ROL_2009-06-18_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.280]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.280 --> 00:10.280]  The US is coming under intense pressure from rights organization and environmental groups
[00:10.280 --> 00:14.080]  to redefine its trade pact with Peru.
[00:14.080 --> 00:19.560]  Andrew Miller of Amazon Watch said the US-Peru trade agreement gave license to the Garcia
[00:19.560 --> 00:26.160]  administration to roll back indigenous rights and has contributed to increasing social conflict
[00:26.160 --> 00:29.680]  and human rights abuses in Peru.
[00:29.680 --> 00:34.760]  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gained unlikely supporters in Israel, a country he wants to
[00:34.760 --> 00:35.960]  eliminate.
[00:35.960 --> 00:42.000]  Mayor Dagon, chief of Israel's Mossad spy agency, told a closed Knesset committee hearing
[00:42.000 --> 00:48.560]  Ahmadinejad's reputation as a Holocaust-denying rabble rouser makes it easier for Israel to
[00:48.560 --> 00:53.840]  enlist international support against Iran's nuclear program.
[00:53.840 --> 00:59.640]  Maurice Hank Greenberg, former head of ailing US insurance giant AIG, told the court with
[00:59.640 --> 01:05.280]  Wednesday he had a private jet fly a large block of the company's stock to Bermuda to
[01:05.280 --> 01:12.800]  prevent AIG from seizing it.
[01:12.800 --> 01:18.200]  Army officials said Wednesday an inventory of potentially deadly pathogens at Fort Detrick's
[01:18.200 --> 01:25.400]  infectious disease lab found more than 9,000 vials as had not been accounted for.
[01:25.400 --> 01:30.040]  Researchers at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick
[01:30.040 --> 01:35.560]  found 9,220 samples that hadn't been included in a database.
[01:35.560 --> 01:41.720]  Colonel Mark Kortpetter, the institute's deputy commander, said some vials contained dangerous
[01:41.720 --> 01:48.520]  pathogens including the Ebola virus, anthrax bacteria and botulinum toxin.
[01:48.520 --> 01:53.960]  Kortpetter said the vast majority were left there by scientists who had left the institute.
[01:53.960 --> 02:00.960]  Richard Ebright, a Rutgers professor who follows biosecurity said, quote, 9,200 undocumented
[02:00.960 --> 02:04.420]  samples is an extraordinarily serious breach.
[02:04.420 --> 02:11.640]  It is unacceptable.
[02:11.640 --> 02:16.640]  Congress Thursday began crafting legislation that Democratic leaders plan to push through
[02:16.640 --> 02:19.740]  both chambers by their August recess.
[02:19.740 --> 02:25.280]  The measure may require all Americans to get medical insurance, force insurers to accept
[02:25.280 --> 02:30.440]  all patients and end the tax break for employer-paid health benefits.
[02:30.440 --> 02:33.960]  These changes may be hammered out with unprecedented speed.
[02:33.960 --> 02:39.360]  Barack Obama has made a health care overhaul his top domestic priority using his February
[02:39.360 --> 02:45.500]  budget proposal to call it a moral imperative to extend coverage to the country's 46 million
[02:45.500 --> 02:47.120]  uninsured.
[02:47.120 --> 02:52.440]  Obama also tied the long-term fiscal soundness of the U.S. to controlling medical costs.
[02:52.440 --> 02:58.400]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[02:58.400 --> 03:10.400]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:10.400 --> 03:17.400]  talk radio at its best.
[03:40.400 --> 04:09.880]  All right.
[04:09.880 --> 04:14.280]  Good boys, what you going to do when they come for you?
[04:14.280 --> 04:19.600]  This is the Rule of Law on Rule of Law Radio.
[04:19.600 --> 04:28.360]  Tonight, we have a very special guest, Mr. Jim Ash from College Station.
[04:28.360 --> 04:35.000]  He has been fighting the red light camera issue very extensively.
[04:35.000 --> 04:43.280]  Apparently, he's been camping on the sidewalk for 13 days to get a valid petition to force
[04:43.280 --> 04:46.280]  the issue onto the ballot.
[04:46.280 --> 04:47.280]  All right.
[04:47.280 --> 04:50.920]  You can check his website at civilviolation.com.
[04:50.920 --> 04:53.920]  Jim, welcome to the show.
[04:53.920 --> 04:54.920]  Thank you.
[04:54.920 --> 04:55.920]  Thank you very much.
[04:55.920 --> 05:00.160]  So can you please tell us how did you get into this?
[05:00.160 --> 05:03.480]  What made you get so enraged about this?
[05:03.480 --> 05:08.200]  I mean, because obviously, we all are, I mean, you've really been pushing it to the limit.
[05:08.200 --> 05:14.160]  So give us a little bit of your history and what's happening now and what's going to happen
[05:14.160 --> 05:15.160]  next.
[05:15.160 --> 05:16.160]  Okay.
[05:16.160 --> 05:18.760]  Well, here's kind of the background of it.
[05:18.760 --> 05:21.320]  I was totally politically inactive.
[05:21.320 --> 05:22.320]  Okay.
[05:22.320 --> 05:26.760]  In fact, I didn't even really know that our city had red light cameras until I received
[05:26.760 --> 05:29.240]  a notice of violation in the mail.
[05:29.240 --> 05:33.480]  To all of you freedom fighters who've been out here for years, I got to apologize, I'm
[05:33.480 --> 05:39.640]  a little late to the party, but what really drew me into this was that I received a notice
[05:39.640 --> 05:44.640]  of violation for a red light infraction on September 10th.
[05:44.640 --> 05:48.440]  I received the notice of violation about a month later.
[05:48.440 --> 05:55.320]  I flipped it over on the back to read the terms of what was happening and it had already
[05:55.320 --> 05:57.440]  been determined that I was guilty.
[05:57.440 --> 06:06.240]  I was liable to the state for a $75 minimum fee and that I should pay that fee and if
[06:06.240 --> 06:11.800]  I delayed, they would charge me another $25 and I would lose my right to an administrative
[06:11.800 --> 06:12.800]  appeal.
[06:12.800 --> 06:20.600]  So, you know, from what I learned just as being a U.S. citizen, I thought we were presumed
[06:20.600 --> 06:21.600]  innocent.
[06:21.600 --> 06:23.400]  I thought those were the kind of things.
[06:23.400 --> 06:27.680]  They had to prove you guilty of a crime.
[06:27.680 --> 06:32.640]  So I decided to appeal it and that is really the beginning of the story.
[06:32.640 --> 06:34.320]  I went through the process.
[06:34.320 --> 06:40.160]  The administrative hearings filed an appeal with the municipal court and college station
[06:40.160 --> 06:42.400]  which they received but they did not grant.
[06:42.400 --> 06:46.120]  They sent me a letter that said there is no appeal to what they do.
[06:46.120 --> 06:54.320]  So I've been on the road for now about six months at this stage trying to rectify the
[06:54.320 --> 06:56.320]  situation.
[06:56.320 --> 06:59.880]  Incredible.
[06:59.880 --> 07:07.200]  So please tell us what you've done concerning this camp out on the sidewalk.
[07:07.200 --> 07:08.200]  This is incredible.
[07:08.200 --> 07:14.160]  I tell you, this is in a lot of ways I think it's an amazing story, right, because first
[07:14.160 --> 07:19.080]  I went to the city council to express my grievances, literally the city council kind of chuckled
[07:19.080 --> 07:20.080]  at me.
[07:20.080 --> 07:24.400]  I have e-mails where they say Jim Asch is in over his head so I thought, well, if they're
[07:24.400 --> 07:26.120]  not going to listen, I'll go to the state house.
[07:26.120 --> 07:32.280]  So I went to Austin, talked to my state legislators, worked with Carl Isit, the state representative
[07:32.280 --> 07:40.200]  out of Lubbock, promoting his bill 2536 which was in the house which ultimately ended up
[07:40.200 --> 07:48.600]  as an amendment to the House Bill 300 which is the big transportation bill of this year.
[07:48.600 --> 07:56.200]  And in the process that amendment ended up indicating that the no municipal authority
[07:56.200 --> 08:02.320]  in the state of Texas could extend or enter into a new photo enforcement contract commonly
[08:02.320 --> 08:07.360]  known as red light cameras after June 1.
[08:07.360 --> 08:13.920]  So the city of College Station, knowing what the amendment was going to say, moved very
[08:13.920 --> 08:20.900]  quickly and on May 29 signed a 20 year extension to the red light camera contract with American
[08:20.900 --> 08:24.800]  Traffic Solutions.
[08:24.800 --> 08:30.560]  Once that happened, I knew that even if I was successful and the citizens of the state
[08:30.560 --> 08:33.680]  of Texas, because there's a lot of people working on this, were successful in getting
[08:33.680 --> 08:42.600]  it outlawed at the state level, that my kids would be 30 years old before the cameras disappeared.
[08:42.600 --> 08:50.720]  So I picked it up on myself to file an ordinance petition and I spent 13 evenings, actually
[08:50.720 --> 08:54.920]  two Saturdays and Sundays, 13 days in total.
[08:54.920 --> 09:03.600]  I received about 1,700 total signatures on my petition and got to my magic number which
[09:03.600 --> 09:09.200]  in College Station was only 850 signatures of registered voters.
[09:09.200 --> 09:16.840]  So at this stage we're in the certification stage of my petition and once certified by
[09:16.840 --> 09:20.360]  the city, the city council has two choices.
[09:20.360 --> 09:27.680]  They can either adopt the ordinance that is proposed or put it on the ballot for November
[09:27.680 --> 09:28.680]  3.
[09:28.680 --> 09:32.520]  So if that's what I think they will ultimately do, we'll end up voting on it on November
[09:32.520 --> 09:33.920]  3.
[09:33.920 --> 09:39.160]  Now do you have to get a certain number of additional signatures in order to force them
[09:39.160 --> 09:40.960]  to put it on the ballot?
[09:40.960 --> 09:45.440]  No, I have the needed number of signatures right now.
[09:45.440 --> 09:50.000]  It's 25% in College Station.
[09:50.000 --> 09:54.200]  It's 25% of the number of people that voted in the last general election.
[09:54.200 --> 10:01.720]  And the last general election we had 3,036 people vote, so I need a little over 800.
[10:01.720 --> 10:02.720]  And why did you...
[10:02.720 --> 10:03.720]  Right now about 865.
[10:03.720 --> 10:08.920]  Then Jim, why did you say that they could either vote on it themselves or put it on
[10:08.920 --> 10:09.920]  the ballot?
[10:09.920 --> 10:10.920]  I don't understand.
[10:10.920 --> 10:13.640]  Well, that's their choice.
[10:13.640 --> 10:21.360]  They can adopt the ordinance as law without the election.
[10:21.360 --> 10:31.640]  Oh, okay, okay, but they can't vote on it themselves to put it down, in other words.
[10:31.640 --> 10:32.640]  Right.
[10:32.640 --> 10:33.640]  Okay, good.
[10:33.640 --> 10:41.560]  They can either make the ordinance law by act of the City Council or put it to a vote.
[10:41.560 --> 10:42.560]  Awesome.
[10:42.560 --> 10:43.560]  Awesome.
[10:43.560 --> 10:44.560]  Wonderful.
[10:44.560 --> 10:51.040]  Now we also have Eddie from Texas on the line.
[10:51.040 --> 10:54.320]  Before I bring Eddie up, Randy, do you have any...
[10:54.320 --> 10:57.320]  What do you have to say about this?
[10:57.320 --> 10:58.320]  Randy.
[10:58.320 --> 11:03.240]  Okay, looks like we lost Randy.
[11:03.240 --> 11:04.680]  Okay, go...
[11:04.680 --> 11:08.160]  Somebody muted my mic again.
[11:08.160 --> 11:09.160]  Somebody keeps doing that.
[11:09.160 --> 11:17.560]  Anyway, I think it's great for somebody actually to stand up, take on the City Council and
[11:17.560 --> 11:20.480]  beat them at their own game.
[11:20.480 --> 11:26.960]  Because I suspect if this goes to an initiative and referendum that the voters are not going
[11:26.960 --> 11:32.840]  to want this to last, so you may have them beat.
[11:32.840 --> 11:35.320]  We don't get near enough wins.
[11:35.320 --> 11:44.120]  Well, photo enforcement's gone to the polls in at least four states that I'm aware of
[11:44.120 --> 11:49.000]  now, and the red light cameras are removed from the community.
[11:49.000 --> 11:55.080]  In other words, people throw them out by a ratio of about three to one at the polls,
[11:55.080 --> 12:02.480]  so it's a 75% winner when it goes to the polls, so throw them away.
[12:02.480 --> 12:03.480]  Wonderful.
[12:03.480 --> 12:04.480]  This is good to hear.
[12:04.480 --> 12:07.480]  I know Aaron would be glad to hear this.
[12:07.480 --> 12:16.080]  Well, you know, the process to get there, you know, in some ways I'm surprised that
[12:16.080 --> 12:22.720]  with the few as 850 signatures, you could propose an ordinance and get it on the ballot.
[12:22.720 --> 12:25.020]  You know, that's not a lot of signatures.
[12:25.020 --> 12:28.000]  It seems like a lot when you're standing out there on the side of the road waiting on people
[12:28.000 --> 12:29.680]  to stop.
[12:29.680 --> 12:37.140]  But in the grand scheme of things, the major cities, what I feel like is the College Station
[12:37.140 --> 12:42.200]  and our battle here in College Station should be a beachhead, if you will, against the red
[12:42.200 --> 12:45.120]  light camera systems in general.
[12:45.120 --> 12:53.240]  I mean, from a constitutional standpoint, at our core, that's what our group is about
[12:53.240 --> 12:57.800]  because there are so many constitutional problems with the red light cameras, the way they're
[12:57.800 --> 13:04.920]  implemented in Texas, that I think their days are numbered.
[13:04.920 --> 13:06.160]  I certainly hope so.
[13:06.160 --> 13:13.120]  Well, I just don't see how it could fly because, for one thing, you have the right to face
[13:13.120 --> 13:17.680]  your accuser in court, okay?
[13:17.680 --> 13:22.600]  Camera is not a living entity, all right?
[13:22.600 --> 13:24.720]  I want to cross-examine that camera.
[13:24.720 --> 13:30.920]  Well, we have Eddie Craig on the line who is our resident traffic code expert.
[13:30.920 --> 13:33.720]  He's actually co-host of the show now.
[13:33.720 --> 13:36.720]  Eddie, thanks for joining us tonight.
[13:36.720 --> 13:38.720]  What do you have to say about this?
[13:38.720 --> 13:44.200]  Well, I was reading the information on his website, and a lot of what he says is correct,
[13:44.200 --> 13:47.600]  though I'm having a little issue with a couple of things that he's got referenced simply
[13:47.600 --> 13:51.680]  because what I'm reading doesn't match exactly what he's saying.
[13:51.680 --> 13:56.760]  For the most part, he is correct in a lot of ways, but the key issue here, once again,
[13:56.760 --> 13:59.600]  is right back to how the statute itself is written.
[13:59.600 --> 14:04.160]  I've gone through, I've looked at the definition of person, motor vehicle, so on and so forth.
[14:04.160 --> 14:07.680]  It's just like it is in every other part of the transportation code.
