ROL_2017-07-24_16k.timecode

[00:11.960 --> 00:19.280]  ounce, silver $15.96 an ounce, Texas crude $46.08 a barrel, and Bitcoin is sitting nearly
[00:19.280 --> 00:24.760]  at $2,178.00 U.S. currency.
[00:24.760 --> 00:30.400]  Today in History, the year? 1789. Kickstarting the French Revolution, citizens of Paris stormed
[00:30.400 --> 00:35.040]  the Bastille, representing the royal authority in the center of Paris. The prison contained
[00:35.040 --> 00:39.960]  just seven inmates at the time of its storming, but was a symbol of the abuses by the monarchy.
[00:39.960 --> 00:43.560]  Its fall was the flashpoint of the French Revolution.
[00:43.560 --> 00:49.360]  Bastille Day, Today in History.
[00:49.360 --> 00:54.280]  In recent news, Russian Foreign Minister spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated today, Friday, in a
[00:54.280 --> 00:58.920]  news briefing, that, quote, the number of staff at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow exceeds
[00:58.920 --> 01:04.040]  a number of our embassy employees in Washington by a big margin. One of our options, apart
[01:04.040 --> 01:09.120]  from a tit-for-tat expulsion of Americans, would be to even out the numbers. There are
[01:09.120 --> 01:13.520]  too many employees of the CIA and Pentagon's espionage unit working under the roof of the
[01:13.520 --> 01:19.320]  American diplomatic mission, whose activity does not correspond at all with their status.
[01:19.320 --> 01:23.400]  This Russian retaliation, likely because the Trump administration has refused to hand back
[01:23.400 --> 01:27.560]  two Russian diplomatic compounds, which were seized at the same time as some of the Russian
[01:27.560 --> 01:32.080]  diplomats were sent home last year. That was when former President Barack Obama ordered
[01:32.080 --> 01:42.080]  the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian spies back in December.
[01:42.080 --> 01:47.200]  Samsung in a press release recently unveiled its first-ever Cinema LED screen that displays
[01:47.200 --> 01:52.820]  huge 33.8 feet and provides 4K resolution, as well as peak brightness levels that are
[01:52.820 --> 01:57.960]  nearly 10 times brighter than those offered by standard cinema projector technologies.
[01:57.960 --> 02:02.680]  Along with being equipped with distortion-free tech and offers a nearly infinite contrast
[02:02.680 --> 02:07.760]  ratio which facilitates deep blacks and extremely bright colors, the Cinema LED screen is set
[02:07.760 --> 02:13.280]  to be paired with a brand new surround sound system from JBL. The Super S, as it's being
[02:13.280 --> 02:19.560]  dubbed, is in action at the Lotte World Tower location of Lotte Cinemas in Korea, with Cars
[02:19.560 --> 02:28.040]  3 and Spider-Man Homecoming being the first movie scheduled to play on it.
[02:28.040 --> 02:33.440]  In a press release, Visa stated that it will be awarding up to 500,000 to 50 eligible U.S.-based
[02:33.440 --> 02:39.320]  small business food service owners who commit to joining the 100% cashless quest. In short,
[02:39.320 --> 02:43.640]  it's an effort to convince 50 small business restaurants, cafes, and food trucks to go
[02:43.640 --> 02:49.440]  100% cashless in favor of credit or debit, with the incentive of receiving $10,000 to
[02:49.440 --> 02:53.560]  help pay for the tech upgrades.
[03:19.440 --> 03:26.480]  The Super S, as it's being dubbed, is in action at the Lotte
[03:26.480 --> 03:32.480]  World Tower location of Lotte Cinemas in Korea, with Cars 3 and Spider-Man homecoming being
[03:32.480 --> 03:37.760]  the first movie scheduled to play on it.
[03:37.760 --> 03:46.080]  In a press release, Visa stated that it will be awarding up to 500,000 to 50 eligible U.S.
[03:46.080 --> 03:52.520]  customers, with the incentive of receiving $10,000 to help pay for the tech upgrades
[03:52.520 --> 03:56.640]  in Korea, with Cars 3 and Spider-Man homecoming being the first movie scheduled to play on
[03:56.640 --> 03:57.640]  it.
[03:57.640 --> 04:02.300]  In a press release, Visa stated that it will be awarding up to 500,000 to 50 eligible U.S.
[04:02.300 --> 04:07.400]  customers, with the incentive of receiving $10,000 to help pay for the tech upgrades
[04:07.400 --> 04:12.900]  in Korea, with Cars 3 and Spider-Man homecoming being the first movie scheduled to play on
[04:12.900 --> 04:25.780]  involves chapter 543 of the Transportation Code, chapters 14, 15, 23 of the Code of Criminal
[04:25.780 --> 04:35.980]  Procedure, and it all comes down to an argument over what is constitutionally unreasonable
[04:35.980 --> 04:46.220]  in relation to the authority delegated to a peace officer or to a specifically and specially
[04:46.220 --> 04:52.820]  authorized police officer under chapter 543 of the Transportation Code.
[04:52.820 --> 05:01.340]  Now, this is more or less the setup of how chapter 543 does things.
[05:01.340 --> 05:08.100]  But the first thing we have to understand about chapter 543 is a couple of things in
[05:08.100 --> 05:10.220]  regards to its form.
[05:10.220 --> 05:16.620]  Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to start kind of up the top of this a little bit.
[05:16.620 --> 05:20.060]  I'm not going to read the whole thing because this entire white paper is going to go up
[05:20.060 --> 05:25.180]  in an article that I'm doing on the legal blog hopefully in the next day or two.
[05:25.180 --> 05:32.220]  Now here in this paragraph on page 10, furthermore, the legal duties of the officer at the time
[05:32.220 --> 05:39.880]  of a transportation stop as set forth in chapter 543 of the Transportation Code are local and
[05:39.880 --> 05:44.900]  specific to that function, i.e. the traffic stop.
[05:44.900 --> 05:51.740]  As such, the specific instruction set forth therein removes the officer's individual discretion
[05:51.740 --> 05:57.980]  as to what course of action she or he is authorized by law to make when it comes to obtaining
[05:57.980 --> 06:06.180]  a signed notice or promise to appear or when and if to deliver someone before a magistrate.
[06:06.180 --> 06:15.700]  The officer's mandatory legal duties are specifically stated within section 543.002 of the Transportation
[06:15.700 --> 06:21.300]  Code, wherein the officer is directed in the following way.
[06:21.300 --> 06:26.780]  If the person arrested is being charged with a misdemeanor, that person shall, which is
[06:26.780 --> 06:34.740]  a command upon the officer, be taken immediately, not later, not after they've been booked in
[06:34.740 --> 06:39.580]  jail, immediately before a magistrate.
[06:39.580 --> 06:48.460]  If the misdemeanor offense charged is failure to stop in the event of an accident causing
[06:48.460 --> 06:56.700]  damage to property, or the person demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate,
[06:56.700 --> 07:05.340]  or the person refuses to make a written promise to appear in court as provided by this sub-chapter.
[07:05.340 --> 07:11.620]  Now the sub-chapter in question is sub-chapter A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that's
[07:11.620 --> 07:12.620]  exactly what I write here.
[07:12.620 --> 07:16.660]  As you can see in the last part of the last sentence, the requirements of obtaining a
[07:16.660 --> 07:22.580]  written promise to appear is limited to the offenses specifically codified in sub-chapter
[07:22.580 --> 07:27.420]  A of chapter 543 of the Transportation Code.
[07:27.420 --> 07:36.380]  Now sub-chapter A is 543.001 through.010, or 011, I forget exactly which one it ends
[07:36.380 --> 07:39.540]  at, but it's not very long.
[07:39.540 --> 07:44.580]  We would also be making note, or should also be making note, of what appears to be extremely
[07:44.580 --> 07:52.960]  clear language within the body of section 543.002 as well as what's in its title.
[07:52.960 --> 08:01.180]  The statute specifically authorizes the taking of the accused individual to a completely
[08:01.180 --> 08:07.580]  different location and before the nearest available magistrate.
[08:07.580 --> 08:14.200]  We need to really understand the implications of the term taken in relation to this statute
[08:14.200 --> 08:18.380]  and our individual right of liberty.
[08:18.380 --> 08:24.620]  The term taken is derived from the root term take which is, in pertinent part, defined
[08:24.620 --> 08:26.760]  as follows.
[08:26.760 --> 08:32.660]  The word take has many shades of meaning, with the precise meaning which it is to bear
[08:32.660 --> 08:38.940]  in any case depending on the subject with respect to which it is used, i.e.g. imminent
[08:38.940 --> 08:42.740]  domain, larceny, or arrest.
[08:42.740 --> 08:50.620]  Well, here we're going to read you the definition of take relating to arrest.
[08:50.620 --> 08:54.620]  To seize or apprehend a person.
[08:54.620 --> 08:59.140]  To arrest the body of a person by virtue of lawful process.
[08:59.140 --> 09:05.420]  Thus, a capius commands the officer to take the body of the defendant.
[09:05.420 --> 09:08.040]  See sees.
[09:08.040 --> 09:12.500]  Now understand something, and this is the definition of take as it appears in Black's
[09:12.500 --> 09:19.460]  Law 6th edition page 1453.
[09:19.460 --> 09:26.780]  Now since take says see sees, we now need to fully understand the use of the term seize,
[09:26.780 --> 09:35.340]  seized, and seizure in relation to the term take when their meaning is in relation to
[09:35.340 --> 09:36.340]  arrest.
[09:36.340 --> 09:37.340]  Right?
[09:37.340 --> 09:40.700]  That just makes sense.
[09:40.700 --> 09:50.100]  To seize means to take possession of forcibly, to grasp, to snatch, or to put in possession.
[09:50.100 --> 09:57.900]  In the case of state vs. dees, Florida Appellate Court 280 South 2nd 51 and 52.
[09:57.900 --> 10:04.220]  A person is seized within 4th amendment when police officer restrains person's freedom
[10:04.220 --> 10:06.320]  to walk away.
[10:06.320 --> 10:15.020]  State vs. Ochoa 112 Arizona 582 and 544 Pacific 2nd 1097 and 1099.
[10:15.020 --> 10:21.020]  It exists when a reasonable person would feel that he was not free to leave.
[10:21.020 --> 10:24.940]  U.S. vs. Albert.
[10:24.940 --> 10:27.380]  See seizure.
[10:27.380 --> 10:33.740]  Seizure of an individual within the 4th amendment connotes the taking of one physically or constructively
[10:33.740 --> 10:40.560]  into custody and detaining him, thus causing a deprivation of his freedom in a significant
[10:40.560 --> 10:45.280]  way with real interruption of his liberty of movement.
[10:45.280 --> 10:50.780]  That again is U.S. vs. Albert 816 Federal 2nd 958.
[10:50.780 --> 10:56.980]  Such occurs not only when an officer arrests an individual, but whenever he restrains the
[10:56.980 --> 10:59.700]  individual's freedom to walk away.
[10:59.700 --> 11:09.980]  Robins vs. Harem Washington 773 Federal 2nd 1004 and see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
[11:09.980 --> 11:17.820]  41, 18 U.S.C. annotated section 3101 ex sequitur.
[11:17.820 --> 11:27.780]  And that is the definitions of seized and seizure from Black's Law 6 edition page 1359.
[11:27.780 --> 11:31.180]  Now that analysis leads us to this.
[11:31.180 --> 11:37.740]  Therefore, given the clear meaning and import of the term taken as used within the form
[11:37.740 --> 11:44.540]  of the statute, one must wonder just how it was that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
[11:44.540 --> 11:50.020]  intentionally screwed the proverbial pooch when the morons on the court actually ruled
[11:50.020 --> 11:56.820]  against the individual rights of the people in the 2008 case of Aziz v. State when they
[11:56.820 --> 12:03.700]  decided that a transportation stop in Texas is not to be afforded the same level of Fourth
[12:03.700 --> 12:09.100]  and Fifth Amendment protections against warrantless searches and seizures as any other type of
[12:09.100 --> 12:15.060]  warrantless search or seizure of persons or property by a governmental actor.
[12:15.060 --> 12:18.500]  Can you say double standard?
[12:18.500 --> 12:20.840]  How about corruption?
[12:20.840 --> 12:25.820]  How about complete and total incompetence of constitutional limitations of governmental
[12:25.820 --> 12:32.980]  authority and an individual's fundamental rights?
[12:32.980 --> 12:42.500]  You wonder why I refuse to acknowledge that there is even the possibility of there being
[12:42.500 --> 12:48.000]  an honest and intelligent attorney anywhere on the face of the entire planet because they
[12:48.000 --> 12:59.460]  take language that is right there and they twist it around to deprive you of the rights
[12:59.460 --> 13:05.680]  that would protect you from the interpretation they're concocting.
[13:05.680 --> 13:07.960]  It does get worse, however.
[13:07.960 --> 13:13.640]  Here in Texas, they violated both the Bill of Rights and the Code of Criminal Procedure
[13:13.640 --> 13:18.100]  when they declared that you're not entitled to assistance of counsel or to an examining
[13:18.100 --> 13:22.780]  trial in a Class C, fine-only misdemeanor or to an examining trial for pretty much any
[13:22.780 --> 13:24.180]  misdemeanor.
[13:24.180 --> 13:31.260]  Now, when you read the statute on the examining trial in 16.01, the only thing it says is
[13:31.260 --> 13:39.100]  that an accused individual is entitled to an examining trial prior to indictment for
[13:39.100 --> 13:40.380]  a felony.
[13:40.380 --> 13:47.900]  Now, when you read the statute straight up the way it reads, that does not remove the
[13:47.900 --> 13:52.940]  right to a probable cause determination from misdemeanors.
[13:52.940 --> 14:00.460]  It specifically says that you cannot seek an indictment for an individual in a felony
[14:00.460 --> 14:08.500]  allegation until they have had an examining trial provided.
[14:08.500 --> 14:12.460]  That's the only limitation it makes.
[14:12.460 --> 14:19.880]  You cannot send the charge to a grand jury for an indictment until the individual accused
[14:19.880 --> 14:23.260]  of a felony has had an examining trial.
[14:23.260 --> 14:31.140]  Now, common sense would say that since a probable cause determination is an absolute requirement
[14:31.140 --> 14:40.860]  for any criminal offense, it cannot be separated by class of offense into you have the right,
[14:40.860 --> 14:45.940]  you don't have the right.
[14:45.940 --> 14:53.140]  Because the majority of these arrests, whether felony or misdemeanor, are being performed
[14:53.140 --> 15:01.820]  without a warrant, which is presumptively invalid and unlawful on its face because it
[15:01.820 --> 15:04.260]  was done without a warrant.
[15:04.260 --> 15:12.020]  It cannot be automatically presumed in any reasonable way that a warrantless arrest or
[15:12.020 --> 15:21.100]  search and seizure was valid simply because no one challenged it or because no one knew
[15:21.100 --> 15:25.660]  they could challenge it.
[15:25.660 --> 15:31.500]  To make that presumption is to say we deny you in the right you reserved under the Bill
[15:31.500 --> 15:39.740]  of Rights unless you specifically invoke them and make us pay attention to them.
[15:39.740 --> 15:52.340]  You know, if I hired somebody to work in my house, it should not be a requirement for
[15:52.340 --> 16:02.420]  me to have to put in writing that that person shall not steal any of my property when they
[16:02.420 --> 16:10.580]  enter or leave my home or at any time while they are in my home.
[16:10.580 --> 16:13.540]  I shouldn't have to put that in writing.
[16:13.540 --> 16:18.820]  My right to that property is entirely presumptive on its face.
[16:18.820 --> 16:28.820]  I don't have to invoke that right for a servant that I've hired in order to make it valid
[16:28.820 --> 16:33.100]  that he is not allowed to steal from me.
[16:33.100 --> 16:35.300]  You understand that?
[16:35.300 --> 16:40.200]  It's stupid to make the argument that you can hire somebody to work in your home and
[16:40.200 --> 16:45.900]  they are free to steal from you regardless of your right to the property if you fail
[16:45.900 --> 16:51.260]  to verbally invoke and demand that they honor that right.
[16:51.260 --> 16:54.100]  But that's what your public servants are doing.
[16:54.100 --> 17:01.100]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[17:24.100 --> 17:48.100]  We'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[17:48.100 --> 18:12.100]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[18:12.100 --> 18:28.420]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[18:28.420 --> 18:51.220]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[18:51.220 --> 19:07.540]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[19:07.540 --> 19:30.340]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break to carry on.
[19:30.340 --> 19:59.860]  All right, folks.
[19:59.860 --> 20:01.260]  We are back.
[20:01.260 --> 20:06.900]  Now, let's go on just a little bit further here and see what else we're dealing with.
