ROL_2009-05-08_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:12.040]  Your Obama administration is seeking $65 billion for Afghanistan and only $61 billion for Iraq
[00:12.040 --> 00:18.960]  for 2010. In 2009, money for the commander's emergency response program, which funds emergency
[00:18.960 --> 00:25.120]  humanitarian needs during wartime, was split evenly between Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2010,
[00:25.120 --> 00:30.800]  the vast majority will go to Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants to spend $50 billion on
[00:30.800 --> 00:36.880]  classified programs next year, a 3% increase over last year. It makes the Pentagon's secret
[00:36.880 --> 00:42.400]  operations, including its intelligence budget, roughly equal to the entire defense budgets
[00:42.400 --> 00:48.680]  of the UK, France or Japan. Hundreds of thousands of people are being wrongly identified because
[00:48.680 --> 00:53.680]  of the government's wasteful and inefficient management of the nation's one million strong
[00:53.680 --> 00:58.440]  terror watch list. The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General found that
[00:58.440 --> 01:08.240]  part of the watch list maintained by the FBI may have a 35% error rate. Witnesses in Afghanistan
[01:08.240 --> 01:15.280]  say 147 people in three villages were killed Tuesday after sustained bombing by U.S. aircraft.
[01:15.280 --> 01:20.960]  Shouting death to America, thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police Wednesday
[01:20.960 --> 01:25.720]  as they vented their fury. The riot started when people from the three villages struck
[01:25.720 --> 01:31.280]  by U.S. bombers brought 15 newly discovered bodies in a truck to the House of the Provincial
[01:31.280 --> 01:37.120]  Governor. As the crowd pressed forward, police opened fire, wounding four protesters. The
[01:37.120 --> 01:42.640]  deaths were the worst such incident since the U.S. intervened in Afghanistan in 2001.
[01:42.640 --> 01:47.680]  The protest is the latest sign of strong Afghan reaction against U.S. air attacks in which
[01:47.680 --> 01:53.080]  explosions inflict massive damage on mud brick houses that provide little protection against
[01:53.080 --> 01:57.880]  bomb blasts. A claim by U.S. officials that the Taliban might have killed people with
[01:57.880 --> 02:03.120]  grenades because they did not pay an opium tax was disproved by pictures of deep bomb
[02:03.120 --> 02:15.200]  craters. Intelligence officials released documents Thursday saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
[02:15.200 --> 02:21.560]  was briefed in 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners.
[02:21.560 --> 02:26.160]  This flies in the face of her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never
[02:26.160 --> 02:31.280]  told these techniques were being used. In a 10-page memo, intelligence officials said
[02:31.280 --> 02:35.880]  Pelosi and then Representative Porter Goss were the first two members of Congress ever
[02:35.880 --> 02:40.800]  briefed on the interrogation tactics. The memo issued by the Director of National Intelligence
[02:40.800 --> 02:46.080]  and the CIA notes that Pelosi-Goss briefing covered the use of enhanced interrogation
[02:46.080 --> 02:51.600]  techniques on Abu Zubayda, one of the earliest al-Qaeda members captured and the first to
[02:51.600 --> 02:52.600]  have been waterboarded.
[02:52.600 --> 03:12.200]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[03:12.200 --> 03:27.000]  Yeah, Mr. Officer, you're taking the line to heaven. I want you to follow the law of
[03:27.000 --> 03:37.200]  the land. I don't understand. This job is stupid, it's got to serve, not be abused.
[03:37.200 --> 03:46.200]  Officer? When you're going to stop abuse, give me power.
[03:46.200 --> 04:02.200]  When you gonna stop abuse, your power
[04:02.200 --> 04:07.200]  So please Mr. Michael, teach officers not to abuse their power
[04:07.200 --> 04:13.200]  Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers
[04:13.200 --> 04:18.200]  Tell them to uphold the law, at least don't abuse their power
[04:18.200 --> 04:24.200]  They beat and they beat and they cheat and they cheat and they lie every hour
[04:24.200 --> 04:29.200]  So Mr. Officer, please stop abusing your power
[04:29.200 --> 04:35.200]  You hold me over, and tell me to be silent, Mr.
[04:35.200 --> 04:40.200]  I need to speak to my lawyer, Mr. Officer
[04:40.200 --> 04:46.200]  I feel like you and the judge, finding me guilty sir
[04:46.200 --> 05:08.200]  So when you gonna stop abuse, your power
[05:08.200 --> 05:11.200]  So Mr. Officer, abusing his power
[05:11.200 --> 05:13.200]  Please Mr. Michael and help the officers
[05:13.200 --> 05:16.200]  So they could understand they should uphold the law
[05:16.200 --> 05:19.200]  Instead of abusing the power
[05:19.200 --> 05:22.200]  You know they act like they're judging you and me
[05:22.200 --> 05:25.200]  But Mr. Officer, you're supposed to protect me
[05:25.200 --> 05:27.200]  Uphold the law and do it properly
[05:27.200 --> 05:40.200]  Okay, we are back. Rule of Law Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here with Eddie Craig. We're doing traffic. We see your callers on the board.
[05:40.200 --> 05:51.200]  We see your calls on the board and there are some unscreened callers. We screen them next break, so just hang in there.
[05:51.200 --> 06:03.200]  And before we take any more calls, we're gonna talk about, we're gonna talk, Eddie is gonna mention, he's gonna talk about the tie in between the UCC and the transportation code.
[06:03.200 --> 06:07.200]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[06:07.200 --> 06:13.200]  Okay. Now, I apologize. I let you guys down. I have failed in my task.
[06:13.200 --> 06:22.200]  This epiphany did not occur to me until within the last few days, I happened to glance down and see this glaring off the page.
[06:22.200 --> 06:32.200]  For those of you that haven't done it before, you can go to www.texas.gov, click on the link that says laws, codes, and statutes.
[06:32.200 --> 06:42.200]  Then go into the state statutes section and go into the transportation code and pull up section 501.005.
[06:42.200 --> 06:55.200]  This section reads, conflicts with business and commerce code, chapters one through nine, business and commerce code control over a conflicting provision of this chapter.
[06:55.200 --> 07:08.200]  So right there you have a direct tie in dealing with certificates of title back to the commerce code because 501.00 is the certificate of title act in the transportation code.
[07:08.200 --> 07:17.200]  That's specifically what it deals with. Now, let me tell you what that means to us in the business and commerce code.
[07:17.200 --> 07:24.200]  Section 2A.104 of the commerce code reads, leases subject to other laws.
[07:24.200 --> 07:38.200]  Sub-item A, a lease, although subject to this chapter, is also subject to any applicable. Sub-item 1, certificate of title statute of this state, including chapter 501 transportation code,
[07:38.200 --> 07:47.200]  chapter 31, parks and wildlife code, and sub-chapter E, chapter 1201, occupations code.
[07:47.200 --> 08:02.200]  Sub-item 2, certificate of title statute of another jurisdiction, section 2A.105, or consumer law of this state, both decisional and statutory,
[08:02.200 --> 08:09.200]  including to the extent that they apply to a lease transaction. And then it goes into several other things dealing with leases.
[08:09.200 --> 08:24.200]  Now, the second way that it ties in, if you go over specifically to section 9.102 of the business and commerce code, which is Title I uniform commercial code in Texas,
[08:24.200 --> 08:39.200]  and you go down to sub-item 10, certificate of title means a certificate of title with respect to which a statute provides for the security interest in question to be indicated on the certificate
[08:39.200 --> 08:49.200]  as a condition or result of the security interest obtaining priority over the rights of a lien creditor with respect to the collateral.
[08:49.200 --> 09:01.200]  What this is dealing with is the fact that the certificate of title is being used, as we talked about in another show, to denote who has a lien against the property as chattel.
[09:01.200 --> 09:12.200]  That's what the certificate of title is doing. Now, if you actually go back and look at these, it refers to the term goods in these, okay?
[09:12.200 --> 09:29.200]  Let's see what goods means in the business and commerce code. Under section 7.102, goods means all things that are treated as movable for the purpose of a contract for storage or transportation.
[09:29.200 --> 09:36.200]  Right there is your dead-on tie-in between the certificate of title and the commerce code.
[09:36.200 --> 09:38.200]  The goods.
[09:38.200 --> 09:40.200]  The goods.
[09:40.200 --> 09:46.200]  Wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you saying you've got the goods on them?
[09:46.200 --> 09:47.200]  There you go.
[09:47.200 --> 09:50.200]  That's what I was just thinking, too.
[09:50.200 --> 09:57.200]  We have the goods using the goods and the documentation for those goods.
[09:57.200 --> 10:18.200]  But 501.005 gives you the direct link to the UCC code for Texas, and that direct link leads you right down the yellow brick road of what a certificate of title is, which is also utilized to determine what the term goods is as it ties into the certificate of title as to what it represents.
[10:18.200 --> 10:31.200]  And therefore, you can show that the certificate of title is applicable to collateral goods that are part of a contract for storage or transportation.
[10:31.200 --> 10:37.200]  Now all we've got to do is start beating them over the head with a rule book hard enough to leave massive bruises.
[10:37.200 --> 10:48.200]  And I think I have a strategy for that. On this case where I was arrested, they opened the door for me to use the strategy.
[10:48.200 --> 10:55.200]  One of the things I'm going to look to do is go after the judge.
[10:55.200 --> 11:07.200]  You bring the law before the judge and the judge ignores it. You know, generally we file motions and we file appeals and blah, blah, blah.
[11:07.200 --> 11:20.200]  I'm saying that the trial judge has a ministerial duty to apply the standing law to the facts in the case.
[11:20.200 --> 11:22.200]  That's all he may do.
[11:22.200 --> 11:34.200]  If he fails to do that, and I'm sure as many much case laws you've read, you've come across lots of places where you say that the judge abused his discretion.
[11:34.200 --> 11:46.200]  We reverse and remand. If he abused his discretion to the point that it required a reverse and remand, he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.
[11:46.200 --> 11:52.200]  Right. But you're forgetting the case you and I discussed just yesterday, Randy.
[11:52.200 --> 12:04.200]  The Supreme Court case says unequivocally that in matters of statute, all acts by a court are ministerial. They are not judicial.
[12:04.200 --> 12:16.200]  Yes. I didn't mention that one yet because I haven't had time to study the case to be sure of the context of the case.
[12:16.200 --> 12:32.200]  It is a federal case, so I want to make sure that they're talking about an issue that will apply to the states and not just specifically to a federal judge applying federal statute.
[12:32.200 --> 12:45.200]  Actually, I started reading part of that, the Bowens v. Otis, and that was a land dispute between a resident of one state and the property was in another state.
[12:45.200 --> 12:57.200]  What the court was deciding on that issue was that the state does not have the authority to act with any authority not specifically set forth in statute.
[12:57.200 --> 13:03.200]  Yes. Well, I got that. The guy's in Kentucky and the land was in Ohio, I think.
[13:03.200 --> 13:21.200]  So that led me to not be sure whether or not the reference to statute was clearly only federal statute or is this a decision that also applies to the state.
[13:21.200 --> 13:28.200]  I haven't studied it enough yet. That's the reason I didn't mention it, but yes, I very much like that one.
[13:28.200 --> 13:36.200]  I based that application on the fact that it used the term legislature and not Congress.
[13:36.200 --> 13:42.200]  That is interesting. Are you saying that the…
[13:42.200 --> 13:55.200]  The legislature does not have the authority or the state does not have the authority to act upon any authority not put forth by the legislature in statute.
[13:55.200 --> 13:58.200]  So it doesn't say Congress. It says legislature.
[13:58.200 --> 13:59.200]  Okay. If they're referencing the state…
[13:59.200 --> 14:03.200]  If I remember correctly, I read five of them, so I could be off, but I think that one specifically said legislature.
[14:03.200 --> 14:07.200]  Okay. If they're referencing, then now they're clearly referencing states.
[14:07.200 --> 14:08.200]  Right.
[14:08.200 --> 14:25.200]  This is going to be great if that one pans out because the way we get the judge to apply the law is to go directly after the judge himself and make him personally liable, personally responsible.
[14:25.200 --> 14:50.200]  Then we get to kick the judge in his pants and especially these municipal court judges. When we start filing countersuits against the judge himself and the trick about bringing the judge into court, the trick to avoid summary judgment is not in what you can prove out.
[14:50.200 --> 15:07.200]  It goes to the claim that you make. So if I say that the judge rendered a bogus ruling and he damaged me, they're going to say, well, he has official immunity for that.
[15:07.200 --> 15:26.200]  But if I say the judge violated a ministerial duty in that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts, now for that charge, if it is proved out, the judge won't have immunity.
[15:26.200 --> 15:39.200]  So it's not proper for summary judgment because the judge is going to say, well, I probably applied the law to the facts and I'm going to say, no, you didn't. That's a material fact at issue.
[15:39.200 --> 15:48.200]  If there's any material fact, if there's any issue between the two parties, you can have summary judgment.
[15:48.200 --> 15:54.200]  Right. If there's any fact that is not settled, it can't be a summary judgment.
[15:54.200 --> 16:03.200]  Now, for those of you that are listening that don't know where I came up with the link of goods to the certificate of title, I'll fill that in for you real quick.
[16:03.200 --> 16:28.200]  Section 2A.105, Business and Commerce Code, Territorial Application of Chapter to Goods Covered by Certificate of Title, subject to the provisions of Sections 2A.304C and 2A.305C with respect to goods covered by a certificate of title issued under a statute of this state
[16:28.200 --> 16:37.200]  or of another jurisdiction, compliance and the effect of compliance or noncompliance with a certificate of title statute are governed by the law,
[16:37.200 --> 16:50.200]  including the conflict of laws rules of the jurisdiction issuing the certificate until the earlier of surrender of the certificate or four months after the goods are removed from that jurisdiction.
[16:50.200 --> 16:58.200]  Okay, listen, listen, Eddie, we're going to break. Let's continue this on the other side. We'll be right back.
[16:58.200 --> 17:14.200]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk, has a 100% track record of returning profits, is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates, is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[17:14.200 --> 17:21.200]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment, then life settlements is the investment for you.
[17:21.200 --> 17:31.200]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years. Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:31.200 --> 17:41.200]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies. Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:41.200 --> 17:46.200]  We charge absolutely no commissions. 100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:46.200 --> 17:56.200]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[17:56.200 --> 18:13.200]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:26.200 --> 18:43.200]  Yeah, I won't. Oh, I won't. I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes.
[18:43.200 --> 18:58.200]  I simply once refused your note, all soaked up in lies. It seems you like this face, but please take some words to the wise.
[18:58.200 --> 19:26.200]  I'm trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
[19:26.200 --> 19:51.200]  That orange is an orange and will never be an apple. These images are nothing. It is no tough concept to grapple.
[19:51.200 --> 20:11.200]  It's just too much to bear. I won't wear your evil shackles. A bluebird is a bluebird and will never be a grackle.
[20:11.200 --> 20:21.200]  Yeah.
[20:21.200 --> 20:37.200]  Sweet stuff is fun.
[20:37.200 --> 20:45.200]  And you say, cover up. What's up? Get that done.
[20:45.200 --> 20:52.200]  Open your eyes further. Don't help murder these soldiers so young.
[20:52.200 --> 21:00.200]  To profit from criminals, an animal must make you one.
[21:00.200 --> 21:25.200]  And you say, cover up. What's up? Shut out your tongue.
[21:25.200 --> 21:39.200]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. And Eddie, you were reading 2A.105 of the Business and Commerce Code.
[21:39.200 --> 21:40.200]  Right.
[21:40.200 --> 21:42.200]  Okay, so please continue.
[21:42.200 --> 21:52.200]  Okay. The last part of it just says, four months after the goods are removed from that jurisdiction and thereafter until a new certificate of title is issued by another jurisdiction.
[21:52.200 --> 21:58.200]  So that is your tie-in of the term goods to the certificate of title.
[21:58.200 --> 22:14.200]  And as we say, the goods is defined in section 7.102. And it specifically says that in this chapter, which is the scope, and then it also says, unless the context otherwise requires.
[22:14.200 --> 22:29.200]  Now, that's one you got to watch out for. If the term is not defined in the other section, but it was defined within the same title, then it could have a further reaching application than just the scope to which it speaks,
[22:29.200 --> 22:34.200]  if the context shows that it can be applicable in the same way.
[22:34.200 --> 22:40.200]  That's another one of those little caveats you got to watch out for in statutory construction.
[22:40.200 --> 22:43.200]  Well, Eddie, would you like to take a call?
[22:43.200 --> 22:45.200]  Well, certainly. Let's get with it.
[22:45.200 --> 22:46.200]  Okay. Let's get it on.
[22:46.200 --> 22:49.200]  All right. We got John from Austin.
[22:49.200 --> 22:52.200]  Hey, John, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[22:52.200 --> 22:55.200]  Hey, guys. How are you all doing?
[22:55.200 --> 22:57.200]  Very good.
[22:57.200 --> 22:59.200]  You all got me okay?
[22:59.200 --> 23:00.200]  Oh, yes.
[23:00.200 --> 23:06.200]  Okay. Hey, hey, I have a question I want to pose at you.
[23:06.200 --> 23:14.200]  I don't know. Hang on just one second.
[23:14.200 --> 23:18.200]  John?
[23:18.200 --> 23:21.200]  Did we lose him?
[23:21.200 --> 23:23.200]  I think he muffled his phone.
