ROL_2009-04-13_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net
[00:05.000 --> 00:11.000]  Sri Lankan forces killed 420 Tamil Tiger rebels in the last three days
[00:11.000 --> 00:14.000]  and drove the rebels into a no-fire zone
[00:14.000 --> 00:19.000]  crowded with tens of thousands of civilians trying to flee the fighting.
[00:19.000 --> 00:23.000]  Barack Obama told audiences in Britain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic
[00:23.000 --> 00:26.000]  he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
[00:26.000 --> 00:30.000]  North Korea's long-range missile test Sunday appeared to fail.
[00:30.000 --> 00:35.000]  Barack Obama said North Korea's testing a rocket that could be used for a long-range missile
[00:35.000 --> 00:39.000]  underscores the need to prevent the spread of these weapons.
[00:39.000 --> 00:43.000]  North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel are the four countries
[00:43.000 --> 00:47.000]  that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
[00:47.000 --> 00:53.000]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report
[00:53.000 --> 00:59.000]  The love-in between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama
[00:59.000 --> 01:03.000]  proved short-lived after Sarkozy warned Obama Sunday
[01:03.000 --> 01:07.000]  to keep his nose out of Turkey's membership application to the EU.
[01:07.000 --> 01:13.000]  Obama used his first EU-US summit on the eve of his visit to Turkey
[01:13.000 --> 01:18.000]  to encourage European leaders to embrace the Muslim country and anchor it in Europe.
[01:18.000 --> 01:23.000]  However, Sarkozy, a long-standing opponent of full membership for Turkey,
[01:23.000 --> 01:29.000]  rebuffed Obama in language that seemed to sour a revival of Franco-US relations.
[01:29.000 --> 01:34.000]  Support for Turkey joining the EU, a process Turkey began in 2005,
[01:34.000 --> 01:37.000]  has long been a US foreign policy goal.
[01:37.000 --> 01:43.000]  Sarkozy, who has talked of offering Turkey a privileged partnership rather than membership,
[01:43.000 --> 01:45.000]  did not wait to hit back.
[01:45.000 --> 01:49.000]  Sarkozy said, I have been working hand-in-hand with President Obama,
[01:49.000 --> 01:51.000]  but when it comes to the European Union,
[01:51.000 --> 01:56.000]  it is up to member states of the European Union to decide on membership.
[01:59.000 --> 02:04.000]  Congress is moving toward imposing benchmarks the Pakistani government must meet
[02:04.000 --> 02:09.000]  in order to qualify for billions of dollars of military assistance.
[02:09.000 --> 02:13.000]  The proposed restrictions introduced in House legislation Thursday
[02:13.000 --> 02:19.000]  would authorize $3 billion to train and equip the Pakistani military over the next five years,
[02:19.000 --> 02:23.000]  plus $7.5 billion in economic and development aid.
[02:23.000 --> 02:27.000]  It would limit the kinds of military equipment Pakistan could receive
[02:27.000 --> 02:29.000]  and the ways in which it could be used.
[02:29.000 --> 02:35.000]  It would also require regular audits and presidential certification of counterinsurgency progress.
[02:35.000 --> 02:39.000]  The bill would set up a program to monitor Pakistani progress,
[02:39.000 --> 02:44.000]  including defeating extremists and protecting human rights,
[02:44.000 --> 02:49.000]  and require Barack Obama to provide the specifics underlying his assessments.
[02:49.000 --> 02:59.000]  It would also prohibit further spending on Pakistanis F-16 jet fighter fleet.
[03:02.000 --> 03:07.000]  This April will mark 14 years since the Oklahoma City bombing claimed 169 lives.
[03:07.000 --> 03:12.000]  Monday, April 20th at 7 p.m., Brave New Books in Austin, Texas,
[03:12.000 --> 03:15.000]  is presenting a discussion by the hosts of Radio Free Oklahoma
[03:15.000 --> 03:18.000]  addressing many unanswered questions about that tragedy.
[03:18.000 --> 03:22.000]  Did you know that there was more than one bomb involved in this tragedy?
[03:22.000 --> 03:27.000]  Did you know that there are many concrete links between the Oklahoma City bombing and 9-11?
[03:27.000 --> 03:30.000]  Did you know that current Attorney General Eric Holder
[03:30.000 --> 03:34.000]  was directly involved with a cover-up following the Oklahoma City bombing?
[03:34.000 --> 03:37.000]  Monday, April 20th, 7 p.m., at Brave New Books,
[03:37.000 --> 03:40.000]  Chris Emory, Andrew Griffin, and Holland Vanden Noonhoff
[03:40.000 --> 03:44.000]  will be discussing the results of their investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing.
[03:44.000 --> 03:47.000]  This event will also be broadcast on the Rule of Law radio program,
[03:47.000 --> 03:50.000]  hosted by Deborah Stevens and Randy Kelton.
[03:50.000 --> 03:56.000]  For more information, go to bravenewbookstore.com or ruleoflawradio.com,
[03:56.000 --> 04:01.000]  the Oklahoma City bombing, 14 years later, still seeking the truth.
[04:02.000 --> 04:08.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[04:08.000 --> 04:17.000]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[04:38.000 --> 04:43.000]  What are you going to do?
[04:43.000 --> 04:46.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do?
[04:46.000 --> 04:49.000]  What are you going to do when they come for you?
[04:49.000 --> 04:52.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do?
[04:52.000 --> 04:54.000]  What are you going to do when they come for you?
[04:54.000 --> 04:57.000]  When you were eight and you had bad trees,
[04:57.000 --> 05:00.000]  you'd go to school and learn the golden rules.
[05:00.000 --> 05:03.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[05:03.000 --> 05:05.000]  If you get caught then you must get coot!
[05:05.000 --> 05:08.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do?
[05:08.000 --> 05:11.000]  What are you going to do when they come for you?
[05:11.000 --> 05:14.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do?
[05:14.000 --> 05:17.000]  What are you going to do when they come for you?
[05:19.000 --> 05:25.000]  This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[05:25.000 --> 05:29.000]  It's Monday, April 13th.
[05:29.000 --> 05:32.000]  We're here live in the studio.
[05:32.000 --> 05:36.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com.
[05:36.000 --> 05:38.000]  We'll be taking your calls this evening.
[05:38.000 --> 05:40.000]  We're going to open up the phone lines in just a moment,
[05:40.000 --> 05:44.000]  512-646-1984.
[05:44.000 --> 05:49.000]  But at first, Randy has some subject material he wants to present tonight
[05:49.000 --> 05:51.000]  on the use of language in law.
[05:51.000 --> 05:53.000]  Yes.
[05:53.000 --> 05:58.000]  A lot of times people listening or hear me get frustrated.
[05:58.000 --> 06:02.000]  I'm concerned sometimes you may not understand why.
[06:02.000 --> 06:07.000]  I'm trained as an engineer and so I'm not very good at vague generalities.
[06:07.000 --> 06:11.000]  Yeah, and I'm trained as a mathematician and I'm not very good at vague generalities.
[06:11.000 --> 06:19.000]  So one of my primary studies, law is my third study,
[06:19.000 --> 06:24.000]  not psychology and writing are my first two.
[06:24.000 --> 06:30.000]  But within that there's the study of the use of language.
[06:30.000 --> 06:36.000]  And just here recently I've been frustrated a number of times
[06:36.000 --> 06:42.000]  by people on the show and people I've talked to off the show
[06:42.000 --> 06:48.000]  drawing conclusions and presenting ideas and propositions
[06:48.000 --> 06:55.000]  that when I listen to them, linguistically they are a mess.
[06:55.000 --> 07:01.000]  They're using logic that's absolutely incredibly horrible.
[07:01.000 --> 07:13.000]  So I'm going to go through some different fallacies of language and thought.
[07:13.000 --> 07:23.000]  And it's about being more particular and specific in not just the use of language
[07:23.000 --> 07:25.000]  but in how we think.
[07:25.000 --> 07:28.000]  One of my favorite books had a really odd name.
[07:28.000 --> 07:33.000]  It was called Nonsense, How to Detect It and How to Avoid It.
[07:33.000 --> 07:37.000]  And in one of the places in there it said, I wish I had it in front of me,
[07:37.000 --> 07:39.000]  you'd really like it.
[07:39.000 --> 07:47.000]  It had a whole list of things people do and one of them jumped out at me.
[07:47.000 --> 07:56.000]  It said, people seldom operate from a consistent set of beliefs.
[07:56.000 --> 08:00.000]  And that is so true.
[08:00.000 --> 08:04.000]  In one context we can hold one set of beliefs.
[08:04.000 --> 08:13.000]  We can go to church and we can read the Bible and we can say, thou shalt not kill.
[08:13.000 --> 08:22.000]  And then the same ultra-right-wing conservative Christian will step outside church
[08:22.000 --> 08:31.000]  and go to the political forum and absolutely believe in capital punishment.
[08:31.000 --> 08:37.000]  Or want to fund the wars for Israel to slaughter the Palestinians.
[08:37.000 --> 08:41.000]  I think that was one point Frederick Graves was making on his show last week, Randy,
[08:41.000 --> 08:45.000]  about one of the reasons that the people over there don't trust us
[08:45.000 --> 08:48.000]  other than the fact that we're over there killing them,
[08:48.000 --> 08:55.000]  but the fact that they don't see us or they don't see a lot of the Christian community.
[08:55.000 --> 08:57.000]  In other words, they don't walk the walk.
[08:57.000 --> 09:00.000]  They don't practice the principles of their faith.
[09:00.000 --> 09:03.000]  And so that's one reason why they see us as being inconsistent.
[09:03.000 --> 09:05.000]  And this is how we do that.
[09:05.000 --> 09:09.000]  We change context.
[09:09.000 --> 09:14.000]  And from this other context, from this other mental context, state of mind,
[09:14.000 --> 09:19.000]  we can operate from an entirely different set of beliefs
[09:19.000 --> 09:22.000]  and then go back to church and shift back into the first context.
[09:22.000 --> 09:24.000]  Some people can.
[09:24.000 --> 09:25.000]  Some can.
[09:25.000 --> 09:29.000]  It's hard for me to be inconsistent like that.
[09:29.000 --> 09:33.000]  Frankly, it takes training because some of these things I'm going to mention here,
[09:33.000 --> 09:38.000]  when you hear them, you'll recognize the truth in them,
[09:38.000 --> 09:45.000]  but also recognize that we all use them all the time.
[09:45.000 --> 09:52.000]  Most of the time, these patterns aren't terribly problematic,
[09:52.000 --> 09:58.000]  but we absolutely need to understand what they are and when they occur.
[09:58.000 --> 10:03.000]  They're a less problem if we know precisely what we're doing.
[10:03.000 --> 10:06.000]  Let me start with one that everybody's aware of
[10:06.000 --> 10:11.000]  and one that gives all of us a lot of difficulty, and it's a red herring.
[10:11.000 --> 10:16.000]  I was listening to a political speech, a political debate once,
[10:16.000 --> 10:22.000]  and one of the individuals that had to do with grain subsidies,
[10:22.000 --> 10:25.000]  and one of the individuals brought up an issue,
[10:25.000 --> 10:28.000]  and the senator was sitting there, and he said, wait, wait, wait.
[10:28.000 --> 10:31.000]  That's a red herring.
[10:31.000 --> 10:37.000]  And I thought about it, and I said, yeah, as a matter of fact, it was,
[10:37.000 --> 10:42.000]  but I was so caught up in the flow of language,
[10:42.000 --> 10:50.000]  in the ideas being presented that I didn't set aside mental room
[10:50.000 --> 10:54.000]  to pay attention to the structure of the language that was being used,
[10:54.000 --> 10:56.000]  and I missed it.
[10:56.000 --> 11:00.000]  This is what propagandists count on.
[11:00.000 --> 11:02.000]  Let me read a red herring.
[11:02.000 --> 11:04.000]  A red herring and a relevant topic is presented
[11:04.000 --> 11:08.000]  in order to divert attention from the original issue.
[11:08.000 --> 11:12.000]  A red herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented
[11:12.000 --> 11:16.000]  in order to divert attention from the original issue.
[11:16.000 --> 11:22.000]  The basic idea is to win an argument by leading attention away from the argument
[11:22.000 --> 11:24.000]  and to another topic.
[11:24.000 --> 11:27.000]  This sort of reasoning has the following form.
[11:27.000 --> 11:29.000]  Topic A is under discussion.
[11:29.000 --> 11:34.000]  Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A.
[11:34.000 --> 11:41.000]  When topic B is actually not relevant to topic A, topic A is abandoned.
