ROL_2017-01-06_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:06.000 --> 00:08.000]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:08.000 --> 00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.000 --> 00:29.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 4th of January 2017 are currently trading with gold at $1,162.76 an ounce.
[00:29.000 --> 00:31.000]  Over $16.39 an ounce.
[00:31.000 --> 00:34.000]  Texas crude, $52.33 a barrel.
[00:34.000 --> 00:45.000]  And Bitcoin is still rising at $1,116 U.S. currency.
[00:45.000 --> 00:51.000]  Today in history, the year 1884, the Fabian Society is founded in London, a notoriously
[00:51.000 --> 00:56.000]  socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism
[00:56.000 --> 01:02.000]  via gradualist and reformist efforts in democracies rather than by revolutionary communist
[01:02.000 --> 01:03.000]  overthrow.
[01:03.000 --> 01:08.000]  Today in history.
[01:08.000 --> 01:12.000]  In recent news, democratic leaders in the California legislature announced Wednesday
[01:12.000 --> 01:16.000]  today that Eric Holder, former Attorney General under President Obama, will be hired to represent
[01:16.000 --> 01:20.000]  the state in any legal fights against the new Republican Congress and White House.
[01:20.000 --> 01:25.000]  Holder, the first African American to hold the position of Attorney General, is now a
[01:25.000 --> 01:30.000]  partner at Covington & Burling, a law firm in Washington that specializes in representing
[01:30.000 --> 01:32.000]  states and companies against the federal government.
[01:32.000 --> 01:37.000]  With the Democratic Party controlling two-thirds of both the assembly and the Senate in California,
[01:37.000 --> 01:41.000]  not to mention that all statewide elected officials are Democrat, it definitely seems
[01:41.000 --> 01:45.000]  legal battles surrounding the environment and immigration in particular will be highly
[01:45.000 --> 01:46.000]  debated.
[01:46.000 --> 01:50.000]  Kevin de Leon, the Democratic leader of the Senate in California, even went as far as
[01:50.000 --> 01:54.000]  to say that the Trump administration could potentially cost the state billions of dollars
[01:54.000 --> 02:04.000]  if they failed to make their case on suspected controversial issues sure to arise.
[02:04.000 --> 02:08.000]  The state of Texas has collected more than $160,000 in back child support since starting
[02:08.000 --> 02:10.000]  a program this last December.
[02:10.000 --> 02:15.000]  Under the new Texas Family Code stipulations, the Attorney General office also has the ability
[02:15.000 --> 02:20.000]  to bar some parents who owe money to child support from renewing vehicle registrations
[02:20.000 --> 02:24.000]  and even revoke driver's licenses in addition to professional and recreational permits for
[02:24.000 --> 02:26.000]  parents who do not pay up.
[02:26.000 --> 02:30.000]  The rule applies to parents at least six months behind in child support payments.
[02:30.000 --> 02:34.000]  However, it does not apply to vehicle titles registered to someone other than the parent
[02:34.000 --> 02:38.000]  owing child support or a jointly owned vehicle for that matter.
[02:38.000 --> 02:42.000]  Since September, more than 7,200 parents received a notice warning them to arrange a
[02:42.000 --> 02:45.000]  payment plan before their vehicle registration expired.
[02:45.000 --> 02:49.000]  The Texas Attorney General's office in the past fiscal year alone has collected close
[02:49.000 --> 02:54.000]  to $3.9 billion in child support.
[02:54.000 --> 03:22.000]  This is Brooke Roadie with the Lowdown for January 4th, 2017.
[03:24.000 --> 03:46.000]  I'm going to continue a conversation we started last night about grand juries.
[03:46.000 --> 03:52.000]  A couple of years ago in the last legislative session we started putting together a white
[03:52.000 --> 04:07.000]  paper for the legislature to ask them to propose a slight change in law that would,
[04:07.000 --> 04:15.000]  in my opinion, have a dramatic effect on the way law is done in the state of Texas.
[04:15.000 --> 04:22.000]  And anybody who's listened for a long time knows that for the last 30 years or so I have
[04:22.000 --> 04:32.000]  been researching how to change the system with the smallest change to have the greatest
[04:32.000 --> 04:34.000]  effect.
[04:34.000 --> 04:42.000]  And after 15 years of initial research it became clear that the way to change it is
[04:42.000 --> 04:47.000]  to give the public direct access to grand juries.
[04:47.000 --> 04:50.000]  Now under law we already have it.
[04:50.000 --> 04:56.000]  But we have prosecutors standing between us and the grand juries and they've got bailiffs
[04:56.000 --> 05:03.000]  and investigators who have pistols on who will prevent us from getting to the grand
[05:03.000 --> 05:11.000]  jury without regard to what the law says or without regard to what the law implies.
[05:11.000 --> 05:20.000]  Because the law does not specifically state that a citizen has the absolute right to go
[05:20.000 --> 05:23.000]  to a grand jury any time he wants to.
[05:23.000 --> 05:27.000]  It doesn't use that kind of direct strong language.
[05:27.000 --> 05:32.000]  So prosecutors are lawyers and they do what lawyers do.
[05:32.000 --> 05:33.000]  They word craft.
[05:33.000 --> 05:38.000]  They twist and they squeeze in order to get what they want without regard to what the
[05:38.000 --> 05:39.000]  law says.
[05:39.000 --> 05:45.000]  So we have to come in and ask our legislatures to make a little adjustments to get around
[05:45.000 --> 05:49.000]  the lawyer shenanigans.
[05:49.000 --> 05:55.000]  And I do have a white paper that anyone who wants it, send me an email.
[05:55.000 --> 05:57.000]  I'll send it to you.
[05:57.000 --> 06:03.000]  And if you're in Texas and you're listening to this broadcast, send me an email.
[06:03.000 --> 06:11.000]  I will send you this white paper that proposes legislative changes.
[06:11.000 --> 06:12.000]  Read it.
[06:12.000 --> 06:17.000]  If you agree with me, send it to your legislator.
[06:17.000 --> 06:21.000]  Ask them to propose legislation.
[06:21.000 --> 06:27.000]  There are a number of things that I ask for here.
[06:27.000 --> 06:31.000]  But there are only two that are really important.
[06:31.000 --> 06:39.000]  There's only one that I actually really want to get beyond anything else.
[06:39.000 --> 06:49.000]  And that is we want to ask the legislature to propose a change to Article 20.09 Texas
[06:49.000 --> 06:52.000]  Code of Criminal Procedure.
[06:52.000 --> 06:57.000]  20.09 goes to duties of grand jurors.
[06:57.000 --> 07:03.000]  It shall be the duty of the grand jury to investigate into all crimes subject to indictment
[07:03.000 --> 07:08.000]  that come to their knowledge by way of any member of the grand jury, the prosecuting
[07:08.000 --> 07:13.000]  attorney, or any credible person.
[07:13.000 --> 07:22.000]  Any credible person is that section that gives, that statutorily stipulates the right of a
[07:22.000 --> 07:29.000]  citizen to give notice to a grand jury of crimes subject to indictment.
[07:29.000 --> 07:37.000]  Prosecutors keep us from getting to the grand jury because they refer to 2.0, I think it's
[07:37.000 --> 07:48.000]  to 20.11, I'm sorry, 20.10 that says that the prosecuting attorney may present to the
[07:48.000 --> 07:50.000]  grand jury.
[07:50.000 --> 07:57.000]  And what prosecutors say is that anytime you give notice to a grand jury, that's a
[07:57.000 --> 07:58.000]  presentment.
[07:58.000 --> 08:00.000]  And we're saying it's no such thing.
[08:00.000 --> 08:02.000]  Notice is notice.
[08:02.000 --> 08:05.000]  Presentment is a term of art.
[08:05.000 --> 08:12.000]  Presentment is where a prosecuting attorney gives a formal presentment to a grand jury
[08:12.000 --> 08:15.000]  in quorum in session.
[08:15.000 --> 08:18.000]  We don't really care so much to do that.
[08:18.000 --> 08:22.000]  It wouldn't hurt our feelings if they let us do that, but it's not that important.
[08:22.000 --> 08:29.000]  What we're here to do is give notice of crime to the grand jury.
[08:29.000 --> 08:34.000]  And 20.09 authorizes us to do that.
[08:34.000 --> 08:40.000]  But prosecutors are doing their word crafting and doing everything they can to keep us from
[08:40.000 --> 08:41.000]  getting access.
[08:41.000 --> 08:55.000]  So we want the legislature to add 20.095 or 20.091, whatever they want to call it.
[08:55.000 --> 09:00.000]  And that proposal, real simple, real short.
[09:00.000 --> 09:06.000]  I'm scrolling down a page here to get to the right one.
[09:06.000 --> 09:18.000]  We want to ask the grand jury to add to the requirements in 20.09 that every citizen,
[09:18.000 --> 09:26.000]  here I have it listed as 20.095, every citizen with knowledge of the crime subject to
[09:26.000 --> 09:33.000]  indictment shall have the right to make said knowledge known to the grand jury by personal
[09:33.000 --> 09:39.000]  testimony under oath or by verified affidavit.
[09:39.000 --> 09:44.000]  That statute will cost nothing.
[09:44.000 --> 09:48.000]  It will interfere with no law.
[09:48.000 --> 09:53.000]  And it will change everything.
[09:53.000 --> 10:03.000]  The next time a police officer pulls me over, and I am my usual obnoxious and demanding
[10:03.000 --> 10:11.000]  self, and the officer has this notion that he would like to administer to me an attitude
[10:11.000 --> 10:19.000]  adjustment, he will be in a position he will have to consider.
[10:19.000 --> 10:27.000]  What is a grand jury of his peers likely to think about what I'm about to do?
[10:27.000 --> 10:33.000]  I suggest to you that will change everything.
[10:33.000 --> 10:42.000]  And a large portion of the problems we're currently having will simply go away.
[10:42.000 --> 10:49.000]  When you go in front of a judge and the judge thinks about having himself an attitude and
[10:49.000 --> 10:54.000]  reading you the right act, he's going to have to consider what's going to happen if I make
[10:54.000 --> 10:58.000]  this guy angry, and he goes to a grand jury.
[10:58.000 --> 11:08.000]  And what happens if there happens to be on that grand jury a grandeur who himself or
[11:08.000 --> 11:17.000]  one of his or her relatives, children, next door neighbors, feels as though they've been
[11:17.000 --> 11:20.000]  screwed over by me?
[11:20.000 --> 11:24.000]  What's the likelihood or chance that I could get indicted?
[11:24.000 --> 11:26.000]  Oh, sure, I could.
[11:26.000 --> 11:32.000]  It's almost certainly even if I did get indicted, I would get, the courts would eventually
[11:32.000 --> 11:34.000]  throw it out.
[11:34.000 --> 11:40.000]  But in the meantime, I would have to deal with felony prosecution.
