ROL_2018-08-13_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:29.520]  Markets for the 11th of April 2018, closed with gold $1,353.22 an ounce.
[00:29.520 --> 00:31.840]  Silver $16.68 an ounce.
[00:31.840 --> 00:34.920]  Texas Crude $65.51 a barrel.
[00:34.920 --> 00:38.200]  Bitcoin $6,902.19.
[00:38.200 --> 00:41.120]  Ethereum $420.80.
[00:41.120 --> 00:44.040]  Bitcoin Cash $652.90.
[00:44.040 --> 00:55.520]  And finally Litecoins $114.34 a crypto coin.
[00:55.520 --> 00:58.720]  Today in history, the year 1968.
[00:58.720 --> 01:02.760]  President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
[01:02.760 --> 01:05.120]  which prohibited private businesses from discriminating
[01:05.120 --> 01:08.720]  based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:08.720 --> 01:10.600]  It also prohibited unequal application
[01:10.600 --> 01:13.440]  of voter registration requirements, racial segregation
[01:13.440 --> 01:15.520]  in public schools, and employment,
[01:15.520 --> 01:18.360]  and public accommodations for places of business.
[01:18.360 --> 01:19.160]  Today in history.
[01:24.080 --> 01:26.200]  In recent news, tensions in Syria seem
[01:26.200 --> 01:28.320]  to reach new levels after a chemical attack
[01:28.320 --> 01:31.000]  on civilians in the city of Douma, which left 40 dead
[01:31.000 --> 01:32.040]  and many injured.
[01:32.040 --> 01:34.120]  An attack which is being blamed on the democratically
[01:34.120 --> 01:36.800]  elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
[01:36.800 --> 01:39.520]  by the United States and on Israel by Russia,
[01:39.520 --> 01:42.280]  either accusatory narrative without any verified evidence
[01:42.280 --> 01:43.360]  as of yet.
[01:43.360 --> 01:45.080]  President Trump tweeted today, Wednesday,
[01:45.080 --> 01:48.160]  that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles
[01:48.160 --> 01:50.240]  fired at Syria, get ready, Russia,
[01:50.240 --> 01:53.080]  because they will be coming in nice and new and smart.
[01:53.080 --> 01:55.400]  Going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners
[01:55.400 --> 01:57.760]  with a gas-killing animal who kills his people
[01:57.760 --> 01:58.760]  and enjoys it.
[01:58.760 --> 02:00.560]  Many in the West, including President Trump,
[02:00.560 --> 02:04.080]  have been quick to conclude that this chemical attack must
[02:04.080 --> 02:06.840]  have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[02:06.840 --> 02:08.360]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand,
[02:08.360 --> 02:10.520]  have given approval since yesterday
[02:10.520 --> 02:13.320]  for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons
[02:13.320 --> 02:15.960]  to investigate the side of the chemical slaughter.
[02:15.960 --> 02:18.480]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support
[02:18.480 --> 02:20.640]  during Syria's seven-year civil war,
[02:20.640 --> 02:23.120]  a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria
[02:23.120 --> 02:26.000]  and anti-Assad Syrian rebels that are openly
[02:26.000 --> 02:28.000]  being funded by Western governments,
[02:28.000 --> 02:30.560]  with ISIS being one of the more notorious splinter groups
[02:30.560 --> 02:32.880]  of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[02:32.880 --> 02:36.200]  Now, surprise then why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman
[02:36.200 --> 02:39.440]  Maria Zakova posted on Facebook that smart missiles should
[02:39.440 --> 02:42.760]  be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which
[02:42.760 --> 02:44.800]  has been fighting terrorists.
[02:44.800 --> 02:46.640]  Or is this a trick to destroy all traces
[02:46.640 --> 02:48.160]  with a smart missile strike?
[02:48.160 --> 02:50.800]  And then there will be no evidence for international inspectors
[02:50.800 --> 02:53.760]  to look at.
[02:53.760 --> 02:59.880]  This was Frick Roadie with your lowdown for April 11, 2018.
[02:59.880 --> 03:06.060]  This is what happens when you call the cops, stay what?
[03:06.060 --> 03:08.520]  This is what happens when you call the cops, come on!
[03:08.520 --> 03:10.520]  This is what happens when you call the cops.
[03:10.520 --> 03:13.880]  If you get your rights violated or you all get shot,
[03:13.880 --> 03:16.320]  this is what happens when you call them the cops.
[03:16.320 --> 03:18.360]  This is what happens when you call them the cops.
[03:18.360 --> 03:19.640]  This is what happens when you call them the cops
[03:19.640 --> 03:23.520]  if you get your rights violated or you all get shot.
[03:23.520 --> 03:26.320]  I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops
[03:26.320 --> 03:28.920]  Psychopathic predators, terrorize the neighborhood block
[03:28.920 --> 03:31.520]  Decreep with pepper spray, mate, cut cases and glocks
[03:31.520 --> 03:34.120]  They like serial killers, acting out subliminal thoughts
[03:34.120 --> 03:36.720]  Forget what you talk, these cops have got a license to kill
[03:36.720 --> 03:39.320]  Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will
[03:39.320 --> 03:41.920]  Code of silence means that the pigs will never let out a squeal
[03:41.920 --> 03:44.520]  And if they go to court, they know the judge will make them a deal
[03:44.520 --> 03:47.320]  For real, that's why they stopping me, locking me up and stopping me
[03:47.320 --> 03:49.920]  Confiscating my property, talking in my demography
[03:49.920 --> 03:52.520]  Making the poor commodity, profiting off of poverty
[03:52.520 --> 03:55.120]  In forc-a-pology-support, prison economy, yeah
[03:55.120 --> 03:58.320]  No one makes money when the violence stops
[03:58.320 --> 04:00.120]  Hatin' mentality's the way to make a criminal crime
[04:00.120 --> 04:02.320]  Blood in the gutters, how to risk whether they credit the to-
[04:02.320 --> 04:05.120]  Net-wide, this is what happens when you call the cops
[04:05.120 --> 04:09.520]  Come on, this is what happens when you call the cops
[04:09.520 --> 04:12.920]  This is what happens when you call the cops
[04:12.920 --> 04:15.720]  You get your rights violated or you won't get shot
[04:15.720 --> 04:18.520]  This is what happens when you call the cops
[04:18.520 --> 04:21.120]  This is what happens when you call the cops
[04:21.120 --> 04:25.400]  This is what happens when you call the cops, you get your rights violated or you all get
[04:25.400 --> 04:26.400]  sacked.
[04:26.400 --> 04:34.960]  Alright folks, good evening, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host
[04:34.960 --> 04:35.960]  Eddie Craig.
[04:35.960 --> 04:40.840]  It is August 13th, 2018, yes we are live tonight.
[04:40.840 --> 04:45.960]  I apologize for last Monday, I had a computer issue, I could not circumvent before showtime
[04:45.960 --> 04:48.400]  and there we were.
[04:48.400 --> 04:51.960]  But there is something I want to go over tonight before I turn on the caller bridge
[04:51.960 --> 04:55.600]  so you can start getting on so if you try to call in you are not going to get very far
[04:55.600 --> 04:58.080]  because the caller bridge is off at the moment.
[04:58.080 --> 05:01.040]  I will let you know when we are going to have it on here as soon as I am done with what
[05:01.040 --> 05:05.720]  I am about to go over here with you in some recent legislative changes to the Code of
[05:05.720 --> 05:09.760]  Criminal Procedure specifically in Chapter 45.
[05:09.760 --> 05:19.800]  Now prior to last session 2017, Article 45.014 dealt specifically with the warrant of arrest
[05:19.800 --> 05:25.320]  in these class C final only cases relating to what the municipal or justice court is
[05:25.320 --> 05:27.680]  allowed to do for the purpose of issuing a warrant.
[05:27.680 --> 05:32.920]  Well they made some important addendums to that in the last session that you need to
[05:32.920 --> 05:33.920]  be aware of.
[05:33.920 --> 05:39.440]  I want to go through the whole statute so that we can show you how the new addendums
[05:39.440 --> 05:43.680]  affect the existing parts of the statute that they didn't change.
[05:43.680 --> 05:46.960]  So let's get into that part of this real quick.
[05:46.960 --> 05:55.960]  Article 45.014 warrant of arrest subsection A. When a sworn complaint or affidavit based
[05:55.960 --> 06:04.800]  on probable cause has been filed for the purposes of this chapter a document is considered
[06:04.800 --> 06:12.160]  timely filed with the clerk of a court if, one, the document is deposited with the United
[06:12.160 --> 06:16.280]  States Postal Service at a first class postage prepaid envelope, oh I'm sorry it's got me
[06:16.280 --> 06:20.960]  reading the wrong one here, I'm sorry I got in the wrong place here.
[06:20.960 --> 06:24.800]  When a sworn complaint or affidavit based on probable cause has been filed before the
[06:24.800 --> 06:29.600]  justice or municipal court the justice or judge may issue a warrant for the arrest to
[06:29.600 --> 06:34.200]  be accused to deliver the same to the proper officer to be executed.