[11:41.000 --> 11:45.000]  How many times have you been in a discussion,
[11:45.000 --> 11:49.000]  and a separate issue comes up,
[11:49.000 --> 11:54.000]  and you're frustrated, you want to step in
[11:54.000 --> 11:58.000]  because you're relatively certain if this continues,
[11:58.000 --> 12:02.000]  this moving from one thing to another to another,
[12:02.000 --> 12:09.000]  something important that you had to contribute to the original conversation
[12:09.000 --> 12:15.000]  will get lost because it will never go back to where it started.
[12:15.000 --> 12:17.000]  We've all been there.
[12:17.000 --> 12:19.000]  We've all had that happen.
[12:19.000 --> 12:22.000]  This is the problem with a red herring.
[12:22.000 --> 12:28.000]  A red herring is not always a major problem as long as we know what it is,
[12:28.000 --> 12:37.000]  as long as we set apart a little piece of our mind to pay attention to the structure.
[12:37.000 --> 12:42.000]  When someone brings up a relevant argument, we put a mark on the piece of paper.
[12:42.000 --> 12:47.000]  It reminds us to, when we get an opening, bring it back to where we were,
[12:47.000 --> 12:51.000]  otherwise we'll be totally lost.
[12:51.000 --> 12:53.000]  Let me give some examples.
[12:53.000 --> 12:58.000]  You say that Taster's Choice tastes better than Folgers,
[12:58.000 --> 13:01.000]  but are you forgetting that Nestle, the maker of Taster's Choice,
[13:01.000 --> 13:06.000]  is responsible for creating baby formula that caused thousands of infants' death in Africa?
[13:06.000 --> 13:09.000]  Obviously, you are mistaken.
[13:09.000 --> 13:14.000]  The fact that Nestle created something totally different
[13:14.000 --> 13:19.000]  that caused a totally different result isn't a relevant argument.
[13:19.000 --> 13:24.000]  But if we're not paying close attention, we will be drawn in and swayed by that
[13:24.000 --> 13:33.000]  and move on to other issues of corporations creating products that cause harm
[13:33.000 --> 13:36.000]  and we forget where we were to start with.
[13:36.000 --> 13:39.000]  We admit that this measure is popular,
[13:39.000 --> 13:45.000]  but we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot
[13:45.000 --> 13:49.000]  that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.
[13:49.000 --> 13:52.000]  Well, the fact that there are a lot of bond issues on the ballot
[13:52.000 --> 13:56.000]  have nothing to do with the original proposal.
[13:56.000 --> 14:06.000]  And if we accept this casual connection, we get led away from the original topic.
[14:06.000 --> 14:12.000]  And next one I would like to go to, and everybody will recognize this one,
[14:12.000 --> 14:17.000]  is the straw man, the straw man issue.
[14:17.000 --> 14:23.000]  Not the fictional straw man, but the linguistic straw man.
[14:23.000 --> 14:30.000]  The straw man is where you attack an argument different from
[14:30.000 --> 14:33.000]  and weaker than the opponent's best argument.
[14:33.000 --> 14:38.000]  The straw man fallacy is committed when someone distorts an opponent's position
[14:38.000 --> 14:42.000]  or argument for the purpose of more easily refuting it
[14:42.000 --> 14:46.000]  and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been refuted.
[14:46.000 --> 14:49.000]  And we do this by picking a minor point.
[14:49.000 --> 14:55.000]  We exaggerate the minor point and then attack the exaggeration.
[14:55.000 --> 14:58.000]  This sort of reasoning has the following pattern.
[14:58.000 --> 15:01.000]  Person B has position X.
[15:01.000 --> 15:07.000]  Person A represents position Y, which is a distorted version of X.
[15:07.000 --> 15:10.000]  Person B attacks position Y.
[15:10.000 --> 15:16.000]  Therefore, X is false and incorrect, flawed.
[15:16.000 --> 15:22.000]  This sort of reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position
[15:22.000 --> 15:26.000]  simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
[15:26.000 --> 15:34.000]  One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
[15:34.000 --> 15:37.000]  Examples.
[15:37.000 --> 15:43.000]  My opponent argues against prayer in the public schools and therefore advocates atheism.
[15:43.000 --> 15:46.000]  But atheism is what they used to have in Russia,
[15:46.000 --> 15:51.000]  which led to the suppression of all religious thought
[15:51.000 --> 15:55.000]  and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state.
[15:55.000 --> 15:57.000]  Is that what we want in this country?
[15:57.000 --> 15:58.000]  I hardly think so.
[15:58.000 --> 16:04.000]  Clearly, my opponent's argument is nonsense.
[16:04.000 --> 16:09.000]  This is from Huxley.
[16:09.000 --> 16:18.000]  The problem with arguments like this is that sounds like the kinds of arguments we hear all the time.
[16:18.000 --> 16:24.000]  And because we hear them all the time, we tend to get used to them
[16:24.000 --> 16:32.000]  and don't notice that because someone argues against prayer in school
[16:32.000 --> 16:36.000]  does not mean that he's an atheist.
[16:36.000 --> 16:40.000]  Okay, we're going to break. We're going to talk about this some more on the other side.
[16:40.000 --> 16:42.000]  We also have Jay from New York.
[16:42.000 --> 16:45.000]  Jay, just hang on the line. We'll take your call.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  Probably either by the end of the next segment or the following segment.
[16:48.000 --> 16:51.000]  This is The Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[16:51.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:04.000]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk,
[17:04.000 --> 17:07.000]  has a 100% track record of returning profits,
[17:07.000 --> 17:12.000]  is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates,
[17:12.000 --> 17:15.000]  is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[17:15.000 --> 17:19.000]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment,
[17:19.000 --> 17:22.000]  then Life Settlements is the investment for you.
[17:22.000 --> 17:28.000]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[17:28.000 --> 17:32.000]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:32.000 --> 17:36.000]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[17:36.000 --> 17:42.000]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:42.000 --> 17:44.000]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[17:44.000 --> 17:47.000]  100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:47.000 --> 17:57.000]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[17:57.000 --> 18:26.000]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:26.000 --> 18:35.000]  If I can't believe my eyes, I've got to believe my heart.
[18:35.000 --> 18:44.000]  If I can't believe my ears, I've got to believe my heart.
[18:44.000 --> 18:56.000]  Yeah, if I can't believe the newspapers, I've got to believe my heart.
[18:56.000 --> 19:04.000]  If I can't believe the radio, I've got to believe my heart.
[19:04.000 --> 19:14.000]  If I can't believe my eyes, I've got to believe my heart.
[19:14.000 --> 19:24.000]  If I can't believe my ears, I've got to believe my heart.
[19:24.000 --> 19:40.000]  If I can't believe my ears, I've got to believe my heart.
[19:40.000 --> 19:42.000]  Okay, we're back.
[19:42.000 --> 19:47.000]  We're talking about the use of language and arguments.
[19:47.000 --> 19:54.000]  If A, then B, and things of that nature, how to construct a logical argument
[19:54.000 --> 20:01.000]  and how not to get fooled by these people's fallacious arguments.
[20:01.000 --> 20:04.000]  I mean, they're just completely wrong.
[20:04.000 --> 20:09.000]  If you want to know how not to use language...
[20:09.000 --> 20:11.000]  Listen to the politicians.
[20:11.000 --> 20:17.000]  Exactly, precisely, because for the most part, they're pros.
[20:17.000 --> 20:20.000]  If they're not pros, they have pros behind them.
[20:20.000 --> 20:22.000]  Oh yeah, they're speech writers.
[20:22.000 --> 20:26.000]  Most everything I'm going to talk about here, you will recognize.
[20:26.000 --> 20:35.000]  And the first time I read through this, I was astounded because I did recognize them.
[20:35.000 --> 20:40.000]  But that was the first time somebody pointed their finger at it and said,
[20:40.000 --> 20:46.000]  this is a particular problem, and this is why it's a particular problem.
[20:46.000 --> 20:52.000]  I'm going to go to one that I had a problem with just the other day.
[20:52.000 --> 20:56.000]  It's called post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
[20:56.000 --> 21:02.000]  And that means after this, therefore because of this.
[21:02.000 --> 21:06.000]  And it would have been nice if I had it looked up.
[21:06.000 --> 21:09.000]  That sounds like circular reasoning to me.
[21:09.000 --> 21:15.000]  Yes, well, this was a situation where somebody was saying,
[21:15.000 --> 21:19.000]  and he's out there listening and he knows to whom I'm speaking,
[21:19.000 --> 21:27.000]  that we are under Talmudic law or we're under Babylonian law.
[21:27.000 --> 21:35.000]  And the reason he said that is because statutory law looked like Babylonian law.
[21:35.000 --> 21:40.000]  It was the kind of law that was used in Babylon.
[21:40.000 --> 21:45.000]  That civil law is the kind of law used in Rome.
[21:45.000 --> 21:50.000]  Common law was the kind of law used in England.
[21:50.000 --> 22:00.000]  So we're either under Babylonian law or Roman law or English law.
[22:00.000 --> 22:04.000]  And I don't remember how he got to Talmudic law.
[22:04.000 --> 22:08.000]  But I was having a real problem with this
[22:08.000 --> 22:17.000]  because he didn't say we were under a legal system that has its roots in Babylonian law.
[22:17.000 --> 22:20.000]  He said we are under Babylonian law.
[22:20.000 --> 22:31.000]  And the reason he said that is because Babylonian law was of a similar structure to statutory law,
[22:31.000 --> 22:42.000]  post hoc, and went on to equate the statutory law with Babylonian law,
[22:42.000 --> 22:50.000]  therefore because of post hoc agro proctor hoc, before this, therefore because of this.
[22:50.000 --> 22:58.000]  So he made a direct connection with our statutory law to ancient Babylonian law.
[22:58.000 --> 23:06.000]  And I recognized the reasoning, and frankly, I could not find a way to make that connection.
[23:06.000 --> 23:11.000]  It also comes under the fallacy of casual connection,
[23:11.000 --> 23:19.000]  that something has minor characteristics in common with another thing.
[23:19.000 --> 23:28.000]  So you reason therefore those things are either connected or are intrinsically similar.
[23:28.000 --> 23:33.000]  Everybody has hair.
[23:33.000 --> 23:40.000]  Scottish people are hairy, therefore everybody's Scottish.
[23:40.000 --> 23:42.000]  But I get ahead of myself.
[23:42.000 --> 23:46.000]  Let me go through this treatment of post hoc agro proctor hoc.
[23:46.000 --> 23:51.000]  Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
[23:51.000 --> 23:54.000]  The post hoc is a fallacy with the following form.
[23:54.000 --> 23:58.000]  A occurs before B, therefore A is the cause of B.
[23:58.000 --> 24:04.000]  The post hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase post hoc agro proctor hoc.
[24:04.000 --> 24:09.000]  This has been traditionally interpreted as after this, therefore because of this.
[24:09.000 --> 24:14.000]  This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another
[24:14.000 --> 24:19.000]  simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.
[24:19.000 --> 24:41.000]  More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes B because A occurs before B.
[24:41.000 --> 24:47.000]  And there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.
[24:47.000 --> 24:56.000]  It's evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B is in no way indicates a casual relationship.
[24:56.000 --> 25:03.000]  For example, Jill who is in London sneezes at the same time an earthquake started in California.
[25:03.000 --> 25:09.000]  It would be clearly irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster.
[25:09.000 --> 25:15.000]  Since there is no reason to suspect any casual connection between the two events.
[25:15.000 --> 25:20.000]  While such cases are quite obvious, the post hoc fallacy is fairly common
[25:20.000 --> 25:26.000]  because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events.
[25:26.000 --> 25:32.000]  For example, a person who has her computer crash after she installs a new piece of software
[25:32.000 --> 25:37.000]  would probably suspect that the software was to blame.
[25:37.000 --> 25:44.000]  If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash because it was installed before the crash,
[25:44.000 --> 25:47.000]  she would be committing the post hoc fallacy.
[25:47.000 --> 25:52.000]  In such cases, the fallacy would be committed because the evidence provided
[25:52.000 --> 25:57.000]  fails to justify the acceptance of the casual claim.
[25:57.000 --> 25:59.000]  I hope that makes sense.
[25:59.000 --> 26:05.000]  There are a lot of times when one thing does follow the other and it may appear on the surface
[26:05.000 --> 26:12.000]  that since they are so closely connected that the first does in fact cause the second.
[26:12.000 --> 26:15.000]  Well, it certainly would be a good place to start looking,
[26:15.000 --> 26:22.000]  but a lot more data would have to be collected before actually coming to that conclusion
[26:22.000 --> 26:24.000]  through proper deductive reasoning.
[26:24.000 --> 26:26.000]  And that is exactly the point.
[26:26.000 --> 26:33.000]  I would suggest to everyone out there to take a course in Boolean logic online.
[26:33.000 --> 26:36.000]  Okay, or buy a book on Boolean logic.
[26:36.000 --> 26:39.000]  Teach yourself beginner's Boolean logic.