[20:06.900 --> 20:11.780]  It is at this point in the officer's duties and authority that the statutes become misleading
[20:11.780 --> 20:18.100]  to those that read only one section outside of the context of the others in this chapter.
[20:18.100 --> 20:26.500]  If you read section 543.003 in isolation from the other statutes in this chapter, or in
[20:26.500 --> 20:32.420]  this sub-chapter, rather, it appears that every single notice or promise to appear on
[20:32.420 --> 20:38.180]  an issued citation is required by law to be signed by the accused individual.
[20:38.180 --> 20:43.980]  However, the rules of statutory construction do not allow statutes to be read in isolation
[20:43.980 --> 20:49.980]  apart from or an exclusion of their subject matter context and any other statutes relating
[20:49.980 --> 20:52.100]  to the same subject.
[20:52.100 --> 20:58.880]  This is called reading the statutes in paramateria, which is Latin meaning upon the same subject.
[20:58.880 --> 21:03.980]  And these petty bureaucratic courts completely suck at doing so.
[21:03.980 --> 21:10.500]  Even though section 543.003 appears to require that every citation be signed by the accused
[21:10.500 --> 21:16.200]  individual, it is not the only statute that discusses this point of procedure in relation
[21:16.200 --> 21:18.720]  to the officer's authority and duty.
[21:18.720 --> 21:27.780]  The other statute that is controlling on this point is section 543.004, which is even titled
[21:27.780 --> 21:33.460]  notice to appear required certain offenses.
[21:33.460 --> 21:42.340]  When you read it, you can see that the directives of section 543.003 are not absolute and binding
[21:42.340 --> 21:48.500]  upon the accused individual in a manner that requires the individual to sign the citation
[21:48.500 --> 21:51.900]  before the officer is authorized to release them.
[21:51.900 --> 21:57.900]  Furthermore, if no such requirement exists in the statutes that would make the signing
[21:57.900 --> 22:05.820]  of the promise to appear absolutely mandatory upon the arrested individual, then the officer
[22:05.820 --> 22:12.460]  has no individual discretion to refuse to release them, deliver them before a magistrate,
[22:12.460 --> 22:19.620]  or take them directly to jail simply because they do not wish or refuse to sign the citation.
[22:19.620 --> 22:28.060]  The duties of the officer as specifically stated by section 543.004a are as follows.
[22:28.060 --> 22:36.220]  The officer shall issue a written notice to appear if the offense charged is speeding
[22:36.220 --> 22:45.180]  or the offense is a violation of the open container law under section 49.03 penal code
[22:45.180 --> 22:53.540]  and the person makes a written promise to appear in court as provided by section 543.005.
[22:53.540 --> 23:04.020]  Section 543.004b then sets forth that subsection a applies only as provided by chapter 703
[23:04.020 --> 23:11.740]  and even then only if the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle licensed in a
[23:11.740 --> 23:15.420]  state or country other than this state.
[23:15.420 --> 23:24.900]  Finally, section 543.004c tells us that the offenses specified by subsection a are the
[23:24.900 --> 23:35.460]  only offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is mandatory.
[23:35.460 --> 23:37.220]  So what does all this mean?
[23:37.220 --> 23:44.260]  Well, it means that the officer is abusing his or her authority and acting illegally
[23:44.260 --> 23:49.900]  when she or he either threatens or actually does take you into physical custody after
[23:49.900 --> 23:55.540]  you have refused to sign the notice or promise to appear on a citation for an offense that
[23:55.540 --> 24:03.100]  is not specifically listed in section 543.000a or alternatively conditioned upon section
[24:03.100 --> 24:07.420]  543.000b of the transportation code.
[24:07.420 --> 24:17.060]  Thus, sections 543.002, 003, and 005 are not the statutes that are controlling on the officer's
[24:17.060 --> 24:24.240]  actions or discretion when it comes time to sign the citation as they are merely directory
[24:24.240 --> 24:25.560]  in nature.
[24:25.560 --> 24:31.100]  The only enforceable statute at this particular point of the transportation stop catch and
[24:31.100 --> 24:36.500]  release process is section 543.004.
[24:36.500 --> 24:42.420]  Now just so you understand what directory means in relation to a statute, it means that
[24:42.420 --> 24:49.500]  the statute is an enactment of a legislative body that indicates only what should be done
[24:49.500 --> 24:53.140]  with no provision for enforcement.
[24:53.140 --> 24:57.860]  In fuller terms, this means that the provisions of a directory statute are a matter of form
[24:57.860 --> 25:04.140]  only and do not affect any substantial right and do not relate to the essence of the thing
[25:04.140 --> 25:10.020]  to be done so that compliance is a matter of convenience rather than substance.
[25:10.020 --> 25:16.400]  The strict fulfillment of a directory statute is not necessary to the validity of a proceeding
[25:16.400 --> 25:21.580]  but with which there is a duty to comply as nearly as practicable.
[25:21.580 --> 25:27.500]  In simpler terms, the officer has no authority or discretion to make mandatory that which
[25:27.500 --> 25:35.100]  is declared in a directory statute to be optional and having no provision making it enforceable.
[25:35.100 --> 25:41.580]  Therefore, according to the precedent established by the Texas Supreme Court in the case of
[25:41.580 --> 25:55.580]  Simons v. Arnum, 110 Texas 309 and 220 SW 66 at 325 from 1920, as a matter of law, courts
[25:55.580 --> 25:59.700]  must take statutes as they find them.
[25:59.700 --> 26:05.500]  You all pardon me for a second, this computer has got my mouse jumping all over the place
[26:05.500 --> 26:06.500]  and I don't know why.
[26:06.500 --> 26:10.220]  I can't see anything I'm trying to get to here.
[26:10.220 --> 26:12.620]  All right.
[26:12.620 --> 26:25.900]  Hang on a sec, still the same problem, it just continues and continues.
[26:25.900 --> 26:26.900]  Okay.
[26:26.900 --> 26:33.980]  Anyway, courts must take statutes as they find them.
[26:33.980 --> 26:37.820]  More than that, they should be willing to take them as they find them.
[26:37.820 --> 26:47.300]  They should search out the intendment of a statute giving full effect to all.
[26:47.300 --> 26:57.500]  You know, there are days when I really hate computers, especially Windows-based computers.
[26:57.500 --> 27:05.980]  Yeah, it's going to be one of those days.
[27:05.980 --> 27:06.980]  Most definitely.
[27:06.980 --> 27:07.980]  Huh.
[27:07.980 --> 27:08.980]  I love it.
[27:08.980 --> 27:11.860]  Anyway, now that everything on the computer has managed to freeze up for no particular
[27:11.860 --> 27:19.860]  reason while I'm trying to work here, needless to say, I've got a lot of cases cited in this
[27:19.860 --> 27:24.220]  that make it very clear that the courts are not free to alter a statute to suit their
[27:24.220 --> 27:25.220]  whim.
[27:25.220 --> 27:30.880]  They are not free to determine that the statute requires A, B and C when the statute doesn't
[27:30.880 --> 27:35.260]  say anything about A, B and C.
[27:35.260 --> 27:42.060]  It's a complete prohibition of the court's ability to legislate from the bench.
[27:42.060 --> 27:44.340]  That's what these cases go to.
[27:44.340 --> 27:53.740]  But right now, here in Texas, every court that we have is doing exactly that.
[27:53.740 --> 27:59.860]  They are legislating from the bench, rewriting law to suit the outcome they want instead
[27:59.860 --> 28:05.980]  of how it is actually written, and then telling the people to suck it up because they're the
[28:05.980 --> 28:09.700]  only people with the authority to make such determinations.
[28:09.700 --> 28:13.940]  No, they are not.
[28:13.940 --> 28:16.580]  They work for us.
[28:16.580 --> 28:19.480]  They are not independent of us.
[28:19.480 --> 28:23.320]  They don't have powers apart from us.
[28:23.320 --> 28:28.180]  Their power is completely dependent upon us.
[28:28.180 --> 28:37.900]  And I'm here to tell you we need to be doing something to take it away permanently.
[28:37.900 --> 28:44.020]  Because this system no longer serves the people of Texas.
[28:44.020 --> 28:50.420]  No system in any state serves the people of the state.
[28:50.420 --> 28:56.900]  It serves those who have a petty love of power and authority over others.
[28:56.900 --> 29:03.760]  And it serves those who line their own pockets by accusing others for the sole purpose of
[29:03.760 --> 29:12.740]  being able to steal from them through a legal process.
[29:12.740 --> 29:22.360]  And every time I hear an attorney try to justify the things these people do, I want to beat
[29:22.360 --> 29:32.340]  them into absolute unconsciousness for spewing that much stupidity upon me in utter filth,
[29:32.340 --> 29:36.300]  because that's all it was.
[29:36.300 --> 29:44.000]  If we do not start paying closer attention, start serving on juries, and start forcing
[29:44.000 --> 29:52.340]  our public servants to live by the law that we put in place for them to follow, then what
[29:52.340 --> 29:57.260]  good are we as people, and what right do we have to control them at all?
[29:57.260 --> 30:01.660]  We'll be right back.
[30:01.660 --> 30:03.420]  How long will you live?
[30:03.420 --> 30:07.620]  Life insurance companies want to know, and they're harvesting information from some surprising
[30:07.620 --> 30:10.500]  sources to determine your risk and set insurance premiums.
[30:10.500 --> 30:14.660]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with more.
[30:14.660 --> 30:19.400]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches, and creating a massive
[30:19.400 --> 30:21.740]  database of your personal information.
[30:21.740 --> 30:25.060]  That's creepy, but it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:25.060 --> 30:28.420]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[30:28.420 --> 30:32.320]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches, or use tracking
[30:32.320 --> 30:34.580]  cookies, and they're third-party certified.
[30:34.580 --> 30:39.060]  If you don't like big brothers spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[30:39.060 --> 30:41.660]  Create search results and total privacy.
[30:41.660 --> 30:45.180]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[30:45.180 --> 30:49.580]  Life insurance companies used to set rates based on application information and medical
[30:49.580 --> 30:54.240]  exams, but now companies are turning to marketing databases for clues.
[30:54.240 --> 30:58.860]  They're sussing out credit card purchases, internet activity, magazine subscriptions,
[30:58.860 --> 31:03.220]  and grocery card data, and social media posts are an even bigger bonanza.
[31:03.220 --> 31:07.980]  They're looking for lifestyle indicators like physical activity, financial status, and healthy
[31:07.980 --> 31:11.020]  food choices to see who's likely to keel over.
[31:11.020 --> 31:14.140]  Better not post that photo if you're a prize-winning cheesecake.
[31:14.140 --> 31:16.560]  This is just one more reason to guard your privacy.
[31:16.560 --> 31:20.640]  If you leave a trail of negative lifestyle indicators, you could find yourself uninsurable
[31:20.640 --> 31:23.260]  or paying exorbitant life insurance premiums.
[31:23.260 --> 31:25.260]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:25.260 --> 31:27.700]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:27.700 --> 31:31.780]  What are you thinking?
[31:31.780 --> 31:37.660]  Microplant powder with iodine and probiotics for a total body detox for around $10 a month.
[31:37.660 --> 31:43.260]  musa.org has 12 formulations of microplant powder for absorbing and removing toxins from
[31:43.260 --> 31:47.940]  your kidneys, liver, blood, lungs, stomach, and colon, and feel better than ever.
[31:47.940 --> 31:52.500]  It alkalizes, oxygenates, kills parasites, does the job of 10 products.
[31:52.500 --> 31:54.580]  That saves you space, time, and money.
[31:54.580 --> 32:01.860]  Call 888-910-4367 only at musa.org.
[32:01.860 --> 32:04.580]  Rule Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[32:04.580 --> 32:08.420]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going
[32:08.420 --> 32:12.380]  to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:12.380 --> 32:15.580]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[32:15.580 --> 32:19.380]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:19.380 --> 32:23.460]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[32:23.460 --> 32:24.780]  our rights through due process.
[32:24.780 --> 32:28.820]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[32:28.820 --> 32:32.580]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[32:32.580 --> 32:34.660]  is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:34.660 --> 32:38.980]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[32:38.980 --> 32:40.300]  ordering your copy today.
[32:40.300 --> 32:43.460]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[32:43.460 --> 32:48.060]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[32:48.060 --> 32:50.380]  documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.380 --> 32:54.340]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.340 --> 33:02.260]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:02.260 --> 33:05.580]  At Free Speech Radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:32.260 --> 33:39.260]  at free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[34:02.260 --> 34:07.420]  Alright folks, we are back.
[34:07.420 --> 34:09.240]  The phones are now on.
[34:09.240 --> 34:15.820]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[34:15.820 --> 34:21.180]  Like I said, this document will be up at an article on the blog sometime this week.
[34:21.180 --> 34:29.060]  I'm just looking for someone to give it a review and grammar and spelling correction
[34:29.060 --> 34:33.400]  effort so I can get it out of my eyes for a little while because I'm going completely
[34:33.400 --> 34:38.060]  blind on this stuff, having to spend so much time on it.
[34:38.060 --> 34:45.160]  But it's pretty much ready to go as far as the information it contains.
[34:45.160 --> 34:56.020]  It does have a lot of useful information when it comes to challenging the reasonableness
[34:56.020 --> 35:04.980]  that is given to an officer in the form of discretion within Chapter 543 of the Transportation
[35:04.980 --> 35:06.500]  Code.
[35:06.500 --> 35:10.440]  Because a lot of the stuff that's in this document that I have not read to you tonight
[35:10.440 --> 35:18.180]  deals with dissecting what is reasonable and unreasonable about basically giving an officer
[35:18.180 --> 35:28.740]  absolute freedom to choose whether or not they escalate a traffic situation, let's just
[35:28.740 --> 35:35.020]  say a broken taillight, and I don't mean broken, I just mean the light isn't functioning.
[35:35.020 --> 35:39.420]  Whether or not the officer, according to the statute, he absolutely does have complete
[35:39.420 --> 35:46.460]  discretion over what he does in response to that taillight that he sees being out.
[35:46.460 --> 35:49.380]  He can do absolutely nothing.
[35:49.380 --> 35:57.900]  He can just jot down the license plate number and mail the person a citation.
[35:57.900 --> 36:04.900]  He can do any of those things because that offense is not an offense of the two, it's
[36:04.900 --> 36:11.440]  not one of the two offenses, that the statute specifically says that a promise to appear
[36:11.440 --> 36:15.260]  must be signed for.
[36:15.260 --> 36:20.220]  So he doesn't have to start up a car chase, he doesn't have to do any of the stuff that
[36:20.220 --> 36:25.460]  he normally chooses to do anyway.
[36:25.460 --> 36:34.220]  How can it be constitutionally reasonable to give an officer that level of discretion
[36:34.220 --> 36:40.220]  where he is absolutely free to choose to take the less dangerous road to the public or to
[36:40.220 --> 36:49.700]  endanger everyone on the road and the individual he's pursuing to get a citation issued for
[36:49.700 --> 36:55.260]  an offense he doesn't even have to have the citation signed to issue it for?
[36:55.260 --> 37:00.700]  But that's exactly what 543 does.
[37:00.700 --> 37:10.120]  It lets the officer choose what level of force and violence he's going to use to issue that
[37:10.120 --> 37:21.260]  ticket, despite the fact that the statute does not require him to do anything.
[37:21.260 --> 37:22.260]  Get it?
[37:22.260 --> 37:33.540]  If you don't think that's a problem, it's only because they haven't stopped you yet.
[37:33.540 --> 37:42.900]  But once they do, you're going to get a first-hand taste of exactly why it's a problem.
[37:42.900 --> 37:48.180]  And then of course you're going to call me and ask me to save your bacon.
[37:48.180 --> 37:51.180]  And I'm going to have to shake my head and say, where were you when I talked about this
[37:51.180 --> 37:53.540]  already?
[37:53.540 --> 37:58.580]  I've already got more on my plate than I can handle.
[37:58.580 --> 38:04.380]  And what's astounding about it is that the whole purpose of doing the seminar was so
[38:04.380 --> 38:11.260]  that people would not have to rely on me to do everything for them.
[38:11.260 --> 38:17.580]  Because the one thing you have to remember about that type of setup, the whole system
[38:17.580 --> 38:26.220]  of fighting back ends, at least as far as the way that people come to me to get it done,
[38:26.220 --> 38:29.860]  if something happens to me, it's over, it's done.
[38:29.860 --> 38:32.340]  No one knows how to do what I do but me.
[38:32.340 --> 38:38.260]  And if they take me out or I die or anything, even natural causes, where are you going to
[38:38.260 --> 38:41.420]  go then to help yourself?
[38:41.420 --> 38:45.840]  Are you just going to do it again and find somebody else to do things for you in the
[38:45.840 --> 38:49.740]  hopes that they're doing it right?
[38:49.740 --> 38:55.500]  It's a question everybody needs to be asking themselves.
