ROL_2009-05-22_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:12.640]  In a rare bipartisan defeat for Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday
[00:12.640 --> 00:19.040]  to keep Guantanamo open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees
[00:19.040 --> 00:25.380]  to facilities in the U.S. U.S. District Judge John Bates says the U.S. can continue to hold
[00:25.380 --> 00:31.400]  some prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely without any charges. Judge Bates said after
[00:31.400 --> 00:36.840]  9-11, Congress gave the President authority to hold anyone involved in planning, aiding
[00:36.840 --> 00:44.200]  or carrying out the terrorist attacks. A Pentagon report said 74 released Guantanamo detainees
[00:44.200 --> 00:51.440]  returned to terrorism. However, the Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating 45 unnamed
[00:51.440 --> 00:58.200]  recidivists while only a few of the 29 people identified can be independently verified as
[00:58.200 --> 01:08.440]  having engaged in terrorism since their release. A new Cornell University survey on trends
[01:08.440 --> 01:14.680]  on union intimidation is providing labor supporters with critical ammunition in their struggle
[01:14.680 --> 01:20.920]  to pass a card check bill. The survey singled out a baked goods company called Earthgrains
[01:20.920 --> 01:26.880]  for its strong arm tactics. In 2000, when its Kentucky plant tried to organize, Earthgrains
[01:26.880 --> 01:33.320]  videotaped employees talking to union representatives, confiscated union literature, interrogated
[01:33.320 --> 01:38.960]  employees about whether their co-workers supported unions and threatened their jobs and retirement
[01:38.960 --> 01:45.640]  plans. According to the study of over 1,000 union organizing drives, such tactics are
[01:45.640 --> 01:51.200]  now standard practice. Management threatened to close plants and cut wages and benefits
[01:51.200 --> 01:56.640]  in half the cases. The survey found that what distinguishes the current organizing climate
[01:56.640 --> 02:03.480]  from previous employer opposition to unions is intense and aggressive anti-union campaigning
[02:03.480 --> 02:10.780]  of a kind previously found only at Walmart. 55% of non-managerial workers say they would
[02:10.780 --> 02:17.880]  vote for a union, but only 12.4% are actually organized. Top of the hour news brought to
[02:17.880 --> 02:25.320]  you by INN, World Report. World renowned biologist Pushpa Bhargava says genetically modified
[02:25.320 --> 02:32.820]  organisms, GMOs, are a major contributor to Americans sharply deteriorating health. Investigations
[02:32.820 --> 02:39.340]  in India revealed most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature
[02:39.340 --> 02:47.760]  deliveries, abortions, infertility and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, farmers
[02:47.760 --> 02:54.640]  reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming GM corn. Some had false pregnancies
[02:54.640 --> 03:00.880]  and others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the
[03:00.880 --> 03:09.600]  same corn. You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com live
[03:09.600 --> 03:26.600]  free speech talk radio at its best. I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my
[03:26.600 --> 03:33.600]  baby. There was something so pleasant about that place. Even your emotions had an echo
[03:33.600 --> 03:45.600]  and so much space. And when you're out there without care, yeah, I was out of touch. But
[03:45.600 --> 04:03.600]  I didn't know enough. I just knew too much. That makes me crazy. That makes me crazy.
[04:03.600 --> 04:24.600]  I believe in all that you have in the time of your life. But think twice. That's why
[04:24.600 --> 04:36.600]  we have bodies. Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
[04:36.600 --> 04:46.600]  Ha ha ha, bless your soul. I think you're in control. I love that song, Narls Barkley.
[04:46.600 --> 04:53.440]  All right, we are talking now with Lewis from Arkansas. Okay, Randy, and you had some comments
[04:53.440 --> 04:58.320]  for him about the grand jury. And callers, please hold on the line. We really appreciate
[04:58.320 --> 05:04.640]  your holding. Please be patient. We will take all of your calls. We are here for you. We're
[05:04.640 --> 05:10.200]  doing a show for y'all. So just, just, just hang tight. We got Lewis, Amy, Jim, John,
[05:10.200 --> 05:15.560]  George, Brian, Bill, Rick, not necessarily in that order, but just hang on the line if
[05:15.560 --> 05:19.200]  you can, please. All right, Randy, go ahead with Lewis.
[05:19.200 --> 05:25.000]  Okay. I was kind of closing that out because we do have so many callers. Frankly, this
[05:25.000 --> 05:33.200]  is my subject, but I'm working on a method to go after the federal grand jury, but I
[05:33.200 --> 05:39.160]  just don't have, we don't have time to get into that today. If you will prepare a criminal
[05:39.160 --> 05:46.760]  complaint, if you can't find one, send me an email, send it to randy at ruleoflawradio.com
[05:46.760 --> 05:53.720]  and I'll send you a copy of a criminal complaint. It's just, these are some we made out to,
[05:53.720 --> 05:58.960]  for a IRS agent. You should have some for download on your, on
[05:58.960 --> 06:03.720]  your jurisprudence, right? Yeah, I don't have the federal ones loaded
[06:03.720 --> 06:10.440]  up there. I need to do that. It's amongst a lot of things I need to get to, but if you,
[06:10.440 --> 06:15.640]  if you can't find one, let me know. I'll send one to you. And once you get those files,
[06:15.640 --> 06:20.040]  then we'll talk about, you can call back and we'll talk about how to, how to stir them
[06:20.040 --> 06:23.640]  up at the court and how to force our way to the grand jury.
[06:23.640 --> 06:29.000]  Okay. All right. Thank you for calling in, Lewis.
[06:29.000 --> 06:34.920]  Okay. We're going to go now to Amy in Alabama. Hey Amy, thanks for calling in. What's on
[06:34.920 --> 06:39.120]  your mind tonight? Hey, hi Deborah. Hi Randy.
[06:39.120 --> 06:43.160]  Hi Amy. Don't tell my husband I called in.
[06:43.160 --> 06:50.200]  Don't tell him I'm betraying him and listening to your show.
[06:50.200 --> 06:56.920]  Amy's husband does a show on this network. Well, I called for one reason, but I wanted
[06:56.920 --> 07:02.200]  to make a comment that occurred to me when you had that guy on there speaking about the
[07:02.200 --> 07:05.240]  money and- Yes, Dr. Bill Veath.
[07:05.240 --> 07:11.640]  Yes, and how, how they weren't obligated to take federal reserve notes. Well, what about
[07:11.640 --> 07:16.920]  the state? The state really come underneath the federal government and control them by
[07:16.920 --> 07:24.040]  passing down legisl- you know, passing down laws and saying, well, if you take this money,
[07:24.040 --> 07:29.080]  you get to be included in. And so the state is involved with the federal government. Well,
[07:29.080 --> 07:35.960]  and the state issues whatever license you need to run your business. Would that in itself
[07:35.960 --> 07:42.760]  force you to take federal reserve notes or they take away your right to be a business
[07:42.760 --> 07:47.400]  and work as a corporation? No, they can't take away your right to be
[07:47.400 --> 07:52.920]  a business. That goes to private contracting. Not to mention the fact that if it's an occupation,
[07:52.920 --> 07:58.120]  a common right. So when you join up to be a corporation, don't
[07:58.120 --> 08:03.240]  you agree to keep the rules? But that's if you're a corporation. If you
[08:03.240 --> 08:07.720]  don't incorporate- Well, but that's what I'm saying.
[08:07.720 --> 08:12.600]  Yeah. All the corporations that take that money.
[08:12.600 --> 08:20.040]  Well, I don't know that incorporating puts you in a position where you have to abide
[08:20.040 --> 08:25.240]  by some separate set of rules other than the, than the articles of the corporation.
[08:25.240 --> 08:29.080]  Amy, are you- And they're assigned to the contract law.
[08:29.080 --> 08:35.240]  Are you, are you asking, is your question, does it really go to, are you trying to ask
[08:35.240 --> 08:41.240]  are the states required to take federal reserve notes for taxation purposes or licensing purposes?
[08:42.120 --> 08:47.080]  Well, what I'm saying is because they went down and signed up and say, I want to be a
[08:47.080 --> 08:51.320]  corporation and that puts them under a certain set of rules. I don't know what the corporation
[08:51.320 --> 08:55.480]  rules say, but would that obligate them to take the federal reserve note?
[08:55.480 --> 08:59.720]  I don't see- Of course, I know that only makes them a
[08:59.720 --> 09:02.600]  business and it doesn't- Yeah, I don't see how that would-
[09:02.600 --> 09:05.000]  I don't think it goes there. That, that's a long jump.
[09:05.800 --> 09:11.080]  Okay. I just wanted to see what you thought then. I understand, I understand the question
[09:11.080 --> 09:16.520]  because the corp, becoming a corporation appears to tie you to the government.
[09:17.240 --> 09:18.600]  Yes. Yeah.
[09:18.600 --> 09:27.240]  So it would- I think there's a, I can't say it for certain. I'm just going from what I believe
[09:27.240 --> 09:33.800]  that there is a law requiring a public business to accept legal tender.
[09:34.520 --> 09:41.480]  Well, see what Bill was saying and what Eddie was saying is that, okay, if there is this law
[09:41.480 --> 09:48.520]  requiring public businesses to accept legal tender, if they refuse it, then the debt is discharged.
[09:49.320 --> 09:57.080]  But Dr. Veeth is saying he thinks that that's not necessarily true because if he wants to set up a
[09:57.080 --> 10:03.240]  lemonade stand and say he's only going to accept marbles for trade, how can the federal government
[10:03.240 --> 10:08.680]  then come in and say, well, no, you're required to take federal reserve notes if someone offers
[10:08.680 --> 10:14.120]  them to you and therefore if you refuse, the debt's discharged. And what that means is the
[10:14.120 --> 10:18.760]  government can come in and say, well, then you got to give away the lemonade for free if you don't
[10:18.760 --> 10:23.880]  want to take the federal reserve notes. And that's interfering with a private contract because
[10:23.880 --> 10:27.640]  he's stating from the get-go he only is going to take marbles.
[10:28.920 --> 10:32.840]  Well, in all honesty, I think it's at what level you're doing your dealing.
[10:32.840 --> 10:37.960]  The private contract side that Randy is referring to will hold up because the terms of the contract
[10:37.960 --> 10:42.840]  will determine what the payment requirement between the parties is. However, if you take
[10:42.840 --> 10:48.840]  that corporation and that corporation is having to deal with the government entity at any level,
[10:48.840 --> 10:53.720]  the government entity can mandate, you will take this and you will pay me with this.
[10:54.440 --> 10:57.960]  Well, I think that when you're dealing with the general public,
[10:58.760 --> 11:03.560]  you have to take legal tender as a common medium of exchange.
[11:03.560 --> 11:07.080]  Unless you specify the terms of payment differently in advance.
[11:07.080 --> 11:13.640]  Well, that's the point of legal tender, to have a standard medium of exchange.
[11:15.080 --> 11:17.880]  But I haven't researched it so I can't say for certain.
[11:17.880 --> 11:23.560]  Okay. Anyone out there? We need to look up the legal tender, what that actually is.
[11:24.680 --> 11:28.360]  Okay. Well, I appreciate you taking that. But here's a really important thing that I called
[11:28.360 --> 11:35.160]  you for that I wanted to ask you about. I have a young friend who signed up into the military.
[11:36.040 --> 11:39.960]  When he signed up into the military, he signed a two-page contract.
[11:41.160 --> 11:47.560]  When he received his contract, after he, you know, was required to go into the military,
[11:48.840 --> 11:53.800]  he found out all these other things that were in the contract. Things like,
[11:53.800 --> 11:59.640]  we don't have to pay you if we don't want to. We can pay you in goats if we choose to pay you in goats.
[12:00.600 --> 12:06.280]  We can torture you at any time we want to torture you if we see fit to do it.
[12:07.560 --> 12:13.480]  And he said that if he had seen that and known that was in the contract,
[12:13.480 --> 12:16.920]  and that's just a few examples, he would have never signed it.
[12:16.920 --> 12:22.920]  Then if, was it available to him at the time he signed the contract?
[12:23.720 --> 12:28.680]  He, at this point, he is claiming, no, it was not. I mean, this is what he's told me.
[12:28.680 --> 12:36.280]  No, it was not. The only thing he saw was two pages. And my question is, can you do that like
[12:36.280 --> 12:41.400]  any contract because it's the military? Yep. You absolutely can. Sufa breach contract.
[12:41.400 --> 12:48.440]  Yep. You absolutely can. Sufa breach contract. Check very carefully that those first two pages
[12:48.440 --> 12:57.000]  he did have access to did not waive his ability to sue. That is one thing about a military member.
[12:57.000 --> 13:02.200]  You may not sue the United States government as a member of the military.
[13:04.840 --> 13:09.080]  This is different. You can sue for breach of contract.
[13:09.080 --> 13:13.720]  He is not interested in suing. He's interested in getting out. He does not.
[13:13.720 --> 13:18.840]  That's how you do it. You sue for breach of contract and claim that the government
[13:18.840 --> 13:25.800]  abdicated the contract by failure to give full disclosure. So the contract never came into
[13:25.800 --> 13:30.840]  existence because it was an act of fraud. And this is a lot of guys get out by
[13:30.840 --> 13:34.600]  challenging that contract. Is he enlisted or officer?
[13:34.600 --> 13:40.360]  Enlisted. Yeah. The contract. If he's an officer,
[13:40.360 --> 13:47.320]  it's different. But if he's enlisted, he has a contract he signed to get in. If they fail to
[13:47.320 --> 13:51.560]  give full disclosure, he has grounds to sue for breach of contract.
[13:52.680 --> 13:57.000]  Great. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's what I wanted to find out.
[13:57.000 --> 14:03.160]  I think the restriction against suing the government is going to be on a tort claim
[14:04.760 --> 14:10.680]  and not on a contractual claim. When the government enters into a contract,
[14:12.120 --> 14:18.280]  then it waives its sovereign immunity and becomes another corporate actor.
[14:18.280 --> 14:26.040]  Okay. He entered that contract with the corporate United States
[14:27.000 --> 14:32.600]  and they entered the contract in their corporate capacity. So yeah, the guys do that all the time.
[14:33.240 --> 14:39.800]  I have a friend that sued for just exactly that and got out of the military. They just
[14:40.920 --> 14:44.920]  didn't give him the job he wanted. He sued him, got out.
[14:44.920 --> 14:49.240]  Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Amy.
[14:49.880 --> 14:53.240]  And thank you. I wanted you all to know how much I appreciate your show
[14:53.240 --> 14:56.760]  and how much I enjoy listening to it. And I listen to you all the time.
[14:56.760 --> 15:06.120]  Oh, thank you. And we appreciate Don and Greg and Mike's show as well. I learn more every show.
[15:07.080 --> 15:10.680]  That's pretty exciting, isn't it? All the new stuff coming down.
[15:10.680 --> 15:12.440]  All right. Thank you. Thank you, Amy.
[15:12.440 --> 15:14.200]  Thank you. Bye-bye.
[15:14.200 --> 15:19.960]  Okay. Okay. We're going to go now to Gary in Texas. He called back in. He was at the top of the list
[15:20.600 --> 15:23.080]  earlier. Gary, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[15:23.960 --> 15:25.720]  Hey, how are you all doing tonight?
[15:25.720 --> 15:26.040]  Good.
[15:27.160 --> 15:36.920]  Good. Hey, first of all, going back to Dr. Veeth, I just wanted to post the premise for everybody.
[15:36.920 --> 15:45.320]  If they will ask their creator, their God, whatever they worship, to show them what it means by
[15:46.920 --> 15:53.480]  the scripture in Timothy where it says that the love of money is the root of all evil,
[15:55.320 --> 15:59.160]  and let that sink in and let the answers come to you,
[15:59.160 --> 16:03.800]  very much understanding will open up to you about this money system and about what's going on.
