ROL_2010-10-08_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:09.200]  A U.S. helicopter Friday claimed the lives of at least six members of Afghan security
[00:09.200 --> 00:15.320]  forces in eastern Afghanistan. Deputy Chief of Coast Province, Yukib Khan, said the men
[00:15.320 --> 00:21.640]  were killed in retaliatory fire by a U.S. helicopter after Afghan security forces allegedly
[00:21.640 --> 00:26.640]  opened fire on the chopper. The airstrike provoked anger among villagers who chanted
[00:26.640 --> 00:32.880]  death to America as they accompanied the bodies of the deceased to the governor's home. The
[00:32.880 --> 00:37.960]  U.S. Labor Department said Friday the U.S. economy shed jobs for a fourth consecutive
[00:37.960 --> 00:45.720]  month. Among those dropped from payroll were 159,000 government employees. Local governments
[00:45.720 --> 00:53.120]  paired 76,000 jobs, the largest cut in 28 years, and another 77,000 temporary census
[00:53.120 --> 00:59.600]  jobs also ended in September. Experts believe we are either teetering on or have already
[00:59.600 --> 01:07.040]  entered a second recession. A surprise inspection Thursday by U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration
[01:07.040 --> 01:12.720]  officials turned up serious safety violations that could have caused an explosion at a Massey
[01:12.720 --> 01:19.280]  Energy Coal Mine in West Virginia. Last April, 29 miners died in an explosion at Massey's
[01:19.280 --> 01:24.720]  Upper Big Branch Mine. Massey's mines are non-union, making it harder for workers to
[01:24.720 --> 01:32.000]  fight for safer working conditions. A Senate Armed Services Committee report says heavy
[01:32.000 --> 01:38.160]  U.S. reliance on private security in Afghanistan has helped line the pockets of the Taliban.
[01:38.160 --> 01:43.240]  The report says this is because contractors often failed to vet local recruits and ended
[01:43.240 --> 01:51.720]  up hiring warlords. Some 26,000 private security personnel, mostly Afghans, operate in Afghanistan.
[01:51.720 --> 01:57.000]  In August, Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave private security companies four months to
[01:57.000 --> 02:02.400]  end operations in Afghanistan. The U.S. Senate investigations confirmed Karzai's view that
[02:02.400 --> 02:08.240]  private security firms undermined Afghanistan's police and army. The BBC says preparations
[02:08.240 --> 02:13.240]  were underway to absorb members of security firms into the two forces, but the police
[02:13.240 --> 02:17.680]  and army have always struggled to find new recruits, mainly because private security
[02:17.680 --> 02:24.640]  guards earn four times as much as police. Senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence
[02:24.640 --> 02:30.360]  officials have told the U.K. Guardian a U.S. terror alert issued this week about al-Qaeda
[02:30.360 --> 02:35.560]  plots to attack targets in Western Europe was politically motivated and not based on
[02:35.560 --> 02:41.800]  credible new information. Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Pakistan High Commissioner to Britain, said
[02:41.800 --> 02:46.520]  the non-specific U.S. warning, which led Britain, France and other countries to raise their
[02:46.520 --> 02:52.760]  terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in U.S. drone and helicopter
[02:52.760 --> 02:56.960]  attacks inside Pakistan that have set the country on fire.
[02:56.960 --> 03:03.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[03:03.000 --> 03:10.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:10.000 --> 03:34.000]  talk radio at its best.
[03:34.000 --> 03:57.000]  We are originators, and the pathways seem to get straighter every day, and I can take
[03:57.000 --> 04:06.000]  anything that belongs to me and put it to good use. While I was good for the gander,
[04:06.000 --> 04:21.000]  don't work for the fools. I know some architects, I know some engineers, they've seen the evidence,
[04:21.000 --> 04:29.000]  they know certain things quick. What's up with the blatant deception? What is the nature
[04:29.000 --> 04:37.000]  of what you might gain? I see something headed straight for you, I think it looks just like
[04:37.000 --> 04:47.000]  a train. It sounds like a sham of something, I can see them playing fast and loose. While
[04:47.000 --> 05:02.000]  I was good for the gander, don't work for the fools.
[05:02.000 --> 05:12.000]  Okay folks, we are back. We're taking your calls, 512-646-1984. Right now we're speaking
[05:12.000 --> 05:17.000]  to Gary in Georgia. Okay Gary, please continue.
[05:17.000 --> 05:23.000]  Thank you Deborah. As I said, the Rule of Law, the unambiguous intent of the legislature
[05:23.000 --> 05:30.000]  coverage, and Andy and I are right on point, and because people want to tell you, well
[05:30.000 --> 05:36.000]  the judge said this, he said that all cotton picking hearsay, because the judge can't make
[05:36.000 --> 05:44.000]  law, my biggest point I want to announce to people, agencies cannot make law. Only someone
[05:44.000 --> 05:53.000]  elected to the legislature can make law, because we know the APA is the fourth branch of government,
[05:53.000 --> 06:01.000]  and it is eloquently said, you have to have an office. A police office is not an office,
[06:01.000 --> 06:09.000]  he's not elected, he's a Coca-Cola cop of a county corporation or whatever. But as I
[06:09.000 --> 06:15.000]  do want to bring this up to anyone listening, persons dealing with the government cannot
[06:15.000 --> 06:21.000]  rely on the conversations of officials, and that means the police office. This is a Georgia
[06:21.000 --> 06:31.000]  Supreme Court case, and I do have just all and all of federal Supreme Court cases, circuit
[06:31.000 --> 06:39.000]  court cases, so it says, Justice Holmes long ago pointed out, men must turn square corners
[06:39.000 --> 06:47.000]  when dealing with the government. Rock Island, ARC, anyway they cite Kingston on that, is
[06:47.000 --> 06:59.000]  Arkansas, it's versus U.S. 254, U.S. 141, and I have that quotation cited at least ten
[06:59.000 --> 07:06.000]  times. So these it goes to, credibility of a police officer, where is his delegation
[07:06.000 --> 07:12.000]  of authority from the commissioner, I'll use my state, they call him commissioner of
[07:12.000 --> 07:22.000]  department of driver services. He doesn't have it, so why are we getting into a so-called
[07:22.000 --> 07:28.000]  judicial system when the agency itself has not exhausted its administrative remedies
[07:28.000 --> 07:34.000]  in determining if you're a driver or if you have to have license, if you have to have
[07:34.000 --> 07:42.000]  a tag, those things. Sir, it's not in the record. That's all you have to be concerned
[07:42.000 --> 07:48.000]  with, because anything anyone else says is hearsay, lacking in foundation. So where is
[07:48.000 --> 07:56.000]  evidence that I am a driver? So therefore any court that we go upon, they're not really
[07:56.000 --> 08:04.000]  courts, in a court that you can't get a, don't have a jury trial, and you don't do discovery,
[08:04.000 --> 08:14.000]  the administrative tribunal. They can't become judicial, appeal, an injured party, show standing,
[08:14.000 --> 08:21.000]  and certainly the judge, he can't say I got standing, but we do know sometimes like in
[08:21.000 --> 08:28.000]  so-called traffic courts, which are administrative tribunal, the judge, he's one call that does
[08:28.000 --> 08:38.000]  it all. He's a prosecutor. He's the judge. In one case, here a man, the judge ruled against
[08:38.000 --> 08:44.000]  him and said that the police officer was a prosecutor. That was something else. Anyway,
[08:44.000 --> 08:53.000]  we ain't going to go bash on them real good, but all these things either like to say is
[08:53.000 --> 09:01.000]  frivolous, meaning without merit, or the word frivolous also means silly. But they love
[09:01.000 --> 09:10.000]  to use that word, but it's still just a total hearsay. And I'm looking for someone to tell
[09:10.000 --> 09:18.000]  me that that first agency does not have to exhaust administrative liberties, and that
[09:18.000 --> 09:25.000]  the county police officer, he's a delegate of the, say, Commissioner's Department of
[09:25.000 --> 09:35.000]  Driver Services. So I haven't heard anyone tell me different, so I can, so what's your
[09:35.000 --> 09:39.000]  take on that, Eddie? And I'll get off the horn, sir.
[09:39.000 --> 09:44.000]  Well, I tend to agree with you. Like I said, here in Texas, it is very, very clear that
[09:44.000 --> 09:50.000]  the Administrative Procedures Act applies in contested cases regarding any state administrative
[09:50.000 --> 09:56.000]  agency. And the code very clearly defines any state administrative agency as one that
[09:56.000 --> 10:00.000]  is given the power and authority to create rules and regulations in association with
[10:00.000 --> 10:05.000]  the duties of their office. And that's exactly what the Department of Public Safety is authorized
[10:05.000 --> 10:10.000]  to do, it's what the Department of Transportation is authorized to do, it's what the Police
[10:10.000 --> 10:15.000]  Department is authorized to do, and the Sheriff's Department is authorized to do. So according
[10:15.000 --> 10:24.000]  to the APA, they are administrative agencies. And in fact, I'm not even sure in Texas where
[10:24.000 --> 10:30.000]  we have anything that can actually be considered law enforcement, unless you take the Constitution
[10:30.000 --> 10:36.000]  at face value, where it specifically states that law enforcement relates to the Sheriff,
[10:36.000 --> 10:43.000]  Deputy Sheriff, and Constable, in which case the only law it can be referring to is the
[10:43.000 --> 10:48.000]  Constitution itself, because any other time would mean that they have to be acting under
[10:48.000 --> 10:54.000]  the Executive Branch of Government, which in Texas, the Sheriff can't do, because the
[10:54.000 --> 11:00.000]  Sheriff's, Deputy Sheriff's, and Constable's are created under the fifth article, which
[11:00.000 --> 11:06.000]  is all judicial. So the Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, and Constable are all judicial officers. Therefore,
[11:06.000 --> 11:10.000]  they cannot be law enforcement in the executive sense.
[11:10.000 --> 11:16.000]  Absolutely, because it would violate the separation of powers.
[11:16.000 --> 11:17.000]  That's correct.
[11:17.000 --> 11:26.000]  You've done a good explanation, because if you're licensed, then I do have case law in
[11:26.000 --> 11:39.000]  Georgia. The ordinances and people regulations cannot be taken. They can't take judicial
[11:39.000 --> 11:45.000]  notice of them, especially ordinances, because they're private statutes. They're not public
[11:45.000 --> 11:52.000]  laws. They pertain to certain individuals. When you get your licensing into a contract
[11:52.000 --> 12:00.000]  with the government for permission to do this and to do that. Therefore, they are special
[12:00.000 --> 12:08.000]  laws, not necessarily public laws, because they don't apply to the common law public.
[12:08.000 --> 12:16.000]  Under their police powers, they are made to protect the public, not to interfere with
[12:16.000 --> 12:24.000]  the right to privacy and peaceful ownership of the property of the public. The property,
[12:24.000 --> 12:33.000]  the public has the right to do anything it says until it trespasses over rights of another
[12:33.000 --> 12:40.000]  person. That's where the government steps in and says, hey, it's our duty to protect
[12:40.000 --> 12:48.000]  the public. Of course, there are lots of cases out there that say, including Georgia, people
[12:48.000 --> 12:56.000]  call 911. They don't call them, and they sue 911. They say, hey, we don't have any special
[12:56.000 --> 13:04.000]  use to you. But I tell you, a bank calls and says, hey, there's a robbery. We hear all
[13:04.000 --> 13:12.000]  the sirens. That's just sidebar. But in actuality, if you have a license, first, the administrative
[13:12.000 --> 13:21.000]  agency's got your jurisdiction, and then the person has to be delegated to do that job,
[13:21.000 --> 13:29.000]  because that's the way it is. And when we argue something about some traffic ticket,
[13:29.000 --> 13:37.000]  I haven't found out if there's a ticket yet. But nevertheless, it's the commissioner of
[13:37.000 --> 13:45.000]  that agency, being it for dentists, for dentistry, chiropractors, or whatever, they have the
[13:45.000 --> 13:55.000]  jurisdiction. And once you exhaust your administrative remedies, then you can go for what's known
[13:55.000 --> 14:02.000]  as judicial review. And the same thing as far as the tax issues. It's the same thing,
[14:02.000 --> 14:11.000]  five years C-section, 706. I'll leave it at that. 706 says, if an agency acts arbitrary,
[14:11.000 --> 14:19.000]  capricious, or abuse of discretion, then the courts, now we're getting into judicial,
[14:19.000 --> 14:28.000]  the court shall boy, shall is mandatory. Word, the mandatory, not name. Anyway, enjoy your
[14:28.000 --> 14:36.000]  program. But I do request that people, before we start arguing with a police officer, he
[14:36.000 --> 14:45.000]  has to show, he has to show standing to even do that. Because you would have to be a driver,
[14:45.000 --> 14:51.000]  just like you'd have to be a woman if you wanted to make some administrative claim
[14:51.000 --> 14:57.000]  for child, you know, pregnancy or whatever. You cannot be one of those people defined
[14:57.000 --> 15:03.000]  by statute if you're not. So a good night, and enjoy your show, sir.