[26:39.000 --> 26:44.000]  It will teach you how to think and how to avoid the pitfalls of such arguments.
[26:44.000 --> 26:48.000]  And a lot of this goes to logic.
[26:48.000 --> 26:55.000]  The first logic course I had in college, I thought I knew how to do logical reasoning.
[26:55.000 --> 27:01.000]  And when I got into the course, I found out I didn't know anywhere near as much as I thought I did.
[27:01.000 --> 27:07.000]  I was sitting in a restaurant once and the guy that owned the restaurant, a little pizza place,
[27:07.000 --> 27:10.000]  I always read everywhere I sit and I always carry a book with me.
[27:10.000 --> 27:15.000]  And he came over and he was, I guess he had a girl there who was in college.
[27:15.000 --> 27:19.000]  He said, college, he said, you're pretty smart.
[27:19.000 --> 27:22.000]  Tell me, what's a syllogism?
[27:22.000 --> 27:28.000]  I said, if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A.
[27:28.000 --> 27:30.000]  And he stood there with his mouth hanging open.
[27:30.000 --> 27:34.000]  He had no idea what I was talking about.
[27:34.000 --> 27:35.000]  That was a hoot.
[27:35.000 --> 27:38.000]  That's what logic is.
[27:38.000 --> 27:43.000]  But there's more than just A equals B.
[27:43.000 --> 27:47.000]  One of the common things I find is specious logic.
[27:47.000 --> 27:56.000]  And that's buried in a lot of these different linguistic traps that we get into
[27:56.000 --> 28:03.000]  in that we make decisions based on logical syllogisms where the premises are not true,
[28:03.000 --> 28:07.000]  where the premises are presumptions.
[28:07.000 --> 28:12.000]  And you'll hear me talking on the show when people start talking to me about law
[28:12.000 --> 28:16.000]  and then they reach this place where they do this,
[28:16.000 --> 28:22.000]  they've got this little separation between where they're at and they want to be.
[28:22.000 --> 28:28.000]  And they can't quite exactly get there with law.
[28:28.000 --> 28:40.000]  So they do this little interpretational leap and they jump to an unstated presupposition.
[28:40.000 --> 28:49.000]  And it always makes me crazy when someone presupposes something that they didn't explain to me.
[28:49.000 --> 28:54.000]  You might remember Ralph Winterwood quite a while back.
[28:54.000 --> 28:59.000]  He was talking about an issue that I was sure he was right.
[28:59.000 --> 29:01.000]  He was saying the Constitution doesn't apply.
[29:01.000 --> 29:03.000]  The statutory law doesn't apply.
[29:03.000 --> 29:05.000]  Nothing applies.
[29:05.000 --> 29:08.000]  But he never gave me the link to get me there.
[29:08.000 --> 29:10.000]  He just said it.
[29:10.000 --> 29:16.000]  And he said everything is all in the National Register.
[29:16.000 --> 29:17.000]  Well, it's not.
[29:17.000 --> 29:19.000]  It's all in the National Register.
[29:19.000 --> 29:20.000]  Well, where?
[29:20.000 --> 29:25.000]  Yeah, that would call for a little specificity.
[29:25.000 --> 29:28.000]  And where in the National Register?
[29:28.000 --> 29:30.000]  Where he never gave me that?
[29:30.000 --> 29:34.000]  So you can't depend on anything he said, even if he's absolutely right,
[29:34.000 --> 29:38.000]  because he's not giving you enough to draw conclusions from.
[29:38.000 --> 29:40.000]  Okay, we're going to break.
[29:40.000 --> 29:43.000]  We'll be right back after this short break.
[29:43.000 --> 29:46.000]  We still have Jay from New York on the line.
[29:46.000 --> 29:49.000]  Take your calls on the other side.
[30:16.000 --> 30:18.000]  Thank you very much.
[30:47.000 --> 30:51.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760.
[30:51.000 --> 31:19.000]  We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[31:19.000 --> 31:21.000]  Okay, we are back.
[31:21.000 --> 31:25.000]  Talking about specious logic.
[31:25.000 --> 31:27.000]  And Jay from New York, we do see you.
[31:27.000 --> 31:30.000]  Randy said on the break that we're going to take your call
[31:30.000 --> 31:33.000]  on the other side of this segment.
[31:33.000 --> 31:35.000]  So if you can just hang on for about another 15 minutes,
[31:35.000 --> 31:37.000]  Jay will take your call right after that.
[31:37.000 --> 31:38.000]  Okay, go ahead, Randy.
[31:38.000 --> 31:40.000]  Did you ask if I had enough for another segment?
[31:40.000 --> 31:44.000]  Well, no, that's not what I asked.
[31:44.000 --> 31:46.000]  I asked if you wanted to take Jay right away
[31:46.000 --> 31:48.000]  or if you wanted to go another segment.
[31:48.000 --> 31:52.000]  And you said you had enough for two more shows, I'm sure.
[31:52.000 --> 31:54.000]  Okay, I have enough for two more shows on this.
[31:54.000 --> 32:01.000]  What I would really like to see is callers calling in
[32:01.000 --> 32:07.000]  and pegging me when I use one of these irrelevant appeals,
[32:07.000 --> 32:11.000]  like an appeal to emotion or appeal to flattery
[32:11.000 --> 32:14.000]  or use an ad hominem attack.
[32:14.000 --> 32:18.000]  There's a whole list of these.
[32:18.000 --> 32:25.000]  I would very much like to have them so clearly in mind
[32:25.000 --> 32:28.000]  that I wouldn't easily get trapped by someone
[32:28.000 --> 32:33.000]  who would manipulate the language with irrelevant appeals.
[32:33.000 --> 32:37.000]  It just happens to be one of my studies
[32:37.000 --> 32:39.000]  that I find most interesting.
[32:39.000 --> 32:42.000]  I'll go through just a few more of these without comment
[32:42.000 --> 32:44.000]  just to kind of run them by you
[32:44.000 --> 32:48.000]  so you kind of get a feel of where I'm going with all this.
[32:48.000 --> 32:54.000]  I'm going to go to appeal to fearful consequences.
[32:54.000 --> 32:58.000]  You are warned of unacceptable consequences.
[32:58.000 --> 33:02.000]  The appeal to the consequences of a belief is a fallacy
[33:02.000 --> 33:05.000]  that comes in the following pattern.
[33:05.000 --> 33:07.000]  X is true or false?
[33:07.000 --> 33:12.000]  Because if people did not accept X as being true,
[33:12.000 --> 33:16.000]  then there would be negative consequences.
[33:16.000 --> 33:23.000]  X is true because accepting X is true has positive consequences.
[33:23.000 --> 33:25.000]  That doesn't sound like it makes sense.
[33:25.000 --> 33:27.000]  Let me go a little further.
[33:27.000 --> 33:29.000]  This line of reasoning is fallacious
[33:29.000 --> 33:32.000]  because the consequences of a belief have no bearing
[33:32.000 --> 33:35.000]  on whether the actual belief is true or false.
[33:35.000 --> 33:38.000]  For example, if someone were to say,
[33:38.000 --> 33:45.000]  if 16-headed purple unicorns didn't exist,
[33:45.000 --> 33:47.000]  then I would be miserable.
[33:47.000 --> 33:49.000]  So they must exist.
[33:49.000 --> 33:53.000]  It would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning.
[33:53.000 --> 33:57.000]  It is important to note that the consequences in question
[33:57.000 --> 34:01.000]  are the consequences that stem from the belief.
[34:01.000 --> 34:07.000]  It's important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe evidence
[34:07.000 --> 34:10.000]  and a prudent reason to believe.
[34:10.000 --> 34:17.000]  A rational reason to believe evidence is evidence
[34:17.000 --> 34:22.000]  that objectively and logically supports a claim.
[34:22.000 --> 34:27.000]  A prudent reason to believe is a reason to accept the belief
[34:27.000 --> 34:31.000]  because of some external factor.
[34:31.000 --> 34:34.000]  The nature of the fallacy is especially clear
[34:34.000 --> 34:37.000]  in the case of wishful thinking.
[34:37.000 --> 34:42.000]  Obviously, merely wishing that something is true does not make it true.
[34:42.000 --> 34:45.000]  This fallacy differs from appeal to belief fallacy
[34:45.000 --> 34:49.000]  in that the appeal to belief involves taking a claim
[34:49.000 --> 34:57.000]  that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.
[34:57.000 --> 34:59.000]  We'll go to that one later.
[34:59.000 --> 35:02.000]  Let me go to appeal to emotion.
[35:02.000 --> 35:06.000]  A substitution of various means of producing strong emotions
[35:06.000 --> 35:09.000]  in place of evidence for a claim.
[35:09.000 --> 35:13.000]  An appeal to emotion is a fallacy with the following structure.
[35:13.000 --> 35:17.000]  Favorable emotions are associated with X, therefore X is true.
[35:17.000 --> 35:21.000]  This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates people's emotion
[35:21.000 --> 35:26.000]  in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.
[35:26.000 --> 35:30.000]  More formally, this sort of reasoning involves the substitution
[35:30.000 --> 35:35.000]  of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim.
[35:35.000 --> 35:40.000]  If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X
[35:40.000 --> 35:43.000]  as true because they feel good about X,
[35:43.000 --> 35:48.000]  then he has fallen prey to this fallacy.
[35:48.000 --> 35:49.000]  Okay, appeal to flattery.
[35:49.000 --> 35:51.000]  I think we're all familiar with that one.
[35:51.000 --> 35:55.000]  Flattery is used in place of evidence for accepting a claim.
[35:55.000 --> 35:59.000]  An appeal to flattery is a fallacy of the following form.
[35:59.000 --> 36:03.000]  Person B is flattered by person A.
[36:03.000 --> 36:07.000]  Person A makes claim X, therefore X is true.
[36:07.000 --> 36:11.000]  The basic idea behind this fallacy is that flattery is presented
[36:11.000 --> 36:15.000]  in the place of evidence for accepting a claim.
[36:15.000 --> 36:20.000]  The sort of reasoning is fallacious because flattery is not, in fact,
[36:20.000 --> 36:22.000]  evidence for a claim.
[36:22.000 --> 36:26.000]  This is especially clear in a case like this.
[36:26.000 --> 36:30.000]  Wow, Bill, that's a really nice tie, by the way.
[36:30.000 --> 36:37.000]  It's quite clear that 1 plus 1 is equal to 43.
[36:37.000 --> 36:43.000]  Deb will buy that. She doesn't wear ties.
[36:43.000 --> 36:49.000]  This line, okay, let me go to appeal to novelty.
[36:49.000 --> 36:54.000]  It is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new.
[36:54.000 --> 36:59.000]  Appeal to novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is
[36:59.000 --> 37:01.000]  better or correct simply because it is new.
[37:01.000 --> 37:03.000]  This sort of reasoning has the following form.
[37:03.000 --> 37:07.000]  X is new, therefore X is better, correct or better.
[37:07.000 --> 37:13.000]  This sort of reasoning is fallacious because the novelty of something does
[37:13.000 --> 37:18.000]  not actually automatically make it correct or better than something older.
[37:18.000 --> 37:20.000]  I won't spend any more time on that one.
[37:20.000 --> 37:26.000]  Bandwagon, peer pressure and threat of rejection do not constitute evidence
[37:26.000 --> 37:29.000]  for accepting or rejecting a claim.
[37:29.000 --> 37:35.000]  The bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers is
[37:35.000 --> 37:38.000]  substituted for evidence and argument.
[37:38.000 --> 37:41.000]  This line of reasoning has the following form.
[37:41.000 --> 37:48.000]  Person P is presented by his or her peers, is pressured by his or her peers
[37:48.000 --> 37:50.000]  or threatened with rejection.
[37:50.000 --> 37:53.000]  Therefore, person P claims X is false.
[37:53.000 --> 37:57.000]  This line of reasoning is fallacious because the peer pressure and threat of
[37:57.000 --> 38:01.000]  rejection do not constitute evidence for rejecting a claim.
[38:01.000 --> 38:03.000]  This is especially clear in the following example.
[38:03.000 --> 38:08.000]  Joe, Bill, I know you think that one plus one is two, but we don't accept that
[38:08.000 --> 38:10.000]  sort of thing in our group.
[38:10.000 --> 38:12.000]  Bill, I was just joking.
[38:12.000 --> 38:14.000]  Of course I believe that.
[38:14.000 --> 38:23.000]  There was a very famous experiment done where they separated students in a
[38:23.000 --> 38:28.000]  classroom by brown eyes and blue eyes.
[38:28.000 --> 38:34.000]  During the class, they made very clear dispersions against the brown-eyed
[38:34.000 --> 38:40.000]  people and talked very positively about the blue-eyed people.
[38:40.000 --> 38:43.000]  I think we all know what the result was.