[38:55.500 --> 39:04.140]  The whole purpose of the traffic seminar was to take the load off of me and make you responsible
[39:04.140 --> 39:09.660]  for yourself.
[39:09.660 --> 39:16.140]  That obviously hasn't worked in a lot of cases, 200 plus to be exact.
[39:16.140 --> 39:22.460]  So I'm not really sure that when I get seminar version 2.0 done, whether or not it was going
[39:22.460 --> 39:27.620]  to be worth all the time and effort I'm putting into it to make it better than the first one.
[39:27.620 --> 39:31.180]  Because if people are going to wind up ignoring the seminar just to try to get me to do everything
[39:31.180 --> 39:34.940]  for them for free or on the side, then what was the point?
[39:34.940 --> 39:40.780]  I wasted a whole lot of time putting in all that research and developing all those pleadings
[39:40.780 --> 39:46.420]  just to have people waste them by not learning them.
[39:46.420 --> 39:49.820]  Because I wrote them and they just filed them and that's the last time they looked at them.
[39:49.820 --> 39:52.660]  They never read them, they never understood them and they never made the effort to argue
[39:52.660 --> 39:56.860]  them and then wonder why they lost.
[39:56.860 --> 40:02.140]  The thing about your legal pleadings in these courts people is this, your pleadings cannot
[40:02.140 --> 40:07.860]  argue themselves because the courts don't read your pleadings.
[40:07.860 --> 40:13.160]  And if they do, they intentionally skim them instead of digest them.
[40:13.160 --> 40:17.080]  They do not review any of the arguments you make.
[40:17.080 --> 40:21.480]  They just simply see the statutory sites and you're saying that this is wrong and this
[40:21.480 --> 40:26.060]  is wrong and they don't want to agree with you because it means they can't steal your
[40:26.060 --> 40:28.700]  money if they agree with you.
[40:28.700 --> 40:30.860]  So they deny your motion.
[40:30.860 --> 40:36.840]  No finding of facts, no conclusion of law and no legal basis for the denial.
[40:36.840 --> 40:45.960]  It's done as a form of automatic procedure to keep you rolling through the system.
[40:45.960 --> 40:55.200]  Now that in and of itself is the very definition of a criminal enterprise.
[40:55.200 --> 41:01.340]  And yet they're still operating all these years of watching them do this, finally figuring
[41:01.340 --> 41:05.760]  out what they're doing and exactly how they're doing it and then doing everything I could
[41:05.760 --> 41:10.340]  to make you aware of what they're doing and how they're doing it.
[41:10.340 --> 41:18.100]  And somehow they're still doing it, which leads me to ask the question of where the
[41:18.100 --> 41:22.680]  hell are you people?
[41:22.680 --> 41:28.300]  If there are so many of you out there that are sick and tired and fed up with this system
[41:28.300 --> 41:37.560]  and this way of doing things, where are you?
[41:37.560 --> 41:43.900]  The ones that call into this show, I greatly appreciate, do not get me wrong, but when
[41:43.900 --> 41:49.180]  it's the same people that are constantly calling in with hardly a new voice to hear from and
[41:49.180 --> 42:00.440]  a new event to hear from, except on the odd occasion, something isn't right and it makes
[42:00.440 --> 42:02.620]  you wonder.
[42:02.620 --> 42:07.540]  So for those that have taken up the mantle and the gauntlet and are fighting the good
[42:07.540 --> 42:11.620]  fight, I applaud you, I absolutely do.
[42:11.620 --> 42:15.520]  That was the whole point of me starting this process, whether you learned it from me or
[42:15.520 --> 42:20.620]  not and I'm not trying to take credit for what you know coming from me, it's just good
[42:20.620 --> 42:29.240]  to know that I'm no longer by myself.
[42:29.240 --> 42:33.220]  Even though a lot of times it still feels that way because the few that are doing it
[42:33.220 --> 42:35.260]  are all somewhere else.
[42:35.260 --> 42:40.740]  And the few that I know are fighting it are still coming to me to fight it for them, hence
[42:40.740 --> 42:45.560]  the reason for the quandary.
[42:45.560 --> 42:52.460]  So what I hoped, also in addition to the seminar material, when I started the legal blog, was
[42:52.460 --> 42:58.220]  to offload even more of this requirement that I be involved into the information that I
[42:58.220 --> 43:04.140]  put out there online for people to get to absolutely free.
[43:04.140 --> 43:10.100]  I may not give you the legal pleading, but I give you everything that that pleading would
[43:10.100 --> 43:13.300]  need to be successful.
[43:13.300 --> 43:19.140]  And you still will not make the effort in some cases to take the information I gave
[43:19.140 --> 43:29.180]  you, sit down, and learn to write a proper legal motion with that information.
[43:29.180 --> 43:32.660]  Why?
[43:32.660 --> 43:36.140]  Why won't you fight for yourselves?
[43:36.140 --> 43:43.300]  Why won't you learn it the way I had to learn it so that you know it as well as I know it?
[43:43.300 --> 43:47.740]  Instead of having to flounder around every time someone in the court asks you a question
[43:47.740 --> 43:53.480]  that you can't answer off the top of your head because you don't know the subject matter.
[43:53.480 --> 43:55.860]  That's a problem folks, like it or not.
[43:55.860 --> 44:00.740]  Alright, we'll be right back after this break and we'll start taking your calls.
[44:00.740 --> 44:03.940]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:03.940 --> 44:10.700]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[44:10.700 --> 44:14.700]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[44:14.700 --> 44:18.420]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:18.420 --> 44:22.580]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.580 --> 44:27.580]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[44:27.580 --> 44:34.140]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[44:34.140 --> 44:39.020]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[44:39.020 --> 44:43.140]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.140 --> 44:49.340]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.340 --> 44:51.940]  pro se tactics and much more.
[44:51.940 --> 45:03.540]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EASY.
[45:03.540 --> 45:09.020]  Hello my name is Stuart Smith from NaturesPureOrganics.com and I would like to invite you to come by
[45:09.020 --> 45:13.980]  our store at 1904 Guadaloupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas to find brave new
[45:13.980 --> 45:17.820]  books and chase back to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very
[45:17.820 --> 45:18.820]  own eyes.
[45:18.820 --> 45:23.700]  Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.700 --> 45:27.780]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products including our Australian Emu oil,
[45:27.780 --> 45:31.420]  lotion candles, olive oil soaps and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:31.420 --> 45:37.900]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[45:37.900 --> 45:43.340]  That's 512-264-4043, NaturesPureOrganics.com.
[45:43.340 --> 46:12.740]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[46:13.340 --> 46:34.580]  Alright folks, we are back.
[46:34.580 --> 46:38.060]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host Eddie Craig.
[46:38.060 --> 46:42.660]  Call that number is 512-646-1984.
[46:42.660 --> 46:46.300]  The phones are on if you want to call and get in line.
[46:46.300 --> 46:49.340]  Right now our first caller up is Ralph in Texas.
[46:49.340 --> 46:51.340]  Ralph, what can we do for you?
[46:51.340 --> 46:56.460]  Hello Eddie, I want to thank you for that last comment.
[46:56.460 --> 46:57.460]  I appreciate it.
[46:57.460 --> 47:03.380]  I took that personally because I am fighting a good fight and it is kind of lonely over
[47:03.380 --> 47:04.380]  here in Beaumont.
[47:04.380 --> 47:12.740]  I just had a management case hearing and I was at one table and there was four attorneys
[47:12.740 --> 47:19.100]  at the other table and three pro se litigants behind them.
[47:19.100 --> 47:24.300]  And the bailiff was right up there by my table ready to arrest me if I said the wrong word
[47:24.300 --> 47:25.300]  I guess.
[47:25.300 --> 47:26.300]  I don't know.
[47:26.300 --> 47:38.260]  I thought I did pretty good, but later that day the judge dismissed 15 of 17 defendants.
[47:38.260 --> 47:45.660]  So that didn't sound too good, but I still have two and I think I know what they're trying
[47:45.660 --> 47:46.660]  to do.
[47:46.660 --> 47:52.780]  So I've been thinking about what my options are and I wanted to get some feedback from
[47:52.780 --> 47:56.740]  you and more or less put you in a deposition chair.
[47:56.740 --> 47:59.020]  Are you ready?
[47:59.020 --> 48:02.260]  Well the thing about putting me in a deposition chair, what are you going to put me in a deposition
[48:02.260 --> 48:04.580]  chair for?
[48:04.580 --> 48:09.580]  One question, or actually several versions of one question.
[48:09.580 --> 48:10.580]  And that is?
[48:10.580 --> 48:11.580]  All right.
[48:11.580 --> 48:18.200]  On the day of the incident, Sergeant Bullfold decided to put you in jail for failure to
[48:18.200 --> 48:23.780]  identify and we're now claiming we had the right to put you in jail for failure to identify
[48:23.780 --> 48:27.220]  because we could have put you in jail for not having a seat belt on.
[48:27.220 --> 48:31.140]  Why are you wearing your seat belt?
[48:31.140 --> 48:33.860]  That is the question.
[48:33.860 --> 48:36.300]  Why are you wearing your seat belt?
[48:36.300 --> 48:41.980]  Because the transportation code says you have to wear it, but if you're not in commerce,
[48:41.980 --> 48:42.980]  you don't have to wear it.
[48:42.980 --> 48:45.540]  That's not the way you argue it.
[48:45.540 --> 48:52.220]  The transportation code says you don't have to wear it and unless you're engaged in the
[48:52.220 --> 48:58.460]  profession or occupation of transportation as regulated by that code, you are not required
[48:58.460 --> 49:01.460]  to wear it.
[49:01.460 --> 49:03.540]  Don't ever say commerce.
[49:03.540 --> 49:10.500]  The word commerce is not your friend here unless you have already managed to directly
[49:10.500 --> 49:14.940]  establish that transportation means commerce.
[49:14.940 --> 49:21.220]  If you haven't done that yet, saying commerce instead of transportation will lose your case.
[49:21.220 --> 49:22.220]  Okay.
[49:22.220 --> 49:26.380]  Well, I've been using both.
[49:26.380 --> 49:27.980]  I've been primarily using transportation.
[49:27.980 --> 49:32.900]  I don't watch commerce this time.
[49:32.900 --> 49:39.880]  So what I'm getting at is I was just going to demur the question and say it's irrelevant
[49:39.880 --> 49:41.940]  because I'm not in transportation.
[49:41.940 --> 49:47.060]  Well, again, you're not answering my question.
[49:47.060 --> 49:52.380]  Why would you ask me that question if I'm not there and it's a hypothetical?
[49:52.380 --> 49:56.020]  They're not going to let you introduce the hypothetical as fact.
[49:56.020 --> 49:58.300]  No, no, no, no.
[49:58.300 --> 50:04.320]  I mean, I'm going to be in a deposition chair and they're going to try and trick me to say
[50:04.320 --> 50:06.900]  that I did not have my seat belt on.
[50:06.900 --> 50:08.700]  Well, I can go on forever.
[50:08.700 --> 50:11.860]  I'll try to make it real short.
[50:11.860 --> 50:15.980]  I never said I didn't have my seat belt on.
[50:15.980 --> 50:21.060]  And the officer said that he was qualified immunity.
[50:21.060 --> 50:28.180]  So after several motions are filed, motions of dismiss, response, reply, sir reply, more
[50:28.180 --> 50:33.460]  motions to dismiss, the judge comes back and says, hey, he never said he wasn't wearing
[50:33.460 --> 50:36.220]  the seat belt.
[50:36.220 --> 50:40.300]  So what they're going to do is now that we're in discovery, what they're going to do is
[50:40.300 --> 50:44.420]  they're going to put me on a witness stand, try to get me to say, no, they're not.
[50:44.420 --> 50:47.080]  How can they put you on the witness stand?
[50:47.080 --> 50:48.080]  I'm sorry.
[50:48.080 --> 50:49.080]  Deposition chair.
[50:49.080 --> 50:51.540]  How can they put you in a deposition chair?
[50:51.540 --> 50:52.540]  Simple.
[50:52.540 --> 51:00.940]  They say we're going to have depositions on you Friday with 10 days from now.
[51:00.940 --> 51:02.220]  They cannot.
[51:02.220 --> 51:04.220]  Is this a civil suit?
[51:04.220 --> 51:05.740]  Yes.
[51:05.740 --> 51:09.400]  You're suing them or they're suing you?
[51:09.400 --> 51:12.060]  I am suing them in federal court.
[51:12.060 --> 51:13.060]  Okay.
[51:13.060 --> 51:18.060]  Then the question again is irrelevant as to whether or not you're wearing your seat belt.
[51:18.060 --> 51:20.620]  It is absolutely irrelevant.
[51:20.620 --> 51:22.140]  Okay.
[51:22.140 --> 51:28.660]  The only question here, if they say, were you wearing your seat belt?
[51:28.660 --> 51:31.060]  Your response remains.
[51:31.060 --> 51:36.680]  Are you attempting to allege that I was engaging in transportation so as to be required to
[51:36.680 --> 51:39.540]  wear a seat belt?
[51:39.540 --> 51:40.660]  Okay.
[51:40.660 --> 51:41.660]  I like that.
[51:41.660 --> 51:44.460]  It has kind of a harmonious ring to it.
[51:44.460 --> 51:47.260]  I hope you don't mind my pun.
[51:47.260 --> 51:49.940]  No, that's just the way it works.
[51:49.940 --> 51:50.940]  Right.
[51:50.940 --> 51:51.940]  Okay.
[51:51.940 --> 51:57.940]  Well, that's along the lines of what I was thinking, but I think I'm afraid that what
[51:57.940 --> 52:03.700]  they're going to do is they're going to contact the judge and say that I'm not cooperating
[52:03.700 --> 52:06.260]  and demand that I answer the question.
[52:06.260 --> 52:08.360]  You did answer the question.
[52:08.360 --> 52:13.680]  I can only answer the question within the context of the transportation code.
[52:13.680 --> 52:20.460]  Are you alleging that I was engaging in transportation so as to be subject to that code and thus
[52:20.460 --> 52:22.380]  be required to wear a seat belt?
[52:22.380 --> 52:23.380]  Okay.
[52:23.380 --> 52:24.380]  That sounds good.
[52:24.380 --> 52:27.060]  I'll take the notes off the audio.
[52:27.060 --> 52:33.420]  What happened was I brought up Rule 1.2, which I think is why I'm still in the courts.
[52:33.420 --> 52:36.380]  Thank you, Eddie, because I got that from you.
[52:36.380 --> 52:40.940]  Otherwise, I think it would have been completely dismissed, but they don't know what to do
[52:40.940 --> 52:43.980]  with this 1.2 all of a sudden.
[52:43.980 --> 52:44.980]  1.2 of what?
[52:44.980 --> 52:45.980]  Administrative code.
[52:45.980 --> 52:46.980]  You're talking about 1.12?
[52:46.980 --> 52:47.980]  Regulate and supervise.
[52:47.980 --> 52:48.980]  Right.
[52:48.980 --> 52:49.980]  1.12.
[52:49.980 --> 52:51.980]  I just thought 1.2.
[52:51.980 --> 52:52.980]  Sorry.
[52:52.980 --> 52:53.980]  Okay.
[52:53.980 --> 53:10.700]  But anyway, I brought it up, and the judge come back with, he wouldn't use the rule number.
[53:10.700 --> 53:18.300]  He just come back and said that, he mentioned a rule in the transportation code and says,
[53:18.300 --> 53:23.220]  well, rule such and such in transportation clearly requires that anybody with a vehicle
[53:23.220 --> 53:25.780]  have an inspection sticker and have a driver's license.
[53:25.780 --> 53:29.860]  So in other words, he just completely ignored what I said.
[53:29.860 --> 53:30.860]  So I came back again.
[53:30.860 --> 53:31.860]  I'm sticking to my guns.
[53:31.860 --> 53:36.020]  I'm just saying the same thing over and over and over, which I've learned to do in the
[53:36.020 --> 53:39.580]  law over the years, is they're going to ignore you, and you just keep saying it until someone
[53:39.580 --> 53:45.020]  higher, higher, higher up, you got their ear, and then they'll say, oh, okay, well, sure,
[53:45.020 --> 53:48.380]  yeah, I understand what you're saying, but the lower courts, as long as it's free and
[53:48.380 --> 53:50.060]  cheap, they're not going to listen.
[53:50.060 --> 53:55.380]  So he come back with this and said that the transportation code that says that anyone
[53:55.380 --> 54:01.460]  with a vehicle, so I broke it down like you do, and I said, well, vehicle says this and
[54:01.460 --> 54:08.100]  driver's license says this, and I said that in rule, like I said, I call it 1.2, is the
[54:08.100 --> 54:13.380]  definitive statement that there are two types of traffic.
[54:13.380 --> 54:19.700]  One is commercial and one is non-commercial, and that's the language I use there.
