ROL_2010-02-25_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:09.040]  The son of one of Hamas' founding members was revealed Wednesday to have been an Israeli
[00:09.040 --> 00:15.000]  spy for more than a decade, helping prevent dozens of suicide bombers from finding their
[00:15.000 --> 00:16.000]  targets.
[00:16.000 --> 00:21.920]  Mosab Hassan Youssef, son of the Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Youssef, was codenamed the Green
[00:21.920 --> 00:26.560]  Prince by Shin Bet, Israel's domestic spy service.
[00:26.560 --> 00:31.360]  Therese Murray, Massachusetts Senate president, has called for a commission to study whether
[00:31.360 --> 00:37.040]  Massachusetts should start its own bank and adopt the North Dakota model, which has been
[00:37.040 --> 00:41.600]  credited with helping that state escape the worst of the recession.
[00:41.600 --> 00:46.520]  Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says the current credit crunch is by far the greatest
[00:46.520 --> 00:50.720]  financial crisis globally ever, including the Great Depression.
[00:50.720 --> 00:56.440]  Greenspan said the financial crisis was potentially more harmful than in the 1930s, because never
[00:56.440 --> 01:06.800]  had short-term credit literally withdrawn.
[01:06.800 --> 01:11.600]  The Vermont Senate voted overwhelmingly against recommending that the state grant the Vermont
[01:11.600 --> 01:15.840]  Yankee nuclear power station a 20-year extension.
[01:15.840 --> 01:20.320]  Several senators tried to delay the vote by sending the bill to a committee to consider
[01:20.320 --> 01:24.440]  the economic impact of closing the plant, but their effort failed.
[01:24.440 --> 01:29.840]  Vermont is the only state in the country with a law giving its legislature a say over a
[01:29.840 --> 01:35.320]  nuclear power's re-licensing, and Wednesday's vote marked the first time lawmakers have
[01:35.320 --> 01:38.280]  formally weighed in on the question.
[01:38.280 --> 01:43.440]  Supporters of the move to close Vermont Yankee say it's getting old and less reliable, and
[01:43.440 --> 01:48.720]  that its owner, a New Orleans-based energy corp, hasn't proven itself trustworthy.
[01:48.720 --> 01:51.720]  The vote may not be a death knell for the plant.
[01:51.720 --> 01:57.320]  Supporters could come back after the November elections and reverse themselves.
[01:57.320 --> 02:02.600]  During a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Wednesday, Representatives
[02:02.600 --> 02:09.320]  Bart Stupak and Henry Waxman questioned Wellpoint CEO Angela Braley about the company's proposed
[02:09.320 --> 02:14.560]  39 percent rate increases in California's individual health insurance market.
[02:14.560 --> 02:19.280]  The congressman read from internal company emails that revealed Wellpoint was raising
[02:19.280 --> 02:22.800]  premiums simply to increase its profits.
[02:22.800 --> 02:27.080]  Wellpoint acknowledged setting its increases to keep up with medical costs and maintain
[02:27.080 --> 02:32.560]  a two percent profit, but justified the increases by arguing that the company lost money in
[02:32.560 --> 02:34.680]  the individual market in California.
[02:34.680 --> 02:41.400]  Quote, I don't mind you making a profit, but at the end of the year, 2009, a horrible year,
[02:41.400 --> 02:47.000]  you still made two point something billion dollars, and that's not enough, Stupak asked,
[02:47.000 --> 02:51.880]  noting that Wellpoint's high profit margin is the reason, quote, many of us believe in
[02:51.880 --> 02:52.880]  the public option.
[02:52.880 --> 03:01.320]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[03:01.320 --> 03:08.320]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:08.320 --> 03:17.320]  talk radio at its best.
[03:38.320 --> 03:59.280]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at its best.
[03:59.280 --> 04:01.640]  But are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:01.640 --> 04:04.200]  If you're getting hot then your mouth gets cool
[04:04.200 --> 04:05.680]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:05.680 --> 04:07.080]  Whatchu gonna do?
[04:07.080 --> 04:09.260]  Oh whatchu gonna do when they come for you?
[04:09.260 --> 04:11.060]  Bad boys, bad boys
[04:11.060 --> 04:12.560]  Whatchu gonna do?
[04:12.560 --> 04:15.140]  Oh whatchu gonna do when they come for you?
[04:15.140 --> 04:16.660]  You choke it down that one
[04:16.660 --> 04:17.820]  You choke it down this one
[04:17.820 --> 04:19.280]  You choke it down your mother
[04:19.280 --> 04:20.820]  And you choke it down your father
[04:20.820 --> 04:21.980]  You choke it down your brother
[04:21.980 --> 04:23.480]  And you choke it down your sister
[04:23.480 --> 04:24.860]  You choke it down that one
[04:24.860 --> 04:26.220]  And you choke it down me
[04:26.220 --> 04:27.300]  Bad boys bad boys
[04:27.300 --> 04:28.680]  Whatchu gonna do?
[04:28.680 --> 04:38.460]  All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you?
[04:38.460 --> 04:44.260]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens.
[04:44.260 --> 04:46.620]  We're going to go over some more of Eddie's stuff tonight.
[04:46.620 --> 04:48.860]  Eddie's the star of the show now.
[04:48.860 --> 04:56.300]  He's got motion for a fair trial, and he's also going to go over a flow chart for where
[04:56.300 --> 05:01.440]  people – so that you will know where you are in the process regarding traffic tickets.
[05:01.440 --> 05:02.440]  Okay, Eddie.
[05:02.440 --> 05:03.440]  All right.
[05:03.440 --> 05:06.480]  What I'd like to go over is I've written a real short motion.
[05:06.480 --> 05:07.480]  Randy would be proud.
[05:07.480 --> 05:12.680]  It's all two whole pages long, and it's a motion for a fair trial.
[05:12.680 --> 05:17.400]  And this is going to be one of the very first things you're going to want to file, irregardless
[05:17.400 --> 05:21.760]  of what kind of case it is, will not matter, you're going to want to file this.
[05:21.760 --> 05:28.720]  It starts out, Judicial Notice, pursuant 201D of the Texas and Federal Rules of Evidence.
[05:28.720 --> 05:35.260]  Mandatory Notice, Public Law 93-595, a court shall take judicial notice if requested by
[05:35.260 --> 05:39.240]  a party and supplied with the necessary information.
[05:39.240 --> 05:44.400]  Item number two comes now, me, one of the people, a living soul and man, Sovereign Error
[05:44.400 --> 05:48.940]  and Beneficiary of the Organic Republic of Texas Constitution, Defendant in Error, without
[05:48.940 --> 05:53.620]  benefit of counsel hearing after known as Defendant, and moves this court to conduct
[05:53.620 --> 05:58.600]  a fair and impartial trial and demands the following as stated herein.
[05:58.600 --> 06:03.160]  Number three, Defendant requests that the honorable judge of the court will follow and
[06:03.160 --> 06:07.480]  be in compliance with the Constitution for the United States of America.
[06:07.480 --> 06:12.520]  Number four, Defendant requests the honorable judge of the court will follow and be in compliance
[06:12.520 --> 06:15.560]  with the Constitution of the State of Texas.
[06:15.560 --> 06:21.960]  Number five, Defendant requests the honorable judge of the court will obey his oath of office.
[06:21.960 --> 06:26.280]  Number six, Defendant requests the honorable judge of the court to be impartial towards
[06:26.280 --> 06:28.920]  the prosecutor.
[06:28.920 --> 06:35.240]  Number seven, Defendant requests the honorable judge of the court be impartial towards Defendant.
[06:35.240 --> 06:40.160]  Number eight, Defendant requests the honorable judge of the court to remind the prosecutor
[06:40.160 --> 06:45.760]  of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01, which states in pertinent part that the duties
[06:45.760 --> 06:51.440]  of all prosecuting attorneys are as follows. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting
[06:51.440 --> 06:56.280]  attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is
[06:56.280 --> 06:59.880]  done. Number nine, the defendant requests the honorable
[06:59.880 --> 07:04.520]  judge of the court to remind the prosecutor of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01,
[07:04.520 --> 07:09.880]  which states in pertinent part that they shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable
[07:09.880 --> 07:15.960]  of establishing the innocence of the accused. Number 10, defendant requests the honorable
[07:15.960 --> 07:20.880]  judge of the court to remind the prosecutor that the law itself contains the necessary
[07:20.880 --> 07:25.960]  exculpatory information to prove defendant innocent of all charges.
[07:25.960 --> 07:30.640]  Number 11, therefore, the defendant requests that the honorable judge hold the prosecutor
[07:30.640 --> 07:35.680]  in contempt of court if the prosecutor objects to or makes a motion in limine to prevent
[07:35.680 --> 07:39.920]  the introduction and legal argument of the law or any other exculpatory information or
[07:39.920 --> 07:44.920]  evidence in violation of the duties of his or her office pursuant Texas Code of Criminal
[07:44.920 --> 07:51.040]  Procedure Article 2.01. Respectfully presented, whoever you are.
[07:51.040 --> 07:59.760]  Now, here's the way this will work. The judge has got two options here, sign it or not sign
[07:59.760 --> 08:06.040]  it. Now, Randy, would you agree that any order not signed is a denial?
[08:06.040 --> 08:10.440]  Yes. Okay. What happens if a judge signs an order
[08:10.440 --> 08:19.240]  or refuses to sign an order guaranteeing the accused in a free trial or a fair trial?
[08:19.240 --> 08:24.480]  Then he's disqualified. Very good. It's going to be real hard for a judge
[08:24.480 --> 08:31.840]  to say, I ain't signing this and maintain jurisdiction to stay in the bench. It's just
[08:31.840 --> 08:38.240]  not going to be possible because refusing to sign it, he's saying he's not about to
[08:38.240 --> 08:42.120]  give you a fair trial. Now, the beauty of this is this will disqualify
[08:42.120 --> 08:49.600]  him for all future cases because it is now known he will not provide a fair trial in
[08:49.600 --> 08:56.160]  his court. How do you like that game plan?
[08:56.160 --> 09:00.080]  I like it. I would just like to suggest one more thing.
[09:00.080 --> 09:05.960]  What's that? Demand that the judge read all pleadings and
[09:05.960 --> 09:11.360]  rule on all issues brought before the court. All right. Well, that's easy enough to add.
[09:11.360 --> 09:17.360]  That will give me an even dozen. But given that, I think this will go a long
[09:17.360 --> 09:23.080]  way toward showing that it's impossible for us to get a fair trial while at the same time
[09:23.080 --> 09:29.320]  preventing them from ever getting us to trial because, go ahead, Randy.
[09:29.320 --> 09:39.760]  Attached to it, you need a motion to recuse. I want to put it in there. If requested, the
[09:39.760 --> 09:49.320]  judge sign this agreeing to abide by all of the conditions in the alternative, sign this
[09:49.320 --> 10:00.480]  recusal. Yeah. I like it. But that right there, I think,
[10:00.480 --> 10:07.160]  if we file this and the judge refuses to sign it, especially if it's a municipal judge,
[10:07.160 --> 10:12.560]  what you want to do is immediately demand a copy with the stamp on it or the signature
[10:12.560 --> 10:23.040]  where it was denied, okay? Get a copy of that. Immediately go to the mayor and the city manager
[10:23.040 --> 10:28.600]  and let them know, just like Tim suggested that his friend does in this case, go to them
[10:28.600 --> 10:34.200]  and say, which end of the lawsuit would you like to be on?
[10:34.200 --> 10:40.760]  The one that the city's going to have because of this judge or would you like to be watching
[10:40.760 --> 10:51.760]  me just sue them? Basically, that ought to get the judge out of your hair and show them
[10:51.760 --> 10:56.540]  that you mean business. I like the strategy. The judge has no duty
[10:56.540 --> 11:06.640]  to sign. However, the judge must avoid even the appearance of bias or impropriety. So
[11:06.640 --> 11:12.760]  if he doesn't sign, it gives the appearance and that should be sufficient to recuse.
[11:12.760 --> 11:20.080]  Yep. That's what I'm hoping. Now, the other thing that I want to talk about
[11:20.080 --> 11:25.880]  is I've got a mental flow chart worked out here, which is something we've discussed a
[11:25.880 --> 11:33.320]  little bit off the sides here of the show on where you are in a given point of the procedure
[11:33.320 --> 11:40.760]  once a traffic stop is initiated. Now, in this, when you are first pulled over
[11:40.760 --> 11:47.080]  by a police officer, you will immediately begin in Section 543 Texas Transportation
[11:47.080 --> 11:52.720]  Code where the officer has you arrested and he is either getting you to sign the promise
[11:52.720 --> 11:58.240]  to appear or you're refusing and demanding to be taken before a magistrate, okay?
[11:58.240 --> 12:05.360]  Now, if you read 543.002, it's very clear. There are three things there that can be done
[12:05.360 --> 12:11.840]  in order to make it where the officer is required to immediately take you before a magistrate.
[12:11.840 --> 12:17.620]  I believe one, the first one is failure to provide assistance in the case of an accident.
[12:17.620 --> 12:23.560]  The second one is if you demand an immediate appearance before a magistrate and the last
[12:23.560 --> 12:29.880]  one is if you refuse to sign the notice to appear. Now, let's just say for grins and
[12:29.880 --> 12:34.200]  giggles that you decide to sign the notice to appear and everything goes well. He just
[12:34.200 --> 12:38.800]  issues a ticket and you go your merry way. Where do you go from there as far as the next
[12:38.800 --> 12:44.760]  step in the procedure? Well, you go straight from Section 543 of the transportation code
[12:44.760 --> 12:50.500]  to the point where you appear in court. When you appear in court, you immediately begin
[12:50.500 --> 13:00.000]  at 1517 G as in George, okay? Which specifically states that anyone accused of a class C misdemeanor
[13:00.000 --> 13:07.640]  punishable by fine only that appears in compliance with a citation issued under 1406 B or C shall
[13:07.640 --> 13:15.680]  go through the process in this article, meaning 1517. Now, normally that would mean that you
[13:15.680 --> 13:24.520]  would start at 1517 A and go down the list. However, you don't. You go from 1517 G to
[13:24.520 --> 13:31.960]  1517 B and the reason you do that is because B contains a requisite that short circuits
[13:31.960 --> 13:38.520]  what's done in A and that is that B stipulates that in the case of a fine only punishment
[13:38.520 --> 13:44.120]  misdemeanor, meaning class C punishable by fine only, I'll get it right in a second,
[13:44.120 --> 13:49.840]  that the presiding court, if it's anything other than the county court or statutory county
[13:49.840 --> 13:56.280]  court can do only two things at this point, identify you and remand you to the county
[13:56.280 --> 14:03.400]  or statutory county court for the purpose of arraignment, okay? So because it is a punishable
[14:03.400 --> 14:10.960]  by fine only misdemeanor, that short circuits the process that's in A, okay? So you go immediately
[14:10.960 --> 14:17.520]  from there to the county court for an arraignment, which then takes you all the way over to Chapter
[14:17.520 --> 14:24.720]  26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And in 26.01, it tells you very clearly that the
[14:24.720 --> 14:30.360]  purpose of an arraignment or that one of the reasons for having an arraignment to be held
[14:30.360 --> 14:38.720]  is in the case of felonies and all misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment. Now a class C
[14:38.720 --> 14:44.760]  is not punishable by imprisonment. It's fine only. This is once again the development of
[14:44.760 --> 14:50.480]  that legal black hole we were talking about. We're now at a point where the county court
[14:50.480 --> 14:56.040]  can't hold an arraignment because a class C does not comply with the requisites of having
[14:56.040 --> 15:02.000]  an arraignment, meaning it's not a felony nor is it punishable by imprisonment. The
[15:02.000 --> 15:07.000]  original court can't get jurisdiction because they were told by the law to remand you to
[15:07.000 --> 15:12.160]  the county court for the purpose of an arraignment. So they can't get jurisdiction unless an arraignment
[15:12.160 --> 15:22.160]  is held. So now the class Cs are sitting out here in a legal black hole. Where do we go?
