ROL_2010-09-13_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:08.880]  At least five people have been killed in the latest U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's North
[00:08.880 --> 00:10.880]  Waziristan Tribal District.
[00:10.880 --> 00:16.960]  U.S. drones have targeted Pakistan's tribal areas at least six times over the past week,
[00:16.960 --> 00:18.680]  killing 33 people.
[00:18.680 --> 00:22.560]  More than 1,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in drone attacks over the
[00:22.560 --> 00:23.960]  past two years.
[00:23.960 --> 00:30.360]  In Iraq Sunday, three people were killed after U.S. military units fired on insurgents in
[00:30.360 --> 00:32.240]  support of Iraqi troops.
[00:32.240 --> 00:37.200]  It was the second such episode since the U.S. declared an end to combat operations two weeks
[00:37.200 --> 00:38.340]  ago.
[00:38.340 --> 00:44.080]  After Iraqi forces asked for help, U.S. helicopters fired rockets at the snipers, and U.S. soldiers
[00:44.080 --> 00:48.160]  helped Iraqi troops defuse at least two bombs.
[00:48.160 --> 00:53.600]  Newsweek reported Friday WikiLeaks plans to release new files about the Iraq War.
[00:53.600 --> 00:59.040]  In July, the website published 77,000 Afghan war documents and now says it will release
[00:59.040 --> 01:01.920]  another 15,000 documents.
[01:01.920 --> 01:07.680]  Ian Overton, editor of the UK Bureau of Investigative Journalism, says the new material constitutes
[01:07.680 --> 01:12.200]  the biggest leak of military intelligence ever.
[01:12.200 --> 01:17.040]  Senior Obama administration officials have concluded they need to step back from promoting
[01:17.040 --> 01:22.440]  U.S.-style law enforcement as the main means of fighting corruption in Afghanistan because
[01:22.440 --> 01:26.360]  of the rift it has caused with President Hamid Karzai.
[01:26.360 --> 01:30.720]  Officials said there was a growing consensus key corruption cases against people in Karzai's
[01:30.720 --> 01:35.960]  government should be resolved with face-saving compromises behind closed doors instead of
[01:35.960 --> 01:37.760]  public prosecutions.
[01:37.760 --> 01:43.080]  Relations between Karzai and the U.S. have nosedived since the arrest of one of his palace
[01:43.080 --> 01:46.240]  aides on bribery charges six weeks ago.
[01:46.240 --> 01:51.800]  The arrest by an Afghan anti-craft task force supported by the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement
[01:51.800 --> 01:55.280]  agencies proved embarrassing for the Afghan leader.
[01:55.280 --> 02:00.880]  Karzai responded by ordering the aide released and instructing his justice ministry to impose
[02:00.880 --> 02:08.200]  new rules limiting international involvement in corruption investigations.
[02:08.200 --> 02:12.760]  Barack Obama has found another reason for closing the prison camps for suspected terrorists
[02:12.760 --> 02:13.760]  at Guantanamo.
[02:13.760 --> 02:15.160]  It's too expensive.
[02:15.160 --> 02:20.480]  Obama said Friday, the cost of holding folks in Guantanamo is massively higher than in
[02:20.480 --> 02:25.520]  holding them in a super-max, maximum security prison here in the United States.
[02:25.520 --> 02:29.720]  The Pentagon reports the annual cost of running the prison camps staffed by U.S. military
[02:29.720 --> 02:36.640]  troops at $116 million, with a current population of 176 detainees.
[02:36.640 --> 02:39.760]  That's more than $650,000 each.
[02:39.760 --> 02:45.520]  In contrast, it costs $5500 a year to keep a prisoner in federal detention.
[02:45.520 --> 02:50.960]  Soon after taking office, Obama signed an executive order setting a one-year deadline to empty
[02:50.960 --> 02:51.960]  the prison camps.
[02:51.960 --> 02:56.920]  However, Congress blocked White House efforts to buy an Illinois federal prison and turn
[02:56.920 --> 02:59.040]  it into a super-max-style facility.
[02:59.040 --> 03:29.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[03:29.000 --> 03:49.560]  Thank you.
[03:59.000 --> 04:18.200]  All right, folks. Good evening. This is Rule of Law Radio. I am Eddie Craig. I'm here with
[04:18.200 --> 04:23.640]  Deborah Stevens. Tonight is Monday night, which is our traffic night. And I've got some
[04:23.640 --> 04:28.520]  material I want to present to you tonight, dealing specifically with driver's license
[04:28.520 --> 04:37.160]  and attorneys in general here in Texas. The first thing I want to go over is Chapter 522
[04:37.160 --> 04:45.400]  of the Transportation Code, specifically Section 522.002. It's a very short, it's titled
[04:45.400 --> 04:52.200]  Construction, and this is how it reads, this chapter is a remedial law that shall be liberally
[04:52.200 --> 04:58.600]  construed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. Now, the first question to be
[04:58.600 --> 05:05.320]  asking is, what is a remedial law? Well, let me tell you what Black's Law 6th Edition on
[05:05.320 --> 05:12.280]  page 1293 says the definition of a remedial law or statute is. Now, this is kind of lengthy,
[05:12.280 --> 05:17.480]  but please bear with me because it's going to make sense when I'm done. Remedial laws
[05:17.480 --> 05:23.880]  or statutes, legislation providing means or method whereby causes of action may be
[05:25.400 --> 05:32.360]  effectuated, wrongs addressed, and relief obtained is remedial. Statutes which afford
[05:32.360 --> 05:37.880]  a remedy or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for enforcement of rights
[05:37.880 --> 05:44.200]  and redress of injuries. Those statutes which pertain to or affect a remedy as distinguished
[05:44.200 --> 05:50.840]  from those which affect or modify a substantive right or duty. Those designed to correct
[05:50.840 --> 05:56.440]  imperfections in the prior law and to cure a wrong where an aggrieved party had an ineffective
[05:56.440 --> 06:04.200]  remedy under existing statutes. One of that intends to afford a private remedy to a person
[06:04.200 --> 06:10.360]  injured by the wrongful act. That which is designed to correct an existing law, redress
[06:10.360 --> 06:17.240]  an existing grievance, or introduce regulations conducive to the public good. A statute giving
[06:17.240 --> 06:25.080]  a party a mode of remedy for a wrong where he had none or a different one before. One
[06:25.080 --> 06:30.440]  which furnishes new remedy to claimant who has suffered injustice due to technical requirements
[06:30.440 --> 06:36.680]  of general statute. The underlying test to be applied in determining whether a statute
[06:36.680 --> 06:44.120]  is penal or remedial is whether it primarily seeks to impose an arbitrary deterring punishment
[06:44.120 --> 06:49.240]  upon any who might commit a wrong against the public by a violation of the requirements
[06:49.240 --> 06:54.440]  of the statute or whether the purpose is to measure and define the damage which may accrue
[06:54.440 --> 07:00.600]  to an individual or class of individuals as just and reasonable compensation for a possible
[07:00.600 --> 07:06.280]  loss having a casual connection with the breach of the legal obligation owing under the statute
[07:06.280 --> 07:17.160]  to such individual or class. Now let's look at remedy. The means by which a right is enforced
[07:17.160 --> 07:23.640]  or the violation of a right is prevented, redressed, or compensated. The means employed
[07:23.640 --> 07:30.120]  to enforce a right or redress an injury as distinguished from right which is a well-founded
[07:30.120 --> 07:37.000]  or acknowledged claim. The rights given to a party by law or by contract which that party
[07:37.000 --> 07:42.840]  may exercise upon a default by the other contracting party or upon the commission of a wrong, meaning
[07:42.840 --> 07:50.760]  a tort, by another party. Now let's take a quick look at remedial. Affording a remedy
[07:50.760 --> 07:57.880]  giving means of obtaining redress of the nature of a remedy intended to remedy wrongs and
[07:57.880 --> 08:04.120]  abuses, abate faults, or supply defects pertaining to or affecting remedy as distinguished from
[08:04.120 --> 08:10.680]  that which affects or modifies the right. Now as we all know if you've ever attended
[08:10.680 --> 08:15.880]  this seminar or listened to me very much, Chapter 522 of the Texas Transportation Code
[08:15.880 --> 08:26.040]  as a chapter is specifically titled Commercial Drivers Licenses. That's all that Chapter 522
[08:26.040 --> 08:34.520]  supposedly deals with. However, the premise has been that Chapter 522 deals with the issuance
[08:34.520 --> 08:42.600]  of those license, but 522.002 says that is not the case. It specifically states that
[08:42.600 --> 08:50.600]  this entire chapter is remedial law, meaning it is intended to provide a remedy under existing
[08:50.600 --> 08:57.720]  law for a wrong that has been perpetrated according to the offenses it names. Now consider
[08:57.720 --> 09:05.560]  that. If that is in effect how this is to be read and interpreted as it's written, that
[09:05.560 --> 09:13.480]  means there is no line between Chapter 521.001 licenses and 522.002 licenses. There is no
[09:13.480 --> 09:20.600]  distinguishing characteristics whatsoever. They are absolutely one and the same. There
[09:20.600 --> 09:25.880]  is no difference. The Commercial Drivers License by default along with the other arguments
[09:25.880 --> 09:35.400]  I presented on that is absolutely the same license in 521 as it is in 522. Now how can
[09:35.400 --> 09:43.400]  we verify that? Well there's a couple of different ways. In Chapter 522.003 sub item 5 we have
[09:43.400 --> 09:48.840]  the definition of what a commercial motor vehicle is, and this is how it reads. Commercial
[09:48.840 --> 09:54.760]  motor vehicle means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to transport passengers
[09:54.760 --> 10:03.000]  or property that A, has a gross combination weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more, including
[10:03.000 --> 10:08.920]  a towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. B, has a gross
[10:08.920 --> 10:17.480]  vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds. C, is designed to transport 16 or more passengers
[10:17.480 --> 10:22.840]  including the driver. Or D, is transporting hazardous materials and is required to be
[10:22.840 --> 10:33.160]  placarded under 49 CFR part 172 sub part F. And six controls substance means a substance
[10:33.160 --> 10:39.960]  classified as a control substance under. Now this in effect is telling us what the vehicles
[10:39.960 --> 10:45.800]  are that are commercial motor vehicles. What their rate ratings are, what their weight
[10:45.800 --> 10:53.400]  capacities are, so on and so forth. It also tells us that they are transporting hazardous
[10:53.400 --> 11:00.280]  materials and is required to be placarded under 49 CFR. Well there's our link to the
[11:00.280 --> 11:06.040]  Code of Federal Regulations for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in 522. But we knew
[11:06.040 --> 11:11.080]  that was going to be there because it specifically says it's commercial motor vehicles, right?
[11:12.520 --> 11:17.640]  Well let's remember what the definition of commercial motor vehicle is and let's take
[11:17.640 --> 11:22.760]  a look at something else here real quick. I want to read to you in chapter 521 what
[11:22.760 --> 11:33.480]  classifications you are allowed to operate using these licenses, okay? Let me see if
[11:33.480 --> 11:44.280]  I can find the particular section here. Let's see. Now on these, the issue with these licenses
[11:44.280 --> 11:49.160]  has always been that we believe that they're different. Law enforcement acts as if they're
[11:49.160 --> 11:55.880]  different. They are not. They are in fact one in the same. The list of vehicles as we've
[11:55.880 --> 12:04.200]  also seen in the seminar is exactly the same under 521 as it is under 522, okay? There
[12:04.200 --> 12:14.520]  is no difference. Okay. License to be carried and exhibited on demand, okay? You'll like
[12:14.520 --> 12:20.520]  this part. Criminal penalty. This is where they charge you for not giving them your license
[12:20.520 --> 12:28.520]  when they demand it. A person required to hold a license under section 521.021, which
[12:28.520 --> 12:33.080]  is the section they should be charging you under if they charge you for operating without
[12:33.080 --> 12:41.000]  a license, shall one, having the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle,
[12:41.000 --> 12:46.440]  the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated, okay? The
[12:46.440 --> 12:53.480]  class of driver's license that is appropriate for the type of vehicle operated, and two,
[12:53.480 --> 13:01.800]  display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer, okay? So this
[13:01.800 --> 13:07.080]  goes into it and tells you, you got to have the license, and 521 specifically says license
[13:07.080 --> 13:13.800]  required. A person other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter may not operate
[13:13.800 --> 13:18.280]  a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license
[13:18.280 --> 13:26.040]  issued under this chapter. Now notice what is missing in 522 is a requirement that you
[13:26.040 --> 13:34.440]  possess a commercial driver's license issued under that chapter. 521 removes all doubt
[13:34.440 --> 13:43.960]  in 521.021 that the license can only be issued under 521. It cannot and is not issued under
[13:43.960 --> 13:56.360]  522, okay? Because it's not issued under 522, that ties 521 and 522 together. It's all commercial
[13:56.360 --> 14:04.280]  as we've seen many times before, okay? Now, let's get into the definition of driver's license
[14:04.280 --> 14:11.640]  and you'll see what I'm talking about. Driver's license under 521.001 definitions, subsection
[14:11.640 --> 14:17.880]  A, sub item three. Driver's license means an authorization issued by the department for
[14:17.880 --> 14:23.960]  the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes A, a temporary license or instruction
[14:23.960 --> 14:32.600]  permit and B, an occupational license. We all know that. Now let's look at four. Gross combination
[14:32.600 --> 14:40.040]  weight rating has the meaning assigned by section 522.003, which is what I read to you.
