ROL_2011-05-20_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:09.440]  The American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International are calling for an investigation
[00:09.440 --> 00:15.000]  into the death of detainees at Guantanamo after the US military reported another suicide
[00:15.000 --> 00:16.000]  Wednesday.
[00:16.000 --> 00:21.280]  Inuyatala, Guantanamo's fifth suicide, had tried to kill himself twice previously and
[00:21.280 --> 00:22.840]  was mentally ill.
[00:22.840 --> 00:27.960]  Attorney Paul Rashkind said Inuyatala was not a terrorist and his mental health issues
[00:27.960 --> 00:32.120]  made it difficult to address why he was there.
[00:32.120 --> 00:36.200]  Amnesty International Wednesday denounced trials of civilians before military courts
[00:36.200 --> 00:43.240]  in Egypt, adding, these courts flout international standards for fair trial and are grossly unjust.
[00:43.240 --> 00:48.000]  The faith of many Egyptians in the criminal justice system is being sorely tested by military
[00:48.000 --> 00:49.000]  courts.
[00:49.000 --> 00:53.520]  Egyptian rights groups say the army has already tried more than 10,000 people before courts
[00:53.520 --> 00:58.800]  marshal, the vast majority of them for criminal offences.
[00:58.800 --> 01:03.480]  Senator Bernie Sanders said Thursday he supports a constitutional amendment to overrule the
[01:03.480 --> 01:08.880]  Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that permits corporations to anonymously give
[01:08.880 --> 01:14.480]  unlimited sums of money to groups not officially connected with presidential campaigns.
[01:14.480 --> 01:19.600]  The non-partisan Committee for Economic Development has warned the ruling may turn corporations
[01:19.600 --> 01:26.040]  into miniature political parties and the eventual corruption of US democracy.
[01:26.040 --> 01:30.960]  An independent report Thursday says Massey Energy recklessly ignored safety, leading
[01:30.960 --> 01:37.280]  to a blast last year in a West Virginia mine that killed 29 men, the deadliest US coal
[01:37.280 --> 01:39.320]  accident since 1970.
[01:39.320 --> 01:43.960]  The report by a former top federal mine regulator said Massey could have prevented the April
[01:43.960 --> 01:50.120]  2010 disaster at its non-unionized upper big branch mine with standard safety practices,
[01:50.120 --> 01:55.000]  including better ventilation to reduce potentially explosive levels of gas and dust.
[01:55.000 --> 02:00.360]  It concluded the company operated its mines in a profoundly reckless manner and 29 coal
[02:00.360 --> 02:04.360]  miners paid with their lives for the corporate risk taking.
[02:04.360 --> 02:10.480]  A radiation alarm went off at the Fukushima nuclear power plant before the tsunami hit
[02:10.480 --> 02:15.360]  on March 11, suggesting the reactors were damaged by the earthquake that spawned the
[02:15.360 --> 02:16.360]  wall of water.
[02:16.360 --> 02:21.800]  A monitoring post a mile from the No. 1 reactor went off minutes before the station was overwhelmed
[02:21.800 --> 02:27.240]  by the tsunami that knocked out backup power that kept reactor cooling systems running.
[02:27.240 --> 02:31.040]  According to documents supplied by the company, the monitor was set to go off at high levels
[02:31.040 --> 02:32.320]  of radiation.
[02:32.320 --> 02:37.160]  Tokyo Electric Power Company officials originally said the plant was crippled by the tsunami,
[02:37.160 --> 02:41.880]  causing the world's worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986.
[02:41.880 --> 02:46.920]  TEPCO this week released thousands of pages of documents highlighting the chaos as workers
[02:46.920 --> 03:02.760]  frantically tried to prevent meltdowns in three of six reactors at Fukushima.
[03:02.760 --> 03:09.760]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:09.760 --> 03:34.080]  talk radio at its best.
[03:34.080 --> 03:56.640]  We are originators, and the pathway seems to get straighter every day, and I can take
[03:56.640 --> 04:06.120]  anything that belongs to me and put it to good use, but I was good for the gander, I'm
[04:06.120 --> 04:21.200]  going to work for the goose, I know some architects, I know some engineers, they've seen the evidence,
[04:21.200 --> 04:28.120]  they know a certain thing's clean, what's up with the blatant deception, what is the
[04:28.120 --> 04:35.800]  nature of what you might gain, I see something headed straight for you, I think it looks
[04:35.800 --> 04:45.560]  just like a train, it sounds like a sham of sunburn, I can see them playing fast and loose.
[04:45.560 --> 04:55.360]  Okay folks, we are back, all right, we wanted to fill in the context here concerning this
[04:55.360 --> 05:01.280]  issue of do you waive your right to counsel, and really what that means is do you waive
[05:01.280 --> 05:07.600]  your right to represent yourself if you have another representation, do you waive your
[05:07.600 --> 05:13.680]  right to represent yourself if you have counsel, and really that's not good semantics, the
[05:13.680 --> 05:20.520]  real question is do you waive your right to represent yourself or be pro se if you have
[05:20.520 --> 05:25.280]  representation, okay that's the real issue, because you of course can have assistance
[05:25.280 --> 05:31.280]  of counsel and you can have an assistance of counsel that's not your representation.
[05:31.280 --> 05:35.700]  You can have one counsel that's your representation, you can have other assistant of counsel where
[05:35.700 --> 05:40.600]  you can represent yourself and have assistance of counsel, but you can't represent yourself
[05:40.600 --> 05:44.780]  and have representation at the same time, all right?
[05:44.780 --> 05:49.180]  And the reason, the context of this conversation,
[05:49.180 --> 05:50.500]  we want to try to fill this out,
[05:50.500 --> 05:52.060]  because this is something we've talked about
[05:52.060 --> 05:55.620]  before on the air, concerning the problems
[05:55.620 --> 05:59.420]  that people have when they are a defendant
[05:59.420 --> 06:02.900]  in a criminal case against them,
[06:02.900 --> 06:07.540]  and they get assigned court-appointed counsel,
[06:07.540 --> 06:10.580]  which is really court-appointed representation, all right?
[06:10.580 --> 06:11.980]  Let's use the proper words here.
[06:11.980 --> 06:13.340]  They call it court-appointed counsel,
[06:13.340 --> 06:16.060]  but it's really court-appointed representation,
[06:16.060 --> 06:20.500]  and they have problems with the defense attorney.
[06:20.500 --> 06:22.620]  They won't file the documents you want them to file.
[06:22.620 --> 06:24.420]  They won't fight for your rights.
[06:24.420 --> 06:27.460]  All they want to do is work with the prosecutor
[06:27.460 --> 06:30.220]  to make a plea deal and all these sorts of things.
[06:30.220 --> 06:33.580]  And so, in the context of previous conversations,
[06:33.580 --> 06:37.260]  we've had Randy saying, well, you can't,
[06:37.260 --> 06:39.580]  if the defense attorney won't file the documents
[06:39.580 --> 06:43.540]  you wanted to file, then you try to go to the court
[06:43.540 --> 06:45.260]  and file them yourself.
[06:45.260 --> 06:47.740]  The court won't let you, or you can file them,
[06:47.740 --> 06:49.540]  but the court's going to ignore them
[06:49.540 --> 06:53.140]  because you have representation already.
[06:53.140 --> 06:56.720]  And so, and your representation has to file the documents,
[06:56.720 --> 07:00.420]  because that's who represents you in the eyes of the court.
[07:00.420 --> 07:04.500]  When the court looks at you, they see,
[07:04.500 --> 07:06.620]  when the court sees your representation,
[07:06.620 --> 07:07.580]  they are seeing you.
[07:07.580 --> 07:09.300]  When the court looks at your representation,
[07:09.300 --> 07:10.660]  they are looking at you.
[07:10.660 --> 07:13.300]  And so, then if you try to do an in-run
[07:13.300 --> 07:17.020]  around your representation and file your own documents
[07:17.020 --> 07:19.900]  in your own behalf, that is illegitimate
[07:19.900 --> 07:21.340]  in the eyes of the court.
[07:21.340 --> 07:22.860]  And that's why they won't let you do it.
[07:22.860 --> 07:24.700]  It makes perfect sense to me.
[07:24.700 --> 07:27.380]  But Randy's point all along has been,
[07:27.380 --> 07:30.420]  well, are you, I'm not waiving one right
[07:30.420 --> 07:34.260]  to exercise another, and really,
[07:34.260 --> 07:36.420]  you're not waiving any rights
[07:36.420 --> 07:39.620]  when you get, when you hire representation.
[07:39.620 --> 07:42.140]  You hire representation, you hire representation.
[07:42.140 --> 07:45.940]  If you don't like what they're doing, fire them, okay?
[07:45.940 --> 07:48.700]  Or like what we do, file bar grievances
[07:48.700 --> 07:51.900]  to pressure them into doing what you want them to do,
[07:51.900 --> 07:54.660]  file a malpractice suit, et cetera, et cetera,
[07:54.660 --> 07:57.560]  to pressure them into doing what you want them to do,
[07:58.620 --> 08:02.580]  et cetera, but you can't, you can't file documents
[08:02.580 --> 08:04.880]  with the court on your own behalf anyway,
[08:04.880 --> 08:06.460]  just because your representation
[08:06.460 --> 08:08.340]  won't do what you want them to do.
[08:08.340 --> 08:12.020]  So there are other ways, there are other remedies.
[08:12.020 --> 08:14.060]  We've already discussed some, like the bar grievances
[08:14.060 --> 08:16.420]  and filing malpractice and stuff like this.
[08:16.420 --> 08:19.220]  Harmon wants to discuss some other remedies
[08:19.220 --> 08:21.860]  to this situation of when you've got this
[08:22.880 --> 08:26.620]  court-appointed defense attorney representation
[08:26.620 --> 08:30.300]  that is not acting on your behalf appropriately.
[08:30.300 --> 08:32.220]  So Harmon, you wanna get into this?
[08:32.220 --> 08:37.220]  What we have recently is a case out of, started in Texas,
[08:38.060 --> 08:40.580]  Roth-Gerry, R-O-T-H-G-E-R-Y.
[08:40.580 --> 08:43.940]  It has to do with representation issue as a felony case
[08:43.940 --> 08:46.420]  and several aspects about it,
[08:46.420 --> 08:50.340]  but the concept had to do with representation
[08:50.340 --> 08:54.300]  and there was no representation at the arraignment.
[08:54.300 --> 08:56.380]  That is a proceeding.
[08:56.380 --> 08:59.260]  The Supremes are very clear about that.
[08:59.260 --> 09:02.580]  The fact that the prosecution never shows up to that
[09:02.580 --> 09:06.020]  is a strategy decision on their part.
[09:06.020 --> 09:08.740]  Their nonappearance doesn't negate
[09:08.740 --> 09:13.380]  the procedural reality of the matter.
[09:13.380 --> 09:16.220]  It doesn't terminate the adversarial nature
[09:16.220 --> 09:17.500]  of that proceeding.
[09:17.500 --> 09:20.860]  It doesn't terminate the defendant's need for counsel.
[09:20.860 --> 09:23.180]  It's a phase of the proceeding
[09:23.180 --> 09:25.060]  for which counsel is necessary.
[09:25.060 --> 09:30.060]  And so in Texas and all over, the initial thing,
[09:30.500 --> 09:31.740]  especially for felonies,
[09:31.740 --> 09:33.940]  anytime a counsel can be appointed,
[09:33.940 --> 09:37.100]  the very first act that goes on judicially,
[09:37.100 --> 09:41.620]  administratively, is this issue of representation.
[09:41.620 --> 09:44.220]  And so some courts bend over backwards
[09:44.220 --> 09:49.220]  to foist attorneys onto the defendants
[09:49.620 --> 09:51.980]  so that they don't have the Roth-Gerry case.
[09:51.980 --> 09:55.420]  The problem of the prosecution getting overruled
[09:55.420 --> 09:59.460]  by the Supremes, because way back in the beginning,
[09:59.460 --> 10:01.220]  we've got the arraignment issue
[10:01.220 --> 10:03.940]  that was conducted without counsel.
[10:03.940 --> 10:08.180]  So it's a recent issue and it's a big issue.
[10:08.180 --> 10:11.460]  And the context that Deb just went through
[10:11.460 --> 10:15.420]  helps me tremendously put the question into context.
[10:15.420 --> 10:18.700]  What do we do when we are compelled?
[10:19.740 --> 10:21.500]  It's a political compulsion here.
[10:21.500 --> 10:22.340]  It's not legal.
[10:22.340 --> 10:23.820]  That's the point to get to.
[10:23.820 --> 10:26.980]  What do we do when the court compels us
[10:26.980 --> 10:28.220]  to get defense counsel?
[10:28.220 --> 10:30.060]  Okay, two responses to that.
[10:31.820 --> 10:34.740]  A thing to do in the middle of, right then,
[10:34.740 --> 10:36.540]  in the middle of the issue,
[10:36.540 --> 10:41.540]  is to file the waiver of representation.
[10:42.460 --> 10:43.380]  File the waiver.
[10:43.380 --> 10:45.820]  We assert the right to self-representation
[10:45.820 --> 10:47.980]  and there's some elements for that.
[10:47.980 --> 10:50.940]  And we document that according to the procedures
[10:50.940 --> 10:52.940]  relevant to that forum,
[10:52.940 --> 10:56.220]  Texas has some specific rules about it.
[10:56.220 --> 10:57.740]  All the states will.
[10:57.740 --> 11:00.260]  The federal system has the rules
[11:00.260 --> 11:02.540]  of what they're looking for
[11:02.540 --> 11:05.980]  in the way of knowledge and competence and like that
[11:05.980 --> 11:08.340]  to allow the individual to assert
[11:09.660 --> 11:12.780]  his own representation, represent himself.
[11:12.780 --> 11:17.220]  Okay, so a thing to do early on is to document in writing
[11:17.220 --> 11:19.660]  the assertion of the right to self-represent.
[11:19.660 --> 11:21.220]  That's easy.
[11:21.220 --> 11:22.460]  That's a thing to do.
[11:22.460 --> 11:26.140]  So when we get into this battle with the judge,
[11:26.140 --> 11:28.340]  we document our position.
[11:28.340 --> 11:29.500]  We put it in writing.
[11:29.500 --> 11:31.700]  We're dealing with a commercial mechanism.
[11:31.700 --> 11:34.620]  Commercial systems depend on the paperwork.
[11:34.620 --> 11:36.500]  We make the paper trail.
[11:36.500 --> 11:39.180]  Paper trail says, I wanna represent myself.
[11:40.500 --> 11:43.340]  The judge in general has to allow that
[11:43.340 --> 11:47.540]  unless he thinks that the defendant basically is incompetent.
[11:47.540 --> 11:51.620]  And it doesn't mean necessarily
[11:51.620 --> 11:54.260]  an emotional psychological concept.
[11:54.260 --> 11:57.220]  It just means they're totally unable
[11:57.220 --> 11:58.940]  to understand what's going on.
[11:58.940 --> 12:00.900]  It's very fundamentally,
[12:00.900 --> 12:03.220]  it's a very difficult thing for them to do
[12:03.220 --> 12:06.100]  if we can read and write the English language.
[12:06.100 --> 12:09.540]  We may not have any ability with the system
[12:09.540 --> 12:11.620]  to understand procedure or semantics
[12:11.620 --> 12:13.580]  or substance or anything.
[12:13.580 --> 12:15.580]  But if we can get out of bed in the morning
[12:15.580 --> 12:18.700]  in our own shoes and put our pants on the right way forward
[12:18.700 --> 12:20.860]  and read and write the English language,
[12:20.860 --> 12:22.300]  then we should be in a position,
[12:22.300 --> 12:25.820]  we should be recognized in this system at the trial level
[12:25.820 --> 12:27.500]  to carry forth our own defense.
[12:27.500 --> 12:32.180]  Judges don't like it, but we have to be able to do that.
[12:32.180 --> 12:35.660]  So anything to do is to assert in writing that right.
[12:35.660 --> 12:37.980]  Okay, another thing to do,
[12:37.980 --> 12:41.020]  and I don't have the search capability
[12:41.020 --> 12:43.220]  to remind me of the full case style.
[12:43.220 --> 12:46.940]  First name is Mickens, M-I-C-K-E-N-S.
[12:46.940 --> 12:48.540]  I think the other party is Taylor.
[12:48.540 --> 12:51.060]  I think it's Mickens v. Taylor.
[12:51.060 --> 12:52.740]  I don't remember the full site right now,
[12:52.740 --> 12:54.540]  but anyway, what does that case say?
[12:55.660 --> 12:57.940]  Case says if we've got a conflict of interest
[12:57.940 --> 13:02.220]  with our attorney, we have to put that objection of record.
[13:02.220 --> 13:05.220]  The trial court can't do anything about that problem
[13:05.220 --> 13:06.940]  until it's of record.
[13:06.940 --> 13:09.540]  In other words, until the court has notice of it,
[13:09.540 --> 13:10.380]  what can be done?
[13:10.380 --> 13:11.500]  Nothing.
[13:11.500 --> 13:15.460]  So if we are stuck with counsel
[13:15.460 --> 13:18.740]  and we haven't asserted our right to do this on our own
[13:18.740 --> 13:21.780]  or we're not really confident that's the best thing,
[13:21.780 --> 13:25.020]  and we go down the road with this appointed counsel
[13:25.020 --> 13:27.060]  and things just aren't working,
[13:27.060 --> 13:30.900]  they're not representing, they're doing their own thing
[13:30.900 --> 13:34.980]  pretty much in contravention to what we want to do,
[13:34.980 --> 13:38.660]  then a thing to do is file the Mickens objection,
[13:38.660 --> 13:41.700]  file it of record, it's in writing.
[13:41.700 --> 13:46.540]  To the honorable judge said, court, this ain't working.
[13:46.540 --> 13:47.860]  We've got a major conflict.
[13:47.860 --> 13:51.860]  Here's the details about what the conflict amounts to.
[13:51.860 --> 13:56.860]  The conflict is prohibiting my assertion of my position.
[13:57.140 --> 13:57.980]  Okay.
[13:57.980 --> 14:01.300]  So this, Harmon, this would be maybe the one document
[14:01.300 --> 14:05.020]  that you could file on your own behalf with the court
[14:05.020 --> 14:07.500]  when you have someone else representing you.
[14:07.500 --> 14:09.660]  Yes, and they have to recognize this.
[14:09.660 --> 14:10.500]  Good.
[14:10.500 --> 14:12.460]  The Mickens objection has to be recognized.
[14:12.460 --> 14:14.180]  It has to be recognized at trial.
[14:14.180 --> 14:16.300]  It has to be recognized on appeal.
[14:16.300 --> 14:17.460]  They'll say, oh, you're represented.
[14:17.460 --> 14:19.020]  We can't take the pro se document.
[14:19.020 --> 14:21.660]  If they don't do the Mickens objection,
[14:21.660 --> 14:24.300]  then they're denying access to the court.
[14:24.300 --> 14:26.020]  It gets real serious real fast.
[14:26.020 --> 14:26.860]  Okay.
[14:26.860 --> 14:28.300]  Yes.