[15:03.000 --> 15:10.000]  All right, thanks, Gary. Thank you. All right, Randy, do you have any comments?
[15:10.000 --> 15:20.000]  Well, it goes to my primary frustration. All these laws, the law is very clear. And it
[15:20.000 --> 15:27.000]  seems that a good portion of these officials actually know what it is. They just don't
[15:27.000 --> 15:36.000]  care. For all this law we structure, we can't get our officials to follow it. It doesn't
[15:36.000 --> 15:47.000]  seem to make any difference. Frankly, I'm getting frustrated with it. Betty, do something
[15:47.000 --> 15:53.000]  about it. I'm working on it. We need the listeners to do something about it. Everyone needs to
[15:53.000 --> 15:57.000]  rise up and go to the grand jury with these criminal complaints.
[15:57.000 --> 16:02.000]  I'm riding as fast as my fingers will go in my mind to work these days, considering how
[16:02.000 --> 16:09.000]  little sleep I'm getting. I'm amazed at exactly how apt that may actually be. But still, this
[16:09.000 --> 16:15.000]  is an awful lot of work just the three of us to take on, folks. We need you involved.
[16:15.000 --> 16:21.000]  If you can't participate, literally participate by supporting us so that we can get it done
[16:21.000 --> 16:26.000]  at work. This takes an awful lot of time to do. It's not a matter of just sitting down
[16:26.000 --> 16:32.000]  and thinking about it. It takes research. It takes reading. It takes analysis. And it
[16:32.000 --> 16:36.000]  takes a lot of consultation with like-minded individuals to throw out ideas you may not
[16:36.000 --> 16:38.000]  have thought of.
[16:38.000 --> 16:44.000]  Exactly. And the idea isn't just to get people off of traffic tickets, but the idea is to
[16:44.000 --> 16:52.000]  take back the system that belongs to us and to reinstate the rule of law and reclaim our
[16:52.000 --> 16:55.000]  republic and our freedom and our liberty. We'll be right back, folks. We're going to
[16:55.000 --> 17:02.000]  take more of your calls.
[17:02.000 --> 17:06.000]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family-owned and operated business
[17:11.000 --> 17:16.000]  that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. We buy, sell, trade
[17:16.000 --> 17:20.000]  and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious metals and scrap gold.
[17:20.000 --> 17:25.000]  We purchase and sell gold and jewelry items. We offer daily specials on coins and bullions.
[17:25.000 --> 17:30.000]  We are located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3 at the corner of Burnett and Schoenmark.
[17:30.000 --> 17:35.000]  And we're open Mondays and Fridays 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5. You are welcome to stop
[17:35.000 --> 17:42.000]  in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask
[17:42.000 --> 17:47.000]  for Chad and say you heard about us on Blue of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio. That's
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  Capital Coin and Bullion at the corner of Burnett and Schoenmark and we're open Mondays
[17:51.000 --> 18:00.000]  and Fridays 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5. That's Capital Coin and Bullion 512-646-6440.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:10.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[18:10.000 --> 18:15.000]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get
[18:15.000 --> 18:20.000]  step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil
[18:20.000 --> 18:25.000]  rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.000 --> 18:29.000]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to
[18:29.000 --> 18:35.000]  turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears
[18:35.000 --> 18:40.000]  Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is
[18:40.000 --> 18:45.000]  available as well. For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click
[18:45.000 --> 18:52.000]  on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at Yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com
[18:52.000 --> 19:01.000]  or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:01.000 --> 19:23.000]  Well, don't let nothing get to you. Only the father can deliver you. Well, don't let bad
[19:23.000 --> 19:42.000]  things get to you. Only the father can deliver you. Only the father can deliver you. Only
[19:42.000 --> 20:07.000]  the father can deliver you. Only the father can deliver you. Only the father can deliver
[20:07.000 --> 20:19.000]  you. All right. Trust in God, my friends. Call on His name. Tell Him your problems. Call
[20:19.000 --> 20:25.000]  on His name. Miracles, you know He works them. Okay. We are going now. We're taking your
[20:25.000 --> 20:29.000]  calls. We've pretty much got open phone lines right now. Just a couple calls on the board
[20:29.000 --> 20:36.000]  so folks who'd like to call in, 512-646-1984. We've got Doug from Texas. Doug, thanks for
[20:36.000 --> 20:44.000]  calling in. What's your question tonight? Thank you. You're a stakeholder for details,
[20:44.000 --> 20:53.000]  ma'am. Could you tell me the difference between an engine and a motor? Are you talking to
[20:53.000 --> 21:10.000]  me? The difference between an engine and a motor? Is that the question? Hello? Doug,
[21:10.000 --> 21:20.000]  are you still there? Yeah, I believe that's the question. He may have dropped off the
[21:20.000 --> 21:27.000]  question. I assume he's trying to ask you if there's some legal definition between an
[21:27.000 --> 21:35.000]  engine and a motor concerning the fact that the transportation code has to do with a motor
[21:35.000 --> 21:45.000]  vehicle. Well, an engine is driven differently than a motor is in most cases. For instance,
[21:45.000 --> 21:50.000]  my idea of a motor is something along the lines of an electrical generator motor where
[21:50.000 --> 21:55.000]  all the power is applied to a driven shaft to do the work and it's supplied by some other
[21:55.000 --> 22:01.000]  impetus such as magnetic force in this particular case. The engine is something that's driven
[22:01.000 --> 22:06.000]  more by combustion process even though it also torques on a crank that spins the shaft
[22:06.000 --> 22:11.000]  that provides other work to the rest of the automobile transmission, for instance, and
[22:11.000 --> 22:20.000]  so on and so forth. I guess the output and the process for putting it into motion is
[22:20.000 --> 22:29.000]  what's different. Can I chime in? Sure, be my guest. No difference. They're synonymous.
[22:29.000 --> 22:35.000]  There's no technical difference between a motor and an engine. It's just what you call
[22:35.000 --> 22:43.000]  it. At least not in law. They're not mechanics. I've been a mechanic for a long time. No
[22:43.000 --> 22:47.000]  difference. Is there any difference according to the legal definition or is there even a
[22:47.000 --> 22:53.000]  legal definition of motor or is there just a legal definition of motor vehicle? Never
[22:53.000 --> 23:03.000]  seen a legal definition of motor in any of the codes that I've read, especially no
[23:03.000 --> 23:11.000]  differentiation between motor and engine. They're used synonymously. That's not a place
[23:11.000 --> 23:17.000]  he's going to give you traction. Okay. All right. Thanks for your question, Doug.
[23:17.000 --> 23:23.000]  All right. We're going on now to Rodney in Texas. Rodney, thanks for calling in. What
[23:23.000 --> 23:31.000]  is on your mind tonight? Good evening. I want to commend all three of you guys. I listened
[23:31.000 --> 23:40.000]  to that, I don't know if you call it an interview, that Eddie did with the sheriff. I was riveted
[23:40.000 --> 23:51.000]  by Eddie's composure and the details and how he was very, very professional in the
[23:51.000 --> 23:59.000]  way he spoke with the sheriff, but yet stuck to the law. I was listening to both sides
[23:59.000 --> 24:09.000]  of the conversation there and the sheriff seemed to just be baffled and start rattling
[24:09.000 --> 24:19.000]  on and on and on. I've been trying to figure out some of the traffic laws, but that interview
[24:19.000 --> 24:28.000]  really brought a lot of the information that Eddie talks about. It really helped me to
[24:28.000 --> 24:37.000]  be able to understand it clear. I'm still trying to figure out, was the judge just trying
[24:37.000 --> 24:43.000]  to get rid of you when he sent you to the sheriff? It sounds like the judge shirked
[24:43.000 --> 24:50.000]  his responsibility. As far as the criminal complaints, I would say yes, you are correct.
[24:50.000 --> 24:58.000]  Yeah, and then the sheriff admitted there on the tape that he didn't know he would have
[24:58.000 --> 25:04.000]  to do an investigation to see if the complaint met the, and it sounds like he was trying
[25:04.000 --> 25:13.000]  to be a lawyer, met the elements that needed to meet in order for them to take it serious
[25:13.000 --> 25:21.000]  or to be a valid complaint. What was he going with that, Eddie? Well, your guess is as good
[25:21.000 --> 25:28.000]  as mine. Basically, truthfully, I think he was just playing it safe, not knowing whether
[25:28.000 --> 25:34.000]  he would have anything to act on or not, and possibly not considering that I have already
[25:34.000 --> 25:39.000]  completely studied the laws to see what the necessary elements are, and if I didn't feel
[25:39.000 --> 25:45.000]  that each of them had been met, which that proof would come from testimony based upon
[25:45.000 --> 25:52.000]  mine as the witness and cross-examination of the accused, whether it be in front of a
[25:52.000 --> 25:58.000]  grand jury or at trial. That's not a determination for law enforcement to make, but I have already
[25:58.000 --> 26:03.000]  studied it to the point where if I don't believe the elements have been met, I won't make the
[26:03.000 --> 26:12.000]  accusation. Just to add to what you're saying, Eddie, you actually had the sheriff contradicting
[26:12.000 --> 26:18.000]  himself, but because you pointed out the language, the specific language in the law, and you
[26:18.000 --> 26:25.000]  pointed out that a gang warden did not meet the description or the specifics of the law
[26:25.000 --> 26:33.000]  that you referred to. And the judge, I mean the sheriff, continued to say that any licensed
[26:33.000 --> 26:42.000]  police officer authorized a law enforcement person was allowed to do this, and I really
[26:42.000 --> 26:52.000]  appreciate, once again, this is why this program, your program, and Dr. Graves' program, I
[26:52.000 --> 26:59.000]  listen to all three because there's always something there, always something there, and
[26:59.000 --> 27:07.000]  I'm not exaggerating this, that I find that I can use because, I mean, that was just an
[27:07.000 --> 27:13.000]  excellent interview. I don't know if I could, well, I think I could have been composed,
[27:13.000 --> 27:22.000]  but to make that sheriff contradict himself and lie like, well, I hate to say lie, but
[27:22.000 --> 27:31.000]  he kept saying, well, any licensed law enforcement person will obviously have read the law because,
[27:31.000 --> 27:40.000]  like you said, it doesn't specifically say that a gang warden is licensed to do it.
[27:40.000 --> 27:46.000]  In all honesty, a gang warden is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as a licensed
[27:46.000 --> 27:52.000]  peace officer. They do qualify. The problem is the statute in which they were operating,
[27:52.000 --> 27:59.000]  which is Chapter or Section 543 of the Transportation Code, that chapter specifically states that
[27:59.000 --> 28:05.000]  any licensed police officer may make an arrest for any offense committed in this subtitle,
[28:05.000 --> 28:11.000]  and the problem they run into is that neither of the offenses they pulled me over and cited
[28:11.000 --> 28:20.000]  me for are in that subtitle. That's the problem. Now, the other problem is the limitations
[28:20.000 --> 28:27.000]  of where they can go when that subtitle gives specific direction as to how it's to be enforced.
