ROL_2014-10-27_16k.timecode
[00:00.000 --> 00:07.640] This is the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty News and activist updates online
[00:07.640 --> 00:09.360] at TheLibertyBeat.com.
[00:09.360 --> 00:14.120] I'm Brian Hagen with your Liberty Beat for Monday, October 27th, 2014.
[00:14.120 --> 00:21.000] Gold is trading around $1,233, silver $17.24 and Bitcoin is trading around $350.30.
[00:21.000 --> 00:26.200] Today's Bitcoin Prize is brought to you by ExpressPoint, the fastest and most reliable
[00:26.200 --> 00:27.640] way to buy Bitcoins.
[00:27.640 --> 00:30.200] Buy Bitcoin today at ExpressPoint.com.
[00:30.200 --> 00:34.200] Support for Liberty Beat comes from the Michael Cardiol for Austin City Council District
[00:34.200 --> 00:35.400] 1 campaign.
[00:35.400 --> 00:37.880] Vote Michael Cardiol to get the cars moving.
[00:37.880 --> 00:42.000] Learn more or sign up to volunteer at Cardiol4Texas.com.
[00:42.000 --> 00:45.520] This political advertisement paid for by the Michael Cardiol for Austin City Council District
[00:45.520 --> 00:46.520] 1 campaign.
[00:46.520 --> 00:51.040] In the news, on Friday, a U.S. drone strike was reported to have killed three suspected
[00:51.040 --> 00:55.240] members of a local branch of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula in Yemen.
[00:55.240 --> 00:59.280] Reuters reported that tribal sources confirmed the deaths were members of the Al Qaeda group
[00:59.280 --> 01:01.600] currently fighting the Shiite Muslim healthy group.
[01:01.600 --> 01:07.000] However, Press TV reported that tribal sources stated that up to 20 people may have died.
[01:07.000 --> 01:10.480] Drone strikes in Yemen have been a controversial topic since Human Rights Watch released a
[01:10.480 --> 01:15.480] report detailing the deaths of Yemeni civilians at the hands of the United States government.
[01:15.480 --> 01:21.400] The killings are being done in violation of international law.
[01:21.400 --> 01:25.640] The FBI has released two updated reports from the Office of the Inspector General concerning
[01:25.640 --> 01:29.240] the FBI's use of the controversial national security letters.
[01:29.240 --> 01:32.280] The reports were released to the New York Times through a FOIA request.
[01:32.280 --> 01:37.320] The updated documents were originally from 2007 and 2008 and have now been reissued with
[01:37.320 --> 01:38.920] newly declassified information.
[01:38.920 --> 01:43.480] NSLs are orders that give the FBI authority to gather data from companies without judicial
[01:43.480 --> 01:44.480] approval.
[01:44.480 --> 01:48.080] They are typically issued with a gag order preventing the recipients from speaking about
[01:48.080 --> 01:51.880] the request.
[01:51.880 --> 01:56.120] A new policy study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics proposes a mandatory criminal
[01:56.120 --> 02:00.880] background check for every firearm sale as a way to protect the children.
[02:00.880 --> 02:04.720] The report examined the federal policies in the United States related to children's health
[02:04.720 --> 02:05.880] and health care.
[02:05.880 --> 02:10.200] The researchers found the child poverty in America is at its highest point in 20 years
[02:10.200 --> 02:13.040] and say that five children die daily from firearms.
[02:13.040 --> 02:17.120] They offered 10 steps for the federal government to help children, including a background check
[02:17.120 --> 02:18.760] for gun sales.
[02:18.760 --> 02:23.280] Support for Liberty Beat comes from Cabo Bobs, Southwestern-style burritos, now with two
[02:23.280 --> 02:28.480] locations in Austin, 500 East Benwhite Boulevard and 2828 Rio Grande Boulevard.
[02:28.480 --> 02:31.080] Find them online, CaboBobs.com.
[02:31.080 --> 02:35.120] Support also comes from the Laura Pressley for Austin City Council District 4 campaign.
[02:35.120 --> 02:39.840] Laura will implement a 20% homestead exemption and lower your utility bills.
[02:39.840 --> 02:42.840] Laura Pressley, Experience, Courage, Integrity.
[02:42.840 --> 02:45.840] To learn more, visit PressleyForAustin.com.
[02:45.840 --> 02:48.960] Political advertisement paid for by the Laura Pressley campaign.
[02:48.960 --> 02:53.080] This is the Liberty Beat for Monday, October 27, 2014.
[02:53.080 --> 02:59.160] Check out the website at thelibertybeat.com and like us on Facebook at facebook.com slash
[02:59.160 --> 03:25.160] the Liberty Beat.
[03:25.160 --> 03:51.240] Think about the Liberty Beat for Monday, September 27, 2014.
[03:51.240 --> 03:57.240] of all of them bad boys hang up high on the street
[03:57.240 --> 04:01.240] for all the people to see
[04:01.240 --> 04:05.240] That's just the tip of the one thing you should always find
[04:05.240 --> 04:09.240] You gotta settle up your balls, you gotta draw a hard line
[04:09.240 --> 04:13.240] The best of guns for the settlers will send a victory tune
[04:13.240 --> 04:17.240] and will haul me back, I will hope for some hope
[04:17.240 --> 04:22.240] We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing
[04:22.240 --> 04:27.240] Whiskey for my land, beer for my horses
[04:33.240 --> 04:37.240] Good evening folks, this is Monday Night Rural Law Radio Show
[04:37.240 --> 04:40.240] It is October 27th, 2014
[04:40.240 --> 04:44.240] I am your host Eddie Craig, I want to thank you all who are listening in
[04:44.240 --> 04:47.240] Tonight before we get into taking phone calls and things
[04:47.240 --> 04:50.240] there is some material I would like to start going over
[04:50.240 --> 04:53.240] I'm going to do a series on this over the next few weeks
[04:53.240 --> 05:01.240] One is an actual sample legal brief that indoctrinates some arguments
[05:01.240 --> 05:05.240] that we're going to be dealing with in this discussion for the next few weeks
[05:05.240 --> 05:12.240] and it's going to be also a legal white paper written by an attorney
[05:12.240 --> 05:18.240] and all the subjects deal with the false doctrine of judicial immunity
[05:18.240 --> 05:24.240] So what I want to do right now is I want to go into the legal basis brief arguments
[05:24.240 --> 05:26.240] that one could put together
[05:26.240 --> 05:31.240] Now just so you know, I didn't write any of this, it's something I read many years ago
[05:31.240 --> 05:35.240] and have been keeping up with over the course of time
[05:35.240 --> 05:38.240] It is actually called Jail for Judges
[05:38.240 --> 05:46.240] And what that actually stands for is the Judicial Accountability and Liability Law
[05:46.240 --> 05:53.240] And a gentleman that founded this started this back in 2001 or something like that
[05:53.240 --> 05:59.240] It has not gained as much traction as it should have, I don't know why
[05:59.240 --> 06:05.240] But what I want to read to you actually comes in three parts
[06:05.240 --> 06:12.240] One is a legal brief that uses the arguments that are written about in the white paper
[06:12.240 --> 06:18.240] which is about 50 pages worth, which I will start after we get done with the legal brief portion of this
[06:18.240 --> 06:23.240] which I may or may not get done in one or two or three shows
[06:23.240 --> 06:25.240] because I'm not going to do the whole show on it
[06:25.240 --> 06:31.240] I'm just going to go for the first, you know, either half an hour to an hour on it
[06:31.240 --> 06:34.240] and then move into taking calls and all that kind of stuff
[06:34.240 --> 06:38.240] because I don't want people to not have a way of getting in touch with it over the next few weeks
[06:38.240 --> 06:45.240] But this is important enough and it's informative enough that I feel it necessary
[06:45.240 --> 06:50.240] I've done this, I've read this once, the actual accountability statute that they were trying to implement
[06:50.240 --> 06:55.240] I read this once a long time ago when I first started on the show and I haven't mentioned it since
[06:55.240 --> 07:03.240] and my apologies for that because when you get into understanding what we're talking about in this particular subject
[07:03.240 --> 07:07.240] you're going to see red like you've never seen red
[07:07.240 --> 07:14.240] because as I've told people ever since I started doing this and these training classes and everything else
[07:14.240 --> 07:19.240] judicial immunity was created by the judiciary
[07:19.240 --> 07:25.240] and it was done in direct violation of constitutional provisions and mandates
[07:25.240 --> 07:30.240] on governmental accountability and governmental right to petition for grievances
[07:30.240 --> 07:34.240] what the judiciary has actually done through the doctrine of immunity
[07:34.240 --> 07:40.240] has shielded the government from its complete liability and accountability to the people
[07:40.240 --> 07:48.240] and the people's ability to redress the system for the grievances perpetrated by those same actors
[07:48.240 --> 07:56.240] So please pay attention to this, it is important and it is something that we really need to get behind
[07:56.240 --> 08:00.240] So please listen up and let's start this off
[08:00.240 --> 08:04.240] Now any callers I get up on the board, you're going to be there for a little while
[08:04.240 --> 08:11.240] because this is going to take a little bit of time to get through, I don't know if I'll get through it in the first half an hour to an hour
[08:11.240 --> 08:16.240] on what I'm about to read, I'll get as far as I can but no more than that time
[08:16.240 --> 08:20.240] and then the last hour I'll dedicate the calls if we get that far
[08:20.240 --> 08:26.240] Alright, now what we're going to start with is an introduction to this particular issue
[08:26.240 --> 08:29.240] The issue of course being that of judicial immunity
[08:29.240 --> 08:35.240] The facts underlying this appeal and this is a brief, like I say this is written in the form of a brief so pay attention to it
[08:35.240 --> 08:46.240] The facts underlying this appeal are easy to understand, it is the law of judicial immunity to violate the constitution that is complex and incomprehensible
[08:46.240 --> 08:50.240] It is a false body of law that begins with a contradiction
[08:50.240 --> 08:58.240] Judges are one, judges are immune from address to those they injure in violation of constitutional rights under color of office
[08:58.240 --> 09:07.240] Two, Congress shall make no law of bridging the right of the people to petition government for a redress of grievances
[09:07.240 --> 09:17.240] Three, the coup de gras emasculating the petition clause is found in 28 USC 2674 in the 1988's amendments
[09:17.240 --> 09:31.240] Personal immunities created by the judiciary now completely immunize the government from accountability to those its immunized officers injure in violation of constitutional rights
[09:31.240 --> 09:39.240] Today, most government officers have direct contact with the people or who have direct contact with the people can find an immunity to hide behind
[09:39.240 --> 09:42.240] What happened to the petition clause?
[09:42.240 --> 09:47.240] If it speaks true, where from comes immunity to violate the constitution?
