ROL_2011-05-20_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:09.600]  U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday unauthorized leaks about the special forces
[00:09.600 --> 00:16.400]  raid that killed Osama bin Laden are endangering U.S. troops, harming diplomatic relations,
[00:16.400 --> 00:21.040]  and jeopardizing the country's ability to carry out similar operations in future. Gates
[00:21.040 --> 00:26.080]  lamented too many people have been sharing inside information. Leaks contradicting the
[00:26.080 --> 00:32.400]  official version of the raid began appearing after Congress was briefed. The Union of Concerned
[00:32.400 --> 00:37.520]  Scientists said this week human-induced climate change is contributing to record flooding along
[00:37.520 --> 00:42.880]  the Mississippi River that has forced thousands to evacuate and has flooded huge swaths of
[00:42.880 --> 00:48.480]  farmland. Climate change scientist Katherine Hayhoe said climate change is about more than warming,
[00:48.480 --> 00:54.560]  it's about global weirding or weather at the extremes. Extreme weather cost 130 billion
[00:54.560 --> 01:01.440]  dollars a year in the last decade. U.S. health insurers have enjoyed a surge in profits recently
[01:01.440 --> 01:07.600]  because a growing number of Americans are postponing or foregoing medical care. Dr. Jim King,
[01:07.600 --> 01:12.880]  a Tennessee family practitioner noted gas prices are going up, food prices are going up,
[01:12.880 --> 01:17.840]  patients are deciding to put some of their health care off. In recent years many employers have
[01:17.840 --> 01:25.120]  sharply reduced benefits while raising deductibles and co-payments. Tens of thousands of mostly young
[01:25.120 --> 01:30.640]  people are camping out in Madrid and dozens of other Spanish cities protesting government cuts
[01:30.640 --> 01:37.200]  and a lack of jobs. Spain's unemployment rate is 21 percent but among youth it is 41 percent.
[01:37.760 --> 01:42.560]  Countries electoral authorities have effectively ordered the government to dissolve the protests
[01:42.560 --> 01:47.760]  ahead of a regional election Sunday. The decision was met with jeers in Madrid's Puerto del
[01:47.760 --> 01:52.640]  Sol where thousands gather every evening and hundreds have been camping out. Dubbed the
[01:52.640 --> 01:57.920]  Spanish Revolution, the sit-ins began with a march through Madrid Sunday led by young people
[01:57.920 --> 02:03.760]  angry at mass unemployment, austerity measures and political corruption. In the camp protesters
[02:03.760 --> 02:09.200]  attend daily assembly meetings and make joint decisions. The sit-in has been mirrored in 57
[02:09.200 --> 02:14.720]  other cities including Barcelona. Observers fear the ban on protests will lead to clashes
[02:14.720 --> 02:21.760]  between demonstrators and police. Top congressional leaders agreed Thursday to a four-year extension
[02:21.760 --> 02:27.360]  of the Patriot Act. The controversial law passed after 9-11 that dramatically undermined the rights
[02:27.360 --> 02:32.880]  of U.S. citizens. The act's provisions allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple
[02:32.880 --> 02:38.640]  electronic devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records
[02:38.640 --> 02:44.000]  relevant to terrorist investigations. The third provision permits secret intelligence surveillance
[02:44.000 --> 02:49.680]  of non-us individuals without having to show a connection between the target and a specific
[02:49.680 --> 03:07.520]  terrorist group. You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com
[03:07.520 --> 03:15.920]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:37.520 --> 03:43.920]  Whatcha gonna do?
[03:43.920 --> 03:47.920]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:47.920 --> 03:53.600]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:53.600 --> 03:59.040]  When you were eight and you had bad dreams, you'd go to school and learn the golden rule.
[03:59.040 --> 04:04.400]  So why are you acting like a fluffy fool? If you get hot, then you must get cool.
[04:04.400 --> 04:11.600]  If you get hot, you must get cool. Bad boys, bad boys, we are here to cool you off.
[04:11.600 --> 04:18.560]  Cool your heels. Cool down, Mr. Officer. Cool down, you bad boys. This is the rule of law.
[04:20.000 --> 04:26.720]  It is Friday, May 20, 2011. I'm Deborah Stevens. We're here with Randy Kelton and Eddie Craig.
[04:26.720 --> 04:34.320]  Randy is down under. He's going to bring on some of his Aussie friends tonight.
[04:34.320 --> 04:40.960]  And we also have in studio, very special guest, Mr. Harmon Taylor, back by popular demand.
[04:40.960 --> 04:46.560]  So we'll be bringing Harmon on in a few minutes. But first, we want to get caught up with Randy.
[04:46.560 --> 04:49.520]  We haven't heard from you for a while. I haven't talked to you for a while.
[04:49.520 --> 04:55.680]  We've been, had to run an archive last night and last Friday because you had a
[04:55.680 --> 05:00.960]  seminar that you were giving. So, Randy, let us know. Tell us what's going on down under.
[05:01.920 --> 05:07.920]  Well, good night, mate. I'm actually beginning to learn to speak this strange foreign dialect
[05:07.920 --> 05:08.960]  when I speak down here.
[05:08.960 --> 05:10.000]  Want a bath?
[05:11.360 --> 05:19.520]  Well, maybe not. Ricky's sitting across from me, shaking his head. No. Okay. I am very pleased
[05:19.520 --> 05:27.920]  with the response that I have received down here. I had the impression about the Australians,
[05:27.920 --> 05:35.520]  partially from my Vietnam experience, is they like to fight. Whenever we needed somebody who
[05:35.520 --> 05:41.360]  would really get in there and fight, you bring in the Australians. But when you go back to base,
[05:42.880 --> 05:48.480]  stay away from them because when they get back to base, they drink that funky tasting
[05:48.480 --> 05:56.960]  beer and they didn't want to beat us up. I came here and found that that impression that I had
[05:56.960 --> 06:04.160]  about the Australians was precisely white. They are willing to stand up and fight. All they need
[06:04.160 --> 06:13.120]  is tools to do it with. And they, I've got a surprisingly good reception. We did a seminar
[06:13.120 --> 06:21.760]  here in Gosford. We're about a hundred clicks north of Sydney. It's the 29th. I'll be doing
[06:21.760 --> 06:26.880]  one in Brisbane and they expect about a hundred people there. And then I'll come back to Sydney,
[06:26.880 --> 06:34.480]  the 28th in Brisbane, 29th in Sydney. So we have a lot of people with a lot of interest
[06:35.600 --> 06:42.080]  and they're willing to stand up to these people. And we just need to figure out how best to
[06:42.080 --> 06:50.320]  invoke the politics. I have Ricky Partington here and I'd like Ricky to kind of give you an idea of
[06:50.320 --> 06:56.400]  how the Australians appear to be different from the Americans. And I'd kind of like to get your
[06:57.120 --> 07:02.080]  opinion of what Australians think of Americans. Be honest.
[07:02.080 --> 07:15.600]  I think the Americans are same and similar to Australians. They like to fight too,
[07:16.400 --> 07:23.440]  but we'd like to take it to the step further. But currently in Australia right now we've got so much
[07:24.080 --> 07:29.600]  judicial corruption. They've pretty much cornered us and we haven't been able to really work out
[07:29.600 --> 07:33.360]  just exactly how to take them down and fight them back.
[07:37.680 --> 07:43.520]  One of the things that I heard a lot before I came here and early on after I got here
[07:44.160 --> 07:52.320]  was that I would find the government in Australia a lot more corrupt than in America.
[07:52.320 --> 07:59.600]  But when I got here, I found the Australian government appears to be very corrupt,
[08:00.640 --> 08:05.200]  but the problem was is I couldn't see how they could be more corrupted in the States.
[08:06.000 --> 08:14.080]  And frankly, in looking through the Australian code, you have more tools than we have
[08:14.080 --> 08:21.920]  to fight these guys with. And I'd like you to kind of address this fact that everybody's required to
[08:21.920 --> 08:27.440]  vote and how that affects the balance between the parties.
[08:28.960 --> 08:36.720]  Yes, in Australia, it's by law, it is compulsory to vote. And if you do not vote, you receive a
[08:36.720 --> 08:47.120]  fine and possible sentence. And this can dramatically either swing or gain a party into power. And
[08:47.920 --> 08:52.080]  these days it's a matter of picking which one's worse and trying to get the best out of both of
[08:52.080 --> 08:58.640]  them. And yeah, there's really not a lot of options these days to find someone who's actually genuine
[08:58.640 --> 09:03.840]  to actually put in power, because they seem to be all in collusion with each other and really not
[09:03.840 --> 09:09.440]  getting anywhere. And this is where we feel that we can get Randy Salt out here and to be able to
[09:09.440 --> 09:21.760]  take him on. Well, I'm sure that everybody who's listening to that feels like that's very familiar,
[09:21.760 --> 09:28.000]  because in the States we attempted, we seem to do the same thing. From what I understand in Australia,
[09:28.000 --> 09:37.440]  the votes tend to be very close. So the government changes a lot. And we're looking at how to create
[09:37.440 --> 09:44.640]  politics, how to create political pressures. Ricky was reading through the code the other morning,
[09:44.640 --> 09:55.600]  and in the criminal procedure code, right at the very beginning, there's a code in there that
[09:55.600 --> 10:10.240]  authorizes the attorney general to grant indemnity to anyone for any violation of any crime or...
[10:12.640 --> 10:17.120]  Randy, you're kind of cutting out. Any crime or act.
[10:17.120 --> 10:25.920]  Randy, can you repeat that last couple of sentences, because you were cutting out? Sorry,
[10:25.920 --> 10:30.000]  folks, Randy's in Australia and... I had someone come... Yes.
[10:30.000 --> 10:34.160]  Randy, can you repeat the last couple of sentences, because you were kind of cutting out? I was just
[10:34.160 --> 10:40.080]  explaining to the listeners that you're in Australia and the internet connection over there
[10:40.080 --> 10:49.200]  isn't quite... is up to speed, so to speak, as it is here in the States. So go ahead, Randy.
[10:52.000 --> 11:00.080]  Randy? I don't know, maybe we lost him. Did we lose him?
[11:00.080 --> 11:03.600]  Yes, well, okay. Okay, there he is. Go ahead.
[11:03.600 --> 11:10.640]  Okay, there he is. Go ahead. Try to stay on the same
[11:11.280 --> 11:16.560]  wavelength with us there, Randy. They felt as though that...
[11:18.880 --> 11:22.640]  I don't know, this may not... The attorney general a license to
[11:22.640 --> 11:27.360]  grant anyone immunity he wanted to, but on closer examination of the statute...
[11:27.360 --> 11:36.400]  Oh, the call just dropped. Sorry, folks. We're going to try to get him back.
[11:38.560 --> 11:44.560]  We'll call him back on the break. While we're trying to get him back, Harman,
[11:44.560 --> 11:49.120]  you had some things that you wanted to say about this Australia law situation.
[11:49.680 --> 11:56.960]  I'd love to engage the discussion with him about his money system and pose the question,
[11:56.960 --> 11:59.920]  maybe they're listening and maybe after the break we can get into this.
[12:01.120 --> 12:08.560]  What if the High Court in Australia is entering rulings correctly? What if...
[12:08.560 --> 12:11.520]  What if they're calling the same thing over here? It's where I'm coming from.
[12:11.520 --> 12:18.640]  We've got the same problem. It starts with the choice of law, and what seems foreign to us
[12:19.360 --> 12:22.080]  is going to seem foreign to them. And here's the connection.
[12:22.080 --> 12:28.240]  Their fundamental origin of the law is the same as ours. All of it comes from the common law of
[12:28.240 --> 12:36.320]  England. All of it. We are raised with an intuitive understanding of right and wrong based on a common
[12:36.320 --> 12:43.360]  set of principles. Their system has funny money in the exact same way that our system has funny
[12:43.360 --> 12:49.760]  money, which means they're no more operating on the law of the land standard than we are.
[12:49.760 --> 12:54.400]  They're in a maritime standard, they're in a law of the sea, choice of law system,
[12:55.040 --> 13:02.480]  and therefore what seems extraordinarily out of line to them is the same thing that seems
[13:02.480 --> 13:09.440]  extraordinarily out of line to us. It's not out of line. Their High Court are dollars to doughnuts.
[13:10.240 --> 13:17.920]  Their High Court is properly applying their reality. And the objective then for the
[13:17.920 --> 13:24.080]  High Court is the exact same objective we have, and that is to understand why those rulings that
[13:24.080 --> 13:31.600]  seem out of place are exactly right. So as we get into this, if we can talk to him,
[13:31.600 --> 13:37.840]  and maybe I can ask him some questions about some things, at least plant some seeds of thought to
[13:37.840 --> 13:43.280]  say, okay, let's turn this around. Instead of saying that what the court is doing is wrong,
[13:43.280 --> 13:49.840]  let's presume that they're teaching us something. Let's presume that what they're doing is 100%
[13:49.840 --> 13:57.200]  correct within their current reality, within their current legal system, within their current choice
[13:57.200 --> 14:04.960]  of law. And presuming it correct, what then do we learn from these lessons? Because all the
[14:04.960 --> 14:11.600]  information is there. They're teaching us with every opinion what the reality is. And that's
[14:11.600 --> 14:20.000]  what the reality is. And so as we accept those seemingly odd rulings as correct, rather than
[14:20.000 --> 14:26.640]  presuming them wrong, presume them right, and then dissect them to find out what facts matter
[14:26.640 --> 14:30.800]  and what the rules are. Okay, I think we got him back up. Randy, did you catch that?
