ROL_2012-11-19_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  Candy, soda and cupcakes may please your taste buds, but did you know that binging on sugar can slow down your brain?
[00:10.000 --> 00:16.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht and I'll share new research showing how sweets may dumb you down. Next.
[00:16.000 --> 00:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.000 --> 00:32.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.000 --> 00:42.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[00:42.000 --> 00:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:45.000 --> 00:52.000]  Attention, sugar junkies. If snarling sweets and guzzling soda is your thing, I've got some not-so-sweet news for you.
[00:52.000 --> 01:04.000]  A new study shows a diet high in fructose could make you dumber in just a few short weeks. UCLA researchers gave lab rats fructose in their drinking water while training them how to navigate a maze.
[01:04.000 --> 01:18.000]  After six weeks of sucking sugar, the dazed animals began to struggle. In fact, their overall brain function diminished noticeably. Still want that fudge Sunday? Then eat plenty of foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids.
[01:18.000 --> 01:23.000]  Ratsulate omega-3s zipped through that maze much faster than those that didn't.
[01:23.000 --> 01:28.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:28.000 --> 01:42.000]  Millions of Americans take medication for temporary relief from arthritis, but now a simple mind's trick is cutting arthritis pain in half without drugs.
[01:42.000 --> 01:58.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht, back with some fascinating new research. Next.
[02:13.000 --> 02:25.000]  Arthritis or painful inflammation of the joints affects millions of Americans. There's no cure, only temporary relief through painkillers and physical therapy.
[02:25.000 --> 02:30.000]  But British researchers have discovered a simple optical illusion that eases arthritis pain.
[02:30.000 --> 02:39.000]  Volunteers place their hands into a box with a camera that projects images of their fingers being virtually stretched and shrunk by someone pulling them gently.
[02:39.000 --> 02:47.000]  The images cut patients pain in half and gave them increased range of motion. For some sufferers, the pain went away entirely.
[02:47.000 --> 02:53.000]  It's amazing, but this simple illusion shows the power of our minds over matter and over pain.
[02:53.000 --> 03:10.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:23.000 --> 03:52.000]  All right folks, good evening. This is the rule of law radio Monday night traffic show. It is November 19th, 2012.
[03:52.000 --> 03:59.000]  Well, there is something I would like to go over tonight dealing with some of these rogue judges that we have to deal with.
[03:59.000 --> 04:10.000]  I am going to go over one more time what I am hoping to be the completed motion to disqualify a municipal court judge over in Rockdale.
[04:10.000 --> 04:21.000]  And what I would like to do is to give you the opportunity to listen to some of the things that they do and the arguments we have against what they do so that we can get these people out of there.
[04:21.000 --> 04:33.000]  Now, when a judge does not abide by the law in the procedures that he is performing, he is depriving you of what's known as procedural due process.
[04:33.000 --> 04:43.000]  The statute exists to state what the specific procedures are when they're supposed to be prosecuting certain kinds of cases.
[04:43.000 --> 04:53.000]  Now, this is one of the arguments that we're making is that a traffic ticket, transportation ticket is not a criminal case.
[04:53.000 --> 05:12.000]  It's never been a criminal case. The argument we're using is very simple. If this were a criminal case, then you would have to do this thing out of the code of criminal procedure that specifically relates to your jurisdiction in such cases.
[05:12.000 --> 05:18.000]  Now, there is a whole lot of those things.
[05:18.000 --> 05:23.000]  Basically, the way the system has it set up is this.
[05:23.000 --> 05:30.000]  Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically written toward justice and municipal courts.
[05:30.000 --> 05:39.000]  It is the foundational procedure for everything those two courts do and the jurisdiction in which they operate.
[05:39.000 --> 05:43.000]  Now, why that's important to know?
[05:43.000 --> 05:50.000]  That's important to know so that, one, you know what rules you need to know before you go in to play their little game.
[05:50.000 --> 05:55.000]  So you start with the rules that are codified in Chapter 45.
[05:55.000 --> 06:04.000]  Now, right at the very beginning of Chapter 45, however, you're going to notice a caveat to this Chapter 45 in its entirety.
[06:04.000 --> 06:30.000]  The caveat is, is that if there is any procedure required to provide due process that is not covered by Chapter 45, then the magistrate or judge is required to apply the other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to that proceeding.
[06:30.000 --> 06:35.000]  So, the argument we make is very straightforward.
[06:35.000 --> 06:47.000]  If this was a criminal case, then you would have to do the first thing the Code of Criminal Procedure requires during a first appearance, which isn't covered in Chapter 45.
[06:47.000 --> 07:04.000]  First appearance is covered in 15.17 Code of Criminal Procedure, and the preliminaries to that first appearance are dealt with in 14.06 A, B, and C of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[07:04.000 --> 07:33.000]  But 15.17 G says very specifically that if a person appears in compliance with a citation that has been provided under the provisions of 14.06 B or C, then the magistrate is required to do everything that is in 15.17.
[07:33.000 --> 07:43.000]  Okay, that's their first big screw up, because there's like a half a dozen or more things there that the magistrate never, ever does.
[07:43.000 --> 07:49.000]  Why? Because they never conduct the 15.17 proceeding.
[07:49.000 --> 07:52.000]  See, here's their problem.
[07:52.000 --> 08:18.000]  If you get arrested and you go down to the jail, which it was illegal for them to take you directly to the jail, especially in a traffic case, but it's what they do 99% of the time, then what they do is they either hold you in your cell while some magistrate comes by to conduct a semi 15.17 in secret.
[08:18.000 --> 08:30.000]  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we outlawed secret judicial proceedings in this country and in Texas specifically a very long time ago.
[08:30.000 --> 08:41.000]  In fact, the Texas Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure both say that all court proceedings shall be public.
[08:41.000 --> 08:59.000]  And if they are required to be public, then there is no legitimate lawful authority for any magistrate to be conducting secret proceedings at the door of a jail cell on someone that's incarcerated.
[08:59.000 --> 09:04.000]  The other problem is, is these proceedings over closed circuit television.
[09:04.000 --> 09:25.000]  Now, they're trying to simply say that by broadcasting an image and audio of an individual over this closed circuit TV to another TV that's publicly viewable in some part of some building somewhere that this constitutes a public proceeding.
[09:25.000 --> 09:30.000]  I couldn't possibly disagree any less with that than I do.
[09:30.000 --> 09:50.000]  Public means exactly that. Public has access to view in person, both the person being accused, all the proceedings that are going on in the court, all the people in the court, they have the right to know who is there, they have the right to be present.
[09:50.000 --> 10:03.000]  They're not present over a remote recording or a remote closed circuit TV. Okay? Just doesn't work that way.
[10:03.000 --> 10:12.000]  So the proceedings in these types of things are very rarely public as required by law and by Texas Constitution.
[10:12.000 --> 10:25.000]  But, I mean, there's a whole mess of things that we can go down through here, but I'm just going to start going through the parts of this motion to disqualify, and I want you to listen to some of the things that are going on here.
[10:25.000 --> 10:31.000]  Now, the person's name that we're dealing with, their last name is Rodriguez, so we're just going to go with that.
[10:31.000 --> 10:45.000]  And this is what we have in the section Summary of Respondents Arguments, and the arguments are to disqualify this judge, Judge Jerry Wagner, of the City of Rockvale Municipal Court.
[10:45.000 --> 10:47.000]  So here we go.
[10:47.000 --> 11:09.000]  Rodriguez argues that presiding judge Jerry Wagner, Judge Wagner, hereafter, of the City of Rockvale Municipal Court, hereafter court, is hereby disqualified ab initio pursuant chapter 29A-1 government code from presiding over any proceedings in Rodriguez's case.
[11:09.000 --> 11:31.000]  Rodriguez shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law knowingly willingly and intentionally did violate specific laws relating to the duties of his office, numerous cannons of the code of judicial conduct and judicial ethics, and acted with bias and prejudice against Rodriguez in the preliminary proceedings held in the court.
[11:31.000 --> 11:50.000]  Furthermore, Rodriguez shows by the facts stated herein that Judge Wagner's actions under color of law have deprived Rodriguez of protected fundamental rights, including but not limited to the right of due process, which deprives the court of all personal and subject matter jurisdiction over Rodriguez.
[11:50.000 --> 12:16.000]  Furthermore, Rodriguez shall show that Judge Wagner's actions under color of law, while absent all lawful jurisdiction, constitute criminal acts for which criminal complaints, see attached, have been filed by Rodriguez with the Mylam County Grand Jury via certified mail, and whatever the mail number is, care of the Mylam County Attorney's Office pursuant article 2.03 code of criminal procedure.
[12:16.000 --> 12:30.000]  Lastly, Rodriguez has also filed several judicial conduct complaints, see attached, against Judge Wagner with the State Judicial Conduct Committee for violations of multiple cannons of the code of judicial conduct and judicial ethics.
[12:30.000 --> 12:32.000]  Issue.
[12:32.000 --> 12:53.000]  Is the city of Rockville Municipal Court bound by the code of criminal procedure in Class C fine only misdemeanor proceedings? If this were an actual criminal case, then Rodriguez expects that Judge Wagner and city attorney Michelle Lemkel would be required to obey the laws as codified in the code of criminal procedure.
[12:53.000 --> 13:08.000]  This is especially true considering that, while acting under color of law and in their official capacities, said law governs the duties of their respective offices relating to the prosecution of all alleged criminal cases.
[13:08.000 --> 13:28.000]  If this were an actual criminal case, then both Judge Wagner and Lemkel are specifically required and directed to follow the provisions of Chapter 45 code of criminal procedure and other related provisions elsewhere within the code of criminal procedure in all criminal prosecutions, or in all criminal cases.
[13:28.000 --> 13:38.000]  Which the court record, or lack thereof, clearly shows that they have not done. To wit.
[13:38.000 --> 13:58.000]  Article 45.002 application of chapter. Criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to these proceedings by this chapter.
[13:58.000 --> 14:15.000]  If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.
[14:15.000 --> 14:33.000]  Article 45.02 code of criminal procedure requires and directs that all criminal proceedings in the justice and municipal courts shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter, including any other rules of procedure specifically made applicable to those proceedings by this chapter.
[14:33.000 --> 14:53.000]  Furthermore, Article 45.02 code of criminal procedure clearly requires and directs that if this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter.