[06:34.200 --> 06:39.680]  Section B, the warrant is sufficient if, one, it is issued in the name of the state of Texas,
[06:39.680 --> 06:44.160]  two, it is directed to the proper peace officer or some other person specifically named in
[06:44.160 --> 06:48.560]  the warrant, three, it includes a command that the body of the accused be taken and brought
[06:48.560 --> 06:52.640]  before the authority issuing the warrant at the time and place stated in the warrant,
[06:52.640 --> 06:56.880]  four, it states the name of the person whose arrest is ordered if known or if not known
[06:56.880 --> 07:01.880]  it describes the person as in the complaint, five, it states that the person is accused
[07:01.880 --> 07:06.600]  of some offense against the laws of the state naming the offense and six, it is signed by
[07:06.600 --> 07:11.040]  the justice or judge naming the office or the justice or judge in the body of the warrant
[07:11.040 --> 07:14.400]  or in connection with the signature of the justice or judge.
[07:14.400 --> 07:19.600]  C, Chapter 15 applies to a warrant of arrest issued under this article except as inconsistent
[07:19.600 --> 07:21.680]  or in conflict with this chapter.
[07:21.680 --> 07:27.400]  Now everything they just did in A through C is already in the Chapter 15 section on
[07:27.400 --> 07:33.040]  issuance of warrants, why they felt it necessary to be redundant here, I don't know.
[07:33.040 --> 07:37.600]  They could have just said what they say in C, Chapter 15 applies to the issuance of warrants
[07:37.600 --> 07:42.800]  under this chapter and been done with it because it's essentially saying the same thing.
[07:42.800 --> 07:47.720]  Subsection D, in a county with a population of more than two million that does not have
[07:47.720 --> 07:52.720]  a county attorney, a justice or judge may not issue a warrant under this section for
[07:52.720 --> 07:58.040]  an offense under section 32.41 penal code unless the district attorney has approved
[07:58.040 --> 08:04.360]  the complaint or affidavit on which the warrant is based and just so you know, 32.41 penal
[08:04.360 --> 08:09.680]  code is issuance of bad check or similar site order, okay?
[08:09.680 --> 08:18.720]  Now the new additions as of 2017 are as follows and there are, once again, our Texas legislature
[08:18.720 --> 08:25.800]  has violated the Texas Constitution by enacting multiple legislative bills originating in
[08:25.800 --> 08:34.400]  both houses of the legislature for the same subject and enacting both of them without
[08:34.400 --> 08:41.480]  any declaration as to which one is to take effect over which one at what time, okay?
[08:41.480 --> 08:47.720]  So if I appear to be reading the same thing twice or slightly different language, that's
[08:47.720 --> 08:50.320]  going to be the reason for it.
[08:50.320 --> 08:58.040]  Here we have House Bill 351's changes to 45.014.
[08:58.040 --> 09:04.680]  Subsection E, a justice or judge may not issue an arrest warrant for the defendant's failure
[09:04.680 --> 09:11.280]  to appear at the initial court setting, including failure to appear as required by a citation
[09:11.280 --> 09:19.880]  issued under Article 14.06b unless, one, the justice or judge provides by telephone or
[09:19.880 --> 09:26.320]  regular mail to the defendant notice that includes a, a date and time when the defendant
[09:26.320 --> 09:32.080]  must appear before the justice or judge, b, the name and address of the court with jurisdiction
[09:32.080 --> 09:38.640]  in the case, c, information regarding alternatives to the full payment of any fine or cost owed
[09:38.640 --> 09:44.240]  by the defendant if the defendant is unable to pay that amount and d, an explanation of
[09:44.240 --> 09:48.360]  the consequences that the defendant fails to appear before the justice or judge is required
[09:48.360 --> 09:54.200]  by this article and subsection two, the defendant fails to appear before the justice or judge
[09:54.200 --> 09:56.400]  is required by this article.
[09:56.400 --> 10:01.400]  Now that's in relation to their phony baloney summons letter that's pretending to be a summons
[10:01.400 --> 10:04.600]  in violation of Chapter 23.
[10:04.600 --> 10:10.080]  The legislature here is attempting to give them an out from having previously failed
[10:10.080 --> 10:15.400]  to comply with the requirements of Chapter 23 with these form letters pretending to be
[10:15.400 --> 10:16.880]  valid summons.
[10:16.880 --> 10:20.000]  However, there's still going to be a problem here.
[10:20.000 --> 10:26.840]  The rules of statutory construction specifically state that where the law discusses the same
[10:26.840 --> 10:32.640]  subject in multiple locations, those laws have to be read together and they have to
[10:32.640 --> 10:36.800]  be reconciled to whatever extent possible.
[10:36.800 --> 10:43.480]  So what we're seeing here in this new section is describing what information the summons
[10:43.480 --> 10:51.920]  must have in it, but there is nothing here that talks about the form it must take, okay?
[10:51.920 --> 10:54.400]  That's a very important thing to remember.
[10:54.400 --> 11:02.040]  Chapter 23 is still the only section that talks about the form this letter or notice
[11:02.040 --> 11:04.800]  is required to take.
[11:04.800 --> 11:09.160]  It does not say anything about the form here in these new sections.
[11:09.160 --> 11:16.400]  Now this is the text that was added by Senate Bill 1913 in this last legislation dealing
[11:16.400 --> 11:23.000]  with the same section with the addendum of one additional section, Subsection F. So let
[11:23.000 --> 11:25.640]  me read this again.
[11:25.640 --> 11:32.640]  And E, a justice or judge may not issue an arrest warrant for the defendant's failure
[11:32.640 --> 11:38.280]  to appear at the initial court setting, including failure to appear is required by a citation
[11:38.280 --> 11:45.920]  issued under Article 14.06b unless, one, the justice or judge provides by telephone or
[11:45.920 --> 11:51.240]  regular mail to the defendant notice that includes A, a date and time occurring within
[11:51.240 --> 11:56.080]  the 30-day period following the date that notice is provided when the defendant must
[11:56.080 --> 12:01.600]  appear before the justice or judge, B, the name and address of the court with jurisdiction
[12:01.600 --> 12:08.080]  in the case, C, information regarding alternatives to the full payment of any fine or cost owed
[12:08.080 --> 12:13.800]  by the defendant if the defendant is unable to pay that amount, and D, an explanation
[12:13.800 --> 12:17.880]  of the consequences of the defendant fails to appear before the justice or judge is required
[12:17.880 --> 12:19.320]  by this article.
[12:19.320 --> 12:25.480]  Subsection F, a defendant who receives notice under Subsection E, may request an alternative
[12:25.480 --> 12:31.440]  date or time to appear before the justice or judge if the defendant is unable to appear
[12:31.440 --> 12:34.920]  on the date and time included in the notice.
[12:34.920 --> 12:44.080]  Now, House Bill 351 also added a Subsection G, as did the defendant's failure to appear
[12:44.080 --> 12:52.360]  in the Act 151, also added a Subsection G, as did Senate Bill 1913.
[12:52.360 --> 12:59.360]  So, starting with House Bill 351's version, Subsection G reads, A justice or judge shall
[12:59.360 --> 13:05.240]  recall an arrest warrant for the defendant's failure to appear if before the arrest warrant
[13:05.240 --> 13:12.000]  is executed, one, the defendant voluntarily appears to resolve the arrest warrant, and
[13:12.000 --> 13:17.000]  to the arrest warrant is resolved in any manner authorized by this code.
[13:17.000 --> 13:22.000]  Now the version in Senate Bill 1913, subsection G,
[13:22.000 --> 13:27.000]  a justice or judge shall recall an arrest warrant for the defendant's failure to appear
[13:27.000 --> 13:32.000]  if the defendant voluntarily appears and makes good faith effort to resolve the arrest warrant
[13:32.000 --> 13:35.000]  before the warrant is executed, okay?
[13:35.000 --> 13:40.000]  So that's the differences in those sections and the addendum of those new sections in their entirety.
[13:40.000 --> 13:47.000]  Now again, like I said, none of these sections deal with the form that this summons letter or notice
[13:47.000 --> 13:49.000]  is required to take.
[13:49.000 --> 13:54.000]  They only deal with the information that's required to be in it, okay?
[13:54.000 --> 14:01.000]  Now the difference there is what the law calls substance over form, okay?
[14:01.000 --> 14:06.000]  And that's exactly the same language that is used in the Code of Criminal Procedure
[14:06.000 --> 14:13.000]  in relation to challenging an indictment or information, moving to have them quashed, okay?
[14:13.000 --> 14:19.000]  And by doing that, also in Chapter 45 where it says in 45.018b
[14:19.000 --> 14:25.000]  that you are required to make a challenge to the form or substance of a complaint
[14:25.000 --> 14:32.000]  before no later than one day prior to any proceeding in that complaint
[14:32.000 --> 14:34.000]  or I'm sorry, trial and merits.
[14:34.000 --> 14:39.000]  So given that, the presumption of the rules of statutory construction
[14:39.000 --> 14:45.000]  require us to turn somewhere else to see what form this thing has to take
[14:45.000 --> 14:50.000]  since this is now telling us what the substance is that is required.
[14:50.000 --> 14:55.000]  Now this is not an exclusive list or it might be interpreted that way the way it says
[14:55.000 --> 15:00.000]  because here it says the notice is sufficient if it has this information.