[14:07.680 --> 14:10.000]  It does not mean you and I.
[14:10.000 --> 14:15.200]  It simply means commercial operator, driver, slash commercial motor vehicle.
[14:15.200 --> 14:23.040]  Again, the ordinance will fly under the radar of being constitutional and all that because
[14:23.040 --> 14:26.880]  it is directed at commercial entities, not us.
[14:26.880 --> 14:34.400]  We're just being pressured, bullied, and otherwise intimidated into accepting that it means us,
[14:34.400 --> 14:37.480]  which as Randy put it the other day, that needs to stop.
[14:37.480 --> 14:42.800]  We need to stop being defensive about approaches on this and be offensive.
[14:42.800 --> 14:45.840]  So far in that regard, I completely agree with the man.
[14:45.840 --> 14:47.320]  He is being offensive.
[14:47.320 --> 14:51.040]  He is trying to get something corrected that's obviously wrong.
[14:51.040 --> 14:57.160]  The problem is, is I think that if he would take the attack of showing not only are they
[14:57.160 --> 15:02.160]  using it in a way to make it where the people can't fight back that it is used against,
[15:02.160 --> 15:07.040]  whether it applies to them or not, the fact of the matter is we could still use this issue
[15:07.040 --> 15:12.520]  just like the issue with the rest of it to clear up the misconception of who these statutes
[15:12.520 --> 15:13.520]  actually apply to.
[15:13.520 --> 15:14.520]  Correct.
[15:14.520 --> 15:15.520]  Eddie, you're right.
[15:15.520 --> 15:23.600]  In fact, the concept of the application of commercial vehicle code is the way it was
[15:23.600 --> 15:31.000]  sold to the House when they got it passed originally in 2006, I guess it was, or 2007,
[15:31.000 --> 15:32.000]  I'm sorry.
[15:32.000 --> 15:36.440]  They said at the very last minute when they're adding the amendment, well, it's just something
[15:36.440 --> 15:42.000]  to do with commercial code, commercial vehicle code, boom, the amendment goes in and in a
[15:42.000 --> 15:47.320]  lot of ways I feel like the people in the House that I've talked to feel like that they
[15:47.320 --> 15:49.440]  were kind of snookered in that sense.
[15:49.440 --> 15:55.840]  They didn't exactly know what the situation was and how it would be applied to the normal
[15:55.840 --> 15:56.840]  citizen.
[15:56.840 --> 16:03.320]  Well, the thing is that it can't be, not legally, not the way it's written.
[16:03.320 --> 16:08.760]  Everybody out there knows that, but they're counting on us not knowing that and volunteering
[16:08.760 --> 16:12.520]  into it by going, oh, yeah, okay, I'm sorry, I did that.
[16:12.520 --> 16:13.520]  Right.
[16:13.520 --> 16:20.720]  I've talked to hundreds of people that are so intimidated by a notice of violation of
[16:20.720 --> 16:27.360]  the civil violation coming from, in this case, the City of College Station, but all across
[16:27.360 --> 16:28.360]  the state.
[16:28.360 --> 16:34.160]  The City of Houston is going to experience $15 million worth of red light camera revenue
[16:34.160 --> 16:35.920]  in 2010.
[16:35.920 --> 16:36.920]  That's what they're planning on.
[16:36.920 --> 16:42.560]  So, you know, it's a very pervasive problem across the state and it's time for us to stand
[16:42.560 --> 16:43.560]  up against that.
[16:43.560 --> 16:44.560]  That's correct.
[16:44.560 --> 16:45.560]  I agree.
[16:45.560 --> 16:46.560]  Okay.
[16:46.560 --> 16:49.560]  Well, listen, we're going to break.
[16:49.560 --> 16:52.280]  I want to talk about this more on the other side.
[16:52.280 --> 17:00.640]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Jim Ash with Eddie Craig.
[17:00.640 --> 17:01.640]  You invest.
[17:01.640 --> 17:02.640]  You buy insurance.
[17:02.640 --> 17:03.640]  You wear your seatbelt.
[17:03.640 --> 17:06.560]  You do things to ensure your family's future and protection.
[17:06.560 --> 17:07.560]  But why?
[17:07.560 --> 17:08.640]  Just in case?
[17:08.640 --> 17:11.680]  With the current state of affairs, ask yourself, am I ready?
[17:11.680 --> 17:14.960]  Preparation starts at SurvivalGearSource.com.
[17:14.960 --> 17:19.360]  SurvivalGearSource.com has a huge selection of vital products, emergency survival kits,
[17:19.360 --> 17:25.360]  gas masks, MREs, communication devices, products for pet care, your car, home, office and school.
[17:25.360 --> 17:29.520]  Protect against all natural disasters and terror attacks that can happen at any time.
[17:29.520 --> 17:33.680]  If you are not prepared, the last place you want to be is standing in FEMA lines.
[17:33.680 --> 17:35.160]  Invest in your future now.
[17:35.160 --> 17:40.640]  Visit SurvivalGearSource.com or call 877-231-1925.
[17:40.640 --> 17:45.080]  That's 877-231-1925.
[17:45.080 --> 17:46.080]  SurvivalGearSource.com.
[17:46.080 --> 17:48.560]  Prepare for tomorrow now.
[17:48.560 --> 17:55.160]  When ordering from SurvivalGearSource.com, remember to use promo code RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[17:55.160 --> 17:59.600]  Again, that special promo code is RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[17:59.600 --> 18:21.760]  Look what we've got, only us, the Christians, don't know what lies, we don't have answers,
[18:21.760 --> 18:32.240]  open our minds, we ask the questions, look what we get and they don't ever answer, so
[18:32.240 --> 18:33.120]  we can sleep inside.
[18:33.120 --> 18:39.560]  When I talk about issues I see Lord how they want we get in to see the people, they we
[18:39.560 --> 18:45.120]  talk way too politically and they get goodng mad and angry, but they must stand up and
[18:45.120 --> 18:48.840]  fight and fight for the freedom and be free.
[18:48.840 --> 18:56.600]  them love slavery and get handled from the government to a vegan. We are the Christians.
[18:56.600 --> 19:06.600]  We do what we're hiding. We don't have the answers. We're not nobody. But we are the Christians.
[19:06.600 --> 19:13.400]  Look what we get. And they don't have the answers. Soap and slip and slide.
[19:13.400 --> 19:24.760]  All right, tyranny. Them a tear you. Them a tear me. Them a tear up the country. That's right.
[19:27.000 --> 19:33.240]  Them tear up the country. Them tear up the constitution. Them rip it in tree. But we're
[19:33.240 --> 19:37.480]  putting it back together. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens. We've got Eddie Craig with us.
[19:37.480 --> 19:46.600]  Our newest host on board. And also our very special guest, Jim Ash. Talking about the red
[19:46.600 --> 19:53.880]  light camera issue. And I had a question I was asking Eddie before the show. And I would like
[19:53.880 --> 20:00.040]  to discuss this a little bit further. Okay, so this whole situation, it really only applies
[20:00.040 --> 20:05.560]  to commercial entities. Well, what would happen, like in the case of what Jim is doing,
[20:05.560 --> 20:15.160]  to get this on the ballot in College Station, if the voters say, no, we don't want this,
[20:16.840 --> 20:23.720]  okay, we're not going to have this, can the state, I mean, and in that case, the voters would vote
[20:23.720 --> 20:32.200]  down the red light cameras as applied to even a commercial entity, can the state still come in and
[20:32.200 --> 20:38.680]  still come in and say, well, no, too bad, we're going to do it anyway? I mean, even after the
[20:39.800 --> 20:45.080]  placing the cameras, Deborah, it's the city that's placing the cameras, the state has a statute
[20:45.080 --> 20:51.480]  letting them do so. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. The problem with it is, is it doesn't
[20:51.480 --> 20:56.520]  matter why they put the cameras there, they're going to always use them for more than what we're
[20:56.520 --> 21:03.080]  told. And that includes, just as an example, a perfect example, RFID chipping technology,
[21:03.080 --> 21:09.240]  which they want to do with the driver's license. All that would be required to track any individual
[21:09.240 --> 21:15.160]  moving through any municipality would be to outfit a wireless transceiver on every red light camera
[21:15.160 --> 21:21.000]  that can pick up and read the RFID chip inside of your driver's license, and they can watch you walk
[21:21.000 --> 21:29.640]  around the entire city, whether you're in camera range or not. Okay. That's just one of the possible
[21:29.640 --> 21:37.240]  misuses of both technologies, just one, and there are thousands. You know, Deborah, when I look at
[21:37.240 --> 21:46.040]  just what the city's doing right now, and even without RFID tags and that, the city in College
[21:46.040 --> 21:53.880]  Station disregards the statutes as they're written. I mean, the statute clearly says that the only
[21:53.880 --> 22:01.080]  lawful use for the film out of a red light camera or the images is the prosecution or following the
[22:01.080 --> 22:07.000]  notice of violation through the court system. And yet, every time they run an advertisement
[22:07.640 --> 22:13.160]  touting the safety, they use the very images that they're statutorily prohibited from using
[22:13.160 --> 22:18.760]  to advertise the very red light camera system that they're saying we need for our own safety.
[22:20.120 --> 22:21.480]  Well, I have a question.
[22:21.480 --> 22:30.840]  The city of College Station transfers the fine related to this to the driver of the vehicle.
[22:32.600 --> 22:35.560]  Yeah, this is crime by ownership.
[22:35.560 --> 22:36.520]  The statute clearly says the owner of the vehicle is responsible.
[22:36.520 --> 22:45.080]  It's what they called in Montana a new form of crime, crime by ownership.
[22:45.800 --> 22:53.880]  But I have a question. Who actually collects the fee? Is it the city that sends out this notice
[22:54.440 --> 22:56.840]  or is it the company they're contracting to?
[22:57.640 --> 23:04.360]  American Traffic Solutions, the company, ATS, sends out the notice and ATS collects the money.
[23:04.360 --> 23:09.320]  Oh, good. What we need to do is sue ATF.
[23:10.520 --> 23:15.240]  Well, the other issue he's facing, Randy, which from what I can tell would be correct is that
[23:15.240 --> 23:19.320]  they are supposed to be licensed as a private security company. You know that issue, correct?
[23:19.880 --> 23:21.960]  Oh, yeah. I just got into one of those.
[23:21.960 --> 23:24.920]  So, if they're not licensed for that...
[23:27.320 --> 23:28.280]  There's something else.
[23:28.280 --> 23:36.200]  You know, the Texas Department of Public Safety has issued their ruling on that from just to give
[23:36.200 --> 23:43.400]  cover, I think, for what's happening. But the logic of the DPS is that since American Traffic
[23:43.400 --> 23:48.920]  Solutions is working under the direct supervision of the law enforcement agency, that they are
[23:48.920 --> 23:58.280]  exempted from the professional license that Randy talked about the other day, the private investigation.
[23:58.280 --> 24:03.960]  Okay. Well, there's two issues with that. One, DPS does not write law nor do they have the
[24:03.960 --> 24:11.240]  authority to circumvent law. Two, the statute is a penal statute over which they have no authority
[24:11.240 --> 24:18.600]  that that falls under. So, that doesn't fly. Direct supervision by a law enforcement agency
[24:18.600 --> 24:23.560]  is not covered in that section of the statute. I read it very thoroughly. So, just because they're
[24:23.560 --> 24:26.760]  being supervised does not exempt them from the requirement of the license.
[24:27.640 --> 24:37.160]  What that sounds like is conspiracy between the DPS and this private company to defraud the public.
[24:37.880 --> 24:41.000]  Correct. That would be criminal collusion and conspiracy.
[24:41.000 --> 24:51.480]  My suggestion is sue the company itself for collecting fines and fees from non-commercial
[24:51.480 --> 25:02.360]  entities. How are they going to fight it? Now, be harder to do the city, but this is a private
[25:02.360 --> 25:08.600]  company. Gives you a private cause of action and here you can sue as a private attorney general,
[25:08.600 --> 25:16.920]  although, so, nobody misconstrues that term. There is no such thing as a private attorney general,
[25:17.480 --> 25:24.760]  but a citizen under certain circumstances can act in the same capacity as a private attorney general
[25:25.480 --> 25:33.720]  by filing a suit for the benefit of all persons similarly affected. That's what this thing of
[25:33.720 --> 25:39.720]  a private attorney general goes through, but you could sue that company for all of the people that
[25:39.720 --> 25:47.720]  it collected a fine from that the company did not first determine were commercial drivers.
[25:50.200 --> 25:56.440]  A win on that would end everything because then the company would be forced to make a determination
[25:56.440 --> 26:05.000]  before they sent out a billing that in fact the person was acting in commerce. That would be
[26:05.000 --> 26:14.360]  another way to end it. Well, I mean, doesn't the broad interpretation of the commerce clause come
[26:14.360 --> 26:21.000]  into play? That even by traveling down the street you're involved in commerce? No, that's not a
[26:21.000 --> 26:31.080]  broad interpretation. No, no, traveling is not the same thing as driving. We have a right to travel.
[26:33.320 --> 26:38.760]  You know, if you're going to grandma's house, you're not in commerce when you just go to visit
[26:38.760 --> 26:46.120]  someone, okay? No, I'm sorry, we have a fundamental right to travel. This is very basic. The court's
[26:46.120 --> 26:51.160]  interpretation is very broad when it comes to commerce. No, this doesn't have anything to do
[26:51.160 --> 26:58.680]  with the courts. This is what the statute says. This is the traffic code. It is every line by line
[26:58.680 --> 27:07.080]  in the entire Texas traffic code. It's strictly regarding commerce. Eddie's been breaking it down
[27:07.080 --> 27:15.720]  for weeks. Jim, you're new to legal reform and you may still think that the courts are
[27:15.720 --> 27:23.320]  doing things the way somehow they're supposed to be doing it or in a way that it somehow comports
[27:23.320 --> 27:32.120]  with law. Right. That is simply not true. But the good news, however, is that the statute
[27:32.120 --> 27:38.840]  is on our side. Right, and the case law is too. Eddie will bring you up to speed on that. It's
[27:38.840 --> 27:47.800]  very clear on the fact that you cannot, that the license is for commercial drivers only.
[27:47.800 --> 27:54.840]  The state has just applied it to non-commercial drivers with no authority. And when we go to try
[27:54.840 --> 27:59.480]  to fight it, they just do whatever they want to. They hadn't had enough people like you who are
[27:59.480 --> 28:10.040]  willing to kick them in their teeth. Okay, if they rule against the, if they rule that the license
[28:10.040 --> 28:17.320]  is commercial, that wipes out massive amounts of revenue. And it also creates a problem where
[28:17.320 --> 28:23.080]  we'll have crazy people out there killing us on the highway. Oh, come on. So they're not going
[28:23.080 --> 28:30.920]  to, we're going to have a hard time getting traction directly there. However, because this
[28:31.720 --> 28:38.760]  red light camera is such a bogus way of enforcement, nobody's going to like that one.
[28:39.880 --> 28:48.280]  And ruling against this company wouldn't constitute a ruling against the entire
[28:48.280 --> 28:55.080]  traffic circumstance. Oh, okay. It would be a lot easier. This is driving a wedge under them.