[14:40.040 --> 14:52.920]  Gross vehicle weight rating in under five has the same definition as in section 522.003. Also,
[14:52.920 --> 14:59.720]  license means an authorization to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted
[14:59.720 --> 15:06.120]  by the laws of this state. The term includes A, a driver's license, which we just saw is
[15:06.120 --> 15:12.120]  a temporary license or instruction permit and an occupational license, okay? Those are
[15:12.120 --> 15:19.640]  the only things it applies to. And B, the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle
[15:19.640 --> 15:25.400]  regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license and C, a non-residence operating
[15:25.400 --> 15:33.560]  privilege, okay? Now, if we keep going through this, we're going to see, as we have many
[15:33.560 --> 15:39.480]  times at the seminars and such and on the show here, that these are directly tied as
[15:39.480 --> 15:45.640]  a commercial requirement. This is how you show that the operation of a motor vehicle
[15:45.640 --> 15:51.880]  requiring such a license, which can only be required of those engaging in commerce simply
[15:51.880 --> 16:00.360]  by using 521.00 and 522.00 to absolutely show that, then the only correlation that's left
[16:00.360 --> 16:06.280]  to be had is what is the license actually being issued for? Is it being issued for engaging
[16:06.280 --> 16:14.120]  in a particular action or regulated activity? Or is it specifically for the issuance and
[16:14.120 --> 16:22.600]  operation of operating a motor vehicle while that motor vehicle is being used in that occupation
[16:22.600 --> 16:28.520]  or activity that the state has the authority to regulate? Either way, it all boils down
[16:28.520 --> 16:34.520]  to the same thing, okay? We're about to take a break. If you folks will hang on, I'll get
[16:34.520 --> 16:39.240]  into the other table here in just a second. This is Ruin the Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah
[16:39.240 --> 17:04.600]  Stevens. We will be right back. Please hold on. Capital Coin and Bullion is your local
[17:04.600 --> 17:09.400]  source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin supplies in the Austin metro area. We also ship
[17:09.400 --> 17:13.880]  worldwide. We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your
[17:13.880 --> 17:19.400]  coin and metal purchases. We buy, sell, trade, and confine rare coins, gold, and silver coin
[17:19.400 --> 17:23.720]  collections, precious metals, and scrap gold. We purchase and sell gold and jewelry items.
[17:23.720 --> 17:28.920]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. We are located at 5448 Burnett Road,
[17:28.920 --> 17:34.680]  Suite 3 at the corner of Burnett and Shulmont, and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6,
[17:34.680 --> 17:38.760]  Saturdays, 10 to 5. You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call
[17:38.760 --> 17:45.960]  512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask for a chat and say you heard about us on Ruin the Law Radio
[17:45.960 --> 17:50.600]  or Texas Liberty Radio. That's Capital Coin and Bullion at the corner of Burnett and Shulmont,
[17:50.600 --> 17:55.640]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 5. That's Capital Coin and
[17:55.640 --> 17:59.640]  Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:25.640 --> 18:36.920]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens, Rule of Law Radio,
[18:36.920 --> 18:43.320]  and we are talking about the Texas driver's licenses. And now, let's look at subchapter D,
[18:43.960 --> 18:51.240]  classification of driver's licenses, which is in chapter 521, starting at section 521.081.
[18:51.240 --> 18:56.680]  Now, this is where it gives you the classifications of the individual licenses issued
[18:56.680 --> 19:05.480]  under 521. Let's see if any of this sounds familiar. Class A license. A Class A driver's
[19:05.480 --> 19:11.880]  license authorizes the holder of the license to operate, one, a vehicle with a gross vehicle
[19:11.880 --> 19:21.640]  weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more, or, two, a combination of vehicles that has a gross
[19:21.640 --> 19:28.440]  combination weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more if the gross vehicle weight rating of any
[19:28.440 --> 19:36.920]  vehicle or vehicle in tow is more than 10,000 pounds. Class B license. A Class B driver's
[19:36.920 --> 19:42.600]  license authorizes the holder of the license to operate, one, a vehicle with a gross vehicle
[19:42.600 --> 19:49.480]  weight rating that is more than 26,000 pounds, two, a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating
[19:49.480 --> 19:56.600]  of 26,000 pounds or more towing, A, a vehicle other than a farm trailer with a gross vehicle
[19:56.600 --> 20:02.680]  weight rating that is not more than 10,000 pounds, or, B, a farm trailer with a gross
[20:02.680 --> 20:08.600]  vehicle weight rating that is not more than 20,000 pounds, three, a bus with a seating
[20:08.600 --> 20:17.800]  capacity of 24 passengers or more. Now, wait a minute. If these are the types of motor
[20:17.800 --> 20:25.720]  vehicles that you can operate with a 521 issued license, why does it sound exactly the same
[20:25.720 --> 20:33.080]  as the licenses issued under 522? Why are the vehicles identical? Why are the weight
[20:33.080 --> 20:40.760]  capacities identical? Why is the passenger capacity identical? Because they're the same
[20:40.760 --> 20:51.160]  license, folks. There is no difference. They are commercial only. That's all they've ever been.
[20:51.160 --> 20:56.760]  Now, there are several folks I'm working on cases with for traffic offenses, and one of
[20:56.760 --> 21:03.080]  them I was talking to today, and I was talking to him about the owes of office that the public
[21:03.080 --> 21:09.160]  servants are required to have. Now, I'm going to switch gears and subjects here for a minute,
[21:09.960 --> 21:15.640]  and I want you to see if you can follow along with what we're dealing with here, okay? Now,
[21:15.640 --> 21:23.640]  the Texas Constitution in Article 16 says the following. Section 1, official oath, subsection
[21:23.640 --> 21:34.920]  A, all elected and appointed officers, okay? Now, it does not say state, local, county. It says
[21:34.920 --> 21:46.680]  state, local, county. It says all elected and appointed officers. Before they enter upon the
[21:46.680 --> 21:56.680]  duties of their offices, shall, meaning they must, that creates a duty upon them, shall take the
[21:56.680 --> 22:03.400]  following oath or affirmation, and then it gives the oath that the Texas Constitution says they
[22:03.400 --> 22:14.120]  must take. Then you have subsection B, all elected or appointed officers. Again, doesn't matter if
[22:14.120 --> 22:23.880]  they are federal or state, local or county, all elected or appointed officers. Before taking the
[22:23.880 --> 22:30.440]  oath or affirmation of office prescribed by this section, okay, before they take the oath or
[22:30.440 --> 22:37.400]  affirmation of office, which was what we saw up in A, and entering upon the duties of office,
[22:38.600 --> 22:45.880]  shall, there's that duty again, shall subscribe to the following statement. Subscribe means swear
[22:45.880 --> 22:53.880]  and sign or affirm and sign, and this is known as, commonly, the anti-bribery statement,
[22:53.880 --> 23:05.320]  okay? But it's also called in the Constitution, the officer statement, okay? Now, C, members of
[23:05.320 --> 23:12.840]  the legislature, the secretary of state, and all other elected and appointed state officers shall
[23:12.840 --> 23:19.640]  file the signed statement required by subsection B of this section with the secretary of state
[23:19.640 --> 23:25.880]  before taking the oath or affirmation of office prescribed by subsection A of this section.
[23:25.880 --> 23:31.800]  Now, get this. The Constitution says that they must file the anti-bribery statement
[23:31.800 --> 23:40.600]  with the secretary of state at the state level for state offices before they can even take the oath
[23:40.600 --> 23:49.960]  of office. You get that? So, my first question becomes, where do the courts of this state
[23:49.960 --> 23:56.520]  determine that when these officers have an anti-bribery statement and an oath of office
[23:56.520 --> 24:04.760]  signed on the same day at the same time, that act was constitutional? Because right here,
[24:04.760 --> 24:11.000]  the Constitution says that they must file the anti-bribery statement before they even take
[24:11.000 --> 24:17.080]  the oath of office, okay? Let's go a little bit further.
[24:18.920 --> 24:25.960]  All other officers shall retain the signed statement required by subsection B of this section
[24:25.960 --> 24:33.640]  with the official records of the office. Well, that's it. That's all of section one of article
[24:33.640 --> 24:42.680]  16 regarding oaths of office and anti-bribery statements. Now, as I said, there is no distinction
[24:42.680 --> 24:49.800]  over whether it's state, local or county. This stipulates that every officer, whether elected
[24:49.800 --> 24:58.120]  or appointed, must do this. Where is the one for the city attorneys who act as prosecutors in these
[24:58.120 --> 25:05.000]  municipal courts? Where's the ones for the judges or the prosecuting attorneys at the county or
[25:05.000 --> 25:11.880]  the district attorney level that never filed an oath of office? And since the Constitution
[25:11.880 --> 25:18.680]  specifically says that this act must be done before they assume the duties of their office,
[25:19.640 --> 25:26.120]  what makes these judges that rule upon this when it's brought out say,
[25:26.120 --> 25:30.520]  oh, no, it doesn't have to be done that way? What gives them the authority to do that?
[25:30.520 --> 25:36.520]  And how in the world do any of these officials think that attempting to retroactively sign one
[25:36.520 --> 25:44.680]  of these documents or to sign one now and just pick up as if everything's okay is legal or lawful?
[25:46.200 --> 25:50.680]  Because it certainly doesn't jive with what the Constitution said they're required to do.
[25:50.680 --> 25:56.600]  If the public servant failed in doing what he was required to do before he could assume the duties
[25:56.600 --> 26:07.400]  of office, he is in office illegally. He cannot fix that because the mandate was there that it be
[26:07.400 --> 26:13.640]  done before he ever begins to have the duties placed upon him to operate within the powers of his
[26:13.640 --> 26:20.760]  office. Because let's look at what happens if that's not the way it works. If they say, oh,
[26:20.760 --> 26:25.560]  no, we don't have to worry about that. Just let him sign a statement and go ahead. Well, pardon me,
[26:25.560 --> 26:35.560]  judge, moron. But how exactly is it constitutionally acceptable and legal for you to take a judge or
[26:35.560 --> 26:43.560]  prosecuting attorney that did not abide by the Constitution say that this act must be done before
[26:43.560 --> 26:48.360]  a year and a half after they started the duties of their office, they finally take their oath
[26:49.320 --> 26:55.000]  and you're going to gloss over every illegal conviction and trial they have presided or
[26:55.000 --> 27:04.280]  prosecuted over since the day they started work? How are you going to fix the unconstitutional
[27:04.280 --> 27:09.800]  acts by these public officials for the people that they abused their power over when they acted
[27:09.800 --> 27:16.040]  without lawful authority? You're just going to gloss over those convictions and those prosecutions
[27:16.040 --> 27:22.920]  and say they don't matter? You're going to say that, oh, it's okay, they have been found guilty
[27:22.920 --> 27:34.920]  anyway? Who gave any of you that right? Who gave any of you that power? It certainly was not the
[27:34.920 --> 27:43.320]  people, the Constitution says so. The Constitution says you will do it this way. It creates a duty
[27:43.320 --> 27:51.800]  for you to do it this way. Why aren't you doing it this way? And why aren't you punishing those
[27:51.800 --> 27:56.280]  that usurp the powers of an office that they do not officially hold?