[15:00.000 --> 15:05.000]  Well Chapter 23 has other requirements for a proper summons
[15:05.000 --> 15:09.000]  including that the information be in English and Spanish on certain places
[15:09.000 --> 15:12.000]  and certain statements, okay?
[15:12.000 --> 15:15.000]  And that does not appear here at all.
[15:15.000 --> 15:20.000]  So right off the bat we're seeing a change in the statute under Chapter 45
[15:20.000 --> 15:27.000]  that do not address multi-language requirements of a summons or a subpoena
[15:27.000 --> 15:30.000]  or a capious for that matter.
[15:30.000 --> 15:35.000]  And therein I think we're going to have an issue when we challenge the conflicts
[15:35.000 --> 15:43.000]  between these new changes and the requirements under Chapter 23 for a valid summons, okay?
[15:43.000 --> 15:50.000]  Because this notice isn't really giving you proper notice if it doesn't do things properly.
[15:50.000 --> 15:54.000]  Now this describes a lot of the same information that is under Chapter 23
[15:54.000 --> 15:58.000]  but again Chapter 23 says that the form of the summons
[15:58.000 --> 16:03.000]  must be the same as that of the capious warrant for their arrest.
[16:03.000 --> 16:09.000]  The only difference being that the language instead of being directed to some peace officer of the state
[16:09.000 --> 16:13.000]  is directed to the individual to bring themselves before the court
[16:13.000 --> 16:19.000]  at such and such date and such and such time at such and such place, okay?
[16:19.000 --> 16:25.000]  Now so here they're talking about a notice that basically gives some of that same information
[16:25.000 --> 16:28.000]  and what they can do if that's not complied with.
[16:28.000 --> 16:31.000]  But it doesn't mention the form.
[16:31.000 --> 16:37.000]  Now this does not address however some of the major issues we're having
[16:37.000 --> 16:43.000]  with what these courts are doing in direct violation of this newly existing set of provisions
[16:43.000 --> 16:46.000]  which I'll cover on the other side of this break.
[16:46.000 --> 16:49.000]  So folks y'all hang in there and we will be right back.
[16:49.000 --> 16:51.000]  This is Monday Night Rula Blah Radio with your host Eddie Craig.
[16:51.000 --> 17:17.000]  Y'all hang on, we shall return.
[17:21.000 --> 17:25.000]  And prize up for grabs is a Spikes Tactical AR 15.
[17:25.000 --> 17:28.000]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[17:28.000 --> 17:34.000]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[17:34.000 --> 17:38.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[17:38.000 --> 17:43.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:43.000 --> 17:47.000]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser
[17:47.000 --> 17:52.000]  so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on Talk Radio today.
[17:52.000 --> 17:55.000]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:55.000 --> 18:00.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[18:00.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 18:10.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meyers Proven Method.
[18:10.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Meyers has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons.
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports.
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Meyers Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Meyers banner,
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  or email MichaelMeyers at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:58.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:58.000 --> 19:25.000]  To learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:25.000 --> 19:29.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio.
[19:29.000 --> 19:37.000]  Now let's go into something else over this that is not addressed by these new addendums and why I see a problem.
[19:37.000 --> 19:59.000]  Okay, right here the very first section, subsection A of 45.014, specifically says, when a sworn complaint or affidavit based on probable cause has been filed before the justice or municipal court,
[19:59.000 --> 20:09.000]  the justice or judge may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused and deliver the same to the proper officer to be executed.
[20:09.000 --> 20:11.000]  So here's the problem.
[20:11.000 --> 20:22.000]  Number one, these people are not filing any sworn complaints or affidavits in the courts before they're issuing these warrants.
[20:22.000 --> 20:32.000]  None. They're issuing warrants for failure to appear without any valid proper sworn complaint at all.
[20:32.000 --> 20:34.000]  That's problem number one.
[20:34.000 --> 20:49.000]  Problem number two is where it says, based on probable cause, when, where, and how, and by whom was this probable cause determination made in relation to this warrant?
[20:49.000 --> 20:56.000]  What grounds? What facts? What evidence? Who is the presenter of these facts?
[20:56.000 --> 21:01.000]  Because here's the problem. It can't be the prosecuting attorney.
[21:01.000 --> 21:12.000]  The prosecuting attorney can't be the accuser in the complaint that's going to charge you with failure to appear or contempt of court and also preside over that case.
[21:12.000 --> 21:20.000]  So that eliminates the prosecuting attorney as being a possible plausible starting point for that probable cause statement.
[21:20.000 --> 21:27.000]  So is it the clerk of the court who works directly for the judge that would have to sign said warrant?
[21:27.000 --> 21:31.000]  Clerk, fill out a probable cause statement. That's an order.
[21:31.000 --> 21:43.000]  Now let me sign it so that we can arrest this guy based upon the two of us colluding together under my sole authority to have them arrested for failure to appear or contempt of court.
[21:43.000 --> 21:49.000]  Slight conflict of interest and agency problem with that route.
[21:49.000 --> 21:54.000]  So who then is going to present the statement of probable cause?
[21:54.000 --> 22:04.000]  And what exactly is it that they are basing the arrest on? Is it the original charges by the arresting officer at the time the citation was issued?
[22:04.000 --> 22:10.000]  Or is it something new concocted by the court because you wouldn't enter a plea when they wanted you to?
[22:10.000 --> 22:15.000]  Or you didn't show up for the citation which this now says you don't even have to do?
[22:15.000 --> 22:20.000]  So which one are they actually going to issue the warrant in place of?
[22:20.000 --> 22:35.000]  So we've eliminated the possibility of being able to do it reasonably for contempt of court or failure to appear because they're forbidden to do it for failure to appear unless they've sent this notice which they have never done because they've never even filed a complaint.
[22:35.000 --> 22:49.000]  And when they send this notice without that complaint, they're ignoring the rest of the statute that says the prerequisite superseding the new subsections E, F and G is subsection A which requires a sworn complainer F.
[22:49.000 --> 22:53.000]  They would already be on file and it never ever is.
[22:53.000 --> 22:55.000]  Okay?
[22:55.000 --> 23:09.000]  On the rare occasion when it is, I guarantee you they still did everything wrong. All you have to do is look and you will find somewhere somebody did something wrong that violates the right of due process.
[23:09.000 --> 23:13.000]  They're guilty of it 100% of the time.
[23:13.000 --> 23:18.000]  I have yet to find any case that is an exception.
[23:18.000 --> 23:21.000]  Any case.
[23:21.000 --> 23:26.000]  Now, where is this leading us to?
[23:26.000 --> 23:42.000]  Well, this is leading us to all kinds of constitutional challenges, okay, which I've got to make sure the new seminar material addresses because I guarantee you one of the things we're going to have to look at is these so-called notices that they're going to be sending out left and right sands of valid complaint.
[23:42.000 --> 23:44.000]  Okay?
[23:44.000 --> 23:52.000]  And therein is going to lie some major lawsuits because what's going to happen? I guarantee you this is going to happen.
[23:52.000 --> 24:12.000]  The court is going to claim that they can use the unsworn, unverified citation which is by not any stretch of the imagination a sworn complaint or affidavit because it's not sworn to under oath and it does not have any or all of the statutory requisites of a valid complaint.
[24:12.000 --> 24:19.000]  And they're going to try to say the citation is acting as a substitute for the complaint when they sent the notice.
[24:19.000 --> 24:29.000]  Bingo, yahoo, yatsi, uno, you're done, dude. You just screwed up because that is not how this works.
[24:29.000 --> 24:35.000]  The citation does not comply with laws of valid complaint. It most certainly does not comply as a valid affidavit.
[24:35.000 --> 24:41.000]  Hence, you cannot base the citation or this statute on that citation.
[24:41.000 --> 24:46.000]  Furthermore, the citation is not based on probable cause.
[24:46.000 --> 24:59.000]  It is based entirely on officer opinion and on officers' unqualified legal opinion and perception and conclusion.
[24:59.000 --> 25:05.000]  It is not at all something that establishes probable cause.
[25:05.000 --> 25:15.000]  Because when questioned on the stand, you can prove 100% of the time the officer never had probable cause. Never had it.
[25:15.000 --> 25:22.000]  It does not matter how many times he says I saw you speeding. That does not establish probable cause. Why?
[25:22.000 --> 25:27.000]  Because speeding can only occur under specific sets of conditions.
[25:27.000 --> 25:37.000]  One, the individual accused of speeding must have been engaged in transportation because the offense itself exists only under the transportation code,
[25:37.000 --> 25:42.000]  which is the sole single subject of which the entire code applies. Period.
[25:42.000 --> 25:57.000]  Problem number two. In Texas, speeding requires that you be operating a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to 201.904, the Texas Transportation Code.
[25:57.000 --> 26:04.000]  So if you are engaged in transportation, they still must show that you were in a commercial motor vehicle.
[26:04.000 --> 26:12.000]  And it must be one of those specifically identified by section 201.904, and they cannot expand it beyond that.
[26:12.000 --> 26:24.000]  Problem number three. Even if you're in a commercial motor vehicle, in Texas, speeding requires that a collision with another person or vehicle,
[26:24.000 --> 26:35.000]  either already lawfully upon or entering the highway, occurred. And that the basis for the collision was your failure to control your speed
[26:35.000 --> 26:39.000]  so as to be able to avoid said collision. Okay?