[28:56.120 --> 29:01.880]  Yeah, and we don't need the government to have to force licenses on us so that we won't kill each
[29:01.880 --> 29:06.200]  other on the highway. I mean, that's ridiculous. I mean, human nature, we're not going to, we're
[29:06.200 --> 29:11.000]  not going to want to do that anyway. And besides, you know, tort will take care of that problem.
[29:11.720 --> 29:17.240]  What I'm always shocked at is when I talk to the people at the city and who really feel
[29:17.240 --> 29:24.920]  and who really feel, I think it's clearly for the money, but they put on the cloak of,
[29:24.920 --> 29:29.800]  you know, we are doing this to protect you from yourselves. And when in fact,
[29:31.080 --> 29:37.160]  it's just about the money. Exactly. Exactly. And we pointed that out about the licensing of
[29:37.160 --> 29:42.280]  private investigators. Okay. And the argument is that, well, you know, we can't have people
[29:42.280 --> 29:46.440]  running around hurting other people. Well, then they should make it a crime, but it's not a crime.
[29:46.440 --> 29:51.160]  It's just a, it's just a civil thing. It's just a fine. So it's just all about the money.
[29:51.160 --> 29:54.520]  All right, listen, we're going to break and then we have Dan from Connecticut on the line
[29:54.520 --> 29:55.960]  on the other side. We'll be right back.
[29:58.680 --> 30:03.720]  Gold prices are at historic highs. And with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy
[30:03.720 --> 30:08.600]  with the value of the dollar risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in
[30:08.600 --> 30:13.880]  rural financial systems. I see gold going up much higher. Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and
[30:13.880 --> 30:17.800]  Roberts brokerage. Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade,
[30:17.800 --> 30:21.720]  precious metals and Roberts and Roberts brokerage. You can buy gold, silver,
[30:21.720 --> 30:26.040]  and platinum with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market
[30:26.040 --> 30:31.560]  since 1977. If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information
[30:31.560 --> 30:36.520]  you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us. Also,
[30:36.520 --> 30:40.520]  Roberts and Roberts brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in the
[30:40.520 --> 30:45.160]  event that we would be required to report any transaction. If you have gold, silver,
[30:45.160 --> 30:52.520]  platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment. Call us at 800-874-9760.
[30:52.520 --> 31:14.520]  We're Roberts and Roberts brokerage 800-874-9760.
[31:22.520 --> 31:50.520]  So please Mr. Mack, let each officer not to abuse their power. Send a request
[31:50.520 --> 31:57.320]  to the leader, the captain of all officers. Tell them to uphold the law,
[31:57.320 --> 32:02.680]  or please don't abuse their power. They beat and they beat and they cheat and they cheat
[32:02.680 --> 32:15.880]  and they lie every hour. So Mr. Officer, please stop abusing your power. That's not how usually
[32:15.880 --> 32:25.320]  Pat says it. And we're not asking nicely anymore by the way. So we're filing criminal complaints.
[32:27.000 --> 32:34.440]  We're learning how to engage in civil litigation and how to file liens against their bonds. Okay.
[32:34.440 --> 32:40.360]  We're going to be hitting them hard in the commercial realm as well. So we are speaking
[32:40.360 --> 32:48.680]  with Eddie Craig and Jim Ash from College Station who has garnered enough petitions to get
[32:49.320 --> 32:53.960]  the red light camera issue on the ballot. We're going to go to Dan in Connecticut now. Callers,
[32:53.960 --> 32:57.880]  if you'd like to call in, we're going to have our guests with us for another half an hour
[32:57.880 --> 33:02.840]  to the top of the hour. So please call in 512-646-1984. And we're going to go to Dan
[33:02.840 --> 33:05.400]  right now. Dan, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[33:05.400 --> 33:11.640]  Oh, nothing much. I wasn't sure if you saw the email I sent you, subject blind cop who did his
[33:11.640 --> 33:16.920]  job. But you may remember I told you about they wanted to charge us to demonstrate at the Capitol.
[33:17.960 --> 33:22.600]  Right. One of the Capitol police stepped up and said, hey, something is wrong with this.
[33:23.720 --> 33:26.920]  Wow. And he talked to management and it was all straightened out.
[33:28.040 --> 33:32.920]  So y'all didn't have to pay for a permit or get a permit or anything?
[33:32.920 --> 33:39.160]  No. All I did was send an email to my state senator, my state representative,
[33:39.160 --> 33:45.160]  and everyone involved asking what statutes authorized this. And he stepped in and he saw it.
[33:45.160 --> 33:49.480]  You know, he was CC'd on it. He's like, yeah, something is really messed up about that.
[33:50.120 --> 33:56.440]  But I do have something that's going on in Meriden, Connecticut. I'm a little unsure how
[33:56.440 --> 34:02.920]  to proceed. But essentially what it is, is the town of Meriden is using a blight ordinance
[34:03.720 --> 34:08.920]  where they find or this, I think it's like a private community organization. It's supposed
[34:08.920 --> 34:14.840]  to preserve the community. They will see an unregistered vehicle on property and, you know,
[34:14.840 --> 34:18.840]  then they'll blight the property and they'll basically say, you got to go get it registered.
[34:19.400 --> 34:26.120]  Now, what happens if the owner doesn't get the vehicle registered is the judge will then issue
[34:26.120 --> 34:30.600]  a search warrant to tow the vehicle away. And then they'll basically charge the owner
[34:30.600 --> 34:36.760]  of the vehicle 88 bucks per day plus fines of up to $180 for the initial towing.
[34:37.480 --> 34:42.680]  Now, I'm kind of wondering, you know, how I should proceed with this. I'm thinking,
[34:42.680 --> 34:46.120]  you know, criminal complaints just on my end, even though I don't live there.
[34:46.840 --> 34:52.280]  But essentially, they're just taking property without a trial. You know, so it's, you can't
[34:52.280 --> 34:56.200]  even appeal it when they say that's blight. It's just what they say goes.
[35:01.480 --> 35:05.800]  So wait a minute. This is ordinance or state law?
[35:05.800 --> 35:11.880]  This is ordinance. Basically, you have this community organization just saying,
[35:11.880 --> 35:13.480]  okay, well this property is blighted.
[35:14.280 --> 35:17.160]  What community? I don't understand what community organization.
[35:17.160 --> 35:22.680]  Well, basically what happens is Merritt in Connecticut has a community organization that
[35:22.680 --> 35:27.000]  goes around and identifies blighted property. And if they see an unregistered motor vehicle,
[35:27.000 --> 35:32.920]  that's considered blight. And is there a state law statute?
[35:32.920 --> 35:39.880]  Is there any statute or what authorizes this? What creates this entity to do this?
[35:41.320 --> 35:46.680]  I believe it is city ordinance. And you can't even appeal it. You can't even say,
[35:46.680 --> 35:50.120]  hey, that's my vehicle, whatever. They decide it's blighted. That's the way it goes.
[35:50.120 --> 35:52.440]  So right off the bat, there's no remedy.
[35:54.920 --> 35:58.440]  And the way they get the vehicle off is the judge uses a search warrant.
[35:58.440 --> 36:03.800]  Is it's not a big enough issue for someone to fight up through the courts.
[36:05.320 --> 36:09.960]  So they're enforcing a clearly unconstitutional regulation,
[36:09.960 --> 36:15.720]  but it's too hard to adjudicate the issue so nobody does.
[36:18.760 --> 36:21.000]  Meanwhile, they're getting rich stealing private property.
[36:21.880 --> 36:26.440]  Yeah, exactly. I was thinking of just complaining to a judge on my own saying,
[36:26.440 --> 36:31.080]  hey, this is what these guys are doing. And then going to a grand jury myself.
[36:31.080 --> 36:34.680]  Well, if it's in violation of state law, then certainly you can do that.
[36:34.680 --> 36:39.080]  Yeah. I mean, you know, they're basically just deciding, hey,
[36:39.080 --> 36:43.640]  we want you to go register your vehicle, even though you're not and you own it.
[36:44.200 --> 36:47.640]  I mean, it's just a fundamental constitutional violation right there.
[36:48.600 --> 36:55.480]  Yeah. I would look through the statute. Well, listen, Dan, I want to get back to our guest
[36:55.480 --> 36:58.600]  because he has limited time. He's only going to stay till the top of the hour.
[36:59.960 --> 37:02.520]  Okay. I'll let you know what I find.
[37:02.520 --> 37:07.560]  Do you guys have red light cameras up there? I just want to stay on topic as much as possible
[37:07.560 --> 37:12.440]  while we have our guest. We do have red light cameras,
[37:12.440 --> 37:14.920]  but basically they're only triggered when you're speeding.
[37:15.800 --> 37:20.200]  I mean, the cops will tow them around, but we've seen less and less of them, thankfully.
[37:22.120 --> 37:25.480]  The cops will tow them around so they're not like posted. They're not like,
[37:26.680 --> 37:29.000]  they're not like built in at the infrastructure.
[37:29.000 --> 37:33.240]  No. Yeah. It's like a little lag and they can tow around with a police
[37:33.240 --> 37:36.520]  cruiser and just plant it somewhere. Okay. So they're not like set up.
[37:38.520 --> 37:41.960]  Yeah. That's a speed trap. It's not a red light camera. It's a speed trap camera.
[37:45.960 --> 37:48.200]  Okay. I'll let you guys get back to your guests.
[37:48.200 --> 37:50.040]  All right. Thank you, Dan. Okay.
[37:51.720 --> 37:55.560]  All right. Anyone out there who's had experience with red light cameras,
[37:55.560 --> 38:02.840]  please call in 512-646-1984. This is a topic at hand and I've noticed the signs going up around
[38:02.840 --> 38:13.560]  Austin. Jerry and I were driving down 360 and we came to one of the lights and it said,
[38:13.560 --> 38:20.040]  big, big brand new sign, enforced by camera. You know, it's like,
[38:20.040 --> 38:28.600]  we're like pulling the, you know, the blinders down. It's like, no, because like Eddie says,
[38:28.600 --> 38:32.920]  you know, they're using it for other purposes. We don't even know what kind of cameras these are.
[38:32.920 --> 38:41.880]  They could be hardcore high resolution digital cameras taking biometric data of us, not just
[38:41.880 --> 38:50.440]  a camera to, you know, film us running a red light in the license plate or whatever. I mean, this is
[38:50.440 --> 38:56.280]  unacceptable. Well, when I've approached American Traffic Solutions to get
[38:57.480 --> 39:03.160]  access to the actual resolution photo, the photo they show you when you, if you get a
[39:03.160 --> 39:10.360]  photo-enforced ticket, the film, if you will, or the video that they show you over the web,
[39:10.360 --> 39:15.880]  is not at a resolution where you can even read the license plate as the vehicle goes through.
[39:15.880 --> 39:21.080]  So, most people look at the vehicle and they say, yeah, that's my car. It looks like my car.
[39:21.080 --> 39:26.040]  Well, wait a minute. We should be able to get the original or at least an identical copy of the
[39:26.040 --> 39:31.000]  original through open records if they're using it to enforce a statute.
[39:31.000 --> 39:39.640]  You know, it is, I can understand why rule of law has attacked this because this is, it's just a pile
[39:39.640 --> 39:50.440]  of dung when it comes to the connections about, it's a civil action that they bring against you.
[39:50.440 --> 39:57.240]  At the same time, it's a criminal action under section 544 of the traffic code. And they're
[39:57.240 --> 40:05.240]  pursuing you under 701 of the traffic code, which is the civil enforcement of photo enforcement.
[40:06.600 --> 40:13.080]  And it's my assertion that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law.
[40:13.080 --> 40:19.400]  And the City of College Station, if a police officer gives you a citation, you have the right
[40:19.400 --> 40:25.560]  to a jury trial, you have the right to appeal, you have the right to face your accusers, you have the
[40:25.560 --> 40:31.240]  right to face your accuser. All those rights are part of the criminal charges that they're bringing
[40:31.240 --> 40:36.840]  against you, notwithstanding the discussion about commercial vehicles. But when they bring the
[40:36.840 --> 40:42.680]  photo enforcement against you under 701, you have no right to appeal. You have no right to a jury
[40:42.680 --> 40:48.680]  trial, even of the civil, if they're bringing a civil action against you, and you have no right to
[40:48.680 --> 40:49.560]  a jury trial.
[40:49.560 --> 40:50.680]  Well, what says who?
[40:50.680 --> 40:51.320]  You have no right to appeal.
[40:51.320 --> 40:51.800]  Says who?
[40:51.800 --> 41:00.600]  Says who? Says the statute, which is, when I put my web page up, I sat down and just started reading
[41:00.600 --> 41:07.160]  through the items. In the state of Texas, the state constitution says that the Supreme Court of the
[41:07.160 --> 41:13.880]  state of Texas will establish what civil procedures are, not the Senate. By passing this law,
[41:13.880 --> 41:18.120]  they established that it's a civil case, and you have no right to a jury trial.
[41:18.120 --> 41:24.440]  And you have no right to appeal. And yet, it's a civil action in the broadest terms of it.
[41:26.200 --> 41:32.360]  But then, what is this that you're saying that also falls under a certain section of the criminal
[41:32.360 --> 41:33.720]  code, of the traffic code?
[41:34.200 --> 41:40.920]  Right. Proceeding against a solid red signal, crossing that little stop line on the road, is
[41:40.920 --> 41:46.920]  against section 544 of the Texas transportation code. That's what you and I, until they hear
[41:46.920 --> 41:51.400]  you and I, until they did photo enforcement, that's what we always call running a red light.
[41:51.400 --> 41:57.160]  Well, if they're going to try to enforce something or charge you under that criminal statute,
[41:57.160 --> 42:00.040]  then you have all the remedies at your hand.
[42:00.840 --> 42:10.040]  Correct. But by doing a photo-enforced red light camera ticket, it's not under section 544.
[42:10.600 --> 42:16.200]  So that's the technical law you broke. You broke a civil violation.
[42:16.200 --> 42:17.960]  Okay. A civil charge against you.
[42:19.080 --> 42:24.600]  And it puts it in a whole other flow of justice.
[42:24.600 --> 42:30.680]  No. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too, okay? It either falls under the criminal
[42:30.680 --> 42:37.400]  statute or it doesn't. I mean, if they're going to initiate civil litigation against you,
[42:37.400 --> 42:41.880]  then it's civil, okay? And if they're going to do criminal, it's criminal. But
[42:41.880 --> 42:48.280]  if you have one way or the other, they could actually have both. But if they want to charge
[42:48.280 --> 42:51.880]  you under the criminal, they have to charge you under the criminal. I mean...
[42:51.880 --> 42:52.680]  Correct.
[42:52.680 --> 42:54.600]  So what's the deal?
[42:55.720 --> 43:02.920]  People of the state of Texas have better wake up about this because in the legislature during
[43:02.920 --> 43:11.720]  this session were billed to send the owner of the vehicle to a three to four hour re-education,
[43:11.720 --> 43:19.400]  safety intersection, safety course, in addition to the civil penalty they charge you.
[43:19.400 --> 43:21.800]  Is this the state statute you're saying?
[43:22.360 --> 43:28.680]  Yes. They're passing laws that say that you're going to face civil penalties. The state will
[43:28.680 --> 43:34.360]  mandate that you attend a re-education class on safety intersection safety.
[43:34.360 --> 43:36.680]  If you're the owner of the vehicle?
