ROL_2011-03-10_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.000 --> 00:09.500]  Representative Peter King's hearings Thursday at the House Homeland Security Committee accused
[00:09.500 --> 00:13.580]  the U.S. Muslim community of aiding and abetting terrorism.
[00:13.580 --> 00:18.800]  Representative Keith Ellison, Congress' first elected Muslim, rejected as unjustified King's
[00:18.800 --> 00:21.500]  focus on the Muslim community at the hearing.
[00:21.500 --> 00:28.340]  He told the story of Mohammed Hamdani, a 23-year-old Muslim first responder who died on 9-11.
[00:28.340 --> 00:33.160]  Mr. Hamdani bravely sacrificed his life to try to help others on 9-11.
[00:33.160 --> 00:37.760]  After the tragedy, some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic
[00:37.760 --> 00:39.720]  faith.
[00:39.720 --> 00:44.440]  Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers because
[00:44.440 --> 00:45.440]  he was a Muslim.
[00:45.440 --> 00:53.920]  But it was only when his remains were identified that these lies were exposed.
[00:53.920 --> 00:58.440]  Western diplomats working with Palestinians said Thursday they have received letters threatening
[00:58.440 --> 01:03.720]  they were at risk because of their nation's criticism of illegal Jewish settlements.
[01:03.720 --> 01:08.120]  Diplomatic sources at foreign missions in East Jerusalem and Ramallah confirmed receiving
[01:08.120 --> 01:12.040]  the letters, which were distributed by men who appeared to be settlers.
[01:12.040 --> 01:14.960]  One letter read, do not interfere with the building of our country.
[01:14.960 --> 01:19.640]  The letter added, meddling by the American government and by the European Union is putting
[01:19.640 --> 01:22.960]  your stay at risk.
[01:22.960 --> 01:28.700]  The UN's special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, has called on Barack Obama to seriously
[01:28.700 --> 01:33.400]  investigate torture techniques used by the Bush administration during its so-called war
[01:33.400 --> 01:34.400]  on terror.
[01:34.400 --> 01:39.720]  In 2009, Obama signed executive orders making the operation of secret prisons for those
[01:39.720 --> 01:42.800]  captured during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars illegal.
[01:42.800 --> 01:50.640]  Recently, however, Obama signed orders establishing a system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo.
[01:50.640 --> 01:55.000]  Three weeks after the outbreak of revolution against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, rebel
[01:55.000 --> 02:00.440]  advances that liberated most of the country's east stalled Wednesday outside the key oil
[02:00.440 --> 02:02.480]  refinery of Ras Lanouf.
[02:02.480 --> 02:08.600]  Heavily armed but inexperienced rebels advanced west of Ras Lanouf but were pushed back by
[02:08.600 --> 02:10.600]  mortar fire.
[02:10.600 --> 02:15.640]  Michigan's state senate approved a bill Wednesday giving governor-appointed managers the power
[02:15.640 --> 02:20.560]  to override local mayors and city councils and get rid of public unions in order to close
[02:20.560 --> 02:24.560]  the state's projected $1.4 billion budget shortfall.
[02:24.560 --> 02:29.440]  The chance of thousands of union protesters filled the chamber as the measure passed.
[02:29.440 --> 02:34.280]  Under the law, whole cities or school districts could be eliminated without any public participation
[02:34.280 --> 02:36.160]  or oversight.
[02:36.160 --> 02:40.720]  Amendments designed to provide minimal safeguards and public involvement were voted down.
[02:40.720 --> 02:44.920]  Governor Rick Snyder is also attempting to offset the cost of his proposed $2 billion
[02:44.920 --> 02:51.920]  in business tax cuts and income tax changes by leveling a tax on state employee pensions.
[03:14.920 --> 03:21.920]  Radio.com, live free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:44.920 --> 03:51.920]  Whatcha gonna do?
[03:51.920 --> 03:54.920]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:54.920 --> 03:56.920]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:56.920 --> 03:59.920]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:59.920 --> 04:02.920]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:02.920 --> 04:07.920]  When you were eight and you had bad traits You go to school and learn the golden rule
[04:07.920 --> 04:10.920]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[04:10.920 --> 04:13.920]  If you get hot and you're most of all cool
[04:13.920 --> 04:18.920]  Bad boys, bad boys, bad boys and bad girls
[04:18.920 --> 04:21.920]  What are you going to do when we come for you?
[04:21.920 --> 04:26.920]  Here on Rule of Law Radio, we are definitely coming for you
[04:26.920 --> 04:34.920]  And so is our very special esteemed guest, Mr. Ken Martin, founder of the Austin Bulldog
[04:34.920 --> 04:39.920]  His website is theaustinbulldog.org
[04:39.920 --> 04:43.920]  You can find out a lot of very incredible information there
[04:43.920 --> 04:48.920]  I'd like to read you folks out there some of his bio
[04:48.920 --> 04:52.920]  He's a very long-standing member of the community
[04:52.920 --> 04:55.920]  And he's been in journalism for more than 30 years
[04:55.920 --> 04:59.920]  So get a load of what Ken Martin has done
[04:59.920 --> 05:05.920]  He got interested in journalism while a career officer in the U.S. Marine Corps
[05:05.920 --> 05:09.920]  After serving more than 20 years on active duty, including a tour in Vietnam
[05:09.920 --> 05:13.920]  He moved to Austin in 1978 to earn a humanities degree
[05:13.920 --> 05:16.920]  with a minor in journalism at the University of Texas
[05:16.920 --> 05:20.920]  Today Ken may be the only living journalist who has worked full-time for publications
[05:20.920 --> 05:27.920]  located in the three major counties of the Austin metropolitan area, Travis, William, and Hays
[05:27.920 --> 05:31.920]  He's been a reporter and editor in the Tri-County area since 1981
[05:31.920 --> 05:36.920]  including associate editor of Third Coast Magazine from 81 to 84
[05:36.920 --> 05:40.920]  managing editor of the Dripping Springs Dispatch from 84 to 85
[05:40.920 --> 05:45.920]  and political editor of the Williamson County Sun from 86 to 89
[05:45.920 --> 05:51.920]  His aggressive reporting twice garnered first-place national awards for investigative reporting
[05:51.920 --> 05:55.920]  Both of those projects resulted in criminal prosecutions
[05:55.920 --> 06:00.920]  In launching the Austin Bulldog, Ken returned to his roots in investigative reporting
[06:00.920 --> 06:03.920]  covering both the public and private sectors
[06:03.920 --> 06:07.920]  Ken was an investigative reporter for the Austin Business Journal from 89 to 90
[06:07.920 --> 06:15.920]  and served as editor from 90 to 94, a period in which the newspaper won numerous awards for journalistic excellence
[06:15.920 --> 06:22.920]  In 95, he started, in fact, Weekly Newsletter covering Austin City Hall and local politics
[06:22.920 --> 06:29.920]  Beginning in 1998, while still publishing, in fact, he also owned and edited Texas Public Utility News
[06:29.920 --> 06:36.920]  for 13 months, producing a twice-monthly newsletter covering the Texas Public Utility Commission
[06:36.920 --> 06:41.920]  In 1999, Ken began publishing the In-Fact Newsletter five days a week
[06:41.920 --> 06:46.920]  making, in fact, Austin's first online newsletter
[06:46.920 --> 06:49.920]  In fact, daily, sorry, Austin's first online newsletter
[06:49.920 --> 06:55.920]  Meanwhile, in 97, Rebecca Melanson and Ken founded The Good Life Magazine
[06:55.920 --> 06:57.920]  in which he edited for more than 11 years
[06:57.920 --> 07:02.920]  The magazine published numerous special reports, including five in 2008 alone
[07:02.920 --> 07:05.920]  before ceasing publication in January 2009
[07:05.920 --> 07:09.920]  Ken, very special guest, welcome to All of Law Radio
[07:09.920 --> 07:10.920]  Well, thank you very much for having me
[07:10.920 --> 07:12.920]  We're so happy to have you
[07:12.920 --> 07:17.920]  Quite an impressive, star-spangled bio there
[07:17.920 --> 07:22.920]  So let's get started on some of your, I'd like to go over some of your background before we get to the lawsuit
[07:22.920 --> 07:28.920]  the national news lawsuit here concerning City Council in Austin
[07:28.920 --> 07:32.920]  Since you started the Bulldog on April 1st, less than a year ago
[07:32.920 --> 07:37.920]  you've been focusing on investigations about wrongdoing by local government agencies
[07:37.920 --> 07:42.920]  What governmental agencies have you reported on since then?
[07:42.920 --> 07:47.920]  Well, I started with the City of Georgetown, then I moved on to the Williamson County Government
[07:47.920 --> 07:52.920]  And since January, I've been focusing exclusively on the City of Austin
[07:52.920 --> 07:59.920]  All right, yes, the infamous Wilco, everyone in this area is well acquainted with Wilco
[07:59.920 --> 08:07.920]  I know many people who will drive 40 miles out of their way around Williamson County
[08:07.920 --> 08:10.920]  when they're traveling back and forth from Dallas to Austin
[08:10.920 --> 08:13.920]  just so that they don't have to go through Williamson County on I-35
[08:13.920 --> 08:19.920]  So yeah, we're going to hear more about your experiences later concerning Williamson County
[08:19.920 --> 08:26.920]  But for now, can you please tell us what did your investigations about the City of Georgetown expose?
[08:26.920 --> 08:29.920]  Well, that started with a tip
[08:29.920 --> 08:32.920]  You know, I was a reporter up there for three years back in the 80s
[08:32.920 --> 08:36.920]  So I have some acquaintances, friends up there that told me about a council member
[08:36.920 --> 08:43.920]  who had drawn a lump sum check for $13,600, supposedly for expenses
[08:43.920 --> 08:52.920]  What was unusual about it is that she was going back 17 months to get the $800 a month that she drew
[08:52.920 --> 08:54.920]  all in one big lump sum
[08:54.920 --> 08:59.920]  But what made it improper was the fact that she was a state employee
[08:59.920 --> 09:02.920]  She worked for a state senator
[09:02.920 --> 09:08.920]  And as such, the Texas Constitution prohibits you from drawing a salary
[09:08.920 --> 09:15.920]  If you're a state employee and you're also an elected official, you can't get a salary as an elected official
[09:15.920 --> 09:22.920]  Further, you're not supposed to be reimbursed for expenses as a state employee and a public official
[09:22.920 --> 09:28.920]  unless you prove that your actual expenses equal or exceeded the amount that you're reimbursed
[09:28.920 --> 09:34.920]  In her case, the city had no requirement for her to prove her expenses
[09:34.920 --> 09:37.920]  They just had this stipend that you could get if you asked for it
[09:37.920 --> 09:39.920]  And so they had no proof
[09:39.920 --> 09:44.920]  And no one seemed to be concerned about the fact that she was breaking the Texas Constitution
[09:44.920 --> 09:50.920]  Well, I reported it as followed up by the local newspaper there that I used to work for
[09:50.920 --> 09:55.920]  And the payment was facilitated by a new city attorney
[09:55.920 --> 09:59.920]  And previously, they had an outside law firm acting as a city attorney
[09:59.920 --> 10:05.920]  And that outside law firm had advised them that she was not entitled to this money
[10:05.920 --> 10:09.920]  And this new city attorney comes in, facilitates the payment
[10:09.920 --> 10:12.920]  And so here we were with a situation where I reported it
[10:12.920 --> 10:15.920]  But it didn't look like anything was going to be done about it
[10:15.920 --> 10:21.920]  So I made a request to the Williamson County District Attorney's Office and said
[10:21.920 --> 10:25.920]  You should investigate this, and if there's a wrongdoing, you should prosecute her
[10:25.920 --> 10:27.920]  Well, they have a...
[10:27.920 --> 10:31.920]  Unfortunately, it turns out the Williamson County District Attorney
[10:31.920 --> 10:36.920]  really doesn't show a lot of interest in prosecuting officeholders
[10:36.920 --> 10:43.920]  Particularly, he being a Republican, all the officeholders practically in Williamson County are Republicans
[10:43.920 --> 10:50.920]  She works for a state senator who is actually the head of the budget committee in this current legislative session right now
[10:50.920 --> 10:54.920]  So he's a highly placed, powerful senator
[10:54.920 --> 10:59.920]  And I figured maybe he didn't prosecute her because of the political blowback
[10:59.920 --> 11:05.920]  I don't really know, but he just came out after it was made public that he wasn't going to prosecute her
[11:05.920 --> 11:12.920]  Then he told the local newspaper that he had looked into it and there was no criminal behavior
[11:12.920 --> 11:18.920]  I beg to differ, but you know, in trying to pursue that through other legal remedies
[11:18.920 --> 11:24.920]  I talked to the man that heads the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney's Office
[11:24.920 --> 11:31.920]  And he pointed out that a prosecutor's discretionary authority is wide and deep
[11:31.920 --> 11:38.920]  So basically, a prosecutor can sweep something under the rug or he can prosecute it
[11:38.920 --> 11:41.920]  And it's pretty much left to his judgment
[11:41.920 --> 11:48.920]  Yeah, and as we were discussing before the show, I think that they kind of hoodwinked you on that one
[11:48.920 --> 11:56.920]  Because when it comes to a public servant, the district attorney's discretion is zero
[11:56.920 --> 11:59.920]  You have to file a criminal complaint
[11:59.920 --> 12:02.920]  You can't just go and make a report and just have a conversation with them
[12:02.920 --> 12:08.920]  But if you file a criminal complaint against a public servant with the district attorney
[12:08.920 --> 12:15.920]  They are required by law to reduce that complaint to an information and submit it to the grand jury
[12:15.920 --> 12:18.920]  And the grand jury gets to decide in that situation
[12:18.920 --> 12:24.920]  And so that's one of the tools that we use here when we're going after public servants
[12:24.920 --> 12:28.920]  But yeah, of course they weren't going to tell you that at the time
[12:28.920 --> 12:30.920]  Well, I did make a complaint
[12:30.920 --> 12:32.920]  Oh, you did file a complaint?
[12:32.920 --> 12:37.920]  I don't know whether it was styled in the fashion that you're referring to
[12:37.920 --> 12:39.920]  But I did make a written complaint
[12:39.920 --> 12:42.920]  I asked for an investigation
[12:42.920 --> 12:46.920]  I got a call back from someone in his office that said
[12:46.920 --> 12:49.920]  Well, the district attorney gave me the file back with a note on it
[12:49.920 --> 12:51.920]  And I said, what does this note say?
[12:51.920 --> 12:55.920]  He said, dismiss without prosecution, notify the plaintiff
[12:55.920 --> 12:58.920]  So that was the extent of what they told me about what they did
[12:58.920 --> 13:03.920]  Right, well they're always going to want to railroad people who make these criminal complaints
[13:03.920 --> 13:05.920]  And they defy the law
[13:05.920 --> 13:12.920]  And so then you have to end up going after the district attorney for not submitting the complaint to the grand jury
[13:12.920 --> 13:15.920]  But let's move on
[13:15.920 --> 13:18.920]  I just was throwing that in there because these are some of the tools that we use
[13:18.920 --> 13:22.920]  And like I said, the district attorney will refuse every time
[13:22.920 --> 13:24.920]  So you have to end up going back after the DA
[13:24.920 --> 13:27.920]  And it gets to be a pretty convoluted mess after a while
[13:27.920 --> 13:30.920]  Let's talk some more about the Williamson County government
[13:30.920 --> 13:34.920]  What did you report on concerning corruption in the Williamson County government?
