ROL_2011-09-01_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:04.800]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:04.800 --> 00:11.200]  U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks Tuesday blocked key provisions of Texas' new law requiring
[00:11.200 --> 00:17.680]  doctors to perform sonograms before an abortion, ruling the measure violates free speech rights.
[00:17.680 --> 00:22.760]  Sparks wrote that forcing doctors to discuss the results with a patient who may not want
[00:22.760 --> 00:29.800]  to listen, quote, compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda.
[00:29.800 --> 00:33.840]  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday she resented an attack on her
[00:33.840 --> 00:38.680]  integrity by former Vice President Dick Cheney in his new memoir.
[00:38.680 --> 00:43.520]  Rice disputed multiple passages in Cheney's memoir in my time, including one in which
[00:43.520 --> 00:49.360]  he alleged Rice tearfully admitted Bush in his 2003 State of the Union should not have
[00:49.360 --> 00:56.200]  apologized for claims Iraq had been searching for uranium for nuclear arms.
[00:56.200 --> 01:02.560]  Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Malaki said Tuesday U.S. forces will leave Iraq as scheduled
[01:02.560 --> 01:04.000]  by year's end.
[01:04.000 --> 01:09.880]  Iraq leaders have approved negotiations with the U.S. on a post-2011 training mission,
[01:09.880 --> 01:11.880]  but no deal has been announced.
[01:11.880 --> 01:16.520]  An extension of U.S. military presence in Iraq has been strongly opposed by radical
[01:16.520 --> 01:25.200]  anti-U.S. cleric Mokhtar Al-Sidir, who has warned of, quote, war if American forces stay.
[01:25.200 --> 01:30.040]  With Muammar Gaddafi's forces on the run, NATO has continued to pound remaining loyalist
[01:30.040 --> 01:36.600]  troops outside Tripoli and insert the former dictator's tribal stronghold east of the capital.
[01:36.600 --> 01:41.400]  The continued strikes raise the question of whether NATO is acting as a rebel air force
[01:41.400 --> 01:44.640]  or sticking to its U.N. mandate to protect civilians.
[01:44.640 --> 01:49.440]  However, rebel leaders admit their inexperienced and ill-equipped forces could not have routed
[01:49.440 --> 01:53.600]  Gaddafi without the Western alliance's control of the skies.
[01:53.600 --> 01:58.840]  Iraq say it's a convenient fiction to argue NATO has not sided with the rebels since airstrikes
[01:58.840 --> 02:03.920]  have often accompanied rebel offensives or struck Gaddafi forces poised to attack rebel
[02:03.920 --> 02:06.280]  positions.
[02:06.280 --> 02:11.240]  International Human Rights Group, Reprieve, Wednesday, publicized court documents in
[02:11.240 --> 02:17.120]  a billing dispute between contractors involved in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program,
[02:17.120 --> 02:21.200]  offering a rare glimpse of the agency's secret torture program.
[02:21.200 --> 02:29.560]  The CIA paid $334,000 for a four-day flight made by a Gulfstream 4 owned by Philip Morris,
[02:29.560 --> 02:34.240]  vice chairman of Fenway Sports Group, owners of the Boston Red Sox.
[02:34.240 --> 02:40.440]  Sports Flight organized flights to Romania, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Djibouti, Pakistan, and
[02:40.440 --> 02:41.440]  Libya.
[02:41.440 --> 02:46.040]  It secured a plane from Richmore Aviation, which later sued Sports Flight for breach
[02:46.040 --> 02:53.040]  of contract, thus making details of numerous CIA flights part of the court record.
[02:53.040 --> 03:17.040]  You are listening to the Rural Law Radio Network at RuralLawRadio.com, live free speech talk
[03:17.040 --> 03:37.560]  about new
[03:37.560 --> 03:48.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:48.560 --> 03:54.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.560 --> 03:59.560]  When you were 80 and you had bad dreams, you go to school and learn the golden rules
[03:59.560 --> 04:05.560]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool, if you get high and your muscles cool?
[04:05.560 --> 04:16.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:16.560 --> 04:46.400]  Alright bad boys, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you?
[04:46.400 --> 04:53.040]  boys and bad girls. There's a lot of bad girls out there too. We are coming for you here
[04:53.040 --> 04:59.980]  on the rule of law. Ruler, rule of law, ruler. And we will slap you on the wrist with a
[04:59.980 --> 05:07.540]  ruler too. You know, just kidding. No violence, but this is us here on ruleoflawradio.com.
[05:07.540 --> 05:14.640]  I'm Deborah Stevens, got my esteemed co-host here with you, Andy Craig and Randy Kelton.
[05:14.640 --> 05:21.720]  And tonight, we're going to start off talking about some hot legal topic at hand concerning
[05:21.720 --> 05:31.560]  recording the police. Now, there is a lot going on here concerning recording the police.
[05:31.560 --> 05:36.360]  There's people that are getting charged with wiretapping law, breaking wiretapping laws,
[05:36.360 --> 05:43.640]  and there's also a very important First Circuit Court of Appeals case that has come down where
[05:43.640 --> 05:51.040]  the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the citizens have a constitutional right to
[05:51.040 --> 05:58.360]  record the police. So we've got some very, it's all over the spectrum here concerning
[05:58.360 --> 06:04.400]  the, what's happening to citizens right now regarding recording the police. Now, there's
[06:04.400 --> 06:11.640]  been a very highly publicized case concerning a man in Illinois, Mr. Michael Allison. He
[06:11.640 --> 06:21.440]  is facing basically life in prison over five counts of wiretapping violations for recording
[06:21.440 --> 06:27.120]  the police in public. And I would like to go over that case first and then we're going
[06:27.120 --> 06:33.120]  to discuss this First Circuit Court of Appeals case. So I would like to play this video clip
[06:33.120 --> 06:39.680]  of the Wabash County news in Illinois here. They are discussing this situation and they
[06:39.680 --> 06:43.720]  interviewed some citizens and they talk about some other situations of recording the police.
[06:43.720 --> 06:47.920]  Very interesting. And I would say this journalist is for the most part doing his job. I mean,
[06:47.920 --> 06:52.680]  if you could see the video, he's all up in there shoving the mic in the district attorney's
[06:52.680 --> 06:57.600]  face and shoving the mic in the attorney general's face. And I mean, he's getting the door slammed
[06:57.600 --> 07:02.200]  in his face and all this stuff. I mean, I would say that, you know, this is a form of
[07:02.200 --> 07:07.720]  some aggressive journalism that more of the, you know, what you call the mainstream media
[07:07.720 --> 07:13.240]  or the, you know, the traditional media. This is the kind of this kind of thing that they
[07:13.240 --> 07:18.040]  should be doing to do their job. So if y'all would enjoy this clip with me for a moment
[07:18.040 --> 07:21.240]  here, it's quite interesting. Wabash County news.
[07:21.240 --> 07:27.360]  So we begin tonight with an update to our investigation that's been watched more times
[07:27.360 --> 07:32.800]  than any other story on our website ever. It's a court case that could affect anyone
[07:32.800 --> 07:39.680]  who uses a cell phone or any recording device. It involves a local man who faces prison time
[07:39.680 --> 07:45.440]  for recording law enforcement in public. The state of Illinois considers it so serious
[07:45.440 --> 07:49.840]  that the assistant attorney general appeared at today's court hearing.
[07:49.840 --> 07:54.400]  Man facing 75 years for recording the police. Before another hearing at the Crawford County
[07:54.400 --> 08:00.480]  Courthouse, citizens protested the charges against Michael Allison. If convicted 75 years
[08:00.480 --> 08:06.280]  in prison, this is possible sentence for recording on duty law enforcement in public. Police
[08:06.280 --> 08:11.640]  in Robinson, Illinois confiscated Allison's recorder so we can't play it for you. But
[08:11.640 --> 08:18.200]  similar incidents have happened to other Americans. They eventually got their recordings
[08:18.200 --> 08:26.240]  back and posted them on YouTube. A dozen states are using eavesdropping and wiretapping
[08:26.240 --> 08:36.320]  laws to arrest people who record audio of law enforcement without their permission.
[08:36.320 --> 08:41.680]  That's for recording on duty authorities in public or even on your own property. This
[08:41.680 --> 08:45.520]  is my front yard. I'm just recording what you're doing. This woman was arrested and
[08:45.520 --> 08:53.560]  dragged out of her front yard for recording police. One man was even arrested for recording
[08:53.560 --> 08:59.880]  officers inside his own home. It can even happen in your own car. This man and his girlfriend
[08:59.880 --> 09:06.040]  pulled over to record this fatal police shooting in South Florida. As they drove away, the
[09:06.040 --> 09:11.480]  man recording police was ordered out of his car at gunpoint. He says police smashed his
[09:11.480 --> 09:17.440]  cell phone but they didn't destroy the memory card so the video survived. In all of these
[09:17.440 --> 09:23.880]  recording cases, the charges were eventually dropped. But not in the Robinson, Illinois
[09:23.880 --> 09:28.520]  case. Why do you still want to prosecute this case? No comment, thanks. Other cases of the
[09:28.520 --> 09:31.960]  charges have been dropped. Why don't you drop these charges? Crawford County State's attorney
[09:31.960 --> 09:38.400]  Tom Wiseman is prosecuting Michael Allison. The Illinois Assistant Attorney General has
[09:38.400 --> 09:43.920]  joined the case. Eric Levin told the judge citizens don't have a constitutional right
[09:43.920 --> 09:48.160]  to record law enforcement. Do you really think people should go to prison for recording law
[09:48.160 --> 09:53.320]  enforcement in public? I would urge you to call the Illinois Attorney General's office
[09:53.320 --> 09:58.160]  and the spokesperson. But you are the spokesperson here. I'm not the official spokesperson. You
[09:58.160 --> 10:03.400]  just spoke in court. Why can't you talk to us now? I'm sorry. But the Attorney General's
[10:03.400 --> 10:10.120]  office really thinks citizens should go to prison for recording law enforcement in public.
[10:10.120 --> 10:14.760]  Those officials we interviewed are considered law enforcement. We were able to record them
[10:14.760 --> 10:20.000]  without their permission because journalists are exempt at public hearings. Otherwise we
[10:20.000 --> 10:26.400]  would also be violating the Illinois eavesdropping statute. Journalists in other states have been
[10:26.400 --> 10:34.600]  arrested for recording law enforcement in public without their consent. This reporter
[10:34.600 --> 10:41.480]  and photographers were arrested for recording police. The charges in both cases were dropped.
[10:41.480 --> 10:45.760]  Michael Allison's attorney told the judge their case should be dismissed instead of
[10:45.760 --> 10:51.640]  going to trial. They argue it's unconstitutional that law enforcement can record citizens
[10:51.640 --> 10:56.320]  in public or even in the courtroom, but not the other way around.
[10:56.320 --> 11:00.440]  There's nothing wrong with recording public officials in a public capacity. I feel like
[11:00.440 --> 11:04.280]  if they're paid for by the taxpayers' monies, then we should have every right to hold them
[11:04.280 --> 11:09.800]  accountable. If this case does go to trial, it could affect anyone who uses a cell phone
[11:09.800 --> 11:16.200]  or any recording device. And the judge is expected to rule in the next few weeks if
[11:16.200 --> 11:22.960]  this case will go to trial. For our previous reports on this case, go to our website, mywabashvalley.com.
[11:22.960 --> 11:33.200]  Alright, that's mywabashvalley.com. The Wabash County News. Wabash Valley County News folks,
[11:33.200 --> 11:37.560]  and I have to say this journalist, and I didn't get his name, but it seems like he was really
[11:37.560 --> 11:42.160]  doing his job. And if you watch the video, it is absolutely hilarious. I mean, he is
[11:42.160 --> 11:46.160]  going around, he's sticking the mic in people's faces. You guys probably heard them slamming
[11:46.160 --> 11:51.440]  the door and all these things. Now, it was an interesting issue that was raised here.
[11:51.440 --> 11:57.200]  He mentioned that he was recording some of these law enforcement without their permission.
[11:57.200 --> 12:05.640]  However, they weren't being accused of quote-unquote violating the law because they were quote-unquote
[12:05.640 --> 12:11.160]  journalists. And journalists are exempt from that. Well, that raises an interesting question
[12:11.160 --> 12:16.360]  as to who's a journalist and who's not. And what? So just because the police think that
[12:16.360 --> 12:21.600]  you're a journalist, I mean, what does that mean? I mean, would we be qualified as journalists
[12:21.600 --> 12:25.400]  because we're running our own independent media outlet? Or would we have to be part
[12:25.400 --> 12:32.760]  of the mainstream traditional media in order to be considered journalists? Well, interestingly
[12:32.760 --> 12:41.240]  enough, and I think that this case is going to help Mr. Ellison, ironically, same week,
[12:41.240 --> 12:50.040]  this just happened on August 28th. All right, this Wabash report came out. Actually, that's
[12:50.040 --> 12:56.000]  kind of old. That's like August 18th. That was about 10 days ago. But August 28th, 10
[12:56.000 --> 13:03.160]  days after that, the First Circuit Court of Appeals that's on the East Coast, they came
[13:03.160 --> 13:10.240]  out with a ruling and they said that citizens have the same right as journalists to record
[13:10.240 --> 13:14.520]  the police in public and that they have the right, they have a constitutional right to
[13:14.520 --> 13:20.520]  record the police in public. And so I would like to read from some of this article here
[13:20.520 --> 13:27.160]  concerning what happened. This is from a website called The Agitator and they have a quote
[13:27.160 --> 13:33.320]  of the case. Now, what happened with this guy? His name was Simon Gilk. All right, I'll
[13:33.320 --> 13:38.040]  just read the story of what happened. He was, this was in Boston in Massachusetts. He was
[13:38.040 --> 13:44.880]  walking past the Boston Common on the evening of October 1st, 2007. Simon Gilk caught sight
[13:44.880 --> 13:52.800]  of three police officers, the individual defendants here arresting a young man. Glick heard, I'm
[13:52.800 --> 13:57.960]  sorry, Simon Gilk. It's Simon Glick. Glick heard another bystander say something to the
[13:57.960 --> 14:03.080]  effect of, you're hurting him, stop. Concerned that the officers were employing excessive
[14:03.080 --> 14:08.920]  force to affect the arrest, Glick stopped roughly 10 feet away and began recording video
[14:08.920 --> 14:14.120]  footage of the arrest on his cell phone. After placing the suspect in handcuffs, one of the
[14:14.120 --> 14:19.520]  officers turned to Glick and said, I think you've taken enough pictures. Glick replied,
[14:19.520 --> 14:25.560]  I am recording this. I saw you punch him. An officer then approached Glick and asked
[14:25.560 --> 14:31.000]  if Glick's cell phone recorded audio. When Glick affirmed that he was recording audio,
[14:31.000 --> 14:38.000]  officer placed him in handcuffs, arrested him for inter alia unlawful recording in violation
[14:38.000 --> 14:44.360]  of Massachusetts wiretap statute. Glick was taken to the South Boston police station.
[14:44.360 --> 14:48.920]  In the course of the booking, the police confiscated Glick's cell phone and a computer flash drive
[14:48.920 --> 14:56.520]  and held them as evidence. The charges were dropped. However, Glick sued for violations
[14:56.520 --> 15:02.680]  of his civil rights. The first circuit made a ruling today that would have been August
[15:02.680 --> 15:08.000]  28th that the officers are not protected from qualified immunity. Now, I'm going to read
[15:08.000 --> 15:13.040]  this ruling in just a minute. I am supposing, I haven't read the case, I haven't looked
[15:13.040 --> 15:20.120]  up the case on Pacer yet because I just haven't had a chance to. And besides, Pacer's bill
[15:20.120 --> 15:25.000]  starts to get pretty high around here as you can imagine. But I would assume that he sued
[15:25.000 --> 15:34.040]  under Title 42, Section 1983, civil rights action for deprivation of rights. There's
[15:34.040 --> 15:40.800]  also a section under Title 28 for that matter, same matter as well. So I would assume that
[15:40.800 --> 15:49.360]  he sued under Title 42, Section 1983. However, I don't know exactly the statute, but he sued
[15:49.360 --> 15:56.120]  the officers individually in their personal capacity for violations of civil rights. And
[15:56.120 --> 16:00.000]  of course, the first thing they're going to do and what they did, what they always do
[16:00.000 --> 16:08.200]  is they ball out qualified immunity. However, the first circuit court said, oh no, no, you
[16:08.200 --> 16:14.680]  don't have qualified immunity here. And here's part, I'm going to read some crucial excerpts
[16:14.680 --> 16:20.200]  from the first circuit's ruling here. It says, this is quoting, quote, from the ruling, from
[16:20.200 --> 16:25.520]  the first circuit court of appeals. The first amendment issue here is, as the parties frame
[16:25.520 --> 16:30.800]  it, fairly narrow. Is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying
[16:30.800 --> 16:36.440]  out their duties in public? Basic first amendment principles along with case law from this and
[16:36.440 --> 16:44.520]  other circuits answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. All right, so there you
[16:44.520 --> 16:48.960]  have it. That's the first sentence from this ruling. And we will discuss this more when
[16:48.960 --> 16:55.080]  we get back on the other side. This is the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com. Randy Kelton,
[16:55.080 --> 16:57.840]  Eddie Craig, I'm Deborah Stevens. We will be right back.