[16:03.800 --> 16:07.720]  Absolutely. I'm glad you brought that up, Gary. I was thinking about that earlier.
[16:07.720 --> 16:14.360]  It's a common misquote that money is the root of all evil. Money is not the root of all evil.
[16:14.360 --> 16:22.680]  Money is simply a tool that is necessary for us to survive that the Lord has put here,
[16:23.240 --> 16:27.080]  and it's the love of that money that is the root of all evil. You're very correct.
[16:27.080 --> 16:35.000]  Absolutely correct. The other thing I wanted to touch on is something that was a subject.
[16:35.880 --> 16:41.800]  Okay. Hold on one moment, Gary. We're going to go to break. We'll be right back. Stay on the line,
[16:41.800 --> 16:44.360]  and we're going to take your calls on the other side. We'll be right back.
[16:45.240 --> 16:49.000]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Eddie Craig.
[16:49.000 --> 16:57.080]  We're taking your calls, the Friday Night Info Marathon. We'll be right back.
[17:19.000 --> 17:21.080]  We'll be right back.
[17:49.000 --> 17:51.080]  We'll be right back.
[18:19.000 --> 18:29.720]  Okay. We're back. Quick break. Also, we want to
[18:31.080 --> 18:38.920]  big up, promote, announce the traffic seminar, Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, and myself.
[18:40.440 --> 18:46.600]  If y'all are interested, please send Randy or myself or both of us actually an email
[18:46.600 --> 18:55.000]  so that we can find out how many people want to come, so we can schedule the place and the date.
[18:55.560 --> 19:01.960]  Okay. We're talking with Gary in Texas. Okay. Go ahead, Gary. You had one other comment?
[19:02.600 --> 19:08.120]  Yes. Thanks a lot. And by the way, greetings to Randy, Deborah, and Eddie. A fabulous,
[19:08.120 --> 19:14.760]  fabulous show as always. I wanted to go back to something that Randy said. I believe he
[19:14.760 --> 19:22.600]  introduced about an hour and a half ago, and that was with the law regarding firearms and the
[19:22.600 --> 19:32.040]  protections for the public of Texas with regards to firearms produced in Texas. I just am curious
[19:32.040 --> 19:38.120]  if anybody has ever looked up and seen how many manufacturers of firearms exist in the state of
[19:38.120 --> 19:46.600]  Texas right now. Most of you haven't done it. The fact is, is that there are four manufacturers,
[19:47.560 --> 19:56.040]  and they are small-time manufacturers. I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of questions,
[19:56.040 --> 20:05.000]  if I could, and that is, what is the legal meaning of the word manufacturer in the bill?
[20:05.000 --> 20:17.240]  Because I think that a man or a woman within the geographical boundaries of the state of Texas
[20:18.280 --> 20:29.880]  could acquire parts from any part of the world and put together a workable, usable firearm.
[20:29.880 --> 20:35.880]  And after it was put together, it would be considered to be manufactured in Texas,
[20:37.720 --> 20:47.880]  and therefore would be compliant with the law and therefore not subject to any federal BS
[20:48.760 --> 20:55.480]  restrictions on gun ownership. That has, for the most part, been the standard position.
[20:55.480 --> 21:03.000]  People talk about buy America, and then you go down to GM or Chrysler or Ford, and you buy a car.
[21:04.040 --> 21:12.200]  And then you find out that Toyota has got one just exactly like it. And that's because it's
[21:12.200 --> 21:21.640]  not really made in it. It is put together in America, but it's not all of the components
[21:21.640 --> 21:29.480]  are not manufactured in America. So this is already well-established in law that all you,
[21:29.480 --> 21:37.880]  and matter of fact, I vaguely remember doing some research on that issue where it said that
[21:37.880 --> 21:45.400]  where it's assembled, until it's assembled, it's not an item. Once it's assembled, it becomes an
[21:45.400 --> 21:52.600]  item. And where it is assembled, it makes it an item. What I suspect the feds are going to want
[21:52.600 --> 22:03.160]  to do is say that the manufacture of the item involves interstate commerce, if there's anything
[22:03.160 --> 22:11.640]  outside the state. But you know, that's a minor point. You'd say there's four manufacturers,
[22:11.640 --> 22:19.880]  I expect that to pick up dramatically, and those to get larger. And if they do impose the restriction
[22:19.880 --> 22:26.040]  that it has to be completely built in the United States, I don't think there'll be a problem.
[22:26.040 --> 22:31.960]  I think they will do it. Well, this is what the bill says the definition is. Manufacture includes
[22:31.960 --> 22:37.560]  forging, casting, machining, or another process for working the material. Section 2003,
[22:37.560 --> 22:43.160] .002, meaning of manufactured in this state. For the purposes of this chapter, a firearm,
[22:43.160 --> 22:48.120]  a firearm accessory, or ammunition is manufactured in this state, if the item is manufactured,
[22:48.120 --> 22:54.760]  one, in this state from basic materials, and two, without the inclusion of any part imported from
[22:54.760 --> 23:01.080]  another state other than a generic and insignificant part. For the purposes of this chapter, a firearm
[23:01.080 --> 23:05.480]  is manufactured in this state, and two, without the inclusion of any part imported from another
[23:05.480 --> 23:10.920]  state. A firearm is manufactured in this state, if it is manufactured as described by subsection A,
[23:10.920 --> 23:16.440]  without regard to whether a firearm accessory imported into this state from another state is
[23:16.440 --> 23:24.040]  attached to or used in conjunction with it. So the basic firearm must be built, the scope,
[23:24.040 --> 23:34.600]  the pearly handles. How far would that extend? Okay, Eddie, I have a question for you.
[23:37.960 --> 23:47.000]  The terminology used in the definition in the bill says in this state. It does not say in
[23:47.000 --> 23:56.120]  the, it does not say in the state? Correct. Okay, there is a differentiation between the state
[23:56.120 --> 24:05.000]  and this state. Yes, there is. This state meaning the corporation fictional government
[24:06.280 --> 24:15.320]  versus the state meaning the organic geographical description. So my question is therefore,
[24:15.320 --> 24:28.840]  is the law even applicable to the piecing together of the integral parts into a completed
[24:28.840 --> 24:36.920]  form that is functional and fireable? Does that therefore fit the definition of a firearm according
[24:36.920 --> 24:49.080]  to the bill? Let's see. Let's see if it gives a specific definition for firearm.
[24:52.760 --> 25:04.120]  There was a concern I had in listening to that. We're focusing on precedent from other areas.
[25:04.120 --> 25:11.880]  We might, if it's not defined, this state is not defined in the statute, we might want to go back
[25:11.880 --> 25:19.800]  to the legislative history. And since it's very recent, it would be essentially simple to locate.
[25:20.760 --> 25:28.920]  What did the legislature intend here? Now here, Gary, if you look at section 2003.005,
[25:28.920 --> 25:35.240]  where it shows marketing of firearms, this would put the meaning of this state squarely where we
[25:35.240 --> 25:43.720]  want it. A firearm manufactured and sold in this state must have the words made in Texas, not made
[25:43.720 --> 25:53.960]  in the state of Texas. It says made in Texas. Does it actually use those words? No, no, no,
[25:53.960 --> 26:01.160]  I'm just saying, versus what we know this state normally means, this should have said,
[26:01.160 --> 26:06.840]  and if that was the reference, must have the words made in the state of Texas. It doesn't.
[26:06.840 --> 26:12.360]  It specifically says that any manufactured firearm made and sold here must have the words
[26:12.360 --> 26:19.400]  made in Texas. That's what has to be on it. So that would make it the organic state,
[26:19.400 --> 26:28.120]  not the corporate state. Because you actually couldn't manufacture something in the corporate
[26:28.120 --> 26:36.120]  state. Correct. Unless you're a fraud and what you manufacture doesn't really exist.
[26:37.240 --> 26:42.840]  Okay. Then you could make it in a fictional state. Okay. Therefore, I have a question.
[26:42.840 --> 26:56.440]  If I purchase, if I, as a man, if I purchase several components, and those components,
[26:56.440 --> 27:08.440]  when put together, are complete, and they, as a complete form, will operate as a functioning
[27:08.440 --> 27:20.760]  firearm, does that appear to you to be a firearm manufactured in this state?
[27:22.760 --> 27:31.960]  From the reading of the statute, I have to ask another question. The items that you purchased
[27:31.960 --> 27:43.320]  in order to combine into an object that would function as a firearm, did you purchase all of
[27:43.320 --> 27:48.760]  those within the boundary of the state? Well, there's two other definitions you need
[27:48.760 --> 27:53.800]  to be aware of before you answer that question. One is a firearm accessory, and one is generic
[27:53.800 --> 27:59.640]  and insignificant part, and both of those are defined. Firearm accessory means an item that
[27:59.640 --> 28:05.000]  is used in conjunction with or mounted on a firearm but is not essential to the basic function
[28:05.000 --> 28:11.480]  of a firearm. Term includes a telescopic or laser sight, magazine, flash, or sound suppressor,
[28:11.480 --> 28:16.200]  folding or aftermarket stock and grip, speed loader, ammunition carrier, and light for target
[28:16.200 --> 28:23.000]  elimination. Generic and insignificant part means an item that has manufacturing or consumer product
[28:23.000 --> 28:30.200]  applications other than inclusion in a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition. The term
[28:30.200 --> 28:36.040]  includes a spring, screw, nut, and pin. Okay, and I also have another question.
[28:37.720 --> 28:44.120]  It says manufacturing of the firearm. It doesn't necessarily say, and this is a bill,
[28:44.120 --> 28:51.800]  this isn't a statute yet, okay, it doesn't necessarily say that the parts involved in
[28:51.800 --> 29:02.200]  the manufacturing must be made or manufactured in Texas. It says the firearm. No, no, no, it does.
[29:02.200 --> 29:08.360]  Yeah. Meaning is manufactured in this state. For the purposes of this chapter, a firearm,
[29:08.360 --> 29:14.840]  a firearm accessory, or ammunition is manufactured in this state if the item is manufactured, one,
[29:14.840 --> 29:21.480]  in this state from basic materials, and two, without the inclusion of any part imported
[29:21.480 --> 29:28.760]  from another state other than a generic and insignificant part. Okay. Okay, so my question
[29:28.760 --> 29:39.960]  is, and this goes beyond my understanding, my question is, is it possible that this legislation
[29:39.960 --> 29:51.000]  is feel-good legislation as opposed to real, in-your-face legislation that says people of
[29:51.000 --> 29:59.000]  Texas can own a firearm and we will protect them as the owner of that firearm? Okay, I want to
[29:59.000 --> 30:04.520]  give my opinion on this, and then I'll let Eddie and Randy respond. Okay. I don't think this
[30:04.520 --> 30:13.800]  proposed legislation has anything to do, honestly, with our second amendment enumerated rights.
[30:14.280 --> 30:21.240]  This goes to state rights. This goes to state sovereignty. The states are saying,
[30:21.640 --> 30:29.320]  federal government, get out of our business on this issue, and it's going to come up many other
[30:29.320 --> 30:35.480]  issues. I think this goes to state sovereignty and federal government interference with anything
[30:35.480 --> 30:41.640]  that goes on within the state's boundaries, and it's not necessarily has anything to do with
[30:42.200 --> 30:47.960]  protecting our rights to own a firearm. Okay, that's just my opinion. Guys? Yeah, not within
[30:47.960 --> 30:56.120]  the state itself anyway. Right. Okay. I would tend to go along with you on that, Gary, as far as
[30:56.120 --> 31:02.040]  it being feel-good legislation for some very obvious points. One is that the manufactured
[31:02.040 --> 31:07.240]  firearm cannot have a barrel diameter greater than one and a half inches. Number two thing is
[31:07.240 --> 31:13.160]  that it may not emit more than a single projectile per pull of the trigger. In other words, no
[31:13.160 --> 31:22.840]  automatics. Correct. Basically, they're still trying to put restrictions on the use of the
[31:22.840 --> 31:27.560]  gun in order to determine whether or not it's allowable. They're trying not to push the
[31:27.560 --> 31:33.560]  envelope too hard with the feds. Yes. That's exactly what I got. My point exactly. If you will
[31:33.560 --> 31:40.760]  remember the legislation that occurred when the second amendment issue was brought before the
[31:40.760 --> 31:57.160]  Supreme Court in 2008, I think it was in Washington, D.C. I apologize that I don't
[31:57.160 --> 32:04.120]  have all the particulars, but it was- The D.C. gun ban that was declared unconstitutional.
[32:04.120 --> 32:13.960]  Right. The Supreme Court gave their ruling on it and it seemed to be favorable to gun ownership.
[32:15.240 --> 32:21.000]  I took the position based on my understanding of the meanings of the words that they used
[32:21.000 --> 32:30.920]  in their opinion that this was absolutely bogus because they did nothing to uphold the second
[32:30.920 --> 32:36.120]  amendment right to keep and bear arms. Well, at least they didn't uphold the
[32:36.120 --> 32:43.160]  gun ban in D.C. That was a major thing, I think. Well, but see, there's another significant part
[32:43.160 --> 32:51.000]  of that too. The fact of the matter is that in D.C., the Constitution does not apply.
[32:51.960 --> 32:58.520]  D.C. is strictly completely under legislative control of Congress. The Constitution does not
[32:58.520 --> 33:05.320]  have force and effect there. It's not meant to. Right. Right.
[33:05.320 --> 33:09.320]  Okay. Listen, Gary. I'm sorry. We really have to move on. We have too many callers.
[33:10.440 --> 33:15.800]  Can I make one- No, no. I'm sorry. We've looked at the callboard
[33:15.800 --> 33:21.480]  and we're using mathematics here. I'm a math major and we've decided everyone gets one segment.
[33:21.480 --> 33:24.680]  That's all we can allow or else we're going to go until three o'clock in the morning.
[33:24.680 --> 33:30.840]  All right. So let's move on. I'm sorry. We'll be back on the air Monday night. Y'all can call
[33:30.840 --> 33:35.160]  back in Monday. All right. Here we go. Jim from Texas. All right. Jim, thanks for calling in.
[33:35.160 --> 33:40.600]  Thanks for holding. What's on your mind tonight? This goes back to like Dr. Reese
[33:42.200 --> 33:52.920]  talk on the money system. When the Federal Reserve prints money, the United States
[33:52.920 --> 34:02.920]  actually issues a treasury note, I guess, to them. How is the money paid back to
[34:04.840 --> 34:13.560]  the Federal Reserve for issuing this? I mean, I don't understand. How can you ever pay it back
[34:13.560 --> 34:16.760]  when you don't have anything except Federal Reserve notes to pay it back with?
[34:16.760 --> 34:21.960]  You can't. You can't. That's the whole scam. That's the whole point of this.
[34:21.960 --> 34:27.080]  That's the whole point of the whole problem. It's like if I'm the Federal Reserve and you're the
[34:27.080 --> 34:33.800]  government and you want to borrow a hundred bucks from me to put into circulation for the people.
[34:34.760 --> 34:41.320]  Okay. So I lend you a hundred bucks with 20% interest. So now the government owes me the
[34:41.320 --> 34:45.640]  Federal Reserve 120 bucks. Well, where do you think you're going to get the 20 bucks from?
[34:45.640 --> 34:50.040]  I'm going to have to print another 20 to loan it to you to pay me back the 20 of the interest.
[34:50.040 --> 34:54.840]  It's a defeating system. Okay. All fiat currencies fail.
