ROL_2009-05-28_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.160]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.160 --> 00:11.720]  In a rare bipartisan defeat for Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday
[00:11.720 --> 00:18.120]  to keep Guantanamo open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees
[00:18.120 --> 00:20.560]  to facilities in the U.S.
[00:20.560 --> 00:26.000]  U.S. District Judge John Bates says the U.S. can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo
[00:26.000 --> 00:29.240]  indefinitely without any charges.
[00:29.240 --> 00:34.540]  Judge Bates said after 9-11, Congress gave the President authority to hold anyone involved
[00:34.540 --> 00:39.200]  in planning, aiding or carrying out the terrorist attacks.
[00:39.200 --> 00:44.680]  A Pentagon report said 74 released Guantanamo detainees returned to terrorism.
[00:44.680 --> 00:52.000]  However, the Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating 45 unnamed recidivists while
[00:52.000 --> 00:58.120]  only a few of the 29 people identified can be independently verified as having engaged
[00:58.120 --> 01:00.120]  in terrorism since their release.
[01:00.120 --> 01:04.760]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:04.760 --> 01:11.280]  A new Cornell University survey on trends on union intimidation is providing labor supporters
[01:11.280 --> 01:16.320]  with critical ammunition in their struggle to pass a card check bill.
[01:16.320 --> 01:22.080]  The survey singled out a baked goods company called Earthgrains for its strong arm tactics.
[01:22.080 --> 01:27.640]  In 2000, when its Kentucky plant tried to organize, Earthgrains videotaped employees
[01:27.640 --> 01:33.240]  talking to union representatives, confiscated union literature, interrogated employees about
[01:33.240 --> 01:39.520]  whether their co-workers supported unions and threatened their jobs and retirement plans.
[01:39.520 --> 01:45.960]  According to the study of over 1,000 union organizing drives, such tactics are now standard
[01:45.960 --> 01:46.960]  practice.
[01:46.960 --> 01:51.800]  Management threatened to close plants and cut wages and benefits in half the cases.
[01:51.800 --> 01:57.120]  The survey found that what distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous employer
[01:57.120 --> 02:03.760]  opposition to unions is intense and aggressive anti-union campaigning of a kind previously
[02:03.760 --> 02:06.040]  found only at Walmart.
[02:06.040 --> 02:11.520]  Fifty-five percent of non-managerial workers say they would vote for a union, but only
[02:11.520 --> 02:14.840]  12.4 percent are actually organized.
[02:14.840 --> 02:20.800]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[02:20.800 --> 02:26.400]  World renowned biologist Pushpa Bhagava says genetically modified organisms, GMOs, are
[02:26.400 --> 02:31.200]  a major contributor to Americans sharply deteriorating health.
[02:31.200 --> 02:37.640]  Investigations in India revealed most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such
[02:37.640 --> 02:44.080]  as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses.
[02:44.080 --> 02:45.480]  Many calves died.
[02:45.480 --> 02:52.160]  In the US, farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming GM corn.
[02:52.160 --> 02:56.640]  Some had false pregnancies and others gave birth to bags of water.
[02:56.640 --> 03:26.360]  Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.
[03:27.360 --> 03:55.080]  The survey found that what distinguishes the current organizing climate from previous
[03:55.080 --> 03:57.480]  governments?
[03:57.480 --> 04:00.840]  School and learn the golden rules So, what are you?
[04:00.840 --> 04:05.040]  Acting like a bloody fool If you get hot then you might get cool
[04:05.040 --> 04:07.940]  Bad boy, bad boy Whatcha gonna do
[04:07.940 --> 04:10.580]  Whatcha gonna do When they come for you
[04:10.580 --> 04:13.460]  Bad boy, bad boy Whatcha gonna do
[04:13.460 --> 04:16.260]  Whatcha gonna do When they come for you
[04:16.260 --> 04:19.160]  You took it on that one You took it on this one
[04:19.160 --> 04:21.800]  You took it on your mother And you took it on your father
[04:21.800 --> 04:24.520]  You took it on your brother and You took it on your sister
[04:24.520 --> 04:46.460]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:46.460 --> 04:52.200]  This is the rule of law.
[04:52.200 --> 05:01.320]  Kelsey and Deborah Stevens rule of law radio. Tonight we are going to talk about this somewhat
[05:01.320 --> 05:13.080]  controversial court ruling, Supreme Court ruling, Montejo v. Louisiana. And we want
[05:13.080 --> 05:22.600]  to go to the point of law because it would seem that we need to not get caught up in issues or
[05:22.600 --> 05:32.120]  arguments that are supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the trial court. So, Randy,
[05:32.120 --> 05:39.000]  can you please explain this? Yes, I have a rant. Okay. I keep hearing about, it seems like most
[05:39.000 --> 05:45.400]  every Supreme Court ruling that comes down that has anything to do with civil rights,
[05:46.360 --> 05:52.040]  everybody starts jumping up and down and screaming and ranting and raving about how all this horrible
[05:52.040 --> 06:00.600]  stuff is being done by the Supreme Court. And then I go read the case and all the stuff these people
[06:00.600 --> 06:09.160]  are jumping up and down and making all this noise about are simply not there. This particular case,
[06:09.160 --> 06:16.120]  a lot of hoopla about it. The court has said that the police can interrogate you even after
[06:16.120 --> 06:25.880]  you ask for an attorney. It says no such thing. This case is focused on a very fine point of law
[06:25.880 --> 06:32.760]  and people tend to read these cases and then put into them every personal issue they have
[06:33.800 --> 06:38.600]  and assign those to the case and then rail against the issues they put in there. That's called a
[06:38.600 --> 06:43.880]  straw man. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, Randy, just to take the devil's advocate position
[06:43.880 --> 06:51.240]  of what you're saying. I think it has to do with the position that someone needs to hold in their
[06:51.240 --> 06:58.200]  mind when they're reading this document. Because when I'm reading this, I had all kinds of questions
[06:58.200 --> 07:05.800]  and considerations and concerns because I was coming from the point of view of a jurist. And
[07:06.440 --> 07:12.200]  we talked about it, all the different issues that are brought up and there's many issues,
[07:12.840 --> 07:18.840]  how much rights the police have as far as interrogation or investigation and all these
[07:18.840 --> 07:24.200]  sorts of things. But, you know, we discussed that it has to do with when you're reading this
[07:24.200 --> 07:34.120]  document, are you the jurist or are you sitting on the court of appeals? And so, you know, that
[07:34.120 --> 07:39.960]  kind of changes things. Yeah, that's exactly it. So it's not so much that everybody wants to interject
[07:39.960 --> 07:47.400]  their own thing, as much as you just have to know what position you're in. You know,
[07:47.400 --> 07:53.800]  what position you hold when you're reading this document and what actions you are authorized or
[07:53.800 --> 08:03.000]  required to take based on that knowledge. Exactly. It goes to focus. When you read case law,
[08:05.400 --> 08:14.840]  the court of appeals, when they get a case, they expect the trial court to develop the facts in
[08:14.840 --> 08:21.800]  the case. And I've talked about a trial court's duty earlier. It is the duty of the trial court
[08:21.800 --> 08:30.520]  to apply the law as the appeals court gives it to them, to the facts that are developed in the case.
[08:31.960 --> 08:40.040]  On the other hand, when the appeals court addresses an issue, they must presume that the trial court
[08:40.040 --> 08:47.960]  did its job and properly adjudicated the case so that it accurately defined the facts at
[08:47.960 --> 08:54.280]  issue in the case. So they have to accept the facts the way the facts were brought to them,
[08:55.240 --> 09:01.880]  unless there is a specific issue concerning a fact. And in reading through this case,
[09:02.680 --> 09:05.560]  I'll admit when I read the first sentence, I had a hiccup.
[09:05.560 --> 09:11.800]  I had a preliminary hearing required by Louisiana law. I said, give me a break. Yeah, I know all
[09:11.800 --> 09:18.840]  about those preliminary hearings, but that was not an issue in the case. So I'd have to consider
[09:18.840 --> 09:24.200]  that somewhere else. I only consider the issue before the court. And when you do that,
[09:24.920 --> 09:34.600]  you find these cases make real good sense. So Randy, okay. Is it not the job of the
[09:34.600 --> 09:41.400]  the job of the judge who may be sitting on this appeals court or the Supreme Court to say,
[09:42.280 --> 09:48.520]  wait a minute, I want to see the documents of this so-called preliminary hearing? Why
[09:49.560 --> 09:58.200]  do the judges on this appeals court or the Supreme Court have to just totally take at face value
[09:58.200 --> 10:08.200]  whatever the trial court give them with absolutely no investigative powers or questions whatsoever?
[10:08.200 --> 10:16.200]  That doesn't seem right to me. Well, when we say that the trial court must apply the law as it's
[10:16.200 --> 10:23.320]  given to them to the facts, he doesn't get to decide what he thinks the law means.
[10:23.320 --> 10:32.840]  On the other hand, the appeals court doesn't get the option of second-guessing the trial judge.
[10:33.400 --> 10:38.280]  The appeals court wasn't in the courtroom. They didn't hear the evidence presented.
[10:38.280 --> 10:44.440]  They didn't hear the examinations of the witnesses or the objections of the attorneys.
[10:45.240 --> 10:49.560]  They didn't have all of this information to work from. The trial judge did.
[10:49.560 --> 10:56.120]  And they have to give the trial judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel all credit
[10:56.920 --> 11:01.960]  for forming all the issues. So there's no check and balance whatsoever in that situation?
[11:01.960 --> 11:07.880]  Yes, the check and balance is in place. It is the place of the defense counsel if he has a question
[11:07.880 --> 11:14.920]  about a fact to bring the fact to issue before the trial court, I mean, before the appeals court.
[11:14.920 --> 11:23.640]  If he brings it to the court as a point at issue, then they can address it. But if the defense counsel
[11:23.640 --> 11:29.320]  said, I have no problem with these facts, the way they're developed, because I don't raise an
[11:29.320 --> 11:33.240]  objection to them, then the prosecution says, I have no problems with these facts. They're
[11:33.240 --> 11:40.280]  stipulated. So it's not the place of the of the court of appeals to come in and say,
[11:40.280 --> 11:45.960]  well, you guys don't know what you're talking about. Why not? Then again, why not? Actually,
[11:45.960 --> 11:55.800]  they can. If there is a glaringly obvious miscarriage of justice, they can come in
[11:55.800 --> 12:02.760]  on their own and say, wait a minute, guys, you got to change this. But unless there is some reason,
[12:02.760 --> 12:08.760]  they don't second guess the trial judge. Otherwise, there would be no point of having a trial,
[12:08.760 --> 12:14.760]  a preliminary trial judge. You might as well just go to the appeals. If they're going to make all
[12:14.760 --> 12:20.760]  the decisions anyway, what's the point of having trial? We have to get some kind of separation to
[12:20.760 --> 12:26.840]  make these things make sense. And this is the way we've it's been done. And it's been, you know,
[12:26.840 --> 12:32.920]  a separation to make these things make sense. And this is the way we it's been done. And it's been
[12:32.920 --> 12:39.240]  very effective for a very long time. Well, Randy, what who is to make the decision
[12:39.240 --> 12:47.000]  that there is a glaring error? I mean, one person's, you know, one man's treasure is another
[12:47.000 --> 12:52.840]  man's trash, so to speak. I mean, one person can say there's a glaring error and another person
[12:52.840 --> 13:00.840]  could say, oh, that's a fine point of law or a loophole in some obscure, uh, antiquated,
[13:00.840 --> 13:02.840]  uh, statutes of the...
[13:02.840 --> 13:03.840]  Exactly.
[13:03.840 --> 13:04.840]  And that's...
[13:04.840 --> 13:05.840]  Okay.
[13:05.840 --> 13:06.840]  So who's to make that decision?
[13:06.840 --> 13:08.840]  Isn't, isn't that what the higher courts are for?
[13:08.840 --> 13:09.840]  Yes.
[13:09.840 --> 13:10.840]  That's what they're for.
[13:10.840 --> 13:20.400]  If, if the attorneys, if, if the parties in the trial court believe that the trial judge
[13:20.400 --> 13:31.200]  made a glaring error, then they, uh, address the error and they, they will brief out, they'll
[13:31.200 --> 13:37.840]  bring the law to the court of appeals and say, hey, we believe the judge misapplied
[13:37.840 --> 13:39.840]  the law to the facts.
[13:39.840 --> 13:44.860]  But you're saying the judges in the higher courts, they don't have that power?
[13:44.860 --> 13:49.160]  It's up to the attorneys of the, who's representing either side?
[13:49.160 --> 13:50.600]  Right.
[13:50.600 --> 13:53.400]  If it's not broke, don't fix it.
[13:53.400 --> 13:57.880]  If neither side is raising an objection to the facts brought to it, there's no reason
[13:57.880 --> 14:03.560]  to address the facts because we trust learned counsel on both sides to adequately adjudicate
[14:03.560 --> 14:04.560]  the case.
[14:04.560 --> 14:09.000]  Well, uh, Randy, let me, let me, let me just bring this case to you.
[14:09.000 --> 14:10.000]  Okay.
[14:10.000 --> 14:16.520]  As, uh, say you're sitting on a court of appeals and there's a case and the argument is because
[14:16.520 --> 14:25.240]  so-and-so was white, therefore he committed the murder and neither side is arguing and,
[14:25.240 --> 14:31.680]  uh, jury convicted and the defense attorney isn't raising a snake and the prosecutor's
[14:31.680 --> 14:34.840]  saying, yeah, that's the way it is.
[14:34.840 --> 14:38.120]  And you're on the court of appeals.
[14:38.120 --> 14:45.400]  Hello, can you just say, oh, well, uh, they said because the guy's white, he committed
[14:45.400 --> 14:50.480]  the murder and, uh, neither sides raising an objection, so, uh, that's just the way
[14:50.480 --> 14:51.480]  it is.
[14:51.480 --> 14:53.080]  Uh, how is that justice?
[14:53.080 --> 14:58.840]  They can, they can raise the issue to the Sponte from the appeals court.
[14:58.840 --> 15:04.920]  First time they can say, this is a manifest, uh, miscarriage of justice.
[15:04.920 --> 15:08.400]  The judge can't get the appeals court judges can't.
