  But this is but one chapter that lays the groundwork for proving that.
[05:19.040 --> 05:23.480]  And this is one of the very important chapters in proving that.
[05:23.480 --> 05:26.720]  So let me get on this and get it read to you.
[05:26.720 --> 05:31.120]  What does person have to do with it is the main title of the chapter.
[05:31.120 --> 05:34.960]  When you are reading regulatory statutes, you will find another particular term that
[05:34.960 --> 05:37.680]  is used voluminously throughout.
[05:37.680 --> 05:41.640]  This very important general definition that you need to know and fully understand is the
[05:41.640 --> 05:43.580]  term person.
[05:43.580 --> 05:49.480]  This term is generally defined in the regulatory statutes of Texas in sections 311.005 sub
[05:49.480 --> 05:56.480]  item two of the Code Construction Act and 312.011 sub item 10, construction of laws
[05:56.480 --> 05:58.320]  in the Texas Government Code.
[05:58.320 --> 06:07.320]  To wit, section 311.005 sub item two reads, person includes corporation, organization,
[06:07.320 --> 06:14.840]  government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, a state, trust, partnership,
[06:14.840 --> 06:20.240]  association, and any other legal entity.
[06:20.240 --> 06:29.080]  And 312.011 sub item 10, person includes a corporation.
[06:29.080 --> 06:34.080]  Notice that both of these definitions contain a specific list comprised entirely of legal
[06:34.080 --> 06:36.960]  entities.
[06:36.960 --> 06:42.000]  And I've got the term legal entity defined in a footnote at the bottom that says, a legal
[06:42.000 --> 06:47.960]  entity is a legal fiction designated as either a legal person or organization that can enter
[06:47.960 --> 06:54.200]  into contracts and take part in legal action by utilizing an authorized officer or agent
[06:54.200 --> 06:57.760]  to act on its behalf and for its benefit.
[06:57.760 --> 07:03.880]  An example of a common legal entity is a corporation, as corporations have no physical form or other
[07:03.880 --> 07:10.440]  means by which it may act for itself, and also because it exists only on paper as a
[07:10.440 --> 07:16.840]  legal concept, not as a living sentient thing.
[07:16.840 --> 07:19.760]  So that's what a legal entity is.
[07:19.760 --> 07:25.880]  There is nothing listed here that makes a living, breathing human being, i.e. an individual,
[07:25.880 --> 07:30.960]  a part of the definition of person in either of these two sections.
[07:30.960 --> 07:38.100]  Therefore, absent a local and specific definition of person within any given statutory scheme,
[07:38.100 --> 07:42.920]  any use of the term person in those statutes is legally limited to the meaning established
[07:42.920 --> 07:50.440]  by the general definition in section 311.005 sub-item 2 of the Texas Government Code.
[07:50.440 --> 07:55.040]  If we were to place and compare these two definitions side by side with the definition
[07:55.040 --> 08:00.160]  of person as found and discussed in the Texas Legislative Council drafting manual on page
[08:00.160 --> 08:07.520]  24, section 3.07 sub-item H, we begin to have a much clearer understanding of what we are
[08:07.520 --> 08:12.840]  not being told by our government officers and employees about the proper reading and
[08:12.840 --> 08:15.280]  interpretation of the laws.
[08:15.280 --> 08:23.680]  Section 3.07 reads, in pertinent parts, A, in general, a definitions section in a bill
[08:23.680 --> 08:27.040]  may define only one or two words or many.
[08:27.040 --> 08:32.940]  It can be very useful in making a bill precise, but if great care is not used, a definition
[08:32.940 --> 08:36.720]  may cause, rather than eliminate, confusion.
[08:36.720 --> 08:40.840]  One of the greatest abuses of definition is their overuse.
[08:40.840 --> 08:46.280]  There is no need to define a term if, in the context in which the term appears, the meaning
[08:46.280 --> 08:49.000]  is clear without a definition.
[08:49.000 --> 08:58.920]  B, means and includes, a definition may be all-inclusive in which the word means equates
[08:58.920 --> 09:00.960]  to terms on either side.
[09:00.960 --> 09:07.640]  For example, alcoholic beverage means alcohol, or any beverage containing more than one-half
[09:07.640 --> 09:13.960]  of one percent of alcohol by volume, which is capable of use for beverage purposes, either
[09:13.960 --> 09:16.720]  alone or when diluted.
[09:16.720 --> 09:21.480]  There are occasions when a term is generally unambiguous and in no need of definition except
[09:21.480 --> 09:24.320]  for one application that might be doubtful.
[09:24.320 --> 09:29.560]  In such a case, the ambiguity may be eliminated by use of a definition in which includes or
[09:29.560 --> 09:33.160]  does not include is substituted for means.
[09:33.160 --> 09:40.440]  For example, oath includes an affirmation, or tax does not include a special assessment
[09:40.440 --> 09:42.920]  for public improvements.
[09:42.920 --> 09:49.360]  Note that means and includes are not interchangeable, and the former term should be used only for
[09:49.360 --> 09:54.840]  a general definition, while the latter should be used only for a specific clarification
[09:54.840 --> 09:55.840]  of meaning.
[09:55.840 --> 10:01.080]  And remember, latter here is includes or including.
[10:01.080 --> 10:07.960]  That's the one that should be used only for a specific clarification of meaning.
[10:07.960 --> 10:14.760]  The two words should never be used in tandem as if they were equivalent, as in means and
[10:14.760 --> 10:15.760]  includes.
[10:15.760 --> 10:21.360]  However, it is permissible to attach an includes or does not include statement at the end
[10:21.360 --> 10:23.120]  of a general definition.
[10:23.120 --> 10:29.720]  Oh, and just an FYI, it's not written here in the manual, but federal statutes do the
[10:29.720 --> 10:32.360]  exact opposite of what this just said.
[10:32.360 --> 10:39.040]  There are federal statutory definitions that say means and includes, which here the Texas
[10:39.040 --> 10:44.760]  Legislative Drafting Manual is saying should not be done.
[10:44.760 --> 10:52.520]  And the reason is because it muddies the water on the actual meaning of the statute.
[10:52.520 --> 10:57.120]  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why federal statutes are so hard to read, because they're
[10:57.120 --> 11:00.080]  written by morons.
[11:00.080 --> 11:04.640]  And you can't say there's a whole lot of distinction in that category between the federal and the
[11:04.640 --> 11:09.000]  state when it comes to the writing of these statutes.
[11:09.000 --> 11:13.960]  And as we go through these in the book, once you get the seminar material, you'll see that
[11:13.960 --> 11:17.120]  that's more true than you could ever realize.
[11:17.120 --> 11:20.160]  Okay, back to reading.
[11:20.160 --> 11:25.800]  However, it is permissible to attach an includes or does not include statement at the end of
[11:25.800 --> 11:27.360]  a general definition.
[11:27.360 --> 11:34.360]  For example, act means a bodily movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, and includes
[11:34.360 --> 11:37.560]  speech.
[11:37.560 --> 11:48.280]  Sections 311.005 sub-item 13 and 312.011 sub-item 19 of the government code, which provide rules
[11:48.280 --> 11:56.880]  of statutory construction for codes and other statutes, respectively, specifically defined
[11:56.880 --> 12:06.800]  includes and including as used in drafting.
[12:06.800 --> 12:17.440]  Includes and including are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration.
[12:17.440 --> 12:25.280]  And use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.
[12:25.280 --> 12:30.640]  These rules of statutory construction make it unnecessary for a drafter to use the phrase
[12:30.640 --> 12:36.240]  includes, but is not limited to in composing a definition.
[12:36.240 --> 12:41.120]  H, now this again is still from the legislative drafting manual.
[12:41.120 --> 12:50.280]  Person, it is often desirable to define person broadly as such as an individual corporation
[12:50.280 --> 12:52.600]  or association.
[12:52.600 --> 12:55.040]  And there is a footnote with that as well.
[12:55.040 --> 12:59.760]  Note that in some context, it may also be necessary to define association or corporation
[12:59.760 --> 13:06.680]  or to exclude municipal corporation.
[13:06.680 --> 13:13.320]  So this violates the rule against giving a word an artificial meaning, the advantage
[13:13.320 --> 13:18.480]  of avoiding unnecessary repetition and the long-standing practice of defining person
[13:18.480 --> 13:23.960]  in this manner outweigh the policy behind the rule.
[13:23.960 --> 13:28.440]  Section 1.07 of the penal code defines person in this way.
[13:28.440 --> 13:34.480]  And as already noted, penal code definitions also apply to penal laws outside the code.
[13:34.480 --> 13:39.000]  Now, let me jump out of here for a second and talk about what the legislative drafting
[13:39.000 --> 13:44.880]  manual just said about penal code definitions.
[13:44.880 --> 13:51.660]  The thing is, is that a penal code definition cannot apply where the penal code definition
[13:51.660 --> 14:00.240]  has been expressly limited to a category, chapter or specific section of the code, of
[14:00.240 --> 14:01.240]  the penal code.
[14:01.240 --> 14:02.240]  Okay?
[14:02.240 --> 14:06.240]  So for the legislature or anyone else to say, oh, but that definition can be used somewhere
[14:06.240 --> 14:09.080]  else is a problem.
[14:09.080 --> 14:14.320]  And it's a problem because, one, there could be a local definition in the statute that
[14:14.320 --> 14:18.800]  overrides the general definition found within the penal code.
[14:18.800 --> 14:28.040]  Also, the penal code definition cannot supersede the general definition used in other statutes
[14:28.040 --> 14:35.960]  from chapter 311, the Code Construction Act, unless there's a local provision in the statute
[14:35.960 --> 14:42.520]  that specifically says the definition from the penal code overrides the definition in
[14:42.520 --> 14:44.640]  the Code Construction Act.
[14:44.640 --> 14:49.120]  Well, that doesn't happen, ladies and gentlemen.
[14:49.120 --> 14:56.380]  There is no definition in the penal code that I have found so far at all in any other Texas
[14:56.380 --> 15:04.120]  Code that says the penal code definition is hereby used in place of the general definition
[15:04.120 --> 15:08.400]  from chapter 311 of the Code Construction Act.
[15:08.400 --> 15:10.920]  It doesn't exist.
[15:10.920 --> 15:16.760]  And because the Code Construction Act specifically says that its definitions are controlling
[15:16.760 --> 15:23.720]  unless there's a local provision that specifically states otherwise, it is not a valid exercise
[15:23.720 --> 15:32.040]  for the courts to use penal code definitions in other Texas statutes if there's a general
[15:32.040 --> 15:39.160]  definition already written in chapter 311 or a local definition already written within
[15:39.160 --> 15:45.160]  the local part of the statute that applies.
[15:45.160 --> 15:51.480]  So this information from the drafting manual is somewhat misleading if you don't understand
[15:51.480 --> 15:53.880]  that argument.
[15:53.880 --> 15:57.320]  Okay, so let's go from there.
[15:57.320 --> 16:04.440]  While it is legally unnecessary to redefine person in a penal law outside the code except
[16:04.440 --> 16:10.240]  to provide a different definition, the express adoption of that definition, see the following
[16:10.240 --> 16:15.400]  subsection, may be helpful to alert users of the statutes who may be unaware of the
[16:15.400 --> 16:18.900]  general application of penal code definitions.
[16:18.900 --> 16:26.800]  The definition of person in section 311.005 government code applies to those codes to
[16:26.800 --> 16:33.000]  which the Code Construction Act applies and that do not otherwise define the term.
[16:33.000 --> 16:40.040]  So this last sentence from the legislative drafting manual specifically states that the
[16:40.040 --> 16:46.480]  penal code definition of person if one exists may not be used in place of the definition
[16:46.480 --> 16:50.040]  from chapter 311 of the government code.
[16:50.040 --> 16:51.760]  They can't do it.
[16:51.760 --> 16:58.520]  All right, they must use the general definition of person if there's nothing provided locally
[16:58.520 --> 17:01.120]  to change it.
[17:01.120 --> 17:05.360]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His
[17:05.360 --> 17:06.360]  Word?
[17:06.360 --> 17:11.120]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time
[17:11.120 --> 17:16.400]  for Scripture Talk where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy
[17:16.400 --> 17:17.400]  2.15.
[17:17.400 --> 17:22.560]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
[17:22.560 --> 17:24.960]  dividing the word of truth.
[17:24.960 --> 17:28.960]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark where we'll go verse
[17:28.960 --> 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 --> 18:05.520]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses?
[18:05.520 --> 18:09.560]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.560 --> 18:14.560]  Michael Mears has won 6 cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win
[18:14.560 --> 18:15.560]  too.
[18:15.560 --> 18:19.720]  You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.720 --> 18:25.480]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.480 --> 18:30.120]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[18:30.120 --> 18:34.320]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.320 --> 18:39.440]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.440 --> 18:41.240]  Additional consultation is available as well.
[18:41.240 --> 18:47.080]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:47.080 --> 18:50.080]  or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.080 --> 18:59.080]  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
[18:59.080 --> 19:00.080]  collectors next.
[19:00.080 --> 19:10.080]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:30.080 --> 19:43.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[19:43.840 --> 19:47.320]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[19:47.320 --> 19:49.720]  It is February 21st, 2022.
[19:49.720 --> 19:51.680]  We are live tonight.
[19:51.680 --> 19:55.320]  And I have turned the caller board on if you want to call in and get in line.
[19:55.320 --> 19:59.560]  I think I can get this wrapped up in this segment or get very, very close.
[19:59.560 --> 20:05.200]  The number is 512-646-1984 if you want to call and get in line.
[20:05.200 --> 20:09.800]  In the meantime, let me see if I can get through this before we run out of this segment.
[20:09.800 --> 20:13.960]  This writer finds it rather interesting that the drafting manual specifically says that
[20:13.960 --> 20:21.520]  the term includes is not only not interchangeable with means, it also should be used only for
[20:21.520 --> 20:24.900]  a specific clarification of meaning.
[20:24.900 --> 20:29.000]  One would have to consider that this language in and of itself creates a presumption of
[20:29.000 --> 20:35.800]  limitation in the use of the term rather than one of expansion as a specific clarification
[20:35.800 --> 20:44.680]  of meaning denotes a requirement of reading whatever follows the term includes or including
[20:44.680 --> 20:53.960]  as only this list of things or belonging only to the same class relation of things.
[20:53.960 --> 20:58.120]  Of course, this last sentence produces yet another legal question.
[20:58.120 --> 21:04.280]  Can the courts legally interpret a term to mean something in particular where that particular
[21:04.280 --> 21:10.120]  term or that particular meaning is excluded from legislative consideration and intent
[21:10.120 --> 21:15.720]  by the rules of the Texas Legislative Council drafting manual?
[21:15.720 --> 21:20.800]  Consider the language of the last sentence of sub-item H. The definition of person in
[21:20.800 --> 21:28.560]  Section 311.005 Government Code applies to those codes to which the Code Construction Act applies
[21:28.560 --> 21:33.880]  and that do not otherwise define the term.