[34:54.840 --> 34:59.000]  Well, the Federal Reserve wouldn't take money that they printed out of nothing as repayment
[34:59.000 --> 35:01.720]  anyway. I mean- And they never do.
[35:01.720 --> 35:02.520]  And they never do. At that point,
[35:02.520 --> 35:08.360]  it's an ever-increasing debt. It's always a deficit. It's never a positive.
[35:08.360 --> 35:12.120]  The principal can never be paid back and it's gotten to the point that
[35:12.120 --> 35:17.720]  they can't pay the interest either. And that goes back to the income tax.
[35:17.720 --> 35:22.440]  There is a law case that says that the income is not the subject of the tax.
[35:23.000 --> 35:26.760]  The income is only what the tax is measured by.
[35:27.640 --> 35:34.440]  So basically what I'm looking at this as now on the income tax is a use tax on the money is all it
[35:34.440 --> 35:40.200]  is. I mean, they're charging us to use the money. They took the real money away from us and now
[35:40.200 --> 35:44.920]  they're charging us interest in the form of a tax to use the money.
[35:44.920 --> 35:48.440]  Yes. Look at the lyrics of our song,
[35:48.440 --> 35:53.560]  Safely Money, what I started the show with, Patterson, he nailed it.
[35:53.560 --> 36:00.200]  They print the money for free. Then they lend it to us. Then they charge us interest to pay
[36:00.200 --> 36:06.360]  it back as a tax. It's a single entry accounting system. All right.
[36:06.360 --> 36:12.600]  So the entire income tax system is basically a use tax. It's not a-
[36:12.600 --> 36:16.680]  Well, it's more like a safety drain.
[36:18.040 --> 36:25.960]  Well, yeah, I understand they can't let it inflate too much. But I mean, the more they print,
[36:25.960 --> 36:33.320]  they have to keep taking it off. But I mean, it's the biggest scam in the world.
[36:33.880 --> 36:40.360]  It's the biggest scam known to the history of mankind. The money changers, the central banks,
[36:40.360 --> 36:46.200]  they have been trying to and successfully controlling governments ever since, ever since,
[36:46.200 --> 36:53.720]  ever since. Just look up on ixquick or startpage.com, Money Changers. There's a very good article.
[36:53.720 --> 37:00.120]  It's a few pages long. It talks about the history of private central banks and their control
[37:00.120 --> 37:05.000]  of governments throughout the history of the world, documented history of the world.
[37:05.000 --> 37:09.000]  Well, I think there's so many people- There's another aspect of that too, real quick.
[37:09.000 --> 37:15.800]  The way this works from their end, when you consider the fact that our Congress is the only
[37:15.800 --> 37:22.520]  one under the Constitution has the power to create money, they've delegated a power illegally to the
[37:22.520 --> 37:29.960]  Federal Reserve. But our Congress, our government buys all the paper supplies and the ink. The
[37:29.960 --> 37:36.520]  Federal Reserve then turns around and says, print this much money, and they're going to loan it back
[37:36.520 --> 37:43.160]  to that same government at face value. And that's where the whole system's getting screwed up right
[37:43.160 --> 37:48.760]  there. Our Congress is borrowing money that they should already be printing without the Federal
[37:48.760 --> 37:53.720]  Reserve charging interest on it to begin with. That's why I said when they do this fraud act
[37:53.720 --> 38:01.560]  that we first started discussing, our government's already in on it. They're not going to kill the
[38:01.560 --> 38:06.200]  golden goose. No. Because that golden goose keeps them where they are.
[38:06.840 --> 38:13.000]  I believe that every state still has in their Constitution that legal tender in this state,
[38:13.000 --> 38:21.320]  it is gold, so many grams of gold or silver. I know Colorado is that way, and I believe Texas
[38:21.320 --> 38:28.840]  and every other state is still that way. They can't legally change it. They tried in a couple of
[38:28.840 --> 38:38.920]  states. And then one other thing, real quick, excuse me as far as money, being able to refuse to take
[38:41.960 --> 38:49.800]  Federal Reserve notes, it has to be an agreement. I read a law case a while back that if the two
[38:49.800 --> 38:59.960]  parties agree, they can accept whatever they want. I was in Oregon and trying to stay in a hotel,
[38:59.960 --> 39:05.480]  and I wanted to pay cash. They would not accept cash. They would not accept Federal Reserve notes,
[39:05.480 --> 39:08.920]  only credit cards. And I think you'll find that in a lot of hotels.
[39:08.920 --> 39:12.440]  Yeah, that's so that they can have a way of attaching more money if you do damage that the
[39:12.440 --> 39:13.640]  cash didn't cover.
[39:13.640 --> 39:23.000]  Right. But it's still, I mean, it's not, that Federal Reserve note then is not good in all
[39:23.000 --> 39:29.480]  situations. I mean, even though they say it is, it's legal tender for all the public and private.
[39:29.480 --> 39:33.480]  Well, wait a minute. If they're taking credit cards, they're still taking Federal Reserve notes.
[39:33.480 --> 39:36.520]  Well, no, they're taking a computer entry is all they're taking.
[39:36.520 --> 39:39.000]  Yeah, but it's still something that they're taking.
[39:39.000 --> 39:44.600]  Yeah, but it's still Federal Reserve notes. It's just a Federal Reserve note in the form of digits
[39:44.600 --> 39:47.400]  transferred through a credit card, not a piece of paper.
[39:47.400 --> 39:56.360]  Well, I don't know. I mean, to me, that's just digitized something. It never existed and it
[39:56.360 --> 40:00.280]  never will. It's all it is is a transfer of credits from one thing to another.
[40:00.280 --> 40:06.520]  Well, you're right about that. You're absolutely right about that. But as far as the federal
[40:06.520 --> 40:14.440]  reserve notes. Well, I am opening a business that deals in only silver and it's a resale company
[40:14.440 --> 40:19.480]  that's only going to be dealt with silver, no Federal Reserve notes. If you don't have silver,
[40:19.480 --> 40:24.440]  I know somebody that'll sell it to you, but I won't take anything except silver.
[40:24.440 --> 40:30.360]  Well, good for you. And for those out there who are interested in this topic for the last
[40:30.360 --> 40:35.880]  hour, I have been researching the subject of legal tender and the case law and the statutes.
[40:35.880 --> 40:43.720]  And there is in 1862, there was an act that was passed regarding legal tender.
[40:43.720 --> 40:48.920]  And then the Supreme Court overturned it. And then later on, the Supreme Court decided,
[40:48.920 --> 40:55.480]  well, it's okay. And from what I've been able to determine, just from what I've been able to
[40:55.480 --> 41:05.000]  determine, just from my last hour of research, which is cursory, it's a gray area as to whether
[41:05.000 --> 41:12.680]  or not it's set in stone that the government can force people to take Federal Reserve notes
[41:12.680 --> 41:16.280]  or not as legal tender, what the definition of legal tender really is.
[41:16.280 --> 41:23.560]  There was a lawsuit in Colorado a long time ago when they first, well, I don't know if
[41:23.560 --> 41:32.680]  they first, well, I guess it was in the 30s over demanding to be paid in a certain form.
[41:33.800 --> 41:42.280]  And that was the one that they said and the Supreme Court upheld it, is that the Federal
[41:42.280 --> 41:45.720]  Reserve note replaced the gold and silver so that you could no longer, even though the
[41:45.720 --> 41:51.720]  Constitution said that it had to be in the gold and silver, that the state, you couldn't demand
[41:51.720 --> 41:55.320]  to be paid nor could the state demand to be paid in gold or silver.
[41:56.600 --> 41:58.280]  I can find that case. I've got it.
[42:00.280 --> 42:02.680]  See, that's the thing. There's a lot of cases, so we have to
[42:02.680 --> 42:05.560]  shepardize it, what Randy calls shepardizing. Yes.
[42:05.560 --> 42:12.200]  Okay. Listen, I'm sorry, Jim, but we're trying to maintain some sort of structure here on the
[42:12.200 --> 42:16.280]  show because there's so many callers. And so what we're trying to do is give everybody
[42:16.280 --> 42:19.800]  one segment, approximately 15 minutes, so that we can be fair to everyone.
[42:19.800 --> 42:26.200]  Okay. But I appreciate your call and please do some more research about the legal tender.
[42:26.200 --> 42:31.560]  And you could be the first flush case, Jim. You could be the first flush case regarding legal
[42:31.560 --> 42:37.400]  tender. Go ahead, Randy. Did you send me that case you cited, you referenced?
[42:37.400 --> 42:41.160]  Yep. It's in the... I've got it, so I can definitely...
[42:41.160 --> 42:43.480]  Yes, send it to me too. Email it to me and I'll run
[42:43.480 --> 42:45.880]  shepards on it. Yes, send it to me too, Jim.
[42:45.880 --> 42:47.480]  All right. Okay, thank you.
[42:47.480 --> 42:48.520]  Talk to you later. Bye.
[42:48.520 --> 42:54.200]  Okay. Again, callers, please not trying to be rude here. I mean, we give more time to our callers
[42:54.200 --> 43:00.120]  than I think any other show on the radio. All right, but we have to try to maintain something
[43:00.120 --> 43:07.240]  here to be considerate to people. Okay. We are going to go now to John in Wisconsin.
[43:09.800 --> 43:12.360]  John, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[43:12.360 --> 43:17.000]  And it's good for you, Deborah, to bring rigor to this, as what a mathematician would say.
[43:17.000 --> 43:23.320]  Well, I don't want to think of it as that. I just want to consider it, you know, to people.
[43:23.320 --> 43:25.720]  Well, you know, I also have a degree in math, so...
[43:25.720 --> 43:26.520]  Oh, all right.
[43:26.520 --> 43:31.400]  I was thinking of it as, oh, you're bringing rigor to the process, to the analysis.
[43:31.400 --> 43:34.360]  Okay, John, you know what? I'm sorry. We're actually going to break right now,
[43:34.360 --> 43:37.080]  so if you want to hold, fellow mathematicians...
[43:37.080 --> 43:38.600]  You used up your segment.
[43:38.600 --> 43:45.080]  No, he didn't use up his segment. Okay, callers, please stay on the line. We've got
[43:45.080 --> 43:49.880]  Dwayne, Rick, Mike, Bill, Brian, George, not necessarily in that order, actually read them
[43:49.880 --> 44:18.920]  randomly, so you guys wouldn't know when you would be called on, so stay awake. We'll be right back.
[44:19.880 --> 44:25.240]  The price of silver will only increase. Some of the world's leading financial analysts
[44:25.240 --> 44:30.600]  believe that silver is one of the world's most important commodities, with unparalleled
[44:30.600 --> 44:36.840]  investment opportunity for the future. Now is the time to buy silver before it heads
[44:36.840 --> 44:43.720]  for $75 an ounce, and the yellow metal roars back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:43.720 --> 44:53.880]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K
[44:53.880 --> 44:59.720]  into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal. Even if you
[44:59.720 --> 45:04.680]  don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities for you.
[45:04.680 --> 45:14.680]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[46:05.120 --> 46:08.680]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[46:08.680 --> 46:18.680]  The whole agenda smells funny I want to fight in a war of my own
[46:18.680 --> 46:31.680]  That one would be less active and slow I want to pay for a war of my own
[46:31.680 --> 46:39.680]  They live in glass houses so I can watch them grow old
[46:39.680 --> 46:46.680]  I want to fight in a war I can win I can never win the one that laid out me in
[46:46.680 --> 46:53.680]  That one I lose one before it begins I want to pay for a war I can win
[46:53.680 --> 47:07.680]  When I'm fighting in my own war It's such a peaceful feeling
[47:07.680 --> 47:19.680]  When I'm paying for my own war I take time for the healing
[47:19.680 --> 47:30.680]  Yeah, it's all according to the will of the Almighty
[47:30.680 --> 47:37.680]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly
[47:37.680 --> 47:44.680]  These fear mongers come by that sunrise, yeah
[47:44.680 --> 48:10.680]  Fear monger, war monger, we don't need you any stronger
[48:10.680 --> 48:17.680]  I'm not going to pay, I won't pay for the war with my body
[48:40.680 --> 48:46.680]  We try to encourage listeners to realize that there are licensing issues
[48:46.680 --> 48:54.680]  We don't have very many sponsors and under fair use, we can use copyright material of other people as bumpers
[48:54.680 --> 49:00.680]  But if we let the music play more than like 20 seconds, 30 seconds or so, it's pushing the envelope
[49:00.680 --> 49:05.680]  So sometimes we have to get up and get a drink
[49:05.680 --> 49:10.680]  So I'm not trying to overly promote my music, really
[49:10.680 --> 49:14.680]  Okay, I know you all have heard those songs, anyway I just want to address that very quickly
[49:14.680 --> 49:16.680]  So give me a break with the emails
[49:16.680 --> 49:18.680]  There's another issue
[49:18.680 --> 49:19.680]  What?
[49:19.680 --> 49:21.680]  We go by the golden rule
[49:21.680 --> 49:23.680]  She got the gold, she makes the money
[49:23.680 --> 49:25.680]  No, no, no, no, no, really, really
[49:25.680 --> 49:28.680]  It has to do with breaks and sponsors and licensing
[49:28.680 --> 49:31.680]  Okay, let's go back to John in Wisconsin
[49:31.680 --> 49:33.680]  Okay John, what is your comment?
[49:33.680 --> 49:38.680]  Well first I would like to thank Randy for his advice about six months ago
[49:38.680 --> 49:44.680]  I was scheduled to be on the show before yours on the We The People radio and I listened
[49:44.680 --> 49:48.680]  Anyway, he mentioned a book, Civil Procedure in Texas, I think it was called
[49:48.680 --> 49:52.680]  And I had a civil process coming up
[49:52.680 --> 49:56.680]  So I found a similar book called Civil, Wisconsin Civil Procedure Before Trial
[49:56.680 --> 49:58.680]  It's published by The Bar
[49:58.680 --> 50:00.680]  So it's been very helpful
[50:00.680 --> 50:02.680]  So I just wanted to first thank you for that
[50:02.680 --> 50:05.680]  They might as well look for that book
[50:05.680 --> 50:09.680]  Because like I said, you don't want to learn it as you file in briefs
[50:09.680 --> 50:10.680]  Exactly
[50:10.680 --> 50:11.680]  Okay, excellent
[50:11.680 --> 50:16.680]  Are you the one calling about implied consent to search?
[50:16.680 --> 50:21.680]  Yes, that's the particular issue that might not have mattered, yeah
[50:21.680 --> 50:25.680]  Yeah, essentially what happened is this village, Germantown, Wisconsin
[50:25.680 --> 50:27.680]  was doing a revaluation of the property
[50:27.680 --> 50:32.680]  And unbeknownst to me, part of that was they came out and they physically took
[50:32.680 --> 50:36.680]  the little rolly wheel and measured the perimeter of my house, the curtilage
[50:36.680 --> 50:41.680]  And you know, when I found out like seven months later, I did it in August
[50:41.680 --> 50:43.680]  I found out in July, almost a year later
[50:43.680 --> 50:46.680]  And I was like, what?
[50:46.680 --> 50:51.680]  And they were like scraping me off the ceiling with a spatula, that kind of thing
[50:51.680 --> 50:57.680]  And basically, I've been just objecting to the assessment saying that it's
[50:57.680 --> 51:02.680]  constitutionally defective because they used a constitutionally impermissible
[51:02.680 --> 51:04.680]  method to come up with the number
[51:04.680 --> 51:09.680]  But the village is fixated on implied consent
[51:09.680 --> 51:12.680]  I just don't see how it applies to a house
[51:12.680 --> 51:15.680]  Okay, Randy, doesn't this go to the issue that we addressed last night
[51:15.680 --> 51:19.680]  regarding administrative searches?
