ROL_2011-07-11_16k.timecode

[00:09.240 --> 00:11.840]  the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.
[00:11.840 --> 00:16.600]  He also warned it will take several decades until the site is finally cleaned up.
[00:16.600 --> 00:22.000]  Removal of melted nuclear fuel is expected to begin around 2021, with reactors to be
[00:22.000 --> 00:26.440]  dismantled over a 30-year period.
[00:26.440 --> 00:31.560]  British police said Monday they believe someone is trying to sabotage their investigation
[00:31.560 --> 00:37.600]  into Rupert Murdoch's News of the World tabloid by leaking distracting details of the inquiry
[00:37.600 --> 00:39.080]  into the media.
[00:39.080 --> 00:44.000]  Scotland Yard said a story claiming police tasked with protecting the royal family sold
[00:44.000 --> 00:49.920]  personal details about the Queen and her closest allies was, quote, part of a deliberate campaign
[00:49.920 --> 00:54.720]  to undermine the investigation and divert attention.
[00:54.720 --> 00:59.620]  Bloomberg News says Greece's move to prevent an aid flotilla from departing its ports to
[00:59.620 --> 01:05.960]  challenge Israel's Gaza blockade is explained by Israel's natural gas discoveries, especially
[01:05.960 --> 01:12.320]  the Leviathan field that lies close to Cyprus and holds an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet.
[01:12.320 --> 01:16.720]  Greece stands to become a hub for Israeli gas exports to Europe.
[01:16.720 --> 01:24.120]  U.S. troops' deaths from the war in Afghanistan since Barack Obama took office in 2009 reached
[01:24.120 --> 01:28.640]  10,000 last week, nearly two-thirds of all U.S. war fatalities.
[01:28.640 --> 01:34.280]  The Obama administration has publicly conceded there is no military solution in Afghanistan
[01:34.280 --> 01:37.680]  and claimed it supports a, quote, Afghan-led reconciliation.
[01:37.680 --> 01:42.760]  However, the administration has backed away from the substantial drawdown of troops it
[01:42.760 --> 01:45.160]  had promised would begin this July.
[01:45.160 --> 01:49.720]  Instead, the administration has opted for a drawdown that will leave about twice as
[01:49.720 --> 01:53.880]  many troops in the country as were there when Obama took office.
[01:53.880 --> 02:01.400]  The Kabul-based Afghanistan Rights Monitor says 2,421 Afghan civilian deaths in 2010
[02:01.400 --> 02:02.400]  was a record.
[02:02.400 --> 02:07.840]  Thousands protested in eastern Afghanistan last week over the deaths of 13 people, including
[02:07.840 --> 02:12.400]  eight children and three women in a NATO raid.
[02:12.400 --> 02:17.540]  European Council President Herman Van Rompuy convened an emergency meeting Monday of top
[02:17.540 --> 02:23.480]  officials dealing with the eurozone debt crisis, reflecting concern it could spread to Italy,
[02:23.480 --> 02:26.040]  the region's third-largest economy.
[02:26.040 --> 02:31.360]  Van Rompuy's spokesman denied it was a crisis meeting, but two official sources told Reuters
[02:31.360 --> 02:33.880]  the situation in Italy would be discussed.
[02:33.880 --> 02:39.240]  The talks were organized after a sharp sell-off in Italian assets Friday, increasing fears
[02:39.240 --> 02:44.440]  that Italy, with the highest sovereign debt ratio relative to its economy in the eurozone
[02:44.440 --> 02:47.920]  after Greece, could be the next to suffer.
[02:47.920 --> 02:54.920]  Because in Italy's biggest bank, UniCreditSpa fell 7.9 percent Friday.
[03:47.920 --> 04:04.200]  Good evening, folks.
[04:04.200 --> 04:05.840]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[04:05.840 --> 04:08.360]  This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[04:08.360 --> 04:11.120]  It is July 11, 2011.
[04:11.120 --> 04:13.960]  We are live, not Memorex today.
[04:13.960 --> 04:17.560]  So what we're going to do tonight is talk a little bit while we're waiting on the collar
[04:17.560 --> 04:20.040]  board to fill up.
[04:20.040 --> 04:26.200]  I've been doing some research today on Austin municipal judges, and I came across an interesting
[04:26.200 --> 04:29.400]  website that I'm going to give you the address to.
[04:29.400 --> 04:37.160]  This website is called the Courthouse Forum, and it allows you to look up any judge in
[04:37.160 --> 04:41.780]  any state or territory, whether it be state or federal.
[04:41.780 --> 04:45.360]  You can see what court they're in, so on and so forth.
[04:45.360 --> 04:51.040]  You can also complete a survey about that judge.
[04:51.040 --> 04:57.040]  The reason I want to give this information out is because I've been going through this
[04:57.040 --> 05:03.320]  site all day looking at the various judges that we're associated with here in Austin
[05:03.320 --> 05:10.200]  and a few other places, and no one's posted anything about these judges on this site via
[05:10.200 --> 05:11.960]  the surveys.
[05:11.960 --> 05:15.240]  I would like to see that change.
[05:15.240 --> 05:22.040]  This gives you the ability to rate the judge on their ability to abide by the law, courtroom
[05:22.040 --> 05:26.680]  decorum, treatment of pro se versus lawyers.
[05:26.680 --> 05:30.520]  It allows you to do a survey of everything about them.
[05:30.520 --> 05:35.960]  So what I'd like to do is give you the address, and it's an IP address of all things.
[05:35.960 --> 05:39.280]  It's not in the DNS name list.
[05:39.280 --> 05:51.340]  It is http colon forward slash forward slash 184 dot 107 dot 25 dot 129 forward slash the
[05:51.340 --> 05:59.360]  word forums forward slash the word directory dot php.
[05:59.360 --> 06:03.840]  When you go there, you'll get a list of the judge's directory.
[06:03.840 --> 06:08.020]  That's what I've got this page set to right now is the judge directory.
[06:08.020 --> 06:14.040]  This is where you can go and find a judge by name.
[06:14.040 --> 06:19.020]  If you can't find them by name, then over on the right hand side is a set of links that
[06:19.020 --> 06:24.760]  will let you look them up either in state territories as far as jurisdiction, or you
[06:24.760 --> 06:30.680]  can look up judge directories for a given state or for a given federal judge in a given
[06:30.680 --> 06:33.280]  district.
[06:33.280 --> 06:38.060]  This actually seems like it would be a really useful tool for people that are having to
[06:38.060 --> 06:41.000]  contend with these corrupt judges.
[06:41.000 --> 06:49.160]  This website is set up to collect user information about their experience and interaction with
[06:49.160 --> 06:51.840]  each of these judges.
[06:51.840 --> 06:59.080]  Now it would seem like down here in the Austin Municipal Court that there is a predominance
[06:59.080 --> 07:04.800]  of activity over a very few judges.
[07:04.800 --> 07:12.200]  For instance, whenever I've gone down to watch people go into court, almost invariably except
[07:12.200 --> 07:18.200]  for the initial appearance, I've seen only two trial judges the whole time that I've
[07:18.200 --> 07:21.040]  been in there.
[07:21.040 --> 07:29.840]  Judge Statman was one and Judge Albert Jenkins was the other.
[07:29.840 --> 07:36.200]  These two seem to be handling the majority of the actual cases that go to trial, whereas
[07:36.200 --> 07:40.700]  the other judges are there for the purpose of running you through the ringer at the initial
[07:40.700 --> 07:44.720]  appearance and setting you for trial.
[07:44.720 --> 07:50.880]  What I would really like for those that listen to our show to do is make a note of this website
[07:50.880 --> 07:52.520]  and bookmark it.
[07:52.520 --> 07:57.320]  If you know somebody that has to go before the Austin Municipal Court or any other court
[07:57.320 --> 08:04.780]  for that matter in Texas or anywhere else, go to this website, locate the judge that
[08:04.780 --> 08:08.880]  they had to appear before and rate that judge.
[08:08.880 --> 08:14.320]  Let's give this website something to do because it seems that because it's not in a DNS search
[08:14.320 --> 08:23.840]  list nobody knows about it because I've only found a few entries for any particular judge
[08:23.840 --> 08:27.320]  in very sparse cases.
[08:27.320 --> 08:31.480]  The majority of the judges that are listed on this site have no entries for them in any
[08:31.480 --> 08:37.000]  capacity, no biographies, no information other than where they work and what their name is.
[08:37.000 --> 08:43.400]  No one's done a survey on them for competency or their ability to be a judge even.
[08:43.400 --> 08:49.680]  What we really need to start doing is using some place like this or hopefully be able
[08:49.680 --> 08:55.320]  to set one up of our own, which now that I've seen this I may consider doing that off of
[08:55.320 --> 08:59.840]  or linking to this particular one off of my site when I'm finally able to get it up and
[08:59.840 --> 09:07.160]  running like I want to, but let's start making these judges accountable to the public just
[09:07.160 --> 09:10.440]  like we're trying to do with the attorneys.
[09:10.440 --> 09:14.840]  We're going to put the judicial conduct complaints and the bar grievances through Randy's website
[09:14.840 --> 09:19.480]  if he gets that finished anytime soon where it runs like we need it to, but at the same
[09:19.480 --> 09:26.200]  time we also need to start compiling information about these judges and their habits when it
[09:26.200 --> 09:33.200]  comes to how they deal with people in their courtroom, what their tendencies are to ignore
[09:33.200 --> 09:37.520]  or apply the law and so on and so forth.
[09:37.520 --> 09:41.400]  I know some of these judges think they're all that and a bag of chips.
[09:41.400 --> 09:42.780]  They've never read the law.
[09:42.780 --> 09:49.000]  They just presume they know it and they use conventional wisdom to substantiate their
[09:49.000 --> 09:56.260]  assertion that the law means or is this and yet you can tell by the fact that they're
[09:56.260 --> 10:04.680]  making that assertion they've never read the law because the assertion on its face is stupid.
[10:04.680 --> 10:07.000]  There's just no other way to put it.
[10:07.000 --> 10:15.200]  They're asserting a meaning of a given statute and nothing they're spouting off is anywhere
[10:15.200 --> 10:19.200]  in that statute.
[10:19.200 --> 10:25.760]  Let's take for instance this big thing they've got going right now about trying to ensure
[10:25.760 --> 10:34.320]  that they can run you through the court on nothing more than the citation or just on
[10:34.320 --> 10:38.840]  a criminal complaint without a proper charging instrument.
[10:38.840 --> 10:43.160]  Let's analyze that for just a second.
[10:43.160 --> 10:49.560]  27.14D of the Code of Criminal Procedure is where they get their idea of alleged authority
[10:49.560 --> 10:56.720]  that they can use the complaint or I'm sorry the citation to take and enter a plea upon
[10:56.720 --> 11:05.000]  the record and if the plea is anything other than not guilty then they can take that plea,
[11:05.000 --> 11:14.320]  collect the fine, adjudicate the case with a finding of guilt and close the case.
[11:14.320 --> 11:19.440]  There's only one little series of problems with this however.
[11:19.440 --> 11:26.080]  One, the legislature has no authority to pass such an enactment.
[11:26.080 --> 11:27.160]  Why?
[11:27.160 --> 11:34.360]  Because it directly violates the Texas Constitution in Article 5 Section 12B which specifically
[11:34.360 --> 11:41.200]  states there are only two instruments that grant jurisdiction to a court to adjudicate
[11:41.200 --> 11:46.280]  a case and that is an indictment or information.
[11:46.280 --> 11:54.160]  This is backed up by the Code of Criminal Procedure which says in 27.01 the primary
[11:54.160 --> 11:59.440]  pleading of the state in any criminal case is an indictment or information.
[11:59.440 --> 12:00.440]  Get it?
[12:00.440 --> 12:03.220]  The primary pleading.
[12:03.220 --> 12:12.040]  Primary meaning the one most important absolutely necessary thing to have is an indictment or
[12:12.040 --> 12:15.380]  information.
[12:15.380 --> 12:24.140]  So the legislature cannot allow them to create out of thin air a whole new charging instrument
[12:24.140 --> 12:32.240]  that the Texas Constitution does not authorize or recognize nor does any part of Texas law
[12:32.240 --> 12:40.760]  authorize or recognize a complaint as a charging instrument.
[12:40.760 --> 12:49.360]  Now 27.014D has another serious problem in that they're using just the citation.
[12:49.360 --> 12:55.680]  They're not even generating a complaint, the legislature tried to grant the authority to
[12:55.680 --> 13:03.200]  the courts to just use the citation to get the jurisdiction to accept the plea, adjudicate
[13:03.200 --> 13:08.780]  a finding of guilt and close the case after collecting the money.
[13:08.780 --> 13:17.160]  But again violates Texas Constitution and violates Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
[13:17.160 --> 13:26.240]  Not to mention the fact that the very last sentence in 27.14D only allows them to do
[13:26.240 --> 13:35.160]  this if the defendant will sign a written waiver showing that they and the prosecuting
[13:35.160 --> 13:44.920]  attorney have reached a consensus to accept the citation as a charging instrument and
[13:44.920 --> 13:53.000]  thus waive the necessity of generating a complaint and a charging instrument.
[13:53.000 --> 13:58.680]  Without that written waiver they can't use the citation.
[13:58.680 --> 14:06.900]  It clearly states the defendant must sign and file the waiver with the court in agreement
[14:06.900 --> 14:15.480]  with the prosecuting attorney before they can do that action of accepting the citation
[14:15.480 --> 14:17.920]  over a complaint.
[14:17.920 --> 14:21.460]  But again slight problem.
[14:21.460 --> 14:26.920]  You can't waive a constitutional requirement.
[14:26.920 --> 14:34.680]  The court can't, the legislature can't waive what the Constitution says is the only thing
[14:34.680 --> 14:40.400]  that grants the court jurisdiction.
[14:40.400 --> 14:45.860]  The legislature has no authority to do that.
[14:45.860 --> 14:50.600]  They cannot say well the Constitution says this is the only two things that the court
[14:50.600 --> 14:56.400]  can have to get jurisdiction but we the legislature are going to waive that and allow the court
[14:56.400 --> 15:01.840]  to do it in a manner that doesn't follow the Texas Constitution.
[15:01.840 --> 15:09.320]  Sorry, that little activity is completely barred by the Texas Constitution.
[15:09.320 --> 15:13.360]  Article 1 Section 29.
[15:13.360 --> 15:22.000]  No law is allowed to go against anything in the Bill of Rights or any other provision
[15:22.000 --> 15:30.320]  of the Texas Constitution and if it does the law is null and void.
[15:30.320 --> 15:32.880]  Is it right in there?
[15:32.880 --> 15:39.340]  So there is no way that the legislature can grant that authority.
[15:39.340 --> 15:44.120]  I had to testify before the committee against the sobriety checkpoints on exactly the same
[15:44.120 --> 15:45.120]  thing.
[15:45.120 --> 15:47.660]  You idiots can't pass this bill.
[15:47.660 --> 15:50.520]  You have no authority to pass this bill.
[15:50.520 --> 15:58.260]  It directly violates Article 1 Section 10 of the Texas Constitution and as such it automatically
[15:58.260 --> 16:02.260]  violates Article 1 Section 29.
[16:02.260 --> 16:06.380]  You simply have no authority to pass it.
[16:06.380 --> 16:12.600]  How difficult is that to understand folks?
[16:12.600 --> 16:18.080]  So you get to telling these people this and you get this blank zombie-like stare because
[16:18.080 --> 16:20.700]  they don't have a clue what you're talking about.
[16:20.700 --> 16:21.700]  And why?
[16:21.700 --> 16:25.780]  Because they haven't read the Texas Constitution.
[16:25.780 --> 16:31.500]  They may have skimmed over it as a requirement to taking the job but I guarantee you they
[16:31.500 --> 16:34.960]  haven't read it, read it, studied it and understand it.
[16:34.960 --> 16:41.020]  If they did, half the crap they passed would never see the light of day.
[16:41.020 --> 16:45.460]  Okay we have a couple of callers on the board, Windsor, Frank, we see you there so hang on
[16:45.460 --> 16:46.640]  we're about to go to break.
[16:46.640 --> 16:49.780]  I'll pick up on the other side, finish up and get to you guys.
[16:49.780 --> 16:55.680]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, 512-646-1984 is a call
[16:55.680 --> 16:56.680]  in number.
[16:56.680 --> 17:00.480]  We'll be right back.
[17:00.480 --> 17:05.440]  Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[17:05.440 --> 17:07.440]  in the Austin metro area.
[17:07.440 --> 17:09.240]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:09.240 --> 17:13.080]  We're a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[17:13.080 --> 17:14.960]  and metals purchases.
[17:14.960 --> 17:19.060]  Because of you, Austin, business has been so good that we've had to move to a new and
[17:19.060 --> 17:20.060]  bigger location.
[17:20.060 --> 17:27.320]  We're now located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, 1.2 miles north on Burnett from our previous
[17:27.320 --> 17:28.320]  location.
[17:28.320 --> 17:31.640]  We're on the west side of Burnett Road in the Stanley Insurance building on the ground
[17:31.640 --> 17:35.040]  floor next to the Ishiban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[17:35.040 --> 17:39.160]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 5.
[17:39.160 --> 17:45.920]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440, ask for Chad or
[17:45.920 --> 17:50.720]  Becky and say that you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[17:50.720 --> 17:56.120]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion at our new location at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, or
[17:56.120 --> 18:00.320]  call 512-646-6440.
[18:00.320 --> 18:05.640]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:05.640 --> 18:09.120]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meris Proven Method.
[18:09.120 --> 18:13.440]  Michael Meris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[18:13.440 --> 18:14.440]  can win too.
