ROL_2012-10-01_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:08.120]  Apple has spent a boatload to convince Americans to store data online, but the company's co-founder
[00:08.120 --> 00:10.000]  says cloud computing is dangerous.
[00:10.000 --> 00:16.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back to tell you about the black clouds over iClouds next.
[00:16.840 --> 00:18.560]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.560 --> 00:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy
[00:23.000 --> 00:27.160]  is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:27.160 --> 00:32.120]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.120 --> 00:34.920]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.920 --> 00:40.480]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[00:40.480 --> 00:42.240]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.240 --> 00:45.920]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:45.920 --> 00:50.000]  For a decade, Apple's been selling the public on cloud technology.
[00:50.000 --> 00:54.840]  The idea is for users to store their files online in the cloud for a fee, rather than
[00:54.840 --> 00:57.280]  saving them on their local devices.
[00:57.280 --> 01:01.160]  But Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak opposes the whole idea.
[01:01.160 --> 01:05.640]  He warns of digital disaster if people store their contents in the iCloud.
[01:05.640 --> 01:09.200]  To quote him directly, the cloud computing trend is horrendous.
[01:09.200 --> 01:11.280]  He's right for two reasons.
[01:11.280 --> 01:17.040]  First, the minute you store stuff on an iCloud, you sign away ownership of that data to Apple.
[01:17.040 --> 01:21.720]  And second, walls can never be built high enough to keep hackers out of servers, not even
[01:21.720 --> 01:23.220]  those built in the clouds.
[01:23.220 --> 01:29.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:29.760 --> 01:37.760]  And Apple a day may keep the doctor away, but did you know there's that candy out there
[01:37.760 --> 01:40.480]  that may help cure a cough and heal an ulcer?
[01:40.480 --> 01:45.400]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back to tell you about the mystery medicinal candy, right
[01:45.400 --> 01:47.160]  after this.
[01:47.160 --> 01:48.880]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.880 --> 01:52.480]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.480 --> 01:57.480]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:57.480 --> 02:02.440]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:02.440 --> 02:05.240]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[02:05.240 --> 02:10.880]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[02:10.880 --> 02:12.560]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.560 --> 02:16.320]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:16.320 --> 02:17.320]  It's licorice.
[02:17.320 --> 02:21.480]  For many Americans, the word conjures up the candy we lunched on at the movie theater
[02:21.480 --> 02:22.480]  as kids.
[02:22.480 --> 02:25.680]  But did you know that black licorice root can cure a host of illnesses?
[02:25.680 --> 02:29.320]  Get out of your notebook because the list is long.
[02:29.320 --> 02:34.800]  Licorice alleviates heartburn, ulcers, bronchitis, sore throat, cough, Addison's disease, and
[02:34.800 --> 02:40.840]  hepatitis B. It eases the effects of menopause, curbs the parasites that cause malaria, and
[02:40.840 --> 02:44.320]  has even been prescribed for pesticide poisoning in China.
[02:44.320 --> 02:48.880]  Just remember that black licorice root is a medicinal herb, not candy, and eating too
[02:48.880 --> 02:53.240]  much can spike your blood pressure or lead to heart problems, as with most things in
[02:53.240 --> 02:55.040]  life, moderation is the key.
[02:55.040 --> 03:22.240]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:25.040 --> 03:27.440]  All right, folks, good evening.
[03:27.440 --> 03:29.280]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[03:29.280 --> 03:32.120]  This is Eddie Craig with the Monday Night Traffic Show.
[03:32.120 --> 03:34.560]  All right, let's see.
[03:34.560 --> 03:36.960]  Looks like we may have been set for an archive mode here.
[03:36.960 --> 03:40.000]  I didn't even know that, but we are doing the show live tonight.
[03:40.000 --> 03:44.160]  It is October 1st, 2012.
[03:44.160 --> 03:49.080]  First thing I'd like to do tonight getting started is to let you folks know that I have
[03:49.080 --> 03:57.000]  set up a specific Facebook page to start promoting the online website that we're developing to
[03:57.000 --> 04:02.600]  do the community classes online that I host every Sunday down at Brave New Books.
[04:02.600 --> 04:11.040]  We are working on putting these classes online, as well as other areas of legal study and
[04:11.040 --> 04:12.040]  expertise.
[04:12.040 --> 04:16.880]  We're going to set this thing up to work like an actual knowledge test center where you
[04:16.880 --> 04:23.240]  actually will take knowledge skills tests at the end of every video session that we
[04:23.240 --> 04:24.240]  present.
[04:24.240 --> 04:31.920]  You will also work on making a particular questionnaire skillset test available at the
[04:31.920 --> 04:37.320]  end of the actual live classes that we'll be doing for this site, as well.
[04:37.320 --> 04:43.640]  One of the other things is when you go to Facebook is where we set this up.
[04:43.640 --> 04:49.600]  We set it up today, it is TAO law, two separate words.
[04:49.600 --> 04:56.040]  Do a search on Facebook for TAO law and send me a friend request on that if you're a listener
[04:56.040 --> 04:57.040]  to the show.
[04:57.040 --> 05:02.000]  Please put in the friend request message, rule of law listener.
[05:02.000 --> 05:08.320]  I am only going to, at the moment, try and get people in that I know listen to the show
[05:08.320 --> 05:13.440]  and those that I know personally until I'm sure of who is trying to join.
[05:13.440 --> 05:17.720]  Once we know we've got a working network going on, then we'll go ahead and open it
[05:17.720 --> 05:19.960]  up and start taking more of the friend requests on there.
[05:19.960 --> 05:25.160]  The hope is that Facebook, with the community page that we've also set up, which is actually
[05:25.160 --> 05:33.920]  TAO of law, then we'll be able to get that up and start getting in a lot of social network
[05:33.920 --> 05:40.200]  advertising for the actual membership website, TAOoflaw.com.
[05:40.200 --> 05:44.880]  That's what the hope is that we can get this working the way we need to.
[05:44.880 --> 05:48.320]  Those of you that are listening, if you want to go ahead and start looking at the Facebook
[05:48.320 --> 05:55.040]  page, it is TAO law, that's the first, we set it up with the first and last name that
[05:55.040 --> 05:56.040]  way.
[05:56.040 --> 06:00.560]  So go do a search for that, send a friend request and as soon as I'm able to do that,
[06:00.560 --> 06:03.800]  I will get you on and let you into the site.
[06:03.800 --> 06:09.480]  Now what I want to go over tonight before we start getting callers is I want to go over
[06:09.480 --> 06:12.840]  a little bit of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I want to start with Chapter 1, which
[06:12.840 --> 06:13.840]  is fairly short.
[06:13.840 --> 06:18.600]  Chapter 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks, is the general provision section.
[06:18.600 --> 06:27.360]  But the general provision speaks specifically to the procedural protected rights of people
[06:27.360 --> 06:32.600]  being charged and prosecuted under criminal processes.
[06:32.600 --> 06:36.760]  So what we're going to do is we're going to look and make sure that everyone understands
[06:36.760 --> 06:42.960]  not only the rights the legislature put into writing and protected, but we're also going
[06:42.960 --> 06:50.680]  to look at where the legislature acted accordingly and the courts themselves are acting in violation
[06:50.680 --> 06:52.600]  of the protected rights.
[06:52.600 --> 06:56.000]  But we'll dissect that as we go through.
[06:56.000 --> 07:00.480]  So let's start with Article 1.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is called the
[07:00.480 --> 07:01.800]  short title.
[07:01.800 --> 07:06.920]  This act shall be known and may be cited as the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[07:06.920 --> 07:11.200]  So this entire code is cited as the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[07:11.200 --> 07:13.960]  Article 1.02, effective date.
[07:13.960 --> 07:20.320]  This code shall take effect and be enforced on and after January 1, 1966.
[07:20.320 --> 07:25.960]  The procedure herein prescribed shall govern all criminal proceedings instituted after
[07:25.960 --> 07:31.760]  the effective date of this act and all proceedings pending upon the effective date hereof in
[07:31.760 --> 07:35.320]  so far as are applicable.
[07:35.320 --> 07:41.200]  Now Article 1.03, objects of this code.
[07:41.200 --> 07:47.320]  This code is intended to embrace rules applicable to the prevention and prosecution of offenses
[07:47.320 --> 07:49.480]  against the laws of this state.
[07:49.480 --> 07:52.840]  Now notice it does not say Texas.
[07:52.840 --> 07:58.320]  And to make the rules of procedure in respect to the prevention and punishment of offenses
[07:58.320 --> 08:03.560]  intelligible to the officers who are to act under them and to all persons whose rights
[08:03.560 --> 08:06.400]  are to be affected by them.
[08:06.400 --> 08:08.760]  That's you and me, folks.
[08:08.760 --> 08:14.680]  It seeks, one, to adopt measures for preventing the commission of crime, unless of course
[08:14.680 --> 08:18.880]  the public servants are the ones committing the crime, then it does nothing.
[08:18.880 --> 08:23.320]  Two, to exclude the offender from all hope of escape.
[08:23.320 --> 08:29.960]  Again, it specifically excludes public servants who escape punishment for their acts consistently
[08:29.960 --> 08:32.600]  for failure to prosecute them for those acts.
[08:32.600 --> 08:39.360]  Three, to ensure a trial with as little delay as is consistent with the ends of justice.
[08:39.360 --> 08:44.320]  We can only railroad you at such a speed as to make it appear that we treated you fairly
[08:44.320 --> 08:49.320]  unjustly before we hang you in the street and take your money.
[08:49.320 --> 08:55.960]  Four, to bring to the investigation of each offense on the trial all the evidence tending
[08:55.960 --> 09:02.880]  to produce conviction or acquittal, ain't wrong, suppress all evidence that is exculpatory
[09:02.880 --> 09:10.320]  to the defense, present all hearsay testimony that is damning to the defense, and pretend
[09:10.320 --> 09:14.720]  that the trial was fair in getting those facts before the jury.
[09:14.720 --> 09:21.040]  Five, to ensure a fair and impartial trial, see rule four.
[09:21.040 --> 09:27.280]  Six, the certain execution of the sentence of the law when declared, well, I have yet
[09:27.280 --> 09:33.760]  to see any of these morons in black declare what the law is.
[09:33.760 --> 09:41.960]  They have only declared what their opinion of the law is, which is really considerable
[09:41.960 --> 09:49.840]  ignorance, when you look at the fact they have not even read the law that they're giving
[09:49.840 --> 09:52.200]  an opinion about.
[09:52.200 --> 09:58.320]  They operate entirely on this is how we believe it should operate, so why should we have to
[09:58.320 --> 10:03.560]  read the statute that actually tells us how it has to operate.
[10:03.560 --> 10:09.800]  We'll just go with how we want it to work, and if you don't like it, ask the next judge
[10:09.800 --> 10:12.040]  in line to correct it for you.
[10:12.040 --> 10:15.720]  Yep, that's fair and impartial, that's justice.
[10:15.720 --> 10:18.200]  More like just us.
[10:18.200 --> 10:21.560]  Article 1.04, due course of law.
[10:21.560 --> 10:27.280]  No citizen of this state shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges, or
[10:27.280 --> 10:34.840]  immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the
[10:34.840 --> 10:35.840]  land.
[10:35.840 --> 10:43.360]  Now folks, these codes are not the law of the land.
[10:43.360 --> 10:47.760]  They never were, they cannot be.
[10:47.760 --> 10:56.040]  The law of the land is the principles, ethics, and everything else that was personified in
[10:56.040 --> 10:59.000]  the founding documents.
[10:59.000 --> 11:06.640]  The Magna Carta, the Articles of Confederation, Federal Constitution, State Constitution,
[11:06.640 --> 11:09.880]  and the common law on which it's based.
[11:09.880 --> 11:15.560]  That is the law of the land, and it's also referred to in most of the federal case law
[11:15.560 --> 11:24.040]  as the laws of immemorial antiquity, laws of immemorial antiquity.
[11:24.040 --> 11:31.520]  That's what the common law is considered to be, and it is the law of the land, not statutory
[11:31.520 --> 11:34.240]  codes.
[11:34.240 --> 11:42.720]  So right here we have the declaration that no person shall be held, or I'm sorry, deprived
[11:42.720 --> 11:48.320]  of life, liberty, property, privileges, or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised,
[11:48.320 --> 11:50.480]  except by due course of the law of the land.
[11:50.480 --> 11:55.600]  Well if they're prosecuting us under statutes and not the law of the land, then all the
[11:55.600 --> 12:02.240]  prosecutions that take property from us in the form of monetary compensation are in
[12:02.240 --> 12:10.280]  violation of Article 1.04 due course of law, because the law of the land is not legislative
[12:10.280 --> 12:11.680]  acts.
[12:11.680 --> 12:15.120]  No matter what they try to tell you, it simply isn't.
[12:15.120 --> 12:18.760]  Article 1.05, Rights of Accused.
[12:18.760 --> 12:29.360]  Now Article 1.05 is the legislative statute that codifies Article 1, Section 10 of the
[12:29.360 --> 12:31.720]  Texas Constitution.
[12:31.720 --> 12:40.600]  1.05, Rights of Accused reads, in all criminal prosecutions, notice right there, all criminal
[12:40.600 --> 12:49.600]  prosecutions, that is verbatim out of Article 1, Section 10, in all criminal prosecutions,
[12:49.600 --> 12:55.480]  the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.
[12:55.480 --> 13:00.680]  He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him and
[13:00.680 --> 13:03.920]  to have a copy thereof.
[13:03.920 --> 13:08.200]  That folks is exactly why they have to serve you notice.
[13:08.200 --> 13:16.760]  You have a right to have a hard copy of the cause against you complete with the nature
[13:16.760 --> 13:20.960]  stated in the offense charge.
[13:20.960 --> 13:24.360]  That does not appear anywhere on a citation.