[26:39.000 --> 26:50.000]  So right off the bat, they've got numerous problems with how they're going to do this process that they have set up under 45.014.
[26:50.000 --> 26:57.000]  This is, believe me, it's going to be an absolute pain.
[26:57.000 --> 27:09.000]  But now you have an idea of what you need to be looking at and why to argue against it, all of which I'm going to be addressing when we get to that part of the new seminar.
[27:09.000 --> 27:21.000]  But I want you to understand that the changes they're making, although for the most part are good as far as the judge can't just simply issue a warrant for failure to appear anymore,
[27:21.000 --> 27:36.000]  the fact remains that due process rights are still being violated by the issuance of a warrant in the first place because they don't comply with subsection A ever, ever.
[27:36.000 --> 27:47.000]  The complaint is always done at the last minute and it is always done incorrectly, either by the clerk or by the cop.
[27:47.000 --> 27:55.000]  It doesn't matter. It's always incorrect. Why? Because it never alleges the primary subject matter element of transportation.
[27:55.000 --> 28:12.000]  Never, ever, ever 1,000% of the time. Without that subject, they are illegally and unconstitutionally converting the offense into its own standalone subject.
[28:12.000 --> 28:26.000]  That is now completely disassociated from the single subject requirement and the single subject matter that the legislature said the transportation code was meant to regulate and govern.
[28:26.000 --> 28:30.000]  That is unconstitutional on its face.
[28:30.000 --> 28:42.000]  So when you see some stupid attorney attempting to address this issue by asking the cop on the stand, when you pulled over the vehicle, did you notice whether or not it was running?
[28:42.000 --> 28:54.000]  Did you notice that the reason it was running was because it contained a motor? Did it have tires? Did it have a steering wheel? Was the defendant sitting behind the steering wheel?
[28:54.000 --> 29:02.000]  Well, judge, there you go. It's a motor vehicle. Wrong answer. Absolutely wrong answer.
[29:02.000 --> 29:13.000]  Not at all the way that motor vehicle is defined and not at all the subject matter for which a motor vehicle must be applied.
[29:13.000 --> 29:29.000]  A motor vehicle is a device that is self-propelled when used for the purpose of transportation by persons engaged in transportation, not by members of the general public for their private personal business and pleasure.
[29:29.000 --> 29:31.000]  Period.
[29:31.000 --> 29:43.000]  There is different as night and day, and these people will pull anything they can to obscure that fact and hide it. Okay?
[29:43.000 --> 29:55.000]  So this time around, we're coming up with a whole bunch of new game plans and a whole bunch of new plays, and if you'll follow the information, I guarantee you can have these people crying in their soup at home every night.
[29:55.000 --> 30:01.000]  Y'all hang on and we'll be right back with the phones turned on.
[30:01.000 --> 30:06.000]  I only have eyes for you.
[30:06.000 --> 30:13.000]  Soon, store mannequins may be singing that tune. They're being outfitted with cameras to watch us while we shop.
[30:13.000 --> 30:26.000]  We'll be right back with details after this.
[30:44.000 --> 30:53.000]  It's disturbing enough that big brother governments use facial recognition technology to identify and track people on the streets.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  Now clothing companies in Europe, Canada and America are getting in on the act.
[30:58.000 --> 31:07.000]  So where do they hide the cameras? In the eyes of mannequins. That's right, those glamorous plastic ladies in the display windows may be watching you back.
[31:07.000 --> 31:16.000]  They're called eye-seers and their job is to log the age, gender and race of passersby so retailers can devise new schemes to get you to buy.
[31:16.000 --> 31:23.000]  But hang on, aren't mannequins spooky enough already? This is taking weird science to a whole new level.
[31:23.000 --> 31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.000 --> 31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:37.000 --> 31:44.000]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:44.000 --> 31:47.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:47.000 --> 31:50.000]  And thousands of my fellow force respond, this is dying.
[31:50.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:51.000 --> 31:52.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:52.000 --> 31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[31:53.000 --> 31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:54.000 --> 31:56.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:56.000 --> 31:59.000]  We are Americans and we deserve the truth.
[31:59.000 --> 32:02.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:29.000 --> 32:36.000]  The program to help you understand the rules of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:42.000]  You can get your own copy of this valuable material by going to RuleLawRadiot.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:42.000 --> 32:47.000]  By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, the Law versus the Lie.
[32:47.000 --> 32:49.000]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar.
[32:49.000 --> 32:52.000]  Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[32:52.000 --> 32:56.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleLawRadiot.com.
[32:56.000 --> 33:01.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:26.000 --> 33:55.000]  All right folks, we are back.
[33:55.000 --> 33:59.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio Monday night show with your host Eddie Craig.
[33:59.000 --> 34:03.000]  Call in number is 512-646-1984.
[34:03.000 --> 34:06.000]  If you want to call and get in line, ask questions.
[34:06.000 --> 34:09.000]  Tell us about your progress in the case or whatever.
[34:09.000 --> 34:12.000]  Right now we have one caller up on the board.
[34:12.000 --> 34:14.000]  It appears to be Eric in California.
[34:14.000 --> 34:17.000]  Eric, what can we do for you?
[34:17.000 --> 34:19.000]  Good evening Eddie.
[34:19.000 --> 34:21.000]  Good evening.
[34:21.000 --> 34:30.000]  I recently got a possible citation because I was foolish and didn't read the parking sign to avoid it.
[34:30.000 --> 34:40.000]  I was wondering what's the best way to attack these because it seems to be another administrative bill of pains and penalties.
[34:40.000 --> 34:43.000]  Well I can almost guarantee you it is.
[34:43.000 --> 34:47.000]  Yeah.
[34:47.000 --> 34:53.000]  Can you even attack the vehicle code and who it applies to?
[34:53.000 --> 34:57.000]  If you have the means and knowledge to do so, why not?
[34:57.000 --> 34:59.000]  The question is do you?
[34:59.000 --> 35:05.000]  Can you prove what you're claiming in your argument?
[35:05.000 --> 35:09.000]  The California vehicle code, I'll give you a section.
[35:09.000 --> 35:11.000]  Maybe I have a quick look at this.
[35:11.000 --> 35:16.000]  Section 15-210, P for Paul, number 8.
[35:16.000 --> 35:22.000]  It says that federal definition superseded the California vehicle code.
[35:22.000 --> 35:23.000]  Okay.
[35:23.000 --> 35:30.000]  So what definitions are you going to argue that exist in the federal versus the state?
[35:30.000 --> 35:33.000]  So it would be motor vehicle.
[35:33.000 --> 35:37.000]  Okay.
[35:37.000 --> 35:41.000]  Which says it's commercial for federal.
[35:41.000 --> 35:52.000]  Yeah I know what it says but what, which federal definition are they going to say you have to use because there's more than one?
[35:52.000 --> 35:58.000]  See there's a definition under Title 18 and there's a definition under Title 49.
[35:58.000 --> 36:04.000]  Guaranteed they're going to tell you you have to use the one under Title 49 not the one under Title 18.
[36:04.000 --> 36:05.000]  You know why?
[36:05.000 --> 36:06.000]  Okay.
[36:06.000 --> 36:11.000]  Because it does not say commercial in Title 49.
[36:11.000 --> 36:18.000]  Well, it does because Title 49 is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act.
[36:18.000 --> 36:22.000]  Which is 100% commercial.
[36:22.000 --> 36:31.000]  But the thing about it is just like the argument on transportation versus the definition of motor vehicle here in Texas, that's how you've got to catch it at the federal level.
[36:31.000 --> 36:38.000]  Because the federal level does not specifically state in every part of Title 49 that a motor vehicle is being used for commerce.
[36:38.000 --> 36:48.000]  So again, there's multiple definitions of motor vehicle vehicle and all that kind of stuff throughout that set of acts.
[36:48.000 --> 36:49.000]  Okay.
[36:49.000 --> 36:54.000]  But it all goes up to one single solitary subject.
[36:54.000 --> 36:59.000]  Motor Carrier Safety.
[36:59.000 --> 37:11.000]  Hence motor carrier safety at the federal level is the same thing as transportation at the top level here in Texas.
[37:11.000 --> 37:13.000]  You follow?
[37:13.000 --> 37:14.000]  I am.
[37:14.000 --> 37:15.000]  Okay.
[37:15.000 --> 37:27.000]  So that's how you're going to need to arrange your argument and structure it in order to make that point if that's how you're going to pursue it.
[37:27.000 --> 37:36.000]  Now, the other question I've got is, are they writing these citations under city ordinances or under state law?
[37:36.000 --> 37:37.000]  Yes.
[37:37.000 --> 37:39.000]  So it's written under the city municipal code.
[37:39.000 --> 37:40.000]  Okay.
[37:40.000 --> 37:52.000]  Where does the city charter say that the city of has the authority to issue citations for parking on the streets?
[37:52.000 --> 37:53.000]  Wait a minute.
[37:53.000 --> 37:54.000]  Listen to what I asked you.
[37:54.000 --> 37:57.000]  I didn't ask you where the ordinance is that says it.
[37:57.000 --> 38:09.000]  I said, what does the city charter say it has the authority to do in relation to parking on city streets?