[18:14.440 --> 18:19.280]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.280 --> 18:25.160]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.160 --> 18:29.680]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[18:29.680 --> 18:33.900]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:33.900 --> 18:38.680]  The Michael Meris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.680 --> 18:41.160]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.160 --> 18:46.680]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Meris banner
[18:46.680 --> 18:49.680]  or email MichaelMeris at Yahoo.com.
[18:49.680 --> 18:59.240]  That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.240 --> 19:12.120]  now.
[19:12.120 --> 19:37.240]  Thank you, Michael.
[19:37.240 --> 20:03.920]  All right, folks, we are back.
[20:03.920 --> 20:05.200]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[20:05.200 --> 20:07.920]  Your call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[20:07.920 --> 20:12.760]  Okay, Windsor, Frank, hang on just a minute, let me finish up what I'm talking about here
[20:12.760 --> 20:15.960]  on this and we'll take your calls.
[20:15.960 --> 20:22.520]  Okay, now, the other problem, after we've eliminated their ability to use the citation
[20:22.520 --> 20:28.360]  in lieu of a complaint and they're trying to use the complaint in lieu of a proper charging
[20:28.360 --> 20:34.480]  instrument, this is something the legislature cannot authorize because it violates the Texas
[20:34.480 --> 20:38.600]  Constitution, Article 5, Section 12b, like I said.
[20:38.600 --> 20:44.440]  The same situation arises when they try to proceed upon a complaint alone.
[20:44.440 --> 20:49.920]  When they tell you in these courts that they can proceed to prosecute you simply based
[20:49.920 --> 20:57.060]  upon the complaint without any other type of proper charging instrument, they're trying
[20:57.060 --> 21:04.520]  to allege that the complaint is a proper charging instrument and that is not true.
[21:04.520 --> 21:09.720]  The case law alone should make the argument on that because the case law very clearly
[21:09.720 --> 21:17.000]  states that the necessity of informing the defendant of all of the necessary elements
[21:17.000 --> 21:24.400]  are not a requisite of a complaint, but they are a requisite of a charging instrument such
[21:24.400 --> 21:27.160]  as an indictment or an information.
[21:27.160 --> 21:35.080]  In other words, the complaint is not required to give proper, complete notice of the offense
[21:35.080 --> 21:37.720]  alleged against the accused.
[21:37.720 --> 21:42.040]  It is only for the purpose of making the accusation.
[21:42.040 --> 21:48.920]  The charging instrument is the thing that is required to have the necessary detail in
[21:48.920 --> 21:57.040]  order to provide the accused with enough information to defend against the charge.
[21:57.040 --> 22:03.200]  So how in the world do these moronic lower court judges come to the conclusion that a
[22:03.200 --> 22:11.760]  complaint is a proper charging instrument when it does not give proper notice?
[22:11.760 --> 22:20.800]  It simply doesn't and the courts have ruled that in Texas over and over and over again.
[22:20.800 --> 22:28.320]  Back in 1958, the Texas courts ruled that they could use a complaint alone in a justice
[22:28.320 --> 22:30.360]  or municipal court.
[22:30.360 --> 22:35.320]  I have yet to ever find a statute that said that.
[22:35.320 --> 22:43.320]  In fact, the statute that they relied on to come to that dumb conclusion was 45.01 of
[22:43.320 --> 22:51.800]  the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, by the way, judges, was repealed in 1999.
[22:51.800 --> 23:02.760]  Therefore, your case law that the TMCEC relies on to train you dummies is null and void because
[23:02.760 --> 23:07.280]  the statute it was based on is gone.
[23:07.280 --> 23:16.840]  But even when it existed, 45.01 did not say that they could use a complaint in lieu of
[23:16.840 --> 23:23.900]  a charging instrument, nor did it say that a complaint constituted a proper charging
[23:23.900 --> 23:26.760]  instrument.
[23:26.760 --> 23:30.640]  Didn't say that at all.
[23:30.640 --> 23:38.000]  When you go to the House bill, or the Senate bill rather, that actually removed 45.01,
[23:38.000 --> 23:45.840]  which in 1999 was the 76th legislature, when you go look at that bill, there is absolutely
[23:45.840 --> 23:55.480]  no discussion, no notes, no journal entries, no nothing regarding why that section was
[23:55.480 --> 23:58.920]  repealed the way it was.
[23:58.920 --> 24:04.960]  But let me give you a clue as to my idea about why it was repealed, and it was done without
[24:04.960 --> 24:08.840]  any comment whatsoever.
[24:08.840 --> 24:15.240]  It was repealed because it violated the Texas Constitution.
[24:15.240 --> 24:19.640]  And somebody made a fuss about it.
[24:19.640 --> 24:26.840]  But they didn't want to make the courts look stupid, so they didn't put anything in the
[24:26.840 --> 24:30.640]  language that said why they were getting rid of it.
[24:30.640 --> 24:33.380]  They just did.
[24:33.380 --> 24:39.480]  It was just suddenly repealed without explanation.
[24:39.480 --> 24:47.320]  So if you think that the legislature is not trying to cover these courts in their illegal
[24:47.320 --> 24:51.880]  actions, that right there is a good example of how they are.
[24:51.880 --> 24:53.140]  Why?
[24:53.140 --> 24:59.360]  Because if the legislature had made the commentary that due to the abuse of this portion in a
[24:59.360 --> 25:06.400]  way that violates the Texas Constitution, the language is hereby repealed that allows
[25:06.400 --> 25:11.680]  this misconstrued interpretation to do so.
[25:11.680 --> 25:17.800]  Now imagine you're a person that's been convicted in one of these two low-level courts just
[25:17.800 --> 25:20.400]  on a complaint.
[25:20.400 --> 25:27.280]  The floodgates have opened to go back and sue the living crap out of these judges and
[25:27.280 --> 25:36.080]  these prosecutors for malicious prosecution and fraud because they knowingly misused the
[25:36.080 --> 25:40.960]  law to steal money.
[25:40.960 --> 25:49.040]  And had you challenged them on it, going through the upper courts, they would have lost.
[25:49.040 --> 25:58.760]  And the state would have had to have refunded billions of dollars because of the long-term
[25:58.760 --> 25:59.760]  abuse.
[25:59.760 --> 26:04.920]  Remember, the original case was from 1958.
[26:04.920 --> 26:11.300]  The statute was repealed in 1999.
[26:11.300 --> 26:15.240]  You're talking 41 years right there.
[26:15.240 --> 26:24.240]  Then you're talking all of the idiotic statements by existing judges since 1999 that we don't
[26:24.240 --> 26:27.120]  need a charging instrument, the complaint will do.
[26:27.120 --> 26:30.640]  They're still doing it today.
[26:30.640 --> 26:38.720]  So now you've got to add another 13 years onto it, or 12 years, sorry.
[26:38.720 --> 26:46.320]  So you're talking a total of 53 years that these lower courts have been committing fraud
[26:46.320 --> 26:53.200]  and stealing money in violation of the Texas Constitution and the right of due process
[26:53.200 --> 26:58.840]  of the individual being convicted.
[26:58.840 --> 27:06.800]  Talk about put a hurtin' on the piggy bank to have to refund that money.
[27:06.800 --> 27:11.680]  If you think the state's complaining about budget issues right now, imagine what that
[27:11.680 --> 27:15.720]  would do to them.
[27:15.720 --> 27:20.320]  But this is the kind of crap we face every time we go to court.
[27:20.320 --> 27:27.360]  This is exactly why I hold the classes that I do to teach you guys about these statutes,
[27:27.360 --> 27:33.000]  the law, and how these idiots in these lower courts are violating them.
[27:33.000 --> 27:38.480]  If you don't know that they're violating your rights and violating the law, they get away
[27:38.480 --> 27:43.040]  with it because you're not going to know any better, you don't know enough to object to
[27:43.040 --> 27:53.800]  it and they just railroad you right through and run over your rights in the process.
[27:53.800 --> 27:56.840]  Keep that in mind.
[27:56.840 --> 28:01.060]  So that's one of the big problems we're looking at trying to resolve.
[28:01.060 --> 28:04.720]  Now we've got two or three callers on the board now, we've only got a couple minutes
[28:04.720 --> 28:08.280]  left before break, but I'm going to go ahead and take Windsor and get started with him
[28:08.280 --> 28:11.800]  and then we'll pick him up on the other side.
[28:11.800 --> 28:13.880]  Windsor in Georgia, what can we do for you?
[28:13.880 --> 28:17.000]  Hey Eddie, it's Bill Windsor with lawlessamerica.com.
[28:17.000 --> 28:18.000]  How are you?
[28:18.000 --> 28:19.000]  Alright sir, how are you?
[28:19.000 --> 28:20.000]  Good.
[28:20.000 --> 28:25.480]  I'm a Texas boy, I went to UT and Texas Tech and live in Georgia now and I've been fighting
[28:25.480 --> 28:30.960]  judicial corruption, government corruption for the last six years and we actually have
[28:30.960 --> 28:36.840]  something superior to courthouseforum.com so when you get a chance, check out lawlessamerica.com.
[28:36.840 --> 28:41.960]  We've got a couple of thousand judicial and police and attorney misconduct reports on
[28:41.960 --> 28:46.640]  there now and we've got about 40,000 that have been sent to us that we just don't have
[28:46.640 --> 28:49.080]  any volunteer manpower to put in.
[28:49.080 --> 28:54.760]  But your comments about citations in lieu of complaint and all of that, I'm much more
[28:54.760 --> 29:00.380]  experienced with federal, but on Friday here in Atlanta there will be two hearings held
[29:00.380 --> 29:03.240]  in matters I'm involved in in the federal court.
[29:03.240 --> 29:07.800]  In the first one, it's a completely bogus action.
[29:07.800 --> 29:09.400]  It doesn't exist.
[29:09.400 --> 29:15.700]  In federal court to have a lawsuit you have to have a complaint filed and a summons served.
[29:15.700 --> 29:17.920]  There is no such thing in this case.
[29:17.920 --> 29:22.880]  If a judge has ordered me to pay the attorney's fees for the other side and there's a hearing
[29:22.880 --> 29:28.040]  on that on Friday and he has no jurisdiction.
[29:28.040 --> 29:33.320]  But the issues here as I'm sure they are there is we don't have any honest judges.
[29:33.320 --> 29:35.200]  This system is completely corrupt.
[29:35.200 --> 29:37.280]  Are you saying there was no complaint?
[29:37.280 --> 29:38.320]  There's no petition filed?
[29:38.320 --> 29:40.040]  Is this a civil case?
[29:40.040 --> 29:41.040]  Civil case.
[29:41.040 --> 29:43.040]  It was started by a subpoena of a judge.
[29:43.040 --> 29:44.040]  Okay.
[29:44.040 --> 29:45.040]  Hang on, Bill.
[29:45.040 --> 29:46.040]  We're about to go to break.
[29:46.040 --> 29:47.040]  We'll let you finish that up on the other side.
[29:47.040 --> 29:48.040]  Okay?
[29:48.040 --> 29:49.040]  All right.
[29:49.040 --> 29:50.040]  We'll be right back, folks.
[29:50.040 --> 29:51.040]  This is the rule of law.
[29:51.040 --> 29:59.720]  Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, we'll be right back after this break.
[29:59.720 --> 30:00.720]  I lost my son.
[30:00.720 --> 30:01.720]  My nephew.
[30:01.720 --> 30:02.720]  My uncle.
[30:02.720 --> 30:03.720]  My son.
[30:03.720 --> 30:04.720]  On September 11th, 2001.
[30:04.720 --> 30:08.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th.
[30:08.000 --> 30:12.120]  World Trade Center 7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[30:12.120 --> 30:16.000]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down building 7.
[30:16.000 --> 30:20.800]  Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more
[30:20.800 --> 30:21.800]  to the story.
[30:21.800 --> 30:23.200]  Bring justice to my son.
[30:23.200 --> 30:24.200]  My uncle.
[30:24.200 --> 30:25.200]  My nephew.
[30:25.200 --> 30:26.200]  My son.
[30:26.200 --> 30:27.200]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[30:27.200 --> 30:32.760]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[30:32.760 --> 30:37.000]  Drivers in Nevada now have the perfect excuse for being distracted in the car.
[30:37.000 --> 30:41.920]  Talking, texting, eating, and even putting on makeup could be perfectly acceptable thanks
[30:41.920 --> 30:42.920]  to a new law.
[30:42.920 --> 30:47.240]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:47.240 --> 30:48.840]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:48.840 --> 30:52.440]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:52.440 --> 30:57.240]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:57.240 --> 31:02.280]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[31:02.280 --> 31:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[31:05.000 --> 31:09.280]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[31:09.280 --> 31:12.840]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[31:12.840 --> 31:16.280]  Start over with StartPage.
[31:16.280 --> 31:17.940]  Who's driving that car?
[31:17.940 --> 31:20.480]  If you're in Nevada, it could be no one.
[31:20.480 --> 31:25.920]  The state recently passed a law allowing vehicles to navigate using artificial intelligence.
[31:25.920 --> 31:28.080]  No human operator required.
[31:28.080 --> 31:30.880]  Rumor has it that Google lobbied for the new law.
[31:30.880 --> 31:33.680]  Seems the company is also in the driverless car business.
[31:33.680 --> 31:38.120]  And you thought Google was just interested in search engine technology and world domination.
[31:38.120 --> 31:39.120]  Mwahaha.
[31:39.120 --> 31:42.900]  Of course, automated camera mounted cars could have a number of uses.
[31:42.900 --> 31:47.200]  They could certainly help Google get more of those invasive drive-by photos of our homes
[31:47.200 --> 31:48.960]  at a lower cost.
[31:48.960 --> 31:53.320]  Driverless cars won't need lunch breaks, and they'll have no moral issues about trespassing.
[31:53.320 --> 31:55.560]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:55.560 --> 31:58.240]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:58.240 --> 32:03.040]  Yeah, I got a warrant.
[32:03.040 --> 32:15.200]  And I gonna serve them to the head of the government, them, prosecute them.
[32:15.200 --> 32:16.200]  Okay.
[32:16.200 --> 32:21.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[32:21.840 --> 32:22.840]  We're taking your calls.
[32:22.840 --> 32:23.840]  512-646-1984.
[32:23.840 --> 32:24.840]  Okay.
[32:24.840 --> 32:34.440]  So, Windsor, we were looking on your website and I'm a little bit confused here.
[32:34.440 --> 32:39.760]  The website that we were talking about already has a list of every single judge in the country,
[32:39.760 --> 32:44.720]  whether state, municipal or federal, and a place where folks can enter in some kind of
[32:44.720 --> 32:51.620]  a description about them or some kind of analysis, and we're not finding that on your website.
[32:51.620 --> 32:57.080]  So maybe there's some confusion there as far as, you know, what we're talking about and
[32:57.080 --> 33:03.080]  what you're talking about, but moving on from that, can you please tell us what the cause
[33:03.080 --> 33:07.420]  number of your case is and what the name of the...what the parties are in the case so
[33:07.420 --> 33:11.240]  that folks who are listening out there can look it up on PACER so we can see what's going
[33:11.240 --> 33:12.240]  on with your case?
[33:12.240 --> 33:23.520]  Sure, it's 1-09-CV-01543-WSD, United States District Court for the Northern District of
[33:23.520 --> 33:24.520]  Georgia.
[33:24.520 --> 33:29.880]  You'll see that the case begins with a motion to quash a subpoena by a judge.
[33:29.880 --> 33:35.240]  In a separate case, I filed a subpoena to have a judge produce two documents that she's
[33:35.240 --> 33:40.120]  got under seal that will absolutely prove fraud on the court in a prior proceeding.
[33:40.120 --> 33:45.760]  No question, we've ultimately obtained the documents from two governments who were parties
[33:45.760 --> 33:46.760]  to the agreements.
[33:46.760 --> 33:48.400]  No question that they prove it.
[33:48.400 --> 33:53.560]  The judge is doing everything in her power to stop it because I believe she was either
[33:53.560 --> 33:58.600]  paid off to the tune of a significant amount of money or just simply had a relationship
[33:58.600 --> 34:03.880]  with the lawyers for the other side that caused her to issue, for example, a summary judgment
[34:03.880 --> 34:09.960]  order with over 200 counts of perjury in it in which she just simply lied her behind off
[34:09.960 --> 34:14.920]  in order to rule against me and a corporate entity.
[34:14.920 --> 34:21.680]  So this case was created and they refused to do anything about the fact that they have
[34:21.680 --> 34:25.000]  no jurisdiction, no justification.
[34:25.000 --> 34:30.520]  They issued a writ of execution against me without going through any of the proper procedures.
[34:30.520 --> 34:33.840]  The federal courts in Atlanta are hopelessly corrupt.
[34:33.840 --> 34:40.480]  I am only three judges away from completing an analysis of every federal district court
[34:40.480 --> 34:45.720]  judge in Atlanta's entire career experience with pro se parties.
[34:45.720 --> 34:51.520]  Thus far, I've completed 17 of the 20 judges looking at every case they've had with a pro
[34:51.520 --> 34:53.320]  se plaintiff.
[34:53.320 --> 34:57.800]  Guess how many times the pro se plaintiff has prevailed?
[34:57.800 --> 35:00.560]  Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them.
[35:00.560 --> 35:02.560]  None.
[35:02.560 --> 35:07.320]  Guess how many times they've had a hearing or trial, I'm sorry, none.
[35:07.320 --> 35:14.360]  No pro se party through 17 of the 20 judges checked so far has ever had a trial, has ever
[35:14.360 --> 35:17.280]  been allowed to jury despite requesting it.
[35:17.280 --> 35:23.680]  90% are dismissed through a motion for dismissal or just a sua sponte dismissal by the court.
[35:23.680 --> 35:26.960]  10% get knocked out in the summary judgment.
