ROL_2010-07-02_16k_Hr1-2.timecode
[00:00.000 --> 00:10.840] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says Israel is violating international law by expanding
[00:10.840 --> 00:15.440] its settlements in occupied Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem.
[00:15.440 --> 00:21.000] The same trailers that were banned after Hurricane Katrina for having unacceptable levels of
[00:21.000 --> 00:25.960] formaldehyde are getting a second life as living quarters for clean-up workers in the
[00:25.960 --> 00:31.560] BP oil spill. The trailers, which are being resold for $2,500, started down their road
[00:31.560 --> 00:37.760] to infamy after Katrina when FEMA officials ordered $2.7 billion worth of trailers to
[00:37.760 --> 00:39.240] house victims of the storm.
[00:39.240 --> 00:44.400] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:44.400 --> 00:51.140] In Pakistan Thursday, at least 37 people were killed and 175 injured after two bombs exploded
[00:51.140 --> 00:56.640] at a Muslim shrine in Lahore. The death toll is expected to rise as some of those injured
[00:56.640 --> 00:57.960] are in critical condition.
[00:57.960 --> 01:02.400] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:02.400 --> 01:07.000] Britain's military spokesman in Afghanistan says roadside bombs that kill British troops
[01:07.000 --> 01:12.280] are being supplied from Iran and Pakistan. Major General Gordon Messenger also revealed
[01:12.280 --> 01:17.840] that Taliban insurgents are altering their tactics to launch more long-range sniper attacks
[01:17.840 --> 01:24.600] on NATO forces. 309 British personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, many
[01:24.600 --> 01:31.080] by roadside bombs. General Messenger said UK forces and Afghan civilians now face an unprecedented
[01:31.080 --> 01:33.120] threat from such devices.
[01:33.120 --> 01:39.040] A London School of Economics report last month said Pakistan's ISI spy service is giving
[01:39.040 --> 01:44.100] extensive backing to the Afghan insurgency. Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to
[01:44.100 --> 01:51.360] double the number of bomb disposal teams.
[01:51.360 --> 01:56.880] About a quarter of the swine flu vaccine produced for the U.S. public has expired, meaning a
[01:56.880 --> 02:03.920] whopping 40 million doses worth about $260 million are being written off as trash. The
[02:03.920 --> 02:09.760] outdated vaccine, some of which expired Wednesday, will be burnt. The amount, as much as four
[02:09.760 --> 02:16.440] times the usual leftover seasonal flu vaccine, is a record. A further 30 million doses is
[02:16.440 --> 02:21.680] set to expire soon, meaning more than 43 percent of the supply for the U.S. public will have
[02:21.680 --> 02:27.320] gone to waste. Many health experts have feared swine flu could be the deadly global epidemic
[02:27.320 --> 02:32.280] they had long warned about, but it ended up killing fewer people than seasonal flu.
[02:32.280 --> 02:37.080] In Europe, where nations also found themselves with millions of unused doses, critics attacked
[02:37.080 --> 02:43.560] the World Health Organization, which declared swine flu a global pandemic, accusing WHO
[02:43.560 --> 03:09.440] advisors of having links to the pharmaceutical industry.
[03:13.560 --> 03:37.240] What do you want? What are you going to do? What are you going to do? What are you going
[03:37.240 --> 03:47.440] to do? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad
[03:47.440 --> 03:53.160] boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? When you
[03:53.160 --> 03:58.640] were eight and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rule. So why
[03:58.640 --> 04:04.240] are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get caught then you might get crewed. Bad boys,
[04:04.240 --> 04:11.960] bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys,
[04:11.960 --> 04:16.400] whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? You chuck it on that one, you
[04:16.400 --> 04:17.400] You chuck it on this one
[04:17.400 --> 04:18.400] You chuck it on your mother
[04:18.400 --> 04:20.400] and you chuck it on your father
[04:20.400 --> 04:21.400] You chuck it your brother
[04:21.400 --> 04:23.400] and you chuck it on your sliver
[04:23.400 --> 04:24.400] You chuck it on that one
[04:24.400 --> 04:25.400] and you chuck it on me
[04:25.400 --> 04:27.400] The bad boys, bad boys
[04:27.400 --> 04:29.400] What ya gonna do
[04:27.400 --> 04:29.400] What ya gonna do
[04:29.400 --> 04:32.400] When they come for you
[04:29.400 --> 04:32.400] bad boys bad boys
[04:32.400 --> 04:34.400] What ya gonna do
[04:32.400 --> 04:35.400] What ya gonna do
[04:35.400 --> 04:38.400] When they come for you
[04:35.400 --> 04:38.400] bad boys bad boys
[04:38.400 --> 04:41.400] What ya gonna do
[04:38.400 --> 04:41.400] What ya gonna do
[04:41.400 --> 04:43.400] when they come for you
[04:41.400 --> 04:43.420] bad boys bad boys
[04:43.420 --> 04:45.420] What ya gonna do
[04:45.420 --> 04:59.340] And we're not going to give you no break either, bad boys.
[04:59.340 --> 05:10.780] This is the rule of law here on ruleoflawradio.com, 90.1 FM in Austin and other AM and FM affiliates
[05:10.780 --> 05:12.660] around the country.
[05:12.660 --> 05:23.300] Tonight is July 2nd, 2010, and the question is what are they going to do when we come
[05:23.300 --> 05:33.260] for them, specifically in my case or one of my cases, I'm going after the USDA, the Department
[05:33.260 --> 05:42.020] of Agriculture, the Forestry Service, specifically subsidiary of the Department of Agriculture.
[05:42.020 --> 05:47.540] As many of you may know, this week and this weekend is the annual Rainbow Gathering, which
[05:47.540 --> 05:53.900] I am not attending this year due to financial reasons and other reasons I'm needed here
[05:53.900 --> 05:57.060] to support the radio on many different levels.
[05:57.060 --> 06:03.540] So instead of going this year, I decided to spend the time that I would normally be on
[06:03.540 --> 06:04.540] vacation.
[06:04.540 --> 06:11.180] I'm spending the time preparing my lawsuits against the US government, the federal government.
[06:11.180 --> 06:16.940] I'm suing them under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[06:16.940 --> 06:23.660] I sent a tort letter to the US Forestry Service about six months ago.
[06:23.660 --> 06:31.240] You have two years to sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act from the date of the incident.
[06:31.240 --> 06:35.620] And once you send in the tort letter, they have six months to respond.
[06:35.620 --> 06:38.540] If they don't respond within six months, then you can file the suit.
[06:38.540 --> 06:43.500] If they respond sooner and the response isn't to your liking, well, then you can proceed
[06:43.500 --> 06:45.500] with the suit.
[06:45.500 --> 06:52.180] So at any rate, I sent them a tort letter in December, and they wrote back in March
[06:52.180 --> 07:02.460] saying that they wanted me to fill out this form, SF-95, titled Claims for Damage, Injury,
[07:02.460 --> 07:03.460] or Death.
[07:03.460 --> 07:10.380] With this sweet little letter saying that I needed to fill out this form due to the
[07:10.380 --> 07:13.740] claim of negligence that I was making.
[07:13.740 --> 07:19.820] And I just had to laugh because I was not making a claim of negligence.
[07:19.820 --> 07:22.180] And what happened was not an accident.
[07:22.180 --> 07:27.260] They're trying to get me to fill out an accident claim form, okay?
[07:27.260 --> 07:35.180] And by the way, I can tell it's a ruse, it is a trick to try to entrap me into committing
[07:35.180 --> 07:41.140] perjury or submitting false information on a government document, and it even says on
[07:41.140 --> 07:50.500] the form that there is a $15,000 penalty for filling out false information on this form.
[07:50.500 --> 07:53.380] So I didn't have time to deal with it the last few months, but I decided to spend this
[07:53.380 --> 07:55.300] week on it.
[07:55.300 --> 08:04.300] And I looked up in Title 28 and 28 CFR, I researched Title 26, which has to do with
[08:04.300 --> 08:07.780] the Forestry Service and traffic code relating to the Forestry Service.
[08:07.780 --> 08:11.860] So I wanted to discuss tonight some of my findings.
[08:11.860 --> 08:18.500] I researched some case law regarding traffic stops and drug dog searches, and I'd like
[08:18.500 --> 08:24.260] to open up a discussion for some of this case law that I found and some of the statutes
[08:24.260 --> 08:33.820] and regulations that I found involving traffic stops on federal land and also drug searches.
[08:33.820 --> 08:39.380] So I wanted to start off by reading at least part of this tort letter that I'm going to
[08:39.380 --> 08:45.940] be sending this weekend because they wanted me also, when they wrote me back the letter
[08:45.940 --> 08:51.000] in March, they also wanted me to send it to a different department at the U.S. Department
[08:51.000 --> 08:56.340] of Agriculture, and they said at that point it would be reviewed and then sent on to their
[08:56.340 --> 08:57.340] attorneys.
[08:57.340 --> 09:03.940] So this is, I'm sending this second tort letter to the proper department, and at this point
[09:03.940 --> 09:06.580] they will have six months to respond.
[09:06.580 --> 09:13.580] And I highly suspect that they are going to try to pay me off before the lawsuit is even
[09:13.580 --> 09:22.980] filed because I have case law upon case law upon case law showing that what they did was
[09:22.980 --> 09:28.900] in clear violation of longstanding precedent.
[09:28.900 --> 09:38.620] It's all based on the Terry Stop and other cases like Royer, Place, Hensley, Sharp, Cabalus,
[09:38.620 --> 09:43.780] and I'll be talking about some of those cases later on after I read some of this letter.
[09:43.780 --> 09:46.900] I probably won't read the whole thing because I don't want to bore you guys with all the
[09:46.900 --> 09:52.580] details, but I wanted to go over part of this and get Randy and Eddie's take on it and you
[09:52.580 --> 09:54.380] listeners as well.
[09:54.380 --> 09:55.500] Okay.
[09:55.500 --> 09:59.620] I'm responding to a Ms. Brooks.
[09:59.620 --> 10:03.820] I'm responding to, actually I was told to send the letter to Ms. Brooks, the person
[10:03.820 --> 10:05.340] who wrote me was Janet Skeen.
[10:05.340 --> 10:06.340] Okay.
[10:06.340 --> 10:11.500] Ms. Brooks, I'm responding to this letter dated March 8th from Janet Skeen, a copy of
[10:11.500 --> 10:12.500] which is enclosed.
[10:12.500 --> 10:19.580] In her letter Ms. Skeen enclosed copies of form SF95 titled Claim for Damage, Injury,
[10:19.580 --> 10:25.060] or Death and suggested I fill out this form and return it regarding a claim of negligence.
[10:25.060 --> 10:29.700] Please be advised this form does not apply to the incident that occurred on June 30th,
[10:29.700 --> 10:32.140] 2009 as described below.
[10:32.140 --> 10:37.620] The incident does not involve negligence nor was the incident in any way an accident.
[10:37.620 --> 10:44.460] The actions of Joseph Hayes and other officers were clearly intentional, coordinated, and
[10:44.460 --> 10:53.420] were in fact quote wrongful acts pursuant to 28 CFR part 14.2 paragraph A which states
[10:53.420 --> 11:02.380] quote for the purposes of the provisions of 28 USC, 2401B, 2672, and 2675 a claim shall
[11:02.380 --> 11:07.580] be deemed to have been presented when a federal agency receives from a claimant his duly authorized
[11:07.580 --> 11:15.340] agent or legal representative and executed standard form 95 or other written notification
[11:15.340 --> 11:21.180] of an incident accompanied by a claim from money damages and a sum certain for injury
[11:21.180 --> 11:26.260] to or loss of property, personal injury, or death alleged to have been occurred by the
[11:26.260 --> 11:27.260] reason of the incident.
[11:27.260 --> 11:33.300] And I bolded other written notification because that's what this letter is.
[11:33.300 --> 11:37.060] They're trying to trick me into filling out this form so that they can slap me with a
[11:37.060 --> 11:39.940] $15,000 fine and I'm not falling for it.
[11:39.940 --> 11:41.460] Okay, that wasn't in the letter.
[11:41.460 --> 11:42.460] That was in my comment.
[11:42.460 --> 11:43.460] Anyway, back to the letter.
[11:43.460 --> 11:51.780] And pursuant to 28 USC 1346B sub paragraph one which states subject to the provisions
[11:51.780 --> 11:59.020] of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts together with the United States courts
[11:59.020 --> 12:04.740] shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States
[12:04.740 --> 12:11.400] for money damages accruing on and after January 1st, 1945 for injury or loss of property or
[12:11.400 --> 12:19.500] personal injury or death caused by the negligence or wrongful act or omission of any employee
[12:19.500 --> 12:23.860] of the government while acting within the scope of his office or employment under the
[12:23.860 --> 12:28.420] circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant
[12:28.420 --> 12:32.140] in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
[12:32.140 --> 12:33.860] Okay, great.
[12:33.860 --> 12:34.860] Wrongful act.
[12:34.860 --> 12:36.700] Okay, that's what I'm saying here.
[12:36.700 --> 12:39.900] All right, not negligence.
[12:39.900 --> 12:46.740] And I'm going to get into more of 28 USC here in just a moment regarding exceptions and
[12:46.740 --> 12:48.220] the specific tort.
[12:48.220 --> 12:50.140] Okay, back to the letter.
[12:50.140 --> 12:54.740] Specifically this letter describes tort claims arising out of assault, false imprisonment,
[12:54.740 --> 13:01.140] false arrest, abusive process, malicious prosecution, and other crimes generating multiple well-adjudicated
[13:01.140 --> 13:09.780] causes of action pursuant to 28 USC section 2680H which states, quote, with regard to
[13:09.780 --> 13:14.700] acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States
[13:14.700 --> 13:20.780] government, the provisions of this chapter in section 1346B of this title shall apply
[13:20.780 --> 13:27.300] to any claim arising on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso out of assault,
[13:27.300 --> 13:33.580] battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abusive process, or malicious prosecution.
[13:33.580 --> 13:39.820] For the purpose of this subsection, quote, investigative or law enforcement officer, quote,
[13:39.820 --> 13:44.460] means any officer of the United States who's empowered by law to execute searches, to seize
[13:44.460 --> 13:49.380] evidence, or to make arrests for violation of federal law, end quote.
[13:49.380 --> 13:53.860] Please be advised the federal government is liable for but not limited to tort claims
[13:53.860 --> 13:58.340] arising out of the above-mentioned crimes related to the incident described below.
[13:58.340 --> 14:00.220] Okay, I'm going to break here.