[16:57.840 --> 17:05.080]  Capital corn and bullion is a family owned and operated business that has helped many
[17:05.080 --> 17:10.000]  families and friends in protecting their assets. And we would like to do the same for you.
[17:10.000 --> 17:16.320]  In addition to coins and bullion, we now offer Patriot safe ammunition, Berkey water products,
[17:16.320 --> 17:21.680]  gift certificates, wristbands, and our new silver pool, a new way to guarantee silver
[17:21.680 --> 17:27.840]  by prepaying at a locked price. We can even help you set up a metals IRA account. Call
[17:27.840 --> 17:36.640]  us at 512-646-6440 for more details. As always, we buy, sell and trade precious metals and
[17:36.640 --> 17:43.520]  cater to those with all sizes of coin collections. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite
[17:43.520 --> 17:49.520]  A, about a half a mile north of Canaan, next to the Ikiban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[17:49.520 --> 17:56.200]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 5. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com
[17:56.200 --> 18:02.560]  or call 512-646-6440. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with
[18:02.560 --> 18:07.960]  phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris
[18:07.960 --> 18:12.800]  Proven Method. Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:12.800 --> 18:18.080]  and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[18:18.080 --> 18:23.440]  in court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail,
[18:23.440 --> 18:27.880]  or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out
[18:27.880 --> 18:33.160]  of your credit reports? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[18:33.160 --> 18:36.760]  away? The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution
[18:36.760 --> 18:41.200]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.200 --> 18:46.720]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:46.720 --> 18:56.200]  or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[18:56.200 --> 19:03.200]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:26.200 --> 19:36.440]  Look what we get. They don't have the answers. Pyronee, they're going to tear you, they're
[19:36.440 --> 19:40.080]  going to tear me, they're going to tear up the whole country if we let them get away
[19:40.080 --> 19:45.080]  with it, but we're not letting them get away with it. We are asking the right questions
[19:45.080 --> 19:50.360]  here and as Harman Taylor says, never ask the question if you don't already know the
[19:50.360 --> 19:59.040]  answer. Randy always says that too. Okay, so back to the story. All right, concerning
[19:59.040 --> 20:08.360]  Mr. Glick, Mr. Simon Glick in Boston, Massachusetts, he was arrested, his phone was confiscated,
[20:08.360 --> 20:14.680]  flash drive held. I don't know if he ever got him back. The article doesn't say... Let
[20:14.680 --> 20:20.480]  me just stop there for a second before I continue on reading the ruling. Folks, this
[20:20.480 --> 20:28.880]  is why you have got to get a phone that runs apps. You've got to get the quick app. Go
[20:28.880 --> 20:35.160]  to quick.com. I'm not a spokesperson for the company. They're not paying me anything, but
[20:35.160 --> 20:46.560]  it's spelled QIK, without the U, quick. QIK.com. People, we have no excuse. We've got to get
[20:46.560 --> 20:51.680]  up to date with the technology here if we really want to beat these bad guys because
[20:51.680 --> 20:56.960]  they'll beat you up, they'll take your phone, they'll smash it, they'll confiscate the SIM
[20:56.960 --> 21:03.040]  card or they'll destroy the SIM card. You've got to get a phone that runs this quick app
[21:03.040 --> 21:12.040]  because when you hit record, it live streams directly to the internet. It's too late. It
[21:12.040 --> 21:18.480]  doesn't matter if they destroy the phone. Moment by moment, second by second, that video
[21:18.480 --> 21:27.600]  and audio is streamed permanently to your page on quick.com. Let me show you how easy
[21:27.600 --> 21:34.800]  it is. You don't just have to have an iPhone or an Android. There are literally probably
[21:34.800 --> 21:40.400]  at least 100 different kinds of phones that will run this app. Acer phones will run it.
[21:40.400 --> 21:45.400]  All the Apple phones will run it. There's about almost a dozen Blackberries that will
[21:45.400 --> 21:50.640]  run it. HTC, I've never even heard that brand before. I'm looking on the quick website right
[21:50.640 --> 22:00.840]  now about two dozen Motorola phones that will run it. Literally, I counted them. Six dozen
[22:00.840 --> 22:08.400]  different types of Nokia phones will run the quick app. About a dozen Samsung phones, Sony
[22:08.400 --> 22:16.000]  phones. We don't have any excuse anymore. You need to go to quick.com and choose a phone
[22:16.000 --> 22:21.640]  or you may even already have a phone and not even realize it that will run this app. You've
[22:21.640 --> 22:27.040]  got to have it. You put it on the face of your smartphone or whatever kind of phone
[22:27.040 --> 22:33.840]  it is. I've got it. It's like button number one on my phone. Anytime I see anything out
[22:33.840 --> 22:40.920]  of line, my phone comes out. Literally, two pushes on my touchscreen. Boom, boom. I'm
[22:40.920 --> 22:47.160]  recording straight to the Internet. That's it. It's permanent. It's posted to the web.
[22:47.160 --> 22:53.080]  If they take my phone, if they take the memory card, too bad, so sad, it's already posted.
[22:53.080 --> 22:58.080]  We've got to have this type of preparation if we're going to deal with the bad guys this
[22:58.080 --> 23:02.800]  way. I can't say enough that you've got to get the quick app.
[23:02.800 --> 23:17.600]  Back to the story about the First Circuit Court of Appeals making this ruling. What happened
[23:17.600 --> 23:22.440]  as is typical. The cops beat somebody up. They take the phone, whatever, run you through
[23:22.440 --> 23:29.400]  the mill and then they drop the charges and then people, they lose their phone or they
[23:29.400 --> 23:33.280]  don't get paid back for it or they might get it back. But they've been damaged. They've
[23:33.280 --> 23:37.640]  been harmed. They've been beat up. They lost their liberty. They spent the night in jail.
[23:37.640 --> 23:43.880]  Then they're just, well, at least the charges were dropped. No, we can't have that mentality.
[23:43.880 --> 23:52.280]  This guy had the right idea. He sued them. Not only that, he sued them in federal court.
[23:52.280 --> 23:57.680]  He sued them for the violations of the civil rights. The First Circuit says, I'll start
[23:57.680 --> 24:03.200]  reading it again. This is quoting from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The First
[24:03.200 --> 24:08.280]  Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it fairly now, is there a constitutionally
[24:08.280 --> 24:13.600]  protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment
[24:13.600 --> 24:19.840]  principles along with case law from this and other circuits answered that question unambiguously
[24:19.840 --> 24:27.480]  in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's ages extends further
[24:27.480 --> 24:34.000]  than the text's proscription on laws, quote, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,
[24:34.000 --> 24:41.400]  end quote, and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination
[24:41.400 --> 24:49.240]  of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, quote, the First Amendment goes beyond protection
[24:49.240 --> 24:56.120]  of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock
[24:56.120 --> 25:02.320]  of information from which members of the public may draw. Now, folks, that's some pretty strong
[25:02.320 --> 25:07.200]  words from the court, especially in this day and age. All right, back to the ruling. I'm
[25:07.200 --> 25:13.560]  reading directly from the ruling here, verbatim. Okay, here it goes. The filming of government
[25:13.560 --> 25:19.520]  officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing
[25:19.520 --> 25:25.480]  their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about
[25:25.480 --> 25:31.640]  government officials in a forum that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal
[25:31.640 --> 25:38.280]  First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting, quote, the free discussion of governmental
[25:38.280 --> 25:46.240]  affairs, end quote. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the court has often noted,
[25:46.240 --> 25:53.240]  not one that ensures solely to the benefit of the news media, rather the public's right
[25:53.240 --> 26:01.520]  of access to information is co-extensive with that of the press. Yes! Okay, so do you hear
[26:01.520 --> 26:06.120]  that State of Illinois? Do you hear that Attorney General of Illinois? Do you hear that Congress
[26:06.120 --> 26:14.240]  of Illinois? They passed this law. This guy who is being prosecuted for up to 75 years
[26:14.240 --> 26:20.040]  for violating wiretapping laws, but the journalists are exempt? Well, guess what? The First Circuit
[26:20.040 --> 26:25.920]  Court of Appeals says that ain't the way it is. The First Circuit Court of Appeals say
[26:25.920 --> 26:32.040]  the public's right of access to information is co-extensive with that of the press. Okay,
[26:32.040 --> 26:38.400]  back to the ruling. In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant
[26:38.400 --> 26:44.520]  burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston
[26:44.520 --> 26:54.200]  v. Hill 42, U.S. 451, 461, 1997. Quote, the First Amendment protects a significant amount
[26:54.200 --> 27:00.800]  of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers, end quote. Indeed, quote,
[27:00.800 --> 27:06.600]  the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby
[27:06.600 --> 27:14.040]  risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from
[27:14.040 --> 27:21.600]  a police state, end quote. Okay, so that's the excerpt from the ruling. Well, I have
[27:21.600 --> 27:26.440]  to say for the most part, this is a fairly good ruling. However, there are some problems
[27:26.440 --> 27:32.560]  with it, but before I point out the problems, Randy, it sounds like you want to comment.
[27:32.560 --> 27:40.400]  Would you recognize the police state if you were in one? I think they are defining a police
[27:40.400 --> 27:46.960]  state, and our police certainly want to bring us to that. And anything that would defy a
[27:46.960 --> 27:54.720]  police state, they absolutely want to stop. Well, yeah, they're saying this is one of
[27:54.720 --> 27:59.240]  the attributes of a police state, and they're trying to say, we can't have that. The court
[27:59.240 --> 28:06.480]  is saying that we can't have that. So we'll see. Go ahead. That was my point. At least
[28:06.480 --> 28:13.440]  at one place they're pointing toward the police state. When you were saying, mentioning
[28:13.440 --> 28:22.560]  the police in the same sentence as the bad guys, that still makes me cringe, even though
[28:22.560 --> 28:32.360]  I find myself forced to do that myself. Not all the police are bad guys. I know, but we
[28:32.360 --> 28:40.960]  find ourselves talking about them as the bad guys. And now, if I talk to a policeman, I
[28:40.960 --> 28:49.040]  have to assume that anything he says is a lie, that anything I say, he will twist and
[28:49.040 --> 28:56.320]  turn and misconstrue any way he pleases and use it against me, whether it's prejudicial
[28:56.320 --> 29:06.680]  or not, I absolutely cannot trust them. Maybe the policeman is honest, but it behooves me
[29:06.680 --> 29:12.920]  to treat him as if he is not. Well, remember, Randy, Officer Ben, about a year and a half,
[29:12.920 --> 29:20.920]  two years ago, called in a member of APD and told us, he said, don't trust us. He said,
[29:20.920 --> 29:27.240]  you guys are absolutely right. You can't trust us. We are out to get you. This is basically
[29:27.240 --> 29:33.400]  what he said on the air. He called in and he said, we'll make something up on the way.
[29:33.400 --> 29:36.800]  We'll arrest you if we don't like what you say and we'll make something up on the way
[29:36.800 --> 29:46.960]  to the jail. We have this on record on archives. Well, hey, you convinced me. I already figured
[29:46.960 --> 29:54.400]  that, but when one of their own calls and confirms that, fine. It's confirmed. Now,
[29:54.400 --> 29:57.920]  I don't think all of the officers are like Officer Ben, but hey, you got to assume the
[29:57.920 --> 30:04.440]  worst. We'll be right back. This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon
[30:04.440 --> 30:09.400]  of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects
[30:09.400 --> 30:13.960]  and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service
[30:13.960 --> 30:20.280]  members have given their lives. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer.
[30:20.280 --> 30:24.080]  I'm a New York City correctional. I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his
[30:24.080 --> 30:31.240]  son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[30:31.240 --> 30:36.200]  The latest trend in footwear is the barefoot shoe. While it may seem like an oxymoron,
[30:36.200 --> 30:40.600]  people are spending hard-earned money on special shoes so they can feel like they're walking
[30:40.600 --> 30:46.840]  barefoot. Sound crazy? I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment to explain.
[30:46.840 --> 30:51.240]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:51.240 --> 30:56.800]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:56.800 --> 31:02.960]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[31:02.960 --> 31:08.120]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[31:08.120 --> 31:15.760]  a private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[31:15.760 --> 31:20.920]  Fabulous fitness or just a fad? Shoes with wafer-thin rubber soles make it feel like
[31:20.920 --> 31:25.520]  you're barefoot. Advocates say they use the body's natural biomechanics to strengthen
[31:25.520 --> 31:30.360]  muscles and improve posture. Whatever they do, they're a far cry from the art support
[31:30.360 --> 31:35.040]  and shock absorption the footwear industry has spent decades telling us we need. So which
[31:35.040 --> 31:40.240]  is better, high-tech enhancement or the foot as nature intended? Promoters say barefoot
[31:40.240 --> 31:45.320]  is best, pointing out that Kalahari Bushmen run barefoot for hours in the desert chasing
[31:45.320 --> 31:49.640]  antelopes till the animals die. But if we really wanted to follow their lead, wouldn't
[31:49.640 --> 31:54.760]  we just dump the pricey footwear all together? Hey, if the shoe fits. I'm Dr. Katherine
[31:54.760 --> 32:06.280]  Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:06.280 --> 32:24.960]  Okay, folks, their job is to protect and to serve, not to beat and abuse. When are they
[32:24.960 --> 32:31.440]  going to stop abusing the power? I don't think they're going to, especially not with all
[32:31.440 --> 32:37.040]  the federal funding and the new toys they have and all of the training which trains
[32:37.040 --> 32:41.920]  them to be afraid of us and that we are subservient and that we are supposed to be subservient
[32:41.920 --> 32:46.760]  to them, not the other way around. So we are here to fix that problem.
[32:46.760 --> 32:56.880]  All right. Now, I just read an excerpt from this ruling concerning Mr. Gilk, Simon Gilk
[32:56.880 --> 33:05.280]  and this concerned his filming of some police engaging in some police brutality. He was
[33:05.280 --> 33:10.320]  arrested, got his phone confiscated, they dropped the charges, but he said, you know
[33:10.320 --> 33:16.120]  what? Sorry, guys. That's not good enough for me. You violated my rights. I'm suing
[33:16.120 --> 33:22.680]  you. So apparently a lower court ruled against him. He appealed and now the fifth circuit
[33:22.680 --> 33:30.720]  because that's the circuit that we're in. The first circuit says, sorry, pal, you win.
[33:30.720 --> 33:38.000]  Sorry, pal, to the officers. This guy wins. So anyways, it seems like it's a good ruling
[33:38.000 --> 33:45.240]  on its face. It equivocates the rights of journalists to the rights of citizens saying
[33:45.240 --> 33:51.200]  that, I mean, that's the part that I love the best, saying that basically the public's
[33:51.200 --> 33:55.920]  right of access to information is co-extensive with that of the press. That is really awesome
[33:55.920 --> 34:02.080]  because that will shoot down that Illinois law that they're charging the other gentlemen
[34:02.080 --> 34:08.920]  with. However, there are some problems with this first circuit ruling that I would like
[34:08.920 --> 34:15.360]  to point out here. Okay. On its face, it is a pleasant surprise to see this clear and
[34:15.360 --> 34:21.800]  forceful of a ruling in a civil rights act, I mean, a civil rights case regarding qualified
[34:21.800 --> 34:29.280]  immunity as opposed to a challenge of a criminal conviction because the courts in general love
[34:29.280 --> 34:36.800]  to uphold the qualified immunity issue. The good part about it is that this opinion not
[34:36.800 --> 34:41.400]  only states that there's a First Amendment right to record the police, but that said
[34:41.400 --> 34:46.880]  right is firmly established and that the police should have already known that it is
[34:46.880 --> 34:55.840]  firmly established. All right. And however, there are some issues. All right. Number one,
[34:55.840 --> 35:02.400]  the court did not strike down the wire toughing law or its application in the context of recording
[35:02.400 --> 35:10.880]  the police so much as they found that Mr. Glick was not in violation of the law. Okay.