[15:22.160 --> 15:28.520]  Well, that leads us to one other set of questions in conjunction with this. If you want to know
[15:28.520 --> 15:33.000]  where we're supposed to be at this point, you go to the Texas Constitution, Article
[15:33.000 --> 15:40.400]  5, Section 17, where it very clearly states that the grand jury and panel in the district
[15:40.400 --> 15:47.280]  court shall check into all misdemeanors, inquire into all misdemeanors. And upon indictment
[15:47.280 --> 15:52.000]  handed down in the district court, the district court shall then remand the charge to the
[15:52.000 --> 16:01.360]  county court or to the inferior courts having jurisdiction for the purpose of trial. Now,
[16:01.360 --> 16:08.280]  what courts are inferior to the county and statutory county court? There aren't but two
[16:08.280 --> 16:17.680]  in Texas, the justice and the municipal. So there is no way the state can argue that Section
[16:17.680 --> 16:25.040]  17 applies only to misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment because neither of those courts
[16:25.040 --> 16:33.200]  have jurisdiction to hear such a case. And they're the only courts inferior to the county.
[16:33.200 --> 16:42.080]  But I hear break music kicking in. Yeah, break music is kicking in. We'll come back on the
[16:42.080 --> 16:49.200]  other side. And after you go over that, we've got Steve from California. All right. Callers,
[16:49.200 --> 17:00.200]  if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We will be right back.
[17:00.200 --> 17:04.940]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? Are you confused
[17:04.940 --> 17:09.440]  by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve? What? If so, you may be diagnosed
[17:09.440 --> 17:15.200]  with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions
[17:15.200 --> 17:20.600]  of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[17:20.600 --> 17:26.100]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[17:26.100 --> 17:30.760]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity. But there is hope. The staff at
[17:30.760 --> 17:34.640]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports
[17:34.640 --> 17:39.880]  zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[17:39.880 --> 17:45.240]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from
[17:45.240 --> 17:53.320]  stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or brave new
[17:53.320 --> 17:57.040]  bookstore dot com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment
[17:57.040 --> 18:23.920]  and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[18:58.040 --> 18:59.040] .
[18:59.040 --> 19:00.040] .
[19:00.040 --> 19:01.040] .
[19:01.040 --> 19:02.040] .
[19:02.040 --> 19:03.040] .
[19:03.040 --> 19:04.040] .
[19:04.040 --> 19:05.040] .
[19:05.040 --> 19:27.040] .
[19:27.040 --> 19:42.040] .
[19:42.040 --> 19:43.040] .
[19:43.040 --> 19:44.040] .
[19:44.040 --> 19:45.040] .
[19:45.040 --> 19:46.040] .
[19:46.040 --> 19:47.040] .
[19:47.040 --> 19:48.040] .
[19:48.040 --> 19:49.040] .
[19:49.040 --> 19:50.040] .
[19:50.040 --> 19:51.040] .
[19:51.040 --> 19:52.040] .
[19:52.040 --> 19:53.040] .
[19:53.040 --> 19:54.040] .
[19:54.040 --> 19:55.040] .
[19:55.040 --> 19:56.040] .
[19:56.040 --> 19:57.040] .
[19:57.040 --> 19:58.040] .
[19:58.040 --> 19:59.040] .
[19:59.040 --> 20:00.040] .
[20:00.040 --> 20:01.040] .
[20:01.040 --> 20:02.040] .
[20:02.040 --> 20:03.040] .
[20:03.040 --> 20:04.040] .
[20:04.040 --> 20:05.040] .
[20:05.040 --> 20:06.040] .
[20:06.040 --> 20:07.040] .
[20:07.040 --> 20:08.040] .
[20:08.040 --> 20:09.040] .
[20:09.040 --> 20:10.040] .
[20:10.040 --> 20:11.040] .
[20:11.040 --> 20:12.040] .
[20:12.040 --> 20:13.040] .
[20:13.040 --> 20:14.040] .
[20:14.040 --> 20:15.040] .
[20:15.040 --> 20:16.040] .
[20:16.040 --> 20:27.040] .
[20:27.040 --> 20:28.040] .
[20:28.040 --> 20:29.040] .
[20:29.040 --> 20:30.040] .
[20:30.040 --> 20:31.040] .
[20:31.040 --> 20:32.040] .
[20:32.040 --> 20:33.040] .
[20:33.040 --> 20:34.040] .
[20:34.040 --> 20:35.040] .
[20:35.040 --> 20:36.040] .
[20:36.040 --> 20:37.040] .
[20:37.040 --> 20:38.040] .
[20:38.040 --> 20:39.040] .
[20:39.040 --> 20:46.040] .
[20:46.040 --> 20:47.040] .
[20:47.040 --> 20:48.040] .
[20:48.040 --> 20:49.040] .
[20:49.040 --> 20:50.040] .
[20:50.040 --> 20:51.040] .
[20:51.040 --> 20:52.040] .
[20:52.040 --> 20:53.040] .
[20:53.040 --> 20:54.040] .
[20:54.040 --> 20:55.040] .
[20:55.040 --> 20:56.040] .
[20:56.040 --> 20:57.040] .
[20:57.040 --> 20:58.040] .
[20:58.040 --> 20:59.040] .
[20:59.040 --> 21:14.040] .
[21:14.040 --> 21:20.920]  So in that case, where is the indictment? How do we get railroaded into these courts absent an
[21:20.920 --> 21:28.120]  indictment? Okay. How do these municipal and justice courts believe they have the authority
[21:28.120 --> 21:33.640]  to hold an arraignment when 1517B specifically directs them to send us to the county court for
[21:33.640 --> 21:41.560]  that purpose? How do they get there? I can't find anywhere in the code or any other code
[21:41.560 --> 21:46.760]  where a municipal or justice court can hold an arraignment. Cannot find it.
[21:49.000 --> 21:57.640]  Now, you'll all remember that I also read here last week on the show that the information can
[21:57.640 --> 22:05.240]  only be signed by the district attorney or the county attorney. So again, city attorneys can't
[22:05.240 --> 22:13.480]  sign them. So how do they get there? How does that municipal judge get it in their hand
[22:13.480 --> 22:18.760]  when the city attorney is the prosecutor and yet only the district attorney or the county attorney
[22:18.760 --> 22:23.560]  can sign the information and whoever signs the information has to prosecute the case?
[22:26.920 --> 22:34.120]  So how is this possible? The way it's written, it's not. There's too many conflicts.
[22:34.120 --> 22:41.400]  We are left in that legal black hole. Now, let's take the opposite side here and we get arrested
[22:41.400 --> 22:49.080]  under 543. Under 543 transportation codes, you will not sign the notice to a peer you demand to
[22:49.080 --> 22:54.200]  be taken immediately before a magistrate or you fail to provide assistance in the case of an
[22:54.200 --> 23:01.640]  accident. What's the duties of the officer? How are they doing it? Well, right now, they're going
[23:01.640 --> 23:07.000]  from the moment they place you under actual physical arrest, they're jumping out of 543
[23:07.000 --> 23:12.360]  transportation code and jumping straight into 1406A, code of criminal procedure,
[23:13.400 --> 23:18.760]  which is where they get the idea that they can take you to an magistrate without an unnecessary
[23:18.760 --> 23:29.000]  delay but not later than 48 hours. Wrong. Here's why it's wrong. 543 has its own procedure for the
[23:29.000 --> 23:35.800]  duties of the officer once he places the person under arrest and until he exhausts those procedures
[23:35.800 --> 23:45.160]  under 543, they have precedent. Those statutes state he is to immediately take you before a
[23:45.160 --> 23:54.600]  magistrate. There is no leeway. It doesn't give you but not later than. It says immediately before
[23:54.600 --> 24:04.120]  a magistrate. Now, that's where his duty under 543 will end is he gets you from there to the
[24:04.120 --> 24:14.200]  magistrate. Then and only then does 543 cease and 1406 begin. Now, 1406A will not apply.
[24:14.840 --> 24:20.760]  And the reason it will not apply is because that part of the arrest procedure was handled by 543
[24:20.760 --> 24:32.840]  and just like in 1517B, 1406B short circuits 1406A. By saying right up front that a person
[24:32.840 --> 24:38.120]  charged with a Class C misdemeanor, the officer can issue a citation and blah, blah, blah,
[24:38.120 --> 24:44.440]  and release them to go. Now, I had a long conversation this evening about some stipulations
[24:44.440 --> 24:50.200]  under 1406A and B and how that actually pans out on the conversation. I won't get into that
[24:50.200 --> 24:55.320]  in the detail right now because I want somebody to have enough time to go through that a little bit
[24:55.320 --> 25:03.720]  better. But in either case, if you were directed and arrested by an officer without a warrant
[25:04.360 --> 25:12.440]  for any other type of charge and went straight into 1406A, as he goes through these procedures,
[25:13.160 --> 25:19.880]  he eventually has to wind up before a magistrate at least somewhere within Texas in order to
[25:19.880 --> 25:31.640]  do what Article 1517 says to do under 1517A. But again, if you go to 1517A and you've been
[25:31.640 --> 25:37.480]  charged with a Class C misdemeanor punishable by fine only, A gets short circuited by B.
[25:39.000 --> 25:44.040]  And now we are again instructed to send you to the county or statutory county court for the
[25:44.040 --> 25:49.880]  purpose of arraignment, which sends us back to 2601, stipulating that since we can't be punished
[25:49.880 --> 25:54.920]  by imprisonment, we don't fit the necessity of having an arraignment, and we're right back in
[25:54.920 --> 26:01.000]  the legal black hole. So it does not matter if you voluntarily walked into the courtroom
[26:01.000 --> 26:08.600]  of your own volition in compliance with your notice to appear or if you got immediately arrested by
[26:08.600 --> 26:18.120]  the officer. In any case, in any Class C misdemeanor punishable by fine only, you wind up in this legal
[26:18.120 --> 26:25.000]  black hole. Now, we're going to throw an even bigger gravity well into this legal black hole.
[26:27.080 --> 26:32.440]  This legal black hole does a couple of things that can be considered absolutely unconstitutional
[26:32.440 --> 26:39.080]  in as far as your right to due process. By short-circuiting you straight from this to
[26:39.080 --> 26:45.880]  an arraignment, they have completely skipped probable cause hearing, no examining trial for
[26:45.880 --> 26:53.400]  a Class C misdemeanor. Where does the legislators get the authority to deny the right of due process
[26:54.680 --> 27:01.160]  to one category of criminal versus another category of criminal? Where does the state
[27:01.160 --> 27:08.280]  constitution make that distinction in order to allow the legislators to make that distinction?
[27:09.400 --> 27:15.240]  I can't find it. If you can find it, please let me know. But I don't see anywhere in the
[27:15.240 --> 27:22.520]  state constitution where it says in misdemeanors other than Class C, you have the right to assistance
[27:22.520 --> 27:29.480]  of counsel. I don't see where it says in the right to a misdemeanor other than a Class C,
[27:29.480 --> 27:35.480]  you have the right to have a copy of the charges against you, to examine the witnesses,
[27:36.280 --> 27:43.480]  to call witnesses in your favor, to be denied a jury trial. I don't see where the constitution
[27:43.480 --> 27:49.880]  makes any such distinction. Where do these people get the idea they have the authority
[27:49.880 --> 27:56.840]  to make such a distinction? Randy, you were talking on the break about how they changed
[27:56.840 --> 28:01.640]  the statute dealing with the ability to discuss legal topics with folks and give them a hand
[28:01.640 --> 28:10.440]  with it, right? Yes. Okay. How does that tie into what we're talking about here? How does
[28:10.440 --> 28:17.800]  their ability to deny one person to assist another in this area affect due process and the right to
[28:17.800 --> 28:29.560]  get it? Again, this is the exact problem I was referring to about having attorneys sitting in
[28:29.560 --> 28:36.120]  the legislature. Who but an attorney could possibly benefit from that kind of change in
[28:36.120 --> 28:44.040]  the statute? Absolutely no one but an attorney could benefit from that type of change in the
[28:44.040 --> 28:52.040]  statute. Tell me there is not a conflict of interest having these people sitting on the
[28:52.040 --> 29:02.040]  legislature. It certainly conflicts with my interest. Yeah. It is absolutely abhorrent
[29:02.040 --> 29:08.040]  that we have allowed these people to get this much control over us and our system of government.
[29:08.040 --> 29:14.280]  I mean, it goes way beyond common sense that we would think that this could be anything other
[29:14.280 --> 29:22.680]  than a monopoly of lawyers now running the state. Because that's all it's come down to.
[29:26.680 --> 29:34.440]  All right. So, with that, if anybody's got any commentary out there or anything to interject,
[29:34.440 --> 29:41.000]  please feel free to call in. Debra, whenever we get done with any break we've got coming up or
[29:41.000 --> 29:44.440]  whatever, if you feel we've got time, let's go ahead and start taking some callers. Okay. All
[29:44.440 --> 29:48.680]  right. We're going to break right now. And we've got Steve from California on the line. Steve,
[29:48.680 --> 29:52.280]  we'll take your call as soon as we get back on the other side. Callers, if you'd like to call in,
[29:52.280 --> 30:02.440]  512-646-1984. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? When your case is filed,
[30:02.440 --> 30:08.440]  in a lawsuit, win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to
[30:08.440 --> 30:16.440]  understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer,
[30:16.440 --> 30:21.160]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do
[30:21.160 --> 30:26.840]  for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[30:26.840 --> 30:33.320]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[30:33.960 --> 30:38.840]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[30:38.840 --> 30:45.000]  principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom,
[30:45.000 --> 30:52.520]  video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit
[30:52.520 --> 30:59.720]  ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:22.520 --> 31:30.360]  All right. Their job is to protect and to serve, not to beat and abuse.