[14:33.040 --> 14:39.920]  Just the last part of the sentence. Okay. We've been doing a little soft shoe here to fill in
[14:39.920 --> 14:46.800]  the time to get you back online. Yeah. Yeah. Harman is saying that this whole commercial
[14:46.800 --> 14:52.320]  nexus thing is the same in Australia. And Harman wanted to ask you guys some questions
[14:53.120 --> 15:00.000]  once we got you back up. Wonderful. So the money system that is in Australia,
[15:00.000 --> 15:08.400]  I'm presuming it to be paper? Yes. Are there any silver or gold? It is a fiat currency.
[15:08.400 --> 15:15.680]  It's not backed by silver or gold? No. Okay. They've got the exact same choice of law
[15:15.680 --> 15:21.280]  issue that we have in America. Exact same. The mechanism is the same.
[15:24.160 --> 15:30.320]  In other words, it's as commercial-based a system there as we've got here. Same in Canada,
[15:30.320 --> 15:35.680]  same all over Europe. Where we find funny money, we find the law of the sea system.
[15:35.680 --> 15:42.640]  The common law, this may rightfully be limited to the common law we get from Britain. Any system
[15:42.640 --> 15:47.280]  that is based on that, and we've got that, it's commonality here, is definitely going to fit in
[15:47.280 --> 15:52.880]  this. If we get into Asia and other places, different source of law from the beginning.
[15:52.880 --> 15:57.600]  But fundamentally, we can still get to the maritime choice law because it's funny money.
[15:58.160 --> 16:05.040]  But at any rate, they started off with a system that looked to the British pound sterling as the
[16:05.040 --> 16:12.240]  unit of account, and now they've got paper. Their choice of law changed. Their interaction with
[16:12.240 --> 16:17.920]  themselves and their interaction with the system changed. And in that change, of course, the most
[16:17.920 --> 16:26.320]  critical change is the evaluation standard of those commercial agreements. So it turned it on
[16:26.320 --> 16:32.960]  its ear, the same thing there as here, where we used to have an intuitive thought, well, I guess
[16:32.960 --> 16:38.720]  we'll do some more of this after the break. All right, folks, this is the rule of law. We've got
[16:38.720 --> 16:45.280]  Harmon Taylor, Randy Kelton, Ricky Partington. That's Randy's guest tonight, Eddie Craig, of course,
[16:45.280 --> 16:50.480]  and I'm Deborah Stevens. And we will see you on the other side of the break. We will be right back.
[16:50.480 --> 16:55.520]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin supplies in
[16:55.520 --> 17:01.040]  the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We're a family-owned and operated business that
[17:01.040 --> 17:06.480]  offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. Because of you, Austin, business has
[17:06.480 --> 17:11.520]  been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location. So we're here to help you.
[17:11.520 --> 17:15.520]  We're here to help you. We're here to help you. We're here to help you. We're here to help you.
[17:15.520 --> 17:20.880]  Austin, business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location. We're now
[17:20.880 --> 17:27.760]  located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A, 1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous location.
[17:27.760 --> 17:32.400]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road in the Stanley Insurance Building on the ground floor
[17:32.400 --> 17:37.680]  next to the Ishaban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6,
[17:37.680 --> 17:45.200]  Saturdays 10 to 5. You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440.
[17:45.200 --> 17:50.640]  Ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us on rule of law radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[17:50.640 --> 17:56.080]  That's capital coin and bullion at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A.
[17:56.080 --> 18:03.920]  We'll call 512-646-6440. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters,
[18:03.920 --> 18:09.840]  or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears
[18:09.840 --> 18:15.040]  has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get
[18:15.040 --> 18:20.160]  step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights
[18:20.160 --> 18:25.680]  statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters
[18:25.680 --> 18:30.320]  and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the financial
[18:30.320 --> 18:36.800]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[18:36.800 --> 18:41.520]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[18:41.520 --> 18:47.440]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email
[18:47.440 --> 18:57.360]  michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.360 --> 19:12.560]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:27.360 --> 19:54.560]  All right, we see justice. That is our goal. That's one of our goals here at the rule of law.
[19:54.560 --> 20:01.680]  We cannot have peace without justice, that's for sure. So we are speaking with Harman Taylor now
[20:01.680 --> 20:08.640]  and Randy Kelton about the situation in Australia and Harman is saying it's basically the same as
[20:08.640 --> 20:12.320]  ours because of the funny money system. So Harman, please continue.
[20:12.320 --> 20:21.280]  Just to wrap that up and let them take back over the time here, the foundational principles
[20:21.280 --> 20:27.520]  that we have organizationally will be the same. Once we get out of a legitimate money system,
[20:27.520 --> 20:33.360]  we're dealing with a commercial system. It's the only way funny money can circulate. The
[20:33.360 --> 20:39.360]  legitimate money system exists because the law doesn't allow anything different. When we have
[20:39.360 --> 20:45.040]  funny money in circulation, it's because the choice of law has changed. Under the law of the land,
[20:45.040 --> 20:51.840]  funny money is very bad stuff. At the very minimum, it's fraud. It's worse than that, but
[20:52.640 --> 20:57.600]  it's okay to talk about it as fraud. If we were under a law of the land system, the people
[20:57.600 --> 21:04.000]  circulating funny money would be going to jail. Because funny money is circulating lawfully,
[21:04.000 --> 21:09.920]  in other words, no one's going to jail for it, the choice of law has changed. So it's fundamentally
[21:09.920 --> 21:19.280]  a commercial system. And I'm quite confident in suggesting that if that were the premise
[21:19.280 --> 21:25.520]  used in analyzing the legal decisions, it'd be a whole lot more self-consistency and hopefully
[21:25.520 --> 21:31.200]  an insight into how to defend oneself, which is basically on the commercial side, the defense
[21:31.200 --> 21:35.360]  comes through preparation. We just don't get into the agreements in the first place.
[21:35.360 --> 21:45.280]  All right, Randy. Does that make sense to you guys? That's kind of like the 12-hour
[21:45.280 --> 21:51.200]  Harmon Taylor course in like three minutes. Randy, are you there?
[21:53.600 --> 21:54.480]  Yes, I'm here.
[21:54.480 --> 21:58.640]  Okay. Okay. Why don't you finish telling us about this attorney general stuff
[21:58.640 --> 22:05.680]  and then go over some of the tools that they have there that you were talking about earlier, if you
[22:05.680 --> 22:11.120]  can. Yes, I was looking through the law and it appeared that there were a number of things that
[22:11.120 --> 22:22.480]  were relatively different. But then while I compared the legislative history and why they
[22:22.480 --> 22:30.240]  put it in place, it turned out to be exactly the same. And it went to the philosophy, understand
[22:30.240 --> 22:38.960]  that in any ordered society, there must be a comprehensive corpus juris. And what I'm telling
[22:38.960 --> 22:45.360]  these folks is all of the protections you need are there. And the reason they're there is because
[22:45.360 --> 22:51.120]  these politicians are corrupt. These public officials are corrupt and they all know they
[22:51.120 --> 22:58.880]  are swimming in a pool full of sharks. So they need a way to protect themselves from the other
[22:58.880 --> 23:06.000]  sharks. All we need to do is take the tools they use and use it against them. And we are finding
[23:06.000 --> 23:13.360]  that the tools are here. One in particular, we hear a lot about private prosecutions.
[23:13.360 --> 23:20.720]  Here they have them. They have what's called a court appearance notice that an ordinary citizen
[23:20.720 --> 23:28.560]  can file and it institutes a criminal prosecution. Every citizen in Australia, if he has knowledge
[23:28.560 --> 23:37.280]  of a crime, can become a common law magistrate. That is awesome, Randy. That's exactly what I was
[23:37.280 --> 23:43.200]  advocating the other night when we had that discussion in the overtime concerning these
[23:43.200 --> 23:48.720]  corrupt prosecutors here in the states, namely in Houston, where they would not prosecute the
[23:48.720 --> 23:55.840]  police for aggravated assault for assaulting the 15-year-old boy. And the prosecutor lied and said
[23:55.840 --> 23:59.200]  the only thing they could charge him with is official oppression, which is a lie. The statute
[23:59.200 --> 24:04.160]  says they can be charged with aggravated assault, specific statute just for public servants acting
[24:04.160 --> 24:09.920]  under the color of law in the line of duty. So this is what we need to do.
[24:11.280 --> 24:17.040]  We have, you know, I've talked to people here that have went into the court and notified the court
[24:17.040 --> 24:26.560]  that they're there as a common law magistrate. And the court gives them credence. They pay real
[24:26.560 --> 24:34.640]  close attention. And that's, you know, I look at that and with envy, I should have such a tool.
[24:35.520 --> 24:41.280]  So once we get them up to speed on using these tools, I think they're going to be able to make
[24:41.280 --> 24:48.080]  a tremendous difference. Thus far, I am very pleased at what I'm finding down here. And the
[24:48.080 --> 25:03.280]  Australian law is far more sophisticated than ours. It's more detailed. When you make a criminal
[25:03.280 --> 25:10.480]  accusation, there are physical elements and fault elements. And they very specifically define the
[25:10.480 --> 25:15.040]  physical elements. Are there something that you do or something that you fail to do? And for each
[25:15.040 --> 25:20.720]  physical element, there must be a corresponding fault element that makes this act or this failure
[25:20.720 --> 25:33.280]  to act a specific crime. So in reading through the law, far more detailed. And from my experience
[25:33.280 --> 25:38.720]  with public officials, I hadn't found one that knew the law yet. So the more complex it is,
[25:38.720 --> 25:45.840]  the more tools we get to beat them up with. So far, I'm very encouraged. But I think we can get
[25:45.840 --> 25:49.840]  something really powerful moving down here. So Ricky, what is your take on all this?
[25:51.840 --> 25:57.760]  Yeah, it's definitely an eye-opener. So many people now that once Randy has explained to them
[25:57.760 --> 26:02.480]  that these are the tools that we can hit them back with, there's a lot of people have called me
[26:02.480 --> 26:06.400]  saying, you know, getting Randy out here is the best thing ever, because we never knew that we
[26:06.400 --> 26:11.680]  could do this. And some of the people who have been spending a lot of time on researching this
[26:11.680 --> 26:18.560]  had never heard of the Attorney General being given full discretion. And basically, literally,
[26:19.120 --> 26:24.960]  everyone's at the same time are in excitement and a lot of shock that Randy's uncut out a lot of
[26:24.960 --> 26:29.760]  the stuff that we're able to use against them. And they've also the same thing, they've also
[26:29.760 --> 26:33.760]  that it explains a lot as to why they're doing what they're doing, because we know we don't know
[26:33.760 --> 26:40.880]  how to hit them back and hold them accountable. But now, Randy's just fully open their eyes and
[26:40.880 --> 26:46.320]  there's a lot of excitement in Australia already. And so many people have once hit their time, money
[26:46.320 --> 26:54.400]  and effort to help Randy keep researching and help them find all these other new little tricks and
[26:54.400 --> 26:59.040]  tools so that they can use against the public officials. And there's a lot of exciting, a lot
[26:59.040 --> 27:05.120]  of exciting, a lot of exciting. Well, if you ever get to Randy, you can invite me and I promise I
[27:05.120 --> 27:15.760]  won't bore you to death with as many stories. They like my stories. Randy is a storyteller,
[27:15.760 --> 27:29.440]  that's for sure. He can wind a tale. Quite entertaining, really. They seem to like my stories. That's just
[27:29.440 --> 27:34.560]  because you have fresh ears. They're not tired of them yet. I like your stories, Randy. I've never
[27:34.560 --> 27:52.640]  had to take a sleeping pill with you. But I have gotten a surprise. Even Ricky, I keep having these
[27:52.640 --> 28:22.240]  dreams that I'm lost somewhere on a foggy coast. But it's just Ricky snoring. I think he's talking
[28:22.240 --> 28:35.520]  about a foghorn is where this is supposed to be going. I am especially pleased with the fact that
[28:36.320 --> 28:47.120]  the Australians don't take themselves so terribly serious. They don't take themselves so terribly
[28:47.120 --> 28:55.120]  serious, you're saying. All right, Randy, listen. Your Skype is cutting out real bad. So we've got
[28:55.120 --> 29:00.160]  about one minute to break. So why don't you give us some... It allows them to back up and look at
[29:00.160 --> 29:06.240]  things in a more... Yes. I think he's hearing you either, Debra. Yeah, he's not. We think
[29:06.240 --> 29:11.600]  it all together. Randy, it allows them to back up and look at things what? Because they don't take
[29:11.600 --> 29:18.240]  themselves seriously. It allows them to back up and look at things. In a more self-examining
[29:18.240 --> 29:26.720]  perspective, we had a fellow in the Supreme Court hearing who was crawling down the judge's throat
[29:27.440 --> 29:35.200]  and I was surprised at how tolerant the judge was. I was pleased with him because he stayed on point.
[29:35.200 --> 29:43.680]  But afterward, when he came out, I told him, you use the judge of treason. You haven't read the
[29:43.680 --> 29:50.640]  code. You can't do that. Did you lose me? No, we heard you. We're going to break. Okay. All
[29:50.640 --> 29:55.440]  right, folks. But he took it well. Okay. Good deal. Good deal. All right, we'll be right back, folks.