[38:43.000 --> 38:49.000]  It was so profound that it was very disturbing, that how much peer pressure
[38:49.000 --> 38:54.000]  can change the perceptions of individuals.
[38:54.000 --> 39:00.000]  I went to Vietnam rather than suffer the rejection of my peers or my
[39:00.000 --> 39:03.000]  perceived peers.
[39:03.000 --> 39:10.000]  I've since come to realize that those who stood and refused to go because
[39:10.000 --> 39:18.000]  they knew that it was wrong were the ones who had the real honor and courage.
[39:18.000 --> 39:25.000]  It was easier to go than risk the rejection of my peers.
[39:25.000 --> 39:30.000]  Let me go to hasty generalization.
[39:30.000 --> 39:36.000]  The sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a
[39:36.000 --> 39:38.000]  population.
[39:38.000 --> 39:42.000]  This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population
[39:42.000 --> 39:47.000]  based on a sample that's not large enough or is otherwise not representative
[39:47.000 --> 39:49.000]  of the population as a whole.
[39:49.000 --> 39:52.000]  It has the following form.
[39:52.000 --> 39:58.000]  Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
[39:58.000 --> 40:04.000]  Conclusion C is drawn about population P based on S.
[40:04.000 --> 40:10.000]  The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of
[40:10.000 --> 40:17.000]  reasoning, which is known vicariously as inductive generalization and converse
[40:17.000 --> 40:21.000]  accident and statistical generalization.
[40:21.000 --> 40:24.000]  X percent of all observed A's are B's.
[40:24.000 --> 40:28.000]  Therefore, X percent of all A's are B's.
[40:28.000 --> 40:32.000]  The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the
[40:32.000 --> 40:33.000]  conclusion.
[40:33.000 --> 40:38.000]  If enough A's are observed, then the reasoning is not fallacious.
[40:38.000 --> 40:49.000]  I was listening to the news today, and they reported that 40 percent of 49
[40:49.000 --> 40:53.000]  medical professionals had some opinion.
[40:53.000 --> 41:04.000]  I didn't get the opinion because I noticed 40 percent of 49.
[41:04.000 --> 41:10.000]  In this world, 49 is not a large enough sample for anything.
[41:10.000 --> 41:14.000]  It's a very unusual number for them to choose.
[41:14.000 --> 41:19.000]  It was just I couldn't believe that they're actually reporting this on the
[41:19.000 --> 41:21.000]  news like it mattered.
[41:21.000 --> 41:26.000]  40 percent of 49, and I hear this all the time.
[41:26.000 --> 41:33.000]  They go out and they interview 100 people, and we decide how the world is.
[41:33.000 --> 41:36.000]  Well, duh.
[41:36.000 --> 41:39.000]  We got 300 million in the U.S.
[41:39.000 --> 41:47.000]  100 people is so minuscule as to be nonexistent.
[41:47.000 --> 41:50.000]  Anyway, let's keep going just quickly because I'm going to run out of time
[41:50.000 --> 41:52.000]  here.
[41:52.000 --> 41:55.000]  Let's look for a good one.
[41:55.000 --> 41:59.000]  Did post-hoc.
[41:59.000 --> 42:02.000]  Slippery slope.
[42:02.000 --> 42:07.000]  A series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.
[42:07.000 --> 42:12.000]  The slippery slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event
[42:12.000 --> 42:17.000]  must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the
[42:17.000 --> 42:20.000]  inevitability of the event in question.
[42:20.000 --> 42:26.000]  In most cases, there are a series of steps of graduations between one event
[42:26.000 --> 42:31.000]  and the one in question, and no reason is given as to why the intervening
[42:31.000 --> 42:35.000]  steps or graduations will simply be bypassed.
[42:35.000 --> 42:38.000]  This argument has the following form.
[42:38.000 --> 42:42.000]  Event X has occurred or will or might occur.
[42:42.000 --> 42:47.000]  Therefore, event Y will inevitably happen.
[42:47.000 --> 42:49.000]  Let me read a couple of examples.
[42:49.000 --> 42:51.000]  We have to stop the tuition increase.
[42:51.000 --> 42:57.000]  The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester.
[42:57.000 --> 43:02.000]  The U.S. shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries.
[43:02.000 --> 43:09.000]  Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in $1,000 to die.
[43:09.000 --> 43:11.000]  You can never give anyone a break.
[43:11.000 --> 43:15.000]  If you do, they'll walk all over you.
[43:15.000 --> 43:18.000]  Let me go to another one.
[43:18.000 --> 43:21.000]  We're about to go to break, so I'll do just one more.
[43:21.000 --> 43:23.000]  Equivocation.
[43:23.000 --> 43:28.000]  The same term is used with two different meanings.
[43:28.000 --> 43:32.000]  The same word is used with two different definitions.
[43:32.000 --> 43:35.000]  Okay.
[43:35.000 --> 43:38.000]  Okay, Randy, you're going to have to hold that thought because we're going to break.
[43:38.000 --> 43:42.000]  All right, finish on the other side, and then we'll go to Jay in New York.
[43:42.000 --> 43:44.000]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[43:44.000 --> 43:48.000]  This is Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens on Rule of Law Radio.
[43:48.000 --> 43:59.000]  Music
[43:59.000 --> 44:02.000]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[44:02.000 --> 44:05.000]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[44:05.000 --> 44:13.000]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry.
[44:13.000 --> 44:19.000]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar,
[44:19.000 --> 44:22.000]  the price of silver will only increase.
[44:22.000 --> 44:29.000]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities
[44:29.000 --> 44:33.000]  with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[44:33.000 --> 44:38.000]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce,
[44:38.000 --> 44:44.000]  and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:44.000 --> 44:56.000]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment,
[44:56.000 --> 44:59.000]  silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[44:59.000 --> 45:05.000]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[45:05.000 --> 45:12.000]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[45:35.000 --> 45:43.000]  Okay, we are back.
[45:43.000 --> 45:48.000]  We ask the questions and they don't give the answers.
[45:48.000 --> 45:52.000]  They put us on the slippery, slidey slope, speaking of slippery, slidey slope, Randy.
[45:52.000 --> 45:59.000]  Okay, we're going now to Jay in New York, who's been holding since the beginning of the show.
[45:59.000 --> 46:02.000]  Thank you for holding, Jay. What's on your mind tonight?
[46:02.000 --> 46:05.000]  Hey, how's everybody doing?
[46:05.000 --> 46:06.000]  Good.
[46:06.000 --> 46:07.000]  Okay.
[46:07.000 --> 46:11.000]  Basically, really quick, there's not anything on the topic.
[46:11.000 --> 46:14.000]  I want to know if there's a question that's off the topic.
[46:14.000 --> 46:15.000]  It's okay.
[46:15.000 --> 46:16.000]  Go ahead.
[46:16.000 --> 46:18.000]  I've got my mic taser ready.
[46:18.000 --> 46:19.000]  Go ahead, Jay.
[46:19.000 --> 46:20.000]  It's okay.
[46:20.000 --> 46:21.000]  What's your question?
[46:21.000 --> 46:26.000]  Basically, this friend of mine from Texas named Rob put me on to the show.
[46:26.000 --> 46:28.000]  I'm a complete newbie to everything here.
[46:28.000 --> 46:30.000]  I've just been reading as much as I can.
[46:30.000 --> 46:32.000]  I'm in that situation right now.
[46:32.000 --> 46:39.000]  Tomorrow I have to go to a hearing for a federal corporate case, federal conspiracy case, sorry.
[46:39.000 --> 46:47.000]  And I'm trying to see if you knew of anybody that's in New York that's given these types of cases that I could go to
[46:47.000 --> 46:52.000]  or talk to and actually see how I could go about going about this the right way.
[46:52.000 --> 47:02.000]  Well, I have a couple of contacts, but you're way, way too late.
[47:02.000 --> 47:09.000]  Looking for this the day before, there would be no time.
[47:09.000 --> 47:16.000]  Before anybody could give you any reasonable, rational direction,
[47:16.000 --> 47:23.000]  the first thing they're going to need is a complete breakdown of where you're at.
[47:23.000 --> 47:26.000]  And that calls for a narrative.
[47:26.000 --> 47:27.000]  Right.
[47:27.000 --> 47:34.000]  And then they would have to look at that and examine all the different parameters.
[47:34.000 --> 47:42.000]  This is not something that, especially a federal conspiracy case, this sounds real serious
[47:42.000 --> 47:49.000]  and nobody in their right mind would give you any attempt to give you any advice that amounted to anything
[47:49.000 --> 47:52.000]  without having a good idea of what's going on.
[47:52.000 --> 47:55.000]  What is the nature of the hearing you're going to?
[47:55.000 --> 47:58.000]  I guess they're going to present over everything.
[47:58.000 --> 48:00.000]  I've only seen the magistrate.
[48:00.000 --> 48:01.000]  I haven't seen anybody.
[48:01.000 --> 48:05.000]  I was incarcerated for six days in Brooklyn, a federal prison.
[48:05.000 --> 48:08.000]  I was released on bail with an ankle bracelet.
[48:08.000 --> 48:10.000]  And here I am.
[48:10.000 --> 48:12.000]  I just came out last week.
[48:12.000 --> 48:13.000]  Okay.
[48:13.000 --> 48:14.000]  Oh, you just came out last week?
[48:14.000 --> 48:15.000]  Yes.
[48:15.000 --> 48:16.000]  Oh, okay.
[48:16.000 --> 48:17.000]  You've got time.
[48:17.000 --> 48:19.000]  You're just going to go do an arraignment.
[48:19.000 --> 48:21.000]  Is that what your hearing is tomorrow?
[48:21.000 --> 48:23.000]  I'm not too familiar with it.
[48:23.000 --> 48:24.000]  Yeah, okay.
[48:24.000 --> 48:27.000]  You don't know what the nature is of your hearing that's tomorrow?
[48:27.000 --> 48:29.000]  I don't know if it's the conference.
[48:29.000 --> 48:36.000]  They told me it's a conference, but I have a legal aid and he has an assistant that's a female.
[48:36.000 --> 48:39.000]  And they both tell me two different things.
[48:39.000 --> 48:41.000]  So it's like I don't know what's really going on.
[48:41.000 --> 48:42.000]  Okay.
[48:42.000 --> 48:44.000]  But I know that it's supposed to be some type of conference,
[48:44.000 --> 48:46.000]  I don't know if it's in the chambers or for a different room.
[48:46.000 --> 48:48.000]  They're probably going to try to pressure you into a deal.
[48:48.000 --> 48:51.000]  They're probably going to try to pressure you into a deal tomorrow.
[48:51.000 --> 48:52.000]  No, it's too soon.
[48:52.000 --> 48:54.000]  They hadn't beat him up enough.
[48:54.000 --> 48:56.000]  I don't know.
[48:56.000 --> 49:02.000]  This is going to be almost certainly, it's the first time you're going before the judge.
[49:02.000 --> 49:05.000]  What you went before, a magistrate.
[49:05.000 --> 49:09.000]  He was kind of a judgy type of guy, but at the time he wasn't acting like a judge.
[49:09.000 --> 49:12.000]  He was in the capacity of a magistrate.
[49:12.000 --> 49:15.000]  And he makes it part of a cause of determination.
[49:15.000 --> 49:19.000]  And then he will forward the records to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[49:19.000 --> 49:23.000]  And then you go to that court and say, okay, court, here I am.
[49:23.000 --> 49:25.000]  This is who I am.
[49:25.000 --> 49:34.000]  And an arraignment is in a hearing for the purpose of determining the identity of the accused and taking a plea.
[49:34.000 --> 49:35.000]  Okay.
[49:35.000 --> 49:39.000]  And there are a lot of guys here who say, don't do anything.
[49:39.000 --> 49:40.000]  Don't plea.
[49:40.000 --> 49:42.000]  Don't sign anything.
[49:42.000 --> 49:47.000]  And they've got a lot of good information, but you have to have the information first.
[49:47.000 --> 49:55.000]  You're going to go to a hearing tomorrow, and it's unlikely that anything will occur that day.
[49:55.000 --> 49:57.000]  It happened so quick.
[49:57.000 --> 49:59.000]  You know, they arrested me and my house.
[49:59.000 --> 50:01.000]  I came to my house, two DEA agents with no paperwork.
[50:01.000 --> 50:02.000]  They arrested me.
[50:02.000 --> 50:06.000]  I don't know how many hours later I seen the magistrate the same day.
[50:06.000 --> 50:09.000]  I was in the court not even three to four minutes.
[50:09.000 --> 50:12.000]  They told me some lady was my legal aid.
[50:12.000 --> 50:18.000]  She told me, you know, what I needed for her to do is basically call somebody so that they don't want me incarcerated.
[50:18.000 --> 50:21.000]  And then next thing they know is they're asking me if I'm to plea.