[13:24.360 --> 13:30.120]  Citation is neither sworn to nor verified in any way, shape or form.
[13:30.120 --> 13:34.160]  He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.
[13:34.160 --> 13:35.160]  Okay?
[13:35.160 --> 13:39.160]  Let's walk through the traffic stop.
[13:39.160 --> 13:44.480]  Officer pulls you over, first words out of his mouth when he walks up to the car, give
[13:44.480 --> 13:50.120]  me your license, registration and proof of financial responsibility.
[13:50.120 --> 13:59.000]  Question, can he use any of those items to further charge and charge you with a crime
[13:59.000 --> 14:05.040]  or can they be used to further incriminate you of a crime and then can they be used
[14:05.040 --> 14:09.080]  against you as evidence in a court of law?
[14:09.080 --> 14:14.680]  If the license happens to be expired or suspended, absolutely it can further incriminate you
[14:14.680 --> 14:16.760]  when you present it.
[14:16.760 --> 14:20.360]  Therefore it can be used as evidence against you in a court of law.
[14:20.360 --> 14:25.360]  Same thing occurs if the insurance card happens to be expired or just happens to be the wrong
[14:25.360 --> 14:28.800]  one because you didn't put the new one in the car.
[14:28.800 --> 14:36.040]  It also happens to be the same thing with the registration receipt and sticker for the
[14:36.040 --> 14:37.040]  car.
[14:37.040 --> 14:42.640]  All of these things they walk up and demand from you can be used to further incriminate
[14:42.640 --> 14:46.520]  you and charge you in a court of law.
[14:46.520 --> 14:53.080]  And yet right here this statute says he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.
[14:53.080 --> 14:59.160]  What does the officer do when you don't give him what he demands?
[14:59.160 --> 15:04.240]  He tells you produce it or I will place you under arrest and take you to jail.
[15:04.240 --> 15:05.960]  Well there's two problems.
[15:05.960 --> 15:09.000]  The officer is showing his ignorance of the facts here.
[15:09.000 --> 15:15.400]  One, you're already under arrest according to 543.001 Texas Transportation Code.
[15:15.400 --> 15:21.040]  Any peace officer may arrest without warrant any person found committing a violation of
[15:21.040 --> 15:30.080]  this subtitle meaning subtitle C of the Transportation Code which encompasses chapter 541-600.
[15:30.080 --> 15:34.800]  That's his warrantless arrest authority in 543.001.
[15:34.800 --> 15:40.240]  You read a little further down in 543 and it specifically states, the arresting officer
[15:40.240 --> 15:47.440]  may release the person arrested from custody if the person arrested shall agree and sign
[15:47.440 --> 15:54.480]  a promise to appear at a later date for the purpose of answering to the charge, okay?
[15:54.480 --> 15:59.160]  No question the statute clearly says you are arrested and you're only released from custody
[15:59.160 --> 16:01.000]  if you sign the citation.
[16:01.000 --> 16:05.520]  Yet the officer is telling you during the stop you're not under arrest, you're only
[16:05.520 --> 16:07.520]  being detained.
[16:07.520 --> 16:13.400]  He is showing and confessing his absolute ignorance of the laws that he is attempting to operate
[16:13.400 --> 16:15.960]  under without authority.
[16:15.960 --> 16:21.680]  And I say without authority because he is not certified to enforce traffic regulations
[16:21.680 --> 16:30.560]  in accordance with rule 4.13B of the Texas Administrative Code under Title 37.
[16:30.560 --> 16:33.960]  So we'll keep going with this on the other side.
[16:33.960 --> 16:36.160]  I'm going to keep breaking this down bit by bit here.
[16:36.160 --> 16:39.480]  If we do get any callers up on the board, please be patient.
[16:39.480 --> 16:41.880]  I will get to you when I get done with this presentation.
[16:41.880 --> 16:47.840]  If you want to call in and be on board, 512-646-1984, but I can't tell you this is going to take
[16:47.840 --> 16:52.400]  a little bit longer, so you may want to wait another segment or two before you try to call
[16:52.400 --> 16:54.600]  in and hang up on the board there for a while.
[16:54.600 --> 16:55.600]  All right, folks.
[16:55.600 --> 16:56.600]  This is Eddie Craig.
[16:56.600 --> 16:57.600]  Rule Law Radio.
[16:57.600 --> 16:58.600]  We'll be right back after the break.
[16:58.600 --> 17:15.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[17:15.600 --> 17:36.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[17:36.600 --> 17:44.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[17:44.600 --> 18:00.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[18:00.600 --> 18:26.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[18:26.600 --> 18:52.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[18:52.600 --> 19:21.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after the break.
[19:23.600 --> 19:38.600]  All right, folks, we are back.
[19:38.600 --> 19:40.600]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[19:40.600 --> 19:47.600]  Okay, now, let's see what the problem is with this officer not understanding Chapter 543
[19:47.600 --> 19:52.600]  and the fact that you actually are in a custodial arrest.
[19:52.600 --> 19:58.600]  Something these officers never do on a traffic stop, even if they place you under arrest.
[19:58.600 --> 20:00.600]  They don't do it for DUI arrest.
[20:00.600 --> 20:03.600]  They don't do it for anything.
[20:03.600 --> 20:06.600]  They never morandize you.
[20:06.600 --> 20:12.600]  Now, Texas law is very clear that the person tasked with the requirement to read you your
[20:12.600 --> 20:18.600]  Miranda rights is a magistrate during a 15.17 proceeding.
[20:18.600 --> 20:29.600]  However, the Texas law also specifically requires that the police officer morandize you when he arrest you.
[20:29.600 --> 20:36.600]  That is in Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when statements may be used.
[20:36.600 --> 20:47.600]  Now, listen very carefully to this and see if you can figure out why the officer is foobard by his neglect to understand
[20:47.600 --> 20:53.600]  543 of the Transportation Code in relation to this being a custodial arrest.
[20:53.600 --> 21:00.600]  The demand for the production of these documents that he's using to incriminate you at the traffic stop
[21:00.600 --> 21:09.600]  and any statements you may make such as, well, yes, officer, I had three beers, two shots, and I have a bottle of tequila three hours ago.
[21:09.600 --> 21:11.600]  And he hasn't morandized you yet.
[21:11.600 --> 21:13.600]  Let's review this.
[21:13.600 --> 21:16.600]  Section 1 of Article 38.22.
[21:16.600 --> 21:26.600]  In this article, a written statement of an accused means a statement signed by the accused or a statement made by the accused in his own handwriting,
[21:26.600 --> 21:36.600]  or if the accused is unable to write a statement bearing his mark when the mark has been witnessed by a person other than a peace officer.
[21:36.600 --> 21:43.600]  Now, whether or not you can write depends on whether you went to school in Detroit or whether or not you finished that bottle of tequila.
[21:43.600 --> 21:45.600]  Section 2.
[21:45.600 --> 22:00.600]  No written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the statement that,
[22:00.600 --> 22:18.600]  A, the accused prior to making the statement either received from a magistrate, the warning provided at Article 15.17 of this code, or received from the person to whom the statement is made a warning that,
[22:18.600 --> 22:30.600]  One, he has the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all, and that any statement he makes may be used against him at his trial.
[22:30.600 --> 22:36.600]  Two, any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him in court.
[22:36.600 --> 22:45.600]  Three, he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to enduring any questioning.
[22:45.600 --> 22:56.600]  Four, if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to enduring any questioning.
[22:56.600 --> 23:02.600]  And five, he has the right to terminate the interview at any time.
[23:02.600 --> 23:22.600]  And, subsection B, the accused prior to enduring the making of the statement knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the rights set out in the warning prescribed by subsection A of this section.
[23:22.600 --> 23:35.600]  Everything in section two right here is mandatory, people. It's not one of them or some of them. It is every single one of them.
[23:35.600 --> 23:43.600]  Absolutely mandatory. They are never done.
[23:43.600 --> 24:01.600]  And yet these officers in these traffic cases and these DUI cases consistently get on the stand and testify as to something that the accused individual admitted to at the time of the stop.
[24:01.600 --> 24:17.600]  Why? Because the defense attorney never filed an objection and a motion to suppress based upon the fact 38.22 had never been complied with.
[24:17.600 --> 24:31.600]  Now, this just goes to show you that the lawyers nor the judges know what the law is. And if you think a police officer actually knows the law, seriously?
[24:31.600 --> 24:52.600]  No. They know less about the law than they do about rocket science. Okay? Remember, average, IQ, law enforcement, nation or most assuredly, Texas, if not nationwide, 80.
[24:52.600 --> 25:12.600]  Texas, you are officially legally retarded if your IQ is 70. Average American IQ, 100, 110. Okay? Police officers in general, on average, 80.
[25:12.600 --> 25:28.600]  Big distinction there. They don't care to apply themselves because the only thing they have to know, according to most of them with the psychotic episodes and the egos, is that they have to badge the gun and the radio.
[25:28.600 --> 25:32.600]  And that makes them right.
[25:32.600 --> 25:53.600]  Nothing irritates me more than if for one of these morons to thump his chest and say, I am the law. No, you are not. You are the public servant tasked with properly protecting my rights while you attempt to enforce the law without violating them.
[25:53.600 --> 25:58.600]  That's what you are. You are not the law.
[25:58.600 --> 26:14.600]  And for you idiots that say that, please find a cliff and see how long it takes to hit bottom, kind of like licking the Tootsie Roll Center of a Tootsie Pop, keep counting till impact. Okay?
[26:14.600 --> 26:17.600]  The world could do without you.
[26:17.600 --> 26:44.600]  Now, section 3, sub-segment sub-item A. No oral or sign language statement of an accused made as a result of custodial interrogation shall be admissible against the accused in a criminal proceeding unless, one, an electronic recording which may include motion picture, videotape, or other visual recording is made of the statement.
[26:44.600 --> 26:49.600]  Okay? None of this is admissible if there's not a recording.
[26:49.600 --> 27:06.600]  Two, prior to the statement, but during the recording, the accused is given the warning in sub-section A of section 2 above and the accused knowingly intelligently and voluntarily waives any rights set out in the warning.
[27:06.600 --> 27:19.600]  Three, the recording device was capable of making an accurate recording. The operator was competent and the recording is accurate and has not been altered.
[27:19.600 --> 27:36.600]  I got to tell you, if this process is going on in a municipal court here in the city of Austin, this section has not been complied with because it is neither competent nor accurate to make the record the way they do in the Austin municipal court.
[27:36.600 --> 27:44.600]  My transcript of my trial is 100% proof of that fact.
[27:44.600 --> 27:54.600]  Subsection 4, all voices on the recording, or I'm sorry, three, the recording device was capable of making an accurate recording.
[27:54.600 --> 27:57.600]  The operator is competent and the recording is accurate and has not been altered.
[27:57.600 --> 28:03.600]  And then we go to four, all voices on the recording are identified.
[28:03.600 --> 28:10.600]  In other words, somebody had to go, please state your name for the record and then they make whatever statement they have to make.
[28:10.600 --> 28:19.600]  That's how they're identified. Then they have to be confirmed under oath in court that yes, that's so-and-so's voice or yes, that's my voice.
[28:19.600 --> 28:39.600]  And subsection 5, not later than the 20th day before the date of the proceeding, the attorney representing the defendant is provided with a true, complete, and accurate copy of all recordings of the defendant made under this article.
[28:39.600 --> 28:50.600]  Guess what is never in the hands of the defense and is never present in the court record?
[28:50.600 --> 28:56.600]  Any of these things. Wow.
[28:56.600 --> 29:13.600]  Subsection B, every electronic recording of any statement made by an accused during a custodial interrogation must be preserved until such time as a defendant's conviction for any offense relating there to is final.
[29:13.600 --> 29:23.600]  All direct appeals therefrom are exhausted or the prosecution of such offenses is barred by law.
[29:23.600 --> 29:30.600]  Now, this baloney they say about, well, we don't have that recording anymore. It's past the 60 days when we're allowed to destroy it.
[29:30.600 --> 29:37.600]  Right here, folks, you're not allowed to destroy it if the case is still pending. Idiot.
[29:37.600 --> 29:42.600]  All right, we will continue on to subsection C when we get back.
[29:42.600 --> 30:00.600]  Hang in there, folks. This is rule of law radio. This is your host, Eddie Craig, calling number 512-646-1984. Just hang in. We'll be right back on the other side of this break before it comes.
[30:00.600 --> 30:06.600]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[30:06.600 --> 30:10.600]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[30:10.600 --> 30:14.600]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:14.600 --> 30:17.600]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:17.600 --> 30:22.600]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:22.600 --> 30:26.600]  The people that did the things they did, they've gone on well with what they were doing.
[30:26.600 --> 30:30.600]  Expose the cover up now at alobalye.com.
[30:30.600 --> 30:38.600]  HempUSA.org has a revolutionary wonder food for detoxing the body and rebuilding the immune system.
[30:38.600 --> 30:46.600]  Micro plant powder can help unclog arteries and soften heart valves while removing heavy metals, virus, fungus, bacteria, and parasites.
[30:46.600 --> 30:53.600]  Plus, it cleans and purifies the blood, lungs, stomach, and colon. Keep your body clean with micro plant powder.
[30:53.600 --> 31:00.600]  Visit us at hempUSA.org or call 908-6912608 today.
[31:00.600 --> 31:09.600]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[31:09.600 --> 31:12.600]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[31:12.600 --> 31:13.600]  Brave New Books?
[31:13.600 --> 31:20.600]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Albert Griffin.
[31:20.600 --> 31:24.600]  They even stock inner food, Burkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[31:24.600 --> 31:26.600]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[31:26.600 --> 31:32.600]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[31:32.600 --> 31:36.600]  Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there.