[29:55.440 --> 30:05.760]  I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11th, 2001. Most people don't know that
[30:05.760 --> 30:11.920]  a third tower fell on September 11th. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by
[30:11.920 --> 30:17.600]  a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7, over 1,200
[30:17.600 --> 30:21.760]  architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[30:21.760 --> 30:27.920]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwhat.org. Why it fell,
[30:27.920 --> 30:34.720]  why it matters, and what you can do. We all know organic foods are better for our health and better
[30:34.720 --> 30:40.000]  for the environment, but we also know they're more expensive. In today's tough economy, are consumers
[30:40.000 --> 30:45.200]  making healthy choices or are we pinching pennies? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with
[30:45.200 --> 30:50.880]  the answer in just a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself,
[30:50.880 --> 30:56.000]  you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will
[30:56.000 --> 31:01.840]  start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to
[31:01.840 --> 31:07.360]  yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[31:07.360 --> 31:14.400]  startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Start
[31:14.400 --> 31:21.280]  Page. The tide is turning. Despite tough economic times and competition from cheaper genetically
[31:21.280 --> 31:26.800]  modified foods, Americans are opening their wallets for organic choices. A new report shows
[31:26.800 --> 31:33.120]  the U.S. organic industry grew a whopping 8% in 2010, and sales of organic fruits and vegetables
[31:33.120 --> 31:39.120]  now account for nearly 12% of all produce sales. Clearly, consumers are demanding healthy options
[31:39.120 --> 31:43.600]  at the grocery store, and they're voting with their pocketbooks. So join me and millions of
[31:43.600 --> 31:49.120]  other conscientious shoppers as we change the face of America's farmlands and the choices available
[31:49.120 --> 32:17.120]  on our store shelves. Buy green. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:19.120 --> 32:29.120]  The person's a risk for Mr. Bush. The person's a risk for the team.
[32:30.480 --> 32:35.920]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[32:35.920 --> 32:40.960]  The mama got a real liar, them tell me. Them a liar, not tell sick stories.
[32:40.960 --> 32:46.720]  We don't believe me, say what them tell me. 3% of America vote for Bush. So how the hell he
[32:46.720 --> 32:52.720]  get the presidency? That's why me have a warrant for him. Everybody listen carefully.
[32:52.720 --> 32:57.920]  It's into the words of the three-shoes pussies. The person's a risk for Mr. Bush.
[32:59.600 --> 33:12.160]  Mama warrant for the team. The person's a risk for Mr. Bush. Mama warrant and time for the team.
[33:12.160 --> 33:19.360]  Well, we don't forget Rome's field. Warrant for him. I'll reach any warrant for him.
[33:19.360 --> 33:24.080]  Fright about the citizens in the country. Them getting so mad and them getting angry.
[33:24.080 --> 33:29.600]  We have some warrant we need to solve out. Need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them.
[33:29.600 --> 33:39.360]  Okay folks, we are back. Apologize for Randy's internet connection in Australia. They don't
[33:39.360 --> 33:47.040]  have cable, internet, and they don't have fiber optic either. They just have DSL and wireless,
[33:47.040 --> 33:54.400]  like big giant radio towers, broadband wireless internet, and it's not very suitable for Skype.
[33:54.400 --> 33:58.640]  So at any rate, Randy is still on the line, but his connection's cutting out too bad
[33:59.520 --> 34:03.360]  for him to really make a good presentation. So we're going to go to Harmon now.
[34:04.160 --> 34:08.160]  All right, special guest Harmon Taylor, and we're going to get into some more of this
[34:08.160 --> 34:15.040]  commercial nexus business issues, and we are going to segue from there into the Fourth Amendment and
[34:15.040 --> 34:20.080]  this recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling. So Harmon, break it down for us.
[34:20.640 --> 34:31.680]  The commercial nexus concept is the foundation of the place to start in just about everything
[34:31.680 --> 34:40.080]  that we're dealing with. So as we move through the language and understanding what it's there for,
[34:40.800 --> 34:48.720]  as we look at the commercial side of it, we start to understand how it works.
[34:49.680 --> 34:57.040]  One of my favorite cases for this, and we'll use this as a segue into the Indiana High Court
[34:57.040 --> 35:04.800]  decision recently about you can't take violent steps to protect yourself when the cops are
[35:04.800 --> 35:11.920]  coming in without notice and basically without authority. The case that comes to mind is out of
[35:11.920 --> 35:19.200]  Connecticut's mid-60s. The name of it is Griswold. It's one of my favorite cases to describe commerce.
[35:21.040 --> 35:26.560]  Several people tried to go after this statute. What did the state of Connecticut say?
[35:26.560 --> 35:32.800]  They said, it's illegal to use contraceptives. There are all kinds of people
[35:35.200 --> 35:39.920]  challenging the statute through the system, and they'd get shut down this way. That way,
[35:39.920 --> 35:46.960]  most of them correctly stating, you have no standing. Well, how can anybody in Connecticut
[35:46.960 --> 35:54.320]  not have standing? And as it turns out, the Supremes go to some effort to explain
[35:54.320 --> 36:00.880]  that in this case, in the Griswold case, the standing exists because one of the plaintiffs,
[36:00.880 --> 36:09.040]  one of the challenging parties, is a married woman. What possible difference can that make?
[36:09.040 --> 36:14.720]  Well, here's the difference. The Griswold case strikes down the statute, and it does it through
[36:14.720 --> 36:20.640]  a privacy analysis, and it's very well done. It's nice to know that there's a right to privacy.
[36:20.640 --> 36:25.360]  But we need to look a little further into this case to understand what's really happening.
[36:25.360 --> 36:30.320]  We get the clues from the facts. The key fact is a lot of people didn't get to challenge
[36:30.320 --> 36:35.520]  the statute because they didn't have standing. How does a married woman have standing to
[36:35.520 --> 36:43.200]  challenge the statute? What is the circumstance in the married woman's situation that doesn't
[36:43.200 --> 36:53.040]  exist in some other situations? And the answer is, she's licensed. Licensed to do what? Okay,
[36:53.040 --> 36:57.280]  let's look at the marriage license. What is any license for? We talk about licensing in
[36:57.280 --> 37:06.320]  all kinds of areas. What is any license for? A license exists to permit engaging commerce
[37:06.320 --> 37:14.240]  in a choice of law called this state. The license exists to permit engaging that activity,
[37:16.240 --> 37:22.640]  whatever that activity is, in the place called this state, in what I call the hover zone.
[37:24.640 --> 37:29.920]  It's a separate place. It's purely abstract. It's a separate place, and in that place,
[37:29.920 --> 37:36.240]  we have all this choice of law, all of the rules that apply, and they apply because it's a separate
[37:36.240 --> 37:43.600]  place. What does a married woman have a license to do? Make babies. It's really a paradigm
[37:43.600 --> 37:49.040]  shift. It is really a mess to the head to think of children as property. This is how
[37:49.040 --> 37:57.040]  the law treats them. What does the commercial family exist to do? Make babies. What does
[37:57.040 --> 38:04.320]  family exist to do? Make babies. For whose benefit? State's benefit. Why does CPS have
[38:04.320 --> 38:11.840]  an interest in the child? That's state's agent to enforce state's interest in that child
[38:11.840 --> 38:20.560]  born to whom? Born to a licensed commercial family. So here's the lesson from Griswold
[38:20.560 --> 38:28.960]  in a nutshell. The married woman has standing. Why? Because it's commercial activity. What's
[38:28.960 --> 38:37.120]  the commercial activity? Making babies. When the state said contraceptives are illegal,
[38:38.160 --> 38:48.640]  what state is saying is, thou shalt make babies. That's commercial for the commercial family.
[38:48.640 --> 38:53.760]  It's a commercial activity. If you have a license to be married, you've got a license
[38:53.760 --> 39:03.360]  to make babies. For whom? State. And so it's commercial activity that the state is effectively
[39:04.080 --> 39:09.600]  compelling. If you don't get contraceptives, they're making you make babies. And guess what?
[39:10.640 --> 39:16.560]  No state can compel at any time for any reason the engagement of commerce.
[39:16.560 --> 39:21.200]  I was just fixing to ask you, Harmon. I mean, just because you have a license to do something,
[39:22.640 --> 39:27.120]  how can they require you to do it? That just means they're giving you permission to do it.
[39:27.120 --> 39:31.520]  Correct. They cannot use that to compel you to engage that activity.
[39:31.520 --> 39:35.280]  So what happened next with the Griswold case? Is it still there?
[39:35.280 --> 39:40.160]  With 65, what the Supremes did through the privacy analysis was strike down the statute.
[39:40.960 --> 39:46.160]  And in the privacy analysis, they don't go into the commercial analysis that I used to describe
[39:46.160 --> 39:52.160]  this case. It's fundamentally the lesson is the state cannot compel the engagement of commerce.
[39:52.160 --> 39:55.840]  And it doesn't matter what it is. And so, but the courts are never going to
[39:55.840 --> 40:01.280]  admit to that. And so they use this privacy analysis as their cover story, so to speak.
[40:01.280 --> 40:07.600]  Very well stated. Correct. And so we have to take these cases apart and make sense out of them,
[40:07.600 --> 40:13.680]  say, okay, privacy is great. It is very good to know. Now, what is really at issue here?
[40:13.680 --> 40:19.920]  And what is really at issue here is the commercial line. And so I used the Griswold case as the
[40:19.920 --> 40:26.560]  found that it's kind of a shock to some people, I think, to recognize that even a marriage license
[40:26.560 --> 40:32.480]  is voluntarily obtained. No one has to do that. They didn't have marriage licenses until they were
[40:32.480 --> 40:39.120]  prepping for our current situation. And they wanted to control everything. How do we control that?
[40:39.120 --> 40:45.600]  Okay, give them a license. Presumably, they know what they're doing. So they get the license.
[40:45.600 --> 40:54.000]  They become a commercial family. They make kids for state's benefit. Okay. That tends to shed a
[40:54.000 --> 40:59.280]  huge light for a lot of people on that issue. They never thought about it before. So we're taking
[40:59.280 --> 41:04.400]  that and they were applying it in that circumstance and how it is that a married woman has standing
[41:04.400 --> 41:10.640]  that some other challengers to that statute simply did not have. And it's the commercial
[41:10.640 --> 41:17.200]  nexus to the issue. And she's saying state cannot compel me to make babies. They didn't get a
[41:17.200 --> 41:22.800]  married guy in here and they didn't talk about the married guy. Is the married guy okay? He's
[41:22.800 --> 41:30.320]  got a contribution to make here, but he's not the one who is. This seems weird to say it this way,
[41:30.320 --> 41:37.680]  to say it anyway. He is not the special manufacturer of those goods. The woman's the special
[41:37.680 --> 41:43.520]  manufacturer of those goods. It's true. If you want to get into a really weird way to look at it,
[41:44.160 --> 41:54.160]  it's just like cattle. And we can talk about kids as being goods. It's a really wild place to go.
[41:54.160 --> 42:00.960]  But all that being said, all that being said, we get the fundamental concept being applied here,
[42:00.960 --> 42:07.200]  not being stated so much, but being applied that the state cannot compel commerce.
[42:07.200 --> 42:16.720]  Well, Harmon, the cattle analogy is actually very accurate because the elites,
[42:16.720 --> 42:20.320]  and I don't even like to call them elites. They are psychopaths is what they are.
[42:20.320 --> 42:28.640]  They consider us as fodder. They consider us as cattle. That's why these corporations
[42:28.640 --> 42:35.280]  have a human resources department. They consider us a resource. They consider us as fodder, as cattle,
[42:35.280 --> 42:41.520]  as goods. And how dare you not continue to produce goods for my benefit? That's the way the state
[42:41.520 --> 42:47.440]  sees it. They see us as cattle. That really fits here in Australia because I talked to a number of
[42:47.440 --> 42:57.440]  guys here who said they were married to a cow. We'll come back to that. The thing here is this.
[42:57.440 --> 43:03.360]  I wouldn't mention names, Randy. You're going to get somebody in a lot of trouble.
[43:04.480 --> 43:07.760]  It's a common saying here for people to call a woman a cow.
[43:07.760 --> 43:17.840]  And probably slaps in the face are pretty common, too. As a result, maybe even some
[43:17.840 --> 43:23.840]  fists flying, I would imagine. I would imagine that the fighting spirit of the men there is
[43:23.840 --> 43:29.840]  fully supported by their women. At any rate, here we are with the concept of...
[43:29.840 --> 43:31.840]  It's only overshadowed by the women.
[43:31.840 --> 43:39.280]  Okay. I kind of liked it better when Randy's Skype connection was cutting out.
[43:42.080 --> 43:44.960]  All right, folks. We're going to break. Harmon, hold that thought.
[43:47.040 --> 43:51.040]  And Randy, try not to get yourself in too much trouble over there. We'll be right back, folks.
[43:51.040 --> 44:02.640]  This is the rule of law.
[44:21.040 --> 44:44.640]  This is the rule of law.
[44:51.040 --> 44:58.640]  This is the rule of law.
[45:21.040 --> 45:28.640]  This is the rule of law.
[45:51.040 --> 45:58.640]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at brave new bookstore.com.
[46:21.040 --> 46:24.640]  Yeah, always.
[46:51.600 --> 46:56.640]  I hope for bravery and against slavery, showing resistance.
[46:57.360 --> 47:02.160]  First I'm crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting.
[47:02.160 --> 47:16.640]  I'm just so glad to make my living pushing buttons.
[47:16.640 --> 47:33.440]  All right, folks, we are back. This is the rule of law. Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens.
[47:34.240 --> 47:37.600]  We're with our very special guest, Harmon Taylor tonight.
[47:38.800 --> 47:43.840]  And Harmon, please continue. You're discussing this Griswold case.
[47:43.840 --> 47:51.360]  In the Griswold case, is the segue into the mechanism, the place to start, a perspective
[47:51.360 --> 48:00.160]  to apply to this case in Indiana that hit the email, hit the email servers everywhere
[48:00.160 --> 48:08.000]  and constantly when it came out. What happened? The court allowed the entry without warrant
[48:08.000 --> 48:19.600]  into the Fourth Amendment issue. Can the cops go into a place that it's the wrong place?
[48:19.600 --> 48:28.320]  Can they go in there without opposition? Is there a right to defend your property
[48:28.960 --> 48:34.640]  when the cops go in and start looking around and stuff, no warrant, no nothing?
[48:34.640 --> 48:44.240]  Harmon, I thought that the case wasn't about allowing the police to conduct unwarranted
[48:44.240 --> 48:52.720]  searches. I thought the case just mainly said that you can't violently, forcibly try to stop them.