[21:33.880 --> 21:40.000]  This sentence reads as a command, not as a question, option, or suggestion.
[21:40.000 --> 21:47.700]  So could the courts legitimately cite legislative intent or any other legislative inference
[21:47.700 --> 21:53.640]  as the basis for creating a definition of the term person that is not in compliance
[21:53.640 --> 22:00.640]  with the meaning provided by Section 311.005 sub-item 2 when any other meaning is clearly
[22:00.640 --> 22:07.600]  removed from legislative consideration and intent by the command of this last sentence?
[22:07.600 --> 22:14.380]  If the answer is yes, then we have a constitutional conflict issue because the court can now legislate
[22:14.380 --> 22:20.760]  from the bench by changing the very wording and meaning of the enacted laws by creating
[22:20.760 --> 22:27.360]  and adding new terms and meanings out of thin air that the legislature never did nor could
[22:27.360 --> 22:34.380]  consider, much less be legislatively intended or discussed and voted upon to enact.
[22:34.380 --> 22:39.280]  Now let's look at a definition of person that this writer thinks is a bit of a showstopper.
[22:39.280 --> 22:45.560]  Such definition is found here, Chapter 522, Commercial Drivers Licenses, Subchapter A,
[22:45.560 --> 22:50.840]  General Provisions, Section 522.003, Definitions.
[22:50.840 --> 23:01.040]  In this chapter and sub-item 23-A, person includes the United States, a state, or a
[23:01.040 --> 23:05.240]  political subdivision of a state.
[23:05.240 --> 23:11.000]  Notice that the term person, as defined here for the entirety of Chapter 522, consists
[23:11.000 --> 23:19.320]  of only governmental legal entities and in no way applies to an actual natural person.
[23:19.320 --> 23:26.320]  This means that any use of the term person is limited in its meaning to being one of
[23:26.320 --> 23:29.200]  these three types of governmental entities.
[23:29.200 --> 23:34.640]  It cannot be read and interpreted so as to make it apply to a private, individual, or
[23:34.640 --> 23:36.280]  natural person.
[23:36.280 --> 23:47.160]  So in relation to the subject of Commercial Drivers Licenses, the term person can only
[23:47.160 --> 23:54.800]  be talking about these specific governmental entities and nothing and no one else.
[23:54.800 --> 23:58.520]  Now there's more to be added to that section of discussion, but I haven't got that far
[23:58.520 --> 24:04.880]  yet because like I said last week, I am working on multiple chapters and subjects or objects
[24:04.880 --> 24:07.560]  and objectives simultaneously.
[24:07.560 --> 24:11.720]  So I flip back and forth between them when I've got to make a cross-reference.
[24:11.720 --> 24:17.440]  I'll use my train of thought to jump from one to the other to write in what I need in
[24:17.440 --> 24:22.440]  the correct place so that it synchronizes what I've written in the other place.
[24:22.440 --> 24:29.240]  Okay, now, however, there's a follow-up discussion that goes with this and that is the Necessity
[24:29.240 --> 24:32.380]  of Understanding Legal Capacity.
[24:32.380 --> 24:36.520]  So after this section discussing person, which is not fully complete yet, we get into the
[24:36.520 --> 24:39.800]  Necessity of Understanding Legal Capacity.
[24:39.800 --> 24:46.200]  If you realize anything, realize this, the term person, whenever it is defined as including
[24:46.200 --> 24:53.280]  an individual is used throughout the various cogent statutes to generally identify a legal
[24:53.280 --> 25:02.820]  role, R-O-L-E, that a living, breathing individual may assume so as to act under the legal authority
[25:02.820 --> 25:12.060]  responsibilities and duties thereof, i.e. a legal capacity, aka a legal person or persona.
[25:12.060 --> 25:15.100]  Legal capacities do not exist in nature.
[25:15.100 --> 25:20.600]  They are an entirely man-made legal concept used in our societies to provide labeling
[25:20.600 --> 25:26.280]  of certain persons for specific reasons that most humans seem to find necessary for peaceful
[25:26.280 --> 25:31.460]  coexistence in our society, especially those with a God complex.
[25:31.460 --> 25:37.060]  There are some in the Patriot community that call this legal capacity or persona the strawman,
[25:37.060 --> 25:40.600]  as in an unauthorized, non-consensual legal stand-in.
[25:40.600 --> 25:48.160]  However, this is a misnomer, as there is nothing unauthorized or non-consensual, originally
[25:48.160 --> 25:54.440]  anyway, about the legal capacity or about how it works, and it absolutely does require
[25:54.440 --> 26:03.520]  and almost always has your personal authorization or consent by either conscious choice or acquiescence.
[26:03.520 --> 26:09.400]  This legal capacity or persona is very real from a statutory perspective, because an individual
[26:09.400 --> 26:15.560]  can assume the role and responsibility of the capacity or persona at will so as to engage
[26:15.560 --> 26:21.320]  in acts specifically reserved to those legally acting from within such capacities.
[26:21.320 --> 26:28.560]  This legal capacity is the role that allows a living individual actor to assume responsibility
[26:28.560 --> 26:37.380]  for whatever legal duties or some designated legal powers and authority, power and authority,
[26:37.380 --> 26:42.920]  and is bestowed upon such legal capacity or persona by statute or some other recognized
[26:42.920 --> 26:44.560]  authority.
[26:44.560 --> 26:50.040]  Once the legal capacity is assumed, the assuming individual becomes legally responsible for
[26:50.040 --> 26:56.200]  the performance of all the legal cares and duties associated therewith.
[26:56.200 --> 27:03.800]  Examples of such legal capacities are driver, operator, commercial, motor vehicle, motor
[27:03.800 --> 27:12.520]  vehicle and vehicle, police officer, mayor, councilman, governor, chief executive officer,
[27:12.520 --> 27:17.560]  county clerk, employee, and so on.
[27:17.560 --> 27:23.360]  These are all legal capacities having distinct legal powers and authority as well as certain
[27:23.360 --> 27:27.960]  legal duties that must be performed in accordance with law.
[27:27.960 --> 27:34.160]  And every last one of them must be assumed by some individual in order to perform any
[27:34.160 --> 27:36.160]  action at all.
[27:36.160 --> 27:41.920]  This is the one irrefutable thing that every legal capacity or legal entity has in common,
[27:41.920 --> 27:46.760]  because they are nothing more than fictitious legal concepts having no physical form or
[27:46.760 --> 27:50.320]  intellect by which they can take action themselves.
[27:50.320 --> 27:57.740]  Therefore, they all require a living individual to assume a legal role of one kind or another
[27:57.740 --> 28:01.520]  in order to act on its behalf as its agent.
[28:01.520 --> 28:09.480]  However, the legal capacity or persona role or role itself cannot be assumed and made
[28:09.480 --> 28:16.240]  active by an individual without the regulated subject matter being active first, i.e. one
[28:16.240 --> 28:23.100]  must be actively engaged in some act specifically regulated by one or more statutes codified
[28:23.100 --> 28:30.100]  under the single subject matter context of, in this case, transportation within the Texas
[28:30.100 --> 28:36.080]  Transportation Code in order for the role to be properly legally assumed and acted.
[28:36.080 --> 28:40.800]  This writer has not been able to locate any opinions where the Texas courts have ever
[28:40.800 --> 28:46.360]  directly addressed the issue of officers and employees of the various branches of government,
[28:46.360 --> 28:51.560]  especially those within any administrative agencies and courts, who are willfully and
[28:51.560 --> 28:58.080]  unlawfully misdefining or misinterpreting legal terminology to exert a power and authority
[28:58.080 --> 29:03.840]  they otherwise do not legally have, and then knowingly misapplying regulatory statutes
[29:03.840 --> 29:08.400]  to persons to whom they do not legally apply because of it.
[29:08.400 --> 29:13.300]  However, this is how personal jurisdiction may and should be challenged under a regulatory
[29:13.300 --> 29:18.040]  statute for any alleged offense relative to the legal duties and liabilities of the legal
[29:18.040 --> 29:20.360]  capacity stated therein.
[29:20.360 --> 29:25.400]  If a legal individual person has never assumed the legal duties and obligations of the legal
[29:25.400 --> 29:32.000]  person or capacity to whom the statutory scheme in question actually applies, then it is impossible
[29:32.000 --> 29:37.040]  for them to commit a violation of a known legal duty under such statutory scheme because
[29:37.040 --> 29:39.640]  the individual never had any.
[29:39.640 --> 29:42.800]  All right, folks, we're going to take another break.
[29:42.800 --> 29:46.000]  Calling number 512-646-1984.
[29:46.000 --> 29:47.720]  The phones are on.
[29:47.720 --> 29:52.160]  If you want to call and get in line, I'm almost done here, so we'll start up again when we
[29:52.160 --> 29:55.160]  get back.
[29:55.160 --> 30:07.080]  Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under
[30:07.080 --> 30:08.440]  the blood alcohol limit.
[30:08.440 --> 30:13.360]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with a tale of bad breathalyzers and a government
[30:13.360 --> 30:15.920]  cover-up in a moment.
[30:15.920 --> 30:17.520]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.520 --> 30:21.920]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy
[30:21.920 --> 30:25.920]  is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.920 --> 30:31.040]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.040 --> 30:33.680]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.680 --> 30:37.960]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[30:37.960 --> 30:41.480]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.480 --> 30:44.920]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.920 --> 30:47.080]  Ever hear the term fine farming?
[30:47.080 --> 30:51.600]  It's when cops fine innocent people to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business
[30:51.600 --> 30:53.480]  in the sunshine state of Florida.
[30:53.480 --> 30:59.840]  This case involves breathalyzers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations.
[30:59.840 --> 31:04.480]  Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated.
[31:04.480 --> 31:08.120]  State officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing.
[31:08.120 --> 31:13.080]  In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document
[31:13.080 --> 31:14.080]  the problem.
[31:14.080 --> 31:18.960]  A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed,
[31:18.960 --> 31:21.800]  perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier.
[31:21.800 --> 31:30.800]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.800 --> 31:36.160]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[31:36.160 --> 31:38.320]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:38.320 --> 31:43.200]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:43.200 --> 31:47.280]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, and thousands of my fellow
[31:47.280 --> 31:48.640]  first responders are dying.
[31:48.640 --> 31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:51.000 --> 31:52.440]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[31:52.440 --> 31:53.440]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.440 --> 31:55.120]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:55.120 --> 31:57.720]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:57.720 --> 32:02.320]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:02.320 --> 32:05.080]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:05.080 --> 32:07.480]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[32:07.480 --> 32:10.760]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to
[32:10.760 --> 32:12.760]  stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.760 --> 32:16.120]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[32:16.120 --> 32:20.440]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law, traffic courts
[32:20.440 --> 32:24.400]  that afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[32:24.400 --> 32:25.400]  through due process.
[32:25.400 --> 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 --> 32:35.240]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.240 --> 32:39.320]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com
[32:39.320 --> 32:40.840]  and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.840 --> 32:44.160]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[32:44.160 --> 32:48.600]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[32:48.600 --> 32:50.920]  documents and other useful resource material.
[32:50.920 --> 32:54.120]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[32:54.120 --> 33:22.280]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:25.120 --> 33:29.880]  All right, folks, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie
[33:29.880 --> 33:30.880]  Craig.
[33:30.880 --> 33:38.080]  We are live tonight, February 21st, 2022, and I'm going over a chapter in the new seminar
[33:38.080 --> 33:40.320]  book with you.
[33:40.320 --> 33:46.000]  Calling number 512-646-1984 if you want to call and get in line, I've almost got this
[33:46.000 --> 33:48.840]  wrapped up and I'll be ready to take callers here shortly.
[33:48.840 --> 33:51.920]  So please give us a call, get in line and let's talk.
[33:51.920 --> 33:54.400]  In the meantime, let me wrap this up.
[33:54.400 --> 34:00.680]  For example, if a man hunted, killed and processed his own meat from the kill, that man is neither
[34:00.680 --> 34:06.360]  subject to nor required to comply with any of the permitting, inspections or licensing
[34:06.360 --> 34:11.840]  requirements that a commercial meat processing plant or a local butcher shop would be subject
[34:11.840 --> 34:12.840]  to.
[34:12.840 --> 34:17.960]  This is the difference between acting by right in one's own private personal capacity for
[34:17.960 --> 34:24.200]  one's own pleasure and benefit versus acting in some regulated legal capacity for a commercial
[34:24.200 --> 34:30.840]  public benefit via some business profession or occupation, i.e. acting privately versus
[34:30.840 --> 34:36.120]  publicly for one's own private profit or gain.
[34:36.120 --> 34:41.020]  This is also the distinctive difference between what is truly criminal versus what is only
[34:41.020 --> 34:45.720]  quasi-criminal within our limited jurisdiction kangaroo courts.
[34:45.720 --> 34:51.040]  A truly criminal act is one that is inherently wrong and immoral in and of itself because
[34:51.040 --> 34:57.760]  it unjustly harms the person, rights or property of another like assault, theft, fraud or murder
[34:57.760 --> 34:59.040]  for example.
[34:59.040 --> 35:05.280]  Meanwhile, a quasi-criminal act is an administrative civil infraction of a ballot prohibitive rule
[35:05.280 --> 35:10.480]  or policy that carries a criminal penalty without regard for whether or not the act
[35:10.480 --> 35:16.480]  is inherently wrong and immoral in and of itself or causes any actual harm to anyone.
[35:16.480 --> 35:21.680]  The very idea of quasi-criminal laws designed to fabricate offenses and punishments out
[35:21.680 --> 35:27.640]  of thin air by little more than the majority opinion of a minority of people without requiring
[35:27.640 --> 35:34.760]  any proof whatsoever of any tangible and unjust harm are absolutely abhorrent to every constitutional
[35:34.760 --> 35:40.720]  principle of liberty and free exercise and are violative of every safeguard and prohibition
[35:40.720 --> 35:46.120]  upon government interference with our fundamental right to life, liberty and happiness.
[35:46.120 --> 35:52.280]  It is well past time for the people of this country to realize this and our current daily
[35:52.280 --> 35:57.960]  existence under the boot-hill of an abusive political and police state proves that.
[35:57.960 --> 36:01.280]  Alright folks, that's the chapter thus far.
[36:01.280 --> 36:06.160]  Like I said, there's lots more to go into the discussion on the subject of person as
[36:06.160 --> 36:12.280]  the statutes define it but that's where I'm at with that particular chapter.
[36:12.280 --> 36:19.200]  I've got somewhere between 90 and 100 pages because I keep having people review what I've
[36:19.200 --> 36:20.640]  got so far.
[36:20.640 --> 36:25.760]  I go back and I edit some of this stuff and sometimes I cut it down a little bit and sometimes
[36:25.760 --> 36:31.880]  I build it up a little bit more to clarify it better if possible and make it less confusing
[36:31.880 --> 36:37.040]  though it's kind of hard to do because I know some of these sound like run-on sentences
[36:37.040 --> 36:43.560]  but they don't make as much sense when you chop them up as they do when you leave them
[36:43.560 --> 36:48.800]  in a divided argument so to speak.