[31:36.600 --> 31:43.600]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[31:43.600 --> 31:47.600]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[31:47.600 --> 31:56.600]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays, so get them a call at 512-480-2503,
[31:56.600 --> 31:59.600]  or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:01.600 --> 32:06.600]  Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:06.600 --> 32:10.600]  Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:14.600 --> 32:24.600]  Yeah, I got the warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the government them, prosecute them.
[32:24.600 --> 32:26.600]  Okay.
[32:26.600 --> 32:42.600]  All right, folks, and we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[32:42.600 --> 32:51.600]  Okay, we're going to continue on with this little example of public servant ignorance as it's codified in the law.
[32:51.600 --> 32:59.600]  So, this is proof positive our public servants neither know nor understand their duty under the law or the law itself.
[32:59.600 --> 33:05.600]  If they knew and understood it, they would know that these are required things.
[33:05.600 --> 33:16.600]  However, they get away with doing it because we, the general public, don't bother to understand our own law and presume that these people actually do.
[33:16.600 --> 33:21.600]  And that, as the saying goes, is a mistake.
[33:21.600 --> 33:34.600]  Okay, that's like giving the kindergarten kid that, you know, eats paste and thinks modeling clay is something that is best for sped to the kid next to him,
[33:34.600 --> 33:38.600]  and putting him in charge of the downtown fire department.
[33:38.600 --> 33:42.600]  Okay, and we all know how kids love to play with fire engines, right?
[33:42.600 --> 33:46.600]  But he's not going to go fight no fires, doesn't know how, wouldn't know how.
[33:46.600 --> 33:49.600]  That's kind of the predicament we have with our public servants.
[33:49.600 --> 33:51.600]  They're not being properly trained.
[33:51.600 --> 34:01.600]  In fact, they're intentionally being mistrained, whereas the American people are also being intentionally mistrained.
[34:01.600 --> 34:12.600]  When I say mistrained, I mean they're indoctrinated into a pattern of behavior and beliefs that negate the substantive protected rights that belong to all of us,
[34:12.600 --> 34:24.600]  because we're led to believe government is the source of those rights rather than the required protector of those rights.
[34:24.600 --> 34:26.600]  They don't grant them to us.
[34:26.600 --> 34:28.600]  The Constitution doesn't grant them to us.
[34:28.600 --> 34:31.600]  They're ours. They're inherent in us.
[34:31.600 --> 34:39.600]  And our public servant's sole lawful duty is to ensure that those rights are protected.
[34:39.600 --> 34:46.600]  And if you don't feel protected these days, that's our fault.
[34:46.600 --> 34:48.600]  Keep that in mind.
[34:48.600 --> 35:05.600]  Subsection C, Subsection A of this section shall not apply to any statement which contains assertion of facts or circumstances that are found to be true and which conduce to establish the guilt of the accused,
[35:05.600 --> 35:13.600]  such as the finding of secreted or stolen property or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed.
[35:13.600 --> 35:29.600]  Now, right there, Subsection C is saying that if your admission produces evidence of the crime, now suddenly all the rights that is supposedly protected are thrown out the window.
[35:29.600 --> 35:33.600]  Now, how does this work in a DUI case?
[35:33.600 --> 35:48.600]  Well, actually it works quite well because right here it contains assertion of facts or circumstances that are found to be true and which can do is to establish the guilt of the accused.
[35:48.600 --> 36:06.600]  In a DUI, the assertion that you've been drinking does not create substantive fact to prove you're over the legal limit and thus operating a motor vehicle for the purposes of a DUI.
[36:06.600 --> 36:12.600]  Their evidence is the breathalyzer or the blood, okay?
[36:12.600 --> 36:39.600]  When they charge you with this crime and they collect no evidence to substantiate the DUI, then they have not complied with Subsection C because they have no facts or circumstances that are found to be true and which conduce to establish the guilt of the accused.
[36:39.600 --> 36:44.600]  The officer's accusation does not establish guilt.
[36:44.600 --> 37:11.600]  The hard evidence of the breathalyzer and the blood might if those are not properly rebutted because they can say that they took the sample and that it absolutely proved that you were guilty, but you're never given the opportunity to take a second opinion sample from a separate independent source
[37:11.600 --> 37:21.600]  that either confirms or opposes the finding of guilt on these two pieces of evidence.
[37:21.600 --> 37:29.600]  You're never given the opportunity to do that to refute one collection of evidence with ample substantive evidence of the opposite.
[37:29.600 --> 37:52.600]  That's exactly why that judge up north of Philadelphia or Pennsylvania or New York or somewhere, I forget where, but he declared breathalyzer test unconstitutional because the accused was never given the opportunity to create opposing evidence to offset the state's alleged evidence.
[37:52.600 --> 38:16.600]  See, the state collects the sample, but they never provide an immediate copy of that sample or a secondary sample from the same source to the defense and allow the defense to have it tested to verify whether or not the evidence that the prosecutor claims to have is viable and true.
[38:16.600 --> 38:20.600]  Talk about denial of due process.
[38:20.600 --> 38:22.600]  Okay.
[38:22.600 --> 38:37.600]  When you're operating on evidence that has a fixed window of viability, then there is a right inherent in the defense in inquiring opposing evidence within that window.
[38:37.600 --> 38:40.600]  And they're never allowed to do that.
[38:40.600 --> 38:43.600]  That is a problem.
[38:43.600 --> 38:53.600]  And of course, the prosecutor can't take a sample and provide it to the defense because there's no way to verify where the prosecutor got it.
[38:53.600 --> 39:09.600]  The defendant has the right to take the sample himself and his attorney or himself has the right to prove that that sample either negates or is consistent with the prosecutor's sample finding.
[39:09.600 --> 39:14.600]  Otherwise, due process has been denied. It doesn't matter whether it's breath or blood.
[39:14.600 --> 39:18.600]  It applies in the same way in a DUI case.
[39:18.600 --> 39:27.600]  The simple accusation without the physical evidence should never, ever be the basis of a conviction.
[39:27.600 --> 39:34.600]  There is no evidence without the blood and without the breathalyzer.
[39:34.600 --> 39:49.600]  And there is no admissibility of that evidence if the defense has been denied the ability to get contradicting evidence of the same type in the same manner at the same time.
[39:49.600 --> 39:51.600]  See the problem?
[39:51.600 --> 39:55.600]  And you thought this was just all cut and dry here, didn't you?
[39:55.600 --> 40:04.600]  All right, subsection D. I'm sorry, let's continue on.
[40:04.600 --> 40:22.600]  If the accused is a deaf person, the accused's statement under section 2 or section 3a of this article is not admissible against the accused unless the warning in section 2 of this article is interpreted to the deaf person by an interpreter who is qualified and sworn as provided in article 38.31 of this code.
[40:22.600 --> 40:38.600]  Subsection E. The courts of this state shall strictly construe subsection A of this section and may not interpret subsection A as making admissible a statement unless all requirements of the subsection have been satisfied by the state.
[40:38.600 --> 40:55.600]  Except that, one, only voices that are material are identified, and two, the accused was given the warning in subsection A of section 2 above or it's fully effective equivalent.
[40:55.600 --> 41:12.600]  And there, my assertion earlier that every single thing listed in subsection A or section 2 of A were required is now verified by section E, or subsection E.
[41:12.600 --> 41:36.600]  Section 4, when any statement, the admissibility of which is covered by this article is sought to be used in connection with an official proceeding, any person who swears falsely to facts and circumstances which, if true, would render the statement admissible under this article is presumed to have
[41:36.600 --> 41:49.600]  acted with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's meaning for the purpose of prosecution for aggravated perjury under 37.03 of the penal code.
[41:49.600 --> 41:56.600]  No person prosecuted under this subsection shall be eligible for probation.
[41:56.600 --> 42:07.600]  That right there, folks, that right there should put the prosecutor and the witness in jail.
[42:07.600 --> 42:33.600]  Okay? In jail, they never perform these functions. Never. By law, these specific things are to be a part of the court record in the form of recordings, and there aren't ever any recordings in the court record.
[42:33.600 --> 42:37.600]  Never.
[42:37.600 --> 42:58.600]  Section 6, in all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions.
[42:58.600 --> 43:18.600]  If the statement has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of law, in fact, by the court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made,
[43:18.600 --> 43:29.600]  along with the specific finding of facts upon which the conclusion was based. Which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause?
[43:29.600 --> 43:38.600]  Such order shall not be exhibited to the jury, nor the finding thereof may be known to the jury in any manner.
[43:38.600 --> 44:00.600]  Okay, folks? Completely not done. We'll continue with section 6 when we get back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back on the other side of the break, so please hang in there with us.
[44:00.600 --> 44:14.600]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, debt by step.
[44:14.600 --> 44:22.600]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.600 --> 44:33.600]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:33.600 --> 44:42.600]  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.
[44:42.600 --> 44:55.600]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[44:55.600 --> 45:13.600]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[45:25.600 --> 45:38.600]  In the morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her children in one of her legs in the bombing, testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the faithful John Doe No. 2, exiting the rider truck.
[45:38.600 --> 45:52.600]  While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing, no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he rented the rider truck.
[45:52.600 --> 46:01.600]  And in some cases, have positively identified the other perpetrators. For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:22.600 --> 46:46.600]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Alright, this is your host, Eddie Craig. I am going through Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with when statements may be used in conjunction with Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure understanding your rights.
[46:46.600 --> 46:58.600]  Well, folks, 38.22 is a part of those rights. This is where the Miranda is supposed to be read to you during any type of criminal encounter with the police.
[46:58.600 --> 47:05.600]  They're not allowed to use statements you make or anything else if they haven't complied with this section. They do it all the time.
[47:05.600 --> 47:19.600]  And they're violating law when they do it. They're violating your rights when you do it. But the fact that you don't know they're required to do it, your attorney doesn't know they're required to do it, simply means that they have a very big problem.
[47:19.600 --> 47:36.600]  And that problem is not going to go away anytime soon because in order to understand, provide a method and procedure and thus eliminate a problem, you must have the IQ to do all of the above.
[47:36.600 --> 47:39.600]  And they simply don't.
[47:39.600 --> 47:51.600]  The IQ is lowered by the fact that they believe might makes right. If might makes right, they believe they're not required to think. They simply have to say and you're required to do.
[47:51.600 --> 48:03.600]  I'm here to tell you it just ain't so. What's that old Uncle Remus saying? It's not what you don't know that puts a hurting on you. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
[48:03.600 --> 48:13.600]  Well, folks, this is it. It's a big part of it. This is what every one of these people knows for sure. But it just ain't so.
[48:13.600 --> 48:18.600]  Let's continue on with section 6 of article 38.22.
[48:18.600 --> 48:29.600]  Upon the finding by the judge is a matter of law and fact that the statement was voluntarily made. Now remember, it can only be voluntarily made if you have already received the Miranda notice.
[48:29.600 --> 48:34.600]  Otherwise, it cannot possibly be voluntarily made.
[48:34.600 --> 48:57.600]  Evidence pertaining to such matter may be submitted to the jury and it shall be instructed that unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily made, the jury shall not consider such statement for any purpose nor any evidence obtained as a result thereof.
[48:57.600 --> 49:10.600]  Right here, folks, right here is where that motion to suppress should have been filed. Based upon 38.22, the jury should never hear whether or not the statement was voluntarily made.
[49:10.600 --> 49:20.600]  Why? Because the court will never hear whether the statement was voluntarily made. Why? Because no recording was ever made.
[49:20.600 --> 49:35.600]  That can prove the statement was voluntarily made. Why? Because the cops never morandize you and that is a requirement for the statement to be voluntarily made.
[49:35.600 --> 49:51.600]  Therefore, whether a recording exists or not is moot because proof that the required Miranda rights was given prior to the statement doesn't exist. It's not in the recording.
[49:51.600 --> 50:08.600]  Neither are the voices in the recording identified until the moment of trial when it's played. That is too late according to this statute because this statute's entire purpose is to say when you can't put them before the jury.
[50:08.600 --> 50:23.600]  So having them played in the recording at the time of trial so the jury hears it and then turn around and tell the jury you will pretend you never heard that and forget that it was ever said for the purpose of handing down your judgment.
[50:23.600 --> 50:41.600]  Yeah, right. That's going to happen. Okay. So continuing on. In any case where a motion to suppress the statement has been filed and evidence has been submitted to the court on this issue.
[50:41.600 --> 51:00.600]  The court within his discretion may reconsider such evidence in his finding that the statement was voluntarily made and the same evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on the motion to suppress shall be made a part of the record the same as if it were being presented at the time of trial.
[51:00.600 --> 51:13.600]  However, the state or the defendant shall be entitled to present any new evidence on the issue of the voluntariness of the statement prior to the court's final ruling and order stating its finding.
[51:13.600 --> 51:24.600]  They have to submit it prior to the final ruling and order of the court. If they do it after the fact, according to this statute, it's too late.
[51:24.600 --> 51:34.600]  Section seven, when the issue is raised by the evidence, the trial judge shall appropriately instruct the jury generally on the law pertaining to such statement.
[51:34.600 --> 51:43.600]  In other words, the judge is required to read 38.22 to the jury. That also never happens.
[51:43.600 --> 51:55.600]  The moment the prosecutor asks a question about did the defendant make any statements to you at the time of the stop, you should be objecting. Objection, statement, inadmissible.
[51:55.600 --> 52:13.600]  The statement alleged was not made under in accordance with the provisions of Article 38.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Any such statement is inadmissible and any evidence associated with such statement is inadmissible.
[52:13.600 --> 52:28.600]  Now, knowing what we know, that should have already been filed in writing prior to trial. And with the way the municipal court performs its functions and most of these courts perform their functions in these types of cases,
[52:28.600 --> 52:43.600]  they will deny the motion out of hand despite the fact the statute specifically says they must conduct a separate hearing to determine whether or not the statement was voluntarily made.