[15:08.400 --> 15:09.400]  Okay.
[15:09.400 --> 15:10.400]  That's what I wanted to know.
[15:10.400 --> 15:16.520]  Because it's, and they can at any time, but they don't, unless it's glaring, they tend
[15:16.520 --> 15:27.320]  to trust the prosecutor and defense counsel or the two, the attorneys for the two litigants,
[15:27.320 --> 15:32.440]  they trust both sides to have brought their case before the court.
[15:32.440 --> 15:39.000]  And then they trust the court to adequately or reasonably adequately apply the law to
[15:39.000 --> 15:43.840]  the facts and it wouldn't be in the appeals court unless one of the sides felt like the
[15:43.840 --> 15:52.120]  judge improperly applied the law to the facts, but the, but the appellate judges can object.
[15:52.120 --> 15:54.440]  You're saying yes, they can.
[15:54.440 --> 15:55.880]  Do you have case law on that?
[15:55.880 --> 15:57.200]  Oh, there's plenty.
[15:57.200 --> 15:59.320]  Uh, it's so spontaneous.
[15:59.320 --> 16:05.720]  They can, they can address a manifest, a breach of justice.
[16:05.720 --> 16:09.280]  To respond to from the appeals court at any time.
[16:09.280 --> 16:13.760]  Well, yeah, they have, that's a check and balance and they have the power to do it.
[16:13.760 --> 16:19.000]  They normally don't, unless it's glaring, they assume that there are facts that we have
[16:19.000 --> 16:24.480]  missed that haven't been brought to us and we trust the judge down there to be doing
[16:24.480 --> 16:25.760]  a good job.
[16:25.760 --> 16:30.360]  If nobody's raising an objection, unless it's obvious that both sides are slammed.
[16:30.360 --> 16:31.360]  Okay.
[16:31.360 --> 16:32.360]  All right.
[16:32.360 --> 16:36.800]  In fact, I want to get more into this particular case, uh, Randy.
[16:36.800 --> 16:42.760]  So I want you to explain to everyone how it would seem that everyone's making a big stink
[16:42.760 --> 16:47.840]  about this case and it could be just a big distraction because it didn't really change
[16:47.840 --> 16:48.840]  any law.
[16:48.840 --> 16:49.840]  Okay.
[16:49.840 --> 16:50.840]  Right.
[16:50.840 --> 16:51.840]  Right.
[16:51.840 --> 16:52.840]  Okay.
[16:52.840 --> 16:53.840]  We'll be right back.
[16:53.840 --> 17:21.920]  Rule of law, we're going to kill Debra Stevens.
[17:21.920 --> 17:51.920]  Byepapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapap
[17:51.920 --> 17:58.920]  at 817-975-2431. That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:21.920 --> 18:40.080]  All right. They don't have the answers, and we are asking the questions. I'm asking the
[18:40.080 --> 18:49.360]  questions of Mr. Randy Kelton. I'm grilling him. I want to know, what is the deal with
[18:49.360 --> 18:59.120]  this case, Montejo v. Louisiana? And Randy's saying, it's a big brouhaha where nothing,
[18:59.120 --> 19:04.860]  no law has actually changed. And it all boils down to what point of view you're looking
[19:04.860 --> 19:11.320]  at it. As a jurist, I have a lot of questions. And there's potentially a lot of questions
[19:11.320 --> 19:17.680]  in here, and that's because, Debra, you and I do due process. And we're well aware of
[19:17.680 --> 19:22.520]  all of the due process violations. That's why when we read preliminary hearing, we
[19:22.520 --> 19:27.000]  knew there was a big problem with that. Yeah, because I want to know what preliminary hearing.
[19:27.000 --> 19:33.240]  I want to see the paperwork. I want to know what magistrate, the whole nine yards. But
[19:33.240 --> 19:40.720]  for the purpose of examining the decision, we need to go to where the court went to.
[19:40.720 --> 19:46.240]  This is a, they're examining a fine point of law. Yeah. What really is the question
[19:46.240 --> 19:51.840]  here in this case? Okay. Let me read this first part and it will frame it. Now, we'll
[19:51.840 --> 19:58.880]  do this the way the Supreme Court and the appeals court did and read this as if these
[19:58.880 --> 20:05.520]  are the facts uncontested, developed by both sides, and we can accept these as parameters.
[20:05.520 --> 20:10.840]  Okay. So let's just pretend for a second that the defense attorney actually did his job
[20:10.840 --> 20:16.800]  and that the police weren't pushing the envelope or whatever. Let's just pretend for a second
[20:16.800 --> 20:21.240]  that everyone's rights were upheld and due process was followed. Is that what you're
[20:21.240 --> 20:26.920]  saying, Randy? Yes. Okay. So let's just pretend. Okay. At a preliminary hearing required by
[20:26.920 --> 20:33.280]  Louisiana law, petitioner Montahale was charged with first degree murder and the court ordered
[20:33.280 --> 20:39.360]  the appointment of counsel. That is the one time you don't have a right to represent yourself
[20:39.360 --> 20:47.800]  in court without counsel. Now you can be the lead counsel, but in a case of first degree
[20:47.800 --> 20:54.960]  murder, you must always have counsel. So we don't know if they took him and threw him
[20:54.960 --> 20:59.280]  in jail and brought him before a magistrate or if they took him directly to a magistrate.
[20:59.280 --> 21:03.960]  We don't know any of that. None of that's in contention, but they did take him to a
[21:03.960 --> 21:12.160]  magistrate and the magistrate appointed an attorney the way the law required. Later that
[21:12.160 --> 21:18.800]  day, the police read Montahale, his rights under Miranda V. Arizona, and he agreed to
[21:18.800 --> 21:27.720]  go along on a trip to locate the murder weapon. During the excursion, he wrote an inculpatory
[21:27.720 --> 21:34.240]  letter of apology to the victim's widow. Upon returning, he finally met his court appointed
[21:34.240 --> 21:43.080]  attorney. At trial, his letter was admitted over a defense objection and he was convicted
[21:43.080 --> 21:48.120]  and sentenced to death. Affirming the state Supreme Court rejection, his claim that the
[21:48.120 --> 21:55.820]  letter should have been suppressed under rule of Michigan v. Jackson, which forbids police
[21:55.820 --> 22:03.400]  to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has invoked his right to counsel
[22:03.400 --> 22:09.880]  at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The court reasoned that Jackson's prophylactic
[22:09.880 --> 22:18.640]  protection is not triggered unless the defendant actually requested a lawyer or has otherwise
[22:18.640 --> 22:26.000]  asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And that, since Montahale stood mute at his
[22:26.000 --> 22:34.560]  hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of counsel, he made no such request or assertion.
[22:34.560 --> 22:42.680]  That's the question. And it goes to this consideration most of us have heard is that rights belong
[22:42.680 --> 22:43.680]  to the belligerent litigant.
[22:43.680 --> 22:52.120]  Wait a minute. What, what is the question? Did he request counsel and did he invoke his
[22:52.120 --> 22:55.560]  Fifth Amendment right? That was the question.
[22:55.560 --> 22:57.600]  Fifth Amendment? Yes.
[22:57.600 --> 23:04.760]  Then why does it say Sixth Amendment? I'm sorry, Sixth Amendment. I'm brain dead.
[23:04.760 --> 23:15.520]  He did not object to talking to the police. He didn't ask for counsel. So Sixth Amendment
[23:15.520 --> 23:22.120]  right is counsel. It goes to, all of this goes to counsel. He didn't object to talking
[23:22.120 --> 23:28.280]  to the police. He didn't request counsel. Even though the court appointed counsel, he
[23:28.280 --> 23:34.320]  didn't request it. So he spoke to the police of his own volition.
[23:34.320 --> 23:38.000]  Wait a minute. How do we know he didn't request it?
[23:38.000 --> 23:42.920]  Because it is the facts developed in the case say he didn't.
[23:42.920 --> 23:47.200]  Okay. We're sitting on the court of appeals now. We don't get to ask those kinds of questions.
[23:47.200 --> 23:48.600]  Is that what you're saying?
[23:48.600 --> 23:53.200]  No, that's not a question before the court. That's a presumption. That's the set of parameters
[23:53.200 --> 23:55.760]  before the court.
[23:55.760 --> 24:01.280]  He stood mute before the court, made no request for counsel, even though the court appointed
[24:01.280 --> 24:08.280]  counsel, they didn't do it at his request. They did it as a matter of law. There's no
[24:08.280 --> 24:16.240]  indication he objected to speaking with the police. If that were before the court and
[24:16.240 --> 24:20.080]  that's the clear statement, he made no objection to talking to them.
[24:20.080 --> 24:30.120]  So what the question was, was once counsel is appointed, are the police forbidden to
[24:30.120 --> 24:41.600]  talk to the accused? Or can the accused talk to the police voluntarily if he wants to?
[24:41.600 --> 24:50.840]  And when the question is framed, well, yeah, I have a first amendment right. I can talk
[24:50.840 --> 24:57.200]  to anybody I want to anytime I want to. To say that because the court appoints you counsel,
[24:57.200 --> 25:03.240]  you can no longer talk. You know, we would have a fit about that. I just went to court
[25:03.240 --> 25:07.040]  Monday and Tuesday and the judge appointed me counsel.
[25:07.040 --> 25:13.280]  She said, Mr. Kelton, do you have an attorney? No, Your Honor, I do not. Are you going to
[25:13.280 --> 25:17.800]  hire an attorney? No, ma'am, I'm not. Do you want me to appoint counsel? You can do whatever
[25:17.800 --> 25:18.800]  you want to.
[25:18.800 --> 25:26.840]  Well, I'm still not understanding what the real issue is here in this case.
[25:26.840 --> 25:34.160]  If she appointed me counsel, would that restrict my first amendment right to speak to the police
[25:34.160 --> 25:36.120]  if I wanted to?
[25:36.120 --> 25:41.680]  Is that the question or is the question if you spoke, would that be evidence?
[25:41.680 --> 25:48.100]  Yes, I'm sorry. You helped to finally define the question. Can I voluntarily give evidence
[25:48.100 --> 25:56.560]  to the police? And if I do, can they use it? And the answer was yes, I can. Even over
[25:56.560 --> 26:02.360]  objection of my counsel. In this case, counsel didn't object because he didn't have opportunity
[26:02.360 --> 26:09.480]  to. And although it's not in the case, I would expect that was the argument that counsel
[26:09.480 --> 26:15.600]  was making that I didn't advise him not to speak to the police because I didn't get
[26:15.600 --> 26:19.040]  opportunity to. You took him out there before I got to talk to him.
[26:19.040 --> 26:27.800]  Don't you think that's a little stretching it? I mean, court could appoint someone counsel
[26:27.800 --> 26:34.280]  and you know, six months later or a year later, you actually get to talk to him. And in the
[26:34.280 --> 26:42.880]  meanwhile, you've gotten the crapolia beat out of you and water boarded or whatever.
[26:42.880 --> 26:49.560]  And oh, well, it's OK. It's admissible as evidence because the court appointed you counsel.
[26:49.560 --> 26:52.640]  That's not what they said. OK, well, then what did they say?
[26:52.640 --> 27:01.120]  There was no indication of objection, no indication that the individual expressed his desire not
[27:01.120 --> 27:05.080]  to speak to the police. That's not. No, no, that's not the question.
[27:05.080 --> 27:10.440]  It's not in the court. It has to be the question. I don't think the question is whether or not
[27:10.440 --> 27:16.440]  the person actually objected or not. I think the question is whether or not anything the
[27:16.440 --> 27:23.040]  person said to the police before they actually spoke to the attorney should be admitted as
[27:23.040 --> 27:27.960]  evidence. Yes, that's what Miranda tells you. But you're
[27:27.960 --> 27:34.320]  just saying. Anything you say can and will be used against
[27:34.320 --> 27:44.440]  you. So you're saying that because the person had their Miranda rights read to them. And
[27:44.440 --> 27:48.200]  they spoke anyway, and we're not going to assume one way or the other whether it was
[27:48.200 --> 27:50.720]  coercion or not. Right.
[27:50.720 --> 27:55.120]  Doesn't matter whether they talk to the attorney or not, but because the Miranda rights were
[27:55.120 --> 28:00.800]  read, anything they said after that can and will be used against them?
[28:00.800 --> 28:04.640]  Yes. Well, then that's exactly what the Miranda
[28:04.640 --> 28:10.000]  ruling says. So what's the big deal? That was my yeah, that was what the attorney
[28:10.000 --> 28:17.720]  was trying to say is once a council is appointed, you leave my client alone until I have opportunity
[28:17.720 --> 28:24.800]  to talk to my client. The only issue I have here with this is that
[28:24.800 --> 28:32.160]  this case says on its face that this person, well, he could have been read his Miranda
[28:32.160 --> 28:40.360]  rights multiple times, but it was clear that the Miranda rights were read to him after
[28:40.360 --> 28:43.400]  the preliminary hearing. And I thought the Miranda rights were supposed
[28:43.400 --> 28:49.960]  to be read to him before I thought the Miranda rights were supposed to be read upon rest.
[28:49.960 --> 28:55.240]  So what is this after the preliminary hearing and then some point later in the day, then
[28:55.240 --> 28:57.560]  they read him the rights. What about that?
[28:57.560 --> 29:06.440]  If nobody attempted to question him, then perhaps he was falling down drunk. If no one
[29:06.440 --> 29:12.200]  attempted to question him, the fact of reading or not reading Miranda rights becomes moot
[29:12.200 --> 29:17.720]  because that only goes to the use of evidence. The point is they have to be read to the person
[29:17.720 --> 29:20.280]  before they start questioning. Exactly.
[29:20.280 --> 29:26.520]  Okay, so it doesn't say anything about questioning. It just says there was a hearing, he was charged
[29:26.520 --> 29:29.960]  later the day. He was certainly read his rights at the hearing.
[29:29.960 --> 29:33.040]  No, it doesn't say that. It says later that day.
[29:33.040 --> 29:35.920]  The preliminary hearing, that's the first thing that's always required.
[29:35.920 --> 29:38.360]  You assume that. But it doesn't matter because they didn't
[29:38.360 --> 29:41.160]  question him at the hearing. All right. Well, callers, what do y'all have
[29:41.160 --> 29:49.800]  to say about it? 512-646-1984. Be right back. We're going to find points
[29:49.800 --> 29:59.240]  of law. The rule of law. Be right back.