[31:32.120 --> 31:39.160]  But apparently that's what they do unless we stop them, all of them. Not just the police, but these
[31:39.720 --> 31:47.320]  prosecutors, lawyers, judges, the whole lot of them. So that's what this show is about,
[31:47.320 --> 31:52.920]  taking back our court system. We're going to go now to Steve in California. Steve, thanks for calling
[31:52.920 --> 31:58.200]  in. What's on your mind tonight? Good evening, everybody. I just wanted to run a couple things
[31:58.200 --> 32:04.680]  by you. I'm listening to everything you're saying. In California, we have some stipulations. I'm
[32:04.680 --> 32:11.800]  having some problems with the city of Montclair, and I was wondering, the oath of office fits every
[32:11.800 --> 32:18.920]  criteria to be a contract. They've received a consideration of the job. The contract was
[32:18.920 --> 32:23.880]  entered into prior to performing any duties of their office, so it would be a private contract
[32:23.880 --> 32:32.360]  in my estimation. They're not following their contract. They're breaching it. Is there a
[32:32.360 --> 32:42.760]  possibility of a lawsuit from that angle? Well, there's always a possibility of a lawsuit. Any
[32:42.760 --> 32:48.360]  lawyer would be happy to tell you that. But for breach of contract?
[32:49.080 --> 32:54.520]  Yeah. The problem is, is it doesn't quite meet the necessities of a contract the way I understand
[32:54.520 --> 33:03.000]  it. There's only one signatory. Oh, yes, it does meet the requirements of a contract. There
[33:03.000 --> 33:11.880]  only needs to be one signatory because, consequent to his signature, the state renders to him
[33:11.880 --> 33:19.400]  consideration. And he's promised to perform a duty, and the promise was made prior to taking
[33:19.400 --> 33:24.680]  any actions in his office, any duties of his office. So it would be a private contract.
[33:25.320 --> 33:32.360]  He makes the promise, and based on the promise, the state renders to him consideration. That
[33:32.360 --> 33:38.840]  binds the contract. Exactly. So there's a private contract. You can go after them personally for
[33:38.840 --> 33:43.560]  breach of contract. Right. It is a private contract between the judge and the state
[33:43.560 --> 33:50.680]  to which you are the intended third-party beneficiary. So you have standing to raise
[33:50.680 --> 33:57.160]  the contract. And the city of Montclair is continually violating my rights, my right to
[33:57.160 --> 34:03.400]  access public records, take in private property without due process. Well, wait a minute. Wait
[34:03.400 --> 34:08.840]  a minute. They write to records? California has a good open records law. You should have...
[34:08.840 --> 34:14.520]  Yeah, but they don't abide by it here. But just call the sheriff's department,
[34:14.520 --> 34:18.440]  ask them to come arrest the clerk. I did. I told you. I called the Montclair PD to arrest
[34:18.440 --> 34:22.840]  the city clerk because I told you the record. A couple of weeks ago, I called and told you about
[34:22.840 --> 34:29.480]  that. That was you. I thought I recognized Montclair. Did you file with a grand jury
[34:29.480 --> 34:34.680]  against the clerk? Not yet. Monday, we have a city council meeting, and I'm going in there and
[34:34.680 --> 34:39.320]  putting all the council members on notice according to 1504 Government Code California
[34:40.600 --> 34:44.920]  to either correct or condone the behavior, putting them on the spot to either
[34:46.760 --> 34:53.240]  terminate these people's contracts for incompetency or take the responsibility upon
[34:53.240 --> 35:00.840]  themselves for their action. Make sure you write up a tort letter claiming that you've been harmed
[35:00.840 --> 35:08.120]  and claim some outrageous amount and demand that the city repairer be sued.
[35:09.800 --> 35:15.800]  The stipulation in California states that the... I don't have it right with me, but the amount
[35:15.800 --> 35:22.840]  of the object, if there's no monetary stipulation in the contract, the amount of money has to be
[35:22.840 --> 35:28.520]  so much as to the value of the object in the contract. The object in the contract we're
[35:28.520 --> 35:32.520]  speaking of is the Constitution. That's what I was thinking, the Constitution.
[35:33.880 --> 35:40.120]  You were talking about calculating amounts a couple of weeks ago, and it has to be a formula
[35:40.120 --> 35:47.400]  that you can articulate. Exactly. The formula I come up with is every drop of blood ever spilled,
[35:47.400 --> 35:53.560]  every lost life ever lost, every war fought ever fought in defense of that Constitution
[35:53.560 --> 36:00.520]  adds to the value of it. You might try something else, because if they blow that off,
[36:01.560 --> 36:06.440]  you might ask for... might maintain that because the judge is not acting in accordance with the
[36:06.440 --> 36:13.080]  contract, that all the fines and fees that the city has collected, they've collected violations
[36:13.080 --> 36:19.640]  due course to the laws and claim that amount in triplicate. That they can calculate to the penny.
[36:19.640 --> 36:25.000]  Well, you can claim the judge's remuneration, everything that was used as compensatory in that
[36:25.000 --> 36:32.760]  contract. Well, what about every taxpayer dime ever spent in any war defending the Constitution?
[36:32.760 --> 36:36.680]  That's the propaganda they throw out there every time we go to war is defend our freedom.
[36:39.560 --> 36:42.760]  That's going to come to a lot of money. It's a lot of zeros.
[36:42.760 --> 36:48.760]  It's a lot of zeros. And I'm not doing it for the money. I'm just doing it to make a point.
[36:49.480 --> 36:53.240]  These people have irritated me. And like I said, I did call the police on them.
[36:53.960 --> 37:00.200]  They denied me equal protection under the laws. Did you file against the police officer? Not yet.
[37:00.200 --> 37:05.880]  I'm going to go to city council with a... I've got a five minute window that I can make a five
[37:05.880 --> 37:11.160]  minute public announcement, the public statement in front of the council on the record. And that's
[37:11.160 --> 37:15.560]  Monday night. I'm going to go in, I'm going to read my statement, making my accusations,
[37:16.120 --> 37:19.160]  stating law and putting them on notice to correct or condone.
[37:20.760 --> 37:25.400]  And that is probably the best thing you can do to make sure the police don't mess with you.
[37:27.240 --> 37:29.560]  Because when you're crawling down the mayor's throat,
[37:31.160 --> 37:33.240]  the mayor's not going to be happy with these guys.
[37:34.200 --> 37:38.680]  Oh, I know. None of them are going to be happy because they put the burden directly on their
[37:38.680 --> 37:43.000]  shoulders if they do not correct the problem. And that's in California law 1504.
[37:43.640 --> 37:46.040]  Good. This is great. This is why we're here.
[37:47.160 --> 37:51.560]  So I've learned a lot. I ordered my copy at various dictionaries. It's in the mail now.
[37:53.080 --> 37:57.000]  The next thing I'll be getting is you guys' traffic seminar since I came up with the funds.
[37:57.880 --> 38:00.040]  And I'm just having a ball with this.
[38:01.560 --> 38:04.440]  That's what it sounded like. You were having entirely too much fun.
[38:04.440 --> 38:10.520]  Well, it's just that feeling you get when you get pulled over that's not in your stomach.
[38:10.520 --> 38:14.760]  Oh, no. Here they are. Well, it's so much fun to be the cop instead of the person getting pulled
[38:14.760 --> 38:22.600]  over. And it's all thanks to you guys and your show. So anyway, I will let you know what happens
[38:22.600 --> 38:27.160]  at the city council meeting. I've got this statement signed down.
[38:27.160 --> 38:28.200]  Did you record it?
[38:29.400 --> 38:34.360]  I might be able to. As a matter of fact, some people are telling me that the city hall meeting
[38:34.360 --> 38:38.760]  are televised. Okay. If they have a sound system, you should be able to plug right into it.
[38:39.720 --> 38:41.320]  So I will try to get that.
[38:43.480 --> 38:46.760]  Or if they're on the internet, they may be live streamed.
[38:46.760 --> 38:50.360]  It's either cable or on their internet. I think there's a channel out here that
[38:51.560 --> 38:55.160]  broadcasts the town hall meetings and the city hall meetings.
[38:55.160 --> 38:57.960]  So get us a recording. We'll play it on the air.
[38:57.960 --> 39:04.520]  All right. We'll do. And I appreciate you guys for all your hard work. And you taught me so much.
[39:04.520 --> 39:08.920]  I appreciate it so much. So I'll let you get on to the other caller.
[39:08.920 --> 39:10.920]  All right. Thanks. Thanks, Steve.
[39:10.920 --> 39:14.120]  I'm actually trying to make it where it is more fun to be us than the cop.
[39:15.320 --> 39:20.200]  Yeah. Sometimes it can be. Okay. We're going to go now to Scott from West Virginia. He's
[39:20.200 --> 39:24.920]  the first time caller and then Danny. Scott, thanks for calling. What's on your mind tonight?
[39:24.920 --> 39:28.680]  Thanks for calling in. Well, thanks for having me. I guess this is
[39:28.680 --> 39:37.160]  a question for Eddie. I believe it is there in traffic code. I don't have a driver's license.
[39:37.160 --> 39:44.360]  I'm in West Virginia. And all the time that I was in most other states working across the states,
[39:44.360 --> 39:50.840]  mostly out west in Arizona, I didn't have a driver's license or I didn't register my car either.
[39:50.840 --> 39:59.080]  And I tried to keep insurance on the car because I can't afford to buy somebody else's car or
[39:59.080 --> 40:03.080]  whatever. And so I figured out that was always a good thing. Of course, it's hard to get nowadays
[40:03.080 --> 40:05.640]  when you don't have a driver's license. You can't get anybody to insure you.
[40:06.520 --> 40:11.560]  Or if you can, you could afford to, you know, bond yourself maybe if that's the way to go.
[40:11.560 --> 40:18.280]  But anyhow, my question is I was wondering if Eddie could steer me in the right direction
[40:18.280 --> 40:22.760]  or if there's a spot on your website or something. I need to study up on this
[40:23.800 --> 40:28.600]  West Virginia deal because I know it's just going to be a matter of time before I wind up getting,
[40:28.600 --> 40:34.840]  you know, pulled over and going to jail for not having a registration and a
[40:34.840 --> 40:40.760]  driver's license in this state. You can almost always get to the
[40:40.760 --> 40:48.760]  necessary website for whatever state you're in by just typing in www.thestate.gov. And it will
[40:48.760 --> 40:54.760]  usually shortcut you to the government website. Then all you have to do is look for a link that
[40:54.760 --> 41:00.040]  says government. And usually under government, you'll either find laws, codes, and statutes or
[41:00.040 --> 41:07.160]  legislative. You click on that and then you'll find laws or statutes or codes of whatever state.
[41:07.160 --> 41:11.880]  And go in there and you should be able to start taking it apart there.
[41:13.400 --> 41:20.600]  Well, that's all that that I can, you know, think of. But there are things that I find in there
[41:20.600 --> 41:26.360]  where it requires you to have a license. You see what I'm saying? It doesn't. So I was trying to
[41:26.360 --> 41:33.480]  hope I could base it on that this is my right. You know, give me right, no matter what.
[41:33.480 --> 41:40.760]  The code is not written regarding your rights. It's written regarding the regulation of commercial
[41:40.760 --> 41:46.600]  traffic. What they've done is use words to make you believe that you are what they're writing
[41:46.600 --> 41:52.040]  about when you aren't. That's what you've got to figure out is the words you're reading,
[41:52.040 --> 41:59.800]  what do they mean? What is a person as far as the statute is concerned? What is a motor vehicle
[41:59.800 --> 42:05.160]  as far as the statute is concerned? Not what you think it is. What does the law say it is?
[42:07.560 --> 42:11.640]  That's what you've got to figure out. Now, as far as the insurance goes,
[42:11.640 --> 42:15.240]  we did have a caller that made an excellent suggestion one night. And that is that you can
[42:15.240 --> 42:22.120]  just get general liability insurance, not auto insurance. And you just get general liability
[42:22.120 --> 42:27.720]  insurance on yourself. And that'll generally cover you in a car or whatever.
[42:27.720 --> 42:34.760]  Okay, doesn't that, that would be as long as it's like say if the state required $35,000,
[42:35.640 --> 42:38.200]  you know, whatever the minimum is that the state requires for you.
[42:39.560 --> 42:44.120]  Of course, I'm sure you can pick that apart too. But I think if I can, I think here it's like
[42:44.120 --> 42:50.520]  25 or $30,000 for a car, which in a business what we used to do, we'd just get bonds. We just put
[42:50.520 --> 42:56.440]  it as long as you had $35,000 or you could carry $35,000 in your pocket. You know what I mean? As
[42:56.440 --> 43:01.800]  long as you had that, that was as good as an insurance card, you know, a bond or whatever you
[43:01.800 --> 43:09.880]  wanted to use. So as long as your liability on yourself was equals to whatever they require,
[43:09.880 --> 43:12.040]  I guess it would be the same then, wouldn't it? Yeah.
[43:13.000 --> 43:22.840]  Okay. All right. If I find, in other words, would it behoover me to have this paperwork
[43:22.840 --> 43:27.080]  pretty much, because it's easier to work on the outside than it is from the inside of the jail,
[43:27.640 --> 43:32.920]  to get this prepared so that if I do get stopped, I would make a motion for dismissal,
[43:32.920 --> 43:38.920]  in other words, and have it on hand. Yes. I would have all my legal paperwork done before
[43:38.920 --> 43:44.600]  I went the route. So I'd know what I was arguing and when I was going to argue it.
[43:44.600 --> 43:47.640]  All right, Scott, we're going to break. Do you want to hang on to the other side?
[43:47.640 --> 43:52.520]  Please, just for one more question. Okay, good deal. And then we'll go to Danny.
[43:52.520 --> 43:57.080]  Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We've got open phone lines.
[44:00.280 --> 44:04.840]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[44:05.400 --> 44:10.280]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won
[44:10.280 --> 44:14.840]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll
[44:14.840 --> 44:20.120]  get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights
[44:20.120 --> 44:25.640]  statute, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters
[44:25.640 --> 44:30.280]  and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[44:30.280 --> 44:36.760]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[44:36.760 --> 44:41.480]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[44:41.480 --> 44:46.680]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[44:46.680 --> 44:56.200]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[44:56.200 --> 45:12.120]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[45:56.200 --> 46:20.600]  Okay, watching the sparks fly. Maybe we'll be watching Judge Sparks fly off the case,
[46:20.600 --> 46:27.880]  off this case that we're dealing with here in Austin. We'll talk about that maybe tomorrow.
[46:27.880 --> 46:33.560]  Right now, we're with Scott in West Virginia, and then we're going to go to Danny. Okay,
[46:33.560 --> 46:39.320]  go ahead, Scott. You had one more question? Yeah, well, actually, I just thought of it too.