[14:00.220 --> 14:07.620] See, what they're trying to do is trick me into filing a claim of negligence or accident,
[14:07.620 --> 14:17.060] okay, because there are, in section 2680 of Title 28, it has to do with exceptions, all
[14:17.060 --> 14:18.060] right?
[14:18.060 --> 14:25.940] And what this section says, 2680, basically it says that you can't sue a federal agent
[14:25.940 --> 14:31.580] or federal employee, I'm sorry, you can't sue the federal government under the federal
[14:31.580 --> 14:39.260] tort claims act for an agent or employee committing assault, battery, false imprisonment, false
[14:39.260 --> 14:47.260] arrest, abusive process, malicious prosecution, unless the agent is a law enforcement officer.
[14:47.260 --> 14:54.940] If the agent is a law enforcement officer, then you can sue the federal government under
[14:54.940 --> 15:00.300] the federal tort claims act for torts arising out of those crimes, assault, battery.
[15:00.300 --> 15:08.340] So the federal government's taken responsibility basically for torts, for monetary damages
[15:08.340 --> 15:15.900] that claims that would arise due to these crimes committed by their law enforcement
[15:15.900 --> 15:21.700] officers, and that's exactly what happened because these guys, it's, we call them the
[15:21.700 --> 15:26.620] Leos, okay, for a reason, it stands for law enforcement officer, that's what it says on
[15:26.620 --> 15:30.540] the side of their vehicle, okay, they're obviously law enforcement officers.
[15:30.540 --> 15:36.820] So I have a question for Randy and Eddie later and just make a note of that concerning that
[15:36.820 --> 15:42.660] I'm wondering if I can sue these guys personally as well, all right, and get their pension
[15:42.660 --> 15:47.260] fund and seize their bass boats, so to speak, like what Randy has to say.
[15:47.260 --> 15:54.100] Okay, I'm not going to read into the whole detail of the event because I've already kind
[15:54.100 --> 16:01.980] of gone over that, but basically they pulled us over for an illegitimate traffic stop,
[16:01.980 --> 16:07.700] the intersection basically was hardly an intersection, you had to either turn right or go straight
[16:07.700 --> 16:13.100] to stay on the same road, and so they were pulling people over for not using their left
[16:13.100 --> 16:17.220] turn blinker for going straight, okay, so that's what happened to us.
[16:17.220 --> 16:21.980] It happened to a lot of other people and they got my papers, you know, he asked to see my
[16:21.980 --> 16:30.180] driver's license and registration, proof of insurance, the whole nine yards, did all that,
[16:30.180 --> 16:35.220] and he handed me back all my papers after he had taken them back to his car for about
[16:35.220 --> 16:39.780] 10, 15 minutes, I assume he was doing all kinds of background checks, etc., etc., he
[16:39.780 --> 16:45.380] came back, he gave me all my papers back, well at that point, according to all this
[16:45.380 --> 16:52.620] plethora of case law, that dude either had to give me a ticket or a warning or not, and
[16:52.620 --> 17:02.660] then let us go right then and there, not continue to search, we'll be right back.
[17:02.660 --> 17:07.100] Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[17:07.100 --> 17:12.700] supplies in the Austin metro area, we also ship worldwide, we are a family owned and
[17:12.700 --> 17:17.300] operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases,
[17:17.300 --> 17:22.460] we buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:22.460 --> 17:28.220] metals, and scrap gold, we will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well, we offer
[17:28.220 --> 17:35.060] daily specials on coins and bullions, we're located at 5448 Burnett Road Suite 3 and we're
[17:35.060 --> 17:40.980] open Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., you are welcome
[17:40.980 --> 17:49.100] to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions,
[17:49.100 --> 17:54.460] ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM, that's Capital
[17:54.460 --> 18:19.940] Coin and Bullion 512-646-6440.
[18:19.940 --> 18:46.780] Okay, we are back folks.
[18:46.780 --> 18:52.860] Hopefully the bad guys don't like me talking about this on the air, getting Skype chats
[18:52.860 --> 18:59.460] that there is problem with the stream, well it's not on my end, I've checked the graph,
[18:59.460 --> 19:05.780] I've checked everything, my connection to the servers are fine, now occasionally we
[19:05.780 --> 19:14.380] do have dropouts on the hosting streaming servers, which is not on my end, so folks
[19:14.380 --> 19:22.740] if you're having trouble, just try to reconnect or call the listen line 512-485-9010, alright,
[19:22.740 --> 19:25.180] you can always call the listen line.
[19:25.180 --> 19:33.780] Okay, and this is being archived too, so at any rate, back to what happened and the torrent
[19:33.780 --> 19:34.780] letter.
[19:34.780 --> 19:42.380] Okay, so in a nutshell, the guy either should have written me a ticket or a warning or not
[19:42.380 --> 19:51.060] and then let us go, bottom line let us go, okay, here's the, and what I did, I used one
[19:51.060 --> 19:59.820] of Randy's techniques, alright, I took quotes from case law, supporting case law and wove
[19:59.820 --> 20:08.900] it in to the pros in the text and they're going to know, okay, they will know, in fact
[20:08.900 --> 20:13.660] I decided to even bold some of it, to give them a heads up, because I'm not playing games
[20:13.660 --> 20:19.380] with these people man, I am not going to play games with these people, alright, so here's
[20:19.380 --> 20:29.300] some of the case law from Royer and, that I wove in from Royer, Hindley Sharp, Place
[20:29.300 --> 20:36.200] and Cabalus and Terry, here's some of it right here, okay, Officer Hayes significantly expanded
[20:36.200 --> 20:41.740] the scope and duration of the traffic stop by extending the length of time and the intrusiveness
[20:41.740 --> 20:48.340] of the quote investigation much longer than sufficiently necessary to effectuate the purpose
[20:48.340 --> 20:50.200] of the stop.
[20:50.200 --> 20:54.220] The business of the traffic stop had been completed at this point, he had checked out
[20:54.220 --> 20:58.820] the requested documents to his satisfaction, he had already looked closely at the inside
[20:58.820 --> 21:03.180] of my vehicle through the windows and there was nothing which could have substantiated
[21:03.180 --> 21:08.620] any probable cause whatsoever as grounds for a warrant to be issued for further search
[21:08.620 --> 21:14.940] nor was any warrant sought or issued, there was no justification of the length and intrusiveness
[21:14.940 --> 21:20.500] of the stop and detention that actually occurred, Hayes and the other officers actions from
[21:20.500 --> 21:26.180] this point forward were unlawful as the stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required
[21:26.180 --> 21:31.940] to complete that mission of issuing a warning ticket as well as the fact that his and the
[21:31.940 --> 21:38.780] other officers subsequent actions constituted an additional separate and new search and
[21:38.780 --> 21:47.420] seizure without probable cause or warrant, okay, that's where I got them, all right.
[21:47.420 --> 21:54.020] Now they took everything out of my car, okay, they made Jerry get out, they made David get
[21:54.020 --> 21:59.020] out, they physically searched them, they didn't physically search me, it's a good thing because
[21:59.020 --> 22:03.060] boy they would really have a lawsuit on their hand if they had done that because there were
[22:03.060 --> 22:07.580] no female officers present, I would not put up with that and neither would Jerry and David,
[22:07.580 --> 22:13.060] I mean bad things could have happened, okay, so it's a good thing they didn't even try,
[22:13.060 --> 22:14.060] all right.
[22:14.060 --> 22:19.700] At any rate they tore everything apart, they ran the dog in and around the car dozens of
[22:19.700 --> 22:25.740] times all around our bags, everything they pulled out of the trunk, they physically searched
[22:25.740 --> 22:29.580] everything that was inside the passenger area, they didn't rip apart everything that was
[22:29.580 --> 22:33.780] in the trunk and that's according to case law but the whole thing was unjustified from
[22:33.780 --> 22:39.300] the beginning and it was unlawful and you guys are going to love this, okay, because
[22:39.300 --> 22:45.220] these guys were sniffing our stuff themselves, okay, they were acting like dogs literally,
[22:45.220 --> 22:50.420] okay, and so here's another paragraph where I pulled some quotes for some case law and
[22:50.420 --> 22:56.100] I said, is crystal clear that the scope and duration of the sniff conducted by Hayes blatantly
[22:56.100 --> 23:02.460] changed the character of a traffic stop which may have been lawful at its inception and
[23:02.460 --> 23:07.980] otherwise executed in a reasonable manner due to the fact that the intrusive and lengthy
[23:07.980 --> 23:14.260] nature of the sniff itself infringed on my constitutionally protected interest in privacy
[23:14.260 --> 23:19.180] as well as other constitutionally protected rights since the business of the traffic stop
[23:19.180 --> 23:24.660] was finished and there was no probable cause for any further search or sniff by man nor
[23:24.660 --> 23:32.260] beast concerning the interior of my vehicle, our possessions and our persons, okay, so
[23:32.260 --> 23:40.940] the thing is the way I see this is that it wasn't so much that they used the fake signaling
[23:40.940 --> 23:46.780] of the dog which Hayes obviously signaled the dog, I saw it and I heard him signal the
[23:46.780 --> 23:53.900] dog, okay, it's not so much that they used this fake signal as a foundation for a search
[23:53.900 --> 23:59.620] but rather it was just an extended sniffing session, okay, and then they started ripping
[23:59.620 --> 24:07.660] apart our stuff and so I'm saying that the scope of the sniff session was intrusive and
[24:07.660 --> 24:15.260] unfounded, okay, because it had nothing to do with the original traffic stop, it had
[24:15.260 --> 24:18.940] absolutely nothing to do with it at all not to mention the fact that it was after the
[24:18.940 --> 24:25.700] business of the traffic stop was over, okay, so all of this is talked about in these cases
[24:25.700 --> 24:32.460] that I mentioned earlier, all right, now as a result of this we were, we lost a day of
[24:32.460 --> 24:37.860] our vacation because we had to pack everything back up, we couldn't hike in that night, we
[24:37.860 --> 24:42.540] had to totally repack everything, we were a day late, it totally wasted a whole day
[24:42.540 --> 24:46.620] of our vacation, all right, that's going to cost them right there, all right, everything
[24:46.620 --> 24:51.780] they did is going to cost them big time and it also made us a day late getting back home
[24:51.780 --> 24:59.780] because the day we left we had to drive all the way around the mountain which is 26 mile
[24:59.780 --> 25:05.420] loop which takes about two and a half hours because it's so windy and it's a one way road
[25:05.420 --> 25:10.180] so we couldn't just drive right back to where the incident happened, we had to go all the
[25:10.180 --> 25:14.820] way around the mountain so that we could videotape and film and take pictures and all these kinds
[25:14.820 --> 25:21.340] of things so that made us five or six hours later leaving, it was dark by the time we
[25:21.340 --> 25:25.980] left, we had planned on getting back that night, the night of the 6th so that we could
[25:25.980 --> 25:30.780] go back to work the next day, we didn't get back into Austin until the afternoon of the
[25:30.780 --> 25:36.100] 6th so we lost today's wages, all of us over this whole thing so I mean there's all kinds
[25:36.100 --> 25:42.100] of torts not to mention the mental and emotional stress and the whole nine yards, okay, at
[25:42.100 --> 25:50.100] any rate, so the end of the letter, this incident management team, it's just got to stop people,
[25:50.100 --> 25:56.500] okay, I was there and I saw the wounds on the women and the children, people were shot
[25:56.500 --> 26:03.700] in the back with pepper spray, rubber bullets, they fired on children, okay, sitting on the
[26:03.700 --> 26:09.620] ground and somebody had to be airlifted to the hospital because of the asthma attack
[26:09.620 --> 26:15.700] from the pepper spray and tear gas, they picked soft targets, they want to see how much we're
[26:15.700 --> 26:19.500] going to take, they want to see how much we're going to put up with, okay, because if we're
[26:19.500 --> 26:24.260] going to put up with them firing on women and children and peaceful people sitting on
[26:24.260 --> 26:28.020] the ground, they will put up with anything, we're not putting up with it and those people
[26:28.020 --> 26:33.900] are suing their butts too for what happened three years ago, all right, two years ago,
[26:33.900 --> 26:39.660] all right, so at any rate, I want a restraining order against these guys, here's the end of
[26:39.660 --> 26:45.020] the letter, I said, I demand the USDA Forestry Service cease and desist all actions by officers
[26:45.020 --> 26:49.460] of this incident management team against attendees of any current and future rainbow gatherings
[26:49.460 --> 26:50.780] in our national forests.
[26:50.780 --> 26:55.940] Since my last letter, I have done considerable research of federal statutes, regulations
[26:55.940 --> 27:00.460] and case law and due to the severity of the magnitude of the crimes committed and the
[27:00.460 --> 27:05.980] gravity of the violations of my fundamental God-given, unalienable inherent rights, I
[27:05.980 --> 27:08.700] have changed the monetary amount of my tort claims.
[27:08.700 --> 27:16.380] I demand the USDA Forestry Service make myself whole in the amount of $12 million, okay,
[27:16.380 --> 27:23.020] and Jerry and David are suing for $20 million apiece because they got physically assaulted,
[27:23.020 --> 27:24.020] all right.
[27:24.020 --> 27:29.580] So, I'm not playing games with these guys, end of the letter, repair or be sued, all
[27:29.580 --> 27:31.380] right, I'm taking this all the way.
[27:31.380 --> 27:36.740] Now, the thing is, all right, I've woven some of the quotes from this case law and
[27:36.740 --> 27:41.340] we can go back and talk about the exact quotes in the cases in a moment and some of these
[27:41.340 --> 27:46.860] statutes regarding the traffic code and this sort of thing, okay, but I want to make a
[27:46.860 --> 27:53.540] comment here at this point, all right, I got these guys nailed hands down because of the
[27:53.540 --> 27:58.340] Terry Stop Ruling and all the subsequent cases that have been expanded and expounded upon
[27:58.340 --> 28:03.580] due to the Terry Stop Ruling because of the fact that they prolonged and extended this
[28:03.580 --> 28:10.580] search that had nothing to do with the original stop at all regarding the blinker, okay.