[38:09.000 --> 38:10.000]  No, I don't know.
[38:10.000 --> 38:18.000]  Well, you need to find out because whatever is not in a city charter is not within that city's power to do.
[38:18.000 --> 38:19.000]  Period.
[38:19.000 --> 38:22.000]  There is federal case law on that.
[38:22.000 --> 38:25.000]  If it's not in a charter, you can't do it.
[38:25.000 --> 38:31.000]  And a blanket statement of authority that encompasses multiple things is not sufficient.
[38:31.000 --> 38:42.000]  So if it has some clause that says, and any other powers generally acknowledged to be required for the governance of a political subdivision of the state of California,
[38:42.000 --> 38:55.000]  that's a general declaration of authority and it is completely legally insufficient to establish the authority to do something specific.
[38:55.000 --> 39:03.000]  That blanket statement can then be applied only in relation to the things that are specifically stated.
[39:03.000 --> 39:05.000]  It can't go beyond that.
[39:05.000 --> 39:17.000]  It would only apply to any of the necessary and ancillary accouterments and processes and needs of the things that are specifically stated in order to accomplish them.
[39:17.000 --> 39:30.000]  But it cannot be used to grant powers and authority that are not specifically stated.
[39:30.000 --> 39:36.000]  The next thing I have here is I've been dealing with a couple of these toll road violations.
[39:36.000 --> 39:47.000]  I talked to one of their legal counsel attorneys the other day and told him what I've been working on with Bill of Ains and penalties.
[39:47.000 --> 39:53.000]  And the attorney did the typical thing where he says, I can't give you legal advice and I can't help you.
[39:53.000 --> 39:58.000]  And I'm like, you have a bar card and this is how you're acting.
[39:58.000 --> 40:06.000]  What do you do when they keep threatening you they're going to send this to the DMV of the state and then you can't register your car again if you have to?
[40:06.000 --> 40:07.000]  You wait and do that.
[40:07.000 --> 40:09.000]  Now you have suffered a harm.
[40:09.000 --> 40:18.000]  When they do what they do, you have suffered a harm for which you are entitled to a remedy, whether it be injunctive relief or monetary relief or both.
[40:18.000 --> 40:19.000]  Okay.
[40:19.000 --> 40:30.000]  When they do it, sue somebody and not sue the state, you sue the individual agent and their agency as respondent superior.
[40:30.000 --> 40:41.000]  And any supervisors that should have trained them better, you name them all individually and their personal and official capacities as blah, blah, blah.
[40:41.000 --> 40:45.000]  Okay, so I can sue the supervisors at the customer service level.
[40:45.000 --> 40:58.000]  That are over the agent that did what they did if they're the one responsible because if that agent sends notice to suspend your license or refuse the renewal of your registration.
[40:58.000 --> 41:10.000]  And you got to remember something here as long as you keep registering the car as a motor vehicle, you're not going to be able to make the federal definition fly in your favor.
[41:10.000 --> 41:11.000]  Okay.
[41:11.000 --> 41:12.000]  You need to understand that.
[41:12.000 --> 41:21.000]  You can't commit suicide with two shots in the head.
[41:21.000 --> 41:22.000]  Yeah, I know.
[41:22.000 --> 41:25.000]  Not unless you really, really suck at shooting to begin with.
[41:25.000 --> 41:34.000]  It's like the guy that committed suicide by stabbing himself in the back between the shoulder blades 18 times.
[41:34.000 --> 41:47.000]  Okay, so making the argument you want to make while registering your car with the state as a motor vehicle is kind of just that.
[41:47.000 --> 41:48.000]  No, I get you.
[41:48.000 --> 41:57.000]  I just want to know for one of the cars that we have, if we had to register it again, to how do we, I guess, fight this battle?
[41:57.000 --> 42:03.000]  Well, again, it's one way or no way.
[42:03.000 --> 42:08.000]  Because you cannot straddle the fence and have a leg on either side of the corral in this case.
[42:08.000 --> 42:10.000]  You just can't do it.
[42:10.000 --> 42:13.000]  Yeah.
[42:13.000 --> 42:19.000]  Not every family member in my house wants to take on this battle.
[42:19.000 --> 42:21.000]  Well, that I'm sure.
[42:21.000 --> 42:22.000]  Yeah.
[42:22.000 --> 42:31.000]  The issue still comes down to whether or not you're using it as a motor vehicle, but trying to say that it's not registered as one for that purpose.
[42:31.000 --> 42:43.000]  That's going to be an appeal fight when they can pull up the registration and take a copy of it to court and say, here it is.
[42:43.000 --> 42:48.000]  Yeah, I agree with you.
[42:48.000 --> 43:00.000]  Okay, so you're going to need not only a motor vehicle, you're going to need driver, you're going to need operator, you're going to need motor carrier, all out of the federal law.
[43:00.000 --> 43:07.000]  And then would I be suing the agent that works for the DMV or do I sue the agent?
[43:07.000 --> 43:14.000]  No, the agent with the DMV will have plausible liability because they were relying upon information from the other agency.
[43:14.000 --> 43:20.000]  So you can't fault them from relying on what they believe to be correct information.
[43:20.000 --> 43:26.000]  It's like trying to sue a cop who arrests you on a warrant issued illegally by a judge.
[43:26.000 --> 43:35.000]  And I'll hold a cop libel because he holds in his hand a warrant that he has to presume is valid without contravening evidence.
[43:35.000 --> 43:36.000]  Okay?
[43:36.000 --> 43:37.000]  Okay.
[43:37.000 --> 43:44.000]  So you can't sue him for doing what the warrant requires him to do.
[43:44.000 --> 43:47.000]  So there you analyze the problem with going that route.
[43:47.000 --> 43:49.000]  You got anything else?
[43:49.000 --> 43:51.000]  No, that's just the...
[43:51.000 --> 43:52.000]  Okay, thanks for calling, man.
[43:52.000 --> 43:54.000]  I'll get somebody else to come back from this break.
[43:54.000 --> 43:55.000]  Have a good night.
[43:55.000 --> 43:56.000]  All right, thanks.
[44:25.000 --> 44:28.000]  And now you can too.
[44:55.000 --> 45:01.000]  And click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:25.000 --> 45:32.000]  And now you can do other wonderful products including our Australian Emu Oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[45:32.000 --> 45:39.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[45:39.000 --> 45:45.000]  That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com.
[45:45.000 --> 45:49.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products.
[45:49.000 --> 45:56.000]  That's naturespureorganics.com.
[46:19.000 --> 46:28.000]  All right, folks.
[46:28.000 --> 46:29.000]  We are back.
[46:29.000 --> 46:32.000]  This is the Monday night rule of law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[46:32.000 --> 46:35.000]  I want to thank y'all all for tuning in and listening here.
[46:35.000 --> 46:40.000]  And hopefully I can keep the shows interesting for you.
[46:40.000 --> 46:41.000]  We have another caller.
[46:41.000 --> 46:42.000]  Oh, yes.
[46:42.000 --> 46:45.000]  Call him number 512-646-1984.
[46:45.000 --> 46:48.000]  And don't forget about the fundraiser for the network.
[46:48.000 --> 46:49.000]  It is ongoing.
[46:49.000 --> 46:58.000]  And please keep us in your ability to donate and participate in the fundraiser.
[46:58.000 --> 46:59.000]  We really, really need the funds.
[46:59.000 --> 47:02.000]  We really, really need to keep this network going.
[47:02.000 --> 47:05.000]  Because what we do here, we do for all of you.
[47:05.000 --> 47:06.000]  Okay?
[47:06.000 --> 47:08.000]  There's no paycheck in this for us.
[47:08.000 --> 47:15.000]  What we get out of this is knowing that we're doing something good for the masses and that it's useful information.
[47:15.000 --> 47:19.000]  And it's accurate and correct information.
[47:19.000 --> 47:27.000]  That's very important to us, unlike it is to a lot of folks that are out there giving out this information and pretending to know what they're talking about.
[47:27.000 --> 47:42.000]  On this show, and the one with Randy and Deborah, you can find what we're talking about written in the black and white letter of the statutory law and the original acts of the legislature.
[47:42.000 --> 47:46.000]  We don't pull it out of our behinds and expect you to believe it.
[47:46.000 --> 47:54.000]  We don't base it upon inference by inference by inference compounded by layers and layers of such inferences.
[47:54.000 --> 47:57.000]  We start with one specific fact.
[47:57.000 --> 48:10.000]  We go to one specific probable inference level if we must, but we always try to connect the dots with more facts and information than we do with theory.
[48:10.000 --> 48:16.000]  And that's a very important aspect of what it takes to win these fights in these courts.
[48:16.000 --> 48:24.000]  So keep that in mind when you're making donations to folks that you feel are worthy of your support when they're teaching you something.
[48:24.000 --> 48:29.000]  Make sure that the fruit they're teaching you to produce is good eating.
[48:29.000 --> 48:36.000]  If it's not, then your money's better spent elsewhere and most definitely well spent on keeping this network alive and on the air.
[48:36.000 --> 48:46.000]  So keep us wherever you can in your financial planning and make the donations and participate in the fundraiser and get a really great prize out of it.