[28:27.000 --> 28:31.000]  You can't jump to a different code and say, well, because it says they can do it over
[28:31.000 --> 28:37.000]  here, then he was authorized, not when the code that controls the instance that we're
[28:37.000 --> 28:45.000]  dealing with specifically says this is the only time it's authorized. No one could trust
[28:45.000 --> 28:50.000]  the law if that was the way it worked. If you can't take the law to face value in which
[28:50.000 --> 28:56.000]  it's written because there may be a hidden reference in another code that completely
[28:56.000 --> 29:02.000]  obliterates it and it's not known to you, how do you place any trust at all in the law
[29:02.000 --> 29:03.000]  you're reading?
[29:03.000 --> 29:10.000]  I agree. I also want to give some love to Randy there because a couple of weeks ago
[29:10.000 --> 29:17.000]  a fellow called in and was talking about how he got shipped down by the people at the airport,
[29:17.000 --> 29:27.000]  and as a result he actually lost out on the opportunity and the expectation to get a job.
[29:27.000 --> 29:34.000]  And Randy mentioned a couple items that actually helped market. Could I share that with you
[29:34.000 --> 29:36.000]  after the break?
[29:36.000 --> 29:41.000]  Sure, Rodney. Okay, and our call board's starting to fill up now, so when we get back
[29:41.000 --> 29:47.000]  we'll go to the rest of the calls. This is the rule of law and, Rodney, I was just going
[29:47.000 --> 29:52.000]  to add also that this was my whole point last night, that this is the reason why the statute
[29:52.000 --> 29:56.000]  says that criminal complaints are to be directed to the magistrate or the grand jury or the
[29:56.000 --> 30:01.000]  state attorney, not the law enforcement.
[30:01.000 --> 30:05.000]  Come down and enjoy Austin's own piece of the Caribbean right on the banks of the Colorado
[30:05.000 --> 30:11.000]  River. One Love Kitchens, jerk chicken and vegetarian food, 3109 East Cesar Chavez. That's
[30:11.000 --> 30:16.000]  3109 East 1st Street right next door to Planet K. Lunch and dinner plates starting at $5.
[30:16.000 --> 30:21.000]  You can't beat that. Serving the real thing, jerk chicken, vegetarian and seafood Saturdays,
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  Monday through Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, late night with Empress Sound Crew. All right,
[30:26.000 --> 30:31.000]  also link up at OneLoveKitchen.net. That's OneLoveKitchen.net.
[30:31.000 --> 30:36.000]  It seems like everywhere you turn nowadays, someone wants your name, social security number
[30:36.000 --> 30:40.000]  and date of birth, but you should think twice before giving away your personal data. I'm
[30:40.000 --> 30:44.000]  Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll say more in just a moment.
[30:44.000 --> 30:48.000]  Google is watching you, recording everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive
[30:48.000 --> 30:53.000]  database of your personal information. That's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. Startpage.com doesn't store
[30:58.000 --> 31:02.000]  your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies and they're third
[31:02.000 --> 31:07.000]  party certified. If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[31:07.000 --> 31:13.000]  Great search results and total privacy. Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:13.000 --> 31:18.000]  Forms, forms, forms, they're everywhere. But just because a piece of paper asks for information
[31:18.000 --> 31:23.000]  doesn't mean you have to give it. I lay blank spaces on forms all the time where I write
[31:23.000 --> 31:29.000]  N slash A for not applicable and usually nobody notices or cares. I never give my social security
[31:29.000 --> 31:33.000]  number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government
[31:33.000 --> 31:38.000]  requirement and I won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless I actually
[31:38.000 --> 31:42.000]  want them to call me and that's pretty rare. To preserve our vanishing privacy, we need
[31:42.000 --> 31:48.000]  to practice saying no to random data requests. It's like exercising a muscle, it gets easier
[31:48.000 --> 31:54.000]  the more you do it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:54.000 --> 32:22.000]  Okay, folks, we're back. Call boards starting to fill up here. Got some first time callers
[32:22.000 --> 32:28.000]  on the board. So Rodney, yeah, you made some excellent points and these are some of the
[32:28.000 --> 32:34.000]  points I was making last night that this is the reason why it's in statute that criminal
[32:34.000 --> 32:40.000]  complaints are to be directed to some magistrate or directly to the grand jury and in the case
[32:40.000 --> 32:46.000]  of criminal complaints against a public servant, you can submit them to a state attorney and
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  in that instance, the state attorney is required to reduce the complaint to an information
[32:51.000 --> 32:56.000]  and submit it to the grand jury. They don't have any kind of discretion and the problem
[32:56.000 --> 33:03.000]  with submitting criminal complaints to a law enforcement officer is that they're not required
[33:03.000 --> 33:09.000]  to take them, they're not required to do anything with them and so it is up to their discretion.
[33:09.000 --> 33:15.000]  It's more like complaining and so they can decide if they want to deal with it or not
[33:15.000 --> 33:22.000]  or if they want to notify a state attorney or grand jury about it or the prosecutor or
[33:22.000 --> 33:26.000]  whatever and so that's why it's in law, it's in the statute that criminal complaints are
[33:26.000 --> 33:33.000]  to be directed to some magistrate or the state attorney or the grand jury and so yeah, obviously
[33:33.000 --> 33:39.000]  this magistrate, this JP was shirking her duties when she refused to take the criminal
[33:39.000 --> 33:43.000]  complaints and she said you have to go to the sheriff and this is just a matter of policy
[33:43.000 --> 33:47.000]  and procedure. This is what they're trained to do. They're trained to break the law and
[33:47.000 --> 33:54.000]  so that's why I made the point many times earlier this week that we need to get a hold
[33:54.000 --> 33:59.000]  of these training programs. I want to find, I just haven't had time to do the research
[33:59.000 --> 34:04.000]  yet. I'm involved with a lot of other research and a lot of other situations but we need
[34:04.000 --> 34:09.000]  to research these training programs. How are they authorized? Who's teaching them? What
[34:09.000 --> 34:14.000]  is the curriculum? We need to get a grip on these training programs so that these law
[34:14.000 --> 34:18.000]  enforcement entities can be trained and the magistrates and the prosecutors can be trained
[34:18.000 --> 34:25.000]  to follow law. Yeah, the main agencies you're dealing with is T-CLOS here in Texas for the
[34:25.000 --> 34:31.000]  law enforcement and the Texas Municipal League is one of the biggest educators of the municipal
[34:31.000 --> 34:40.000]  and justice court judges. We need to get the curriculums and if it's in the curriculum
[34:40.000 --> 34:44.000]  specifically that they're being trained, that the training programs are training people
[34:44.000 --> 34:50.000]  to violate law, then lawsuits need to be filed and possibly even criminal charges against
[34:50.000 --> 34:57.000]  the people who write these curriculums. Yeah, just to add to what you said Deborah, a couple
[34:57.000 --> 35:04.000]  of days ago, and you're right on point, I read an article out of the Associated Press
[35:04.000 --> 35:13.000]  where a prosecutor in the state of the Midwest had prosecuted over 3,000 cases. The only
[35:13.000 --> 35:21.000]  problem is he wasn't registered or licensed attorney to be doing this. So now this state
[35:21.000 --> 35:30.000]  in which he prosecuted all these people, they've got to go back and probably expunge those
[35:30.000 --> 35:36.000]  convictions from all of those people. This man was prosecuted, but just like you said
[35:36.000 --> 35:43.000]  Deborah, trained to just break the law, but yet he was throwing people in jail, you know,
[35:43.000 --> 35:50.000]  allegedly for breaking the law. Well, now to tell you the truth though, in Texas it
[35:50.000 --> 35:58.000]  has always been perfectly legal for a private citizen to conduct a prosecution. I've actually
[35:58.000 --> 36:06.000]  got case law in my Vernon's annotated statutes that very clearly shows that a private citizen
[36:06.000 --> 36:12.000]  can even get the county attorney or the district attorney to step aside for a private prosecution
[36:12.000 --> 36:20.000]  to take place. Right, but clearly this man wasn't following his own rules and regulations
[36:20.000 --> 36:28.000]  according to the bar, and now he's got to pay for it and rightfully so. Now, I want
[36:28.000 --> 36:36.000]  to say this with my own situation, with a judge, the federal rules of social procedure
[36:36.000 --> 36:45.000]  has the provision in there for disqualifying judges, and the judge on my current case made
[36:45.000 --> 36:52.000]  several disparaging remarks, but I followed some motions. He actually put them in writing
[36:52.000 --> 37:04.000]  and I actually file an affidavit today using the section of 28 U.S.C. section 144, along
[37:04.000 --> 37:11.000]  with this affidavit to have this judge disqualified, and I didn't even know that rule was there.
[37:11.000 --> 37:17.000]  It just happened that I was going through some information in the jurisdictionary course
[37:17.000 --> 37:24.000]  and decided to go to the law library to look this provision up in the federal rules of
[37:24.000 --> 37:31.000]  civil procedure, and I said, ah, you know, he's made several disparaging remarks and
[37:31.000 --> 37:38.000]  the law clearly says the judges are not allowed, even if you're not an attorney, they're not
[37:38.000 --> 37:49.000]  allowed to make disparaging remarks, be prejudiced or biased towards parties in which they're
[37:49.000 --> 37:57.000]  overseeing the case. So I don't know where that's going to go, but I'm having fun exercising
[37:57.000 --> 38:05.000]  my rights here, and back to Randy. Randy, once again, I can't thank you enough for a
[38:05.000 --> 38:10.000]  couple things that you share with the audience when the gentleman calls in about his personal
[38:10.000 --> 38:19.000]  situation and being arrested. You know, the tortious interference, I heard you use that
[38:19.000 --> 38:26.000]  term, and I've been trying to find the actual show in which you talk with this gentleman
[38:26.000 --> 38:35.000]  about that. Can you expand on that legal term or phrase? What exactly is this tortious interference
[38:35.000 --> 38:43.000]  and expectation? I just kind of caught the conversation, you know, and I said, boy, I
[38:43.000 --> 38:51.000]  wish I could get him to expand or elaborate on it. Do you recall exactly what you were
[38:51.000 --> 38:56.000]  talking about with that gentleman when you used those terms? Not exactly at the time,
[38:56.000 --> 39:06.000]  but tortious interference is where you have something interfered with by someone else,
[39:06.000 --> 39:13.000]  and that person is acting inappropriately or violating a right at the time that they're
[39:13.000 --> 39:19.000]  committing, if they're committing some sort of wrong against you, and that wrong causes
[39:19.000 --> 39:27.000]  you harm in another area. Okay. I'm traveling now, so I don't have my causes of action in
[39:27.000 --> 39:32.000]  front of me, or I could read the cause of action to you for tortious interference. It's
[39:32.000 --> 39:38.000]  generally tortious interference with a contract or a prospective contract. Right, right, and
[39:38.000 --> 39:44.000]  that was the context of what you... Yeah, that was the gentleman in the airport there
[39:44.000 --> 39:55.000]  that had been harassed by the TSA. Yes. So, I mean, that in and of itself, even though
[39:55.000 --> 40:04.000]  you just touched on it, that is very, very powerful information there, and I've been
[40:04.000 --> 40:14.000]  amending my complaints to include some of that language in it. And just one last thing,
[40:14.000 --> 40:23.000]  the federal rules of civil procedure also say that before you go into Rule 26, which
[40:23.000 --> 40:31.000]  is discovery, that both parties involved in that lawsuit have to make a good effort without
[40:31.000 --> 40:41.000]  the court's intervention to resolve the matter. Well, I actually did that with the party in
[40:41.000 --> 40:47.000]  litigation with or against, and they didn't respond. They ignored all my letters, so I
[40:47.000 --> 40:56.000]  just went ahead on and filed my motion to compel. They finally called or answered to
[40:56.000 --> 41:03.000]  the court screaming and yelling about the fact that they felt like my motion should
[41:03.000 --> 41:11.000]  be denied because I violated Rule 26. However, and this is where Deborah and Dr. Graves
[41:11.000 --> 41:19.000]  and Eddie and Randy Kelton are all on the same page and agree, by being familiar and
[41:19.000 --> 41:26.000]  doing a little research, I was able to point out I had already made a good faith effort.