[28:10.580 --> 28:23.420] Now in Cabales, the court ruled that it's okay for them to run a dog around your car
[28:23.420 --> 28:31.860] during the traffic stop, okay, and I'm going to pull this up in just a moment, all right,
[28:31.860 --> 28:42.700] but in that case, Stevens made the ruling opinion, he made the opinion, it was a split
[28:42.700 --> 28:48.700] case, okay, and here's what Justice Stevens says, he described the issue of the court
[28:48.700 --> 28:53.020] address as a narrow one, namely, whether the police needed reasonable suspicion to utilize
[28:53.020 --> 29:01.100] a drug detection dog to sniff Cabales' vehicle during the traffic stop, okay, and what he
[29:01.100 --> 29:10.380] said basically was that, here it is, Stevens focuses on temporal concerns, he asserts that
[29:10.380 --> 29:16.140] the traffic stop can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required
[29:16.140 --> 29:26.860] to complete that mission, okay, however, he ruled that it did not infringe upon Fourth
[29:26.860 --> 29:36.620] Amendment rights the action of simply running the dog around the vehicle, okay, well, maybe
[29:36.620 --> 29:44.900] running the dog around the vehicle doesn't infringe on Fourth Amendment rights, however,
[29:44.900 --> 29:48.820] that's not the issue, okay, they can bring out the hounds of hell and run them around
[29:48.820 --> 29:55.340] my car all day long, but what they do as a result of any actions or behavior of the dog
[29:55.340 --> 30:00.860] is a different story, so they ask the wrong question, we'll be right back.
[30:00.860 --> 30:04.020] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[30:04.020 --> 30:10.780] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[30:10.780 --> 30:17.460] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step, if you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer
[30:17.460 --> 30:23.260] should be doing, if you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself, thousands
[30:23.260 --> 30:29.220] have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too, Jurisdictionary was created
[30:29.220 --> 30:35.140] by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience, even if you're not in
[30:35.140 --> 30:40.740] a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[30:40.740 --> 30:46.380] that control our American courts, you'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar,
[30:46.380 --> 30:54.820] tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[30:54.820 --> 31:11.740] and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[31:11.740 --> 31:40.960] The
[31:40.960 --> 31:44.240] a lie and they tell a sick, sick story.
[31:44.240 --> 31:50.040] All right, we're here to bust them on that.
[31:50.040 --> 31:51.040] Sick stories.
[31:51.040 --> 31:56.680] All right, here, here, I'm going to read some from this article regarding this Kabbalist
[31:56.680 --> 31:57.680] decision.
[31:57.680 --> 32:02.320] Okay, again, there have been a lot, okay, I've done, I've done some case law research
[32:02.320 --> 32:09.440] over the last few days regarding drug dog searches, okay, and it looks to me like most
[32:09.440 --> 32:17.600] of the time people are asking the wrong question, they're bringing up the wrong issue, okay,
[32:17.600 --> 32:22.240] and judges can't litigate from the bench, they can't legislate from the bench, they
[32:22.240 --> 32:29.040] can't tell the litigants you're hitting the wrong point, all right, they have to be very
[32:29.040 --> 32:37.480] careful what they say in their rulings, however, Stevens, Justice Stevens gave us a hint, all
[32:37.480 --> 32:41.920] right, and I'm going to read some of this here, all right, and to me the wrong issue
[32:41.920 --> 32:48.560] is the fact that they're trying, these other people like Kabbalists and these other cases,
[32:48.560 --> 32:51.800] people were saying, people were trying to say that it's a violation of our Fourth Amendment
[32:51.800 --> 32:56.600] right to have a, for the cops to bring the drug dog out and run around the car.
[32:56.600 --> 33:03.800] All right, well first off, the courts have ruled that they can only do that if it's during
[33:03.800 --> 33:07.320] the traffic stop, okay, that was the Kabbalist case.
[33:07.320 --> 33:10.680] Especially because of the Terry Stop ruling in Moir and all these other cases, they can't
[33:10.680 --> 33:15.080] do anything after the business of the traffic stop is done, okay, so that's where I got
[33:15.080 --> 33:18.840] them nailed, but that's not enough for me because I have a problem with the drug dog
[33:18.840 --> 33:24.200] issue, so I was researching this and in Kabbalists the problem is that they're trying to say
[33:24.200 --> 33:27.640] it's a violation of Fourth Amendment rights to bring the drug dog around the car.
[33:27.640 --> 33:32.040] Well, no, it's not because it's not really violating your privacy for a dog to run around
[33:32.040 --> 33:36.360] the car and sniff it, all right, so here's what Stevens said, now, I, in my opinion,
[33:36.360 --> 33:41.160] I do think it changes the nature and the scope of a traffic stop.
[33:41.160 --> 33:46.120] I mean, this is where I disagree with Stevens' opinion in the Kabbalist case.
[33:46.120 --> 33:52.520] Here's what Stevens says, all right, he, first Stevens noted a lawful detention, quote,
[33:52.520 --> 33:58.120] can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests
[33:58.120 --> 33:59.960] protected by the Constitution.
[33:59.960 --> 34:08.040] Second, he observed that a detention that is justified solely by the interest in issuing
[34:08.040 --> 34:13.240] a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time
[34:13.240 --> 34:15.320] reasonably required to complete that mission.
[34:15.320 --> 34:19.800] See, I used that quote in my paper, in my tort letter, all right.
[34:19.800 --> 34:24.520] On this point, Stevens accepted the state trial court's determination that the duration
[34:24.520 --> 34:30.520] of the stop was justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such
[34:30.520 --> 34:36.120] a stop, okay, I'm going to stop here, all right, in this case, in the Kabbalist case,
[34:36.120 --> 34:40.920] they ran the dog around during the traffic stop, like while they were checking his papers
[34:40.920 --> 34:44.600] and running his license and all that kind of, and writing up the ticket and that kind
[34:44.600 --> 34:50.360] of thing, all right, so that's, he's saying that it didn't violate prior case law because
[34:50.360 --> 34:54.360] the duration, it did not prolong the duration, okay.
[34:54.360 --> 34:55.560] Okay, back to the article.
[34:55.560 --> 35:00.680] Third, Justice Stevens rejected the state Supreme Court's conclusion that the use of
[35:00.680 --> 35:07.880] a drug detection dog had unreasonably altered the purpose or character of the traffic stop.
[35:08.440 --> 35:11.160] Okay, that's where I have to disagree, all right.
[35:11.160 --> 35:16.920] If you're getting pulled over for traffic violation, like speeding, especially in this
[35:16.920 --> 35:23.720] case, he was speeding, all right, he wasn't swazying, as we say in the islands, all right,
[35:23.720 --> 35:30.440] he wasn't wavering and swaying and acting like, driving like he was inebriated or something,
[35:30.440 --> 35:34.920] all right, there was nothing regarding the original premise of the traffic stop in the
[35:34.920 --> 35:42.360] Kabbalist case that would be any basis whatsoever to bring a drug dog out to begin with.
[35:42.360 --> 35:44.840] So I have to disagree with Stevens on that.
[35:44.840 --> 35:51.160] That does change the, it does alter the purpose and character of the traffic stop.
[35:51.160 --> 35:54.280] I totally disagree with Stevens on that one, but there's nothing we can do about it.
[35:54.280 --> 35:57.560] It's a recent case, it was in 05, all right.
[35:57.560 --> 36:05.640] However, continuing on, Justice Stevens, okay, Justice Stevens noted that, however, he did
[36:05.640 --> 36:10.760] give us a little hint, though, on where we should go with this issue, all right.
[36:11.640 --> 36:18.040] Justice Stevens noted that conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a
[36:18.040 --> 36:23.560] traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner,
[36:23.560 --> 36:30.920] unless the dog sniff itself infringed Kabbalist constitutionally protected interest in privacy,
[36:31.480 --> 36:39.000] okay, unless, unless the sniff infringes, all right, that's what they did to me,
[36:39.000 --> 36:39.400] all right.
[36:40.120 --> 36:45.880] The sniff, the nature and the scope of the sniff itself infringed on my constitutionally
[36:45.880 --> 36:52.360] protected interest in privacy, not to mention the fact that it violated all the Terry stop
[36:52.360 --> 36:56.040] in all subsequent cases based on the Terry stop ruling, okay.
[36:56.040 --> 37:02.840] I am asserting that what happened was not so much that the dog, the signaling of the
[37:02.840 --> 37:08.440] dog was used as a basis of prima facie evidence for probable cause for a search.
[37:08.440 --> 37:14.280] I'm alleging that it was just an extended sniff, okay, which, and the cops were sniffing,
[37:14.280 --> 37:19.640] too, so I got more evidence to back that up, and the sniff infringed on my protected interest
[37:19.640 --> 37:24.120] in privacy because they didn't stop at just running around the car, all right, they were
[37:24.120 --> 37:32.920] in everything, okay, but yes, they did use the fake signal as a premise, prima facie
[37:32.920 --> 37:35.560] premise for them to conduct this search.
[37:35.560 --> 37:36.840] That happened also.
[37:36.840 --> 37:42.200] Okay, now I'm not going to stop when it comes to this drug dog issue or sniff dog issue,
[37:42.200 --> 37:48.680] I'm looking for whatever they may happen to be looking for, all right, and here's why.
[37:48.680 --> 37:55.480] Because I started researching more case law regarding the question, okay, well, first
[37:55.480 --> 37:58.360] let me go back to some more cases.
[37:58.360 --> 38:07.400] In USV Place, all right, here's what O'Connor ruled, this is one of the first cases to come
[38:07.400 --> 38:11.840] up before the Supreme Court regarding this issue, and O'Connor said the same thing.
[38:11.840 --> 38:18.080] He described the canine sniff as a sui generis, I hope I'm pronouncing that right in Latin,
[38:18.080 --> 38:24.600] investigative procedure and thus immune from 4th Amendment scrutiny, okay, the court has
[38:24.600 --> 38:29.320] given law enforcement officials a long leash, quote unquote, when it comes to canine sniffs
[38:29.320 --> 38:34.800] in the 4th Amendment, okay, but that has to do with running the dog around the car, not
[38:34.800 --> 38:39.800] using it, not using any behavior of the dog as a basis for a search, okay, it's a totally
[38:39.800 --> 38:45.960] different issue, so I started doing some research to see, well, what have the courts said about
[38:45.960 --> 38:55.480] behavioral actions of dogs or other animals to be used as prima facie evidence as a basis
[38:55.480 --> 39:03.960] for a search, and it's a total mixed bag, I mean, there are dozens and dozens of cases
[39:03.960 --> 39:09.840] at the state and federal level, even in the Supreme Court where the judges, they're ruling
[39:09.840 --> 39:16.640] every which way from Sunday, this issue has not yet been adjudicated, all right, not by
[39:16.640 --> 39:24.480] a long shot, the only case that I could find that was somewhat, could be considered a quasi-controlling
[39:24.480 --> 39:34.040] case was USB Kennedy, which is in 97, and the courts ruled there that if the dog went
[39:34.040 --> 39:41.680] through a properly certified program, if the dog was properly certified, it could be used,
[39:41.680 --> 39:48.160] then its actions could be used as a foundation for prima facie probable cause, okay, actually,
[39:48.160 --> 39:54.760] I think technically what happened with Kennedy is that the victim won the case because he
[39:54.760 --> 40:02.120] was able to prove that the dog did not have proper training, so in effect, people are
[40:02.120 --> 40:07.760] misquoting Kennedy, the Kennedy case, the Kennedy case doesn't really say, from what
[40:07.760 --> 40:11.560] I can, what I've been able to determine, maybe, you know, I haven't done the complete thorough
[40:11.560 --> 40:15.080] research, but from what I've been able to determine, the Kennedy case doesn't really
[40:15.080 --> 40:21.240] say that as long as the dog is a proper certification, then its actions can be used as a foundation
[40:21.240 --> 40:26.760] for probable cause research, it doesn't really say that, what happened was because the dog
[40:26.760 --> 40:33.000] had not gone through proper certification, therefore, his actions could not be used as
[40:33.000 --> 40:39.320] a basis for probable cause, you see the difference, it's a negative, it doesn't really prove the
[40:39.320 --> 40:45.800] other side, it doesn't really show that if the dog is properly certified, then it can
[40:45.800 --> 40:50.400] be used for probable cause, it just says that if it's not certified, then surely you can't
[40:50.400 --> 40:56.920] use it for probable cause, so I started doing more research and it's a total mixed bag what
[40:56.920 --> 41:04.760] has happened, the courts have ruled, in some cases, judges have denied litigants requests
[41:04.760 --> 41:10.120] for discovery to get the curriculum and find out how the dog was trained and where it was
[41:10.120 --> 41:13.760] trained, sometimes the judges will deny it, and then most of the time the judges will
[41:13.760 --> 41:21.280] give discovery, okay, so then it comes up issues of what is a proper training program,
[41:21.280 --> 41:28.160] what does that mean, okay, and it's a total mixed bag, and then I find articles where
[41:28.160 --> 41:39.280] it talks about how dog training certification companies compete to produce the lamest, most
[41:39.280 --> 41:49.120] loosely trained dogs that mainly will only signal when their masters tell them to, because
[41:49.120 --> 41:58.600] those dogs end up procuring the most searches, okay, so what does it mean to have the proper
[41:58.600 --> 42:05.120] training, oh the proper training are the programs where the dogs signal on command, apparently
[42:05.120 --> 42:12.880] so, alright, and in some of these cases, I'll post links here, alright, there's all kinds
[42:12.880 --> 42:22.040] of cases, dozens of cases, alright, it talks about how in one case a judge totally threw
[42:22.040 --> 42:32.040] out drug dogs as a means of establishing probable cause altogether because 80% of currency,
[42:32.040 --> 42:39.800] a physical paper currency is completely laid in with drug residue, okay, so if you have
[42:39.800 --> 42:46.320] any cash on you at all, you've got drug residue on you, guaranteed, alright, and so the judge
[42:46.320 --> 42:51.400] just said forget it, just throw the dogs out altogether, because if they're really properly
[42:51.400 --> 42:56.080] trained and certified, they're going to signal on everybody, okay, so give me a break, and
[42:56.080 --> 43:04.360] then there's other cases where they ruled that, you know, it is clearly established
[43:04.360 --> 43:12.000] that it can establish probable cause, and in other cases there is evidence that shows
[43:12.000 --> 43:22.280] at least 7 to 38% of the time false positive, it's a false positive, okay, we can add some
[43:22.280 --> 43:32.720] more percentage points to that from my case, alright, 38%, 38% of the time it's a false
[43:32.720 --> 43:40.320] positive by these dogs, and they want to consider that prima facie evidence for probable cause,
[43:40.320 --> 43:44.840] you've got to be kidding me, okay, this issue needs to be adjudicated, now I don't know
[43:44.840 --> 43:50.320] if this issue is going to be adjudicated in my case, because clearly my strongest point
[43:50.320 --> 43:55.160] has to do with the tarry stop and the prolonged length and the duration, but we're going to
[43:55.160 --> 44:00.080] get to the bottom of this, we'll be right back.