[48:46.000 --> 49:03.000]  Every year for the last few years, since I've been doing this, we've had at least one kind of gun, if not more than one kind of gun, or multiple hard to get or nice to have gun parts, like a law receiver or something like that.
[49:03.000 --> 49:08.000]  So please, we do an awful lot for you guys.
[49:08.000 --> 49:09.000]  Help us out.
[49:09.000 --> 49:10.000]  We can really use it.
[49:10.000 --> 49:11.000]  All right.
[49:11.000 --> 49:14.000]  That being said, let's get to our next caller, Sean in Nebraska.
[49:14.000 --> 49:16.000]  Sean, what can we do for you?
[49:16.000 --> 49:18.000]  Hi, Eddie.
[49:18.000 --> 49:19.000]  Good to talk to you.
[49:19.000 --> 49:21.000]  Long time seeing.
[49:21.000 --> 49:24.000]  Appreciate all the work you guys do.
[49:24.000 --> 49:26.000]  I know it's a lot of reading.
[49:26.000 --> 49:28.000]  I've done it myself.
[49:28.000 --> 49:34.000]  I'm trying to reverse engineer both the Iowa Code and the Nebraska Code.
[49:34.000 --> 49:37.000]  I had a small win, you might call it.
[49:37.000 --> 49:44.000]  I filed a complaint against the judge in the state of Iowa last year on a traffic ticket driving while barred.
[49:44.000 --> 49:47.000]  I messed up in the beginning.
[49:47.000 --> 49:57.000]  I think I kind of salvaged it because by the end I did have to sign a plea deal or whatever, but they dismissed all the fines and attorney fees.
[49:57.000 --> 50:01.000]  And basically said, get out of here.
[50:01.000 --> 50:05.000]  You know, I wouldn't call it a full-on win.
[50:05.000 --> 50:08.000]  But my main question tonight is...
[50:08.000 --> 50:16.000]  Any win where they dismissed the case and take no money from your pocket is a bona fide win, no matter what they want to tell you.
[50:16.000 --> 50:17.000]  All right.
[50:17.000 --> 50:23.000]  Well, yeah, technically not dismissed, but they more or less told me.
[50:23.000 --> 50:27.000]  I'd say it's a win with the not paying anything.
[50:27.000 --> 50:35.000]  Anyway, my main question is regarding due process and the many different aspects of it.
[50:35.000 --> 50:38.000]  If there isn't like a list, you can just go down.
[50:38.000 --> 50:46.000]  I mean, there's some general ones, you know, that we all kind of know, but I was recently involved in a non-traffic-related case.
[50:46.000 --> 50:51.000]  And I don't really want to go into it because I know you're trying to keep, you know, on topic usually.
[50:51.000 --> 51:03.000]  So my question is, how do I go about determining due process violations that I might not know about?
[51:03.000 --> 51:12.000]  Well, if you don't know about them, then you don't actually understand your rights and you don't understand the totality of what due process is.
[51:12.000 --> 51:18.000]  Because if you did, it would be blatantly obvious when they're doing it wrong.
[51:18.000 --> 51:21.000]  Well, I'll give you an example.
[51:21.000 --> 51:22.000]  No, go ahead.
[51:22.000 --> 51:23.000]  I'll give you an example.
[51:23.000 --> 51:25.000]  They want me to fill out a pre-sentence investigation.
[51:25.000 --> 51:27.000]  Now that's court ordered.
[51:27.000 --> 51:37.000]  I told my attorney, I said, wouldn't that be a due process, you know, Fifth Amendment right if I'm, and now basically I was accused of a crime I didn't commit.
[51:37.000 --> 51:42.000]  What information is this so-called investigation asking you to provide?
[51:42.000 --> 51:52.000]  It asks to provide my side of the story, which I'm only allowed to provide either at trial at great risk or during this pre-sentence investigation.
[51:52.000 --> 51:56.000]  So it's basically a summary of events of what happened.
[51:56.000 --> 51:57.000]  Okay.
[51:57.000 --> 52:06.000]  And so that's essentially testifying against myself, even though in this case no crime was committed, but it's still forcing me to do something that I would not-
[52:06.000 --> 52:08.000]  Well, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[52:08.000 --> 52:10.000]  What is the basis of the court action?
[52:10.000 --> 52:14.000]  What is the nature? Is it civil or is it criminal?
[52:14.000 --> 52:15.000]  Criminal.
[52:15.000 --> 52:19.000]  Then how can there be no crime committed if it's criminal?
[52:19.000 --> 52:22.000]  Essentially, I signed a plea agreement.
[52:22.000 --> 52:23.000]  They said we don't want-
[52:23.000 --> 52:24.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait.
[52:24.000 --> 52:25.000]  We're not allowed to tell-
[52:25.000 --> 52:30.000]  Why would you sign a plea agreement if you didn't do anything wrong?
[52:30.000 --> 52:33.000]  Because they locked me up for nine months.
[52:33.000 --> 52:43.000]  And at the end of it, an expert witness we're supposed to have had to push his date back and they said, hey, you know, you can walk away today.
[52:43.000 --> 52:46.000]  We're going to lower your bond 90 percent.
[52:46.000 --> 52:48.000]  And yesterday you were a danger.
[52:48.000 --> 52:50.000]  Today you're free, you know.
[52:50.000 --> 52:54.000]  Did you by chance hear my conversation with the previous caller?
[52:54.000 --> 52:55.000]  I didn't.
[52:55.000 --> 52:56.000]  I had a-
[52:56.000 --> 52:58.000]  I missed some of it.
[52:58.000 --> 53:08.000]  Okay, well, I described a scenario on those people that commit suicide by stabbing themselves in the back between the shoulder blades with a knife 18 times.
[53:08.000 --> 53:09.000]  Yeah.
[53:09.000 --> 53:10.000]  Okay?
[53:10.000 --> 53:14.000]  Plea agreements are exactly that as well.
[53:14.000 --> 53:15.000]  Right.
[53:15.000 --> 53:17.000]  See, here's the problem.
[53:17.000 --> 53:21.000]  You allow them to coerce you into a means of release.
[53:21.000 --> 53:26.000]  Why didn't you or someone on your behalf follow habeas?
[53:26.000 --> 53:28.000]  I told you without charges.
[53:28.000 --> 53:30.000]  Were there charges filed?
[53:30.000 --> 53:31.000]  Yeah.
[53:31.000 --> 53:35.000]  Was there- was there someone that could post bond?
[53:35.000 --> 53:37.000]  Not the amount they said or that.
[53:37.000 --> 53:39.000]  How about a bondsman?
[53:39.000 --> 53:43.000]  Did anybody go to a bonding agent and ask to get a bond?
[53:43.000 --> 53:51.000]  Nebraska is one of- I don't even- at least one state that has- does not allow bondsmen.
[53:51.000 --> 53:52.000]  Okay.
[53:52.000 --> 53:56.000]  I don't know why, but yeah, there's no bondsmen allowed to operate.
[53:56.000 --> 53:59.000]  What did they set your bond at?
[53:59.000 --> 54:01.000]  $100,000.
[54:01.000 --> 54:04.000]  For what charge?
[54:04.000 --> 54:06.000]  An assault crime.
[54:06.000 --> 54:12.000]  Someone dead or seriously injured to a disability?
[54:12.000 --> 54:17.000]  There was no willful attempt or threat by its definition at all.
[54:17.000 --> 54:21.000]  Was there serious bodily injury?
[54:21.000 --> 54:23.000]  Nope.
[54:23.000 --> 54:26.000]  Then that's an excessive- that's an excessive bail.
[54:26.000 --> 54:29.000]  That's absolutely a due process violation.
[54:29.000 --> 54:30.000]  Right.
[54:30.000 --> 54:33.000]  And, uh, well, there's some- there's a lawsuit.
[54:33.000 --> 54:35.000]  ACLU is going on in this county.
[54:35.000 --> 54:38.000]  I'm in for that very reason.
[54:38.000 --> 54:42.000]  Uh, my bond in next county over, I was told, would be about $25,000,
[54:42.000 --> 54:44.000]  which I could have made.
[54:44.000 --> 54:49.000]  Um, and in fact, in next county over, I was told wouldn't even have
[54:49.000 --> 54:54.000]  charged charges considering the, you know, totality of-
[54:54.000 --> 54:55.000]  Okay.
[54:55.000 --> 54:59.000]  Here's what you need- here's what you need to do to help out the ACLU.
[54:59.000 --> 55:00.000]  Okay?
[55:00.000 --> 55:01.000]  Okay.
[55:01.000 --> 55:10.000]  File a federal FOIA request asking for all records relating to, uh,
[55:10.000 --> 55:21.000]  jails and prison funding that was paid to whatever jail you were locked up in for that period of time for you specifically.
[55:21.000 --> 55:29.000]  And not by name, but, uh, in relation to the period of time, I want to see how much federal funding was given to this jail
[55:29.000 --> 55:35.000]  and how that funding was paid according to headcount for this timeframe.
[55:35.000 --> 55:39.000]  And that'll be the day you were put in there until the day you were released.
[55:39.000 --> 55:40.000]  Okay?
[55:40.000 --> 55:47.000]  And make sure that you ask for a per, uh, inmate headcount breakdown of that money.