[29:59.240 --> 30:03.200]  Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback, this is a great time
[30:03.200 --> 30:08.120]  to buy. With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and
[30:08.120 --> 30:12.240]  instability in rural financial systems, I see gold going up much higher.
[30:12.240 --> 30:17.040]  Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. Everybody should have some of their assets
[30:17.040 --> 30:20.880]  in investment grade precious metals. At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can
[30:20.880 --> 30:25.560]  buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious
[30:25.560 --> 30:30.040]  metals market since 1977. If you are new to precious metals, we will
[30:30.040 --> 30:34.320]  happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision whether
[30:34.320 --> 30:38.640]  or not you choose to purchase from us. Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values
[30:38.640 --> 30:42.760]  your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required to report
[30:42.760 --> 30:46.000]  any transaction. If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd
[30:46.000 --> 30:49.120]  like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment.
[30:49.120 --> 30:54.880]  Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage.
[30:54.880 --> 31:08.400]  800-874-9760 Yes, Mr. Officer, you're taking the law in
[31:08.400 --> 31:35.880]  the name of the law. When you're going to stop abuse, you're
[31:35.880 --> 31:45.920]  going to stop abuse. I still have some issues with this case coming
[31:45.920 --> 31:54.200]  from the point of a jurist. Maybe these issues should be raised in the trial court. Randy,
[31:54.200 --> 31:59.640]  you wanted to go into some explanations. This is a real short case. Let me go a little
[31:59.640 --> 32:06.840]  further here. Affirming the state Supreme Court rejected
[32:06.840 --> 32:12.440]  his claim that the letter should have been suppressed under the rule of Michigan v. Jackson,
[32:12.440 --> 32:18.000]  which forbids police to initiate interrogation of a criminal defendant once he has invoked
[32:18.000 --> 32:23.040]  his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding. The court reasoned that
[32:23.040 --> 32:28.760]  Jackson's pro-prolactic protection is not triggered unless the defendant has actually
[32:28.760 --> 32:36.000]  requested a lawyer or has otherwise asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and
[32:36.000 --> 32:40.920]  that since Montahale stood mute at his hearing while the judge ordered the appointment of
[32:40.920 --> 32:47.160]  counsel, he made no such request or assertion. The state Supreme Court's interpretation
[32:47.160 --> 32:52.840]  of Jackson would lead to impractical problems. Requiring an initial invocation of the right
[32:52.840 --> 32:58.120]  to counsel in order to trigger the Jackson presumption, as the court below did, might
[32:58.120 --> 33:04.640]  work in states that require an indigent defendant formally to request counsel before an appointment
[33:04.640 --> 33:09.680]  is made, but not in more than half the states which appoint counsel without request from
[33:09.680 --> 33:13.960]  the defendant. On the other hand, Montahale's solution is
[33:13.960 --> 33:21.820]  untenable as a theoretical and doctrinal matter. Eliminating the invocation requirement entirely
[33:21.820 --> 33:27.680]  would depart fundamentally from the rationale of Jackson, whose presumption was created
[33:27.680 --> 33:33.400]  by analogy to a similar prophylactic rule established in Edwards v. Arizona to protect
[33:33.400 --> 33:39.320]  the Fifth Amendment-based Miranda right. Both Edwards and Jackson are meant to prevent police
[33:39.320 --> 33:44.980]  from badgering defendants into changing their minds about the right to counsel once they
[33:44.980 --> 33:50.780]  have invoked it, but a defendant who has never asked for counsel has not yet made up his
[33:50.780 --> 33:57.640]  mind in the first instance. Starry decisis does not require the court to expend a significant
[33:57.640 --> 34:02.640]  decision to expand significantly the holding of a prior decision in order to cure its practical
[34:02.640 --> 34:10.000]  deficiencies. To the contrary, the fact that a decision has proved unworkable is a traditional
[34:10.000 --> 34:16.600]  ground for overruling it. Paine v. Tennessee. Beyond workability, the relevant factors include
[34:16.600 --> 34:22.800]  the precedent's antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and rather that the decision was
[34:22.800 --> 34:28.480]  well-reasoned. The first two cut in favor of jettisoning Jackson. The opinion is only
[34:28.480 --> 34:35.360]  two decades old, and eliminating it would not upset expectations since any criminal
[34:35.360 --> 34:44.720]  defendant learned enough to order his affairs based on Jackson's rule would also be perfectly
[34:44.720 --> 34:50.760]  capable of interacting with police on his own. As for the strength of Jackson's reasoning
[34:50.760 --> 34:55.520]  when this court creates a prophylactic rule to protect the constitutional right, the relevant
[34:55.520 --> 35:01.680]  reasoning is the weighing of the rule's benefits against its costs. Jackson's marginal benefits
[35:01.680 --> 35:09.560]  are dwarfed by its substantial cost, even without Jackson. Few badgering-induced waivers,
[35:09.560 --> 35:16.040]  if any, would be admitted at trial because the court has taken substantial other overlapping
[35:16.040 --> 35:21.760]  measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation
[35:21.760 --> 35:28.360]  must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. Once such a defendant has invoked
[35:28.360 --> 35:35.040]  his right, interrogation must stop. So nothing has changed here.
[35:35.040 --> 35:40.160]  Okay, okay, okay. I agree. Nothing has changed. And we do have a caller on the line, John.
[35:40.160 --> 35:46.680]  But before I take the caller, one second here. I see what you're saying, Randy, and I see
[35:46.680 --> 35:56.800]  what the court cases say, the case law. But I have to raise the issue regarding the proper
[35:56.800 --> 36:05.800]  role of government here. Okay? This is not a contract. All right? I believe in my heart
[36:05.800 --> 36:14.960]  the role of government is to protect individual rights and liberties, regardless if the person
[36:14.960 --> 36:22.760]  asserts them verbally or written or otherwise. All right? This is not a contract. The role
[36:22.760 --> 36:29.600]  of government, according to proper libertarian conservative values, which I adhere to, is
[36:29.600 --> 36:36.440]  that the role of government is to protect individual rights and liberties. Period. End
[36:36.440 --> 36:46.120]  of story. Not if we say, oh, oh, oh, by the way, oh, yeah, that's right. We do have a
[36:46.120 --> 36:51.120]  right to counsel. Oh, yeah, that's right. We do have a right to keep our mouths shut
[36:51.120 --> 36:58.800]  or whatever the case may be. Okay? I'm sorry. I cannot go along with this. I don't care
[36:58.800 --> 37:03.760]  what the case law says. I agree with your position. All right? And so I have to totally
[37:03.760 --> 37:12.240]  deny this out of hand because it's based on the fact that the person has to verbally assert
[37:12.240 --> 37:20.080]  or otherwise assert their rights or their liberties. And what if the person is deaf
[37:20.080 --> 37:26.720]  or dumb or blind or incompetent or whatever? You know, our rights were not given to us
[37:26.720 --> 37:34.920]  by a piece of paper, okay, or statute or constitution. Our rights were given to us by God. And it's
[37:34.920 --> 37:41.160]  no man's authority to take it away from us or to deny us of those rights just because
[37:41.160 --> 37:48.760]  we don't speak up about them. So I say no to this court ruling. And that's my opinion.
[37:48.760 --> 37:54.680]  Fundamentally different issue, which I happen to agree with. I maintain that we have our
[37:54.680 --> 38:00.600]  rights and they are our rights unless we voluntarily give up one of our rights.
[38:00.600 --> 38:08.520]  No, I disagree. And by simply not demanding a right, the courts assume we voluntarily
[38:08.520 --> 38:13.600]  give it up. And I say hogwash. I say hogwash. You cannot give up a right.
[38:13.600 --> 38:19.680]  But that is not how the law exists today. Well, then we have to change something.
[38:19.680 --> 38:23.040]  Yes, I agree. It's like saying, I'm not a woman or I don't
[38:23.040 --> 38:29.640]  have brown hair. Okay, you are what you are. You have rights and you are what you are.
[38:29.640 --> 38:36.320]  You're a person and they cannot, rights cannot be taken away. They cannot be granted nor
[38:36.320 --> 38:41.880]  denied by any government or any court. And I will hold to that to the bitter end.
[38:41.880 --> 38:47.320]  So we need new law. Okay. All right, but that's why that in order
[38:47.320 --> 38:55.320]  to understand the case, we have to deal with it the way the law exists today. And one of
[38:55.320 --> 39:01.080]  the motions that Ken and I have put together is a motion demanding all of our rights and
[39:01.080 --> 39:09.720]  notifying the courts that we do not waive any right unless that right is waived in court,
[39:09.720 --> 39:15.040]  in writing, with full disclosure, counsel present, free of coercion.
[39:15.040 --> 39:18.640]  All right. Otherwise, no right may be assumed to have
[39:18.640 --> 39:21.680]  been waived. I can't go there. I don't think any right
[39:21.680 --> 39:23.240]  can be waived, but I understand what you're saying.
[39:23.240 --> 39:29.760]  I can waive it myself. I have the right to waive a right to remain silent.
[39:29.760 --> 39:36.400]  Okay, if you want to voluntarily defer it or waive it, that's one thing. Okay, but I
[39:36.400 --> 39:42.760]  do not agree with the principle in the courts that your rights are waived automatically
[39:42.760 --> 39:45.320]  unless you speak up. I agree.
[39:45.320 --> 39:52.640]  Okay, it should be your rights are protected 100% unless you say otherwise.
[39:52.640 --> 39:57.680]  Okay, that's exactly what this motion goes to. And I agree with that, but that's not
[39:57.680 --> 40:03.880]  the state of the law today. So when I address this case, I have to discipline myself to
[40:03.880 --> 40:08.280]  address the case based on the law as it exists and not the way I want it to be.
[40:08.280 --> 40:14.040]  Melvin, how do you... Okay, all right. And I want to hear how you're going to change
[40:14.040 --> 40:19.280]  that, Randy Kelton. And I'm going to help you because I do not agree with it. And obviously
[40:19.280 --> 40:25.880]  you do not either, and neither do many of our members of our audience who hold to libertarian
[40:25.880 --> 40:33.040]  or classical liberal philosophies. So let's see what John from Texas has to say about
[40:33.040 --> 40:34.040]  it.
[40:34.040 --> 40:35.040]  Hey.
[40:35.040 --> 40:38.840]  Hey, John, what do you have to say about it?
[40:38.840 --> 40:50.480]  Guys, basically the way I look at it is that, first of all, he voluntarily went with officers
[40:50.480 --> 41:01.360]  to look for evidence. Okay. Now, I'm assuming his Miranda warning was given prior to this.
[41:01.360 --> 41:04.400]  Yeah, that's in the case. That's what the case says.
[41:04.400 --> 41:13.600]  Okay. Because the key to the Miranda is custodial. Okay. If you're not in a custodial situation,
[41:13.600 --> 41:21.240]  you do not have to Miranda a person. And custodial would mean that they are not free to leave,
[41:21.240 --> 41:29.280]  to get up and go. Okay. So at this point when he's arrested, he's in a custodial situation.
[41:29.280 --> 41:36.520]  Basically then, now, Deborah, going to your argument, you have the right to remain silent.
[41:36.520 --> 41:49.880]  You also have the right to confess, to speak. Okay. Now, so this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
[41:49.880 --> 41:57.960]  Obviously you're in an interrogation situation. You have detectives of police officers in
[41:57.960 --> 42:04.040]  front of you. They're discussing this. There's, where's the evidence? I'll take you to show,
[42:04.040 --> 42:09.480]  I'll take you there to where it is. Okay.
[42:09.480 --> 42:10.480]  Okay.
[42:10.480 --> 42:11.480]  And...
[42:11.480 --> 42:12.480]  You're an ex-investigator.
[42:12.480 --> 42:17.120]  This all goes to issues of the trial court. This is not the point at hand.
[42:17.120 --> 42:18.120]  Well, what...
[42:18.120 --> 42:21.160]  Why is it not the point at hand?
[42:21.160 --> 42:27.200]  Because Randy just said the appellate court does not deal with these issues.
[42:27.200 --> 42:30.840]  I'm just kind of taking it from jumpstart and walking through.
[42:30.840 --> 42:35.440]  Yeah. Now, I had this really intelligent question.
[42:35.440 --> 42:36.440]  Okay. I'm sorry.
[42:36.440 --> 42:37.440]  But I forgot what it was.
[42:37.440 --> 42:40.440]  No, I'll think of it in a minute.
[42:40.440 --> 42:47.360]  See, John, what I want to ask you is what your opinion is on the point at hand, which
[42:47.360 --> 42:58.960]  is does the government have the duty to protect our rights whether or not we vocalize them?
[42:58.960 --> 43:05.440]  Okay. Because what this court ruling says is that your rights are automatically waived
[43:05.440 --> 43:11.120]  unless you speak up and say, oh, by the way, I claim that right.
[43:11.120 --> 43:18.160]  And what I'm saying is, no, the government has the duty and the authority and the responsibility
[43:18.160 --> 43:26.540]  to protect our rights even if we do not waive them and that in the only case can they be
[43:26.540 --> 43:29.720]  waived is if we specifically waive them.
[43:29.720 --> 43:30.720]  That is my point.
[43:30.720 --> 43:37.360]  Okay. I understand what you're saying. Here's the thing. If you sit there and do not...
[43:37.360 --> 43:38.360]  Wait, hold on.
[43:38.360 --> 43:41.480]  We've got to go to break and we've got Skylar on the line.
[43:41.480 --> 43:43.280]  Callers, we like to call in.
[43:43.280 --> 43:46.680]  I want to know and I don't want to get detracted, okay?
[43:46.680 --> 43:50.480]  I don't want any kind of dissuasion or distraction.
[43:50.480 --> 43:54.400]  I want to know what everyone thinks on that one particular point and that one particular
[43:54.400 --> 43:55.400]  question.
[43:55.400 --> 43:59.840]  We'll be right back.
[43:59.840 --> 44:02.600]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[44:02.600 --> 44:05.400]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[44:05.400 --> 44:11.320]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars and more dollars to bail out Wall Street,
[44:11.320 --> 44:14.000]  banks and the U.S. car industry.
[44:14.000 --> 44:19.120]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the
[44:19.120 --> 44:22.360]  dollar, the price of silver will only increase.