[13:34.920 --> 13:41.920]  Well, there were two major events that resulted in me writing a great number of stories
[13:41.920 --> 13:49.920]  The first was about a county court-at-law judge who drew complaints from a couple of his female employees
[13:49.920 --> 13:53.920]  For alleged sexual harassment
[13:53.920 --> 13:59.920]  The thing just turned into a rat's nest because the county judge and this county court-at-law judge
[13:59.920 --> 14:03.920]  That was the subject of the harassment complaints are old buddies
[14:03.920 --> 14:11.920]  They have a meeting, they pull in an attorney who's also an old buddy of the county court-at-law judge who was the accused
[14:11.920 --> 14:17.920]  The next thing you know, the outside attorney is representing the county court-at-law judge
[14:17.920 --> 14:25.920]  And he was billing the county for the representation under a different case number
[14:25.920 --> 14:28.920]  So that he was basically hiding the charges
[14:28.920 --> 14:35.920]  After this went on for about four months, the county attorney asked to see those bills and discovered what he was doing
[14:35.920 --> 14:40.920]  Because she was told that he was not going to charge the county for his work
[14:40.920 --> 14:48.920]  And so as a result, he was caught taking $7,665 of taxpayers' money
[14:48.920 --> 14:54.920]  But instead of prosecuting him, here's another case where here's somebody that's on the inside
[14:54.920 --> 15:02.920]  Instead of prosecuting him, they let him issue a credit memo which essentially says, I'll work it off
[15:02.920 --> 15:11.920]  The future legal work that I do for the county will offset my early rate until I pay back the $7,665
[15:11.920 --> 15:16.920]  So the guy basically admitted to this and said, okay, I'm going to pay you back?
[15:16.920 --> 15:19.920]  Yeah, except he didn't even write a check
[15:19.920 --> 15:29.920]  The county judge changed the wording of the letter that the county attorney's office to insert that he could ask for a credit memo
[15:29.920 --> 15:32.920]  Instead of paying it back, you know, they at least went
[15:32.920 --> 15:38.920]  But here again, it's a situation where there's three separate billings
[15:38.920 --> 15:43.920]  Two of those were felony amounts, they were over $1,500 making them a felony
[15:43.920 --> 15:47.920]  And the district attorney said there's no wrongdoing
[15:47.920 --> 15:51.920]  I've never heard of anybody, it's like, okay, I'm going to go rob a bank
[15:51.920 --> 15:55.920]  They catch me, I say, okay, here's the money back, so you have to let me go
[15:55.920 --> 15:59.920]  Well, that's not the way the law works for most of us, but that's the way it worked up there
[15:59.920 --> 16:02.920]  Well, in this case, you're saying it was never even paid back?
[16:02.920 --> 16:06.920]  You just gave him a credit memo like a promissory note or something?
[16:06.920 --> 16:09.920]  Well, he worked it off, you know
[16:09.920 --> 16:14.920]  He was doing work for the county on a regular basis
[16:14.920 --> 16:21.920]  So he just basically said, my next $7,665 worth of work that I do for the county, I won't pay you for it
[16:21.920 --> 16:25.920]  In essence, you know, it's just like a credit memo, you know
[16:25.920 --> 16:29.920]  You've got this much credit with me and I'll just keep working for you
[16:29.920 --> 16:32.920]  And when that's paid off, then I can start billing you again
[16:32.920 --> 16:34.920]  How considerate of him
[16:34.920 --> 16:35.920]  Yeah
[16:35.920 --> 16:37.920]  Okay, we're going to break
[16:37.920 --> 16:39.920]  Folks, just stay right there
[16:39.920 --> 16:40.920]  We've got the phones off right now
[16:40.920 --> 16:44.920]  We'll probably open up the line for callers in the second hour
[16:44.920 --> 16:48.920]  We are here with Mr. Ken Martin from theaustinbulldog.org
[16:48.920 --> 16:49.920]  We will be right back, folks
[16:49.920 --> 16:52.920]  This is Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com
[16:52.920 --> 16:55.920]  I'm Deborah Stevens with Randy Kelton and Eddie Craig
[16:55.920 --> 16:56.920]  We'll be right back
[16:59.920 --> 17:06.920]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin supplies in the Austin metro area
[17:06.920 --> 17:08.920]  We also ship worldwide
[17:08.920 --> 17:13.920]  We're a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases
[17:13.920 --> 17:19.920]  Because of you, Austin, business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location
[17:19.920 --> 17:26.920]  We're now located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A, 1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous location
[17:26.920 --> 17:31.920]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road in Stanley Insurance Building on the ground floor
[17:31.920 --> 17:34.920]  Next to the Ishabon Sushi and the Genie Car Wash
[17:34.920 --> 17:38.920]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5
[17:38.920 --> 17:44.920]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[17:44.920 --> 17:49.920]  Ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio
[17:49.920 --> 17:55.920]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A
[17:55.920 --> 17:59.920]  or call 512-646-6440
[17:59.920 --> 18:04.920]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:04.920 --> 18:08.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method
[18:08.920 --> 18:13.920]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too
[18:13.920 --> 18:19.920]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[18:19.920 --> 18:23.920]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons
[18:23.920 --> 18:25.920]  How to answer letters and phone calls
[18:25.920 --> 18:28.920]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report
[18:28.920 --> 18:33.920]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away
[18:33.920 --> 18:38.920]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[18:38.920 --> 18:40.920]  Personal consultation is available as well
[18:40.920 --> 18:46.920]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.920 --> 18:49.920]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com
[18:49.920 --> 18:56.920]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:56.920 --> 18:59.920]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now
[19:26.920 --> 19:28.920]  Look what we get
[19:28.920 --> 19:31.920]  And they don't have an answer
[19:31.920 --> 19:33.920]  It's all been slipped inside
[19:45.920 --> 19:50.920]  Alright folks, tyranny, them a-tear you, them a-tear we
[19:50.920 --> 19:53.920]  They'll tear up the whole country if we don't put a stop to it
[19:53.920 --> 19:57.920]  And that's what we are doing here on Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com
[19:57.920 --> 20:00.920]  We are here with Ken Martin from the Austin Bulldog
[20:00.920 --> 20:04.920]  He's definitely been doing a lot to put a stop to it with his investigative journalism
[20:04.920 --> 20:07.920]  over the last 30 years
[20:07.920 --> 20:09.920]  Incredible bio he's got there
[20:09.920 --> 20:11.920]  You've done such incredible work
[20:11.920 --> 20:17.920]  I'm so grateful that you've been on the ball, been on the scene all these years
[20:17.920 --> 20:21.920]  I would like you now if you could tell us about these criminal prosecutions
[20:21.920 --> 20:24.920]  that actually did result from your investigative journalism
[20:24.920 --> 20:31.920]  I'm referring to your twice garnered first place national awards for investigative journalism
[20:31.920 --> 20:37.920]  Can you please tell us about the criminal prosecutions that did ensue as a result of your journalism?
[20:37.920 --> 20:42.920]  Well sure, we'll go back to Williamson County which is where I won the first national award
[20:42.920 --> 20:50.920]  I was covering the county commissioner's court in Williamson County from the fall of 1986 to the fall of 1989
[20:50.920 --> 20:56.920]  At that time Williamson County had two Republican office holders
[20:56.920 --> 21:01.920]  One was county commissioner and one was a district judge who is now in Congress
[21:01.920 --> 21:07.920]  The county commissioner was on, you know, you may or may not know that a lot of office holders
[21:07.920 --> 21:11.920]  don't necessarily serve full time and a lot of them have businesses on the side
[21:11.920 --> 21:14.920]  Well this commissioner was a home builder
[21:14.920 --> 21:21.920]  We're talking about the mid to late 80s when the Austin area, as a lot of other places around the country
[21:21.920 --> 21:25.920]  were in the midst of a horrible real estate bust
[21:25.920 --> 21:28.920]  So he was on hard times
[21:28.920 --> 21:35.920]  I had covered the commissioner's court for two years leading into the fall of 1988 election cycle
[21:35.920 --> 21:41.920]  where he was coming up for trying to get re-elected after serving his first term
[21:41.920 --> 21:47.920]  I started working on the nights and weekends about three months before the election
[21:47.920 --> 21:52.920]  and about three weeks before the election I was able to publish seven stories
[21:52.920 --> 21:57.920]  which exposed a number of criminal wrongdoing on his part
[21:57.920 --> 22:01.920]  Some of it had passed the statute of limitations
[22:01.920 --> 22:07.920]  It turned out to be sort of ironic for me in the end because the work that I did that was the least demanding
[22:07.920 --> 22:13.920]  the least time consuming and the least psychologically demanding
[22:13.920 --> 22:18.920]  was going across the street to the county courthouse and looking through the real estate records
[22:18.920 --> 22:24.920]  What I found was that as a home builder I compared the people that he was building homes for
[22:24.920 --> 22:29.920]  which were reflected in the real estate records
[22:29.920 --> 22:32.920]  and I compared that to his county payroll
[22:32.920 --> 22:37.920]  and I found that he had built homes for a number of people who worked for him
[22:37.920 --> 22:40.920]  not exactly an arm's length transaction
[22:40.920 --> 22:47.920]  I also found a document on file in the courthouse that indicated that he had gotten a loan
[22:47.920 --> 22:54.920]  of about $40,000 from his road crew foreman on his county crew
[22:54.920 --> 22:57.920]  which also is hardly an arm's length transaction
[22:57.920 --> 23:04.920]  Well, after those stories ran the district attorney at the time looked into it
[23:04.920 --> 23:07.920]  subpoenaed some records from the Farmers Home Administration
[23:07.920 --> 23:12.920]  which is the entity that finances those homes in Williamson County
[23:12.920 --> 23:17.920]  and large parts of it at that time were still rural and that's still the case today but not as much
[23:17.920 --> 23:26.920]  and so the district attorney subpoenaed some records and he found out two things that resulted in felonies
[23:26.920 --> 23:34.920]  One was the loan of $40,000 turned out to be a false document that there was no loan
[23:34.920 --> 23:40.920]  Now filing a false document is considered to be normally a first degree misdemeanor
[23:40.920 --> 23:47.920]  but if you do it for the purposes of hiding an asset from a creditor who has a right to seize it
[23:47.920 --> 23:51.920]  then it becomes a third degree felony and that was the case in his case
[23:51.920 --> 23:53.920]  He had people chase him for money
[23:53.920 --> 23:56.920]  He was overextended like so many people in the real estate industry was
[23:56.920 --> 23:58.920]  So that was one felony
[23:58.920 --> 24:03.920]  The second felony was in building a home for his road crew foreman
[24:03.920 --> 24:08.920]  The road crew foreman had to make a loan application of course to the Farmers Home Administration
[24:08.920 --> 24:13.920]  He stated he made X amount of money
[24:13.920 --> 24:19.920]  and that of course the Farmers Home Administration wanted assurance of how much the individual made
[24:19.920 --> 24:25.920]  So he sent back a document to the county that the county commissioner signed
[24:25.920 --> 24:31.920]  and it turned out that both of them, you know, the foreman falsified the amount of money he made
[24:31.920 --> 24:35.920]  and the commissioner attested to it by signing off on it
[24:35.920 --> 24:41.920]  and what I think it allowed was him to build a bigger home that was going to be a more expensive home
[24:41.920 --> 24:43.920]  so he could make more profit on it
[24:43.920 --> 24:46.920]  The road crew foreman would have a bigger home
[24:46.920 --> 24:51.920]  but because they falsified the application and the commissioner attested to it
[24:51.920 --> 24:58.920]  then the commissioner was indicted for a second, another third degree felony
[24:58.920 --> 25:01.920]  So he wound up being defeated for reelection
[25:01.920 --> 25:07.920]  He was indicted on the two felonies and then he got two years probation out of it
[25:07.920 --> 25:09.920]  And what year was this?
[25:09.920 --> 25:12.920]  This was the fall of 1988
[25:12.920 --> 25:14.920]  Incredible, incredible
[25:14.920 --> 25:19.920]  Incredible, so were there any other public servants that have been indicted
[25:19.920 --> 25:24.920]  or prosecuted as a result of your investigative journalism?
[25:24.920 --> 25:25.920]  Not public servants
[25:25.920 --> 25:30.920]  The second national award I won for an investigative report was
[25:30.920 --> 25:35.920]  after leaving the Williams County Sun in the fall of 1989
[25:35.920 --> 25:40.920]  I went to work as an investigative reporter for the Austin Business Journal
[25:40.920 --> 25:43.920]  which I did that for 11 months before being made editor
[25:43.920 --> 25:47.920]  But during that 11 months one of the investigations that I did
[25:47.920 --> 25:54.920]  was about a guy that would send out direct mail letters to small business owners
[25:54.920 --> 26:00.920]  It was a come on and saying I can get you a loan from the Small Business Administration
[26:00.920 --> 26:06.920]  A lot of small business owners are printily cash strapped
[26:06.920 --> 26:09.920]  and a loan from the SBA
[26:09.920 --> 26:16.920]  It's not technically from the SBA, what you have is a lender who gives the loan
[26:16.920 --> 26:19.920]  but the SBA underwrites it and guarantees it
[26:19.920 --> 26:23.920]  So it's in essence a loan approved by the SBA
[26:23.920 --> 26:26.920]  And what he was doing, he was sending out these direct mail letters
[26:26.920 --> 26:31.920]  People would see that, you know, that come on saying he could get them a loan
[26:31.920 --> 26:35.920]  And they would call him up and he would run out and he would get a check from them
[26:35.920 --> 26:40.920]  Like a deposit on his work, oftentimes he would take away their business records
[26:40.920 --> 26:46.920]  You know, purportedly for the purposes of helping, you know, giving him the information he needed to prepare the application
[26:46.920 --> 26:50.920]  In reality he seldom prepared an application
[26:50.920 --> 26:54.920]  and of the ones that he did prepare nobody ever got a loan
[26:54.920 --> 27:00.920]  In some cases, you know, people would say, you know, I don't really have the money right now
[27:00.920 --> 27:03.920]  I'm going to give you a post-dated check and he would still go to the bank and try to cash it
[27:03.920 --> 27:08.920]  He was just unscrupulous and I found in about three weeks of investigations
[27:08.920 --> 27:14.920]  I found something like 30 different victims all the way from Temple, Texas to San Marcos, Texas
[27:14.920 --> 27:21.920]  and from Bastrop on the east over to Lake Country on the west side
[27:21.920 --> 27:25.920]  So he was ripping off people all over the place
[27:25.920 --> 27:32.920]  And the upshot of it was after I ran a couple of articles about, published a couple of articles about that individual
[27:32.920 --> 27:37.920]  He was ultimately indicted in both Williamson and Travis County
[27:37.920 --> 27:40.920]  and ultimately had to serve some jail time
[27:40.920 --> 27:44.920]  It took him like two years to fall or just got off, which I thought was an extraordinary amount of time
[27:44.920 --> 27:51.920]  But he had, part of my investigation was to go to the courthouse like I do on any background investigation
[27:51.920 --> 27:58.920]  I found that he had like $150,000 worth of judgments where when he ripped people off
[27:58.920 --> 28:03.920]  sometimes they would go and file a lawsuit against him trying to get the running back
[28:03.920 --> 28:06.920]  and he never would even bother to show up
[28:06.920 --> 28:14.920]  So what that usually results in is that the judge rewards triple damages for the amount of the claim
[28:14.920 --> 28:19.920]  and he just let those things pile up and nobody could ever get anything out of him
[28:19.920 --> 28:25.920]  He had battered two wives that I interviewed, found information about
[28:25.920 --> 28:30.920]  They wound up in the hospital, he had a couple of Cadillacs that he leased
[28:30.920 --> 28:39.920]  and the GAC and GMAC people were afraid to come and try to repossess him because he was a big nasty guy
[28:39.920 --> 28:45.920]  The thing that made it relatively easy to slam him was that as part of the investigation
[28:45.920 --> 28:49.920]  I called up the sheriff in Williamson County that I knew from work up there before
[28:49.920 --> 28:53.920]  He lived in Williamson County, the individual that I investigated
[28:53.920 --> 28:58.920]  and I asked the sheriff if he could tell me if this guy had a criminal record
[28:58.920 --> 29:04.920]  You realize we're talking about here in 1990, early 1990, long before the internet came along
[29:04.920 --> 29:07.920]  and we could do some of these criminal searches online
[29:07.920 --> 29:10.920]  So the sheriff called me back a couple days later and he said
[29:10.920 --> 29:13.920]  Well, if you go to San Antonio and look in the courthouse you might find something
[29:13.920 --> 29:18.920]  So I went to San Marco, excuse me, to San Antonio and I looked in the courthouse
[29:18.920 --> 29:21.920]  and I found out that he had served time in prison for theft
[29:21.920 --> 29:26.920]  So that made it much easier to write a really hard-line story on him
[29:26.920 --> 29:31.920]  But it still took the authorities two years to finally bring him to court
[29:31.920 --> 29:34.920]  But they did bring him to justice
[29:34.920 --> 29:38.920]  Excellent work, good for you Ken, bravo!