[14:28.300 --> 14:31.380]  The represented party through this discussion,
[14:31.380 --> 14:34.260]  the Supreme Court, United States,
[14:34.260 --> 14:36.860]  laid out very clearly.
[14:36.860 --> 14:39.820]  Here's the mechanism, the procedure
[14:39.820 --> 14:41.300]  for handling this problem.
[14:41.300 --> 14:44.020]  If we have an objection, we put it in writing,
[14:44.020 --> 14:46.140]  we tell the trial court about it,
[14:46.140 --> 14:47.900]  and he has to set a hearing.
[14:47.900 --> 14:51.940]  I say he, the trial judge, has to set a hearing.
[14:51.940 --> 14:55.060]  And then on the record is the discussion about the conflict.
[14:55.060 --> 14:57.940]  Maybe the judge will keep the attorney on the case.
[14:57.940 --> 15:01.780]  Maybe the judge will remove the attorney from the case.
[15:01.780 --> 15:04.660]  But all that has to be in writing and on the record
[15:04.660 --> 15:06.380]  so the judge can make a ruling.
[15:06.380 --> 15:10.580]  So it's an issue then that what is of record.
[15:10.580 --> 15:14.420]  We've got a ruling, basically have a motion and a ruling,
[15:14.420 --> 15:16.180]  and that allows that issue to go forward
[15:16.180 --> 15:18.660]  up on appellate process.
[15:18.660 --> 15:22.140]  And so these are the two thoughts that come to mind
[15:22.140 --> 15:23.700]  now that I've got a little bit better understanding
[15:23.700 --> 15:26.700]  of why the question comes up, what the context is.
[15:26.700 --> 15:27.780]  If we're stuck with counsel,
[15:27.780 --> 15:30.100]  we're not necessarily stuck with counsel.
[15:30.100 --> 15:34.540]  The great thing to do is assert self-representation, okay?
[15:34.540 --> 15:36.420]  It's a pretty broad standard.
[15:36.420 --> 15:38.540]  It pretty much has to be recognized,
[15:38.540 --> 15:42.420]  even if it goes against every grain of what the trial judge,
[15:42.420 --> 15:46.300]  who may genuinely care about what's going on there, would do.
[15:46.300 --> 15:48.260]  He said, man, I think you're out of your screaming,
[15:48.260 --> 15:50.140]  stinking mind to do this.
[15:50.140 --> 15:52.780]  But the law is this, the standard is this.
[15:52.780 --> 15:56.140]  I can't find against you here.
[15:56.140 --> 15:59.060]  You know how to tie your shoes.
[15:59.060 --> 16:01.340]  You know how to put your glasses on.
[16:01.340 --> 16:04.860]  You can read and write the English language.
[16:04.860 --> 16:06.980]  You're intelligent enough to communicate,
[16:06.980 --> 16:11.660]  and so I'm going to let you move forward in self-representation.
[16:11.660 --> 16:15.300]  I think you've got a fool for a client.
[16:15.300 --> 16:19.700]  But your representation here, I have to recognize.
[16:19.700 --> 16:21.140]  Okay, that's one thing.
[16:21.140 --> 16:22.380]  We assert the right.
[16:22.380 --> 16:24.980]  The other is if we, for whatever reason,
[16:24.980 --> 16:26.780]  don't assert the right,
[16:26.780 --> 16:29.060]  we still have the Mickens objection.
[16:29.060 --> 16:30.580]  There has to be a genuine conflict.
[16:30.580 --> 16:33.220]  Don't do this just to create stuff.
[16:33.220 --> 16:36.100]  But follow the Mickens objection, put it on record,
[16:36.100 --> 16:38.100]  and tell the trial court, we ain't doing this anymore.
[16:38.100 --> 16:39.740]  I'm going to do it on my own.
[16:39.740 --> 16:43.140]  And that's a couple thoughts come to mind on that.
[16:43.140 --> 16:44.860]  All right, and I have a couple of questions about that
[16:44.860 --> 16:46.500]  when we get back on the other side.
[16:46.500 --> 16:48.700]  All right, folks, this is the rule of law.
[16:48.700 --> 16:50.620]  Special guest, Harman Taylor.
[16:50.620 --> 16:54.060]  We're so happy to have him here in the studio tonight.
[16:54.060 --> 16:56.020]  We got Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[16:56.020 --> 16:56.980]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.620 --> 17:03.020]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source
[17:03.020 --> 17:04.820]  for rare coins, precious metals,
[17:04.820 --> 17:07.580]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[17:07.580 --> 17:09.340]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:09.340 --> 17:11.220]  We're a family-owned and operated business
[17:11.220 --> 17:12.780]  that offers competitive prices
[17:12.780 --> 17:14.900]  on your coin and metals purchases.
[17:14.900 --> 17:17.620]  Because of you, Austin, business has been so good
[17:17.620 --> 17:20.620]  that we've had to move to a new and bigger location.
[17:20.620 --> 17:24.260]  We're now located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A,
[17:24.260 --> 17:27.940]  1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous location.
[17:27.940 --> 17:29.820]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road
[17:29.820 --> 17:32.540]  in Stanley Insurance Building on the ground floor
[17:32.540 --> 17:35.500]  next to the Ishuban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[17:35.500 --> 17:37.820]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6,
[17:37.820 --> 17:39.300]  Saturdays 10 to 5.
[17:39.300 --> 17:41.860]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours
[17:41.860 --> 17:45.260]  or call 512-646-6440.
[17:45.260 --> 17:48.060]  Ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us
[17:48.060 --> 17:50.780]  on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[17:50.780 --> 17:52.340]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion
[17:52.340 --> 17:56.220]  at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A.
[17:56.220 --> 18:00.420]  We'll call 512-646-6440.
[18:00.420 --> 18:02.580]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:02.580 --> 18:05.580]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.580 --> 18:07.100]  Stop debt collectors now
[18:07.100 --> 18:09.220]  with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.220 --> 18:11.980]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court
[18:11.980 --> 18:14.820]  against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:14.820 --> 18:17.580]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[18:17.580 --> 18:20.980]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:20.980 --> 18:24.660]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons.
[18:24.660 --> 18:26.700]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:26.700 --> 18:29.300]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[18:29.300 --> 18:31.220]  How to turn the financial tables on them
[18:31.220 --> 18:33.980]  and make them pay you to go away.
[18:33.980 --> 18:36.900]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[18:36.900 --> 18:38.820]  for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.820 --> 18:41.220]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.220 --> 18:44.580]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:44.580 --> 18:46.860]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.860 --> 18:49.620]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.620 --> 18:51.980]  That's ruleoflawradio.com
[18:51.980 --> 18:56.980]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.460 --> 19:00.020]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:02.180 --> 19:04.700]  Well, don't let them get to you.
[19:04.700 --> 19:07.220]  Only the father can deliver you.
[19:07.220 --> 19:10.260]  But don't let bad-minded people hurt you.
[19:10.260 --> 19:13.580]  I tell you something, get behind them.
[19:13.580 --> 19:15.020]  You know what I mean?
[19:15.020 --> 19:17.900]  My friend, Nala Jatchez,
[19:17.900 --> 19:21.620]  come and trust in God, my friend.
[19:21.620 --> 19:24.300]  Tell him your problem's ending.
[19:24.300 --> 19:27.260]  Call on his name once again.
[19:27.260 --> 19:30.180]  He will call you now, he will say it.
[19:30.180 --> 19:33.300]  Trust in God, my friend.
[19:33.300 --> 19:36.180]  Tell him your problem's ending.
[19:36.180 --> 19:38.980]  Call on his name once again.
[19:38.980 --> 19:42.100]  He will call you now, he will say it.
[19:42.100 --> 19:45.020]  He is my king, man, he is everything.
[19:45.020 --> 19:47.740]  He's everything to me, that's why I call him.
[19:47.740 --> 19:50.820]  I'm on my knee and I pray to him
[19:50.820 --> 19:53.980]  because he's the only one who could answer me.
[19:53.980 --> 19:56.620]  Yes, trust in God, my friend.
[19:58.020 --> 20:03.020]  Jah Jehovah Jesus, we love him and we trust in him.
[20:04.620 --> 20:07.860]  All right, we are here with our very special guest,
[20:07.860 --> 20:08.860]  Carmen Taylor.
[20:10.100 --> 20:13.460]  Okay, so Carmen, I had a couple of questions
[20:13.460 --> 20:14.700]  I wanted to ask you about this
[20:14.700 --> 20:17.700]  and you had some more to say about it as well.
[20:17.700 --> 20:20.740]  Concerning these hearings.
[20:20.740 --> 20:25.260]  Okay, so you filed this Mickens objection, is that correct?
[20:25.260 --> 20:30.140]  And then the court has to hold a hearing on the issue
[20:30.140 --> 20:34.820]  and you said earlier that the court
[20:35.700 --> 20:38.060]  could either dismiss the council,
[20:38.060 --> 20:41.220]  which technically we need to call it representation.
[20:41.220 --> 20:44.780]  They could dismiss the representation or not.
[20:44.780 --> 20:47.980]  Why would that even be a question?
[20:47.980 --> 20:49.420]  This is upon the nature of the conflict.
[20:49.420 --> 20:52.220]  That's why right at the break, the concept is
[20:52.220 --> 20:53.660]  don't go into Mickens unless there's
[20:53.660 --> 20:56.220]  a genuine fundamental dispute.
[20:57.660 --> 20:59.660]  It probably is not adequate to say
[20:59.660 --> 21:03.660]  I really don't like the aftershave this guy wears.
[21:05.220 --> 21:07.700]  He doesn't shave, I don't like the appearance
[21:07.700 --> 21:09.500]  he's gonna make in front of the jury.
[21:10.380 --> 21:12.540]  That sort of thing might genuinely matter.
[21:12.540 --> 21:14.620]  We don't really know what the jury does
[21:14.620 --> 21:16.820]  one way or the other, okay?
[21:17.820 --> 21:21.300]  It strikes me as being far better to say.
[21:21.300 --> 21:23.380]  I go to the court and say look,
[21:23.380 --> 21:26.220]  I understand what's at issue in this case.
[21:26.220 --> 21:30.660]  And you just start rattling off very well presented
[21:30.660 --> 21:35.660]  bullet phrase headline style concepts about the case.
[21:37.060 --> 21:40.220]  And the appointed attorney just sitting there
[21:40.220 --> 21:44.740]  twiddling his thumbs not doing any of these things.
[21:44.740 --> 21:49.740]  And so when the party talks turkey sensibly to the court
[21:51.340 --> 21:53.180]  on the record, I've got an objection.
[21:53.180 --> 21:55.060]  You're not doing the defense.
[21:56.140 --> 21:59.020]  And you defend yourself confidently
[21:59.020 --> 22:01.860]  and you demonstrate that the person appointed there
[22:01.860 --> 22:03.900]  ain't doing any of that.
[22:03.900 --> 22:07.100]  Then judges are pressed to say that it's good
[22:07.100 --> 22:09.580]  to move forward with representation
[22:09.580 --> 22:12.180]  because he ain't being represented.
[22:12.180 --> 22:13.500]  I mean, let me put this differently.
[22:13.500 --> 22:16.300]  He's being represented, he's not being defended.
[22:17.380 --> 22:21.900]  Okay, so that's an aspect there.
[22:21.900 --> 22:25.740]  And then in that context where the thought is,
[22:25.740 --> 22:28.180]  well, you put in your assertion to the right,
[22:28.180 --> 22:31.580]  you put in your Mickens objection, all that's overruled.
[22:31.580 --> 22:34.820]  Then what are some other things that come to mind?
[22:34.820 --> 22:39.340]  Okay, one of the best things I ever heard about defense
[22:39.340 --> 22:42.380]  shows up in the tax defense area and this is brilliant
[22:42.380 --> 22:43.220]  and it worked.
[22:44.100 --> 22:47.100]  Judge, I will not consent to any representation
[22:47.100 --> 22:51.500]  except someone who has demonstrated by winning a defense
[22:51.500 --> 22:54.460]  that they understand the law in this area.
[22:54.460 --> 22:57.100]  I will not accept as appointed counsel
[22:57.100 --> 23:00.980]  anyone who hadn't won at least one of these kinds of cases.
[23:00.980 --> 23:03.700]  When you get into the criminal tax area,
[23:03.700 --> 23:07.020]  which is where this came up, which is why this is so good,
[23:07.020 --> 23:10.500]  there are not very many people in the nation who have won
[23:10.500 --> 23:12.700]  criminal tax defense cases.
[23:12.700 --> 23:15.780]  You can probably count them on certainly both hands and feet,
[23:15.780 --> 23:17.740]  probably both hands.
[23:17.740 --> 23:21.700]  It's a very small group of people in this nation
[23:21.700 --> 23:24.940]  who can say, I have won a criminal tax case.
[23:24.940 --> 23:28.340]  So we have the concept here, you tell the judge,
[23:28.340 --> 23:30.380]  you're gonna voice somebody on me, by God,
[23:30.380 --> 23:32.980]  they had better be able to defend this.
[23:32.980 --> 23:34.460]  In other words, what are we saying?
[23:34.460 --> 23:37.780]  I don't want the grist mill guy here
[23:37.780 --> 23:40.620]  who does nothing but plead this stuff out.
[23:40.620 --> 23:43.860]  I'm not good for this, I want a defense lawyer
[23:43.860 --> 23:48.420]  who knows how to present the case effectively
[23:48.420 --> 23:51.180]  to give me the best shot at demonstrating
[23:51.180 --> 23:53.340]  that I'm just simply not good for this.
[23:53.340 --> 23:55.220]  So put qualification on it.
[23:55.220 --> 23:57.660]  Find me somebody who's won one of these cases.
[23:58.580 --> 24:00.340]  That'll limit the list,
[24:00.340 --> 24:03.980]  that'll limit the list of people right there.
[24:03.980 --> 24:04.820]  Absolutely.
[24:04.820 --> 24:06.940]  And Harmon, I wanted to ask you another question.
[24:06.940 --> 24:10.980]  On the break, we were talking about the situation
[24:10.980 --> 24:15.980]  where even if you put in this notice
[24:16.540 --> 24:19.140]  that you don't waive your right for self-representation
[24:19.140 --> 24:20.980]  at the beginning and such and such,
[24:20.980 --> 24:22.820]  but the courts, and we're talking about
[24:22.820 --> 24:24.260]  a criminal defense situation.
[24:24.260 --> 24:25.580]  Exactly.
[24:25.580 --> 24:29.660]  And the courts thrust and force upon you
[24:29.660 --> 24:34.300]  a court-appointed representation anyway.
[24:34.300 --> 24:36.540]  And you were saying something on the break
[24:36.540 --> 24:39.180]  about that doesn't necessarily mean
[24:39.180 --> 24:43.140]  that the court has actually set that entity
[24:43.140 --> 24:45.100]  in place as a representation,
[24:45.100 --> 24:47.580]  but that it could be what you were calling
[24:47.580 --> 24:50.820]  a standby counsel or standby representation.
[24:50.820 --> 24:52.140]  Can you please explain that?
[24:52.140 --> 24:52.980]  Exactly.
[24:52.980 --> 24:57.180]  Standby counsel may be the modern system concept
[24:57.180 --> 24:58.620]  that we're talking about here
[24:58.620 --> 25:01.980]  about having someone available who's knowledgeable
[25:01.980 --> 25:04.300]  about the procedures and the laws and all,
[25:04.300 --> 25:07.540]  but who isn't the one signing the paperwork.
[25:08.860 --> 25:11.420]  And the standby counsel is standby
[25:11.420 --> 25:12.700]  until the party says,
[25:12.700 --> 25:15.620]  okay, I need you to come in here and do this.
[25:15.620 --> 25:18.460]  So for example, getting paperwork done pre-trial,
[25:18.460 --> 25:19.700]  they may be standby counsel.
[25:19.700 --> 25:21.540]  You can run anything by them you want.
[25:22.460 --> 25:26.940]  And the party doing the representing,
[25:26.940 --> 25:28.180]  the party doing the signing,
[25:28.180 --> 25:29.980]  the party for notice,
[25:29.980 --> 25:32.780]  the lead attorney in the record, for example,
[25:32.780 --> 25:35.140]  at that point is still the party
[25:35.140 --> 25:38.420]  because they're standby counsel, not representation.
[25:39.300 --> 25:43.420]  How can you, if the court wants to force
[25:43.420 --> 25:45.540]  this court-appointed attorney on you,
[25:45.540 --> 25:48.420]  how can you force the issue
[25:48.420 --> 25:51.460]  or somehow maneuver the situation
[25:51.460 --> 25:54.420]  to where that court-appointed defense attorney
[25:54.420 --> 25:59.420]  is your standby counsel and not your representation?
[25:59.420 --> 26:00.500]  It'll come right up front.
[26:00.500 --> 26:02.940]  Say, Judge, I do not consent to being represented.
[26:02.940 --> 26:05.660]  If you want to put somebody on the payroll
[26:05.660 --> 26:08.420]  for the county or the state, whatever,
[26:08.420 --> 26:10.300]  on standby counsel,
[26:10.300 --> 26:13.340]  I don't know that I could stop you from doing that,
[26:13.340 --> 26:15.940]  but I will not stand aside
[26:15.940 --> 26:18.060]  and let someone else run my defense,
[26:18.060 --> 26:21.260]  especially when I'm sure they don't understand
[26:21.260 --> 26:23.860]  the case well enough to defend me.
[26:23.860 --> 26:25.860]  Would that be something that you would say
[26:25.860 --> 26:27.940]  in your first notice to the court
[26:27.940 --> 26:30.700]  of that you do not waive your right to self-representation?
[26:30.700 --> 26:31.540]  Yes.
[26:31.540 --> 26:32.380]  Okay.
[26:32.380 --> 26:35.940]  If they don't grant flat out the right to self-represent,
[26:35.940 --> 26:37.820]  or even if they do,
[26:37.820 --> 26:41.060]  they may have the budget available to say,
[26:41.060 --> 26:42.420]  and this would be the judge that would say,
[26:42.420 --> 26:44.740]  okay, I see that you can tie your shoes,
[26:44.740 --> 26:47.020]  and I'm satisfied with my experience on the bench
[26:47.020 --> 26:48.780]  and as a lawyer before that,
[26:48.780 --> 26:50.780]  that this is beyond you.
[26:50.780 --> 26:53.980]  So let's just make this easy for me.
[26:53.980 --> 26:56.660]  Let's put my mind at ease in this matter.
[26:56.660 --> 26:58.340]  I'm gonna appoint you standby counsel.
[26:58.340 --> 26:59.740]  Now, do you understand what that means?
[26:59.740 --> 27:01.660]  And they just go through it.
[27:01.660 --> 27:05.980]  And the foundational concept there is
[27:05.980 --> 27:07.020]  you're still doing this.
[27:07.020 --> 27:08.660]  It's your case.
[27:08.660 --> 27:10.900]  I recognize your right to self-represent,
[27:10.900 --> 27:13.660]  but when you get to something that's beyond you
[27:13.660 --> 27:16.660]  and you can talk with this person day in, day out,
[27:16.660 --> 27:17.900]  they're there with you,
[27:17.900 --> 27:21.020]  you're doing your case and they're to assist you.