[44:22.360 --> 44:27.520]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's
[44:27.520 --> 44:33.440]  most important commodities with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[44:33.440 --> 44:40.800]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce and the yellow metal roars
[44:40.800 --> 44:44.840]  back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:44.840 --> 44:54.240]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and
[44:54.240 --> 44:59.480]  401K into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[44:59.480 --> 45:04.920]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities
[45:04.920 --> 45:05.920]  for you.
[45:05.920 --> 45:35.840]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[46:06.540 --> 46:24.480]  And call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401K
[46:24.480 --> 46:45.160]  watching the sparks fly it's not your moral standards it's just your patience
[46:45.160 --> 46:54.800]  that's on trial okay so John please go ahead and at some point I would like you
[46:54.800 --> 46:59.400]  to answer my question and we also have Skylar from Texas on the line other
[46:59.400 --> 47:06.160]  callers 512-646-1984 okay go ahead John okay to answer your question my
[47:06.160 --> 47:13.680]  opinion on your question okay is that the government does by default protect
[47:13.680 --> 47:19.440]  your right because the defendant here the suspect can say absolutely nothing
[47:19.440 --> 47:25.600]  and there's nothing can be used against him and the fact he says nothing can't
[47:25.600 --> 47:30.680]  be used against him whether he says I want a lawyer I'm evoking my Miranda
[47:30.680 --> 47:38.040]  right if he says nothing then his rights are sort of pretty much automatically
[47:38.040 --> 47:47.640]  evoked and that he's not answering any questions he's uncooperative then an
[47:47.640 --> 47:55.320]  investigator or agent police officer would read him his Miranda right to he
[47:55.320 --> 48:04.480]  looks at a response either yes I'm gonna lawyer up no I'll speak with you or he
[48:04.480 --> 48:14.520]  says nothing which should be taken as a no okay so you know I don't understand
[48:14.520 --> 48:24.400]  my rights or no if he says nothing like no like you can say that no I don't
[48:24.400 --> 48:31.120]  understand my rights and they have well no I mean if the suspect doesn't say
[48:31.120 --> 48:38.200]  anything does the officer presume that that's a no to his question do you
[48:38.200 --> 48:44.040]  understand your rights right he would presume that at that point I would back
[48:44.040 --> 48:49.440]  off me personally as an investigator and I would assume that he's evoking a
[48:49.440 --> 48:58.040]  Miranda and that he is not answering questions okay and he's he's not he's
[48:58.040 --> 49:02.720]  not engaged he's not engaging with me and you wouldn't grab him and bash his
[49:02.720 --> 49:12.560]  face into a wall no that's you must not be DPS no no no no I was a kinder gentler
[49:12.560 --> 49:18.920]  in the game home books work better they don't leave bruising no I'm just kidding
[49:18.920 --> 49:25.120]  but here once again because I'm a constitutionalist I believe in the
[49:25.120 --> 49:31.280]  Constitution if if I read a Miranda right to you and then you say I'm gonna
[49:31.280 --> 49:37.760]  lawyer up I don't want to speak to you fine we're done okay we're done at that
[49:37.760 --> 49:44.080]  point if you say nothing we're kind of done at that point if you're saying
[49:44.080 --> 49:49.960]  nothing if you're being absolutely silent but if you say yes you know I'll
[49:49.960 --> 50:00.120]  talk to you then the doors open okay and that's the way I view it I don't know
[50:00.120 --> 50:13.000]  how that what do you feel about that Deborah well the way I feel is that if
[50:13.000 --> 50:21.920]  the person proceeds to answer questions and they are not informed of their rights
[50:21.920 --> 50:29.760]  I don't think that should be admissible as evidence it's normal and because a
[50:29.760 --> 50:35.200]  good defense attorney would bring up where were you Miranda and at what
[50:35.200 --> 50:44.560]  point and so if the person was not Miranda's okay everything that he
[50:44.560 --> 50:52.840]  brought out could be and you know should be bylaw thrown out not allowed
[50:52.840 --> 51:01.920]  okay and it should only be from point of Miranda forward and if answered in the
[51:01.920 --> 51:08.200]  affirmative by the defendant question as an as an investigator you have a
[51:08.200 --> 51:16.960]  recalcitrant individual you're working on you really want to get this guy what
[51:16.960 --> 51:24.400]  if you question him anyway in badgering him into giving you evidence you can't
[51:24.400 --> 51:31.440]  use it a trial but it opens doors to find evidence you can use a trial well
[51:31.440 --> 51:38.080]  then once again it could be just like if you have a something go wrong in a
[51:38.080 --> 51:45.000]  search warrant it could be deemed as fruit of a poison tree already I 38 23
[51:45.000 --> 51:54.160]  yeah and because if I'm questioning you and I said you know you embezzled this
[51:54.160 --> 52:02.640]  much money from this company you know and it goes no you know I embezzled this
[52:02.640 --> 52:06.360]  much from over here and my partner was doing this over here and I didn't know
[52:06.360 --> 52:12.760]  anything that that you had a partner and I have Miranda's do I haven't done
[52:12.760 --> 52:21.520]  anything and and yet you are in a custodial situation okay and I've
[52:21.520 --> 52:24.840]  identified myself and everything like this and you know you're the target of
[52:24.840 --> 52:34.160]  an investigation and so it could be seen as point because even with a suspect who
[52:34.160 --> 52:39.960]  was not in a custodial situation I often Miranda's so that there would be no
[52:39.960 --> 52:45.760]  question at all at time of trial with a went that far and you have to think that
[52:45.760 --> 52:51.160]  way as though an investigator you got to think out that far that you know this I
[52:51.160 --> 52:56.440]  don't want this to come up to be an issue yes and and I suspect that there's
[52:56.440 --> 53:00.240]  a lot of people that are listening or saying well you know the police I run
[53:00.240 --> 53:08.560]  into they don't do that but but then again you were a investigator of far
[53:08.560 --> 53:15.200]  more serious crimes crimes of people with a lot of money enough to hire
[53:15.200 --> 53:25.240]  lawyers that's true that's true careful but also yeah but also most police
[53:25.240 --> 53:35.040]  officers aren't dealing they're dealing with a different type of scenario and
[53:35.040 --> 53:42.200]  situation in that if it's a real serious crime and they apprehend someone you
[53:42.200 --> 53:47.120]  know they're more are going to be a witness and then you're going to have
[53:47.120 --> 53:52.840]  detectives take over you see what I'm saying yes and yeah it'll get passed
[53:52.840 --> 53:56.920]  over it'll get passed over to a detective you know a police officer is
[53:56.920 --> 54:01.000]  not going to necessarily interrogate you well if you if you're a police officer
[54:01.000 --> 54:07.400]  news you stop a drug suspect right and you don't really care about him you want
[54:07.400 --> 54:16.160]  his supplier so he invokes his Miranda right and you just grill him anyway
[54:16.160 --> 54:19.080]  because you don't care you're not going to try to prosecute him anyway you don't
[54:19.080 --> 54:22.680]  care about him you want to get what information you can from him and say okay
[54:22.680 --> 54:26.360]  I'm not going to use it and then you go use that information to go after someone
[54:26.360 --> 54:34.080]  else but it all depends all right at this point and this separates the the
[54:34.080 --> 54:40.360]  good and the bad the ugly okay because someone should ask the question how was
[54:40.360 --> 54:46.600]  that information developed you know did you have an epiphany did God speak to
[54:46.600 --> 54:51.600]  you or was the fourth or fifth time you bounced this guy's head off the hood of
[54:51.600 --> 54:58.160]  the car okay this this information didn't create itself in a vacuum right
[54:58.160 --> 55:05.660]  it had to come from somewhere and so where did it come from and you know the
[55:05.660 --> 55:12.080]  guy who gave the information right could be yeah you know I was being interrogated
[55:12.080 --> 55:17.080]  by this police officer by the side of the road and you know on the fourth time
[55:17.080 --> 55:23.960]  he pulled the taser trigger I gave up the name of my supplier oh really okay
[55:23.960 --> 55:28.640]  you know and we have issues at this point and they would say he voluntarily
[55:28.640 --> 55:39.600]  gave it up like butt cheek well done you know we're we're going to have John on
[55:39.600 --> 55:47.280]  tomorrow and we're going to talk about investigative techniques and how
[55:47.280 --> 55:53.400]  police essentially how they're supposed to do what they do but with the
[55:53.400 --> 55:58.280]  different did I yeah I'm sorry go ahead Randy I'm sorry for the purpose to get
[55:58.280 --> 56:05.720]  of giving us a good idea of how the policeman is if he's doing the job right
[56:05.720 --> 56:11.360]  how he will conduct himself and it'll make it a lot easier to to recognize
[56:11.360 --> 56:17.960]  when they're pulling a shenanigan yeah but ever did I answer your question to
[56:17.960 --> 56:27.440]  your satisfaction I think so you know good thank you and tomorrow should be a
[56:27.440 --> 56:33.120]  good lively show oh yeah I'm looking forward to it and I appreciate and thank
[56:33.120 --> 56:39.860]  you for letting me have the opportunity it's good to have information from the
[56:39.860 --> 56:44.160]  guys on the inside so you know for the most part we're all on the outside
[56:44.160 --> 56:51.600]  looking in it's good to have a view from from those inside we had a call the
[56:51.600 --> 56:58.240]  other night Ben who was a police officer and was excellent we got an excellent
[56:58.240 --> 57:07.160]  view of the inside of the cop on the street it was a bit chilly did you hear
[57:07.160 --> 57:12.920]  that John yeah I did what is your make on that oh I didn't hear the show I'm
[57:12.920 --> 57:17.040]  sorry I'm gonna have to go back to the archive yeah I replayed it on Memorial
[57:17.040 --> 57:23.560]  Day on May 25th okay yeah I pieced together the whole call he called in
[57:23.560 --> 57:29.000]  about 20 minutes before midnight on Friday night and he stayed he was
[57:29.000 --> 57:35.280]  gracious enough to stay on with us to about 15 or 20 after midnight and he was
[57:35.280 --> 57:42.800]  earnest I believe he was earnest yes I do he was earnest and he gave him real
[57:42.800 --> 57:50.000]  good image of where they policemen out there on the street lives right now and
[57:50.000 --> 57:56.480]  frankly he exactly confirmed what I have been seeing and experiencing watching
[57:56.480 --> 58:06.920]  develop for the last 20 years yeah it's not good we want to fix it okay we'll go
[58:06.920 --> 58:10.880]  to Skylar when we come back yeah we're gonna go to Skylar thank you John all
[58:10.880 --> 58:17.120]  right yeah yeah I'm looking forward to it tomorrow all right bye bye okay all
[58:17.120 --> 58:20.840]  right we're gonna go to Skylar from Texas when we come back callers we like to
[58:20.840 --> 58:26.920]  call in five one two six four six nineteen eighty four the rule of law
[58:26.920 --> 58:56.040]  Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens we'll be right back
[59:56.920 --> 01:00:05.560]  you are listening to the rule of law radio network and rule of law radio dot
[01:00:05.560 --> 01:00:34.680]  com live free speech talk radio at its best
[01:00:35.560 --> 01:00:54.000]  okay we are back the rule of law we are taking your calls five one two six four
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:05.520]  six 1984 okay we're gonna go now to Skylar in Texas Skylar thanks for
[01:01:05.520 --> 01:01:09.560]  calling in what's on your mind tonight what do you have to say about this well
[01:01:09.560 --> 01:01:15.120]  I just have to say that it's an incremental step toward robbing our
[01:01:15.120 --> 01:01:23.400]  American citizens but they're right you have no right to be law essentially
[01:01:23.400 --> 01:01:29.760]  because the law is so abstract and nondescript that you really need a
[01:01:29.760 --> 01:01:34.680]  lawyer to defend yourself in these situations and to say that you don't
[01:01:34.680 --> 01:01:41.560]  need a lawyer is what's that word unconstitutional well it's
[01:01:41.560 --> 01:01:47.480]  inconscionable you're right the law is complex and if you don't have a lawyer
[01:01:47.480 --> 01:01:54.200]  you are at a terrible disadvantage the problem now is is that you if you have a
[01:01:54.200 --> 01:02:00.320]  lawyer you're at a terrible disadvantage and I'm glad you brought up that
[01:02:00.320 --> 01:02:05.600]  specific point because it goes directly to something I wanted to talk about
[01:02:05.600 --> 01:02:12.920]  fire away sir I want to hear it Tuesday I had a first court hearing on this
[01:02:12.920 --> 01:02:22.040]  arrest for a criminal trespass this is with us that was my reference to the DPS
[01:02:22.040 --> 01:02:30.400]  when you say to DPS sergeant McNeil what part of I do not want to talk to you do
[01:02:30.400 --> 01:02:41.200]  you not understand according to Major Rene the official way of responding to
[01:02:41.200 --> 01:02:45.680]  that is you grab the person spin him around and smash his face into the
[01:02:45.680 --> 01:02:51.040]  nearest wall and then throw him in jail leave him in jail overnight and don't
[01:02:51.040 --> 01:02:55.600]  follow any charges against him or at least that's what Remy said well he
[01:02:55.600 --> 01:02:59.200]  didn't say it that way he just said he was a familiar with circumstances and
[01:02:59.200 --> 01:03:04.440]  felt his officers acted in accordance with policy so that's the policy I get
[01:03:04.440 --> 01:03:09.480]  arrested but then when I went after them they finally filed charges about a month
[01:03:09.480 --> 01:03:16.920]  later and when I went to the FBI they were waiting to file some papers in
[01:03:16.920 --> 01:03:21.360]  someone else's behalf they were waiting with handcuffs throw me back in jail
[01:03:21.360 --> 01:03:29.120]  well I went to court Tuesday morning and this is what they do in Travis County
[01:03:29.120 --> 01:03:34.960]  they really want you to have an attorney so they agree with you scholar got to
[01:03:34.960 --> 01:03:40.160]  have an attorney yep so they summoned me to court and sitting there in the courtroom
[01:03:40.160 --> 01:03:45.960]  and this woman sitting off to the side called my name and I came up and she
[01:03:45.960 --> 01:03:49.840]  said are you Randall Kelton I said yes I am she said I need to ask you some
[01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:56.080]  questions no ma'am no questions no I need to ask you some questions I know
[01:03:56.080 --> 01:04:02.120]  that but I'm not answering any questions well mr. Kelton I need to ask you these
[01:04:02.120 --> 01:04:09.000]  questions we'll just ask away but I'm not going to be answering and she said
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:15.460]  well you have to have an attorney I said no ma'am and she said you have to
[01:04:15.460 --> 01:04:22.320]  answer my questions it's a no ma'am I'll talk to the judge she said you can't
[01:04:22.320 --> 01:04:26.500]  talk to judge unless you have an attorney well I'll take that up with the
[01:04:26.500 --> 01:04:36.840]  judge she said she said I need to get security in here I said good idea I do
[01:04:36.840 --> 01:04:41.120]  need to get security in here so she calls security I wouldn't sit down wait
[01:04:41.120 --> 01:04:44.480]  for him they came in and asked me to step outside so I talked to him and I
[01:04:44.480 --> 01:04:51.920]  said why sure and they asked me what's wrong was I said well I have a problem
[01:04:51.920 --> 01:04:59.080]  here I need you to either verify this criminal affidavit that I have made up
[01:04:59.080 --> 01:05:07.680]  and I already had it printed up accusing the judge of simulating a legal process
[01:05:07.680 --> 01:05:14.880]  by summoning me to court for a reason not listed in 2801 code of criminal
[01:05:14.880 --> 01:05:23.360]  procedure or if in fact the judge did summon me to court for a proper reason
[01:05:23.360 --> 01:05:27.600]  then I want you to take my complaint which I'll write up against the court
[01:05:27.600 --> 01:05:39.120]  coordinator for impersonating a judicial officer and all of a sudden he got real
[01:05:39.120 --> 01:05:47.720]  interested and lost all his bluster ah one moment mr. Kelton I need to go talk
[01:05:47.720 --> 01:05:53.520]  to the court coordinator I'll wait he went in came back out with a document
[01:05:53.520 --> 01:05:58.040]  he said the coordinator needs you to sign this piece of paper and I looked at
[01:05:58.040 --> 01:06:03.680]  it it's waiver of counsel no I won't be signing any papers today thank you very
[01:06:03.680 --> 01:06:09.000]  much and he kind of looked at me a minute trying to figure out what to say or do
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:15.720]  and then he went back inside he came back out and said to wait here that they
[01:06:15.720 --> 01:06:24.800]  needed to talk to the judge good idea so then after 30 minutes or so someone came
[01:06:24.800 --> 01:06:28.640]  out and told me to they wouldn't let me go back in the courtroom and that was a
[01:06:28.640 --> 01:06:31.760]  fight I could have had but I had enough fights already I didn't want to start
[01:06:31.760 --> 01:06:35.720]  another one so he calls me out and he says mr. Kelton if you come to the
[01:06:35.720 --> 01:06:40.160]  courtroom that the judge will call you up I go in the courtroom the judge called
[01:06:40.160 --> 01:06:47.480]  me up turned out it's Ron Earl's daughter Ron Earl was the district
[01:06:47.480 --> 01:06:56.040]  attorney for 25 years and this is his daughter she called me up and I said
[01:06:56.040 --> 01:07:02.760]  your honor I have this summons here you want to tell me what this is for it
[01:07:02.760 --> 01:07:07.200]  doesn't say on the document so I have no way to prepare for this hearing she
[01:07:07.200 --> 01:07:13.160]  said well we needed to call you in to see if you had an attorney well that's
[01:07:13.160 --> 01:07:20.080]  interesting your honor I read through 28.01 code of criminal procedure and it
[01:07:20.080 --> 01:07:25.160]  lists some very specific things for which you are authorized to summon me to
[01:07:25.160 --> 01:07:32.280]  court for and to see if I have an attorney is not one of them well mr.