[29:38.920 --> 29:46.920]  Alright, when we get back folks, we're going to be talking with Ken about the latest and greatest of his adventures
[29:46.920 --> 29:51.920]  This lawsuit against the City of Austin and the Austin City Council members
[29:51.920 --> 29:55.920]  Apparently in their private capacity, their personal capacity and their official capacity
[29:55.920 --> 29:59.920]  We'll be right back
[29:59.920 --> 30:05.920]  The Rule of Law Radio Network is proud to present a due process of law seminar hosted by our own Eddie Craig
[30:05.920 --> 30:11.920]  Eddie is a former Nacogdoches County Sheriff's Deputy and for the past 21 years he has studied the due process of law
[30:11.920 --> 30:17.920]  He now offers his knowledge to you at a law seminar every Saturday from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock at Brave New Books
[30:17.920 --> 30:20.920]  Located at 1904 Guadalupe Street in Austin, Texas
[30:20.920 --> 30:29.920]  Admission is $20, so please make plans to come and sit with Eddie and learn for yourself what the true intent of law really is
[30:29.920 --> 30:33.920]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution
[30:33.920 --> 30:37.920]  that guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect
[30:37.920 --> 30:39.920]  Our liberty depends on it
[30:39.920 --> 30:44.920]  I'm Lauren Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights
[30:44.920 --> 30:52.920]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal information
[30:52.920 --> 30:53.920]  That's creepy
[30:53.920 --> 30:55.920]  But it doesn't have to be that way
[30:55.920 --> 30:58.920]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine
[30:58.920 --> 31:03.920]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies
[31:03.920 --> 31:05.920]  and they're third party certified
[31:05.920 --> 31:09.920]  If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage
[31:09.920 --> 31:11.920]  Great search results and total privacy
[31:11.920 --> 31:15.920]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine
[31:15.920 --> 31:17.920]  We're coming down the Bill of Rights home stretch
[31:17.920 --> 31:19.920]  Eight down and just two more amendments to go
[31:19.920 --> 31:24.920]  This is likely the time when our founding fathers ask themselves, did we leave something out?
[31:24.920 --> 31:27.920]  So just in case they forgot to guarantee an important freedom
[31:27.920 --> 31:33.920]  they decided to add a catch-all ninth amendment to prevent the government from taking advantage of any oversight
[31:33.920 --> 31:38.920]  I like to remember the ninth amendment as the just in case we left something out amendment
[31:38.920 --> 31:43.920]  In a nutshell, the ninth amendment makes it clear that just because a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution
[31:43.920 --> 31:47.920]  or one of its amendments doesn't mean you don't have that right
[31:47.920 --> 32:04.920]  Mr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[32:17.920 --> 32:44.920]  When you're going to stop abuse, feel power
[32:44.920 --> 32:48.920]  All right, we're back here on Rule of Law Radio, ruleoflawradio.com
[32:48.920 --> 32:52.920]  We're with our very special guest, Ken Martin from the Austin Bulldog
[32:52.920 --> 32:55.920]  Long-time investigative journalist
[32:55.920 --> 33:00.920]  And so now, Ken, let's discuss the situation with Austin
[33:00.920 --> 33:06.920]  All right, you said you've been reporting on problems with the city government of Austin since January
[33:06.920 --> 33:09.920]  So tell us, before we discuss the nature of the lawsuit
[33:09.920 --> 33:16.920]  Tell us what you have found as far as corruption is going on with the city of Austin, city council
[33:16.920 --> 33:19.920]  and any other agency in the Austin government
[33:19.920 --> 33:23.920]  Well, I would hesitate to use the word corruption in this context
[33:23.920 --> 33:26.920]  I think that may be a bit of an overstatement
[33:26.920 --> 33:35.920]  But what I have found is that there's, in my opinion, clearly been an institutionalized system of one-on-one
[33:35.920 --> 33:40.920]  and two-on-one meetings that have been going on since as far back as 1997
[33:40.920 --> 33:46.920]  Over the last 14 years, we've had 21 different office holders serving as mayor
[33:46.920 --> 33:48.920]  or council member of the city of Austin
[33:48.920 --> 33:54.920]  And the system has been so institutionalized that when a new office holder takes office
[33:54.920 --> 33:59.920]  it's already on their counter that you're going to be meeting with all these other council members
[33:59.920 --> 34:08.920]  And what I was able to do is four of the council members published their calendars online on the city website
[34:08.920 --> 34:10.920]  They have a webpage and they publish their calendars
[34:10.920 --> 34:18.920]  So I downloaded all those calendars and I highlighted each time they reflected a meeting with another
[34:18.920 --> 34:20.920]  They called them one-on-one
[34:20.920 --> 34:23.920]  So I highlighted every meeting like that
[34:23.920 --> 34:33.920]  Then in about July, last July of 2010, you notice that the mayor started having two-on-one meetings
[34:33.920 --> 34:40.920]  And so what that did is that now the mayor is pulling in two council members and talking to them about the agenda
[34:40.920 --> 34:43.920]  Then he pulls in two other council members and talks about the agenda
[34:43.920 --> 34:47.920]  Then pulls in the other two council members and talks about the agenda
[34:47.920 --> 34:51.920]  And all the council members are meeting with each other and with the city manager
[34:51.920 --> 34:57.920]  And these meetings usually occur just a day or two before the city council meeting is scheduled
[34:57.920 --> 35:02.920]  So what they're really doing is they're going through and deliberating on what's on the agenda
[35:02.920 --> 35:08.920]  And this is a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act
[35:08.920 --> 35:13.920]  Because what in essence they're doing is they're arriving at a meeting of the minds
[35:13.920 --> 35:17.920]  And what the attorney general's opinions say about that
[35:17.920 --> 35:23.920]  It is the process by which you reach a meeting of minds is what is supposed to be a public process
[35:23.920 --> 35:27.920]  And in this case, it was definitely not a public process
[35:27.920 --> 35:31.920]  I mean, it's not that they didn't deliberate in public at the council meeting
[35:31.920 --> 35:38.920]  But by far, most of the deliberations have been done and exchanging information and points of view
[35:38.920 --> 35:43.920]  In these meetings that were private that the public couldn't come in and watch
[35:43.920 --> 35:47.920]  Yeah, absolutely, and I think you've even referred to these meetings that you said that
[35:47.920 --> 35:52.920]  You've described them as a flurry of get-togethers right before every city council meeting
[35:52.920 --> 35:55.920]  That's correct. That's exactly what it was
[35:55.920 --> 36:04.920]  And my attorney, we'll get to the lawsuits later, but my attorney in these uses the analogy that I think is very apt
[36:04.920 --> 36:13.920]  He said, think of the open government is like you go into a restaurant and you want to have something to eat
[36:13.920 --> 36:19.920]  And you see a menu, you look at the menu, you order something, and then they serve you the meal
[36:19.920 --> 36:24.920]  Well, in the open government analogy, the menu is the agenda for the meeting
[36:24.920 --> 36:28.920]  The meal they serve you is what they actually do in the open session
[36:28.920 --> 36:35.920]  But he takes it further and he says that you're supposed to be able to, under the open government principle
[36:35.920 --> 36:39.920]  You're supposed to be able to go back in the kitchen, see who the cooks are
[36:39.920 --> 36:46.920]  You're supposed to see what ingredients they're putting into what they're cooking for you and watch them cook it
[36:46.920 --> 36:53.920]  So you're supposed to see the whole process, not just see the agenda and see what they do in a public session
[36:53.920 --> 37:02.920]  And so much of what was being done in the kitchen has been behind a closed door where nobody knew what they were talking about
[37:02.920 --> 37:05.920]  Absolutely. Randy, you had a comment?
[37:05.920 --> 37:09.920]  Yes, I did. Something occurred to me on the break
[37:09.920 --> 37:17.920]  It was asked if there was something that can be done about the legislation that was passed as a result of these kinds of meetings
[37:17.920 --> 37:25.920]  And not, wait a minute, legislation, I mean, city councils can't legislate, but you're talking about ordinances that they may pass or resolutions or something, right?
[37:25.920 --> 37:29.920]  Okay, the ordnization
[37:29.920 --> 37:30.920]  Okay
[37:30.920 --> 37:35.920]  I just wanted to clarify so that people would get confused and think we're talking about the Texas legislature or something
[37:35.920 --> 37:37.920]  I wasn't confused or thinking
[37:37.920 --> 37:40.920]  No, no, I know, but our listeners might have been, that's why I said that. Okay, go ahead
[37:40.920 --> 37:48.920]  Okay. Anyway, there is a doctrine of trespass ab initio
[37:48.920 --> 37:57.920]  If a public official violates a law relating to his office, he becomes a trespasser and he is a trespasser ab initio
[37:57.920 --> 38:04.920]  Even if he initiates an action under the authority of his office and he initiates it legally and properly
[38:04.920 --> 38:11.920]  If in some part of the process of what he's doing he violates a law relating to his office
[38:11.920 --> 38:18.920]  He becomes a trespasser ab initio from the beginning and all of his acts are defeated
[38:18.920 --> 38:29.920]  Right, so if we can prove that, so you're saying that, for example, and we're specifically concerned about this carbon tax nonsense
[38:29.920 --> 38:36.920]  here in the City of Austin that apparently the City Council has made ordinances concerning and resolutions concerning
[38:36.920 --> 38:46.920]  whatever date that they pass these things on in the City Council meetings, if we can show, wouldn't we have to show
[38:46.920 --> 38:55.920]  like some kind of content of the private meetings to show that they absolutely did discuss this particular issue during those private meetings
[38:55.920 --> 38:59.920]  in order to get the ordinances shot down?
[38:59.920 --> 39:10.920]  It appears as though, you know, the inference is enough that if a reasonable person of ordinary prudence
[39:10.920 --> 39:18.920]  would look at the fact that they publicized that they were meeting out of quorum, and that's absolutely forbidden
[39:18.920 --> 39:27.920]  This is not something that's arcane or hard to understand, it is absolutely forbidden
[39:27.920 --> 39:32.920]  and they had to know that, and they publicized the fact that they were doing it
[39:32.920 --> 39:41.920]  So if an ordinary person, a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would look at this particular set of illegal meetings
[39:41.920 --> 39:54.920]  by these council members just prior to a vote on a key issue, it would give what is called reasonable probable cause
[39:54.920 --> 40:04.920]  Absolutely, so we could possibly go after this carbon tax issue that they passed, that would be fantastic
[40:04.920 --> 40:15.920]  And absolutely, you're absolutely right, Randy, and not only did they meet out of quorum in private, they met in quorum in private
[40:15.920 --> 40:17.920]  They did both
[40:17.920 --> 40:23.920]  Well, let's define quorum, a seven member body of quorum is four
[40:23.920 --> 40:29.920]  Technically, we have no proof that they met four people at a time or more
[40:29.920 --> 40:38.920]  What we have is proof documented in their calendars that they have all these, what's called a daisy chain of meetings
[40:38.920 --> 40:49.920]  which amounts to the same thing, it appears to be done for the purpose of circumventing compliance with the Open Meetings Act
[40:49.920 --> 41:00.920]  That's the primary stipulation in the Act, they cannot meet out of quorum, period
[41:00.920 --> 41:02.920]  They can't meet in private, period
[41:02.920 --> 41:09.920]  In public, in private, they can't meet out of quorum unless it's at some open public event
[41:09.920 --> 41:18.920]  I disagree with, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying, but I disagree that they can't meet at all
[41:18.920 --> 41:23.920]  They can have ad hoc meetings, they can drop in on each other informally from time to time
[41:23.920 --> 41:29.920]  For example, in order to get something on the city count, if you have a resolution that you want to sponsor as a council member
[41:29.920 --> 41:36.920]  then you have to have one or two other council members to agree to be a sponsor in order to get that on the agenda
[41:36.920 --> 41:38.920]  Well, that couldn't be achieved unless they could meet
[41:38.920 --> 41:43.920]  So things like that are clearly not a violation of the Open Meetings Act
[41:43.920 --> 41:52.920]  It is the regular, scheduled, institutionalized, forever and ever thing that's been going on that's a violation
[41:52.920 --> 42:01.920]  And the deliberations, and coming to a meeting of the minds, that's what is really a violation
[42:01.920 --> 42:07.920]  But yeah, like you said, in order to even get something on the agenda, they have to have co-sponsors
[42:07.920 --> 42:14.920]  So obviously they have to be able to meet and discuss a minimal amount of data outside of public
[42:14.920 --> 42:22.920]  So let's go over these total number of private meetings that are in violation of the Texas Open Meeting Act
[42:22.920 --> 42:25.920]  I got this from one of your blogs, it's really incredible
[42:25.920 --> 42:35.920]  Chris Riley, the number is 256 in the year of 2010, averaging 9.9 private meetings per council meeting
[42:35.920 --> 42:42.920]  194 for council member Laura Morrison, averaging 7.5, and this is all for the year 2010
[42:42.920 --> 42:49.920]  190 for council member Randy Shade, an average of 7.3 private meetings per council meeting
[42:49.920 --> 42:59.920]  And 163 for council member Bill Spellman, an average of 6.8 private meetings per council meeting
[42:59.920 --> 43:07.920]  And you're saying, Ken, that you arrived at these numbers by looking on their calendars that they posted on their website
[43:07.920 --> 43:14.920]  And they even have these private meetings scheduled on their public calendar for all the world to see?
[43:14.920 --> 43:23.920]  Yep. In the story that I broke on January the 25th about the violations of the Open Meeting Act
[43:23.920 --> 43:29.920]  I pointed out how this came about, you know, very briefly
[43:29.920 --> 43:37.920]  We had a proposition put on the ballot through a system initiative around 2005 or 2006
[43:37.920 --> 43:46.920]  It failed, one of the things it was supposed to do was to open government up and put more documents online on the city website much faster
[43:46.920 --> 43:51.920]  It failed, but what happened was the people that ran for election after that failed
[43:51.920 --> 43:56.920]  Okay, wait, hold on, we're going to break in. We'll discuss this on the other side. We'll be right back, folks
[43:56.920 --> 43:57.920]  Okay
[43:59.920 --> 44:05.920]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy
[44:05.920 --> 44:08.920]  And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with
[44:08.920 --> 44:11.920]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then
[44:11.920 --> 44:12.920]  Brave New Books?
[44:12.920 --> 44:19.920]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and Gilbert Griffin
[44:19.920 --> 44:23.920]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps
[44:23.920 --> 44:25.920]  There's no way a place like that exists
[44:25.920 --> 44:31.920]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT
[44:31.920 --> 44:34.920]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there
[44:34.920 --> 44:42.920]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore
[44:42.920 --> 44:46.920]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[44:46.920 --> 44:51.920]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays
[44:51.920 --> 44:59.920]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com
[44:59.920 --> 45:09.920]  At HempUSA.org, we offer chemical-free products to people around the world, detoxifying, self-healing, while rebuilding the immune system
[45:09.920 --> 45:15.920]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest selling product, micro-plant powder
[45:15.920 --> 45:22.920]  Micro-plant powder is rich in silica and probiotics to help rebuild the immune system and to create a healthy stomach flora
[45:22.920 --> 45:27.920]  Micro-plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter
[45:27.920 --> 45:31.920]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at HempUSA.org
[45:31.920 --> 45:35.920]  And remember, all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat
[45:35.920 --> 45:40.920]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality, and rapid shipping anywhere
[45:40.920 --> 45:44.920]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US
[45:44.920 --> 45:50.920]  Please visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-69-12608
[45:50.920 --> 45:53.920]  That's 908-69-12608
[45:53.920 --> 46:15.920]  See what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you at HempUSA.org
[46:23.920 --> 46:28.920]  Thank you for watching!
