ROL_2016-03-07_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:05.840 --> 00:08.360]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.360 --> 00:21.240]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.240 --> 00:26.600]  Markets for Monday, 7th of March, 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,265.40
[00:26.600 --> 00:34.120]  an ounce, silver $15.62 an ounce, Texas crude $35.92 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently
[00:34.120 --> 00:43.040]  sitting at about $416 U.S. currency.
[00:43.040 --> 00:48.320]  Today in history, the year 1530, King Henry VIII's request for divorce to Catherine of
[00:48.320 --> 00:51.200]  Aragon is denied by Pope Clement VII.
[00:51.200 --> 00:55.240]  This led to King Henry claiming the title of the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
[00:55.240 --> 01:02.960]  The Anglican Church had its schism from Rome today in history.
[01:02.960 --> 01:07.480]  In recent news, Kyle Andrew Odom, a 30-year-old ex-Marine, is still on the run as of today
[01:07.480 --> 01:12.160]  for the suspected shooting of Idaho Minister Tim Remington six times right outside of his
[01:12.160 --> 01:15.800]  church yesterday, the Altar Church, where he is a senior pastor.
[01:15.800 --> 01:19.880]  Odom is considered armed and dangerous by police and is believed to be driving a 2004
[01:19.880 --> 01:20.880]  Silver Honda Accord.
[01:20.880 --> 01:25.160]  Luckily, Pastor Remington was upgraded to fair condition today at the Kootenai Health
[01:25.160 --> 01:26.160]  and Medical Center.
[01:26.160 --> 01:30.560]  Though the motive is unknown as of yet, the shooting came a day after Remington delivered
[01:30.560 --> 01:34.720]  an invocation at a rally for Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.
[01:34.720 --> 01:40.080]  Odom was a flight technician for the Marine Corps from 2006 to 2010 at Camp Pendleton
[01:40.080 --> 01:41.080]  in California.
[01:41.080 --> 01:45.120]  He was awarded an Iraq campaign medal with one star, according to publicly available
[01:45.120 --> 01:50.120]  documents.
[01:50.120 --> 01:53.840]  A new species of octopus was discovered during a search of the ocean floor by a remotely
[01:53.840 --> 01:58.320]  operated vehicle from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Okeanos
[01:58.320 --> 01:59.480]  Explorer.
[01:59.480 --> 02:03.800]  On February 27th of this year, a team of scientists found a small, light-colored, ghost-like
[02:03.800 --> 02:09.840]  octopus at a depth of about two-and-a-half miles by Nucker Island near the Hawaiian Islands.
[02:09.840 --> 02:14.160]  Several scientists agree that this is something unusual and is a depth record for an octopus
[02:14.160 --> 02:19.040]  without fins.
[02:19.040 --> 02:22.680]  Genovation Cars in Rockville, Maryland is now certified by the International Mile Racing
[02:22.680 --> 02:26.160]  Association as constructing the world's fastest street-legal electric car.
[02:26.160 --> 02:29.920]  The all-electric prototype Chevy Corvette, dubbed the Genovation Extreme Electric or
[02:29.920 --> 02:34.480]  the GXEAS, hit a record breaking 186.8 miles per hour.
[02:34.480 --> 02:38.720]  The previous record was set at 177 by a Finnish prototype car.
[02:38.720 --> 02:43.920]  The GXE is based on a 2006 Z06 Corvette, which includes a state-of-the-art battery management
[02:43.920 --> 02:49.120]  system, inverters, batteries, and an electric motor that delivers over 700 horsepower and
[02:49.120 --> 02:50.840]  600 foot-pounds of torque.
[02:50.840 --> 02:55.840]  The car has a range of 130 miles during normal driving operation on a fully charged battery.
[02:55.840 --> 03:24.960]  This was your Lowdown for March 7, 2016.
[03:56.840 --> 04:00.840]  For all the people to see.
[04:00.840 --> 04:04.840]  That's just as good as one thing you should always find.
[04:04.840 --> 04:08.840]  You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line.
[04:08.840 --> 04:14.840]  When the guns won't settle, we'll sing a victory tune and we'll all be back at the
[04:14.840 --> 04:16.840]  horse and moat.
[04:16.840 --> 04:21.840]  We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing.
[04:21.840 --> 04:32.840]  Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.
[04:32.840 --> 04:35.840]  We ain't got too many gangsters, do we?
[04:35.840 --> 04:37.840]  Dirty deans.
[04:37.840 --> 04:40.840]  Too much corruption and crime in the streets.
[04:40.840 --> 04:44.840]  Stand the long arm of the law, put a few more in the ground.
[04:44.840 --> 04:50.840]  I'm all to the maker and he'll settle on down.
[04:50.840 --> 04:53.840]  You can bet he'll settle down.
[04:53.840 --> 04:55.840]  All right, folks, good evening.
[04:55.840 --> 04:59.840]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[04:59.840 --> 05:05.840]  I had to let that last verse go on there for a little bit because we're getting to a point
[05:05.840 --> 05:11.840]  where that's desperately going to need to be the case, where we send them on down, so
[05:11.840 --> 05:18.840]  to speak, because these people that we call our respective public servants at whatever
[05:18.840 --> 05:22.840]  level don't believe they're servants.
[05:22.840 --> 05:29.840]  They believe they're masters, that they own the house rather than serve the house, the
[05:29.840 --> 05:34.840]  house, of course, being you and I.
[05:34.840 --> 05:43.840]  We have allowed them to become entitlement-minded, privileged receiving, and thus assume ownership
[05:43.840 --> 05:50.840]  of more than they were ever authorized to have.
[05:50.840 --> 05:56.840]  Now, what I want to talk about tonight is an article that I posted up on my blog site,
[05:56.840 --> 06:08.840]  which is tauoflaw.wordpress.com, T-A-O-O-F-L-A-W.wordpress.com, and this article is
[06:08.840 --> 06:14.840]  titled, Challenging the Complaint in a Transportation-Related Offense.
[06:14.840 --> 06:19.840]  Failure to state all legal elements means insufficient substance and notice.
[06:19.840 --> 06:21.840]  All right.
[06:21.840 --> 06:23.840]  I'm going to go through this paragraph by paragraph.
[06:23.840 --> 06:28.840]  The phones are off until I get through presenting this material and discussing what I've got
[06:28.840 --> 06:32.840]  in it so that we can get through without interruption.
[06:32.840 --> 06:37.840]  It will take a few segments, so we probably will not be taking calls until after the top
[06:37.840 --> 06:38.840]  of the hour.
[06:38.840 --> 06:40.840]  If we get done sooner, I'll announce it sooner.
[06:40.840 --> 06:46.840]  But for the time being, the phones are off, so if you cannot get into the caller bridge
[06:46.840 --> 06:49.840]  to get in line, that is why.
[06:49.840 --> 06:50.840]  Don't panic.
[06:50.840 --> 06:51.840]  We're not dead.
[06:51.840 --> 06:54.840]  We're not, you know, not live in Memorex.
[06:54.840 --> 06:59.840]  We're here, but I have to get this material presented uninterrupted or we'll never get
[06:59.840 --> 07:00.840]  it done.
[07:00.840 --> 07:05.840]  And this is important because this relates to how to challenge a criminal complaint in
[07:05.840 --> 07:12.840]  these transportation cases because these complaints and any charging instrument that goes with
[07:12.840 --> 07:19.840]  them is never legally sufficient to support the court's jurisdiction.
[07:19.840 --> 07:20.840]  Never.
[07:20.840 --> 07:26.840]  Absolutely, positively, 100% never.
[07:26.840 --> 07:33.840]  And this is the legal argument and facts that support that assertion.
[07:33.840 --> 07:38.840]  Elements stated in criminal complaint and related charging instruments is insufficient
[07:38.840 --> 07:43.840]  to charge an offense and provide notice of same.
[07:43.840 --> 07:48.840]  Respondent has never seen an accused individual in any alleged criminal offense allegedly
[07:48.840 --> 07:55.840]  perpetrated under the statutory scheme of the transportation code, including himself,
[07:55.840 --> 08:00.840]  provided with proper, sufficient, and timely notice of the allegations being made, nor
[08:00.840 --> 08:06.840]  of the necessary individual elements that he must understand and plead to for each charge,
[08:06.840 --> 08:13.840]  each of which state must also prove at trial in relation to that specific charge.
[08:13.840 --> 08:20.840]  Respondent has never seen a criminal complaint filed in such cases that complies with Respondent's
[08:20.840 --> 08:25.840]  fundamental right to procedural and substantive due process by receiving notice in the
[08:25.840 --> 08:28.840]  aforementioned required manner.
[08:28.840 --> 08:34.840]  This is not merely appealable error, but a knowing and willful violation of Respondent's
[08:34.840 --> 08:40.840]  right of due process through willful failure by the prosecution to provide proper, sufficient,
[08:40.840 --> 08:46.840]  and timely notice of the allegations and their individual elements, and the courts colluding
[08:46.840 --> 08:53.840]  with the prosecution to deny that right to each individual forcibly compelled under threat,
[08:53.840 --> 08:57.840]  duress, and coercion to appear before it.
[08:57.840 --> 09:03.840]  In the appeal and habeas petition of the second-degree murder case of Henderson v. Morgan,
[09:03.840 --> 09:10.840]  426 U.S. 637 and 1976, the United States Supreme Court stated,
[09:10.840 --> 09:16.840]  The question presented is whether a defendant may enter a voluntary plea of guilty to a
[09:16.840 --> 09:22.840]  charge of second-degree murder without being informed that intent to cause the death of
[09:22.840 --> 09:26.840]  his victim was an element of the offense.
[09:26.840 --> 09:31.840]  Henderson argued that since he was never informed of what specific criminal elements he was
[09:31.840 --> 09:38.840]  actually admitting to by his submitting of a plea, and that those omitted elements were
[09:38.840 --> 09:45.840]  a requisite of the offense charged, he could not have possibly made an informed and voluntary
[09:45.840 --> 09:53.840]  plea, which begs the question, how is it constitutionally possible to provide the accused in any
[09:53.840 --> 10:00.840]  lesser class of criminal allegation with actual due process when the state is allowed to provide
[10:00.840 --> 10:07.840]  only partial notice of the required elements, if notice is actually provided at all, and
[10:07.840 --> 10:13.840]  then be held responsible at trial to prove only those that state chooses to allege in
[10:13.840 --> 10:19.840]  the charging instrument, rather than all that are required to exist before there could even
[10:19.840 --> 10:25.840]  be an offense committed, which then leads us to another question of an accused legal
[10:25.840 --> 10:30.840]  liability pertaining to an alleged offense for failure to perform a legal duty under
[10:30.840 --> 10:33.840]  a Malin Prohibitum statute.
[10:33.840 --> 10:39.840]  How can an offense be alleged under a Malin Prohibitum statute without specifically stating
[10:39.840 --> 10:45.840]  the primary subject matter that is required to be engaged in before the actual offense
[10:45.840 --> 10:52.840]  and its other related elements can legally exist and be charged, which presents another
[10:52.840 --> 10:57.840]  due process issue within Texas courts in relation to the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[10:57.840 --> 11:02.840]  that of allowing the court to enter a default plea of not guilty for an accused, despite
[11:02.840 --> 11:08.840]  the fact that the defendant has never given proper, or was never given, proper sufficient
[11:08.840 --> 11:13.840]  and timely notice of the charges and their required elements in order to make any sort
[11:13.840 --> 11:16.840]  of informed and voluntary plea.
[11:16.840 --> 11:22.840]  These courts routinely and intentionally construe a declamation to enter a plea as an outright
[11:22.840 --> 11:29.840]  refusal, despite the accused clearly stating that the reason that they cannot make an informed
[11:29.840 --> 11:34.840]  plea is because they're right to proper, sufficient, and timely notice of the allegations and
[11:34.840 --> 11:39.840]  the respective elements have not been met by the state.
[11:39.840 --> 11:45.840]  This is done in a combination of ways, usually beginning with conspiracy and collusion between
[11:45.840 --> 11:51.840]  the judge and the prosecutor to intentionally circumvent or outright refuse to comply with
[11:51.840 --> 11:58.840]  the mandatory provisions of Article 45.018B Code of Criminal Procedure.
[11:58.840 --> 12:04.840]  The language of Article 45.018B certainly appears to be creating a statutory right in
[12:04.840 --> 12:11.840]  favor of the accused, one requiring the state and the court to comply with its provisions.
[12:11.840 --> 12:17.840]  Despite this fact, these courts and prosecutors routinely fail to provide a copy of the complaint
[12:17.840 --> 12:24.840]  to the accused until the actual day of trial, or only after it has been demanded, and then
[12:24.840 --> 12:30.840]  only if the accused is knowledgeable enough to know that they have a right to it and should demand it.
[12:30.840 --> 12:36.840]  This failure to provide notice is fairly routine, despite the court and the prosecution being
[12:36.840 --> 12:41.840]  specifically directed in that the accused has a right to be served with the complaint,
[12:41.840 --> 12:47.840]  not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant
[12:47.840 --> 12:50.840]  under the complaint.
[12:50.840 --> 12:55.840]  When we read Article 45.018B, we can see where it is titled, Complaint.
[12:55.840 --> 13:00.840]  Subsection A reads, For the purposes of this chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation
[13:00.840 --> 13:03.840]  charging the accused with the commission of an offense.
[13:03.840 --> 13:09.840]  Subsection B reads, A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant
[13:09.840 --> 13:14.840]  not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant
[13:14.840 --> 13:16.840]  under the complaint.
[13:16.840 --> 13:21.840]  The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this section.
[13:21.840 --> 13:26.840]  Furthermore, the prosecutors in many jurisdictions simply disregard this failure to be provided
[13:26.840 --> 13:32.840]  service of the complaint as the fault of the accused themselves, because the prosecutor
[13:32.840 --> 13:38.840]  allegedly posted a copy of the complaint on some past date on some website that is totally
[13:38.840 --> 13:41.840]  unknown to the accused.
[13:41.840 --> 13:46.840]  And they make the claim that they have no liability to provide service or are in any way
[13:46.840 --> 13:51.840]  responsible for the denial of the right of due process for failure to provide proper,
[13:51.840 --> 13:57.840]  sufficient, and timely notice, even though they will readily admit that at no time is
[13:57.840 --> 14:02.840]  the accused ever provided with the necessary case file information and online location
[14:02.840 --> 14:06.840]  so as to access this copy of the complaint.
[14:06.840 --> 14:12.840]  However, service by the state on the day of trial denies the accused in the exercise of
[14:12.840 --> 14:18.840]  other rights to which he is rightfully entitled as a matter of both procedural and substantive
[14:18.840 --> 14:20.840]  due process.
[14:20.840 --> 14:25.840]  One such right is the right to challenge the form and substance of the complaint and any
[14:25.840 --> 14:27.840]  other charging instrument.
[14:27.840 --> 14:33.840]  As that right would be automatically denied as an operation of law, pursue it 45.019F,
[14:33.840 --> 14:39.840]  which reads, If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form
[14:39.840 --> 14:44.840]  or substance in a charging instrument before the date on which the trial on the merits
[14:44.840 --> 14:49.840]  commences, the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error,
[14:49.840 --> 14:51.840]  or irregularity.
[14:51.840 --> 14:55.840]  Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from requiring that an objection to
[14:55.840 --> 14:59.840]  a charging instrument be made at an earlier time.
[14:59.840 --> 15:06.840]  By making the argument that the state's failure to comply with the provisions of 45.018B by
[15:06.840 --> 15:12.840]  performing actual service of the complaint upon the accused, the court puts forth the
[15:12.840 --> 15:17.840]  concept that the state is not required to provide proper, sufficient, and timely notice
[15:17.840 --> 15:23.840]  of the allegations in a criminal manner, whether in whole or in part, thus creating the appearance
[15:23.840 --> 15:28.840]  that it isn't necessary because the game is already rigged so that the accused couldn't
[15:28.840 --> 15:30.840]  possibly win anyway.