[11:40.000 --> 11:46.000]  And even if it did get thrown out, it stays on my record forever.
[11:46.000 --> 11:49.000]  Those who have been listening to the show know I've been doing this kind of thing for
[11:49.000 --> 11:51.000]  quite a while.
[11:51.000 --> 11:56.000]  And I can assure you, when you start filing criminal charges against public officials
[11:56.000 --> 12:03.000]  for their bad behavior, they get real excited and they get real nervous.
[12:03.000 --> 12:11.000]  Even though they may think they have the system sewed up, they may feel like they're a member
[12:11.000 --> 12:17.000]  of the good old boy club and these good old boys aren't going to crucify me, but they
[12:17.000 --> 12:19.000]  know better.
[12:19.000 --> 12:23.000]  If you don't believe that, ask Tom DeLay or Rick Perry.
[12:23.000 --> 12:30.000]  He knows full well that good old boys will crucify you if it's politically expedient.
[12:30.000 --> 12:35.000]  Ask all the judges at the Court of Criminal Appeals.
[12:35.000 --> 12:40.000]  Ron Irwin will put all them in front of the grand jury with one of my complaints over
[12:40.000 --> 12:45.000]  something exceptionally minor.
[12:45.000 --> 12:48.000]  Well, it depends on how you look at it.
[12:48.000 --> 12:51.000]  It was one of those little technical things.
[12:51.000 --> 12:56.000]  I filed a habeas for a kid in Conroe.
[12:56.000 --> 13:01.000]  The Court of Criminal Appeals at the time required that you file a motion for leave
[13:01.000 --> 13:03.000]  to file.
[13:03.000 --> 13:09.000]  And I objected to it as the habeas corpus is the great rich or writ of right.
[13:09.000 --> 13:12.000]  The court has no power to grant or deny leave.
[13:12.000 --> 13:14.000]  They wouldn't take it without it.
[13:14.000 --> 13:17.000]  It wasn't my fight of trying to get this kid out of jail.
[13:17.000 --> 13:19.000]  So I filed a motion for leave.
[13:19.000 --> 13:24.000]  They denied leave to file a habeas corpus.
[13:24.000 --> 13:26.000]  I thought, are you kidding me?
[13:26.000 --> 13:29.000]  Just where did they get that authority?
[13:29.000 --> 13:35.000]  It raised the same question in a set of criminal complaints to the grand jury.
[13:35.000 --> 13:43.000]  Ron Earl, 25-year prosecuting attorney, not running for office again.
[13:43.000 --> 13:44.000]  He's a Democrat.
[13:44.000 --> 13:48.000]  All 15 of these judges are Republicans.
[13:48.000 --> 13:51.000]  He gave my complaint to the grand jury.
[13:51.000 --> 13:55.000]  Now, they didn't indict these guys.
[13:55.000 --> 14:00.000]  But if you file a habeas with the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas,
[14:00.000 --> 14:05.000]  you don't get any of this nonsense about motion for leave to file.
[14:05.000 --> 14:07.000]  They cut that out immediately.
[14:07.000 --> 14:11.000]  These are the highest judges in Texas.
[14:11.000 --> 14:16.000]  And if it gets to their attention, it's going to get everybody's attention.
[14:16.000 --> 14:25.000]  That's what my story is, not that you are so incredibly powerful.
[14:25.000 --> 14:33.000]  It wasn't my eloquent oratory or all the pressure I put on them like I wanted to think it was.
[14:33.000 --> 14:35.000]  It's all political.
[14:35.000 --> 14:38.000]  Everything's political.
[14:38.000 --> 14:42.000]  You're not going to directly frighten these people.
[14:42.000 --> 14:51.000]  What you're going to do is bring to the table political cannon fodder
[14:51.000 --> 14:55.000]  that these people's political enemies can use against them.
[14:55.000 --> 14:58.000]  That's what they're afraid of.
[14:58.000 --> 15:00.000]  And they're always afraid.
[15:00.000 --> 15:03.000]  Just an accusation is going to come back and haunt them.
[15:03.000 --> 15:07.000]  Next time they run for office and they're in a political debate,
[15:07.000 --> 15:13.000]  and their opponent drags up these criminal complaints you presented to a grand jury.
[15:13.000 --> 15:16.000]  Hey there, were you ever presented to a grand jury?
[15:16.000 --> 15:20.000]  Didn't you get presented down there in Johnson County?
[15:20.000 --> 15:24.000]  What did you do that a citizen had to go to all the trouble
[15:24.000 --> 15:27.000]  to file criminal charges against you as a grand jury?
[15:27.000 --> 15:32.000]  Oh, that was just all nonsense, and it was frivolous.
[15:32.000 --> 15:39.000]  Well, the public's going to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire.
[15:39.000 --> 15:43.000]  This is what our public officials are most afraid of,
[15:43.000 --> 15:45.000]  and in some cases afraid of and done.
[15:45.000 --> 15:49.000]  Mostly, they're afraid that you'll create political cannon fodder
[15:49.000 --> 15:52.000]  that someone else can use against them.
[15:52.000 --> 15:58.000]  And I can assure you, you can do just exactly that.
[15:58.000 --> 16:04.000]  Using the grand jury, if we can get this slight change,
[16:04.000 --> 16:07.000]  then there will be no question.
[16:07.000 --> 16:10.000]  You won't have to fight the prosecutor.
[16:10.000 --> 16:15.000]  You can fight the prosecutor now because you already have the right
[16:15.000 --> 16:19.000]  to go before a grand jury or to give notice to a grand jury.
[16:19.000 --> 16:25.000]  And in Tarrant County and Wise County, I get no interference.
[16:25.000 --> 16:28.000]  In Tarrant County, there's a little interference afterward,
[16:28.000 --> 16:30.000]  but take care of that.
[16:30.000 --> 16:34.000]  You can go to Tarrant County, go to the criminal courts building,
[16:34.000 --> 16:36.000]  go up to the second floor,
[16:36.000 --> 16:40.000]  and there's a walkway around a big open foyer.
[16:40.000 --> 16:44.000]  Walk around that walkway to the opposite side of the elevators.
[16:44.000 --> 16:45.000]  There's a door there.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  Go in there, hand this to the bailiff, and say,
[16:48.000 --> 16:53.000]  give this to the grand jury, and they will take it with no question.
[16:53.000 --> 16:56.000]  Hang on. Pick this up on the other side.
[16:56.000 --> 16:58.000]  Randy Kelton, we'll use our radio.
[16:58.000 --> 17:24.000]  We'll be right back.
[17:28.000 --> 17:33.000]  Control, shift, delete, and then scroll down to cookies and clear them.
[17:33.000 --> 17:35.000]  Bye-bye, yuck-a-dookies.
[17:35.000 --> 17:38.000]  Now, I go to logosradionetwork.com,
[17:38.000 --> 17:41.000]  and I click on the Amazon box on the upper right-hand side,
[17:41.000 --> 17:45.000]  bookmark the link, and I can go to Amazon through this link
[17:45.000 --> 17:47.000]  and order you some yummy new cookies.
[17:47.000 --> 17:49.000]  New cookies for me?
[17:49.000 --> 17:51.000]  Consider it an early Christmas present.
[17:51.000 --> 17:54.000]  And every time I order on Amazon, I go through this link,
[17:54.000 --> 17:58.000]  and I give a little present to this radio network, too.
[17:58.000 --> 17:59.000]  P is for cookie.
[17:59.000 --> 18:00.000]  P is for classified.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:13.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[18:13.000 --> 18:15.000]  and now you can win, too.
[18:15.000 --> 18:19.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[18:19.000 --> 18:21.000]  using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:45.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:45.000 --> 18:50.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:58.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:58.000 --> 19:02.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:02.000 --> 19:19.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:19.000 --> 19:20.000]  Okay, we are back.
[19:20.000 --> 19:29.000]  Randy Kelton, the Rule of Law Radio on this Friday, the second day of December, 2016.
[19:29.000 --> 19:36.000]  And we're talking about the grand jury, the most powerful tool you and I as citizens have
[19:36.000 --> 19:42.000]  to wield against unruly public officials.
[19:42.000 --> 19:53.000]  If we, you know, it's been my whole purpose here to try to make tools available to ordinary people
[19:53.000 --> 20:01.000]  so that they could go in and wield those tools against our public officials to bring them back in line.
[20:01.000 --> 20:09.000]  It has always been and remains my stated ultimate outcome, and that is
[20:09.000 --> 20:15.000]  to place every judge in the country in a position such that when they step up behind the bench
[20:15.000 --> 20:21.000]  and look out across the bar at the gallery, I want them wondering which one,
[20:21.000 --> 20:30.000]  which one of those scoundrels out there, ordinary citizens are waiting for me to render a ruling they don't like
[20:30.000 --> 20:35.000]  so he can run down to the grand jury and try to get me indicted.
[20:35.000 --> 20:42.000]  If we can get our judges in that position, they will start dispensing justice
[20:42.000 --> 20:54.000]  because the power we wield is more politically effective than the power the banks or the big money, the deep pockets wield.
[20:54.000 --> 20:57.000]  And we can do that. It's not hard.
[20:57.000 --> 21:06.000]  And, oh, by the way, our call-in lines are open. Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[21:06.000 --> 21:11.000]  We will be taking your calls all night, so if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[21:11.000 --> 21:22.000]  And right now there's no one on the board, so I'm going to go ahead with this white paper that I referenced earlier.
[21:22.000 --> 21:28.000]  There are more issues. There are two primary issues. One is the grand jury.
[21:28.000 --> 21:37.000]  The grand jury will give us a way to affect the system directly.
[21:37.000 --> 21:40.000]  There is another problem in the system.
[21:40.000 --> 21:51.000]  Back in 1965, the legislature made an adjustment to 14.01 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:51.000 --> 22:03.000]  14.01 is the statute that authorizes a police officer to arrest a person for an on-site offense.
[22:03.000 --> 22:06.000]  And it's titled Offense Within View.
[22:06.000 --> 22:17.000]  A peace officer or any other person may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view
[22:17.000 --> 22:25.000]  if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.
[22:25.000 --> 22:31.000]  Now that's how the law stood since 1925.
[22:31.000 --> 22:44.000]  In 1925, the legislature put in place a penal code with the intent that that code not be substantially changed.
[22:44.000 --> 22:50.000]  Then in 1965, the legislature put in an addition.
[22:50.000 --> 23:02.000]  Paragraph B, a peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
[23:02.000 --> 23:07.000]  That changed everything.
[23:07.000 --> 23:16.000]  Now a police officer can arrest you because he claims you dropped a piece of paper on the sidewalk that's littering.
[23:16.000 --> 23:18.000]  You can go to jail for it.
[23:18.000 --> 23:23.000]  You can go to jail for anything.
