ROL_2010-07-22_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:11.320]  New York and Ohio pension funds are jointly suing BP for $220 million, claiming the company
[00:11.320 --> 00:17.800]  made false and misleading statements regarding BP safety protocols, operations and safety
[00:17.800 --> 00:18.800]  records.
[00:18.800 --> 00:24.400]  The Justice Department has concluded a two-year investigation into the Bush administration's
[00:24.400 --> 00:30.320]  firing of nine U.S. attorneys and will file no charges. The scandal contributed to mounting
[00:30.320 --> 00:36.200]  criticism. The Bush administration have politicized the Justice Department, a charge that contributed
[00:36.200 --> 00:40.960]  to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
[00:40.960 --> 00:46.360]  In Iraq Wednesday, 30 people including women and children were killed and 46 injured in
[00:46.360 --> 00:52.400]  a car bomb explosion in Bakuba. Wednesday's blast is the latest deadly attack in the city
[00:52.400 --> 00:57.880]  in recent days. Analysts have warned violence may surge if negotiations on forming a new
[00:57.880 --> 01:00.640]  government drag on.
[01:00.640 --> 01:05.080]  The Associated Press says the Department of Homeland Security filtered hundreds of public
[01:05.080 --> 01:10.680]  records requests through political appointees, allowing them to pass judgment on what was
[01:10.680 --> 01:15.760]  being released. The appointees were allowed to vet records requests deemed politically
[01:15.760 --> 01:21.400]  sensitive. They also required career employees to provide information about who had requested
[01:21.400 --> 01:26.600]  records whether the request was a journalist and in the case of Congressional representatives
[01:26.600 --> 01:29.280]  whether they were Republican or Democrat.
[01:29.280 --> 01:36.200]  In July 2009, the DHS issued a directive requiring a wide range of public records requests to
[01:36.200 --> 01:41.560]  pass through political appointees for vetting. These included any requests dealing with quote
[01:41.560 --> 01:47.120]  a controversial or sensitive subject or pertaining to meetings involving prominent business leaders
[01:47.120 --> 01:51.800]  and elected officials. Political appointees were interested in knowing what records journalists
[01:51.800 --> 01:56.760]  were requesting so the administration could prepare a response in advance. The department
[01:56.760 --> 02:01.520]  reportedly halted the practice earlier this month when it handed over its internal emails
[02:01.520 --> 02:02.520]  to AP.
[02:02.520 --> 02:07.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[02:07.000 --> 02:12.880]  Tony Haywood, CEO of BP and other oil bosses will be asked to give evidence to a new UK
[02:12.880 --> 02:18.600]  inquiry into deep water drilling. Tim Yeo, a British Member of Parliament chairing the
[02:18.600 --> 02:23.800]  Energy and Climate Change Committee, will lead MPs investigating North Sea offshore
[02:23.800 --> 02:29.600]  drilling asking serious questions about oil companies' plans for dealing with spills.
[02:29.600 --> 02:35.960]  On Wednesday, BP's four biggest rivals launched a $1 billion joint venture to fund a new deep
[02:35.960 --> 02:41.480]  water response system designed to prevent a repeat of the BP spill. Chevron, Conoco,
[02:41.480 --> 02:46.560]  Philips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell have drawn up new safety rules to present
[02:46.560 --> 03:11.640]  to the US government in an effort to preempt damaging regulations.
[03:16.560 --> 03:44.360]  What are you going to do, what are you going to do, what are you going to do, tell me something
[03:44.360 --> 04:02.380]  bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do, what are you going to do, bad boys, bad
[04:02.380 --> 04:07.780]  boys? If you get hot then you must get cool.
[04:07.780 --> 04:15.580]  Bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you here on the Rule of
[04:15.580 --> 04:22.100]  Law with Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig and Deborah Stevens.
[04:22.100 --> 04:28.100]  I want to make an announcement tomorrow night by special request we have Tom Woods coming
[04:28.100 --> 04:29.800]  on the show.
[04:29.800 --> 04:36.100]  He is going to be giving a presentation on Saturday concerning nullification of federal
[04:36.100 --> 04:37.600]  law.
[04:37.600 --> 04:41.860]  He's here in Austin and so we're going to have him on the show tomorrow night at the
[04:41.860 --> 04:45.700]  beginning of the show, hopefully for an hour or so, maybe a little longer so that he can
[04:45.700 --> 04:52.340]  talk about his speech, his upcoming events, his new book that he just wrote.
[04:52.340 --> 04:54.820]  He writes for the Lew Rockwell site.
[04:54.820 --> 04:59.340]  So we're looking forward to having Tom Woods on the show tomorrow night.
[04:59.340 --> 05:05.820]  And in the meantime, tonight we're going to be taking your calls 512-646-1984.
[05:05.820 --> 05:11.720]  So if you're out there listening on the AMRF and airwaves, please also tune in to the stream
[05:11.720 --> 05:18.000]  at ruleoflawradio.com so that we can get our numbers up on shoutcast.
[05:18.000 --> 05:23.260]  And if you're not, if you don't have internet connection or if you're not where we are broadcast
[05:23.260 --> 05:29.660]  on the airwaves, then you can listen at 512-485-9010.
[05:29.660 --> 05:34.700]  So to listen only is 512-485-9010.
[05:34.700 --> 05:42.900]  If you want to call in and talk with us live on the air, it's 512-646-1984.
[05:42.900 --> 05:49.100]  And right now, Eddie is going to present a discussion on what happened to the common
[05:49.100 --> 05:50.100]  law.
[05:50.100 --> 05:51.100]  So...
[05:51.100 --> 05:52.100]  All right.
[05:52.100 --> 05:54.100]  Good evening, everybody.
[05:54.100 --> 06:01.820]  I'd like to ask you, Deborah, Randy, how many different constitutions have there been governing
[06:01.820 --> 06:05.820]  the territory of Texas?
[06:05.820 --> 06:12.180]  Two that I know of.
[06:12.180 --> 06:13.380]  You want to take a guess, Deborah?
[06:13.380 --> 06:17.740]  I don't remember, but I think it's at least four.
[06:17.740 --> 06:19.340]  There have been nine.
[06:19.340 --> 06:20.340]  Okay.
[06:20.340 --> 06:22.060]  I was closer.
[06:22.060 --> 06:26.300]  The original constitution was actually the federal constitution of the United Mexican
[06:26.300 --> 06:30.820]  States and that was put forth in 1824.
[06:30.820 --> 06:37.460]  The constitution of the state of Coahuila and Texas was set up in 1827.
[06:37.460 --> 06:41.740]  Then you have the constitution or form of government of the state of Texas, which was
[06:41.740 --> 06:44.500]  done in 1833.
[06:44.500 --> 06:51.540]  Then you have the original Republic of Texas constitution, which was established in 1836.
[06:51.540 --> 06:58.500]  Now what I would like to take to you in the 1836 version of this constitution, I was doing
[06:58.500 --> 07:05.140]  some historical research on the Texas constitution a few days ago and I came across this part
[07:05.140 --> 07:10.300]  of article four, which is in that version of the constitution dealing with the judicial
[07:10.300 --> 07:11.460]  branch.
[07:11.460 --> 07:15.620]  There are only 13 sections to article four.
[07:15.620 --> 07:19.100]  Section 13 is quite an eye-opener.
[07:19.100 --> 07:26.660]  It reads thusly, the Congress shall as early as practicable introduce by statute the common
[07:26.660 --> 07:33.980]  law of England with such modifications as our circumstances in their judgment may require
[07:33.980 --> 07:41.140]  and in all criminal cases the common law shall be the rule of decision.
[07:41.140 --> 07:48.980]  Now this makes it very clear that Texas law was to be instituted and based upon the common
[07:48.980 --> 07:57.100]  law of England and that the common law was to be the law used in any criminal case that
[07:57.100 --> 08:00.060]  was handled in Texas.
[08:00.060 --> 08:06.380]  So here's the title of the discussion tonight, what happened to the common law.
[08:06.380 --> 08:14.700]  Now in 1845, Texas allegedly was taken into the United States and became the state of
[08:14.700 --> 08:15.700]  Texas.
[08:15.700 --> 08:20.380]  This constitution was set up and done in 1845.
[08:20.380 --> 08:27.700]  Now we all know that the original United States constitution is also based on the common law
[08:27.700 --> 08:33.900]  of England as was all the laws of all the states in existence at that time.
[08:33.900 --> 08:37.380]  All of them were based on the common law.
[08:37.380 --> 08:46.700]  In 1845, however, in the Texas constitution, Section 13 of Article 4 is gone.
[08:46.700 --> 08:54.820]  The common law is not referenced in that way anywhere in the entire 1845 constitution nor
[08:54.820 --> 09:01.440]  is it in the 1861 when we allegedly seceded from the U.S. and joined the Confederate states
[09:01.440 --> 09:04.340]  in the Civil War.
[09:04.340 --> 09:12.300]  It is also not in the Constitution of 1866 when we allegedly rejoined the United States.
[09:12.300 --> 09:19.180]  Then you have the Constitution of the state of West Texas, like Texas got divided somewhere
[09:19.180 --> 09:22.420]  down the middle in 1868.
[09:22.420 --> 09:27.300]  And then in 1869, we have the Reconstruction Constitution.
[09:27.300 --> 09:34.460]  And then finally in 1876, we have the base version of what is the Constitution we're
[09:34.460 --> 09:41.500]  under today with, of course, all the voluminous additions and alterations they have made to
[09:41.500 --> 09:42.500]  it.
[09:42.500 --> 09:48.860]  However, there's a couple of questions that need to be asked and answered in relation
[09:48.860 --> 09:53.180]  to these various versions of the Constitution and the current one.
[09:53.180 --> 09:59.380]  If you look in the current Constitution, this Constitution has an appendix and in this appendix
[09:59.380 --> 10:01.900]  there are footnotes.
[10:01.900 --> 10:08.220]  Footnote number three in the current Constitution states that any amendment or alteration of
[10:08.220 --> 10:13.940]  this Constitution does not affect a vested right.
[10:13.940 --> 10:18.660]  Now it is my understanding from the research I've done on this that that has been the
[10:18.660 --> 10:25.540]  way they have made constitutional alterations all the time, that that clause is added as
[10:25.540 --> 10:32.540]  a footnote that this alteration of the Constitution does not affect a vested right.
[10:32.540 --> 10:38.500]  So historically speaking, the rights that were originally established are originally
[10:38.500 --> 10:44.780]  vested and we still have them because the Constitution didn't grant them to begin with.
[10:44.780 --> 10:51.020]  All it did was enumerate some of them to ensure that the government had complete understanding
[10:51.020 --> 10:56.260]  of what they were not allowed to interfere with.
[10:56.260 --> 11:04.540]  Now what we need to find out though is how does a nation, which is what Texas actually
[11:04.540 --> 11:13.460]  was, a sovereign independent nation, how does a nation change constitutions without the
[11:13.460 --> 11:19.900]  dissolution of the nation under the original Constitution that precedes it?
[11:19.900 --> 11:28.980]  How can something that's used to formulate and create this entity be taken out of existence
[11:28.980 --> 11:40.720]  but the entity remain, at least when that entity is a legal fiction such as a state?
[11:40.720 --> 11:45.820]  So once you did away with that Constitution, you would have dissolved the thing that it
[11:45.820 --> 11:53.620]  bound and created or at least was designed to hold together, okay?
[11:53.620 --> 11:58.260]  And then it would have had to have been replaced by something new.
[11:58.260 --> 12:05.060]  So the first question we need to ask is were all of the previous constitutions dissolved
[12:05.060 --> 12:14.580]  and rendered moot or were all the subsequent constitutions built upon the basis of the
[12:14.580 --> 12:17.300]  first?
[12:17.300 --> 12:21.820]  And the first in this case being specifically the actual Republic of Texas Constitution
[12:21.820 --> 12:24.340]  in 1836.
[12:24.340 --> 12:31.900]  If that is the case, then all those rules that were protected and vested in the people
[12:31.900 --> 12:39.660]  under the original creation of the Republic of Texas are vested through till today.
[12:39.660 --> 12:42.460]  They've been inherited and hereditary to all of us.
[12:42.460 --> 12:45.220]  We were all created by the same supreme being.
[12:45.220 --> 12:49.980]  We all were vested with the same rights at our conception and we all maintain them through
[12:49.980 --> 12:52.940]  all of our lives.
[12:52.940 --> 12:59.900]  Now if that's the case, then the 1876 Constitution did not and could not, nor could any previous
[12:59.900 --> 13:06.660]  version of the Constitution, do away with the people's vested right of having a criminal
[13:06.660 --> 13:12.100]  trial held under the common law and the rules thereof.
[13:12.100 --> 13:19.860]  It assumes in fact not in evidence.
[13:19.860 --> 13:21.540]  Which is?
[13:21.540 --> 13:30.380]  That in order to replace one Constitution with another, the underlying government must
[13:30.380 --> 13:32.780]  be dissolved.
[13:32.780 --> 13:37.300]  How can it not be evident?
[13:37.300 --> 13:44.340]  If you form a corporation, just as an example, if you form a corporation here in Texas, can
[13:44.340 --> 13:51.220]  that same corporation change itself to a different corporation without the dissolution of the
[13:51.220 --> 13:54.820]  first or an alteration of the documents creating it?
[13:54.820 --> 13:59.900]  Yeah, they can change it simply by changing their charter and that's what the Constitution
[13:59.900 --> 14:00.900]  is, is the charter.
[14:00.900 --> 14:01.900]  They don't have to dissolve it.
[14:01.900 --> 14:02.900]  Wait a minute, Randy.
[14:02.900 --> 14:05.900]  What happened to the original charter?
[14:05.900 --> 14:06.900]  What happened?
[14:06.900 --> 14:10.580]  The government is established from the Constitution.
[14:10.580 --> 14:12.420]  If there's no Constitution, there's no government.
[14:12.420 --> 14:16.780]  The government does not exist before the Constitution exists.
[14:16.780 --> 14:18.140]  That's right.
[14:18.140 --> 14:23.760]  If you do away with the charter of a corporation and replace it with another, there's still
[14:23.760 --> 14:30.620]  a dissolution of the original charter in order to establish the new charter.
[14:30.620 --> 14:34.940]  One charter is simply replaced with another and the rules change.
[14:34.940 --> 14:37.980]  We change the rules all the time.
[14:37.980 --> 14:44.300]  The question is, since it states that it can't change a vested right, then you can't change
[14:44.300 --> 14:46.500]  the rules associated with that vested right.
[14:46.500 --> 14:53.420]  If you say that you can change the basis of the law from common law to something else,
[14:53.420 --> 14:59.380]  then you are altering the foundation upon which the Republic itself was built.
[14:59.380 --> 15:01.060]  Precisely.
[15:01.060 --> 15:02.840]  And the people have the right to do that.
[15:02.840 --> 15:06.140]  They can change their Constitution anytime they want to.
[15:06.140 --> 15:14.100]  Yeah, and so if the old Constitution is thrown out and a new Constitution is put in place,
[15:14.100 --> 15:18.060]  that means the old government gets thrown out with it.
[15:18.060 --> 15:19.060]  Why?
[15:19.060 --> 15:25.300]  Because, I just said, the government is established from the Constitution.
[15:25.300 --> 15:30.260]  If the Constitution is gone, the government is gone.
[15:30.260 --> 15:33.300]  They have to form a new government base.
[15:33.300 --> 15:34.300]  Why?
[15:34.300 --> 15:41.420]  Well, that's if the Constitution is established from the government.
[15:41.420 --> 15:49.180]  The Constitution establishes the government, Randy, not the other way around.
[15:49.180 --> 15:54.460]  When a law changes, you don't have to throw out all the cops and rehire them.
[15:54.460 --> 15:55.460]  This isn't a law.
[15:55.460 --> 15:59.500]  It just changes the Constitution.
[15:59.500 --> 16:08.660]  The same legislature, the same House, the same Senate, the same judiciary moves along.
[16:08.660 --> 16:10.980]  It's not the same anything, Randy.
[16:10.980 --> 16:15.380]  The Constitution establishes those governing bodies.
[16:15.380 --> 16:20.500]  It's not a law passed by the legislature.
[16:20.500 --> 16:27.420]  So the people can update or change their Constitution or adopt a new one without throwing out the
[16:27.420 --> 16:28.420]  government.
[16:28.420 --> 16:29.420]  I'm not saying that, well...
[16:29.420 --> 16:31.820]  There's a necessity of dissolving the government.
[16:31.820 --> 16:39.780]  I don't understand that presupposition as to why the government must be dissolved.
[16:39.780 --> 16:44.980]  We're talking two different foundations between a statutory enactment and a Constitution,
[16:44.980 --> 16:45.980]  though.
[16:45.980 --> 16:48.740]  Completely different animals in that regard.
[16:48.740 --> 16:50.500]  But we're about to go to break, folks.
[16:50.500 --> 16:55.020]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[16:55.020 --> 17:03.060]  We will be right back after this break.
[17:03.060 --> 17:08.100]  Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:08.100 --> 17:10.140]  in the Austin metro area.
[17:10.140 --> 17:12.180]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:12.180 --> 17:16.220]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[17:16.220 --> 17:17.220]  and metals purchases.
[17:17.220 --> 17:22.900]  We buy, sell, trade and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:22.900 --> 17:24.780]  metals and scrap gold.
