ROL_2010-08-09_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.920]  Polls open in Rwanda Monday for the second presidential election since the 1994 genocide.
[00:10.920 --> 00:16.160]  Amnesty International and other civil rights groups say incumbent Paul Kagame's party has
[00:16.160 --> 00:26.120]  led a campaign of violence and intimidation against journalists and political opponents.
[00:26.120 --> 00:31.560]  Before leaving for summer recess, the Senate last week authorized $14 billion in cuts to
[00:31.560 --> 00:36.720]  the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which currently provides food stamps to one
[00:36.720 --> 00:43.720]  in eight Americans.
[00:43.720 --> 00:49.440]  Japan Monday marked the 65th anniversary of the U.S. dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki
[00:49.440 --> 00:53.600]  just three days after dropping the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
[00:53.600 --> 00:58.960]  222,000 people, the majority of them civilians, were wiped out.
[00:58.960 --> 01:07.600]  Washington has yet to apologize for the atrocities.
[01:07.600 --> 01:13.240]  Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu was freed from jail Sunday after serving 11
[01:13.240 --> 01:17.040]  weeks for breaking the terms of his release and meeting a foreigner.
[01:17.040 --> 01:22.360]  Vanunu said it was time Israel allowed him to leave the country and accuse the media
[01:22.360 --> 01:25.080]  of not fighting for his human rights and freedom.
[01:25.080 --> 01:30.140]  The former nuclear technician was arrested in December at a Jerusalem hotel while talking
[01:30.140 --> 01:35.400]  to a Norwegian woman, a violation of the terms laid down when he was freed after serving
[01:35.400 --> 01:41.520]  18 years for disclosing the inner workings of Israel's Dimona nuclear plant to Britain's
[01:41.520 --> 01:42.800]  Sunday Times.
[01:42.800 --> 01:48.280]  Vanunu was originally jailed in 1986 and spent 10 years in solitary confinement.
[01:48.280 --> 01:52.720]  Vanunu became an international cause celeb during his time in prison.
[01:52.720 --> 01:57.200]  In Israel he is widely reviled for converting to Christianity.
[01:57.200 --> 02:07.280]  Israel is the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East with around 200 warheads.
[02:07.280 --> 02:12.240]  In Moscow a record heat wave has sent wildfires raging around the city.
[02:12.240 --> 02:17.880]  Temperatures are 25 degrees higher than average and many residents are wearing masks.
[02:17.880 --> 02:22.520]  Most Moscow apartments are filled with smoke and few people can afford air conditioning.
[02:22.520 --> 02:27.000]  Pollutants are three times normal and morgues are filled to capacity.
[02:27.000 --> 02:31.560]  Authorities have urged residents to leave the city and anti-smog centers have been set
[02:31.560 --> 02:34.040]  up for those who can't flee.
[02:34.040 --> 02:37.520]  One Moscow resident said, quote, I think it is the end of the world.
[02:37.520 --> 02:41.560]  Our planet is warning us what happens if we don't care about nature.
[02:41.560 --> 02:50.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[02:50.000 --> 03:04.000]  For more details on this story, visit INSworldreport.net.
[03:04.000 --> 03:10.440]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free
[03:10.440 --> 03:12.440]  speech talk radio at its best.
[03:40.440 --> 04:03.800]  Bad boys, bad boys, and bad girls, what are you going to do when we come for you here
[04:03.800 --> 04:10.880]  on the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Debra Stephens?
[04:10.880 --> 04:18.080]  Tonight is Monday, August 9th, so Monday night, that means it's traffic night, Eddie's night,
[04:18.080 --> 04:21.720]  he's going to be presenting some material and then we'll be taking your calls starting
[04:21.720 --> 04:25.680]  in about a half an hour from now, 512-646-1984.
[04:25.680 --> 04:32.040]  Okay, so what you got for us tonight, Eddie?
[04:32.040 --> 04:39.920]  Well, tonight I want to talk a little bit about what the purpose and actual constructive objective
[04:39.920 --> 04:47.480]  of Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to have been put into place for.
[04:47.480 --> 04:53.680]  And really, what the deal is, is this is going to lead us down the road to a very, very large
[04:53.680 --> 05:01.320]  and looming constitutional question over whether or not Chapter 45 is not only constitutional
[05:01.320 --> 05:04.440]  but whether it's even legal.
[05:04.440 --> 05:11.680]  And I want to do that by starting off with Article 45.001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[05:11.680 --> 05:13.920]  and it's entitled Objectives of Chapter.
[05:13.920 --> 05:17.840]  Now, each of these sections is very short.
[05:17.840 --> 05:23.520]  In 45.001 it reads, the purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for processing
[05:23.520 --> 05:29.040]  cases that come within the criminal jurisdiction of the justice courts and municipal courts.
[05:29.040 --> 05:34.920]  This chapter is intended and shall be construed to achieve the following objectives.
[05:34.920 --> 05:40.440]  One, to provide fair notice to a person appearing in a criminal proceeding before a justice
[05:40.440 --> 05:45.880]  or municipal court and a meaningful opportunity for that person to be heard.
[05:45.880 --> 05:52.280]  Two, to ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism.
[05:52.280 --> 05:58.160]  Three, to promote adherence to rules with sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of
[05:58.160 --> 06:04.200]  justice and four, to process cases without unnecessary expense or delay.
[06:04.200 --> 06:08.480]  Now, I'm going to stop in that section for just a second.
[06:08.480 --> 06:14.280]  There's a couple of things I want to point out here, such as Section 2 and 3, and bring
[06:14.280 --> 06:16.320]  up some issues with them.
[06:16.320 --> 06:17.840]  I'll read two again.
[06:17.840 --> 06:24.600]  To ensure appropriate dignity in court procedure without undue formalism.
[06:24.600 --> 06:26.760]  What does undue formalism mean?
[06:26.760 --> 06:32.000]  Well, let me tell you what Black's Law says undue means.
[06:32.000 --> 06:40.000]  More than necessary or not proper or illegal.
[06:40.000 --> 06:45.160]  It denotes something wrong according to the standard of morals which the law enforces
[06:45.160 --> 06:54.600]  in relations of men and in fact illegal and qualifies the purpose with which influence
[06:54.600 --> 07:00.920]  is exercised or result which it accomplishes.
[07:00.920 --> 07:03.160]  Undue formality.
[07:03.160 --> 07:09.480]  So according to Black's this could also be read more than necessary formality or not
[07:09.480 --> 07:17.120]  proper formality or illegal formality.
[07:17.120 --> 07:26.920]  So here's the objective we're going after here in 3, to promote adherence to rules with
[07:26.920 --> 07:33.120]  sufficient flexibility to serve the ends of justice.
[07:33.120 --> 07:36.640]  For who would be my first question?
[07:36.640 --> 07:44.960]  Because this sufficient flexibility, originally I would presume, was intended to make it where
[07:44.960 --> 07:50.960]  those of us that did not have legal counsel were not and could not be held to the same
[07:50.960 --> 07:55.280]  standard for putting up a defense under these accusations.
[07:55.280 --> 08:00.560]  Well, the point is, however, that we couldn't be held to the same level of accountability
[08:00.560 --> 08:02.520]  in that respect anyway.
[08:02.520 --> 08:08.780]  The courts have already said long before this chapter existed that that can't be done.
[08:08.780 --> 08:11.800]  So why the rulemaking here?
[08:11.800 --> 08:20.840]  Well I set up a judicial function of a court and then say you don't have the same formalities
[08:20.840 --> 08:23.400]  that the big courts have.
[08:23.400 --> 08:29.360]  You don't have the same necessity of following certain stringent rules that the big courts
[08:29.360 --> 08:36.080]  have and we've given you a little more flexibility in how you do your job to see that justice
[08:36.080 --> 08:41.780]  is done and so you don't have to be as formal.
[08:41.780 --> 08:49.080]  So my first question would be, okay, so you created a place where the people can go and
[08:49.080 --> 08:55.200]  if they wish to handle it in an informal manner, they can do so.
[08:55.200 --> 08:58.000]  What does that really do for me?
[08:58.000 --> 09:04.920]  Considering the current situation in these courts, I'd say it didn't do a thing for me.
[09:04.920 --> 09:12.120]  All it did was create a burden upon me that heretofore did not exist and give free rein
[09:12.120 --> 09:17.920]  to these lower courts to pretty much do whatever they wanted to you.
[09:17.920 --> 09:22.960]  Whether or not that was the intent, that is the result.
[09:22.960 --> 09:29.640]  Now let's look at article 45.002, application of chapter.
[09:29.640 --> 09:34.000]  Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with
[09:34.000 --> 09:40.360]  this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to
[09:40.360 --> 09:43.640]  those proceedings by this chapter.
[09:43.640 --> 09:49.440]  If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case,
[09:49.440 --> 09:55.400]  the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent
[09:55.400 --> 09:59.560]  necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.
[09:59.560 --> 10:04.440]  So they're not bound strictly by chapter 45.002.
[10:04.440 --> 10:09.160]  When it doesn't deal with things in the proper manner that the other courts deal with them
[10:09.160 --> 10:15.840]  and it's not addressed in here, then the court is told in the law to apply the rules from
[10:15.840 --> 10:23.480]  the rest of this code that the big courts do use to ensure that justice is done.
[10:23.480 --> 10:29.720]  Again, something they completely ignore.
[10:29.720 --> 10:37.560]  So the question that's posed in my mind of a constitutional issue is this, it would seem
[10:37.560 --> 10:44.920]  that they've arranged this court for the purpose of creating one of two things, an environment
[10:44.920 --> 10:54.960]  more user-friendly to the accused or an environment more conducive to the cattle shoot method
[10:54.960 --> 11:02.320]  of running you through, shooting you or branding you and taking your money and doing it in
[11:02.320 --> 11:05.880]  the most cost-efficient manner possible.
[11:05.880 --> 11:08.560]  That's the only two ways I can see this coming out.
[11:08.560 --> 11:16.040]  Well, let's presume for just a minute that it's the first one, that they did this in
[11:16.040 --> 11:23.240]  order to give us a more friendly environment for the pro se litigant or the sue-juris litigant
[11:23.240 --> 11:28.800]  to go in and defend themselves without having to obey all of the necessary rules that they
[11:28.800 --> 11:36.040]  would have had to in a big court, or to formally write their pleadings and all that other stuff
[11:36.040 --> 11:40.320]  to match the way that it would more or less have to be in a big court.
[11:40.320 --> 11:44.560]  Let's presume for a minute they did it for our benefit.
[11:44.560 --> 11:52.200]  What happens if we decide we don't want the benefit of the simplicity, at least as far
[11:52.200 --> 11:56.000]  as the procedures are concerned?
[11:56.000 --> 12:02.720]  Because we know what the benefit is for them, we have yet to see a benefit for us.
[12:02.720 --> 12:09.800]  All they're doing right now is just running roughshod over us with steel-toed golf shoes.
[12:09.800 --> 12:17.400]  They're just ignoring anything we do in these lower courts through their simplified procedures.
[12:17.400 --> 12:24.440]  What if we don't want to be harnessed with these more flexible procedures that allow
[12:24.440 --> 12:28.080]  these judges to violate the law?
[12:28.080 --> 12:35.360]  What's our remedy for moving it from a justice or municipal court to a court that has more
[12:35.360 --> 12:39.960]  formality and is more likely to abide by the rules?
[12:39.960 --> 12:48.480]  Well, I don't see one in chapter 45 to tell you the truth, but it would appear to me that
[12:48.480 --> 12:56.680]  based upon what they're doing, that option should be available, because the law specifically
[12:56.680 --> 13:02.760]  states right here in 002 that if it's not addressed in chapter 45, then you're to use
[13:02.760 --> 13:05.160]  the rest of the rules.
[13:05.160 --> 13:09.480]  Now if for some reason the rest of the rules are beyond the scope of your jurisdiction,
[13:09.480 --> 13:11.800]  what would that tell you?
[13:11.800 --> 13:16.400]  Then if the rules can be applied to the case at hand, then you have to lose jurisdiction
[13:16.400 --> 13:18.760]  and hand it up to a higher court.
[13:18.760 --> 13:23.480]  That would just be common sense.
[13:23.480 --> 13:28.640]  Now one of the rules that we've looked at before is the requirement for an information
[13:28.640 --> 13:35.600]  to be signed by the prosecuting attorney in order for the court to get jurisdiction in
[13:35.600 --> 13:37.640]  the first place.
[13:37.640 --> 13:40.800]  Well here's the problem with that.
[13:40.800 --> 13:46.600]  The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that the information can only be signed
[13:46.600 --> 13:50.520]  by a county attorney or a district attorney.
[13:50.520 --> 13:54.320]  A city attorney cannot sign one.
[13:54.320 --> 14:00.720]  That's why there never is one in a municipal court, because the city attorney can't sign
[14:00.720 --> 14:01.720]  it.
[14:01.720 --> 14:09.000]  Unfortunately, if the city attorney cannot sign it, the court cannot get jurisdiction.
[14:09.000 --> 14:15.320]  And if they cannot get jurisdiction, he can't be the prosecutor and they can't be the judge.
[14:15.320 --> 14:17.880]  Now in the JP court, that's different.
[14:17.880 --> 14:23.720]  The county attorney can sign the information because they're the one prosecuting there.
[14:23.720 --> 14:30.240]  But once again, they never do it, at least not in the majority of the counties.
[14:30.240 --> 14:33.400]  They may do it in the big, big counties, but not in the majority of them.
[14:33.400 --> 14:37.680]  They never do it here.
[14:37.680 --> 14:43.160]  So the constitutional issue becomes what if I don't want your simplified benefit because
[14:43.160 --> 14:50.040]  your simplified benefit is robbing me of my due process rights to discovery, assistance
[14:50.040 --> 15:00.800]  of counsel, the right to be heard, the introduction of evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses,
[15:00.800 --> 15:04.880]  and compulsory process for witnesses in my favor.
[15:04.880 --> 15:10.600]  I am being denied all of these due process rights under your simplified process.
[15:10.600 --> 15:14.120]  So why, in heaven's name, would I want it?
[15:14.120 --> 15:19.320]  I need you to tell me what my options are for telling you to go take a hike and send
[15:19.320 --> 15:26.120]  this case to a court where the record will keep me in line with my due process rights,
[15:26.120 --> 15:29.800]  which I don't have here.
[15:29.800 --> 15:39.440]  That, folks, is what would make Chapter 45 both unconstitutional and absolutely illegal.
[15:39.440 --> 15:47.040]  Because by its very construction, whether originally intended for good purposes or otherwise,
[15:47.040 --> 15:54.760]  its very construction denies you an inherent basic right to due process at every stage
[15:54.760 --> 15:57.760]  of the proceedings.
[15:57.760 --> 16:03.000]  How many of you ever got a ticket, gone to court, saw the judge break every rule in the
[16:03.000 --> 16:10.360]  book, they did everything short of stand up and lie to the jury, and you objected and
[16:10.360 --> 16:14.960]  complained and the only response the judge gives you is, if you don't like it, take it
[16:14.960 --> 16:17.840]  up on appeal.
[16:17.840 --> 16:23.240]  Did you receive due process at this stage of the proceeding?
[16:23.240 --> 16:25.440]  Obviously not.
[16:25.440 --> 16:30.520]  And if you didn't, that's a constitutional violation.
[16:30.520 --> 16:36.240]  And if that violation is committed, it is in and of itself a crime.
[16:36.240 --> 16:37.240]  Period.
[16:37.240 --> 16:41.320]  Okay, we're going to break.
[16:41.320 --> 16:45.900]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, y'all hang in there, folks.
[16:45.900 --> 17:03.440]  We will be right back on the other side.
[17:03.440 --> 17:08.480]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:08.480 --> 17:10.480]  in the Austin metro area.
[17:10.480 --> 17:12.520]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:12.520 --> 17:16.600]  We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[17:16.600 --> 17:17.600]  and metals purchases.
[17:17.600 --> 17:23.240]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious
[17:23.240 --> 17:25.160]  metals and scrap gold.
[17:25.160 --> 17:28.760]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:28.760 --> 17:31.360]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion.
[17:31.360 --> 17:37.400]  We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10
[17:37.400 --> 17:41.320]  AM to 6 PM, Saturdays, 10 AM to 5 PM.
[17:41.320 --> 17:48.680]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[17:48.680 --> 17:49.680]  with any questions.
[17:49.680 --> 17:55.200]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM, that's Capital
[17:55.200 --> 18:17.520]  Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:17.520 --> 18:23.240]  All right folks, we are back and we're talking about Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[18:23.240 --> 18:27.120]  whether or not it's constitutional and legal.
[18:27.120 --> 18:38.000]  Now let me read you what the title of Chapter 45 is, Justice and Municipal Courts.
[18:38.000 --> 18:45.720]  Now by definition, a justice and municipal court in Texas has zero jurisdiction over
[18:45.720 --> 18:54.680]  any offense other than a misdemeanor that is punishable by fine only, okay?