[35:10.880 --> 35:15.960]  So they kind of found the kind of sidestep the issue a little bit here. They made a real
[35:15.960 --> 35:22.440]  strong emotional opinion, but in reality, when you get down to brass tacks of the legal
[35:22.440 --> 35:28.920]  issues, they kind of sidestep the main issue because the situation regarding this Massachusetts
[35:28.920 --> 35:43.040]  law is that you can't film the police surreptitiously. It's okay to film them openly, but not surreptitiously,
[35:43.040 --> 35:49.640]  not like trying to hide the camera. And so when you really read through the opinion, the
[35:49.640 --> 35:55.720]  court, the First Circuit ruled that Glick wasn't in violation of the law. And so therefore,
[35:55.720 --> 36:03.720]  the court really had no standing, no jurisdiction. There was no issue in front of them to shoot
[36:03.720 --> 36:08.360]  down the law. They were basically incapable of shooting down the law. They weren't able
[36:08.360 --> 36:12.800]  to. All right. So this is a problem with the ruling. It didn't strike down the law. And
[36:12.800 --> 36:19.080]  it also didn't strike down the application of the wire tapping law in application to
[36:19.080 --> 36:26.840]  recording police in general. They could have said, you know, guys, it doesn't matter, surreptitious
[36:26.840 --> 36:30.400]  or not, people can record the police. They sort of said that in the opinion, but they
[36:30.400 --> 36:35.920]  didn't strike down any of this law. So that is the problem. Now, it would have been nice
[36:35.920 --> 36:40.960]  if the court had come right out and said one way or the other whether the Massachusetts
[36:40.960 --> 36:48.200]  law itself passes the First Amendment muster, but they did not say that. All they said was
[36:48.200 --> 36:53.200]  that Glick wasn't violating the statute and that the arrest was a violation of his rights.
[36:53.200 --> 36:58.200]  So we don't know what the court would have done if he had been recording secretly. If
[36:58.200 --> 37:04.520]  he had been recording secretly and arrested for that, we don't know what would have happened.
[37:04.520 --> 37:10.840]  Okay. So that is some problem. And then there are other problems with the ruling. It's a
[37:10.840 --> 37:17.880]  little bit worrisome that the opinion doesn't go to the troll of coming right out and saying
[37:17.880 --> 37:24.760]  in general that basically this law in and of itself on its face is unconstitutional.
[37:24.760 --> 37:32.960]  Okay. They could have made some comments about the nature of this law concerning the surreptitious
[37:32.960 --> 37:39.080]  verses the open recording. Okay. Say for example, you're recording a cop beating the hell out
[37:39.080 --> 37:43.080]  of someone. It isn't difficult to see why there might be some problems with a law that
[37:43.080 --> 37:49.480]  requires you to make it obvious to the cop that you are recording them. Okay. And so if
[37:49.480 --> 37:56.320]  that Massachusetts law is upheld in subsequent cases, it's going to create a dispute about
[37:56.320 --> 38:02.680]  what constitutes plain sight, what is surreptitious, whether a jury should believe the cops or
[38:02.680 --> 38:09.640]  the citizen's account. Okay. So it would have been nice to see a little bit more from the
[38:09.640 --> 38:16.480]  court basically stating that in the future, if any cases come like this before us, which
[38:16.480 --> 38:20.680]  actually challenged the statute, we're going to shoot down the statute. That would have
[38:20.680 --> 38:26.720]  been better to see something like that. So we don't know what they would really do in
[38:26.720 --> 38:31.480]  a situation like that. And also this hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet. We don't know
[38:31.480 --> 38:35.960]  what the Supreme Court is going to say about this if it goes to the Supreme Court. But
[38:35.960 --> 38:41.480]  the Supreme Court has always been very fond of qualified immunity. So there's always a
[38:41.480 --> 38:47.760]  chance that the Supreme Court would overturn this first circuit ruling. But eventually
[38:47.760 --> 38:51.840]  this challenge is going to reach the Supreme Court. Now all in all, I do think it's a very
[38:51.840 --> 38:58.200]  good ruling. I would have liked to see a little bit more, but there are some of those problems.
[38:58.200 --> 39:07.520]  So Randy, any comments? Well, I'm not sure that I hear a problem.
[39:07.520 --> 39:15.560]  We have laws in every state against recording someone when they have no knowledge that they're
[39:15.560 --> 39:25.080]  being recorded. Unless we have a specific exemption for police officers, they would
[39:25.080 --> 39:36.640]  fall under this law. And I don't see that it's necessarily unconstitutional. And I suspect
[39:36.640 --> 39:49.000]  that a case of a person surreptitiously recording police officers committing crimes will not
[39:49.000 --> 39:59.760]  be held to be in violation of the law. No, and I do see a problem with laws on the books
[39:59.760 --> 40:07.160]  that prohibits any recording at all, any time of anything in a public place, because there
[40:07.160 --> 40:12.640]  is a principle in place that says that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy
[40:12.640 --> 40:20.480]  in a public place. If you're in public, you should expect to be recorded. And I think
[40:20.480 --> 40:27.200]  it's completely unconstitutional for a law to say that, well, if you're in a public place,
[40:27.200 --> 40:32.720]  you can't surreptitiously record what's going on around you. No BS, because if you're in
[40:32.720 --> 40:39.240]  a public place, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. People shouldn't have to display
[40:39.240 --> 40:45.360]  their camera to the world. Now, if you're in a private setting, like say you're on private
[40:45.360 --> 40:51.760]  property or you're in somebody else's home or in your own home or you're on a conversation,
[40:51.760 --> 40:56.960]  on a telephone or Skype call with somebody else, you're not in public. You have a reasonable
[40:56.960 --> 41:01.600]  expectation of privacy. I think it's reasonable to have laws in the books that say you need
[41:01.600 --> 41:09.480]  to disclose to somebody if you're recording them in a private setting, but in public,
[41:09.480 --> 41:15.000]  no way. Okay. Well, I think I haven't seen the particulars
[41:15.000 --> 41:24.160]  of the case, but I'm going to suggest that the court has weaved this very carefully in
[41:24.160 --> 41:32.560]  that they did not set a precedent that says that you cannot categorically record a police
[41:32.560 --> 41:41.240]  officer without his knowledge. What they addressed was can you openly and in public record them
[41:41.240 --> 41:48.520]  and they said a resounding yes, and they cannot, they normally will not move beyond the issues
[41:48.520 --> 41:54.640]  that are brought before them. So if these other issues weren't brought before
[41:54.640 --> 42:03.520]  them, they simply didn't go to them. But I can record you in a place where you have
[42:03.520 --> 42:10.280]  no reasonable expectation of privacy and there is no special exclusion for the police.
[42:10.280 --> 42:18.720]  If there is, I suspect that in that case it would get struck down. Like this journalist
[42:18.720 --> 42:23.480]  you're talking about, had he recorded the police without their knowing it while they're
[42:23.480 --> 42:30.240]  beating up someone, is the court going to say you can't record your public officials
[42:30.240 --> 42:35.000]  while they're acting under your employee? Okay. Well, wait a minute. Let's make a delineation
[42:35.000 --> 42:40.760]  here. The Illinois situation is much different from the Massachusetts situation. In the Illinois
[42:40.760 --> 42:47.720]  case, the first case where I played the clip from the news, that law says you can't record
[42:47.720 --> 42:52.720]  the police, period. It doesn't matter if you show your camera or not. Okay. You can't do
[42:52.720 --> 42:57.800]  it unless you're a journalist. Now, that's totally different from the Massachusetts law,
[42:57.800 --> 43:10.320]  which says that you can't surreptitiously record the police in public. It's more subtle.
[43:10.320 --> 43:14.360]  I don't think that one would stand up either. I don't think either one of them would stand.
[43:14.360 --> 43:20.680]  If you're in public, you should expect to be recorded. Whether somebody is hiding their
[43:20.680 --> 43:26.920]  camera or not, that goes to reasonable expectation of privacy that's a well adjudicated principle.
[43:26.920 --> 43:33.040]  Yes, and I agree. I don't think it would stand up at all. But I also don't think this court
[43:33.040 --> 43:39.320]  addressed that issue. No, they didn't. They haven't shot it down, but they didn't. They
[43:39.320 --> 43:44.440]  could have done it a little more definitively. Well, they basically said First Amendment
[43:44.440 --> 43:51.480]  right is, you know, it's well established. It's unambiguously in the affirmative. It's
[43:51.480 --> 43:56.160]  a constitutionally protected right to videotape the police carrying out their duties in public,
[43:56.160 --> 44:03.160]  and that's why we're in the process of doing it. We'll be right back.
[44:03.160 --> 44:06.400]  The Oklahoma City Bombing. Top 10 reasons to question the official story. Reason number
[44:06.400 --> 44:12.840]  two, why was the ATF AWOL? Paramedic Tiffany Bible, who's on the scene within five minutes,
[44:12.840 --> 44:17.360]  has stated in an affidavit that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms told
[44:17.360 --> 44:21.680]  her that they were not in the office that morning. D&T Catherine Mallant also overheard
[44:21.680 --> 44:26.440]  one agent say to another, quote, is that why we got the page to not come in today, end
[44:26.440 --> 44:31.920]  quote. Bruce Shaw's interview on KSOL or TV was also told by ATF agents that they had
[44:31.920 --> 44:37.560]  been paged to not come in to work. The ATF initially denied these claims and now variously
[44:37.560 --> 44:41.880]  claim that one of their agents was in a free falling elevator, which has been disproven,
[44:41.880 --> 44:46.240]  or that they'd been in an all night stick out, or that they'd been in a golf tournament.
[44:46.240 --> 44:50.600]  As they try to sort out their lies, all we want to know is, did the ATF receive a warning,
[44:50.600 --> 44:56.800]  and if so, why did they not pass it on to others in the world? For more information,
[44:56.800 --> 45:00.760]  go to okcfoundmentruth.com.
[45:00.760 --> 45:07.680]  At hempusa.org, we offer chemical free products to people around the world detoxifying, self-healing,
[45:07.680 --> 45:12.720]  while rebuilding the immune system. We urge our listeners to please consider our largest
[45:12.720 --> 45:18.880]  selling product, micro plant powder. Our micro plant powder is rich in silica and probiotics
[45:18.880 --> 45:24.320]  to help rebuild the immune system and to create a healthy stomach flora. Micro plant powder
[45:24.320 --> 45:29.040]  is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter. We urge our
[45:29.040 --> 45:34.520]  listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org. And remember, all of our products are chemical
[45:34.520 --> 45:39.800]  free and healthy to eat. We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality
[45:39.800 --> 45:45.840]  and rapid shipping anywhere, and we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US.
[45:45.840 --> 45:56.000]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608. That's 908-6912608. See what our powder, seeds
[45:56.000 --> 46:16.160]  and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[46:26.000 --> 46:55.920]  Okay, folks. We are back. We're about to start taking your calls. We can call in 512
[46:55.920 --> 47:03.660]  We're discussing this issue about filming the police, and even though the court didn't
[47:03.660 --> 47:09.220]  directly say that they would strike down this Massachusetts law, if the issue got in
[47:09.220 --> 47:13.500]  front of them, they were pretty clear, right off the bat.
[47:13.500 --> 47:18.020]  They didn't say, you have a constitutional right to film the police as long as you tell
[47:18.020 --> 47:22.820]  them you're filming them, or as long as you make it very clear to them that you're filming
[47:22.820 --> 47:25.340]  them.
[47:25.340 --> 47:30.340]  They said, I'll read the first sentence again.
[47:30.340 --> 47:35.980]  The first amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow.
[47:35.980 --> 47:41.780]  In other words, it's a narrow issue.
[47:41.780 --> 47:42.780]  Plain and simple.
[47:42.780 --> 47:43.780]  Yes or no.
[47:43.780 --> 47:48.660]  Is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties
[47:48.660 --> 47:51.140]  in public?
[47:51.140 --> 47:54.980]  Basic first amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer
[47:54.980 --> 47:58.500]  that question unambiguously in the affirmative.
[47:58.500 --> 48:00.900]  End of story, that's all that needs to be said, really.
[48:00.900 --> 48:06.020]  They don't say with the exception that you get their permission.
[48:06.020 --> 48:12.420]  They don't say with the exception that you make sure they can see your camera, or doesn't
[48:12.420 --> 48:16.220]  say with the exception that you get close enough to them so that they know what's going
[48:16.220 --> 48:17.220]  on.
[48:17.220 --> 48:18.220]  No.
[48:18.220 --> 48:19.700]  Can you film them or not?
[48:19.700 --> 48:21.660]  Answer, yes, into story.
[48:21.660 --> 48:26.460]  And I think they likely would shoot down that Massachusetts law, which says that you can
[48:26.460 --> 48:31.660]  only film the police as long as they know what you're doing.
[48:31.660 --> 48:36.940]  And honestly, Glick didn't even break that law.
[48:36.940 --> 48:39.540]  You know, the police asked him, are you recording audience?
[48:39.540 --> 48:40.540]  He said, yes.
[48:40.540 --> 48:41.540]  You know?
[48:41.540 --> 48:44.420]  But, I mean, if it were me, I wouldn't have even answered the question.
[48:44.420 --> 48:45.940]  I just said, I don't have to talk to you.
[48:45.940 --> 48:48.220]  I need to tell you anything.
[48:48.220 --> 48:49.740]  Am I under arrest?
[48:49.740 --> 48:53.180]  You just don't even talk to those people.
[48:53.180 --> 49:00.140]  Like Eddie says, the three rules, shut up, number two, keep shutting up, and number three,
[49:00.140 --> 49:01.140]  shut up some more.
[49:01.140 --> 49:03.420]  Just don't say anything to them.
[49:03.420 --> 49:06.420]  And get the quick app, qik.com.
[49:06.420 --> 49:11.900]  Literally, it looks like there's at least 100 phones, maybe more, maybe close to 200 different
[49:11.900 --> 49:15.580]  models of phones that support the quick app.
[49:15.580 --> 49:16.580]  You've got to get it.
[49:16.580 --> 49:19.740]  Okay, that's enough of the ranting about the police.
[49:19.740 --> 49:24.380]  I think that this is going to be a losing battle in this Illinois case, and the attorney
[49:24.380 --> 49:25.940]  general is involved in everything.
[49:25.940 --> 49:29.500]  This is sheer intimidation.
[49:29.500 --> 49:33.580]  This is just straight up, just bullying tactics.
[49:33.580 --> 49:38.580]  And I think that this guy should sue the Living Crapola out of them for intimidating and for
[49:38.580 --> 49:43.140]  tampering with a witness, I might add, in federal court, just like Mr. Glick did.
[49:43.140 --> 49:44.140]  Okay?
[49:44.140 --> 49:45.140]  Any more comments?
[49:45.140 --> 49:49.100]  No, no, I think the rant worked.
[49:49.100 --> 49:54.620]  Okay, all right, callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984, we've got William from
[49:54.620 --> 49:55.620]  Texas.
[49:55.620 --> 49:57.460]  William, thank you for calling in.
[49:57.460 --> 49:59.620]  What is your question or comment for us tonight?
[49:59.620 --> 50:00.620]  Yes, ma'am.
[50:00.620 --> 50:07.820]  I called a couple months ago, and I was trying to get my wife out of jail, out of death spit,
[50:07.820 --> 50:10.740]  and Randy suggested the habeas corp.
[50:10.740 --> 50:16.980]  Well, I went ahead and found one down here in Otter County, and what they did with it
[50:16.980 --> 50:25.740]  is they basically used it as a transport vessel, forced it to move, and brought her over here
[50:25.740 --> 50:28.740]  to Dider on a charge she had over here.
[50:28.740 --> 50:36.700]  Ever since then, I've been trying to get information on what they have on her through
[50:36.700 --> 50:43.980]  the police report, and they're unwilling to share on top of that.
[50:43.980 --> 50:50.580]  All I can get access to is what's in the case files, and I've got a lot of questions concerning
[50:50.580 --> 50:51.580]  all that.
[50:51.580 --> 50:55.260]  But basically, I told her not to sign anything.
[50:55.260 --> 51:02.700]  They forced her to take a court-appointed attorney, and her court-appointed attorney
[51:02.700 --> 51:07.540]  flipped on her and is trying to get her eight years.
[51:07.540 --> 51:15.900]  She's unwilling to make any type of deal, even sign a waiver of rights, and even said,
[51:15.900 --> 51:21.100]  well, that looks like we might even get you ten years right there.
[51:21.100 --> 51:24.820]  I'm kind of at my wits end right now.
[51:24.820 --> 51:28.020]  Have you bar-greaved the attorney?
[51:28.020 --> 51:29.020]  Which one?
[51:29.020 --> 51:30.020]  The court-appointed?
[51:30.020 --> 51:31.020]  Not yet.
[51:31.020 --> 51:33.020]  I haven't.
[51:33.020 --> 51:34.020]  She just called me about it today.
[51:34.020 --> 51:36.020]  She goes to court in two weeks.
[51:36.020 --> 51:37.020]  Bar-greaved the attorney.
[51:37.020 --> 51:38.020]  Okay.
[51:38.020 --> 51:39.020]  He will really hate that.
[51:39.020 --> 51:44.020]  He accused him of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[51:44.020 --> 51:45.020]  Okay.