[09:47.240 --> 09:53.240] We are told the judges created it, but under Article 1 only Congress can make law
[09:53.240 --> 10:02.240] Under Article 4, only the constitution and law may pursuant to it, not in derogation of it, are the supreme law of the land
[10:02.240 --> 10:10.240] And under Article 6, all judges are sworn to support this constitution, the contradictions rage on
[10:10.240 --> 10:18.240] Judges contend the authority is implied in a constitutional doctrine that is implied called the separation of powers
[10:18.240 --> 10:25.240] Judicial immunity, they say, comes not from law, but from its own constitutional separation from the legislature
[10:25.240 --> 10:30.240] It cannot make law breaching that separation, that is the basis of immunity
[10:30.240 --> 10:40.240] The problem with that rationalization is not only that its premise is twice removed from the constitution so that we can't find it except by blind faith in our judiciary
[10:40.240 --> 10:46.240] But immunity to violate constitutional rights also has nothing to do with separation of powers
[10:46.240 --> 10:53.240] The issue is accountability to the people for violating their rights, not accountability to another branch
[10:53.240 --> 11:04.240] A constitution that implies a right for judges to violate it with impunity is not a constitution at all, but a license to violate rights under color of judicial fiat
[11:04.240 --> 11:10.240] Another weakness of that argument is that the judiciary also created immunities for the rest of government
[11:10.240 --> 11:16.240] That violates the same separation principle said to justify it in four ways
[11:16.240 --> 11:24.240] First, its extensions of immunity to other branches are not merely making rules for itself, but making laws that apply to all of government
[11:24.240 --> 11:27.240] That invades the legislative function
[11:27.240 --> 11:35.240] Second, those laws also apply to the people, denying them redress for constitutional wrongs under law designed by judges
[11:35.240 --> 11:41.240] That also invades the legislative function, albeit beyond the legislative power
[11:41.240 --> 11:51.240] Third, by setting the terms and conditions under which government in all branches is immune to violate rights, it achieves the opposite of separation
[11:51.240 --> 11:56.240] It consolidates and organizes government against the people's exercise of rights
[11:56.240 --> 12:11.240] For example, judges created immunities over 120 years, then in 1988 Congress insulated government by amending 28 USC 2674 thereby consolidating two branches of government
[12:11.240 --> 12:19.240] Then the executive branch defends government before the courts thereby consolidating all three branches against the people
[12:19.240 --> 12:27.240] Fourth, another separation principle is also violated or also violated as 10th Amendment states' rights
[12:27.240 --> 12:38.240] The federal judiciary has not just created immunity for itself and for federal officers, but disguised as constitutional doctrine, it has created immunity for state officers as well
[12:38.240 --> 12:47.240] This not only unites the federal branches against the people, it also unites them with state and local governments all against the people's civil rights
[12:47.240 --> 12:58.240] What begins to appear is that the judges, by grant of immunity to themselves and the select government officials at all levels, have completely redesigned our constitution
[12:58.240 --> 13:04.240] As we shall see herein, this redesign goes far beyond simple civil immunity
[13:04.240 --> 13:13.240] It renders the people incapable of enforcing any rights against anyone judges want to protect for any reason or for no reason
[13:13.240 --> 13:17.240] Unenforceable rights are not rights at all
[13:17.240 --> 13:29.240] The effect of these immunities over time is to create an elite ruling class bound not by the general law nor to our constitution, but bound only by personal loyalty to government
[13:29.240 --> 13:34.240] This is a new nobility and it emerged this way
[13:34.240 --> 13:43.240] As the separation fallacy became apparent, the judiciary created another rationale that had been brewing for 100 years to justify the same end
[13:43.240 --> 13:50.240] As nations are sovereign from each other, the judges ruled governments are sovereign from their own people
[13:50.240 --> 14:08.240] Sorry about that little technical difficulty with the noise background, created and taken care of
[14:08.240 --> 14:19.240] Since it is sovereign, government can decide if, when and how to waive its sovereignty and subject itself to the petition clause within whatever limits it wants
[14:19.240 --> 14:23.240] If it wants not, the petition clause is not
[14:23.240 --> 14:26.240] That is the argument of sovereign immunity
[14:26.240 --> 14:43.240] Stripped of its mystique, it is the divine right of kings, a barbarian doctrine that died at the convention and was buried under the petition clause until resurrected under the doctrine of starry decisive and ancient common law and pulled past the revolution and through the constitution
[14:43.240 --> 14:55.240] For an example, see Edelman v. Jordan 415 US 651 where the court amended both the petition clause and the 11th amendment based on the ancient doctrine of the divine right of kings
[14:55.240 --> 15:03.240] Again, the people are subjugated to the whims of kings by another name without right of redress through compulsory process of law
[15:03.240 --> 15:10.240] Law inaccessible to the people to redress grievances with government is not law, but tyranny
[15:10.240 --> 15:21.240] The new civilized relationship of government to governed one in war written in blood and sealed into our constitution was lost one judicial interpretation at a time
[15:21.240 --> 15:26.240] The awesome forces it was designed to protect us from are unchanged
[15:26.240 --> 15:34.240] That is judicial immunity and from where it came, there is no justification for it in a nation tending to be civilized
[15:34.240 --> 15:40.240] It is not lawful under our constitution nor is it rational to our democratic institutions
[15:40.240 --> 15:47.240] Yet today, judicially created immunities have become the dominant force of government organized against the people
[15:47.240 --> 15:51.240] Now I'm going to take a break here on this for just a second to address something
[15:51.240 --> 16:07.240] First thing folks you need to remember stop using and applying the word democracy or democratic to anything that belongs in American jurisprudence or American politics and government
[16:07.240 --> 16:19.240] We don't have either of those in America. This is a republic. There is no democratic or democracy anything
[16:19.240 --> 16:23.240] That's not the way we were set up
[16:23.240 --> 16:34.240] Anytime you go with a democratic program, it is majority i.e. mob rule and that's not the way we're founded
[16:34.240 --> 16:38.240] So there are some arguments here that I take issue with because of the wording
[16:38.240 --> 16:45.240] But the principle of what we're reading is very very sound and I'll continue that when we get back on the other side
[16:45.240 --> 16:54.240] Alright folks this is rule of law radio. I am your host Eddie Craig. Y'all please hang in there and we will be back in just a moment to continue on
[17:15.240 --> 17:22.240] This environment is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated
[17:22.240 --> 17:31.240] Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject
[17:31.240 --> 17:40.240] We have come to trust Jevity so much. We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others
[17:40.240 --> 17:47.240] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio
[17:47.240 --> 18:00.240] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family and increase your income. Order now
[18:00.240 --> 18:05.240] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:05.240 --> 18:14.240] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris proven method. Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two
[18:14.240 --> 18:20.240] You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes
[18:20.240 --> 18:26.240] What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:26.240 --> 18:33.240] 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
[18:33.240 --> 18:38.240] The Michael Mearris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[18:38.240 --> 18:46.240] Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:46.240 --> 18:49.240] Or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com
[18:49.240 --> 18:57.240] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.240 --> 19:00.240] To learn how to stop debt collectors next
[19:00.240 --> 19:05.240] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network
[19:05.240 --> 19:11.240] Logos Radio Network at yahoo.com
[19:11.240 --> 19:31.240] Music
[19:31.240 --> 19:37.240] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, The Monday Night Show, and I'm your host, Eddie Craig
[19:37.240 --> 19:45.240] We are reading a sample legal brief dealing with judicial immunity
[19:45.240 --> 19:48.240] And I'm going to go ahead and continue with that
[19:48.240 --> 19:51.240] The rationality of judicial immunity
[19:51.240 --> 19:56.240] Reason imposes limits on the justifications for judicial concepts of immunity
[19:56.240 --> 19:58.240] We address three separate considerations
[19:58.240 --> 20:02.240] One, judicial immunity prevents democratic change
[20:02.240 --> 20:07.240] First, moral or legal concepts are not born in full bloom
[20:07.240 --> 20:15.240] They emerge, are examined, and refined, and take on a gloss defining the limits of application in various contexts
[20:15.240 --> 20:19.240] Ideas in law or ethics are like ideas in science
[20:19.240 --> 20:26.240] Only a few are really basic and the rest give way to competing ideas that make more sense in the changing world that measures their worth
[20:26.240 --> 20:34.240] An interesting thing about ideas, wrong ideas imposed by law prevent development of better ideas necessary to evolving culture
[20:34.240 --> 20:41.240] So, for example, wrong ideas of governmental immunity carried into an age of constitutional democracy
[20:41.240 --> 20:43.240] There is that ignorant word again
[20:43.240 --> 20:50.240] Stagnant development of democratic relationships and prevent the new, or stagnate democratic relationships
[20:50.240 --> 20:54.240] And prevent the new institutions necessary to the changing times
[20:54.240 --> 21:01.240] When dogmatic institutions are enforced beyond their time, pressure builds for democratic replacements
[21:01.240 --> 21:05.240] Without which civil strife and war fill the void
[21:05.240 --> 21:14.240] An example of judicial support of a coercive institution beyond its time was Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 in 1857
[21:14.240 --> 21:24.240] The moral foundations of slavery had already crumbled, but seven justices found the institution was written into our constitution and thrust the nation into civil war
[21:24.240 --> 21:37.240] As we will see judicial immunity, which comes from the same intellectual era as Dred Scott, prevents development of ideas and institutions for government accountability to the people under the Constitution for its wrongs to them
[21:37.240 --> 21:41.240] It is an anti-democratic institution in a democratic age
[21:41.240 --> 21:45.240] Judicial immunity undermines judicial credibility
[21:45.240 --> 21:50.240] Second is the context of intellectual evolution in which ideas are examined
[21:50.240 --> 21:56.240] The moral, legal, and scientific world into which ideas are born changes over time
[21:56.240 --> 22:07.240] Judicial ideas developed when governments ruled through alliances with the church and under authority of the divine kings are not in the same moral, legal, or scientific world in which they originated
[22:07.240 --> 22:14.240] The result is justifications that once seemed irrefutable are now obviously false or irrational
[22:14.240 --> 22:25.240] So, for example, once it was acceptable to argue judicial immunity is justified by divine right of kings because the king appointed the judge who acts in the king's place
[22:25.240 --> 22:32.240] But today such arguments are absurd and to reasonable minds they are arguments against immunity, not for it
[22:32.240 --> 22:40.240] In context, judicial concepts must keep paced with the intellectual and theoretical basis of culture to be meaningfully understood by the people
[22:40.240 --> 22:54.240] Justifications of privileges and immunities not otherwise allowed to anyone from common law doctrines of the divine right of kings to a people who reject both divine right and kings undermine judicial credibility
[22:54.240 --> 23:05.240] The principle, if the judiciary is not reasonable in terms the people understand, it is seen as an irrational dogmatic belief system the people will progressively reject
[23:05.240 --> 23:09.240] Three, judicial immunity violates two American revolutions
[23:09.240 --> 23:17.240] Third are the revolutionary changes in accepted legal theory. America has had two revolutions separating it from the British
[23:17.240 --> 23:26.240] The first was the Revolution of 1776. It freed the nation from British rule. Thereafter the law of England had no legal force in America
[23:26.240 --> 23:34.240] We set up our own laws and institutions and were free to accept or reject any basis for law until the next revolution only 14 years later
[23:34.240 --> 23:40.240] We sometimes failed to appreciate the significance of adopting the constitution
[23:40.240 --> 23:50.240] Unlike any other in history, it revolutionized the relationship between the government and the government into one now accepted as the basis for governmental legitimacy around the world
[23:50.240 --> 23:58.240] British common law inconsistent with our constitution is legally incompetent regardless of the supporting justifications for it
[23:58.240 --> 24:07.240] There can be no more complete a break in the legal bonds of two nations than a war to separate them and a constitution from which to go their separate ways
[24:07.240 --> 24:14.240] There is no more compelling a legal reason to adopt English common law than the ancient law of Rome or of Greece
[24:14.240 --> 24:24.240] Neither the fact, if it is a fact, that judicial immunity was found in English common law nor that judicially created rules of stare decisis
[24:24.240 --> 24:32.240] Allow courts to refer to common law allows let alone compels us to adopt particular bodies of that law
[24:32.240 --> 24:46.240] Ultimately it is consistency with the constitution both in process and substance not a rule purporting to authorize adoption that determines whether rules of antiquity can become the law in these United States
[24:46.240 --> 24:51.240] Laws inconsistent with the constitution are not the law of the United States
[24:51.240 --> 25:02.240] For government to coercively insist that it is is to court civil war and this age of science it is only a matter of time until the people see it and call it for what it is
[25:02.240 --> 25:05.240] Open rebellion by government against the constitution
[25:05.240 --> 25:08.240] Conclusion of this part
[25:08.240 --> 25:12.240] Reason places constitutional limits on judicial doctrine
[25:12.240 --> 25:23.240] When examined immunity is an irrational policy of government coercively taking rights and property without due process it is a systemic injustice by government upon the governed
[25:23.240 --> 25:27.240] The evaluation herein undertakes a three step process
[25:27.240 --> 25:33.240] First, to define the doctrine to see exactly what Judge Shubb says is barred from address
[25:33.240 --> 25:40.240] Second, what is the historic justification for immunity and what does it mean to Americans of the 21st century
[25:40.240 --> 25:49.240] If the doctrine is not justified by today's standards of reason it is exposed as a holdover from legal theory long past its time
[25:49.240 --> 25:54.240] Third is the immunity Judge Shubb applied constitutional
[25:54.240 --> 25:58.240] Each of these issues will now be examined in turn
[25:58.240 --> 26:02.240] One, the scope of the judicial immunity applied
[26:02.240 --> 26:11.240] Judge Shubb found Hawks alleges that the judges violated her civil rights under Bivens verses six unknown named
[26:11.240 --> 26:20.240] 403 U.S. 388 and engaged in conspiracy to deprive her of her federally protected rights
[26:20.240 --> 26:25.240] She seeks damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief
[26:25.240 --> 26:30.240] Memorandum and order 2 colon 5-11
[26:30.240 --> 26:37.240] He ruled that judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for their judicial acts
[26:37.240 --> 26:43.240] Citing Mullis v. U.S. bankruptcy court 828 federal 2nd 1385 1388
[26:43.240 --> 26:49.240] And he found that all the actions of the judges occurred within the course of their judicial duties
[26:49.240 --> 26:52.240] Memorandum and order 2 colon 12-7
[26:52.240 --> 26:57.240] He went on at Memorandum and order 2-2 colon 17
[26:57.240 --> 27:06.240] In this circuit federal judges also have judicial immunity against claims seeking injunctive or declaratory relief to the same extent that they are immune from damages
[27:06.240 --> 27:10.240] C. Mullis 828 federal 2nd 1385
[27:10.240 --> 27:14.240] And to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1985
[27:14.240 --> 27:21.240] C. O'Connor v. State of Nevada 686 federal 2nd 749 and 750
[27:21.240 --> 27:27.240] The only exception to this rule is where a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction
[27:27.240 --> 27:34.240] Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 348 and 356 through 357
[27:34.240 --> 27:38.240] Here all four judges acted well within their jurisdiction
[27:38.240 --> 27:42.240] C. Mullis 828 federal 2nd at 1389
[27:42.240 --> 27:57.240] Basically Judge Shubb relies upon the Mullis case but in point of fact Hawks did not seek damages and her injunctive and declaratory relief is predicated upon a trial by jury and does not fall within the ambit of the Mullis holding on that issue
[27:57.240 --> 28:07.240] In fact one may say Hawks case is pleaded under Pulliam v. Allen and around Mullis to obtain jury findings of rights violations
[28:07.240 --> 28:19.240] But Judge Shubb's holding ignores these differences and finds that it doesn't matter what rights the judges violated nor how clear they are nor the Mullis with which a judge acts nor the relief sought
[28:19.240 --> 28:26.240] Federal judges cannot be sued as long as their acts are within an undefined subject matter jurisdiction
[28:26.240 --> 28:32.240] That no judge has jurisdiction to violate constitutional rights is immaterial
[28:32.240 --> 28:42.240] For the purposes of this appeal Hawks seeks remedies and the right to sue for damages notwithstanding that the constitutional violators are federal judges
[28:42.240 --> 28:53.240] Initially within a week of filing a complaint intended to be amended before service judge Garcia dismissed without notice or hearing and with prejudice based on IFP status
[28:53.240 --> 29:13.240] In addition to the lack of due process the complaint was against local government for its political persecution of Hawks. It was and is a petition to the federal government to redress grievances of a constitutional magnitude with local government under an act of Congress specifically authorizing it
[29:13.240 --> 29:31.240] 42 U.S.C. 1983. Given those facts it is hard to conceive of anything more constitutionally protected. The court may take judicial notice of facts from Hawks v. Butte County Ninth Circuit number 93-15346
[29:31.240 --> 29:44.240] Alright folks we're about to go to another break. I'll continue on with this when we return. Matthew I see you up on the board but I'm going to be a little bit with this so if you want to hang on please do. If not you can call back in at the top of the hour.
[29:44.240 --> 30:02.240] Folks y'all just hang in there. This is rule of law radio. Your host Eddie Craig and we'll be right back after this break.
[30:15.240 --> 30:23.240] Your search engine is watching you recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal information. That's creepy.
[30:23.240 --> 30:35.240] But it doesn't have to be that way. Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies and their third party certified.
[30:35.240 --> 30:45.240] If you don't like Big Brother spying on you start over with Startpage. Great search results and total privacy. Startpage.com the world's most private search engine.
[30:45.240 --> 30:54.240] Imagine sitting in the corner of a store watching people buy the same products day after boring day. That's the life of the average security camera, yawn.
[30:54.240 --> 31:09.240] But a British company called Internet Eyes gets people to pay to watch these video streams. They pay around 20 bucks then members log on to watch UK stores and streets for criminal activity hoping to win a monthly prize for being the most eagle-eyed.