[18:54.680 --> 18:58.040]  Now remember that, punishable by fine only.
[18:58.040 --> 19:01.520]  They cannot put you in jail.
[19:01.520 --> 19:05.200]  They cannot sentence you to jail.
[19:05.200 --> 19:12.040]  They cannot sentence you to any type of confinement.
[19:12.040 --> 19:20.840]  Now how then do they convert a fine into community service?
[19:20.840 --> 19:26.040]  Because community service is a restriction upon your liberty and community service therefore
[19:26.040 --> 19:29.720]  constitutes a type of confinement.
[19:29.720 --> 19:37.640]  So how can a justice and municipal court order community service in lieu of a fine?
[19:37.640 --> 19:44.200]  How can they grant a request for community service in lieu of a fine when they do not
[19:44.200 --> 19:50.680]  have any authority over a case that involves incarceration, okay?
[19:50.680 --> 19:58.200]  Now that being said, and the way this is titled, Being Justice and Municipal Courts, why are
[19:58.200 --> 20:05.680]  there so many sections in Chapter 45 that deal with time in jail?
[20:05.680 --> 20:09.760]  Let's take for instance Article 45.015.
[20:09.760 --> 20:15.040]  Now listen carefully, Defendant Placed in Jail.
[20:15.040 --> 20:21.720]  Whenever by the provisions of this title, now notice not this chapter, this title, which
[20:21.720 --> 20:29.120]  is Title 1, the peace officer is authorized to retain a defendant in custody.
[20:29.120 --> 20:35.600]  The peace officer may place the defendant in jail in accordance with this code or other
[20:35.600 --> 20:37.720]  law.
[20:37.720 --> 20:43.440]  Now I don't know about you, but that section most assuredly sounds like it cannot be applied
[20:43.440 --> 20:47.120]  in a justice or municipal court.
[20:47.120 --> 20:54.200]  So what's it doing in a chapter that is titled Justice and Municipal Courts?
[20:54.200 --> 20:57.720]  What's it here for?
[20:57.720 --> 21:06.240]  Same thing with bail, Article 45.016, the justice or judge may require the defendant
[21:06.240 --> 21:12.040]  to give bail to secure the defendant's appearance in accordance with this code.
[21:12.040 --> 21:18.360]  If the defendant fails to give bail, the defendant may be held in custody.
[21:18.360 --> 21:24.280]  Then you have 45.014, Warrant of Arrest.
[21:24.280 --> 21:28.520]  Now here's some issues I've got.
[21:28.520 --> 21:38.000]  You cannot punish me for the act by any mode other than a fine, yet you have the authority
[21:38.000 --> 21:45.960]  to issue a warrant for my arrest based upon the same charge for which you can only charge
[21:45.960 --> 21:49.880]  me for a fine and not put me in jail.
[21:49.880 --> 21:54.500]  Why can't this whole thing be done by mail then?
[21:54.500 --> 22:00.120]  If you're not allowed to put me in jail, then by what stretch of the imagination does the
[22:00.120 --> 22:08.680]  legislature even begin to facilitate and germinate the idea that it's okay to arrest you even
[22:08.680 --> 22:12.080]  though I can't put you in jail?
[22:12.080 --> 22:17.280]  Tell me one police officer out there that thinks there's a difference between being
[22:17.280 --> 22:25.720]  able to arrest you and then being able to put you in jail after he has arrested you.
[22:25.720 --> 22:31.240]  I guarantee you they are extremely scarce.
[22:31.240 --> 22:33.760]  And what is a requisite of bail?
[22:33.760 --> 22:36.360]  You have to be in custody.
[22:36.360 --> 22:45.280]  You have to be arrested and you have to be restrained or confined for there to be a necessity
[22:45.280 --> 22:48.640]  for bail.
[22:48.640 --> 22:51.340]  So again, how do these two mesh?
[22:51.340 --> 22:57.360]  You can only punish me with a fine, but you can also arrest me and incarcerate me until
[22:57.360 --> 23:03.960]  such time as you can bring me before a judge who then may decide to release me from the
[23:03.960 --> 23:09.200]  custody that you're not allowed to have me in on bail.
[23:09.200 --> 23:14.160]  That you shouldn't be able to charge me because you were not allowed to arrest me on the charge
[23:14.160 --> 23:17.560]  in the first place and put me in jail.
[23:17.560 --> 23:23.240]  Anybody else see a little conundrum here?
[23:23.240 --> 23:26.440]  It just doesn't make sense, does it?
[23:26.440 --> 23:32.360]  It's fine only offenses, but you can arrest me and you can hold me in jail, but you just
[23:32.360 --> 23:35.400]  can't punish me with that at the trial.
[23:35.400 --> 23:40.280]  But you can hold me in jail before trial for as long as you like.
[23:40.280 --> 23:42.080]  Go figure.
[23:42.080 --> 23:46.920]  What's wrong with this picture, folks?
[23:46.920 --> 23:51.400]  The problem we have is, just like I've said so many times, these people don't read the
[23:51.400 --> 23:57.560]  law and the legislature does not ever read the law in its entirety before they go back
[23:57.560 --> 23:58.880]  and make a change to it.
[23:58.880 --> 24:00.480]  You know why?
[24:00.480 --> 24:07.280]  Because the changes they make are based upon the recommendation of the Texas Judicial Council.
[24:07.280 --> 24:11.760]  It's got nothing to do with what the legislature thinks the law says.
[24:11.760 --> 24:13.720]  The judicial council goes in.
[24:13.720 --> 24:17.440]  They review whatever section of the law they think ought to be changed.
[24:17.440 --> 24:20.280]  They write up the law the way they think it ought to read.
[24:20.280 --> 24:23.920]  They submit it to the legislature who then passes it.
[24:23.920 --> 24:30.600]  And no one at any point has bothered to consider whether or not that new section of rewrite
[24:30.600 --> 24:37.000]  complies with all the other portions of the code so that there are no conflicts.
[24:37.000 --> 24:39.800]  Nobody does that.
[24:39.800 --> 24:46.360]  And so here we sit with a completely unconstitutional and illegal chapter in the Code of Criminal
[24:46.360 --> 24:48.120]  Procedure.
[24:48.120 --> 24:52.920]  And I'll reiterate, the thing that makes it unconstitutional and illegal, if you want
[24:52.920 --> 25:00.080]  to paint a nice simplified picture of it is, it denies anyone accused of a Class C misdemeanor
[25:00.080 --> 25:07.540]  punishable by fine only the same rights of due process at every stage and through the
[25:07.540 --> 25:15.120]  entire course of the proceedings as it does to any other criminal case.
[25:15.120 --> 25:18.920]  No other criminal defendant is denied counsel.
[25:18.920 --> 25:25.560]  No other criminal defendant has their pleadings just denied out of hand.
[25:25.560 --> 25:33.120]  No other defendant is required to post double the amount of the fine before they're allowed
[25:33.120 --> 25:38.560]  to appeal.
[25:38.560 --> 25:49.880]  And no other defendant can be incarcerated in order to facilitate the need for a bond
[25:49.880 --> 25:53.080]  before we release you for an indefinite period of time.
[25:53.080 --> 25:57.400]  They've got a limit of 48 hours.
[25:57.400 --> 25:59.360]  What do we have?
[25:59.360 --> 26:05.400]  Because they've changed 1517 the way they have, the Class C misdemeanors don't have
[26:05.400 --> 26:08.040]  the 48 hours.
[26:08.040 --> 26:11.400]  What do they have?
[26:11.400 --> 26:12.400]  Absolutely nothing.
[26:12.400 --> 26:18.760]  We have been deprived if we're accused of a Class C misdemeanor of virtually every necessary
[26:18.760 --> 26:22.120]  right of due process that we're entitled to.
[26:22.120 --> 26:32.320]  And it's been done by legislative enactment and utter stupidity in my opinion.
[26:32.320 --> 26:38.200]  Because anybody that reads these sections from beginning to end and has any clue at
[26:38.200 --> 26:44.720]  all about what is right and wrong in how someone is to be treated when they've been accused
[26:44.720 --> 26:50.200]  of a crime, you know, innocent until proven guilty, right of due process, you can't take
[26:50.200 --> 26:55.440]  me or my property without a warrant, if you're going to put me on bail, you better have good
[26:55.440 --> 27:01.680]  probable cause to have held me in the first place, you know, all those little things.
[27:01.680 --> 27:04.040]  Anybody that had a clue about that should be able to look at this and say, you know
[27:04.040 --> 27:09.520]  what, there's something seriously wrong here, folks.
[27:09.520 --> 27:10.840]  This can't be right.
[27:10.840 --> 27:11.840]  Not in America.
[27:11.840 --> 27:14.080]  This can't work this way.
[27:14.080 --> 27:20.280]  Because here we've created a completely separate and distinct classification of crime that
[27:20.280 --> 27:25.560]  strips away every vestige of due process.
[27:25.560 --> 27:30.920]  And the only reason that I can see that it did it was for the purpose of generating revenue.
[27:30.920 --> 27:34.720]  Oh, big surprise, right?
[27:34.720 --> 27:39.960]  This streamlined process has nothing to do with the administration of justice in the
[27:39.960 --> 27:44.300]  second instance, our first instance that we talked about before.
[27:44.300 --> 27:47.720]  This is, in fact, the cattle chute.
[27:47.720 --> 27:49.280]  That's what this is.
[27:49.280 --> 27:55.080]  The Class C misdemeanors are their cash cow, okay?
[27:55.080 --> 28:01.000]  And we are the bull vines that get run through the chute and have the money extracted from
[28:01.000 --> 28:02.720]  us.
[28:02.720 --> 28:07.160]  That's all these courts have been set up to be and all they are set up to do.
[28:07.160 --> 28:09.480]  They're not there to provide you justice.
[28:09.480 --> 28:16.040]  This is why you've heard me say so many times, forget winning at the first level in court
[28:16.040 --> 28:18.040]  if you're in there for a traffic ticket.
[28:18.040 --> 28:24.340]  It's almost a dead-bang slam dunk guarantee that unless you know exactly what you're doing
[28:24.340 --> 28:30.280]  and you fight it tooth and nail without backing down, that you're going to even begin to come
[28:30.280 --> 28:37.200]  close to winning and having it dismissed, thrown out, or whatever.
[28:37.200 --> 28:41.400]  Every now and then, you'll stumble across somebody that's smart enough to realize, if
[28:41.400 --> 28:45.840]  I push this, I'm putting my head in a bear trap.
[28:45.840 --> 28:49.700]  And so they'll back off and drop the case.
[28:49.700 --> 28:54.400]  But most of the time, they're very, very good judges of character.
[28:54.400 --> 28:58.480]  They can tell by what you say and how you act when you walk into that courtroom whether
[28:58.480 --> 29:01.720]  or not you have a clue about what you're doing.
[29:01.720 --> 29:06.640]  And if you give them the impression that you don't, they're going to steamroll you like
[29:06.640 --> 29:11.840]  a hot new lay down of asphalt.
[29:11.840 --> 29:18.360]  And there's just no way you're going to win under that presupposition of guilt that this
[29:18.360 --> 29:23.680]  system under Chapter 45 automatically imposes.
[29:23.680 --> 29:25.080]  There's no other way to put it.
[29:25.080 --> 29:29.360]  You are presumed guilty because none of your due process rights are here.
[29:29.360 --> 29:34.200]  In their mind, you've already been tried and everything else, so all we've got left now
[29:34.200 --> 29:37.120]  is our process to get our money out of you.
[29:37.120 --> 29:38.920]  All right.
[29:38.920 --> 29:39.920]  That's all I've got.
[29:39.920 --> 29:42.200]  So on the other side, we'll start taking phone calls.
[29:42.200 --> 29:44.920]  This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[29:44.920 --> 29:45.920]  We're going to break.
[29:45.920 --> 30:01.680]  So folks, y'all hang in there, and we will be right back.
[30:01.680 --> 30:06.640]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so
[30:06.640 --> 30:10.320]  easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[30:10.320 --> 30:13.280]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[30:13.280 --> 30:14.280]  Brave New Books?
[30:14.280 --> 30:15.280]  Yes.
[30:15.280 --> 30:19.640]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[30:19.640 --> 30:21.640]  Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[30:21.640 --> 30:25.720]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[30:25.720 --> 30:27.960]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[30:27.960 --> 30:29.440]  Go check it out for yourself.
[30:29.440 --> 30:33.360]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[30:33.360 --> 30:37.160]  Oh, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[30:37.160 --> 30:42.440]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[30:42.440 --> 30:45.440]  facility, just behind the bookstore.
[30:45.440 --> 30:48.440]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[30:48.440 --> 30:53.200]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[30:53.200 --> 30:57.080]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503.
[30:57.080 --> 31:02.080]  Also check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[31:02.080 --> 31:05.240]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[31:05.240 --> 31:12.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[31:12.000 --> 31:15.200]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[31:15.200 --> 31:19.760]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[31:19.760 --> 31:24.040]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[31:24.040 --> 31:28.880]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[31:28.880 --> 31:34.520]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[31:34.520 --> 31:40.120]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about
[31:40.120 --> 31:44.080]  the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[31:44.080 --> 31:50.680]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[31:50.680 --> 31:57.240]  process tactics, and much more, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[31:57.240 --> 32:00.240]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[32:00.240 --> 32:26.760]  All right, folks, we are back, we're taking your calls, 512-646-1984 is the caller line.
[32:26.760 --> 32:31.640]  If you want to call in and talk to us on the air, if you want to just listen and you don't
[32:31.640 --> 32:36.760]  have internet connection or you don't have an AM or FM affiliate in the town where you're
[32:36.760 --> 32:45.920]  at, you can also listen on the listener line, 512-485-9010 to listen only, to call and speak
[32:45.920 --> 32:48.720]  with us on the air, 512-646-1984.
[32:48.720 --> 32:52.200]  We've got some callers on the phone lines here.
[32:52.200 --> 32:54.680]  We've got James from Colorado is up first.
[32:54.680 --> 32:57.600]  James, thanks for calling in, what's on your mind tonight?
[32:57.600 --> 33:02.720]  Oh, well, thank you for taking my call, appreciate that.
[33:02.720 --> 33:12.720]  I have a court date set up for day after tomorrow, Wednesday, for a traffic ticket that I got.
[33:12.720 --> 33:18.360]  Basically, it was for expired license plate and I didn't have my wallet with me and my
[33:18.360 --> 33:22.160]  driver's license and insurance.
[33:22.160 --> 33:25.560]  So I have to go answer that.
[33:25.560 --> 33:34.720]  Of course, I have the insurance and their driver's license, but I sent off a notice
[33:34.720 --> 33:42.760]  to them that I wanted all the information and what laws are going to be used to adjudicate
[33:42.760 --> 33:50.400]  the case and all that and I haven't received a response and I have no idea what the nature
[33:50.400 --> 33:58.040]  of the charges are or anything, so I was wondering how I should proceed in that and also at the
[33:58.040 --> 34:05.400]  time of the incident when I received the ticket, when the officer and his backup went back
[34:05.400 --> 34:12.480]  to their car to get their information together and I realized that I had an old card from
[34:12.480 --> 34:19.160]  my insurance company that I had in the truck, I decided I should probably show that to them
[34:19.160 --> 34:23.680]  and when I got out of the truck, they started hollering and screaming and came over and
[34:23.680 --> 34:30.640]  threw my hands behind me and up over my head and pushed me down and basically, Randy told
[34:30.640 --> 34:35.600]  me that I was assault with a deadly weapon and that I should present those charges when
[34:35.600 --> 34:44.440]  I go to the arraignment because the judge is supposed to be a magistrate at that point.
[34:44.440 --> 34:49.280]  I'm just wondering if I need to figure out how to get that together in the next couple
[34:49.280 --> 34:54.400]  of days or if that's the proper way to proceed in this and how I should proceed when I get
[34:54.400 --> 34:59.000]  to court as far as not being given the information that I requested.
[34:59.000 --> 35:03.480]  What was their alleged justification for assaulting you?
[35:03.480 --> 35:09.280]  Because I stepped out of the truck and when I questioned them about that, they said, well,
[35:09.280 --> 35:14.960]  there was a guy in Alabama, an officer down there, got out of his vehicle and came back
[35:14.960 --> 35:21.600]  to the police officer's car and shot the police officer so apparently they're so paranoid
[35:21.600 --> 35:28.280]  that they're psychologically unfit to be on the street with a weapon that appeared to
[35:28.280 --> 35:34.520]  me that they're so paranoid that everybody they see they expect to be shooting at them.
[35:34.520 --> 35:35.800]  Well that's the problem.
[35:35.800 --> 35:39.920]  That's okay for them to see but you and I aren't allowed to feel that way about them
[35:39.920 --> 35:46.600]  yet they're the armed guys running around causing the biggest problems.