[14:53.000 --> 15:05.000]  And no, I did not read this twice, folks. One is an actual copy of the statute in the motion, and the other is argument associated with particularities of that section of statute.
[15:05.000 --> 15:07.000]  Continuing on.
[15:07.000 --> 15:29.000]  If this were an actual criminal case under the provisions of Article 45.02 code of criminal procedure, then by the usage of the term shall, this article clearly makes mandatory the requirement that municipal and justice courts of this state comply with all the relevant provisions of chapter 45 in general and specifically
[15:29.000 --> 15:53.000]  Article 45.02 code of criminal procedure as well. Therefore, if this were an actual criminal proceeding, the court record, or lack thereof, clearly proves that Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly, and intentionally ignored virtually all procedural due process
[15:53.000 --> 16:01.000]  requirements and rights belonging to Rodriguez, and he did so in direct violation of the laws of this state and the United States.
[16:01.000 --> 16:19.000]  Therefore, Judge Wagner and Lemkel have officially declared the code of criminal procedure irrelevant to these proceedings by their respective actions and failure to perform even a single item of any article therein during the proceedings thus far.
[16:19.000 --> 16:39.000]  Thus, Rodriguez has good cause to believe that these facts substantiate her assertion and conclusion that this is not and cannot be a criminal proceeding and therefore can only be a non case, i.e. it is civil and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction as does Judge Wagner.
[16:39.000 --> 16:59.000]  Alright folks, we'll pick this up and continue on on the other side. This is Rule of Law Radio. I have a little bit more to go on this so we won't be taking calls just yet, but hang in there folks, we'll get the phone lines up and going as soon as I get this done. We'll be right back on the other side of this break.
[16:59.000 --> 17:24.000]  Thought that I was doing well, but the truth to you I'll tell. MSGs and GMO really ain't the way to go. There's a better way I've seen. It's called Tangy Tangerine.
[17:24.000 --> 17:40.000]  And we're all breaking Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine, Tangy Tangerine.
[17:40.000 --> 17:55.000]  Order beyond Tangy Tangerine and other great young Jebedee products at LogosRadioNetwork.com by clicking on the Tangy Tangerine banner. Sign up as a preferred customer for wholesale prices or become a distributor and support LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[17:55.000 --> 18:14.000]  So what do you say Elvis? Hey, thank you very much. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meyers proven method. Michael Meyers has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[18:14.000 --> 18:33.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:33.000 --> 18:49.000]  The Michael Meyers proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Meyers banner or email MichaelMeyers at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 19:11.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:11.000 --> 19:26.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is ruleoflawradio.
[19:26.000 --> 19:52.000]  Okay, now, last paragraph of that one.
[19:52.000 --> 20:01.000]  Did the court violate respondents' right of due process by ignoring specific rights codified in the Code of Criminal Procedure?
[20:01.000 --> 20:30.000]  As addressed in Rodriguez's Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss, Rodriguez, by law, is entitled to proper notice, i.e. service of a written copy of both the criminal complaint and proper charging instrument, i.e. an information, not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution under the provisions of Articles 1.05, 2.04, 2.05, and 45.018B Code of Criminal Procedure.
[20:30.000 --> 20:35.000]  And then we have copies of each of those statutes in this.
[20:35.000 --> 20:57.000]  To date, the requirements of Article 45.018B Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with. Thus, violating Rodriguez's protected right of notice as denoted by the use of the phrase, is entitled to pursuant Section 311.016 sub-item 4 of the government code.
[20:57.000 --> 21:11.000]  And as recognized and protected by Article 1.05, Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1, Section 10, Texas Constitution, to wit. And we have sections on each of those statutes as well.
[21:11.000 --> 21:31.000]  By right and law, Rodriguez is entitled to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court at any time and in person of jurisdiction prior to any general appearance, and to have the response to such challenges addressed by actual points of law and evidence submitted into the record of the court.
[21:31.000 --> 21:42.000]  Neither the court nor the prosecution has ever met this requirement. In fact, the jurisdictional challenges posed by Rodriguez were simply ignored by Judge Wagner and Lemkel.
[21:42.000 --> 22:03.000]  While both were acting under color of law, with Judge Wagner again proceeding suesponte to simply declare by fiat that the court had jurisdiction despite no legal evidence of that fact being submitted into the record by either the prosecution or the court.
[22:03.000 --> 22:17.000]  Issue, did the court violate the laws of this state and respondents right of due process by requiring that a plea be entered before a court clerk rather than a proper judicial officer in a proper judicial proceeding.
[22:17.000 --> 22:39.000]  Under color of what law and authority does Judge Wagner and Lemkel act to ignore and deny the laws of this state by allegedly authorizing a mere clerk of the court, one Rennie Willis, to impersonate a judicial officer by conducting judicial proceedings for the purpose of taking and entering a plea upon the official record of the court.
[22:39.000 --> 22:49.000]  Issue, did the court violate respondents right of due process by failing to follow the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[22:49.000 --> 23:10.000]  Rodriguez has procedural due process rights protected by the requirements of Articles 1.05, 2.05, 1.14, 45.002, 45.018b and 45.019f Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1, Section 10, Texas Constitution.
[23:10.000 --> 23:20.000]  If this were an actual criminal case, then by failing to comply with these provisions of law relating to the duties of his office regarding criminal prosecution,
[23:20.000 --> 23:34.000]  Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally violated the due process rights of Rodriguez, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.
[23:34.000 --> 23:57.000]  Furthermore, Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally spoke to Rodriguez in a condescending, belittling and contentious tone and manner before other people's currently present in the court on September 13, 2012, thus creating the impression of bias and partiality on behalf of the prosecution.
[23:57.000 --> 24:22.000]  Furthermore, Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by acting suesponte on behalf of the prosecution to deny out of hand several written motions challenging jurisdiction of the court and other related matters of law that were never rebutted or challenged by the prosecution.
[24:22.000 --> 24:40.000]  Furthermore, Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by acting suesponte on behalf of the prosecution to deny out of hand several written motions challenging jurisdiction of the court
[24:40.000 --> 24:47.000]  and other related matters of law without holding a proper pretrial hearing for the purpose of oral argument by Rodriguez.
[24:47.000 --> 25:09.000]  Furthermore, Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law, knowingly, willingly and intentionally failed to act without bias and partiality by soliciting and accepting advice from Limpkel to deny Rodriguez's motions despite Limpkel admitting that even though she was the prosecutor assigned to the case, she had never read them.
[25:09.000 --> 25:24.000]  In so doing, Judge Wagner, while acting under color of law and by colluding and conspiring with Limpkel to deny Rodriguez's due process rights under color of law, violated numerous canons of the code of judicial conduct to wit.
[25:24.000 --> 25:38.000]  Canon one, upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The judge is not being very independent if they were relying on the advice of the prosecutor to conduct the proceedings against the accused.
[25:38.000 --> 25:46.000]  Canon two, avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
[25:46.000 --> 25:59.000]  Subsection A of Canon two, a judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
[25:59.000 --> 26:09.000]  Subsection B, a judge of Canon two, a judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment.
[26:09.000 --> 26:25.000]  A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
[26:25.000 --> 26:40.000]  A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness. Now real quick, folks, on sub-item B, a judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
[26:40.000 --> 26:55.000]  That's exactly what this judge did with this prosecutor by soliciting her advice on how to act in regard to these motions that had previously been filed by the defense.
[26:55.000 --> 27:00.000]  And the prosecutor saying, well, I don't know. I've never read them. If I were you, I'd deny them.
[27:00.000 --> 27:06.000]  That is influencing the judge, folks, in favor of the prosecution. And that's exactly what they did.
[27:06.000 --> 27:13.000]  Canon three, performing the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
[27:13.000 --> 27:19.000]  Well, folks, if they're not following the code of criminal procedure in a criminal case, then there's two issues here.
[27:19.000 --> 27:39.000]  One, either this is not a criminal case or two, the judge is violating the law and the rights of the accused, and he is not conducting his official capacity impartially, diligently, or in any way in the protection of the right of due process.
[27:39.000 --> 27:54.000]  Canon three, a judicial duties in general, the judicial duties of a judge take precedent over all the judges other activities, judicial duties include all the duties of the judges office prescribed by law.
[27:54.000 --> 28:04.000]  What is the code of criminal procedure if it is not the judges duties prescribed by law that they are to perform in a criminal case, folks?
[28:04.000 --> 28:14.000]  And yet they are ignoring it, which makes me believe that we have the argument this is not a criminal case. It's never been a criminal case.
[28:14.000 --> 28:27.000]  Canon three, be adjudicative responsibilities. Sub-item two, a judge should be faithful to the law and shall maintain professional confidence in it.
[28:27.000 --> 28:35.000]  A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interest, public clamor or fear of criticism.
[28:35.000 --> 28:45.000]  And I got to tell you, folks, he violated this nine ways from Sunday. Be faithful to the law. He didn't even look at the law, doesn't know the law, doesn't understand the law.
[28:45.000 --> 28:47.000]  That much is obvious.
[28:47.000 --> 29:01.000]  And partisan interest, the prosecutor has a partisan interest in getting this prosecution, as does the magistrate, because they both work for the city who gets a cut of the money.
[29:01.000 --> 29:06.000]  How is there anything nonpartisan about this?
[29:06.000 --> 29:15.000]  Sub-item four of Canon three, be a judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants.
[29:15.000 --> 29:30.000]  Remember that demeaning and attitude that he did to this individual in the courtroom, where he talked to them in a belittling, contemptuous fashion and derided them in front of other people that were in the courtroom?
[29:30.000 --> 29:35.000]  That's not dignified and courteous to the litigants in any way, shape or form.
[29:35.000 --> 29:45.000]  And it says, with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. And we definitely were that. All right, folks, we'll continue with this on the other side, not too much more of it to go.
[29:45.000 --> 29:49.000]  Nick, I see you on the board. Hang on there. We'll take you after we get this done on the other side of the break.
[29:49.000 --> 29:59.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call, folks. We'll be right back.
[29:59.000 --> 30:05.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[30:05.000 --> 30:12.000]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[30:12.000 --> 30:15.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[30:15.000 --> 30:17.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[30:17.000 --> 30:19.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[30:19.000 --> 30:20.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[30:20.000 --> 30:21.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[30:21.000 --> 30:22.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[30:22.000 --> 30:24.000]  I'm the father who lost his son.