[35:26.960 --> 35:32.560]  I only found one case from one judge where he ruled kind of in favor of a man.
[35:32.560 --> 35:34.120]  He was a prisoner.
[35:34.120 --> 35:38.080]  He filed a writ of habeas corpus claiming there was something wrong with the sentencing
[35:38.080 --> 35:40.360]  and the judge did rule in his favor.
[35:40.360 --> 35:44.540]  He had the original judge go back and clarify the sentencing order to make sure it said
[35:44.540 --> 35:50.280]  life imprisonment plus 20 years for the kidnapping and rape of a child.
[35:50.280 --> 35:52.760]  So they are just completely corrupt.
[35:52.760 --> 35:54.400]  They don't do this as accidents.
[35:54.400 --> 35:55.680]  It's all intentional.
[35:55.680 --> 36:03.240]  I have sued every federal judge in, in Georgia and many of the judicial employees and so
[36:03.240 --> 36:09.080]  I currently am doing my best to bring them to justice by keeping my case in the state
[36:09.080 --> 36:10.080]  court.
[36:10.080 --> 36:12.440]  Now you, you guys know what they do.
[36:12.440 --> 36:16.720]  They immediately run down and file a totally illegal motion of removal to remove it to
[36:16.720 --> 36:18.360]  federal court.
[36:18.360 --> 36:23.360]  They remove it to federal court where they put it in the hands of Judge Thomas W Thrash
[36:23.360 --> 36:29.700]  and Judge Thrash, who has never ruled in favor of a pro se party, is there to immediately
[36:29.700 --> 36:35.400]  state that your, your RICO action against the federal judges is frivolous, vexatious
[36:35.400 --> 36:37.040]  and malicious.
[36:37.040 --> 36:38.120]  But I've got all the proof.
[36:38.120 --> 36:39.900]  It's all in the court record.
[36:39.900 --> 36:41.440]  So I'm fighting them every way I can.
[36:41.440 --> 36:45.900]  But after this hearing on this non-existent case on Friday at 10, I have another one at
[36:45.900 --> 36:55.120]  2 where Judge Thrash, and I think it's 1 colon 11 dash CV.
[36:55.120 --> 37:00.860]  I think it's 0 2 0 2 7 dash T W T. There's actually three with him.
[37:00.860 --> 37:09.380]  It's either 0 1 9 2 2 0 1 9 2 3 or 0 2 0 2 7 dash T W T where he is having a hearing
[37:09.380 --> 37:14.600]  on whether or not to deny me the ability to ever again in any court anywhere in the country
[37:14.600 --> 37:15.880]  file a lawsuit.
[37:15.880 --> 37:19.000]  What they're trying to declare you as a vexatious litigant?
[37:19.000 --> 37:20.120]  Yeah.
[37:20.120 --> 37:25.200]  And of course the first responsibility the man has when the case gets sent to him is
[37:25.200 --> 37:28.800]  to determine whether the notice of removal is valid.
[37:28.800 --> 37:35.440]  Well it's got, it's completely fraudulent and defective on its face for a variety of
[37:35.440 --> 37:39.520]  reasons, including the fact that they, at least in Georgia, or at least I think based
[37:39.520 --> 37:42.920]  on federal law, they have to be unanimity in the defendants and they don't have any
[37:42.920 --> 37:43.920]  unanimity.
[37:43.920 --> 37:46.920]  What are the reasons for them wanting to declare you a vexatious litigant?
[37:46.920 --> 37:50.760]  Have you lost more than three civil cases in federal court within six months?
[37:50.760 --> 37:52.960]  No, I've never, I was a defendant.
[37:52.960 --> 37:58.000]  I was sued in a case in 19, 2005.
[37:58.000 --> 38:03.240]  Well have you lost any cases as a plaintiff in federal court ever?
[38:03.240 --> 38:08.400]  The only one I've ever lost is currently on appeal where Judge William S. Duffy, the first
[38:08.400 --> 38:17.080]  judge we have on Friday, declared me in, in default for not filing a response to a motion
[38:17.080 --> 38:21.280]  to dismiss, which I can prove was sent to the, to the clerk of the court.
[38:21.280 --> 38:26.880]  I have undeniable proof that the clerk of the court receives from my courier and signs
[38:26.880 --> 38:31.600]  receipt for documents and the documents then disappear because the judge tells them to
[38:31.600 --> 38:32.600]  make them disappear.
[38:32.600 --> 38:36.080]  Well so what are the grounds for them trying to get you declared as a vexatious litigant
[38:36.080 --> 38:37.080]  then?
[38:37.080 --> 38:38.800]  That they can do anything in the world that they want?
[38:38.800 --> 38:39.800]  Well, no, no, no.
[38:39.800 --> 38:42.040]  That's, I know they're going to try to do anything that they want.
[38:42.040 --> 38:43.040]  That's not the question.
[38:43.040 --> 38:48.280]  The question is what is their stated reason in their, in their petition or in their, whatever
[38:48.280 --> 38:49.680]  documents they've submitted?
[38:49.680 --> 38:50.680]  What is their stated reason?
[38:50.680 --> 38:55.280]  The stated reason is that because I've been involved in this case with this corrupt federal
[38:55.280 --> 39:03.640]  judge who I'm trying to bring to task, Orinda D. Evans, that she has declared me to be vexatious
[39:03.640 --> 39:07.240]  and the court of appeals declared me to be vexatious.
[39:07.240 --> 39:13.200]  And so therefore I must be vexatious when I file a RICO action or a simple declaratory
[39:13.200 --> 39:17.120]  judgment action on what the law is in the state of Georgia on something, which the federal
[39:17.120 --> 39:19.480]  court has no dealings, no right to be dealing.
[39:19.480 --> 39:20.480]  Okay.
[39:20.480 --> 39:22.120]  So they've already declared you as a vexatious litigant.
[39:22.120 --> 39:26.040]  Oh, I mean, they've said it in an order, so yeah, if that's a declaration, yes.
[39:26.040 --> 39:32.560]  But I mean, it doesn't, absolutely everything that they've done, there has never been a
[39:32.560 --> 39:37.080]  ruling in any of my cases that was based on the law or the facts.
[39:37.080 --> 39:40.800]  Now I got quite a bit of publicity when I took this to the Supreme Court.
[39:40.800 --> 39:43.240]  I filed a petition for it of certiorari.
[39:43.240 --> 39:47.660]  I fell into the 99% pile that they don't look at, even though I said this is totally about
[39:47.660 --> 39:49.720]  constitutional rights.
[39:49.720 --> 39:51.340]  They refuse to look at it.
[39:51.340 --> 39:55.880]  By a fluke, one of the clerks in the Supreme Court's office said, you know what you should
[39:55.880 --> 39:58.000]  have filed was a petition for it of mandamus.
[39:58.000 --> 39:59.660]  So I filed three.
[39:59.660 --> 40:06.520]  I asked the Supreme Court justices to declare that the federal judges have to honor the
[40:06.520 --> 40:07.520]  Constitution.
[40:07.520 --> 40:11.620]  And as you know, when you do a petition for it of mandamus, it's an original proceeding.
[40:11.620 --> 40:15.200]  The Supreme Court has no authority to say they're not going to look at it.
[40:15.200 --> 40:16.640]  They had to consider it.
[40:16.640 --> 40:18.180]  They had to issue an order.
[40:18.180 --> 40:21.720]  They issued three orders on my three petitions for it of mandamus.
[40:21.720 --> 40:23.640]  They were all one word long.
[40:23.640 --> 40:25.920]  We refused to tell the judges that.
[40:25.920 --> 40:30.200]  I filed a petition for rehearing, explained to them that they have no constitutional authority
[40:30.200 --> 40:34.720]  to issue an order of that type, refusing to honor the Constitution because it gives them
[40:34.720 --> 40:37.100]  their sole source of power and authority.
[40:37.100 --> 40:38.100]  And they refused.
[40:38.100 --> 40:39.100]  Okay.
[40:39.100 --> 40:40.100]  Windsor, hold on.
[40:40.100 --> 40:41.240]  Listen, we're starting to run out of time.
[40:41.240 --> 40:42.920]  Our call board is really stacking up.
[40:42.920 --> 40:45.260]  So we're coming to the end of the segment.
[40:45.260 --> 40:48.460]  Can you give us a question or something?
[40:48.460 --> 40:50.480]  What can we do for you right now?
[40:50.480 --> 40:55.280]  What in the world can you do when you've got people who, federal judges, when I go down
[40:55.280 --> 41:00.640]  to this court and these guys have no jurisdiction because they're as crooked as they can possibly
[41:00.640 --> 41:01.640]  be?
[41:01.640 --> 41:07.000]  What in the world can I do?
[41:07.000 --> 41:11.280]  We are looking to get the answer to the same question that vexes us all.
[41:11.280 --> 41:12.280]  Okay.
[41:12.280 --> 41:14.160]  You know, I mean, I've got...
[41:14.160 --> 41:20.280]  We know what the law says we can do, but the same problem faces each of us when the law
[41:20.280 --> 41:21.280]  is being ignored.
[41:21.280 --> 41:22.280]  Then what?
[41:22.280 --> 41:28.600]  Well, I wouldn't expect much at the trial court level with the federal system.
[41:28.600 --> 41:30.960]  I don't know what circuit you're in.
[41:30.960 --> 41:35.280]  You're likely to get more justice at the circuit level.
[41:35.280 --> 41:38.720]  So I just assume whenever I deal with the federal courts that I'm going to have to take
[41:38.720 --> 41:39.720]  it up on appeal.
[41:39.720 --> 41:40.720]  Yeah.
[41:40.720 --> 41:43.200]  The circuit's where the real problem is.
[41:43.200 --> 41:46.820]  They're the most corrupt here to the Eleventh Circuit.
[41:46.820 --> 41:49.980]  And they have just, I mean, let's think about it.
[41:49.980 --> 41:53.580]  Only 1% of the cases they rule on ever get looked at by the Supreme Court.
[41:53.580 --> 41:56.720]  So they've got 99% tyrannical power.
[41:56.720 --> 41:58.040]  They're hopelessly corrupt.
[41:58.040 --> 41:59.040]  So no, there's no hope.
[41:59.040 --> 42:01.120]  I mean, I've gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
[42:01.120 --> 42:05.800]  I have written letters to every member of Congress, the president, and no one, only
[42:05.800 --> 42:10.080]  my congressman responded to say the House of Representatives had no authority to pursue
[42:10.080 --> 42:15.080]  impeachment proceedings against a federal judge, which is completely false.
[42:15.080 --> 42:19.160]  So now I was hoping maybe some of your listeners would have ideas on what we can do.
[42:19.160 --> 42:23.200]  But I will say this, everybody's invited to come to the federal courthouse in Atlanta
[42:23.200 --> 42:27.040]  July 15th, starting at 10 o'clock in Judge Duffy's courtroom.
[42:27.040 --> 42:29.840]  At 2 o'clock we have Judge Thrash's courtroom.
[42:29.840 --> 42:33.000]  There are dozens of people from around the country coming in for it.
[42:33.000 --> 42:38.120]  We're going to have a little meeting and discuss what else we can do to try to battle this
[42:38.120 --> 42:43.740]  just fundamental dishonesty that we have with our elected officials and all of our federal
[42:43.740 --> 42:44.740]  judges.
[42:44.740 --> 42:50.400]  But I've taken it to the Fulton County Superior Court, which is where all these judges live
[42:50.400 --> 42:51.680]  and operate.
[42:51.680 --> 42:55.720]  And I'm praying that I have a judge who's going to do the right thing.
[42:55.720 --> 43:00.800]  But the last couple of days she hasn't acted on my request for an ex parte tierro hearing,
[43:00.800 --> 43:04.360]  so I'm now beginning to think she's just a great actress.
[43:04.360 --> 43:08.120]  The other thing I've done, and I appreciate y'all's help on it, is I did manage to put
[43:08.120 --> 43:12.600]  my charges directly into the hands of the Fulton County grand jury.
[43:12.600 --> 43:18.040]  I did that by having a courier deliver envelopes addressed by juror number to each of the grand
[43:18.040 --> 43:23.200]  jurors with warning letters to the district attorney and the guard dog receptionist telling
[43:23.200 --> 43:28.160]  them not to dare interfere with this or I would take charges against them.
[43:28.160 --> 43:32.000]  I received confirmation from the deputy they were delivered from the foreman of the grand
[43:32.000 --> 43:36.640]  jury, but then the DA got in and they brushed me off.
[43:36.640 --> 43:37.640]  All right.
[43:37.640 --> 43:39.280]  Well, yeah, that's pretty typical.
[43:39.280 --> 43:40.280]  All right.
[43:40.280 --> 43:41.280]  Well, thank you for calling, Windsor.
[43:41.280 --> 43:42.280]  We really appreciate it.
[43:42.280 --> 43:43.280]  Have a good night.
[43:43.280 --> 43:44.280]  Okay.
[43:44.280 --> 43:45.280]  You have a good night.
[43:45.280 --> 43:46.280]  All right.
[43:46.280 --> 43:48.480]  When we come back, we've got Mitchell from Texas.
[43:48.480 --> 43:54.300]  We've got Michael, Mike, Frank, Darryl, and others.
[43:54.300 --> 44:00.480]  So please call in 512-646-1984.
[44:00.480 --> 44:03.680]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:03.680 --> 44:08.920]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[44:08.920 --> 44:14.160]  four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:14.160 --> 44:18.640]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:18.640 --> 44:22.440]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.440 --> 44:27.280]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[44:27.280 --> 44:34.080]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.080 --> 44:38.600]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[44:38.600 --> 44:42.920]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:42.920 --> 44:49.120]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.120 --> 44:51.880]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:51.880 --> 44:58.600]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner, or call toll free, 866-LAW-EASY.
[44:58.600 --> 45:02.120]  Hey, did you hear?
[45:02.120 --> 45:04.400]  Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012.
[45:04.400 --> 45:05.760]  Who's Ron Paul?
[45:05.760 --> 45:06.760]  Really?
[45:06.760 --> 45:08.280]  Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[45:08.280 --> 45:11.240]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[45:11.240 --> 45:14.680]  Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks.
[45:14.680 --> 45:15.760]  Of course you do.
[45:15.760 --> 45:16.760]  Now listen closely.
[45:16.760 --> 45:19.820]  You need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and
[45:19.820 --> 45:21.600]  his message before it's too late.
[45:21.600 --> 45:24.320]  They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about.
[45:24.320 --> 45:27.960]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that you can show your support
[45:27.960 --> 45:28.960]  for him during the campaign.
[45:28.960 --> 45:29.960]  Brave New Books?
[45:29.960 --> 45:32.320]  Do they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[45:32.320 --> 45:36.200]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect
[45:36.200 --> 45:37.840]  your family in time of emergency.
[45:37.840 --> 45:40.480]  Ugh, that sounds like that show on the Discovery Channel.
[45:40.480 --> 45:44.320]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills
[45:44.320 --> 45:48.240]  School that you can sign up for on the website, bravenewbookstore.com.
[45:48.240 --> 45:49.240]  What are you doing?
[45:49.240 --> 45:52.800]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to bravenewbookstore.com or down to the
[45:52.800 --> 45:53.800]  bookstore in person.
[45:53.800 --> 45:54.800]  Where's it located?
[45:54.800 --> 45:55.800]  1904 Guadalupe Street.
[45:55.800 --> 45:56.800]  There, it's sent.
[45:56.800 --> 46:04.800]  I even made a smiley face.
[46:04.800 --> 46:21.120]  Oh, I can't wait to see you.
[46:21.120 --> 46:29.120]  Oh, I can't wait to see you.
[46:29.120 --> 46:34.120]  Oh, I can't wait to see you.
[46:34.120 --> 46:59.040]  All right, folks, we are back.
[46:59.040 --> 47:01.960]  This is the rule of law.
[47:01.960 --> 47:07.040]  Eddie Craig, I'm Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[47:07.040 --> 47:11.160]  We are taking your calls, 512-646-1984.
[47:11.160 --> 47:12.800]  We had a Darryl call in.
[47:12.800 --> 47:14.240]  It looks like he dropped off the board.
[47:14.240 --> 47:15.640]  You're welcome to call back.
[47:15.640 --> 47:17.920]  We've got Mitchell from Texas is up next.
[47:17.920 --> 47:19.520]  Mitchell, thank you for calling in.
[47:19.520 --> 47:21.760]  What is on your mind tonight?
[47:21.760 --> 47:27.920]  Hey, guys, can you give a citation example or a couple examples for the case law that
[47:27.920 --> 47:34.400]  Eddie, you said, had stated or staked the necessity of a charging instrument having
[47:34.400 --> 47:38.840]  all the requisite information?
[47:38.840 --> 47:41.520]  I don't have the, they're in my vernons.
[47:41.520 --> 47:45.080]  I've read them, but I don't have them written down anywhere.
[47:45.080 --> 47:48.960]  They're actually in my book.
[47:48.960 --> 47:52.960]  Before I came to Austin to do what I'm doing, I was making a list of all the relevant cases
[47:52.960 --> 47:58.560]  over particular statutes, and I didn't get to that one.
[47:58.560 --> 48:04.200]  I do apologize for that, but I don't have any case sightings to give you at the moment.
[48:04.200 --> 48:10.960]  Actually, that would be really helpful in an argument or a motion to clash or a motion
[48:10.960 --> 48:17.880]  to dismiss or whatever in a lot of these cases where that wrong charging instrument is used
[48:17.880 --> 48:20.760]  or it seems like it would be very useful.