[50:21.000 --> 50:23.000]  I'm like, what the hell is that?
[50:23.000 --> 50:25.000]  It was just so quick, you know.
[50:25.000 --> 50:27.000]  And I said I was not guilty.
[50:27.000 --> 50:32.000]  Actually, you know, I'm rushed out of the room, and I'm sent back over to Brooklyn, New York.
[50:32.000 --> 50:38.000]  And I was out there for six days, and I came out just recently on this past Monday.
[50:38.000 --> 50:42.000]  And I've just been reading as much as I can, and a couple of friends have directed me towards you.
[50:42.000 --> 50:48.000]  And I'm just here looking for some type of maybe somebody in New York I could talk to.
[50:48.000 --> 50:49.000]  Okay.
[50:49.000 --> 50:50.000]  Do you ever play poker?
[50:50.000 --> 50:51.000]  Yes, I have.
[50:51.000 --> 50:52.000]  Okay.
[50:52.000 --> 50:53.000]  They're playing poker.
[50:53.000 --> 50:55.000]  This much I can tell you.
[50:55.000 --> 50:58.000]  They bring you in, allows you to make a deal.
[50:58.000 --> 51:07.000]  Now, not knowing the circumstances of your case, but it being feds and they're talking conspiracy,
[51:07.000 --> 51:12.000]  I'm almost going to bet they got bigger fish in mind than you.
[51:12.000 --> 51:13.000]  Right.
[51:13.000 --> 51:20.000]  So they come out and suck you up, and then the first thing they want to play is let's make a deal.
[51:20.000 --> 51:28.000]  We're going to do all of these incredibly horrible things to you unless you put on a wire,
[51:28.000 --> 51:36.000]  tell us everything you know about all your buddies, give up everybody to us, and we'll be nice to you.
[51:36.000 --> 51:43.000]  If you have a lot of information that they want, that's almost certainly what they're doing.
[51:43.000 --> 51:44.000]  Okay.
[51:44.000 --> 51:48.000]  So you're playing poker.
[51:48.000 --> 51:54.000]  It won't hurt initially to keep your hand together, keep a close counsel,
[51:54.000 --> 52:02.000]  and vie for all of the pressure you can get.
[52:02.000 --> 52:11.000]  You want leverage to either make the thing go away or make the best deal you can.
[52:11.000 --> 52:15.000]  And so I wouldn't worry too much about this next hearing.
[52:15.000 --> 52:17.000]  It's too soon.
[52:17.000 --> 52:22.000]  They don't expect even if they prosecute you to ever get you to court within a year.
[52:22.000 --> 52:28.000]  So they got a lot of time to put the heat on you because they're going to want to squeeze on you
[52:28.000 --> 52:32.000]  and get you to make a deal so they don't ever have to go to court with you.
[52:32.000 --> 52:34.000]  That you can be fairly certain of.
[52:34.000 --> 52:36.000]  And that's just pragmatic.
[52:36.000 --> 52:38.000]  It costs them a lot of money to hold a trial.
[52:38.000 --> 52:43.000]  So if they can put the squeeze on you and get you to take a deal, great.
[52:43.000 --> 52:46.000]  So tomorrow you probably don't have a problem.
[52:46.000 --> 52:51.000]  You can look on our Web site and send me an e-mail.
[52:51.000 --> 52:55.000]  I know of one guy in New York particularly,
[52:55.000 --> 52:59.000]  but I don't know if he's what he's doing right now.
[52:59.000 --> 53:01.000]  I can try to get a hold of him.
[53:01.000 --> 53:02.000]  Okay.
[53:02.000 --> 53:06.000]  If you send me an e-mail with contact information, I'll try to get a hold of him.
[53:06.000 --> 53:07.000]  All right.
[53:07.000 --> 53:09.000]  I appreciate it, Randy, really much.
[53:09.000 --> 53:12.000]  So tomorrow there's a couple of my friends.
[53:12.000 --> 53:14.000]  I've been trying to, you know, put me out to everything,
[53:14.000 --> 53:17.000]  but there's so much information to cram into my brain in a couple of days.
[53:17.000 --> 53:19.000]  It's just not really going to happen, you know.
[53:19.000 --> 53:22.000]  So what I'm trying to do is just should I keep the lawyer on my side
[53:22.000 --> 53:24.000]  because I accidentally do a couple of things for me today
[53:24.000 --> 53:27.000]  because I have an ankle bracelet on me.
[53:27.000 --> 53:30.000]  And they basically took away all my working hours.
[53:30.000 --> 53:32.000]  I could only work like six or seven hours.
[53:32.000 --> 53:35.000]  I'm used to working 12, 13, 14 hours a day.
[53:35.000 --> 53:38.000]  And I don't even know how I'm going to pay rent next month.
[53:38.000 --> 53:41.000]  So I can't work the same amount of hours I used to.
[53:41.000 --> 53:44.000]  I'm not going to make the same amount of money with this bracelet on.
[53:44.000 --> 53:47.000]  So a friend told me to start making affidavits and motions,
[53:47.000 --> 53:51.000]  and I called Legal Aid today, and he told me absolutely he will not do that.
[53:51.000 --> 53:52.000]  Now, wait a minute.
[53:52.000 --> 53:58.000]  The prosecutor or the court is telling you that you can't go to your job?
[53:58.000 --> 54:05.000]  The pre-trial officer is telling me that I am only allowed to work six
[54:05.000 --> 54:08.000]  or seven hours a day, and I have to report straight home.
[54:08.000 --> 54:09.000]  Okay.
[54:09.000 --> 54:13.000]  How can they interfere with his means of living, Randy?
[54:13.000 --> 54:14.000]  This doesn't make any sense.
[54:14.000 --> 54:17.000]  You can only work six or seven hours a day?
[54:17.000 --> 54:18.000]  He's on bond.
[54:18.000 --> 54:23.000]  They can make any bond arrangements they want to.
[54:23.000 --> 54:26.000]  So what, you think they're trying to bankrupt him
[54:26.000 --> 54:29.000]  so that he can't afford an attorney so that he'll have to flee?
[54:29.000 --> 54:31.000]  Is that what they're trying to do?
[54:31.000 --> 54:34.000]  No, I think they're just following standard procedures.
[54:34.000 --> 54:38.000]  So standard procedures is people can only work six hours a day when they're on bond?
[54:38.000 --> 54:39.000]  It probably is.
[54:39.000 --> 54:41.000]  So what you need to do is go to your attorney.
[54:41.000 --> 54:43.000]  That will get everyone fired.
[54:43.000 --> 54:49.000]  Go to your attorney and ask your attorney to petition the court to give you more time
[54:49.000 --> 54:58.000]  and get something from your place of business or your job to verify.
[54:58.000 --> 55:02.000]  I don't mean to interrupt you, Randy, with the thing that I've done that.
[55:02.000 --> 55:04.000]  I've been through that with Legal Aid,
[55:04.000 --> 55:06.000]  and they're doing nothing but fighting against me.
[55:06.000 --> 55:09.000]  And I feel like they're not even with me, you know what I mean?
[55:09.000 --> 55:12.000]  That they have nothing to do with me, you know?
[55:12.000 --> 55:14.000]  That's what – okay.
[55:14.000 --> 55:19.000]  There was a way to go after them that I hadn't got to yet.
[55:19.000 --> 55:23.000]  First, you want to try to get them to work for you.
[55:23.000 --> 55:25.000]  Not knowing your situation,
[55:25.000 --> 55:31.000]  I'm not going to suggest that you start filing bar grievances against them quite yet.
[55:31.000 --> 55:32.000]  Okay.
[55:32.000 --> 55:39.000]  That is a way to get their attention because bar grievances really hurt them.
[55:39.000 --> 55:45.000]  But if you do that, they're going to move to – they're going to ask the judge to remove them from the case.
[55:45.000 --> 55:52.000]  And the federal is a real mess, and they are all in bed with each other.
[55:52.000 --> 56:03.000]  So I'm a little more reluctant to advise radical approaches when your liberty is at risk.
[56:03.000 --> 56:04.000]  Right.
[56:04.000 --> 56:07.000]  Federal judges can pretty well do what they want to at this point
[56:07.000 --> 56:11.000]  until we figure out a way to bring them back under law.
[56:11.000 --> 56:16.000]  So, Randy, is it – you're saying that this is standard – I mean, are they –
[56:16.000 --> 56:20.000]  do they try to get everyone fired from their jobs when they're on bond in a federal case?
[56:20.000 --> 56:25.000]  Because most people – because most people, when they go to work, they work an eight- or a nine-hour shift.
[56:25.000 --> 56:29.000]  And so if you all of a sudden say, okay, you're on bond, but you can only work six hours,
[56:29.000 --> 56:31.000]  well, people are going to lose their jobs.
[56:31.000 --> 56:34.000]  Are they trying to get everyone fired from their job that's on bond?
[56:34.000 --> 56:36.000]  Strongman issue.
[56:36.000 --> 56:37.000]  I mean, I'm just asking the question.
[56:37.000 --> 56:41.000]  No, it is – and it's a reasonable question because you said this was standard.
[56:41.000 --> 56:46.000]  And so I'm trying to figure out why is it standard when they know that in this society,
[56:46.000 --> 56:53.000]  it's typical to work an eight- or a nine-hour day, why are they saying you can only work six hours?
[56:53.000 --> 56:58.000]  That's not socially a standard thing in the workforce.
[56:58.000 --> 57:01.000]  So I'm just trying to figure out why would they do such a thing.
[57:01.000 --> 57:14.000]  I'm saying that I doubt that this individual is important enough to these public officials to care.
[57:14.000 --> 57:18.000]  It's unlikely they singled him out for special –
[57:18.000 --> 57:19.000]  Right, that's what I know.
[57:19.000 --> 57:21.000]  And you said that that was standard.
[57:21.000 --> 57:27.000]  So I'm trying to figure out why is it standard that they would do that to everyone, that they want –
[57:27.000 --> 57:28.000]  do they want everyone to lose their jobs?
[57:28.000 --> 57:31.000]  I mean, I'm just trying to figure out why would they do such a thing.
[57:31.000 --> 57:35.000]  And this is over a three-year investigation.
[57:35.000 --> 57:36.000]  Wait, say that again.
[57:36.000 --> 57:41.000]  This is on the paperwork, it says from 2006 to 2008.
[57:41.000 --> 57:44.000]  That's how long they've been investigating.
[57:44.000 --> 57:47.000]  Okay. Does the –
[57:47.000 --> 57:51.000]  And I also have – I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I also have two co-defendants.
[57:51.000 --> 57:56.000]  Do the allegations have anything to do with your place of employment?
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  No.
[57:58.000 --> 58:09.000]  Then does your place of employment constitute any specific hazard or criminal threat?
[58:09.000 --> 58:11.000]  Not at all.
[58:11.000 --> 58:15.000]  The thing is, I don't work at typical nine-to-five restaurants.
[58:15.000 --> 58:19.000]  I work in an auto body, and I work in a tow truck at night.
[58:19.000 --> 58:20.000]  Okay.
[58:20.000 --> 58:24.000]  And the majority of my money comes from commission from working in the truck.
[58:24.000 --> 58:27.000]  And this guy told me that I'm not allowed in the truck.
[58:27.000 --> 58:29.000]  If I'm working in the truck, I can't work at night.
[58:29.000 --> 58:30.000]  Okay, hold on.
[58:30.000 --> 58:32.000]  Okay, yeah, hold on one second, Jay, because we're about to go to break.
[58:32.000 --> 58:34.000]  We're going to talk about this tomorrow on the other side.
[58:34.000 --> 58:38.000]  We also have Jessica from Texas, John from Alabama.
[58:38.000 --> 58:41.000]  We'll be taking more of your calls on the other side.
[58:41.000 --> 58:44.000]  Jay, we'll get right back to you on the other side.
[58:44.000 --> 58:49.000]  This is Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens, ruleoflawradio.com.
[58:49.000 --> 59:14.000]  Music.
[59:14.000 --> 59:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[59:19.000 --> 59:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[59:22.000 --> 59:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[59:27.000 --> 59:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[59:34.000 --> 59:38.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[59:38.000 --> 59:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[59:43.000 --> 59:49.000]  In our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[59:49.000 --> 59:56.000]  pro se tactics, and much more, please visit wtprn.com and click on the banner
[59:56.000 --> 01:00:02.000]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  This April will mark 14 years since the Upland City bombing claimed 169 lives.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:13.000]  Monday, April 20th at 7 p.m., Brave New Books in Austin, Texas is presenting a discussion
[01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:18.000]  by the hosts of Radio Free Oklahoma addressing many unanswered questions about that tragedy.
[01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:22.000]  Did you know that there was more than one bomb involved in this tragedy?
[01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  Did you know that there are many concrete links between the Oklahoma City bombing and 9-11?