[51:45.020 --> 51:55.380]  That's the way I got my last one beat, is I went after my attorney, and the court wound
[51:55.380 --> 51:59.020]  up having to protect my attorney for me.
[51:59.020 --> 52:00.020]  Okay.
[52:00.020 --> 52:11.740]  Because, basically, what I've been doing for the last couple weeks is going through what
[52:11.740 --> 52:20.900]  Ed Rivera says, what Kurt Kirkenbau has said, Jack Bauer, Constitution Man, Red Fox, and
[52:20.900 --> 52:23.780]  just studying the Constitution.
[52:23.780 --> 52:27.540]  But she's running out of time, and I'm like, I don't know if I need to start going to the
[52:27.540 --> 52:33.060]  parents now, or what, but she just called me today, upset at her attorney.
[52:33.060 --> 52:38.660]  Have you, okay, have you read the habeas on my website?
[52:38.660 --> 52:40.420]  I have read that one, yes.
[52:40.420 --> 52:44.460]  Read it again, look at what they've done.
[52:44.460 --> 52:48.460]  If it's in Texas, you've got a whole stack of criminal charges, you can start filing
[52:48.460 --> 52:49.460]  against these people.
[52:49.460 --> 52:50.460]  Okay.
[52:50.460 --> 52:52.540]  Now, start running the routine on them.
[52:52.540 --> 52:53.540]  Go after them.
[52:53.540 --> 52:54.540]  Okay.
[52:54.540 --> 52:55.540]  I did.
[52:55.540 --> 52:59.540]  If you're in the community's crimes, you have a duty to report that knowledge.
[52:59.540 --> 53:00.540]  Okay.
[53:00.540 --> 53:09.300]  I have 12 criminal complaints against the district judge alone, and I filed it in with my habeas
[53:09.300 --> 53:13.340]  corpus concerning Nessmith County.
[53:13.340 --> 53:21.540]  I went in the morning that they had her signed for her court appointed attorney.
[53:21.540 --> 53:28.700]  The court reporter got up, walked away, and I approached the bar in order to speak with
[53:28.700 --> 53:29.700]  the judge.
[53:29.700 --> 53:36.140]  I brought up the habeas corpus, and then I brought up a challenge to jurisdiction.
[53:36.140 --> 53:43.260]  He said, I don't care, deny, and the court reporter ran back over there and said, I didn't
[53:43.260 --> 53:44.260]  get any of that.
[53:44.260 --> 53:45.260]  He goes, don't worry about it.
[53:45.260 --> 53:46.260]  It'll be fine.
[53:46.260 --> 53:49.260]  I was like, I couldn't do anything.
[53:49.260 --> 53:54.460]  I just said, you can walk away.
[53:54.460 --> 53:56.780]  Just walk away and then prepare criminal charges.
[53:56.780 --> 54:00.740]  That gets the bar, gets the judicial conduct complaint against the judge.
[54:00.740 --> 54:03.820]  These things hurt them.
[54:03.820 --> 54:08.860]  They'll act like it doesn't because they don't want you to know it hurts them.
[54:08.860 --> 54:13.700]  Then start preparing criminal charges against the judge and demand that the prosecuting
[54:13.700 --> 54:18.900]  attorney present them to the grand jury when he doesn't go after the prosecuting attorney.
[54:18.900 --> 54:21.300]  Just run the routine on them.
[54:21.300 --> 54:23.980]  I suggest you do it from a distance.
[54:23.980 --> 54:24.980]  Don't go down there.
[54:24.980 --> 54:25.980]  Don't get in their face.
[54:25.980 --> 54:27.660]  Don't talk to them.
[54:27.660 --> 54:30.140]  If you do go down there, don't talk to them.
[54:30.140 --> 54:32.460]  Just watch them.
[54:32.460 --> 54:39.900]  When they do what they do, then just go back and start filing charges against them.
[54:39.900 --> 54:45.900]  If the prosecutor or an investigator for the prosecutor's office wants you to come down
[54:45.900 --> 54:50.140]  and talk to them, you tell him, heck no.
[54:50.140 --> 54:55.100]  You want to talk to me, you meet me in a public place, I'll have witnesses, I'll have recording,
[54:55.100 --> 54:57.940]  I'll have video.
[54:57.940 --> 55:02.100]  If he asks you why, you tell him because you guys will lie with him the truth would do
[55:02.100 --> 55:03.100]  better.
[55:03.100 --> 55:04.100]  And a stenographer.
[55:04.100 --> 55:05.100]  And a stenographer.
[55:05.100 --> 55:06.100]  Okay.
[55:06.100 --> 55:13.700]  Let them know you don't trust them and you won't be hoodwinked by them.
[55:13.700 --> 55:20.700]  Yeah, after I walked out of that court that day, I went ahead and went over to the district
[55:20.700 --> 55:23.700]  attorney's office and I was intercepted by two officers.
[55:23.700 --> 55:25.620]  They played good ol' boy with me.
[55:25.620 --> 55:27.380]  I was like, man.
[55:27.380 --> 55:31.980]  You should file criminal charges against them with prosecuting attorney.
[55:31.980 --> 55:34.900]  That is a great place to start.
[55:34.900 --> 55:37.220]  Accusing of aggravated assault.
[55:37.220 --> 55:42.500]  If I interfered with you in any way, they did so whilst displaying deadly weapons, aggravated
[55:42.500 --> 55:47.380]  assault, asked the prosecutor to prosecute him, and do it in a, you know, write it to
[55:47.380 --> 55:51.580]  the prosecutor, do it in a written communication.
[55:51.580 --> 55:57.460]  And when he fails to, then just run the routine on the prosecutor, file against him with the
[55:57.460 --> 56:02.460]  district judge, then file against the district judge, back with the grand jury, just run
[56:02.460 --> 56:04.180]  the routine on him.
[56:04.180 --> 56:05.180]  Okay.
[56:05.180 --> 56:12.340]  This has the effect of gradually turning up the heat when everything they do makes it
[56:12.340 --> 56:13.340]  worse.
[56:13.340 --> 56:14.340]  Okay.
[56:14.340 --> 56:21.220]  So just, now, I believe the grand jury meets on Monday, so I should just be down there
[56:21.220 --> 56:26.460]  on Monday morning, early, and just go ahead and present my criminal complaint.
[56:26.460 --> 56:27.460]  Okay.
[56:27.460 --> 56:31.460]  They're not going, they're going to interfere with you, you can expect that.
[56:31.460 --> 56:34.340]  And I, I'm going to suggest you don't go down there.
[56:34.340 --> 56:35.340]  Okay.
[56:35.340 --> 56:37.020]  You're going to wind up arresting you.
[56:37.020 --> 56:38.020]  Okay.
[56:38.020 --> 56:44.700]  So, and they'll, they'll lie like dogs, they'll say you did this, that, and the other.
[56:44.700 --> 56:50.140]  That's why I suggest don't go down there, don't get around them, do it from a distance.
[56:50.140 --> 56:54.140]  If you do go down there, don't talk to them.
[56:54.140 --> 56:55.140]  Okay.
[56:55.140 --> 57:00.900]  And they'll never, above all, do not give them legal advice.
[57:00.900 --> 57:04.700]  And if they try to give you advice, ask them if they're attorneys.
[57:04.700 --> 57:05.700]  Okay.
[57:05.700 --> 57:12.420]  And if they're not attorneys, then tell them, you know, that's territory.
[57:12.420 --> 57:13.420]  You don't want to do that.
[57:13.420 --> 57:16.220]  You want to go away, leave me alone.
[57:16.220 --> 57:17.220]  Okay.
[57:17.220 --> 57:24.180]  But, but try to always keep you cool, don't, never give them advice.
[57:24.180 --> 57:26.780]  Never tell them what they should do.
[57:26.780 --> 57:30.300]  Never let them know they've ruffled you at all.
[57:30.300 --> 57:35.860]  Their whole purpose is just to find reason to file criminal charges against them.
[57:35.860 --> 57:41.020]  When I, when I did this in Randall County, I had called the police on the clerk and I'm
[57:41.020 --> 57:44.260]  sitting down waiting for the police to come.
[57:44.260 --> 57:47.420]  And a bailiff came over and told me I was creating a disturbance, I was going to have
[57:47.420 --> 57:48.420]  to leave the building.
[57:48.420 --> 57:51.460]  I told him, beat it.
[57:51.460 --> 57:55.020]  And then he told me again that I was going to have to leave the building.
[57:55.020 --> 57:57.940]  And the sergeant came over and said, leave him alone.
[57:57.940 --> 58:03.180]  He's just trying to get you to do something so he can call the police on you.
[58:03.180 --> 58:04.180]  Smart man.
[58:04.180 --> 58:06.380]  He was exactly right.
[58:06.380 --> 58:08.380]  That's what you want him to think.
[58:08.380 --> 58:12.900]  So don't give him anything to get, to get a shot at you with.
[58:12.900 --> 58:16.740]  Get him to give you something to get a shot at them.
[58:16.740 --> 58:22.540]  That would be the most leverage against them and give them the most reason to want to get
[58:22.540 --> 58:26.940]  your wife or girlfriend who this is out of their jail.
[58:26.940 --> 58:28.940]  Okay.
[58:28.940 --> 58:32.860]  This is Randy Kelton, Debra Steven, J.D. Craig with Law Radio.
[58:32.860 --> 58:34.860]  We've got a number of calls on the board.
[58:34.860 --> 58:38.100]  We will pick you up on the other side.
[58:38.100 --> 58:43.820]  Our call in number is 512-646-1984.
[58:43.820 --> 59:00.180]  Call in questions or comments and we'll be right back.
[59:00.180 --> 59:05.620]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[59:05.620 --> 59:08.420]  because they struggle to understand it.
[59:08.420 --> 59:13.860]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:13.860 --> 59:17.100]  the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:17.100 --> 59:18.820]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:18.820 --> 59:24.800]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more
[59:24.800 --> 59:28.540]  than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:28.540 --> 59:33.500]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance
[59:33.500 --> 59:38.220]  into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:38.220 --> 59:43.380]  Books for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:43.380 --> 59:53.820]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:53.820 --> 59:57.900]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:57.900 --> 59:59.900]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:59.900 --> 01:00:04.700]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[01:00:04.700 --> 01:00:10.620]  WikiLeaks' cables in the latest batch of unredacted documents show U.S. troops executed 10 Iraqi
[01:00:10.620 --> 01:00:15.540]  civilians, including an elderly woman and an infant, before bombing them to destroy
[01:00:15.540 --> 01:00:16.540]  the evidence.
[01:00:16.540 --> 01:00:21.780]  U.S. officials denied at the time anything inappropriate had occurred, but Philip Olston,
[01:00:21.780 --> 01:00:27.020]  the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions said in a communication to U.S.
[01:00:27.020 --> 01:00:33.100]  officials in March 2006, autopsies show all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the
[01:00:33.100 --> 01:00:35.660]  head.
[01:00:35.660 --> 01:00:40.940]  WikiLeaks has blamed the U.K. Guardian for leaking 250,000 unredacted State Department
[01:00:40.940 --> 01:00:41.940]  cables.
[01:00:41.940 --> 01:00:47.180]  WikiLeaks accused Guardian editor David Lee of divulging the password needed to decrypt
[01:00:47.180 --> 01:00:50.380]  the files in the book published earlier this year.
[01:00:50.380 --> 01:00:54.540]  The whistleblower website claimed it had tried to warn the State Department about what was
[01:00:54.540 --> 01:00:55.540]  happening.
[01:00:55.540 --> 01:00:59.940]  The Guardian called the charges, quote, nonsense, adding it had understood the password was
[01:00:59.940 --> 01:01:04.300]  temporary and a meaningless piece of information.
[01:01:04.300 --> 01:01:09.140]  Nine people died in three suicide bombings in Chechnya Tuesday, and another 20 people
[01:01:09.140 --> 01:01:12.380]  were wounded in attacks in the capital, Grozny.
[01:01:12.380 --> 01:01:17.460]  Russia has been fighting an increasingly radicalized Islamist insurgency in its North Caucasus
[01:01:17.460 --> 01:01:23.380]  Republic since full-scale military operations against Chechen separatists ended a decade
[01:01:23.380 --> 01:01:24.380]  ago.
[01:01:24.380 --> 01:01:30.220]  Four hundred people have died annually in clashes and terror attacks.
[01:01:30.220 --> 01:01:34.620]  Al Jazeera says it has uncovered evidence showing that influential Americans tried to
[01:01:34.620 --> 01:01:38.020]  help former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi cling to power.
[01:01:38.020 --> 01:01:43.540]  Producer Jamal Alshayl obtained secret files from the now derelict Tripoli headquarters
[01:01:43.540 --> 01:01:49.180]  of Libya's intelligence agency, indicating influential Americans advised Gaddafi from
[01:01:49.180 --> 01:01:50.980]  the start of the uprising.
[01:01:50.980 --> 01:01:55.540]  These included David Welch, former Assistant Secretary of State under George Bush, who
[01:01:55.540 --> 01:02:00.860]  brokered restoration of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Libya in 2008, who now
[01:02:00.860 --> 01:02:06.940]  works for Bechtel, a billion-dollar U.S. construction company with deals across the Middle East.
[01:02:06.940 --> 01:02:11.540]  The documents indicate Welch was advising Gaddafi on how to beat the U.S. and NATO.
[01:02:11.540 --> 01:02:16.380]  One meeting records his advice on how to undermine Libya's rebel movement with the help of foreign
[01:02:16.380 --> 01:02:19.340]  intelligence agencies, including Israel.
[01:02:19.340 --> 01:02:24.300]  Welch also advised Gaddafi to take advantage of the Syrian situation regarding the double
[01:02:24.300 --> 01:02:28.140]  standard adopted by Washington.
[01:02:28.140 --> 01:02:32.340]  Large crowds marched through a village near the capital of Bahrain Thursday for the funeral
[01:02:32.340 --> 01:02:36.540]  of a 14-year-old boy killed during an anti-government protest.
[01:02:36.540 --> 01:02:40.900]  The boy was killed Wednesday when security forces fired tear gas into a crowd at close
[01:02:40.900 --> 01:02:41.900]  range.
[01:02:41.900 --> 01:02:46.860]  The child's death has reignited Bahrain's protest movement, and by late Wednesday hundreds
[01:02:46.860 --> 01:02:51.820]  of angry protesters clashed with security forces as they tried to retake a central
[01:02:51.820 --> 01:02:55.660]  square that had been the center of protests in the spring.
[01:02:55.660 --> 01:03:25.500]  They were pushed back by security forces who fired tear gas and blocked roads with
[01:03:25.500 --> 01:03:26.500]  fire.
[01:03:26.500 --> 01:03:35.260]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:03:35.260 --> 01:03:40.980]  Hour 2 here on September 1, 2011.
[01:03:40.980 --> 01:03:46.460]  We are taking your calls tonight, 512-646-1984.
[01:03:46.460 --> 01:03:48.460]  We've got Joshua in Texas.
[01:03:48.460 --> 01:03:49.980]  Joshua, thank you for calling in.
[01:03:49.980 --> 01:03:51.460]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:03:51.460 --> 01:03:57.300]  I do have a question first, I don't have a comment on the issue you were talking about
[01:03:57.300 --> 01:04:02.820]  before about being in public and being filmed.
[01:04:02.820 --> 01:04:10.820]  And the one issue that I, a perspective that I think about is what about your right to
[01:04:10.820 --> 01:04:12.820]  your own image?
[01:04:12.820 --> 01:04:19.580]  Like, if a movie is shooting, they must get your release and information before using
[01:04:19.580 --> 01:04:24.860]  your image because you own part of the copyright to your image.
[01:04:24.860 --> 01:04:29.500]  Yeah, but that's only going to be if they intend to use your image for the purpose of
[01:04:29.500 --> 01:04:31.820]  generating profit for commercial use.
[01:04:31.820 --> 01:04:35.980]  That's got nothing to do with actual news and information use.
[01:04:35.980 --> 01:04:36.980]  Right.
[01:04:36.980 --> 01:04:40.300]  That court case had to do with news and information.
[01:04:40.300 --> 01:04:41.300]  It was very specific.
[01:04:41.300 --> 01:04:42.300]  If you are in public.
[01:04:42.300 --> 01:04:48.300]  If the police didn't, like, there's no protection in the police, especially since they're public
[01:04:48.300 --> 01:04:49.300]  servants and in public.
[01:04:49.300 --> 01:04:54.820]  I was just, in everyone you were saying, if you're in public, you have to assume you don't
[01:04:54.820 --> 01:04:59.540]  have that right to privacy anymore and you have that right to not be filmed.
[01:04:59.540 --> 01:05:03.580]  If I go in public, I still expect anybody that films me that they get my release before
[01:05:03.580 --> 01:05:04.740]  they release that.
[01:05:04.740 --> 01:05:10.820]  As Eddie said, that's only if they intend to use it for commercial purposes.