[52:43.600 --> 53:03.600]  Talk about your appealable issue in a nutshell. But again, no issue is appealable if you don't know that you had to object to it beforehand. If you never objected, you waived the objection and you have no appealable error.
[53:03.600 --> 53:20.600]  This, folks, is why it is necessary that we learn the rules of the game and the Code of Criminal Procedure is the rules of the game. They don't ever follow them, but how are you going to know that if you don't know how the game is required to be played?
[53:20.600 --> 53:36.600]  If you've never played Monopoly and you're playing with somebody that's an expert at it, but he has his way of playing and it isn't in accordance with the Monopoly rules that are printed on the inside top cover of the box,
[53:36.600 --> 53:55.600]  and you've never read the rules, he can tell you anything he wants and beat the living crap out of you simply by saying, oh, well, you didn't roll a seven before you landed on that property. Therefore, you must now go into a bidding war with me over the property
[53:55.600 --> 54:01.600]  and the first person that gets to 50 bucks wins. I bid 50 bucks.
[54:01.600 --> 54:11.600]  See how that works? If he makes up his rules and you haven't actually read the rules, how are you going to know if he's lying?
[54:11.600 --> 54:26.600]  Well, I'm here to tell you these people lie. It's their job. It's how they get paid. It's how they keep their job. They lie.
[54:26.600 --> 54:31.600]  Stop letting them get away with it. Okay. Learn the rules.
[54:31.600 --> 54:44.600]  Continuing on with Section 6. However, I'm sorry, Section 7, when the issue is raised by the Evidence to Trial Court, shall appropriately instruct the jury generally on the law pertaining to such statement.
[54:44.600 --> 55:00.600]  Section 8, notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a written, oral, or sign language statement of an accused made as a result of a custodial interrogation, is it missable against the accused at a criminal proceeding in this state if,
[55:00.600 --> 55:22.600]  one, the statement was obtained in another state and was obtained in compliance with the laws of that state or this state, or two, the statement was obtained by a federal law enforcement officer in this state or another state and was obtained in compliance with the laws of the United States.
[55:22.600 --> 55:36.600]  I got news for you. None of this stuff is ever done. None of it, not one, ever, anywhere. This doesn't happen.
[55:36.600 --> 55:54.600]  Not to mention the fact that they don't do it during the time of the arrest. They don't take you directly to the magistrate 99% of the time so that the magistrate can do it before they are allowed to question you about anything. Now, remember, the Miranda has to proceed any questioning.
[55:54.600 --> 56:10.600]  It has to proceed any type of statement unless that statement goes directly to the discovery of factual evidence and circumstances that prove a crime occurred.
[56:10.600 --> 56:28.600]  And again, they don't get that. In a DUI case, no blood, no breath, no evidence, no factual evidence consistent with the circumstances proving the guilt of the accused. Isn't there?
[56:28.600 --> 56:49.600]  All right. So if they admitted to murdering five people but the cops searched the car, they don't find a body, they don't find a murder weapon, they don't find any blood, they don't find any evidence at the scene that a murder has occurred,
[56:49.600 --> 57:02.600]  they cannot use that confession against the accused at trial if they failed to mirandize them prior to its being made. Period.
[57:02.600 --> 57:18.600]  Talk about a time bomb that just sits out there and waits to go off. Let's say we do have a Ted Bundy out there or a son of Sam or any of those types of maniacal serial killers.
[57:18.600 --> 57:37.600]  And every time they're stopped by a police officer and the officer arrests them for a traffic stop, they can confess till they're blue in the face and none of that can be used against them in a court of law for the murders.
[57:37.600 --> 57:50.600]  Go figure. Talk about an easy way to negate the state's ability to use a statement against you for horrific crimes. That would be it.
[57:50.600 --> 57:59.600]  So why aren't the cops smart enough to read this and understand the requirement to mirandize?
[57:59.600 --> 58:19.600]  Again, I refer you to the average 80 IQ. That would probably do it in those cases, especially since they can hardly remember to get up and go through the 3S system every morning without signs and post-it notes stuck all over the house to remind them the proper procedure for getting ready for work.
[58:19.600 --> 58:30.600]  We have to deal with these people and we have to do it soon. We're only going to do that by educating ourselves and applying that knowledge to the cases we engage in.
[58:30.600 --> 58:39.600]  And we need to be engaging in them all. It is no longer time to pick your battles. It is time to fight them. Let's get busy.
[58:39.600 --> 58:49.600]  This is Rule of Law Radio. Your host, Eddie Craig, will be right back after this break.
[59:09.600 --> 59:27.600]  This new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.600 --> 59:47.600]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.600 --> 59:59.600]  That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[59:59.600 --> 01:00:12.600]  Every inbox is plagued by scanned emails offering big bucks in exchange for a small upfront loan. But why do these swindlers always tell you they're Nigerian?
[01:00:12.600 --> 01:00:19.600]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht and I'll have the answer in just a moment.
[01:00:43.600 --> 01:00:56.600]  Dear Mrs. Dow, I work at the Nigerian Department of Oil and I desperately need to transfer $100 million to the United States, but I'm terminally ill and I can't do it alone.
[01:00:56.600 --> 01:01:03.600]  If you'd email me your bank details and a small amount to cover the transfer, I'd gladly offer you a 10% share.
[01:01:03.600 --> 01:01:14.600]  Unfortunately, online scams like this one are hugely successful, but haven't you wondered why these crooks still identify themselves as Nigerian despite that country's awful reputation for fraud?
[01:01:14.600 --> 01:01:24.600]  Answer? By chasing away all but the most gullible, scammers make sure they're dealing with people who are extra clueless and they milk that cluelessness all the way to the bank.
[01:01:24.600 --> 01:01:31.600]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:01:31.600 --> 01:01:39.600]  For the first time in a thousand years, an ancient British university has changed its dress code in a very bizarre way.
[01:01:39.600 --> 01:01:46.600]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht. Back to tell how Oxford University is rewriting the rules for school attire in a moment.
[01:01:46.600 --> 01:01:57.600]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again, and once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.600 --> 01:02:05.600]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:05.600 --> 01:02:16.600]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:16.600 --> 01:02:25.600]  For centuries, Oxford students have worn distinctive academic uniforms, but now the university has rewritten its dress code to accommodate cross-dressing.
[01:02:25.600 --> 01:02:30.600]  The dress code is serious business at Oxford, which expels students who violate it.
[01:02:30.600 --> 01:02:37.600]  For a thousand years, male students have worn dark suits and socks, white bow ties, and collars beneath black gowns.
[01:02:37.600 --> 01:02:43.600]  Women have worn dark skirts or trousers, white blouses, black hair ribbons, and black stockings.
[01:02:43.600 --> 01:02:49.600]  But now, men can don those skirts and stockings, and women can sport suits and white bow ties.
[01:02:49.600 --> 01:02:54.600]  But somehow, I don't think that's what the Oxford dress code founders had in mind.
[01:02:54.600 --> 01:02:59.600]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:03:25.600 --> 01:03:32.600]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:32.600 --> 01:03:37.600]  All right, I have a caller up on the board right now, so I'm going to go ahead and take that.
[01:03:37.600 --> 01:03:45.600]  And if we don't get anybody else up behind them, I will go back to what we were talking about before and continue on with this.
[01:03:45.600 --> 01:03:50.600]  All right, we're going to Jim in Chicago. Jim, what can we do for you?
[01:03:50.600 --> 01:03:54.600]  Yeah, I will say, what about this approach, like in traffic court?
[01:03:54.600 --> 01:04:02.600]  When they asked me to enter a plea, I would say I refuse to enter a plea and I stand mute.
[01:04:02.600 --> 01:04:07.600]  So then the judge would say, enter a plea if not guilty for me.
[01:04:07.600 --> 01:04:15.600]  So then I would object that he's practicing law from the bench and acting as my attorney without retainer.
[01:04:15.600 --> 01:04:26.600]  But then, depending what he does, I would say, well, the prosecutor has not challenged jurisdiction on the record.
[01:04:26.600 --> 01:04:30.600]  Why would the prosecutor challenge jurisdiction?
[01:04:30.600 --> 01:04:37.600]  I remember some U.S. Supreme Court case saying that once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be...
[01:04:37.600 --> 01:04:44.600]  Yeah, but the prosecutor isn't going to challenge it unless the defendant's the one that's going to challenge it.
[01:04:44.600 --> 01:04:51.600]  Right, but that's what I'm saying. That's why I refuse to enter a plea and stand, and I stand as mute.
[01:04:51.600 --> 01:04:58.600]  Okay, refusing to enter a plea is not a challenge to jurisdiction. They're separate and distinct things.
[01:04:58.600 --> 01:05:01.600]  Right, I understand. That's right.
[01:05:01.600 --> 01:05:13.600]  But if I say after that, after all that what I said, after all that phraseology, if I say...
[01:05:13.600 --> 01:05:18.600]  Okay. Let's try this approach.
[01:05:18.600 --> 01:05:19.600]  Okay.
[01:05:19.600 --> 01:05:32.600]  I object. I declined to plea at this time as the state has failed to prove standing on the record in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, both personal and subject matter.
[01:05:32.600 --> 01:05:34.600]  Why doesn't that work?
[01:05:34.600 --> 01:05:36.600]  Okay.
[01:05:36.600 --> 01:05:41.600]  And then what are the different variations of the back and forth? Any ideas? How will make...
[01:05:41.600 --> 01:05:48.600]  Well, that all depends upon the judge, but the assertion is I was not engaging in transportation.
[01:05:48.600 --> 01:06:07.600]  Therefore, any alleged offense under that requires the state to prove that the regular activity of transportation was being actively engaged in by me in order to make me subject to that statute and thus able to commit the offense.
[01:06:07.600 --> 01:06:20.600]  State has entered no such evidence on the record. If state cannot prove the regular activity was occurring, state has no standing to bring an assertion of an offense.
[01:06:20.600 --> 01:06:21.600]  See the problem?
[01:06:21.600 --> 01:06:22.600]  What about...
[01:06:22.600 --> 01:06:34.600]  Yeah, I understand. Yeah, that's good, but also as another backup, what about the prosecutor not being elected?
[01:06:34.600 --> 01:06:36.600]  Can I use that as an argument?
[01:06:36.600 --> 01:06:41.600]  What makes you think the prosecutor has to be elected?
[01:06:41.600 --> 01:06:50.600]  Does the state of Illinois constitution require that all prosecutors be elected like they do here in Texas?
[01:06:50.600 --> 01:07:09.600]  Because in Texas, the only persons allowed to wield the prosecutorial power of the state, according to Article 5, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution, are county and district attorneys, which is exactly why a municipal attorney cannot, is not, and never will be an attorney for the state.
[01:07:09.600 --> 01:07:10.600]  And what about...
[01:07:10.600 --> 01:07:15.600]  There's common law precedent, even though the statute may override...
[01:07:15.600 --> 01:07:18.600]  Common law precedent for what?
[01:07:18.600 --> 01:07:21.600]  That the prosecutor has to be elected.
[01:07:21.600 --> 01:07:28.600]  Well, again, who are the elected prosecutors according to your state constitution?
[01:07:28.600 --> 01:07:31.600]  Well, even if...
[01:07:31.600 --> 01:07:32.600]  Even if...
[01:07:32.600 --> 01:07:39.600]  Wait, wait, wait. You're not answering my question. Before you go making an assertion of your own, answer my question.
[01:07:39.600 --> 01:07:48.600]  Who does your state constitution, the Illinois Constitution, say, is granted the prosecutorial power of the state?
[01:07:48.600 --> 01:07:50.600]  Yeah, I'm not sure about that.
[01:07:50.600 --> 01:07:58.600]  Well, that's something you need to know, because only the ones constitutionally authorized to wield that power may do so.
[01:07:58.600 --> 01:08:08.600]  The legislature cannot delegate any power specifically assigned by the Constitution to a given public officer, period.
[01:08:08.600 --> 01:08:12.600]  Well, even though there's... But let's say there is statutory authority.
[01:08:12.600 --> 01:08:27.600]  There is no such thing. What did I just say? The legislature cannot grant an authority to delegate a power that is specifically assigned by the Constitution of the state.
[01:08:27.600 --> 01:08:30.600]  Okay, but what if it is assigned by the Constitution?
[01:08:30.600 --> 01:08:40.600]  If it is, then the person's allowed to wield it. As long as the person meets... Hold on. As long as the person...
[01:08:40.600 --> 01:08:45.600]  One of us has to stop talking over the other one here, and guess who's going to win?
[01:08:45.600 --> 01:08:56.600]  The person has to meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office. If they don't, they're still not acting with proper authority.
[01:08:56.600 --> 01:08:59.600]  Why is that?
[01:08:59.600 --> 01:09:04.600]  If they're required to have an oath of office and they don't, they're not legal, they're not lawful.
[01:09:04.600 --> 01:09:13.600]  If they're required to occupy a particular office to wield the power and they don't, like, for instance, separation of powers.
[01:09:13.600 --> 01:09:14.600]  Okay?
[01:09:14.600 --> 01:09:22.600]  Yeah, but what if they do have the state authority and the oath? Is there still something else you can do?
[01:09:22.600 --> 01:09:25.600]  Okay, let's follow this through.
[01:09:25.600 --> 01:09:27.600]  Is there a third option?
[01:09:27.600 --> 01:09:29.600]  Let's follow this through.
[01:09:29.600 --> 01:09:30.600]  Okay.
[01:09:30.600 --> 01:09:34.600]  I'm hearing you ask me questions. Let me answer them.
[01:09:34.600 --> 01:09:35.600]  Okay?
[01:09:35.600 --> 01:09:36.600]  Okay.
[01:09:36.600 --> 01:09:48.600]  If they're constitutionally delegated the power, they have it. If they constitutionally qualified to hold the office that wields that power, they have it.