[31:09.240 --> 31:16.240] The plan is revolting but it really went sour when members started posting YouTube videos of the unsuspecting shoppers.
[31:16.240 --> 31:23.240] It's what you'd expect from the sort of person who enjoys watching surveillance cameras in the first place. Some people really need to get a life.
[31:23.240 --> 31:28.240] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:53.240 --> 32:00.240] Call 888-910-4367 only at USA.org.
[32:23.240 --> 32:30.240] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copies today.
[32:30.240 --> 32:37.240] By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar.
[32:37.240 --> 32:40.240] Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[32:40.240 --> 32:45.240] Learn how to apply for your rights with the help of this material from Rule of Law.
[32:45.240 --> 32:55.240] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:15.240 --> 33:25.240] I got a warrant and I'm going to solve them to the head of I met them, prosecute them.
[33:25.240 --> 33:51.240] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[33:51.240 --> 34:00.240] And I am reading from a sample legal brief dealing with judicial immunity and the false doctrine of judicial immunity.
[34:00.240 --> 34:04.240] Alright, continuing on.
[34:04.240 --> 34:27.240] Judge Garcia had no subject matter jurisdiction. According to Judge Shubb, the hypothetical fact that Judge Garcia conspired with Butte County DA defendant Ramsey to dismiss and that Ramsey paid him $10,000 to do just that and promised to exercise his official state power to get Judge Garcia's son out of state prison in exchange for the dismissal doesn't matter.
[34:27.240 --> 34:37.240] But under the Mullis rationale, what could matter is that summons wasn't returned. No defendant appeared and no motion to dismiss was made.
[34:37.240 --> 34:50.240] For those reasons, no subject matter was before Judge Garcia as a judge, but only as an administrator, for which he had no judicial immunity, even under Mullis.
[34:50.240 --> 35:18.240] Further, after the appeal was assigned in this court, Judge Garcia hypothetically may have met with judges Canby, Schroeder, and Wiggins in a smoke-filled room behind a San Francisco bar, split the $10,000 four ways and negotiated favors that Ramsey would do for them in exchange for upholding his dismissal, which initially they did, which was a reversal occurred on reconsideration.
[35:18.240 --> 35:38.240] Now, the point is not that this happened, but that it is possible under the pleadings. Under Judge Shubb's ruling, it doesn't matter as to the appeals court judges, but as to Judge Garcia, he is again outside of subject matter jurisdiction and the fact that he conspired with other judges does not protect him.
[35:38.240 --> 35:59.240] See Dennis V. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 and 28 through 29. That much important or that such important constitutional issue should turn on whether he had in some undefinable sense subject matter jurisdiction blatantly to violate First Amendment rights as he undeniably did is an absurdity in its own right.
[35:59.240 --> 36:09.240] Absolute judicial immunity protects not only judicial acts with subject matter jurisdiction, but the conspiracy and conspirators that surround those acts.
[36:09.240 --> 36:21.240] Given what immunity means, its implications being that if you can't sue, you have no discovery vehicles of truth determination. Few can ever know the effect of judicial corruption on their petitions for redress.
[36:21.240 --> 36:45.240] The basis for determining a rights violation in a case like this is not to see first a conspiracy, but to see first a judicial order that is so incredible on its face as to imply judicial arrogance to the Constitution and some unknown irregularity behind the scenes, not apparent on its face, to account for a motive that is necessary to explain why the order issued.
[36:45.240 --> 36:59.240] What does jurisdiction mean in this context? Judge Garcia dismissed with prejudice without a motion before him, without notice or hearing, and he assumed this right because of Hawke's IFP status?
[36:59.240 --> 37:15.240] If that is jurisdiction on what to predicate immunity, then he has jurisdiction to shred the files assigned to him in his office, and to execute those he finds guilty without trial on the spot in his own courtroom and reductio ad absurdum.
[37:15.240 --> 37:30.240] Take the hypothetical of defendants selling judicial orders for $10,000, taking bribes, obtaining favors, conspiring in back rooms, plus these are all part of one individual transaction and not within judicial jurisdiction.
[37:30.240 --> 37:45.240] But because the favor they trade, the order they sold, is subject to their jurisdiction, immunity attaches to violate constitutional rights of the persons whose cause is assigned in form only to a constitutionally corrupt judge?
[37:45.240 --> 37:55.240] In that context, jurisdiction takes on a very onerous meaning. It means a judge can do as he pleases with the matters that are before him in form only.
[37:55.240 --> 38:04.240] This is not Lewis Carroll's wonderland. Judges are not free in a constitutional context to twist words to mean what they want them to mean.
[38:04.240 --> 38:16.240] The mullest treatment of jurisdiction is not jurisdiction, but ownership. That's what it means to be free to do as you want with a matter under your control and not according to the trust of the Constitution.
[38:16.240 --> 38:23.240] In the sense by which immunity attaches, jurisdiction means the personal right of the judge to do as he pleases.
[38:23.240 --> 38:39.240] As so used, it is an arbitrary and capricious designation that violates due process of law. A jurisdiction arising under the Constitution that violates due process is a contradiction and can hardly be the basis for a legitimate judicial doctor.
[38:39.240 --> 38:59.240] In mullest, this court quotes the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court and stump at 828 Federal Circuit 1389. If a probate judge with jurisdiction over only wills and estates should try a criminal case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action.
[38:59.240 --> 39:11.240] On the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a non-existent crime, he would be merely acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune.
[39:11.240 --> 39:28.240] This is an interesting standard when applied to federal judges. More like state probate courts than criminal courts, federal courts have limited jurisdiction in all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution. Article 3, which they are sworn to support.
[39:28.240 --> 39:49.240] Article 4, when a case arising under this Constitution is brought to a federal judge and he decides it not according to the Constitution, but according to his own personal prejudice against poverty, that is much more akin to a probate court deciding a criminal case than a court of general jurisdiction making mistake about law or fat.
[39:49.240 --> 40:02.240] With respect to a criminal court convicting on a non-existent crime, there are tremendously different levels of wrong, from simple error to constitutional outrage, and the court gives no guidance.
[40:02.240 --> 40:25.240] It is one thing for a judge to convict on a mistake of fact or law diligently entertained and otherwise having jurisdiction in protecting rights of due process, counsel, confrontation, and jury, but it is another thing to convict an absentee without notice or hearing in a private trial in chambers without a reporter, meaning court reporter, of course.
[40:25.240 --> 40:37.240] The quality of judicial conduct is not changed with the more likely scenario that the conspiracy is not for money, but to maintain an illegal policy of clearing cases from the docket.
[40:37.240 --> 40:52.240] IFP pro-PERS are an opportunity like little old ladies carrying purses in dark places. They are easy pickings for judges to get rid of cases without getting to the merits, and the court of appeals conspired with Judge Garcia to maintain that policy.
[40:52.240 --> 41:04.240] Creating or maintaining illegal policy is no more within jurisdiction of judges than conspiring to sell their orders, but if they do it on cases assigned to them, jurisdiction for immunity attaches.
[41:04.240 --> 41:12.240] That is form over constitutional substance. That by analogy to the Mullis case is what these federal judges did.
[41:12.240 --> 41:26.240] If these differences didn't make a difference as to application of judicial immunity, then appellate concedes that this case is under Mullis, but in no way does she concede that Mullis represents the supreme law of this land.
[41:26.240 --> 41:42.240] The Constitution either sets the limits of jurisdiction or it does not. If it does, then a judge has no jurisdiction to do what it forbids, nor to do what it commands or allows in a way it forbids.
[41:42.240 --> 41:53.240] Nor can he change that legal reality by redefining words. Subject matter jurisdiction means the jurisdiction to do what the supreme law of the land commands and no other.
[41:53.240 --> 42:00.240] But if it does not set those limits, then where from does such authority come to courts of limited jurisdiction?
[42:00.240 --> 42:06.240] The constitutional authority to violate the Constitution is a contradiction in terms denying its own legal supremacy.
[42:06.240 --> 42:14.240] Unless we think the framers were fools, we ought not thrust such a bizarre result upon them, but we should look for other causes.
[42:14.240 --> 42:18.240] The Mullis distinction from Pulliam v. Allen.
[42:18.240 --> 42:28.240] As mentioned in the factual statement and contrary to what Jubshub found, appellate did not seek damages from the judges except for attorney's fees and costs.
[42:28.240 --> 42:39.240] The major distinction between this case and Mullis is that she seeks trial by jury to decide if the defendants violated her rights and that her declaratory and injunctive relief be based on the jury's findings.
[42:39.240 --> 42:51.240] Pursuant to this court's decision in Goebbel v. Maricopa County, 867 Federal 2nd 1201, footnote 6 at 1203, appellate also demands a public apology.
[42:51.240 --> 43:00.240] As will be apparent Infra, if a court cannot order an apology, she is in a position to demand it, even if a court.
[43:00.240 --> 43:15.240] Thus the case should come under Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 with a twist. Whether or not the judge has violated her civil rights is to be determined by a jury, just like any other defendant who is accused of violating her rights.
[43:15.240 --> 43:20.240] The orders that issue, if any, are those required by jury findings.
[43:20.240 --> 43:29.240] Why is this distinction important? It is important on this appeal because it distinguishes Mullis from Pulliam, beginning at 828 Federal 2nd 1391.
[43:29.240 --> 43:36.240] But it is important in the underlying case because in actual reality Hawks has no other remedy.
[43:36.240 --> 43:46.240] Alright folks, this is Rural Law Radio. We're about to go to another break. We are coming up in our top of the hour segment here where we will start answering calls.
[43:46.240 --> 43:54.240] I don't think I'll get through reading this before then, so we will be able to continue this next week before we start on the other document associated with it.
[43:54.240 --> 43:59.240] So Matthew, Adam, y'all hang in there. We'll start taking calls after this next break.
[44:25.240 --> 44:30.240] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now you can too.
[44:30.240 --> 44:36.240] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:36.240 --> 44:45.240] 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.
[44:45.240 --> 44:54.240] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics and much more.
[44:54.240 --> 45:03.240] Please visit RuralLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.240 --> 45:21.240] Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas behind Brave New Books and J-Pain to see all our fantastic Heltamonus products with your very own eyes.
[45:21.240 --> 45:33.240] Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in Alternative Medicine. Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our Australian Emu Oil, Lotion Candles, Olive Oil Soaps and Colloidal Silver and Gold.
[45:33.240 --> 45:46.240] Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com.
[45:46.240 --> 45:53.240] Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products naturespureorganics.com.
[46:16.240 --> 46:42.240] Hi folks, we are back and we are continuing on.
[46:42.240 --> 46:49.240] Guys, I'll start taking your calls after this next break so y'all just hang in there for a little bit longer, okay?
[46:49.240 --> 46:53.240] All right, continuing on with the Mullis distinction from Pulliam.
[46:53.240 --> 47:04.240] What the defendants did, FAC Fifth Cause violated her constitutional rights. She is a victim of civil rights torts and crimes under 18 USC 241 and 242.
[47:04.240 --> 47:18.240] Because of judicial immunity, she has no civil damage remedy. Because of interpretations like Mullis, she has no injunctive relief by which to stop them from violating her rights and to render to her the human respect she is due under the Constitution.
[47:18.240 --> 47:25.240] Just as judicial immunity determined by courts have cut off her civil remedies, they have cut off her criminal remedies.
[47:25.240 --> 47:38.240] So for example, 42 USC 1987 commands the U.S. Attorney to prosecute for crimes all persons who violate now 18 USC 241 and 242.
[47:38.240 --> 47:44.240] But judicial decisions have left such prosecutions up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney.
[47:44.240 --> 47:59.240] See, Attica correctional facility versus Rockefeller, 477 Federal Second 375 and Pete Mitchell, 419 Federal Second 575.
[47:59.240 --> 48:07.240] And what U.S. Attorney is going to exercise his discretion to prosecute federal judges, let alone appeals judges.
[48:07.240 --> 48:20.240] Thus, because of judicial immunity and holdings like Mullis, appellate is exercising the furthermost reaches of her remedies to get a jury trial and jury finding of rights violations from which she can compel an apology from the defendants
[48:20.240 --> 48:31.240] and a criminal prosecution by U.S. Attorneys who may be less reluctant to prosecute a judge under a civil jury findings of civil rights violations.
[48:31.240 --> 48:40.240] What this seems as if appellate is going to exchange to be treated as a human being, it is because of the constitutionally contradictory demands of judicial immunity.
[48:40.240 --> 48:47.240] As we have seen, that immunity is an immensely effective device for depreciating human dignity.
[48:47.240 --> 48:51.240] As we shall see in the next part, that immunity is also not lawful.
[48:51.240 --> 48:55.240] The historical basis for judicial immunity.
[48:55.240 --> 49:02.240] Judge Shubb based his dismissal on Mullis versus bankruptcy court, 828 Federal Second 1385.
[49:02.240 --> 49:17.240] The judicial immunity holdings of Mullis are in turn based on stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 1978 and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall, 335 of 1872.
[49:17.240 --> 49:29.240] The history of judicial immunity in the United States begins with Bradley, a lawyer who in 1867 defended John Serrat on the charge of murdering President Leakin and attained a hung jury.
[49:29.240 --> 49:32.240] Fisher was the trial judge.
[49:32.240 --> 49:42.240] During a recess, Bradley confronted Judge Fisher in an allegedly rude and insulting manner, accusing him of insulting and demeaning Bradley from the beginning of trial.
[49:42.240 --> 49:48.240] After trial, Judge Fisher disbarred Bradley from practicing his court because of the aforesaid.
[49:48.240 --> 49:50.240] Bradley sued Fisher.
[49:50.240 --> 49:56.240] Note, the verbal conduct between Fisher punished Bradley for would be protected speech today.
[49:56.240 --> 49:58.240] Court was in recess.
[49:58.240 --> 50:19.240] See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 in 1941 and Henry Halliman, 71 C2 or C2 1179 under the Mullis standard, the recessed court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Bradley's speech under Bridges and therefore judicial immunity would not attach today.
[50:19.240 --> 50:26.240] A reading of Bradley demonstrates that issues of constitutional rights either didn't arise or weren't addressed.