[17:24.780 --> 17:28.380]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:28.380 --> 17:30.980]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullions.
[17:30.980 --> 17:37.100]  We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10
[17:37.100 --> 17:40.980]  a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[17:40.980 --> 17:48.380]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[17:48.380 --> 17:49.380]  with any questions.
[17:49.380 --> 17:54.420]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[17:54.420 --> 18:07.940]  That's Capital Coin and Bullions, 512-646-6440.
[18:07.940 --> 18:35.180]  We are open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. to 5 p.m.
[18:35.180 --> 18:55.700]  to 5 p.m. to 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. to 6 p.m.
[18:55.700 --> 19:20.020]  Okay folks, sorry we were having a little technical difficulties, we had to work out
[19:20.020 --> 19:21.020]  on the break.
[19:21.020 --> 19:26.660]  Yeah, I'm that technical difficulty and they beat me up on the break and they're right,
[19:26.660 --> 19:27.660]  I give up.
[19:27.660 --> 19:31.700]  Okay, well sorry folks, I think there was some problems with some people's headphones,
[19:31.700 --> 19:36.960]  they weren't hearing, people weren't able to hear each other quite well so we were stepping
[19:36.960 --> 19:42.340]  on each other a bit, apologize for that, we got the headphone situation worked out here.
[19:42.340 --> 19:48.660]  But yeah, the point being that if the Constitution establishes those governing bodies, if the
[19:48.660 --> 19:53.180]  Constitution is nullified, then those governing bodies are nullified as well.
[19:53.180 --> 19:58.060]  Anything that is established and formed under the Constitution would be nullified if that
[19:58.060 --> 20:00.180]  Constitution is nullified.
[20:00.180 --> 20:05.660]  So I mean you just read the Constitution and you see that that's what it says.
[20:05.660 --> 20:12.540]  I know Eddie was moving toward a point and actually I brought that issue up in anticipation
[20:12.540 --> 20:16.900]  of the point he was going to, so I'll shut up and let him get to his point.
[20:16.900 --> 20:22.940]  Well and actually out of your input is what I was after on the point.
[20:22.940 --> 20:29.860]  But the fact is that you're right, the people can alter the Constitution any time they wish,
[20:29.860 --> 20:34.580]  but just as what the Declaration of Independence states, that the people are not likely to
[20:34.580 --> 20:42.940]  dissolve their government or their nation, whatever it is, for light and transient reasons,
[20:42.940 --> 20:51.020]  then it just makes sense that the people were not looking to have a complete reiteration
[20:51.020 --> 20:56.660]  and reconstruction of a Constitution when it had worked for them up to that point.
[20:56.660 --> 21:00.500]  Then why did they put in a new one?
[21:00.500 --> 21:06.420]  Well we're operating under the presumption that that was done all by the people.
[21:06.420 --> 21:15.860]  We can't just blow off the Constitution because it doesn't seem to fit our line of logic.
[21:15.860 --> 21:21.020]  Is there any question about the validity of that Constitution?
[21:21.020 --> 21:26.740]  Well there are things that I've noticed when I was doing research on it before that were
[21:26.740 --> 21:33.620]  versions of the Constitution have been altered in certain places from how they read previously,
[21:33.620 --> 21:38.820]  even though they're in the same version.
[21:38.820 --> 21:44.660]  And in the years when these alterations occurred, I can't find any amendments.
[21:44.660 --> 21:46.820]  But the language has been altered.
[21:46.820 --> 21:52.460]  And it turns out that what's being done, they do the same thing with the Texas Constitution
[21:52.460 --> 22:01.340]  that they do with the statutes of Texas under their 1963 code revision statute.
[22:01.340 --> 22:09.300]  Which means it doesn't make a substantive change, at least that's what they say.
[22:09.300 --> 22:10.300]  Exactly.
[22:10.300 --> 22:17.140]  It depends on what they say, which isn't what they do, and we know that.
[22:17.140 --> 22:23.340]  When they make an alteration to what the law affects and how it was intended to operate,
[22:23.340 --> 22:25.540]  that is a substantive change.
[22:25.540 --> 22:32.580]  A non-substantive change simply means that they made the language clearer, but it's clear
[22:32.580 --> 22:39.740]  that nothing that it affected previously has been added, so there's nothing new affected,
[22:39.740 --> 22:42.860]  and nothing it originally affected has been dropped.
[22:42.860 --> 22:47.120]  So it's still the same law it was before, and it's obvious it's the same law.
[22:47.120 --> 22:49.580]  That's not the case in what we're dealing with here.
[22:49.580 --> 22:54.820]  They go through it and they make these statutory revisions, and the law changes.
[22:54.820 --> 23:00.300]  For instance, the big problem we have over the driving issue, the word commercial was
[23:00.300 --> 23:02.260]  removed.
[23:02.260 --> 23:08.180]  Did that not give the appearance of a complete substantive alteration to the law?
[23:08.180 --> 23:15.260]  Now it's enforced as if it applies to everybody, when instead it still only applies to commercial.
[23:15.260 --> 23:20.900]  While there was no substantive alteration to the law, there was a substantive difference
[23:20.900 --> 23:25.980]  in enforcement and interpretation.
[23:25.980 --> 23:29.540]  Then we should sue the publisher.
[23:29.540 --> 23:37.300]  Well, the problem I have there... Was it West or Vernon's?
[23:37.300 --> 23:41.820]  It's both, actually, but the problem I have there is this, Randy.
[23:41.820 --> 23:46.100]  The laws created by the legislature belong to the people.
[23:46.100 --> 23:52.080]  I have yet to figure out how the legislature or anybody else in the government of Texas
[23:52.080 --> 24:00.860]  has the authority to send the people's access to their own law to a copywriting publishing
[24:00.860 --> 24:05.580]  company that copyrights the laws and then prevents access unless you can actually afford
[24:05.580 --> 24:08.740]  to pay for a copy.
[24:08.740 --> 24:15.780]  That part I got a big problem with, because used to you could go to the secretary of state
[24:15.780 --> 24:25.580]  and you could order a plain white paperback printed version of a statutory code.
[24:25.580 --> 24:30.460]  It was printed and published by the government and you just paid the cost of the printing
[24:30.460 --> 24:33.580]  and the publishing and you got the code.
[24:33.580 --> 24:35.060]  You can't do that anymore.
[24:35.060 --> 24:42.220]  The government, plus in the publisher's codes, their versions of the codes, there is no longer
[24:42.220 --> 24:46.380]  a secretary of state certification of the law.
[24:46.380 --> 24:50.220]  Doesn't exist in the new codes that are put out by West and Vernon's.
[24:50.220 --> 24:55.660]  There's nothing that certifies what is being published by these people is authentic and
[24:55.660 --> 24:57.700]  genuine as the laws of Texas.
[24:57.700 --> 25:02.780]  There is no secretary of state certification.
[25:02.780 --> 25:07.500]  I can't find anything that repealed the law that requires that certification, but it isn't
[25:07.500 --> 25:08.500]  there.
[25:08.500 --> 25:15.020]  Let's go back and look at the public law and see how it compares to the current codification
[25:15.020 --> 25:16.340]  of the code.
[25:16.340 --> 25:23.280]  Now the books that I bought, the law books that I got from Randy Redder, those 1996 versions
[25:23.280 --> 25:29.980]  of Vernon's, the front of each book has the secretary of state certification certificate
[25:29.980 --> 25:30.980]  in it.
[25:30.980 --> 25:31.980]  Each one of them.
[25:31.980 --> 25:32.980]  Yeah, that was 1926.
[25:32.980 --> 25:35.580]  No, no, that's the original laws.
[25:35.580 --> 25:41.300]  But the books I have that I bought from him were actually reprinted in 1996.
[25:41.300 --> 25:45.220]  Oh, I thought they were older, okay.
[25:45.220 --> 25:49.700]  But they do contain versions of the statutes from earlier than that.
[25:49.700 --> 25:53.060]  As a matter of fact, it's a complete set of them.
[25:53.060 --> 25:57.660]  But in each book, there is a certification by the secretary of state that these are the
[25:57.660 --> 26:03.520]  true and correct reproductions of the laws passed by the Texas legislature.
[26:03.520 --> 26:09.020]  That does not exist in this West Publishing book I've got that they use in court.
[26:09.020 --> 26:12.940]  All these prosecuting attorneys carry this little green book into court with them and
[26:12.940 --> 26:19.220]  there's not a single certification page in it from the secretary of state.
[26:19.220 --> 26:22.140]  I find that kind of odd.
[26:22.140 --> 26:28.140]  Now the reason I brought all this up was on the common law side of things.
[26:28.140 --> 26:34.760]  The Constitution of the United States creates two criminal jurisdictions for the courts.
[26:34.760 --> 26:40.620]  There's criminal under the common law and there's criminal under admiralty law or military
[26:40.620 --> 26:42.380]  tribunal law.
[26:42.380 --> 26:49.900]  Those are the only two statutory jurisdictions that exist for the courts in the United States
[26:49.900 --> 26:54.140]  Constitution.
[26:54.140 --> 27:01.900]  The United States Constitution says that every court of every state must abide by what it
[27:01.900 --> 27:04.300]  says.
[27:04.300 --> 27:09.980]  They are under the direction of abiding by that Constitution.
[27:09.980 --> 27:19.100]  So how are the courts in the states creating a third jurisdiction called a statutory jurisdiction
[27:19.100 --> 27:21.620]  that is completely alien to...
[27:21.620 --> 27:27.380]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, that sounds like total preemption.
[27:27.380 --> 27:31.700]  That's exactly what it sounds like.
[27:31.700 --> 27:36.820]  Where does it say in the Constitution that every state must abide by?
[27:36.820 --> 27:40.580]  The judges of every state shall be bound.
[27:40.580 --> 27:42.900]  By what?
[27:42.900 --> 27:47.420]  By the Constitution.
[27:47.420 --> 27:51.740]  It's taken right out of the United States Constitution.
[27:51.740 --> 27:58.460]  But you can't take those portions of the Constitution that are directed specifically at the federal
[27:58.460 --> 28:07.860]  government and apply that to the states where it would be beyond the scope of the Supremacy
[28:07.860 --> 28:23.420]  Clause and the Supremacy Clause only goes to interstate commerce and then the 14th Amendment
[28:23.420 --> 28:27.620]  goes essentially to civil rights.
[28:27.620 --> 28:32.980]  Okay let me see.
[28:32.980 --> 28:36.100]  Here we go, shall be bound.
[28:36.100 --> 28:42.540]  Okay this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
[28:42.540 --> 28:48.380]  thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United
[28:48.380 --> 28:54.740]  States shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound
[28:54.740 --> 29:03.380]  thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding.
[29:03.380 --> 29:08.420]  Now when it says the judges in every state are they talking about federal judges or are
[29:08.420 --> 29:11.420]  they talking about state judges and state courts?
[29:11.420 --> 29:17.340]  No no no and this is the Constitution there is no requisite of state being defined differently
[29:17.340 --> 29:19.780]  like there is under federal statute.
[29:19.780 --> 29:23.740]  When the Constitution speaks of state it means the states of the Union.
[29:23.740 --> 29:27.820]  But I mean it says the judges in every state but there are federal judges in every state
[29:27.820 --> 29:28.820]  is what I'm saying.
[29:28.820 --> 29:31.060]  They could be referring to federal judges.
[29:31.060 --> 29:36.500]  It does not make that distinction it says the judges of every state just like it says
[29:36.500 --> 29:43.180]  that every member of the several state legislatures and all executive and judicial officers both
[29:43.180 --> 29:48.500]  of the United States and of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support
[29:48.500 --> 29:51.700]  this Constitution.
[29:51.700 --> 29:54.140]  That makes no distinction it covers all of them.
[29:54.140 --> 29:55.260]  Okay folks we'll be right back.
[29:55.260 --> 30:01.300]  Call in 512-646-1984.
[30:01.300 --> 30:06.260]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM but finding things on the internet isn't so
[30:06.260 --> 30:09.940]  easy and neither is finding like minded people to share it with.
[30:09.940 --> 30:12.860]  Oh well I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[30:12.860 --> 30:13.860]  Brave New Books?
[30:13.860 --> 30:18.700]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex
[30:18.700 --> 30:21.260]  Jones, Ron Paul and Geobert Griffin.
[30:21.260 --> 30:24.660]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products and Calvin Soaps.
[30:24.660 --> 30:27.620]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[30:27.620 --> 30:32.900]  Go check it out for yourself it's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT.
[30:32.900 --> 30:37.180]  By UT there's never anywhere to park down there.
[30:37.180 --> 30:42.060]  Actually they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[30:42.060 --> 30:45.060]  facility just behind the bookstore.
[30:45.060 --> 30:48.060]  It does exist but when are they open?
[30:48.060 --> 30:53.620]  Monday through Saturday 11 AM to 9 PM and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays so give them a call at
[30:53.620 --> 31:01.740]  512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[31:01.740 --> 31:04.860]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[31:04.860 --> 31:10.180]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[31:10.180 --> 31:16.180]  4 CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[31:16.180 --> 31:21.260]  If you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing, if you don't have a lawyer
[31:21.260 --> 31:23.700]  know what you should do for yourself.
[31:23.700 --> 31:28.540]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[31:28.540 --> 31:34.340]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[31:34.340 --> 31:39.860]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[31:39.860 --> 31:43.620]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[31:43.620 --> 31:50.340]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[31:50.340 --> 31:52.780]  process tactics and much more.
[31:52.780 --> 32:00.380]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[32:00.380 --> 32:24.220]  Yes, Mr. Officer, you're taking the line ahead Won't you follow the law of the land?
[32:24.220 --> 32:46.660]  When you're going to stop abuse, give power When you're going to stop abuse, give power
[32:46.660 --> 33:02.060]  When you're going to stop abuse, give power When you're going to stop abuse, give power
[33:02.060 --> 33:17.500]  When you're going to stop abuse, give power When you're going to stop abuse, give power
[33:17.500 --> 33:43.220]  When you're going to stop abuse, give power When you're going to stop abuse, give power
[33:43.220 --> 34:02.740]  When you're going to stop abuse, give power When you're going to stop abuse, give power
[34:02.740 --> 34:03.740]  Hi folks, we are back.
[34:03.740 --> 34:10.260]  This is Rule of Law Radio and we were discussing the issue of where did the common law go.
[34:10.260 --> 34:16.340]  Now, here in Texas, the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that anything that's not
[34:16.340 --> 34:23.140]  covered by this code shall be done in accordance with the common law.
[34:23.140 --> 34:25.420]  But here's the problem.
[34:25.420 --> 34:32.340]  If the code is not in agreement with the common law, then the code itself is invalid if the
[34:32.340 --> 34:38.380]  Constitution declared the common law shall be the basis of any criminal determination
[34:38.380 --> 34:39.380]  and trial.
[34:39.380 --> 34:45.340]  Wait a minute, which Constitution does that, the current one or the previous one?
[34:45.340 --> 34:46.340]  The 18th.
[34:46.340 --> 34:51.460]  This is the reason for the discussion on was it dissolved or was it built upon?
[34:51.460 --> 34:57.340]  Because if it's not dissolved, then its mandate of the vested right of the people to a common
[34:57.340 --> 35:00.220]  law trial still stands.
[35:00.220 --> 35:06.980]  Yeah, but no, the people issued us different mandate.
[35:06.980 --> 35:13.300]  And that wasn't in there and we have to assume they left it out on purpose.
[35:13.300 --> 35:17.260]  But you forget which time we're talking about, Randy.
[35:17.260 --> 35:21.820]  During the Reformation, there's no guarantee it was the people that did anything with the
[35:21.820 --> 35:23.660]  Constitution at all.
[35:23.660 --> 35:24.660]  What about the 1879?
[35:24.660 --> 35:27.660]  They did have it.
[35:27.660 --> 35:33.700]  Yeah, but if nobody was given a copy of what the original one was supposed to be, they
[35:33.700 --> 35:38.020]  wouldn't have had a basis to go back and see what they'd been deprived of.
[35:38.020 --> 35:46.220]  I mean, you're talking 40 plus, 43 years, 40 years of time.
[35:46.220 --> 35:53.260]  You can't bring a provision back into the Constitution because you think the people
[35:53.260 --> 35:55.980]  might have screwed up when they left it out.
[35:55.980 --> 36:02.660]  I'm not saying that, I'm simply posing some ideas and some questions.
[36:02.660 --> 36:09.660]  Point being that if the people had the vested right to that, whether or not the people changed
[36:09.660 --> 36:15.660]  the Constitution makes no difference because the right was not granted by the Constitution
[36:15.660 --> 36:17.540]  to begin with.
[36:17.540 --> 36:20.980]  The right existed with or without the Constitution.
[36:20.980 --> 36:26.100]  No matter how many of them they've had, no matter how many of them have been changed.
[36:26.100 --> 36:33.940]  Is it your position that a specific venue of law is a vested right?
[36:33.940 --> 36:41.700]  If it is the basis of the law upon which that union is made, yes, because it can't be changed.
[36:41.700 --> 36:47.300]  Not without the consent of the people as a whole because it's just like what we say about
[36:47.300 --> 36:48.300]  majority rule.
[36:48.300 --> 36:50.540]  We are not a democracy.
[36:50.540 --> 36:55.300]  Ten people cannot vote away the rights of one.