[01:09:48.600 --> 01:09:56.600]  If they have complied with the laws governing the duty of their office in exercising that power, they have it.
[01:09:56.600 --> 01:10:04.600]  If they have not used that power in a manner that violates the protected rights of the accused, they have it.
[01:10:04.600 --> 01:10:30.600]  If they then wield that power in a manner consistent with having standing for the accusation in a court of law by proper notice, proper filing of a charging instrument, and proper subject matter jurisdiction because the facts in the record prove the subject matter exists, they have it.
[01:10:30.600 --> 01:10:35.600]  Now, in that case, you have no challenge to the prosecutor.
[01:10:35.600 --> 01:10:48.600]  You only have challenge to the procedures that are not being followed by any other parties because up to this point, the prosecutor has complied with everything they're required to comply with.
[01:10:48.600 --> 01:10:57.600]  So that leaves the judge and any other mandate of statute that does not conflict with your state constitution.
[01:10:57.600 --> 01:11:04.600]  Doesn't the prosecutor have to put all this on the record once challenged?
[01:11:04.600 --> 01:11:07.600]  What is all of this?
[01:11:07.600 --> 01:11:14.600]  Well, he has to bring forth this oath of office, the statute, the law.
[01:11:14.600 --> 01:11:18.600]  No, not unless you challenge that they exist.
[01:11:18.600 --> 01:11:24.600]  Anything you fail to challenge will be presumed to be true and correct.
[01:11:24.600 --> 01:11:33.600]  If they assert they're an attorney for the state and no one challenges that assertion, then the presumption shall be they are an attorney for the state.
[01:11:33.600 --> 01:11:35.600]  Period.
[01:11:35.600 --> 01:11:40.600]  Now, how about the argument that you can't find licensed attorneys to represent you?
[01:11:40.600 --> 01:11:44.600]  Okay, that's a patronut argument.
[01:11:44.600 --> 01:11:48.600]  There are plenty of licensed attorneys, plenty of them.
[01:11:48.600 --> 01:11:55.600]  But does it say licensed attorney, the document, or does it say certificate of admission to the bar?
[01:11:55.600 --> 01:11:56.600]  What about that?
[01:11:56.600 --> 01:11:58.600]  They're different things.
[01:11:58.600 --> 01:12:01.600]  A bar card admission is a membership dues card.
[01:12:01.600 --> 01:12:09.600]  A license in Texas, anyway, is issued by the Supreme Court, signed by all nine justices.
[01:12:09.600 --> 01:12:12.600]  Incorrectly, I might add.
[01:12:12.600 --> 01:12:19.600]  But it's done by the Supreme Court of Texas in issuing the lawyer's license.
[01:12:19.600 --> 01:12:28.600]  But then the bar is a completely separate thing that the license allows them to go and take the bar exam.
[01:12:28.600 --> 01:12:35.600]  And if they pass, then they get a bar card and get to pay dues to the bar forever.
[01:12:35.600 --> 01:12:48.600]  Can I use the incorrect argument that the Supreme Court of the state signs it incorrectly as an argument that I can't find a licensed attorney?
[01:12:48.600 --> 01:12:57.600]  You can argue that you can find one that's not properly licensing compliance with the Constitution of the state.
[01:12:57.600 --> 01:12:59.600]  Why is it not incorrectly signed?
[01:12:59.600 --> 01:13:00.600]  What was the issue there?
[01:13:00.600 --> 01:13:07.600]  Because the language of the Constitution says that the signatures of the justices shall be affixed to the document.
[01:13:07.600 --> 01:13:09.600]  Or subscribed on the document, actually, is what it says.
[01:13:09.600 --> 01:13:13.600]  Subscribed means written on, okay?
[01:13:13.600 --> 01:13:21.600]  What they do is whatever location the attorney's at, that's where they deliver the oath.
[01:13:21.600 --> 01:13:24.600]  It's not delivered by the nine justices.
[01:13:24.600 --> 01:13:32.600]  The nine justices actually sign a little sticky label that their signatures, they don't actually even sign that.
[01:13:32.600 --> 01:13:36.600]  Their signatures are stamped onto this peel off sticky back label.
[01:13:36.600 --> 01:13:42.600]  That is sent to whoever is giving the oath to this new attorney.
[01:13:42.600 --> 01:13:48.600]  And as soon as they take it, that label is peeled off and stuck on the back of the law license.
[01:13:48.600 --> 01:13:57.600]  It's not issued by the justices. It's not subscribed on by the justices.
[01:13:57.600 --> 01:14:01.600]  Because they don't want to hear it to the statute.
[01:14:01.600 --> 01:14:06.600]  It's not a statute. That's the way the Constitution says it's required to be done.
[01:14:06.600 --> 01:14:11.600]  And that's the way the statute that goes with the Constitution says it's required to be done.
[01:14:11.600 --> 01:14:12.600]  The state Constitution.
[01:14:12.600 --> 01:14:13.600]  Yes.
[01:14:13.600 --> 01:14:15.600]  The state Constitution.
[01:14:15.600 --> 01:14:22.600]  Some state constitutions may be doing, may not have that requirement.
[01:14:22.600 --> 01:14:23.600]  That's true.
[01:14:23.600 --> 01:14:28.600]  Then you have to find out whether there's a statutory requirement and what it is.
[01:14:28.600 --> 01:14:36.600]  But what about if the justices give the license, I think performing an executive function, which is a violation.
[01:14:36.600 --> 01:14:44.600]  Yeah, that's one of the problems with having a judicial agency acting administratively for the purpose of issuing licenses.
[01:14:44.600 --> 01:14:48.600]  Yeah, which we want the license then to be invalid, but you can't find a license.
[01:14:48.600 --> 01:14:55.600]  If you can make that argument properly, potentially, if the court see it that way, unfortunately, let's see how this is going to turn out.
[01:14:55.600 --> 01:15:10.600]  You file the accusation that the Supreme Court license is invalid because the Supreme Court didn't follow the law on subscribing on the license, their signatures.
[01:15:10.600 --> 01:15:20.600]  And then as that case progresses through the appeals, it goes to the very court that you're accusing of doing it wrong.
[01:15:20.600 --> 01:15:25.600]  How do you think that one's going to turn out?
[01:15:25.600 --> 01:15:28.600]  You see the catch-22 problem?
[01:15:28.600 --> 01:15:31.600]  I kind of lost you a little bit, but...
[01:15:31.600 --> 01:15:41.600]  I said, do you see the catch-22 problem? Eventually, your appeal of this procedure is going to go right to the very court you're arguing is doing the procedure incorrectly.
[01:15:41.600 --> 01:15:44.600]  How do you think they're going to rule?
[01:15:44.600 --> 01:15:49.600]  Well, then there's conflict of interest, so then shouldn't I automatically win?
[01:15:49.600 --> 01:15:50.600]  Because there's no due process.
[01:15:50.600 --> 01:15:54.600]  No, you're not going to automatically win.
[01:15:54.600 --> 01:15:58.600]  Because you can't get a party that's disinterested to judge.
[01:15:58.600 --> 01:16:00.600]  Well, then where does it go from there?
[01:16:00.600 --> 01:16:07.600]  If it can't get past the state court level, then where does it have to go next?
[01:16:07.600 --> 01:16:11.600]  Aren't you only allowed one appeal for most cases?
[01:16:11.600 --> 01:16:17.600]  No, it all depends upon how the appeal was done in the first place.
[01:16:17.600 --> 01:16:23.600]  You can appeal it all the way to the highest court in the land, which is what?
[01:16:23.600 --> 01:16:25.600]  Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court.
[01:16:25.600 --> 01:16:26.600]  Correct.
[01:16:26.600 --> 01:16:40.600]  How do you figure that when you go from the trial court to the court of appeals, then to the criminal court of appeals, then to the United States Supreme Court that you only had one appeal?
[01:16:40.600 --> 01:16:45.600]  Well, that's what I read at Farbury, the Farbury Review that lawyers read.
[01:16:45.600 --> 01:16:49.600]  Okay, hang on just a second, Jim. We're going to take a break. We'll be right back.
[01:16:49.600 --> 01:17:00.600]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984. Let's get some callers on here. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.600 --> 01:17:09.600]  At Capital Coin & Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:09.600 --> 01:17:13.600]  Capital Coin features a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:13.600 --> 01:17:20.600]  In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the best shopping experience both in-store and online.
[01:17:20.600 --> 01:17:26.600]  In addition to coins and bullion, we carry popular young Jebedee products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst.
[01:17:26.600 --> 01:17:34.600]  We offer freeze-dried, storeable foods by Augustine Farms, Berkey Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:34.600 --> 01:17:43.600]  You can lock in a spot price with our Silver Pool, and we set up Metals IRA accounts. Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details.
[01:17:43.600 --> 01:17:48.600]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Amerson.
[01:17:48.600 --> 01:17:52.600]  We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-2.
[01:17:52.600 --> 01:17:57.600]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:17:57.600 --> 01:18:12.600]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, see what you've done to me. I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be.
[01:18:12.600 --> 01:18:22.600]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good. I don't eat so much food.
[01:18:22.600 --> 01:18:28.600]  Ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be?
[01:18:28.600 --> 01:18:39.600]  Calcium, magnesium, selenium and zinc. Take a moment now and think if you have a little thing.
[01:18:39.600 --> 01:18:45.600]  Every day will bring the life that you've been looking for.
[01:18:45.600 --> 01:18:52.600]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadeloupe Street.
[01:18:52.600 --> 01:19:00.600]  The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallach, founder of Young Jevity and creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine.
[01:19:00.600 --> 01:19:16.600]  Ain't gonna blind me, don't fool me.
[01:19:16.600 --> 01:19:25.600]  Well, ain't gonna fool me without you anymore.
[01:19:25.600 --> 01:19:35.600]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:35.600 --> 01:19:38.600]  We still have Jim on the line. We don't have any other callers.
[01:19:38.600 --> 01:19:46.600]  So I'm gonna keep going until I can either get Jim convinced that this has to end at some time or I can get back to this study, whichever comes first.
[01:19:46.600 --> 01:19:50.600]  Alright Jim, let's get on with this.
[01:19:50.600 --> 01:19:52.600]  Okay.
[01:19:52.600 --> 01:19:59.600]  Okay, now at some point this has to go to the highest court in the land to make this determination.
[01:19:59.600 --> 01:20:12.600]  Not everybody's gonna be disqualified all the way up the line because the way the courts have set this system up, their declaration is the disqualification of all is the disqualification of none.
[01:20:12.600 --> 01:20:21.600]  You see the problem? So you will never get a default win by disqualification. We clear on that?
[01:20:21.600 --> 01:20:27.600]  Yeah, but that, won't that mean that all must be disqualified because there's no other request?
[01:20:27.600 --> 01:20:38.600]  Okay, which part of my statement are you not following? The disqualification of all means the disqualification of none.
[01:20:38.600 --> 01:20:40.600]  Right, but that creates like a paradox.
[01:20:40.600 --> 01:20:46.600]  Well, no kidding, but it ain't my paradox and you and I ain't gonna fix it from where we're sitting.
[01:20:46.600 --> 01:20:47.600]  Right, okay.
[01:20:47.600 --> 01:21:00.600]  We have to fix the system to fix the judges and we do that by making the system punish the guilty and that includes the people that work in it.
[01:21:00.600 --> 01:21:06.600]  So we have to get control of everything else if we want control of the courts too.
[01:21:06.600 --> 01:21:18.600]  Because the courts can't create a doctrine if the executive won't enforce it and the legislative will create laws that throw the doctrine down.
[01:21:18.600 --> 01:21:20.600]  See the point?
[01:21:20.600 --> 01:21:21.600]  Okay.
[01:21:21.600 --> 01:21:28.600]  You want control of the courts, you get control of the legislature who creates the law that controls the courts.
[01:21:28.600 --> 01:21:41.600]  You want to control the courts, you control the executive branch that's required to enforce the law in a manner consistent with the rights of the people first.
[01:21:41.600 --> 01:21:57.600]  Regardless of how the law reads, the executive has just as much authority to say I cannot and will not enforce that law because it violates in my understanding these protected rights.
[01:21:57.600 --> 01:22:06.600]  And I took an oath to support, defend and uphold those individual rights for every member of our society.
[01:22:06.600 --> 01:22:10.600]  An executive officer has every right to do that and he should do that.
[01:22:10.600 --> 01:22:19.600]  That's why they want these guys with the ADIQs who never knew what that meant to begin with.
[01:22:19.600 --> 01:22:20.600]  Okay.
[01:22:20.600 --> 01:22:22.600]  All right.
[01:22:22.600 --> 01:22:24.600]  So that's the paradox we have.
[01:22:24.600 --> 01:22:25.600]  You're right.
[01:22:25.600 --> 01:22:27.600]  That's the paradox.
[01:22:27.600 --> 01:22:37.600]  But there is no quick fix without a quick uprising of strengthened numbers taking control of all the branches.
[01:22:37.600 --> 01:22:42.600]  So how about if you're in court and the judge kind of yells without those calls?
[01:22:42.600 --> 01:22:47.600]  Doesn't he have to arrest himself for disorderly conduct?
[01:22:47.600 --> 01:22:50.600]  Do you go fishing a lot?
[01:22:50.600 --> 01:22:51.600]  No.
[01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:54.600]  Oh, yes you do.
[01:22:54.600 --> 01:22:57.600]  You don't use a pole in water.
[01:22:57.600 --> 01:22:58.600]  Okay.
[01:22:58.600 --> 01:23:01.600]  That's what you're doing by asking these kinds of questions.
[01:23:01.600 --> 01:23:04.600]  No, that's a ludicrous argument.
[01:23:04.600 --> 01:23:08.600]  He is the boss in that courtroom.