[23:23.000 --> 23:28.000]  He can arrest you and take you to jail for anything he wants to.
[23:28.000 --> 23:31.000]  That was not what was originally intended.
[23:31.000 --> 23:38.000]  And I don't believe the legislature intended to give the police absolute power.
[23:38.000 --> 24:02.000]  Now this on its surface would not be substantially offensive if the magistrates, if the police officers took people to a magistrate the way they're required to in 14.03.
[24:02.000 --> 24:09.000]  The peace officer can arrest without a warrant and it goes through a list of when they can arrest.
[24:09.000 --> 24:12.000]  But this is a rather long statute.
[24:12.000 --> 24:27.000]  The crux of 14.03 is when they arrest without a warrant, they must take the person arrested directly to the nearest magistrate and explain themselves.
[24:27.000 --> 24:34.000]  This provision was not put in because we didn't trust the police.
[24:34.000 --> 24:46.000]  It was put in because our founders did not want the public to fear that a policeman could arrest and imprison.
[24:46.000 --> 24:52.000]  And under Gerstein Pugh, Gerstein Pugh is essentially the controlling case on this issue.
[24:52.000 --> 25:02.000]  It speaks to the right or to the, well they call it a compromise.
[25:02.000 --> 25:05.000]  Let me read this section from Gerstein Pugh.
[25:05.000 --> 25:15.000]  Maximum protection of individual rights could be assured by requiring a magistrate's review of the factual justification prior to any arrest.
[25:15.000 --> 25:21.000]  But such a requirement would constitute an intolerable handicap for legitimate law enforcement.
[25:21.000 --> 25:28.000]  Thus, while the court has expressed a preference for the use of arrest warrants when feasible,
[25:28.000 --> 25:39.000]  Beck V. Ohio, several others, it has never invalidated an arrest supported by probable cause solely because the officers failed to secure a warrant.
[25:39.000 --> 25:51.000]  Under this practical compromise, a policeman's on-site assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime
[25:51.000 --> 25:58.000]  and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to the arrest.
[25:58.000 --> 26:09.000]  Once the suspect is in custody, however, the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's neutral judgment evaporate.
[26:09.000 --> 26:17.000]  There no longer is any danger that the suspect will escape or commit further crimes while the police submit their evidence to a magistrate.
[26:17.000 --> 26:28.000]  While the state's reasons for taking some reactions subside, the suspect's need for a neutral determination of probable cause increases significantly.
[26:28.000 --> 26:35.000]  The consequences of prolonged detention may be more serious than the interference occasioned by arrest.
[26:35.000 --> 26:43.000]  Pre-trial confinement may imperil the suspect's job, interrupt his source of income, and impair his family relations.
[26:43.000 --> 26:54.000]  Even pre-trial release may be accompanied by burdensome conditions that affect significant restraint of liberty.
[26:54.000 --> 27:07.000]  When the stakes are this high, the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate is essential if the Fourth Amendment is to furnish meaningful protection from unfounded interference with liberty.
[27:07.000 --> 27:20.000]  Accordingly, we hold that the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.
[27:20.000 --> 27:30.000]  Thus, we rather clearly stated it is exactly what the law requires, but it is not what they do.
[27:30.000 --> 27:55.000]  What they do is they take you straight to jail, and then eventually they'll bring you before this magistrate who will issue warnings that are contained in 15.17, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
[27:55.000 --> 28:10.000]  They call it a magistration, and if anybody who's worked in this area very much will be familiar with the term.
[28:10.000 --> 28:23.000]  If you put magistration into a Word document, Microsoft Word will put a little red line under it, doesn't recognize it.
[28:23.000 --> 28:31.000]  And the reason it doesn't recognize it is the prosecutors made it up.
[28:31.000 --> 28:39.000]  So he wasn't prosecutorially expedient to have a person taken before a magistrate.
[28:39.000 --> 28:43.000]  The prosecutor really didn't care if you were guilty or innocent.
[28:43.000 --> 29:01.000]  All he wanted was a deal, and they have structured the system so that if you get accused of crime in the state of Texas and in most states, you're going to take a deal.
[29:01.000 --> 29:03.000]  That's about all there is to that.
[29:03.000 --> 29:05.000]  It doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent.
[29:05.000 --> 29:08.000]  Nobody in the system really cares.
[29:08.000 --> 29:14.000]  They just want to move your case through the system beyond probation.
[29:14.000 --> 29:17.000]  It's all about the money.
[29:17.000 --> 29:19.000]  Probation.
[29:19.000 --> 29:25.000]  I looked through the files in the county I live in.
[29:25.000 --> 29:34.000]  It's a rather small county, and in six months, there were 1,653 indictments brought.
[29:34.000 --> 29:40.000]  One person pled not guilty by the court record.
[29:40.000 --> 29:42.000]  Six fines.
[29:42.000 --> 29:45.000]  I'll explain why when we come back on the other side.
[29:45.000 --> 29:52.000]  Randy Kelkin, Rue La Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984.
[29:52.000 --> 30:01.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:01.000 --> 30:11.000]  In China, a toddler crawled out of a high-rise apartment window and was plunging to her death when a miracle happened.
[30:11.000 --> 30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and in a moment, I'll be back to tell you how a quick-thinking stranger saved her life.
[30:17.000 --> 30:19.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:19.000 --> 30:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:23.000 --> 30:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[30:28.000 --> 30:33.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:33.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy.
[30:34.000 --> 30:36.000]  It's worth hanging onto.
[30:36.000 --> 30:43.000]  This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:43.000 --> 30:46.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:48.000]  It's every parent's nightmare.
[30:48.000 --> 30:56.000]  A two-year-old girl climbed out the window of her 10-story apartment in Hangzhou, China, and teetered on the ledge for several moments before her parents noticed.
[30:56.000 --> 31:02.000]  Their frantic screams alerted a passerby, 31-year-old Wu Juping, who looked up at the scene.
[31:02.000 --> 31:08.000]  She kicked off her heels and ran to the building just moments before the little girl lost her balance and fell.
[31:08.000 --> 31:12.000]  Juping stretched out her arms, felt a sharp pain, and passed out.
[31:12.000 --> 31:16.000]  When she awoke, she discovered she'd broken her left arm and saved a life.
[31:16.000 --> 31:20.000]  She caught the baby, who had nothing but a few bruises to show for her adventure.
[31:20.000 --> 31:30.000]  Like Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  Did you know there are 3 million edible food plants on Earth, and none have the nutritional value of the hemp plant?
[31:36.000 --> 31:39.000]  HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder.
[31:39.000 --> 31:45.000]  It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten-free.
[31:45.000 --> 31:51.000]  Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs.
[31:51.000 --> 32:01.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[32:01.000 --> 32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar.
[32:05.000 --> 32:07.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[32:07.000 --> 32:12.000]  And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.000 --> 32:17.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:17.000 --> 32:20.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:25.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:25.000 --> 32:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy, Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:28.000 --> 32:33.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:33.000 --> 32:35.000]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.000 --> 32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:40.000 --> 32:45.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:45.000 --> 32:50.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.000 --> 32:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 32:59.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.000 --> 33:10.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:19.000 --> 33:28.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and a little more on 1517.
[33:28.000 --> 33:31.000]  This is the reason we need the grand jury.
[33:31.000 --> 33:42.000]  We need the grand jury to raise questions about the way our public officials enforce our laws.
[33:42.000 --> 33:46.000]  Right now, we have no place to bring that other than the courts.
[33:46.000 --> 33:54.000]  When you go into the courts, trying to get the courts to adjudicate what the courts are doing,
[33:54.000 --> 34:00.000]  as you might guess, they're not too... Uh-oh, I think we're up.
[34:00.000 --> 34:02.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[34:02.000 --> 34:09.000]  We had an archive in. We've been having a little difficulty getting everything working tonight.
[34:09.000 --> 34:16.000]  So if you still hear me talking in the background and in the foreground, just ignore the background and you'll all be confused.
[34:16.000 --> 34:23.000]  This is Randy Kelton here with our... I hate to call him a special guest.
[34:23.000 --> 34:27.000]  Just call me Special Ed. Everybody else does.
[34:27.000 --> 34:36.000]  Here with Eddie Craig on this Friday, the sixth day of January 2017.
[34:36.000 --> 34:44.000]  And we're going to be talking... Eddie and I are going to be talking about a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction and traffic,
[34:44.000 --> 34:47.000]  and we will get to everybody's calls.
[34:47.000 --> 34:50.000]  Okay, Eddie, you want to start this out?
[34:50.000 --> 34:59.000]  Well, the thing is, is I got my hands on a copy of a motion you wrote for yourself going to the jurisdiction of a municipal court.
[34:59.000 --> 35:07.000]  And so I'm going through that and I'm getting the case law references fixed and linked and all that good stuff and reading up on it.
[35:07.000 --> 35:12.000]  And it goes a lot to what we've been saying all along about the lack of jurisdiction in these courts
[35:12.000 --> 35:18.000]  and how they just tend to gloss right over the fact that the record is devoid of any proof
[35:18.000 --> 35:23.000]  that that court's jurisdiction has even been invoked, much less exist.
[35:23.000 --> 35:29.000]  See, the problem with both the justice and the municipal courts in Texas is this.
[35:29.000 --> 35:41.000]  They rely on 27.14D to presume that the simple issuance of a citation is what invests the court with jurisdiction.
[35:41.000 --> 35:45.000]  And that's simply not true.
[35:45.000 --> 35:50.000]  The Texas courts have ignored the Texas Constitution under Article 5, Section 12B
[35:50.000 --> 35:57.000]  and under Article 5, Section 21 as to what actually does invest the court with jurisdiction
[35:57.000 --> 36:03.000]  by ignoring not only the Constitution but also the provisions of 2.04 and 2.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[36:03.000 --> 36:07.000]  and Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[36:07.000 --> 36:13.000]  So what they've attempted to do is to create this multi-pronged attack on the jurisdictional requirements for these lower courts
[36:13.000 --> 36:23.000]  so as to deprive the people of the due process necessary for that court to demonstrate the jurisdiction is supposed to be exercising.
[36:23.000 --> 36:27.000]  In other words, it's a cheap and easy way to steal money while making it appear that justice has been done
[36:27.000 --> 36:32.000]  when in fact it has been denied at every single step.
[36:32.000 --> 36:36.000]  Now, my take on this relationship goes like this.
[36:36.000 --> 36:44.000]  They rely upon 27.14D, and thus they begin their process based solely upon the citation.
[36:44.000 --> 36:49.000]  They send notices, they make their appearances, they ask for the entering of a plea.
[36:49.000 --> 36:54.000]  They do not do the 15.17 Magistration in these courts ever.
[36:54.000 --> 37:01.000]  They just sign all the paperwork saying the probable cause was found when no probable cause determination has ever actually been made by anyone.
