ROL_2017-05-08_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.400]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Low Start of Lowdowns.
[00:05.400 --> 00:12.560]  Markets for Wednesday, 26 April 2017 are currently trading with gold at $1,267.80 an ounce, silver
[00:12.560 --> 00:20.520]  $17.45 an ounce, Texas Crude $49.56 a barrel, and Bitcoin is sitting over $1,300 at about
[00:20.520 --> 00:33.880]  $1,310 U.S. currency. Today in History, the year 1986, a nuclear reactor accident occurs
[00:33.880 --> 00:38.880]  at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union, now Ukraine, creating one of
[00:38.880 --> 00:48.280]  the world's worst nuclear disasters, the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident, Today in History.
[00:48.280 --> 00:52.400]  In recent news, two senior administration officials confirmed to CNN Wednesday, today
[00:52.400 --> 00:56.720]  that the White House is considering withdrawing from NAFTA in the coming days. Apparently,
[00:56.720 --> 01:00.920]  the White House is currently piecing an executive order together, declaring the U.S.'s intent
[01:00.920 --> 01:04.960]  to withdraw from NAFTA. However, since nothing official has come out from the President, it
[01:04.960 --> 01:09.760]  could be that President Trump is simply going to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.
[01:09.760 --> 01:13.120]  During last year's presidential race, Trump repeatedly criticized NAFTA, calling it a
[01:13.120 --> 01:18.160]  one-sided deal and a disaster for the U.S., causing the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing
[01:18.160 --> 01:22.880]  jobs. And considering that this Saturday marks the administration's 100th day in office,
[01:22.880 --> 01:27.440]  it seems urgency has overwhelmed the administration in order to deliver on some of the campaign
[01:27.440 --> 01:32.080]  promises. However, keep in mind that Trump's trade team, led by Commerce Secretary Wilbur
[01:32.080 --> 01:37.080]  Ross, must initiate a 90-day consultation before getting into trade talks with Canada
[01:37.080 --> 01:46.440]  and Mexico. The annual TED conference being held in Vancouver this year had an unexpected
[01:46.440 --> 01:50.880]  surprise speaker on the theme of emerging futurist tech and artificial intelligence.
[01:50.880 --> 01:55.160]  On Tuesday evening, Pope Francis made a surprise appearance on a big screen with a prerecorded
[01:55.160 --> 02:00.160]  and edited address from earlier in April. The Pope focused on the revolution of tenderness,
[02:00.160 --> 02:05.200]  as he pointed. He said, quote, how wonderful would it be if the growth of scientific technological
[02:05.200 --> 02:09.720]  innovation would come along with more equality and social inclusion? How wonderful would
[02:09.720 --> 02:14.160]  it be while we discovered faraway planets to rediscover the needs of the brothers and
[02:14.160 --> 02:18.800]  sisters orbiting around us? How wonderful would it be if solidarity, this beautiful
[02:18.800 --> 02:23.640]  and at times inconvenient word, were not simply reduced to social work and became instead
[02:23.640 --> 02:28.640]  the default attitude in political, economic, and scientific choice, as well as in the relationships
[02:28.640 --> 02:33.960]  among individuals, peoples, and countries? Tenderness is not a weakness. It is a fortitude.
[02:33.960 --> 02:39.320]  It is a path of solidarity, the path of humility. Please allow me to say it loud and clear.
[02:39.320 --> 02:44.120]  The more powerful you are, the more your actions will have an impact on people. The more responses
[02:44.120 --> 02:49.680]  possible you are to act humbly. If you don't, your power will ruin you, and you will ruin
[02:49.680 --> 03:15.680]  the other. This was Brooke Rodeo with your loadout for April 26, 2017.
[03:15.680 --> 03:20.160]  This is what happens when you call them the cops. This is what happens when you call
[03:20.160 --> 03:23.680]  them the cops. You get your rights violated or you all get shot, all right?
[03:23.680 --> 03:27.280]  I'm looking for people being victimized by criminal cops. Psycho-pallet predators, they
[03:27.280 --> 03:31.080]  arrive in neighborhood blocks. Pick up with pepper spray, mate, cuffs, tasers, and glocks.
[03:31.080 --> 03:35.040]  They're like serial killers acting out subliminal thoughts. Forget what you talk. These cops
[03:35.040 --> 03:39.080]  have got a license to kill. Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will. Code of
[03:39.080 --> 03:42.480]  silence means that the pigs will never let out a squeal. And if they go to court, they
[03:42.480 --> 03:46.040]  know the judge will make them a deal for real. That's why they're stopping me. Locking me
[03:46.040 --> 03:50.080]  up, stopping me, confiscating my property, talking in my demography, making the poor
[03:50.080 --> 03:55.080]  commodity profit and awful poverty, and for the policy support, prison economy. Yeah,
[03:55.080 --> 03:59.000]  no one makes money when the violence stops. Getting brutality is the way to make a criminal
[03:59.000 --> 04:00.000]  crop.
[04:00.000 --> 04:05.160]  All right, folks. Good evening. This is Rule of Law Radio, Monday night show with your
[04:05.160 --> 04:13.400]  host Eddie Craig. It is March 8th, 2017. We are now entering the fifth month of this
[04:13.400 --> 04:21.000]  new year. And like I said last week, this puts us more than a quarter of the way through,
[04:21.000 --> 04:28.000]  our third of the way through, actually. And so we need to figure out where we are in the
[04:28.000 --> 04:34.640]  progress of things. Now, after a presidential election has occurred and everybody's hold
[04:34.640 --> 04:42.080]  for raised high, look hard and fast and see exactly whether or not the things you hoped
[04:42.080 --> 04:47.800]  would get done are truly getting done, are the issues that everybody's wanting to argue
[04:47.800 --> 04:54.560]  about at those levels, the real issues faced by the Americans that are having to live under
[04:54.560 --> 04:59.240]  these various regimes of elitists that believe they have the answers that none of us could
[04:59.240 --> 05:04.480]  come up with on our own. Now, I don't really care which one of them it is. I got no favoritism
[05:04.480 --> 05:08.520]  for any of them, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, and he had the good sense to
[05:08.520 --> 05:15.080]  stop trying to do something for those that had no desire to see things better. Now, that
[05:15.080 --> 05:21.600]  isn't true for everyone in America, but unfortunately it seems to be true for the majority in America.
[05:21.600 --> 05:27.800]  And proof of that is exactly how we wound up in these past few elections, to be frank
[05:27.800 --> 05:36.080]  about it. Now, that being said, I have come across even more information here later about
[05:36.080 --> 05:42.120]  what the state is doing in relation to the transportation stuff and many other things.
[05:42.120 --> 05:48.160]  And folks, the stuff that I'm putting together for the constitutional challenge for all of
[05:48.160 --> 05:57.680]  it is going to prove irrefutably the absolute fraud that the state in every department and
[05:57.680 --> 06:06.720]  at every level has knowingly and willingly engaged in to mislead the people in every
[06:06.720 --> 06:13.360]  state of the union as to what their rights are and what they can do with them. Now, that's
[06:13.360 --> 06:18.680]  not just transportation, that's anything, but I'm fixing to blow the transportation
[06:18.680 --> 06:27.000]  crap completely out of the water. Everything we need to fight back is in the laws they
[06:27.000 --> 06:33.160]  have, though they are doing their best to hide it and they are doing their best over
[06:33.160 --> 06:40.880]  time to alter the language of that law in an unconstitutional manner so as to hide it
[06:40.880 --> 06:48.880]  further and to subvert our rights more. The only thing you need to prove that is to go
[06:48.880 --> 06:53.720]  back and look at past versions of the statutes to the present and see where they've taken
[06:53.720 --> 06:59.440]  out this word or that word or this word or that word that always pointed the language
[06:59.440 --> 07:06.520]  toward commercial relativity. It's like when I did the presentation on Info Wars back
[07:06.520 --> 07:11.960]  in 2011 and there we had the definition of light truck which specifically said it was
[07:11.960 --> 07:21.080]  for commercial purposes and now in 2013 and 15 and now 17 the language of that statute
[07:21.080 --> 07:28.360]  has been further changed to remove commercial from that definition entirely. They are using
[07:28.360 --> 07:34.880]  the definitions and the alteration and removal of terminology to completely alter the legislative
[07:34.880 --> 07:42.040]  purpose and intent of the original act, all of which is unconstitutional. See the thing
[07:42.040 --> 07:54.200]  is when they re-enacted and allegedly re-enacted SB 971 in 1995 and they said that it was done
[07:54.200 --> 08:01.840]  with no substantive changes to the law that was a lie. There's proof all over the bill
[08:01.840 --> 08:11.520]  that that was a lie. But what they tend to forget and nobody else seems to know is that
[08:11.520 --> 08:20.160]  they cannot do later the very thing they said they didn't do in the beginning and that is
[08:20.160 --> 08:28.960]  they cannot 10 or 15 or 25 years down the road create a statutory alteration that creates
[08:28.960 --> 08:37.120]  a substantive change to the underlying law. The recodification in 1995 did not authorize
[08:37.120 --> 08:46.560]  them to go here in 2013 and remove the word commercial from a definition so as to completely
[08:46.560 --> 08:53.560]  alter its purpose and application within the statute overall because that then completely
[08:53.560 --> 09:01.640]  alters the context and meaning of the statute itself. There is no avoiding that. So they
[09:01.640 --> 09:07.380]  could not come along 30 years later or more and do the exact same thing that the original
[09:07.380 --> 09:17.240]  recodification sort didn't do and still did. Once again, everything about the system we
[09:17.240 --> 09:26.720]  have that is so destructive to individual rights can be laid at the feet of the attorneys
[09:26.720 --> 09:35.040]  and we the people. We the people most of all for several reasons. One, we allowed scumbags
[09:35.040 --> 09:42.960]  to seize control of government. Two, we didn't tar and feather those scumbags the moment
[09:42.960 --> 09:48.120]  we found out what scumbags they were and let them remain in power to corrupt the entire
[09:48.120 --> 09:57.040]  process of government that we established to protect our rights that are now being subverted
[09:57.040 --> 10:03.920]  and when tarring and feathering didn't work we didn't perform public hangings for treason
[10:03.920 --> 10:13.040]  and sedition. Now let's not forget our first president of the union of several states was
[10:13.040 --> 10:16.920]  George Washington. Now he was not the first president of the United States but he was
[10:16.920 --> 10:22.000]  the first president of the union of several states after the Constitution was actually
[10:22.000 --> 10:34.600]  ratified. Okay. While he was living in I think it was Virginia on his farm or plantation
[10:34.600 --> 10:42.520]  or whatever it was he actually owned there was a neighbor who was constantly poaching
[10:42.520 --> 10:52.440]  the game on Washington's land and Washington warned him twice prior not to be hunting on
[10:52.440 --> 10:58.880]  his land and poaching his wild game. Well third time he was caught doing it obviously
[10:58.880 --> 11:03.360]  the man wasn't listening and he wasn't observing the etiquette of the day which is stay off
[11:03.360 --> 11:08.440]  another man's land without permission which should be the exact same etiquette that exists
[11:08.440 --> 11:17.840]  today whether you're a private citizen or a member of government. So when he was captured
[11:17.840 --> 11:22.800]  doing it the third time and he was brought before Washington Washington called all of
[11:22.800 --> 11:30.360]  his neighbors together at his home and he announced that they were going to hold a trial
[11:30.360 --> 11:41.640]  for this neighbor who was poaching on his land and they did a trial presided over by the
[11:41.640 --> 11:48.360]  people of the community prosecuted by Washington as the person harmed or at least testified
[11:48.360 --> 11:54.240]  to by Washington as the person harmed and the neighbor's testimony that yeah he had
[11:54.240 --> 12:00.840]  done everything Washington was accusing him of and didn't have a good excuse for doing
[12:00.840 --> 12:10.880]  it. They pronounced him guilty and Washington hung him in a tree in the front yard.
[12:10.880 --> 12:21.360]  That was a poaching neighbor. Today we have criminal public servants they extort us they
[12:21.360 --> 12:28.320]  murder us they physically harm and injure us they financially harm and injure us they
[12:28.320 --> 12:37.360]  steal from our property they take our property they leave us homeless destitute and without
[12:37.360 --> 12:46.640]  any means whatsoever and yet I can find absolutely nowhere that we ever gave them authority in
[12:46.640 --> 12:56.480]  any way to do any of those things. The only time we ever authorized government to use
[12:56.480 --> 13:04.680]  force against anyone was in a valid declaration of war by Congress to foreign entities but
[13:04.680 --> 13:12.000]  not to the people of the U.S. since the Posse Comitatus Act and most certainly not to the
[13:12.000 --> 13:17.920]  people themselves to regulate their behavior and their livelihood under some governmental
[13:17.920 --> 13:27.520]  scheme of how it is best to do things and yet here we are day in and day out watching
[13:27.520 --> 13:31.760]  it on the news watching it on YouTube seeing it the newspaper seeing it on Facebook and
[13:31.760 --> 13:38.560]  all the other social media how the cops have gotten completely out of control and how the
[13:38.560 --> 13:45.520]  courts and every other department of government has now altered the entire course of American
[13:45.520 --> 13:53.120]  history to set the foundation for the proclamation that ignorance of the law is not an excuse
[13:54.320 --> 14:00.960]  unless you are a government employee and then it is the order of the day.
[14:03.040 --> 14:07.520]  The courts have ruled the cops do not have to know the law the courts have ruled that the
[14:07.520 --> 14:12.720]  courts do not have to know the law the courts have ruled that they get to decide what the law
[14:12.720 --> 14:19.920]  is regardless of what the legislature wrote or what the legislative documents actually say
[14:19.920 --> 14:27.200]  the intent of the law was the courts have declared that once the legislature creates a law
[14:27.200 --> 14:37.840]  the legislature no longer has control of what it means how is that for ludicrous.