[36:55.300 --> 36:56.700]  They just can't do it.
[36:56.700 --> 37:03.540]  It's not within their purview to vote away the rights of one of their neighbors.
[37:03.540 --> 37:09.300]  Anytime that we act in punishment of someone, it's always by an act of force, not by an
[37:09.300 --> 37:11.740]  act of vote.
[37:11.740 --> 37:20.540]  Since the Constitution instituted the statutory law, that means we have a vested right in
[37:20.540 --> 37:26.140]  the statutory law and they can't change it.
[37:26.140 --> 37:32.220]  No, the Constitution didn't institute a statutory law.
[37:32.220 --> 37:37.540]  Statutory law doesn't exist except by judicial fiat that I can find.
[37:37.540 --> 37:45.220]  The Constitution authorized the legislature to create the statutory law.
[37:45.220 --> 37:50.780]  But it did not allow them in any language whatsoever to create such law to bind and
[37:50.780 --> 37:53.700]  regulate the people.
[37:53.700 --> 37:57.460]  The common law is the basis of that for the people.
[37:57.460 --> 38:02.620]  The statutory law was a power granted to the government for those things over which it
[38:02.620 --> 38:08.460]  was given specific powers within the Constitution and nothing more.
[38:08.460 --> 38:14.380]  We are talking two different venues and purposes for the law.
[38:14.380 --> 38:20.420]  It's two different modes of law for two completely different reasons.
[38:20.420 --> 38:25.580]  The statutory was meant to control the creation of government and the things over which government
[38:25.580 --> 38:27.760]  was given direct authority.
[38:27.760 --> 38:33.780]  It was not designed for the people in any way, shape or form.
[38:33.780 --> 38:34.780]  How do you get there?
[38:34.780 --> 38:38.380]  What do you mean, how do I get there?
[38:38.380 --> 38:45.580]  I mean, how do you get to that position that the legislature was not authorized to create
[38:45.580 --> 38:47.660]  laws that affect the people?
[38:47.660 --> 38:52.900]  Does the Constitution not state that the powers herein are, let me see, let me read it to
[38:52.900 --> 39:05.020]  you directly out of the Texas Constitution, where it tells you very clearly, let me see
[39:05.020 --> 39:06.020]  here.
[39:06.020 --> 39:10.460]  Hang with me just a second, folks, and I'll get it to you.
[39:10.460 --> 39:16.580]  All right, Article 1, Section 29, provisions of Bill of Rights accepted from powers of
[39:16.580 --> 39:20.020]  government to forever remain inviolent.
[39:20.020 --> 39:25.340]  To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything
[39:25.340 --> 39:30.100]  in this Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of government, which is
[39:30.100 --> 39:37.020]  what the statutory law is created under, and shall forever remain inviolent, and all laws
[39:37.020 --> 39:43.140]  contrary thereto or to the following provisions shall be void.
[39:43.140 --> 39:50.020]  Now in no provision of this Constitution can I find the word regulate in conjunction with
[39:50.020 --> 39:51.700]  the people.
[39:51.700 --> 39:59.560]  Where in those listed rights do you find common law?
[39:59.560 --> 40:02.820]  The common law is what the Constitution itself is built on, Randy.
[40:02.820 --> 40:07.300]  The common law is what was in existence in 1876.
[40:07.300 --> 40:08.300]  Non-responsive.
[40:08.300 --> 40:18.740]  I think that the bigger question, Randy, is not the negative question of where is it listed
[40:18.740 --> 40:23.580]  in the common law regarding the Bill of Rights, but I think really the question is what Eddie
[40:23.580 --> 40:32.060]  was saying, where does it authorize the government in the Constitution to regulate the people?
[40:32.060 --> 40:38.060]  Eddie says that he's never been able to see regulate and the people put together in the
[40:38.060 --> 40:39.060]  Constitution.
[40:39.060 --> 40:47.060]  If they are not specifically authorized to regulate the people, then they cannot do it.
[40:47.060 --> 40:50.900]  Plus the fact that there's also nothing in the wording of the Constitution, Randy, that
[40:50.900 --> 40:55.540]  says the common law is null and void or no longer is in existence or is no longer the
[40:55.540 --> 41:03.460]  basis of, and as you said many, many times yourself, I can do anything I want if the
[41:03.460 --> 41:09.460]  law does not prevent me or the Constitution doesn't grant them the power to do it.
[41:09.460 --> 41:12.780]  Then I can use the Babylonian law if I want to.
[41:12.780 --> 41:19.980]  Well, you can do whatever you want unless there's law preventing you from doing it.
[41:19.980 --> 41:25.820]  Like in the penal code, that's not a regulatory code.
[41:25.820 --> 41:33.500]  There is no historical provision for Babylonian law being the basis upon which the Republic
[41:33.500 --> 41:34.500]  is built.
[41:34.500 --> 41:38.380]  There is a historical preclusion to the common law.
[41:38.380 --> 41:43.500]  Randy, you can operate under whatever law you want to operate under in your own mind
[41:43.500 --> 41:46.660]  as long as it doesn't violate the statutory law.
[41:46.660 --> 41:49.340]  You're poisoning the well here.
[41:49.340 --> 41:58.380]  I was going to your logic when you said that the provision that forbids the changing of
[41:58.380 --> 42:03.580]  the Constitution, that all of the provisions in these Bill of Rights, it wasn't talking
[42:03.580 --> 42:09.060]  about everything in history, but in these Bill of Rights, very specific to these Bill
[42:09.060 --> 42:12.780]  of Rights, you can't apply that where it wasn't intended to apply.
[42:12.780 --> 42:19.860]  But each of the things in these Bill of Rights are taken almost verbatim from the 1836 forward.
[42:19.860 --> 42:23.340]  There's slight alterations from time to time.
[42:23.340 --> 42:29.660]  Now you want to project things that weren't taken forward into it because some things
[42:29.660 --> 42:32.660]  weren't taken forward.
[42:32.660 --> 42:35.220]  No, I'm not projecting anything into it.
[42:35.220 --> 42:40.100]  I am going strictly by what the historical revisions of it have shown.
[42:40.100 --> 42:45.060]  When they make a change or they take out one of those previous provisions, they always
[42:45.060 --> 42:50.940]  put in that little footnote of an alteration or amendment to this Constitution does not
[42:50.940 --> 42:52.540]  affect a vested right.
[42:52.540 --> 42:58.380]  Well, the Constitution, as I said before, never granted the right to begin with.
[42:58.380 --> 43:02.660]  So whether or not they change what was in the original Bill of Rights or the original
[43:02.660 --> 43:09.940]  Declaration of Rights is what it was in 1836, to the Bill of Rights of today, that still
[43:09.940 --> 43:12.780]  is not what gave me those rights.
[43:12.780 --> 43:15.420]  It doesn't say what my rights are.
[43:15.420 --> 43:22.380]  It simply says of the rights I possess, the government may not interfere or harm me on
[43:22.380 --> 43:27.920]  these specific points ever.
[43:27.920 --> 43:30.460]  The Constitution is not binding on me.
[43:30.460 --> 43:32.900]  It is binding upon government.
[43:32.900 --> 43:38.940]  All right, folks, we're going to break again.
[43:38.940 --> 43:43.020]  This is Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Duel of Law Radio.
[43:43.020 --> 43:47.140]  If y'all will hang on, we will be right back and we'll start taking callers on the other
[43:47.140 --> 43:49.220]  side if Randy is going to submit.
[43:49.220 --> 43:51.220]  We'll be right back.
[43:51.220 --> 44:02.100]  We've got Daryl from Texas, you're up next.
[44:02.100 --> 44:04.940]  Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org.
[44:04.940 --> 44:09.380]  Our coffee grows in the dense volcanic rich soil, herbicide and pesticide free, and in
[44:09.380 --> 44:11.400]  the high altitudes of Guatemala.
[44:11.400 --> 44:15.860]  In conditions that are ideal for natural growth of this high quality coffee, try our mellow
[44:15.860 --> 44:20.640]  cup of coffee that is ground and roasted with 25% hemp seed from Canada.
[44:20.640 --> 44:26.000]  With a wonderful nutty flavor that contains 18% protein, our roasters bring a unique flavor
[44:26.000 --> 44:29.380]  that makes this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have.
[44:29.380 --> 44:34.340]  Try our new Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org and wake up your brain without
[44:34.340 --> 44:35.460]  the jitters.
[44:35.460 --> 44:38.380]  Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee.
[44:38.380 --> 44:45.180]  Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608.
[44:45.180 --> 44:52.020]  That's 908-691-2608 and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again.
[44:52.020 --> 45:18.820]  Taste the difference, feel the difference at HempUSA.org today.
[45:18.820 --> 45:24.340]  Okay we're taking your calls, 512-646-1984.
[45:24.340 --> 45:26.380]  We're going now to Daryl in Texas.
[45:26.380 --> 45:28.300]  Daryl, thanks for calling in.
[45:28.300 --> 45:29.940]  What is your question for us tonight?
[45:29.940 --> 45:34.100]  Yes, you all bring up a lot of interesting points.
[45:34.100 --> 45:35.620]  Where did we get our vested rights?
[45:35.620 --> 45:40.340]  Was it from the Independence War from England?
[45:40.340 --> 45:44.820]  Just because we won that war, that's where we got our rights?
[45:44.820 --> 45:46.740]  No, I don't believe so.
[45:46.740 --> 45:53.180]  I believe our rights are inherent and unalienable given to us by our Creator, by God the Father
[45:53.180 --> 45:54.180]  above.
[45:54.180 --> 45:59.220]  Well, and the reason we got that was because of the Independence War, otherwise we would
[45:59.220 --> 46:06.020]  have been the subject of England and we would have had to follow England, the King and Queen.
[46:06.020 --> 46:09.260]  We were subject of that.
[46:09.260 --> 46:11.300]  That didn't actually give us the rights.
[46:11.300 --> 46:14.620]  The rights were the same for the English subjects.
[46:14.620 --> 46:21.060]  The problem is they were not allowed to express or use them because of the monarchy over them.
[46:21.060 --> 46:25.940]  There's a big difference in having the right and being oppressed into not being able to
[46:25.940 --> 46:28.300]  exercise it.
[46:28.300 --> 46:34.220]  The entire purpose of the American experiment was to give us a place where the exercise
[46:34.220 --> 46:41.100]  was allowed, where it was free to be done, and it was not oppressed and restricted as
[46:41.100 --> 46:43.460]  it's now become once again.
[46:43.460 --> 46:49.940]  Okay, so our rights came without any law.
[46:49.940 --> 46:52.900]  We don't need law to have our rights.
[46:52.900 --> 46:55.020]  No, well we don't.
[46:55.020 --> 46:57.500]  The law does not give us rights.
[46:57.500 --> 47:03.060]  The law is instituted to protect our rights from the intrusion by others.
[47:03.060 --> 47:06.340]  Yeah, let me give you an example.
[47:06.340 --> 47:12.140]  The Comanche Indians had no laws, had no rules.
[47:12.140 --> 47:14.980]  They had a well-functioning society and they had no rules.
[47:14.980 --> 47:24.620]  So everyone got to exercise all of their rights any time, any way they wanted to.
[47:24.620 --> 47:30.340]  And it wasn't until we started putting laws in and the laws were intended to specifically
[47:30.340 --> 47:34.060]  restrict rights in certain circumstances.
[47:34.060 --> 47:40.620]  So laws are always restricted on the rights we started out with and always had.
[47:40.620 --> 47:42.340]  But that's not the intention.
[47:42.340 --> 47:47.420]  The intention under Constitution is to restrict government from infringing on the rights and
[47:47.420 --> 47:54.440]  then they overstep their authority and start instituting laws to restrict our rights instead.
[47:54.440 --> 47:57.100]  But that's not the way it was originally set up.
[47:57.100 --> 48:02.660]  It was originally set up that law would be established to protect our rights, basically
[48:02.660 --> 48:06.780]  from the government.
[48:06.780 --> 48:13.660]  Well when they're the gatekeepers and they got the keys and they control everything,
[48:13.660 --> 48:15.980]  we don't have any control anymore.
[48:15.980 --> 48:21.260]  Well, okay, I had a thought.
[48:21.260 --> 48:28.500]  You said all of these rights were given by God.
[48:28.500 --> 48:34.740]  I thought he restricted us in a whole bunch of stuff.
[48:34.740 --> 48:37.700]  He did.
[48:37.700 --> 48:46.500]  And for the most part, I guess essentially the common law seemed to follow those restrictions.
[48:46.500 --> 48:55.320]  And it was originally intended that the statutory law mimic those restrictions.
[48:55.320 --> 48:58.420]  We just let it get out of hand.
[48:58.420 --> 49:02.380]  Yeah, which is what I was going to interject when he said that they have the keys and are
[49:02.380 --> 49:03.380]  the gatekeepers.
[49:03.380 --> 49:06.900]  It's not totally accurate.
[49:06.900 --> 49:08.900]  We the people are the gatekeepers.
[49:08.900 --> 49:17.180]  We the people hold the keys, but we've allowed ourselves to become the drunken, bribed doorguard
[49:17.180 --> 49:23.420]  that looks the other way and sips our bribe in the cold weather while we let them sneak
[49:23.420 --> 49:25.500]  into the building to do what they want.
[49:25.500 --> 49:26.500]  Yep, exactly.
[49:26.500 --> 49:32.660]  Well, the Texas Constitution states straight up that all political power is inherent in
[49:32.660 --> 49:38.780]  we the people, and all free governments derive their power from we the people, and that we
[49:38.780 --> 49:43.460]  the people have the right to abolish this form of government and establish a new form
[49:43.460 --> 49:46.500]  of government any time we so choose.
[49:46.500 --> 49:47.940]  That's in the Constitution.
[49:47.940 --> 49:54.300]  It's not just an ivory power pie in the sky idea.
[49:54.300 --> 50:00.460]  That's what they did in the 1840s and excluded the common law, and they had a right to do
[50:00.460 --> 50:01.460]  that.
[50:01.460 --> 50:03.580]  Well, I don't think they excluded it.
[50:03.580 --> 50:08.660]  They just figured a lot like the founding fathers did originally in some cases, that
[50:08.660 --> 50:14.180]  what they were implementing was so common and well-known and understood, they did not
[50:14.180 --> 50:18.020]  see a need to make a direct declaration of it.
[50:18.020 --> 50:19.020]  It was an oversight.
[50:19.020 --> 50:24.540]  If they had actually meant to remove it, I firmly believe that the Constitution would
[50:24.540 --> 50:30.020]  state the common law shall no longer be the basis of law for this republic.
[50:30.020 --> 50:31.020]  Absolutely.
[50:31.020 --> 50:35.860]  I totally agree with Eddie.
[50:35.860 --> 50:38.380]  I don't like the logical presuppositions.
[50:38.380 --> 50:42.340]  I don't think there's any presuppositions here at all.
[50:42.340 --> 50:47.300]  You presuppose that if they intended not to include something, they would say that they
[50:47.300 --> 50:51.780]  did not intend to include it rather than simply not include it.
[50:51.780 --> 50:53.660]  Well, I disagree, and I'll tell you why.
[50:53.660 --> 50:58.060]  But the purpose of the Constitution is to enumerate those things that government is
[50:58.060 --> 50:59.420]  allowed to do, Ray.
[50:59.420 --> 51:07.980]  I also disagree, Randy, because it also says in the federal Constitution that the rights
[51:07.980 --> 51:13.540]  that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights shall not be construed to be a finite list,
[51:13.540 --> 51:17.060]  but that there are other rights as well that don't happen to be enumerated.
[51:17.060 --> 51:21.500]  Just because it's not enumerated doesn't mean that it's not still protected.
[51:21.500 --> 51:22.500]  Right.
[51:22.500 --> 51:29.460]  If they haven't given you specific authority to access it in some way, then you have no
[51:29.460 --> 51:31.460]  such authority.
[51:31.460 --> 51:37.460]  And by not listing the common law as within the purview of the government one way or the
[51:37.460 --> 51:43.300]  other, the historical presumption would stand that based upon the common law, it's still
[51:43.300 --> 51:49.060]  upon the common law, because there's nothing in the Constitution that removes it.
[51:49.060 --> 51:55.740]  And if we go by the thing that anything that the Constitution says they shall do or anything
[51:55.740 --> 52:00.140]  they cannot do, that's what they're limited to, period.
[52:00.140 --> 52:05.400]  And nowhere in the Constitution does it remove the common law or give the government the
[52:05.400 --> 52:08.700]  ability to do away with it.
[52:08.700 --> 52:12.500]  Yeah, that's for sure.
[52:12.500 --> 52:21.300]  The common law has been the basis of the Anglo-American style of government ever since the Magna Carta.
[52:21.300 --> 52:23.980]  It's just there, period.
[52:23.980 --> 52:25.620]  It would have to be specifically removed.
[52:25.620 --> 52:32.220]  I mean, we're talking over 800 years of jurisprudence here.
[52:32.220 --> 52:35.500]  What's the quote, Eddie?
[52:35.500 --> 52:42.820]  Exclusio unus est exclusio altereus, the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others.
[52:42.820 --> 52:44.780]  Doesn't that apply here?
[52:44.780 --> 52:50.180]  No, because- The inclusion of one is the exclusion of
[52:50.180 --> 52:54.180]  all others, okay?