[51:19.680 --> 51:22.680]  Yeah, this is what I was talking about
[51:22.680 --> 51:25.680]  Did you get the case law I sent you?
[51:25.680 --> 51:27.680]  Yes, I did
[51:27.680 --> 51:32.680]  That was the closest to being on point that I could find
[51:32.680 --> 51:39.680]  Everything else went to murder, it went to really major intrusions
[51:39.680 --> 51:44.680]  They said yes, the one I hit the most on was yes, when the guy called you
[51:44.680 --> 51:47.680]  and told you he had murdered someone in his house
[51:47.680 --> 51:52.680]  He gave you implied consent to search
[51:52.680 --> 51:57.680]  But it's not good enough, you still had to have a warrant
[51:57.680 --> 52:02.680]  And even our Wisconsin statute that covers administrative warrants
[52:02.680 --> 52:07.680]  for inspection purposes, which tax assessment, building inspection,
[52:07.680 --> 52:10.680]  code violations, health is all covered, it's listed actually
[52:10.680 --> 52:18.680]  Those are some of the express things listed, says that you can get the warrant after you fail to get permission
[52:18.680 --> 52:21.680]  I mean it's part of the statutory procedure to get one of those
[52:21.680 --> 52:24.680]  is that you have to first ask for permission and be denied
[52:24.680 --> 52:28.680]  before you can come before the municipal judge and get one
[52:28.680 --> 52:32.680]  We addressed this issue in California
[52:32.680 --> 52:40.680]  where a municipal inspector came in with a SWAT team
[52:40.680 --> 52:44.680]  to do a routine inspection
[52:44.680 --> 52:50.680]  and they routinely inspected areas of the business
[52:50.680 --> 52:56.680]  that the owner had a reasonable expectation of privacy for
[52:56.680 --> 53:07.680]  And they say it could go into that portion of the business that was open to the public
[53:07.680 --> 53:11.680]  All of this goes to expectation of privacy
[53:11.680 --> 53:18.680]  Do you have an expectation of privacy on your personal property?
[53:18.680 --> 53:21.680]  Is your house not fenced?
[53:21.680 --> 53:26.680]  There is a fence on the west edge of the property
[53:26.680 --> 53:32.680]  There is a fairly thick wooded line on the east side of the property
[53:32.680 --> 53:36.680]  There's a creek in the back that you have to wade through to get from the south
[53:36.680 --> 53:40.680]  So the only place that might be unintruded is you have to jump over the ditch
[53:40.680 --> 53:44.680]  or walk up the driveway on the north side
[53:44.680 --> 53:51.680]  You're in pretty good standing for expectation of privacy
[53:51.680 --> 53:55.680]  Even on your property outside your house
[53:55.680 --> 53:58.680]  Inside your house, not a question
[53:58.680 --> 54:03.680]  Absolutely can't enter except with a warrant
[54:03.680 --> 54:06.680]  Like I said, I came before the border review again this year
[54:06.680 --> 54:09.680]  because each year is a different tax assessment
[54:09.680 --> 54:13.680]  so you've got to kind of attack in piecemeal as it were
[54:13.680 --> 54:16.680]  And they're like, well, you gave implied consent
[54:16.680 --> 54:20.680]  I said, where is this letter you keep telling me you sent me?
[54:20.680 --> 54:26.680]  So that's the other thing, they're referring to a letter that apparently gave this consent
[54:26.680 --> 54:29.680]  described the procedure, which I didn't object to
[54:29.680 --> 54:33.680]  Their contention is that they sent me a letter saying exactly what they were going to do
[54:33.680 --> 54:37.680]  and I didn't object in a timely manner, therefore I implied my consent
[54:37.680 --> 54:41.680]  Yet they have never entered that letter into evidence
[54:41.680 --> 54:45.680]  Even so, that's a unilateral contract
[54:45.680 --> 54:49.680]  that does not establish a meeting of minds
[54:49.680 --> 54:55.680]  And these guys are talking about something other than contract law
[54:55.680 --> 54:59.680]  They're talking about constitutional law
[54:59.680 --> 55:02.680]  They're entering private property
[55:02.680 --> 55:09.680]  And even though it's in a municipality, it is still private property
[55:09.680 --> 55:14.680]  Yeah, they can't just say, well, we're going to come search your house
[55:14.680 --> 55:19.680]  and if you don't respond to this letter, well, you're implying your consent
[55:19.680 --> 55:23.680]  That's no, that's flimsy
[55:23.680 --> 55:29.680]  Last year when I found out that they had searched my property
[55:29.680 --> 55:35.680]  I first figured out, I tried to clear my mind, did you really do this?
[55:35.680 --> 55:36.680]  And I thought, yes, I did
[55:36.680 --> 55:39.680]  So about ten days after I found out, I sent them a letter
[55:39.680 --> 55:44.680]  I sent a letter to the Treasurer, the Clerk, the Planning Commission
[55:44.680 --> 55:46.680]  Yeah, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission
[55:46.680 --> 55:50.680]  Everyone who I thought might think they have an inspection duty on my property
[55:50.680 --> 55:55.680]  And basically said, my property is off limits, you need express written consent
[55:55.680 --> 56:00.680]  And I got a response from one of them saying, no, we don't
[56:00.680 --> 56:02.680]  I got it actually in writing
[56:02.680 --> 56:06.680]  We don't need a warrant or your permission to do building code
[56:06.680 --> 56:09.680]  Well, did they actually come on your property?
[56:09.680 --> 56:13.680]  Oh yeah, they came off the road, off the driveway, which now I'm talking about
[56:13.680 --> 56:17.680]  Okay, file criminal trespass, if you sent them the notice
[56:17.680 --> 56:18.680]  Yes
[56:18.680 --> 56:19.680]  Now it's criminal trespass
[56:19.680 --> 56:24.680]  They had done this before the notice, I figured this will fix me for the future
[56:24.680 --> 56:28.680]  I hadn't sent that notice before this particular search
[56:28.680 --> 56:30.680]  It's still illegal search
[56:30.680 --> 56:33.680]  It's still illegal search under the case law, I cited it last night
[56:33.680 --> 56:37.680]  This is really, this has been very well adjudicated
[56:37.680 --> 56:41.680]  This is exactly what we dealt with in California
[56:41.680 --> 56:45.680]  And absolutely no way they can walk on that property
[56:45.680 --> 56:54.680]  Okay, they can walk on the property if they don't have to pass a gate or a fence or a barrier
[56:54.680 --> 57:02.680]  That a reasonable person would consider as a barrier to entry to the property
[57:02.680 --> 57:07.680]  Jumping over a ditch, crossing a creek, standing woods
[57:07.680 --> 57:14.680]  Right, if you walk up the driveway from the road, the driveway obviously connects to the road so there's no
[57:14.680 --> 57:21.680]  But if you post it, if it's a situation where it's impractical to set up a fence, post it, no trespassing
[57:21.680 --> 57:27.680]  And I have a great big white line across the end of my driveway, demarcates the end of my property
[57:27.680 --> 57:29.680]  But that's not, it doesn't
[57:29.680 --> 57:36.680]  Look up the case, camera, C-A-M-A-R-A-V, municipal court
[57:36.680 --> 57:40.680]  Okay, they can't do administrative searches without a warrant
[57:40.680 --> 57:43.680]  I even brought that to them
[57:43.680 --> 57:48.680]  You need to file criminal charges against them if they came on your property after you gave them notice
[57:48.680 --> 57:52.680]  And send them a tort letter
[57:52.680 --> 57:55.680]  Tort letters are wonderful
[57:55.680 --> 58:00.680]  You get to threaten them very politely
[58:00.680 --> 58:07.680]  And all a tort letter is is just, you entered onto my private property which I paid for myself
[58:07.680 --> 58:13.680]  You invaded an area to which I have an expectation of privacy
[58:13.680 --> 58:18.680]  I've been devastated by your intrusion
[58:18.680 --> 58:23.680]  Pay me this much money and make me old
[58:23.680 --> 58:26.680]  It works
[58:26.680 --> 58:31.680]  I managed to run two animal control officers and four police officers off my property
[58:31.680 --> 58:34.680]  And mine's a business where the public has general access
[58:34.680 --> 58:37.680]  Okay, listen, we're going to break, guys
[58:37.680 --> 58:41.680]  Thank you for your time and thank you for telling me to go look for that book on procedure
[58:41.680 --> 58:43.680]  All right, thank you for calling in, John
[58:43.680 --> 58:47.680]  All right, we're going to take more of your calls on the other side
[58:47.680 --> 58:48.680]  We'll be right back
[58:48.680 --> 58:51.680]  I'll let Eddie finish up on his statement as soon as we get back
[58:51.680 --> 58:52.680]  We'll be right back
[58:52.680 --> 59:13.680]  We'll be right back
[59:22.680 --> 59:47.680]  Okay
[59:47.680 --> 01:00:05.680]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com
[01:00:05.680 --> 01:00:13.680]  Live free speech talk radio at its best
[01:00:13.680 --> 01:00:24.680]  Yeah, a story for everyone to hear
[01:00:24.680 --> 01:00:29.680]  About how we're not going to give in to the fear
[01:00:29.680 --> 01:00:38.680]  Yeah, a story
[01:00:38.680 --> 01:00:48.680]  I will occupy my father's house until he returns
[01:00:48.680 --> 01:00:53.680]  He has left me with the strength that we're done
[01:00:53.680 --> 01:00:59.680]  Hey, with my concern
[01:00:59.680 --> 01:01:10.680]  Yeah, I will occupy my father's house until I cease pain
[01:01:10.680 --> 01:01:14.680]  I will guard these walls and fences
[01:01:14.680 --> 01:01:21.680]  When he comes to take his place
[01:01:21.680 --> 01:01:30.680]  I will occupy my father's house until he returns
[01:01:30.680 --> 01:01:38.680]  He has left me with the strength that we're done
[01:01:38.680 --> 01:01:43.680]  Hey, with my concern
[01:01:43.680 --> 01:01:54.680]  I will occupy my father's house that won't allow them again
[01:01:54.680 --> 01:01:58.680]  To guard and keep me sleeping still and true
[01:01:58.680 --> 01:02:05.680]  I will lie so long within
[01:02:05.680 --> 01:02:09.680]  There are those in this world who would harm us
[01:02:09.680 --> 01:02:13.680]  But they will not, baby
[01:02:13.680 --> 01:02:16.680]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:02:16.680 --> 01:02:20.680]  Because when I occupy my father's house
[01:02:20.680 --> 01:02:23.680]  There's more wind into his hair
[01:02:23.680 --> 01:02:27.680]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:02:27.680 --> 01:02:40.680]  I will occupy my father's house until he returns
[01:02:40.680 --> 01:02:43.680]  I will occupy my father's house
[01:02:43.680 --> 01:02:55.680]  I will occupy my father's house until he returns
[01:02:55.680 --> 01:02:59.680]  All right, we will occupy our father's house
[01:02:59.680 --> 01:03:03.680]  We're talking about the earth
[01:03:03.680 --> 01:03:06.680]  We're talking about a good Lord Jesus
[01:03:06.680 --> 01:03:09.680]  He is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit
[01:03:09.680 --> 01:03:13.680]  He is our God and we will occupy His house
[01:03:13.680 --> 01:03:16.680]  We are stewards of His house
[01:03:16.680 --> 01:03:20.680]  Taking care of His people and His family until He returns
[01:03:20.680 --> 01:03:24.680]  All right, we're going to go now to George in Texas
[01:03:24.680 --> 01:03:27.680]  George, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:03:27.680 --> 01:03:28.680]  How are you doing?
[01:03:28.680 --> 01:03:41.680]  You heard on the AJ show about one of her people on her staff being harassed by child protective services
[01:03:41.680 --> 01:03:46.680]  for a little bruise on her thigh
[01:03:46.680 --> 01:03:50.680]  Yeah, I heard the tail end of that
[01:03:50.680 --> 01:03:54.680]  Basically, yeah, CPS looks for any excuse whatsoever
[01:03:54.680 --> 01:03:56.680]  I mean, somebody falls down and scrapes their knee
[01:03:56.680 --> 01:03:59.680]  and they think that parents are beating them up
[01:03:59.680 --> 01:04:01.680]  and then they want to barge into the house
[01:04:01.680 --> 01:04:06.680]  and if there's three dishes in the sink, they want to say it's a health hazard and take the kids away
[01:04:06.680 --> 01:04:10.680]  I didn't hear the whole story, but yeah, it's a dramatic situation
[01:04:10.680 --> 01:04:12.680]  What is your question?
[01:04:12.680 --> 01:04:15.680]  I'd like to know. They had an attorney on
[01:04:15.680 --> 01:04:19.680]  He sits there and goes, you do not let them in your house without a warrant
[01:04:19.680 --> 01:04:22.680]  You do not have to talk to these people
[01:04:22.680 --> 01:04:24.680]  And like I say, let them make the mistake
[01:04:24.680 --> 01:04:29.680]  If you say not a warrant, Nick, and they get their goon cops to kick in the door, you know
[01:04:29.680 --> 01:04:36.680]  Then you got something on them when there's not an extinction emergency
[01:04:36.680 --> 01:04:45.680]  That's easy for an attorney to say, but he's not going to lose his children
[01:04:45.680 --> 01:04:49.680]  I suspect if they come to the attorney's door, he's going to say
[01:04:49.680 --> 01:04:54.680]  If I force them, let them kick my door in
[01:04:54.680 --> 01:05:02.680]  Are they likely to come and take my children and I have to fight to get them back?
[01:05:02.680 --> 01:05:09.680]  We don't always get to act with the kind of self-righteous indignation we would like to
[01:05:09.680 --> 01:05:13.680]  Because it gets more serious sometimes
[01:05:13.680 --> 01:05:19.680]  Basically, because I have a letter from my attorney in the school file
[01:05:19.680 --> 01:05:23.680]  And the attorney sits there and goes, he's not to talk to any counselors
[01:05:23.680 --> 01:05:29.680]  He's not to talk to any social worker without me, without the parent or the lawyer present
[01:05:29.680 --> 01:05:34.680]  Would that be sufficient when my son goes?
[01:05:34.680 --> 01:05:40.680]  If you have an attorney, now you have plausible deniability
[01:05:40.680 --> 01:05:46.680]  So you can do that and say, well, you know, I'm just following the instructions of counsel
[01:05:46.680 --> 01:05:53.680]  But when we talk to, especially about Florida, apparently they're really bad in Florida
[01:05:53.680 --> 01:05:57.680]  There's no checks and balances on them there and they can do whatever they want to
[01:05:57.680 --> 01:06:03.680]  Here in Texas, there are serious checks and balances, so it's not that bad
[01:06:03.680 --> 01:06:14.680]  And frankly, everybody that I hear about Child Protective Services accuses them of being monsters
[01:06:14.680 --> 01:06:18.680]  And I don't always buy that
[01:06:18.680 --> 01:06:22.680]  I've had a couple people come to me with Child Protective Services issues
[01:06:22.680 --> 01:06:27.680]  One of them was a preacher who ministered to prisoners
[01:06:27.680 --> 01:06:33.680]  And came and threw someone else and told me how horrible they were being to him
[01:06:33.680 --> 01:06:39.680]  And trying to take their kids away and I told him, well, okay, maybe
[01:06:39.680 --> 01:06:45.680]  But criminals don't always tell you all the facts
[01:06:45.680 --> 01:06:55.680]  Ask this preacher to go talk to Child Protective Services before he does anything rash
[01:06:55.680 --> 01:06:59.680]  Two weeks later, I get a call and said, well, you're not as stupid as you look
[01:06:59.680 --> 01:07:03.680]  Well, thanks a lot. How stupid do I look?