[30:24.000 --> 30:26.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[30:26.000 --> 30:30.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[30:57.000 --> 31:06.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy.
[31:06.000 --> 31:09.000]  And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[31:09.000 --> 31:12.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then.
[31:12.000 --> 31:13.000]  Brave New Books?
[31:13.000 --> 31:20.000]  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.
[31:20.000 --> 31:24.000]  They even stock inner food, Burkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[31:24.000 --> 31:27.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[31:27.000 --> 31:28.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[31:28.000 --> 31:32.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[31:32.000 --> 31:36.000]  Aw, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[31:36.000 --> 31:43.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[31:43.000 --> 31:47.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[31:47.000 --> 31:52.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[31:52.000 --> 32:01.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:01.000 --> 32:11.000]  Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:11.000 --> 32:24.000]  Yeah, I got the warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the head of the momentum, prosecute them.
[32:24.000 --> 32:28.000]  Okay.
[32:28.000 --> 32:31.000]  All set.
[32:31.000 --> 32:41.000]  This lesson's a rest from tabush. This lesson's a rest from the teen.
[32:41.000 --> 32:46.000]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me. Prosecute them wickedly.
[32:46.000 --> 32:51.000]  They're my mother, my liar, them teller, them a liar.
[32:51.000 --> 32:55.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[32:55.000 --> 32:59.000]  All right, we're gonna continue on and get this wrapped up.
[32:59.000 --> 33:04.000]  Sub-item 5 of Canon 3B.
[33:04.000 --> 33:06.000]  Okay.
[33:06.000 --> 33:13.000]  A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
[33:13.000 --> 33:17.000]  Uh, no, didn't do that very well either.
[33:17.000 --> 33:19.000]  Not at all.
[33:19.000 --> 33:23.000]  Let's see. What else did they not do?
[33:23.000 --> 33:27.000]  Uh, six. They didn't do six, that's for sure.
[33:27.000 --> 33:36.000]  A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice,
[33:36.000 --> 33:45.000]  including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status,
[33:45.000 --> 33:55.000]  and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials, and other subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.
[33:55.000 --> 34:00.000]  I tell you, I haven't seen anybody with more attitude than that deadline court clerk has.
[34:00.000 --> 34:03.000]  Talk about trying to belittle and demean, and we wouldn't have done of it.
[34:03.000 --> 34:10.000]  And so she called a cop to come in there because I wouldn't let her talk to us that way.
[34:10.000 --> 34:15.000]  Canon 6, compliance with the code of judicial conduct.
[34:15.000 --> 34:16.000]  Oh, there's a surprise.
[34:16.000 --> 34:19.000]  Canon 6C sub-item 2.
[34:19.000 --> 34:23.000]  6C is justices of the peace and municipal court judges.
[34:23.000 --> 34:34.000]  Sub-item 2, a justice of the peace or municipal court judge, except as authorized by law, shall not directly or indirectly initiate, permit,
[34:34.000 --> 34:42.000]  nor consider, ex parte, or other communications concerning the merits of appending judicial proceeding.
[34:42.000 --> 34:44.000]  Now guess what?
[34:44.000 --> 34:54.000]  This judge in the courtroom told Mr. Rodriguez flat out that he had already made a previous ruling on her motions,
[34:54.000 --> 35:00.000]  but he had never informed her of it whatsoever, nor was she present when it occurred.
[35:00.000 --> 35:05.000]  So, wouldn't that be ex parte?
[35:05.000 --> 35:14.000]  I mean, one of the parties that was entitled to be there to make oral argument on those that are pretrial hearing, never got a pretrial hearing,
[35:14.000 --> 35:23.000]  and the judge, without any input from the prosecution who admitted they've never even read the motions, therefore they never rebutted a single word of them,
[35:23.000 --> 35:30.000]  the judge decided that he was going to deny them out of hand simply because he wanted to.
[35:30.000 --> 35:34.000]  And I guarantee you he didn't read them either.
[35:34.000 --> 35:40.000]  Canon 6, compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6C, justice of the peace, blah, blah, blah.
[35:40.000 --> 35:44.000]  Now we go down to Canon 8, construction and terminology of the code.
[35:44.000 --> 35:59.000]  Canon 8B, terminology 1, shall or shall not, denotes binding obligations, the violation of which can result in disciplinary action.
[35:59.000 --> 36:09.000]  Well, gee, the judge is directed to shall do not do this or shall do this and didn't do any of it, and in fact violated it,
[36:09.000 --> 36:15.000]  but do you really think this judge is going to suffer disciplinary action by the administrative judge?
[36:15.000 --> 36:16.000]  Doubtful.
[36:16.000 --> 36:19.000]  But we're going to write it up and try to get it done anyway.
[36:19.000 --> 36:30.000]  Canon 8, law denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional law.
[36:30.000 --> 36:32.000]  I request for relief.
[36:32.000 --> 36:42.000]  Therefore, Rodriguez requests that head administrative judge Billy Ray Stubblefield grant her special appearance and inner of finding an order declaring that
[36:42.000 --> 36:50.000]  Judge Wagner is disqualified for all purposes from presiding over any proceedings involving Rodriguez in the instant matter.
[36:50.000 --> 37:00.000]  Furthermore, Rodriguez requests that head administrative judge Billy Ray Stubblefield direct the court to dismiss this case of prejudice for lack of subject matter and impersonal jurisdiction.
[37:00.000 --> 37:03.000]  And then we have the verification and certificate of service.
[37:03.000 --> 37:12.000]  Stubblefield really has the power to have them dismiss the case, but it sure wouldn't hurt to have them come back and go. You people have really screwed up here.
[37:12.000 --> 37:21.000]  And while I can't order you to do it, I'm certainly going to recommend you consider it wholeheartedly before this ton of bricks falls squarely on your head.
[37:21.000 --> 37:24.000]  But that focus is where we're going with this.
[37:24.000 --> 37:40.000]  Now, we got to get that filed. You have up until 10 days prior to any proceeding involving the judge you're attempting to recuse or disqualify provided there is an assignment order for the judge.
[37:40.000 --> 37:43.000]  Now, there isn't an assignment order for this judge.
[37:43.000 --> 37:54.000]  I mean, he's the only judge in the municipal court, but to my knowledge, they had nothing in the record except the citation that they went down there. There certainly was no assignment order for this judge.
[37:54.000 --> 38:04.000]  So according to statute, then you can enter this motion in the record anytime prior to the proceeding as you are able to.
[38:04.000 --> 38:15.000]  So tomorrow is actually our last day of the 10 days prior that we can do this. So that's what we're going to do is get that done.
[38:15.000 --> 38:17.000]  Hopefully.
[38:17.000 --> 38:24.000]  So in any case, we're going to do it. We're going to deal with that and go forward right now. We're going to start taking your calls again.
[38:24.000 --> 38:35.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984. Right now we have one caller up on the board that is Nick in North Carolina. Nick, what can we do for you?
[38:35.000 --> 38:48.000]  Hey Eddie, I've learned quite a bit from you over the past couple of years and I think I'm about ready to try the not in transportation argument in courts.
[38:48.000 --> 38:57.000]  I set myself up. I let my tax expire on a car that I go back and forth to work in. I let them expire over the summer and just wait to get caught.
[38:57.000 --> 39:04.000]  And they finally called me today and gave me a ticket there for, what is it, mail to, display.
[39:04.000 --> 39:07.000]  Yeah.
[39:07.000 --> 39:12.000]  I'll put it on the street or highway while displaying an expired registration.
[39:12.000 --> 39:23.000]  So, but I remembered what you said and I set him up from the stop with, what's the emergency, how can I help him.
[39:23.000 --> 39:30.000]  And I didn't want to give him a driver's license. Told him I wasn't using it right now, but I had one.
[39:30.000 --> 39:38.000]  He forced to issue and I had to tell it to him. And I didn't give him any indication. I wasn't in transportation.
[39:38.000 --> 39:44.000]  He spent quite a bit of time telling me that I really just need those tags in order to drive on the highway a motor vehicle.
[39:44.000 --> 39:48.000]  And I said, okay, sir. We'll work it out later.
[39:48.000 --> 39:52.000]  Wait a minute. He pulled you over for the expired registration?
[39:52.000 --> 39:54.000]  Yeah, he sure did.
[39:54.000 --> 39:57.000]  Okay. Well, he's got a problem.
[39:57.000 --> 40:16.000]  Registration is in chapter 502 of the transportation code here in Texas. Now, I don't know where it is there, but you may want to look and make sure because in Texas, the authority to arrest is limited strictly to moving violations that are codified into subtitle C of our transportation code.
[40:16.000 --> 40:29.000]  You may want to look and see if there is something similar in the North Carolina statute. But basically the officer has to have the authority by statute to conduct a warrantless arrest.
[40:29.000 --> 40:32.000]  So you need to find one, where is that authority?
[40:32.000 --> 40:39.000]  Two, does that authority create a limitation on how it may be used?
[40:39.000 --> 40:46.000]  Three, does that limitation encompass the registration? Yes or no?
[40:46.000 --> 40:56.000]  If it does not, then his stop was illegal because he had no warrantless arrest authority to make the stop initially.
[40:56.000 --> 41:00.000]  If that's his reason for pulling you over.
[41:00.000 --> 41:04.000]  I'll look and see if that's a reason for a primary stop.
[41:04.000 --> 41:11.000]  The North Carolina seat belt violation is a reason for... Well, that's a moving violation. That's in subtitle C here also.
[41:11.000 --> 41:15.000]  Okay. I'll check into that.
[41:15.000 --> 41:24.000]  I was wanting to get my kid... I've already lost the cases on the merit level, but this will be the first time I try to... I'm not in transportation.
[41:24.000 --> 41:34.000]  But it's... Yeah, I'll check into that when I get home. I can look through the code of criminal proceedings. I've got plenty of time to prepare. I've got a month and a half.
[41:34.000 --> 41:41.000]  It's in the county court, so it's judicial. And then I've got a continuance I can use if I need more preparation.
[41:41.000 --> 41:45.000]  I'm just going to go ahead and buy your course off so I can cover all my basis.