[52:54.180 --> 52:59.640]  There's nothing in the Constitution creating an inclusion of statutory law as a replacement
[52:59.640 --> 53:01.100]  for common law.
[53:01.100 --> 53:02.980]  It's not in there.
[53:02.980 --> 53:08.660]  In fact, there's nothing altering what the Constitution of the United States sets up
[53:08.660 --> 53:14.420]  as a proper jurisdictional venue in any way, shape, or form within the Texas Constitution.
[53:14.420 --> 53:19.780]  Therefore, the presumption, since it can't overrule the federal Constitution, is that
[53:19.780 --> 53:22.820]  it is subject to it on those grounds.
[53:22.820 --> 53:30.980]  And on those grounds, the common law is the only jurisdiction under which the people fall.
[53:30.980 --> 53:32.780]  And we're still there today, right?
[53:32.780 --> 53:39.500]  See, it does mention in the federal Constitution that we're still subject to the common law.
[53:39.500 --> 53:44.940]  Even Texas law says we still have common law where the legislature deems it appropriate.
[53:44.940 --> 53:49.860]  But the problem is, is that they can't remove the right of the common law access from the
[53:49.860 --> 53:50.860]  people.
[53:50.860 --> 53:53.340]  They can only remove it from the things they created.
[53:53.340 --> 54:04.020]  Now, what it says is, is any area of law not addressed by the legislature in statute is
[54:04.020 --> 54:06.540]  still covered by the common law.
[54:06.540 --> 54:10.340]  In criminal proceedings, not in every other.
[54:10.340 --> 54:12.620]  That's only in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[54:12.620 --> 54:18.280]  But the fact of the matter is, that is the legislature preempting common law for their
[54:18.280 --> 54:21.140]  own statutory applications.
[54:21.140 --> 54:24.540]  And we did not authorize them to do that.
[54:24.540 --> 54:28.980]  If we didn't authorize it in the Constitution, they can't do it.
[54:28.980 --> 54:35.060]  They cannot preempt common law jurisdiction of the people with statutory law jurisdiction
[54:35.060 --> 54:36.860]  of the legislature.
[54:36.860 --> 54:41.340]  And thus create an entire new system of law under which the people have to defend and
[54:41.340 --> 54:46.380]  operate in order to keep the state off their back, which is exactly what they've instituted
[54:46.380 --> 54:47.380]  upon us.
[54:47.380 --> 54:55.660]  I was under the impression that the legislature was authorized to create law as they saw fit.
[54:55.660 --> 54:56.660]  No.
[54:56.660 --> 55:00.460]  If they could do that, then they could just create law throwing out the Constitution,
[55:00.460 --> 55:01.460]  couldn't they?
[55:01.460 --> 55:02.460]  No.
[55:02.460 --> 55:09.900]  With the restriction, within the very specific restrictions of those matters in the Bill
[55:09.900 --> 55:13.900]  of Rights.
[55:13.900 --> 55:15.620]  Okay.
[55:15.620 --> 55:17.700]  And other provisions of this Constitution.
[55:17.700 --> 55:20.700]  Yeah, and other provisions of the Constitution.
[55:20.700 --> 55:21.700]  Okay.
[55:21.700 --> 55:29.500]  And if the people's rights are based upon the common law, which we know they are, because
[55:29.500 --> 55:34.380]  that's what the federal Constitution declares as the law of the land, as its own basis for
[55:34.380 --> 55:37.220]  existence.
[55:37.220 --> 55:42.500]  If that's the case, then the Bill of Rights belonging to the people of Texas is still
[55:42.500 --> 55:45.940]  sitting upon that same foundation.
[55:45.940 --> 55:52.740]  And so it is a right of the people to be subject only to that jurisdiction.
[55:52.740 --> 55:57.340]  And the legislature is not granted the authority to supersede that.
[55:57.340 --> 56:05.620]  In fact, they are specifically prohibited in that regard by Article 1, Section 29.
[56:05.620 --> 56:12.500]  Article 1, Section 29 only applies to, and very specifically applies to, the Bill of
[56:12.500 --> 56:15.220]  Rights in the Constitution.
[56:15.220 --> 56:16.220]  That's right.
[56:16.220 --> 56:18.220]  You can't expand it beyond its scope.
[56:18.220 --> 56:19.220]  He's not.
[56:19.220 --> 56:20.220]  It's founded on thought.
[56:20.220 --> 56:21.220]  I'm not.
[56:21.220 --> 56:22.220]  He's not.
[56:22.220 --> 56:23.220]  He's founded on the common law.
[56:23.220 --> 56:25.540]  This Constitution is still founded on the common law.
[56:25.540 --> 56:26.540]  That includes the Bill of Rights.
[56:26.540 --> 56:27.540]  That's a conclusion.
[56:27.540 --> 56:28.540]  No, it's not.
[56:28.540 --> 56:31.140]  It's the only conclusion that's lawfully legally possible.
[56:31.140 --> 56:34.420]  No, it's the only conclusion you want to come to.
[56:34.420 --> 56:42.740]  I think that it's the only conclusion that anybody has ever come to for the last 800
[56:42.740 --> 56:45.620]  years of jurisprudence.
[56:45.620 --> 56:52.380]  We're still subject to the federal Constitution, which specifically says our rights are based
[56:52.380 --> 56:54.180]  in common law, Randy.
[56:54.180 --> 56:55.180]  I don't understand.
[56:55.180 --> 56:56.180]  We're going around in circles here.
[56:56.180 --> 56:58.060]  Daryl, do you have anything else to say?
[56:58.060 --> 56:59.060]  Do you have any other questions?
[56:59.060 --> 57:04.300]  I do have a few other questions, but the next question is, how did they get the right to
[57:04.300 --> 57:06.980]  make agencies?
[57:06.980 --> 57:12.380]  Agencies are based on law, anyway, so the Texas Department of Public Safety, which does
[57:12.380 --> 57:19.540]  all our commercial traffic laws, is all based on the agency's rules and regulations, not
[57:19.540 --> 57:21.220]  all for law.
[57:21.220 --> 57:27.140]  They can change that on a monthly basis and a daily basis to make it do what they want
[57:27.140 --> 57:28.940]  it to do.
[57:28.940 --> 57:35.860]  Well, the rules and regulations are for their internal process and procedures only.
[57:35.860 --> 57:40.780]  Their rules and regulations still have to comply with the laws enacted by the legislature
[57:40.780 --> 57:47.020]  in regards to the subject matter over which they have authority, in this case, the commercial
[57:47.020 --> 57:48.020]  traffic.
[57:48.020 --> 57:53.540]  Now, while it's true they can alter their internal rules and regulations, the department
[57:53.540 --> 58:00.700]  cannot alter the statute as enacted by the legislature.
[58:00.700 --> 58:07.300]  And also, Daryl, governments, governmental entities, agencies do not have rights.
[58:07.300 --> 58:11.420]  Only we the people have rights and individual rights at that.
[58:11.420 --> 58:14.540]  There is no such thing as women's rights or minority rights.
[58:14.540 --> 58:16.500]  There is no such thing as group rights.
[58:16.500 --> 58:18.580]  There are only individual rights.
[58:18.580 --> 58:19.580]  Governments do not have rights.
[58:19.580 --> 58:24.260]  They have authorities that are granted to them by we the people.
[58:24.260 --> 58:29.300]  So we have to understand the mindset here of what the difference is between rights and
[58:29.300 --> 58:32.220]  privileges and authority.
[58:32.220 --> 58:34.740]  Do you have any other questions, Daryl?
[58:34.740 --> 58:37.340]  I might hang on until after the break and...
[58:37.340 --> 58:41.580]  Okay, we got about a four-minute break coming up and then, Daryl, if you're still there,
[58:41.580 --> 58:42.580]  we'll continue.
[58:42.580 --> 58:44.980]  Otherwise, we'll go to Michael in Maryland.
[58:44.980 --> 58:48.700]  This is the rule of law.
[58:48.700 --> 58:49.700]  We'll be right back.
[59:48.700 --> 01:00:09.660]  U.S. special forces have begun venturing out with Pakistani troops on Pakistani territory
[01:00:09.660 --> 01:00:12.900]  that up to now has been off limits to U.S. ground troops.
[01:00:12.900 --> 01:00:18.900]  The expansion of U.S. cooperation is significant given Pakistan's deep aversion to foreign
[01:00:18.900 --> 01:00:22.300]  military forces on its soil.
[01:00:22.300 --> 01:00:26.860]  Deputy U.K. Prime Minister Nick Clegg was forced to backtrack after pronouncing the
[01:00:26.860 --> 01:00:30.260]  invasion of Iraq illegal in the House of Commons.
[01:00:30.260 --> 01:00:35.260]  Clegg insisted he was speaking in a personal capacity after a leading international lawyer
[01:00:35.260 --> 01:00:39.780]  warned a statement by a government minister in such a formal setting could increase the
[01:00:39.780 --> 01:00:45.420]  chances of charges against Britain in international courts.
[01:00:45.420 --> 01:00:50.060]  The Obama administration announced Wednesday a new round of sanctions against North Korea
[01:00:50.060 --> 01:00:53.500]  to punish, quote, its illicit and provocative policies.
[01:00:53.500 --> 01:00:59.500]  Analysts say the bans are nothing new and for the benefit of South Korea.
[01:00:59.500 --> 01:01:04.540]  The International Court of Justice said Thursday Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence
[01:01:04.540 --> 01:01:09.820]  from Serbia in February 2008 did not violate international law.
[01:01:09.820 --> 01:01:14.700]  The groundbreaking ruling could have far-reaching implications for separatist movements around
[01:01:14.700 --> 01:01:18.900]  the world as well as for Belgrade's stalled EU membership talks.
[01:01:18.900 --> 01:01:23.540]  The long-awaited ruling which the court took up after a complaint to the UN from Serbia
[01:01:23.540 --> 01:01:29.780]  is now likely to lead to more countries recognizing Kosovo and move Pristina closer to entry
[01:01:29.780 --> 01:01:31.180]  into the UN.
[01:01:31.180 --> 01:01:37.020]  The court's president, Hisashi Awada, said international law contains, quote, no prohibition
[01:01:37.020 --> 01:01:39.860]  on declarations of independence.
[01:01:39.860 --> 01:01:45.240]  Serbia has continued to demand Kosovo be returned, arguing it has been the cradle of their civilization
[01:01:45.240 --> 01:01:51.260]  and national identity since 1389 when the Christian army led by Serbian Prince Lazar
[01:01:51.260 --> 01:01:55.220]  lost an epic battle to invading Ottoman forces.
[01:01:55.220 --> 01:02:00.060]  The ruling is expected to bolster demands for independence by half a dozen other territories
[01:02:00.060 --> 01:02:03.340]  around the world.
[01:02:03.340 --> 01:02:07.980]  The nominee for director of national intelligence has warned North Korea's thinking of a South
[01:02:07.980 --> 01:02:12.020]  Korean warship may herald, quote, a dangerous new period.
[01:02:12.020 --> 01:02:17.540]  James Clapper told a Senate hearing Tuesday Pyongyang might seek to advance its internal
[01:02:17.540 --> 01:02:20.940]  and external political goals through direct attacks.
[01:02:20.940 --> 01:02:26.340]  Earlier, the US and South Korea said they would hold large-scale joint military exercises
[01:02:26.340 --> 01:02:32.380]  next weekend in a show of force intended to send a clear message to North Korea that its
[01:02:32.380 --> 01:02:34.780]  aggressive behavior must stop.
[01:02:34.780 --> 01:02:39.620]  Testifying to the Senate's Intelligence Committee, Clapper brushed aside suggestions he would
[01:02:39.620 --> 01:02:44.820]  be beholden to the Pentagon and reluctant to share information about intelligence activities
[01:02:44.820 --> 01:02:49.820]  with Congress, saying he had been out of uniform for 15 years.
[01:02:49.820 --> 01:02:58.820]  The DNI was created by Congress in 2004 in response to 9-11.
[01:03:49.820 --> 01:04:15.580]  Okay.
[01:04:15.580 --> 01:04:16.580]  We are back.
[01:04:16.580 --> 01:04:18.380]  We're taking your calls.
[01:04:18.380 --> 01:04:19.860]  We've got Daryl in Texas.
[01:04:19.860 --> 01:04:20.860]  Okay, Daryl, please continue.
[01:04:20.860 --> 01:04:21.860]  All right.
[01:04:21.860 --> 01:04:22.860]  I have a couple of other questions.
[01:04:22.860 --> 01:04:27.860]  One is, what is y'all's goal with this radio station?
[01:04:27.860 --> 01:04:34.140]  Is it just to inform us or have a place for us to get our ideas out there and see where
[01:04:34.140 --> 01:04:40.620]  we're wrong-thinking or where we're right-thinking, or are you just trying to change the system?
[01:04:40.620 --> 01:04:45.140]  Well, personally, I don't really think the system needs to be changed.
[01:04:45.140 --> 01:04:51.220]  The way that the system is established under Constitution, and especially here in Texas
[01:04:51.220 --> 01:04:56.580]  under the Criminal Procedure Code, it's set up very well to work just fine.
[01:04:56.580 --> 01:05:04.860]  The problem is that the people who hold positions in our government are breaking the law, okay?
[01:05:04.860 --> 01:05:10.380]  We need to hold their feet to the fire and force them to follow the law, and then everything
[01:05:10.380 --> 01:05:12.660]  would be just fine.
[01:05:12.660 --> 01:05:17.340]  Okay, yeah, and let me answer your question.
[01:05:17.340 --> 01:05:24.540]  Our purpose, our purpose is to offer remedy and to demonstrate to individuals that there
[01:05:24.540 --> 01:05:27.140]  is something you can do.
[01:05:27.140 --> 01:05:35.540]  The law is not so complex that only attorneys can understand it or legal professionals.
[01:05:35.540 --> 01:05:43.500]  We can read the law and understand what it says, and we have the power to change things.
[01:05:43.500 --> 01:05:46.740]  The problem is not the law, it never has been.
[01:05:46.740 --> 01:05:52.240]  The problem is the people wallowing in their own fear.
[01:05:52.240 --> 01:06:02.100]  You and I and the rest of our generation is not being good stewards for the system we're
[01:06:02.100 --> 01:06:06.820]  going to bequeath to our children and grandchildren.
[01:06:06.820 --> 01:06:12.020]  We're trying to offer tools that you can use to become a good steward.
[01:06:12.020 --> 01:06:13.020]  Great.
[01:06:13.020 --> 01:06:19.180]  All right, there was another question, but I forgot what it was, so I'll let y'all go.
[01:06:19.180 --> 01:06:21.180]  Okay, thank you, Darryl.
[01:06:21.180 --> 01:06:28.420]  And yes, part of our mission also is to educate folks concerning libertarian principles, I
[01:06:28.420 --> 01:06:36.580]  would say, what the differences are between rights and privileges and property ownership
[01:06:36.580 --> 01:06:43.100]  and authority being granted to governments and all these sorts of things.
[01:06:43.100 --> 01:06:46.540]  Folks out there, I would strongly urge you to get Michael Badnerich's book, Good to Be
[01:06:46.540 --> 01:06:47.540]  King.
[01:06:47.540 --> 01:06:50.060]  He lays it out very well.
[01:06:50.060 --> 01:06:54.900]  Attend his course if you can when he comes to a city near you.
[01:06:54.900 --> 01:07:04.420]  I'm telling you, he will take the most leftist, liberal, tree-hugging, Green Party hippie
[01:07:04.420 --> 01:07:11.380]  and turn them into a gun-toting property rights activist in a matter of hours once people's
[01:07:11.380 --> 01:07:15.820]  eyes really get opened here.
[01:07:15.820 --> 01:07:20.260]  Number one, all our rights derive from property ownership, period.
[01:07:20.260 --> 01:07:22.940]  You don't own any property, you don't have any rights.
[01:07:22.940 --> 01:07:25.260]  So it all starts with your body.
[01:07:25.260 --> 01:07:32.300]  You own your body or God gave you your body, your rights over your physical body derive
[01:07:32.300 --> 01:07:35.420]  from the fact that you own your own body.
[01:07:35.420 --> 01:07:41.300]  So we got to get things straight here regarding property ownership and all these evil collectivist
[01:07:41.300 --> 01:07:44.860]  ideas of abolishing property rights.
[01:07:44.860 --> 01:07:48.620]  That means they want to turn us all into chattel, all into slaves.
[01:07:48.620 --> 01:07:52.000]  So we can't accept any of these kinds of ideas.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:56.860]  We have to understand what the difference is between a democracy and a republic.
[01:07:56.860 --> 01:08:04.420]  This is not a democracy, a democracy, as Alex Jones liked to say, is two wolves and a sheep
[01:08:04.420 --> 01:08:07.940]  voting on what's for dinner.
[01:08:07.940 --> 01:08:12.660]  We have to realize our rights are as individuals, not as part of a group.
[01:08:12.660 --> 01:08:15.640]  We don't derive our rights from being part of a group.
[01:08:15.640 --> 01:08:21.420]  There's no such thing as women's rights, there's no such thing as minority rights.
[01:08:21.420 --> 01:08:24.220]  Those are false ideas.
[01:08:24.220 --> 01:08:29.660]  We are not a collective, humanity is not a collective when it comes to rights.
[01:08:29.660 --> 01:08:36.260]  We're not like pieces of cheese that are shaved off a big block of a collective.