[46:53.920 --> 47:22.920]  Okay, folks, we are back. We're with Ken Martin. We're discussing what's been going on with Austin City County
[47:22.920 --> 47:28.920]  Austin City Council, and I don't know, you don't categorize it as corruption. It sounds pretty corrupt to me
[47:28.920 --> 47:33.920]  But I guess that's for the jury to decide in this particular situation
[47:33.920 --> 47:41.920]  We were discussing how they actually post on their public calendar the scheduled private meetings
[47:41.920 --> 47:45.920]  And I announced the numbers before we went to break
[47:45.920 --> 47:48.920]  And you were saying how you came up with the numbers
[47:48.920 --> 47:57.920]  And I was just marveling at how these people are just like admitting publicly on their website that they're breaking the law
[47:57.920 --> 48:00.920]  And you were going to take it from there, commenting on that
[48:00.920 --> 48:06.920]  Well, exactly. The thing is that this was, as I was saying, was an institutionalized system
[48:06.920 --> 48:11.920]  They came into it. As soon as they come in and take office, bam, there it is on their calendar
[48:11.920 --> 48:14.920]  They're supposed to go meet with all these other council members
[48:14.920 --> 48:19.920]  It had been started in 1997, had been carried forward, and nobody ever questioned it
[48:19.920 --> 48:26.920]  There's two attorneys on the city council right now, both of which have experience dealing with the Open Meetings Act
[48:26.920 --> 48:39.920]  And their practice as attorneys, and yet not even they thought to question the appropriateness of having these 101 and 201 meetings
[48:39.920 --> 48:44.920]  The major point that I made was, and the story, I thought it was a major point anyway
[48:44.920 --> 48:51.920]  Is that those four council members that were putting their calendars online were obviously trying to be transparent
[48:51.920 --> 48:59.920]  They were trying to show the citizens of Austin exactly what they do with their time in fulfilling their duties as council members
[48:59.920 --> 49:07.920]  And yet they didn't realize that they were documenting these inappropriate meetings
[49:07.920 --> 49:12.920]  So it was sort of an eye-opener, I think, for everybody
[49:12.920 --> 49:16.920]  Well, the upshot of this story was there was a lot of good news came out of this
[49:16.920 --> 49:22.920]  The day that I broke the story on January the 25th, the county attorney announced he was doing an inquiry
[49:22.920 --> 49:25.920]  Because he had received a complaint from a citizen about it
[49:25.920 --> 49:32.920]  I broke the story on a Tuesday, January 25th, on Friday, January 28th
[49:32.920 --> 49:35.920]  The city council had an executive session
[49:35.920 --> 49:40.920]  They hired three outside attorneys at $53,000 a pop
[49:40.920 --> 49:43.920]  And those attorneys went in there and told them what to do
[49:43.920 --> 49:45.920]  And they spent two and a half hours talking about it
[49:45.920 --> 49:48.920]  I don't know what they said in there, but I do know this
[49:48.920 --> 49:56.920]  When they came out, the mayor announced, not after the executive session, but he announced to the press
[49:56.920 --> 50:00.920]  That the 101 and 201 meetings were being stopped
[50:00.920 --> 50:04.920]  And the very next week, right before the council meeting, the day before the council meeting
[50:04.920 --> 50:09.920]  They had their first open work session that had been held in years and years
[50:09.920 --> 50:14.920]  So there was an immediate effect in the correction of their misbehavior
[50:14.920 --> 50:16.920]  That took place immediately
[50:16.920 --> 50:23.920]  So that was a major breakthrough, I thought, in terms of putting the government in sunshine
[50:23.920 --> 50:29.920]  That, of course, is not stopping the county attorney from pursuing his inquiry
[50:29.920 --> 50:33.920]  I've met with the county attorney, I've met with some of the people that are on his team
[50:33.920 --> 50:39.920]  And I personally believe that they're very serious about seeing this through
[50:39.920 --> 50:44.920]  And deciding whether there is, in fact, a criminal offense has been committed
[50:44.920 --> 50:49.920]  And if so, whether to prosecute it
[50:49.920 --> 50:57.920]  As I was saying during the break, there's been very few successful prosecutions under the Open Meetings Act
[50:57.920 --> 51:05.920]  There's two sections, 551.143 of the Texas Open Meetings Act deals with this kind of a situation
[51:05.920 --> 51:09.920]  That I've been talking about, a daisy chain of meetings right before a council meeting
[51:09.920 --> 51:13.920]  That, in essence, is establishing a walking quorum
[51:13.920 --> 51:20.920]  The other provision is 551.144, which is where four or more people who constitute the quorum
[51:20.920 --> 51:28.920]  Are going off in meeting and deliberating on the public's business without doing so in a posted meeting
[51:28.920 --> 51:30.920]  That's not what happened here
[51:30.920 --> 51:35.920]  But those are the two criminal provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act
[51:35.920 --> 51:42.920]  If one is convicted of that, you can be fined not less than $100 or more than $500
[51:42.920 --> 51:47.920]  You can be confined in the county jail for not less than one month or more than six months
[51:47.920 --> 51:51.920]  Or you can get both the fine and the confinement
[51:51.920 --> 51:54.920]  So what level of misdemeanor is this? Class B or Class A?
[51:54.920 --> 51:57.920]  I think it's actually a Class C misdemeanor
[51:57.920 --> 51:59.920]  I haven't even looked that up
[51:59.920 --> 52:04.920]  It can't be a Class C because Class C is fine only offense
[52:04.920 --> 52:05.920]  No, no, it's not a Class A
[52:05.920 --> 52:07.920]  This is a Class A
[52:07.920 --> 52:17.920]  Maximum 180 days in jail is Class A
[52:17.920 --> 52:25.920]  The violation designated in the Open Meetings and in the Open Records Act is official misconduct, which is a Class A misdemeanor
[52:25.920 --> 52:27.920]  Incredible
[52:27.920 --> 52:34.920]  In the Texas Open Meetings Act, which is where I'm quoting from when I say that, Section 551.143
[52:34.920 --> 52:40.920]  It lays out the punishments that are possible, but it does not say what level of misdemeanor it is
[52:40.920 --> 52:43.920]  There's the punishment
[52:43.920 --> 52:47.920]  Class B misdemeanor is up to 120 days in jail
[52:47.920 --> 52:49.920]  The Class A is up to 180
[52:49.920 --> 52:50.920]  Incredible
[52:50.920 --> 52:52.920]  So it is a Class A misdemeanor
[52:52.920 --> 52:53.920]  That's what it means
[52:53.920 --> 52:59.920]  Now, Ken, are you the one who filed the complaint with the county attorney?
[52:59.920 --> 53:01.920]  No, actually it was a citizen
[53:01.920 --> 53:06.920]  It was the same citizen that I learned about these meetings from
[53:06.920 --> 53:10.920]  What happened was that Brian Rogers, who's a longtime citizen
[53:10.920 --> 53:11.920]  I know Brian
[53:11.920 --> 53:15.920]  Brian was contemplating running for city council
[53:15.920 --> 53:21.920]  So he called up, sent an email to council member Chris Riley and he said, hey, can we get together?
[53:21.920 --> 53:24.920]  I want to just ask you what it's like to be a council member
[53:24.920 --> 53:31.920]  So they met for a few hours in a restaurant and during that meeting
[53:31.920 --> 53:36.920]  Brian Rogers said that Chris Riley told him that they had their minds made up
[53:36.920 --> 53:40.920]  Basically, they knew that they were going to vote before they went into the meetings
[53:40.920 --> 53:44.920]  So Brian was pretty incensed about this because he's a careful guy
[53:44.920 --> 53:47.920]  He's an engineer by education
[53:47.920 --> 53:53.920]  He often goes to speak to the council and spends considerable time preparing himself to present
[53:53.920 --> 54:00.920]  The facts that he thinks bear on his point of view about how the council might decide something, some point of business
[54:00.920 --> 54:07.920]  So he felt like he was just being cheated out of a fair opportunity
[54:07.920 --> 54:10.920]  Because he was going to the council, spending all this time
[54:10.920 --> 54:14.920]  And he felt after learning this, he felt like he just wasted his time
[54:14.920 --> 54:16.920]  So he filed the criminal complaint
[54:16.920 --> 54:21.920]  The reason I found out about it is actually he didn't file the criminal complaint right away
[54:21.920 --> 54:24.920]  But I found out about it because I interviewed him
[54:24.920 --> 54:28.920]  He was a potential candidate of substance to run for city council
[54:28.920 --> 54:32.920]  So I interviewed him and published an article on January the 11th
[54:32.920 --> 54:36.920]  During that interview, he told me about these meetings
[54:36.920 --> 54:38.920]  So I started my own investigation
[54:38.920 --> 54:44.920]  I interviewed the council members on January 19th, 20th, and 24th
[54:44.920 --> 54:47.920]  And I published my story on the 25th
[54:47.920 --> 54:52.920]  And he filed his complaint, I think, shortly before my story was published
[54:52.920 --> 54:55.920]  A couple of days or whatever
[54:55.920 --> 54:58.920]  But he was the complainant, not me
[54:58.920 --> 55:01.920]  Incredible, and I know Brian, he's a wonderful person
[55:01.920 --> 55:03.920]  So that's amazing
[55:03.920 --> 55:07.920]  So the county attorney is actually looking to do something about this
[55:07.920 --> 55:10.920]  Now, I wanted to ask you also
[55:10.920 --> 55:15.920]  The calendar, the posted calendar is not the only evidence of these secret meetings
[55:15.920 --> 55:19.920]  Tell us about, and you have an article about this on your blog
[55:19.920 --> 55:27.920]  Tell us about the smoking gun email that shows that a council aide advocated evasion of the Public Information Act
[55:27.920 --> 55:32.920]  Before you answer that question, why don't you go into the violations of the Public Information Act
[55:32.920 --> 55:34.920]  And then we can talk about the email
[55:34.920 --> 55:39.920]  At the same time, on January 19th, when I submitted email for a lot of records
[55:39.920 --> 55:47.920]  I asked for emails going back to January 1st of 2010 through January 27th of 2011
[55:47.920 --> 55:51.920]  And what I was looking for, I figured, well, here's my theory
[55:51.920 --> 55:56.920]  You know, it's like a thesis, you know, you go and gather the evidence
[55:56.920 --> 55:59.920]  What I was thinking is that there was a possibility
[55:59.920 --> 56:06.920]  If they were negligent enough about having these rowing walking quorums
[56:06.920 --> 56:10.920]  To deliberate the public's business and private meetings
[56:10.920 --> 56:14.920]  That they may also be actually establishing a quorum through emails
[56:14.920 --> 56:17.920]  That was the purpose of me asking for the emails
[56:17.920 --> 56:26.920]  And that was, it took the city 33 days to respond and provide some of the emails that we requested
[56:26.920 --> 56:32.920]  And they charged me $1,043 for those emails and some other records
[56:32.920 --> 56:38.920]  But three days later, all the other media got those records for no cost whatsoever
[56:38.920 --> 56:40.920]  Randy, is there something that can be done about that?