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  Did you know that current Attorney General Eric Holder was directly involved with a cover-up
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  following the Oklahoma City bombing?
[01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  Monday, April 20th, 7 p.m. at Brave New Books, Chris Emory, Andrew Griffin, and Colin Vandenuev
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  will be discussing the results of their investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  This event will also be broadcast on the Rule of Law Radio program,
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:50.000]  hosted by Deborah Stevens and Randy Kelton.
[01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  For more information, go to bravenewbookstore.com or ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:02.000]  The Oklahoma City bombing, 14 years later, still seeking the truth.
[01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  The rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  All right, we're speaking with Jay in New York.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  We're going to be going to the rest of your calls shortly.
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:57.000]  Jessica, John, and Terry, we see you on the board.
[01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:01.000]  Okay, Randy, please continue with Jay.
[01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  Yeah, not knowing what else is going on, unless, if this is not a standard procedure,
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  then the court probably had some concern, and if you're operating a tow truck at night
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  and depending on what the nature of the allegations are, that puts you out at night,
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  running around the streets at a time when they would rather see you at home,
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  not getting in any trouble.
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  So, you know, it may be that you need to convince the court of something,
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  but if your attorneys aren't doing anything, you might,
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:51.000]  rather than a bar grievance immediately, you might write a letter to the court
[01:02:51.000 --> 01:02:57.000]  complaining that your attorneys are not adjudicating in your interest.
[01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:10.000]  Now, that has no legal effect, but it is a more gentle way of raising a complaint
[01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:15.000]  without getting everybody mad at you.
[01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:16.000]  Right.
[01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:22.000]  But not knowing what your situation is, it may be appropriate to get them all kicked off.
[01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:27.000]  In some cases, when a person is innocent and they're trying to...
[01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  Do you want me to elaborate on my case?
[01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:32.000]  I didn't ask because you didn't offer.
[01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  I didn't want to imply that it was sensitive.
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  I'll tell you, it's on paper anyway.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  Basically, they're saying that I'm in conspiracy of possession and distribution of drugs.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  That comes with that.
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  I kind of guessed that.
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  How did they get there?
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  Did they get there directly or by implication?
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  I can't even tell you how.
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  I don't even know.
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  I just got a couple of DEAs knocking on my door telling me to get out of my house.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  So you don't have a history of drug arrests?
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  I have no history whatsoever.
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  My record is, believe me.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  Okay, you know somebody that they want to know something about.
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  And I can almost predict what's going to happen.
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:28.000]  Yeah, and Jay probably doesn't even know who it is.
[01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  Yeah.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:32.000]  You do this for us or we'll crucify you.
[01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  They may even know that Jay is totally innocent.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:41.000]  And they're just running through the wringer to try to get him to be a little informant.
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  Have you seen a copy of the indictment?
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  Yes, I have.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  But the thing is, my legal aid sent me, I can't go see him.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  I have his bracelet on.
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  I monitored for the past week.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  I haven't been able to leave my house.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  So I asked the lawyer to fax it to me.
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  He gave me a runaround.
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  He didn't want to fax it to me.
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:05.000]  He finally got it faxed to me.
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  The fact of the thing is missing one of the most crucial pages, number two.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:16.000]  Okay, there's other things that I would suggest you look at.
[01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  Okay.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  And one suggestion is try not to talk to your attorney.
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  Try not to talk to them?
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:24.000]  Right.
[01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  Do everything in writing.
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  Okay.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  If you can fax to your attorney, you know, that's faster than using snail mail.
[01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:35.000]  Or email if you can.
[01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:41.000]  But keep copies of everything you send, everything you receive.
[01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Everything in some format where you can hold it in your hand or show it to the court.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Okay.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  If an attorney just says something, it's meaningless.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  So if you have a copy of the indictment, there are some things you can do to get their attention.
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:18.000]  Like ask for the records of the court reporter on the date of your indictment.
[01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:19.000]  Do you want to see?
[01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  Records of court, reports of the indictment.
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  Yeah, the grand jury's court reporter.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:31.000]  You want to see the disbursement records to the grand jury's court reporter.
[01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  You want to see if she was, the court reporter was paid to do,
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  to be in court taking grand jury transcripts on the day you were indicted.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:46.000]  You might get a big surprise.
[01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:50.000]  For tomorrow, should I take back my plea of not guilty?
[01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  No.
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Do not take back.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:53.000]  It won't make any difference.
[01:06:53.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  Just absolutely don't take it back.
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  Okay.
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  People say that if you enter a plea, then you gave the court jurisdiction.
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  Right.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  No.
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  You might have given them in personam jurisdiction, but you can always take that back.
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  The primary jurisdiction, and they most likely had in personam jurisdiction anyway,
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  that's the jurisdiction over the person as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:31.000]  That you can't give them.
[01:07:31.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  They either have it by law or they don't have it by law, and that's all there is to that.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  You can't waive that.
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  I'm the indictment since I was in possession of such and such amount of such and such.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  It's like what?
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  They may have the wrong guy.
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  You sure they don't have the wrong guy?
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  It's crazy.
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  I'm telling you.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:57.000]  And then when it came out to prosecutors, I was even more shocked.
[01:07:57.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  So I was like what?
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  The prosecutor is telling the judge something.
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  The magistrate said I don't get bail.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:07.000]  And then on papers, it's totally different.
[01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:11.000]  I don't know which way to go with this or, you know, at least they're going to screw me,
[01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  because I definitely do not have serious money for one of these top-notch lawyers.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  They're going to screw you.
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:17.000]  You can count on that.
[01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  I've got someone I can recommend you to, Tony Davis.
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  He's familiar with how to deal with the feds.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  Okay.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  But be warned, he is aggressive.
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  Right.
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  He's going to go right for their throats, but he won't do that until he's looked at your case
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  and kind of knows what's going on.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  But he's in Texas, but since this is federal, it shouldn't make much difference.
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  Okay.
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  The question that I suggested earlier came from Tony Davis.
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  The reason you ask that is often the prosecutor doesn't have a valid indictment.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  He's got a stamp with the foreman's name on it, and he just stamps it.
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  This sounds like he's not really after you.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  He's after someone else, and he's going to use you to get him.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  Right.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  And if he's been careless that way, you can really sting him good.
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  And if you sting your attorney and opposing counsel and leave the judge alone, at least initially,
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:30.000]  you might get these guys to back off.
[01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  If you don't, Tony's going to want to go after the judge.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  If it's clear they're going to come after you anyway, then it'll be time to go after the judge.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  And we have ways of doing that because they do everything so wrong.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  Right.
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  Everything's a mess.
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  And he will ask for things that they won't want to give.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:55.000]  If they're just trying to use you to get information from someone else,
[01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  with the things Tony will do to them, you won't be worth the trouble.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  Right.
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  He'll give them discovery that they're not going to want to produce.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:12.000]  And if they don't produce it, then they lose control over the case.
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  So there's a lot of things you can do, and Tony can help with that better than me.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  I'm pretty well focused on state issues.
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  Okay.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  Okay.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  So you'll give me his contact information?
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  Yes, I will.
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  If you'll send me an email, you go on our website, ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  and just send me an email.
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  I'll have an email link on there.
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  I will forward it to Tony.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  Okay.
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  I'm looking right now for it.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  So I don't lose it.
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  On the contacts?
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:42.000]  Yes.
[01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  Yes.
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:44.000]  Okay.
[01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  I really appreciate the help, Randy.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  You know, I haven't been able to sleep at night, you know, and it's really crazy, man.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  Being inside that prison and treated like a dog is not the place for anybody, man.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  Right.
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  I'm sure.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  Been there, done that.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  It definitely isn't, man, especially in the Fed, man.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  It's definitely not the place for any company you're in being.
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:06.000]  Yeah, Fed's a scary business.
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  I do have someone there I'll send you to talk to.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:12.000]  He's had his own intercounter with the Fed's.
[01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:13.000]  Okay.
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  I really appreciate the time.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  And the only reason why I found you guys is because I met a guy on a chat room that actually
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  he did nothing but help to me.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  His name is Rob.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:24.000]  He's over from Texas.
[01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  He's an absolute listener of yours.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  And he just told me about it.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  And, you know, he was sending me all types of files to start reading.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  And I've just been trying to cram everything into my little brain, you know.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:42.000]  I feel like now there's light at the end of the tunnel, you know, before it was just closed off.
[01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  And now I actually see some light.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  You know, I have to talk to you guys, man.
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  This may have been put in front of you to help you grow.
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  Exactly.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  I'm a big believer in that, man.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  You know, definitely a big believer in that.
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  I'm always positive.
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  I'm 100% positive type of guy, you know.
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  Right.
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  Good, I'm positive they're going to crucify me.
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  You know, I think positive no matter what.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  You know what I mean?
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  I always look at it the way it is.
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  I'm not as bad as somebody else might be.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  You know what I mean?
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  Yeah.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  I always look at that.
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  You know, every day is a blessing.
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  You're not like the little boy goes to his dad and says,
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  Dad, I think I'm going to fail my math test.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  He said, son, be positive.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:22.000]  I study hard.
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  It's like a path to the next time with flying colors.
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  He says, son, be positive.
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  I'm positive I'm going to fail my math test.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  Okay.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:32.000]  We need to move along.
[01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  Thanks for calling in, Jay.
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:35.000]  Thank you.
[01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  I'm definitely going to listen to your show every week now.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  All right.
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:39.000]  Thank you.
[01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  Bye.
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  Okay.
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  We are going to go now to Jessica in Texas.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  Hey, Jessica.
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  Oh, I was wondering who or what program you would refer Jay to on the federal level
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:59.000]  because I know jurisdiction is mostly state or county,
[01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:05.000]  and so you did give Tony Davis's information.
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:06.000]  Yes.
[01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  So he has a product that you can get.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  Does he have a product or is he basically?
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:14.000]  Actually, Tony is the product.
[01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  Oh, he is the product?
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  Yes.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  Yes, this is not some canned song and dance.
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  No, he does paralegal work.
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:25.000]  Yeah, his primary thrust is crucify the judge.
[01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  Okay.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  And he's federal on the federal level?
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  Yes, he works at the federal level.
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:30.000]  He's federal.
[01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  Okay.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  He will, first thing he's going to do is put in a request
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:40.000]  for a complete financial statement from the judge,
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:43.000]  and that will send the judge ballistic.
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  He's going to demand all records held by the government,
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:54.000]  state, federal, top secret, everything,
[01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:58.000]  and under federal law they have to produce it,
[01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  but the CIA and the NSA are not going to produce it,
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  so now they've got a problem.
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  The attorney is going to say, well, none of it's relevant.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  Well, the attorney can't make that determination.
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  Produce it, let the judge look at it in camera,
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  and let him determine if it's relevant.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:21.000]  Well, they're going to go to the CIA and the NSA,
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  and they're going to say, we need you to produce these,
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  and the CIA is going to tell them, go scratch.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  So these are some of the tactics that he uses,
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  and he's going to look real close at this indictment.
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:37.000]  Did the grand jury actually meet that day?
[01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  And if they did, did they actually hear this particular case?
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  Because a lot of times they don't.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  And there's a lot of issues that way.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  A lot of times it's a bogus indictment.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  Yes, and this one sounds that way.
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  That's assuming everything that he was telling us is true.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  And it's not to doubt him, but a lot of times people only want
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  to tell you the part that makes them look good.
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  They don't want to tell you the bad part,
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  and they don't understand that, frankly, we don't care.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  We do process.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  We do do process.
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  So I don't care what the merits are.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  I want my public officials to follow my law, even if it's a bad guy,
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  especially if it's a really bad guy,
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  because the really bad guys generally know how to adjudicate their rights.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  So they're the ones that use this crapola to hit the streets with,
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  and the guy who never has any interaction with the courts gets railroaded.
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  So I want them to follow law every single time, and we look at,
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  and as Tony Davis does that primarily,
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  the first thing to do is not adjudicate your case.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  The first thing to do is make sure the government has the power
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  and authority to prosecute you, make sure they haven't screwed anything up.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  That gets it thrown out regardless of the merits,
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  and that's where we like to go.
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  Do you have an issue or a question?
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  No.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  My question was who would he go to on the federal level for that,
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  for something to help him on the federal level.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  That was it.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  Thank you.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  That was it.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  Okay.
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:31.000]  Just send me an email, and I will get it to Tony.
[01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:32.000]  All right.
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:33.000]  Thank you, Jessica.
[01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:34.000]  Thank you.
[01:16:34.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  Okay.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  We're going to break.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  We're in Alabama.
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  It's Harry from Michigan.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  This is the Rule of Law on Rule of Law Radio.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:17:17.000]  Thank you.
[01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  Okay.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  We are back.