[01:08:36.260 --> 01:08:45.300]  We are individuals and we can form groups under the right of freedom of association.
[01:08:45.300 --> 01:08:49.660]  We have freedom of association to form our own groups, but we don't derive our rights
[01:08:49.660 --> 01:08:52.260]  as being part of a group.
[01:08:52.260 --> 01:08:58.820]  There's a lot of ideas floating around out there that we have to expose as being very
[01:08:58.820 --> 01:09:07.260]  evil coming down from these collectivist ideologies that are being touted around right now from
[01:09:07.260 --> 01:09:08.260]  our government.
[01:09:08.260 --> 01:09:11.220]  They want us to believe in democracy and group rights and all these things.
[01:09:11.220 --> 01:09:13.220]  It's a horrible, horrible thing.
[01:09:13.220 --> 01:09:15.420]  We're going now to Michael in Maryland.
[01:09:15.420 --> 01:09:17.380]  Michael, thank you for calling in.
[01:09:17.380 --> 01:09:18.380]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:09:18.380 --> 01:09:19.860]  Hi, good evening.
[01:09:19.860 --> 01:09:24.900]  Great show tonight, wow, got to listen to it several times and get the full impact of
[01:09:24.900 --> 01:09:25.900]  it.
[01:09:25.900 --> 01:09:33.180]  Really echo and respect what was just spoken of there by Randy.
[01:09:33.180 --> 01:09:38.940]  Having said that, before that I must say I side totally with what I'm hearing from Eddie
[01:09:38.940 --> 01:09:45.660]  and from Deborah as far as this question about statutory authority.
[01:09:45.660 --> 01:09:49.460]  I sent several links over to you guys earlier this week, I don't know if it formed the basis
[01:09:49.460 --> 01:09:50.460]  of your original comments.
[01:09:50.460 --> 01:09:54.220]  I missed the first 10 minutes, but I have a question looking at the Constitution of Maryland
[01:09:54.220 --> 01:09:58.100]  and a couple things here along the lines of what you all have already been speaking about.
[01:09:58.100 --> 01:10:03.700]  For example, Article 1 states that all government of right, and I don't quite understand what
[01:10:03.700 --> 01:10:07.140]  that means of right, but anyway, all government of right originates from the people and is
[01:10:07.140 --> 01:10:09.220]  founded in compact only.
[01:10:09.220 --> 01:10:14.500]  Any chance you all know with any certainty what that expression means, compact only?
[01:10:14.500 --> 01:10:15.500]  The Constitution.
[01:10:15.500 --> 01:10:21.980]  In other words, it's only binding upon those as long as they all adhere to the same compact.
[01:10:21.980 --> 01:10:25.620]  If they dissolve the compact, the right of government is gone.
[01:10:25.620 --> 01:10:27.980]  Okay, interesting.
[01:10:27.980 --> 01:10:31.260]  And then this next expression also threw me for a loop.
[01:10:31.260 --> 01:10:37.060]  It says, and instituted solely for the good of the whole, which on the face of it kind
[01:10:37.060 --> 01:10:42.060]  of flies against what Deborah has stated, which I agree with what Deborah has stated,
[01:10:42.060 --> 01:10:47.780]  but on the face of it, it flies against that, which is the idea that, you know, government
[01:10:47.780 --> 01:10:51.980]  doesn't have rights, groups don't have rights, people have rights, so when they say instituted
[01:10:51.980 --> 01:10:55.860]  solely for the good of the whole, I'm not sure what in the world they were even thinking
[01:10:55.860 --> 01:10:59.100]  with that expression.
[01:10:59.100 --> 01:11:03.100]  You would have to look at the historical context of it, but I can almost guarantee you they're
[01:11:03.100 --> 01:11:07.460]  talking about the whole as in the collective of the people of the state itself.
[01:11:07.460 --> 01:11:14.940]  In other words, your authority to govern us is allowed only in as much as the acts that
[01:11:14.940 --> 01:11:22.780]  you perpetrate as government are for the benefit and protection of the people as a whole.
[01:11:22.780 --> 01:11:28.780]  You may not enact statutes or laws of any kind that single out groups or single out
[01:11:28.780 --> 01:11:37.140]  individuals, but everything you do must be for the benefit and prosperity of us all.
[01:11:37.140 --> 01:11:40.580]  I'm willing to bet if you research it, that's the context you're going to find it in.
[01:11:40.580 --> 01:11:41.580]  Okay.
[01:11:41.580 --> 01:11:42.580]  One more question.
[01:11:42.580 --> 01:11:48.100]  Unfortunately, my two-year-old just walked into the room, and so I've got a little background
[01:11:48.100 --> 01:11:49.100]  noise here.
[01:11:49.100 --> 01:11:54.060]  The other thing I wanted to ask you about is an expression here in front of me, which
[01:11:54.060 --> 01:12:05.180]  is that it says, okay, on the topic of common law, it does say in Article 5 that the inhabitants
[01:12:05.180 --> 01:12:08.420]  of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, trial by jury, according to the
[01:12:08.420 --> 01:12:13.460]  course of that law, and so on, it makes reference to and the benefit of the English statutes
[01:12:13.460 --> 01:12:18.540]  as existed 4th of July, 1776.
[01:12:18.540 --> 01:12:22.340]  Then it goes on to say, in which by experience have been found applicable to their local
[01:12:22.340 --> 01:12:24.260]  and other circumstances.
[01:12:24.260 --> 01:12:29.460]  That expression in Article 5 plus the expression in Article 2, which says Constitution and
[01:12:29.460 --> 01:12:35.660]  the laws made blah, blah, blah, and all the treaties, but it says, and the laws made or
[01:12:35.660 --> 01:12:39.260]  which shall be made, which is the same language that you all have there in Texas.
[01:12:39.260 --> 01:12:43.020]  What concerns me is that when I look at that expression in Article 2 plus the expression
[01:12:43.020 --> 01:12:53.820]  in Article 5 about the common law and so on and so on, which may have been found applicable
[01:12:53.820 --> 01:12:57.220]  to their local and other circumstances, what worries me about that kind of language is
[01:12:57.220 --> 01:13:04.940]  that certain elements who want to use that to their benefit will say, well, we have found
[01:13:04.940 --> 01:13:10.180]  over time that it's good for police to pull people over if they're making a right turn
[01:13:10.180 --> 01:13:19.140]  on red, local custom has developed in such a manner that for the benefit of the good
[01:13:19.140 --> 01:13:22.700]  of the whole, it's local custom, in other words, they're trying to sneak it in under
[01:13:22.700 --> 01:13:23.700]  that kind of language.
[01:13:23.700 --> 01:13:28.660]  I'm wondering if you've given any thought to that or whether, just throwing it in there,
[01:13:28.660 --> 01:13:34.460]  I tend to side definitely with what I've heard you say tonight, Eddie, and what I gather
[01:13:34.460 --> 01:13:39.700]  you feel also, Deborah, about what common law means and what it doesn't mean.
[01:13:39.700 --> 01:13:43.740]  But when you hear that kind of language in your Constitution about, it makes you wonder
[01:13:43.740 --> 01:13:53.900]  whether common law can be misinterpreted by the powers that be to include these customs
[01:13:53.900 --> 01:14:00.140]  over time that for all practical purposes are statutory, that the government decides
[01:14:00.140 --> 01:14:02.060]  to sneak in there for their good, not for our benefit.
[01:14:02.060 --> 01:14:05.220]  I'll hang up since the three-year-old is on the room and I'll let you comment on that.
[01:14:05.220 --> 01:14:07.380]  Thank you very much.
[01:14:07.380 --> 01:14:12.420]  That goes exactly to my concern about the common law.
[01:14:12.420 --> 01:14:17.820]  The common law is essentially stare decisis.
[01:14:17.820 --> 01:14:22.460]  The common law is whatever judges decide the common law is.
[01:14:22.460 --> 01:14:28.260]  I don't want my judges having the priests to decide what the law is.
[01:14:28.260 --> 01:14:35.380]  I want my legislature, through my authority, to determine what the law is and bind those
[01:14:35.380 --> 01:14:37.620]  judges to it.
[01:14:37.620 --> 01:14:40.980]  The last thing I want to see come back is the common law.
[01:14:40.980 --> 01:14:43.820]  I believe that's a misconception.
[01:14:43.820 --> 01:14:47.860]  The judges were not the originator of the common law.
[01:14:47.860 --> 01:14:53.180]  The determination of the judges was based upon the laws that was set in the Magna Carta
[01:14:53.180 --> 01:14:58.300]  under the rules that the Lord set down for the king as to how the king was to treat the
[01:14:58.300 --> 01:15:02.820]  rights of the people and the property of the people beginning at that time.
[01:15:02.820 --> 01:15:10.420]  The judges were required to rule on what those proclamations were in order to keep things
[01:15:10.420 --> 01:15:14.740]  in line with that because the judges... Go ahead.
[01:15:14.740 --> 01:15:21.020]  This sounds like Minnesota where the judges don't have to follow the statutory law if
[01:15:21.020 --> 01:15:25.300]  they don't think it is appropriate, just, or fair.
[01:15:25.300 --> 01:15:28.180]  I don't know where you get that from, Randy.
[01:15:28.180 --> 01:15:30.820]  That's not what Eddie and I are saying at all.
[01:15:30.820 --> 01:15:31.820]  No.
[01:15:31.820 --> 01:15:36.420]  In governmental function, the judges should be bound by that law.
[01:15:36.420 --> 01:15:40.980]  Eddie, did you not bring that to this show?
[01:15:40.980 --> 01:15:43.140]  Yes I did.
[01:15:43.140 --> 01:15:48.100]  That is what is going on in Minnesota and that looks like common law to me.
[01:15:48.100 --> 01:15:50.380]  No, it's not common law.
[01:15:50.380 --> 01:15:55.780]  When the judges take a statutory provision or ignore a statutory provision for the purpose
[01:15:55.780 --> 01:16:00.940]  of causing harm or detriment to the public, that's not common law.
[01:16:00.940 --> 01:16:04.780]  That is an absurd oversimplification.
[01:16:04.780 --> 01:16:10.900]  Every judge in Minnesota is not misconstruing the law for his own purposes or some nefarious
[01:16:10.900 --> 01:16:12.300]  purpose.
[01:16:12.300 --> 01:16:20.980]  They are absolutely allowed to rule the way they... You're poisoning the whale here.
[01:16:20.980 --> 01:16:27.940]  Well, I'm not trying to, but it's a... You're saying that because the judges in Minnesota
[01:16:27.940 --> 01:16:32.580]  are, every single one of them, totally corrupt, then that can't have anything to do with the
[01:16:32.580 --> 01:16:33.580]  common law.
[01:16:33.580 --> 01:16:40.100]  You're saying the judges can do anything they want to, and they can't have a common law.
[01:16:40.100 --> 01:16:47.580]  Randy, I don't think that having common law in the picture means that the judges get to
[01:16:47.580 --> 01:16:49.500]  ignore the statute.
[01:16:49.500 --> 01:16:51.500]  That's not what Eddie and I are saying at all.
[01:16:51.500 --> 01:16:53.060]  This is kind of spiraling here.
[01:16:53.060 --> 01:17:02.540]  Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984.
[01:17:02.540 --> 01:17:07.340]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[01:17:07.340 --> 01:17:09.900]  supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:09.900 --> 01:17:11.940]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:11.940 --> 01:17:15.980]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[01:17:15.980 --> 01:17:17.460]  and metals purchases.
[01:17:17.460 --> 01:17:22.940]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[01:17:22.940 --> 01:17:24.540]  metals, and scrap gold.
[01:17:24.540 --> 01:17:28.140]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[01:17:28.140 --> 01:17:34.220]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullions, we're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite
[01:17:34.220 --> 01:17:40.700]  3, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[01:17:40.700 --> 01:17:48.100]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:48.100 --> 01:17:49.100]  with any questions.
[01:17:49.100 --> 01:17:53.860]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[01:17:53.860 --> 01:18:00.860]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:23.860 --> 01:18:37.700]  We are discussing on the break that the common law has its foundation in the Magna Carta.
[01:18:37.700 --> 01:18:42.700]  It's not just some general ebb and flow of starry decisis.
[01:18:42.700 --> 01:18:45.340]  It does have a founding set of rules.
[01:18:45.340 --> 01:18:50.460]  Eddie, please go ahead and repeat what you said on the break a minute ago.
[01:18:50.460 --> 01:18:56.340]  Well, what I simply said was that a judge is not at liberty to use the common law to
[01:18:56.340 --> 01:18:59.060]  cause a harm to anyone.
[01:18:59.060 --> 01:19:04.900]  By the same token, he is not at liberty to use the statute to cause a harm to anyone.
[01:19:04.900 --> 01:19:10.740]  He is there for the dispensation of justice based upon the rules that bind him.
[01:19:10.740 --> 01:19:15.740]  There's two different sets of rules here that we're talking about, statutory for the obligation
[01:19:15.740 --> 01:19:20.440]  of the things over which the government has authority and common law over the things which
[01:19:20.440 --> 01:19:24.380]  involve the people and their rights.
[01:19:24.380 --> 01:19:26.140]  And they're bound by that.
[01:19:26.140 --> 01:19:29.360]  You guys are doing double speak.
[01:19:29.360 --> 01:19:35.820]  On the one hand, you're saying the statutes don't apply, but on the other, the ones in
[01:19:35.820 --> 01:19:38.580]  the Magna Carta do somehow.
[01:19:38.580 --> 01:19:40.780]  To the people.
[01:19:40.780 --> 01:19:43.900]  I never said the statutes do not ever apply.
[01:19:43.900 --> 01:19:44.900]  They do.
[01:19:44.900 --> 01:19:51.580]  Are you saying that is absolutely, you understand what we would have if you got that?
[01:19:51.580 --> 01:19:53.260]  Yes, we would have freedom and liberty.
[01:19:53.260 --> 01:19:56.620]  Oh, you'd have people shooting each other because we can.
[01:19:56.620 --> 01:20:03.820]  No, we wouldn't because the common law still considers that a punishable offense.
[01:20:03.820 --> 01:20:07.500]  The statute doesn't have to consider it that way, the common law does.
[01:20:07.500 --> 01:20:13.640]  That is a very common, you know, speaking of common, that is a very common criticism
[01:20:13.640 --> 01:20:15.300]  of liberty, Randy.
[01:20:15.300 --> 01:20:22.140]  We can't let the people have liberty because there will be chaos and violence, it's so
[01:20:22.140 --> 01:20:23.140]  ridiculous.
[01:20:23.140 --> 01:20:28.020]  Yeah, I mean there's 290 million gun owners that didn't shoot anybody today.
[01:20:28.020 --> 01:20:33.100]  You want to go back a thousand years to Lacey Faire.
[01:20:33.100 --> 01:20:39.260]  Randy, people are not shooting each other just because they would be punished if they
[01:20:39.260 --> 01:20:40.260]  did.
[01:20:40.260 --> 01:20:43.820]  They're not shooting each other because they have a conscience and they know that it's
[01:20:43.820 --> 01:20:47.980]  wrong and they believe in things like God and karma and that it would come back on them
[01:20:47.980 --> 01:20:51.540]  anyway and they don't wish to harm other people.
[01:20:51.540 --> 01:20:52.540]  People are inherently good.
[01:20:52.540 --> 01:20:54.500]  This is a ridiculous argument.
[01:20:54.500 --> 01:21:00.780]  Yeah, and then you have the problem right now that the people that are inflicting the
[01:21:00.780 --> 01:21:05.020]  most harm and damage to other people are the ones that are supposed to be abiding by the
[01:21:05.020 --> 01:21:06.380]  law to the greatest degree.
[01:21:06.380 --> 01:21:07.380]  Randy, are you really?
[01:21:07.380 --> 01:21:14.980]  Randy, are you really a collectivist?
[01:21:14.980 --> 01:21:23.180]  Do you really think that people should be allowed to do things or do you think that
[01:21:23.180 --> 01:21:27.500]  people inherently should have freedom?
[01:21:27.500 --> 01:21:31.340]  Do you think that the government?
[01:21:31.340 --> 01:21:37.220]  Within the very limits that you would espouse, so long as that freedom doesn't infringe upon
[01:21:37.220 --> 01:21:38.420]  another.
[01:21:38.420 --> 01:21:40.460]  Which is exactly what the common law said.
[01:21:40.460 --> 01:21:42.140]  Okay, then there shouldn't be a problem.
[01:21:42.140 --> 01:21:43.140]  Then there's no reason for this argument.
[01:21:43.140 --> 01:21:44.140]  No, it doesn't.
[01:21:44.140 --> 01:21:45.460]  The common law doesn't say anything.
[01:21:45.460 --> 01:21:48.140]  I can't find any common law anywhere.
[01:21:48.140 --> 01:21:50.580]  The Magna Carta is the common law basis, Randy.
[01:21:50.580 --> 01:21:51.580]  It always has been.
[01:21:51.580 --> 01:21:52.940]  It's the basis.
[01:21:52.940 --> 01:22:01.140]  Where is the common law that's based on the Magna Carta?
[01:22:01.140 --> 01:22:02.140]  Where is it?
[01:22:02.140 --> 01:22:10.740]  It's the 800 years of jurisprudence court ruling since then, Randy.
[01:22:10.740 --> 01:22:12.460]  That are based upon the founding rules.