[36:48.800 --> 36:55.300]  So it's not an easy thing to do to write a technical manual that as many people as possible
[36:55.300 --> 37:02.480]  can understand on a subject that no one really wants to understand it seems.
[37:02.480 --> 37:06.920]  And believe me, we get into that a great deal also throughout this book.
[37:06.920 --> 37:12.360]  So all that said, if you want to call and ask questions about this or discuss this or
[37:12.360 --> 37:16.720]  if you've got some issue of your own you want to talk about, now would be the time to call
[37:16.720 --> 37:17.720]  in.
[37:17.720 --> 37:22.120]  512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[37:22.120 --> 37:27.120]  That said, it looks like we have one caller on the board and it just happens to be Truth
[37:27.120 --> 37:28.120]  Raider.
[37:28.120 --> 37:30.160]  Raider, what can we do for you?
[37:30.160 --> 37:33.400]  Got two questions for you Eddie.
[37:33.400 --> 37:35.760]  I bet you don't.
[37:35.760 --> 37:36.760]  I do.
[37:36.760 --> 37:38.720]  Then let's find out.
[37:38.720 --> 37:39.720]  Go ahead.
[37:39.720 --> 37:44.680]  Speaking about the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
[37:44.680 --> 37:47.640]  Who's speaking about the 10th Amendment?
[37:47.640 --> 37:59.840]  How do you or how does a state using that 10th Amendment can regulate the people's movement
[37:59.840 --> 38:03.960]  by way of motor carriage, their own private motor carriage?
[38:03.960 --> 38:09.880]  How can a state turn in and say and use that 10th Amendment to say that we have the right
[38:09.880 --> 38:13.400]  through that to regulate your non-commercial activity?
[38:13.400 --> 38:19.200]  Well, let me ask you a question to your question.
[38:19.200 --> 38:24.440]  Where are you getting the idea that's what they're using?
[38:24.440 --> 38:26.880]  That's what everyone claims to say that they're using.
[38:26.880 --> 38:27.880]  Who is everyone?
[38:27.880 --> 38:29.800]  To do so to regulate.
[38:29.800 --> 38:32.560]  Who is everyone?
[38:32.560 --> 38:38.960]  I have never ever in all my time of doing this heard anybody in the judicial department
[38:38.960 --> 38:41.760]  or legal profession make that argument.
[38:41.760 --> 38:43.760]  So who are you talking about?
[38:43.760 --> 38:47.160]  Who am I talking about?
[38:47.160 --> 38:48.160]  The state legislature.
[38:48.160 --> 38:51.680]  I asked you first.
[38:51.680 --> 38:54.280]  State legislature.
[38:54.280 --> 39:00.040]  You show me where anything the state legislature has written that says that.
[39:00.040 --> 39:01.040]  Oh man.
[39:01.040 --> 39:05.120]  They developed the whole vehicle code.
[39:05.120 --> 39:10.000]  Again, you're making a big ass legal presumption and conclusion.
[39:10.000 --> 39:17.520]  I'm asking for actual evidence that says they are basing that act on the 10th Amendment.
[39:17.520 --> 39:18.920]  That's what you're claiming.
[39:18.920 --> 39:21.920]  What is your evidence?
[39:21.920 --> 39:23.520]  That's what they're claiming.
[39:23.520 --> 39:27.840]  No, not unless you can show me where that's where they've how they've written it.
[39:27.840 --> 39:29.320]  It's not.
[39:29.320 --> 39:34.960]  That's what you're getting out of what they've written, but that's not necessarily the fact.
[39:34.960 --> 39:44.560]  So where is it written that the legislature is basing their ability to regulate our movement
[39:44.560 --> 39:47.960]  on the 10th Amendment?
[39:47.960 --> 39:54.680]  Let's see.
[39:54.680 --> 39:57.160]  They're able to do that.
[39:57.160 --> 40:01.680]  I hear a conclusion coming, not evidence.
[40:01.680 --> 40:10.040]  Every subject in the state has to in their eyes has to have a control to it.
[40:10.040 --> 40:20.480]  Again, I'm hearing a conclusion, not any reference to any verifiable evidence.
[40:20.480 --> 40:22.740]  You're telling me your opinion, Raider.
[40:22.740 --> 40:25.800]  Your opinion isn't going to hold water.
[40:25.800 --> 40:29.560]  Give me something I can use in court.
[40:29.560 --> 40:32.160]  I'm being objective to what they would say.
[40:32.160 --> 40:35.040]  Well, I'm not asking for objectivity.
[40:35.040 --> 40:36.960]  You made a statement of fact.
[40:36.960 --> 40:40.840]  I'm asking you to support it with verifiable evidence.
[40:40.840 --> 40:45.640]  Where is it?
[40:45.640 --> 40:48.720]  Would be somewhere in the preamble to the state.
[40:48.720 --> 40:51.720]  There's another conclusion.
[40:51.720 --> 40:53.520]  Federal Constitution?
[40:53.520 --> 40:55.960]  There's another conclusion.
[40:55.960 --> 41:02.120]  I don't see anything in the Federal Constitution at all about regulating people's movement,
[41:02.120 --> 41:06.040]  especially in the same section that deals with the 10th Amendment.
[41:06.040 --> 41:09.760]  So how are you making that connection?
[41:09.760 --> 41:12.400]  The connection would be for every activity.
[41:12.400 --> 41:14.640]  There's another conclusion.
[41:14.640 --> 41:19.640]  Where's your evidence?
[41:19.640 --> 41:21.720]  You see the problem of what you're doing here?
[41:21.720 --> 41:26.160]  If this is the way you're going into court, no wonder you're always emailing me and complaining
[41:26.160 --> 41:27.520]  that you're losing.
[41:27.520 --> 41:31.280]  I know you've won a few, and congratulations on that.
[41:31.280 --> 41:36.040]  But if this is how you're approaching your argument, it's a wonder you won them at all.
[41:36.040 --> 41:41.120]  Because you're making statements that you can't back up with something authoritative.
[41:41.120 --> 41:45.000]  And if you have something of authority to back it up, you're not telling me what it
[41:45.000 --> 41:48.620]  is and where to find it.
[41:48.620 --> 41:51.720]  So that I can look at it and say, you know what, you're right.
[41:51.720 --> 41:57.600]  Or I can look at it and go, you know what, you're not reading this right.
[41:57.600 --> 42:02.760]  So if you can't give me that, you're giving me opinion.
[42:02.760 --> 42:03.760]  Personal opinion.
[42:03.760 --> 42:07.480]  Well, I don't say that they said it.
[42:07.480 --> 42:08.480]  You just did.
[42:08.480 --> 42:12.560]  That was the very first thing you said.
[42:12.560 --> 42:17.200]  I'm not saying that I want them to do that, but that's how they view it.
[42:17.200 --> 42:18.200]  There you go.
[42:18.200 --> 42:25.360]  You just made another statement of fact that you can't support with evidence.
[42:25.360 --> 42:32.640]  That's how they view it, is a statement of fact, supported by what evidence, Raider?
[42:32.640 --> 42:37.640]  How you're answering this, Eddie, is if I was a state, I'm saying it what they would
[42:37.640 --> 42:38.640]  say.
[42:38.640 --> 42:43.240]  You're not the state, therefore you cannot put yourself in a position to declare what
[42:43.240 --> 42:46.940]  the state is thinking and how they're doing it.
[42:46.940 --> 42:50.920]  Not if you can't back it up with something you can use in court.
[42:50.920 --> 42:57.400]  The court will not be impressed with you trying to be the amazing Kreskin to read an imaginary
[42:57.400 --> 43:00.600]  entity's non-existent mind.
[43:00.600 --> 43:08.720]  Well, who is the non-existent entity here that we're talking about?
[43:08.720 --> 43:12.000]  The state is a legal fiction.
[43:12.000 --> 43:14.920]  It doesn't exist anywhere except on paper.
[43:14.920 --> 43:18.880]  It has no mind to read.
[43:18.880 --> 43:25.320]  So where in writing can you prove your argument?
[43:25.320 --> 43:29.720]  Because that's the only kind of proof you can use in relation to a legal entity.
[43:29.720 --> 43:36.240]  Well, I got a partial answer from you, and the partial part of the answer is that you
[43:36.240 --> 43:38.600]  said that there is no state.
[43:38.600 --> 43:42.560]  It's a fiction, a fictional entity.
[43:42.560 --> 43:45.320]  I did not say there is no state.
[43:45.320 --> 43:49.120]  I said the state itself is a legal fiction.
[43:49.120 --> 43:50.120]  It's a legal concept.
[43:50.120 --> 43:51.120]  That's what I'm asking.
[43:51.120 --> 43:57.120]  That's what I'm saying how you're looking at it.
[43:57.120 --> 44:00.880]  That isn't what you're asking, but okay.
[44:00.880 --> 44:04.080]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.080 --> 44:09.320]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[44:09.320 --> 44:14.000]  four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[44:14.000 --> 44:18.560]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:18.560 --> 44:22.840]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.840 --> 44:27.720]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:27.720 --> 44:34.480]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.480 --> 44:39.040]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[44:39.040 --> 44:43.320]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.320 --> 44:49.440]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.440 --> 44:51.840]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:51.840 --> 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 --> 45:05.720]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[45:05.720 --> 45:08.520]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[45:08.520 --> 45:09.520]  I need my truth pick.
[45:09.520 --> 45:14.480]  I'd be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[45:14.480 --> 45:17.920]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really
[45:17.920 --> 45:21.560]  don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[45:21.560 --> 45:22.880]  How can I help logos?
[45:22.880 --> 45:24.880]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[45:24.880 --> 45:29.520]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos in ordering your supplies or
[45:29.520 --> 45:30.520]  holiday gifts.
[45:30.520 --> 45:32.520]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[45:32.520 --> 45:38.440]  Now, go to logosradionetwork.com, click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[45:38.440 --> 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 --> 45:57.040]  Giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect.
[45:57.040 --> 45:58.040]  Thank you so much.
[45:58.040 --> 45:59.040]  You're welcome.
[45:59.040 --> 46:00.040]  Happy holidays, logos.
[46:00.040 --> 46:09.040]  I must have dreamed a thousand dreams, been haunted by a million screams.
[46:09.040 --> 46:18.040]  I can hear them marching feet, they're moving into the street.
[46:18.040 --> 46:23.040]  Did you read the news today?
[46:23.040 --> 46:31.040]  The danger's gone away, but I can see the fire spilling light.
[46:31.040 --> 46:34.040]  Burning into the night.
[46:34.040 --> 46:40.040]  There's too many men, too many people, we get too many problems.
[46:40.040 --> 46:42.040]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:42.040 --> 46:47.040]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the call at number 512-646-1984.
[46:47.040 --> 46:52.040]  If you want to call and talk about any of this stuff, let's get online and do that.
[46:52.040 --> 46:53.040]  All right.
[46:53.040 --> 46:57.040]  That said, let's get back and see if we can solve this little problem with Raider.
[46:57.040 --> 47:00.040]  All right, Raider.
[47:00.040 --> 47:02.040]  Well, they're making a problem for all of us.
[47:02.040 --> 47:05.040]  Let's put it that way, Eddie, by using that.
[47:05.040 --> 47:10.040]  Well, the question is, is did they make it a problem for all of us or did they simply
[47:10.040 --> 47:15.040]  make it where if you don't do your due diligence to find the correct information,
[47:15.040 --> 47:20.040]  it becomes a problem for us and for you?
[47:20.040 --> 47:22.040]  Yeah.
[47:22.040 --> 47:24.040]  I'm certainly not alone.
[47:24.040 --> 47:29.040]  All you have to do is to read the statute to come to the conclusion that they are
[47:29.040 --> 47:34.040]  intentionally trying to deceive the people as to what the law says and means.
[47:34.040 --> 47:37.040]  All you have to do is read the court opinions.
[47:37.040 --> 47:45.040]  Those written documents and the statutes themselves are proof positive of intent to deceive.
[47:45.040 --> 47:46.040]  Okay?
[47:46.040 --> 47:47.040]  No question of that.
[47:47.040 --> 47:49.040]  There's legal proof in that.
[47:49.040 --> 47:51.040]  Whether they like it or not.
[47:51.040 --> 47:52.040]  Okay.
[47:52.040 --> 47:57.040]  But when you make a conclusion about what they're thinking and why they're doing it
[47:57.040 --> 48:02.040]  and you haven't supplied any of that evidence to back it up first,
[48:02.040 --> 48:04.040]  then that's not going to get you anywhere.
[48:04.040 --> 48:06.040]  That's simply your opinion.
[48:06.040 --> 48:10.040]  The difference between what you're doing now and what I've been trying to do with this
[48:10.040 --> 48:17.040]  book is to show you everything that's in writing first to show you why I have reached
[48:17.040 --> 48:20.040]  the conclusion I've reached.
[48:20.040 --> 48:22.040]  See, there's the difference.
[48:22.040 --> 48:30.040]  I am building my evidence before I show you my conclusion.
[48:30.040 --> 48:41.040]  And if you don't do that, they're going to smack you down using your own words every single time.
[48:41.040 --> 48:48.040]  Yeah, but I'm not saying that they're exercising authority that they don't have.
[48:48.040 --> 48:56.040]  They always tend to say that all their laws are written and approved by the legislature
[48:56.040 --> 48:59.040]  and they use the term that...
[48:59.040 --> 49:06.040]  Trader, how can you make the argument that this statute does not apply to you
[49:06.040 --> 49:11.040]  and not be making the argument that they're using an authority they do not have?
[49:11.040 --> 49:14.040]  How is that possible?
[49:14.040 --> 49:15.040]  No, no, no, no.
[49:15.040 --> 49:18.040]  I didn't ask you for an excuse about what else they're doing.
[49:18.040 --> 49:23.040]  You made a statement and I'm trying to get you to understand why your statement is incorrect
[49:23.040 --> 49:28.040]  and you gave them ammunition to beat you up with.
[49:28.040 --> 49:31.040]  Learn to think before you speak.
[49:31.040 --> 49:40.040]  In court, when you word something a particular way, that is the way it will be taken.
[49:40.040 --> 49:46.040]  So think before you speak.
[49:46.040 --> 49:49.040]  Of course.
[49:49.040 --> 49:56.040]  But my question is how do we go about taking that down from...
[49:56.040 --> 49:58.040]  Taking what down?
[49:58.040 --> 50:05.040]  And what the federal constitution that they claim gives them the right to write laws
[50:05.040 --> 50:11.040]  against any subject matter in the state that they feel that they need to regulate?
[50:11.040 --> 50:14.040]  Again, it doesn't say that.
[50:14.040 --> 50:21.040]  It simply says that any power not given to the federal government is reserved to the people and the states.