[50:26.240 --> 50:35.240] The issue that is the foundation of judicial immunity begins at 80 USC 649 and it quotes,
[50:35.240 --> 50:50.240] For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer in exercising the authority vested in him shall be free to act upon his own convictions without apprehension of personal consequence to himself.
[50:50.240 --> 51:03.240] Check the premise, it is the same not true of at least every professional person or is the same not true of at least every professional person without the conclusion of immunity following.
[51:03.240 --> 51:11.240] You hire an attorney so that in exercising his professional competence, he will do so according to his own good judgment.
[51:11.240 --> 51:14.240] But if he fails to meet the standard, he is liable.
[51:14.240 --> 51:19.240] It's not the same true of a doctor, an engineer, an electrician and so on.
[51:19.240 --> 51:35.240] Next Bradley says liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful.
[51:35.240 --> 51:48.240] Check the premise, subject to liability for violations of constitutional rights is not liability to answer everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the actions of the judge.
[51:48.240 --> 51:57.240] There are many reasonable differences, i.e. the grievance must be of constitutional accountable, constitutional significance.
[51:57.240 --> 52:01.240] It must be well enough founded to survive summary judgment.
[52:01.240 --> 52:04.240] It must be of a known constitutional right.
[52:04.240 --> 52:14.240] Moreover, while in a sense everyone is accountable under the law for just grievances of others against him, there are tools to weed out the just from the unjust.
[52:14.240 --> 52:23.240] So, for example, in California a medically injured person needs a written opinion of professional negligence before suing.
[52:23.240 --> 52:29.240] Justice Field would have us believe that judges would be terrified of their financial liability.
[52:29.240 --> 52:41.240] But the point of fact is, is that absent punitive damages, tradition and the tort claims act have established that if an official is sued, the attorney general appears for him and the government indemnifies him.
[52:41.240 --> 52:46.240] In other words, the terrifying financial implications of judicial liability are simply false.
[52:46.240 --> 52:52.240] Unlike doctors or lawyers, judges would not even carry the burden of insurance.
[52:52.240 --> 52:57.240] With respect to the impairment of judicial function, the day of judicial mystique is passed.
[52:57.240 --> 53:04.240] A people whose basic lifestyle is based upon science must question the foundations of judicial decisions.
[53:04.240 --> 53:15.240] And more and more the respectability and usefulness of the judiciary depends upon the soundness of judicial principle or judicial principle and reasoning, not immunity from accountability.
[53:15.240 --> 53:22.240] Conversely, today in the heyday of immunity, the judiciary is at its lowest ebb of respectability.
[53:22.240 --> 53:34.240] Notice Justice Field cites an unnamed distinguished English judge from Taft v. Downs in three more M-O-O-R-E PC 41 note to it.
[53:34.240 --> 53:44.240] The principle therefore, which exempts judges of courts of superior or general authority from liability in a civil action for acts done by them in the exercise of their judicial function,
[53:44.240 --> 53:57.240] obtains in all countries where there is any well-ordered system of jurisprudence. It has been the settled doctrine of the English courts for many centuries and has never been denied that we are of in the courts of this country.
[53:57.240 --> 54:07.240] It has, as Chancellor Ken observes, a deep root in the common law, as cited by Bradley B. Fisher, 80 U.S. at 649.
[54:07.240 --> 54:23.240] Check the premise. It is not true. What was, in fact, happening was that the Commonwealth was developing a more civilized law as they came to recognize the unalienable rights of man that gave birth to the United States.
[54:23.240 --> 54:27.240] The majority premise of Bradley was factually incorrect when made.
[54:27.240 --> 54:47.240] English common law had grown to permit judicial liability claims. In Candleian v. Maltby 174 English Rep 562 and 566 N.P. 1842 CD excerpts, Chief Justice Lord Denman stated the law in 1842.
[54:47.240 --> 55:02.240] I have no doubt on my mind that a magistrate, be he the highest judge in the land, is answerable in damages for slanderous language, either not relevant to the cause before him or uttered after the cause is at an end.
[55:02.240 --> 55:17.240] But for words uttered in the course of his duty, no magistrate is answerable, either civilly or criminally, unless expressed malice and the absence of reasonable or probable cause be established.
[55:17.240 --> 55:35.240] Candleian is a suit for slander by a policeman against a judge for statements from the bench. Under First Amendment standards without judicial immunity, but according to judge the same immunities do every American, both the same rule of law and the same result would obtain.
[55:35.240 --> 55:54.240] That is, the officer would be treated as a public figure for which rules of conscious disregard of truth or malice would apply. It is noteworthy that the reason Lord Denman finds a duty of the judge to speak his opinion is basically the same public interest upon which Americans are privileged under the First Amendment.
[55:54.240 --> 56:12.240] Next note, in context with Lord Denman's statement of English law in 1842 regarding malice, what justice field quotes in 1872, nor can this exemption of the judges from civil liability be affected by the modus which their judicial acts are performed.
[56:12.240 --> 56:35.240] The purity of their modus cannot in this way be the subject of judicial inquiry. This was the adjudged in the case of Floyd and Barker reported by Koch in 1608, 12 Koch 25, where it was laid down that the judges of the realm could not be drawn in question for any supposed corruption impeaching the verity of their records except before the king himself.
[56:35.240 --> 56:48.240] That ancient England in 1608 had developed systems of immunity to insulate its nobility from accountability to those they wrongly injured does not highly recommend that system to post-revolutionary America.
[56:48.240 --> 56:52.240] It merely threatens to recreate the causes of the revolution.
[56:52.240 --> 57:13.240] Realizing that the right to petition government for redress of grievances underlies all other rights, including speech and press, the United States Supreme Court in Bridges versus California 314 U.S. at 263 and 64 made short work of the argument that such ancient doctrines of common law have any impact on our law.
[57:13.240 --> 57:31.240] Quoting, for the argument runs, the power of judges to punish by contempt out of court publications tending to obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice in a pending case was deeply rooted in English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted.
[57:31.240 --> 57:43.240] This was historical contention or this or that this historical contention is dubious has been persuasively argued elsewhere. Sites omitted but see Candelian Supra.
[57:43.240 --> 57:57.240] In any event, it does not detain us for to assume that English common law in this field became ours is to deny the generally accepted historical belief that one of the objects of the revolution was to get rid of the
[57:57.240 --> 58:09.240] English common law on liberty of speech and of the press in the United States. Nine publications American Sociological Society 67 and 76.
[58:09.240 --> 58:16.240] Alright folks, that's where I'm going to wrap this up for this show and I'm going to start taking calls after this top of the hour break.
[58:16.240 --> 58:21.240] So Matthew, Adam, Muhammad, y'all hang on and we'll start getting on with you guys here when we get back.
[58:21.240 --> 58:40.240] We will continue this reading next week and go into some discussion on it and then we'll pick up on the other document from which this document is sourced, which is considerably longer but hopefully even more persuasively informative and argumentative against the doctrine of judicial
[58:40.240 --> 58:50.240] immunity, which should never have been allowed to exist. Alright folks, y'all hang on. We'll be right back after this break.
[58:50.240 --> 58:58.240] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.240 --> 59:06.240] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.240 --> 59:27.240] Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 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.
[59:27.240 --> 59:43.240] 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
[59:43.240 --> 59:50.240] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.240 --> 01:00:00.240] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:00.240 --> 01:00:09.240] This is the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty News and activist updates online at the Liberty Beat.com.
[01:00:09.240 --> 01:00:21.240] I'm Brian Hagen with your Liberty Beat for Monday, October 27, 2014. Gold is trading around $1,233, silver $17.24 and Bitcoin is trading around $350.30.
[01:00:21.240 --> 01:00:30.240] Today's Bitcoin Prize brought to you by Expresscoin, the fastest and most reliable way to buy Bitcoins. Buy Bitcoin today at Expresscoin.com.
[01:00:30.240 --> 01:00:35.240] Support for the Liberty Beat comes from the Michael Cardio for Austin City Council District 1 campaign.
[01:00:35.240 --> 01:00:41.240] Vote Michael Cardio to get the cars moving. Learn more or sign up to volunteer at CardioForTexas.com.
[01:00:41.240 --> 01:00:46.240] This political advertisement paid for by the Michael Cardio for Austin City Council District 1 campaign.
[01:00:46.240 --> 01:00:54.240] In the news, on Friday, a U.S. drone strike was reported to have killed three suspected members of a local branch of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula in Yemen.
[01:00:54.240 --> 01:01:01.240] Reuters reported that tribal sources confirmed the deaths were members of the Al Qaeda group currently fighting the Shiite Muslim Healthy Group.
[01:01:01.240 --> 01:01:06.240] However, Press TV reported that tribal sources stated that up to 20 people may have died.
[01:01:06.240 --> 01:01:15.240] Drone strikes in Yemen have been a controversial topic since Human Rights Watch released a report detailing the deaths of Yemeni civilians at the hands of the United States government.
[01:01:15.240 --> 01:01:18.240] The killings are being done in violation of international law.
[01:01:21.240 --> 01:01:29.240] The FBI has released two updated reports from the Office of the Inspector General concerning the FBI's use of the controversial national security letters.
[01:01:29.240 --> 01:01:32.240] The reports were released to the New York Times through a FOIA request.
[01:01:32.240 --> 01:01:39.240] The updated documents were originally from 2007 and 2008 and have now been reissued with newly declassified information.
[01:01:39.240 --> 01:01:44.240] NSLs are orders that give the FBI authority to gather data from companies without judicial approval.
[01:01:44.240 --> 01:01:49.240] They are typically issued with a gag order preventing the recipients from speaking about the request.
[01:01:49.240 --> 01:02:00.240] A new policy study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics proposes a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale as a way to protect the children.
[01:02:00.240 --> 01:02:05.240] The report examined the federal policies in the United States related to children's health and health care.
[01:02:05.240 --> 01:02:12.240] The researchers found that child poverty in America is at its highest point in 20 years and say that five children die daily from firearms.
[01:02:12.240 --> 01:02:18.240] They offered 10 steps for the federal government to help children, including a background check for gun sounds.
[01:02:18.240 --> 01:02:22.240] Support from Liberty Beach comes from Cabo Bobs, Southwestern style burritos.
[01:02:22.240 --> 01:02:28.240] Now with two locations in Austin, 500 East Benwhite Boulevard and 2828 Rio Grande Boulevard.
[01:02:28.240 --> 01:02:30.240] Find them online, CaboBobs.com.
[01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:34.240] Support also comes from the Laura Pressley-Froston City Council District 4 campaign.
[01:02:34.240 --> 01:02:39.240] Laura will implement a 20% homestead exemption and lower your utility bills.
[01:02:39.240 --> 01:02:42.240] Laura Pressley, Experience, Courage, Integrity.
[01:02:42.240 --> 01:02:45.240] To learn more, visit PressleyFroston.com.
[01:02:45.240 --> 01:02:48.240] Political advertisement paid for by the Laura Pressley campaign.
[01:02:48.240 --> 01:02:52.240] This is the Liberty Beat for Monday, October 27, 2014.
[01:02:52.240 --> 01:03:00.240] Check out the website at thelibertybeats.com and like us on Facebook at facebook.com slash the liberty beat.
[01:03:00.240 --> 01:03:19.240] It's all according to the will of the Almighty. I read His book and it says He cares for the unsightly.
[01:03:19.240 --> 01:03:23.240] These warm unders come by that term right there.
[01:03:23.240 --> 01:03:28.240] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio and we are now taking calls.
[01:03:28.240 --> 01:03:34.240] Calling number 512-646-1984 and we are going to start off with Matthew.
[01:03:34.240 --> 01:03:36.240] Matthew, what do you got?
[01:03:36.240 --> 01:03:44.240] Hello, I want a quick suggestion on some good law dire questions asked.
[01:03:44.240 --> 01:03:52.240] I'm going to merit on a speeding ticket and I already got a few little things in mind,
[01:03:52.240 --> 01:03:59.240] so I figured I'd call and see what you think, Jeff.
[01:03:59.240 --> 01:04:03.240] I don't know. Whenever you're ready, go ahead and drop them on me.
[01:04:03.240 --> 01:04:07.240] Oh, you're wanting me to give you law dire questions going on merits?
[01:04:07.240 --> 01:04:13.240] No, I don't want to question you. I want to see what you got.
[01:04:13.240 --> 01:04:16.240] I'm going to call into this show to ask you questions.
[01:04:16.240 --> 01:04:22.240] It really doesn't matter. The only thing you have to remember about jury selection for trial
[01:04:22.240 --> 01:04:29.240] in a Class C misdemeanor case is to limit your strikes to somebody in the first 12 people.
[01:04:29.240 --> 01:04:33.240] You don't give a crap about who's after number 12.
[01:04:33.240 --> 01:04:39.240] The reason for that is because you get three strikes, the other side gets three strikes
[01:04:39.240 --> 01:04:42.240] and your jury is only going to be six people.
[01:04:42.240 --> 01:04:49.240] After the judge makes his initial strikes, the first 12 people in whoever is left,
[01:04:49.240 --> 01:04:52.240] six of them are going to be on your jury.
[01:04:52.240 --> 01:04:58.240] So eliminate your problem children from the first 12 people.
[01:04:58.240 --> 01:05:04.240] That's the first thing. As far as what questions you ask them, it's completely irrelevant,
[01:05:04.240 --> 01:05:08.240] simply because they're not there to give you justice.
[01:05:08.240 --> 01:05:14.240] They're not picking a jury to win because the odds of winning are slim to none.
[01:05:14.240 --> 01:05:21.240] You're getting a bunch of sheep to sit in the box or you're getting a bunch of statists to sit in the box.
[01:05:21.240 --> 01:05:24.240] So it's not going to matter.
[01:05:24.240 --> 01:05:28.240] So what you ask them is irrelevant. Ask them what their favorite flavor of ice cream is.
[01:05:28.240 --> 01:05:33.240] Ask them if they like the rain versus a sunny day. It doesn't matter.
[01:05:33.240 --> 01:05:39.240] The only reason they're there is to drive up the cost of the prosecution.
[01:05:39.240 --> 01:05:41.240] Okay?
[01:05:41.240 --> 01:05:47.240] Now, what you want to make sure of, however, is trying not to get anybody that's obviously prejudicial.