[37:01.000 --> 37:06.000]  Then they get you to sign the documents, or they're going to tell you that they're going to charge you with failure to appear
[37:06.000 --> 37:09.000]  and issue a warrant for your arrest.
[37:09.000 --> 37:17.000]  Now, when you get to the case law, however, even as messed up as it is in violation of the Texas Constitution,
[37:17.000 --> 37:26.000]  nowhere is there a court opinion that says the citation alone can invest a court with jurisdiction of a cause.
[37:26.000 --> 37:32.000]  Nowhere. Every single one of them that even though they violate the Constitution,
[37:32.000 --> 37:45.000]  the minimum bar they set is a verified criminal complaint, which the citation is not in any stretch of the imagination.
[37:45.000 --> 37:52.000]  So what we have is the presumption of a jurisdiction with no evidence of jurisdiction,
[37:52.000 --> 37:58.000]  and the activity associated with that presumption is a direct violation of due process
[37:58.000 --> 38:07.000]  and the right to the accused to preserve appealable error in the court's failure to make a proper determination of probable cause
[38:07.000 --> 38:12.000]  and to have its jurisdiction properly invoked.
[38:12.000 --> 38:24.000]  And my take on this, the direction I took with this challenge of subject matter jurisdiction was, is that I didn't challenge whether or not the citation
[38:24.000 --> 38:31.000]  was essentially a valid document.
[38:31.000 --> 38:45.000]  I allege that the citation failed to state sufficient facts or make sufficient allegations so as to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[38:45.000 --> 38:50.000]  that the citation was insufficient on its face.
[38:50.000 --> 38:57.000]  Right, and that would still be true. It does not matter what information is on that citation.
[38:57.000 --> 39:03.000]  The citation does not comply with the requirements of an actual complaint.
[39:03.000 --> 39:10.000]  That is an argument. That's not the one I put into this challenge of subject matter jurisdiction.
[39:10.000 --> 39:31.000]  The challenge that the officer did not provide facts or evidence to indicate that one, the jurisdiction that employed him had authority to enforce the transportation code,
[39:31.000 --> 39:51.000]  that he had evidence to believe that the accused fell within the statutory scheme, and what was the other one? I think that's it.
[39:51.000 --> 39:57.000]  Yeah, he didn't have the delegated authority via the administrative code requirements to enforce.
[39:57.000 --> 40:01.000]  He's not a police officer as defined by the transportation code.
[40:01.000 --> 40:09.000]  And I start out by, these are the jurisdictions that can enforce the code, and this one's not one of them.
[40:09.000 --> 40:26.000]  And then even if he could enforce the code, the sheriff has to appoint a delegated officer to be certified by the Department of Public Safety.
[40:26.000 --> 40:32.000]  And one of my information requests asks for the officer's certification.
[40:32.000 --> 40:41.000]  And the response I generally get to the information request is a request to narrow the scope.
[40:41.000 --> 40:49.000]  And my response to that is a criminal complaint against the lawyer accusing the lawyer of delay for delay sick.
[40:49.000 --> 40:59.000]  If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask the legislature. They wrote the code, I didn't.
[40:59.000 --> 41:02.000]  So I've got two or three of those working.
[41:02.000 --> 41:06.000]  Yeah, there's actually several different grounds that are possible here,
[41:06.000 --> 41:15.000]  and I understand that you can go strictly to the citation not being a valid complaint issue, though that's certainly viable as part of the jurisdictional problem.
[41:15.000 --> 41:28.000]  Once we get past the fact that the jurisdiction had authority to enforce, that the officer had authority under the jurisdiction to enforce,
[41:28.000 --> 41:38.000]  and that the complaint was factually sufficient on its face, now we'll go to see if the complaint itself is a valid document.
[41:38.000 --> 41:51.000]  The fact that it's not verified is handled in law. I don't remember exactly where, but when a police officer writes a citation, the court presumes that it is verified.
[41:51.000 --> 41:54.000]  So they accept it as verified.
[41:54.000 --> 41:58.000]  Yeah, but the problem is that's not acceptable.
[41:58.000 --> 42:10.000]  It doesn't matter what the court wants to accept it as, that officer doesn't sign the citation, and he most certainly doesn't do it in a verified manner.
[42:10.000 --> 42:13.000]  He's not swearing to anything on that citation.
[42:13.000 --> 42:22.000]  I understand that argument. I was taking different arguments here. That wasn't what got to.
[42:22.000 --> 42:36.000]  This is something that, you know, the courts can haggle about whether the ticket is sufficient with the clerk signing it,
[42:36.000 --> 42:42.000]  and the clerk not signing it before a magistrate and having it verified let up.
[42:42.000 --> 42:46.000]  Well, the citation or the complaint?
[42:46.000 --> 42:48.000]  Well, the citation.
[42:48.000 --> 42:51.000]  The clerk doesn't sign the citation.
[42:51.000 --> 42:54.000]  Okay.
[42:54.000 --> 43:04.000]  I'm not taking up the issue of the citation, the complaint, what the difference is between the complaint and the citation, who signed it, whether they signed it under oath or didn't, I don't care.
[43:04.000 --> 43:08.000]  They can't get there.
[43:08.000 --> 43:09.000]  Well, I agree.
[43:09.000 --> 43:33.000]  They really can't get there, and not based on some argument that the citation is insufficient, but the argument is that the officer himself failed to include in the documents sufficient evidence to render the claim against the citizens valid.
[43:33.000 --> 43:40.000]  I'm not going to the officer himself. He's the one that screwed this up, and they can't get past it.
[43:40.000 --> 43:43.000]  So far, we've had good luck with it.
[43:43.000 --> 43:51.000]  Hang on, about to go to break, Randy Kelton, Randy Craig, Radio, I call in number 512-646-1984.
[43:51.000 --> 43:54.000]  I'll have the phone lines open, so give us a call.
[43:54.000 --> 44:02.000]  If you're taking the calls all night, we'll be right back.
[44:02.000 --> 44:18.000]  Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Sweet D here in Austin, Texas, behind Brave New Books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[44:18.000 --> 44:22.000]  Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[44:22.000 --> 44:37.000]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian Eme oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043, or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.000 --> 44:47.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[44:47.000 --> 45:01.000]  Naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:14.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:14.000 --> 46:30.000]  Always, I must be careful what I'm wishing for.
[46:30.000 --> 46:37.000]  When I'm hungry, I like to know just what I'm fishing for.
[46:37.000 --> 46:48.000]  Okay, we are back. Miranda Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio, and we had the call lines open, 512-646-1984, and we went out.
[46:48.000 --> 46:53.000]  We're talking about this challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
[46:53.000 --> 47:06.000]  And I was giving Eddie a bunch of guff about this De Silva case, and looking through it, I was telling him it's out of Georgia because of the names I'm giving, but he's right again.
[47:06.000 --> 47:07.000]  And I'm wrong again.
[47:07.000 --> 47:09.000]  Damn, I hate when that happens.
[47:09.000 --> 47:10.000]  Except for when it happens.
[47:10.000 --> 47:14.000]  I hate it when that happens.
[47:14.000 --> 47:32.000]  But on the De Silva case, it appears as though it addresses the ability of the legislature to create a municipal court.
[47:32.000 --> 47:36.000]  But I'm having trouble getting that out of the case.
[47:36.000 --> 47:39.000]  Well, here's what the case summarized was about.
[47:39.000 --> 47:53.000]  The legislature in Texas attempted to create an act for a county court at law, but it set the jurisdiction of that county court at law entirely within the municipal boundaries of a particular city here in Texas.
[47:53.000 --> 48:11.000]  It then established all of its procedures and methodologies to be in compliance with the way municipal courts are set up to function, and then authorized the municipality to alter, change, or do away with the court as it saw fit.
[48:11.000 --> 48:18.000]  Well, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled you can't do that, or Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled you can't do that.
[48:18.000 --> 48:26.000]  It ruled that the municipality cannot make rulings and changes to a county court.
[48:26.000 --> 48:39.000]  Right, but it also goes into the statement that the one that I put cited in your motion is that while the general rule prohibiting the delegation of legislative powers,
[48:39.000 --> 48:55.000]  there is an exception in favor of vesting in municipal corporation matters of purely local concern, the exception is limited and does not embrace the right of the legislature to delegate its authority to control the organizations of courts.
[48:55.000 --> 48:57.000]  Doesn't say just county courts.
[48:57.000 --> 49:01.000]  It says of courts, specially committed to it.
[49:01.000 --> 49:19.000]  Well, when you read Article 5, Section 1, Paragraph 2 of the Texas Constitution, it specifically says the legislature is delegating the authority to create and assign the jurisdiction of courts other than those specifically created by the Constitution.
[49:19.000 --> 49:26.000]  So the legislature not only is required to create them, but to also set the jurisdiction thereof.
[49:26.000 --> 49:34.000]  Well, when you read Chapter 30 of the Government Code and the other provisions of the statutes dealing with municipal corporation courts,
[49:34.000 --> 49:45.000]  the legislature through statute attempted to delegate that authority even today by authorizing the municipality to create the court through ordinance,
[49:45.000 --> 49:55.000]  and then to set the jurisdiction of that court through ordinance, and then to assign its duties and powers through ordinance.
[49:55.000 --> 50:00.000]  This case says they can't do that.
[50:00.000 --> 50:08.000]  If the court created be a municipal court, it is a fatal departure from the title of the act.
[50:08.000 --> 50:14.000]  If it be a county court at law, it should have been organized by law passed by a legislature.
[50:14.000 --> 50:30.000]  The delegation of essential features of the organization of a county court at law to the city government was not valid. In either case, the conviction of the realtor is by a court not created or organized in manner sanctioned by the Constitution.
[50:30.000 --> 50:38.000]  But this only goes to a municipal court delving into county court business.
[50:38.000 --> 50:45.000]  Well, no, it goes to a county court at law created but acting entirely as a municipal court.
[50:45.000 --> 50:50.000]  It was created as a county court at law, but it was acting entirely as a municipal court.
[50:50.000 --> 51:06.000]  Yeah, so this is focused. This doesn't go to a municipal court enforcing Class C misdemeanors. It goes to a municipal court enforcing Class B and A and B.
[51:06.000 --> 51:09.000]  It doesn't address what it's enforcing, and that's irrelevant.
[51:09.000 --> 51:15.000]  What it's enforcing is irrelevant to the argument because the argument is straightforward.
[51:15.000 --> 51:26.000]  The legislature is through statute is trying to delegate to a municipal corporation the power to create courts by ordinance.
[51:26.000 --> 51:32.000]  The municipality is creating the court, not the legislature.
[51:32.000 --> 51:38.000]  The municipality is assigning the judges of that court, not the legislature.
[51:38.000 --> 51:45.000]  The municipality through ordinance is creating the jurisdiction of that court, not the legislature.