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  The Rule of Law on RuleOfLawRadio.com, and I just wanted to make an announcement again
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  that we have a new host coming on board starting this Wednesday.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:36.000]  That's two days from now, two nights from tonight.
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  April 15th, John Bush will be starting his show, Austin Liberty Beat.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  He's with Texans for Accountable Government.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  He organized the forum on the police wanting to have blood withdrawals,
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  forced blood withdrawals here in Austin.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:57.000]  And we broadcasted live from City Hall that night a couple Mondays ago.
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:03.000]  So we are very happy to welcome John Bush aboard to start his new show this coming Wednesday.
[01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:06.000]  It will be every Wednesday night from 6 to 8 p.m.
[01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:08.000]  So tune in for that.
[01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  And in the meantime now, we're going to go back to the call board.
[01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:15.000]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:17.000]  We've got John from Alabama.
[01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:18.000]  Hey, John, thanks for calling in.
[01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:20.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:34.000]  Well, I was listening to the earlier part of the program and I forgot who the person was that was talking about the if-ex, then...
[01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:35.000]  That's Randy.
[01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:38.000]  This is a question on point?
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  That was Randy.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  I was trying to load my computer with y'all's program and everything.
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  But one thing was left out and that was coercion in the equation.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  And the point I was trying to figure out in my mind was take Galileo saying the earth is round.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  And he had to retract that because otherwise he'd be burned at stake as a heretic.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  That's a very good example, John.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  An appeal to fear.
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  You are warned of unacceptable consequences.
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  An appeal to the consequences of a belief is a fallacy that comes in the, let's see, an appeal to the consequences of a belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  X is true because if people did not accept X as being true, then there would be negative consequences.
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:57.000]  That's correct. And that was left out of your examples and equations.
[01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  Yeah, I have a whole bunch that I didn't get to.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  And that's the fellow you were talking to from New York.
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:17.000]  Coercion, I'm just a dumb country hick from Alabama and I don't know that much about law.
[01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  But last time I went to school, coercion was against law.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  And if the government is practicing coercion, then the prosecutor on up should be held accountable.
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  That's exactly what we're working on a way to get done.
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  And for example, the prosecutor in Durham, North Carolina on the Duke lacrosse team withholding evidence and then making statements, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  Now, if the government performs illegal acts and holds the citizens at a higher standard, then something is very askew with the system.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  And something is very askew with the system. And that's why we're here.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  And I bought the Juris Dictionary and this is what brought my interest toward your program.
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  I utilized Juris Dictionary and presented motions, et cetera, and the judge said,
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  I highly suggest that you obtain an attorney because I don't want to hear your motions because you're not a real attorney
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  and you're not confident to present your case and I will rule against you.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  He told me that right off. And I presented my motion in court in a response and a motion.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:36.000]  And I said, look, Your Honor, this is stamped and you said that you haven't read it and you haven't received it.
[01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  I said, I don't micromanage the court clerk's office. I don't micromanage your office.
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  And the opposition attorney said, well, I didn't receive it.
[01:23:51.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  And I said, these were put in your boxes. I watched the court clerk put those in Your Honor's box.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  I saw the court clerk put it in the opposition's box.
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  It was dated two weeks prior to this hearing and you don't want to hear my motions, but you want to hear theirs.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  And I don't know. I'm just very disturbed about the U.S. justice system.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  So are we. And this is what we're here for.
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  That's what I meant earlier when I said that Tony's primary thrust was going after the judges, both of us.
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  That's where the fix is.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  We're not going to fix these problems going after police officers on the street or these local podunk magistrates or even prosecutors.
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  Or district judges or circuit judges.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  That's where the problem is. That's where the fix is.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  I go in, when I go before a judge, I want him to think I'm setting him up so I can file bar grievances, judicial conduct complaints, challenges to his bond and criminal charges against him.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  Exactly.
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  Once he knows I'm coming after him, he's going to get more careful.
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  I went before a judge in Wichita Falls and the judge admonished me for not having an attorney and gave me this little speech about all of the disadvantages of not having an attorney.
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:52.000]  And I thanked him for his kind and sage and kindly advice and asked him to give me some more advice in light of the same he had already given.
[01:25:52.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  He said, tell me, judge, where can I find an attorney that will adjudicate my rights as vigorously as I will?
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  Where can I find an attorney who will protect my rights even if you violate one of them the way I will?
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  And where can I find an attorney who will ask this bailiff over here to arrest you if you violate one of my rights the way I will?
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  And if you can find that attorney, I want you to have him get his head examined because he's got to be out of his professional mind.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  Exactly, because he's got to go before that same judge time after time.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:33.000]  Yes, and the judge said, Mr. Kelton, point made and taken, shall we proceed?
[01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  By all means.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  Jerk.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  But that's the position we're in.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  Your attorney is more dangerous to you than anyone else.
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  Exactly.
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:27:00.000]  I did as the judge instructed because I was threatened by the judge that he would deny all motions, et cetera.
[01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  And so I went and got a real attorney that I couldn't afford, and it's still dragging on.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  I mean, $40,000 later.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  Okay.
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  I suggest file every bar grievance against your attorney you can.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  Everything he screwed up.
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  I can assure you one thing.
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  Before this attorney went to law school, he never read a book on malpractice because if he had read a book on malpractice, he would have never became an attorney.
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  Well, my opposition attorneys were my father's attorneys through three Supreme Court hearings in Oklahoma, three Supreme Court hearings in Alabama, and a divorce with my mother.
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  And when he died, I inherited his property, and that went to, I kept it at my mother's house because I was living out of the country a lot.
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  And when my mother died, my stepbrothers and sisters captured all my family's property, including a 1208 rough draft of the Magna Carta.
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  I'm a baron of the Magna Carta.
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:56.000]  And that said, now how can they defend the removal of my personal property when they vigorously fought in the courts for me to retain this property
[01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  because I was the sole beneficiary of my father's estate?
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  I thought that was a conflict of interest.
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  And my mother filed an action against my father's estate.
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  I stopped the action, but I had retained that same law firm between my father's death and the dropping of the case.
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:35.000]  So I thought that there was a conflict of interest.
[01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  But where will you find an attorney that will take a malpractice case?
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Okay, wait one second. Just hold that thought, John, because we're going to break right now.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  And actually, we've got Greg Chapman from Alabama on the line. He's one of our hosts.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  He's going to come on the air on the other side and talk with you about this. We'll be right back.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:58.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Gold prices are at historic highs, and with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties, and instability in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. Everybody should have some of their assets in investment-grade precious metals.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver, and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that's specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  If you have gold, silver, or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment.
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  You can buy gold, silver, or platinum with confidence from a brokerage that's specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  At Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver, or platinum with confidence from a brokerage that's specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:42.000]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  You can buy gold, silver, or platinum with confidence from a brokerage that's specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:05.000]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Okay, we've got John from Alabama who's calling in. He's hanging in there trying to fight off this corruption.
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:19.000]  We also have Greg from Alabama, Greg Chapman, who is a host on this network.
[01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  His show, Agenda 21 Talk, is on Tuesday nights from 8 to 10 and Friday nights from 6 to 8. So, Greg, thank you for calling in.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  And we have John here. Greg, you had some comments you wanted to say to John.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  Yeah, John, what part of Alabama are you from?
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  Foster's, just south of Tuscaloosa.
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  Oh, Tuscaloosa. Okay. I was just wondering how close you were to me. What county is that? Tuscaloosa County?
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  Okay.
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:53.000]  West Central Alabama.
[01:32:53.000 --> 01:33:03.000]  And the reason I bring it up, we're, Don Terry and I are from Jackson County, actually. And we deal with the judges up here quite a bit.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  We've had a good bit of success so far. So if you ever need our help, you know, we'd be happy to help you out with anything.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:17.000]  Well, do you have a contact number?
[01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  Yeah, I can, let's see. I want to get it. He can send you an email at admin at JacksonCountyPatriots.com. Is that right?
[01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  You can do it there or shorter, admin at Agenda21Talk.com.
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:33.000]  All right.
[01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:35.000]  Okay, let's see.
[01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  Yeah, John, and definitely check out their show tomorrow night.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  Admin at Agenda21Talk.
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:45.000]  Agenda 21 Talk.
[01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  Say again?
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  Agenda 21 Talk.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  Okay.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  Yeah, send an email there and then he can get you phone numbers and stuff.
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:07.000]  Yeah, he was complimenting you on the break for hanging in there with these guys.
[01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  Yeah, John, you're doing a great job.
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:26.000]  Well, I've been fairly tenacious. I did two and a half years pro se, pro per, and it's about killed me.
[01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  And then I've gone another seven or eight months with a real attorney.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  And that's real. That'll really kill you.
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:47.000]  Oh, yeah. I just, no offense and all to y'all, but I despise attorneys.
[01:34:47.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  We're not attorneys.
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:57.000]  Oh, okay. I despise the court system and I despise attorneys.
[01:34:57.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  Well, we're not too crazy about it either.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:05.000]  I think they're some of the most corrupt individuals I ever ran across in my life.
[01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  I agree. I tend to agree.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  We're here to try to...
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  You know what?
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  Go ahead.
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  I've got to agree with you, John, but here's what I found.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  And again, being from Jackson County, you know, I have to abide by the rules of court here the same as you down there,
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  so we're on equal planes there.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  But here's what I found here.
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  We've done pretty good up here, and one of the things I've come to realize, the system's not all that bad.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  As a matter of fact, if you learn the system, you can really work wonders with it.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  Here's what I faced.
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  When that judge told me I had to get a real attorney,
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:58.000]  that was like him cocking a pistol and pointing it at my forehead.
[01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  And in my humble opinion, that was coercion on his part.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  When you said that, I was thinking that should have called for a motion to disqualify.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  Well, I understand that, and I still have in the back of my mind to file a judicial complaint against that judge,
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  because he is supposed to allow a pro se pro per into his courtroom without...
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  If I do my homework, if I write up motions and responses in a timely manner and do everything by the book...
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  In my humble opinion, I should be allowed to present it in a court of law.
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  But if a judge says, I haven't read your complaint, I haven't read your motion, I haven't read your responses, that sends flags up to me that...
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  Yeah, it is wrong. It is wrong, John.
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  I mean, there was a court at Clark that committed suicide in one of the federal courts.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:35.000]  I forgot which circuit it was, the Fifth Circuit, because for years and years,
[01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  the judge had instructed him just to stamp denied on every document submitted by pro se litigant and never even read it.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  The judge never even read it. So it's completely wrong and illegal, John. You're right about that.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  Exactly. Name me an attorney in the state of Alabama that would vigorously sue a judge that would vigorously...
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  It's not going to happen.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:03.000]  Say again?
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  You're not going to find one.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  Exactly.
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  Okay, here's the deal. You sound like you're still in school. When we were in school...
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  Yeah, yeah. It's a mentality they try to program into us.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  That, you know, they send us to school and the school is directed to instill in the child.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  Here in Texas, we have the House Bill 72 that Ross Perot put through.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  And it said, the school shall instill in the child a deep and abiding faith in and respect for the American form of government.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  And they do that. They tell you about all these great rights and privileges that you have.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  We don't have any, Ross.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  However, they very consistently demonstrate to you why you have all these rights and such.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  Don't even think of trying to enforce one while you're in this school.
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  So we put our kids through 12 years of that, that hypocrisy that you get to talk about your rights but don't even think about trying to exert one of them.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  And then they get out of school and all of a sudden we expect them to become empowered citizens.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:16.000]  What I want to say to you is you're the sovereign. They're not.
[01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  You don't have to go ask that judge for squat.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  You go in there and tell him what the law is and this is what you're to do.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  And when he doesn't, you go for the judge.
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  When I get before a judge, if they know me at all, they know I'm looking for a reason to file a bar grievance or a judicial conduct complaint against them or criminal charges against them.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:44.000]  I had a friend that went to work for the tax assessor in Wise County where I'm from.
[01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  And when in his indoctrination, they warned him about me.
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  If that Kelton comes in here, watch out.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  He's just trying to get you to do something so he can go down and try to get you arrested.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  And that's right. I am.
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  So don't screw around.
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  Well, there's no district attorney in my county that would arrest a judge.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  Oh, you need to listen to our program.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  We show you how to handle him.
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  There's a way of doing this.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  You go after the judge and the way you go after the judge is you go to the district attorney, criminal complaint against him.
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  You won't even give it to the grand jury and he's going to refuse.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:32.000]  So you make up a criminal charge against the district attorney accusing the district attorney of shielding the judge from prosecution.
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:35.000]  And you go after the district attorney.
[01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  The district attorney is here. He's got you filing bar grievances against him, criminal charges.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:49.000]  In Texas, we have a court of inquiry, petition for a court of inquiry, a petition to remove Cole Warento.
[01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  Just everything you can find to throw at him.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  The main thing is to run up and smack that judge right upside his legal head and let him know you're not here to ask him anything.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:09.000]  You are the sovereign. He is the servant. And he is not to forget that.