[01:05:47.240 --> 01:05:54.240] You want to know who's a cop, who's an attorney, who is a highly technical minded individual,
[01:05:54.240 --> 01:05:58.240] like an engineer or an architect or someone like that,
[01:05:58.240 --> 01:06:06.240] because they tend to overanalyze things and they can only make decisions based upon the facts presented.
[01:06:06.240 --> 01:06:10.240] And you're never going to be allowed to alter the facts that they get.
[01:06:10.240 --> 01:06:11.240] Comprende?
[01:06:11.240 --> 01:06:12.240] Yeah.
[01:06:12.240 --> 01:06:20.240] Okay. So it really doesn't matter beyond those parameters who you choose for the jury.
[01:06:20.240 --> 01:06:28.240] Because the judges are, no matter how you disqualify the jury, the judge is never going to let you disqualify the jury.
[01:06:28.240 --> 01:06:44.240] If you ask the jury a question like, how many people in this jury pool are more prone to give the nod toward the testimony of an officer regarding how a law operates,
[01:06:44.240 --> 01:06:50.240] then you are to a layman who testifies as to how the law operates.
[01:06:50.240 --> 01:06:57.240] Well, every person that says, I'm going to give more credence to the cop already proves they have a bias.
[01:06:57.240 --> 01:06:58.240] Yeah.
[01:06:58.240 --> 01:07:06.240] And if you eliminate half of the jury pool right off the bat with that question so that they can't fill a jury of six,
[01:07:06.240 --> 01:07:08.240] what are they supposed to do?
[01:07:08.240 --> 01:07:12.240] Disqualify everybody and call a new jury pool and start again.
[01:07:12.240 --> 01:07:14.240] But the judge won't do that.
[01:07:14.240 --> 01:07:25.240] What the judge will then do is, I don't perceive that they're disqualified and then he'll give whatever his bogus justification is not to have to get a new jury pool.
[01:07:25.240 --> 01:07:26.240] Yeah.
[01:07:26.240 --> 01:07:29.240] So the deck is already stacked against you.
[01:07:29.240 --> 01:07:33.240] You're not going to have a chance to reshuffle.
[01:07:33.240 --> 01:07:34.240] Yeah.
[01:07:34.240 --> 01:07:40.240] What about, can I object during the goadire process?
[01:07:40.240 --> 01:07:46.240] If the other side does something objectionable like testify to facts, yeah.
[01:07:46.240 --> 01:07:53.240] If the prosecutor is sitting up there saying, now, Mr. So-and-so over here did the following.
[01:07:53.240 --> 01:07:59.240] He's arguing right there and he is testifying to the ears of the jury as to the facts of the case.
[01:07:59.240 --> 01:08:02.240] Most assuredly, you want to object to that.
[01:08:02.240 --> 01:08:03.240] Yeah.
[01:08:03.240 --> 01:08:07.240] Now, he is allowed, the defendant is accused of doing the following.
[01:08:07.240 --> 01:08:08.240] Yeah.
[01:08:08.240 --> 01:08:11.240] Technically, that's not supposed to be allowed at goadire.
[01:08:11.240 --> 01:08:14.240] That's supposed to be allowed at opening statement.
[01:08:14.240 --> 01:08:15.240] Okay.
[01:08:15.240 --> 01:08:17.240] Well, I'll object to that too.
[01:08:17.240 --> 01:08:18.240] Okay.
[01:08:18.240 --> 01:08:25.240] So the kind of stuff that they actually allow to go on is highly prejudicial in so many ways it's not even funny.
[01:08:25.240 --> 01:08:32.240] But in the modern day world of the jurisprudence we live under, it's acceptable when it shouldn't be.
[01:08:32.240 --> 01:08:37.240] But that is just your first clue and indicator that this system is rigged.
[01:08:37.240 --> 01:08:44.240] Now, what you can do through the course of this is use every available opportunity to prove just how rigged it is.
[01:08:44.240 --> 01:08:54.240] For example, one of the first things the prosecutor is going to get the cop to testify to is the presence of the accused at the defendant table.
[01:08:54.240 --> 01:09:03.240] And he's going to ask that you identify the accused by their location in the courtroom and an article of clothing that they're wearing.
[01:09:03.240 --> 01:09:09.240] Objection, this is a completely prejudicial and bias form of identification.
[01:09:09.240 --> 01:09:18.240] There is no one for the officer to point to and select except the person isolated at the defense table.
[01:09:18.240 --> 01:09:20.240] So you're showing the jury right there.
[01:09:20.240 --> 01:09:22.240] You see how rigged the system is?
[01:09:22.240 --> 01:09:29.240] The cop's memory about the facts is so bad that if they didn't isolate me up here all alone, he couldn't even identify me.
[01:09:29.240 --> 01:09:30.240] Yeah.
[01:09:30.240 --> 01:09:32.240] So object to that.
[01:09:32.240 --> 01:09:34.240] I remember that from class.
[01:09:34.240 --> 01:09:35.240] Yeah.
[01:09:35.240 --> 01:09:36.240] So make sure.
[01:09:36.240 --> 01:09:43.240] And if you can find five clones, have them come down there and sit at the table with you.
[01:09:43.240 --> 01:09:47.240] And when the court says you people have to leave, object.
[01:09:47.240 --> 01:09:49.240] And it doesn't have to be you.
[01:09:49.240 --> 01:09:50.240] Everybody object.
[01:09:50.240 --> 01:09:51.240] And do it.
[01:09:51.240 --> 01:09:53.240] You know, practice it in harmony.
[01:09:53.240 --> 01:10:01.240] Objection, judge, for the purpose of the witness's identification, we demand a lineup in open court.
[01:10:01.240 --> 01:10:03.240] Yeah.
[01:10:03.240 --> 01:10:08.240] Or have someone stand in your place at the defense table.
[01:10:08.240 --> 01:10:09.240] Yeah.
[01:10:09.240 --> 01:10:15.240] Wait for the cop to identify that person as the perpetrator and then you stand up in the back of the room.
[01:10:15.240 --> 01:10:20.240] Excuse me, judge, I need to address the court or the person at the table can do it.
[01:10:20.240 --> 01:10:22.240] Judge, I object.
[01:10:22.240 --> 01:10:27.240] This witness is committing aggravated perjury at this point.
[01:10:27.240 --> 01:10:31.240] Well, what do you mean he's only identified you as the accused?
[01:10:31.240 --> 01:10:33.240] Well, judge, that's the problem.
[01:10:33.240 --> 01:10:35.240] I'm not so and so.
[01:10:35.240 --> 01:10:37.240] Here's my identification.
[01:10:37.240 --> 01:10:43.240] As you can see, I'm Joe Blow and it's Joe Sunshine that's supposed to be up here.
[01:10:43.240 --> 01:10:44.240] Yeah.
[01:10:44.240 --> 01:10:50.240] And your cop just said, I'm Joe Sunshine, which proves he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
[01:10:50.240 --> 01:10:51.240] Yeah.
[01:10:51.240 --> 01:11:03.240] Now, of course, the judge is liable to get irate that you kicked them right in the teeth with that one and try to hold somebody in contempt, even though nothing done was contentious.
[01:11:03.240 --> 01:11:08.240] And it, in fact, proved that the court is rigged to deliver injustice.
[01:11:08.240 --> 01:11:09.240] Yeah.
[01:11:09.240 --> 01:11:17.240] But they don't like that, see, because it shows the bogus aptitude of the system.
[01:11:17.240 --> 01:11:22.240] So as far as the jury selection goes, man, ask them whatever you want.
[01:11:22.240 --> 01:11:31.240] Just remember the rules of selection and pick from whoever remains in the first 12, getting rid of the obvious ones, of course.
[01:11:31.240 --> 01:11:39.240] Because if you leave them there, you can't argue that they found against you later and that they were prejudicial because you chose to let them stay.
[01:11:39.240 --> 01:11:40.240] Yeah.
[01:11:40.240 --> 01:12:02.240] Okay, so get rid of the obvious ones first, start with anybody that claims to be in law enforcement, anybody that claims to be a lawyer, and anybody that has some sort of technical occupation, because those are the people that are going to only be persuaded by their own belief doctrine regardless of facts,
[01:12:02.240 --> 01:12:13.240] or they're only going to believe the facts as they understand them and their understanding is many years of indoctrination versus your few minutes of reeducation.
[01:12:13.240 --> 01:12:15.240] Yeah.
[01:12:15.240 --> 01:12:16.240] All right.
[01:12:16.240 --> 01:12:18.240] Okay.
[01:12:18.240 --> 01:12:20.240] I'll try to make it work out.
[01:12:20.240 --> 01:12:21.240] Thanks, I appreciate it.
[01:12:21.240 --> 01:12:22.240] You're welcome.
[01:12:22.240 --> 01:12:23.240] Thanks for calling in.
[01:12:23.240 --> 01:12:24.240] Okay, bye.
[01:12:24.240 --> 01:12:25.240] Bye-bye.
[01:12:25.240 --> 01:12:28.240] All right, now we're going to go to Mohamed in Texas.
[01:12:28.240 --> 01:12:31.240] Mohamed, what can we do for you?
[01:12:31.240 --> 01:12:54.240] Mohamed, last week I sent you an email, or it was a very long email about my case, so family case, my two children and my ex-wife reside in New York, Jamestown, Setako County.
[01:12:54.240 --> 01:13:01.240] I've been paying my child support through the code there and through the support collection division there.
[01:13:01.240 --> 01:13:02.240] Right.
[01:13:02.240 --> 01:13:16.240] So my bank called me on October 2nd that there's been a lien on my account from the AG office in Texas, and I tried to prevail and heard that I don't have anything to do with the office there.
[01:13:16.240 --> 01:13:25.240] I said, I don't have any instruction or code order for me to do anything of that, and I'm paying my support through the New York Auto Support Collection.
[01:13:25.240 --> 01:13:26.240] But she didn't listen.
[01:13:26.240 --> 01:13:29.240] She said, well, go ahead and talk to the AG office.
[01:13:29.240 --> 01:13:31.240] I'm like, I cannot talk to them.
[01:13:31.240 --> 01:13:34.240] They are the ones who are trying to seize my account.
[01:13:34.240 --> 01:13:41.240] She didn't listen and they went ahead and started to start themselves with drawing whatever amount they wanted to withdraw.
[01:13:41.240 --> 01:13:43.240] So they did that.
[01:13:43.240 --> 01:13:58.240] So in this situation, how to first file a personal case against my bank, the New York County, the New York Collision Division, I told Texas to pull it from my account.
[01:13:58.240 --> 01:14:00.240] They don't have code order to do that.
[01:14:00.240 --> 01:14:03.240] I need also to file a legal action against.
[01:14:03.240 --> 01:14:13.240] Well, the only thing you can do, Mohammed, is sue, and you're going to have to do that at the federal level for an unlawful seizure of private property.
[01:14:13.240 --> 01:14:19.240] And against the state's attorney general, that's going to be a task in and of itself.
[01:14:19.240 --> 01:14:32.240] You have, you unfortunately have now been entangled in the most corrupt part of the judiciary in every state, family law.
[01:14:32.240 --> 01:14:40.240] There is no more corrupt system of law and process than that of the family courts in every state.
[01:14:40.240 --> 01:15:00.240] They exist for nothing more than to steal hand over fist money from families and to peddle children to foster homes for the purpose of gaining federal grants and federal monies to continue the process.
[01:15:00.240 --> 01:15:12.240] So every time they take a child or break up a family in order to gain control of it, they get federal money for doing that.
[01:15:12.240 --> 01:15:33.240] See, this is the side of the story that my ex-star doesn't understand, and I'm always beyond the defensive because I told her all the ones from us to throw more at each other than the children will be sued from us.
[01:15:33.240 --> 01:15:51.240] I don't know how to raise the children, but the court will understand the amount, the family court division, coalition people will go and add over 150% to the court order amount and just go ahead and send them the court order document only thing.
[01:15:51.240 --> 01:15:54.240] They will just go ahead and do what they want to do.
[01:15:54.240 --> 01:16:12.240] Yeah, and for that you're going, like I said, your only recourse is going to be sue under a RICO or something of that nature at the federal level because you're not going to get any type of remedy in a state court in Texas against a family court event.
[01:16:12.240 --> 01:16:14.240] You're just not.
[01:16:14.240 --> 01:16:20.240] Our courts on this issue are so bloody corrupt it's not even funny.
[01:16:20.240 --> 01:16:30.240] There is not a family law court judge in this state that should not be hung from the nearest tree before sunrise.
[01:16:30.240 --> 01:16:40.240] And not a single family law attorney on the state side that shouldn't be in there with them, including our ignorant AG.
[01:16:40.240 --> 01:16:46.240] But hang on just a second, Mohammed, and we'll talk a little bit more on the other side.
[01:16:46.240 --> 01:16:52.240] Folks, this is rule of law radio to call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:52.240 --> 01:16:53.240] Give us a call.
[01:16:53.240 --> 01:17:01.240] We will be right back.
[01:17:01.240 --> 01:17:09.240] 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.
[01:17:09.240 --> 01:17:15.240] We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:15.240 --> 01:17:19.240] We're here to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:17:19.240 --> 01:17:24.240] We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metal dealers and journalists.
[01:17:24.240 --> 01:17:27.240] If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:17:27.240 --> 01:17:32.240] In addition, we carry popular young Jevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst.
[01:17:32.240 --> 01:17:39.240] We also offer one-world-way, Mountain House storeable foods, Berkey water products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:17:39.240 --> 01:17:43.240] We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept bitcoins as payment.
[01:17:43.240 --> 01:17:46.240] Call us at 512-646-644-0.
[01:17:46.240 --> 01:17:51.240] We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:17:51.240 --> 01:17:54.240] We're open Monday through Friday, 10-6, Saturdays, 10-2.
[01:17:54.240 --> 01:18:00.240] Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-644-0.
[01:18:00.240 --> 01:18:04.240] Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have you used it?
[01:18:04.240 --> 01:18:09.240] Thousands of people are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they experience after just one use.
[01:18:09.240 --> 01:18:13.240] Here's what Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the product.
[01:18:13.240 --> 01:18:16.240] Hey everybody, this is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books.
[01:18:16.240 --> 01:18:18.240] Just want to tell everybody about My Magic Mud.
[01:18:18.240 --> 01:18:21.240] I use the product and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy.
