ROL_2012-01-09_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International Newsnet.
[00:05.000 --> 00:12.000]  Yemen's Cabinet Monday approved a draft law granting President Ali Abdullah Saleh immunity from prosecution.
[00:12.000 --> 00:20.000]  The law would give Amnesty to Saleh and his aides in all governments, civil and military departments during his 33-year rule.
[00:20.000 --> 00:28.000]  Pro-democracy activists, say the revolutionary guards run by Saleh's son were behind most attacks on anti-government protesters.
[00:28.000 --> 00:38.000]  A political action committee connected to Newt Gingrich recently received a $5 million donation from billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson.
[00:38.000 --> 00:43.000]  The money went to Winning Our Future, a so-called super PAC set up to support Gingrich.
[00:43.000 --> 00:49.000]  Such committees can take in unlimited donations from corporations, unions and individuals.
[00:49.000 --> 00:58.000]  Adelson is a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and owner of the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayon.
[00:58.000 --> 01:04.000]  The Justice Department Friday changed the definition of rape for the first time in 80 years.
[01:04.000 --> 01:08.000]  Rape was previously defined as forceful, penile penetration of a female.
[01:08.000 --> 01:14.000]  This excluded a vast number of sexual crimes or instances when a victim was unable to give consent.
[01:14.000 --> 01:23.000]  The new definition also expands the definition to reflect that anyone, male, female or transgender can be a rape victim.
[01:23.000 --> 01:34.000]  The mercenary company formerly known as Blackwater Friday settled two separate wrongful deaths cases stemming from its operations during the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
[01:34.000 --> 01:44.000]  The firm now known as Academy settled a lawsuit filed by victims and victims' families of a September 2007 shooting in Baghdad's Nice or Square.
[01:44.000 --> 01:52.000]  Blackwater guards indiscriminately opened fire in the crowded marketplace, leading to 14 deaths, including a nine-year-old boy.
[01:52.000 --> 02:00.000]  Academy also announced it was settling a wrongful death suit with the families of four contractors killed in a 2004 ambush in Fallujah.
[02:00.000 --> 02:09.000]  An administrator for the estates of the contractors sued Blackwater in 2005 after they were beaten, burned and executed while escorting a supply convoy.
[02:09.000 --> 02:19.000]  The company was accused of sending the contractors into a high-risk environment without armored vehicles, automatic weapons and the required number of personnel.
[02:19.000 --> 02:32.000]  The U.S. withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in December, but not before opening the door for Western oil firms. In November, Royal Dutch Shell signed a $17 billion flared gas deal for southern Iraq.
[02:32.000 --> 02:41.000]  Iraq's giant Rumela oilfield is also being developed by BP, and the other giant reserve, Majnoun Oilfield, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell.
[02:41.000 --> 02:50.000]  The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates Iraq's oil reserves had 112 billion barrels, ranking it second only to Saudi Arabia.
[02:50.000 --> 02:59.000]  The EIA also estimates up to 90% of the country remains unexplored due to decades of U.S.-led wars and economic sanctions.
[02:59.000 --> 03:13.000]  Antonio Juha's author of The Tyranny of Oil said thanks to the invasion and occupation, Western oil companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973.
[03:29.000 --> 03:39.000]  What you want, what you want, what you're going to do, when you share the sun don't come for you.
[03:39.000 --> 03:47.000]  Tell me, what you're going to do, what you're going to do, yeah.
[03:47.000 --> 04:06.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you're going to do, what you're going to do, when they come for you.
[04:06.000 --> 04:17.000]  Folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Wheel of Law radio show with Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, of course. It's not a 10 on the Monday Night shows, but that's okay.
[04:17.000 --> 04:24.000]  It is January 19th, 2012. We are well on our way into the new year, such as it may be.
[04:24.000 --> 04:34.000]  Let's hope that this is a new year of change that we all desire and need rather than more of the same, sending us down the same bottomless pit.
[04:34.000 --> 04:44.000]  Folks, that change is not going to occur until you and I get sick and tired of being forced to walk a path we don't agree with.
[04:44.000 --> 04:55.000]  That being said, what I want to do tonight is I want to go over some of the stuff that I covered in our class yesterday for those of you that listen in for the traffic information and so on and so forth.
[04:55.000 --> 05:05.000]  We're going to go through the setup of exactly what statutes are invoked at what point in the procedure of a traffic case.
[05:05.000 --> 05:22.000]  Now, immediately when a traffic stop occurs, the officer has invoked Chapter 543 of the Transportation Code, which is his power to arrest without warrant any person found committing a violation of this subtitle,
[05:22.000 --> 05:26.000]  meaning subtitle C of that transportation code.
[05:26.000 --> 05:46.000]  Now, given that, what we want to find out first off is some stuff that was brought to my attention in this class regarding a comment that arguing whether or not one is in transportation is not relevant.
[05:46.000 --> 05:55.000]  Okay, well, question. How can not being in transportation not be relevant?
[05:55.000 --> 06:04.000]  I mean, it's a simple question. It deserves a simple answer, I would think. But is the answer quite so simple? Not really.
[06:04.000 --> 06:08.000]  And then again, yes it is. But here's the way I look at it.
[06:08.000 --> 06:16.000]  First off, the law must apply to the individual to whom it's being applied.
[06:16.000 --> 06:22.000]  If it doesn't apply to that individual, then it has no authority over that individual.
[06:22.000 --> 06:30.000]  The individual must be engaging in the activity the law applies to.
[06:30.000 --> 06:44.000]  Now, in this case, when you're operating a motor vehicle, you're doing so under the auspices of acting as a carrier for the purpose of transportation.
[06:44.000 --> 06:52.000]  So how can someone say transportation is not relevant to the argument?
[06:52.000 --> 07:02.000]  Someone accuses you of breaking a transportation law, you have to be acting in transportation for that law to apply.
[07:02.000 --> 07:14.000]  It's absolutely no different than someone trying to charge an electrician for a violation of the rules and regulations associated with his electrician's license.
[07:14.000 --> 07:26.000]  And he's not using the license, he's not doing anything that deals with electrical installation in a house or anywhere else for that matter.
[07:26.000 --> 07:30.000]  The guy's installing insulation in someone's attic, helping out a friend.
[07:30.000 --> 07:35.000]  He's not using his electrician's license.
[07:35.000 --> 07:45.000]  So how can you punish him for an offense under his license when it can't possibly apply at this time?
[07:45.000 --> 07:48.000]  So again, why isn't that relevant?
[07:48.000 --> 07:51.000]  Let's take another example.
[07:51.000 --> 08:06.000]  The aggravated assault statute here in Texas, where it specifically says, if the actor is a public servant, then the offense is a felony of the first degree.
[08:06.000 --> 08:12.000]  Doesn't the prosecution have to prove at trial two things?
[08:12.000 --> 08:24.000]  Okay, one, that the individual in question is and was a public servant and was acting under the authority of that office.
[08:24.000 --> 08:31.000]  And two, that they were displaying a deadly weapon.
[08:31.000 --> 08:44.000]  At a minimum, the prosecution has to prove that or this enhancement to a first degree felony does not apply.
[08:44.000 --> 08:51.000]  Because it specifically says it applies to a public servant.
[08:51.000 --> 09:02.000]  Well, when you put this stuff into a code that it codifies all of the rules and regulations associated with transportation,
[09:02.000 --> 09:16.000]  then you are making it a requirement that everyone that commits an offense under that statute has to be engaging in the act the statute governs and regulates.
[09:16.000 --> 09:20.000]  How can it be otherwise?
[09:20.000 --> 09:30.000]  If it's not that way, then that means that if an air traffic controller has a specific regulation that has a criminal offense associated with it,
[09:30.000 --> 09:44.000]  then they can just run out and charge the guy that's directing traffic at the intersection of 10th Street and whatever for violating the deadly license belonging to that guy.
[09:44.000 --> 09:46.000]  It just can't do it.
[09:46.000 --> 09:51.000]  It doesn't apply.
[09:51.000 --> 09:53.000]  It's common sense here.
[09:53.000 --> 09:58.000]  You're saying I'm acting under the transportation regulations.
[09:58.000 --> 10:02.000]  Prove it.
[10:02.000 --> 10:06.000]  How can a lawyer argue that that's not relevant?
[10:06.000 --> 10:10.000]  It's absolutely relevant.
[10:10.000 --> 10:22.000]  Just like any other law, if you're going to charge me with the law, then all the necessary elements of the violation must be present.
[10:22.000 --> 10:27.000]  This is no different.
[10:27.000 --> 10:37.000]  Now, when the officer performs this initial stop, he is invoking 543.001 of the transportation code.
[10:37.000 --> 10:53.000]  He is making a presumption and has jumped to a legal conclusion that because you're in a car, you're in transportation.
[10:53.000 --> 10:58.000]  That conclusion is patently false.
[10:58.000 --> 11:07.000]  If you're not acting in transportation, then those transportation regs can't be made to apply to you.
[11:07.000 --> 11:09.000]  Why is that hard?
[11:09.000 --> 11:10.000]  Why is that difficult?
[11:10.000 --> 11:15.000]  Why is that even up for debate?
[11:15.000 --> 11:20.000]  I mean, what's the deal?
[11:20.000 --> 11:26.000]  How do you get from A to B and say it doesn't apply?
[11:26.000 --> 11:35.000]  Now, when the officer invokes 543, there's two ways for this stop to go.
[11:35.000 --> 11:39.000]  He writes the citation and you leave.
[11:39.000 --> 11:50.000]  He takes you into physical custody, even though he already has you in a custodial arrest.
[11:50.000 --> 11:58.000]  He now binds you up and locks you in the back of his car and transports you from where you are to where he's going to take you,
[11:58.000 --> 12:09.000]  which according to 543, better be immediately before a magistrate, which we all know they don't do.
[12:09.000 --> 12:27.000]  They instead take you and lock you in a jail cell and go through the booking process when no one has made a determination of probable cause to see whether or not what the officer has done is proper and lawful.
[12:27.000 --> 12:41.000]  Remember, this is an arrest without warrant. By definition, the arrest must be presumed unlawful until probable cause has been established.
[12:41.000 --> 12:50.000]  And only a competent judicial officer can do that.
[12:50.000 --> 12:52.000]  The cop can't do it.
[12:52.000 --> 12:56.000]  The clerk can't do it.
[12:56.000 --> 13:06.000]  The prosecuting attorney can't do it. Only a magistrate can do it.
[13:06.000 --> 13:17.000]  So, violation number one of your rights kicks in when the officer makes the stop and does not determine whether or not the rules he's attempting to enforce actually apply to you or not.