[23:23.200 --> 23:26.200]  Okay. We lost him. He dropped off the caller page.
[23:26.200 --> 23:29.200]  Oh, there he is.
[23:29.200 --> 23:33.200]  Okay. We got Linda in Texas.
[23:33.200 --> 23:36.200]  Linda, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[23:36.200 --> 23:37.200]  Thank you.
[23:37.200 --> 23:42.200]  Okay. A few of us in Austin are trying to get fluoride out of the water,
[23:42.200 --> 23:49.200]  and it was voted in, a voter initiative, in 1972.
[23:49.200 --> 23:55.200]  But the city council could cancel the contract.
[23:55.200 --> 24:00.200]  Just seven people, the mayor and the city council, could vote,
[24:00.200 --> 24:05.200]  and they could stop fluoridating our water with a simple vote of seven people.
[24:05.200 --> 24:13.200]  So we started going down to city council back in October using the Citizens Communication Forum,
[24:13.200 --> 24:19.200]  where you get to give a little three-minute communication to the city council on Thursdays.
[24:19.200 --> 24:22.200]  And we've been doing that since October.
[24:22.200 --> 24:27.200]  We would quote information from this book called The Fluoride Deception,
[24:27.200 --> 24:31.200]  the World Health Organization, and we'd give them all kinds of facts and figures
[24:31.200 --> 24:35.200]  about how 97% of Europe no longer fluoridates.
[24:35.200 --> 24:42.200]  And we thought we could influence the city council to just vote, do the right thing,
[24:42.200 --> 24:48.200]  and next March of 2009, get them to vote fluoride out of our water.
[24:48.200 --> 24:53.200]  Well, lo and behold, we found out in March of this year,
[24:53.200 --> 24:58.200]  after we had been communicating week after week after week, we gave them the book,
[24:58.200 --> 25:02.200]  we gave them videos from fluoride action alert.
[25:02.200 --> 25:06.200]  They went kind of behind our back.
[25:06.200 --> 25:13.200]  The phosphate fertilizer industry that we get our fluoride from in Florida canceled their contract,
[25:13.200 --> 25:20.200]  and then the mayor and the city council voted unanimously to start a new contract
[25:20.200 --> 25:25.200]  to fluoridate our water for the next two years at a higher cost
[25:25.200 --> 25:31.200]  and add on two more years if they want to, approaching a million dollars a year.
[25:31.200 --> 25:37.200]  So we're about to have a hissy fit over this,
[25:37.200 --> 25:42.200]  because they never communicated to us what they were going to do.
[25:42.200 --> 25:49.200]  So Monday we're going to have a meeting here in Austin of anybody interested in getting fluoride out of the water,
[25:49.200 --> 25:56.200]  and I was wondering what tactics we should take,
[25:56.200 --> 26:05.200]  because it seems like this is maybe illegal that they would be able to cancel this contract
[26:05.200 --> 26:14.200]  that was good until next March and then sign a whole brand new contract at a higher cost to the taxpayers.
[26:14.200 --> 26:26.200]  You may want to find out which members of the committee have fiduciary assets involved in this contract.
[26:26.200 --> 26:30.200]  Fiduciary, fiduciary, what is it?
[26:30.200 --> 26:34.200]  Any type of ability to earn money off this contract,
[26:34.200 --> 26:41.200]  if they own any stock or anything like that in any of these companies that supply this fluoridation.
[26:41.200 --> 26:46.200]  And how do we get that information?
[26:46.200 --> 26:50.200]  I'm not an expert on researching people's stock holdings and things like that,
[26:50.200 --> 26:54.200]  but I'm sure you could find out through their personal finances,
[26:54.200 --> 27:01.200]  which they probably have to have some sort of public record of because of their job positions.
[27:01.200 --> 27:03.200]  It shouldn't be all that difficult.
[27:03.200 --> 27:10.200]  And as far as the City Council being able to do this, yes they can.
[27:10.200 --> 27:17.200]  But once we elect them, they can pass pretty well whatever they want to.
[27:17.200 --> 27:23.200]  Our remedy is in voting the bums out of office.
[27:23.200 --> 27:27.200]  And we hope that happens tomorrow.
[27:27.200 --> 27:36.200]  But we can raise issues about them passing statutes without any public input.
[27:36.200 --> 27:43.200]  But once we elect them, we give them the right to pass these statutes.
[27:43.200 --> 27:49.200]  Well, we invite you and Deborah to come to Casa de Luz on Monday night, and I can send you an email.
[27:49.200 --> 27:53.200]  I did get a letter in the Austin Chronicle yesterday.
[27:53.200 --> 27:59.200]  When I wrote my article, I put City Council and Mayor not green,
[27:59.200 --> 28:03.200]  and they changed it to fluoride not green.
[28:03.200 --> 28:06.200]  But they did print my letter.
[28:06.200 --> 28:11.200]  And we invite you all to come down to Casa de Luz on Monday, this Monday night,
[28:11.200 --> 28:17.200]  and help us see where to go from here to fight City Hall.
[28:17.200 --> 28:20.200]  Okay, we do a show on Monday nights.
[28:20.200 --> 28:23.200]  Oh, shoot.
[28:23.200 --> 28:25.200]  Well, we're not going to give up.
[28:25.200 --> 28:27.200]  We're not going away.
[28:27.200 --> 28:33.200]  We're going to keep fighting big business, because this fluoride that we get in our water
[28:33.200 --> 28:38.200]  comes from the scrubbing towers of the phosphate fertilizer industry in Florida.
[28:38.200 --> 28:42.200]  It's not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride.
[28:42.200 --> 28:46.200]  I had a friend who – well, he's a friend now.
[28:46.200 --> 28:47.200]  He wasn't at the time.
[28:47.200 --> 28:52.200]  He was a police officer who sought me out in a – someone sent him to come to me
[28:52.200 --> 28:57.200]  because they were trying to fire him because he had all these strange, weird notions
[28:57.200 --> 28:59.200]  and conspiracy theories.
[28:59.200 --> 29:05.200]  And one of them was that they said that he accused the government
[29:05.200 --> 29:10.200]  of trying to poison people with fluoride.
[29:10.200 --> 29:16.200]  And I have to write an answer and say that it went – it's absolutely absurd
[29:16.200 --> 29:21.200]  to consider that the government would attempt to poison anyone with fluoride.
[29:21.200 --> 29:28.200]  If you think toothpaste is so dangerous, just read the warning label on the back of the tube.
[29:28.200 --> 29:33.200]  Well, also, there's a big difference between using fluoride topically and ingesting it.
[29:33.200 --> 29:37.200]  And there's research upon research for decades that shows it's a deadly poison.
[29:37.200 --> 29:38.200]  Exactly.
[29:38.200 --> 29:40.200]  Okay, listen, we're going to break.
[29:40.200 --> 29:42.200]  We need to go to break.
[29:42.200 --> 29:46.200]  You're welcome to hang on the line if you have anything more to say, Linda.
[29:46.200 --> 29:47.200]  No, that'll be good.
[29:47.200 --> 29:48.200]  Okay, all right.
[29:48.200 --> 29:50.200]  Then we're going to move on when we get to the other side.
[29:50.200 --> 29:51.200]  We will be right back.
[29:51.200 --> 30:20.200]  This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[30:21.200 --> 30:48.200]  Thank you very much.
[30:51.200 --> 30:58.200]  We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[31:21.200 --> 31:23.200]  Thank you very much.
[31:51.200 --> 31:53.200]  Thank you very much.
[32:21.200 --> 32:23.200]  Thank you very much.
[32:51.200 --> 32:53.200]  Thank you very much.
[33:21.200 --> 33:50.200]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[33:50.200 --> 34:00.200]  Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984 and I would like to make an announcement concerning the caller line.
[34:00.200 --> 34:14.200]  Okay, number one, if you want to listen and you don't have internet connection or if you're not in the city where we have any of our affiliates, there is a listener line, 512-485-9010.
[34:14.200 --> 34:22.200]  Listeners, if you are calling to listen, please use the listener line, do not use the caller line because it confuses the host.
[34:22.200 --> 34:36.200]  The caller line, the 512-646-1984 number is for callers who wish to call in and discuss issues with us on the air and I stress on the air.
[34:36.200 --> 34:39.200]  We cannot talk to callers on the breaks, okay.
[34:39.200 --> 34:44.200]  Please do not call the caller line if you're calling to talk to us on the breaks.
[34:44.200 --> 34:55.200]  If you want to talk to us in private about anything, please send us an email with your contact information and also this is not an office line for the network or for the show.
[34:55.200 --> 34:58.200]  There is no office line.
[34:58.200 --> 35:02.200]  We do not have an office phone number for the network or any of the shows.
[35:02.200 --> 35:09.200]  This is a caller line strictly for the purpose of talking to the host on the air.
[35:09.200 --> 35:17.200]  If you want anything other than that, do not call that number, please, because it causes a lot of trouble for the producers and the call screeners and everything else.
[35:17.200 --> 35:24.200]  And right now I do not have a call screener because you lost internet and so I'm having to deal with it on the breaks so please only call if you want to talk to us on the air.
[35:24.200 --> 35:26.200]  All right, that's all I have to say about that.
[35:26.200 --> 35:29.200]  When we're on the break, we're very busy telling jokes.
[35:29.200 --> 35:40.200]  Actually, we are very busy planning the content for the next segment and I'm also dealing with people who are calling in that I need to screen.
[35:40.200 --> 35:44.200]  Okay, so and also we can't answer a bunch of questions.
[35:44.200 --> 35:48.200]  The call screener, the producers cannot answer a bunch of questions when they're screening calls.
[35:48.200 --> 35:52.200]  All we need to do is get your name and number, your name and the state and that sort of thing.
[35:52.200 --> 35:54.200]  Okay, so that's all I have to say about the caller line.
[35:54.200 --> 35:56.200]  So please respect the caller line.
[35:56.200 --> 35:57.200]  I beg you.
[35:57.200 --> 36:00.200]  All right, we're going to go to our callers now.
[36:00.200 --> 36:02.200]  We have John from Austin.
[36:02.200 --> 36:04.200]  John, thanks for calling in.
[36:04.200 --> 36:06.200]  What's on your mind tonight?
[36:06.200 --> 36:08.200]  Oh, hey.
[36:08.200 --> 36:13.200]  Sorry about the bugaboo just a few moments ago.
[36:13.200 --> 36:16.200]  Here's my question.
[36:16.200 --> 36:29.200]  You all remember, oh, I guess it was last year down around Harris County, Galveston, and they set up a checkpoint at the ferry.
[36:29.200 --> 36:38.200]  And anyone who turned around on the road had as probable cause to pull them over and search them.
[36:38.200 --> 36:39.200]  What ferry?
[36:39.200 --> 36:40.200]  What city is this?
[36:40.200 --> 36:42.200]  It would have been around Galveston.
[36:42.200 --> 36:43.200]  Oh, boy.
[36:43.200 --> 36:48.200]  Yeah, what if you were just in a hurry and wanted to go get something to eat while you were waiting?
[36:48.200 --> 36:54.200]  Well, the thing I was, I mean, you know, I see a lot of problems with this, you know,
[36:54.200 --> 37:00.200]  because here are people taking where you're on a public road and then you get on to a ferry,
[37:00.200 --> 37:08.200]  which I guess has a different jurisdictional, what would be the term, help me out here,
[37:08.200 --> 37:13.200]  different jurisdictional venue agents.
[37:13.200 --> 37:14.200]  Right.
[37:14.200 --> 37:17.200]  And basically going from state to federal.
[37:17.200 --> 37:23.200]  And anyway, they're researching people and questioning people and having people produce ID.
[37:23.200 --> 37:30.200]  And the basis of this was trying to catch people who might have warrants out for them.
[37:30.200 --> 37:33.200]  That was what was stated in the news article.
[37:33.200 --> 37:38.200]  That when people would turn around, they would come in and pull them over,
[37:38.200 --> 37:43.200]  using that as the probable cause to search them.
[37:43.200 --> 37:48.200]  That sounds like the checkpoints, they're trying to get enacted.
[37:48.200 --> 37:52.200]  How did they, what was the purpose of this checkpoint in Galveston?
[37:52.200 --> 37:55.200]  I don't understand.
[37:55.200 --> 37:57.200]  Looking for outstanding warrants.
[37:57.200 --> 38:03.200]  Just before people get on a ferry, I don't, wait a minute, I've never heard of anything like this.
[38:03.200 --> 38:06.200]  They got them trapped on a road where they can't turn off or.
[38:06.200 --> 38:07.200]  Right.
[38:07.200 --> 38:08.200]  Is that what they were doing?
[38:08.200 --> 38:10.200]  They were checking people's IDs at this checkpoint?
[38:10.200 --> 38:11.200]  Yeah.
[38:11.200 --> 38:15.200]  For the purpose of looking to just check to see if you had a warrant?
[38:15.200 --> 38:16.200]  Correct.
[38:16.200 --> 38:17.200]  When was this?
[38:17.200 --> 38:26.200]  This would have been, oh God, what, sometime between June and December of last year.
[38:26.200 --> 38:27.200]  I'll have to go find the article.
[38:27.200 --> 38:28.200]  This is preposterous.
[38:28.200 --> 38:29.200]  I've never heard of such a thing.
[38:29.200 --> 38:32.200]  You need to find out who was doing it and file criminal charges.
[38:32.200 --> 38:33.200]  You're kidding.
[38:33.200 --> 38:38.200]  Well, I guess, you know, like I wasn't involved, I wasn't caught up in it.
[38:38.200 --> 38:44.200]  But I guess where I was going with the question, what do you guys think about,
[38:44.200 --> 38:47.200]  like what rights do we have at these checkpoints?
[38:47.200 --> 38:52.200]  Because like, you know, there was that pastor out in New Mexico, I think it was,
[38:52.200 --> 38:56.200]  had those snot railed out.
[38:56.200 --> 39:00.200]  I always suggest don't fight with these guys out there on the street.
[39:00.200 --> 39:02.200]  No, I can tell you that.
[39:02.200 --> 39:03.200]  Yeah.
[39:03.200 --> 39:04.200]  Fight them in court.
[39:04.200 --> 39:10.200]  You can voice your objections, but don't do it at the top of your lungs.
[39:10.200 --> 39:16.200]  You know, understand that these guys are on steroids, they're half crazy.
[39:16.200 --> 39:22.200]  Even if they're not, one may be, so you have to treat them all as if they are.
[39:22.200 --> 39:27.200]  Do not get yourself shot out there on the highway.
[39:27.200 --> 39:35.200]  Besides, it's a whole lot more fun if they don't know you're ticked off at them.
[39:35.200 --> 39:38.200]  And then when they get back to their office,
[39:38.200 --> 39:41.200]  they got criminal charges coming at them from everywhere,
[39:41.200 --> 39:45.200]  and they don't know who it is or how it happened or what's going on.
[39:45.200 --> 39:49.200]  So don't do it out there on the highway, let them know later.
[39:49.200 --> 39:57.200]  I'm getting more and more to where whoever I'm dealing with that does something improper,
[39:57.200 --> 40:01.200]  I don't address that with them.
[40:01.200 --> 40:04.200]  No, it's like taking your life in your hands these days.
[40:04.200 --> 40:05.200]  Exactly.
[40:05.200 --> 40:07.200]  I mean, it's a coin.
[40:07.200 --> 40:10.200]  It is getting very dangerous.
[40:10.200 --> 40:16.200]  All I did was tell a sergeant, what part of I do not want to talk to you,
[40:16.200 --> 40:18.200]  do you not understand?
[40:18.200 --> 40:23.200]  And the guy just absolutely lost it.
[40:23.200 --> 40:26.200]  Yeah, and then all of a sudden it's what part of the taser do you know?
[40:26.200 --> 40:34.200]  Yeah, he smashed me into a stone wall so hard that it crushed my pin
[40:34.200 --> 40:39.200]  all the way through my jacket and through my suit coat, through the lapel of my suit.
[40:39.200 --> 40:46.200]  So that's like three layers of material crushed the pin all the way through it,
[40:46.200 --> 40:51.200]  crushed my cell phone through my pocket in my shirt that was inside the coat,
[40:51.200 --> 40:53.200]  ripped it open.
[40:53.200 --> 40:55.200]  Didn't do my face any good either.
[40:55.200 --> 40:58.200]  Didn't make me look any better.
[40:58.200 --> 41:01.200]  But yeah, so it is dangerous.
[41:01.200 --> 41:10.200]  Also, while I'm here, when we had our last talk, you asked me if I could maybe
[41:10.200 --> 41:14.200]  throw a few things out from the inside.
[41:14.200 --> 41:17.200]  And since you all were talking goods and goodies,
[41:17.200 --> 41:22.200]  I'd like to pull something out of my goody bag and throw at you here real quick.
[41:22.200 --> 41:23.200]  Okay.
[41:23.200 --> 41:34.200]  And one, three things actually to always go after if you're in a criminal case
[41:34.200 --> 41:36.200]  that should just off the top.
[41:36.200 --> 41:40.200]  And one is the Miranda warning.
[41:40.200 --> 41:47.200]  And you can catch a lot of officers out because they do not read the Miranda warning
[41:47.200 --> 41:50.200]  when they arrest the individual.
[41:50.200 --> 41:54.200]  So you can get the officer on the stand and, you know, he goes,
[41:54.200 --> 41:59.200]  yes, I gave the suspect when I arrested him his Miranda warning.