[50:21.040 --> 50:29.040]  Now, the people of the state have every right to limit what power and authority their state government exercises.
[50:29.040 --> 50:36.040]  The problem is if they didn't specifically spell out those limitations in the constitution of that state,
[50:36.040 --> 50:44.040]  the presumption is there is no limitation upon the government of that state in that particular capacity
[50:44.040 --> 50:47.040]  for that particular purpose.
[50:47.040 --> 50:53.040]  They use the state constitution in a manner exactly opposite that of the federal constitution.
[50:53.040 --> 51:02.040]  And the reason for that is, is because everything in the state constitution is written as a general statement,
[51:02.040 --> 51:13.040]  whereas the federal constitution is specifically stating limited authority and powers to the federal government.
[51:13.040 --> 51:15.040]  There's the difference.
[51:15.040 --> 51:22.040]  The government doesn't have squat to do with what the state is doing in relation to writing law
[51:22.040 --> 51:28.040]  beyond the fact that it's not giving its power to legislate within the state to the federal government
[51:28.040 --> 51:35.040]  until it enacts a federal program and makes its state law, which is stupid and should not happen, but they're doing.
[51:35.040 --> 51:43.040]  But the point here being is that the state is doing what it does because the state constitution doesn't forbid them to do it,
[51:43.040 --> 51:50.040]  because everything in the state constitution is written for general purposes rather than specific limitations
[51:50.040 --> 51:55.040]  like the federal constitution is.
[51:55.040 --> 52:02.040]  Now, if you want to argue that that's not true, show me where the state constitution specifically limits the state legislature
[52:02.040 --> 52:05.040]  to only certain kinds of laws.
[52:05.040 --> 52:08.040]  See, here in Texas we actually have that.
[52:08.040 --> 52:15.040]  The state is forbidden via the legislature to legislate in specific areas,
[52:15.040 --> 52:21.040]  all of which are written into Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution.
[52:21.040 --> 52:30.040]  The legislature is forbidden to create legislation dealing with any of the things listed in Article III, Section 56.
[52:30.040 --> 52:39.040]  However, anything that's not in Article III, Section 56 is up for grabs.
[52:39.040 --> 52:49.040]  Okay, so the conclusion to this is that it's a fallacy that the state could draw laws on whatever subject matter
[52:49.040 --> 52:52.040]  that they choose that needs to be regulated.
[52:52.040 --> 52:55.040]  Are you hearing anything I'm saying at all?
[52:55.040 --> 52:56.040]  Yeah.
[52:56.040 --> 53:02.040]  Well, then where did you get the statement you just voiced?
[53:02.040 --> 53:04.040]  Where did I say it was a fallacy?
[53:04.040 --> 53:06.040]  I just said it's not a fallacy.
[53:06.040 --> 53:10.040]  So where did you come back with it's a fallacy?
[53:10.040 --> 53:14.040]  It's a fallacy to say that they can regulate everyone's activity in the state.
[53:14.040 --> 53:23.040]  No, no, it's not a fallacy unless you can show in law where that is a presumption that doesn't fly.
[53:23.040 --> 53:26.040]  That's what I'm doing with the Texas statutes.
[53:26.040 --> 53:31.040]  I'm showing where that is a fallacy because it is not what the law itself says.
[53:31.040 --> 53:33.040]  Never was.
[53:33.040 --> 53:40.040]  It's simply how they're doing things despite what the law says.
[53:40.040 --> 53:45.040]  So again, instead of making this blanket assertion that you don't have proof of,
[53:45.040 --> 53:51.040]  where's your proof that they are limited in how they can apply the given law you're speaking of?
[53:51.040 --> 53:54.040]  It's not going to be in the state constitution entirely.
[53:54.040 --> 53:56.040]  It may not even be there partially.
[53:56.040 --> 54:00.040]  It may be entirely within the statutes themselves.
[54:00.040 --> 54:11.040]  But if you can't cite it with an authoritative argument and back it up with what it actually says, you're whistling in the wind.
[54:11.040 --> 54:14.040]  I'm only asking you because that's what they...
[54:14.040 --> 54:17.040]  So far you haven't asked me anything.
[54:17.040 --> 54:20.040]  You've told me things.
[54:20.040 --> 54:23.040]  But you haven't asked me anything.
[54:23.040 --> 54:32.040]  In the life that they would have a response to me to the questions of how do you get authority over every subject matter that you feel and choose...
[54:32.040 --> 54:39.040]  Again, you've told me what you think they're saying and you cited the legislature as the source.
[54:39.040 --> 54:49.040]  But if the legislature is the source, you didn't tell me what legislator you spoke to or what legal counsel you spoke to at the legislative level that told you that.
[54:49.040 --> 54:54.040]  Or what writing you're relying on that says that directly.
[54:54.040 --> 54:57.040]  You see the problem with your evidence?
[54:57.040 --> 55:00.040]  There isn't any.
[55:00.040 --> 55:05.040]  Thinking of a source, how about the Oregon Department of Transportation?
[55:05.040 --> 55:08.040]  What about the Oregon Department of Transportation?
[55:08.040 --> 55:15.040]  Where are they the source that says the Tenth Amendment gives us the power to apply this to everybody?
[55:15.040 --> 55:19.040]  Where do they assert that that's the case?
[55:19.040 --> 55:25.040]  It would be, in the legislature, one of the subject matters and one of the departments of the state function.
[55:25.040 --> 55:28.040]  There's another legal conclusion.
[55:28.040 --> 55:43.040]  It would be, dude, if you can't give me a specific article and section of some code or some constitutional provision, you are once again making crap up.
[55:43.040 --> 55:45.040]  Do you not see that?
[55:45.040 --> 55:46.040]  I'm not.
[55:46.040 --> 55:47.040]  They are.
[55:47.040 --> 55:48.040]  I'm not.
[55:48.040 --> 55:49.040]  No, you are.
[55:49.040 --> 55:56.040]  Because you are the one making a claim that this is what they're doing and how they're doing it and this is where my authority is.
[55:56.040 --> 55:59.040]  But you aren't citing an authority.
[55:59.040 --> 56:07.040]  You are citing your own opinion based upon your own conclusion, not upon any actual evidence.
[56:07.040 --> 56:11.040]  I can get on this computer right now, look up and go, hey, you're right.
[56:11.040 --> 56:13.040]  That's exactly what it says.
[56:13.040 --> 56:17.040]  You haven't given me or anyone else that I'm aware of any of that.
[56:17.040 --> 56:19.040]  Now, have you?
[56:19.040 --> 56:29.040]  So there in the state of Texas in your studies, does the DPS have any bearing on making the state laws concerning transportation in Texas?
[56:29.040 --> 56:30.040]  Yes, they do.
[56:30.040 --> 56:39.040]  They're the state administrative agency that's responsible for the interpretation of the laws that are written and providing information to the Legislative Drafting Council
[56:39.040 --> 56:43.040]  on how the law should read in accordance with their legal duties.
[56:43.040 --> 56:44.040]  Sure.
[56:44.040 --> 56:45.040]  Okay.
[56:45.040 --> 56:47.040]  So are those fallacies?
[56:47.040 --> 56:52.040]  Because what do they claim that they have the right to make those laws?
[56:52.040 --> 56:56.040]  What does the state of Texas believe that they can draw the laws?
[56:56.040 --> 56:59.040]  That's what this book is about, Raider.
[56:59.040 --> 57:12.040]  They claim one thing via the courts and the court opinions that is not consistent with the administrative rules and the statutes in the regulatory codes themselves.
[57:12.040 --> 57:17.040]  So what we have is conflicting authoritative sources.
[57:17.040 --> 57:29.040]  And because the statutes and the rules for the administrative agencies supersede the court opinions when the court opinions fail to properly address them,
[57:29.040 --> 57:35.040]  there's only one authoritative source to go to here, and it's not the freaking court opinions
[57:35.040 --> 57:43.040]  because the court opinions have not considered all of the law in what they're doing when they write the opinion.
[57:43.040 --> 57:54.040]  And we prove that by reading the opinion itself and showing where the opinion never talks about all these other regulatory rules and administrative rules
[57:54.040 --> 58:13.040]  that must be used to properly interpret the other parts of the statutes that are in the regulatory code.
[58:13.040 --> 58:25.040]  If they don't use these rules along with those regulatory statutes, they're not reading it right.
[58:25.040 --> 58:30.040]  Well, you're getting to the top of the hour break, so I'll hold the questions for the other side.
[58:30.040 --> 58:38.040]  Well, I've got other people on the board, so if you've got another question rather than another statement of fact you can't back up, you know what I'm saying?
[58:38.040 --> 58:40.040]  So think about that. We'll be right back.
[58:40.040 --> 58:46.040]  Angel, I see you there on the board. Please don't go away. I'll get to you as soon as I can manage to get Raider unconfused here,
[58:46.040 --> 58:50.040]  which I will try not to make it take too long. Y'all hang on.
[58:50.040 --> 58:58.040]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.040 --> 59:06.040]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.040 --> 59:13.040]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.040 --> 59:18.040]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.040 --> 59:22.040]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:22.040 --> 59:28.040]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.040 --> 59:33.040]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.040 --> 59:43.040]  This comprehensive yet compact Study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.040 --> 59:50.040]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.040 --> 01:00:00.040]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.040 --> 01:00:04.040]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:00:04.040 --> 01:00:09.040]  They guarantee you the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:00:09.040 --> 01:00:15.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:15.040 --> 01:00:21.040]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:21.040 --> 01:00:26.040]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:26.040 --> 01:00:31.040]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:31.040 --> 01:00:34.040]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:00:34.040 --> 01:00:41.040]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:00:41.040 --> 01:00:45.040]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:45.040 --> 01:00:52.040]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[01:00:52.040 --> 01:01:00.040]  That's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[01:01:00.040 --> 01:01:03.040]  Get it? Two arms? Bear hug? Bear arms?
[01:01:03.040 --> 01:01:08.040]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well when he said,
[01:01:08.040 --> 01:01:15.040]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny,
[01:01:15.040 --> 01:01:20.040]  which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to always be possible.
[01:01:20.040 --> 01:01:25.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:33.040 --> 01:01:40.040]  You may think our brains deteriorate with age, but new research shows that as brains get older, they actually work more efficiently.
[01:01:40.040 --> 01:01:46.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with new research on how aging makes the mind sharper after this.
[01:01:46.040 --> 01:01:52.040]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.040 --> 01:01:57.040]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.040 --> 01:02:02.040]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.040 --> 01:02:05.040]  Privacy. It's worth hanging onto.
[01:02:05.040 --> 01:02:12.040]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:02:12.040 --> 01:02:16.040]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:16.040 --> 01:02:21.040]  It's a widely held notion that the older people get, the more doddering they become.
[01:02:21.040 --> 01:02:26.040]  But new research shows that even as our brains age, they can actually become more efficient.
[01:02:26.040 --> 01:02:36.040]  Scientists asked two groups of volunteers, one age 18 to 35 and the other 55 to 75, to associate different words with given topics.
[01:02:36.040 --> 01:02:39.040]  At one point, they told everyone they'd made a mistake.
[01:02:39.040 --> 01:02:43.040]  When that happened, the younger group's brains lit up and lost focus.
[01:02:43.040 --> 01:02:48.040]  But the older group's brains didn't even flinch, and they stayed focused on solving the next task.
[01:02:48.040 --> 01:02:51.040]  The moral? There's something to be said for experience.
[01:02:51.040 --> 01:02:57.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:02:57.040 --> 01:03:09.040]  We make our own whiskey and our own smoke, too. Ain't too many things these old boys can't do.
[01:03:09.040 --> 01:03:19.040]  We grow good old tomatoes and homemade wine, and country boy can survive.
[01:03:19.040 --> 01:03:23.040]  Country boy can survive.
[01:03:23.040 --> 01:03:31.040]  Because you can't starve about and you can't make a run.
[01:03:31.040 --> 01:03:34.040]  So put them old boys raised on shotguns.
[01:03:34.040 --> 01:03:36.040]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:36.040 --> 01:03:39.040]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:03:39.040 --> 01:03:46.040]  All right. Call in number 512-646-1984 if you want to call and chat about something.
[01:03:46.040 --> 01:03:52.040]  We are live tonight, February 21st, 2022.
[01:03:52.040 --> 01:03:54.040]  Yep, that's us.
[01:03:54.040 --> 01:04:00.040]  Okay. Once again, we are still trying to get something usable out of Truth Radar here.
[01:04:00.040 --> 01:04:03.040]  So, Radar, let's see if we can wrap this up.
[01:04:03.040 --> 01:04:07.040]  All right. Yeah, we're all confused about what's going on.
[01:04:07.040 --> 01:04:10.040]  So I'm not the only one. I'm not by myself there.
[01:04:10.040 --> 01:04:13.040]  I never said you were by yourself. And you're right.
[01:04:13.040 --> 01:04:16.040]  The majority of people are confused.
[01:04:16.040 --> 01:04:21.040]  Some of us, however, have put the time and effort into no longer remaining that way.
[01:04:21.040 --> 01:04:25.040]  And that's why when you say things like you're saying them,
[01:04:25.040 --> 01:04:30.040]  I'm not going to let you do that because they wouldn't let you do that.
[01:04:30.040 --> 01:04:35.040]  When you walk into a courtroom trying to argue a defense,
[01:04:35.040 --> 01:04:41.040]  you better know what to say and how to say it and then how to back it up.
[01:04:41.040 --> 01:04:44.040]  If you can't do that, you lose.
[01:04:44.040 --> 01:04:48.040]  Right. But I'm not in court right now. I'm asking these questions so I don't...
[01:04:48.040 --> 01:04:53.040]  Well, still, I have to treat you as if you were if you're going to learn.
[01:04:53.040 --> 01:04:55.040]  Yeah. Yeah, I understand that.
[01:04:55.040 --> 01:04:57.040]  You don't mean to stir up a horn, Smith.
[01:04:57.040 --> 01:05:01.040]  Yes, you do. Or you wouldn't ask it the way you do.
[01:05:01.040 --> 01:05:06.040]  It's not intended. I was looking to get an objective answer to...
[01:05:06.040 --> 01:05:10.040]  Well, the thing about it is you've got to ask an objective question,
[01:05:10.040 --> 01:05:16.040]  not make a statement of fact that you can't back up.
[01:05:16.040 --> 01:05:21.040]  There's the difference. You have yet to ask an actual objective question.
[01:05:21.040 --> 01:05:27.040]  You have only made personal opinionated statements of fact.
[01:05:27.040 --> 01:05:32.040]  No, I'm only asking the question how the state would answer me.
[01:05:32.040 --> 01:05:36.040]  No. See, that, again, is a legal conclusion on your part.
[01:05:36.040 --> 01:05:39.040]  How do you know that's how the state would answer you?
[01:05:39.040 --> 01:05:44.040]  When and where have you ever had the state answer you in that way?
[01:05:44.040 --> 01:05:49.040]  Well, anytime I go to court, they say there's the 10th Amendment to the Constitution...