[13:17.000 --> 13:27.000]  Okay. He is treating you as if you are this when in fact you are not this.
[13:27.000 --> 13:40.000]  All right. Now, let's go with scenario number one, which is the most common in that you sign the notice to appear and you are allowed to leave.
[13:40.000 --> 13:52.000]  You are released from custody according to Chapter 543 of the Transportation Code by the arresting officer. He releases you from custody.
[13:52.000 --> 14:08.000]  Now, if you do what you should do and you show up in compliance with the notice to appear, this introduces several jurisdictional problems for the court right off the bat.
[14:08.000 --> 14:14.000]  Okay. And we'll be coming up on a break soon, so I'll get into those on the other side of that break.
[14:14.000 --> 14:34.000]  But for the moment, what this does is when you go in and you comply with the notice to appear, that immediately invokes 15.17G as in George of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[14:34.000 --> 14:51.000]  Okay. You go from the 543 situation under the traffic stop to the 15.17G section of the Code of Criminal Procedure if you appear in compliance with the notice to appear on the citation.
[14:51.000 --> 15:01.000]  Now, let's say for a second the opposite occurs. The officer locks you in his car and takes you to jail.
[15:01.000 --> 15:11.000]  What happens then? He's still required under 543 to take you immediately before a magistrate, not to jail, but we know that's what he's going to do.
[15:11.000 --> 15:18.000]  But if he did what the law actually says he's required to do, what should happen?
[15:18.000 --> 15:36.000]  So from 543 to 14.06B or C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is an arrest without warrant chapter. 15 is arrest under warrant, 14 is arrest without warrant.
[15:36.000 --> 15:56.000]  Okay. You got that? 1406A immediately directs everybody to 15.17 to perform the registration that's written into 15.17.
[15:56.000 --> 16:09.000]  Shouldn't be difficult, shouldn't be hard to follow the language of the statute and do what it's saying, but for some reason these magistrates tend to find that impossible.
[16:09.000 --> 16:20.000]  They tend to go along with the fact that, hey, where are the judges? The law does not apply to us when we want to do it differently.
[16:20.000 --> 16:30.000]  Now, do you see the problem here? You have a judge accusing or prosecuting you or adjudicating over a case where you're being prosecuted.
[16:30.000 --> 16:37.000]  Since they're all part of the same tag team, I find little relevance as to what particular way you describe what he's doing.
[16:37.000 --> 16:45.000]  He is assisting in the railroad job of your case, no matter how and what position you put him in.
[16:45.000 --> 16:51.000]  But that being said, hang on just a minute, folks. We'll pick this up on the other side. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[16:51.000 --> 17:00.000]  Call in numbers 512-646-1984. This is the Monday Night Traffic Show. I am Eddie Craig with Denver Stevens. We'll be right back after the break.
[17:00.000 --> 17:15.000]  In the 80s, they did it to rig a debt ceiling compromise. Democrats promising spending cuts with delivering only tax hikes.
[17:15.000 --> 17:27.000]  The 90s brought more compromises, more broken promises and more new taxes. This August, the next chapter will be written, a defining moment.
[17:27.000 --> 17:35.000]  $14 trillion in debt makes its unemployed the dollar in decline. We know where they stand.
[17:35.000 --> 17:42.000]  But will our party's leaders repeat the mistakes of the past? Will they choose compromise or conviction?
[17:42.000 --> 17:50.000]  One candidate has always been true. Ron Paul, cut spending, balanced the budget, no deals.
[17:50.000 --> 17:57.000]  Standing up to the Washington Machine, guided by principle. Restore America now.
[17:57.000 --> 18:00.000]  I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message.
[18:00.000 --> 18:09.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  Step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:27.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons. How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:41.000]  The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 19:12.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:12.000 --> 19:34.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is ruleoflawradio. Now, we're gonna go ahead and continue on with this here for a little bit and try to clean this up some on exactly what statutes are being invoked and thus ignored by these so-called judges in the misperformance of their duties
[19:34.000 --> 19:46.000]  because it's certainly not something they're doing correctly and we can use the statute and the very words coming out of their mouth and the acts performed in the courts to prove they're not doing it correctly.
[19:46.000 --> 19:56.000]  But once again, this is what happens when you deal with the arrogant and self-proclaimed infallible God-like creatures we call judges.
[19:56.000 --> 20:11.000]  So please bear with me while we all pay homage to their greatness and worthiness to be those that dictate to us what the law is when they themselves obviously have never even bothered to read it.
[20:11.000 --> 20:30.000]  Now, when the magistrate is in the court, he is required to perform the 1517 Magistration Hearing. 1517 mandates a series of things the judge must do and the judges never do these things.
[20:30.000 --> 20:48.000]  One of which is inform you of your rights. Now, how can you be prosecuted from beginning to end and at no point ever have been properly read your rights? How did that get to happen?
[20:48.000 --> 20:57.000]  Let's also look at the problem that we were talking about earlier relating to the jurisdictional issues.
[20:57.000 --> 21:06.000]  Now, when you follow the Texas Constitution, this is where we're going to invoke particular sections there and this is how we're going to do it.
[21:06.000 --> 21:20.000]  We're going to just take a straightforward reading and we're going to see where what's going on does not match the language demanded and required of our public servants under the Texas Constitution.
[21:20.000 --> 21:41.000]  Now, that alone should tell us we have a problem. But let's go to Article 5, Section 12, Subsection B. It says in very plain words, an indictment or information, invest the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[21:41.000 --> 22:04.000]  Now, for all intents and purposes, I don't give a rat's behind what the previous versions of the Texas Constitution said in regard to this specific thing because this alleged version of the Constitution superseded the old one.
[22:04.000 --> 22:15.000]  Okay? If that's not true, then we should be able to go back and use any section from any previous Constitution and say, hey, government, you're doing it wrong.
[22:15.000 --> 22:28.000]  In 1836, you had to do it this way. Why are you not doing it that way? What's the first defense they're going to say? Oh, well, in 1876, the Constitution changed. We don't have to do it that way anymore.
[22:28.000 --> 22:39.000]  Well, why can't we do the same thing? It says very clearly, only those two things invest the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[22:39.000 --> 22:54.000]  Now, the courts have unilaterally declared that a complaint can be the only thing necessary in these lower courts to do a criminal prosecution. How did they come to that conclusion?
[22:54.000 --> 23:05.000]  Just exactly how did they do that? There's nothing in the statute that allows the complaint to act as a charging instrument. Absolutely nothing.
[23:05.000 --> 23:15.000]  Everything in the statute must comply with the Texas Constitution. In this case, Article 5, Section 12, Subsection B.
[23:15.000 --> 23:39.000]  Now, if the court creates an interpretation or hands down a decision that conflicts with any provision of the Texas Constitution, including Article 5, Section 12B, then Article 1, Section 29 says that decision is void.
[23:39.000 --> 23:52.000]  When you read Article 1, Section 29, it does not say the general powers of the legislature are forever barred from interfering with the Bill of Rights.
[23:52.000 --> 24:06.000]  It doesn't say the general powers of the executive or it doesn't say the general powers of the judiciary. It says the general powers of government.
[24:06.000 --> 24:17.000]  That would be all branches. Everything in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the provisions of the Texas Constitution.
[24:17.000 --> 24:37.000]  I'm sorry. Everything in the Bill of Rights is forever accepted from the general powers of government and every law contrary there to is or any other provision of this Constitution is void.
[24:37.000 --> 24:53.000]  Well, if this decision is, quote, unquote, case law and that law is contrary to the provisions of Article 5, Section 12B, the law is void.
[24:53.000 --> 25:03.000]  The courts cannot declare it to have any more power than a legislative act that voted or interfered with the constitutional provision.
[25:03.000 --> 25:15.000]  Do these numbnuts not understand this? Why don't we the people understand it better?
[25:15.000 --> 25:31.000]  Why do we allow college professors at UT and A&M and all these other places, Rice University, all these places in Texas to teach the Texas Constitution doesn't mean what it says.
[25:31.000 --> 25:47.000]  What in the world would make you think that some idiot is qualified to teach your kids that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says?
[25:47.000 --> 26:08.000]  Believe me, folks, we've dug our own grave and jumped into it with both feet by not objecting and throwing people like this out of the jobs they're holding and the lies they're telling to our children, to us, to the general population.
[26:08.000 --> 26:23.000]  Okay, there's a reason the Founding Fathers called it self-governance. It starts with yourself.
[26:23.000 --> 26:36.000]  Not a hard concept. If you don't want to take care of yourself, then suffer the consequences. Don't look at me to take care of you for you.
[26:36.000 --> 26:45.000]  And at the same time, don't expect me to have to pay to fix what you let slide because you didn't want to take care of yourself.
[26:45.000 --> 26:55.000]  And I dang sure I'm not going to be bound by your pleas to my public servant to help you with my money.
[26:55.000 --> 27:13.000]  No, we did not authorize that. The government was not set up to do those things. General welfare does not mean you get to be generally lazy and generally worthless.
[27:13.000 --> 27:26.000]  And a generally sucking sponge on the rest of us that actually provide for ourselves and our family.
[27:26.000 --> 27:32.000]  It's the ant and the grasshopper syndrome all over again.
[27:32.000 --> 27:53.000]  We don't pay attention to what these people are doing. We don't know these individual statutes that they're invoking and using against us as if they somehow had the power to make our public servants super people over us.
[27:53.000 --> 28:12.000]  I don't recall ever seeing any employment agreement where the new guy that's hired as the mailroom boy suddenly is put in charge of the whole company.
[28:12.000 --> 28:25.000]  Not true. There's a Michael J. Fox movie where that happens, but you get the general gist here. Someone hired in this position doesn't get to the top just because they got hired at that low position.
[28:25.000 --> 28:37.000]  Yet we think that because we put a public servant into a public servant's job, they somehow become more powerful and omnipotent than we the people they actually serve.
[28:37.000 --> 28:42.000]  How does that mindset even begin to take hold?
[28:42.000 --> 28:54.000]  If I have kids, I guarantee you my mindset is not going to be, oh, you're newer than me. You're in charge.
[28:54.000 --> 29:06.000]  It just won't work. It's not working in government. It's sure not going to work in the parental situation any better.
[29:06.000 --> 29:12.000]  When these people are acting under these statutes, we need to know what they are and we need to make them a buy bomb.
[29:12.000 --> 29:24.000]  When the judge is not doing what 15.17 requires, we should be jumping on that judge with hobnail boots, golf shoes, aerator shoes for your lawn.