[01:07:03.680 --> 01:07:10.680]  But he said that the preacher went back and it turned out these people really had a problem
[01:07:10.680 --> 01:07:13.680]  Well, it's all about due process
[01:07:13.680 --> 01:07:20.680]  Yeah, well, when he talked to, when he got both sides, then everything changed
[01:07:20.680 --> 01:07:25.680]  I guess he didn't consider the fact that they're both, the husband and wife are both in jail on drug charges
[01:07:25.680 --> 01:07:28.680]  That should have told him something
[01:07:28.680 --> 01:07:32.680]  And it turned out that he hadn't heard the whole story
[01:07:32.680 --> 01:07:37.680]  So always we want to get the whole story before I vilify Child Protective Services
[01:07:37.680 --> 01:07:46.680]  Well, and Randy, according to just the philosophy and our whole principle of how we approach these things
[01:07:46.680 --> 01:07:48.680]  We never even go to the merits of the case anyway
[01:07:48.680 --> 01:07:51.680]  It all has to do with due process
[01:07:51.680 --> 01:07:56.680]  Did Child Protective Services break the law or not? Did they have a warrant or not?
[01:07:56.680 --> 01:08:01.680]  Were they following the law or not? Right?
[01:08:01.680 --> 01:08:05.680]  Exactly. And sometimes it's hard on both sides
[01:08:05.680 --> 01:08:11.680]  Whichever way I would prefer it to be, due process has to come first
[01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:19.680]  The guy that calls in and says, well, they got both of their DUI, now they want me to quit drinking
[01:08:19.680 --> 01:08:27.680]  You know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for that, but I can't care about that
[01:08:27.680 --> 01:08:35.680]  All I do is due process, so it only matters if they abide by his due process rights
[01:08:35.680 --> 01:08:45.680]  And with Child Protective Services, if they followed all the rules, it can't help you, bubba
[01:08:45.680 --> 01:08:47.680]  It can only help you if they have it
[01:08:47.680 --> 01:08:52.680]  And in some cases that's kind of a luxury because I don't have to choose
[01:08:52.680 --> 01:08:58.680]  Frankly, I get some calls that terrify me
[01:08:58.680 --> 01:09:01.680]  Listen, George, I'm sorry, we have to move on
[01:09:01.680 --> 01:09:06.680]  Because speaking of child and children, you've got way too much background noise
[01:09:06.680 --> 01:09:11.680]  Okay, so next time you call in, please try to go in a room and close the door or something
[01:09:11.680 --> 01:09:13.680]  Okay, sorry, we have to move on
[01:09:13.680 --> 01:09:16.680]  All right, we're going to go to Brian in Pennsylvania
[01:09:16.680 --> 01:09:21.680]  Brian, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:09:21.680 --> 01:09:23.680]  Brian?
[01:09:23.680 --> 01:09:25.680]  Hello there
[01:09:25.680 --> 01:09:28.680]  Oh, hey, Brian, what's on your mind tonight? Thanks for calling in. Thanks for holding
[01:09:28.680 --> 01:09:32.680]  This is for myself because I don't want to have that intrusive noise
[01:09:32.680 --> 01:09:38.680]  Thanks, Math major, that's some reasonable fairness doctrine, appreciate it
[01:09:38.680 --> 01:09:41.680]  I had some comments
[01:09:41.680 --> 01:09:47.680]  Well, what you were speaking about previously in regards to the legal tender
[01:09:47.680 --> 01:09:53.680]  I think what you're going to find there is that what you guys were speaking to was more so hypothetical
[01:09:53.680 --> 01:09:58.680]  If I were to express to you that I wanted to have a certain form of payment
[01:09:58.680 --> 01:10:03.680]  That would be entered into before there would be goods and services rendered
[01:10:03.680 --> 01:10:06.680]  Once there's goods and services rendered, I think what you're going to find
[01:10:06.680 --> 01:10:11.680]  That's what the legal tender laws are towards because then there is some obligation
[01:10:11.680 --> 01:10:17.680]  And then I could not be forced to have a medium of exchange of any particular type
[01:10:17.680 --> 01:10:19.680]  That's a very good point
[01:10:19.680 --> 01:10:26.680]  But actually the real question is if you are a business open for public
[01:10:26.680 --> 01:10:33.680]  Like say a restaurant or a store where people can just walk in off the street
[01:10:33.680 --> 01:10:43.680]  Do the legal tender laws mean, are they to be interpreted that if a customer offers
[01:10:43.680 --> 01:10:51.680]  Federal reserve notes to the owner of the establishment that's offering the service or selling the goods or whatever
[01:10:51.680 --> 01:10:59.680]  And it's open for public business, does the person have to?
[01:10:59.680 --> 01:11:08.680]  Is that person, is that vendor required under law to accept those Federal Reserve notes?
[01:11:08.680 --> 01:11:13.680]  And if he refuses, does that mean the debt is discharged
[01:11:13.680 --> 01:11:15.680]  Which means he has to give away the services for free
[01:11:15.680 --> 01:11:24.680]  Or can he post as a public service, as a public place of business, we will not accept Federal Reserve notes
[01:11:24.680 --> 01:11:26.680]  That's the real question
[01:11:26.680 --> 01:11:28.680]  Well I don't want to make inferences
[01:11:28.680 --> 01:11:31.680]  But if you're talking about the public like I think you're talking about the public
[01:11:31.680 --> 01:11:35.680]  Then yes, he would be obligated because if he was operating in the public
[01:11:35.680 --> 01:11:43.680]  He would be licensed by the state and then have to acquiesce his own authority over himself
[01:11:43.680 --> 01:11:47.680]  In his personal contact with his business
[01:11:47.680 --> 01:11:56.680]  Now is that based on actual knowledge or how you think it should be?
[01:11:56.680 --> 01:11:58.680]  No, that's how it is
[01:11:58.680 --> 01:12:02.680]  This has been our concern in dealing with this issue
[01:12:02.680 --> 01:12:05.680]  We don't actually have the actual knowledge to be certain
[01:12:05.680 --> 01:12:08.680]  And this is how it seems it should be
[01:12:08.680 --> 01:12:13.680]  But I was hoping that you would actually have the ball for me
[01:12:13.680 --> 01:12:16.680]  Well no, I don't have any case that I could cite
[01:12:16.680 --> 01:12:19.680]  But you know what, that brings me to the other point that I wanted to bring up
[01:12:19.680 --> 01:12:23.680]  Which was what Eddie Craig touched on early in the show
[01:12:23.680 --> 01:12:26.680]  And that is Federal jurisdiction
[01:12:26.680 --> 01:12:30.680]  And I wanted to direct your attention again, once again, to the hour of the times
[01:12:30.680 --> 01:12:35.680]  Like I have previously, I don't mean to plug other networks or anything
[01:12:35.680 --> 01:12:41.680]  But the hour of the times is an excellent series on the limits of Federal jurisdiction
[01:12:41.680 --> 01:12:44.680]  And it's not exactly what we were just talking about
[01:12:44.680 --> 01:12:52.680]  But it is, it has to do with jurisdiction and what you give up when you are contracting with some type of entity
[01:12:52.680 --> 01:12:55.680]  But yes, the limits of Federal jurisdiction is incredible
[01:12:55.680 --> 01:13:00.680]  And especially with what you guys were talking about a lot of previously in the show
[01:13:00.680 --> 01:13:02.680]  That real jurisdiction isn't there
[01:13:02.680 --> 01:13:09.680]  What I'm coming to find out is that a lot of these alleged laws are simply territorial
[01:13:09.680 --> 01:13:15.680]  And unless you are within a Federal enclave, there is absolutely no Federal jurisdiction
[01:13:15.680 --> 01:13:18.680]  It's that simple
[01:13:18.680 --> 01:13:27.680]  Yes, and I would like to know more about this particular issue because it gets real subtle
[01:13:27.680 --> 01:13:39.680]  Remember Joe Edwards on, he was very careful about how he used his language in order to avoid inadvertently contracting
[01:13:39.680 --> 01:13:40.680]  Right
[01:13:40.680 --> 01:13:43.680]  And thereby inadvertently stepping into the jurisdiction
[01:13:43.680 --> 01:13:46.680]  This is a really complex subject
[01:13:46.680 --> 01:13:50.680]  There are areas where it's obvious
[01:13:50.680 --> 01:13:56.680]  But there are also other areas where it's not so obvious and it gets very complex
[01:13:56.680 --> 01:14:01.680]  That's why I really liked Mr. Edwards and Mr. Craig being guest hosts with you guys
[01:14:01.680 --> 01:14:05.680]  Because I really comprehend the words that they speak when they do
[01:14:05.680 --> 01:14:08.680]  And that's very helpful to me because I have attention issues
[01:14:08.680 --> 01:14:14.680]  I never got diagnosed with anything but I just don't have a hard time paying attention at times
[01:14:14.680 --> 01:14:19.680]  And I really follow those guys when they speak as well as you do
[01:14:19.680 --> 01:14:20.680]  That's really it
[01:14:20.680 --> 01:14:23.680]  I had another question but I don't know if you guys would be able to help me
[01:14:23.680 --> 01:14:31.680]  It's more contractual and I don't know if you guys even want to give me info on that
[01:14:31.680 --> 01:14:34.680]  Unless you know empirically yourself, you know
[01:14:34.680 --> 01:14:36.680]  Eddie?
[01:14:36.680 --> 01:14:38.680]  Well, no less yes
[01:14:38.680 --> 01:14:40.680]  Yeah, I could give personal opinion on it
[01:14:40.680 --> 01:14:43.680]  I didn't know if he was still there
[01:14:43.680 --> 01:14:47.680]  Well, my issue is that I have a company
[01:14:47.680 --> 01:14:53.680]  Pretty much what happened is my alarm company not only was a terrible company
[01:14:53.680 --> 01:14:56.680]  Because my house was burglarized twice and they didn't help
[01:14:56.680 --> 01:15:03.680]  They're saying that I am in breach of contract because when I went to cancel my service
[01:15:03.680 --> 01:15:11.680]  I did it by phone over 60 days prior to the renewal date
[01:15:11.680 --> 01:15:16.680]  However, they're telling me that I had to have it written within 60 days
[01:15:16.680 --> 01:15:21.680]  At that time I had only called them about 70 days or so prior
[01:15:21.680 --> 01:15:27.680]  When it got to them in the mail it was less than 60 days and now they want me to pay a full year
[01:15:27.680 --> 01:15:33.680]  What I'm wondering is just because they're operating in the public by contract elsewhere
[01:15:33.680 --> 01:15:35.680]  That I might not be, you know, aware of
[01:15:35.680 --> 01:15:42.680]  That they are obligated to adhere to, you know, UCC code where they would, you know, have 30 days notice
[01:15:42.680 --> 01:15:48.680]  And once I, you know, gave them 30 days notice then they are noticed
[01:15:48.680 --> 01:15:52.680]  And after that I'm free of obligation
[01:15:52.680 --> 01:15:57.680]  What are the specific terms of the contract you signed with them for service?
[01:15:57.680 --> 01:16:02.680]  That there would be 60 days notice upon, you know, the cancellation
[01:16:02.680 --> 01:16:06.680]  Did it stipulate? Right, written notice in what way?
[01:16:06.680 --> 01:16:09.680]  Written
[01:16:09.680 --> 01:16:13.680]  Okay, so you sent them written notice but you're saying by the time they got it
[01:16:13.680 --> 01:16:17.680]  It was within 60 days of the date you were stating you were going to terminate?
[01:16:17.680 --> 01:16:20.680]  No, I think it was like 40-some days
[01:16:20.680 --> 01:16:23.680]  Right, less than 60?
[01:16:23.680 --> 01:16:25.680]  Correct
[01:16:25.680 --> 01:16:27.680]  Okay
[01:16:27.680 --> 01:16:32.680]  They're going to have constructive notice, we're about to go to break
[01:16:32.680 --> 01:16:35.680]  But they will have had constructive notice anyway
[01:16:35.680 --> 01:16:39.680]  I don't think they could ever get that stand up in court
[01:16:39.680 --> 01:16:43.680]  I don't understand constructive notice but I'll check that out
[01:16:43.680 --> 01:16:46.680]  You informed them with ample opportunity
[01:16:46.680 --> 01:16:49.680]  Yeah, the phone conversation gave them constructive notice
[01:16:49.680 --> 01:16:53.680]  We've only got about eight seconds, we're going to go to break and
[01:16:53.680 --> 01:16:58.680]  Well, actually I was going to run through break, sorry, because we have so many callers
[01:16:58.680 --> 01:17:01.680]  I'm going to jump off, thanks guys
[01:17:01.680 --> 01:17:03.680]  Yeah, look up constructive notice
[01:17:03.680 --> 01:17:06.680]  I will do, thank you
[01:17:06.680 --> 01:17:08.680]  All right, thanks Brian
[01:17:08.680 --> 01:17:12.680]  Brian is one of our supporters, big supporter, we appreciate you Brian
[01:17:12.680 --> 01:17:19.680]  And I do want to give a big thank you to all our listeners, all our supporters who have sent donations
[01:17:19.680 --> 01:17:25.680]  You have no idea how much it means and how much it helps to keep us on the air
[01:17:25.680 --> 01:17:31.680]  As you all can tell, we have few sponsors, I don't have time to chase down sponsors
[01:17:31.680 --> 01:17:35.680]  I'm just trying to get the message out so we really, really appreciate the donations
[01:17:35.680 --> 01:17:39.680]  Okay, we're going to go to Bill in Texas
[01:17:39.680 --> 01:17:43.680]  Bill, thanks for calling in, what's on your mind tonight?
[01:17:43.680 --> 01:17:46.680]  Bill, okay
[01:17:46.680 --> 01:17:49.680]  I think I put him to sleep
[01:17:49.680 --> 01:17:52.680]  Okay, we're going to go to Mike in Maine
[01:17:52.680 --> 01:17:54.680]  Hey Mike, thanks for calling in
[01:17:54.680 --> 01:17:56.680]  Hi, how are you guys doing tonight?
[01:17:56.680 --> 01:18:03.680]  Great, I love Maine by the way, I used to live in New Hampshire, so Maine is very close to my heart
[01:18:03.680 --> 01:18:06.680]  I'm right next to New Hampshire too
[01:18:06.680 --> 01:18:07.680]  Awesome
[01:18:07.680 --> 01:18:18.680]  Hey, I guess my question is official oppression, you people were talking about that earlier
[01:18:18.680 --> 01:18:26.680]  And I started looking it up, I'm trying to figure out how that comports with the constitutional requirement
[01:18:26.680 --> 01:18:32.680]  For our public officials to uphold their oath of office
[01:18:32.680 --> 01:18:40.680]  The statute in my state says that basically if a public official fails to perform a duty imposed on them by law
[01:18:40.680 --> 01:18:47.680]  And it essentially causes injury or harm to another, that they would be guilty of official oppression
[01:18:47.680 --> 01:18:56.680]  So my question is, if a public official takes an oath of office to support the constitution, they fail to do so
[01:18:56.680 --> 01:18:59.680]  Do they have a legal duty to do so?
[01:18:59.680 --> 01:19:06.680]  Absolutely, official oppression goes to a criminal accusation
[01:19:06.680 --> 01:19:12.680]  The breach of the oath of office goes to a contractual violation
[01:19:12.680 --> 01:19:18.680]  But is there oath of office illegally binding on them?