[01:05:10.820 --> 01:05:11.820]  Okay.
[01:05:11.820 --> 01:05:19.980]  If it's for the purpose of news gathering for disseminating information, that's not
[01:05:19.980 --> 01:05:21.860]  the way it is.
[01:05:21.860 --> 01:05:29.260]  When you're in public, you don't have the right to an expectation of not being looked
[01:05:29.260 --> 01:05:38.060]  at or seen, but you have a right to an expectation of not being exploited for commercial purposes.
[01:05:38.060 --> 01:05:41.140]  That's the difference.
[01:05:41.140 --> 01:05:42.140]  That's right.
[01:05:42.140 --> 01:05:48.820]  So now, in the future, where's the line going to be drawn between news and commercial purposes
[01:05:48.820 --> 01:05:51.020]  when news have become commercial?
[01:05:51.020 --> 01:05:58.660]  Well, the fact that news is commercial is essentially, in that regard, irrelevant because
[01:05:58.660 --> 01:06:03.540]  the news media has a special exemption.
[01:06:03.540 --> 01:06:05.620]  It's not under the general exemption.
[01:06:05.620 --> 01:06:11.460]  And that was a point that the court was going to, there's always been the special exemption
[01:06:11.460 --> 01:06:12.460]  for news.
[01:06:12.460 --> 01:06:18.180]  And that is an absolutely critical exemption.
[01:06:18.180 --> 01:06:24.740]  If we're to have a First Amendment, the news absolutely has to be exempted, otherwise,
[01:06:24.740 --> 01:06:31.780]  we don't have, we have a police state absolute control over information.
[01:06:31.780 --> 01:06:36.980]  So that, we don't want that changed, and that is a special exemption.
[01:06:36.980 --> 01:06:39.900]  So the commercial part won't fall under that.
[01:06:39.900 --> 01:06:40.900]  All right.
[01:06:40.900 --> 01:06:42.220]  That's all I have about that.
[01:06:42.220 --> 01:06:44.220]  Now onto my traffic issue.
[01:06:44.220 --> 01:06:45.700]  All right.
[01:06:45.700 --> 01:06:53.380]  So can you please explain to me, so I've got tickets, and I'm going to go down and inspect
[01:06:53.380 --> 01:06:54.380]  my file.
[01:06:54.380 --> 01:06:58.540]  And I know you guys say to actually put that request in writing to get within my file.
[01:06:58.540 --> 01:07:04.180]  But you've also talked about doing an affidavit of appearance, and some, I heard that recently
[01:07:04.180 --> 01:07:05.180]  from you.
[01:07:05.180 --> 01:07:09.860]  And then about six months back, I remember hearing, after the same, a strategy of going
[01:07:09.860 --> 01:07:14.500]  in and appearing before they're ready for you gives you some advantage.
[01:07:14.500 --> 01:07:21.660]  So will you explain the affidavit of appearance and any strategies around that?
[01:07:21.660 --> 01:07:28.500]  The affidavit of appearance is just a statement that you file in the record that is notarized.
[01:07:28.500 --> 01:07:34.340]  That says, I appeared on this date and this time in compliance with the notice to appear
[01:07:34.340 --> 01:07:36.940]  on citation such and such.
[01:07:36.940 --> 01:07:42.060]  The entire point of that is so that the judge can issue a warrant for you later, saying
[01:07:42.060 --> 01:07:48.460]  that you didn't appear because you refused to enter a plea with the clerk.
[01:07:48.460 --> 01:07:52.540]  And if you don't enter a plea, that's the first thing the clerk tries to do is to get
[01:07:52.540 --> 01:07:57.420]  them to issue an arrest warrant saying you never appeared, which is a ball face lie.
[01:07:57.420 --> 01:08:01.420]  This affidavit is to prevent that from being able to be constructed.
[01:08:01.420 --> 01:08:02.420]  Yes.
[01:08:02.420 --> 01:08:15.020]  And as to making the request to see the record, absolutely do that in writing, just a point
[01:08:15.020 --> 01:08:26.380]  of law in a county court or district court, the clerk has the right to ask for any request
[01:08:26.380 --> 01:08:29.060]  to examine records they can ask for it in writing.
[01:08:29.060 --> 01:08:38.300]  They almost never ever do a justice court or a municipal court does not have that right.
[01:08:38.300 --> 01:08:44.900]  27004 takes that of government code, takes that away from them.
[01:08:44.900 --> 01:08:51.620]  However, not raising that issue, give them a written request.
[01:08:51.620 --> 01:08:55.380]  What you do with it is what I always do with them.
[01:08:55.380 --> 01:09:01.740]  As I date it by hand, right in front of the clerk and ask the clerk, hand it to the clerk
[01:09:01.740 --> 01:09:07.860]  and I say, ask her, can you make me a copy of this and give me the copy so that I have
[01:09:07.860 --> 01:09:11.140]  a record that I filed this request on this day at this time.
[01:09:11.140 --> 01:09:15.620]  And they'll almost always give you that without question.
[01:09:15.620 --> 01:09:24.740]  Now you have proof from the clerk that you were in the court on that day at that time.
[01:09:24.740 --> 01:09:30.420]  The only way you can file a verified affidavit stating that you were there is after you've
[01:09:30.420 --> 01:09:35.540]  been there, then you can go to a notary and swear under oath that you were there on this
[01:09:35.540 --> 01:09:37.740]  time and have the notary notarized it.
[01:09:37.740 --> 01:09:41.340]  So you can't go in at the same time with the notarized document in your hand.
[01:09:41.340 --> 01:09:45.860]  But you can't go in with an open records request or...
[01:09:45.860 --> 01:09:47.420]  Well, actually you can.
[01:09:47.420 --> 01:09:52.060]  You can go in with it already notarized in your hand as long as it doesn't have a time.
[01:09:52.060 --> 01:10:00.980]  No, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, you can't ask a notary to notarize a document swearing
[01:10:00.980 --> 01:10:06.500]  that you were going to go to the court tomorrow or the next day or in a few hours.
[01:10:06.500 --> 01:10:10.340]  The notary couldn't reasonably legally notarize that.
[01:10:10.340 --> 01:10:15.020]  Sure she can because the only thing she's notarizing is that you're the signer, not
[01:10:15.020 --> 01:10:17.060]  to the facts that's in it.
[01:10:17.060 --> 01:10:18.620]  She absolutely could.
[01:10:18.620 --> 01:10:26.860]  Okay, that's kind of the iffy ground, if you follow the information request which you're
[01:10:26.860 --> 01:10:33.940]  going to ask for information anyway, that's the way you can kind of slide past that issue.
[01:10:33.940 --> 01:10:37.500]  Well, wait a minute, hold on, I talked to Harmon about this too.
[01:10:37.500 --> 01:10:43.660]  When notaries notarize, they are notarizing your signature, that is it.
[01:10:43.660 --> 01:10:49.380]  They are not notarizing any of the, they're not attesting to any of the facts that you
[01:10:49.380 --> 01:10:56.340]  are attesting to in your document, that you are the one that is swearing under penalty
[01:10:56.340 --> 01:11:03.340]  of perjury that what you stated in your document is true and the only thing they are notarizing,
[01:11:03.340 --> 01:11:09.500]  the only thing they're verifying is that they are confirming that the person that signed
[01:11:09.500 --> 01:11:14.300]  is the same person that appeared before them and actually put their pen on the paper through
[01:11:14.300 --> 01:11:16.100]  verification of some form of ID.
[01:11:16.100 --> 01:11:17.100]  That's it.
[01:11:17.100 --> 01:11:21.180]  You are missing the whole point of the notary.
[01:11:21.180 --> 01:11:28.260]  You must swear on your oath to the truth of this document and if this document says
[01:11:28.260 --> 01:11:38.500]  that you appeared on a day at a certain time and it's notarized before that day and time,
[01:11:38.500 --> 01:11:46.860]  the notary cannot reasonably verify that you swore on your oath before the notary to the
[01:11:46.860 --> 01:11:51.660]  truth because if you swore that you were there at this time and the time hasn't come yet,
[01:11:51.660 --> 01:11:53.500]  then it's going to be void.
[01:11:53.500 --> 01:12:00.020]  It's just like a criminal complaint that accuses you of committing a crime tomorrow.
[01:12:00.020 --> 01:12:02.940]  That is a fatal error.
[01:12:02.940 --> 01:12:10.940]  Not be fixed, that will create a fatal error in the notary if the notary did not have you
[01:12:10.940 --> 01:12:16.580]  swear to the truth of the affidavits at the time it was signed and since it hadn't been
[01:12:16.580 --> 01:12:21.300]  bedalaged, you can't make that.
[01:12:21.300 --> 01:12:25.540]  Under that frame of logic, the only way that you could notarize the document was in the
[01:12:25.540 --> 01:12:26.740]  lobby of the courthouse.
[01:12:26.740 --> 01:12:30.780]  No, no, you could go down there.
[01:12:30.780 --> 01:12:33.380]  You would have to be there to get it notarized.
[01:12:33.380 --> 01:12:37.780]  Then go back to the notary and have the notary verified that you were there on this day at
[01:12:37.780 --> 01:12:38.780]  this time.
[01:12:38.780 --> 01:12:41.780]  But that's just an affidavit.
[01:12:41.780 --> 01:12:47.980]  So, we're walking through these steps again, so I go in and I make the request for my documents
[01:12:47.980 --> 01:12:48.980]  and written.
[01:12:48.980 --> 01:12:49.980]  They give me a copy of that back.
[01:12:49.980 --> 01:12:50.980]  I get my documents.
[01:12:50.980 --> 01:12:53.260]  Now, how is this appearance happening?
[01:12:53.260 --> 01:12:54.580]  Now, I have to go and...
[01:12:54.580 --> 01:12:55.580]  That's okay.
[01:12:55.580 --> 01:12:58.300]  You have made your appearance.
[01:12:58.300 --> 01:13:03.020]  Now you can prove that you appeared at the court on this day at this time.
[01:13:03.020 --> 01:13:05.460]  Yeah, I got that now.
[01:13:05.460 --> 01:13:09.860]  I wanted to actually be in the system and count it as my appearance, so that's what the affidavit
[01:13:09.860 --> 01:13:10.860]  of a parent support.
[01:13:10.860 --> 01:13:16.180]  Like, I want to prompt her to try to get me to make a plea and I want to not make a plea.
[01:13:16.180 --> 01:13:17.180]  Right?
[01:13:17.180 --> 01:13:18.180]  Correct.
[01:13:18.180 --> 01:13:22.060]  So, how do I do that?
[01:13:22.060 --> 01:13:23.060]  You won't have to prompt her.
[01:13:23.060 --> 01:13:24.700]  You just tell her you're here.
[01:13:24.700 --> 01:13:25.700]  You got this ticket.
[01:13:25.700 --> 01:13:26.700]  Okay.
[01:13:26.700 --> 01:13:27.700]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[01:13:27.700 --> 01:13:28.700]  Yeah.
[01:13:28.700 --> 01:13:33.380]  Usually, when you walk up and tell her you're there to do anything, the first thing they're
[01:13:33.380 --> 01:13:37.660]  going to want you to do is to sign the little pad and sneak a plea in on you or they're
[01:13:37.660 --> 01:13:39.500]  going to ask you how you plead.
[01:13:39.500 --> 01:13:43.020]  Normally, the clerk won't even talk to you if you haven't entered a plea.
[01:13:43.020 --> 01:13:44.020]  Really?
[01:13:44.020 --> 01:13:46.660]  You just simply tell her, I'm not here to enter a plea.
[01:13:46.660 --> 01:13:48.220]  I'm not going to enter a plea.
[01:13:48.220 --> 01:13:50.700]  I just need you to file this.
[01:13:50.700 --> 01:13:51.700]  Okay.
[01:13:51.700 --> 01:13:59.140]  Now, because you're not entering that plea, their usual course of business is to falsify
[01:13:59.140 --> 01:14:05.660]  a document of the court in order to issue a warrant for failure to appear and thus trump
[01:14:05.660 --> 01:14:08.860]  up the charges against you.
[01:14:08.860 --> 01:14:14.460]  There is absolutely no authority whatsoever for a court to issue a warrant for failure
[01:14:14.460 --> 01:14:17.500]  to enter a plea.
[01:14:17.500 --> 01:14:20.700]  But that's exactly what the Austin Municipal Court does.
[01:14:20.700 --> 01:14:28.540]  What you might ask the clerk is, are you a judge?
[01:14:28.540 --> 01:14:29.540]  She's not a judicial officer.
[01:14:29.540 --> 01:14:31.620]  She can't take a plea.
[01:14:31.620 --> 01:14:33.740]  Well, not only that, you can only enter a plea.
[01:14:33.740 --> 01:14:38.240]  A plea is only accepted at two times, one, an arraignment or two, after a jury's been
[01:14:38.240 --> 01:14:39.740]  impelled.
[01:14:39.740 --> 01:14:47.820]  Actually, your real purpose for being there and what you agreed to come there for was
[01:14:47.820 --> 01:14:54.460]  an examining trial, not to be confused with an arraignment under Texas law.
[01:14:54.460 --> 01:15:03.020]  An arraignment is a hearing for the purpose of determining the identity of the accused
[01:15:03.020 --> 01:15:04.820]  and taking a plea.
[01:15:04.820 --> 01:15:11.540]  And that's done after an examining trial when the magistrate finds probable cause, forwards
[01:15:11.540 --> 01:15:15.420]  the documentation to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[01:15:15.420 --> 01:15:20.660]  When your first appearance before the court of jurisdiction, they must determine your
[01:15:20.660 --> 01:15:24.900]  identity and your plea, and that's what the arraignment's for.
[01:15:24.900 --> 01:15:26.900]  So this is not an arraignment.
[01:15:26.900 --> 01:15:32.780]  No, the court has no business trying to get a plea from you on the honor before date anyway.
[01:15:32.780 --> 01:15:36.860]  A magistrate can, if he's going to hold an examining trial, that'd be great.
[01:15:36.860 --> 01:15:42.620]  We can do that, but if this clerk is not a magistrate, she can't do it.
[01:15:42.620 --> 01:15:49.940]  Well, that's the point, Randy, in these types of cases, Chapter 45 supersedes the normal
[01:15:49.940 --> 01:15:53.180]  part of taking the plea at an arraignment.
[01:15:53.180 --> 01:15:59.340]  Now even though 1517 requires an arraignment to be held, Chapter 45 specifically says that
[01:15:59.340 --> 01:16:05.140]  in the case of the Class C fine only offenses, that that plea can be entered only when the
[01:16:05.140 --> 01:16:07.020]  jury has been impelled.
[01:16:07.020 --> 01:16:14.260]  Oh, it's right in Chapter 45 at that plea, and then and only then, if the defendant refuses
[01:16:14.260 --> 01:16:20.540]  to enter such a plea, can the judge enter a plea on their behalf?
[01:16:20.540 --> 01:16:29.540]  Okay, so we have a clerk exerting or purporting an exerting authority they don't expect to
[01:16:29.540 --> 01:16:30.540]  have.
[01:16:30.540 --> 01:16:38.380]  Oh, wait a minute, that belies the whole idea of an examining trial.
[01:16:38.380 --> 01:16:40.580]  Well besides that, there's never any notice anyway.
[01:16:40.580 --> 01:16:46.580]  They have to send you notice at least one day prior of a complaint, and they never do that.
[01:16:46.580 --> 01:16:48.820]  That's for a court hearing.
[01:16:48.820 --> 01:16:53.660]  No, that is for any, no, that's for any proceeding.
[01:16:53.660 --> 01:16:57.500]  Any proceeding, it's right there in the Texas Transportation Code for traffic tickets.
[01:16:57.500 --> 01:17:02.340]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:02.340 --> 01:17:08.500]  It's the story of a lost city, lost opportunity, lost hope.
[01:17:08.500 --> 01:17:12.100]  A story of failed policies, failed leadership.
[01:17:12.100 --> 01:17:20.740]  A story of smooth talking politicians, games of he said, she said, rhetoric and division.
[01:17:20.740 --> 01:17:30.220]  One man has stood apart, stood strong and true, voting against every tax increase, every
[01:17:30.220 --> 01:17:38.340]  unbound budget, every time, standing up to the Washington machine, guided by principle.
[01:17:38.340 --> 01:17:46.340]  Ron Paul, the one who will stop the spending, save the dollar, create jobs, frame peace,
[01:17:46.340 --> 01:17:49.820]  the one who will restore liberty.
[01:17:49.820 --> 01:17:56.900]  Ron Paul, the one who can beat Obama and restore America now.
[01:17:56.900 --> 01:18:00.700]  I'm Ron Paul, and I approve this message.
[01:18:00.700 --> 01:18:06.260]  If you entered into a mortgage agreement after the year 2000, you were subjected to the largest
[01:18:06.260 --> 01:18:09.260]  fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.