[29:24.000 --> 29:34.000]  I don't care, but that judge needs to be stomped into oblivion when the judge ignores the laws associated with the duty of their office.
[29:34.000 --> 29:40.000]  As does any other public servant.
[29:40.000 --> 29:51.000]  Yes, I'm raining and raving and it's about time because I don't hear anybody else getting out there and doing it and using the statutes themselves to make sense on why we have the right to do so.
[29:51.000 --> 30:00.000]  So please hang in there, folks. I promise I'll get back on point on the other side of the break. This is Rule of Law Radio. This is Eddie Craig. We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:06.000]  A Noble Lie at Oklahoma City 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[30:06.000 --> 30:10.000]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[30:10.000 --> 30:14.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:14.000 --> 30:17.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:17.000 --> 30:22.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:22.000 --> 30:26.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[30:26.000 --> 30:30.000]  Expose the cover-up now at InnobleLie.com
[30:56.000 --> 31:01.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[31:01.000 --> 31:14.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[31:14.000 --> 31:24.000]  Computer games, preschool academic testing, TV ads aimed at toddlers. Childhood isn't what it used to be and it could be affecting the mental health of our kids.
[31:24.000 --> 31:34.000]  In Britain, an epidemic of childhood depression has a prestigious group of scientists, authors, and charity leaders calling for a restoration of proper values to childhood.
[31:34.000 --> 31:46.000]  They want more outdoor play, a ban on advertising to kids under 7, play-based school curriculum, and a campaign warning parents how a computer and TV-based lifestyle threatens a wholesome childhood.
[31:46.000 --> 31:51.000]  Does that mean less Lady Gaga and more Christopher Robin? Bravo chaps!
[31:51.000 --> 31:56.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[32:21.000 --> 32:30.000]  This isn't a race from the top ocean. This isn't a race for the teen.
[32:30.000 --> 32:36.000]  Well I need a prosecutor to come and help me. Prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  They're my mother and a liar. Them tell me. Them are liars. They tell six stories.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  Me and a billy. Me and them tell me. 3% of Americans vote for motion.
[32:46.000 --> 32:53.000]  Now folks, we are back. Now, Magistrate is supposed to be performing 1517.
[32:53.000 --> 32:59.000]  1517, gee, is in vogue when you show up in compliance with the notice to appear.
[32:59.000 --> 33:12.000]  And it says very clearly there that if a person appears in compliance with the notice to appear on the citation, the magistrate shall perform the duties of this article, meaning 1517 as a whole.
[33:12.000 --> 33:28.000]  Now, if you come in under the arrest by the officer and he takes you in and actually took you before the magistrate, 14.06A is in vogue, which sends you immediately to 1517.
[33:28.000 --> 33:34.000]  So this is where everything joins, is in 1517.
[33:34.000 --> 33:46.000]  When you read 1517, it becomes clear that it's telling you the series of things, as we were saying before, the reading of the rights being one of the very first things required to be done.
[33:46.000 --> 34:01.000]  Now, in class I go over the points that if you take 1517 and read everything it says to do, there is, according to the language, a minimum of four court appearances that are to be required.
[34:01.000 --> 34:04.000]  The first one is the magistration itself.
[34:04.000 --> 34:08.000]  The second one is for the purpose of an examining trial.
[34:08.000 --> 34:22.000]  The third one is to appear at a later date for an arraignment, which the magistrate is required to create a written order and provide a copy of that order to the defendant.
[34:22.000 --> 34:25.000]  And then the fourth would be for trial.
[34:25.000 --> 34:32.000]  Now, those four presume that you have not filed any motions that have to have a pretrial hearing.
[34:32.000 --> 34:40.000]  If you do, then there will be a minimum of five because there will be pretrial hearings in between arraignment and trial.
[34:40.000 --> 34:54.000]  Now, what I've come up with out of the logic of what's going on here, here's the way things are happening versus how the statutes actually set them up and require them to be done.
[34:54.000 --> 34:57.000]  The officer is writing a citation.
[34:57.000 --> 35:03.000]  Sometimes it's 10 days out from the day you get the ticket, sometimes it's 30, whatever.
[35:03.000 --> 35:15.000]  But if you look at the provisions of the statutes, the minimum number of days the citation can be set for on your initial appearance is 17.
[35:15.000 --> 35:18.000]  Can't be less than 17.
[35:18.000 --> 35:19.000]  Why?
[35:19.000 --> 35:32.000]  Because it says there in chapter 45 that the person may not be accused, may not file any paperwork within seven days of trial.
[35:32.000 --> 35:34.000]  No motions, no nothing.
[35:34.000 --> 35:35.000]  Okay?
[35:35.000 --> 35:39.000]  Unless it's a challenge to jurisdiction which can be done at any time.
[35:39.000 --> 35:49.000]  But if you've got any pretrial issues, they cannot be filed later than seven days prior to trial.
[35:49.000 --> 35:52.000]  So right there we've got seven days minimum.
[35:52.000 --> 36:08.000]  But it goes on to say that this applies only if the defendant has had a minimum of 10 days in which to make their filings but to the court.
[36:08.000 --> 36:10.000]  So think about that.
[36:10.000 --> 36:20.000]  You can't file within seven days but you have to have at least 10 days to make your filings.
[36:20.000 --> 36:22.000]  Okay?
[36:22.000 --> 36:35.000]  Now if the cop sets it for let's say 12 days out and you can't file within seven days of your court appearance,
[36:35.000 --> 36:41.000]  then you've only got five days in which to file your paperwork.
[36:41.000 --> 36:46.000]  From the time you get the ticket until you hit that seven day no file window,
[36:46.000 --> 36:53.000]  which the statute clearly says can only happen if you had 10 days to get the filing done.
[36:53.000 --> 37:02.000]  Therefore, mathematically speaking, the minimum number of days that can be allowed is 17.
[37:02.000 --> 37:11.000]  Okay? In order for you to have that 10 days and since they can't be any filings within those seven days,
[37:11.000 --> 37:22.000]  they could conceivably hold it on the 11th day but then again that would still put you within only four days of that window of the seven day no file.
[37:22.000 --> 37:28.000]  So you see, mathematically it can only be 17 days, minimum.
[37:28.000 --> 37:29.000]  But it's not.
[37:29.000 --> 37:31.000]  It varies.
[37:31.000 --> 37:36.000]  I've had them write it where I've had to appear the very next day.
[37:36.000 --> 37:45.000]  I've had them write it where I've had to appear in less than 10 days or on the actual 11th day,
[37:45.000 --> 37:53.000]  all of which violates the statutory requirements of that 10 day window in which I'm allowed to file my paperwork.
[37:53.000 --> 38:01.000]  The theory on that is this, that 10 day window is not only for the defense to file their paperwork,
[38:01.000 --> 38:12.000]  it is also for the prosecution to get all of their ducks in a row and to get in all of their complaints, their charging instruments,
[38:12.000 --> 38:17.000]  everything they're required to have to get an issue in front of the court.
[38:17.000 --> 38:25.000]  Remember, Article 5, Section 12b, only an indictment or information invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[38:25.000 --> 38:29.000]  Here's where the jurisdictional problem crops up.
[38:29.000 --> 38:42.000]  These courts don't have a complaint, they don't have a charging instrument, yet where is their authority to hold a magistration?
[38:42.000 --> 38:46.000]  There's no complaint written, they can't perform a magistration.
[38:46.000 --> 38:51.000]  There's no complaint written, they can't perform an examining trial.
[38:51.000 --> 38:55.000]  They lack any jurisdiction to do those things.
[38:55.000 --> 39:10.000]  Now, if probable cause is found at the examining trial, then we get an information or the information should already exist
[39:10.000 --> 39:17.000]  and probable cause then proceeds to show up for the purpose of arraignment.
[39:17.000 --> 39:28.000]  Now again, if there is a complaint and charging instrument, the court now has jurisdiction to take a plea and hold an arraignment.
[39:28.000 --> 39:32.000]  But in the cases of these traffic tickets, they don't.
[39:32.000 --> 39:42.000]  There is not a complaint, there is no charging instrument, and the courts have completely skipped the 15.17 magistration,
[39:42.000 --> 39:46.000]  the examining trial, and have gone directly to arraignment.
[39:46.000 --> 39:59.000]  So let me ask you again, how is this magistrate vested with jurisdiction to take a plea when there is no issue pending before the court?
[39:59.000 --> 40:13.000]  Where exactly did the court get any kind of jurisdiction to take a plea and enter it in a case that doesn't exist?
[40:13.000 --> 40:17.000]  If there's no complaint, there's no conflict.
[40:17.000 --> 40:23.000]  If there's no conflict, there's nothing for the court to hear.
[40:23.000 --> 40:29.000]  If there is no complaint, there cannot be an indictment or information.
[40:29.000 --> 40:38.000]  And without that indictment or information, the court is not vested with jurisdiction to go to trial.
[40:38.000 --> 40:45.000]  So again, how do they take a plea at an arraignment?
[40:45.000 --> 40:53.000]  How do they get you in there on the day of trial and you've never seen a complaint or charging instrument?
[40:53.000 --> 40:58.000]  Because we don't know what we're supposed to have made available to us.
[40:58.000 --> 41:01.000]  We didn't learn the rules.
[41:01.000 --> 41:14.000]  We didn't learn what statutes are being invoked at what time and by who and document how they're not doing their dang job.
[41:14.000 --> 41:21.000]  That right there, folks, is what all of the documents that I do in the traffic seminar do.
[41:21.000 --> 41:26.000]  I take all of these issues that we talk about on the Monday night shows and in the classes.
[41:26.000 --> 41:28.000]  I take all of these issues.
[41:28.000 --> 41:34.000]  I write them down as references to the statutes.
[41:34.000 --> 41:39.000]  I make the argument that they lack jurisdiction or they're not doing this or they're not doing that.
[41:39.000 --> 41:45.000]  Or that what they're doing conflicts with the law in general, conflicts with the Constitution in general,
[41:45.000 --> 41:54.000]  and I give them complete, total argument and reference to support my argument as I can.
[41:54.000 --> 42:00.000]  I don't go in and say, in this section, you're doing it wrong because and leave it at that.
[42:00.000 --> 42:02.000]  That's stupid.
[42:02.000 --> 42:08.000]  Why? Because they're going to look for 10 ways to argue that section differently.
[42:08.000 --> 42:13.000]  So what I do is I find all the other sections that are in paramateria,
[42:13.000 --> 42:18.000]  meaning relating to the same subject as the section I want to argue.