[44:00.080 --> 44:04.840] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[44:04.840 --> 44:08.840] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[44:08.840 --> 44:13.920] Michael Mears has won 6 cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win
[44:13.920 --> 44:14.920] too.
[44:14.920 --> 44:19.120] You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[44:19.120 --> 44:24.800] civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[44:24.800 --> 44:29.440] letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your
[44:29.440 --> 44:33.640] financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[44:33.640 --> 44:38.760] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[44:38.760 --> 44:40.640] Personal consultation is available as well.
[44:40.640 --> 44:46.440] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[44:46.440 --> 44:49.440] or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[44:49.440 --> 44:57.120] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[44:57.120 --> 45:04.120] To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[45:27.120 --> 45:56.120] Okay folks, we're back.
[45:56.120 --> 46:09.520] Okay, so I don't know what the issue with the servers are, but I've gotten word from
[46:09.520 --> 46:16.760] the individuals who are dealing with the servers that host the streams, the hosting servers,
[46:16.760 --> 46:21.400] and there's no blips on any graphs, so I don't know, could be the bad guys.
[46:21.400 --> 46:27.080] All right, at any rate, back to the drug dog issue, okay.
[46:27.080 --> 46:32.880] What constitutes a sufficient certification program?
[46:32.880 --> 46:41.280] This has not yet been adjudicated, and like I said, some of these articles I've read,
[46:41.280 --> 46:46.200] it's literally all over the map, the way the judges are ruling, so we do have a chance
[46:46.200 --> 46:54.760] to put this thing to rest once and for all, because in my book, the only thing that's
[46:54.760 --> 47:03.400] going to constitute a proper certification program is if I can see that the dog can talk
[47:03.400 --> 47:15.000] and write and demonstrates a clear understanding of what truth is and critical thinking and
[47:15.000 --> 47:22.600] can take an oath and get up on the witness stand and testify under penalty of perjury
[47:22.600 --> 47:29.080] that it smelled or detected some kind of contraband, I'll consider that a reasonable training program.
[47:29.080 --> 47:33.760] Anything short of that, forget it, okay, forget it.
[47:33.760 --> 47:39.840] They are animals, people, they are animals, they're trained animals, they'll do anything
[47:39.840 --> 47:44.840] the master says, period, that's what dogs do that are properly trained.
[47:44.840 --> 47:49.440] Properly trained dogs do whatever the master tells them to, all right, and these certification
[47:49.440 --> 47:54.840] programs, they're competing to produce the most loosely trained dogs so that they can
[47:54.840 --> 48:00.720] get the most searches, and I'm sorry, but this also goes to a higher issue with me,
[48:00.720 --> 48:04.760] a fundamental principle of my spirituality, all right.
[48:04.760 --> 48:10.600] As a Christian, I believe we are made in the image of God, and my Bible tells me that we
[48:10.600 --> 48:17.000] were put on this earth to represent God and to do his work and to have dominion over the
[48:17.000 --> 48:23.920] earth and over the creatures, the animals, we are not animals, okay, we are different
[48:23.920 --> 48:29.720] from the animals, they are subject to us, not the other way around, I will not subject
[48:29.720 --> 48:36.720] myself to an animal, all right, and this goes back all the way to Genesis, people, all right,
[48:36.720 --> 48:43.920] back in the Garden of Eden, what was the real big problem, okay, the real big problem back
[48:43.920 --> 48:51.160] then, well, there was a lot of problems, Adam and Eve, they weren't being fruitful and multiplying,
[48:51.160 --> 48:55.960] like God commanded them to, okay, that didn't happen until after they got kicked out, all
[48:55.960 --> 49:00.640] right, they weren't taking care of the garden, Eve was trying to bring food to her husband
[49:00.640 --> 49:04.800] instead of the other way around, all right, everything was backwards and upside down,
[49:04.800 --> 49:10.360] but the biggest mistake that they made was that they subjected themselves to animals,
[49:10.360 --> 49:16.240] okay, they took orders from an animal and subjected themselves to an animal, all right,
[49:16.240 --> 49:20.800] they turned the whole thing upside down, the animal on top and then the female and then
[49:20.800 --> 49:26.160] the male, no, I don't think so, that's not the way it works, okay, God is on top and
[49:26.160 --> 49:29.960] then the man and then the woman and then the animals and the creatures and everything else,
[49:29.960 --> 49:35.280] I'm not going to subject myself to an animal and I'm not going to subject myself to technology
[49:35.280 --> 49:43.240] made by human hands, okay, I'm going to have to face my accuser in court, period, I'm not
[49:43.240 --> 49:48.040] going to stand for anything less, so like I said, if the dog is going to walk and talk
[49:48.040 --> 49:53.160] and write and demonstrate critical thinking skills and a showing and an understanding
[49:53.160 --> 50:00.360] of what truth is and able to take an oath or an affirmation and testify under penalty
[50:00.360 --> 50:07.160] of perjury, then fine, let's get it on with the dogs, okay, otherwise forget it, all right,
[50:07.160 --> 50:12.280] and it's clearly demonstrated by all this research in all these cases, 7 to 38% of the
[50:12.280 --> 50:18.920] time at least and that's just what's being reported, false positives, give me a break,
[50:18.920 --> 50:24.920] see that's the link, that's the question that hasn't been clearly answered yet in the courts,
[50:24.920 --> 50:29.640] it's using the behavior of the dog as a basis for the search and I'm not going to agree
[50:29.640 --> 50:36.120] to that, now I don't know if we will be able to adjudicate that issue in my case because
[50:36.120 --> 50:40.360] clearly we're going to win because Terry stopped in the subsequent cases, but this has to be
[50:40.360 --> 50:47.960] addressed and at least if nothing else regarding the real problem of using dogs for basis of
[50:47.960 --> 50:54.120] evidence for probable cause, at least in my case it's going to up the ante, it's going
[50:54.120 --> 51:02.520] to up the percentage of obvious false positives, so hopefully someday if not this case others
[51:02.520 --> 51:12.840] it will be clearly adjudicated, okay, so now I want to get a little bit into the traffic
[51:12.840 --> 51:27.720] code issues on federal land, did some research in Title 36 and Title 28 and what the definitions
[51:27.720 --> 51:38.040] of vehicle and person and these sorts of things and I'm just going to read some of this, okay,
[51:38.040 --> 51:48.520] in Title 36, the 36 CFR, okay, a person means a natural person, corporation, company, partnership,
[51:48.520 --> 51:56.360] trust firm or association of persons, okay, a vehicle means any device in upon or by which
[51:56.360 --> 52:02.680] any person or property is or may be transported including any frame chassis or body of any motor
[52:02.680 --> 52:09.960] vehicle except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, a motorized vehicle
[52:11.880 --> 52:17.560] means any vehicle which is self propelled other than a vehicle operated on rails and
[52:17.560 --> 52:24.040] any wheelchair or mobility device, okay, now I'm going to go now to
[52:24.040 --> 52:32.840] concerning traffic rules, okay, rules set forth under 36 CFR part 261 and this section shall apply
[52:32.840 --> 52:37.960] to all National Forest System roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service except
[52:37.960 --> 52:43.240] when in conflict with written agreement, traffic on roads is subject to state traffic laws
[52:43.240 --> 52:49.320] where applicable except when in conflict with designations established under subpart B of
[52:49.320 --> 53:00.280] this part or with the rules at 36 CFR part 261, okay, now regarding commerce, it says
[53:01.240 --> 53:09.720] that using a road for commerce, okay, this is part 261 of 36 CFR, right, and just to back up for a
[53:09.720 --> 53:20.600] minute, the statute is the title, okay, title 36, 36 USC, it's the same thing, some number with the
[53:20.600 --> 53:25.800] USC or title, some number, that's the law, that's what's passed by the legislature, then they got
[53:25.800 --> 53:30.840] their CFRs and I'm not talking about council and foreign relations which is an arm of the
[53:30.840 --> 53:35.640] trilateral commission, the Bilderberg group and all that which is establishing world government and
[53:35.640 --> 53:41.480] writing all the laws that our legislators don't even read and sign, et cetera, okay, not that
[53:41.480 --> 53:50.840] CFR, all right, this is the code of federal regulations, each statute, each title has an
[53:50.840 --> 53:57.640] associated CFR and the CFR hangs on the statute, okay, it basically elaborates the statute, it's
[53:57.640 --> 54:04.840] the implementation of the statute, now those codes of federal regulations cannot be inconsistent
[54:04.840 --> 54:12.440] with the statute, all right, this is some problems we've found with 47 CFR, with title 47 involving
[54:12.440 --> 54:19.640] the FCC, there are many places where they're, the FCC's code of federal regulations is inconsistent
[54:19.640 --> 54:24.280] with the statute and I'll tell you, I'm getting to the point where I'm not too concerned about
[54:24.280 --> 54:29.080] these guys anymore regarding the FCC because I've got so much on them and the court, and there's
[54:29.080 --> 54:33.560] no love lost between the FCC and the courts by the way, courts consistently slap down the FCC
[54:33.560 --> 54:39.240] every time their code of federal regulations gets out of hand and gets inconsistent with the statute,
[54:39.240 --> 54:44.040] in fact the FCC just got slapped down in the Supreme Court a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court
[54:44.040 --> 54:51.000] said no, you guys can't regulate the Internet, okay, so at any rate, back to the CFR of title 36,
[54:51.960 --> 54:58.200] all right, using a road for commercial hauling without a permit or is prohibited for using a
[54:58.200 --> 55:05.800] road for commercial hauling without a permit or written authorization, okay, so at this point I
[55:05.800 --> 55:12.040] was trying to determine if I could use the commerce issue to get the whole thing thrown out that
[55:12.040 --> 55:16.520] because we weren't engaged in commerce, well they didn't have the authority to pull us over at all
[55:16.520 --> 55:23.400] or what business do they have trying to enforce state traffic laws or is there a traffic code for
[55:23.400 --> 55:31.880] the Forest Service and from what I've been able to determine looking at these parts of 36 CFR and
[55:31.880 --> 55:37.560] title 36, it looks to me like they were within their right and I'll be doing further research
[55:37.560 --> 55:42.440] and consulting with Eddie on that but it looks like you only need to have a permit from the
[55:42.440 --> 55:49.400] Forestry Service if you're intending on engaging in commerce, otherwise, I mean they consider a
[55:49.400 --> 55:55.480] person a natural person, you know, a vehicle, the motorized vehicle, it's pretty clear that
[55:55.480 --> 56:04.040] it's defined as like general travel purposes, all right, not commercial and under that 36 CFR,
[56:04.040 --> 56:09.000] they're authorized, it looks to me anyway like they're authorized to enforce state traffic laws
[56:09.000 --> 56:17.080] in on the National Forest Roads and that's just what the code says anyway, the Forestry Service
[56:17.080 --> 56:25.400] by their code, by the statute is adopting the state's traffic laws and the LEOs have authority
[56:25.400 --> 56:29.800] to enforce that so I don't think I can go there but I'll be checking more on that.
[56:31.000 --> 56:40.040] So at any rate, with that, I wanted to open up the floor for discussion with Randy and Eddie
[56:40.040 --> 56:46.760] regarding the various issues I have thrown out here regarding the stops and the searches and the
[56:46.760 --> 56:52.440] dogs and the traffic code and such so guys, any comment before we go to break and then we'll take
[56:52.440 --> 56:58.280] more comments from y'all in discussion on the other side of the break. Randy? Well, the thing
[56:58.280 --> 57:10.440] that stood out to me was that the signaling of the dog, did you see the signal he gave the dog?
[57:10.440 --> 57:18.120] I saw him moving his arm and moving his hand and he verbally signaled to the dog like come on,
[57:18.120 --> 57:22.760] come on boy, come on. I heard him because my window was halfway rolled down and I saw it
[57:22.760 --> 57:28.920] in the rear view mirror. I mean, I even saw the wagging of the tail like the dog wanted to continue
[57:28.920 --> 57:33.640] on to the passenger side. They started out in the front of the car and they walked around
[57:33.640 --> 57:38.120] the left-hand side of the car to the back and I could see that the dog wanted to continue walking
[57:38.120 --> 57:45.080] around and then he was like standing there like no, come on, come on boy. He kind of called the dog
[57:45.080 --> 57:50.440] back. It looked like he was calling the dog back. I mean, I couldn't see the whole dog obviously but
[57:50.440 --> 57:57.320] I could see the tail, all right. I've got a hatchback, it's a Celica so I can see through.
[57:57.320 --> 58:08.520] The right issue is would it be possible to train the dog to respond to a subtle voice command or a
[58:08.520 --> 58:15.000] hand signal and give a response as if it had actually the same, that would be essentially
[58:15.000 --> 58:21.080] the same as if it found drugs. Well, absolutely, it's a dog. You can train them to do whatever
[58:21.080 --> 58:28.440] you want them to do. That's why they're called dogs. That was a rhetorical question. I mean, really.
[58:31.000 --> 58:38.120] So it would seem that a good treatment of this issue, there's no way that a dog's
[58:38.840 --> 58:46.120] testimony, a dog's action can stand up because it's so easily manipulated. Absolutely.
[58:46.120 --> 58:52.520] It's a preposterous notion to begin with. Okay, we'll be, hold on, we'll be right back. We're
[58:52.520 --> 59:16.920] going to break right now. We'll be back on the other side after the top of the hour news.