[56:40.920 --> 56:45.920]  Well, I've appealed to the Attorney General and we're awaiting a reply
[56:45.920 --> 56:48.920]  To see if we can get our money back on that
[56:48.920 --> 56:53.920]  The reason that we found the smoking gun email was that
[56:53.920 --> 56:57.920]  Actually, it was not in the emails that we had obtained
[56:57.920 --> 57:02.920]  Because I only asked for emails between council members and the mayor
[57:02.920 --> 57:05.920]  Not involving their council aides
[57:05.920 --> 57:10.920]  Well, what happened was a citizen who read my stories
[57:10.920 --> 57:15.920]  Furnished a copy of an email that council aides had exchanged
[57:15.920 --> 57:22.920]  And where the council aide to Randy Shade had advocated or actually instructed
[57:22.920 --> 57:27.920]  It was an email that he sent to all the other executive assistants and council members
[57:27.920 --> 57:31.920]  And said, here's how you turn off this chat system
[57:31.920 --> 57:37.920]  So that there won't be any history recorded for stuff that you don't want to see in the Statesman the next day
[57:37.920 --> 57:38.920]  That's the way you put it
[57:38.920 --> 57:41.920]  The Austin American Statesman is our local daily newspaper
[57:41.920 --> 57:48.920]  And so what he was in essence doing is he was advocating, overtly advocating
[57:48.920 --> 57:54.920]  A means to evade getting those records into the record system of the city
[57:54.920 --> 58:00.920]  So that they could be available to a citizen who asked for them under the Texas Public Information Act
[58:00.920 --> 58:02.920]  So I call that a smoking gun
[58:02.920 --> 58:04.920]  Incredible, incredible
[58:04.920 --> 58:06.920]  Alright, we're at the top of the hour
[58:06.920 --> 58:14.920]  And we're barely making a dent here into what the history is and what you've uncovered
[58:14.920 --> 58:18.920]  And then after we go through a little bit more of that
[58:18.920 --> 58:21.920]  Then we're going to talk about the lawsuit in the next hour
[58:21.920 --> 58:27.920]  And folks, we'll open up the phone lines later on in the next hour for your phone calls
[58:27.920 --> 58:29.920]  So we've got smoking gun emails
[58:29.920 --> 58:32.920]  Also to let the listeners know what's coming up
[58:32.920 --> 58:38.920]  You had interviews with several of these council members where they admitted on the record to you
[58:38.920 --> 58:45.920]  And then you're in their interviews with you concerning violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act
[58:45.920 --> 58:46.920]  And the Public Information Act
[58:46.920 --> 58:51.920]  So we're going to get all the juicy story on that on the other side as well
[58:51.920 --> 58:55.920]  So stay tuned folks, we've got one more hour of the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com
[58:55.920 --> 58:59.920]  And also go to theaustinbulldog.org
[58:59.920 --> 59:03.920]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world
[59:03.920 --> 59:07.920]  Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it
[59:07.920 --> 59:11.920]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text
[59:11.920 --> 59:15.920]  But in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture
[59:15.920 --> 59:18.920]  Enter the recovery version
[59:18.920 --> 59:22.920]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate
[59:22.920 --> 59:27.920]  But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes
[59:27.920 --> 59:31.920]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way
[59:31.920 --> 59:36.920]  Providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before
[59:36.920 --> 59:42.920]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking
[59:42.920 --> 59:52.920]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:52.920 --> 59:56.920]  Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com
[59:56.920 --> 59:59.920]  That's freestudybible.com
[59:59.920 --> 01:00:03.920]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net
[01:00:03.920 --> 01:00:10.920]  Yemen's embattled president Ali Abdullah Saleh promised Thursday to put a new constitution to a referendum this year
[01:00:10.920 --> 01:00:13.920]  And move the country to a parliamentary system
[01:00:13.920 --> 01:00:18.920]  Opponents of the strong-arm ruler who have organized countrywide demonstrations in recent weeks
[01:00:18.920 --> 01:00:20.920]  Say the move fails to meet their demands
[01:00:20.920 --> 01:00:23.920]  Opposition spokesman Mohammed Khattan said
[01:00:23.920 --> 01:00:29.920]  The demands on the street go beyond what Saleh has conceded and are bigger than that
[01:00:29.920 --> 01:00:36.920]  State Department Special Advisor Robert Einhorn says Iran is moving toward the threshold of building a nuclear weapon
[01:00:36.920 --> 01:00:40.920]  But Tehran's leaders may be divided over whether to actually make one
[01:00:40.920 --> 01:00:45.920]  Einhorn said Iran is not close to a breakout of being able to construct one in a short time
[01:00:45.920 --> 01:00:49.920]  He added international sanctions for taking a big toll against the country
[01:00:49.920 --> 01:00:54.920]  But so far Iran has not been willing to negotiate seriously
[01:00:54.920 --> 01:01:00.920]  NATO troops Thursday shot and killed a relative of President Hamid Karzai during a nighttime raid
[01:01:00.920 --> 01:01:03.920]  In Karzai's home province of Kandahar
[01:01:03.920 --> 01:01:07.920]  Afghan media says Yahr and Mohammed Khan was Karzai's cousin
[01:01:07.920 --> 01:01:09.920]  But his exact relationship was unclear
[01:01:09.920 --> 01:01:18.920]  The incident is likely to exacerbate strange relations between Karzai and the western military over civilian casualties
[01:01:18.920 --> 01:01:22.920]  Thousands of protesters rushed to Wisconsin's state capitol building Wednesday
[01:01:22.920 --> 01:01:27.920]  as word spread of a hastily called vote allowing Governor Scott Walker's bill
[01:01:27.920 --> 01:01:32.920]  limiting collective bargaining rights for public workers to pass the legislature
[01:01:32.920 --> 01:01:38.920]  Republican senators weren't able to pass the legislation because it was a budget bill requiring a quorum
[01:01:38.920 --> 01:01:43.920]  A quorum couldn't be achieved because 14 Democratic senators had fled to Illinois
[01:01:43.920 --> 01:01:49.920]  So Republicans removed non-economic components of the bill and passed them in a form that didn't require a quorum
[01:01:49.920 --> 01:01:53.920]  Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked entrance to the capitol chanting
[01:01:53.920 --> 01:01:58.920]  break down the door and general strike until police opened the doors
[01:01:58.920 --> 01:02:05.920]  Occupation of the capitol building has resumed and union leaders say strikes which are illegal in Wisconsin for public employee unions
[01:02:05.920 --> 01:02:08.920]  will likely be their next tactic
[01:02:08.920 --> 01:02:13.920]  Police have arrested nine people including two of Britain's wealthiest entrepreneurs
[01:02:13.920 --> 01:02:23.920]  Robert and Vincent Shangwez on suspicion of fraud in connection with the 2008 collapse of Iceland's Kalpting bank during the global financial crisis
[01:02:23.920 --> 01:02:31.920]  The Shangwez brothers business borrowed more than 1.6 billion from Kalpting and was plunged into crisis when the bank collapsed
[01:02:31.920 --> 01:02:39.920]  Britain's Ford office is investigating whether Kalpting made false claims trying to attract British investors to its high yield deposit account
[01:02:39.920 --> 01:02:45.920]  It is also looking at why substantial value was taken out of the bank shortly before it collapsed
[01:02:45.920 --> 01:02:49.920]  Iceland's economy imploded when Kalpting and other major banks folded
[01:02:49.920 --> 01:02:57.920]  The collapse forced Iceland to seek bailouts from Europe and the International Monetary Fund and left a trail of wrecked businesses across Europe
[01:02:57.920 --> 01:03:03.920]  For more details on this story, visit www.inmworldrecord.net
[01:03:27.920 --> 01:03:46.920]  Okay folks, we are back. We're speaking with a very special guest, Ken Martin from The Austin Bulldog, theaustinbulldog.org
[01:03:46.920 --> 01:04:01.920]  And now we are going over allegations of the Texas Public Information Act regarding secret emails between council members, betwixt council members and aides and things like this
[01:04:01.920 --> 01:04:06.920]  So we discussed the smoking gun email previous to the break
[01:04:06.920 --> 01:04:13.920]  And so why don't you tell us some more about what you found regarding the violations of the Texas Public Information Act, Ken
[01:04:13.920 --> 01:04:22.920]  Well the biggest thing, you call them secret emails, it depends on what you're trying to refer to, I want to be clear about that
[01:04:22.920 --> 01:04:33.920]  I received hundreds of emails in response to my open record request where I asked for emails that were sent back and forth between council members and the mayor
[01:04:33.920 --> 01:04:48.920]  What I did not get, which is the subject of the lawsuit I filed, is I did not get any emails that these council members used to conduct city business on their private email accounts
[01:04:48.920 --> 01:04:53.920]  On their personal computers, on their cell phones, text messages or anything like that
[01:04:53.920 --> 01:05:07.920]  The city, in my opinion, well it's not really just an opinion, as a matter of fact, the city didn't even ask for an attorney general opinion when they denied turning over those emails
[01:05:07.920 --> 01:05:13.920]  That had been generated on priorities where they had been sent or received on a private account about city business
[01:05:13.920 --> 01:05:25.920]  They just said, we don't have access to them, that they belong to those people and the city per se, distinguishing the city as apart from the office holders
[01:05:25.920 --> 01:05:28.920]  That we don't have access to them in the city
[01:05:28.920 --> 01:05:39.920]  Well actually, in my report about this, I pointed to an attorney general opinion that I got when I did an open record request for emails in the city of Georgetown about six or eight months ago
[01:05:39.920 --> 01:05:48.920]  That clearly says you are entitled to those emails generated on private accounts if they dealt with the city's business
[01:05:48.920 --> 01:05:57.920]  So that's a major part of our lawsuit against the city of Austin, is to try to get them to turn those emails over
[01:05:57.920 --> 01:06:04.920]  Absolutely, so let's back up a little bit concerning the chat issue
[01:06:04.920 --> 01:06:11.920]  Apparently there's some software, now is this at City Hall, going back to the smoking gun email
[01:06:11.920 --> 01:06:19.920]  There's a chat that's part of the city infrastructure where the city council members chat back and forth to each other
[01:06:19.920 --> 01:06:29.920]  Is that correct when this aide was instructing one of the council members how to turn off the history or whatever so that none of it would be saved?
[01:06:29.920 --> 01:06:32.920]  Am I understanding this correctly?
[01:06:32.920 --> 01:06:39.920]  Well actually, I don't know everything there is to know about, the system is called Spark
[01:06:39.920 --> 01:06:49.920]  And as I understand it, it's designed primarily for people to be able, for the council aides to be able to communicate with the council members
[01:06:49.920 --> 01:06:53.920]  While the council members are on the dais in an open session
[01:06:53.920 --> 01:07:00.920]  Now the system we have in Austin, they have the same computers on the dais where they hold their public meetings as they have in their offices
[01:07:00.920 --> 01:07:05.920]  So they can actually send and receive emails, citizens can send them emails
[01:07:05.920 --> 01:07:12.920]  Some of the council members that I interviewed talked about how they are always getting emails right during the council meeting
[01:07:12.920 --> 01:07:20.920]  I told them if I was sitting there I would want to turn that off because you can't focus on what's going on in front of you if you're sitting there reading emails
[01:07:20.920 --> 01:07:25.920]  The way I looked at it, but at any rate, there's this system called Spark
[01:07:25.920 --> 01:07:33.920]  And Spark was essentially a chat system and what this council aide told the other council aides is
[01:07:33.920 --> 01:07:39.920]  Here's how you disable the chat history so that you won't read this in the newspaper the next day
[01:07:39.920 --> 01:07:47.920]  Meaning it could be obtained under the Texas Public Information Act and then that information could be publicized
[01:07:47.920 --> 01:07:55.920]  Yeah, and I just may add that saying that if it were you, you'd want to turn that thing off because how can you pay attention to what's going on in front of you
[01:07:55.920 --> 01:08:02.920]  Well, according to what the picture that I'm getting here is that they don't pay attention to what's going on in front of them
[01:08:02.920 --> 01:08:10.920]  They don't need to, they don't care about it because they've already made their decision in private meetings before they even walk into the meeting
[01:08:10.920 --> 01:08:12.920]  So they don't need to pay attention to what's going on
[01:08:12.920 --> 01:08:23.920]  I don't want to paint everybody with the same tar brush, but the reality is that they do have the ability to send and receive email
[01:08:23.920 --> 01:08:29.920]  They're sitting there with their cell phones on getting text messages, one of the council members told me about that
[01:08:29.920 --> 01:08:35.920]  And they're taking all this input in at the same time that the council meeting is going on
[01:08:35.920 --> 01:08:45.920]  And one of the council members admitted to me in the interviews that I did before I broke the story that they're getting input real time
[01:08:45.920 --> 01:08:50.920]  While they're sitting there on the dais and sometimes it changes their mind about something
[01:08:50.920 --> 01:09:04.920]  So it's a very confusing process, that same council member pointed out that their computers are actually watching the proceedings that are coming off of the cameras
[01:09:04.920 --> 01:09:14.920]  They're in the meeting room, council chambers, and so they can actually see sometimes, they said they can see better the charts that might be put up for public consumption on their computers
[01:09:14.920 --> 01:09:16.920]  Than they can see them sitting on the dais
[01:09:16.920 --> 01:09:21.920]  So there may be good reasons from time to time to look at those computers
[01:09:21.920 --> 01:09:31.920]  I just think to my mind, I mean there's nothing illegal about they can sit there and go to sleep, you know, and you can't do anything about it
[01:09:31.920 --> 01:09:37.920]  It's just a poor tact perhaps, but it's not illegal for them to do this
[01:09:37.920 --> 01:09:39.920]  I just thought it was pretty confusing
[01:09:39.920 --> 01:09:55.920]  But getting back to the SPARK system, it's a chat system and one of the council members specifically said here's how you turn it off so that history cannot be obtained by the public, which I call a smoking gun
[01:09:55.920 --> 01:10:02.920]  Incredible, all right, and this is a perfect segue into my next question because you already started discussing this
[01:10:02.920 --> 01:10:14.920]  Concerning your interviews, your on the record interviews with some of these city council members where they went on the record and basically admitted that they were violating the Texas Open Meetings Act
[01:10:14.920 --> 01:10:18.920]  And possibly also the Texas Public Information Act
[01:10:18.920 --> 01:10:22.920]  Can you please tell us who these, and just go down the line
[01:10:22.920 --> 01:10:26.920]  You have blog posts about every single one of these interviews, you even posted the transcripts of the interviews
[01:10:26.920 --> 01:10:32.920]  So if you could just go down the line and discuss each council member that you interviewed and what exactly it was that they said
[01:10:32.920 --> 01:10:37.920]  Well, first I'd like to back up and say that they didn't admit they were doing anything illegal
[01:10:37.920 --> 01:10:48.920]  I know these people, some of them very well, some of them less well, but I actually think that they believed they were doing the right thing by having these one-on-one meetings
[01:10:48.920 --> 01:10:53.920]  If they hadn't believed that, they would have never put it in their counters for all the world to see
[01:10:53.920 --> 01:11:01.920]  So what I did in my story is just to point them out, you know, that hey, you might think this is okay, but it's not
[01:11:01.920 --> 01:11:06.920]  So I don't want to leave the impression that they admitted to any wrongdoing in their interviews, they did not do so
[01:11:06.920 --> 01:11:16.920]  What they did do, though, is they left some clues as to, you know, what I was trying to do is to find out
[01:11:16.920 --> 01:11:27.920]  You know, I had a carefully sequenced list of questions where you start off with, we're talking about how does the council make public policy, how does it decide the public business
[01:11:27.920 --> 01:11:36.920]  And then you move through the questions to where they get more pinpointed and trying to get down to are they having a meeting of the minds, things of that nature
[01:11:36.920 --> 01:11:50.920]  And they all, more or less, talked about the benefits of having these meetings by exchanging information, getting to know each other's perspectives
[01:11:50.920 --> 01:12:00.920]  And in some cases, they point out that this means that there won't be as much friction on the dais in so many words
[01:12:00.920 --> 01:12:08.920]  But they all said, you know, it was a system that was there when they took office and it was just something that they kept on doing
[01:12:08.920 --> 01:12:20.920]  Nobody ever told them it wasn't wrong, and I specifically asked each one of them if they ever raised the question of whether this violated the letter of the Open Meetings Act or the spirit of it
[01:12:20.920 --> 01:12:26.920]  And they said, no, why would I, you know, we think this is good, we think that it makes for more efficient government
[01:12:26.920 --> 01:12:35.920]  But the reality is, is that the law is not about efficient government, it's about government in the sunshine
[01:12:35.920 --> 01:12:42.920]  So there should be more deliberation in the public and less ironing out conflicts and what have you behind the scenes
[01:12:42.920 --> 01:12:48.920]  Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply that, you know, they had admitted to any illegal activity
[01:12:48.920 --> 01:12:56.920]  But when you look at what they're saying, I mean, it basically, in my book, it looks to me like it's amounting to illegal activity
[01:12:56.920 --> 01:13:04.920]  I mean, that seems to be your conclusion as well, you know, otherwise you wouldn't have filed a lawsuit, so, you know, I'm sorry if I
[01:13:04.920 --> 01:13:08.920]  Well, I filed a lawsuit about a different issue, not about the Open Meetings Act
[01:13:08.920 --> 01:13:18.920]  I filed it because they wouldn't give up all the records that they had generated about public business, specifically those emails or text messages
[01:13:18.920 --> 01:13:22.920]  that they generated on their private cell phones or their private computers
[01:13:22.920 --> 01:13:30.920]  Now, different officials might say different things about whether they even used their private computers or private cell phones
[01:13:30.920 --> 01:13:36.920]  for the purposes of communicating with one another about city business
[01:13:36.920 --> 01:13:44.920]  We never got to that question in the interviews because I was dealing in those interviews only with the Open Meetings Act
[01:13:44.920 --> 01:13:48.920]  not with the Public Information Act about open records
[01:13:48.920 --> 01:13:52.920]  But when I put in the request for the emails under an open records request
[01:13:52.920 --> 01:13:59.920]  and the Assistant City Attorney that handled that came back and said, you can't have those emails, we don't have access to them
[01:13:59.920 --> 01:14:05.920]  and she didn't even bother to go get an AG's opinion, that's what really, that was the big trigger on the lawsuit
[01:14:05.920 --> 01:14:15.920]  Okay, so going to the lawsuit, let's discuss the lawsuit, so are you not suing under the Texas Open Meetings Act at all?
[01:14:15.920 --> 01:14:16.920]  No, no
[01:14:16.920 --> 01:14:17.920]  Is this just about the Information Act?