[01:22:12.460 --> 01:22:14.300]  It's not just an ebb and tide.
[01:22:14.300 --> 01:22:19.620]  It's not just a flow, a free flow, a free for all that judges can do whatever they want
[01:22:19.620 --> 01:22:24.380]  and make up the rules as they go along from year to year, from decade to decade, to generation
[01:22:24.380 --> 01:22:25.380]  to generation.
[01:22:25.380 --> 01:22:28.420]  It has the foundation of the Magna Carta.
[01:22:28.420 --> 01:22:32.300]  You're going back to the same thing I'm saying.
[01:22:32.300 --> 01:22:35.940]  We have a caller on the line also, Tony from Illinois.
[01:22:35.940 --> 01:22:39.900]  Well, let one last comment.
[01:22:39.900 --> 01:22:47.380]  If the common law is law by judges based on the Magna Carta, how is that different than
[01:22:47.380 --> 01:22:57.220]  statutory law which binds the judges to a set of standards and they rule based on that
[01:22:57.220 --> 01:22:58.260]  set of standards?
[01:22:58.260 --> 01:23:00.740]  I don't understand your difference.
[01:23:00.740 --> 01:23:03.780]  The set of standards is not in compliance with the common law.
[01:23:03.780 --> 01:23:08.420]  The set of standards are completely alien to us, Randy.
[01:23:08.420 --> 01:23:14.460]  They set a bar that was never meant to be a bar for the people.
[01:23:14.460 --> 01:23:18.740]  You made up that story that the statutory law doesn't apply.
[01:23:18.740 --> 01:23:19.740]  I'm frustrated with that.
[01:23:19.740 --> 01:23:20.740]  No, I didn't make it up.
[01:23:20.740 --> 01:23:23.020]  I'm throwing out the suggestion that it doesn't.
[01:23:23.020 --> 01:23:30.020]  I'm not saying one thing or the other, but based upon the historical evidence in place,
[01:23:30.020 --> 01:23:35.900]  it can't because that's not the jurisdiction that the Constitution sets up for the people.
[01:23:35.900 --> 01:23:39.180]  It's not the one the Texas Constitution set up for us.
[01:23:39.180 --> 01:23:47.460]  I would also say just look at the statutes because using the transportation code as an
[01:23:47.460 --> 01:23:49.700]  example, it doesn't regulate we the people at all.
[01:23:49.700 --> 01:23:52.500]  See, the legislature knows what it means.
[01:23:52.500 --> 01:23:55.500]  They understand about common law when they wrote the transportation code.
[01:23:55.500 --> 01:23:59.700]  It only applies to commercial activity on the roadways, which is a privilege.
[01:23:59.700 --> 01:24:03.340]  They're not even regulating we the people in the transportation code, so I think it's
[01:24:03.340 --> 01:24:04.340]  pretty self-evident.
[01:24:04.340 --> 01:24:08.580]  The Collar Board is really stacking up here, too.
[01:24:08.580 --> 01:24:14.220]  Because the judge is using statutory law to govern how they treat us under other law that
[01:24:14.220 --> 01:24:16.140]  doesn't apply to us.
[01:24:16.140 --> 01:24:18.540]  You're talking out the side of your mouth again.
[01:24:18.540 --> 01:24:23.420]  This is the whole reason that the judges are all evil, and if there is a law to apply,
[01:24:23.420 --> 01:24:25.020]  they will apply it evilly.
[01:24:25.020 --> 01:24:27.740]  Wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:24:27.740 --> 01:24:30.280]  I never said that, but you have said it.
[01:24:30.280 --> 01:24:34.060]  You have said that the courts are absolutely corrupt.
[01:24:34.060 --> 01:24:35.060]  You have said that.
[01:24:35.060 --> 01:24:36.780]  The courts are absolutely corrupt.
[01:24:36.780 --> 01:24:37.780]  Yeah.
[01:24:37.780 --> 01:24:39.860]  Well, is that true or is that false?
[01:24:39.860 --> 01:24:40.860]  No.
[01:24:40.860 --> 01:24:43.740]  If it's true, then why is my statement not correct?
[01:24:43.740 --> 01:24:44.900]  It's not true.
[01:24:44.900 --> 01:24:48.620]  We have to treat them as if they are absolutely corrupt.
[01:24:48.620 --> 01:24:49.620]  Okay.
[01:24:49.620 --> 01:24:54.180]  Well, Randy, Eddie never said what you said he said.
[01:24:54.180 --> 01:24:55.180]  You said it, but he...
[01:24:55.180 --> 01:25:00.340]  He keeps saying, any time I mention courts, he keeps saying how corrupt they all are and
[01:25:00.340 --> 01:25:04.380]  all of these judges are misusing the law to abuse everybody.
[01:25:04.380 --> 01:25:07.660]  Am I missing something here?
[01:25:07.660 --> 01:25:10.980]  When you go into traffic court, do you win or do you lose 99% of the time?
[01:25:10.980 --> 01:25:15.140]  Poison the well, that's not because there's something wrong with the system.
[01:25:15.140 --> 01:25:18.300]  That's because you haven't done your job and I haven't done my job.
[01:25:18.300 --> 01:25:20.860]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:25:20.860 --> 01:25:25.340]  You and I both know that we have filed things in court, Randy, that the judge has flat out
[01:25:25.340 --> 01:25:28.140]  refused to read or even acknowledge.
[01:25:28.140 --> 01:25:32.620]  So let's just throw out this whole system and go back to a condition where the judges
[01:25:32.620 --> 01:25:34.180]  can rule out however they please.
[01:25:34.180 --> 01:25:35.180]  Okay, Randy.
[01:25:35.180 --> 01:25:37.180]  Again, now you're poisoning the well.
[01:25:37.180 --> 01:25:38.180]  Time out, time out.
[01:25:38.180 --> 01:25:40.180]  They can never rule out however they please.
[01:25:40.180 --> 01:25:42.620]  They can never rule out however they please.
[01:25:42.620 --> 01:25:44.020]  Of course they could.
[01:25:44.020 --> 01:25:45.860]  Okay, I don't think so.
[01:25:45.860 --> 01:25:49.900]  Randy, I don't think you really understand what Eddie and I are trying to say.
[01:25:49.900 --> 01:25:51.300]  We're going to take a call now.
[01:25:51.300 --> 01:25:52.580]  We're going to Tony in Illinois.
[01:25:52.580 --> 01:25:53.820]  Tony, thanks for calling in.
[01:25:53.820 --> 01:25:54.820]  What are your comments?
[01:25:54.820 --> 01:25:58.740]  Well, I was glad to hear that you're going to have Tom Woods on the show tomorrow.
[01:25:58.740 --> 01:25:59.740]  I was actually going to...
[01:25:59.740 --> 01:26:02.540]  I saw that he was going to be in Austin Saturday.
[01:26:02.540 --> 01:26:06.820]  I was going to suggest that he had him on the show actually.
[01:26:06.820 --> 01:26:17.700]  Perhaps you could suggest to him to hook up with Judge Napolitano on jury notification.
[01:26:17.700 --> 01:26:22.660]  It's also a good opportunity for you guys to network, maybe use that as a segue to get
[01:26:22.660 --> 01:26:32.500]  on the Napolitano show or even Dr. Graves to get his message out.
[01:26:32.500 --> 01:26:36.020]  Have you guys tried hooking up with the Texas School Board?
[01:26:36.020 --> 01:26:39.780]  I understand they're trying to do a lot of changes.
[01:26:39.780 --> 01:26:47.180]  Perhaps you can get something in that curriculum there.
[01:26:47.180 --> 01:26:48.180]  Changes in what regard?
[01:26:48.180 --> 01:26:49.660]  I don't understand.
[01:26:49.660 --> 01:26:54.580]  I haven't seen much good come out of the Texas School, the TEA, Texas Education Agency.
[01:26:54.580 --> 01:26:58.660]  Well, I thought that they were making quite a few changes.
[01:26:58.660 --> 01:27:00.780]  Oh, yes, they are.
[01:27:00.780 --> 01:27:01.780]  In fact...
[01:27:01.780 --> 01:27:02.780]  In a conservative...
[01:27:02.780 --> 01:27:03.780]  Well, actually, they're making...
[01:27:03.780 --> 01:27:07.420]  Well, I don't know that it's necessarily good, but...
[01:27:07.420 --> 01:27:12.140]  Well, actually, they are making a considerable number of changes, Tony, here in Texas.
[01:27:12.140 --> 01:27:20.180]  In fact, Gary Johnson had a guest on, someone who's running for the Texas School Board,
[01:27:20.180 --> 01:27:21.780]  what you're talking about.
[01:27:21.780 --> 01:27:28.580]  They recently voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from the list of the founding fathers.
[01:27:28.580 --> 01:27:36.260]  They set all the standards for the textbooks, and the textbooks have to print up history
[01:27:36.260 --> 01:27:40.340]  according to the way that the school board says.
[01:27:40.340 --> 01:27:44.420]  There were some very negative changes that went down, and in fact, there was a group
[01:27:44.420 --> 01:27:50.540]  of like 900 people that protested at this hearing, and there was a teacher that flew
[01:27:50.540 --> 01:27:56.620]  in from El Paso to testify concerning these changes, and the teacher was barely allowed
[01:27:56.620 --> 01:28:04.140]  to speak on the stand in public for barely a few minutes, and then the chair kicked her
[01:28:04.140 --> 01:28:07.740]  out, and some of the other board members had to go and talk to her out in the hallway in
[01:28:07.740 --> 01:28:08.740]  order to get her take.
[01:28:08.740 --> 01:28:13.580]  So yeah, there's some serious stuff going on here, but there are some good people running
[01:28:13.580 --> 01:28:17.180]  for the board, so you may want to look into the archives of Gary Johnson's show.
[01:28:17.180 --> 01:28:19.700]  I believe that was a couple weeks ago.
[01:28:19.700 --> 01:28:27.620]  But I know Dr. Graves has discussed that jurisdictionary should be in every high school.
[01:28:27.620 --> 01:28:30.620]  Yeah, well good luck.
[01:28:30.620 --> 01:28:35.260]  When they're removing Thomas Jefferson from the list of founding fathers and making all
[01:28:35.260 --> 01:28:42.860]  these other changes, literally they're changing the history that's being reported to the students.
[01:28:42.860 --> 01:28:47.580]  We've got to at least roll back some of that before we can even hope to get jurisdictionary
[01:28:47.580 --> 01:28:50.060]  in the schools, but yeah, that would be nice.
[01:28:50.060 --> 01:28:51.900]  We would like to.
[01:28:51.900 --> 01:28:55.900]  I think we've got to stop them from removing the most important founding fathers from the
[01:28:55.900 --> 01:28:57.700]  list first.
[01:28:57.700 --> 01:29:04.180]  I think that was kind of a goofy thing because they wanted to whitewash because he's a deist.
[01:29:04.180 --> 01:29:06.860]  Wasn't that what that was about?
[01:29:06.860 --> 01:29:11.580]  That was what they were saying it was about, but that's not what it was really about.
[01:29:11.580 --> 01:29:17.340]  What it was really about is because he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
[01:29:17.340 --> 01:29:23.060]  I thought these were kind of, maybe there were, you know, there's some Christians.
[01:29:23.060 --> 01:29:26.900]  Yes, but they were just using that as an excuse.
[01:29:26.900 --> 01:29:27.900]  It was obvious.
[01:29:27.900 --> 01:29:29.900]  They were just using that as an excuse.
[01:29:29.900 --> 01:29:30.900]  Oh, okay.
[01:29:30.900 --> 01:29:31.900]  Yeah.
[01:29:31.900 --> 01:29:34.300]  Anyways, thanks for calling in, Tony.
[01:29:34.300 --> 01:29:35.300]  Yeah.
[01:29:35.300 --> 01:29:36.300]  Okay.
[01:29:36.300 --> 01:29:37.300]  We've got more callers on the line.
[01:29:37.300 --> 01:29:38.740]  We've got Sten and Dominic.
[01:29:38.740 --> 01:29:43.540]  When we get back on the other side, this is the rule of law.
[01:29:43.540 --> 01:29:48.620]  We'll be right back, folks.
[01:29:48.620 --> 01:30:05.940]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't
[01:30:05.940 --> 01:30:09.740]  so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:30:09.740 --> 01:30:12.660]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:30:12.660 --> 01:30:13.660]  Brave New Books?
[01:30:13.660 --> 01:30:14.660]  Yes.
[01:30:14.660 --> 01:30:19.020]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[01:30:19.020 --> 01:30:21.020]  Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:30:21.020 --> 01:30:24.300]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:30:24.300 --> 01:30:27.340]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:30:27.340 --> 01:30:28.820]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:30:28.820 --> 01:30:33.180]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:30:33.180 --> 01:30:36.540]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:30:36.540 --> 01:30:41.780]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[01:30:41.780 --> 01:30:43.980]  facility just behind the bookstore.
[01:30:43.980 --> 01:30:47.740]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:30:47.740 --> 01:30:52.300]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:30:52.300 --> 01:31:01.180]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:31:01.180 --> 01:31:05.900]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:31:05.900 --> 01:31:10.020]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:31:10.020 --> 01:31:14.340]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[01:31:14.340 --> 01:31:15.340]  can win two.
[01:31:15.340 --> 01:31:20.180]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:31:20.180 --> 01:31:21.860]  civil rights statutes.
[01:31:21.860 --> 01:31:25.500]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[01:31:25.500 --> 01:31:27.500]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:31:27.500 --> 01:31:30.140]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:31:30.140 --> 01:31:34.780]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:31:34.780 --> 01:31:39.580]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:31:39.580 --> 01:31:41.740]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:31:41.740 --> 01:31:47.500]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[01:31:47.500 --> 01:31:50.500]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:31:50.500 --> 01:31:59.500]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[01:31:59.500 --> 01:32:00.500]  collectors now.
[01:32:00.500 --> 01:32:14.340]  Okay, folks, we're back.
[01:32:14.340 --> 01:32:17.340]  We're going now to Sten in Texas.
[01:32:17.340 --> 01:32:19.180]  Sten, thanks for calling in.
[01:32:19.180 --> 01:32:20.900]  What is your question or comment tonight?
[01:32:20.900 --> 01:32:21.900]  Hello, everybody.
[01:32:21.900 --> 01:32:23.900]  Hello, Eddie, Randy, and Deborah.
[01:32:23.900 --> 01:32:24.900]  Hello.
[01:32:24.900 --> 01:32:29.620]  I've never heard you guys talk over like this.
[01:32:29.620 --> 01:32:33.340]  It's good to hear the passion and all that.
[01:32:33.340 --> 01:32:38.340]  In addressing the common law, and Randy was talking about the common law, and I know that
[01:32:38.340 --> 01:32:43.100]  Eddie and Randy know that I'm in law school right now.
[01:32:43.100 --> 01:32:48.860]  For example, common law burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another
[01:32:48.860 --> 01:32:52.700]  at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
[01:32:52.700 --> 01:32:59.460]  But they always tell us that everything is now codified in statutes, so all the modern
[01:32:59.460 --> 01:33:06.260]  codifications, as they call them, have dropped, for example, in burglary, the at-night requirement,
[01:33:06.260 --> 01:33:12.220]  and they've also dropped the dwelling house of another requirement.
[01:33:12.220 --> 01:33:20.740]  You can now, under modern codifications, burglarize a garage or a shed or a warehouse as opposed
[01:33:20.740 --> 01:33:24.380]  to the dwelling house of another, and it doesn't have to be at night.
[01:33:24.380 --> 01:33:28.260]  But I did have a conversation with one of my professors about the common law and about
[01:33:28.260 --> 01:33:36.580]  why it is that they emphasize all of these common law rules in law school, but when you
[01:33:36.580 --> 01:33:44.620]  go to practice, there's no real use of the common law in a day-to-day legal practice.
[01:33:44.620 --> 01:33:48.780]  If you're doing criminal defense, you're not going to stand up and say, my client is not
[01:33:48.780 --> 01:33:54.100]  guilty of this offense because he did it during the day, or it wasn't the dwelling house of
[01:33:54.100 --> 01:33:57.020]  another, it was the warehouse of Walmart.
[01:33:57.020 --> 01:34:03.500]  So I never really got a satisfactory answer, but I think, and I have had conversations
[01:34:03.500 --> 01:34:13.540]  with Eddie recently concerning the treatise titled, USA, the Republic is the House that
[01:34:13.540 --> 01:34:20.620]  Nobody Lives In, and I encourage everybody who's listening to try to Google that or it's
[01:34:20.620 --> 01:34:26.380]  quick or whatever you use to find it's called the USA, the House, or the Republic is the
[01:34:26.380 --> 01:34:30.820]  House that Nobody Lives In, and there's a great portion in there, a great section in
[01:34:30.820 --> 01:34:37.540]  there that talks about positive versus non-positive law, and I know, Eddie, we've had conversations
[01:34:37.540 --> 01:34:42.660]  before on Skype about that and about some of the work that you're doing about the positive
[01:34:42.660 --> 01:34:43.660]  law.
[01:34:43.660 --> 01:34:48.420]  And in looking up the definitions in my law books, what I've come to find is that, and
[01:34:48.420 --> 01:34:54.980]  this explains it in this treatise, is that positive law is law that tells you like the
[01:34:54.980 --> 01:34:59.740]  Constitution does what the government can and can't do.