[59:22.680 --> 59:28.440] And Calvin Soaps. There's no way a place like that exists. Go check it out for yourself. It's
[59:28.440 --> 59:35.560] downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. By UT, there's never anywhere to park down
[59:35.560 --> 59:41.000] there. Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK
[59:41.000 --> 59:47.880] parking facility just behind the bookstore. It does exist, but when are they open? Monday through
[59:47.880 --> 59:55.800] Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays. So give them a call at 512-480-2503
[59:55.800 --> 01:00:01.960] or check out their events page at brave new bookstore.com. This news brief brought to you
[01:00:01.960 --> 01:00:07.880] by the International News Network. Representative Ron Paul's attempt to audit the Federal Reserve
[01:00:07.880 --> 01:00:15.560] failed by a vote of 229 to 198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats
[01:00:15.560 --> 01:00:23.640] crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. BP's blown out well as now sent more than 140
[01:00:23.640 --> 01:00:30.680] million gallons of oil into the Gulf, surpassing the giant spill off the coast of Mexico in 1979
[01:00:30.680 --> 01:00:38.040] and 1980. The oil calculation is based on barrels leaked minus the amount BP says it has collected
[01:00:38.040 --> 01:00:44.360] using two containment systems. This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:44.360 --> 01:00:49.400] A group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers Thursday called on Barack Obama to provide
[01:00:49.400 --> 01:00:55.400] Congress with a clear plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, calling the war a drain on
[01:00:55.400 --> 01:01:01.480] quote U.S. blood and treasure. This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:01:01.480 --> 01:01:08.200] Pilots for 9-11 Truth, a group of airline pilots skeptical of the 9-11 Commission's official report,
[01:01:08.200 --> 01:01:13.400] say the speed reported for the aircraft that struck the Twin Towers means the planes could not
[01:01:13.400 --> 01:01:21.960] have been a Boeing 757 or 767. The pilots say such high speeds are impossible to achieve in
[01:01:21.960 --> 01:01:27.240] thick atmosphere near sea level. The National Transportation and Safety Board reported the
[01:01:27.240 --> 01:01:35.240] ground speed of United Flight 175 just before impact as 510 knots. Retired NASA Senior Executive
[01:01:35.240 --> 01:01:42.200] Dwayne Dietz says this is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots and the maximum
[01:01:42.200 --> 01:01:48.760] dive velocity of 410 knots. Dietz says this means the plane that hit the South Tower could not have
[01:01:48.760 --> 01:01:56.440] been a standard 767-200. Pilots for 9-11 Truth say United Flight 175 is truly quote the elephant in
[01:01:56.440 --> 01:02:02.520] the room and needs to be thoroughly investigated. This news brief brought to you by the International
[01:02:02.520 --> 01:02:07.800] News Network. People whose jobless benefits have run out are turning in greater numbers to food
[01:02:07.800 --> 01:02:14.520] pantries and other emergency aid programs. Loss of jobs and jobless benefits are also contributing
[01:02:14.520 --> 01:02:19.960] to a rise in applications for Social Security disability payments. The search for subsistence
[01:02:19.960 --> 01:02:25.240] funds revved up last month after the Senate rejected a bill that would have funded another
[01:02:25.240 --> 01:02:30.600] extension of emergency unemployment assistance. Since 2008, the government has authorized four
[01:02:30.600 --> 01:02:36.280] tiers of emergency federal help for the jobless. Some workers may be eligible for as many as 99
[01:02:36.280 --> 01:02:41.400] weeks of unemployment benefits. On Tuesday, the House rejected a bill focused on extending
[01:02:41.400 --> 01:02:46.920] unemployment benefits. And for the third time in as many weeks, Senate Republicans Wednesday
[01:02:46.920 --> 01:02:53.160] successfully filibustered a bill to stop them. As a result, 200,000 people a week around the country
[01:02:53.160 --> 01:02:59.080] will lose their jobless benefits. This news brief brought to you by the International News.
[01:02:59.080 --> 01:03:09.080] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com. Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:29.080 --> 01:03:33.080] This news brief brought to you by the International News Network at its best.
[01:03:59.400 --> 01:04:02.680] I won't pay for the boys with my money.
[01:04:02.680 --> 01:04:05.880] Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my money.
[01:04:07.080 --> 01:04:09.080] Whole agenda smells funny.
[01:04:09.800 --> 01:04:15.880] Speaking of sniffing, their whole agenda smells funny.
[01:04:15.880 --> 01:04:28.040] Perfect song for tonight's topic. Okay, so Randy, Eddie, what do you guys have to say about this?
[01:04:31.560 --> 01:04:37.800] Well, I'm with you. I've never understood how they could take the testimony of more or less what
[01:04:37.800 --> 01:04:45.320] amounts to a dumb animal and pretend that a human being can converse with it in such a way as to
[01:04:45.320 --> 01:04:54.680] present convictible testimony, nor in any way to grant probable cause to an individual.
[01:04:55.800 --> 01:05:01.240] I mean, if a dog rolled over and played dead, am I supposed to assume someone shot it and I
[01:05:01.240 --> 01:05:07.400] got probable cause to have them arrested? If you can train the dog to do virtually anything,
[01:05:07.400 --> 01:05:12.600] which as a trainer of dogs, and I've trained dogs to work cows and do all kinds of things,
[01:05:12.600 --> 01:05:21.000] it's possible to train a dog to respond to virtually anything. I mean, I've seen dogs
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:28.440] that are trained to respond to a sneeze, that run over and grab a tissue out of a box and bring it
[01:05:28.440 --> 01:05:36.280] back to you, just because you sounded like you sneezed. So my first issue has always been with
[01:05:36.280 --> 01:05:42.840] the animal. Yes, they can smell things, they can detect things and everything else, but you can
[01:05:42.840 --> 01:05:49.640] never, ever say that they are not influenced by the human controlling them. And that's going to
[01:05:49.640 --> 01:05:59.400] always be the case. And not only that, they're also influenced by their own instinct. Okay,
[01:05:59.400 --> 01:06:04.840] if it's a male dog and there's been a female dog in the car recently, things are going to go crazy.
[01:06:04.840 --> 01:06:12.040] If there's barbecue chicken in there, it's going to bark, it's going to go off. I mean, they're
[01:06:12.040 --> 01:06:19.560] animals, people. That's why they're called animals, because they can be controlled by humans
[01:06:19.560 --> 01:06:27.080] and they are also controlled by their instinct. I can just see the policeman coming on the stand
[01:06:27.080 --> 01:06:31.960] and saying, yes, when the dog humps the tire, that means he finds drugs.
[01:06:31.960 --> 01:06:41.000] That doesn't mean he spells a girlfriend. Well, unfortunately, like I said, the one case
[01:06:41.800 --> 01:06:49.080] that we have to get around, and unfortunately, it is a recent case, 97, the USB Kennedy. But like I
[01:06:49.080 --> 01:06:54.680] said, from what I can tell, and I haven't read the whole case yet, it looks like technically
[01:06:54.680 --> 01:07:01.400] the court ruled that the actions of the dog had to be thrown out as a basis for probable cause,
[01:07:01.400 --> 01:07:07.560] because it was determined that it was not properly certified or trained.
[01:07:07.560 --> 01:07:17.160] Well, I have a suggestion. Get the dog in the courtroom and have it introduced to the judge
[01:07:17.160 --> 01:07:22.360] and have someone sitting in the back and blow one of these little whistles that only the dog can hear.
[01:07:22.360 --> 01:07:32.120] The dog will always bark when you do that. That's probable cause to assert the judge.
[01:07:36.280 --> 01:07:37.320] Yeah, I know.
[01:07:43.320 --> 01:07:46.520] Anybody takes a good look at the dog, it's absolutely clear that
[01:07:46.520 --> 01:07:53.880] they can't be reliable in that matter. Now, it would be reasonable to use the dog to check a vacuum.
[01:07:56.360 --> 01:07:58.360] So like if you're in an airport.
[01:07:58.360 --> 01:08:03.000] Well, it'd be reasonable to use him to detect the alpo too, but still.
[01:08:04.040 --> 01:08:12.920] Yeah, but to use the output from the dog's action to restrict the person after liberty, not acceptable.
[01:08:12.920 --> 01:08:22.040] Not acceptable. Not acceptable. Okay. And like I said, the case law that I've come up with,
[01:08:22.680 --> 01:08:30.440] it's all over the map. Some judges are strictly sticking up for it. They're probably paid off.
[01:08:30.440 --> 01:08:34.280] And like I said, it went all the way down. In fact, let me see if I can come up with this.
[01:08:35.400 --> 01:08:41.560] The name of the case, it was very confusing to me because it looked like it was against
[01:08:41.560 --> 01:08:46.680] money. Okay, here it is. I hope I'm reading this right. Maybe somebody could look this up.
[01:08:46.680 --> 01:08:56.280] I haven't had a chance to verify it on Pacer yet. United States V $242,484. That's what it says.
[01:08:56.280 --> 01:09:02.200] That's correct. That's an in rim action against to seize monetary assets.
[01:09:02.200 --> 01:09:04.280] Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
[01:09:04.280 --> 01:09:09.240] If you have more than $4,000 on your person, they can seize it.
[01:09:09.240 --> 01:09:15.640] Okay. So that's, okay. So that's some maritime law stuff. Okay. That was a maritime law case.
[01:09:15.640 --> 01:09:23.160] All right. Yeah. In rim arrest against property. Okay. So in that case, 351 F 3D 499,
[01:09:24.360 --> 01:09:32.600] 511 11th circuit, 2003, that was where the judge basically threw the whole thing out,
[01:09:32.600 --> 01:09:38.680] noting that because as much as 80% of all currency and circulation contains drug residue,
[01:09:38.680 --> 01:09:47.000] a dog alert is quote of little value. Okay. Now that still doesn't address the fundamental issue,
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:54.760] but that is a good point. I mean, there's just so many points down to this. So I don't know
[01:09:55.800 --> 01:10:01.800] what the case is going to be to adjudicate this issue finally, or if it ever will,
[01:10:01.800 --> 01:10:05.400] especially now that they're trying to put that monster Kagan in the Supreme court.
[01:10:05.400 --> 01:10:10.120] Lord have mercy. I just pray to God that she does not get up in there.
[01:10:10.680 --> 01:10:14.760] She wants to destroy the entire bill of rights. It's just horrible. If you've read any of her
[01:10:14.760 --> 01:10:19.640] papers, you know, people need to be hounding their senators on this one. I'm serious for what
[01:10:19.640 --> 01:10:24.840] little good it will do. This woman cannot get in there. I mean, it's just horrible. I mean,
[01:10:24.840 --> 01:10:29.800] most of these Supreme court decisions lately have been split. They've been split for decades,
[01:10:29.800 --> 01:10:33.480] five to four. It goes one way, it goes the other way. You know, there was a recent
[01:10:33.480 --> 01:10:39.560] Supreme court case involving gun rights. All right. We won that one. It was last,
[01:10:39.560 --> 01:10:47.480] just last week. All right. It was a Chicago case, but that was a five, four, it was a five,
[01:10:47.480 --> 01:10:51.880] four ruling people. It could have just as easily gone the other way. All right. We're really on
[01:10:51.880 --> 01:10:57.880] the precipice here. So we need a lot of prayer, but I mean, so guys, what do you think? Because of
[01:10:57.880 --> 01:11:05.960] the obvious infractions regarding Terry Stopp president, would my case, could my case be used
[01:11:05.960 --> 01:11:14.280] to push the issue regarding the using dogs as a means of probable cause to begin with, or is-
[01:11:14.280 --> 01:11:21.160] I think it would be a good case to demonstrate that the dog is ineffective and that the
[01:11:21.160 --> 01:11:34.040] officers used the dog as a predicate ad intended to harass and intimidate. They got, they obviously
[01:11:34.040 --> 01:11:43.800] clearly got the dog to mark because they searched and human beings using their own noses and eyes
[01:11:43.800 --> 01:11:52.280] I found no drugs. So clearly the mark was false. Well, they were also using it as a predicate act
[01:11:52.280 --> 01:11:55.960] for a fishing expedition because- That's what I mean.
[01:11:55.960 --> 01:12:03.560] Because not just to harass, but to try, but to try to do an unwarranted search to see if they
[01:12:03.560 --> 01:12:08.280] could find something. They were trying, they were trying to do a search. They did a search without a
[01:12:08.280 --> 01:12:12.840] warrant, without probable cause. That's just all there is to it. There's no other way to say it.
[01:12:12.840 --> 01:12:19.000] There was nobody even smoking anything. There was no beer cans in the car. We hadn't been drinking.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:25.720] We hadn't been drinking since before, two days before we left Austin. I mean, on and on and on
[01:12:25.720 --> 01:12:34.360] and on. There was nothing. Okay. Period. End of story. We were all sober. I mean, uh-uh. Okay.
[01:12:34.360 --> 01:12:40.120] It was clearly a fishing expedition to see if they could try to find something. And people,
[01:12:40.120 --> 01:12:46.360] this is, this is why our forefathers fought in the war of independence. Okay. Can't let this go on.
[01:12:48.120 --> 01:12:53.960] So my case may not adjudicate the issue, but at least it can be used to establish more percentage
[01:12:53.960 --> 01:13:00.200] points of how ineffective and ridiculous it is to use these dogs. But I want money. Okay.
[01:13:00.200 --> 01:13:08.920] I want to get paid. I'm tired of being on the edge. Okay. We're all freedom fighters and we love it.
[01:13:08.920 --> 01:13:15.400] And, but listen, it's time to get paid. It's time for us to get paid. We need some deep pockets so
[01:13:15.400 --> 01:13:23.080] we can start making bigger strides. I want to buy a licensed FCC, a hundred thousand watt radio
[01:13:23.080 --> 01:13:27.000] station so we can broadcast the truth. That costs millions and millions and millions of dollars,
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:33.000] tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions. I'm asking for 12 million bucks. Okay. Now people
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:37.880] have told me to ask for at least 10 times more than what you think you'll really get. You know,
[01:13:37.880 --> 01:13:42.760] Jerrian and David are asking for 20, a piece because they were physically assaulted. It's time
[01:13:42.760 --> 01:13:47.560] for us to get paid. All right. So we can start making some bigger differences around here.
[01:13:47.560 --> 01:13:52.360] And I'll tell you, if these people are smart, especially since they quoted all that case law
[01:13:52.360 --> 01:13:58.120] and wove it in to the text, when the lawyers read that, they're likely going to offer me a settlement
[01:13:58.120 --> 01:14:04.200] before I even file. Okay. So that it won't be adjudicated. And even if I do end up filing,
[01:14:04.200 --> 01:14:09.000] you know, they're going to settle out of court. They're going to make me an offer because I have
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:15.480] so much case law on my side, recent case law. But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do,
[01:14:15.480 --> 01:14:19.160] because they're going to force us to sign a nondisclosure agreement. I'll sign a
[01:14:19.160 --> 01:14:23.800] nondisclosure agreement only for the amount. But if they make us an offer
[01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:32.680] that we can't refuse before we file, I'm not going to agree to not tell that we accepted a settlement.
[01:14:32.680 --> 01:14:36.840] All right. I'm not going to just close my mouth and be silent about it and just the whole thing
[01:14:36.840 --> 01:14:42.280] goes away. I'm not going to do that. All right. I will not agree to that part. I'll agree to
[01:14:42.280 --> 01:14:47.720] nondisclosure of the amount only. I mean, because, and I'm just talking about in the event we get
[01:14:47.720 --> 01:14:54.040] paid before we file, right. Because if we file, it's a matter of public record. And then if we
[01:14:54.040 --> 01:14:58.920] settle out of court after we file, it still counts as a win, you know, because you dropped the case
[01:14:58.920 --> 01:15:06.920] for settlement. It's not precedent for adjudicating specific issues that strongly,
[01:15:06.920 --> 01:15:14.280] but it does count as a win. But at any rate. So Randy, Eddie, Randy, what else? What do you
[01:15:14.280 --> 01:15:20.120] think about the traffic issues? Well, you didn't leave anything for us.