[35:46.600 --> 35:50.720]  But yes, in fact, that is the best way to handle it which is to go in with a set of
[35:50.720 --> 35:54.920]  criminal complaints already written up against the officers.
[35:54.920 --> 35:57.240]  So what you need to do, you're in Colorado, correct?
[35:57.240 --> 36:02.400]  Yeah, I need to find out where to get a basic form that I can fill in or whatever and I
[36:02.400 --> 36:03.400]  don't know how to do that.
[36:03.400 --> 36:10.160]  Go to any police station, go to any court clerk and tell them you need a blank criminal
[36:10.160 --> 36:11.160]  complaint.
[36:11.160 --> 36:12.160]  Okay.
[36:12.160 --> 36:17.840]  A blank criminal complaint form and they're going to say, well, do you want an officer
[36:17.840 --> 36:19.040]  to take your statement?
[36:19.040 --> 36:24.680]  No, I need a blank criminal complaint.
[36:24.680 --> 36:30.280]  You can also get a you can also look at any criminal complaint by just pulling any criminal
[36:30.280 --> 36:36.520]  case and looking at public record of what's already been filed and just, you know, modify
[36:36.520 --> 36:40.120]  the document to suit your particular situation.
[36:40.120 --> 36:41.120]  Correct.
[36:41.120 --> 36:42.120]  Okay.
[36:42.120 --> 36:43.120]  Okay.
[36:43.120 --> 36:48.120]  Because they may not have necessarily a blank criminal complaint form.
[36:48.120 --> 36:52.960]  So you can just go to the courthouse and pull any criminal case, just ask the clerk for
[36:52.960 --> 36:59.280]  the, you know, a few of the most recent criminal complaints that have been filed today or yesterday
[36:59.280 --> 37:03.960]  or within this last week and make copies and then just take it home.
[37:03.960 --> 37:07.920]  You'll have to type it in yourself and just make the necessary changes.
[37:07.920 --> 37:12.240]  Here in Texas, a criminal complaint form is a specific legal document.
[37:12.240 --> 37:16.280]  It's not a police report form.
[37:16.280 --> 37:23.900]  It's not what the police fill out when you go and try to report a crime to the police.
[37:23.900 --> 37:29.520]  We don't do it that way because in general, if you go and report a crime to the police,
[37:29.520 --> 37:30.780]  you're just complaining.
[37:30.780 --> 37:37.720]  You're not filing a notarized criminal complaint, which is a specific legal document that's
[37:37.720 --> 37:39.200]  filed with a magistrate.
[37:39.200 --> 37:40.200]  Okay.
[37:40.200 --> 37:45.180]  And so what ends up happening is that the police get to use their discretion as to whether
[37:45.180 --> 37:52.560]  or not they want to bring it to the DA or turn it into a criminal complaint themselves.
[37:52.560 --> 37:59.440]  I just have to research and find out where, maybe even online at the Colorado system to
[37:59.440 --> 38:03.440]  find out if there's a basic form somewhere that I need to get.
[38:03.440 --> 38:04.440]  There might be.
[38:04.440 --> 38:11.280]  Now generally, on a criminal complaint, it's usually a very short document and you have
[38:11.280 --> 38:17.200]  to name the statute that you're accusing the other person of violating and then attached
[38:17.200 --> 38:20.080]  to that would be the statement of probable cause.
[38:20.080 --> 38:21.440]  That's your story.
[38:21.440 --> 38:30.520]  It's what you witnessed or what evidence you have to support the accusation.
[38:30.520 --> 38:35.000]  But in general, on the criminal complaint, you have to name the specific statute, you
[38:35.000 --> 38:41.800]  know, the title, the paragraph, the section, the clause that you're accusing the other
[38:41.800 --> 38:47.480]  person of having violated and it's usually pretty simple and that's all there is to it
[38:47.480 --> 38:50.800]  and then you sign it and notarize it.
[38:50.800 --> 38:56.000]  In Texas, it's less than one page but then the statement of probable cause, which is
[38:56.000 --> 38:58.240]  attached, that's your story.
[38:58.240 --> 38:59.960]  That could be several pages.
[38:59.960 --> 39:06.880]  That's the backup, so to speak, for your criminal complaint, all the evidence, the probable
[39:06.880 --> 39:07.880]  cause statement.
[39:07.880 --> 39:09.880]  Does that make sense?
[39:09.880 --> 39:11.960]  Yeah, that makes sense.
[39:11.960 --> 39:13.040]  Now next question.
[39:13.040 --> 39:20.480]  How do I go about presenting this to the magistrate himself during the interview or whatever you
[39:20.480 --> 39:22.920]  want to call it?
[39:22.920 --> 39:30.240]  Well in Texas, all judges are magistrates and so generally, see the problem is that
[39:30.240 --> 39:31.960]  the magistrate doesn't want to take it.
[39:31.960 --> 39:36.120]  The judge isn't going to want to take it and so you have to kind of, the way Randy does
[39:36.120 --> 39:38.240]  it, there's several different methods.
[39:38.240 --> 39:47.560]  He'll have it as an attachment or some kind of exhibit or something to another document
[39:47.560 --> 39:51.760]  in a civil case or in the criminal case against you.
[39:51.760 --> 39:56.800]  It will be part of the, it'll be attached to your motions or something and when the
[39:56.800 --> 40:03.960]  judge sees it in his hand, then his duties as a magistrate are automatically invoked
[40:03.960 --> 40:07.480]  and therefore the criminal complaint is filed.
[40:07.480 --> 40:11.880]  Sometimes you have to go to a JP to get him filed or the district attorney.
[40:11.880 --> 40:13.320]  That's the complicated part.
[40:13.320 --> 40:16.720]  Eddie, do you have any comments on that issue?
[40:16.720 --> 40:19.920]  No, not really.
[40:19.920 --> 40:25.400]  All you've got to do is just tell the judge, I have these documents for you and I need
[40:25.400 --> 40:30.440]  to present them to you and just give them to the bailiff and have them give them to
[40:30.440 --> 40:31.440]  the judge.
[40:31.440 --> 40:35.800]  Don't answer the judge when they ask what is it because then they'll refuse to accept
[40:35.800 --> 40:36.800]  it.
[40:36.800 --> 40:43.160]  Once it's in their hands, however, that's a whole other matter so just make sure you
[40:43.160 --> 40:44.160]  let them know.
[40:44.160 --> 40:48.760]  I have some documents I need to file with the court and you can either say may I approach
[40:48.760 --> 40:52.640]  and go up there and drop them off at which point they're in the judge's hand or the
[40:52.640 --> 40:55.440]  judge will send the bailiff to get them to take them to the judge.
[40:55.440 --> 41:00.720]  And if they ask you or if the bailiff asks you what is it, just say this is business
[41:00.720 --> 41:06.280]  for the judge because the whole thing is you want to get those criminal complaints in the
[41:06.280 --> 41:14.080]  hands of the judge without having to tell him what it is because the judges do not want
[41:14.080 --> 41:19.280]  their duties as a magistrate to be invoked because they don't want to accept criminal
[41:19.280 --> 41:23.320]  complaints against other public officials.
[41:23.320 --> 41:29.720]  And likely what could happen is that even once he gets them in his hand or her hand,
[41:29.720 --> 41:31.080]  they won't take them.
[41:31.080 --> 41:36.400]  I've been with Randy when we've tried to present criminal complaints to a judge, one
[41:36.400 --> 41:43.120]  judge to invoke her duty as a magistrate against another high level public official in the
[41:43.120 --> 41:48.560]  court system and she told us in open court with a court reporter there transcribing the
[41:48.560 --> 41:51.480]  whole thing, she said I'm not a filing entity.
[41:51.480 --> 41:54.280]  Well that is not true.
[41:54.280 --> 42:01.040]  It's very clear all judges are also magistrates in the state of Texas and the magistrate is
[42:01.040 --> 42:08.120]  the filing entity directed to accept criminal complaints but she wouldn't take them anyway.
[42:08.120 --> 42:10.320]  So she just committed a crime.
[42:10.320 --> 42:17.480]  So then we have to, then that invokes a criminal complaint against her if we wanted to pursue
[42:17.480 --> 42:18.480]  it.
[42:18.480 --> 42:22.360]  Do you know for certain that there is two also in Colorado that all judges are definitely
[42:22.360 --> 42:23.360]  magistrates?
[42:23.360 --> 42:26.240]  I believe that is across the board in every state.
[42:26.240 --> 42:27.240]  Okay.
[42:27.240 --> 42:35.280]  They have to be because a judge has both a ministerial and a discretionary duty under
[42:35.280 --> 42:36.760]  the law.
[42:36.760 --> 42:41.800]  So the ministerial is always handled in the magistrate capacity.
[42:41.800 --> 42:44.760]  The discretionary is what's done in the judge capacity.
[42:44.760 --> 42:51.320]  Now what the judge may tell you to do if he or she refuses to take the criminal complaints,
[42:51.320 --> 42:55.960]  he or she might tell you to go file it with the JP and that's what we ended up doing was
[42:55.960 --> 43:00.280]  filing it with the JP and if JP won't take it...
[43:00.280 --> 43:01.400]  Is that what a magistrate is?
[43:01.400 --> 43:02.400]  I'm sorry?
[43:02.400 --> 43:03.880]  Isn't that what a magistrate is?
[43:03.880 --> 43:04.880]  No?
[43:04.880 --> 43:11.240]  A JP is a magistrate, yes, but you want to be able to file the criminal complaints with
[43:11.240 --> 43:18.160]  a higher level judge magistrate if possible, especially in the case that's against you.
[43:18.160 --> 43:23.640]  It's always advisable to be able to file the criminal complaints against the police officers
[43:23.640 --> 43:32.120]  with the judge who is the presiding judge in your case.
[43:32.120 --> 43:33.600]  That's advisable if possible.
[43:33.600 --> 43:39.520]  As I understand it, just interview it for the judge to gather the information and see
[43:39.520 --> 43:43.280]  if there's enough information to proceed with the case.
[43:43.280 --> 43:44.280]  Well, yes.
[43:44.280 --> 43:45.280]  Hold on one second.
[43:45.280 --> 43:46.280]  We'll explain on the other side.
[43:46.280 --> 43:48.760]  It's two totally different situations.
[43:48.760 --> 43:53.880]  You may be about to go through an arraignment or some kind of a pretrial, but once you present
[43:53.880 --> 43:58.400]  those criminal complaints, duty as a magistrate is invoked, it's totally different.
[43:58.400 --> 44:00.920]  We'll be right back.
[44:00.920 --> 44:07.160]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder, will change your life
[44:07.160 --> 44:12.840]  by removing all types of positive toxins such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses
[44:12.840 --> 44:17.600]  and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach walls so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:17.600 --> 44:22.920]  Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive
[44:22.920 --> 44:26.200]  toxins from the blood, organs, spine and brain.
[44:26.200 --> 44:31.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone which allows synovial fluid to return
[44:31.000 --> 44:32.520]  to the joints.
[44:32.520 --> 44:36.840]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is
[44:36.840 --> 44:38.240]  great for the heart.
[44:38.240 --> 44:43.120]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage
[44:43.120 --> 44:47.440]  shelter and with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:47.440 --> 44:54.840]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org, it's a great way to change your life.
[44:54.840 --> 45:11.240]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:11.240 --> 45:14.120]  Okay we're back, we're speaking with James in Colorado.
[45:14.120 --> 45:21.120]  Okay James, right I realize that this may be a pre-trial or some type of an arraignment
[45:21.120 --> 45:27.440]  but the thing is the reason that you want the presiding judge to be the magistrate to
[45:27.440 --> 45:32.360]  file, to be the one to receive the filing of the criminal complaints is for a two-fold
[45:32.360 --> 45:33.360]  purpose.
[45:33.360 --> 45:38.960]  First of all, if the judge is trying to make a, if it is indeed even an examining trial
[45:38.960 --> 45:44.720]  where, which is a probable cause hearing, where the judge makes a determination as to
[45:44.720 --> 45:50.480]  whether there's enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution and then the judge receives
[45:50.480 --> 45:52.920]  these criminal complaints.
[45:52.920 --> 45:56.840]  Number one, they've been filed with him or her as a magistrate.
[45:56.840 --> 46:03.760]  Their duty as a magistrate is immediately, automatically invoked when they get a criminal
[46:03.760 --> 46:06.880]  complaint in their hand, that's all there is to it.
[46:06.880 --> 46:13.760]  But then the second reason is that the criminal complaint also functions for a purpose to
[46:13.760 --> 46:20.320]  show the judge how there's no evidence against you or there's little evidence against you
[46:20.320 --> 46:25.720]  or that there's so many laws were broken on the part of the police officer that a legitimate
[46:25.720 --> 46:32.880]  prosecution could not even commence and so it does have the purpose of helping you with
[46:32.880 --> 46:34.800]  your defense as well.
[46:34.800 --> 46:39.720]  And then there's another purpose too, if the judge refuses to accept the criminal complaints,
[46:39.720 --> 46:44.040]  well then now the judge has just committed a crime and so now you can file motions to
[46:44.040 --> 46:46.920]  have that judge disqualified in your case.
[46:46.920 --> 46:47.920]  Okay.
[46:47.920 --> 46:51.400]  Okay, does that make sense?
[46:51.400 --> 46:53.920]  Yes, that makes sense.
[46:53.920 --> 47:03.920]  I had intended, once I determined that the information were in the case, I have an affidavit
[47:03.920 --> 47:08.720]  that I was going to file with court in the case and I'm just going to stand on my affidavit
[47:08.720 --> 47:19.520]  which basically educates the judge to the fact of this whole process being being against
[47:19.520 --> 47:31.480]  the Colorado Constitution and that the way it's proceeded without a grand jury or a district
[47:31.480 --> 47:32.480]  attorney.
[47:32.480 --> 47:38.000]  Well, that would be, those would be things that you would want to put in a criminal complaint
[47:38.000 --> 47:44.360]  if those actions had already been taken but I want to explain a little bit about the problems
[47:44.360 --> 47:45.360]  of filing affidavits.
[47:45.360 --> 47:51.600]  This is a common practice in the legal reform movement and often it ends up with very little
[47:51.600 --> 47:57.760]  effect or result and the reason is because when you file an affidavit in your case, nobody
[47:57.760 --> 47:59.360]  has to do anything about it.
[47:59.360 --> 48:04.480]  No, you're not moving the court to do anything.
[48:04.480 --> 48:09.640]  People need to file motions and then you can have affidavits attached to the motions and
[48:09.640 --> 48:15.480]  the other issue is that if you want to require the court to take notice of something, you
[48:15.480 --> 48:19.800]  need to file a judicial notice, not an affidavit.
[48:19.800 --> 48:29.800]  See, affidavits are for the purpose of you declaring witnessing of events or facts.
[48:29.800 --> 48:37.240]  They're not for telling the court what the law is or anything like that, okay?
[48:37.240 --> 48:43.440]  An affidavit is for the purpose of a personal witnessing of an event.
[48:43.440 --> 48:49.560]  It's for declaring that you are telling the truth under penalty of perjury that you saw
[48:49.560 --> 48:57.120]  this, this or this happen or that you have personal knowledge of this, this or that event.
[48:57.120 --> 49:01.920]  Anything else should not go into an affidavit.
[49:01.920 --> 49:04.700]  Interpretation of law should not go into an affidavit.
[49:04.700 --> 49:12.520]  We should never attempt to interpret law anyway for the court because that's the court's job.
[49:12.520 --> 49:19.520]  We bring statute and case law to the court to show them what the law is and then the
[49:19.520 --> 49:20.520]  court makes a ruling.
[49:20.520 --> 49:26.320]  So personally, I don't think it's a good idea to put these kinds of arguments or this
[49:26.320 --> 49:31.760]  kind of information into an affidavit because it really has nothing to do with anything
[49:31.760 --> 49:35.680]  that you personally witnessed, okay?
[49:35.680 --> 49:43.800]  If you want the court to take notice of something, you need to file what's called judicial notice.
[49:43.800 --> 49:47.200]  And if you have evidence of a crime that's been committed, you need to file criminal
[49:47.200 --> 49:48.200]  complaint.
[49:48.200 --> 49:52.040]  If you want the court to do something, you need to file a motion to move the court.
[49:52.040 --> 49:57.480]  This is why we tell people to get jurisdictionary so that people will understand what all these
[49:57.480 --> 50:00.880]  kinds of documents are so they don't get railroaded in court.
[50:00.880 --> 50:05.000]  But just filing affidavits isn't going to help, especially if...
[50:05.000 --> 50:06.000]  I'm sorry?
[50:06.000 --> 50:08.560]  I haven't been able to get to the jurisdictionary yet.
[50:08.560 --> 50:10.760]  I just got it.
[50:10.760 --> 50:19.320]  But in this document that I have, it actually was...I don't know if you know Frank Kowalik?