[41:45.000 --> 41:55.000]  And so I think I'm ready to try this. I know what you said not... What not to let them get away with in court to object to the terms.
[41:55.000 --> 42:06.000]  So I think I can try this, not in transportation. It's a simple, simple little ticket. I think to find 25 bucks to get the court cost 190.
[42:06.000 --> 42:09.000]  All right. Well, good luck.
[42:09.000 --> 42:19.000]  But once I want to ask you about... In these courts, the judges are notorious for asking questions directly, and they will do that.
[42:19.000 --> 42:22.000]  That's fine. They can do that.
[42:22.000 --> 42:26.000]  Yeah, they're really bad about that. And...
[42:26.000 --> 42:36.000]  But the problem is, is what's the reason he's doing it? Is he doing it to clarify your argument, or is he doing it to act on behalf of the prosecution?
[42:36.000 --> 42:47.000]  If the judge is actually conducting the prosecution, then he is not being fair and impartial, because he is acting as the prosecutor and he is acting as the one presiding.
[42:47.000 --> 42:59.000]  So basically, if you object to something he's doing under the prosecutorial hat, he can turn right around and overrule you under his judge's hat and say, well, you can't object to what I'm doing as a prosecutor,
[42:59.000 --> 43:04.000]  because I can do whatever I want as the prosecutor, because I'm also the judge.
[43:04.000 --> 43:10.000]  Yeah. Yeah, I've seen stuff that way before.
[43:10.000 --> 43:13.000]  Yeah, well, there's a problem with stuff that way.
[43:13.000 --> 43:32.000]  There is, yeah. But I know I need to make sure there's a court reporter and get the other motions. I'll get those out of your course and make them work in North Carolina, I guess.
[43:32.000 --> 43:34.000]  Hey, why not?
[43:34.000 --> 43:36.000]  Yeah.
[43:36.000 --> 43:39.000]  That is what they're for, for you guys to adapt and use.
[43:39.000 --> 43:41.000]  Yeah.
[43:41.000 --> 43:43.000]  For your music.
[43:43.000 --> 43:45.000]  All right. You got any more, Nick?
[43:45.000 --> 43:47.000]  Maybe a little.
[43:47.000 --> 43:49.000]  Okay, hang on, we'll get you on the other side.
[43:49.000 --> 44:03.000]  First, call in number 512-646-1984. This is Rule of Law Radio. Give us a call. Nick's our last guy.
[44:03.000 --> 44:15.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, death by step.
[44:15.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:34.000]  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.
[44:34.000 --> 44:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:56.000]  Visit our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[44:56.000 --> 45:01.000]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:17.000]  To the Oklahoma City bombing, Top 10 reasons to question the official story. Reason number one, John Doe number two, and other accomplices. On the day of the bombing, nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the Rider Truck report that he was accompanied by other perpetrators.
[45:17.000 --> 45:25.000]  The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone delivered the Rider Truck Bomb to the Murr Building and detonated it.
[45:25.000 --> 45:39.000]  The witness, the government produced a place McVeigh at the building that morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her children and one of her legs in the bombing, testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the fabled John Doe number two, exiting the Rider Truck.
[45:39.000 --> 45:53.000]  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.
[45:53.000 --> 46:01.000]  Other cases have positively identified the other perpetrators. For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:23.000 --> 46:41.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Alright, we are still talking to Nick in North Carolina. Folks, call in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. Alright, Nick, let's continue on.
[46:41.000 --> 46:53.000]  Thanks Eddie. What would be the procedure? How would I do about getting the recording from his body mic over these thoughts?
[46:53.000 --> 47:03.000]  Well, you can do whatever constitutes a public information request there in North Carolina and you can do a motion for discovery. I would do both.
[47:03.000 --> 47:18.000]  Yeah, okay, do both. Okay. I wasn't clear about that. Yeah, do both. Okay, I think there could be a hitch.
[47:18.000 --> 47:38.000]  Yeah, now don't ask just for stuff from his body mic. Just ask also for any communications traffic between the officer and dispatch, including any CAD reports, any audio recordings, or any video recordings, or audio recordings captured by the officer's cruiser.
[47:38.000 --> 48:03.000]  Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. He's also put on this citation that the bail to have inspection, electronic inspection, authorization. He added that on there too, but he didn't find me for it.
[48:03.000 --> 48:14.000]  I don't see where he's, he put it on there as a list of defense, but I don't see where the signs listed, but I wasn't able to use that anyway or even bring it up if I'm going to argue it's not in transportation that the use was with me.
[48:14.000 --> 48:18.000]  Correct. We don't deal with the merits if we're not in transportation.
[48:18.000 --> 48:28.000]  Right. So that'll never even get addressed, even though he's wrong and it does have a current inspection on it.
[48:28.000 --> 48:46.000]  Well, I see that as being one of the tricks that are eventually going to get smart enough to try to play. They're going to accuse you of an offense that they know to be false in order to get you to argue that the charge itself is false regarding the merits of that one thing.
[48:46.000 --> 48:50.000]  And then you've gone to merits and you screwed the whole thing.
[48:50.000 --> 49:15.000]  There you go. I see the logic in it now. Good point. So I'll stay away from that. Yeah. Yeah, they will. I can foresee them being smart enough. Some prosecutors say, okay, do this and that way if they bring up that argument in court, then when they talk to me about dropping this charge because they have a valid inspection, I've got them over the barrel on the other one.
[49:15.000 --> 49:26.000]  I'm glad I called you. Yeah, that's a very, very good point. So I just have to stick to my guns completely on the not in transportation, don't address anything else. Absolutely.
[49:26.000 --> 49:42.000]  All the way through it. And another thing I want to ask you is that when the judge gets turned to me objecting to every time somebody says driver or operate or vehicle or motor vehicle, how do we get just a standing objection to all those terms? How do I do that?
[49:42.000 --> 49:51.000]  Well, you can just keep objecting until the judge tells you they recognize a standing objection to it. But you could also simply suggest it.
[49:51.000 --> 50:09.000]  Judge, just for the record, I intend to object every time that term is used by any party in this courtroom. Would the court at this time like to recognize a standing objection to that terminology so that you don't find me having to interrupt the prosecutor at every turn?
[50:09.000 --> 50:22.000]  Now, be aware you're kind of cutting your own throat by doing that because by making objections, you're actually breaking the prosecutor's rhythm and stride. And you want to do that. You don't want them to be able to just get on a roll and keep going.
[50:22.000 --> 50:29.000]  You want to be able to interject and interrupt them. You want to throw them off their game. You can only do that if you're objecting.
[50:29.000 --> 50:41.000]  But be sure to pay careful attention to all the terms they banter around with and don't let them sneak one by you because you're concentrating on the objection for another.
[50:41.000 --> 50:46.000]  Yeah. That's great advice and I appreciate it.
[50:46.000 --> 50:47.000]  Yes, sir?
[50:47.000 --> 51:00.000]  I think that's what happened as well with the inspection. I think he knows full well the things we did. But I think when he made, when he called it in, they've seen this before and they said put that on there anyway about the inspection.
[51:00.000 --> 51:03.000]  Just for the reason you said, I think that's good.
[51:03.000 --> 51:13.000]  Yeah, I can't say that that is the reason, but I can certainly see some sly prosecutor being smart enough to make that an issue.
[51:13.000 --> 51:28.000]  Now, the thing is, is if you actually prevail on this, they're going to have a really big problem with that malicious prosecution because now that charge is going to work directly against them.
[51:28.000 --> 51:41.000]  Because the officer made a knowingly false statement in charge because his records clearly showed that the registration was current and yet he went after you on it anyway.
[51:41.000 --> 51:47.000]  Yeah.
[51:47.000 --> 51:50.000]  Well, this could have to be a lot of fun.
[51:50.000 --> 51:55.000]  Oh, yeah. Absolutely a lot of fun.
[51:55.000 --> 51:59.000]  Okay. Well, thanks for that advice. It's been valuable.
[51:59.000 --> 52:02.000]  Well, let's hope it helps you.
[52:02.000 --> 52:05.000]  Okay. Thanks very all. I'll get you out of your way.
[52:05.000 --> 52:07.000]  No problem. Thanks Nick for calling in.
[52:07.000 --> 52:08.000]  Appreciate it.
[52:08.000 --> 52:17.000]  Yes, sir. All right, folks, that was our last caller 512-646-1984.
[52:17.000 --> 52:24.000]  We need somebody to talk to or you guys are going to have to listen to me just rant and rave and that's never a good thing. I don't think.
[52:24.000 --> 52:33.000]  But still, while we're waiting, let's talk a little bit more about these judges and how they're not abiding by any part of law and what they do.
[52:33.000 --> 52:45.000]  Here in Texas, the code of criminal procedure that we have to deal with the portions of it are fairly small compared to the code as a whole, especially when we're just dealing with misdemeanor cases.
[52:45.000 --> 52:54.000]  These transportation citations are all misdemeanors. There's no question of that as far as them attempting to say they're criminal.
[52:54.000 --> 53:03.000]  Now, whether or not they would be misdemeanors in a civil sense, which is what administrative actually is, it's a subset of civil.
[53:03.000 --> 53:05.000]  That's a whole other matter.
[53:05.000 --> 53:16.000]  What we don't want is to allow them to continue to throw all of these proceedings under the umbrella of the code of criminal procedure.
[53:16.000 --> 53:20.000]  And we have very good legal basis for not wanting that.
[53:20.000 --> 53:29.000]  In Texas, we have the government code chapter 2001, which is the Administrative Procedures Act.
[53:29.000 --> 53:38.000]  In that Administrative Procedures Act, it basically outlines all of the things that have to be done for a typical administrative proceeding.
[53:38.000 --> 53:52.000]  It also says who constitutes a state agency for the purpose of such proceedings, and it specifically states that the courts are not a state agency for that purpose,
[53:52.000 --> 54:05.000]  and do not have original jurisdiction for anything that falls under the jurisdictional umbrella of an administrative proceeding in the state office of administrative hearings.
[54:05.000 --> 54:09.000]  And there's only one of those in Texas, and it's here in Austin.
[54:09.000 --> 54:12.000]  There's only one.
[54:12.000 --> 54:24.000]  So when we look at that, and the courts are specifically prohibited from hearing these cases, if their cases falling under the authority of a state administrative agency,
[54:24.000 --> 54:28.000]  then we have to start backtracking a little bit, and we have to start asking some questions.