[27:56.280 --> 28:04.760]  How corrupt do you have to be to see that what you're doing is wrong? I'm not corrupt and I can
[28:04.760 --> 28:09.160]  see it. I guarantee you the folks that listen to this show can go look at this and they can see it.
[28:11.320 --> 28:17.320]  Why is it those serving in public office can't see it? Oh, wait, I know, because they're profiting
[28:17.320 --> 28:24.440]  from their illegal acts. So it's okay for them to turn a blind eye. They're profiting from their
[28:24.440 --> 28:31.080]  illegal acts. It's okay for them to turn a blind eye. This has got to stop, folks. It really,
[28:31.080 --> 28:36.040]  really does. But now that we know what the oaths of office require, let's look at something
[28:36.040 --> 28:43.080]  interesting here. I want to take you over to Chapter 81 of the Government Code here in Texas.
[28:44.280 --> 28:53.400]  Chapter 81.001, short title. This chapter may be cited as the State Bar Act. This is where our
[28:53.400 --> 28:59.160]  Bar Association comes from here in Texas. Now let's talk some real corruption, folks.
[29:01.240 --> 29:10.200]  All right. Now let's see. The State Bar is subject to the Sunset Act, according to 81.003.
[29:11.320 --> 29:18.840]  But let's go to sub-Chapter B, Administrative Provisions, Section 81.011, General Powers.
[29:18.840 --> 29:29.080]  Sub-Section A. The State Bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency
[29:29.720 --> 29:37.160]  of the Judicial Department of Government. Get that? The Judicial Department of Government.
[29:38.520 --> 29:42.360]  All right. We're going on a break. We'll pick up on the other side. This is Eddie Craig,
[29:42.360 --> 29:47.480]  Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. Y'all hang in there. We got just a little bit further to go with
[29:47.480 --> 29:50.280]  this, and we'll be right back after this break.
[30:17.480 --> 30:44.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I think that's just plain creepy. I'll say more in a moment.
[30:47.480 --> 31:16.920]  Hey, Gmail users. Ever seen an online ad that
[31:16.920 --> 31:21.080]  exactly matches something you discussed in a private email? It's no coincidence.
[31:21.080 --> 31:26.920]  See, Google offers you Gmail about a $40 annual value for free so they can get inside your head
[31:26.920 --> 31:31.400]  and figure out your interests by reading your mail. They say reading every message you send
[31:31.400 --> 31:36.600]  or receive helps them better target ads, but most people have no idea that Google keeps a record of
[31:36.600 --> 31:41.320]  their email content, and they'd be pretty upset if they knew. When Gmail was first released,
[31:41.320 --> 31:46.200]  dozens of privacy experts asked Google to stay out of people's private correspondence.
[31:46.200 --> 31:50.360]  Unfortunately, Google ignored our request. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:50.360 --> 32:16.760]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:20.600 --> 32:25.080]  Folks, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio. This is Eddie Craig with Ever Stevens.
[32:25.880 --> 32:30.760]  We're going over the State Bar Act. Now, folks, we will be opening up the phone lines here
[32:30.760 --> 32:39.080]  very shortly. The call-in number is 512-646-1984. Please go ahead and get ready to start calling in
[32:39.080 --> 32:44.600]  if you have any questions or comments you want to make. We won't be stacked up at the end of the
[32:44.600 --> 32:48.760]  show trying to get everybody answered and not make it. Please go ahead and get ready to start
[32:48.760 --> 32:53.640]  calling in. We'll open up either by the end of this segment or immediately at the end of this
[32:53.640 --> 33:03.160]  segment. Now, I want to read this one more time to you here. 81.011 General Powers of the Texas
[33:03.160 --> 33:10.280]  Government Code. A, the State Bar is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the
[33:10.280 --> 33:18.120]  Judicial Department of Government. You get that? A judicial of the Judicial Department of the
[33:18.120 --> 33:27.400]  Government. Okay? Now, let's see what another article says here. Article 2, the powers of
[33:27.400 --> 33:35.080]  government. Section 1, division of powers, three separate departments, exercise of power properly
[33:35.080 --> 33:40.920]  attached to other departments. The powers of the government of the State of Texas shall be divided
[33:40.920 --> 33:47.880]  into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy,
[33:47.880 --> 33:55.320]  magistracy to wit, those which are legislative to one, those which are executive to another,
[33:55.320 --> 34:01.560]  and those which are judicial to another. And no person or collection of persons,
[34:02.200 --> 34:09.320]  being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the
[34:09.320 --> 34:17.240]  others except in the instances herein expressly permitted. Well, guess what? There are no instances
[34:17.240 --> 34:26.360]  herein expressly permitted. Now, let's look at this again. The State Bar is a public corporation
[34:26.360 --> 34:32.680]  and an administrative agency of the Judicial Department of Government. Well, this creates
[34:32.680 --> 34:41.720]  two problems for every attorney in the State of Texas that I can tell. Is an attorney,
[34:41.720 --> 34:47.960]  Deborah, let's take this as a Q&A thing, is an attorney, whether he is prosecuting or
[34:47.960 --> 34:51.560]  acting on behalf of the defense, an officer of the court?
[34:56.040 --> 35:02.120]  From what I've learned, the answer is yes. Okay. If an attorney is an officer of the court,
[35:02.120 --> 35:06.600]  they're an officer of the judicial branch of government if they have a bar card, aren't they?
[35:06.600 --> 35:12.760]  That's my understanding so far. If they're required to have this bar card,
[35:12.760 --> 35:18.280]  folks, they are judicial officers. Ask any one of them if they're an officer of the court.
[35:18.280 --> 35:26.120]  They will tell you yes. So, let's get into the two problems. The first problem is
[35:26.120 --> 35:32.600]  that completely negates the ability of any lawyer in Texas to serve either in the legislature
[35:32.600 --> 35:40.360]  or in the executive branches of government. Remember, the Constitution says that no person
[35:40.360 --> 35:47.880]  or collection of persons being of one of these departments. It doesn't say exercising one power
[35:47.880 --> 35:53.720]  at this time and one power at another. It says that they are being of one of these departments.
[35:53.720 --> 36:02.760]  They are not allowed to exercise the power and authority of any other branch or office, period.
[36:04.760 --> 36:09.240]  So, lawyers cannot serve in the executive or the legislative without violating
[36:09.240 --> 36:17.720]  Article 2, Division of Powers. Now, let's look at the second problem, which I think,
[36:17.720 --> 36:23.240]  after the epiphany I had on this today, could be even a bigger issue for them.
[36:24.360 --> 36:31.320]  As an elected or appointed officer, and they get appointment by the bar card,
[36:31.320 --> 36:39.880]  do they not? They are appointed to the bar. Where is their oath of office an anti-bribery statement?
[36:39.880 --> 36:49.240]  Where is their oath of office an anti-bribery statement? Every lawyer in Texas has to have one.
[36:50.760 --> 36:55.480]  Where are they? Why don't they have them?
[36:55.480 --> 37:04.760]  As you can see, this creates a very big, sudden problem, a black hole of lawyers,
[37:04.760 --> 37:11.480]  people versed in the legal system, because every one of them is acting in a public capacity
[37:11.480 --> 37:18.440]  by the acceptance of that bar card, and they have yet to qualify for their office,
[37:18.440 --> 37:27.800]  because they have not filed the constitutionally required oaths, an anti-bribery statement.
[37:28.840 --> 37:35.880]  So, folks, when people give you a crooked lawyer joke, understand just how truthful it really is.
[37:37.320 --> 37:43.320]  If you think I'm the first one to have discovered this, that no lawyer or judge in Texas has
[37:43.320 --> 37:51.880]  considered this, I would believe you're sadly mistaken. I mean, I'm not that smart. I can't be
[37:51.880 --> 37:56.280]  the only one that ever found this. I can't be the only one that ever arranged these blocks in this
[37:56.280 --> 38:05.080]  pattern and saw it for what it was. Somebody in this system, probably a lot of somebody,
[38:05.080 --> 38:13.640]  knows what's going on, and that's why these court judges have acted the way they have to protect
[38:13.640 --> 38:21.320]  their fellow criminals. They know they're acting completely in violation of law and constitution,
[38:21.320 --> 38:27.080]  and they don't care, because they control the system in all three cases.
[38:27.080 --> 38:36.520]  They're completely in violation of law and constitution, and they don't care, because they control the system in all three branches of government.
[38:39.160 --> 38:45.560]  Why do you think that if the judges who illegally un-unconstitutionally gave themselves
[38:45.560 --> 38:52.840]  and other public servants immunity from prosecution for acts that are violative of people's rights,
[38:52.840 --> 38:57.320]  if they didn't control the legislative branch of government, don't you think somebody would have
[38:57.320 --> 39:03.720]  been elected that would have introduced a bill to remove that alleged immunity that the courts gave to themselves?
[39:07.240 --> 39:09.640]  Why do you think that's never happened?
[39:13.160 --> 39:18.760]  Because they control all three branches of government. You've got the state attorney general
[39:18.760 --> 39:27.640]  in the executive branch, the executive branch, who protects the other crooks by creating attorney
[39:27.640 --> 39:34.680]  general's opinions on what you can and cannot do when it comes to prosecuting these guys, or holding them liable.
[39:37.000 --> 39:39.720]  It's a quid pro quo game with these guys.
[39:39.720 --> 39:45.640]  How many of them do you have operating in the executive branch, or the legislative branch, writing the laws?
[39:45.640 --> 39:53.480]  The chairman of the judicial committee that writes the code of criminal procedure and the penal code is a lawyer.
[39:57.480 --> 40:05.240]  I guarantee you if you take a head count, you would be sadly depressed about how many of these guys have been
[40:05.240 --> 40:12.600]  elected, you would be sadly depressed about how many lawyers are in the legislative side of government.
[40:13.720 --> 40:20.280]  Now why would a well-paid, usually pretty wealthy and well-off individual in the form of a lawyer
[40:21.080 --> 40:27.320]  want to serve in the Texas legislature when the Texas legislators don't receive pay?
[40:27.320 --> 40:35.000]  All they get is per diem for travel expenses to and from, and some expense allowances, but they don't get a paycheck.
[40:36.040 --> 40:44.840]  Why would highly powerful, well-to-do people want to serve in a non-paying position of that type?
[40:45.880 --> 40:53.560]  I can only think of two valid reasons, and I can guarantee you the second one normally does not apply.
[40:53.560 --> 41:04.440]  The first one is so that they can control the laws to ensure their future enrichment, is the easiest way to put it.
[41:05.880 --> 41:12.120]  They will write the laws, and they will construct the acts, then after they get the laws passed,
[41:12.680 --> 41:18.840]  they already have all the inside to do and information on what the law does and does not require.
[41:18.840 --> 41:26.600]  Now they can go out and invest their money in, or purchase, or create their own businesses
[41:26.600 --> 41:32.840]  that can take full advantage of the laws they constructed.
[41:36.120 --> 41:45.800]  Talk about the perfect racket. They write the laws so they know exactly what the law does not cover and what it does cover.
[41:45.800 --> 41:56.680]  They also know how to maximize the benefits of the laws to suit the businesses they helped create or gave free reign to, or didn't regulate at all.
[41:58.760 --> 42:03.880]  Or they write laws to benefit their own businesses that they've already set up.
[42:03.880 --> 42:04.840]  Exactly.
[42:05.880 --> 42:08.760]  And you know, Eddie, you bring up a really good point here.
[42:08.760 --> 42:18.600]  The fact that the legislators are not reimbursed is just a prescription for disaster, to coin one of Randy's phrases,
[42:18.600 --> 42:33.000]  because what that means is that only the very powerful and independently wealthy can afford to even run for office or hope to ever be a legislator,
[42:33.000 --> 42:39.000]  because most of us have to work for a living.
[42:39.000 --> 42:49.000]  Most of us are not independently wealthy where we can afford to donate a year of our time to public service without pay.
[42:49.000 --> 42:59.000]  That's why so many people can't sit on a grand jury, because you got to go three days a week all day for about three months.
[42:59.000 --> 43:05.000]  But to donate a year of your time, here in Texas, that's even more over the top.
[43:05.000 --> 43:15.000]  So all that does is lock out the normal person from ever being able to hope to be a legislator.