[27:21.020 --> 27:23.660]  So in a way, that's kind of like the best of both worlds
[27:23.660 --> 27:28.660]  because you can certainly control your case.
[27:29.420 --> 27:33.020]  And when it comes to like the form of the documents
[27:33.020 --> 27:34.740]  that you file and formatting,
[27:34.740 --> 27:37.700]  like say if you don't know how to format properly
[27:37.700 --> 27:38.540]  or whatever,
[27:38.540 --> 27:43.100]  you can get this standby counsel to basically format
[27:43.100 --> 27:47.620]  or clean up your paperwork for you and then you file it.
[27:47.620 --> 27:51.420]  And then say when it comes time for hearings and such,
[27:51.420 --> 27:53.420]  if you're too nervous or whatever,
[27:53.420 --> 27:55.460]  don't wanna get up and speak for yourself
[27:55.460 --> 27:56.300]  in front of the court,
[27:56.300 --> 27:57.980]  then you bring in the standby counsel
[27:57.980 --> 28:00.260]  to represent you at that point?
[28:00.260 --> 28:02.900]  Well, that's the tricky part about it.
[28:02.900 --> 28:06.420]  I haven't spent enough time on this to answer that fully.
[28:06.420 --> 28:10.620]  I expect that once standby counsel becomes representation
[28:10.620 --> 28:14.420]  that they become representation for all purposes.
[28:14.420 --> 28:17.780]  I don't expect there's a very much going back and forth
[28:17.780 --> 28:21.740]  between self-representation and other representation.
[28:21.740 --> 28:25.660]  So I wouldn't bring in as representative anybody
[28:25.660 --> 28:29.460]  that didn't want to take the case from that point forward.
[28:29.460 --> 28:32.540]  So to be there to ask questions of about evidence,
[28:32.540 --> 28:35.940]  procedure, formatting, that sort of thing, sure.
[28:35.940 --> 28:38.660]  The minute they take over the driver's seat,
[28:38.660 --> 28:40.900]  I would expect them to remain in the driver's seat
[28:40.900 --> 28:43.740]  for the remainder of that phase of that case.
[28:43.740 --> 28:46.260]  Every phase is different.
[28:46.260 --> 28:48.660]  Technically, they're all different.
[28:48.660 --> 28:52.060]  We should be able to go back and forth between phases.
[28:52.060 --> 28:53.740]  I don't know as a practical matter
[28:53.740 --> 28:56.700]  that there's much tolerance of that
[28:56.700 --> 28:58.420]  in the view of the judges.
[28:58.420 --> 28:59.860]  Like I mentioned, it's an area
[28:59.860 --> 29:02.500]  that I haven't been invested a lot of time in.
[29:03.620 --> 29:05.940]  I would expect as a practical matter
[29:05.940 --> 29:09.060]  that self-representation holds until it's waived.
[29:09.060 --> 29:11.980]  And it's waived the minute you bring in the other person
[29:11.980 --> 29:13.340]  to do the representation.
[29:13.340 --> 29:15.060]  All right, all right, all right.
[29:16.580 --> 29:17.860]  Okay.
[29:17.860 --> 29:19.700]  Did you have other stuff you wanted to say on this?
[29:19.700 --> 29:21.740]  No, I think that covered that.
[29:21.740 --> 29:25.940]  The concept of demanding experience in the area
[29:25.940 --> 29:28.780]  may be something that gets somebody
[29:30.100 --> 29:33.340]  into that part of the profession
[29:33.340 --> 29:34.900]  that can actually handle the case
[29:34.900 --> 29:38.540]  rather than just the settlement mill party
[29:38.540 --> 29:40.540]  and standby counsel is another option.
[29:40.540 --> 29:45.540]  Well, that sounds pretty awesome.
[29:45.580 --> 29:47.940]  All right, new remedies here at Rule of Law Radio
[29:47.940 --> 29:49.540]  thanks to Harm and Taylor.
[29:49.540 --> 29:52.220]  All right, we will be back on the other side.
[29:59.980 --> 30:00.820]  I lost my son.
[30:00.820 --> 30:01.660]  My nephew.
[30:01.660 --> 30:02.500]  My uncle.
[30:02.500 --> 30:03.320]  My son.
[30:03.320 --> 30:04.380]  On September 11th, 2001.
[30:04.380 --> 30:06.740]  Most people don't know that a third tower
[30:06.740 --> 30:08.060]  fell on September 11th.
[30:08.060 --> 30:09.260]  World Trade Center seven,
[30:09.260 --> 30:12.420]  a 47 story skyscraper was not hit by a plane.
[30:12.420 --> 30:14.140]  Although the official explanation
[30:14.140 --> 30:16.220]  is that fire brought down building seven.
[30:16.220 --> 30:19.020]  Over 1,200 architects and engineers
[30:19.020 --> 30:20.020]  have looked into the evidence
[30:20.020 --> 30:21.940]  and believe there is more to the story.
[30:21.940 --> 30:23.460]  Bring justice to my son.
[30:23.460 --> 30:24.300]  My uncle.
[30:24.300 --> 30:25.120]  My nephew.
[30:25.120 --> 30:25.960]  My son.
[30:25.960 --> 30:27.300]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[30:27.300 --> 30:30.780]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[30:30.780 --> 30:32.380]  You've probably heard of WikiLeaks,
[30:32.380 --> 30:35.140]  the website that's released lots of government documents.
[30:35.140 --> 30:37.020]  But have you heard of the granddaddy of leaks,
[30:37.020 --> 30:38.580]  cryptome.org?
[30:38.580 --> 30:39.740]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht,
[30:39.740 --> 30:41.620]  and I'll be back with more about how cryptome
[30:41.620 --> 30:44.340]  holds governments and corporations accountable.
[30:44.340 --> 30:46.300]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:46.300 --> 30:48.180]  When you give up data about yourself,
[30:48.180 --> 30:49.900]  you'll never get it back again.
[30:49.900 --> 30:51.700]  And once your privacy is gone,
[30:51.700 --> 30:54.700]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:54.700 --> 30:57.580]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance,
[30:57.580 --> 30:59.940]  and keep your information to yourself.
[30:59.940 --> 31:02.460]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[31:02.460 --> 31:03.820]  This public service announcement
[31:03.820 --> 31:06.020]  is brought to you by startpage.com,
[31:06.020 --> 31:07.900]  the private search engine alternative
[31:07.900 --> 31:10.020]  to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[31:10.020 --> 31:13.100]  Start over with startpage.
[31:13.100 --> 31:15.740]  The website cryptome.org has been archiving
[31:15.740 --> 31:18.620]  leaked and whistleblower documents for over 14 years
[31:18.620 --> 31:21.180]  to keep governments and big business in check.
[31:21.180 --> 31:23.940]  Back in 2003, the site's owner, John Young,
[31:23.940 --> 31:27.020]  came to my rescue when my spy chips co-author and I
[31:27.020 --> 31:29.920]  dug up explosive confidential documents.
[31:29.920 --> 31:32.260]  They told how businesses like Procter & Gamble
[31:32.260 --> 31:36.100]  plan to pacify consumers who would be outraged by RFID,
[31:36.100 --> 31:38.020]  a new tracking technology.
[31:38.020 --> 31:39.740]  The information was so scandalous,
[31:39.740 --> 31:42.180]  we were sure it would disappear the moment someone found out
[31:42.180 --> 31:43.820]  it was publicly accessible.
[31:43.820 --> 31:46.420]  We were also worried we might be accused of hacking.
[31:46.420 --> 31:48.780]  Cryptome came to our rescue, and the documents
[31:48.780 --> 31:50.500]  are still mirrored there today.
[31:50.500 --> 31:51.620]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:51.620 --> 31:54.100]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:54.100 --> 32:16.740]  Yeah, yeah, whoa.
[32:16.740 --> 32:35.220]  Mm-hmm, yeah, I won't, oh, I won't.
[32:35.220 --> 32:42.700]  I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes.
[32:42.700 --> 32:50.300]  I fully must refuse your news, also coming live.
[32:50.300 --> 32:55.500]  It seems you like to spare, but please take some words
[32:55.500 --> 32:57.980]  to the wise.
[32:57.980 --> 33:15.980]  Please try to pull the wool over my eyes.
[33:15.980 --> 33:18.180]  OK, folks, we are back.
[33:18.180 --> 33:21.060]  OK, we are going to go over one more topic
[33:21.060 --> 33:23.540]  before we start taking your calls.
[33:23.540 --> 33:25.980]  And that is something that Harmon wanted to discuss
[33:25.980 --> 33:28.180]  concerning the Terry Stop Ruling.
[33:28.180 --> 33:29.860]  And I have some information on that, too.
[33:29.860 --> 33:32.020]  But Harmon, go ahead, go first.
[33:32.020 --> 33:35.260]  The concept we can use as the analogy in the judicial thing
[33:35.260 --> 33:38.620]  to set this, because I think the judicial idea is very well
[33:38.620 --> 33:40.900]  popularly understood, accepted.
[33:40.900 --> 33:42.980]  We know the label Marbury v. Madison.
[33:42.980 --> 33:46.980]  We know about the decision of the Supreme Court
[33:46.980 --> 33:52.580]  to say there are certain things about this 1789 Judiciary Act
[33:52.580 --> 33:54.940]  that just don't apply.
[33:54.940 --> 33:57.940]  And what they're saying there fundamentally
[33:57.940 --> 34:04.260]  is there's no trial level mandamus in the Supreme Court.
[34:04.260 --> 34:08.220]  OK, the thing about that case to understand
[34:08.220 --> 34:12.460]  at the operational level is a court always
[34:12.460 --> 34:16.100]  has the authority to determine its authority.
[34:16.100 --> 34:20.140]  There's always authority in a court
[34:20.140 --> 34:23.100]  to analyze the subject matter of jurisdiction in question.
[34:23.100 --> 34:25.300]  It just has to be that way.
[34:25.300 --> 34:30.100]  The court always has authority to determine its authority.
[34:30.100 --> 34:32.140]  In this context, and that just makes good sense.
[34:32.140 --> 34:34.060]  It's just common sense.
[34:34.060 --> 34:38.420]  In this context, we see that the executive side
[34:38.420 --> 34:41.180]  has to have the same ability.
[34:41.180 --> 34:45.580]  The executive has to be able to determine its own authority.
[34:45.580 --> 34:49.300]  Part of what we get to in the Terry v. Ohio case
[34:49.300 --> 34:51.980]  is a safety issue.
[34:51.980 --> 34:57.340]  Is a police officer entitled to make sure that he's safe?
[34:57.340 --> 35:00.220]  Answer, absolutely, positively yes.
[35:00.220 --> 35:02.860]  That's part of the Terry v. Ohio case.
[35:02.860 --> 35:05.260]  This guy was out there doing suspicious stuff.
[35:05.260 --> 35:07.460]  There's probable cause.
[35:07.460 --> 35:10.740]  And the cop gave him a pat down to check for weapons.
[35:10.740 --> 35:11.700]  Is that OK?
[35:11.700 --> 35:14.900]  Yes, it's been OK for a long time.
[35:14.900 --> 35:19.300]  That's not the only thing we get out of Terry.
[35:19.300 --> 35:22.900]  Another key aspect we get out of the Terry v. Ohio decision
[35:22.900 --> 35:28.420]  and the descendants from there, the cases that apply it
[35:28.420 --> 35:30.420]  in other contexts, is this.
[35:30.420 --> 35:32.220]  The executive always has the authority
[35:32.220 --> 35:34.580]  to determine his authority.
[35:34.580 --> 35:38.700]  It's the progressive investigation concept
[35:38.700 --> 35:42.020]  that is started in the Terry v. Ohio case.
[35:42.020 --> 35:44.180]  Let's use the transportation case because I
[35:44.180 --> 35:46.580]  think that's probably common enough with this audience
[35:46.580 --> 35:50.980]  to make the analogy fit to apply the concept.
[35:50.980 --> 35:53.060]  Car going down the road has a license tag.
[35:53.060 --> 35:54.700]  Is there probable cause to stop it?
[35:54.700 --> 35:55.740]  Yes.
[35:55.740 --> 35:56.220]  Why?
[35:56.220 --> 35:58.740]  Because it's got a tag on it.
[35:58.740 --> 36:02.180]  The tag identifies that state has an ownership
[36:02.180 --> 36:04.100]  interest in the car.
[36:04.100 --> 36:07.620]  So there's a tag on it.
[36:07.620 --> 36:09.700]  It almost doesn't matter what else is going on.
[36:09.700 --> 36:12.260]  A tag alone, an ownership isn't ever
[36:12.260 --> 36:13.380]  going to press it this far.
[36:13.380 --> 36:15.260]  There's got to be something else.
[36:15.260 --> 36:17.380]  There has to be something else.
[36:17.380 --> 36:20.060]  But is there authority to stop because there's a tag?
[36:20.060 --> 36:21.540]  Sure.
[36:21.540 --> 36:22.940]  OK, let's say it's going too fast.
[36:22.940 --> 36:26.460]  Let's just get probable cause to get it out of total abstract.
[36:26.460 --> 36:28.500]  They're going too fast according to the thing.
[36:28.500 --> 36:30.860]  The probable cause to stop because there's a tag on it.
[36:30.860 --> 36:32.060]  OK.
[36:32.060 --> 36:35.620]  What if the party behind the wheel says,
[36:35.620 --> 36:38.140]  I'm not in transportation?
[36:38.140 --> 36:41.020]  Now we kick in this concept of the executive
[36:41.020 --> 36:43.900]  has the authority to determine his authority.
[36:43.900 --> 36:46.860]  Ideally, that would end the engagement.
[36:46.860 --> 36:50.580]  Ideally, the stop is OK because there's a tag on the car.
[36:50.580 --> 36:52.060]  Probable cause to stop.
[36:52.060 --> 36:54.220]  Yeah, there's a tag on the car.
[36:54.220 --> 36:56.700]  Now, the party behind the wheel, very nice,
[36:56.700 --> 36:59.140]  talks to the cop, very professional.
[36:59.140 --> 37:01.500]  I'm not in transportation.
[37:01.500 --> 37:04.740]  That should end the conversation right then and there.
[37:04.740 --> 37:06.420]  We're dealing with that.
[37:06.420 --> 37:08.820]  We're in an ideal circumstance.
[37:08.820 --> 37:10.380]  We're close to ideal.
[37:10.380 --> 37:14.180]  When that becomes the extended conversation.
[37:14.180 --> 37:17.940]  Now, applying Terry, the cop would say,
[37:17.940 --> 37:21.980]  I've just determined that I have no more authority here,
[37:21.980 --> 37:26.020]  and so I'm going to go back to doing the patrol.
[37:26.020 --> 37:28.580]  This concept about Terry, it's a basic thing.
[37:28.580 --> 37:30.420]  The cop has the authority to make
[37:30.420 --> 37:34.340]  sure he's in a safe environment while under probable cause
[37:34.340 --> 37:36.020]  circumstance doing the investigation.
[37:36.020 --> 37:37.420]  Yes, absolutely.
[37:37.420 --> 37:41.060]  Without question, that's the case.
[37:41.060 --> 37:44.980]  In addition to that, to go the next step,
[37:44.980 --> 37:47.340]  probable cause has to exist.
[37:47.340 --> 37:52.140]  When probable cause ceases to exist, Terry Thin kicks in.
[37:52.140 --> 37:54.020]  They cease to have the authority to continue
[37:54.020 --> 37:55.620]  the investigation, and that's that.
[38:00.380 --> 38:03.820]  All right, some of the issues I wanted to bring up.
[38:03.820 --> 38:09.460]  And I've laid out this presentation before maybe
[38:09.460 --> 38:12.900]  about a year or so ago concerning this lawsuit
[38:12.900 --> 38:15.580]  that I've been putting together against the US Forest
[38:15.580 --> 38:19.820]  Service concerning what happened to us.
[38:19.820 --> 38:22.140]  And I'm not going to go through the whole issue again,
[38:22.140 --> 38:27.860]  but basically what seems to me certainly
[38:27.860 --> 38:35.140]  an unlawful search and seizure even for the scope,
[38:35.140 --> 38:37.060]  comparing it to the scope of the Terry Stop,
[38:37.060 --> 38:41.620]  the ruling of the Terry Stop ruling, and subsequent cases.
[38:41.620 --> 38:48.460]  And that has to do with the canine being used, all right?
[38:48.460 --> 38:55.060]  And I wanted to read some of this discussion here concerning
[38:55.060 --> 38:58.500]  the Terry Stop ruling, and subsequent cases,
[38:58.500 --> 39:01.780]  the Cabales and Mina ruling.
[39:01.780 --> 39:04.340]  All right, the federal courts, it says here,
[39:04.340 --> 39:07.500]  this is in the Criminal Defense Attorney magazine,
[39:07.500 --> 39:09.860]  they are unanimous in the view that traffic stops
[39:09.860 --> 39:11.940]  are a type of investigative detention,
[39:11.940 --> 39:14.420]  and thus are subject to restrictions announced
[39:14.420 --> 39:17.940]  in Terry v. Ohio.
[39:17.940 --> 39:20.180]  All right, that it is analogous, it says,
[39:20.180 --> 39:23.620]  a routine traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called Terry
[39:23.620 --> 39:25.220]  stop than a formal arrest.
[39:25.220 --> 39:28.100]  However, in Texas, the Texas Transportation Code
[39:28.100 --> 39:30.620]  says that when you are pulled over,
[39:30.620 --> 39:32.100]  you are technically arrested.
[39:32.100 --> 39:34.340]  OK, so that is in our state statute.
[39:34.340 --> 39:37.500]  But at any rate, concerning the scope
[39:37.500 --> 39:41.500]  of these investigative stops, it says the Terry Stop ruling
[39:41.500 --> 39:44.100]  explained that police conduct, quote,
[39:44.100 --> 39:46.500]  must be strictly tied to and justified
[39:46.500 --> 39:49.060]  by the circumstances which rendered
[39:49.060 --> 39:53.780]  its initiation permissible when applied to traffic stops.
[39:53.780 --> 39:55.780]  The first prong of the Terry test
[39:55.780 --> 39:59.140]  concerns whether the traffic stop was properly initiated.
[39:59.140 --> 40:00.740]  In other words, was there probable cause
[40:00.740 --> 40:04.140]  or reasonable suspicion to detain the motorist?
[40:04.140 --> 40:06.620]  And it says the second prong, the scope of the prong,
[40:06.620 --> 40:10.820]  is often the crucial inquiry concerning traffic stops.
[40:10.820 --> 40:13.340]  We have to ask whether the scope concerns only
[40:13.340 --> 40:15.980]  the length of the stop or also encompass
[40:15.980 --> 40:18.860]  the manner or methods of police investigation
[40:18.860 --> 40:22.500]  that occur during the stop.
[40:22.500 --> 40:26.100]  All right, it says here that concerning the Terry ruling,
[40:26.100 --> 40:29.260]  quote, the stop and inquiry must be reasonably
[40:29.260 --> 40:32.020]  related in scope to the justification
[40:32.020 --> 40:34.820]  for their initiation.