[41:59.200 --> 42:05.200]  Did you read his Miranda warnings or did you quote it off the top?
[42:05.200 --> 42:06.200]  Well, I do it off the top of my head.
[42:06.200 --> 42:08.200]  I do this all the time.
[42:08.200 --> 42:11.200]  Fine, would you like to quote it for us?
[42:11.200 --> 42:15.200]  And then, yeah, that's one.
[42:15.200 --> 42:21.200]  Two, always go after the chain of custody, always.
[42:21.200 --> 42:24.200]  Always go after the chain of custody.
[42:24.200 --> 42:28.200]  Wait, chain of custody, you're talking about personal chain, about your person?
[42:28.200 --> 42:37.200]  The evidentiary chain of custody because if they make any mistake in there,
[42:37.200 --> 42:41.200]  you have a fair to good shot of getting that evidence thrown out.
[42:41.200 --> 42:51.200]  Can you give us an approximate outline of what's to happen with physical evidence?
[42:51.200 --> 42:56.200]  Okay, when physical evidence, when I would do a search for it
[42:56.200 --> 43:01.200]  and we would take documents as an example into evidence, okay,
[43:01.200 --> 43:04.200]  it would go into an envelope or a box.
[43:04.200 --> 43:09.200]  It would be marked in catalog, okay.
[43:09.200 --> 43:17.200]  And then every time that evidence is pulled from that box or envelope to be inspected,
[43:17.200 --> 43:21.200]  all right, you sign it in, you sign it out.
[43:21.200 --> 43:27.200]  If you go into the evidence room to get it, you sign in, you sign out.
[43:27.200 --> 43:35.200]  If it's something like a, I hear break music coming up.
[43:35.200 --> 43:36.200]  Yeah, okay.
[43:36.200 --> 43:38.200]  Yeah, we're coming up on a break.
[43:38.200 --> 43:40.200]  Do you want to hang over to the other side, John?
[43:40.200 --> 43:41.200]  If that's okay.
[43:41.200 --> 43:44.200]  Of course, of course, no problem, no problem.
[43:44.200 --> 43:46.200]  All right, we are going to break right now.
[43:46.200 --> 43:49.200]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens callers,
[43:49.200 --> 43:54.200]  if you'd like to call in and talk to us, 512-646-1984.
[43:54.200 --> 43:58.200]  We will be right back.
[43:58.200 --> 44:01.200]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[44:01.200 --> 44:05.200]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[44:05.200 --> 44:09.200]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars
[44:09.200 --> 44:13.200]  to bail out Wall Street, banks, and the U.S. car industry.
[44:13.200 --> 44:16.200]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals,
[44:16.200 --> 44:19.200]  in the face of a further devaluation of the dollar,
[44:19.200 --> 44:22.200]  the price of silver will only increase.
[44:22.200 --> 44:25.200]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe
[44:25.200 --> 44:29.200]  that silver is one of the world's most important commodities
[44:29.200 --> 44:32.200]  with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[44:32.200 --> 44:38.200]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce,
[44:38.200 --> 44:43.200]  and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:43.200 --> 44:50.200]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430
[44:50.200 --> 44:55.200]  to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K into a solid investment,
[44:55.200 --> 44:59.200]  silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[44:59.200 --> 45:01.200]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet,
[45:01.200 --> 45:04.200]  we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[45:04.200 --> 45:11.200]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[45:11.200 --> 45:36.200]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty.
[45:36.200 --> 45:45.200]  These warm unders come by that term right.
[45:45.200 --> 45:48.200]  I won't pay for the war with my body.
[45:48.200 --> 45:52.200]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money.
[45:52.200 --> 45:55.200]  I won't pay for the fun with my body.
[45:55.200 --> 45:58.200]  The man's wicked and the logic shoddy.
[45:58.200 --> 46:02.200]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body.
[46:02.200 --> 46:05.200]  I won't pay for the boys with my money.
[46:05.200 --> 46:09.200]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body.
[46:09.200 --> 46:13.200]  The whole agenda smells funny.
[46:13.200 --> 46:19.200]  I want to fight in a war of my own.
[46:19.200 --> 46:26.200]  That one would be less active than this one.
[46:26.200 --> 46:33.200]  I want to pay for a war of my own.
[46:33.200 --> 46:40.200]  They live in glass houses so I can what a simple bone.
[46:40.200 --> 46:43.200]  I want to fight in a war I can win.
[46:43.200 --> 46:46.200]  I can never win the one that they have me in.
[46:46.200 --> 46:50.200]  That one, I lose one before it begins.
[46:50.200 --> 46:53.200]  I want to pay for a war I can win.
[46:53.200 --> 47:00.200]  When I'm fighting in my own war.
[47:00.200 --> 47:07.200]  It's such a peaceful feeling.
[47:07.200 --> 47:14.200]  When I'm paying for my own war.
[47:14.200 --> 47:19.200]  I take time for the healing.
[47:19.200 --> 47:24.200]  Yeah.
[47:24.200 --> 47:31.200]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty.
[47:31.200 --> 47:38.200]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly.
[47:38.200 --> 47:43.200]  These fear mongers come by that, come by that.
[47:43.200 --> 47:44.200]  All right, we are back.
[47:44.200 --> 47:45.200]  The Rule of Law.
[47:45.200 --> 47:50.200]  Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com.
[47:50.200 --> 47:51.200]  We're here with Eddie Craig.
[47:51.200 --> 47:56.200]  Callers you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[47:56.200 --> 48:04.200]  And John from Austin, you were discussing the chain of evidence, chain of custody.
[48:04.200 --> 48:05.200]  Correct.
[48:05.200 --> 48:09.200]  Okay, go ahead.
[48:09.200 --> 48:10.200]  Let me, I was thinking of a better thing.
[48:10.200 --> 48:19.200]  Let's say they take a packet of cigarettes out of your car as evidence and they put it in a bag.
[48:19.200 --> 48:25.200]  The officer who takes that into evidence will sign, basically put it into a bag, seal it,
[48:25.200 --> 48:33.200]  and there will be a sticker on it with his name or initials and date and time that this was taken into evidence.
[48:33.200 --> 48:40.200]  Now let's say they want to open the bag again to further examine that packet of cigarettes.
[48:40.200 --> 48:47.200]  Normally what we would do is make a slit along the, and let's say it's in a four-corner Ziploc bag.
[48:47.200 --> 48:54.200]  And we would make a slit along the, one of the other sides of the bag, take out the cigarettes,
[48:54.200 --> 49:02.200]  examine them, maybe take one out for processing, and that would be noted and everything.
[49:02.200 --> 49:04.200]  Then it would be put back in and sealed.
[49:04.200 --> 49:13.200]  Then let's say that initial investigating officer hands over the case to a detective,
[49:13.200 --> 49:20.200]  and the chain of custody would go from the initial officer to the detective.
[49:20.200 --> 49:22.200]  Are you following one thing?
[49:22.200 --> 49:23.200]  Yes.
[49:23.200 --> 49:24.200]  Right.
[49:24.200 --> 49:31.200]  And so basically everyone who touches that has to sign for that evidence.
[49:31.200 --> 49:35.200]  What do they call the document that they sign?
[49:35.200 --> 49:37.200]  It would be the chain of custody document.
[49:37.200 --> 49:39.200]  Good.
[49:39.200 --> 49:46.200]  Very simple. It's a very simple thing, and I have seen,
[49:46.200 --> 49:51.200]  I've had the pleasure of going up against some really top-notch defense attorneys
[49:51.200 --> 49:55.200]  and watching what they do, how they probe and...
[49:55.200 --> 49:59.200]  Transfer.
[49:59.200 --> 50:00.200]  I am sorry.
[50:00.200 --> 50:01.200]  Okay.
[50:01.200 --> 50:02.200]  That's not a valid extension.
[50:02.200 --> 50:03.200]  We lost...
[50:03.200 --> 50:04.200]  Please try again.
[50:04.200 --> 50:05.200]  We lost him.
[50:05.200 --> 50:06.200]  Okay.
[50:06.200 --> 50:09.200]  Okay, I think we lost John from Austin.
[50:09.200 --> 50:12.200]  You're getting a really loud transfer failed message.
[50:12.200 --> 50:15.200]  Yes, indeed.
[50:15.200 --> 50:16.200]  Okay.
[50:16.200 --> 50:18.200]  I'm sure he'll call back in because this is a...
[50:18.200 --> 50:22.200]  Let's go ahead to Keith while we're waiting for John to call back in.
[50:22.200 --> 50:28.200]  Yes.
[50:28.200 --> 50:30.200]  It looks like John may have called back in. Hold on.
[50:30.200 --> 50:31.200]  Okay.
[50:31.200 --> 50:35.200]  Are you there? Are you still there, John?
[50:35.200 --> 50:36.200]  No, he's not.
[50:36.200 --> 50:39.200]  Okay, let's go to Keith in Texas.
[50:39.200 --> 50:40.200]  Hello?
[50:40.200 --> 50:41.200]  Hey, Keith.
[50:41.200 --> 50:42.200]  Thank you for calling in.
[50:42.200 --> 50:43.200]  What's on your mind tonight?
[50:43.200 --> 50:46.200]  Well, I kind of wanted to follow up with the lady
[50:46.200 --> 50:49.200]  that had mentioned fluoridation was talking about,
[50:49.200 --> 50:52.200]  and I was wondering if that wouldn't be a violation of Chapter 9
[50:52.200 --> 50:56.200]  of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the state of Texas.
[50:56.200 --> 50:58.200]  Chapter 9.
[50:58.200 --> 51:02.200]  Offenses injurious to public health.
[51:02.200 --> 51:05.200]  Wait, wait, Chapter 9.
[51:05.200 --> 51:07.200]  Injurious to public health.
[51:07.200 --> 51:08.200]  Wait, wait, not Chapter 9.
[51:08.200 --> 51:11.200]  It has to be a statute, John.
[51:11.200 --> 51:13.200]  What's the statute number?
[51:13.200 --> 51:17.200]  901.
[51:17.200 --> 51:18.200]  Chapter 9.
[51:18.200 --> 51:20.200]  Article 9.01?
[51:20.200 --> 51:23.200]  Exactly.
[51:23.200 --> 51:25.200]  I don't know that one.
[51:25.200 --> 51:26.200]  Okay, can you read that one?
[51:26.200 --> 51:31.200]  Since the water authority is actually buying the fluoride.
[51:31.200 --> 51:33.200]  Yeah, well, wait, wait, wait.
[51:33.200 --> 51:39.200]  We can't, you know, we can say, oh, fluoride is injurious to our health.
[51:39.200 --> 51:46.200]  However, fluoride is in the water for millions and millions of people.
[51:46.200 --> 51:50.200]  And with those millions and millions of people,
[51:50.200 --> 51:54.200]  there's a lot of good documentation that it can be harmful.
[51:54.200 --> 52:03.200]  However, we can't make that claim when we have millions of people using it
[52:03.200 --> 52:09.200]  and we don't see a direct correlation between them drinking fluorinated water
[52:09.200 --> 52:13.200]  and severe health issues.
[52:13.200 --> 52:16.200]  It's not like getting run over by a train.
[52:16.200 --> 52:21.200]  I've got personal experience with it out in Highlands, Texas, in Baytown.
[52:21.200 --> 52:24.200]  Across from Baytown, across I-10, it's north of Baytown.
[52:24.200 --> 52:27.200]  And they fluoridate the water there.
[52:27.200 --> 52:31.200]  And I had horses, colic, consistent on a consistent basis,
[52:31.200 --> 52:33.200]  at least once a month, the seventh of them out there,
[52:33.200 --> 52:35.200]  and they were all colic at some point in time.
[52:35.200 --> 52:39.200]  And I had one dog die.
[52:39.200 --> 52:42.200]  None of the animals would drink the water.
[52:42.200 --> 52:44.200]  The horses had a little pond that was further out in the pasture.
[52:44.200 --> 52:46.200]  They'd go out and drink that water.
[52:46.200 --> 52:51.200]  And unless there was rainwater where I actually put the water, the house water,
[52:51.200 --> 52:54.200]  they wouldn't touch it.
[52:54.200 --> 52:55.200]  Smart horses.
[52:55.200 --> 52:56.200]  Yeah, no kidding.
[52:56.200 --> 52:57.200]  I understand.
[52:57.200 --> 53:00.200]  I would watch them because, and finally after that,
[53:00.200 --> 53:02.200]  because I worked real hard on that dog.
[53:02.200 --> 53:04.200]  And when he died...
[53:04.200 --> 53:07.200]  But see, I think that we have to show an autopsy
[53:07.200 --> 53:11.200]  where like some expert would have had to make a determination
[53:11.200 --> 53:13.200]  that the dog died because of fluoride.
[53:13.200 --> 53:15.200]  I mean, we would have to prove a direct correlation.
[53:15.200 --> 53:20.200]  I mean, there's a lot of studies that show the health dangers and stuff like this.
[53:20.200 --> 53:22.200]  I mean, there are decades and decades of research.
[53:22.200 --> 53:26.200]  But in order to file a lawsuit or file a criminal complaint,
[53:26.200 --> 53:30.200]  we would have to show that in that specific individual case,
[53:30.200 --> 53:34.200]  there was a direct correlation to some health issue or some death
[53:34.200 --> 53:37.200]  that we could prove in that particular case.
[53:37.200 --> 53:42.200]  Yeah, if I brush my teeth three times with fluoridated toothpaste,
[53:42.200 --> 53:44.200]  my gums start bleeding.
[53:44.200 --> 53:58.200]  However, we can't charge public officials for adopting a common or ongoing standard
[53:58.200 --> 54:03.200]  and accuse them of a crime because somebody says it's harmful.
[54:03.200 --> 54:08.200]  We would have to show that like say for a city council
[54:08.200 --> 54:11.200]  that voted to put fluoride in the water,
[54:11.200 --> 54:19.200]  we would have to show that they intentionally did that to harm us, okay?
[54:19.200 --> 54:27.200]  We would have to prove somehow that they knew in advance that it was harmful
[54:27.200 --> 54:29.200]  or that they had read the studies or whatever.
[54:29.200 --> 54:31.200]  But even that is not enough.
[54:31.200 --> 54:37.200]  We would have to show that they made the decision intentionally to do that
[54:37.200 --> 54:42.200]  to inflict harm on the people that are drinking the water supply.
[54:42.200 --> 54:44.200]  And in order to do that,
[54:44.200 --> 54:47.200]  there would have to be documentation of it like memos or something.
[54:47.200 --> 54:50.200]  I mean, we can't make that kind of leap.
[54:50.200 --> 54:53.200]  Yeah, we can't get there. I'd like to.
[54:53.200 --> 54:56.200]  But until we can make it definitive,
[54:56.200 --> 55:03.200]  now if the council voted to put arsenic in the water in lethal amounts,
[55:03.200 --> 55:06.200]  you see, then it's clear.
[55:06.200 --> 55:14.200]  But they're voting to do something that is common practice, so we can't, you know.
[55:14.200 --> 55:15.200]  But now, Randy, check it out.
[55:15.200 --> 55:18.200]  Okay, say we've got these city council meetings or whatever
[55:18.200 --> 55:25.200]  where people go and they present to the city council stacks and stacks of research
[55:25.200 --> 55:32.200]  showing the harm and the health hazards and the danger of fluoride in the water
[55:32.200 --> 55:37.200]  and it's in record and it's in a public hearing in front of everyone
[55:37.200 --> 55:41.200]  and they still vote to continue to do it anyway.
[55:41.200 --> 55:44.200]  Can't there be anything legally done by that?
[55:44.200 --> 55:46.200]  There's a standard for that.
[55:46.200 --> 55:54.200]  If two reasonable minds could come to different conclusions
[55:54.200 --> 56:00.200]  based on the same available evidence, then it's not definitive.
[56:00.200 --> 56:03.200]  But how could a reasonable mind conclude that it's okay
[56:03.200 --> 56:07.200]  when they're sitting there looking at a document that says that it's hazardous to your health?
[56:07.200 --> 56:09.200]  Well, we've got millions and millions of people,
[56:09.200 --> 56:13.200]  millions of people all over the country, drinking fluorinated water.
[56:13.200 --> 56:19.200]  I frankly drank fluorinated water most of my young life.
[56:19.200 --> 56:22.200]  Well, that explains it.
[56:22.200 --> 56:24.200]  I'm just kidding.
[56:24.200 --> 56:27.200]  I'm a case for the other side.
[56:27.200 --> 56:31.200]  So, you know, reasonable minds could say, well, if it was so bad,
[56:31.200 --> 56:36.200]  we wouldn't have all these millions of people drinking it and still being alive.
[56:36.200 --> 56:39.200]  But what about the research that shows the health hazards and the damage?
[56:39.200 --> 56:42.200]  What it goes to is reasonable mind.
[56:42.200 --> 56:49.200]  Now, no reasonable mind would consider that a known lethal amount of arsenic was okay.
[56:49.200 --> 56:52.200]  Reasonable minds would hardly disagree on that.
[56:52.200 --> 56:56.200]  But reasonable minds disagree on...
[56:56.200 --> 56:58.200]  Yeah, I see what you're saying.
[56:58.200 --> 56:59.200]  I see what you're saying.
[56:59.200 --> 57:00.200]  So it's not definitive enough.