[01:05:49.040 --> 01:05:55.040]  Oh, bullcrap. They do not. They do not. You're making that up.
[01:05:55.040 --> 01:05:58.040]  They're making that up. I didn't say it. They did.
[01:05:58.040 --> 01:06:00.040]  No, you're saying they said it.
[01:06:00.040 --> 01:06:05.040]  And I, for one, do not believe any judge anywhere has ever said that to you.
[01:06:05.040 --> 01:06:09.040]  I don't believe any prosecutor has ever said that to you.
[01:06:09.040 --> 01:06:14.040]  They would never cite the federal Constitution as their basis for doing that.
[01:06:14.040 --> 01:06:19.040]  They would always cite either the state constitution or the state statutes.
[01:06:19.040 --> 01:06:23.040]  Nothing more.
[01:06:23.040 --> 01:06:26.040]  So who are you talking to that's actually said that?
[01:06:26.040 --> 01:06:30.040]  Because I'm not buying that it's a judge or a prosecutor.
[01:06:30.040 --> 01:06:35.040]  And I'm not buying that it's a legislator unless you can show me where they've actually done it.
[01:06:35.040 --> 01:06:39.040]  Because I don't think they have.
[01:06:39.040 --> 01:06:43.040]  There's been a couple of lawyers that would say that.
[01:06:43.040 --> 01:06:44.040]  Really?
[01:06:44.040 --> 01:06:47.040]  And I know how to feel about lawyers.
[01:06:47.040 --> 01:06:51.040]  Somehow or other I doubt that too, but if you say so.
[01:06:51.040 --> 01:06:57.040]  See, the thing is, the reason I doubt it is because I have spent the last 10 years in the city of Austin
[01:06:57.040 --> 01:07:00.040]  going downtown to the legislatures, to the Capitol,
[01:07:00.040 --> 01:07:04.040]  talking to every member of the legislature whose door I can get into,
[01:07:04.040 --> 01:07:07.040]  asking them questions, showing them the information,
[01:07:07.040 --> 01:07:12.040]  and asking them more questions that they can't seem to answer or even want to answer.
[01:07:12.040 --> 01:07:20.040]  Then I make appointments with the head legal counsel for the Speaker of the House, each house, and talk to them.
[01:07:20.040 --> 01:07:25.040]  I then speak to the attorneys that are on the Legislative Drafting Council.
[01:07:25.040 --> 01:07:28.040]  Or I'm sorry, not the Legislative Drafting Council.
[01:07:28.040 --> 01:07:30.040]  The Statutory Revision Committee.
[01:07:30.040 --> 01:07:36.040]  And ask them the same questions, show them the same information, and not once in all these years
[01:07:36.040 --> 01:07:41.040]  have a single one of these people ever referred to the Tenth Amendment.
[01:07:41.040 --> 01:07:46.040]  Not once.
[01:07:46.040 --> 01:07:53.040]  So they claim from the state constitutions the source or its statutes only. Is that correct?
[01:07:53.040 --> 01:07:57.040]  They claim the state constitution doesn't limit what they can legislate in.
[01:07:57.040 --> 01:08:01.040]  But that, in fact, is wrong, at least as far as Texas is concerned,
[01:08:01.040 --> 01:08:10.040]  because Article 3, Section 56 expressly forbids them to legislate in given areas.
[01:08:10.040 --> 01:08:14.040]  So the fact that they don't even know that is already a problem.
[01:08:14.040 --> 01:08:20.040]  Why should I expect a good answer of any kind from somebody who doesn't know that?
[01:08:20.040 --> 01:08:23.040]  Well, you gave me an assignment and gave me an idea to do,
[01:08:23.040 --> 01:08:28.040]  and that's start making some contact and asking some questions of these so-called officials of the state.
[01:08:28.040 --> 01:08:32.040]  Well, then make sure you actually ask questions,
[01:08:32.040 --> 01:08:40.040]  not make statements that make them challenge you on them like I had to do this evening.
[01:08:40.040 --> 01:08:45.040]  Well, I'm asking in the same way that they believe, and that's how they would answer.
[01:08:45.040 --> 01:08:48.040]  There you go again. There you go again.
[01:08:48.040 --> 01:08:54.040]  That's another conclusion based upon your personal opinion.
[01:08:54.040 --> 01:09:03.040]  You can't mind read, and you can't show me where they've ever said that to you in a way that you can prove up in a court of law.
[01:09:03.040 --> 01:09:09.040]  So if you don't have it in writing or on a recording so it's admissible in court, it didn't fricking happen.
[01:09:09.040 --> 01:09:11.040]  Are we clear?
[01:09:11.040 --> 01:09:13.040]  Yeah, I understand that.
[01:09:13.040 --> 01:09:14.040]  Okay.
[01:09:14.040 --> 01:09:18.040]  Let me get to the next question.
[01:09:18.040 --> 01:09:21.040]  Please do, by all means.
[01:09:21.040 --> 01:09:24.040]  I'll have to work that out, figuring that out.
[01:09:24.040 --> 01:09:28.040]  What are they really saying and how they're acting?
[01:09:28.040 --> 01:09:30.040]  Question, question, Rader, question.
[01:09:30.040 --> 01:09:33.040]  That's proved on the federal level and they can do what they want in the state.
[01:09:33.040 --> 01:09:36.040]  They make it seem like that.
[01:09:36.040 --> 01:09:40.040]  Rader, question. What's the second question?
[01:09:40.040 --> 01:09:51.040]  Second question, what does an individual have to do if they feel like filing charges, and how would the charges really stick?
[01:09:51.040 --> 01:09:53.040]  What would it take to make them stick?
[01:09:53.040 --> 01:09:57.040]  To file criminal charges against three public figures.
[01:09:57.040 --> 01:10:11.040]  One being the so-called chief executive officer of the United States, the doctor, whatever he has, I guess he's the doctor of the country,
[01:10:11.040 --> 01:10:19.040]  and the other is a major business mogul, and you feel that they're committing fraud against yourself.
[01:10:19.040 --> 01:10:24.040]  Rader, is that seriously the question you have?
[01:10:24.040 --> 01:10:29.040]  What do you think it would take for those charges to be made and to stick?
[01:10:29.040 --> 01:10:36.040]  Facts, evidence, and a grand jury willing to indict and make the charges valid.
[01:10:36.040 --> 01:10:39.040]  What else do you need to know?
[01:10:39.040 --> 01:10:44.040]  I think it probably would take a lot of people all coming together at once making the same charge.
[01:10:44.040 --> 01:10:49.040]  No, it wouldn't, because the people cannot elect a criminal charge into validity.
[01:10:49.040 --> 01:10:51.040]  Right.
[01:10:51.040 --> 01:10:54.040]  A grand jury would have to do that.
[01:10:54.040 --> 01:11:00.040]  That's the only people that can come together, as you put it, and make that a reality.
[01:11:00.040 --> 01:11:02.040]  Right.
[01:11:02.040 --> 01:11:09.040]  And it would have to be a federal grand jury to do it, at least to have any effect nationwide.
[01:11:09.040 --> 01:11:15.040]  A state grand jury could do it, but then they could only have power if the individual in question
[01:11:15.040 --> 01:11:22.040]  entered the territorial boundaries of the state and got arrested.
[01:11:22.040 --> 01:11:24.040]  Okay.
[01:11:24.040 --> 01:11:34.040]  So, yeah, but that comes to mind as how would any individual would be able to file charges, so they have to go...
[01:11:34.040 --> 01:11:37.040]  Any individual can file a criminal charge.
[01:11:37.040 --> 01:11:42.040]  The question is who will take it and do something with it, and I just told you.
[01:11:42.040 --> 01:11:44.040]  Right. Yeah.
[01:11:44.040 --> 01:11:48.040]  What else is there left to answer you with?
[01:11:48.040 --> 01:11:52.040]  No, just one of the steps that it would take to do that.
[01:11:52.040 --> 01:11:56.040]  Hypothetically, I'm not doing it, but what would it take to be able to do something?
[01:11:56.040 --> 01:12:02.040]  That's not hypothetical. That's exactly what it would take to do it.
[01:12:02.040 --> 01:12:04.040]  Okay.
[01:12:04.040 --> 01:12:08.040]  All right, so first I have to go to...
[01:12:08.040 --> 01:12:14.040]  The only way we're going to do that is to get, what, a form and be able to somehow go the route to get to the
[01:12:14.040 --> 01:12:20.040]  federal grand jury to submit my complaint?
[01:12:20.040 --> 01:12:22.040]  I'm not sure there would have to be a form.
[01:12:22.040 --> 01:12:29.040]  I don't know why you couldn't sit down and write it and then go before someone that's capable of administering an oath
[01:12:29.040 --> 01:12:37.040]  for the purpose of a criminal complaint at the federal level, which would be a U.S. attorney most likely.
[01:12:37.040 --> 01:12:43.040]  Once you did that, then you either submit it to the U.S. attorney's office or you send it directly to the federal grand jury,
[01:12:43.040 --> 01:12:47.040]  provided you can find one.
[01:12:47.040 --> 01:12:50.040]  Right. Okay.
[01:12:50.040 --> 01:12:52.040]  All right, that's all I wanted to know.
[01:12:52.040 --> 01:12:57.040]  There's a couple questions that came to mind, and I want to see what you would think, how you'd view them and what I'd need to do
[01:12:57.040 --> 01:12:59.040]  and what would need to be done.
[01:12:59.040 --> 01:13:03.040]  I'm pretty sure I've told you how I viewed them this entire time.
[01:13:03.040 --> 01:13:06.040]  Yeah, I heard you.
[01:13:06.040 --> 01:13:07.040]  Okay.
[01:13:07.040 --> 01:13:08.040]  Thank you. Good night. God bless.
[01:13:08.040 --> 01:13:10.040]  You're welcome. Thanks for calling in.
[01:13:10.040 --> 01:13:14.040]  All right, folks, 512-646-1984.
[01:13:14.040 --> 01:13:19.040]  I've got three segments left in this show and only one other caller, which I'm going to get to here momentarily.
[01:13:19.040 --> 01:13:23.040]  I need somebody else to talk to.
[01:13:23.040 --> 01:13:25.040]  So let's hope we get somebody.
[01:13:25.040 --> 01:13:29.040]  All right, that said, Angel, what can we do for you?
[01:13:29.040 --> 01:13:31.040]  Hi, Eddie. How are you doing?
[01:13:31.040 --> 01:13:33.040]  I'm good, and you?
[01:13:33.040 --> 01:13:35.040]  Good, good, good.
[01:13:35.040 --> 01:13:40.040]  You kind of sounded a little far when you were talking to Truth Radar.
[01:13:40.040 --> 01:13:43.040]  A little far, as in away from the mic?
[01:13:43.040 --> 01:13:45.040]  Yes, yes.
[01:13:45.040 --> 01:13:47.040]  That's entirely possible.
[01:13:47.040 --> 01:13:53.040]  Radar has this effect on my blood pressure that I feel if I don't back up, I'll blow the diaphragm in my mic while I'm talking.
[01:13:53.040 --> 01:13:55.040]  Oh, man, I can see that.
[01:13:55.040 --> 01:13:57.040]  It's been half an hour.
[01:13:57.040 --> 01:14:04.040]  I'm like, man, guys, please limit your questions and arguments to five minutes, maybe 10, the longest.
[01:14:04.040 --> 01:14:06.040]  You know, other people's waiting.
[01:14:06.040 --> 01:14:09.040]  Anyways, I have a few questions for you, Eddie.
[01:14:09.040 --> 01:14:10.040]  Okay.
[01:14:10.040 --> 01:14:27.040]  I've seen these uniformed police sheriffs and, you know, guys in the police force working as security in HEBs and other stores like that.
[01:14:27.040 --> 01:14:35.040]  Are they legally wearing that uniform while performing private security, or are they acting as law enforcement?
[01:14:35.040 --> 01:14:45.040]  Well, technically speaking, they get away with it because the Texas courts have ruled that law enforcement is on duty 24-7.
[01:14:45.040 --> 01:14:46.040]  Okay.
[01:14:46.040 --> 01:14:57.040]  So even though they're privately contracted for private personal gain, they're using their official capacity to generate that money.
[01:14:57.040 --> 01:15:01.040]  That is not allowed, but the courts are letting them get away with it.
[01:15:01.040 --> 01:15:06.040]  This is the problem with letting lawyers run everything.
[01:15:06.040 --> 01:15:17.040]  If there's not a loophole written, they will simply fabricate one out of thin air by misreading whatever exists.
[01:15:17.040 --> 01:15:18.040]  Okay.
[01:15:18.040 --> 01:15:24.040]  But legally, they're not supposed to wear that uniform unless they actually are performing their duty.
[01:15:24.040 --> 01:15:33.040]  Legally, they're not supposed to be able to act in a law enforcement capacity while they're doing private business at all.
[01:15:33.040 --> 01:15:34.040]  Okay.
[01:15:34.040 --> 01:15:42.040]  Because if they were working the way they should, when they're not on duty, they're the same as you and me.
[01:15:42.040 --> 01:15:47.040]  When they're the same as you and me, they have the same limitations that you and I do.
[01:15:47.040 --> 01:15:56.040]  In other words, if what they're doing as a security guard is not within the purview of a breach of the peace
[01:15:56.040 --> 01:16:05.040]  or a felony committed in their presence or view, then their authority to act doesn't exist.
[01:16:05.040 --> 01:16:07.040]  Okay.
[01:16:07.040 --> 01:16:11.040]  But the courts have ruled differently for whatever reason.
[01:16:11.040 --> 01:16:13.040]  Well, we know what the reason is.
[01:16:13.040 --> 01:16:18.040]  It's to make sure that their protectors can come to their aid for their crimes 24-7.
[01:16:18.040 --> 01:16:21.040]  That's why they've done it.
[01:16:21.040 --> 01:16:30.040]  Yeah, it seems that nowadays to be law enforcement is one of the requirements is to have a low IQ.
[01:16:30.040 --> 01:16:33.040]  Well, yeah, it absolutely is a requirement.
[01:16:33.040 --> 01:16:39.040]  And not only that, when they call somebody a sovereign citizen, they're literally talking about themselves
[01:16:39.040 --> 01:16:46.040]  because they're the only ones I know of that go around saying the laws don't apply to them.
[01:16:46.040 --> 01:16:51.040]  And they do that literally every time they try to claim qualified immunity for anything.
[01:16:51.040 --> 01:16:56.040]  They're literally saying the laws don't apply to me. I'm special. You're not.
[01:16:56.040 --> 01:16:58.040]  No, they're not. Yes.
[01:16:58.040 --> 01:17:01.040]  Hang on just a second.
[01:17:01.040 --> 01:17:06.040]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word?
[01:17:06.040 --> 01:17:12.040]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk
[01:17:12.040 --> 01:17:17.040]  where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[01:17:17.040 --> 01:17:22.040]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
[01:17:22.040 --> 01:17:24.040]  rightly dividing the word of truth.