[54:19.700 --> 54:21.180]  Well, but that's not correct.
[54:21.180 --> 54:22.460]  That's not accurate.
[54:22.460 --> 54:23.460]  That's not accurate.
[54:23.460 --> 54:28.740]  Don't, okay, I know I'm raining on your parade here.
[54:28.740 --> 54:31.060]  It's not that you're not trying, so don't take this the wrong way.
[54:31.060 --> 54:35.980]  I'm not trying to shoot down what you're doing, but if you're going to use the statutes, don't
[54:35.980 --> 54:39.060]  deviate from the statutes.
[54:39.060 --> 54:43.620]  The authority of the Department of Public Safety under the transportation code is specifically
[54:43.620 --> 54:49.680]  limited to the regulatory programs they are granted the power to create under the administrative
[54:49.680 --> 54:50.980]  code.
[54:50.980 --> 54:59.060]  The regulatory programs in question are driver's licensing, financial responsibility, and inspection.
[54:59.060 --> 55:06.100]  Those programs are directly related to the DPS mission statement, which is the supervision
[55:06.100 --> 55:09.460]  of traffic on rural highways.
[55:09.460 --> 55:16.420]  The supervision and regulation of commercial and for hire traffic.
[55:16.420 --> 55:22.980]  So as you can see, the non-commercial only matters when it comes to supervision on rural
[55:22.980 --> 55:32.100]  highways, but the regulation matters only in relation to commercial and for hire traffic.
[55:32.100 --> 55:33.100]  You see?
[55:33.100 --> 55:34.100]  What?
[55:34.100 --> 55:37.500]  Okay, I'll have to go over the finer details of what you're saying, but it sounds a lot
[55:37.500 --> 55:38.500]  like what I'm saying.
[55:38.500 --> 55:43.340]  But I'll work out the details and see- Yeah, be real careful with a lot and exactly.
[55:43.340 --> 55:46.980]  Okay, yeah, right, right.
[55:46.980 --> 55:47.980]  Okay.
[55:47.980 --> 55:52.820]  Let me get back to another screen.
[55:52.820 --> 55:55.300]  Just one second.
[55:55.300 --> 55:57.820]  Okay, I want to share this with you.
[55:57.820 --> 55:58.820]  I've been meaning to share it with you.
[55:58.820 --> 56:00.940]  I don't think I've emailed it to you.
[56:00.940 --> 56:06.860]  This is Attorney General opinion number JM977.
[56:06.860 --> 56:07.860]  Okay.
[56:07.860 --> 56:20.940]  It's November 8, 1988, got it off of, here's the website, texasattorneygeneral.gov.
[56:20.940 --> 56:28.740]  And this, let's see, I don't know who it is, prosecutor, Harris County Assistant Attorney,
[56:28.740 --> 56:31.740]  that's what the judge is asking, I think.
[56:31.740 --> 56:38.180]  Anyway, he's asking the Attorney General if Class C misdemeanor defendants can have a
[56:38.180 --> 56:42.340]  court-appointed attorney, and he says yes, definitely they can.
[56:42.340 --> 56:44.020]  Yeah, absolutely.
[56:44.020 --> 56:47.300]  Okay, well, that may come in handy for somebody.
[56:47.300 --> 56:51.820]  I mean, I had a court-appointed attorney and a misdemeanor, and a court-appointed attorney
[56:51.820 --> 56:56.500]  stood up in front of a district attorney, in front of a district judge, and says that
[56:56.500 --> 56:59.860]  I was not entitled to an attorney general.
[56:59.860 --> 57:03.620]  I mean, to a court-appointed attorney, because I had a misdemeanor, and at that time I did
[57:03.620 --> 57:08.300]  not have this attorney general's opinion, I just had the rule number.
[57:08.300 --> 57:09.300]  Yeah.
[57:09.300 --> 57:13.860]  Yeah, I don't recall seeing that, so if you want to email me a copy of it, I'll integrate
[57:13.860 --> 57:16.740]  it with the other materials for people to have for reference.
[57:16.740 --> 57:21.860]  Yeah, sure, yeah, if it'll help at all, yeah.
[57:21.860 --> 57:26.380]  Any information that we can use to whack them with is useful.
[57:26.380 --> 57:30.900]  Right, right.
[57:30.900 --> 57:36.300]  I've been reading some of Jerry Howe's material, some of Rick Schramm's stuff.
[57:36.300 --> 57:38.740]  Man, that's a lot of stuff.
[57:38.740 --> 57:43.740]  Unfortunately, when I talked to Jerry, he said he didn't know anybody that had actually
[57:43.740 --> 57:50.140]  done a federal lawsuit, a Title 42 type, 1983.
[57:50.140 --> 57:56.860]  And I know you got a lot on your plate, but maybe I can help you find a bigger plate.
[57:56.860 --> 58:03.140]  Well, that doesn't really help when my arm span doesn't increase just because the plate
[58:03.140 --> 58:05.780]  did.
[58:05.780 --> 58:10.340]  You're asking me to wrap my arms around a bigger plate than the one I have, and I can't
[58:10.340 --> 58:12.340]  make them meet as it is.
[58:12.340 --> 58:16.780]  Okay, okay, well, all right.
[58:16.780 --> 58:20.780]  I think that's all I got, I got some interesting stuff written out on paper here, but mostly
[58:20.780 --> 58:23.140]  it's just anecdotal, I think.
[58:23.140 --> 58:29.460]  The real question I had today was about the deposition if I'm asked where you were in
[58:29.460 --> 58:33.780]  your seatbelt, and it's irrelevant unless they're making an argument that I was in transportation.
[58:33.780 --> 58:35.540]  Bingo, that's exactly right.
[58:35.540 --> 58:39.100]  They cannot ask that question outside of the context of that code.
[58:39.100 --> 58:41.340]  Well, what would you like to ask-
[58:41.340 --> 58:42.460]  Okay, well, hang on a second.
[58:42.460 --> 58:43.860]  I've got a break here, Ralph.
[58:43.860 --> 58:50.320]  All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break, so y'all hang on.
[58:50.320 --> 58:55.740]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.740 --> 58:58.540]  because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.540 --> 59:03.920]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:03.920 --> 59:07.020]  the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:07.020 --> 59:08.980]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:08.980 --> 59:14.880]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more
[59:14.880 --> 59:18.620]  than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.620 --> 59:23.600]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance
[59:23.600 --> 59:28.260]  into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.260 --> 59:33.460]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.460 --> 59:43.900]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.900 --> 59:47.980]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.980 --> 59:48.980]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:48.980 --> 01:00:00.700]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:00.700 --> 01:00:05.500]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown.
[01:00:05.500 --> 01:00:12.100]  Markets for Friday, the 14th of July, 2017, are currently trading with gold at $1,228.48
[01:00:12.100 --> 01:00:19.440]  an ounce, silver, $15.96 an ounce, Texas crude, $46.08 a barrel, and bitcoin is sitting nearly
[01:00:19.440 --> 01:00:24.940]  at 2,178 US currency.
[01:00:24.940 --> 01:00:30.540]  Today in history, the year 1789, kick-starting the French Revolution, citizens of Paris storm
[01:00:30.540 --> 01:00:34.420]  the Bastille, representing the royal authority in the center of Paris.
[01:00:34.420 --> 01:00:38.020]  The prison contained just seven inmates at the time of its storming, but was a symbol
[01:00:38.020 --> 01:00:40.040]  of the abuses by the monarchy.
[01:00:40.040 --> 01:00:43.300]  Its fall was the flashpoint of the French Revolution.
[01:00:43.300 --> 01:00:49.420]  Bastille Day, today in history.
[01:00:49.420 --> 01:00:54.640]  In recent news, Russian Foreign Minister spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated today, Friday, in a
[01:00:54.640 --> 01:00:59.060]  news briefing, that, quote, the number of staff at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow exceeds
[01:00:59.060 --> 01:01:03.020]  a number of our embassy employees in Washington by a big margin.
[01:01:03.020 --> 01:01:08.020]  One of our options, apart from a tit-for-tat expulsion of Americans, would be to even out
[01:01:08.020 --> 01:01:09.020]  the numbers.
[01:01:09.020 --> 01:01:12.980]  There are too many employees of the CIA and Pentagon's espionage unit working under
[01:01:12.980 --> 01:01:17.780]  the roof of the American diplomatic mission, whose activity does not correspond at all
[01:01:17.780 --> 01:01:19.460]  with their status.
[01:01:19.460 --> 01:01:23.620]  This Russian retaliation likely because the Trump administration has refused to hand back
[01:01:23.620 --> 01:01:27.700]  two Russian diplomatic compounds, which were seized at the same time as some of the Russian
[01:01:27.700 --> 01:01:29.660]  diplomats were sent home last year.
[01:01:29.660 --> 01:01:34.100]  That was when former President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian
[01:01:34.100 --> 01:01:42.220]  spies back in December.
[01:01:42.220 --> 01:01:47.300]  Samsung in a press release recently unveiled its first-ever Cinema LED screen that displays
[01:01:47.300 --> 01:01:52.940]  huge 33.8 feet and provides 4K resolution, as well as peak brightness levels that are
[01:01:52.940 --> 01:01:58.100]  nearly 10 times brighter than those offered by standard cinema projector technologies.
[01:01:58.100 --> 01:02:02.780]  Along with being equipped with distortion-free tech and offers a nearly infinite contrast
[01:02:02.780 --> 01:02:07.860]  ratio which facilitates deep blacks and extremely bright colors, the Cinema LED screen is set
[01:02:07.860 --> 01:02:12.040]  to be paired with a brand new surround sound system from JBL.
[01:02:12.040 --> 01:02:17.380]  The Super S, as it's being dubbed, is in action at the Lotte World Tower location of
[01:02:17.380 --> 01:02:22.700]  Lotte Cinemas in Korea, with Cars 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming being the first movie scheduled
[01:02:22.700 --> 01:02:28.180]  to play on it.
[01:02:28.180 --> 01:02:33.540]  In a press release, Visa stated that it will be awarding up to 500,000 to 50 eligible U.S.-based
[01:02:33.540 --> 01:02:38.780]  small business food service owners who commit to joining the 100% cashless quest.
[01:02:38.780 --> 01:02:43.200]  In short, it's an effort to convince 50 small business restaurants, cafes, and food
[01:02:43.200 --> 01:02:48.340]  trucks to go 100% cashless in favor of credit or debit, with the incentive of receiving
[01:02:48.340 --> 01:02:53.700]  10,000 to help pay for the tech upgrades.
[01:03:18.340 --> 01:03:34.500]  The Super S, as it's being dubbed, is in action at the Lotte Cinemas in Korea, with
[01:03:34.500 --> 01:03:45.700]  Cars 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming being the first movie scheduled to play on it.
[01:03:45.700 --> 01:04:04.860]  The Super S, as it's being dubbed, is in action at the Lotte Cinemas in Korea, with
[01:04:04.860 --> 01:04:15.140]  Cars 3 and Spider-Man Homecoming being the first movie scheduled to play on it.
[01:04:15.140 --> 01:04:21.620]  One other thing I can think of is, I'm working on some discovery for the DPS officer, the
[01:04:21.620 --> 01:04:28.820]  arresting officer, and Jerry, I think his name was Jerry in Maryland, did a lot of federal
[01:04:28.820 --> 01:04:29.820]  lawsuits.
[01:04:29.820 --> 01:04:32.820]  He died of cancer last year, I believe.
[01:04:32.820 --> 01:04:38.140]  He mentioned something about doing a lot of production of documents to make them interrogatories
[01:04:38.140 --> 01:04:43.740]  and requests for admission denied and the like, and so I'm working on requests for productions
[01:04:43.740 --> 01:04:48.060]  as well as other discoveries since we're going into that, and I just thought, can you think
[01:04:48.060 --> 01:04:52.300]  of anything off the top of your head right now that I might want to add to my production
[01:04:52.300 --> 01:04:54.140]  of documents request?
[01:04:54.140 --> 01:04:58.260]  I don't know what all you're asking for, so that's kind of hard to answer.
[01:04:58.260 --> 01:05:04.980]  Well, I mean, you know, I'm going to ask for his training, ask for his criminal complaints.
[01:05:04.980 --> 01:05:09.260]  The arresting officer was Department of Public Safety, right?
[01:05:09.260 --> 01:05:10.260]  Right.
[01:05:10.260 --> 01:05:11.260]  Okay.
[01:05:11.260 --> 01:05:18.540]  And the request for admissions that I would get from him is, can you identify the specific
[01:05:18.540 --> 01:05:26.860]  commercial nature of the motor vehicle you alleged the accused was allegedly operating
[01:05:26.860 --> 01:05:29.140]  or driving?
[01:05:29.140 --> 01:05:32.420]  That's one of the things I'd definitely put in an admission, because then he's going to
[01:05:32.420 --> 01:05:35.380]  have to admit there was no commercial motor vehicle.
[01:05:35.380 --> 01:05:38.220]  Now what did he use as the basis of the stop?
[01:05:38.220 --> 01:05:40.220]  State belt.
[01:05:40.220 --> 01:05:47.780]  Okay, which he could or could not see easily.
[01:05:47.780 --> 01:05:54.100]  He says he could see my shoulder strap, and he says it was under my arm.
[01:05:54.100 --> 01:06:05.240]  That's what this has been all about, but whenever he stopped me, I said, it's kind of funny.
[01:06:05.240 --> 01:06:10.420]  Does the video show you making any adjustments when he was pursuing you?
[01:06:10.420 --> 01:06:14.220]  No, you can't see inside my car.
[01:06:14.220 --> 01:06:15.220]  Right.
[01:06:15.220 --> 01:06:19.740]  Right, that's exactly the point.
[01:06:19.740 --> 01:06:25.100]  He has no way to determine one way or the other whether or not his assessment was true.
[01:06:25.100 --> 01:06:32.380]  Right, he has no proof, and I'm not admitting anything, but I told him right off the bat
[01:06:32.380 --> 01:06:39.140]  that I was not engaged in transportation or commerce, but I met four times, I think, in
[01:06:39.140 --> 01:06:40.140]  fact.
[01:06:40.140 --> 01:06:41.140]  Four or five, several times.
[01:06:41.140 --> 01:06:43.260]  Every time he'd come up to the window, I'd ask him, am I under arrest?
[01:06:43.260 --> 01:06:46.660]  He'd say, you're being detained, and I said, am I free to go?
[01:06:46.660 --> 01:06:49.620]  He says, no, and I said, well, what am I under arrest for?
[01:06:49.620 --> 01:06:55.460]  He'd say, you're being detained, and so it went back and forth for 40 minutes.
[01:06:55.460 --> 01:06:56.460]  It was kind of comical.
[01:06:56.460 --> 01:06:58.300]  Let me give you one more.
[01:06:58.300 --> 01:07:02.140]  This other officer that I sued, he came in late.
[01:07:02.140 --> 01:07:07.620]  He said he wasn't served, or he said he was served, but he gave the lawsuit to his union,
[01:07:07.620 --> 01:07:11.060]  and they didn't answer the lawsuit, so it took me a long time to get him in default,
[01:07:11.060 --> 01:07:14.620]  and as soon as I got him in default, he answered the lawsuit.
[01:07:14.620 --> 01:07:15.700]  A year, okay?
[01:07:15.700 --> 01:07:19.740]  A year after the suit was filed, he answered it and says, well, I thought my union was
[01:07:19.740 --> 01:07:20.740]  taking care of that.
[01:07:20.740 --> 01:07:25.300]  I didn't know nothing about it until it got to being a default, so he makes this affidavit.
[01:07:25.300 --> 01:07:32.700]  He does not make the affidavit under Paying Dependencies of Perjury, and he makes this
[01:07:32.700 --> 01:07:38.460]  affidavit in support of his not answering the lawsuit, so he set aside the default,
[01:07:38.460 --> 01:07:45.300]  and he makes in this affidavit that he was not within 20 or 30 feet of my car, and he
[01:07:45.300 --> 01:07:49.420]  never did anything except for be back up for the arresting officer.
[01:07:49.420 --> 01:07:53.660]  Well, I've got the video, and very lucky to have gotten it.
[01:07:53.660 --> 01:07:56.900]  I do not know how in the world I got it, because everybody said they didn't have it, but they
[01:07:56.900 --> 01:08:00.540]  wouldn't give it to me if they did have it, and then all of a sudden, a month after I'd
[01:08:00.540 --> 01:08:03.620]  asked for it, I got the cruiser video.
[01:08:03.620 --> 01:08:06.100]  Somebody sent it to me, so we just found this.
[01:08:06.100 --> 01:08:07.100]  Right.
[01:08:07.100 --> 01:08:10.700]  Anyway, I'm watching it, and guess what that officer said he wasn't within 20 or 30 feet
[01:08:10.700 --> 01:08:11.700]  of my car?