[43:36.680 --> 43:44.120]  The owner of the vehicle could be the city has the option. So when the city vehicle gets a ticket,
[43:44.120 --> 43:50.520]  nobody at the city goes to the safety course, but they have the option of sending you to a safety
[43:50.520 --> 43:52.200]  course on intersection safety.
[43:52.200 --> 43:54.920]  Is that under the criminal section of law or civil?
[43:55.480 --> 43:56.040]  Civil.
[43:56.040 --> 43:59.080]  But then they... Okay. So if it's under civil, then they can't enforce it then.
[44:01.000 --> 44:01.640]  Don't do it.
[44:01.640 --> 44:06.840]  Well, what they do, if you do not do that, they will not register the vehicle
[44:07.400 --> 44:09.720]  that they caught running through the red light on the camera.
[44:09.720 --> 44:17.400]  Good. Because we shouldn't be registering them anyway. We don't have to. That's right.
[44:17.400 --> 44:20.280]  We're not engaged in commercial activity anyway. So good.
[44:20.280 --> 44:27.240]  I understand. We're talking about the masses of people out there that were just like I was six
[44:27.240 --> 44:32.120]  months ago. And hey, we're just trying to get along. And we think that people are watching
[44:32.120 --> 44:37.080]  out for our rights. And I guarantee people that are sitting on the couch thinking that
[44:37.080 --> 44:42.440]  the government or the city council or the county board of directors or whatever it is,
[44:42.440 --> 44:49.240]  is watching out for you, you are sadly mistaken. It is time for us to get up off the couch and
[44:49.240 --> 44:56.280]  get out into the streets and get this done. If we sit there long enough, we won't have a country.
[44:57.960 --> 45:04.760]  Well, you're right there. If I can interject for just a second regarding section 544. Now in 544,
[45:04.760 --> 45:10.200]  I can only find one section that makes anything a criminal offense. And that's only when you're
[45:10.200 --> 45:15.320]  using a traffic control signal preemption device. In other words, a device that can trigger the
[45:15.320 --> 45:20.920]  timing or change the timing of the lights in order to make them all green for you or whatever.
[45:20.920 --> 45:26.440]  That's the only place I can find in 544 where an offense is even mentioned. So it's a good
[45:26.440 --> 45:31.160]  possibility they've either amended and removed the language or what you're looking at for your
[45:31.160 --> 45:37.240]  amendment has not yet made it to the revised section on the website. But right now, it would
[45:37.240 --> 45:43.080]  show that there is not a criminal statute in place for this, only the civil, which is what I've
[45:43.080 --> 45:48.600]  discussed with Aaron and the fact that if it is being used as a civil offense, then it is absolutely
[45:50.040 --> 45:55.480]  inconceivable that a municipal court can be the court of appeal. Because municipal courts are not
[45:55.480 --> 46:01.400]  granted civil jurisdiction in Texas. They are criminal only. And only if that crime is
[46:01.400 --> 46:08.680]  chargeable with a fine up to a certain dollar amount. You know, I agree with you. And when I go
[46:08.680 --> 46:13.800]  in and talk to the judge here in College Station, he even agrees with me, but he will not rule
[46:13.800 --> 46:19.720]  in my favor. Then file criminal charges because he's ignoring what the written law says.
[46:19.720 --> 46:23.880]  Yeah, and then go through the process that you need to go through to file a lien against his bond.
[46:23.880 --> 46:25.560]  That's where you really hit him hard.
[46:28.520 --> 46:31.240]  Well, I can tell I got a lot of homework to do on this.
[46:31.240 --> 46:37.560]  Oh, us too. I mean, really, we've been studying this stuff for years. I mean,
[46:37.560 --> 46:43.080]  and I'm certainly no expert. I mean, Randy and Eddie and these guys, they're way far
[46:43.800 --> 46:51.080]  more along than I am. You know, I'm just learning this stuff. I mean, all the hosts on this network,
[46:51.080 --> 46:56.840]  I mean, we're just teaching ourselves. But we all have to do this. We all have to do this.
[46:56.840 --> 46:59.160]  We want to take our country back and take our sovereignty back.
[46:59.160 --> 47:07.960]  Well, you know, what's happening in a broader sense around the more traditional side,
[47:07.960 --> 47:15.320]  people that are bringing lawsuits against ATS, ATS has taken the position that, you know,
[47:15.320 --> 47:23.080]  they're going to file charges back against the lawyers that are doing it. I have a situation
[47:23.080 --> 47:29.640]  here in Texas where an attorney just stopped his case because of the work that ATS is doing to
[47:30.600 --> 47:37.320]  push down and they have a distinct business interest in the state of Texas. American
[47:37.320 --> 47:45.000]  Traffic Solutions makes $500,000 a year in the city of College Station. They are conflicted,
[47:45.000 --> 47:53.960]  but even under the broadest concepts of the old law where it was a sworn officer,
[47:55.320 --> 48:02.760]  this company has a commercial interest in ensuring that the largest number of people get tickets
[48:03.640 --> 48:08.920]  in the city of College Station. That's their interest and their interest is protecting
[48:08.920 --> 48:15.240]  their revenue stream. And that is not in the interest of the general public. That's in the
[48:15.240 --> 48:22.440]  interest of the city. A World War II veteran told me this past weekend, he said, this is exactly
[48:23.400 --> 48:29.880]  like when a commercial company comes to the Disabled Veterans Association and says,
[48:29.880 --> 48:38.040]  if you will lend us your good name and we solicit funds from the public, we will give you a 10% cut
[48:38.040 --> 48:44.840]  of what we take. American Traffic Solutions, in my opinion, came to this city, offers them a
[48:45.800 --> 48:52.040]  contract in which they guarantee it will not cost the city any money and they say,
[48:52.040 --> 48:57.880]  at the end of the day, you can have $200,000 to $300,000 a year to spend on traffic or whatever
[48:57.880 --> 49:04.840]  you need to. And the city bought off on it and the city has sold under the color of law now
[49:04.840 --> 49:12.040]  citizens that don't know any better are complying and sending them $75 a whack to the tune of $1.25
[49:12.040 --> 49:25.960]  million last year. Incredible. It's a tough situation here. I believe that ultimately,
[49:25.960 --> 49:31.160]  when we get into the polls in November, that we will throw red light cameras out of the City
[49:31.160 --> 49:35.560]  of College Station and then we'll take this campaign to the next city and the next city and
[49:35.560 --> 49:44.440]  the next city until we get those companies out of the state. Well, Jim, I wish I could agree with
[49:44.440 --> 49:54.840]  you. I really, really do, but I can't because I've studied too much. I know too much about
[49:54.840 --> 50:01.960]  our elections and what is going on in the complete and utter and total fraud. Even the state
[50:01.960 --> 50:08.440]  examiners appointed by the Secretary of State himself admit in their own reports posted on the
[50:08.440 --> 50:14.520]  Secretary of State website that the voting machines can't count. They have to pre-program in
[50:14.520 --> 50:21.720]  the election data and the results in order to even get the things to work. It's complete and total
[50:21.720 --> 50:28.120]  utter fraud. Our elections are a complete and total sham period. It's been that way for a long
[50:28.120 --> 50:37.000]  time. We should be able to make change at the polls, but right now I know we can't. I know we
[50:37.000 --> 50:43.800]  can't. Vicki and Karen from Vote Rescue have been trying for years to get a bill passed in our state
[50:43.800 --> 50:51.720]  legislature to require hand counted paper ballots in public view because even if you have paper
[50:51.720 --> 50:58.040]  ballots, if they're scanned by optical machines or tabulated somehow by any other electronic means
[50:58.040 --> 51:03.080]  or mechanical means, they ain't going to work. The only way it's going to work is if there are
[51:03.080 --> 51:10.440]  human beings counting pieces of paper with us standing over them and watching and making sure
[51:10.440 --> 51:16.120]  that every tick mark goes in the correct column and that they're added up correctly under camera
[51:16.120 --> 51:22.360]  and that the totals are posted on the precinct door. All of this has to be done at the precinct.
[51:22.360 --> 51:30.120]  None of this BS of taking the ballots to some central convention center or whatever because
[51:30.120 --> 51:35.640]  you lose a chain of custody. I want to sit there. I want to make sure as a member of the public,
[51:35.640 --> 51:41.480]  I want to make sure as a sovereign that the box is empty to begin with. I'm going to watch
[51:41.480 --> 51:46.600]  all day long as the votes go in the box one by one. I'm going to watch as they're taken out of
[51:46.600 --> 51:52.120]  the box one by one and I'm going to stand over the election officials and I'm going to make sure they
[51:52.120 --> 51:56.280]  mark the tick marks in the correct column. I'm going to make sure they're added correctly and
[51:56.280 --> 52:01.800]  that the correct totals are posted on the precinct door and drive around to all the precincts and
[52:01.800 --> 52:07.400]  make sure that the correct totals are reported to the county, all right, to be reported to the state
[52:07.400 --> 52:13.480]  and everybody's going to have to do that in every county or else we're never going to have real
[52:13.480 --> 52:20.200]  elections. Right now, I believe the only way we're going to get this done is in the courts, all right?
[52:20.200 --> 52:29.960]  Criminal charges, civil litigation and now we got the big guns, commercial. And once we get this
[52:29.960 --> 52:41.960]  situation under control, which is completely off the charts, then we can return to normalcy of
[52:42.680 --> 52:49.720]  being able to make change by petitioning our legislators and at the polls. But right now,
[52:50.280 --> 52:55.880]  no way, no way. I'm sorry. I hate to break the news to you guys, everyone out there listening,
[52:55.880 --> 53:02.200]  but it's too late for that. You're way far gone past that, way far gone. The only way we're going
[53:02.200 --> 53:09.320]  to get this done is in the courts right now. It sounds like you're for the return of rule of
[53:09.320 --> 53:18.280]  law or something. Well, something like that, yeah. Exactly. Well, you know, it's a struggle.
[53:19.240 --> 53:25.480]  I feel like I'm really at the very beginning of a journey. My wife and I say this is not
[53:25.480 --> 53:32.280]  a sprint, it's a marathon. Once you get up and once you get involved in this, and the more you
[53:32.280 --> 53:39.080]  know, the more you exercise the Freedom of Information Act, the other information, the more
[53:39.080 --> 53:46.360]  you realize that, and I really believe that the city in this case is going to do whatever the city
[53:46.360 --> 53:53.640]  wants to do. They don't pay attention to what the law says as far as they're concerned when it's in
[53:53.640 --> 54:01.480]  their convenience to violate the law. And, you know, we have to work our redress if it gets worse.
[54:02.040 --> 54:08.440]  Hey, if they won't do what they're statutorily required to do, then we have to start suing them
[54:09.240 --> 54:14.200]  and, or in your case, file criminal charges on them. We have to start suing them. We have to
[54:14.200 --> 54:18.440]  start filing criminal charges. We have to learn commercial law, which is very complex.
[54:18.440 --> 54:24.760]  I have called the county attorney, and the county attorney will not even take my phone call.
[54:26.440 --> 54:33.160]  He says he does not take complaints from a citizen. So, you know, when you're up against that,
[54:34.360 --> 54:38.360]  you just got to keep working it any way you can. And this is the way I found to work it at this
[54:38.360 --> 54:44.600]  stage, which is to do the petition. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Does the county
[54:44.600 --> 54:53.720]  attorney act as a prosecutor for the city? You know, I don't know if it's, you know...
[54:53.720 --> 54:59.720]  You need to find out. This is real important. Because the statute, Article 2.03,
[55:00.760 --> 55:07.320]  Code of Criminal Procedure says when a prosecuting attorney is made known that a crime has been
[55:07.320 --> 55:11.320]  committed, that a public official has violated a law relating to his office, he shall reduce
[55:11.320 --> 55:16.200]  plaintiff information submitted to the grand jury. It does not say when a district attorney
[55:16.760 --> 55:23.800]  or county attorney, it says a prosecuting attorney. And it may not be construed that the law,
[55:23.800 --> 55:30.040]  that the legislators somehow missed that point. He has a duty. He doesn't take complaints from
[55:30.040 --> 55:37.880]  citizens. I would file criminally against him. Okay. Well, I'll ensure that he's a prosecuting
[55:37.880 --> 55:45.080]  attorney and I'll ask him the same question tomorrow. It's good. The first thing to do is
[55:45.080 --> 55:46.680]  get him in a bar grievance. This is a very profitable job for me.
[55:49.640 --> 55:55.400]  This is good. This is me for a bar grievance. If he's a municipal attorney, he's also practicing
[55:55.400 --> 56:01.960]  law. Correct. Hey, Randy? Yes. Now, be aware, however, if this guy is a county attorney,
[56:01.960 --> 56:06.920]  all right, he can only prosecute in the municipal court if it's a violation of state law.
[56:06.920 --> 56:14.920]  No, no, I'm saying he is a prosecuting attorney, not a county attorney. He is an attorney for the
[56:14.920 --> 56:22.440]  state. Yes. If he's acting as a prosecuting attorney, he falls under 2.03, even if he is
[56:22.440 --> 56:28.360]  municipal. Well, the issue that I was bringing to the, at that point, the county attorney,
[56:28.360 --> 56:33.160]  not knowing whether he was truly a prosecuting attorney, is the use of the photo-enforced
[56:33.160 --> 56:39.000]  recorded images from the photo enforcement equipment for purposes other than pursuing
[56:39.000 --> 56:45.400]  people for notices of violation, i.e. the city plays them on every advertisement and they will
[56:45.400 --> 56:53.880]  be playing them on through November or September, November of this year. Wait a minute. Were you
[56:53.880 --> 57:03.800]  talking to a county attorney? Yes. He definitely falls under. Yeah, 2.05. Absolutely. Yeah, 2.03.
[57:03.800 --> 57:10.600]  Well, Randy, however, slide correction. 2.03 specifically addresses the duty of the attorney
[57:10.600 --> 57:15.640]  representing the state. A municipal attorney does not have the power or authority to submit
[57:15.640 --> 57:24.440]  to a district court judge. Not according to this section. It is an attorney for the state. That
[57:24.440 --> 57:30.840]  would only be the attorney general, the county, or the DA. Okay. Well, that goes to your argument
[57:30.840 --> 57:39.880]  that a municipal attorney has no power to prosecute. State offenses in municipal court. Traffic
[57:39.880 --> 57:45.480]  court. Yeah. Right. They are, they're acting in that capacity. So if they want to stand in that
[57:45.480 --> 57:51.880]  capacity, let's hold them to that capacity until we prove that they can't act in that capacity.
[57:53.960 --> 58:00.200]  Well, when I go to traffic court, a municipal attorney stands in the capacity of an attorney
[58:00.200 --> 58:06.920]  representing the state. Let's sting him with it. Well, if they're quite famous from here,
[58:06.920 --> 58:15.480]  to use those images for any other purpose. Okay. We're about to go to break and.
[58:17.320 --> 58:21.000]  Yeah, we're going to, we're going to break. Thank you so much, Jim. And,
[58:21.000 --> 58:24.920]  and your website again, plug your website so people can go and check you out.
[58:24.920 --> 58:31.480]  It's civilviolation.com. Civilviolation.com. Civilviolation.com. Thank you all so much for
[58:31.480 --> 58:37.320]  the invitation and thank you for a little bit of guidance. All right. We support you in your
[58:37.320 --> 58:41.000]  efforts. We got to stop these red light cameras and we've got to stop all the tyranny in general.