[50:19.320 --> 50:20.320]  Yes.
[50:20.320 --> 50:21.320]  Iris Humbug?
[50:21.320 --> 50:22.320]  Yes.
[50:22.320 --> 50:23.320]  Yes.
[50:23.320 --> 50:26.920]  We had him as a guest on our show a while back.
[50:26.920 --> 50:27.920]  Yeah.
[50:27.920 --> 50:31.520]  He actually performed this document for me.
[50:31.520 --> 50:36.360]  He put it together for me and told me to put it in as an affidavit and don't say anything
[50:36.360 --> 50:37.680]  but that you stand on it.
[50:37.680 --> 50:44.720]  But since I was unable to enter this into the record as I had wanted to for the judge
[50:44.720 --> 50:52.480]  to have at the hearing and they haven't responded, I was going to see if I could maybe enter
[50:52.480 --> 51:00.640]  it and use this as a way to hand the judge the criminal complaint.
[51:00.640 --> 51:01.640]  You know what I mean?
[51:01.640 --> 51:04.680]  You said I always got to kind of hand it to him or something else or whatever, but that's
[51:04.680 --> 51:10.760]  what I was thinking might work, whether the affidavit has any relevance in there at all
[51:10.760 --> 51:11.760]  at least.
[51:11.760 --> 51:18.640]  Well, like I said, you may want to just break out that document to be two different documents
[51:18.640 --> 51:25.240]  because really an affidavit is strictly for the purpose of things that you personally
[51:25.240 --> 51:29.600]  witness with your own eyes or ears.
[51:29.600 --> 51:35.760]  And so if you're trying to get the court to take notice of something in law, then it needs
[51:35.760 --> 51:37.400]  to be a judicial notice.
[51:37.400 --> 51:42.480]  So you may just want to retitle the document judicial notice.
[51:42.480 --> 51:45.240]  Eddie, do you have comments on this?
[51:45.240 --> 51:46.240]  No.
[51:46.240 --> 51:48.560]  What you're saying is correct.
[51:48.560 --> 51:49.840]  I'd go with that.
[51:49.840 --> 51:56.920]  You might want to just retitle the document judicial notice instead of affidavit because
[51:56.920 --> 52:04.680]  really affidavit is only for things, events that you personally witnessed with your eyes,
[52:04.680 --> 52:08.960]  like something that you would testify as a witness to under penalty of perjury.
[52:08.960 --> 52:10.700]  That's what an affidavit is for.
[52:10.700 --> 52:15.240]  But if you want the court to take notice of something in law, like the peonage issues
[52:15.240 --> 52:19.640]  and these kinds of things, everything that you described, the title of the document should
[52:19.640 --> 52:22.160]  be judicial notice, not affidavit.
[52:22.160 --> 52:23.160]  I see.
[52:23.160 --> 52:27.280]  Okay, well that's easily remedied and then I could hand a judicial notice to him along
[52:27.280 --> 52:33.320]  with the criminal complaint and that would definitely get it in your hands.
[52:33.320 --> 52:34.320]  Yes.
[52:34.320 --> 52:44.640]  You can also file the judicial notice in your case, in the case that they have against you.
[52:44.640 --> 52:48.360]  How much time prior to the court date would I have to do that?
[52:48.360 --> 52:50.520]  Normally, well in Texas it's seven days.
[52:50.520 --> 52:51.520]  When is your court date?
[52:51.520 --> 52:53.480]  Day after tomorrow.
[52:53.480 --> 52:54.480]  Okay.
[52:54.480 --> 52:56.760]  There may not be enough time.
[52:56.760 --> 53:02.920]  You could try to file it ahead of time or you could give it in court on the day of the
[53:02.920 --> 53:03.920]  hearing.
[53:03.920 --> 53:04.920]  Okay.
[53:04.920 --> 53:12.240]  That's probably what I'll have to do, hopefully I can attempt to get it to the magistrate
[53:12.240 --> 53:13.240]  that day.
[53:13.240 --> 53:14.240]  All right.
[53:14.240 --> 53:15.240]  Very well.
[53:15.240 --> 53:16.240]  I don't want to take up any more of your time on the show.
[53:16.240 --> 53:17.240]  I really appreciate you guys.
[53:17.240 --> 53:18.240]  Okay.
[53:18.240 --> 53:19.240]  Sure, James.
[53:19.240 --> 53:20.240]  Okay.
[53:20.240 --> 53:21.240]  Thank you very much.
[53:21.240 --> 53:22.240]  Thank you.
[53:22.240 --> 53:23.240]  Okay.
[53:23.240 --> 53:25.080]  We're going now to Marvin in Texas.
[53:25.080 --> 53:26.880]  Marvin, thanks for calling in.
[53:26.880 --> 53:27.880]  What's on your mind tonight?
[53:27.880 --> 53:28.880]  How are you guys doing?
[53:28.880 --> 53:29.880]  Pretty good.
[53:29.880 --> 53:30.880]  Okay.
[53:30.880 --> 53:31.880]  The situation with me is, again, I've got to thank you.
[53:31.880 --> 53:38.880]  I probably called and see you guys like one or two times, but I want to thank you guys
[53:38.880 --> 53:41.400]  for your service because I'm learning so much.
[53:41.400 --> 53:50.980]  I got a ticket a while back and I sent a motion to dismiss to the judge based on in
[53:50.980 --> 53:51.980]  person jurisdiction.
[53:51.980 --> 54:02.160]  Actually, this is the thing, I sent a motion to him and the clerk sent a document dismissing
[54:02.160 --> 54:03.160]  my motion.
[54:03.160 --> 54:08.680]  I want to find out, does the clerk have the right to do that?
[54:08.680 --> 54:10.240]  What state are you in?
[54:10.240 --> 54:11.240]  Sir?
[54:11.240 --> 54:13.240]  What state are you in?
[54:13.240 --> 54:14.240]  Texas.
[54:14.240 --> 54:16.920]  No, the clerk does not.
[54:16.920 --> 54:19.720]  Who signed the order dismissing the motion?
[54:19.720 --> 54:21.200]  Nobody.
[54:21.200 --> 54:22.880]  Okay.
[54:22.880 --> 54:25.800]  But the clerk sent you back a document that reads what?
[54:25.800 --> 54:31.560]  Yes, that says that the judge dismissed it and something about what the attorney said,
[54:31.560 --> 54:34.560]  but anyway, that it was dismissed.
[54:34.560 --> 54:38.960]  I was just wondering, don't I have to get an order from the judge with his signature
[54:38.960 --> 54:39.960]  saying he dismissed it?
[54:39.960 --> 54:40.960]  I didn't get that.
[54:40.960 --> 54:41.960]  Okay.
[54:41.960 --> 54:42.960]  Well, here's the thing.
[54:42.960 --> 54:49.360]  In Texas, an unsigned order on a motion is considered a denied motion.
[54:49.360 --> 54:54.360]  So no, they don't have to sign the order.
[54:54.360 --> 55:01.200]  If the clerk is actually saying the judge dismissed it, then the judge directed the
[55:01.200 --> 55:04.600]  clerk to send you what you were sent.
[55:04.600 --> 55:09.880]  What you need to file now is a demand for findings of fact and conclusions of law based
[55:09.880 --> 55:13.080]  upon what you stated in that motion.
[55:13.080 --> 55:19.320]  Can the judge prove up the basis and the law regarding their determination as to why it
[55:19.320 --> 55:20.320]  was denied?
[55:20.320 --> 55:21.320]  Gotcha.
[55:21.320 --> 55:28.720]  Anywhere in your jurisprudence documents, do you have a copy or example of that, defining
[55:28.720 --> 55:29.720]  the fact?
[55:29.720 --> 55:33.960]  I've got one that I've written for the traffic seminar material.
[55:33.960 --> 55:40.280]  If you'll send me an email, I'll send that to you and you can use that as an example.
[55:40.280 --> 55:43.280]  When I'm ready, I can get it.
[55:43.280 --> 55:49.360]  Yeah, just send me an email at eddie at ruleoflawradio.com and I will send you a copy of that back so
[55:49.360 --> 55:54.400]  you can look at it and then just build your finding of facts and conclusions of law based
[55:54.400 --> 56:01.040]  upon your motion and the facts presented in your motion for dismissal that the judge ignored
[56:01.040 --> 56:03.240]  and just use the format that's in the document.
[56:03.240 --> 56:08.400]  So again, I send that to the judge and I send one to the prosecutor just directly to the
[56:08.400 --> 56:09.400]  judge.
[56:09.400 --> 56:16.720]  So you serve everybody, every document, all the time, provided, of course, you actually
[56:16.720 --> 56:21.000]  know who the prosecutor is and what their contact information is at this point.
[56:21.000 --> 56:25.520]  Normally, you don't get that information until the day of trial, so there's nobody else to
[56:25.520 --> 56:32.320]  file with except for the court, which in and of itself is a violation of due process.
[56:32.320 --> 56:36.000]  Well I know when I first was talking to the court clerk about it, she gave me a name and
[56:36.000 --> 56:40.040]  I went and found this information online, so when I sent it to them, it's me.
[56:40.040 --> 56:41.720]  Never ask just for their name.
[56:41.720 --> 56:48.040]  You want name and full contact information, mailing address, phone number, the whole nine
[56:48.040 --> 56:56.360]  yards and you also want to know, is this prosecutor an actual city employee or are they an attorney
[56:56.360 --> 56:58.480]  from a private firm?
[56:58.480 --> 57:03.720]  Wow, and I think he is because I actually asked for all that, at least in the sense
[57:03.720 --> 57:06.280]  of the address, and she said she couldn't give it to me.
[57:06.280 --> 57:07.280]  That's baloney.
[57:07.280 --> 57:09.280]  That's why she couldn't give it to me because she knew that was my law force.
[57:09.280 --> 57:14.440]  She's required to give it to you because you can't serve opposing counsel without the information.
[57:14.440 --> 57:15.440]  Wow.
[57:15.440 --> 57:21.520]  Well, I mean, that's the point I need to hit them up on because when I researched him, he
[57:21.520 --> 57:23.520]  is a part of a firm.
[57:23.520 --> 57:31.000]  If he is in a private firm, then you definitely, there's a motion in my traffic material for
[57:31.000 --> 57:34.200]  petition for a prosecutor to show authority.
[57:34.200 --> 57:40.000]  If he is a city attorney or a private attorney hired by the city, he has no authority to
[57:40.000 --> 57:44.240]  prosecute in municipal court for a violation of state law.
[57:44.240 --> 57:45.240]  Absolutely none.
[57:45.240 --> 57:48.920]  In that instance, though, would I put that information in the finding of the facts, these
[57:48.920 --> 57:49.920]  are facts that I need?
[57:49.920 --> 57:50.920]  No.
[57:50.920 --> 57:56.120]  Your finding of facts deals strictly with what motions you filed and had denied and
[57:56.120 --> 57:57.120]  nothing else.
[57:57.120 --> 58:06.120]  So now, so I should just submit that and then just prepare the issue with the attorney for
[58:06.120 --> 58:07.120]  a later motion?
[58:07.120 --> 58:08.120]  A separate, a different motion, yes.
[58:08.120 --> 58:09.120]  Okay, gotcha.
[58:09.120 --> 58:10.120]  Thank you, Aidy.
[58:10.120 --> 58:11.120]  I'll be sending that email tonight.
[58:11.120 --> 58:12.120]  Okay.
[58:12.120 --> 58:13.120]  Okay.
[58:13.120 --> 58:14.120]  Thank you, guys.
[58:14.120 --> 58:15.120]  You're welcome.
[58:15.120 --> 58:16.120]  All right.
[58:16.120 --> 58:17.120]  Thank you.
[58:17.120 --> 58:25.440]  Okay, folks, we've got some more callers on the board, Michael and Randy.
[58:25.440 --> 58:30.480]  We've got one more hour here on Rule of Law Radio, Monday evening, tonight's August 9th.
[58:30.480 --> 58:56.320]  If you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984, we'll be back after INN World News Report.
[58:56.320 --> 59:14.560]  We'll be back after INN World News Report.
[59:44.560 --> 01:00:10.080]  CAA physicians provided guidelines to interrogators and documented the effects of enhanced interrogation
[01:00:10.080 --> 01:00:16.960]  techniques such as isolation, loud music, continuous light or dark, extreme cold, food
[01:00:16.960 --> 01:00:22.160]  deprivation and waterboarding. Physicians for human rights said doctors conducted enhanced
[01:00:22.160 --> 01:00:29.400]  interrogation techniques on detainees and used data to refine techniques. Ten members of
[01:00:29.400 --> 01:00:34.200]  a Christian medical team, six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton, were killed
[01:00:34.200 --> 01:00:39.400]  Thursday by the Taliban who said the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims
[01:00:39.400 --> 01:00:45.520]  to Christianity. The gunman spared an Afghan driver who recited verses from the Quran as
[01:00:45.520 --> 01:00:53.440]  he begged for his life. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Western media hyped
[01:00:53.440 --> 01:00:59.880]  the 9-11 attacks to pave the way for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ahmadinejad
[01:00:59.880 --> 01:01:04.940]  added that with the aid of the media, the US swayed public opinion to the point of considering
[01:01:04.940 --> 01:01:12.080]  an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq permissible. Former Pakistani intelligence chief Lieutenant
[01:01:12.080 --> 01:01:18.620]  General Hamid Gul says the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause and the US needs to negotiate
[01:01:18.620 --> 01:01:24.000]  peace with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Gul said Sunday, you have to talk to him and I'm
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:28.800]  sure it will work out very well. Gul, who supported the US-backed Taliban resistance
[01:01:28.800 --> 01:01:35.280]  against the Soviet occupation during the 1980s, called the US occupation of Afghanistan unjust
[01:01:35.280 --> 01:01:41.560]  adding, this is a national resistance movement, it should be recognized as such. Gul went on,
[01:01:41.560 --> 01:01:46.320]  they are mujahideen of Afghanistan as they were during the occupation of Afghanistan
[01:01:46.320 --> 01:01:53.080]  by the Soviet Union. Gul said 9-11 was a pretext to a war already under consideration and it
[01:01:53.080 --> 01:01:58.400]  helped to win public support for neocon plans saying there was no legitimate reason for
[01:01:58.400 --> 01:02:04.720]  the US to attack Afghanistan because the FBI had no solid evidence, Osama bin Laden was
[01:02:04.720 --> 01:02:14.920]  involved in 9-11. Fires sweeping Russia could unleash deadly nuclear pollution from the
[01:02:14.920 --> 01:02:21.560]  Chernobyl disaster of 25 years ago. The Kremlin was also taking emergency action to move missiles
[01:02:21.560 --> 01:02:26.480]  and other munitions at risk from hundreds of blazes that have prompted a mass evacuation
[01:02:26.480 --> 01:02:33.360]  of Moscow. Most at risk is the Bryansk region 230 miles southwest of the capital, hardest
[01:02:33.360 --> 01:02:40.440]  hit by the Chernobyl fallout in 1986. Nikolai Smatkov of the World Wildlife Fund said, there
[01:02:40.440 --> 01:02:45.540]  are radioactive substances in the topsoil, residues from the radioactive cloud which
[01:02:45.540 --> 01:02:51.240]  came from the nuclear power plant. The Russian nuclear agency says all radioactive and explosive
[01:02:51.240 --> 01:02:56.520]  materials have been removed. Half a million acres of a blaze in more than 800 locations.
[01:03:21.240 --> 01:03:37.040]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty. I read his book and it says he cares not for
[01:03:37.040 --> 01:03:47.560]  the unsightly. These warmongers come by that term rightly. I won't pay for the war with
[01:03:47.560 --> 01:03:56.880]  my body. Okay folks, we are back. We're taking your calls. We've got Michael from Maryland.
[01:03:56.880 --> 01:04:03.600]  Michael, thanks for calling in. What is on your mind tonight? Good evening. Can you hear
[01:04:03.600 --> 01:04:09.960]  me okay? Yes, what's on your mind? The question is pertains to a comment that was made on
[01:04:09.960 --> 01:04:16.960]  the show about a week or two ago about the applicability of common law in administrative
[01:04:16.960 --> 01:04:20.400]  courts. I don't know if you remember this comment and I believe it was actually Randy
[01:04:20.400 --> 01:04:25.440]  that made it, so tonight might not be the best night to call. The impression I got was
[01:04:25.440 --> 01:04:33.360]  that the sentiment there, and I don't recall either you or Eddie disagreeing with him,
[01:04:33.360 --> 01:04:41.400]  is that the administrative courts do not need to follow or acknowledge common law. Anyway,
[01:04:41.400 --> 01:04:48.480]  as I read my state constitution anyway, and I would venture a guess that most state constitutions
[01:04:48.480 --> 01:04:52.200]  are similar, they're language to the effect that the inhabitants of our state are entitled
[01:04:52.200 --> 01:04:56.000]  to the common law of England and the trial by jury according to the course of the law
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:04.640]  and so on and so on. I was curious to know where that's coming from. Well, I would hazard
[01:05:04.640 --> 01:05:08.920]  a guess as to where that's coming from to tell you the truth. I was the one that put
[01:05:08.920 --> 01:05:15.480]  forth the opinion that the courts are required when they're dealing with the people to put
[01:05:15.480 --> 01:05:23.380]  faith and actions directly into the format as the common law has it. In other words,
[01:05:23.380 --> 01:05:29.560]  you can't charge the people with a crime if it was not a crime under the common law.