[14:39.760 --> 14:49.280]  Everywhere we look our system of government is being undermined and stolen and broken down
[14:49.280 --> 14:57.040]  right in front of our eyes and no one seems to understand it or recognize it.
[15:00.880 --> 15:08.640]  Yesterday some idiot on Facebook actually thought it was a good idea to call me a
[15:08.640 --> 15:13.360]  shill and a plant by the law enforcement because I used to be a sheriff's deputy.
[15:14.960 --> 15:18.800]  If the guy knew what he was talking about he'd be halfway dangerous but it does appear to me
[15:18.800 --> 15:25.120]  that the closer you are to actually exposing the real truth the more likely it is that these
[15:25.120 --> 15:31.520]  types of attacks are going to come out to make you look like a false prophet in order to discredit
[15:31.520 --> 15:37.040]  you any information you're putting out there. Now mind you he had absolutely no evidence backing
[15:37.040 --> 15:43.840]  up anything he said if anybody that knows me were to get on there and say anything about it they'd
[15:43.840 --> 15:47.520]  look at him and say not only do you not know what you're talking about but your food is for even
[15:47.520 --> 15:53.920]  thinking so and some people have even though I've never met them personally because they
[15:53.920 --> 15:57.600]  have listened to my archives they have listened to other people talk about how I've helped them
[15:58.160 --> 16:03.920]  and none of them ever seem to think that that's the case because I'm telling them how to beat
[16:03.920 --> 16:09.360]  the very people that I would have to be working for if I was what this person and some others
[16:09.360 --> 16:15.840]  like him have tried to label me why would I be telling you all this if I was the one trying
[16:15.840 --> 16:23.520]  to help them against you seems to me like I'd be going exactly the other way well here's
[16:23.520 --> 16:27.680]  why you have to do this and this is why it's justifiable and this is why the law is the way
[16:27.680 --> 16:31.680]  it is and why you ought to follow it because if you don't follow it here's the problems you're
[16:31.680 --> 16:35.760]  getting yourself into and all these things are going to really be a problem for you and other
[16:35.760 --> 16:39.200]  people and you just need to accept the fact that you never had the right to do this in the first
[16:39.200 --> 16:45.200]  place see that's the kind of crap I'd be telling you if I was one of them doing what this guy
[16:45.200 --> 16:50.960]  wants to accuse me of doing but those of you that listened to this show more than twice
[16:50.960 --> 16:55.760]  know that definitely ain't the case anyhow folks we're about to take a break y'all hang in there
[16:55.760 --> 17:03.840]  we will be right back and I will have the phones on saying cookie cookie me love cookies oh hi
[17:03.840 --> 17:10.560]  cookie muncher no these are yucky cookies cookies yucky no no bad cookies you can't even eat these
[17:10.560 --> 17:16.960]  cookies these are cyber cookies okay no they are cyber cookies and they clog up your computer
[17:16.960 --> 17:25.600]  me have apple really oh that's an actual apple yummy apple i'm going to throw away these yucky
[17:25.600 --> 17:32.880]  cookies in the trash i clicked control shift the lead and then scroll down to cookies and clear them
[17:32.880 --> 17:39.280]  bye bye yucca cookies now i go to logos radio network dot com and i click on the amazon box
[17:39.280 --> 17:45.120]  on the upper right hand side book mark the link and i can go to amazon through this link and order
[17:45.120 --> 17:51.120]  you some yummy new cookie no cookies for me consider it an early christmas present and
[17:51.120 --> 17:56.240]  every time i order on amazon i go through this link and i give a little present to this radio
[17:56.240 --> 18:05.040]  network too see is for cookie see you so glad to buy it it's the 2017 logos radio network
[18:05.040 --> 18:10.720]  annual fundraiser sponsored by central texas gunworks defense distributed in fat sales deli
[18:10.720 --> 18:16.560]  go to logos radio network dot com and enter the win every 25 dollar donation is a chance to win
[18:16.560 --> 18:23.360]  from central texas gunworks first place up for grabs of spikes tactical ar 15 second place torres
[18:23.360 --> 18:30.160]  pt 111 g2 nine millimeter pistols from defense distributed third place the ar 308 80 percent
[18:30.160 --> 18:36.960]  lower fourth place the ar 15 80 percent lower from fat sales deli fifth place $100 gift card
[18:36.960 --> 18:42.080]  for fat sales deli every 25 dollar donation is a chance to win that's the logos radio network
[18:42.080 --> 18:48.320]  dot com also if you purchase randy kelton's e-book legal 101 you get four chances to win purchase
[18:48.320 --> 18:53.760]  eddie craig's traffic seminar you get 10 chances to win and remember every 25 dollar donation is a
[18:53.760 --> 19:01.600]  chance to win go to logos radio network dot com for details and donate today
[19:01.600 --> 19:27.440]  you are listening to the logo radio network logo radio network dot com
[19:31.600 --> 19:57.440]  so
[20:01.600 --> 20:13.760]  Alright folks, we are back.
[20:13.760 --> 20:15.400]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[20:15.400 --> 20:19.480]  The calling number is 512-646-1984.
[20:19.480 --> 20:25.280]  The phones are now on if you want to call in, get in line and ask questions or make comments.
[20:25.280 --> 20:31.880]  Now the more I have to deal with some of this stuff, especially when it comes to social
[20:31.880 --> 20:37.960]  media and discussing the subjects, the more I have to deal with the patronut crowd that
[20:37.960 --> 20:44.240]  goes way, way off the deep end of making this stuff way more complicated than it has to
[20:44.240 --> 20:45.240]  be.
[20:45.240 --> 20:50.480]  In fact, I'm looking here at a comment from one of them right now who goes by the handle
[20:50.480 --> 20:58.240]  Jared Daylin and he's talking about me being a narcissist because I try to break down what
[20:58.240 --> 21:03.720]  legal capacity versus legal person versus all the things that they're talking about.
[21:03.720 --> 21:08.240]  Now those of you that have been listening to this show understand that the entire reason
[21:08.240 --> 21:17.480]  I chose this particular context of the subject for this show is because this is the law that
[21:17.480 --> 21:23.560]  most people are likely to run into face first on the most regular basis.
[21:23.560 --> 21:30.160]  It is also the least dangerous area of law in which to get your feet wet and understanding
[21:30.160 --> 21:37.600]  exactly how the system is being used to steal your money away through extorted schemes.
[21:37.600 --> 21:42.080]  Now people can make fun of that all they want saying that I'm not going to change the world
[21:42.080 --> 21:44.080]  by arguing about traffic tickets.
[21:44.080 --> 21:47.120]  Well I got news for these people.
[21:47.120 --> 21:52.400]  If I can convince you over this issue that they're lying to you and stealing from you
[21:52.400 --> 21:57.760]  and making up what the law says to do it, maybe just maybe I can get you to question
[21:57.760 --> 22:03.160]  the other aspects of law they're telling you that you are required to obey as well.
[22:03.160 --> 22:06.600]  And then when you actually take a look for yourself after learning how to handle that
[22:06.600 --> 22:12.840]  stuff in this area, you can come to an understanding of what's happening in that area and find
[22:12.840 --> 22:17.280]  out that it is also a lie.
[22:17.280 --> 22:22.280]  So regardless of what these people seem to think I will or won't accomplish, the fact
[22:22.280 --> 22:27.680]  of the matter is there's always a starting point, always.
[22:27.680 --> 22:33.920]  I can't convince you of the biggest lie out there if I can't show you through very simple
[22:33.920 --> 22:40.880]  avenues the various small lies that you're told every single day that lead to these big
[22:40.880 --> 22:43.680]  compound lies.
[22:43.680 --> 22:48.600]  Nobody's going to jump into something as risky as fighting a mortgage or an income tax system
[22:48.600 --> 22:56.000]  where they can actually go to jail just to learn that it's all illegal to begin with.
[22:56.000 --> 22:59.360]  No one's willing to take that risk because they don't know how.
[22:59.360 --> 23:00.360]  They don't understand it.
[23:00.360 --> 23:03.880]  They don't have a clue about how the system works, about how to read a law, about how
[23:03.880 --> 23:07.200]  to actually understand a law.
[23:07.200 --> 23:11.480]  But if you can get them to get their feet wet and you can lead them to a path of understanding
[23:11.480 --> 23:16.560]  where they have the will and the capability to go through and find this information out
[23:16.560 --> 23:23.800]  for themselves, verify it for themselves, even if you show it to them later, now their
[23:23.800 --> 23:31.640]  chances of understanding it and being willing to use it are greatly increased.
[23:31.640 --> 23:34.240]  So naysayers can be naysayers all day long.
[23:34.240 --> 23:35.680]  I don't care.
[23:35.680 --> 23:40.200]  If they knew half of what they were talking about, then they might be useful, but most
[23:40.200 --> 23:41.920]  of them don't.
[23:41.920 --> 23:46.440]  And I find it actually kind of funny that the individuals that are calling me and people
[23:46.440 --> 23:52.280]  that do what I do, narcissist, are the very first ones to make personal attacks against
[23:52.280 --> 23:56.880]  others claiming that they have the answers that no one else has.
[23:56.880 --> 24:04.400]  Now, I never say that my way is the only way to do it, but I will pretty much guarantee
[24:04.400 --> 24:08.760]  you that it's probably the best way to do it.
[24:08.760 --> 24:13.400]  Because the difference between what I'm doing and what they're doing is this.
[24:13.400 --> 24:17.400]  They want to beat their individual ticket.
[24:17.400 --> 24:21.640]  They want to try to make it where they are the ones that nobody wants to mess with.
[24:21.640 --> 24:25.880]  And that's all fine, but it doesn't help anybody else.
[24:25.880 --> 24:31.200]  And it means everybody else has to keep fighting that same battle every time it comes along.
[24:31.200 --> 24:36.160]  On the other hand, what I'm trying to do is to kill the system with a knife right through
[24:36.160 --> 24:37.640]  the heart to begin with.
[24:37.640 --> 24:44.960]  So no one has to fight this fight ever again, at least not in my lifetime, because they
[24:44.960 --> 24:49.880]  will have understood that it was a lie from the very start and they will never let it
[24:49.880 --> 24:57.080]  grow into that lie again, at least not while they're alive.
[24:57.080 --> 25:03.160]  So despite the simple-minded individuals that think that their plan is the best because
[25:03.160 --> 25:09.680]  they can beat their ticket, you're not helping anybody the way you think you are.
[25:09.680 --> 25:14.120]  Because everyone has to take them on individually the way you're doing it and some will win
[25:14.120 --> 25:18.480]  and some will lose because they don't know the best way to do everything and the proper
[25:18.480 --> 25:23.360]  way to keep it going and keep it alive so that they can win.
[25:23.360 --> 25:28.440]  All you're doing there is creating extra precedent for them to use against the next person in
[25:28.440 --> 25:29.520]  line.
[25:29.520 --> 25:38.480]  My goal here is to make sure that never happens again, that it never, ever happens again.
[25:38.480 --> 25:44.280]  So knock me all you want to, I really don't care if your brains were worth the bucket
[25:44.280 --> 25:48.280]  they were dumped in, you know, and all that good stuff.
[25:48.280 --> 25:54.000]  It's kind of like that joke about a doctor when you began the autopsy was the patient
[25:54.000 --> 26:00.840]  still alive, and that's the attorney cross-examining the doctor, the ME, right, medical examiner.
[26:00.840 --> 26:02.560]  Are you sure that he wasn't alive?
[26:02.560 --> 26:04.560]  No, I'm positive he was dead.
[26:04.560 --> 26:09.840]  Well, doctor, if you were just beginning your autopsy, why are you so certain that the individual
[26:09.840 --> 26:10.840]  was dead?
[26:10.840 --> 26:15.280]  The doctor looks at the attorney and goes, well, because his brain was in pieces in a
[26:15.280 --> 26:20.880]  jar on one of the other examining tables, and the attorney looks at him, but he still
[26:20.880 --> 26:23.600]  could have been alive, couldn't he?
[26:23.600 --> 26:27.880]  The doctor very calmly looks back, oh, well, I guess it is possible that he was able to
[26:27.880 --> 26:32.800]  be practicing law somewhere in that state.
[26:32.800 --> 26:38.480]  That's a fact, folks, that is your everyday attorney, and that analysis is quite accurate
[26:38.480 --> 26:39.480]  for most of them.
[26:39.480 --> 26:44.280]  When it comes to law, they are already brain dead.
[26:44.280 --> 26:48.640]  Most of them don't read it, never even looked at it, yet they claim to know what it is and
[26:48.640 --> 26:52.960]  how it works, and the only way they got the information they have is by reading court
[26:52.960 --> 26:55.440]  opinions that are not on point with the actual statute.
[26:55.440 --> 27:02.360]  This is the biggest failing of the justice system that we have, and that is the Starrade
[27:02.360 --> 27:07.880]  decisive cases that everyone relies on despite the fact that the statute it was based on
[27:07.880 --> 27:13.520]  has changed 15 freaking times since it was decided, and yet we're still going to keep
[27:13.520 --> 27:17.080]  going with that same opinion because even though the law has changed, we're going to
[27:17.080 --> 27:20.520]  go with that opinion because that opinion was about that law back when it was there
[27:20.520 --> 27:22.920]  15 changes ago.
[27:22.920 --> 27:26.360]  That is not the correct way for law to work, people.
[27:26.360 --> 27:30.640]  If the legislature is the one responsible for writing the law, the courts are the ones
[27:30.640 --> 27:37.240]  responsible for making sure that is the law they use in a case, but they're not.
[27:37.240 --> 27:42.600]  They are using a 30-year-old court opinion on a statute that's changed X amount of times
[27:42.600 --> 27:49.160]  since that opinion was rendered and has no more validity than a forecast of the weather
[27:49.160 --> 27:55.120]  on Mars to the actual facts of the case any longer.
[27:55.120 --> 27:59.720]  It just doesn't belong, and yet here we are having the same argument with them day in
[27:59.720 --> 28:00.720]  and day out.