[01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  Forget that at your peril.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  Criminal charges and judicial conduct complaints sting them good, especially if you go after everybody who tries to protect the judge.
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  Go to another judge and file criminal charges against this judge and he'll refuse to take it.
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:31.000]  And then you go after that judge.
[01:41:31.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  And that judge is going to go to the first and say, what's going on here? I'm getting in trouble because of you.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  Look what you caused.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  Put the pressure on him.
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:46.000]  The only way we're going to beat this is stop being afraid of these guys.
[01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  I'm curious, what court was it? District, circuit or municipal?
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  John?
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:41:56.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:41:56.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  Yeah, what court was this?
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  This was in district court.
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  Okay.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  I took it out of probate court because the probate judge was in bed with my stepbrothers and sisters' attorneys.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  And I had it removed from probate court into circuit court.
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Right, circuit.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  And I had two cases going simultaneously and one judge said he would talk to the other judge to get the cases combined and give them a heads up.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:11.000]  And when I went before the second judge, he had no heads up and this was done in front of the opposition's attorney.
[01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  And then he rendered prejudicial and the opposition wanted the cases to remain segregated.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  All right, well listen, hold on, John.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  John, we're going to break.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  Okay, and we have a couple of other callers too.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  Oh, yes, ma'am.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  I'm sorry I took up.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:43.000]  No, that's okay.
[01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Why don't you call in tomorrow night to Greg's program?
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Okay, great.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Thank you, John.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  Thank you.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Okay, this is the rule of law.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:59.000]  Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, we're going to go to Terry in Michigan when we get back on the other side.
[01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:01.000]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:22.000]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar, the price of silver will only increase.
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:33.000]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities with unparalleled investment opportunities for the future.
[01:44:33.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce, and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  And if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:37.000]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:40.000]  All right, we're going to continue to go to calls now.
[01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  We're going to Terry in Michigan.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:45.000]  Hey, Terry, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:48.000]  Hey, good to talk to you guys again.
[01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:55.000]  I know that recently you guys have talked a little bit about right to travel,
[01:45:55.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  and you've kind of put it in the category of something to deal with a little bit later.
[01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:09.000]  And I'm starting to see some things that make me think that this might be a lot more important than we might be thinking.
[01:46:09.000 --> 01:46:22.000]  Right now in Michigan, in order to drive, say, a motorcycle or a four-wheeler or a Jeep or anything off-road,
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:27.000]  you have to go down and buy an ORV sticker, an off-road vehicle sticker.
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  And I remember when they first came out in the 70s, they said, you know what?
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  You go down and pay $3 to get one of these stickers, and what we're going to do is we're going to take the money
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  and we're going to build a whole bunch of new trails so everybody will have someplace to ride.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  And it was $3 for three years.
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:51.000]  Now it's $16.25, and up until now it was an ORV sticker.
[01:46:51.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  Well, I went down to get one a couple of days ago, and I got it back and I started looking at it,
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  and it says right on it, off-road vehicle license.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:03.000]  Oh, boy.
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  Now they're calling it a license.
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:14.000]  And I think that it just gets back to, you know, conditioning people like they did originally with a license,
[01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  even though we had a right to travel, now it's, well, you've got to have a license even to drive off-road.
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  That's a really good observation.
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  Well, yeah, and Terry, we're a lot closer to getting this adjudicated than before.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  Thanks to our good friend Eddie Craig from Nacogdoches, who's on the line right now, actually.
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:38.000]  Cool.
[01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  He just did a show with us, spent the whole show on the traffic code here in Texas.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:44.000]  I'm going to bring him up. Hey, Eddie, thanks for calling in.
[01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  You have any comments for Terry?
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  Yeah, actually, we've got quite a bit of that that we're headed for here.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  Each year they try to add more and more requirements as to what you have to provide them in order to get a license renewal of any kind.
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  I mean, the bill has already been signed by Bill Clinton where they can implement at the state level
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  any time the ability to take blood and urine samples to get your driver's license.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  So the fact is that he's correct.
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  This is not about anything but control.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  That's what the license is for.
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:21.000]  It is for control purposes.
[01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:27.000]  And point well made that it may be a lot more serious issue than we'd give it credit for.
[01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  I've always thought it was extremely serious.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  But we haven't went in that direction because we're trying to get a court that we can actually use.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  And I wasn't going there until we got a court that we could actually get to rule on the law as it exists.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  But now we have Eddie, who's already knowledgeable in this area.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  We'll just blame him for everything that goes wrong.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  After the day I've had, I can say I can take the blame and not worry about it.
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  So how did your day go after we talked several times on the phone today?
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  Yeah, let me give everybody a quick rundown of where we are.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  Tomorrow at 9 a.m. is the day the comptroller is scheduled to come in
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  and attempt to sell my property at public auction.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  Oh, my goodness.
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  Today I went down and filed the injunction with the district court judge, or at least attempted to.
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  The first district court judge refused to even see me.
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  The second district court judge finally took the complaint for the injunction
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  after I attempted to file the criminal complaints with our district attorney.
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  Do I have on tape, specifically stating you'll love this, Randy,
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:44.000]  she says that here in Texas our policy is that we don't even see a complaint until an indictment is handed down.
[01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  Oh, my gosh.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  Now, just how big an idiot does she believe the public is when she stated right here in our local paper
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  in a rebuttal against me that she decides who gets prosecuted and she decides who the grand jury reviews.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Yet here today she's telling me that she never even sees the complaints
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  until the grand jury hands down an indictment.
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:13.000]  Ooh, you should go look at the files and see if all the documents are in there.
[01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  I'm going to bet that the magistrate sends all the documents that the magistrate uses
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  to the prosecuting attorney and not to the clerk of the court.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  So she gets them before the court ever sees them.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  Well, she's going to get to see a whole lot more than that.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  Tomorrow when I go before 8 a.m., I'm supposed to go before the district judge for him to rule on my injunction.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:41.000]  The last call I got from the clerk when I called and spoke to him the last time before I spoke to you
[01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  was that the judge was researching the information in the injunction,
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:49.000]  which is very direct and forward and the same information I shared with you folks on the sales tax.
[01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  Right.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:54.000]  Basically there's two sections of the code they've bothered to completely ignore,
[01:50:54.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  which says in each case the suit must be filed and they've never done that.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  So at 8 a.m. tomorrow I will have a final disposition in that regard.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  Now what I've got to do, however, is find who is going to actually take these criminal complaints.
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  Well, any magistrate anywhere in Texas can take a criminal complaint for any offense, felony misdemeanor, state or federal.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:36.000]  And I know an ex DEA agent who is now a justice of the peace in Roanoke, Texas.
[01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  And if you take the complaints to him, he will forward them to the clerk of the court in accordance with 1730 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:55.000]  We've got one that will actually got one that will.
[01:51:55.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  And he left the DEA because it was so corrupt.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  This guy is actually the real deal.
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:03.000]  That's great.
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  You should give him a hand. His name is Hand.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  All right.
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  Well, fortunately we have as many JPs around here as you can find pebbles at the bottom of a creek.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  So tomorrow I'll start looking around for a couple of them that may be willing to proceed with this,
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:21.000]  as you recommended today, and we'll see how that goes.
[01:52:21.000 --> 01:52:25.000]  Take Article 1730 with you.
[01:52:25.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  Okay.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  And show it to him.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  You might want to take at least have you been through my writ habeas corpus?
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:34.000]  Yes.
[01:52:34.000 --> 01:52:36.000]  You want the wrong box?
[01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  Well, no, just the habeas in general.
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:48.000]  You might want to take, get a copy, print out 17.05 or make a note for 17.05.
[01:52:48.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  Okay.
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  Because the magistrate is going to think he's doing a magistration.
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  And you want to convince him that it's not, that that's a bunch of crapola,
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:02.000]  that what you're really doing is an examining trial.
[01:53:02.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  So when I give you these complaints, you must hold an examination under Chapter 16.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  Because if you don't, you can't set bail.
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:22.000]  The only time a magistrate can set bail, according to 17.05, is after an examining trial.
[01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  It doesn't say anything about a magistration.
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  Right.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  So you give him that.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:37.000]  When I showed that, Deb was there when I mentioned that to a JP in Williamson County,
[01:53:37.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  that bail is taken by a magistrate after an examining trial by a judge in habeas corpus
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  by a police officer under 17.20, 21, 22.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  You could see the gears start clicking into place.
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  So you're telling, you want to tell the judge that you want him to do an examining trial.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:58.000]  Yes, it's an ex parte.
[01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:04.000]  But just like any policeman or anyone else coming to you and handing you a criminal complaint,
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  I have the same authority, if not more, than anyone, any other, any policeman.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  Because I'm the sovereign citizen.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  Right.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:17.000]  You must examine into the sufficiency, make a determination of probable cause,
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:20.000]  seal all the documents, send them to the clerk of the court.
[01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  Well, you would actually like this process, Randy.
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  The first thing I did when I arrived at the county courthouse was go and grab me a deputy sheriff
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  and explain to him exactly what was going on and what I needed him to do.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  He very politely agreed to go with me.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  After I, however, went looking for the DA, he was called over his radio,
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  and he was joined by another deputy, and I was two men escorted the entire afternoon.
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  I get that a lot.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  And basically I couldn't even go to the bathroom without company.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:57.000]  Interesting.
[01:54:57.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  But they paid attention.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  But when you recommended that I get them to sign as witnesses to the criminal acts of the district attorney,
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  they both refused and stated they were told by their superior officer
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  they were not to sign or do anything at all in regards to what was going on.
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  This is what I generally tell them.
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  Well, Bubba, life is filled with little decisions.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  We all get to make some.
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  Your turn.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  Do you want to touch the tar baby or do you want to do your job?
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:38.000]  Well, I will be going down to see their supervisor as soon as I get done with Judge Cox in the morning.
[01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  I'll be interested to hear what happens with that.
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  I would take criminal accusations against them for shielding from prosecution.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:48.000]  Oh, I fully intend to.
[01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  I had the ones for the DA drawn up just not signed.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  Good.
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  Because I knew this was what she was going to do, so I took them all ready to go.
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  They just were not signed yet.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  So I guess now I will have to take some in preparation for the supervisor at the sheriff's department,
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  and hopefully I will not have to go as high as our local sheriff in order to get that done.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  He actually is the one I would want to go to first rather than engaging all of his underlings.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  Right.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  Well, see, actually I know him.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  He actually goes to church with my brother, so I know him, so we will see how that works out.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  You might want to call him and say, okay, who do you want to send me to?
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  And then when you go to that person, you can say, the sheriff sent me to talk to you about this issue,
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:52.000]  and you may actually get someone to say, oh, okay, and that will imply that the sheriff approves of this particular thing.
[01:56:52.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  You won't say it, but it will imply it.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:55.000]  Right.
[01:56:55.000 --> 01:56:57.000]  There is another good possibility, too.
[01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:03.000]  I can just ask him and say, all right, is it your job as sheriff, which we both know it is,
[01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:08.000]  if a felony is committed in your presence, what are you required to do?
[01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  Don't say felony.
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  Say a crime of any kind, because this one is a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  No.
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  No, shielding is not.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  On the prosecuting attorney, I generally go for official oppression for violation 2.03.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  I've got official oppression for that section.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  I've got official misconduct for 2.05.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  I've got shielding from prosecution, and I've got conspiracy.
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  That's awesome.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  You're out of my league.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  And if it continues past this point tomorrow, I will add organized criminal activity to her cash as well.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  That's wonderful.
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  You're exercising one of your last remedies, a source of remedy, so you will have exercise due diligence.
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  All right, well, listen, we are at the end of the show.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  We've got less than 60 seconds left.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  Terry from Michigan, I'm sorry, we kind of cut Terry off a little bit on his call about the rights trial.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  All right, Terry, listen, if you want to go back and listen to the archive from last Monday night,
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  we had Eddie on and he walked through the transportation code here in Texas,
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  and you might want to listen to that even though it's not about your state specifically.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  It will give you some ideas of what to look for when you're studying your transportation code,
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  see what kind of holes you can poke through, you know, their policies and procedures as far as violating the law there.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  All right, Terry?
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  I appreciate it, and it's always a hoot to have Charlie Sprinkle on also.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  All right.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  Haven't heard from him in a while.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  Okay, well, listen, we've got to go.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  We're at the end of the show.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  Thank you, callers, for calling in.
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Thank you, Terry.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  Thank you, Eddie, John, and the rest.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  We'll be back Thursday night.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:59:10.000]  And tune in for our Agenda 21 talk tomorrow night at 8 p.m.
[01:59:24.000 --> 01:59:34.000]  at 8 p.m.
[01:59:54.000 --> 01:59:59.000]  at 8 p.m.