[01:05:29.560 --> 01:05:34.520]  You can charge your employees with one because they're bound by your rules. You can charge
[01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:39.480]  your contractors with one because they're bound by your rules. They agreed to them when
[01:05:39.480 --> 01:05:48.080]  they took the job, but the people did not. The people are entitled at every turn to the
[01:05:48.080 --> 01:05:55.960]  protections of the common law as it was understood to exist long before the constitution and
[01:05:55.960 --> 01:06:05.240]  your statutory law existed. I think the major disparity there is Randy's concept of law
[01:06:05.240 --> 01:06:11.160]  is only applicable when it is written down. If it's not written in black and white, then
[01:06:11.160 --> 01:06:17.000]  it shouldn't be considered law. Personally, I disagree with that because there is many
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:22.560]  forms of unwritten law, morality being one of those. Yes, while it is true, every person
[01:06:22.560 --> 01:06:27.260]  on the planet can have a different set of morals. That doesn't necessarily make their
[01:06:27.260 --> 01:06:34.200]  morals any more objectionable or any more favorable than mine. It's how they employ
[01:06:34.200 --> 01:06:41.800]  them. Also, it was determined from that conversation that night about common law, we did some research
[01:06:41.800 --> 01:06:47.160]  on the Internet while we were engaged in the debate and other callers called in that the
[01:06:47.160 --> 01:06:51.760]  common law is written down. It's the Magna Carta. That's what the common law is. When
[01:06:51.760 --> 01:06:58.520]  people say common law, it's not just some vague ivory tower pie-in-the-sky ethereal
[01:06:58.520 --> 01:07:03.960]  altruistic notion. It is very specific. The common law is the Magna Carta.
[01:07:03.960 --> 01:07:09.560]  Sure. Well, in that same article, Article 5 of our constitution, unfortunately, there's
[01:07:09.560 --> 01:07:15.480]  a second part to it that actually says, and I don't know if this is a due process violation
[01:07:15.480 --> 01:07:21.000]  in and of itself, but it is in the Article 5 of our constitution. It says the legislation
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:26.960]  may be enacted that limits the right to trial by jury in civil proceedings to those proceedings
[01:07:26.960 --> 01:07:31.480]  in which the amount of controversy exceeds 10,000. Now, I would venture against other
[01:07:31.480 --> 01:07:37.280]  states that have similar language, but I don't know. I find that horrible, frankly. Anyway,
[01:07:37.280 --> 01:07:43.160]  unless you had a comment about that, the only other thing I was curious to ask you about
[01:07:43.160 --> 01:07:47.560]  was some time ago, about a week or two ago, I guess, I sent an email to you all with respect
[01:07:47.560 --> 01:07:57.440]  to the disaster in Texas City that involved heavy-duty releases of very, very toxic elements
[01:07:57.440 --> 01:08:01.560]  and damages. Did you all happen to see that or hear about that incident?
[01:08:01.560 --> 01:08:07.600]  Yes, that was published in a publication called The Sea Breeze down in Texas City, and it
[01:08:07.600 --> 01:08:14.880]  has not been picked up by the mainstream media. I did report on it on my show, and I've been
[01:08:14.880 --> 01:08:21.560]  spreading the link around of that article regarding that incident. Yeah, apparently,
[01:08:21.560 --> 01:08:28.120]  what happened was that some of their equipment had failed that keeps these toxic gases from
[01:08:28.120 --> 01:08:36.280]  going out into the air, and instead of shutting down the refinery until they fixed it, they
[01:08:36.280 --> 01:08:43.840]  just decided somebody made a conscious decision to just route those gases to be torched, to
[01:08:43.840 --> 01:08:49.880]  be burned out into the air, which means that they were going directly out into the air,
[01:08:49.880 --> 01:08:54.080]  and then they tried to say, oops, we didn't realize that was happening, and then they
[01:08:54.080 --> 01:09:03.680]  notified the state after the fact, after they got equipment to repair the situation. And
[01:09:03.680 --> 01:09:10.280]  then the report to the state regulatory agency was that, oh, we didn't realize it was happening,
[01:09:10.280 --> 01:09:18.480]  I'm sorry, but anonymous insiders that worked at the refinery reported to The Sea Breeze
[01:09:18.480 --> 01:09:23.720]  that there is no way that that could have happened because there are gauges everywhere,
[01:09:23.720 --> 01:09:29.280]  and everybody monitors everything all the time, and that in order for those gases to
[01:09:29.280 --> 01:09:36.800]  actually be rerouted and burned off, somebody at top levels had to have made a conscious
[01:09:36.800 --> 01:09:44.320]  decision to do that and actually ordered other people to do the work. And so it came out
[01:09:44.320 --> 01:09:51.120]  that it was a lie that BP told the state of Texas that, oh, jeez, how could this have
[01:09:51.120 --> 01:09:57.320]  happened? We're so sorry, and it ends up that literally hundreds of thousands of pounds
[01:09:57.320 --> 01:10:03.120]  of benzene and methylene chloride and all these other toxic gases were released into
[01:10:03.120 --> 01:10:10.640]  the air in Texas City to such an extent that everyone in Texas City could die over it.
[01:10:10.640 --> 01:10:15.080]  They may not die right away, but basically they all got a death sentence.
[01:10:15.080 --> 01:10:19.520]  Right, pretty bad stuff. Well, before I let you go, if you could comment on this one,
[01:10:19.520 --> 01:10:23.640]  which is to say, on that same show that I alluded to earlier, there was a question of
[01:10:23.640 --> 01:10:28.760]  bringing up the nature and cause of the action against you, you know, and I would be curious
[01:10:28.760 --> 01:10:34.440]  to know both of your takes on how you would respond, depending upon whether their response,
[01:10:34.440 --> 01:10:38.280]  you know, in a traffic situation, for example, depending upon whether their response was,
[01:10:38.280 --> 01:10:43.400]  well, this is a civil proceeding or whether this is criminal and so on, you know, how
[01:10:43.400 --> 01:10:46.320]  you all would approach that. Thank you so much.
[01:10:46.320 --> 01:10:51.280]  Okay, thank you, Michael. Eddie, you want to respond to that one?
[01:10:51.280 --> 01:10:54.040]  I'm not quite sure I understood what the question was.
[01:10:54.040 --> 01:10:58.400]  Michael, can you... He just dropped off the line.
[01:10:58.400 --> 01:11:02.640]  I apologize, Michael. I'm not quite sure I followed what you were asking on that. If
[01:11:02.640 --> 01:11:06.120]  you wouldn't mind, call back in and explain the question a little bit better and I'll
[01:11:06.120 --> 01:11:08.560]  see what I can do. Yeah, I wasn't quite clear on the question
[01:11:08.560 --> 01:11:15.320]  either. That's why I referred it to you, Eddie. Okay. Oh, also, before we go back to the calls,
[01:11:15.320 --> 01:11:18.480]  I was going to make the announcement at the top of the hour and the top of the show, but
[01:11:18.480 --> 01:11:22.680]  I forgot. Folks who are listening in Austin, who may not be listening on the micro right
[01:11:22.680 --> 01:11:27.240]  now but are listening online or on the listener line, et cetera, Randy is giving a mortgage
[01:11:27.240 --> 01:11:34.360]  fraud seminar this coming Saturday in Austin at the Wyndham Conference Center, Wyndham
[01:11:34.360 --> 01:11:41.040]  Hotel and Conference Center at Woodward at I-35. The seminar starts at 1 p.m. and goes
[01:11:41.040 --> 01:11:46.640]  until 8. This seminar is strictly on the mortgage fraud industry. It's not going to be on due
[01:11:46.640 --> 01:11:51.720]  process and traffic code and all that kind of stuff. The reason that this seminar is
[01:11:51.720 --> 01:12:00.680]  free is because he is giving the initial information for people who may be victims of mortgage
[01:12:00.680 --> 01:12:08.400]  fraud. It's mainly for his business, Remedies in Real Estate. He's not going to be discussing
[01:12:08.400 --> 01:12:13.440]  due process and these sorts of things. Apparently, he and I discussed the fact that a lot of
[01:12:13.440 --> 01:12:22.240]  people are wanting him to give an additional several hours of due process seminar at these
[01:12:22.240 --> 01:12:26.880]  seminars and we agreed that's not going to happen because this seminar is strictly for
[01:12:26.880 --> 01:12:31.040]  his business. If people want a seminar on due process and traffic code, they have to
[01:12:31.040 --> 01:12:34.520]  pay for it. We have to have a way to fund this network.
[01:12:34.520 --> 01:12:39.360]  By the way, I'm going to take this opportunity to plug Eddie's traffic seminar. You can purchase
[01:12:39.360 --> 01:12:44.320]  the traffic seminar at ruleoflawradio.com. Just scroll down right underneath the three
[01:12:44.320 --> 01:12:49.480]  videos where you can purchase it either through PayPal or with a credit card or you can mail
[01:12:49.480 --> 01:12:56.440]  a check. If you want to purchase a seminar with barter like metals, precious metals,
[01:12:56.440 --> 01:13:01.120]  we will accept that too, but please contact me by email first so that we can look at the
[01:13:01.120 --> 01:13:06.040]  current spot price of the day, et cetera, et cetera, to determine how much metals would
[01:13:06.040 --> 01:13:12.120]  be appropriate to purchase a traffic seminar. I do have to say, folks, we have had very
[01:13:12.120 --> 01:13:18.360]  little donations and very little traffic seminar purchases in the last several months. I know
[01:13:18.360 --> 01:13:24.240]  it's summer and a lot of people are on vacation or they only work nine months out of the year.
[01:13:24.240 --> 01:13:28.400]  They have summers off and these sorts of things. I know it's bad economic times, but folks,
[01:13:28.400 --> 01:13:34.040]  your donations and your purchases of the traffic seminar materials are what keeps us on the
[01:13:34.040 --> 01:13:40.040]  air. We need donations for the network. We need your purchases of the traffic seminar
[01:13:40.040 --> 01:13:48.120]  and we need donations for 9.1 as well. Please support our mission. Suggestions have come
[01:13:48.120 --> 01:13:54.920]  in several times that if we help you on the air with your case, whether it be civil or
[01:13:54.920 --> 01:14:00.920]  criminal or whatever, and you feel that you've gotten a valuable service from us, just consider
[01:14:00.920 --> 01:14:09.120]  how much you may have had to pay a lawyer for that and give us 25% of what you feel
[01:14:09.120 --> 01:14:17.100]  an attorney would have charged you or 10% or half or something. We are very willing
[01:14:17.100 --> 01:14:22.040]  to provide these services for you on the air for free as much as possible. We even help
[01:14:22.040 --> 01:14:27.840]  people off the air as much as we possibly can, but we do need your support to keep this
[01:14:27.840 --> 01:14:33.240]  message on the air and to continue to make a difference in the court system, to reclaim
[01:14:33.240 --> 01:14:38.920]  our country and our liberty. Show us a little love, folks, and order a traffic seminar.
[01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:42.960]  Order a jurisdictionary. We get a kickback when you order a jurisdictionary on the Web
[01:14:42.960 --> 01:14:49.000]  site. Especially order the traffic seminar and send some donations, please.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:55.480]  Don't expect a lecture on due process at the seminar. Randy is doing this Saturday. It's
[01:14:55.480 --> 01:15:00.440]  strictly for the mortgage fraud industry so that you can determine if you want to use
[01:15:00.440 --> 01:15:07.760]  his services to help you sue these banks and reclaim your home straight up, no more payments,
[01:15:07.760 --> 01:15:14.160]  no more debt, and get your house back and get out from the grip of these evil banksters.
[01:15:14.160 --> 01:15:19.560]  We are going to go back to the call board now. It looks like Michael and Marilyn called
[01:15:19.560 --> 01:15:23.400]  back in. Michael, please clarify your question.
[01:15:23.400 --> 01:15:27.720]  Thank you. Before I forget, I did make a purchase of jurisdictionary on your Web site, but the
[01:15:27.720 --> 01:15:31.920]  way it processed, I'm not completely sure you got credit. It may bounce back out to
[01:15:31.920 --> 01:15:36.920]  the main jurisdictionary site. No. If you clicked on the link on my Web site,
[01:15:36.920 --> 01:15:43.520]  I got credit for it. Don't worry about that. Very good. My question was, and I sent you
[01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:47.720]  all links to some YouTube videos to get into this, but you may or may not have had time
[01:15:47.720 --> 01:15:53.040]  to watch them. The point is, when you're asked, how do you plead, if you say, I don't understand
[01:15:53.040 --> 01:15:59.080]  the nature and cause of the action against me, I need to understand it first. If you
[01:15:59.080 --> 01:16:06.360]  say, how am I being charged, and they say, this is being charged in criminal law versus
[01:16:06.360 --> 01:16:14.880]  you're being charged civilly, how you would respond as to, well, I'd like to see the complaint,
[01:16:14.880 --> 01:16:18.360]  the complaining party. I'd like to see that there's a complaining party, which actually
[01:16:18.360 --> 01:16:24.320]  does go back to the discussion from a week or two ago, where Randy was saying, you must
[01:16:24.320 --> 01:16:30.360]  be confused into thinking that you deserve to have a complaining party in an administrative
[01:16:30.360 --> 01:16:35.880]  court, and that's not the case. That's the essence of what I heard Randy just say.
[01:16:35.880 --> 01:16:41.320]  Right. Well, there is no necessity of a complaining party in an administrative court in any way,
[01:16:41.320 --> 01:16:47.920]  shape, or form. That's the purpose of an administrative court. It's a rules court. It's not a contention
[01:16:47.920 --> 01:16:52.320]  court between parties court. But anyway, we're going to take a break. Hang on, Michael, we'll
[01:16:52.320 --> 01:16:54.600]  be right back on the other side.
[01:16:54.600 --> 01:17:00.520]  We'll be right back, folks.
[01:17:00.520 --> 01:17:05.480]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the internet isn't so
[01:17:05.480 --> 01:17:09.200]  easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:17:09.200 --> 01:17:12.160]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:17:12.160 --> 01:17:13.160]  Brave New Books?
[01:17:13.160 --> 01:17:18.000]  Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:22.920]  Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and
[01:17:22.920 --> 01:17:23.920]  Calvin Soaps.
[01:17:23.920 --> 01:17:26.800]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:17:26.800 --> 01:17:32.640]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:17:32.640 --> 01:17:35.880]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:17:35.880 --> 01:17:41.280]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[01:17:41.280 --> 01:17:43.280]  facility, just behind the bookstore.
[01:17:43.280 --> 01:17:47.080]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:17:47.080 --> 01:17:52.600]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So give them a call
[01:17:52.600 --> 01:18:12.440]  at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:12.440 --> 01:18:31.480]  Okay, folks, we are back. We're on the wall radio. Okay, Michael, now on your question,
[01:18:31.480 --> 01:18:35.360]  how we would respond to that when they're doing this? As I was saying, in an administrative
[01:18:35.360 --> 01:18:40.640]  court, there is no adverse party. The rules in an administrative court are different because
[01:18:40.640 --> 01:18:44.120]  the only purpose that exists is to determine whether or not there's been a violation of
[01:18:44.120 --> 01:18:47.800]  a rule by the other and only party.
[01:18:47.800 --> 01:18:48.800]  Okay.
[01:18:48.800 --> 01:18:53.440]  Could I interject, though, because there's nothing in the Constitution, either the federal
[01:18:53.440 --> 01:18:58.160]  or the state, about administrative jurisdiction. There's civil and there's criminal, right?
[01:18:58.160 --> 01:19:02.800]  You're absolutely right, and that's the point I was about to get to. The problem with these
[01:19:02.800 --> 01:19:12.000]  folks is that the people are not under any administrative jurisdiction unless the people
[01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:19.520]  have knowingly and willingly entered into a contractual obligation to be bound by such.
[01:19:19.520 --> 01:19:25.000]  That's the reason I said why city ordinances and these rules can be used against contractors
[01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:30.520]  who contract with governmental agencies, because when they make that contract, they're required
[01:19:30.520 --> 01:19:36.680]  to abide by whatever rules of that contract there are, including if that contract states
[01:19:36.680 --> 01:19:43.680]  that you're bound by any other rules as applicable within this state under these circumstances.
[01:19:43.680 --> 01:19:46.040]  But the people don't fall into that category.