[01:34:59.740 --> 01:35:07.500]  It says, government, you can't do this, whereas non-positive law is the law that we are dealing
[01:35:07.500 --> 01:35:13.460]  with with the statutes, which is trying to tell the people what they can and can't do.
[01:35:13.460 --> 01:35:19.380]  And in this treatise, it talks about the fact that non-positive law is effectively private
[01:35:19.380 --> 01:35:20.380]  law.
[01:35:20.380 --> 01:35:23.900]  For example, the Uniform Commercial Code is not positive law.
[01:35:23.900 --> 01:35:27.540]  The Uniform Commercial Code is private law.
[01:35:27.540 --> 01:35:32.340]  Even though the state legislatures everywhere in the country have adopted it, mostly, some
[01:35:32.340 --> 01:35:37.020]  states have less, but most, many, many have just adopted it whole scale.
[01:35:37.020 --> 01:35:41.580]  It was written by the American Law Institute, and they suggested it as this body of commercial
[01:35:41.580 --> 01:35:42.580]  law.
[01:35:42.580 --> 01:35:47.300]  And it is effectively private law, it's contract law.
[01:35:47.300 --> 01:35:52.860]  And through my reading of redemptionist material and formal law school material and addressing
[01:35:52.860 --> 01:35:57.620]  what Eddie was saying, or I'm sorry, what Randy was saying about how judges can just
[01:35:57.620 --> 01:36:04.580]  effectively on their whim create this law, I think actually one of the things that struck
[01:36:04.580 --> 01:36:12.380]  me in much of my reading has been that under contracts and under this commercial law that
[01:36:12.380 --> 01:36:18.660]  the redemptionists talk about a lot, that's where we get into that mode where judges can
[01:36:18.660 --> 01:36:27.540]  just make up rules as they go along and make up laws as they go along, because this commercial
[01:36:27.540 --> 01:36:31.940]  admiralty, whatever you call it, was written based on the fact that there were never any
[01:36:31.940 --> 01:36:40.100]  fact witnesses to answer to why that ship left Portsmouth and never arrived in Boston.
[01:36:40.100 --> 01:36:41.100]  Nobody knows.
[01:36:41.100 --> 01:36:42.100]  It was lost at sea.
[01:36:42.100 --> 01:36:43.100]  We don't know why.
[01:36:43.100 --> 01:36:45.200]  There's no fact witnesses.
[01:36:45.200 --> 01:36:51.060]  So again, I encourage everybody to read this treatise and understand that what we're dealing
[01:36:51.060 --> 01:36:54.580]  with right now is the law of conscience.
[01:36:54.580 --> 01:37:00.900]  We're dealing with the personal or the religious or the philosophical beliefs of a group, whatever
[01:37:00.900 --> 01:37:03.700]  group that might be, that's the ruling party.
[01:37:03.700 --> 01:37:09.820]  Whereas common law, from the way I understand it, had that requirement for a corpus dialecti,
[01:37:09.820 --> 01:37:13.140]  it had that requirement for a damaged party.
[01:37:13.140 --> 01:37:18.820]  And traffic, I think, is the most perfect example in that who in the world is damaged
[01:37:18.820 --> 01:37:21.900]  by traveling 55 in a 45?
[01:37:21.900 --> 01:37:22.900]  Nobody.
[01:37:22.900 --> 01:37:29.260]  Yet the state or the city or the county or whomever is prosecuting that will stand there
[01:37:29.260 --> 01:37:34.940]  in front of you and claim, I as the state or the county or whoever it is have been damaged
[01:37:34.940 --> 01:37:35.940]  by this.
[01:37:35.940 --> 01:37:42.940]  And as Eddie and Randy have shown repeatedly, when you try to get them to show how has anybody
[01:37:42.940 --> 01:37:43.940]  been damaged?
[01:37:43.940 --> 01:37:44.940]  It's equity.
[01:37:44.940 --> 01:37:45.940]  It's a contract.
[01:37:45.940 --> 01:37:51.140]  It's your breaking the tenets of a contract, which then goes back and begs the question,
[01:37:51.140 --> 01:37:53.540]  well, what contract are we dealing under?
[01:37:53.540 --> 01:37:59.620]  So I was hoping to try to call in and assuage some of the argument from you guys talking
[01:37:59.620 --> 01:38:04.460]  over each other tonight, because I think you guys are both correct.
[01:38:04.460 --> 01:38:11.260]  And I think Randy is correct in that judges do, on a whim, decide that this is the way
[01:38:11.260 --> 01:38:12.260]  I'm going to decide.
[01:38:12.260 --> 01:38:14.220]  This is the rule.
[01:38:14.220 --> 01:38:19.300]  And whether you have some law or some statute that says no, they're going to do it anyway.
[01:38:19.300 --> 01:38:21.180]  We know that.
[01:38:21.180 --> 01:38:25.940]  I think the common law is much more tied to the land.
[01:38:25.940 --> 01:38:32.100]  It's much more tied to the concept that unless somebody is moving another citizen, another
[01:38:32.100 --> 01:38:36.060]  sovereign is moving against you, there are no claims.
[01:38:36.060 --> 01:38:37.620]  There cannot be a claim.
[01:38:37.620 --> 01:38:42.620]  The state can't just come at you with a claim saying, you violated this law.
[01:38:42.620 --> 01:38:45.620]  Now you have to answer for it.
[01:38:45.620 --> 01:38:50.620]  Well, Stan, answer me this one.
[01:38:50.620 --> 01:38:51.620]  Sure.
[01:38:51.620 --> 01:38:59.260]  How is the statutory law anything other than limitations on judges and police officers?
[01:38:59.260 --> 01:39:02.300]  Some of them are.
[01:39:02.300 --> 01:39:07.300]  There's definitely some positive law in the statute, there's no doubt about that.
[01:39:07.300 --> 01:39:15.780]  But any law, any statute that says what a person, I shouldn't even use the word person
[01:39:15.780 --> 01:39:17.740]  because that has been corrupted as well.
[01:39:17.740 --> 01:39:26.420]  What a human being, what a sovereign say, for example, can do is non-positive law.
[01:39:26.420 --> 01:39:32.340]  Anytime you interact with non-positive law, that individual has to understand that what
[01:39:32.340 --> 01:39:38.060]  they're dealing with is they're dealing with something that says, like you guys were talking
[01:39:38.060 --> 01:39:42.940]  earlier about rights and about where your rights come from and about how your rights
[01:39:42.940 --> 01:39:46.140]  are derived and all of that.
[01:39:46.140 --> 01:39:48.140]  It's private.
[01:39:48.140 --> 01:39:54.320]  The Constitution, again, I encourage people to read this treatise because it shows that
[01:39:54.320 --> 01:40:00.940]  everybody who's standing up and saying, this is unconstitutional, they're slightly off
[01:40:00.940 --> 01:40:07.060]  on their basis, it's constitutional because of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution,
[01:40:07.060 --> 01:40:11.940]  which forbids the government to interfere with contracts.
[01:40:11.940 --> 01:40:18.500]  That means the four of us could form a contract in which all of us contract our unalienable
[01:40:18.500 --> 01:40:20.220]  rights away.
[01:40:20.220 --> 01:40:24.500]  We're allowed to do that because if you really think about it, how can a person really be
[01:40:24.500 --> 01:40:30.060]  free if they're not free to contract their rights away?
[01:40:30.060 --> 01:40:35.260]  It sounds crazy to us now because we've grown up, we've lived in this sort of nanny state
[01:40:35.260 --> 01:40:40.140]  that we exist in, but at the time when these individuals were sitting down and thinking
[01:40:40.140 --> 01:40:46.020]  about it, they said, look, you're not free unless you know the law and you're allowed
[01:40:46.020 --> 01:40:48.060]  to contract your rights away.
[01:40:48.060 --> 01:40:56.340]  The problem is, and I was thinking about what the last caller had said, was about the education.
[01:40:56.340 --> 01:41:01.540]  You hear these anecdotes all the time about people in the 1800s or the 1700s or even the
[01:41:01.540 --> 01:41:03.420]  early 1900s.
[01:41:03.420 --> 01:41:09.420]  People understood the law in a way that we don't understand it now, and even the educated
[01:41:09.420 --> 01:41:13.100]  legal scholars, they're only learning the private law.
[01:41:13.100 --> 01:41:18.140]  They're not learning the true law, which is, who is the damaged party?
[01:41:18.140 --> 01:41:19.900]  Where is the corpus dialecti?
[01:41:19.900 --> 01:41:20.900]  Right?
[01:41:20.900 --> 01:41:25.940]  Battery, all those things where they're intentional and you have a damaged party, those are fine,
[01:41:25.940 --> 01:41:30.300]  but we've talked about this before, I know for a fact, in some of the jurisdictionary
[01:41:30.300 --> 01:41:31.300]  classes.
[01:41:31.300 --> 01:41:37.220]  If I'm up with Mr. Barr, we had a few drinks, and he got mad at me and punched me in the
[01:41:37.220 --> 01:41:44.460]  head, and the police came, and I said, ah, you know what, don't worry about it, anytime
[01:41:44.460 --> 01:41:47.660]  we're buddies, I don't want to press charges against him.
[01:41:47.660 --> 01:41:52.980]  The police and the state now have the right to say, thank you very much, we'll be contacting
[01:41:52.980 --> 01:41:55.060]  you and we need your statement.
[01:41:55.060 --> 01:41:59.540]  And they could move against Eddie all on their own.
[01:41:59.540 --> 01:42:03.100]  Under the common law, from what I understand, now perhaps I'm wrong, but under the common
[01:42:03.100 --> 01:42:05.900]  law, that was impossible.
[01:42:05.900 --> 01:42:12.660]  If the person decided not to press charges, there was no crime, because I, as the person
[01:42:12.660 --> 01:42:16.780]  who is the corpus dialecti, I'm the damaged party, I have to set forth the complaint.
[01:42:16.780 --> 01:42:20.740]  And that's what you guys talk about all the time, is setting forth these complaints and
[01:42:20.740 --> 01:42:23.140]  bringing them forth, these criminal complaints.
[01:42:23.140 --> 01:42:29.660]  And the reason that the states just ignore them completely, is because they can't.
[01:42:29.660 --> 01:42:35.980]  And I know that's not really the right explanation, is that they can, but again, if you look at
[01:42:35.980 --> 01:42:40.900]  it on the overlay, that everything that we're operating under, is operating under this body
[01:42:40.900 --> 01:42:45.220]  of private conscience law, it's contracts.
[01:42:45.220 --> 01:42:47.540]  They know you can't produce the contract.
[01:42:47.540 --> 01:42:53.260]  They know that you don't have the means or the access to the contract.
[01:42:53.260 --> 01:42:57.900]  So they can just say, well, you know what, yeah, fine, you produce this criminal complaint
[01:42:57.900 --> 01:43:02.860]  against this judge and so, and it might ruffle some feathers and get some stuff moving.
[01:43:02.860 --> 01:43:06.020]  But at the end of the day, how many judges are being thrown in jail?
[01:43:06.020 --> 01:43:11.260]  Whereas every day in this country, people are thrown in jail all over the place for
[01:43:11.260 --> 01:43:12.260]  driving too many complaints.
[01:43:12.260 --> 01:43:15.220]  It goes to my point exactly.
[01:43:15.220 --> 01:43:17.540]  The problem's not the law.
[01:43:17.540 --> 01:43:21.620]  The problem's you and I, we're not enforcing it from our perspective.
[01:43:21.620 --> 01:43:22.620]  That's true.
[01:43:22.620 --> 01:43:23.620]  As the sovereigns.
[01:43:23.620 --> 01:43:28.140]  Well, and I would say, I would take that one step further to say, the problem, and this
[01:43:28.140 --> 01:43:32.940]  is what this treatise again, I hate to keep beating this on this, but this is what this
[01:43:32.940 --> 01:43:38.260]  treatise says, is that look, it's not the law that's the problem, it's the problem of
[01:43:38.260 --> 01:43:42.820]  we don't know how to enforce the true law, our real sovereign law.
[01:43:42.820 --> 01:43:46.460]  We just wanna play around in their commercial law and think that it's gonna be to our benefit
[01:43:46.460 --> 01:43:47.460]  and never is.
[01:43:47.460 --> 01:43:51.340]  Okay, listen, we're going to break, Sten, do you have anything else to say on the other
[01:43:51.340 --> 01:43:52.340]  side?
[01:43:52.340 --> 01:43:53.340]  No.
[01:43:53.340 --> 01:43:54.340]  Okay, great.
[01:43:54.340 --> 01:43:55.340]  We'll be going, all right, thank you.
[01:43:55.340 --> 01:44:07.300]  We'll be going to Dominic and then Mark on the other side, we'll be right back.
[01:44:07.300 --> 01:44:26.900]  Okay.
[01:44:26.900 --> 01:44:31.500]  Call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:31.500 --> 01:44:36.260]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:36.260 --> 01:44:40.140]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:40.140 --> 01:44:43.980]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites, and toxins.
[01:44:43.980 --> 01:44:49.180]  Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:49.180 --> 01:44:56.180]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:19.180 --> 01:45:24.180]  Okay, folks, going into the home stretch here.
[01:45:24.180 --> 01:45:26.380]  We're taking your calls.
[01:45:26.380 --> 01:45:28.260]  We've got Dominic and then Mark.
[01:45:28.260 --> 01:45:30.220]  Dominic, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:30.220 --> 01:45:31.900]  What is your question or comment tonight?
[01:45:31.900 --> 01:45:33.860]  How are you all doing tonight?
[01:45:33.860 --> 01:45:34.860]  Pretty good.
[01:45:34.860 --> 01:45:35.860]  That's good.
[01:45:35.860 --> 01:45:38.580]  Randy had made a comment that I just had to call in.
[01:45:38.580 --> 01:45:42.540]  I knew Dominic was going to hammer me.
[01:45:42.540 --> 01:45:43.540]  He always does.
[01:45:43.540 --> 01:45:44.540]  No, no, no.
[01:45:44.540 --> 01:45:45.540]  I'm on your side.
[01:45:45.540 --> 01:45:54.340]  Because he did say the common law, it was derived by the Magna Carta, but if we don't
[01:45:54.340 --> 01:46:05.940]  have anything tangible as far as where is it, it's real hard to go by it because like
[01:46:05.940 --> 01:46:13.220]  y'all said, yes, we go by court cases, but it would be the same effect as if we would
[01:46:13.220 --> 01:46:19.020]  go by court cases as far as the transportation code without having the transportation code.
[01:46:19.020 --> 01:46:23.940]  If we just go by court cases, it's totally opposite as what the transportation code is.
[01:46:23.940 --> 01:46:29.340]  I think that's the point Randy was trying to get across, something like that.
[01:46:29.340 --> 01:46:30.340]  Right.
[01:46:30.340 --> 01:46:37.660]  I think that's why we have the Magna Carta and that's why we have our constitutions so
[01:46:37.660 --> 01:46:43.620]  that there is a foundation, there is a basis to go off of so that the stary decisis of
[01:46:43.620 --> 01:46:49.460]  court cases doesn't just go spiraling out of control and morph into something that is
[01:46:49.460 --> 01:46:53.460]  totally different from the original intention of the founding documents.
[01:46:53.460 --> 01:46:59.780]  But then if the common law is derived from the Magna Carta, but there really isn't a
[01:46:59.780 --> 01:47:06.340]  common law other than court cases and referring back to the Magna Carta?
[01:47:06.340 --> 01:47:09.900]  As far as I know, that's what it is.
[01:47:09.900 --> 01:47:17.260]  I mean the whole term common law is an Anglo jurisprudence term.
[01:47:17.260 --> 01:47:21.940]  It derives from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence based on the Magna Carta.
[01:47:21.940 --> 01:47:25.100]  So yeah, I would say before the Magna Carta, there's no such thing as common law.
[01:47:25.100 --> 01:47:32.700]  It was just the kings doing whatever they wanted to do, inflicting total tyranny.
[01:47:32.700 --> 01:47:37.700]  The only law there was was the law of the king, whatever the king said and after the
[01:47:37.700 --> 01:47:40.980]  Magna Carta, all that changed.
[01:47:40.980 --> 01:47:50.220]  So yeah, as far as the history of our jurisprudence in this country and the foundational documents
[01:47:50.220 --> 01:47:54.020]  since before this country, yeah, before the Magna Carta, there was nothing.
[01:47:54.020 --> 01:47:55.500]  Common law started with the Magna Carta.
[01:47:55.500 --> 01:48:01.820]  Well, I just have to make that comment because I have to call in because usually I disagree
[01:48:01.820 --> 01:48:04.300]  with Randy but I had to call in.
[01:48:04.300 --> 01:48:05.300]  Okay.
[01:48:05.300 --> 01:48:11.420]  And there are cases, I mean the court cases do exist, you know?
[01:48:11.420 --> 01:48:15.420]  There is actually another document that goes hand in hand with the Magna Carta and this
[01:48:15.420 --> 01:48:23.300]  document actually shows in its language that the Magna Carta is the common law and that's
[01:48:23.300 --> 01:48:26.260]  the Confirmatio Carterum.
[01:48:26.260 --> 01:48:34.060]  That document actually established the Magna Carta as the common law and it's stated very
[01:48:34.060 --> 01:48:42.380]  clearly in the Carterum that the Magna Carta was to be used in the courts as necessary
[01:48:42.380 --> 01:48:46.100]  as a determination of the common law.