[15:30.840 --> 15:35.840]  Furthermore, the likelihood of the accused properly and timely perfecting and following
[15:35.840 --> 15:39.840]  through with an appeal while complying with the intentionally misleading and disparate
[15:39.840 --> 15:44.840]  rules and procedures for doing so, depending upon whether the trial was held in the court
[15:44.840 --> 15:48.840]  of record versus the court of no record, is relatively small.
[15:48.840 --> 15:52.840]  So why would the prosecution and the court be required to comply with the statutory and
[15:52.840 --> 15:57.840]  due process rights that are normally required for every other form of criminal case for
[15:57.840 --> 16:03.840]  that conviction to be valid and withstand an appeal?
[16:03.840 --> 16:07.840]  Now I've got under a minute before we go to break, so I'm going to pause right there while
[16:07.840 --> 16:10.840]  we take the break when the time comes.
[16:10.840 --> 16:15.840]  But as you can see, we're addressing the issue where they never service with a copy of the
[16:15.840 --> 16:16.840]  complaint.
[16:16.840 --> 16:21.840]  And even if they did, the complaint is going to be insufficient on its face in form and
[16:21.840 --> 16:29.840]  in substance, at least, because it does not state all of the necessary elements that comprise
[16:29.840 --> 16:34.840]  the offense, which we will get to in detail as we get a little further down.
[16:34.840 --> 16:41.840]  All right, folks, again, the phones are off until after the presentation of this material,
[16:41.840 --> 16:44.840]  at which point I will turn it on.
[16:44.840 --> 16:48.840]  We're looks to be about a third of the way through this at the moment, so we will get
[16:48.840 --> 16:50.840]  back to this and continue on.
[16:50.840 --> 16:53.840]  And after we have completed this presentation, I'll turn the phones on.
[16:53.840 --> 16:55.840]  So y'all keep listening and hang in there.
[16:55.840 --> 16:59.840]  We'll be right back after this break.
[17:25.840 --> 17:52.840]  We'll be right back.
[17:55.840 --> 17:58.840]  We'll be right back.
[18:25.840 --> 18:32.840]  We'll be right back.
[18:55.840 --> 19:05.840]  We'll be right back.
[19:05.840 --> 19:32.840]  We'll be right back.
[19:32.840 --> 19:39.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[19:39.840 --> 19:41.840]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[19:41.840 --> 19:46.840]  All right, we are going on with this discussion of the criminal complaint.
[19:46.840 --> 19:52.840]  In Henderson, I bid the court went on to say, held, since respondent did not receive adequate
[19:52.840 --> 19:56.840]  notice of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, his plea was involuntary, and the
[19:56.840 --> 20:00.840]  judgment of conviction was entered without due process of law.
[20:00.840 --> 20:06.840]  The plea could not be voluntary in the sense that it constituted an intelligent admission
[20:06.840 --> 20:11.840]  that he committed the offense unless respondent received real notice of the true nature of
[20:11.840 --> 20:16.840]  the charges against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due
[20:16.840 --> 20:23.840]  process, citing Smith v. O'Grady 312 U.S. 329, 334.
[20:23.840 --> 20:28.840]  When the accused has not been given proper, sufficient, and timely notice, and the complaint
[20:28.840 --> 20:33.840]  and charging instruments are facially devoid of any allegation stating the existence of
[20:33.840 --> 20:39.840]  the primary subject matter element upon which the allegation itself must rely in order to
[20:39.840 --> 20:45.840]  be valid, there should be no question whatsoever that due process has been denied and that
[20:45.840 --> 20:50.840]  a conviction was invalid upon its face and must be overturned.
[20:50.840 --> 20:55.840]  This is precisely the issues that exist in every transportation-related prosecution that
[20:55.840 --> 21:00.840]  respondent has ever witnessed or having been a victimized party being forcibly compelled
[21:00.840 --> 21:06.840]  to participate against his and her will and without consent.
[21:06.840 --> 21:10.840]  The logic in what elements must be asserted in the charging instruments and then proven
[21:10.840 --> 21:16.840]  at trial in a transportation case is not difficult to understand, but they are extremely
[21:16.840 --> 21:21.840]  inconvenient for the state to admit to by fully informing the accused of every element.
[21:21.840 --> 21:25.840]  Even though the right of due process in the form of notice and evidentiary proof demands
[21:25.840 --> 21:27.840]  and requires it.
[21:27.840 --> 21:30.840]  Why is it inconvenient for the state to do so?
[21:30.840 --> 21:36.840]  Because it would provide the accused with an undeniable and absolute affirmative defense
[21:36.840 --> 21:41.840]  against prosecution in such cases when the state cannot assert and prove that the accused
[21:41.840 --> 21:46.840]  was ever gauged in the regulated subject matter of transportation.
[21:46.840 --> 21:51.840]  States fear in these cases that such an affirmative defense would surely have the subsequent effect
[21:51.840 --> 21:57.840]  of virtually drawing up the state and local political subdivisions, generation of obscene
[21:57.840 --> 22:02.840]  amounts of revenue through knowing and intentional perpetration of extortion and fraud upon the
[22:02.840 --> 22:04.840]  people.
[22:04.840 --> 22:09.840]  The legislature made it very clear in the title of SB 971, the statutory scheme that
[22:09.840 --> 22:15.840]  was to be created by it related to one subject and one subject only, transportation.
[22:15.840 --> 22:23.840]  The bill title of SB 971 reads, an act relating to the adoption of a non-substantive revision
[22:23.840 --> 22:32.840]  of statutes relating to transportation, including conforming amendments, repeals, and penalties.
[22:32.840 --> 22:36.840]  The evidence supporting the assertion that this is the one and only subject matter intended
[22:36.840 --> 22:44.840]  to be regulated by the legislature is found in Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution.
[22:44.840 --> 22:53.840]  Section 35, subjects and titles of bills reads, A, no bill shall contain more than one subject.
[22:53.840 --> 22:59.840]  That's paraphrased, of course, on subsection A.
[22:59.840 --> 23:04.840]  Anyone without an unlawful agenda and ulterior motive can see that the plain language of
[23:04.840 --> 23:10.840]  this constitutional provision tells us, just as the language in the title of SB 971 tells us,
[23:10.840 --> 23:17.840]  that the only subject matter intended to be regulated by SB 971 is that of transportation.
[23:17.840 --> 23:24.840]  Every single offense created and codified by SB 971 that can be alleged against an individual
[23:24.840 --> 23:30.840]  there under falls within the sole subject matter of transportation, thus making the
[23:30.840 --> 23:35.840]  primary element of any such alleged offense the clear assertion that the offense was committed
[23:35.840 --> 23:40.840]  while the accused individual was engaging in an act of transportation and which element
[23:40.840 --> 23:45.840]  must be specifically stated in the charging instrument. Why?
[23:45.840 --> 23:50.840]  Because the due process right of notice and the fact that the state bears the burden of
[23:50.840 --> 23:57.840]  proving every element of an alleged offense demands that it be so.
[23:57.840 --> 24:03.840]  The court also concluded in Henderson that his guilty plea was involuntary because
[24:03.840 --> 24:10.840]  inter alia he was not aware that intent to cause death was an element of the second degree murder.
[24:10.840 --> 24:16.840]  Again, follow the logic. The terms driver and operator are legal terms and capacities
[24:16.840 --> 24:22.840]  created by the statutory scheme of SB 971, which, as we have already seen,
[24:22.840 --> 24:29.840]  relates solely to the subject of transportation. The same holds true for all the other legal terms
[24:29.840 --> 24:36.840]  defined by SB 971 relating to processes, objects, devices, and other actions within
[24:36.840 --> 24:44.840]  the statutory scheme created by SB 971. They all relate solely to the subject of transportation.
[24:44.840 --> 24:51.840]  Therefore, logic and reason dictates that no individual can be legally termed and presented
[24:51.840 --> 24:57.840]  to a court in a criminal complaint as a driver or operator unless the individual is first and foremost
[24:57.840 --> 25:03.840]  presented as having been engaged in transportation at the time of the alleged offense.
[25:03.840 --> 25:09.840]  Further, logic and reason also dictates that no device propelled by a motor, engine, or other method
[25:09.840 --> 25:14.840]  of self-propulsion can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint
[25:14.840 --> 25:21.840]  as a motor vehicle, vehicle, or commercial motor vehicle unless the individual is first and foremost
[25:21.840 --> 25:28.840]  presented as having been engaged in the regulated subject matter of transportation at the time of the alleged offense.
[25:28.840 --> 25:35.840]  Further, logic and reason also dictates that no device propelled by a motor, engine, or other method
[25:35.840 --> 25:40.840]  of self-propulsion can be legally termed and presented to a court in a criminal complaint
[25:40.840 --> 25:47.840]  as a vehicle, motor vehicle, or commercial motor vehicle unless the individual is first and foremost
[25:47.840 --> 25:52.840]  presented as having been engaged in the regulated subject matter of transportation
[25:52.840 --> 25:58.840]  at the time of the alleged offense.
[25:58.840 --> 26:04.840]  Further still, logic and reason also dictates that no individual can be legally termed
[26:04.840 --> 26:10.840]  and presented to a court in a criminal complaint as a driver or operator unless the individual
[26:10.840 --> 26:14.840]  is first and foremost presented as having engaged in the business of transportation
[26:14.840 --> 26:21.840]  for the private profit or gain of either himself or some third-party employer as a carrier
[26:21.840 --> 26:24.840]  doing business for compensation or hire.
[26:24.840 --> 26:31.840]  Thus, one can be a driver or operator only if one is engaging in the regulated subject matter activity
[26:31.840 --> 26:37.840]  that is transportation, just as an automobile or other conveyance legally becomes a device
[26:37.840 --> 26:44.840]  defined as a vehicle, motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle only when being used by a driver
[26:44.840 --> 26:48.840]  or operator to engage in transportation.
[26:48.840 --> 26:54.840]  For state or the court to argue and agree that each of these are somehow completely different subjects
[26:54.840 --> 27:01.840]  that are totally unrelated and irrelevant as to whether or not respondent or any other accused individual
[27:01.840 --> 27:07.840]  was engaged in transportation, thus making the assertion improving of engaging in same
[27:07.840 --> 27:14.840]  as an element of the alleged offense completely unnecessary, is to deny all facts, logic, and reason
[27:14.840 --> 27:20.840]  in a manner that spits in the proverbial face of the one subject matter provision of Article 3,
[27:20.840 --> 27:23.840]  Section 35 of the Texas Constitution.
[27:23.840 --> 27:29.840]  Furthermore, as the engaging end of the regulated subject matter activity of transportation
[27:29.840 --> 27:36.840]  is entirely voluntary, it follows that an individual must so engage willfully and knowingly
[27:36.840 --> 27:39.840]  and not accidentally and without intent.
[27:39.840 --> 27:45.840]  Thus, the statutory scheme would almost certainly fail the vague and ambiguous test in that it does not
[27:45.840 --> 27:49.840]  define the individual terms of transportation or carrier.
[27:49.840 --> 27:55.840]  But it would also fail constitutional and common law due process muster in that the voluntary,
[27:55.840 --> 28:00.840]  knowing and willful nature of engaging in the regulated activity of transportation
[28:00.840 --> 28:06.840]  would require the statutory scheme to include a malamence element in the offense
[28:06.840 --> 28:12.840]  rather than simply being a strict liability statute where the accused state of mind and intent
[28:12.840 --> 28:16.840]  are not an issue in the elements of the charge.
[28:16.840 --> 28:22.840]  No court can change these facts no matter how it may rule, as that would be tantamount to
[28:22.840 --> 28:28.840]  violating from the bench. And no executive action could do it because any executive actions
[28:28.840 --> 28:33.840]  must comply with the law as written, as long as the persons in the executive department
[28:33.840 --> 28:37.840]  believe the law is completely constitutional, which if they did not,
[28:37.840 --> 28:42.840]  they could not enforce it at all without consequences to themselves for doing so.
[28:42.840 --> 28:48.840]  Now, that's what I've been working on today. It's still not a complete article, per se,
[28:48.840 --> 28:54.840]  because I've got references in here that I didn't set up accordingly like the definition
[28:54.840 --> 28:59.840]  of transportation and carrier that would make the statute vague and ambiguous.
[28:59.840 --> 29:04.840]  It still needs a few tweaks. That article on the Web site will be updated again.
[29:04.840 --> 29:09.840]  So please don't think that I've left stuff out that was not intentional.
[29:09.840 --> 29:15.840]  It was just time intensive to get it done. So I wasn't able to put everything in it.
[29:15.840 --> 29:19.840]  I was just trying to get these thoughts out on paper so that I could get them organized
[29:19.840 --> 29:23.840]  and an argument made and then flesh out the facts after the fact.
[29:23.840 --> 29:26.840]  So this will get updated again from the Web site.
[29:26.840 --> 29:32.840]  So this is not final as an article on the Web site, but it's well underway.
[29:32.840 --> 29:36.840]  That being said, I've got one other thing to talk about after this break,
[29:36.840 --> 29:40.840]  and then we will turn the phones on. So we're getting this done much quicker than I thought we would.
[29:40.840 --> 29:45.840]  So y'all hang in there and we'll be taking calls probably either just before the end of
[29:45.840 --> 29:48.840]  or after this upcoming segment.
[29:48.840 --> 29:53.840]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. We'll be right back. So y'all hang on.
[29:53.840 --> 29:56.840]  I'm going to go ahead and turn the phones on if you want to get in line.
[29:56.840 --> 29:59.840]  512-646-1984.
[30:01.840 --> 30:05.840]  The Soviets were known for interrogating people in back rooms.
[30:05.840 --> 30:08.840]  Those days may be past, but they gave rise to some high-tech tools
[30:08.840 --> 30:11.840]  being used by Russian companies today.
[30:11.840 --> 30:14.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with details.
[30:14.840 --> 30:16.840]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:16.840 --> 30:19.840]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:19.840 --> 30:24.840]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:24.840 --> 30:29.840]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:29.840 --> 30:32.840]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:32.840 --> 30:36.840]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[30:36.840 --> 30:40.840]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:40.840 --> 30:43.840]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:43.840 --> 30:47.840]  Back in the Cold War days, Agent 007 might have been seduced
[30:47.840 --> 30:50.840]  into giving up his secrets to a hot Russian spy.
[30:50.840 --> 30:55.840]  But fast forward a few decades, and today he might be fessing up to a cold-hearted machine,
[30:55.840 --> 30:57.840]  an ATM machine, to be exact.
[30:57.840 --> 31:01.840]  The Russian bank, Sperbank, is rolling out a high-tech ATM machine
[31:01.840 --> 31:05.840]  that uses 3D facial recognition, a passport scanner, and voice analysis.
[31:05.840 --> 31:10.840]  The machine asks questions like, do you have a job or do you have unpaid bills?
[31:10.840 --> 31:14.840]  The lie detector evaluates the customer's voice for nervousness.
[31:14.840 --> 31:21.840]  Creepily, the voice analysis was developed using recordings of people undergoing police interrogations.
[31:21.840 --> 31:36.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:51.840 --> 32:04.840]  The rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:04.840 --> 32:06.840]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society,
[32:06.840 --> 32:09.840]  and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[32:09.840 --> 32:12.840]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.840 --> 32:14.840]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[32:14.840 --> 32:16.840]  the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:16.840 --> 32:19.840]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:19.840 --> 32:21.840]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[32:21.840 --> 32:24.840]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:24.840 --> 32:27.840]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with rule of law radio,
[32:27.840 --> 32:30.840]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:30.840 --> 32:32.840]  that will help you understand what due process is
[32:32.840 --> 32:34.840]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:34.840 --> 32:36.840]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[32:36.840 --> 32:39.840]  by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:39.840 --> 32:41.840]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[32:41.840 --> 32:44.840]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:44.840 --> 32:46.840]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:46.840 --> 32:49.840]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[32:49.840 --> 32:51.840]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material
[32:51.840 --> 32:53.840]  from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:53.840 --> 32:56.840]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society
[32:56.840 --> 33:01.840]  we all want and deserve.