[57:00.200 --> 57:04.200]  What we do when we go with criminal complaints against public officials,
[57:04.200 --> 57:11.200]  I've got a statute that's real clear, and he violated this statute.
[57:11.200 --> 57:13.200]  Here we're going into something a lot more vague.
[57:13.200 --> 57:14.200]  Yeah, I see what you're saying.
[57:14.200 --> 57:16.200]  I see what you're saying.
[57:16.200 --> 57:19.200]  All right, Keith, do you have anything else on this, Keith?
[57:19.200 --> 57:22.200]  Well, actually, I wanted to just go a little bit further.
[57:22.200 --> 57:27.200]  The EPA in 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. William Bursey,
[57:27.200 --> 57:33.200]  actually testified before the United States Senate in June of 2000
[57:33.200 --> 57:38.200]  about stopping the practice of putting a known...
[57:38.200 --> 57:43.200]  Toning fluoride is, at once upon a time, it was called toning fluoride.
[57:43.200 --> 57:48.200]  I'm sure it's called the same thing by a different name, and roach and rat poison, literally.
[57:48.200 --> 57:50.200]  That's what it is.
[57:50.200 --> 57:53.200]  Toning fluoride is found in abundance.
[57:53.200 --> 57:54.200]  That's true.
[57:54.200 --> 57:56.200]  Toning fluoride is a different animal.
[57:56.200 --> 57:59.200]  Your color before was right.
[57:59.200 --> 58:02.200]  It's an agricultural waste.
[58:02.200 --> 58:04.200]  It's an aluminum byproduct.
[58:04.200 --> 58:06.200]  It's an aluminum production.
[58:06.200 --> 58:08.200]  It's bad news.
[58:08.200 --> 58:10.200]  And we know it's deadly poison.
[58:10.200 --> 58:14.200]  It is absolutely, and it's supposedly 95% poison.
[58:14.200 --> 58:18.200]  Are we being drugged or what is it?
[58:18.200 --> 58:19.200]  Well, let me tell you...
[58:19.200 --> 58:23.200]  We're about to go to break.
[58:23.200 --> 58:27.200]  But look, here's the short of the story.
[58:27.200 --> 58:28.200]  It's a byproduct.
[58:28.200 --> 58:30.200]  It's a toxic waste.
[58:30.200 --> 58:34.200]  The companies do not want to have to pay to dispose of the toxic waste,
[58:34.200 --> 58:37.200]  so they've convinced the city council that it's healthy,
[58:37.200 --> 58:44.200]  and they've used poor research from the dental associations to say that it's good for us,
[58:44.200 --> 58:47.200]  so they can dump their toxic waste in our water supply
[58:47.200 --> 58:50.200]  and not have to pay to dispose of the toxic waste.
[58:50.200 --> 58:52.200]  That's what the real reason is.
[58:52.200 --> 59:20.200]  And if anyone in government knows that it causes the population to become docile, then...
[59:20.200 --> 59:22.200]  and it's an aluminum byproduct.
[59:22.200 --> 59:24.200]  It's an aluminum production.
[59:24.200 --> 59:25.200]  It's bad news.
[59:25.200 --> 59:27.200]  And we know it's deadly poison.
[59:27.200 --> 59:29.200]  It's a toxic waste.
[59:29.200 --> 59:33.200]  The companies do not want to have to pay to dispose of the toxic waste,
[59:33.200 --> 59:38.200]  so they've convinced the city council that it's healthy,
[59:38.200 --> 59:46.200]  and they've used poor research from the dental associations to say that it's healthy,
[59:46.200 --> 01:00:07.200]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[01:00:07.200 --> 01:00:17.200]  talk radio at its best.
[01:00:37.200 --> 01:00:44.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he returns.
[01:00:44.200 --> 01:00:52.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he has left me with the strength and the width of
[01:00:52.200 --> 01:01:11.200]  the door to avert my concern.
[01:01:11.200 --> 01:01:23.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he returns.
[01:01:23.200 --> 01:01:39.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he has left me with the strength and the width of
[01:01:39.200 --> 01:01:44.200]  the door to avert my concern.
[01:01:44.200 --> 01:02:06.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he has left me with the strength and the width of
[01:02:06.200 --> 01:02:10.200]  the door to avert my concern.
[01:02:10.200 --> 01:02:21.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he has left me with the strength and the width of
[01:02:21.200 --> 01:02:25.200]  the door to avert my concern.
[01:02:25.200 --> 01:02:34.200]  I will occupy my father's house, till he has left me with the strength and the width of
[01:02:34.200 --> 01:02:38.200]  I will occupy the house and be done with the police
[01:02:38.200 --> 01:02:41.200]  Only few hard things I can tell you
[01:02:41.200 --> 01:02:43.200]  Just like a cookie made in 1910
[01:02:43.200 --> 01:02:46.200]  The wicked man up to the man couldn't round ya
[01:02:46.200 --> 01:02:48.200]  Couldn't hear the city police
[01:02:48.200 --> 01:02:52.200]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:02:52.200 --> 01:02:55.200]  Till it becomes clean
[01:02:55.200 --> 01:02:59.200]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:02:59.200 --> 01:03:04.200]  That he has come to take control
[01:03:04.200 --> 01:03:07.200]  I know that's why it's for me
[01:03:07.200 --> 01:03:11.200]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:03:11.200 --> 01:03:15.200]  All investment will be in good faith
[01:03:15.200 --> 01:03:18.200]  And in good time
[01:03:18.200 --> 01:03:21.200]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:03:21.200 --> 01:03:25.200]  I will protect his romance
[01:03:25.200 --> 01:03:29.200]  Will not let it bore all the petty crimes
[01:03:29.200 --> 01:03:56.200]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:03:59.200 --> 01:04:02.200]  Closely behind Willie's tour bus again
[01:04:02.200 --> 01:04:05.200]  Okay, okay, please go ahead
[01:04:05.200 --> 01:04:09.200]  Okay, we were talking about chain of custody
[01:04:09.200 --> 01:04:12.200]  Yes, go ahead
[01:04:12.200 --> 01:04:15.200]  And then, you know, so attack the chain of custody
[01:04:15.200 --> 01:04:21.200]  And the other one is going after the
[01:04:21.200 --> 01:04:25.200]  Chief officer, agent, detective, whatever
[01:04:25.200 --> 01:04:33.200]  And like trying to get him to perjure himself
[01:04:33.200 --> 01:04:36.200]  With regard to his grand jury statement
[01:04:36.200 --> 01:04:39.200]  Or statements made in grand jury
[01:04:39.200 --> 01:04:44.200]  How do we get to that statement?
[01:04:44.200 --> 01:04:50.200]  There, in the case I was then involved in
[01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:53.200]  The defense had filed a motion
[01:04:53.200 --> 01:04:59.200]  For the transcript for the grand jury
[01:04:59.200 --> 01:05:01.200]  To go over it with the
[01:05:01.200 --> 01:05:05.200]  And I had testified in grand jury
[01:05:05.200 --> 01:05:08.200]  And to go after me
[01:05:08.200 --> 01:05:10.200]  And he had me on the stand and cross
[01:05:10.200 --> 01:05:16.200]  For three hours going over, you know
[01:05:16.200 --> 01:05:20.200]  John, did you say, is this your statement?
[01:05:20.200 --> 01:05:23.200]  Da-da-da-da-da-da-da
[01:05:23.200 --> 01:05:30.200]  And, you know, obviously
[01:05:30.200 --> 01:05:34.200]  You know, it became a real cat and mouse game
[01:05:34.200 --> 01:05:37.200]  He was trying to wear me down
[01:05:37.200 --> 01:05:40.200]  You know, and I said, obviously
[01:05:40.200 --> 01:05:43.200]  If I said that in grand jury
[01:05:43.200 --> 01:05:45.200]  Then that must be my statement
[01:05:45.200 --> 01:05:47.200]  But without reading it I can't verify
[01:05:47.200 --> 01:05:50.200]  If that's my statement or not, true and accurate
[01:05:50.200 --> 01:05:57.200]  And so anyway, he attacked my statements in grand jury
[01:05:57.200 --> 01:05:58.200]  Not on a factual basis
[01:05:58.200 --> 01:06:02.200]  But just trying to get me to alter my statement
[01:06:02.200 --> 01:06:04.200]  You know, and then do the
[01:06:04.200 --> 01:06:07.200]  Well, is the statement you're making now true
[01:06:07.200 --> 01:06:10.200]  Or the statement you made in grand jury true?
[01:06:10.200 --> 01:06:12.200]  Do you see where I'm going with that?
[01:06:12.200 --> 01:06:14.200]  Yes
[01:06:14.200 --> 01:06:16.200]  Now that's at a federal level
[01:06:16.200 --> 01:06:19.200]  And it could be totally different in the state
[01:06:19.200 --> 01:06:21.200]  I hate to admit that
[01:06:21.200 --> 01:06:24.200]  Of the state cases I was involved with
[01:06:24.200 --> 01:06:27.200]  None of them ever went to trial
[01:06:27.200 --> 01:06:30.200]  They were all stumbled on plate
[01:06:30.200 --> 01:06:32.200]  Let's make a deal
[01:06:32.200 --> 01:06:39.200]  You know, if you are guilty of it
[01:06:39.200 --> 01:06:41.200]  It's a good deal
[01:06:41.200 --> 01:06:47.200]  Yeah, sometimes jumping up to make the deal can make a big difference
[01:06:47.200 --> 01:06:50.200]  As opposed to going to a jury trial
[01:06:50.200 --> 01:06:52.200]  And yeah, and let me stipulate
[01:06:52.200 --> 01:06:55.200]  You know, I complain about the deal
[01:06:55.200 --> 01:06:58.200]  The problem with the deal is
[01:06:58.200 --> 01:07:03.200]  Is the bad guys, the guys who are chronically in trouble
[01:07:03.200 --> 01:07:05.200]  They're very familiar with the deal
[01:07:05.200 --> 01:07:07.200]  And they know how to make the good deal
[01:07:07.200 --> 01:07:08.200]  Exactly
[01:07:08.200 --> 01:07:11.200]  It's the guy who's never in trouble
[01:07:11.200 --> 01:07:13.200]  Or the guy who's actually innocent
[01:07:13.200 --> 01:07:16.200]  That gets screwed royal
[01:07:16.200 --> 01:07:19.200]  Yeah, because they don't
[01:07:19.200 --> 01:07:22.200]  There are defense attorneys out there that we
[01:07:22.200 --> 01:07:26.200]  In the business that we call bleeders and pleaders
[01:07:26.200 --> 01:07:29.200]  And they will bleed their client dry
[01:07:29.200 --> 01:07:32.200]  When they run out of money
[01:07:32.200 --> 01:07:34.200]  Plead them out
[01:07:34.200 --> 01:07:37.200]  That's for the most part
[01:07:37.200 --> 01:07:39.200]  We call them bleeders and pleaders
[01:07:39.200 --> 01:07:43.200]  Most of these criminal defense attorneys that I've come across
[01:07:43.200 --> 01:07:45.200]  Are just exactly like that
[01:07:45.200 --> 01:07:48.200]  And you know, it sounds real derogatory
[01:07:48.200 --> 01:07:51.200]  But if you're a defense attorney
[01:07:51.200 --> 01:07:55.200]  And you're not one of the really top attorneys who
[01:07:55.200 --> 01:07:58.200]  Your clients are very wealthy
[01:07:58.200 --> 01:08:02.200]  And you don't have to worry about the judges being mad at you
[01:08:02.200 --> 01:08:04.200]  If you're just starting out
[01:08:04.200 --> 01:08:09.200]  If you're down here somewhere near that crowd at the bottom
[01:08:09.200 --> 01:08:15.200]  You have to stay in the good graces of the court
[01:08:15.200 --> 01:08:16.200]  Yes
[01:08:16.200 --> 01:08:18.200]  So
[01:08:18.200 --> 01:08:20.200]  The clients I
[01:08:20.200 --> 01:08:26.200]  Or the clients that I provided to these defense attorneys
[01:08:26.200 --> 01:08:31.200]  I mean, they were hiring the type of attorneys that came
[01:08:31.200 --> 01:08:37.200]  Their retainer started at a quarter million
[01:08:37.200 --> 01:08:41.200]  And I know that to be true, true and accurate
[01:08:41.200 --> 01:08:44.200]  So these attorneys weren't afraid
[01:08:44.200 --> 01:08:47.200]  That the judge is going to be ticked off at him
[01:08:47.200 --> 01:08:48.200]  No, they didn't care one
[01:08:48.200 --> 01:08:51.200]  They're not even from the same jurisdiction
[01:08:51.200 --> 01:08:57.200]  I mean, these guys were coming in from out of state or out of town
[01:08:57.200 --> 01:09:01.200]  They weren't in front of these judges all the time
[01:09:01.200 --> 01:09:04.200]  They weren't hometown boys
[01:09:04.200 --> 01:09:09.200]  And that's the only way you're going to get an attorney who's actually going to fight for your rights
[01:09:09.200 --> 01:09:12.200]  Yeah, the other thing too that you have to be wary of
[01:09:12.200 --> 01:09:15.200]  Especially in the federal circuit
[01:09:15.200 --> 01:09:20.200]  A lot of the criminal defense attorneys are former federal prosecutors
[01:09:20.200 --> 01:09:22.200]  Prosecutors
[01:09:22.200 --> 01:09:29.200]  And you know, and if you get one who's just right out
[01:09:29.200 --> 01:09:32.200]  The prosecutors often
[01:09:32.200 --> 01:09:36.200]  You know, they still know everybody up there and they're still buddies
[01:09:36.200 --> 01:09:38.200]  And you know
[01:09:38.200 --> 01:09:42.200]  They're not going to do anything to make their buddies mad at them
[01:09:42.200 --> 01:09:43.200]  Yep
[01:09:43.200 --> 01:09:47.200]  This is what we keep saying
[01:09:47.200 --> 01:09:50.200]  You're in a spot with these attorneys
[01:09:50.200 --> 01:09:55.200]  It's not that they're just basically no good scoundrels
[01:09:55.200 --> 01:10:02.200]  They're caught inside a system to where it is in their best interest to do things that are not in your best interest
[01:10:02.200 --> 01:10:03.200]  Right
[01:10:03.200 --> 01:10:06.200]  And believe it or not
[01:10:06.200 --> 01:10:17.200]  A good defense attorney makes the job of an investigator easier
[01:10:17.200 --> 01:10:20.200]  Because they keep their clients under control
[01:10:20.200 --> 01:10:23.200]  They keep
[01:10:23.200 --> 01:10:25.200]  You know, they're
[01:10:25.200 --> 01:10:27.200]  They just make your life easier
[01:10:27.200 --> 01:10:28.200]  And they keep you
[01:10:28.200 --> 01:10:32.200]  You learn a lot from them
[01:10:32.200 --> 01:10:38.200]  You learn a lot interacting with them as an investigator
[01:10:38.200 --> 01:10:42.200]  And also, you know
[01:10:42.200 --> 01:10:47.200]  There's a lot of defense attorneys that I have a lot of respect for
[01:10:47.200 --> 01:10:52.200]  And you know
[01:10:52.200 --> 01:10:56.200]  It's funny, we'll go at each other tooth and toenail
[01:10:56.200 --> 01:11:04.200]  And for the jugular in court and step out of the courtroom and you know slap on the back and
[01:11:04.200 --> 01:11:07.200]  Big difference is they're getting in their brand new Cadillac Escalade
[01:11:07.200 --> 01:11:12.200]  And I was getting in my old 10 year old Ford Explorer
[01:11:12.200 --> 01:11:18.200]  But it is good that these are professionals doing their job
[01:11:18.200 --> 01:11:20.200]  Yeah, they are
[01:11:20.200 --> 01:11:22.200]  And I've run across amateurs
[01:11:22.200 --> 01:11:25.200]  I hate to say that
[01:11:25.200 --> 01:11:27.200]  And use that terminology
[01:11:27.200 --> 01:11:32.200]  But
[01:11:32.200 --> 01:11:37.200]  They couldn't keep their client under control
[01:11:37.200 --> 01:11:43.200]  And by that I mean like their client would be calling us
[01:11:43.200 --> 01:11:52.200]  And popping off at the mouth and showing disrespect to the judge
[01:11:52.200 --> 01:11:56.200]  I actually saw a person get a plea deal refused
[01:11:56.200 --> 01:11:59.200]  Because they disrespected the judge
[01:11:59.200 --> 01:12:04.200]  And this person had problems and we all had to go to chambers
[01:12:04.200 --> 01:12:09.200]  And basically all of us went to bat for this individual
[01:12:09.200 --> 01:12:13.200]  Because this individual had psychiatric problems
[01:12:13.200 --> 01:12:18.200]  And substance abuse problems on top of the legal problems
[01:12:18.200 --> 01:12:22.200]  And so we all went to bat saying that, you know
[01:12:22.200 --> 01:12:28.200]  Look, trial serves no one's purpose, we need to get her into health
[01:12:28.200 --> 01:12:30.200]  You know, we need to get her assisted
[01:12:30.200 --> 01:12:34.200]  And believe it or not we will
[01:12:34.200 --> 01:12:36.200]  That's good to hear
[01:12:36.200 --> 01:12:38.200]  I'm not always
[01:12:38.200 --> 01:12:40.200]  I don't know if I was the exception to the rule
[01:12:40.200 --> 01:12:42.200]  I'd like to think I'm not
[01:12:42.200 --> 01:12:44.200]  Or I wasn't