[41:26.000 --> 41:35.000]  The law, the federal rules of civil procedure, doesn't say that I, you know, prior to going
[41:35.000 --> 41:45.000]  into the hearing, you know, as part of Rule 26, that I had to have the court's intervention
[41:45.000 --> 41:50.000]  there. In fact, it says that it rather that the court did interfere and that the parties
[41:50.000 --> 41:55.000]  tried to settle this matter without the intervention of the court, and the phrase that it used
[41:55.000 --> 42:00.000]  was good faith. And I pointed this out to the court, so guess what? They denied their
[42:00.000 --> 42:08.000]  defendant's motion to have my motion denied. So, you know, I just want to throw that in
[42:08.000 --> 42:16.000]  there to show just what happens when you do a little homework and get familiar with the
[42:16.000 --> 42:22.000]  rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure. And once again, I want to thank you guys and
[42:22.000 --> 42:29.000]  Deborah. I really, really appreciate your clarity. And, you know, and I say this, I
[42:29.000 --> 42:35.000]  don't go around trying to pump anybody up, but man, I get so much. I go back to shows
[42:35.000 --> 42:41.000]  that I took notes on when you guys were on there three or four years ago, and I'm still
[42:41.000 --> 42:49.000]  able to use that information, you know, when I'm out here trying to fight the battles and
[42:49.000 --> 42:54.000]  kill the snakes that I'm trying to kill on a personal level. That information, I don't
[42:54.000 --> 42:59.000]  think it's ever out of date. So I want to thank you personally. Randy, I want to thank
[42:59.000 --> 43:06.000]  you personally. And Eddie, I want to thank you personally. And by God, I'd love to hear
[43:06.000 --> 43:10.000]  that interview again with the sheriff with some documents and stuff.
[43:10.000 --> 43:13.000]  Well, you can listen on the archives.
[43:13.000 --> 43:19.000]  Yeah, the actual recording itself is downloadable along with the archives of the show. Well,
[43:19.000 --> 43:26.000]  thank you guys. And Randy, I kind of consider you the godfather because you kind of sit
[43:26.000 --> 43:33.000]  back there in the background and you just kind of take it easy and bring up these real,
[43:33.000 --> 43:40.000]  real powerful tidbits of information that sometimes I think may go a little unnoticed,
[43:40.000 --> 43:44.000]  but if people really pay attention to what you're saying, they'll find that you're putting
[43:44.000 --> 43:46.000]  out some very, very powerful information.
[43:46.000 --> 43:51.000]  All right. Thank you. Thank you, Rodney. We appreciate that. All right. We're going to
[43:51.000 --> 43:56.000]  break now, folks. And when we get back, we're going to go to some first time callers, Jeff
[43:56.000 --> 44:01.000]  and Ed. We'll be right back.
[44:01.000 --> 44:08.000]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of wellbeing. How many supplements have
[44:08.000 --> 44:14.000]  you heard boast of these benefits? The team behind Shentrician believes that supplements
[44:14.000 --> 44:21.000]  should over-deliver on their promises. And Shentrician does just that. Shentrician utilizes
[44:21.000 --> 44:26.000]  the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine in conjunction with the science of modern
[44:26.000 --> 44:32.000]  nutrition. Adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component, and organic hemp protein
[44:32.000 --> 44:39.000]  and greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base. Plus, Shentrician tastes great
[44:39.000 --> 44:46.000]  in just water. This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[44:46.000 --> 44:57.000]  Visit Shentrician.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436. After you use Shentrician,
[44:57.000 --> 45:00.000]  you'll believe in supplements again.
[45:00.000 --> 45:06.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris
[45:06.000 --> 45:13.000]  Dictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[45:13.000 --> 45:19.000]  step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't
[45:19.000 --> 45:25.000]  have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step
[45:25.000 --> 45:31.000]  course, and now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22
[45:31.000 --> 45:37.000]  years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what
[45:37.000 --> 45:43.000]  everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.000 --> 45:56.000]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner
[45:56.000 --> 46:01.000]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:15.000 --> 46:24.000]  Okay folks, we are back. We're taking your calls. We got some first-time callers. We're
[46:24.000 --> 46:30.000]  always very happy about that. We've got Jeff from Texas. Jeff, first-time caller, thanks
[46:30.000 --> 46:32.000]  for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[46:32.000 --> 46:39.000]  Yeah, I wanted to thank you all for doing the show. It's a great service to the public,
[46:39.000 --> 46:48.000]  really. I wanted to mention a crime victims' rights advocacy group in Texas, also a crime
[46:48.000 --> 47:03.000]  victim rights education. It's called Crime Victims First, and the website is helpcv1.org.
[47:03.000 --> 47:06.000]  Okay, thanks for that plug.
[47:06.000 --> 47:07.000]  All right.
[47:07.000 --> 47:09.000]  What's the organization about?
[47:09.000 --> 47:12.000]  I'll go ahead and go, and I'll list some of the other callers.
[47:12.000 --> 47:17.000]  Yeah, tell us. Eddie was asking, what is that about? What is that organization about?
[47:17.000 --> 47:24.000]  It's an organization, a nonprofit right here in Texas, and it's basically designed to help
[47:24.000 --> 47:31.000]  crime victims secure their rights, to educate the public about the rights of crime victims.
[47:31.000 --> 47:37.000]  Crime victims in Texas actually have guaranteed constitutional rights. A lot of them don't
[47:37.000 --> 47:43.000]  understand. Of course, if they have problems with officials, with public officials, the
[47:43.000 --> 47:49.000]  organization is there to try to help them remedy whatever kind of difficulties they're having.
[47:49.000 --> 47:51.000]  All right, give out that website one more time.
[47:51.000 --> 47:57.000]  It's helpcv1.org.
[47:57.000 --> 48:03.000]  All right, maybe we should start going to this organization when our rights are violated by
[48:03.000 --> 48:07.000]  these public servants and they commit crimes against us.
[48:07.000 --> 48:13.000]  Yeah, that's what the organization is for, for victims of violent crimes, but actually
[48:13.000 --> 48:20.000]  the information that you all are given about pro se tactics is the kind of information
[48:20.000 --> 48:26.000]  that organization can actually use, so maybe you can hook up with them and help them out as well.
[48:26.000 --> 48:27.000]  Are you part of this organization, Jeff?
[48:27.000 --> 48:29.000]  I am, actually. I'm on the board.
[48:29.000 --> 48:34.000]  Well, thank you for calling in and letting us know about this. This is wonderful.
[48:34.000 --> 48:35.000]  Why don't you send us an email about this?
[48:35.000 --> 48:37.000]  Okay, I'll do so.
[48:37.000 --> 48:40.000]  Send me an email and then I'll post a link to it on our website.
[48:40.000 --> 48:42.000]  Okay, thanks so much.
[48:42.000 --> 48:43.000]  Okay, thank you, Jeff.
[48:43.000 --> 48:50.000]  Okay, we are going now to Ed in Texas.
[48:50.000 --> 48:51.000]  Ed, thanks for calling in.
[48:51.000 --> 48:54.000]  Another first-time caller, what's on your mind tonight?
[48:54.000 --> 48:56.000]  Hello, hello. Can you hear me?
[48:56.000 --> 48:58.000]  Yes, go ahead.
[48:58.000 --> 49:06.000]  Okay, I'm going to give a little bit of background about myself first before I stick my foot
[49:06.000 --> 49:09.000]  in my mouth here, so to speak.
[49:09.000 --> 49:19.000]  I've been in this movement since 1978, and I've been fighting diligently the people who
[49:19.000 --> 49:28.000]  I feel like are our enemies, and through all of my research and through all of the following
[49:28.000 --> 49:36.000]  of the Patriot gurus and all that kind of stuff, I've never really had any success to speak of.
[49:36.000 --> 49:46.000]  But as I began to say to myself, you know, I need to do my own personal research, I began to do
[49:46.000 --> 49:53.000]  my own research to see what, you know, what was wrong with the system.
[49:53.000 --> 50:01.000]  And first thing I figured probably I should do is to go back to the very beginning of the book.
[50:01.000 --> 50:06.000]  And when you read a book from the first, you look at the cover and you look at the author,
[50:06.000 --> 50:13.000]  and usually most people, if they read books, you know, avidly, and they will also look at who the
[50:13.000 --> 50:21.000]  author is, if he's credible, before they read the book, and then even read the preface of the book
[50:21.000 --> 50:23.000]  before they read the book.
[50:23.000 --> 50:25.000]  And so that's what I did.
[50:25.000 --> 50:33.000]  And when I went back to the very beginning of the country, I learned where the law was.
[50:33.000 --> 50:36.000]  And that's the key to the whole thing is where is the law?
[50:36.000 --> 50:42.000]  We have to know what it is and what it's not or where it is, okay?
[50:42.000 --> 50:49.000]  And so to start with, the system is all private in its entirety.
[50:49.000 --> 50:54.000]  There's no government that exists in America any longer.
[50:54.000 --> 50:56.000]  We're in a crisis.
[50:56.000 --> 51:06.000]  And the government went away back in the 1800s, and it hasn't been receded since that time.
[51:06.000 --> 51:09.000]  And so...
[51:09.000 --> 51:12.000]  I don't know, I want to get Randy's comment on this and Eddie's, too, because I tend to disagree
[51:12.000 --> 51:14.000]  with that statement, Ed.
[51:14.000 --> 51:19.000]  I do know that the courts have incorporated themselves and the state governments have incorporated
[51:19.000 --> 51:24.000]  themselves, even the United States government has incorporated themselves, but just because they've
[51:24.000 --> 51:30.000]  incorporated themselves into a business entity, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not also
[51:30.000 --> 51:36.000]  a constitutional entity in and of themselves just because they've also just happened to be
[51:36.000 --> 51:39.000]  incorporated and have, you know, a listing on Dun & Bradstreet.
[51:39.000 --> 51:43.000]  Randy, do you have comments for this?
[51:43.000 --> 51:45.000]  Randy.
[51:45.000 --> 51:49.000]  Yeah, I have lots of comments on this one.
[51:49.000 --> 51:53.000]  Wait, wait, Randy, Randy, can you take it off the speakerphone, please, so we can understand
[51:53.000 --> 51:55.000]  what you're saying?
[51:55.000 --> 51:58.000]  There we go, I keep getting the wrong buttons.
[51:58.000 --> 52:00.000]  What is the point of all that?
[52:00.000 --> 52:02.000]  You're saying there is no government.
[52:02.000 --> 52:04.000]  You know, this is what Ralph Winteroad said.
[52:04.000 --> 52:08.000]  There is no government, there is no law, there is no constitution, there is no nothing.
[52:08.000 --> 52:10.000]  What have we got?
[52:10.000 --> 52:13.000]  It sure looks like we've got a government.
[52:13.000 --> 52:20.000]  And we've got, you know, we go down and we vote under the auspices of a constitution for
[52:20.000 --> 52:28.000]  constitutional officers, and it sure seems like we vote in constitutional officers in accordance
[52:28.000 --> 52:33.000]  with a constitution.
[52:33.000 --> 52:38.000]  How does that, how do those individuals stop becoming constitutional officers?
[52:38.000 --> 52:43.000]  I don't see how the courts or the legislature or the state government as an entity stops
[52:43.000 --> 52:48.000]  becoming a constitutional government or stops becoming a constitutionally created court
[52:48.000 --> 52:54.000]  just because they just so happen to have incorporated themselves as a business entity.
[52:54.000 --> 52:57.000]  That doesn't make any sense to me.
[52:57.000 --> 52:59.000]  I don't believe that.
[52:59.000 --> 53:05.000]  They still definitely are constitutional animals.
[53:05.000 --> 53:11.000]  The real question here, I think, that would, that he, if the basis of the substantiation of his
[53:11.000 --> 53:17.000]  point is that even though we have the offices, what we have is no one willing to obey the
[53:17.000 --> 53:19.000]  parameters of their office to begin with.