[58:41.000 --> 58:45.640]  Thank you so much for joining us. All right. We'll be back on the other side with Eddie,
[58:45.640 --> 58:50.680]  Randy, and myself. We got Brian from Pennsylvania on the line. Callers, if you'd like to call in
[58:50.680 --> 59:02.440]  512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[59:50.680 --> 01:00:05.240]  You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com
[01:00:05.240 --> 01:00:21.000]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:01:05.240 --> 01:01:28.760]  All right. We are back. The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens. We are here with Eddie
[01:01:28.760 --> 01:01:34.760]  Craig. We're talking about the traffic code, the red light cameras, and whatever else may happen
[01:01:34.760 --> 01:01:44.200]  to be on your mind. This is the rule of law. And we are going to speak now with our caller,
[01:01:44.200 --> 01:01:48.360]  Brian from Pennsylvania. Brian, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:01:49.080 --> 01:01:56.120]  Good evening, everybody. Well, I did want to address your last guest amongst other things,
[01:01:56.120 --> 01:02:01.640]  but he's gone now, right? Yes, he is. Yes, he is. But go ahead and speak your mind.
[01:02:01.640 --> 01:02:07.720]  Yes, well, maybe he'll be listening in. I had a couple of issues with those cameras. And,
[01:02:08.440 --> 01:02:13.720]  you know, I addressed it, you know, pretty simply. And, you know, I'm relatively naive, and
[01:02:13.720 --> 01:02:20.520]  I don't have any signs now assessed afterwards. And I basically just told them that I had the
[01:02:20.520 --> 01:02:25.240]  right to be faced by my accuser, and I wanted to have an incredible fact witness brought before me.
[01:02:25.240 --> 01:02:32.520]  And there was, you know, no way that they could also prove that they should even be getting
[01:02:32.520 --> 01:02:37.560]  involved with it, because if there was any contractual obligation, it would be between
[01:02:37.560 --> 01:02:41.720]  the two parties that they claimed to represent, and I wouldn't have given permission for a third
[01:02:41.720 --> 01:02:48.840]  party interloper. And that pretty much all went away. And that's kind of how I handled it.
[01:02:48.840 --> 01:02:56.120]  Yes, that's the other point that I brought up to Aaron before, was that in a civil offense,
[01:02:56.120 --> 01:03:01.080]  where's the contract? Produce evidence that there is an agreement between you and I that I breached.
[01:03:03.240 --> 01:03:11.160]  Right. And they couldn't. And so I've got, I believe, two from Pennsylvania and one from
[01:03:11.160 --> 01:03:22.360]  Maryland that are no longer. Were they struck them down? Yeah. Well, actually, I got an apology.
[01:03:22.360 --> 01:03:27.160]  I was looking to so I could actually read it word for word, but I guess it was from 2008,
[01:03:27.160 --> 01:03:32.600]  and I had already filed those documents away in my attic. But I did get an apology letter,
[01:03:32.600 --> 01:03:38.040]  one from, I'm pretty sure it was the one that I had from the state of Maryland, stating that,
[01:03:38.040 --> 01:03:43.960]  you know, we apologize for any inconvenience and please keep this paper handy if you have anything
[01:03:43.960 --> 01:03:49.560]  in the future from us about the citation number or whatever. Wonderful.
[01:03:50.280 --> 01:03:55.560]  Yeah, it was pretty nice. Nice to hear somebody wins one on occasion.
[01:03:56.600 --> 01:04:02.840]  Yeah, and you know, it wasn't really that much of a fight. I just sent them a letter. And I'm not
[01:04:02.840 --> 01:04:08.840]  sure, you know, I don't have the knowledge base that I even had six months ago. So I'm not sure
[01:04:08.840 --> 01:04:15.400]  if I had sent that one certified return receipt that might have been notarized. But whatever the
[01:04:15.400 --> 01:04:23.320]  case, you know, there was an affirmative response that was pleasing to me. Well, the mail can be
[01:04:23.320 --> 01:04:29.720]  used really powerfully. I was just talking to someone today about an issue in Florida,
[01:04:29.720 --> 01:04:36.280]  and they sent certified mail to a grand jury. And the grand jury didn't get it.
[01:04:38.040 --> 01:04:44.440]  And they went to the postal inspectors. And the postal inspectors went down to find out where this
[01:04:44.440 --> 01:04:51.720]  mail went. And it seemed that the person in the mail room was directed by the US attorney
[01:04:51.720 --> 01:05:02.280]  to just send that those documents to him who signed for it. He's going to sign anything more
[01:05:02.280 --> 01:05:07.800]  than a mail receipt for a while. So the guy you're so Randy that you're just saying like the low
[01:05:07.800 --> 01:05:13.560]  level schmuck in the mail room. Yeah, he signed for this stuff. And then the prosecutors telling
[01:05:13.560 --> 01:05:18.760]  him to just give them to him. And now he's got they've got the postal inspectors all over
[01:05:18.760 --> 01:05:25.160]  all over the the attorney. I mean, all over the US attorney want to know what he's doing with
[01:05:25.160 --> 01:05:31.000]  them. Well, it's about time. It's about time because we have a fundamental right to access
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:38.200]  a grand jury. And in Texas, it's even enumerated in statute, which isn't even necessary, but it is
[01:05:38.200 --> 01:05:44.600]  twice. So we're making headway. We're, we keep hanging in there and keep pounding on them.
[01:05:44.600 --> 01:05:51.960]  In my case, I'm making headway. Tomorrow, I go before a justice of the peace in Roanoke.
[01:05:53.960 --> 01:06:02.840]  And in Cherokee County, they filed criminal charges against me for operating a investigating
[01:06:02.840 --> 01:06:10.440]  company without a license. So they wanted me to go to Cherokee County, and I decided that was a
[01:06:10.440 --> 01:06:18.280]  bad idea. So instead of going to Cherokee County, I went to a justice of the peace here in Denton
[01:06:18.280 --> 01:06:29.480]  County. And he's gonna hold an examining trial. And I'm hoping that I could get him to attach
[01:06:29.480 --> 01:06:38.200]  witnesses. The guy who wrote the who filed the complaint, county attorney and the county judge,
[01:06:38.200 --> 01:06:48.360]  I want them as witnesses on the stand under oath. So that will be interesting. So he will have a
[01:06:48.360 --> 01:06:55.800]  hearing tomorrow. And what I expect him to do is set bail and set a date for an examining trial.
[01:06:57.560 --> 01:07:02.600]  And then if he doesn't attach these witnesses, I subpoena them.
[01:07:02.600 --> 01:07:07.560]  That's going to get interesting. And then later in the day, I'll be going to the district attorney
[01:07:07.560 --> 01:07:19.320]  in Wise County. Because they sent me a summons from Cherokee County. The summons sent to Wise
[01:07:19.320 --> 01:07:27.080]  County. The summons doesn't state what it's for. And it's not signed by the judge. It's signed by
[01:07:27.080 --> 01:07:36.520]  and it's not signed by the judge. It's signed by the criminal court coordinator. Now I didn't know
[01:07:36.520 --> 01:07:45.320]  she had the authority to issue summons. But even if she does, this summons is based on a bogus
[01:07:45.320 --> 01:07:56.840]  warrant. The warrant was issued, which I will maintain by a judge on the same day that I filed
[01:07:56.840 --> 01:08:06.360]  11 criminal charges against him with the grand jury. That he accepted the complaint, even though
[01:08:06.360 --> 01:08:15.720]  it stated no criminal action, in order to intimidate me and keep me from witnessing against him.
[01:08:15.720 --> 01:08:25.720]  That's a violation of 3605 penal code. Do what?
[01:08:25.720 --> 01:08:27.720]  Tampering with a witness, right?
[01:08:27.720 --> 01:08:35.320]  Tampering with a witness. And tampering with a witness for the purpose of obstructing justice,
[01:08:35.320 --> 01:08:49.080]  3606. And since the document was sent to me in Wise County, the venue lies where the document
[01:08:49.080 --> 01:09:00.680]  was sent from or where it was sent to. So I'm moving for venue in Wise County and I will charge
[01:09:00.680 --> 01:09:12.200]  this Cheryl Martin, the county judge, Craig Fletcher, county attorney, Craig Caldwell,
[01:09:13.320 --> 01:09:21.880]  and chief of police of the city of Russ, Joe Evans, with aggravated perjury, subordination
[01:09:21.880 --> 01:09:31.080]  of perjury, felony tampering with the government document, conspiracy to commit, tampering with
[01:09:31.080 --> 01:09:40.360]  a witness, obstruction of justice. We're going to dance. And I may get them up to Wise County
[01:09:40.360 --> 01:09:46.280]  for their own little arraignment hearing and own little examining trial. And we'll see how this
[01:09:46.280 --> 01:09:57.800]  works out. So I'm not in jail yet, but I did tell the justice of the peace to ask his bailiff to oil
[01:09:57.800 --> 01:10:08.680]  up his cuffs. Am I still up, guys? I'm sorry, Brian, go ahead. I just want to know if I was
[01:10:08.680 --> 01:10:14.280]  still up. Yes, you are. Yeah, go ahead. I got more to inquire about, but I didn't want to interrupt
[01:10:14.280 --> 01:10:19.560]  and just be impatient here. No, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. All right. Well, I want to keep going.
[01:10:19.560 --> 01:10:25.480]  I'm okay with listening, but I wanted to ask you guys more on another topic besides the previous
[01:10:25.480 --> 01:10:34.120]  guest about motion forms. And I actually wanted to go into detail on the rule for preliminary
[01:10:34.120 --> 01:10:39.240]  objections in my state. First, I was hoping you guys could address some questions I had about the
[01:10:39.240 --> 01:10:50.520]  form of motion that isn't addressed in my rule of court. I noticed here on the motions some examples
[01:10:50.520 --> 01:11:00.360]  that Eddie had sent me that it seems to be similar to what I received filed against me where, you know,
[01:11:00.360 --> 01:11:06.920]  at the top of the page, there's supposed to be three inches of blank for, you know, dance and
[01:11:06.920 --> 01:11:15.320]  what have you. But at the very top left, before there's the whoever versus whoever, there's a
[01:11:15.320 --> 01:11:21.640]  little bit of a header with the third party that's trying to intervene here. And I do see somewhat of
[01:11:21.640 --> 01:11:28.360]  the same structure on the examples that I got from Eddie. And I'm wondering if that's just the case
[01:11:28.360 --> 01:11:34.680]  of when it goes back and forth, does that is change? And whoever filed puts their information
[01:11:34.680 --> 01:11:44.040]  in that particular spot. I think you're assuming that the motion form is more detailed than it
[01:11:44.040 --> 01:11:55.960]  really is. The style of the motion is, for the most part, relatively general. Each state has kind of a
[01:11:55.960 --> 01:12:04.520]  look that they like to see. But essentially, if you have the parties and the court and the date,
[01:12:05.080 --> 01:12:10.680]  have all this certain information on there, it constitutes a motion. Rather you put in a header
[01:12:10.680 --> 01:12:20.200]  or a footer is a matter of style. Those are things that don't go to substance.
[01:12:20.200 --> 01:12:26.040]  Have you studied the jurisdiction dictionary course yet, Brian?
[01:12:26.680 --> 01:12:31.160]  Yeah, I have. And that was kind of what made me think more so of what Randy was just saying. And
[01:12:31.160 --> 01:12:37.160]  maybe I was overthinking it because the forms that I saw there and what I learned with that course
[01:12:37.800 --> 01:12:41.720]  made me think that I was doing everything correctly. But then when I looked at other
[01:12:41.720 --> 01:12:45.720]  people's motions, you know, that I could find online or that people had forwarded me,
[01:12:45.720 --> 01:12:50.920]  you know, I saw somewhat of a different style, but it didn't seem to really be cohesive.
[01:12:50.920 --> 01:12:55.560]  And so I figured that I could have free reign so long as I didn't know the rules of court.
[01:12:55.560 --> 01:12:57.240]  I just wanted to, you know, clarify.
[01:12:57.240 --> 01:13:02.600]  As long as you have the basic information that's needed. You know, some courts say they
[01:13:02.600 --> 01:13:08.920]  want it double-spaced. They want it a certain font size. But if you don't do it right,
[01:13:09.640 --> 01:13:14.680]  if you make some little foo-paws in the motion, as a rule, they'll send it back to you and tell
[01:13:14.680 --> 01:13:23.960]  you to fix it. It doesn't harm the motion. The motion can't be denied for lack of form as a rule.
[01:13:24.920 --> 01:13:30.920]  And I can pull up a dozen motions from the same court and none of them look alike.
[01:13:31.720 --> 01:13:36.040]  They're basically, they'll look similar, how the heading is structured and such, but
[01:13:36.840 --> 01:13:37.880]  some of them have a line.
[01:13:37.880 --> 01:13:44.520]  Go ahead. Go ahead. That was Eddie. I muted him. Go ahead.
[01:13:45.480 --> 01:13:46.680]  He keeps flushing the toilet.
[01:13:48.680 --> 01:13:49.480]  Go ahead, Randy.
[01:13:50.520 --> 01:13:54.600]  Some of them have a line down the side. Some of them will number every line.
[01:13:54.600 --> 01:13:59.960]  These are just stylistic differences. So they're not that important. It doesn't go to substance.
[01:13:59.960 --> 01:14:04.360]  Right. That was part of my next question too.
[01:14:04.360 --> 01:14:14.840]  I do my motions in a way that make them appear easy to read. I make changes like when I do a
[01:14:14.840 --> 01:14:23.480]  quotation, I shrink it from both sides. I set it to single space and one font down so that when
[01:14:24.120 --> 01:14:29.720]  someone is reading the document and they come to a quotation, they know for certain that that's
[01:14:29.720 --> 01:14:38.920]  separated out, that that's separate from what I've put into the document, that they know where the
[01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:43.480]  quotation starts and where the quotation ends. So if they're familiar with it, they just jump
[01:14:43.480 --> 01:14:50.440]  right over it. It's just about making it easy to read and it has nothing to do with how specific
[01:14:50.440 --> 01:14:55.400]  they are on structure because they're not. Well, I did find specificity just like that
[01:14:55.400 --> 01:15:00.680]  though in the PA Civil Rules of Procedure, specifically talking about when you're going
[01:15:00.680 --> 01:15:05.480]  to have an inserted quote, that's the only time that you can use single space if it is a certain
[01:15:05.480 --> 01:15:12.760]  length, but never can it be less than 12 points, it specifically says. And then in the Rule 1028
[01:15:12.760 --> 01:15:17.480]  for preliminary objections that I did want to go over if I have time, it does one of those
[01:15:17.480 --> 01:15:22.680]  preliminary objections is for failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of
[01:15:22.680 --> 01:15:31.640]  court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. But that will never overrule it. You
[01:15:31.640 --> 01:15:37.240]  won't have a motion ruled against because of that ever. If they have a complaint about it,
[01:15:37.240 --> 01:15:43.400]  they just send it back to you. I was in court once and a brand new attorney, the kid was about 25 or
[01:15:43.400 --> 01:15:53.000]  26. And the judge, the district judge hated me, but the attorney gave me some case law because he
[01:15:53.000 --> 01:15:58.680]  had submitted it to the court and he gave some to the court and I looked at it and he had photographed
[01:15:58.680 --> 01:16:07.400]  two pages of a law book on one eight and a half by 11. And I looked at that thing. I said to the
[01:16:07.400 --> 01:16:14.120]  judge, Your Honor, does the court have a magnifying glass? And the judge was kind of taken aback. He
[01:16:14.120 --> 01:16:19.720]  looked down at it, picked these papers up and threw them across the courtroom and told his attorney,
[01:16:19.720 --> 01:16:24.680]  don't you ever bring any garbage like that back in my courtroom. I'm almost blind already.