[40:34.820 --> 40:38.460]  It says similarly, Justice White's plurality opinion
[40:38.460 --> 40:41.700]  in Florida v. Royer stated, quote,
[40:41.700 --> 40:44.540]  an investigative detention must be temporary and lasts
[40:44.540 --> 40:47.740]  no longer than necessary to effectuate
[40:47.740 --> 40:50.860]  the purpose of the stop.
[40:50.860 --> 40:54.220]  Moreover, majority of the justices and lawyers
[40:54.220 --> 40:55.900]  stated that the prosecution bears
[40:55.900 --> 40:59.660]  the burden of establishing that an investigatory stop was
[40:59.660 --> 41:05.140]  sufficiently limited in scope and duration.
[41:05.140 --> 41:08.180]  All right, so just to summarize here,
[41:08.180 --> 41:12.100]  and this was upheld in the Cabalus ruling, which I believe
[41:12.100 --> 41:19.460]  was in 2008, US v. Cabalus, this was a situation
[41:19.460 --> 41:22.500]  where a gentleman was stopped, traffic
[41:22.500 --> 41:25.980]  stopped for some minor, for speeding, it says here.
[41:25.980 --> 41:30.900]  And while one officer was dealing with paperwork,
[41:30.900 --> 41:33.380]  looking at license, et cetera, writing a ticket,
[41:33.380 --> 41:39.340]  another officer was running the dog around the car.
[41:39.340 --> 41:42.460]  And eventually, they found marijuana because of the dog.
[41:42.460 --> 41:45.460]  And so this gentleman Cabalus challenged this,
[41:45.460 --> 41:47.620]  saying it was an unconstitutional seizure
[41:47.620 --> 41:48.700]  and search.
[41:48.700 --> 41:53.180]  Well, the court said, no, it's not.
[41:53.180 --> 41:58.020]  And the reason for that is because the stop was not
[41:58.020 --> 42:01.660]  prolonged in its scope and duration.
[42:01.660 --> 42:03.340]  Now, I disagree a little bit.
[42:03.340 --> 42:07.260]  I think it was prolonged in the scope because the purpose,
[42:07.260 --> 42:09.980]  and going right back to what I just said that was quoted
[42:09.980 --> 42:14.460]  in Royer, where it says, the investigative detention
[42:14.460 --> 42:16.420]  must be temporary and last no longer
[42:16.420 --> 42:19.900]  than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.
[42:19.900 --> 42:21.780]  That's the Royer case.
[42:21.780 --> 42:23.460]  Well, the purpose of the stop in Cabalus
[42:23.460 --> 42:26.260]  was not to search for drugs.
[42:26.260 --> 42:28.220]  It was to issue a speeding ticket.
[42:28.220 --> 42:31.500]  So ultimately, I disagree with the Cabalus ruling.
[42:31.500 --> 42:35.620]  However, the good thing about the Cabalus ruling
[42:35.620 --> 42:42.260]  is that they did uphold the duration aspect of the Terry
[42:42.260 --> 42:46.780]  case because they said, well, because the officer was running
[42:46.780 --> 42:51.220]  the dog around the car during the traffic stop,
[42:51.220 --> 42:54.860]  the business of the traffic stop, they said it was OK.
[42:54.860 --> 42:57.940]  So they kind of avoided the scope issue,
[42:57.940 --> 43:01.860]  but they said, well, they went to the duration issue.
[43:01.860 --> 43:07.940]  So the point being here, and I discussed this before,
[43:07.940 --> 43:12.860]  running the dog around the car in and of itself
[43:12.860 --> 43:15.780]  doesn't really violate your rights.
[43:15.780 --> 43:18.060]  That's not a search.
[43:18.060 --> 43:22.900]  It's what the police do as a result of the dog's
[43:22.900 --> 43:26.860]  apparent actions that they initiate a search based
[43:26.860 --> 43:28.420]  on the dog's behavior.
[43:28.420 --> 43:30.660]  That's the problem.
[43:30.660 --> 43:33.180]  So they asked kind of the wrong question in this case,
[43:33.180 --> 43:36.300]  and I'm going to get back to this some more on the other side.
[43:36.300 --> 43:38.940]  We're going to discuss this Royer case and the Cabalus case
[43:38.940 --> 43:39.700]  a little bit more.
[43:39.700 --> 43:41.460]  We do have a caller, Jay, from California.
[43:41.460 --> 43:44.860]  Just stay right there, and we will be right back.
[43:44.860 --> 43:47.020]  We are discussing traffic stops and the Terry stop
[43:47.020 --> 43:51.180]  ruling and subsequent cases regarding canine intervention.
[43:51.180 --> 44:01.180]  We will be right back.
[44:01.180 --> 44:05.820]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense
[44:05.820 --> 44:07.780]  of well-being.
[44:07.780 --> 44:11.540]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[44:11.540 --> 44:13.700]  The team behind Shentrician believes
[44:13.700 --> 44:17.220]  that supplements should over-deliver on their promises,
[44:17.220 --> 44:20.700]  and Shentrician does just that.
[44:20.700 --> 44:23.500]  Shentrician utilizes the ancient healing wisdom
[44:23.500 --> 44:24.860]  of Chinese medicine.
[44:24.860 --> 44:27.900]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition,
[44:27.900 --> 44:31.100]  adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component,
[44:31.100 --> 44:34.660]  and organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods
[44:34.660 --> 44:37.580]  act as a balanced nutrient base.
[44:37.580 --> 44:41.620]  Plus, Shentrician tastes great in just water.
[44:41.620 --> 44:43.580]  This powder supplement is everything
[44:43.580 --> 44:47.300]  you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[44:47.300 --> 44:55.740]  Visit Shentrician.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[44:55.740 --> 44:57.660]  After you use Shentrician, you'll
[44:57.660 --> 45:00.500]  believe in supplements again.
[45:00.500 --> 45:03.660]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM,
[45:03.660 --> 45:06.260]  but finding things on the internet isn't so easy,
[45:06.260 --> 45:08.340]  and neither is finding like-minded people
[45:08.340 --> 45:09.300]  to share it with.
[45:09.300 --> 45:12.100]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[45:12.100 --> 45:13.460]  Brave New Books?
[45:13.460 --> 45:16.140]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs
[45:16.140 --> 45:19.300]  you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul,
[45:19.300 --> 45:20.580]  and G. Edward Griffin.
[45:20.580 --> 45:22.820]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products,
[45:22.820 --> 45:24.540]  and Calvin Soaps.
[45:24.540 --> 45:26.860]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[45:26.860 --> 45:28.260]  Go check it out for yourself.
[45:28.260 --> 45:32.700]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[45:32.700 --> 45:36.020]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[45:36.020 --> 45:38.060]  Actually, they now offer a free hour
[45:38.060 --> 45:41.460]  of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[45:41.460 --> 45:44.300]  facility, just behind the bookstore.
[45:44.300 --> 45:47.300]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[45:47.300 --> 45:50.180]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM,
[45:50.180 --> 45:52.060]  and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays.
[45:52.060 --> 45:55.900]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503,
[45:55.900 --> 45:58.940]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[45:58.940 --> 46:14.480]  Whoa.
[46:14.480 --> 46:18.500]  Whoa.
[46:18.500 --> 46:20.000]  Yeah.
[46:20.000 --> 46:26.940]  Always, I must be careful what I'm wishing for.
[46:26.940 --> 46:31.660]  Okay, we are back.
[46:31.660 --> 46:41.980]  Alright, so concerning this issue of canine intervention at traffic stops, the Cabalus
[46:41.980 --> 46:45.980]  ruling is kind of a double-edged sword.
[46:45.980 --> 46:48.380]  It was good in a way, but bad in a way.
[46:48.380 --> 46:55.100]  The way that it was bad is that the court seemed to ignore and almost even overturn
[46:55.100 --> 47:01.900]  the principles of the Terry Stop ruling and in US v. Hensley, the Hensley ruling where
[47:01.900 --> 47:07.540]  Justice O'Connor said that the constitutionality of investigative stop is measured by asking
[47:07.540 --> 47:13.460]  whether the circumstances, quote, justified the length and intrusiveness of the stop and
[47:13.460 --> 47:16.500]  detention that actually occurred.
[47:16.500 --> 47:28.700]  Alright, so the point being that the scope of the investigation has to be related to
[47:28.700 --> 47:35.340]  the initial cause of why the person got pulled over or detained in the first place.
[47:35.340 --> 47:41.380]  And so that, the Cabalus ruling seems to conflict with that concept.
[47:41.380 --> 47:46.420]  However, the Cabalus ruling upheld the length issue.
[47:46.420 --> 47:53.660]  Now in Cabalus, it says the Supreme Court reexamined the issue of canine sniffs, okay
[47:53.660 --> 48:01.020]  right, this happened because the dog was ran around the car during the traffic stop while
[48:01.020 --> 48:02.820]  it was taking place.
[48:02.820 --> 48:04.460]  Alright, so here we go.
[48:04.460 --> 48:09.900]  It says in its analysis of the case, the US Supreme Court noted that a valid traffic stop
[48:09.900 --> 48:15.140]  that is prolonged beyond its initial purpose may violate the constitution.
[48:15.140 --> 48:20.420]  Okay, again, like I said, they just examined the length issue, not the scope issue.
[48:20.420 --> 48:26.260]  And it says the court asserted, quote, a seizure that is justified solely by the interest in
[48:26.260 --> 48:32.340]  issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond
[48:32.340 --> 48:37.780]  the time reasonably required to complete that mission.
[48:37.780 --> 48:43.700]  In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged
[48:43.700 --> 48:48.540]  traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the use of the dog and the subsequent
[48:48.540 --> 48:53.780]  discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure that's people
[48:53.780 --> 48:55.780]  v. cox.
[48:55.780 --> 49:01.500]  We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff
[49:01.500 --> 49:06.820]  had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained.
[49:06.820 --> 49:13.540]  Alright, so again, this makes it very clear that the court seemed to ignore the scope
[49:13.540 --> 49:20.860]  issue, the scope principle of the Terry Stop and Hensley and these other cases and ignored
[49:20.860 --> 49:28.500]  that basically is what it looks like to me and just went straight to the time issue.
[49:28.500 --> 49:33.580]  And now I'm going to get, I want to get Harman's take on why the court did that because we
[49:33.580 --> 49:39.980]  understand from Harman, our mentor here, that there's a reason and I'm sure it goes to commercial
[49:39.980 --> 49:45.620]  nexus somehow and we're going to get Harman's take on that in a moment, but the point here
[49:45.620 --> 49:49.460]  being that the Cabalus case seems like a double-edged sword.
[49:49.460 --> 49:53.380]  It's bad in a way, but it's good in a way because if you have a situation like what
[49:53.380 --> 50:02.380]  happened with me where we got pulled over, I gave my papers, they took the papers back
[50:02.380 --> 50:06.980]  to the car, who knows, they were in the car for like 15 minutes with the papers, I mean
[50:06.980 --> 50:10.700]  they were probably doing a full NCIC background check on me and everything, no telling what
[50:10.700 --> 50:14.940]  all was going on, okay, these are fed, alright, this is a U.S. Forest Service.
[50:14.940 --> 50:19.980]  So anyway, they come back, so the purpose of the stop was that they said I didn't use
[50:19.980 --> 50:26.260]  my blinker to make a left turn, but really what happened was that the road that I was
[50:26.260 --> 50:31.360]  on continued straight and it just turned into another road, it was just like it turned into
[50:31.360 --> 50:36.860]  a different number of a road and if you wanted to stay on the same road, you had to actually
[50:36.860 --> 50:41.180]  turn right, a right-hand turn, like a 90-degree angle, I've got pictures, videos, everything.
[50:41.180 --> 50:47.140]  So anyway, this was a trap for the rainbow people that if they didn't use their blinker,
[50:47.140 --> 50:51.860]  their left blinker to continue straight on the same road that just changed names, well
[50:51.860 --> 50:54.660]  then they pull you over for all these unreasonable stop searches.
[50:54.660 --> 50:59.260]  Well at any rate, they had the papers, they ran the papers, the background check, everything
[50:59.260 --> 51:05.780]  was current, alright, they came back, they handed me back my papers, that is key in my
[51:05.780 --> 51:14.380]  case, it was over, the business of the initial purpose of the traffic stop had been concluded
[51:14.380 --> 51:22.000]  at that point, alright, the guy could have either said bye-bye or given me a warning
[51:22.000 --> 51:27.940]  or a ticket, one of those three, the business of the traffic stop, the initial purpose had
[51:27.940 --> 51:32.820]  been concluded because the premise was not using the blinker.
[51:32.820 --> 51:39.740]  Well that's not what happened, they extended the duration of the stop and I will assert
[51:39.740 --> 51:45.620]  that they also extended the scope of the stop, but for sure under the Cabalus ruling, according
[51:45.620 --> 51:51.260]  to Cabalus ruling, they extended the duration of the stop because it was then after I got
[51:51.260 --> 51:56.580]  my papers back that they bring the dog and then they did the false signal and all that
[51:56.580 --> 52:02.460]  and tore my car apart, I mean literally it's like pulling the light off and the speakers
[52:02.460 --> 52:07.000]  out of the doors and I mean it was ridiculous, they had us on the side of the road there
[52:07.000 --> 52:13.300]  for probably between two to three hours, so at any rate, didn't find anything of course,
[52:13.300 --> 52:19.660]  so I intend still and I've got until the end of next month to actually file a suit under
[52:19.660 --> 52:27.780]  the Federal Tort Claims Act for violations of my rights because they violated the Terry
[52:27.780 --> 52:34.740]  stop ruling and this Cabalus ruling because they did the dog deal after the business of
[52:34.740 --> 52:39.020]  the traffic stop had been concluded and I was going to ask Randy if he could please
[52:39.020 --> 52:46.860]  get me that case where the courts had ruled that every 20 minutes you're entitled to something
[52:46.860 --> 52:55.740]  like $36,000 or something, I can't remember, there's actually a time, Florida case, yes,
[52:55.740 --> 53:02.460]  so there's actually a precedent for how much you can sue for based on how long you were
[53:02.460 --> 53:07.340]  detained, but at any rate, the point being, unfortunately under the Cabalus ruling, if
[53:07.340 --> 53:13.700]  they had done the dog deal while they were running my paperwork, I think I would get
[53:13.700 --> 53:19.460]  hosed if I tried to sue them, but since they did the dog after, that's why I believe that
[53:19.460 --> 53:24.540]  I will have a legitimate claim and hopefully likely would be able to prevail in the case,
[53:24.540 --> 53:29.660]  so Harmon, your thoughts on this and how does the commercial nexus enter into this Cabalus
[53:29.660 --> 53:30.660]  ruling?
[53:30.660 --> 53:35.820]  Let's talk about commercial nexus, it's so funny you'd mention that, it's a good sign
[53:35.820 --> 53:38.500]  here, we're getting the thinking in mind.
[53:38.500 --> 53:41.700]  Because obviously the scope was extended.
[53:41.700 --> 53:44.820]  Thank you, well I don't know that it was, I think we're within the scope and that's
[53:44.820 --> 53:47.220]  the issue and I need to read the cases to find out.
[53:47.220 --> 53:51.260]  Well they pulled him over for speeding, they didn't suspect that, they didn't have any
[53:51.260 --> 53:55.660]  probable cause or any other evidence or thought that the guy had drugs, they pulled him over
[53:55.660 --> 54:01.820]  for speeding and so for them to even bring the dog in the first place in my mind, that
[54:01.820 --> 54:06.140]  extends beyond the scope of the initial purpose of the stop.
[54:06.140 --> 54:11.060]  We can, if that, let's start there, I think this is an excellent thing to discuss and
[54:11.060 --> 54:15.980]  I'm not sure I'm going to have a definitive answer, but let's kick it around anyway because
[54:15.980 --> 54:17.460]  it's excellent.
[54:17.460 --> 54:24.820]  If the, if traffic, if transportation and we'd have to find out literally whether it's
[54:24.820 --> 54:34.220]  even a punishable offense not to put on the ticker, I don't think Texas has a criminal
[54:34.220 --> 54:38.180]  punishment for that sort of thing, it may be an administrative side, we have to go back
[54:38.180 --> 54:39.180]  and check.
[54:39.180 --> 54:41.260]  That was, this was in New Mexico.
[54:41.260 --> 54:42.260]  This was in New Mexico.
[54:42.260 --> 54:46.700]  Exactly and so the question would be what does New Mexico say about the ticker and I
[54:46.700 --> 54:53.180]  was qualifying that to Texas to apply that very distinction and I'm not, anyway in Texas
[54:53.180 --> 54:58.220]  it'd be a fundamental issue of the legality of the stop if that's what it is because it's
[54:58.220 --> 55:02.940]  not a criminal offense not to put on your ticker, now we check New Mexico and see, maybe
[55:02.940 --> 55:03.940]  it is.
[55:03.940 --> 55:11.740]  Here's the thing, what, how do we get into a weapons charge, how do we get into a drug
[55:11.740 --> 55:16.940]  charge, how do we get into a paraphernalia charge, how do we get into anything outside
[55:16.940 --> 55:24.500]  the transportation code, anytime something's going on with a car, how do we get into an
[55:24.500 --> 55:32.220]  illegal weapons thing and so this is, this is what brings to mind the concept of if it's
[55:32.220 --> 55:36.380]  a transportation stop, what's the scope?
[55:36.380 --> 55:43.620]  I don't have, I don't have an answer for that because it's not anything I've studied recently.
[55:43.620 --> 55:51.620]  If the point of the transportation stop covers the entirety of enforcement of the transportation
[55:51.620 --> 55:59.700]  position, then there's all kinds of stuff that comes in there and so the search is allowed
[55:59.700 --> 56:06.380]  to find potential other violations relative to transportation, okay, if it's in the transportation
[56:06.380 --> 56:11.940]  code that it's bad to take, you know, anything, there's that one case, I forget the name of
[56:11.940 --> 56:18.780]  it, this guy was stuffed into the, to a compartment, it wasn't in the trunk, I think it was between
[56:18.780 --> 56:24.440]  the back seat in the trunk, there's some special compartment in the car, it was being smuggled
[56:24.440 --> 56:31.660]  into Mexico and of course they got caught and got a real serious transportation issue
[56:31.660 --> 56:37.580]  there, is it transportation, is it travel and anyway, we get into a whole bunch of other
[56:37.580 --> 56:43.020]  concepts, if we're limited in the transportation code to the stop, then none of these other
[56:43.020 --> 56:45.100]  cases would be possible.