[01:19:46.040 --> 01:19:50.960]  Would it be safe to say in a court of law that if they try to say they don't respond
[01:19:50.960 --> 01:19:54.360]  this is a criminal proceeding or this is a civil proceeding, they would say you're being
[01:19:54.360 --> 01:20:01.400]  charged with administrative infraction, whatever, that you would say.
[01:20:01.400 --> 01:20:05.840]  You could just object and say I didn't contract into administrative law. How did I get into
[01:20:05.840 --> 01:20:09.240]  administrative law? That doesn't have jurisdiction over me.
[01:20:09.240 --> 01:20:16.640]  Exactly. Can the complaining party please show where I am bound by the administrative
[01:20:16.640 --> 01:20:24.840]  rules and the administrative process? What evidence exists to show that I have allowed
[01:20:24.840 --> 01:20:28.840]  myself to be inducted or introduced into that system?
[01:20:28.840 --> 01:20:34.880]  I see. In the case of civil, it's pretty much the
[01:20:34.880 --> 01:20:39.840]  same thing. Well, who's the moving party? Who is the party moving against me in this
[01:20:39.840 --> 01:20:46.840]  civil matter? What is their stated cause? What's their claim? What are they saying I
[01:20:46.840 --> 01:20:51.960]  did that I had an obligation to do under contract or some other form of agreement?
[01:20:51.960 --> 01:20:57.920]  Produce the agreement. Say again?
[01:20:57.920 --> 01:21:02.880]  Civil law does require a contract, excuse me for interrupting you.
[01:21:02.880 --> 01:21:08.120]  It requires some form of agreement, whether written or oral, for there to be two parties
[01:21:08.120 --> 01:21:13.260]  in contention. There has to be an obligation and there has to be a breach of duty and there
[01:21:13.260 --> 01:21:18.360]  has to be an enforceable agreement between two parties, two or more parties.
[01:21:18.360 --> 01:21:24.120]  Excellent. It's just simple straight up civil suit at
[01:21:24.120 --> 01:21:28.320]  that point. Those are the three minimum things you've got to have for a claim in any type
[01:21:28.320 --> 01:21:36.520]  of civil action, an enforceable contract or agreement, at least two parties, and a breach
[01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:40.800]  of that contract as the duties set up on each of those parties within it.
[01:21:40.800 --> 01:21:43.760]  Okay. Well, before I let you go, thanks to Deborah
[01:21:43.760 --> 01:21:53.040]  mentioned it about the use of Randy's services to deal with mortgage issues. I did put in
[01:21:53.040 --> 01:21:57.120]  a request and I submitted my forms. I just haven't been able to hear back from Randy.
[01:21:57.120 --> 01:22:03.120]  I had mentioned by way of email that I'm delighted to contribute a substantial sum of, like Deborah
[01:22:03.120 --> 01:22:09.280]  was saying, of whatever we save to distribute that back. I just feel myself blocked in because
[01:22:09.280 --> 01:22:18.160]  I don't want to leave the opportunity of being served by Randy and Louisville Radio and providing
[01:22:18.160 --> 01:22:24.120]  some money back to Louisville Radio, but at the same time, since I haven't heard back
[01:22:24.120 --> 01:22:26.840]  after having submitted my paperwork, I just don't know what to do.
[01:22:26.840 --> 01:22:30.800]  If you're able to put in a good word with Randy to have him check on that, I left him
[01:22:30.800 --> 01:22:35.480]  a voicemail earlier about a week ago. I know he's so busy. He really is.
[01:22:35.480 --> 01:22:43.960]  The thing is that all of us have been struggling for so long, giving up everything we have,
[01:22:43.960 --> 01:22:50.280]  literally all our material possessions. Randy has lost property. I have spent all the money
[01:22:50.280 --> 01:22:55.560]  in my savings for this network and for the micro. Finally, Randy had to do something
[01:22:55.560 --> 01:22:59.840]  to make some money for himself or he was literally going to lose everything he had and we wouldn't
[01:22:59.840 --> 01:23:05.320]  even be able to continue. Right now, he's been spending all of his time building his
[01:23:05.320 --> 01:23:11.480]  business and now he's got this business that really has an excellent product that works.
[01:23:11.480 --> 01:23:16.160]  He's had 11 no answer defaults so far in the favor of his clients and he's got so many
[01:23:16.160 --> 01:23:21.880]  people depending on him now. He can't even hardly talk on the phone to me anymore because
[01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:25.160]  he's constantly, every time I talk to him, he's like, I've got to get these documents
[01:23:25.160 --> 01:23:30.360]  out because somebody's about to get thrown out of their house tomorrow. Literally, it's
[01:23:30.360 --> 01:23:35.200]  like he's running to the courthouse to save someone from getting kicked out of their house
[01:23:35.200 --> 01:23:39.280]  or locked out of their house by the sheriff in 10 minutes. That's the story I hear every
[01:23:39.280 --> 01:23:46.040]  time I talk to him and so that's why he hasn't... He basically can't respond to anybody
[01:23:46.040 --> 01:23:51.200]  anymore about these kinds of things. Unless you're a client, he's had to hire employees
[01:23:51.200 --> 01:23:57.000]  even to deal with the mortgage industry. He will be on the show again on Thursday. He's
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:04.240]  likely not going to do Monday nights anymore but really, as far as free assistance and
[01:24:04.240 --> 01:24:10.000]  answering questions, basically, you're only going to get that on the air on the show on
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  Thursday and Friday nights from now on.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  Disease as far as mortgages go.
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  Right.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:22.680]  Well, yeah, that's fine and I understand that perfectly. I'd agree to pay him for his services
[01:24:22.680 --> 01:24:26.280]  but there might have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line so I don't know.
[01:24:26.280 --> 01:24:28.080]  All right, well thank you.
[01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:35.160]  Okay, thank you very much. Okay, you have a good night. Okay, we are going now to Randy
[01:24:35.160 --> 01:24:41.160]  in Texas, not Randy Kelton. Our call board is really stacking up here so we can't give
[01:24:41.160 --> 01:24:46.160]  everybody a full segment for the remainder of the show so let's try to be succinct and
[01:24:46.160 --> 01:24:47.160]  efficient with our time.
[01:24:47.160 --> 01:24:48.160]  Randy, what's on your mind tonight?
[01:24:48.160 --> 01:24:49.160]  Hello, guys. How are you all doing?
[01:24:49.160 --> 01:24:50.160]  Pretty good.
[01:24:50.160 --> 01:24:57.920]  I called about three weeks ago about a speeding ticket and, Eddie, I sent the court a certified
[01:24:57.920 --> 01:25:04.640]  return receipt notification of all the information that I want in my case against me and I got
[01:25:04.640 --> 01:25:08.600]  the response back from the court that they received it, haven't received anything yet.
[01:25:08.600 --> 01:25:16.320]  In the process, I looked at the ticket, the speeding ticket here in Texas and, you know,
[01:25:16.320 --> 01:25:24.840]  my wife pointed out that the date that this happened on July 2nd, the notice to appear
[01:25:24.840 --> 01:25:33.120]  date is the 19th, July 19th, but the date of the actual offense, the alleged offense,
[01:25:33.120 --> 01:25:43.800]  he writes down and it's clear the clear the bill 4 to 10. So the date of the alleged offense
[01:25:43.800 --> 01:25:49.560]  is wrong and there's so much on the web about usually answered by police officers or former
[01:25:49.560 --> 01:25:54.080]  police officers with these questions. If the date of the offense is wrong, can I get out
[01:25:54.080 --> 01:25:59.960]  of it? And they say, well, no, they will just fix it or the clerk will fix it before you
[01:25:59.960 --> 01:26:05.640]  appear. But I would think if like in a murder case, if they say, where were you in the night
[01:26:05.640 --> 01:26:14.920]  of such and such and you have an alibi, then they can't proceed. And here they've got the
[01:26:14.920 --> 01:26:20.360]  wrong date. They've got the wrong month. The officer put on the wrong month. Can this be
[01:26:20.360 --> 01:26:24.840]  thrown out just on that ground alone?
[01:26:24.840 --> 01:26:32.760]  Well, can it be beat on that ground alone? Yes. Will it get thrown out? Most likely not.
[01:26:32.760 --> 01:26:38.760]  See the judge likes to consider their options on what they want to define as a fatal defect
[01:26:38.760 --> 01:26:45.440]  and they will not consider the improper date a fatal defect. I actually had a state trooper
[01:26:45.440 --> 01:26:50.880]  completely misidentify my automobile as a two door model car instead of a four door
[01:26:50.880 --> 01:26:59.960]  sedan. Okay. And he even got the color wrong. The car was jet black and he called it brown.
[01:26:59.960 --> 01:27:06.040]  And in neither of those instances on the same ticket did the judge think that was a fatal
[01:27:06.040 --> 01:27:11.000]  flaw, that the officer was not observing enough to notice there was four doors instead of
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:14.320]  two and that the car was in fact black. Okay.
[01:27:14.320 --> 01:27:21.160]  Now they've got me pegged really well, including my social security number, which I didn't
[01:27:21.160 --> 01:27:28.880]  want to give in the first place, but I figured if it happened in July and he put on there
[01:27:28.880 --> 01:27:35.160]  April 2nd, I would think that would be pretty difficult for them to proceed.
[01:27:35.160 --> 01:27:41.520]  Well, as they said, they will just change it. Now what you can do is not bring the issue
[01:27:41.520 --> 01:27:46.960]  up until you're actually going to trial and having the cop testify. Okay. And then you
[01:27:46.960 --> 01:27:52.880]  can actually stipulate, can you please read the date on the ticket? And would I just say,
[01:27:52.880 --> 01:27:59.400]  Hey, officer, so I was a liar. No, no, don't do that. Then you say, well,
[01:27:59.400 --> 01:28:05.680]  the complaint is dated such and such date that I did such and such on this date. The
[01:28:05.680 --> 01:28:11.760]  two dates don't agree. So that would mean this citation is invalid upon its face as
[01:28:11.760 --> 01:28:16.640]  the basis for the complaint. Wouldn't it officer? Because this obviously can't be the correct
[01:28:16.640 --> 01:28:21.200]  citation. It's got the wrong date on it. Okay.
[01:28:21.200 --> 01:28:26.160]  That's one message. Now, once again, the judge just may poo poo that and say it doesn't matter.
[01:28:26.160 --> 01:28:32.360]  That means the judge is practicing law from the bench. Okay. And what they're doing is
[01:28:32.360 --> 01:28:37.600]  trying to assure your conviction, but you're much better off attacking whatever process
[01:28:37.600 --> 01:28:41.240]  they have or have not followed up to this point. Okay.
[01:28:41.240 --> 01:28:46.200]  All right. And plus, you know what the statutes are regarding the speeding, right? And that
[01:28:46.200 --> 01:28:50.040]  it's impossible to speed in a private automobile in Texas, right?
[01:28:50.040 --> 01:28:54.000]  Right. Okay. But I would definitely go through the code
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:58.760]  of criminal procedure in dealing with what they're required to do paperwork wise. Who
[01:28:58.760 --> 01:29:02.760]  gave you the ticket? City, state, or county? City.
[01:29:02.760 --> 01:29:06.520]  Okay. Then it's a municipal court, right? Yes.
[01:29:06.520 --> 01:29:09.920]  Okay. No city attorney can prosecute. Right.
[01:29:09.920 --> 01:29:13.960]  Did they charge you with a city ordinance for speeding or under state law for speeding?
[01:29:13.960 --> 01:29:17.680]  Of course they don't put that on here. It's on the state highway, so it's...
[01:29:17.680 --> 01:29:21.520]  They haven't told you what the nature and cause are against you. They haven't provided
[01:29:21.520 --> 01:29:25.000]  you with a copy of it in writing and no information has been filed in your case.
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:27.880]  Right. Because the city attorney can't sign an information.
[01:29:27.880 --> 01:29:34.880]  Now, what I had to do, I called the clerk and she was real nice. And I said...
[01:29:34.880 --> 01:29:39.320]  Okay. Well, hang on just a second. We're going to break again. We'll wrap this up really
[01:29:39.320 --> 01:29:44.160]  quick on the other side. This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. We will
[01:29:44.160 --> 01:30:04.680]  be right back. It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[01:30:04.680 --> 01:30:09.240]  but finding things on the internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people
[01:30:09.240 --> 01:30:11.920]  to share it with. Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave
[01:30:11.920 --> 01:30:14.320]  New Books then. Brave New Books?
[01:30:14.320 --> 01:30:18.920]  Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex
[01:30:18.920 --> 01:30:23.920]  Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and
[01:30:23.920 --> 01:30:27.800]  Calvin Soaps. There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:30:27.800 --> 01:30:33.640]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:30:33.640 --> 01:30:36.920]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:30:36.920 --> 01:30:42.280]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[01:30:42.280 --> 01:30:48.280]  facility just behind the bookstore. It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:30:48.280 --> 01:30:53.640]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So give them a call
[01:30:53.640 --> 01:31:01.680]  at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:31:01.680 --> 01:31:07.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:11.400]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[01:31:11.400 --> 01:31:17.000]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:22.280]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:31:22.280 --> 01:31:27.080]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and
[01:31:27.080 --> 01:31:31.480]  phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your financial
[01:31:31.480 --> 01:31:35.240]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:31:35.240 --> 01:31:40.340]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[01:31:40.340 --> 01:31:45.760]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:31:45.760 --> 01:31:51.080]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's
[01:31:51.080 --> 01:32:00.560]  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 collectors
[01:32:00.560 --> 01:32:01.560]  now.
[01:32:01.560 --> 01:32:17.840]  All right, folks, we are back. Rule of Law Radio. Okay, Randy, let's finish up with
[01:32:17.840 --> 01:32:23.840]  you real quick. But basically speaking, you've got all these issues of process and procedure
[01:32:23.840 --> 01:32:28.960]  that they have failed in right off the bat. They haven't done them. And because they have
[01:32:28.960 --> 01:32:33.240]  not done them, they don't have jurisdiction of your case, period. It doesn't matter if
[01:32:33.240 --> 01:32:40.560]  you're going 1,000 miles an hour on a motorcycle down the middle of Main Street. Without jurisdiction,
[01:32:40.560 --> 01:32:46.080]  the court can't hear the case. And without following the law, the court cannot obtain
[01:32:46.080 --> 01:32:47.080]  jurisdiction.
[01:32:47.080 --> 01:32:48.080]  Okay.
[01:32:48.080 --> 01:32:51.960]  So that's where I'd go first. But if you'll send me an email offline, then I'll help you
[01:32:51.960 --> 01:32:55.360]  a little more with the details. Right now, we've got a board full of callers, and we
[01:32:55.360 --> 01:32:56.360]  need to move on.
[01:32:56.360 --> 01:32:57.360]  All right. Thank you all. Good night.
[01:32:57.360 --> 01:33:03.680]  Okay. Thank you, Carl. Okay. We are going now to Rebecca in California. Rebecca, thanks
[01:33:03.680 --> 01:33:06.640]  for calling in. What's your question for us tonight?
[01:33:06.640 --> 01:33:13.480]  Hi. This is regarding... This is an Idaho case, actually. A very good friend of mine,
[01:33:13.480 --> 01:33:22.320]  well, a family member, was arrested for a totally bogus DUI. The policeman essentially
[01:33:22.320 --> 01:33:28.280]  followed him from the pharmacy where he was picking up his medicine, and they lied. So
[01:33:28.280 --> 01:33:34.680]  they ended up holding him for 18 days in jail before he was brought before magistrate. He's
[01:33:34.680 --> 01:33:44.120]  also disabled. My question is, though, now he's living in California, and the hearing
[01:33:44.120 --> 01:33:51.240]  is coming up, but they insist he makes a personal appearance rather than an appearance by phone.
[01:33:51.240 --> 01:33:59.760]  They denied all his motions. They just ignore him, really. So that was very apropos to what
[01:33:59.760 --> 01:34:05.240]  you were talking about today. So what would you suggest our path would be to try to get
[01:34:05.240 --> 01:34:11.240]  them to at least read the... Or make a judgment on the motions, or at least allow an appearance
[01:34:11.240 --> 01:34:12.240]  by phone?
[01:34:12.240 --> 01:34:16.240]  Well, I don't know about the appearance by phone part. You'd have to see what the law
[01:34:16.240 --> 01:34:20.240]  requires and what the requisites of allowing that by the court would be, and you would
[01:34:20.240 --> 01:34:25.240]  have had to file a motion requesting it on those grounds. If you haven't done that, most
[01:34:25.240 --> 01:34:27.440]  likely you're not going to get around that.