[01:07:32.280 --> 01:07:37.880]  Kelton we need to find out if you have an attorney well I got a telephone and
[01:07:37.880 --> 01:07:42.880]  you got my address that would have been a lot easier than forcing me to come
[01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:50.280]  down here on threat of arrest where did you get that authority and I had to give
[01:07:50.280 --> 01:07:59.720]  her credit we had a witness one one person showed up to watch and he said
[01:07:59.720 --> 01:08:05.720]  that when you first started talking to her you could see her jaw really tens up
[01:08:05.720 --> 01:08:14.120]  but then she seemed to catch herself and she did I stepped right on her neck and
[01:08:14.120 --> 01:08:19.320]  I'm sure it's been a long time since anybody done that to her with her being
[01:08:19.320 --> 01:08:29.040]  a judge yeah she handled herself with exceptional decorum and I pretty well
[01:08:29.040 --> 01:08:34.280]  decided because of the way she handled herself that I wasn't really terribly
[01:08:34.280 --> 01:08:40.680]  interested in disqualifying her she did you justice she appeared to have that
[01:08:40.680 --> 01:08:49.120]  in her mind young not heavily invested into the system and she seemed like she
[01:08:49.120 --> 01:08:54.240]  wanted to do the right thing so I'm thinking this is the judge I want to hear
[01:08:54.240 --> 01:09:02.880]  my emotions I believe so I didn't pursue that issue she said mr. Kelton are you
[01:09:02.880 --> 01:09:09.000]  going to hire an attorney no mr. Kelton would you like me to appoint you an
[01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:15.540]  attorney you do whatever you want to well mr. Kelton I will appoint you
[01:09:15.540 --> 01:09:29.120]  counsel I said judge can excuse me one thing if you appoint me a counsel you
[01:09:29.120 --> 01:09:34.960]  might want to make sure you appoint someone who really don't like she kind
[01:09:34.960 --> 01:09:39.960]  of leaned back and looked at me a minute and then she said well mr. Kelton we
[01:09:39.960 --> 01:09:46.080]  have an attorney wheel and we just picked the one that comes off I said oh
[01:09:46.080 --> 01:09:52.680]  good that takes you off the hook and she left and pointed me counsel and told me
[01:09:52.680 --> 01:09:58.080]  to go have a seat that's here my counsel would come speak to me this real young
[01:09:58.080 --> 01:10:04.720]  guy comes up he's got to be relatively new yeah he came over to me he said he
[01:10:04.720 --> 01:10:09.040]  was my counsel he wanted me to go into this interview room the first thing I
[01:10:09.040 --> 01:10:17.480]  told him I guess you pulled the short straw today he doesn't know what that
[01:10:17.480 --> 01:10:28.480]  meant yet and I have to give him credit I pressed on him I interrupted his
[01:10:28.480 --> 01:10:38.360]  expectations yes I did and he assured me that it was his intent to adjudicate my
[01:10:38.360 --> 01:10:43.200]  rights and I assured him it is absolutely my intent that you adjudicate
[01:10:43.200 --> 01:10:48.680]  my rights and and I also told him you know in all fairness you need to
[01:10:48.680 --> 01:10:56.840]  understand that when it comes to due process it's what I do he said well mr.
[01:10:56.840 --> 01:11:00.520]  Kelton I kind of got the impression you were familiar with the code of criminal
[01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:08.000]  procedure I can quote it to you so I told him you know that I filed some
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:12.560]  documents in the case and he said well he hasn't seen those well you need to
[01:11:12.560 --> 01:11:19.880]  read them and we kind of had a little discussion I didn't really want to to
[01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:28.120]  threaten him I was trying to find a way to let him know who I was and what I was
[01:11:28.120 --> 01:11:36.520]  so that in all fairness I didn't want to bushwhack him because it was very likely
[01:11:36.520 --> 01:11:43.600]  what I was about to do is a career ender and I didn't want to threaten him with
[01:11:43.600 --> 01:11:48.280]  that and he's a new attorney if he's an old guy who cares but he said he's a new
[01:11:48.280 --> 01:11:55.600]  attorney and he he seemed earnest and they mostly are when they first started
[01:11:55.600 --> 01:11:59.640]  when they first start and I can keep him honest well the one thing I did tell him
[01:11:59.640 --> 01:12:06.000]  is he said well you know mr. Kelton you are the client so you get to make the
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:11.080]  major decisions whether you're guilty or not guilty but I'm the attorney and it's
[01:12:11.080 --> 01:12:15.440]  it's my bar card so I have to make the decisions on how to adjudicate the case
[01:12:15.440 --> 01:12:23.200]  I said well you can make all the decisions you want to so long as you
[01:12:23.200 --> 01:12:30.040]  properly adjudicate every due process right that I have and make no mistake I
[01:12:30.040 --> 01:12:38.080]  know every single one of them well mr. Kelton I will adjudicate your case but
[01:12:38.080 --> 01:12:43.320]  but I'm the one that will decide what arguments get brought up in court and
[01:12:43.320 --> 01:12:50.000]  what arguments don't I said no that's already been decided the only thing left
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:56.480]  to decide is how well you're going to adjudicate them and he was clearly get
[01:12:56.480 --> 01:13:04.480]  intense and with good cause they're making that work yeah well I'm I'm
[01:13:04.480 --> 01:13:11.040]  essentially threatening him and I'm trying to find a way not to yeah we're
[01:13:11.040 --> 01:13:17.360]  making them trying to work I'm trying not to antagonize him but I'm trying to
[01:13:17.360 --> 01:13:21.720]  find a way to get this across to it and he said well mr. Kelton you understand
[01:13:21.720 --> 01:13:24.920]  you could spend up to 90 days in jail for this offense I don't worry about
[01:13:24.920 --> 01:13:30.320]  that this will never get to court I said look yeah this is what's going to
[01:13:30.320 --> 01:13:35.880]  happen you're going to wind up asking the judge to remove you from them from
[01:13:35.880 --> 01:13:41.520]  the case and when you do I'm going to go to the judge and demand that she not
[01:13:41.520 --> 01:13:45.360]  remove you from the case and the judge is going to remove you from the case
[01:13:45.360 --> 01:13:52.940]  anyway and when she does I'm going to sue the judge personally for for making
[01:13:52.940 --> 01:13:59.280]  an administrative decision that interferes with private contract and she
[01:13:59.280 --> 01:14:06.440]  did that I hope no she hasn't yet we hadn't got that far but he looked at me
[01:14:06.440 --> 01:14:14.480]  like what in the heck have I gotten into because essentially what I told him was
[01:14:14.480 --> 01:14:21.760]  as far as I'm concerned your cannon fodder I'm going to use you to get at
[01:14:21.760 --> 01:14:32.080]  somebody else and now and with that he recognized that you know this is serious
[01:14:32.080 --> 01:14:38.160]  business this guy's going to be trouble and he he handled himself well I liked
[01:14:38.160 --> 01:14:44.720]  the guy good it wasn't until later I was going to do a show with Pastor Masset
[01:14:44.720 --> 01:14:49.000]  and I had his card it had his home phone number on it and I felt bad because I
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.040]  really didn't tell him what I had planned so I called him and told him you
[01:14:55.040 --> 01:14:57.760]  know if you're not real busy you might want to listen to this radio show I'm
[01:14:57.760 --> 01:15:05.520]  about to do on there you'll find out who I am and what I'm about and it annoyed
[01:15:05.520 --> 01:15:11.520]  him that I called him at home and he said that he wasn't didn't wasn't good
[01:15:11.520 --> 01:15:17.200]  with mysteries if I had something to tell him just tell it okay here's the
[01:15:17.200 --> 01:15:22.360]  deal I'm going to ask you to adjudicate all my rights and you're not going to
[01:15:22.360 --> 01:15:26.920]  want to do it because it flies in the face of everything the courts have been
[01:15:26.920 --> 01:15:33.000]  doing and when you fail to adjudicate one single right I will follow bar
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:37.680]  grievance against you for every one of them cut his career out right from
[01:15:37.680 --> 01:15:45.360]  underneath his legs and he said mr. Calvin you would grieve me frankly in a
[01:15:45.360 --> 01:15:55.600]  heartbeat say I will do that whether I like him or not and now frankly I like
[01:15:55.600 --> 01:15:59.880]  the guy and I want to avoid doing that oh yeah that's why I was trying to be
[01:15:59.880 --> 01:16:06.080]  clear with him and it it it upset him and with good cause and he told me he
[01:16:06.080 --> 01:16:10.120]  didn't like to be threatened and that's what I was trying to avoid so I told him
[01:16:10.120 --> 01:16:18.760]  fair enough I was trying to give you a heads up last one from from now on we'll
[01:16:18.760 --> 01:16:25.120]  just take it as it comes good day and I'm not but five minutes later he called
[01:16:25.120 --> 01:16:31.520]  back I didn't I didn't answer it I was getting ready for the show he called
[01:16:31.520 --> 01:16:38.880]  back the next morning and clearly he realized the implications and he was
[01:16:38.880 --> 01:16:45.640]  concerned yeah this strategy will work okay we're about to go to break we'll
[01:16:45.640 --> 01:17:02.920]  be right back are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk
[01:17:02.920 --> 01:17:08.200]  has a 100% track record of returning profits is not affected by
[01:17:08.200 --> 01:17:13.320]  fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates is publicly traded and SEC
[01:17:13.320 --> 01:17:17.840]  regulated if this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an
[01:17:17.840 --> 01:17:22.840]  investment then life settlements is the investment for you our annual rate of
[01:17:22.840 --> 01:17:27.800]  return has been fifteen point eight three percent for the last 17 years our
[01:17:27.800 --> 01:17:32.240]  investments are insurance and banking Commission regulated our returns are
[01:17:32.240 --> 01:17:36.680]  assured by the largest insurance companies even qualified retirement
[01:17:36.680 --> 01:17:41.840]  plans such as 401ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer we charge
[01:17:41.840 --> 01:17:47.240]  absolutely no Commission's 100% of your investment goes to work for you please
[01:17:47.240 --> 01:17:53.840]  visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at eight one seven nine
[01:17:53.840 --> 01:18:00.160]  seven five two four three one that sleepwellinvestment.com or call eight
[01:18:00.160 --> 01:18:07.160]  one seven nine seven five two four three one
[01:18:30.160 --> 01:18:37.840]  I'm sorry but now I can see you you put the fear in my pocket
[01:18:37.840 --> 01:18:44.840]  looking money from my ass ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:18:44.840 --> 01:19:03.840]  ain't gonna help me
[01:19:03.840 --> 01:19:11.920]  ain't gonna drive me with that same old sucker pun I get it now but then I'm
[01:19:11.920 --> 01:19:33.920]  back then you had room to move but now you're feeling the run ain't gonna get me with that same old sucker pun
[01:19:33.920 --> 01:19:41.080]  okay ain't gonna fool me with the same old tricks again okay we have some
[01:19:41.080 --> 01:19:47.320]  callers online looks like we got Greg from Alabama one of our hosts and it
[01:19:47.320 --> 01:19:53.400]  just before we go to the calls I got to go back to this case because what it
[01:19:53.400 --> 01:19:59.080]  looks like it's saying to me and Randy we're discussing on the break we really
[01:19:59.080 --> 01:20:06.640]  need to review this the court appointed a court appointed defense attorney and
[01:20:06.640 --> 01:20:13.400]  then the cops read was Miranda and took him all over creation and did God knows
[01:20:13.400 --> 01:20:18.840]  what to him and the guy writes this letter who knows if he wrote or not but
[01:20:18.840 --> 01:20:23.480]  I mean you're saying that's a matter for the trial court understand the seems to
[01:20:23.480 --> 01:20:27.640]  me that the point the whole thing is that even though the court appointed him
[01:20:27.640 --> 01:20:34.720]  a defense attorney because the guy stood mute all right I even see in the in the
[01:20:34.720 --> 01:20:41.400]  first paragraph mute he used the word mute it's looking like they're saying
[01:20:41.400 --> 01:20:49.440]  because he didn't vocalize that he's accepting his you know acting upon his
[01:20:49.440 --> 01:20:54.960]  right then it doesn't matter and I'm sorry I just can't buy it I have a big
[01:20:54.960 --> 01:21:00.520]  problem with it we need to we need to look at this closer let's see what Greg
[01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:04.160]  has to say about it okay let me make one quick comment before we go to break
[01:21:04.160 --> 01:21:10.160]  okay in reading through the whole case it appeared that the primary question
[01:21:10.160 --> 01:21:19.760]  was going to Michigan v. Jackson where in Michigan v. Jackson the state court
[01:21:19.760 --> 01:21:30.000]  held that once there was counsel once the defendant had counsel the police
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:36.600]  could no longer initiate any kind of interaction with him okay so then Randy
[01:21:36.600 --> 01:21:43.240]  are you trying to say that this court ruling is trying to insinuate that that
[01:21:43.240 --> 01:21:52.200]  Montejo said hey guys hey cops let's go on a trip no look for the murder weapon
[01:21:52.200 --> 01:21:58.960]  no okay if he if Montejo didn't initiate the trip or the excursion excursion
[01:21:58.960 --> 01:22:05.160]  quote-unquote then that means the police did yes they did okay that was the the
[01:22:05.160 --> 01:22:09.840]  attorney's question he was saying that under Michigan v. Jackson the police
[01:22:09.840 --> 01:22:18.840]  could not initiate a investigation with him or an interrogation okay well then
[01:22:18.840 --> 01:22:24.960]  after he had an attorney and what the court distinguished was the difference
[01:22:24.960 --> 01:22:33.280]  between the individual requesting an attorney and an attorney being appointed
[01:22:33.280 --> 01:22:40.560]  without the request that had he made a request for an attorney then Jackson v.