[56:45.100 --> 56:51.020]  Does that mean that we've got a failure in the defense to say this is beyond the scope
[56:51.020 --> 56:54.660]  of transportation, in other words, we take the position asserted here, you can't get
[56:54.660 --> 57:00.460]  beyond transportation and the transportation stop and shuts down everything, is that something
[57:00.460 --> 57:06.020]  that's going to fly, I don't know, don't know, we have lots of examples that suggest
[57:06.020 --> 57:10.660]  that it wouldn't, in other words, they make the stop, okay, they get to, what's the scope
[57:10.660 --> 57:15.780]  of everything, what's the scope of the stop, everything, they get to check to see if your
[57:15.780 --> 57:20.940]  lights are at the right angle, in other words, do a car inspection thing, okay, maybe that's
[57:20.940 --> 57:26.740]  this, maybe that reads the concept here too far, what's the scope, well if it's transportation,
[57:26.740 --> 57:33.860]  maybe it's the entire transportation code, maybe that's legitimate and in the event,
[57:33.860 --> 57:39.060]  for example, a license would be displayed, then there'd be consent to the transportation
[57:39.060 --> 57:43.120]  thing and that may open the whole door, take a different circumstance, what if there's
[57:43.120 --> 57:48.500]  no license, what if the assertion is I'm not in transportation, what does that do to the
[57:48.500 --> 57:56.580]  scope of the stop, well obviously their purpose is transportation, but where there's no transportation
[57:56.580 --> 57:58.780]  going on, then what?
[57:58.780 --> 58:09.220]  Well here's an interesting twist on this Forest Service traffic stop, in the code concerning
[58:09.220 --> 58:17.740]  traffic issues on forest roads in Forest Service area, in the National Forest, even though
[58:17.740 --> 58:24.060]  the transportation code of whatever state may apply, you're not considered in transportation,
[58:24.060 --> 58:30.940]  I mean you're not considered in commerce unless you get a special license from the U.S. Forest
[58:30.940 --> 58:39.780]  Service, so you're still not in transportation even if you display your state license and
[58:39.780 --> 58:45.900]  all this other stuff, because unless you claim you are in commerce by showing that U.S. Forest
[58:45.900 --> 58:50.580]  Service commerce permit, you still weren't in commerce in that particular situation.
[58:50.580 --> 58:51.580]  Then there's jurisdiction.
[58:51.580 --> 58:53.420]  That's what it looks like to me.
[58:53.420 --> 58:55.340]  That's a very sound position.
[58:55.340 --> 59:00.180]  Okay, we'll be right back folks on the other side.
[59:00.180 --> 59:05.620]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[59:05.620 --> 59:08.420]  because they struggle to understand it.
[59:08.420 --> 59:13.820]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:13.820 --> 59:17.020]  the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:17.020 --> 59:18.860]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:18.860 --> 59:24.700]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more
[59:24.700 --> 59:28.460]  than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:28.460 --> 59:33.420]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance
[59:33.420 --> 59:38.140]  into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:38.140 --> 59:43.300]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:43.300 --> 59:53.740]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:53.740 --> 59:57.820]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:57.820 --> 01:00:00.820]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:00.820 --> 01:00:09.460]  U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday unauthorized leaks about the Special Forces
[01:00:09.460 --> 01:00:16.100]  raid that killed Osama bin Laden are endangering U.S. troops, harming diplomatic relations
[01:00:16.100 --> 01:00:20.700]  and jeopardizing the country's ability to carry out similar operations in future.
[01:00:20.700 --> 01:00:25.140]  Gates lamented, too many people have been sharing inside information.
[01:00:25.140 --> 01:00:29.340]  Leaks contradicting the official version of the raid began appearing after Congress was
[01:00:29.340 --> 01:00:30.340]  briefed.
[01:00:30.340 --> 01:00:36.180]  The Union of Concerned Scientists said this week human-induced climate change is contributing
[01:00:36.180 --> 01:00:41.140]  to record flooding along the Mississippi River that has forced thousands to evacuate and
[01:00:41.140 --> 01:00:44.020]  has flooded huge swaths of farmland.
[01:00:44.020 --> 01:00:48.620]  Climate change scientist Katherine Hayhoe said climate change is about more than warming.
[01:00:48.620 --> 01:00:52.700]  It's about global weirding or weather at the extremes.
[01:00:52.700 --> 01:00:57.300]  Extreme weather cost $130 billion a year in the last decade.
[01:00:57.300 --> 01:01:02.420]  U.S. health insurers have enjoyed a surge in profits recently because a growing number
[01:01:02.420 --> 01:01:06.340]  of Americans are postponing or forgoing medical care.
[01:01:06.340 --> 01:01:12.140]  Dr. Jim King, a Tennessee family practitioner, noted gas prices are going up, food prices
[01:01:12.140 --> 01:01:16.100]  are going up, patients are deciding to put some of their health care off.
[01:01:16.100 --> 01:01:20.860]  In recent years, many employers have sharply reduced benefits while raising deductibles
[01:01:20.860 --> 01:01:21.860]  and co-payments.
[01:01:21.860 --> 01:01:27.660]  Tens of thousands of mostly young people are camping out in Madrid and dozens of other
[01:01:27.660 --> 01:01:32.300]  Spanish cities protesting government cuts and a lack of jobs.
[01:01:32.300 --> 01:01:38.140]  Spain's unemployment rate is 21 percent but among youth it is 41 percent.
[01:01:38.140 --> 01:01:42.540]  Country's electoral authorities have effectively ordered the government to dissolve the protests
[01:01:42.540 --> 01:01:44.740]  ahead of a regional election Sunday.
[01:01:44.740 --> 01:01:49.660]  The decision was met with jeers in Madrid's Puerto del Sol where thousands gather every
[01:01:49.660 --> 01:01:52.140]  evening and hundreds have been camping out.
[01:01:52.140 --> 01:01:56.900]  Dubbed the Spanish Revolution, the sit-ins began with a march through Madrid Sunday led
[01:01:56.900 --> 01:02:02.560]  by young people angry at mass unemployment, austerity measures and political corruption.
[01:02:02.560 --> 01:02:07.220]  In the camp protesters attend daily assembly meetings and make joint decisions.
[01:02:07.220 --> 01:02:11.460]  The sit-in has been mirrored in 57 other cities including Barcelona.
[01:02:11.460 --> 01:02:18.460]  Observers fear the ban on protests will lead to clashes between demonstrators and police.
[01:02:18.460 --> 01:02:23.300]  Top congressional leaders agreed Thursday to a four-year extension of the Patriot Act.
[01:02:23.300 --> 01:02:28.700]  The controversial law passed after 9-11 that dramatically undermined the rights of US citizens.
[01:02:28.700 --> 01:02:33.380]  The Act's provisions allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic
[01:02:33.380 --> 01:02:38.580]  devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records
[01:02:38.580 --> 01:02:40.900]  relevant to terrorist investigations.
[01:02:40.900 --> 01:02:46.100]  The third provision permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US individuals without
[01:02:46.100 --> 01:02:53.100]  having to show a connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.
[01:03:16.100 --> 01:03:23.100]  I will identify my brothers all until easy time I will identify my brothers all until
[01:03:46.100 --> 01:04:07.100]  easy time I will identify my brothers all until easy time I will identify my brothers
[01:04:07.100 --> 01:04:08.100]  all until I see space I will identify my brothers all until I see space
[01:04:08.100 --> 01:04:09.100]  Okay folks, we are back.
[01:04:09.100 --> 01:04:16.860]  Alright, we are going to finish up on this US Forest Service transportation issue and
[01:04:16.860 --> 01:04:18.100]  then we are going to start taking our calls.
[01:04:18.100 --> 01:04:23.380]  So callers, if you want to call in with questions for Harmon, 512-646-1984.
[01:04:23.380 --> 01:04:29.860]  So just to finish up on this issue concerning being in transportation on national forest
[01:04:29.860 --> 01:04:39.620]  land, the statute says that if you want to engage in commerce in the national forest
[01:04:39.620 --> 01:04:46.900]  on national forest roads, you have to get a special permit from the feds.
[01:04:46.900 --> 01:04:52.820]  If you don't, then it's presumed you are not in commerce.
[01:04:52.820 --> 01:05:02.420]  Even though the US Forest Service agents are authorized to enforce state transportation
[01:05:02.420 --> 01:05:08.300]  code which may include the blinker issue like what you are saying, but even so you are not
[01:05:08.300 --> 01:05:13.380]  presumed to be in commerce even if you present your papers if it's just state normal state
[01:05:13.380 --> 01:05:14.380]  papers.
[01:05:14.380 --> 01:05:24.060]  This is my assessment, you would have to present the special federal permit to engage in commerce
[01:05:24.060 --> 01:05:29.340]  in the national forest in order for them to really have evidence that you are engaged
[01:05:29.340 --> 01:05:30.340]  in commerce.
[01:05:30.340 --> 01:05:34.660]  And I wanted to get your take on that, but then the other question going back to my first
[01:05:34.660 --> 01:05:40.140]  question about the Cabalist ruling, it looks to me on the surface that the Supreme Court
[01:05:40.140 --> 01:05:47.460]  ignored the scope issue because the original purpose of the stop was to ticket the man
[01:05:47.460 --> 01:05:52.660]  for speeding, so how did they even bring the dog in in the first place anyway?
[01:05:52.660 --> 01:05:59.500]  Now the Supreme Court said the police did not extend the duration of the stop, which
[01:05:59.500 --> 01:06:00.540]  they didn't.
[01:06:00.540 --> 01:06:05.320]  In my case they did, so I have them hands down, this is a 2008 ruling, so I think I
[01:06:05.320 --> 01:06:13.540]  have a strong chance of winning the case, but at any rate, why does the Cabalist ruling
[01:06:13.540 --> 01:06:20.760]  not show that the police extended the scope because how did they bring the dog in to try
[01:06:20.760 --> 01:06:27.020]  to detect drugs if the purpose of the stop was to ticket him for speeding?
[01:06:27.020 --> 01:06:28.020]  So can you please explain?
[01:06:28.020 --> 01:06:35.660]  Let's talk about Cabalist first, I'm going to go back to the New Mexico case in a second.
[01:06:35.660 --> 01:06:42.140]  Cabalist if it's a state case, if there's a presentation of a license, without reading
[01:06:42.140 --> 01:06:47.340]  the case yet, I haven't read the case yet, my expectation is the presentation of a license
[01:06:47.340 --> 01:06:55.700]  says, I consent to being regulated on the transportation code, that should open the
[01:06:55.700 --> 01:06:58.260]  door to the entire book.
[01:06:58.260 --> 01:07:05.500]  It wouldn't necessarily be the purpose of the stop to enforce one section of the book.
[01:07:05.500 --> 01:07:09.700]  The purpose of the stop would be to enforce the book.
[01:07:09.700 --> 01:07:17.140]  So the scope is the question, are we making the stop to enforce one section?
[01:07:17.140 --> 01:07:22.860]  In other words, if you stop for speeding, could they ever give you a ticket for no insurance?
[01:07:22.860 --> 01:07:24.340]  Totally different area.
[01:07:24.340 --> 01:07:29.540]  Could they give you a ticket for an expired inspection sticker?
[01:07:29.540 --> 01:07:32.540]  It wasn't the purpose of the stop, could they give you a ticket?
[01:07:32.540 --> 01:07:39.140]  My expectation is yes under the concept that the purpose would be transportation code in
[01:07:39.140 --> 01:07:44.300]  Toto rather than any particular initial section.
[01:07:44.300 --> 01:07:49.580]  So we go back to the Terry concept there, each step is progressive on probable cause
[01:07:49.580 --> 01:07:51.540]  during the first stop.
[01:07:51.540 --> 01:07:55.420]  Our stop, you do the walk around, you say all the inspection stickers out, here's you
[01:07:55.420 --> 01:07:57.660]  another ticket.
[01:07:57.660 --> 01:08:03.580]  The dogs come in, we're in transportation, it's illegal to transport drugs or whatever
[01:08:03.580 --> 01:08:05.380]  it is they got found.
[01:08:05.380 --> 01:08:10.380]  Okay, I would expect that to be within the scope of the stop because the stop isn't for
[01:08:10.380 --> 01:08:15.540]  speeding, the stop is for transportation, in other words, the section versus the book.
[01:08:15.540 --> 01:08:19.380]  So it is a place to start, that's what I would think on that.
[01:08:19.380 --> 01:08:23.860]  Now in New Mexico, while you were talking I had another thought come to mind, it goes
[01:08:23.860 --> 01:08:28.100]  back to the Murrah Building bombing cases, where was that land?
[01:08:28.100 --> 01:08:31.300]  Was it federal land or was it state land?
[01:08:31.300 --> 01:08:35.860]  Of course that was state land, for it to be federal it has to be a change of title and
[01:08:35.860 --> 01:08:40.460]  an approval of the legislature for it not to be in Oklahoma, there were neither one
[01:08:40.460 --> 01:08:42.980]  of those for the Murrah Building.
[01:08:42.980 --> 01:08:47.700]  So the thought in my mind is, are we really in a national forest, is it really federal
[01:08:47.700 --> 01:08:54.180]  land, has there been a title change and has the state legislature ceded that property
[01:08:54.180 --> 01:08:56.540]  to the federal government?
[01:08:56.540 --> 01:09:00.380]  If that's the case and that's what they're doing, then we've got a question of whether
[01:09:00.380 --> 01:09:05.780]  they're enforcing federal only authority, which would have to be the case if it were
[01:09:05.780 --> 01:09:11.260]  federal landing, you don't have a state thing, the state can't come in and enforce, so could
[01:09:11.260 --> 01:09:14.900]  the feds go back and enforce state thing, that's a good question.
[01:09:14.900 --> 01:09:21.900]  If we're just federal and we have to have a transportation permit to be in transportation
[01:09:21.900 --> 01:09:28.540]  in the federal zone there, then what are they making a stop in the Mexico thing for at all?
[01:09:28.540 --> 01:09:33.460]  Is there a federal rule that says it's bad not to put on the ticker?
[01:09:33.460 --> 01:09:35.460]  We'd have to check that.
[01:09:35.460 --> 01:09:40.740]  If they're using state violations as the probable cause when they don't have any authority to
[01:09:40.740 --> 01:09:45.180]  enforce the state thing, then we've got a question about probable cause of the stop
[01:09:45.180 --> 01:09:51.860]  in the outset, so let's brief off the top head answers on both of those.
[01:09:51.860 --> 01:09:53.860]  All right, that makes sense.
[01:09:53.860 --> 01:09:56.660]  All right, do you want to take some calls?
[01:09:56.660 --> 01:09:57.660]  Let's take some calls.
[01:09:57.660 --> 01:10:03.820]  All right, folks, if you want to call in and ask Carmen Taylor a question, 512-646-1984,
[01:10:03.820 --> 01:10:07.060]  we've got Jay from California on the line.
[01:10:07.060 --> 01:10:09.780]  Jay, thank you for calling in.
[01:10:09.780 --> 01:10:12.220]  What is your question for Carmen Taylor tonight?
[01:10:12.220 --> 01:10:13.220]  Hi.
[01:10:13.220 --> 01:10:21.220]  I have a friend named Barb, in fact, she's on the phone listening.
[01:10:21.220 --> 01:10:29.460]  She is involved in a case that started out in a probate matter and she's had to go before
[01:10:29.460 --> 01:10:30.900]  the court.
[01:10:30.900 --> 01:10:36.580]  She went before the court and the judge threatened her that she has to get a lawyer.
[01:10:36.580 --> 01:10:41.580]  She warned her that if she didn't get a lawyer, that he was going to issue a warrant for her
[01:10:41.580 --> 01:10:42.580]  arrest.
[01:10:42.580 --> 01:10:48.580]  The police have terrified this poor woman because she was sticking up for another friend
[01:10:48.580 --> 01:10:52.860]  who was put under an illegal guardianship.
[01:10:52.860 --> 01:10:54.180]  The woman has died.
[01:10:54.180 --> 01:10:58.780]  Now they're into the probate of the will, and now the judge keeps threatening her if
[01:10:58.780 --> 01:11:00.980]  she doesn't get a lawyer.
[01:11:00.980 --> 01:11:06.540]  The other morning, I got an early phone call from her because the police were at her front
[01:11:06.540 --> 01:11:08.700]  door.
[01:11:08.700 --> 01:11:12.820]  I don't know exactly how to help her, but I remembered that you were on tonight and
[01:11:12.820 --> 01:11:15.980]  she is listening.
[01:11:15.980 --> 01:11:21.980]  Her name is Barb, and I would like for her to tell you a little bit about the case because
[01:11:21.980 --> 01:11:26.420]  she's nervous, because I don't know all the details as well as she does.
[01:11:26.420 --> 01:11:29.980]  Well, I'm more than appreciate you calling in, you know.
[01:11:29.980 --> 01:11:33.940]  Those kind of situations can be certainly nerve-racking.
[01:11:33.940 --> 01:11:37.820]  Tell her not to be nervous, there's only a couple of hundred thousand people listening.
[01:11:37.820 --> 01:11:40.980]  Go ahead, please.
[01:11:40.980 --> 01:11:41.980]  We're here to help.
[01:11:41.980 --> 01:11:42.980]  That puts me at ease.
[01:11:42.980 --> 01:11:43.980]  Hi.
[01:11:43.980 --> 01:11:44.980]  You're welcome.
[01:11:44.980 --> 01:11:45.980]  Can you hear me?
[01:11:45.980 --> 01:11:46.980]  Yes, we can hear you just fine.
[01:11:46.980 --> 01:11:47.980]  You can hear me.
[01:11:47.980 --> 01:11:48.980]  My case has been going on for four years.
[01:11:48.980 --> 01:11:49.980]  I was denied a speedy trial.
[01:11:49.980 --> 01:11:50.980]  What actually happened was that I was in a state of panic.
[01:11:50.980 --> 01:12:13.700]  I had a friend who I was friends with, her whole family, her brother actually wanted
[01:12:13.700 --> 01:12:16.700]  to marry me many, many, many years ago.
[01:12:16.700 --> 01:12:21.260]  I have pictures, I have letters, all kinds of proof.
[01:12:21.260 --> 01:12:28.260]  I've known her for close to 50 years, five, oh, that's a long time.
[01:12:28.260 --> 01:12:31.260]  We were very, very close.
[01:12:31.260 --> 01:12:45.540]  And when my husband passed away suddenly in 1998, and it's funny because I didn't want
[01:12:45.540 --> 01:12:51.340]  to marry her brother who was a clergyman and a teacher because he was much, much, much
[01:12:51.340 --> 01:12:52.340]  older than I was.
[01:12:52.340 --> 01:12:57.340]  I never wanted to be left alone because- Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
[01:12:57.340 --> 01:12:58.340]  Ma'am, ma'am.
[01:12:58.340 --> 01:12:59.340]  Wait a minute.
[01:12:59.340 --> 01:13:00.340]  We're having a hard time understanding you.
[01:13:00.340 --> 01:13:01.740]  I don't know if you're on a speaker phone or something.
[01:13:01.740 --> 01:13:02.740]  No.
[01:13:02.740 --> 01:13:03.740]  Okay.
[01:13:03.740 --> 01:13:06.140]  Yeah, if you could try to hold the mouthpiece down by your chin so you're not breathing
[01:13:06.140 --> 01:13:07.980]  into the mic.
[01:13:07.980 --> 01:13:14.740]  And listen, so we can better understand what's going on, can you just give us a quick breakdown
[01:13:14.740 --> 01:13:18.620]  of the specific legal issues here?
[01:13:18.620 --> 01:13:27.700]  My call screener has written something about concerning that you are threatened, that if
[01:13:27.700 --> 01:13:32.240]  you don't take a court-appointed attorney, you're going to be thrown in jail.