[01:08:11.700 --> 01:08:21.260]  He's got an AR-15 pointed at me, and he looks like he's leaning against my car, so I told
[01:08:21.260 --> 01:08:22.260]  the judge that.
[01:08:22.260 --> 01:08:27.940]  I told the judge, he's saying he wasn't within 20 or 30 feet of my car, and here's a picture
[01:08:27.940 --> 01:08:30.700]  of him, and it looks like he's touching it from this angle.
[01:08:30.700 --> 01:08:33.660]  Of course, he might be a foot, a whole foot away from it.
[01:08:33.660 --> 01:08:38.680]  I said, I think the judge should take that into consideration before he grants the motion
[01:08:38.680 --> 01:08:40.180]  to set aside the default.
[01:08:40.180 --> 01:08:41.640]  Maybe there's something wrong with that, too.
[01:08:41.640 --> 01:08:44.660]  Maybe he's not being completely honest about that, either.
[01:08:44.660 --> 01:08:49.660]  And that same later, that, no, there were several things that happened over two days.
[01:08:49.660 --> 01:08:58.540]  The very next day, the judge signs the motion for leave to put him back in the lawsuit to
[01:08:58.540 --> 01:09:02.660]  file motions to dismiss, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:09:02.660 --> 01:09:07.500]  So in other words, they're just ignoring everything I say, but it looks to me like they're giving
[01:09:07.500 --> 01:09:10.860]  me some really good appealable evidence.
[01:09:10.860 --> 01:09:16.580]  I mean, if the judge is going to allow that, it looks to me like an appeals judge would
[01:09:16.580 --> 01:09:18.260]  say, well, wait a minute.
[01:09:18.260 --> 01:09:20.380]  He lied on his affidavit.
[01:09:20.380 --> 01:09:26.180]  Well, the thing is, he didn't lie on his affidavit because he never made an actual affidavit.
[01:09:26.180 --> 01:09:31.060]  That's exactly why it's not signed under penalty of perjury, and it does not have a penalty
[01:09:31.060 --> 01:09:35.880]  of perjury juror at, specifically so he could not get charged with that crime if somebody
[01:09:35.880 --> 01:09:37.380]  challenged him what he said.
[01:09:37.380 --> 01:09:40.580]  Yes, but I want to hear him say that.
[01:09:40.580 --> 01:09:43.220]  That's the only way they're going to be able to get by with it and say, you know what,
[01:09:43.220 --> 01:09:45.860]  your honor, I just kind of played a little trick in it.
[01:09:45.860 --> 01:09:50.580]  All you need is the rules of evidence saying, that shows very clearly an affidavit is not
[01:09:50.580 --> 01:09:53.380]  an affidavit without a proper juror at.
[01:09:53.380 --> 01:09:58.140]  Well, yeah, but that's going to show.
[01:09:58.140 --> 01:10:06.420]  Plus what he's asserting in the affidavit is a question of fact that a jury must decide,
[01:10:06.420 --> 01:10:07.420]  not the judge.
[01:10:07.420 --> 01:10:08.420]  Yes.
[01:10:08.420 --> 01:10:14.260]  Well, I don't see how they're really helping themselves, and I'd love to get some opinions
[01:10:14.260 --> 01:10:17.980]  on this, but just to make it brief, and I'm going to have to... I know I'm taking up
[01:10:17.980 --> 01:10:18.980]  a lot of time.
[01:10:18.980 --> 01:10:26.420]  Just to make it brief, they've dismissed 15 of the 17, but whenever me and this officer
[01:10:26.420 --> 01:10:31.420]  get finished with each other, we're going to appeal it, and once it's appealed, that
[01:10:31.420 --> 01:10:33.540]  brings back the others into it.
[01:10:33.540 --> 01:10:39.540]  As far as I understand it, I'm new to this stuff, so I don't know, but I don't see really
[01:10:39.540 --> 01:10:44.220]  what good is going to do them if they're trying to keep me out of the appeals court because
[01:10:44.220 --> 01:10:45.220]  I'm going to get there.
[01:10:45.220 --> 01:10:52.300]  It might take a year or two, but heck, I mean, my goodness, what else am I going to do?
[01:10:52.300 --> 01:10:54.220]  I'm going to go forward with it.
[01:10:54.220 --> 01:11:01.420]  It's been three years already now anyway, but anyway, all I'm saying is they dismissed
[01:11:01.420 --> 01:11:04.580]  all these other players, but they're not out of it.
[01:11:04.580 --> 01:11:12.660]  It's not final yet, so you told me that I had two claims, one for Title 42 and one for
[01:11:12.660 --> 01:11:20.220]  legal malpractice, so I filed my legal malpractice claim a couple of weeks ago, and I put in
[01:11:20.220 --> 01:11:24.540]  there that there was another case, it says there are any related cases, and I said, yeah,
[01:11:24.540 --> 01:11:28.340]  and I gave the case number, and the judge, whenever I was in for the case management
[01:11:28.340 --> 01:11:31.140]  hearing, he says, do you have another case?
[01:11:31.140 --> 01:11:34.020]  I said, yeah, I said, well, why did you file it in a different court, and I said, because
[01:11:34.020 --> 01:11:35.020]  it's a legal malpractice.
[01:11:35.020 --> 01:11:40.540]  He said, yeah, but they're related, and I said, the Title 42 civil rights violation
[01:11:40.540 --> 01:11:49.740]  and the legal malpractice is actually called professional negligence to empower the defecation,
[01:11:49.740 --> 01:11:56.740]  and he says, well, I don't see why you think they're different, and I said, well, I can't
[01:11:56.740 --> 01:11:57.740]  go any further than that.
[01:11:57.740 --> 01:12:04.020]  The judge had to study up on it, but by God, they're different, and that's really enough.
[01:12:04.020 --> 01:12:08.220]  I just read the rules on it, don't remember the details off hand, but if they'll prejudice
[01:12:08.220 --> 01:12:15.620]  one of the parties, and it would, it would praise the party, me, because I've got enough
[01:12:15.620 --> 01:12:21.540]  on this one already, and it just doesn't make sense to have a legal malpractice and a Title
[01:12:21.540 --> 01:12:25.220]  42 together, but here's what it was.
[01:12:25.220 --> 01:12:33.340]  The judge came back to me and said, I had a tort claims act on these people for state
[01:12:33.340 --> 01:12:39.260]  violations, because I'm using, I'm using supplemental jurisdiction, the federal courts have a Title
[01:12:39.260 --> 01:12:43.740]  42 jurisdiction, and I'm using supplemental jurisdiction to try the state claims, which
[01:12:43.740 --> 01:12:48.340]  the judge has dismissed now, but before he dismissed it, I said, I said, you know, they
[01:12:48.340 --> 01:12:52.380]  did all these things, and the judge come back and said, no, that's tort claims, and you
[01:12:52.380 --> 01:12:58.340]  have to file that within six months, and I'm going like, well, I know that, and I had an
[01:12:58.340 --> 01:13:03.060]  attorney at that time, and I was talking to the attorney about me having claims against
[01:13:03.060 --> 01:13:09.780]  these guys, and he didn't tell me any of that, so there's several items I have on him for
[01:13:09.780 --> 01:13:11.780]  legal malpractice.
[01:13:11.780 --> 01:13:16.380]  One is that it took him four months and three weeks to contact me after he was assigned
[01:13:16.380 --> 01:13:26.480]  to me, and that was like a month after the six month set to, six month window of opportunity
[01:13:26.480 --> 01:13:31.980]  to file a notice of tort claims act, so I think he was doing that on purpose.
[01:13:31.980 --> 01:13:36.620]  Also, he told me he was going to represent me in the misdemeanor on the phone, and then
[01:13:36.620 --> 01:13:41.660]  he gets withdrawals and says that he never did represent me in the misdemeanor, and I'm
[01:13:41.660 --> 01:13:48.100]  going, that's kind of odd, and then, well, that was it, that's who I'm thinking of as
[01:13:48.100 --> 01:13:49.100]  a third one.
[01:13:49.100 --> 01:13:55.540]  Anyway, that's fraud, and that's quite possibly fraud because the prosecutor was prosecuting
[01:13:55.540 --> 01:13:58.540]  me without probable cause.
[01:13:58.540 --> 01:14:03.060]  He did not tell me the prosecutor was prosecuting me without probable cause.
[01:14:03.060 --> 01:14:07.100]  Shouldn't he have done that?
[01:14:07.100 --> 01:14:12.780]  Well, the thing is, what he's considering probable cause versus whether or not he had
[01:14:12.780 --> 01:14:19.100]  any grounds to have probable cause, they're using the fact that a complaint exists to
[01:14:19.100 --> 01:14:23.620]  say probable cause exists, which is completely backwards.
[01:14:23.620 --> 01:14:30.220]  Probable cause must exist before the complaint itself can even be valid, and a probable cause
[01:14:30.220 --> 01:14:37.140]  determination has to be done by a magistrate in an examining trial proceeding, and an order
[01:14:37.140 --> 01:14:42.180]  of probable cause generated after that proceeding has concluded.
[01:14:42.180 --> 01:14:48.580]  If no probable cause determination has been made within 48 hours of the conclusion of
[01:14:48.580 --> 01:14:56.220]  that proceeding, or after the individual has been taken into custody on the offense, then
[01:14:56.220 --> 01:15:00.580]  the defendant must be discharged.
[01:15:00.580 --> 01:15:05.940]  That's written right there in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Section 1601 of Chapter
[01:15:05.940 --> 01:15:11.380]  16, Article 1601 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, okay?
[01:15:11.380 --> 01:15:15.040]  Article 16, I'm gonna check it out, yeah, okay.
[01:15:15.040 --> 01:15:24.100]  So the 48 hours for the generation of a probable cause order begins either when the probable
[01:15:24.100 --> 01:15:33.040]  cause proceeding, i.e. the examining trial, has concluded, or after the accused has been
[01:15:33.040 --> 01:15:39.660]  taken into custody on the allegation.
[01:15:39.660 --> 01:15:43.380]  The statute's very clear on that.
[01:15:43.380 --> 01:15:52.020]  They do not get to presume probable cause or the existence of a cause after 48 hours
[01:15:52.020 --> 01:15:56.820]  if there is no probable cause order, period.
[01:15:56.820 --> 01:15:59.620]  Okay, all right.
[01:15:59.620 --> 01:16:04.740]  Absent that probable cause order, everything they're doing is illegal under the Code of
[01:16:04.740 --> 01:16:06.740]  Criminal Procedure.
[01:16:06.740 --> 01:16:16.420]  Well, the affidavit and criminal complaint against me, it's got this style on it, it's
[01:16:16.420 --> 01:16:22.340]  all proper like that, and where the magistrate signs it, it says, I, and then the magistrate
[01:16:22.340 --> 01:16:29.620]  signs it, it says, I have read the above and foregoing affidavit and have found it to contain
[01:16:29.620 --> 01:16:33.860]  probable cause and issued it.
[01:16:33.860 --> 01:16:38.660]  When did the judge conduct an examining trial to make that probable cause determination?
[01:16:38.660 --> 01:16:40.380]  Where's the transcript?
[01:16:40.380 --> 01:16:43.060]  Where are the witness statements?
[01:16:43.060 --> 01:16:47.820]  Where are all the things that an examining trial is required to generate to prove probable
[01:16:47.820 --> 01:16:50.340]  cause determination was ever made?
[01:16:50.340 --> 01:16:52.820]  Never happened.
[01:16:52.820 --> 01:16:53.820]  Exactly.
[01:16:53.820 --> 01:16:54.820]  Never.
[01:16:54.820 --> 01:16:55.820]  Hang on just a minute.
[01:16:55.820 --> 01:17:00.140]  We'll be right back after this break.
[01:17:00.140 --> 01:17:01.260]  I love logos.
[01:17:01.260 --> 01:17:04.660]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:17:04.660 --> 01:17:07.300]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:17:07.300 --> 01:17:08.540]  I need my truth fixed.
[01:17:08.540 --> 01:17:13.180]  I'd be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:17:13.180 --> 01:17:16.980]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't
[01:17:16.980 --> 01:17:20.340]  have any money to give because I spend it all on supplements.
[01:17:20.340 --> 01:17:21.900]  How can I help logos?
[01:17:21.900 --> 01:17:23.900]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:17:23.900 --> 01:17:26.860]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:17:26.860 --> 01:17:31.220]  When ordering your supplies or holiday gifts, first thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:17:31.220 --> 01:17:37.580]  Now, go to logosradionetwork.com, click on the Amazon logo, and bookmark it.
[01:17:37.580 --> 01:17:43.380]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:17:43.380 --> 01:17:44.380]  Do I pay extra?
[01:17:44.380 --> 01:17:45.380]  No.
[01:17:45.380 --> 01:17:47.100]  Do I have to do anything different when I order?
[01:17:47.100 --> 01:17:48.100]  No.
[01:17:48.100 --> 01:17:49.100]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:17:49.100 --> 01:17:50.100]  No.
[01:17:50.100 --> 01:17:51.100]  I mean, yes.
[01:17:51.100 --> 01:17:52.100]  Wow.
[01:17:52.100 --> 01:17:55.660]  Giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect.
[01:17:55.660 --> 01:17:56.660]  Thank you so much.
[01:17:56.660 --> 01:17:57.660]  You're welcome.
[01:17:57.660 --> 01:18:02.820]  Happy Holidays, Logos.
[01:18:02.820 --> 01:18:08.900]  It's the 2017 Logos Radio Network Annual Fundraiser, sponsored by Central Texas Gunworks, Defense
[01:18:08.900 --> 01:18:10.900]  Distributed and Fat Sal's Deli.
[01:18:10.900 --> 01:18:14.180]  Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win.
[01:18:14.180 --> 01:18:16.860]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:18:16.860 --> 01:18:22.640]  From Central Texas Gunworks, first place up for grabs, a Spike's Tactical AR-15.
[01:18:22.640 --> 01:18:26.540]  Second place, Taurus PT-111 G2 9-millimeter pistol.
[01:18:26.540 --> 01:18:30.980]  From Defense Distributed, third place, the AR-308 80% lower.
[01:18:30.980 --> 01:18:33.900]  Fourth place, the AR-15 80% lower.
[01:18:33.900 --> 01:18:36.820]  From Fat Sal's Deli, fifth place, $100 gift card.
[01:18:36.820 --> 01:18:40.740]  From Fat Sal's Deli, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:18:40.740 --> 01:18:42.340]  That's logosradionetwork.com.
[01:18:42.340 --> 01:18:48.360]  Also, if you purchase Randy Kelton's eBook, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:18:48.360 --> 01:18:51.460]  Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[01:18:51.460 --> 01:18:54.980]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:18:54.980 --> 01:19:00.060]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:19:00.060 --> 01:19:07.700]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:07.700 --> 01:19:28.220]  As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life and realize
[01:19:28.220 --> 01:19:29.220]  there's nothing left.
[01:19:29.220 --> 01:19:34.380]  Cause I've been blastin' and laughin' so long that even my momma thinks that my mind is
[01:19:34.380 --> 01:19:35.380]  gone.
[01:19:35.380 --> 01:19:38.100]  I've never crossed a man that didn't deserve it.
[01:19:38.100 --> 01:19:41.300]  Me be treated like a punk, you know that's unheard of.
[01:19:41.300 --> 01:19:45.660]  You better watch how you're talkin' and where you're walkin' or you and your homies might
[01:19:45.660 --> 01:19:46.660]  be lyin' and chalkin'.
[01:19:46.660 --> 01:19:49.660]  I really hate the drip, but I gotta lope.
[01:19:49.660 --> 01:19:53.300]  As they grope, I see myself in the pistol smoke, fool.
[01:19:53.300 --> 01:19:55.380]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:19:55.380 --> 01:19:57.140]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:57.140 --> 01:20:00.140]  Call at number 512646 1984.
[01:20:00.140 --> 01:20:05.540]  All right, Ralph, let's see if we can get this wrapped up for you here.
[01:20:05.540 --> 01:20:15.420]  Well, I was just moosin' about the magistrate signin' the affidavit and warrant that lacked
[01:20:15.420 --> 01:20:16.420]  probable cause.
[01:20:16.420 --> 01:20:18.820]  I mean, it lacked probable cause on its face.
[01:20:18.820 --> 01:20:19.820]  Right.
[01:20:19.820 --> 01:20:21.940]  Cause I was arrested for failure to identify.
[01:20:21.940 --> 01:20:25.260]  Failure to identify is not an arrestable offense.
[01:20:25.260 --> 01:20:26.260]  Correct.
[01:20:26.260 --> 01:20:34.740]  So how in the world, so I'm chargin' the magistrate with bein' biased and not bein' a fair and
[01:20:34.740 --> 01:20:42.100]  impartial magistrate and causing intentional infliction of emotional distress, excessive
[01:20:42.100 --> 01:20:47.060]  bail, and like I said, I'm just now learnin' how to do a complaint.