[46:39.320 --> 46:47.400]  I need to get his address there afterwards. So in other words, in order for me to go across
[46:47.400 --> 46:55.080]  into Ohio or whatever, am I going to have to basically have paperwork, promotional dismissal
[46:55.080 --> 47:01.640]  made for each state that I travel in, you think? No, all you need to do is be able to cite the laws
[47:01.640 --> 47:08.280]  in the state in which you live, okay? Because the other states have no control over what the
[47:08.280 --> 47:12.360]  requirements are within the state in which you live. If you can show the state in which you live
[47:12.360 --> 47:18.520]  does not require it, they can't require it of you. You don't live there. Then the other states that
[47:18.520 --> 47:25.720]  I travel into would have to go by the ruling from West Virginia? That's correct. Okay. Now,
[47:27.640 --> 47:36.120]  I found a submission or a motion for dismissal that was previously used in the state of West
[47:36.120 --> 47:42.760]  Virginia and if I emailed that to you, could you sometime when you get a chance, could you look at
[47:42.760 --> 47:47.400]  and give me your opinion on it? Because it has a whole lot of the... I mean, it's written up,
[47:47.400 --> 47:52.440]  in other words, better than what my knowledge is on dealing with this kind of thing. And specifically
[47:52.440 --> 48:00.280]  the traffic? It was specifically on this matter of being able to drive without a license in the
[48:00.280 --> 48:06.360]  state of West Virginia. And if somebody else had used this, in other words, in a court case, and
[48:06.360 --> 48:14.920]  they won, I guess you'd say won the case, it was dismissed on what they had submitted and I have
[48:16.440 --> 48:20.360]  the document of what they submitted. And I was wondering if... Because in other words,
[48:20.360 --> 48:27.400]  I can look up laws all day long, but I'm a layman in terms to where I might not put it in the right,
[48:27.400 --> 48:36.200]  you know what I mean, in the right form, in other words, to be able to submit. But if I sent you,
[48:36.200 --> 48:43.160]  emailed you a copy of this, what was submitted before in another court case one time, if you get
[48:43.160 --> 48:47.080]  a chance sometime, can you look at it and then just shoot me an email saying, well,
[48:47.080 --> 48:51.240]  whatever you think or whatever? Yeah. I'll be happy to take a look at it for you.
[48:51.240 --> 48:57.960]  Well, I appreciate it. What's your... Do I send it... Where do I send it? I gave you...
[48:57.960 --> 49:00.760]  You can send it to Eddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[49:01.480 --> 49:03.560]  Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much.
[49:03.560 --> 49:05.480]  It is Eddie, not traffic, right, Deborah?
[49:05.480 --> 49:06.600]  Yes, it's Eddie.
[49:06.600 --> 49:07.240]  Okay.
[49:07.240 --> 49:07.720]  Excuse me?
[49:08.600 --> 49:12.040]  Yeah, I was just verifying. It is Eddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[49:12.680 --> 49:18.200]  Okay. All right. Well, thank you all very much there. And is this donate to do a little bit of
[49:18.200 --> 49:23.400]  send you a few dockets now and then? There's two radio of... Rule of Law Radio?
[49:23.400 --> 49:28.440]  Yeah. If you go to ruleoflawradio.com, there's instructions. There's a PayPal button.
[49:28.440 --> 49:31.480]  Yeah. Just click on Randy's Beer Fund.
[49:31.480 --> 49:35.960]  Well, there's actually three donate buttons. You can donate directly to Eddie,
[49:35.960 --> 49:40.840]  or you can donate to Randy's Beer Fund, or you can donate to Rule of Law Radio. Actually,
[49:40.840 --> 49:46.360]  there's a fourth one if you want to donate to 90.1. And if you want to write checks,
[49:46.360 --> 49:50.280]  you need to make them out to Deborah Stevens, D-E-B-O-R-A-H.
[49:50.280 --> 49:54.520]  Well, all I need to know is where you guys want me. What's the best way to... Where you want it?
[49:54.520 --> 49:56.920]  If it all goes the same place anyway, it's going to don't matter, right?
[49:56.920 --> 50:00.600]  Yeah. Just go to the website, and it has the address and everything.
[50:01.160 --> 50:05.400]  Okay. And Randy, I thought about your Beer Fund, but I looked all over for it. I couldn't find it.
[50:05.400 --> 50:09.080]  If you go to the donations page, it's right there on the donations page.
[50:09.080 --> 50:10.920]  It's still got that nickel in it.
[50:11.960 --> 50:13.800]  Okay. Thank you all.
[50:13.800 --> 50:19.640]  But folks, yeah, just folks, don't write out checks made payable to 90.1 Legal Fund,
[50:19.640 --> 50:23.640]  or Rule of Law Radio, or things like that, because we won't be able to cash the checks.
[50:23.640 --> 50:30.440]  You can't... The banks... The banking system, they are real sticklers about checks made out
[50:30.440 --> 50:36.120]  to business names. You can only deposit or cash a check made out to a business
[50:36.120 --> 50:42.360]  in a business account, and it has to bear the same name. You cannot endorse checks,
[50:42.360 --> 50:48.040]  business checks over, not even to another business account. You can only deal with it with a business
[50:48.040 --> 50:54.040]  account bearing whatever it says on the payee line on the check. So that's... And we don't have
[50:54.840 --> 51:00.680]  a bazillion business accounts with every different permutation of Rule of Law Radio,
[51:00.680 --> 51:06.120]  or Rule of Law, or 90.1, or whatever. We don't... I mean, we only have a personal account,
[51:06.120 --> 51:11.080]  so that's why there's instructions on checks. But there's plenty of PayPal buttons as well.
[51:11.080 --> 51:16.200]  All right. Thanks, Scott. We are going to go now to Danny in Texas. Danny, thanks for calling in.
[51:16.200 --> 51:21.880]  What's on your mind tonight? Well, I was just calling, glad to hear that the information
[51:21.880 --> 51:27.800]  about Article 5, Section 17 getting spread out a little bit. Yeah, I started to make a comment
[51:27.800 --> 51:33.400]  that you would like that when Eddie was talking about the indictments in misdemeanors. Yeah,
[51:33.400 --> 51:40.360]  I stumbled across that back around 2000 or something. And... Yeah, Danny's the one that
[51:40.360 --> 51:48.920]  brought that to our attention. Yeah. And I've gone into the courthouse records and I looked in,
[51:48.920 --> 51:56.920]  I found the indictments for misdemeanors and the court minutes showing that they were following
[51:56.920 --> 52:05.000]  that procedure exactly. One court went way back like 1895, but they had a pre-printed form
[52:05.000 --> 52:12.840]  showing the order of transfer and on that pre-printed form stating there was an indictment
[52:12.840 --> 52:18.120]  for which the district court did not have jurisdiction, so transferring it to in a blank
[52:18.120 --> 52:25.160]  for where they wrote in the court that it was being transferred to. And, oh yeah, and you
[52:25.160 --> 52:31.800]  used to talk about how they get by with thinking that this complaint is satisfactory. Well,
[52:31.800 --> 52:38.440]  I got a possibility by kind of imagining if I was on the other side and trying to justify
[52:38.440 --> 52:44.200]  this somehow just among us guys here that know what's going on, how would I do it?
[52:45.160 --> 52:51.880]  Y'all know the concept of presumption of regularity? Have you heard that term before?
[52:52.520 --> 52:56.600]  Yeah, I've heard of it. Is that a good brand breakfast? Yeah, the presumption of regularity
[52:56.600 --> 53:04.360]  doesn't mean a thing in the face of statute or constitution. Well, I know as far as stated,
[53:04.360 --> 53:10.520]  but basically you're assuming that those in government did it right unless something's
[53:10.520 --> 53:16.760]  brought up to show that they did it wrong. Yeah, Hall v. State addresses that, that a policy,
[53:16.760 --> 53:25.960]  no matter how well-entrenched, although it may gain the force of law, never gains the sanction
[53:25.960 --> 53:33.000]  of law. Okay. Well, yeah, that's not quite the way I meant it though. First time I ran into it had
[53:33.000 --> 53:37.880]  to do with a judge's oath of office when he didn't have one and the court of appeals saying that
[53:37.880 --> 53:43.960]  didn't have anything in the record showing that he didn't have an oath of office. So presumption
[53:43.960 --> 53:51.880]  of regularity required them to presume that he did since it seems he's going to do the right thing
[53:51.880 --> 53:59.880]  to take the office. And so you got to bring like a statement from the secretary of state or somebody
[53:59.880 --> 54:05.880]  to show it serves the record. They don't find an oath of office. And I think you reeled through
[54:05.880 --> 54:11.720]  that article five, section 17 there, it says after the indictment gets down the trial court,
[54:12.520 --> 54:18.760]  if it's quashed in the trial court and is probable cause of guilt, then the sentence not to be
[54:18.760 --> 54:26.200]  released can be held to answer an information or affidavit, one of the complaints and affidavit.
[54:26.200 --> 54:31.800]  So I kind of think maybe that they're looking at that and they get the complaint there. And since
[54:31.800 --> 54:38.360]  there is a valid way for a complaint to finally be used as a charging instrument, they just
[54:39.480 --> 54:44.840]  presume that it got there the right way. But, you know,
[54:44.840 --> 54:52.600]  we bring it up. Now you're making sense. Yeah. I see how you got there. Yeah. So, you know,
[54:52.600 --> 54:58.760]  there is a proper way for it to have been used. And they just don't look at it as presumed that
[54:58.760 --> 55:08.920]  it got there the right way. Unless we indicate that the presumption is false. If we raise the issue of
[55:08.920 --> 55:20.360]  no indictment, then their presumption of regularity is negated. Right. But I kind of think that may be
[55:20.360 --> 55:26.040]  a way that they try to look at it, that they got there okay by not really checking the record to see.
[55:30.200 --> 55:34.280]  And the guy from California there a while ago, talking about bringing this stuff up to the
[55:34.280 --> 55:39.880]  City Council. I've been working on something like that too. But just one little thing I'm getting
[55:39.880 --> 55:50.040]  on is where do they fail to transfer the papers from the examining hearing to the clerk as required
[55:50.040 --> 55:58.920]  by 17.30 of Cochrane procedure? Yeah. I charged the judge with felony tampering on that one.
[55:58.920 --> 56:06.040]  Right. So, oh, well, I'll tell you, one reason got me thinking about this was back in January,
[56:06.600 --> 56:12.280]  just happened to go this girl's hearing that she had, and they ended up for other things,
[56:12.280 --> 56:17.000]  taking her away and stick her in jail for a while. Well, I went working trying to do habeas corpus.
[56:17.640 --> 56:22.760]  And, you know, they just not really doing anything with that. And because of that,
[56:22.760 --> 56:25.800]  I think I'll make complaints against some of the judges and everything for
[56:25.800 --> 56:30.040]  for suspending habeas corpus in violation of the Constitution and Cochrane procedure.
[56:31.080 --> 56:38.920]  But along the way, I'd already been thinking about a claim to the county for something for myself.
[56:38.920 --> 56:43.960]  I'd already been looking into it to kind of knew the format. And you bring that to the county
[56:43.960 --> 56:48.920]  commissioner. So I wrote something similar up and telling the things that had happened
[56:48.920 --> 56:57.560]  and that she was being held in the jail that time. And I called it a notice of a potential claim.
[56:59.240 --> 57:05.240]  And, and at the end, I cited that Trezavent versus was it Tampa,
[57:05.240 --> 57:12.280]  Tampa Bay at, you know, over a thousand dollars a minute. Well, you know, that's not their usual
[57:12.280 --> 57:17.560]  process, they, you know, they regard it, but it seemed like somebody finally read it, because she's
[57:17.560 --> 57:24.680]  supposed to get out on a Saturday. And they ended up putting her out on Friday. And she said that
[57:24.680 --> 57:29.800]  once they started trying to get her out, it's like they couldn't get her out fast enough.
[57:31.480 --> 57:36.840]  And so, you know, bring these things up to the ones above that should be overseen. And then,
[57:36.840 --> 57:42.840]  you know, I think the county commissioner is called, you're supposed to bring a claim to them
[57:42.840 --> 57:49.720]  first or give them an opportunity to pay it before you go. Pile a suit. And so, you know,
[57:50.360 --> 57:55.240]  do that in advance to let them know where the courts and others are going wrong.
[57:57.000 --> 58:05.000]  And so that, you know, it's kind of on them. And we're about to go. The way I was
[58:05.000 --> 58:09.880]  picturing is, you know, like one to the council, one to each to the mayor and each of the
[58:09.880 --> 58:15.320]  councilmen, and then one to each individual. So let them be trying to hang a target on each other
[58:16.120 --> 58:20.440]  to see if they'll get some action done. And if not, then if you're...
[58:21.320 --> 58:24.600]  Good, good. You got more? You want to hang on it after the break?
[58:25.640 --> 58:26.840]  Yeah, hang a little bit.
[58:27.720 --> 58:32.200]  Okay. And we also have Michael Anthony from New York and John from Georgia has been waiting quite
[58:32.200 --> 58:38.120]  a while too. So we'll finish up with Danny when we get back on the other side. And then we'll go
[58:38.120 --> 58:46.680]  to John in Georgia and then Michael Anthony. Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984.
[58:46.680 --> 59:09.320]  We'll be right back.
[59:46.680 --> 01:00:04.200]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[01:00:04.200 --> 01:00:09.960]  Afghan and NATO forces Thursday handed over control of Marja to civilian authorities in the
[01:00:09.960 --> 01:00:15.880]  wake of a huge military operation to capture the area from Taliban control. Hours earlier
[01:00:15.880 --> 01:00:20.520]  roadside bombs were uncovered in the main market, suggesting Taliban fighters were
[01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:26.200]  still active in the area. The Afghan Human Rights Commission said Wednesday 28 civilians
[01:00:26.200 --> 01:00:31.880]  have been killed so far in Marja and urged pro-government forces to take more care,
[01:00:31.880 --> 01:00:36.840]  distinguishing between non-competence and militants. The Department of Homeland Security
[01:00:36.840 --> 01:00:42.440]  has more contractors working for it than full-time employees. Senator Joseph Lieberman,
[01:00:42.440 --> 01:00:46.760]  chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he was
[01:00:46.760 --> 01:00:52.840]  astounded to learn there are more than 200,000 contractor employees. The civilian workforce
[01:00:52.840 --> 01:00:59.640]  numbers 188,000. Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[01:01:02.360 --> 01:01:09.000]  Abu Mahdi al Mohandas, one of 6,000 candidates running in the Iraqi elections next month,
[01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:14.280]  won't set foot on the campaign trail for fear of a U.S. assassination attempt.
[01:01:14.280 --> 01:01:19.640]  Al Mohandas told Makachi News, quote, I was told officially by the Speaker of Parliament
[01:01:19.640 --> 01:01:24.520]  that it's preferable I don't show up before the election because they couldn't assure I
[01:01:24.520 --> 01:01:30.440]  would be protected, adding, quote, since 2005 the Americans have conveyed a message
[01:01:30.440 --> 01:01:36.200]  they'll kidnap or assassinate me. Campaign posters depict al Mohandas as an elder statesman
[01:01:36.200 --> 01:01:41.480]  who belongs to the main Shiite Muslim ticket, challenging Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
[01:01:42.120 --> 01:01:48.200]  Last July, the U.S. Treasury Department accused al Mohandas of helping train Shiite militia
[01:01:48.200 --> 01:01:54.360]  to attack U.S. forces in Iraq and of moving weapons from Iran into Iraq for that purpose.