[01:48:46.100 --> 01:48:47.540]  What was that document?
[01:48:47.540 --> 01:48:50.780]  What authority did it have?
[01:48:50.780 --> 01:48:56.100]  It's a treaty as the Magna Carta was a treaty.
[01:48:56.100 --> 01:48:58.140]  Treaty between what parties?
[01:48:58.140 --> 01:49:00.820]  I don't know everything about the parties on it.
[01:49:00.820 --> 01:49:05.020]  It was sent to me just recently and I've been reading it but I have read the part where
[01:49:05.020 --> 01:49:09.900]  it establishes that the common law is the Magna Carta.
[01:49:09.900 --> 01:49:10.900]  So again, if the...
[01:49:10.900 --> 01:49:12.940]  I'm still reading the history of it.
[01:49:12.940 --> 01:49:19.180]  If the judges back in England made court rulings that were in violation of the Magna Carta,
[01:49:19.180 --> 01:49:27.820]  then technically you could not use those cases as some kind of foundational rulings to establish
[01:49:27.820 --> 01:49:30.740]  or morph or change the common law.
[01:49:30.740 --> 01:49:36.380]  If it's not in compliance or in coordination with the Magna Carta, then it doesn't fly.
[01:49:36.380 --> 01:49:42.260]  Most likely what happened at that time was that judge not only lost his job but his head.
[01:49:42.260 --> 01:49:43.260]  No.
[01:49:43.260 --> 01:49:49.700]  What they did was skint them and covered the judge's chair with the skin of the corrupt
[01:49:49.700 --> 01:49:50.700]  judge.
[01:49:50.700 --> 01:49:53.620]  That was one of the things they did.
[01:49:53.620 --> 01:49:57.500]  That'll make them fall a little off.
[01:49:57.500 --> 01:49:59.300]  It seems to get their attention.
[01:49:59.300 --> 01:50:07.100]  But what it seems you're saying is that under the common law, they follow one set of specifically
[01:50:07.100 --> 01:50:11.740]  defined rules called Magna Carta.
[01:50:11.740 --> 01:50:15.500]  And I'm saying that under the statutory law, we follow...
[01:50:15.500 --> 01:50:20.620]  The judges are to follow another set of specifically defined rules called statutory law.
[01:50:20.620 --> 01:50:24.500]  I don't think that they're instructed to follow a different set of rules.
[01:50:24.500 --> 01:50:27.620]  I think they have to follow both.
[01:50:27.620 --> 01:50:28.620]  I think...
[01:50:28.620 --> 01:50:29.620]  They have to follow both.
[01:50:29.620 --> 01:50:32.020]  Here's what's the answer to your question, Rick.
[01:50:32.020 --> 01:50:36.980]  The Confirmatio Carterum was signed in October of 1297.
[01:50:36.980 --> 01:50:41.860]  It is by Edward, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guayne.
[01:50:41.860 --> 01:50:46.140]  And it is his proclamation to the people of England.
[01:50:46.140 --> 01:50:51.460]  And it also says, before them in judgment and all their points, that is to wit the great
[01:50:51.460 --> 01:50:53.420]  charter as the common law.
[01:50:53.420 --> 01:50:59.020]  And it's referencing the Magna Carta as the great charter.
[01:50:59.020 --> 01:51:03.780]  But it was actually Edward, the King of England, that made the proclamation of the Confirmatio
[01:51:03.780 --> 01:51:08.100]  Carterum to the people of England in 1297.
[01:51:08.100 --> 01:51:15.460]  So essentially, the Magna Carta is a set of laws.
[01:51:15.460 --> 01:51:18.460]  It's essentially the common law, period.
[01:51:18.460 --> 01:51:20.060]  That binds the judges.
[01:51:20.060 --> 01:51:21.060]  Yes.
[01:51:21.060 --> 01:51:24.260]  That binds all of the rulers, the King and the judges.
[01:51:24.260 --> 01:51:25.700]  The whole government.
[01:51:25.700 --> 01:51:28.540]  And we also have Mark from Wisconsin and Tony from Illinois.
[01:51:28.540 --> 01:51:29.540]  We're running...
[01:51:29.540 --> 01:51:30.540]  Draw the line and let somebody else...
[01:51:30.540 --> 01:51:31.540]  Okay.
[01:51:31.540 --> 01:51:32.540]  Thank you.
[01:51:32.540 --> 01:51:33.540] ...talking to you.
[01:51:33.540 --> 01:51:34.540]  Okay.
[01:51:34.540 --> 01:51:35.540]  Yes.
[01:51:35.540 --> 01:51:36.540]  Thanks for not hammering me, Dominic.
[01:51:36.540 --> 01:51:37.540]  Okay.
[01:51:37.540 --> 01:51:38.540]  So in other words, they have to abide by both.
[01:51:38.540 --> 01:51:40.060]  It's like I was saying earlier.
[01:51:40.060 --> 01:51:41.060]  Okay.
[01:51:41.060 --> 01:51:42.060]  Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:51:42.060 --> 01:51:43.060]  Mark, thanks for calling in.
[01:51:43.060 --> 01:51:44.060]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:51:44.060 --> 01:51:45.060]  Hello.
[01:51:45.060 --> 01:51:48.580]  Hey, if you guys are going to be talking about the common law tomorrow, let me know so I
[01:51:48.580 --> 01:51:52.780]  can do a loading dose of Tylenol, would you?
[01:51:52.780 --> 01:51:53.780]  Okay.
[01:51:53.780 --> 01:51:58.460]  Does the common law give you a headache?
[01:51:58.460 --> 01:52:08.660]  Hey, Randy, I sent out a waiver of service to a company called Bay Area Credit.
[01:52:08.660 --> 01:52:10.100]  They hired an attorney.
[01:52:10.100 --> 01:52:15.980]  He called me and said, we'll give you $500 to go away.
[01:52:15.980 --> 01:52:17.980]  And I was like, yeah, right.
[01:52:17.980 --> 01:52:23.660]  But anyway, he was saying that the Seventh Circuit has ruled that you can't make more
[01:52:23.660 --> 01:52:28.900]  than $1,000 for even multiple violations of the FDCPA, and I asked him to cite a case.
[01:52:28.900 --> 01:52:31.500]  He couldn't cite a case.
[01:52:31.500 --> 01:52:39.180]  And I'm just wondering, I think we're just going to have to go to court on this because
[01:52:39.180 --> 01:52:49.740]  the lawsuit's for $150,000, but I was sending him a letter saying I'll settle for $2,500.
[01:52:49.740 --> 01:52:53.780]  And what I wanted to know is I wanted to send him kind of a snide letter.
[01:52:53.780 --> 01:52:57.500]  Does the judge get to see the letters that you send to the attorneys for settlement?
[01:52:57.500 --> 01:52:58.500]  No.
[01:52:58.500 --> 01:53:03.660]  No, not if you put it under the, there's certain rules that prevent it from being introduced
[01:53:03.660 --> 01:53:05.940]  in court.
[01:53:05.940 --> 01:53:12.180]  They actually, the landlord that I'm suing here in my hometown, his attorney sent me
[01:53:12.180 --> 01:53:17.020]  a letter stating that it's non-discoverable and cannot be introduced in court under such
[01:53:17.020 --> 01:53:20.580]  and such provision of the civil rules or procedure.
[01:53:20.580 --> 01:53:24.180]  Oh, you've got to put that on there?
[01:53:24.180 --> 01:53:30.060]  Yeah, you put that on the letter, and it will not be a discoverable document, otherwise
[01:53:30.060 --> 01:53:31.060]  it will be.
[01:53:31.060 --> 01:53:39.740]  Yeah, but as to the $1,000 amount, the way Mike Maris handled that is he would tell
[01:53:39.740 --> 01:53:43.860]  them, well, let's see what the jury has to say about it.
[01:53:43.860 --> 01:53:48.940]  Well, that's what I told them too, Randy.
[01:53:48.940 --> 01:53:50.300]  It's basically a numbers game.
[01:53:50.300 --> 01:53:57.100]  They're going to have to spend $25,000, $30,000 to defend it or give me $2,500 to disappear.
[01:53:57.100 --> 01:54:01.100]  So I was figuring I should just send the letter out and dispense with it right now, don't
[01:54:01.100 --> 01:54:04.100]  you think?
[01:54:04.100 --> 01:54:08.380]  I think the whole point of the Mike Maris method is that you want to try to force these
[01:54:08.380 --> 01:54:11.220]  guys into settling with you out of court.
[01:54:11.220 --> 01:54:17.000]  And the main thing is that you want to get enough money back to cover your costs and
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:25.740]  also force them into a settlement agreement to either dismiss any previous rulings, default
[01:54:25.740 --> 01:54:31.540]  judgments or judgments against you in a state court or a county court, and to also, as part
[01:54:31.540 --> 01:54:38.220]  of the settlement agreement, that they will agree to retire the whole debt, quote unquote,
[01:54:38.220 --> 01:54:42.340]  and agree not to sell the information related to the debt or sell the debt to anyone else
[01:54:42.340 --> 01:54:43.860]  and the whole thing goes away.
[01:54:43.860 --> 01:54:49.700]  That's the whole point is to make it all go away and to get a little bit of money to cover
[01:54:49.700 --> 01:54:52.260]  your costs and a little bit left over.
[01:54:52.260 --> 01:54:57.340]  I don't really think the point is to try to go for big, big bucks unless you can nail
[01:54:57.340 --> 01:55:02.620]  them on TCPA violations, which have to do with telephone fraud.
[01:55:02.620 --> 01:55:08.420]  If they were calling you on your cell phone after you already sent them a validation letter
[01:55:08.420 --> 01:55:15.780]  telling them not to call you anymore, then you can nail them for $1,500 a pop every time
[01:55:15.780 --> 01:55:21.900]  they call, not just one $1,500, but you can nail them for $1,500 in a TCPA every single
[01:55:21.900 --> 01:55:24.880]  time if they use minutes on your cell phone.
[01:55:24.880 --> 01:55:26.300]  You have to actually answer the phone.
[01:55:26.300 --> 01:55:30.140]  If it just goes in a voicemail, then it doesn't count, but if you answer the phone and it
[01:55:30.140 --> 01:55:35.060]  deducts minutes from your cell phone bill, then you can nail them for $1,500 every time
[01:55:35.060 --> 01:55:40.180]  they call, but if you have an unlimited cell phone plan, then you can't do that.
[01:55:40.180 --> 01:55:46.700]  These guys weren't even reporting it, so I'm not even worried about that.
[01:55:46.700 --> 01:55:50.580]  I was just doing it more for practice and they kind of got under my skin.
[01:55:50.580 --> 01:55:51.940]  They were kind of rude people.
[01:55:51.940 --> 01:55:55.340]  They might sell the debt again if you don't stop them this time.
[01:55:55.340 --> 01:55:56.340]  They're third party.
[01:55:56.340 --> 01:55:57.340]  They can't sell the debt.
[01:55:57.340 --> 01:55:58.340]  They keep selling it.
[01:55:58.340 --> 01:56:01.100]  They sell the information related to the debt is what they do.
[01:56:01.100 --> 01:56:03.540]  Every six months, you'll get a new debt collector.
[01:56:03.540 --> 01:56:07.620]  Well, they're a third party to a third party, Debbie.
[01:56:07.620 --> 01:56:09.620]  Oh, okay.
[01:56:09.620 --> 01:56:15.820]  Well at any rate, if you don't stop the third party debt collector, they will sell the information
[01:56:15.820 --> 01:56:17.540]  related to the debt after six months.
[01:56:17.540 --> 01:56:20.780]  Every six months, you'll get a new one.
[01:56:20.780 --> 01:56:26.940]  I was going to work up a complaint against him, Randy, for the bar.
[01:56:26.940 --> 01:56:34.260]  I was wondering if you had any good one-liners to throw in there.
[01:56:34.260 --> 01:56:35.260]  Against the attorney?
[01:56:35.260 --> 01:56:36.260]  Yeah.
[01:56:36.260 --> 01:56:44.140]  You could accuse him of parting his hair on the wrong side, a very rotten shyster.
[01:56:44.140 --> 01:56:45.140]  Okay.
[01:56:45.140 --> 01:56:48.540]  Listen, we've only got two minutes left and we've got one more caller on the line.
[01:56:48.540 --> 01:56:49.540]  Okay.
[01:56:49.540 --> 01:56:50.540]  Thanks a lot.
[01:56:50.540 --> 01:56:51.540]  Okay.
[01:56:51.540 --> 01:56:52.540]  Thanks, Mark.
[01:56:52.540 --> 01:56:53.540]  All right.
[01:56:53.540 --> 01:56:54.540]  Tony from Illinois has called back in again.
[01:56:54.540 --> 01:56:56.500]  Tony, thanks for calling in.
[01:56:56.500 --> 01:56:58.940]  What are your final comments for tonight?
[01:56:58.940 --> 01:57:05.020]  Well, on the common law, I just wanted to suggest Blackstone's commentaries on the law.
[01:57:05.020 --> 01:57:12.060]  He deals with that extensively and they had quite a bit of influence on the founders,
[01:57:12.060 --> 01:57:13.060]  I believe.
[01:57:13.060 --> 01:57:15.060]  It was published in the 1760s.
[01:57:15.060 --> 01:57:20.340]  So if you want to know what the common law is, that's the place to go.
[01:57:20.340 --> 01:57:26.700]  I think Sir Edward Cook, prior to that, was the authority.
[01:57:26.700 --> 01:57:27.700]  Yeah.
[01:57:27.700 --> 01:57:29.780]  It's actually pronounced cook, but you're right.
[01:57:29.780 --> 01:57:30.780]  Right, right.
[01:57:30.780 --> 01:57:32.860]  And I've actually read both of those.
[01:57:32.860 --> 01:57:37.860]  I don't think Randy has.
[01:57:37.860 --> 01:57:44.180]  The problem with it is, it's what the common law was.
[01:57:44.180 --> 01:57:47.620]  I think we've established what that is.
[01:57:47.620 --> 01:57:49.180]  Yes, we can find it.
[01:57:49.180 --> 01:57:51.620]  You can read it on the internet, the Magna Carta.
[01:57:51.620 --> 01:57:52.620]  Wow.
[01:57:52.620 --> 01:57:54.420]  Yeah, now that we know that-
[01:57:54.420 --> 01:57:55.420]  It's hard to get it-
[01:57:55.420 --> 01:57:57.540]  As well as Blackstone's commentary, you can find that.
[01:57:57.540 --> 01:57:58.540]  Right.
[01:57:58.540 --> 01:57:59.540]  Exactly.
[01:57:59.540 --> 01:58:00.540]  So we can find it very clearly.
[01:58:00.540 --> 01:58:02.660]  I'm glad we had this discussion.
[01:58:02.660 --> 01:58:04.140]  They just choose to ignore it.
[01:58:04.140 --> 01:58:05.140]  It says they-
[01:58:05.140 --> 01:58:06.140]  Yeah.
[01:58:06.140 --> 01:58:14.300]  And a lot of judges and legislators, if your rights aren't specifically stated, like in
[01:58:14.300 --> 01:58:19.380]  the Bill of Rights, they don't exist, almost, is how they think back.
[01:58:19.380 --> 01:58:20.380]  Indeed.
[01:58:20.380 --> 01:58:21.380]  All right.
[01:58:21.380 --> 01:58:22.380]  Well, thank you, Tony.
[01:58:22.380 --> 01:58:24.380]  I'm ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments.
[01:58:24.380 --> 01:58:25.380]  All right.
[01:58:25.380 --> 01:58:26.380]  Thank you, Tony.
[01:58:26.380 --> 01:58:27.380]  All right.
[01:58:27.380 --> 01:58:28.380]  Okay.
[01:58:28.380 --> 01:58:29.380]  All right.
[01:58:29.380 --> 01:58:34.980]  Tomorrow night, we will have Tom Woods and Eddie, you have some comments?
[01:58:34.980 --> 01:58:38.220]  Just one, for all you people dealing with the attorneys out there, tell them to pull
[01:58:38.220 --> 01:58:42.100]  down their pants when they speak, because their voice is muffled otherwise.
[01:58:42.100 --> 01:58:44.540]  Okay, Eddie.
[01:58:44.540 --> 01:58:45.540]  All right.
[01:58:45.540 --> 01:58:47.420]  Tomorrow night, we have our four-hour info marathon.
[01:58:47.420 --> 01:58:53.900]  We'll be starting off with Tom Woods from Mises.org, and he's a columnist for Lou Rockwell.
[01:58:53.900 --> 01:59:13.380]  We'll see you guys tomorrow night.
[01:59:13.380 --> 01:59:28.620]  Thank you, Tom.
[01:59:28.620 --> 01:59:35.620]  Don't watch my side, I'm dangerous, I'm dangerous
[01:59:35.620 --> 01:59:42.620]  I'm like a chopping razor, don't watch my side, I'm dangerous, dangerous
[01:59:42.620 --> 01:59:45.620]  Let you eat, I'm your boy
[01:59:45.620 --> 01:59:49.620]  It's a dream, let's move
[01:59:49.620 --> 01:59:53.620]  It's a dream, let's move
[01:59:53.620 --> 01:59:58.620]  It's a dream, let's move