[48:20.760 --> 48:29.440]  Well, all you have to do is to go back and look at case law relating to 45.01 prior to
[48:29.440 --> 48:36.920]  1999, and that case law will tell you what the requisites of a complaint are or aren't,
[48:36.920 --> 48:45.560]  and then you can also look at the case law dealing with 27.01 and Chapter 16, which deals
[48:45.560 --> 48:54.800]  with indictments and informations.
[48:54.800 --> 48:59.840]  In any case, if you'll look at the case law dealing with those specific sections, go to
[48:59.840 --> 49:04.720]  any law library that's got vernons, and you'll be able to look them up for yourself.
[49:04.720 --> 49:06.720]  Okay, great.
[49:06.720 --> 49:13.040]  Then, at least in Austin, which I guess you're somewhat familiar with, what is the method
[49:13.040 --> 49:19.160]  or logistics or however they do it that turns the complaint into a criminal case?
[49:19.160 --> 49:23.960]  Is it something that because the affiant is a staff...
[49:23.960 --> 49:28.800]  All that's required to turn it into a criminal case is for somebody to sign it as an affiant
[49:28.800 --> 49:34.080]  and for it to be done before somebody that can administer the oath that it was truthful.
[49:34.080 --> 49:42.060]  Well, if I filed such a complaint, would that automatically turn into a criminal case?
[49:42.060 --> 49:43.160]  Not if they can help it.
[49:43.160 --> 49:47.640]  They only automatically turn it into a criminal case if a government employee does it.
[49:47.640 --> 49:49.960]  Well, I guess that's why I'm asking.
[49:49.960 --> 49:56.160]  I would think there needs to be something from the prosecuting attorney that says...
[49:56.160 --> 49:57.160]  There is.
[49:57.160 --> 50:02.800]  2.03 Code of Criminal Procedure says that anybody can go before an attorney for the
[50:02.800 --> 50:07.800]  state and swear out a complaint, and he is obligated to file it with either the proper
[50:07.800 --> 50:14.240]  magistrate or with the grand jury, depending upon the severity of the complaint.
[50:14.240 --> 50:15.240]  That's not optional.
[50:15.240 --> 50:18.760]  The law is very clear he's required to do it.
[50:18.760 --> 50:22.160]  They're just refusing to do it.
[50:22.160 --> 50:27.700]  So what I'm working on, along with all the other stuff, is legislation to add another
[50:27.700 --> 50:39.920]  section to 2.03 that makes it a crime of official oppression and 38.05, hindering apprehension
[50:39.920 --> 50:46.680]  and prosecution, that it will be directly declared a crime for a prosecuting attorney
[50:46.680 --> 50:51.400]  to fail to take that complaint and file it where it's supposed to be filed.
[50:51.400 --> 50:58.960]  Yeah, okay, because I'm looking at 2.03A right now, and it basically just refers, I think,
[50:58.960 --> 51:06.200]  if I'm reading this correctly right now, just to a complaint of an officer of the court
[51:06.200 --> 51:07.760]  or some kind of government official.
[51:07.760 --> 51:08.760]  No, no.
[51:08.760 --> 51:14.480]  Anybody that brings a complaint about a public official, okay?
[51:14.480 --> 51:15.480]  Right.
[51:15.480 --> 51:22.920]  But what I'm saying is, what you were saying before about the complaint is automatically
[51:22.920 --> 51:28.880]  turned into the criminal case, assuming I filed a complaint, a criminal complaint against
[51:28.880 --> 51:37.160]  you in Travis County in Austin here, would that automatically turn into a case?
[51:37.160 --> 51:43.200]  It depends on who you did it to and what they did to investigate it one way or the other.
[51:43.200 --> 51:48.720]  I guess that's what I'm sort of feeling out, that there must be something that the prosecutor
[51:48.720 --> 51:57.360]  says, okay, this passes my smell test, it's okay to go ahead and prosecute this.
[51:57.360 --> 52:02.760]  I would think, I mean, I'm guessing I won't find anything if I do an open records request
[52:02.760 --> 52:03.760]  or whatever.
[52:03.760 --> 52:11.440]  Yeah, but again, 2.04 deals with complaints against anyone else other than a public servant.
[52:11.440 --> 52:17.640]  2.03 deals with any public servant, 2.04 is anybody else.
[52:17.640 --> 52:21.120]  Oh, no, oh, yeah, okay.
[52:21.120 --> 52:22.520]  That answers the question then.
[52:22.520 --> 52:30.440]  Okay, so as we've, I guess, both been asserting, the compilation of all this stuff together
[52:30.440 --> 52:37.160]  clearly indicates a method for a complaint to turn into a proper charging instrument.
[52:37.160 --> 52:38.160]  Exactly.
[52:38.160 --> 52:43.240]  See, the way that according to the statute here in Chapter 2 that this is supposed to
[52:43.240 --> 52:50.360]  work is, the complaint is not lodged with the police department, though it could be,
[52:50.360 --> 52:58.880]  but it's not necessary that it be so, but whoever gets it has to give it to the prosecuting
[52:58.880 --> 53:03.440]  attorney for the state, whether it be the individual going directly to him and doing
[53:03.440 --> 53:08.600]  it, or whether the police take it and do it.
[53:08.600 --> 53:15.720]  Then he is required by 2.05 to either send it to the grand jury or to the magistrate
[53:15.720 --> 53:20.880]  having proper jurisdiction of the offense in a misdemeanor case, okay?
[53:20.880 --> 53:25.880]  And actually that 2.04 just talks about the complaint being made before a district or
[53:25.880 --> 53:31.120]  county attorney, it doesn't include a municipal prosecutor.
[53:31.120 --> 53:33.960]  That's right, because they're not attorneys for the state.
[53:33.960 --> 53:34.960]  Exactly, right.
[53:34.960 --> 53:40.400]  I was going to say that which fits in with, I guess, if I can speak for you, our general
[53:40.400 --> 53:48.200]  contention that even the municipal prosecutor is not acting for the state and none of this
[53:48.200 --> 53:49.800]  really adds up.
[53:49.800 --> 53:50.800]  Absolutely.
[53:50.800 --> 53:55.300]  Okay, a completely different subject real quick.
[53:55.300 --> 54:06.120]  Are you familiar with government code chapter 30.00006, that a person may not serve as a
[54:06.120 --> 54:09.800]  municipal judge if the person is employed by the same municipality?
[54:09.800 --> 54:10.800]  Yes.
[54:10.800 --> 54:14.280]  A municipal judge who accepts employment, what do you mean, the municipality vacates
[54:14.280 --> 54:16.280]  the judicial office?
[54:16.280 --> 54:17.360]  Right.
[54:17.360 --> 54:26.500]  How does that, I guess, I don't know how even a statute like that could really fit in with
[54:26.500 --> 54:29.960]  the fact that the judges have to be paid by somebody.
[54:29.960 --> 54:36.800]  I don't know, it doesn't say they can't be an employee of the city, which they are as
[54:36.800 --> 54:39.280]  a municipal judge.
[54:39.280 --> 54:47.440]  It says they can't hold any other job with the city while they are a judge.
[54:47.440 --> 54:52.600]  Okay, maybe I'm sort of reading that differently.
[54:52.600 --> 54:57.800]  It looks to me like it says if the person is, if I switch those two clauses around and
[54:57.800 --> 55:02.800]  said if the person is employed by the same municipality, a person may not serve as a
[55:02.800 --> 55:03.800]  municipal judge.
[55:03.800 --> 55:09.260]  So, essentially, I guess what you're saying is there's almost an unwritten clause that
[55:09.260 --> 55:12.880]  says in another capacity.
[55:12.880 --> 55:18.560]  Well, that's the only way they could be an employee outside of being a judge.
[55:18.560 --> 55:21.400]  It would have to be in another capacity.
[55:21.400 --> 55:27.000]  The judgeship is one capacity.
[55:27.000 --> 55:30.480]  Got it.
[55:30.480 --> 55:34.880]  What about, switching back to the other subject, if I've got a couple more seconds here, what
[55:34.880 --> 55:39.720]  about the assertion being made or a potential assertion, and I'm just trying to look at
[55:39.720 --> 55:46.440]  all sides here, that the Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 21, Indictment Information
[55:46.440 --> 55:54.720]  Groups, the word complaint in with charging instrument in the sentence, an indictment
[55:54.720 --> 56:00.400]  information complaint or other charging instrument or a related document in a criminal case may
[56:00.400 --> 56:04.320]  be filed in electronic form.
[56:04.320 --> 56:08.440]  All that's saying is that a complaint can be filed in electronic form with the rest
[56:08.440 --> 56:10.080]  of them.
[56:10.080 --> 56:15.240]  They cannot, by statute, make a complaint a charging instrument.
[56:15.240 --> 56:19.200]  And, again, I'm fully on board with you, but I guess...
[56:19.200 --> 56:24.240]  No, no, I'm just saying that's clear enough in Article 5, Section 12B of the Constitution
[56:24.240 --> 56:27.660]  and 27.01 of the Code.
[56:27.660 --> 56:33.240]  But does it look to you as it looks to me like the legislature, either intentionally
[56:33.240 --> 56:40.560]  or unintentionally, but somehow sneakily, tried to group complaint in with other charging
[56:40.560 --> 56:46.180]  instruments in the way they constructed that sentence, an indictment information complaint
[56:46.180 --> 56:51.320]  or other charging instrument or a related document in a criminal case may be filed?
[56:51.320 --> 56:53.640]  Yes, it does look like they tried to group it in.
[56:53.640 --> 57:02.360]  But go down and look at when that amendment occurred, 2005, which still is well after
[57:02.360 --> 57:14.080]  the repeal of 4501 and way, way after when the alleged 1958 case took place.
[57:14.080 --> 57:21.120]  But again, if they had to repeal 45.01 on the theory that it violated the Constitution,
[57:21.120 --> 57:27.760]  if they attempt to use this as an authority to do it, it's also in violation of the Constitution.
[57:27.760 --> 57:33.520]  When you said you checked the minutes and all that, to see if there was any...
[57:33.520 --> 57:40.600]  I've got the actual Senate bill, I think it's Senate Bill 1230, that actually is the one
[57:40.600 --> 57:44.800]  that did it from the 79th legislature.
[57:44.800 --> 57:45.800]  Let me look here real quick.
[57:45.800 --> 57:52.880]  Did you see any of the discussions or the committee hearing documents regarding that?
[57:52.880 --> 57:56.320]  Because it's possible that in those minutes or in those recordings...
[57:56.320 --> 58:01.720]  It may be, but this particular bill, when you go look at the website for this particular
[58:01.720 --> 58:06.800]  bill on the Texas legislative website, there is absolutely no information in any of that
[58:06.800 --> 58:08.360]  that I can find.
[58:08.360 --> 58:14.160]  In fact, the only reference to 45.01 I could find anywhere was in the text of the bill
[58:14.160 --> 58:15.160]  itself.
[58:15.160 --> 58:16.160]  Got it.
[58:16.160 --> 58:17.160]  Okay.
[58:17.160 --> 58:18.160]  You're free to go look.
[58:18.160 --> 58:20.600]  If you can find it where I didn't, please be my guest.
[58:20.600 --> 58:22.840]  I would like to know if there's anything else on it.
[58:22.840 --> 58:23.840]  Okay.
[58:23.840 --> 58:25.840]  If I'm able to, I'll definitely let you know.
[58:25.840 --> 58:26.840]  Appreciate it.
[58:26.840 --> 58:27.840]  Thanks, guys.
[58:27.840 --> 58:28.840]  All right.
[58:28.840 --> 58:29.840]  Thank you for calling in.
[58:29.840 --> 58:30.840]  Okay, folks.
[58:30.840 --> 58:35.080]  This is Rule of Law Radio, 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[58:35.080 --> 58:36.360]  We're about to go to break.
[58:36.360 --> 58:40.200]  Michael, Frank, we see you on the board there, so please bear with us till the other side
[58:40.200 --> 58:43.440]  of the break and we'll get to you guys.
[58:43.440 --> 58:46.600]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[58:46.600 --> 58:59.920]  We'll be right back after the break.
[58:59.920 --> 59:04.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[59:04.000 --> 59:09.240]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[59:09.240 --> 59:10.580]  can really help.
[59:10.580 --> 59:15.040]  The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:15.040 --> 59:16.040]  today.
[59:16.040 --> 59:19.920]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:19.920 --> 59:23.040]  to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:23.040 --> 59:28.280]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:28.280 --> 59:32.560]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan
[59:32.560 --> 59:37.480]  of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:37.480 --> 59:42.500]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:42.500 --> 59:55.280]  Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102, that's 888-551-0102, or visit
[59:55.280 --> 59:57.560]  us online at bfa.org.
[59:57.560 --> 01:00:04.240]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.240 --> 01:00:10.680]  Tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims gathered Monday to bury the remains of 613 people as
[01:00:10.680 --> 01:00:16.400]  Sebrinista, commemorating the 16th anniversary of the killings of thousands of Muslims in
[01:00:16.400 --> 01:00:18.160]  and around the town.
[01:00:18.160 --> 01:00:23.280]  The massacre is considered to be the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II.
[01:00:23.280 --> 01:00:28.280]  The victims' remains were recovered from mass graves during the past year and identified
[01:00:28.280 --> 01:00:30.680]  by DNA.
[01:00:30.680 --> 01:00:36.040]  French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet said Sunday it was time for Libya's rebels to negotiate
[01:00:36.040 --> 01:00:41.440]  with Muammar Gaddafi's government, but Washington reiterated, the Libyan leader cannot stay
[01:00:41.440 --> 01:00:42.440]  in power.
[01:00:42.440 --> 01:00:46.920]  The opposing messages from two leading members of NATO demonstrated a strain the alliance
[01:00:46.920 --> 01:00:52.080]  is under after more than three months of airstrikes that have cost billions of dollars and failed
[01:00:52.080 --> 01:00:56.800]  to produce the swift outcome its backers had expected.
[01:00:56.800 --> 01:01:02.440]  Media baron Rupert Murdoch fought to keep his $12 billion deal for satellite broadcaster
[01:01:02.440 --> 01:01:08.640]  BSkyB alive Monday, with the British government seeking to put the brakes on the bid.
[01:01:08.640 --> 01:01:13.520]  Murdoch has taken personal charge of the phone hacking scandal that caused the demise of
[01:01:13.520 --> 01:01:18.860]  the News of the World, whose reporters hacked the voicemails of thousands of people, including
[01:01:18.860 --> 01:01:25.400]  child murder victims, politicians and families of British soldiers killed in action.
[01:01:25.400 --> 01:01:30.400]  Israel Friday prevented scores of pro-Palestinian activists from boarding Tel Aviv-bound flights
[01:01:30.400 --> 01:01:36.160]  in Europe, questioned dozens more arriving at the airport and denied entry to dozens,
[01:01:36.160 --> 01:01:39.080]  disrupting their attempts to reach the West Bank.
[01:01:39.080 --> 01:01:43.700]  Israel had tracked the activists on social media sites and asked airlines to keep those
[01:01:43.700 --> 01:01:47.960]  on a blacklist of 300 names off flights to Israel.
[01:01:47.960 --> 01:01:52.760]  310 activists who landed in Tel Aviv Friday were detained for questioning.
[01:01:52.760 --> 01:01:55.480]  Of those, 69 were put on return flights.
[01:01:55.480 --> 01:01:57.360]  The rest were permitted entry.
[01:01:57.360 --> 01:02:02.760]  Organizers of the Welcome to Palestine campaign accused Israel of overreacting to a peaceful
[01:02:02.760 --> 01:02:07.840]  mission to draw attention to life under Israeli occupation.
[01:02:07.840 --> 01:02:12.920]  Huge quantities of jellyfish have forced the shutdown of nuclear power plants in Japan,
[01:02:12.920 --> 01:02:17.960]  Scotland and at a coal power plant in Israel in the past few weeks.
[01:02:17.960 --> 01:02:23.080]  Australian jellyfish expert Dr. Jamie Seymour said a sustained explosion in the population
[01:02:23.080 --> 01:02:28.640]  of jellyfish around the world has the potential to be quite catastrophic if not checked.
[01:02:28.640 --> 01:02:34.160]  Tons of jellyfish last week clogged up the filters at Israel's Arat Rabin electric power
[01:02:34.160 --> 01:02:37.960]  station, which uses seawater to cool its reactors.
[01:02:37.960 --> 01:02:43.380]  At the Torones Nuclear Power Station in Scotland, both reactors were shut down last month after
[01:02:43.380 --> 01:02:46.760]  jellyfish were found in their seawater filters.
[01:02:46.760 --> 01:02:51.960]  Around the same time, the cooling system at the Sherman nuclear reactor in Japan was blocked
[01:02:51.960 --> 01:02:54.120]  after a jellyfish invasion.
[01:02:54.120 --> 01:02:59.880]  Experts blame global warming, the nitrification of oceans through fertilized runoff, and overfishing
[01:02:59.880 --> 01:03:02.920]  for creating the jellyfish population explosion.
[01:03:02.920 --> 01:03:11.320]  For more details on these stories, visit INNWorldReport.net.
[01:03:11.320 --> 01:03:17.760]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live, free
[01:03:17.760 --> 01:03:24.760]  speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:24.760 --> 01:03:44.240]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:03:44.240 --> 01:03:45.240]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:45.240 --> 01:03:47.880]  Okay, we're going to continue with your calls.
[01:03:47.880 --> 01:03:49.760]  We've got an hour left in the show.
[01:03:49.760 --> 01:03:53.800]  Call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:03:53.800 --> 01:03:57.120]  Right now, we're going to take Michael in Maryland, and then we'll be going to Frank
[01:03:57.120 --> 01:03:58.120]  in New York.
[01:03:58.120 --> 01:04:00.760]  All right, Michael, what can we do for you?