[01:22:40.560 --> 01:22:45.960]  Michigan would have been invoked and no they could not indicate whatever
[01:22:45.960 --> 01:22:51.120]  initiative but since he made no he didn't invoke the right himself whatever
[01:22:51.120 --> 01:22:57.720]  then he didn't have that's the point I've been trying to make that's the point
[01:22:57.720 --> 01:23:04.240]  I've been trying to make all night long okay I don't care if the guy invoked is
[01:23:04.240 --> 01:23:11.880]  right or not the point is it's his right period okay I don't I don't I this is
[01:23:11.880 --> 01:23:17.680]  ridiculous okay this is a stupidness I just like the caller said a little while
[01:23:17.680 --> 01:23:23.360]  ago they're just trying to take it away bit by bit by bit little bit by little
[01:23:23.360 --> 01:23:28.480]  bit a little fine point here little fine point there and for officer Ben if
[01:23:28.480 --> 01:23:35.280]  you're listening this is why we harp on fine points of law okay go read it for
[01:23:35.280 --> 01:23:42.040]  yourself because it goes to fine points of law and it's a big difference the
[01:23:42.040 --> 01:23:47.840]  little fine points of law these things because this is how our fundamental
[01:23:47.840 --> 01:23:55.880]  liberties and freedoms are taken away to the point that we are nothing all right
[01:23:55.880 --> 01:24:04.680]  I'm sick of it I put up with it it ain't no fine point of law we're people all
[01:24:04.680 --> 01:24:09.040]  right I'm going to Greg I'm mad I'm mad as hell I ain't taking it no more Greg
[01:24:09.040 --> 01:24:17.200]  what do you have to say about it Wow I can tell you guys I didn't know you guys
[01:24:17.200 --> 01:24:21.600]  were talking about is that that Supreme Court case yes yes go yeah Greg the
[01:24:21.600 --> 01:24:28.080]  whole thing is well because the guy didn't verbalize or invoke okay the
[01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:32.440]  court appointed him an attorney all right but because he didn't say there
[01:24:32.440 --> 01:24:37.720]  and say oh oh yes I accept my right to have a council then they're saying okay
[01:24:37.720 --> 01:24:41.360]  well because you didn't vocalize you're right you didn't invoke your right well
[01:24:41.360 --> 01:24:46.440]  then you waived it that's BS man the whole point is the whole point is I
[01:24:46.440 --> 01:24:53.600]  don't believe that you automatically waive your rights unless you speak up
[01:24:53.600 --> 01:24:59.560]  and claim them I say they're your rights period unless you write it down on paper
[01:24:59.560 --> 01:25:04.240]  that you're waiving them and I'm sticking to that to the bitter end that's
[01:25:04.240 --> 01:25:09.160]  a perfect segue for why I called and I I didn't know you were I just got back and
[01:25:09.160 --> 01:25:13.520]  had intended on on listening you guys from the beginning because there's a
[01:25:13.520 --> 01:25:18.520]  particular case that I helped on and it falls right into what you're talking
[01:25:18.520 --> 01:25:23.800]  about and I actually wanted to get an opinion from you guys on what to do next
[01:25:23.800 --> 01:25:29.280]  if you don't mind me doing that go ahead okay of course okay are you talking
[01:25:29.280 --> 01:25:35.320]  about rights this is perfect I'll try to keep this as sure as I can guy in
[01:25:35.320 --> 01:25:42.720]  December a guy's mother comes to me says Greg you know anything about DUIs yeah
[01:25:42.720 --> 01:25:48.120]  what's the deal and then she told me the story about her son and array he hadn't
[01:25:48.120 --> 01:25:54.120]  been back from Iraq for very long and he was arrested for DUI on private property
[01:25:54.120 --> 01:26:00.560]  he was not even behind the wheel of the automobile and a zealous cop arrested
[01:26:00.560 --> 01:26:06.380]  him on private property for DUI well here's problem the attorney that they
[01:26:06.380 --> 01:26:10.080]  hired said oh you got this one it's not a problem this is just an overzealous
[01:26:10.080 --> 01:26:15.120]  cop and they're thinking about firing him anyway well come December trial time
[01:26:15.120 --> 01:26:20.300]  the day of trial the attorney comes out of a room and says look you need to make
[01:26:20.300 --> 01:26:25.880]  a deal here and and that surprised them and she says because they're gonna you
[01:26:25.880 --> 01:26:30.080]  could spend time and in jail I know you guys know the old pitch from the
[01:26:30.080 --> 01:26:35.200]  attorney scared him to death and basically said here you need to sign
[01:26:35.200 --> 01:26:39.640]  this waiver you waive your right to an appeal and all that and I'll keep you
[01:26:39.640 --> 01:26:47.040]  out of jail and so reluctantly he did that and when they went before the judge
[01:26:47.040 --> 01:26:52.280]  for the judge to hear the plea his mother went with him and said look we
[01:26:52.280 --> 01:26:56.200]  didn't want to do this we don't you know I don't understand this he's not guilty
[01:26:56.200 --> 01:27:01.360]  of anything and the judge basically said it's not you on trial ma'am do you
[01:27:01.360 --> 01:27:07.320]  understand these rights and Cody said yeah I guess so and that was it so she
[01:27:07.320 --> 01:27:11.160]  comes to me she says do you know anything about it I said well when did it
[01:27:11.160 --> 01:27:15.160]  happen she said on Thursday I said well you still got time left for a notice of
[01:27:15.160 --> 01:27:19.920]  appeal I looked at the paperwork he signed away his right to appeal but
[01:27:19.920 --> 01:27:24.160]  there's also there's an argument to that that part that's another story but
[01:27:24.160 --> 01:27:29.280]  anyway I did a notice of appeal for she she they went down there to the
[01:27:29.280 --> 01:27:34.720]  municipal court to the clerk and I told her I said what you want is you want a
[01:27:34.720 --> 01:27:41.240]  copy of a signed or stamped version of this notice appeal she goes down there
[01:27:41.240 --> 01:27:45.600]  and they said well you have to use our paperwork she calls me up I said well go
[01:27:45.600 --> 01:27:48.800]  ahead and use their paperwork so she filled it out just like the one I'd done
[01:27:48.800 --> 01:27:53.560]  handed it in the lady signed it and dated and handed it back handed her a
[01:27:53.560 --> 01:27:58.120]  copy back but when that happened somebody in the back had noticed who it
[01:27:58.120 --> 01:28:00.400]  was came out there and said oh wait a minute you can't do this
[01:28:00.400 --> 01:28:06.360]  the way this right she called me up I said do you have a copy of a stamped or
[01:28:06.360 --> 01:28:12.240]  signed she signed a notice of appeal she said yes I said don't worry about it if
[01:28:12.240 --> 01:28:18.720]  we then waited another 14 days because the ruling in in Alabama is that if the
[01:28:18.720 --> 01:28:23.320]  municipal court doesn't get their paperwork to the circuit court within 14
[01:28:23.320 --> 01:28:27.440]  days after the notice of appeal is perfected then the case is deemed
[01:28:27.440 --> 01:28:35.480]  dismissed after the 14 days he filed a motion to dismiss based on that rule and
[01:28:35.480 --> 01:28:43.960]  so he just just about a month ago got a summons to court to circuit court to hear
[01:28:43.960 --> 01:28:50.080]  that that motion he went in there today I schooled him a little bit all I could
[01:28:50.080 --> 01:28:55.760]  last night he went in with the rule book the whole nine yards the judge said
[01:28:55.760 --> 01:29:03.160]  called his case and said well the municipal attorney is not here so we'll
[01:29:03.160 --> 01:29:08.440]  just go ahead and dock in it for September to hear your case and he comes
[01:29:08.440 --> 01:29:12.640]  out in the parking lot he calls me and I said you need to go back to the judge
[01:29:12.640 --> 01:29:17.080]  and you said and I said you told her there's lack of prosecution you want it
[01:29:17.080 --> 01:29:23.200]  dismissed he goes back in there and they had found the municipal attorney and he
[01:29:23.200 --> 01:29:28.320]  comes in and says look he can't do that because he waved his right to an appeal
[01:29:28.320 --> 01:29:35.240]  and the judge denied that the motion so I think there's two routes to go and I
[01:29:35.240 --> 01:29:42.160]  wanted to hear what Randy's direction would be on what to file next okay now
[01:29:42.160 --> 01:29:49.640]  he needs to file an appeal of this decision and what you wouldn't you
[01:29:49.640 --> 01:29:57.120]  wouldn't think of a mandamus in this case no because the judge didn't abuse
[01:29:57.120 --> 01:30:03.640]  any discretion here the judge acted in accordance with law
[01:30:03.640 --> 01:30:08.640]  never risk all right wait yeah we're going to skip right okay he did wait
[01:30:08.640 --> 01:30:15.080]  before you say that before you say that now listen to this he perfected the
[01:30:15.080 --> 01:30:21.200]  notice of appeal based on the rule itself it was perfected regardless
[01:30:21.200 --> 01:30:26.760]  regardless of what happened before there the circuit clerk perfected that
[01:30:26.760 --> 01:30:33.280]  notice of appeal in my opinion that would be an abuse of power well the
[01:30:33.280 --> 01:30:41.160]  judge upheld the fact that he had waived his right to appeal so now what you
[01:30:41.160 --> 01:30:47.280]  you'll have to do is go back and argue ineffective assistance of counsel argue
[01:30:47.280 --> 01:30:57.920]  that the plea was was made without full disclosure and with effectively without
[01:30:57.920 --> 01:31:03.480]  intent because he was misled by his attorney okay well let me ask you this
[01:31:03.480 --> 01:31:10.360]  Randy how about making the argument that you can't waive your rights anyway and
[01:31:10.360 --> 01:31:15.280]  so even if I did say I waive them I take them back because they're mine anyway
[01:31:15.280 --> 01:31:19.720]  what about that because under law you can waive your rights so what does that
[01:31:19.720 --> 01:31:23.120]  mean that if you do you don't have the right to take them back but you can only
[01:31:23.120 --> 01:31:29.040]  waive your rights with full disclosure free of coercion okay and also let me
[01:31:29.040 --> 01:31:34.520]  interject this to Randy now if I'm not mistaken Mike had found this I believe
[01:31:34.520 --> 01:31:41.700]  after waiving your rights you still have seven days that you can unwaive your
[01:31:41.700 --> 01:31:47.880]  rights basically and what constitutes full disclosure see he wasn't told that
[01:31:47.880 --> 01:31:52.880]  so people really aren't told their rights when they waive those rights
[01:31:52.880 --> 01:32:00.880]  exactly that's what I was saying what constitutes full disclosure anything
[01:32:00.880 --> 01:32:08.000]  that would have caused him to make it is a reasonable person of ordinary prudence
[01:32:08.000 --> 01:32:15.960]  in his position to make a different determination that wasn't disclosed that
[01:32:15.960 --> 01:32:20.040]  lacks full disclosure and if it was in a contract situation it would be fraud by
[01:32:20.040 --> 01:32:30.240]  non-disclosure well isn't this a contract situation kind of sort of kind
[01:32:30.240 --> 01:32:34.760]  of looks like a contract but really a criminal prosecution but if you sign if
[01:32:34.760 --> 01:32:39.120]  you sign a piece of paper isn't that a contract yeah you can apply contract law
[01:32:39.120 --> 01:32:49.760]  to the interaction because the criminal code doesn't address the contractual
[01:32:49.760 --> 01:32:58.560]  nature of offer and acceptance all right now there's one other thing now so if we
[01:32:58.560 --> 01:33:03.080]  rule out the mandamus in Alabama there's a post-conviction remedy it's rule 32
[01:33:03.080 --> 01:33:10.880]  okay wait wait stop before we rule out the mandamus you do have a point
[01:33:10.880 --> 01:33:20.400]  regardless of whether you had a right to appeal or not the law was clear on what
[01:33:20.400 --> 01:33:26.560]  the clerk must what the local court must do because when the appeal is notes of
[01:33:26.560 --> 01:33:32.080]  appeal is filed that court loses subject matter jurisdiction and this act was a
[01:33:32.080 --> 01:33:37.760]  ministerial act that they failed to perform in a timely manner you should
[01:33:37.760 --> 01:33:44.840]  counter sue in the criminal against the clerk or the court whoever didn't forward
[01:33:44.840 --> 01:33:54.960]  the paperwork so and also see my argument on that was in conjunction what
[01:33:54.960 --> 01:33:59.240]  you just said was and what I tried to get across to him was when this came up
[01:33:59.240 --> 01:34:04.560]  in court and see that he knows what I do people have a hard time arguing these
[01:34:04.560 --> 01:34:11.840]  cases themselves but the simplicity of it is this if if his signature was good
[01:34:11.840 --> 01:34:17.120]  and accepted for that waiver then the circuit Clark's signature had to be good
[01:34:17.120 --> 01:34:22.560]  and accepted for that notice of appeal yes if one if one is one is good both
[01:34:22.560 --> 01:34:29.080]  are good but if one is bad both are bad if the clerk had a concern about the
[01:34:29.080 --> 01:34:35.240]  validity then the clerk needed to file a motion with the court to have the
[01:34:35.240 --> 01:34:42.640]  documents stricken but the clerk did not so once the appeal was filed as it's
[01:34:42.640 --> 01:34:50.000]  filed now if you have seven days did you get the appeal in within seven days no
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:54.960]  the appeal probably would have been in two days early than the 14 though so not
[01:34:54.960 --> 01:35:02.640]  within seven days no okay then you can see as far as the the statutory mandate