[43:15.000 --> 43:27.000]  Pretty much, which thus ensures that only those that have financial interest in the outcomes of the legislative enactments are there to see that they're written that way.
[43:27.000 --> 43:33.000]  Is that Constitution, Eddie, or is that statute that the legislators are not reimbursed or immersed for their time?
[43:33.000 --> 43:37.000]  I believe it's in the Constitution.
[43:37.000 --> 43:41.000]  Well, that's too bad. It was a noble idea to begin with, but it doesn't work.
[43:41.000 --> 43:47.000]  And only a constitutional amendment will change that, so we don't see that happening.
[43:47.000 --> 43:53.000]  That's kind of odd, because most people are going to go, what do you mean? We don't want to pay them.
[43:53.000 --> 44:01.000]  Well, yeah, they do need to get paid so that people like us can get up in there. We'll be right back.
[44:23.000 --> 44:31.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:31.000 --> 44:37.000]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter.
[44:43.000 --> 44:46.000]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:46.000 --> 44:54.000]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org. It's a great way to change your life.
[44:54.000 --> 45:01.000]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:01.000 --> 45:20.000]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one?
[45:20.000 --> 45:26.000]  If you could not wait any longer, would you purposefully die?
[45:26.000 --> 45:32.000]  Such a gentleman, a soldier, a warrior of love, scaffolding that keeps his peace.
[45:32.000 --> 45:37.000]  All they're taking is misunderstanding. Somebody calls the police.
[45:37.000 --> 46:01.000]  Watching the spots fly.
[46:01.000 --> 46:07.000]  The friction isn't addiction. The hard work can leave you cold as nails.
[46:07.000 --> 46:13.000]  There's a possibility, so it could be. Heavy loads of taping on skin.
[46:13.000 --> 46:19.000]  The time is colliding with the conscience. You find out after a while.
[46:19.000 --> 46:24.000]  It's not your moral standards. It's your patience that's on trial.
[46:24.000 --> 46:52.000]  Watching the spots fly.
[46:52.000 --> 47:17.000]  Action out on the outposts. The first kiss was so sweet.
[47:17.000 --> 47:23.000]  Don't ever tell me you're fighting for another. The dealer's knocking you right off your feet.
[47:23.000 --> 47:29.000]  It's the time to deal with the struggle. After trying to lighten the lights.
[47:29.000 --> 47:34.000]  It's the time your voice had a negotiation. And trying at least for a time.
[47:34.000 --> 47:57.000]  Watching the spots fly.
[48:04.000 --> 48:08.000]  All right, folks, we're back. Sorry we had a little technical difficulty over the break.
[48:08.000 --> 48:13.000]  We are taking your calls. We've got Susan from Texas.
[48:13.000 --> 48:17.000]  Susan, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[48:17.000 --> 48:20.000]  Thank you for taking my call.
[48:20.000 --> 48:32.000]  I tried to have recorded at the county courthouse an affidavit and judicial notice that was written by Mr. Craig.
[48:32.000 --> 48:42.000]  And the county clerk wrote me a letter back and said that based upon the nature and content of the document,
[48:42.000 --> 48:56.000]  that she had requested an opinion from the Potter County Attorney's Office and that they refused to record this document for me.
[48:56.000 --> 49:08.000]  She said it was the Texas Attorney General's opinion that this is a non-standard document and that it does not have to be filed.
[49:08.000 --> 49:11.000]  I just wanted to say about that.
[49:11.000 --> 49:14.000]  Who did you try to file it with?
[49:14.000 --> 49:17.000]  I tried to file it with the county clerk.
[49:17.000 --> 49:21.000]  In a case or with the county recorder?
[49:21.000 --> 49:23.000]  With the county recorder.
[49:23.000 --> 49:29.000]  Okay. The affidavit is meant to be filed in your case, not with the county recorder.
[49:29.000 --> 49:33.000]  Okay. I understand now. Okay.
[49:33.000 --> 49:35.000]  Okay. And they're right.
[49:35.000 --> 49:41.000]  They only have a list of certain documents they're required to file at the county clerk's office.
[49:41.000 --> 49:52.000]  But in the case of a trial, an affidavit can be filed by any party to the trial or as a witness or whatever that needs to be filed.
[49:52.000 --> 49:56.000]  It needs to be filed and they cannot bar you from doing that.
[49:56.000 --> 49:57.000]  Okay.
[49:57.000 --> 50:01.000]  So if you have an actual trial in progress, you file it there.
[50:01.000 --> 50:05.000]  There. Okay. Now I understand what's going on.
[50:05.000 --> 50:07.000]  All right. Well, thank you for your time.
[50:07.000 --> 50:09.000]  Yes, ma'am. You're very welcome.
[50:09.000 --> 50:11.000]  All right. Thanks, Susan.
[50:11.000 --> 50:13.000]  Okay. We've got another caller on the line, Mary from Texas.
[50:13.000 --> 50:15.000]  Mary, thanks for calling in.
[50:15.000 --> 50:18.000]  What is your question for us tonight?
[50:18.000 --> 50:27.000]  Oh, I just wanted to let everybody know that the jurisdictionary meeting is going on at Brave New Books tomorrow night from 7 to 9.
[50:27.000 --> 50:29.000]  I'll be getting there at 6.
[50:29.000 --> 50:32.000]  And we're just going to be going over different websites of interest.
[50:32.000 --> 50:41.000]  And then I'm going to start a newcomers meeting the first Tuesday of every month.
[50:41.000 --> 50:44.000]  And newcomers are always welcome to observe the meeting.
[50:44.000 --> 50:49.000]  But the grant is mostly a study grant for Fred Grayson's jurisdictionary.
[50:49.000 --> 50:51.000]  And I just want to thank you, Eddie, for all the work you're doing.
[50:51.000 --> 51:02.000]  I'm really interested in tackling the state bar and getting them to operate properly so they can protect people.
[51:02.000 --> 51:10.000]  Debbie, I appreciate all the work you're doing and just calling in to say thank you guys and keep it up.
[51:10.000 --> 51:11.000]  Thanks, Mary. Appreciate it.
[51:11.000 --> 51:12.000]  Okay. Thanks, Mary.
[51:12.000 --> 51:14.000]  I'd like to comment on that.
[51:14.000 --> 51:18.000]  Mary, there is no way for the state bar to operate properly.
[51:18.000 --> 51:19.000]  There isn't.
[51:19.000 --> 51:26.000]  The state bar on its face is absolutely patently illegal under the Texas Constitution.
[51:26.000 --> 51:32.000]  It says so right in the Constitution that we cannot have monopolies in the state of Texas.
[51:32.000 --> 51:33.000]  Okay.
[51:33.000 --> 51:36.000]  They are absolutely forbidden.
[51:36.000 --> 51:39.000]  And I'll show you exactly what we're talking about here.
[51:39.000 --> 51:40.000]  Okay.
[51:40.000 --> 51:46.000]  We go into the Texas Constitution and we search for monopoly.
[51:46.000 --> 51:49.000]  You come up under, one, the Bill of Rights.
[51:49.000 --> 51:51.000]  And I'll show you specifically.
[51:51.000 --> 51:58.000]  Section 26 of Article 1, perpetuities and monopolies, primogeniture or entailments.
[51:58.000 --> 52:07.000]  Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government and shall never, never be allowed.
[52:07.000 --> 52:13.000]  Nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be enforced in this state.
[52:13.000 --> 52:19.000]  Now, let's see what the legislature did for themselves.
[52:19.000 --> 52:20.000]  Okay.
[52:20.000 --> 52:22.000]  They enacted this.
[52:22.000 --> 52:31.000]  If you go down into Section 20 of, let's see, what specific article is this we're dealing with here?
[52:31.000 --> 52:34.000]  Article 16, Section 20 of Article 16.
[52:34.000 --> 52:41.000]  Let's see the other monopoly besides the state bar that the legislature created for themselves.
[52:41.000 --> 52:48.000]  Mixed alcoholic beverages, intoxicating liquors, wines, regulation, local option.
[52:48.000 --> 52:59.000]  A, the legislature shall have the power to enact a mixed beverage law regulating the sale of mixed alcoholic beverages on a local option election basis.
[52:59.000 --> 53:08.000]  The legislature shall also have the power to regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, and transportation of intoxicating liquors,
[53:08.000 --> 53:17.000]  including the power to establish a state monopoly on the sale of distilled liquors.
[53:17.000 --> 53:26.000]  Now, which part of the Bill of Rights did these morons not understand when it said shall never be allowed?
[53:26.000 --> 53:32.000]  That's two things now that they've managed to violate directly out of the Bill of Rights,
[53:32.000 --> 53:37.000]  one in Chapter 81 of the Government Code with the enactment of the State Bar Association,
[53:37.000 --> 53:43.000]  and right here in the Constitution itself with the enactment of Section 20.
[53:43.000 --> 53:44.000]  Okay.
[53:44.000 --> 53:52.000]  Now, you will find that many of these amendments have progressed through areas.
[53:52.000 --> 53:58.000]  This particular amendment was changed in 1919.
[53:58.000 --> 53:59.000]  Okay.
[53:59.000 --> 54:02.000]  Which preceded what?
[54:02.000 --> 54:05.000]  Prohibition.
[54:05.000 --> 54:07.000]  Okay.
[54:07.000 --> 54:13.000]  So, as you can see, they don't pay attention to what we the people told them they can or cannot do.
[54:13.000 --> 54:16.000]  They just do what they want.
[54:16.000 --> 54:18.000]  And we're still letting them do it.
[54:18.000 --> 54:22.000]  We really need to get off the sofas, people.
[54:22.000 --> 54:25.000]  We really need to turn off the TV set.
[54:25.000 --> 54:28.000]  It's not doing you any good, believe me.
[54:28.000 --> 54:29.000]  Okay.
[54:29.000 --> 54:34.000]  If you want to know why you don't have hours in the day to accomplish anything
[54:34.000 --> 54:43.000]  or to provide yourself with the information that you listen to us for, those would be the reasons why.
[54:43.000 --> 54:49.000]  Because you're filling up time with worthless fluff that is doing nothing to improve your mind.
[54:49.000 --> 54:51.000]  It's not making you more knowledgeable.
[54:51.000 --> 54:55.000]  It's not giving you any real facts of what's going on in the world.
[54:55.000 --> 54:59.000]  And it's most assuredly not telling you the truth about anything.
[54:59.000 --> 55:03.000]  It's corrupting your children.
[55:03.000 --> 55:11.000]  And if you think it's not, look at the moral values they're going to have as adults based upon what they see,
[55:11.000 --> 55:18.000]  we accept being popped into our living rooms through this idiot box.
[55:18.000 --> 55:20.000]  And they look at that and go, oh, well, it must be okay.
[55:20.000 --> 55:24.000]  It's on TV.
[55:24.000 --> 55:26.000]  Get out of the stupor, people.
[55:26.000 --> 55:27.000]  Come on.
[55:27.000 --> 55:30.000]  Wake up.
[55:30.000 --> 55:33.000]  So thank you, Mary, for all the kudos and everything.
[55:33.000 --> 55:36.000]  But they can't operate properly.
[55:36.000 --> 55:37.000]  It's impossible.
[55:37.000 --> 55:41.000]  It is a constitutional impossibility.
[55:41.000 --> 55:45.000]  Can't do it.
[55:45.000 --> 55:46.000]  Thanks, Mary.
[55:46.000 --> 55:48.000]  Yeah, I appreciate what you're doing, Eddie.
[55:48.000 --> 55:49.000]  All right, thanks, ma'am.
[55:49.000 --> 55:50.000]  Appreciate it.
[55:50.000 --> 55:52.000]  Okay, you have a good night.
[55:52.000 --> 55:55.000]  And just to help, folks, they're right.
[55:55.000 --> 55:57.000]  They're having a jurisdictionary study group.
[55:57.000 --> 55:59.000]  Get up and go.
[55:59.000 --> 56:03.000]  Start one in your own town if you're not accessible to Austin to go to this one.
[56:03.000 --> 56:07.000]  Start getting your friends and neighbors to ask questions.
[56:07.000 --> 56:10.000]  Give them some questions and see if they can answer them.
[56:10.000 --> 56:12.000]  Make them think for once.
[56:12.000 --> 56:14.000]  Make yourself think for once.
[56:14.000 --> 56:18.000]  Get out there and get involved.