[42:18.000 --> 42:31.000]  And I show how my interpretation is the only one that is consistent with all the other provisions of the statutes and the Texas Constitution.
[42:31.000 --> 42:43.000]  And if they want to argue it differently, then they have to find a way to still make their argument reconcile with all of these other provisions.
[42:43.000 --> 42:49.000]  That's the one thing I have noticed the most about appellate court cases.
[42:49.000 --> 43:02.000]  The judges, besides smoking some really serious dope, only argue just enough of the statute to come to the conclusion they want.
[43:02.000 --> 43:16.000]  They very rarely take into consideration and contrast their interpretation of one piece of statutory law with all of the other pieces that are relevant to the same subject matter.
[43:16.000 --> 43:22.000]  They completely ignore the rest of the law as if it doesn't have anything to do with that.
[43:22.000 --> 43:27.000]  And it's wrong.
[43:27.000 --> 43:37.000]  I mean, if we held a knowledge and skills test of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the magistrates and judges of Texas,
[43:37.000 --> 43:45.000]  I doubt very seriously if we would have a single one of these people allowed to remain sitting on the bench.
[43:45.000 --> 43:51.000]  Alright folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. We are going to start taking your calls on the other side of the break.
[43:51.000 --> 44:19.000]  I do see a couple of folks there, Ramon, Scott, calling number is 512-646-1984. We will be right back.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  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.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 44:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[44:56.000 --> 45:01.000]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:05.000]  The Oklahoma City Bombing. Top 10 reasons to question the official story.
[45:05.000 --> 45:09.000]  Reason number one, John Doe number two, and other accomplices.
[45:09.000 --> 45:17.000]  On the day of the bombing, nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the Ryder truck report that he was accompanied by other perpetrators.
[45:17.000 --> 45:24.000]  The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone delivered the Ryder truck bomb to the Murrah Building and detonated it.
[45:24.000 --> 45:32.000]  The only witness the government produced to place McVeigh at the building that morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her children and one of her legs in the bombing,
[45:32.000 --> 45:39.000]  testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the fable John Doe number two, exiting the Ryder truck.
[45:39.000 --> 45:44.000]  While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing,
[45:44.000 --> 45:52.000]  no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he rented the Ryder truck,
[45:52.000 --> 45:57.000]  and in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators.
[45:57.000 --> 46:03.000]  For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:03.000 --> 46:22.000]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. The call in number is 512-646-1984.
[46:22.000 --> 46:29.000]  We do have a couple of callers on the board. We're going to go to Ramon in Texas. Scott, we'll get to you as soon as we get done there.
[46:29.000 --> 46:53.000]  Ramon, what can we do for you?
[46:53.000 --> 47:01.000]  I'm not guilty and I request the trial by judge.
[47:01.000 --> 47:23.000]  When I get up to the church, what do I need to do to say that I'm not eligible to be, you know, I wasn't feeling because I was not in transportation.
[47:23.000 --> 47:33.000]  Eddie, are you there?
[47:33.000 --> 47:40.000]  Yeah, I'm here. I'm just trying to figure out. Ramon, by any chance are you on a speakerphone? Because I've got two issues here.
[47:40.000 --> 47:48.000]  One, I can barely understand you. Two, I'm not really sure I'm understanding because of that the point of your question on this motion.
[47:48.000 --> 47:56.000]  No, it's not necessarily a question of the motion here. I'll step inside. It's probably better.
[47:56.000 --> 48:05.000]  It's not a question of the specific motion or anything that I'm just saying. How would I present the fact that I was not in transportation to a judge if I were to...
[48:05.000 --> 48:17.000]  You're not. You're not. What you're going to do is you're going to simply argue that every time they assert that you were in transportation, you're simply going to object to such assertion.
[48:17.000 --> 48:24.000]  This is the issue of when they use one of the terms from the transportation code, you object to it and the objection is straightforward.
[48:24.000 --> 48:40.000]  It's a three-part legal objection. Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.
[48:40.000 --> 48:52.000]  They're asserting transportation. We're asserting no, we're not. Okay? You don't argue not in transportation specifically.
[48:52.000 --> 49:05.000]  You're arguing that you're making a presumption that I am doing something that I wasn't doing. You're not providing any evidence that I was doing the thing you're accusing me of.
[49:05.000 --> 49:16.000]  In the capacity that I must have been in in order to do it. No one ever proves capacity.
[49:16.000 --> 49:30.000]  And when you're acting in transportation, that is a capacity that why the courts have not seen fit to declare that as a necessary element to be proven is beyond me.
[49:30.000 --> 49:38.000]  Well, actually, it's not. They did it to aid and abet the usurpation of state authority over the people.
[49:38.000 --> 49:51.000]  They use it to aid and abet the government compulsory control of your day-to-day life in business by regulating you through a means that was never meant to apply to you.
[49:51.000 --> 50:01.000]  Consider this. No license. You can't travel when and where you please without them being able to track you through that license.
[50:01.000 --> 50:11.000]  No registration. They can't track you when and where they please or control your movements if you don't have the license or the registration on your car.
[50:11.000 --> 50:30.000]  The inspection. Same deal. If you don't fork over money and allow us to say that your car has been properly inspected for safety and pay us the requisite fees, then we're not going to allow you to use it.
[50:30.000 --> 50:45.000]  That sounds like a protection racket to me. That's exactly what it is. Since when is a license anything other than voluntary?
[50:45.000 --> 50:55.000]  And since when, if I have the right to buy a piece of property, am I not allowed to use that property for its intended purpose?
[50:55.000 --> 51:13.000]  When the courts have ruled for decades upon decades that I can do exactly that. I bought it. I paid for it. It belongs to me. I can use it for its intended purpose as long as that purpose is not to cause harm.
[51:13.000 --> 51:27.000]  But where does an idiot judge get off arguing that this is not a property rights issue any more than it is any other type of rights issue? It absolutely is.
[51:27.000 --> 51:44.000]  Sorry, you're about to say something. Yeah, I wonder if we really take like a place from Al Capone and replace the words Al Capone with the state. I wonder if that would go pretty well.
[51:44.000 --> 51:52.000]  You can use any type of criminal nomenclature as far as I'm concerned. They would all be appropriate.
[51:52.000 --> 52:02.000]  That's funny. So with objection, you said it was a three-point objection. So the state, when you request a trial by judge, you obviously could present...
[52:02.000 --> 52:10.000]  No, no, no, wait. You do not ever request a trial by judge. Don't ever do that.
[52:10.000 --> 52:14.000]  So it's better to do it by trial by jury then, right?
[52:14.000 --> 52:22.000]  Always. Never do a big trial. Never.
[52:22.000 --> 52:26.000]  When you present a quick trial, when you want to do trial by jury...
[52:26.000 --> 52:36.000]  No, they cannot charge you a fee for a jury trial. Only if you fail to show up for the jury trial can they charge you for the cost of the jurors.
[52:36.000 --> 52:57.000]  Oh, I don't know, man. I figure. All right. So in front of the jury, when you're in front of the jury and the prosecutor and the judge, I guess the prosecution reaches your case and you're called up and the prosecution attempts to start to state that you were a violation of the violation of ordinance.
[52:57.000 --> 53:01.000]  And that's when you have your objection.
[53:01.000 --> 53:06.000]  Ordinance is something different. An ordinance is not a law.
[53:06.000 --> 53:09.000]  Yeah, the statute, I guess, would be the correct word, right?
[53:09.000 --> 53:15.000]  Yeah. You have to be in violation of the state statute.
[53:15.000 --> 53:17.000]  That's what I meant. Statutes.
[53:17.000 --> 53:29.000]  Okay. And you don't argue the violation, okay? You're simply arguing that you're asserting I was engaging in a capacity that I was not engaging in.
[53:29.000 --> 53:33.000]  And unless I'm in that capacity, this law doesn't apply.
[53:33.000 --> 53:45.000]  And in this particular case, I'm objecting to your assertion through the use of the terminology in an attempt to associate me with that capacity.
[53:45.000 --> 54:02.000]  You've seen these movies case of mistaken identity. You've got a guy standing at the door of a restaurant who's dressed, who just happens to be dressed like the other employees and someone mistakenly has him come over to take their order.
[54:02.000 --> 54:09.000]  Okay. He's not a waiter. He doesn't work for the restaurant.
[54:09.000 --> 54:16.000]  He's under no obligation to take and deliver this order.
[54:16.000 --> 54:22.000]  Okay. And the owner of the restaurant can't come along and punish him for not doing it.
[54:22.000 --> 54:33.000]  And it won't do the patron any good to complain to the owner of the restaurant because this guy doesn't work for the restaurant.
[54:33.000 --> 54:41.000]  This is exactly the situation they placed us in with transportation.
[54:41.000 --> 54:43.000]  Does it make sense?
[54:43.000 --> 54:56.000]  It's kind of like you're in the office and unless you're using that movie office space for there, this one guy doesn't get his paycheck and then they're like, hey, HR told me to talk to you.
[54:56.000 --> 55:03.000]  And then the guy's like, oh, no, well, you need to talk to HR to get your paycheck. And then he's like, oh, well, HR told me to talk to you.
[55:03.000 --> 55:06.000]  I was like, no, you need to talk to HR about that.
[55:06.000 --> 55:14.000]  No, it's just like, you need to go over that and it's kind of like a timeless and the cycle kind of thing, you know.
[55:14.000 --> 55:17.000]  Right. But do you understand the argument?
[55:17.000 --> 55:18.000]  No, I don't.
[55:18.000 --> 55:24.000]  You're not arguing right to travel. You're not even actually arguing transportation.
[55:24.000 --> 55:34.000]  You're simply objecting to the prosecution's attempt to paint you with the brush that says and associates you with transportation.
[55:34.000 --> 55:47.000]  When he starts using the terms and phrases from the code to insinuate that your activity falls under its regulatory scheme, you're objecting to it.
[55:47.000 --> 55:49.000]  No, it doesn't.
[55:49.000 --> 55:56.000]  You have no proof and have no evidence that I was acting as a carrier.
[55:56.000 --> 56:06.000]  And the only people to whom these statutes apply are those that are acting as carriers.
[56:06.000 --> 56:08.000]  So what do you think would typically happen?
[56:08.000 --> 56:14.000]  Once I present this information, what would typically happen?
[56:14.000 --> 56:16.000]  You're going to lose?
[56:16.000 --> 56:24.000]  You're going to lose. If you go into the trial court thinking you're going to win, think again.
[56:24.000 --> 56:28.000]  The trial court is rigged against you from the get go.
[56:28.000 --> 56:36.000]  There is no such thing at the trial level in a justice or municipal court as a fair and impartial trial.