[01:19:18.680 --> 01:19:20.680]  Absolutely
[01:19:20.680 --> 01:19:22.680]  I would say so
[01:19:22.680 --> 01:19:25.680]  Yeah, there's substantive case law on that issue
[01:19:25.680 --> 01:19:33.680]  Yes, when they take, okay, they come in and they issue an oath of office
[01:19:33.680 --> 01:19:41.680]  And consequent to, and specifically because they took that oath of office
[01:19:41.680 --> 01:19:47.680]  They are given compensation for exercising the duties under the oath
[01:19:47.680 --> 01:19:50.680]  That completes the contract
[01:19:50.680 --> 01:19:55.680]  There is a meeting of minds and something of value changes hands
[01:19:55.680 --> 01:20:00.680]  And they are entered into a contract with the state
[01:20:00.680 --> 01:20:05.680]  In which you personally are the intended third party beneficiary
[01:20:05.680 --> 01:20:11.680]  And that gives you standing to prosecute violation of the contract
[01:20:11.680 --> 01:20:24.680]  Okay, well then if that's true, then why are we not charging all of these public officials who are every day violating their oath of office?
[01:20:24.680 --> 01:20:25.680]  Good question
[01:20:25.680 --> 01:20:29.680]  None of them have any respect for the constitution anymore
[01:20:29.680 --> 01:20:34.680]  Now you know, now you understand why I'm here
[01:20:34.680 --> 01:20:35.680]  Right
[01:20:35.680 --> 01:20:38.680]  That is getting such support from me
[01:20:38.680 --> 01:20:40.680]  That's the very reason we're here
[01:20:40.680 --> 01:20:46.680]  Exactly, and also this goes to a topic that Eddie and I were discussing before the show
[01:20:46.680 --> 01:20:53.680]  Regarding official oppression and abuse of official capacity here in Texas
[01:20:53.680 --> 01:21:02.680]  Where abuse of official capacity has to do with the misuse of government equipment
[01:21:02.680 --> 01:21:05.680]  Okay, basically government property
[01:21:05.680 --> 01:21:18.680]  And there's different levels of crime regarding the monetary value that is assigned to the use of that government property
[01:21:18.680 --> 01:21:25.680]  And then official oppression has to do with violating someone's rights
[01:21:25.680 --> 01:21:38.680]  All right, and so Eddie and I were discussing before the show how to tie that into a federal statute to where you could charge a public servant in any county
[01:21:38.680 --> 01:21:48.680]  Regardless of where the public servant is or where his office is under federal law as long as it's a felony
[01:21:48.680 --> 01:22:00.680]  And the way that you have to show a felony has to do with the monetary value that is assigned to the use of certain government property
[01:22:00.680 --> 01:22:08.680]  And so you tie the official oppression statute together with the violating
[01:22:08.680 --> 01:22:17.680]  Okay, official oppression having to do with the violating of the person's rights and official capacity having to do with the misuse of the government property
[01:22:17.680 --> 01:22:25.680]  And if you can show the monetary amount that exceeds a certain amount, in Texas it's $1,500
[01:22:25.680 --> 01:22:37.680]  Then you can use the federal statute so you don't have to charge the public official or the public servant in the county where the crime was committed
[01:22:37.680 --> 01:22:50.680]  Yeah, I can see that, but the other thing is what they're actually doing is they're committing crimes when it comes to the monetary system
[01:22:50.680 --> 01:23:02.680]  Because the 10th Amendment, not the 10th Amendment, Act 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution requires them to use nothing but gold or silver coin
[01:23:02.680 --> 01:23:09.680]  But they don't do that anymore You are right, but what the problem with the system that we have is
[01:23:09.680 --> 01:23:16.680]  Is that it has the full support of those currently at the level of government we're having to contend with
[01:23:16.680 --> 01:23:25.680]  As long as all the bodies of government are intertwined in the division and maintenance of that scheme
[01:23:25.680 --> 01:23:32.680]  Then you can't use those same people to wiggle your way out There's too much at risk for them personally
[01:23:32.680 --> 01:23:37.680]  Basically the only way you would get them Say it again
[01:23:37.680 --> 01:23:39.680]  What alternative is this?
[01:23:39.680 --> 01:23:48.680]  Well, the only way you would get any of them to even begin to consider relinquishing the control to protect themselves
[01:23:48.680 --> 01:23:53.680]  Is to grant blanket immunity for any and all acts committed under that system
[01:23:53.680 --> 01:24:01.680]  So that there would be no fear of prosecution or repercussion for allowing that system to even be implemented
[01:24:01.680 --> 01:24:08.680]  The only other one is one Deborah and I discussed in great detail and at length last night
[01:24:08.680 --> 01:24:13.680]  Which nobody likes but may wind up one of these days having to be the end result
[01:24:13.680 --> 01:24:19.680]  That's another revolutionary petition, let's put it that way
[01:24:19.680 --> 01:24:27.680]  Yeah, no, I understand where you're going with that That may very well be the route that they may travel
[01:24:27.680 --> 01:24:33.680]  But I think exposing them publicly would go a long way
[01:24:33.680 --> 01:24:40.680]  I think a lot of people don't even realize that the majority of people in the country have no idea what's really going on
[01:24:40.680 --> 01:24:49.680]  What somebody really needs to do is put together a radio program
[01:24:49.680 --> 01:24:51.680]  Yeah, good idea
[01:24:51.680 --> 01:24:58.680]  Now see, Deborah has a fairly decent concept of how this system that they put in works
[01:24:58.680 --> 01:25:04.680]  And it still took me four and a half hours to educate her on the finer points of it
[01:25:04.680 --> 01:25:10.680]  Oh, you're talking about the monetary system Yeah
[01:25:10.680 --> 01:25:14.680]  Is that right, Eddie? Eddie?
[01:25:14.680 --> 01:25:19.680]  I have to go Is Eddie there?
[01:25:19.680 --> 01:25:24.680]  Well, actually I understood everything he was saying
[01:25:24.680 --> 01:25:29.680]  It boiled down basically to a timeline, we can't get into it now
[01:25:29.680 --> 01:25:38.680]  It has to do with the banks when they get reimbursed for their funds from the Federal Reserve
[01:25:38.680 --> 01:25:43.680]  Regarding the loans that they fractionalize
[01:25:43.680 --> 01:25:49.680]  Well, anyway, the reason I called in was I was trying to see whether or not anybody agreed with me
[01:25:49.680 --> 01:25:54.680]  On whether or not they are legally bound Oh, absolutely, they are legally bound
[01:25:54.680 --> 01:25:59.680]  There's no question about it
[01:25:59.680 --> 01:26:02.680]  They absolutely are legally bound
[01:26:02.680 --> 01:26:10.680]  And violation of the oath, if in violating the oath they deny you
[01:26:10.680 --> 01:26:14.680]  If they fail to perform a duty they're required to perform
[01:26:14.680 --> 01:26:20.680]  Or exert or purport to exert an authority they don't specifically have
[01:26:20.680 --> 01:26:26.680]  And in the process deny you in a right, that's a crime, it's also a tort
[01:26:26.680 --> 01:26:30.680]  Yeah, now you're citing Texas law?
[01:26:30.680 --> 01:26:35.680]  Texas law, but everywhere I've been official oppression reads the same
[01:26:35.680 --> 01:26:40.680]  Sometimes they'll call it official misconduct and you quoted it earlier
[01:26:40.680 --> 01:26:47.680]  And all of that comes from 18 U.S. Code 241, 242, the Ku Klux Klan
[01:26:47.680 --> 01:26:51.680]  There is a U.S. code
[01:26:51.680 --> 01:26:58.680]  Yes, Ku Klux Klan Act, 18 U.S. Code 241, 242
[01:26:58.680 --> 01:27:05.680]  All of these others are modeled after that one
[01:27:05.680 --> 01:27:12.680]  Most people have heard of 18 U.S. Code, I mean 42 U.S. Code 1983
[01:27:12.680 --> 01:27:17.680]  Which makes a public official suable
[01:27:17.680 --> 01:27:25.680]  The first part of the act was the part that made it criminal, 18 U.S. Code 241 and 242
[01:27:25.680 --> 01:27:30.680]  Senator Trumbull in 1867 stood on the House floor and said
[01:27:30.680 --> 01:27:33.680]  In the South different crimes are flowing from the same
[01:27:33.680 --> 01:27:37.680]  Different punishments are flowing from the same crimes if you were white or if you were black
[01:27:37.680 --> 01:27:43.680]  That was the reason for promoting the Ku Klux Klan Act
[01:27:43.680 --> 01:27:50.680]  It was during the Reconstruction they left the sheriffs and constables and judges in place
[01:27:50.680 --> 01:27:53.680]  And gave them new orders
[01:27:53.680 --> 01:27:59.680]  The Southerners told those Yankee Carpetbaggers to go to scratch and we'll do it like we want to
[01:27:59.680 --> 01:28:07.680]  And Senator Trumbull went on to say the arrest and prosecution of a couple of officials in the South
[01:28:07.680 --> 01:28:14.680]  Preferably high level officials will serve to put an end to this old sordid business
[01:28:14.680 --> 01:28:18.680]  And they were clearly talking about judges
[01:28:18.680 --> 01:28:23.680]  He was right in 1867, he is right today
[01:28:23.680 --> 01:28:25.680]  And that's why we're here
[01:28:25.680 --> 01:28:27.680]  Exactly
[01:28:27.680 --> 01:28:29.680]  Well that's great
[01:28:29.680 --> 01:28:33.680]  Hey I appreciate you taking my call and I'm going to let you go on to the next
[01:28:33.680 --> 01:28:39.680]  All right and I'm sorry Duane in Louisiana we were just about to go to you
[01:28:39.680 --> 01:28:41.680]  But you dropped off the line
[01:28:41.680 --> 01:28:44.680]  I'm sorry I know callers waiting a long time
[01:28:44.680 --> 01:28:45.680]  This happens
[01:28:45.680 --> 01:28:48.680]  We will take everyone's calls however Duane please call back in
[01:28:48.680 --> 01:28:56.680]  So at this point in time we are going to go to Rick in California
[01:28:56.680 --> 01:28:59.680]  Hey Rick thanks for calling in
[01:28:59.680 --> 01:29:00.680]  How's it going guys?
[01:29:00.680 --> 01:29:01.680]  Good
[01:29:01.680 --> 01:29:08.680]  Quick, I was stopped about a couple of days ago at a ticket for expiry registration
[01:29:08.680 --> 01:29:14.680]  The officer told me to give him my registration, driver's license and something of this kind
[01:29:14.680 --> 01:29:17.680]  I told him to get a room for my private property
[01:29:17.680 --> 01:29:23.680]  He said no and what happened was that as long as he showed up
[01:29:23.680 --> 01:29:26.680]  He told me if I didn't give it to him I would be going to jail
[01:29:26.680 --> 01:29:31.680]  I said well I'll let him borrow it but I'll charge him $1,000 per private property
[01:29:31.680 --> 01:29:35.680]  And so it's on YouTube and I was wondering if it's a valid contract
[01:29:35.680 --> 01:29:40.680]  And he either way told me that I had to do it and I said I would do so under direct
[01:29:40.680 --> 01:29:44.680]  All right hold on Rick we're going to answer your question when we get back on the other side
[01:29:44.680 --> 01:29:50.680]  Callers we actually Rick is the last caller on the board so if you all want to call in
[01:29:50.680 --> 01:29:55.680]  We've got another half hour 512-646-1984 we'll be right back
[01:29:58.680 --> 01:30:03.680]  Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback this is a great time to buy
[01:30:03.680 --> 01:30:09.680]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in rural financial systems
[01:30:09.680 --> 01:30:11.680]  I see gold going up much higher
[01:30:11.680 --> 01:30:14.680]  Hi I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage
[01:30:14.680 --> 01:30:18.680]  Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals
[01:30:18.680 --> 01:30:23.680]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from a brokerage
[01:30:23.680 --> 01:30:27.680]  That specialized in the precious metals market since 1977
[01:30:27.680 --> 01:30:33.680]  If you are new to precious metals we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision
[01:30:33.680 --> 01:30:35.680]  Whether or not you choose to purchase from us
[01:30:35.680 --> 01:30:43.680]  Also Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report any transaction
[01:30:43.680 --> 01:30:48.680]  If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell we can convert it for immediate payment
[01:30:48.680 --> 01:30:52.680]  Call us at 800-874-9760
[01:30:52.680 --> 01:30:54.680]  We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage
[01:30:54.680 --> 01:31:14.680]  800-874-9760
[01:31:25.680 --> 01:31:32.680]  We'll be singing such a voice of reason
[01:31:32.680 --> 01:31:39.680]  Some kind of picture that we'd rather be wrong
[01:31:39.680 --> 01:31:45.680]  We'll be singing such a voice of reason
[01:31:45.680 --> 01:31:55.680]  Some kind of picture that we'd rather be wrong
[01:31:55.680 --> 01:32:08.680]  Oh, this is everywhere
[01:32:08.680 --> 01:32:14.680]  Some boys have got a good time, some boys are busy to the bone,
[01:32:14.680 --> 01:32:18.680]  but we didn't know what tomorrow was.
[01:32:18.680 --> 01:32:23.680]  Searching for a boy's own reason.
[01:32:23.680 --> 01:32:30.680]  Some kind of vision that we might have been wrong.
[01:32:30.680 --> 01:32:36.680]  Searching for a boy's own reason.
[01:32:36.680 --> 01:32:43.680]  Cause I've been just getting started like a hero.
[01:32:43.680 --> 01:32:47.680]  So teach me the things that I need to know.
[01:32:47.680 --> 01:32:50.680]  It seems I'm having trouble getting to the point.
[01:32:50.680 --> 01:32:53.680]  Teach me the things that I need to know.
[01:32:53.680 --> 01:32:59.680]  So let me spin the world around you so I can't.
[01:32:59.680 --> 01:33:02.680]  Searching, searching.
[01:33:02.680 --> 01:33:11.680]  Mother of the world.
[01:33:11.680 --> 01:33:16.680]  Okay, searching, searching for the voice of reason.
[01:33:16.680 --> 01:33:19.680]  What we seek is a voice of reason.
[01:33:19.680 --> 01:33:24.680]  Sanity is the side we like to be on.
[01:33:24.680 --> 01:33:26.680]  That's my husband Jerry Stevens.
[01:33:26.680 --> 01:33:34.680]  He's won two songwriting awards at Kerrville Folk Festival, the New Folk Songwriting Contest.
[01:33:34.680 --> 01:33:35.680]  He's the man.
[01:33:35.680 --> 01:33:38.680]  All right, we're going to go back to Rick in California.
[01:33:38.680 --> 01:33:40.680]  Maybe I am a little nepotist.
[01:33:40.680 --> 01:33:42.680]  Okay, Rick.
[01:33:42.680 --> 01:33:49.680]  So I was thinking of sending him a bill come Monday for $3,000.
[01:33:49.680 --> 01:33:58.680]  And so my mindset is doing that, small claims court, and maybe even for violating,
[01:33:58.680 --> 01:34:01.680]  I've already requested his oath of office.
[01:34:01.680 --> 01:34:09.680]  And, you know, because I thought I had a right to travel and, you know, all that.
[01:34:09.680 --> 01:34:16.680]  But anyways, as far as my private property goes, what do you guys think about that?
[01:34:16.680 --> 01:34:20.680]  First off, did he agree to the acceptance of the offer?
[01:34:20.680 --> 01:34:26.680]  Well, he didn't, but he said he would take me to jail if I didn't.
[01:34:26.680 --> 01:34:33.680]  I said, well, it's under duress regardless because you're using my private property and you have no water for it.