[48:53.760 --> 48:57.280]  Fundamentally, that's where we are. They're saying don't defend your property.
[48:57.280 --> 49:06.400]  If the cops come in armed, too bad. I'm satisfied personally that that decision is written to be
[49:06.400 --> 49:11.440]  overruled. I think it's written to make a point. And there's some suggestion about the history of
[49:11.440 --> 49:18.800]  how that particular opinion author came to that position. And without going into all of that
[49:18.800 --> 49:25.920]  detail, I'm hoping that this is an opinion written to be overruled in Washington. I don't know how
[49:25.920 --> 49:34.880]  that sort of opinion could possibly expect not to be taken on up the next level and ask the Supreme
[49:34.880 --> 49:44.480]  Court in Washington to voice in on the issue. They might not touch it. And we'll just have to wait
[49:44.480 --> 49:48.880]  and see how that goes. Well, see, Harmon, I really don't see what the big deal about the case is
[49:48.880 --> 49:54.560]  really. Anyways, we were discussing this on the air the other night, and I was saying, why all the
[49:54.560 --> 50:01.920]  hand-wringing? Because it's pretty much that way already. I mean, if you try to forcibly prevent
[50:01.920 --> 50:07.680]  the police from doing anything, especially if they want to forcibly come in your home, whether
[50:07.680 --> 50:15.520]  they have a warrant or not, and you try to with force stop them, bad things are going to happen
[50:15.520 --> 50:20.480]  to you. They're going to call for backup. They're going to call the SWAT team. You're going to get
[50:20.480 --> 50:28.080]  tased. You're going to maybe even get shot and killed and all kinds of very bad things. So it's
[50:28.080 --> 50:34.080]  just really not a good idea to do that anyway. And in many places, there's already laws on the books
[50:35.760 --> 50:40.960]  for preventing this sort of thing. So I really don't understand what the big deal is because
[50:40.960 --> 50:47.360]  the case doesn't say that it's okay for the police to enter your property without a warrant. It just
[50:47.360 --> 50:55.200]  says that you can't violently try to stop them. Fundamentally, that's the application of it.
[50:56.320 --> 51:05.680]  Don't raise the Second Amendment activity. Don't apply that in defense of the property
[51:06.320 --> 51:14.640]  where the authority is coming in and pretending to be there, whether they should be there or not.
[51:14.640 --> 51:23.360]  So it seems outrageous on its face. One of the dissenting opinions says, well, if this were just
[51:23.360 --> 51:33.120]  restricted to a domestic violence issue, I might go with it. Of course, even that seems fundamentally
[51:33.120 --> 51:40.560]  upsetting for the simple reason that we've got this concept that says you shouldn't be there with
[51:40.560 --> 51:45.680]  or without authority unless you've got business to be there. But if we're there, we're in the wrong
[51:45.680 --> 51:54.400]  place, and you defend yourselves, then we're going to use that against you now. Now we'll see it may
[51:54.400 --> 52:02.000]  stick. It may very well stick for the reasons that you just described. It may stick. My initial
[52:02.000 --> 52:08.080]  reading, I probably should go through it and read it again, is this is probably written to be
[52:08.080 --> 52:16.960]  challenged in Washington. And then we'll have the concept for this kind of fact pattern. All cases
[52:16.960 --> 52:24.240]  are limited to the facts, this kind of fact pattern, and see whether it's okay to defend your
[52:24.240 --> 52:27.200]  property against people showing up with guns.
[52:30.720 --> 52:36.720]  Has the question ever been raised concerning defending your own life or defending the lives
[52:36.720 --> 52:44.880]  of your family members? Indirectly, we get to that in the Heller case. There's the D.C. case,
[52:44.880 --> 52:51.760]  the D.C. statute that was approved at trial, overruled on appeal in the Supreme's Upheldia
[52:51.760 --> 53:01.600]  Appellate Court saying in this statute in D.C. where the objective was to disarm the people in
[53:01.600 --> 53:11.920]  their homes. That didn't fly. We have the authority to have sidearms, weapons, that which is
[53:11.920 --> 53:22.080]  necessary to defend others, self, and property in the home. We can't be nudged out of defending our
[53:22.080 --> 53:28.240]  home. So the first thought that came to mind in answer to your question is, yes, we've got some
[53:28.240 --> 53:35.600]  concepts on the books saying, absolutely right, we get to defend ourselves in our home. The
[53:35.600 --> 53:42.480]  statute tried to disarm the homeowner, and that statute was struck down. There's some more
[53:42.480 --> 53:47.920]  challenges. There's some other statutes out there, and we'll watch them and see what comes
[53:47.920 --> 53:56.400]  down the pike. Foundationally, if we look at these things with a commercial tint to our glasses,
[53:56.400 --> 54:08.240]  we get to some self-consistent understandings about where these policies are headed, and the
[54:10.240 --> 54:15.600]  use of the property might be an issue. Now, I don't know that a fight between husband and wife
[54:15.600 --> 54:22.320]  would necessarily constitute commercial. We don't know, showing up at a domestic dispute,
[54:22.320 --> 54:30.800]  for example, that it is a commercial family. We don't know that. A lot of people together that
[54:30.800 --> 54:38.160]  don't have the commercial license. So just because it's a domestic dispute doesn't instantly take us
[54:38.160 --> 54:45.440]  into a commercial scenario. So if they're married, then it's a contractual dispute?
[54:45.440 --> 54:51.600]  I don't know. I don't know there'd necessarily be a contractual dispute. The question is,
[54:51.600 --> 54:58.000]  what's the state's interest in it? And if it's a licensed family, then there may be an interest
[54:58.000 --> 55:07.280]  related to kids or the ability of that licensed family to produce that commerce that state would
[55:07.280 --> 55:13.280]  be interested in protecting. It doesn't take much of a stretch to get a commercial tie there.
[55:13.280 --> 55:17.680]  The thing about commercial nexus is this. For it to be relevant, it has to be something other than
[55:17.680 --> 55:25.680]  something that's passed, passive or passing. It's got to be a direct nexus. So there's a little bit
[55:25.680 --> 55:31.680]  more to it than just the thought about a commercial nexus. But no, I wouldn't call it a contract
[55:31.680 --> 55:35.760]  dispute. If the police are there, I wouldn't call it a contract dispute. That gets into it.
[55:35.760 --> 55:46.160]  That gets into it. So while the state issues the license, they really have no governing authority
[55:46.160 --> 55:53.520]  subsequent to the license. They can't come in and tell me as a licensed married person
[55:54.320 --> 56:00.000]  how I'm to conduct my marital affairs. That's a very good question. And I can't answer that
[56:00.000 --> 56:06.560]  absolutely no. They may be able to. They certainly can when it comes to the kids. We see this
[56:06.560 --> 56:12.400]  application in medical treatment. The family says, no, you're not going to vaccinate. And the schools
[56:12.400 --> 56:18.080]  do it anyway. And the parents say, no, you're not going to give my kids those cancer treatments.
[56:18.080 --> 56:22.800]  You're going to kill them. The state says, yeah, we're going to do it anyway. And this is the
[56:22.800 --> 56:30.160]  mechanism. There's a commercial tie there. So yes, there are ways for the state to come in
[56:30.160 --> 56:36.160]  and tell the commercial family how they're going to run things when it comes to the kids.
[56:38.880 --> 56:46.640]  When it comes to- So if I entered into a relationship wherein I did not enter into
[56:46.640 --> 56:53.920]  the license agreement, that would put me outside the commercial nexus or are there other things
[56:53.920 --> 56:59.200]  I can do that will draw me into the commercial nexus anyway? There are other things we can do
[56:59.200 --> 57:07.120]  to be drawn into the commercial nexus anyway. And this is something where we're in an area here where
[57:07.120 --> 57:12.720]  we're just sort of on the outside looking in. It's not anything I've invested a whole lot of time in.
[57:12.720 --> 57:21.040]  There are, for example, in D.C. with this statue, is adding property within that geographic location,
[57:21.040 --> 57:30.640]  within the authority of those ordinances sufficient commercial nexus to allow the disarming of the
[57:30.640 --> 57:37.200]  people? Supreme said no. Okay, fundamentally, they're saying you don't have sufficient nexus
[57:37.200 --> 57:41.120]  there. Let's look at the automobile with the weapons just to give the analogy.
[57:41.120 --> 57:53.120]  The ownership of the automobile isn't full title. If it's got a tag on the car, then it's owned in
[57:53.120 --> 57:58.640]  trust. The state has an ownership interest, an equitable interest, a beneficial interest in that
[57:58.640 --> 58:04.960]  property. It's through that that they get to say you don't get to arm yourself, you don't get to
[58:04.960 --> 58:11.520]  defend yourself with weapons in your car. It's just agreed to. I guess this is the break and
[58:11.520 --> 58:16.400]  we'll come back in a minute. Yeah, and I was going to ask you about that because in Texas,
[58:18.000 --> 58:23.920]  it is on the books that you can carry a weapon in your vehicle. If you're traveling. If you're
[58:23.920 --> 58:30.480]  traveling. If you're traveling. Yeah, so that's the difference between travel and transportation
[58:30.480 --> 58:36.000]  right there. Right, and it doesn't say, it used to say on the books that the definition of traveling
[58:36.000 --> 58:40.400]  was that you had to be crossing a county line or something like that, but they took that away. So
[58:40.400 --> 58:46.800]  now traveling is just from point A to point B. Yeah. So you could be going down the street and
[58:46.800 --> 58:51.280]  still have the weapon in your car if you're traveling. If we know how to defend ourselves,
[58:51.280 --> 58:56.560]  yes. But not if you're driving. Correct. Okay, we're about to go to break, folks. We'll pick
[58:56.560 --> 59:03.280]  this up some on the other side. Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with
[59:03.280 --> 59:09.680]  God? Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can
[59:09.680 --> 59:14.720]  really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles
[59:14.720 --> 59:19.600]  available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that
[59:19.600 --> 59:25.360]  will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three volume set
[59:25.360 --> 59:30.800]  called Basic Elements of the Christian Life. Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:30.800 --> 59:37.600]  Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:37.600 --> 59:43.600]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:43.600 --> 59:58.880]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:04.320 --> 01:00:09.200]  American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International are calling for an investigation
[01:00:09.200 --> 01:00:15.440]  into the death of detainees at Guantanamo after the US military reported another suicide Wednesday.
[01:00:15.440 --> 01:00:21.760]  Inuyatollah, Guantanamo's fifth suicide, had tried to kill himself twice previously and was mentally
[01:00:21.760 --> 01:00:27.760]  ill. Attorney Paul Rashkind said Inuyatollah was not a terrorist and his mental health issues
[01:00:27.760 --> 01:00:34.160]  made it difficult to address why he was there. Amnesty International Wednesday denounced trials
[01:00:34.160 --> 01:00:40.160]  of civilians before military courts in Egypt, adding, these courts flout international standards
[01:00:40.160 --> 01:00:45.920]  for fair trial and are grossly unjust. The faith of many Egyptians in the criminal justice system
[01:00:45.920 --> 01:00:51.040]  is being sorely tested by military courts. Egyptian rights groups say the army's already
[01:00:51.040 --> 01:00:56.800]  tried more than 10,000 people before courts martial, the vast majority of them for criminal offenses.
[01:00:58.480 --> 01:01:02.720]  Senator Bernie Sanders said Thursday he supports a constitutional amendment to
[01:01:02.720 --> 01:01:08.400]  overrule the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that permits corporations to anonymously
[01:01:08.400 --> 01:01:14.160]  give unlimited sums of money to groups not officially connected with presidential campaigns.
[01:01:14.160 --> 01:01:18.800]  The non-partisan Committee for Economic Development has warned the ruling may turn
[01:01:18.800 --> 01:01:24.080]  corporations into miniature political parties and the eventual corruption of US democracy.