[01:13:32.240 --> 01:13:38.020]  Can you just briefly explain the legal situation here?
[01:13:38.020 --> 01:13:52.260]  Right now, I had an attorney who I hired, who I paid $30,000 as a flat C. He worked
[01:13:52.260 --> 01:13:57.900]  for a very short time and told me he could not help me because the assistant prosecutor
[01:13:57.900 --> 01:13:58.900]  was against me.
[01:13:58.900 --> 01:13:59.900]  He had no chance of helping me.
[01:13:59.900 --> 01:14:00.900]  So he asked if he could be relieved.
[01:14:00.900 --> 01:14:07.900]  I told the judge no, but the judge said yes, and he got out.
[01:14:07.900 --> 01:14:12.900]  And for the last three years, I've been doing it per se by myself.
[01:14:12.900 --> 01:14:17.900]  Now the judge tells me that I have to get an attorney.
[01:14:17.900 --> 01:14:22.900]  And the last time I was in court, he said if I didn't get an attorney, he would, he
[01:14:22.900 --> 01:14:30.900]  would fine me $500 a day for a few weeks and then go up to $1,000 a day.
[01:14:30.900 --> 01:14:35.900]  And then if I still didn't get an attorney, he would put me, he would incarcerate me.
[01:14:35.900 --> 01:14:38.900]  Now are you, are you, this is a probate case?
[01:14:38.900 --> 01:14:40.900]  No, it's not a probate case.
[01:14:40.900 --> 01:14:42.900]  This is a civil case or a criminal case?
[01:14:42.900 --> 01:14:43.900]  It's a criminal case.
[01:14:43.900 --> 01:14:45.900]  And you are the defendant?
[01:14:45.900 --> 01:14:46.900]  I am.
[01:14:46.900 --> 01:14:50.900]  Is this a state case or a federal case?
[01:14:50.900 --> 01:14:51.900]  State.
[01:14:51.900 --> 01:14:54.900]  What are the charges against you?
[01:14:54.900 --> 01:14:55.900]  Okay.
[01:14:55.900 --> 01:14:58.900]  My friend for 50 years.
[01:14:58.900 --> 01:14:59.900]  No, no, no, no, wait a minute.
[01:14:59.900 --> 01:15:00.900]  No.
[01:15:00.900 --> 01:15:01.900]  What are the charges against you?
[01:15:01.900 --> 01:15:04.900]  What does it say on the criminal complaint?
[01:15:04.900 --> 01:15:09.900]  What statute are you being charged with?
[01:15:09.900 --> 01:15:13.900]  I'd have to get it to read it to you.
[01:15:13.900 --> 01:15:14.900]  Okay, yeah.
[01:15:14.900 --> 01:15:20.900]  The only way that we can really help you is that if you tell us the specific legal points
[01:15:20.900 --> 01:15:25.900]  and we need to know what you are being charged with or else we can't help you.
[01:15:25.900 --> 01:15:26.900]  Okay.
[01:15:26.900 --> 01:15:30.900]  Okay, so why don't you go and get your paperwork and then maybe call back in, okay?
[01:15:30.900 --> 01:15:31.900]  All right.
[01:15:31.900 --> 01:15:40.900]  But does it help to tell you that I'm up against an assistant prosecutor who is connected to the mafia,
[01:15:40.900 --> 01:15:50.900]  who I approve is out to get me because of a friend of his who's a lawyer who once gained the edge
[01:15:50.900 --> 01:15:55.900]  and was suspended as an attorney for gaining the edge and asking for favors from the prosecution.
[01:15:55.900 --> 01:15:57.900]  Yes, I understand.
[01:15:57.900 --> 01:16:00.900]  They are all part of the mafia for sure.
[01:16:00.900 --> 01:16:02.900]  But even regardless of that...
[01:16:02.900 --> 01:16:03.900]  Wait.
[01:16:03.900 --> 01:16:06.900]  No, no, no, I'm not just saying that.
[01:16:06.900 --> 01:16:12.900]  I mean his father was just indicted for the third time as being part of the mafia
[01:16:12.900 --> 01:16:15.900]  because he is a member of the police.
[01:16:15.900 --> 01:16:18.900]  He is involved in the water commission in New York.
[01:16:18.900 --> 01:16:20.900]  He's being investigated by the FBI.
[01:16:20.900 --> 01:16:22.900]  I'm not just saying it.
[01:16:22.900 --> 01:16:24.900]  Everybody could say it.
[01:16:24.900 --> 01:16:26.900]  I have actual proof.
[01:16:26.900 --> 01:16:32.900]  Well, we have to be able to find a way to use that information to your benefit in the case.
[01:16:32.900 --> 01:16:39.900]  And we have to start from square one and that is we need to know what the charges are against you.
[01:16:39.900 --> 01:16:41.900]  And if we know what the charges are against you,
[01:16:41.900 --> 01:16:49.900]  then we can relate that back to this information that you're telling us about the indictment of his father.
[01:16:49.900 --> 01:16:55.900]  Anyway, ma'am, if you could please look up your paperwork and find out what they're charging you with and then call us back.
[01:16:55.900 --> 01:16:56.900]  We'll be able to help you. Thank you.
[01:16:56.900 --> 01:16:59.900]  We'll be right back.
[01:16:59.900 --> 01:17:06.900]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[01:17:06.900 --> 01:17:08.900]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:08.900 --> 01:17:13.900]  We're a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases.
[01:17:13.900 --> 01:17:19.900]  Because of you, Austin, business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and bigger location.
[01:17:19.900 --> 01:17:26.900]  We're now located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A, 1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous location.
[01:17:26.900 --> 01:17:34.900]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road in Stanley Insurance Building on the ground floor next to the Ishuban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[01:17:34.900 --> 01:17:38.900]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5.
[01:17:38.900 --> 01:17:44.900]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440.
[01:17:44.900 --> 01:17:49.900]  Ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[01:17:49.900 --> 01:17:55.900]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A.
[01:17:55.900 --> 01:17:59.900]  Or call 512-646-6440.
[01:17:59.900 --> 01:18:03.900]  My name is Randall Kelton, and I co-host on Rule of Law Radio.
[01:18:03.900 --> 01:18:08.900]  We specialize in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials.
[01:18:08.900 --> 01:18:15.900]  With the mortgage crisis worsening, we set our sights on finding a remedy for people who have been cheated by their lenders.
[01:18:15.900 --> 01:18:21.900]  If you have a mortgage or have paid yours off, you have probably been cheated out of thousands, but there is a remedy.
[01:18:21.900 --> 01:18:32.900]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call me at 512-430-4140 and find out how to use the Consumer Protection Laws
[01:18:32.900 --> 01:18:36.900]  to recover what the lenders have stolen through fraud and deception.
[01:18:36.900 --> 01:18:42.900]  We will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose the fraud and put the lenders on the dime.
[01:18:42.900 --> 01:18:47.900]  Lender fraud is bankrupting this country, and it's time to fight back.
[01:18:47.900 --> 01:19:01.900]  Go to remediesinrealestate.com or call 512-430-4140 and get the information you need to stop the money changers in their tracks.
[01:19:17.900 --> 01:19:35.900]  If I can't get everything I want, maybe I'll get a rancher.
[01:19:35.900 --> 01:19:47.900]  If I can't get everything I need, maybe I'll get a rancher.
[01:19:47.900 --> 01:19:58.900]  If the people of the world can't get happiness and peace, maybe I'll get a rancher.
[01:19:58.900 --> 01:20:21.900]  If we can't get all these crazy waters and seas, maybe I'll get a rancher.
[01:20:21.900 --> 01:20:32.900]  Looking for a little bitty smith in the hole, could I get a rancher?
[01:20:32.900 --> 01:20:37.900]  I want to reach the diamond of hell, sliding on a slippery slope.
[01:20:37.900 --> 01:20:40.900]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:20:40.900 --> 01:20:44.900]  This is the rule of law, special guest Harmon Taylor.
[01:20:44.900 --> 01:20:51.900]  We're taking your calls, and we do have another caller on the line.
[01:20:51.900 --> 01:20:52.900]  We've got Brian from Texas.
[01:20:52.900 --> 01:20:54.900]  Brian, thank you for calling in.
[01:20:54.900 --> 01:20:55.900]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:20:55.900 --> 01:20:57.900]  What is your question for us?
[01:20:57.900 --> 01:20:58.900]  Hello.
[01:20:58.900 --> 01:21:03.900]  Yeah, I was arrested a couple years back, and I was forced to post a surety bond.
[01:21:03.900 --> 01:21:13.900]  And about six months later, I had my case dismissed, but I never got any of the bond money back from the third-party bail bondsman.
[01:21:13.900 --> 01:21:17.900]  I was wondering if I'm allowed to get that money back.
[01:21:17.900 --> 01:21:18.900]  No.
[01:21:18.900 --> 01:21:21.900]  The short answer is no.
[01:21:21.900 --> 01:21:30.900]  If you didn't post the full amount of the bond, if you posted the full amount of the bond with the court,
[01:21:30.900 --> 01:21:35.900]  then the court would have held that bond as a surety.
[01:21:35.900 --> 01:21:40.900]  And if you did all that you were supposed to, they would return it to you.
[01:21:40.900 --> 01:21:46.900]  However, if you went through a bondsman, you didn't post the full amount of the bond.
[01:21:46.900 --> 01:21:54.900]  What you did was pay him a fee to get him to post the full amount of the bond.
[01:21:54.900 --> 01:21:59.900]  So for that fee, he took that risk.
[01:21:59.900 --> 01:22:08.900]  So once the case is over, the bondsman has performed his service for his fee.
[01:22:08.900 --> 01:22:13.900]  And no, you can't get back what you paid the bondsman.
[01:22:13.900 --> 01:22:17.900]  Because he's a workman worthy of his hire.
[01:22:17.900 --> 01:22:22.900]  Had you not showed up, the bondsman would be on the hook for the full amount.
[01:22:22.900 --> 01:22:26.900]  Oh, and I just paid the 10 percent of the amount.
[01:22:26.900 --> 01:22:32.900]  Right. You paid him to get him to put up the full amount of the bond.
[01:22:32.900 --> 01:22:38.900]  And that was his fee for doing that because occasionally people don't show up and he has to pay off the bond.
[01:22:38.900 --> 01:22:41.900]  Oh, okay. Okay.
[01:22:41.900 --> 01:22:43.900]  Cool. You guys are cool.
[01:22:43.900 --> 01:22:44.900]  Go ahead.
[01:22:44.900 --> 01:22:46.900]  Thank you very much.
[01:22:46.900 --> 01:22:48.900]  Present the call.
[01:22:48.900 --> 01:22:50.900]  Okay. Thank you much. Bye-bye now.
[01:22:50.900 --> 01:22:59.900]  All right, callers, if you'd like to call in, we have open phone lines, 512-646-1984.
[01:22:59.900 --> 01:23:03.900]  Listen, I would like to make a comment.
[01:23:03.900 --> 01:23:13.900]  Here we've had a number of people from the U.S. come here to Australia or their ideas have come here to Australia.
[01:23:13.900 --> 01:23:19.900]  And it's primarily the commercial issue.
[01:23:19.900 --> 01:23:29.900]  Chairman, I would like you to address the difference between these commercial issues as they're being expressed through people
[01:23:29.900 --> 01:23:38.900]  like Winston Shroud and Tim Turner and Sam McKinney and the commercial nexus to which you're speaking.
[01:23:38.900 --> 01:23:45.900]  Okay. One has to do with the legal analysis and one has to do with I'm not sure what.
[01:23:45.900 --> 01:23:53.900]  The concept here about the system starts, I think about it as starting at the top of the mountain.
[01:23:53.900 --> 01:23:54.900]  We can start at the bottom.
[01:23:54.900 --> 01:24:03.900]  I think the concept to start at the top of the mountain is to get as high as we can to see everything possible to see as the starting place.
[01:24:03.900 --> 01:24:13.900]  We've got to understand what is the foundational mechanism for what passes as government in Australia.
[01:24:13.900 --> 01:24:22.900]  They're going to be satisfied they've got a constitution in the same way most activists here start with a constitution.
[01:24:22.900 --> 01:24:28.900]  I'm satisfied they don't have any more constitution in Australia right now than we do here.
[01:24:28.900 --> 01:24:31.900]  We know that for all kinds of reasons.
[01:24:31.900 --> 01:24:34.900]  The most fundamental reason is the money.
[01:24:34.900 --> 01:24:43.900]  You can't have a legitimate government there where what passes as currency is funny money.
[01:24:43.900 --> 01:24:45.900]  That doesn't mean that they don't have a system.
[01:24:45.900 --> 01:24:49.900]  It means that they don't have the system they think they have.
[01:24:49.900 --> 01:24:52.900]  They have something very different.
[01:24:52.900 --> 01:25:09.900]  The mechanism for passing language into statute, notice I didn't say law, turning a language set a language into statute is a different process than turning language into law.
[01:25:09.900 --> 01:25:11.900]  It's just the mechanism of the system.
[01:25:11.900 --> 01:25:21.900]  If we're dealing with a funny money system, then the language that we start with applies by a different mechanism.
[01:25:21.900 --> 01:25:23.900]  It doesn't apply because it exists.
[01:25:23.900 --> 01:25:28.900]  It's applied because it's been consented to commercially.
[01:25:28.900 --> 01:25:30.900]  I'm going to say that again.
[01:25:30.900 --> 01:25:32.900]  The language doesn't apply because it exists.
[01:25:32.900 --> 01:25:35.900]  It applies because it's been consented to commercially.
[01:25:35.900 --> 01:25:38.900]  Now, I have not studied the Tim Turner stuff.
[01:25:38.900 --> 01:25:40.900]  I've read it.
[01:25:40.900 --> 01:25:42.900]  I've been around it.
[01:25:42.900 --> 01:25:49.900]  It's not something that impresses me as anything I'd invest my time in.
[01:25:49.900 --> 01:25:50.900]  Thank you.
[01:25:50.900 --> 01:26:05.900]  What they seem to be doing is coming back with a commercial process in response to stuff rather than analyzing the matter, whatever it is, from the top down, looking at it as a commercial claim by the government.
[01:26:05.900 --> 01:26:13.900]  So that said, what we're talking about here is what is the basis?
[01:26:13.900 --> 01:26:15.900]  What are the rules that apply?
[01:26:15.900 --> 01:26:17.900]  And what are the facts that matter?
[01:26:17.900 --> 01:26:26.900]  When the government shows up saying, we think you owe us money or we think you should go cool your jets in jail for a while, based on what?
[01:26:26.900 --> 01:26:30.900]  What are the rules that apply and how do those rules apply?
[01:26:30.900 --> 01:26:35.900]  When we're dealing with a funny money system, we are not dealing with a law of the land based system.
[01:26:35.900 --> 01:26:44.900]  It can't be the law of the land, all of which, whether it's Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, all of it comes from England,
[01:26:44.900 --> 01:26:48.900]  which means, foundationally, it comes from Scripture.
[01:26:48.900 --> 01:26:53.900]  Scripture says we have to have it on a system of weights and measures.
[01:26:53.900 --> 01:26:54.900]  Okay.
[01:26:54.900 --> 01:26:55.900]  What is that?
[01:26:55.900 --> 01:26:57.900]  Well, that translates in America to gold and silver.
[01:26:57.900 --> 01:27:02.900]  It translates that the same way everywhere that foundational law applies.
[01:27:02.900 --> 01:27:03.900]  Okay.
[01:27:03.900 --> 01:27:06.900]  We don't have gold and silver in general circulation.
[01:27:06.900 --> 01:27:07.900]  We've got funny money.
[01:27:07.900 --> 01:27:09.900]  What does that mean?
[01:27:09.900 --> 01:27:14.900]  That means that that system cannot be operating under the law of the land because why?
[01:27:14.900 --> 01:27:19.900]  Because the law of the land sees funny money as fraud, flat out fraud.
[01:27:19.900 --> 01:27:23.900]  We have to pick a foundational choice of law for the system.
[01:27:23.900 --> 01:27:25.900]  Is it designed under the law of the land or the law of the sea?
[01:27:25.900 --> 01:27:29.900]  It's one or the other, and no other options out there.
[01:27:29.900 --> 01:27:30.900]  Okay.
[01:27:30.900 --> 01:27:33.900]  If it's not law of the land, it's law of the sea.
[01:27:33.900 --> 01:27:34.900]  Okay.
[01:27:34.900 --> 01:27:39.900]  If it's law of the sea, then the mechanism being used against the individual, being used against the company,
[01:27:39.900 --> 01:27:42.900]  is a commercial mechanism.
[01:27:42.900 --> 01:27:46.900]  So what we're doing is saying, let's analyze this problem for what it is.
[01:27:46.900 --> 01:27:49.900]  We can't put this in a positive way.
[01:27:49.900 --> 01:27:54.900]  To solve a problem, it really, really, really helps to identify it correctly.
[01:27:54.900 --> 01:27:58.900]  To solve a problem, it helps to identify it correctly.
[01:27:58.900 --> 01:28:02.900]  What we're trying to do here is identify the problem correctly.
[01:28:02.900 --> 01:28:05.900]  And so we say, what kind of system is it?
[01:28:05.900 --> 01:28:08.900]  And what is the foundational choice of law?
[01:28:08.900 --> 01:28:14.900]  We look at the money as the best evidence of the foundational choice of law of the system.
[01:28:14.900 --> 01:28:15.900]  It's a legit money.
[01:28:15.900 --> 01:28:18.900]  It's a law of the land system.
[01:28:18.900 --> 01:28:21.900]  It doesn't mean the law of the land system doesn't recognize law of the sea.
[01:28:21.900 --> 01:28:23.900]  It does.
[01:28:23.900 --> 01:28:29.900]  It's just for the mechanism here of the government system that operates on the land,
[01:28:29.900 --> 01:28:31.900]  what are the principles they're going to apply?
[01:28:31.900 --> 01:28:32.900]  It's a money money system.
[01:28:32.900 --> 01:28:37.900]  It's law of the sea principles for that governmental system.
[01:28:37.900 --> 01:28:38.900]  Okay.
[01:28:38.900 --> 01:28:41.900]  That's what we're talking about.
[01:28:41.900 --> 01:28:46.900]  So if they go, if they say this language applies because it exists, they're presuming a legit system.
[01:28:46.900 --> 01:28:51.900]  They're presuming a legit legislature or whatever the process is.
[01:28:51.900 --> 01:28:59.900]  If they've got a monarch, then the lawmaking mechanism is done by that one person.
[01:28:59.900 --> 01:29:05.900]  So we go to the legislative process and we say, who's doing it?
[01:29:05.900 --> 01:29:07.900]  And we look at the funny money system.
[01:29:07.900 --> 01:29:12.900]  We look at the money system to determine what could possibly be it.
[01:29:12.900 --> 01:29:13.900]  Does that help at all?
[01:29:13.900 --> 01:29:18.900]  I think I'm repeating myself now, catching that as I say, well, it's time to stop.
[01:29:18.900 --> 01:29:21.900]  Does that address your question?