[53:19.000 --> 53:23.000]  Now, I absolutely agree, yeah, that's a problem.
[53:23.000 --> 53:25.000]  But the office still exists.
[53:25.000 --> 53:31.000]  Whether or not the individual that's filling that office will abide by his oath and the duties
[53:31.000 --> 53:34.000]  associated with it, that's a whole other issue.
[53:34.000 --> 53:37.000]  But the fact is the office exists.
[53:37.000 --> 53:43.000]  The position itself is there, and it is governed according to our constitution as far as its
[53:43.000 --> 53:46.000]  structure and its powers.
[53:46.000 --> 53:50.000]  The individual in it that's running rampant.
[53:50.000 --> 53:51.000]  Wait a minute.
[53:51.000 --> 53:53.000]  Ed was going to a point.
[53:53.000 --> 53:58.000]  Ed, will you take us to that point?
[53:58.000 --> 53:59.000]  Yeah.
[53:59.000 --> 54:01.000]  You want me to finish?
[54:01.000 --> 54:02.000]  Yeah.
[54:02.000 --> 54:03.000]  Yeah, go ahead, please.
[54:03.000 --> 54:04.000]  Okay.
[54:04.000 --> 54:05.000]  Okay.
[54:05.000 --> 54:15.000]  The, since 18, about 18, mid-1860, about 1860, I guess, 1861, somewhere in that area,
[54:15.000 --> 54:20.000]  Congress disbanded, and the proof is in the pudding.
[54:20.000 --> 54:21.000]  Wait.
[54:21.000 --> 54:22.000]  Okay, hold on.
[54:22.000 --> 54:30.000]  I'm reaching a pretty sweeping statement here saying that Congress disbanded.
[54:30.000 --> 54:33.000]  But Congress, can you support that?
[54:33.000 --> 54:34.000]  Let me explain.
[54:34.000 --> 54:37.000]  Because it sure looks like we have Congress.
[54:37.000 --> 54:42.000]  Let me explain to you what I'm saying, because I'm just making it as a broad brush.
[54:42.000 --> 54:44.000]  What I'm saying to you is this.
[54:44.000 --> 54:52.000]  Title II, the United States Senate annotated, Title II, if you'll look in the very first
[54:52.000 --> 54:57.000]  pages of the, all the titles, all the titles will tell you whether the law has been passed
[54:57.000 --> 55:00.000]  into positive law or whether it has not.
[55:00.000 --> 55:06.000]  And if you'll look in Title II where it's all about Congress, it says that this title
[55:06.000 --> 55:09.000]  has not been passed into positive law.
[55:09.000 --> 55:10.000]  Okay?
[55:10.000 --> 55:11.000]  That means...
[55:11.000 --> 55:12.000]  Wait a minute.
[55:12.000 --> 55:13.000]  Hold on.
[55:13.000 --> 55:16.000]  Congress was not created by the titles.
[55:16.000 --> 55:20.000]  Congress was created by the Constitution.
[55:20.000 --> 55:21.000]  I realize that.
[55:21.000 --> 55:22.000]  I realize that.
[55:22.000 --> 55:25.000]  But what I'm saying is that you have to understand the progression.
[55:25.000 --> 55:26.000]  Okay.
[55:26.000 --> 55:27.000]  Let me start from the beginning.
[55:27.000 --> 55:28.000]  The Constitution...
[55:28.000 --> 55:29.000]  Wait.
[55:29.000 --> 55:30.000]  Okay.
[55:30.000 --> 55:31.000]  Wait.
[55:31.000 --> 55:32.000]  Wait.
[55:32.000 --> 55:33.000]  I know where you're going.
[55:33.000 --> 55:41.000]  You're going to this argument that's based on lots and lots of legal opinion and reasoning,
[55:41.000 --> 55:47.000]  that there is no government, that the law doesn't apply, that none of this applies.
[55:47.000 --> 55:48.000]  It's all a hoax.
[55:48.000 --> 55:49.000]  It's all...
[55:49.000 --> 55:53.000]  They're just a corporation enforcing corporate rules.
[55:53.000 --> 55:55.000]  No, that's not where I'm going.
[55:55.000 --> 55:57.000]  No, that's not where I'm going.
[55:57.000 --> 55:58.000]  Okay.
[55:58.000 --> 55:59.000]  Okay.
[55:59.000 --> 56:00.000]  We don't have...
[56:00.000 --> 56:01.000]  Yeah, hold on.
[56:01.000 --> 56:02.000]  Yeah, we really need to move...
[56:02.000 --> 56:03.000]  What is the point?
[56:03.000 --> 56:04.000]  We need to move along...
[56:04.000 --> 56:05.000]  What is the end of this?
[56:05.000 --> 56:09.000]  Because we generally only callers get one segment per call and we have about two and
[56:09.000 --> 56:10.000]  a half minutes left.
[56:10.000 --> 56:11.000]  Okay.
[56:11.000 --> 56:14.000]  No, my point is we do remedy here.
[56:14.000 --> 56:17.000]  We're not terribly interested in esoteric theory.
[56:17.000 --> 56:19.000]  That may or may not be true.
[56:19.000 --> 56:23.000]  How does this go to a remedy that we can exercise?
[56:23.000 --> 56:24.000]  Okay.
[56:24.000 --> 56:30.000]  I'm telling you that it is according to my research and what happened...
[56:30.000 --> 56:31.000]  Here's what it is.
[56:31.000 --> 56:39.000]  The Constitution was formed originally by some folks, the 13th colony agreed to sign
[56:39.000 --> 56:43.000]  it and to accept it as their rule of law.
[56:43.000 --> 56:44.000]  Okay.
[56:44.000 --> 56:50.000]  Then after the Constitution was formed, and the Constitution, by the way, was not everything
[56:50.000 --> 56:51.000]  that was in the law.
[56:51.000 --> 56:57.000]  The Constitution was nothing but an outline for it to be fleshed out in the future by
[56:57.000 --> 56:58.000]  Congress.
[56:58.000 --> 57:03.000]  The Constitution has some law in it.
[57:03.000 --> 57:09.000]  I mean, we have the fact that it says that there'll be no direct taxes and so on.
[57:09.000 --> 57:11.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait.
[57:11.000 --> 57:12.000]  Go to a point.
[57:12.000 --> 57:13.000]  You're rambling.
[57:13.000 --> 57:14.000]  We're running out of time.
[57:14.000 --> 57:15.000]  Let's go to a point.
[57:15.000 --> 57:24.000]  But the law was written after the Constitution was formed and up until a point, it was the
[57:24.000 --> 57:25.000]  law.
[57:25.000 --> 57:28.000]  But after a certain point, it was not the law.
[57:28.000 --> 57:29.000]  What point?
[57:29.000 --> 57:33.000]  You're saying there's some point where there is no law anymore?
[57:33.000 --> 57:34.000]  No, no.
[57:34.000 --> 57:38.000]  The law still exists, and it's still in full force and effect.
[57:38.000 --> 57:45.000]  But we have to use the law, not private enterprise rules and regulations and policies.
[57:45.000 --> 57:53.000]  The law is in the law book in the very first beginning of the country's founding, and it's
[57:53.000 --> 57:54.000]  called the statutes at large.
[57:54.000 --> 57:56.000]  That's where all the law is.
[57:56.000 --> 57:59.000]  That's what Ralph Winneruth says.
[57:59.000 --> 58:02.000]  Well, the statutes, I'm sorry, I'm missing it.
[58:02.000 --> 58:06.000]  Ralph Winneruth says it's all in the National Register.
[58:06.000 --> 58:08.000]  That's what the law really is.
[58:08.000 --> 58:13.000]  The statutes are really kind of the face of evidence of the law in the National Register.
[58:13.000 --> 58:15.000]  Okay, and also we're at the top of the hour break.
[58:15.000 --> 58:19.000]  Ed, you're welcome to hang on the line, but we do have other callers on the line.
[58:19.000 --> 58:24.000]  And also it's my understanding, and Michael Badnerich will certainly say this, the Constitution
[58:24.000 --> 58:26.000]  is the supreme law of the land.
[58:26.000 --> 58:31.000]  So when you say that there is some law in Constitution, that doesn't make any sense to me.
[58:31.000 --> 58:34.000]  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
[58:34.000 --> 58:39.000]  And also I will ask callers, we love for you to call in and bring up topics, ask us questions,
[58:39.000 --> 58:45.000]  but we ask that folks not present material or try to teach on our show.
[58:45.000 --> 58:50.000]  We certainly love to discuss issues, but if you want to present material on our show,
[58:50.000 --> 58:55.000]  please send us an email first so we can review your material and then we'll have you on as a guest
[58:55.000 --> 58:57.000]  if we so choose.
[58:57.000 --> 58:58.000]  So, Ed, you're welcome to stay on.
[58:58.000 --> 58:59.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:59.000 --> 59:05.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[59:05.000 --> 59:08.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[59:08.000 --> 59:11.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[59:11.000 --> 59:12.000]  Brave New Books?
[59:12.000 --> 59:17.000]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[59:17.000 --> 59:23.000]  Ron Paul, Angie Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[59:23.000 --> 59:26.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[59:26.000 --> 59:31.000]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[59:31.000 --> 59:35.000]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[59:35.000 --> 59:41.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility,
[59:41.000 --> 59:43.000]  just behind the bookstore.
[59:43.000 --> 59:46.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[59:46.000 --> 59:51.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[59:51.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:04.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  In Iraq Thursday, at least 15 Iraqis were killed and 39 wounded in a series of bombings and shootings
[01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:16.000]  in Baghdad, Mosul, and Iskandaria.
[01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  The Washington Post reports U.S. companies are sitting on record piles of cash.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:26.000]  However, companies are starting to deploy the money, not to hire workers or build factories,
[01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  but to buy back their own stock.
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  So far this year, firms including the Washington Post company have announced they will purchase
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  $273 billion worth of their own shares, five times as much as this time last year.
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  Jailed Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, has been named winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  The head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee says Liu was the foremost symbol of the human rights
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:54.000]  struggle in China.
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  Several countries, including the U.S., France, and Germany, called for his immediate release.
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  On the ninth anniversary of the U.S. invasion, a new report Thursday found Afghans resented
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:12.000]  the impact and intent of foreign forces. The report by the Open Society Foundations found
[01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  Afghans blamed U.S.-led forces for the country's violence and instability, even though a U.N.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:25.000]  report in August found the Taliban was responsible for 76 percent of the 3,000 civilian casualties
[01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  suffered in the first six months of this year.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  The report found the buildup of mistrust and grievances from the past nine years will make
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  any Western-backed short- or long-term policy initiatives much more difficult.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  The report comes amid growing pessimism fed by reports of high-level corruption in the
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  Karzai government, blatant fraud in recent elections, and a sharp deterioration in relations
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  between Washington and the Pakistani military and the inter-services spy agency, which the
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  U.S. believes is aiding and abetting the Taliban.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  NATO supply convoys traveling through Pakistan to Afghanistan have come under attack in the
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  past, but following Pakistan's decision to block their route through the Khyber Pass,
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:15.000]  they now face an even bigger security threat. Hundreds of tankers and trucks have been left
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:20.000]  stranded across Pakistan with little or no security, but many believe it is not just
[01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:25.000]  the Taliban who pose a security threat to the convoys. The owners of oil tankers being
[01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  used to supply fuel to NATO in Afghanistan say some of the attacks on their convoys are
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  suspicious. Ezra Lashumwari, a spokesman for the All-Pakistan Oil Tankers Association,
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:42.000]  said, quote, the Taliban have openly declared they will target the tankers, but we have
[01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  been provided with no security. A security analyst said Pakistan's border closing was,
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  quote, tantamount to encouraging militants to have a real go at the convoys, adding
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  Pakistan's intelligence and security apparatus may be behind some themselves.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:51.000]  Okay, folks, we are back. All right, we've got some callers on the board. Dave and Doug
[01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:59.000]  also, callers if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984. Okay, so, Randy, you had a comment for Ed?