[01:18:09.260 --> 01:18:14.500]  The banks plotted not only to steal the equity in your home, they also planned to scam you
[01:18:14.500 --> 01:18:18.460]  out of your retirement funds and leave you homeless and penniless.
[01:18:18.460 --> 01:18:23.060]  The money changers have used what they stole from you to buy your legislators, government
[01:18:23.060 --> 01:18:27.260]  oversight agencies and most unfortunately the courts.
[01:18:27.260 --> 01:18:32.820]  If you have been foreclosed on, are facing foreclosure or are up to date on your payments,
[01:18:32.820 --> 01:18:36.300]  there is something you can do to set things to right.
[01:18:36.300 --> 01:18:45.700]  Call 855-588-8501 and we will show you how to force the corrupt courts to do their jobs.
[01:18:45.700 --> 01:18:50.940]  You can stop these thieving bankers from destroying this country and from forcing your children
[01:18:50.940 --> 01:18:55.380]  and grandchildren onto the streets as slaves to them.
[01:18:55.380 --> 01:19:17.380]  Call 855-588-8501 now.
[01:19:17.380 --> 01:19:46.700]  Okay folks, we're back, we're talking about this notice issue, we're talking about on
[01:19:46.700 --> 01:19:50.620]  the break, I'm sorry we're running up into the break and I was trying to speak quickly
[01:19:50.620 --> 01:19:53.220]  as we're heading into the break.
[01:19:53.220 --> 01:20:01.460]  I meant the Code of Criminal Procedures Chapter 45.018B that says they have to notice you
[01:20:01.460 --> 01:20:09.540]  at least one day prior to any proceeding with the service of the criminal complaint, period.
[01:20:09.540 --> 01:20:15.860]  That's the way it is and they never do that in these traffic ticket cases and that's one
[01:20:15.860 --> 01:20:19.420]  of the biggest defenses is that there's no notice.
[01:20:19.420 --> 01:20:25.140]  You go into the proceeding, you have not been noticed, you don't know how to defend yourself,
[01:20:25.140 --> 01:20:30.460]  you don't know whether to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty because you don't even
[01:20:30.460 --> 01:20:38.100]  know what the charge is and hence that is one of the first documents that we file in
[01:20:38.100 --> 01:20:44.700]  these cases is a special appearance, not a general appearance, you file special appearance
[01:20:44.700 --> 01:20:52.260]  and it has to be notarized where you state the certain facts of the case personally known
[01:20:52.260 --> 01:21:00.260]  to you as Randy says facts of the past, not of the future, you state the facts and you
[01:21:00.260 --> 01:21:03.380]  make your special appearance, if you want to preserve a special appearance it has to
[01:21:03.380 --> 01:21:10.140]  be notarized and you file your motion to dismiss based on no notice, there's no notice and
[01:21:10.140 --> 01:21:20.460]  it is a proceeding because according to Roth, Gary, V. Gillespie, any hearing where a plea
[01:21:20.460 --> 01:21:27.140]  would be entered is counted as a proceeding and as a critical part of the prosecution.
[01:21:27.140 --> 01:21:33.100]  But now let's take this to the steps of the statutes themselves, okay?
[01:21:33.100 --> 01:21:38.540]  The transportation code in 543 directs the officer to take the individual before a magistrate.
[01:21:38.540 --> 01:21:44.900]  There is no actual complaint, there's nothing, hence the entire reason why 1517 says absolutely
[01:21:44.900 --> 01:21:50.460]  nothing about taking a plea, doesn't say a word about taking a plea.
[01:21:50.460 --> 01:21:55.980]  The magistrate's purpose in 1517 is only to determine whether or not that arrest was
[01:21:55.980 --> 01:22:02.020]  lawful, he's got to figure out that part first and then to set your bond, even if it's just
[01:22:02.020 --> 01:22:07.500]  a PR bond so that they can let you go and you're not held in jail, you're not supposed
[01:22:07.500 --> 01:22:13.180]  to have to sit in jail period without some really good cause for doing so.
[01:22:13.180 --> 01:22:19.700]  That's all 1517 does other than inform you of your rights to your assistance of counsel,
[01:22:19.700 --> 01:22:24.740]  your Miranda, your right to the examining trial and set a date and time for the arraignment
[01:22:24.740 --> 01:22:28.180]  after the examining trial has taken place.
[01:22:28.180 --> 01:22:34.260]  But then the examining trial concludes that everything that you could do at the regular
[01:22:34.260 --> 01:22:41.660]  trial can be done at examining trial, across the examination of witnesses, evidence, witness
[01:22:41.660 --> 01:22:47.340]  testimony is reduced to writing, everybody gets a copy of that and anything using the
[01:22:47.340 --> 01:22:51.980]  examining trial can be used to impeach testimony later at trial.
[01:22:51.980 --> 01:22:56.700]  That's the whole purpose of the examining trial so that everybody gets their story and
[01:22:56.700 --> 01:23:01.460]  ducks in a row before an actual trial takes place and the judge can determine is there
[01:23:01.460 --> 01:23:04.260]  enough evidence to even go to trial.
[01:23:04.260 --> 01:23:06.500]  That's what it's all about.
[01:23:06.500 --> 01:23:14.100]  Now at that point for him to conduct that examining trial there has to be a complaint.
[01:23:14.100 --> 01:23:20.860]  That will be your first proceeding in the prosecution under that complaint.
[01:23:20.860 --> 01:23:26.860]  They must have provided you with written notice no later than one day prior to that examining
[01:23:26.860 --> 01:23:27.860]  trial.
[01:23:27.860 --> 01:23:29.340]  No ifs, no ands, no buts.
[01:23:29.340 --> 01:23:30.340]  No.
[01:23:30.340 --> 01:23:31.340]  Yes, there is a but.
[01:23:31.340 --> 01:23:41.860]  It's very clearly in 1406 and 16, I think it's 1601 or 1602.
[01:23:41.860 --> 01:23:47.260]  You have a right to a day's notice and you have a right to appoint appointment of counsel
[01:23:47.260 --> 01:23:52.580]  and if you elect that right they can hold you until they have time to appoint counsel
[01:23:52.580 --> 01:23:53.900]  for you.
[01:23:53.900 --> 01:23:55.220]  Not on a Class C.
[01:23:55.220 --> 01:23:57.540]  Yes, they can.
[01:23:57.540 --> 01:23:59.460]  It's right there in the code.
[01:23:59.460 --> 01:24:05.700]  If you request counsel then they can hold you until they can get a counsel appointed
[01:24:05.700 --> 01:24:06.700]  but.
[01:24:06.700 --> 01:24:09.180]  No sir, no sir, not true.
[01:24:09.180 --> 01:24:10.180]  Read.
[01:24:10.180 --> 01:24:11.180]  1517b.
[01:24:11.180 --> 01:24:18.220]  So wait a minute, wait a minute, 16, examining trial.
[01:24:18.220 --> 01:24:23.180]  This is what happens in an examining trial.
[01:24:23.180 --> 01:24:31.500]  What specifically says in there that if you request counsel they can delay the proceedings
[01:24:31.500 --> 01:24:37.860]  for the purpose of appointing you counsel and the judge just can release you on bail
[01:24:37.860 --> 01:24:43.660]  if he wants to or he can hold you in jail until they get a counsel appointed but you
[01:24:43.660 --> 01:24:51.700]  have to request it and you can if you want the day's notice you can request that but
[01:24:51.700 --> 01:24:58.340]  you have to request it otherwise if you want that hearing right then at that moment they
[01:24:58.340 --> 01:25:00.340]  have to provide it.
[01:25:00.340 --> 01:25:05.020]  They cannot arbitrarily hold you to do all of these things.
[01:25:05.020 --> 01:25:12.380]  That's my only point is yes you have a right to these things but you can waive those and
[01:25:12.380 --> 01:25:18.100]  say let's have the examine trial right here right now.
[01:25:18.100 --> 01:25:22.860]  So they cannot arbitrarily just take you down, throw you in jail and hold you until they're
[01:25:22.860 --> 01:25:27.380]  ready to bring you before a magistrate and that's what they do.
[01:25:27.380 --> 01:25:33.660]  The whole point of the magistrate is to have you brought before that magistrate immediately
[01:25:33.660 --> 01:25:36.540]  so that the officer can explain himself.
[01:25:36.540 --> 01:25:40.540]  Does that make sense?
[01:25:40.540 --> 01:25:48.660]  Well, yes and no but I'll get back to you on that.
[01:25:48.660 --> 01:25:53.100]  Okay, let's move ahead.
[01:25:53.100 --> 01:25:56.700]  Okay we want to go to, do you guys still want to talk about this or we want to go to college?
[01:25:56.700 --> 01:26:01.660]  Well, I was just going to make one quick comment about this notice thing.
[01:26:01.660 --> 01:26:07.700]  In the situation of crassly misdemeanors with traffic tickets, most of the time people are
[01:26:07.700 --> 01:26:14.300]  not sitting in jail waiting for either an arraignment or an examining trial.
[01:26:14.300 --> 01:26:20.260]  They sign the ticket on the side of the road which by the way we have to keep reminding
[01:26:20.260 --> 01:26:26.900]  the listeners because people are coming in new or for whatever reason they don't understand.
[01:26:26.900 --> 01:26:31.660]  When you sign that ticket you're not admitting to anything, you're not entering into any
[01:26:31.660 --> 01:26:38.460]  commercial nexus with them or signing a contract or anything like that, all you are doing is
[01:26:38.460 --> 01:26:47.020]  promising to appear on the on or before date and the reason you do that is because technically
[01:26:47.020 --> 01:26:53.580]  you have been arrested already on the side of the road and what is supposed to happen
[01:26:53.580 --> 01:26:59.860]  is you are supposed to be taken directly to a magistrate but in lieu of that what they
[01:26:59.860 --> 01:27:06.420]  will do is basically give you a PR bond on the side of the road by you signing a promising
[01:27:06.420 --> 01:27:13.980]  to appear and so that's generally what happens and so then they have to notice you on the
[01:27:13.980 --> 01:27:14.980]  on or before date.
[01:27:14.980 --> 01:27:18.940]  Hold on, where do you promise to appear?
[01:27:18.940 --> 01:27:21.340]  When you sign the ticket that's what it says.
[01:27:21.340 --> 01:27:22.340]  Where?
[01:27:22.340 --> 01:27:23.340]  What do you mean where?
[01:27:23.340 --> 01:27:25.540]  Before a magistrate having your ticket.
[01:27:25.540 --> 01:27:31.220]  Before a magistrate at a such and such address.
[01:27:31.220 --> 01:27:38.020]  This is an important distinction, you do not promise to appear before a judge, you promise
[01:27:38.020 --> 01:27:47.660]  to appear before a magistrate and a magistrate can only do one or two things, hold an examining
[01:27:47.660 --> 01:27:51.500]  trial, set bail, that's it.
[01:27:51.500 --> 01:27:56.380]  So you're not appearing for an arraignment or that other crap over that they're doing.
[01:27:56.380 --> 01:28:01.500]  You agreed to appear before a magistrate for the purpose of an examining trial and when
[01:28:01.500 --> 01:28:08.060]  they want you to inter-apply before a clerk, well who the heck are you, are you a magistrate?
[01:28:08.060 --> 01:28:14.020]  You did not agree to appear before any clerk.
[01:28:14.020 --> 01:28:17.500]  You agreed to appear before a magistrate's purpose of examining trial and that's what
[01:28:17.500 --> 01:28:23.820]  they always deny you and you don't have to have notice of anything for that and technically
[01:28:23.820 --> 01:28:28.100]  you'd have notice by the citation of what the accusation is.
[01:28:28.100 --> 01:28:33.300]  No, they don't, they never put notice because it says in the law that they have to give
[01:28:33.300 --> 01:28:39.700]  you notice of the complaint and on the citation they never say what the law is, they don't
[01:28:39.700 --> 01:28:43.540]  mention a statute, they don't mention a violation and not only that when there is a criminal
[01:28:43.540 --> 01:28:54.260]  complaint in the file, they still do not mention a statute or a city ordinance, nothing.
[01:28:54.260 --> 01:28:58.900]  And they don't mention a statute or an ordinance on the complaint either.
[01:28:58.900 --> 01:28:59.900]  All they'll say is speeding.
[01:28:59.900 --> 01:29:03.380]  That's a separate issue.
[01:29:03.380 --> 01:29:04.380]  You can...
[01:29:04.380 --> 01:29:09.220]  Yeah, I realize that's a separate issue but I'm just saying that...
[01:29:09.220 --> 01:29:16.020]  You can request clarification but if the officer doesn't have to have a written complaint
[01:29:16.020 --> 01:29:20.060]  if he brings you before a magistrate, he can step up in front of a magistrate and say he
[01:29:20.060 --> 01:29:25.580]  did this, he did that and you'd say, I didn't do this, I didn't do that and then the magistrate,
[01:29:25.580 --> 01:29:29.140]  if he doesn't find probable cause, he'd tell you to go home.
[01:29:29.140 --> 01:29:36.980]  If he does find probable cause, he'll ask the police officer to prepare a square tooth.
[01:29:36.980 --> 01:29:40.900]  No, I'm wrong, let me correct that on the other side.
[01:29:40.900 --> 01:29:44.260]  He does have to have a written swore and affidavit.
[01:29:44.260 --> 01:29:49.380]  The police officer does and the part of the argument is, is the ticket a complaint and
[01:29:49.380 --> 01:29:52.540]  I think the answer is a resounding no, it is not.
[01:29:52.540 --> 01:29:53.740]  This is Randy Calton, W.J.
[01:29:53.740 --> 01:29:57.220]  The Dead Craig, we'll go radio, we'll be right back on the other side and we'll start taking
[01:29:57.220 --> 01:29:59.900]  your calls and seeing if you can help us out.
[01:29:59.900 --> 01:30:03.340]  Top 10 reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing.
[01:30:03.340 --> 01:30:04.340]  Reason number 10.
[01:30:04.340 --> 01:30:05.580]  What is on the surveillance tapes?
[01:30:05.580 --> 01:30:09.100]  There were many video surveillance cameras that recorded the morning of the bombing,
[01:30:09.100 --> 01:30:11.900]  yet the few of these that have been released do not show what transpired with the rider
[01:30:11.900 --> 01:30:13.620]  truck at the Murrow Building.
[01:30:13.620 --> 01:30:16.420]  Most recently, the government has claimed that all of the cameras that were in different
[01:30:16.420 --> 01:30:19.820]  buildings and maintained by different businesses were all having their tapes changed at the
[01:30:19.820 --> 01:30:22.300]  exact same time, 9.02 a.m.
[01:30:22.300 --> 01:30:25.260]  This is insulting to the memory of those who perished in the bombing.
[01:30:25.260 --> 01:30:26.500]  What is being hidden from us?
[01:30:26.500 --> 01:30:29.500]  For more information, please go to okcbombingtruth.com.
[01:30:29.500 --> 01:30:37.580]  Time out, go to your room, parents know that isolating kids is harsh punishment, but what
[01:30:37.580 --> 01:30:39.140]  if the isolation never ends?
[01:30:39.140 --> 01:30:43.900]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with the tragic story of two inmates stuck
[01:30:43.900 --> 01:30:46.460]  in permanent solitary.
[01:30:46.460 --> 01:30:48.060]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:48.060 --> 01:30:51.660]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:51.660 --> 01:30:56.420]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:56.420 --> 01:31:01.380]  To protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:31:01.380 --> 01:31:04.180]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:31:04.180 --> 01:31:08.540]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[01:31:08.540 --> 01:31:12.020]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:31:12.020 --> 01:31:15.700]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:31:15.700 --> 01:31:18.660]  Solitary confinement is one of the harshest penalties there is.
[01:31:18.660 --> 01:31:23.420]  That's why Amnesty International is working to free Albert Wood Fox and Herman Wallace
[01:31:23.420 --> 01:31:27.540]  from decades of solitary confinement in a Louisiana prison.
[01:31:27.540 --> 01:31:33.740]  Each man spends 23 hours a day alone in a tiny cell for his alleged role in a 1970s
[01:31:33.740 --> 01:31:34.740]  murder.
[01:31:34.740 --> 01:31:39.860]  Isolated prisoners can experience depression, despair, claustrophobia, and hallucinations,
[01:31:39.860 --> 01:31:43.620]  along with weakened immune systems and psychiatric illnesses.
[01:31:43.620 --> 01:31:48.540]  Lawyers say 40 years of solitary confinement is unprecedented in the US.
[01:31:48.540 --> 01:31:51.500]  It's cruel and inhumane and probably illegal.
[01:31:51.500 --> 01:31:54.380]  So let's call it time-out to this particular time-out.