[01:14:17.920 --> 01:14:23.920]  It's Texas Public Information Act, well actually there's two acts but the Open Meetings Act is not one of them
[01:14:23.920 --> 01:14:30.920]  Our strategy here that my lawyer came up with is pretty simple actually
[01:14:30.920 --> 01:14:40.920]  The Texas Public Information Act tells you that you're supposed to get access to public records and it defines what a public record is
[01:14:40.920 --> 01:14:50.920]  There's another act that defines what you have to retain in your records retention system of an agency
[01:14:50.920 --> 01:15:02.920]  Actually it's the Texas State Library and Archives Commission puts out a schedule of this really long list of different kinds of documents
[01:15:02.920 --> 01:15:11.920]  Each document that you have in your local system falls into one of those categories and that schedule tells you how long you have to keep it
[01:15:11.920 --> 01:15:18.920]  Some stuff has to be kept for two years, some has to be kept for five years, some of it has to be kept forever basically
[01:15:18.920 --> 01:15:27.920]  But what we have here, if you let the council members or any government agency create emails on their private accounts
[01:15:27.920 --> 01:15:34.920]  Whether it be the cell phone or computer, text message or whatever it is, and not get those into the public record system
[01:15:34.920 --> 01:15:40.920]  Then what you're allowing is government in the shadows, you're gutting the Texas Public Information Act
[01:15:40.920 --> 01:15:45.920]  Because if you don't put the record into the system to be retained, then of course it's not going to be available
[01:15:45.920 --> 01:15:48.920]  When somebody goes in for an open records request
[01:15:48.920 --> 01:15:56.920]  So our lawsuit strategy is to sue for records that were entitled to under the Texas Public Information Act
[01:15:56.920 --> 01:16:05.920]  And pointing out that the records retention schedules require those records to be put into the system
[01:16:05.920 --> 01:16:14.920]  From what I've been able to gather and my attorney, this is an unusual strategy for the lawsuit
[01:16:14.920 --> 01:16:21.920]  But so far the other expert attorneys that my attorney has conferred with on this
[01:16:21.920 --> 01:16:29.920]  He has been led to believe that it looks like it will be a successful strategy and one which probably hasn't been tried before
[01:16:29.920 --> 01:16:36.920]  By the way, I want to give my attorney a lot of credit here because he's doing this for no payment at this point
[01:16:36.920 --> 01:16:43.920]  If it goes to court and we win the lawsuit, then of course we'll ask for attorney fees, but he's not being paid for this at this point
[01:16:43.920 --> 01:16:50.920]  His name is Bill Alashar, he's with the firm of Riggs Alashar and Ray here in Austin, Texas
[01:16:50.920 --> 01:16:56.920]  And he's just been a tremendous resource for me even when I was still doing all that reporting up in Williamson County
[01:16:56.920 --> 01:16:58.920]  We'll be right back folks
[01:16:58.920 --> 01:17:06.920]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies in the Austin metro area
[01:17:06.920 --> 01:17:08.920]  We also ship worldwide
[01:17:08.920 --> 01:17:13.920]  We're a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases
[01:17:13.920 --> 01:17:19.920]  Because of you, Austin, business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location
[01:17:19.920 --> 01:17:26.920]  We're now located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A, 1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous location
[01:17:26.920 --> 01:17:34.920]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road in Stanley Insurance Building on the ground floor next to the Ishiban Sushi and the Jeannie Car Wash
[01:17:34.920 --> 01:17:38.920]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5
[01:17:38.920 --> 01:17:44.920]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:44.920 --> 01:17:49.920]  Ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio
[01:17:49.920 --> 01:17:59.920]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:59.920 --> 01:18:03.920]  My name is Randall Kelton and I co-host on Rule of Law Radio
[01:18:03.920 --> 01:18:08.920]  We specialize in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials
[01:18:08.920 --> 01:18:14.920]  With the mortgage crisis worsening, we set our sights on finding a remedy for people who have been cheated by their lenders
[01:18:14.920 --> 01:18:21.920]  If you have a mortgage or have paid yours off, you have probably been cheated out of thousands, but there is a remedy
[01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:36.920]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call me at 512-430-4140 and find out how to use the consumer protection laws to recover what the lenders have stolen through fraud and deception
[01:18:36.920 --> 01:18:42.920]  We will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose the fraud and put the lenders on the dime
[01:18:42.920 --> 01:18:47.920]  Lender fraud is bankrupting this country and it's time to fight back
[01:18:47.920 --> 01:18:59.920]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call 512-430-4140 and get the information you need to stop the money changers in their tracks
[01:19:18.920 --> 01:19:24.920]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:24.920 --> 01:19:29.920]  I was blindsided but now I can see your plan
[01:19:29.920 --> 01:19:34.920]  You put the fear in my pocket, took the money from my hand
[01:19:34.920 --> 01:19:39.920]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:39.920 --> 01:19:43.920]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:19:43.920 --> 01:20:10.920]  That ain't gonna fool me
[01:20:13.920 --> 01:20:17.920]  and the possible violations of the Texas Public Information Act
[01:20:17.920 --> 01:20:24.920]  Ken you're saying that your lawsuit is just dealing specifically with the Texas Public Information Act
[01:20:24.920 --> 01:20:29.920]  and you currently don't have anything in that lawsuit regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act
[01:20:29.920 --> 01:20:35.920]  because the County Attorney is all over that one, the County Prosecutor, that's the County Attorney
[01:20:35.920 --> 01:20:38.920]  regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act, so is that correct?
[01:20:38.920 --> 01:20:39.920]  Yes
[01:20:39.920 --> 01:20:40.920]  Okay, alright good
[01:20:40.920 --> 01:20:47.800]  All right. So let's get back to your lawsuit. So you filed this suit, you know, concerning,
[01:20:48.360 --> 01:20:54.120]  we want to see these emails. We want any kind of communications that were either on their private
[01:20:54.120 --> 01:20:59.160]  computers or private cell phones or whatever. So tell us a little bit more about, let's hear
[01:20:59.160 --> 01:21:05.640]  more about the lawsuit. What exactly you're asking for in your, in the suit. Okay. And who
[01:21:05.640 --> 01:21:13.000]  are you suing? What entities are you suing? I'm suing the mayor, each individual council member
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:20.600]  and the city of Austin. I'm suing the individual council members and the mayor because they
[01:21:21.240 --> 01:21:27.240]  have not turned over those emails that they may have generated about city business that were
[01:21:27.240 --> 01:21:31.960]  either received or sent from their personal computers or cell phones or text messages,
[01:21:31.960 --> 01:21:38.760]  those kinds of communications. So that's why they're involved in the suit. The city of Austin is
[01:21:38.760 --> 01:21:46.200]  involved in the suit because it has failed to turn over those records as well. By using the records
[01:21:46.200 --> 01:21:54.200]  retention laws in this lawsuit, what we're saying is that if they generate these emails on their
[01:21:54.200 --> 01:22:00.600]  private machines, whatever the cell phone or computer, whatever, then they are, and it deals
[01:22:00.600 --> 01:22:04.840]  with city business where they generated the message or where they received it. If it's about city
[01:22:04.840 --> 01:22:10.280]  business, then it should go into the city. They should copy the city on it. The city should put
[01:22:10.280 --> 01:22:16.200]  it in their records retention schedules and keep those records for the appropriate amount of time
[01:22:16.200 --> 01:22:20.280]  under the law, which would generally be at least two years. We're not asking for their private
[01:22:20.280 --> 01:22:25.160]  emails about, you know, their social lives or their family life or anything like that.
[01:22:25.160 --> 01:22:34.120]  It's only emails that have to do with the city's business. If we don't, without that being enforced,
[01:22:34.120 --> 01:22:39.560]  then what we're doing is we're allowing the city council members and the mayor to conduct
[01:22:40.200 --> 01:22:44.280]  their business without even, they don't even have to have these one-on-one and two-on-one meetings.
[01:22:44.280 --> 01:22:50.600]  They can just do business on an email, on their private email accounts, and who would know better?
[01:22:50.600 --> 01:22:56.760]  So that's why it's necessary. I'll give you an example that we cite in the lawsuit of
[01:22:56.760 --> 01:23:02.280]  one council member was having a communication back and forth email discussion with a citizen
[01:23:03.240 --> 01:23:10.520]  about the subsidies for the Domain Shopping Center in Austin, which over a period of years
[01:23:10.520 --> 01:23:15.800]  is getting anywhere from $25 million to $60 million, depending on whose figures you believe.
[01:23:15.800 --> 01:23:20.680]  Well, they were having this discussion back and forth in email, and then the council member tells
[01:23:20.680 --> 01:23:27.000]  the citizen, let's take this discussion to my private email account. To me, there can be no
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:32.360]  other conclusion that I can draw from that, but that he wanted to purposely evade that record
[01:23:32.360 --> 01:23:38.040]  of continuing any more of that discussion being available under the Texas Public Information Act.
[01:23:38.040 --> 01:23:41.880]  Now, wait a minute. Where did you see this? Did someone actually say this or put this in
[01:23:41.880 --> 01:23:47.400]  writing? We have a copy of an email where he said this to a citizen. Oh my gosh. He says,
[01:23:47.400 --> 01:23:54.040]  take it to my private account. What else can you conclude but that he intends for that not to be
[01:23:54.040 --> 01:23:59.000]  available under the Public Information Act for access? Absolutely. I got all those other emails,
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:02.600]  but why can't I have that one? Why? Because he took it to his private email account,
[01:24:02.600 --> 01:24:10.040]  and the city's saying, I can't have those emails. So the lawsuit asks for four things, or actually
[01:24:10.040 --> 01:24:15.560]  five if we get attorney's fees. We're asking the court to order the mayor and council members to
[01:24:15.560 --> 01:24:20.520]  turn over the local government records. The local government record is the definition
[01:24:20.520 --> 01:24:26.200]  in the records retention laws for the kind of records that they're creating. If they're
[01:24:26.200 --> 01:24:31.400]  creating an email about city business, then it is by definition a local government record.
[01:24:31.400 --> 01:24:35.400]  So we're saying, order the mayor and council members to turn over local government records
[01:24:35.400 --> 01:24:41.320]  they created or received on personal computers or cell phones to the Austin Records Management
[01:24:41.320 --> 01:24:46.040]  Officer. That happens to be the city clerk. For the time period required by the records
[01:24:46.040 --> 01:24:50.600]  retention schedules, in this case it's usually going to be two years. So in other words,
[01:24:50.600 --> 01:24:57.000]  you got to go back two years. If you've had emails on city business that you received or sent from
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:01.640]  your personal computers or cell phone, then you got to turn them over for records retention.
[01:25:01.640 --> 01:25:07.640]  That way they'll be available when anybody wants to request them. The second thing we're asking for
[01:25:07.640 --> 01:25:13.800]  is we're asking to enjoin the mayor and council members and their successors in office and all
[01:25:13.800 --> 01:25:18.600]  Austin employees from withholding government records in the future, including those created
[01:25:18.600 --> 01:25:23.800]  or received by Austin officials or employees on their personal computers or cell phones.
[01:25:24.520 --> 01:25:29.320]  And in other words, this would apply not only to these mayor and council members,
[01:25:29.320 --> 01:25:35.240]  it would apply to every employee in the city of Austin. There are 11,000 city employees
[01:25:35.240 --> 01:25:40.840]  full-time and about a thousand part-time. It's something that I just read recently.
[01:25:40.840 --> 01:25:46.680]  So that's a lot of people. And if we're successful in getting that permanent injunction,
[01:25:47.240 --> 01:25:51.960]  that would mean that all this nonsense of government in the shadows would stop
[01:25:51.960 --> 01:25:56.440]  to the extent that people are willing to comply with the court injunction.
[01:25:56.440 --> 01:26:01.160]  And my lawyer tells me that failure to comply with that injunction
[01:26:01.160 --> 01:26:06.600]  would amount to contempt of court. So anybody that's found to continue to do business,
[01:26:07.320 --> 01:26:13.400]  city business on their personal computers or personal phones with email and don't turn it
[01:26:13.400 --> 01:26:18.680]  over the records retention system to be available under the Texas Public Information Act would be
[01:26:18.680 --> 01:26:23.640]  guilty of contempt of court. So they can be dragged into court and whatever penalties there
[01:26:23.640 --> 01:26:29.880]  are for that, I'm not sure. Jail? I don't know. Yeah, you definitely can go to jail.
[01:26:29.880 --> 01:26:37.560]  But the reality is this is something that applies equally to every governmental agency in this state.
[01:26:37.560 --> 01:26:43.800]  I am totally convinced, just by the way I know how things operate, that this is going all over.
[01:26:43.800 --> 01:26:49.080]  This is not, the city of Austin is no different than anybody else in my book. All government
[01:26:49.080 --> 01:26:54.600]  agencies probably have employees and office holders that are, at least some of them,
[01:26:54.600 --> 01:27:01.560]  are doing public business on their private computers and their private cell phones via email.
[01:27:01.560 --> 01:27:06.520]  And those records are not getting into the system. I mean, it just stands to reason.
[01:27:07.080 --> 01:27:11.000]  I don't think the city of Austin is any better or any worse than anybody else.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:16.440]  So we think that this could set a very important precedent if the city were to agree,
[01:27:16.440 --> 01:27:22.360]  you know, if the court would agree to order the city with a permanent injunction. In my opinion,
[01:27:22.360 --> 01:27:26.520]  all we're asking for in this lawsuit, broadly stated, is we're asking for them to comply with
[01:27:26.520 --> 01:27:32.120]  the law. Absolutely. And something else too I wanted to comment on regarding this injunction
[01:27:32.120 --> 01:27:38.680]  request, if it gets granted, which it likely will, if any of these council members say,
[01:27:38.680 --> 01:27:45.080]  oh well, I haven't been doing that. There's nothing for me to cough up. They're risking
[01:27:45.080 --> 01:27:50.600]  contempt of court if they have done it, because their personal phone records could be subpoenaed.
[01:27:51.240 --> 01:27:56.680]  And if there's anything there where it shows they were talking to each other, or if their
[01:27:56.680 --> 01:28:02.120]  personal emails get subpoenaed and it shows any city business being conducted with their chats,
[01:28:02.840 --> 01:28:08.120]  you know, text of their chats or text of the emails, definitely that would be contempt of court.
[01:28:08.120 --> 01:28:16.600]  We didn't get into the phone calls, and there's a good reason. If you have a written communication,
[01:28:16.600 --> 01:28:23.880]  you know, on an email or a text message, that's a written document that's retrievable if it hasn't
[01:28:23.880 --> 01:28:30.360]  been disposed of, whereas the phone call, you don't know what they're talking about. You don't
[01:28:30.360 --> 01:28:36.280]  even know who the phone numbers belong to. Well, that could be determined. So that gets really
[01:28:36.280 --> 01:28:42.280]  hairy, you know. But certainly the text of the chat, of the text messages from the phones and
[01:28:42.280 --> 01:28:48.600]  the emails, if that got subpoenaed, which it very well could be, because if you're ordered to turn
[01:28:48.600 --> 01:28:53.320]  over any and all communications, written communications, regarding city business,
[01:28:53.320 --> 01:28:57.480]  and you say, well, there is none, I mean, they would definitely be setting themselves up for
[01:28:57.480 --> 01:29:04.280]  a subpoena of all their personal phone records. Well, let's, I don't, they would be setting
[01:29:04.280 --> 01:29:11.960]  themselves up for problems if they lied about it. They said that we didn't have any, and then later
[01:29:11.960 --> 01:29:16.040]  one comes to light. It's like the smoking gun email we were talking about earlier.
[01:29:16.040 --> 01:29:19.880]  Do you think that that council late ever expected that to come to light, you know?
[01:29:21.240 --> 01:29:24.920]  It's like, you know, it's like there's an old saying, you know, you should never say anything
[01:29:24.920 --> 01:29:28.760]  that you don't want to see in the paper the next day, you know. Well, this is sort of the same
[01:29:28.760 --> 01:29:35.080]  thing. You should never write an email that you expect will ever be discovered, because, you know,
[01:29:35.080 --> 01:29:41.400]  look at it this way. If you bribe somebody and they know about it, then they forever have you,
[01:29:42.120 --> 01:29:47.160]  you know, you're, they, you can be exposed. You're opening yourself up to anybody that
[01:29:47.160 --> 01:29:50.200]  you make an enemy of to come and expose you later. Yeah, especially when you're a public
[01:29:50.200 --> 01:29:53.800]  servant. All right, we'll be right back on the other side. We're going to open the phone lines
[01:29:53.800 --> 01:30:00.680]  if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. Are you tired of depending on
[01:30:00.680 --> 01:30:04.600]  the supermarket for your family's food? Would you like to grow fresh produce in the convenience of
[01:30:04.600 --> 01:30:08.840]  your own backyard? As well as offering professional lawn care services, Austin Clean and Clear will
[01:30:08.840 --> 01:30:15.240]  customize an independence garden for your family's needs and budget. Call 512-294-8429 today,
[01:30:15.240 --> 01:30:21.080]  and let us bring you closer to a healthier, more independent lifestyle. That's 512-294-8429,
[01:30:21.080 --> 01:30:25.080]  or find us at austincleanandclear.com. Our gardens are the perfect combination of
[01:30:25.080 --> 01:30:32.200]  beauty and practicality. Call 512-294-8429 today. The Bill of Rights contains the first
[01:30:32.200 --> 01:30:37.240]  10 amendments of our constitution. They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and
[01:30:37.240 --> 01:30:41.800]  protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albright, and I'll be right back with
[01:30:41.800 --> 01:30:47.000]  an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights. Your search engine is
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:52.280]  watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal
[01:30:52.280 --> 01:30:57.960]  information. That's creepy. But it doesn't have to be that way. Startpage.com is the world's most
[01:30:57.960 --> 01:31:02.760]  private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches,
[01:31:02.760 --> 01:31:07.800]  or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified. If you don't like Big Brother spying
[01:31:07.800 --> 01:31:13.800]  on you, start over with Startpage. Great search results and total privacy. Startpage.com,
[01:31:13.800 --> 01:31:19.720]  the world's most private search engine. We've made it to the 10th amendments and
[01:31:19.720 --> 01:31:26.040]  the end of the Bill of Rights. Power to the people. Power to the people right on.