[33:01.840 --> 33:13.840]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:13.840 --> 33:20.840]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm going to solve them
[33:20.840 --> 33:24.840]  to the head of government then prosecute them.
[33:24.840 --> 33:28.840]  Okay.
[33:28.840 --> 33:31.840]  All right.
[33:31.840 --> 33:36.840]  This is a risk from the establishment.
[33:36.840 --> 33:38.840]  This is a risk.
[33:38.840 --> 33:40.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[33:40.840 --> 33:46.840]  This is rule of law radio calling number 512-646-1984.
[33:46.840 --> 33:49.840]  All right, real quick, there are two news articles
[33:49.840 --> 33:53.840]  that I looked at today, both of which made me just want to walk up
[33:53.840 --> 33:58.840]  to somebody in charge and smack them with a nail-laden 2x4.
[33:58.840 --> 34:02.840]  But this first article deals with this particular subject matter
[34:02.840 --> 34:08.840]  of the transportation code, and it's from K-View here in Austin,
[34:08.840 --> 34:11.840]  K-V-U-E-A-B-C, and it's titled,
[34:11.840 --> 34:15.840]  Police Consider Increased Penalties for Unlicensed Drivers.
[34:15.840 --> 34:19.840]  Well, there's two things wrong with this title.
[34:19.840 --> 34:23.840]  First off, the police don't get to pick and choose
[34:23.840 --> 34:25.840]  what the penalties are.
[34:25.840 --> 34:26.840]  They don't.
[34:26.840 --> 34:29.840]  They don't get to consider increased, decreased,
[34:29.840 --> 34:31.840]  or anything else.
[34:31.840 --> 34:36.840]  They have discretion to either arrest or not arrest those
[34:36.840 --> 34:40.840]  that are engaged in transportation without a license.
[34:40.840 --> 34:42.840]  Okay?
[34:42.840 --> 34:47.840]  The other thing is is that by citing unlicensed drivers,
[34:47.840 --> 34:50.840]  and in the very first sentence of the article, it says,
[34:50.840 --> 34:58.840]  34% of fatal automobile accidents in 2015 involved an unlicensed driver.
[34:58.840 --> 35:00.840]  Now, there's two problems with this.
[35:00.840 --> 35:08.840]  First off, 34% of fatal automobile accidents in 2015.
[35:08.840 --> 35:11.840]  34% of what total?
[35:11.840 --> 35:17.840]  For Austin, for Texas, for Tarrant County, for Harris County,
[35:17.840 --> 35:24.840]  for the United States of America, 34% under what number?
[35:24.840 --> 35:29.840]  What are we specifically looking at detail-wise here?
[35:29.840 --> 35:35.840]  Secondly, it does not in any way show any evidence or facts
[35:35.840 --> 35:46.840]  asserting that the unlicensed driver was the cause of the fatal accident.
[35:46.840 --> 35:50.840]  You see the problem with the way they're presenting this material?
[35:50.840 --> 35:54.840]  Oh, somebody died in an accident and one of the people in it was unlicensed.
[35:54.840 --> 35:58.840]  Oh, it must have been their fault.
[35:58.840 --> 36:03.840]  They should be blamed for not having a license.
[36:03.840 --> 36:08.840]  No facts or evidence require that they were even the one that caused it.
[36:08.840 --> 36:13.840]  No facts or evidence that the 34% is in some contrived number
[36:13.840 --> 36:18.840]  based upon some small percentage for a particular area rather than overall.
[36:18.840 --> 36:19.840]  We don't know.
[36:19.840 --> 36:21.840]  It doesn't say.
[36:21.840 --> 36:30.840]  But the point here being this is a disinformation article from the word go.
[36:30.840 --> 36:34.840]  None of these penalties would apply to the general public.
[36:34.840 --> 36:39.840]  The need for a license or anything else does not apply to the general public.
[36:39.840 --> 36:44.840]  It never has.
[36:44.840 --> 36:47.840]  So if anything, this article should be titled
[36:47.840 --> 36:51.840]  Austin police consider fraudulently stealing more money
[36:51.840 --> 36:56.840]  through more false allegations against the public.
[36:56.840 --> 37:02.840]  And down here it should say Austin police intend to use the fact that the public
[37:02.840 --> 37:05.840]  does not have the requirement to possess a driver's license
[37:05.840 --> 37:10.840]  as a criminal offense for the purpose of generating revenue.
[37:10.840 --> 37:17.840]  That's how this article should read because that is the actual facts.
[37:17.840 --> 37:25.840]  The other one that upset me so bad today comes out of Tarrant County.
[37:25.840 --> 37:33.840]  And this is Texas DA undermines legislature and invents a weapon-free zone around cops.
[37:33.840 --> 37:37.840]  Where does the DA get the authority to circumvent the Texas legislature
[37:37.840 --> 37:42.840]  as to the right to keep and bear arms bill that they put out there for open carry?
[37:42.840 --> 37:44.840]  Where does that happen?
[37:44.840 --> 37:48.840]  How does that happen?
[37:48.840 --> 37:51.840]  This type of prosecution is the kind of prosecution
[37:51.840 --> 37:56.840]  that should land this prosecutor in prison.
[37:56.840 --> 38:02.840]  Prosecutors should not be immune from using the law in a manner
[38:02.840 --> 38:07.840]  in which it was never intended to further their own agendas, that of some political party
[38:07.840 --> 38:13.840]  or some political group.
[38:13.840 --> 38:17.840]  That should never be allowed to happen.
[38:17.840 --> 38:21.840]  There should be no immunity for that abuse of authority.
[38:21.840 --> 38:30.840]  There should be no immunity for any of these morons for doing most of the things they do.
[38:30.840 --> 38:35.840]  It's not that I entirely disagree with the concept of immunity
[38:35.840 --> 38:39.840]  in the way that it was intended to function.
[38:39.840 --> 38:44.840]  For example, if we empower government to do on our behalf collectively
[38:44.840 --> 38:47.840]  what we could not do individually, which is protect ourselves
[38:47.840 --> 38:55.840]  from a greater overwhelming force intent on doing us harm or taking our property,
[38:55.840 --> 39:02.840]  then the people that came to our defense to prevent that harm to us
[39:02.840 --> 39:10.840]  would have to be immune from any counteraction by the people they defended us from.
[39:10.840 --> 39:17.840]  That would be common sense application of that type of immunity.
[39:17.840 --> 39:22.840]  But that is not what is going on here.
[39:22.840 --> 39:28.840]  What is going on here is that those empowered to protect the public
[39:28.840 --> 39:34.840]  from these types of harms and violence and incursions upon our life, liberty, and property
[39:34.840 --> 39:44.840]  are the ones perpetrating it and then granting themselves immunity from the victim.
[39:44.840 --> 39:51.840]  That also was never the intent.
[39:51.840 --> 40:01.840]  And this DA is doing exactly that by prosecuting people for openly carrying
[40:01.840 --> 40:08.840]  while publicly videoing a traffic stop by police officers.
[40:08.840 --> 40:15.840]  The whole purpose of her allegations here, how did this moronic woman of a DA,
[40:15.840 --> 40:23.840]  and I mean this woman, this is Melinda Westmoreland, Tarrant County prosecutor.
[40:23.840 --> 40:34.840]  This woman should never be allowed to act as an attorney for anything, anything ever again.
[40:34.840 --> 40:36.840]  Let's see.
[40:36.840 --> 40:39.840]  This is one of her statements.
[40:39.840 --> 40:42.840]  Melinda Westmoreland, Assistant District Attorney of Tarrant County,
[40:42.840 --> 40:46.840]  unilaterally decided that the mere presence of a weapon near a police officer
[40:46.840 --> 40:50.840]  somehow interferes with the officer's ability to do his job.
[40:50.840 --> 40:55.840]  And her statement was, it's a safety issue first and foremost.
[40:55.840 --> 41:00.840]  There's an area that's not safe for them to come into, said Westmoreland.
[41:00.840 --> 41:03.840]  When you have an arrest being made across the street
[41:03.840 --> 41:07.840]  and then you have people displaying deadly weapons, it becomes a safety concern.
[41:07.840 --> 41:10.840]  And at that point, it is interfering with public duties.
[41:10.840 --> 41:19.840]  Now let's not forget the fact that interference with a public duty requires physical interaction.
[41:19.840 --> 41:25.840]  It cannot be verbal. It cannot be inferred or implied.
[41:25.840 --> 41:32.840]  It must be physical. That is the stipulation of the statute itself.
[41:32.840 --> 41:39.840]  It is the way it has been interpreted by the courts since it was codified.
[41:39.840 --> 41:46.840]  And yet this DA has overruled both the legislature and the courts on open carry
[41:46.840 --> 41:52.840]  to prosecute a person for an offense that they did not commit.
[41:52.840 --> 41:57.840]  And she knew they did not commit.
[41:57.840 --> 42:00.840]  That's malicious prosecution from the get-go.
[42:00.840 --> 42:02.840]  But you know what else it is?
[42:02.840 --> 42:06.840]  It's official oppression. It's abuse of official capacity.
[42:06.840 --> 42:13.840]  It's official misconduct. It's extortion. It's fraud.
[42:13.840 --> 42:19.840]  It is a violation of the public trust and her oath of office.
[42:19.840 --> 42:26.840]  This woman that is the DA should be the one sentenced to jail.
[42:26.840 --> 42:34.840]  The judge that allowed her to proceed with this prosecution should be in the cell right next to her.
[42:34.840 --> 42:45.840]  Because the judge in this case sentenced the man to 90 days in jail.
[42:45.840 --> 42:46.840]  You get that?
[42:46.840 --> 43:02.840]  The judge colluded with the DA to send this man to jail for 90 days for an offense that the DA could not possibly prove.
[43:02.840 --> 43:04.840]  And here we are.
[43:04.840 --> 43:14.840]  Talk about things being completely upside down and wrong.
[43:14.840 --> 43:16.840]  So what are we going to do about this, folks?
[43:16.840 --> 43:18.840]  What are you going to do about this?
[43:18.840 --> 43:28.840]  What happens when they do this to each and every one of you and you just continue to allow them to do it to others?
[43:28.840 --> 43:31.840]  How does that old quote go?
[43:31.840 --> 43:36.840]  They came for this group of people, but I wasn't in that group of people, so I said and did nothing.
[43:36.840 --> 43:41.840]  Then they came for that group of people, and I wasn't in that group of people, so I said and did nothing.
[43:41.840 --> 43:48.840]  And then finally they came for me, and by that time there was no one around to hear my cries.
[43:48.840 --> 43:52.840]  That's going to be you and me, folks, if we let this continue.
[43:52.840 --> 43:59.840]  All right, folks, 512-646-1984. We'll take calls on the other side of the break.
[43:59.840 --> 44:03.840]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:03.840 --> 44:08.840]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand,
[44:08.840 --> 44:14.840]  4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[44:14.840 --> 44:18.840]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:18.840 --> 44:22.840]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.840 --> 44:27.840]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:27.840 --> 44:33.840]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:33.840 --> 44:38.840]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[44:38.840 --> 44:42.840]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:42.840 --> 44:48.840]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:48.840 --> 45:03.840]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:03.840 --> 45:09.840]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store
[45:09.840 --> 45:14.840]  at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet Dean here in Austin, Texas, behind Brave New Books and Chase Payne
[45:14.840 --> 45:18.840]  to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:18.840 --> 45:22.840]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:22.840 --> 45:27.840]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil,
[45:27.840 --> 45:30.840]  lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:30.840 --> 45:37.840]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:37.840 --> 45:43.840]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:43.840 --> 45:50.840]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[46:13.840 --> 46:35.840]  All right, folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio, and we're going to start taking your calls.
[46:35.840 --> 46:40.840]  All right, first one up here is Jeff in Mississippi. Jeff, what do you got?
[46:40.840 --> 46:43.840]  Hey, Eddie, thanks for having me on the show.
[46:43.840 --> 46:45.840]  Yes, sir.
[46:45.840 --> 46:49.840]  I did a Title 42, 1983. I've called a couple of times.
[46:49.840 --> 46:55.840]  I have received a 12B6 in response from the opposition.
[46:55.840 --> 46:59.840]  Yep, I told you before, 12B6 is almost always automatic.
[46:59.840 --> 47:05.840]  It's a knee-jerk reaction to any federal lawsuit filed under Title 42.
[47:05.840 --> 47:13.840]  Okay, I'm going to answer. I've already got it typed up with an amended complaint.
[47:13.840 --> 47:21.840]  But I want to know, is there any way that they could come back and still claim that I did not answer their 12B6?
[47:21.840 --> 47:25.840]  Well, the thing about it is you can file an amended complaint,
[47:25.840 --> 47:32.840]  but you need to file something stating that the 12B6 challenge has been answered by the amended complaint.
[47:32.840 --> 47:37.840]  You've got to file an answer specifically to their 12B6.
[47:37.840 --> 47:43.840]  Okay, good. Okay, can I include that in the same document, or does that need to be separate?
[47:43.840 --> 47:46.840]  Yeah, I would do it separate, just to be sure.
[47:46.840 --> 47:52.840]  But, again, what you need to do is in that second filing,
[47:52.840 --> 48:00.840]  reference the specific paragraph of your complaint that answers that 12B6 element.
[48:00.840 --> 48:02.840]  Okay. All right?
[48:02.840 --> 48:08.840]  Don't just throw it in there, hey, I answered all this in the complaint. Don't do that.
[48:08.840 --> 48:16.840]  Specifically state, this challenge under 12B6 is answered in the amended complaint in this paragraph,
[48:16.840 --> 48:22.840]  this paragraph where it reads, and then you put what it reads in this second document.
[48:22.840 --> 48:29.840]  Do I want to caption the top of the paper the same as I would with any of my other documents
[48:29.840 --> 48:31.840]  with the name of the court, the plaintiffs?
[48:31.840 --> 48:36.840]  You style everything you file, get styled the same way,
[48:36.840 --> 48:40.840]  unless you're directed to style it differently for some purpose.
[48:40.840 --> 48:46.840]  And under the title, do I want to put answer to 12B6 or brief an answer?
[48:46.840 --> 48:53.840]  Plaintiff's response to defense's 12B6 motion to dismiss is how I would title it.
[48:53.840 --> 48:56.840]  Wonderful. That is beautiful.
[48:56.840 --> 49:01.840]  You can either say response or answer, either one, but I choose answer.
[49:01.840 --> 49:03.840]  Answer is probably better.
[49:03.840 --> 49:08.840]  Okay, great. Second question, and I'll be done.
[49:08.840 --> 49:15.840]  I am going to sue one of the Supreme Court justices,
[49:15.840 --> 49:21.840]  actually kind of setting himself up, and I want to name him as a defendant.
[49:21.840 --> 49:23.840]  Which Supreme Court?
[49:23.840 --> 49:25.840]  I'm sorry, what?
[49:25.840 --> 49:27.840]  Which Supreme Court?
[49:27.840 --> 49:30.840]  The State Supreme Court for Mississippi.
[49:30.840 --> 49:39.840]  Okay, and how do you intend to sue a judge if the judge was acting in his judicial capacity when he acted?
[49:39.840 --> 49:46.840]  Well, he granted a motion that was outside of his scope.
[49:46.840 --> 49:50.840]  When you say outside of his scope, explain.
[49:50.840 --> 49:54.840]  Well, he granted a motion for an extension of time for the court reporter.