[56:18.000 --> 56:20.000]  This will not solve itself.
[56:20.000 --> 56:21.000]  I've said it before.
[56:21.000 --> 56:25.000]  The Constitution has no voice if it's not us.
[56:25.000 --> 56:26.000]  It has no feet.
[56:26.000 --> 56:27.000]  It has no hands.
[56:27.000 --> 56:34.000]  It has no capacity to achieve its own ends without us.
[56:34.000 --> 56:37.000]  Yes, and I also will say that your purchase of jurisdictionary through
[56:37.000 --> 56:42.000]  Rule of Law Radio does help support this network and this radio show.
[56:42.000 --> 56:47.000]  And so we very much appreciate folks getting jurisdictionary.
[56:47.000 --> 56:51.000]  And one other thing I wanted to mention about the jurisdictionary meeting on
[56:51.000 --> 56:55.000]  Tuesday nights, because I'm on their email list, too, they have recently
[56:55.000 --> 57:00.000]  restructured the jurisdictionary meeting to where the participant, anybody can
[57:00.000 --> 57:05.000]  go, but as far as like asking questions and participating in the conversation
[57:05.000 --> 57:10.000]  and the discussion is going to be limited to people who actually own the
[57:10.000 --> 57:15.000]  jurisdictionary course and are currently studying it because otherwise the
[57:15.000 --> 57:19.000]  whole discussion group just kind of degrades and people end up having to
[57:19.000 --> 57:23.000]  answer questions that could be answered in jurisdictionary, which is the whole
[57:23.000 --> 57:27.000]  point of the discussion group anyway is for people who own the course to get
[57:27.000 --> 57:30.000]  together and discuss it and help each other learn the course.
[57:30.000 --> 57:34.000]  Now everyone is welcome to go to the meeting, but if you do not own
[57:34.000 --> 57:41.000]  jurisdictionary course, then they ask that you sit and just listen and observe
[57:41.000 --> 57:45.000]  and take in the information for the benefit of those who are actually
[57:45.000 --> 57:46.000]  studying the class.
[57:46.000 --> 57:49.000]  So folks, please get the jurisdictionary course order through
[57:49.000 --> 57:53.000]  ruleoflawradio.com. It will help support this network.
[57:53.000 --> 57:58.000]  It will support this radio show and also get the Mike Mears package dealing
[57:58.000 --> 58:00.000]  with debt collectors and creditors.
[58:00.000 --> 58:03.000]  That also goes a long way to supporting this network and supporting this radio
[58:03.000 --> 58:04.000]  show.
[58:04.000 --> 58:06.000]  Please support our sponsors, folks.
[58:06.000 --> 58:08.000]  Go to Capital Coin and Bullion.
[58:08.000 --> 58:14.000]  Call them 512-646-6440 and of course Brave New Books.
[58:14.000 --> 58:20.000]  Your participation in buying products from our sponsors does go a very long
[58:20.000 --> 58:22.000]  way to supporting this network.
[58:22.000 --> 58:25.000]  If you do not want to buy the products, just send us a donation.
[58:25.000 --> 58:28.000]  We rely on you, the listeners.
[58:28.000 --> 58:30.000]  We are doing this on our own dime.
[58:30.000 --> 58:34.000]  We are doing this out of our own pockets to bring the information to you.
[58:34.000 --> 58:37.000]  You know, we are not supported by Clear Channel.
[58:37.000 --> 58:39.000]  We are not supported by Fox.
[58:39.000 --> 58:41.000]  We are not supported by the Ford Foundation.
[58:41.000 --> 58:44.000]  We are not supported by the Texas Film Commission.
[58:44.000 --> 58:47.000]  We are not supported by the Texas Association of Broadcasters.
[58:47.000 --> 58:51.000]  All right, folks, we are not supported by these mainstream media associations
[58:51.000 --> 58:54.000]  and nongovernmental organizations.
[58:54.000 --> 58:55.000]  We need your support.
[58:55.000 --> 59:11.000]  We will be back after the top of the hour.
[59:25.000 --> 59:50.000]  Thank you.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:04.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  A group of 99ers representing 1.4 million Americans out of work more than 99 weeks
[01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:17.000]  protested on Wall Street Thursday demanding the Senate pass the Tier 5 unemployment extension.
[01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:24.000]  Pedro Canaconde, who lost his job in February 2008 and now his unemployment benefits,
[01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:26.000]  held a sign saying, quote,
[01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  Please do not treat us, the unemployed, like lepers and criminals.
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:39.000]  An ambitious military operation Afghan officials had expected to be a sign of their growing military capacity
[01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  instead turned into an embarrassment with Taliban fighters battering an Afghan battalion
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:48.000]  until rescued by French and U.S. troops.
[01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:54.000]  The Afghan army sent a battalion of about 300 men to flush out Taliban in a rugged area
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  where they had long held sway, but the plan was betrayed and they were ambushed.
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  Mother Jones says some 40% of what spewed from BP's Deepwater Horizon well was methane,
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:09.000]  a dangerous greenhouse gas and highly toxic.
[01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  Biochemist David Valentin found clouds of dissolved natural gas at 100,000 times the normal density.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  The U.S. wants Iraq to take over aid for innocent victims killed in U.S. military operations,
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  but recently members of Congress asked the U.S. Agency for International Development in Baghdad,
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  which manages the fund, to explore having Iraq take over financing and management of the project.
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  But the move is rankling Iraqis. Foreign Minister Hoshiya Zebari said,
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  their message to us is, solve your problems quickly so that we can withdraw quickly.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:52.000]  U.S. aid director Christopher Crowley said many in the U.S. believe Iraq has the means
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  to pay its own way to rebuild after the war with the world's third largest proven reserves of crude oil.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:03.000]  The Iraqi government has its own program to give money to victims' families,
[01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  but the program is patchy and underfunded.
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:12.000]  No payments have been made by the Iraqi government since 2004 in Anbar province,
[01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  where the government estimates 50,000 Iraqis were killed.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  In Britain, a group of prominent legal and medical experts Thursday called for a full inquest
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  into the highly suspicious death of government scientist David Kelly in 2003.
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:35.000]  The official Hutton report concluded in 2004, Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist.
[01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  Nine experts, including a former coroner and professor of intensive care medicine,
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  said hemorrhage from the severed artery was, quote, extremely unlikely,
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  saying insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life.
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:56.000]  In January, five doctors who applied to have the inquest reopened were told Hutton ruled in 2003
[01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:01.000]  to keep medical reports and photographs closed for 70 years.
[01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:12.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:16.000]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:32.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty
[01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:39.000]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly
[01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:45.000]  These warmongers come by that term rightly
[01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  All right, folks, we are back at the Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  This is Eddie Craig and Deborah Stevens.
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:55.000]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  The phones are open.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  If you have any issues or questions, commentaries or success stories
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  based upon the traffic seminar material or study thereof, please call in and let us know about it.
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:10.000]  And while we're on the subject of the traffic seminar, folks,
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  we really appreciate all of you that have purchased it.
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  We really, really do.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  It is one of the, if I'm not mistaken, the or one of the very few packages that is entirely ours
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:27.000]  that we can actually take the majority of the money from and put it into the network
[01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  when we can get, you know, folks interested enough to purchase it.
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:32.000]  So please remember it's out there.
[01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  I worked very hard to make this as understandable and as easy to get to and to comprehend as possible.
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  I am always trying to improve it.
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:46.000]  I am always generating new documents for use in court.
[01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  This is an ongoing thing with me.
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  Once you've purchased it, you never, ever have to buy it again.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Anytime we update it, you're available to have the updates.
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  Okay?
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  So if you haven't purchased it, I'm going to ask you please help us by doing that
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  because it really does go to support the network.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  And you'll be glad you did because it teaches you a lot about how to read and understand law,
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  how to apply the law, and most beneficial to you,
[01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  how to fight the misapplication and abuse of the law.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:20.000]  That's its purpose.
[01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  Yes, folks.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  And it really does go a long way to supporting the network.
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:25.000]  Eddie, we do have a caller on the line.
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  Would you like to take the call?
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  Sure.
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  Okay.
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  We've got Mike from Texas.
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:30.000]  Mike, thanks for calling in.
[01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:32.000]  What's your question tonight?
[01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  Hello.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:38.000]  I've got a question regarding Freedom of Information Act request.
[01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  I've got a little bit of a tangle where...
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Are you talking Freedom of Information Act or are you talking open records request?
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Well, that's what we're trying to determine.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:50.000]  I know who this is.
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:51.000]  This is Mike from Texas.
[01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  I had the pleasure of meeting Mike at Brand New Books the other night.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:05:59.000]  This is the gentleman that's called in about the water bottle and the TSA thing,
[01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  and the city of Austin is trying to prosecute him for interfering with TSA.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  And they said that they don't have the audio tapes and all these kinds of things.
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:12.000]  He's trying to get the audio tapes concerning it.
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:18.000]  And what Mike is telling me about these audio tapes now is that they don't want to release them
[01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  because of national security.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  However, in the most recent email that I got from Mike,
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  it says that he was asking me if he should FOIA them or what.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  And I said, well, yeah, because TSA is a federal entity.
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:35.000]  They're a federal agency.
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:37.000]  So, yeah, it would be FOIA.
[01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  And however, he writes me back and says,
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  Austin Police Department control the audio video recording in the TSA sterile zone.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:56.000]  So this is very confusing to me because how does the Austin police...
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  I mean, I've got a lot of questions about this.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:04.000]  I want to know how the Austin Police Department has the authority to set up
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  law enforcement recording in this situation,
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  and what do they have to do with TSA anyway?
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  TSA is a federal entity.
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:19.000]  And so I guess there's questions who has...
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  If the Austin Police Department is doing the audio and video recording,
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  they're the ones that are going to have the tapes
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:33.000]  because according to copyright laws, whoever records it owns it.
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  All right, and so you wouldn't use FOIA to get it out of the Austin Police Department.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  And what I'm trying to figure out here...
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  Also, I have other questions for you, Mike.
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  Who is telling you they can't release the tapes because of national security?
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  Is it the police department?
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  No, it's the city prosecutor, David Peterson.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  Okay, so since when does the municipal police department
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  and the municipal prosecutor have anything to do with national security anyway?
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  Well, that's what they're claiming.
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  I guess to the best of my knowledge, my understanding is that the city of Austin
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  owns Austin Berkston International Airport, and they lease that area to TSA.
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  But Austin Police Department owns and controls the video recording.
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  They're the law enforcement authority for the property
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  because it's not ceded to the federal government.
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  That's valid.
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  Okay, but what's the deal with them?
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  Okay, the city prosecutor is saying that who's not going to release the tapes?
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  I mean, the city prosecutor doesn't have any authority over the tapes.
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  What class of crime are they attempting to charge you with?
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  Well, originally it was circumvention TSA screening.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  And so they've dropped those charges and they've recharged me again.
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  And I believe for this reason, there was a court order for them to produce audio
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  video within a certain timeframe, at least 10 days before trial.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  And so they were in facing some contempt of court charges
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  because they only produced half of that.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  They produced some video, no audio.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:23.000]  Who did, TSA?
[01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  No, the prosecutor's office.
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  The city judge gave a court order to the city prosecutor to provide audio video
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  at least 10 days before trial.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:40.000]  They only provided video, but only at eight days.
[01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  And originally it was they said that there was a massive audio malfunction,
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  that it was not available.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  All the way through the entire system?
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Through the entire system.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  Both the police body mics or shoulder mics, TSA dispatch, Austin dispatch,
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  all the audio recording above the area.
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  And then there's probably other stuff that I'm not aware of.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:09.000]  Right, they're saying everything failed all at the same time,
[01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  just as you were going through security.
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  All that part I remember from the previous conversations,
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:15.000]  but my question still has not been answered.
[01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  What class of crime are they attempting to charge you with?
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  Felony, Class A, Class B, or Class C?
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  Class C misdemeanor.
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  And now the new charges, they dropped the original charges,
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  and now I'm being charged with, they haven't officially charged me yet.
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  They're trying to.
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  So they won't be able to, they need to have someone swear out a complaint.
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  They won't be able to do that until tomorrow.
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  But the new charge is supposed to be interfering with TSA investigation,
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:52.000]  and specifically they're going to say that I distracted the TSA agent,
[01:10:52.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  and I'm trying to figure out how I did that.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:10:57.000]  The only thing, you know, I complied exactly with their commands.