[01:23:08.600 --> 01:23:11.600]  Now he's required to do certain things in order with law.
[01:23:11.600 --> 01:23:12.600]  Okay.
[01:23:12.600 --> 01:23:15.600]  But no, he's not going to arrest himself for yelling.
[01:23:15.600 --> 01:23:17.600]  Are you kidding?
[01:23:17.600 --> 01:23:18.600]  How about the police?
[01:23:18.600 --> 01:23:24.600]  They have to arrest themselves if they yell at you without just calls.
[01:23:24.600 --> 01:23:28.600]  Were you around in the 60s?
[01:23:28.600 --> 01:23:29.600]  Yeah.
[01:23:29.600 --> 01:23:31.600]  Yeah?
[01:23:31.600 --> 01:23:33.600]  You wear a ponytail, man?
[01:23:33.600 --> 01:23:34.600]  No.
[01:23:34.600 --> 01:23:35.600]  No?
[01:23:35.600 --> 01:23:37.600]  Okay.
[01:23:37.600 --> 01:23:41.600]  I was getting worried because if you're wearing it too tight, loosen it up a little bit.
[01:23:41.600 --> 01:23:42.600]  No.
[01:23:42.600 --> 01:23:44.600]  That's not the way it's going to work.
[01:23:44.600 --> 01:23:49.600]  Should other cops arrest cops that breach the peace by violating the rights of an individual?
[01:23:49.600 --> 01:23:51.600]  Absolutely.
[01:23:51.600 --> 01:23:53.600]  But let's look at it this way.
[01:23:53.600 --> 01:24:01.600]  You go to the local zoo to the monkey cage and everybody knows there's that one monkey that likes to throw his crap on every visitor.
[01:24:01.600 --> 01:24:09.600]  Do you see the other monkeys running up to arrest him and telling him he's breaching the peace by splattering the visitors with the peanuts with his crap?
[01:24:09.600 --> 01:24:10.600]  No.
[01:24:10.600 --> 01:24:11.600]  Why?
[01:24:11.600 --> 01:24:14.600]  Because they're all in that cage together.
[01:24:14.600 --> 01:24:15.600]  Okay?
[01:24:15.600 --> 01:24:18.600]  Can I use that argument in court?
[01:24:18.600 --> 01:24:26.600]  Since police don't arrest themselves for yelling, then I can't be charged either because it's equal protection issue.
[01:24:26.600 --> 01:24:32.600]  When was the last time you were arrested for yelling?
[01:24:32.600 --> 01:24:37.600]  I mean, probably not because I don't yell that much.
[01:24:37.600 --> 01:24:43.600]  Then isn't it sort of a spurious argument and question?
[01:24:43.600 --> 01:24:44.600]  No, no.
[01:24:44.600 --> 01:24:49.600]  What I'm saying is cops yell a lot without just cause.
[01:24:49.600 --> 01:24:56.600]  So do crosswalk guards, construction workers, and women getting whistled at when they walk by the construction sites?
[01:24:56.600 --> 01:24:59.600]  What's your point?
[01:24:59.600 --> 01:25:01.600]  Yeah, but that's in some other context.
[01:25:01.600 --> 01:25:06.600]  What does the context have to do with the volume of your voice?
[01:25:06.600 --> 01:25:15.600]  Well, like, say, if you hit yourself with a hammer because you're a carpenter and you yell, that's just a fible because that's like an emotional outburst.
[01:25:15.600 --> 01:25:18.600]  And what makes you think these others aren't?
[01:25:18.600 --> 01:25:24.600]  Well, if there is just cause, but I'm just saying if there's no cause.
[01:25:24.600 --> 01:25:27.600]  All right, Jim, let's kind of nip this in the bud.
[01:25:27.600 --> 01:25:35.600]  We could wander this what if, but if, could if path all night long and still never see a lot of day.
[01:25:35.600 --> 01:25:40.600]  Show me the law that makes yelling illegal.
[01:25:40.600 --> 01:25:42.600]  Well, disorderly conduct.
[01:25:42.600 --> 01:25:49.600]  Show me the law that says yelling is disorderly conduct.
[01:25:49.600 --> 01:25:58.600]  Well, it doesn't mean I say yelling per se, but it uses some implied phraseology where yelling can qualify.
[01:25:58.600 --> 01:26:00.600]  Okay, go look up the word implied.
[01:26:00.600 --> 01:26:03.600]  Something's not getting through.
[01:26:03.600 --> 01:26:06.600]  We could keep doing this, but I've got to move on.
[01:26:06.600 --> 01:26:08.600]  I got other callers on the board.
[01:26:08.600 --> 01:26:10.600]  I appreciate you calling in.
[01:26:10.600 --> 01:26:15.600]  One more thing, sometimes talking at the same time is more efficient.
[01:26:15.600 --> 01:26:17.600]  Talking at the same time?
[01:26:17.600 --> 01:26:21.600]  Are you talking about two people talking at each other at the same time?
[01:26:21.600 --> 01:26:25.600]  Right, because you may have a little bit higher error rate, but you save time.
[01:26:25.600 --> 01:26:31.600]  Yeah, and completely never hear a dang thing the other person saying.
[01:26:31.600 --> 01:26:32.600]  Not if you're listening.
[01:26:32.600 --> 01:26:36.600]  How can you be listening and talking at the same time?
[01:26:36.600 --> 01:26:38.600]  Well, it's multitasking.
[01:26:38.600 --> 01:26:40.600]  Okay.
[01:26:40.600 --> 01:26:46.600]  You can drive a car and you can talk on the phone or do what I'm saying.
[01:26:46.600 --> 01:26:48.600]  You can do a couple things at the same time.
[01:26:48.600 --> 01:26:55.600]  Yeah, and you can jump off a building, yell, flap your arms and bounce three feet high when you hit the sidewalk 30 stories below.
[01:26:55.600 --> 01:26:58.600]  What the hell's the point?
[01:26:58.600 --> 01:27:01.600]  Yeah, but that's a stretch.
[01:27:01.600 --> 01:27:03.600]  This is reasonable.
[01:27:03.600 --> 01:27:06.600]  It's not reasonable for two people to understand the dang thing.
[01:27:06.600 --> 01:27:13.600]  Either one's saying when they're both talking 90 miles an hour in the face of each other trying to comprehend what they're saying over what the other person's saying.
[01:27:13.600 --> 01:27:16.600]  That's a ludicrous argument, man.
[01:27:16.600 --> 01:27:24.600]  No, it's anti-ludicrous because as long as you're not talking too fast each and not too loud each, it depends on the degree.
[01:27:24.600 --> 01:27:29.600]  Then what prevents your voice from drowning out the other guy while you're doing the talking?
[01:27:29.600 --> 01:27:38.600]  If you're going to stand face to face and talk with me, I guarantee you I will never hear a word you're saying.
[01:27:38.600 --> 01:27:44.600]  Because even when I whisper, my voice is going to be louder than most.
[01:27:44.600 --> 01:27:49.600]  And if I'm talking with emotion, you're not going to win.
[01:27:49.600 --> 01:27:55.600]  I'm the guy in the ballpark that does not need the microphone to address the top tiers in the stadium.
[01:27:55.600 --> 01:28:00.600]  And you want to stand there and carry on a simultaneous discussion with me?
[01:28:00.600 --> 01:28:03.600]  Yeah, but I would win by default.
[01:28:03.600 --> 01:28:06.600]  Okay, that is a ludicrous argument.
[01:28:06.600 --> 01:28:11.600]  Okay, Jim, Jim, I'm going to break here in about two minutes.
[01:28:11.600 --> 01:28:13.600]  I got other callers.
[01:28:13.600 --> 01:28:16.600]  Call back when the moon is high or something, man.
[01:28:16.600 --> 01:28:18.600]  You gave no notice of exit.
[01:28:18.600 --> 01:28:20.600]  I'm exiting.
[01:28:20.600 --> 01:28:23.600]  Thank you.
[01:28:23.600 --> 01:28:26.600]  All right, let's go to Jeff in Texas.
[01:28:26.600 --> 01:28:32.600]  Jeff, you got about one minute before we cut you off and go to break, but we'll pick you up on the other side.
[01:28:32.600 --> 01:28:36.600]  Good Lord.
[01:28:36.600 --> 01:28:39.600]  Okay, I had a real question.
[01:28:39.600 --> 01:28:40.600]  Good.
[01:28:40.600 --> 01:28:43.600]  I'd love to get one of those.
[01:28:43.600 --> 01:28:51.600]  This is about the length of time it takes to expect speedy trial.
[01:28:51.600 --> 01:28:55.600]  How long would you wait before you actually file papers for?
[01:28:55.600 --> 01:28:56.600]  Okay, what state?
[01:28:56.600 --> 01:28:57.600]  Texas?
[01:28:57.600 --> 01:28:58.600]  Yeah.
[01:28:58.600 --> 01:29:08.600]  There is case law that says 45 days is not long enough to claim failure of a speedy trial while five months is.
[01:29:08.600 --> 01:29:10.600]  So five months?
[01:29:10.600 --> 01:29:18.600]  They have up to two years to prosecute, but if they file that criminal complaint and let it sit for months and months and months,
[01:29:18.600 --> 01:29:23.600]  then I would move to file for dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial.
[01:29:23.600 --> 01:29:27.600]  Okay, what about on appeal?
[01:29:27.600 --> 01:29:31.600]  Okay, well, the appeal is not trial.
[01:29:31.600 --> 01:29:41.600]  If you've gone through the trial, then speedy trial has been met as long as the trial occurred within a timely manner.
[01:29:41.600 --> 01:29:48.600]  The appeal is a whole different animal, and there is no always set distinct time limit on an appeal.
[01:29:48.600 --> 01:29:49.600]  Hang on a second, Jeff.
[01:29:49.600 --> 01:29:51.600]  We'll finish this up on the other side of the break.
[01:29:51.600 --> 01:29:54.600]  I suppose call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:29:54.600 --> 01:29:55.600]  This is rule of law.
[01:29:55.600 --> 01:29:59.600]  Your host, Eddie Craig, will be right back.
[01:29:59.600 --> 01:30:05.600]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:30:05.600 --> 01:30:07.600]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:30:07.600 --> 01:30:12.600]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:30:12.600 --> 01:30:15.600]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:30:15.600 --> 01:30:18.600]  Thousands of my fellow force responders have died.
[01:30:18.600 --> 01:30:19.600]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:30:19.600 --> 01:30:20.600]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:30:20.600 --> 01:30:21.600]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:30:21.600 --> 01:30:22.600]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:30:22.600 --> 01:30:24.600]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:30:24.600 --> 01:30:27.600]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:30:27.600 --> 01:30:37.600]  Rememberbuilding7.org today.
[01:30:58.600 --> 01:31:04.600]  At hempusa.org, we offer chemical-free products to people around the world.
[01:31:04.600 --> 01:31:08.600]  Detoxifying, self-healing while rebuilding the immune system.
[01:31:08.600 --> 01:31:13.600]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest-selling product, micro-plant powder.
[01:31:13.600 --> 01:31:21.600]  Our micro-plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc, and silica to help rebuild the immune system.
[01:31:21.600 --> 01:31:26.600]  And to create a healthy stomach flora, micro-plant powder is excellent for daily intake.
[01:31:26.600 --> 01:31:28.600]  It is perfect to add to your storage shelter.
[01:31:28.600 --> 01:31:32.600]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org.
[01:31:32.600 --> 01:31:36.600]  And remember, all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:31:36.600 --> 01:31:41.600]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality, and rapid shipping anywhere.
[01:31:41.600 --> 01:31:45.600]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the U.S.
[01:31:45.600 --> 01:31:51.600]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608.
[01:31:51.600 --> 01:32:01.600]  That's 908-6912608. See what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[01:32:21.600 --> 01:32:35.600]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:32:35.600 --> 01:32:40.600]  I gotta tell you, after that last call, our Elvis has left the building.
[01:32:40.600 --> 01:32:44.600]  Perfectly. We'll lock the doors for the night.
[01:32:44.600 --> 01:32:46.600]  Alright, let's finish up with Jeff.
[01:32:46.600 --> 01:32:48.600]  Alright Jeff, let's get back on this.
[01:32:48.600 --> 01:32:52.600]  Now, you've already gone to trial. The case is now on appeal.
[01:32:52.600 --> 01:32:56.600]  Speedy trial only applies to the actual trial.
[01:32:56.600 --> 01:32:57.600]  Okay.
[01:32:57.600 --> 01:33:02.600]  After that, a completely different set of rules and procedures regarding the appeal process.
[01:33:02.600 --> 01:33:07.600]  Sometimes appeals can run years without the court doing anything.
[01:33:07.600 --> 01:33:12.600]  It all depends upon the type of case and the particular state and statutes and votes.
[01:33:12.600 --> 01:33:24.600]  Let me ask you this. How long does the initial court that you may be appealed with have to say if this was Austin City Municipal,
[01:33:24.600 --> 01:33:29.600]  how long would they have to send that paperwork to...
[01:33:29.600 --> 01:33:35.600]  If the appeal was properly filed, they're required to have it filed with the court of appeals,
[01:33:35.600 --> 01:33:41.600]  which is the county court at law number one for the Austin Municipal Court of Record within 30 days.
[01:33:41.600 --> 01:33:42.600]  Yes.
[01:33:42.600 --> 01:33:43.600]  Really?
[01:33:43.600 --> 01:33:53.600]  Now, that's not the appeal. That's how long they have to get the records and everything sent to the appellate court.
[01:33:53.600 --> 01:33:57.600]  Now, once it's in the county court at law, they can hold it.
[01:33:57.600 --> 01:34:01.600]  Now, what if they don't have it within that 30 days?
[01:34:01.600 --> 01:34:09.600]  Then you need to find out whether or not a motion requesting extension of time to file was received by the appeals court.