[49:54.840 --> 49:58.840]  The court reporter held on to my transcripts for an extra six months,
[49:58.840 --> 50:03.840]  and I complained over and over and over, and she wouldn't turn them over.
[50:03.840 --> 50:09.840]  The rules for the Mississippi Appellate Procedure state that if you're going to hold the transcripts
[50:09.840 --> 50:13.840]  and extend time that you need to show cause, and she never did.
[50:13.840 --> 50:20.840]  And he granted her an extension without compelling her to show cause, and I want to get him.
[50:20.840 --> 50:25.840]  Okay, then what you have to show then is that the capacity in which he was acting
[50:25.840 --> 50:31.840]  was one that was administrative or ministerial and not judicial.
[50:31.840 --> 50:37.840]  You can't touch him if his actions fall under the judicial, no matter what they are.
[50:37.840 --> 50:41.840]  But if they fall in an administrative or ministerial capacity,
[50:41.840 --> 50:46.840]  he has no immunity to hide behind for anything he does there.
[50:46.840 --> 50:49.840]  All right.
[50:49.840 --> 50:55.840]  Now, since he works for the state, do I also want to list the state of Mississippi as a defendant
[50:55.840 --> 51:00.840]  and serve the Secretary of State?
[51:00.840 --> 51:06.840]  I do not know who else you would have to serve and name in that particular instance.
[51:06.840 --> 51:12.840]  You would most likely have to name the Supreme Court itself as the state entity,
[51:12.840 --> 51:15.840]  because that's where he operates.
[51:15.840 --> 51:16.840]  Yes.
[51:16.840 --> 51:19.840]  All right.
[51:19.840 --> 51:22.840]  But you can't sue the state directly.
[51:22.840 --> 51:26.840]  You can only sue the entities of the state.
[51:26.840 --> 51:30.840]  The only reason that I say that is because usually in a Title 42,
[51:30.840 --> 51:37.840]  when a police officer arrests somebody unlawfully, they also name the city of.
[51:37.840 --> 51:44.840]  Well, yeah, because he works in the police department that is an agency of the city.
[51:44.840 --> 51:47.840]  Okay. Could I do that with the state?
[51:47.840 --> 51:49.840]  Here's the thing.
[51:49.840 --> 51:53.840]  You may have to name the state, but you can never directly sue the state
[51:53.840 --> 51:57.840]  unless there are two things that occur.
[51:57.840 --> 52:03.840]  One, the state specifically waives immunity to being sued for that action.
[52:03.840 --> 52:16.840]  Or the state has waived immunity in statute under certain circumstances and conditions relating to an action.
[52:16.840 --> 52:17.840]  Okay.
[52:17.840 --> 52:20.840]  Like, for instance, here in Texas under the Texas Tort Claims Act,
[52:20.840 --> 52:25.840]  there is a specific statutory waiver where the state can be sued
[52:25.840 --> 52:35.840]  if the injuries that you suffer were the result of negligent use of a motor vehicle.
[52:35.840 --> 52:40.840]  Okay.
[52:40.840 --> 52:45.840]  So that's like a state dump truck accidentally running over you?
[52:45.840 --> 52:47.840]  Or a cop or anyone else.
[52:47.840 --> 52:54.840]  You know, any state or political subdivision-owned vehicle that is used to cause an injury,
[52:54.840 --> 52:58.840]  the person in it was drunk and ran a red light and broadsided you,
[52:58.840 --> 53:02.840]  the cop had you in the back of the car and sped to the station
[53:02.840 --> 53:07.840]  and in the course of getting you there caused an accident and injured everybody.
[53:07.840 --> 53:13.840]  All of those would be an automatic waiver of liability and immunity by the state
[53:13.840 --> 53:27.840]  because the injuries resulted from misuse of a motor vehicle.
[53:27.840 --> 53:28.840]  Oops.
[53:28.840 --> 53:29.840]  Looks like we lost him.
[53:29.840 --> 53:30.840]  He dropped off the line.
[53:30.840 --> 53:31.840]  All right.
[53:31.840 --> 53:34.840]  While we're waiting on that, we'll take the next caller in line,
[53:34.840 --> 53:39.840]  which appears to be Dean in Texas while we wait on him to come back.
[53:39.840 --> 53:42.840]  All right, Dean, what do you got?
[53:42.840 --> 53:46.840]  Okay, I got a pre-trial hearing tomorrow in Nacogdoches.
[53:46.840 --> 53:53.840]  I turned in, eight days ago I turned in the four motions I got from you
[53:53.840 --> 53:58.840]  and I assume that's what the pre-trial hearing is going to be.
[53:58.840 --> 54:00.840]  Well, is that all you turned in?
[54:00.840 --> 54:06.840]  You also had to file the PDF form that was the form for constitutional challenge
[54:06.840 --> 54:08.840]  of a state statute or ordinance.
[54:08.840 --> 54:11.840]  Did you file that with it?
[54:11.840 --> 54:13.840]  No, they wouldn't take that.
[54:13.840 --> 54:14.840]  They don't have a choice.
[54:14.840 --> 54:19.840]  It's a required part of the paperwork.
[54:19.840 --> 54:25.840]  The statute specifically says that any constitutional challenge to a statute
[54:25.840 --> 54:34.840]  or ordinance must be accompanied by that form.
[54:34.840 --> 54:35.840]  Okay.
[54:35.840 --> 54:38.840]  That's why you don't file the form separate.
[54:38.840 --> 54:43.840]  You paperclip it to the constitutional challenge motion.
[54:43.840 --> 54:44.840]  It's not a separate document.
[54:44.840 --> 54:46.840]  It's an attachment.
[54:46.840 --> 54:50.840]  But you want to get your copy of it stamped when you do file it,
[54:50.840 --> 54:55.840]  your copy, so that you can show it was filed.
[54:55.840 --> 54:59.840]  Well, she returned it to me.
[54:59.840 --> 55:02.840]  Who returned it to you?
[55:02.840 --> 55:04.840]  The clerk.
[55:04.840 --> 55:08.840]  Well, you need to go back down there and tell the clerk the statute specifically
[55:08.840 --> 55:15.840]  requires that form to be attached to the motion.
[55:15.840 --> 55:16.840]  Okay.
[55:16.840 --> 55:22.840]  But my main question is, you know, I also got a complaint at the same time as
[55:22.840 --> 55:27.840]  the hearing.
[55:27.840 --> 55:28.840]  Wait, wait, wait.
[55:28.840 --> 55:32.840]  You mean they handed you a complaint in open court?
[55:32.840 --> 55:35.840]  No, he got it in the mail.
[55:35.840 --> 55:46.840]  When did you get it in the mail?
[55:46.840 --> 55:50.840]  Just a week and a half ago, two weeks ago.
[55:50.840 --> 55:55.840]  Had you ever appeared in court for this case prior to that?
[55:55.840 --> 56:02.840]  Just to file them hearings, or I went in for the arraignment, which just to the
[56:02.840 --> 56:03.840]  clerk.
[56:03.840 --> 56:07.840]  No, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
[56:07.840 --> 56:12.840]  What do you mean you went in for an arraignment with the clerk?
[56:12.840 --> 56:21.840]  Well, I went into concerning that ticket, and I...
[56:21.840 --> 56:27.840]  Did you go in on the date stated on the citation?
[56:27.840 --> 56:29.840]  Either that date or the next day.
[56:29.840 --> 56:31.840]  I was probably a day late.
[56:31.840 --> 56:34.840]  Did they tell you you were under arrest when you got there, or that they had
[56:34.840 --> 56:36.840]  issued a warrant for you?
[56:36.840 --> 56:38.840]  No.
[56:38.840 --> 56:44.840]  Then I doubt that you went late, because knowing that, Kadocha, is the way I do,
[56:44.840 --> 56:47.840]  that would have been the first thing they did.
[56:47.840 --> 56:51.840]  That way they could have made you pay a cash bond before they let you out of
[56:51.840 --> 56:54.840]  the building.
[56:54.840 --> 56:59.840]  Well, she said that I would have to sign something to make a plea in order to
[56:59.840 --> 57:03.840]  have a jury trial, and I said I will not sign that.
[57:03.840 --> 57:05.840]  And she says, well, you have to.
[57:05.840 --> 57:15.840]  So I did sign it, but on there I wrote not pleading any plea whatsoever
[57:15.840 --> 57:17.840]  concerning this.
[57:17.840 --> 57:19.840]  Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[57:19.840 --> 57:23.840]  How can you sign a document that you're being told requires that you enter a
[57:23.840 --> 57:27.840]  plea and sign it saying I'm not entering a plea?
[57:27.840 --> 57:31.840]  Well, I did, and they did accept it.
[57:31.840 --> 57:37.840]  Okay, first off, the clerk cannot make, no one can make it mandatory that you
[57:37.840 --> 57:39.840]  enter a plea.
[57:39.840 --> 57:46.840]  No one, nowhere in any law, anywhere is it mandatory that you enter a plea.
[57:46.840 --> 57:49.840]  So you have three issues here.
[57:49.840 --> 57:55.840]  One, the clerk is practicing law without a license by giving legal advice.
[57:55.840 --> 57:57.840]  That's the first thing.
[57:57.840 --> 58:02.840]  File a judicial conduct complaint against the judge for that clerk practicing
[58:02.840 --> 58:04.840]  law without a license.
[58:04.840 --> 58:05.840]  Okay?
[58:05.840 --> 58:13.840]  Two, the clerk is impersonating a judicial officer by taking a plea because only
[58:13.840 --> 58:19.840]  a magistrate can preside over a proceeding for the purpose of taking and
[58:19.840 --> 58:21.840]  entering a plea into the record.
[58:21.840 --> 58:27.840]  The third problem is the judge is the one responsible for allowing these
[58:27.840 --> 58:32.840]  actions to happen and probably created the policy authorizing them, getting
[58:32.840 --> 58:37.840]  him another or her another judicial conduct complaint.
[58:37.840 --> 58:40.840]  So that's three judicial conduct complaints and two sets of criminal
[58:40.840 --> 58:42.840]  charges you need to be making.
[58:42.840 --> 58:44.840]  All right, Dean, hang on.
[58:44.840 --> 58:46.840]  We'll get the rest of this on the other side.
[58:46.840 --> 58:47.840]  Folks, we'll be right back.
[58:47.840 --> 58:49.840]  Okay.
[58:49.840 --> 58:54.840]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are
[58:54.840 --> 58:57.840]  frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.840 --> 59:02.840]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process
[59:02.840 --> 59:06.840]  can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.840 --> 59:08.840]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:08.840 --> 59:13.840]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real
[59:13.840 --> 59:17.840]  story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.840 --> 59:22.840]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing
[59:22.840 --> 59:27.840]  an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.840 --> 59:31.840]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for
[59:31.840 --> 59:32.840]  the asking.
[59:32.840 --> 59:37.840]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll
[59:37.840 --> 59:47.840]  free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.840 --> 59:50.840]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.840 --> 59:59.840]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[59:59.840 --> 01:00:04.840]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Low Star Lowdown, providing
[01:00:04.840 --> 01:00:07.840]  your daily bulletins for the commodity market.
[01:00:07.840 --> 01:00:13.840]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the
[01:00:13.840 --> 01:00:19.840]  alternative.
[01:00:19.840 --> 01:00:24.840]  Markets for Monday, 7th of March, 2016, are currently treading with gold at
[01:00:24.840 --> 01:00:32.840]  $1,265.40 an ounce, silver $15.62 an ounce, Texas crude $35.92 a barrel, and
[01:00:32.840 --> 01:00:42.840]  Bitcoin is currently sitting at about $416 U.S. currency.
[01:00:42.840 --> 01:00:46.840]  Today in history, the year 1530, King Henry VIII's request for divorce to
[01:00:46.840 --> 01:00:50.840]  Catherine of Aragon is denied by Pope Clement VII.
[01:00:50.840 --> 01:00:53.840]  This led to King Henry claiming the title of the supreme head of the Church
[01:00:53.840 --> 01:00:54.840]  of England.
[01:00:54.840 --> 01:00:57.840]  The Anglican Church had its schism from Rome.
[01:00:57.840 --> 01:01:02.840]  Today in history.
[01:01:02.840 --> 01:01:05.840]  In recent news, Kyle Andrew Odom, a 30-year-old ex-Marine, is still on the
[01:01:05.840 --> 01:01:09.840]  run as of today for the suspected shooting of Idaho minister Tim
[01:01:09.840 --> 01:01:13.840]  Rummington six times right outside of his church yesterday, the altar church,
[01:01:13.840 --> 01:01:15.840]  where he's a senior pastor.
[01:01:15.840 --> 01:01:18.840]  Odom is considered armed and dangerous by police and is believed to be driving
[01:01:18.840 --> 01:01:20.840]  a 2004 Silver Honda Accord.
[01:01:20.840 --> 01:01:24.840]  Luckily, Pastor Rummington was upgraded to fair condition today at the Kootenai
[01:01:24.840 --> 01:01:25.840]  Health and Medical Center.
[01:01:25.840 --> 01:01:29.840]  Though the motive is unknown as of yet, the shooting came a day after
[01:01:29.840 --> 01:01:32.840]  Rummington delivered an invocation at a rally for Republican presidential
[01:01:32.840 --> 01:01:34.840]  candidate Ted Cruz.
[01:01:34.840 --> 01:01:38.840]  Odom was a flight technician for the Marine Corps from 2006 to 2010 at Camp
[01:01:38.840 --> 01:01:40.840]  Pendleton in California.
[01:01:40.840 --> 01:01:44.840]  He was awarded an Iraq campaign medal with one star, according to publicly
[01:01:44.840 --> 01:01:49.840]  available documents.
[01:01:49.840 --> 01:01:52.840]  A new species of octopus was discovered during a search of the ocean floor by
[01:01:52.840 --> 01:01:56.840]  remotely operated vehicle from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
[01:01:56.840 --> 01:01:58.840]  Administration's Okeanos Explorer.
[01:01:58.840 --> 01:02:02.840]  On February 27th of this year, a team of scientists found a small, light-colored,
[01:02:02.840 --> 01:02:07.840]  ghost-like octopus at a depth of about two and a half miles by Nucker Island
[01:02:07.840 --> 01:02:08.840]  near the Hawaiian Islands.
[01:02:08.840 --> 01:02:12.840]  Several scientists agree that this is something unusual and is a depth record
[01:02:12.840 --> 01:02:18.840]  for an octopus without fins.
[01:02:18.840 --> 01:02:21.840]  Genovation Cars in Rockville, Maryland is now certified by the International
[01:02:21.840 --> 01:02:24.840]  Mile Racing Association as constructing the world's fastest street-legal
[01:02:24.840 --> 01:02:25.840]  electric car.
[01:02:25.840 --> 01:02:28.840]  The old electric prototype Chevy Corvette, dubbed the Genovation Extreme
[01:02:28.840 --> 01:02:33.840]  Electric or the GXEAS, hit a record breaking 186.8 miles per hour.
[01:02:33.840 --> 01:02:37.840]  The previous record was set at 177 by a Finnish prototype car.
[01:02:37.840 --> 01:02:42.840]  The GXE is based on a 2006 Z06 Corvette, which includes a state-of-the-art
[01:02:42.840 --> 01:02:46.840]  battery management system, inverters, batteries, and an electric motor that
[01:02:46.840 --> 01:02:50.840]  delivers over 700 horsepower and 600 foot-pounds of torque.
[01:02:50.840 --> 01:02:54.840]  The car has a range of 130 miles during normal driving operation on a fully
[01:02:54.840 --> 01:02:56.840]  charged battery.
[01:02:56.840 --> 01:03:00.840]  This was your Lowdown for March 7th, 2016.