[51:45.000 --> 51:58.000]  But this case is referencing a municipality acting on a court that is a county court and has county court jurisdiction.
[51:58.000 --> 52:11.000]  And that's where the problem lies. It doesn't say anything about a municipality creating municipal judges to handle municipal ordinance and transportation court violations.
[52:11.000 --> 52:20.000]  How can a municipal court that doesn't comply with the Constitution of the state of Texas have authority to rule on subjects related to state law?
[52:20.000 --> 52:30.000]  Okay, I'm not clear how the municipal court that's not delving into county court business does not comply.
[52:30.000 --> 52:41.000]  But even though that's what the case is on point about, the inference is the non-delegation of the power vested in the legislature.
[52:41.000 --> 52:49.000]  The legislature is the only one given power to create a court, period. Doesn't matter what kind of court it is.
[52:49.000 --> 52:54.000]  The legislature has created certain municipal courts.
[52:54.000 --> 52:55.000]  You're saying that any court—
[52:55.000 --> 53:01.000]  Actually, no. The legislature does not create any municipal courts. None.
[53:01.000 --> 53:12.000]  It creates certain county courts at law, but it delegated to the corporation the power to create a municipal court, which it cannot do.
[53:12.000 --> 53:14.000]  So that's the basic argument here.
[53:14.000 --> 53:16.000]  Correct.
[53:16.000 --> 53:21.000]  It's not that the municipal court itself is doing something it's not authorized to do.
[53:21.000 --> 53:28.000]  It's that the legislature cannot delegate to the municipal corporation the power to create a court.
[53:28.000 --> 53:30.000]  Correct.
[53:30.000 --> 53:31.000]  Okay.
[53:31.000 --> 53:36.000]  And that's what that paragraph goes to that I put into that thing.
[53:36.000 --> 53:46.000]  If it can't create a court under the constitutional requirements, then that court cannot be vested with jurisdiction of any state law subject matter.
[53:46.000 --> 53:51.000]  It is limited strictly to local municipal concerns, internal to the municipality.
[53:51.000 --> 54:00.000]  It can affect the public in any way, shape, or form because it has no jurisdictional authority.
[54:00.000 --> 54:12.000]  Now, we appear to have law that vests certain officers of a municipality with authority to enforce the transportation code.
[54:12.000 --> 54:21.000]  Yeah, but that doesn't mean—the power to enforce the code doesn't mean send it to a court that can't exist.
[54:21.000 --> 54:31.000]  Okay, that's a good point. So even if the officer can enforce the transportation code, you can't enforce it for—
[54:31.000 --> 54:33.000]  He can't send you to a municipal court.
[54:33.000 --> 54:42.000]  He can only send you to a JP, which is created by the Constitution, or to a county court at law created by the legislature.
[54:42.000 --> 54:46.000]  But they sure as hell cannot send you to a municipal court.
[54:46.000 --> 54:54.000]  Not even if it's an ordinance violation, if that ordinance is relying upon a state law for its effect.
[54:54.000 --> 55:04.000]  Now, that's a good argument. I'd like to have a somewhat more exhaustive brief than this reference.
[55:04.000 --> 55:11.000]  This reference points in that direction, but it's not clear enough.
[55:11.000 --> 55:16.000]  I agree. Unfortunately, I don't know that you're going to find that, but I will keep digging, as will Ken.
[55:16.000 --> 55:25.000]  He and I were talking about this case, and these are just some of the things that jumped out at me about it immediately after I read it.
[55:25.000 --> 55:35.000]  Okay. Now, rip the rest of it apart, because I wrote this thing and I haven't had anybody really tear it to pieces.
[55:35.000 --> 55:43.000]  Well, the only other real thing I've got into so far is the usual grammar and punctuation stuff, which I'm fixing as I go.
[55:43.000 --> 55:46.000]  Plus the fact that a lot of your case references were not accurate.
[55:46.000 --> 55:52.000]  I had to actually go look them up, find how they were cited, and fix the citation and link it in so that it was correct.
[55:52.000 --> 55:56.000]  Which portion? You're talking about in the subject matter jurisdiction section?
[55:56.000 --> 56:04.000]  Yes, the very top section. I haven't gotten past that section yet. I got down to where we start section three's statement of the case.
[56:04.000 --> 56:11.000]  The subject matter jurisdiction section I pulled from a lot of different sites, and I didn't go through.
[56:11.000 --> 56:21.000]  Now, the one thing you did in this motion that I don't think you should have done is you inserted pictures within the body of the motion.
[56:21.000 --> 56:27.000]  What I think you should have done was to make copies of that, label them, exhibit, and attach them to the motion.
[56:27.000 --> 56:30.000]  Yeah. I have reason for doing that.
[56:30.000 --> 56:36.000]  I'm sure you did, but I'm just saying as far as legibility and document maintainability,
[56:36.000 --> 56:47.000]  if you type anything above this that shifts that, it throws your entire document out of whack with the styles you're using because that picture overlaps margins.
[56:47.000 --> 56:50.000]  Yeah, the picture would just jump to the next page.
[56:50.000 --> 56:54.000]  Right, and sometimes that leaves this huge gap at the bottom or the top of another page.
[56:54.000 --> 56:59.000]  I don't care as much about that as I care about mental flow.
[56:59.000 --> 57:03.000]  Oh, well, I can get into a whole world on mental flow.
[57:03.000 --> 57:14.000]  Well, I have a huge section on that where you'll notice every time I have a reference to a case, I put the quotation of the case right there.
[57:14.000 --> 57:18.000]  Yeah. Well, now wait a minute. Did you just say you had a huge mental suction?
[57:18.000 --> 57:19.000]  No.
[57:19.000 --> 57:20.000]  Okay.
[57:20.000 --> 57:21.000]  Section.
[57:21.000 --> 57:24.000]  Okay. I was going to say, yeah, because I mean...
[57:24.000 --> 57:37.000]  This whole style is about flow. I'm going through the whole document and looking at it and asking myself, where do I create a question in the mind of the reader?
[57:37.000 --> 57:42.000]  And if I've created that question, did I do it on purpose?
[57:42.000 --> 57:52.000]  And if I did it on purpose, do I want to answer that question now or am I setting them up for a piece of information I'm giving them later?
[57:52.000 --> 58:01.000]  If I haven't, if I've created a question and I haven't done that on purpose, I'm going to lose my reader.
[58:01.000 --> 58:02.000]  Yeah.
[58:02.000 --> 58:10.000]  I'm trying to get the clock back up. There it is. Okay. I hear the music in the background, so we're about to do the break.
[58:10.000 --> 58:16.000]  When we come back, I'll kind of explain a little more about flow and why I'm doing it this way.
[58:16.000 --> 58:22.000]  It's something I don't get to talk about much, so maybe I can get some feedback.
[58:22.000 --> 58:30.000]  This is Randy Kelp, Randy Kelp, Randy Kelp Radio. I call it number 512-646-1984.
[58:30.000 --> 58:37.000]  We'll figure out on the break how many more segments we'll take on this issue and then we'll get to our college.
[58:37.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[59:07.000 --> 59:34.000]  We'll be right back.
[59:37.000 --> 59:40.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:40.000 --> 59:45.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:29.000]  Markets for Wednesday, the 4th of January, 2017, are currently treading with gold at $1,162.76 an ounce.
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  Silver, $16.39 an ounce. Texas crude, $52.33 a barrel.
[01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  And Bitcoin is still rising at $1,116 U.S. currency.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  Today in history, the year 1884, the Fabian Society is founded in London, a notoriously socialist organization
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist efforts in democracies
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  rather than by revolutionary communist overthrow.
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  Today in history.
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  In recent news, democratic leaders in the California legislature announced Wednesday today that Eric Holder,
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  former attorney general under President Obama, will be hired to represent the state in any legal fights against the new Republican Congress and White House.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:27.000]  Eric Holder, the first African-American to hold the position of attorney general, is now a partner at Covington & Burling,
[01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  a law firm in Washington that specializes in representing states and companies against the federal government.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  With the Democratic Party controlling two-thirds of both the assembly and the Senate in California,
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  not to mention that all statewide elected officials are Democrat,
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:46.000]  it definitely seems legal battles surrounding the environment and immigration in particular will be highly debated.
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:51.000]  Kevin de Leon, the Democratic leader of the Senate in California, even went as far as to say that the Trump administration
[01:01:51.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  could potentially cost the state billions of dollars if they failed to make their case on suspected controversial issues sure to arise.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  The state of Texas has collected more than $160,000 in back child support since starting a program this last December.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:18.000]  Under the New Texas Family Code stipulations, the attorney general office also has the ability to bar some parents who owe money to child support
[01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:26.000]  for renewing vehicle registrations and even revoke driver's licenses in addition to professional and recreational permits for parents who did not pay up.
[01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  The rule applies to parents at least six months behind in child support payments.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  However, it does not apply to vehicle titles registered to someone other than the parent owing child support or a jointly owned vehicle for that matter.
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  Since September, more than 7,200 parents received a notice warning them to arrange a payment plan before their vehicle registration expired.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  The Texas Attorney General's office in the past fiscal year alone has collected close to $3.9 billion in child support.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:05.000]  This is Brooke Rodey with your Lowdown for January 4, 2017.
[01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:12.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty.
[01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:19.000]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly.
[01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:26.000]  These warm hungers come by that term rightly.
[01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelvin, Eddie Craig, and the Rule of Law Radio. And before we go to callers, we did want to talk a little bit about grand juries.
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  Eddie's got some stuff that will be coming up in a couple of months that should be the real bomb on grand juries.
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  I can't let that cat out of the bag yet. But in my case here in Wise County, Texas, where I filed criminal charges against my local judge,
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  the prosecutor gave the complaints to the grand jury. And I talked to an assistant district attorney and she told me that the grand jury did not take up my complaints.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  And she went on to say that they don't have to.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:33.000]  And I said, is that a fact, Jack? She said, no, that the grand jury didn't have to hear a complaint if they didn't want to.
[01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  Well, that's not the way I read the code.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  The way I read the code under 20.09 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the grand jury shall investigate into all crimes subject to indictment that come to their knowledge.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  How does it say it? All crimes subject to indictment of which any grand juror may have knowledge or may come to their knowledge by way of the prosecuting attorney or any other credible person.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  It says they shall inquire into all offenses. OK. And 2010 through 2018 tells them how they deal with witnesses.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  Twenty point one nine grand jury shall vote after all the testimony which is accessible to the grand jury shall have been given in respect to any criminal accusation.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  The vote shall be taken as to the presentment of an indictment.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  What part of shall be taken is hard to understand.
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:13.000]  So this ADA tells me that the grand jury decided not to take up my complaint.
[01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  Now, where would twelve otherwise honest, ordinary, non-legal professional people get the notion that they didn't have to inquire into all crimes subject to indictment?