[01:20:47.060 --> 01:20:53.820]  This is my third one, original amendment and second amendment, and when I put this one
[01:20:53.820 --> 01:21:01.020]  in, the judge dismissed everybody the same day, all but two people the same day, and
[01:21:01.020 --> 01:21:06.100]  I'm thinkin', well, if it was that bad, why did he leave me anybody?
[01:21:06.100 --> 01:21:10.180]  I think I did it right, and they wanted to get rid of it as quick as they could because
[01:21:10.180 --> 01:21:15.140]  well, we better not hang around here, he's gettin' better at writin' these complaints,
[01:21:15.140 --> 01:21:16.140]  you know?
[01:21:16.140 --> 01:21:18.740]  So, I don't know, that's the way I thought about it.
[01:21:18.740 --> 01:21:29.100]  Well, look, I'm gonna email you this attorney general opinion about misdemeanors.
[01:21:29.100 --> 01:21:36.860]  If you want somebody to, you said to proofread what you were readin' earlier today, I'll
[01:21:36.860 --> 01:21:37.860]  give it a shot.
[01:21:37.860 --> 01:21:39.940]  I mean, what do you want me to do?
[01:21:39.940 --> 01:21:46.380]  Well, the thing is, you've gotta have a really good understanding of how statutory language
[01:21:46.380 --> 01:21:47.540]  works.
[01:21:47.540 --> 01:21:51.780]  It's not just spelling and grammar, but it's logical argument as well.
[01:21:51.780 --> 01:21:56.060]  Now, if you wanna give it a shot, you're welcome to it because this document's goin' up on
[01:21:56.060 --> 01:22:05.240]  the blog for everybody to get a copy of anyway, but it's not just grammatical as far as spelling
[01:22:05.240 --> 01:22:07.620]  and punctuation and things of that nature.
[01:22:07.620 --> 01:22:15.660]  It's also a review of the argument in relation to the specific terms of the statute.
[01:22:15.660 --> 01:22:21.860]  I am usually askin' people to proofread my docs and my I's and T's and such, but I like
[01:22:21.860 --> 01:22:24.940]  to give it a shot and besides, you don't have to limit.
[01:22:24.940 --> 01:22:29.500]  Well, if you'll send me the email with that AG opinion, I'll reply back with a copy of
[01:22:29.500 --> 01:22:31.620]  it and you're welcome to give it a run.
[01:22:31.620 --> 01:22:33.940]  All right, and then what?
[01:22:33.940 --> 01:22:35.660]  Just how to do that?
[01:22:35.660 --> 01:22:36.660]  Can you tell me real quick?
[01:22:36.660 --> 01:22:42.620]  Well, it'll come to you in a Word document and then you can just read that and make any
[01:22:42.620 --> 01:22:49.060]  changes you see, just make sure that you turn on change tracking in the document before
[01:22:49.060 --> 01:22:50.940]  you begin any changes.
[01:22:50.940 --> 01:22:56.700]  That way, I can follow everything you did when you sent it back to me and then I can
[01:22:56.700 --> 01:23:00.620]  approve the changes as I see fit.
[01:23:00.620 --> 01:23:01.620]  Okay.
[01:23:01.620 --> 01:23:08.900]  Right now, I can tell you it won't work because I use Linux.
[01:23:08.900 --> 01:23:09.900]  And?
[01:23:09.900 --> 01:23:14.220]  Well, I don't think, it'll open up a Word document, but I don't think it'll do that
[01:23:14.220 --> 01:23:15.860]  tracking you're talkin' about.
[01:23:15.860 --> 01:23:21.900]  If you've got OpenOffice or Apache Office, it has a whole lot of the same features that
[01:23:21.900 --> 01:23:24.780]  Word does, including change tracking.
[01:23:24.780 --> 01:23:25.780]  Okay.
[01:23:25.780 --> 01:23:28.940]  I never used it, so I didn't pay any attention to it.
[01:23:28.940 --> 01:23:35.260]  It'll be under the review menu or tools menu.
[01:23:35.260 --> 01:23:36.260]  Review or tools, yeah.
[01:23:36.260 --> 01:23:37.260]  Okay.
[01:23:37.260 --> 01:23:38.260]  I got it.
[01:23:38.260 --> 01:23:40.060]  Well, Eddie, I really appreciate it.
[01:23:40.060 --> 01:23:43.140]  I'm not forgettin' where I've got a lot of this education.
[01:23:43.140 --> 01:23:50.540]  If anybody in the Beaumont area wants to get a little practice, I can let them know what's
[01:23:50.540 --> 01:23:51.780]  goin' on in my case.
[01:23:51.780 --> 01:23:58.100]  If Eddie wants to relay some emails, otherwise I'm just gonna keep on doin' what I can.
[01:23:58.100 --> 01:23:59.100]  Thanks again, Eddie.
[01:23:59.100 --> 01:24:00.100]  Yes, sir.
[01:24:00.100 --> 01:24:01.100]  Thanks for callin' in.
[01:24:01.100 --> 01:24:02.100]  Okay.
[01:24:02.100 --> 01:24:03.100]  Bye.
[01:24:03.100 --> 01:24:04.100]  Bye-bye.
[01:24:04.100 --> 01:24:05.100]  All right.
[01:24:05.100 --> 01:24:06.900]  Now, we go to Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:24:06.900 --> 01:24:08.620]  Olivier, what do you got?
[01:24:08.620 --> 01:24:09.620]  Hello, Eddie.
[01:24:09.620 --> 01:24:10.620]  Howdy.
[01:24:10.620 --> 01:24:14.980]  I got an opinion back on one of my cases.
[01:24:14.980 --> 01:24:15.980]  Okay.
[01:24:15.980 --> 01:24:24.220]  And this was on the case with the auto transport, where they took several of my cars off my
[01:24:24.220 --> 01:24:29.060]  property and so forth.
[01:24:29.060 --> 01:24:34.620]  There were several questions in my review that they failed to review, I mean, they refused
[01:24:34.620 --> 01:24:41.700]  to review because they said that I did not raise those arguments in the trial courts.
[01:24:41.700 --> 01:24:52.340]  But the issues that they did review, one was the GTLA Act and basically all the claims
[01:24:52.340 --> 01:24:58.260]  that I had, they said that I failed to state a proper claim because, you know, I failed
[01:24:58.260 --> 01:24:59.260]  to...
[01:24:59.260 --> 01:25:01.580]  And they told me why or whatever.
[01:25:01.580 --> 01:25:11.420]  But on the GTLA part, they said that I failed to state a proper claim because I failed to
[01:25:11.420 --> 01:25:23.980]  claim that the city, some policy or procedure or rule, the city has harmed me.
[01:25:23.980 --> 01:25:28.620]  And I'm looking over everything, I'm reading everything, and I know I've read a lot of
[01:25:28.620 --> 01:25:38.380]  case law which states that the Pro State's complaint cannot be dismissed or denied for
[01:25:38.380 --> 01:25:41.140]  failure to state a claim.
[01:25:41.140 --> 01:25:48.100]  And every issue that they address, they finalize it with...
[01:25:48.100 --> 01:25:49.100]  Well, now, wait a minute.
[01:25:49.100 --> 01:25:51.720]  I think you've misread that.
[01:25:51.720 --> 01:25:58.660]  They cannot dismiss the case with prejudice because of failure to state a claim.
[01:25:58.660 --> 01:26:02.980]  It's not that they can't dismiss it because they can't proceed on something where you
[01:26:02.980 --> 01:26:06.440]  haven't made a valid claim either.
[01:26:06.440 --> 01:26:11.200]  The only thing they can do with a case they can't act upon is dismiss.
[01:26:11.200 --> 01:26:18.620]  But what they cannot do is prevent you from refiling it correctly by dismissing it with
[01:26:18.620 --> 01:26:21.900]  prejudice to prevent you from filing it correctly.
[01:26:21.900 --> 01:26:22.900]  You follow?
[01:26:22.900 --> 01:26:23.900]  Okay.
[01:26:23.900 --> 01:26:24.900]  Okay.
[01:26:24.900 --> 01:26:25.900]  I'm agreeing with that.
[01:26:25.900 --> 01:26:26.900]  Okay.
[01:26:26.900 --> 01:26:30.020]  I agree with that and I see where that's leading.
[01:26:30.020 --> 01:26:41.220]  But I've read case law where they will overturn it because they dismissed it because the defendant
[01:26:41.220 --> 01:26:44.220]  did not state a proper claim.
[01:26:44.220 --> 01:26:51.860]  Well, the point of prejudice was never raised.
[01:26:51.860 --> 01:27:04.140]  All the Tennessee Supreme Court issue raised was that the defendant was pro se and the
[01:27:04.140 --> 01:27:11.820]  court should not have construed the same rules of literacy as far as...
[01:27:11.820 --> 01:27:13.100]  As stating the claim.
[01:27:13.100 --> 01:27:14.660]  That part you're correct on.
[01:27:14.660 --> 01:27:18.540]  That's actually rulings from the Supreme Court as well.
[01:27:18.540 --> 01:27:25.180]  A pro se litigant cannot be held to the same standard in pleading his case.
[01:27:25.180 --> 01:27:31.160]  He's held to the same standard in compliance with certain rules of procedure and evidence,
[01:27:31.160 --> 01:27:38.100]  but he cannot be penalized because of his incapability of specifying a claim in the same
[01:27:38.100 --> 01:27:41.080]  legal language that an attorney is.
[01:27:41.080 --> 01:27:47.840]  In fact, the mandate on the courts is that they are to bend over backwards to understand
[01:27:47.840 --> 01:27:56.340]  what the pro se litigant was actually trying to say and treat the complaint accordingly.
[01:27:56.340 --> 01:28:04.340]  And actually the way they wrote their opinion is that, oh, well, Ms. Liggett was harmed,
[01:28:04.340 --> 01:28:09.940]  but he did not say that they harmed him in this way, so we have to dismiss it.
[01:28:09.940 --> 01:28:10.940]  Yeah.
[01:28:10.940 --> 01:28:12.460]  That's what you may have an action for.
[01:28:12.460 --> 01:28:15.140]  You may be able to appeal their ruling.
[01:28:15.140 --> 01:28:18.280]  You may be able to file a motion to reconsider.
[01:28:18.280 --> 01:28:23.540]  You may be able to file a motion to reconsider en banc, which means get every judge on it
[01:28:23.540 --> 01:28:28.620]  instead of just the turd heads that tried to throw it out, because remember most of
[01:28:28.620 --> 01:28:32.780]  these appellate courts don't rule en banc, which is with all the judges.
[01:28:32.780 --> 01:28:37.740]  They'll get two or three of all the available judges and they will rule.
[01:28:37.740 --> 01:28:38.740]  Okay.
[01:28:38.740 --> 01:28:41.180]  Is it en banc?
[01:28:41.180 --> 01:28:42.180]  Right.
[01:28:42.180 --> 01:28:43.180]  Yeah.
[01:28:43.180 --> 01:28:45.180]  It's en space b-a-n-c.
[01:28:45.180 --> 01:28:58.380]  Oh, b-n- No, e-n, echo Nevada, e-n, space, right, bravo, alpha, Nevada, Charlie.
[01:28:58.380 --> 01:28:59.380]  Okay.
[01:28:59.380 --> 01:29:00.380]  E-a-n-c.
[01:29:00.380 --> 01:29:01.380]  Okay.
[01:29:01.380 --> 01:29:10.460]  En banc, I looked that up, but at first I was kind of upset, but then I read over it.
[01:29:10.460 --> 01:29:17.500]  Then I started thinking about other cases that I read, who won, and I realized that
[01:29:17.500 --> 01:29:23.700]  all of them had to go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is the one that addressed
[01:29:23.700 --> 01:29:30.620]  the fact that pro-state litigant doesn't have the aptitude to literally put the claim
[01:29:30.620 --> 01:29:35.300]  in a certain sense, and they should not be punished for that.
[01:29:35.300 --> 01:29:40.740]  And in my opinion, they are admitting that that's what they're doing.
[01:29:40.740 --> 01:29:42.740]  Well, that may be the case.
[01:29:42.740 --> 01:29:46.780]  In which case, I would try to find out how many times that has happened from this particular
[01:29:46.780 --> 01:29:53.180]  court and raise the issue that this court is subverting the rule of law that the Supreme
[01:29:53.180 --> 01:29:54.300]  Court has come up with.
[01:29:54.300 --> 01:30:01.340]  Hang on just a second, and Olivier, we'll be right back after this break.
[01:30:01.340 --> 01:30:03.340]  Ugh.
[01:30:03.340 --> 01:30:06.700]  Folks hate Monday because it means the start of another work week.
[01:30:06.700 --> 01:30:10.940]  But there's one activity you can start on Monday that's likely to be a smashing success.
[01:30:10.940 --> 01:30:16.060]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back to tell you what it is.
[01:30:16.060 --> 01:30:17.640]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:17.640 --> 01:30:21.240]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:21.240 --> 01:30:26.020]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.020 --> 01:30:31.180]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:31.180 --> 01:30:33.780]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[01:30:33.780 --> 01:30:38.060]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[01:30:38.060 --> 01:30:41.620]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.620 --> 01:30:45.460]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.460 --> 01:30:50.020]  Monday's diet is full of grace, but Tuesday's diet could be a disgrace.
[01:30:50.020 --> 01:30:54.420]  A study in Britain shows that people who started dieting on a Tuesday were the most likely
[01:30:54.420 --> 01:30:58.860]  to lose their resolve within a week and end up heavier than when they started.
[01:30:58.860 --> 01:31:01.020]  Friday was another bad weight loss day.
[01:31:01.020 --> 01:31:05.900]  More than half of the 2,000 people surveyed ditched their diets on Friday after a stressful
[01:31:05.900 --> 01:31:06.900]  week at work.
[01:31:06.900 --> 01:31:09.020]  What were the good dieting days?
[01:31:09.020 --> 01:31:13.220]  People who started their diets on Sunday and Monday were far more likely to shed the most
[01:31:13.220 --> 01:31:15.220]  weight and keep the weight off.
[01:31:15.220 --> 01:31:20.300]  So maybe Fleetwood Mac had it right when they sang, Monday morning you sure looked fine.
[01:31:20.300 --> 01:31:22.580]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:22.580 --> 01:31:30.900]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.900 --> 01:31:36.280]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.280 --> 01:31:38.860]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.860 --> 01:31:43.340]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.340 --> 01:31:47.340]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, but thousands of my fellow
[01:31:47.340 --> 01:31:48.780]  first responders are dying.
[01:31:48.780 --> 01:31:50.140]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.140 --> 01:31:51.140]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.140 --> 01:31:52.620]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.620 --> 01:31:53.620]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.620 --> 01:31:55.300]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.300 --> 01:31:57.900]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:57.900 --> 01:32:00.220]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:00.220 --> 01:32:03.260]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.260 --> 01:32:06.500]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:06.500 --> 01:32:10.140]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting
[01:32:10.140 --> 01:32:11.140]  them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.140 --> 01:32:12.980]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails.
[01:32:12.980 --> 01:32:14.700]  But I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:14.700 --> 01:32:18.540]  That's why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[01:32:18.540 --> 01:32:21.300]  you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:21.300 --> 01:32:25.540]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[01:32:25.540 --> 01:32:26.880]  zero complaints.
[01:32:26.880 --> 01:32:31.240]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the
[01:32:31.240 --> 01:32:32.300]  first time.
[01:32:32.300 --> 01:32:40.980]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to HillCountryHomeImprovements.com, mention the crypto show, and get $100 off.
[01:32:40.980 --> 01:32:45.620]  And we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:45.620 --> 01:32:50.660]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knockin', your door should be lockin'.
[01:32:50.660 --> 01:32:56.660]  That's 512-992-8745 or HillCountryHomeImprovements.com.
[01:32:56.660 --> 01:32:59.020]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.020 --> 01:33:00.940]  May not actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:00.940 --> 01:33:11.900]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:30.940 --> 01:33:41.820]  Hey, look at them yo-yos.
[01:33:41.820 --> 01:33:42.820]  That's the way you do it.
[01:33:42.820 --> 01:33:43.820]  You play the guitar on the MTV.
[01:33:43.820 --> 01:33:44.820]  That ain't workin'.
[01:33:44.820 --> 01:33:45.820]  That's the way you do it.
[01:33:45.820 --> 01:33:46.820]  Money for nothin' and your checks are free.
[01:33:46.820 --> 01:33:47.820]  Now, that ain't workin'.
[01:33:47.820 --> 01:33:48.820]  That's the way you do it.
[01:33:48.820 --> 01:33:49.820]  Let me tell you, them guys ain't dumb.