[55:47.000 --> 55:48.000]  All right.
[55:48.000 --> 55:53.000]  Now, if this may run into something where you're actually going to have to pay them for this report,
[55:53.000 --> 55:59.000]  it shouldn't be hugely expensive, but it could run into a couple hundred bucks if it's big enough.
[55:59.000 --> 56:00.000]  Sure.
[56:00.000 --> 56:03.000]  And we won't know until we find out how much money and how many inmates we're talking about.
[56:03.000 --> 56:04.000]  Right.
[56:04.000 --> 56:18.000]  But if you can show that the money was a very viable reason for that court and that county to collect money from the feds by keeping you in that jail,
[56:18.000 --> 56:24.000]  then the ACLU has one more bullet in their gun against this judge and the practices in the state.
[56:24.000 --> 56:26.000]  Right.
[56:26.000 --> 56:27.000]  Okay.
[56:27.000 --> 56:29.000]  Yeah, that's a good point.
[56:29.000 --> 56:32.000]  And it may help you in a lawsuit in the long run.
[56:32.000 --> 56:33.000]  Okay.
[56:33.000 --> 56:39.000]  So, um, now as far as like the other due process violations and appeals go,
[56:39.000 --> 56:45.000]  I thought if I took the deal that, you know, I'm looking at angles that even my attorney hasn't really considered.
[56:45.000 --> 56:49.000]  Once you take the deal, there aren't any other angles.
[56:49.000 --> 56:54.000]  The only angle you can operate from at this point is that the deal was coerced.
[56:54.000 --> 57:02.000]  You were forced to accept the plea agreement based solely upon the fact that it's the only way they would allow you out of jail.
[57:02.000 --> 57:03.000]  Right.
[57:03.000 --> 57:04.000]  Okay.
[57:04.000 --> 57:08.000]  They wouldn't allow you to make, or you were unable to make bond.
[57:08.000 --> 57:15.000]  They have not actually, did anybody ever actually file the criminal charges or did they just say you were being charged?
[57:15.000 --> 57:17.000]  Uh...
[57:17.000 --> 57:20.000]  Was there a grand jury indictment?
[57:20.000 --> 57:23.000]  Is this a misdemeanor or felony in the state you're in?
[57:23.000 --> 57:24.000]  Felony.
[57:24.000 --> 57:28.000]  How can it be non-bodily injury and be a felony?
[57:28.000 --> 57:31.000]  I don't know.
[57:31.000 --> 57:34.000]  Was there a deadly weapon involved?
[57:34.000 --> 57:35.000]  Nope.
[57:35.000 --> 57:36.000]  No weapons?
[57:36.000 --> 57:37.000]  Nothing.
[57:37.000 --> 57:38.000]  It's a...
[57:38.000 --> 57:39.000]  I'll put it all just to be brief.
[57:39.000 --> 57:40.000]  He said, she said.
[57:40.000 --> 57:41.000]  Okay.
[57:41.000 --> 57:42.000]  Okay.
[57:42.000 --> 57:51.000]  Friend of mine, I let her stay at my house and things happened and later on she says, oh, I don't remember anything.
[57:51.000 --> 57:53.000]  And that was that.
[57:53.000 --> 57:57.000]  I mean, that's a long and short of it.
[57:57.000 --> 58:02.000]  Okay, well, that's not a long and short of it because somewhere in there, something had to come to blows.
[58:02.000 --> 58:05.000]  Otherwise, there could not be an assault.
[58:05.000 --> 58:07.000]  It's sexual assault.
[58:07.000 --> 58:08.000]  Okay.
[58:08.000 --> 58:10.000]  They're calling it.
[58:10.000 --> 58:13.000]  So, they say she was intoxicated.
[58:13.000 --> 58:17.000]  Well, both of us were intoxicated.
[58:17.000 --> 58:25.000]  Just because she claims that she doesn't remember anything, even though I have witnesses, first witness, best evidence,
[58:25.000 --> 58:30.000]  stating that she was up and moving around the house and everything else.
[58:30.000 --> 58:33.000]  I don't know why the charges were filed.
[58:33.000 --> 58:36.000]  It took them five months to even do anything.
[58:36.000 --> 58:37.000]  Okay.
[58:37.000 --> 58:38.000]  Well, hang on just a second.
[58:38.000 --> 58:41.000]  Let me get this break done and we'll address this when we get back, okay?
[58:41.000 --> 58:42.000]  Folks, y'all hang on.
[58:42.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:58.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:58.000 --> 59:06.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.000 --> 59:09.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:09.000 --> 59:18.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:18.000 --> 59:28.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:28.000 --> 59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:33.000 --> 59:44.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:44.000 --> 59:48.000]  by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.000 --> 59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:51.000 --> 59:54.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[59:54.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  The following newsflash is brought to you by The Low Star Lowdown, providing you daily bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:49.000]  Markets for the 11th of April 2018 close with gold $1,353.22 an ounce, silver $16.68 an ounce, Texas crew $65.51 a barrel, bitcoins at $6,902.19, ethereum's at $420.80, bitcoin cash is at $652.90, and finally light coins at $114.34, a crypto coin.
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  Today in history, the year 1968, President Lyndon M. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited private businesses from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  It also prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in public schools, and employment, and public accommodations for places of business.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  Today in history.
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  In recent news, tensions in Syria seem to reach new levels after a chemical attack on civilians in the city of Douma, which left 40 dead and many injured.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  An attack which is being blamed on the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, by the United States and on Israel by Russia, either accusatory narrative without any verified evidence as of yet.
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  President Trump tweeted today Wednesday that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria, get ready, Russia, because they will be coming in nice and new and smart.
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  Going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  Many in the West, including President Trump, have been quick to conclude that this chemical attack must have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand, have given approval since yesterday for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to investigate the side of the chemical slaughter.
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support during Syria's seven-year civil war, a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria and anti-Assad Syrian rebels that are openly being funded by Western governments,
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  with ISIS being one of the more notorious splinter groups of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  It's no surprise then why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakoba posted on Facebook that smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which has been fighting terrorists.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Or is this a trick to destroy all traces with a smart missile strike, and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look at?
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:03.000]  Here's a quick roadie with your lowdown for April 11, 2018.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the call-in number 512-646-1984.
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  Sean is my only caller on the board, so if you've got something you want to talk about, now's the time to call in and get in line.
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  Alright Sean, let's continue on with where we were.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  Okay, we were talking about bail. In the state of Nebraska, they have an exception in the Constitution for, I would say excessive bail, and I can't remember which article it is, I'll stop my head.
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  They have an exception for charges of this nature, which now I'm looking at it.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:17.000]  And from my point of view, I believe that since the Federal Constitution does not make any such exceptions, that would be an issue as well.
[01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  Nope.
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:19.000]  No?
[01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  No.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  Okay.
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:28.000]  The Federal Constitution, in a direct sense, does not apply to you within the states.
[01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  Alright.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  The courts are the ones that created that construct using the 14th Amendment, but that's not the way, but then they'll turn right around and tell you that if you try to sue to enforce the Federal Constitution, it doesn't apply to you, it's not meant for you, it has nothing to do with you.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:47.000]  Well, it can't work both ways.
[01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  Right.
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:59.000]  Okay, there's some failure in the ultimate end of logic here that you're trying to get to when you make an argument that contradicts the other one in that fashion.
[01:04:59.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  Right.
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  Okay.
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  But in any case, no, the fact that the Federal Constitution does not address it, does not alleviate what the state constitution can. The state constitution can grant more protections, but it cannot grant less.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:19.000]  Okay.
[01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:25.000]  In this case, the more protections is going to the victim, not the perpetrator.
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  Right.
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:42.000]  And nothing in that constitutional provision violates anything in the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution in the first place, unless there is a specific requirement for what excessive bail means.
[01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  Yeah, and that's vague from what I...
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  Exactly.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  I think...
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  Therein lies your problem with making that argument.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:49.000]  Right.
[01:05:49.000 --> 01:06:10.000]  Define federal case law governing your district or at the United States Supreme Court level that specifically addresses the issue of excessive bail for specific crimes relative to the kind you're charged with in order to make it have any power to back these people off of you.
[01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:12.000]  Right.
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  That makes sense.
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  So, back to the, if I can, the court-ordered pre-sentence investigation issue, that's basically...
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  Like I said, I felt like a violation of my Fifth Amendment rights.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:33.000]  Do you think that would be accurate?
[01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  That depends.
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  If they force you to do it, see, the thing is, is what does the word participate require in this case?
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:47.000]  If the word participate requires you to weigh fundamentally protected rights, then it's a due process violation.
[01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:56.000]  But if it gives you the opportunity to volunteer to participate and provide that facts and information, it is not a due process violation.
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  Okay?
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  Right.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  So there's two tax you can take here.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:14.000]  One, freely participate as long as you are represented by an attorney to advise you on how to answer and specifically what to say in that answer so as not to provide incriminating information against yourself.
[01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  Or two, require them to get the facts from a fact witness that was present other than the other party that you have the issue with.
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:32.000]  Or one else that was at the place and that can speak to the facts that she was not so drunk.
[01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  She didn't know what she was doing because she was coherent.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  She was active.