[01:10:57.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  She's running to me, she's hanging on top of her lungs about a water bottle.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  You know, I kind of, you know, I'm letting my hands move a little bit,
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  and she's 30 feet away saying, take it, take it, take the bottle of water.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  And so they're probably going to, they won't show the audio,
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  they won't, because that would say I complied, they won't say how unreasonable it was.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:19.000]  They won't show the audio because it would also say that I passed through a checkpoint
[01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  that she had cleared me through and passed me out.
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  So everything after that is a crime.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  Okay, but wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  But still, Eddie's question hasn't gotten answered yet.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:29.000]  Yeah, it was.
[01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  He said it's a Class C misdemeanor.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  If they actually try to charge him, that's what he's saying.
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  He thinks they're going to charge him with.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  But he also said they haven't actually charged you yet.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  Right now, both, I think I've upset some people,
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:48.000]  both the head city prosecutor and head city judge are kind of in the middle of all this,
[01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  really doing their best to try to charge me with something.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  Are they charging you under a state law or under a city ordinance or do you know yet?
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  City ordinance.
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  Okay, well, how do they get a criminal action of one of the people out of a city ordinance?
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  Well, yeah, we discussed that at Brave New Books the other night too,
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  that city ordinance is only applied to city employees.
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  Now, here's the other issue.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:22.000]  Okay, all right.
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  Have you filed a motion to compel and a motion for a contempt hearing upon the prosecutor?
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  I filed several motions to compel,
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  a motion to compel why the prosecution is not in contempt,
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  and then I filed several motions of sanctions,
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  and that really got their attention when I went to their prosecutor's office
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  and had them sign for it directly, and then that day all this stuff happened.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  They just said, holy cow, you know, we're maybe facing contempt or they just really decided to,
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  but all I was trying to do is light a fire and say just produce the audio and we're done.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Well, see, there's other issues now.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:05.000]  They dropped the original charges, okay, so the case is over.
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  The prior case is done, all right, and there's not even a new case started yet,
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  so I have questions concerning how is he going to file motions to compel
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  or produce anything when there's not even a case right now?
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  Well, the thing is it's not done if the judge hasn't dismissed the action.
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  Did the judge dismiss the action, Mike, the first one?
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  The head judge, Ms. McGee, has dismissed the action.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Okay, so this is how they're going to avoid having to be compelled then?
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  Right.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  Because there is no ongoing trial.
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  Right.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  Well, if they charge him again, there will be and the whole thing will start up all over again.
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  Well, then he has to file again.
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:48.000]  Okay, now here's the deal.
[01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Most likely what's going to happen is they're going to switch judges on you,
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:56.000]  and this one's going to be told do not allow discovery.
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:13:57.000]  Yeah.
[01:13:57.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  Okay.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:02.000]  You need to be prepared for that.
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:08.000]  You need to be prepared to file sanctions against the judge for denial of due process,
[01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  perpetrating fraud upon the court by the prosecuting attorney,
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:17.000]  perpetrating fraud upon the court multiple ways in fact.
[01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  One, trying to charge you under an ordinance which by Constitution cannot possibly apply to you.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:38.000]  Two, committing or perpetrating fraud by trying to put you in a classification in which you already knew it couldn't be applied to you.
[01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  Okay?
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  They're really digging themselves a very deep hole.
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Yeah, and then there's the other issue concerning that when you try to get the audio tapes again,
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  if they pull this excuse again about national security, you're going to have to be prepared to file motions over that
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  and maybe even criminal charges because the city has no authority whatsoever to make any decisions
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  or to withhold any information at all based on national security, their municipality.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:10.000]  It's a municipal entity.
[01:15:10.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  There is another thing you need to be aware of here, and you need to do this immediately.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  They can charge you later after they have destroyed these tapes.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  Be aware of that.
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  They have up to two years to do this.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  But if there's no charges pending and they erase the tapes and then they decide to charge you,
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  oops, what evidence do you have?
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  None.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  And they've got witness testimony that will say anything they want them to say.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  You're hosed.
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  Absolutely.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  So what about him filing an injunction to have the tapes preserved?
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  You need to file suit and demand discovery of those materials right now.
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  Well, I'll tell you what else he needs to sue over.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  Here's another cause of action that Mike told me about at Brave New Books.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  He lost his job over this.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  He was at the airport that day on the way to a job interview, and he missed his flight over this nonsense,
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  and it caused him to lose the job.
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:18.000]  And so I told him that that is definitely a cause of action he needs to sue over that.
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:24.000]  And so in that lawsuit, you definitely could file for discovery to demand these audio tapes as well,
[01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  make it all one big lawsuit with multiple causes of action.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  Well, I've got a FOIA request through the attorney general's office.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  Well, wait a minute.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  FOIA has nothing to do with state records.
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  FOIA is only federal.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  And I have an open records request with the city.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  Okay, you use open records for both.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  FOIA is only federal.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  Okay.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  FOIA only applies to federal.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  Hang on the line, Mike.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:06.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:12.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  Yes.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:19.000]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul,
[01:17:19.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  They even stock Interfood, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  just behind the bookstore.
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:16.000]  Okay, we're back.
[01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  All right, Mike, Eddie and I are going to go into this a little bit.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  We're concerned on the break that if you mess around and not handle this properly,
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  you're going to get yourself really screwed over bad because what's happening,
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:33.000]  and I feel that they're doing this on purpose,
[01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  the reason they dropped the first charges is to allow themselves a period of time
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  before charging you with an additional crime so that they can delete the tapes and erase the tapes.
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  And so the judge has already dismissed the action against you,
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  so now they're in the clear they could erase the tapes,
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  and there's nothing you can do about it unless you file lawsuits.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  And they may already have, hopefully they have not.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:02.000]  What we're discussing on the break is that you have got to sue them immediately
[01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:09.000]  and get your discovery in right away, your request for discovery,
[01:19:09.000 --> 01:19:14.000]  and I would say even a temporary restraining order action to keep them from destroying the tapes
[01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  and your causes of action that you're going to be suing under our number one
[01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:24.000]  tortious interference of a contract because you were on the way to a job interview.
[01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:30.000]  Technically it wasn't a contract yet because you hadn't secured the gig at the job.
[01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:35.000]  However, there was a contract in place that you both agreed to have this interview
[01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  and have the job interview in the first place, so that was a contract.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  And also, Eddie was telling me on the break that there's a cause of action for expectation.
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  You fully expected to get this job, and the other causes of action are unlawful imprisonment,
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  and Eddie has some more cause of action.
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  It's false imprisonment.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  Unlawful is if they have you locked up in a penal facility.
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:00.000]  I misquoted that when I stated to you.
[01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  Okay.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  It's false imprisonment.
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:03.000]  False imprisonment.
[01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  So, Mike, you need to get your dictionary course if you don't have it already yet
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:12.000]  and you need to put yourself together a lawsuit immediately against these people
[01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  so that you can prevent them from destroying these tapes.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  And I told you that at Brand New Books the other night,
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  you need to sue because they interfered with your job interview.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  Yeah, do be aware.
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  You must file a tort letter with the city immediately.
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:32.000]  You've only got, in most cities, 60 days.
[01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  Okay.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  Okay.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  So I file it with the city.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  Do I file it with the clerk of court?
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:39.000]  No.
[01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  No, that's not the city.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  You send a copy of it to the mayor and a copy of it to the city manager.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  Yeah, you're going to be suing the city.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  Okay.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  Okay, and make sure it is sent, certified mail, return receipt requested.
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Every single document you send to anyone either needs to be stamped by that individual
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  or you need a certified mail, return receipt requested, receipt for it.
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  Don't ever send it without verification of some kind.
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  Okay.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  Yeah, and you know what?
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  It seems to me like this could be used if you could get...
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  This lawsuit here in my book is the key because what is the deal with these city ordinances
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  regarding you can't interfere with TSA?
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  TSA is a federal agency.
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  Since when does local law enforcement or a municipality at all have the authority
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  to require we the people to comply with a federal agency?
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  I mean, that's similar to what Richard Mack sued over.
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  That's a completely unconstitutional city ordinance there.
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  They can't...
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  A municipality can't force us to comply with federal entities.
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  It's ridiculous.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  Well, just a note.
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  They can...
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  If the state adopts the law, then they can have you enforce through the state provisions
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:13.000]  of the law as long as the law could be lawfully applied to you to begin with.
[01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:19.000]  In this particular case, however, this alleged law is not a law,
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  and it cannot be applied to the public.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  Right.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  It simply cannot be applied.
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  Right.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  Well, that was my point because it's not a state law.
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:29.000]  Well, I have something in...
[01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  There's two things I wanted to ask quickly.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:37.000]  I have something in file, a judicial notice pursuant under 201D,
[01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  Texas and Federal Rules of Evidence.
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  Basically, I'm demanding a dismissal unless they...
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  partially because the state stands unrepresented.
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  They don't have oaths.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  The prosecutors don't have oaths.
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  But there's another one I'm also submitting where I'm demanding,
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  and I gave them three days notice under Texas law,
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  to provide the evidence and the charges for the cases dismissed.
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  Okay.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  This doesn't make sense to me, Mike.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  You said the case was already dismissed, and there's not a case right now.
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  So what cause number...
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  What case number are you filing these documents under?
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  There's no case right now.
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  Well, they do have a new cause number for me,
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  but they just haven't generated a complaint yet.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  Well, now, wait a minute.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:24.000]  That can't happen.
[01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  That's right.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  There can't be a cause without a complaint.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  The complaint, the criminal complaint,
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  the sworn, signed, affidavit criminal complaint is what begins the case.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  They can't start a prosecution without a criminal complaint.
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:40.000]  Yeah, they don't.
[01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  I'm looking right now at the cause number right now.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:46.000]  Okay, have you gone down to look at the court record
[01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  to see if they've got a new complaint in there?
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  No, they won't have it until tomorrow.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  Well, then you...
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:54.000]  All right, that's fine.
[01:23:54.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  You hang on to that document.
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  Does it have a date stamp on it?
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  Yes.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  Okay, you hang on to that document,
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  because you're going after the city attorney for barritory.
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:06.000]  There's your other cause of action.
[01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  Absolutely, because they started a case
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  before there was a criminal complaint.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:11.000]  That's illegal.
[01:24:11.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  Okay.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  Now, the other problem this comes down to is this proves fraud
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  and collusion by the prosecution with the accuser.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  Yes, absolutely.
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  This proves the prosecutor is conspiring
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  with some other government official to do you harm.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  Absolutely.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  Well, this would be the head judge, McGee,
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  and this would be the head prosecutor, Beltson.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  That's fine.
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  You make asses out of them instead of head anything.
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  Okay, because I've got all their signatures on those documents.
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  They have a severe problem.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  They have a very big problem.
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  Here's the other thing.
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  As soon as you check your court records,
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  you get a copy certified by the clerk of the court
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:07.000]  of what you are currently looking at and of the complaint,
[01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  and you check the dates on everything carefully.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  Make sure that they don't change the date stamp,
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  because you've already got a certain document or certain documents,
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:19.000]  and when you go and pull the file again,
[01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  make sure they haven't changed the date stamp,
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  because if they change the date stamp,
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  oh, boy, you have even more ammunition against them.
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  And here's the other thing.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  If they backdate the complaint, they have falsified a document.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  Well, they've already done that to me at pretrial,
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  where they provided a false complaint.
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  They had one clerk square out against another,
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:43.000]  and they just says, believe.
[01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:46.000]  So even on that statement right there, it's about a complaint,
[01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  but they provided that to me at trial,
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  but I checked the website, and they then post-stated the document,
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  and then even after pretrial, then they finally put it into the system.
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  Well, no, no, that's not what we're talking about.
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  We're talking about the clerk of the court.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  When documents are filed with the clerk,
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  see, websites and all these kinds of things,
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  none of that really matters, okay?
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  Okay.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:17.000]  What matters is the stamp by the clerk of the court on the paper, okay?
[01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  That's what we're talking about.
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  That is the official date stamp of when that document was filed with the court, okay?
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  And so what we're saying is that you've got pieces of paper from the court records
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  with certain date stamps on them that are date stamped by the clerk of the court.
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  Usually the clerk of the court has to initial as well,
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  or it may have the clerk of the court's name on the stamp or something like that, okay?