[01:18:21.240 --> 01:18:23.240] I think it makes them stronger.
[01:18:23.240 --> 01:18:25.240] I've got lots of customers that come in and say the same thing.
[01:18:25.240 --> 01:18:27.240] You can pick yours up at Brave New Books.
[01:18:27.240 --> 01:18:33.240] If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been featured on the Alex Jones show, loves it too.
[01:18:33.240 --> 01:18:37.240] Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole, and I got to tell you, I really love this Magic Mud product.
[01:18:37.240 --> 01:18:43.240] Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective at taking off all the sticky plaque and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day.
[01:18:43.240 --> 01:18:45.240] I highly recommend My Magic Mud.
[01:18:45.240 --> 01:18:51.240] If you haven't yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late to brighten your smile and strengthen your teeth.
[01:18:51.240 --> 01:19:11.240] Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street or order online today at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:19:21.240 --> 01:19:31.240] Don't bore me.
[01:19:31.240 --> 01:19:36.240] Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:36.240 --> 01:19:41.240] I was blindsided, but now I can see your face.
[01:19:41.240 --> 01:19:51.240] You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my hands, ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:51.240 --> 01:20:17.240] Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:20:17.240 --> 01:20:31.240] What's about sending talk letters to my bank for allowing these people access to my account, to withdraw money from my account?
[01:20:31.240 --> 01:20:35.240] How can I start with the bank?
[01:20:35.240 --> 01:20:47.240] The bank is doing what the bank could be named in the suit, especially if the attorney general did not provide them with a court order or a warrant.
[01:20:47.240 --> 01:20:53.240] So if they just lean the account without that, then they've already got a problem.
[01:20:53.240 --> 01:21:07.240] Yeah, they didn't have any bank or any court order to do so. Somebody just put a letter on the ID, a letter hand, and sent to them because I'm in possession of the copy of the letter that they've got.
[01:21:07.240 --> 01:21:09.240] That's what I told them.
[01:21:09.240 --> 01:21:17.240] I sent the producer a court order. I have anything to do with taxes. They cannot do that.
[01:21:17.240 --> 01:21:25.240] Yeah, believe me, they think they can do anything. That's part of the problem.
[01:21:25.240 --> 01:21:41.240] They've gotten to where none of them are accountable to us anymore because the very thing that I was reading at the beginning of this, the judiciary granting special rights and privileges through immunities to themselves and the other branches of government and
[01:21:41.240 --> 01:21:55.240] legislation of constitutional prohibitions and protections and the fact that they're never given any immunity in the Constitution at all is exactly where we're suffering under them at this point.
[01:21:55.240 --> 01:22:10.240] It's what we need to fix, but unfortunately the issue on how to do that without enacting law and then the judge is turning around saying, well, we rule the law doesn't apply to us when in fact that's exactly who the law does apply to.
[01:22:10.240 --> 01:22:15.240] So there's no easy answer to what you're talking about.
[01:22:15.240 --> 01:22:26.240] Your only recourse is to go after them at the federal level, citing a RICO suit and a criminal conspiracy to deprive you of rights under color of law.
[01:22:26.240 --> 01:22:33.240] And you can name the bank as a co-conspirator if they acted without any warrant or court order.
[01:22:33.240 --> 01:22:40.240] The Attorney General's Office is an executive branch department. It is not judicial. They're not judges.
[01:22:40.240 --> 01:22:51.240] They don't have any authority to issue court orders or warrants and they certainly cannot lien an account that's in violation of law.
[01:22:51.240 --> 01:23:06.240] There is in fact law that was put specifically on the books in Texas to be used against the lien process that was being invoked by the Republic of Texas folks against public servants.
[01:23:06.240 --> 01:23:25.240] Well, that law also deals with public servants the way it's written because it specifically says that no lien other than a valid mechanics lien can be placed on any property absent a court order recognized by the laws of Texas.
[01:23:25.240 --> 01:23:40.240] And the Attorney General's Office is none of those things. So you can literally press criminal charges under that law against whoever issued that letter to your bank and place that lien at your bank.
[01:23:40.240 --> 01:23:51.240] And you can name Greg Abbott because he is a respondent superior for anybody working under him that did that.
[01:23:51.240 --> 01:23:58.240] All right.
[01:23:58.240 --> 01:24:02.240] How do I access the paperwork to proceed?
[01:24:02.240 --> 01:24:23.240] You have to go down and you have to get, you either have to write the complaint yourself and submit it to a district or county attorney or to the grand jury or you can go down and file a complaint at a law enforcement agency or with a county or district attorney.
[01:24:23.240 --> 01:24:38.240] And they're supposed to take it and have it reduced to writing, but odds are none of them will act on it, meaning you're going to have to write it yourself and you're going to have to send it to the grand jury, which may or may not do anything with it.
[01:24:38.240 --> 01:24:54.240] And if they don't, then your only other recourse is to get injunctive relief and relief or damages by the seizure of your account in a federal lawsuit, which you're probably going to need an attorney to help you prosecute, especially if it's RICO, because RICO is very complicated.
[01:24:54.240 --> 01:25:05.240] But it's got a huge set of teeth.
[01:25:05.240 --> 01:25:12.240] And that can be found in Austin here, the federal law, where to file a case act or it has to be.
[01:25:12.240 --> 01:25:15.240] Where to file what, a federal lawsuit?
[01:25:15.240 --> 01:25:16.240] Yes, sir.
[01:25:16.240 --> 01:25:23.240] You can file a lawsuit in whatever federal district court has control over your area.
[01:25:23.240 --> 01:25:29.240] And if you're in Austin, then yeah, it's the one right here in Austin.
[01:25:29.240 --> 01:25:34.240] Okay.
[01:25:34.240 --> 01:25:35.240] All right.
[01:25:35.240 --> 01:25:36.240] Okay.
[01:25:36.240 --> 01:25:43.240] Please check your e-bill and respond to that if there is the way that we can talk more on this on the phone.
[01:25:43.240 --> 01:25:57.240] Well, the only thing about it is, Muhammad, is I'm not well versed in family law other than the horror stories I've read about it and the law that I have looked at to match up the accusations made in the horror stories.
[01:25:57.240 --> 01:26:10.240] Family law is a very convoluted process, not just in the way the law itself is written, but by the very fact that regardless of how it's written, the courts do whatever the hell they want.
[01:26:10.240 --> 01:26:14.240] They're not bound by any law in the way they operate.
[01:26:14.240 --> 01:26:19.240] They just do what they want, literally.
[01:26:19.240 --> 01:26:20.240] Okay.
[01:26:20.240 --> 01:26:32.240] Okay, so I think I recall seeing the e-mail, but I just don't know how I'm going to be able to do any more than what I've told you right now.
[01:26:32.240 --> 01:26:33.240] All right.
[01:26:33.240 --> 01:26:34.240] Thank you so much for the time.
[01:26:34.240 --> 01:26:35.240] Yes, sir.
[01:26:35.240 --> 01:26:48.240] I'm sorry I can't be of bigger help on it, but that's an extremely time-consuming area, and you need somebody that's a real expert at going after them in this case, and that's going to be a civil rights attorney.
[01:26:48.240 --> 01:26:51.240] Civil rights attorney, okay.
[01:26:51.240 --> 01:26:52.240] Okay.
[01:26:52.240 --> 01:26:53.240] All right.
[01:26:53.240 --> 01:26:54.240] All right.
[01:26:54.240 --> 01:26:55.240] Well, good luck.
[01:26:55.240 --> 01:26:56.240] Thank you, sir.
[01:26:56.240 --> 01:26:58.240] You're very welcome.
[01:26:58.240 --> 01:26:59.240] All right.
[01:26:59.240 --> 01:27:01.240] Now, let's see.
[01:27:01.240 --> 01:27:04.240] We have only one other person left up on the board here.
[01:27:04.240 --> 01:27:05.240] That is Adam.
[01:27:05.240 --> 01:27:06.240] How are you?
[01:27:06.240 --> 01:27:07.240] I'm good.
[01:27:07.240 --> 01:27:08.240] Adam, how are you?
[01:27:08.240 --> 01:27:09.240] He was.
[01:27:09.240 --> 01:27:10.240] He was.
[01:27:10.240 --> 01:27:11.240] Okay.
[01:27:11.240 --> 01:27:18.240] Well, we've got Adam in the background there with language we can't exactly keep playing here.
[01:27:18.240 --> 01:27:28.240] So, Adam, if you can hear this, I'm trying to talk with you, but I need you to not be using that kind of language while we're on the air.
[01:27:28.240 --> 01:27:30.240] So, let's try this again.
[01:27:30.240 --> 01:27:33.240] Adam, are you there?
[01:27:33.240 --> 01:27:35.240] Eddie, I'm here.
[01:27:35.240 --> 01:27:36.240] Okay.
[01:27:36.240 --> 01:27:37.240] All right.
[01:27:37.240 --> 01:27:38.240] What's you got?
[01:27:38.240 --> 01:27:39.240] I apologize, Eddie.
[01:27:39.240 --> 01:27:41.240] We were conversating.
[01:27:41.240 --> 01:27:43.240] We didn't realize that you put me in.
[01:27:43.240 --> 01:27:44.240] No, that's okay.
[01:27:44.240 --> 01:27:53.240] I was trying to get your attention by announcing your name first, just in case, but I guess it didn't come through before I cleared the air to let you on.
[01:27:53.240 --> 01:27:55.240] Well, hey, anyway.
[01:27:55.240 --> 01:27:56.240] All right.
[01:27:56.240 --> 01:27:59.240] It's an interesting twist.
[01:27:59.240 --> 01:28:03.240] I just wanted your opinion on it, so it might help other people out.
[01:28:03.240 --> 01:28:04.240] Okay.
[01:28:04.240 --> 01:28:05.240] Well, you say an interesting twist.
[01:28:05.240 --> 01:28:08.240] Is this something you've called in about before?
[01:28:08.240 --> 01:28:09.240] No.
[01:28:09.240 --> 01:28:10.240] Okay.
[01:28:10.240 --> 01:28:14.240] Then give us a heads up on what we're talking about and then why it's a twist.
[01:28:14.240 --> 01:28:15.240] Okay.
[01:28:15.240 --> 01:28:37.240] Well, I mean, according to your insight and wisdom and knowledge, which is greatly appreciated amongst us, now that, okay, so I've gone for the last three years, you know, completely in tune with what you're saying and the law, and I've researched the law, and I've got really depth with it and everything.
[01:28:37.240 --> 01:28:40.240] I've come to become a mini Eddie, I guess, you could say.
[01:28:40.240 --> 01:28:41.240] Well, good.
[01:28:41.240 --> 01:28:47.240] Now, you know, I've refused to contract with them, you know, and I've gone around.
[01:28:47.240 --> 01:28:49.240] I go, I think free and I live free.
[01:28:49.240 --> 01:28:55.240] You know, I do as I please as far as traveling where I need to go and to take care of things that I need to take care of.
[01:28:55.240 --> 01:28:57.240] Nobody's paying me to do it.
[01:28:57.240 --> 01:29:01.240] I go ahead and do it because that's what I feel was the right thing to do.
[01:29:01.240 --> 01:29:06.240] But now I got a new job.
[01:29:06.240 --> 01:29:21.240] And this new job is going to require me to, I'm going to be being getting paid for now it would be driving to go to and from sites to survey them.
[01:29:21.240 --> 01:29:31.240] So now that the transportation code will apply to me legally and now that I have to go get a class B driver's license, which was never my intention.
[01:29:31.240 --> 01:29:33.240] However, it's just required now.
[01:29:33.240 --> 01:29:37.240] Okay, well, Adam, hold that thought and we'll pick it up on the other side.
[01:29:37.240 --> 01:29:38.240] Okay.
[01:29:38.240 --> 01:29:39.240] All right, great.
[01:29:39.240 --> 01:29:40.240] All right.
[01:29:40.240 --> 01:29:42.240] All right, folks, this is rule of law radio Rob.
[01:29:42.240 --> 01:29:47.240] I see you there on the board, so please hang on and we'll talk to you after we get done with Adam.
[01:29:47.240 --> 01:29:52.240] All right, folks, we've got a half an hour left in the show, 512-646-1984.
[01:29:52.240 --> 01:29:54.240] I will try to get to anybody that calls in.
[01:29:54.240 --> 01:29:56.240] I can't guarantee it, but I'll certainly try.
[01:29:56.240 --> 01:29:57.240] Y'all hold on.
[01:29:57.240 --> 01:29:59.240] We'll be right back.
[01:29:59.240 --> 01:30:05.240] I'm not a mind reader, but there's a good chance I can guess your password.
[01:30:05.240 --> 01:30:10.240] Most people choose passwords from a limited repertoire, so hacking in is a piece of cake.
[01:30:10.240 --> 01:30:14.240] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with the solution.
[01:30:14.240 --> 01:30:16.240] Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:16.240 --> 01:30:19.240] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:19.240 --> 01:30:24.240] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:24.240 --> 01:30:30.240] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:30.240 --> 01:30:32.240] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:32.240 --> 01:30:36.240] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:36.240 --> 01:30:40.240] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:40.240 --> 01:30:43.240] Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:43.240 --> 01:30:48.240] It's hard to remember a complicated password, but that's no excuse for a pathetic one.
[01:30:48.240 --> 01:30:53.240] Recent security breaches have exposed millions of passwords, so we know what people are choosing.
[01:30:53.240 --> 01:30:59.240] The most common password is 123456, followed by 12345.
[01:30:59.240 --> 01:31:01.240] I Love You is also in the top ten.
[01:31:01.240 --> 01:31:04.240] If your password is too easy, beef it up.
[01:31:04.240 --> 01:31:08.240] It takes just a few seconds to guess a password with seven lowercase letters,
[01:31:08.240 --> 01:31:12.240] but add capital letters and numbers and things get much harder.
[01:31:12.240 --> 01:31:16.240] Add some other character like a dollar sign and increase the length to ten characters,
[01:31:16.240 --> 01:31:20.240] and suddenly cracking your password is virtually impossible.
[01:31:20.240 --> 01:31:22.240] And that's good security.
[01:31:22.240 --> 01:31:27.240] Contact at Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:53.240 --> 01:31:58.240] I'm the father who lost his son. We are Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.240 --> 01:32:01.240] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.240 --> 01:32:05.240] After work, I'm so tired that I want to be left alone to sleep.