[01:35:02.640 --> 01:35:12.080]  yeah I would make them show by case law how they can how a mandate stops being a
[01:35:12.080 --> 01:35:21.080]  mandate without a motion challenging the filing the issue is not whether or not
[01:35:21.080 --> 01:35:29.960]  you can appeal this particular case the issue is rather the statutory mandate
[01:35:29.960 --> 01:35:36.480]  applies so the court is saying that if you've waived your right to appeal even
[01:35:36.480 --> 01:35:42.720]  if you do file a document it's null and void because you've waived the right and
[01:35:42.720 --> 01:35:49.160]  you'll say it's not null and void until the court rules that it's null and void
[01:35:49.160 --> 01:35:55.940]  that's going to be the issue before the court well since since he's got 42 days
[01:35:55.940 --> 01:36:04.560]  to appeal and you know and saving that would you while you make make motions
[01:36:04.560 --> 01:36:10.640]  in that regard in this in the circuit court also get the get the appeal into
[01:36:10.640 --> 01:36:14.320]  the appellate court so that we don't miss the point have you looked at the
[01:36:14.320 --> 01:36:24.520]  pellet rules concerning motion for reconsideration check in Texas the first
[01:36:24.520 --> 01:36:29.800]  thing you want to do is wait the 40 days right at the last moment file a motion
[01:36:29.800 --> 01:36:34.640]  for consideration you've checked to cut check the law motion for consideration
[01:36:34.640 --> 01:36:43.060]  stops the clock and you take time build your legal brief brief the issue the
[01:36:43.060 --> 01:36:51.120]  judge ruled on take it back to the judge in a motion for reconsideration I see
[01:36:51.120 --> 01:36:56.120]  and that stops the clock and you would wait that long to do that I did
[01:36:56.120 --> 01:37:00.160]  generally take as much time as you can make sure you got your documents in
[01:37:00.160 --> 01:37:08.680]  order but check to see if if when the clock restarts does it start at the the
[01:37:08.680 --> 01:37:12.460]  date that it stopped or does it start counting all over again just to make
[01:37:12.460 --> 01:37:19.080]  sure you don't miss but have your appeal ready when you file for a
[01:37:19.080 --> 01:37:24.240]  reconsideration but you need to read the rules on the appellate rules to find out
[01:37:24.240 --> 01:37:28.400]  what those time limits are to make sure you don't miss them but make sure you
[01:37:28.400 --> 01:37:32.000]  have time to get a good brief together
[01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:37.760]  you know as another part of this case I had told you about this a while back to
[01:37:37.760 --> 01:37:44.240]  this was a case where the evidence the prosecution prosecutions evidence
[01:37:44.240 --> 01:37:50.600]  itself would have gotten him off because they had a forensic document that
[01:37:50.600 --> 01:37:57.800]  stipulated on the document itself that if there was if he had anything of
[01:37:57.800 --> 01:38:02.360]  alcohol to drink within 20 minutes of the test then none of the tests would
[01:38:02.360 --> 01:38:06.920]  have been valid the police officer never asked him that question when I asked him
[01:38:06.920 --> 01:38:10.520]  that question he said yeah it was probably five minutes after I drank some
[01:38:10.520 --> 01:38:18.000]  beer that he gave me the sobriety test or the breathalyzer mandamus that's
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:30.160]  that's meat meat for mandamus so is that the route that you would take yeah do
[01:38:30.160 --> 01:38:35.360]  mandamus but first I'd go for reconsideration on this issue and file
[01:38:35.360 --> 01:38:43.000]  a motion to revoke your signature on the plea agreement claim ineffective
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:47.840]  assistance of counsel and file about a half a dozen bar grievances against this
[01:38:47.840 --> 01:38:53.640]  attorney and end his career for him and then move for court appointed counsel
[01:38:53.640 --> 01:39:00.280]  first get you another attorney appointed to represent him and then crucify the
[01:39:00.280 --> 01:39:07.400]  last one so that the new attorney is looking at going down the same road and
[01:39:07.400 --> 01:39:12.080]  give him plausible deniability to adjudicate your case before the court
[01:39:12.080 --> 01:39:20.600]  we're going to win this by forcing defense counsel to do their jobs and you
[01:39:20.600 --> 01:39:26.240]  need counsel to protect your rights but right now counsel is I never thought I
[01:39:26.240 --> 01:39:31.520]  hear you say that yeah he know what the courts will listen to an attorney because
[01:39:31.520 --> 01:39:37.520]  they're all in the same boat yeah and still the most dangerous man in the
[01:39:37.520 --> 01:39:42.960]  courtroom is your attorney because he can do what he just did to this guy he
[01:39:42.960 --> 01:39:48.000]  can screw you he can screw you easier than the prosecutor can so let's give
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.920]  him reason to do it right crucify the last one and say you want to be next
[01:39:53.920 --> 01:40:00.520]  Bubba but look what it gives him now in on the attorney side what the heck are
[01:40:00.520 --> 01:40:05.160]  they supposed to do go in there and get the judge p.o.ed Adam the judge's gonna
[01:40:05.160 --> 01:40:07.920]  screw the next client to get back out and the judges can put you out of
[01:40:07.920 --> 01:40:14.200]  business whether they will or not I don't know but attorneys tend to believe
[01:40:14.200 --> 01:40:19.080]  they will so if you go in there and kick your attorney right square into behind
[01:40:19.080 --> 01:40:23.800]  he gets to go to the judge and say judge you know we're all buddies here help me
[01:40:23.800 --> 01:40:30.400]  out they're cremating me here and pull the judge in on their side and I mean I
[01:40:30.400 --> 01:40:41.400]  think we can do that that seems like the most effective way it doesn't matter you
[01:40:41.400 --> 01:40:48.520]  crucify him you know first bar grievance he gets you know I hate to even tell the
[01:40:48.520 --> 01:40:52.240]  attorney that I'm even considering a bar grievance I want him to get it in his
[01:40:52.240 --> 01:40:56.200]  hand before he knows anything's coming this particular attorney they appointed
[01:40:56.200 --> 01:41:01.760]  for me annoyed me because I liked him so I just didn't have it in me to
[01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:09.800]  bushwhack it so but if he was an old crotchety old buzzard to give me this
[01:41:09.800 --> 01:41:14.200]  crap well I'm gonna do whatever I want to do and I'm the attorney and I'm gonna do whatever I
[01:41:14.200 --> 01:41:20.480]  say okay Bubba your call and then you'd find out from the state bar association
[01:41:20.480 --> 01:41:24.160]  and I filed a bar grievance against them and then we come to me to gripe about
[01:41:24.160 --> 01:41:32.240]  it I'd tell him what I can't talk to you about that that's secret all right well
[01:41:32.240 --> 01:41:36.560]  listen Greg you want to stay on the line while we take some more calls yeah okay
[01:41:36.560 --> 01:41:39.440]  all right we're gonna skip the next break we're gonna take the rest of our
[01:41:39.440 --> 01:41:46.040]  calls we got Brian Terry Skyler Freeman all right Brian what's on your mind
[01:41:46.040 --> 01:41:51.440]  how you guys doing this evening good can you hear me okay yeah yeah are you on
[01:41:51.440 --> 01:41:56.840]  speakerphone no I'm not a speakerphone but trying to use my headset okay yeah
[01:41:56.840 --> 01:42:03.040]  that's much better all right all right thank you I have a couple questions I
[01:42:03.040 --> 01:42:09.200]  was wondering I've been doing a lot of research trying to trace my title down
[01:42:09.200 --> 01:42:14.120]  at um you know the registers all that and you know when I go into the main
[01:42:14.120 --> 01:42:18.480]  screen there are a bunch of different fields that you can fill out but you
[01:42:18.480 --> 01:42:22.480]  know I could put in my name for instance instead of you know my address or the
[01:42:22.480 --> 01:42:26.000]  former property owners what have you I'm wondering you know when I go to that
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:30.760]  next screen and it pulls up you know a public record like say my my home loan
[01:42:30.760 --> 01:42:37.120]  mortgage whatever how can I file stuff and have it show up there because I've
[01:42:37.120 --> 01:42:42.960]  been found a lot of this commercial stuff and I think a lot of it is you know
[01:42:42.960 --> 01:42:46.640]  little phony but some of it you know has some merit and I'm just wondering how I
[01:42:46.640 --> 01:42:50.880]  can do it and have it show up there because I don't know if I agree with you
[01:42:50.880 --> 01:42:56.360]  know registered mail being considered filed in the public okay all court all
[01:42:56.360 --> 01:43:03.480]  county clerks tend to have a section where you file deeds and mortgages and
[01:43:03.480 --> 01:43:11.560]  in that section you can file anything you want to and they charge you for it
[01:43:11.560 --> 01:43:17.360]  blood-buried it by the page but it goes into the court record and becomes public
[01:43:17.360 --> 01:43:21.720]  and that's not necessarily an affidavit right that would be different no
[01:43:21.720 --> 01:43:27.080]  affidavit same thing you can file it in the same place it's a section of the
[01:43:27.080 --> 01:43:31.600]  court set aside for public records and you you file with that section of the
[01:43:31.600 --> 01:43:34.960]  court and anybody can go to the court and look up all the records that are in
[01:43:34.960 --> 01:43:40.920]  there okay so deeds and such just happen to be the main thing they file but they
[01:43:40.920 --> 01:43:45.360]  generally accept everything else okay cool because that kind of brings me to
[01:43:45.360 --> 01:43:52.200]  my next question I was handing out some literature Memorial Day I went around
[01:43:52.200 --> 01:43:56.400]  and handed out flyers which I actually I sent to you guys so you should have a
[01:43:56.400 --> 01:44:00.840]  copy of those nice green flyers I was handing out and a copy of Republican
[01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:05.200]  democracies which is the John Birch Society publication it's an essay
[01:44:05.200 --> 01:44:09.880]  written by one of the people that are in the JBS anyway I handed those two pieces
[01:44:09.880 --> 01:44:15.320]  of literature out and strangely enough the next morning I had a non-marked
[01:44:15.320 --> 01:44:18.640]  police car drive past my house and you know maybe I'm being suspicious but I've
[01:44:18.640 --> 01:44:23.560]  lived here for a few years and not any not seen any but the police officer or
[01:44:23.560 --> 01:44:28.200]  the coroner or the volunteer fire chief that live in my same little circle here
[01:44:28.200 --> 01:44:32.920]  drive by and then this morning you know fully marked police car drove by as well
[01:44:32.920 --> 01:44:37.120]  you know slowly looking past my house and I was wondering if there would be
[01:44:37.120 --> 01:44:41.800]  a roundabout way that I could maybe inquire to see if there had been any
[01:44:41.800 --> 01:44:48.360]  inquiries as to maybe somebody got upset by my publication call the police and
[01:44:48.360 --> 01:44:53.840]  tell them I think there's some guy driving around here in this car chasing
[01:44:53.840 --> 01:45:00.200]  out our houses this guy keeps driving by my house real slow and looking over my
[01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:06.720]  house I'm afraid he's planning something can you get somebody out here to take a
[01:45:06.720 --> 01:45:12.600]  statement in case something happens I'd like this I thought about being that
[01:45:12.600 --> 01:45:17.400]  direct also if I couldn't have a roundabout way I did but Randy could he
[01:45:17.400 --> 01:45:22.160]  legitimately use open records he could legitimately walk right out there in the
[01:45:22.160 --> 01:45:27.200]  street and say stop what the heck are you and what are you doing cruising
[01:45:27.200 --> 01:45:32.640]  around my neighborhood exactly I told a friend of mine that where we had some
[01:45:32.640 --> 01:45:37.000]  reserve officers and one of them went to the convenience store work his wife
[01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:41.720]  worked and asked her what time she got off and which way she went to go home
[01:45:41.720 --> 01:45:48.520]  and you know it sounded you know like he's trying to make sure she's okay but
[01:45:48.520 --> 01:45:54.160]  something in his manner really frightened her and Leon came to me and
[01:45:54.160 --> 01:45:58.000]  asked me what to do about it I said let's pull him over let him know what
[01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:04.920]  your concern is and you know if he's got some nefarious ideas if you talk to him
[01:46:04.920 --> 01:46:09.320]  I think that'll take care of it you do have to know that Leon is six foot seven
[01:46:09.320 --> 01:46:16.760]  weighs about 500 pounds so what does Leon do he drives up next to him it
[01:46:16.760 --> 01:46:26.040]  points at him you know Paul and Leon tells him that you been talking to my
[01:46:26.040 --> 01:46:31.200]  wife and you scared the heck out of her when you scare her you make me mad and
[01:46:31.200 --> 01:46:36.600]  he said the cop reached down and put his hand on his pistol and he said we need
[01:46:36.600 --> 01:46:43.160]  to get an understanding here one of us has a pistol and one of us don't care
[01:46:43.160 --> 01:46:48.600]  yeah well remember you know we do have the we do have the liberty to go to the