[01:12:44.200 --> 01:12:46.200]  But we actually tried to help
[01:12:46.200 --> 01:12:48.200]  I mean
[01:12:48.200 --> 01:12:55.200]  There was a case where our suspect was in big trouble with their life
[01:12:55.200 --> 01:13:01.200]  And we moved at rapid pace to get this person arrested
[01:13:01.200 --> 01:13:05.200]  So that we could get them into medical help
[01:13:05.200 --> 01:13:08.200]  Because he would not do it on his own
[01:13:08.200 --> 01:13:10.200]  And he died before we could do that
[01:13:10.200 --> 01:13:12.200]  Oh, bummer
[01:13:12.200 --> 01:13:14.200]  I understand that
[01:13:14.200 --> 01:13:17.200]  And that gives me hope because
[01:13:17.200 --> 01:13:22.200]  It's hard to imagine that you could select a group of people at random from the public
[01:13:22.200 --> 01:13:24.200]  And put them into this position
[01:13:24.200 --> 01:13:26.200]  And they all be psychopaths
[01:13:26.200 --> 01:13:28.200]  It just doesn't make sense
[01:13:28.200 --> 01:13:30.200]  We have a lot more people on our side
[01:13:30.200 --> 01:13:32.200]  We really got to start moving along
[01:13:32.200 --> 01:13:34.200]  We got a whole bunch of callers
[01:13:34.200 --> 01:13:35.200]  I'm sorry, okay
[01:13:35.200 --> 01:13:39.200]  I would like to do a show with you on this issue sometime
[01:13:39.200 --> 01:13:42.200]  Yes, send us an email and then we'll schedule you as a guest
[01:13:42.200 --> 01:13:43.200]  Okay
[01:13:43.200 --> 01:13:45.200]  We could do a good show on this
[01:13:45.200 --> 01:13:49.200]  And I'll drop you an email in the next day or so
[01:13:49.200 --> 01:13:51.200]  All right, thank you, John
[01:13:51.200 --> 01:13:53.200]  And y'all have a great rest of the evening
[01:13:53.200 --> 01:13:54.200]  All right, thank you
[01:13:54.200 --> 01:13:55.200]  You have a great rest of the evening, too
[01:13:55.200 --> 01:13:57.200]  Don't get too close to Willie's bus
[01:13:57.200 --> 01:14:00.200]  No, it's like, Deborah, it's like the train
[01:14:00.200 --> 01:14:01.200]  Yeah, exactly
[01:14:01.200 --> 01:14:05.200]  You just have to be three or four car lengths back
[01:14:05.200 --> 01:14:07.200]  Well, you know, and I see people driving
[01:14:07.200 --> 01:14:08.200]  You know, in here in Austin
[01:14:08.200 --> 01:14:10.200]  No, this is on Willie's tour bus
[01:14:10.200 --> 01:14:12.200]  Yeah, and you know, it's like
[01:14:12.200 --> 01:14:15.200]  I see people driving here in Austin on the freeways
[01:14:15.200 --> 01:14:17.200]  You know, Mopac and I-35 and all
[01:14:17.200 --> 01:14:19.200]  You know, places like this and Ben White and everything
[01:14:19.200 --> 01:14:21.200]  Man, these people are like
[01:14:21.200 --> 01:14:24.200]  And I'm not talking traffic time when it's bumper to bumper and still traffic
[01:14:24.200 --> 01:14:29.200]  But it's like people are screeching 80 miles an hour
[01:14:29.200 --> 01:14:32.200]  And they're like riding right up on somebody's bumper
[01:14:32.200 --> 01:14:35.200]  It's like, man, don't people remember like when they were driving
[01:14:35.200 --> 01:14:38.200]  You're supposed to leave one car length for every 10 miles an hour
[01:14:38.200 --> 01:14:43.200]  All right, because to say the video game, this is real life here
[01:14:43.200 --> 01:14:44.200]  Deborah
[01:14:44.200 --> 01:14:45.200]  Crazy
[01:14:45.200 --> 01:14:49.200]  When you have a Ford Tempo and you look in your rear view mirror
[01:14:49.200 --> 01:14:52.200]  And you see a soccer mom whose eyes are rolled back on her head
[01:14:52.200 --> 01:14:54.200]  The kids are going berserk in the backseat
[01:14:54.200 --> 01:14:57.200]  And she's on a cell phone
[01:14:57.200 --> 01:14:59.200]  And she's honking at you to make way
[01:14:59.200 --> 01:15:03.200]  And you're doing 85 miles an hour in your Ford Tempo
[01:15:03.200 --> 01:15:05.200]  Your life flashes before you
[01:15:05.200 --> 01:15:08.200]  I'm telling you what, it's true
[01:15:08.200 --> 01:15:10.200]  All right, well, let's move on
[01:15:10.200 --> 01:15:11.200]  Thank you, John
[01:15:11.200 --> 01:15:12.200]  Bye
[01:15:12.200 --> 01:15:15.200]  Okay, everyone out there, please drive safely, seriously
[01:15:15.200 --> 01:15:20.200]  Okay, we are going now to Lisa in Texas, first-time caller
[01:15:20.200 --> 01:15:22.200]  Thank you for calling in, Lisa, to our show
[01:15:22.200 --> 01:15:24.200]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:15:24.200 --> 01:15:27.200]  Well, I've been wanting to get involved in this four-hour issue
[01:15:27.200 --> 01:15:30.200]  But didn't really know who to contact
[01:15:30.200 --> 01:15:34.200]  Or how to get a hold of some of the other people that were also interested in doing something
[01:15:34.200 --> 01:15:39.200]  So, you know, I was eager to hear from the lady when she called in about the meeting
[01:15:39.200 --> 01:15:43.200]  But she said the restaurant and the night, but I didn't get it
[01:15:43.200 --> 01:15:48.200]  It's Casa de Luz, and I don't remember what time she said, but
[01:15:48.200 --> 01:15:51.200]  She didn't, so
[01:15:51.200 --> 01:15:53.200]  What time is she invited you guys?
[01:15:53.200 --> 01:15:55.200]  It's like, what about us? What about us?
[01:15:55.200 --> 01:15:59.200]  I would go any time, like after, say, 7 o'clock, Casa de Luz
[01:15:59.200 --> 01:16:03.200]  Do you know where that is, Lisa?
[01:16:03.200 --> 01:16:04.200]  I think I do
[01:16:04.200 --> 01:16:06.200]  It's off of South Lamar
[01:16:06.200 --> 01:16:08.200]  Near, by the Slotskys
[01:16:08.200 --> 01:16:11.200]  Yeah, over by the Slotskys, yeah, it's a great place
[01:16:11.200 --> 01:16:15.200]  It's a great place, I've been there, they have the macro, it's macrobiotic food
[01:16:15.200 --> 01:16:18.200]  And what they do, it's cafeteria style
[01:16:18.200 --> 01:16:22.200]  And it's a different, you don't order off of a menu, okay?
[01:16:22.200 --> 01:16:25.200]  It's cafeteria style, sort of, what you do is
[01:16:25.200 --> 01:16:30.200]  They just have a dish that they, they've decided that they're going to serve
[01:16:30.200 --> 01:16:33.200]  Okay, I'll tell you a little bit about it when we get back on the other side
[01:16:33.200 --> 01:16:38.200]  That's fine, I'm actually sitting there right now in the Taco Cabana parking lot
[01:16:38.200 --> 01:16:39.200]  Okay
[01:16:39.200 --> 01:16:42.200]  I drive a taxi, so if he called back in and just gave me a time
[01:16:42.200 --> 01:16:46.200]  I could walk it out a little bit more, because I work at night on the road
[01:16:46.200 --> 01:16:49.200]  And, you know, it would be easier if I had a
[01:16:49.200 --> 01:16:50.200]  Okay, sure thing, sure thing
[01:16:50.200 --> 01:16:53.200]  All right, well listen, we're going to break, we'll be right back
[01:16:53.200 --> 01:16:54.200]  All right
[01:16:59.200 --> 01:17:03.200]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk?
[01:17:03.200 --> 01:17:06.200]  Has a 100% track record of returning profits?
[01:17:06.200 --> 01:17:11.200]  Is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates?
[01:17:11.200 --> 01:17:14.200]  Is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[01:17:14.200 --> 01:17:18.200]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment
[01:17:18.200 --> 01:17:21.200]  Then life settlements is the investment for you
[01:17:21.200 --> 01:17:27.200]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years
[01:17:27.200 --> 01:17:31.200]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated
[01:17:31.200 --> 01:17:35.200]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies
[01:17:35.200 --> 01:17:41.200]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer
[01:17:41.200 --> 01:17:43.200]  We charge absolutely no commissions
[01:17:43.200 --> 01:17:46.200]  100% of your investment goes to work for you
[01:17:46.200 --> 01:17:56.200]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Shelbur at 817-975-2431
[01:17:56.200 --> 01:18:05.200]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431
[01:18:27.200 --> 01:18:30.200]  From Genesis to Revelation
[01:18:30.200 --> 01:18:33.200]  Babylonians will say that you're wrong
[01:18:33.200 --> 01:18:37.200]  Bambam is telling truth creation
[01:18:37.200 --> 01:18:40.200]  The book of life is saying that you're wrong
[01:18:40.200 --> 01:18:43.200]  From Genesis to Revelation
[01:18:43.200 --> 01:18:46.200]  Babylonians will say that you're wrong
[01:18:46.200 --> 01:18:50.200]  Your moon generation X, Y and Z
[01:18:50.200 --> 01:18:53.200]  Your media Babylon to water down for we
[01:18:53.200 --> 01:18:56.200]  We're not going to drink tea Babylon we could sleep
[01:18:56.200 --> 01:18:59.200]  A medical while you try to kill all of us
[01:18:59.200 --> 01:19:03.200]  The poor people we suffer daily
[01:19:03.200 --> 01:19:06.200]  But the book of life man shall guide we
[01:19:06.200 --> 01:19:09.200]  Not join your navy, not join your army
[01:19:09.200 --> 01:19:13.200]  So Babylon come listen carefully
[01:19:13.200 --> 01:19:16.200]  From Genesis to Revelation
[01:19:16.200 --> 01:19:20.200]  The book of life is saying that you're wrong
[01:19:20.200 --> 01:19:23.200]  From Genesis to Revelation
[01:19:23.200 --> 01:19:26.200]  Babylonians will say that you're wrong
[01:19:26.200 --> 01:19:30.200]  Bambam is telling truth creation
[01:19:30.200 --> 01:19:33.200]  The book of life is saying that you're wrong
[01:19:33.200 --> 01:19:36.200]  From Genesis to Revelation
[01:19:36.200 --> 01:19:39.200]  Babylonians will say that you're wrong
[01:19:39.200 --> 01:19:42.200]  Your moon generation X, Y and Z
[01:19:42.200 --> 01:19:46.200]  Babylon but you're not going to be full of this generation
[01:19:46.200 --> 01:19:50.200]  You're saying that we're not well you know so you can't speak
[01:19:50.200 --> 01:19:53.200]  You're a politician don't you want to be punctual we
[01:19:53.200 --> 01:19:56.200]  Paralyze them or tell them or tell a stinking story
[01:19:56.200 --> 01:19:59.200]  But the book of life man you know we ready
[01:19:59.200 --> 01:20:02.200]  And yes Babylon that's why you can't control we
[01:20:02.200 --> 01:20:06.200]  So feed them or something we are go fight for we
[01:20:06.200 --> 01:20:09.200]  So you know it's the end of this generation what we see
[01:20:09.200 --> 01:20:12.200]  The human getting mad and getting so angry
[01:20:12.200 --> 01:20:16.200]  Babylon now you are misleading you them daily
[01:20:16.200 --> 01:20:20.200]  You're not reach them and put them where you see us
[01:20:20.200 --> 01:20:23.200]  But the book of life man you know we ready
[01:20:23.200 --> 01:20:26.200]  And yes Babylon that's why you can't control we
[01:20:26.200 --> 01:20:29.200]  So feed them or something we are go fight for we
[01:20:29.200 --> 01:20:32.200]  So feed them or something we are go fight for we
[01:20:32.200 --> 01:20:36.200]  So you know it's the end of this generation what we see
[01:20:36.200 --> 01:20:39.200]  The book of life man you know we ready
[01:20:39.200 --> 01:20:43.200]  And yes Babylon that's why you can't control us
[01:20:43.200 --> 01:20:45.200]  But the book of life man we ready
[01:20:45.200 --> 01:20:48.200]  And yes Babylon that's why you can't control us
[01:20:48.200 --> 01:20:55.200]  But when we come clean what we might be
[01:20:55.200 --> 01:21:03.520]  Okay, we are back.
[01:21:03.520 --> 01:21:08.840]  Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig here on ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:21:08.840 --> 01:21:14.600]  We're taking your calls, 512-646-1984, we've got Michael from Connecticut.
[01:21:14.600 --> 01:21:16.560]  Thanks for calling, Michael.
[01:21:16.560 --> 01:21:17.560]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:21:17.560 --> 01:21:19.560]  Hey guys, how are you?
[01:21:19.560 --> 01:21:20.560]  Good.
[01:21:20.560 --> 01:21:29.360]  Randy, affidavit from a competent back witness, does that have to be in the court file?
[01:21:29.360 --> 01:21:37.760]  Well, generally, you're in Connecticut, I'm not sure exactly how it reads, but the affidavit,
[01:21:37.760 --> 01:21:50.160]  generally a complainant will file a complaint and then an affidavit in support of the complaint.
[01:21:50.160 --> 01:21:59.880]  Now, if the complaint is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the magistrate, the complaint
[01:21:59.880 --> 01:22:10.160]  can be based on hearsay and the magistrate can find probable cause based on hearsay.
[01:22:10.160 --> 01:22:19.960]  However, once it goes to a trial court, hearsay is inadmissible, there must be a complaint
[01:22:19.960 --> 01:22:31.480]  and there doesn't necessarily have to be a competent fact witness statement in the file,
[01:22:31.480 --> 01:22:37.280]  but at trial, competent fact witness information must be produced.
[01:22:37.280 --> 01:22:42.560]  Well, what about the, I mean, they would have to testify, right?
[01:22:42.560 --> 01:22:43.560]  Yes.
[01:22:43.560 --> 01:22:52.960]  Like, how do you get to that point, like we're at the trial point, but the police officer,
[01:22:52.960 --> 01:23:03.200]  I guess, drew up the complaint and it mentions a statement by a witness.
[01:23:03.200 --> 01:23:04.200]  Objection.
[01:23:04.200 --> 01:23:09.080]  But there's no statement in the file or anywhere we can find.
[01:23:09.080 --> 01:23:14.800]  You object to him mentioning a statement by a witness, objection hearsay.
[01:23:14.800 --> 01:23:15.800]  Okay.
[01:23:15.800 --> 01:23:23.520]  There's no, if there's not one in the court filed and there is no statement, oh, okay,
[01:23:23.520 --> 01:23:24.520]  I'm sorry.
[01:23:24.520 --> 01:23:25.520]  I stepped on you.
[01:23:25.520 --> 01:23:26.800]  I was a little too quick.
[01:23:26.800 --> 01:23:31.560]  The officer mentioned a statement by a competent fact witness.
[01:23:31.560 --> 01:23:32.560]  Right.
[01:23:32.560 --> 01:23:34.000]  Demand he produces.
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:40.360]  But when he mentioned it in his report, part of the complaint, did you request it under
[01:23:40.360 --> 01:23:41.360]  discovery?
[01:23:41.360 --> 01:23:50.360]  No, I have an attorney and was it, okay, if it wasn't produced, then you can object to
[01:23:50.360 --> 01:23:52.360]  any mention of it.
[01:23:52.360 --> 01:23:53.360]  Okay.
[01:23:53.360 --> 01:24:00.680]  Cause it would, uh, that goes to an in liminy motion or motion in liminy, which would exclude
[01:24:00.680 --> 01:24:01.680]  it.
[01:24:01.680 --> 01:24:08.280]  Yeah, that would tell him, don't mention this statement in front of a jury and then not
[01:24:08.280 --> 01:24:12.920]  produce the statement because she will prejudice the jury because they're going to think there's
[01:24:12.920 --> 01:24:17.560]  actually a statement out there and there might not be, or they're going to think the statement
[01:24:17.560 --> 01:24:21.600]  might say something incriminating and it might actually, if you're actually had a hold of
[01:24:21.600 --> 01:24:27.760]  it, be mitigating or exculpatory.
[01:24:27.760 --> 01:24:34.880]  It mentions for arraignment that the, a complaint, you know, um, it mentions that the prosecution
[01:24:34.880 --> 01:24:44.440]  should provide you with a complaint or affidavit at your, or before your arraignment and they
[01:24:44.440 --> 01:24:45.440]  never do.
[01:24:45.440 --> 01:24:51.040]  They just like read a piece of paper.
[01:24:51.040 --> 01:24:58.960]  What if you asked for the, uh, complaint or affidavit at your arraignment?
[01:24:58.960 --> 01:25:01.720]  Like what if they, you asked for it there and they don't have it.
[01:25:01.720 --> 01:25:07.640]  That's real technical and it will go to the individual state law.
[01:25:07.640 --> 01:25:10.000]  We, we've got Dan Real.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  Yeah.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  He's the next caller.