[54:28.000 --> 54:39.000]  First question being, what exactly is the Department of Public Safety in relation to a state administrative agency?
[54:39.000 --> 54:54.000]  Well, if you look at the state administrative code, there are individual chapters in the administrative code for every state agency that is administrative in nature.
[54:54.000 --> 55:02.000]  Title 37 is specifically the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas.
[55:02.000 --> 55:11.000]  Now imagine that the so-called law enforcement agency is actually an administrative agency.
[55:11.000 --> 55:35.000]  Now what does that mean in terms of common sense and law, which they're supposed to go hand in hand unless you have one of these black-robed morons that doesn't understand that common sense and law are not inseparable when certain things occur, but they certainly should be.
[55:35.000 --> 55:43.000]  Okay? The law cannot be used to perpetrate a harm. If it can, it's not a law.
[55:43.000 --> 55:59.000]  Okay? It's a form of oppression. It's a form of tyranny. It is not law because if it violates a right, it violates constitutional principles, republic principles, individual liberty principles.
[55:59.000 --> 56:06.000]  So a law cannot be used to cause a harm. Okay?
[56:06.000 --> 56:15.000]  Now that being said, when they fail to follow the administrative code, this is what they're doing.
[56:15.000 --> 56:19.000]  The Department of Public Safety is specifically listed as a state administrative agency.
[56:19.000 --> 56:24.000]  It says right there in the administrative code that they have authority over two things.
[56:24.000 --> 56:38.000]  Supervision of traffic on rural highways, supervision and regulation of commercial and for hire traffic.
[56:38.000 --> 56:54.000]  Doesn't say anything about private individuals. Doesn't say anything about non-traffic, i.e. non-transportation activities of any kind.
[56:54.000 --> 57:02.000]  Their authority is strictly limited to commercial and for hire activities.
[57:02.000 --> 57:11.000]  That's all transportation folks. It's not you and me. We're neither commercial nor are we for hire.
[57:11.000 --> 57:19.000]  Given that their administrative authority ends with commercial activities.
[57:19.000 --> 57:41.000]  That's exactly why it specifically states in the transportation code under the definitions in 541 that a police officer for the purposes of the transportation code is someone that is specifically authorized to arrest offenders and enforce traffic regulations.
[57:41.000 --> 57:49.000]  When you dig down under Chapter 4 of Title 37 in the administrative code, you find out exactly what that means.
[57:49.000 --> 58:01.000]  Authority to enforce is written right into 4.13a, that rule of the administrative code under Chapter 4 of Title 37.
[58:01.000 --> 58:09.000]  Now it actually goes down through several sections there. It's actually pretty long drill down to get to 4.13.
[58:09.000 --> 58:21.000]  What it is, is that it specifically states who is and is not eligible to be authorized to enforce and arrest.
[58:21.000 --> 58:30.000]  And you will find out that it specifically does not mean everybody with a badge and a gun.
[58:30.000 --> 58:40.000]  It limits them by location, geographically, by population and by type, municipal, county or state.
[58:40.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll cover more of that on the other side until we get some callers. 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 59:01.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[59:01.000 --> 59:09.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:09.000 --> 59:27.000]  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.
[59:27.000 --> 59:47.000]  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.
[59:47.000 --> 59:50.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.000 --> 59:59.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[59:59.000 --> 01:00:09.000]  Radio frequency microchips are often used to track products as they make their way to stores, but would you want them in your socks?
[01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you about the bizarre, privacy-invasive new product called Smart Sox. Next.
[01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:46.000]  There's an alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Start Page.
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:54.000]  Black Sox, a maker of men's dress socks, is embedding its products with Radio Frequency Microchips or RFID technology.
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  When scanned, each so-called smart sock transmits a unique ID number. The technology helps customers keep track of how many times their socks have been washed, how black their socks are, and which socks should be paired together.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  The cost? 189 bucks for a 10-pack, a scanner, and yes, an iPhone app.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  Spice chip socks may make for scientific sorting, but if you wear them, the floor itself could eventually track you. To me, that doesn't sound smart. It sounds spooky.
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  Brad? Polly wants a cracker. Teaching birds to talk can be fun, but one woman is landed in court for taking it just a little too far.
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the case of the cussing cockatoo and the jilted spouse. Next.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  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.
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging onto.
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and a divorced woman in Rhode Island is no exception.
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  She trained her pet cockatoo, Willie, to call her ex-husband's new girlfriend a bleeping whore, which would have been harmless except the ex-hubby and his girlfriend lived right next door.
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  After weeks of putting up with Willys and sulking squawks, the couple finally sued, and a local judge fined the woman $15 for violating the town's animal noise ordinance.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  She refused to pay, and she's now fighting the case in state court.
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  What I don't get is why those bird-brained lovebirds don't just fly the coop and find a new roost somewhere else.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:20.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:03:20.000 --> 01:03:36.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:42.000]  Alright, now let's continue on with this while we're waiting on other callers. 512-646-1984.
[01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:45.000]  We've got about an hour left in the show. Give us a call, folks.
[01:03:45.000 --> 01:04:10.000]  Okay, now, when these officers are authorized under the administrative code by the procedures it dictates there in Rule 4.13A and who is authorized under 4.13B, then and only then can they enforce transportation statutes.
[01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  They cannot do it simply because they were a bad.
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  Now, again, the DPS is the one that must authorize them. The DPS is the one that must certify them.
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  When you look in the transportation code, every article that we're dealing with there, every section, every chapter specifically defines who the department is that we're dealing with for that particular piece of the code.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  Now, in this one, regarding the definitions, the department means the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas.
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  And it goes down and it defines them, officers of the department can do the following.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  Well, again, how does a county deputy become a member of the DPS for the purpose of enforcing transportation? How does a municipal cop become a member of the Department of Public Safety for the purpose of enforcing transportation?
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  How do they get to be in the department? Well, they have to be certified and then authorized to participate in those activities by a member of the actual Department of Public Safety.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:39.000]  Okay. And that's what Rule 4.13A and B is all about.
[01:05:39.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  When you do a public information request from the Department of Public Safety, you'll quickly find that there are in, I think, 2009 or 10, when we got that original one, there was a total of 63, I think it's 63, individuals in all of Texas that are authorized to enforce the transportation code.
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:12.000]  63. Okay. That's definitely not every Tom Dick and Harry police officer out there, is it?
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  Yet, when you look in the transportation code in 543, it says any peace officer may arrest, without warrant, a person found committing a violation of this subtitle.
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:38.000]  Now, let's look at that language real careful. It does not say any peace officer may enforce. It says any peace officer may arrest.
[01:06:38.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  Now, when you consider that if you have an enforcement officer who is authorized to enforce, who then tells the peace officer, hey, this guy violated the statute, I'm charging with it, you can now arrest him without a warrant because I'm charging with it, would that fly?
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  Sure it would fly. It would absolutely fly. Why wouldn't it? Oops, would it?
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  Remember the language found committing. Now, true in 543.001, it does not say who must find them committing the act.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  Okay. The implication is that it's the officer doing the arresting. But in the case of enforcement officers being the only ones allowed to enforce, then how does the arrest authority kick in from an executive standpoint when this is clearly an administrative proceeding that we're going through here?
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  Remember, it's under the auspices of the Department of Public Safety, which we established in the administrative code, they are a state administrative agency.
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  Therefore, they don't do criminal. They only do civil. So how does someone get the power to arrest someone for something civil? That creates a legal conundrum.
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:22.000]  Now the issue becomes, well, maybe since we can arrest you, that's how we come to the conclusion that it's a criminal thing.
[01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  Well, then you still have a completely separate problem. One, this regulatory authority belongs to an administrative agency. So where does criminal come into it?
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  Second, if it were really criminal, you would be bound by the code of criminal procedure when you're dealing with it, and you're not doing it according to the code of criminal procedure.
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  Therefore, logic says it's not criminal.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  So where does this leave us?
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  Well, it leaves us making the argument that this is all administrative. Only the state office of administrative hearings has any jurisdiction over this as a court of original jurisdiction.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  It is not the courts of the state.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:15.000]  And we have to make that argument forcefully.
[01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:32.000]  Because right now we are getting all these people convicted in these justice and JP courts from what I can see in a totally illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful manner.
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Courts without jurisdiction are adjudicating cases over which they have no jurisdiction.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  They are levying fines that they never had jurisdiction to levy.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  They are issuing warrants to arrest people for cases over which they never had warrant authority because you can't issue an arrest warrant for a civil proceeding.
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  Got it?
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  You cannot even issue a warrant to seize property in an administrative proceeding, so how in the Sam Hill can you send out an administrative warrant to seize an individual human being if you cannot even do it to seize property?
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  I would think one would most definitely have a higher power of saying, I don't think so than the other one would. And if you're forbidden of seizing the lower one, how in heaven's name do you perceive to have the power to seize the higher authority?
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  It's ludicrous.
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  Oh, wait. Ludicrous is the name of the game. I forgot.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  It's ludicrous, folks, because no judge in his right mind that has any clue about right, wrong, and law can look at the transportation system and with a straight face say, sure, it's absolutely in line with the right of due process.
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  It's absolutely in line with the constitutional republic. It's absolutely in line with everything is being done properly and correctly.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  If they can say that with a straight face, then you are definitely dealing with a psychopath and we'll be better off without them anyway, okay?
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  Because this individual is dangerous in and of themselves just by being where they are because only someone of a psychopathic nature could look at this system and go, I don't see a problem.
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  Now, granted, there are plenty of ignorant people that look at it and say, I don't see a problem.
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  But when they do understand the inner workings of it, they do understand what due process is and isn't.
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  They do understand the Code of Criminal Procedure requires things that aren't being followed.
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  They do understand that this is an administrative thing and yet they still maintain, I don't see a problem.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  Now, we need to be worried about those individuals. They don't need to be in public office.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  They don't need to be anywhere near a public office. I wouldn't let them in a public restroom, okay? That's just me.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  If we don't hold them accountable by knowing what our rights are, knowing what they can and cannot do with those rights,
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  and really, folks, they cannot do anything we don't give them permission to do in more ways than one.