[28:00.720 --> 28:03.520]  That is not what the statute says, but that's the court opinion on it.
[28:03.520 --> 28:04.920]  Who cares?
[28:04.920 --> 28:10.440]  It's not what the statute says.
[28:10.440 --> 28:16.560]  But since the judges think that they now have the power to do everything, including rewrite
[28:16.560 --> 28:22.360]  the law as it suits their interpretation, as it suits their desired outcome, and the
[28:22.360 --> 28:27.520]  prosecutors collude with them to make that happen, what are you and I to do except accept
[28:27.520 --> 28:32.640]  it unless we're willing to go back to the other system of justice, riding them out of
[28:32.640 --> 28:38.400]  town on a rail, tarred and feathered, ostracizing them so that they can never hold another public
[28:38.400 --> 28:44.560]  office, exposing them for the charlatans they are, and forfeiting all of their property
[28:44.560 --> 28:50.320]  back to the people and leaving them destitute and broke to wander in their own misery, based
[28:50.320 --> 28:53.320]  upon the misery they caused while they were holding that office.
[28:53.320 --> 28:56.920]  I think that's a perfectly just system.
[28:56.920 --> 29:01.720]  If you want to be a criminal public servant, then you will serve a criminal penalty for
[29:01.720 --> 29:05.040]  it.
[29:05.040 --> 29:12.600]  But as long as they get to decide who's guilty and who's not, when it's their own breaking
[29:12.600 --> 29:18.680]  the law, that will never be the case.
[29:18.680 --> 29:28.240]  No system will remain uncorruptible when the only oversight it has is those that are part
[29:28.240 --> 29:31.560]  of it.
[29:31.560 --> 29:37.160]  It's true of the police, that's true of Congress, that's true of legislatures, that's true of
[29:37.160 --> 29:42.360]  county commissioners, city councils, it's true of every body, agency and department
[29:42.360 --> 29:45.920]  of government.
[29:45.920 --> 29:49.440]  If you don't think so, you haven't been paying attention.
[29:49.440 --> 29:56.800]  Alright folks, call in number 512-646-1984, we get back, we'll start taking your calls
[29:56.800 --> 30:03.120]  so y'all hang in there, we'll be right back.
[30:03.120 --> 30:04.120]  Is that a Harley I hear?
[30:04.120 --> 30:07.600]  If so, I hope the driver's wearing a helmet.
[30:07.600 --> 30:11.160]  Motorcycle fatalities are way up and you won't guess among which age group.
[30:11.160 --> 30:15.400]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment.
[30:15.400 --> 30:17.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.000 --> 30:20.600]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.600 --> 30:25.360]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.360 --> 30:30.280]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:30.280 --> 30:33.120]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.120 --> 30:37.440]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:37.440 --> 30:40.960]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[30:40.960 --> 30:44.560]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.560 --> 30:48.920]  When you hear the word motorcycle, most of us think of youthful rebellion, you know,
[30:48.920 --> 30:53.160]  some teenage couples zipping down the highway with the wind whipping through their hair.
[30:53.160 --> 30:57.400]  What you don't picture is the driver on that Harley being a middle-aged baby boomer or
[30:57.400 --> 30:58.400]  even a retiree.
[30:58.400 --> 31:04.360]  Fact is though, older people are riding motorcycles more than ever and dying in greater numbers
[31:04.360 --> 31:05.360]  too.
[31:05.360 --> 31:10.760]  Federal accident data shows motorcycle deaths have climbed 25% in 10 years.
[31:10.760 --> 31:15.480]  Half the riders were age 40 or older and nearly a quarter were older than 50.
[31:15.480 --> 31:20.000]  So if you're planning on hitting the highway, wear a helmet and go easy on those hairpin
[31:20.000 --> 31:21.000]  turns.
[31:21.000 --> 31:25.560]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:51.000 --> 31:58.000]  Does the job of 10 products that saves you space, time and money?
[31:58.000 --> 32:26.000]  That's USA.org.
[32:26.000 --> 32:53.360]  USAID, USAID and the company.
[32:53.360 --> 32:59.360]  www.LawRadio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.360 --> 33:19.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[33:30.360 --> 33:36.360]  Don't stop me.
[33:36.360 --> 33:41.360]  Let it go.
[33:41.360 --> 33:51.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[34:11.360 --> 34:21.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[34:41.360 --> 34:51.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[34:51.360 --> 35:01.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[35:01.360 --> 35:11.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[35:11.360 --> 35:21.360]  Live Free Speech Radio. LogosRadionetwork.com.
[35:21.360 --> 35:26.240]  board and hopefully we will get more. Let's begin with Jimmy in Maryland. Jimmy what
[35:26.240 --> 35:35.000]  do you got? Hey. Hello? Can you hear me? If you're closer to whatever you're speaking
[35:35.000 --> 35:44.840]  into maybe. Hey. Are you on a speaker phone? No I'm not. Okay. Okay I'm in my car yeah.
[35:44.840 --> 35:50.920]  Okay give it a shot let's see what we can hear. Okay I called you a while back when
[35:50.920 --> 35:56.760]  I filed the rid of habeas corpus for my post conviction I was speaking post conviction
[35:56.760 --> 36:04.160]  relief and I filed the order of a court cause that was denied and I till I till the case
[36:04.160 --> 36:11.160]  and now I'm dealing with the the opposition is basically saying since the time has expired
[36:11.160 --> 36:17.600]  from being on probation I no longer have that remedy anymore so I'm trying to I'm trying
[36:17.600 --> 36:23.240]  to see if it is true he says even though he called the case that somebody who did file
[36:23.240 --> 36:27.680]  when it was still in the prison no longer they were denied so he's trying to say that
[36:27.680 --> 36:37.520]  the court no longer had jurisdiction to to do anything. Well are you off of probation?
[36:37.520 --> 36:42.800]  It expired it well when I had like a several months ago when I filed it but it you know
[36:42.800 --> 36:48.720]  the time sure it had lasted expired. Okay that's not my question when you filed it were
[36:48.720 --> 36:59.120]  you on probation? Yes. Okay are there any punitive measures still in effect because
[36:59.120 --> 37:05.680]  of the conviction or the probation? Are you still restricted from doing something for
[37:05.680 --> 37:13.040]  instance was it a felony where now you can't own a gun now you can't vote and etc etc?
[37:13.040 --> 37:19.240]  No no it was just restriction as far as driving stuff but no now it's expired so I'm no longer
[37:19.240 --> 37:28.320]  on probation. Then what you should be seeking is not a habeas corpus but a vacating of the
[37:28.320 --> 37:33.720]  judgment originally if you can show that it was invalid if you can show the conviction
[37:33.720 --> 37:39.880]  was invalid the judgments invalid. Okay well I'm still appealing the case is still I'm
[37:39.880 --> 37:43.680]  still appealing the case right now you speak in the yeah and odds are the attorney's going
[37:43.680 --> 37:47.520]  to be right and they're going to throw it out because habeas is only good if you're
[37:47.520 --> 37:53.920]  being restricted at your liberty in some way. If the period is over that's no longer the
[37:53.920 --> 38:01.840]  case if there's no nothing tying you up after that period is over that's not the case. See
[38:01.840 --> 38:06.200]  if there were still putative measures in effect like you were still having to pay fees or
[38:06.200 --> 38:11.360]  you were still restricted from doing certain things because of it the conviction or whatever
[38:11.360 --> 38:16.840]  then you would have habeas relief coming. Now they may find a reason to say that you
[38:16.840 --> 38:22.400]  still have it but based upon the information you're giving me habeas would no longer be
[38:22.400 --> 38:29.640]  the correct remedy I would think. Okay so what I find you do is go back and re-file
[38:29.640 --> 38:34.520]  my petition in the federal court because it was thrown out because I also know probation
[38:34.520 --> 38:38.840]  so I had to go through that go through these channels now it is expired. Are you looking
[38:38.840 --> 38:45.320]  to have the judgment vacated and overturned? Yes I am. Yeah then that would be the course
[38:45.320 --> 38:50.400]  of action yes. Okay so I can just go back in because he did. Yeah it's a probationary
[38:50.400 --> 38:56.080]  period is over you have all the paperwork the show is concluded right? Right. Yeah then
[38:56.080 --> 39:03.160]  you can do that. Okay I'll do that. One more thing I want to ask you I have another appeal
[39:03.160 --> 39:21.920]  that I'm fighting when I was convicted a couple of years ago and let me tell you before that
[39:21.920 --> 39:33.080]  they were denied because they were in a certain way that there was no showing and that it
[39:33.080 --> 39:38.520]  was not in the public interest. In my case there was no showing it was not in the public
[39:38.520 --> 39:44.680]  interest. When you say that your what was not in the public interest what does public
[39:44.680 --> 39:49.000]  interest have to do with the facts of what you're trying to argue? Okay here in Maryland
[39:49.000 --> 39:57.800]  when you file in the court of appeals you have to put a statement of public interest.
[39:57.800 --> 40:03.880]  Okay but my question is is this a similar criminal case? It's a criminal case traffic.
[40:03.880 --> 40:11.440]  Okay then what is the reason for putting a statement of public interest in it? Your rights
[40:11.440 --> 40:17.440]  have nothing to do with public interest so what exactly is the purpose of this statement
[40:17.440 --> 40:22.200]  that the court is requiring to be on there or this qualification the court is requiring
[40:22.200 --> 40:27.440]  to be put on there before they'll hear the case? That's a good question I'm not really
[40:27.440 --> 40:34.560]  sure. All I knew was that if I put that you know that my use of the roads and highway
[40:34.560 --> 40:39.600]  is in the public interest for me to use the roads and highways is in the public interest.
[40:39.600 --> 40:47.600]  The proper statement is private use of the public right of way is in the people's best
[40:47.600 --> 40:53.080]  interest. Right now they've converted the use of the public right of way to commercial
[40:53.080 --> 41:00.360]  use only and deprive the people of their rightful use to the public right of way. So the argument
[41:00.360 --> 41:07.480]  would be much better stated as the people's right to private use versus non-commercial
[41:07.480 --> 41:11.800]  use of the public right of way or versus commercial use sorry.
[41:11.800 --> 41:20.640]  Okay so I can do say a motion of consideration. Yeah you could amend it if it's already up
[41:20.640 --> 41:25.120]  there you could amend it. I want to say you can amend it if they already denied it I thought
[41:25.120 --> 41:28.520]  I'd have to do a reconsideration. Well if they've already denied it then yeah you can
[41:28.520 --> 41:35.200]  refile it under those under that as long as they didn't deny it with prejudice. No they
[41:35.200 --> 41:40.120]  just denied it you didn't. I got to go back and I don't think it didn't say without prejudice
[41:40.120 --> 41:48.120]  it was not in the public interest. Access to and use of the public right of way by private
[41:48.120 --> 41:54.920]  use of the public right of way by the people is in the public's best interest. Okay so
[41:54.920 --> 42:00.040]  you say just go back and just amend it instead of reconsider it. No no no if it's been denied
[42:00.040 --> 42:04.320]  you're going to have to refile it that's a given. I did not hear you say that they'd
[42:04.320 --> 42:09.560]  denied it already. You said you were still in the process of it so I assumed it was still
[42:09.560 --> 42:14.440]  active. No no I'm sorry they denied it and that's the reason why they denied it because
[42:14.440 --> 42:19.480]  there's no showing and not. Okay then yes refile it with that proper statement of public
[42:19.480 --> 42:25.080]  necessity on there and go that route. Okay even though anything refiled because I know
[42:25.080 --> 42:29.000]  you don't have a standardization of the one you can file. Well it depends on what you're
[42:29.000 --> 42:39.360]  asking for. Okay this is a statutory. Okay are you passed the statute of limitations
[42:39.360 --> 42:47.280]  to file it? I believe yeah I believe I am now. Okay then why we're bringing it up. Well
[42:47.280 --> 42:51.240]  I was thinking about having to do a reconsideration but I should put in a reconsideration. Well
[42:51.240 --> 42:59.840]  then file it as a reconsideration. Okay okay I'll appreciate you thank you a lot. Yes sir
[42:59.840 --> 43:11.200]  good luck. All right. All right now we have keeps changing here. Mike in Texas Mike what
[43:11.200 --> 43:21.680]  do you got? Eddie I got a notice in the mail a notice of violation apparently the red light
[43:21.680 --> 43:35.000]  ticket. Uh huh. And so my download is a PDF file to basically the file that's online to
[43:35.000 --> 43:40.320]  you know better know that. Okay Mike hang on just a second I gotta break the take and
[43:40.320 --> 43:44.960]  then we'll pick this up on the other side okay. All right so good. All right hold on
[43:44.960 --> 43:49.080]  just a minute. All right folks this is a Monday night rule of law radio show with your host
[43:49.080 --> 43:55.240]  Eddie Craig calling number 512-646-1984 if you got a question query quandary or problem
[43:55.240 --> 44:01.120]  give us a call we'll see what we can do we'll be right back after these break. Are you the
[44:01.120 --> 44:06.640]  plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with jurisdiction
[44:06.640 --> 44:13.520] ary the affordable easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours
[44:13.520 --> 44:19.520]  step by step. If you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't have
[44:19.520 --> 44:25.560]  a lawyer know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course
[44:25.560 --> 44:32.360]  and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[44:32.360 --> 44:37.760]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should
[44:37.760 --> 44:43.520]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[44:43.520 --> 44:50.840]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forums for civil cases, pro se tactics and
[44:50.840 --> 44:57.080]  much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[44:57.080 --> 45:07.880]  866 law easy. Hello my name is Stuart Smith from naturestoorganics.com and I would like
[45:07.880 --> 45:13.360]  to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street sweet D here in Austin Texas
[45:13.360 --> 45:17.360]  find brave new books and chase things to see all our fantastic health and wellness products
[45:17.360 --> 45:22.040]  with your very own eyes. Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure
[45:22.040 --> 45:26.120]  in alternative medicine. Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including
[45:26.120 --> 45:31.400]  our Australian emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.400 --> 45:44.120]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturestoorganics.com that's 512-264-4043 natures pureorganics.com
[45:44.120 --> 46:01.120]  don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products natures pureorganics.com
[46:01.120 --> 46:15.120]  I'm searching a thousand dreams. They're haunted by a million screams. I can hear the marching
[46:15.120 --> 46:23.120]  beats. They're moving into the streets. Did you read the news today? They say the dangers
[46:23.120 --> 46:34.120]  go our way. But I can see the fires fill the light burning into the night.