[01:29:21.900 --> 01:29:29.900]  Yes, that's, it addresses my question as to the commercial nexus that you're dealing with.
[01:29:29.900 --> 01:29:30.900]  Okay.
[01:29:30.900 --> 01:29:32.900]  It addresses it very well.
[01:29:32.900 --> 01:29:39.900]  And my problem with the commercial process is for all my research into it.
[01:29:39.900 --> 01:29:42.900]  This is the Tim Turner stuff?
[01:29:42.900 --> 01:29:50.900]  Tim Turner and Sam Kennedy and Winston Shroud is I could never find a basis for it.
[01:29:50.900 --> 01:29:54.900]  I had someone in the, okay, I'm out of time.
[01:29:54.900 --> 01:29:56.900]  I'll pick this up on the other side.
[01:29:56.900 --> 01:29:59.900]  This is Randy Carlton, Denver City with Eddie Craig.
[01:29:59.900 --> 01:30:03.900]  Top ten reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing, reason number five.
[01:30:03.900 --> 01:30:09.900]  As witnessed by millions of viewers, the rescue efforts were interrupted several times due to the presence of other explosives.
[01:30:09.900 --> 01:30:13.900]  Government log entries indicate and witnesses report that after the initial devastating blast,
[01:30:13.900 --> 01:30:18.900]  a bomb complete with timer was discovered and removed from wreckage by the bomb squad.
[01:30:18.900 --> 01:30:21.900]  What we are told is all due to baseless bomb scares or other contrivances.
[01:30:21.900 --> 01:30:28.900]  So while officials try to sort out their stories, all we ask is who planted these bombs and why is the government lying about them?
[01:30:28.900 --> 01:30:33.900]  For more information, go to okcbombingtruth.com.
[01:30:33.900 --> 01:30:39.900]  The Freedom of Information Act or FOIA gives you the right to obtain records from federal agencies.
[01:30:39.900 --> 01:30:44.900]  A response should only take 20 working days, so why are so many of us waiting longer?
[01:30:44.900 --> 01:30:47.900]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back in just a moment.
[01:30:47.900 --> 01:30:52.900]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:52.900 --> 01:30:57.900]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:57.900 --> 01:31:02.900]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:31:02.900 --> 01:31:05.900]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:31:05.900 --> 01:31:12.900]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:31:12.900 --> 01:31:15.900]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:31:15.900 --> 01:31:20.900]  Anticipation, it's making me wait.
[01:31:20.900 --> 01:31:25.900]  Good things come to those who wait, but when it comes to FOIA requests, enough is enough.
[01:31:25.900 --> 01:31:31.900]  A dozen U.S. federal agencies have Freedom of Information Act log jams that go back six years.
[01:31:31.900 --> 01:31:34.900]  Congress has responded with the Faster FOIA Act.
[01:31:34.900 --> 01:31:40.900]  It would create a committee to evaluate FOIA backlogs and propose recommendations to speed up processing.
[01:31:40.900 --> 01:31:45.900]  I say it's about time. I submitted a FOIA request to the FDA back in 2004,
[01:31:45.900 --> 01:31:50.900]  seeking studies the agency used to evaluate the safety of implantable human microchips.
[01:31:50.900 --> 01:31:54.900]  It took them a full year to tell me they had no such studies.
[01:31:54.900 --> 01:32:01.900]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:01.900 --> 01:32:13.900]  I see it too, I see it too. Yeah, we're done, we have to think about some new stuff.
[01:32:13.900 --> 01:32:19.900]  I see tools of engineering, they're used against the work of love and equity.
[01:32:19.900 --> 01:32:25.900]  Tools of master capability, made up over all eternity.
[01:32:25.900 --> 01:32:32.900]  They come from natural divinity, with steadfast roots in authenticity.
[01:32:32.900 --> 01:32:38.900]  Tools of re-gain dignity, rebuild the crime divinity.
[01:32:38.900 --> 01:32:45.900]  And I say, truth in nature must be justice, I believe.
[01:32:45.900 --> 01:32:51.900]  Truth in nature must be justice.
[01:32:51.900 --> 01:32:56.900]  So it's a daunting task, at least for God to teach and see.
[01:32:56.900 --> 01:33:00.900]  As a simple model to just take off the silly minds.
[01:33:00.900 --> 01:33:03.900]  In the light of day we all will abide.
[01:33:03.900 --> 01:33:09.900]  Tools of ingenuity, used against the work of love and equity.
[01:33:09.900 --> 01:33:27.900]  Tools of ingenuity, used against the work of love and equity.
[01:33:27.900 --> 01:33:29.900]  Okay folks, we are back, we're taking a call.
[01:33:29.900 --> 01:33:36.900]  Half an hour left in our four hour Friday info marathon info jam.
[01:33:36.900 --> 01:33:40.900]  Okay, so Randy, you had some other comments you wanted to make on this,
[01:33:40.900 --> 01:33:43.900]  and then we're going to go to Jason in Georgia.
[01:33:43.900 --> 01:33:53.900]  And I hear a lot of background noise coming from somewhere.
[01:33:53.900 --> 01:33:58.900]  Okay, I have this, I keep coming across this commercial issue,
[01:33:58.900 --> 01:34:02.900]  and at the seminar I did last Saturday,
[01:34:02.900 --> 01:34:08.900]  we had someone bring up the issue that he was trying to get grand juries back
[01:34:08.900 --> 01:34:12.900]  and use the common law to get it.
[01:34:12.900 --> 01:34:19.900]  So I told him, like I do all the commercial people, I am a creature of statute.
[01:34:19.900 --> 01:34:24.900]  And as I understand, the trial judge has two duties.
[01:34:24.900 --> 01:34:28.900]  One, he must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence.
[01:34:28.900 --> 01:34:34.900]  Two, he must apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[01:34:34.900 --> 01:34:40.900]  So don't give me opinion, don't give me your, how you think things are.
[01:34:40.900 --> 01:34:47.900]  I am a creature of statute, I must bring statute, case law to the court.
[01:34:47.900 --> 01:34:52.900]  What law do you have to support what you're doing?
[01:34:52.900 --> 01:34:58.900]  And I always get the same thing, blank stare, open mouth, nothing.
[01:34:58.900 --> 01:35:01.900]  And frankly that worked real well in the seminar
[01:35:01.900 --> 01:35:04.900]  because people were afraid of this guy coming there,
[01:35:04.900 --> 01:35:07.900]  we were afraid he'd hijack the seminar.
[01:35:07.900 --> 01:35:11.900]  But when I asked him for statute to bring me to common law,
[01:35:11.900 --> 01:35:15.900]  it stopped him in his tracks.
[01:35:15.900 --> 01:35:18.900]  And this is my problem with the commercial process,
[01:35:18.900 --> 01:35:22.900]  don't give me something to support it.
[01:35:22.900 --> 01:35:27.900]  For the most part it appears people are trying to take the commercial process
[01:35:27.900 --> 01:35:31.900]  intended for the sale of goods and services
[01:35:31.900 --> 01:35:35.900]  and transport it directly into other systems
[01:35:35.900 --> 01:35:40.900]  and they don't bring a bridge along with them to get it there.
[01:35:40.900 --> 01:35:45.900]  Not that it can't be gotten there, they've just never given me the bridge.
[01:35:45.900 --> 01:35:50.900]  I've got a bunch of callers so I'll shut up now.
[01:35:50.900 --> 01:35:54.900]  Okay, all right, we're going now to Jason in Georgia.
[01:35:54.900 --> 01:35:55.900]  Jason, thank you for calling.
[01:35:55.900 --> 01:35:57.900]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:35:57.900 --> 01:35:59.900]  Hey, I just wanted to make a comment.
[01:35:59.900 --> 01:36:03.900]  Earlier you were mentioning a case out of Florida
[01:36:03.900 --> 01:36:11.900]  and I was curious were you talking about Trevizant versus City of Tampa?
[01:36:11.900 --> 01:36:12.900]  This is on the damages?
[01:36:12.900 --> 01:36:15.900]  Yes, Trevizant, that's it.
[01:36:15.900 --> 01:36:19.900]  Oh, is this about how much you get awarded for every 20 minutes?
[01:36:19.900 --> 01:36:22.900]  Yeah, $1,065 a minute is what it equates to.
[01:36:22.900 --> 01:36:25.900]  $1,065 per minute?
[01:36:25.900 --> 01:36:29.900]  Correct, 25 grand for 23 minutes.
[01:36:29.900 --> 01:36:30.900]  Okay.
[01:36:30.900 --> 01:36:31.900]  Yes, that's correct.
[01:36:31.900 --> 01:36:34.900]  Okay, Trevizant or Trevizant?
[01:36:34.900 --> 01:36:36.900]  Trevizant versus City of Tampa.
[01:36:36.900 --> 01:36:38.900]  Is this a state case or federal case?
[01:36:38.900 --> 01:36:39.900]  State.
[01:36:39.900 --> 01:36:41.900]  State case.
[01:36:41.900 --> 01:36:48.900]  Does anyone know if it has been used in federal cases for tort claims?
[01:36:48.900 --> 01:36:49.900]  I do not.
[01:36:49.900 --> 01:36:50.900]  No, I do not.
[01:36:50.900 --> 01:36:51.900]  This is a tort claim.
[01:36:51.900 --> 01:36:52.900]  You can use whatever you want.
[01:36:52.900 --> 01:36:57.900]  Well, yeah, you can import state case law into federal cases if there's
[01:36:57.900 --> 01:37:01.900]  and it will stand if there's no federal case that overrides it
[01:37:01.900 --> 01:37:04.900]  or trumps it or conflicts with it.
[01:37:04.900 --> 01:37:06.900]  Okay, great, that's what I wanted to know.
[01:37:06.900 --> 01:37:07.900]  One last thing.
[01:37:07.900 --> 01:37:14.900]  I wanted to know if Randy or anyone knew the status on Dave Merlin?
[01:37:14.900 --> 01:37:20.900]  They talked about him the other night on Bauer's show.
[01:37:20.900 --> 01:37:25.900]  They gave an update, but they didn't give details on the update.
[01:37:25.900 --> 01:37:27.900]  So I can't answer that specifically.
[01:37:27.900 --> 01:37:31.900]  I know that if you send him an email, he can tell you.
[01:37:31.900 --> 01:37:32.900]  I'll do that.
[01:37:32.900 --> 01:37:35.900]  Send who specifically an email?
[01:37:35.900 --> 01:37:38.900]  Jack Bauer.
[01:37:38.900 --> 01:37:39.900]  Thank you.
[01:37:39.900 --> 01:37:43.900]  Do you remember what the gist of the update was?
[01:37:43.900 --> 01:37:48.900]  No, other than he's got some pleadings he's going in that he expects to remedy
[01:37:48.900 --> 01:37:57.900]  his incarceration, but they didn't go into specifics as to what that was.
[01:37:57.900 --> 01:37:59.900]  All right, thank you, Jason.
[01:37:59.900 --> 01:38:00.900]  Thank you.
[01:38:00.900 --> 01:38:04.900]  Okay, we are going now to Walt in New York.
[01:38:04.900 --> 01:38:06.900]  Walt, thank you for calling in.
[01:38:06.900 --> 01:38:08.900]  What is your question or comment for us tonight?
[01:38:08.900 --> 01:38:10.900]  Yes, hello, everyone.
[01:38:10.900 --> 01:38:12.900]  I have just a couple things here.
[01:38:12.900 --> 01:38:14.900]  I want to ask you about this.
[01:38:14.900 --> 01:38:18.900]  I sent in a complaint to the attorney grievance committee,
[01:38:18.900 --> 01:38:22.900]  and the committee said it was before the court.
[01:38:22.900 --> 01:38:27.900]  And the court dismissed my case, and they never addressed that complaint
[01:38:27.900 --> 01:38:29.900]  against this attorney.
[01:38:29.900 --> 01:38:34.900]  So then I went and mentioned it again as I appealed my case to the appeals court.
[01:38:34.900 --> 01:38:37.900]  This is a federal issue, by the way.
[01:38:37.900 --> 01:38:43.900]  And that case was dismissed with my issues and my complaint against the attorney,
[01:38:43.900 --> 01:38:45.900]  so it was still never addressed.
[01:38:45.900 --> 01:38:52.900]  That went on from like July of 2009 until about June of 2010,
[01:38:52.900 --> 01:38:56.900]  and then I appealed it again to my federal case to the Supreme Court,
[01:38:56.900 --> 01:38:58.900]  a writ of certiorari.
[01:38:58.900 --> 01:39:04.900]  In July of 10, and it was dismissed in November of 10.
[01:39:04.900 --> 01:39:10.900]  In the meantime, of 8 of 10, I put a misconduct charge against that judge
[01:39:10.900 --> 01:39:15.900]  where I started out in July of 2009 with my complaint
[01:39:15.900 --> 01:39:18.900]  and my misconduct charges against the attorney.
[01:39:18.900 --> 01:39:24.900]  That was dismissed 2 of this year, February of this year.
[01:39:24.900 --> 01:39:28.900]  And another thing, too, is in my complaint against the judge,
[01:39:28.900 --> 01:39:31.900]  this is the second issue, in the papers I got back,
[01:39:31.900 --> 01:39:35.900]  that was dismissed, my complaint against the judge also,
[01:39:35.900 --> 01:39:38.900]  as well as them not addressing my complaint against the attorney.
[01:39:38.900 --> 01:39:43.900]  They never mentioned the judge's name in the court papers.
[01:39:43.900 --> 01:39:46.900]  They just said the district judge that you filed a complaint against,
[01:39:46.900 --> 01:39:50.900]  so their answer was that he might have made a mistake,
[01:39:50.900 --> 01:39:55.900]  so your complaint of misconduct doesn't apply,
[01:39:55.900 --> 01:40:00.900]  even if I was right and the judge was wrong in his decision against me.
[01:40:00.900 --> 01:40:04.900]  Okay, what's your question?
[01:40:04.900 --> 01:40:12.900]  Okay, this misconduct against the attorney, they never pursued it.
[01:40:12.900 --> 01:40:13.900]  Can I still pursue it?
[01:40:13.900 --> 01:40:22.900]  And also, you mentioned this, Randy, about a week or so ago about the bond rating business.
[01:40:22.900 --> 01:40:26.900]  Also, the judge, the misconduct, they never put his name down
[01:40:26.900 --> 01:40:30.900]  in the papers that I filed, their response to me from the court
[01:40:30.900 --> 01:40:32.900]  with my misconduct against the judge.
[01:40:32.900 --> 01:40:36.900]  Okay, hold on. That doesn't matter.
[01:40:36.900 --> 01:40:44.900]  You filed the complaint, they will have a duty to notify the agency.
[01:40:44.900 --> 01:40:49.900]  They just didn't want to publicize this judge's name anymore than they had to.
[01:40:49.900 --> 01:40:54.900]  And as to the complaint against the attorney, if it's not a criminal complaint,
[01:40:54.900 --> 01:41:02.900]  it's not a complaint that the courts can address unless it's especially different in New York,
[01:41:02.900 --> 01:41:04.900]  and I don't believe it is.
[01:41:04.900 --> 01:41:11.900]  There is an association, a bar association, usually who handles these complaints,
[01:41:11.900 --> 01:41:18.900]  and they are civil in nature, and where the bar is a licensing agency,
[01:41:18.900 --> 01:41:21.900]  they handle it as a licensing issue.
[01:41:21.900 --> 01:41:26.900]  So this is not something the court would have any say over.
[01:41:26.900 --> 01:41:32.900]  This was a criminal matter. I filed a complaint against him that he committed perjury.
[01:41:32.900 --> 01:41:36.900]  Okay, who did you file the complaint with?
[01:41:36.900 --> 01:41:39.900]  Well, it was in Buffalo, New York and was called the attorney grievance committee,
[01:41:39.900 --> 01:41:43.900]  and they sent me a letter back saying it's before the judge in your case.
[01:41:43.900 --> 01:41:48.900]  Okay, that is not a criminal complaint. That's a professional complaint.
[01:41:48.900 --> 01:41:50.900]  Perjury is not criminal?
[01:41:50.900 --> 01:41:53.900]  No, not if you don't file it as criminal.
[01:41:53.900 --> 01:41:56.900]  You filed a complaint with the wrong party.
[01:41:56.900 --> 01:42:04.900]  You filed a claim that the attorney committed perjury with the professional governing agency,
[01:42:04.900 --> 01:42:12.900]  and they will address this as a potential violation of his ethics.
[01:42:12.900 --> 01:42:14.900]  They have no criminal authority to prosecute.
[01:42:14.900 --> 01:42:18.900]  If you want to file a criminal complaint,
[01:42:18.900 --> 01:42:28.900]  that must be filed in the form of a verified criminal affidavit with some magistrate.
[01:42:28.900 --> 01:42:32.900]  And if you've listened to the show, we talk about how to run the procedure on them.
[01:42:32.900 --> 01:42:36.900]  Well, you start out with the U.S. attorney on that first, right?
[01:42:36.900 --> 01:42:40.900]  No. You start out with a local...
[01:42:40.900 --> 01:42:43.900]  Generally, I'll start with a local prosecutor attorney.
[01:42:43.900 --> 01:42:50.900]  And when the prosecuting attorney refuses to act, I go to the highest judge I find and drop it on him,
[01:42:50.900 --> 01:42:54.900]  ask him to prosecute the prosecutor, which he'll refuse to do,
[01:42:54.900 --> 01:42:58.900]  and then you go back to the grand jury with the criminal charges against them both,
[01:42:58.900 --> 01:43:04.900]  and this keeps the prosecuting attorney from interfering with your access to the grand jury.
[01:43:04.900 --> 01:43:05.900]  Okay.
[01:43:05.900 --> 01:43:07.900]  You set them up. You're rutting the routine on them.
[01:43:07.900 --> 01:43:08.900]  Okay.
[01:43:08.900 --> 01:43:10.900]  Criminal complaints are totally separate.
[01:43:10.900 --> 01:43:14.900]  That's why they didn't act on it from a criminal perspective,
[01:43:14.900 --> 01:43:17.900]  because you didn't file it in the criminal form.
[01:43:17.900 --> 01:43:19.900]  Okay. Can I ask you this?
[01:43:19.900 --> 01:43:26.900]  How do we know that the appeals court in New York City submitted the judge's name that I filed a complaint against?
[01:43:26.900 --> 01:43:28.900]  You said the bond people are the insurance company.
[01:43:28.900 --> 01:43:32.900]  How do we know? Because they never mentioned his name on the papers they sent me.
[01:43:32.900 --> 01:43:34.900]  You don't.
[01:43:34.900 --> 01:43:36.900]  It's always in their contract.
[01:43:36.900 --> 01:43:39.900]  You're never going to be able to find that.
[01:43:39.900 --> 01:43:41.900]  But if they don't, it's in the contract.
[01:43:41.900 --> 01:43:47.900]  If they get a complaint and don't notice the insurance company, they're not covered.
[01:43:47.900 --> 01:43:49.900]  So you can be sure they did that.
[01:43:49.900 --> 01:43:54.900]  But there's no way for you to check, because you don't have standing in that regard.