[01:01:54.360 --> 01:01:59.640]  Al Mohandas lives in Iran, effectively exiled from his home country, because of Washington's
[01:01:59.640 --> 01:02:07.400]  accusations he's an Iranian proxy with a terrorism rap sheet. Over one million Iraqis have met
[01:02:07.400 --> 01:02:12.600]  violent deaths as a result of the U.S.-led invasion. A study conducted by the prestigious
[01:02:12.600 --> 01:02:18.120]  British polling group Opinion Research Business shows the invasion and occupation of Iraq
[01:02:18.120 --> 01:02:24.360]  exceeded the eight to nine hundred thousand believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994
[01:02:24.360 --> 01:02:31.320]  and is approaching the 1.7 million who died in Cambodia's infamous killing fields in the 1970s.
[01:02:31.320 --> 01:02:37.720]  In interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents
[01:02:37.720 --> 01:02:43.400]  had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict. Authors Joshua Holland
[01:02:43.400 --> 01:02:49.080]  and Michael Schwartz discovered most violence against Iraqis was not perpetrated by Iraqis
[01:02:49.080 --> 01:02:54.600]  themselves. Top of the hour news brought to you by INN world report.
[01:03:01.080 --> 01:03:07.000]  You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com
[01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:23.000]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:41.960]  Okay, we're back for hour two. We got a full board of callers lined up here. Danny,
[01:03:41.960 --> 01:03:47.240]  did you have anything else you wanted to add? Well, maybe a little bit, just a history that
[01:03:47.240 --> 01:03:55.400]  I've put together about the article five, section 17 that I got to look at. Well, when did they stop
[01:03:55.400 --> 01:04:00.680]  doing that? Because they got records sometime back there when they did. And from going through
[01:04:00.680 --> 01:04:06.840]  court records and other things, it looks like is in the 1940s that this happened. So St. Barak,
[01:04:06.840 --> 01:04:14.280]  1939. And then these just kind of skid away to zero through the 40s and really been nothing
[01:04:14.280 --> 01:04:20.920]  than since then. See them dang lawyers messed it up again. So they just quit doing it. Nobody
[01:04:20.920 --> 01:04:28.200]  raised an issue. Yeah, well, tension is overseas at that time, you know, and so just kind of slipped
[01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:38.040]  it in there. Okay, well, we're going to move wrong. We need to move along. Got a bunch of callers.
[01:04:38.040 --> 01:04:45.640]  Okay. Okay. Thanks, Danny. Okay, we're going now to John in Georgia, who's called and dropped off
[01:04:45.640 --> 01:04:48.520]  the line a few times. John, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:04:50.040 --> 01:04:58.280]  Well, what's on my mind is let people know that you need to get in touch with anything you need to
[01:04:58.280 --> 01:05:05.240]  do to get these people involved in this situation. Because when you deal with corrupt judges,
[01:05:05.240 --> 01:05:14.120]  corrupt political officials, you need to push it to every extreme you can. And that's what I've
[01:05:14.120 --> 01:05:21.720]  learned here in Columbus, Georgia, is that unless you go forward, I'll put a big old sticker on the
[01:05:21.720 --> 01:05:32.040]  back of my car. As far as rule of law radio, Michael Edwards, get in touch with your friends,
[01:05:32.040 --> 01:05:37.560]  people at work, and get them involved in this, to where they can get on this radio station and see
[01:05:37.560 --> 01:05:47.880]  what's going on. Because when you understand what the realm of corruption is, it's unbelievable.
[01:05:51.480 --> 01:05:55.880]  I'd have to go along with that. It boggles the mind, that's for sure.
[01:05:55.880 --> 01:06:04.440]  Yeah, you have no choice but to do so. I started this 10 years ago, and Gary got me involved in it.
[01:06:04.440 --> 01:06:10.440]  And when I started realizing the realm of corruption, it's just totally unbelievable.
[01:06:12.680 --> 01:06:19.960]  Everybody that you have contact with, family, friends, anybody, you need to wake them up.
[01:06:19.960 --> 01:06:28.120]  Because if you don't do so, these judges can commit public corruption on a grand scale.
[01:06:28.120 --> 01:06:33.320]  And even when you go to the disqualification committee against them, oh, well, we find no
[01:06:33.320 --> 01:06:41.480]  corruption here. It's just unbelievable. And unless you elect these public officials out of office,
[01:06:41.480 --> 01:06:44.600]  which I've gotten on board with the Tea Party movement here in Columbus,
[01:06:44.600 --> 01:06:49.400]  these people have got to get out of there. If they don't do it, we'll lose everything we have,
[01:06:49.960 --> 01:06:54.440]  our gun rights, our voting rights, everything, everything.
[01:06:57.800 --> 01:06:58.840]  I couldn't agree more.
[01:06:58.840 --> 01:07:06.520]  And I'm going to leave it with that, because it makes me so sick that I just cannot believe
[01:07:07.560 --> 01:07:13.240]  what goes on in the United States of America. We fought against the British to have freedom,
[01:07:13.240 --> 01:07:19.640]  you've got Mexicans come across the border and can become citizens, people from Holland,
[01:07:19.640 --> 01:07:25.800]  from Germany, from France. I was born in France. And you have to go through so much just to be
[01:07:25.800 --> 01:07:29.800]  able to be a citizen here in the United States. But if you're a Mexican, you can just slide right
[01:07:29.800 --> 01:07:35.640]  over the border, not to mention the Taliban can come through Mexico and sit here and destroy our
[01:07:35.640 --> 01:07:42.120]  whole country. It just makes me sick. Well, the Taliban is currently in
[01:07:42.120 --> 01:07:48.040]  Washington, D.C., living it up. Yeah, you're right on page with that.
[01:07:48.040 --> 01:07:52.600]  And I've learned that by watching your show. And I'm going to leave it with that,
[01:07:52.600 --> 01:07:58.120]  let other callers come in. But it just makes me sick to my stomach that people don't get out there
[01:07:58.120 --> 01:08:04.920]  and tell other people that they need to get on page with this and see what's going on.
[01:08:04.920 --> 01:08:08.680]  Because if they don't, we're going to lose this whole country. We're going to lose it.
[01:08:08.680 --> 01:08:15.960]  There's no doubt we're going to. Well, I think we've already lost it.
[01:08:16.680 --> 01:08:21.000]  Now we just need to get busy and get it back. Well, we haven't totally lost it,
[01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:23.560]  or else we wouldn't even be able to do anything about it yet right now.
[01:08:25.800 --> 01:08:29.560]  But that's why we're here, John. We're working on it.
[01:08:29.560 --> 01:08:32.520]  God bless y'all. God bless y'all. Don't ever give up.
[01:08:32.520 --> 01:08:35.880]  All right. Thanks, John. I appreciate that. All right.
[01:08:35.880 --> 01:08:40.760]  Okay. Good night. All right. We're going now to Michael Anthony in New York,
[01:08:40.760 --> 01:08:45.080]  and then Aaron in Austin. Aaron's a first-time caller. Aaron, you are next.
[01:08:45.080 --> 01:08:48.040]  But first, we've got to go to Michael because he's been waiting for a very long time.
[01:08:48.040 --> 01:08:49.800]  Michael, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind?
[01:08:50.360 --> 01:08:55.720]  Hi. Thank you very much for taking my call. Okay. I've got a couple of things. Number one,
[01:08:55.720 --> 01:09:00.440]  Eddie, when he read in the very beginning of the program, I like what he put this 12
[01:09:00.440 --> 01:09:05.400]  issues there for any court case. I've got another court case coming up with a brand new
[01:09:05.400 --> 01:09:12.360]  judge, and I would really like to have that. So are you going to have probably the archives
[01:09:12.360 --> 01:09:16.920]  back up so that I'd be able to pull that back down and copy it?
[01:09:17.880 --> 01:09:20.680]  If you can just send me an email, I'll be happy to send it to you.
[01:09:21.400 --> 01:09:25.800]  Okay. I could do that too. I usually post the archives within a day or so of the shows.
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:28.200]  Pardon me? Within a day or so?
[01:09:28.200 --> 01:09:31.400]  He'd have to retype it is what I'm getting at. He'd have to retype what I read.
[01:09:31.400 --> 01:09:39.160]  Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. The other thing is, I've listened to the Power Hour. Two days ago,
[01:09:39.880 --> 01:09:46.280]  Joyce Riley had on a guest from Alaska, and his name is Ralph Iterod.
[01:09:48.120 --> 01:09:49.320]  Ralph? Winter Rude?
[01:09:50.440 --> 01:09:53.000]  He's been studying for a long time. Winter Rude.
[01:09:53.640 --> 01:09:58.200]  Iterud. Yeah. Yeah. Did you hear him? What he's talking about with the four...
[01:09:58.200 --> 01:10:03.800]  We've had him as a guest on our show before. Oh, this guy was awesome. The fourth branch
[01:10:03.800 --> 01:10:08.840]  of government. That's why we're not getting anywhere. And now Title V, Section 553,
[01:10:09.400 --> 01:10:15.880]  Little B, C, and D, that these agencies, they're all agencies. They're not part of the government.
[01:10:15.880 --> 01:10:21.240]  They've been created by Congress to operate all of these alphabet agencies.
[01:10:21.240 --> 01:10:26.200]  And in order for them to have any authority whatsoever, they have to have their regulations
[01:10:26.200 --> 01:10:33.000]  promulgated. And none of them do. And so his theory is, not theory, but his attack is going
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:39.160]  to be to expose them, like the Wizard of Oz, pull the curtain back so that these guys are exposed.
[01:10:39.160 --> 01:10:44.520]  And when we go after them in the courts and we try to sue them as government agents and officials
[01:10:44.520 --> 01:10:51.240]  in their public capacity, it keeps getting thrown out because they have immunity or we fail the
[01:10:51.240 --> 01:10:56.760]  state of claim. Well, that's why I believe my cases in the federal court were thrown out,
[01:10:56.760 --> 01:11:01.240]  because these guys are agencies in the family court. And that's what I've been going after.
[01:11:01.880 --> 01:11:06.440]  But anyway, after saying all that, maybe you can investigate it a little bit, maybe get them back
[01:11:06.440 --> 01:11:10.840]  on the program or have them as a guest again. Well, he kind of hung up on Randy.
[01:11:11.880 --> 01:11:16.600]  Pardon? He kind of hung up on Randy. Yeah, he kind of got ticked off at me.
[01:11:16.600 --> 01:11:25.000]  Because Randy and I were asking him to cite a specific code to back up what he was saying.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:28.600]  And he just kept saying, oh, it's in the federal registry. It's in the federal registry. Well,
[01:11:28.600 --> 01:11:33.400]  the federal registry is like 50,000 pages. All right. Oh, well, you just have to look. Oh,
[01:11:33.400 --> 01:11:38.920]  I have to look through 50,000 pages? I mean, we're very specific on this show. We don't just talk
[01:11:38.920 --> 01:11:47.560]  in these ivory tower, pie in the sky, ethereal types of conceptualizations. It's like if people
[01:11:47.560 --> 01:11:50.440]  are going to come with something, they need to come with something. They need to cite statutes,
[01:11:50.440 --> 01:11:57.080]  they need to cite case law, something. But Winneroot wouldn't give us anything concrete
[01:11:57.080 --> 01:12:01.480]  to back up what he was saying. And he finally got mad and hung up. So I don't know if he's
[01:12:01.480 --> 01:12:05.880]  going to come up. Go ahead, Randy. Let me qualify. Ralph Winneroot
[01:12:05.880 --> 01:12:15.080]  is a very good researcher and I don't fault him one bit. He just wanted to speak on our show
[01:12:15.080 --> 01:12:20.920]  in a little more general terms than we do. When he said that, oh, the statutes don't matter and
[01:12:20.920 --> 01:12:29.400]  the constitution doesn't apply. The only thing that applies is the national register. Give me a
[01:12:29.400 --> 01:12:39.160]  break. But I'm not faulting Winneroot at all. That was more a personality thing, I believe.
[01:12:39.160 --> 01:12:43.400]  One of the things that he was getting at today or the other day when he was on there was that
[01:12:43.400 --> 01:12:47.240]  he's been putting this together for quite a long time and he didn't really have it down to the
[01:12:47.240 --> 01:12:54.840]  science. Yeah, the only problem is though is, okay, take for instance Title 26. Title 26 is
[01:12:54.840 --> 01:12:59.880]  not in the federal register. Yet the courts on the federal level have ruled time and time again
[01:12:59.880 --> 01:13:07.880]  they don't care. Now, technically speaking, Title 26 is not positive law because it's not in the
[01:13:07.880 --> 01:13:14.440]  register. But the federal courts don't care. It's how they steal their money. So they don't care.
[01:13:16.200 --> 01:13:20.760]  And if they take that same cavalier attitude with anything else, we're still in the same
[01:13:20.760 --> 01:13:25.320]  boat. They won't care. Right. That's the next thing we got to learn how to go after them.
[01:13:26.120 --> 01:13:34.360]  Okay. Myself, I had a family court hearing on the 11th for violation of a court order for seeing my
[01:13:34.360 --> 01:13:40.120]  children. And I went to court, before I went to court, I filed a negative environment opportunity
[01:13:40.120 --> 01:13:45.880]  to cure and a counterclaim. I took your guys advice. I filed that. And I also filed a court
[01:13:45.880 --> 01:13:52.120]  warrant out. And because the judge didn't have authority to take away my visitation to my kids
[01:13:52.120 --> 01:13:58.520]  because of the fire drill. Okay. I sent a registered mail to the family court. So I went in the court
[01:13:58.520 --> 01:14:05.240]  on the 11th and my ex-wife always has her big table over to the right side with all of her attorneys
[01:14:05.240 --> 01:14:10.280]  in there. And I went in there and she's sitting there by herself with no attorneys. I listed all
[01:14:10.280 --> 01:14:16.760]  of them guys in my counterclaim, along with the judge and the law guardian. The law guardian
[01:14:16.760 --> 01:14:23.720]  never showed up and neither did the judge. So they had a sit-in judge. And he says,
[01:14:23.720 --> 01:14:28.120]  I'm not taking this case. He says, I'll find another judge to do this. He was the main judge
[01:14:28.120 --> 01:14:36.840]  for the Cataragos County. You got to see the chicken dance. Yeah. Okay. So now here's the
[01:14:36.840 --> 01:14:43.320]  other deal. He set it for another trial on the 23rd of February. So I took off of work and my
[01:14:43.320 --> 01:14:49.400]  company's not too happy about it. I had to lose work because I drive a truck. And it kind of
[01:14:49.400 --> 01:14:55.400]  messed me up for the whole week. So I went into court and I walked in there and all the deputies
[01:14:55.400 --> 01:15:00.520]  looked at me and they go, Hey, Mike, how you doing? I said, good. How you guys doing? And I said,
[01:15:00.520 --> 01:15:04.040]  you know, we just chit-chatted and stuff. And so I went over to the desk and I said,
[01:15:04.040 --> 01:15:09.400]  though, I don't remember is my court time at two 30 or two o'clock. He looks at the paperwork. He
[01:15:09.400 --> 01:15:14.200]  says, your name's not even on here. I says, you got to be kidding me because the last time I was
[01:15:14.200 --> 01:15:20.040]  here on the 11th, he rescheduled me for the 23rd. He goes, that's what I thought, but your name's
[01:15:20.040 --> 01:15:25.880]  not on here. Go see the clerk. So I went in to see the clerk and I went in to see her and she says,
[01:15:25.880 --> 01:15:30.760]  they postponed it. I says, why did they postpone it? She goes, because all the judges have been
[01:15:30.760 --> 01:15:40.760]  refusing themselves. So they have to get a new judge. So they set it up for the 4th of March,
[01:15:40.760 --> 01:15:45.240]  another, another hearing. They got this new guy that they're going to try to get to take care of
[01:15:45.240 --> 01:15:55.640]  this matter. So now my question to you is when I go in there, how do I approach this judge?