[01:32:05.240 --> 01:32:08.240] Hey, listen to me. Who are you?
[01:32:08.240 --> 01:32:13.240] I knew years ago when you felt healthy and young and everything worked on your body. Do you remember that?
[01:32:13.240 --> 01:32:15.240] Yes, I wish I felt like that now.
[01:32:15.240 --> 01:32:20.240] You can feel like that again with a new micro-plant powder formulation called iodine now.
[01:32:20.240 --> 01:32:24.240] It cleans the entire body from head to toe and feeds the body what it really needs.
[01:32:24.240 --> 01:32:28.240] You'll be in a better mood and you'll find more drive in your romantic life.
[01:32:28.240 --> 01:32:31.240] Really? I gotta try iodine now and feel good again.
[01:32:31.240 --> 01:32:35.240] It also protects you from radiation, heavy metals, fluoride, chlorine and bromine,
[01:32:35.240 --> 01:32:40.240] including cancer and most major diseases. You'll be amazed. You can be your own doctor.
[01:32:40.240 --> 01:32:43.240] I want to keep you out of the hospital and on pharmaceuticals.
[01:32:43.240 --> 01:32:46.240] Wow. Why are you so nice to me?
[01:32:46.240 --> 01:32:49.240] Because I'm you. You're out of shape and I need a better looking future.
[01:32:49.240 --> 01:32:52.240] Call 888-910-4367.
[01:32:52.240 --> 01:32:55.240] That's 888-910-4367.
[01:32:55.240 --> 01:33:00.240] Or visit micro-plant powder dot com, micro-plant powder dot com.
[01:33:03.240 --> 01:33:10.240] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at Logos Radio Network dot com.
[01:33:10.240 --> 01:33:18.240] Yeah, and we want to check who you take me for free toilet.
[01:33:18.240 --> 01:33:21.240] You can't cheat me.
[01:33:21.240 --> 01:33:24.240] Don't let them chip you in the morning, chip you in the evening.
[01:33:24.240 --> 01:33:28.240] Put a chip in your body and anyway you go computer reading.
[01:33:28.240 --> 01:33:30.240] You can't hide me from nobody.
[01:33:30.240 --> 01:33:35.240] Let me say chip in on your mom, chip in on your daddy, chip in on your grandpa,
[01:33:35.240 --> 01:33:40.240] chip in on me, chip in on your baby, chip in on your family,
[01:33:40.240 --> 01:33:43.240] chip in on your dad and they check around me,
[01:33:43.240 --> 01:33:46.240] chip in on the beef and you still got EP, chip in on the fish,
[01:33:46.240 --> 01:33:48.240] them all in the sea.
[01:33:48.240 --> 01:33:50.240] Alright folks, we are back.
[01:33:50.240 --> 01:33:55.240] This is Room of Law Radio and we are talking with Adam in Texas.
[01:33:55.240 --> 01:34:00.240] Alright Adam, you're talking about the need to go get a class C driver's license.
[01:34:00.240 --> 01:34:05.240] Now that you're starting a new job that's going to require you to travel to places and do surveys,
[01:34:05.240 --> 01:34:08.240] are you going to be going in your own car or in a company car?
[01:34:08.240 --> 01:34:10.240] It'll be a company car.
[01:34:10.240 --> 01:34:12.240] Okay, alright, go ahead.
[01:34:12.240 --> 01:34:20.240] So my question is, what advice would you give me now that I'm going to go contract with the state for this class and driver's license?
[01:34:20.240 --> 01:34:26.240] Well, the license still only applies when you're engaged in an activity to which it relates.
[01:34:26.240 --> 01:34:30.240] Just because you have it doesn't mean you're always using it.
[01:34:30.240 --> 01:34:32.240] Yes sir, I understand that.
[01:34:32.240 --> 01:34:38.240] But is there things I can do, like I heard you talking one time about,
[01:34:38.240 --> 01:34:46.240] making sure that your social security number is nowhere in the contract with them and they don't have the right to it anyway.
[01:34:46.240 --> 01:34:48.240] How do I enforce that right?
[01:34:48.240 --> 01:34:53.240] Well, here's something I forced the DPS to do.
[01:34:53.240 --> 01:35:00.240] The DPS actually has a little bitty slip of paper that you tell them that you do not have a social security number.
[01:35:00.240 --> 01:35:07.240] Now remember, they're going to make you sign this thing in front of a notary under penalty of perjury.
[01:35:07.240 --> 01:35:12.240] This is their way of trying to make you give up the number if you have one,
[01:35:12.240 --> 01:35:17.240] even though there's no law that allows them to force you to give it up.
[01:35:17.240 --> 01:35:21.240] In fact, there's law that specifically prohibits it.
[01:35:21.240 --> 01:35:30.240] And part of that law very clearly states under the Privacy Act of 1974 that they are only protected by making it mandatory
[01:35:30.240 --> 01:35:38.240] if the program under which they're demanding it required the social prior to 1975.
[01:35:38.240 --> 01:35:40.240] And it does not.
[01:35:40.240 --> 01:35:47.240] Texas did not make the social security mandatory until much later.
[01:35:47.240 --> 01:35:48.240] Right.
[01:35:48.240 --> 01:35:52.240] So they're not protected.
[01:35:52.240 --> 01:36:01.240] Also, I mean, isn't there something about like, I mean, if I go when I go in to renew it,
[01:36:01.240 --> 01:36:04.240] because it's been, you know, it's gone through full expiration.
[01:36:04.240 --> 01:36:11.240] When I go into renew it, isn't there something, I mean, can I request this form?
[01:36:11.240 --> 01:36:12.240] Well, here's the problem.
[01:36:12.240 --> 01:36:20.240] When you go in to renew it, yes, you can request that form, but that your social is the least of your problems nowadays.
[01:36:20.240 --> 01:36:23.240] Now they're going to do biometric information on you.
[01:36:23.240 --> 01:36:30.240] You take your photo, they're going to take a 3D photo of your face to do facial recognition mapping.
[01:36:30.240 --> 01:36:35.240] When you do the eye test, you're going to get retina scanned and never even know it.
[01:36:35.240 --> 01:36:44.240] And eventually they're going to take blood, urine, and stem cells if at the rate things are going.
[01:36:44.240 --> 01:36:45.240] All right.
[01:36:45.240 --> 01:36:49.240] So they're going to compel you to give up everything.
[01:36:49.240 --> 01:36:50.240] Yeah.
[01:36:50.240 --> 01:36:54.240] What about the implied consent, you know, that despises?
[01:36:54.240 --> 01:36:59.240] Well, they say that the consent is implied by acceptance.
[01:36:59.240 --> 01:37:05.240] I say that the moment I deny consent, the implication is gone.
[01:37:05.240 --> 01:37:14.240] You can't say that consent is implied if the implication requires me to waive a right to exercise a privilege.
[01:37:14.240 --> 01:37:15.240] That is forbidden.
[01:37:15.240 --> 01:37:17.240] You can't do that.
[01:37:17.240 --> 01:37:24.240] You cannot compel me to waive a right in order to exercise a privilege.
[01:37:24.240 --> 01:37:31.240] Nor can you convert a right into a privilege and then charge me a fee to exercise it.
[01:37:31.240 --> 01:37:38.240] But the problem is that either I can bring all that up to whatever, you know, DGS clerks in that office,
[01:37:38.240 --> 01:37:40.240] that that's whatever office I go to.
[01:37:40.240 --> 01:37:44.240] But the only thing that's going to result from that is they're just going to say,
[01:37:44.240 --> 01:37:46.240] okay, we're not going to issue you a class teacher.
[01:37:46.240 --> 01:37:47.240] Exactly.
[01:37:47.240 --> 01:37:52.240] And now you have been injured.
[01:37:52.240 --> 01:37:58.240] Now you have standing to sue.
[01:37:58.240 --> 01:38:03.240] Unfortunate, but it's the only remedy you're going to have.
[01:38:03.240 --> 01:38:05.240] Here's the problem.
[01:38:05.240 --> 01:38:14.240] That means that if the job requires you to have it, you're going to lose out on that job because you didn't comply for them to issue it.
[01:38:14.240 --> 01:38:22.240] Despite the fact that the demand to issue it was violated of your rights to receive it in the first place.
[01:38:22.240 --> 01:38:26.240] So you're not only going to be harmed in the deprivation of rights issue,
[01:38:26.240 --> 01:38:30.240] you're going to be harmed economically because you're going to lose on the job,
[01:38:30.240 --> 01:38:35.240] which I don't know your financial state that may not be acceptable at all.
[01:38:35.240 --> 01:38:45.240] In which case you acquiesce to get the license, you have no standing to sue because your acquiescence will be conspired as voluntary.
[01:38:45.240 --> 01:38:46.240] Right.
[01:38:46.240 --> 01:38:59.240] The whole system is designed to put you in a catch 22 choice versus consequence in order to prevent you from fighting back.
[01:38:59.240 --> 01:39:07.240] I agree with that. So I mean, you know, I don't want to contract with them, but it's a good opportunity for me.
[01:39:07.240 --> 01:39:10.240] I'm just, you know, I'm American like anybody else trying to make in this world.
[01:39:10.240 --> 01:39:13.240] Yeah, but unfortunately they don't want a free American.
[01:39:13.240 --> 01:39:17.240] They want an American slave of the new generation.
[01:39:17.240 --> 01:39:18.240] I understand.
[01:39:18.240 --> 01:39:32.240] So, well, what so, so if I do take it and I do it and I go through all their written scans and everything so I can, so that I can make a living, a decent living for my family.
[01:39:32.240 --> 01:39:34.240] Then here's what's going to happen.
[01:39:34.240 --> 01:39:40.240] I think I know what you're going to ask correctly if I'm wrong, but here's what I foresee happening from this point forward.
[01:39:40.240 --> 01:39:49.240] Once you accept the license, anytime you get stopped and they demand it and you don't produce it, they're going to use that as a hammer to beat you.
[01:39:49.240 --> 01:40:07.240] And when they beat you, one of the methods they're going to use in the blow they're going to strike is to cause bad reports on your license, which may affect your ability to remain employed, or a direct suspension of your license, which will definitely affect your ability to remain employed.
[01:40:07.240 --> 01:40:09.240] Real quick to suspend.
[01:40:09.240 --> 01:40:10.240] Oh, yeah.
[01:40:10.240 --> 01:40:14.240] And that's exactly the kind of stuff they're going to try to do.
[01:40:14.240 --> 01:40:20.240] So once again, you have to understand what they can and they cannot do in relation to those things.
[01:40:20.240 --> 01:40:36.240] And you need to study case law on the subject about that when the license is associated with the ability to provide a living for oneself and one's family, they can't just arbitrarily suspend the license or take it away.
[01:40:36.240 --> 01:40:41.240] They have to have a hearing and everything else.
[01:40:41.240 --> 01:40:47.240] They have to provide due process before they can take it, but they don't do it.
[01:40:47.240 --> 01:40:58.240] They give you an administrative hearing, which there is no way that's due process because due process rules don't apply.
[01:40:58.240 --> 01:41:11.240] Oh, it's just so... I don't know what to think anymore. I don't know what to do. It's hard. It's hard to be a real American these days, but...
[01:41:11.240 --> 01:41:17.240] Well, you got to remember whose definition of real American they're wanting you to operate under.
[01:41:17.240 --> 01:41:21.240] There's versus yours.
[01:41:21.240 --> 01:41:31.240] Well, y'all got to keep doing what y'all are doing and if I ever, you know, get to a point where I can contribute to y'all's effort, I sure as heck will.
[01:41:31.240 --> 01:41:36.240] But until then, Godspeed, and we sure appreciate what y'all do.
[01:41:36.240 --> 01:41:42.240] All right. Well, thanks, Adam. We appreciate the listenership that believes in what we do.
[01:41:42.240 --> 01:41:43.240] All right.
[01:41:43.240 --> 01:41:44.240] Yeah, y'all have a good evening.
[01:41:44.240 --> 01:41:47.240] All right, you too. Thanks for calling in.
[01:41:47.240 --> 01:41:48.240] Bye.
[01:41:48.240 --> 01:41:49.240] Bye-bye.
[01:41:49.240 --> 01:41:56.240] And that leaves us with Rob in Illinois, which we've got one more segment after this, folks.
[01:41:56.240 --> 01:42:00.240] So, 512-646-1984 is a call-in number.
[01:42:00.240 --> 01:42:05.240] All right, Rob, I got about a minute and a half before break. What do you got?
[01:42:05.240 --> 01:42:15.240] That's great. Eddie, I can either give out my email or a phone number to a friend of mine who can help Mohammed out with his little banking issue.
[01:42:15.240 --> 01:42:18.240] Okay. Go ahead. If Mohammed's still listening, be my guest.
[01:42:18.240 --> 01:42:31.240] Mohammed, I'm going to give you a phone number. His name is Richard, and the phone number is 401-226-5961.
[01:42:31.240 --> 01:42:42.240] I'll repeat that number again. His name is Richard, and his phone number is 401-226-5961.
[01:42:42.240 --> 01:42:48.240] And that's for anybody who's having any sort of leans or levies of any sort.
[01:42:48.240 --> 01:42:54.240] Just give that my friend, Richard, a call, and he's got some information that can help people out.
[01:42:54.240 --> 01:42:55.240] Okay.
[01:42:55.240 --> 01:43:04.240] And if they're stealing from you, this guy knows. I don't know about Mohammed's specific issue, but at least this is a start.
[01:43:04.240 --> 01:43:08.240] Let's see what else. We got about 30 seconds, Eddie.
[01:43:08.240 --> 01:43:10.240] About 20.
[01:43:10.240 --> 01:43:20.240] Okay. That's about it. It's warm up here in Chicago. We got a 77-degree day, and it's almost November. How's the weather down by you?
[01:43:20.240 --> 01:43:29.240] It's actually fairly cool right now through the course of the day compared to how it's been, but it can still get warm enough for a little while.
[01:43:29.240 --> 01:43:31.240] Yeah. Well, we'll take it.
[01:43:31.240 --> 01:43:33.240] Most certainly.
[01:43:33.240 --> 01:43:35.240] Oh, yeah. Well, thank you, Eddie.