[01:43:54.900 --> 01:44:09.900]  Okay. This is Randy Kelton, W.C. with Daddy Craig.
[01:44:24.900 --> 01:44:26.900]  I'm Randy Kelton.
[01:44:54.900 --> 01:45:03.900]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.900 --> 01:45:06.900]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:06.900 --> 01:45:14.900]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.900 --> 01:45:18.900]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.900 --> 01:45:22.900]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.900 --> 01:45:27.900]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.900 --> 01:45:33.900]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.900 --> 01:45:38.900]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.900 --> 01:45:42.900]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.900 --> 01:45:48.900]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:48.900 --> 01:45:55.900]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:55.900 --> 01:46:13.900]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:13.900 --> 01:46:19.900]  All right, folks, we are back. We have one more segment in our final hour of our Friday
[01:46:19.900 --> 01:46:25.900]  four-hour info marathon here on Friday, May 20, 2011.
[01:46:25.900 --> 01:46:30.900]  If you want to get in, you better call in now. We've got Susan from Texas.
[01:46:30.900 --> 01:46:33.900]  Susan, thank you for calling in. What is on your mind tonight?
[01:46:33.900 --> 01:46:41.900]  Thank you. I'd like to know, how do you get judicial due process of law in a municipal court?
[01:46:41.900 --> 01:46:45.900]  Are the municipal courts created by legislature?
[01:46:45.900 --> 01:46:58.900]  And is it not a fact that you can never obtain judicial due process of law in a legislative created court?
[01:46:58.900 --> 01:47:02.900]  I can start with that third one. I may let Randy pick up on the first two.
[01:47:02.900 --> 01:47:03.900]  Thank you.
[01:47:03.900 --> 01:47:10.900]  All courts are created by statute. There's not a court anywhere, state or United States.
[01:47:10.900 --> 01:47:13.900]  That's created by anything other than statute.
[01:47:13.900 --> 01:47:21.900]  Now, we can get into the mechanism, is it the court that's created or is it the judicial office that's created?
[01:47:21.900 --> 01:47:26.900]  And that gets into some fine points that probably aren't relevant here.
[01:47:26.900 --> 01:47:35.900]  There's no judicial officer anywhere that's exercising authority that comes by any mechanism other than a statute.
[01:47:35.900 --> 01:47:43.900]  So the fundamental answer to your third question is yes, we get due process by a court created by legislature
[01:47:43.900 --> 01:47:50.900]  because if we get due process at all, it's in a court created by the legislative act.
[01:47:50.900 --> 01:47:52.900]  Okay.
[01:47:52.900 --> 01:47:59.900]  Yes, and how do you get due process? You become the belligerent litigant.
[01:47:59.900 --> 01:48:03.900]  You stand up and you demand it.
[01:48:03.900 --> 01:48:13.900]  I had someone at one of my seminars say, well, Mr. Kilton, how do you express your sovereignty?
[01:48:13.900 --> 01:48:17.900]  And he went on to imply that, you know, there were certain things that you had to do.
[01:48:17.900 --> 01:48:20.900]  I said, no, no, no, you don't do any of that stuff.
[01:48:20.900 --> 01:48:26.900]  The way you express your sovereignty is you act like one.
[01:48:26.900 --> 01:48:30.900]  We are the sovereigns. We are the masters.
[01:48:30.900 --> 01:48:37.900]  They are the servants, and you and I as masters through our legislative representatives
[01:48:37.900 --> 01:48:43.900]  have laid down the law for our servants, and they are to follow it.
[01:48:43.900 --> 01:48:48.900]  If they don't follow it, when you're in court, you take off your litigant's hat,
[01:48:48.900 --> 01:48:54.900]  you put on your master's hat, and you take them to task for it.
[01:48:54.900 --> 01:49:00.900]  If we are waiting for someone else to preserve our rights for us,
[01:49:00.900 --> 01:49:05.900]  we will have ourselves a very long wait.
[01:49:05.900 --> 01:49:09.900]  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
[01:49:09.900 --> 01:49:11.900]  Thank you very much.
[01:49:11.900 --> 01:49:12.900]  You are welcome.
[01:49:12.900 --> 01:49:14.900]  All right, thanks, Susan.
[01:49:14.900 --> 01:49:17.900]  All right, we've got Gary in Texas now.
[01:49:17.900 --> 01:49:20.900]  Gary, thank you for calling. What is on your mind tonight?
[01:49:20.900 --> 01:49:24.900]  First of all, great show, and second, Randy, how come we haven't heard
[01:49:24.900 --> 01:49:27.900]  a single good day, mate, from you all yet?
[01:49:27.900 --> 01:49:29.900]  He had one at the beginning.
[01:49:29.900 --> 01:49:34.900]  You did at the very beginning, but it sucks so bad I heard the win from here.
[01:49:34.900 --> 01:49:36.900]  Good day, mate.
[01:49:36.900 --> 01:49:37.900]  Thank you. That makes it all.
[01:49:37.900 --> 01:49:41.900]  And Harmon Taylor, my absolute favorite guest of all.
[01:49:41.900 --> 01:49:44.900]  Just incredible. Really a lot of respect for him.
[01:49:44.900 --> 01:49:46.900]  Thanks so much for listening.
[01:49:46.900 --> 01:49:50.900]  It makes a difference that we have an audience that asks the question,
[01:49:50.900 --> 01:49:56.900]  and does the homework to prepare for the class sessions via radio.
[01:49:56.900 --> 01:50:01.900]  I tell everybody that every time I sit down and talk to Harmon Taylor,
[01:50:01.900 --> 01:50:06.900]  it takes me three days for my head to stop spinning.
[01:50:06.900 --> 01:50:07.900]  Quick question for you.
[01:50:07.900 --> 01:50:09.900]  Harmon, do you still have your book?
[01:50:09.900 --> 01:50:14.900]  I think it's called A Primer on Money or something to that effect.
[01:50:14.900 --> 01:50:19.900]  The first book I published is called We the Posterity Voluntary Bondage,
[01:50:19.900 --> 01:50:24.900]  and I don't make that normally available anymore.
[01:50:24.900 --> 01:50:27.900]  It's out of circulation because it's dated.
[01:50:27.900 --> 01:50:30.900]  There's some things in there I need to update,
[01:50:30.900 --> 01:50:33.900]  and I haven't any more had time to do that than The Man and the Moon.
[01:50:33.900 --> 01:50:36.900]  I've got the original version.
[01:50:36.900 --> 01:50:38.900]  I'm not marketing that anymore.
[01:50:38.900 --> 01:50:44.900]  I'm very interested in obtaining everything that you've written.
[01:50:44.900 --> 01:50:46.900]  Maybe you can address that later.
[01:50:46.900 --> 01:50:50.900]  Second, I have a very low battery, so I need to get right to the point.
[01:50:50.900 --> 01:50:53.900]  Back to the marriage license.
[01:50:53.900 --> 01:50:57.900]  Looking at Black's Deluxe Fourth Edition,
[01:50:57.900 --> 01:51:00.900]  the marriage license, the definition in law,
[01:51:00.900 --> 01:51:06.900]  is a license or permission granted by public authority, not the church.
[01:51:06.900 --> 01:51:12.900]  The persons who intend to intermarry usually address to the minister
[01:51:12.900 --> 01:51:15.900]  or magistrate who is to perform the ceremony,
[01:51:15.900 --> 01:51:20.900]  or in general terms to anyone authorized to solemnize marriages.
[01:51:20.900 --> 01:51:22.900]  Do you know the history of...
[01:51:22.900 --> 01:51:24.900]  Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done.
[01:51:24.900 --> 01:51:26.900]  No. Last sentence.
[01:51:26.900 --> 01:51:28.900]  By statute in some jurisdictions,
[01:51:28.900 --> 01:51:34.900]  it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful
[01:51:34.900 --> 01:51:37.900]  solemnization of the marriage.
[01:51:37.900 --> 01:51:40.900]  And I'm going to bring up a very controversial issue
[01:51:40.900 --> 01:51:42.900]  regarding the marriage license.
[01:51:42.900 --> 01:51:49.900]  I think the marriage license is the key to the argument with abortion.
[01:51:49.900 --> 01:51:52.900]  I know it's a heavy, heavy thing to say,
[01:51:52.900 --> 01:52:00.900]  but if you look at the biblical explanations regarding abortion,
[01:52:00.900 --> 01:52:05.900]  it does not condemn the instigator to death.
[01:52:05.900 --> 01:52:10.900]  It only condemns them to a fine for stealing a blessing.
[01:52:10.900 --> 01:52:15.900]  For some reason, I believe, because of the marriage license,
[01:52:15.900 --> 01:52:24.900]  abortion is the humongous issue that it is on the public front.
[01:52:24.900 --> 01:52:28.900]  I'd just like to have your comments regarding the definition in law
[01:52:28.900 --> 01:52:32.900]  versus the biblical reality.
[01:52:32.900 --> 01:52:33.900]  Excellent question.
[01:52:33.900 --> 01:52:36.900]  Let's start with the definition of the Fourth Edition.
[01:52:36.900 --> 01:52:38.900]  I forget when it was published,
[01:52:38.900 --> 01:52:42.900]  but I'm 98% certain it's before the change in the choice of law.
[01:52:42.900 --> 01:52:46.900]  So what you have there is a concept that comes from a law-of-the-land-based system,
[01:52:46.900 --> 01:52:52.900]  and the churches were not granting interracial marriage.
[01:52:52.900 --> 01:52:54.900]  The state said, well, okay, we'll do it.
[01:52:54.900 --> 01:53:00.900]  And so we've got this conflict about when who should be married to whom comes up.
[01:53:00.900 --> 01:53:03.900]  The state was doing it, and that's how it got started.
[01:53:03.900 --> 01:53:06.900]  It didn't stop there.
[01:53:06.900 --> 01:53:09.900]  It became the issue, and I don't know if you got to hear the show a little earlier.
[01:53:09.900 --> 01:53:13.900]  We talked about the case specifically on the marriage license,
[01:53:13.900 --> 01:53:15.900]  and race is no longer an issue.
[01:53:15.900 --> 01:53:16.900]  It used to be.
[01:53:16.900 --> 01:53:17.900]  That's where it started.
[01:53:17.900 --> 01:53:18.900]  It's an excellent point.
[01:53:18.900 --> 01:53:20.900]  It's not where it is now.
[01:53:20.900 --> 01:53:22.900]  It goes to anything.
[01:53:22.900 --> 01:53:26.900]  Now, as for abortion and the marriage license,
[01:53:26.900 --> 01:53:29.900]  it's not a concept that I had connected before.
[01:53:29.900 --> 01:53:33.900]  I'm fascinated by it, and maybe that's exactly where we should be.
[01:53:33.900 --> 01:53:40.900]  The fundamental approach I've got on that concept comes straight out of the common law,
[01:53:40.900 --> 01:53:42.900]  and it's backwards.
[01:53:42.900 --> 01:53:45.900]  I'm saying this so nicely.
[01:53:45.900 --> 01:53:50.900]  It's backwards to say that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.
[01:53:50.900 --> 01:53:53.900]  That presumes that something else had illegalized it,
[01:53:53.900 --> 01:53:55.900]  and there's nothing in the common law,
[01:53:55.900 --> 01:53:57.900]  and it's odd to see it this way,
[01:53:57.900 --> 01:54:01.900]  but what you identified in the scriptural punishment is exactly right.
[01:54:01.900 --> 01:54:07.900]  There's nothing in the common law which comes from scripture that ever illegalized it.
[01:54:07.900 --> 01:54:13.900]  So to say that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion turns the entire opinion on its ear.
[01:54:13.900 --> 01:54:20.900]  In fact, what Roe v. Wade said was abortion is restricted.
[01:54:20.900 --> 01:54:24.900]  It is the first time in the history of the common law-based systems
[01:54:24.900 --> 01:54:28.900]  that the right to life attached to an unborn fetus.
[01:54:28.900 --> 01:54:32.900]  It's revolutionary in what it's saying,
[01:54:32.900 --> 01:54:36.900]  and of course that's all squandered in the discussions about the case.
[01:54:36.900 --> 01:54:40.900]  So regardless about how one views the issue of abortion,
[01:54:40.900 --> 01:54:45.900]  Roe v. Wade says the right to life attaches at quickening.
[01:54:45.900 --> 01:54:48.900]  There's a lot of things that Roe v. Wade says,
[01:54:48.900 --> 01:54:51.900]  but when it comes down to the abortion issue,
[01:54:51.900 --> 01:54:54.900]  the right to life attaches at quickening.
[01:54:54.900 --> 01:54:56.900]  So what the Supremes did was...
[01:54:56.900 --> 01:54:57.900]  Quickening, please.
[01:54:57.900 --> 01:55:02.900]  Quickening is the medical term where they're actually seeing movement in the fetus.
[01:55:02.900 --> 01:55:06.900]  It's roughly in the third trimester.
[01:55:06.900 --> 01:55:07.900]  Yeah.
[01:55:07.900 --> 01:55:08.900]  So...
[01:55:08.900 --> 01:55:15.900]  I would say that if you look at the biblical start of life,
[01:55:15.900 --> 01:55:21.900]  it's the word nephesh chai in the Hebrew,
[01:55:21.900 --> 01:55:25.900]  and that concerns breath life.
[01:55:25.900 --> 01:55:28.900]  Okay, that'd be born alive.
[01:55:28.900 --> 01:55:29.900]  Yes, sir.
[01:55:29.900 --> 01:55:31.900]  And I've done quite a study on this,
[01:55:31.900 --> 01:55:39.900]  and I can... now this is where I may differ with the opinion of the audience,
[01:55:39.900 --> 01:55:44.900]  but I think that the biblical teaching is that life begins with the first breath
[01:55:44.900 --> 01:55:47.900]  just as it ends with the last breath.
[01:55:47.900 --> 01:55:49.900]  I completely agree with you, Gary.
[01:55:49.900 --> 01:55:50.900]  Thank you.
[01:55:50.900 --> 01:55:54.900]  Because if you look up the word in Greek,
[01:55:54.900 --> 01:55:57.900]  the word for spirit and breath are the same.
[01:55:57.900 --> 01:55:58.900]  That's right.
[01:55:58.900 --> 01:56:02.900]  In Genesis, it says God breathed life into Adam,
[01:56:02.900 --> 01:56:04.900]  and he became a living soul.
[01:56:04.900 --> 01:56:10.900]  And it wasn't until he breathed life into him that he became a living soul.
[01:56:10.900 --> 01:56:14.900]  Because prior to that, he was not a living soul.
[01:56:14.900 --> 01:56:17.900]  And I think that the... and this is so controversial, I know,
[01:56:17.900 --> 01:56:26.900]  because of the deliberate manipulation of the believing of the public.
[01:56:26.900 --> 01:56:34.900]  But Roe v. Wade is really, in a sense, legally it's right,
[01:56:34.900 --> 01:56:39.900]  but I disagree with it because it contradicts the biblical truth
[01:56:39.900 --> 01:56:44.900]  that life begins with the first breath and ends with the last.
[01:56:44.900 --> 01:56:52.900]  Well, it's based on that standard that we see how nonsensical it is to say
[01:56:52.900 --> 01:56:55.900]  that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion
[01:56:55.900 --> 01:56:59.900]  because scripturally, there are fundamentally no such thing.
[01:56:59.900 --> 01:57:00.900]  That's right.
[01:57:00.900 --> 01:57:01.900]  And that's odd.
[01:57:01.900 --> 01:57:03.900]  And a lot of people shake their head at that and say,
[01:57:03.900 --> 01:57:04.900]  no, I can't believe that.
[01:57:04.900 --> 01:57:08.900]  Surely scripture says that life begins at conception.
[01:57:08.900 --> 01:57:09.900]  And we get into all that issue,
[01:57:09.900 --> 01:57:11.900]  and I didn't really want to get into all of that here
[01:57:11.900 --> 01:57:13.900]  just to point the differences out.
[01:57:13.900 --> 01:57:16.900]  But in the common law,
[01:57:16.900 --> 01:57:21.900]  homicide is defined as the taking of the life of someone who's born and alive.
[01:57:21.900 --> 01:57:24.900]  And that's where this whole thing starts.
[01:57:24.900 --> 01:57:28.900]  Did a homicide determinate an unborn fetus?
[01:57:28.900 --> 01:57:32.900]  Under the common law, the answer is no, it's not homicide.
[01:57:32.900 --> 01:57:39.900]  And the concept that faced the judicial system in the Roe v. Wade case is,
[01:57:39.900 --> 01:57:45.900]  are we going to redefine where the right to life attaches?
[01:57:45.900 --> 01:57:47.900]  And they did.
[01:57:47.900 --> 01:57:49.900]  They redefined it.
[01:57:49.900 --> 01:57:52.900]  Do you think they got it right, sir?
[01:57:52.900 --> 01:57:56.900]  I'm going to head toward the policy of presuming the Supremes
[01:57:56.900 --> 01:57:58.900]  know exactly what they're doing.
[01:57:58.900 --> 01:58:02.900]  So when in doubt, presume that they got it right,
[01:58:02.900 --> 01:58:05.900]  and then understand from that what the policy is,
[01:58:05.900 --> 01:58:07.900]  whether we agree with it or not,
[01:58:07.900 --> 01:58:09.900]  whether it should be or not.
[01:58:09.900 --> 01:58:11.900]  The question is, what is?
[01:58:11.900 --> 01:58:17.900]  And right now, what is is the right to life attaches at quickening.
[01:58:17.900 --> 01:58:23.900]  With full opportunity in the states to back that up all the way to conception
[01:58:23.900 --> 01:58:27.900]  by state legislation, if that's what they want to do.
[01:58:27.900 --> 01:58:30.900]  Yeah, this would be a great night to take another swing,
[01:58:30.900 --> 01:58:32.900]  another 15-minute segment.
[01:58:32.900 --> 01:58:34.900]  I'm just suggesting that.
[01:58:34.900 --> 01:58:36.900]  Well, more than appreciate your call.
[01:58:36.900 --> 01:58:37.900]  Yeah, we're about out of time.
[01:58:37.900 --> 01:58:38.900]  Yeah, we're out of time.
[01:58:38.900 --> 01:58:39.900]  We need to get going.
[01:58:39.900 --> 01:58:41.900]  But thank you so much, Gary.
[01:58:41.900 --> 01:58:42.900]  All right, folks.
[01:58:42.900 --> 01:58:46.900]  This has been our Friday four-hour info marathon on the rule of law.
[01:58:46.900 --> 01:58:48.900]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens,
[01:58:48.900 --> 01:58:50.900]  and our special guest, Harmon Taylor.
[01:58:50.900 --> 01:58:53.900]  And we will be back on Monday night for traffic night.
[01:58:53.900 --> 01:58:56.900]  You all have a very blessed weekend.
[01:58:56.900 --> 01:58:58.900]  God bless and good night.
[01:58:58.900 --> 01:59:20.900]  I'm like a stepping phrase, I don't want my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:20.900 --> 01:59:43.900]  I'm like a stepping phrase, I don't want my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.
[01:59:43.900 --> 01:59:58.900]  I'm like a stepping phrase, I don't want my size, I'm dangerous, dangerous.