[01:34:33.680 --> 01:34:38.680]  Yeah, well, like I say, what I usually do is ask, can you use this information against me?
[01:34:38.680 --> 01:34:41.680]  That's a Fifth Amendment pleading right there.
[01:34:41.680 --> 01:34:54.680]  The other thing about it is the Supreme Court's already ruled that you cannot be required to waive one right in order to exercise another.
[01:34:54.680 --> 01:35:03.680]  So he is requiring that you waive your Fifth Amendment right and your right to, you know,
[01:35:03.680 --> 01:35:13.680]  not do anything as far as provide him with information, or he is going to rob you of your liberty and take your property.
[01:35:13.680 --> 01:35:21.680]  You are having to surrender one right to maintain your right to your property and to your liberty.
[01:35:21.680 --> 01:35:25.680]  That's a direct contradiction to that Supreme Court decision.
[01:35:25.680 --> 01:35:34.680]  And I also asked him so you guys know that I asked him if he, with his actions, does he waive, does he accept full commercial liability for his actions?
[01:35:34.680 --> 01:35:39.680]  And he didn't respond to that either.
[01:35:39.680 --> 01:35:44.680]  Well, I think you can assume that.
[01:35:44.680 --> 01:35:46.680]  Why?
[01:35:46.680 --> 01:35:53.680]  Trying to talk to an officer who has no clue, you know, it's kind of a waste of time.
[01:35:53.680 --> 01:36:00.680]  He takes full commercial responsibility for what he does, whether you say that to him or not.
[01:36:00.680 --> 01:36:02.680]  Yeah. Now, I understand something.
[01:36:02.680 --> 01:36:07.680]  Was this a state highway patrol or was this a city officer?
[01:36:07.680 --> 01:36:10.680]  It was a Glenda police officer.
[01:36:10.680 --> 01:36:12.680]  County or city?
[01:36:12.680 --> 01:36:13.680]  City.
[01:36:13.680 --> 01:36:14.680]  Okay.
[01:36:14.680 --> 01:36:16.680]  That is an employee.
[01:36:16.680 --> 01:36:20.680]  He is an officer under a corporation.
[01:36:20.680 --> 01:36:21.680]  Okay.
[01:36:21.680 --> 01:36:24.680]  But you need to keep that in mind.
[01:36:24.680 --> 01:36:25.680]  Okay.
[01:36:24.680 --> 01:36:26.680]  He is not a state official.
[01:36:26.680 --> 01:36:28.680]  He is a corporate official.
[01:36:28.680 --> 01:36:30.680]  And, Randy, you'd be interested.
[01:36:30.680 --> 01:36:38.680]  I think I found a Supreme Court case that specifically states municipal officers have no law enforcement authority.
[01:36:38.680 --> 01:36:42.680]  They're basically rent-a-cops.
[01:36:42.680 --> 01:36:44.680]  Well, that's interesting.
[01:36:44.680 --> 01:36:49.680]  They can only enforce a policy statute, correct?
[01:36:49.680 --> 01:36:58.680]  I think from what I understand, they can only enforce policy and statute and codes, not law, from what I understand.
[01:36:58.680 --> 01:37:14.680]  Well, in California, a municipal officer, let's see, he can enforce state, county, and municipal within the municipality.
[01:37:14.680 --> 01:37:23.680]  A county officer can only enforce state crimes.
[01:37:23.680 --> 01:37:28.680]  He can't enforce municipal or county.
[01:37:28.680 --> 01:37:38.680]  The California Constitution says that it infringes on the sovereignty of the municipality.
[01:37:38.680 --> 01:37:45.680]  But it says he can enforce, that the municipal police can enforce municipal code and state law.
[01:37:45.680 --> 01:37:46.680]  Right.
[01:37:46.680 --> 01:37:47.680]  That I understand.
[01:37:47.680 --> 01:37:49.680]  So why would that leave me?
[01:37:49.680 --> 01:37:55.680]  Because in one aspect, I mean, I'm talking about just the civil part.
[01:37:55.680 --> 01:38:01.680]  If I'm even talking federal, I have a right to the pursuit of happiness and my liberty.
[01:38:01.680 --> 01:38:04.680]  So, I mean, there is no warrant for my arrest.
[01:38:04.680 --> 01:38:06.680]  And I even asked, I said, am I free to go?
[01:38:06.680 --> 01:38:07.680]  And he said, no, you're not.
[01:38:07.680 --> 01:38:12.680]  I said, okay, well, you have arrested me through detention because obviously you have no warrant for my arrest.
[01:38:12.680 --> 01:38:14.680]  I mean, he asked nothing.
[01:38:14.680 --> 01:38:15.680]  Yes.
[01:38:15.680 --> 01:38:19.680]  Yeah, Rick, look at the statute regarding the issuance of those citations.
[01:38:19.680 --> 01:38:26.680]  Randy reminded me to read it real careful one night, and he was 100% correct in that in Texas,
[01:38:26.680 --> 01:38:36.680]  the officer by tacit construction of the statute must have arrested you before he can get you to sign the ticket and release you,
[01:38:36.680 --> 01:38:39.680]  whether he told you you were under arrest or not.
[01:38:39.680 --> 01:38:45.680]  If he testifies in open court here in Texas that he never placed you under arrest,
[01:38:45.680 --> 01:38:50.680]  he has just confessed to misconduct in office under that same section.
[01:38:50.680 --> 01:38:53.680]  Well, actually he's committed aggravated perjury.
[01:38:53.680 --> 01:38:54.680]  That too.
[01:38:54.680 --> 01:38:57.680]  Because that's precisely what he had to do.
[01:38:57.680 --> 01:39:02.680]  What you're dealing with here, Rick, is a Terry stop.
[01:39:02.680 --> 01:39:09.680]  He has reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and he has some reason to believe you committed it.
[01:39:09.680 --> 01:39:11.680]  And he can detain you.
[01:39:11.680 --> 01:39:19.680]  And California has a detention statute that he can detain you for the purpose of questioning.
[01:39:19.680 --> 01:39:21.680]  Rick, okay, listen.
[01:39:21.680 --> 01:39:26.680]  Listen, yeah, I called out for more callers and a whole heap of people just called in.
[01:39:26.680 --> 01:39:28.680]  We've got some first time callers.
[01:39:28.680 --> 01:39:36.680]  I'm willing to go into overdraft over time if you guys want to.
[01:39:36.680 --> 01:39:38.680]  She's thinking about my bank account.
[01:39:38.680 --> 01:39:42.680]  Okay, Rick, if you want to hold on, we'll talk to you some more after midnight.
[01:39:42.680 --> 01:39:43.680]  Okay.
[01:39:43.680 --> 01:39:44.680]  Okay, all right.
[01:39:44.680 --> 01:39:45.680]  All right.
[01:39:45.680 --> 01:39:46.680]  And we've got Mitchell and Bill.
[01:39:46.680 --> 01:39:48.680]  And listen, we've got four minutes left.
[01:39:48.680 --> 01:39:50.680]  But I wanted to go to these first time callers, Mitchell, Bill.
[01:39:50.680 --> 01:39:52.680]  Okay, if you all will hold on.
[01:39:52.680 --> 01:39:54.680]  We have first time callers, so I want to give them preference.
[01:39:54.680 --> 01:39:56.680]  We've got Ben from Texas and Trevor from Texas.
[01:39:56.680 --> 01:39:59.680]  Ben, thanks for calling in, first time caller.
[01:39:59.680 --> 01:40:01.680]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:40:01.680 --> 01:40:04.680]  Hi, I'm a police officer in Texas.
[01:40:04.680 --> 01:40:05.680]  Oh.
[01:40:05.680 --> 01:40:09.680]  And I disagree with what these guys are saying.
[01:40:09.680 --> 01:40:18.680]  I listen to the show all the time and I find it interesting that the best that they can come up with is trying to find a semantic loophole
[01:40:18.680 --> 01:40:22.680]  in a law that allows people to get away with things they shouldn't be getting away with.
[01:40:22.680 --> 01:40:26.680]  What specifically do you disagree with, Ben?
[01:40:26.680 --> 01:40:35.680]  It's the characterization of an officer who can't do this one thing if he's over this one line in a municipality,
[01:40:35.680 --> 01:40:44.680]  in a city, and the reality is the people who are getting arrested are much more affected.
[01:40:44.680 --> 01:40:54.680]  If it went your way, you would arm many criminals with very particular,
[01:40:54.680 --> 01:41:02.680]  very loophole-ish type ways of getting out of paying for a crime that they have committed.
[01:41:02.680 --> 01:41:05.680]  Okay, Ben, I'm sorry that that's your interpretation.
[01:41:05.680 --> 01:41:12.680]  Actually, one of the main points that Randy and I have is that we would like to see police officers follow law
[01:41:12.680 --> 01:41:18.680]  that when they arrest people, they take them directly to a magistrate instead of booking them
[01:41:18.680 --> 01:41:23.680]  and running them through the jailing process to be punished without even being charged with a crime yet,
[01:41:23.680 --> 01:41:26.680]  but rather to take them directly to a magistrate first.
[01:41:26.680 --> 01:41:28.680]  That's kind of our main thing.
[01:41:28.680 --> 01:41:31.680]  And so this has nothing to do with loophole, really.
[01:41:31.680 --> 01:41:37.680]  If we did things your way and let policemen not pay close attention to rule of law,
[01:41:37.680 --> 01:41:43.680]  what we would wind up with is a 99.6% conviction rate.
[01:41:43.680 --> 01:41:50.680]  Okay, now I see Ben's point about nitpicking loopholes, really.
[01:41:50.680 --> 01:41:53.680]  And semantic languages and one clause.
[01:41:53.680 --> 01:42:00.680]  But there is a major issue, Ben, about the magistrate, taking people directly to magistrate.
[01:42:00.680 --> 01:42:03.680]  And what does that accomplish?
[01:42:03.680 --> 01:42:06.680]  Ah, glad you asked that.
[01:42:06.680 --> 01:42:15.680]  The public in Texas is terrified of the police because they know a policeman can arrest them
[01:42:15.680 --> 01:42:20.680]  and throw their behinds in jail for any reason they want to.
[01:42:20.680 --> 01:42:25.680]  They can take them and smash their face into a wall and throw them in jail all night
[01:42:25.680 --> 01:42:30.680]  because he said to the police officer, what part of I don't want to talk to you, do you not understand?
[01:42:30.680 --> 01:42:31.680]  They can do that.
[01:42:31.680 --> 01:42:38.680]  Ben, don't we have separation of powers? Isn't the judicial branch supposed to be the branch of government
[01:42:38.680 --> 01:42:41.680]  that makes the decisions, not the executive branch?
[01:42:41.680 --> 01:42:47.680]  Right, but so the magistrate thing that you're assuming that the magistrate's going to go in
[01:42:47.680 --> 01:42:53.680]  and make an instant decision on when a police officer and a person he's arrested is going to give him
[01:42:53.680 --> 01:42:59.680]  a he said, she said sort of story, he's going to suddenly say, oh, you weren't carrying those drugs,
[01:42:59.680 --> 01:43:03.680]  those weren't your drugs, no problem, come back when you feel like it.
[01:43:03.680 --> 01:43:05.680]  You missed the whole point.
[01:43:05.680 --> 01:43:10.680]  The point is keeping the public from being afraid of the police.
[01:43:10.680 --> 01:43:15.680]  Ninety-nine percent of the time, and this is if you've been listening, this is what I tell everybody.
[01:43:15.680 --> 01:43:21.680]  If the policeman takes you to the magistrate, ninety-nine percent of the times you're going to jail.
[01:43:21.680 --> 01:43:25.680]  Policemen don't arrest you for crap for the most part.
[01:43:25.680 --> 01:43:30.680]  Ninety-nine percent of the policemen out there are out there doing their jobs and they're doing a good job.
[01:43:30.680 --> 01:43:34.680]  There are very few that make everybody look bad.
[01:43:34.680 --> 01:43:40.680]  And the way we keep this from happening, you arrest the person, take him directly to the magistrate,
[01:43:40.680 --> 01:43:45.680]  explain yourself, the magistrate says you go to jail.
[01:43:45.680 --> 01:43:49.680]  Then the individual doesn't have to be afraid of the policeman.
[01:43:49.680 --> 01:43:52.680]  They may have to be afraid of that magistrate, but not the policeman.
[01:43:52.680 --> 01:43:55.680]  That's what the Magna Carta was about.
[01:43:55.680 --> 01:44:01.680]  That's what the requirement was for, was to keep the public from having the reason to fear the police.
[01:44:01.680 --> 01:44:04.680]  Right now they're terrified of you.
[01:44:04.680 --> 01:44:09.680]  So I was even arrested three times in my own life before becoming an officer.
[01:44:09.680 --> 01:44:12.680]  And in each case I was taken to court.
[01:44:12.680 --> 01:44:16.680]  I would completely disagree with every reason I was arrested.
[01:44:16.680 --> 01:44:27.680]  But how do you feel that, what loophole is it that allows police officers to bypass this magistrate thing?
[01:44:27.680 --> 01:44:34.680]  To me it sounds like an argument for the anti-tax people who think that there's this one crazy hitch in the Constitution
[01:44:34.680 --> 01:44:38.680]  that if only everybody really paid attention they'd realize they never had to pay any income taxes.
[01:44:38.680 --> 01:44:41.680]  And I think that you guys are using the same sort of argument for this matter.
[01:44:41.680 --> 01:44:43.680]  Wait a minute, Ben. Wait a minute.
[01:44:43.680 --> 01:44:56.680]  This is the foundation of our entire justice system dating all the way back to 1215 of the Magna Carta.
[01:44:56.680 --> 01:45:02.680]  This is what thousands of people have fought and died for over the centuries
[01:45:02.680 --> 01:45:10.680]  so that the executive branch would not have the power to accuse and convict and jail.
[01:45:10.680 --> 01:45:18.680]  But rather there would be a neutral party, a judicial branch to weigh both sides.
[01:45:18.680 --> 01:45:24.680]  And I think that you're missing when we're talking about the law, and this is law, this is on the books,
[01:45:24.680 --> 01:45:32.680]  the criminal procedure code where police are supposed to take people directly to a magistrate not for a trial,
[01:45:32.680 --> 01:45:37.680]  but rather for a probable cause, to show probable cause.
[01:45:37.680 --> 01:45:42.680]  Which book is this on? If this is federal it has nothing to do with local police.
[01:45:42.680 --> 01:45:44.680]  This is state law, sir.
[01:45:44.680 --> 01:45:47.680]  Okay, you're talking to the right guy here.
[01:45:47.680 --> 01:45:52.680]  State law, okay, they didn't exist in 1480, anything.
[01:45:52.680 --> 01:45:58.680]  State law exists now, 14.06, Code of Criminal Procedure,
[01:45:58.680 --> 01:46:05.680]  very clearly says if you arrest a person for any reason, with or without a warrant,
[01:46:05.680 --> 01:46:10.680]  you are to take him directly to the nearest magistrate by the most direct route.
[01:46:10.680 --> 01:46:18.680]  Heath Boyd Controlling Case says that an arrest without a warrant is presumed to be improper.
[01:46:18.680 --> 01:46:20.680]  Is that every single state?
[01:46:20.680 --> 01:46:25.680]  Every single case. If you're arresting with a warrant...
[01:46:25.680 --> 01:46:27.680]  He said state, Randy.
[01:46:27.680 --> 01:46:30.680]  Yeah, this is all state. I'm sorry, you're breaking up a little bit.
[01:46:30.680 --> 01:46:35.680]  Are you telling me that every state has the same statute because we know it's not a federal statute?
[01:46:35.680 --> 01:46:36.680]  No.