[01:16:26.920 --> 01:16:29.320]  But he was just a new attorney.
[01:16:29.320 --> 01:16:36.760]  Okay. Randy, didn't you say something like to the judge, like, Your Honor, does the court
[01:16:36.760 --> 01:16:43.080]  have a magnifying glass? And he was like, what? And then he grabbed the documents and looked at
[01:16:43.080 --> 01:16:48.360]  him and threw them all over the court. Get it out of here. Don't you ever bring me anything like
[01:16:48.360 --> 01:16:54.120]  this again. All right. He was a young attorney. He was teaching a lesson. Exactly. All right.
[01:16:54.120 --> 01:17:02.360]  We're going to break. Callers call in. We'll be right back. You invest, you buy insurance,
[01:17:02.360 --> 01:17:07.400]  you wear your seatbelt, you do things to ensure your family's future and protection. But why?
[01:17:07.400 --> 01:17:12.840]  Just in case with the current state of affairs, ask yourself, am I ready? Preparation starts at
[01:17:12.840 --> 01:17:18.600]  survivalgearsource.com. Survivalgearsource.com has a huge selection of vital products, emergency
[01:17:18.600 --> 01:17:24.040]  survival kits, gas masks, MREs, communication devices, products for pet care, your car, home,
[01:17:24.040 --> 01:17:28.680]  office, and school. Protect against all natural disasters and terror attacks that can happen at
[01:17:28.680 --> 01:17:33.880]  any time. If you are not prepared, the last place you want to be is standing in FEMA lines. Invest
[01:17:33.880 --> 01:17:44.680]  in your future now. Visit survivalgearsource.com or call 877-231-1925. That's 877-231-1925.
[01:17:44.680 --> 01:17:51.640]  Survivalgearsource.com. Prepare for tomorrow now. When ordering from survivalgearsource.com,
[01:17:51.640 --> 01:18:15.320]  remember to use promo code ruleoflawradio.com. Again, that special promo code is ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:18:22.600 --> 01:18:50.040]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law. Eddie, Craig, Randy Kelton, and Deborah Stevens. We're here with
[01:18:50.040 --> 01:18:57.080]  Brian from Pennsylvania. We were talking on the break about just the content, things we were
[01:18:57.080 --> 01:19:05.320]  discussing tonight. The subject came up concerning, well, you know, maybe some people think we're just
[01:19:05.320 --> 01:19:13.000]  ivory tower scholars studying the law and trying to figure all these things out and what they really
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:20.920]  mean and maybe people would rather that see us or hear us talking about going out there and actually
[01:19:20.920 --> 01:19:25.880]  kicking some butt, you know, and what have we gotten done lately and things like that.
[01:19:25.880 --> 01:19:32.440]  And Randy and we all are doing stuff, you know, but it's like, well, how many people have you
[01:19:32.440 --> 01:19:40.280]  gotten indicted yet or things like this? And I have to say something here, okay? Our system,
[01:19:40.280 --> 01:19:47.720]  our government has been completely lost, okay? They are totally out of control. Our government
[01:19:47.720 --> 01:19:56.520]  is completely and 100% and more out of our control altogether. It's been that way for a long time.
[01:19:56.520 --> 01:20:01.800]  Sorry to break the news to you. I told you about the elections earlier. Look into it yourself,
[01:20:01.800 --> 01:20:08.360]  all right? And even I had one of my producers chat me while I was talking about the hand counted
[01:20:08.360 --> 01:20:13.320]  paper ballots in the box and I want to look at the box and watch as they count, as they make the
[01:20:13.320 --> 01:20:18.360]  tick marks in the column and everything. And my producer tells me, so are you saying that we should
[01:20:18.360 --> 01:20:25.000]  have open source code, you know, and direct programming at every level? And I'm like,
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:31.880]  oh my God, and these are even people that are awake. How many times do I have to say it?
[01:20:31.880 --> 01:20:38.360]  Hand counted paper ballots at the precinct in public view, watch everything on the piece of paper,
[01:20:38.360 --> 01:20:45.560]  no machines, okay? Period. And it's like, it's completely out of control. We're starting from
[01:20:45.560 --> 01:20:51.800]  scratch here, people. We're studying the law ourselves from top to bottom to try to figure
[01:20:51.800 --> 01:20:58.840]  out what it means and what we need to do so that when we actually go out and take action,
[01:20:58.840 --> 01:21:05.000]  it's going to have serious effect, all right? And it is having serious effect. So I just want
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:10.440]  to make that clear because, people, we have to do our homework first. You know, you can't just
[01:21:11.080 --> 01:21:19.320]  read things like half-baked or whatever once or twice and think you understand it and just go
[01:21:19.320 --> 01:21:25.720]  out there and start doing stuff. I mean, you have to really have a grasp on these things.
[01:21:25.720 --> 01:21:32.040]  And, you know, there are simple concepts and then there's medium concepts, there's intermediate
[01:21:32.040 --> 01:21:37.880]  concepts, there's advanced concepts. So I'm just saying it's not going to be an easy road, all
[01:21:37.880 --> 01:21:45.080]  right? And so that's why we are talking about the law in great detail so that we can actually take
[01:21:45.080 --> 01:21:52.440]  that control of our lives and our government without, you know, just having it lost into
[01:21:52.440 --> 01:22:02.040]  complete oblivion and having no hope. So that's the deal. Brian, are you still there?
[01:22:02.600 --> 01:22:06.760]  I am. I wouldn't worry about the people's perceptions at all because, you know what,
[01:22:06.760 --> 01:22:13.160]  I can be self-conscious myself. But, I mean, I think you guys helping me address some of maybe
[01:22:13.160 --> 01:22:20.040]  the more fundamental or juvenile or elementary issues are really important because it helps
[01:22:20.040 --> 01:22:25.400]  other people that might not be willing to put themselves out there and ask. And it's really an
[01:22:25.400 --> 01:22:31.400]  invaluable tool to really help to restore a republic because without some of the fundamentals
[01:22:31.400 --> 01:22:37.080]  like we're going over maybe with me, you know, I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing and other
[01:22:37.080 --> 01:22:43.000]  people wouldn't be able to even know where to start. And I think that it's fine. I don't
[01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:46.840]  think you need to be bragging about how many people you're indicting and everything like that
[01:22:46.840 --> 01:22:51.560]  because that'll just happen and those shows will take place when they do naturally, you know.
[01:22:51.560 --> 01:22:55.160]  Well, thanks, Brian. And it's not that I was self-conscious or anything but
[01:22:56.360 --> 01:23:02.440]  I have gotten emails and comments and people and usually it's because people that are new to the
[01:23:02.440 --> 01:23:08.600]  show, you know, that haven't been following things for a long time, you know, to understand. I mean,
[01:23:08.600 --> 01:23:14.120]  this is a long process. Actually, one of my requests was going to be if you could have a
[01:23:14.120 --> 01:23:20.520]  guest on that would take things from the most basic level, kind of like Mr. Graves does,
[01:23:20.520 --> 01:23:24.600]  but maybe on the air with a couple of people that are maybe a little bit naive like myself
[01:23:24.600 --> 01:23:31.240]  to really start at a base level to try to give people, you know, some foundation to grow on.
[01:23:31.960 --> 01:23:35.080]  Right. It's been a long time since we've done the basic due process.
[01:23:35.960 --> 01:23:38.920]  We probably should do that again soon. That'd be great.
[01:23:38.920 --> 01:23:46.200]  Okay. I don't want to take up too much of the airtime but I did want to maybe get
[01:23:46.760 --> 01:23:53.160]  Eddie's opinion on a couple things and your opinions as well about, you know, some more motion forms.
[01:23:53.160 --> 01:23:57.400]  Sure. Go ahead, Brian. Actually, we have open phone lines right now. Callers, if you'd like
[01:23:57.400 --> 01:24:04.200]  to call in 512-646-1984. Go ahead, Brian. Well, part of it did have to do with the
[01:24:04.200 --> 01:24:14.520]  special appearance and, you know, before I were to really even want to claim my special appearance,
[01:24:15.080 --> 01:24:22.440]  I'm still filing these preliminary objections. So before I received a couple examples,
[01:24:22.440 --> 01:24:28.840]  what I was planning on doing was stating maybe towards the end of my motion that if I were to
[01:24:28.840 --> 01:24:35.080]  be brought before the court, that I would be operating my agent and making a special appearance
[01:24:35.080 --> 01:24:45.000]  myself in the flesh. But some of the forms that I've been witness to now conflict with that and
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:49.800]  I'm wondering if there's a good reason for it or if I could stick with my own style and not be
[01:24:49.800 --> 01:24:54.040]  concerned with, you know, being mocked by the judge or anything.
[01:24:54.040 --> 01:25:01.800]  Brian? Well, the first thing is if you address the judge without specifying that your appearance
[01:25:01.800 --> 01:25:09.240]  is special, you're granting impersonal jurisdiction, which up until that point he does not have unless
[01:25:09.240 --> 01:25:14.360]  certain things have been done and certain facts apply. Now, Randy, do you agree with that?
[01:25:16.280 --> 01:25:23.960]  Yes, I do. And as far as the form of the motion, the form of the motion never becomes an issue
[01:25:23.960 --> 01:25:31.160]  unless somebody makes it an issue. I have never had any one object to the form of my motion ever.
[01:25:32.920 --> 01:25:39.800]  And, you know, I've looked at motions that were just a mess, but I could read the motion and tell
[01:25:39.800 --> 01:25:44.040]  what it was supposed to be and I never raised an issue. It's seldom you'll get an issue raised
[01:25:44.040 --> 01:25:49.560]  over the form of a motion unless you do some just, you know, Robert Fox does some really
[01:25:49.560 --> 01:25:58.280]  radical stuff on his motions. Huge print, red letters and all kinds of stuff that all of it's
[01:25:58.280 --> 01:26:03.880]  single-spaced. He never gets a complaint on the form of his motion. I guess they're too annoyed
[01:26:03.880 --> 01:26:10.760]  with the content. They never address the form. And as far as subject matter jurisdiction,
[01:26:12.440 --> 01:26:18.680]  if you're doing a special appearance, you don't even have to label it subject matter
[01:26:18.680 --> 01:26:23.480]  jurisdiction as a special appearance. If you challenge subject matter jurisdiction,
[01:26:24.040 --> 01:26:31.400]  the motion, the title of the motion, if it conflicts with the body of the motion,
[01:26:31.400 --> 01:26:36.040]  the motion will be considered based on the content of the motion, not the title.
[01:26:37.560 --> 01:26:44.360]  Yeah, now on subject matter jurisdiction, there's another caveat to that too. Do not argue the
[01:26:44.360 --> 01:26:50.280]  merit of the statute you're being charged. Do not address the charges in any way, shape or form
[01:26:50.280 --> 01:26:57.000]  directly or you are waiving the grant of subject matter jurisdiction. If you try to argue the facts
[01:26:57.000 --> 01:27:03.160]  of the law you're being charged with, you are waiving subject matter jurisdiction. Do not do
[01:27:03.160 --> 01:27:09.720]  that. Stick to the fact that the judge, I'm sorry. Let me make a minor correction. You can waive
[01:27:09.720 --> 01:27:18.360]  in personum, but you cannot waive subject matter. Well, okay, great. You meant in personum, I know.
[01:27:19.560 --> 01:27:25.160]  Subject matter jurisdiction, if they don't have it, they never get it. Right. And nothing you can
[01:27:25.160 --> 01:27:30.840]  do to give it to them. But in personum, you can certainly waive. But that's exactly why you
[01:27:30.840 --> 01:27:35.480]  reserve your appearance as special so you do not waive the in personum jurisdiction.
[01:27:35.480 --> 01:27:43.160]  Okay. Well, in personum is different from subject matter, but I have a little bit of an issue. I
[01:27:43.160 --> 01:27:51.320]  don't quite comprehend how to object to the issues brought before me without citing them.
[01:27:52.600 --> 01:27:59.400]  Well, okay. The argument is simple. One, if the rules they're applying do not apply to you,
[01:27:59.400 --> 01:28:06.680]  there is no subject matter jurisdiction. It's just like when they cite a person rather than a man
[01:28:06.680 --> 01:28:13.400]  with a traffic citation. The person is one over whom they have both in personum and subject matter.
[01:28:13.400 --> 01:28:27.000]  The man is not. And that goes strictly to the written definitions. It sounds just saying that
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:34.280]  thinking of the common everyday uses of the word, it sounds confusing. But if you go into the code
[01:28:34.280 --> 01:28:41.640]  and read the code's definition of person, then what Craig's talking about becomes very crystal clear
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:53.960]  that person is a legal entity. So it's important that you read the definitions.
[01:28:53.960 --> 01:29:00.680]  Well, that I comprehend very well. That I do. But if somebody is bringing me to court calling me an
[01:29:00.680 --> 01:29:06.840]  apple and I say, well, you don't have jurisdiction because this court only deals with oranges,
[01:29:06.840 --> 01:29:10.920]  well, I've already brought up the issue of being some type of produce in the first place. So don't
[01:29:10.920 --> 01:29:15.400]  I waive then subject matter jurisdiction? No. The first thing you ask them is what
[01:29:15.400 --> 01:29:25.240]  evidence do you intend to produce that I am an apple? Because they're the ones that must
[01:29:25.240 --> 01:29:28.760]  produce the evidence and prove each and every element, not you.
[01:29:32.120 --> 01:29:34.520]  Yeah, I think that just helps a little bit. Thank you.
[01:29:36.680 --> 01:29:37.240]  You're welcome.
[01:29:37.240 --> 01:29:45.560]  All right. We are going to break. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[01:29:45.560 --> 01:29:53.720]  We're here with Eddie Craig. Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We will be right back.
[01:29:58.520 --> 01:30:03.560]  Gold prices are at historic highs. And with the recent pullback, this is a great time to buy.
[01:30:03.560 --> 01:30:08.440]  With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability in
[01:30:08.440 --> 01:30:14.120]  rural financial systems, I see gold going up much higher. Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts
[01:30:14.120 --> 01:30:18.680]  Brokerage. Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals.
[01:30:18.680 --> 01:30:23.080]  At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence from
[01:30:23.080 --> 01:30:28.360]  a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977. If you are new to
[01:30:28.360 --> 01:30:32.840]  precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed
[01:30:32.840 --> 01:30:37.800]  decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us. Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage
[01:30:37.800 --> 01:30:41.720]  values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required
[01:30:41.720 --> 01:30:46.440]  to report any transaction. If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell,
[01:30:46.440 --> 01:30:53.560]  we can convert it for immediate payment. Call us at 800-874-9760. We're Roberts and Roberts
[01:30:53.560 --> 01:31:03.560]  Brokerage, 800-874-9760.