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:13.680]  He's also from Connecticut.
[01:25:13.680 --> 01:25:15.240]  Can you bring Dan Real up on the bridge?
[01:25:15.240 --> 01:25:16.760]  Yeah, we're going to bring Dan up.
[01:25:16.760 --> 01:25:22.720]  Oh, you know what, Tony Davis said he had a case, case law, uh, Supreme Court case law
[01:25:22.720 --> 01:25:26.040]  about an affidavit having to be in the court file.
[01:25:26.040 --> 01:25:27.040]  Hey, okay.
[01:25:27.040 --> 01:25:29.040]  We got Dan Real up on the, on the, on the callers.
[01:25:29.040 --> 01:25:31.040]  Dan, do you know anything about this?
[01:25:31.040 --> 01:25:32.040]  Uh, yes.
[01:25:32.040 --> 01:25:37.040]  As a matter of fact, that made me, uh, think of a statute I found in Connecticut.
[01:25:37.040 --> 01:25:42.240]  Um, does this complaint actually have anything to do with a police officer that filed it?
[01:25:42.240 --> 01:25:43.240]  Oh, yeah.
[01:25:43.240 --> 01:25:45.560]  The police officer filed a complaint.
[01:25:45.560 --> 01:25:51.560]  I don't remember the specific statute, but there is a statute where, like, if you request
[01:25:51.560 --> 01:25:56.600]  information from the officer in writing, as far as any exculpatory evidence, then he just
[01:25:56.600 --> 01:25:57.600]  doesn't give it to you.
[01:25:57.600 --> 01:26:04.040]  I mean, that's pretty much knock it out, but that, that actually is statute.
[01:26:04.040 --> 01:26:08.680]  Police officers have to, you know, disclose that in writing.
[01:26:08.680 --> 01:26:09.680]  That's right.
[01:26:09.680 --> 01:26:12.120]  And there can, there can be no surprise.
[01:26:12.120 --> 01:26:15.960]  So if we request in writing, they have to provide it?
[01:26:15.960 --> 01:26:16.960]  Yes.
[01:26:16.960 --> 01:26:20.360]  And if the officer doesn't provide it, then pretty much it should be a slam dunk.
[01:26:20.360 --> 01:26:21.360]  That's what I'm thinking.
[01:26:21.360 --> 01:26:24.360]  I'm not sure if there is a statement, you know.
[01:26:24.360 --> 01:26:29.360]  Well, I mean, you have to ask for it though, obviously, if you don't ask for it and, you
[01:26:29.360 --> 01:26:33.040]  know, you don't get it, then you've never raised the issue.
[01:26:33.040 --> 01:26:39.240]  Make sure your attorney demands all evidence the prosecution intends to use.
[01:26:39.240 --> 01:26:40.240]  Right.
[01:26:40.240 --> 01:26:45.400]  If he doesn't give it to you and he tries to bring anything into the court that you
[01:26:45.400 --> 01:26:48.640]  don't have, then you object to it.
[01:26:48.640 --> 01:26:49.640]  Okay.
[01:26:49.640 --> 01:26:50.640]  Now, in...
[01:26:50.640 --> 01:26:55.680]  What happens to Tony Davis's job?
[01:26:55.680 --> 01:27:01.440]  It would go to, okay, I'd have to know what the context is.
[01:27:01.440 --> 01:27:03.840]  Is it a federal or is it...
[01:27:03.840 --> 01:27:05.720]  No, it's a state criminal case.
[01:27:05.720 --> 01:27:06.720]  Yes.
[01:27:06.720 --> 01:27:09.040]  So you're in state criminal and primarily Tony does federal.
[01:27:09.040 --> 01:27:10.040]  Okay.
[01:27:10.040 --> 01:27:11.040]  Okay.
[01:27:11.040 --> 01:27:12.040]  Does he talk about a Supreme Court case?
[01:27:12.040 --> 01:27:13.040]  He said...
[01:27:13.040 --> 01:27:14.040]  Yeah.
[01:27:14.040 --> 01:27:20.520]  I'd have to see the case to see how it goes to the circumstances.
[01:27:20.520 --> 01:27:28.640]  But as far as I know, there's nothing that requires a affidavit.
[01:27:28.640 --> 01:27:30.400]  Now he may be...
[01:27:30.400 --> 01:27:37.080]  When he's saying affidavit, he may be talking about a verified criminal affidavit.
[01:27:37.080 --> 01:27:39.000]  I believe that's what he was referring to.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:40.760]  That's the criminal complaint.
[01:27:40.760 --> 01:27:41.760]  Okay.
[01:27:41.760 --> 01:27:42.760]  Okay.
[01:27:42.760 --> 01:27:46.200]  And that can be based on hearsay.
[01:27:46.200 --> 01:27:47.200]  Okay.
[01:27:47.200 --> 01:27:51.160]  But that's only before the magistrate who finds probable cause.
[01:27:51.160 --> 01:27:52.160]  Right.
[01:27:52.160 --> 01:27:56.160]  In order to prosecute or in order to successfully prosecute, there has to be...
[01:27:56.160 --> 01:27:57.160]  A competent witness.
[01:27:57.160 --> 01:27:59.200]  Yeah, a competent fact witness.
[01:27:59.200 --> 01:28:00.200]  Absolutely.
[01:28:00.200 --> 01:28:01.200]  I got news for you.
[01:28:01.200 --> 01:28:05.600]  They barely have probable cause determinations in Connecticut.
[01:28:05.600 --> 01:28:09.160]  Well, I got news for you, for the most part, they don't care.
[01:28:09.160 --> 01:28:12.120]  Like they claim that as long as you're at your liberty.
[01:28:12.120 --> 01:28:15.520]  They claim that if you're on bail, you're at your liberty, so...
[01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:17.880]  You are not at your liberty if you're on bail.
[01:28:17.880 --> 01:28:23.840]  Well, I mean, they never determine probable cause from day one with my girlfriend's case.
[01:28:23.840 --> 01:28:28.480]  Like the judge never murmured the word probable cause.
[01:28:28.480 --> 01:28:29.760]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:28:29.760 --> 01:28:30.760]  That would be...
[01:28:30.760 --> 01:28:34.680]  That would happen after arrest, which a lot of times...
[01:28:34.680 --> 01:28:37.120]  People here in Texas, they call it a magistration.
[01:28:37.120 --> 01:28:38.120]  But that...
[01:28:38.120 --> 01:28:39.120]  They made that term up.
[01:28:39.120 --> 01:28:40.120]  Of course.
[01:28:40.120 --> 01:28:48.840]  The federal requirement is that when a policeman arrests you with or without a warrant, he
[01:28:48.840 --> 01:28:51.560]  must get you before a magistrate.
[01:28:51.560 --> 01:28:57.080]  This is going to be at least very similar in all the states because...
[01:28:57.080 --> 01:29:02.440]  They combine their arraignments with that determination, but if they release you on
[01:29:02.440 --> 01:29:07.080]  bail, they do that at the arraignment or before the arraignment.
[01:29:07.080 --> 01:29:11.160]  If you're released before the arraignment, then they don't make a determination of probable
[01:29:11.160 --> 01:29:12.160]  cause.
[01:29:12.160 --> 01:29:13.160]  Okay.
[01:29:13.160 --> 01:29:14.160]  They're required to.
[01:29:14.160 --> 01:29:15.160]  They have to.
[01:29:15.160 --> 01:29:16.160]  That's the Constitution.
[01:29:16.160 --> 01:29:17.160]  Okay.
[01:29:17.160 --> 01:29:18.160]  This is a little complex.
[01:29:18.160 --> 01:29:19.160]  Okay.
[01:29:19.160 --> 01:29:20.160]  But is this...
[01:29:20.160 --> 01:29:21.160]  Let me just ask you.
[01:29:21.160 --> 01:29:29.160]  Is this like a severe blow to the case if they never did that to their case?
[01:29:29.160 --> 01:29:32.160]  Depends on what the statute says.
[01:29:32.160 --> 01:29:33.160]  Yeah.
[01:29:33.160 --> 01:29:34.440]  It depends on what the statute says.
[01:29:34.440 --> 01:29:37.640]  Look up in the criminal procedure code for Connecticut.
[01:29:37.640 --> 01:29:38.640]  Not fair.
[01:29:38.640 --> 01:29:39.640]  Okay.
[01:29:39.640 --> 01:29:40.640]  Look.
[01:29:40.640 --> 01:29:41.640]  Look.
[01:29:41.640 --> 01:29:42.640]  Look.
[01:29:42.640 --> 01:29:43.640]  We're going to break.
[01:29:43.640 --> 01:29:44.640]  We're going to break.
[01:29:44.640 --> 01:29:45.640]  All right.
[01:29:45.640 --> 01:29:46.640]  We'll be right back.
[01:29:46.640 --> 01:29:47.640]  We'll be right back.
[01:29:47.640 --> 01:29:51.280]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on rule of law radio.
[01:29:51.280 --> 01:29:53.000]  We are taking your calls.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:58.800]  We'll be right back on the next segment.
[01:29:58.800 --> 01:30:02.840]  Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pull back, this is a great time
[01:30:02.840 --> 01:30:03.840]  to buy.
[01:30:03.840 --> 01:30:08.320]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability
[01:30:08.320 --> 01:30:11.840]  in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[01:30:11.840 --> 01:30:12.840]  Hi.
[01:30:12.840 --> 01:30:15.160]  I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage.
[01:30:15.160 --> 01:30:18.880]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals.
[01:30:18.880 --> 01:30:22.840]  At Roberts and Roberts brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence
[01:30:22.840 --> 01:30:27.840]  from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977.
[01:30:27.840 --> 01:30:31.580]  If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you
[01:30:31.580 --> 01:30:35.960]  need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us.
[01:30:35.960 --> 01:30:40.320]  Also, Roberts and Roberts brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in
[01:30:40.320 --> 01:30:43.720]  the event that we would be required to report any transaction.
[01:30:43.720 --> 01:30:47.840]  If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate
[01:30:47.840 --> 01:30:48.840]  payment.
[01:30:48.840 --> 01:30:52.600]  Call us at 800-874-9760.
[01:30:52.600 --> 01:30:57.920]  We are Roberts and Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:22.600 --> 01:31:41.920]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:41.920 --> 01:32:01.400]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:32:01.400 --> 01:32:19.880]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:32:19.880 --> 01:32:39.360]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:32:39.360 --> 01:32:58.840]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:32:58.840 --> 01:33:18.320]  We are Roberts brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:33:18.320 --> 01:33:36.880]  All right, we are back, the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens on ruleoflawradio.com
[01:33:36.880 --> 01:33:44.160]  and I just talked to Linda on the break and dinner starts at 6, Casa de Luz, macrobiotic
[01:33:44.160 --> 01:33:45.160]  food.
[01:33:45.160 --> 01:33:46.160]  It's very, very good.
[01:33:46.160 --> 01:33:47.160]  It's on Toomey Street.
[01:33:47.160 --> 01:33:53.040]  Just go to CasaDeLuz.org, it's in South Austin off of South Congress and the meeting starts
[01:33:53.040 --> 01:33:57.560]  at 7 for the people here in Austin that are concerned about the fluoride in the water
[01:33:57.560 --> 01:33:58.560]  issue.
[01:33:58.560 --> 01:34:03.360]  Okay, and Randy, you wanted to address Michael's call and then we're going to go to Dan in
[01:34:03.360 --> 01:34:04.360]  Connecticut.
[01:34:04.360 --> 01:34:08.760]  Yeah, Michael, our callers are really stacking up and running out of time and your issue
[01:34:08.760 --> 01:34:13.120]  and I like your questions because they're real technical and I like technical questions.
[01:34:13.120 --> 01:34:17.840]  My difficulty is, as I'm not familiar enough with Connecticut law to be able to answer
[01:34:17.840 --> 01:34:24.200]  these questions, you really need the Code of Criminal Procedure and if you read the
[01:34:24.200 --> 01:34:30.400]  writ that's on my website, it follows due process in Texas but that generally follows
[01:34:30.400 --> 01:34:36.280]  the federal requirements so it's going to be real similar in Connecticut and look for
[01:34:36.280 --> 01:34:39.280]  the pieces you find in that writ.
[01:34:39.280 --> 01:34:43.560]  Read the Criminal Procedure Code a couple of times and it will begin to make sense and
[01:34:43.560 --> 01:34:46.560]  you can put these pieces together but we really need to move on to that.
[01:34:46.560 --> 01:34:47.560]  And the Penal Code.
[01:34:47.560 --> 01:34:48.560]  Yeah, we're going to move on now.
[01:34:48.560 --> 01:34:49.560]  I'm sorry, Michael, but we have to.
[01:34:49.560 --> 01:34:50.560]  We've got too many callers.
[01:34:50.560 --> 01:34:56.080]  Okay, we're going to go to Dan in Connecticut, Dan Real, The Real Deal.
[01:34:56.080 --> 01:34:57.080]  Thank you for calling in, Dan.
[01:34:57.080 --> 01:34:58.080]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:34:58.080 --> 01:35:02.800]  Well, for Michael, he's going to want to look at Title 54, that's the Criminal Procedure
[01:35:02.800 --> 01:35:09.480]  in Connecticut and he's also going to want to look at Chapter 960 of the Connecticut
[01:35:09.480 --> 01:35:13.920]  General Statute and there are a lot of them in there but what he needs to bear in mind
[01:35:13.920 --> 01:35:20.240]  is that a lot of these statutes concerning procedure, believe it or not, have been repealed.
[01:35:20.240 --> 01:35:24.760]  So in a lot of cases, it's almost as if, you know, there's like nothing there, it's as
[01:35:24.760 --> 01:35:28.160]  if anything goes but obviously that can't be the case.
[01:35:28.160 --> 01:35:30.400]  I did want to keep it real quick.
[01:35:30.400 --> 01:35:33.440]  Question one, were you able to get that email I sent?
[01:35:33.440 --> 01:35:34.440]  No.
[01:35:34.440 --> 01:35:39.920]  If you're asking, okay, Dan, I saw your email, okay, my email's been stacking up for the
[01:35:39.920 --> 01:35:44.880]  last two, three weeks, all right, and I'm sorry, callers and listeners, I have not had
[01:35:44.880 --> 01:35:47.440]  a chance to deal with email for a while, okay, and so...
[01:35:47.440 --> 01:35:49.440]  Oh, okay, not a problem, I just wanted to make sure...
[01:35:49.440 --> 01:35:50.440]  I'll forward it to you.
[01:35:50.440 --> 01:35:51.440]  Okay, good.
[01:35:51.440 --> 01:35:56.400]  Second thing, I had a network-related question, I don't know if you could give me a call off
[01:35:56.400 --> 01:36:02.200]  the air later sometime, but had to do with a project and something kind of going on with
[01:36:02.200 --> 01:36:03.200]  my network.
[01:36:03.200 --> 01:36:05.000]  I might be looking for a new home soon.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:11.360]  Oh, okay, well, yeah, I'll give you a call, I got your cell phone number.
[01:36:11.360 --> 01:36:14.360]  That's because you're on an evil rival network.
[01:36:14.360 --> 01:36:18.880]  That's what you get for being on an evil rival network, but that's okay, we forgive you,
[01:36:18.880 --> 01:36:19.880]  we'll discuss it.
[01:36:19.880 --> 01:36:24.320]  Okay, all right, well, just give me a call, I'll talk to you guys later.
[01:36:24.320 --> 01:36:26.320]  Okay, sounds good, thanks, Dan.
[01:36:26.320 --> 01:36:29.920]  Okay, we are going now to Gary in Texas.
[01:36:29.920 --> 01:36:33.920]  Hey, Gary, thanks for calling in, what's on your mind tonight?
[01:36:33.920 --> 01:36:35.920]  Hi, Debbie, hi, Randy.
[01:36:35.920 --> 01:36:43.280]  Yeah, listen, my call is going to be regarding this new Senate Bill 298 in Texas about the
[01:36:43.280 --> 01:36:46.320]  proposal to enact a law for checkpoints.
[01:36:46.320 --> 01:36:47.320]  Yes.
[01:36:47.320 --> 01:36:55.440]  Now, here is my idea or argument, and I need you all to help me understand why this would
[01:36:55.440 --> 01:36:56.440]  not be correct.
[01:36:56.440 --> 01:36:57.440]  The article...
[01:36:57.440 --> 01:36:58.440]  Hold just a second, you're breathing into the mic.
[01:36:58.440 --> 01:36:59.440]  Yeah, kind of hold the mouthpiece down by your chin, please.
[01:36:59.440 --> 01:37:00.440]  Yeah, I'm out in the wind here, hold on just a second.
[01:37:00.440 --> 01:37:01.440]  Okay.
[01:37:01.440 --> 01:37:02.440]  But the 14th Amendment says that no state shall make or enforce a law which abridges
[01:37:02.440 --> 01:37:03.440]  the right or privileges of a citizen of the United States.
[01:37:03.440 --> 01:37:04.440]  Now, then you go on to Texas Penal Code 3903, and it kind of mirrors that.
[01:37:04.440 --> 01:37:30.440]  It says that it's unlawful for a public service to knowingly impede the right, power, privilege,
[01:37:30.440 --> 01:37:34.440]  or immunity of another.
[01:37:34.440 --> 01:37:35.440]  Yes.
[01:37:35.440 --> 01:37:38.440]  Now, cops always like to say that you don't have a right to travel, it's a privilege.