[01:15:20.120 --> 01:15:29.720] I didn't. That is pretty well sewed up. So I think it's a nice call and they need us to come
[01:15:29.720 --> 01:15:34.120] after them. And the only, the one thing that I didn't hear in there that I would like to hear
[01:15:34.120 --> 01:15:40.760] in there is the private attorney general suit. Yes, suing on behalf of all others similarly
[01:15:40.760 --> 01:15:50.600] situated. Exactly. That would give the justification for the amount of the award that you claim.
[01:15:50.600 --> 01:15:56.280] Well, I have to see if that's also, if that's in accordance with the federal tort claims act. See,
[01:15:56.280 --> 01:15:59.400] that was my other question. Can I also sue these guys personally?
[01:16:00.600 --> 01:16:07.400] If, if you can claim that they acted outside scope and you're claiming false imprisonment,
[01:16:07.400 --> 01:16:11.480] false imprisonment outside scope. Well, see, this is the other thing
[01:16:11.480 --> 01:16:16.520] that I wanted to be careful of because if I claim too much that they were outside scope and
[01:16:16.520 --> 01:16:22.440] jurisdiction, I'm not sure if that would mean that the federal tort claims act wouldn't apply. But
[01:16:22.440 --> 01:16:27.800] no, I don't think so because. Okay. You can be sure they're
[01:16:27.800 --> 01:16:30.520] going to protect their officer. They can't afford us.
[01:16:30.520 --> 01:16:32.760] Well, yeah, that's clear in the federal tort claims act.
[01:16:32.760 --> 01:16:40.200] So you get, if you look like you can push them outside scope, they're going to settle with you
[01:16:40.840 --> 01:16:46.200] just to keep you from cremating the officers. Yeah. Well, I'm going to cremate them. I want
[01:16:46.200 --> 01:16:51.240] to file criminal charges against them too. I want their badge. I don't want them to do this
[01:16:51.240 --> 01:16:56.360] to anyone anymore, especially the rainbow family. All right. We'll be right back and we'll take some
[01:16:56.360 --> 01:17:07.400] calls. Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals,
[01:17:07.400 --> 01:17:13.320] and coin supplies in the Austin Metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family-owned
[01:17:13.320 --> 01:17:17.880] and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases.
[01:17:17.880 --> 01:17:22.840] We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[01:17:22.840 --> 01:17:29.000] precious metals, and scrap gold. We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. We offer
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:36.040] daily specials on coins and bullion. We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open
[01:17:36.040 --> 01:17:42.360] Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You are welcome to stop in our
[01:17:42.360 --> 01:17:50.680] shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask for Chad and
[01:17:50.680 --> 01:17:59.880] say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 SM. That's Capital Coin and Bullion 512-646-6440.
[01:18:20.680 --> 01:18:45.160] Okay, we're just about to go to your calls, but I wanted to iron out a couple of details.
[01:18:45.160 --> 01:18:51.800] Hang on. Okay, Randy and Eddie, we were discussing on the break that they actually did assault me
[01:18:51.800 --> 01:18:58.600] because they threatened me and spoke to me in a threatening manner while armed. So,
[01:18:58.600 --> 01:19:02.840] it was aggravated simple assault, I guess, and it would be aggravated assault on
[01:19:03.960 --> 01:19:11.640] Jerry and David. Simple assault is the basic assault, but if they did it while displaying
[01:19:11.640 --> 01:19:18.680] a deadly weapon, it becomes aggravated assault. Oh, okay. If a person speaks to you in a way you
[01:19:18.680 --> 01:19:26.840] find threatening or offensive, if he speaks to you in a way that a normal person of ordinary prudence
[01:19:27.720 --> 01:19:33.880] would find threatening or offensive, that's simple assault. If they put their hands on you,
[01:19:33.880 --> 01:19:41.720] that's battery. If you commit simple assault whilst displaying a deadly weapon, that's second-degree
[01:19:41.720 --> 01:19:49.800] felony aggravated assault. However, if you commit assault whilst displaying a deadly weapon and
[01:19:49.800 --> 01:19:55.080] while acting under the color of an official authority, that's a first-degree felony,
[01:19:56.680 --> 01:20:00.840] at least in Texas, we'd have to check. Okay, yeah, and I looked at the definitions
[01:20:00.840 --> 01:20:08.680] of assault and battery at the federal level, and it looked to me like battery is if the victim
[01:20:08.680 --> 01:20:18.440] sustains a physical injury. Battery is the act of touching, and you apparently can't charge battery
[01:20:19.320 --> 01:20:25.400] unless the touching causes physical injury. Okay, well, what I saw at the federal level is that if
[01:20:25.400 --> 01:20:32.920] they touch, it's assault. If a physical injury is sustained, then it's battery. But maybe the
[01:20:32.920 --> 01:20:40.120] definitions are probably different between states and the feds. We'd have to talk that out.
[01:20:40.120 --> 01:20:49.000] But at any rate, the point being, okay, can I sue these guys personally also because it looks to me
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:55.560] like they clearly acted outside of their scope due to these Terry Stop rulings in the subsequent cases
[01:20:55.560 --> 01:21:03.240] based on the Terry Stop ruling? Yeah, once the Terry Stop was over, any further action by the
[01:21:03.240 --> 01:21:12.200] officers out of scope. Okay, now are the lawyers for the other side going to say, wait, you have
[01:21:12.200 --> 01:21:16.280] to pick? You can either sue them personally or you can sue the U.S. government. You can't do both.
[01:21:16.280 --> 01:21:24.280] Yes, you can do both. Oh, good. You're suing them personally and you're suing the agency.
[01:21:25.080 --> 01:21:28.280] Well, technically, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, you sue the federal government.
[01:21:28.920 --> 01:21:34.520] Yeah, you sue the federal government. Well, anytime you sue any agency, you sue
[01:21:35.400 --> 01:21:40.840] the federal government. You sue the federal government because of lack of training,
[01:21:40.840 --> 01:21:46.360] the funding is superior, and you sue the individuals for acting outside of scope,
[01:21:46.360 --> 01:21:53.320] to the government for not making sure they didn't act outside of scope. Right. Well, I'll specifically
[01:21:53.320 --> 01:22:02.200] be suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 28 U.S.C. Section 2680H. That's
[01:22:02.200 --> 01:22:09.640] the specific statute and clause and paragraph I'm suing under. Regarding law enforcement,
[01:22:09.640 --> 01:22:17.480] law enforcement officers regarding tort claims arising due to assault, battery,
[01:22:17.480 --> 01:22:23.560] false imprisonment, false arrest, abusive process committed by law enforcement officers
[01:22:23.560 --> 01:22:30.280] of the federal government. See, they were trying to trick me about the negligence thing
[01:22:31.800 --> 01:22:37.240] and try to get me derailed from the beginning because this has nothing to do with negligence
[01:22:37.240 --> 01:22:42.920] and even trying to set me up to fill out a form so they could slide me with a $15,000 fine.
[01:22:42.920 --> 01:22:47.960] You know, this has nothing to do with it. At any rate, okay, great. Thanks, guys. We're going to
[01:22:47.960 --> 01:22:55.080] go to some calls now. We've got Steven in Montana. Steven, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind
[01:22:55.080 --> 01:23:04.760] tonight? Hello, guys. Let's see. First was, well, I don't know if you remember, I called away
[01:23:04.760 --> 01:23:11.240] a while back and asked about doing something or filing a writ of prohibition in my case,
[01:23:12.040 --> 01:23:18.440] which is a case on DUI. And anyways, I just got back from the Supreme Court that it was denied
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:27.880] saying that I didn't seek any other remedies first. So that was that. Another thing is,
[01:23:27.880 --> 01:23:36.280] I finally got it. Well, do you plan to seek other remedies? Well... Is it too late to file an appeal?
[01:23:37.960 --> 01:23:43.400] No, I'm still in the lowest court. I mean, but is it too late to file an appeal? Usually there's
[01:23:43.400 --> 01:23:53.400] a timeframe. No, I haven't been convicted of anything yet. Oh. So it's not right yet for appeal?
[01:23:53.400 --> 01:23:58.040] No. Yeah, it was a writ of prohibition. What was the nature of the writ of prohibition?
[01:23:58.040 --> 01:24:03.080] What were you trying to prohibit? I was trying to prohibit the proceedings and then to mandate
[01:24:03.080 --> 01:24:09.240] the court to basically rule on my pleadings that nobody's ever heard. I think I haven't really heard
[01:24:09.240 --> 01:24:16.040] from any rulings. I filed a bunch of paperwork and... That was a writ of prohibition. It seems
[01:24:16.040 --> 01:24:22.760] like that should have been a mandamus. It was a writ of prohibition and in the alternative,
[01:24:22.760 --> 01:24:29.160] it was a mandamus. So it was both. So I asked them to prohibit the proceedings because I
[01:24:29.160 --> 01:24:36.280] challenged the jurisdiction and everything and then I asked them to mandate it.
[01:24:36.280 --> 01:24:39.560] You challenged subject matter jurisdiction and they overruled it?
[01:24:41.880 --> 01:24:46.600] Yeah. That would seem like it would be neat for an interlocutory appeal.
[01:24:46.600 --> 01:24:55.720] Oh. Subject matter jurisdiction would end the case and it would be inappropriate for everyone
[01:24:55.720 --> 01:25:00.600] to have to go through the time and expense of a trial if the judge had no subject matter
[01:25:00.600 --> 01:25:05.640] jurisdiction from the beginning. So that would be ground for interlocutory appeal. Anything that
[01:25:05.640 --> 01:25:15.400] would end the case if it's ruled in the alternative to what's got is grounds for interlocutory appeal
[01:25:15.400 --> 01:25:22.520] and that's in the interest of judicial economy. Okay. I'll look into that.
[01:25:23.400 --> 01:25:26.520] By interlocutory appeal, that'll lock them up in the court they're in
[01:25:28.280 --> 01:25:33.480] and at least you'll have some fun with it. So an interlocutory appeal, that would be
[01:25:33.480 --> 01:25:39.560] filed to the next higher court? Yes. Well, it depends on whatever court
[01:25:39.560 --> 01:25:47.320] you would appeal to out of this one. Okay. In Texas, if you're in a municipal,
[01:25:47.320 --> 01:25:52.440] you appeal to the court, county, but if you're in the county, you don't appeal to the district,
[01:25:52.440 --> 01:25:59.000] you appeal to the court of appeals. So it would depend on which one you would normally appeal
[01:25:59.640 --> 01:26:06.920] that decision from that court. Right. Right. You see, I skipped the district judge on my
[01:26:06.920 --> 01:26:11.480] prohibition because we have justice court, district court, and then supreme court, which is the highest
[01:26:11.480 --> 01:26:17.080] court in Montana. And I skipped the district court, went straight to the supreme court on
[01:26:17.080 --> 01:26:22.760] the prohibition. But they said I didn't, in which I kind of thought I didn't either because I wasn't
[01:26:22.760 --> 01:26:28.280] really too sure I was in a big hurry because the trial was coming up really fast. And they just
[01:26:28.280 --> 01:26:32.040] said that I didn't just fail, that I failed to show that, because they said it was an extraordinary
[01:26:32.040 --> 01:26:39.800] writ, and I failed to show that I didn't seek any other remedies. Yeah. Well, it sounds like if you
[01:26:39.800 --> 01:26:45.800] made a jurisdictional challenge and they denied that, that should give you interlocutory appeal.
[01:26:46.520 --> 01:26:53.640] Yeah. You should have fun dancing with that. Yeah. Well, another thing I'm going to have
[01:26:53.640 --> 01:27:01.080] fun with is I kind of got listened to some David Merlin stuff. Anyways, I found a lot of paperwork
[01:27:01.080 --> 01:27:08.600] and the prosecutor called me a paper terrorist in her pleadings. And so I got on to David Merlin,
[01:27:08.600 --> 01:27:13.320] and he was telling me about how he sued in small claims against the cop for calling somebody a
[01:27:13.320 --> 01:27:18.680] constitutionalist for the definition of it. So I got up and made a lawsuit to file against the
[01:27:18.680 --> 01:27:22.440] prosecutor for the definition of paper terrorist. Definition, wonderful.
[01:27:24.200 --> 01:27:30.200] He didn't do it on defamation. He did it on conversion of private property or personal
[01:27:30.200 --> 01:27:35.720] property, an unlawful detainer, that if I'm going to be called a paper terrorist, then I have every
[01:27:35.720 --> 01:27:41.800] right to know what a paper terrorist is so that I don't have to. Well, how did that go to conversion?
[01:27:42.840 --> 01:27:49.960] If I remember, conversion is very specific. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out
[01:27:49.960 --> 01:27:56.120] too myself, and how I'm going to argue it. Reconversion, you have to, if I remember right,
[01:27:56.120 --> 01:28:02.520] you have to improperly take possession of somebody's property and dispose of it.
[01:28:03.400 --> 01:28:08.680] Don't quote me with it. The conversion was very specific, and when I looked at it,
[01:28:08.680 --> 01:28:13.800] it wasn't something easy to claim. It took very specific circumstances. Here you're talking about
[01:28:13.800 --> 01:28:29.320] defamation. The largest award ever in Texas history was a defamation case. That can be a big deal.
[01:28:29.320 --> 01:28:36.200] You're an upstanding member of the community. Your reputation is important to you.
[01:28:36.200 --> 01:28:42.520] Right. He called you a paper terrorist in public? Move it up.
[01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:48.680] That's what I thought. Well, I asked her for a definition of it on my reply plating, and she
[01:28:48.680 --> 01:28:53.480] didn't answer, of course. But here's the definition, or the elements of conversion.
[01:28:53.480 --> 01:28:57.240] One, plaintiff's ownership and right of possession of the shadow involved.
[01:28:57.960 --> 01:29:02.040] Two, conversion thereof by the defendant, and three, resulting damages.
[01:29:02.040 --> 01:29:09.480] The problem with that one is the nation of conversion had the conversion in?
[01:29:11.640 --> 01:29:14.280] The right of possession. Okay.
[01:29:16.200 --> 01:29:20.120] So just him calling you a paper terrorist wouldn't go to conversion here?