[46:34.120 --> 46:41.120]  Alright folks we are back. This is rule of law radio the call in number 512-646 in 1984
[46:41.120 --> 46:46.040]  and we are talking to Mike in Texas. Alright Mike please continue. You got a red light
[46:46.040 --> 46:57.040]  camera notice and you got the form online to do what? The response. I guess basically
[46:57.040 --> 47:07.480]  stating that the ticket is not valid. I haven't done it before. What form did you get? Where
[47:07.480 --> 47:19.200]  did you get it? I looked up, I googled up the red light traffic response and then I put
[47:19.200 --> 47:26.000]  your name and then it showed me one of the responses that I don't know if you posted
[47:26.000 --> 47:30.200]  it or not but basically saying that the red light. Are you talking about the one on the
[47:30.200 --> 47:37.640]  towel of law.wordpress.com legal blog? Yeah that's mine. Remember there are two. There's
[47:37.640 --> 47:43.800]  one of those on there that says the latest one for the state of Texas. Make sure that's
[47:43.800 --> 47:52.200]  the one you use. Texas only yeah that's the one I got. Well no they both say Texas only
[47:52.200 --> 48:01.360]  but one of them is a newer version than the other. Oh okay is the newer version apparently
[48:01.360 --> 48:06.360]  the one on the website or not? Yeah they're both on the website that's the point. There
[48:06.360 --> 48:10.440]  are two different articles posted at two different times that contain two different versions
[48:10.440 --> 48:16.600]  of the left. Okay I'll make sure to read that in double check. Okay yeah you can just go
[48:16.600 --> 48:20.880]  to the blog and type red light camera it'll pull up all the articles that have it but
[48:20.880 --> 48:26.960]  find the latest article I forget which one it is that has the red light camera notice
[48:26.960 --> 48:35.160]  letter and that's the letter you want to use. Okay and well the question is that the car
[48:35.160 --> 48:43.760]  that me and my wife were in but it's under my wife's name so would she have to fill
[48:43.760 --> 48:48.720]  out the paperwork and send it in or you know can I fill it out? The paperwork's already
[48:48.720 --> 48:54.840]  filled out all you got to do is change some specific details and she can sign it. Oh okay
[48:54.840 --> 48:59.440]  so it does have to be under her name. Well I would recommend that yeah because they would
[48:59.440 --> 49:05.160]  question whether or not you have the ability to respond on her behalf so don't give them
[49:05.160 --> 49:10.880]  anything to argue about. Okay okay yeah I just wanted to make sure because I was going
[49:10.880 --> 49:20.400]  to send it in just with my name because I was the one driving. I'm sorry you were what?
[49:20.400 --> 49:29.160]  I mean I was the one traveling in my videos by the time. In your what? In my car sorry.
[49:29.160 --> 49:33.720]  Okay alright so then yeah I'm going to send it in with her name just type her sign it.
[49:33.720 --> 49:40.160]  Okay alright thank you. You're welcome. Alright now we have a good night Mike thanks for
[49:40.160 --> 49:47.800]  calling. Now we have Lenny in Arizona. Lenny what do you got? Hi Eddie hey I appreciate
[49:47.800 --> 49:55.560]  what you're doing man I spent a lot of time on your blog site and the Facebook one where
[49:55.560 --> 49:58.960]  all the other guys are on there talking. I've tried to glean a lot of information about
[49:58.960 --> 50:03.960]  ad valorem taxes over time. Right. I've gotten a little bit from you and a little bit from
[50:03.960 --> 50:08.480]  some of them but I'm still trying to figure out how to put together a challenge against
[50:08.480 --> 50:13.120]  this on my private property. I really don't understand that. I wish you would do a whole
[50:13.120 --> 50:18.000]  show on that subject. Well the thing about it is it will vary from state to state but
[50:18.000 --> 50:22.960]  here in Texas it's relatively straightforward. First thing you have to do is research what
[50:22.960 --> 50:30.240]  the original land grant laws were in Arizona. Here in Texas all public land that was sold
[50:30.240 --> 50:37.200]  to private interest was done through a land patent. That includes every aspect of the
[50:37.200 --> 50:44.880]  land from the surface all the way to the core of the earth. Minerals, water, everything.
[50:44.880 --> 50:49.800]  Unless the terms of the patent, hang on a second, if the terms of the patent specifically
[50:49.800 --> 50:56.200]  excluded something it had to state so. Now the other thing about it is the patent language
[50:56.200 --> 51:03.400]  very clearly states that the state disavows any interest in the property. They waive all
[51:03.400 --> 51:12.840]  claims and title to the land once it passes to the purchaser via the patent. Okay. Now
[51:12.840 --> 51:19.760]  in order to make sure that they can't touch that land you have to be the actual owner.
[51:19.760 --> 51:27.640]  The only way to be the actual owner is to be either the original patent holder, an heir
[51:27.640 --> 51:37.080]  or an assign on that original patent. Anything else makes you a tenant. Okay. And basically
[51:37.080 --> 51:43.880]  you're getting charged tax to rent. That's what they're doing. As long as that land falls
[51:43.880 --> 51:50.080]  within what they consider the public domain they can tax it. But it's not supposed to
[51:50.080 --> 51:55.840]  be in the public domain. But unless you carry that patent forward in your name and the only
[51:55.840 --> 52:04.560]  way to do that is to get a certified chain of title from the original patent to date.
[52:04.560 --> 52:07.760]  I have that. Okay. Then all you have to do is go to whatever
[52:07.760 --> 52:12.960]  your land office is there and have them carry the patent forward in your name. Did you do
[52:12.960 --> 52:17.520]  that? Okay. I'm kind of confused about that. So
[52:17.520 --> 52:24.600]  I have, we have an Arizona state land office and we have a Bureau of Land Management Office
[52:24.600 --> 52:28.880]  in the city of Phoenix. Is that a state Bureau of Land Management
[52:28.880 --> 52:36.160]  or a federal Bureau of Land Management? Federal. Federal has got nothing to do with it. Are
[52:36.160 --> 52:45.000]  they the ones that issued them in the first place? No. Okay. If you look at the patent,
[52:45.000 --> 52:51.080]  the patent will say it is issued in the name of the state of Arizona, not the federal government.
[52:51.080 --> 52:58.120]  No. In Arizona, it's probably not exactly like Texas. The patents were issued by the
[52:58.120 --> 53:03.080]  president of the United States and they were authorized by congressional acts, federal
[53:03.080 --> 53:07.440]  congressional acts. Okay. When Arizona was a territory?
[53:07.440 --> 53:12.840]  Yeah. Well, it was like one year into being a state at the time, but they were issued
[53:12.840 --> 53:17.240]  under the authority of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which encompasses a big area out
[53:17.240 --> 53:22.680]  here in the southwest. Okay. Well, then here's your problem. They
[53:22.680 --> 53:28.720]  passed a law doing away with the original Spanish land grants. Now, how they did that
[53:28.720 --> 53:34.880]  legally, I don't have any clue, because a binding contract, a binding contract until
[53:34.880 --> 53:39.120]  a tort arises from that contract for breach. So I don't know how they're claiming the
[53:39.120 --> 53:44.200]  Spanish would have breached something that they lost by force to begin with.
[53:44.200 --> 53:50.800]  The original land patent that I had was signed by Woodrow Wilson, and I traced it all the
[53:50.800 --> 53:57.280]  way to me in a straight line with no breaks. Okay. Well, tracing is fine, but did you get
[53:57.280 --> 54:02.800]  that tracing certified step by step by an authority, such as the county clerk?
[54:02.800 --> 54:11.360]  Yes. I have all of them. I have gotten recorded documents from the county records office
[54:11.360 --> 54:18.360]  and filed them with the clerk of the county clerk as my title. Okay.
[54:18.360 --> 54:23.840]  All right. Then all you have to do is find out whether or not there's ever been a law
[54:23.840 --> 54:30.120]  passed that rescinds the grant as done by the president through Congress. If it's never
[54:30.120 --> 54:36.760]  been rescinded and it was issued, now you say it was originally issued after Arizona
[54:36.760 --> 54:42.600]  became a state. Yeah. I don't know how the president of the United States or the United
[54:42.600 --> 54:47.400]  States Congress could have issued it then, because they would not have had jurisdiction
[54:47.400 --> 54:51.320]  within the boundaries of a state, only a territory.
[54:51.320 --> 54:58.760]  Yeah. I actually have a copy of that document. I went down to the BLM. Of which document?
[54:58.760 --> 55:05.920]  I have a copy of the land patent, the original one, and I have a certified one that's in
[55:05.920 --> 55:09.040]  my record. Okay. And it's dated when?
[55:09.040 --> 55:21.480]  Title. And let's see. It is dated. Oh, geez, I need a magnifying glass prize. Aren't that
[55:21.480 --> 55:29.720]  good anymore? I think it was 1914, which is just, it was certainly after the state came
[55:29.720 --> 55:32.440]  into the union. It was a territory before that.
[55:32.440 --> 55:40.280]  Right. And therein is where I see your problem. The territory of a state does not belong to
[55:40.280 --> 55:45.560]  the federal government. The state must specifically see jurisdiction and or ownership of that
[55:45.560 --> 55:49.640]  piece of land to the federal government before the federal government has any authority to
[55:49.640 --> 55:56.760]  do anything with it at all, unless the land is being taken for the purpose of the constitutional
[55:56.760 --> 56:07.920]  delegated authority of bases, depots, shipyards, et cetera. Okay. Which I'm pretty sure Arizona
[56:07.920 --> 56:15.440]  being where it is, we definitely don't have a shipyard problem with the land and so on
[56:15.440 --> 56:24.040]  and so forth. The president has caused these letters to be made patent and the seal of
[56:24.040 --> 56:34.200]  the general land office to be here unto a fixed given under my hand at the city of Washington
[56:34.200 --> 56:45.840]  on the 14th day of November, the year of 1914. And November, yeah, the state became in February.
[56:45.840 --> 56:50.680]  So it was after we became a state just for a few months. They might have applied to it
[56:50.680 --> 56:54.040]  before it before that happened, though it might have taken a long time for those wheels
[56:54.040 --> 56:59.800]  to turn. I understand it took a while for them to verify it back in those days. So the application
[56:59.800 --> 57:04.200]  may have been made before it was a state. Then you still need to see the original application.
[57:04.200 --> 57:10.280]  But the problem remains, even if they made the application prior to it becoming a state,
[57:10.280 --> 57:19.840]  once it became a state, that was a moot point. The federal government could not give away
[57:19.840 --> 57:28.360]  that which it no longer possessed. It's that simple. Could it be that they possessed all
[57:28.360 --> 57:31.960]  the lands within the states because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and they were
[57:31.960 --> 57:36.960]  still disposing of them? Not if they, not if it actively became a state. Once it became
[57:36.960 --> 57:45.920]  a state, that no longer mattered. So the states issued land patents as well? Yeah. Now I remember
[57:45.920 --> 57:52.920]  here in Texas, Texas was originally a sovereign nation before it was a state, okay? But some
[57:52.920 --> 58:00.920]  of the land patents are pre or post 1845. So they were issued in the name of state of
[58:00.920 --> 58:10.000]  Texas after we became an actual state of the Union. None of the patents here in Texas are
[58:10.000 --> 58:18.400]  issued by the federal government in any way. Okay, I hear the music. Yeah, it's the top
[58:18.400 --> 58:23.080]  of the hour. We have a slightly longer bit of music before we go to break. But in any
[58:23.080 --> 58:29.920]  case, yeah, I don't know how this would hold up if challenged in court because of that
[58:29.920 --> 58:35.040]  aspect of it. Hang on just a second, Lenny, we'll finish this on the other side. All
[58:35.040 --> 58:42.040]  right, folks, call in number is 512-646-1984. We are now at the top of the hour break, four
[58:42.040 --> 58:50.280]  more segments to go. So y'all hang in there and we will be right back.
[58:50.280 --> 58:55.720]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. Yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.720 --> 59:00.920]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[59:00.920 --> 59:07.400]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture. Enter
[59:07.400 --> 59:13.600]  the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the
[59:13.600 --> 59:19.960]  real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[59:19.960 --> 59:25.360]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond
[59:25.360 --> 59:31.120]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:31.120 --> 59:36.560]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours
[59:36.560 --> 59:47.560]  just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.560 --> 01:00:00.760]  That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:00.760 --> 01:00:05.960]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Low Star Lowdowns. Markets for Wednesday
[01:00:05.960 --> 01:00:14.040]  the 26th of April 2017 are currently trading with gold at $1,267.80 an ounce, silver $17.45
[01:00:14.040 --> 01:00:22.560]  an ounce, Texas Crude $49.56 a barrel, and Bitcoin is sitting over $1,300 at about $1,310
[01:00:22.560 --> 01:00:32.600]  U.S. currency. Today in history, the year 1986, a nuclear
[01:00:32.600 --> 01:00:37.520]  reactor accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union, now
[01:00:37.520 --> 01:00:43.200]  Ukraine, creating one of the world's worst nuclear disasters. The Chernobyl nuclear accident
[01:00:43.200 --> 01:00:50.200]  today in history. In recent news, two senior administration
[01:00:50.200 --> 01:00:54.200]  officials confirmed to CNN Wednesday today that the White House is considering withdrawing
[01:00:54.200 --> 01:00:58.720]  from NAFTA in the coming days. Apparently the White House is currently piecing an executive
[01:00:58.720 --> 01:01:03.160]  order together declaring the U.S.'s intent to withdraw from NAFTA. However, since nothing
[01:01:03.160 --> 01:01:06.520]  official has come out from the President, it could be that President Trump is simply
[01:01:06.520 --> 01:01:11.280]  going to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. During last year's presidential race,
[01:01:11.280 --> 01:01:15.560]  Trump repeatedly criticized NAFTA, calling it a one-sided deal and a disaster for the
[01:01:15.560 --> 01:01:19.600]  U.S., causing the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. And considering that
[01:01:19.600 --> 01:01:24.360]  this Saturday marks the administration's 100th day in office, it seems urgency has overwhelmed
[01:01:24.360 --> 01:01:28.840]  the administration in order to deliver on some of the campaign promises. However, keep
[01:01:28.840 --> 01:01:34.080]  in mind that Trump's trade team, led by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, must initiate a 90-day
[01:01:34.080 --> 01:01:43.080]  consultation before getting into trade talks with Canada and Mexico.