[01:03:00.840 --> 01:03:10.840]  Music
[01:03:10.840 --> 01:03:20.840]  Music
[01:03:20.840 --> 01:03:29.840]  Music
[01:03:29.840 --> 01:03:39.840]  Music
[01:03:39.840 --> 01:03:49.840]  Music
[01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:54.840]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:03:54.840 --> 01:04:01.840]  Alright, let's see, Dean in Texas, we are going to finish up with him and then
[01:04:01.840 --> 01:04:07.840]  we are going to do a quick comment here for our previous caller that dropped off
[01:04:07.840 --> 01:04:08.840]  the line before we finished.
[01:04:08.840 --> 01:04:12.840]  Alright Dean, anyway, did you understand everything I said?
[01:04:12.840 --> 01:04:20.840]  Yes, you were talking about the certificate of fact, the state secretary?
[01:04:20.840 --> 01:04:23.840]  The certificate of fact?
[01:04:23.840 --> 01:04:26.840]  Yeah, that's what it says.
[01:04:26.840 --> 01:04:31.840]  I don't know if that's the title of the form or not, but it's the form that's
[01:04:31.840 --> 01:04:38.840]  specifically titled in the material as Constitutional Challenge Form.
[01:04:38.840 --> 01:04:39.840]  Okay.
[01:04:39.840 --> 01:04:50.840]  Let's see, what is the, I'll tell you what the exact name of it is here.
[01:04:50.840 --> 01:04:57.840]  Challenge of Constitutionality and at the end of that it's got form in parentheses
[01:04:57.840 --> 01:05:04.840]  and the form is titled, if this will open up where I can read it,
[01:05:04.840 --> 01:05:09.840]  Challenge to Constitutionality of a State Statute.
[01:05:09.840 --> 01:05:19.840]  Okay, it's probably in there, I just, with that, I just haven't got it in front of me.
[01:05:19.840 --> 01:05:22.840]  Well, you need to make sure that's filed because they'll use that as an excuse
[01:05:22.840 --> 01:05:25.840]  to throw out the motion.
[01:05:25.840 --> 01:05:34.840]  Okay, but my original question was too, on the complaint by the officer,
[01:05:34.840 --> 01:05:44.840]  he doesn't state the actual title, 545, but he uses it at a speed greater than
[01:05:44.840 --> 01:05:49.840]  what's reasonable and prudent under the conditions than existing,
[01:05:49.840 --> 01:05:51.840]  having regard to the actual...
[01:05:51.840 --> 01:05:58.840]  The rulings on whether or not they have to specifically state the statute number
[01:05:58.840 --> 01:06:00.840]  is nonexistent.
[01:06:00.840 --> 01:06:02.840]  They have to state...
[01:06:02.840 --> 01:06:04.840]  What?
[01:06:04.840 --> 01:06:12.840]  But doesn't that prove, because it goes on further in that, but it didn't...
[01:06:12.840 --> 01:06:14.840]  What do you mean, doesn't that prove?
[01:06:14.840 --> 01:06:16.840]  Doesn't that prove what?
[01:06:16.840 --> 01:06:21.840]  As necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle.
[01:06:21.840 --> 01:06:25.840]  Well, that's the thing you would have to make them admit to on the stand
[01:06:25.840 --> 01:06:27.840]  under cross-examination like we did in class.
[01:06:27.840 --> 01:06:29.840]  Oh, okay, just on that.
[01:06:29.840 --> 01:06:32.840]  Okay, but that's if you were going to merits.
[01:06:32.840 --> 01:06:36.840]  We're not going to merits, we're making a complete challenge
[01:06:36.840 --> 01:06:40.840]  to the constitutionality of the whole code.
[01:06:40.840 --> 01:06:45.840]  The whole code.
[01:06:45.840 --> 01:06:46.840]  Okay.
[01:06:46.840 --> 01:06:48.840]  Okay.
[01:06:48.840 --> 01:06:49.840]  Yep.
[01:06:49.840 --> 01:06:51.840]  All right, anything else?
[01:06:51.840 --> 01:06:53.840]  No, that'll fix me up at least.
[01:06:53.840 --> 01:06:54.840]  All right, you're welcome.
[01:06:54.840 --> 01:06:55.840]  Have a good night.
[01:06:55.840 --> 01:06:56.840]  Good luck tomorrow.
[01:06:56.840 --> 01:06:57.840]  Bye.
[01:06:57.840 --> 01:06:58.840]  Bye.
[01:06:58.840 --> 01:07:02.840]  All right, now we're going to go to Jerry in Missouri who has a comment
[01:07:02.840 --> 01:07:06.840]  about our previous caller in Mississippi in his Title 42 case.
[01:07:06.840 --> 01:07:09.840]  Jerry, go ahead.
[01:07:09.840 --> 01:07:15.840]  I was just going to say that you all were talking about judicial immunity
[01:07:15.840 --> 01:07:22.840]  and if you're going to go after a judge, I know and I can't remember,
[01:07:22.840 --> 01:07:28.840]  you know, I can't remember exactly what the case was now right off the top
[01:07:28.840 --> 01:07:34.840]  of my head, but there's a Supreme Court case that basically says in order
[01:07:34.840 --> 01:07:42.840]  to overcome the affirmative defense of absolute judicial immunity,
[01:07:42.840 --> 01:07:53.840]  you've got to allege in the complaint that they acted absent all jurisdiction.
[01:07:53.840 --> 01:07:58.840]  That's correct, but that is specifically what the case was discussing though,
[01:07:58.840 --> 01:08:05.840]  judicial immunity, magisterial or administrative immunity doesn't exist
[01:08:05.840 --> 01:08:09.840]  for a judge because they're not wearing their judge's hat when they're
[01:08:09.840 --> 01:08:11.840]  acting in those capacities.
[01:08:11.840 --> 01:08:14.840]  The case law on that is very, very clear.
[01:08:14.840 --> 01:08:21.840]  When a judge acts in a capacity other than judicial or absent all
[01:08:21.840 --> 01:08:26.840]  jurisdiction in the judicial, he has no immunity.
[01:08:26.840 --> 01:08:34.840]  And in this particular case, if the allowing of a waiver of extension of time
[01:08:34.840 --> 01:08:40.840]  for this clerk is considered a ministerial or administrative function rather
[01:08:40.840 --> 01:08:44.840]  than a judicial one, then he doesn't have immunity.
[01:08:44.840 --> 01:08:47.840]  If the statutes...
[01:08:47.840 --> 01:08:48.840]  Go ahead.
[01:08:48.840 --> 01:08:53.840]  I was just kind of more or less pointing out that it's got to be alleged
[01:08:53.840 --> 01:08:56.840]  that way and then you pretty much got to show proof of it.
[01:08:56.840 --> 01:08:57.840]  Yeah, I agree.
[01:08:57.840 --> 01:09:00.840]  And that's exactly how I was advising him on it.
[01:09:00.840 --> 01:09:06.840]  And the fact is that in the ministerial or administrative capacity,
[01:09:06.840 --> 01:09:10.840]  the judge being absent jurisdiction, that wouldn't have to be cited
[01:09:10.840 --> 01:09:12.840]  that he acted outside of this.
[01:09:12.840 --> 01:09:20.840]  But in this case, if the law specifically sets the requirements for granting
[01:09:20.840 --> 01:09:26.840]  that motion and the judge failed to comply, then the argument could be made
[01:09:26.840 --> 01:09:35.840]  that he acted outside of his lawful jurisdiction in granting that extension.
[01:09:35.840 --> 01:09:41.840]  Yeah, I mean, you see stuff like that happen all the time and most people
[01:09:41.840 --> 01:09:45.840]  just don't know the challenges and lawyers never will.
[01:09:45.840 --> 01:09:50.840]  Yeah, and we could do the same thing when they fail to provide due process
[01:09:50.840 --> 01:09:54.840]  in these courts in Texas or everywhere else on these traffic cases where they
[01:09:54.840 --> 01:09:57.840]  don't comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:09:57.840 --> 01:10:04.840]  When they act in violation of the law, they are not acting judicially.
[01:10:04.840 --> 01:10:09.840]  I'm just really glad to hear a lot more people coming out saying that they're
[01:10:09.840 --> 01:10:15.840]  going the route of filing Title 42. I hope they're getting the information
[01:10:15.840 --> 01:10:19.840]  that they need so that they can do it pro se.
[01:10:19.840 --> 01:10:20.840]  I agree.
[01:10:20.840 --> 01:10:25.840]  And because they're going to have a lot more power in there if they know
[01:10:25.840 --> 01:10:27.840]  what they're doing in their pro se.
[01:10:27.840 --> 01:10:31.840]  Yeah, the judge won't be able to thumb-crunch them as easy.
[01:10:31.840 --> 01:10:37.840]  Right. Oh, another thing I was going to say something about too was the old
[01:10:37.840 --> 01:10:42.840]  boy said something about he got a 12B6 back.
[01:10:42.840 --> 01:10:43.840]  Right.
[01:10:43.840 --> 01:10:52.840]  He never really mentioned at the time, I was thinking myself asking how long
[01:10:52.840 --> 01:10:59.840]  it's been since the 12B6 was entered on the record because the days started
[01:10:59.840 --> 01:11:05.840]  counting and as far as his physical right to file an amended complaint,
[01:11:05.840 --> 01:11:10.840]  he may have to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint if
[01:11:10.840 --> 01:11:12.840]  his times ran out.
[01:11:12.840 --> 01:11:14.840]  Yeah, I don't think his times ran out.
[01:11:14.840 --> 01:11:16.840]  He didn't mention anything about that.
[01:11:16.840 --> 01:11:20.840]  He just needed to make sure about how to properly respond and that filing an
[01:11:20.840 --> 01:11:22.840]  amended complaint alone was sufficient.
[01:11:22.840 --> 01:11:26.840]  I told him, no, what I'd do is file the amended complaint but file a secondary
[01:11:26.840 --> 01:11:32.840]  answer to their 12B6 citing the specifics of the individual portions of the
[01:11:32.840 --> 01:11:36.840]  complaint that answered their 12B6 challenge.
[01:11:36.840 --> 01:11:46.840]  Yeah, he could do that but one thing that I think should definitely be done
[01:11:46.840 --> 01:11:54.840]  is more or less a direct response especially if there's anything alleged as
[01:11:54.840 --> 01:12:00.840]  far as affirmative defenses on their part that are frivolous or, you know,
[01:12:00.840 --> 01:12:07.840]  they don't pass muster as far as how evidence is brought in under Rule 26.
[01:12:07.840 --> 01:12:15.840]  Anything like that needs to be responded to with a 12F motion, motion to strike.
[01:12:15.840 --> 01:12:18.840]  Yeah, motion to strike and a motion for sanctions.
[01:12:18.840 --> 01:12:20.840]  Right.
[01:12:20.840 --> 01:12:29.840]  Well, I mean, you know, you're trying to get the, it depends on what they did,
[01:12:29.840 --> 01:12:33.840]  you know, but I didn't read the 12B6 but...
[01:12:33.840 --> 01:12:37.840]  Yeah, well, I mean, if they make statements in the 12B6 that know that,
[01:12:37.840 --> 01:12:42.840]  you know, he improperly did this and this and this and he didn't, well,
[01:12:42.840 --> 01:12:46.840]  then that's an attempt to perpetrate fraud upon the court.
[01:12:46.840 --> 01:12:50.840]  That's an intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the case.
[01:12:50.840 --> 01:12:51.840]  Right.
[01:12:51.840 --> 01:12:56.840]  Say, for instance, like, I don't know exactly what your lawsuit's about yet.
[01:12:56.840 --> 01:13:00.840]  I still want to get together with you and talk about that maybe.
[01:13:00.840 --> 01:13:05.840]  You know, if I could help you any, I'd be glad to.
[01:13:05.840 --> 01:13:11.840]  But anyway, as far as, oh, I kind of lost my train of thought again.
[01:13:11.840 --> 01:13:16.840]  I did that last time I got on here.
[01:13:16.840 --> 01:13:21.840]  What was I going to say?
[01:13:21.840 --> 01:13:23.840]  Well, on that part, I can't help you.
[01:13:23.840 --> 01:13:26.840]  Oh, yeah, I hear you.
[01:13:26.840 --> 01:13:31.840]  What it was about was...
[01:13:31.840 --> 01:13:35.840]  Well, maybe I can't remember.
[01:13:35.840 --> 01:13:38.840]  Wow.
[01:13:38.840 --> 01:13:40.840]  I probably will.
[01:13:40.840 --> 01:13:45.840]  Who knows when...
[01:13:45.840 --> 01:13:48.840]  Oh, as far as you...
[01:13:48.840 --> 01:13:53.840]  Is like them coming back saying stuff like calling you a driver or operator
[01:13:53.840 --> 01:13:59.840]  or saying you operate a motor vehicle or all, you know, that stuff as it might pertain.
[01:13:59.840 --> 01:14:01.840]  I don't know if that would pertain to your case.
[01:14:01.840 --> 01:14:04.840]  I'm sure it pertains to some people's cases.
[01:14:04.840 --> 01:14:09.840]  If they call you stuff like that in their motion to dismiss,
[01:14:09.840 --> 01:14:15.840]  those are the kinds of things that got to be struck.
[01:14:15.840 --> 01:14:16.840]  Yeah, I agree.
[01:14:16.840 --> 01:14:23.840]  And you've got to be able to create the legal argument of why they should be struck,
[01:14:23.840 --> 01:14:26.840]  just using case law or whatever.
[01:14:26.840 --> 01:14:33.840]  It's not easy to do, but I mean, it can be done.
[01:14:33.840 --> 01:14:39.840]  But you definitely don't want anything that you don't strike, basically.
[01:14:39.840 --> 01:14:43.840]  Anything that you don't get stricken from the record,
[01:14:43.840 --> 01:14:46.840]  it's going to be used against you.
[01:14:46.840 --> 01:14:47.840]  Yeah.
[01:14:47.840 --> 01:14:51.840]  So, anyway.
[01:14:51.840 --> 01:14:52.840]  All right.
[01:14:52.840 --> 01:14:55.840]  Well, I appreciate the input, and so will he.
[01:14:55.840 --> 01:15:01.840]  I know you're talking about filing this lawsuit, and you need help.
[01:15:01.840 --> 01:15:03.840]  You're trying to put together...
[01:15:03.840 --> 01:15:05.840]  You're wanting to file in federal court?
[01:15:05.840 --> 01:15:10.840]  I'm actually going to try to file in both state and federal simultaneously.
[01:15:10.840 --> 01:15:11.840]  Really?
[01:15:11.840 --> 01:15:14.840]  Yep.
[01:15:14.840 --> 01:15:19.840]  Well, I know the federal court would be worth $400 for the initial filing.
[01:15:19.840 --> 01:15:22.840]  Right.
[01:15:22.840 --> 01:15:27.840]  I think it's either $423 or $463 here.
[01:15:27.840 --> 01:15:28.840]  In Texas.
[01:15:28.840 --> 01:15:32.840]  Yeah.
[01:15:32.840 --> 01:15:37.840]  And, of course, that doesn't even begin to cover the money necessary to perform service
[01:15:37.840 --> 01:15:39.840]  and all this other stuff on all the parties.
[01:15:39.840 --> 01:15:42.840]  And one of the reasons why they break up in so many parties
[01:15:42.840 --> 01:15:47.840]  is to increase the cost of service to a plaintiff.
[01:15:47.840 --> 01:15:50.840]  Oh, heck, you should just have a friend serve them.
[01:15:50.840 --> 01:15:53.840]  All you got to do is have a friend serve them.
[01:15:53.840 --> 01:15:59.840]  Well, that would, again, depend upon whether or not we can get into the place they're at.
[01:15:59.840 --> 01:16:02.840]  Some of these people tend to hide within the police department
[01:16:02.840 --> 01:16:06.840]  or in the back rooms at the courthouse and so on and so forth
[01:16:06.840 --> 01:16:10.840]  in order to illegally avoid service.
[01:16:10.840 --> 01:16:14.840]  Well, I can tell you this much as Supreme Court has ruled
[01:16:14.840 --> 01:16:19.840]  that service on their place of employment is good service.