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  Remember, they will always look for a way to make you waive a right to give them a shot at you when and where they can.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  I mean, let's look at the way the courts have set the doctrine of waiver up. If you don't claim it, you waive it. No matter what it is, you waive it.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  Well, that's baloney. A right inherent in me is inherent forever. It doesn't disappear simply because I don't stand up and go,
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  oh, by the way, I invoke that right and I'm not going to invoke that one, but I am going to invoke that one.
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  So I'll keep that one, but you can presume I waive that one because I didn't specifically invoke it. That's idiocy.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  That is complete idiocy. If I have something that belongs to me, my ownership of that thing is not negated because everybody that walks by,
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:40.000]  I don't hold the thing out for their inspection and say, see this? It's mine. Leave it alone.
[01:13:40.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  The very fact that it is in my possession is grounds enough to claim I have the right to defend it.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  I don't have to proclaim it. It's already there.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  Anyone that attempts to take it should be expectant of being rebuked or forcefully acted against in order for me to defend it.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  There is no presumption of waiver on my giving up something that rightfully belongs to me. Only somebody in bed with the system for the purpose of keeping the system corrupt
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:37.000]  and functional could have ever conceived of such a doctor, such an idiotic idea that the people of a republic must actually stand up in every instance of every day,
[01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  say this is mine and you can't have it, in order for the things that they have to remain theirs.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  I mean, jeez Louise, are we really that stupid? Do we really fail to think rationally enough to see that concept for the ignorance that it is?
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  I mean, that's like running to the edge of the Grand Canyon and as you jump off screen, it's just a test. It's just a test.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:17.000]  You just want to know if gravity works today and then act like you shouldn't have died when you hit the bottom because it was just a test.
[01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  You didn't waive your right to live, you just tested gravity. It's just as stupid an argument as these judges make about waiving a right because you don't stand up and claim it.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:43.000]  It's idiocy and we let them get away with it. Not only that, we elect them again so they can get away with it some more.
[01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  Oh, but that's because nobody pays attention to what these people are doing. Nobody cares.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  Everybody's got their own life to live and their life is anything but engaging in reality when it comes to their public servants being, you know, whatever.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  It's just stupid. What else do we do with them? What else? We can't shoot them, can't hang them, at least not in broad daylight yet.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  So what do we do? Do we change the laws or don't we have enough idea that they just ignore the ones that already exist that don't let them do these things to begin with?
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  What do we do? Come on folks, give me a call. I got a little bit of time left here, 45 whole minutes of it.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  Having a conversation about this would be a lot better than just listening to me theorize.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  512-646-1984. We will be right back after this break.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  Capital Coin features a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the best shopping experience both in-store and online.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  In addition to coins and bullion, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  We offer freeze-dried storable foods by Augustin Farms, Bergy Water Products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  You can lock in a spot trace with our Silverpool and we set up metals IRA accounts. Call us at 512-646-6400 for more details.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, 3A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturday 10-2.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:18:03.000]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6400.
[01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:08.000]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, see what you've done to me.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:14.000]  I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be.
[01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good. I don't eat so much food.
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  Ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be?
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:37.000]  I'll see a magnesium, selenium and zinc. Take a moment now and think.
[01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  If you have a little thing, every day will bring the life that you've been looking for.
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:53.000]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadeloupe Street.
[01:18:53.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  The store also carries the works of Dr. Droll Wallach, founder of Young Jevity and creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:28.000]  Music
[01:19:28.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:38.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  Alright, we did have somebody up on the board, but they dropped off just as quick it seems.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  I guess my call screener grabbed them, but as soon as they're back up on the board, we'll take their call.
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  But folks, I am open to suggestions.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  We don't get them out during election time because all the elections are rigged.
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  They're going to put back in power whoever they want back in power.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:03.000]  But why is that possible because of electronic voting machines?
[01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  Why are they possible because state law allows them?
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  Why does state law allow them? Because we let idiots in charge write the laws that make it allowable.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  So why are the idiots in office?
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  Well, because we have to elect them with the voting machines they authorized that are illegal, that are unconstitutional,
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  that rig the votes so that they can stay in office and write more laws to keep themselves in office
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  and get the voting machines out there so we can't change any of this.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  Anybody see a problem with all this yet?
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  Anybody see a circular issue here?
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  And when I say circular, I'm not talking about chasing your own tail.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:40.000]  I'm talking about circling the fricking drain or the toilet bowl right before you get sucked into the pipe.
[01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  Okay?
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  Follow the logic.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  Voting machines.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  They're allowed by state law.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  And acted by state idiot actors.
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:57.000]  State idiot actors put into office by state voting machine.
[01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  They're put into place by state law by state idiot actors.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  State idiot actors were put into office by voting machine.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  See the problem?
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  Okay?
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  As long as we let this stuff continue, we won't ever get rid of this.
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  So we've got two options.
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:22.000]  We can either go down to all of the voting places with hammers and simply get rid of all the voting machines
[01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:24.000]  prior to any voting,
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  or we can take those hammers to Austin
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  and use them to drive out those that would presume to create laws that allow themselves to remain in office
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  by creating illegal voting machines that can be rigged to keep them in office.
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  A couple different ways of doing it.
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  But voting sure as hell is not going to fix anything.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  Because voting, you know, it's an effort in futility.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  How does the old saying go?
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  The definition of insanity, doing exactly the same thing,
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  exactly the same way under exactly the same circumstances,
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  but expecting a different result.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  Not happening.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  We have all these people that we can't get rid of because they put in place a system that makes it impossible to get rid of them.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  It's astounding.
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  That tarred and feathered and right them out of town on a rail business,
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  that should start becoming real popular real soon.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:40.000]  And if it doesn't, well, the next thing that's going to be riding into town is going to be U.N. armored vehicles
[01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  to augment our already unconstitutional and illegal standing armies of military-trained law enforcement individuals
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  that the Founding Father said, no state shall ever have.
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:59.000]  And yet, look outside, listen in the night.
[01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  How often do you hear the wailing sirens of that oncoming army?
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  How many reports do we see in the news every day about how that army has come together and murdered people that were not even armed?
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:21.000]  And quite a few of which had not even committed a single act of aggression or a crime of any kind,
[01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  or just did, cause the standing army needed somebody to practice on.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  And we, the people, sit back and say, as long as it's not my door, as long as it's not my child or me,
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:40.000]  then I guess I really don't have a problem with it.
[01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  Wrong.
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  Wake up, people.
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  All right, now we've got some callers on the board.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:50.000]  We have Blake in Texas.
[01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:55.000]  Blake, what can we do for you?
[01:23:55.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  Well, we have Blake in Texas, and then he disappeared just as quick.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  Nope, now I got, well, it says Jod.
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  Is that right?
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  Yep.
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:06.000]  Okay, what can we do for you?
[01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  Oh, I'm just kind of looking for an Arizona lawyer to help me with my situation.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  You sent me an email.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  I sent you an email back.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  I don't know any Arizona lawyers.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:17.000]  We're kind of in Texas.
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  I don't get around much to talk to Arizona lawyers.
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  Yeah, okay.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  Hey, you never know unless you ask, though.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  Well, that's true.
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:29.000]  But nope, sorry, partner, don't know anybody out in Arizona with a law degree
[01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  or a brain to use it if they had it.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  Right.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  You might want to go over how to pick a lawyer up, though, a good one.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  Instead of just grabbing somebody.
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:44.000]  Well, the best way I can tell you to pick a good lawyer,
[01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  walk into his office, give him a check.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  Are you willing to work for all that money,
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  or do I have to shoot you now and take it back?
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:25:00.000]  Depending upon how he answers, find another lawyer.
[01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  All right.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  All right.
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  All right.
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  Okay, thanks for calling in.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  All right.
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  Blake showed back up on the board, but several callers down the list.
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  I'm going to try to get him again before he disappears.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  Blake, are you there?
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  Yes, I am.
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  Well, all right.
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  What can we do for you?
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  Yeah, the radar kicked me off.
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  So I said, yeah, I would tell you what, just one comment.
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  You are really describing the system, the way it is.
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:33.000]  It's just like, man, it's bad.
[01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  It's bad, but I'm still paying attention.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:43.000]  And I'm trying to let what you're saying sink into my mind.
[01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:46.000]  And I copied some stuff down.
[01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  You know, I understand the premise of this, or I probably didn't use the right word,
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  the fact that the transportation, the laws, they deal with the commercial aspect only.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  That is correct.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  And here's what I copied down.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  I might have a question about it.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  When you get pulled over by the peace officer, law enforcement guy, whatever they call themselves
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:27.000]  now, what is the emergency and how can I help?
[01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  Did you, have you sent me an email to get the transportation script I made for folks?
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:33.000]  No, I have not.
[01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  Send me an email, eddydieatruleoflawradio.com.
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  I have a transportation script and put that in the subject line, transportation script.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  Law radio, transportation script.
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  Yeah, put that in the subject line.
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  But what it is, it's a list of dos and don'ts.
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  The first page is pretty much all instruction.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:01.000]  The second page is what you say.
[01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  And you limit what you say to what's on that second page.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:13.000]  You are going to talk to the officer what you say has one direction and one purpose only.
[01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  The direction is protect myself.
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  The purpose is by invoking my rights will I protect myself and my rights.
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  Okay.
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:32.000]  So anytime you're talking to the cop, it is always about invoking and protecting your rights.
[01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:34.000]  It's not about answering his questions.
[01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  We do not answer his questions.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  Period.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  Okay.
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  These idiots come up.
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  Do you know why I pulled you over?
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  Why would we answer that?
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  Why would any individual answer that?
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  Where are you been?
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  Where are you going?
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  How long you been there?
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:55.000]  How many kids you got?
[01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Is that your natural hair color?
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  None of that is their business, nor is any of it relevant to what's going on in the instant moment.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:05.000]  Has nothing to do with why they stopped you.
[01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  What business is it of theirs?
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  None.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:15.000]  So rather than answer these questions, we are going to invoke specific reservations of rights.
[01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  And that's what this script does.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  It tells you things that they're going to do, why they're going to do them, things you say, and how you say them.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  And the order you need to practice saying them in.
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  Every question that you ask or every statement you make out of this script has a specific legal purpose.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  Follow this script religiously for lack of a better way of putting it.
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:48.000]  Okay.
[01:28:48.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  Yeah, I hope not to have to, what do you call it?