[01:01:43.080 --> 01:01:47.280]  The annual TED conference being held in Vancouver this year had an unexpected surprise speaker
[01:01:47.280 --> 01:01:51.800]  on the theme of emerging futurist tech and artificial intelligence. On Tuesday evening,
[01:01:51.800 --> 01:01:55.680]  Pope Francis made a surprise appearance on a big screen with a prerecorded and edited
[01:01:55.680 --> 01:02:01.160]  address from earlier in April. The Pope focused on the revolution of tenderness, as he pointed.
[01:02:01.160 --> 01:02:05.280]  He said, quote, how wonderful would it be if the growth of scientific and technological
[01:02:05.280 --> 01:02:09.800]  innovation would come along with more equality and social inclusion? How wonderful would
[01:02:09.800 --> 01:02:14.200]  it be while we discovered faraway planets to rediscover the needs of the brothers and
[01:02:14.200 --> 01:02:18.840]  sisters orbiting around us? How wonderful would it be if solidarity, this beautiful
[01:02:18.840 --> 01:02:23.680]  and at times inconvenient word, were not simply reduced to social work and became instead
[01:02:23.680 --> 01:02:28.680]  the default attitude in political, economic, and scientific choice, as well as in the relationships
[01:02:28.680 --> 01:02:34.000]  among individuals, peoples, and countries. Tenderness is not a weakness. It is a fortitude.
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:39.320]  It is a path of solidarity, the path of humility. Please allow me to say it loud and clear.
[01:02:39.320 --> 01:02:44.400]  The more powerful you are, the more your actions will have an impact on people. The more responsible
[01:02:44.400 --> 01:02:49.800]  you are to act humbly. If you don't, your power will ruin you, and you will ruin the
[01:02:49.800 --> 01:02:59.880]  other.
[01:02:59.880 --> 01:03:26.880]  If you don't, your power will ruin you, and you will ruin the other.
[01:03:26.880 --> 01:03:53.880]  All right folks, we are back. Calling number 512-646-1984. We are at the top of the second
[01:03:53.880 --> 01:03:58.960]  hour of this show, four segments to go, and we are speaking with Lenny in Arizona about
[01:03:58.960 --> 01:04:02.400]  land patents. All right, Lenny, go ahead.
[01:04:02.400 --> 01:04:09.760]  Okay, the authority that the document cites is the Act of Congress of April 24th, 1820
[01:04:09.760 --> 01:04:15.400]  entitled, An Act Making Further Provision for the Sale of the Public Lands and the Acts
[01:04:15.400 --> 01:04:19.320]  Supplemental There To, and then it gives a description of the property, the physical
[01:04:19.320 --> 01:04:24.080]  description, but that's the quote that they cite that gives them the authority to do it.
[01:04:24.080 --> 01:04:28.520]  Right, but that's only in lands that are territories. They can't give away land that's already within
[01:04:28.520 --> 01:04:32.560]  a state, and they can't give away land they've already given away.
[01:04:32.560 --> 01:04:40.160]  Do you even remember that Act said 1820? Okay, well that's fine. The Acts of 1820 authorized
[01:04:40.160 --> 01:04:47.840]  Congress to do this, for lands within any of the territories. But does that Act of Congress
[01:04:47.840 --> 01:04:54.720]  authorize them to give away land within the territorial boundaries of a given state? The
[01:04:54.720 --> 01:04:57.720]  only way you're going to know that is to read it.
[01:04:57.720 --> 01:05:06.120]  Okay, read that Act and find out if it authorizes to go give away land within a state itself.
[01:05:06.120 --> 01:05:07.120]  Correct.
[01:05:07.120 --> 01:05:08.920]  And it has to specifically say that.
[01:05:08.920 --> 01:05:15.800]  Yes, it has to, but then again, we have a supremacy issue if it says it. There will
[01:05:15.800 --> 01:05:23.440]  definitely be a supremacy clause issue between that Act of Congress and the actual rulings
[01:05:23.440 --> 01:05:28.080]  of the courts on Congress's ability to commandeer land within the states for anything other
[01:05:28.080 --> 01:05:30.280]  than constitutional purposes.
[01:05:30.280 --> 01:05:38.320]  So how do I find all this out? I mean, I'm kind of new to the research thing.
[01:05:38.320 --> 01:05:42.840]  Well, all you got to do is do a search online for that Act. It'll probably be in the United
[01:05:42.840 --> 01:05:46.280]  States Code.
[01:05:46.280 --> 01:05:53.440]  Okay. But if it has been repealed or ruled against it, let's see if the Supreme Court
[01:05:53.440 --> 01:05:57.120]  ruled against it. Is that what we're looking at somewhere along the way the Supreme Court
[01:05:57.120 --> 01:05:58.600]  ruled that they can't do that?
[01:05:58.600 --> 01:06:03.720]  Some court would have had to have ruled that they couldn't do that, provided that what they
[01:06:03.720 --> 01:06:07.880]  tried to give away was within the states. But then again, there's also the possibility
[01:06:07.880 --> 01:06:14.120]  no one's challenged it. You might be the first, but since you're trying to claim that it's
[01:06:14.120 --> 01:06:22.560]  a valid grant, why would you do that? It's the reason why it was probably never challenged.
[01:06:22.560 --> 01:06:23.800]  Because it is a valid grant.
[01:06:23.800 --> 01:06:30.240]  No, because people would lose the property if it was challenged and found to be unconstitutional.
[01:06:30.240 --> 01:06:35.600]  Then the grant wouldn't be any good anymore. Then the original title holder of the land
[01:06:35.600 --> 01:06:42.080]  can't leave an heir or a sign because the grant wasn't valid. See the problem?
[01:06:42.080 --> 01:06:43.080]  Yeah.
[01:06:43.080 --> 01:06:48.120]  It avoids the original grant if it was declared unconstitutional.
[01:06:48.120 --> 01:06:58.040]  Well, you know, I've looked up the laws that are in regarding patents and it says the only
[01:06:58.040 --> 01:07:03.600]  valid patent challenge that could be made is fraud.
[01:07:03.600 --> 01:07:08.120]  That's exactly what it would be. It would be like me trying to sell you the Golden Gate
[01:07:08.120 --> 01:07:13.400]  Bridge. I don't own it. How can I sell it to you?
[01:07:13.400 --> 01:07:17.360]  It goes a little further than that though. In the ruling that I read about that, it
[01:07:17.360 --> 01:07:22.520]  says that the fraud can be the only thing that you can challenge for. And if the fraud
[01:07:22.520 --> 01:07:27.720]  is not challenged within a certain amount of time after the issuance of the patent and
[01:07:27.720 --> 01:07:31.400]  the holding of the patentee, then it is considered valid no matter what.
[01:07:31.400 --> 01:07:36.760]  Now that wouldn't be right because that flies in the face of all the case law on fraud.
[01:07:36.760 --> 01:07:41.480]  The case law on fraud is very clear. The statute of limitations on fraud does not begin until
[01:07:41.480 --> 01:07:47.200]  the fraud has been discovered. Once discovered, there's a statute of limitations on going
[01:07:47.200 --> 01:07:57.560]  after it. But until that time, a fraudulent act has no statute of limitations.
[01:07:57.560 --> 01:08:02.400]  It wasn't Bouvié's dictionary. I got an old, old copy that's kind of falling apart.
[01:08:02.400 --> 01:08:05.040]  But if the citation was out of Bouvié's dictionary...
[01:08:05.040 --> 01:08:09.640]  Yeah. Well, don't trust the citation. You have to read that citation in the complete
[01:08:09.640 --> 01:08:16.240]  context of the opinion. Find the original opinion in full.
[01:08:16.240 --> 01:08:27.680]  Never trust a single site. The site does not give you context.
[01:08:27.680 --> 01:08:33.640]  The case that I read was about somebody who had a patent and somebody had previously applied
[01:08:33.640 --> 01:08:39.320]  for it and didn't get it and then sued them in court. And they said, hey, you can't sue
[01:08:39.320 --> 01:08:43.000]  them for this unless there's fraud proven. And they got there first with the money. They
[01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:48.240]  got the patent first and they won. But fraud is the only thing that you can charge for
[01:08:48.240 --> 01:08:51.120]  it and then... Again, how would you know that if you haven't
[01:08:51.120 --> 01:08:55.600]  read the whole opinion? I did for that one.
[01:08:55.600 --> 01:09:01.320]  For which one? The one in Bouvié's? Yeah. It gives the case number and I looked
[01:09:01.320 --> 01:09:06.040]  that one up and that's what it was about. It was about two guys fighting over a patent
[01:09:06.040 --> 01:09:10.440]  because one of them had applied for it and the other one had gotten it and so they were
[01:09:10.440 --> 01:09:12.960]  fighting in court. Okay. Well, there's nothing wrong with two
[01:09:12.960 --> 01:09:17.720]  people fighting over a patent. The question here is not whether or not you can fight over
[01:09:17.720 --> 01:09:23.760]  a patent and have it invalidated only through fraud. The question here is whether or not
[01:09:23.760 --> 01:09:31.040]  the issuance of the patent itself was fraud. That's a completely different issue than the
[01:09:31.040 --> 01:09:39.560]  one you're talking about here. The land office was that if it wasn't challenged
[01:09:39.560 --> 01:09:43.920]  for fraud within a certain time, within a couple of years after the...
[01:09:43.920 --> 01:09:51.000]  The land office doesn't write the law. I'm telling you that flies in the face of every
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:56.600]  court decision on fraud. Okay.
[01:09:56.600 --> 01:10:01.880]  The controlling opinions on fraud for as long as, I mean, all the way back to Marbury versus
[01:10:01.880 --> 01:10:09.480]  Madison. A fraudulent agreement is fraudulent from the very beginning and there is no statute
[01:10:09.480 --> 01:10:17.000]  limitations on challenging the fraud until the fraud has been discovered. Then you've
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:23.880]  got X amount of time to challenge it. That would be like saying that you can never invalidate
[01:10:23.880 --> 01:10:31.760]  a contract that I got you to sign using fraud because if I got you to sign it up too bad,
[01:10:31.760 --> 01:10:37.680]  then how could you ever say it was a fraudulent contract if you signed it even if it was fraud?
[01:10:37.680 --> 01:10:44.120]  I told you to go to Gay Bridge. Give me the money. You got to pay me the money. You see
[01:10:44.120 --> 01:10:46.920]  how that would work? Uh-huh.
[01:10:46.920 --> 01:10:57.720]  Just not going to work that way. All right. There are quite a few Supreme Court citations,
[01:10:57.720 --> 01:11:02.120]  even some more recent ones. Well, now you did say you're relatively
[01:11:02.120 --> 01:11:08.520]  new at this, right? Yeah. So make very sure you're absolutely understanding what you
[01:11:08.520 --> 01:11:13.000]  think you're reading. Okay.
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:19.760]  Because I guarantee you some of these opinions are very amorphous in what they really say
[01:11:19.760 --> 01:11:32.520]  versus what it appears to be saying. So be real careful. But like I said, I don't see
[01:11:32.520 --> 01:11:38.600]  how that would be what the case would actually say considering the prior standing of case
[01:11:38.600 --> 01:11:45.040]  law on fraud. I just don't see it.
[01:11:45.040 --> 01:11:52.520]  You cannot sell or give away that which you never lawfully possessed. Okay? Even if you
[01:11:52.520 --> 01:11:57.720]  stole a piece of property and you sold it, the original owner has the right to recovery
[01:11:57.720 --> 01:12:06.280]  from the new owner even though the new owner paid for it. And the new owner is not going
[01:12:06.280 --> 01:12:11.720]  to have any way to recover or prevent.
[01:12:11.720 --> 01:12:18.040]  So I've got to find out if the patent that was issued was valid or if it was invalidated
[01:12:18.040 --> 01:12:24.920]  by the state coming into existence. Prior to its completion, yes.
[01:12:24.920 --> 01:12:28.920]  And if it was invalidated by that, I should just keep my mouth shut.
[01:12:28.920 --> 01:12:35.280]  Yes. Yeah. But now here's the problem or at least even a remedy. It is possible that
[01:12:35.280 --> 01:12:41.360]  the state ceded control of that land to the federal government if the patent was pending
[01:12:41.360 --> 01:12:45.960]  on the land. That is always a possibility. But there would have to be a written agreement
[01:12:45.960 --> 01:12:52.000]  to that effect somewhere to substantiate it. Otherwise, where's some, I don't know where.
[01:12:52.000 --> 01:12:57.360]  I'm probably, I'm pretty sure it'd have to be somewhere at the legislative level since
[01:12:57.360 --> 01:13:01.160]  they're the ones that would have had to have approved it.