[01:04:00.760 --> 01:04:02.120]  Hi, everyone.
[01:04:02.120 --> 01:04:10.000]  So my question is, do you think there's any place whatsoever for the use of a debt validation
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:17.720]  letter in responding to one of these silly speeding or red light camera tickets?
[01:04:17.720 --> 01:04:22.240]  I'm just curious, since they're really effectively drawing you into commerce and assuming you're
[01:04:22.240 --> 01:04:27.200]  guilty unless you go the extra mile to litigate it, it suddenly struck me as I was listening
[01:04:27.200 --> 01:04:33.480]  to a talk show recording on something that's more up Brandy's alley as far as dealing with
[01:04:33.480 --> 01:04:38.320]  credit and Michael Meir's and everything, suddenly when they were talking about a debt
[01:04:38.320 --> 01:04:42.480]  validation letter and the context in which you'd use it, it occurred to me, hmm, they're
[01:04:42.480 --> 01:04:49.160]  basically sending you a bill for money since you did something that they consider unlawful.
[01:04:49.160 --> 01:04:57.200]  No, that's not going to work because the Debt Collections Practices Act, there's provisions
[01:04:57.200 --> 01:05:02.400]  in there that make government agencies immune from DCPA.
[01:05:02.400 --> 01:05:06.560]  So sending them a validation letter won't work.
[01:05:06.560 --> 01:05:15.440]  However, if they turn over the ticket or whatever they want to call it to a third party collection
[01:05:15.440 --> 01:05:22.360]  agency that's not directly contracted under statute by that government agency, then you
[01:05:22.360 --> 01:05:23.360]  can use DCPA.
[01:05:23.360 --> 01:05:24.360]  Okay.
[01:05:24.360 --> 01:05:25.360]  Right, right, right.
[01:05:25.360 --> 01:05:26.360]  Okay.
[01:05:26.360 --> 01:05:27.360]  Good.
[01:05:27.360 --> 01:05:28.360]  Thanks.
[01:05:28.360 --> 01:05:29.600]  Eddie, did you have other comments on that?
[01:05:29.600 --> 01:05:34.200]  Well, I was just going to say it would depend upon a couple of other contexts, I would think.
[01:05:34.200 --> 01:05:37.040]  One is whether or not the offense alleged is civil or criminal.
[01:05:37.040 --> 01:05:40.600]  It absolutely is not going to work in criminal.
[01:05:40.600 --> 01:05:43.320]  In our state, they put it in civil.
[01:05:43.320 --> 01:05:44.320]  Okay.
[01:05:44.320 --> 01:05:49.440]  The other issue is, as Debra put it, is whether or not we're dealing with a governmental entity
[01:05:49.440 --> 01:05:51.960]  that's exempt under the statute.
[01:05:51.960 --> 01:05:58.280]  Now there's a possibility that you might be able to determine by reading the legislation
[01:05:58.280 --> 01:06:03.680]  on the subject as to whether or not that would include the red light camera company who is
[01:06:03.680 --> 01:06:05.640]  who actually issues the ticket.
[01:06:05.640 --> 01:06:11.720]  It's not the municipality, though that's where they allege that the offense may have occurred.
[01:06:11.720 --> 01:06:17.840]  However, if the company issuing the citation or the bill or whatever you want to call it
[01:06:17.840 --> 01:06:20.720]  is, it depends on what the statute says in Maryland.
[01:06:20.720 --> 01:06:26.480]  Like say, for example, regarding these surcharges here in Texas, if you rack up a certain number
[01:06:26.480 --> 01:06:32.160]  of tickets within a certain period of time, they start charging you surcharges in addition
[01:06:32.160 --> 01:06:34.280]  on top of the tickets.
[01:06:34.280 --> 01:06:42.760]  Well, if under statute here in Texas, the Department of Transportation, the DOT is authorized
[01:06:42.760 --> 01:06:49.840]  to contract out the collection of those surcharges to a third party private entity.
[01:06:49.840 --> 01:06:54.800]  In that situation, that entity is immune from the DCPA.
[01:06:54.800 --> 01:07:02.240]  However, after a certain length of time, if you don't pay, if they charge off the debt
[01:07:02.240 --> 01:07:08.920]  and then a third party debt collector picks it up after that, then you can use DCPA on
[01:07:08.920 --> 01:07:09.920]  them.
[01:07:09.920 --> 01:07:11.600]  So that's what I'm talking about.
[01:07:11.600 --> 01:07:17.160]  You have to look at the statute to see if a third party, like here in Texas, a third
[01:07:17.160 --> 01:07:23.280]  party entity that's directly contracted by a governmental entity, that entity is also
[01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:24.900]  immune from DCPA.
[01:07:24.900 --> 01:07:30.480]  It has to be, in order for you to go after them with DCPA, it has to be a third party
[01:07:30.480 --> 01:07:37.540]  debt collector that has picked up the account through sale, not through direct contract
[01:07:37.540 --> 01:07:39.760]  under statute by a governmental entity.
[01:07:39.760 --> 01:07:41.320]  Oh, thank you.
[01:07:41.320 --> 01:07:43.440]  That last sentence made it very clear.
[01:07:43.440 --> 01:07:44.440]  Good.
[01:07:44.440 --> 01:07:45.440]  Thank you both.
[01:07:45.440 --> 01:07:46.440]  Okay.
[01:07:46.440 --> 01:07:47.440]  You're very welcome.
[01:07:47.440 --> 01:07:48.440]  Thank you for calling in.
[01:07:48.440 --> 01:07:49.440]  Hats off to Atlanta.
[01:07:49.440 --> 01:07:50.440]  Boy, what a good job they're doing, huh?
[01:07:50.440 --> 01:07:51.440]  Yeah.
[01:07:51.440 --> 01:07:52.440]  Thank you.
[01:07:52.440 --> 01:07:53.440]  Okay.
[01:07:53.440 --> 01:07:55.000]  We've only got one other caller on the board, folks.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:56.920]  We've got Frank from New York.
[01:07:56.920 --> 01:07:58.400]  So folks, call in.
[01:07:58.400 --> 01:08:01.720]  We've got almost an hour left of the show, about 50 minutes.
[01:08:01.720 --> 01:08:02.720]  Call in.
[01:08:02.720 --> 01:08:03.720]  512-646-1984.
[01:08:03.720 --> 01:08:06.480]  Frank, what is your question for us tonight?
[01:08:06.480 --> 01:08:07.480]  Hi.
[01:08:07.480 --> 01:08:19.300]  I went to court in Gardner, New York over tickets from park rangers and a false charge
[01:08:19.300 --> 01:08:22.160]  of obstructing.
[01:08:22.160 --> 01:08:26.840]  I was on a couple weeks ago.
[01:08:26.840 --> 01:08:34.480]  I went into court and I challenged the jurisdiction, didn't plead, and I would like to know what
[01:08:34.480 --> 01:08:38.480]  my motion should look like because he wants me to mail him in.
[01:08:38.480 --> 01:08:44.080]  I was the last one in court to go up before him because I called ahead and said I was
[01:08:44.080 --> 01:08:46.520]  going to challenge the jurisdiction.
[01:08:46.520 --> 01:08:54.320]  I'd like to know what I should do first because I've done it other ways and this is all like
[01:08:54.320 --> 01:08:55.320]  new.
[01:08:55.320 --> 01:08:57.120]  I used common sense before.
[01:08:57.120 --> 01:09:01.640]  Now I've got to use these, I'm trying to use statutes and case law and things like that
[01:09:01.640 --> 01:09:02.640]  now.
[01:09:02.640 --> 01:09:03.640]  Okay.
[01:09:03.640 --> 01:09:08.280]  I'm not really sure what you're asking about what you have to make something look like.
[01:09:08.280 --> 01:09:09.280]  Can you clarify that a little bit?
[01:09:09.280 --> 01:09:11.200]  I challenge the jurisdiction of the court.
[01:09:11.200 --> 01:09:15.640]  What should it look like?
[01:09:15.640 --> 01:09:20.480]  It's a motion challenging jurisdiction and the legal reasons why they don't have it.
[01:09:20.480 --> 01:09:21.480]  That's what it looks like.
[01:09:21.480 --> 01:09:22.480]  Okay.
[01:09:22.480 --> 01:09:23.480]  Okay.
[01:09:23.480 --> 01:09:29.240]  So I checked the statutes, I checked the definitions and I'm not in there.
[01:09:29.240 --> 01:09:32.080]  How would I explain that to me?
[01:09:32.080 --> 01:09:39.560]  A person, the definition of person for the, uh, uh, the, uh, what do you call it?
[01:09:39.560 --> 01:09:44.360]  The conservation law is different than the penal law.
[01:09:44.360 --> 01:09:47.800]  Human being is not even mentioned, even though I'm not a simple human being.
[01:09:47.800 --> 01:09:50.880]  What's the definition of person Frank?
[01:09:50.880 --> 01:09:58.360]  It's not, it's a corporation's, um, uh, is this what the statute says or is this what
[01:09:58.360 --> 01:09:59.920]  you're telling me?
[01:09:59.920 --> 01:10:05.920]  The statute and the conservation law, it doesn't have anything to do with a human being or
[01:10:05.920 --> 01:10:09.080]  a breathing living entity at all.
[01:10:09.080 --> 01:10:12.960]  Is it defined in that section of statute?
[01:10:12.960 --> 01:10:16.160]  Yes, where I, where my charge was.
[01:10:16.160 --> 01:10:17.160]  Yeah.
[01:10:17.160 --> 01:10:18.160]  Okay.
[01:10:18.160 --> 01:10:19.160]  And how is it defined?
[01:10:19.160 --> 01:10:23.280]  It's, uh, I don't have it before me, but I know it's not, I looked, I looked at the difference
[01:10:23.280 --> 01:10:28.800]  between penal law and the conservation law and the definition was different.
[01:10:28.800 --> 01:10:31.160]  It had nothing to do with human beings at all.
[01:10:31.160 --> 01:10:38.120]  I mean, an infant's a human being, but I'm not an infant and I'm a free man on the land
[01:10:38.120 --> 01:10:42.600]  or whatever you want to call me.
[01:10:42.600 --> 01:10:43.600]  You don't go in there.
[01:10:43.600 --> 01:10:44.600]  Something better than this.
[01:10:44.600 --> 01:10:46.400]  I'm going to call you convicted.
[01:10:46.400 --> 01:10:48.000]  Okay.
[01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:57.840]  So how do I, um, write my motion to, should I start with an argument?
[01:10:57.840 --> 01:10:58.840]  Case law?
[01:10:58.840 --> 01:10:59.840]  What?
[01:10:59.840 --> 01:11:00.840]  I don't know what to do.
[01:11:00.840 --> 01:11:01.840]  Have you ever written a motion?
[01:11:01.840 --> 01:11:04.400]  No, I've never written a motion.
[01:11:04.400 --> 01:11:05.400]  No.
[01:11:05.400 --> 01:11:06.400]  Okay.
[01:11:06.400 --> 01:11:10.400]  Then you need to find an example of the motion challenging jurisdiction, going in depth on
[01:11:10.400 --> 01:11:13.760]  explaining how to write one on the air is just a tad bit difficult.
[01:11:13.760 --> 01:11:15.080]  We don't have the time for that.
[01:11:15.080 --> 01:11:16.080]  Yeah.
[01:11:16.080 --> 01:11:17.560]  And Hey Jeff, there's a lot of background noise on your end.
[01:11:17.560 --> 01:11:19.880]  Can you get to a quieter location please?
[01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:20.880]  Okay.
[01:11:20.880 --> 01:11:21.880]  Hold on.
[01:11:21.880 --> 01:11:25.960]  I mean, I'm in a McDonald's here.
[01:11:25.960 --> 01:11:26.960]  Okay.
[01:11:26.960 --> 01:11:27.960]  Yeah.
[01:11:27.960 --> 01:11:29.960]  Try to go outside or get in your car or something.
[01:11:29.960 --> 01:11:30.960]  Yep.
[01:11:30.960 --> 01:11:34.000]  Go in there now.
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:35.140]  Okay.
[01:11:35.140 --> 01:11:39.200]  While he's, while he's, uh, getting to another location, you want to make any comments on
[01:11:39.200 --> 01:11:40.600]  this motion issue?
[01:11:40.600 --> 01:11:46.240]  Well, it's a standard motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court based upon certain
[01:11:46.240 --> 01:11:47.680]  legal reasoning.
[01:11:47.680 --> 01:11:49.080]  That's all it is.
[01:11:49.080 --> 01:11:55.480]  There has to be a legal basis why the court lacks jurisdiction of the case, the person
[01:11:55.480 --> 01:11:57.440]  or the venue.
[01:11:57.440 --> 01:12:04.400]  They have to have all three of them to have jurisdiction at all.
[01:12:04.400 --> 01:12:09.040]  If they don't have all three, they have none.
[01:12:09.040 --> 01:12:10.040]  Yeah.
[01:12:10.040 --> 01:12:15.400]  Frank, you may want to go to the court and just pull some files and look up an example
[01:12:15.400 --> 01:12:16.720]  of a motion to dismiss.
[01:12:16.720 --> 01:12:17.720]  Okay.
[01:12:17.720 --> 01:12:19.520]  It's a small court.
[01:12:19.520 --> 01:12:22.040]  Um, they're never there.
[01:12:22.040 --> 01:12:24.580]  So should I just go to a bigger court?
[01:12:24.580 --> 01:12:28.640]  You can go to any court that would have an example of the motion you need.
[01:12:28.640 --> 01:12:29.640]  Okay.
[01:12:29.640 --> 01:12:34.080]  Um, but the problem is, is they're not, they're going to look at you kind of strange when
[01:12:34.080 --> 01:12:38.560]  you say, can you direct me to a case that has a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction?
[01:12:38.560 --> 01:12:41.080]  They're not going to find one, right?
[01:12:41.080 --> 01:12:42.080]  Exactly.
[01:12:42.080 --> 01:12:46.080]  Cause that's not the way they're organized and filed.
[01:12:46.080 --> 01:12:52.520]  You would do a lot better off searching the internet for a motion based in your state
[01:12:52.520 --> 01:12:53.520]  on how to do it.
[01:12:53.520 --> 01:12:54.520]  Okay.
[01:12:54.520 --> 01:13:00.400]  I only got until the August 4th to turn in my motions and stuff.
[01:13:00.400 --> 01:13:04.120]  Well, I can't tell you how long your search will take you.
[01:13:04.120 --> 01:13:06.800]  It all depends on how good you are at doing it.
[01:13:06.800 --> 01:13:07.800]  Okay.
[01:13:07.800 --> 01:13:08.800]  Okay.
[01:13:08.800 --> 01:13:16.440]  So if, uh, if he finds jurisdiction when he has none, should I, uh, uh, I'm going to request
[01:13:16.440 --> 01:13:21.840]  a, um, facts and conclusions that law finding a fact and conclusion that law, how did you
[01:13:21.840 --> 01:13:27.000]  determine you had jurisdiction when the law clearly States you do not correct.
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:30.600]  And then, then, uh, he's got 10 days and then I can avoid it.
[01:13:30.600 --> 01:13:37.560]  You have whatever the statutes in your state, give him to, to reply.
[01:13:37.560 --> 01:13:38.560]  Correct.
[01:13:38.560 --> 01:13:43.600]  He doesn't, if he doesn't reply in a certain amount of time, I, I send another one to void
[01:13:43.600 --> 01:13:49.080]  a motion to void or a motion to void judgment if he rules against you.
[01:13:49.080 --> 01:13:50.080]  Okay.
[01:13:50.080 --> 01:13:52.040]  So now I got it clear.
[01:13:52.040 --> 01:13:53.040]  Thanks a lot.
[01:13:53.040 --> 01:13:57.600]  I'll be, uh, probably calling in about other things.
[01:13:57.600 --> 01:13:58.600]  Okay.
[01:13:58.600 --> 01:13:59.600]  That's fine.
[01:13:59.600 --> 01:14:00.600]  Thanks Frank.
[01:14:00.600 --> 01:14:01.600]  All right.
[01:14:01.600 --> 01:14:02.600]  You too.
[01:14:02.600 --> 01:14:03.600]  Bye bye.
[01:14:03.600 --> 01:14:04.600]  Okay.
[01:14:04.600 --> 01:14:05.600]  We're going now to Jeff in Illinois.
[01:14:05.600 --> 01:14:06.600]  Jeff, thank you for calling in.
[01:14:06.600 --> 01:14:08.320]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:14:08.320 --> 01:14:09.320]  Hi.
[01:14:09.320 --> 01:14:10.320]  Good evening.
[01:14:10.320 --> 01:14:12.280]  Uh, question is dealing with real estate.
[01:14:12.280 --> 01:14:20.200]  I went to Randy's site and a lot there to know, uh, I have zero knowledge in, uh, foreclosures.
[01:14:20.200 --> 01:14:24.280]  I'm not being foreclosed yet, but I did get a brief foreclosure letter saying, Hey, you
[01:14:24.280 --> 01:14:25.280]  better pay up.
[01:14:25.280 --> 01:14:28.320]  Otherwise you're in violation of all their, you're probably going to want to call back
[01:14:28.320 --> 01:14:32.040]  on Thursday because Eddie and I don't do mortgage stuff.
[01:14:32.040 --> 01:14:33.040]  Okay.
[01:14:33.040 --> 01:14:34.160]  I wouldn't be sure if Randy was there.
[01:14:34.160 --> 01:14:44.000]  I tried calling Randy's, uh, little advertising site number, uh, his little, um, yeah, the
[01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:48.120]  best thing to do at this point in time is just to go to remedies and real estate.com
[01:14:48.120 --> 01:14:50.520]  and there may be a different contact number.