[01:37:38.440 --> 01:37:43.440]  It seems that 3903 apparently protects that privilege.
[01:37:43.440 --> 01:37:51.440]  So, in the event you're pulled over for a traffic, I mean, for a checkpoint stop just
[01:37:51.440 --> 01:37:59.440]  because you're the fourth individual in line, your fourth amendment right against unregulated
[01:37:59.440 --> 01:38:01.440]  procedure is still in effect.
[01:38:01.440 --> 01:38:07.440]  So, would that officer not be, wouldn't we be at least legitimate in claiming, according
[01:38:07.440 --> 01:38:12.440]  to 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Texas, to take a criminal complaint after
[01:38:12.440 --> 01:38:18.440]  day two, a grand jury, and say, hey, youngest officer is committing official oppression.
[01:38:18.440 --> 01:38:21.440]  Yes, you get it.
[01:38:21.440 --> 01:38:22.440]  I thought so.
[01:38:22.440 --> 01:38:25.440]  This is how we fight them.
[01:38:25.440 --> 01:38:28.440]  We don't fight them out there on the street.
[01:38:28.440 --> 01:38:32.440]  We go back to the house and we make up a criminal complaint sent to the grand jury.
[01:38:32.440 --> 01:38:37.440]  And I would think that if we keep copies, Randy, if we keep copies of 3903, because
[01:38:37.440 --> 01:38:39.440]  the officer I showed it to said, where did you get that?
[01:38:39.440 --> 01:38:42.440]  I said, well, I thought you had it.
[01:38:42.440 --> 01:38:51.440]  Actually, 3903 exactly mimics the Ku Klux Klan Act, 18 U.S. Code 241 and 242.
[01:38:51.440 --> 01:38:54.440]  242 is the one it exactly mimics.
[01:38:54.440 --> 01:38:59.440]  If a public official, acting in the color of any official authority, exerts and purports
[01:38:59.440 --> 01:39:03.440]  to exert an authority he does not expressly have or fails to perform a duty he's required
[01:39:03.440 --> 01:39:08.440]  to perform, and in the process denies a citizen full and free access to and enjoyment and
[01:39:08.440 --> 01:39:11.440]  right, that's a crime.
[01:39:11.440 --> 01:39:15.440]  The second half of the Ku Klux Klan Act is 42 U.S. Code 1983.
[01:39:15.440 --> 01:39:16.440]  It says you can sue him.
[01:39:16.440 --> 01:39:19.440]  But the first part makes it a crime first.
[01:39:19.440 --> 01:39:22.440]  So, yeah, you got, that's how we do it.
[01:39:22.440 --> 01:39:24.440]  That's how we get their attention.
[01:39:24.440 --> 01:39:28.440]  In other words, in order for him to be guilty, he has to knowingly do it.
[01:39:28.440 --> 01:39:29.440]  Now, here's the thing.
[01:39:29.440 --> 01:39:34.440]  I would think if you take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws
[01:39:34.440 --> 01:39:39.440]  of the United States and those of this state, that you would probably be assumed to know this.
[01:39:39.440 --> 01:39:40.440]  Okay, he's screwed.
[01:39:40.440 --> 01:39:41.440]  He's versus U.S., right?
[01:39:41.440 --> 01:39:43.440]  Yeah, he is screwed.
[01:39:43.440 --> 01:39:45.440]  Now, here's another question I have for you guys.
[01:39:45.440 --> 01:39:46.440]  I know you've got a lot of colors.
[01:39:46.440 --> 01:39:50.440]  Because I feel since 10, so congratulations on the show.
[01:39:50.440 --> 01:39:51.440]  Thank you.
[01:39:51.440 --> 01:39:52.440]  Very, very popular.
[01:39:52.440 --> 01:39:53.440]  I've been on host since 10 o'clock.
[01:39:53.440 --> 01:39:54.440]  I know.
[01:39:54.440 --> 01:39:55.440]  I know.
[01:39:55.440 --> 01:39:56.440]  We do have a lot of callers.
[01:39:56.440 --> 01:39:58.440]  And, you know, there's a lot of shows.
[01:39:58.440 --> 01:40:05.440]  And most talk shows, when callers call in, they're only allowed to speak with the host for like a minute or two at most.
[01:40:05.440 --> 01:40:09.440]  And so callers, we appreciate you holding for so long.
[01:40:09.440 --> 01:40:15.440]  But we do want to spend a lot of time with our callers because this show is very technical.
[01:40:15.440 --> 01:40:17.440]  And we want to get deep into the issues.
[01:40:17.440 --> 01:40:21.440]  So that's why we spend, and as you see, we spend a lot of time with our callers.
[01:40:21.440 --> 01:40:24.440]  Sometimes we'll spend a whole segment with callers or longer.
[01:40:24.440 --> 01:40:26.440]  So, okay, that's why people have to hold.
[01:40:26.440 --> 01:40:28.440]  So we appreciate you holding.
[01:40:28.440 --> 01:40:31.440]  Let me give the appreciation back.
[01:40:31.440 --> 01:40:36.440]  Because let me give you appreciation back.
[01:40:36.440 --> 01:40:46.440]  The kinds of, what you just talked about, what you went through is exactly why I'm doing this show.
[01:40:46.440 --> 01:40:49.440]  So that people understand this part.
[01:40:49.440 --> 01:40:54.440]  You knew to go to 3903 and then to 2009.
[01:40:54.440 --> 01:40:55.440]  I said, yes.
[01:40:55.440 --> 01:40:56.440]  Yes.
[01:40:56.440 --> 01:41:00.440]  And our callers and our listeners are advancing.
[01:41:00.440 --> 01:41:02.440]  I hope that it does some help.
[01:41:02.440 --> 01:41:04.440]  Now, I need y'all's help on another issue.
[01:41:04.440 --> 01:41:05.440]  Okay.
[01:41:05.440 --> 01:41:07.440]  I'll be very concise and quick in this.
[01:41:07.440 --> 01:41:17.440]  In the Constitution, Article 4, Section 22, it says that the Attorney General shall take the proper
[01:41:17.440 --> 01:41:29.440]  and necessary action in the courts to prevent any private corporation from exercising any unlawful power
[01:41:29.440 --> 01:41:35.440]  collecting any unauthorized toll, tax, freight, or mortgage.
[01:41:35.440 --> 01:41:39.440]  So in other words, the AG's job is to give any private corporation,
[01:41:39.440 --> 01:41:44.440]  it doesn't matter if it's a charity, if it's a domestic or foreign, it doesn't matter.
[01:41:44.440 --> 01:41:46.440]  Now, my question being this.
[01:41:46.440 --> 01:41:49.440]  Craig, are you listening to that?
[01:41:49.440 --> 01:41:50.440]  Say that one more time.
[01:41:50.440 --> 01:41:52.440]  The court is a corporation.
[01:41:52.440 --> 01:41:54.440]  Well, yeah, I knew that.
[01:41:54.440 --> 01:41:56.440]  So it's a homeowner's association.
[01:41:56.440 --> 01:42:02.440]  Now, a lot of folks are having problems with homeowner's association exercising unlawful powers.
[01:42:02.440 --> 01:42:08.440]  Mine is exercising, they're getting a mail ballot, which they do not have statutory authority to do.
[01:42:08.440 --> 01:42:10.440]  They don't have it in bylaws.
[01:42:10.440 --> 01:42:12.440]  They don't have it in their certificate of formation.
[01:42:12.440 --> 01:42:16.440]  And no amendment to the bylaws that were filed in the Texas Property Code,
[01:42:16.440 --> 01:42:19.440]  which allows them to do a mail ballot.
[01:42:19.440 --> 01:42:25.440]  They couldn't get a special assessment done through a regular vote at a meeting that was supposed to hold,
[01:42:25.440 --> 01:42:28.440]  so they did it bogusly as a mail ballot.
[01:42:28.440 --> 01:42:34.440]  And now they're sending bills out to people saying, hey, you owe X amount of dollars on this.
[01:42:34.440 --> 01:42:39.440]  Now, I filed a complaint with the attorney general just saying, hey, you know,
[01:42:39.440 --> 01:42:47.440]  they're exercising an unlawful power and they're attempting to collect an unauthorized species of tax,
[01:42:47.440 --> 01:42:49.440]  which is a special assessment.
[01:42:49.440 --> 01:42:54.440]  Now, the attorney general, you know, they don't want to do those types of actions.
[01:42:54.440 --> 01:42:56.440]  So I'm right on the issue.
[01:42:56.440 --> 01:42:59.440]  They've even admitted, well, yeah, but really it's a similar...
[01:42:59.440 --> 01:43:03.440]  Okay, mandamus.
[01:43:03.440 --> 01:43:04.440]  Okay, he explains.
[01:43:04.440 --> 01:43:06.440]  Mandamus to the Court of Appeals.
[01:43:06.440 --> 01:43:10.440]  Go to the Court of Appeals and petition for writ of mandamus
[01:43:10.440 --> 01:43:17.440]  and ask them to order the attorney general to do what the law commands him to do.
[01:43:17.440 --> 01:43:18.440]  Okay.
[01:43:18.440 --> 01:43:19.440]  Okay, there you go.
[01:43:19.440 --> 01:43:25.440]  In other words, the law does say that they can cut his salary down to zero for failure to, for neglect of duty.
[01:43:25.440 --> 01:43:26.440]  I read that statute.
[01:43:26.440 --> 01:43:28.440]  Yes, and he can be removed from office.
[01:43:28.440 --> 01:43:32.440]  So I go to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
[01:43:32.440 --> 01:43:35.440]  Texas Court of Appeals, not Criminal Appeals.
[01:43:35.440 --> 01:43:37.440]  Criminal is the highest one.
[01:43:37.440 --> 01:43:38.440]  I'm sorry.
[01:43:38.440 --> 01:43:39.440]  I'm sorry.
[01:43:39.440 --> 01:43:40.440]  I'm sorry.
[01:43:40.440 --> 01:43:44.440]  Not the Texas, but I need to go to a civil appeal.
[01:43:44.440 --> 01:43:45.440]  No, criminal appeal.
[01:43:45.440 --> 01:43:47.440]  Oh, wait a minute.
[01:43:47.440 --> 01:43:49.440]  Probably civil appeals.
[01:43:49.440 --> 01:43:50.440]  I'm not sure.
[01:43:50.440 --> 01:43:51.440]  I'd have to check.
[01:43:51.440 --> 01:43:52.440]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:43:52.440 --> 01:43:53.440]  How can you appeal a case if there's no...
[01:43:53.440 --> 01:43:54.440]  No, it's not appeal.
[01:43:54.440 --> 01:43:56.440]  You're just going to a higher court.
[01:43:56.440 --> 01:43:57.440]  Oh, okay, okay, okay.
[01:43:57.440 --> 01:44:05.440]  Asking, you could try it with a district court, but they'll probably tell you they want you to send it to a appeals court
[01:44:05.440 --> 01:44:08.440]  because they're a higher judge and more technical.
[01:44:08.440 --> 01:44:09.440]  Right.
[01:44:09.440 --> 01:44:13.440]  But try a district court and ask them for mandamus.
[01:44:13.440 --> 01:44:17.440]  And then when the district court doesn't, just bump it up to the appeals.
[01:44:17.440 --> 01:44:26.440]  Okay, so I have to file with the appeals court a district, state district court.
[01:44:26.440 --> 01:44:27.440]  Yes, state district court.
[01:44:27.440 --> 01:44:29.440]  It's in Travis County here.
[01:44:29.440 --> 01:44:30.440]  File it with Bob Perkins.
[01:44:30.440 --> 01:44:32.440]  He's a great guy.
[01:44:32.440 --> 01:44:36.440]  I will start there and see if they want to, because what they did was they sent me a letter.
[01:44:36.440 --> 01:44:37.440]  You'll love this, Randy.
[01:44:37.440 --> 01:44:41.440]  They sent a letter back saying that we decline to...
[01:44:41.440 --> 01:44:45.440]  Okay, file criminal charges against the attorney general with the grand jury
[01:44:45.440 --> 01:44:50.440]  and file a petition, Bob Perkins, for a writ of mandamus.
[01:44:50.440 --> 01:44:51.440]  You've given me a little map.
[01:44:51.440 --> 01:44:52.440]  I appreciate it.
[01:44:52.440 --> 01:44:53.440]  Again, thank you guys for the time.
[01:44:53.440 --> 01:44:54.440]  I appreciate y'all's show.
[01:44:54.440 --> 01:44:58.440]  You're doing a wonderful thing for Texans and the United States.
[01:44:58.440 --> 01:44:59.440]  Thank you.
[01:44:59.440 --> 01:45:00.440]  Thank you, Gary.
[01:45:00.440 --> 01:45:01.440]  Thank you so much.
[01:45:01.440 --> 01:45:06.440]  Okay, we are going to move on now to Jesse from Texas.
[01:45:06.440 --> 01:45:07.440]  Hi.
[01:45:07.440 --> 01:45:08.440]  Hey, Jesse, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:08.440 --> 01:45:10.440]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:45:10.440 --> 01:45:15.440]  I got three separate issues.
[01:45:15.440 --> 01:45:23.440]  One time I was driving from Austin to Dallas, and a police officer pulled me over
[01:45:23.440 --> 01:45:31.440]  and requested for a driver's license and proof of insurance, and I went in and gave it to him.
[01:45:31.440 --> 01:45:37.440]  And then he asked to speak to the passenger.
[01:45:37.440 --> 01:45:45.440]  And I told him we had the Fifth Amendment, that we didn't want to talk to him.
[01:45:45.440 --> 01:45:52.440]  And I also told my passenger that they had to write, not to speak to the officer.
[01:45:52.440 --> 01:45:56.440]  And of course, he kept calling us.
[01:45:56.440 --> 01:46:01.440]  He was actually threatening to arrest us.
[01:46:01.440 --> 01:46:08.440]  What, had he said anything about why he pulled you over or was writing you a ticket or anything?
[01:46:08.440 --> 01:46:09.440]  Well, he did.
[01:46:09.440 --> 01:46:13.440]  He said he was – there was some construction.
[01:46:13.440 --> 01:46:16.440]  You know, I was driving through like a construction area,
[01:46:16.440 --> 01:46:23.440]  and I was just trying to keep the truck away from the concrete barriers.
[01:46:23.440 --> 01:46:29.440]  So I was over probably the left side of the lane just for a little bit.
[01:46:29.440 --> 01:46:30.440]  Right.
[01:46:30.440 --> 01:46:37.440]  And did he tell you that that was the reason before he asked to question the passenger?
[01:46:37.440 --> 01:46:39.440]  Yes, that's what he did.
[01:46:39.440 --> 01:46:44.440]  I mean, that's what he asked me that he had pulled me over for that reason.
[01:46:44.440 --> 01:46:45.440]  Okay.
[01:46:45.440 --> 01:46:48.440]  He can question the passenger.
[01:46:48.440 --> 01:46:51.440]  The passenger just doesn't have to answer.
[01:46:51.440 --> 01:46:52.440]  Okay, good.
[01:46:52.440 --> 01:46:55.440]  He can ask any questions he wants to.
[01:46:55.440 --> 01:47:02.440]  And generally, I'd suggest not telling the officer that I don't have to talk to you if I don't want to.
[01:47:02.440 --> 01:47:03.440]  Just don't talk to him.
[01:47:03.440 --> 01:47:04.440]  Yeah.
[01:47:04.440 --> 01:47:06.440]  Tell him, I don't want to talk to you.
[01:47:06.440 --> 01:47:08.440]  You know, don't get into quoting him law.
[01:47:08.440 --> 01:47:11.440]  They always get real testy.
[01:47:11.440 --> 01:47:12.440]  Yes.
[01:47:12.440 --> 01:47:16.440]  No, they called for two other, you know, another police officer out there.
[01:47:16.440 --> 01:47:20.440]  And I mean, I didn't think about calling 911,
[01:47:20.440 --> 01:47:23.440]  but I was thinking maybe I should have called 911 on everything.
[01:47:23.440 --> 01:47:24.440]  Yeah, maybe you should have.
[01:47:24.440 --> 01:47:25.440]  Okay, we really need to move along.
[01:47:25.440 --> 01:47:28.440]  Yeah, can you quickly condense your story?
[01:47:28.440 --> 01:47:29.440]  I mean, what is the outcome?
[01:47:29.440 --> 01:47:31.440]  What are you trying to get?
[01:47:31.440 --> 01:47:39.440]  Well, he was out there, you know, like calling me for, he wanted to do like a, he wanted to search my vehicle.
[01:47:39.440 --> 01:47:42.440]  And I told him, you know, I denied his request.
[01:47:42.440 --> 01:47:46.440]  Was he basically pulling you over because he thought you were driving erratically
[01:47:46.440 --> 01:47:49.440]  because you were very far on one side of the lane or something?
[01:47:49.440 --> 01:47:53.440]  I mean, was he trying to determine if you were inebriated or what?
[01:47:53.440 --> 01:47:59.440]  Right, he was asking, I mean, yes, but he was asking me if I had been drinking, which I don't drink.
[01:47:59.440 --> 01:48:01.440]  Okay, I hear a slight accent.
[01:48:01.440 --> 01:48:03.440]  Okay, so he didn't ask that.
[01:48:03.440 --> 01:48:07.440]  Did he pull you over because you were dark-complected?