[01:43:35.240 --> 01:43:37.240] You're welcome. Thanks for calling in.
[01:43:37.240 --> 01:43:38.240] Okay. Thanks.
[01:43:38.240 --> 01:43:47.240] All right, folks. That clears my caller board. I need somebody to talk to in this next segment. 512-646-1984.
[01:43:47.240 --> 01:43:54.240] Or I can go back to reading if I don't get anybody. So y'all hang in there, and we'll be right back after this break.
[01:44:00.240 --> 01:44:04.240] You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.240 --> 01:44:05.240] Sorry.
[01:44:05.240 --> 01:44:08.240] What if I was diagnosed by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:08.240 --> 01:44:09.240] What?
[01:44:09.240 --> 01:44:13.240] If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.240 --> 01:44:20.240] Hi. My name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:20.240 --> 01:44:26.240] I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:26.240 --> 01:44:31.240] Unfortunately, that was most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:31.240 --> 01:44:36.240] Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sport-zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.240 --> 01:44:43.240] And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.240 --> 01:44:55.240] So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.240 --> 01:45:01.240] The effects of using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.240 --> 01:45:04.240] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.240 --> 01:45:14.240] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:14.240 --> 01:45:16.240] step-by-step.
[01:45:16.240 --> 01:45:19.240] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.240 --> 01:45:23.240] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.240 --> 01:45:28.240] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.240 --> 01:45:34.240] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.240 --> 01:45:43.240] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.240 --> 01:45:52.240] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.240 --> 01:45:56.240] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:56.240 --> 01:46:22.240] Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:26.240 --> 01:46:53.240] All right, folks, we are back.
[01:46:53.240 --> 01:46:56.240] This is rule of law radio.
[01:46:56.240 --> 01:46:59.240] Like I say, it's calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:46:59.240 --> 01:47:03.240] I've got three people lined up here now that haven't been screened yet.
[01:47:03.240 --> 01:47:08.240] So I'll wait for that to happen, and then I'll start taking the calls as they pop back up.
[01:47:08.240 --> 01:47:15.240] But folks, if you get the opportunity, do a search on the Internet for jail for judges.
[01:47:15.240 --> 01:47:23.240] And jail is an acronym, so it's J-period, A-period, I-period, L-period for judges.
[01:47:23.240 --> 01:47:27.240] And sometimes it's the number 4, and sometimes it's the word 4.
[01:47:27.240 --> 01:47:33.240] But find the original website for it, read what it's all about, and you'll see what this is.
[01:47:33.240 --> 01:47:44.240] I actually have a copy of the legislation that was written for the United States Congress to work on, but, of course, it never saw the light of day in Congress.
[01:47:44.240 --> 01:47:49.240] Why? Because Congress is entirely controlled by lawyers.
[01:47:49.240 --> 01:47:53.240] Almost everybody on Capitol Hill is a lawyer.
[01:47:53.240 --> 01:48:13.240] The very people that are forbidden to be on the congressional legislative side of anything by the separation of powers doctrine have invaded every department and branch of government for the purpose of altering our system and established government form.
[01:48:13.240 --> 01:48:18.240] And that's irrefutably true.
[01:48:18.240 --> 01:48:25.240] It's not even arguable at this point that that's not what's happened, because it is what's happened.
[01:48:25.240 --> 01:48:36.240] Lawyers are forbidden by the separation of powers because they are de facto judicial officers from acting in a legislative or executive capacity.
[01:48:36.240 --> 01:48:45.240] If they do so, they're in violation of the separation of powers clause, both at the federal level and if they're in state at the state level.
[01:48:45.240 --> 01:49:05.240] But once again, we the people who are responsible for enforcing our own law of government against the government are being forbidden by the children to punish them for their acts in our house.
[01:49:05.240 --> 01:49:07.240] How is that supposed to work?
[01:49:07.240 --> 01:49:09.240] Yep, we're letting them get away with it.
[01:49:09.240 --> 01:49:13.240] And I've yet to figure out how they continue to get away with it.
[01:49:13.240 --> 01:49:21.240] If Americans are supposedly waking up, how can you declare you're awake and not see this for what it is?
[01:49:21.240 --> 01:49:25.240] All right, right now we're going to go to Jack in Texas.
[01:49:25.240 --> 01:49:27.240] Jack, what do you got?
[01:49:27.240 --> 01:49:36.240] I've been listening to your material and so forth and I'm getting ready to order your program and I was just curious.
[01:49:36.240 --> 01:49:44.240] I hadn't seen you mention what the procedure was if you were involved in a wreck or something of that nature.
[01:49:44.240 --> 01:49:46.240] Well, what are the charges?
[01:49:46.240 --> 01:49:47.240] You handle yourself.
[01:49:47.240 --> 01:49:53.240] Are we talking about a criminal case for speeding or failure to maintain assured clear distance?
[01:49:53.240 --> 01:49:56.240] Or are we talking about a civil suit for the accident?
[01:49:56.240 --> 01:49:57.240] Well, I don't know.
[01:49:57.240 --> 01:50:05.240] I was just thinking, I was just wondering how, because normally in a wreck situation you're exchanging driver's licenses or whatever.
[01:50:05.240 --> 01:50:13.240] Yeah, but that just means that you're civilly liable to the other person for the accident if you caused it.
[01:50:13.240 --> 01:50:18.240] Then you have the issue of were you issued a ticket by anybody for the accident?
[01:50:18.240 --> 01:50:21.240] Well, I wasn't having been in a wreck.
[01:50:21.240 --> 01:50:23.240] I was just trying to plan ahead.
[01:50:23.240 --> 01:50:29.240] Okay, in the case of an accident, the way it normally works is this.
[01:50:29.240 --> 01:50:32.240] The cops show up after the fact.
[01:50:32.240 --> 01:50:40.240] They interview everybody and then they'll issue citations, which is in violation of law.
[01:50:40.240 --> 01:50:53.240] The law that allows them to issue citations for traffic infraction specifically requires that the officer witness the infraction or the offense.
[01:50:53.240 --> 01:51:00.240] That is in 543 of the transportation code, 543.001.
[01:51:00.240 --> 01:51:12.240] And any peace officer may arrest without warrant any person found committing a violation of this subtitle.
[01:51:12.240 --> 01:51:22.240] It does not say any person that has previously or is currently committing a violation of this subtitle.
[01:51:22.240 --> 01:51:26.240] It has to be done in the officer's presence or view.
[01:51:26.240 --> 01:51:31.240] They show up and write the citation after the fact it is hearsay.
[01:51:31.240 --> 01:51:33.240] It is complete and utter hearsay.
[01:51:33.240 --> 01:51:36.240] There's no way for that ticket to stand up.
[01:51:36.240 --> 01:51:43.240] The officer didn't witness anything and the officer cannot testify to what the other person witnessed.
[01:51:43.240 --> 01:51:49.240] The only way they can do it is to get the other party to come in and testify against you.
[01:51:49.240 --> 01:51:53.240] The problem is the ticket was illegal.
[01:51:53.240 --> 01:52:02.240] This court has no jurisdiction to hear anything on the citation because the citation was illegally issued.
[01:52:02.240 --> 01:52:16.240] Therefore, the only thing that remains legally is the civil liability either through the insurance company's payment of a claim or a civil tort suit to force them to pay the claim.
[01:52:16.240 --> 01:52:25.240] Anyone else should not be involved in it, but those are the two ways it's got to go and one of them is absolutely illegal.
[01:52:25.240 --> 01:52:35.240] Now, if the officer did see it and wrote a citation for it, then it all depends upon what your legal capacity was at the time versus your private capacity.
[01:52:35.240 --> 01:52:42.240] If you were acting entirely in your private capacity, the citation is still illegal and the only recourse here is civil.
[01:52:42.240 --> 01:52:52.240] But that's not going to stop them from writing the ticket and claiming a jurisdiction they don't have by accusing you of operating in a regular capacity in which you weren't.
[01:52:52.240 --> 01:52:55.240] Was that too fast and too much?
[01:52:55.240 --> 01:52:59.240] No, I got all that.
[01:52:59.240 --> 01:53:00.240] I got all that.
[01:53:00.240 --> 01:53:10.240] I'm just trying to think about how I would proceed in that situation if once you get the tickets and all that.
[01:53:10.240 --> 01:53:19.240] You would proceed the same way and everything that you do depends on what you do at the time that the stop is made and the ticket is issued.
[01:53:19.240 --> 01:53:23.240] You have to treat every encounter with them like it's a traffic stop.
[01:53:23.240 --> 01:53:29.240] If they issue a ticket, the same procedures apply regardless of when, where, and how that ticket's being issued.
[01:53:29.240 --> 01:53:36.240] Everything that's in the transportation script, if you're going to argue, not engage in transportation, applies.
[01:53:36.240 --> 01:53:42.240] If you're going to try to go to merits, then everything you do applies.
[01:53:42.240 --> 01:53:50.240] And you have to understand the statutes and the legal requirements of what they have to prove in order to make a merits argument and win.
[01:53:50.240 --> 01:54:03.240] Don't bank on that happening because they don't prove all the necessary elements and therefore do not give you the ability to prove that they didn't prove all of the elements.
[01:54:03.240 --> 01:54:09.240] Okay.
[01:54:09.240 --> 01:54:21.240] So until you know all of the rules better than them, your ability to attack them on merits is extremely slim.
[01:54:21.240 --> 01:54:24.240] Right.
[01:54:24.240 --> 01:54:34.240] Well, you were talking earlier about the driver's license. Is it something that we don't even need if we're not going to be involved commercially?
[01:54:34.240 --> 01:54:37.240] That is exactly correct.
[01:54:37.240 --> 01:54:44.240] All licenses are commercial. I don't care what they try to convince you of, prove how it can be otherwise.
[01:54:44.240 --> 01:55:01.240] The state only has authority to regulate certain activities that are not occupations of common right and only that are commercial because nowhere did we ever delegate authority to regulate the private activities of the people to our government.
[01:55:01.240 --> 01:55:10.240] And we can't because that would mean that we would have to have the individual power to regulate our neighbor's business of a private nature.
[01:55:10.240 --> 01:55:21.240] And we don't. And if we don't have that power, how can we delegate it to an agent to exercise it for us when we don't even possess it?
[01:55:21.240 --> 01:55:33.240] That's like me giving away my neighbor's car to a complete stranger just because he said he wanted to be able to go up north.
[01:55:33.240 --> 01:55:41.240] And I say, well, my neighbor's got a car sitting over there. It looks like it's in pretty good shape. Go ahead and take that one. I don't have the authority to give away my neighbor's car.
[01:55:41.240 --> 01:55:46.240] It doesn't matter if the car is registered with license plates and all that type of thing.
[01:55:46.240 --> 01:55:57.240] Well, the same thing applies. That is only required if you're going to use the car for commercial purposes. If you're not, none of that applies.
[01:55:57.240 --> 01:56:02.240] Oh, okay.
[01:56:02.240 --> 01:56:07.240] Do you know, do you have people here in the Dallas area that are doing that?
[01:56:07.240 --> 01:56:14.240] As a matter of fact, yes. Harmon Taylor is there in the Dallas area and he fights that issue constantly.
[01:56:14.240 --> 01:56:16.240] Yeah.
[01:56:16.240 --> 01:56:22.240] That would be, I'd like to get in touch with some people that you have here and get your program and get plugged into that.
[01:56:22.240 --> 01:56:33.240] Well, I don't have any people there per se. I don't know where everyone. I know there are lots of people that come from Dallas and Houston and Corpus Christi and places like that.
[01:56:33.240 --> 01:56:40.240] That are, you know, they study this and understand what I'm talking about with it.
[01:56:40.240 --> 01:56:50.240] But once we get the Tile of Law website set up, finding those people is going to be fairly easy. Organizing with them will be fairly easy and holding meetings with them will be fairly easy.
[01:56:50.240 --> 01:56:59.240] Right now, though, I don't keep a list of contacts in any particular area because I do not have time to manage that type of resource list.
[01:56:59.240 --> 01:57:01.240] What do you expect to have your side up?
[01:57:01.240 --> 01:57:07.240] That, again, is a good question. Right now, there's only two of us doing anything towards getting it done.
[01:57:07.240 --> 01:57:20.240] I'm trying to develop content that's going to be on it and a friend of mine is the one that's doing the actual coding and building of the site based upon the criteria and necessities that we discuss for what it has to do.
[01:57:20.240 --> 01:57:33.240] So there's no way to know that because both of us are only able to work on it as we can, which is unfortunate, but we don't have any financial backing to make it otherwise.
[01:57:33.240 --> 01:57:40.240] If we had money that would allow us to work on it full time and still pay our bills, that would be one thing, but we don't.
[01:57:40.240 --> 01:57:50.240] Everything that we're doing is entirely of our own, either voluntary nature or out of our own pockets.
[01:57:50.240 --> 01:58:01.240] So I don't have a definitive answer for that. I apologize. I know it's costed me more to keep the server up and ready to go than what I'm making because I'm not making anything off of it.
[01:58:01.240 --> 01:58:07.240] All right, so anything else we can answer for you, Jack?
[01:58:07.240 --> 01:58:10.240] No, I appreciate your help. Thank you.
[01:58:10.240 --> 01:58:12.240] Yes, sir. Thanks for calling in.
[01:58:12.240 --> 01:58:18.240] All right, Truth Raider, once again, man, sorry. We are at the close of the show and I'm not going to be able to get to you.
[01:58:18.240 --> 01:58:24.240] Please email me or call in next week or on Thursday or Friday if you need something to talk about right away.
[01:58:24.240 --> 01:58:33.240] All right, folks, this has been the Money Knot rule of law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig. I want to thank you all for listening and for calling in.
[01:58:33.240 --> 01:58:42.240] We greatly appreciate you. Please go to the website and either donate to Logos or donate to me or to whoever of us you want to.
[01:58:42.240 --> 01:58:47.240] We could definitely use the financial support. I know I could. I don't have enough to go around.
[01:58:47.240 --> 01:58:50.240] All right, folks, good night. God bless.
[01:58:50.240 --> 01:58:58.240] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.240 --> 01:59:08.240] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.240 --> 01:59:20.240] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.240 --> 01:59:30.240] 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.
[01:59:30.240 --> 01:59:41.240] This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.240 --> 02:00:00.240] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.