[01:33:49.820 --> 01:34:05.220]  Maybe get a pistol on your little finger.
[01:34:05.220 --> 01:34:08.780]  Maybe get a pistol on your son.
[01:34:08.780 --> 01:34:09.780]  All right, folks.
[01:34:09.780 --> 01:34:10.780]  We are back.
[01:34:10.780 --> 01:34:15.780]  This is Rule of Law Radio, and we are speaking with Olivier in Tennessee.
[01:34:15.780 --> 01:34:18.300]  All right, Olivier, go ahead.
[01:34:18.300 --> 01:34:22.660]  Right, um, we ended off at...
[01:34:22.660 --> 01:34:31.740]  So basically, they have admitted that the reason that this lawsuit can't stand or
[01:34:31.740 --> 01:34:36.780]  they're agreeing with the lower courts, that I failed to state a claim because of
[01:34:36.780 --> 01:34:43.820]  those reasons, and they basically stated outright, you know, with each claim, they said that,
[01:34:43.820 --> 01:34:50.140]  well, he didn't say that this person did this, which concluded that, and this person
[01:34:50.140 --> 01:34:52.340]  did this, which concluded that.
[01:34:52.340 --> 01:34:58.860]  All he did say is that they took his things without, you know what I'm saying, without
[01:34:58.860 --> 01:35:05.420]  whatever or, you know, and then one of the things it says is that, well, I can't...
[01:35:05.420 --> 01:35:12.860]  They cannot award inverse condemnation because inverse condemnation is only for real property,
[01:35:12.860 --> 01:35:19.380]  and the Supreme Court has already ruled that inverse condemnation deals with real and personal
[01:35:19.380 --> 01:35:33.060]  property, and Tennessee Rule 71 in the local rules states that all the statutes referring
[01:35:33.060 --> 01:35:44.900]  to eminent domain of personal and real property shall not be, shall be adhered to or something
[01:35:44.900 --> 01:35:45.900]  in that language.
[01:35:45.900 --> 01:35:46.900]  Yeah.
[01:35:46.900 --> 01:35:53.580]  So basically, the local rules state that personal property can be, is, underneath eminent domain,
[01:35:53.580 --> 01:35:55.580]  and that was in 1979.
[01:35:55.580 --> 01:35:56.580]  Okay.
[01:35:56.580 --> 01:36:06.980]  That was inducted in 1979, so that means they were aware of that since 1979, and it's 2,000
[01:36:06.980 --> 01:36:08.380]  and something.
[01:36:08.380 --> 01:36:10.300]  2,000 and something?
[01:36:10.300 --> 01:36:12.100]  Where you been, man?
[01:36:12.100 --> 01:36:14.100]  I was born in 83.
[01:36:14.100 --> 01:36:23.380]  I mean, this ruling, this procedure was in, this is where I was born, so it doesn't make
[01:36:23.380 --> 01:36:33.980]  no sense to me, but to me, I was mad at first, but now, after going over the set of plans
[01:36:33.980 --> 01:36:38.860]  and the calculations that we made, I'm starting to realize that they basically gave me an
[01:36:38.860 --> 01:36:44.780]  open handbook to hand them to the Supreme Court because they are...
[01:36:44.780 --> 01:36:45.780]  Okay.
[01:36:45.780 --> 01:36:53.340]  So, my next step is just to file a motion in in-bank...
[01:36:53.340 --> 01:36:55.220]  Motion to reconsider in-bank, yeah.
[01:36:55.220 --> 01:36:56.220]  Okay.
[01:36:56.220 --> 01:37:02.700]  Motion is to reconsider in-bank, and in that motion to reconsider, I should file every
[01:37:02.700 --> 01:37:06.260]  Tennessee Supreme Court case that...
[01:37:06.260 --> 01:37:07.660]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:37:07.660 --> 01:37:13.680]  And in some places, it's called an in-bank review, so just make sure you're using whatever
[01:37:13.680 --> 01:37:20.280]  the proper terminology is to invoke it, which shouldn't be hard to find using in-bank to
[01:37:20.280 --> 01:37:21.280]  look it up.
[01:37:21.280 --> 01:37:22.280]  Okay.
[01:37:22.280 --> 01:37:27.420]  Well, I've noticed that these court clerks, when you send in something and it's not in
[01:37:27.420 --> 01:37:31.440]  the right language, they'll send it back to you in the right language.
[01:37:31.440 --> 01:37:32.620]  That's okay, too, right?
[01:37:32.620 --> 01:37:35.100]  All the help you can get is the help you can get.
[01:37:35.100 --> 01:37:36.100]  Yeah.
[01:37:36.100 --> 01:37:41.460]  I think it's because I've been going up there, talking to them, and they say that it's awkward
[01:37:41.460 --> 01:37:45.460]  to have someone fight in so many cases and be outside.
[01:37:45.460 --> 01:37:49.060]  Yeah, and not be a part of the system they're used to.
[01:37:49.060 --> 01:37:50.060]  Right.
[01:37:50.060 --> 01:37:51.060]  Okay.
[01:37:51.060 --> 01:37:56.340]  They've got to be real careful how many trade secrets they let you in on, see?
[01:37:56.340 --> 01:37:57.340]  Okay.
[01:37:57.340 --> 01:38:04.540]  So, basically, I'm in good standing, and they've given me everything I need, right?
[01:38:04.540 --> 01:38:05.540]  This is not a...
[01:38:05.540 --> 01:38:08.060]  It certainly looks that way from what you're describing.
[01:38:08.060 --> 01:38:12.540]  If all that's accurate, then, yeah, sounds to me like you've got something to beat them
[01:38:12.540 --> 01:38:13.540]  up with.
[01:38:13.540 --> 01:38:14.540]  Okay.
[01:38:14.540 --> 01:38:20.620]  So, just because I didn't exclusively express all the elements-
[01:38:20.620 --> 01:38:27.240]  Well, the thing is, in those types of suits, you're not normally required to do that, especially
[01:38:27.240 --> 01:38:30.040]  in a Title 42 suit.
[01:38:30.040 --> 01:38:34.540]  You're specifically prohibited from laying out all the specific details.
[01:38:34.540 --> 01:38:42.820]  You're only supposed to give a summary of facts that would set the complaint in motion.
[01:38:42.820 --> 01:38:45.300]  That's all you're required to do.
[01:38:45.300 --> 01:38:46.900]  Right.
[01:38:46.900 --> 01:38:48.420]  Okay.
[01:38:48.420 --> 01:38:49.980]  Okay.
[01:38:49.980 --> 01:38:53.860]  So, this is nothing.
[01:38:53.860 --> 01:38:58.220]  This is just a part of a process, and we're still on top of it.
[01:38:58.220 --> 01:39:01.060]  Sounds like, but I wish you lots of luck with it nonetheless.
[01:39:01.060 --> 01:39:02.980]  Oh, yeah.
[01:39:02.980 --> 01:39:04.500]  Appreciate it.
[01:39:04.500 --> 01:39:05.500]  All right.
[01:39:05.500 --> 01:39:06.500]  Yeah.
[01:39:06.500 --> 01:39:09.220]  I was trying to figure out if it was a curve ball or not, but the more and more I read
[01:39:09.220 --> 01:39:14.620]  into it, the more and more I realized that I had tools and utensils to deal with it.
[01:39:14.620 --> 01:39:18.620]  So, I just called them and let you know what was up.
[01:39:18.620 --> 01:39:19.620]  Yeah.
[01:39:19.620 --> 01:39:24.520]  However, take that to heart, and if you know how to correct to what they're asking for,
[01:39:24.520 --> 01:39:27.420]  go ahead and do that.
[01:39:27.420 --> 01:39:28.420]  But how?
[01:39:28.420 --> 01:39:36.820]  Well, try to find some lawsuit that passed muster that's similar to the one you're doing,
[01:39:36.820 --> 01:39:38.340]  and see how they did it.
[01:39:38.340 --> 01:39:39.340]  No.
[01:39:39.340 --> 01:39:40.340]  No.
[01:39:40.340 --> 01:39:45.700]  The courts actually gave me the language to write it in, but how do I readdress it?
[01:39:45.700 --> 01:39:50.700]  Because they dismissed it, saying that I can appeal, so do I appeal?
[01:39:50.700 --> 01:39:58.500]  Well, you do the appeal first, but you also have the option of correcting it and refiling
[01:39:58.500 --> 01:39:59.500]  it.
[01:39:59.500 --> 01:40:01.900]  But of course, all they're doing there is trying to get fees out of you, but if you
[01:40:01.900 --> 01:40:05.220]  declared indigent, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
[01:40:05.220 --> 01:40:06.220]  Right.
[01:40:06.220 --> 01:40:08.300]  They declared me indigent.
[01:40:08.300 --> 01:40:09.300]  Right.
[01:40:09.300 --> 01:40:11.420]  So, you have both options available to you.
[01:40:11.420 --> 01:40:18.420]  You can seek an appeal, okay, which means they will send it back to this court for the
[01:40:18.420 --> 01:40:25.140]  trial on the merits if they overrule them, or you can simply fix the issue and refile
[01:40:25.140 --> 01:40:26.780]  it.
[01:40:26.780 --> 01:40:27.780]  It's up to you.
[01:40:27.780 --> 01:40:37.020]  The second option would get you on track again faster, I would think.
[01:40:37.020 --> 01:40:41.100]  Because the issue that you're complaining of has not been resolved, the only issue you're
[01:40:41.100 --> 01:40:44.060]  complaining of now is, hey, they shouldn't have dismissed it.
[01:40:44.060 --> 01:40:47.820]  So the only ruling you're going to get is in relation to they shouldn't have dismissed
[01:40:47.820 --> 01:40:48.820]  it.
[01:40:48.820 --> 01:40:53.060]  Then you're still back at the original square you were before they dismissed it.
[01:40:53.060 --> 01:40:54.220]  See what I'm saying?
[01:40:54.220 --> 01:40:55.860]  You may actually be going backwards.
[01:40:55.860 --> 01:41:04.660]  Well, I also have the declaratory judgment in that.
[01:41:04.660 --> 01:41:12.180]  Wouldn't a reversal of the declaratory judgment be a quicker avenue because they-
[01:41:12.180 --> 01:41:18.180]  Well, yeah, if the purpose of this petition was for the purpose of gaining a declaratory
[01:41:18.180 --> 01:41:25.180]  judgment and that's what they dismissed was the declaratory judgment, then yeah, you would
[01:41:25.180 --> 01:41:33.660]  because the declaratory judgment is not the suit, it's the result of the other side's
[01:41:33.660 --> 01:41:39.020]  failure to answer the suit, okay?
[01:41:39.020 --> 01:41:45.100]  So if you refile, you're starting everything completely over, including the timescales
[01:41:45.100 --> 01:41:48.220]  and the defaults and everything else.
[01:41:48.220 --> 01:41:52.460]  If you've already gotten past that point to the declaratory judgment stage and that's
[01:41:52.460 --> 01:41:57.380]  what they denied, which I don't understand how that would have worked, how could you
[01:41:57.380 --> 01:42:04.540]  get to the point of declaratory judgment without the suit standing up long enough for the judgment
[01:42:04.540 --> 01:42:06.540]  to be had?
[01:42:06.540 --> 01:42:14.380]  How could the court come after you petition for declaratory judgment and go, hey, wait,
[01:42:14.380 --> 01:42:16.020]  you didn't file this right.
[01:42:16.020 --> 01:42:20.780]  So all your timelines are skewed because you didn't file it right.
[01:42:20.780 --> 01:42:24.940]  So you can't win declaratory judgment.
[01:42:24.940 --> 01:42:28.020]  If that's what they had done, that'd be one thing, but it doesn't sound like that's what
[01:42:28.020 --> 01:42:29.020]  they did.
[01:42:29.020 --> 01:42:35.820]  They attempted to dismiss the suit after it had reached the point of default and that
[01:42:35.820 --> 01:42:38.740]  they did it entirely sua sponte.
[01:42:38.740 --> 01:42:48.180]  I filed a motion for default judgment and they denied it before they dismissed it.
[01:42:48.180 --> 01:42:53.340]  Yeah, but on what grounds do they deny default judgment if you were at the point where you
[01:42:53.340 --> 01:42:56.340]  should have already had it?
[01:42:56.340 --> 01:43:05.780]  Stating that the city has a GTLA immunity and they have 60 days to answer, but underneath
[01:43:05.780 --> 01:43:12.500]  the eminent domain in Tennessee, it says that underneath when they used to sue the city
[01:43:12.500 --> 01:43:18.220]  underneath the eminent domain statute, it's removed them from the GTLA requirements.
[01:43:18.220 --> 01:43:22.220]  And one of the GTLA requirements was the 60 days.
[01:43:22.220 --> 01:43:29.100]  So if all those requirements are removed, they should be to the normal requirements
[01:43:29.100 --> 01:43:31.740]  of answering the suit.
[01:43:31.740 --> 01:43:34.460]  Did you appeal their denial of summary judgment?
[01:43:34.460 --> 01:43:35.460]  Yes.
[01:43:35.460 --> 01:43:38.180]  And what was the answer on that?
[01:43:38.180 --> 01:43:44.900]  Oh, they stated that, uh, you know, music coming up.
[01:43:44.900 --> 01:43:45.900]  Yeah.
[01:43:45.900 --> 01:43:49.180]  Well think about that for just a second and I'll get the answer on the other side.
[01:43:49.180 --> 01:43:50.180]  Okay.
[01:43:50.180 --> 01:43:51.180]  All right, folks.
[01:43:51.180 --> 01:43:52.180]  We are about to enter into the last segment.
[01:43:52.180 --> 01:44:00.340]  All you callers hang on and we'll be right back after this break to get to you.
[01:44:00.340 --> 01:44:05.660]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:44:05.660 --> 01:44:09.140]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Miras proven method.
[01:44:09.140 --> 01:44:13.460]  Michael Miras has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[01:44:13.460 --> 01:44:14.460]  can win too.
[01:44:14.460 --> 01:44:19.260]  You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:44:19.260 --> 01:44:25.060]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[01:44:25.060 --> 01:44:29.700]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[01:44:29.700 --> 01:44:33.900]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:33.900 --> 01:44:38.780]  The Michael Miras proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:44:38.780 --> 01:44:41.180]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:41.180 --> 01:44:46.700]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Miras banner
[01:44:46.700 --> 01:44:49.700]  or email Michael Miras at yahoo.com.
[01:44:49.700 --> 01:44:57.380]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:44:57.380 --> 01:45:01.020]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:45:01.020 --> 01:45:04.220]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.220 --> 01:45:09.460]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand
[01:45:09.460 --> 01:45:14.700]  four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:14.700 --> 01:45:18.660]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.660 --> 01:45:23.020]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.020 --> 01:45:27.820]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[01:45:27.820 --> 01:45:34.380]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.380 --> 01:45:39.140]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:39.140 --> 01:45:43.380]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.380 --> 01:45:49.620]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.620 --> 01:45:52.420]  pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:52.420 --> 01:45:59.420]  Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EASY.
[01:46:22.420 --> 01:46:34.820]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:46:34.820 --> 01:46:38.420]  We are now in the last segment of the show for tonight.
[01:46:38.420 --> 01:46:40.620]  We are still talking with Olivier.
[01:46:40.620 --> 01:46:45.060]  All right, Olivier, let's wrap this up if we can.
[01:46:45.060 --> 01:46:46.060]  Okay.
[01:46:46.060 --> 01:46:47.060]  All right.
[01:46:47.060 --> 01:46:50.700]  Now you filed the suit.
[01:46:50.700 --> 01:46:53.020]  They denied summary judgment after the default.
[01:46:53.020 --> 01:47:00.580]  The default is based upon the eminent domain statute rather than the GTLA statute, which
[01:47:00.580 --> 01:47:07.380]  is accepted from when the eminent domain statute is in play.
[01:47:07.380 --> 01:47:14.580]  And the court still cited the conflicting statute as controlling on what grounds?
[01:47:14.580 --> 01:47:15.980]  On what grounds?
[01:47:15.980 --> 01:47:16.980]  Yeah.
[01:47:16.980 --> 01:47:22.940]  Why did they say the GTLA statute is controlling if the eminent domain statute obviously overrules
[01:47:22.940 --> 01:47:24.220]  it?
[01:47:24.220 --> 01:47:30.880]  On the ground that I did not state a proper claim in the inverse condemnation, which would
[01:47:30.880 --> 01:47:36.900]  have basically removed the GTLA immunity.
[01:47:36.900 --> 01:47:38.640]  Okay.
[01:47:38.640 --> 01:47:46.540]  So you didn't specifically state in the complaint that the GTLA timelines do not apply because?
[01:47:46.540 --> 01:47:47.540]  Yes.
[01:47:47.540 --> 01:47:52.140]  Then how are they making that statement logically?