[56:36.000 --> 56:40.000]  No such thing.
[56:40.000 --> 56:48.000]  In order for the trial to be fair and impartial, the magistrate has to first know his job and they don't.
[56:48.000 --> 57:01.000]  And the few that do still don't know it well enough to take into consideration that their actions were criminal at some other point.
[57:01.000 --> 57:05.000]  So you're saying that the jury would basically rule against me and plead us.
[57:05.000 --> 57:11.000]  That's correct, which is why you make the appellate record in writing.
[57:11.000 --> 57:14.000]  That's why you can't rely on a court reporter.
[57:14.000 --> 57:22.000]  That's why we do everything via affidavits, motions, and we get the record made through what we file.
[57:22.000 --> 57:26.000]  Have you ever successfully tried a case with this sort of method?
[57:26.000 --> 57:33.000]  We've gotten over 80 of them dismissed or one here in Texas, here in Austin specifically.
[57:33.000 --> 57:35.000]  I didn't know what this method was.
[57:35.000 --> 57:42.000]  After you talked about the prima facie or speeding also, that's a place here in Texas also, right?
[57:42.000 --> 57:44.000]  Yes.
[57:44.000 --> 57:45.000]  That's crazy.
[57:45.000 --> 57:51.000]  I wonder why they would do stuff like that where they put us in transportation.
[57:51.000 --> 57:56.000]  And you told me before that it's a thing about power, right?
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  It's about control.
[57:58.000 --> 58:04.000]  It's about controlling the movement of the population, tracking and control.
[58:04.000 --> 58:06.000]  It was nice talking to you.
[58:06.000 --> 58:09.000]  I appreciate the information.
[58:09.000 --> 58:10.000]  Sure thing, Ramon.
[58:10.000 --> 58:11.000]  Thanks for calling in.
[58:11.000 --> 58:12.000]  All right, Scott, we see you there.
[58:12.000 --> 58:13.000]  Hang on.
[58:13.000 --> 58:15.000]  I will pick you up on the other side of the break.
[58:15.000 --> 58:17.000]  This is the top of the hour break.
[58:17.000 --> 58:19.000]  So we'll be gone for about four minutes or so.
[58:19.000 --> 58:21.000]  But hang in there, Scott.
[58:21.000 --> 58:23.000]  Folks, Scott will be my last caller.
[58:23.000 --> 58:27.000]  So unless you want me to head back to the raining and the raving, give us a call.
[58:27.000 --> 58:31.000]  512-646-1984.
[58:31.000 --> 58:34.000]  This is Eddie Craig on the Rule of Law Radio Monday Night Traffic Show.
[58:34.000 --> 59:00.000]  We'll be right back on the other side of this break.
[59:00.000 --> 59:04.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[59:04.000 --> 59:11.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:11.000 --> 59:16.000]  The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:16.000 --> 59:23.000]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:23.000 --> 59:28.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:28.000 --> 59:37.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:37.000 --> 59:50.000]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons but is not yet building any.
[01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  His comments denote a softening from more alarmist rhetoric by the Obama administration that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons capability.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  Panetta, however, did not rule out launching preemptive strikes.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:36.000]  In Iranian court Monday, sentenced to death, Amir Mizai Hakmati, a former U.S. Marine, accused of working for the CIA.
[01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  Iran says Hakmati received special training and served at U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before heading to Iran for his spy mission.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:50.000]  On December 18, Iran's state TV broadcasts Hakmati making a confession.
[01:00:50.000 --> 01:01:02.000]  Despite lobbying by the mining industry and congressional Republicans, the Obama administration is banning new uranium mining claims on one million acres near the Grand Canyon.
[01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  Environmental groups call the ban the decisive victory, noting the Colorado River, which runs through the Grand Canyon, is the source of drinking water for 26 million Americans.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:27.000]  One man was killed Monday and three others wounded at a demonstration in Lagos, Nigeria's largest commercial city, during a general strike against cuts in fuel subsidies, which have caused gas prices to more than double.
[01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:37.000]  The cuts have also led to sharply increased bus fares in a country where most of the 160 million people live on less than $2 a day, despite the country's oil wealth.
[01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  Several thousand protesters gathered in the capital, Abuja, despite a massive security presence.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  Police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd.
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  President Goodluck Jonathan has sought to get Nigerians used to the subsidy cut.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  Jonathan told the nation Saturday to save Nigeria, we must all be prepared to make sacrifices.
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:00.000]  The government says it spent more than $8 billion on subsidies in 2011.
[01:02:00.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  Its annual oil revenue is over $30 billion.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  In Malaysian court Monday, a quitted opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim of Sodomay, ruling the prosecution's DNA evidence was unreliable.
[01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  Anwar, who faced up to 20 years in prison for allegedly having sex with a former aide, called the charges politically motivated.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:36.000]  Earlier allegations against Anwar, a former deputy prime minister, were made shortly after 2008 elections that saw the opposition make sizeable gains against the United Malays National Organization Party in power for the last 50 years.
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  This was the second Sodomy trial against Anwar, who was beaten and jailed for six years, in another case, widely seen as dubious.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  National elections are due by 2013, although analysts expect they'll be called sooner.
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  According to all our told supporters, in the coming election, the voice of the people will be heard and this corrupt government will be toppled from its pedestals of power.
[01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:44.000]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rural Law Radio. The call in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  We have some callers on the board. Right now we're going to go to Scott in Arizona. Dennis Patrick, we see you there, so hang on and we'll be with you momentarily.
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  All right, Scott, what can we do for you?
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  All right, sir. First of all, let me ask, has your material been, shall we say, converted to Arizona?
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  No, it has not. My material is basically to teach you self-study of the statutes in your own state. It goes through and teaches you how to read and understand statutory law and the types of words and phrases and terminology you should be looking for so that you can piece together what your laws actually say.
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  Okay. What I'm looking at is a photographic presumption of a reasonable and prudent violation. From what I can see from this paperwork so far, it's kind of a mixed message because, of course, they invite you to tear off the piece to ask for a...
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait. This is paperwork pertaining to what?
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  This is a photograph ticket and complaint for a violation of speed greater than reasonable and prudent and it just gets mailed out. Along with that, they give you several pieces that you can either tear off and pay it or you can request a trial slash hearing.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:42.000]  But what's confusing about it, I guess, is the fact that it does indicate on there that you're required to, under laws, basically it's a judicial economy type of statement, to waive the process service,
[01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  which leads me to believe that they would still need to actually serve this ticket and complain other than just... And I understand I need to go ahead and read those out of the rules of court.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  But I guess what I want to find out from you, though, as far as your material, I could do the work to certainly go ahead and convert things over as I need to for my appropriate statutes and such. Do you actually have then... Is your paperwork a series of paperwork motions and such that would be filed to deal with this particular situation?
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  Yes.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:50.000]  Okay. I heard you saying to the last person to... And I want to know if this would still apply the same when it comes to a reasonable and prudent. If you would be arguing the transportation... I'm sorry, not transportation, but arguing the fact that the state is presuming that I'm engaged in the commercial activity,
[01:06:50.000 --> 01:07:16.000]  being that with what I've read so far just from the statute with Arizona under the definitions in Title 28, which is Arizona's transportation statutes, I have not found anything at this point that indicates, as I've heard you talk about, Texas acting as a carrier or...
[01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  What is the code there titled? Or what is the title called?
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:27.000]  The title of the code is just one word, transportation.
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  Right. That is what denotes it as applying to carriers. The legal definition of transportation. Is that term defined in the statute anywhere?
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  No, it's not.
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  Exactly. But it has been defined by the United States Supreme Court. It is the movement of persons or property from one place to another by carrier. They have also defined the term carrier.
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:09.000]  The carrier can be either public or private, and they are ones who engage in the business of transporting persons or property for compensation or hire.
[01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  Okay. So in this type of situation, assuming that now we're in this trial position, would your approach be that of what you just told the previous gentleman to object simply on the basis of them presuming that I'm engaged in this activity and stay away from...
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  I would immediately file an affidavit, which is in the material that I have. We have an affidavit not in transportation or commerce.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:43.000]  Okay.
[01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  And it stipulates right up front, this individual was not actively engaging in any type of transportation or commercial activity in the capacity of a carrier.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  Okay.
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  Alrighty. Let me ask you, too, if I have a couple of other questions that come about on this, what is the contact for you to let you earn some more silver?
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:18.000]  You know what I'm saying?
[01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  It's announced a silver per hour of assistance.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  Right. I understand. And how does one go about if I choose to...
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:34.000]  Send me an email with your contact information and I'll reply back to it with all of mine and we can go from there.
[01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:36.000]  And the email is going to be...
[01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  Eddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  Okay. And as far as the purchase and getting this...
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  You can order it directly through me or through the rule of law radio website, either one.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  Okay. And how long typically... I've got a... This thing is asking for... It says it has set up a hearing on the 18th.
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  That's another thing. I guess that...
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  Well, part of it is how quickly would it go out. But that's the other thing. It's got this thing set up as a...
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  Well, I can email you the initial set of documents immediately once we know that you've purchased it.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  I can send you the updated documents that I have.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  All of the documents are currently undergoing revision and conversion to a standardized set.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  All right.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:38.000]  And so what I can do is send you what I have currently and you can adapt them as needed to what you're doing.
[01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  Okay.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  But all of the arguments are in there relating to Texas law.
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  So the first thing you're going to have to do is take them and make them relevant to Arizona law.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  Certainly.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  Okay.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  And Scott, as far as how quickly it goes out, that depends on the speed of your Internet connection.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  You get a download link. We don't mail out DVDs. You have to download it.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  Okay. Yeah. That's not what I meant.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  See, I was figuring it was something that would go through snail mail and I was just looking at the fact that this thing reads...
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:22.000]  Well, we can do snail mail, but it costs more because the material is now taking up almost 10 DVDs.
[01:11:22.000 --> 01:11:29.000]  And of course, we got to charge extra for the individual DVDs and the shipping and handling of that much weight.
[01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  Right.
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:36.000]  Tell me if you would, by the way, your statement of the 80-some wins, are these or dismissals?
[01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:42.000]  I also heard your statement, don't expect in the municipal trial setting...
[01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  If you actually go to trial the odds of winning or slim to none because you're not going to get to educate the jury,
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  the prosecutor and the judge will see to that.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:58.000]  Right or wrong, you're not going to get the jury to understand the issue.
[01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  They are being told and have been indoctrinated into...
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  It's the same thing as the income tax.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  Why would you let this guy get away with not paying his fair share when you have to do it?