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:50.000]  That's interesting. The only answer I can have, somebody probably told them that.
[01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:53.000]  Eddie, you got any idea who might have told them a thing like that?
[01:06:53.000 --> 01:06:56.000]  Oh, I'd say it's some dodo bird.
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  Well, here's the deal. So, I mean, I look at this and I think, OK, how do we deal with this?
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  Well, I talked to the prosecutor and this is a prosecutor who I believe if there is any prosecutor in the state of Texas who has his moral center in the right place, this one does.
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  I got stories about him. I can't repeat that when I heard what he did, I thought, holy mackerel, I don't believe he did that. And he did it because it was the right thing to do.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  And it could have been a really big deal. It took more courage for this guy to do what he does. So I do trust him in this regard.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  And I spoke to him about this. One no whore in the heck they could have got this information.
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  So I don't know for certain that the grand jury did not vote on this issue.
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  All I know is there's no indictment and I know what the assistant district attorney said.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  So I'm going to go down and request the voting tally from the grand jury on the complaint that I filed with the grand jury.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  And I've spoken to the assistant district attorney. She is really knowledgeable and she's about to become a law professor at one of the local law schools.
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  And walked her through the code and it came down to if you file a complaint with the grand jury,
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  this twenty point one nine is the only thing that tells you that the complaint actually went there.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  After all, the testimony, which is acceptable acceptable to the grand jury, shall have been given in respect to any criminal accusation.
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:09.000]  The vote shall be taken as to the presentment of an indictment. And if nine members concur in finding the bill,
[01:09:09.000 --> 01:09:21.000]  the foreman shall make a memorandum of the same with such data as will enable the attorney who represents the state to write the indictment.
[01:09:21.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  OK, and then twenty twenty, the attorney representing the state shall prepare all indictments which have been found with as little delay as possible
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:44.000]  and deliver them to the foreman who shall sign the same officially and said the attorney shall endorse there on the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony.
[01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  Same was found twenty twenty one. When the indictment is ready to be presented, the grand jury shall, through the foreman,
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  deliver the indictment to the judge or clerk of the court. At least nine members of grand jury must be present at such occasion.
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:09.000]  OK. What if there's a no bill? There's nothing easier that goes to a no bill.
[01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  So if a complaint is presented to a grand jury and they no bill, it leaves no record.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Except the voting tally. The district attorney has to keep a voting tally.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  When I brought this up, the assistant district attorneys said that she wasn't sure that was public information.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  And I think I'll have to go find the part in the grand jury that's secret.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  But the only thing I can find in a grand jury that's secret are the grand jury's deliberations.
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  And none of the rest of it's secret. One thing I'm certain it can't be secret is any advice given to the grand jury by the prosecuting attorney.
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:13.000]  And this is something that Eddie and I have a couple of months about how prosecutors advise grand juries.
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  I think it's going to be a really, really big deal.
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:24.000]  And one of the things I will be asking for and what I may do, as a matter of fact, is ask for it here.
[01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  Yeah, my concern with this is going to wind up being when this advice is a completely unconstitutional or illegal lie
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:40.000]  that crosses that line of information to either intimidation or tampering.
[01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  Yet here's the thing that I see about advice, and this is what I told my prosecutor,
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  that the only way I could figure that a grand jury would imagine that they don't have to examine into a criminal accusation is if somebody told them that.
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  And the only one I could imagine telling them that would be a prosecuting attorney.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  And in what capacity would a prosecuting attorney tell the grand jury something other than what is involved in a presentment?
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  Anything else I see as legal advice.
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  And that's where I want the prosecutor.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  If the prosecutor is giving these lay persons sitting as grand jurors advice as to how to perform their function that's legal advice,
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:52.000]  they don't have any immunity from that.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  They have immunity when they're doing a presentation to the grand jury, but not when they give them legal advice.
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  That's just lawyer-client.
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  So we can go in and sue the prosecutor.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  That's exactly where I want the prosecutor, where I can sue him personally.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  And the prosecutor is going to want to say that his advice to a grand jury is privileged.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  And I'm going to say the grand jury is not a private client.
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  The grand jury is my representative.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  Grand jury works for me.
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  So I'm the client, not the grand jury.
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  So I have a right to what you're telling the grand jury.
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  What do you think, Eddie?
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  Do you think we get that by?
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:57.000]  I think we should be able to.
[01:13:57.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  Whether we get it or not, if we put a prosecutor in a position such that,
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:14.000]  he has to be afraid that a grand jury will come out of the grand jury proceedings and say,
[01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:21.000]  this lawyer told me I should do this.
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  And if you or I or someone else looks at it and says, why, that's not in keeping with statute or code.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  I read that as criminal conspiracy to commit.
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:44.000]  Is there anything to prevent a grand jury?
[01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  That's why the prosecutors want to say that everything about the grand jury is secret.
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  And I want to say no relevance.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  Only deliberations of secret.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:01.000]  Yeah, that's the only thing I can find, any authority for holding secret,
[01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  is what occurs after the presentment or anything else with the public has been done
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  when they're actually deciding whether or not they're going to true bill or no bill.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  That's the secret part of the grand jury.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  Everything else is supposed to be publicly accessible, the minutes, the presentment.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  In fact, right now, one of the issues I have with the grand jury
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  as the prosecutors abuse their power with the grand jury
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  is the exclusion of the person being indicted or their defense counsel from that presentment.
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  Now, it's one thing to be able to indict someone based upon facts and evidence.
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  It's another thing to be able to do it by misconstruing that facts and evidence
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  because there's no one there to refute the way you're doing it and the spin you're putting on it.
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  Yes, and I want to go, okay, they want to call a indictment essentially a determination of probable cause.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  Right, which they can't do either.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  Well, effectively, it has the same purpose.
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  Well, agreed same purpose, but here's the problem.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  If I may, I don't mean to interrupt you, train of thought,
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  but here I wrote this in the motion to challenge or to quash the complaint
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  in the case I'm working on for the felony evasion.
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:30.000]  And the issue there when it comes to this is no law anywhere
[01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  invests a grand jury with any power to make a probable cause determination,
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  not the Constitution, no statute, and it couldn't
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  because none of them are magistrates of a court, none of them.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Now, I'll finish this thought on the other side when we get back from the break.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rural Radio.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  I call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  If you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  in ordering your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:31.000]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Now, go to logosradionetwork.com.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  Do I pay extra?
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:45.000]  No.
[01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  Do I have to do anything different when I order?
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  No.
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  No.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  I mean, yes.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:54.000]  Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money.
[01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:55.000]  This is perfect.
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:17:58.000]  We are welcome.
[01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Happy holidays, Logos.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  and now you can win too.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:19.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons,
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:11.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:30.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  Randy Kelton, and where I was going when we came out is
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  the grand jury essentially makes a determination of whether or not
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  there is sufficient evidence to believe that a crime has been committed
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  and that the named person has committed that crime.
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  That's exactly what a magistrate does in an examining trial.
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:02.000]  But if you're a grand jury and you bring an indictment
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  and the person has not been arrested,
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:10.000]  the indictment cannot be presented to the court.
[01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  The clerk must issue a capious and the person must be arrested
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:19.000]  before the grand jury can present the indictment to the court.
[01:20:19.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  Well, you know, I looked at that and said,
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:23.000]  why in the heck would they put that in there?
[01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  Well, the reason they put that in there is because when the person is arrested,
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  they're to be brought before a magistrate, even if there is a warrant.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  And an examining trial is to be held at which Chapter 16 grants the accused
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  certain rights that protect his constitutional and statutory rights
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:51.000]  to inter-exculpatory evidence, challenging evidence against him.
[01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  So the judge doesn't just hear the prosecutor's side.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  So going to what Eddie and I were talking about before,
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  where the accused or the accused lawyer can't go before the grand jury
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  in the presentment, the grand jury, when they hold a hearing,
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  should do so under the rules laid down in Chapter 16,
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  which governs an examining trial.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  And that primarily gives the accused opportunity to present exculpatory evidence.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  So the grand jury should be able to hear all the evidence that's available
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  and not only what the prosecutor has.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  Okay. Well, three things on that.
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  First and foremost, a grand jury indictment is not a trial.
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  While I agree that they should be able to challenge the charge against them
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  so as to help the grand jury determine whether or not they should be indicted,
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  it's not a full-blown trial.
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:57.000]  It's not the same as finding a probable cause to convict,
[01:21:57.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  but simply just that a crime...
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  You're mixing metaphors, you're mixing issues here.
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Finding a probable cause, that's way different than that.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:11.000]  I understand that. And I'm not mixing, I'm just not finishing it.
[01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  In relation to a conviction, that has to go into all the evidence and everything else.
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  But when we get to the issue of probable cause, several problems arise.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:25.000]  First and foremost, a grand jury is not trained as to what the elements of a particular offense are.
[01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  Therefore, they do not know whether or not any of the necessary elements even exist for a particular crime.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  They just don't.
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  Not unless that crime actually involves a victim where the fact that there is an injury
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  is the only thing necessary to show a crime has been committed.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  Anything else, mal and prohibitum, whatever, that requires every single element to exist or no offense is possible,
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  there's no way a grand jury knows that.
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:22:56.000]  The cop doesn't know it. The prosecutor doesn't know it.
[01:22:56.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  How's a grand jury going to know it? Who has the duty to know it?
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  The judge. This is the reason why the judge must make a probable cause determination.
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  No, no, no, hold on. It's not intended that we get that deep into the situation because mayors are magistrates.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  Mayors are executive functionaries. They cannot exercise judicial authority to hear a case.
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  Yes, they can.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  No, they can't. It's a separation of powers violation.
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  20.09.
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  It's a statute that cannot violate the separation of powers in the Texas Constitution.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  You're mixing things up here, Eddie.
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  How am I mixing them up, Randy? Is a mayor an executive functionary?
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Yes.
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  Then his magistrate title is only applicable in areas of executive function, not in judicial function.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:24:01.000]  He has been given the statutory right to make a determination of probable cause, not adjudicate guilt.
[01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  Then let me ask you this question. How does an executive functionary exercise a judicial power,
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  which is a probable cause determination, and not violate the separation of powers?
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  How does a statute pretend to do what the Constitution says cannot be done?
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  The executive, I mean the judicial branch determines guilt. The magistrate is not determining guilt.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  The magistrate is just determining if there's enough evidence to give a reasonable person...
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:43.000] ...a possible crime has been committed and that the person accused committed that crime.
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  You're still getting into the area of a court, Randy.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  Yeah, but what you're saying is the only way somebody can be charged is with a full-blown trial.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  No, I'm not.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  How?
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  I'm not saying that.
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  How do you do it?
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  I am saying that the only person who can reside over a probable cause determination is a judicial magistrate,
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  not an executive magistrate. It has to be an actual judicial magistrate.
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:10.000]  It could be any judicial magistrate.