[01:48:07.440 --> 01:48:13.440]  Well, it was night and, you know, he was asking me,
[01:48:13.440 --> 01:48:21.440]  he was asking me if I was actually trafficking the person, the passenger next to me.
[01:48:21.440 --> 01:48:24.440]  So what ended up happening?
[01:48:24.440 --> 01:48:26.440]  Did he write you a ticket or what?
[01:48:26.440 --> 01:48:31.440]  No, he didn't even get, I mean, he couldn't even, at the end I did tell him, you know,
[01:48:31.440 --> 01:48:38.440]  like if you want to write me a ticket, write me a ticket, but he just gave me a verbal warning.
[01:48:38.440 --> 01:48:40.440]  Did you let him search your car?
[01:48:40.440 --> 01:48:41.440]  No.
[01:48:41.440 --> 01:48:42.440]  Good, good.
[01:48:42.440 --> 01:48:43.440]  Good for you.
[01:48:43.440 --> 01:48:48.440]  There's nothing you can really do about this, and actually you ended up coming out on top, so I wouldn't worry about it.
[01:48:48.440 --> 01:48:52.440]  And he can ask all the questions he wants, he can make the demands he wants.
[01:48:52.440 --> 01:48:54.440]  It sounds like you handled it the appropriate way.
[01:48:54.440 --> 01:48:57.440]  You handled it right, and he did too.
[01:48:57.440 --> 01:49:02.440]  When you said no, he didn't press, so I would be pleased.
[01:49:02.440 --> 01:49:05.440]  I would consider it a victory, to be honest.
[01:49:05.440 --> 01:49:08.440]  That's both sides doing what they're supposed to.
[01:49:08.440 --> 01:49:16.440]  I expect our policemen to try to enforce law, because I was reading a case not too long ago where the testimony said,
[01:49:16.440 --> 01:49:22.440]  the officer said, I asked him how much dope he had in the car, and he said, I only have a nickel back.
[01:49:22.440 --> 01:49:23.440]  Oh my God.
[01:49:23.440 --> 01:49:24.440]  Duh.
[01:49:24.440 --> 01:49:28.440]  They actually do that, so it's not inappropriate for the policeman to ask this kind of question.
[01:49:28.440 --> 01:49:37.440]  Yes, and honestly I'm kind of happy about this situation, because we're so used to hearing stories about how somebody says no,
[01:49:37.440 --> 01:49:42.440]  and they just do it, the cops just search anyway, but he didn't, and he didn't even give you a ticket.
[01:49:42.440 --> 01:49:47.440]  I would consider this a victory, and actually it's a testimony that we're making grounds.
[01:49:47.440 --> 01:49:52.440]  But listen, Jesse, I know you said you had two other issues, but we really have to move on because we've got other callers.
[01:49:52.440 --> 01:49:57.440]  If you could please call back on Monday, we could discuss your other issues, okay?
[01:49:57.440 --> 01:49:58.440]  Oh, very good.
[01:49:58.440 --> 01:49:59.440]  Okay, thank you, Jesse.
[01:49:59.440 --> 01:50:00.440]  Thank you.
[01:50:00.440 --> 01:50:04.440]  Okay, we're going to go on now to Mitchell in Texas.
[01:50:04.440 --> 01:50:05.440]  Mitchell, thanks for holding.
[01:50:05.440 --> 01:50:07.440]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:50:07.440 --> 01:50:09.440]  Yeah, hi, Deborah and Randy.
[01:50:09.440 --> 01:50:16.440]  My question is also regarding 39.03, the penal code, and it's kind of a question for Eddie, too,
[01:50:16.440 --> 01:50:21.440]  since he's been dissecting definitions and whatnot.
[01:50:21.440 --> 01:50:22.440]  Wait, wait, wait.
[01:50:22.440 --> 01:50:23.440]  Hold on, Mitchell.
[01:50:23.440 --> 01:50:24.440]  Hold on.
[01:50:24.440 --> 01:50:25.440]  We're having a hard time hearing you.
[01:50:25.440 --> 01:50:26.440]  Are you on a speakerphone?
[01:50:26.440 --> 01:50:27.440]  I'm on a cell phone.
[01:50:27.440 --> 01:50:28.440]  I'll speak a little bit louder.
[01:50:28.440 --> 01:50:30.440]  Are you on a Bluetooth or anything?
[01:50:30.440 --> 01:50:31.440]  No, no.
[01:50:31.440 --> 01:50:32.440]  Okay, okay.
[01:50:32.440 --> 01:50:33.440]  Yeah, just, okay, yeah.
[01:50:33.440 --> 01:50:35.440]  Okay, thank you.
[01:50:35.440 --> 01:50:42.440]  Okay, so the penal code 39.03 says, or 03A2 says,
[01:50:42.440 --> 01:50:47.440]  a public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense
[01:50:47.440 --> 01:50:52.440]  if he intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment
[01:50:52.440 --> 01:50:57.440]  of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, known his conduct is unlawful.
[01:50:57.440 --> 01:51:04.440]  The question is, the word another in the phrase intentionally denies or impedes another,
[01:51:04.440 --> 01:51:09.440]  could that, especially considering what Eddie has taught us about,
[01:51:09.440 --> 01:51:12.440]  how person includes corporations and whatnot,
[01:51:12.440 --> 01:51:22.440]  could another in this context also include a business, a LLC, a corporation?
[01:51:22.440 --> 01:51:24.440]  Absolutely.
[01:51:24.440 --> 01:51:27.440]  It's a person.
[01:51:27.440 --> 01:51:32.440]  You have to remember the penal code and the code of criminal procedure are two codes
[01:51:32.440 --> 01:51:37.440]  that do not stipulate that they are governed by the government code.
[01:51:37.440 --> 01:51:43.440]  That clause is specifically omitted from those two codes in Texas.
[01:51:43.440 --> 01:51:47.440]  So the definition within government code is not the definition that applies
[01:51:47.440 --> 01:51:50.440]  within the code of criminal procedure and the penal code.
[01:51:50.440 --> 01:51:51.440]  So what's your answer?
[01:51:51.440 --> 01:51:53.440]  They define the term themselves within them.
[01:51:53.440 --> 01:51:57.440]  Well, in any way, a corporate entity is an entity,
[01:51:57.440 --> 01:52:01.440]  it's a legal entity that has rights as well.
[01:52:01.440 --> 01:52:10.440]  You can steal from a living man on the land and you can steal from a corporation.
[01:52:10.440 --> 01:52:14.440]  So it would apply to both.
[01:52:14.440 --> 01:52:19.440]  Okay, and Eddie, your conclusion on that is the same?
[01:52:19.440 --> 01:52:21.440]  Say that again.
[01:52:21.440 --> 01:52:23.440]  Is your conclusion the same?
[01:52:23.440 --> 01:52:25.440]  I mean, does basically everyone agree that another,
[01:52:25.440 --> 01:52:32.440]  if not really defined here, would include even a business entity?
[01:52:32.440 --> 01:52:34.440]  Another is open-ended.
[01:52:34.440 --> 01:52:37.440]  Another is not defined anywhere within the statutes.
[01:52:37.440 --> 01:52:39.440]  But what does it say?
[01:52:39.440 --> 01:52:41.440]  It says another entity?
[01:52:41.440 --> 01:52:42.440]  It doesn't.
[01:52:42.440 --> 01:52:44.440]  No, it just says another.
[01:52:44.440 --> 01:52:45.440]  It just says another.
[01:52:45.440 --> 01:52:46.440]  Right.
[01:52:46.440 --> 01:52:54.440]  It's a blanket statement meaning both a natural man, woman, or a legal entity type person.
[01:52:54.440 --> 01:52:55.440]  Another is a blanket.
[01:52:55.440 --> 01:52:57.440]  Hold on, hold on, hold on.
[01:52:57.440 --> 01:52:59.440]  You guys are jumping too quick for me.
[01:52:59.440 --> 01:53:01.440]  Where do you conclude that from, Eddie?
[01:53:01.440 --> 01:53:05.440]  I know you just gave sort of your interpretation of what another means,
[01:53:05.440 --> 01:53:14.440]  but how do you make that leap there into equalizing another with any legal entity?
[01:53:14.440 --> 01:53:20.440]  Okay, just like we were talking about before, when you're looking at the definitions,
[01:53:20.440 --> 01:53:21.440]  you take it by priority.
[01:53:21.440 --> 01:53:24.440]  Is the term defined within the statute itself?
[01:53:24.440 --> 01:53:29.440]  Is there any other statutes that govern the definition of that term?
[01:53:29.440 --> 01:53:34.440]  If there is not, then you start backstepping to a legal dictionary.
[01:53:34.440 --> 01:53:37.440]  If it's not defined within the legal dictionary,
[01:53:37.440 --> 01:53:43.440]  then you can actually look at it within the common language dictionary.
[01:53:43.440 --> 01:53:50.440]  But in Black's law, the term another simply means additional, distinct, or different.
[01:53:50.440 --> 01:53:56.440]  Okay, but I have a question here for maybe both Eddie and Randy.
[01:53:56.440 --> 01:54:00.440]  Because we're looking kind of just at the one tree, so to speak,
[01:54:00.440 --> 01:54:03.440]  without backing up to look at the forest.
[01:54:03.440 --> 01:54:11.440]  Could it be possible that within the context of that sentence or even the paragraph
[01:54:11.440 --> 01:54:21.440]  that the word another would have to refer to the same type of entity that is being described
[01:54:21.440 --> 01:54:25.440]  and discussed in that sentence or in that paragraph?
[01:54:25.440 --> 01:54:27.440]  Do you understand what I'm saying?
[01:54:27.440 --> 01:54:31.440]  It wouldn't just mean that all of a sudden it's open-ended to anything,
[01:54:31.440 --> 01:54:39.440]  but that it's actually referring to another, like say a description about men in general,
[01:54:39.440 --> 01:54:41.440]  but then it says something, something about another.
[01:54:41.440 --> 01:54:43.440]  They're obviously not referring to a woman or whatever.
[01:54:43.440 --> 01:54:50.440]  So do you have to consider it within the context of what's already being discussed to impose a limitation?
[01:54:50.440 --> 01:54:53.440]  That's a good point. That's a transformational deletion.
[01:54:53.440 --> 01:54:55.440]  So Eddie just said yes.
[01:54:55.440 --> 01:55:00.440]  Yes, because it's talking about denying rights.
[01:55:00.440 --> 01:55:10.440]  And we have to, and this is a thing that I don't like to do, is come up with a conclusion.
[01:55:10.440 --> 01:55:14.440]  Well, is there case law or precedent concerning this sort of thing?
[01:55:14.440 --> 01:55:20.440]  What I said about Black's Law's definition hits right on the money, right here.
[01:55:20.440 --> 01:55:27.440]  What this is saying is it is speaking directly to the acts of a public servant against someone else,
[01:55:27.440 --> 01:55:36.440]  another entity, person, whatever, or someone distinct or different from that officer or public servant.
[01:55:36.440 --> 01:55:39.440]  That's what the definition of another is.
[01:55:39.440 --> 01:55:44.440]  The context specifically states a public servant acting under color of his office or employment,
[01:55:44.440 --> 01:55:52.440]  commits an offense if he intentionally subjects another, meaning someone different or distinct from himself.
[01:55:52.440 --> 01:55:54.440]  Okay, all right.
[01:55:54.440 --> 01:56:03.440]  And in the context of someone, the legal entity, which is a corporation, can be considered as someone, the person.
[01:56:03.440 --> 01:56:06.440]  Anything other than the officer himself.
[01:56:06.440 --> 01:56:12.440]  So within that context, there's really no restriction as far as within the context of what another is.
[01:56:12.440 --> 01:56:14.440]  And there may be case law on that.
[01:56:14.440 --> 01:56:17.440]  That's not something I've ever researched out.
[01:56:17.440 --> 01:56:21.440]  But now I'm going to have to go to Lexis and pull down annotations and see what I find out.
[01:56:21.440 --> 01:56:28.440]  Well, I mean, I'm actually very glad to know that there are restrictions on these types of terms
[01:56:28.440 --> 01:56:33.440]  that restrict it to the context in which it's being discussed because if there wasn't,
[01:56:33.440 --> 01:56:39.440]  then it's just like then you can't back up and look at the forest for the trees.
[01:56:39.440 --> 01:56:44.440]  It's just like you just have to focus on any individual word and then nothing would make any sense.
[01:56:44.440 --> 01:56:49.440]  And I bet there's going to be no particular case law on that issue.
[01:56:49.440 --> 01:56:51.440]  But we have one more caller.
[01:56:51.440 --> 01:56:51.440]  Yes.
[01:56:51.440 --> 01:56:53.440]  Do you have anything else for us quickly, Mitchell?
[01:56:53.440 --> 01:56:54.440]  No, that was it.
[01:56:54.440 --> 01:56:55.440]  Great.
[01:56:55.440 --> 01:56:55.440]  Thank you very much.
[01:56:55.440 --> 01:56:56.440]  Okay.
[01:56:56.440 --> 01:56:56.440]  Thank you.
[01:56:56.440 --> 01:56:58.440]  That was a really good question.
[01:56:58.440 --> 01:56:59.440]  Good question.
[01:56:59.440 --> 01:57:00.440]  Good interaction there.
[01:57:00.440 --> 01:57:02.440]  Thank you, Mitchell.
[01:57:02.440 --> 01:57:03.440]  Okay.
[01:57:03.440 --> 01:57:04.440]  We've got one last caller.
[01:57:04.440 --> 01:57:07.440]  We've got Karen from Virginia.
[01:57:07.440 --> 01:57:08.440]  Karen, thanks for calling in.
[01:57:08.440 --> 01:57:09.440]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:57:09.440 --> 01:57:10.440]  Well, how about that?
[01:57:10.440 --> 01:57:12.440]  You got to me before I fell asleep.
[01:57:12.440 --> 01:57:13.440]  Very good.
[01:57:13.440 --> 01:57:14.440]  Okay.
[01:57:14.440 --> 01:57:17.440]  Well, we do have our show until midnight.
[01:57:17.440 --> 01:57:18.440]  So go ahead.
[01:57:18.440 --> 01:57:19.440]  No.
[01:57:19.440 --> 01:57:20.440]  Okay.
[01:57:20.440 --> 01:57:21.440]  Okay.
[01:57:21.440 --> 01:57:29.440]  First of all, I want to know, is there some kind of ban on a judge allowing you to give
[01:57:29.440 --> 01:57:34.440]  any traffic or parking fine you receive to your church rather than having it automatically
[01:57:34.440 --> 01:57:35.440]  payable to the state?
[01:57:35.440 --> 01:57:37.440]  That's question number one.
[01:57:37.440 --> 01:57:38.440]  I don't understand your question.
[01:57:38.440 --> 01:57:40.440]  Give your traffic ticket to your church.
[01:57:40.440 --> 01:57:42.440]  Who can you pay the fine to is what she's asking.
[01:57:42.440 --> 01:57:43.440]  Yeah, no.
[01:57:43.440 --> 01:57:45.440]  Am I allowed to pay it as a donation to my church?
[01:57:45.440 --> 01:57:46.440]  No.
[01:57:46.440 --> 01:57:48.440]  Is that a judge's decision to make or what?
[01:57:48.440 --> 01:57:50.440]  No, that's not a judge's decision to make.
[01:57:50.440 --> 01:57:51.440]  No, it's not.
[01:57:51.440 --> 01:57:52.440]  You can't make that.
[01:57:52.440 --> 01:57:53.440]  It has to go to the state.
[01:57:53.440 --> 01:57:55.440]  You can't apply to it directly.
[01:57:55.440 --> 01:57:56.440]  Yeah.
[01:57:56.440 --> 01:57:57.440]  That's by statute.
[01:57:57.440 --> 01:57:58.440]  Yep.
[01:57:58.440 --> 01:58:00.440]  Unless you have a specific statute in Virginia.
[01:58:00.440 --> 01:58:01.440]  Right.
[01:58:01.440 --> 01:58:03.440]  That allows the judge to do that.
[01:58:03.440 --> 01:58:06.440]  That takes money and he can't do with it what he wants to do.
[01:58:06.440 --> 01:58:07.440]  That's right.
[01:58:07.440 --> 01:58:08.440]  Okay.
[01:58:08.440 --> 01:58:09.440]  Do you have time for one other thing?
[01:58:09.440 --> 01:58:13.440]  No, we've got 30 seconds left of the show, but you're welcome to call back in if you
[01:58:13.440 --> 01:58:14.440]  like.
[01:58:14.440 --> 01:58:15.440]  Okay.
[01:58:15.440 --> 01:58:17.440]  Thank you again and thank you callers.
[01:58:17.440 --> 01:58:18.440]  We'll be back Monday evening.
[01:58:18.440 --> 01:58:22.440]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:58:22.440 --> 01:58:26.440]  We're here with Eddie Craig from Nacogdoches.
[01:58:26.440 --> 01:58:29.440]  Please check out all the other good shows on our network.
[01:58:29.440 --> 01:58:34.440]  We will be back Monday evening at 8 p.m.
[01:58:34.440 --> 01:58:36.440]  Don't forget to go vote.
[01:58:36.440 --> 01:58:46.440]  Thank you.
[01:59:06.440 --> 01:59:26.440]  Thank you.
[01:59:26.440 --> 01:59:54.440]  Thank you.
[01:59:56.440 --> 01:59:58.440]  Thank you.