[01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:06.000]  Yes, Ed. I hope you can appreciate, we've been doing this show for several years, and
[01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  this argument you're making we've probably heard a hundred times. Never once in this
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  argument have I ever been given one ounce of remedy. All I've been told is what we
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:27.000]  can't do and how the law doesn't exist and how nobody has authority, how the 14th Amendment
[01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  took away all our rights. All this stuff, and I've spent an inordinate amount of time
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:41.000]  only trying to make sense of it, about one ounce of remedy. What remedy are you going
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  to, without a lecture on how all of this came about? Our listeners are pretty well familiar
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  with this argument. What remedy are you going to? Are you talking to me? Yes. Okay. I was
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:05.000]  getting to that. I need this. We can't take the whole show getting to it. We don't need
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  this long lecture. We've heard this over and over. All right. Okay, if you want the bare
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  and hard facts and cold facts, and they are bare and cold, there was a law passed in 1790.
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:28.000]  If you understand that this country belonged to somebody, it was claimed by somebody, and
[01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:39.000]  the law reflected who they were. If the Declaration of Independence said one people, the Constitution
[01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  said, we do ordain and establish this Constitution for ourselves and our posterity. Okay, well,
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:53.000]  the question is then, who is ourselves? What law are you talking about? They were English.
[01:05:53.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  Constitution. What law was passed in 1790 that you're referring to is what he's asking.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  Okay, in 1790, the Naturalization Act was passed to create the sovereignty, the people
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:15.000]  who actually owned and claimed the country, the ones who wrote the Constitution and designed
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  it for themselves. And it said, quote, from the very first part of the Act, it said any
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  alien, and this was on the naturalization part where they were allowing people to come
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  into the country. And it said, quote, aliens, any alien who is a free white person may become
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  a citizen of the United States if they do a certain thing. That was the basic law, and
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  it was passed. It was reenacted three times. 1790 was the first one. 1795 repealed the
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:56.000]  whole 1790 Act in its entirety and reenacted it. And it said the same thing in the very
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  first part of the Act. And then in 1802, it was reenacted again and changed up, but the
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:08.000]  first part of the Act was the same. And the only thing they changed in the three Acts
[01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  was the procedure for which an alien could become a citizen. And so that is what established
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  the sovereignty, the ones who planned the country, and no one else was included. Therefore—
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  Wait. This was addressed in Dred Scott. The only ones who were sovereign are the ones
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:40.000]  that signed on to the revolution and their posterity.
[01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  Yes. Yes. That's it. No one else.
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  What's the point?
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  The point is that you've got to have standing in order to do anything in this system. And
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:04.000]  that being the case, if you will remember, the Constitution says that anyone going into
[01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  office must be a citizen of the United States pursuant to the law.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:11.000]  Okay.
[01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  Okay. What's the point?
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  The point is—
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  Okay. Is it your position that the only person who can be a citizen is the posterity of the
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  sovereign?
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  That's it. That's all it is.
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  Where do you get that?
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  Whoa. Where did you get that? Now, I see where you got what a sovereign is, but how did you
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  equate sovereign necessarily with citizen?
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  Well, because the 1802—the 1790, 1795, and the 1802 Act all said citizen of the United
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  States, that it's a person.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  Citizen. Okay, citizen. How do you get from citizen to sovereign? They're not the same
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  thing. At least I can't see that they're the same thing, and you're acting as if they're
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  the same. How do we get them the same?
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  A citizen and a sovereign?
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:13.000]  Yeah.
[01:09:13.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  Because if you're the only one that can be a citizen, I guess you're a sovereign by law,
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  right?
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Not necessarily.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  You're the only one that can be sovereign.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  Okay. This is where we always have a problem, is we jump to these conclusions. When we come
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  to a hard part to step over, we get a place we want to get to, and we get to a hard part,
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  and we jump over it with a conclusion.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Okay. Well, let me just give you a court case.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  Okay.
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  Judge Staney versus Sanford. That's a good case, and it's still controlling law. It has
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  never been overturned whatsoever. It said, Judge Staney, in the decision, said—and
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  it was to remember who was coming to the court. Two black people had come to the court arguing
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:05.000]  over some kind of fight that they had had, and they had appealed a case to the Supreme
[01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Court, and Judge Staney said very succinctly, we don't have jurisdiction in this case.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  Blacks are not citizens and can never be a citizen, so we have no jurisdiction. That,
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  right there, proves my point.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Are you saying that because a judge in—what year was this?
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  1860-something. I forgot what date exactly.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  Before 1865?
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  It probably was, yes.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  Yeah, it's real important that it was. A black person never could become a citizen
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  before 1865. The court was right in that respect, but that doesn't apply anymore.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  And also—
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  You can't take the law that's been overruled, that's been changed by new law. You can't
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  take court decisions that's been supplanted by new law and could call that old court decision
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  good law.
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  And also, I'd like to point out, what does this have to do with the state governments
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  and the state citizens? Because this whole conversation is in the context of U.S. citizens.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  This has nothing to do with the citizens of the states and the state governments.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  No. No, it makes state citizens. That's what it did. It made state—
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  How?
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  That's what it was for. It made—
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  Wait a minute. No, no, no. The federal constitution can't make state citizens. State constitutions
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  do that.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  Well, listen—all right, go to your state constitution, original constitution, and the
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  original laws.
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Wait a minute. I just still don't understand the purpose of this. You're saying that nobody
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  is a citizen except the progeny of those who signed on to the constitution. What's the
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  point?
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  No.
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  How does it—
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  Yeah, the prosperity. The prosperity means—
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  What is the point? How does it change things?
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  The point is that no one could be free except those who are sovereign. That's—
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  Nonsense. Where'd you get that crap, Ola?
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  From all the—
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  Who said that? I mean, what law goes to that? Or is that just some general idea that if
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  everybody doesn't have exactly the same particular type of freedom as everybody else, then nobody's
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:32.000]  free? Is that the—
[01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  No, the 1802 Act has never been repealed, sir. Never.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  Okay, well—
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  If I may, here's the problem with the argument. First and foremost, the Declaration of Independence
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  pairs all men are created equal. Yes or no?
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  You didn't say all white men.
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  No, I didn't say it did. It just said all men are created equal. Okay? It didn't limit
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  it to those that signed the declaration or the constitution. The other problem is that
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:05.000]  the congressional acts do not replace, rescind, repeal, abrogate, or derogate any part or
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  portion of the constitution, period.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  Right. Right. It doesn't. And they're in harmony. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  Wait. Wait a minute. My whole problem goes back to—
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:25.000]  What's your point? The point is that if you want to be free, the only way you can have
[01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  standing is to declare yourself one of the sovereign people. Otherwise, you can't do
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  it. It's impossible.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  Where do you get that from?
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  It won't happen.
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Wait a minute. Okay, wait. See, we have to back up. What do you call free?
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  Listen to me. Listen to me.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. What do you mean by free? What does that mean?
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Liberty. Civil liberty. That's what that means. Go look it up.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:02.000]  Okay. So you're saying you can't have any civil liberties unless you're a sovereign?
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:05.000]  Unless you claim it. Unless you claim it.
[01:14:05.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  Where do you get that? I don't see that anywhere.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  U.S. versus Johnson said that you have to be a belligerent claimant in person, and you
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  can't be indifferent to your rights. You've got to know what your rights are and be able
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  to claim them, or else you don't have any.
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:25.000]  Different argument. A whole different argument.
[01:14:25.000 --> 01:14:30.000]  Yeah, but in a whole different context, because originally the argument was that unless you
[01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:35.000]  were the posterity of the original signers, you couldn't get it no matter what you did.
[01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  And here's my question in this regard. Why does this say for ourselves and our posterity,
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  considering that these men that were there in the congressional committee were there
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  as appointed representatives of the individual states to represent its people as a whole,
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  not just themselves, and when they say for ourselves, they're referencing the people
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:07.000]  of their state that they represent, and for our posterity, all those descendants of the
[01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  people of those states. Why is that not just as factual as any other part of the argument
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  you'd want to make?
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:20.000]  He's going to the Dred Scott decision that made a distinction between a citizen and a
[01:15:20.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  sovereign. And the sovereign was considered all of those, not just the ones that signed
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  the declaration, but all of the individuals who signed on to the revolution, all those
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  that joined the war, got a special privilege of sovereignty for them and all of their posterity.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:53.000]  But as the laws have changed, that position of sovereignty has no effective meaning anymore,
[01:15:53.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  because anyone in the United States is protected by all of the laws, even if they're not a
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  citizen. You don't have to be a citizen to be protected by the laws. So this sovereignty,
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  this citizenship, none of that makes any difference. Unless you have something that says that it
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  does make a difference. I've never seen it.
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:19.000]  Okay, listen, folks, we have about 40 seconds before break, and we've got some other callers
[01:16:19.000 --> 01:16:23.000]  on the line. So, Randy, Eddie, what are we doing here?
[01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  Let's move on.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  Yeah, I'm wrapped up.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:31.000]  Okay, all right, Ed, I'm sorry, we have to move on, because we've got other callers on the
[01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  board, and we've given you almost two full segments here. But thank you very much for
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  calling in. And again, I will ask folks, if you want to present material, if you want
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  to teach something and present material, please contact us ahead of time via email and submit
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  your material test that you want to present. If you want to discuss or ask questions, that's
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:58.000]  fine. But for the sake of the other callers, we want to be polite to everyone. We'll be
[01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:02.000]  right back.
[01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:06.000]  Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin
[01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:12.000]  supplies in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family owned and
[01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:17.000]  operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. We buy,
[01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious metals,
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  and scrap gold. We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. We offer daily
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  specials on coins and bullions. We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3, and we're open
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You are welcome to stop
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. Ask
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. That's Capital Coin
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:10.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:54.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l
[01:18:54.000 --> 01:19:22.000]  m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:34.000]  Okay, folks, we are back. We're taking your calls, 512-646-1984. We're going now to Dave
[01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  in California. Dave, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  Well, after that last call, I'm not sure if I'm a citizen anymore. Boy, that was quite
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  a conversation, but my call is directed to Randy. Randy, being from California, and I
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  know you are doing work with people here in California, I have tried to talk to some friends
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  about your service that you provide, but then with the information that's on the Internet
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  right now, AOL had a thing a couple days ago about fraud with people trying to get people
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  remedies from foreclosures. How do I share the appropriate information with my friends
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:27.000]  without trying to get them to call you so that they can maybe get out of the situation
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  they're in via your program?
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:39.000]  Well, the thing about people who are offering remedies, there are a couple of things to
[01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  be careful of. People telling you that they can get you some specific outcome. First thing
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  I tell people, it's a crapshoot, guys. The courts are absolutely corrupt, and it's always
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  a crapshoot. So guarantees? There ain't no guarantees. The other thing is people want
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  a lot of money up front, or they want you to sign your property over to them through
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  one of these things so that they can have standing to adjudicate your issue. Bad move.
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  If you're going to deal with someone, deal with someone who will offer you a product,
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  put the product in your hand, and pay them for the product. Don't pay them for anything
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  else until they produce something else. And if you don't like the product, don't pay
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  for the product. But there are a lot of people out there. I've been advising everybody away
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  from them. They want you to put your title in either the whole title or a portion of
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  the title in their name so they can stand in here and fight for you. Scary business.
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  That sounds completely unscrupulous. I don't want any part of your property. Absolutely
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:15.000]  no way. Don't you sell it to me. Don't you sign it over to me. I don't want any interest
[01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  in your property. I will provide you with a product. I'll tell you exactly what it is.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  You pay me, I'll put it right in your hand. And guarantees? No guarantees. But it's real
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  simple. Like when I do the seminars, I don't really sell my product at the seminar. What
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  I do, I explain what I do, but I tell people, if you want to stop foreclosure, it's not
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  magic, guys. It's really simple. Sue them. A good suit, bad suit, don't make that much
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  difference as far as stopping the foreclosure. You sue them. All these other supposed remedies
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  out there, if you don't sue the lender, he's not going to pay any attention to you. If
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  you think you can get a modification, you don't understand how it works. He got you
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  into this mortgage, and then he went and wrote a mortgage insurance premium on your property.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  What you don't know is he went into the derivatives market and wrote 8 or 10 more. So if he forecloses
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  on your property, he's going to make 8 or 10 times your original principal. Do you really
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  think he's going to give you a modification so it can keep him from foreclosing? It ain't
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:54.000]  going to happen. The foreclosure issue is an issue there just to set you up to default.