[01:01:25.680 --> 01:01:30.480]  An independent report Thursday says Massey Energy recklessly ignored safety,
[01:01:30.480 --> 01:01:37.200]  leading to a blast last year in a West Virginia mine that killed 29 men, the deadliest US coal
[01:01:37.200 --> 01:01:42.800]  accident since 1970. The report by a former top federal mine regulator said Massey could have
[01:01:42.800 --> 01:01:48.800]  prevented the April 2010 disaster at its non-unionized upper big branch mine with standard
[01:01:48.800 --> 01:01:54.080]  safety practices including better ventilation to reduce potentially explosive levels of gas and
[01:01:54.080 --> 01:02:00.400]  dust. It concluded the company operated its mines in a profoundly reckless manner and 29 coal mines
[01:02:00.400 --> 01:02:06.640]  has paid with their lives for the corporate risk-taking. A radiation alarm went off at the
[01:02:06.640 --> 01:02:12.960]  Fukushima nuclear power plant before the tsunami hit on March 11th suggesting the reactors were
[01:02:12.960 --> 01:02:18.160]  damaged by the earthquake that spawned the wall of water. A monitoring post a mile from the number
[01:02:18.160 --> 01:02:23.280]  one reactor went off minutes before the station was overwhelmed by the tsunami that knocked out
[01:02:23.280 --> 01:02:28.320]  backup power that kept reactor cooling systems running. According to documents supplied by the
[01:02:28.320 --> 01:02:33.520]  company the monitor was set to go off at high levels of radiation. Tokyo electric power company
[01:02:33.520 --> 01:02:38.400]  officials originally said the plant was crippled by the tsunami causing the world's worst nuclear
[01:02:38.400 --> 01:02:44.720]  crisis since Chernobyl in 1986. TEPCO this week released thousands of pages of documents
[01:02:44.720 --> 01:02:50.640]  highlighting the chaos as workers frantically tried to prevent meltdowns in three of six reactors at
[01:02:50.640 --> 01:03:09.200]  Fukushima. You are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com live free
[01:03:09.200 --> 01:03:21.760]  speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:39.200 --> 01:04:02.480]  All right folks we are back this is the rule of law. Tonight is May 20th, Friday May 20th
[01:04:02.480 --> 01:04:11.440]  and I do want to thank everyone for coming out to the fundraiser last night. A good time was had by
[01:04:11.440 --> 01:04:19.120]  all. We very much appreciate it and this was a fundraiser for the micro FM in Austin not
[01:04:19.120 --> 01:04:23.760]  for rule of law radio. The two separate entities the rule of law radio is the network. I'm going
[01:04:23.760 --> 01:04:29.600]  to go over this again because people are still confused about the matter. 9.1 FM is not rule of
[01:04:29.600 --> 01:04:39.520]  law radio. Rule of law radio is not 9.1 FM rule of law radio.com is a an internet streaming network
[01:04:40.240 --> 01:04:50.880]  like GCN. It's an internet network stream and it is carried by multiple affiliates throughout the
[01:04:50.880 --> 01:04:59.920]  country. The affiliates being AM and FM stations terrestrial based stations. It's kind of the
[01:04:59.920 --> 01:05:06.240]  analogy that I give is like say for example and I hate to plug these people because NPR is just the
[01:05:06.240 --> 01:05:12.000]  worst the worst government propaganda there is because people think it's alternative and it's
[01:05:12.720 --> 01:05:18.800]  more subtle than you know the in your face propaganda by the major networks. So definitely
[01:05:18.800 --> 01:05:26.640]  want to stay away from NPR but at any rate say for example say for example hey go ahead NPR
[01:05:26.640 --> 01:05:34.480]  is operated by John Fentmiller. I don't really know who that I don't really know who that is but
[01:05:35.680 --> 01:05:45.040]  as far as NPR we're talking about like say for example KUT is the local FM radio station
[01:05:45.040 --> 01:05:56.080]  and they carry NPR which is you know a public supposedly a non-profit public radio that's funded
[01:05:56.080 --> 01:06:03.200]  by the government. So they are the network and KUT would be the affiliate. So that's
[01:06:04.720 --> 01:06:11.360]  that's the analogy here. Rule of law radio is the network and 9.1 FM is one of the affiliates. So at
[01:06:11.360 --> 01:06:20.560]  any rate we had a fundraiser for the affiliate last night and it did go very well. Three Shoes
[01:06:20.560 --> 01:06:28.480]  Posse played and we had speakers out from Vote Rescue and Fluoride Free Austin and Texans for
[01:06:28.480 --> 01:06:35.280]  Accountable Government and Brave New Books was out as well and we had Matt Medina and Cody Hess
[01:06:35.280 --> 01:06:44.240]  came up from San Antonio. We are Change San Antonio and we played Three Shoes Posse and so did the
[01:06:44.240 --> 01:06:51.280]  Higher Than Why band. Much thanks to Josh Logan of Higher Than Why for organizing that event and
[01:06:51.280 --> 01:06:57.760]  the open mic was great. We had a lot of Patriots get up to speak their truth. They did the MCs,
[01:06:57.760 --> 01:07:01.760]  poets. It was it was really awesome while the Higher Than Why band backed them up and we had
[01:07:01.760 --> 01:07:08.160]  other musicians on stage as well. So we want to thank everyone for coming out. However we have
[01:07:08.160 --> 01:07:17.120]  not raised enough funds yet to take the case to the next level concerning the appeal costs. We still
[01:07:17.120 --> 01:07:27.280]  have to raise about $800 and so I have the donation button still on the website with the flyer so folks
[01:07:27.280 --> 01:07:32.480]  out there who were not able to make it to the fundraiser, if you folks could please chip in and
[01:07:32.480 --> 01:07:40.560]  help so that we can pay for the court costs for the appeals fees and to pay the court reporter for
[01:07:40.560 --> 01:07:46.720]  the transcripts and all these kinds of things in order to take our case to the next level. So at
[01:07:46.720 --> 01:07:55.440]  any rate I just want to make that announcement. Let me make one little suggestion. Send Silver.
[01:07:55.440 --> 01:08:02.400]  Send Silver. We really like Silver. Yeah you can do that through Capital Coin and Bullion.
[01:08:07.040 --> 01:08:15.200]  Okay so Harmon we were discussing the difference between being able to defend ourselves in the home
[01:08:15.840 --> 01:08:24.160]  and defend ourselves in the automobile. The home as a concept, the home as an entity, the home as a
[01:08:24.160 --> 01:08:32.560]  legal concept, theory existed at the foundation of this nation. Why does that matter? Well one
[01:08:32.560 --> 01:08:39.120]  of the theories is that whatever existed at that time was obviously protected by the concepts of
[01:08:39.120 --> 01:08:48.240]  the law at the time. The automobile did not exist in 1789. Under that perspective the
[01:08:48.240 --> 01:08:56.320]  the people in charge of making laws and reading them and applying them said we can treat the car
[01:08:56.320 --> 01:09:05.360]  differently. We have a different commercial relationship with the system regarding the car
[01:09:05.360 --> 01:09:12.720]  than we have with the house. I'm satisfied that the Heller case is what it is. The decision
[01:09:12.720 --> 01:09:21.040]  came out the way it did because the issue rose in regards to defending oneself in the house.
[01:09:23.600 --> 01:09:27.040]  The car by now, we have all the exceptions. The Supreme
[01:09:27.040 --> 01:09:33.760]  Court talked about the exceptions in the Heller case saying this is a restricted right.
[01:09:33.760 --> 01:09:36.960]  It's not absolute. It doesn't apply everywhere and they just
[01:09:36.960 --> 01:09:43.280]  obviously documented the concept that this doesn't go everywhere. Don't lose your mind
[01:09:43.280 --> 01:09:48.160]  and think we're going to overturn a bunch of stuff that's already in existence. What is that
[01:09:48.160 --> 01:09:53.600]  that already exists? The agreement to being regulated against defending ourselves in these
[01:09:53.600 --> 01:10:01.680]  other places. So the private property interest there is the agreement. If it's already there
[01:10:01.680 --> 01:10:09.920]  then that agreement is going to be recognized. It's just that simple. So where we agree to limit
[01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:16.560]  our ability to arm ourselves to defend ourselves with arms while we're in the car is a different
[01:10:16.560 --> 01:10:23.040]  circumstance. That is something that can be agreed to. State can say wouldn't you like to limit your
[01:10:23.040 --> 01:10:29.040]  ability to defend yourself in the car and we can say sure we'd love to limit ourselves to
[01:10:29.040 --> 01:10:35.680]  limit our ability to defend ourselves in our car. That agreement is okay. When the authority
[01:10:35.680 --> 01:10:40.000]  shows up and says wouldn't you love to limit yourself in the opportunity to defend yourself
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:47.120]  in your home, the Supreme Court and the killer say we're not going to go there yet. We may never go
[01:10:47.120 --> 01:10:54.720]  there. It may be always impossible to talk people into agreeing not to defend themselves in their
[01:10:54.720 --> 01:11:04.240]  home. We put that in the in the queue. We put that in the box of things to stir up and try to
[01:11:04.240 --> 01:11:10.880]  understand in correlation to one another with this decision in Indiana that says can't defend
[01:11:10.880 --> 01:11:19.760]  yourself in your home if the cops are the ones showing up and invading without being authorized
[01:11:19.760 --> 01:11:26.720]  and any other mechanism for being there. Don't those conflict? They sure seem to to me and a
[01:11:26.720 --> 01:11:33.920]  lot of people discussing how horrible that opinion is. Well it may be and it may not be. There
[01:11:33.920 --> 01:11:40.240]  there are ways to handle the circumstance if that stands as the rules. Cops show up in the
[01:11:40.960 --> 01:11:46.720]  in the setting that they talk about in that case. Armed, ready to go, they might start
[01:11:46.720 --> 01:11:52.960]  shooting people just because but that state court is saying your remedy is a commercial remedy.
[01:11:52.960 --> 01:12:01.200]  Sue them. Don't shoot them and that's what that's basically what that opinion is saying.
[01:12:04.080 --> 01:12:09.440]  So that's how it relates back to the commercial nexus. Right yeah there's there's another
[01:12:09.440 --> 01:12:13.600]  mechanism in there and that's the house ownership and who has what interest in it
[01:12:13.600 --> 01:12:22.000]  and whether the state has sufficient interest in it to show up anytime they want for reason
[01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  or for no reason and that's the next level of this and we'll just we'll just check and see how
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:36.480]  that develops. All right Eddie you said you had a question for Harmon. Actually yes I do.
[01:12:37.520 --> 01:12:42.320]  This is something I'm considering doing to help out some of these folks that I'm teaching
[01:12:42.320 --> 01:12:47.920]  considering that there is no law in Texas regarding your ability to
[01:12:48.960 --> 01:12:54.720]  assist as legal counsel in a criminal case whatsoever. I was thinking of drawing up a
[01:12:54.720 --> 01:13:00.640]  private contract with these individuals and going in as their legal counsel in these ticket cases
[01:13:01.200 --> 01:13:06.080]  and watching the judge go apoplectic and off the ode when I tell them not to interfere with the
[01:13:06.080 --> 01:13:12.720]  private contract. What would be your thoughts on that Harmon? Two different sides of that on the
[01:13:12.720 --> 01:13:19.360]  defense side obviously the first objection has to do with unauthorized practice and you have to read
[01:13:19.360 --> 01:13:28.000]  that statute to understand its limits. Typically what is protected by that statute is the personal
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:33.360]  injury bar and we'd have to go over that statute and dissect it to get it apart put it back together
[01:13:33.360 --> 01:13:39.520]  again and find out where its limits are. Actually I know all the limits on it. Yes I'm sure you do
[01:13:40.320 --> 01:13:44.880]  and no doubt in my mind you've been through that many different ways from Sunday to have the thought
[01:13:45.520 --> 01:13:53.040]  much less to mention the thought on the air. So yes the mention I make of that is to the prospective
[01:13:53.040 --> 01:14:01.760]  student to say this is what to do. We go through the statute we analyze it and come up with a
[01:14:01.760 --> 01:14:09.680]  a good faith understanding of where our limits are. Okay it seems pretty clear on reading that
[01:14:09.680 --> 01:14:15.360]  and reflecting on it that defense criminal defense is not something that's limited.