[01:34:27.440 --> 01:34:31.920]  On the part where all the motions were denied, however, I would definitely recommend filing
[01:34:31.920 --> 01:34:38.120]  a Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law petition demanding the judge show due cause
[01:34:38.120 --> 01:34:44.200]  and the lawful basis for the denial of the motion. And what you want to do is you want
[01:34:44.200 --> 01:34:50.080]  to stipulate that defendant filed motion such and such on this date and this time and supplied
[01:34:50.080 --> 01:34:55.640]  a written order to the judge for the purpose of granting said motion on the following grounds.
[01:34:55.640 --> 01:35:00.400]  By what mandate of law and procedure did the judge deny the motion in accordance with this,
[01:35:00.400 --> 01:35:05.200]  this, this, this, and this? Please provide the information necessary to show the foundation
[01:35:05.200 --> 01:35:12.380]  and law on which the judge relied, or something to that effect. And basically for each and
[01:35:12.380 --> 01:35:18.720]  every issue you brought up in the motion that the motion was meant to deal with, bring that
[01:35:18.720 --> 01:35:23.760]  up in the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law with the question of, on this, by what
[01:35:23.760 --> 01:35:30.680]  conclusion of law or finding of fact was this element of my petition denied?
[01:35:30.680 --> 01:35:42.880]  Okay. And they also are threatening to put on a warrant if he does not appear in person.
[01:35:42.880 --> 01:35:46.600]  They're going to do that anyway if he doesn't appear. That's a failure to appear. But has
[01:35:46.600 --> 01:35:54.400]  he been properly served a summons to appear? I'm not sure, you know. Has he received anything
[01:35:54.400 --> 01:36:00.000]  by process server or by mail? Something by mail with the date of the hearing
[01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:06.360]  of the court. Yes, they sent me mail, but it was by then
[01:36:06.360 --> 01:36:11.480]  it had been too late. Too late? What do you mean by too late?
[01:36:11.480 --> 01:36:17.840]  Well, by the time I had actually received it, it had been time enough to where they
[01:36:17.840 --> 01:36:25.480]  had done the court case, the speeding ticket was over, and what not. But...
[01:36:25.480 --> 01:36:30.800]  Okay. And the speeding ticket was issued in what state?
[01:36:30.800 --> 01:36:37.200]  It was issued in Washington. Okay. If they could find you guilty without
[01:36:37.200 --> 01:36:42.360]  an appearance, then that means that it's an administrative procedure, which goes back
[01:36:42.360 --> 01:36:46.560]  to the issue we were discussing earlier. How are you bound by administrative process and
[01:36:46.560 --> 01:36:52.240]  procedure? Because they cannot convict you in absentia of a criminal case. They've got
[01:36:52.240 --> 01:36:58.240]  to have you there in some form or fashion. Do they have to have you there?
[01:36:58.240 --> 01:37:04.320]  If they did not have you there and they convicted you in absentia and they sent the... When
[01:37:04.320 --> 01:37:09.520]  was the postmark on the summons you got? Oh, I don't know.
[01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:15.480]  You want to look at that. See how far in advance of the actual date the postmark was. You need
[01:37:15.480 --> 01:37:19.600]  to look at the Washington rules and see what the law says they were required to do and
[01:37:19.600 --> 01:37:24.480]  how far in advance they were required to do it. You're going to need to attack them on
[01:37:24.480 --> 01:37:29.720]  their procedure, and you need to know what the rules are governing that, okay? So it's
[01:37:29.720 --> 01:37:34.520]  going to take some reading and research on your part in the Washington statutes.
[01:37:34.520 --> 01:37:36.480]  Okay. Okay.
[01:37:36.480 --> 01:37:40.520]  Thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you for calling.
[01:37:40.520 --> 01:37:46.560]  Okay. Thank you, Rebecca. Okay. We've got a full call board here. We've got Floyd from
[01:37:46.560 --> 01:37:50.960]  Texas, a first-time caller. Floyd, thank you for calling in. What is your question for
[01:37:50.960 --> 01:37:56.080]  us tonight? Hi. I have a ticket that I received in Austin
[01:37:56.080 --> 01:38:00.760]  for pedestrian and roadway, but I was clearly on my bicycle and my feet never touched the
[01:38:00.760 --> 01:38:07.640]  ground. And what it was is I had crossed halfway across the street on my bicycle and was going
[01:38:07.640 --> 01:38:13.760]  against the grain, if you will, near the turn lane, which was a designated turn lane for
[01:38:13.760 --> 01:38:19.200]  one direction. So when the officer stopped me, I was going down the sidewalk because
[01:38:19.200 --> 01:38:24.560]  I had completed my crossing the street. So what I'm trying to find out is since he wrote
[01:38:24.560 --> 01:38:29.640]  me a ticket as a pedestrian and since I was clearly on a vehicle, which is a bicycle,
[01:38:29.640 --> 01:38:33.920]  is this something that I would probably be able to contest and get dismissed?
[01:38:33.920 --> 01:38:38.320]  No, because in Texas law, a bicycle is not a vehicle.
[01:38:38.320 --> 01:38:45.080]  Oh, is that right? That is correct. You are considered traffic under
[01:38:45.080 --> 01:38:49.320]  their definition, but again, that involves a connotation, you've got to be doing something
[01:38:49.320 --> 01:38:52.120]  commercial before, which still apply to you by that definition.
[01:38:52.120 --> 01:38:59.560]  Yeah, but how can you be considered a pedestrian? Well, I haven't gone into the bicycle research
[01:38:59.560 --> 01:39:03.760]  that far. I've just gone into the research on the necessities of a motor vehicle and
[01:39:03.760 --> 01:39:08.400]  a bicycle does not qualify unless the bicycle has one of those little gas-powered engines
[01:39:08.400 --> 01:39:12.120]  on it. Right, but my understanding was that a person
[01:39:12.120 --> 01:39:16.680]  on a bicycle has as much right to the road as a vehicle, would therefore use the other
[01:39:16.680 --> 01:39:18.800]  way. Well, you're correct, but the person on the
[01:39:18.800 --> 01:39:23.880]  bicycle was bound by the same rules as those and by your own admission, the officer saw
[01:39:23.880 --> 01:39:27.560]  you going in the wrong direction in the turn lane.
[01:39:27.560 --> 01:39:31.640]  That's correct, so he should have cited me for going the wrong way or is this a legitimate
[01:39:31.640 --> 01:39:37.160]  ticket to write in this instance? Well, the question you really need to be asking
[01:39:37.160 --> 01:39:42.280]  is the offense that's written on the ticket, does it exist in Texas law?
[01:39:42.280 --> 01:39:46.760]  Okay. If he charged you with picking your nose in
[01:39:46.760 --> 01:39:51.600]  the middle of the day at an intersection, is there such a law in Texas to be charged
[01:39:51.600 --> 01:39:54.760]  with? Yeah, and look up the definitions of the terms
[01:39:54.760 --> 01:40:00.760]  used on the ticket. Look up the definition of the word pedestrian and see if it includes
[01:40:00.760 --> 01:40:05.800]  somebody on a bicycle or not. Yeah, and you'd also want to look up roadway
[01:40:05.800 --> 01:40:12.120]  and see if that qualifies for the criteria that's involved and so on and so forth. But
[01:40:12.120 --> 01:40:17.200]  basically, if he charged you, I guarantee you he charged you under a city ordinance.
[01:40:17.200 --> 01:40:22.080]  Okay. Now, if he did that, you have a viable defense.
[01:40:22.080 --> 01:40:26.480]  Okay. Article 3, Section 29, Texas Constitution,
[01:40:26.480 --> 01:40:31.000]  all laws shall have the following enacting clause. Therefore, by definition, an ordinance
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:36.760]  cannot be law. If it cannot be law, it cannot be binding upon the public in a mandatory
[01:40:36.760 --> 01:40:47.600]  fashion. It can only be suggestive. It cannot be mandatory and therefore, it cannot be punitive.
[01:40:47.600 --> 01:40:52.360]  The officer did state that I could dispute this and it sounded like he wouldn't show
[01:40:52.360 --> 01:40:57.520]  up, but I have one other quick question for you if you have time. My son just graduated
[01:40:57.520 --> 01:41:02.960]  high school and is trying to get an apartment and he was denied because somebody has apparently
[01:41:02.960 --> 01:41:08.000]  stolen his identity and he's never had any credit. Do you know anything about the credit
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:13.480]  identity theft laws or how we should go about getting this straightened up?
[01:41:13.480 --> 01:41:22.880]  I know that our government code Title 51 or 59, I forget which, deals with misuse of personal
[01:41:22.880 --> 01:41:28.440]  information in some parts, but for the most part, what you need to do is take that down
[01:41:28.440 --> 01:41:33.560]  to the district attorney or the county attorney if you're not in the city but you're in Austin
[01:41:33.560 --> 01:41:40.360]  so you are, go directly to the district attorney and report that that has happened and immediately
[01:41:40.360 --> 01:41:47.640]  go run a credit report and get a copy of the credit report and see what is being done with
[01:41:47.640 --> 01:41:51.800]  that social security number and perhaps when you take that to the district attorney they
[01:41:51.800 --> 01:41:56.440]  can track down who did it. You're going to have to get on a service
[01:41:56.440 --> 01:42:01.040]  like privacy guard and get copies of your son's credit report and you're going to have
[01:42:01.040 --> 01:42:07.800]  to file disputes with the credit agencies of this regard.
[01:42:07.800 --> 01:42:12.560]  Right, yeah, it's just too bad he's just fresh out of high school and can't get, you know,
[01:42:12.560 --> 01:42:18.520]  he's having a pretty rough start, you know. Well, this is just another reason why inducting
[01:42:18.520 --> 01:42:22.200]  yourself into the social security program is a bad idea to begin with.
[01:42:22.200 --> 01:42:27.480]  It shouldn't take that long to clear up this issue, but you definitely do have to dispute
[01:42:27.480 --> 01:42:30.480]  with the credit agencies, the three major credit bureaus.
[01:42:30.480 --> 01:42:31.480]  Okay. Okay.
[01:42:31.480 --> 01:42:36.080]  I appreciate your time. You guys have a great evening. Keep up the good work, guys. There
[01:42:36.080 --> 01:42:38.800]  are a lot more people out here that appreciate you than you know.
[01:42:38.800 --> 01:42:42.840]  Oh, thank you. We appreciate that, Floyd. Okay, so you have a good night.
[01:42:42.840 --> 01:42:48.080]  Okay, good night. Okay, boy, the call board is just really stacking up tonight. We're
[01:42:48.080 --> 01:42:53.520]  about to go to break, but we'll go, we'll take the call. Samuel from Georgia, what's
[01:42:53.520 --> 01:42:54.520]  on your mind tonight?
[01:42:54.520 --> 01:42:56.520]  Yes, how are you doing this evening?
[01:42:56.520 --> 01:42:57.520]  Good.
[01:42:57.520 --> 01:43:03.600]  I'm calling in reference, just trying to find out how to get the, you know, when you want
[01:43:03.600 --> 01:43:08.840]  to file a case against a judge, police, also an attorney, as far as obtaining their bonds
[01:43:08.840 --> 01:43:11.480]  or, you know, their insurance carriers.
[01:43:11.480 --> 01:43:17.760]  Okay, that's going to depend upon what your state law says is the record maintenance agency
[01:43:17.760 --> 01:43:23.320]  for those particular offices. For instance, here in Texas, city officials' records are
[01:43:23.320 --> 01:43:28.800]  kept with the city secretary. County officials are kept with the county clerk. Any state
[01:43:28.800 --> 01:43:36.240]  employee or district judge is kept with the actual secretary of state. So you need to
[01:43:36.240 --> 01:43:40.960]  see within your Texas, your constitution or your state statute where those records are
[01:43:40.960 --> 01:43:41.960]  required to be kept.
[01:43:41.960 --> 01:43:48.200]  And I can tell you that in Texas, individual police officers do not have individual bonds.
[01:43:48.200 --> 01:43:50.760]  There's a bond for the entire police department.
[01:43:50.760 --> 01:43:52.200]  Give your action.
[01:43:52.200 --> 01:43:56.760]  Only, only elected officials have individual bonds for the most part here in Texas. We'll
[01:43:56.760 --> 01:43:57.760]  be right back.
[01:43:57.760 --> 01:43:58.760]  Thanks a lot.
[01:43:58.760 --> 01:44:15.360]  Aerial spray, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens
[01:44:15.360 --> 01:44:22.240]  and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. You have a choice to keep your body clean,
[01:44:22.240 --> 01:44:34.200]  detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. It's odorless and tasteless
[01:44:34.200 --> 01:44:40.800]  and used in any liquid or food. Protect your family now with micro plant powder. Cleaning
[01:44:40.800 --> 01:44:47.920]  out heavy metals, parasites and toxins, order it now for daily intake and stock it now for
[01:44:47.920 --> 01:44:54.920]  long-term storage. Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:18.920 --> 01:45:24.920]  Okay, folks, we are going to try to rampage through your calls as quickly as possible.
[01:45:24.920 --> 01:45:30.920]  We only have one segment left and we have one, two, three, four other callers other
[01:45:30.920 --> 01:45:34.920]  than Samuel. Samuel, do you have anything else for us?
[01:45:34.920 --> 01:45:36.920]  No, I'm through.
[01:45:36.920 --> 01:45:38.920]  Okay, great. All right. Thanks.
[01:45:38.920 --> 01:45:39.920]  Thank you.
[01:45:39.920 --> 01:45:43.920]  Okay. All right. We are going, and folks, I will remind you that when you call in as
[01:45:43.920 --> 01:45:49.920]  a caller, please hang up and if you don't have internet, then use the listener line,
[01:45:49.920 --> 01:45:56.920]  512-485-9010. Don't just stay on the caller board because it confuses us. All right. We
[01:45:56.920 --> 01:46:01.920]  are going to go now to Gerald in Texas. Gerald, what's on your mind tonight?
[01:46:01.920 --> 01:46:08.920]  Eddie, thanks for taking my call. Friday, my son Anthony called you about his deal with
[01:46:08.920 --> 01:46:14.920]  the City of Portland Police and San Patricio County.
[01:46:14.920 --> 01:46:15.920]  Yes.
[01:46:15.920 --> 01:46:16.920]  Lockup.
[01:46:16.920 --> 01:46:18.920]  This is about the iPod or the iPad or something?
[01:46:18.920 --> 01:46:21.920]  No, no. He was in that...
[01:46:21.920 --> 01:46:24.920]  The one with the weapon in his car?
[01:46:24.920 --> 01:46:29.920]  No. No, that's the guy in Corpus, but I do want to talk to you about that offline.
[01:46:29.920 --> 01:46:30.920]  Okay.
[01:46:30.920 --> 01:46:34.920]  No, he was with some friends of his in a garage.
[01:46:34.920 --> 01:46:35.920]  Oh, okay. All right.
[01:46:35.920 --> 01:46:38.920]  Okay, yes. We remember the call now. Okay, go ahead.
[01:46:38.920 --> 01:46:48.920]  Okay. I went over there to get him out and I asked them in no uncertain terms what provisions
[01:46:48.920 --> 01:46:56.920]  they had in place for the public to witness the court proceedings there and they said,
[01:46:56.920 --> 01:47:03.920]  we have no provisions for that. And I said, okay, so by policy, you deny public access
[01:47:03.920 --> 01:47:09.920]  to the courts here? And a couple of them actually said, yes, we do.
[01:47:09.920 --> 01:47:11.920]  Did you record this?
[01:47:11.920 --> 01:47:14.920]  I actually, yeah.
[01:47:14.920 --> 01:47:22.920]  Okay. All right. And who was with you when you asked this? Do you have a confirmation
[01:47:22.920 --> 01:47:24.920]  witness with you?
[01:47:24.920 --> 01:47:26.920]  I had two witnesses.
[01:47:26.920 --> 01:47:27.920]  Okay.
[01:47:27.920 --> 01:47:28.920]  My oldest one...
[01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:33.920]  What needs to be done is you need to file criminal and judicial conduct complaints against
[01:47:33.920 --> 01:47:39.920]  the judge that's in charge of those individuals and that particular court because that is
[01:47:39.920 --> 01:47:43.920]  a direct violation of state constitution and state law.
[01:47:43.920 --> 01:47:55.920]  Right. And this is in the county jail, okay, and so the secretary that sits at the front
[01:47:55.920 --> 01:48:06.920]  desk there, Ms. Sanchez, she says, no, you can't go in there. And so she calls Deputy
[01:48:06.920 --> 01:48:16.920]  Coates out there and he's like 6'5", pushing 400 pounds and the first thing he does is
[01:48:16.920 --> 01:48:27.920]  grab his pistol. Yeah, like he's really paranoid or something. And he said, no, you can't go
[01:48:27.920 --> 01:48:35.920]  back in there. And then he goes and gets his sergeant. And his sergeant didn't want to
[01:48:35.920 --> 01:48:42.920]  touch it. When I asked the question, he skirted all around it and took me down to the secretary
[01:48:42.920 --> 01:48:47.920]  of the judge who was supposed to be doing the hearings that day but apparently wasn't
[01:48:47.920 --> 01:48:55.920]  even there that day. And the secretary got real nervous when I asked her her name and
[01:48:55.920 --> 01:49:03.920]  I start writing stuff down. But on a tort letter, would that be filed with the county
[01:49:03.920 --> 01:49:05.920]  commissioner?