[01:31:26.040 --> 01:31:30.440]  That song reminds me that the 10th amendment says that the powers not specifically given to
[01:31:30.440 --> 01:31:35.320]  the federal government belong to the states or the people. It was the founding father's attempt to
[01:31:35.320 --> 01:31:40.600]  ensure America's federal government didn't get too powerful. Activists are using the 10th amendment
[01:31:40.600 --> 01:31:45.240]  today to fight the national health care law, for example. They point out that health care is not
[01:31:45.240 --> 01:31:49.480]  a power given to the federal government, and they're attempting to nullify it on grounds that it's
[01:31:49.480 --> 01:32:10.840]  unconstitutional. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:19.480 --> 01:32:33.240]  Okay, folks, we are back. We've got a half an hour left with Ken Martin from TheAustinBulldog.org,
[01:32:34.680 --> 01:32:40.360]  and we are discussing the situation with Austin City Council, this lawsuit that's been filed
[01:32:42.440 --> 01:32:46.760]  requesting for injunctive relief for compliance with the Texas Public Information Act.
[01:32:46.760 --> 01:32:53.880]  The county attorney is already all over them with an investigation of potential possible violations,
[01:32:53.880 --> 01:32:59.720]  alleged violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. We've got the county attorney looking at
[01:32:59.720 --> 01:33:04.760]  them criminally for the Texas Open Meetings Act. We've got the Bulldog has filed for injunctive
[01:33:04.760 --> 01:33:09.080]  relief regarding the Texas Public Information Act, and I think what you're asking for is very
[01:33:09.080 --> 01:33:14.440]  reasonable. I guess just another question I have, what other influences do you think
[01:33:14.440 --> 01:33:20.200]  could factor into the outcome of this lawsuit and or of the outcome of this criminal investigation?
[01:33:20.200 --> 01:33:27.240]  Well, right now, the Texas legislature is in session, and it's been said that your life,
[01:33:27.240 --> 01:33:32.600]  your wife, and your money are not safe when the Texas legislature is in session. In the current
[01:33:32.600 --> 01:33:37.480]  session, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst has appointed Senator Jeff Wentworth to head up a panel that
[01:33:37.480 --> 01:33:43.080]  will consider changing the laws to reflect the technologies that did not exist when the laws
[01:33:43.080 --> 01:33:49.000]  were enacted in 1973. It's possible that legislation could emerge to address the areas
[01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:54.040]  we're concerned with to make private emails dealing with public business explicitly available
[01:33:54.040 --> 01:33:59.560]  as public information. On the other hand, it's also possible that the legislature could remove
[01:33:59.560 --> 01:34:04.760]  the criminal penalties for violations of the Open Meetings Act that exists in the current law,
[01:34:04.760 --> 01:34:10.760]  but which have seldom been used to successfully prosecute offenders. So that's a big one.
[01:34:10.760 --> 01:34:16.520]  Who knows what the legislature is going to do? They may help us or they may hurt us.
[01:34:16.520 --> 01:34:22.040]  Another big thing that's looming out there is there's a federal lawsuit that we understand
[01:34:22.040 --> 01:34:29.400]  could actually be announced as early as tomorrow as being decided. The city of Alpine sued
[01:34:30.280 --> 01:34:36.760]  Attorney General Greg Abbott in federal court, saying that basically what they're trying to do
[01:34:36.760 --> 01:34:41.160]  is to get the criminal penalties removed from the Texas Open Meetings Act. They're contending that
[01:34:41.160 --> 01:34:48.280]  their First Amendment rights of the public officials are being impeded by being restricted
[01:34:48.280 --> 01:34:53.480]  in what they can talk about outside of a public meeting. While the Attorney General's position is,
[01:34:53.480 --> 01:34:59.400]  no, really, we're not restricting what you can talk about. We're just saying we need sunshine
[01:34:59.400 --> 01:35:08.040]  in government. So that lawsuit has been tried. Both sides, plaintiff and the defendant, have
[01:35:08.040 --> 01:35:14.760]  submitted their briefs to the trial court, and the trial court should very soon be issuing an
[01:35:14.760 --> 01:35:20.760]  opinion. The thing about that is it could set a precedent. If the trial court should decide
[01:35:21.320 --> 01:35:27.720]  that the First Amendment rights were being infringed upon, then that would tend to undermine
[01:35:27.720 --> 01:35:34.040]  the legitimacy of the criminal penalties of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
[01:35:35.480 --> 01:35:39.880]  The final thing that could affect it is, of course, is that the county attorney
[01:35:40.760 --> 01:35:47.880]  is actually investigating these open meetings violations. I don't think that that's going to
[01:35:47.880 --> 01:35:54.840]  affect the lawsuit, because I think the lawsuit is going to proceed under its timetable, and I do
[01:35:54.840 --> 01:35:59.240]  think that the county attorney is being very diligent. The county attorney, David Escamilla,
[01:35:59.240 --> 01:36:03.800]  the Travis County Attorney, and his staff are being very diligent in pursuing this investigation,
[01:36:03.800 --> 01:36:08.920]  but I do think it's going to take them quite some time before they arrive at a position as
[01:36:08.920 --> 01:36:14.040]  to whether they want to prosecute this or not. So those are all things that could affect the
[01:36:14.040 --> 01:36:18.520]  outcome of the lawsuit. Okay, now just going back to the first thing that you said, what if the
[01:36:18.520 --> 01:36:25.080]  legislature changes the penalty? Maybe Randy or Eddie would know the answer to this question.
[01:36:25.320 --> 01:36:30.440]  If they change it from a Class A to a Class B or even a Class C misdemeanor, would that
[01:36:31.400 --> 01:36:40.520]  retroactively affect a potential sentencing for past violations of the act and the sentencing that
[01:36:40.520 --> 01:36:45.720]  was deemed appropriate at the time when the violations had taken place? Not if they're going
[01:36:45.720 --> 01:36:49.880]  to remain constitutional, because they're forbidden to make retroactive laws, either
[01:36:49.880 --> 01:36:54.280]  committing a punishment or denying a punishment of a crime that's already been committed.
[01:36:54.280 --> 01:37:00.120]  Okay, so if they change the sentencing, if they change it from a Class A to a Class B
[01:37:00.120 --> 01:37:05.960]  at this point in time in the legislature, it wouldn't matter because the law stands as it
[01:37:05.960 --> 01:37:10.680]  stands right now and the penalty stands. It stands at the time of the act that was
[01:37:10.680 --> 01:37:16.840]  the time of the committed act. Well, that's probably the case, but let's remember now,
[01:37:16.840 --> 01:37:22.360]  if they gut the act and they remove the criminal penalties entirely, then although the prosecutor
[01:37:22.360 --> 01:37:29.080]  here could go ahead and file charges, it would tend to make the trial court, I think, a little less
[01:37:29.960 --> 01:37:35.400]  likely to severely punish anybody for what they've done. Well, they're less likely to do that anyway
[01:37:35.400 --> 01:37:41.240]  simply because they're public officials, but the case law on the issue is very clear that
[01:37:41.240 --> 01:37:46.680]  it is that when the act is committed, the law that was active at that time is what controls,
[01:37:46.680 --> 01:37:52.760]  not what comes after. Okay, that's certainly good news. Okay, before we go to our calls,
[01:37:52.760 --> 01:37:57.960]  let me turn it over to Eddie and Randy. Maybe Eddie, since you're already talking, you go first.
[01:37:57.960 --> 01:38:04.280]  You have any questions or comments for our guest Ken? No, I like what he's done, and I'm glad he
[01:38:04.280 --> 01:38:09.000]  was willing to come forward with it and do something, and now he's put somebody in the
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:14.040]  hot seat for a change that has to do something. Excellent, good job. All right, Randy, you have
[01:38:14.040 --> 01:38:19.720]  any questions, comments before we go to the callers? No, no, we've got some callers who've
[01:38:19.720 --> 01:38:25.320]  been waiting a while. I'd like to bring him up. Okay, all right, very good. Yeah, they just called
[01:38:25.320 --> 01:38:30.520]  in a few minutes ago. We've got Paul from Texas that is on topic, and callers, if you would like
[01:38:30.520 --> 01:38:35.880]  to call in, we are taking calls for our guests tonight. We've got a little over one segment.
[01:38:35.880 --> 01:38:40.280]  We've got about 20 minutes left in the show. If you'd like to call in and discuss city council
[01:38:40.280 --> 01:38:45.240]  issues, whether it's in your city or ours, in relation to what the topic of the program is
[01:38:45.240 --> 01:38:48.920]  tonight, please call in. If you'd like to talk to our guests, call in. If you have questions on
[01:38:48.920 --> 01:38:52.920]  mortgage or traffic tickets or other unrelated issues, please wait till tomorrow night to call
[01:38:52.920 --> 01:38:56.520]  in. All right, we're going. Yeah, but before we go on, there is one announcement I'd like to make
[01:38:56.520 --> 01:39:01.720]  for those that aren't listening. For all those that attend the Saturday seminars at Brave New
[01:39:01.720 --> 01:39:07.320]  Books, we have been preempted this Saturday. The class will actually be Sunday from three to six
[01:39:07.960 --> 01:39:13.000]  because they double booked us on this coming Saturday, which that was an honest mistake,
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:18.360]  no issues there. But everybody that normally comes on Saturday, change that to Sunday, please,
[01:39:18.360 --> 01:39:24.120]  for the weekly seminar. Thank you. And that's the same time, Eddie? Yeah, same time, three to six.
[01:39:24.120 --> 01:39:29.880]  Okay, good deal. All right, we are going now to Paul in Texas. Paul, thank you for calling in.
[01:39:29.880 --> 01:39:39.400]  What is your question or comment for our guest, Ken? Hello. On Thursdays at noon,
[01:39:40.200 --> 01:39:49.720]  the radio station KAZI broadcasts the city council meetings. And sometimes I listen to it.
[01:39:49.720 --> 01:39:57.400]  And invariably, they'll have a meeting, and they'll have people from the public talk for
[01:39:57.400 --> 01:40:03.720]  three minutes each and so forth. And then they go into what they call closed session,
[01:40:05.160 --> 01:40:12.120]  which is obviously not a public meeting. Now earlier in the program, I'm sorry,
[01:40:12.120 --> 01:40:18.600]  I didn't... Ken Martin, this is him. Yeah, okay. He mentioned the Texas Information Act and the
[01:40:18.600 --> 01:40:29.480]  Open Meetings Act forbid meetings one-on-one or one-on-two. Would that also affect these
[01:40:29.480 --> 01:40:35.240]  closed sessions, which are... No, no, it wouldn't. Remember that the Open Meetings Act allows
[01:40:35.240 --> 01:40:42.200]  closed meetings, executive sessions of the entire governing body when they post what they're going
[01:40:42.200 --> 01:40:47.560]  to go in there for and what they're going to go in there for qualifies as one of the reasons
[01:40:47.560 --> 01:40:52.760]  that they're allowed to have a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Act specifies the things that
[01:40:52.760 --> 01:40:57.400]  you can have a closed meeting for. It might be litigation, like they could be going in there
[01:40:57.400 --> 01:41:02.520]  to discuss the lawsuit that I filed against them. If they listed that as a matter on the agenda,
[01:41:02.520 --> 01:41:06.920]  then they could go in there and discuss it. They could be discussing the acquisition of real estate.
[01:41:06.920 --> 01:41:10.440]  Obviously, you don't want to talk about it in the public session because that could affect
[01:41:10.440 --> 01:41:14.680]  the deal that they're trying to make to get a piece of land for a public purpose.
[01:41:14.680 --> 01:41:18.120]  So there are legitimate reasons that you can't go into a closed session.
[01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:22.840]  But it has to be a quorum or does it have to be the entire body?
[01:41:23.640 --> 01:41:28.120]  Well, it's whoever's there. I mean, they can't have a meeting without a quorum.
[01:41:28.120 --> 01:41:33.080]  Okay, so if they go into an executive session, it could be the entire body,
[01:41:33.080 --> 01:41:35.480]  it could be maybe somebody's out sick that day or whatever.
[01:41:35.480 --> 01:41:38.040]  But there would have to be at least a quorum present.
[01:41:38.040 --> 01:41:42.840]  Well, you can't have a meeting at all without a quorum. One more thing I should add about
[01:41:42.840 --> 01:41:49.880]  an executive session or a closed session is that they have to, even if the only purpose of the
[01:41:49.880 --> 01:41:54.840]  meeting is for an executive session, they still have to meet in an open session first, declare
[01:41:54.840 --> 01:42:00.120]  the purpose for which they're going into executive session, and then adjourn to executive session.
[01:42:00.120 --> 01:42:05.240]  And then when it's over, they have to come back out and say, we adjourn the meeting.
[01:42:05.240 --> 01:42:08.360]  So you have to have a public meeting, then you can have the closed meeting,
[01:42:08.360 --> 01:42:11.080]  then you can come out and adjourn the public meeting.
[01:42:12.360 --> 01:42:18.840]  Okay. With regard to this, this is just a quickie. With regard to the definition of a quorum,
[01:42:18.840 --> 01:42:26.680]  you know, well, I used to belong to Piano Technicians Guild. And sometimes we would get
[01:42:26.680 --> 01:42:34.120]  together and there wouldn't be a quorum. But all that that meant was we couldn't have an
[01:42:34.120 --> 01:42:39.160]  effective vote on anything, but we could still have a meeting. That doesn't apply to...
[01:42:39.160 --> 01:42:41.880]  That does not apply here. You can't have a meeting without a quorum.
[01:42:42.680 --> 01:42:43.800]  They can't even get together.
[01:42:43.800 --> 01:42:51.000]  No. The Austin City Council has seven members, and you have to have at least four of them to
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:57.080]  conduct business. Now, almost any governing body that I can think of, you have to have that,
[01:42:58.200 --> 01:43:06.520]  you know, the majority. I don't know what I'm trying to say here. You know, like if a governing
[01:43:06.520 --> 01:43:11.960]  body was nine people, then you would have to have at least five to come to the quorum. That
[01:43:11.960 --> 01:43:18.520]  would be customary. Yeah. This is a public government entity here. We're not talking about
[01:43:18.520 --> 01:43:25.560]  private entities that operate under their own rules like your piano guild. Okay. So the piano
[01:43:25.560 --> 01:43:31.560]  guild does not fall under the Texas Open Meetings Act. It's a private organization. So that's why
[01:43:32.120 --> 01:43:36.040]  it has different rules. It doesn't have to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act.
[01:43:36.040 --> 01:43:37.320]  All right. Thank you very much, Paul.
[01:43:37.320 --> 01:43:38.040]  Thanks, bye.
[01:43:38.040 --> 01:43:41.880]  Okay. We are going to move on to our other callers. When we get back on the other side,
[01:43:41.880 --> 01:43:49.640]  we've only got one more segment left. So if you have a question for Ken, 512-646-1984,
[01:43:49.640 --> 01:43:53.320]  we will be right back with Ken Martin from theaustinbulldog.org.
[01:43:53.320 --> 01:44:08.440]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of wellbeing. How many supplements have
[01:44:08.440 --> 01:44:14.120]  you heard boast of these benefits? The team behind Shentrition believes that supplements
[01:44:14.120 --> 01:44:21.640]  should over-deliver on their promises. And Shentrition does just that. Shentrition utilizes
[01:44:21.640 --> 01:44:27.560]  the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine in conjunction with the science of modern nutrition.