[01:13:01.160 --> 01:13:04.440]  There's got to be a record of that somewhere if they actually said, well, we hereby cede
[01:13:04.440 --> 01:13:09.000]  the land currently under requested patent with the federal government so that what if
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:13.320]  the government approves the patents, they go to whoever got them. And if not, the land
[01:13:13.320 --> 01:13:17.680]  comes back within territorial boundaries of the state and we deal with it. There's probably
[01:13:17.680 --> 01:13:25.200]  agreement to that effect so that the federal government could do what it did and make the
[01:13:25.200 --> 01:13:31.200]  patent valid. There's lots of ways this could have worked. You've got to find the way that
[01:13:31.200 --> 01:13:37.520]  it was done. That would have been in the first, within the first year or within the first
[01:13:37.520 --> 01:13:42.740]  few months of state. That would have had to have been before a statehood was even completed.
[01:13:42.740 --> 01:13:46.400]  That agreement would have had to have been made. It would have had to have been in place
[01:13:46.400 --> 01:13:51.680]  or it would have had to have been completed immediately after since the patent was issued
[01:13:51.680 --> 01:14:03.120]  so soon after. Okay. There might even be something in my state's constitution. The Constitution
[01:14:03.120 --> 01:14:13.400]  does mention that the state gives up rights to all lands and it describes a bunch of different
[01:14:13.400 --> 01:14:17.760]  categories of lands that it gives up. Yeah, but once again, can the state give up rights
[01:14:17.760 --> 01:14:22.520]  to lands that had no right to begin with? If the land was in federal possession, nothing
[01:14:22.520 --> 01:14:32.880]  in the state constitution would alter that. Somewhere there would have to be some session
[01:14:32.880 --> 01:14:42.840]  document or agreement document where the state of Arizona agreed that even if statehood
[01:14:42.840 --> 01:14:48.560]  was attained before the completion of these patents, that the land under the request in
[01:14:48.560 --> 01:14:53.640]  the patents was ceded to the federal government for distribution even after the date that
[01:14:53.640 --> 01:14:59.720]  Arizona became a state. It's going to have to be a legislative act that would have done
[01:14:59.720 --> 01:15:04.280]  that. Absolutely. Not likely to be a constitutional
[01:15:04.280 --> 01:15:09.480]  act. Well, the legislature could have already created an act approving a committee or the
[01:15:09.480 --> 01:15:15.800]  governor or of the territory and or the state to be the one that did it. Here in Texas,
[01:15:15.800 --> 01:15:25.280]  the governor prior to being a state, the president of Texas signed the land patents.
[01:15:25.280 --> 01:15:29.800]  So there's possibility there's a legislative enactment granting the Arizona governor the
[01:15:29.800 --> 01:15:44.680]  same power. So I've got to look for a legislative act or a governor's decree if he has been
[01:15:44.680 --> 01:15:51.280]  given the power. You would have to find the legislative act that gave him that power regardless.
[01:15:51.280 --> 01:16:00.080]  Because that's the only way his proclamation or signature would have held up is he would
[01:16:00.080 --> 01:16:06.520]  have to have been given the power to preside over the public lands for that purpose unless
[01:16:06.520 --> 01:16:17.800]  the Constitution itself gives it to him directly. Okay. So back into my Constitution again and
[01:16:17.800 --> 01:16:25.680]  into the really old legislative acts. Yes. Prior just prior to statehood and or immediately
[01:16:25.680 --> 01:16:34.920]  thereafter. Okay. Remember there wouldn't have been a state legislature when it was a territory.
[01:16:34.920 --> 01:16:40.400]  There would have been the federal government. But there would have had to have been a legislature
[01:16:40.400 --> 01:16:53.160]  for them to do an act after it became a state. When it was not a state. Yeah. Hang on just
[01:16:53.160 --> 01:17:01.120]  a second. We'll be right back. All right, folks. Hold on 512-646 1984. I love logos without
[01:17:01.120 --> 01:17:05.240]  the shows on this network. I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to
[01:17:05.240 --> 01:17:10.200]  the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fake. I'd be lost without logos
[01:17:10.200 --> 01:17:14.280]  and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show
[01:17:14.280 --> 01:17:18.800]  producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent
[01:17:18.800 --> 01:17:24.280]  it all on supplements. How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order
[01:17:24.280 --> 01:17:29.280]  anything from Amazon, you can help logos. You can order in your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:17:29.280 --> 01:17:34.960]  First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now go to logosregualnetwork.com. Click on
[01:17:34.960 --> 01:17:40.080]  the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use
[01:17:40.080 --> 01:17:45.560]  that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything
[01:17:45.560 --> 01:17:52.080]  different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean yes. Wow. Giving without
[01:17:52.080 --> 01:17:58.440]  doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. We are logos.
[01:17:58.440 --> 01:18:06.600]  Happy holidays, logos. It's the 2017 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser sponsored
[01:18:06.600 --> 01:18:12.920]  by Central Texas Gun Works, Defense Distributed and Fat Sal's Deli. Go to logosradionetwork.com
[01:18:12.920 --> 01:18:18.240]  and enter to win. Every $25 donation is a chance to win. From Central Texas Gun Works,
[01:18:18.240 --> 01:18:25.640]  first place up for grabs are Spikes Tactical AR-15. Second place, Taurus PT-111 G2 9mm
[01:18:25.640 --> 01:18:32.520]  Pistol. From Defense Distributed, third place, the AR-308 80% lower. Fourth place, the AR-15
[01:18:32.520 --> 01:18:38.280]  80% lower. From Fat Sal's Deli, first place, $100 gift card for Fat Sal's Deli. Every
[01:18:38.280 --> 01:18:45.240]  $25 donation is a chance to win. That's logosradionetwork.com. Also if you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book,
[01:18:45.240 --> 01:18:50.240]  Legal 101, you get four chances to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar, get
[01:18:50.240 --> 01:18:57.000]  ten chances to win. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to logosradionetwork.com
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:04.000]  for details and donate today.
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today. Go to logosradionetwork.com
[01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:41.240]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984. Three
[01:20:41.240 --> 01:20:45.680]  more segments to go and we are talking with Lenny in Arizona. All right, Lenny, let's
[01:20:45.680 --> 01:20:52.880]  see if we can't wrap this up. Based upon what we know at the moment, the federal government
[01:20:52.880 --> 01:21:00.280]  gave a land grant that it may or may not have had the authority to grant. Why? Because Arizona
[01:21:00.280 --> 01:21:06.320]  became a state before the grant was finalized. Therefore, there are only a couple of ways
[01:21:06.320 --> 01:21:12.220]  that that would work out to be valid in the long run. Either the state of Arizona ceded
[01:21:12.220 --> 01:21:16.640]  to the federal government the lands in question for the purpose of granting under the patents
[01:21:16.640 --> 01:21:24.240]  already applied for at the federal level, or the grant could be challenged as being
[01:21:24.240 --> 01:21:29.480]  unconstitutional because the federal government granted land over which it had already relinquished
[01:21:29.480 --> 01:21:37.160]  all authority through the act of Arizona becoming a state. There is making it no longer territory
[01:21:37.160 --> 01:21:42.840]  and the land in it no longer part of a territory, which would have removed federal jurisdiction
[01:21:42.840 --> 01:21:48.720]  from it. Now, that being said, yes, you're going to need the original act of Congress
[01:21:48.720 --> 01:21:52.760]  that they use as the authority for making the patent. You're going to see whether or
[01:21:52.760 --> 01:21:57.080]  not it contains any exceptions to which the states would have had to have agreed in order
[01:21:57.080 --> 01:22:02.120]  for them to continue the land grant process even if the territory became a state. Then
[01:22:02.120 --> 01:22:07.240]  there would have to be some agreement with the state at some legislative level, preferably
[01:22:07.240 --> 01:22:11.800]  either right, it couldn't be before it became a state because there wouldn't be a valid
[01:22:11.800 --> 01:22:18.600]  legislature. Therefore, it would have to have happened immediately upon the date or thereafter
[01:22:18.600 --> 01:22:23.280]  when it became a state for the legislature to create an enactment allowing the original
[01:22:23.280 --> 01:22:28.400]  patent applications to remain intact by ceding the land. They also would have had to have
[01:22:28.400 --> 01:22:34.640]  given authority to some agent of the state for doing those land grants and that was probably
[01:22:34.640 --> 01:22:41.000]  the governor. So you'll need to find those original legislative acts ceding the land
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:45.440]  to the authority of the federal government agreeing to honor the original patents and
[01:22:45.440 --> 01:22:51.560]  or delegating authority to the governor to do those patents as well. Got it?
[01:22:51.560 --> 01:22:59.160]  Uh-huh. Well, I think I might have found something relevant, but the legalese is kind of intimidating.
[01:22:59.160 --> 01:23:04.800]  It's Article 10, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution regarding minimum price and relinquishment
[01:23:04.800 --> 01:23:13.440]  of lands to United States. Okay. And it talks about what they can and can't sell land for
[01:23:13.440 --> 01:23:23.600]  price-wise. Right. And let's see, reclamation of lands provided that the state at the request
[01:23:23.600 --> 01:23:28.200]  of the secretary of the interior shall from time to time relinquish such of its lands to
[01:23:28.200 --> 01:23:32.720]  the United States as at any time are needed for irrigation works in connection with any
[01:23:32.720 --> 01:23:37.600]  such government project and other lands in Luthorov shall be selected from lands of the
[01:23:37.600 --> 01:23:44.040]  character named and in the manner prescribed in Section 24 of the Senate Enabling Act.
[01:23:44.040 --> 01:23:48.280]  So there's another enabling act I've got to look up.
[01:23:48.280 --> 01:23:56.200]  Well, it's not very likely that the state constitution cites a statute as something that its powers
[01:23:56.200 --> 01:24:00.600]  comes from. You may want to see if there's something in the constitution for that section
[01:24:00.600 --> 01:24:06.280]  somewhere, because it's very rare that the state constitution will cite a legislative
[01:24:06.280 --> 01:24:12.480]  act as the basis for what it's doing. Now, there are sections that will say are to be
[01:24:12.480 --> 01:24:17.520]  done as required by law, thus giving that authority to the legislature to write a law
[01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:25.840]  for that purpose. But when it names a specific act, that's unusual to say the least. Is it
[01:24:25.840 --> 01:24:33.320]  talking about a federal act or a state act? Well, let's see. No lands shall be sold for
[01:24:33.320 --> 01:24:38.560]  less than $3 breaker. No lands which are or shall be susceptible of error. Are you still
[01:24:38.560 --> 01:24:47.840]  in the constitution? Yeah. Same section or did you find the section you referenced? No.
[01:24:47.840 --> 01:24:58.520]  Let's see. You said the enabling act under Section 24 of the Senate Enabling Act. Right.
[01:24:58.520 --> 01:25:05.240]  Where is this enabling act? It doesn't say. There's no section 24 in the constitution.
[01:25:05.240 --> 01:25:13.480]  It's been taken out. Okay. Well, then... It goes from 23 to 25 in the constitution. Yeah.
[01:25:13.480 --> 01:25:18.000]  But then there could be a problem right there. Was the enabling act repealed or was it put
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.840]  somewhere else? Or has it been left out so that the people can't rightfully claim their
[01:25:22.840 --> 01:25:27.240]  land under the constitution? Where is it? When was it repealed? How was it repealed?
[01:25:27.240 --> 01:25:31.920]  Did the people approve it? Et cetera, et cetera. Is the state committing fraud by hiding constitutional
[01:25:31.920 --> 01:25:37.480]  land grants from the people? Oops. I wonder if it could be regarding the enabling act
[01:25:37.480 --> 01:25:44.280]  that's listed in the land grant. Well, the land grant would probably cite a federal
[01:25:44.280 --> 01:25:50.800]  enabling act which still runs up against the same wall. Jurisdictional authorities. Uh-huh.
[01:25:50.800 --> 01:25:59.000]  That's right. Because that was made before the state existed. Once the state existed,
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:04.840]  the federal government... Except for the specific terms you just read dealing with irrigation
[01:26:04.840 --> 01:26:15.480]  and things of that nature. Yeah. Now, if the state constitution is authorizing the federal
[01:26:15.480 --> 01:26:24.840]  governments enabling act to have authority within the state, well, there you go. All
[01:26:24.840 --> 01:26:29.040]  lands expressly transferred and confirmed to the state by the precision of the enabling
[01:26:29.040 --> 01:26:34.640]  act approved June 20, 1910, including all lands granted to the state and all lands here
[01:26:34.640 --> 01:26:38.920]  to for granted to the territory of Arizona and all lands otherwise acquired by the state
[01:26:38.920 --> 01:26:44.280]  may be sold or leased by the state in the manner and on the conditions with the limitations
[01:26:44.280 --> 01:26:51.400]  be sold or leased by the state prescribed by the set enabling act from June 20, 1910.
[01:26:51.400 --> 01:26:58.240]  And this constitution. Of that constitution. So, where is it? That's the question. Where
[01:26:58.240 --> 01:27:10.360]  is it? If it's in that constitution, why isn't it where you can find it? It seems to me like
[01:27:10.360 --> 01:27:16.680]  y'all may have a constitutional crisis in Arizona. As prescribed by Title 65 civil code
[01:27:16.680 --> 01:27:29.600]  of the Arizona 1901. Well, that was before it was a state. Yeah. So, that would have been federal law too.
[01:27:29.600 --> 01:27:37.120]  Okay. So, I've got to find the enabling act of June 20, 1910, read that. Well, trace it
[01:27:37.120 --> 01:27:42.320]  as you can, man, but I'm going to let you go so far and do it on the show. Okay. Well,
[01:27:42.320 --> 01:27:47.160]  thank you very much for all your help and I'll be online quizzing you more. I'm sure I hope you
[01:27:47.160 --> 01:27:53.720]  got time to answer. Well, I'll see what I can do, but I make no promises. All right. All right.