[01:31:23.560 --> 01:31:33.560]  Thank you.
[01:31:53.560 --> 01:32:20.520]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law. We are speaking with Brian in Pennsylvania. We're here
[01:32:20.520 --> 01:32:27.400]  with Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton and myself. Callers you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[01:32:27.400 --> 01:32:30.760]  Okay, Brian, go ahead. You said you had a couple more points.
[01:32:31.320 --> 01:32:36.920]  Yeah, and thank you for taking time out with me. I really appreciate it. I guess my concern,
[01:32:38.760 --> 01:32:42.360]  I appreciate what Eddie just gave to me. It made a little bit of a light bulb go off in my head,
[01:32:42.360 --> 01:32:50.840]  but that's what made me remember my initial apprehension of not objecting to all of the
[01:32:50.840 --> 01:33:00.920]  preliminary objections because the wording here, I can't find it right now, but there is wording
[01:33:00.920 --> 01:33:10.360]  in the rule that says if I don't bring them up, they're waived. And if I don't, you know,
[01:33:10.360 --> 01:33:14.600]  if I don't bring them all up that I could possibly bring up, I'm concerned that I would lose the
[01:33:14.600 --> 01:33:21.800]  ability to bring them up in the future. And without bringing them up, certain ones I couldn't bring
[01:33:21.800 --> 01:33:27.320]  up without maybe going to the merits of the case. And it sounds like that's something that I want to
[01:33:27.320 --> 01:33:32.040]  stay away from if I'm going to do that. Well, the thing is, Brian, they're the ones that
[01:33:32.040 --> 01:33:36.760]  have to go through the merit of the case and bring it up, at which point you get to object.
[01:33:36.760 --> 01:33:43.080]  Now, the fact of the matter is what you're talking about here is objecting to anything that is given
[01:33:43.080 --> 01:33:51.480]  as testimony or they're using just as statement evidence rather than physical evidence. If you
[01:33:51.480 --> 01:33:58.840]  do not object to that admission into the record, then it will remain and you will not be able to
[01:33:58.840 --> 01:34:06.760]  object to it later. So, basically... Wait a minute, Brian, are we still talking about a challenge to
[01:34:06.760 --> 01:34:15.560]  the jurisdiction? Well, that is one of the preliminary objections. If you come in on a
[01:34:15.560 --> 01:34:23.320]  challenge to the jurisdiction, they don't get to go to the merits other than how they go to
[01:34:23.320 --> 01:34:31.400]  subject matter jurisdiction. And generally, the merits of the case won't go to subject matter
[01:34:31.400 --> 01:34:38.840]  jurisdiction. What will go to subject matter jurisdiction is where the crime was committed,
[01:34:39.800 --> 01:34:46.120]  where the filings were made, and the sufficiency of the filings before the court,
[01:34:46.680 --> 01:34:51.960]  the standing of the people raising the issues, these sorts of things, not the merits of the
[01:34:51.960 --> 01:34:58.120]  case. So, you don't want to let them go to the merits of the case until they've proved up
[01:34:58.120 --> 01:35:04.200]  jurisdiction. And to prove up jurisdiction, they have to show that the court has jurisdiction over
[01:35:04.200 --> 01:35:14.440]  the type of issue brought before them, that the particular court has venue within the jurisdiction,
[01:35:14.440 --> 01:35:20.840]  that the pleadings brought before the court are sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction
[01:35:20.840 --> 01:35:29.640]  of the court. For instance, the person who brings the issue, he must have standing in order to bring
[01:35:29.640 --> 01:35:42.760]  the issue. I dealt with an issue where an attorney in a divorce filed a pleading in a court,
[01:35:42.760 --> 01:35:49.080]  pleading in a case where a guy was having an issue with the tax court. And he filed a pleading
[01:35:49.080 --> 01:35:54.680]  to get his, get money the guy owed him from the divorce. And he showed it to me and I said,
[01:35:55.240 --> 01:35:59.640]  this guy doesn't have standing to file in this case. And the guy had been fighting it for a
[01:35:59.640 --> 01:36:05.240]  couple of years, never realized he didn't have standing to start with. So, standing is really
[01:36:05.240 --> 01:36:21.080]  important. And then the pleadings themselves, a case in Waco, a mortgage company filed a motion
[01:36:22.120 --> 01:36:30.840]  to repossess this house, but there was no certificate of service. Without a certificate
[01:36:30.840 --> 01:36:35.800]  of service, the filing did not invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[01:36:36.680 --> 01:36:40.760]  And these are the things you deal with in subject matter jurisdiction. Do not let them go to the
[01:36:40.760 --> 01:36:46.840]  merits. Right. You only go to the merits once the court proves that it has the authority to sit
[01:36:46.840 --> 01:36:54.200]  where it is. So, what if in my first motion to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the
[01:36:54.200 --> 01:37:00.360]  court, I were to say in that motion that all of the other points brought forth by the other party
[01:37:00.360 --> 01:37:05.720]  are objected to and will be that way until the court can prove that it has subject matter
[01:37:05.720 --> 01:37:10.440]  jurisdiction, then they may be addressed. Is that a tactic that's usable?
[01:37:11.080 --> 01:37:16.840]  That would be okay. But what's going to happen is they're going to try to
[01:37:18.040 --> 01:37:24.040]  trick you past subject matter jurisdiction. When the judge asks you a question or when
[01:37:24.040 --> 01:37:29.640]  an attorney asks you a question, it is the nature of the human animal to answer the question.
[01:37:29.640 --> 01:37:30.520]  Right.
[01:37:31.400 --> 01:37:36.520]  It takes some... This is part of the thing that proceeds have trouble learning.
[01:37:38.760 --> 01:37:48.120]  Don't answer. I was in court watching a guy one time, and the guy was clearly counting to three
[01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:54.520]  every time he was asked a question. I could literally see him doing it.
[01:37:54.520 --> 01:37:59.880]  And when he got off the stand, I went outside and talked to him. I said,
[01:38:00.760 --> 01:38:05.800]  am I right? Were you counting every time when you were asked a question before you spoke?
[01:38:06.760 --> 01:38:11.000]  And he said, well, yeah, you could tell. I said, yeah, I could tell. He said, darn,
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:18.280]  I got to be more careful. I said, why were you doing that? He said, I never want to say
[01:38:18.280 --> 01:38:26.200]  the first thing that comes to mind. So I make myself count to three. And in that time,
[01:38:26.920 --> 01:38:36.920]  I get to think about what I'm going to say. I thought very good tool because we go into
[01:38:36.920 --> 01:38:43.560]  court, you know, if you and I talk, I speak, you respond. You respond, I respond to you.
[01:38:43.560 --> 01:38:49.560]  That's how it works. We go into court, we're under stress. So our natural patterns tend to be
[01:38:49.560 --> 01:38:54.840]  enhanced. And it's hard to overcome them. And these guys really know how to use them.
[01:38:55.400 --> 01:39:01.320]  Yeah. And I'm aware of that because I've been able to find some good proceedings actually,
[01:39:01.320 --> 01:39:06.520]  you know, on video. And I was kind of preparing myself, if I could put the analogy forth, of
[01:39:06.520 --> 01:39:11.800]  kind of doing a lot of volley for serve for maybe a half an hour, where there's really
[01:39:11.800 --> 01:39:16.760]  not much exchange, but there's a lot of verbal transactions, so to speak, if you may.
[01:39:17.800 --> 01:39:25.800]  Good. And there's something called a meta comment. One of the issues I haven't got to
[01:39:26.520 --> 01:39:34.040]  opportunity to get to on the show is how to effectively meta comment, not comment on the
[01:39:34.040 --> 01:39:39.480]  subject matter of the issue, but on the structure or the presentation.
[01:39:42.120 --> 01:39:49.320]  When someone says something to you, you just want to respond to them. But if you
[01:39:50.360 --> 01:39:57.560]  make it kind of a game to look at the way they use their language. I was in court one time and
[01:39:57.560 --> 01:40:06.280]  I was in court one time and the prosecutor asked me a question and I told him, I don't know what
[01:40:06.280 --> 01:40:11.800]  you're talking about. And the judge says, well, Mr. Kelton, what's the problem? I said, well,
[01:40:11.800 --> 01:40:19.080]  his statement lacks referential index. And the judge got this strange look on his face.
[01:40:19.080 --> 01:40:23.640]  He said, well, he's making a statement assuming that I know what he's talking about, but he
[01:40:23.640 --> 01:40:36.120]  hasn't told me. And it completely befuddled the prosecutor. It took him a while to get back on
[01:40:36.120 --> 01:40:43.160]  track so he could reform the question. I did that a couple of more times and it was something the
[01:40:43.160 --> 01:40:49.320]  prosecutor wasn't used to doing because they like to ask you questions that assume facts
[01:40:49.320 --> 01:40:57.320]  that are not actually in evidence. And if they ask the question right and don't give you referential
[01:40:57.320 --> 01:41:04.280]  index, like how much pot did you have in the car? You won't think to say, assumes a fact not in
[01:41:04.280 --> 01:41:14.040]  evidence. The other side hasn't proved that there was any pot at all. So once you learn to listen
[01:41:14.040 --> 01:41:19.640]  carefully to the structure of the language, it makes it easier not to fall in their traps. I'd
[01:41:19.640 --> 01:41:28.440]  like to do a show on that kind of thing one of these days soon. Debra is Skyping me. We were
[01:41:28.920 --> 01:41:35.240]  talking about a current Supreme Court case. Yeah. I wanted to talk about this earlier this evening
[01:41:35.240 --> 01:41:42.520]  and we had our guests scheduled. This just came up today. Eddie and I have been looking at this
[01:41:42.520 --> 01:41:51.960]  for the last few minutes. Brian, did I answer your question? If you have more, hang on.
[01:41:51.960 --> 01:41:57.800]  I got to ruminate over it for a day and maybe call back tomorrow. I replayed this episode and
[01:41:57.800 --> 01:42:01.960]  I thank you guys. I'm going to let you go because I'm getting tired myself. But thank you all very
[01:42:01.960 --> 01:42:09.000]  much. All right. Thank you, Brian. Okay. And actually I'm going to skip this last break so
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:15.800]  that we can discuss this because this is pretty major here. And I did have another article that
[01:42:15.800 --> 01:42:20.680]  was emailed to me from a listener. I'm going to go over that tomorrow night when we start the show
[01:42:20.680 --> 01:42:28.200]  concerning this is agenda 21 issues. But today there was a Supreme Court ruling apparently
[01:42:28.920 --> 01:42:35.160]  that the court said that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence
[01:42:35.160 --> 01:42:41.960]  in hopes of proving their innocence after they've been found guilty of a crime.
[01:42:42.760 --> 01:42:53.720]  And this case is the district attorney's office, the Osborne 08-6 in Alaska.
[01:42:53.720 --> 01:43:05.640]  All right. Now I don't understand why or how the court could rule or enforce that convicts
[01:43:06.360 --> 01:43:14.040]  have no right to submit new evidence, new exculpatory evidence to clear their name after
[01:43:14.040 --> 01:43:21.640]  they've been convicted. Well, we need to read it because what I heard was they have no constitutional
[01:43:21.640 --> 01:43:31.560]  right. And that's probably true because our founders never considered DNA evidence
[01:43:32.840 --> 01:43:38.760]  at the time of the constitution. But even forget the DNA evidence part. I thought that it was just
[01:43:38.760 --> 01:43:48.520]  standard jurisprudence from way back that if there is new evidence that has not yet been
[01:43:48.520 --> 01:43:56.360]  presented after a person has been convicted, then you can start the whole thing all over again.
[01:43:56.360 --> 01:44:02.040]  I mean, that's... Well, I haven't read it yet. I'm looking for it. What was the case?
[01:44:02.040 --> 01:44:09.800]  Okay. It's district attorney's office V Osborne 08-6. But what I'm saying is I'm just asking
[01:44:09.800 --> 01:44:15.640]  a question on general jurisprudence. Okay. It's been my understanding all along that
[01:44:15.640 --> 01:44:23.560]  it's been my understanding all along that you can always go back and appeal a conviction
[01:44:24.120 --> 01:44:33.320]  and reopen a trial to present exculpatory evidence as long as it's new exculpatory evidence that has
[01:44:33.320 --> 01:44:42.040]  not yet been presented before. You can't go back and try to get the court or jury to review
[01:44:42.040 --> 01:44:46.600]  evidence if it's already been presented. But if there is new exculpatory evidence,
[01:44:47.480 --> 01:44:52.440]  that's just been standard jurisprudence that you have the right to go back and the trial can be
[01:44:52.440 --> 01:44:56.280]  reopened. That's been my understanding. Well, that's why we have to read the case
[01:44:56.280 --> 01:45:02.520]  because what they may be saying is that it's statutory and not constitutional.
[01:45:04.600 --> 01:45:11.480]  That someone may be bringing the issue based on a constitutional basis and the courts are trying to
[01:45:11.480 --> 01:45:16.040]  say to them, no, it's not constitutional. It's statutory. You have to do it based on statute.
[01:45:17.720 --> 01:45:25.800]  Well, it's looking to me like they're trying to pass the buck off to the states where Alaska is
[01:45:25.800 --> 01:45:30.920]  saying, no, we're not going to let them do it. And the Supreme Court is going, oh, okay. Yeah.
[01:45:30.920 --> 01:45:37.160]  Okay. Well, that's fine. States are sovereign. You know, there's the states. We have to keep our
[01:45:37.160 --> 01:45:42.760]  hands off the states, you know, and that's what I'm reading in some of these articles. And yeah,
[01:45:42.760 --> 01:45:47.560]  well, it's real convenient for them. You know, they, you know, promote states' rights and hands
[01:45:47.560 --> 01:45:54.280]  off the states when it's convenient for them, for their tyranny. Okay. But the minute, the second,
[01:45:55.160 --> 01:46:05.400]  you want to exercise your sovereignty, no way. Case in point, Rach versus Ashcroft.
[01:46:05.400 --> 01:46:11.320]  No states' rights there. So Eddie, have you been reading this? What do you make of this?
[01:46:11.320 --> 01:46:16.680]  Yeah, I've looked at it and they've got a couple of different reasons why they say they're doing it.
[01:46:16.680 --> 01:46:23.880]  One, they don't want the federal courts to have the ability to rule over the states dictating what
[01:46:23.880 --> 01:46:31.400]  is and isn't justice. But the problem here is that that leaves a certain person in a certain state
[01:46:31.400 --> 01:46:37.800]  not able to achieve the same level of justice as those in other states, which that's what the
[01:46:37.800 --> 01:46:44.760]  Supreme Court rulings are meant to do, is to make the case law uniform, to make the requirements for
[01:46:44.760 --> 01:46:51.800]  justice uniform and constitutional all at the same time. As far as protecting people's rights.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:58.920]  Yeah, I don't see anything in the Constitution that says leave it up to everybody to determine
[01:46:58.920 --> 01:47:07.640]  what justice is. I mean, anytime a person is falsely accused or wrongfully imprisoned,
[01:47:07.640 --> 01:47:15.880]  justice has not been served. I don't care what level it's at. So personally speaking, I believe
[01:47:15.880 --> 01:47:23.880]  they tried to let go at the wrong time. There are many rulings they've made, they had no business
[01:47:23.880 --> 01:47:30.440]  making. This was not one of them up to the point where they should have said, yeah, if this person
[01:47:30.440 --> 01:47:36.280]  has even an inkling of being able to prove through this method that they did not commit the crime
[01:47:36.280 --> 01:47:41.240]  they're being imprisoned for, then it should be allowed to go through, especially if that person
[01:47:41.240 --> 01:47:48.360]  is paying for it themselves. But that should not be a requirement if they can honestly show that
[01:47:48.360 --> 01:47:55.960]  the thing, you know, is going to set them free. Now, if the DNA evidence shows different, then
[01:47:55.960 --> 01:48:00.600]  bill them for it on down the road. But for the time being, he deserves the chance to be heard
[01:48:00.600 --> 01:48:06.920]  in that respect. Especially if his lawyer blew it by not bringing it up at trial.