[01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:14.920]  Yes, you can file them with the county commissioner's court as a tort letter because they are responsible
[01:49:14.920 --> 01:49:18.920]  for the oversight of these county employees and that would have been a county judge at
[01:49:18.920 --> 01:49:19.920]  the jail.
[01:49:19.920 --> 01:49:23.920]  Make sure that you send it certified mail return receipt.
[01:49:23.920 --> 01:49:24.920]  Okay.
[01:49:24.920 --> 01:49:29.920]  Yeah. Now, the other thing, folks, for all of you that are listening, including this
[01:49:29.920 --> 01:49:35.920]  gentleman, when you encounter an issue like this in Texas, please, please, please sit
[01:49:35.920 --> 01:49:43.920]  down, write it up in an affidavit, get the affidavit notarized immediately. Everything
[01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:47.920]  you did, who you talked to, the whole nine yards, get it all down and get it notarized.
[01:49:47.920 --> 01:49:52.920]  If you've got witnesses, do the same thing with them. Have them get theirs notarized
[01:49:52.920 --> 01:50:00.920]  and, by all means, immediately send us a copy at Rule of Law Radio. Those are the documents
[01:50:00.920 --> 01:50:05.920]  we want to take to Austin with us so that we can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
[01:50:05.920 --> 01:50:14.920]  that courts in Texas are completely ignoring the Constitution and the law.
[01:50:14.920 --> 01:50:19.920]  We need you to help us with that. This is a perfect example of exactly why we want that
[01:50:19.920 --> 01:50:24.920]  information and how you can provide it to help us get that accomplished, because you,
[01:50:24.920 --> 01:50:28.920]  folks, are what's going to make this turn around, not me, not Randy, not Deborah, not
[01:50:28.920 --> 01:50:32.920]  even all three of us together. It's going to take the people of Texas doing this, and
[01:50:32.920 --> 01:50:38.920]  this is how we've got to do it. So, please, if you would, get you an affidavit of that,
[01:50:38.920 --> 01:50:43.920]  get your witnesses to do the same, and please send us a copy of it.
[01:50:43.920 --> 01:50:45.920]  Okay.
[01:50:45.920 --> 01:50:47.920]  All right. Anything else, Gerald?
[01:50:47.920 --> 01:50:50.920]  Can I talk to you offline?
[01:50:50.920 --> 01:50:57.920]  Not right now. We're on the air. Just send Randy or Eddie or myself an email.
[01:50:57.920 --> 01:50:58.920]  Okay.
[01:50:58.920 --> 01:50:59.920]  Okay. Thank you.
[01:50:59.920 --> 01:51:00.920]  All right. Bye.
[01:51:00.920 --> 01:51:04.920]  Okay. I'm going to try to take as many of your calls as possible, so I'm going to go
[01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:09.920]  to the first-time callers first. Damon from California, thanks for calling in.
[01:51:09.920 --> 01:51:12.920]  What do you have for us tonight? What's on your mind? What's your question?
[01:51:12.920 --> 01:51:18.920]  Hi. I'm actually calling my brother as an arraignment tomorrow for basically what he
[01:51:18.920 --> 01:51:23.920]  was done. He was on the freeway. He was pulled over by CHP. He stated clearly that unless
[01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:28.920]  he has a court order, the document from a judge, that he was not going to be exiting
[01:51:28.920 --> 01:51:34.920]  his vehicle, and sure enough, his superior and their superior, and about four cop cars
[01:51:34.920 --> 01:51:39.920]  later, he basically threatened them with ripping them out of the vehicle, breaking into his
[01:51:39.920 --> 01:51:45.920]  car to rip them out. Basically, they ended up taking him to jail and put him in there
[01:51:45.920 --> 01:51:50.920]  for a little over or just under 48 hours before I went down there and actually bailed him
[01:51:50.920 --> 01:51:55.920]  out. He's got an arraignment for tomorrow. What I noted was that you guys made pretty
[01:51:55.920 --> 01:52:00.920]  clear that the second the cop takes a person to jail without taking him just before a magistrate,
[01:52:00.920 --> 01:52:07.920]  that he's essentially messed up with due process. That's so much so far what I've learned from
[01:52:07.920 --> 01:52:11.920]  listening to you guys' recordings and YouTube videos.
[01:52:11.920 --> 01:52:16.920]  Well, pretty much that's true when you're basing everything on what the common law requirements
[01:52:16.920 --> 01:52:21.920]  are. Be aware, though, that the judges ignore the common law requirements, and they go instead
[01:52:21.920 --> 01:52:26.920]  with the legislative enactments in place of the common law requirements. You need to be
[01:52:26.920 --> 01:52:31.920]  looking to see what the law there in California says that these officers were required to
[01:52:31.920 --> 01:52:34.920]  do the moment they put someone under arrest.
[01:52:34.920 --> 01:52:38.920]  In Texas, the statutory requirements are that they take them directly to a magistrate as
[01:52:38.920 --> 01:52:40.920]  well. It's not just common law here.
[01:52:40.920 --> 01:52:41.920]  Right.
[01:52:41.920 --> 01:52:43.920]  Really. So, it may be the case at this point.
[01:52:43.920 --> 01:52:47.920]  Yeah. They are required to actually take you before a magistrate, but both the officers
[01:52:47.920 --> 01:52:53.920]  and the magistrates are in collusion to make it where the magistrate's time is more important
[01:52:53.920 --> 01:52:58.920]  than the person arrested. So, the officers actually just take you to jail until it's
[01:52:58.920 --> 01:53:04.920]  convenient for the magistrate to see you, instead of taking you to the magistrate directly
[01:53:04.920 --> 01:53:08.920]  so that your inconvenience is minimized.
[01:53:08.920 --> 01:53:14.920]  Right. And what if you clarify that those are the laws that you wish to go by, and basically
[01:53:14.920 --> 01:53:19.920]  essentially they'll do anything they can by wording and showing you documents.
[01:53:19.920 --> 01:53:24.920]  Well, listen, tomorrow is the arraignment, so we don't have to worry about all that yet.
[01:53:24.920 --> 01:53:31.920]  The arraignment is just for the purpose of getting the accused's name and generally taking
[01:53:31.920 --> 01:53:33.920]  a plea.
[01:53:33.920 --> 01:53:34.920]  Okay.
[01:53:34.920 --> 01:53:37.920]  But the problem is, is how is he going to enter a plea when he doesn't understand the
[01:53:37.920 --> 01:53:39.920]  nature of the charges against him?
[01:53:39.920 --> 01:53:41.920]  Well, then he can say that.
[01:53:41.920 --> 01:53:45.920]  Okay. So, when the judge asks for a plea, that would be the first thing I'd state.
[01:53:45.920 --> 01:53:49.920]  Judge, I have not been informed of the nature and cause against me or provided with a copy
[01:53:49.920 --> 01:53:53.920]  of it. As far as I know, you're charging me with murder on the written document because
[01:53:53.920 --> 01:53:54.920]  I haven't seen it.
[01:53:54.920 --> 01:53:59.920]  Irregardless of what you're trying to tell me to my face, I have a right to know the
[01:53:59.920 --> 01:54:00.920]  nature and charge.
[01:54:00.920 --> 01:54:01.920]  What are they?
[01:54:01.920 --> 01:54:04.920]  And I would like it in writing.
[01:54:04.920 --> 01:54:09.920]  Okay. And from that point, you're essentially asking for time to understand those charges
[01:54:09.920 --> 01:54:11.920]  and base the defense.
[01:54:11.920 --> 01:54:14.920]  Exactly. I can't enter a plea because I don't understand what's going on here.
[01:54:14.920 --> 01:54:17.920]  You could ask for a continuance for the arraignment.
[01:54:17.920 --> 01:54:20.920]  Yeah. What did they actually attempt to charge him with?
[01:54:20.920 --> 01:54:25.920]  Basically, I believe it was they tried to charge him with.
[01:54:25.920 --> 01:54:26.920]  It's funny, there's two different things.
[01:54:26.920 --> 01:54:28.920]  Essentially, they started with on the ticket.
[01:54:28.920 --> 01:54:33.920]  Initially, they tried to charge him with the charges.
[01:54:33.920 --> 01:54:38.920]  Essentially, it says that you're disrupting or getting in the way of a cop's duty.
[01:54:38.920 --> 01:54:40.920]  I forget what the actual charge is.
[01:54:40.920 --> 01:54:42.920]  So essentially, you're obstructing an officer.
[01:54:42.920 --> 01:54:46.920]  But basically, they were supposed to come back with charges.
[01:54:46.920 --> 01:54:52.920]  Weeks went by because essentially, I don't know if you're familiar with UCC 308,
[01:54:52.920 --> 01:54:59.920]  previously 207, he basically stated for the record that basically he's out of your jurisdiction.
[01:54:59.920 --> 01:55:00.920]  Okay. Well, hang on.
[01:55:00.920 --> 01:55:01.920]  Wait a minute.
[01:55:01.920 --> 01:55:02.920]  We just wanted to know what the charges are.
[01:55:02.920 --> 01:55:03.920]  Yeah.
[01:55:03.920 --> 01:55:04.920]  Drop all the basiclies and tell me.
[01:55:04.920 --> 01:55:06.920]  What did they charge him with?
[01:55:06.920 --> 01:55:07.920]  Yeah.
[01:55:07.920 --> 01:55:14.920]  And they essentially have since charged him with basically drunk driving, not drunk driving,
[01:55:14.920 --> 01:55:18.920]  but driving while intoxicated as well as-
[01:55:18.920 --> 01:55:19.920]  Well, that's the same thing.
[01:55:19.920 --> 01:55:23.920]  Did they get him on a breathalyzer or something?
[01:55:23.920 --> 01:55:25.920]  No, no evidence whatsoever.
[01:55:25.920 --> 01:55:26.920]  He wouldn't submit to anything.
[01:55:26.920 --> 01:55:27.920]  Okay.
[01:55:27.920 --> 01:55:30.920]  So those are the two charges against him that he's being arraigned for tomorrow?
[01:55:30.920 --> 01:55:31.920]  Exactly.
[01:55:31.920 --> 01:55:32.920]  Okay.
[01:55:32.920 --> 01:55:34.920]  So do what Eddie just said.
[01:55:34.920 --> 01:55:40.920]  He should say that he does not understand the nature or the cause of the charges against him,
[01:55:40.920 --> 01:55:44.920]  and he needs to see it in writing and he wants a continuance for the arraignment.
[01:55:44.920 --> 01:55:46.920]  In other words, reschedule.
[01:55:46.920 --> 01:55:47.920]  Right.
[01:55:47.920 --> 01:55:49.920]  Now, they may or may not do it.
[01:55:49.920 --> 01:55:51.920]  The judge may enter a plea for him.
[01:55:51.920 --> 01:55:53.920]  If the judge decides to enter a plea for him,
[01:55:53.920 --> 01:55:56.920]  there's nothing he can do to stop it, but you could challenge it later.
[01:55:56.920 --> 01:56:02.920]  Well, essentially, couldn't he clarify that the judge is entering a plea for him,
[01:56:02.920 --> 01:56:04.920]  that that right there is unconstitutional?
[01:56:04.920 --> 01:56:07.920]  Well, yeah, but the point is, and it doesn't matter what he says,
[01:56:07.920 --> 01:56:11.920]  if they're going to do it, they're going to do it anyway, and you have to challenge it later.
[01:56:11.920 --> 01:56:12.920]  Gotcha.
[01:56:12.920 --> 01:56:13.920]  Okay.
[01:56:13.920 --> 01:56:16.920]  I think that'll do you for now.
[01:56:16.920 --> 01:56:19.920]  I want to try to get to at least one of the calls before the show ends.
[01:56:19.920 --> 01:56:20.920]  Very good, and we'll be back.
[01:56:20.920 --> 01:56:21.920]  Okay, thanks.
[01:56:21.920 --> 01:56:22.920]  Thank you.
[01:56:22.920 --> 01:56:23.920]  Okay.
[01:56:23.920 --> 01:56:25.920]  We're getting down the wire here, folks.
[01:56:25.920 --> 01:56:27.920]  I want to go to Carl in Texas.
[01:56:27.920 --> 01:56:28.920]  He's been waiting for a long time.
[01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:29.920]  Carl, thanks for calling in.
[01:56:29.920 --> 01:56:30.920]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:56:30.920 --> 01:56:32.920]  We only have a couple minutes left.
[01:56:32.920 --> 01:56:38.920]  Yes, I have a docket of parents here in Austin to where they're basically going to try to get people to plea.
[01:56:38.920 --> 01:56:41.920]  I didn't get my field file soon enough to avoid going to it.
[01:56:41.920 --> 01:56:46.920]  So I asked the judge, I said, so judge, tell me the nature of this court.
[01:56:46.920 --> 01:56:50.920]  I said, is it administrative or is it criminal?
[01:56:50.920 --> 01:56:51.920]  He said, it's criminal.
[01:56:51.920 --> 01:56:54.920]  I said, well, then I should be able to have counsel.
[01:56:54.920 --> 01:57:00.920]  No, you can't have counsel because the penalty doesn't carry jail time.
[01:57:00.920 --> 01:57:07.920]  And then he went on to say that, you know, we can have you back in here four times without giving you a court date.
[01:57:07.920 --> 01:57:14.920]  We'll have you for a court date, but you may not necessarily get a jury trial, and we can reschedule you up to four times.
[01:57:14.920 --> 01:57:16.920]  Okay, that's all a lie.
[01:57:16.920 --> 01:57:18.920]  Right.
[01:57:18.920 --> 01:57:23.920]  Especially the part about the jury trial.
[01:57:23.920 --> 01:57:25.920]  You're entitled to a jury trial.
[01:57:25.920 --> 01:57:30.920]  No matter what they want to do one way or the other, you have the right to a jury trial in a criminal case, period.
[01:57:30.920 --> 01:57:31.920]  Is this for traffic tickets?
[01:57:31.920 --> 01:57:32.920]  Excuse me, it is?
[01:57:32.920 --> 01:57:33.920]  It's for traffic tickets?
[01:57:33.920 --> 01:57:34.920]  Yes, you absolutely.
[01:57:34.920 --> 01:57:37.920]  It is very common in Texas people have jury trials for traffic tickets.
[01:57:37.920 --> 01:57:38.920]  No, no.
[01:57:38.920 --> 01:57:42.920]  I didn't sign off, I didn't waive my jury trial.
[01:57:42.920 --> 01:57:47.920]  I'm having a jury trial, but what they said is, we can bring you back in here four times.
[01:57:47.920 --> 01:57:54.920]  In other words, the first time you come in here, you may not get a trial that day because there's other people that will be here for trial too.
[01:57:54.920 --> 01:57:57.920]  And you may not get picked for trial.
[01:57:57.920 --> 01:58:10.920]  Well, then you would file a motion to dismiss because if they're going to schedule you for a trial and then you show up on the trial day and the other side isn't ready, that's when you file a motion to dismiss.
[01:58:10.920 --> 01:58:12.920]  Make sure it's to dismiss with prejudice.
[01:58:12.920 --> 01:58:14.920]  Dismiss with prejudice, that is.
[01:58:14.920 --> 01:58:21.920]  Okay, listen, Carl, we'll need to have you call back in on Thursday because we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:24.920]  Jason, Deloitte, I'm sorry we didn't get to you.
[01:58:24.920 --> 01:58:26.920]  Please call back in on Thursday night.
[01:58:26.920 --> 01:58:28.920]  This is the rule of law.
[01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:31.920]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[01:58:31.920 --> 01:58:39.920]  We've got Karen Renick from Vote Rescue that's going to be on for a little while at the beginning of the show with us on Thursday to talk about voter fraud issues.
[01:58:39.920 --> 01:58:52.920]  We'll see y'all on Thursday.
[01:59:09.920 --> 01:59:13.920]  I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:13.920 --> 01:59:20.920]  If you are a Chucky, somebody Chucky from me.
[01:59:20.920 --> 01:59:28.920]  If you are a Chucky, Chucky, somebody Chucky from me.
[01:59:28.920 --> 01:59:32.920]  I'm like a stepping razor, wash my sighs.
[01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:36.920]  I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:36.920 --> 01:59:42.920]  Raise the door, watch my side, I'm dangerous, dangerous
[01:59:42.920 --> 01:59:44.920]  If you eat, I'll eat more
[01:59:45.920 --> 01:59:48.920]  If it's a dream, let's move
[01:59:49.920 --> 01:59:52.920]  If it's a dream, let's move
[01:59:52.920 --> 02:00:09.920]  If it's a dream, let's move