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  Well, what you want to do is you want to try to read this and practice it as much as possible so that you pretty much have it committed to memory.
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:02.000]  You don't want to have to read it at the time of the stop.
[01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  You want to be able to think it through and know it cold so that you don't screw up at the stop.
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:12.000]  It all starts with the stop.
[01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  What you do or don't do at that moment sets in stone the course of the rest of your defense.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  And also what I really find so interesting and of course, it's not taught anywhere by the government or whoever.
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:37.000]  Is the term licensed?
[01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  Obviously that means permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Yes, or hang on just a second Blake.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  We're going to go ahead and take a break but I'll pick you up on the other side, okay?
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  Alright.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  Alright folks, call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  Stephen, John, hang in there.
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:59.000]  We'll get you the boomer. Finish with Blake.
[01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  A Noble Lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:10.000]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Expose the cover up now at alovalive.com.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  The Rule of Law Radio Network is proud to present a due process of law seminar hosted by our own Eddie Craig.
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  Eddie is a former Nacodotius sheriff's deputy and for the past 21 years he's been studying the due process of law
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  and now offers his knowledge to you at a seminar every Sunday from 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock at Brave New Books,
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:50.000]  located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  Admission is $20, so please make plans to come by and sit with Eddie and learn for yourself what the true intent of law really is.
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  At hempusa.org we offer chemical-free products to people around the world,
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  detoxifying, self-healing while rebuilding the immune system.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest selling product, micro plant powder.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  Our micro plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc and silica to help rebuild the immune system
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  and to create a healthy stomach flora.
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:28.000]  Micro plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter.
[01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  and remember all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:41.000]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality and rapid shipping anywhere
[01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:45.000]  and we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US.
[01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  That's 908-6912608.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:59.000]  See what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:09.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:38.000]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  Alright, we are going to finish up our call with Blake here.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:43.000]  Alright, Blake, go ahead.
[01:32:43.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  Okay, let me just check one thing.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  Is Eddie at ruleoflawradio.com or anything?
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  Yes, ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  Okay.
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  I don't know, maybe I need to...
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  The whole thing about licenses, I understand that you don't need one.
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:15.000]  Well, you only need one if you're engaging in a regular activity that would be illegal to engage in without the license.
[01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:27.000]  So, now the thing you will find as you spend time researching what a license or a permit is actually for,
[01:33:27.000 --> 01:33:32.000]  is that they are always commercial in nature, always.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:46.000]  Right, right. That's the point I'm getting to where... But that doesn't include driving to a job.
[01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  I'm sorry, doing what to a job?
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  Driving to a...
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:53.000]  I'm sorry, doing what to a job?
[01:33:53.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  Okay, I'm using the wrong term.
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  There you go. You picked that up fairly quick. What is the correct term?
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:04.000]  Well, it's not driving.
[01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  No, it's not.
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  Traveling?
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  There you go.
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  Okay.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  So, I would be traveling, say, I'm traveling over to the lumberyard to pick up a few 2x6s for some work that I'm doing.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  Now, technically, that wouldn't be...
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  Would that be commercial?
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  Nope. Why would it be commercial? If you go over and you purchase the materials, who owns them right then?
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  I do.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:54.000]  There you go. You cannot be in commerce when you're moving your own property.
[01:34:54.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  Okay.
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:05.000]  Now, if you went and picked those up for someone else and they're paying you to transport them from wherever you picked them up
[01:35:05.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  to where you were dropping them off and you regularly engage in that activity as a form of business,
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  now you're in commerce.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:16.000]  Regularly.
[01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:20.000]  Yes. Engaged in the business of...
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  Because one of the requisites of transportation is that it is the movement of passengers, goods, or property by a carrier.
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  Well, what's a carrier?
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  Someone engaged in the business of transporting persons, property, or goods for compensation or hire.
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  Okay. So even doing that once would be regular, regularly?
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  No.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:48.000]  No?
[01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  No. For instance, you could go do that and someone can say, I'll buy the gas and pay you something for your time,
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  but you do not regularly engage in the business of doing that.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  You don't get up every day and say, I got to go to work, honey. I got to haul stuff around for somebody if they'll pay me.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Right?
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  Okay.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:15.000]  Which is the case.
[01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  All right. All right.
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  Okay.
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  Make sense?
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  Yes, it does. Yes, it does.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:31.000]  Yeah. Now if only police officers could get their brain cells in gear that quick and pick it up that quick.
[01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  Now, don't get me wrong. There are some that were actually that smart,
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:42.000]  but most of them are under headstones somewhere now.
[01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  Well, they have a vested interest, I imagine, to remain in the persuasion of thoughts that they're in.
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  Oh, absolutely. That's how most of the places they work for get their funding is through the illegal traffic ticket scheme.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:07.000]  And I understand that even like speed limit on a sign, it's improper use of language.
[01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:09.000]  What do you mean by improper use?
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  Well, it's an adjective and a verb or something like the signs.
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  Well, those signs anyway, they are to, they only pertain, do they only pertain also to commercial?
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  I'm going to give you an exercise.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:43.000]  Okay.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  A piece of homework if you will.
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  All right.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:56.000]  Go to the Texas Transportation Code online, which you can go to www.texas.gov and just click on Discover.
[01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  Find the place that says Laws, Codes and Statutes.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  Then click on Texas Statutes.
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Then click on the Transportation Code and go down to Chapter 201 and find 201.904.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  201.904?
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  Correct.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  And it will be entitled Speed Signs.
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  Read that and tell me if that does not provide the answer to the question you just asked.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  Okay, www.texas.gov, Discover, Statutes, Transportation Code.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  Okay, 201.904.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  All right.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  All right.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  I appreciate it, Eddie.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:42.000]  You're very welcome.
[01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  All right.
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  We'll talk to you later.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:45.000]  Have a good night.
[01:38:45.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  You too.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  All right.
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  Now we're going to go to Stephen in Montana.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  Stephen, what can we do for you?
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  Hi, Eddie.
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  Do you guys in Texas have a right to know for visiting the Constitution?
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:03.000]  Right to know what?
[01:39:03.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  Like, basically a freedom of information request, but in the Constitution.
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  Right.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  Well, I mean, the creating entity cannot be denied something by the entity created.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  In this case, the people, figuratively speaking, created government.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:33.000]  Therefore, government can't maintain secrets and secret information from its creator.
[01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  That's like Adam and Eve trying to hide in the Garden of Eden from God.
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  It just isn't going to work.
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  But we have what's called the Freedom of Information Act is the federal version, the FOIA.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  Here in Texas, it used to be the Open Records Act.
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  Then it went to a different name, and now it's called the Public Information Act.
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  So, yeah, we have it.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  It's in statute, but the Constitution pretty much says that if it's a government of the
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  people, by the people, for the people, then everything government does is on behalf of
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  the people, and the people have a right to know what's being done on their behalf because
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  it's supposed to be through agency as if they themselves are doing it.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  Okay.
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Yeah.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  Well, here in Montana, we actually have a Declaration of Rights.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  It's an Article 2 section.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  Yeah.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  Well, we have a Declaration of Rights.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  It's called the Texas Bill of Rights.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  It's Article 1 of the Texas Constitution.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  Now, but I don't know if it's got language in it that specifically says that all record
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  keeping of government is open to the public, but I have to look at it and find out, but
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  I don't think it has that in there, but it's implied in the fact that we are the government.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:49.000]  Uh-huh.
[01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  Well, anyways, yeah, ours does.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  It's titled Right to Know.
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:41:01.000]  And anyways, I was wondering, when you do the freedom, our statute version is called
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  Public Record, and what I was going to ask is, what is a remedy for being denied information
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  when you are being requested under the Constitution and under the statute version?
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:26.000]  Well, the statute should say if the Constitution does not specify the penalty, then the statute
[01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  should, and the statute itself will tell you what your recourse is.
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  For instance, here in Texas, it's a civil rights violation.
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:40.000]  It's a criminal statute for them to not provide the information that the Public Information
[01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  Act allows to be requested.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  If they fail to provide it, they can be criminally charged by the individual they didn't provide it to.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  Okay, yeah, here we can only use official misconduct for that as a criminal charge.
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  But I've tried doing that.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  Well, official misconduct is a separate offense here.
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  But, I mean, anything they do that denies you and are protected right is official misconduct.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  Anything they do that violates the Constitution is, you know, abuse of official capacity and
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  official oppression when it's used against one of the people.
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  Okay.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  So, I've looked all the way through the public records statutes, and nothing in there provides
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  a remedy for a private person.
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:35.000]  It does for an incumbent in the office, for somebody who's taking over the position and
[01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  wants the records, and it provides them to go to the sheriff to do it, but it doesn't
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  have anything for a private person.
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:46.000]  No remedy on that.
[01:42:46.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  Well, here the private person files a complaint with the attorney general of the state.
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Okay, yeah, we don't have nothing for a private person here.
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:04.000]  Well, then what good is a public information act that the public can't utilize it to get the information?
[01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Well, I was thinking of, because we have, we recognize a bit of equivalent to a bit of
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  transaction here for violation of the Constitution, wondering since it is a constitutional right
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:25.000]  here, if it would be a remedy to go after them for that under the dial of the constitutional
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  rights, or what do you think of like a conversion from lawful detainer?
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  Well, it would depend because conversion in most states have been rolled into the fraud
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  and you'd have to find out how it would constitute fraud before you could go after them for conversion.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  Hang on just a minute, Steven, we'll pick you up on the other side here.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  John, we see you there.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Hang on and we'll get to you after the break as well.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  All right, folks, call in number.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Well, we only got two callers in 15 minutes, so I'm not giving it out again.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  Y'all got here too late.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  We'll be right back after the break.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:06.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  Yes.
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:18.000]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[01:44:18.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin.
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:26.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[01:44:26.000 --> 01:44:28.000]  Go check it out for yourself.
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:32.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  Oh, by UT, there's never anywhere to park down there.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:42.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility
[01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:44.000]  just behind the bookstore.
[01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:52.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[01:44:52.000 --> 01:44:59.000]  Call it 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:48.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:19.000]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:22.000]  Alright, we are back. This is rule of law radio.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:28.000]  Okay, we're going to finish up with our callers here. Alright, Steven, let's wrap this up for you.
[01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:34.000]  Okay, other than like a conversion or an unlawful detainer or a constitutional right,
[01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  you can do an injunction to make somebody do something too, right?