[01:16:19.840 --> 01:16:21.840]  Yeah, I agree.
[01:16:21.840 --> 01:16:25.840]  It's finding someone there not threatening to shoot you, beat you, or harass you
[01:16:25.840 --> 01:16:27.840]  if you hand it to them.
[01:16:27.840 --> 01:16:30.840]  Yeah.
[01:16:30.840 --> 01:16:32.840]  I agree.
[01:16:32.840 --> 01:16:37.840]  And since I can't serve it myself and tell them, give that a shot while you can,
[01:16:37.840 --> 01:16:42.840]  I'm loathe to send someone down there to try to do it for me, you know?
[01:16:42.840 --> 01:16:47.840]  At least someone that isn't a paid process server that's paid to take that risk.
[01:16:47.840 --> 01:16:52.840]  Well, if I was down there already, I'd do that for you.
[01:16:52.840 --> 01:16:53.840]  Well, I appreciate it, Jerry.
[01:16:53.840 --> 01:16:56.840]  All right, we're about to hit a break, so thanks for calling in, man.
[01:16:56.840 --> 01:17:02.840]  All right, folks, we'll be right back.
[01:17:26.840 --> 01:17:31.840]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:56.840 --> 01:18:01.840]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:26.840 --> 01:18:32.840]  We'll be right back.
[01:18:56.840 --> 01:19:02.840]  We'll be right back.
[01:19:26.840 --> 01:19:31.840]  We'll be right back.
[01:19:42.840 --> 01:19:44.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:44.840 --> 01:19:51.840]  This is Rule of Law Radio, caller number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:51.840 --> 01:19:54.840]  All right, now we have Chaz in South Carolina.
[01:19:54.840 --> 01:19:58.840]  Chaz, what can we do for you?
[01:19:58.840 --> 01:20:00.840]  Well, all right, let's try that again.
[01:20:00.840 --> 01:20:03.840]  Chaz, what can we do for you?
[01:20:03.840 --> 01:20:04.840]  Can you hear me?
[01:20:04.840 --> 01:20:06.840]  I can hear you.
[01:20:06.840 --> 01:20:17.840]  All right, I have a tragic trial going on, and I have actually a couple of questions.
[01:20:17.840 --> 01:20:21.840]  I've given them five motions to dismiss,
[01:20:21.840 --> 01:20:26.840]  and actually it was kind of funny because we were having an in-camera meeting
[01:20:26.840 --> 01:20:28.840]  between the judge and the prosecutor and myself,
[01:20:28.840 --> 01:20:31.840]  and I said, look, you've got five motions to dismiss.
[01:20:31.840 --> 01:20:33.840]  I've made it really easy for you to quit.
[01:20:33.840 --> 01:20:35.840]  Why don't you just quit?
[01:20:35.840 --> 01:20:37.840]  And the judge said, well, that would be simple.
[01:20:37.840 --> 01:20:41.840]  But anyway, one of the motions to dismiss that he has to do
[01:20:41.840 --> 01:20:45.840]  with the South Carolina Supreme Court issuing an order
[01:20:45.840 --> 01:20:52.840]  to all the magistrating and municipal court judges that says all jury trials,
[01:20:52.840 --> 01:20:58.840]  including traffic, must be disposed of within 120 days of the initial filing
[01:20:58.840 --> 01:21:01.840]  of the paperwork, which is four months.
[01:21:01.840 --> 01:21:05.840]  It took them seven months just to schedule the trial,
[01:21:05.840 --> 01:21:08.840]  and so one of my motions to dismiss is based on that.
[01:21:08.840 --> 01:21:11.840]  Now, I was a couple months ago, I don't remember what it was,
[01:21:11.840 --> 01:21:15.840]  I was on a legal forum and a lawyer had said,
[01:21:15.840 --> 01:21:22.840]  well, they don't have to do it because there's no punishment for them if they don't.
[01:21:22.840 --> 01:21:24.840]  So I wanted your input on that.
[01:21:24.840 --> 01:21:29.840]  The other motions, I put in a motion to dismiss based on the right to travel,
[01:21:29.840 --> 01:21:35.840]  and also I put in a motion to dismiss due to the lack of due process
[01:21:35.840 --> 01:21:42.840]  because I had put in a written motion for continuance, which she denied.
[01:21:42.840 --> 01:21:47.840]  And then the day of the trial, I show up and the police captain came out
[01:21:47.840 --> 01:21:51.840]  and says, well, your trial's being continued.
[01:21:51.840 --> 01:21:54.840]  I said, why? She didn't grant it.
[01:21:54.840 --> 01:21:59.840]  Well, the prosecutor had called the judge, and the judge approved it over the phone,
[01:21:59.840 --> 01:22:03.840]  and the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evaluance say
[01:22:03.840 --> 01:22:05.840]  that those motions to for continuance...
[01:22:05.840 --> 01:22:11.840]  Have to be filed in writing and be verified, right?
[01:22:11.840 --> 01:22:13.840]  Yeah, I mean, otherwise I don't have...
[01:22:13.840 --> 01:22:17.840]  Well, it doesn't say be verified, but it has to be done in writing
[01:22:17.840 --> 01:22:24.840]  so that I have a chance to object, but I didn't get any notice at all that...
[01:22:24.840 --> 01:22:25.840]  Okay, you need...
[01:22:25.840 --> 01:22:28.840]  Right quick, you need to be filing judicial conduct complaints
[01:22:28.840 --> 01:22:32.840]  and a motion to disqualify this judge.
[01:22:32.840 --> 01:22:35.840]  Get rid of this judge.
[01:22:35.840 --> 01:22:37.840]  Judicially conduct complain this judge.
[01:22:37.840 --> 01:22:47.840]  Cause this judge more pain than they could possibly endure without grimacing.
[01:22:47.840 --> 01:22:52.840]  File a bar grievance against the prosecutor for circumventing the rules of procedure
[01:22:52.840 --> 01:22:56.840]  and denying you and your right of due process by colluding with the court
[01:22:56.840 --> 01:23:01.840]  to obtain continuances without notice to the other side.
[01:23:01.840 --> 01:23:05.840]  Well, that's a lot more than I can write down that fast.
[01:23:05.840 --> 01:23:06.840]  Well, that's okay.
[01:23:06.840 --> 01:23:11.840]  This will go into an archive and you can review it at your leisure.
[01:23:11.840 --> 01:23:12.840]  Oh, great.
[01:23:12.840 --> 01:23:13.840]  Okay, I'll do that.
[01:23:13.840 --> 01:23:15.840]  Yeah, just check back on the website in a day or two
[01:23:15.840 --> 01:23:20.840]  and it'll be posted up under Eddie's Night with today's date.
[01:23:20.840 --> 01:23:24.840]  Okay, so about the Supreme Court order,
[01:23:24.840 --> 01:23:29.840]  because the courts don't get punished for not doing what the South Carolina
[01:23:29.840 --> 01:23:36.840]  Supreme Court said they must do, what is your input on that?
[01:23:36.840 --> 01:23:37.840]  No, wait a minute.
[01:23:37.840 --> 01:23:39.840]  You're saying that they can't be held accountable
[01:23:39.840 --> 01:23:45.840]  for the things that the Supreme Court said they must do?
[01:23:45.840 --> 01:23:49.840]  Who said they can't be held accountable?
[01:23:49.840 --> 01:23:55.840]  Well, no, what I said was that they are not punished for not.
[01:23:55.840 --> 01:23:59.840]  But in who is required to put forth the punishment
[01:23:59.840 --> 01:24:04.840]  and through what avenue is it to be sought?
[01:24:04.840 --> 01:24:08.840]  If the punishment is that they acted in a manner that you can file charges
[01:24:08.840 --> 01:24:10.840]  and don't, they won't get punished.
[01:24:10.840 --> 01:24:13.840]  If you can sue and don't, they won't get punished.
[01:24:13.840 --> 01:24:15.840]  If you can file a complaint and have an investigation done
[01:24:15.840 --> 01:24:17.840]  and you don't, they won't get punished.
[01:24:17.840 --> 01:24:22.840]  So what avenue is directed to be applied in order to get that done
[01:24:22.840 --> 01:24:30.840]  in order to hold them accountable?
[01:24:30.840 --> 01:24:34.840]  Okay, to make them accountable.
[01:24:34.840 --> 01:24:35.840]  Well, not to make them.
[01:24:35.840 --> 01:24:38.840]  Their actions is what makes them accountable.
[01:24:38.840 --> 01:24:47.840]  Who is responsible for holding them accountable?
[01:24:47.840 --> 01:24:50.840]  He is responsible.
[01:24:50.840 --> 01:24:56.840]  That's great input.
[01:24:56.840 --> 01:24:58.840]  So I don't know if it's the Supreme Court,
[01:24:58.840 --> 01:25:01.840]  the South Carolina Supreme Court or not, but I will find out.
[01:25:01.840 --> 01:25:02.840]  I appreciate that.
[01:25:02.840 --> 01:25:04.840]  Yeah, no problem.
[01:25:04.840 --> 01:25:05.840]  All righty.
[01:25:05.840 --> 01:25:06.840]  Thank you so much.
[01:25:06.840 --> 01:25:07.840]  You're welcome.
[01:25:07.840 --> 01:25:08.840]  Good luck.
[01:25:08.840 --> 01:25:09.840]  Thank you.
[01:25:09.840 --> 01:25:10.840]  You're welcome.
[01:25:10.840 --> 01:25:11.840]  Have a good night.
[01:25:11.840 --> 01:25:14.840]  All right, now we're going to Max in Texas.
[01:25:14.840 --> 01:25:17.840]  Max, what you got?
[01:25:17.840 --> 01:25:21.840]  Well, Eddie, I thought I had to wait a lot longer.
[01:25:21.840 --> 01:25:26.840]  I have a friend of mine who got a postcard in the mail.
[01:25:26.840 --> 01:25:33.840]  Most postcards have a pretty picture on one side and some poignant,
[01:25:33.840 --> 01:25:37.840]  you know, correspondence on the other side.
[01:25:37.840 --> 01:25:38.840]  Yeah.
[01:25:38.840 --> 01:25:40.840]  But this is not that type of postcard.
[01:25:40.840 --> 01:25:47.840]  This postcard actually has an emboldened printing on the front,
[01:25:47.840 --> 01:25:50.840]  STA program notification,
[01:25:50.840 --> 01:25:54.840]  which is I'm assuming that stands for failure to appear.
[01:25:54.840 --> 01:26:00.840]  And then it says that your driver's license has been flagged for non-renewal
[01:26:00.840 --> 01:26:07.840]  by the Texas Department of Public Safety for failure to pay court costs and fines.
[01:26:07.840 --> 01:26:13.840]  The Texas Department of Public Safety will not reinstate your drivers,
[01:26:13.840 --> 01:26:16.840]  your driving privileges.
[01:26:16.840 --> 01:26:19.840]  Oh, it's a privilege.
[01:26:19.840 --> 01:26:26.840]  And then it says, while license is invalid,
[01:26:26.840 --> 01:26:31.840]  is a criminal offense, do not ignore this notice.
[01:26:31.840 --> 01:26:33.840]  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
[01:26:33.840 --> 01:26:35.840]  It's a very nice postcard.
[01:26:35.840 --> 01:26:41.840]  I thought it was very cute, but I did not think that it fucking...
[01:26:41.840 --> 01:26:43.840]  Yeah, be careful with that.
[01:26:43.840 --> 01:26:45.840]  You're going to give me both bands.
[01:26:45.840 --> 01:26:47.840]  You keep that up.
[01:26:47.840 --> 01:26:52.840]  Yeah, I'm sorry, Deborah.
[01:26:52.840 --> 01:26:58.840]  I do not believe that that rises to the level of a complaint.
[01:26:58.840 --> 01:27:01.840]  And in fact...
[01:27:01.840 --> 01:27:02.840]  No, it isn't.
[01:27:02.840 --> 01:27:06.840]  That's the administrative notice of the service charges
[01:27:06.840 --> 01:27:09.840]  from the Department of Public Safety.
[01:27:09.840 --> 01:27:12.840]  Now, here's the thing about that.
[01:27:12.840 --> 01:27:13.840]  Yes?
[01:27:13.840 --> 01:27:21.840]  They can only start that process if they have been given an actual complaint.
[01:27:21.840 --> 01:27:22.840]  Okay?
[01:27:22.840 --> 01:27:25.840]  Yeah, and check this out.
[01:27:25.840 --> 01:27:28.840]  Eddie, there is nothing on the record so far.
[01:27:28.840 --> 01:27:37.840]  I've looked it up on...this is Montgomery County, and it's Precinct 3.
[01:27:37.840 --> 01:27:45.840]  And I've looked it up, and they have a timeline as to what's been filed.
[01:27:45.840 --> 01:27:51.840]  However, none of this stuff has ever been filed to the opposing parties,
[01:27:51.840 --> 01:27:54.840]  to the parties that are relevant.
[01:27:54.840 --> 01:27:59.840]  Have they filed a complaint in the case?
[01:27:59.840 --> 01:28:05.840]  Well, I'm not sure, Eddie, because I've never seen a complaint at all.
[01:28:05.840 --> 01:28:07.840]  Okay, well, here's the thing.
[01:28:07.840 --> 01:28:12.840]  Whether you see it or not, this is the way they do it according to statute.
[01:28:12.840 --> 01:28:14.840]  Thirty days from the date they do the complaint,
[01:28:14.840 --> 01:28:18.840]  whether you've gone to trial within that 30 days, you've been convicted,
[01:28:18.840 --> 01:28:22.840]  you're on appeal, it doesn't matter.
[01:28:22.840 --> 01:28:25.840]  Thirty days from the day that complaint is filed,
[01:28:25.840 --> 01:28:29.840]  they will send a copy of that complaint to the Department of Public Safety,
[01:28:29.840 --> 01:28:33.840]  who will initiate the proceedings spoken of in that card,
[01:28:33.840 --> 01:28:39.840]  even though you have yet to even go to trial.
[01:28:39.840 --> 01:28:45.840]  It is the epitome of a bill of pains and penalties.
[01:28:45.840 --> 01:28:53.840]  And that is Chapter 706, denial of personal or renewal of license
[01:28:53.840 --> 01:28:55.840]  for failure to appear?
[01:28:55.840 --> 01:28:56.840]  Correct.
[01:28:56.840 --> 01:28:58.840]  In the Texas Transportation Code?
[01:28:58.840 --> 01:28:59.840]  Correct.
[01:28:59.840 --> 01:29:02.840]  Title VII, subtitle I.
[01:29:02.840 --> 01:29:12.840]  Okay, so what I'm concerned with mostly here, Eddie, in this case,
[01:29:12.840 --> 01:29:23.840]  is basically that they are alleging a violation of some form
[01:29:23.840 --> 01:29:32.840]  of the Texas Transportation Code and that when it comes to them proving
[01:29:32.840 --> 01:29:38.840]  that the elements of the Texas Transportation Code apply, that is not true.
[01:29:38.840 --> 01:29:40.840]  Is that the music for the break?
[01:29:40.840 --> 01:29:42.840]  Yeah, it is.
[01:29:42.840 --> 01:29:44.840]  Hang on just a second, Max, and we'll pick that up on the other side.
[01:29:44.840 --> 01:29:47.840]  I'm going to have you restate that, but hang on just a minute, okay?
[01:29:47.840 --> 01:29:50.840]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:29:50.840 --> 01:29:54.840]  We have a half an hour left and hopefully enough callers to get us through that,
[01:29:54.840 --> 01:29:56.840]  and I'll be able to get them all done.
[01:29:56.840 --> 01:30:00.840]  So y'all hang in there and we'll be right back.
[01:30:00.840 --> 01:30:06.840]  Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars.