[01:15:56.280 --> 01:16:00.200]  Do I give him that paper that Eddie, you guys were reading in the beginning of the program?
[01:16:00.200 --> 01:16:05.320]  It seemed like it fit. In this particular instance,
[01:16:05.320 --> 01:16:08.520]  this motion would work probably in any court anywhere for anything.
[01:16:09.400 --> 01:16:12.600]  But in your particular position, after you've hammered everybody,
[01:16:13.320 --> 01:16:15.880]  I think it would be particularly effective.
[01:16:18.920 --> 01:16:20.360]  Particularly effective, you said?
[01:16:21.320 --> 01:16:25.560]  Particularly effective. I think you've scared the crap out of all of them.
[01:16:25.560 --> 01:16:29.800]  And now you're actually going to make them promise to do something they don't want to do.
[01:16:31.080 --> 01:16:35.080]  Exactly. I need to, I want their authority. I want to see their authority.
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:37.880]  That's what I want.
[01:16:37.880 --> 01:16:39.960]  Okay, Michael, do you have anything else for us?
[01:16:40.520 --> 01:16:42.760]  Not unless you guys have any more suggestions for me.
[01:16:42.760 --> 01:16:48.760]  Okay. Okay. Well, then we're going to let you go so we can go to Aaron and Austin next.
[01:16:48.760 --> 01:16:49.560]  Thank you very much.
[01:16:49.560 --> 01:16:53.480]  All right. Thank you, Michael. Okay. And Aaron, you are up next.
[01:16:53.480 --> 01:16:57.480]  First time caller, we'll be right back. Callers 512-646-1984.
[01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:02.760]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:17:02.760 --> 01:17:03.320]  Sorry.
[01:17:03.320 --> 01:17:06.520]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:17:06.520 --> 01:17:07.000]  What?
[01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:11.560]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:17:11.560 --> 01:17:15.160]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions of other Americans,
[01:17:15.160 --> 01:17:17.960]  I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:17:17.960 --> 01:17:22.760]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America.
[01:17:22.760 --> 01:17:27.560]  The television. Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity,
[01:17:27.560 --> 01:17:31.880]  but there is hope. The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other
[01:17:31.880 --> 01:17:36.280]  Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books,
[01:17:36.280 --> 01:17:41.800]  I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:17:41.800 --> 01:17:49.160]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:17:49.160 --> 01:17:54.440]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or Brave New Bookstore.com.
[01:17:54.440 --> 01:17:56.440]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include
[01:17:56.440 --> 01:18:19.720]  discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:18:27.320 --> 01:18:32.920]  Okay, we are back. Not going to fool us with the same old tricks again.
[01:18:32.920 --> 01:18:36.840]  All right. We did have a Jim from Texas on the line. Jim, if you'd like to call back in,
[01:18:36.840 --> 01:18:40.760]  you're next in line. Right now we're going to go to Aaron in Austin, Texas.
[01:18:40.760 --> 01:18:42.920]  Aaron, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:18:43.480 --> 01:18:50.120]  Hi, guys. I have a question related to the medical system. I ended up with a
[01:18:51.240 --> 01:18:54.120]  situation. My wife is pregnant. It's the first time she's been pregnant. So
[01:18:54.120 --> 01:19:01.560]  she had these abdominal pains one day. She was really scared, so we took her to the emergency
[01:19:01.560 --> 01:19:09.480]  room. I kind of knew we were going to be overcharged, but I was kind of prepared for
[01:19:09.480 --> 01:19:16.840]  a different kind of overcharge than we ended up getting. They laid us down with this incredible
[01:19:16.840 --> 01:19:28.040]  bill, like huge, and we barely saw a doctor. We barely had anything done. First they tried
[01:19:28.040 --> 01:19:34.600]  to hit us with this big flat bill with no itemized list. It was like $4,700. We'd only
[01:19:34.600 --> 01:19:41.000]  spent like 15 minutes seeing an actual doctor. Actually, one of those guys wasn't even a
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:48.120]  doctor. He was a nurse. Plus these several hundred dollars of other bills that were itemized,
[01:19:48.120 --> 01:19:52.920]  but we paid the other itemized bills because they seemed reasonable. There was some tests
[01:19:52.920 --> 01:20:00.760]  they had run and the ultrasound and such. It was too much, but we paid it. There was a big $4,000
[01:20:00.760 --> 01:20:07.720]  bill, and I wrote them a letter stating that we wanted to see the itemized list and a copy of the
[01:20:07.720 --> 01:20:17.640]  UB-92 or the UB-04, which I had researched the day required by law to provide you with those forms
[01:20:17.640 --> 01:20:24.600]  if you asked for them within 30 days. They sent the itemized list, and it showed things on there
[01:20:24.600 --> 01:20:30.520]  that were just unbelievable. They charged us $1,258 for a pregnancy test, even though we told
[01:20:30.520 --> 01:20:43.960]  them she was pregnant already. We already knew. They charged us $588 for a gonorrhea-amplified
[01:20:43.960 --> 01:20:51.400]  DNA probe and another $588 for a chlamydia test. We didn't ask for those, and we weren't in their
[01:20:51.400 --> 01:20:57.960]  at-risk group. We were a married couple, and they didn't ask for our consent, and they just threw it
[01:20:57.960 --> 01:21:06.840]  in there. I suggest you prepare a tort letter for fraud. Really? Send them a tort letter accusing
[01:21:06.840 --> 01:21:13.960]  them of fraud and claiming as damages triple the amount the bill they gave you. Okay.
[01:21:17.160 --> 01:21:20.840]  Every person I've talked to about it, even I've actually shown it to our midwife,
[01:21:20.840 --> 01:21:28.040]  and she was just like, what? She knew how much the lab test cost, and she was just blown away
[01:21:28.040 --> 01:21:31.560]  by it. Plus, they charged us for the lab test also. We got charged double. They got charged for the
[01:21:31.560 --> 01:21:39.640]  lab test. The actual lab itself only charged us like $60 for the pregnancy test, which that's too
[01:21:39.640 --> 01:21:45.720]  expensive. Well, you have to pay for the doctor to tell you what the results are. That's worth
[01:21:45.720 --> 01:21:51.720]  several grand, isn't it? But they charged us for the doctor too. The doctor got a separate bill,
[01:21:51.720 --> 01:21:57.960]  $370. Then that might be a processing fee, that clerk that sits out front and gets-
[01:21:57.960 --> 01:22:03.960]  No, but they charged us $2,000 for that. They've got everything covered.
[01:22:03.960 --> 01:22:15.480]  Just for having it in the ER. It says, visit ER. They say they put IV on there, but we didn't
[01:22:15.480 --> 01:22:22.680]  have an IV. She didn't have an IV. That's $2,322 just for being there. The thing is, they say they
[01:22:22.680 --> 01:22:28.680]  treated it like an emergency, but we spent four or five hours waiting. We didn't get emergency
[01:22:28.680 --> 01:22:37.480]  status. In your opinion, we should file a tort letter saying it's fraud, and then I just need
[01:22:37.480 --> 01:22:44.760]  research. Absolutely. This will go to the reasonable person standard. What would a reasonable
[01:22:44.760 --> 01:22:52.120]  person consider? You get a 12-man or woman jury looking at these kind of charges. They're
[01:22:52.120 --> 01:22:57.880]  probably not going to be very happy. Yeah. That's a waste of time. I mean,
[01:22:58.760 --> 01:23:08.120]  you think a pregnancy test, you think, okay, $50, $60. Overcharges, put $100 on it. You go over $500
[01:23:08.120 --> 01:23:14.440]  and something's wrong. That's clearly outrageous. That's the reason I said fraud, because that's
[01:23:14.440 --> 01:23:20.360]  clearly fraud. They're trying to collect from you for all of the people who don't pay. Yeah.
[01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:26.440]  They try to make up for it. I had a friend that they charged him 90 cents for an aspirin,
[01:23:26.440 --> 01:23:33.880]  and he went ballistic. I'm bringing you some aspirins. Well, I mean, I knew we would get
[01:23:33.880 --> 01:23:38.520]  things like that. I mean, 90 cents for an aspirin, yeah, it's overcharged, but then there's something,
[01:23:38.520 --> 01:23:46.120]  you know, that's still what I was kind of expecting coming out of here, paying like $600 for 30 minutes
[01:23:46.120 --> 01:23:54.920]  of their time. But at the same time, I was just, yeah. You dreamer you. Excuse me? I said,
[01:23:54.920 --> 01:24:04.040]  you dreamer you. Well, I guess another specific thing I was wondering about is, do I have leverage
[01:24:04.040 --> 01:24:09.880]  on the fact that I sent them in writing certified mail a demand for the UB92 and the UB04,
[01:24:09.880 --> 01:24:15.400]  and they didn't send it? And they're required to send it? You absolutely have them. That goes to
[01:24:15.400 --> 01:24:23.880]  fraud. Well, see, that's what I had read. When I started researching medical fraud, like in medical
[01:24:23.880 --> 01:24:31.800]  billing situations, they said, I found basically a sample letter of what you should write to them,
[01:24:31.800 --> 01:24:39.880]  and basically demanding a UB92 or a UB04. And what the UB92 and UB04 are is, is it a government
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:47.720]  set price, the prices that the government considers reasonable for those same services.
[01:24:49.320 --> 01:24:54.120]  Oh, no wonder they didn't send it to you. Exactly. You know, on top of that, no wonder it was so damn
[01:24:54.120 --> 01:25:04.040]  much. They think that, you know, $35,000 for a hammer is decent. Well, see, the problem is,
[01:25:04.040 --> 01:25:08.360]  I couldn't, even though I found that letter saying that they're required, I couldn't find
[01:25:08.360 --> 01:25:12.760]  the actual law. And I'm not as versed in those kinds of things. They said it was under HIPAA,
[01:25:14.280 --> 01:25:21.160]  but I couldn't find the actual text of HIPAA anywhere. I don't know. I spent hours researching
[01:25:21.160 --> 01:25:28.200]  it, but I don't know if that's something that's, I guess HIPAA is federal. Yes.
[01:25:29.560 --> 01:25:34.840]  No. Is that kind of the kind of thing you have to go to like a law library to get?
[01:25:34.840 --> 01:25:39.960]  No, you can go to GOP, as long as you know what title it's in, you can go get it off of GOP access.
[01:25:40.680 --> 01:25:44.680]  GOP? Or GPO access, I'm sorry, Government Printing Office.
[01:25:44.680 --> 01:25:49.240]  HIPAA shouldn't be that hard to find. Well, I was just looking on the internet,
[01:25:49.240 --> 01:25:56.040]  and maybe I'm not as experienced as you guys, because, I mean, I think with a lot of subjects,
[01:25:56.040 --> 01:26:00.200]  once you've been working with it a while, you start figuring out the shortcuts and things.
[01:26:01.640 --> 01:26:07.880]  I'm kind of new to law. What was the name of the site again? GPO?
[01:26:08.680 --> 01:26:09.800]  GPO access.
[01:26:10.440 --> 01:26:11.960]  GPO access. Okay.
[01:26:11.960 --> 01:26:19.480]  Well, actually, I've got it right here. It's HIPAA.org, H-I-P-A-A dot O-R-G.
[01:26:19.480 --> 01:26:24.520]  It's got a whole bunch of information about the Act, and it's got the law, the title,
[01:26:24.520 --> 01:26:32.280]  the subtitle. It's got the national registry listing. It's got the text of the bill, everything.
[01:26:35.560 --> 01:26:39.000]  H-I-P-A-A dot O-R-G.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:46.680]  H-I-P-A-A. Okay. All right. Maybe I was there before. It was several months ago when I actually
[01:26:46.680 --> 01:26:52.520]  looked at that part, but I didn't actually find the actual law, but maybe I just didn't
[01:26:52.520 --> 01:26:58.840]  look in the right place. Well, anyway, I appreciate your help, guys. I guess that's all I have.
[01:26:59.960 --> 01:27:01.880]  All right. All right. Well, thank you.
[01:27:01.880 --> 01:27:04.840]  All right. Thank you, Aaron. Have a good day.
[01:27:04.840 --> 01:27:08.120]  You too. Okay. We don't have any more callers right now. Callers,
[01:27:08.120 --> 01:27:13.720]  we'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We did have some questions on the Skype chats.
[01:27:14.360 --> 01:27:21.320]  Someone wanted us to go over judicial conduct complaints and bar grievances. Randy?
[01:27:21.320 --> 01:27:30.680]  Yes. They're actually pretty easy. It's better. We got a response to a bar grievance recently,
[01:27:30.680 --> 01:27:41.720]  and the bar has taken a different tact. What they said was they just considered his communication
[01:27:41.720 --> 01:27:50.920]  and inquiry because he did not state a violation of a specific canon. Now, that's called sharp
[01:27:50.920 --> 01:27:59.240]  practice, and I couldn't imagine we'd get that from the state bar, scoundrels. If you write a
[01:27:59.240 --> 01:28:08.040]  bar grievance, look through the canons. There's not but a couple of pages. The canons of judicial
[01:28:08.040 --> 01:28:16.840]  ethics and the bar association standards are relatively short. And I guess that's not
[01:28:16.840 --> 01:28:22.360]  surprised because these are attorneys, regulating attorneys, so they don't want a whole lot of
[01:28:22.360 --> 01:28:31.160]  regulation. But the canons are general enough that you can always find one. So if they're going to
[01:28:31.800 --> 01:28:37.240]  do this little song and dance about a canon, just get a list of the canons and hang them up
[01:28:37.240 --> 01:28:46.680]  on the wall and get you a dart, pick one. At least it's in the grievance. And the primary
[01:28:46.680 --> 01:28:53.480]  thing about bar grievances is file them quick and file them often. If we're going to take control
[01:28:53.480 --> 01:29:00.600]  of these guys. File early, file often, in other words? Absolutely. If we're going to get control
[01:29:00.600 --> 01:29:05.800]  of the courts, we have to make the judges and the attorneys more afraid of us than they are of
[01:29:05.800 --> 01:29:18.600]  anything else. Jefferson said, when the people fear the government, there's tyranny. When the
[01:29:18.600 --> 01:29:24.120]  government fears the people, there is liberty. Let's put the fear in them. And the way to do
[01:29:24.120 --> 01:29:34.680]  that is judicial conduct complaints, bar grievances. As they get more, I consider the bar as a public
[01:29:34.680 --> 01:29:40.520]  relations agency for attorneys. But sooner or later, this attorney is going to annoy a judge
[01:29:40.520 --> 01:29:45.640]  or a politician. And if he's got a bunch of bar grievances, that's reason to get rid of it.