[01:17:24.040 --> 01:17:28.040]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark
[01:17:28.040 --> 01:17:32.040]  where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message.
[01:17:32.040 --> 01:17:37.040]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine
[01:17:37.040 --> 01:17:39.040]  and Christian character development.
[01:17:39.040 --> 01:17:43.040]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[01:17:43.040 --> 01:17:50.040]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[01:17:50.040 --> 01:17:56.040]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m.
[01:17:56.040 --> 01:18:00.040]  to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[01:18:00.040 --> 01:18:05.040]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.040 --> 01:18:09.040]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[01:18:09.040 --> 01:18:15.040]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[01:18:15.040 --> 01:18:21.040]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:18:21.040 --> 01:18:25.040]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[01:18:25.040 --> 01:18:27.040]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:18:27.040 --> 01:18:29.040]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports.
[01:18:29.040 --> 01:18:34.040]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.040 --> 01:18:39.040]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.040 --> 01:18:41.040]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.040 --> 01:18:50.040]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[01:18:50.040 --> 01:19:01.040]  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 collectors now.
[01:19:01.040 --> 01:19:11.040]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:11.040 --> 01:19:30.040]  As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life and realize there's nothing left.
[01:19:30.040 --> 01:19:32.040]  All right, folks. We are back.
[01:19:32.040 --> 01:19:34.040]  This is Rule of Law Radio's Monday Night Show.
[01:19:34.040 --> 01:19:39.040]  Your host, Eddie Craig, calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:39.040 --> 01:19:44.040]  We are live tonight, February 21st, 2022.
[01:19:44.040 --> 01:19:46.040]  Yeah, I'm not keeping up with the data all that well.
[01:19:46.040 --> 01:19:48.040]  I've got too many things on my mind.
[01:19:48.040 --> 01:19:50.040]  That said, let's get back to Angel.
[01:19:50.040 --> 01:19:52.040]  All right, Angel, please go ahead.
[01:19:52.040 --> 01:19:54.040]  Yes, another question.
[01:19:54.040 --> 01:19:56.040]  I live here in San Antonio, right?
[01:19:56.040 --> 01:20:03.040]  And sometimes I catch the bus, you know, to travel to places.
[01:20:03.040 --> 01:20:13.040]  So on the buses, on these display boards outside of the buses, mask required, federal law.
[01:20:13.040 --> 01:20:25.040]  So these companies, this bus company, Bus Company VIA, is actually a private corporation contracted by the city.
[01:20:25.040 --> 01:20:34.040]  And I wanted to ask if they have the same obligations as a city employee since they've been contracted by the city.
[01:20:34.040 --> 01:20:43.040]  In other words, I mean, why do they have the power to actually enforce masks for any of the users?
[01:20:43.040 --> 01:20:45.040]  Well, here's the problem.
[01:20:45.040 --> 01:20:47.040]  There is no such federal law.
[01:20:47.040 --> 01:20:54.040]  It's an executive order from the president which does not even begin to have the force and effect of law within the states.
[01:20:54.040 --> 01:20:55.040]  Does not.
[01:20:55.040 --> 01:21:01.040]  There is no authority whatsoever for the president of the United States to issue an executive order to the states.
[01:21:01.040 --> 01:21:03.040]  Doesn't exist.
[01:21:03.040 --> 01:21:15.040]  His executive orders apply only to the executive officials and agencies of the federal government and no one else.
[01:21:15.040 --> 01:21:18.040]  So when they say federal law, they're full of it.
[01:21:18.040 --> 01:21:19.040]  Doesn't exist.
[01:21:19.040 --> 01:21:32.040]  That's why there is a lawsuit right now against Joe Biden and federal agencies about both the vaccine and the mask mandates.
[01:21:32.040 --> 01:21:38.040]  It's a lawsuit for injunctive relief to prohibit those from being enforced.
[01:21:38.040 --> 01:21:43.040]  Because none of them are constitutionally legal executive orders.
[01:21:43.040 --> 01:21:45.040]  Can't happen.
[01:21:45.040 --> 01:21:47.040]  Yes, I understand that.
[01:21:47.040 --> 01:21:49.040]  I'm aware of that.
[01:21:49.040 --> 01:21:56.040]  I'm aware that they just displaying that federal law just to force people to use those masks.
[01:21:56.040 --> 01:21:58.040]  They understand the president doesn't make it.
[01:21:58.040 --> 01:22:00.040]  Well, what they're doing is committing fraud.
[01:22:00.040 --> 01:22:02.040]  See, here's the problem.
[01:22:02.040 --> 01:22:03.040]  That's what I wanted to get.
[01:22:03.040 --> 01:22:04.040]  Okay.
[01:22:04.040 --> 01:22:15.040]  Yeah, when they're saying that there's a law that they're using as the basis for their action and no such law exists, then that's fraud.
[01:22:15.040 --> 01:22:22.040]  They're trying to coerce you into performing a particular act by misinforming you with knowing and willful intent.
[01:22:22.040 --> 01:22:25.040]  That's fraud.
[01:22:25.040 --> 01:22:34.040]  Especially when the intent is to violate your right to medical autonomy.
[01:22:34.040 --> 01:22:35.040]  Okay.
[01:22:35.040 --> 01:22:36.040]  Yes.
[01:22:36.040 --> 01:22:39.040]  That's kind of what I had in mind.
[01:22:39.040 --> 01:22:40.040]  I just couldn't pinpoint it.
[01:22:40.040 --> 01:22:41.040]  It's fraud.
[01:22:41.040 --> 01:22:44.040]  All right.
[01:22:44.040 --> 01:22:50.040]  Another question is, I always wonder who is the grand jury?
[01:22:50.040 --> 01:22:59.040]  Well, who is is whoever was chosen to participate on the grand jury by the district court at the time the grand jury was formed.
[01:22:59.040 --> 01:23:08.040]  Usually it's people that are on either the voter registration or driver's license roles.
[01:23:08.040 --> 01:23:17.040]  So it's a, well, I don't know the terminology, but I was just going to say it's just a regular person, a regular citizen could be a grand jury.
[01:23:17.040 --> 01:23:18.040]  It's not like...
[01:23:18.040 --> 01:23:21.040]  They can't be a grand jury.
[01:23:21.040 --> 01:23:27.040]  They can participate as a member of a grand jury, but individuals can't be a grand jury.
[01:23:27.040 --> 01:23:28.040]  Okay.
[01:23:28.040 --> 01:23:29.040]  All right.
[01:23:29.040 --> 01:23:30.040]  All right.
[01:23:30.040 --> 01:23:38.040]  Okay. Another question is, are you offering classes in person?
[01:23:38.040 --> 01:23:47.040]  I'm offering classes online via Zoom so people can participate in them from wherever they are.
[01:23:47.040 --> 01:23:48.040]  Okay.
[01:23:48.040 --> 01:23:56.040]  But there's no local venue that I could even begin to afford to put on an actual live class in person anymore.
[01:23:56.040 --> 01:24:03.040]  It's way more economical for everybody, including the student, to do them online right now.
[01:24:03.040 --> 01:24:09.040]  Well, I just was asking because one day I would like to shake your hand.
[01:24:09.040 --> 01:24:15.040]  Well, all you got to do is tell me you're coming to Austin and I can meet you somewhere to make that happen.
[01:24:15.040 --> 01:24:18.040]  Oh, awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Yeah.
[01:24:18.040 --> 01:24:22.040]  Well, I don't know how to contact you through email, I guess.
[01:24:22.040 --> 01:24:27.040]  Yes, you can do that. You can most certainly send me an email.
[01:24:27.040 --> 01:24:30.040]  Okay. One last question, Eddie.
[01:24:30.040 --> 01:24:35.040]  I have a friend who's also a listener and...
[01:24:35.040 --> 01:24:37.040]  He's also a what? I'm sorry?
[01:24:37.040 --> 01:24:41.040]  A listener.
[01:24:41.040 --> 01:24:43.040]  He's full.
[01:24:43.040 --> 01:24:44.040]  He's into all of this.
[01:24:44.040 --> 01:24:48.040]  As a matter of fact, he's actually the one who introduced me to Eddie Craig.
[01:24:48.040 --> 01:24:56.040]  But now he's very busy at his work, but I'm just going to ask some questions on his behalf.
[01:24:56.040 --> 01:25:08.040]  And about two years ago before the pandemic or prior to the pandemic, he was by the border on his work van.
[01:25:08.040 --> 01:25:18.040]  And he was stopped because according to the cop, one of his brake lights wasn't working.
[01:25:18.040 --> 01:25:28.040]  Anyways, they conducted a search, an illegal search in his van even though he did not give any permission.
[01:25:28.040 --> 01:25:30.040]  And they found some...
[01:25:30.040 --> 01:25:35.040]  What kind of cop are we talking about?
[01:25:35.040 --> 01:25:40.040]  He said CPS.
[01:25:40.040 --> 01:25:42.040]  CPS?
[01:25:42.040 --> 01:25:48.040]  Yes, like maybe a state trooper or something.
[01:25:48.040 --> 01:25:50.040]  That's DPS.
[01:25:50.040 --> 01:25:52.040]  DPS. I'm sorry. DPS.
[01:25:52.040 --> 01:25:53.040]  Okay.
[01:25:53.040 --> 01:26:09.040]  And so they kept insisting that they needed to search his truck, and so what he did was he just said, I'm just going to let you look, but you cannot go inside and search.
[01:26:09.040 --> 01:26:12.040]  No. See, that doesn't work.
[01:26:12.040 --> 01:26:20.040]  He's not...the moment he consents to any sort of visible thing, he consents to allowing them access.
[01:26:20.040 --> 01:26:23.040]  That's his first instinct.
[01:26:23.040 --> 01:26:26.040]  Okay. He cannot say, I'll let you look, but not touch.
[01:26:26.040 --> 01:26:35.040]  No, because if they can look and see something they find suspicious, you can't...they're not required to get your permission to touch at that point.
[01:26:35.040 --> 01:26:46.040]  It's like you saying, yes, you can look through the window of my car and see the five keys of marijuana stacked in the backseat, but you can't enter the car and touch to verify that's what it is instead of a Reginald.
[01:26:46.040 --> 01:26:49.040]  It's not going to work that way.
[01:26:49.040 --> 01:26:51.040]  Okay. Got it.
[01:26:51.040 --> 01:26:55.040]  Well, okay, so they proceeded to search...
[01:26:55.040 --> 01:26:56.040]  Okay. Hang on.
[01:26:56.040 --> 01:26:59.040]  Whatever you're doing, you've got your phone tucked away where I can't understand you.
[01:26:59.040 --> 01:27:02.040]  You're muffling the phone.
[01:27:02.040 --> 01:27:03.040]  Okay. Can you hear me better?
[01:27:03.040 --> 01:27:04.040]  Now. Much better.
[01:27:04.040 --> 01:27:05.040]  Go ahead.
[01:27:05.040 --> 01:27:22.040]  Okay. So they proceeded to do the search and they found some pain pills, like prescription pain pills that one of his family members had given him to show the pain that he had at that time.
[01:27:22.040 --> 01:27:31.040]  And so he was charged for, you know, illegal contraband, whatever. He was charged for that.
[01:27:31.040 --> 01:27:34.040]  Possession of a controlled substance.
[01:27:34.040 --> 01:27:51.040]  Yes. So it's been, what, like two years or more and they have not, he hasn't been called to court or there hasn't been a court date set up for him and he's called and the reason is because...
[01:27:51.040 --> 01:27:57.040]  What level of offense are they trying to charge him with, a misdemeanor or a felony?
[01:27:57.040 --> 01:28:00.040]  Most likely I think it's a felony because...
[01:28:00.040 --> 01:28:07.040]  Well, the problem is, is you don't need to think, you need to know because it affects how long they've got.
[01:28:07.040 --> 01:28:15.040]  They've got a much longer amount of time to go to trial and file a complaint in a felony case than they do in a misdemeanor case.
[01:28:15.040 --> 01:28:21.040]  So it's imperative that you understand what they're trying to charge him with as to what level of offense.
[01:28:21.040 --> 01:28:27.040]  If they're trying to charge him with a felony, they could have up to five years to do that.
[01:28:27.040 --> 01:28:31.040]  Has there been a grand jury indictment?
[01:28:31.040 --> 01:28:35.040]  No, no, there's only charges in those papers.
[01:28:35.040 --> 01:28:45.040]  When you say there's only charges, what are we talking about? Are we talking about a sworn criminal complaint and an information?
[01:28:45.040 --> 01:28:52.040]  Yes, yeah, what the cop did and the search and all that and what they found.
[01:28:52.040 --> 01:29:04.040]  Well, that's a police report. Do you have an actual document that says criminal complaint or complaint?
[01:29:04.040 --> 01:29:09.040]  Hmm, that's a good question. I don't remember seeing one.
[01:29:09.040 --> 01:29:15.040]  And then in conjunction with the complaint, do you have another document that says information?
[01:29:15.040 --> 01:29:24.040]  Or is there a different section of the same document that says information and it's signed by the county or district attorney?
[01:29:24.040 --> 01:29:35.040]  Okay, okay, okay. Yeah, he had to come out on bail because they had actually arrested him and stuff.
[01:29:35.040 --> 01:29:40.040]  So if he was a misdemeanor, how long would he have? If he was charged with a misdemeanor.
[01:29:40.040 --> 01:29:48.040]  They have two years to prosecute a misdemeanor by filing a complaint, getting an information and an indictment and then prosecuting the case.
[01:29:48.040 --> 01:29:53.040]  If they haven't done that within the two years, they're outside of the statute of limitations.
[01:29:53.040 --> 01:29:58.040]  Okay, hang on just a second. I've got to break and then we'll finish this up, okay?
[01:29:58.040 --> 01:30:00.040]  All right, folks, we'll be right back.
[01:30:00.040 --> 01:30:05.040]  It seems like everywhere you turn nowadays, someone wants your name, social security number and date of birth.
[01:30:05.040 --> 01:30:08.040]  But you should think twice before giving away your personal data.
[01:30:08.040 --> 01:30:11.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll see more in just a moment.
[01:30:38.040 --> 01:30:45.040]  Forms, forms, forms, they're everywhere.
[01:30:45.040 --> 01:30:49.040]  But just because a piece of paper asks for information doesn't mean you have to give it.
[01:30:49.040 --> 01:30:56.040]  I lay blank spaces on forms all the time or I write N slash A for not applicable and usually nobody notices or cares.
[01:30:56.040 --> 01:31:03.040]  I never give my social security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government requirement.
[01:31:03.040 --> 01:31:09.040]  And I won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless I actually want them to call me and that's pretty rare.
[01:31:09.040 --> 01:31:14.040]  To preserve our vanishing privacy, we need to practice saying no to random data requests.
[01:31:14.040 --> 01:31:18.040]  It's like exercising a muscle. It gets easier the more you do it.