[01:30:06.840 --> 01:30:07.840]  Oh, yeah.
[01:30:07.840 --> 01:30:10.840]  Out of this world vacations may soon become a reality,
[01:30:10.840 --> 01:30:13.840]  and space entrepreneurs are taking reservations.
[01:30:13.840 --> 01:30:16.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[01:30:16.840 --> 01:30:20.840]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches
[01:30:20.840 --> 01:30:23.840]  and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[01:30:23.840 --> 01:30:24.840]  That's creepy.
[01:30:24.840 --> 01:30:26.840]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:26.840 --> 01:30:29.840]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:29.840 --> 01:30:33.840]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches,
[01:30:33.840 --> 01:30:36.840]  or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified.
[01:30:36.840 --> 01:30:40.840]  If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:30:40.840 --> 01:30:43.840]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:43.840 --> 01:30:46.840]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:46.840 --> 01:30:49.840]  Would you like to spend your next vacation in space?
[01:30:49.840 --> 01:30:50.840]  That day may be coming.
[01:30:50.840 --> 01:30:54.840]  Eight private spaceship airports or spaceports have already been built,
[01:30:54.840 --> 01:30:56.840]  and test flights are underway.
[01:30:56.840 --> 01:31:00.840]  Companies like Space Adventures and Virgin Galactic are pre-selling seats
[01:31:00.840 --> 01:31:03.840]  for space cruises designed for the regular public.
[01:31:03.840 --> 01:31:06.840]  At the $40 million price tag the Russians have been asking for
[01:31:06.840 --> 01:31:11.840]  rise to the space station, suborbital cruises start at just $102,000.
[01:31:11.840 --> 01:31:14.840]  Take out a second mortgage and you could be on your way.
[01:31:14.840 --> 01:31:17.840]  Promoters expect this space travel will eventually become routine
[01:31:17.840 --> 01:31:19.840]  and prices should drop even further.
[01:31:19.840 --> 01:31:22.840]  Me? I love adventure and I love a bargain.
[01:31:22.840 --> 01:31:24.840]  I'll send you a postcard from space.
[01:31:24.840 --> 01:31:25.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:25.840 --> 01:31:30.840]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.840 --> 01:31:35.840]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:35.840 --> 01:31:37.840]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:37.840 --> 01:31:42.840]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:42.840 --> 01:31:45.840]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:45.840 --> 01:31:48.840]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:48.840 --> 01:31:49.840]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:49.840 --> 01:31:50.840]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:50.840 --> 01:31:51.840]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:51.840 --> 01:31:52.840]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:52.840 --> 01:31:54.840]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:54.840 --> 01:31:57.840]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.840 --> 01:32:00.840]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:28.840 --> 01:32:31.840]  to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:31.840 --> 01:32:37.840]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:37.840 --> 01:32:43.840]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network
[01:32:43.840 --> 01:32:44.840]  to help continue this programming.
[01:32:44.840 --> 01:32:49.840]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:49.840 --> 01:32:55.840]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:55.840 --> 01:32:58.840]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:58.840 --> 01:33:00.840]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:00.840 --> 01:33:23.840]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradio.com.
[01:33:30.840 --> 01:33:33.840]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:33.840 --> 01:33:37.840]  We are back and we're going to see if we can wrap this up in the next two segments.
[01:33:37.840 --> 01:33:42.840]  All right, Max, go ahead and start that last piece again, please.
[01:33:42.840 --> 01:33:46.840]  Okay, let's blast it out here.
[01:33:46.840 --> 01:33:51.840]  What I have here is not a complaint.
[01:33:51.840 --> 01:33:54.840]  It's not an official complaint.
[01:33:54.840 --> 01:34:04.840]  What the title of the document is called is Register of Action under Case Number blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
[01:34:04.840 --> 01:34:07.840]  XXX, my buddy, you know, his name.
[01:34:07.840 --> 01:34:21.840]  And then when it says Charge Information, the statute that they're charging him under is TC522-03,
[01:34:21.840 --> 01:34:31.840]  which I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, is Transportation Code 522.003,
[01:34:31.840 --> 01:34:37.840]  which anybody who has access to the Internet, which I assume that's most of us,
[01:34:37.840 --> 01:34:46.840]  can look that up and realize that Section 003 is the definitions section.
[01:34:46.840 --> 01:35:01.840]  So how can the crime that they're attempting to, you know, accuse him of, allegedly,
[01:35:01.840 --> 01:35:14.840]  is actually a violation of the definition statute, which nowhere in the definition statute is any offense defined?
[01:35:14.840 --> 01:35:18.840]  Well, you can't violate a definition.
[01:35:18.840 --> 01:35:20.840]  Exactly.
[01:35:20.840 --> 01:35:32.840]  So I think that these guys have made a big mistake by using the charging instrument or the charging statute
[01:35:32.840 --> 01:35:38.840]  as they accidentally put the definition section.
[01:35:38.840 --> 01:35:50.840]  I mean, and then, so let me ask you this. This friend is also guilty of failure to appear, FTA.
[01:35:50.840 --> 01:35:57.840]  So he failed to appear. Therefore, he probably has a summary judgment against him.
[01:35:57.840 --> 01:36:01.840]  No, in a criminal case, he cannot have a summary judgment.
[01:36:01.840 --> 01:36:08.840]  The only way he could have a judgment against him in his absence is if he was there when the trial started
[01:36:08.840 --> 01:36:12.840]  and failed to appear after it had began.
[01:36:12.840 --> 01:36:16.840]  And was able to cross-examine the witnesses.
[01:36:16.840 --> 01:36:18.840]  No, he doesn't even have to do that.
[01:36:18.840 --> 01:36:28.840]  If he vacated after the trial began, he will have been considered having waived his right to cross-examination.
[01:36:28.840 --> 01:36:43.840]  So I guess when I look at, if I want to do the very simple attack against the prosecutions case,
[01:36:43.840 --> 01:36:57.840]  I would probably want to get a DIR and an open records request and to see exactly what the charging instrument is
[01:36:57.840 --> 01:37:04.840]  and to be able to examine that charging instrument and if it was faulty in any way,
[01:37:04.840 --> 01:37:14.840]  to be able to charge it by preserving my objections to be able to do that. Correct?
[01:37:14.840 --> 01:37:17.840]  Yes.
[01:37:17.840 --> 01:37:27.840]  Okay. Perfect. So now, I mean, this guy, I really think that, okay, look, check this out, Eddie. Okay.
[01:37:27.840 --> 01:37:31.840]  One more thing. One more thing. I'm trying to waste too much more of your time.
[01:37:31.840 --> 01:37:37.840]  But when it says, now, this is not a complaint. This is not a criminal complaint.
[01:37:37.840 --> 01:37:42.840]  This is what they call a register of action.
[01:37:42.840 --> 01:37:57.840]  And now under the subtitle where it says charge information, it says statute that these being charged again is TC522003,
[01:37:57.840 --> 01:38:06.840]  which again is the definition section of the code.
[01:38:06.840 --> 01:38:15.840]  Well, here's the thing. What this is telling me is that the DPS doesn't have a complaint. That's what this is telling me.
[01:38:15.840 --> 01:38:36.840]  No, no. No. And in fact, Eddie, my next move, not to be construed as legal advice, but just, you know, good friendly advice to him is to recommend, I'm sorry,
[01:38:36.840 --> 01:38:42.840]  to request everything in the record under the cause number that we're talking about.
[01:38:42.840 --> 01:38:47.840]  Correct. That would be the smart thing to do. Including the charging instrument.
[01:38:47.840 --> 01:38:57.840]  Everything in the adjudicated court file. Right. Okay.
[01:38:57.840 --> 01:39:08.840]  Be real specific about that. Everything in the adjudicatory file for the court case, if you just say all the records of the court pertaining to this case,
[01:39:08.840 --> 01:39:15.840]  there will be administrative records that are off limits because they are internal to the court that will not be in the case file.
[01:39:15.840 --> 01:39:21.840]  Those are not public. But the adjudicatory file is.
[01:39:21.840 --> 01:39:23.840]  Eddie, I have one more question.
[01:39:23.840 --> 01:39:24.840]  Okay.
[01:39:24.840 --> 01:39:31.840]  At the end of this section of here, there is a section called events and orders of the court.
[01:39:31.840 --> 01:39:52.840]  And now it has specific dates next to it. And it says that December 2, 2009, the JP court, and then in parentheses is OCA, which I'm a, what does that stand for?
[01:39:52.840 --> 01:39:55.840]  Original cause of action?
[01:39:55.840 --> 01:39:56.840]  Probably.
[01:39:56.840 --> 01:40:22.840]  And then we've got 11-15-2010, free trial, 1.34 p.m., judicial officer and Connolly Eddie, which is actually a female who is the court of the clerk there.
[01:40:22.840 --> 01:40:33.840]  Anyway, and then it says 10-27-2011, which is obviously two years, which statute of limitations should be two years, right?
[01:40:33.840 --> 01:40:41.840]  The statute of limitations is two years unless there was a warrant issue. A warrant is the only thing that can toll the statute of limitations.
[01:40:41.840 --> 01:40:42.840]  But.
[01:40:42.840 --> 01:40:44.840]  We're told the statute of limitations.
[01:40:44.840 --> 01:40:45.840]  What? Wait, wait, wait.
[01:40:45.840 --> 01:40:48.840]  Which could have only been the failure to appear.
[01:40:48.840 --> 01:40:59.840]  But wait a minute. The problem is, is they have no authority in the statute to issue a warrant for failure to appear for a Class C.
[01:40:59.840 --> 01:41:00.840]  None.
[01:41:00.840 --> 01:41:24.840]  When you read 15.17 G and 14.06 B and C, the only time the court, and 27.14 D, the only thing the court can do if the person fails to appear in response to a citation is to receive a proper criminal complaint.
[01:41:24.840 --> 01:41:29.840]  They are not authorized to issue warrants for failure to appear.
[01:41:29.840 --> 01:41:34.840]  Okay. Now, let me take this one step further.
[01:41:34.840 --> 01:41:59.840]  If notice was construed to be insufficient in the initial case, and then summary judgment was made against the respondent because he had lack of notice, is this something that's challengeable?
[01:41:59.840 --> 01:42:03.840]  There can't be a summary judgment.
[01:42:03.840 --> 01:42:05.840]  Hold on, Eddie, Eddie, Eddie.
[01:42:05.840 --> 01:42:12.840]  Is the proper challenge that the summary judgment is voidable?
[01:42:12.840 --> 01:42:20.840]  Or, I mean, how does one attack the summary judgment?
[01:42:20.840 --> 01:42:22.840]  There can't be one.
[01:42:22.840 --> 01:42:24.840]  And if there is one, it's void.
[01:42:24.840 --> 01:42:27.840]  Not voidable, it's void.
[01:42:27.840 --> 01:42:33.840]  There can't be a summary judgment in a criminal case.
[01:42:33.840 --> 01:42:40.840]  Absolutely cannot happen except in the circumstances I said earlier.
[01:42:40.840 --> 01:42:45.840]  Well, where is this? Because I cannot find it in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:42:45.840 --> 01:42:47.840]  Can't find what?
[01:42:47.840 --> 01:42:55.840]  I can find it in the Code of Civil Procedure, but I cannot find it in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:42:55.840 --> 01:42:58.840]  Because there isn't one.
[01:42:58.840 --> 01:43:05.840]  And because there's not one defined in the criminal procedure, we default back to...
[01:43:05.840 --> 01:43:18.840]  No, not in this case, because the due process rights in a criminal matter are different than they are in a civil matter for particular things, a conviction being one of them.
[01:43:18.840 --> 01:43:28.840]  A conviction in a criminal case cannot be had in the same manner that a judgment can be had in a civil case.
[01:43:28.840 --> 01:43:31.840]  Okay, let me ask you a more pointed question.
[01:43:31.840 --> 01:43:33.840]  Well, hang on just a second, Max.
[01:43:33.840 --> 01:43:38.840]  I'm going into a break again, which means we used up that segment, and I've only got one left.
[01:43:38.840 --> 01:43:42.840]  So hang on just a minute.
[01:43:42.840 --> 01:43:44.840]  All right, folks, we'll be right back.
[01:43:44.840 --> 01:43:46.840]  If you're on the line, don't drop off.
[01:43:46.840 --> 01:43:50.840]  I'm going to try to get this resolved with Max so I can get the rest of you guys before we get off here.
[01:43:50.840 --> 01:43:54.840]  I've only got a couple of you to get to, so hold on there, Liz, Lenny.
[01:43:54.840 --> 01:43:56.840]  I'll see if I can't get to you here.
[01:43:56.840 --> 01:43:59.840]  Hold on.
[01:43:59.840 --> 01:44:03.840]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.840 --> 01:44:04.840]  Sorry.
[01:44:04.840 --> 01:44:07.840]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.840 --> 01:44:08.840]  What?
[01:44:08.840 --> 01:44:12.840]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:12.840 --> 01:44:18.840]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:18.840 --> 01:44:24.840]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:24.840 --> 01:44:29.840]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:29.840 --> 01:44:35.840]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:35.840 --> 01:44:40.840]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries
[01:44:40.840 --> 01:44:42.840]  without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:42.840 --> 01:44:49.840]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:49.840 --> 01:44:54.840]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.840 --> 01:44:57.840]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:57.840 --> 01:45:00.840]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:00.840 --> 01:45:03.840]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.840 --> 01:45:07.840]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:45:07.840 --> 01:45:15.840]  It's the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:15.840 --> 01:45:19.840]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.840 --> 01:45:23.840]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.840 --> 01:45:28.840]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.840 --> 01:45:34.840]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.840 --> 01:45:38.840]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.840 --> 01:45:43.840]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.840 --> 01:45:49.840]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.840 --> 01:45:52.840]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.840 --> 01:46:21.840]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.840 --> 01:46:23.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:46:23.840 --> 01:46:26.840]  We are now in our last segment, talking to Max.
[01:46:26.840 --> 01:46:29.840]  All right, Max, let's see if we can wrap this up here.
[01:46:29.840 --> 01:46:37.840]  Now, what was your last thing here, or your fourth last thing?
[01:46:37.840 --> 01:46:40.840]  Sorry, didn't mean to overwhelm you.
[01:46:40.840 --> 01:46:50.840]  But what I'm worried about is the necessity of notice before someone can be punished
[01:46:50.840 --> 01:46:56.840]  in a rule of law or be a criminal.
[01:46:56.840 --> 01:47:01.840]  That's why all of these things need to be challenged on constitutional grounds.
[01:47:01.840 --> 01:47:04.840]  They are violative of the right-of-do process, and they are,
[01:47:04.840 --> 01:47:09.840]  for all intents and purposes, bills of pains and penalties.
[01:47:09.840 --> 01:47:12.840]  That's exactly what they are.
[01:47:12.840 --> 01:47:14.840]  And is this straight?
[01:47:14.840 --> 01:47:22.840]  Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution, where it says that you have the right to a trial by jury.
[01:47:22.840 --> 01:47:25.840]  Article 1, Section 10, yes.
[01:47:25.840 --> 01:47:26.840]  Exactly.
[01:47:26.840 --> 01:47:37.840]  So we really have a right to all this, but so many people tend to capitulate and act
[01:47:37.840 --> 01:47:45.840]  as we ask and just kind of bend over and allow that to happen to themselves.
[01:47:45.840 --> 01:47:50.840]  And I think that's largely to the detriment of our fellow Texans.
[01:47:50.840 --> 01:47:55.840]  It's the detriment of everyone everywhere, not just Texans.
[01:47:55.840 --> 01:48:00.840]  We need to start teaching these public servants that they are servants.
[01:48:00.840 --> 01:48:01.840]  They are not masters.
[01:48:01.840 --> 01:48:03.840]  They don't get to dictate to us.
[01:48:03.840 --> 01:48:05.840]  Correct.