[01:34:09.600 --> 01:34:19.600]  See, they didn't get it in on time in my case either, and we filed documentation in accusing them of attempting to deprive us of access to the courts and denial of due process
[01:34:19.600 --> 01:34:25.600]  by not delivering in timeframe compliant with the statutes.
[01:34:25.600 --> 01:34:28.600]  Oh, okay. Yeah.
[01:34:28.600 --> 01:34:33.600]  So, everything passed a 30-day limit.
[01:34:33.600 --> 01:34:34.600]  You need to file a motion.
[01:34:34.600 --> 01:34:49.600]  I would file a motion asking for sanctions against the prosecutor for failing to or attempting to deny me access to the courts and depriving me of my due process right.
[01:34:49.600 --> 01:34:54.600]  Motion for sanctions.
[01:34:54.600 --> 01:34:56.600]  I'm just writing this down.
[01:34:56.600 --> 01:35:08.600]  Yeah, well, you have a motion for sanctions against a prosecuting attorney and a motion objecting, and it can be the same motion, I suppose, but I tend to break the issues up separately like that.
[01:35:08.600 --> 01:35:23.600]  And a motion, you know, asking for whatever, that the Arita, for instance, Arita Mandamus, directing the trial court to get the records in immediately.
[01:35:23.600 --> 01:35:32.600]  Oh, okay.
[01:35:32.600 --> 01:35:34.600]  Anything else?
[01:35:34.600 --> 01:35:36.600]  No, that's great.
[01:35:36.600 --> 01:35:37.600]  All right, man. Good luck.
[01:35:37.600 --> 01:35:41.600]  Thanks.
[01:35:41.600 --> 01:35:44.600]  All right. I guess that one worked out a whole lot better.
[01:35:44.600 --> 01:35:51.600]  Now, let's go to Chris in Texas. Chris, what can we do for you?
[01:35:51.600 --> 01:35:59.600]  Well, hang on. All right, start that over, Chris. Sorry. My caller page moved and after I'd unmuted you, I muted you right back.
[01:35:59.600 --> 01:36:00.600]  Not a problem.
[01:36:00.600 --> 01:36:20.600]  Hey, a couple of weeks ago, or actually about a week ago, I called you about getting a ticket for failure to produce a driver's license and also got a ticket for littering, allegedly throwing a cigarette butt into a Tom Thumb parking lot.
[01:36:20.600 --> 01:36:34.600]  What can I file against this, or in this cigarette butt instance in order to, you know, as my first thing to file against it, what can I file in the court?
[01:36:34.600 --> 01:36:36.600]  Did the officer recover the butt?
[01:36:36.600 --> 01:36:38.600]  No, he did not, sir.
[01:36:38.600 --> 01:36:48.600]  And so he has no physical evidence that a butt was ever thrown in the parking lot, nor any physical DNA evidence on the butt that it came from your mouth to that parking lot.
[01:36:48.600 --> 01:36:52.600]  No fingerprints on it, nothing, right?
[01:36:52.600 --> 01:36:53.600]  Right.
[01:36:53.600 --> 01:36:58.600]  So where's his evidence of the accusation?
[01:36:58.600 --> 01:37:04.600]  Okay, so would that be what I put in my challenge to subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:37:04.600 --> 01:37:12.600]  Yeah, there is no justiciable issue. The officer is going to testify to an assertion with no factual evidence to support of that assertion.
[01:37:12.600 --> 01:37:20.600]  He did not recover the butt. He did not prove the butt came from you. The accusation is idiotic on its face.
[01:37:20.600 --> 01:37:30.600]  That's like saying, I'm going to charge you with bombing the mini-mart. Yet you go to the mini-mart, it's not destroyed. There's no shrapnel. There's no burn marks.
[01:37:30.600 --> 01:37:39.600]  There's no wounded individuals. Nothing's been destroyed. What's your evidence of a bombing here, officer?
[01:37:39.600 --> 01:37:53.600]  Okay, because it was, you know, I've got a thing now in the mail saying that the estimated ticket value is $154.
[01:37:53.600 --> 01:38:00.600]  Yeah, estimated lawsuit value for malicious prosecution is what?
[01:38:00.600 --> 01:38:04.600]  At least $50,000, $60,000.
[01:38:04.600 --> 01:38:08.600]  There you go.
[01:38:08.600 --> 01:38:21.600]  Let's go back to Napoleon Bonaparte. Folks, get this through your heads. Napoleon was right. Never interrupt your enemy while he's busy making mistakes.
[01:38:21.600 --> 01:38:27.600]  Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure that that was the route I needed to go on this as well.
[01:38:27.600 --> 01:38:41.600]  File a motion to dismiss lack of evidence and then spell it out. No cigarette butt. No DNA evidence on said cigarette butt. Nothing other than the officer's accusation, no physical evidence to be had.
[01:38:41.600 --> 01:38:48.600]  I want this case dismissed and I want the officer sanctioned for filing a false charge.
[01:38:48.600 --> 01:38:59.600]  Now, let me ask you this. If he had some kind of recording going in his car, I would suppose he would have some kind of evidence at that point.
[01:38:59.600 --> 01:39:17.600]  Okay, it depends on what's written in the criminal complaint. If the criminal complaint specifies a specific object was used to create the littering and they cannot produce evidence of said object, okay, they have a problem.
[01:39:17.600 --> 01:39:23.600]  So still lack of cigarette butt being in evidence would kill their case.
[01:39:23.600 --> 01:39:35.600]  Well, yeah, because they're saying a cigarette butt was what was thrown and they have no evidence of a butt except the officer sitting in the chair.
[01:39:35.600 --> 01:39:39.600]  Okay. That tells me where I need to go with this.
[01:39:39.600 --> 01:39:41.600]  Okay. Good luck. Go get them.
[01:39:41.600 --> 01:39:42.600]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:39:42.600 --> 01:39:43.600]  You're welcome.
[01:39:43.600 --> 01:39:44.600]  Bye-bye.
[01:39:44.600 --> 01:39:45.600]  Bye-bye.
[01:39:45.600 --> 01:39:51.600]  All right, now we're going to go to Casey in Texas. Casey, what can we do for you?
[01:39:51.600 --> 01:40:05.600]  Okay, I had a third warrant executed at my home and then they didn't arrest me that night, but they put an arrest warrant out for me.
[01:40:05.600 --> 01:40:14.600]  I don't know about a month later and then when I actually went to the court and...
[01:40:14.600 --> 01:40:18.600]  Well, you understand that a search warrant and an arrest warrant are different instruments, right?
[01:40:18.600 --> 01:40:26.600]  Right. Right. So they executed the search warrant and then they put out an arrest warrant for me.
[01:40:26.600 --> 01:40:32.600]  Right, because they were hoping the search warrant would produce the evidence they needed to get the arrest warrant.
[01:40:32.600 --> 01:40:42.600]  Right. And so when I went into the jail and they just did a walk-through and I got bonded out and they let me out.
[01:40:42.600 --> 01:40:50.600]  And when I went and checked the record later, they hadn't put in a criminal complaint until the day that I was arrested.
[01:40:50.600 --> 01:40:55.600]  So is there have to be a criminal complaint before they put out a search warrant?
[01:40:55.600 --> 01:40:57.600]  I mean, an arrest warrant?
[01:40:57.600 --> 01:41:05.600]  No, there only has to be a statement of probable cause signed and sworn by some individual that's capable of making that statement.
[01:41:05.600 --> 01:41:07.600]  Okay. So they don't have to have...
[01:41:07.600 --> 01:41:12.600]  The criminal complaint is what they have to have before they take you into court for anything.
[01:41:12.600 --> 01:41:13.600]  Okay.
[01:41:13.600 --> 01:41:15.600]  Okay. They have to have...
[01:41:15.600 --> 01:41:16.600]  No.
[01:41:16.600 --> 01:41:19.600]  What type of offense are they trying to charge you with?
[01:41:19.600 --> 01:41:21.600]  Possession of marijuana.
[01:41:21.600 --> 01:41:26.600]  Okay. So they got a search warrant to come in and they discovered what they needed to get the arrest warrant for the possession.
[01:41:26.600 --> 01:41:42.600]  Right. But what they had in the search warrant is not what they found and then there was supposed to be...
[01:41:42.600 --> 01:41:43.600]  Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:41:43.600 --> 01:41:48.600]  The search warrant says they're allowed to look for certain things.
[01:41:48.600 --> 01:41:49.600]  Right.
[01:41:49.600 --> 01:41:54.600]  Okay. And they're allowed to search specific places.
[01:41:54.600 --> 01:41:55.600]  Correct.
[01:41:55.600 --> 01:42:02.600]  All right. You're saying that what they found is not contained within the search warrant.
[01:42:02.600 --> 01:42:03.600]  That's correct.
[01:42:03.600 --> 01:42:08.600]  You're positive it is not covered under one of the general statements in the search warrant?
[01:42:08.600 --> 01:42:11.600]  Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
[01:42:11.600 --> 01:42:17.600]  Such as any controlled substances or paraphernalia thereof?
[01:42:17.600 --> 01:42:19.600]  Right. That was not in there.
[01:42:19.600 --> 01:42:26.600]  And what they found was on an adjacent property. It wasn't even on my property.
[01:42:26.600 --> 01:42:29.600]  Was the adjacent property in the search warrant?
[01:42:29.600 --> 01:42:32.600]  It was not.
[01:42:32.600 --> 01:42:36.600]  Okay. Then you definitely have motion to suppress.
[01:42:36.600 --> 01:42:37.600]  Okay.
[01:42:37.600 --> 01:42:42.600]  Because they executed the warrant in a manner inconsistent with the warrant itself.
[01:42:42.600 --> 01:42:44.600]  Right.
[01:42:44.600 --> 01:42:50.600]  So any evidence recovered outside of the scope of the warrant is inadmissible.
[01:42:50.600 --> 01:42:56.600]  Okay. Good. So I have a public defender in the case.
[01:42:56.600 --> 01:42:58.600]  No, you have a public pretender.
[01:42:58.600 --> 01:42:59.600]  Right.
[01:42:59.600 --> 01:43:02.600]  But you need to be controlling him.
[01:43:02.600 --> 01:43:08.600]  And I am, but I just got him and what I'm going to do, I haven't even talked to him yet.
[01:43:08.600 --> 01:43:13.600]  When I talk to him, I'm not going to bring up the motion to suppress right away.
[01:43:13.600 --> 01:43:17.600]  I'm going to expect him to do it when I tell him why.
[01:43:17.600 --> 01:43:21.600]  Okay. No, you're going to talk to him and then you're going to listen to what he's recommending.
[01:43:21.600 --> 01:43:22.600]  Yes.
[01:43:22.600 --> 01:43:26.600]  And I guarantee you what he's recommending will be none of the above.
[01:43:26.600 --> 01:43:30.600]  He will recommend that he go talk to the prosecutor and attempt to cut a plea deal.
[01:43:30.600 --> 01:43:31.600]  Right.
[01:43:31.600 --> 01:43:36.600]  You're going to have to insist there will be no plea deals and you will do the following.
[01:43:36.600 --> 01:43:38.600]  You will file a motion to suppress.
[01:43:38.600 --> 01:43:48.600]  You will argue that the search warrant was illegal because what they found and where they found it was not subject to the search warrant.
[01:43:48.600 --> 01:43:49.600]  Okay.
[01:43:49.600 --> 01:43:50.600]  Right.
[01:43:50.600 --> 01:43:52.600]  All right. Well, hang on. We'll wrap this up on the other side, Casey.
[01:43:52.600 --> 01:43:53.600]  All right, folks.
[01:43:53.600 --> 01:43:56.600]  Call it number 512-646-984.
[01:43:56.600 --> 01:43:59.600]  Greg Doug will be right back.
[01:43:59.600 --> 01:44:08.600]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:44:08.600 --> 01:44:11.600]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[01:44:11.600 --> 01:44:12.600]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:12.600 --> 01:44:19.600]  Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:44:19.600 --> 01:44:23.600]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:44:23.600 --> 01:44:26.600]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:44:26.600 --> 01:44:31.600]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street just south of UT.
[01:44:31.600 --> 01:44:35.600]  Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:44:35.600 --> 01:44:43.600]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[01:44:43.600 --> 01:44:46.600]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:44:46.600 --> 01:45:00.600]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays, so give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:45:00.600 --> 01:45:03.600]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.600 --> 01:45:07.600]  Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary.
[01:45:07.600 --> 01:45:15.600]  The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.600 --> 01:45:19.600]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.600 --> 01:45:23.600]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.600 --> 01:45:28.600]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.600 --> 01:45:34.600]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.600 --> 01:45:43.600]  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.
[01:45:43.600 --> 01:45:52.600]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.600 --> 01:45:56.600]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:56.600 --> 01:46:21.600]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:21.600 --> 01:46:27.600]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. We are talking to Casey in Texas.
[01:46:27.600 --> 01:46:31.600]  Greg Doug, I see you there. If you gentlemen will hang on, let me finish up with Casey.
[01:46:31.600 --> 01:46:36.600]  I'll continue on with our calls. All right, Casey, let's get on with this and get a wrapped up.
[01:46:36.600 --> 01:46:39.600]  Okay, one more quick question.
[01:46:39.600 --> 01:46:47.600]  When they gave me a copy of the search warrant, it did not contain the affidavit of probable cause.
[01:46:47.600 --> 01:47:00.600]  So the code says that whoever signed whichever judge signed the search warrant, their clerk has to make available to the public that affidavit of probable cause.
[01:47:00.600 --> 01:47:09.600]  Yes, and the warrant. Once they've been executed, the probable cause statement is required to be attached to the warrant and they're required to be filed in the judicial record of the court.
[01:47:09.600 --> 01:47:14.600]  Right. So it was the district judge that signed the search warrant.