[01:14:50.520 --> 01:14:56.400]  I need to pull that ad because that phone number is connected with his Skype account
[01:14:56.400 --> 01:14:57.400]  that is dead.
[01:14:57.400 --> 01:14:58.400]  Yeah.
[01:14:58.400 --> 01:14:59.400]  It got hacked.
[01:14:59.400 --> 01:15:07.320]  It got hacked by a very good hacker, uh, and the hacker changed his password and changed
[01:15:07.320 --> 01:15:13.120]  the contact email in his Skype account immediately as soon as he hacked in.
[01:15:13.120 --> 01:15:19.720]  And so there was no way for Randy to log back in, uh, in order to change the, the, the password
[01:15:19.720 --> 01:15:24.240]  or to have a new password sent to him by email or anything like that.
[01:15:24.240 --> 01:15:29.760]  And he's filed multiple requests with Scott, with the Skype company themselves, asking
[01:15:29.760 --> 01:15:31.160]  them to resolve the issue.
[01:15:31.160 --> 01:15:32.400]  And they're just very slow moving.
[01:15:32.400 --> 01:15:33.680]  It's probably never going to happen.
[01:15:33.680 --> 01:15:39.360]  So that for all practical purposes, that Skype account is dead and that phone number associated
[01:15:39.360 --> 01:15:40.360]  with it is dead.
[01:15:40.360 --> 01:15:41.460]  He's got to get another phone number.
[01:15:41.460 --> 01:15:42.460]  So I'm sorry about that.
[01:15:42.460 --> 01:15:43.460]  I need to pull the ad.
[01:15:43.460 --> 01:15:44.460]  I just haven't had time to do it yet.
[01:15:44.460 --> 01:15:45.460]  All right.
[01:15:45.460 --> 01:15:49.800]  And then the other way I can contact somebody to talk about this type of stuff or someone
[01:15:49.800 --> 01:15:52.560]  in my area who can deal with this stuff.
[01:15:52.560 --> 01:15:57.040]  Send an email to Randy at remedies in real estate.com.
[01:15:57.040 --> 01:15:58.040]  Okay.
[01:15:58.040 --> 01:16:02.480]  Other than that, Thursday will be the soonest he'll be available, at least on the radio.
[01:16:02.480 --> 01:16:05.000]  I'm running out of time.
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:11.160]  Randy at remedies in real estate.com.
[01:16:11.160 --> 01:16:13.880]  Go to his remedies in real estate.com.
[01:16:13.880 --> 01:16:18.840]  Send them an email, send all, whatever email contacts are on that site, send it and put
[01:16:18.840 --> 01:16:21.000]  in all caps urgent.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:22.300]  Okay.
[01:16:22.300 --> 01:16:24.680]  And somebody, somebody from his company should respond.
[01:16:24.680 --> 01:16:25.680]  All right.
[01:16:25.680 --> 01:16:26.680]  Yeah.
[01:16:26.680 --> 01:16:28.160]  It looks like a very helpful website.
[01:16:28.160 --> 01:16:32.160]  So thank you for that.
[01:16:32.160 --> 01:16:33.880]  Is there anything else we can help you with, Jeff?
[01:16:33.880 --> 01:16:34.880]  No, that's all.
[01:16:34.880 --> 01:16:35.880]  I appreciate it.
[01:16:35.880 --> 01:16:36.880]  Okay.
[01:16:36.880 --> 01:16:37.880]  Help right away.
[01:16:37.880 --> 01:16:38.880]  So okay, great.
[01:16:38.880 --> 01:16:39.880]  They should respond quickly.
[01:16:39.880 --> 01:16:43.720]  If you put urgent in the, in the header, I'll do that tonight.
[01:16:43.720 --> 01:16:44.720]  Okay.
[01:16:44.720 --> 01:16:45.720]  Thanks, Jeff.
[01:16:45.720 --> 01:16:46.720]  Bye bye.
[01:16:46.720 --> 01:16:47.720]  Okay.
[01:16:47.720 --> 01:16:51.920]  When we get back, we're going to go to Dan in Connecticut, then we've got Jason after
[01:16:51.920 --> 01:17:00.520]  the phone board is open five one two six four six 1984 please call in
[01:17:00.520 --> 01:17:05.280]  capital coin and bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies
[01:17:05.280 --> 01:17:07.280]  in the Austin Metro area.
[01:17:07.280 --> 01:17:09.080]  We also ship worldwide.
[01:17:09.080 --> 01:17:12.920]  We're a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin
[01:17:12.920 --> 01:17:17.720]  and metals purchases because of you, Austin business has been so good that we've had to
[01:17:17.720 --> 01:17:20.320]  move to a new and bigger location.
[01:17:20.320 --> 01:17:26.080]  We're now located at 73 oh four Burnett road suite a 1.2 miles north on burn it from our
[01:17:26.080 --> 01:17:27.680]  previous location.
[01:17:27.680 --> 01:17:31.520]  We're on the west side of burn it road in the Stanley insurance building on the ground
[01:17:31.520 --> 01:17:35.240]  floor next to the issue bond sushi and the genie carwash.
[01:17:35.240 --> 01:17:39.040]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to six Saturdays, 10 to five.
[01:17:39.040 --> 01:17:43.800]  You're welcome to stop in during regular business hours or call five one two six four six six
[01:17:43.800 --> 01:17:48.800]  four four oh ask for Chad or Becky and say that you heard about us on rule of law radio
[01:17:48.800 --> 01:17:50.600]  or Texas liberty radio.
[01:17:50.600 --> 01:17:55.280]  That's capital corn and bullion at our new location at 73 oh four burn it road suite
[01:17:55.280 --> 01:18:00.240]  a recall five one two six four six six four four oh.
[01:18:00.240 --> 01:18:04.420]  My name is Randall Kelton and I co host on rule of law radio.
[01:18:04.420 --> 01:18:09.220]  We specialize in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials with
[01:18:09.220 --> 01:18:11.160]  the mortgage crisis worsening.
[01:18:11.160 --> 01:18:15.780]  We set our sights on finding a remedy for people who have been cheated by their lenders.
[01:18:15.780 --> 01:18:20.080]  If you have a mortgage or have paid yours off you have probably been cheated out of
[01:18:20.080 --> 01:18:22.320]  thousands but there is a remedy.
[01:18:22.320 --> 01:18:29.240]  Go to remedies in real estate dot com or call me at five one two four three oh four one
[01:18:29.240 --> 01:18:34.560]  four oh and find out how to use the consumer protection laws to recover what the lenders
[01:18:34.560 --> 01:18:37.180]  have stolen through fraud and deception.
[01:18:37.180 --> 01:18:42.040]  We will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose the fraud and put
[01:18:42.040 --> 01:18:43.880]  the lenders on the dime.
[01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:47.960]  Consumer fraud is bankrupting this country and it's time to fight back.
[01:18:47.960 --> 01:18:55.120]  Go to remedies in real estate dot com or call five one two four three oh four one four oh
[01:18:55.120 --> 01:19:08.400]  and get the information you need to stop the money changers in their tracks.
[01:19:08.400 --> 01:19:12.600]  Okay folks we are back.
[01:19:12.600 --> 01:19:17.840]  We are taking your calls five one two six four six nineteen eighty four.
[01:19:17.840 --> 01:19:19.640]  We've got Dan from Connecticut.
[01:19:19.640 --> 01:19:20.880]  Dan thanks for calling in.
[01:19:20.880 --> 01:19:22.920]  What is on your mind tonight?
[01:19:22.920 --> 01:19:25.080]  Nothing much.
[01:19:25.080 --> 01:19:31.240]  Actually this is related to something with my DMV case that I emailed Eddie a while back.
[01:19:31.240 --> 01:19:32.240]  Cool.
[01:19:32.240 --> 01:19:34.120]  What's up?
[01:19:34.120 --> 01:19:39.440]  Well I filed a bar grievance relating to the hearing officer and guess what the statewide
[01:19:39.440 --> 01:19:42.420]  grievance committee did not do?
[01:19:42.420 --> 01:19:43.420]  Do anything with it?
[01:19:43.420 --> 01:19:45.200]  Throw it in the trash.
[01:19:45.200 --> 01:19:46.800]  Oh they didn't throw it in the trash.
[01:19:46.800 --> 01:19:48.480]  They didn't throw it in the trash.
[01:19:48.480 --> 01:19:49.480]  Oh cool.
[01:19:49.480 --> 01:19:52.120]  How'd that help?
[01:19:52.120 --> 01:19:57.440]  Well we're about to find out but it's related to the fact that somebody in the legal department
[01:19:57.440 --> 01:20:01.640]  absconded with the mail too.
[01:20:01.640 --> 01:20:02.640]  So we shall see.
[01:20:02.640 --> 01:20:03.640]  Well there's a federal issue.
[01:20:03.640 --> 01:20:09.040]  Oh yeah as a matter of fact postal inspectors remain aware of it too which this should be
[01:20:09.040 --> 01:20:15.640]  oh so much fun but yeah I don't know if you had a chance to read what I'd sent you a while
[01:20:15.640 --> 01:20:16.640]  back.
[01:20:16.640 --> 01:20:21.840]  I know you'd probably get a lot of email but it was quite the hearing.
[01:20:21.840 --> 01:20:27.000]  Also I did want to call in because one of your previous callers mentioned motions.
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:33.680]  I do want to direct him to his state's judicial website because believe it or not a lot of
[01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:39.360]  the state courts do publish style guides for attorneys not that he'd even be held to that
[01:20:39.360 --> 01:20:44.340]  as a pro se litigant but you know they are very helpful and without going into too much
[01:20:44.340 --> 01:20:48.800]  detail one thing that I would say he should do is double space everything.
[01:20:48.800 --> 01:20:49.800]  Yeah.
[01:20:49.800 --> 01:20:58.440]  I mean that makes it a lot easier to read and also I do want to call back on this because
[01:20:58.440 --> 01:21:04.640]  you're you're doing traffic night but I did finally discover a bar agreements related
[01:21:04.640 --> 01:21:09.000]  issue concerning two different parties who both want to bar grieve the same attorney
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:12.280]  for the same thing.
[01:21:12.280 --> 01:21:15.080]  Okay.
[01:21:15.080 --> 01:21:19.600]  Which I never thought I'd run into that before but anyway I just you know wanted to let you
[01:21:19.600 --> 01:21:23.560]  know that sometimes the good guys start winning so.
[01:21:23.560 --> 01:21:24.560]  Well that would be nice.
[01:21:24.560 --> 01:21:29.520]  Please keep us posted on that aspect should it actually evolve to that effect.
[01:21:29.520 --> 01:21:36.400]  Yeah yeah we'll see but I was quite surprised that you know they they didn't just crumple
[01:21:36.400 --> 01:21:40.920]  it up and throw it in the trash especially since it was rated related to a state revenue
[01:21:40.920 --> 01:21:41.920]  scheme.
[01:21:41.920 --> 01:21:45.440]  Yeah that's also kind of surprising to me.
[01:21:45.440 --> 01:21:50.000]  All right well take it easy keep up the good work and give them hell.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:51.000]  All right.
[01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  Thanks Dan.
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  Yep.
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  Thanks Dan.
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:56.960]  Okay we're going now to Jason in Texas.
[01:21:56.960 --> 01:21:58.740]  Jason thank you for calling in.
[01:21:58.740 --> 01:22:00.320]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:22:00.320 --> 01:22:04.080]  Hey guys I know it's traffic night so I'll keep this real short.
[01:22:04.080 --> 01:22:09.760]  I've got a family member sitting in jail under on an arrest warrant for contempt of court
[01:22:09.760 --> 01:22:15.120]  and I got it went to the filing and pulled a certified copy of it and it looks like the
[01:22:15.120 --> 01:22:19.000]  warrant was signed by a deputy clerk.
[01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:22.360]  I think that you know I think I know the answer but that isn't that.
[01:22:22.360 --> 01:22:24.560]  Level court.
[01:22:24.560 --> 01:22:27.060]  It is a district court.
[01:22:27.060 --> 01:22:29.960]  The clerk is authorized if you're are you in Texas?
[01:22:29.960 --> 01:22:30.960]  Yes.
[01:22:30.960 --> 01:22:36.120]  Yeah in Texas the clerk is authorized to issue that on behalf of the court.
[01:22:36.120 --> 01:22:38.680]  Okay even a deputy clerk huh?
[01:22:38.680 --> 01:22:43.120]  Yeah anybody that works under the clerk of the court has authority.
[01:22:43.120 --> 01:22:44.120]  Oh okay.
[01:22:44.120 --> 01:22:48.200]  All right well it looks like that takes care of it.
[01:22:48.200 --> 01:22:52.640]  Okay now the question however is does it have the official seal and does it comply with
[01:22:52.640 --> 01:22:56.960]  the requisite statute for a proper arrest warrant?
[01:22:56.960 --> 01:22:59.840]  It does have a seal here the state of Texas seal.
[01:22:59.840 --> 01:23:04.040]  Okay now and what about the court?
[01:23:04.040 --> 01:23:07.120]  It does have the name of the court and the cause number and all that.
[01:23:07.120 --> 01:23:09.960]  It has the court seal on it?
[01:23:09.960 --> 01:23:16.060]  Court seal let's see I don't see that I just see the state of Texas seal.
[01:23:16.060 --> 01:23:20.280]  Okay you need to go and look at the statute there should be a seal from the court that
[01:23:20.280 --> 01:23:29.200]  issued it there now it's a district court so odds are they may have a waiver on stamping
[01:23:29.200 --> 01:23:35.080]  it specifically from the district court since they are for all intents and purposes covering
[01:23:35.080 --> 01:23:41.040]  multiple counties but look in the code code of criminal procedure regarding the issuance
[01:23:41.040 --> 01:23:44.640]  of warrants and see if that meets all the required criteria.
[01:23:44.640 --> 01:23:48.800]  Yeah I'll have to look at that another issue that I can call back on Thursday and get in
[01:23:48.800 --> 01:23:54.360]  depth is that the order it's a contempt order but he was never served and never even stepped
[01:23:54.360 --> 01:23:57.760]  foot in the courtroom so I don't know how to do that.
[01:23:57.760 --> 01:24:03.480]  Well he could be in contempt by failing to do what a prior order may have directed him
[01:24:03.480 --> 01:24:10.920]  to do for instance child support if he was ordered to pay child support and didn't then
[01:24:10.920 --> 01:24:15.360]  they will hold a contempt hearing they'll move for a contempt hearing and they'll find
[01:24:15.360 --> 01:24:18.080]  him in contempt if he didn't pay it.
[01:24:18.080 --> 01:24:20.200]  You must have heard about one of these cases before.
[01:24:20.200 --> 01:24:25.800]  Oh I've seen lots of them that right there is one of the biggest scams in all of Texas
[01:24:25.800 --> 01:24:27.520]  is child support courts.
[01:24:27.520 --> 01:24:28.520]  Oh yeah.
[01:24:28.520 --> 01:24:33.320]  Family service courts are absolutely more corrupt than any other you're ever going to
[01:24:33.320 --> 01:24:34.320]  see.
[01:24:34.320 --> 01:24:39.480]  The Attorney General's office is a den of thieves when it comes to child support and
[01:24:39.480 --> 01:24:40.960]  the way they do things.
[01:24:40.960 --> 01:24:45.400]  Yeah it's getting ridiculous but alright well I'll call back on Thursday and we'll
[01:24:45.400 --> 01:24:46.740]  get down that road.
[01:24:46.740 --> 01:24:49.720]  Well there's no other callers right now so if you want to stay on the line and talk about
[01:24:49.720 --> 01:24:51.480]  that that's fine.
[01:24:51.480 --> 01:24:57.560]  Okay yeah I guess I really haven't looked a whole lot into it other than I just recently
[01:24:57.560 --> 01:25:03.720]  got this file but it really just kind of strikes me as odd as how they can do that.
[01:25:03.720 --> 01:25:07.800]  You know if they never served him and I have the paperwork so they tried to serve him four
[01:25:07.800 --> 01:25:13.320]  times and you know I'm just wondering how can you how can you be held in contempt for
[01:25:13.320 --> 01:25:18.960]  an order that you were never there to hear and you weren't even served you know?
[01:25:18.960 --> 01:25:23.120]  Just doesn't seem right in the NEI's due process at least.
[01:25:23.120 --> 01:25:28.000]  Well you can always file a judicial conduct complaint against the judge for holding someone
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:36.360]  in contempt knowing full well that the delivery and service was never completed.
[01:25:36.360 --> 01:25:41.880]  That right there if they can't show that they made due diligence and that he actually
[01:25:41.880 --> 01:25:48.160]  avoided service then they have they're going to be very hard-pressed to make that charge
[01:25:48.160 --> 01:25:49.160]  stand.
[01:25:49.160 --> 01:25:54.400]  Right now he was working on towers around the country at the time it wasn't like he
[01:25:54.400 --> 01:26:00.840]  was in town running from it right but uh yeah okay all right well I'll just keep on looking
[01:26:00.840 --> 01:26:04.560]  into this yeah from what I've seen family court is a whole different deal the whole
[01:26:04.560 --> 01:26:07.200]  family system is a whole completely different deal.
[01:26:07.200 --> 01:26:14.400]  Yeah it it's probably the second biggest crime ring in Texas.
[01:26:14.400 --> 01:26:18.640]  All right well uh that'll work I'll keep on looking into this deal.
[01:26:18.640 --> 01:26:20.280]  All right well thanks for calling in.