[01:48:05.840 --> 01:48:07.840]  We get to dictate to them.
[01:48:07.840 --> 01:48:08.840]  Yep.
[01:48:08.840 --> 01:48:09.840]  All right, man.
[01:48:09.840 --> 01:48:13.840]  I got two more folks, and this is my last segment, so let me get to them.
[01:48:13.840 --> 01:48:15.840]  I appreciate you calling in, though.
[01:48:15.840 --> 01:48:16.840]  All right.
[01:48:16.840 --> 01:48:17.840]  Hey, great call.
[01:48:17.840 --> 01:48:18.840]  All right.
[01:48:18.840 --> 01:48:19.840]  Thanks.
[01:48:19.840 --> 01:48:20.840]  All right.
[01:48:20.840 --> 01:48:22.840]  Now we're going to go to Liz in Texas.
[01:48:22.840 --> 01:48:24.840]  Liz, what can I do for you?
[01:48:24.840 --> 01:48:27.840]  Eddie, how are you doing?
[01:48:27.840 --> 01:48:29.840]  I'm doing good, I think.
[01:48:29.840 --> 01:48:33.840]  I don't know when I get off the show if I'm still conscious.
[01:48:33.840 --> 01:48:36.840]  There you go.
[01:48:36.840 --> 01:48:41.840]  Okay, so I don't have the legal expertise and knowledge like a lot of your other listeners,
[01:48:41.840 --> 01:48:43.840]  so that's why I'm calling you.
[01:48:43.840 --> 01:48:44.840]  Okay.
[01:48:44.840 --> 01:48:47.840]  I'm dealing with a new district judge here in West Texas.
[01:48:47.840 --> 01:48:53.840]  My husband got called into his ex-wife's lawyer's office, and on the drive home,
[01:48:53.840 --> 01:48:57.840]  lawyer called him and said, we have a court date.
[01:48:57.840 --> 01:49:00.840]  So first off, that's my first thing.
[01:49:00.840 --> 01:49:01.840]  Is that legal?
[01:49:01.840 --> 01:49:07.840]  Well, does your husband have an attorney for whatever's going on?
[01:49:07.840 --> 01:49:12.840]  Well, we had to scramble and get one after we got that call on the drive home.
[01:49:12.840 --> 01:49:13.840]  Okay.
[01:49:13.840 --> 01:49:14.840]  Well, that's why.
[01:49:14.840 --> 01:49:19.840]  Then what is the thing about, what's the question about the court date then?
[01:49:19.840 --> 01:49:25.840]  Well, I'm just wondering, he was not acting in good faith, first of all.
[01:49:25.840 --> 01:49:32.840]  When he called him into the lawyer's office trying to get him to sign some paperwork,
[01:49:32.840 --> 01:49:34.840]  my husband would not sign it.
[01:49:34.840 --> 01:49:39.840]  And so by the time my husband, I barely made it home, he said, okay,
[01:49:39.840 --> 01:49:41.840]  well, I will see you in court on this day.
[01:49:41.840 --> 01:49:44.840]  He had already had that court date.
[01:49:44.840 --> 01:49:45.840]  Okay.
[01:49:45.840 --> 01:49:51.840]  Well, when you say he didn't act in good faith, what does that mean?
[01:49:51.840 --> 01:49:56.840]  He already knew that my husband was not going to sign that and he was just,
[01:49:56.840 --> 01:50:01.840]  he already had booked, had already gotten that court date with a judge
[01:50:01.840 --> 01:50:06.840]  and did not tell my husband that until he did not sign it and left the building.
[01:50:06.840 --> 01:50:14.840]  Then y'all can move to have that rescheduled or to request that it be changed
[01:50:14.840 --> 01:50:16.840]  because you weren't given proper notice of it.
[01:50:16.840 --> 01:50:20.840]  How far in the future is this?
[01:50:20.840 --> 01:50:21.840]  Okay.
[01:50:21.840 --> 01:50:23.840]  So we've actually gone to court.
[01:50:23.840 --> 01:50:25.840]  Oh, okay.
[01:50:25.840 --> 01:50:26.840]  Yeah.
[01:50:26.840 --> 01:50:28.840]  All right.
[01:50:28.840 --> 01:50:30.840]  Three days notice.
[01:50:30.840 --> 01:50:33.840]  Well, then somebody should have objected to that.
[01:50:33.840 --> 01:50:37.840]  The fact that you went and didn't, that's water under the bridge now.
[01:50:37.840 --> 01:50:39.840]  There's no going back to that.
[01:50:39.840 --> 01:50:40.840]  Yeah.
[01:50:40.840 --> 01:50:41.840]  Okay.
[01:50:41.840 --> 01:50:45.840]  So the main thing is we have this judge who started in October of 2015.
[01:50:45.840 --> 01:50:49.840]  We had our custody case at the end of December.
[01:50:49.840 --> 01:50:56.840]  This is by February, the judge had upset someone enough to put a contract out on her.
[01:50:56.840 --> 01:51:03.840]  So in asserting her new authority, she was screaming and yelling, threatening myself,
[01:51:03.840 --> 01:51:06.840]  my husband in the courtroom.
[01:51:06.840 --> 01:51:08.840]  This is our life at stake and our children.
[01:51:08.840 --> 01:51:14.840]  She stated we would be in contempt of court and given 180 days jail time
[01:51:14.840 --> 01:51:18.840]  if we spoke to the children about anything that happened in court.
[01:51:18.840 --> 01:51:21.840]  I want to know how I can protect myself from that.
[01:51:21.840 --> 01:51:26.840]  And is that threat of jail time excessive enough to file a judicial complaint?
[01:51:26.840 --> 01:51:31.840]  You could file a judicial complaint because you don't like the way she parts her hair.
[01:51:31.840 --> 01:51:32.840]  Okay.
[01:51:32.840 --> 01:51:39.840]  But in order for it to be of any means whatsoever, it's got to have some teeth to it.
[01:51:39.840 --> 01:51:49.840]  Basically what you have is, unfortunately, is that you are embroiled in the most corrupt part
[01:51:49.840 --> 01:51:53.840]  of the judicial system in existence, family law.
[01:51:53.840 --> 01:51:54.840]  I know it.
[01:51:54.840 --> 01:51:55.840]  Okay.
[01:51:55.840 --> 01:52:01.840]  Every judge in family law should be hanging from a lamp post by their neck.
[01:52:01.840 --> 01:52:03.840]  No question.
[01:52:03.840 --> 01:52:07.840]  It's not even an option to consider that some of them are good.
[01:52:07.840 --> 01:52:10.840]  Just not. There aren't any.
[01:52:10.840 --> 01:52:15.840]  What I would recommend is that you move to disqualify this judge
[01:52:15.840 --> 01:52:19.840]  and file judicial conduct complaints for her threats and behavior.
[01:52:19.840 --> 01:52:22.840]  But your attorney is never going to do that.
[01:52:22.840 --> 01:52:29.840]  And if you do it without him or her, they're going to immediately move to be dismissed from the case
[01:52:29.840 --> 01:52:34.840]  so that they don't suffer the consequences of you doing so.
[01:52:34.840 --> 01:52:39.840]  Because one thing about this, your attorney doesn't work for you.
[01:52:39.840 --> 01:52:46.840]  And anything that you do that he or she was not able to prevent or control
[01:52:46.840 --> 01:52:51.840]  reflects badly on them, and they're the one that suffers for it.
[01:52:51.840 --> 01:52:55.840]  So to negate that, they will drop you like a hot rock
[01:52:55.840 --> 01:52:59.840]  if they think at all that it will protect them from repercussions.
[01:52:59.840 --> 01:53:03.840]  None of these people do the right thing for the right reasons.
[01:53:03.840 --> 01:53:07.840]  They do not fight for you. They don't.
[01:53:07.840 --> 01:53:11.840]  Do not believe otherwise.
[01:53:11.840 --> 01:53:13.840]  I don't.
[01:53:13.840 --> 01:53:18.840]  If you trust an attorney, you may as well trust a convicted felony burglar
[01:53:18.840 --> 01:53:23.840]  to watch your house while you're away for six months.
[01:53:23.840 --> 01:53:25.840]  I agree.
[01:53:25.840 --> 01:53:29.840]  Okay. So your first thing is to get rid of this judge.
[01:53:29.840 --> 01:53:34.840]  But there's something else you need to consider, the replacement.
[01:53:34.840 --> 01:53:37.840]  The replacement may be good buddies with the judge you got rid of
[01:53:37.840 --> 01:53:43.840]  and may use your actions against that judge to retaliate against you in that court.
[01:53:43.840 --> 01:53:51.840]  Again, you're dealing with the most corrupt part of law that's in existence.
[01:53:51.840 --> 01:53:53.840]  Agreed.
[01:53:53.840 --> 01:53:58.840]  So these are the things you need to take into account in your actions.
[01:53:58.840 --> 01:54:02.840]  Now, there's also the point that you may,
[01:54:02.840 --> 01:54:08.840]  if you have a federally protected rights violation involved in this,
[01:54:08.840 --> 01:54:11.840]  that you move to move the entire case to federal court
[01:54:11.840 --> 01:54:15.840]  and go after this process there rather than in the state.
[01:54:15.840 --> 01:54:19.840]  But you better be able to cite some sort of rights violation
[01:54:19.840 --> 01:54:23.840]  where the federal protections are an issue
[01:54:23.840 --> 01:54:28.840]  or it's going to come back to bite you as well.
[01:54:28.840 --> 01:54:31.840]  I don't know if it's a federal rights thing, but just off the top of my head,
[01:54:31.840 --> 01:54:37.840]  I could think the court reporter will not provide us a copy of the note.
[01:54:37.840 --> 01:54:42.840]  Well, that's not a right that they're going to enforce in that manner.
[01:54:42.840 --> 01:54:47.840]  Whether or not there's a transcript or any of that is not necessarily a rights issue
[01:54:47.840 --> 01:54:53.840]  except for the purpose of appeal if those records are required to even get the appeal.
[01:54:53.840 --> 01:55:00.840]  The issue here is whether or not they are violating your individual rights as parents
[01:55:00.840 --> 01:55:06.840]  or that of the children or that of a family or that of due process,
[01:55:06.840 --> 01:55:09.840]  whether it be you, your husband, or your children,
[01:55:09.840 --> 01:55:15.840]  and whether or not they're acting in the best interest of those rights.
[01:55:15.840 --> 01:55:20.840]  Well, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:55:20.840 --> 01:55:24.840]  Do not be making such presumptions.
[01:55:24.840 --> 01:55:28.840]  There are legal aspects to whether or not those violations occur,
[01:55:28.840 --> 01:55:33.840]  and they will never be the ones that you want them to be or think they are.
[01:55:33.840 --> 01:55:41.840]  Don't fall into that trap of convincing yourself that you know they are, okay?
[01:55:41.840 --> 01:55:45.840]  What the children wish is not a consideration
[01:55:45.840 --> 01:55:50.840]  if the court feels the children are not capable of making such decisions.
[01:55:50.840 --> 01:55:53.840]  That's their way out, you see?
[01:55:53.840 --> 01:55:57.840]  So it's not a violation for the court to act accordingly,
[01:55:57.840 --> 01:56:00.840]  whether you and the kids like it or not.
[01:56:00.840 --> 01:56:05.840]  The issue here is whether or not they are threatening you in order to make you do things
[01:56:05.840 --> 01:56:14.840]  you otherwise would not do that cause a harm to you or your children or to your family environment.
[01:56:14.840 --> 01:56:20.840]  If they're using threats, duress, coercion, unlawful manipulation of facts,
[01:56:20.840 --> 01:56:28.840]  testimony or the record, and things of that nature, those are things you can go after.
[01:56:28.840 --> 01:56:31.840]  But just because you don't like the way they handle it,
[01:56:31.840 --> 01:56:35.840]  that is not necessarily a rights violation.
[01:56:35.840 --> 01:56:38.840]  Where would I find those rights violations, Eddie?
[01:56:38.840 --> 01:56:42.840]  Well, the only way you're going to come to understand how the federal courts review these
[01:56:42.840 --> 01:56:45.840]  is to read the federal cases dealing with them.
[01:56:45.840 --> 01:56:51.840]  You need to read family law cases that involve issues that were removed to federal court and see what they say.
[01:56:51.840 --> 01:56:56.840]  You need to see what the rules of procedure in Texas require these judges to actually be doing
[01:56:56.840 --> 01:56:58.840]  because they don't follow the rules.
[01:56:58.840 --> 01:57:08.840]  None of them do, but family law just makes it up as they go along.
[01:57:08.840 --> 01:57:14.840]  So when you go through there and you can show that the judge is violating every rule in the book
[01:57:14.840 --> 01:57:19.840]  to do things the way they want instead of the way the law requires and the right of due process requires
[01:57:19.840 --> 01:57:25.840]  and the rights of the individual requires, then you have grounds to get that judge removed.
[01:57:25.840 --> 01:57:28.840]  You have grounds to get all those actions dismissed.
[01:57:28.840 --> 01:57:39.840]  You have grounds to move them up to a federal court to be heard in at least a somewhat more fair jurisdiction,
[01:57:39.840 --> 01:57:42.840]  potentially somewhat fair.
[01:57:42.840 --> 01:57:43.840]  Okay.
[01:57:43.840 --> 01:57:45.840]  All right.
[01:57:45.840 --> 01:57:48.840]  All right, Liz, I'm out of time.
[01:57:48.840 --> 01:57:54.840]  That music means we have run out of time in this segment, so we're done and I've got to get off the air here.
[01:57:54.840 --> 01:57:57.840]  But I appreciate you calling in and I wish I could tell you more.
[01:57:57.840 --> 01:58:03.840]  But now is the time for research and picking your lawyer's brain while you've got one.
[01:58:03.840 --> 01:58:04.840]  Ask them about these things.
[01:58:04.840 --> 01:58:09.840]  You're not going to like the answers they give you because they're definitely going to play them down
[01:58:09.840 --> 01:58:11.840]  and try to convince you not to do it.
[01:58:11.840 --> 01:58:13.840]  Watch and see.
[01:58:13.840 --> 01:58:14.840]  All right.
[01:58:14.840 --> 01:58:15.840]  Thanks for calling in, Liz.
[01:58:15.840 --> 01:58:16.840]  All right, folks.
[01:58:16.840 --> 01:58:19.840]  This has been the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:58:19.840 --> 01:58:21.840]  I hope you found tonight informative.
[01:58:21.840 --> 01:58:27.840]  I hope that we've helped you in some way with your issues or given you ideas on how to do so.
[01:58:27.840 --> 01:58:32.840]  If you like what we do, please financially support this network through donations.
[01:58:32.840 --> 01:58:39.840]  Please take a look at my website, Tao, or my Facebook page, TaoLaw, T-A-O-space-L-A-U-W.
[01:58:39.840 --> 01:58:43.840]  Make donations on GoFundMe for the lawsuit.
[01:58:43.840 --> 01:58:47.840]  By the constitutional motion, we need your help and support.
[01:58:47.840 --> 01:58:48.840]  You all have a great week.
[01:58:48.840 --> 01:58:49.840]  God bless you.
[01:58:49.840 --> 01:58:54.840]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called
[01:58:54.840 --> 01:58:57.840]  the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.840 --> 01:59:02.840]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says
[01:59:02.840 --> 01:59:07.840]  verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:07.840 --> 01:59:10.840]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:10.840 --> 01:59:19.840]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:19.840 --> 01:59:25.840]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.840 --> 01:59:29.840]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.840 --> 01:59:31.840]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:31.840 --> 01:59:35.840]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version,
[01:59:35.840 --> 01:59:40.840]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.840 --> 01:59:50.840]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:50.840 --> 01:59:52.840]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:52.840 --> 01:59:53.840]  You found it.
[01:59:53.840 --> 02:00:06.840]  LogosradioNetwork.com