[01:44:27.560 --> 01:44:34.440]  Adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component and organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods
[01:44:34.440 --> 01:44:42.520]  act as a balanced nutrient base. Plus Shentrition tastes great in just water. This powder supplement
[01:44:42.520 --> 01:44:49.640]  is everything you'd want in a product and it's all natural. Visit Shentrition.com to order yours
[01:44:49.640 --> 01:44:58.920]  or call 1-866-497-7436. After you use Shentrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:45:00.520 --> 01:45:06.920]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[01:45:06.920 --> 01:45:14.280]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:14.280 --> 01:45:19.560]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:19.560 --> 01:45:25.560]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now
[01:45:25.560 --> 01:45:32.120]  you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:45:32.120 --> 01:45:37.880]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:37.880 --> 01:45:43.400]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:43.400 --> 01:45:51.000]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.000 --> 01:46:14.360]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:28.680]  Okay, folks, we're back. We're going into our final segment. If you have questions for our
[01:46:28.680 --> 01:46:36.920]  guest, Ken Martin, you can call in 512-646-1984. We've got Mark from Texas. Mark, thank you for
[01:46:36.920 --> 01:46:42.280]  calling in. What is your question or comment for Ken Martin? Thank you. Hi, this has to do with
[01:46:42.280 --> 01:46:53.320]  the ECAD or the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure Ordinance that often has, and actually
[01:46:53.320 --> 01:47:00.760]  this is a three-prong question. Number one is by what authority do they have to force individual
[01:47:00.760 --> 01:47:12.040]  homeowners to get these audits that actually expense out of our own pocket? And then number two is
[01:47:12.040 --> 01:47:18.840]  who on the council and or the mayor would be benefiting from this? In other words, by let's
[01:47:18.840 --> 01:47:26.040]  say such as future employment or maybe investments that they might have that might actually benefit
[01:47:26.040 --> 01:47:33.000]  them by this ordinance enacted. And number three, what would our remedies be under this? Because it
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:45.160]  seems, it's my understanding that these ordinances are unenforceable except to the city employees
[01:47:45.160 --> 01:47:50.840]  and the contractors. And I'd like for your guest or any of you all to go ahead and comment on that
[01:47:50.840 --> 01:47:55.800]  and I'll get offline and hear what you have to say. I appreciate it. I can take part of that.
[01:47:55.800 --> 01:48:01.960]  The authority to force homeowners to get the audit is the city ordinance. The city ordinance
[01:48:01.960 --> 01:48:09.160]  came about through a series of negotiations, I guess I could say, or meetings amongst what's
[01:48:09.160 --> 01:48:14.200]  the city of Austin likes to call stakeholders. There were people that in the energy conservation
[01:48:14.200 --> 01:48:21.640]  business, there were home builders, other real estate interests involved, and they came up with
[01:48:21.640 --> 01:48:29.560]  this after a back and forth about give and take on what could be done to try to improve the
[01:48:29.560 --> 01:48:34.520]  footprint, the carbon footprint or the energy footprint in the city of Austin. What we have
[01:48:34.520 --> 01:48:41.320]  is a city that's been around since a long time. We have a lot of old housing stock. A lot of the
[01:48:41.320 --> 01:48:46.520]  energy that we consume is not really going to much use because like you're air conditioning and you
[01:48:46.520 --> 01:48:53.000]  have so many leaks in your home that the energy that you're using to generate the cold air is
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:58.360]  being leaked out into the hot outside atmosphere. Or the same thing is true on the heat side. You
[01:48:58.360 --> 01:49:03.640]  know your heat is leaking out if you have not very good insulation. So there's a good purpose
[01:49:03.640 --> 01:49:10.520]  to be served here. In the long run, the people who make the improvements necessary to
[01:49:11.320 --> 01:49:16.120]  seal up those leaks are going to save energy and they're going to have lower utility bills.
[01:49:16.120 --> 01:49:24.280]  So there is a direct benefit to the homeowner. I personally had my house up for sale a couple
[01:49:24.280 --> 01:49:30.120]  years ago and I had to pay $200 to get an audit and it showed that my house is built in 1954,
[01:49:30.120 --> 01:49:34.440]  is like a house built in 1954. It's not the most energy efficient house in the world.
[01:49:35.320 --> 01:49:40.440]  The good news is that you don't have to make the improvements that the audit showed
[01:49:41.800 --> 01:49:47.000]  could be made in the interest of energy conservation. If that were to be done,
[01:49:47.560 --> 01:49:50.680]  I think that was something that might have been proposed originally when they were
[01:49:50.680 --> 01:49:56.760]  working this thing out. But then it was decided that was too understated and so it was not
[01:49:56.760 --> 01:50:01.960]  required. What the audit does do is even if you don't want to make the improvements when
[01:50:01.960 --> 01:50:06.760]  you're going to sell your home, it does give full disclosure to the person who's buying your home.
[01:50:06.760 --> 01:50:12.200]  And I think that's the big benefit. You know when you go out to buy a new refrigerator,
[01:50:12.200 --> 01:50:16.040]  a new washing machine, there's a sticker on it that says how much energy it uses.
[01:50:16.040 --> 01:50:21.080]  Well in a sense this energy audit might provide an analogous service as it tells, it's a full
[01:50:21.080 --> 01:50:27.000]  disclosure. You know you have to disclose like cracks in your foundation, you know things of
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:31.480]  that nature that are defects in your home. Well the energy audit I think is analogous to that.
[01:50:31.480 --> 01:50:35.960]  So whether you like it or not, I think you know there's a public purpose probably is being served.
[01:50:36.840 --> 01:50:42.200]  Who on the council could benefit from it? Well I have no knowledge of anybody benefiting from it.
[01:50:42.200 --> 01:50:48.360]  To answer questions about conflict of interest and possible financial gain, you can go to the
[01:50:48.360 --> 01:50:55.480]  city clerk's office, submit a request to see the financial disclosures that each and every council
[01:50:55.480 --> 01:51:01.080]  member has to file. You can see where other investments are, where their income is coming from,
[01:51:01.960 --> 01:51:06.200]  and draw your own conclusions about that. That's something that I intend to do at some point,
[01:51:06.200 --> 01:51:10.120]  not for the purposes of dealing with this energy audit particularly, but it's just good
[01:51:10.120 --> 01:51:16.680]  journalism. And then your third question is what remedies? Well I'm not sure what you consider to
[01:51:16.680 --> 01:51:21.000]  be a remedy. I think the only, if you don't like the audits and you don't want them to be done,
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:26.360]  the only remedy that I can think of would be to try to get different council members in there that
[01:51:26.360 --> 01:51:30.840]  would repeal that ordinance. Personally I don't think that's going to happen, but I mean that's
[01:51:30.840 --> 01:51:34.840]  the only remedy I can think of. I don't think there's any way that a lawsuit is going to turn
[01:51:34.840 --> 01:51:43.320]  it over. It's not sufficiently onerous I don't think myself, but I'm not a lawyer I should say.
[01:51:43.960 --> 01:51:51.000]  Mark listen, one second Mark. I wanted to comment on your first question as well, and Eddie I'm sure
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:56.360]  has some comment on this city ordinance business as well. We have to, I'm going to take a stance
[01:51:56.360 --> 01:52:02.360]  of disagreeing concerning the authority issue with Ken because from from Eddie's research,
[01:52:02.360 --> 01:52:08.440]  and Eddie maybe you can expand upon this, because of the enacting clause of the constitution,
[01:52:08.440 --> 01:52:15.800]  only the legislature is authorized to enact or legislate law that is binding upon the citizens.
[01:52:16.440 --> 01:52:24.920]  City municipalities cannot enact law and all city ordinances technically only apply to city
[01:52:24.920 --> 01:52:30.760]  employees and that is- Oh definitely not. I mean come on you've got you've got fines for everything,
[01:52:30.760 --> 01:52:36.920]  you know you can spit on the street you know. That's true you do, you do, but the question is
[01:52:36.920 --> 01:52:41.880]  do they have the authority to create them and the Texas constitution specifically forbids it.
[01:52:41.880 --> 01:52:47.160]  Well I think I think that's the will of the west argument. You know every every municipality has
[01:52:47.160 --> 01:52:53.800]  ordinances and many of them carry penalties. Now they can only fine, a municipal fine can only go
[01:52:53.800 --> 01:52:58.600]  up to five hundred dollars, but I mean you know that's they pass a homeless ordinance and no sit
[01:52:58.600 --> 01:53:03.160]  no lie you know somebody violates that they can take them down to to the court that they have
[01:53:03.160 --> 01:53:07.240]  established for those people and try to get them into treatment, try to get them supportive housing
[01:53:07.240 --> 01:53:11.320]  or whatever, but there is a there is a criminal procedure there that's established by city
[01:53:11.320 --> 01:53:15.160]  ordinance that's just one one small example. Right now they've turned it into a crime to be
[01:53:15.160 --> 01:53:20.520]  homeless which is exactly the point of the issue here. When the when the legislature or the city
[01:53:20.520 --> 01:53:27.720]  I'm sorry goes into session the people never gave the city the authority to dictate how and when the
[01:53:27.720 --> 01:53:33.960]  people could spend their own money dealing with their own property for the the city to presume
[01:53:33.960 --> 01:53:39.960]  that it has the authority to force any of the people that live in it what they can or cannot
[01:53:39.960 --> 01:53:45.960]  do with their own property including disposal of that property to someone else. The first thing
[01:53:45.960 --> 01:53:52.200]  this ordinance does is make the presumption that everybody's a crook and they wouldn't make full
[01:53:52.200 --> 01:53:59.800]  disclosure about their home. Well you know we're talking about that one ordinance but let's talk
[01:53:59.800 --> 01:54:04.440]  about another one what about the ordinances that protect our water quality over the aquifer
[01:54:04.440 --> 01:54:09.240]  they restrict how much impervious cover you can build on your land that stands up in court that
[01:54:09.240 --> 01:54:13.560]  went all the way to Texas Supreme Court and that ordinance stood up. So right there you're talking
[01:54:13.560 --> 01:54:19.320]  about something that affects the general public as a whole not someone's own private property.
[01:54:19.320 --> 01:54:23.800]  Well it does affect private property because if you own a piece of property that's in a certain
[01:54:23.800 --> 01:54:29.160]  part over the aquifer you can only put 15 percent impervious cover on your land. But that's what I'm
[01:54:29.160 --> 01:54:36.200]  saying that somebody's property borders something that affects the entire population that's the
[01:54:36.200 --> 01:54:42.280]  difference in the issue. My home whether it's energy efficient does not affect the entire population
[01:54:42.280 --> 01:54:48.520]  that's my problem. But if you're over an aquifer it but if you're over an aquifer it does that's
[01:54:48.520 --> 01:54:54.280]  why that ordinance stood up is what I'm what I'm getting from that. Well I'd like to see that
[01:54:54.280 --> 01:54:59.640]  tested in court I don't believe it has been I mean you I mean the there's no sit no lie that I brought
[01:54:59.640 --> 01:55:06.120]  up you know I've had a city hall newsletter for five years covering it and the homeless issue was
[01:55:06.120 --> 01:55:11.400]  a was issued from 1995 to 2000 we have the newsletter it's been issued now and it'll always
[01:55:11.400 --> 01:55:17.320]  be an issue until we find a way to to help those people that are unfortunate enough they may be
[01:55:17.320 --> 01:55:24.120]  drug addicted they may be alcoholics they may be disabled physically mentally handicapped who knows
[01:55:24.120 --> 01:55:29.160]  there's just a whole range of afflictions that these people suffer from. Okay we've got about
[01:55:29.160 --> 01:55:35.880]  three minutes left let's take Steve from Montana and he has a question on on topic and then Ken
[01:55:35.880 --> 01:55:40.200]  we're going to have to have you back this is a great discussion. Okay Steve what is your question
[01:55:40.200 --> 01:55:47.960]  for Ken? Hi Ken um a little while back I filed a bunch of freedom of information requests with
[01:55:47.960 --> 01:55:56.680]  the sheriff's department asking for all the qualifications that they had on file for training
[01:55:56.680 --> 01:56:02.520]  and everything with with a certain officer and I also filed one with the clerk county clerk and
[01:56:02.520 --> 01:56:08.120]  recorder where everybody's oaths within the county are supposed to be kept. I gave him 30 days to
[01:56:08.120 --> 01:56:16.920]  respond I in my request I asked you know for um if there was any questions that you had with anything
[01:56:16.920 --> 01:56:23.720]  I asked then please respond you know within 30 days in writing. Okay Steve please make it quick
[01:56:23.720 --> 01:56:28.520]  because we've got barely two minutes left. Okay well the fact is is that they never responded
[01:56:28.520 --> 01:56:31.480]  or said anything or even gave me notice they weren't going to respond and just never. So you
[01:56:31.480 --> 01:56:38.520]  want to know what your recourse is? Yeah well first off you got to did you file under federal
[01:56:38.520 --> 01:56:44.440]  or state laws every state had practically I think has some kind of a public information
[01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:49.800]  law that allows you to solicit public records but when it comes to law enforcement personnel
[01:56:49.800 --> 01:56:54.520]  for example right here in Texas there's a lot of information that's in the law enforcement
[01:56:55.160 --> 01:56:59.960]  and law officers files that is not publicly available there's a public file and there's a
[01:56:59.960 --> 01:57:05.960]  private file and some of the information that we we might want to get for example disciplinary
[01:57:05.960 --> 01:57:12.200]  history is only available in cases where the officer has been reprimanded to the extent that
[01:57:12.200 --> 01:57:17.720]  they've got like a suspension even if it's only one day those are something along those lines
[01:57:17.720 --> 01:57:23.400]  that's so every state's laws are different about what you can get about police officers is usually
[01:57:23.400 --> 01:57:30.120]  a different it's not like regular employees you can get a lot more information about a regular
[01:57:30.120 --> 01:57:36.680]  government employee than you can about a police officer. All right very good Steve you may want
[01:57:36.680 --> 01:57:40.840]  to call in tomorrow night and we can discuss that issue some more and Mark why don't you call in
[01:57:40.840 --> 01:57:45.240]  tomorrow night as well and we'll discuss your issues some more as well concerning the remedies.
[01:57:45.240 --> 01:57:49.560]  We've got barely one minute left. Ken I want to thank you for coming on the air with us and
[01:57:49.560 --> 01:57:55.480]  discussing your lawsuit and all of your incredible investigative journalism it's been wonderful and
[01:57:55.480 --> 01:58:01.080]  you've done a lot more in your investigative journalism history than just dealing with
[01:58:01.080 --> 01:58:06.120]  Austin and Williamson County the situations that you've described so we'd love to have you back.
[01:58:06.760 --> 01:58:13.320]  Well thank you very much I enjoyed it. Any closing comments for us? Keep up the good work. Okay thank
[01:58:13.320 --> 01:58:21.800]  you all right folks this has been the Thursday March 10th edition of the rule of law ruleoflawradio.com
[01:58:21.800 --> 01:58:28.280]  tomorrow night will be our four hour info marathon where we have open mic open topic open phone lines
[01:58:28.280 --> 01:58:32.600]  where you folks can call in and ask questions on any topic that you may have.
[01:58:32.600 --> 01:58:43.960]  We will see you all tomorrow night thank you and God bless.
[01:59:02.600 --> 01:59:13.960]  I'm dangerous, dangerous. I'm like a step in the grave. Watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:13.960 --> 01:59:29.000]  If you are a chucky, you're about a chucky bum, man. If you are a chucky, chucky, you're about a chucky bum, man.
[01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:43.560]  I'm like a step in the grave. Watch my side. I'm dangerous, I'm dangerous. I'm like a step in the grave. Watch my side. I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:43.560 --> 02:00:00.120]  If you are a chucky, you're about a chucky bum, man. If you are a chucky, you're about a chucky bum, man.