[01:26:20.280 --> 01:26:24.960]  All right thanks Jason and since uh Jason since you did bring up this child support
[01:26:24.960 --> 01:26:30.640]  issue uh I wanted to make a comment uh that I've been meaning to make for a while I discussed
[01:26:30.640 --> 01:26:36.000]  this uh child support issue with Harman Taylor our good friend Harman Taylor I want need
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:40.240]  to get him back on again soon maybe you can make some more comments about this himself
[01:26:40.240 --> 01:26:44.300]  because everybody all over the country is all up in arms saying that oh it's a debtor's
[01:26:44.300 --> 01:26:49.920]  prison because they throw you in jail if you don't pay no it's not okay I finally got clear
[01:26:49.920 --> 01:26:59.320]  on this issue child support is not a debt okay it is a fiduciary duty and breach of
[01:26:59.320 --> 01:27:05.000]  fiduciary duty is a crime okay you didn't borrow any money people uh people who owe
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:10.400]  child support it's not a debt you didn't borrow money that you have to pay back there's no
[01:27:10.400 --> 01:27:17.320]  it's not debtors prison it's called breach of fiduciary duty and in the commercial realm
[01:27:17.320 --> 01:27:22.620]  there are two situations where there uh it is a criminal charge you can actually serve
[01:27:22.620 --> 01:27:28.920]  jail time uh regarding commerce one of them is breach of trust and one of them is breach
[01:27:28.920 --> 01:27:34.160]  of fiduciary duty and that's why people get thrown in jail for not paying child support
[01:27:34.160 --> 01:27:39.520]  because it is a fiduciary duty to the child it's not a debt you didn't borrow any money
[01:27:39.520 --> 01:27:44.760]  from the kid that you have to pay back so I don't want to hear any more about that it's
[01:27:44.760 --> 01:27:50.280]  a debtor's prison it's not it's a breach of fiduciary duty and that is standard jurisprudence
[01:27:50.280 --> 01:27:55.880]  that a breach of fiduciary duty is a crime so that's the lowdown that is the reality
[01:27:55.880 --> 01:28:01.600]  from harmon taylor concerning child support so I don't want to hear any more about that
[01:28:01.600 --> 01:28:06.880]  issue in debtors prison because it's not has nothing to do with debt okay we do have another
[01:28:06.880 --> 01:28:12.840]  caller on the line we've got mitchell from texas calling back in mitchell thank you for
[01:28:12.840 --> 01:28:19.280]  calling uh back in what is on your mind tonight hey um yeah I just heard you didn't have any
[01:28:19.280 --> 01:28:25.840]  other callers yet so I figured I could get my other questions in um can an interrogatory
[01:28:25.840 --> 01:28:32.480]  you know one of the tools of discovery in a criminal case be issued to a potential witness
[01:28:32.480 --> 01:28:42.440]  um so essentially not not giving me in interrogatory to the other party who is the state but instead
[01:28:42.440 --> 01:28:50.840]  giving it to a witness who may also later be issued a subpoena in particular let me
[01:28:50.840 --> 01:28:57.080]  give you an example you can chew on the afian on the criminal complaint I want to ask that
[01:28:57.080 --> 01:29:03.120]  afian a bunch of questions for instance how many criminal complaints did they file that
[01:29:03.120 --> 01:29:10.800]  day I'd like to see the other criminal complaints they filed so basically I want to ask the
[01:29:10.800 --> 01:29:17.760]  potential witness who will potentially be subpoenaed a bunch of questions so what is
[01:29:17.760 --> 01:29:23.880]  the form of discovery that could potentially be used that's a subpoena deuces techum I
[01:29:23.880 --> 01:29:29.320]  want you to come to court you're hereby ordered to come to court and you hereby ordered to
[01:29:29.320 --> 01:29:35.120]  bring the following documents with you but what if I want this before court because I
[01:29:35.120 --> 01:29:41.280]  want to know if then that's separate discovery okay that's a discovery motion but hang on
[01:29:41.280 --> 01:29:46.040]  just a second and we'll get back to that all right folks this is rule of law radio five
[01:29:46.040 --> 01:29:50.600]  one two six four six nineteen eighty four is the call-in number Mitchell is our last
[01:29:50.600 --> 01:29:54.320]  caller on the board we've got about a half an hour left in the show so give us a call
[01:29:54.320 --> 01:30:01.340]  we'll be right back on the other side of the break top 10 reasons to question the official
[01:30:01.340 --> 01:30:06.240]  story of the Oklahoma City bombing number nine the extra leg former Oklahoma State Medical
[01:30:06.240 --> 01:30:10.700]  examiner Dr. Fred Jordan had stated we had eight people with amputated left legs and
[01:30:10.700 --> 01:30:15.460]  nine left legs to account for chief pathologist for Northern Ireland TK Marshall who performed
[01:30:15.460 --> 01:30:20.380]  over 2,500 autopsies in his time stated there has never been an unknown victim this leg
[01:30:20.380 --> 01:30:24.220]  belonged to a perpetrator close enough to the bomb or his body to be damaged leaving
[01:30:24.220 --> 01:30:33.680]  only a left leg behind who was this person please go to okc bombing truth.com stroke
[01:30:33.680 --> 01:30:38.680]  it's the third leading cause of death in the US behind heart disease and cancer do you
[01:30:38.680 --> 01:30:43.000]  know the telltale signs I'm dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with information
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:48.560]  that could save your life or the life of someone you love privacy is under attack when you
[01:30:48.560 --> 01:30:53.700]  give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again and once your privacy is gone
[01:30:53.700 --> 01:30:59.620]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your rights say no to surveillance
[01:30:59.620 --> 01:31:05.300]  and keep your information to yourself privacy it's worth hanging on to this public service
[01:31:05.300 --> 01:31:10.680]  announcement is brought to you by startpage.com the private search engine alternative to Google
[01:31:10.680 --> 01:31:17.820]  Yahoo and Bing start over with startpage a stroke occurs when part of your brain is deprived
[01:31:17.820 --> 01:31:22.620]  of oxygen because of a blocked or broken blood vessel the brain will start to die unless
[01:31:22.620 --> 01:31:27.500]  you get fast emergency medical treatment so it's important to know these warning signs
[01:31:27.500 --> 01:31:32.700]  sudden numbness or weakness of the face arm or leg especially on one side of the body
[01:31:32.700 --> 01:31:37.940]  sudden confusion or trouble speaking and understanding sudden trouble seeing out of one or both
[01:31:37.940 --> 01:31:44.300]  eyes sudden trouble walking dizziness or loss of balance and coordination and sudden severe
[01:31:44.300 --> 01:31:49.700]  headache with no known cause if you or a loved one experiences any of these symptoms call
[01:31:49.700 --> 01:31:56.700]  911 fast treatment saves lives I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht more news and information at www.catherinealbrecht.com
[01:32:19.700 --> 01:32:29.420]  alright folks we are back this is rule of law radio okay we've got about a half an hour
[01:32:29.420 --> 01:32:33.420]  left in the show Mitchell's still our only caller we're gonna go ahead and go back to
[01:32:33.420 --> 01:32:40.500]  him but 512-646-1984 is the call-in number so please give us a call so we can have something
[01:32:40.500 --> 01:32:44.540]  else to talk about besides you having to listen to me for the rest of the night alright Mitchell
[01:32:44.540 --> 01:32:53.400]  go ahead okay part of the reason I'm asking about the form of discovery to ask of a non-party
[01:32:53.400 --> 01:32:59.340]  potential witness or someone who will later be issued a subpoena is because the code of
[01:32:59.340 --> 01:33:07.140]  criminal procedures 39.06 which discusses written interrogatories does not mention anything
[01:33:07.140 --> 01:33:18.380]  about a non-party to the case it only discusses a copy of the interrogatory or discovery documents
[01:33:18.380 --> 01:33:24.780]  shall be served on all other parties or their counsel but it doesn't discuss non-parties
[01:33:24.780 --> 01:33:30.140]  so that's part of the reason I'm asking I mean this may be a really simple answer and
[01:33:30.140 --> 01:33:35.380]  it's just because I'm not familiar with the way of doing these things but basically I
[01:33:35.380 --> 01:33:43.740]  just want to know if that section can be used as the whatever the underlying legal basis
[01:33:43.740 --> 01:33:52.260]  to ask questions of a potential non-party witness well I don't know why you would actually
[01:33:52.260 --> 01:33:59.220]  need to subpoena or discover the criminal complaints themselves what you would probably
[01:33:59.220 --> 01:34:05.780]  much better off doing is seeing if you can get a report from the clerk of the court as
[01:34:05.780 --> 01:34:13.140]  to how many cases are run through that court per day then I would also look to see how
[01:34:13.140 --> 01:34:20.100]  many cases are entered into the computer in a given day meaning how many complaints were
[01:34:20.100 --> 01:34:26.740]  generated you can get those well enough in the reports that the court should be able
[01:34:26.740 --> 01:34:31.860]  to generate well I'm still going to have the underlying question because I do have some
[01:34:31.860 --> 01:34:35.640]  other questions for her but you can ask the questions that wouldn't have anything to do
[01:34:35.640 --> 01:34:40.000]  with discovery you're going to base your questions based upon the information you're getting
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:46.260]  and where you're wanting it to go the reports will give you enough information about the
[01:34:46.260 --> 01:34:50.220]  question among how many reports they general are how many complaints they generate for
[01:34:50.220 --> 01:34:58.860]  instance well I basically just want to ask someone who is not necessarily a party questions
[01:34:58.860 --> 01:35:03.260]  whether it's the afian or I understand that but in this case who are we talking about
[01:35:03.260 --> 01:35:17.180]  pulling in the clerk for instance how about the the city clerk for other other other information
[01:35:17.180 --> 01:35:23.500]  that I'd like to obtain from her okay not the county not the court clerk but the city
[01:35:23.500 --> 01:35:31.380]  clerk for instance I'd like to know the names of all the city the city prosecutors I mean
[01:35:31.380 --> 01:35:37.180]  it's are you going to make that relevant to the case well it's not relevant to the case
[01:35:37.180 --> 01:35:42.340]  but it's you're not going to be able to use it let me say it's relevant to the potential
[01:35:42.340 --> 01:35:48.300]  for once I find out who the attorney is to say whether or not that attorney is a municipal
[01:35:48.300 --> 01:35:55.660]  attorney therefore whether or not that municipal attorney is able to prosecute for the state
[01:35:55.660 --> 01:35:59.900]  which they're not so why don't you just go to the city attorney's office and ask them
[01:35:59.900 --> 01:36:06.180]  to provide you with information on a particular attorney because when I submit that in a motion
[01:36:06.180 --> 01:36:12.080]  to cross you don't have to submit it in a motion as far as getting that piece of information
[01:36:12.080 --> 01:36:23.380]  they're a public servant you go that's a public office file an information request do you
[01:36:23.380 --> 01:36:30.860]  or do you not have employment records on the following individual as a city attorney please
[01:36:30.860 --> 01:36:38.800]  provide me copies of any documentation that shows that they are employed as a city attorney
[01:36:38.800 --> 01:36:44.620]  well part of the problem is in the municipal court or at least in the case I'm involved
[01:36:44.620 --> 01:36:51.920]  with they have not stated yet who the attorney is so basically I don't know who the okay
[01:36:51.920 --> 01:36:58.040]  I can almost guarantee you that it's going to be a municipal attorney and if it's not
[01:36:58.040 --> 01:37:03.300]  what's to prevent you from asking who they are the first time they appear in court well
[01:37:03.300 --> 01:37:08.340]  because I'd like to not have to go to court I'd like to get this taken care of and quashed
[01:37:08.340 --> 01:37:14.920]  before that court date yeah but you're talking about a trial rather than an appearance I
[01:37:14.920 --> 01:37:20.000]  can guarantee you you are not going to avoid first appearance without something being totally
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:27.480]  egregious brought up well I and I you're right and I did go to that first first appearance
[01:37:27.480 --> 01:37:33.020]  and there was an attorney and I do have her name but isn't it possible that they could
[01:37:33.020 --> 01:37:40.320]  switch attorneys at the of course it's possible which is why I'd like to know the names of
[01:37:40.320 --> 01:37:45.960]  all the okay here's the where are you trying to go with this Mitchell is what I need to
[01:37:45.960 --> 01:37:51.640]  know why do you want to use this information and for what purpose well exactly the same
[01:37:51.640 --> 01:37:58.980]  reasons we were talking about before which is the state the municipal attorney can't
[01:37:58.980 --> 01:38:07.320]  prosecute in the name of the state and if the if the case is the state versus the defendant
[01:38:07.320 --> 01:38:15.780]  then that municipal attorney cannot prosecute the case okay ultimately for a motion to dismiss
[01:38:15.780 --> 01:38:22.160]  the case but isn't that true of any city attorney regardless of what their name is right but
[01:38:22.160 --> 01:38:31.000]  I don't have any evidence in hand that says they're a municipal attorney well that may
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:37.880]  be true but you're challenging their authority that's why you file a motion to show authority
[01:38:37.880 --> 01:38:44.240]  to prosecute that's what a motion to show authority a rule twelve motion is all about
[01:38:44.240 --> 01:38:53.460]  okay who are you and what gives you the authority to act as an attorney in this case and that's
[01:38:53.460 --> 01:39:05.480]  rule twelve from the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure okay now if you have the seminar
[01:39:05.480 --> 01:39:11.000]  material there is a prosecutor to show authority challenge motion in there which I am in the
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:16.640]  process of trying to rewrite and to organize much better than the old one is I'll admit
[01:39:16.640 --> 01:39:23.840]  I wrote the old one in a flurry of information and I didn't organize it as well as I could
[01:39:23.840 --> 01:39:31.080]  the new one that I'm doing lays it out step by step by step exactly why that city attorney
[01:39:31.080 --> 01:39:37.840]  can't do it and it breaks it out into blocks that say here's here is every section who
[01:39:37.840 --> 01:39:44.120]  can prosecute municipal court who is authorized to prosecute municipal court what the jurisdiction
[01:39:44.120 --> 01:39:49.480]  is of municipal court what the Constitution says about it what the statutes say about
[01:39:49.480 --> 01:39:56.080]  it and here's where the problems are and Eddie I kind of got I get hung up on the example
[01:39:56.080 --> 01:40:04.320]  I gave you but if for instance I wanted to have interrogatories of some other person
[01:40:04.320 --> 01:40:11.120]  like like a policeman who might have been in the vicinity when the particular incident
[01:40:11.120 --> 01:40:18.320]  happened but I don't necessarily want them to appear at the hearing I'm sorry at the
[01:40:18.320 --> 01:40:24.200]  trial but I want to just the only way you can get anything that's said by anyone else
[01:40:24.200 --> 01:40:33.380]  admissible at trial is if they're in the courtroom to testify or it's by deposition and the other
[01:40:33.380 --> 01:40:40.560]  party agrees to allow the deposition in lieu of the witness got it okay so these this section
[01:40:40.560 --> 01:40:50.400]  39.06 unwritten interrogatories is really directed at the opposing party correct unwritten
[01:40:50.400 --> 01:40:59.560]  interrogatories are when unwritten written it says yeah written interrogatories are directed
[01:40:59.560 --> 01:41:06.200]  at the other party that's going to appear or to anyone that's going to testify on behalf
[01:41:06.200 --> 01:41:15.400]  of that party but they have to be relevant to what they're going to testify to got it
[01:41:15.400 --> 01:41:20.280]  so that provision are you thinking would not be appropriate for what we were talking about
[01:41:20.280 --> 01:41:26.720]  before which is essentially just asking who is the prosecuting attorney if the opposing
[01:41:26.720 --> 01:41:32.360]  party is the state well this is this is one of the due process violations that these particular
[01:41:32.360 --> 01:41:38.400]  courts and types of actions bring to the forefront right off the bat how are you to serve opposing
[01:41:38.400 --> 01:41:45.400]  counsel when you have no clue who it is exactly okay how are you supposed to name delivery
[01:41:45.400 --> 01:41:51.040]  of these things to a particular opposing counsel when you don't know who it is how does that
[01:41:51.040 --> 01:41:56.280]  happen it's because this system is not rigged to provide you with a right of due process
[01:41:56.280 --> 01:42:04.840]  keep that in mind so there are it's just one of the additional ways that we use to challenge
[01:42:04.840 --> 01:42:11.340]  the entire system is being set up entirely for the purpose of accruing money at the expense
[01:42:11.340 --> 01:42:19.160]  of justice and due process so other than other than doing what you suggested before about
[01:42:19.160 --> 01:42:23.640]  just walking down to the attorney's office and asking for a list of their attorneys there
[01:42:23.640 --> 01:42:32.560]  seems to be no included way in their proper methods or whatever to ask that in a criminal
[01:42:32.560 --> 01:42:39.800]  case you can certainly ask the court look i'm trying to serve the opposing counsel but
[01:42:39.800 --> 01:42:44.680]  no one will tell me who opposing counsel is no one's assigned to this case but keep in
[01:42:44.680 --> 01:42:49.440]  mind that there's nothing to prevent them from switching before trial what method would
[01:42:49.440 --> 01:42:55.920]  you suggest may be able to accomplish that i well i don't know what you mean by accomplish
[01:42:55.920 --> 01:43:00.440]  you're not going to be able to change the fact that they can do this no no no how do
[01:43:00.440 --> 01:43:05.980]  i ask that of the court what what what kind of document do i file the court's not going
[01:43:05.980 --> 01:43:10.820]  to help you this is part of the system that they've helped to propagate they're not going
[01:43:10.820 --> 01:43:16.440]  to help you the best you can do is make it a part of the record as challenging it as