[01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  Okay, that's a separate argument. Man, you've got...
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  How is that a separate argument?
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  That is a whole different argument that we can't have a grand jury.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  I haven't even got to finish my thought on that part of it yet.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  You're mixing things up to the point that if we can't have anybody but a judge make a probable cause determination,
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:34.000]  we can't have a grand jury.
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  Why?
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  It's unconstitutional. They're not...
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  Why?
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  Judicial officers.
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:44.000]  Exactly. They can't make probable cause determinations.
[01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  They can be a grand jury, but they can't make probable cause determinations.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  What the heck? What do they do?
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:54.000]  How is...
[01:25:54.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  Okay, if I can finish the process as I've got it envisioned according to the state.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  You've gone to 30 different places in between.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  I'm not trying to, but you're challenging me on what I'm trying to say before I get it finished.
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  So let me get it finished, then you can argue with me about it.
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  A judicial magistrate is the one required by Constitution to find a probable cause determination.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  Even the case law says so. Even the case law.
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  It has to be a judicial magistrate. Why?
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  They're the only ones trained in knowledge of the law.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:27.000]  A mayor does not.
[01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  That is a false premise.
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  When was the last time you saw a mayor that knew what the elements of an offense were?
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  When was the last time you saw an inferior court judge that knew?
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:43.000]  Granted, but separate point.
[01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  At least he's a judicial functionary even though he's an idiot.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:52.000]  You're talking an incompetent idiot who is a judicial functionary versus an incompetent idiot who isn't.
[01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  It was intended that inferior court judges not necessarily be learned counsel.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  Granted, again, but a mayor cannot preside over a court. That's a judicial function.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:10.000]  He's not presiding over a court.
[01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  How can that be when the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with examining trials as a judicial function, Randy?
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  How could he not be presiding over a proceeding?
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  Whoa. That's a presumption.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  The Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  How is a examining trial a judicial function?
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:32.000]  How is it not?
[01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  No, no, no. I didn't say it. You're the one that said it was.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  The word trial puts it right up there at the beginning, Randy.
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  The word trial. How does the word trial make this a judicial function?
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  You're presuming. You're presuming this. I need more than...
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  I'm presuming it based upon the situation at hand and the factors involved.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:08.000]  Then you're going to some really...
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  Trying to change 800 years of law with a couple of definitions.
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  I'm not trying to change anything.
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  I'm simply stating that a grand jury is not capable of making a probable cause determination,
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  especially when the only facts they're given to make that determination
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  comes from the very person attempting to prosecute the individual, the prosecutor themselves.
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  Okay. You're saying the system's not perfect. I got that.
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:44.000]  Not again. Not the issue of it being perfect. Okay?
[01:28:44.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  Is it legal?
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  Legal doesn't necessarily mean lawful, Randy. We know that already.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:56.000]  There are tons of immoral things that are legal.
[01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  How is legal different than lawful?
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  Because legal can authorize harm where lawful can't.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  You're juxtaposing how you think things should be over how things are.
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:18.000]  No. I'm juxtaposing it with what I have read and studied
[01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:23.000]  over the history of how law's been done since we were under the King of Old.
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  We can't go anywhere if we don't have something to work from.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  Right now, everything is illegal. You can't even talk about it.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  Well, I agree everything's illegal.
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Grand juries are illegal. Magistrates are illegal.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  No.
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  Everything's illegal.
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  Now you're taking what I said and turning it somewhere I never went.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:44.000]  I didn't say they were illegal.
[01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  I said they couldn't make probable cause determination.
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  The whole idea of a magistrate was to keep that decision out of the hands of the judges
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:01.000]  and the prosecutors.
[01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  A judge has imposed a lifetime driving ban on a 17-year-old boy
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  after a serious accident to send a message about reckless driving.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with more on this unusually harsh punishment in a moment.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:30.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:36.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:39.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  17-year-old Lyle Topa was cruising with three buddies and texting while driving.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  He crashed into a tree, badly injuring all four boys.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  One was in a coma for weeks.
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  The judge gave him a lecture about how the roads are littered with broken futures.
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:06.000]  Then he revoked the boy's driver's license for life.
[01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:10.000]  What Lyle did was wrong, but at age 17, we all make mistakes.
[01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:12.000]  By revoking his license for life,
[01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  the judge issued a virtual death sentence to his career and future.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  In 20 years, he'll be a husband and a dad, unable to even drive his son to a soccer game.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  Now that's cruel and unusual.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Mean I'd actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:05.000]  Looking for some truth?
[01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  Well, you found it.
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:28.000]  Logosradionetwork.com
[01:33:28.000 --> 01:33:29.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Google Law Radio on this Friday, the sixth day of January 2017.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:48.000]  And, Eddie, you were talking about essentially how it's illegal for how only judges can make probable cause determinations.
[01:33:48.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  Well, no, not specifically judges.
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:54.000]  But as all judges are magistrates, they're two different hats.
[01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  We know this.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  We've talked about this God knows how many years now.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  They wear two different hats.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  But the thing about it here is, yes, I agree it would be a good thing if the grand jury was the complete dam between prosecution for an offense and what we have.
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  I would love that.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  The problem we have is who gets on those grand juries?
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:31.000]  You're putting your fate and probable cause determination in the hands of people that have no clue what the law is, what rights are, nothing.
[01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  And there's no way to defend against that.
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:39.000]  Ignorance of a grand jury is just as dangerous as corruption by a magistrate.
[01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  Every bit is dangerous if not more so.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  It would be one thing if we could ensure the grand jury had educated, knowledgeable people.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  I'm not saying necessarily involved in government or part of government or part of law in any way, but at least educated enough to understand the differences.
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  And right now we don't have that.
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  Okay.
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  That's exactly where I was going.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Okay.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  So when I say that you don't want this to work that way, that's what I'm trying to get at.
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  I'm saying, yes, I do.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  I want it to work the way the law says it's supposed to work, not the way prosecutors are manipulating it to work.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  There's nothing to prevent defense counsel from presenting exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:30.000]  Except for the prosecutor telling the grand jury they don't have to listen to it.
[01:35:30.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  That's criminal.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  That's illegal.
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  I agree.
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  So it's up to us to handle that part.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:40.000]  It's not because there's something wrong with the system.
[01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  It ain't broke.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:45.000]  We're just not making it work.
[01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  And that's what I'm talking about here.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:48.000]  How do we get that done?
[01:35:48.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  Like here, the grand jury, oh, they decided to pass.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  And this is what they do in Travis County.
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  My candle took some complaints to the grand jury.
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  Never heard anything about it.
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  And the prosecutor told him, oh, the grand jury, they decided to pass.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:06.000]  Say what?
[01:36:06.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Pass?
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  I'd give them pass.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:15.000]  I file criminal charges to the grand jury in Wise County against my district judge.
[01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  And the assistant DA says, well, they decided not to take up your complaints.
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  Oh, is that a fact check?
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:26.000]  Well, we'll see how that works out for them.
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:31.000]  So I'm coming in with a set of criminal complaints against each one of those grand jurors,
[01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  charging them with official misconduct, failing to perform a duty they require to perform,
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  official oppression, shielding from prosecution.
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  Shielding from prosecution for a first degree felony is a second degree felony.
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  So let's see how that works for you guys.
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  And when I file those against the grand jury members, what are they going to do?
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:00.000]  They're going to claim good faiths for reliance on competent authority.
[01:37:00.000 --> 01:37:07.000]  And when I file these complaints against the last grand jury with the next grand jury,
[01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  I am going to get that next grand jury's attention.
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  Yeah, unless it winds up being like what the guys in Russ did to you.
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:18.000]  And when you file the complaints against the grand jury, some prosecutors...
[01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:21.000]  Well, if we think that way, we might as well...
[01:37:21.000 --> 01:37:23.000]  I'm not saying not to do it, Randy.
[01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  I'm just pointing out some of the obvious things here in that...
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  Of course it's there.
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  What prosecutors are liable to do is to attempt to try and charge you,
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  and I'm only saying this for the benefit of those who are out there who may follow what you're doing.
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  And I'm not saying it's wrong.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  Okay, I got that.
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  Okay, then let me finish it real quick.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  When they charged you with conducting an investigation business without a license
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  and tried to throw you in jail for it,
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:49.000]  here they're liable to turn around and try to say you're tampering with the grand jury
[01:37:49.000 --> 01:37:52.000]  because you filed criminal charges to make them do something they didn't want to do,
[01:37:52.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  even though that law said they had to do it.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, I sent a set of complaints against an IRS agent
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  to the grand jury by way of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  And the U.S. Attorney called me.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  He said, you send another one of those, and I'll charge you with jury tampering.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  I said, okay, you charge me with jury tampering.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:25.000]  I'll charge you with tampering with a witness and we'll see how this works out for you.
[01:38:25.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  The next day they fired the IRS agent.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  The next day.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  I said, yeah, sometimes we get really corrupt jurisdictions
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  and taking on the system is dangerous.
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  But I've gotten a lot better at it.
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  And that's why I'm doing these kinds of things.
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  I'm going in on really fine points of law
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:39:00.000]  and putting the prosecutor in a position to where I can sue him personally.
[01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  Because when I file against this grand jury, what are they going to claim?
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  They're going to claim good faith relies on competent authority.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  They're going to claim they act based on the advice of the prosecuting attorney.
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  Gotcha.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  Now I get to sue the prosecuting attorney.
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  That's where I'm looking to go.
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  Well, the only problem there as far as the suing part goes
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:33.000]  is the court's already protecting them for everything.
[01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  You don't care?
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  You're going to lose the suit.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:40.000]  Okay, who cares?
[01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  You expect to lose the suit.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  Would you sue that prosecutor, especially if he's an ADA?
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  If he ever gets out of government service
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:57.000]  and tries to go out and start his own business, he is screwed.
[01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  The insurance carrier is not going to take him.
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  This is a big deal for these lawyers.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  They get marks on their chart.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  They can't get malpractice insurance.
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  They get these kind of marks on their chart.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  There's no law firm in the country to pick these guys up.
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  They get before a good client.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  They lose in court, and the client comes to them and says,
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  look at this guy's record.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  Who the heck are you putting on my case?
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  This hurts them.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  When you and I as citizens hammer these lawyers, it hurts them.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  When you file judicial conduct complaints, the state commission of conduct
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  is always going to protect them.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Who cares?
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  If this judge ever wants to get on the court of appeals,
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  and they got 50 judges vying for this location, for this spot,
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  and you look at everybody's record,
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  well, this guy's got five judicial conduct complaints against him.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  Oh, yeah, the commission threw them all out, but they threw all of them out.
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000]  And these guys over here, they don't have five against them.
[01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:10.000]  He's out.
[01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  We have to do what we can do, and it's all politics.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:17.000]  We're dealing with criminals.