[01:31:54.380 --> 01:32:24.340]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:24.380 --> 01:32:50.700]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:50.700 --> 01:32:55.700]  Evening to be a while at dinner time Experiment and mankind
[01:32:55.700 --> 01:33:00.700]  Put man in the same damn hideaway If you don't wanna chip, man you are real body
[01:33:00.700 --> 01:33:05.700]  Free them of something, man you fight for it You should tell them they feel ready
[01:33:05.700 --> 01:33:10.700]  Constitution set us free Can't take them put no chip in your body
[01:33:10.700 --> 01:33:14.700]  Put no chip in your dagger, cat you see No put no chip in your coat and go eat it
[01:33:14.700 --> 01:33:19.700]  No put no chip in your fish and go eat it All in the wheel and the shark in the sea
[01:33:19.700 --> 01:33:24.700]  Put the little chip in the little baby Want to put the chip in the ground for you see
[01:33:24.700 --> 01:33:29.700]  Want to put the little chip in the I-Man battery If we go hide in the Atlantic sea
[01:33:29.700 --> 01:33:34.700]  Man didn't have to lies, me said I'm gonna fly me Satellite get mad, satellite get hungry
[01:33:34.700 --> 01:33:39.700]  Can't chip them use me say crash off you see Mr. Chippin' at the morning Chippin' at the evening
[01:33:39.700 --> 01:33:40.700]  Chippin' at your back
[01:33:40.700 --> 01:33:44.700]  Okay rule of law, we are back We're taking your calls, we got a half an hour left
[01:33:44.700 --> 01:33:49.700]  The call board is starting to stack up We were speaking with Joshua, sorry we got off on
[01:33:49.700 --> 01:33:53.700]  Some discussion of other issues Joshua please continue
[01:33:53.700 --> 01:34:00.700]  Yes, so after, what's next after the affidavit of appearance?
[01:34:00.700 --> 01:34:03.700]  Now what will that trigger and what will be the next thing that happens?
[01:34:03.700 --> 01:34:09.700]  They will then give me a court date for a trial and also what you guys were just talking about there
[01:34:09.700 --> 01:34:14.700]  Examining trial that doesn't happen for tickets or does it?
[01:34:14.700 --> 01:34:20.700]  No they don't do one but the law says they're supposed to because you were arrested without a warrant
[01:34:20.700 --> 01:34:26.700]  They must have a probable cause of termination to see whether or not the arrest itself was even lawful
[01:34:26.700 --> 01:34:29.700]  Okay
[01:34:29.700 --> 01:34:31.700]  They just don't do it
[01:34:31.700 --> 01:34:34.700]  Okay
[01:34:34.700 --> 01:34:39.700]  And then so if I do the affidavit of appearance there, my court date's on December 22nd now
[01:34:39.700 --> 01:34:41.700]  I'll no longer have to be there by that
[01:34:41.700 --> 01:34:44.700]  They will then mail me my next appearance date
[01:34:44.700 --> 01:34:50.700]  The law says under 23.04 there required to issue you a summons
[01:34:50.700 --> 01:34:56.700]  And it tells you exactly how that summons is required to be formatted and the information it must contain
[01:34:56.700 --> 01:34:59.700]  It never does, they send you a form letter
[01:34:59.700 --> 01:35:04.700]  Hey, you're invited to a party in the municipal court and your honor come down tell us what we want to do
[01:35:04.700 --> 01:35:06.700]  And we'll go from there
[01:35:06.700 --> 01:35:09.700]  It does not in any way shape or form comply with law
[01:35:09.700 --> 01:35:12.700]  Okay, and then what?
[01:35:12.700 --> 01:35:18.700]  And then you file a motion to quash the summons alleging that one it's not a summons
[01:35:18.700 --> 01:35:24.700]  And two, you know, you just simply go down there and argue it as a special appearance
[01:35:24.700 --> 01:35:30.700]  You file the motion to quash the summons under special appearance
[01:35:30.700 --> 01:35:33.700]  And the only reason you go is to make that argument
[01:35:33.700 --> 01:35:36.700]  This is not a valid summons
[01:35:36.700 --> 01:35:43.700]  And you do that every time they send you a document because you're making the record that they're not complying with law
[01:35:43.700 --> 01:35:45.700]  Okay
[01:35:45.700 --> 01:35:50.700]  And special appearance I can walk down there and just ask for one
[01:35:50.700 --> 01:35:53.700]  No, you be there on the date and time they tell you to be there
[01:35:53.700 --> 01:35:56.700]  But just tell them that you're there for special appearance
[01:35:56.700 --> 01:35:59.700]  Okay, so the date and time that I've been summons
[01:35:59.700 --> 01:36:01.700]  Okay, okay, Joshua
[01:36:01.700 --> 01:36:05.700]  I make a special appearance to quash
[01:36:05.700 --> 01:36:10.700]  Okay, Joshua, you understand what he means by special appearance
[01:36:10.700 --> 01:36:12.700]  Uh, no
[01:36:12.700 --> 01:36:21.700]  Okay, a special appearance is an appearance for the purpose of challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court
[01:36:21.700 --> 01:36:27.700]  So you're not making a general appearance before the court
[01:36:27.700 --> 01:36:31.700]  You're making an appearance at arm's length to the court
[01:36:31.700 --> 01:36:40.700]  And saying, I'm here on a special appearance and demand that you prove that you have jurisdiction to order me to be here
[01:36:40.700 --> 01:36:42.700]  That's why it's called a special appearance
[01:36:42.700 --> 01:36:43.700]  Okay
[01:36:43.700 --> 01:36:49.700]  Yeah, and if you want to preserve your challenge over the no notice issue
[01:36:49.700 --> 01:36:52.700]  You have to preserve your special appearance
[01:36:52.700 --> 01:36:57.700]  And in order to preserve your special appearance, your documents have to be notarized
[01:36:57.700 --> 01:36:59.700]  Okay
[01:36:59.700 --> 01:37:03.700]  All right, now, next question we can be quick about it
[01:37:03.700 --> 01:37:06.700]  I'm on a photo driver's license driving in Texas
[01:37:06.700 --> 01:37:09.700]  Texas registered vehicle
[01:37:09.700 --> 01:37:14.700]  Red light, fired, registration and no proof of insurance
[01:37:14.700 --> 01:37:23.700]  What are, what are the bearings of my, what's the implications of my license being out of state?
[01:37:23.700 --> 01:37:25.700]  You said it's a Florida license?
[01:37:25.700 --> 01:37:27.700]  Yeah
[01:37:27.700 --> 01:37:28.700]  But you're...
[01:37:28.700 --> 01:37:30.700]  It was...
[01:37:30.700 --> 01:37:37.700]  Yeah, uh, yes, Texas car, I have dual residency and can prove that
[01:37:37.700 --> 01:37:42.700]  Not the point, what were you doing?
[01:37:42.700 --> 01:37:44.700]  Were you, were you a chauffeur?
[01:37:44.700 --> 01:37:47.700]  No, I was just driving
[01:37:47.700 --> 01:37:51.700]  You were? Well then you better have a valid license
[01:37:51.700 --> 01:37:54.700]  If you were traveling, no one cares
[01:37:54.700 --> 01:37:58.700]  But if you were driving, you better have a current valid license
[01:37:58.700 --> 01:38:01.700]  If you were driving, you were being a chauffeur
[01:38:01.700 --> 01:38:04.700]  My license is valid, my registration on the vehicle
[01:38:04.700 --> 01:38:13.700]  Listen, listen, listen, if you were transporting property or persons for hire, you were driving
[01:38:13.700 --> 01:38:18.700]  If you were merely moving yourself from one place to another
[01:38:18.700 --> 01:38:24.700]  Or other people from one place to another as guests in your vehicle
[01:38:24.700 --> 01:38:26.700]  Then you were traveling
[01:38:26.700 --> 01:38:28.700]  Yeah, where do you guys go for this?
[01:38:28.700 --> 01:38:30.700]  Not if you're using vehicle, you're not
[01:38:30.700 --> 01:38:32.700]  Okay, okay, okay
[01:38:32.700 --> 01:38:39.700]  Whatever you were in does not change because of what you call it
[01:38:39.700 --> 01:38:42.700]  It is what it is
[01:38:42.700 --> 01:38:50.700]  And because you say it's a vehicle or a pickup truck or a bulldozer
[01:38:50.700 --> 01:38:55.700]  If it's a Volkswagen, it's a Volkswagen no matter what you call it
[01:38:55.700 --> 01:39:02.700]  If you are not moving on the highway for hire, you are traveling
[01:39:02.700 --> 01:39:07.700]  And if you are in any kind of conveyance, it doesn't matter what kind it is
[01:39:07.700 --> 01:39:12.700]  If you're not operating for hire, you're traveling
[01:39:12.700 --> 01:39:16.700]  And the license, the state that I'm licensed out of, well actually I didn't
[01:39:16.700 --> 01:39:20.700]  That's not even applied because I was traveling, okay
[01:39:20.700 --> 01:39:25.700]  Yeah, so you have a license, but you weren't using it right then
[01:39:25.700 --> 01:39:32.700]  And even if it was expired, it didn't matter because you didn't need it
[01:39:32.700 --> 01:39:36.700]  I have one and I've never used it
[01:39:36.700 --> 01:39:41.700]  Now, the moment I furnished it to him, did I then lose all the defense?
[01:39:41.700 --> 01:39:48.700]  The moment you gave it to him, you were basically confessing that you were doing exactly what you're wishing to say you weren't doing
[01:39:48.700 --> 01:39:51.700]  Absolutely not
[01:39:51.700 --> 01:39:55.700]  I was just giving him my identification because that's what he needed to identify with
[01:39:55.700 --> 01:40:04.700]  The fact that you have a driver's license, when you agree to accept a driver's license, you agree to produce it on demand
[01:40:04.700 --> 01:40:07.700]  That does not place you in commerce
[01:40:07.700 --> 01:40:10.700]  Right, I can still stand on that in court
[01:40:10.700 --> 01:40:16.700]  Exactly, just because you have it and you're required to produce it, okay, here it is
[01:40:16.700 --> 01:40:20.700]  That doesn't mean you were acting in commerce just because you got it
[01:40:20.700 --> 01:40:23.700]  Right, okay
[01:40:23.700 --> 01:40:27.700]  That's my story and I'm sticking to it
[01:40:27.700 --> 01:40:32.700]  Eddie's probably going to dress me down about it, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it
[01:40:32.700 --> 01:40:39.700]  Well, I got that the case has a lot more validity if you do it, Eddie's way of never going to, of standing there from the start
[01:40:39.700 --> 01:40:44.700]  It's better, yeah, then you've raised that issue at the beginning
[01:40:44.700 --> 01:40:48.700]  Eddie, take me apart on that, I deserve it
[01:40:48.700 --> 01:40:54.700]  Okay, well the point here being that Carmen and I have talked about this over and over and over again
[01:40:54.700 --> 01:41:06.700]  When you present them with any of that information, then you are providing them with a prima facie presumption of evidence that you were doing exactly what they're accusing you of
[01:41:06.700 --> 01:41:14.700]  Once that prima facie point is established, it becomes that much harder for you to overcome it, that's the reason for not doing it
[01:41:14.700 --> 01:41:18.700]  And that's the presumption that you create by doing it
[01:41:18.700 --> 01:41:20.700]  That's why we don't
[01:41:20.700 --> 01:41:30.700]  So that's the reason I say if you did it and you gave him the information, then you just created a hill you've got to fight your way over
[01:41:30.700 --> 01:41:34.700]  Rather than having a flat road you can travel, you've got a mountain to climb now
[01:41:34.700 --> 01:41:41.700]  Because he's got you on video giving him exactly what he needed to accuse you of being in commerce
[01:41:41.700 --> 01:41:46.700]  The best thing to do is to have an ID card along with your driver's license
[01:41:46.700 --> 01:41:51.700]  And when they pull you over and demand your license, you give them your ID card
[01:41:51.700 --> 01:41:59.700]  And when they say, well this is an ID card, do you have a driver's license, you say, yes, but I'm not using it right now because I'm not engaged in commerce
[01:41:59.700 --> 01:42:06.700]  And if they threaten you with arrest, if you don't hand it over, well then it's your call
[01:42:06.700 --> 01:42:16.700]  But if you have the whole thing recorded, then you can prove that it was under duress that you handed it over and that you made it clear
[01:42:16.700 --> 01:42:27.700]  That you are not in commerce and that the only reason you are handing over your license and presenting it is because you were threatened with kidnapping if you didn't
[01:42:27.700 --> 01:42:34.700]  And that way you would preserve your case, but if they ask to see your license and you're just like, here it is
[01:42:34.700 --> 01:42:45.700]  Well then like Randy, like Eddie was saying and Harmon says, you've just given them prima facie evidence that you were engaged in commerce
[01:42:45.700 --> 01:42:56.700]  Yeah, Harmon has the argument on it that when you do that basically by giving them that piece of information you're asking to be regulated
[01:42:56.700 --> 01:42:57.700]  Right
[01:42:57.700 --> 01:43:06.700]  And I'm not so sure that I completely agree with that, but I haven't found a way to actually say absolutely not either
[01:43:06.700 --> 01:43:12.700]  It's better to err on the presumption that there's always a gotcha to it than not
[01:43:12.700 --> 01:43:23.700]  That keeps you more aware of what you're doing and why you shouldn't be doing it in the first place if you always presume there's a detrimental gotcha associated with it
[01:43:23.700 --> 01:43:30.700]  So now that I've done that, any other advice you have for me on how to go about this?
[01:43:30.700 --> 01:43:33.700]  Come to class on Sundays
[01:43:33.700 --> 01:43:35.700]  Is it going to be this Sunday?
[01:43:35.700 --> 01:43:40.700]  No, it's Sunday 2 to 5 and usually it goes 2 to 6, so yeah
[01:43:40.700 --> 01:43:42.700]  Alright, thanks Joshua
[01:43:42.700 --> 01:43:43.700]  Alright, thank you
[01:43:43.700 --> 01:43:44.700]  Okay
[01:43:44.700 --> 01:43:50.700]  Alright folks, we're going into our final segment. We'll try to rampage through as many of your calls as possible
[01:43:50.700 --> 01:43:57.700]  We've got Paul Array, Scotty Bryan, we don't get to all of you tonight, call back in tomorrow night for a 4 hour info marathon
[01:43:57.700 --> 01:43:59.700]  We'll be right back
[01:43:59.700 --> 01:44:02.700]  Hey, did you hear? Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012
[01:44:02.700 --> 01:44:03.700]  Who's Ron Paul?
[01:44:03.700 --> 01:44:06.700]  Really? Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute
[01:44:06.700 --> 01:44:09.700]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast
[01:44:09.700 --> 01:44:12.700]  Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks
[01:44:12.700 --> 01:44:13.700]  Of course you do
[01:44:13.700 --> 01:44:18.700]  Now listen closely, you need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and his message
[01:44:18.700 --> 01:44:22.700]  Before it's too late, they have all of his books and many of the books he talks about
[01:44:22.700 --> 01:44:27.700]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers and yard signs so that you can show your support for him during the campaign
[01:44:27.700 --> 01:44:30.700]  Brave New Books? Do they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[01:44:30.700 --> 01:44:36.700]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect your family in time of emergency
[01:44:36.700 --> 01:44:39.700]  Ugh, this sounds like that show on the Discovery Channel
[01:44:39.700 --> 01:44:45.700]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earthskill School that you can sign up for on the website
[01:44:45.700 --> 01:44:48.700]  at bookstore.com. What are you doing?
[01:44:48.700 --> 01:44:52.700]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to bravenewbookstore.com or down to the bookstore in person
[01:44:52.700 --> 01:44:53.700]  Where's it located?