[01:43:16.440 --> 01:43:23.440]  a due process violation because you are deprived of the ability to know who you're serving
[01:43:23.440 --> 01:43:29.080]  who you're having to deal with on the opposing side so on and so forth so at any time they
[01:43:29.080 --> 01:43:34.680]  can make the claim that they never were served any of your filings by what method do i make
[01:43:34.680 --> 01:43:41.720]  that part of the record is that you can file it as a a motion uh to dismiss or an affidavit
[01:43:41.720 --> 01:43:47.820]  in support that hey i'm being deprived my right of due process great thanks again guys
[01:43:47.820 --> 01:43:53.160]  all right thank you mitchell all right folks this is rule of law radio we need you to call
[01:43:53.160 --> 01:43:56.880]  in 512-646-1984 we'll be right back
[01:43:56.880 --> 01:44:04.160]  hey did you hear ron paul's announced he's running for president in 2012 who's ron paul
[01:44:04.160 --> 01:44:07.920]  really okay put down the cell phone for one minute your friends really don't care about
[01:44:07.920 --> 01:44:11.360]  your twitter updates on what you had for breakfast oh but i love to make those little smiley
[01:44:11.360 --> 01:44:15.800]  faces with punctuation marks of course you do now listen closely you need to go down
[01:44:15.800 --> 01:44:19.300]  to brave new books and learn as much as you can about ron paul and his message before
[01:44:19.300 --> 01:44:23.080]  it's too late they have all of his books and many of the books he talks about they also
[01:44:23.080 --> 01:44:26.720]  have t-shirts bumper stickers and yard signs so that you can show your support for him
[01:44:26.720 --> 01:44:31.520]  during the campaign brave new books do they have harry potter and twilight no but they
[01:44:31.520 --> 01:44:35.200]  do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect your family
[01:44:35.200 --> 01:44:39.600]  in time of emergency that sounds like that show in the discovery channel yeah there's
[01:44:39.600 --> 01:44:43.460]  even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called earth skills school that you
[01:44:43.460 --> 01:44:48.080]  can sign up for on the website brave new bookstore dot com what are you doing i'm tweeting all
[01:44:48.080 --> 01:44:51.560]  my friends that they should go to brave new bookstore dot com or down to the bookstore
[01:44:51.560 --> 01:44:56.920]  in person where's it located 1904 guadalupe street there it's sent i even made a smiley
[01:44:56.920 --> 01:45:07.920]  face great are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit when your case without an attorney
[01:45:07.920 --> 01:45:14.800]  jurisdictionary the affordable easy to understand for cd course that will show you how in 24
[01:45:14.800 --> 01:45:21.520]  hours step by step if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't
[01:45:21.520 --> 01:45:26.520]  have a lawyer know what you should do for yourself thousands have won with our step
[01:45:26.520 --> 01:45:33.640]  by step course and now you can too jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22
[01:45:33.640 --> 01:45:39.400]  years of case-winning experience even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone
[01:45:39.400 --> 01:45:45.200]  should understand about the principles and practices that control our american courts
[01:45:45.200 --> 01:45:52.840]  you'll receive our audio classroom video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics
[01:45:52.840 --> 01:45:59.240]  and much more please visit rule of law radio dot com and click on the banner or call toll-free
[01:45:59.240 --> 01:46:22.280]  866-LAW-EASY
[01:46:22.280 --> 01:46:27.640]  okay folks we are back we're on our final segment we've got a caller on the board before
[01:46:27.640 --> 01:46:31.860]  we go to our caller though i wanted to say one more word about this fiduciary duty breach
[01:46:31.860 --> 01:46:36.280]  of fiduciary duty and breach of trust because some people may not know what that means all
[01:46:36.280 --> 01:46:42.820]  right um just going off common language definition and i'm just going to read from what it says
[01:46:42.820 --> 01:46:51.840]  here in wiki here wikipedia uh the fiduciary duty uh it's from the latin fiduciarius meaning
[01:46:51.840 --> 01:46:59.280]  holding in trust it's a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management
[01:46:59.280 --> 01:47:07.040]  of money or property between two or more parties most commonly a fiduciary and a principal
[01:47:07.040 --> 01:47:11.520]  all right so in the case of child support the child is the principal the parent is the
[01:47:11.520 --> 01:47:20.200]  fiduciary the parent has a fiduciary duty to take care of that child it's not an option
[01:47:20.200 --> 01:47:26.240]  you don't make a contract uh you you have a kid you have a fiduciary duty to that child
[01:47:26.240 --> 01:47:29.960]  you're you're literal and in the case of child support the way the court sees it the way
[01:47:29.960 --> 01:47:37.240]  the law sees it is that literally you are holding in trust property and funds that are
[01:47:37.240 --> 01:47:44.800]  owed to the principal or to the beneficiary which is the child and so if you don't pay
[01:47:44.800 --> 01:47:52.680]  the child support that is breach of fiduciary duty it's not that you it's not a that a debt
[01:47:52.680 --> 01:47:57.880]  that you're just not paying a debt it's you don't it's not a debt okay you didn't borrow
[01:47:57.880 --> 01:48:02.480]  anything from the child you have a fiduciary duty to the child uh in the case of like a
[01:48:02.480 --> 01:48:08.180]  trustee and beneficiaries in the case of a of a of a trust setup if you don't perform
[01:48:08.180 --> 01:48:13.960]  your your duties properly as trustee that's breach of trust and it's a crime breach of
[01:48:13.960 --> 01:48:22.340]  fiduciary duty is a crime because literally it is akin to larceny it's theft it's theft
[01:48:22.340 --> 01:48:30.600]  of property theft of funds it's not a debt that you just didn't pay back okay theft is
[01:48:30.600 --> 01:48:36.640]  a crime that's why breach of fiduciary duty is a crime breach of trust is a crime because
[01:48:36.640 --> 01:48:44.440]  you're holding in trust assets and funds that literally belong to another that's what larceny
[01:48:44.440 --> 01:48:50.380]  is it's theft of property and so that's why not paying child support is a crime and so
[01:48:50.380 --> 01:48:55.660]  i just wanted to break it down a little bit more on what it means what fiduciary duty
[01:48:55.660 --> 01:49:01.660]  means what a breach of trust means it has to do it goes straight to theft it goes straight
[01:49:01.660 --> 01:49:07.520]  to larceny that's why it's a crime okay so with that said uh we're going to continue
[01:49:07.520 --> 01:49:14.040]  to take the calls now uh we've got deborah in texas deborah thanks for calling in what
[01:49:14.040 --> 01:49:18.680]  is your question tonight you're so welcome and much love to you all first of all thanks
[01:49:18.680 --> 01:49:26.360]  first thank you absolutely uh access to justice i have called before and i wanted to follow
[01:49:26.360 --> 01:49:33.880]  up on one thing real quickly and then introduce a new uh topic instead of questions um in
[01:49:33.880 --> 01:49:41.080]  regards to a malicious malicious or frivolous lawsuit that i'd like to file to um recollect
[01:49:41.080 --> 01:49:47.560]  uh my expenses in a previous case that i won y'all told me to reference um a statute or
[01:49:47.560 --> 01:49:52.040]  a fellow's book or some case law or something i was wondering if you recall what that might
[01:49:52.040 --> 01:49:58.120]  have been okay when you say in regard to a frivolous or malicious lawsuit one was filed
[01:49:58.120 --> 01:50:03.120]  against you and you sued over it what are we talking about here uh an ex-husband sued
[01:50:03.120 --> 01:50:09.880]  me for custody of a 17 year old i won that case and um i believe that he never had grounds
[01:50:09.880 --> 01:50:16.920]  there's a whole gamut of things they'll be i'll be grieving the the opposing attorney
[01:50:16.920 --> 01:50:23.600]  and the judge it was heinous it was in williamson county but um i believe he never had grounds
[01:50:23.600 --> 01:50:30.580]  to um file that case and take that forward so i want to recollect as the victor uh all
[01:50:30.580 --> 01:50:42.520]  the money i spent on that all right how long ago was this last year okay uh well let's
[01:50:42.520 --> 01:50:49.160]  see you you'll need to file a lawsuit against him it's pretty much that simple uh if it's
[01:50:49.160 --> 01:50:54.520]  less than 10 grand allegedly you can do it in small claims court though i still have
[01:50:54.520 --> 01:50:58.800]  constitutional issues over justice of the peace having jurisdiction in a civil matter
[01:50:58.800 --> 01:51:06.200]  in excess of 200 because that's where the constitution limits the jurisdictional authority
[01:51:06.200 --> 01:51:12.280]  of a justice of the peace court how the legislature gets away with creating a separate court but
[01:51:12.280 --> 01:51:19.800]  putting the same limited capacity judge in charge of it thus statutorily increasing the
[01:51:19.800 --> 01:51:25.620]  constitutional limitation of authority again something i can't see that they have the ability
[01:51:25.620 --> 01:51:33.640]  to do i just don't see how that's going to work so the county courts or district courts
[01:51:33.640 --> 01:51:37.440]  have much higher levels you could probably sue in the county court i know that's up to
[01:51:37.440 --> 01:51:43.800]  what like thirty five thousand dollars or so uh if you're here in texas so you could
[01:51:43.800 --> 01:51:52.120]  just initiate the suit in county court directly okay and you had mentioned a gentleman's name
[01:51:52.120 --> 01:51:56.960]  i believe that wrote a book or some case was involved in some case law on this matter in
[01:51:56.960 --> 01:52:03.880]  texas do you recall that uh as far as a malicious prosecution suit or something of that nature
[01:52:03.880 --> 01:52:10.400]  malicious prosecution to the best of my knowledge i don't recall leading uh reading any case
[01:52:10.400 --> 01:52:19.600]  law that asserted otherwise but i think only the uh the uh prosecuting attorneys can be
[01:52:19.600 --> 01:52:24.520]  sued for malicious prosecution along with the courts that they prosecuted in and so
[01:52:24.520 --> 01:52:29.540]  on and so forth and anybody that asserted the act against you since what you're talking
[01:52:29.540 --> 01:52:35.760]  about is a family law matter that's civil uh-huh so frivolous or just uh collecting
[01:52:35.760 --> 01:52:42.200]  your expenses you you could go back and sue him for your attorney's fees and costs okay
[01:52:42.200 --> 01:52:50.640]  to litigate the suit okay okay and uh o'connor's causes of action could give you all of the
[01:52:50.640 --> 01:52:58.240]  case law you need to to adjudicate that uh tort action it tells you right in there exactly
[01:52:58.240 --> 01:53:06.160]  what you have to plead as the plaintiff and what case law backs you up okay perfect and
[01:53:06.160 --> 01:53:14.700]  then my new issue um so previously i had um been victorious in a um speeding ticket case
[01:53:14.700 --> 01:53:23.920]  but i uh did what you call working hard not working smart i uh drew the setting in map
[01:53:23.920 --> 01:53:30.000]  view on the court's chalkboard and the officer verified that was true and it demonstrated
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:34.920]  that he couldn't have seen what he thought he said he saw i drew another this was a stop
[01:53:34.920 --> 01:53:42.640]  sign ticket right no no speeding oh oh okay uh and then i drew another picture uh map
[01:53:42.640 --> 01:53:47.960]  view demonstrating how a group of cars was traveling together and suggested that he could
[01:53:47.960 --> 01:53:54.680]  not have um with the old style uh radar they were using he could not have picked me out
[01:53:54.680 --> 01:54:00.920]  of that group uh the court accepted that as a reasonable doubt um the officer admitted
[01:54:00.920 --> 01:54:07.260]  he was new and he did not know how to calibrate his uh radar machine the court accepted that
[01:54:07.260 --> 01:54:13.240]  as some reasonable doubt um i demonstrated that the prosecutor was prejudiced based on
[01:54:13.240 --> 01:54:20.560]  it was so funny after i refused to accept their um half fine settlement he um put me
[01:54:20.560 --> 01:54:25.440]  last in the case list in the schedule and i actually fell asleep in court i was there
[01:54:25.440 --> 01:54:32.520]  for hours and hours and by the time we got to trial or hearing or whatever um i was quite
[01:54:32.520 --> 01:54:38.560]  testy and so was he but it did give me the opportunity to hear him mystery is not abused
[01:54:38.560 --> 01:54:48.400]  um other witnesses and um defendants and so i actually brought up this previous conduct
[01:54:48.400 --> 01:54:52.840]  to the court and the court also accepted that um it got very heated they took a break we
[01:54:52.840 --> 01:54:58.400]  came back and i submitted myself as an expert witness i'm a scientist and so i went through
[01:54:58.400 --> 01:55:03.840]  that whole thing what is it called the voir dire voir dire is when you're talking well
[01:55:03.840 --> 01:55:08.680]  it's when you're uh making questions you can do it to a witness or to the jury panel or
[01:55:08.680 --> 01:55:15.360]  whoever so yeah okay so they questioned me on my scientific um education and experience
[01:55:15.360 --> 01:55:20.320]  and qualifications and the court accepted me as an expert for purposes of suggesting
[01:55:20.320 --> 01:55:24.200]  that the radar couldn't have done what it needed to do for this case to move forward
[01:55:24.200 --> 01:55:30.120]  and of course i won but like i say clearly that is working hard not working smart so
[01:55:30.120 --> 01:55:35.360]  i just received another ticket for allegedly speeding and when the officer pulled me over
[01:55:35.360 --> 01:55:40.320]  he was a nice fellow um i said can i ask you two questions while i get out my documents
[01:55:40.320 --> 01:55:45.560]  and he said you're going to receive a speeding ticket and i said fine fine but may i ask
[01:55:45.560 --> 01:55:51.520]  you two questions and he said go ahead and i said isn't speeding law here in texas something
[01:55:51.520 --> 01:55:56.880]  to do with prima facie i kind of acted a little bit of a dumb blonde and he said what do you
[01:55:56.880 --> 01:56:01.440]  mean and i said isn't it true that you actually are not supposed to issue me a ticket unless
[01:56:01.440 --> 01:56:06.720]  i damaged person or property or the same with imminent he said no that's not true where
[01:56:06.720 --> 01:56:12.200]  did you hear that i said oh um a radio show about the law and he said oh really i'd like
[01:56:12.200 --> 01:56:17.560]  to know what so that's not true and i said okay well my second question is um i was traveling
[01:56:17.560 --> 01:56:24.520]  in a group of cars how did you single me out of that group and he said well uh you're going
[01:56:24.520 --> 01:56:30.120]  to be receiving a ticket so um i wanted to find out your reference again on the prima
[01:56:30.120 --> 01:56:37.960]  facie and if i did define that correctly number one and number two should i bother um if i
[01:56:37.960 --> 01:56:44.600]  go to court requesting discovery prior i saw that the officer turned on his microphone
[01:56:44.600 --> 01:56:51.000]  during this conversation and during this conversation he said that i was traveling at 62 miles per
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:58.440]  hour and a 45 mile per hour zone on the ticket he wrote 55 in a 45 which i believe brings
[01:56:58.440 --> 01:57:05.560]  in his brings into question his character or consistency in telling the truth or falsifying
[01:57:05.560 --> 01:57:13.600]  documents well not necessarily he has the authority to adjust and make allowances for
[01:57:13.600 --> 01:57:19.000]  what's going on now you can make an issue out of it to the point if i was allegedly
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:23.280]  going this fast why did you choose not to write me up for going this fast oh well i
[01:57:23.280 --> 01:57:28.200]  was just cutting you a break that's exactly what he's going to say if you attack him on
[01:57:28.200 --> 01:57:33.620]  that point you're going to look like the bad guy right that's why they do what they do
[01:57:33.620 --> 01:57:39.300]  because then it becomes an issue of well i was being nice i could have hit you harder
[01:57:39.300 --> 01:57:45.920]  than i did and then it makes your argument that much harder to follow through on in court
[01:57:45.920 --> 01:57:51.680]  okay now as far as the particular statutes it's five forty five point three five one
[01:57:51.680 --> 01:58:00.240]  and three five two of the transportation code five point five forty one oh five forty five
[01:58:00.240 --> 01:58:08.080]  point three five one and three five two three five one three five two perfect okay and
[01:58:08.080 --> 01:58:13.980]  you can go back on the other ticket you won and sue them for malicious prosecution that's
[01:58:13.980 --> 01:58:21.920]  the case you won you can go after them directly with no profit it wouldn't profit me would
[01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:27.760]  it it depends on what how much you suit them for all right well thanks for calling in i
[01:58:27.760 --> 01:58:32.280]  hope that answered your questions folks this has been rule of law radio rob i'm sorry we
[01:58:32.280 --> 01:58:36.240]  don't have enough time to get to you thanks for calling in though please call us back
[01:58:36.240 --> 01:58:41.000]  on thursday night this has been rule of law radio i'm eddie craig deborah stevens randy
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:47.200]  kelton thanks so much for listening in and we'll be back on thursday at 8 p.m god bless
[01:58:47.200 --> 01:59:06.160]  bibles for america is offering absolutely free a unique study bible called the new testament
[01:59:06.160 --> 01:59:11.080]  recovery version the new testament recovery version has over nine thousand footnotes that
[01:59:11.080 --> 01:59:17.000]  explain what the bible says verse by verse helping you to know god and to know the meaning
[01:59:17.000 --> 01:59:23.000]  of life order your free copy today from bibles for america call us toll free at eight eight
[01:59:23.000 --> 01:59:31.040]  eight five five one zero one zero two or visit us online at bfa dot o-r-g this translation
[01:59:31.040 --> 01:59:36.320]  is highly accurate and it comes with over thirteen thousand cross references plus charts
[01:59:36.320 --> 01:59:42.280]  and maps and an outline for every book of the bible this is truly a bible you can understand
[01:59:42.280 --> 01:59:47.040]  to get your free copy of the new testament recovery version call us toll free at eight
[01:59:47.040 --> 01:59:53.240]  eight eight five five one zero one zero two that's eight eight eight five five one zero
[01:59:53.240 --> 02:00:01.640]  one zero two or visit us online at bfa dot o-r-g