[01:23:54.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  He'd be nice to do anything else. So these guys out there offering to help people get
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  modifications. It's not going to happen. It's not in your lender's best interest to give
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:17.000]  you a modification. It's in his best interest to force you into default. These people out
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  there offering fraudulent remedies, I don't know how to fix that. I don't know how other
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  than to have them listen to me. I can send them a CD of my presentation. I'll give them
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  enough facts to do this themselves. I'll tell them exactly how to do it. Go on the internet,
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  search it out, search out the issues. Come on this show, we'll explain to you how to
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  light up the causes of action. Fact is, I don't have to promote what I'm doing. But
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  there are so many people out there in so much trouble. I've got people coming at me from
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  everywhere. I'm not concerned about selling my product. I sell it as cheap as I possibly
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  can because I want it in as many hands as I can possibly get it into. They can go to
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  your website and pull something off there that they can watch. Am I correct in that?
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:21.000]  I don't have it up there yet and I'm glad this reminded me. I need to have them stick
[01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  it up there. I've got a couple of my presentations filmed, a video that I need to stick them
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:34.000]  up on the internet so people can look at them. The video doesn't sell a product.
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  No.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  This is the crap hole that's going on. This is how you can make claims against them for
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  it. This is how you can protect yourself. I'm mostly interested if everybody looks at
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  it, took and did it themselves, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  Well, we have the radio station to keep going. So if we sold some of it for you, then that
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  would help out the cause. But one more question, we're getting short on time, is loans that
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  were taken out say 20 years ago, do they fall into the same category as the ones that were
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  five years ago, say?
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  Not exactly the same category. Twenty years ago is somewhat before the securitization
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  issue. We can still find fraud in them, but not near so much as the ones later on.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  Okay. All right.
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  But if you have a really old loan, it won't take much fraud to create a claim that's substantially
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  greater than what you owe. So on an older note, the lender has less to gain, especially
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  if they were done before derivatives, then he doesn't have eight or ten bets against
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  it, you know, bets that it will default. So he doesn't have as much to gain by fortunate
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  win to default. He might as well make a deal and stop paying all his attorney fees.
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  So you have a more likelihood of getting them to come to the table and say, okay, let's
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  make a deal. I'll make this easy before you go away. We're going to have to first try.
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:35.000]  But if they're, at any time after 95, that's when they started the securitizations. That's
[01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  when it starts getting more serious, and especially after 2000. 2000 is when they allowed the
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  derivatives again. There was a major stock market crash in 1907 because of this kind
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  of thing, and the legislature, full bad, it made it a felony to do it. They removed the
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  restriction in 2007, took them eight years to crash the market again. It was planned
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:08.000]  that way. They knew exactly what this would lead to.
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:13.000]  Okay, thank you for the help. If you can get that thing up there, I can get these people
[01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  referred over there and get the ball rolling.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  Okay, I will get on them. I'll get on Carolyn and have her get the programmer to put it
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  up there tomorrow.
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  Thanks, Randy.
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  Thank you.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:30.000]  All right, thank you, Dave. Okay, we're continuing on. We have some first-time callers.
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  Ramon from Austin called back in. Ramon, just hold tight. Just sit tight. We want to take
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  Joe from Idaho first. He's a first-time caller. And then Ramon, you're next. Joe, thank you
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  for calling in. What is on your mind tonight?
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:49.000]  Yes, I had a little fraud perpetrated on me by my ex-wife and her boyfriend. He took my
[01:28:49.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  ID, and well, she put him in there in the B&B and said it was me. Ever since then, I've
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:02.000]  been having a nightmare getting me out there again. I recently got a ticket over in Montana,
[01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  and the officer is using this identity fraud against me, and it was Jeff Montoya's who
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  had perpetrated my name as Joseph. Well, I won't say his full name, because that's
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  not a problem with the legal department. But not only did he go that far, but he took it
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  to an extreme, to where apparently they're also thinking I have an alias, Silva, James,
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  Junior, alias, Silva, James, alias, Silva, John, Joseph, Silva.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Okay, wait. Hold on the line. Stay there, Joe.
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  Different aliases on one alias.
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Okay, Joe, stay there. We're going to break. Okay, we'll get right back with you on the
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  other side. Ramon Cittite and others, this is the Rule of Law on ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Top 10 reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing, reason number
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  five. As witnessed by millions of viewers, the rescue efforts were interrupted several
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  times due to the presence of other explosives. Government log entries indicate and
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  witnesses report that after the initial devastating blast, a bomb complete with
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  timer was discovered and removed from wreckage by the bomb squad. Yet we are told it's
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  all due to baseless bomb scares or other contravences. So while officials try to sort
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  out their stories, all we ask is who planted these bombs and why is the government
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  lying about them? For more information, go to okcbombingtruth.com.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  If a special driver's license could be scanned from across the street, would you
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:40.000]  put one in your pocket? If your state borders Canada or Mexico, you may already
[01:30:40.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  have. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll explain in a moment.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information
[01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This public service announcement is
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:17.000]  Thousands of Americans have a dangerous tracking device in their wallets called
[01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  an enhanced driver's license. The cards contain RFID, radio frequency microchips
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  that let border guards scan them from a distance as you cross into Canada or
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  Mexico. Trouble is, Big Brother government, marketers and stalkers can scan the
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:35.000]  unique ID numbers too, right through your pocket or purse. IBM wants person
[01:31:35.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  tracking units to watch you everywhere you go. Even Walmart shelves can read
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  them. Fortunately, only border states issue enhanced driver's licenses for now
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  and you have to apply and pay a fee to get one. I strongly suggest you don't.
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:20.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:55.000]  Okay, folks. We're talking about tools of ingenuity here. We are into remedy
[01:32:55.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  solutions. We're speaking with first time caller Joe from Idaho. Okay, Joe, so
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:10.000]  apparently there was an identity theft issue and also you have a current criminal
[01:33:10.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  issue. Is that what's going on?
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  Yes.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:18.000]  Can you just give us the gist of the current criminal issue?
[01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  The current criminal issue is I went to Yellowstone for a three-day vacation by
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  a significant other and we were pulled over. She was harassed and I was harassed
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  until, you know, I told him we couldn't search my car, but he was adamant. And
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:41.000]  finally when the dog came in, I admitted to having a grandma weed and a
[01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  portfolio which was pipe and that cost me $2,000 plus $500 to buy it out. Now,
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  it was my weed and it was my pipe and it was definitely going to be used if I was
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  going to get to Yellowstone on my vacation when I was at camp. But the officer
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  was ballistic on me instead of just giving me a warning and sending me out of
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  my way.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  Okay, wait a minute. I have a few questions. I don't mean to cut you off so we
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  can get to the legal issues here. Who pulled you over? What law enforcement
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  entity, representative?
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:17.000]  A state trooper.
[01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  Were you pulled over on State Highway?
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:20.000]  Yes, I was.
[01:34:20.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  Okay, so you hadn't entered the National Park yet or the National Forest?
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  No, I was headed there.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Okay, let me ask you another specific question. When they brought out the dog,
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  did they bring out the dog during the traffic stop and by that I mean were they
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  processing your license or had they taken your paperwork and were holding on to
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  it and while they were looking up your papers on their computer, did they run
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  the dog or had they concluded the business of the traffic stop, handed you back
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  your documents and either written a ticket or not and then brought the dog out?
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  Which of those two categories does your scenario best fit?
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  Concluded.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  Okay, so they had taken your papers, they had looked up on their database,
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  et cetera, et cetera. They had given you back your documents and either written
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  you a ticket or not and given you back your papers and then they brought out the
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  dog?
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:34.000]  Yeah, we had to wait hours. We kept us there forever because he had called in
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  the dog. The place he called him to was, well, further than he thought.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  It's just like after driving for hours and hours and hours to get to our
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  destination, still a few miles from our destination.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  Okay, but wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm asking these
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  questions because this is very important. It goes to Supreme Court case laws,
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  very recent Supreme Court case law because I'm about to file a lawsuit over
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  a similar issue. Did they, in your opinion, have any probable cause to bring
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  out the dog, i.e. was smoke billowing out of your windows when you rolled the
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  windows down, when they pulled you over, was there a pipe in view?
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  No.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  Had you all been smoking in the car at any point in time leading up to this?
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  No.
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  So in your opinion, were there any like beer cans, like any open containers or
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  anything like that?
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  No, ma'am, there wasn't.
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  Okay, so in your opinion, to your knowledge, they would have had no
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:46.000]  probable cause whatsoever to bring out a search dog.
[01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  Correct.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:52.000]  Okay, this is what the Supreme Court case law says, as recent as 05, and I've
[01:36:52.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  got my notes here buried. This is the Cabalus case, C-A-B-A-L-L-E-S, concerning
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  search dogs. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is okay for law enforcement,
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  whether federal or state or local, to bring out search dogs during the traffic
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  stop, i.e. if one officer has your license and your proof of registration and
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  your proof of insurance or whatever other documentation they've asked for, and
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:32.000]  they're looking it up on a database in the car.
[01:37:32.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  During the business of the traffic stop, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  okay for another officer to run a dog around your car.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  I don't agree with it.
[01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  I think it's bad case law because I still don't think that they have any probable
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  cause to do that. However, the issue in question is, what is the question?
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  Do they have authority, and I said the word right, sorry, do they have the
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  authority to run the dog around the car or not?
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  The Supreme Court has ruled yes, but that's not the proper question.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  The question really is, do they have authority to act on the reactions or
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  actions of the dog? That's a whole other issue.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  But as far as your case is concerned, and as far as my case is concerned, it's
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  a matter of timing.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  The Supreme Court has ruled, and this all goes back to the Terry stop ruling,
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  where the officers cannot extend the scope or the duration of the traffic stop
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  more than what is necessarily required to effectuate the purpose of the traffic
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  stop to issue either a warning or a citation in order to do a search with a
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  dog or anything else.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  It makes a big difference as to whether or not they ran the dog around the car
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  during the business, during the situation of the traffic stop, or if the traffic
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  stop had been concluded, i.e. they finished their search of their database
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:15.000]  and their NCI check to make sure you have no federal warrants or state warrants
[01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  or whatever else, they've given you back your papers and they're satisfied with
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  the papers that you've given them or not.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Either way, they've either given you a ticket or not.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  In other words, the business of the traffic stop has been concluded at this
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  point.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  At that point, they have to let you go.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  They cannot extend the scope or the duration after that point because they
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  pulled you over for a traffic stop.
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  All right, they can run the dog around the car if it's during this traffic stop
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  but not after unless there's some kind of probable cause like they smelled
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  something or there's a pipe in view or open containers of alcohol, et cetera,
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  et cetera.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:02.000]  Now I'm going to ask you what was their reason or did they give any as to why
[01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  they extended the scope and duration of the traffic stop to bring out the dog?
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  Did they say they smelled something?
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  Did they make any indication that they needed to do further search for some
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  reason?
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  Hello?
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  Hello?
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  They extended it because my car was dirty.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  I had stickers on my car.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  Wait a minute, did they say this?
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  I'm looking at the discovery thing right here.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  This is what they say in the discovery.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  His clothing was wrinkled and frumpy.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  His clothing is always wrinkled and frumpy.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  We've been driving for six hours.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  They said he had an open sore on his wrist.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  He works.
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  My goodness, he works.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  He had wounds on his nose from a dog bite.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  Okay, wait a minute, and ma'am, I'm sorry, what is your name?
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  My name is Rose.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  I was with him in the car.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:11.000]  Okay, Rose, can you please hold the mouthpiece down by your chin so you don't
[01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  breathe into the mic?
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  Oh, sorry.
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  Okay, no, that's okay.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:17.000]  I didn't get a chance to screen your call, so.
[01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  All right, so you're, okay, let's back up here because now this is a lot of
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  information.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  You're talking about discovery.