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:14.000]  Well, the thing is, they don't have to do it any more than you do.
[01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  They just don't understand that.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:18.000]  Right.
[01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  Right.
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:20.000]  Okay.
[01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  And then, so of these 80-some odd folks, are you stating that these would be considered wins or dismissals in the appellate?
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:43.000]  No, if they're won at the trial level, they don't go to appeal and if they're dismissed, they don't go to appeal.
[01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  So no, they don't have anything to do with appellate.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  Okay.
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  All right.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  So are the majority of the people using the material having to go to the appellate though?
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  No, they're not going to the appellate.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  The case is dismissed that before it goes to trial because we've already documented so many grievous due process and statutory violations that if it went to the appeals court, the judge stands to lose their job.
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:15.000]  Ah, so the majority of these you're saying then are not even making it to trial?
[01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  Exactly.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:17.000]  Okay.
[01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  All right.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  That's what I wanted to understand.
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  Yeah, in fact, Jerry, if you go back and listen to the show where my husband Jerry was on talking about him beating the talking on a cell phone in a school zone, that one actually did go to trial almost.
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  He was at the hearing and, you know, of course there's, you know, maybe 30 or 40 other defendants in the room and the judge is saying, well, you know, we can only have one trial today because they had all requested trial by Jerry.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:56.000]  And as they were reading off the docket sheet, as the clerk was reading off the docket sheet calling everyone's names to make sure everyone, all the defendants were there.
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  When it got to Jerry's name, the prosecutor piped up and said, Your Honor, we have a motion to dismiss for this case.
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:08.000]  So the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the day of the child.
[01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  That's about as close as it ever gets.
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:12.000]  Gotcha.
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  All righty.
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  Yeah, they will attempt to take you all the way up to the wire to get you to do something that will allow them to proceed or to, you know, just see if you'll give up.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  But if you stick to your guns and don't let them sway you and keep an eye on what they're doing, you can make them regret it and make them throw it out.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:35.000]  Got it.
[01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:38.000]  All right, then.
[01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  Okay, but now the most important thing you can learn in your state is your code of criminal procedure requirements.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:56.000]  What is the judges and the prosecutor and everybody else, including the clerk, required to do from beginning to end in these cases?
[01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  Learn that and you will learn how to control the game and how to document a violation of the rules of the game.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  Gotcha.
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  And that's the material that I put together.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  I never argue the merits of the accusation.
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  Never.
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  I argue all the due process violations that have occurred long before we get the merits.
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  All right.
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  All righty, then.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  And the fastest way to pay for this is what?
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  A credit card on the rule of law website would be the fastest way to do it.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:32.000]  Okay.
[01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  All righty, then.
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  Good deal.
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  Okay.
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  All right.
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  That's all I need for now.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  Okay.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:39.000]  Thank you, sir.
[01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:40.000]  Thank you for calling in.
[01:15:40.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  Scott, appreciate it.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  You bet.
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  Okay.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  Now we have Dennis in Texas.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  Dennis, what can we do for you?
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  Good evening, Daddy.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  Thank you for taking my call.
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  I'm calling on behalf of a friend of mine.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  He's a Russian immigrant.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  And the last day of the year, early in the morning, he'd left to drive the Sanitone from down here.
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  He left to what?
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:05.000]  The Sanitone?
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  Excuse me.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  He'd left to drive two Sanitones.
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  He'd left to do what?
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  The Sanitone?
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  To travel to Sanitone.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  There you go.
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  We've been listening for two years.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  And anyway, it was a real foggy morning, and he wound up hitting a telephone pole and totaling his car.
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  He gave me a call, and he was about 30 miles away, and I went up there to help him out because he had a little difficult time to communicate with people.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  He still has a pretty heavy accent.
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  And I hear the music.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Yeah, hang on, just a second. Dennis will pick up on the other side of the break.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  Thank you.
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  Yep.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  All right, folks.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  We've got about 45 minutes left in the show and two other callers after Dennis.
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  So give us a call.
[01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  We'll be right back after the break.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  Capital Corn and Bullion is a family-owned and operated business that has helped many families and friends in protecting their assets.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:10.000]  We would like to do the same for you.
[01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  In addition to Coins and Bullion, we now offer Patriot Saves, ammunition, Berkey water products, gift certificates, wristbands, and our new Silver Pool,
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a lost price.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  We can even help you set up a medal's IRA account.
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details.
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig, next to the Ichiban Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 5.
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Visit us at capitalcornandbullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:03.000]  What's been the problem with phone companies?
[01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  High prices and contracts that lock you in for two years minimum, not freedomtelephones.com.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  Freedom Telephones are designed around the concept and reality of patriotism, loyalty, and privacy.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  With FreedomTelephones.com, there are no contracts, no credit checks, and no social security numbers required.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:24.000]  That's why our name is FreedomTelephones.com.
[01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Finally, residential, mobile, and business telephones and plans that are private and never lock you into a long-term contract.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:38.000]  When a low price, residential and business plans started only $14.99 and mobile plans started just $39.99.
[01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  Plus, every month you pay your bill, freedomtelephones.com contributes to your favorite programs.
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  Don't wait. Support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling 1-800-600-5553.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  That's 800-600-5553.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  FreedomTelephones.com, portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:16.000]  Hi, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:16.000 --> 01:19:21.000]  Right now, we are talking with Dennis in Texas. Dennis, please continue.
[01:19:21.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  Okay, so he calls me and I go over to the little town that he's in and he was at the place where the towing company that had towed his car.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:38.000]  And the accident had already been cleaned up and I haven't even seen the car yet, but I understand it's totaled.
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  So, I'm just trying to protect him so whatever he's liable for, you know, I'm sure that he's aware of it.
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  And the accident, he tells me he was checked out by six people and, you know, six different policemen were there.
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  And he said they all treated him real nice and everything and he did not receive a citation.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  And one of the police from the local city there came by and I spoke with him and he confirmed that.
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:12.000]  He said, no, he said it was just an accident and that there was no violation, you know, was found.
[01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  So, he had recently purchased the car and he did not have the title.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  He had all the registration and everything, but the title has not come to him through the state processing yet.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  So, the tow company says they couldn't let him take anything off the car like a wheel or a tire or anything until he had the title in his hand that they could see.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  So, he still hasn't received the title and I told him I said, you check your mail every day and let me know as soon as you get it.
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  And because his, well, his storage fees and everything are going up daily.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:51.000]  So, today he comes by and he's got two letters.
[01:20:51.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  One is from some title agency that has basically sent him a notice of his bill due to the record company.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  And it shows that the car is indeed all in his name.
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  So, I called the record company and said he still doesn't have the title and they said, no, you've got to have the title.
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  He said, and if you want, I think they're going to let him just sign what's left of the car over to them to cover all of the expenses.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  So, the other thing he received was a speeding ticket that is in the signature location.
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  It says mailed and it was given to him by a DPS officer that I guess was on the scene that day.
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  And so, I made a call to their office and they said, well, if he hadn't been speeding, he wouldn't have had an accident.
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  Well, now, wait a minute. Who was, I thought you said there was no citations issued at the time.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  There was no citation issued at the time. It was just done belatedly.
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  It can't be done belatedly.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  The DPS officer I spoke with today said that is very common practice.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  The DPS officer is wrong.
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  I'm glad to hear that.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  How do you write a speeding citation to someone that you have no witnesses that they were speeding, including the officer that wrote the citation?
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  Excellent point. How is he going to testify that speeding occurred?
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  The officer I spoke with today said that they can make that decision at a later time and decide that since he'd lost control of his car, that he must have been speeding.
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  That's absolutely a false presumption.
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:58.000]  That's not true. You can lose control of your car without being speeding.
[01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  A blowout can cause loss of the control of a car.
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  And today, when I explained that to him, he started drawing me a picture and as it turns out, he said a car appeared in front of him out of the fog and he swerved to miss it.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:28.000]  The guy has just lost $2,000 of hard-earned money and this seems to me like just a blow on his head to get more money for the state and it's not going to make our roads any safer and I'd like to help him any way I can.
[01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  Well, what he's going to have to do is he's going to have to beat the cop on the ticket.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Now, if it was written here in Texas, then there's a chance that the ticket does not comply with 708.105 transportation code.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:47.000]  708.105.
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  0.105. I'll look that up.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  Now, if this is a DPS issued electronic citation, then it will be printed out on one of their nice little electronic pads.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  If you read 708.105, the statement that it refers to that must be on any traffic citation issued in Texas, you will notice that there's a title in that section as well.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  They usually put that title above the statement on the citation.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:26.000]  They usually make the title the same size typeface as the statement, which would make it in violation of 708.105.
[01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:34.000]  This would also be true if the statement is smaller than any other text on the entire citation.
[01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  That's first thing you check.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  Second thing is, if you're going to do this, you're going to have to make the argument that the officer was not present.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  The officer can introduce no evidence that speeding occurred.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  The officer has simply made a false accusation for a malicious prosecution stance.
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  He has made a faulty presumption in that the only way to have an accident in Texas is to speed.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  Or that the only way to lose control of one's automobile according to Texas law is to speed.
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  And that's a lie.
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  So he's going to have to learn how to question the officer on the stand to that regard.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  Officer such and such, is it your testimony that the only way an accident can occur on a Texas roadway is because you're speeding?
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  It's not possible that wildlife runs in front of your car even though you're traveling lower than the speed limit and that can result in an accident.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  Is that what you're testifying to?
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  Is it your testimony that the state, by failing to cover a gap in a roadway properly after digging up the roadway and having a car drive off into it
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  and wreck that the car was somehow speeding when it entered the ditch that the transportation department left there?
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  See what I'm saying? Make the cop look as stupid as he is.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  The tough part is this guy, I mean I have a hard time understanding over the telephone.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  You're going to have to coach him to speak slowly and clearly in exactly what to ask and how to make the cop answer.
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  The only other option is to get an attorney and he's going to pay him $2,000 more for absolutely nothing.
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  So basically do not ask for a jury trial and obviously not a bench trial and have him coached.
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  Any paperwork that I can help him file?
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  Sure, there's all kinds of paperwork you can help him file. The question is, do you have the paperwork or do you know how to write it?
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  Well I was just going to, I heard the prior caller talking about downloading your class and I've been meaning to do that anyway.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  Yeah, that's your other option right there. At least you'll have all the paperwork dealing with the various types of situations available to you.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  And the one thing he's definitely going to need is for somebody that can read those documents and understand them to escort him through these processes at the court level
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  because every time the court does something wrong, then you're going to file the document that makes that into the record.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  So you have to know what they're supposed to be doing and when they're not doing it so you can file a proper document.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  And that would be a document that is already filled out and he is already signed.