[01:31:18.040 --> 01:31:31.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:31.040 --> 01:31:36.040]  I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11th, 2001.
[01:31:36.040 --> 01:31:40.040]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th.
[01:31:40.040 --> 01:31:44.040]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:44.040 --> 01:31:48.040]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[01:31:48.040 --> 01:31:53.040]  over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[01:31:53.040 --> 01:31:56.040]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[01:31:56.040 --> 01:32:02.040]  Go to buildingwatt.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:02.040 --> 01:32:06.040]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[01:32:06.040 --> 01:32:08.040]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[01:32:08.040 --> 01:32:13.040]  And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.040 --> 01:32:18.040]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[01:32:18.040 --> 01:32:20.040]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.040 --> 01:32:26.040]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.040 --> 01:32:29.040]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[01:32:29.040 --> 01:32:34.040]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[01:32:34.040 --> 01:32:36.040]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.040 --> 01:32:41.040]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.040 --> 01:32:46.040]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[01:32:46.040 --> 01:32:51.040]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[01:32:51.040 --> 01:32:55.040]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:55.040 --> 01:33:00.040]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:00.040 --> 01:33:27.040]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:27.040 --> 01:33:34.040]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, caller number 512-646-1984.
[01:33:34.040 --> 01:33:40.040]  Got two segments left in this show, and right now I've got two callers up on the board, Angel and Penny,
[01:33:40.040 --> 01:33:44.040]  and we are currently talking to Angel. All right, Angel, please continue.
[01:33:44.040 --> 01:33:54.040]  Yes, so how is the speedy trial enforced then, you know, by the...
[01:33:54.040 --> 01:34:00.040]  Well, according to the courts, despite the fact that a speedy trial is an inherent right of due process,
[01:34:00.040 --> 01:34:09.040]  the courts have ruled that if you never demanded a speedy trial, then you can't claim a violation of the speedy trial right.
[01:34:09.040 --> 01:34:18.040]  So if he has never filed a motion demanding a speedy trial, then he can't claim they violated his right to a speedy trial.
[01:34:18.040 --> 01:34:29.040]  However, if they are trying to prosecute him for a misdemeanor, and they are indeed past the two-year statute of limitations for doing so,
[01:34:29.040 --> 01:34:40.040]  then he has the ability to file a motion to quash the complaint and the information, or to set aside the complaint and to quash the information,
[01:34:40.040 --> 01:34:49.040]  and then to write a second one to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations.
[01:34:49.040 --> 01:34:58.040]  So that's two separate motions, or three, one to set aside the complaint for failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations,
[01:34:58.040 --> 01:35:06.040]  one to quash the indict...or the information or the indictment, if there is one, for failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations,
[01:35:06.040 --> 01:35:12.040]  and then a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute within the statute of limitations.
[01:35:12.040 --> 01:35:15.040]  And those need to all be filed in separate documents.
[01:35:15.040 --> 01:35:17.040]  Okay.
[01:35:17.040 --> 01:35:23.040]  But that is if it's a misdemeanor. If it's a felony, that's a whole other animal.
[01:35:23.040 --> 01:35:28.040]  So you need to know which one it is so that you can go and act properly.
[01:35:28.040 --> 01:35:38.040]  Okay. All right. Well, that's what I need to know. Thank you, Eddie. Thank you very much.
[01:35:38.040 --> 01:35:39.040]  You're very welcome.
[01:35:39.040 --> 01:35:41.040]  All right, man. God bless.
[01:35:41.040 --> 01:35:45.040]  You too. Take care. And just like I say, email me and let me know when you're headed up this way,
[01:35:45.040 --> 01:35:50.040]  and I'll be happy to meet up with you somewhere within general walking distance.
[01:35:50.040 --> 01:35:53.040]  I appreciate it, man. That's very awesome. Thank you.
[01:35:53.040 --> 01:35:54.040]  All right. No problem.
[01:35:54.040 --> 01:35:55.040]  Bye.
[01:35:55.040 --> 01:35:56.040]  Bye-bye.
[01:35:56.040 --> 01:36:01.040]  All right. 512-646-1984, people.
[01:36:01.040 --> 01:36:05.040]  I still got another segment after this one, so I would like somebody to talk to.
[01:36:05.040 --> 01:36:09.040]  In the meantime, let's talk to Penny. Hi, Penny. What can we do for you?
[01:36:09.040 --> 01:36:11.040]  Hey, Eddie. How you doing?
[01:36:11.040 --> 01:36:14.040]  I'm doing all right so far. Don't I sound like it?
[01:36:14.040 --> 01:36:16.040]  Yes. Can you hear me?
[01:36:16.040 --> 01:36:18.040]  I can hear you.
[01:36:18.040 --> 01:36:25.040]  All righty. I have an unusual question because I was watching a vid last night.
[01:36:25.040 --> 01:36:34.040]  Last night, I guess, and the man was talking about being the plenipotentiary of the postal union.
[01:36:34.040 --> 01:36:35.040]  Oh, God.
[01:36:35.040 --> 01:36:38.040]  Do you know anything about the Universal Postal Union?
[01:36:38.040 --> 01:36:44.040]  I know what they're trying to say about it and what they're trying to do with it,
[01:36:44.040 --> 01:36:49.040]  and I can tell you right now, if you're listening to it with anything other than actual amusement,
[01:36:49.040 --> 01:36:53.040]  then you need to stop watching it entirely.
[01:36:53.040 --> 01:36:57.040]  Okay. Because nothing they're telling you is true.
[01:36:57.040 --> 01:37:05.040]  Yeah. Okay. That's kind of what I was wondering because this is not the first time that I had heard about it,
[01:37:05.040 --> 01:37:10.040]  and it piqued my interest. I was like, wow.
[01:37:10.040 --> 01:37:12.040]  Well, therein lies the problem.
[01:37:12.040 --> 01:37:15.040]  Nowadays, there are people that can say all kinds of things
[01:37:15.040 --> 01:37:22.040]  and show you just enough misinformation to make them appear to be telling you facts
[01:37:22.040 --> 01:37:27.040]  when if you actually do the research on your own based upon what they're showing you,
[01:37:27.040 --> 01:37:31.040]  you will reach an entirely different conclusion for the following reasons.
[01:37:31.040 --> 01:37:37.040]  One, they don't understand what they're reading, and when you read it and see that,
[01:37:37.040 --> 01:37:40.040]  it blows their theory completely apart.
[01:37:40.040 --> 01:37:54.040]  Number two, they are taking one fact that may exist, and they are making multiple levels of inferences from that singular fact,
[01:37:54.040 --> 01:37:56.040]  which is not the way it works.
[01:37:56.040 --> 01:38:07.040]  You are allowed one level of inference, and it must be a logical and reasonable inference based upon the fact at hand itself.
[01:38:07.040 --> 01:38:17.040]  Okay? For instance, if the fact is the sky is not really blue,
[01:38:17.040 --> 01:38:27.040]  it is simply then the inference that can logically be made is that it appears blue because of atmospheric density
[01:38:27.040 --> 01:38:31.040]  between you and the outer ring of the atmosphere.
[01:38:31.040 --> 01:38:32.040]  Right.
[01:38:32.040 --> 01:38:43.040]  So the refraction of light through that atmosphere filters out certain color spectrums and thus makes the sky look blue.
[01:38:43.040 --> 01:38:44.040]  Right.
[01:38:44.040 --> 01:38:45.040]  Okay?
[01:38:45.040 --> 01:38:46.040]  Okay.
[01:38:46.040 --> 01:38:53.040]  So that's one logical inference, but to take a second one and go, and because the light is being filtered out,
[01:38:53.040 --> 01:38:58.040]  then that must mean the sun is local and the earth is flat.
[01:38:58.040 --> 01:39:04.040]  Okay.
[01:39:04.040 --> 01:39:07.040]  I've heard a lot about that flat earth thing.
[01:39:07.040 --> 01:39:13.040]  I'm kind of bamboozled.
[01:39:13.040 --> 01:39:25.040]  Well, it just proves to me that the level of insanity that this country has allowed itself to sink to is just, it's wholly depressing.
[01:39:25.040 --> 01:39:26.040]  Okay?
[01:39:25.040 --> 01:39:26.040]  I know.
[01:39:26.040 --> 01:39:28.040]  It really, really is.
[01:39:28.040 --> 01:39:29.040]  Yeah.
[01:39:29.040 --> 01:39:32.040]  I lose hope sometimes.
[01:39:32.040 --> 01:39:34.040]  I'm like, hmm.
[01:39:34.040 --> 01:39:35.040]  Okay.
[01:39:35.040 --> 01:39:41.040]  Well, that was primarily my question because you said you needed company.
[01:39:41.040 --> 01:39:42.040]  I do.
[01:39:42.040 --> 01:39:44.040]  And if you're going to get off, I still need company.
[01:39:44.040 --> 01:39:46.040]  That's the thing.
[01:39:46.040 --> 01:39:50.040]  I've still got another segment in this show, and four minutes left in this segment.
[01:39:50.040 --> 01:39:53.040]  But yeah, the more I can talk to, the better.
[01:39:53.040 --> 01:40:02.040]  Either that or I got to go back to divulging more information from the upcoming book and updated seminar material, which is going to be quite extensive as far as the book is concerned.
[01:40:02.040 --> 01:40:10.040]  It's got a lot more information than the original book had, but I've taken my sweet time in collecting the information to write it.
[01:40:10.040 --> 01:40:11.040]  Right.
[01:40:11.040 --> 01:40:16.040]  Something I was not able to do the first time around.
[01:40:16.040 --> 01:40:18.040]  I am.
[01:40:18.040 --> 01:40:23.040]  So do you know when you'll be done with it?
[01:40:23.040 --> 01:40:42.040]  I wished I had an answer to that question, but considering that I am currently augmenting whatever amount of income I can with dog training and dog sitting, as well as a new puppy of my own among all the other projects in my lap, no, I couldn't tell you that.
[01:40:42.040 --> 01:40:43.040]  Okay.
[01:40:43.040 --> 01:40:44.040]  I have a question for you.
[01:40:44.040 --> 01:40:45.040]  Okay.
[01:40:45.040 --> 01:41:00.040]  I'm in a home right now, a house, and I don't think, I mean, I've listened to Randy sort of, he has a person on there that has to do, who helps people with property tax.
[01:41:00.040 --> 01:41:01.040]  Right.
[01:41:01.040 --> 01:41:20.040]  And I understood from what this man said one time on Randy's show that if you have a domicile that you're renting out, but it's less than like nine units or something that you don't have to pay property tax on it, is that correct?
[01:41:20.040 --> 01:41:31.040]  Well, the thing about it is, is whether or not in Texas the piece of property could be considered a private domicile in and of itself or whether or not it's considered a commercial property.
[01:41:31.040 --> 01:41:32.040]  Okay.
[01:41:32.040 --> 01:41:46.040]  Well, if it's a commercial property, then you're running a business and the business can be taxed because in that particular case, most people would have formed a corporation so as to be personally insulated from lawsuits.
[01:41:46.040 --> 01:41:47.040]  Okay.
[01:41:47.040 --> 01:41:51.040]  Yeah, this is just, you know, an elderly couple that rents his house.
[01:41:51.040 --> 01:41:53.040]  It's just an extra house that they have.
[01:41:53.040 --> 01:41:54.040]  Right.
[01:41:54.040 --> 01:42:02.040]  But what I'm getting at is that an actual home rented out is still private property.
[01:42:02.040 --> 01:42:08.040]  It's not a commercial residence even though it's being rented to someone for money.
[01:42:08.040 --> 01:42:10.040]  It's still not a commercial residence.
[01:42:10.040 --> 01:42:14.040]  It's a private residence rented to a private individual.
[01:42:14.040 --> 01:42:15.040]  Right.
[01:42:15.040 --> 01:42:16.040]  Okay.
[01:42:16.040 --> 01:42:24.040]  Now, if they were renting it under the guise of a management company, then that would be considered commercial.
[01:42:24.040 --> 01:42:38.040]  For instance, if they had established their own management corporation and their job and business is property management, so they buy up these properties to rent out, well, now they're generating profit for a corporate entity.
[01:42:38.040 --> 01:42:39.040]  Right.
[01:42:39.040 --> 01:42:40.040]  Okay.
[01:42:40.040 --> 01:42:42.040]  That would make it commercial.
[01:42:42.040 --> 01:42:43.040]  Okay.
[01:42:43.040 --> 01:42:49.040]  But every person is entitled to the fruits produced by their own property.
[01:42:49.040 --> 01:43:00.040]  And when it is owned by individuals, not corporations, then it falls into that exception to the general rule of taxation.
[01:43:00.040 --> 01:43:03.040]  Well, I'm pretty sure they've been paying property tax on it.
[01:43:03.040 --> 01:43:10.040]  Oh, I'm quite sure they have because the state threatens them that they'll lose the property if they don't.
[01:43:10.040 --> 01:43:25.040]  But that goes to what I've talked about so many times on this show in relation to property taxes is that no one has properly challenged property taxes in the state of Texas as being a breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract.
[01:43:25.040 --> 01:43:34.040]  They have all tried to argue that property taxes are unconstitutional, which they are in Texas anyway.
[01:43:34.040 --> 01:43:43.040]  But that is not going to win the argument when the courts are ignoring that by citing common law that doesn't actually exist.
[01:43:43.040 --> 01:43:56.040]  So the argument here is one they can't refute, that the patent that no one's bothered to carry forward is an actual contract the state is not free to violate, nor is the political subdivision able to interfere with it.
[01:43:56.040 --> 01:44:00.040]  Hang on just a second. Let me take this break and I'll finish this up.
[01:44:00.040 --> 01:44:06.040]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.040 --> 01:44:11.040]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.040 --> 01:44:17.040]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.040 --> 01:44:25.040]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.040 --> 01:44:31.040]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.040 --> 01:44:39.040]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.040 --> 01:44:47.040]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.040 --> 01:44:51.040]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.040 --> 01:44:58.040]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:44:58.040 --> 01:45:00.040]  Order now.
[01:45:00.040 --> 01:45:07.040]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:07.040 --> 01:45:15.040]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.040 --> 01:45:19.040]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.040 --> 01:45:23.040]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.040 --> 01:45:28.040]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.040 --> 01:45:34.040]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.040 --> 01:45:43.040]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.040 --> 01:45:52.040]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.040 --> 01:46:01.040]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:01.040 --> 01:46:28.040]  Alright folks, we are back for the last segment of the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show.
[01:46:28.040 --> 01:46:32.040]  We are back for the last segment of the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:46:32.040 --> 01:46:35.040]  We are talking to Penny in Texas.
[01:46:35.040 --> 01:46:40.040]  Alright, Penny, I got one other caller up on the board, so what else do you want to know about the property tax?
[01:46:40.040 --> 01:46:43.040]  That was all I needed to know, just so I could tell them.
[01:46:43.040 --> 01:46:45.040]  Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
[01:46:45.040 --> 01:46:52.040]  People need to carry the land patent, the original land patent for whatever plot of land their house is sitting on.