[01:27:53.720 --> 01:28:00.880]  That's a lot, Eddie. All right. That being said, now I've got two minutes before the next break
[01:28:00.880 --> 01:28:05.680]  and then I'll take my next caller. So, Tyler, Olivier, y'all hang on. I've got two more segments
[01:28:05.680 --> 01:28:09.920]  to go. So, I shouldn't have a problem getting to you, but if you're going to be my only two
[01:28:09.920 --> 01:28:14.240]  callers, I can't take more than one segment each to get this done. So, have you ducks in a row and
[01:28:14.240 --> 01:28:18.960]  ready when I get to you. Tyler, you will be up first after this break. So, y'all hang in there
[01:28:18.960 --> 01:28:24.640]  and I will get that done. Now, folks, if you were listening to the monologue at the beginning of
[01:28:24.640 --> 01:28:30.480]  the show, you need to consider the fact that things are changing, not necessarily for the better,
[01:28:30.480 --> 01:28:36.960]  but also some things are definitely changing for the better because people are actually waking up
[01:28:36.960 --> 01:28:44.880]  and becoming more aware. The problem is the pace is not fast enough. The trend of doing us wrong
[01:28:44.880 --> 01:28:50.240]  is outpacing the trend of people waking up to see it for what it is. We've got to turn that
[01:28:50.240 --> 01:28:57.280]  tide. You're responsible for that because as much as I would like to be able to reach to
[01:28:57.280 --> 01:29:03.120]  everybody out there, that just isn't the case. Those that don't hear my voice can only hear yours.
[01:29:03.120 --> 01:29:10.800]  Okay? So, the ones in your area that don't listen to this show, don't know anything about this show,
[01:29:10.800 --> 01:29:17.760]  where are they going to hear it from if not from you? Okay? So, we all have a duty in this. We all
[01:29:17.760 --> 01:29:28.720]  have an obligation. If we want to be free, it isn't free to be free. Free is never a lazy man's status
[01:29:28.720 --> 01:29:36.560]  in life. Never. Okay? He may think he's free because he does nothing and likes it,
[01:29:37.920 --> 01:29:44.640]  but he's never really free and he never will be. And the day he actually tries to do something he
[01:29:44.640 --> 01:29:49.360]  wants to do and finds that out, well, it'll be too late to fix it then. So, folks, it takes
[01:29:49.360 --> 01:29:53.680]  some effort. Alright, we're about to take our next break. Y'all hang in there and we'll be
[01:29:53.680 --> 01:30:00.240]  right back after this message. So, hold on.
[01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:49.440]  First, retailers started asking for your zip code. Next, they wanted your phone number,
[01:30:49.440 --> 01:30:54.960]  and now they want your email address to send you receipts electronically rather than handing you
[01:30:54.960 --> 01:31:00.080]  a slip of paper. Companies don't mention what this does to your privacy. Instead, they claim it's
[01:31:00.080 --> 01:31:05.920]  more convenient and, hey, it may even save a few trees. But e-receipts link you to your purchases
[01:31:05.920 --> 01:31:11.760]  in a giant database so they can build consumer profiles. Taylor adds to individual shoppers
[01:31:11.760 --> 01:31:16.960]  and sell your information to third parties. Having all your purchases in an online database
[01:31:16.960 --> 01:31:22.800]  sounds like an open invitation to hacking and abuse, not to mention an onslaught from unscrupulous
[01:31:22.800 --> 01:31:28.400]  marketers. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.480 --> 01:31:35.920]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:35.920 --> 01:31:40.720]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:40.720 --> 01:31:45.280]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given
[01:31:45.280 --> 01:31:49.600]  their lives. And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:49.600 --> 01:31:53.120]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an air force
[01:31:53.120 --> 01:31:58.080]  pilot. I'm the father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.080 --> 01:32:03.360]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your
[01:32:03.360 --> 01:32:07.520]  home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government
[01:32:07.520 --> 01:32:11.520]  caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be
[01:32:11.520 --> 01:32:15.760]  kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance,
[01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:20.240]  and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket
[01:32:20.240 --> 01:32:25.120]  expense. And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau
[01:32:25.120 --> 01:32:30.080]  with zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your
[01:32:30.080 --> 01:32:38.560]  roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention
[01:32:38.560 --> 01:32:43.600]  the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network
[01:32:43.600 --> 01:32:48.000]  to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking,
[01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:56.880]  your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts
[01:32:56.880 --> 01:33:00.640]  are based on full roof replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:00.640 --> 01:33:09.600]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:30.640 --> 01:33:45.600]  Oh, look at that. You're yours. That's the way you do it. You play the guitar on MTV.
[01:33:45.600 --> 01:33:53.600]  That ain't working. That's the way you do it. Money for nothing. You're too free.
[01:33:53.600 --> 01:34:09.920]  That's right, folks. They have been stealing our money for nothing for decades, and you've
[01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:14.080]  let them get away with it by remaining ignorant of what they're doing to you.
[01:34:14.880 --> 01:34:21.440]  This show is here to help change that. All you got to do is listen and learn and look to verify.
[01:34:21.440 --> 01:34:28.640]  I don't ask anyone to take my word about anything just because I'm talking. I much prefer that you
[01:34:28.640 --> 01:34:35.120]  go and look and make sure that I'm not blowing smoke, all right? I don't have a problem being
[01:34:35.120 --> 01:34:41.280]  checked. In fact, if everybody checked everybody when they got this kind of information, we probably
[01:34:41.280 --> 01:34:47.680]  wouldn't be in this mess, do you think? That being said, let's get to Tyler. Tyler,
[01:34:47.680 --> 01:34:56.560]  what do you got? Yes, I've called before. I was stopped last year, October 8th,
[01:34:57.520 --> 01:35:05.440]  for expired registration. By? Eight days expired by a Corpus Christi police officer,
[01:35:06.960 --> 01:35:14.400]  and he pulled me over for the expired registration, and I didn't show him my
[01:35:14.400 --> 01:35:23.920]  driver's license or didn't give him my name or date of birth. He arrested me and charged me with
[01:35:23.920 --> 01:35:34.160]  the three charges for the expired registration failure to display driver's license and failure
[01:35:34.160 --> 01:35:44.320]  to identify. I have a child by jury in 45 days on June 22nd. You got the ticket when?
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:52.400]  October 8th of last year. Okay. How many court appearances have you been to?
[01:35:52.400 --> 01:36:03.680]  Two. Two arraignments and a pre-trial conference, and then my last court appearance was supposed
[01:36:03.680 --> 01:36:13.360]  to be a trial. Well, the prosecutor, she asked for a continuance at my last court appearance.
[01:36:14.160 --> 01:36:14.720]  Based on?
[01:36:14.720 --> 01:36:22.560]  They weren't ready. The state wasn't ready. Did you object to the continuance?
[01:36:24.080 --> 01:36:26.480]  No, I didn't. Well, why not?
[01:36:29.520 --> 01:36:36.400]  Because I'm stupid, I guess. Well, I'll leave that up to your better judgment. But the fact is,
[01:36:36.400 --> 01:36:43.040]  if state came to court not prepared, don't ever give them a second shot at it. Object to a request
[01:36:43.040 --> 01:36:47.280]  for a continuance by the state when they come to court with the excuse, well, I know we're here
[01:36:47.280 --> 01:36:53.360]  for trial, but we're just not ready. Well, judge, I object to the state's request for a continuance
[01:36:53.360 --> 01:36:56.560]  that I move for a directed verdict or dismissal of the case for prejudice.
[01:36:56.560 --> 01:37:09.600]  Yep. Okay. All right. Anyway, so when were you served with a copy of the complaint?
[01:37:13.360 --> 01:37:21.200]  A copy of the complaint. Well, is that after I got out of the detention center?
[01:37:22.160 --> 01:37:25.520]  Do you think someone actually had a complaint filled out by the time you got out of the
[01:37:25.520 --> 01:37:33.200]  detention center? How long were you in there for? Two hours. And you think somebody actually signed
[01:37:33.200 --> 01:37:40.320]  this form complaint in two hours, huh? Oh, no. Across the top of the document, does it say
[01:37:40.320 --> 01:37:46.320]  complaint in and by the authority of the state of Texas? I such and such do hereby affirm
[01:37:47.760 --> 01:37:53.440]  under belief and I hereby believe and do believe blah, blah, blah. You got a document that says
[01:37:53.440 --> 01:38:02.400]  all that? It says complain at the top and then it says for the charge. What is the very first line?
[01:38:03.360 --> 01:38:06.000]  Does it say in and by the authority of the state of Texas?
[01:38:07.840 --> 01:38:13.200]  In and I think one of my papers I got. No, on that paper where it says complaint.
[01:38:13.200 --> 01:38:22.960]  Uh-uh. Does it say that? No, it just says do saw me swear.
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:29.600]  Wait a minute. You have a document that says complaint, but it does not contain the language
[01:38:30.160 --> 01:38:34.800]  in and by the authority of the state of Texas and it doesn't finish with the language
[01:38:34.800 --> 01:38:41.120]  against the peace and dignity of the state. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Here it is. In the name and by
[01:38:41.120 --> 01:38:47.520]  the authority of the state of Texas, I be under signed assiant. Affiant. That means
[01:38:48.400 --> 01:38:55.280]  affiant. Do saw me swear that I have good reason to believe and do believe that on
[01:38:56.000 --> 01:39:02.240]  honor about the eighth day of October, 2016 and before the making of filing it.
[01:39:02.240 --> 01:39:05.520]  What was the date of the complaint? When was it signed?
[01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:12.560]  When was it signed? This morning subscribed before the
[01:39:13.680 --> 01:39:17.680]  incredible person today, the 17th day of January, 2017.
[01:39:18.400 --> 01:39:21.360]  Okay. Had you gone to court before that date?
[01:39:24.720 --> 01:39:29.440]  Yes, I believe so. At least once and possibly more times than that, right?
[01:39:29.440 --> 01:39:36.160]  Yes. Okay. When was your original trial date?
[01:39:38.640 --> 01:39:44.080]  It was last month.
[01:39:45.680 --> 01:39:52.560]  So it was in March sometime? April 20th. April 20th.
[01:39:52.560 --> 01:40:00.720]  That was your original scheduled trial date? Yes. So they filed a complaint in January
[01:40:03.120 --> 01:40:08.000]  and then scheduled a trial and then requested a continuance that you did not object to?
[01:40:10.800 --> 01:40:12.880]  Yes. And set your trial for when?
[01:40:12.880 --> 01:40:26.480]  Oh, that's June 22nd. Okay. Then you have the right to complain and raise the issue of failure
[01:40:26.480 --> 01:40:34.640]  to provide a speedy trial. You need to do that in writing. Okay. Wait until the day of trial
[01:40:34.640 --> 01:40:39.440]  and you're going to file that notice in the court or a couple days before trial, I should say.
[01:40:39.440 --> 01:40:43.920]  Make sure you send a certified mail return receipt requested and you take a copy down to the court
[01:40:43.920 --> 01:40:50.000]  personally, hand deliver it and get your retained copies stamped by the clerk of the court,
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:55.040]  showing that they were filed. Keep the return receipt once it comes back to you, proving that
[01:40:55.040 --> 01:41:00.640]  it was served and you're going to file a motion to dismiss for failure to provide a speedy trial.
[01:41:00.640 --> 01:41:08.000]  Okay.
[01:41:12.720 --> 01:41:16.880]  If you don't raise the issue, it's not preserved for the purpose of appeal. So you got to raise it.
[01:41:22.240 --> 01:41:26.960]  It might be because they got me on the record saying that I wasn't ready. I said that I was
[01:41:26.960 --> 01:41:33.600]  going to talk to a counsel. Wait a minute. Did you ask for a continuance or did the prosecutor
[01:41:33.600 --> 01:41:41.520]  ask for one? I think it was before my last court date. They asked for continuance. I don't remember
[01:41:41.520 --> 01:41:50.080]  the date, but the last date court parents, I was supposed to have a trial. They had somebody in
[01:41:50.080 --> 01:41:59.680]  front of me. They had an attorney. They had someone else in front of me that was taken too long,
[01:41:59.680 --> 01:42:06.560]  so the judge scheduled me for a later date. And did you ask them to do it?
[01:42:09.280 --> 01:42:16.880]  Yeah. The prosecutor had me get up there. Oh, there you go. That never do that.
[01:42:16.880 --> 01:42:24.880]  Oh, shit. Pardon my language. You just got conned, my friend, to do the prosecutor's job
[01:42:24.880 --> 01:42:34.240]  for them so that the statute of limitations on speedy trial stopped dead. You got suckered.
[01:42:40.640 --> 01:42:45.920]  Why do you have to request a continuance when the people in front of you in the court are taking
[01:42:45.920 --> 01:42:52.880]  longer than they should and the court can't conduct your business? Why would you ask for a
[01:42:52.880 --> 01:43:01.040]  continuance? Yeah, exactly. I thought something was going on. Yeah, but you thought it too slow,
[01:43:01.040 --> 01:43:09.120]  too late. Yeah. What you should have done was go, you want an extension, you ask for it. I'm not doing
[01:43:09.120 --> 01:43:19.280]  it. Yeah, she wanted me to go back to the courtroom and tell the judge that. Yeah, that's exactly
[01:43:19.280 --> 01:43:24.160]  what she wanted, because if she did it, the speedy trial clock would not have stopped.
[01:43:25.920 --> 01:43:33.680]  Yeah. Yeah. Because she was trying to work a deal with me to take off a couple charges.
[01:43:33.680 --> 01:43:39.280]  Right. All right, man, I want to wrap this up with you on the other side of this break. So,
[01:43:39.280 --> 01:43:43.360]  hang on just a minute. I need you to get your thoughts collected and tell me exactly where
[01:43:43.360 --> 01:43:49.920]  you are in this, because they're playing you like a flute and a play, man. Hang on just a second.
[01:43:50.720 --> 01:43:55.600]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break. We've got one segment to go, so hang in there.