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  Well, the document is a template. You have to go in and change certain aspects of it. I've tried to write these for everything is search and replace.
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  No, I'm not.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Replace this name with your name and so on and so forth.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:04.000]  Right, that's what I'm saying. They are already filled out and ready to file and they just get filed as needed.
[01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  They're ready to be edited and filed.
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  No, I'm talking about it at court. We would already have that prepared.
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:13.000]  Yes.
[01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  Any time they made a mistake in one place or another than the appropriate document.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  But I can't file that on his behalf, can I?
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  Well, he's the one that's going to have to sign it. Anybody can take it down and file it in the court, but he's the one that's got to sign it.
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  That answers the question ahead.
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Very good. I will look in to get your class.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  Okay. Thank you very much.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  Appreciate your help. Thanks.
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  Yes, sir. Thanks for calling in.
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  All right. Now we're going to go to Patrick in Texas. Patrick, what can we do for you?
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  Hi, how are you guys doing today?
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  I'm doing so far so good, I guess.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:16.000]  So I have a citation that says complaint and affidavit on it and then there's an officer, the arresting officer, and then it swears it has a sworn statement and then it's signed by another officer.
[01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  Does it comply with 45.019 code of criminal procedure and where is the law that allows another officer to administer the oath on a complaint?
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Okay, so that answers that question. They're not allowed to administer it.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  So, yeah. But again, you also need to be looking at 708.105, which on your citation, I believe it is valid. It's set up properly.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  But the complaint portion of it, it must fully comply with 45.019.
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  Hang on, Patrick. We'll be right back.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  It was that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  And thousands of my fellow force responders have died.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  The forests of Transylvania, the old hunting grounds of Dracula himself are under threat.
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  But now a blue-blooded descendant of Count Dracula is stepping up to save them.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you who it is in a moment.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:11.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:17.000]  Ivan Pukatratris.
[01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:20.000]  Transylvania, where the real Count Dracula once lived,
[01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  is home to two-thirds of Europe's last virgin forests.
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:28.000]  But now that Romanias join the EU, they're under threat from loggers and developers.
[01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  Now a relative of Dracula, also known as Prince Vlad the Impaler, wants to save this wilderness.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  As it happens, he's a prince himself. Need a clue?
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:41.000]  He lives in England, where nearly all of their forests are gone.
[01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Yes, it's Prince Charles. He's directly descended from Dracula through his great-grandmother, Queen Mary.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  Prince Charles, related by blood to Dracula?
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:25.000]  We are talking to Patrick in Texas. Patrick, all right, let's continue, please.
[01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:31.000]  I did look at your citation. It does appear to be compliant with 708.105.
[01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  Okay, so now the next issue is, what else has gone wrong with what they're doing?
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:43.000]  Have you checked your court record?
[01:32:43.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  Yeah, the only thing they have is the citation I just went through the other day.
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:53.000]  So you filed an affidavit of appearance when you went down there?
[01:32:53.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  No, I'm going to do that. I got the idea when I went back and listened to the archive of the show this weekend.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:03.000]  So I'm going to go back and do that.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:07.000]  Okay. Yeah, you do that to prove that you were actually there.
[01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:16.000]  Technically speaking, you can do it by filing any document, but there are certain facts we're asserting in the affidavit that we want in the record,
[01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  including the lack of any information in the record vesting the court with jurisdiction.
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:33.000]  Okay, so in the documents that are provided through the course, is there an affidavit in there that's, is that already drawn up?
[01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  Yeah, there's an affidavit of appearance. There's an affidavit not in transportation or commerce.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  There's a boatload of documents. The problem is, is I keep having to write new ones and address old ones.
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  Every time we come up with a unique issue that needs to be addressed, then I've got to write a document specific to that issue.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  And I've got to get it put in the right place for people to know where to file it.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  Going through the various folders you have laid out, I don't show, I'll show it with that.
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  If all you have is the original remedies folder, that will be true.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  There's now two folders where we're migrating the documents that are in remedies over to a folder called going to court.
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  And we're reorganizing them under different folders there as to when they have to be filed.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  I'm trying to make this thing as foolproof as possible, but time just does not allow me to get it done at a rate that I need to.
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  What I'm also attempting to do is to make one master document that describes the names and locations and when and how to file any one of the given documents.
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:57.000]  But again, I have to sit down and write that when I get all the documents completed.
[01:34:57.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  And so I'm actually trying to get people together right now that can help me with that and take some of that load off.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  But right now, that hasn't really been forthcoming.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  Do you mind sending me the affidavit of appearance so that I can go file it? I'm kind of starting to run out.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  No, you actually have updates coming to you.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  I'm aware you've been sending me several emails and I've only been back for a couple days.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  So if you think that you can adapt what I'm going to send you as needed, fine.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  Because not all of most of the documents still have yet to be standardized and updated.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  But there's enough information between them that you should be able to get them standardized before you file them.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  How to make the attempt to get the affidavit of appearance together and I also want to do the motion to dismiss.
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  Those particular things are already in the going to court folder.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  That I've got standardized and migrated already, including the motion to dismiss that goes with that.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  So yes, when we get off air tonight, I will make sure to get all those zipped up and ready to send over to you.
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:24.000]  Okay, and just to make sure I'm doing this in the correct order, I found that there's no citation.
[01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:29.000]  And then, of course, I've got to correct what I've done and prove that I was there with the affidavit of appearance.
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  Well, the affidavit is just that. It's an affidavit that you appeared in in the designated location on such and such date and time.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:46.000]  Since you've already gone and you've already requested the information in the folder and saw what was there, you've complied with the promise to appear.
[01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  So just put that date and time in the affidavit and get it notarized.
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  Okay, we'll do. And then the motion, I can probably just go ahead and file a motion to dismiss at the same time.
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:04.000]  Well, there's another one that you're going to, well, yes, you'll file the motion to dismiss, but you're also going to file a motion to quash the complaint.
[01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Now, you're also going to file the affidavit not in commercial transportation.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  Okay.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  Okay, and so we're going to file the motion to quash the complaint as generally deficient. We always file that.
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  The complaint is almost always generally deficient. Why? Because it makes factual assertions that are untrue.
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  And so we're going to argue that as well by asking that the complaint be quashed.
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:40.000]  We never assume the complaint is valid. We always assume it's invalid.
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  And there are several ways you can make the argument to prove that.
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:51.000]  Since it meets 70815, do we need to change any of the writing?
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:58.000]  No, we're not going to file the motion to quash the citation as being statutorily insufficient because it's not.
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  So the only thing that's going to change in the motion to quash the complaint is there's a blue block in there relating to that motion to quash the citation.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  Take it out.
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Okay.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  But since the citation can't serve as a complaint, it's not a charging instrument.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:29.000]  Correct. And if they attempt to use 27.14d object, defense has not filed a written waiver allowing you to proceed upon the citation alone.
[01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:37.000]  Therefore, you're not going to proceed upon citation alone.
[01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:42.000]  Theoretically speaking, you've looked at it. Is that even enough for them to act?
[01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  No. How can the legislature vest a court with jurisdiction on a unsworn citation when the Texas Constitution specifically requires an indictment or information?
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:38:56.000]  They can't.
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:08.000]  But what I'm saying is could the court attorney or not the court attorney, the city attorney, the prosecutor, act on that and then issue an information?
[01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  Absolutely not.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  An information can only be signed by a county or district attorney in their official capacity. Look at chapter 21.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  Chapter 21, Code of Criminal Procedure says very clearly that an information must be signed by the county or district attorney in his or her official capacity.
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  The attorney can't do that.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:50.000]  So I'll wait for the documents and get everything together and go from there.
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  Yes, sir. I'll get them out as quick as I can get off here and get everything rounded up for you.
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  You're welcome.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  All right. Now we're going to Samir in Texas. Samir, what can we do for you?
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  Well, Eddie, I just got a citation for not yielding the right of way and it was an accident and I was involved in transportation.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  You were involved in transportation?
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  Okay.
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  So I got a ticket for not yielding the right of way because the cop, the other party had to witness that her light was green and I was wondering if there is any way to go by fighting this ticket.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  Well, yeah, there is. The first thing is the cop is not authorized to write the ticket after the fact.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  Okay, this goes back to the invocation of chapter 543 of the transportation code, 543.001.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  Any officer may arrest without warrant, any peace officer may arrest without warrant, any person found committing.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  If the officer did not witness the act, then he didn't find you committing anything.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  Okay.
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:19.000]  He showed up after the fact.
[01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  Okay.
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  He took what should have been nothing more than a private issue between you and the other driver and turned it into a criminal case against you when he has no authority to arrest you for that criminal act to write you the citation.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:47.000]  Remember, he can't write the citation until he places you under arrest.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:48.000]  Why?
[01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  Because he can't release you until you sign the citation.
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  And he's only authorized to do that under 543 if he finds you committing the act.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  Remember, even chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it necessary that the offense be committed within the officer's presence or view, or he has to get a warrant.
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:24.000]  So I can fight it based on that fact alone.
[01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  You can fight it based upon the fact that the arrest by the officer was illegal, therefore the issuance of the citation was illegal.
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Was this an Austin PD officer?
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  Is this a paper citation?
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  He wrote me a, yes.
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  Okay.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  Is it a multi-page paper citation?
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  It's, yeah, it has an attachment to it.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Okay.
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  Has it got like a blue copy, a yellow copy, and a white copy?
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:04.000]  I believe so, yeah.
[01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:20.000]  Okay, then I can almost guarantee you that that's issued out of one of their existing citation books, and that citation does not comply at all with 708.105 Code of Criminal Procedure or Transportation Code.
[01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:23.000]  The citation itself is illegal.
[01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  So you filed a motion to quash the citation, motion to quash the complaint based on that citation, and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  Okay.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  I'll be coming, I'll come Saturday and see you, Sunday on Sunday.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  Sunday, classes are Sunday, two to five.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  I'll come see you about this again, and we'll discuss the complaint and more later.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Okay, we'll see you then.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  Thank you, I appreciate it.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  You're welcome.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  All right, Ryan, Paula, we'll see you there, Matt as well.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  We'll try to get you guys, taking care of them on the other side of the break.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  This is rule of law radio.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  Eddie Craig, we'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:03.000]  Hey, did you hear Ron Paul's announce he's running for president in 2012?
[01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  He's at Ron Paul's.
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Really?
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:07.000]  Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:10.000]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[01:44:10.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  Oh, but I'd love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  Of course you do.
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  Now, listen closely.