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  Usually there's a little line where they initial, okay?
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  And then there's the date, all right?
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  What we're saying is that when you go tomorrow to pull your file, again,
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  get a copy of everything in the file and look closely at the date stamps
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  of the documents in there and compare with the date stamps
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:08.000]  of the documents you already have, you know, concerning the same documents,
[01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  and if they have changed the date stamp of the clerk of the court's date stamp,
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  then you've got huge ammunition against the clerk of the court, against the court in general.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  Okay.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  Okay?
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  So first things first, you need to get that tort letter off to the city manager
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  and the mayor's office immediately notifying them that you intend to sue
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  if they don't cough up these audio tapes and that, you know, basically you can,
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  you know, tort letters can be, you don't have to write up specific statutes
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  and all these kinds of things.
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  It's just a notice to sue and why and what you want from them and that you want,
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  you want them to make sure those audio tapes are not destroyed
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  and that you intend to get them, and that's the first things first.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:27:59.000]  You need to get your dictionary if you don't already have it
[01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  and start cooking up your lawsuit against them anyway,
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:08.000]  mainly for tortious interference of a contract because they caused you to miss,
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  they caused you to violate your contract,
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  which was that you contracted with this company or this entity
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  for an interview at a specific date and time.
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  That was a contract that you made and they interfered with that contract,
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  plus they interfered with the expectation of a second contract to get the job, all right,
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  and the false imprisonment like Eddie was saying and the other things.
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  So you need to start cooking up that lawsuit, send the tort letter,
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  go tomorrow and get a copy of everything in the file.
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Okay.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  Yeah, actually it was two jobs.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  I had effectively two offers at the same time, which is very rare,
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:45.000]  and I ended up losing both of them.
[01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  Okay, so then that's two separate causes of action.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  There you go because it's two separate contracts.
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  I just wanted to add, how do they get the authority to use TSA?
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  What Austin is saying right, or the prosecutor is saying right now,
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  is that they have to get TSA's approval to release these tapes.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  No, they don't.
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  No, they don't.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  They don't have any law enforcement authority.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  They most certainly do not.
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:10.000]  They absolutely do not.
[01:29:10.000 --> 01:29:13.000]  That is a lie on many, many levels.
[01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:20.000]  They are the ones who are controlling the equipment of the audio and video recording.
[01:29:20.000 --> 01:29:23.000]  It belongs to them according to copyright law.
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  That's just all there is to it.
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  Well, remember, these are public records.
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  There won't be copyright law on them.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:30.000]  That will not apply in this case.
[01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  However, since they are the law enforcement authority in charge of the security equipment there,
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  it is their record.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Absolutely.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  There's no question about it.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  And you would not use FOIA for that.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  That would be open records laws and also discovery.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  And you don't use FOIA unless it's federal.
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  And I don't know if the attorney general is going to have anything to do with this
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:58.000]  because the attorney general is the defense attorney for public officials in Texas.
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  One Love Kitchen, Austin, Texas.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  Have you ever fed your family cornflakes or sent your kid off to school with a juice box?
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  If so, look out.
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:40.000]  You might be sending them off to a lifetime of health problems.
[01:30:40.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht, and I'll identify the culprit in just a moment.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Google is watching you, recording everything you've ever searched for
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  That's creepy.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:57.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  Startpage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches,
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:11.000]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:19.000]  Many breakfast cereals, juice drinks, and other products contain high fructose corn syrup.
[01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  While it's no secret that too much sugar will expand your waistline,
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:25.000]  when that sweetener is in the form of high fructose corn syrup,
[01:31:25.000 --> 01:31:27.000]  you put your body at risk for disease.
[01:31:27.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  We're talking high blood pressure, obesity, especially in children,
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  high cholesterol, and insulin resistance that can lead to Type 2 diabetes,
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  and that's just part of it.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  Food manufacturers have to list their ingredients on all packaging,
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:42.000]  and fortunately, many are now providing alternatives.
[01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:45.000]  So the next time you reach for the cookies, ketchup, or barbecue sauce,
[01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  check the label.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  The life you save may be your child's.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  This is Dr. Katherine Albrecht.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  Okay, folks, we're back.
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  Okay, so Mike, listen, regarding the copyright thing, yeah,
[01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:25.000]  it's a public entity, they don't have copyright.
[01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  What I really meant was the fact that since they recorded it,
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:34.000]  they control the access to it, okay, but not under copyright.
[01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.000]  I misspoke when I said the copyright laws apply.
[01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  However, the bottom line other than that, as Eddie was saying,
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:48.000]  is that since they are the law enforcement entity that has authority
[01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:53.000]  over that property, it's a municipal piece of property,
[01:32:53.000 --> 01:32:58.000]  APD does have authority to be the security agency there, if you will,
[01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  the security company.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:04.000]  They don't have to get permission from any other entity,
[01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:07.000]  especially a federal entity, to release those tapes.
[01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:09.000]  That's totally ridiculous, okay?
[01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:16.000]  That's a lame excuse, so just don't buy into that.
[01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:19.000]  But the main thing is right now you need to get a copy of the file
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:21.000]  and send out that tort letter.
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:22.000]  Okay.
[01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  Well, I guess, you know, what I've done is the letter from the prosecutor
[01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  I sent from email I copied and pasted and sent it to the head judge,
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:34.000]  who signed off and everything, just to notify her of what's going on,
[01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  and it kind of puts her in a bind that she has to respond.
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:42.000]  What did you notify the judge via email regarding?
[01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:49.000]  Well, when the prosecutor, when some city prosecutor notified me
[01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  that he wouldn't provide any audio, and the main judge that dismissed
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  and then will also reanimate this case on a new case number or cause number,
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  I notified her that the prosecutor would not provide the audio.
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  I would suggest that it's not such a good idea to try to communicate
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  with judges like that over email, because for one thing,
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  that can be construed as an attempt at an ex parte communication with the court,
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  and that is not allowed, and sometimes it can really upset the judges too.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Plus, any communication like that is not going to be part of the court record.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  What you would do in that situation is you would file a judicial notice
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  with the clerk of the court in the case stating the facts at hand
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  and not send an email.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  Okay.
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  You can always file an affidavit in your case stating this was ordered,
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  it's not been done.
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  I'm also filing this affidavit in support of a motion to compel
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:03.000]  and a motion for sanctions and a motion for contempt hearing upon the prosecution.
[01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  Everything you do in these cases needs to be done through the clerk of the court
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  with official stamps on everything you file.
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  Either you go down there to the clerk of the court with the papers in hand,
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  submit with two copies or ask them to copy it,
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  and you get a stamped copy back at that point in time.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  You file affidavits, you file judicial notices when you want to send communications
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:35.000]  to the judge and stuff like that.
[01:35:35.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  Or you send anything you want to file with the clerk of the court,
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  you mail it to the clerk of the court,
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  certified mail with return receipt requested with the green card.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  You have to have everything documented, certified,
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  that these were documents that were filed with the court
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  because anything informal like that, it has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  It's not going to help you at all, and if anything, it can only hurt you.
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  Okay. I won't do that again.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  What I have been doing is copying the emails and putting in the notices
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  and then having those stamped by the clerk of the court.
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  Wait, wait, wait, what emails?
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  Has the prosecutor been emailing you?
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  Yeah, the head prosecutor has been emailing me back
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:26.000]  saying that the audio is not available to, you know, originally.
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  And they had to come out to say that because originally they said it didn't exist,
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  but then the head information officer at the airport said that it did exist.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:39.000]  He was going to write a letter to the attorney general
[01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:42.000]  petitioning them not to provide that information to me.
[01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:44.000]  Do you have a copy of that letter?
[01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  Yes, I had all that submitted into the clerk of the court,
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  and I sent it off, certified letter, early last week.
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  Yeah, all that informal communication that came to you through the prosecutor,
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  the prosecutor's emails, letters from the head saying that they didn't have the tapes
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:07.000]  and then they did have the tapes, all these discrepancies,
[01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  you definitely always file those in the case with the clerk of the court.
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  Right now they have a real issue of losing all my motions,
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  so they've lost at least seven of them.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:21.000]  That's why you get copies, files stamped.
[01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  I do if I have copies that are stamped,
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:29.000]  and that's the only reason that I'm able to even get these things put back in again.
[01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:32.000]  Now, here's the deal.
[01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  Why is the clerk of the court, whose duty it is to keep those records under safekeeping,
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:40.000]  losing records, file criminal complaints against the clerk of the court
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  for failure to do their job?
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  Absolutely, and see, when you're dealing with the court system,
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:49.000]  like say at the county level or at the state level,
[01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  like the state district court or the county court or federal courts,
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  it's enough to just mail the stuff in certified mail with the return receipt green card.
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  They generally do not mess around,
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  especially since you've got the green card that proves that you filed,
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  well, it proves you filed something with the court.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  It doesn't prove what exactly you sent the court.
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  You know, you could have sent the court a hate letter, who knows?
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:22.000]  I mean, the only way to prove what was in the envelope is to mail it through a notary
[01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  and have the notary verify the contents of the envelope.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  Okay, but the notary mailing is generally not necessary
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  unless you're dealing, you know, with like the IRS or something.
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  Okay, but generally when you're dealing with the state courts
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  or the county courts or the federal courts, everything I've heard,
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  it's always been my experience, you just mail the stuff in,
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  certified mail, return receipt requested,
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  and there's never a problem with losing the documents.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:55.000]  But the municipal court system is so corrupt that they will pull anything.
[01:38:55.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  And so whenever I'm dealing with the municipal courts, I tell everybody,
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  when you're dealing with the municipal courts, don't mail anything.
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  Go down there with two copies.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:09.000]  Give them both copies and make the clerk stamp both copies and give you back one copy.
[01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  That's the only way to deal with these people.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:13.000]  Yes, that's how I've been doing it.
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:15.000]  And they've lost about 20 percent of my motion.
[01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:19.000]  That's their problem, especially that's the clerk of the court's problem
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  because if you've got file stamped copies of everything,
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  then you can file criminal charges against them for sure.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  What you need to be doing is the moment you go to the clerk of the court
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  and you ask them, where are the court's copies of these records?
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  And the clerk goes, I don't know.
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  You need to be calling security and you need to be calling the sheriff's department.
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  And you need to record that because you can bring,
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  they don't like you to bring recording devices into the courtroom itself,
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  but you can have like your iPhone
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  or whatever little digital recording device in your pocket
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  or you can get one of these camera pens that are popular these days.
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  Never talk to these people without recording everything and preferably with video.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  And so every time you go down there, have your little digipen,
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  digipen, whatever they call it, have it going.
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  It's in your pocket, it's videotaping and recording audio at the same time
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  and it's facing the person you're talking to.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  And when they say, I don't know, now you've got evidence against them
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  that they just committed a crime.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  Okay.
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:44.000]  I usually go down every day with about three or four motions.
[01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  I've submitted about 70 so far.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  Just make sure you keep your copies in safekeeping.
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  And then you ask the clerk each time you go file new ones,
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  demand the clerk produce copies of, or produce the record for all the others.
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:04.000]  If any of them are missing, be certain to ask the clerk where are they.
[01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  When the clerk says, I don't know, that's a problem.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  They destroy them immediately.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  They shred them and so the only thing they have is electronic.
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  If they're shredding file documents in an ongoing cause,
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:18.000]  they are really up the creek.
[01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:19.000]  Absolutely.
[01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:22.000]  And if they're doing it as an ongoing policy,
[01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:26.000]  then that's cause for a class action lawsuit right there.
[01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:28.000]  It's ongoing policy.
[01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  I've been told by several clerk records that...
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  You need to record them saying that.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  Please tell me you're taking your recorder in there and getting them...
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  You need to record them, you need to ask,
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:41.000]  bring your recorder and ask them if it's an ongoing policy.
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  You need to record them saying yes, it's an ongoing policy
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  and ask them for their name and get them to state their name verbally on the video.
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  About four or five clerk records have already told me that.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:57.000]  All right, well then you need to do it again and this time get it recorded.
[01:41:57.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  This is ridiculous.
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  Also ask them what law are they relying on to give them the authority to destroy filings,
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  original filings in an ongoing case.
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  Tell them what to tell you or show you what law authorizes them to do that
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  because I promise you it doesn't exist.