[01:29:46.760 --> 01:29:51.400]  So let's get them in there. We'll talk a little more about this on the other side.
[01:29:51.400 --> 01:29:55.000]  Okay, we'll talk a little bit more about that. And then after Randy finishes up on that,
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:57.080]  we'll take Ken from Texas. We'll be right back.
[01:29:57.080 --> 01:30:06.760]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[01:30:06.760 --> 01:30:13.160]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:30:13.160 --> 01:30:20.040]  step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:30:20.040 --> 01:30:25.320]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course,
[01:30:25.320 --> 01:30:32.520]  and now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:38.280]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:38.280 --> 01:30:43.880]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:30:43.880 --> 01:30:51.560]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:51.560 --> 01:30:59.560]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:21.560 --> 01:31:51.080]  Okay, we are
[01:31:51.080 --> 01:31:59.080]  back. Ken, we'll be right with you. Randy's going over these bar grievances and judicial
[01:31:59.080 --> 01:32:03.400]  conduct complaints. Okay, Randy, if you could just explain briefly how to construct one of these
[01:32:03.400 --> 01:32:09.560]  things or if you have sample documents available. Well, I have, I thought I had it on my site.
[01:32:09.560 --> 01:32:15.080]  I will load it up there. I'm putting a note to load it up either tonight or in the morning.
[01:32:15.080 --> 01:32:21.720]  On jurisimprudence.com? On Jurisimprudence, I will, actually I think it's on there,
[01:32:21.720 --> 01:32:28.600]  but I'll check and make sure. I have a, I took, you can go to the state bar. Most every state bar
[01:32:28.600 --> 01:32:35.480]  in the country has a site and you can pull down a complaint form. Well, I pulled the form off their
[01:32:35.480 --> 01:32:43.080]  site. It was PDF and converted it to a Word document. The PDF, you'd have to print it out
[01:32:43.080 --> 01:32:49.240]  and then write everything in. The Word document, you can drop the Word document down and edit the
[01:32:49.240 --> 01:32:56.360]  document directly. But there isn't much. Bar grievances are real simple. They're not, there's
[01:32:56.360 --> 01:33:03.560]  nothing structured like with a criminal complaint or with a motion. In a bar grievance, you don't
[01:33:03.560 --> 01:33:14.040]  have to be quite so specific. You can call him a dirty rotten scumbag and you can write the complaint
[01:33:14.040 --> 01:33:21.000]  in common language. As a matter of fact, there's a specific restriction against using case law
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:26.120]  in a bar grievance. For some reason, I guess they don't want to have to deal with the law because
[01:33:26.120 --> 01:33:33.880]  then they might actually have to act on one of these. But anyway, you can pull the grievance
[01:33:33.880 --> 01:33:42.360]  form down and you just fill out who you are. And there's a large section in there for a narrative
[01:33:42.360 --> 01:33:50.600]  where you state your complaint against the attorney. Now, before you write the grievance
[01:33:50.600 --> 01:34:03.080]  on the same side, on the Texas State Bar Association side, you can go to the standards for the bar
[01:34:03.080 --> 01:34:08.120]  standards. It's the American Bar Association standards. Just about everybody has adopted
[01:34:08.920 --> 01:34:14.760]  the American Bar Association standards. If you find those, they're fine. Otherwise, the Texas Bar
[01:34:14.760 --> 01:34:20.920]  Association standards will be on the site. Just pull them down, cruise through them. They're for
[01:34:20.920 --> 01:34:27.320]  the most part pretty short and it won't take you long until you find one that will have the
[01:34:27.320 --> 01:34:35.640]  appearance of covering your issue. So the only thing that this is from our experience that we
[01:34:35.640 --> 01:34:43.400]  would stipulate to put in there is that so-and-so attorney violated such and such standards.
[01:34:43.400 --> 01:34:50.520]  And then you explain what he did. It doesn't need to be notarized. You just need to sign it.
[01:34:50.520 --> 01:34:57.800]  If he is your own attorney, you need to sign the waiver of attorney-client privilege.
[01:35:00.520 --> 01:35:07.320]  And then just mail it to the bar. The bar will send you back a letter saying they examined into your
[01:35:07.320 --> 01:35:13.880]  complaint and find that the actions of the attorney do not rise to the level of misconduct.
[01:35:16.120 --> 01:35:21.640]  If he shot a judge and you complain about it, they'll say it doesn't rise to the level of
[01:35:21.640 --> 01:35:31.640]  misconduct, but that's okay because it stings him good anyway. So basically, that's all it is. All
[01:35:31.640 --> 01:35:38.200]  there is to it. And judicial conduct is essentially the same thing. Look through the canons.
[01:35:40.200 --> 01:35:49.000]  Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct site has the forms and I have them on
[01:35:49.800 --> 01:35:57.720]  jurisprudence. The forms are very similar. You just put who you are and it's very similar.
[01:35:57.720 --> 01:36:03.160]  The forms are very similar. You just put who you are and if this related to a case.
[01:36:04.120 --> 01:36:12.680]  As far as against a judge, the judge is essentially your employee. So if you are sitting in a courtroom
[01:36:12.680 --> 01:36:20.440]  and you observe a judge do something obnoxious, file on him, it will be far more devastating to
[01:36:20.440 --> 01:36:29.000]  the judge if he gets a complaint from someone who is simply a witness, not even someone he had before
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:36.760]  him because then he sits up there on the bench and looks out across the bar at the gallery and
[01:36:36.760 --> 01:36:41.880]  he's got to wonder which one of them is out there waiting for an opportunity to take a shot at him.
[01:36:43.480 --> 01:36:46.440]  And that's exactly what Thomas Jefferson was talking about.
[01:36:46.440 --> 01:36:53.240]  When they're afraid of us, we get a little more liberty. So I suggest, especially with judges,
[01:36:54.120 --> 01:36:59.800]  we need to hammer them more than anything. Lawyers are a problem, but they're not the problem.
[01:37:01.480 --> 01:37:11.080]  Judges are the problem. So you might just go on your respective state's judicial conduct site
[01:37:11.080 --> 01:37:19.080]  and read their canons of ethics. They generally list them, all the canons on one page and then they
[01:37:20.200 --> 01:37:29.080]  have another page that breaks them down into details. But pages of canons only, I think Texas
[01:37:29.080 --> 01:37:36.680]  only had about 30 total. So it took me about 10 minutes to go through all of them. So it won't
[01:37:36.680 --> 01:37:41.720]  take long. Once you went through all of them, then you kind of got a feel for what the judge should
[01:37:41.720 --> 01:37:47.320]  do and what the judge shouldn't do. And it'll be relatively easy to come up with a affected complaint.
[01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:56.680]  And the judicial conduct is similar to the bar in that they're real reluctant to hammer a judge.
[01:37:57.800 --> 01:38:03.800]  However, all of the judges know that every once in a while they have to sacrifice somebody to make
[01:38:03.800 --> 01:38:11.000]  to demonstrate that they're doing something. And the more corrupt the judge is, the more concerned
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:19.080]  he is that he's going to be the sacrificial lamb. So by all means, file quick, file often.
[01:38:21.080 --> 01:38:23.080]  Okay, let's go to Ken.
[01:38:24.760 --> 01:38:29.080]  Okay, here we go. Ken, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:38:29.080 --> 01:38:34.680]  Ken, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight? Well, thank you. I was just
[01:38:35.640 --> 01:38:40.760]  doing some light reading through my copy of the Texas Criminal and Traffic Law Manual.
[01:38:41.560 --> 01:38:49.480]  That's about a two plus inches thick book. Surprisingly, you know, you can get an older
[01:38:49.480 --> 01:38:53.640]  copy of this a few years old for not very much money. And I encourage everybody to do that in
[01:38:53.640 --> 01:39:00.360]  their own state. I think they condensed this for attorneys who don't want to carry around a lot of
[01:39:00.360 --> 01:39:10.440]  books. But specifically, I was looking at Article 3.01 in the Code of Criminal Procedure. And to me,
[01:39:10.440 --> 01:39:17.400]  I think this is an incredible, well, it's not a black hole like Eddie was talking about. It's
[01:39:17.400 --> 01:39:24.040]  more like a white hole. You know, what it says is words and phrases. All words, phrases, and terms
[01:39:24.040 --> 01:39:29.800]  used in this code are to be taken and understood in their usual acceptance,
[01:39:31.400 --> 01:39:38.840]  acceptation in common language, except for specifically defined. And the reason I want
[01:39:38.840 --> 01:39:45.560]  to point that out is because for all of you that have studied any law, you know that law has
[01:39:45.560 --> 01:39:52.600]  specific words. Actually, there's a phrase about legal words, and they're called terms of art.
[01:39:53.160 --> 01:39:58.520]  And many legal words that we run across, they sound just like other words that are not legal
[01:39:58.520 --> 01:40:02.280]  words, and we don't understand them. Well, it's because in the legal context, they mean
[01:40:02.280 --> 01:40:09.000]  something different. Am I right? Yes. With one slight readjustment, if I may.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:14.440]  Okay. When the law speaks of their usual acceptation in common language,
[01:40:15.160 --> 01:40:21.720]  it means in common language of the law, not of the people, and it's common usage.
[01:40:21.720 --> 01:40:25.080]  It means that it's normal, common usage in law.
[01:40:28.760 --> 01:40:33.720]  Wow, they've even dug that up. Yes, so you would go to blacks instead of websters.
[01:40:33.720 --> 01:40:46.440]  Okay. Well, that's excellent. Now, that brings me to an item a few sections down. And Randy,
[01:40:46.440 --> 01:40:51.400]  maybe we're psychic. I was just reading about official misconduct tonight, and I yellow marked
[01:40:51.400 --> 01:40:58.040]  it here. And I thought, this sounds great. That's article 3.04. Official misconduct
[01:40:58.040 --> 01:41:03.960]  means an offense that is intentional or knowing, violation of a law committed by a public servant
[01:41:03.960 --> 01:41:10.920]  while acting in an official capacity as a public servant. And, you know, you can't go in one of
[01:41:10.920 --> 01:41:15.960]  these buildings who have any dealings with them without running into lots of official misconduct,
[01:41:15.960 --> 01:41:18.200]  right? That's true.
[01:41:19.720 --> 01:41:24.360]  Now, notice this here just tells you how to recognize it. The actual criminal charge for
[01:41:24.360 --> 01:41:32.360]  it is 39.03 and 39.02 penal code. 39.02 and three.
[01:41:32.360 --> 01:41:36.760]  02 is abuse of official capacity, and 03 is official oppression.
[01:41:37.480 --> 01:41:39.880]  Okay. 03 is my favorite.
[01:41:39.880 --> 01:41:46.200]  Everybody should have that one memorized. Yeah, I like 02 because if you can get them
[01:41:46.200 --> 01:41:52.040]  doing something where the value of the property they used to commit the act was in excess of
[01:41:52.040 --> 01:41:55.240]  $1,500, you can take it from a misdemeanor to a felony.
[01:41:56.600 --> 01:42:02.120]  Excellent. Well, I'm writing this in my book here because I'm a really attentive student,
[01:42:03.080 --> 01:42:06.680]  which really now brings me to my main question. I just kind of wanted to bring those two things
[01:42:06.680 --> 01:42:13.800]  out. But I have a little traffic ticket that I'm working on, and it's going to go away pretty
[01:42:13.800 --> 01:42:19.160]  soon here. But I'm in one of the most corrupt counties in Texas. I don't know. That's a contest.
[01:42:19.160 --> 01:42:27.720]  I don't know if I want to be in that contest, but I'm up in Collin County. Here's what we run into
[01:42:27.720 --> 01:42:39.160]  up here is that you get a ticket, and then if you don't plead guilty or no contest, then they say
[01:42:39.160 --> 01:42:45.400]  you're going to plead not guilty. Of course, you've addressed a little bit of that, Eddie.
[01:42:45.400 --> 01:42:52.360]  But then their next step is they're going to produce this complaint, which is it should be
[01:42:52.360 --> 01:42:57.000]  written by the police officer, but no, it's written by a third party who is usually a clerk of the
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:05.240]  court. And it goes something like this. I heard the testimony or saw the testimony by the officer,
[01:43:05.240 --> 01:43:11.560]  John Smith, and therefore I'm writing out this complaint. Now, you know, isn't that hearsay
[01:43:11.560 --> 01:43:19.880]  evidence? Yes, it is. Okay. Now, as Randy's noted, anybody can write the complaint. But when it comes
[01:43:19.880 --> 01:43:25.800]  to testifying to that complaint for the purposes of the examining trial, only the person with
[01:43:25.800 --> 01:43:32.760]  firsthand knowledge of the facts can testify. The clerk couldn't do it. The clerk couldn't do it.
[01:43:32.760 --> 01:43:39.080]  But now, if we wanted to be real technical, we could not only require the officer to testify,
[01:43:39.080 --> 01:43:44.760]  but bring that clerk in who is the complainant, right? Right. Yeah, Ken, hold on, because we're
[01:43:44.760 --> 01:43:50.840]  going to break, okay? Okay. All right. We'll be right back. This is the rule of law. Callers,
[01:43:50.840 --> 01:43:56.360]  we've got one more segment. If you'd like to call in, open phone lines 512-646-1984.