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  You need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and his message before it's too late.
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:28.000]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that you can show your support for him during the campaign.
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  Do they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect your family in time of emergency.
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  Oh, that sounds like that show on the Discovery Channel.
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills School that you can sign up for on the website BraveNewBooksStore.com.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:48.000]  What are you doing?
[01:44:48.000 --> 01:44:53.000]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to BraveNewBooksStore.com or down to the bookstore in person.
[01:44:53.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  Where's it located?
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:56.000]  1904, Guadalupe Street.
[01:44:56.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  There, it's sent.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:44:58.000]  I even made a smiley face.
[01:44:58.000 --> 01:44:59.000]  Great.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  And now you can, too.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:36.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:45.000]  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.
[01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:54.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:54.000 --> 01:46:03.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:44.000]  This is rule of law radio.
[01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  I do have one real quick announcement.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  I'm sorry I should have done this at the beginning of the show, but it's kind of slipped my mind.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  As you all remember, right before the holidays began, I got a speeding ticket here in the city of Austin.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  Now, beating the ticket, I'm not worried about that.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:03.000]  That I can do and get it dismissed real easy.
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  What I want, however, is then to dismiss it after they file the complaint.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:19.000]  Once they do that, I have a case for malicious prosecution, as well as the federal lawsuit to add to that for attempting to compel me to participate
[01:47:19.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  in commerce against my will.
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  So, folks, here's where the rubber meets the road.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  If there's ever been a time to support somebody's fight in a court, this is going to be it.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  This federal lawsuit, as you all know, isn't going to be free.
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  There is going to be fees and all this other kind of stuff associated with it.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  Yes, I am once again asking you guys to go to the rule of law website, go in there and donate, either earmark the donation for Eddie's federal lawsuit,
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  or make a direct donation to me on the website stating that it's for the expense of the federal lawsuit.
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  Folks, you want to stop having them take these phone calls into the show and asking these questions?
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  Help me beat the tar out of them.
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:16.000]  Let's get them in the federal courts, hang them over a bed of calls, and turn them slowly till they're well done.
[01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:24.000]  But remember, that takes money, and I need your help, because I'm not made of money, nor am I expecting inheritance anytime soon.
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:34.000]  So please, if you're out there listening, whatever you can donate and give to help fund this thing, I have no idea what the total cost is going to be,
[01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:38.000]  but it will probably be a few thousand dollars to get it from beginning to end.
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  So please help me get there, please donate as generously as you can, because what we don't use for this lawsuit,
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  we're going to go downtown and get some more tickets and do it again till they get the message.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  So help me get that message saying out loud and clear.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:48:59.000]  All right, we're going to go ahead and keep going with the calls.
[01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  Ryan, what can we do for you?
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  Oh, well, I visited your class recently, and I think I'd mentioned I had a recently purchased van, and I hadn't changed over the tags on it.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:18.000]  And in regard to that, I want to ask kind of a different question.
[01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  I remember you talking about having a vehicle that you'd purchased or car, a private car you got from Louisiana.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  I remember being in Louisiana and seeing the plates.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:36.000]  It seems in Louisiana they make a distinction between private and commercial cars, vehicles, whatever we want to call them.
[01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  How does that affect their laws as opposed to our tier in Texas, where we've just got regular or licensed plates on everything?
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  Well, that would really depend on what the specific statutes in Louisiana are on the issue.
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  What it comes down to is whether or not the people have voluntarily voted to allow themselves to be regulated.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:02.000]  Now, I've gone into this before.
[01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:10.000]  I didn't grant anyone authority over me to vote away my right to say no to being regulated.
[01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  I don't care if one of you vote against me or a million of you vote against me.
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  Your vote does not throw away my right to say no.
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  It doesn't throw away my right to say I do not wish to participate.
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:30.000]  That would be true in Louisiana like it would be anywhere else.
[01:50:30.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  But this is a concept people have got to let soak in and begin to understand before the argument is going to sink in that you're making.
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  Now, in regards to my van, I was arrested by a nice DPS officer in downtown Bastrop at Eagle Eyes and seen the expired tags which pulled me over.
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:51:00.000]  He made a big deal of pulling me over and I had a friend with me and we were just going to the parts house and picking up some parts.
[01:51:00.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  We weren't doing anything.
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  We were not in business, not any of this stuff.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:11.000]  And so on and so forth, I was required to appear in court on or before the 30th of December.
[01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  Unbeknownst to me, the court was closed on the 30th of December early.
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  And so when I went there, of course, there were some people in the courthouse or annex building in Bastrop and they said,
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  oh, you're not, you know, the sheriff's deputies that are in there, the actist's guard dogs said, you know, you're not appearing before us.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  And I said, well, I'm appearing.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:37.000]  And then anyway, I realized it was pointless.
[01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  I ran straight over to the post office with a piece of notebook paper and a pen and wrote down, you know, on a piece of notebook paper,
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:55.000]  appearing today in court, I entered no plea at this time and I sent it registered mail to the address that was listed on the citation.
[01:51:55.000 --> 01:52:00.000]  Okay, followed up of court, called them back today and they asked me to come in and enter a plea.
[01:52:00.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  And I said, well, I can't do that.
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  I don't know what I'm fleeing to.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  And the lady was like, well, if you don't, if you don't enter a plea, we're going to issue a warrant for your arrest.
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  So you want to enter a plea?
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  And I said, well, but what am I playing? Well, the tickets you've gotten.
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  Well, here's the thing, when you have someone say, if you don't come in and enter a plea, then we're going to issue a warrant.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  Then you ask them, are you telling me that you intend to issue a warrant for failure to plea?
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  Right.
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  Can you please point me to the law that authorizes you to issue a warrant for failure to plea?
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  She changed that in saying that if you don't enter a plea, we're going to issue a warrant for failure to appear.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:54.000]  But I've already appeared in writing.
[01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  Let's see, that's exactly the problem.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:07.000]  When you're told to appear in court on that citation, they have a very big problem with the way they're doing it versus the way the statute is written.
[01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:13.000]  And if you've been to the class and we've discussed that issue like we did yesterday, you'd understand what that is.
[01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  I missed it.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  Yeah.
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  Well, I'll try to go over it on the next show unless something else comes up that I think superseded.
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  But the point here is, is that when you look at the way the statutes are written, the statutes actually make it very clear.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  The court has zero authority to issue a warrant for failure to appear if the alleged defense is a Class C fine only.
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  Correct.
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:44.000]  They cannot issue a warrant for failure to appear.
[01:53:44.000 --> 01:53:50.000]  Even if you sign the ticket, they cannot sign a warrant for failure to appear.
[01:53:50.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  So if I show up over there at the county office tomorrow and tell them, okay, well, I'm here again and they sent me back a letter to a different address that I don't have access to at the moment saying, you know, they've allowed me a different plea date.
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  Now, is there anything in the criminal code, penal code or transportation code that authorizes the court to establish a plea date?
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  They're setting a date for arraignment, but they have to issue an order for an arraignment.
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:31.000]  Okay, no order's ever been issued.
[01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  So how can they hold an arraignment?
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  And as far as issuing a different plea date, an arraignment is the only place where a plea can take place.
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  And under Chapter 45, when they're dealing with justice and municipal courts, it says very clearly that the accused enters their plea after the jury is impaneled.
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  Okay, I see, I see, yes.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  Right.
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  What code was that again?
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:13.000]  I know I was reading it on my own recently just through the Texas Constitution and everything about the Class C misdemeanors.
[01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:14.000]  That's in the criminal code.
[01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  Where is that again?
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  Wait, wait, wait.
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  In what aspect are we talking about the Class C misdemeanor?
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  For being arrested or imprisoned and all of what they like to do when people don't show up to court or have tickets outstanding and so on, but where is that located again?
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  The issue on the failure to appear begins in 543.009.
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  It then goes into 1517 subsection G as in George.
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:44.000]  Got it.
[01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  To validate the argument of 1517 G saying you have no authority to issue a warrant for failure to appear except on A and B misdemeanors.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Look at 27.14 D where it says very clearly that if the person fails to appear on the notice written on the citation, then the only thing the court can do is to have a proper complaint made.
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  Okay, so if I show up there tomorrow and they threaten me with imprisonment, what am I to do?
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:22.000]  I would go ahead.
[01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  I mean, I don't intend on signing anything.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  I would object to it and I'd simply state on what charge do you intend to imprison me?
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:45.000]  And the problem they're going to have is they can't put you in prison for a failure to appear on a Class C because the failure to appear itself can only be a Class C.
[01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  Right.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:49.000]  So they can't throw you in jail.
[01:56:49.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  But they sure do act like it when you go down and talk to them.
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  Yes, they do, but that's exactly where they're acting like Al Capone.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:01.000]  Correct.
[01:57:01.000 --> 01:57:04.000]  Okay, well, I'll keep posted on this.
[01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  Please try and get to somebody else.
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  Thank you.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:08.000]  I appreciate it.
[01:57:08.000 --> 01:57:09.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:57:09.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  All right.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:13.000]  We're going to Paula in Massachusetts.
[01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  Paula, what can we do for you?
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:16.000]  Hi, Eddie.
[01:57:16.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  It's Paula and Maine.
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  Oh, Maine.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  Go ahead.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:26.000]  I had called in and told you guys all about the felon and possession of firearms charges.
[01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  My husband was facing a while back.
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  But my question tonight is I had asked Randy if it would be okay if I could file an affidavit
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  listing what the judge and the prosecutor and even my husband's court appointed lawyer
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:49.000]  have done wrong or how they haven't followed the rules and the statute.
[01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  But he had told me, no, don't file an affidavit.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:58.000]  David, God, no, and I never found out why I never filed the affidavit.
[01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  My husband's case is still hanging in the air.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  Why would it be that I couldn't file an affidavit listing the things wrong?
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  I'm not sure.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  I don't know why Randy would have told you not to file an affidavit unless there's potential
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  problems with what you were going to put in it as being incriminating to your husband.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  Okay, so maybe I could file it and not list anything about the case itself.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  Well, remember, the affidavit should only make statements of fact.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Okay.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Okay, it cannot make arguments or assertions.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  It must be statements of fact.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  Yeah, like you can't say they broke the law and here's why and give some sort of legal argument.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  You gotta do that.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  You can only say the what, when, where, who and how.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  That's it.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Okay.
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:56.000]  Okay.
[01:58:56.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  All right.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Yep.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:58:59.000]  Okay, well, thanks for calling Paula.
[01:58:59.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  Thank you.
[01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:58.000]  Thank you.
[01:59:59.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  Bye.