[01:47:14.600 --> 01:47:17.600]  I guess they didn't have anybody else around.
[01:47:17.600 --> 01:47:29.600]  And so I went to the district clerk to get the copy of the affidavit that was supposed to be attached to the search warrant and they didn't have it.
[01:47:29.600 --> 01:47:34.600]  They said because it was a misdemeanor that they handed it down to the county court.
[01:47:34.600 --> 01:47:51.600]  So I went and checked the county court. They didn't have it. So I finally got it from the sheriff's department that one of their deputies filled out the affidavit of probable cause to begin with.
[01:47:51.600 --> 01:48:09.600]  So since the district clerk that was supposed to have it didn't have it and the sheriff's department did when they weren't even supposed to have it, is that another charge there?
[01:48:09.600 --> 01:48:19.600]  Well, what do you mean the sheriff's department isn't supposed to have it? If the sheriff's department is the one that was executing the warrant, why wouldn't they have it?
[01:48:19.600 --> 01:48:25.600]  I don't know. That's a good question. All I know is that the district clerk's office was supposed to have it.
[01:48:25.600 --> 01:48:37.600]  Well, they were supposed to have a copy of it. They're not supposed to give away the original whole copy of it without maintaining something because the clerk is responsible for that official record.
[01:48:37.600 --> 01:48:45.600]  Right. And they didn't have it at all. I had to chase it down and finally get it from the sheriff's department. Also on that...
[01:48:45.600 --> 01:48:54.600]  Well, now she is correct that the district court would not have jurisdiction of the offense if it's a misdemeanor. It would have to be in the county court.
[01:48:54.600 --> 01:49:04.600]  So the county clerk of the county court to which it was sent by the district clerk is the one now responsible for that record.
[01:49:04.600 --> 01:49:21.600]  Okay. And they didn't have it here. So also on the affidavit of probable cause, what they used to get the probable cause or what they said their probable cause was, I can prove is a lie.
[01:49:21.600 --> 01:49:36.600]  Okay. Well, that's still... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay. Wrong way to approach this. You're not going to argue what the deal was in the warrant that created the statement of probable cause.
[01:49:36.600 --> 01:49:47.600]  That's a non-issue. The evidence obtained and the location from which it was obtained were not covered under the proclamations within the warrant.
[01:49:47.600 --> 01:49:56.600]  It was outside of the scope of the warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of the evidence was illegal. Nothing else matters.
[01:49:56.600 --> 01:50:03.600]  Okay. So that motion to suppress, that's my case right there.
[01:50:03.600 --> 01:50:05.600]  Well, that's your defense.
[01:50:05.600 --> 01:50:06.600]  My defense.
[01:50:06.600 --> 01:50:12.600]  Now, that doesn't mean you can't have the other ready if you actually wind up having that denied and go to trial.
[01:50:12.600 --> 01:50:13.600]  Right.
[01:50:13.600 --> 01:50:22.600]  But the point here being that we don't go to trial without standing due process issues still out there staring us in the face.
[01:50:22.600 --> 01:50:23.600]  Okay.
[01:50:23.600 --> 01:50:29.600]  And that warrant is one of those, a big one of those.
[01:50:29.600 --> 01:50:32.600]  Right.
[01:50:32.600 --> 01:50:47.600]  Okay. So when I, like I said, I'm going to give my public pretender the opportunity to present that instead of just saying, oh, take the deal, you know, probation, whatever.
[01:50:47.600 --> 01:50:51.600]  And then when he does it, I'm going to follow Barger.
[01:50:51.600 --> 01:50:55.600]  So, and then I'll tell him, you know...
[01:50:55.600 --> 01:50:57.600]  You're going to follow Barger? Who's against who?
[01:50:57.600 --> 01:50:59.600]  My public defender.
[01:50:59.600 --> 01:51:01.600]  Okay. Yeah.
[01:51:01.600 --> 01:51:04.600]  If he doesn't do that, then definitely go after him.
[01:51:04.600 --> 01:51:08.600]  If he tries to withdraw, hit him again with a bar grievance.
[01:51:08.600 --> 01:51:13.600]  Right. And the bar grievance is, is not public information.
[01:51:13.600 --> 01:51:18.600]  So if he starts crying for the judge about I'm filing Barger grievances against him, that's another Barger.
[01:51:18.600 --> 01:51:20.600]  Absolutely.
[01:51:20.600 --> 01:51:21.600]  Right.
[01:51:21.600 --> 01:51:24.600]  Okay. Well, that, that does it for me.
[01:51:24.600 --> 01:51:26.600]  Okay. So thanks for calling in.
[01:51:26.600 --> 01:51:27.600]  Thank you.
[01:51:27.600 --> 01:51:28.600]  You're welcome.
[01:51:28.600 --> 01:51:32.600]  All right. Now we're going to go to Greg in...
[01:51:32.600 --> 01:51:36.600]  Well, Greg, is this Maine or Minnesota?
[01:51:36.600 --> 01:51:37.600]  It's Maine, right?
[01:51:37.600 --> 01:51:38.600]  Minnesota.
[01:51:38.600 --> 01:51:39.600]  Minnesota. Okay.
[01:51:39.600 --> 01:51:40.600]  Yeah.
[01:51:40.600 --> 01:51:41.600]  All right. What you got?
[01:51:41.600 --> 01:51:50.600]  Question. Well, I've been going through your course and unfortunately you didn't have anything in there about Minnesota directly.
[01:51:50.600 --> 01:52:02.600]  I can't find any direct connection to the, you know, I'm looking for phrases like transportation of persons or properties or compensation.
[01:52:02.600 --> 01:52:04.600]  That definition is not in the code.
[01:52:04.600 --> 01:52:06.600]  It's not even in the Texas code.
[01:52:06.600 --> 01:52:08.600]  It's in Black's law.
[01:52:08.600 --> 01:52:10.600]  That's the, that's the issue.
[01:52:10.600 --> 01:52:11.600]  That one.
[01:52:11.600 --> 01:52:18.600]  Yeah. It's a trans, they're using a transportation code, but they don't define what transportation means.
[01:52:18.600 --> 01:52:26.600]  So when the statute doesn't define it, then we see, we seek out case law and legal definitions and legal dictionaries.
[01:52:26.600 --> 01:52:32.600]  If that doesn't define it, then we can go look in Webster's.
[01:52:32.600 --> 01:52:36.600]  Okay. Let me ask you a quick question here.
[01:52:36.600 --> 01:52:49.600]  I'm not sure it was the, there was a defense on a California case where the, this is what the man said.
[01:52:49.600 --> 01:52:57.600]  He said the California Motor Vehicle Code is predicated upon the uniformed traffic laws established by the federal government.
[01:52:57.600 --> 01:53:04.600]  Right. Title 49, United States Code Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act.
[01:53:04.600 --> 01:53:08.600]  Title 18, USDA, I think, section 31.
[01:53:08.600 --> 01:53:11.600]  Title 18 is a punitive statute.
[01:53:11.600 --> 01:53:15.600]  Okay. Okay. Well, that's where they define motor vehicles.
[01:53:15.600 --> 01:53:22.600]  No, that's just one place where they define a motor vehicle, but out of context with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act.
[01:53:22.600 --> 01:53:27.600]  However, the definitions happen to be the same in both.
[01:53:27.600 --> 01:53:32.600]  Oh, that's interesting.
[01:53:32.600 --> 01:53:45.600]  Every state code dealing with motor vehicles and transportation is based upon Title 49, and Title 49 is all commercial.
[01:53:45.600 --> 01:53:50.600]  So are the state codes dealing with commercial use of the roads.
[01:53:50.600 --> 01:54:00.600]  Now, places like Colorado seem to think that they have the right to regulate the people's property and the right to travel, whether it's commercial or not.
[01:54:00.600 --> 01:54:14.600]  Colorado's going to be learning a lesson the hard way I got a feeling, because they can't regulate our right of locomotion.
[01:54:14.600 --> 01:54:18.600]  Well, it seems to me they're, aren't they doing that in Texas?
[01:54:18.600 --> 01:54:26.600]  Absolutely not. There's no law that allows them to do that. People's own perception and acquiescence is what's allowing them to do that.
[01:54:26.600 --> 01:54:29.600]  Okay, gotcha.
[01:54:29.600 --> 01:54:36.600]  You're making the common mistake. I see this word. I recognize this word. This word means this.
[01:54:36.600 --> 01:54:51.600]  You're making a presumption, and it is wrong, because the word you're looking at, if it contains a definition in the statute, then it is a 100% guarantee that it is being used in a manner other than which you are familiar.
[01:54:51.600 --> 01:54:56.600]  Otherwise, they would have no reason to have to redefine it for the statute, would they?
[01:54:56.600 --> 01:55:01.600]  No, they would not, so I need to go to the statute to see how they're using.
[01:55:01.600 --> 01:55:05.600]  How they define it, absolutely.
[01:55:05.600 --> 01:55:12.600]  Now, if I'm doing that in Texas, I'm sure I can figure that out from your course, but what recommendations would you have for me?
[01:55:12.600 --> 01:55:23.600]  Yes, you look for the same rabbit trails in your state statute. Every word, term, or phrase, phrase being something with multiple words like this state.
[01:55:23.600 --> 01:55:28.600]  I guarantee you your code will always say this state, not Minnesota.
[01:55:28.600 --> 01:55:43.600]  Okay, well, you're assuming this state means the geographical borders and all land within those borders that constitutes the dirt physical of Minnesota.
[01:55:43.600 --> 01:55:47.600]  But again, that's a presumption.
[01:55:47.600 --> 01:55:53.600]  I'm actually presuming it means, yeah, what you just said, it means something opposite to that, really.
[01:55:53.600 --> 01:55:54.600]  Exactly.
[01:55:54.600 --> 01:55:55.600]  I'm not interested at all.
[01:55:55.600 --> 01:56:03.600]  It's a political location. It's not a physical location.
[01:56:03.600 --> 01:56:06.600]  You understand the distinction?
[01:56:06.600 --> 01:56:08.600]  I don't think so.
[01:56:08.600 --> 01:56:17.600]  The state is something created by the actions of the legislature and the federal government.
[01:56:17.600 --> 01:56:23.600]  It's an area not congruent with the Constitution.
[01:56:23.600 --> 01:56:28.600]  It's an administrative realm, okay?
[01:56:28.600 --> 01:56:40.600]  And the only people that that realm has jurisdiction over are the ones that consent to stepping into its jurisdiction.
[01:56:40.600 --> 01:56:43.600]  That's the Hover Zone by Herman Cana?
[01:56:43.600 --> 01:56:45.600]  Yes.
[01:56:45.600 --> 01:56:48.600]  Okay, that makes sense.
[01:56:48.600 --> 01:57:00.600]  So my question is, I'm going to have to stall and I couldn't get a continuous on the case tomorrow.
[01:57:00.600 --> 01:57:06.600]  So I'm going to have to, I don't know what I'm going to do.
[01:57:06.600 --> 01:57:14.600]  Okay, so the thing you don't do, you don't go to merits when there's other issues still outstanding.
[01:57:14.600 --> 01:57:22.600]  If you don't know the rules that this court's required to operate by, you're fighting with both hands tied and blindfolded.
[01:57:22.600 --> 01:57:24.600]  Okay?
[01:57:24.600 --> 01:57:26.600]  You need to understand that.
[01:57:26.600 --> 01:57:36.600]  It's great to study the transportation code or the motor vehicle code so you can fully understand why those rules never applied to you to begin with.
[01:57:36.600 --> 01:57:48.600]  Those rules only matter if you're engaging in the regular activity to which they apply and the court has followed its rules on getting there.
[01:57:48.600 --> 01:57:50.600]  Okay?
[01:57:50.600 --> 01:57:52.600]  Great.
[01:57:52.600 --> 01:57:56.600]  So how would I find that out what they're operating?
[01:57:56.600 --> 01:58:02.600]  Well, you have to go through whatever is their code of criminal procedure there in Minnesota.
[01:58:02.600 --> 01:58:08.600]  And from what I understand, Minnesota is a bad place to be because the courts can do anything they want,
[01:58:08.600 --> 01:58:16.600]  including create new law on the fly because the legislators have advocated that power to the court.
[01:58:16.600 --> 01:58:18.600]  Well, you're trying to make me feel good here.
[01:58:18.600 --> 01:58:22.600]  Well, I call them like I know them, Greg.
[01:58:22.600 --> 01:58:24.600]  All right, folks, this has been Rural Law Radio Doug.
[01:58:24.600 --> 01:58:27.600]  I am so sorry we didn't have time to get to you tonight.
[01:58:27.600 --> 01:58:30.600]  Please give us a call back Thursday if you had comments on anything.
[01:58:30.600 --> 01:58:33.600]  That was important, and I'm sorry I didn't get to you.
[01:58:33.600 --> 01:58:35.600]  Folks, thank you so much for listening.
[01:58:35.600 --> 01:58:37.600]  This has been the Monday Night Traffic Show.
[01:58:37.600 --> 01:58:39.600]  I have been your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:58:39.600 --> 01:58:40.600]  Thank you for listening.
[01:58:40.600 --> 01:58:41.600]  Thank you for your support.
[01:58:41.600 --> 01:58:44.600]  Please donate to the lawsuit fund and to the network.
[01:58:44.600 --> 01:58:45.600]  Thank you.
[01:58:45.600 --> 01:58:49.600]  Good night, and God bless.
[01:58:49.600 --> 01:58:57.600]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.600 --> 01:59:04.600]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.600 --> 01:59:08.600]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.600 --> 01:59:11.600]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.600 --> 01:59:20.600]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.600 --> 01:59:29.600]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.600 --> 01:59:32.600]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.600 --> 01:59:40.600]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.600 --> 01:59:51.600]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.