[01:29:20.840 --> 01:29:26.200] Well, you see, the way David Merlin talks about it is that you have a property, and I found a
[01:29:26.200 --> 01:29:32.920] statute in rights, or in Montana. It says things of which property may be consisted of,
[01:29:33.800 --> 01:29:37.240] and it says rights created or granted by statute.
[01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:41.160] Well, I don't see how that violated the right.
[01:29:43.800 --> 01:29:45.800] I'll tell you this on the other side. All right.
[01:29:48.440 --> 01:29:51.240] I didn't see the time, Jim. All right. Stay on the line there,
[01:29:51.240 --> 01:29:57.240] Stephen. We'll be right back. We're going to go to your calls, Guy and Ramon, and others.
[01:30:00.280 --> 01:30:04.760] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:30:05.320 --> 01:30:11.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:15.800] in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[01:30:15.800 --> 01:30:20.760] instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:30:20.760 --> 01:30:26.040] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and phone
[01:30:26.040 --> 01:30:30.680] calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn your financial tables
[01:30:30.680 --> 01:30:36.760] on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution
[01:30:36.760 --> 01:30:41.480] for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[01:30:41.480 --> 01:30:46.680] information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[01:30:46.680 --> 01:30:56.120] 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
[01:30:56.120 --> 01:31:17.480] at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:31:26.120 --> 01:31:28.680] The wicked come with temptations
[01:31:31.240 --> 01:31:33.480] They're trying to buy the whole place
[01:31:36.680 --> 01:31:39.480] They want to poison the nation
[01:31:42.200 --> 01:31:45.480] Because they're falling from grace
[01:31:47.640 --> 01:31:50.440] I will not drink from that cup
[01:31:50.440 --> 01:31:55.400] I just can't act out of way
[01:31:58.520 --> 01:32:01.640] They got this problem they're dreaming of
[01:32:03.320 --> 01:32:06.360] And I won't be the slave come what may
[01:32:06.360 --> 01:32:19.880] Cause I know you still can't come out of this, but you can't pass, because you saved me self from the almighty one, the one child who can save the mankind, to hold up to me down with heart and peace, and peace, and peace, and peace
[01:32:19.880 --> 01:32:33.480] You know we got a lot of people loving badly, but I'm not the man in the world to come and prove it, because the God man that you created me, he created every man and he do it in your body, but one time still I find myself failing
[01:32:33.480 --> 01:32:41.800] Because in my blood the God came free, and I'll try to pray, but for the sake of the god, and I have a certain surrender
[01:32:41.800 --> 01:32:51.480] And the people I'm fighting for, you need to get back to door-by-door, shame and shame, because when you are the representative of this country being proud of my value, that love of almighty
[01:32:51.480 --> 01:33:04.360] okay we're back we're talking with Steve in Montana yeah we were talking about
[01:33:04.360 --> 01:33:12.120] conversion I don't see how someone calling you a name can go to conversion
[01:33:12.120 --> 01:33:16.720] so she's not taking anything away from you all he's doing is defending your
[01:33:16.720 --> 01:33:22.640] character yeah well I'll send you the complaint that I got written up and then
[01:33:22.640 --> 01:33:26.520] you might be able to see a little better then because I have something else that
[01:33:26.520 --> 01:33:31.800] I'd like to talk about besides that with my time okay I got um I filed your
[01:33:31.800 --> 01:33:37.720] motion in limiting and the prosecutor responded back saying it's too vague and I
[01:33:37.720 --> 01:33:42.680] didn't state any authority showing it hold on hold on just a second for those
[01:33:42.680 --> 01:33:48.880] of you who don't know a motion in limiting it lists all of the questions
[01:33:48.880 --> 01:33:57.160] the other side can't ask have you looked on my website for a motion in limiting
[01:33:57.160 --> 01:34:04.120] yes I have it good good he said it was too vague yes she said it was too vague
[01:34:04.120 --> 01:34:12.760] and they didn't fight any authority and that's just him wiping a motion in
[01:34:12.760 --> 01:34:16.960] limiting you have to go before the court has they heard the motion in limiting
[01:34:16.960 --> 01:34:22.640] no the court hasn't ruled on nothing oh okay that's what I kind of went to the
[01:34:22.640 --> 01:34:25.880] Supreme Court about because the court hasn't ruled on any any of my motions
[01:34:25.880 --> 01:34:32.160] except she's only ruled on a probe wait a minute hold on you say are you going
[01:34:32.160 --> 01:34:36.960] into court are you being called into court for a hearing and they're not
[01:34:36.960 --> 01:34:44.920] hearing your motion yeah there's another one that's outlawry so to your federal
[01:34:44.920 --> 01:34:52.800] Constitution outlawry is forbidden by Constitution what they do what the court
[01:34:52.800 --> 01:34:59.840] is doing is denying you remedy if you've been under the common law if you were
[01:34:59.840 --> 01:35:06.280] summoned to court and you disrespected the court by not showing up they could
[01:35:06.280 --> 01:35:12.720] declare you an outlaw and as an outlaw you had no like to the protection of
[01:35:12.720 --> 01:35:19.720] the court so when the court denies you in that protection you have essentially
[01:35:19.720 --> 01:35:26.480] been outlawed and that's federal violation that violates federal
[01:35:26.480 --> 01:35:33.880] Constitution hmm use the research on outlawry that would be a fun one too a
[01:35:33.880 --> 01:35:40.080] fun argument to make and then I can give me an email I'll get you in touch with
[01:35:40.080 --> 01:35:45.280] Brady he's the first one that brought that up okay well then I got my public
[01:35:45.280 --> 01:35:48.960] defender and I asked him I told him that I wanted him to argue the motion in
[01:35:48.960 --> 01:35:53.480] limiting he says he doesn't understand it's too vague to in part of our
[01:35:53.480 --> 01:36:03.360] is he is he court-appointed yeah I'm bar grieving yeah anybody tries to or at
[01:36:03.360 --> 01:36:07.800] least tell him you're going to bar grieving and tell him that when you try
[01:36:07.800 --> 01:36:13.000] you move the court when you ask the court to remove you from the case if the
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:17.160] court does then I'm going to sue the court for breaching a ministerial duty
[01:36:17.160 --> 01:36:22.000] and interfering with a private contract I did this to my attorney and it
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:28.560] terrified me I know but I don't see well I just read a lot of day word a judge
[01:36:28.560 --> 01:36:36.200] can order in Montana way a judge can order that way the law did you leave
[01:36:36.200 --> 01:36:43.040] that under a civil case or a criminal criminal procedure under right to
[01:36:43.040 --> 01:36:53.320] counsel then that's easy enough if he if he removes your attorney you know the
[01:36:53.320 --> 01:37:00.600] okay the the courts may say he the judge can do that but if in the process of
[01:37:00.600 --> 01:37:07.800] doing that he violates another law or creates a harm we can be such to the
[01:37:07.800 --> 01:37:17.640] judge anyway and of course once they deny you the counsel of your choice now
[01:37:17.640 --> 01:37:25.560] they you can petition them to appoint the counsel you choose you have counsel
[01:37:25.560 --> 01:37:31.400] he's your counsel of choice they take your counsel away from you now you get
[01:37:31.400 --> 01:37:35.600] to go choose the council you don't want you go choose the most expensive law
[01:37:35.600 --> 01:37:45.240] firm in town okay the bandit they appoint that council how can that be a
[01:37:45.240 --> 01:37:50.080] breach of contract or interfering with the contract if I haven't signed the
[01:37:50.080 --> 01:37:55.920] prosecuting attorney was appointed to represent you and the attorney received
[01:37:55.920 --> 01:38:01.480] consideration based on a contractual agreement with the state for which you
[01:38:01.480 --> 01:38:06.760] were the intended third-party beneficiary that gives you standing to
[01:38:06.760 --> 01:38:15.760] adjudicate contract okay yeah they want to get about that part yeah you can when
[01:38:15.760 --> 01:38:19.200] you have time you should go over that a little better I'd like to understand
[01:38:19.200 --> 01:38:27.560] that better okay it's relatively simple a third-party beneficiary to a contract
[01:38:27.560 --> 01:38:33.800] has a right to adjudicate the contract and while he entered into a contract
[01:38:33.800 --> 01:38:42.760] with the state you are the only intended third-party beneficiary so you have
[01:38:42.760 --> 01:38:47.520] standing to adjudicate contract and the judge is interfering with that contract
[01:38:47.520 --> 01:38:59.000] and that also goes to Constitution and in a criminal prosecution unlike the
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:05.800] civil you have a constitutional right to be represented by council you don't have
[01:39:05.800 --> 01:39:10.440] that right as a matter of Constitution in a civil matter what you do in a
[01:39:10.440 --> 01:39:19.440] criminal and yes the judge has the right to remove an attorney for cause not just
[01:39:19.440 --> 01:39:25.840] because he wants to do it just because the attorney doesn't want to do his job
[01:39:26.200 --> 01:39:33.240] the attorney entered into a contract to ship accepted consideration based on the
[01:39:33.240 --> 01:39:40.560] contract he's bound to the contract if the court we lose them they'll have to
[01:39:40.560 --> 01:39:46.080] appoint your new council and that's the court do you want to pay the bill
[01:39:46.080 --> 01:39:49.640] taxpayer doesn't shouldn't have to pay the bills because I would have been
[01:39:49.640 --> 01:39:58.760] paid make him do his job and if the attorney mentions if you file a
[01:39:58.760 --> 01:40:03.360] bar agreement against him if he mentions that to the court to file a
[01:40:03.360 --> 01:40:10.800] bar grievance against him for that I mean he gets to the end of court letter
[01:40:10.800 --> 01:40:17.040] this is the way I beat mine in Austin I went after the attorney I told my
[01:40:17.040 --> 01:40:22.600] attorney first thing you fail to properly adjudicate every single one of
[01:40:22.600 --> 01:40:26.640] my due process rights and I got a motion in there claiming 21 violations
[01:40:26.640 --> 01:40:32.400] I thought a bar grievance against you and it was his first year of practice that
[01:40:32.400 --> 01:40:39.280] would have ended his career at least in Texas because the insurance company will
[01:40:39.280 --> 01:40:47.840] cancel his now practice insurance right so fight back you'll find it interesting
[01:40:47.840 --> 01:40:53.360] I've been giving him a fight that's for sure do it well take take the fight
[01:40:53.360 --> 01:40:58.480] right to them they want to give you some crapola give it right back to him the
[01:40:58.480 --> 01:41:02.240] attorney called you a paper terror
[01:41:02.360 --> 01:41:12.240] I believe him and charge him with the devil nation of terrorism the biggest
[01:41:12.240 --> 01:41:19.840] we prosecute but he has no right to slander this has nothing to do with the
[01:41:19.840 --> 01:41:25.840] UI have has the court declared you a vexatious litigant on the basis of the
[01:41:25.840 --> 01:41:31.400] prosecutor calling you a paper terrorist no okay good court hasn't done anything
[01:41:31.400 --> 01:41:38.040] it hurts your feelings didn't it no I just read this kind of no no no no no it
[01:41:38.040 --> 01:41:43.440] caused severe emotional distress it because so much distress you had to call
[01:41:43.440 --> 01:41:52.960] into talk radio show about it that's funny um I don't know if you have more
[01:41:52.960 --> 01:42:00.960] time either now or later on the show and you're out of colors um Randy I emailed
[01:42:00.960 --> 01:42:07.600] you a little while back and asked you about um I've been filing some common
[01:42:07.600 --> 01:42:13.120] law stuff and some civil procedure stuff in this criminal cave and prosecutors
[01:42:13.120 --> 01:42:17.880] argument back was apparently the defendant doesn't understand the
[01:42:17.880 --> 01:42:21.280] difference between civil and criminal procedure and all of this stuff that
[01:42:21.280 --> 01:42:28.520] some of the requested requests for admissions and interrogatories and the
[01:42:28.520 --> 01:42:33.520] judge granted that motion of course on her behalf without finding the facts or
[01:42:33.520 --> 01:42:40.200] even let me respond to it but anyhow I remember you saying that how they can do
[01:42:40.200 --> 01:42:50.200] anything the law allows them to do and we can do what the law allows him to do
[01:42:50.200 --> 01:42:58.000] but you can do anything now but you request discovery this is criminal case
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:07.440] you have a right to discover but I think what the prosecutors saying is that he
[01:43:07.440 --> 01:43:16.120] has a duty to disclose but you're asking for admissions I would suggest that if
[01:43:16.120 --> 01:43:27.120] he has a problem with that instead of asking for admissions file the judicial
[01:43:27.120 --> 01:43:35.440] notice ask the court to take judicial notice of what you were asking the
[01:43:35.440 --> 01:43:42.640] attorney to do you have jurisdiction area Stephen oh yes I do okay good okay
[01:43:42.640 --> 01:43:46.720] listen we're going to break and we're the call boards stacking up so okay I'll
[01:43:46.720 --> 01:43:52.600] let you guys go okay thanks I'll finish that on the other side all right we'll
[01:43:52.600 --> 01:43:55.800] be right back this is the rule of law we're gonna go to guy and then Ramon
[01:43:55.800 --> 01:44:05.680] and others
[01:44:05.680 --> 01:44:13.120] aerial spraying chemtrails the modified atmosphere heavy metals and pesticides
[01:44:13.120 --> 01:44:18.840] carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky you have a choice
[01:44:18.840 --> 01:44:26.400] to keep your body clean detoxify with micro plant powder from hemp USA or call
[01:44:26.400 --> 01:44:35.040] 908-691-2608 it's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food
[01:44:35.040 --> 01:44:40.840] protect your family now with micro plant powder cleaning out heavy metals
[01:44:40.840 --> 01:44:47.080] parasites and toxins order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long
[01:44:47.080 --> 01:44:56.880] term storage visit hemp USA dot org or call 908-691-2608 today
[01:45:47.080 --> 01:45:50.080] turn small steps to the giant
[01:45:50.080 --> 01:45:53.080] number one goes around country
[01:45:53.080 --> 01:45:56.080] as he walks
[01:45:56.080 --> 01:45:59.080] so shall we read
[01:45:59.080 --> 01:46:02.080] I need somebody to listen to this song
[01:46:06.080 --> 01:46:09.080] take a man who's lurking around the corner
[01:46:11.080 --> 01:46:14.080] and a small spoon of chocolate niter
[01:46:14.080 --> 01:46:17.080] one by one
[01:46:17.080 --> 01:46:20.080] my friend tell it by day
[01:46:20.080 --> 01:46:23.080] pass on the words of Almighty
[01:46:23.080 --> 01:46:25.080] lend a helping hand
[01:46:25.080 --> 01:46:27.080] me say as you go along
[01:46:27.080 --> 01:46:29.080] no late karma
[01:46:29.080 --> 01:46:31.080] me say knock you down money
[01:46:31.080 --> 01:46:35.080] carry the barn if you don't plant no seed
[01:46:35.080 --> 01:46:39.080] my friend lord you better have a good breed
[01:46:39.080 --> 01:46:42.080] you better live your life up fully
[01:46:42.080 --> 01:46:45.080] because you know me said do not drink
[01:46:45.080 --> 01:46:52.080] devotion so deep
[01:46:52.080 --> 01:46:56.080] as we so
[01:46:56.080 --> 01:47:00.080] so shall we read
[01:47:00.080 --> 01:47:03.080] many miles to travel
[01:47:03.080 --> 01:47:07.080] many promises to keep
[01:47:07.080 --> 01:47:10.080] as we so
[01:47:10.080 --> 01:47:13.080] okay we are back we're taking your calls
[01:47:13.080 --> 01:47:16.080] sorry Ramon dropped off the line there
[01:47:16.080 --> 01:47:20.080] we're trying to get y'all as fast as we can we're going to go to Guy
[01:47:20.080 --> 01:47:24.080] Ramon please call back in and then we'll go straight to you callers after that
[01:47:24.080 --> 01:47:29.080] we have open phone lines 512-646-1984
[01:47:29.080 --> 01:47:33.080] Guy thanks for calling in what's on your mind tonight?