[01:46:52.040 --> 01:47:07.040]  They need to research it all the way back to the original patent and then get a chain of title for every owner of that original patented plot
[01:47:07.040 --> 01:47:12.040]  down to where it is today to show that there's a clear chain of title.
[01:47:12.040 --> 01:47:20.040]  Once the clear chain of title is established and there are no outstanding liens against the property or other encumbrances,
[01:47:20.040 --> 01:47:28.040]  they can then get a land patent carried forward in their name if they can get the land office in the state of Texas to do their damn job,
[01:47:28.040 --> 01:47:32.040]  which they are very likely not to want to do.
[01:47:32.040 --> 01:47:39.040]  But without carrying that patent forward, you are not considered the equity owner of the property.
[01:47:39.040 --> 01:47:48.040]  You are only legally a tenant or occupant of that property who does not have the same rights as the actual equity owner.
[01:47:48.040 --> 01:47:50.040]  You're only the legal owner.
[01:47:50.040 --> 01:47:54.040]  And there is a big difference in what the two can do with the property.
[01:47:54.040 --> 01:47:59.040]  Right. So if they don't want to do a patent on it or...
[01:47:59.040 --> 01:48:02.040]  Then they're stuck paying property taxes, period.
[01:48:02.040 --> 01:48:05.040]  There is no other way around it.
[01:48:05.040 --> 01:48:12.040]  They cannot sue the state and they cannot ever win any suit against the state without standing.
[01:48:12.040 --> 01:48:17.040]  And the only way to get standing is to get the patent.
[01:48:17.040 --> 01:48:21.040]  Hmm. So how do we demand the patent?
[01:48:21.040 --> 01:48:27.040]  Well, you may have to sue the Texas Land Office to do their damn job because that's what they were created to do.
[01:48:27.040 --> 01:48:33.040]  And lately, for the last couple of decades, they've refused to do it.
[01:48:33.040 --> 01:48:39.040]  I see. Hmm. Okay. Well, we'll see what we can do about that.
[01:48:39.040 --> 01:48:41.040]  All right. Well, thanks for calling in, Penny.
[01:48:41.040 --> 01:48:43.040]  Thanks. You have a good evening. Bye.
[01:48:43.040 --> 01:48:45.040]  You too. Bye-bye.
[01:48:45.040 --> 01:48:49.040]  All right. Now we have Jane in Texas. Jane, what can we do for you?
[01:48:49.040 --> 01:48:51.040]  Hi. How are you doing tonight?
[01:48:51.040 --> 01:48:55.040]  I'm doing good. And just FYI, I've got less than 10 minutes.
[01:48:55.040 --> 01:48:59.040]  I know, Scott. You know, I'm kind of long-winded, but I have to not talk too fast.
[01:48:59.040 --> 01:49:04.040]  But first of all, you were talking last week about my cats and that stuff.
[01:49:04.040 --> 01:49:06.040]  Yes.
[01:49:06.040 --> 01:49:13.040]  And it seemed to me like you were thinking that maybe that I'm going to have that these are going to stick, but...
[01:49:13.040 --> 01:49:15.040]  Wait, wait, wait. Say that last part again.
[01:49:15.040 --> 01:49:24.040]  It seems to me like the way it sounded to me, it was like that it seemed like you were thinking that it was going to stick with me.
[01:49:24.040 --> 01:49:26.040]  That it was going to stick?
[01:49:26.040 --> 01:49:33.040]  Yeah, it was going to stick because you were saying that, well, why didn't you get the cat out?
[01:49:33.040 --> 01:49:40.040]  No, I was thinking that they could potentially find a way to make it stick because of the things you did.
[01:49:40.040 --> 01:49:49.040]  I didn't say it would, but you left them a lot of ways where they could make every effort to make it that way.
[01:49:49.040 --> 01:49:53.040]  A lot of ways? How in the heck can they prove intent?
[01:49:53.040 --> 01:50:05.040]  Well, again, like I said, proving intent would not be difficult if they make the argument stick that because you knowingly took the trap off the porch, you displayed intent.
[01:50:05.040 --> 01:50:10.040]  If a judge agreed with that finding, it would stick.
[01:50:10.040 --> 01:50:12.040]  Okay. Well, I'm going to get rid of them.
[01:50:12.040 --> 01:50:26.040]  I'm going to get rid of the case before that goes to that, I hope, on challenging saying they have no subject matter jurisdiction over the fact that, one,
[01:50:26.040 --> 01:50:28.040]  they didn't have a criminal complaint.
[01:50:28.040 --> 01:50:31.040]  It didn't ever get into an examining trial.
[01:50:31.040 --> 01:50:34.040]  They didn't go in front of a magistrate or anything like that.
[01:50:34.040 --> 01:50:40.040]  And so there was no probable cause ever established by the court, in other words.
[01:50:40.040 --> 01:50:47.040]  So it was just written by the officer, which in his paperwork he did say he had probable cause, but it wasn't-
[01:50:47.040 --> 01:50:57.040]  Well, probable cause to conduct the investigation is not the same as probable cause that his belief of the law is correct and accurate for the purpose of prosecution.
[01:50:57.040 --> 01:51:00.040]  Those are not one and the same thing.
[01:51:00.040 --> 01:51:01.040]  Okay.
[01:51:01.040 --> 01:51:09.040]  Just be aware of that. The cop does not have any power whatsoever to determine probable cause for the purpose of prosecution.
[01:51:09.040 --> 01:51:15.040]  He cannot be both the accuser and the person establishing probable cause.
[01:51:15.040 --> 01:51:16.040]  That's a conflict.
[01:51:16.040 --> 01:51:18.040]  Can't happen.
[01:51:18.040 --> 01:51:24.040]  So then, in other words, it does have to go in front of an examining trial if it was done properly?
[01:51:24.040 --> 01:51:32.040]  If it was done in accordance with Texas law, it would have to go before a magistrate for the purpose of an examining trial to find probable cause to prosecute.
[01:51:32.040 --> 01:51:33.040]  Yes.
[01:51:33.040 --> 01:51:34.040]  Okay.
[01:51:34.040 --> 01:51:37.040]  And that's what I tend to make my motion on.
[01:51:37.040 --> 01:51:39.040]  And will they-
[01:51:39.040 --> 01:51:44.040]  Well, you said that the only thing that's been filed is the statement of the officer.
[01:51:44.040 --> 01:51:46.040]  What did he make the statement in?
[01:51:46.040 --> 01:51:49.040]  A police report or a criminal complaint?
[01:51:49.040 --> 01:51:58.040]  It was a police report, and then it has to investigate the actual citations or two citations sent in the mail, but that has original-
[01:51:58.040 --> 01:52:01.040]  The citations are not criminal complaints.
[01:52:01.040 --> 01:52:14.040]  Right. But I'm seeing indictments and informations are actually handled the same way as far as, you know, what has to be the requisite for it, according to what I've read.
[01:52:14.040 --> 01:52:21.040]  Well, yeah, but neither an indictment or information can exist without a sworn criminal complaint.
[01:52:21.040 --> 01:52:22.040]  Okay.
[01:52:22.040 --> 01:52:31.040]  The police report and the citation do not meet the legal requirements of a sworn criminal complaint in any way, shape, or form.
[01:52:31.040 --> 01:52:32.040]  Okay.
[01:52:32.040 --> 01:52:37.040]  And so they didn't do it because I don't have a notarized affidavit or anything like that.
[01:52:37.040 --> 01:52:39.040]  It would not be notarized.
[01:52:39.040 --> 01:52:43.040]  It has to be done before the county or district attorney or a magistrate.
[01:52:43.040 --> 01:52:49.040]  It cannot be done before anybody else and meet the requirements of being a sworn complaint.
[01:52:49.040 --> 01:53:01.040]  If it's done in front of a notary, it's simply a verified complaint, which is not the same thing as a sworn complaint, not according to what the statutes and the Constitution say.
[01:53:01.040 --> 01:53:17.040]  So if anywhere on the, you know, the six or seven or eight pages of stuff that I got from them and I haven't seen that it doesn't have somebody like a magistrate signature or, you know, something like that, then it's not a verified, it's not a sworn complaint, correct?
[01:53:17.040 --> 01:53:26.040]  There would have to be the affidavit signature and a magistrate or county or district attorney signature in their official capacity.
[01:53:26.040 --> 01:53:36.040]  And then there would have to be, after the complaint, an information signed by either the county or district attorney in their official capacity.
[01:53:36.040 --> 01:53:44.040]  And each of these should have the title complaint, and they should begin in and by the authority of the state of Texas.
[01:53:44.040 --> 01:53:45.040]  Exactly.
[01:53:45.040 --> 01:53:46.040]  Okay.
[01:53:46.040 --> 01:53:51.040]  And they will conclude with against the peace and dignity of the state.
[01:53:51.040 --> 01:54:08.040]  So if you have two sets or two documents or two sections of a document where those are the beginning and ending, you need to read what's in between those two lines very carefully to see what's a complaint and what's an information and then whether or not there's been an indictment on top of that.
[01:54:08.040 --> 01:54:18.040]  But even if they exist, if there is no examining trial order, everything they've got is invalid.
[01:54:18.040 --> 01:54:27.040]  Every single thing they've got is a violation of Texas law because they did not follow substantive procedure.
[01:54:27.040 --> 01:54:32.040]  And you have a right to substantive procedural due process.
[01:54:32.040 --> 01:54:34.040]  Substantive procedure.
[01:54:34.040 --> 01:54:51.040]  Okay. So then exactly, I know the different statutes like the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is 14, 15, 16, 17 or whatever, and also the penal code.
[01:54:51.040 --> 01:54:59.040]  I've seen those statutes and I've seen the codes, but now which one actually says what you just said about the due process?
[01:54:59.040 --> 01:55:02.040]  Or is it all of them combined together?
[01:55:02.040 --> 01:55:06.040]  As far as substantive procedural due process?
[01:55:06.040 --> 01:55:07.040]  Yeah, where does it say that?
[01:55:07.040 --> 01:55:09.040]  It doesn't say that.
[01:55:09.040 --> 01:55:13.040]  That's United States Supreme Court opinion.
[01:55:13.040 --> 01:55:16.040]  Well, where does it say that?
[01:55:16.040 --> 01:55:18.040]  Do you know where that's at?
[01:55:18.040 --> 01:55:23.040]  All you got to do is go on Google Scholar and do a search for that phrasing.
[01:55:23.040 --> 01:55:24.040]  Okay.
[01:55:24.040 --> 01:55:26.040]  Procedural due process.
[01:55:26.040 --> 01:55:30.040]  Write a procedural due process.
[01:55:30.040 --> 01:55:33.040]  Okay. All right. Okay.
[01:55:33.040 --> 01:55:37.040]  Well, I still got a little bit of time, but should I go ahead and wait until we go?
[01:55:37.040 --> 01:55:40.040]  I mean, and, you know, to me, it's just like a waste of time.
[01:55:40.040 --> 01:55:46.040]  They're not going to, because I don't think there's no way in hell they can prove intent because it was not planned.
[01:55:46.040 --> 01:55:47.040]  It was none of that kind of stuff.
[01:55:47.040 --> 01:55:57.040]  Well, if I was you, instead of arguing whether or not they can prove intent, I would find out first and foremost if they have correctly followed procedure.
[01:55:57.040 --> 01:56:03.040]  If they have not, then you have an affirmative defense on those points alone.
[01:56:03.040 --> 01:56:04.040]  Okay.
[01:56:04.040 --> 01:56:12.040]  So when I write the motion, I need to put it as an affirmative defense and lack of substantive procedural whatever due process.
[01:56:12.040 --> 01:56:13.040]  Yeah.
[01:56:13.040 --> 01:56:19.040]  Has an affirmative defense to prosecution due to lack of a substantive procedural due process.
[01:56:19.040 --> 01:56:26.040]  And do I need to put in the motion all of the relevant, you know, the different parts of it, like the...
[01:56:26.040 --> 01:56:33.040]  Well, the more of it you can cite as authoritative to show that they have failed to properly comply with law, the better.
[01:56:33.040 --> 01:56:46.040]  Knowing where to find it is not nearly as important as knowing how to tie them together to make the argument you're trying to make fly and be irrevocably true.
[01:56:46.040 --> 01:56:48.040]  Right.
[01:56:48.040 --> 01:57:02.040]  And I got a newsflash for you. You would be utterly astounded how many different codes and sections of law actually apply to the examining trial process that they're required to follow.
[01:57:02.040 --> 01:57:13.040]  I've got a flowchart I've been working on for quite a while now that the collection of statutes involved in that process and constitutional provisions is substantive.
[01:57:13.040 --> 01:57:15.040]  There's a lot of them.
[01:57:15.040 --> 01:57:24.040]  Not just one chapter and one piece out of a chapter. There are multiple pieces out of multiple chapters and multiple codes.
[01:57:24.040 --> 01:57:32.040]  I know. That's why I'm having such a hard time. It's because I keep finding more and more and more and I'm like, oh my gosh, I'm going to get all this tied together, you know.
[01:57:32.040 --> 01:57:43.040]  Well, therein lies the rub of what I do day in and day out. It takes time, it takes effort, and it takes a lot of analytical thinking.
[01:57:43.040 --> 01:57:50.040]  Right. And that's what I've been working on. So do we have time to talk about proper taxes a little bit or not?
[01:57:50.040 --> 01:57:59.040]  No, ma'am. I've got less than a minute to get off the air when that music starts playing, so I've got to do all the things that close out the show. Otherwise, I'd be happy to.
[01:57:59.040 --> 01:58:03.040]  But if you want to send me an email, I'll answer as quickly as I can.
[01:58:03.040 --> 01:58:05.040]  I don't know your email.
[01:58:05.040 --> 01:58:10.040]  Eddie, E-D-D-I-E at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:58:10.040 --> 01:58:12.040]  Awesome. Okay. Thank you, Eddie. Have a good night.
[01:58:12.040 --> 01:58:14.040]  You too. Thank you.
[01:58:14.040 --> 01:58:21.040]  Hi, folks. This has been the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. I want to thank all the callers and all the listeners out there.
[01:58:21.040 --> 01:58:29.040]  I am sorry that I disappear from the air as much as I have here lately. But like I say, I am working so hard to get this stuff put together.
[01:58:29.040 --> 01:58:38.040]  Sometimes it leaves me drained. Sometimes I wish to God I could go back to sleep, et cetera, et cetera. But I am working for you the same as always.
[01:58:38.040 --> 01:58:49.040]  So please keep us in your financial prayers and in your wallet whenever and however you can, because without you, we don't exist. Thank you.
[01:58:49.040 --> 01:58:57.040]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.040 --> 01:59:08.040]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.040 --> 01:59:20.040]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.040 --> 01:59:30.040]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.040 --> 01:59:41.040]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.040 --> 01:59:51.040]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:51.040 --> 02:00:11.040]  Looking for some truth? You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.