[01:14:15.360 --> 01:14:23.520]  Does one have to be licensed to do the defense work? We read that statute and it it says no
[01:14:23.520 --> 01:14:32.480]  fundamentally no. Okay that part of it's one side of it. The other side of it is the argument to make
[01:14:32.480 --> 01:14:40.880]  once you're there and if we're going to say don't interfere with the commercial relationship
[01:14:41.680 --> 01:14:46.960]  that sounds to me like a confession that there is one and the successful defense in the
[01:14:46.960 --> 01:14:56.320]  transportation area is to say no commercial nexus. So being there is one issue what we argue when
[01:14:56.320 --> 01:15:01.920]  we're going to be there is another and if I were there doing that in that circumstance I don't
[01:15:01.920 --> 01:15:08.160]  think I'd want to say there's a commercial relationship here leave us alone. The informed
[01:15:08.160 --> 01:15:12.880]  judge would say yeah it's the fact that there's a commercial relationship here that makes them
[01:15:12.880 --> 01:15:23.280]  liable for this ticket. Right. Okay so that off top of my head on the two different points you
[01:15:23.280 --> 01:15:31.520]  raised there that's that's my initial thought. Okay. A good question it gets us into the the
[01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:37.360]  line of defense for those and fundamentally it's the kind of thing we talked about with the the
[01:15:37.360 --> 01:15:43.520]  similarity between Australia and America and and Griswold case and getting into whether there's a
[01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:52.560]  commercial nexus that's enforceable and letting the cops come into the home without without fear
[01:15:52.560 --> 01:15:59.840]  of being shot at. That sounds dangerously like standing army stuff to me and it just runs all
[01:15:59.840 --> 01:16:05.280]  over me. But we apply the same concept we go back to the top of the top of the top of the top of the
[01:16:05.280 --> 01:16:10.160]  same concept we go back to the top of the mountain we look at what we're dealing with we say okay
[01:16:10.160 --> 01:16:15.040]  it's commercial where's the agreement do they have one and if they don't how do we keep from
[01:16:15.040 --> 01:16:24.160]  entering into it and so can there be someone there to speak on behalf of the ticketed party
[01:16:24.960 --> 01:16:30.640]  we'll find out we'll find out and then when we're there what are we going to say
[01:16:30.640 --> 01:16:37.600]  all right well I've already got full plans for that it won't be nice.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:43.360]  All right well I guess we'll get the answer to that question when we get back on the other side
[01:16:43.920 --> 01:16:46.000]  this is ruleoflawradio.com
[01:16:48.160 --> 01:16:52.160]  we've got a very special guest Harman Taylor with us tonight and we'll be right back on the other
[01:16:52.160 --> 01:17:04.560]  side folks. Capital coin and bullion is your local source for rare coins precious metals
[01:17:04.560 --> 01:17:10.160]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area we also ship worldwide we're a family owned and
[01:17:10.160 --> 01:17:14.640]  operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases
[01:17:14.640 --> 01:17:20.320]  because of you Austin business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location
[01:17:20.320 --> 01:17:27.600]  we're now located at 7304 burnet road suite a 1.2 miles north on burnet from our previous location
[01:17:27.600 --> 01:17:32.240]  we're on the west side of burnet road in the stanley insurance building on the ground floor
[01:17:32.240 --> 01:17:37.520]  next to the ishaban sushi and the genie car wash we're open monday through friday 10 to 6
[01:17:37.520 --> 01:17:45.040]  saturdays 10 to 5 you welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440
[01:17:45.040 --> 01:17:49.840]  ask for chad or becky and say that you heard about us on rule of law radio or texas liberty
[01:17:49.840 --> 01:17:56.400]  radio that's capital coin and bullion at our new location at 7304 burnet road suite a we'll call
[01:17:56.400 --> 01:18:05.280]  512-646-6440 my name is randall kelton and i co-host on rule of law radio we specialize
[01:18:05.280 --> 01:18:10.480]  in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials with the mortgage crisis
[01:18:10.480 --> 01:18:15.760]  worsening we set our sights on finding a remedy for people who have been cheated by their lenders
[01:18:15.760 --> 01:18:21.040]  if you have a mortgage or have paid yours off you have probably been cheated out of thousands
[01:18:21.040 --> 01:18:30.240]  but there is a remedy go to remedies in real estate dot com or call me at 512-430-4140
[01:18:30.240 --> 01:18:35.440]  and find out how to use the consumer protection laws to recover what the lenders have stolen
[01:18:35.440 --> 01:18:41.120]  through fraud and deception we will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose
[01:18:41.120 --> 01:18:46.960]  the fraud and put the lenders on the dime lender fraud is bankrupting this country and it's time
[01:18:46.960 --> 01:18:56.560]  to fight back go to remedies in real estate dot com or call 512-430-4140 then get the information
[01:18:56.560 --> 01:19:12.000]  you need to stop the money changers in their tracks
[01:19:26.560 --> 01:19:38.000]  blindsided
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:58.080]  that same old trick okay folks we are back this is the rule of law
[01:19:59.680 --> 01:20:05.920]  and we are with our very special guest harman taylor okay so harman before we went to the break
[01:20:05.920 --> 01:20:11.680]  you were saying uh asking about what are we going to say right if we have representation there
[01:20:12.480 --> 01:20:19.520]  and eddie said he had a plan in mind on on some of that and so maybe that's uh the next thing
[01:20:19.520 --> 01:20:26.240]  to do eddie what kind of concept would you do if you were there the the deal here is is the
[01:20:26.240 --> 01:20:32.320]  their commerce versus ours since we've gone through the statute there's only particular areas where
[01:20:32.320 --> 01:20:37.680]  the com the commercial nexus they're trying to protect exist and you're dead on that it's in
[01:20:37.680 --> 01:20:45.120]  personal injury areas in the particular statute in the penal code and then you also have the
[01:20:45.120 --> 01:20:48.960]  penal offense of holding yourself out to be a lawyer which of course the contract would
[01:20:48.960 --> 01:20:54.400]  state absolutely i've never represented myself as a lawyer or an attorney and that the other
[01:20:54.400 --> 01:21:01.920]  party is completely aware of this so as long as the case does not then progress into the bartering
[01:21:01.920 --> 01:21:10.880]  the exclusive bartering of legal services to a third party for profit or the releaser transfer
[01:21:10.880 --> 01:21:18.560]  or a lien or the transfer of real property then we're completely outside of the area
[01:21:19.280 --> 01:21:25.440]  of the commercial nexus the statute was intended to protect there you go absolutely no statute
[01:21:25.440 --> 01:21:34.800]  whatsoever that deals with criminal cases absolutely none and so that's where the
[01:21:34.800 --> 01:21:43.040]  private contract comes into play where we know that if we're dealing with their system they're
[01:21:43.040 --> 01:21:49.200]  not allowed to interfere with a contract that they're not a party to just simple basic sense
[01:21:49.200 --> 01:21:53.440]  you're not a part of the contract you have no vested financial interest in the contract stay
[01:21:53.440 --> 01:22:01.520]  out of the contract okay so we go that route and of course we know exactly what the magistrate's
[01:22:01.520 --> 01:22:09.520]  going to do yes and that of course makes it tortuous interference with a contract right off the bat
[01:22:11.600 --> 01:22:17.120]  so what i want to do is i'm going to challenge the magistrate in the area of you're interfering
[01:22:17.120 --> 01:22:24.480]  with a private contract you have two options here continue or relent and allow me to do the job i've
[01:22:24.480 --> 01:22:30.560]  contracted to do and the agreement here is the one between the representative and the party
[01:22:31.280 --> 01:22:37.120]  not the one between the party and the system that the ticket was issued on correct there we go there
[01:22:37.120 --> 01:22:46.240]  we go okay so given that uh there there's going to wind up with two different cases against them
[01:22:46.240 --> 01:22:52.480]  in that regard one for me for interfering with the contract to denying the defendant their
[01:22:52.480 --> 01:22:59.920]  representation of counsel yeah so it's a choice of counsel so that's the plan is to get them to do
[01:22:59.920 --> 01:23:07.680]  that but at the same time i've got to prepare the defendant uh to be able to handle the case themselves
[01:23:07.680 --> 01:23:15.120]  when they interfere because we know that's what they're going to do sure so that's my plan yeah
[01:23:15.120 --> 01:23:23.600]  the individual prep is always a good idea whether they do it themselves or what someone else do it
[01:23:23.600 --> 01:23:29.200]  if they're involved in the prep and they know what's going on that's always good
[01:23:32.480 --> 01:23:36.880]  well that's exactly what i want i want to have it both ways for the defendant
[01:23:38.240 --> 01:23:44.080]  so given that you know hey you're prepared to defend yourself when they take me out of the equation
[01:23:44.080 --> 01:23:50.720]  but what we've managed to do with this is set them up for two lawsuits simultaneously on different
[01:23:50.720 --> 01:23:59.680]  grounds it's uh it's an interesting way to go about it and the thing there is just to be prepared
[01:24:00.640 --> 01:24:07.600]  and to to move forward in good faith it's the david crockett theory be sure you're right then go ahead
[01:24:07.600 --> 01:24:13.920]  well that's that's what i'm working on but that as opportunity arises i'll go into details with
[01:24:13.920 --> 01:24:18.160]  that with you and you can help me confirm i'm right but i'm i'm fairly certain i am because
[01:24:18.160 --> 01:24:24.960]  i've looked everywhere i know you have yeah and you're you're covering the the very statute that
[01:24:24.960 --> 01:24:30.560]  came to my mind and so you covered some more details on what the scope is yeah the other
[01:24:30.560 --> 01:24:37.920]  ones are in chapter 82 and 83 of the government code there you go on the civil side sure right
[01:24:38.720 --> 01:24:44.720]  okay harman we've got a question from a listener here good they want to know concerning the
[01:24:44.720 --> 01:24:53.440]  commercial nexus they want to know concerning the judiciary on what level of the judiciary
[01:24:53.440 --> 01:25:00.640]  do the judges knowingly accept this concept and is it more widely accepted as practice in the supreme
[01:25:00.640 --> 01:25:09.920]  courts of the u.s. the commercial nexus concept we're talking about here may or may not be fully
[01:25:09.920 --> 01:25:17.600]  understood at the trial level i will suggest the transportation area in particular that it's
[01:25:17.600 --> 01:25:23.680]  probably not that commonly discussed yet it may be more commonly discussed given the existence of
[01:25:23.680 --> 01:25:27.680]  certain cases that are out there now you're just talking in the federal court system right now
[01:25:27.680 --> 01:25:35.920]  right state court system on the transportation okay and then to broaden out from that to go to go
[01:25:35.920 --> 01:25:44.000]  in direct contrast to that we're getting the education of a lifetime in every single opinion
[01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:51.200]  of a lifetime in every single opinion that the supreme court in washington writes and the the
[01:25:51.200 --> 01:25:58.240]  concept to mention there in this context and generally where where is the commercial nexus
[01:25:58.240 --> 01:26:05.120]  understood in the judicial system anybody and i've written notes about this when it's come up when
[01:26:05.120 --> 01:26:11.920]  it really pushed my button anybody that thinks they know more about our present legal reality
[01:26:11.920 --> 01:26:17.760]  than the supreme's in other words the court bashers i have bashed court bashers and i've
[01:26:17.760 --> 01:26:24.880]  enjoyed doing it anyone who understands anyone who thinks he understands more about our present
[01:26:24.880 --> 01:26:32.320]  legal reality than the supreme court confesses to the world well the listening group of their
[01:26:32.320 --> 01:26:41.440]  of their presentations that they really don't get it yet we don't have to like what we're reading
[01:26:41.440 --> 01:26:49.520]  in their opinions we do best when we say okay they just gave us a lesson they just taught us
[01:26:49.520 --> 01:26:54.480]  one more thing and they do it day in and day out every single opinion is a lesson they're the
[01:26:54.480 --> 01:27:02.080]  teaching tools they take the cases that they find suitable for teaching tools and then go to town
[01:27:02.080 --> 01:27:11.600]  teaching us so they are the masters of the masters they they are the professors of the professors
[01:27:11.600 --> 01:27:17.280]  when it comes to commercial nexus they've been teaching us this from day one they've never
[01:27:17.280 --> 01:27:27.280]  varied from it and as the agreement policy changes then their decisions follow suit they're enforcing
[01:27:27.280 --> 01:27:36.160]  the policy that's in place so as far as commercial nexus is concerned the absolute best place to
[01:27:36.160 --> 01:27:44.800]  start is with the supreme court opinions they don't necessarily address everything but read
[01:27:44.800 --> 01:27:52.160]  the whole opinion and the dissent just take yeah and don't just take a paragraph out of context
[01:27:52.160 --> 01:27:59.280]  amen well and righteous indignation yes we that's a very good point read everything top to bottom
[01:27:59.280 --> 01:28:04.320]  make sure we understand what the holding is make sure we understand what the relevant facts are
[01:28:04.320 --> 01:28:08.800]  make sure we understand how they get from point a to point b and sometimes it's not clear at all
[01:28:10.400 --> 01:28:18.080]  some of these cases we have to fill in uh huge amounts of analysis to get us from point a to
[01:28:18.080 --> 01:28:23.840]  point b to point c so yeah read the opinion some of the best learning about the decision
[01:28:24.400 --> 01:28:29.840]  comes in the dissent because the dissent will say well i can't believe you just did that you
[01:28:29.840 --> 01:28:36.800]  just overruled 100 years of law okay how does that happen if the dissent is teaching us look
[01:28:36.800 --> 01:28:43.680]  things are different now then we have to ask ourselves what is it that changed why is it okay
[01:28:43.680 --> 01:28:49.600]  to do this now it's never been done before and it goes right straight back to what did these
[01:28:49.600 --> 01:28:54.800]  parties agree to that's now being enforced what was agreed to and what was not done
[01:28:56.080 --> 01:29:00.320]  and when we start to think about these things and presume the supreme's correct
[01:29:01.040 --> 01:29:08.400]  presume the supreme court correct it's a it's a tragic mistake in a in a legal analysis situation
[01:29:08.400 --> 01:29:15.040]  to say oh they don't get it oh they get it and we start to understand it when we presume them
[01:29:15.040 --> 01:29:19.600]  correct if we think we know more about the situation there are people on the radio
[01:29:20.400 --> 01:29:26.320]  in larger networks all the time no names need to be said we know who we're talking about here
[01:29:27.120 --> 01:29:31.680]  don't you even mention me oh no i'm not do you bash the court
[01:29:31.680 --> 01:29:38.960]  every chance i get well we'll curb that appetite here in the near future all right we're going to
[01:29:38.960 --> 01:29:44.800]  break folks we'll be right back after this short break we're here with a very special guest harman
[01:29:44.800 --> 01:29:50.720]  taylor this is a rule of law randy kelton eddie craig deborah stevens and also ricky partington
[01:29:52.720 --> 01:29:55.760]  randy's guest in australia we'll be right back folks
[01:29:55.760 --> 01:30:00.800]  top 10 reasons to question the official story of the oklahoma city bombing number nine the
[01:30:00.800 --> 01:30:05.920]  extra leg former oklahoma state medical examiner dr fred jordan had stated we had eight people with