[01:43:55.600 --> 01:44:04.640]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:05.200 --> 01:44:10.800]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris Proven Method. Michael Mirris has won six cases
[01:44:10.800 --> 01:44:15.600]  in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step
[01:44:15.600 --> 01:44:20.640]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:44:20.640 --> 01:44:26.400]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls?
[01:44:26.400 --> 01:44:30.960]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report? How to turn the financial tables on them
[01:44:30.960 --> 01:44:36.960]  and make them pay you to go away? The Michael Mirris Proven Method is the solution for how
[01:44:36.960 --> 01:44:42.000]  to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:47.200]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner or email
[01:44:47.200 --> 01:44:57.120]  Michael Mirris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:44:57.120 --> 01:45:03.360]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now, are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.920 --> 01:45:09.440]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand
[01:45:09.440 --> 01:45:17.280]  4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your
[01:45:17.280 --> 01:45:22.080]  lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.800 --> 01:45:29.280]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[01:45:29.280 --> 01:45:36.160]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[01:45:36.160 --> 01:45:41.520]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[01:45:41.520 --> 01:45:48.240]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for
[01:45:48.240 --> 01:45:56.160]  civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:56.160 --> 01:46:06.160]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:26.800 --> 01:46:46.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. We're talking to Tyler in Texas.
[01:46:47.280 --> 01:46:50.560]  All right, Tyler, let's see if we can get this wrapped up for you here
[01:46:50.560 --> 01:46:57.440]  and see where you're going to wind up when this is all done. Go ahead and file the motion for
[01:46:57.440 --> 01:47:01.840]  failure to provide a speedy trial. Anyway, when you went in and made this request to the judge,
[01:47:01.840 --> 01:47:06.480]  did you do anything in writing? Did they have you sign anything for that?
[01:47:07.760 --> 01:47:16.160]  The judge really wanted me to sign for my next court appearance, but since I got stopped,
[01:47:16.160 --> 01:47:23.040]  I haven't signed anything that they wanted me to sign. Okay, so all requests for continuance
[01:47:23.040 --> 01:47:28.640]  in Texas are required to be signed under penalty of perjury. If they didn't get that from you,
[01:47:29.360 --> 01:47:35.040]  then they can't say you requested a continuance because the court has not accepted from giving
[01:47:35.040 --> 01:47:42.880]  you a grant of continuance in violation of the actual law. Okay. So file the motion
[01:47:42.880 --> 01:47:49.760]  in for a dismissal with prejudice because of failure to provide a speedy trial. Make sure
[01:47:49.760 --> 01:47:56.560]  you show the actual date of the complaint, attach a copy of the complaint, make a list of all the
[01:47:56.560 --> 01:48:02.000]  dates you've appeared in court, both prior to and after the complaint was actually signed,
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:06.480]  showing that the court acted absent jurisdiction and the original appearances were no complaint
[01:48:06.480 --> 01:48:13.680]  had ever been filed, illegally violated 27.14D Code of Criminal Procedure by using a citation as
[01:48:13.680 --> 01:48:19.600]  a complaint without a countersigned written waiver by you and the prosecutor to a valid
[01:48:19.600 --> 01:48:29.200]  complaint, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. All right. Okay. Now also along with all this,
[01:48:29.200 --> 01:48:34.960]  you need to file written objections into the record individually for each of the things I just told
[01:48:34.960 --> 01:48:42.640]  you. And then you also need to make sure that you file an objection to prosecutorial misconduct
[01:48:43.280 --> 01:48:49.360]  and that the prosecutor attempted to deprive you of your right to speedy trial by getting you to
[01:48:49.360 --> 01:48:56.320]  request a continuance so that the speedy trial clock would stop when the prosecutor knew beforehand
[01:48:56.320 --> 01:49:01.440]  that it was not your responsibility or necessity to request such a continuance.
[01:49:01.440 --> 01:49:09.280]  In other words, a lot of fire under her butt and see how high she jumps or how long she sits before
[01:49:09.280 --> 01:49:14.320]  it starts to burn. Okay. All right.
[01:49:21.760 --> 01:49:23.760]  Don't forget the bar griever in the process.
[01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:38.160]  Okay. Yes. She was a real pain in the butt that they, because I was watching some cases in front
[01:49:38.160 --> 01:49:46.000]  of mine, the case in front of mine had an attorney and a few witnesses and she was trying to talk to
[01:49:47.040 --> 01:49:52.240]  the attorney's witnesses and the attorney said, are you trying to talk to my client?
[01:49:52.240 --> 01:49:59.760]  And you know the rules. Yeah, but they don't care. That's the problem. So unless you stand up for
[01:49:59.760 --> 01:50:05.120]  the rules and force them to follow them, they won't. She knows what she did and trying to get
[01:50:05.120 --> 01:50:12.000]  you to request out a continuance was wrong, but she did it anyway. Yeah. These are the very kinds
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:18.960]  of people that not only need to be disbarred, they need to be jailed. So I'm going to give you
[01:50:18.960 --> 01:50:24.640]  another piece of advice. Wake the hell up and watch what they're doing. They're screwing you over
[01:50:24.640 --> 01:50:28.320]  right in front of your own eyes and you're not catching it because you don't know what they're
[01:50:28.320 --> 01:50:33.840]  supposed to be doing. Do you? No, I don't. Then you better start studying up and figure it out
[01:50:33.840 --> 01:50:41.280]  and they're going to railroad you all the way to hell. Okay. I will. I'll study. Okay.
[01:50:41.280 --> 01:50:49.520]  Okay. Total criminal procedure chapter one, chapter two, chapter 45 for certain. All right.
[01:50:52.960 --> 01:50:58.480]  Okay. All right. All right, Tyler. Sorry, man, but I got to cut you off and get to Olivier. We've
[01:50:58.480 --> 01:51:03.760]  got seven minutes left to get him wrapped up. All right. All right, man. Thanks for calling in
[01:51:03.760 --> 01:51:08.320]  and good luck. All right. Let's get down to Olivier. Olivier, what do you got?
[01:51:08.320 --> 01:51:18.720]  I got some disturbing news. I filed with a man damaged. Can you speak up a little bit, Olivier?
[01:51:19.680 --> 01:51:26.560]  I filed a real man damaged in the chance report and come to find out. I filed against the mayor
[01:51:26.560 --> 01:51:32.640]  and the chief of police and found out that the chance report judge is the mayor's husband.
[01:51:32.640 --> 01:51:44.240]  Well, you're saying that the court judge that you're in is the wife or husband
[01:51:44.240 --> 01:51:51.360]  of the mayor that you're after? It's the husband. The husband of the man that I have the man damaged
[01:51:51.360 --> 01:51:57.440]  again. The man damaged. Oh, well, there's a good reason to disqualify. You can ask her to recuse
[01:51:57.440 --> 01:52:02.800]  for conflict of interest or you'll disqualify her for conflict of interest. Up to her, but she's
[01:52:02.800 --> 01:52:13.440]  going to do one of... Up to him. I also wanted to find out, who can I sue? Like, Tennessee
[01:52:13.440 --> 01:52:20.160]  created a license for me then suspended it. Who do I sue for that?
[01:52:20.160 --> 01:52:28.160]  What? You talking about for your license? They created a license that I did not contract to.
[01:52:28.160 --> 01:52:32.560]  Okay, so who falsified that record? Who's responsible for the issuance of licenses?
[01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:40.480]  Okay, so then, yes, I need to find out who created... Who issues licenses?
[01:52:40.480 --> 01:52:42.640]  In Tennessee, the state troopers do, I'm pretty sure.
[01:52:42.640 --> 01:52:51.200]  The state troopers? Okay, so call the state. Call the state of the trooper to...
[01:52:51.200 --> 01:52:56.640]  Well, check the statute under the licensing chapter of the statute. Who is identified as
[01:52:56.640 --> 01:53:02.320]  the department having authority over that chapter for the purpose of issuing and enforcing the license
[01:53:02.320 --> 01:53:15.920]  laws? Well, what you want to do, no, get your ducks in a row here. Once you know which department,
[01:53:15.920 --> 01:53:22.400]  you ask for a public information request for a record dealing with this fake license record.
[01:53:23.280 --> 01:53:27.840]  You want records showing the date it was created in the system when it was actually
[01:53:27.840 --> 01:53:34.080]  originally entered. You want the name of the person who entered that record into the computer
[01:53:34.080 --> 01:53:40.640]  or modified that record after it was in the computer. You want all of them. You want everybody to
[01:53:40.640 --> 01:53:49.600]  touch that tar baby all the way through. Okay? Now you want... You also want to make sure that
[01:53:49.600 --> 01:53:55.200]  the record reflects the actual date the record was created in the system and whether or not
[01:53:55.200 --> 01:54:04.000]  the actual database date is different than the actual field date that they could input directly
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:11.440]  themselves. See, the computer will file stamp the record differently than what the information in
[01:54:11.440 --> 01:54:19.280]  the record will say it was done as. So the database will actually say, oh, well, this may say that
[01:54:19.280 --> 01:54:28.000]  this record is from 1984, but my files show that it was actually created on April 31, 2017.
[01:54:29.200 --> 01:54:38.240]  But slight disparity here, don't you think? Right. They don't have... Okay. And the contract
[01:54:38.240 --> 01:54:44.640]  of my... of me applying for a Tennessee license, they don't have that. Right. You're going to ask
[01:54:44.640 --> 01:54:48.640]  for all of that. You're going to ask for that record. You're going to ask for a copy of the
[01:54:48.640 --> 01:54:54.240]  original application with your signature. You're going to ask for a copy of any other records
[01:54:54.240 --> 01:55:00.400]  associated with this license that are in existence and in the possession of that department or any
[01:55:00.400 --> 01:55:06.240]  department related to this particular process. You want a copy of the photograph they used to
[01:55:06.240 --> 01:55:13.520]  make the original license. You want to see the composite license itself that was issued,
[01:55:13.520 --> 01:55:21.040]  et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You want to see all of that? Okay. Got to see. All of that when
[01:55:21.040 --> 01:55:25.920]  it doesn't show up. When they say we have no records responsive to your request, what are they saying?
[01:55:29.280 --> 01:55:34.480]  That the record in our database is falsified because none of the support documents for the
[01:55:34.480 --> 01:55:48.320]  record exist. Oops. Okay. Also, I'll get... after I get the information, I'll talk to you again about
[01:55:48.320 --> 01:55:56.800]  that. But I've gone through what I had to go through. I kind of figured out how to get through the
[01:55:56.800 --> 01:56:06.080]  system pretty quickly. You file in the Haters Court, as soon as you have the ability to,
[01:56:07.200 --> 01:56:16.480]  and letting the court, the state courts, deny it because both courts, state, I mean, both states
[01:56:16.480 --> 01:56:25.680]  and federal have the right to protect the Constitution and the federal laws. So, how it's
[01:56:25.680 --> 01:56:32.800]  understood and written underneath the Haters Court, the defendant must exhaust all their
[01:56:32.800 --> 01:56:39.680]  state remedies because the state have the right to correct those issues first.
[01:56:39.680 --> 01:56:43.440]  Right. And if the state doesn't, then you make a federal appeal for the correction.
[01:56:43.440 --> 01:56:58.240]  Right. But I'll also find out that if the state likes to deny or make rules, which they call
[01:56:58.240 --> 01:57:07.680]  substantive or procedural, substantive or procedural requirements to, like one of them,
[01:57:07.680 --> 01:57:12.800]  in my case, they're saying that, well, we can't review your habeas corpus because you haven't been
[01:57:12.800 --> 01:57:19.920]  convicted yet of a crime. And... Yeah. And unfortunately, that's a bad understanding of
[01:57:19.920 --> 01:57:25.280]  habeas corpus because habeas doesn't require conviction. It requires a liberty restriction
[01:57:25.280 --> 01:57:33.440]  of any kind. Here in Tennessee, that's how their rules are. So, now...
[01:57:33.440 --> 01:57:40.960]  Yeah. But the rules are in violation of every place else and the Fed on what a habeas is.
[01:57:40.960 --> 01:57:43.600]  What does the state constitution say habeas is for?
[01:57:45.440 --> 01:57:51.840]  Yeah. Well, it says the same way, but if you, as soon as you file it, let them dismiss it.
[01:57:52.400 --> 01:57:56.880]  State, big call that exhausts your remedies. Right. That's all you got to do is get the
[01:57:56.880 --> 01:57:59.280]  state to do exactly what you're talking about in your set.
[01:57:59.280 --> 01:58:05.760]  Right. So, I'm going through that procedure right now and the Fed functions well pretty quick.
[01:58:07.040 --> 01:58:10.080]  Yeah, because it's a no-brainer. Even they know how that works.
[01:58:14.480 --> 01:58:17.600]  I'll tell you, I'll tell you the results of it once I get back with it.
[01:58:17.600 --> 01:58:19.360]  All right, man. Well, good luck. Of course.
[01:58:20.080 --> 01:58:23.520]  I know you don't really need the luck. You're putting this into good practice and I appreciate
[01:58:23.520 --> 01:58:29.920]  you being out there doing that and validating what we do here. I really appreciate that. All right.
[01:58:29.920 --> 01:58:34.480]  All right, Olivier. Hang on there, man, and good luck. I'll talk to you next round.
[01:58:34.480 --> 01:58:38.000]  All right, folks. This has been the Money Night Rule of Law radio show with your host,
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:42.320]  Eddie Craig. Thank you all for listening and for all the callers we've had this evening.
[01:58:42.320 --> 01:58:45.440]  I hope y'all have a great week. Good night and God bless.
[01:58:45.440 --> 01:58:56.560]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.560 --> 01:59:02.000]  Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.000 --> 01:59:08.080]  what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.080 --> 01:59:16.480]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:16.480 --> 01:59:24.800]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000
[01:59:24.800 --> 01:59:30.880]  cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly
[01:59:30.880 --> 01:59:35.680]  a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version,
[01:59:35.680 --> 01:59:48.880]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.