[01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:25.000]  So let's take their low-down, dirty, rotten, shyster, sharp practice
[01:41:25.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  and cram it right down their throats.
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:32.000]  That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
[01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:35.000]  And that's the perspective from which I go at this.
[01:41:35.000 --> 01:41:40.000]  And yes, I know that prosecutors are misinforming grand jurors,
[01:41:40.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  and that's where I'm going after right now.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  So how do we undermine that?
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  How do we put the prosecutor himself at risk?
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  And how do we get statute adjusted so that the prosecutor can't block exculpatory evidence?
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  And this is a point of how this is in code.
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  If you get indicted and you haven't been arrested,
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:11.000]  they cannot present the indictment to the court.
[01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  The grand jury never can.
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  The clerk creates a capious warrant,
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  and once you're arrested, then they can present the indictment.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:26.000]  But when you're arrested, first thing's supposed to happen
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:33.000]  is you're supposed to get an examining trial under Chapter 16 Code of Criminal Procedure,
[01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  and that gives you all these opportunities to put in exculpatory evidence.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  Now that exculpatory evidence comes back, and you can use that to overcome the indictment,
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  challenge the indictment.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  And that's why they won't let them hand in the indictment until you've been arrested
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  so you get an opportunity to get exculpatory evidence.
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  I want to open the grand jury so if a person's being brought before a grand jury
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  that he has opportunity to enter exculpatory evidence before the grand jury
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  so they can make a proper determination.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  Much more story than sticking to it.
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Now, well, speaking of proper determinations,
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  do remember that on Monday night's show, Dave Champion's going to be my guest starting at 8 o'clock.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  So he's going to be on with me at least part of the show.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  I don't know if he'll be on for the whole show. It all depends on how it goes.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:26.000]  But Dave Champion, author of Income Tax Shattering the Myths
[01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  and my co-star in the upcoming movie The Grand Scam,
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  will be on the show with me on Monday night, this Monday night, January 9th.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  Yahoo! I'm easy between the end of that one.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  Okay, hang on. About to go to break.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  We're going to start taking the calls on the other side.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:52.000]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Wheel of Life Radio, here with Dave Champion.
[01:43:52.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  Here, next week. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:03.000]  Nutritious food is real body armor.
[01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs.
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  Did you know the U.S. government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  and classified it as a Schedule I drug to hide it behind a marijuana plant?
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years, and many still don't know what hemp is.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  So now you know hemp is not marijuana, and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:45.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory,
[01:44:45.000 --> 01:44:48.000]  non-GMO, and is loaded with nutrients.
[01:44:48.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  Call 888-910-4367, 888-910-4367, and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Only at HempUSA.org.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:20.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:20.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Our citizens have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:35.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:40.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:51.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:51.000 --> 01:45:57.000]  tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner,
[01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  We are back.
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  Before we go to callers, tell me a little more about Champion.
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  I've heard of him. He's been around for a long time.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:05.000]  Yeah, Dave Champion is ex-law enforcement, ex-military special forces.
[01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  He does all kinds of stuff. His biggest claim to fame is he spent 17 years reading
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  and researching the case law, the statutes.
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:20.000]  He basically did the same thing with the tax code that I did with the transportation code.
[01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  He wrote a book called Income Tax Shattering the Myths.
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  That book goes into every court case ruling, since we've had them,
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  every iteration of the income tax and every section of the income tax that proves
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  that the income tax does not apply to the vast majority of Americans,
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  no matter where you live and work.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  And so he also was recruited to participate with me in this upcoming movie,
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:56.000]  The Grand Scam, in which we go into details about lots of the problems that we have in America,
[01:47:56.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  where they come from, and some of the things that we could be doing about them to solve them
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  and whether or not we will.
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  But if you've never looked up Dave Champion, do so by going to his website for his book.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  It is taxrevolt.us.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:18.000]  And when you see the picture of him, don't let the tattoos throw you.
[01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  Dave, if you had a mental picture of Dave Champion, it would be this.
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  Picture the Mr. Clean man from the cleaning supply or liquid and put tattoos on him.
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  And now you have a perfect image of Dave Champion. That's exactly what he looks like.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:39.000]  Mr. Clean on a Harley?
[01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  Yep, something like that.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  But he is absolutely one of the most personable, knowledgeable,
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  and intelligent people I have ever had the privilege of meeting and talking with.
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  Dave is an absolute joy to be around.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:49:03.000]  His idea on everything is whatever the discussion is and whatever the action,
[01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  it should always be based upon liberty. And I agree with that.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:13.000]  We should be free to exercise our free will any way we want,
[01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:19.000]  provided we do it with the limitation of harming no other or their property.
[01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  And that's pretty much the way it ought to work all the way around.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:30.000]  But Dave, he's a very good man from all I know about him, all the interactions I've had with him.
[01:49:30.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  I first spoke to him years ago dealing with the income tax stuff
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:41.000]  and how my research had basically come to the exact same conclusions that his had.
[01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  And we talked about that because at that time the IRS had been sending me notices
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:52.000]  of not having filed and not having paid these taxes and blah, blah, blah.
[01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  And I was using the information from the tax code to respond back and challenging their ability to assess the tax.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  And they would disappear five, six, seven years at a time.
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  And eventually some idiot new agent would come along, write their name.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  And the thing is even though there's an agent at the IRS that is 95 freaking years old,
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  they have to be because their name has been on every invalid tax assessment
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  that's ever been issued by that agency.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:24.000]  It's ridiculous.
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:31.000]  But in any case, and it's in any region of the U.S., the same name is stamped on those tax deficiencies.
[01:50:31.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  But every challenge to those tax deficiencies resulted in them going away.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  And they've yet to ever try to pull me into a court or Dave for that matter.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  Now one of the things that's out there circulating about Dave is that a federal judge
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  without any charges ever being filed against Dave and without any jurisdictional authority to do so
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  and in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech,
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  colluded with the IRS to issue an injunction against Dave from selling his book,
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  claiming that it was an illegal tax shelter,
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  when in fact the only thing Dave discusses in his book like so many other people that they've attacked in this way
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  is the actual law and the actual court opinions.
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  He's not promoting a shelter of any kind.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  And in fact the courts have ruled time and time again that every American has the absolute right
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  to minimize their tax burden in every legal manner possible.
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  Well, what could be more legal to minimize your tax burden than to say I'm not somebody you can tax
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  and here's the proof.
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  And that's all his book does.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  And so they tried to get this injunction filed against him.
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:55.000]  And Dave's pretty much just, you know, like whatever you think he can do, too bad for you.
[01:51:55.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  But that's pretty much who Dave Champion is.
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  He lives by what he says and he does what he says.
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  And that says a lot.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  And I'm very excited to have him on the show.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  I really am.
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  I got to meet him in person for the very first time when he came to Texas here at the last year
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  to sit with me and participate in this movie project.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:20.000]  And we've got our first face-to-face discussions there.
[01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  And I must say I enjoyed that interaction immensely.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:24.000]  I really did.
[01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  It was a great conversation.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  And if this project works out, hopefully there will be another one that Dave and I will be participating in together
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  and dealing specifically with this income tax issue.
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  Good.
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:42.000]  I'm going to be looking forward to it.
[01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  Okay.
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:47.000]  We are halfway through another segment.
[01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  You ready to go to callers, Eddie?
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  Well, sure.
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  Why not?
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  After all, they're waiting on us, right?
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:54.000]  Yes.
[01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:56.000]  Let's go to Jay in Texas.
[01:52:56.000 --> 01:53:00.000]  Hello, Jay.
[01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  All right.
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  Hold on.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:05.000]  We're here.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  Are you there?
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:10.000]  I'm somewhere in that area.
[01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:11.000]  Okay.
[01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  You got your head out of the toilet yet?
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  All right.
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  Jay, whatever you're doing, focus on the microphone and try to stay the same distance.
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  You keep fading in and out like you're talking through a tin can.
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  All right.
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  Eddie, we've spoke before, I'm the one who's got the case out of Florida.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  And as much as I'd like to talk about that, it's irrelevant at this point after listening to you guys talk for so long.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:54:00.000]  Randy, by the way, hello, first time caller to your show, but I found it rather ironic that you end up having Eddie on your show.
[01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  So we knew you were calling in and I needed somebody to do an interview.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  The comment that was made.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  Okay.
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:11.000]  What comment was that?
[01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  That the indictment cannot be presented back to the court until the person who has been indicted has been placed under arrest so that when the indictment is handed down, they can't flee.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  I see.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:53.000]  Well, that being said, chances are that, you know, is there a statute of limitations as to whether I can reproach that at all?
[01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  Well, reproach it in what sense?
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:59.000]  Let me read the code to you.
[01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  20.22, presentment entered of record, the fact of a presentment of indictment by a grand jury shall be entered in the record of the court.
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  If the defendant is in custody or under bond, noting briefly the style of the criminal action, the file number of the indictment and the defendant's name.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  If the defendant is not in custody or under bond at the time of the presentment of the indictment, the indictment may not be made public and the entry in the record of the court relating to the indictment must be delayed until the capious is served and the defendant is placed in custody or under bond.
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  Well, that's mashed potatoes and motor oil.
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Now that means you have to be arrested and when you're arrested under 1406, you are required to be taken directly to the nearest magistrate for an examining trial where you have opportunity to post exculpatory evidence with the court.
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  Okay.
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  The prosecutors are trying to use indictment to get around.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  Because this was back in 09.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  I was charged with a felony, took up the trial, I won.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:51.000]  But the fact is that when I was initially pulled over, they were for the most part well aware of what the situation was and yet they let me go.
[01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  Four months later, they came and arrested me in an entirely different city.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  And it wasn't until then that I found out that I had been indicted.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:10.000]  So I don't know what kind of buried that.
[01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:14.000]  I guess too much time has gone by for me to follow up on that, right?
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  You know 09 is kind of far away.
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  Generally false imprisonment you got one year.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  Yeah.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  Well, you know.
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  Unless the only thing you're talking about is purging your record.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  The record you may have an opportunity to purge if you won.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:35.000]  But as far as going back and suing for any damages, yeah, there is a statute of limitations on that.
[01:57:35.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  The maximum they're allowing, even though I can't figure out how they got that authority, is two years.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:43.000]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:57:43.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  Unless you can show that it was based upon fraud to begin with.
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  And it's one year for false imprisonment and two years for any other civil action.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  Unless you go into the federal court.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  I figured that out.
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  Hang on.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  About to go to break.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  If I can find my clock.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  OK.
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rue La Radio.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  And the call in number is 512-646-1984. We'll be taking calls all night.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  So if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  And make sure you listen in Monday night to hear Dave Champlin on Eddie's show.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  Hang on.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[01:59:06.000 --> 01:59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[01:59:09.000 --> 01:59:18.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:48.000 --> 01:59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:51.000 --> 02:00:03.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.