[01:48:06.920 --> 01:48:14.920]  Boy, man. It's just, it's just so sad.
[01:48:14.920 --> 01:48:16.920]  I cannot seek post-conviction.
[01:48:18.920 --> 01:48:24.920]  Okay, here's what I'm reading. Petitioner of the district attorney's office argues that
[01:48:24.920 --> 01:48:30.920]  Osborne cannot seek post-conviction access to evidence for further DNA testing under
[01:48:30.920 --> 01:48:38.920]  42 U.S. Code 1983. But instead, he must bring such a claim in a habeas corpus petition.
[01:48:38.920 --> 01:48:42.920]  Oh, so they're just saying that he didn't file the proper paperwork.
[01:48:42.920 --> 01:48:46.920]  Yeah, and that's what I suspected because on his face, this sounded outrageous.
[01:48:46.920 --> 01:48:50.920]  I was going to say, it did sound outrageous. And I can't believe, well, actually I can't believe
[01:48:50.920 --> 01:48:56.920]  that his attorney didn't file the habeas corpus because that seems quite appropriate. We have
[01:48:56.920 --> 01:49:00.920]  Dr. Bill Vieth on the line, by the way. Let's see what he has to say about this.
[01:49:00.920 --> 01:49:04.920]  He's going to tell me there's no global warming.
[01:49:04.920 --> 01:49:06.920]  Actually, no, it's not.
[01:49:06.920 --> 01:49:08.920]  Don't even. Well, there is.
[01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:10.920]  That's the only soap between me and Bill.
[01:49:10.920 --> 01:49:16.920]  Yeah, well, there is no global warming. Okay, that's a total hoax to enslave us with
[01:49:16.920 --> 01:49:18.920]  the carbon tax. Go ahead, Bill. Thank you.
[01:49:18.920 --> 01:49:22.920]  Yeah, actually you all had just addressed it because I was going to say when we were
[01:49:22.920 --> 01:49:27.920]  talking about whether or not that was a constitutional right, I just wanted to say that
[01:49:27.920 --> 01:49:32.920]  the Constitution says we have a right to life and liberty, and if our liberty has been
[01:49:32.920 --> 01:49:37.920]  taken away and the DNA evidence could prove that we weren't guilty, then obviously we would
[01:49:37.920 --> 01:49:42.920]  have a constitutionally protected right to use that DNA evidence. But the other thing is
[01:49:42.920 --> 01:49:47.920]  the Constitution doesn't give us any rights. We don't have any constitutional rights.
[01:49:47.920 --> 01:49:48.920]  That's right.
[01:49:48.920 --> 01:49:54.920]  We have God-given rights, and the Constitution is there to keep the federal government from
[01:49:54.920 --> 01:49:58.920]  trespassing on those rights. So it protects the rights, but it doesn't give us any rights.
[01:49:58.920 --> 01:50:02.920]  So any time people talk about looking for rights in the Constitution, we don't have
[01:50:02.920 --> 01:50:04.920]  any rights in the Constitution.
[01:50:04.920 --> 01:50:10.920]  That's right. And Bill, you know, you're the one who pointed out to me, and I don't even
[01:50:10.920 --> 01:50:15.920]  like to use this term anymore because now that you've made me see this, the Bill of Rights
[01:50:15.920 --> 01:50:21.920]  isn't a Bill of Rights. And you know what? We shouldn't even call it that because it
[01:50:21.920 --> 01:50:27.920]  just casts the wrong light on the whole thing. It's a Bill of Restrictions, people. It's
[01:50:27.920 --> 01:50:33.920]  a Bill of Restrictions that restricts government from being able to pass laws over these certain
[01:50:33.920 --> 01:50:37.920]  issues. And to be honest, and Eddie showed me this, and other people have shown me this
[01:50:37.920 --> 01:50:43.920]  too, and I'm finally seeing it, and it's true. No man has the right to have a right to
[01:50:43.920 --> 01:50:53.920]  pass laws over any other man. And in our law, if you carefully look at their language and
[01:50:53.920 --> 01:50:59.920]  their wording, they actually are not writing laws over us. Okay? In most cases, everything
[01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:07.920]  is commercial. In other cases, they word things so deceptively and craftily that they kind
[01:51:07.920 --> 01:51:13.920]  of almost sort of get there, but they never quite get there. Okay? And they just fool
[01:51:13.920 --> 01:51:17.920]  us and convince us into thinking that they're actually writing laws over us. So Bill, explain
[01:51:17.920 --> 01:51:20.920]  about how it's a Bill of Restrictions, not a Bill of Rights.
[01:51:20.920 --> 01:51:25.920]  Yes. You know, even the Bill of Rights says the government is prohibited from this. It
[01:51:25.920 --> 01:51:29.920]  shall not do that. You know, if you look at the language, it just talks about what the
[01:51:29.920 --> 01:51:34.920]  government can't do. It gives the government some abilities and it lists them and some
[01:51:34.920 --> 01:51:40.920]  disabilities and it lists them, but it doesn't give us any rights, and that's why we even
[01:51:40.920 --> 01:51:46.920]  fall into the trap of the media and the government by using the same language they like to use.
[01:51:46.920 --> 01:51:51.920]  For example, in the Second Amendment argument, they'll say, is it an individual right or
[01:51:51.920 --> 01:51:57.920]  is it a group right? And there's no such thing as a group right. A group can't have a conscience,
[01:51:57.920 --> 01:52:02.920]  so a group can't have a right. All rights are individual, and we don't have to look
[01:52:02.920 --> 01:52:06.920]  at the Second Amendment to see if it's an individual right to keep and bear arms. It's
[01:52:06.920 --> 01:52:12.920]  a God-given right that the government can't trespass on. And so anyway, we need to be
[01:52:12.920 --> 01:52:17.920]  real careful with our language talking about constitutional rights. There is no such thing.
[01:52:17.920 --> 01:52:22.920]  There are constitutionally protected rights, but the Constitution is there to protect all
[01:52:22.920 --> 01:52:27.920]  of our God-given rights, not just the ones that are listed in the Bill of Rights.
[01:52:27.920 --> 01:52:29.920]  Amen to that.
[01:52:29.920 --> 01:52:34.920]  So anyway, yeah, but you all kind of addressed that actually before you took my call with
[01:52:34.920 --> 01:52:41.920]  this, you know, that they just misfiled the paperwork, and you had to do a habeas corpus
[01:52:41.920 --> 01:52:46.920]  as opposed to look into statutory law for the DNA evidence.
[01:52:46.920 --> 01:52:53.920]  Yeah, and it's really hard for me to believe that this guy's lawyer didn't know this, okay?
[01:52:53.920 --> 01:53:01.920]  I mean, these lawyers, they don't even want to protect your rights, okay? People, lawyers,
[01:53:01.920 --> 01:53:10.920]  almost all of them. I mean, maybe one in 10,000. Don't trust them at all. They are working
[01:53:10.920 --> 01:53:17.920]  for the other side, okay? They are part of the system, all right? I'm sorry to have to
[01:53:17.920 --> 01:53:23.920]  break the news, okay? I'm being just straight up cold tonight, just laying it out.
[01:53:23.920 --> 01:53:27.920]  I'm not sugarcoating anything. We ain't got no elections. The government's completely
[01:53:27.920 --> 01:53:33.920]  out of our control, all right? They want to kill us all, all right? No lawyer is going
[01:53:33.920 --> 01:53:38.920]  to protect you. They are all working for the system. Don't trust any of them at all.
[01:53:38.920 --> 01:53:45.920]  The only way you are going to win is to do this yourself.
[01:53:45.920 --> 01:53:47.920]  Or learn to crucify the lawyer.
[01:53:47.920 --> 01:53:50.920]  Right. Well, again, you are doing it yourself.
[01:53:50.920 --> 01:53:55.920]  Right. Okay, well, anyway, that's all I had to say. You kind of addressed it before you
[01:53:55.920 --> 01:53:56.920]  took my call, so.
[01:53:56.920 --> 01:53:57.920]  All right, thank you, Bill.
[01:53:57.920 --> 01:53:59.920]  I'll just hang up and keep listening.
[01:53:59.920 --> 01:54:00.920]  All right, thank you, Bill.
[01:54:00.920 --> 01:54:01.920]  Okay, thank you.
[01:54:01.920 --> 01:54:06.920]  All right, we've got also John in Texas. Thank you, John, for calling in. What's on your
[01:54:06.920 --> 01:54:07.920]  mind tonight?
[01:54:07.920 --> 01:54:15.920]  All right, Deborah. I didn't have much on my mind other than just, I'm just kind of,
[01:54:15.920 --> 01:54:22.920]  I live here in Austin and I'm depressed because I see police everywhere when I'm driving in
[01:54:22.920 --> 01:54:29.920]  traffic. They're checking people's IDs at bus stops. And I don't really see people doing
[01:54:29.920 --> 01:54:36.920]  anything wrong. How are these cops finding all these infractions? You know, people just
[01:54:36.920 --> 01:54:41.920]  seem like they're just trying to get by. And, you know, I'm struggling. We're all struggling,
[01:54:41.920 --> 01:54:42.920]  I think.
[01:54:42.920 --> 01:54:49.920]  Well, John, the reality is there is no law that authorizes police to demand to see people's
[01:54:49.920 --> 01:54:57.920]  ID unless they are under either detention or arrest. There is no law that says that.
[01:54:57.920 --> 01:55:03.920]  The police cannot arrest you or hold you in detention strictly for the sole reason of
[01:55:03.920 --> 01:55:10.920]  not showing your ID. That is the definition of dictatorship, total tyranny, show your
[01:55:10.920 --> 01:55:16.920]  paper society. Okay, once you've been detained or arrested for probable cause, then they
[01:55:16.920 --> 01:55:22.920]  have the right to demand the ID. So people need to get in a different mindset here and
[01:55:22.920 --> 01:55:26.920]  start doing something about it when the police come up to them and ask for their ID for no
[01:55:26.920 --> 01:55:27.920]  reason.
[01:55:27.920 --> 01:55:38.920]  Right. And I agree. And I'm just driving on a street. I'm not in any trouble. So I'm
[01:55:38.920 --> 01:55:44.920]  just telling you what I observe and that maybe other people don't know their rights. And
[01:55:44.920 --> 01:55:51.920]  I'm scared to death. You know, if they're pulling this many people over, you know, for
[01:55:51.920 --> 01:55:58.920]  probably nothing, basically. I don't know if they are checking out these people's license
[01:55:58.920 --> 01:56:03.920]  flight through the computer and finding that maybe they owe a fine or something. But it
[01:56:03.920 --> 01:56:10.920]  just seems like just driving from Manchac to I-35 on William Cannon, I just every day
[01:56:10.920 --> 01:56:22.920]  I see cops everywhere just having their time. And it just seems like we're losing our rights
[01:56:22.920 --> 01:56:28.920]  really rapidly that I just want to maybe say that I'm a little depressed by seeing this
[01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:33.920]  and we're kind of losing a battle. We really probably need to step something up.
[01:56:33.920 --> 01:56:42.920]  Yeah. How would you define a police state? Oh, just what you see when you walk outdoors.
[01:56:42.920 --> 01:56:48.920]  Well, yeah. And you're right, John. We need to step it up. Okay. How are we going to step
[01:56:48.920 --> 01:56:49.920]  it up?
[01:56:49.920 --> 01:56:53.920]  Well, I think you're right. Everybody needs to. I kind of know my rights. I've been listening
[01:56:53.920 --> 01:57:05.920]  to you all and I, you know, by the way, I wanted to say hi to Jerry and you. It's your
[01:57:05.920 --> 01:57:06.920]  birthday party.
[01:57:06.920 --> 01:57:07.920]  Oh, thank you.
[01:57:07.920 --> 01:57:11.920]  And, you know, I got to witness some stupid stuff there.
[01:57:11.920 --> 01:57:20.920]  Yes. Yes, indeed. And, you know, and I talked about this on the air. The police come to
[01:57:20.920 --> 01:57:27.920]  my house on my birthday in my yard and tell me there's a curfew in Austin and that you
[01:57:27.920 --> 01:57:34.920]  can't drink alcohol outside in your backyard after curfew. That's considered drinking in
[01:57:34.920 --> 01:57:41.920]  public and you can't drink in public after curfew. And I asked him since when is this
[01:57:41.920 --> 01:57:46.920]  because is this a state law? Is this federal? Is this ordinance? I never heard anything
[01:57:46.920 --> 01:57:51.920]  about this before. And the guy was like, I've been a cop for 30 years. This is the way it's
[01:57:51.920 --> 01:57:57.920]  always been. And the way his body language was and his voice, I knew that I better just
[01:57:57.920 --> 01:58:02.920]  heard everybody inside and not just turn the music off or else there was going to be a
[01:58:02.920 --> 01:58:08.920]  big problem. And I'll tell you what, next birthday party I have, that ain't going to
[01:58:08.920 --> 01:58:15.920]  happen. Okay, because I'm going to post all kinds of signs and no trespassing signs and
[01:58:15.920 --> 01:58:19.920]  the private property and the blue ribbons and the purple ribbons and everything. I'm
[01:58:19.920 --> 01:58:23.920]  going to have a bouncer at the door that it's not going to happen again.
[01:58:23.920 --> 01:58:26.920]  Let me add something real quick here.
[01:58:26.920 --> 01:58:30.920]  Okay, real quick because we got 30 seconds. We're about to end the show.
[01:58:30.920 --> 01:58:34.920]  States are not required by the Constitution to provide for post-conviction remedies and
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:40.920]  instead are granted wide discretion in establishing post-conviction. It's not right to let the
[01:58:40.920 --> 01:58:44.920]  federal court interfere and force discovery on the states.
[01:58:44.920 --> 01:58:45.920]  All right.
[01:58:45.920 --> 01:58:48.920]  Okay, so we're separated by a lot of different.
[01:58:48.920 --> 01:58:52.920]  Okay, listen, we got to go. We got to go. Call back in tomorrow night, John, please.
[01:58:52.920 --> 01:58:53.920]  I'm Steve.
[01:58:53.920 --> 01:58:54.920]  I love y'all.
[01:58:54.920 --> 01:58:55.920]  All right, we love you.
[01:58:55.920 --> 01:59:18.920]  Thank you.
[01:59:25.920 --> 01:59:50.920]  Thank you.
[01:59:50.920 --> 01:59:57.920]  Thank you.