[01:46:48.600 --> 01:46:52.320]  store in the middle of the night and we we can go back home and watch TV she was
[01:46:52.320 --> 01:46:57.240]  working there and he made it sound like he wanted to make sure she got home safe
[01:46:57.240 --> 01:47:04.680]  but there was something in his demeanor that didn't didn't fit right I told Leon
[01:47:04.680 --> 01:47:11.560]  that wasn't exactly what I had in mind but I suspect it'll work all right well
[01:47:11.560 --> 01:47:15.840]  listen we have some other callers on the line Brian I think you addressed it
[01:47:15.840 --> 01:47:20.360]  fairly enough I maybe I'll maybe take you up on that direct directness when
[01:47:20.360 --> 01:47:24.720]  I see how things pan out a few days I've been pretty busy but uh yeah I like that
[01:47:24.720 --> 01:47:30.880]  myself all right thank you thank you so much Brian thank you for your support
[01:47:30.880 --> 01:47:33.880]  too Brian's one of our longtime listeners
[01:47:33.880 --> 01:47:40.240]  longtime callers he's the Pennsylvania Brian long time supporters of rule of
[01:47:40.240 --> 01:47:44.560]  law radio and we love you Brian thank you so much for your support all right
[01:47:44.560 --> 01:47:49.520]  we're going to go to Terry from Louisiana hey Terry thanks for calling in
[01:47:49.520 --> 01:47:55.720]  what's on your mind tonight hey I wanted to touch a couple of things up first of
[01:47:55.720 --> 01:48:03.600]  all I wanted to update y'all with my case traveling without a license I went
[01:48:03.600 --> 01:48:11.120]  through court May the 11th and I carried my seat recorder because the court
[01:48:11.120 --> 01:48:17.760]  reporter was not documenting the minutes of court and all the district attorney
[01:48:17.760 --> 01:48:25.520]  has fit and did more allow me to do it and just so happened the judge stepped
[01:48:25.520 --> 01:48:29.720]  out of his chambers and was standing around talking to some of the officers
[01:48:29.720 --> 01:48:35.240]  now motion to him and he allowed me to go into his chambers and we had a long
[01:48:35.240 --> 01:48:43.280]  powwow and I showed him some of the stuff I had and everything and Supreme
[01:48:43.280 --> 01:48:50.200]  Court rulings about sovereignty and all that kind of stuff and he basically
[01:48:50.200 --> 01:48:57.480]  told me he said look I'm retiring today he said the criminal charges you got
[01:48:57.480 --> 01:49:03.000]  against the officer and planning to bring against the district attorney you've
[01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:08.920]  got Kate he said but I don't want to be involved
[01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:16.520]  I've been doing this I'm 80 years old he said I'm retiring today he said let me
[01:49:16.520 --> 01:49:23.760]  relieve myself from this I said well if you'll give me an extension for 30 days
[01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:32.440]  I will honor your wishes and allow you to relieve yourself from this simply by
[01:49:32.440 --> 01:49:39.480]  retiring and so basically that's what we did we went back out in the court he
[01:49:39.480 --> 01:49:43.480]  didn't make a decision on having the tape recorder or not having the tape
[01:49:43.480 --> 01:49:51.520]  recorder the standing judge of that parish he called her on the phone and
[01:49:51.520 --> 01:49:57.440]  she said she couldn't find anything that said I couldn't have it but she didn't
[01:49:57.440 --> 01:50:04.720]  like to have it because it might conflict with what they had well that's
[01:50:04.720 --> 01:50:09.680]  the reason to have it yeah it might catch them in a laugh so she didn't
[01:50:09.680 --> 01:50:15.640]  really want it but it was his decision so basically that's where I stand and I
[01:50:15.640 --> 01:50:22.320]  go back in the 22nd with another judge and I start all over again except we go to
[01:50:22.320 --> 01:50:31.360]  trial with a new judge and he's gonna walk in through a brand side good yeah
[01:50:31.360 --> 01:50:38.000]  well what I really wanted to address is this other guy that is got a pretty good
[01:50:38.000 --> 01:50:46.160]  situation here with the DUI at at call it in before Brian yeah great now I was
[01:50:46.160 --> 01:50:51.800]  listening then this is just my opinion because of my studies and everything the
[01:50:51.800 --> 01:50:58.200]  first thing is how come the police officer was on private property how come
[01:50:58.200 --> 01:51:05.400]  the property owner did not tell him that he had about 30 seconds to vacate or he
[01:51:05.400 --> 01:51:11.760]  was just to be arrested for trespassing well there's one reason there's one
[01:51:11.760 --> 01:51:19.360]  reason if you are in public view and you are intoxicated even if you're on private
[01:51:19.360 --> 01:51:23.920]  property generally I know it's that way in Texas you can be arrested for public
[01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:29.000]  intoxication yeah and that would give him standing to enter the property how's
[01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:35.520]  that Greg how's that in Alabama you know that that portion of public
[01:51:35.520 --> 01:51:41.600]  intoxication I didn't even look at what I did look at strongly was a lot of case
[01:51:41.600 --> 01:51:47.280]  law in regard to private and it basically flip-flops back and forth
[01:51:47.280 --> 01:51:52.040]  Supreme Court rulings because of there was one particular case where a man was
[01:51:52.040 --> 01:51:59.360]  in a driveway and he started up his car and they they then pulled right behind
[01:51:59.360 --> 01:52:05.320]  him and arrested him and long story short Supreme Court ruled on that case
[01:52:05.320 --> 01:52:14.240]  that they were in their full capacity to arrest him because it it was it made
[01:52:14.240 --> 01:52:18.400]  common sense that the man was about to drive out on the road that's the
[01:52:18.400 --> 01:52:27.760]  dangerous area let me throw this out here this is my study and everything in
[01:52:27.760 --> 01:52:35.200]  our study has to convert back to Constitution and common law we always
[01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:39.320]  want bring them back to common law and Constitution because everything that's
[01:52:39.320 --> 01:52:44.920]  made eye of context with the Constitution is not law at all now
[01:52:44.920 --> 01:52:51.640]  private property if you bring them back to constitutional and common law they
[01:52:51.640 --> 01:52:57.640]  do not have jurisdiction on common law without a invitation by the property
[01:52:57.640 --> 01:53:07.640]  owner here's the problem at least in Texas the statutes say that the penal
[01:53:07.640 --> 01:53:15.320]  code governs and then the code of criminal procedure and where the code
[01:53:15.320 --> 01:53:20.200]  of criminal procedure or rules of civil procedure don't address an issue then
[01:53:20.200 --> 01:53:27.880]  the common law governs so anything that's addressed by penal code code of
[01:53:27.880 --> 01:53:33.640]  criminal procedure rules of civil procedure it trumps the common law yeah
[01:53:33.640 --> 01:53:38.280]  and here's what i want to i'm going to ask eddie about this too as far as this
[01:53:38.280 --> 01:53:42.440]  case that you're talking about terry that they're arresting the man in his
[01:53:42.440 --> 01:53:47.320]  driveway because they're assuming that it's most likely that a reasonable
[01:53:47.320 --> 01:53:52.120]  person would think that he's going to back out of the driveway and drive well
[01:53:52.120 --> 01:53:56.440]  has a crime been committed no because he didn't actually back out of the
[01:53:56.440 --> 01:54:00.440]  driveway and get on the street and i'm going to i want to talk to eddie about
[01:54:00.440 --> 01:54:05.160]  this because this all has to do with commercial law as well regarding
[01:54:05.160 --> 01:54:10.520]  driving and the driver's license and the license and the commercial code and the
[01:54:10.520 --> 01:54:14.200]  and the whole nine yards and and and randy speaking of
[01:54:14.200 --> 01:54:18.840]  the intoxication in the public and the whole thing i had a policeman come on my
[01:54:18.840 --> 01:54:25.960]  property on my birthday and tell me that
[01:54:25.960 --> 01:54:33.400]  we could not drink alcoholic beverages in my backyard after
[01:54:33.400 --> 01:54:39.160]  curfew he didn't say anything about that we were intoxicated
[01:54:39.160 --> 01:54:43.480]  or public intoxication or anything like that
[01:54:43.480 --> 01:54:50.120]  he said if you're outside on private property you're drinking
[01:54:50.120 --> 01:54:53.400]  in public and there's no drinking in public
[01:54:53.400 --> 01:54:59.400]  after curfew okay very and i said can you please tell me what the law is on
[01:54:59.400 --> 01:55:02.760]  that because is this some new court ruling or is
[01:55:02.760 --> 01:55:07.560]  this a city ordinance or is this state law or is this federal or what
[01:55:07.560 --> 01:55:12.040]  and he just looked me straight in the eye and told me
[01:55:12.040 --> 01:55:17.320]  that's the way it is that's the way it's always been i've been a cop for 30 years
[01:55:17.320 --> 01:55:22.760]  and i just knew okay whatever dude i knew that i just had to do whatever he
[01:55:22.760 --> 01:55:25.800]  said or he was going to haul all my friends to jail on my birthday
[01:55:25.800 --> 01:55:30.360]  and i'm sorry but that is wrong there's a there's a technical legal term for
[01:55:30.360 --> 01:55:35.400]  that it's called tyranny horse poop that's
[01:55:35.400 --> 01:55:39.560]  it's called police state and i ain't going to put up with it
[01:55:39.560 --> 01:55:44.120]  let me say this my my understanding once again we go back to the
[01:55:44.120 --> 01:55:49.560]  constitution it starts with the first words of the
[01:55:49.560 --> 01:55:54.120]  constitution we the people and
[01:55:54.120 --> 01:56:01.400]  we have the authority and we delegate or assign
[01:56:01.400 --> 01:56:08.040]  the authority that they have actually actually uh that has now changed it's
[01:56:08.040 --> 01:56:12.120]  called we the courts because all the important things
[01:56:12.120 --> 01:56:14.920]  can never change that's what i'm telling you is
[01:56:14.920 --> 01:56:18.280]  right there reality here's the reality of everything
[01:56:18.280 --> 01:56:22.680]  the courts use case law as law but they're just opinions
[01:56:22.680 --> 01:56:25.800]  that's all they are but the problem with it is
[01:56:25.800 --> 01:56:29.000]  if if a court rules a certain way it becomes law
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:32.600]  that's what's wrong okay let me tell you what
[01:56:32.600 --> 01:56:38.440]  case law really is it's common law
[01:56:38.520 --> 01:56:42.760]  when people say they want to go back to the common law i say i don't
[01:56:42.760 --> 01:56:48.200]  common law is law ruled by judges i want the judges control
[01:56:48.200 --> 01:56:54.520]  by statute not by their own opinions i didn't take common law to be that at
[01:56:54.520 --> 01:56:57.400]  all common law is what's ruled by the people not
[01:56:57.400 --> 01:57:05.240]  by judge yeah it's it's you go back common law is is what has been ruled
[01:57:05.240 --> 01:57:10.520]  and the people don't issue court rulings the court does
[01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:16.520]  and frankly it scares me it when you've got to take the whole picture
[01:57:16.520 --> 01:57:22.760]  and that's that's what i i've looked at a lot of people i don't just listen to
[01:57:22.760 --> 01:57:25.560]  y'all i've i've looked at a lot of other people
[01:57:25.560 --> 01:57:31.240]  everything i've been studying myself are you are you saying you listen to evil
[01:57:31.240 --> 01:57:38.520]  rival networks come on i listen to evil rival people
[01:57:38.520 --> 01:57:43.560]  and in reality they're not rivals because we're all trying to achieve the
[01:57:43.560 --> 01:57:49.480]  same thing and that's precisely we're all on the same page
[01:57:49.480 --> 01:57:52.920]  i say that with affection
[01:57:53.240 --> 01:57:57.640]  but basically what happens is everybody out there
[01:57:57.640 --> 01:58:04.440]  wants to take a small piece of something and bend it to fit their situation
[01:58:04.440 --> 01:58:11.400]  but if you will read the constitution for the words that it says and the
[01:58:11.400 --> 01:58:15.080]  declaration of independence for what it said
[01:58:15.080 --> 01:58:19.080]  not try to read anything into it quickly we're out of time
[01:58:19.080 --> 01:58:22.440]  right there yep all right i agree with you
[01:58:22.440 --> 01:58:27.000]  absolutely let me run through this right no no no we can't yeah we're about to go
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  off the air i'm sorry thank you so much terry and thank you i'm
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:34.120]  sorry skyler freeman will have to take your calls tomorrow night
[01:58:34.120 --> 01:58:37.960]  thank you greg agenda 21 talk he's on friday night
[01:58:37.960 --> 01:58:41.720]  him and don terry and mike hussein halloway
[01:58:41.720 --> 01:58:46.440]  okay it's in the 21 talk dot com check out his show tomorrow night six to eight
[01:58:46.440 --> 01:58:49.080]  and tuesday's eight to ten and we'll be back
[01:58:49.080 --> 01:58:52.840]  tomorrow eight to midnight thanks guys thank you
[01:58:52.840 --> 01:58:55.320]  greg all right we'll see y'all tomorrow night
[01:58:55.320 --> 01:59:09.080]  will of law radio
[01:59:09.080 --> 01:59:22.280]  uh
[01:59:39.080 --> 01:59:46.080]  It's a dream, let's move You better treat me good