[01:47:52.140 --> 01:48:00.660]  They're saying that, okay, inverse condemnation removes, basically it does remove you from
[01:48:00.660 --> 01:48:08.700]  the GTLA, but since Mr. Olivier did not state a proper claim for inverse condemnation because
[01:48:08.700 --> 01:48:17.420]  inverse condemnation is only for real property, the city is immune underneath the GTLA and
[01:48:17.420 --> 01:48:20.420]  the city had 60 days to answer.
[01:48:20.420 --> 01:48:26.660]  And your case law says that the claim does not apply only to real property, it also applies
[01:48:26.660 --> 01:48:28.740]  to personal property?
[01:48:28.740 --> 01:48:37.780]  The case law, the court rules, local court rules, and the Supreme Court, the decisions
[01:48:37.780 --> 01:48:47.620]  that I've found already, state that real property and personal property fall underneath Tennessee's
[01:48:47.620 --> 01:48:49.740]  eminent domain statutes.
[01:48:49.740 --> 01:48:52.060]  And inverse condemnation by default?
[01:48:52.060 --> 01:48:53.060]  Yes.
[01:48:53.060 --> 01:48:54.060]  Okay.
[01:48:54.060 --> 01:48:55.060]  Yes.
[01:48:55.060 --> 01:48:56.060]  All right.
[01:48:56.060 --> 01:49:00.880]  Then yeah, you can file a motion to reconsider in bank to be heard by everybody and use those
[01:49:00.880 --> 01:49:04.020]  cases as your bolstering support.
[01:49:04.020 --> 01:49:05.500]  Okay.
[01:49:05.500 --> 01:49:07.860]  Makes sense.
[01:49:07.860 --> 01:49:12.940]  So now basically I'm wrapping them all up together to say, if y'all don't overturn this,
[01:49:12.940 --> 01:49:17.820]  it's going to go to appeal court, but now everybody had a chance to look at it.
[01:49:17.820 --> 01:49:18.820]  Yeah.
[01:49:18.820 --> 01:49:19.820]  Okay.
[01:49:19.820 --> 01:49:20.820]  Thank you.
[01:49:20.820 --> 01:49:21.820]  Uh-huh.
[01:49:21.820 --> 01:49:22.820]  All right.
[01:49:22.820 --> 01:49:24.820]  Thanks for calling in, Olivier.
[01:49:24.820 --> 01:49:25.820]  All right.
[01:49:25.820 --> 01:49:26.820]  Good luck, man.
[01:49:26.820 --> 01:49:27.820]  All right.
[01:49:27.820 --> 01:49:28.820]  Now we have Rick in Texas.
[01:49:28.820 --> 01:49:29.820]  Rick, what can we do for you?
[01:49:29.820 --> 01:49:37.140]  Oh, I'm just going to put a little thing out there.
[01:49:37.140 --> 01:49:44.980]  What I'm looking at is the violations of the Hobbs Act and seeing if we can start getting
[01:49:44.980 --> 01:49:50.100]  people to focus on filing claims against judges that are acting corruptly.
[01:49:50.100 --> 01:49:51.100]  Okay.
[01:49:51.100 --> 01:49:52.100]  Okay.
[01:49:52.100 --> 01:49:58.580]  The Hobbs Act, I don't know if you're familiar with it or not.
[01:49:58.580 --> 01:50:03.660]  It's 18 U.S.C.... 371.
[01:50:03.660 --> 01:50:09.340]  I'm sorry, what'd you say?
[01:50:09.340 --> 01:50:10.340]  1951.
[01:50:10.340 --> 01:50:11.340]  1950?
[01:50:11.340 --> 01:50:14.340]  That's the year?
[01:50:14.340 --> 01:50:20.180]  No, it's 18 U.S.C. 1951.
[01:50:20.180 --> 01:50:21.180]  Okay.
[01:50:21.180 --> 01:50:33.900]  Basically, what it's being used for now is extortion by force and violence or by fear.
[01:50:33.900 --> 01:50:37.020]  And I just wanted to throw that out there because that's something I'm actually looking
[01:50:37.020 --> 01:50:41.580]  into right now on my wife's case.
[01:50:41.580 --> 01:50:46.560]  She's out of jail, but we were totally extorted for almost $40,000.
[01:50:46.560 --> 01:50:52.320]  So I'm looking at filing and violation of the Hobbs Act.
[01:50:52.320 --> 01:50:56.560]  And like I said, it's something that I would say that some of your callers and listeners
[01:50:56.560 --> 01:50:57.780]  might want to look into.
[01:50:57.780 --> 01:51:04.020]  Yeah, but you have a quandary here by going to the Hobbs Act in that regard.
[01:51:04.020 --> 01:51:08.940]  The Hobbs Act specifically applies to interference with commerce.
[01:51:08.940 --> 01:51:14.220]  Our whole argument in this is that we are not in commerce.
[01:51:14.220 --> 01:51:20.900]  How are you going to apply the Hobbs Act to an act that by definition must be applicable
[01:51:20.900 --> 01:51:30.100]  to commerce against an actor who is moving against someone that's not in commerce?
[01:51:30.100 --> 01:51:31.100]  Okay.
[01:51:31.100 --> 01:51:36.780]  Well, like I said, I'm just now looking into the Hobbs Act and there was another one... I
[01:51:36.780 --> 01:51:37.780]  can't recall.
[01:51:37.780 --> 01:51:39.100]  I don't have my notes in front of me.
[01:51:39.100 --> 01:51:40.660]  I just happened to come back from the store.
[01:51:40.660 --> 01:51:41.660]  I was listening to you.
[01:51:41.660 --> 01:51:42.660]  You'll love this.
[01:51:42.660 --> 01:51:47.420]  I'm listening to you on my cell phone as I'm stopping at the convenience store and right
[01:51:47.420 --> 01:51:53.100]  in front of me while you're sitting there going over the last gentleman's case was a
[01:51:53.100 --> 01:51:54.100]  constable.
[01:51:54.100 --> 01:51:59.820]  And he did take note of what I was listening to.
[01:51:59.820 --> 01:52:01.740]  But anyway, I thank you for your time.
[01:52:01.740 --> 01:52:04.980]  I'm going to look into it a little bit more, but I just figured I'd throw that out there
[01:52:04.980 --> 01:52:08.020]  because I did notice that it deals with extortion.
[01:52:08.020 --> 01:52:15.540]  Yeah, but when you read the title of Section 1951, it straight up says, interference with
[01:52:15.540 --> 01:52:18.500]  commerce by threats or violence.
[01:52:18.500 --> 01:52:22.080]  Well, extorting affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
[01:52:22.080 --> 01:52:23.620]  You're correct on that.
[01:52:23.620 --> 01:52:31.700]  Section 1951 also prescribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without referring
[01:52:31.700 --> 01:52:37.580]  to the conspiracy statute at 18371.
[01:52:37.580 --> 01:52:46.620]  Although the Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering and labor management
[01:52:46.620 --> 01:52:47.620]  disputes.
[01:52:47.620 --> 01:52:52.540]  Yeah, but you cannot take it out of the context of what the act applies to.
[01:52:52.540 --> 01:52:59.120]  So the robbery and everything else it's talking about is talking about an act upon a person
[01:52:59.120 --> 01:53:01.780]  engaging in commerce.
[01:53:01.780 --> 01:53:03.220]  Okay.
[01:53:03.220 --> 01:53:05.300]  It's it's I'm aware of it now.
[01:53:05.300 --> 01:53:08.500]  So okay, I like the word aware instead of understand.
[01:53:08.500 --> 01:53:09.900]  So throw that out there.
[01:53:09.900 --> 01:53:10.900]  Okay.
[01:53:10.900 --> 01:53:12.160]  Never understand.
[01:53:12.160 --> 01:53:13.160]  Always be aware.
[01:53:13.160 --> 01:53:14.160]  But thanks for your time.
[01:53:14.160 --> 01:53:15.160]  Have a good evening.
[01:53:15.160 --> 01:53:16.160]  Yes, sir.
[01:53:16.160 --> 01:53:17.160]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:53:17.160 --> 01:53:18.160]  All right.
[01:53:18.160 --> 01:53:21.980]  That gives us about five and a half minutes till the end of showtime here.
[01:53:21.980 --> 01:53:24.700]  The next caller in line is Truth Raider.
[01:53:24.700 --> 01:53:29.060]  Raider, what do you have?
[01:53:29.060 --> 01:53:33.580]  Hello?
[01:53:33.580 --> 01:53:35.660]  Truth Raider, are you there?
[01:53:35.660 --> 01:53:40.060]  Oh, you're Oh, okay, you're camping out.
[01:53:40.060 --> 01:53:41.060]  All right.
[01:53:41.060 --> 01:53:44.980]  Well, I hope you have Okay, well, I must assume at this point, he's having a conversation
[01:53:44.980 --> 01:53:47.180]  with someone other than me.
[01:53:47.180 --> 01:53:53.260]  Okay, now that being said, someone else just popped up on the board here.
[01:53:53.260 --> 01:53:54.260]  It says swika.
[01:53:54.260 --> 01:53:56.260]  Who am I talking to?
[01:53:56.260 --> 01:53:57.580]  Yes, sir.
[01:53:57.580 --> 01:53:59.020]  Stephen john.
[01:53:59.020 --> 01:54:00.020]  Okay.
[01:54:00.020 --> 01:54:01.020]  What can I do for you?
[01:54:01.020 --> 01:54:06.140]  I have a question on the actually two questions.
[01:54:06.140 --> 01:54:15.340]  One about the jurisdiction areas already kind of like study group or YouTube talk shoe group
[01:54:15.340 --> 01:54:17.460]  or blog for jurisdictionary?
[01:54:17.460 --> 01:54:19.580]  Yeah, I don't know.
[01:54:19.580 --> 01:54:24.860]  I don't sell jurisdictionary the network does and it's with Dr. Gray's it's not with me.
[01:54:24.860 --> 01:54:30.900]  Yeah, I mean, he used to have his radio show on this network where he discussed a lot of
[01:54:30.900 --> 01:54:32.140]  stuff that's in it.
[01:54:32.140 --> 01:54:37.260]  I know that there are some folks that do local study groups here in Austin on it.
[01:54:37.260 --> 01:54:42.680]  But I could not tell you whether or not there's any talk shoe or anything else.
[01:54:42.680 --> 01:54:44.700]  groups out there that do anything with it.
[01:54:44.700 --> 01:54:46.700]  I can't answer that.
[01:54:46.700 --> 01:55:01.500]  I like to ask about the the if you know anything if you could briefly discuss the the value
[01:55:01.500 --> 01:55:08.860]  of requesting to know where they everybody's name out there.
[01:55:08.860 --> 01:55:12.260]  First of all, on the birth certificate.
[01:55:12.260 --> 01:55:13.260]  That's not you.
[01:55:13.260 --> 01:55:14.260]  Okay.
[01:55:14.260 --> 01:55:15.260]  The birth is the name that
[01:55:15.260 --> 01:55:18.260]  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:55:18.260 --> 01:55:20.580]  What are you wanting me to talk about?
[01:55:20.580 --> 01:55:33.940]  I want to discuss the the IRS political subdivision status confirmation letter that every court
[01:55:33.940 --> 01:55:41.700]  allegedly must have to to when when demand it based upon what law
[01:55:41.700 --> 01:55:52.540]  based on the vessel, the the the prosecutor acting as an unqualified error.
[01:55:52.540 --> 01:56:00.500]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm gonna ask this question again, based on
[01:56:00.500 --> 01:56:04.100]  what law based on what statute?
[01:56:04.100 --> 01:56:06.620]  Well, that would be part of a law.
[01:56:06.620 --> 01:56:14.380]  Well, all the kinds of statutes and rules and regulations apply to someone who has their
[01:56:14.380 --> 01:56:16.900]  title as their ownership.
[01:56:16.900 --> 01:56:17.900]  Okay.
[01:56:17.900 --> 01:56:18.900]  Title.
[01:56:18.900 --> 01:56:19.900]  Okay.
[01:56:19.900 --> 01:56:21.900]  Look, Captain peanut.
[01:56:21.900 --> 01:56:24.700]  The patronet theories don't fly here.
[01:56:24.700 --> 01:56:27.240]  Never have never will.
[01:56:27.240 --> 01:56:31.980]  Most of the stuff you're attempting to make an argument while out of don't work.
[01:56:31.980 --> 01:56:32.980]  And for good reason.
[01:56:32.980 --> 01:56:33.980]  Captain peanut.
[01:56:33.980 --> 01:56:34.980]  I like that.
[01:56:34.980 --> 01:56:39.940]  Well, it goes hand in hand with the patronet image that I put out there, which is a peanut.
[01:56:39.940 --> 01:56:40.940]  Okay.
[01:56:40.940 --> 01:56:43.860]  That's that's that's not the name of my vessel.
[01:56:43.860 --> 01:56:44.860]  Okay.
[01:56:44.860 --> 01:56:50.500]  Well, whatever vessel you're on, throw the booze overboard, okay?
[01:56:50.500 --> 01:56:53.620]  Because it's not going to help you make better arguments.
[01:56:53.620 --> 01:56:59.780]  You either use the law to beat them black and blue, or they will beat you black and
[01:56:59.780 --> 01:57:00.780]  blue.
[01:57:00.780 --> 01:57:01.780]  Yeah, I'm looking for the alternative.
[01:57:01.780 --> 01:57:06.380]  I'm looking to stay out of their out of their disgusting rattle.
[01:57:06.380 --> 01:57:11.260]  Well, you know what, I'm looking not to fall into a pool of quicksand, but there's no guarantee
[01:57:11.260 --> 01:57:14.660]  it ain't ever gonna happen.
[01:57:14.660 --> 01:57:19.980]  So what you're looking to do and what you may wind up having to do, ain't always gonna
[01:57:19.980 --> 01:57:20.980]  be the same thing.
[01:57:20.980 --> 01:57:21.980]  Okay.
[01:57:21.980 --> 01:57:29.580]  So you're you're you're saying that when one request to to see their political subdivisions
[01:57:29.580 --> 01:57:37.080]  know what I asked you very, very beginning of this is on what law are you basing the
[01:57:37.080 --> 01:57:43.100]  claim that these are places are required to have such a letter?
[01:57:43.100 --> 01:57:46.940]  What law says what must be within such a letter?
[01:57:46.940 --> 01:57:50.100]  And what law says who must issue such a letter?
[01:57:50.100 --> 01:57:51.100]  That's a good question.
[01:57:51.100 --> 01:57:52.100]  I'll research that.
[01:57:52.100 --> 01:57:53.100]  All right.
[01:57:53.100 --> 01:57:54.100]  Work on that.
[01:57:54.100 --> 01:57:55.100]  And then we can talk.
[01:57:55.100 --> 01:57:56.100]  Thank you.
[01:57:56.100 --> 01:57:57.100]  All right.
[01:57:57.100 --> 01:57:58.100]  You have a good one.
[01:57:58.100 --> 01:57:59.100]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:57:59.100 --> 01:58:00.100]  All right, folks.
[01:58:00.100 --> 01:58:03.940]  It's been the Monday night rule of law radio show your host, Eddie Craig.
[01:58:03.940 --> 01:58:06.420]  I hope that it has been useful information.
[01:58:06.420 --> 01:58:13.180]  Please keep an eye on the legal blog towel of law dot wordpress.com t o o f l a w dot
[01:58:13.180 --> 01:58:15.520]  wordpress.com.
[01:58:15.520 --> 01:58:19.120]  Take a read at the articles I've got up there and pay attention to this new one when I get
[01:58:19.120 --> 01:58:25.980]  it posted, because it's got a lot of useful arguments and suppositions to be gone through.
[01:58:25.980 --> 01:58:26.980]  It's very enlightening.
[01:58:26.980 --> 01:58:27.980]  All right, folks.
[01:58:27.980 --> 01:58:30.260]  I want to thank you for listening and for calling in.
[01:58:30.260 --> 01:58:31.580]  Y'all have a great week.
[01:58:31.580 --> 01:58:50.620]  Good night and God bless.
[01:58:50.620 --> 01:58:56.140]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New
[01:58:56.140 --> 01:58:57.860]  Testament recovery version.
[01:58:57.860 --> 01:59:02.860]  The New Testament recovery version has over 9000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:59:02.860 --> 01:59:08.420]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.420 --> 01:59:11.820]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.820 --> 01:59:20.780]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.780 --> 01:59:26.320]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus
[01:59:26.320 --> 01:59:30.340]  charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.340 --> 01:59:32.880]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.880 --> 01:59:41.260]  To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.260 --> 01:59:48.140]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:48.140 --> 01:59:53.020]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:53.020 --> 01:59:54.020]  You found it.
[01:59:54.020 --> 01:59:56.660]  Visit us at logosradionetwork.com.