[01:47:33.080 --> 01:47:42.080] well I'd just like to wish three of my most favorite Americans a happy fourth and very safe
[01:47:42.080 --> 01:47:47.080] Fourth of July Constitution Day
[01:47:47.080 --> 01:47:54.080] and I've got a few key points here
[01:47:54.080 --> 01:47:57.080] number one
[01:47:57.080 --> 01:48:04.080] first I'd like to compliment you Deborah about your first hour dissertation
[01:48:04.080 --> 01:48:11.080] I think it was extremely articulate and accurate and very to the point
[01:48:11.080 --> 01:48:20.080] hopefully you can stress all those points in your case
[01:48:20.080 --> 01:48:24.080] if you do win your case
[01:48:24.080 --> 01:48:27.080] first off it's one thing to get bought off
[01:48:27.080 --> 01:48:33.080] it's one thing to take the money and settle out of court as it were
[01:48:33.080 --> 01:48:39.080] it's another thing to run it through its course and get a case set
[01:48:39.080 --> 01:48:45.080] and thereby you would still get your dues
[01:48:45.080 --> 01:48:50.080] but I heard one guy take his case after he had won it
[01:48:50.080 --> 01:48:53.080] in the Court of Appeals
[01:48:53.080 --> 01:48:56.080] and he appealed his own case
[01:48:56.080 --> 01:49:00.080] and they said well why are you appealing your own case you won
[01:49:00.080 --> 01:49:06.080] and he says because this way the entire court sets it in precedence
[01:49:06.080 --> 01:49:09.080] so you may want to take that in consideration
[01:49:09.080 --> 01:49:15.080] wait a minute did he drop the case settling out of court and then appeal it
[01:49:15.080 --> 01:49:18.080] or did he actually won the case and then appealed?
[01:49:18.080 --> 01:49:22.080] yes he won the case and then reappealed it
[01:49:22.080 --> 01:49:26.080] appealed for what? what was he asking for in the appeal?
[01:49:26.080 --> 01:49:30.080] just to have it appealed just to have it verified by a higher court
[01:49:30.080 --> 01:49:34.080] the higher court made it set in precedence
[01:49:34.080 --> 01:49:38.080] whereas in the lower court it wouldn't have been in precedence
[01:49:38.080 --> 01:49:44.080] so he went to a higher court to have the higher court adjudicated in the affirmative
[01:49:44.080 --> 01:49:48.080] and therefore it set it as a case precedent
[01:49:48.080 --> 01:49:52.080] he can't invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[01:49:52.080 --> 01:49:56.080] unless he brings a legal question to the court
[01:49:56.080 --> 01:49:58.080] I don't know the details man
[01:49:58.080 --> 01:50:00.080] what case is this?
[01:50:00.080 --> 01:50:04.080] I don't know the case it was just one of these other legal shows I listened to
[01:50:04.080 --> 01:50:09.080] where the guy you know he's just like you and me he came in he says
[01:50:09.080 --> 01:50:15.080] he did this thing I forget exactly what it was I think it was a foreclosure case
[01:50:15.080 --> 01:50:17.080] it had to do with foreclosure
[01:50:17.080 --> 01:50:26.080] and he appealed it to a higher court and got a higher court to affirm the lower court's decision
[01:50:26.080 --> 01:50:30.080] and thereby setting it as a precedent
[01:50:30.080 --> 01:50:39.080] so he had to appeal to the higher court and claim error on part of the lower court
[01:50:39.080 --> 01:50:44.080] and I guess that would be claiming against his own position
[01:50:44.080 --> 01:50:48.080] I was going to say what was he asking for in the appeal to have his case rule
[01:50:48.080 --> 01:50:51.080] to have the higher court rule against him?
[01:50:51.080 --> 01:50:56.080] how he can get standing to invoke the higher court
[01:50:56.080 --> 01:51:02.080] evidently all I can say is that through his testimony that I heard on the air
[01:51:02.080 --> 01:51:08.080] he did this and got the affirmative so and that set it as a precedent
[01:51:08.080 --> 01:51:12.080] now that means that other people can take his case and run with it
[01:51:12.080 --> 01:51:17.080] that could have anyway if he got it through an appeals court
[01:51:17.080 --> 01:51:21.080] I don't know the details of it
[01:51:21.080 --> 01:51:27.080] you can cite a state appeals court opinion as precedent
[01:51:27.080 --> 01:51:31.080] so I don't understand there must be something else that we're not aware of
[01:51:31.080 --> 01:51:35.080] if you could listen to the archive of that other radio show and get the case
[01:51:35.080 --> 01:51:38.080] and send us a link I'd appreciate that
[01:51:38.080 --> 01:51:44.080] you know what I've been trying to do I've been battling my own little battles here
[01:51:44.080 --> 01:51:47.080] just to stay alive and keep a roof over my head
[01:51:47.080 --> 01:51:56.080] so what I've been wanting to do is download it, snip it, copy and paste it into a file
[01:51:56.080 --> 01:52:01.080] and then I can send it to you and what I'll do I've got it downloaded
[01:52:01.080 --> 01:52:05.080] I just haven't had time to do that because I wanted to send it off to a couple other people
[01:52:05.080 --> 01:52:10.080] well if you could just give me the name of the case then I can look it up on the internet and read it
[01:52:10.080 --> 01:52:15.080] that's just that the guy never he just he was a calling guy like me
[01:52:15.080 --> 01:52:17.080] oh and he never mentioned the name of the case
[01:52:17.080 --> 01:52:21.080] no he just said it had to do with a foreclosure case that he was doing
[01:52:21.080 --> 01:52:25.080] and that he appealed it to the higher courts to set a precedent
[01:52:25.080 --> 01:52:31.080] now what I will do is I will copy and paste this and I don't expect it anytime soon
[01:52:31.080 --> 01:52:35.080] but hopefully within the next within the month I can get this to you
[01:52:35.080 --> 01:52:41.080] and all you can do is just listen to it as I did and being with it from what you can okay
[01:52:41.080 --> 01:52:42.080] thank you
[01:52:42.080 --> 01:52:48.080] yeah sure anything to help now let's see okay
[01:52:48.080 --> 01:52:53.080] when you're talking about a lawsuit to a federal agency
[01:52:53.080 --> 01:53:00.080] and Randy you have mentioned this early on in an IRS case that you can only sue the individual
[01:53:00.080 --> 01:53:05.080] not the agency because the agency is a fictition it's a fiction it's a corporation
[01:53:05.080 --> 01:53:07.080] it has no actual entity
[01:53:07.080 --> 01:53:14.080] no no no wait wait wait no I didn't say you can't sue the agency
[01:53:14.080 --> 01:53:17.080] I'm saying you shouldn't sue the agency
[01:53:17.080 --> 01:53:27.080] okay well my mistake then however I'm just trying to bring the point that you have to sue the individual
[01:53:27.080 --> 01:53:31.080] of the agency and not the agency because the agency is a non-existent entity
[01:53:31.080 --> 01:53:36.080] no that's not true not in this case this is very clear under the Federal Tort Claims Act
[01:53:36.080 --> 01:53:44.080] I went over that at the beginning and specifically it is shoot I just closed it out
[01:53:44.080 --> 01:53:54.080] let me let me open this up again specifically it is 28 USC section 2680H
[01:53:54.080 --> 01:54:03.080] of the title 28 USC section 2680 paragraph H
[01:54:03.080 --> 01:54:10.080] section 2680 of title 28 discusses exemptions
[01:54:10.080 --> 01:54:19.080] okay regarding that you can't sue the US government for certain types of torts
[01:54:19.080 --> 01:54:28.080] and it specifically says that if there are tort claims arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest,
[01:54:28.080 --> 01:54:35.080] abusive process or malicious prosecution committed by law enforcement officers
[01:54:35.080 --> 01:54:44.080] it's very specific if those crimes were committed by law enforcement officers of the federal government
[01:54:44.080 --> 01:54:49.080] you can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act
[01:54:49.080 --> 01:54:57.080] however if a pencil pusher committed assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or any of those other things
[01:54:57.080 --> 01:55:03.080] somebody sitting behind a keyboard in other words any agent or employee of the federal government
[01:55:03.080 --> 01:55:09.080] that is not a law enforcement officer if any of those types of employees commit those crimes
[01:55:09.080 --> 01:55:15.080] you cannot sue the federal government at least not under the Federal Tort Claims Act
[01:55:15.080 --> 01:55:19.080] you would have to sue them personally okay
[01:55:19.080 --> 01:55:25.080] and you bring up an excellent point I know Eddie brought this up a few weeks back
[01:55:25.080 --> 01:55:37.080] about what defines a law enforcement officer so it's very possible that these people who were committing these offenses
[01:55:37.080 --> 01:55:43.080] actually hold no authority to be a law enforcement officer
[01:55:43.080 --> 01:55:47.080] well yeah I could I could through FOIA and discovery I could determine that
[01:55:47.080 --> 01:55:56.080] but in this same paragraph of section 28 2680 of title 28 it says for it's the very next sentence as a matter of fact
[01:55:56.080 --> 01:56:03.080] it says for the purpose of this subsection quote investigative or law enforcement officer end quote
[01:56:03.080 --> 01:56:11.080] means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches to seize evidence
[01:56:11.080 --> 01:56:20.080] or to make arrests for violations of federal law okay so these guys
[01:56:20.080 --> 01:56:25.080] I mean I would need either through FOIA or discovery in this case it would be discovery
[01:56:25.080 --> 01:56:33.080] get their personnel files try to find their get their oaths of office make a deterrent to make a determination
[01:56:33.080 --> 01:56:37.080] if they are legitimate law enforcement officers and I have a feeling they were okay
[01:56:37.080 --> 01:56:45.080] they this is the incident management team and they they're like special ops they're like military special ops
[01:56:45.080 --> 01:56:51.080] the federal government spends millions and millions maybe even billions of dollars on this incident management team
[01:56:51.080 --> 01:56:56.080] specifically to shut down the rainbow and it's all about the First Amendment
[01:56:56.080 --> 01:57:01.080] it's all about freedom of assembly on public property
[01:57:01.080 --> 01:57:08.080] hey barbie you brought in a very good point here if they're military doesn't that fly in the face
[01:57:08.080 --> 01:57:16.080] no no no no I didn't say they were military I said they were like military they're obviously very specially trained
[01:57:16.080 --> 01:57:22.080] the way they behave they have very special training I've done I've done a lot of research on this incident management team
[01:57:22.080 --> 01:57:29.080] if they're not your your average smokey the bear I'm telling you okay but I didn't say they were military they are
[01:57:29.080 --> 01:57:35.080] they may be but they may be they may be paramilitary according to Ralph Winterell
[01:57:35.080 --> 01:57:45.080] well possibly but if they well maybe so but if they are also employed by the US Department of Agriculture
[01:57:45.080 --> 01:57:54.080] on the books and have gone through proper certification and also and whatever they need to be lawfully declared
[01:57:54.080 --> 01:58:00.080] as a law enforcement agent of the federal government even if they're also CIA on the side
[01:58:00.080 --> 01:58:06.080] the point is if it's on the books that they are official law enforcement officers of the federal government
[01:58:06.080 --> 01:58:11.080] then I can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act and that's exactly what I intend to do
[01:58:11.080 --> 01:58:20.080] because I want money this time and I don't intend on selling out but I'll tell you because I've got them hands down
[01:58:20.080 --> 01:58:24.080] because of the Terry stop ruling if they made me an offer that I can't refuse I'm going to take the money
[01:58:24.080 --> 01:58:32.080] because they didn't run the dog around my car during the traffic stop that if they had done that then I would take it
[01:58:32.080 --> 01:58:37.080] all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the Kabbalist ruling okay but they didn't do that
[01:58:37.080 --> 01:58:45.080] they didn't run the dog around the car during the stop it was after okay so I don't really have the standing
[01:58:45.080 --> 01:58:51.080] or the grounds or the opportunity to overturn Kabbalist I would if I could so but this is just about straight up Terry stop
[01:58:51.080 --> 01:58:58.080] they offered me the money I'm taking it so that we can make some big progress here with the radio we'll be right back
[01:58:58.080 --> 01:59:09.080] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM but finding things on the internet isn't so easy and neither is finding like minded people to share it with
[01:59:09.080 --> 01:59:12.080] oh well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then
[01:59:12.080 --> 01:59:13.080] Brave New Books?
[01:59:13.080 --> 01:59:20.080] Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin
[01:59:20.080 --> 01:59:24.080] they even stock inner food, Berkey products and Calvin Soaps
[01:59:24.080 --> 01:59:26.080] there's no way a place like that exists
[01:59:26.080 --> 01:59:32.080] go check it out for yourself it's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT
[01:59:32.080 --> 01:59:35.080] by UT there's never anywhere to park down there
[01:59:35.080 --> 01:59:43.080] actually they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore
[01:59:43.080 --> 01:59:46.080] it does exist but when are they open?
[01:59:46.080 --> 01:59:59.080] Monday through Saturday 11 AM to 9 PM and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays so give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com