[01:30:05.920 --> 01:30:11.120]  amputated left legs and nine left legs to account for chief pathologist for northern ireland tk
[01:30:11.120 --> 01:30:16.400]  marshall who performed over 2500 autopsies in his time stated there's never been an unknown victim
[01:30:16.400 --> 01:30:21.200]  this leg belonged to a perpetrator close enough to the bomb or his body to be damaged leaving only
[01:30:21.200 --> 01:30:26.400]  a left leg behind who was this person please go to okc bombing truth dot com
[01:30:29.040 --> 01:30:33.600]  the u.s. government's at it again trying to sell the benefits of an invasive new plan
[01:30:33.600 --> 01:30:38.480]  this time the scheme nicknamed endstick could drive a stake right through the heart of internet
[01:30:38.480 --> 01:30:44.720]  privacy i'm dr kathryn albrecht and i'll tell you more in just a moment privacy is under attack
[01:30:44.720 --> 01:30:48.480]  when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it right you'll never get it right
[01:30:48.480 --> 01:30:53.840]  when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again and once your privacy is gone
[01:30:53.840 --> 01:30:59.840]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your rights say no to surveillance
[01:30:59.840 --> 01:31:05.520]  and keep your information to yourself privacy it's worth hanging on to this public service
[01:31:05.520 --> 01:31:10.880]  announcement is brought to you by startpage.com the private search engine alternative to google
[01:31:10.880 --> 01:31:18.960]  yahoo and bing start over with startpage the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace
[01:31:18.960 --> 01:31:24.240]  or endstick could really stick it to people who value their privacy this joint public-private
[01:31:24.240 --> 01:31:30.000]  scheme backed by megacorps like microsoft and ibm would have the u.s government assign every person
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:36.720]  an unchanging cyber identity this id would be used to access any online service no password needed
[01:31:36.720 --> 01:31:40.960]  but it also means a centralized database that could someday track your activities
[01:31:40.960 --> 01:31:45.840]  it's the equivalent of the national id card for cyberspace and the world world too since
[01:31:45.840 --> 01:31:50.560]  they're increasingly linked while it may start out as a voluntary bit of code on a plastic card
[01:31:50.560 --> 01:31:55.840]  it's clear where this is headed your papers please i'm dr kathryn albrecht more news and
[01:31:55.840 --> 01:32:07.680]  information at kathryn albrecht.com
[01:32:25.840 --> 01:32:43.680]  hi folks we are back okay harman please continue you're in mid thought
[01:32:43.680 --> 01:32:49.120]  you know the question on the floor is if we're talking commercial nexus where can we expect to
[01:32:49.120 --> 01:32:53.200]  find a judicial audience that's the first understanding of what we're talking about
[01:32:53.200 --> 01:32:56.800]  and so i started on the transportation issue because i think that's the context in which
[01:32:56.800 --> 01:33:02.000]  the question probably was raised and if not send us another chat and we'll we'll try to fill out
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:08.000]  some more about that in the transportation area i don't think it matters to the decision maker
[01:33:08.560 --> 01:33:16.000]  the the ticket mechanism is a revenue generator in most people's minds
[01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:22.960]  and so that system is designed around revenue generation period if we have an objection on
[01:33:22.960 --> 01:33:26.800]  what they do we can take it on up the line and they're designed that way and we want a second
[01:33:26.800 --> 01:33:31.680]  opinion and they say you go get a second opinion that's fine here's the process help knock yourself
[01:33:31.680 --> 01:33:38.240]  out not very many people do that and so they they may be predisposed to the point of being prejudiced
[01:33:38.240 --> 01:33:45.760]  against the defendant given the type of system that's there so do are they going to be terrified
[01:33:45.760 --> 01:33:51.280]  terribly interested in that application of that concept to what we're talking about your answers
[01:33:51.280 --> 01:33:58.960]  no they're not and so in that specific area the the concept is we're probably we can expect to
[01:33:58.960 --> 01:34:04.000]  get clobbered at the first level are we going to have to take the commercial nexus concept up the
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:09.920]  line in the transportation area yes yes and a million times yes to do what has to be done in
[01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:15.840]  that area we can expect to still need to do what i call path blazing which is what getting the
[01:34:15.840 --> 01:34:22.160]  concept recognized and it's an expensive venture and i don't mean money wise time wise we got a lot
[01:34:22.160 --> 01:34:28.720]  of concepts to learn financially it can be kind of expensive to to take the case through the system
[01:34:28.720 --> 01:34:36.720]  much more expensive than paying the ticket so from the transportation area are they predisposed to
[01:34:36.720 --> 01:34:43.280]  want to know commercial nexus concepts no now i jumped to the other end of the system and went
[01:34:43.280 --> 01:34:51.120]  to the supreme court in washington bc and they they understand everything they teach us what
[01:34:51.120 --> 01:34:56.720]  we're dealing with it shows in every opinion they write they apply the concepts they don't
[01:34:56.720 --> 01:35:02.800]  necessarily always identify them but they do always apply them and so we start to see a consistency
[01:35:02.800 --> 01:35:06.800]  when we start to ask the right questions about what in the world is they're talking about
[01:35:06.800 --> 01:35:13.280]  okay working back down the the generic system from that way in that way and in that direction
[01:35:13.280 --> 01:35:19.040]  the question is can we expect to find someone who understands commercial nexus concepts in the state's
[01:35:19.040 --> 01:35:26.880]  high courts the answer is yes someone in on staff with those courts just presume there's someone
[01:35:26.880 --> 01:35:34.320]  around available that gets it in the state high courts we can safely presume that there's someone
[01:35:34.320 --> 01:35:39.600]  on staff who gets it it doesn't mean they always get it right but when we start talking commercial
[01:35:39.600 --> 01:35:44.800]  nexus when we start talking turkey with these people there'll be someone there who will be able
[01:35:44.800 --> 01:35:50.400]  to understand immediately what we're talking about and and where we're coming from the state
[01:35:50.400 --> 01:35:57.200]  appellate courts they may be developing initial experiences and in some of these cases i wasn't
[01:35:57.200 --> 01:36:04.480]  terribly impressed with the the understanding of the commercial nexus side what does that mean
[01:36:04.480 --> 01:36:10.080]  doesn't mean anything more than they believe what they've been taught about the nature of the system
[01:36:10.080 --> 01:36:14.560]  and everyone starts there everyone starts with the understanding that we deal with the constitutional
[01:36:14.560 --> 01:36:20.800]  system the language applies because it exists and we just both move forward down the road
[01:36:21.360 --> 01:36:28.320]  okay they they may have to learn the hard way the same we do same way we do in the commercial nexus
[01:36:28.320 --> 01:36:34.800]  reality trial courts don't hold a lot of stock in that yet it's going to and here's the thing
[01:36:34.800 --> 01:36:39.760]  about trial court let's say they get it we show up with an idea it's never been applied before what
[01:36:39.760 --> 01:36:44.640]  is the trial court going to do more than likely because it's new they're going to say well not
[01:36:44.640 --> 01:36:49.520]  really anything out there that allows me to go there and so we're going to kick this up the line
[01:36:50.320 --> 01:36:55.280]  we have to protect the record putting all the facts in that are relevant and then expect to
[01:36:55.280 --> 01:37:02.720]  need to take the case up the line so even the trial judges who get it might be policy bound to
[01:37:02.720 --> 01:37:10.720]  to allow the appellate court to voice their opinion on it they say that nicely it's not
[01:37:10.720 --> 01:37:16.480]  it's not that they don't know better it's that they have a job to do and we have to let them do
[01:37:16.480 --> 01:37:21.280]  their job we just basically have to go through the mechanism understand the division of labor
[01:37:21.280 --> 01:37:26.240]  within judicial system could they make the right decision outright sure they could sure they could
[01:37:26.240 --> 01:37:31.200]  when it's a real clear case they will trust me they will they understand what we're talking about
[01:37:31.200 --> 01:37:37.920]  and some of them do and i tell you it is a breath of fresh air even if they disagree with us
[01:37:37.920 --> 01:37:42.000]  if we're dealing with trial court they understand what we're talking about then we're going to hear
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:46.240]  from them they're going to teach us some things and we'll just learn right there at the beginning
[01:37:46.880 --> 01:37:52.880]  the the concept so they don't have to agree with us if we're talking the same level they're
[01:37:52.880 --> 01:37:58.320]  listening the same level there's a beneficial exchange there maybe we'll learn some of the trial
[01:37:58.320 --> 01:38:06.560]  level that and in some other trial courts would have to be taught upstream from that the so that's
[01:38:06.560 --> 01:38:12.800]  kind of a detailed answer the the answer is where do we expect to find people understand commercial
[01:38:12.800 --> 01:38:18.800]  nexus absolutely positively the supreme court of the united states okay absolutely in the state
[01:38:18.800 --> 01:38:24.960]  high courts lower than that it's a blessing to find them and i'll just mention this there's
[01:38:24.960 --> 01:38:28.400]  certain jurisdictions don't need to name them there's certain jurisdictions where they have a lot of
[01:38:28.400 --> 01:38:35.040]  commerce all the time and those judges all the way down the trial judges seem to be typically
[01:38:35.680 --> 01:38:41.440]  more astute in in these areas now we're talking about path blazing here what we're talking about
[01:38:41.440 --> 01:38:46.960]  especially in transportation areas just simply never been done before so it it has to go up
[01:38:46.960 --> 01:38:53.200]  through the system but where can we expect to find it in the high courts nationally and and in the
[01:38:53.200 --> 01:39:02.160]  states all right we have a another question here from a listener who wanted to know concerning
[01:39:02.880 --> 01:39:08.960]  this understanding of the commercial nexus issue by the courts he wants to know is it possible or
[01:39:08.960 --> 01:39:15.520]  have you ever seen a situation where a low municipal small-time judge actually understands
[01:39:15.520 --> 01:39:20.480]  this and understands that he is grooming the commercial issues to follow through to the higher
[01:39:20.480 --> 01:39:26.560]  appellate and supreme court yes now go through the question again because that was a mouthful
[01:39:27.280 --> 01:39:32.640]  have we seen a judge that gets it at the municipal level yes yeah is it possible have you seen it
[01:39:32.640 --> 01:39:41.280]  where a low municipal judge gets this and he is basically setting it up and grooming these issues
[01:39:41.280 --> 01:39:47.520]  in his municipal court for these cases as they uh to be taken up to the next level if they're going
[01:39:47.520 --> 01:39:53.280]  to be taken up to the next level the answer is yes both both direct experience and hearing stories
[01:39:53.280 --> 01:40:02.000]  about some other people yes there are there are municipal judges that are there to do their job
[01:40:02.800 --> 01:40:08.880]  and what i mean by that is we've all heard of and some of us have experienced the people who are
[01:40:08.880 --> 01:40:14.160]  there that are rubber stamp people they shove peanut butter in their ears they're not listening
[01:40:14.160 --> 01:40:20.320]  uh frankly they don't care it's not that it doesn't matter they don't care they're there in their mind
[01:40:20.320 --> 01:40:25.040]  to generate revenue and if someone disagrees with them they don't really get been out of shape about
[01:40:25.040 --> 01:40:32.000]  it but they're saying take your silly ass problem down down the hall you know the the daffy duck
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  cartoon or the mickey mouse cartoon on the wall take your silly ass problem down the hall okay
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  we see a lot of that they're the general rule okay exception proves the rule there are some very
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:54.720]  clear minded we are blessed in texas with municipal court judges that when you show up talking turkey
[01:40:54.720 --> 01:41:01.600]  understand the minute you start talking what you're talking about now when you go there it's good to
[01:41:01.600 --> 01:41:06.320]  have the facts on your side because even if you got all the law right the facts are against you
[01:41:06.320 --> 01:41:11.760]  they're going to say yep you're you can't not necessarily this plainly the message will be
[01:41:11.760 --> 01:41:16.560]  not necessarily the words the message will be okay you're talking good law and i'm still going to rule
[01:41:16.560 --> 01:41:21.360]  against you because the facts are against you and you're in the right you know basically an
[01:41:21.360 --> 01:41:26.960]  encouraging sort thing here i'm going to clobber you and motivate you to go back to the law library
[01:41:26.960 --> 01:41:32.560]  to get a little bit better handle on the rules the the reality about understanding the law is this
[01:41:32.560 --> 01:41:41.760]  we really understand the law when we know what facts matter so when we get we get past the hurdle
[01:41:41.760 --> 01:41:49.680]  of what laws are at issue and get into applying that in our our pre-case analysis and even our
[01:41:49.680 --> 01:41:55.040]  planning stage way early what facts matter when we understand the law we know what facts matter
[01:41:55.040 --> 01:42:00.880]  so uh that's a little bit more to answer the question than the question is are there municipal
[01:42:00.880 --> 01:42:10.720]  judges who get it yes yes there are wow all right and we will find more and more and we'll find
[01:42:10.720 --> 01:42:18.960]  more and more as it comes along the path and more and more people are informed as defendants
[01:42:18.960 --> 01:42:25.360]  what's at issue then the discussion will go through the municipal educational system and they are
[01:42:25.360 --> 01:42:31.200]  trained uh we need to start being aware of these issues and so yeah it'll it'll get around
[01:42:32.880 --> 01:42:37.280]  okay randy randy just cite me a question i don't know maybe if he dropped off the line or is because
[01:42:37.280 --> 01:42:42.160]  he's having trouble i'm here you're at okay ask your question i didn't quite understand what you
[01:42:42.160 --> 01:42:49.360]  were getting to on the chat okay i have someone here who raises the question what right do you
[01:42:49.360 --> 01:42:57.680]  have to be represented by your council of choice when you don't trust attorneys here they call them
[01:42:57.680 --> 01:43:03.440]  solicitor to barristers okay but apparently in their constitution there is the same right to be
[01:43:03.440 --> 01:43:11.120]  represented by council of your choice sure and in certain circumstances they allow an attorney to
[01:43:11.120 --> 01:43:19.280]  they allow an attorney here to represent you an attorney is not a lawyer and an attorney is a lay
[01:43:19.280 --> 01:43:26.080]  person who is knowledgeable in a given area they can represent people in certain cases
[01:43:26.960 --> 01:43:32.480]  but in cases where that's not generally done he's asking what is the
[01:43:32.480 --> 01:43:40.960]  the right to be represented by any one of you choosing we can address this on the other side
[01:43:40.960 --> 01:43:46.560]  you will take us out there sure all right we'll be right back folks this is rule of law radio rule