[01:43:57.960 --> 01:44:02.680]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:02.680 --> 01:44:08.040]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six cases
[01:44:08.040 --> 01:44:12.840]  in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[01:44:12.840 --> 01:44:17.880]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:44:17.880 --> 01:44:23.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.640]  calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables
[01:44:27.640 --> 01:44:33.800]  on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[01:44:33.800 --> 01:44:38.520]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[01:44:38.520 --> 01:44:43.640]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[01:44:43.640 --> 01:44:53.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[01:44:53.000 --> 01:44:59.560]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:23.720 --> 01:45:31.480]  Okay, we are back. We're speaking with Ken in Texas. We're on our final segment here,
[01:45:31.480 --> 01:45:37.720]  coming down the homestretch. So folks, if you'd like to call, 512-646-1984. We're speaking with
[01:45:37.720 --> 01:45:42.120]  Ken in Texas. Okay, go ahead, Eddie. You are answering Ken's question right before we went to
[01:45:42.120 --> 01:45:46.840]  break. Well, actually, I think Ken was about to ask his other question. Oh, you had another
[01:45:46.840 --> 01:45:52.840]  question. Okay, go ahead, Ken. Well, yeah, I was just laying the scenario that you get the traffic
[01:45:52.840 --> 01:45:59.560]  ticket, and then if you're going to want to have a trial, let's say, then usually the clerk of the
[01:45:59.560 --> 01:46:05.480]  court will look at the citation written by the officer, and then she will pull out what's called
[01:46:05.480 --> 01:46:10.680]  a complaint. And she swears that based upon the knowledge she got from the policeman, and he's
[01:46:10.680 --> 01:46:18.120]  credible, that this is, there's been a criminal act committed. Now, when we go to court, the
[01:46:18.120 --> 01:46:27.960]  policeman sits there, and she never shows up. Okay, but I guess my question is, after I set this up
[01:46:27.960 --> 01:46:36.440]  now, is I want to know why do they do it that way, and how is it benefiting them, and how may
[01:46:36.440 --> 01:46:44.200]  this whole situation benefit us by them having this additional party in there? Believe it or not,
[01:46:44.200 --> 01:46:56.440]  that's common practice. And it's actually legal in that if you tell me that you observed this
[01:46:56.440 --> 01:47:03.320]  third party commit a heinous crime, but you're terrified of this person, and you're afraid to
[01:47:03.320 --> 01:47:10.760]  go file a complaint against him. If I believe you, then I can go prepare a criminal complaint and
[01:47:10.760 --> 01:47:17.720]  take it to a magistrate and state that I have reason to believe, and do believe, based on a
[01:47:17.720 --> 01:47:24.440]  conversation with someone that I trust, that this person here committed this particular crime based
[01:47:24.440 --> 01:47:32.040]  on these facts. That's how it should be. Now, granted the courts take advantage of that for
[01:47:32.040 --> 01:47:38.200]  administrative convenience, and adjudicative expediency, so that the policeman doesn't have
[01:47:38.200 --> 01:47:43.720]  to come in and fill out the complaint, he can just write to take it, and they can run you
[01:47:43.720 --> 01:47:49.400]  through there like a cattle shoot. So it's easier for him. However, technically it's legal. Here's
[01:47:49.400 --> 01:47:58.440]  the problem. That person can swear out a complaint, and that complaint is sufficient to give a
[01:47:58.440 --> 01:48:08.200]  magistrate jurisdiction to hold an examining trial, and that's all. After the magistrate holds an
[01:48:08.200 --> 01:48:16.360]  examining trial, if the magistrate finds probable cause, then the magistrate under 1617 is to issue
[01:48:16.360 --> 01:48:20.840]  an order stating whether the person was released at the liberty, released on bail, or bound over
[01:48:20.840 --> 01:48:27.160]  the court. And under 1620, he's required to issue a warrant, because you are arrested without one,
[01:48:27.160 --> 01:48:32.440]  and he's to create one, and then forward that to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[01:48:32.440 --> 01:48:39.960]  It is the warrant that will transfer jurisdiction from the magistrate to the court, not the
[01:48:39.960 --> 01:48:48.600]  complaint. When you received the ticket and you were asked to sign it, you promised to appear,
[01:48:48.600 --> 01:48:58.120]  not before a judge. But under 543 006 paragraph B, the citation shall state a date to appear
[01:48:58.120 --> 01:49:06.440]  before a magistrate, not a judge. Okay, the judge is a magistrate. They're both the same person.
[01:49:07.160 --> 01:49:12.200]  But when you step before him, appearing in accordance with the promise on this ticket,
[01:49:12.200 --> 01:49:17.800]  now he's a magistrate, not a judge. Now, he don't know that. They always think they're a judge,
[01:49:18.520 --> 01:49:24.840]  and they could just move along with jurisdiction. Well, they don't have it. And that's why the
[01:49:24.840 --> 01:49:32.840]  complaint can be done that way with hearsay information. The hearsay gets the magistrate
[01:49:32.840 --> 01:49:38.920]  subject matter jurisdiction, but whoever wrote that complaint, if it was based on hearsay,
[01:49:38.920 --> 01:49:51.720]  cannot testify to that before the magistrate. The person with the personal knowledge must come before
[01:49:51.720 --> 01:49:58.920]  and testify to their personal knowledge for it to be admissible in court. So now does that make
[01:49:58.920 --> 01:50:05.080]  sense? Yes, the policeman would have to come to the examining trial, but that would be
[01:50:05.080 --> 01:50:12.600]  inconvenient. So they just don't bother with it. Okay. Well, I know we're about out of time,
[01:50:12.600 --> 01:50:22.040]  but I just wanted to say as a critic and a pundit of the legal system, I believe this procedure
[01:50:22.440 --> 01:50:31.080]  is only one which will create ire with the citizens because it just makes it appear to be improper.
[01:50:31.080 --> 01:50:38.920]  For example, I'm in Plano, Texas. I get pulled over by a Plano cop. A Plano clerk files up the
[01:50:38.920 --> 01:50:45.000]  complaint. Plano paid prosecutor as well prosecutes the case. The Plano judge hears the case. I'm in
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  the Plano courtroom. How am I really going to get a fair trial when all these people are meeting my
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:51:00.680]  money in their cash register? That's what Toomey, Ohio, addressed in speaking to a municipal judge
[01:51:00.680 --> 01:51:08.760]  who worked at the pleasure of the mayor or the city council. It stated very clearly that he is
[01:51:08.760 --> 01:51:15.800]  necessarily compromised. They're all compromised and you're not going to get a fair trial unless
[01:51:15.800 --> 01:51:23.640]  we kick their teeth out. We got to start getting ugly with them. Have you looked at Eddie's traffic
[01:51:23.640 --> 01:51:32.200]  seminar material? No. You might want to look at that because- How do I look at it? Just pass
[01:51:32.200 --> 01:51:39.240]  200 bucks and we'll send it to you. No, you do it. Okay. That was slick. Easy. You can get it off
[01:51:39.240 --> 01:51:47.960]  our website, but that will give you surprisingly powerful tools. Yeah. Basically, you've got the
[01:51:47.960 --> 01:51:53.160]  seminar book that goes over the transportation code in its entirety dealing with the issues that
[01:51:53.160 --> 01:51:59.240]  they like to ticket you for. Then included with that is all the legal paperwork for filing in
[01:51:59.240 --> 01:52:05.080]  court and using it to your advantage, some of which- I mean, it's an ongoing thing. We keep it
[01:52:05.080 --> 01:52:09.800]  updated. You don't have to pay for it again. As we update it, you get the updates.
[01:52:09.800 --> 01:52:17.720]  And as to the clerk, if she wants to sign the ticket, well, that comes under the heading of
[01:52:17.720 --> 01:52:23.720]  you touch the tar baby. Because the officer didn't have authority to write the ticket in the first
[01:52:23.720 --> 01:52:30.200]  place, she wrote the complaint. She acted in concert and collusion. You get to sue her.
[01:52:30.200 --> 01:52:42.120]  We have a cross-complaint in the package. You file the cross-complaint against the...
[01:52:44.360 --> 01:52:48.600]  This goes after the police officer, but you could easily add the clerk in there as acting
[01:52:48.600 --> 01:52:56.440]  in concert and collusion. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm going to look into that. I just want to say one
[01:52:56.440 --> 01:53:06.200]  other thing. Thanks to you guys, I am, I believe so far successfully fighting my ticket. And the odd
[01:53:06.200 --> 01:53:16.120]  part about it is it's fun. Yeah, it is so. Can you start taking them to task? It's a whole different
[01:53:16.120 --> 01:53:24.280]  ball game. Well, you know, I feel better. And honestly, I mean, look at the odds of this.
[01:53:24.280 --> 01:53:31.160]  They have horrible odds on this deal. They might get $600 in fines from me, but man, I might also
[01:53:31.160 --> 01:53:37.800]  cause them to lose their whole job and their house and everything else. Yeah. You know, these are not
[01:53:37.800 --> 01:53:44.440]  good odds. This is how we get the courts, courts straightened out by somebody out of the blue
[01:53:44.440 --> 01:53:52.040]  coming in there and just clobbering them good. And then from then on, they never know which one's
[01:53:52.040 --> 01:54:00.360]  going to be the next one. Yeah. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. So let's
[01:54:00.360 --> 01:54:06.760]  strike a little fear out of them. But now whatever you do that succeeds, don't keep it to yourself.
[01:54:06.760 --> 01:54:13.800]  Pass it around to everybody in your area that you can. Call them in. Okay. And we do have Terry
[01:54:13.800 --> 01:54:19.560]  from Michigan. I wanted to make sure we get to his call before the show ends. Okay. Well, thank
[01:54:19.560 --> 01:54:24.840]  you, everybody. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in there,
[01:54:24.840 --> 01:54:29.560]  but we only have barely three and a half minutes left. All right, Terry, thanks for calling in.
[01:54:29.560 --> 01:54:36.040]  What's on your mind? Hey, thanks for talking to me. I remember Ian and Randy talked before about
[01:54:36.040 --> 01:54:39.480]  there's no time limit on challenging jurisdiction.
[01:54:41.720 --> 01:54:47.880]  Jurisdiction may be challenged no matter how remote in history. That's right out of the case law.
[01:54:47.880 --> 01:54:53.640]  That's right out of the case law. Okay. And a lot of the people in the legal reform movement
[01:54:53.640 --> 01:54:59.240]  are concerned about going to the court and giving the court jurisdiction. Well, you can
[01:55:00.120 --> 01:55:07.320]  waive subject matter jurisdiction. All right. What I was wondering... But you can never ever
[01:55:07.320 --> 01:55:14.680]  waive subject matter jurisdiction. Well, that's basically what this is about. I had a case,
[01:55:14.680 --> 01:55:18.920]  I talked to you at the seminar about it, but there's so many people talking with you guys who
[01:55:18.920 --> 01:55:25.640]  didn't really finish up on it. But I had a case where I have a neighbor who I found out he's a
[01:55:25.640 --> 01:55:32.600]  convicted child molester and he was hassling the kids and hassling me. And I tried to throw him
[01:55:32.600 --> 01:55:39.160]  off the property there and he went to court and filed for a prescriptive easement. When we got
[01:55:39.160 --> 01:55:43.560]  into court, the judge said, no, you're not getting a prescriptive easement. And that's what they
[01:55:43.560 --> 01:55:48.200]  asked for. It was a prescriptive easement. He said, no, you're not getting it. Well, then all of a
[01:55:48.200 --> 01:55:53.400]  sudden out of the blue, the judge decided, well, I'm not going to give him the prescriptive easement,
[01:55:53.400 --> 01:55:58.680]  but I'm going to give him a nonreciprocal negative easement. So he still has an easement.
[01:55:58.680 --> 01:56:05.720]  But nobody asked for it. So we really didn't have subject matter jurisdiction. And my attorney
[01:56:05.720 --> 01:56:12.920]  didn't do anything about it. We took it to challenge it with the higher court and the stupid
[01:56:12.920 --> 01:56:19.080]  attorney that I got to do it the second time went in and argued a prescriptive easement instead of
[01:56:20.200 --> 01:56:25.160]  what we went to court for to challenge it with the nonreciprocal negative easement.
[01:56:25.880 --> 01:56:30.600]  So they threw it out. They said, well, he didn't argue what we went to court for.
[01:56:30.600 --> 01:56:32.600]  You should sue your attorney.
[01:56:33.240 --> 01:56:34.520]  Yeah, for being stupid.
[01:56:35.800 --> 01:56:40.760]  I understand that. That's for sure. You know, I mean, it was ill.
[01:56:40.760 --> 01:56:44.520]  Is that a cause of action? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.
[01:56:44.520 --> 01:56:47.720]  I understand it perfectly now. That is specifically a cause of action.
[01:56:48.840 --> 01:56:54.840]  How do I go back and do something with the judge and say, hey, you know, you didn't have
[01:56:54.840 --> 01:57:00.600]  subject matter jurisdiction, therefore this shouldn't stand? Motion to avoid judgment.
[01:57:00.600 --> 01:57:09.480]  And who would I file that with? Next higher court. What level court was it in?
[01:57:10.920 --> 01:57:15.640]  It was in a circuit court to begin with.
[01:57:16.680 --> 01:57:19.640]  Okay. What level in? Superior court's above that, isn't it?
[01:57:21.960 --> 01:57:24.760]  Aren't you? You're missing right there. Correct.
[01:57:25.400 --> 01:57:27.880]  Isn't it superior court that's above circuit?
[01:57:27.880 --> 01:57:33.480]  I am not a hundred percent sure of it. Whatever the next highest court is, you
[01:57:33.480 --> 01:57:39.880]  file in that court for a motion to avoid judgment because the court lacked subject matter
[01:57:39.880 --> 01:57:42.680]  jurisdiction. Yeah. The court made its own motion.
[01:57:43.960 --> 01:57:50.040]  I don't know. I think the court may be able to do that. You need to look at that. You need to
[01:57:50.040 --> 01:57:58.280]  it to maybe go to a law library and do a Lexus or Westlaw search on both of those
[01:58:00.200 --> 01:58:08.120]  easements. Because if one is, is a less invasive easement than the other, the judge may be able
[01:58:08.120 --> 01:58:13.080]  to grab the one they ask for or one that's less invasive. You may actually have that
[01:58:13.080 --> 01:58:18.760]  discretion. But the thing is they never ask for it. Nobody asks for it.
[01:58:19.560 --> 01:58:25.000]  They ask for an easement. He may be authorized to give them the easement. They ask for
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:30.600]  a one that's less invasive. You need to see if he has that discretion.
[01:58:30.600 --> 01:58:40.520]  It's like if they charge you with aggravated assault, the jury can find simple assault instead.
[01:58:48.760 --> 01:58:54.520]  Just to get you a little key holders, put some dope in it, put it under the fender of his car.
[01:58:54.520 --> 01:59:04.440]  Come on. All right, listen, we got to go. We're out of time. Thank you.
[01:59:24.520 --> 01:59:26.440]  Chug from me
[01:59:28.520 --> 01:59:30.360]  I'm like a stepping
[01:59:30.360 --> 01:59:31.160]  in
[01:59:31.160 --> 01:59:32.440]  Watch out
[01:59:32.440 --> 01:59:34.440]  I'm dangerous
[01:59:34.440 --> 01:59:36.440]  I'm dangerous
[01:59:36.440 --> 01:59:38.440]  I'm like a jumping
[01:59:38.440 --> 01:59:40.440]  Watch my side
[01:59:40.440 --> 01:59:42.440]  I'm dangerous
[01:59:42.440 --> 01:59:44.440]  Dangerous
[01:59:44.440 --> 01:59:46.440]  If you eat out of the
[01:59:46.440 --> 01:59:48.440]  Walls
[01:59:48.440 --> 01:59:50.440]  If you eat food
[01:59:50.440 --> 01:59:52.440]  If you drink
[01:59:52.440 --> 01:59:54.440]  Let's move
[01:59:54.440 --> 01:59:56.440]  Let's move