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  I don't think it does either.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:27.000]  Now at the federal level, they've gone to electronic filing system
[01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  and the court tells everyone, well if you're an attorney,
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  you have to file electronically, have to.
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  If you're pro se litigant in the federal court system,
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  you can apply to the court and get court permission to file electronically.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:45.000]  Most of the time they won't let you,
[01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  but they still have to take your original documents.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  Now whether or not they destroy the original documents
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  and just scan them in and then destroy them,
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:43:00.000]  I don't know because most of the federal filings I've ever dealt with are in places very far away,
[01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  so I haven't had the wherewithal to travel to the physical court itself
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  and demand the file to see if my original documents were in there or not,
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  but the point being they do have some statutory authority in that situation
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  to deal with an electronic filing system,
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  but I don't know anything like that at the municipal level.
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:25.000]  Like I said, these guys are just doing whatever they want.
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  Yeah, that's pretty much.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  I mean if they want to scan stuff electronically
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  and store them in addition to the physical paper files,
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  that's probably okay,
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  but for them to destroy the original file documents, that's not okay.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Absolutely not okay.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  You've got to get them on tape saying that.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Okay.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  All right.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Anything else, Mike?
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  That's all.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Thank you.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  Okay.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Thanks, Mike.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  Thank you.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  All right.
[01:43:56.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  We'll be right back after the break.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  This has been The Rule of Law.
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:22.000]  You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608.
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder.
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins,
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:49.000]  order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage.
[01:44:49.000 --> 01:44:56.000]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:31.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  And Pat from West Texas was on the line.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:37.000]  Pat, if you'd like to call back in, we'll take your call next.
[01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:40.000]  We've got Elizabeth from Texas on the line right now.
[01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:41.000]  Elizabeth, thanks for calling in.
[01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:45.000]  Hi, there.
[01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:47.000]  Thanks for taking my call.
[01:45:47.000 --> 01:45:53.000]  Y'all have had David Champion on before, haven't you, about the income tax?
[01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  Yes, we had him on a month or so ago.
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:45:58.000]  Yeah, that's what I thought.
[01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:04.000]  Have you had Tom Cryer on yet from Truth Attack?
[01:46:04.000 --> 01:46:07.000]  No, I have not, but I do want to have him on at some point in time.
[01:46:07.000 --> 01:46:10.000]  Tom Cryer, he's the man.
[01:46:10.000 --> 01:46:18.000]  He won a very landmark lawsuit against the IRS, and I would love to have him on to discuss that.
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:20.000]  Wonderful.
[01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Well, I would like to help you do that, if that's at all possible.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  I suggested to him that y'all need to be trading off on each other's shows.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  He does a show also, and the three of you guys are so great.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  Y'all need to be on his venue also to get this word out, in my opinion anyway,
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  and I've suggested that to him when he was here in Austin.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  So what I wanted to tell you guys, but this is a follow-up to 9-11
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  and the discussion that you guys had that I heard over the weekend on a replay.
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  When I met Tom Cryer, he explained that they were really looking for the ideal case
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  to have what he was calling a brother-in-law type of a lawsuit
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:31.000]  where they had an employer who was willing to go to court
[01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  and wanting to refuse to withhold on their employee's paychecks,
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  and they needed an employee who was working for that same employer who was willing to sue
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  to demand that his withholding not be withheld.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  And I thought that that was kind of a perfect thing that could help out with the situation with NIST and 9-11
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  because nothing can seem to move forward at this point.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  And I can see the possibility that the folks who were directly affected,
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  and everybody keeps making it the families of people who were killed,
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  and this is really an American thing.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  It happened to everybody.
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  But the people who were directly affected may have to pick up the ball and run with it
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  and sue under a similar brother-in-law type of a lawsuit the architects who built the building
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  and say, how could you possibly build a building that fell down?
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  And then with the pain of power can go in and get what you need from NIST and perhaps everybody else.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  Well, yes, that's an excellent idea, and we did discuss that on Friday.
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  However, it requires...
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  I missed that.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:03.000]  Sorry.
[01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  Yes.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  Were you listening to Friday's show?
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  Yes, but just a part of it.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  I didn't get the whole thing.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  Okay.
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  We discussed, yes, we mostly started getting into discussing the legal remedies in Hour 4,
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  and yes, we did discuss that as a possible remedy.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  However, and I think we discussed it earlier in the show, too.
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  However, that will require the willingness on the part of people who were injured
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:34.000]  from the collapse of Building 7, not just in 9-11 in general.
[01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  It will require...
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  In order to have standing for that kind of lawsuit and for that kind of discovery,
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:44.000]  and actually it wouldn't be subpoena, it would be through court-ordered discovery.
[01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Subpoenas are generally only in criminal cases.
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  But in order to have standing to demand of the court or attempt to demand of the court,
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  that is that level of discovery, somebody would have had to have lost a family member
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  in the collapse of Building 7, or they would have had to have been injured from the collapse of Building 7,
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:10.000]  or they would have had to have property that was damaged or destroyed from the collapse of Building 7 specifically.
[01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:17.000]  Now, the remedy that we discussed in Hour 4 was FOIA.
[01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:21.000]  Okay, and if you would go back and listen to that, I was doing research on FOIA
[01:50:21.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  while Derek was presenting his very technical explanations during Hour 2 and 3.
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:37.000]  And they are giving Ron Brookman, NIST is giving Ron Brookman this lame excuse of public safety or something,
[01:50:37.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  that they can't release these documents because of public safety.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  That was the part I good.
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  Okay, I'm sorry?
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  That was the part I understood.
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  Okay, right.
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  But the problem is under FOIA, NIST has nine lawful exemptions that they can claim to deny a request.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:04.000]  And public safety is not one of them.
[01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:09.000]  There are nine statutory exemptions that they can claim.
[01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:15.000]  Number one is classified documents and the legal explanation of classified documents,
[01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  it says specifically that it has to be designated as a classified document under executive order
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  by the President of the United States.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  So Bush, which too late for him, but Obama would have to step in
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  and sign an executive order classifying the documents that they're looking for,
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  which is basically the finite element analysis files and the blueprints,
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  the design for the structure building seven, that has not happened yet.
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  Somehow I don't think Obama is going to put his neck out on the line that far for this.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  All right, if he did, it would really surprise me.
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  So they have to be either classified documents by presidential executive order,
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  they have to be internal agency rules, that does not apply.
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:05.000]  They have to be information exempted by another federal statute, that does not apply.
[01:52:05.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  Confidential business information does not apply, internal government communications, no.
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  Personal privacy, no.
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:15.000]  Law enforcement, no.
[01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  Financial institutional records, no.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  Geological information, no.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:24.000]  None of the nine statutory exemptions under FOIA apply in this situation.
[01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  They have not claimed any of these statutory exemptions.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:34.000]  So what needs to happen now, and under FOIA, see FOIA is a civil rights statute.
[01:52:34.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  It's kind of like the consumer protection laws of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:44.000]  Now as a libertarian, I really don't believe in civil rights,
[01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  because civil rights are statutorily given, quote unquote, rights, if you will.
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:54.000]  And I do not believe that any piece of paper or any statute
[01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:57.000]  or even the Constitution itself gives us our rights.
[01:52:57.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  All right, but we have to use what we have to use.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:03.000]  And basically I just consider them as consumer protection laws.
[01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  All right, or civil protection laws.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:09.000]  But at any rate, FOIA is basically a civil rights statute.
[01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:18.000]  And so we claim there is an administrative procedure that is designated under FOIA.
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  There is an, you have to, at this point, Ron needs to file an appeal with NIST.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  They have to go through this administrative procedure.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  And if he doesn't get what he wants, then he can appeal to a federal district court.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  It says if the appeal is denied, he can file a judicial appeal for judicial review
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:44.000]  in the U.S. District Court where he lives, the district courts where the documents are located,
[01:53:44.000 --> 01:53:46.000]  or in the District of Columbia.
[01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  So he's got to go through the administrative remedy process first.
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  And if that doesn't work, then he can file a judicial appeal.
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  If that doesn't work, then he can sue.
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  Okay, and so I say that FOIA, we need to do everything under FOIA
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  because this is a very strong law.
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  It carries a lot of power.
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:07.000]  And let's bring the lefties into this.
[01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  I mean, no offense intended for those out there who are more leftist leaning politically.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:18.000]  But hey, where is the left jumping, why isn't the left jumping up and down
[01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  and screaming about the Federal Reserve?
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  Because that's a private central bank.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  Okay, so I say let's call on the power of the left and organizations like the ACLU
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  over this FOIA issue because in general, the courts do not mess around with FOIA.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  Okay, it doesn't matter what it is.
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  They will not touch FOIA because if they overturn FOIA, it's going to cause madness.
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  It's going to cause chaos.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  The court system is not going to overturn decades of jurisprudence over FOIA.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  I think that what's going to happen is that, and Derek and I already discussed this,
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  that if Ron doesn't have the time or the resources or the ability
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  or the wherewithal to pursue the FOIA remedies,
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  then Derek is just going to FOIA these same exact records himself
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  and when they give him the same lame excuse,
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:11.000]  then he and I are just going to work on this together.
[01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:14.000]  And worst case scenario, I'll FOIA the records myself
[01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to.
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  I'm not messing around because these documents that Derek and his colleagues need
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  is what is going to blow the whole 9-11 truth thing wide open on the map.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  It will prove once and for all that Building 7 was taken down by controlled demolition.
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  We'll have everything we need and once we've totally exposed Building 7,
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:42.000]  then we'll be able to take the next step of totally exposing World Trade Centers 1 and 2
[01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  because it was such a similar situation with the pools of the molten metal and everything.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  So that's our plan as of now dealing with these FOIA records.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  So does that make sense there, Elizabeth?
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  It does.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  I kind of like the shotgun approach.
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:10.000]  I was wondering why not take a lawsuit forward.
[01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  But of course I realize that it's going to take.
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  What kind of lawsuit?
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  Directly affected by the building.
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  They would have to be people directed directly by the building.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  And also another issue, another reason that the families of the victims of 9-11
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  have not filed massive lawsuits and some of them have is because they took a payoff
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  at the beginning from the federal government, a chump change payoff if you ask me
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  because they had no other choice of just a few hundred thousand dollars
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  and they had to sign non-disclosure agreements
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:52.000]  and they had to sign waivers saying that by taking this payoff and taking this settlement,
[01:56:52.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  they waived their right to ever sue the federal government again for their losses due to 9-11.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  And the people that did not sign those waivers and that did not take the payoff,
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  they have been absolutely stonewalled in court by one particular judge
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  and I can't remember the judge's name, but it was the same judge that was stonewalling
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  We Are Change and NYC-CAN when NYC-CAN was putting together a ballot initiative
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  for the city of New York itself to do its own investigation.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:35.000]  So there are very few victims of 9-11 left.
[01:57:35.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  Hellerstein, okay thanks, Jerry just Skyped me.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  Judge Hellerstein is a federal judge that has absolutely stonewalled all of the families
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  who have tried to sue the federal government over 9-11 and all of the rest,
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:58.000]  I would say a large majority of the rest took the payoff in the beginning so they can't sue.
[01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  And so I think that they've already tried to pursue that as best they can.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  But see right now, FOIA is the way to go because it doesn't take a lot of people.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  Nobody has to have any special standing.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  In fact, hey, you like the shotgun approach? Let's all do it.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  How about we all FOIA-nist for these documents and we'll have hundreds of people suing under FOIA.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  I think that's a great idea. Thanks, Elizabeth.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  Okay, we're at the end of the show.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  This has been the rule of law.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Folks, we'll be back on Thursday night.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Make sure you support our sponsors.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Get the traffic seminar tomorrow night.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  I am in well report with Tom Kiley.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  I can't wait to hear the update from Tom about how the big 9-11 conference went in New York City this past weekend.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  Of course, Agenda 21 Talk at 8 p.m. Central Time on Wednesday nights.
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  We have Richard Reeves with Outside of the Box Politics.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  And of course, our brand new show Free Mind Report at 8 p.m. on Wednesday nights.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:59:24.000]  See y'all next time, folks.
[01:59:27.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  I'm like a stepping razor Don't watch my side
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:36.000]  I'm dangerous I'm dangerous
[01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  I'm like a chopping razor Don't watch my side
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  I'm dangerous Dangerous
[01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:59.000]  If you eat out of your balls You better treat me good