[01:44:53.700 --> 01:44:55.700]  1904 Guadeloupe Street
[01:44:55.700 --> 01:44:57.700]  There, it's sent. I even made a smiley face
[01:44:57.700 --> 01:45:16.700]  Great
[01:45:27.700 --> 01:45:33.700]  This dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience
[01:45:33.700 --> 01:45:42.700]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:45:42.700 --> 01:45:51.700]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more
[01:45:51.700 --> 01:46:00.700]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ
[01:46:00.700 --> 01:46:22.700]  Hello, oh man, he's in jail, he got busted man, oh man, I'm broken
[01:46:22.700 --> 01:46:30.700]  This world I'll never understand, something I realized fully
[01:46:30.700 --> 01:46:38.700]  Somebody's on a police, that police man, somebody's on a police, a police
[01:46:38.700 --> 01:46:43.700]  There's always room out the top of the hill
[01:46:43.700 --> 01:46:47.700]  I hear through the gravemine and it's lonely left to
[01:46:47.700 --> 01:46:52.700]  They're wishing it with more than opposition to fail
[01:46:52.700 --> 01:46:57.700]  They know that if they don't do it, somebody will have some pain
[01:46:57.700 --> 01:47:04.700]  This world will never understand, something I realized fully
[01:47:04.700 --> 01:47:12.700]  Somebody's on a police, that police man, somebody's on a police, a police
[01:47:12.700 --> 01:47:17.700]  I know they will, yeah, they're gonna put the fail
[01:47:17.700 --> 01:47:21.700]  Because I don't see so much in God's will still
[01:47:21.700 --> 01:47:25.700]  I know they will, never fast, put it back, that's the gale
[01:47:25.700 --> 01:47:29.700]  I know they will, never fast, put it back, that's the gale
[01:47:29.700 --> 01:47:40.700]  I know they will, I know they will, I know they will
[01:47:40.700 --> 01:47:44.700]  Okay folks, we're back, we're gonna try to take as many of your calls as possible
[01:47:44.700 --> 01:47:49.700]  We've got Paula from Maine is up next, Paula, thank you for calling in
[01:47:49.700 --> 01:47:51.700]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:47:51.700 --> 01:47:56.700]  Hi Debbie, I have a few, so give me a few minutes here
[01:47:56.700 --> 01:48:00.700]  Okay, well can you try to limit it to one, because we only have 11 minutes left
[01:48:00.700 --> 01:48:02.700]  And we've got three callers, we've got four hours tomorrow night
[01:48:02.700 --> 01:48:05.700]  So please try to just limit it to one question
[01:48:05.700 --> 01:48:10.700]  I want to say on QuickApps you've got, that's great
[01:48:10.700 --> 01:48:13.700]  And also they have something on Talks Tube called emergency
[01:48:13.700 --> 01:48:17.700]  If you Google that, and on demand you can find something similar to QuickApps
[01:48:17.700 --> 01:48:21.700]  If you don't have that phone, so that's great
[01:48:21.700 --> 01:48:25.700]  And we have an ongoing case, which I want to ask a question
[01:48:25.700 --> 01:48:32.700]  Examining trial is the same as a Frank's hearing and probable cause hearing is it?
[01:48:32.700 --> 01:48:41.700]  Not a Frank's hearing, an examining trial is, that's your first hearing is an examining trial
[01:48:41.700 --> 01:48:51.700]  A Frank's hearing is a hearing for the purpose of determining the veracity of an officer who testified before a magistrate to secure a warrant
[01:48:51.700 --> 01:48:53.700]  That's a whole different issue
[01:48:53.700 --> 01:48:59.700]  Do you sluice your right at some point to have that examining trial?
[01:48:59.700 --> 01:49:00.700]  No
[01:49:00.700 --> 01:49:03.700]  Okay, alright
[01:49:03.700 --> 01:49:06.700]  Well, you do if you don't demand it
[01:49:06.700 --> 01:49:15.700]  Once you get to court, if you haven't objected to no examining trial, you've essentially waived the right to it
[01:49:15.700 --> 01:49:23.700]  If you make a general appearance and without objecting to the lack of an examining trial, you've waived the issue
[01:49:23.700 --> 01:49:37.700]  Well, now, if a person is a lawyer and they have not asked for any probable cause hearing, they have sent no communication to him
[01:49:37.700 --> 01:49:44.700]  Then, okay, if the lawyer has not communicated, that's grounds for a bar grievance
[01:49:44.700 --> 01:49:53.700]  If the lawyer has failed to adequately adjudicate your rights, that's grounds for a bar grievance and also grounds for a malpractice suit
[01:49:53.700 --> 01:49:55.700]  Oh, okay
[01:49:55.700 --> 01:50:00.700]  Well, I know that I need to work on some suits in Maine here for sure
[01:50:00.700 --> 01:50:05.700]  And in fact, I think I've emailed Randy in real estate, right? I think I got the right email
[01:50:05.700 --> 01:50:09.700]  No, go to Randy at the rule of law radio
[01:50:09.700 --> 01:50:11.700]  Okay
[01:50:11.700 --> 01:50:18.700]  I mean, in real estate, it's a separate site. That's where I just do real estate issues
[01:50:18.700 --> 01:50:24.700]  It gets too crowded if they all come in the same way
[01:50:24.700 --> 01:50:29.700]  Okay, for closure questions, would there be an email address that you can give us?
[01:50:29.700 --> 01:50:35.700]  Randy at ruleoflawradio.com
[01:50:35.700 --> 01:50:36.700]  Thanks
[01:50:36.700 --> 01:50:41.700]  Go to the website and the email will be on there
[01:50:41.700 --> 01:50:47.700]  You can also go to jurisimprudence.com
[01:50:47.700 --> 01:50:54.700]  And I have some resources there. Look at the rid of habeas corpus top left frog
[01:50:54.700 --> 01:50:59.700]  Read that. That'll give you a good discourse on due process
[01:50:59.700 --> 01:51:04.700]  Okay, can I give out my website?
[01:51:04.700 --> 01:51:08.700]  Sure. What is the website about?
[01:51:08.700 --> 01:51:13.700]  DirtyDecisions.com. It has the story of the unreasonable search
[01:51:13.700 --> 01:51:17.700]  I call it unreasonable. No court has yet to determine that
[01:51:17.700 --> 01:51:20.700]  Absolutely. Give it up
[01:51:20.700 --> 01:51:23.700]  Yeah, absolutely. Give it up
[01:51:23.700 --> 01:51:25.700]  DirtyDecisions.com
[01:51:25.700 --> 01:51:27.700]  All right. Thank you, Paula
[01:51:27.700 --> 01:51:29.700]  I've got you guys listed under there
[01:51:29.700 --> 01:51:30.700]  Thank you
[01:51:30.700 --> 01:51:31.700]  Nice. Thank you
[01:51:31.700 --> 01:51:35.700]  Okay, good night. Okay, we're going to go to Ray in Texas
[01:51:35.700 --> 01:51:38.700]  Ray, thank you for calling in. What is your question tonight?
[01:51:38.700 --> 01:51:42.700]  Hey guys, I wanted to compliment you and make a comparison
[01:51:42.700 --> 01:51:45.700]  I'm really glad that you guys don't screen your calls
[01:51:45.700 --> 01:51:49.700]  Like a lot of these biased New World Order radio stations
[01:51:49.700 --> 01:51:53.700]  Such as like 590AMKLBJ for one
[01:51:53.700 --> 01:51:57.700]  Wait a minute. How did this guy get on? I thought he should have been screened
[01:51:57.700 --> 01:52:02.700]  The other day they were talking on that radio station
[01:52:02.700 --> 01:52:06.700]  About the traffic laws and the toll roads and stuff
[01:52:06.700 --> 01:52:09.700]  And I called up and tried to explain a few things
[01:52:09.700 --> 01:52:11.700]  They were telling me that I was crazy
[01:52:11.700 --> 01:52:13.700]  They didn't want to hear it, no such thing
[01:52:13.700 --> 01:52:17.700]  I said you can look it up, text the transportation code and everything
[01:52:17.700 --> 01:52:20.700]  I just couldn't believe it. They're so biased in New World Order
[01:52:20.700 --> 01:52:23.700]  If you don't pay your tickets, you're a bad human
[01:52:23.700 --> 01:52:29.700]  Yeah, well remember Ray, all media other than independent media like this one
[01:52:29.700 --> 01:52:33.700]  Is owned by one of four major corporations
[01:52:33.700 --> 01:52:37.700]  And that includes all newspapers, all local radio stations
[01:52:37.700 --> 01:52:41.700]  All local television affiliates, all cable stations
[01:52:41.700 --> 01:52:46.700]  All satellite stations, all media period
[01:52:46.700 --> 01:52:50.700]  Unless it's one of an independent media outlet like us
[01:52:50.700 --> 01:52:53.700]  Or Info Wars, GCN or something like that
[01:52:53.700 --> 01:52:55.700]  Or Catherine Albrecht, unless it's one of us
[01:52:55.700 --> 01:53:00.700]  Or INN, World Report, they're all owned by one of four major corporations
[01:53:00.700 --> 01:53:02.700]  They all follow the New World Order agenda
[01:53:02.700 --> 01:53:04.700]  So of course they're going to screen their calls
[01:53:04.700 --> 01:53:07.700]  And if you don't say what they want you to say
[01:53:07.700 --> 01:53:09.700]  They're not going to let you on the air
[01:53:09.700 --> 01:53:13.700]  I called in and tried to get on the air and give it
[01:53:13.700 --> 01:53:16.700]  And as soon as they asked me what my statement was going to be
[01:53:16.700 --> 01:53:18.700]  And I told them, nope sorry can't have you on there doing that
[01:53:18.700 --> 01:53:22.700]  You can fool them sometimes but their call screeners are pretty slick nowadays
[01:53:22.700 --> 01:53:28.700]  They're used to people trying to score and pass them
[01:53:28.700 --> 01:53:30.700]  Well I think we need to start exposing them
[01:53:30.700 --> 01:53:34.700]  I really do, I think we need to start exposing all of it and get rid of them
[01:53:34.700 --> 01:53:38.700]  Well the best way to do that is to support independent media like this one
[01:53:38.700 --> 01:53:41.700]  Alright listen, we've got five minutes left, do you have a question for us?
[01:53:41.700 --> 01:53:46.700]  No, that's pretty much a go to Eddie's class, I mean you learn a lot, God
[01:53:46.700 --> 01:53:49.700]  Alright thanks Ray, we appreciate it
[01:53:49.700 --> 01:53:50.700]  Alright bye
[01:53:50.700 --> 01:53:51.700]  Okay bye bye
[01:53:51.700 --> 01:53:54.700]  Alright, we got time for another caller
[01:53:54.700 --> 01:53:57.700]  Brian was on the line but he dropped, we've got Scotty in Texas
[01:53:57.700 --> 01:54:01.700]  Scotty thank you for calling in, what is your question for us tonight?
[01:54:01.700 --> 01:54:05.700]  Well I was just thinking about the people getting threatened with life in prison
[01:54:05.700 --> 01:54:10.700]  For filming a public servant in a public situation
[01:54:10.700 --> 01:54:15.700]  How have we come to the point where something that absurd can happen?
[01:54:15.700 --> 01:54:18.700]  We spent the whole first hour talking about that Scotty
[01:54:18.700 --> 01:54:22.700]  We got to call in and talk when that was going on and I just, you know
[01:54:22.700 --> 01:54:24.700]  I mean I was in there in peace when I was a young man
[01:54:24.700 --> 01:54:27.700]  And if I had to do something absurd we'd have them to buzz off
[01:54:27.700 --> 01:54:30.700]  You know we just don't go along with it, we didn't go along with it's absurdity
[01:54:30.700 --> 01:54:35.700]  Well people are going to have to stop going along with it and people aren't going along with it
[01:54:35.700 --> 01:54:37.700]  That's why there's these court cases
[01:54:37.700 --> 01:54:40.700]  But the enforcers are the prosecutors and the police
[01:54:40.700 --> 01:54:47.700]  Well that's why people have to file lawsuits like Mr. Glick who just won a major case
[01:54:47.700 --> 01:54:53.700]  A civil lawsuit, he took it upon himself, he picked up the pieces
[01:54:53.700 --> 01:54:56.700]  Pulled himself up by the bootstraps, the charges were dropped against him
[01:54:56.700 --> 01:55:01.700]  And he filed lawsuit, a civil suit against these rogues for a violation of his rights
[01:55:01.700 --> 01:55:07.700]  And he's winning the case, he just got a ruling in his favor by the First Circuit Court of Appeals
[01:55:07.700 --> 01:55:12.700]  That's great, now enjoy listening, you people are like file reviewer trying to wait
[01:55:12.700 --> 01:55:14.700]  Oh thanks Scotty
[01:55:14.700 --> 01:55:18.700]  I've been thug doing around and thugging everybody, alright
[01:55:18.700 --> 01:55:22.700]  Alright yeah folks, we just have to, we have to pursue these issues
[01:55:22.700 --> 01:55:26.700]  We've got a file lawsuit, we've got to take it upon ourselves
[01:55:26.700 --> 01:55:31.700]  We have to file criminal complaints, we have to learn how to defend ourselves
[01:55:31.700 --> 01:55:36.700]  Learn how to control the attorneys, file these bar grievances and criminal complaints and stuff like that
[01:55:36.700 --> 01:55:38.700]  We've got three minutes left and no callers left
[01:55:38.700 --> 01:55:44.700]  So I wanted to go back to this notice issue that we were debating about and regarding proceeding
[01:55:44.700 --> 01:55:48.700]  It is very clear, we kind of sorted some of this out on the break, the last break
[01:55:48.700 --> 01:55:58.700]  It's very clear, Chapter 45.018b in the Code of Criminal Procedure says that the plaintiff, the prosecutor has to serve
[01:55:58.700 --> 01:56:05.700]  Notice of the criminal complaint at least one day prior to any proceeding
[01:56:05.700 --> 01:56:11.700]  The question is what does that mean? What qualifies as a proceeding?
[01:56:11.700 --> 01:56:19.700]  And as we discussed before, generally there's only two situations where a plea is taken at an arraignment or after a jury is impaneled
[01:56:19.700 --> 01:56:24.700]  However, Randy also pointed out, sometimes in an examining trial, a plea can be taken
[01:56:24.700 --> 01:56:32.700]  Now I had a discussion about this with Harmon, he said, he referred me to the Rothberry v Gillespie case, U.S. Supreme Court case
[01:56:32.700 --> 01:56:44.700]  It's very clear from that ruling that anytime there's any situation in court where a plea is taken, that qualifies as a quote-unquote proceeding
[01:56:44.700 --> 01:56:50.700]  So if they try to get a plea out of you, that's a proceeding, they have to give you one day notice of the criminal complaint
[01:56:50.700 --> 01:56:57.700]  So Randy's pointing out the obvious impracticality of that, say for example, somebody gets arrested
[01:56:57.700 --> 01:57:02.700]  And of course, they're supposed to be taken immediately to a magistrate for the examining trial
[01:57:02.700 --> 01:57:06.700]  And that would be a situation where a plea would be entered possibly
[01:57:06.700 --> 01:57:14.700]  So what are they supposed to do? Go back in a time machine and serve you one day ahead of time? No, obviously in that kind of situation, that is impossible
[01:57:14.700 --> 01:57:19.700]  But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a situation of a classy misdemeanor traffic ticket
[01:57:19.700 --> 01:57:28.700]  They sign the ticket on the side of the road where you promise to appear and they set that honor before date, two, three, four weeks in advance
[01:57:28.700 --> 01:57:37.700]  That's plenty of time for them to notice you with the criminal complaint one day, honor before that proceeding
[01:57:37.700 --> 01:57:44.700]  Which is when they try to get you to enter the plea and Randy you were saying that that makes sense because if you demand to be taken to the magistrate
[01:57:44.700 --> 01:57:49.700]  And immediately you're waving your right to that one day notice or something like that
[01:57:49.700 --> 01:57:58.700]  Did I kind of summarize it Randy? Yes, and at the examining trial you can say, I want my one day notice and they'll give it to you
[01:57:58.700 --> 01:58:04.700]  Or you can wave the one day notice and have the examining trial immediately so there's no real inconsistency there
[01:58:04.700 --> 01:58:10.700]  And that's why we follow motion to dismiss when you show up on the honor before date and they haven't noticed you
[01:58:10.700 --> 01:58:17.700]  And then when you go to pre-trial for sure that counts as a proceeding, there's no debate about that
[01:58:17.700 --> 01:58:24.700]  Okay, concerning traffic tickets, if they haven't noticed you with the criminal complaint honor before the one day before the pre-trial
[01:58:24.700 --> 01:58:31.700]  They haven't noticed you in a story, you file your special appearance, notarize, motion to dismiss based on no notice
[01:58:31.700 --> 01:58:36.700]  If you get a copy of the complaint in the file and it doesn't state a statute or an ordinance
[01:58:36.700 --> 01:58:41.700]  You move to quash the complaint and you notarize that too with a special appearance
[01:58:41.700 --> 01:58:48.700]  Everything you file has a special appearance with it, everything has to be notarized to preserve your special appearance
[01:58:48.700 --> 01:58:53.700]  To preserve your defense for no notice, so I hope that makes sense
[01:58:53.700 --> 01:58:56.700]  Right Eddie? Yes ma'am, absolutely
[01:58:56.700 --> 01:58:59.700]  Okay, we'll be back tomorrow
[01:58:59.700 --> 01:59:06.700]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version
[01:59:06.700 --> 01:59:13.700]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse
[01:59:13.700 --> 01:59:17.700]  Helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life
[01:59:17.700 --> 01:59:20.700]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America
[01:59:20.700 --> 01:59:25.700]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:25.700 --> 01:59:29.700]  Or visit us online at bfa.org
[01:59:29.700 --> 01:59:35.700]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references
[01:59:35.700 --> 01:59:39.700]  Plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible
[01:59:39.700 --> 01:59:41.700]  This is truly a Bible you can understand
[01:59:41.700 --> 01:59:50.700]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:50.700 --> 01:59:58.700]  Or visit us online at bfa.org