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  We'll know you do an injunction to prevent them from doing something.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  You do a mandamus to make them do something.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:52.000]  Okay, I'll have to just do a mandamus then.
[01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  Yeah, I was thinking of money, though.
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  I wasn't sure exactly how to go after it.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:05.000]  Alright, then, well, I'll give you some thunder over.
[01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  Okay.
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  Alright, thanks for calling in.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:11.000]  Alright, now we're going to go to John in Texas.
[01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  John, what can we do for you?
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:20.000]  Yeah, I just, I kind of had a question, like, at the end of a case after you win it,
[01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  would you sort of recommend a lawsuit against the officer or the city or both?
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  Well, you start with the officer, then you add who the officer works for,
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  which is who his police department and his chief, basically, and whoever his immediate superior is.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:43.000]  Then, of course, who does the police department work for?
[01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  Oh, wait, it's city.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  So we add the city to the mix.
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  We add the mayor to the mix.
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  We add the city manager to the mix.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  Oh, wait, what happens at the C level?
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  Oh, yeah, that's a problem.
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  Yeah, we can go all the way from the cop to the top of the city chain.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  But I also recommend you do it in federal court.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  If you win the case, you have a malicious prosecution action.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  Okay, and at that point, depending upon what else occurred,
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  you've got other criminal charges that are violation of rights under color of law,
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  like, for instance, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping,
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  if they took you away and put you in a jail cell and so on and so forth.
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:29.000]  Okay.
[01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  False imprisonment, things of that nature.
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:40.000]  What about, like, maybe I'm kind of calling for a friend that her case was dismissed.
[01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  Before or after a complaint was issued?
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  It was, she just got the ticket.
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  And the other officer that was on the scene told her that he would,
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  he didn't think the stop was right.
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  So he would be willing to testify in her case for her.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  And then, you know, of course, that kind of dismissed.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Okay, then no, she does not have a case.
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  Now, she can file a report against the officer that issued that falsely.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  She can try to sue him personally for that.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:21.000]  But everybody above him did the right thing by dismissing it.
[01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:26.000]  Had they tried to protect him, that would have been a different matter.
[01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  But now, yeah, she can try to sue the cop for stopping her illegally
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:36.000]  and issuing the ticket illegally if she knows how to make that argument.
[01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  Yeah, that doesn't really do a whole lot of, to be whole,
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:43.000]  the whole issue that you're working for, though, really.
[01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  No, because it didn't get far enough.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  Basically, you do not have malicious prosecution until you reach a point where Jeopardy has attached.
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  Jeopardy in these cases can only attach once a signed and sworn complaint has been submitted
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  and that complaint has been turned into a charging instrument.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:04.000]  Or they have impaneled a jury without a proper charging instrument,
[01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  all of which is illegal but still.
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  If they do any of those things, Jeopardy has attached.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  If they dismiss at that point, you've got malicious prosecution.
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:20.000]  Okay, well, that makes sense. I just had to ask one quick question because I didn't check into it.
[01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:23.000]  I voted for Raymond Frank. Did he win?
[01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:28.000]  Well, I haven't been sworn in as Chief Deputy, so I'm going to have to say no.
[01:50:28.000 --> 01:50:31.000]  Oh, was it really? Did he lose very bad?
[01:50:31.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  Actually, I do not know. I don't watch the TV or anything like that
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:40.000]  and I don't know where to check the polls online around here to see.
[01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:44.000]  But I'm pretty sure somebody could tell us.
[01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  Yeah, probably one of the voting machines could tell us.
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  Yeah, even if he won, he didn't win.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  Yeah, that sounds about right. All right, thanks.
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:55.000]  All right, thanks for calling in, John.
[01:50:55.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  All right, now we have Alex in California. Alex, what can we do for you?
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  Hey, Eddie. Can you hear me?
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:04.000]  Yeah, I can hear you.
[01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:15.000]  Okay, I've been in court recently on some traffic tickets and I tried saying, well, you know, you should never, you don't enter a plea, you know, don't enter a plea no way.
[01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:23.000]  And I tried that and, well, first I said, I asked him if the prosecution provided any evidence that the statute applied to me.
[01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:28.000]  And the judge, this is just an arrangement. He says, well, I can't really remember what he said.
[01:51:28.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  But he just turned around and asked me for a plea and I kind of handed it on to the attorney and said, well, just sit down and we'll get back to you later.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  You know, and he said there until everybody else had gone and then come up and so I didn't know what else to do.
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  I eventually saw it. How do you get out of it? How do you avoid entering a plea without just saying I don't want to?
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:48.000]  Well, that's very easy.
[01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:58.000]  I declined to enter a plea at this time as I have not been properly noticed of any of the alleged accusations and charges against me as I am entitled to know by right.
[01:51:58.000 --> 01:52:03.000]  I cannot enter a plea to a charge I've never seen and have no clue about.
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  But now it would be very helpful if you knew ahead of time whether or not California was required to notice you before you ever got in there.
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  Well, I got a ticket. I signed a ticket. Is there any other notice?
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:28.000]  Well, again, that depends on what the statute says they're giving you notice of. But here's the problem. Who issued the ticket?
[01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  There's two tickets. Well, one was LAPD, I think, Metro and the other one was Highway Patrol.
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:44.000]  Okay. And what department of government do they work for?
[01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  Uh, the executive.
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:56.000]  Correct. So what constitutes a summons and who is allowed to issue it?
[01:52:56.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  Uh, you got me. I don't know.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  Only a judicial officer can issue a summons to appear in a court, right? So the ticket can't be a summons.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  That's a division of powers violation.
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  Okay.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  Now, the other thing the ticket cannot be is an actual charging instrument because it won't comply with all of your rights in knowing the elements of the charge against you.
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  Okay. Plus the ticket is not signed and sworn to on the side of the road by a nonpartisan third party as a witness like a notary, right?
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  Right.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:42.000]  Okay. So where's your right to notice of the nature and cause against you?
[01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  I see.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  It's not in the citation.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  Right.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  So how do you enter a plea to a citation? It's not a valid complaint. It's not proper notice.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  Right. And I should have a right to, I do have a right to see the evidence before a hearing, even though they skip the hearing.
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:07.000]  It's from arraignment to trial, you know, just plea. So there's no hearing time for traffic in this case.
[01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  Well, no. This is about money. It's not about justice. It's not about due process. It's about money.
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  The more steps they add, the more expensive it becomes, the less profit they make.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  You get the relationship?
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  In one of these two cases, they even wanted money before I went to came back for trial and they said I got to come back with money and before I can go to trial.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:39.000]  Yeah. And that's baloney. You can't pay to get justice. You can't be forced to pay to get justice.
[01:54:39.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  Exactly. I have to pay to go to trial now.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  So at this point where I've already gone and pleaded not guilty, I know now that means I guess I've consented to their jurisdiction or can I still...
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  You've waived personal jurisdiction and you've given up any opportunity for a special appearance to say, hey, this, you didn't have jurisdiction over me to begin with.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:04.000]  You gave it to them when you entered that plea.
[01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  Yeah, that's what I thought.
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  You cannot give them subject matter jurisdiction, either they have it or they don't, but you've definitely given up something very important.
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:26.000]  So if I just raise the question of has the prosecution provided any evidence or proof that the statute applies to me, whether it's the transportation or whether it's trying to be LeBord.
[01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:34.000]  Well, now you've made it where that doesn't matter because now that has to come out at the evidentiary phase, which means that can only happen at trial.
[01:55:34.000 --> 01:55:39.000]  By giving them personal jurisdiction, you allow them to proceed to trial.
[01:55:39.000 --> 01:55:48.000]  If they already have jurisdiction of the subject matter, you waived the one jurisdiction that would have kept them from moving forward.
[01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  Entering that plea does three things.
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  It weighs the right of notice.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  It weighs personal jurisdiction and it weighs any objection to the form and content of the complaint.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Okay?
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:08.000]  That's why we don't do it, ever.
[01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:12.000]  Yeah, well, I just have to work on memorizing what you said when Dave...
[01:56:12.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  Well, that's a good thing for you. We archive these shows.
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  Yeah, it sure is.
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:18.000]  All right.
[01:56:18.000 --> 01:56:19.000]  All right, great. Thanks, Eddie.
[01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  You're welcome.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:22.000]  It's not coming out anyway.
[01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:23.000]  All right, thanks.
[01:56:23.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  Goodbye.
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  All right, now we're going to go to David in Texas.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:29.000]  David, what can we do for you?
[01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  Eddie, how you doing? I'm a first-time caller, first-time listener.
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  My brother's the one that pointed me a direction and we both kind of did a little research on common law.
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  And basically, I'll give you the skeleton part of it.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:56.000]  Back in 1st of July, I went into downtown, a little barf out there, and walked out with a friend, walked down the street.
[01:56:56.000 --> 01:57:03.000]  I was in that area for no particular reason, but I walked down to my vehicle, which was about roughly 500 feet.
[01:57:03.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  And there were four officers that had received the call, dispatched out.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  And within a matter of, I would say, no more than four to five minutes, I was being thrown to the ground and cuffed and stuff, so to speak.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  And what I did initially was ask what I was being detained for or arrested, and if there wasn't, was I free to go?
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  And they didn't answer me other than telling me to step.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  David?
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  Hello.
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Okay, well, that sort of was instantaneous.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  Okay.
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  Hello?
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  Yeah.
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  Okay.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  Yeah, well, sorry, that little bit of lost time right there preventing me from being able to answer that any further.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  Sorry, we're not going to be able to finish this up before round of time.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  Would you call back in Thursday night?
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  Randy and Deborah should be able to talk to you about this, and Randy definitely can give you a heads up on what to do next.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  Okay, well, the thing is, I don't know, it's already gone to trial, and I was found guilty on it, and would I look to, at this point, at wanting to fill it, but I'm not sure if I even stand a chance as far as...
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  If you lost it, that's going to be hard to say, but again, Randy can talk to you about that on Thursday night.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  I'm out of time to do it tonight, David, but I appreciate you calling in.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Okay.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  All right, folks, this has been Rule of Law Radio, the Monday Night Traffic Show.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  I'm your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  Thank you so much for listening in.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:59:15.000]  God bless.
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:29.000]  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.
[01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.