[01:46:36.680 --> 01:46:43.680]  I think the mistake that you guys are making is you're using an obscure, outdated,
[01:46:43.680 --> 01:46:52.680]  though I'm sure well-intended law in saying that 99% of the arrests out there are not legal.
[01:46:52.680 --> 01:46:53.680]  You're saying because 99%...
[01:46:53.680 --> 01:46:56.680]  No, no, no, no, I'm not saying that at all.
[01:46:56.680 --> 01:46:58.680]  No, I'm not saying they're not legal.
[01:46:58.680 --> 01:47:01.680]  The arrest itself, no.
[01:47:01.680 --> 01:47:10.680]  After the arrest, the policies that the police are being trained to follow is horrendously illegal.
[01:47:10.680 --> 01:47:14.680]  I'll count 20 due process violations.
[01:47:14.680 --> 01:47:17.680]  Illegal by what law? A federal law?
[01:47:17.680 --> 01:47:19.680]  14.06.
[01:47:19.680 --> 01:47:23.680]  Code of criminal procedure for Texas, and I got news for you, mine's current.
[01:47:23.680 --> 01:47:29.680]  Yeah, look, you want me to walk through it? I can walk through you front to back. You won't like it.
[01:47:29.680 --> 01:47:34.680]  What are the implications of this? For the average arrest, what is it you're trying to achieve
[01:47:34.680 --> 01:47:40.680]  by informing people of this code that the average person would have no clue about?
[01:47:40.680 --> 01:47:42.680]  What are you trying to achieve?
[01:47:42.680 --> 01:47:43.680]  I'm trying to achieve...
[01:47:43.680 --> 01:47:49.680]  If you want to educate the entire populace right now, what do you hope changes about it tomorrow?
[01:47:49.680 --> 01:48:01.680]  I want the sheriff or the chief of police to direct his officers, if you arrest someone, you do what 14.06 says.
[01:48:01.680 --> 01:48:06.680]  If it's 2 in the morning and you cannot locate a magistrate, you take him to jail.
[01:48:06.680 --> 01:48:16.680]  But if it's not 2 in the morning, if it's 10 in the afternoon, you either take them to the nearest magistrate within the county
[01:48:16.680 --> 01:48:23.680]  or if one is not available, you take them to the nearest magistrate within any adjoining county,
[01:48:23.680 --> 01:48:31.680]  exactly like the statute very specifically says. That's exactly what the law tells you.
[01:48:31.680 --> 01:48:38.680]  You take them to that magistrate, you explain yourself and have that magistrate order them to go to jail, not you.
[01:48:38.680 --> 01:48:45.680]  That way they don't have to be afraid of you. Have you ever seen the program Night Court? It was a comedy.
[01:48:45.680 --> 01:48:49.680]  Actually, I've been to Night Court in Nashville and watched it.
[01:48:49.680 --> 01:48:55.680]  It's very good because you can go in and it's public and you can see a magistrate in action.
[01:48:55.680 --> 01:49:01.680]  And to tell you, it was so interesting to me because I had never seen that applied anywhere else.
[01:49:01.680 --> 01:49:09.680]  They would bring you drugs in, these people with pockets full of cocaine and crack and whatever,
[01:49:09.680 --> 01:49:14.680]  and the cop would come in there and explain what would happen and the magistrate would tell them to do whatever.
[01:49:14.680 --> 01:49:18.680]  That's exactly how it's supposed to be.
[01:49:18.680 --> 01:49:26.680]  And that's what Randy's trying to tell you is that in Texas, that's what the statute requires to be done, but it's not what's being done.
[01:49:26.680 --> 01:49:35.680]  And what's the fear behind it? When you guys talk about fear of the cops, if the magistrate is not applying,
[01:49:35.680 --> 01:49:46.680]  the magistrate is what I see as an expensive middleman that is going to believe the police officer 100 percent of the time
[01:49:46.680 --> 01:49:53.680]  because if it comes to he said, she said, you go in there and say, here's what happened, and the judge goes, okay, send them to jail.
[01:49:53.680 --> 01:50:03.680]  It's not about that. It's about giving the appearance of justice, giving the appearance that due process will be followed.
[01:50:03.680 --> 01:50:09.680]  Right now, if a person is arrested for any reason, he goes straight to jail.
[01:50:09.680 --> 01:50:14.680]  The last time I was arrested in Travis County was in February. They threw me in jail all night.
[01:50:14.680 --> 01:50:19.680]  But the arrest was so outrageous, they refused to file charges.
[01:50:19.680 --> 01:50:22.680]  Oh, yeah, that's true.
[01:50:22.680 --> 01:50:25.680]  Well, wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. To me, it's not about the appearance.
[01:50:25.680 --> 01:50:26.680]  I speak to you tonight in jail.
[01:50:26.680 --> 01:50:35.680]  This is about real justice here, okay, because when the person who is arrested is brought before the magistrate by the police officer,
[01:50:35.680 --> 01:50:43.680]  and like you say, sir, it's a he said, she said case, all right, but if the magistrate can see that there's no probable cause,
[01:50:43.680 --> 01:50:50.680]  then the magistrate can release that person at their liberty or they can at that very moment decide to set bail.
[01:50:50.680 --> 01:50:55.680]  If the person has the money in their pocket, they can fork it over or they can be released on PR or whatever.
[01:50:55.680 --> 01:51:02.680]  Without having to go through the process of being booked and the orange suits and the fingerprints,
[01:51:02.680 --> 01:51:07.680]  you want to talk about expensive middleman, hello, okay, and that person's being punished.
[01:51:07.680 --> 01:51:15.680]  And then by the time the next day or two rolls around and that magistrate may say, well, what the heck did you arrest this person for?
[01:51:15.680 --> 01:51:16.680]  There's no probable cause.
[01:51:16.680 --> 01:51:26.680]  But in the meantime, that person has gone through extreme, extraordinary circumstances and lost their liberty, maybe even lost their job.
[01:51:26.680 --> 01:51:28.680]  Okay, that's not right.
[01:51:28.680 --> 01:51:33.680]  The person who's arrested needs to be able to go before a magistrate immediately.
[01:51:33.680 --> 01:51:47.680]  And when that happens, they hate you and they fear you. And the one thing I'm trying to get to eliminate is this distrust and fear between the police and the public.
[01:51:47.680 --> 01:51:51.680]  That's what all that I'm doing is about that.
[01:51:51.680 --> 01:51:56.680]  I absolutely don't believe the police are the bad guys.
[01:51:56.680 --> 01:52:01.680]  But everybody who listens to the show know that I say that all the time. They're not the bad guys.
[01:52:01.680 --> 01:52:03.680]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, Randy. Hold on, Ben.
[01:52:03.680 --> 01:52:16.680]  Do you have a proclivity or do you have an objection to bringing an arrested person that you would arrest before a magistrate, before booking them and telling your side of the story?
[01:52:16.680 --> 01:52:17.680]  Would that cause you harm?
[01:52:17.680 --> 01:52:21.680]  Why would you not want to do that or would you be okay with that?
[01:52:21.680 --> 01:52:22.680]  No, I would be okay with that.
[01:52:22.680 --> 01:52:29.680]  It just seems like a long, unnecessary step that takes officers off the street for what we want.
[01:52:29.680 --> 01:52:36.680]  Yeah, but it throws that guy or gal in a jail cell for X number of hours out of their life, too, that they don't get back.
[01:52:36.680 --> 01:52:41.680]  So who is at the greater expense, the person being arrested or the officer?
[01:52:41.680 --> 01:52:53.680]  If you can imagine one single scenario where an officer has arrested somebody and the magistrate is going to listen to the story of the officer and the story of the person,
[01:52:53.680 --> 01:53:00.680]  imagine, give me one single scenario where that magistrate is going to say, oh, you shouldn't have arrested this person.
[01:53:00.680 --> 01:53:02.680]  Okay, I'll do that.
[01:53:02.680 --> 01:53:08.680]  I went to the Secretary of State's office on February 18th and asked them to provide for me an apostille.
[01:53:08.680 --> 01:53:13.680]  An apostille is a verification of a notary.
[01:53:13.680 --> 01:53:17.680]  Well, they didn't like the wording in my document, so they refused.
[01:53:17.680 --> 01:53:20.680]  Hold on, hold on. Ben was saying something to you, Randy. I don't think you heard him.
[01:53:20.680 --> 01:53:21.680]  I'm sorry.
[01:53:21.680 --> 01:53:29.680]  I'm saying I would love to hear the story, and I will definitely listen to the story, but I can tell you what happened without even you telling me.
[01:53:29.680 --> 01:53:36.680]  You went in and asked for something obscure because you wanted to make a point, and when they demurred and said, no, we're not going to give it to you and we can't,
[01:53:36.680 --> 01:53:42.680]  you made too much of a point, and then you crossed over into a diminutive or something like that.
[01:53:42.680 --> 01:53:48.680]  See, that's what police always assume. We're not all bad guys.
[01:53:48.680 --> 01:53:51.680]  I am very, very skilled.
[01:53:51.680 --> 01:53:54.680]  What was your goal and what happened when you asked for it?
[01:53:54.680 --> 01:54:01.680]  He didn't ask for anything. He was trying to file a document that the clerk is required under law to file,
[01:54:01.680 --> 01:54:08.680]  and the clerk violated the law and broke the law by not wanting to file the document, so Randy called 911.
[01:54:08.680 --> 01:54:15.680]  No, this wasn't filing a document. I just wanted an apostille. Let me explain. You'll see.
[01:54:15.680 --> 01:54:19.680]  When they refused to file the apostille, I said, okay, guys, no problem.
[01:54:19.680 --> 01:54:32.680]  I called the DPS on their non-emergency number, asked them to dispatch an officer to take my complaint,
[01:54:32.680 --> 01:54:43.680]  and I didn't want anybody arrested or anything, but I did need someone to document the event, my allegation, and their reason for not providing the apostille.
[01:54:43.680 --> 01:54:48.680]  I needed their refusal so that I would have standing to raise the issue before the court.
[01:54:48.680 --> 01:54:52.680]  Without having it done to me, I had no standing.
[01:54:52.680 --> 01:55:00.680]  So the officer came down, and I explained my position, and I wanted him to take the statement. He refused.
[01:55:00.680 --> 01:55:13.680]  They claimed reason for not doing it, so I wanted to give them an information request for the specific reasons that they were stating.
[01:55:13.680 --> 01:55:19.680]  But the officer ordered me to leave the office. I told him I don't want to leave. I have business.
[01:55:19.680 --> 01:55:26.680]  He said, leave or I'll arrest you. I'm gone. Takes me up to the lobby. Now he won't let me leave the building.
[01:55:26.680 --> 01:55:34.680]  He said he wanted my ID. I said, well, I've identified myself. He said, I said, am I under arrest?
[01:55:34.680 --> 01:55:36.680]  And he said, no, you're not, and I'm out of here.
[01:55:36.680 --> 01:55:40.680]  I told you, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
[01:55:40.680 --> 01:55:45.680]  So you went to go file this form just to make some point about another obscure...
[01:55:45.680 --> 01:55:49.680]  Yes, absolutely. You betcha.
[01:55:49.680 --> 01:56:01.680]  Wait a minute. You're saying that if I do anything that a policeman don't like, that you don't approve of me asking my public officials to obey my law?
[01:56:01.680 --> 01:56:03.680]  Do you have a problem with that?
[01:56:03.680 --> 01:56:12.680]  It's just like the other guy who I'm not going to name who goes in and says, I'm not going to give you my fingerprints because I know what you want to do with it.
[01:56:12.680 --> 01:56:17.680]  And then he makes a big fuss down at the station, and of course he ends up getting arrested.
[01:56:17.680 --> 01:56:21.680]  But what happens is these guys know when you go do something like that,
[01:56:21.680 --> 01:56:31.680]  trying to prove an obscure point about some kind of some old law that has a semantic loophole in it just to make some point about liberty or something.
[01:56:31.680 --> 01:56:37.680]  And speaking of liberty, you can go to any 24-hour grocery store you want to right now and buy any piece of food you want,
[01:56:37.680 --> 01:56:42.680]  and you can go home and watch TV all night long. You have no liberties you have to worry about.
[01:56:42.680 --> 01:56:50.680]  The average person is not going to try to test out some obscure law that nobody has ever heard of just to see if they can push the limits.
[01:56:50.680 --> 01:56:55.680]  When you're pushing the limits just to make that point, they are going to arrest you.
[01:56:55.680 --> 01:56:57.680]  Now I'm a criminal and subject to...
[01:56:57.680 --> 01:57:00.680]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
[01:57:00.680 --> 01:57:01.680]  I understand your point.
[01:57:01.680 --> 01:57:05.680]  Wait, wait. Hold on, guys. Hold on. Hold on. Listen, guys, we're coming up to the end of the show.
[01:57:05.680 --> 01:57:15.680]  We have to take a break at the top of the hour because of our affiliates. But Ben, first of all, I want to thank you for listening to our show.
[01:57:15.680 --> 01:57:28.680]  I want to thank you for calling in. And I also want to say that I sense some in you that you think that we're against you, but we are not.
[01:57:28.680 --> 01:57:36.680]  We do not demonize our police. Our police are necessary and we appreciate your role.
[01:57:36.680 --> 01:57:46.680]  We just don't want to be afraid of you. We just want our police to follow law just as we're expected to follow law.
[01:57:46.680 --> 01:57:51.680]  Do you understand what I'm saying? We want you to protect us.
[01:57:51.680 --> 01:58:01.680]  I'm trying to tell you that I do understand, but I'm also telling you that when you go and make what is essentially a nuisance of yourself to prove a point over an obscure law,
[01:58:01.680 --> 01:58:05.680]  the police officer, if you push it too much, is going to arrest you.
[01:58:05.680 --> 01:58:10.680]  And the reason for that is they're going to get you out of there to end the scene.
[01:58:10.680 --> 01:58:16.680]  At some point, you probably will have the charges dropped and you'll be out of everybody's way.
[01:58:16.680 --> 01:58:23.680]  Okay, so who's to decide if we're pushing the envelope on an obscure law, you or the clerk?
[01:58:23.680 --> 01:58:30.680]  I mean, if we go down to the court of the Secretary of State's office to file a document, who's going to say, oh, it's an obscure law?
[01:58:30.680 --> 01:58:33.680]  You shouldn't be filing this document. We're going to arrest you.
[01:58:33.680 --> 01:58:36.680]  Why did he want to file that document to prove a point?
[01:58:36.680 --> 01:58:39.680]  That's none of anyone's business.
[01:58:39.680 --> 01:58:40.680]  No.
[01:58:40.680 --> 01:58:45.680]  I don't even know you, but that's exactly right. It's not like you're trying to do anything to accomplish something for your life.
[01:58:45.680 --> 01:58:47.680]  You never let me explain.
[01:58:47.680 --> 01:58:52.680]  Listen, hold on the line. Hold on the line, Ben. Hold on the line, please. Hold on the line. We appreciate your call.
[01:58:52.680 --> 01:58:54.680]  We have to take a break. Hold on.
[01:58:54.680 --> 01:58:55.680]  Okay.
[01:58:55.680 --> 01:59:24.680]  I'm like a step in the grave. Don't you watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous. I'm like a step in the grave. Don't you watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous. If you are a Chucky, nobody Chucky from me. If you are a Chucky, Chucky, nobody Chucky from me.
[01:59:24.680 --> 01:59:40.680]  I'm like a step in the grave. Don't you watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous. I'm like a step in the grave. Don't you watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:40.680 --> 01:59:56.680]  When you eat up, boy, you better treat me good. If you treat me good, you better treat me good.