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  Have you sued these people or have y'all sued these people?
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:40.000]  No, this is for the jury trial.
[01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  I'm taking this to the boss.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  Okay, well, you said discovery.
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  Discovery is usually something that is done in a lawsuit.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  No, this is from his trial is what you say.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  He's already gone to court.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  We want the court to get a jury court date.
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  You can get discovery in a criminal trial in a Brady motion.
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  Okay, so this is basically a police report that you're reading.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  Yeah.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Okay, okay, because you said discovery.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:09.000]  That's why I had to ask.
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  And he gets irritated with cops because he has been so, he has had to put up with
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  so much crap from them that he just gets really irritated with them and then the
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  cops just called him back and he started pushing and pushing and pushing.
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute, hold on.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  If both of y'all, we can't understand what you're saying if both of y'all are going
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  to talk.
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  You need to be on separate lines.
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  Okay, but the point is they were making some kind of excuse on the police report as
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  to why they extended the scope and duration of the traffic stop and all the reasons
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  they listed have nothing to do with any probable cause whatsoever that a crime
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  had been committed but rather because of your looks.
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:01.000]  Basically, yeah.
[01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  Okay, this is in direct violation of recent case law, namely the Kabbalist
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  ruling in 2005.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  Okay, I got that written down.
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  C-A-B-A-L-L-E-S.
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  There has to be some kind of legitimate probable cause that a crime has been
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  committed, not just you had a sore on your hand or your clothes were frumpy.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  There has to be legitimate probable cause, like they saw a pipe, they smelled
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  smoke, something.
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  Otherwise, they have no reason whatsoever, they have no authority to bring out a
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  dog after the traffic stop has been concluded.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  Okay.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Okay, can you please hold on the line?
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Joe and Rose?
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  Okay, all right, we'll be right back.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  This is the rule of law.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:44:01.000]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens.
[01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:03.000]  More energy.
[01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Stronger immune power.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  Improved sense of well-being.
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:16.000]  The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on
[01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  their promises, and Shentrition does just that.
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  Shentrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  the healing component, and organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:38.000]  a balanced nutrient base.
[01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:42.000]  Plus, Shentrition tastes great in just water.
[01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:56.000]  Visit Shentrition.com to order yours, or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:44:56.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  After you use Shentrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable,
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  Please visit WTPRN.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:14.000]  Music
[01:46:14.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Music
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  Music
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  Coming into the homestretch final segment.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  All right, Joe and Rose, Eddie and Randy have some comments for you as well.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  And Ramon, just hang tight.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  We need to get to you before the end of the segment.
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  I know you called back in.
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  So, Eddie, go ahead.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  Okay, the first question I have is, did I hear you correctly?
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  Did you consent to a search, or did you confess to possession?
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  We did not consent, and after many questions and more questions,
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:17.000]  and he wanted to talk to me.
[01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  Well, he kept it, and I've been through this scheme before, because I do have an alias,
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  which is Jeff Montoya's, which is taken from me.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  Okay, but the alias is an honest other crap that's not incriminating for the charge of hand.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  The problem you've got is this.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  Don't ever confess to something, okay?
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:39.000]  Don't ever do that.
[01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:44.000]  Now, the other problem you need to figure out is, in the state that you were stopped in,
[01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:48.000]  what does the law say regarding a traffic stop?
[01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  Does the law spell it out as clearly as it does in Texas to say that it is a custodial arrest
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  when they initiate a traffic stop?
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  If it is, then case law is going to help you out here,
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  and that is that your confession would be inadmissible,
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  because you were not given a reading of your right,
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  and you were questioned about things that could incriminate you in a criminal matter, okay?
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  However, if you consent to the search, you're hosed.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  I don't care what court you're in, what state you're in.
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  You get a consent to that search, you're hosed.
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:35.000]  Well, after bringing in the dog and seeing how Rose was unaware of the paraphernalia in the gram,
[01:48:35.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  I asked him how much the fine would be, and I figured, you know,
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  I don't want her getting in trouble.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  Okay, but what you're not understanding is,
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  fine or no fine, you confess to a crime that's going to take you to jail, okay?
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  All right.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:54.000]  Now, do yourself a favor.
[01:48:54.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  Invest in the Never Get Busted series of DVDs, okay, if you're going to smoke pot.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  But otherwise, don't ever consent to a search without a warrant
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  and don't ever confess to such a thing,
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:13.000]  because what they tell you they're going to do to you
[01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  and what they will do to you is never, ever going to be the same thing.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  Did you consent to the search before they brought out the dog?
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  No, I refused it, refused it, refused it, and refused it.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:29.000]  And then after a long period of time, after the dog was there,
[01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  and the dog was going to find it, I don't want her getting in trouble.
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  It's mine, so then I told him, go ahead and find it.
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  This is what I got, this is all I got.
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  And they tore our car apart, literally, you know.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  But you still never agreed to the search.
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  You just handed something over.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:55.000]  Yeah, but at that point, he doesn't have to agree to the search.
[01:49:55.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  Right.
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  Now they've got him on possession,
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  and he's allowed to search the car as an incident to the arrest.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  That's the problem.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  That's exactly what I'm talking about.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:12.000]  Because he confessed, that gave them the probable cause they needed
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:17.000]  to go through the car incident to his arrest.
[01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  Yes, but I wasn't told after I found out how much it was going to cost
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:23.000]  to know for a small amount that I thought was...
[01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  Well, that's how they trick you.
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  But that's the problem, okay?
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  They are wired to get you to do that.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  Don't do that.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:34.000]  You're doing nothing but putting a gun to your head
[01:50:34.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  and pulling the trigger.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:37.000]  Don't do it.
[01:50:37.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  Okay, but Eddie, now he's done it.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  So now what can possibly be the remedy, because he can't use...
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  The only thing he can do, Debra, is go after what you were talking about before,
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  that they extended the traffic stop beyond a reasonable amount of time
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:55.000]  and had no probable cause for that.
[01:50:55.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  That's the only chance he's got.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  That's it.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  It's my character.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  I mean, I had 28 counts when it was just one count.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  They've got people in Mexico with my name in it.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:09.000]  He's got me looking like I've been trained throwing heroin.
[01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  Okay, none of that's relevant to this particular issue.
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  We're not going to be able to help you that in depth.
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  But the point here being, your only chance is to try to get everything
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  that was done inadmissible.
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  And that's going to take some doing.
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:30.000]  How long ago did this happen?
[01:51:30.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  2nd of July, 12th.
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:36.000]  Have you written a narrative yet, a detailed narrative?
[01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  No.
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:42.000]  Okay, first thing you need to do is write a detailed narrative of what happened.
[01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  Try to remember everything, what they looked like, the temperature it was,
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  what time of day.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  Any details that you think may not matter, just write them down.
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  Write down a detailed narrative.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  Will do.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:05.000]  Okay, and listen, we want to help you, but we're running out of time on the show.
[01:52:05.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  So why don't you write down your narrative and why don't you call back in next week?
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  Meanwhile, can you give me the information to get those cassette tapes?
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  From what?
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  Just on the Internet for nevergetbusted.com.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  Never talk about a lawyer.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:29.000]  Okay, thank you very much.
[01:52:29.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  Okay, thanks, Joe.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  You have a wonderful evening.
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  Okay, you too.
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:34.000]  Goodbye.
[01:52:34.000 --> 01:52:37.000]  Okay, we're going to go now to Ramon in Texas.
[01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  Ramon, thanks for calling in.
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  Hey, guys, good evening.
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  I'm so good to talk to you.
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  So listen, I just have a question for Randy, if I may.
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  Actually, a few questions.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  I wanted to get your feedback, Randy, on there's some news as far as Obama vetoing a bill
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  or an act that was supposedly passed by some senator in regards to trying to remove some of the
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  consumer rights or mitigate or minimize some of the – are you familiar with what I'm talking about
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  as far as I see?
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  I'm somewhat familiar.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  That particular bill has been on Obama's desk since April.
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  And what it went to was they were trying to eliminate a problem with notaries.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:36.000]  And they were saying that you couldn't raise – that they just made it so you couldn't raise an issue
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:39.000]  about the notary.
[01:53:39.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  It wasn't really a big deal.
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  It was a minor point, and stuff people were saying was like it was going to make it impossible for
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  anybody to fight the foreclosure and a bunch of nonsense.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  It wasn't that at all.
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  As far as I can tell so far, it's not really – it's not a real important bill and why they're having
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  such a big deal of it, I'm not sure.
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:15.000]  Because from what I understand, I mean, as far as – the true question still comes down to the numbers.
[01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  And you understand – hopefully I can relate.
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  You understand what I'm saying as far as the counting of the documents, right?
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  I mean, I don't know how much – how public you want to make your information or you don't,
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  but I do also – I have noticed that your site is also – you know, you need a password.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  Yeah, they're supposed to fix that.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  Is that – I don't know.
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:48.000]  I mean, that's kind of like an off-line question.
[01:54:48.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  But I don't – I want to be sensitive to you guys' time and other callers.
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:54.000]  I always want to be sensitive to that.
[01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  But so was that – that was –
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  there were parts of it that we – that we wanted password protected
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  because it had information about individuals on it that, you know,
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  people don't want their personal information made available.
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:14.000]  And they got the whole thing passworded.
[01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  And I wanted to clunk the programmer on the nog and say, knock, knock, knock.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  Wrong place.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  It's just communication error and they're supposed to get that fixed.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  Okay, good.
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  I'll get after them tomorrow to fix that.
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  It just concerned me a little bit, but it's not –
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  and I also read a little bit about that whole bill that –
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  and you're right, it is about the whole –
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  it really has nothing to do with the bottom line as far as –
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  Yeah, it had to do with out-of-state notaries.
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, which is kind of like irrelevant.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  So good.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  And I have – and hey, I'm – anyway, I'm ready to move forward with your –
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  with your services today or tomorrow and this week anyway,
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  but I will be contacting your people.
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  But I do want to say that I do appreciate what you do,
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  and you guys are truly American heroes for those listeners out there.
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  I just want to kind of toot you guys' horn and say that you guys truly are
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  American heroes for standing up for what's right, for true law,
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:30.000]  for common law, for the basic principles that we should all know as American citizens.
[01:56:30.000 --> 01:56:36.000]  And, you know, if nothing else, you know, listeners out there, you know,
[01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  just – if nothing else, go buy – go to the library, check out a law book.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  Go buy yourself a book.
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:43.000]  Go buy a law book.
[01:56:43.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  If nothing else, buy the programs that Eddie and –
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  Thank you.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:55.000]  – recommended on this show because they will accelerate your education
[01:56:55.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  and understanding and the comprehension that you need to be equipped
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:02.000]  with the common principles that we should all –
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  should be taught as citizens in this country from the get-go.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  So I would like to encourage everyone to do that.
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  The other question is then, so what about the taxes, property taxes,
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  as far as the state, the county?
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  They're outside of the whole – the federal court, you know, matter, right?
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  So –
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  Okay, Ramon, we're coming up to the end of the show,
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  but I can answer that question briefly.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:36.000]  I've addressed this on the show a few times already.
[01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  In order to not be liable to pay county property taxes,
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  you have to have your property removed from the tax roll
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  from the appraisal district of the county.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  The only way you can do that is to get your –
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:58.000]  is to get your property redesignated from real property
[01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  to private property in the court system.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  And there is a method for doing that that I have started looking into,
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  and it has to – there's not enough time to explain it now.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  But you have to get your property designated as private property by the court system,
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  because as long as it's real property,
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  you can't get your property removed from the tax roll.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  But that's all I have time to discuss on the issue right now.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  Okay, I'll explain some more of that next week.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  All right, thank you, Ramon.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  Okay, folks, we are at the end of the show.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Thank you so much for listening.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Thank you so much for tuning in.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  Thank you so much for supporting our sponsors and supporting us.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  This is the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  We will be back on Monday night.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:59:12.000]  Y'all have a very blessed weekend.
[01:59:14.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:59:44.000 --> 01:59:58.000]  Thank you.