[01:43:46.560 --> 01:43:51.920]  of law radio.com we are here with a very special guest harman taylor we're going to be opening up
[01:43:51.920 --> 01:43:56.480]  the phone lines in a in a little while in a couple of segments we're going to go over terry stop first
[01:43:56.480 --> 01:44:03.360]  though and answer randy's question we'll be right back warning for all gulf coast disaster survivors
[01:44:03.360 --> 01:44:09.360]  be aware that dangerous gases are in the air you breathe benzene hydrogen sulfide methylene
[01:44:09.360 --> 01:44:16.240]  chloride and corexit 9500 keep your body clean with micro plant powder for all gulf coast residents
[01:44:16.240 --> 01:44:22.480]  and all who want to be healthy hempusa.org brings you a new formulation of micro plant powder with
[01:44:22.480 --> 01:44:27.840]  lactobacillus acidophilus rebuilding your immune system while detoxing the rest of your body pulling
[01:44:27.840 --> 01:44:34.240]  out positive toxins heavy metals viruses fungus bacteria and parasites cleans and purifies the
[01:44:34.240 --> 01:44:39.600]  blood lungs stomach and colon micro plant powder will help eliminate these dangerous chemicals from
[01:44:39.600 --> 01:44:46.080]  the body used in the gulf cleaned up at hempusa.org we want you to try our number one selling detox
[01:44:46.080 --> 01:44:52.400]  product micro plant powder call and order at one nine oh eight six nine one twenty six oh eight
[01:44:52.400 --> 01:44:58.720]  one nine oh eight six nine one twenty six oh eight or visit us at hempusa.org today
[01:45:00.160 --> 01:45:05.280]  are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit win your case without an attorney with
[01:45:05.280 --> 01:45:12.960]  jurisdictionary the affordable easy to understand four cd course that will show you how in 24 hours
[01:45:12.960 --> 01:45:19.840]  step by step if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't have a lawyer
[01:45:19.840 --> 01:45:25.680]  know what you should do for yourself thousands have won with our step by step course and now
[01:45:25.680 --> 01:45:32.320]  you can too jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:45:32.320 --> 01:45:38.320]  experience even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about
[01:45:38.320 --> 01:45:44.640]  the principles and practices that control our american courts you'll receive our audio classroom
[01:45:44.640 --> 01:45:52.880]  video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics and much more please visit ruleoflaw
[01:45:52.880 --> 01:46:08.800]  radio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866 law easy
[01:46:22.880 --> 01:46:39.600]  all right folks as we sew so shall we reap
[01:46:42.160 --> 01:46:45.600]  we are back we're here with our very special guest Harman Taylor
[01:46:46.720 --> 01:46:52.800]  okay Harman so back to Randy's question uh Randy's friend's question concerning the right to be
[01:46:52.800 --> 01:47:00.960]  represented by I guess counsel that refers to anyone of your choice not necessarily an attorney
[01:47:00.960 --> 01:47:08.640]  or a lawyer right and so now now we get into the issue of licensing we get into the issue of
[01:47:08.640 --> 01:47:14.320]  restriction and I'm going to rephrase the question make sure that we're on the same page
[01:47:15.920 --> 01:47:21.920]  how can I exercise my right to counsel when the person I want to represent me is not authorized
[01:47:21.920 --> 01:47:29.520]  to be in the courtroom with me how does that qualify as right to choice counsel and at a
[01:47:30.640 --> 01:47:37.360]  fundamental level it doesn't it prevents it you get the right to pick from the people who
[01:47:38.240 --> 01:47:46.480]  are there who are authorized okay you don't you don't get to pick from everybody and so
[01:47:46.480 --> 01:47:54.800]  if that's the problem then on the one hand yeah it's it's our right to choice is limited and yet
[01:47:55.920 --> 01:48:02.960]  the legal decision there is going to be it's a limited right what's the analogy the analogy is
[01:48:02.960 --> 01:48:10.080]  defense of self using some kind of side arm the the we talked about that a little bit earlier
[01:48:10.080 --> 01:48:14.880]  and so I'm going back to that is the analogy it comes to mind it's also a good teaching tool for
[01:48:14.880 --> 01:48:19.040]  this question we have the right to defend ourselves and no question you have the right to defend
[01:48:19.040 --> 01:48:24.000]  ourselves we don't have the right to defend ourselves with side arms when we're in engaging
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:32.240]  in driving if we're engaging in transportation we've agreed not to defend ourselves with arms
[01:48:32.240 --> 01:48:37.520]  so does that mean we can't defend ourselves no it does mean that our right to self-defense in
[01:48:37.520 --> 01:48:45.200]  those areas is restricted it's a commercial thing all right that system that funny money system
[01:48:45.200 --> 01:48:52.000]  where you are is set up to do there what it's doing here what is doing it does everywhere
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:49:01.520]  that it goes and that is to restrict the ability to restrict the opportunity to have someone that
[01:49:01.520 --> 01:49:08.560]  can go in and talk turkey without worrying about his political hind end or his or his commercial
[01:49:09.600 --> 01:49:17.120]  aspect in the case and go talk turkey with the the judicial decision maker you get what am I
[01:49:17.120 --> 01:49:22.560]  trying to say I'm saying some licensed attorneys are not going to argue certain issues because
[01:49:22.560 --> 01:49:28.160]  they feel they're going to get social or political pressure it's going to hurt their business to get
[01:49:28.160 --> 01:49:33.360]  in the face of the system okay so we don't want to be restricted to the people who are not going to
[01:49:33.360 --> 01:49:42.320]  assert our case here's where that option is overcome same way over here just do it yourself
[01:49:44.080 --> 01:49:51.120]  it's a huge burden it's a huge burden has an awful lot to learn we've got the pleading side
[01:49:51.120 --> 01:49:59.120]  we've got the procedural side we've got the evidence side we've got the and that's at the
[01:49:59.120 --> 01:50:06.240]  trial level we got all the things to do on up the line and so the alternative there is just to do it
[01:50:06.240 --> 01:50:12.400]  ourselves and talk with the person that we want to talk with on the back side so the the person
[01:50:12.400 --> 01:50:18.720]  that we want to be there with us can't so we get training from that person and just go do it ourselves
[01:50:18.720 --> 01:50:26.880]  it is a restricted right but it's not really I have a question a further question on that issue
[01:50:28.800 --> 01:50:36.080]  I have a right to represent myself and I have a right to counsel of my choice
[01:50:37.600 --> 01:50:44.720]  and the courts tend to take the position that if you engage counsel
[01:50:44.720 --> 01:50:48.080]  you somehow waive your right to represent yourself
[01:50:50.800 --> 01:50:57.360]  how do I waive one right to exercise the other and how can they make you do that
[01:50:59.120 --> 01:51:02.240]  okay it's real easy in my mind to picture where you get both
[01:51:03.520 --> 01:51:10.320]  you can get counsel but that's on the side that's to get you prepped it wouldn't be
[01:51:10.320 --> 01:51:16.160]  it wouldn't be technically it wouldn't be representation in my mind what am I saying
[01:51:16.160 --> 01:51:21.200]  this is semantics and it's good semantics there's a difference between getting counsel and being
[01:51:21.200 --> 01:51:29.120]  represented you can have counsel that's also representative no question okay there's a
[01:51:29.120 --> 01:51:36.160]  difference between representation and counsel so if we have counsel of choice who can't represent
[01:51:36.160 --> 01:51:42.400]  us then another part of counsel of choice duty is to prep us to train us how to deal with
[01:51:43.120 --> 01:51:47.760]  at least the basics of what we expect to face in the in the litigation scenario
[01:51:47.760 --> 01:52:04.080]  okay so essentially my right to represent myself is mitigated by my right to counsel
[01:52:06.080 --> 01:52:09.200]  that I have to give up part of my right to represent myself
[01:52:09.920 --> 01:52:13.680]  over to counsel because there is a perception he's more knowledgeable than me
[01:52:13.680 --> 01:52:20.320]  um I'm gonna come back to semantics difference just to make sure I understand what we're talking
[01:52:20.320 --> 01:52:26.240]  about no I would not agree with that statement if we're talking about representing self and
[01:52:26.240 --> 01:52:32.320]  having and being represented then yes we got a conflict I don't see a conflict between
[01:52:32.320 --> 01:52:41.280]  self-representation and counsel if we're thinking counsel means representation then okay there's a
[01:52:41.280 --> 01:52:51.200]  conflict but counsel isn't representation necessarily so okay so if I have counsel he
[01:52:51.200 --> 01:52:59.120]  can give me counsel and I can represent myself that's what I'm saying yes but but if I let
[01:52:59.120 --> 01:53:06.480]  someone else stand up and represent me then I'm no longer representing myself I'm waiving that
[01:53:06.480 --> 01:53:16.080]  right to another yes that makes sense yeah and if you decide that you don't like or agree with or
[01:53:16.080 --> 01:53:22.640]  trust the counsel that you have hired to represent you and you don't want that entity to represent
[01:53:22.640 --> 01:53:29.440]  you any longer just fire them and either hire another entity to represent you or represent
[01:53:29.440 --> 01:53:37.120]  yourself at that point but yeah I can see why the courts are saying this Randy because you're
[01:53:38.080 --> 01:53:44.880]  when the court looks at you you're one entity not two and so you either represent yourself
[01:53:45.520 --> 01:53:52.880]  i.e. be a pro se or you have an attorney or some other entity that represents you
[01:53:52.880 --> 01:53:59.280]  so that when the court looks at that other entity they see you but how can you have someone else or
[01:53:59.280 --> 01:54:05.040]  something else representing you and then you're appearing before the court too saying I'm
[01:54:05.040 --> 01:54:11.600]  representing myself that's that's a conflict that's confusing so so there's no right to multiple
[01:54:11.600 --> 01:54:19.120]  representation well people hire multiple attorneys I mean I've seen well no he's he's speaking of
[01:54:19.120 --> 01:54:24.160]  he's speaking of bifurcated representation he's speaking of bifurcated
[01:54:26.240 --> 01:54:29.680]  when you hire a group of attorneys there is a lead attorney
[01:54:31.840 --> 01:54:42.480]  everyone speaks for the lead attorney am I right Harman that if I have a number of attorneys here
[01:54:42.480 --> 01:54:48.400]  I'll have different issues one of each each attorney may be expert at a separate issue and
[01:54:48.400 --> 01:54:54.080]  we'll have him speak to that issue but in effect there's one attorney attorney standing before the
[01:54:54.080 --> 01:55:07.040]  court for notice purposes yes there'll be one party to be communicated with say you've got
[01:55:07.040 --> 01:55:13.600]  six different issues and so you have six different counsel one for each issue perfectly okay they'd
[01:55:13.600 --> 01:55:19.360]  be speaking of course in their own name but when the other party or parties want to communicate
[01:55:19.360 --> 01:55:25.760]  with you there'll be one representative through whom all those communications will be channeled
[01:55:25.760 --> 01:55:31.760]  when the court wants to communicate with you exactly and when you're serving documents back
[01:55:31.760 --> 01:55:39.680]  and forth right and it makes sense to me that the courts would uphold a position like that because
[01:55:39.680 --> 01:55:46.320]  otherwise it's just confusion I mean who are you you know what entity am I supposed to communicate
[01:55:46.320 --> 01:55:55.440]  with here and that brings in other problems of say notice you know one party sends notice or serves
[01:55:55.440 --> 01:56:03.920]  documents to one attorney and then if allegedly another attorney or some other entity is also
[01:56:03.920 --> 01:56:09.680]  representing you or if you're also claiming to represent yourself then uh the other entity can
[01:56:09.680 --> 01:56:19.040]  claim well I was never served I mean it raises all kinds of problems to have bifurcated representation
[01:56:19.040 --> 01:56:22.560]  it just doesn't even the whole concept just doesn't even make sense to me at all
[01:56:22.560 --> 01:56:35.760]  Does that help? Yes. Okay. Sam does it help? He's nodding yes but his lips are tightly clenched
[01:56:36.800 --> 01:56:46.880]  so it I think this goes to one of those issues to where we want what we want but when we try to
[01:56:46.880 --> 01:56:54.160]  uh exercise what we want it runs into complications and that will be the case in the system
[01:56:55.680 --> 01:57:05.760]  that evidences its choice of law by funny money we can't use common sense intuitively uh this
[01:57:05.760 --> 01:57:12.880]  is silly but genetically uh propagated understanding of the law we just have a general understanding
[01:57:12.880 --> 01:57:19.280]  of the difference between right and wrong and in those areas where the foundational law is
[01:57:19.280 --> 01:57:23.760]  the common law of England America's that way Canada's that way Australia's that way New Zealand
[01:57:23.760 --> 01:57:29.920]  we there are a lot of nations out there where we all started from the same concept it goes all the
[01:57:29.920 --> 01:57:34.880]  way back in all of our genetic history literally there's just certain things we understand be
[01:57:34.880 --> 01:57:40.720]  right and wrong and so now we're at that time it's new to the world we're at that time where
[01:57:40.720 --> 01:57:48.640]  what is intuitively right and wrong is turned completely on its ear and so yeah I understand
[01:57:48.640 --> 01:57:53.600]  the the tight clenched lips that well that sounds like doublespeak well yeah it is but
[01:57:53.600 --> 01:58:00.880]  we're in a system that deals with that depends on the doublespeak where we're restricted and
[01:58:00.880 --> 01:58:06.640]  they did it that way on purpose and we want to get back to common sense fundamentally we got to
[01:58:06.640 --> 01:58:14.240]  stop using their money well yeah and also concerning the the representation issue if you
[01:58:14.240 --> 01:58:20.240]  want a council that isn't licensed or allowed to do certain things like stand up and speak
[01:58:20.240 --> 01:58:26.320]  on your behalf in court then you just hire that entity to be your assistance of council
[01:58:26.320 --> 01:58:30.720]  and help you write documents and help you do research and school you and train you on
[01:58:30.720 --> 01:58:36.080]  what you need to do and what you should say when you're in a situation where you're in a
[01:58:36.080 --> 01:58:42.480]  day when you get up and and and speak for yourself in court I mean there's only a very few things
[01:58:42.480 --> 01:58:49.840]  that uh representative can can do that other assistance of council cannot do really the best
[01:58:49.840 --> 01:58:54.320]  thing is to just do an assistance of council if you trust them you know if you can find a
[01:58:54.320 --> 01:58:58.960]  representation fine if not uh get your assistance of council and do it yourself we'll be right back
[01:58:58.960 --> 01:59:06.320]  so bibles for america is offering absolutely free a unique study bible called the new testament
[01:59:06.320 --> 01:59:11.760]  recovery version the new testament recovery version has over 9 000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:11.760 --> 01:59:18.160]  what the bible says verse by verse helping you to know god and to know the meaning of life order
[01:59:18.160 --> 01:59:26.880]  your free copy today from bibles for america call us toll free at 8 8 8 5 5 1 0 1 0 2 or visit us
[01:59:26.880 --> 01:59:34.880]  online at bfa.org this translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13 000 cross
[01:59:34.880 --> 01:59:41.120]  references plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the bible this is truly a bible
[01:59:41.120 --> 01:59:46.720]  you can understand to get your free copy of the new testament recovery version call us toll free
[01:59:46.720 --> 02:00:04.000]  at 8 8 8 5 5 1 0 1 0 2 that's 8 8 8 5 5 1 0 1 0 2 or visit us online at bfa.org