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  She was doing this thing and this thing and this thing.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  And I heard her say, yes, let's go do this.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  Right.
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  Okay.
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  So the fact that she's got a faulty memory is not your problem.
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  She was not in a physically incapacitated state in order for that to be the basis of the charge.
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  Right.
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  And I tried to challenge that.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:12.000]  I mean, while I couldn't personally, I tried to explain that to my attorney and he basically said, yeah, we know, there's really not much he did for me though.
[01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  Well, there never will be.
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  This is why you have to not just let your attorney do what they say they want to do because they are not going to fight for you, especially if they're a public defender.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:27.000]  Yep.
[01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:33.000]  Well, and when you're sitting behind bars, they offer you access to a law library, but you can't get online.
[01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:34.000]  You can't look up case law.
[01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  The only thing they have there is the codes for the state.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:38.000]  Right.
[01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:43.000]  If you try to represent yourself, there's nothing to stand on.
[01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  I mean, you know, I couldn't get affidavit filed.
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  They didn't even interview my best witness until after they had already incarcerated me.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  You know, my attorney said that the investigator essentially led the witnesses on when he questioned them in the videos.
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  I would have had a law, or I would have a law suit had, you know, had I won a trial or whatever.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  So, I mean, I don't know if there's anything, even with an appeal, I feel like I can file like an internal investigation, you know, with the department here and see if anything turned, you know, if they find that investigation was faulty.
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  I don't know if that'd be a grounds for appeal or, you know, I'd have to maybe have a writ submitted to the appeals court.
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  I don't, you know, I'm speculating, but I can tell I was railroad and, you know, when somebody does something wrong to you, you know it's wrong.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  And so, you've got to figure out why it's wrong.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  And that's the hard part.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  Well, that's true.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  But again, this is where you have to do a lot of reading and researching and fully understand what due process is and what your rights to that due process are.
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  And what the courts at the higher level require the lower courts and the states in general to conform to to ensure that you've got it.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  When you don't know these things, that's how they manage to get things by you and do the things they do.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  Because they'd have far more experience on a regular basis at screwing people over than people have at knowing they're being screwed over.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:23.000]  Right.
[01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:30.000]  And so, essentially, I don't know what kind of resources, I mean, is there, you know, 50 due process issues?
[01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  Are there 25?
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:32.000]  I mean...
[01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  That is an individual thing for a case.
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:36.000]  That all depends.
[01:10:36.000 --> 01:10:42.000]  It depends partially on what the state law is versus what the actual requirements are.
[01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:50.000]  For instance, a state law may require something that is not actually mandatory for the right of due process,
[01:10:50.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  but it is required for proper procedure within the state and they may not do it.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  And that could result in an acquittal or an overturning of a conviction if you can prove it.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  But you've got to raise the objection to it, hence you have to know it.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  Right.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  Right.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  Yeah, it's difficult.
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:12.000]  It's difficult.
[01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  Nobody ever said it was easy.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  Never.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  If it was easy, they wouldn't charge so much to go to law school.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  Yeah.
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:29.000]  Well, and they write these codes where, you know, the sentencing is broad, you know, you can get from one to 50 years.
[01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:33.000]  And so, it's like walking into a casino and like, okay, let's go to trial today.
[01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:38.000]  That one or two percent chance I might lose, is it worth the roll of the dice?
[01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  You know...
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  Well, but again, that's exactly what they count on.
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  See, the thing is, let's take for an example, you go to trial.
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:50.000]  Who would you want on your jury, men or women?
[01:11:50.000 --> 01:11:55.000]  Actually, in my case, women, believe it or not.
[01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  Simply because...
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  Now what happens when your jury is made up of 75% feminist?
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  Where the man is never right, no matter what.
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  Right.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  That would be an issue.
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  Absolutely.
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:15.000]  Yeah, absolutely.
[01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  The thing about it is, is I'm not saying that either one would do it just the way you would want it one way or the other.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  But when you would be picking a jury for this case, who is liable to be more sympathetic to your side of the story
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  if there's a witness that supports it as being true and there's none that supports hers?
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  The women or the men?
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:43.000]  I would probably say men.
[01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  Yeah.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  And in the case of a feminist female jury, it wouldn't matter.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  It wouldn't matter if you had 50 witnesses.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  If they were men, you're still wrong.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  Yeah.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  The funny thing is, my witness is actually a female.
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:02.000]  Well...
[01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  This person...
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  I didn't say anything about what the capacity of the witness themselves is.
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  Okay.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  A good question for that witness would be,
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  would you, if that was the inclination that you had,
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:23.000]  would you have felt like you were being taken advantage of if you had been in the same state that Mrs. So-and-So was in
[01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  if you were the one that had sex with the individual in her condition?
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  Right.
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  Well, no, because she knew exactly what was going on.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  It was obvious that she wasn't drunk to any point of incapacitation or memory loss or anything else.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  She was fully coherent.
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  She was active.
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  She was doing everything.
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  That would go a long way in showing that this is all a farce.
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:51.000]  Right.
[01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  Well, they make the hard choice very hard and the easy choice easy.
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  Yeah.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:03.000]  Well, again, this is a rigged game.
[01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  They want you to take the easy way out because that puts money in their hands and you fully under their control.
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  And then they have you for the rest of your life because they can hold that conviction over your head forever,
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:21.000]  especially because it's a felony.
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  Yep.
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  And I lose my right to vote, my right to...
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  You lose a lot of things you don't want to lose.
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:29.000]  Yep.
[01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  So essentially, I probably won't have any sort of appeal other than a plea and abatement in my attorney file regarding a text message and its admissibility.
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:42.000]  Have you been convicted?
[01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  Pardon me.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  Have you been convicted?
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:48.000]  It's technically not...
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  The judgment isn't final until sentencing like end of September.
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  Okay.
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  But is the plea agreement part of the fact that you accept the charges?
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:03.000]  Actually, they allowed me to plead an Alfred plea.
[01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  So I didn't even...
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  Well, I don't know Alfred, so I don't know how he pled.
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  It's essentially a no contest.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  That's a not...that's a guilty.
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:17.000]  No contest is exactly the same thing as a guilty plea.
[01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  Right.
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  But I guess in this county or state, they typically don't allow that.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  That's not something they normally do.
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:29.000]  They stipulated that I wouldn't file an appeal based on...
[01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  And the Supreme Court has already recently ruled they cannot use a plea agreement to deny you your right to an appeal,
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  especially when the plea agreement was used coercively in order to get your freedom from an unlawful incarceration for an excessive bond.
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  That was a question I did have, was whether or not then telling me I couldn't appeal based on the sufficiency of evidence.
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  Nope.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  If that was something that...
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:15:59.000]  No, that is absolutely incorrect.
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  The Supreme Court has already stomped all over that concept.
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  They cannot use the plea agreement to prevent you from appealing,
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  especially when the plea agreement is used coercively to prevent you from complaining about a rights violation,
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:21.000]  such as excessive bond or bail, and unlawful incarceration.
[01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  Nice.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  So I do have a little work to do, but I do have maybe a little bit of sunshine.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:33.000]  Possibly, but you better have all your ducks in a perfect row.
[01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  Right.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  Okay.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  Well, you appreciate your time, Eddie.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  I think for now that's all I have.
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  You've been very helpful.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  If I do manage now in a lawsuit, I know I remember you had a caller.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:48.000]  I think it was someone you worked with.
[01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  Well, hang on just a second.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:50.000]  I got a break.
[01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  Hold that question and I'll get it on the other side.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  We'll be right back, folks.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:54.000]  Y'all hang on.
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:11.000]  It's the 2018 Logos Radio Network Annual Fundraiser and Gun Giveaway, sponsored by Central Texas GunWorks.
[01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:15.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win.
[01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  From Central Texas GunWorks, the grand prize up for grabs is a Spikes Tactical AR-15.
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on Talk Radio today.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:55.000]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:02.000]  I love logos.
[01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:08.000]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  I need my truth fix. I'd be lost without logos.
[01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:14.000]  And I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  And I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  How can I help logos?
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:28.000]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:18:28.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  With ordering your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:38.000]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:46.000]  No.
[01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  No.
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  No.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  I mean, yes.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  This is perfect.
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:18:59.000]  You're welcome.
[01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:02.000]  Happy holidays, logos.
[01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:31.000]  Thank you.
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  All right, folks.
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  We are back.
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio and we are still talking with Sean in Nebraska.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  Sean, you had one more question.
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  Yep.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  Basically, Title 42 versus a claim on the state's insurance.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  If I were to short...
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  How do you get that it means a claim on the state's insurance?
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  Filing a claim against an insurance policy versus filing a federal lawsuit, not the same
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  thing.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  Now, they may pay you out of some insurance policy, but you're not filing a claim against
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  the policy.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  You're filing an actual lawsuit.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  How they pay for it is a completely different issue.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  Now, if you file an actual claim with a claims agent against an actual policy and you get
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  paid, you can't file a lawsuit because you've been provided remedy.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:01.000]  Right.
[01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:02.000]  Okay?
[01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  Thus, there is the distinction.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  Right.
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  Well, the question is, and I think it was a guy who helped out a couple years back and
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  I was listening to a show from the summer and he mentioned something about he was looking
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  into filing some sort of claim insurance on the state's insurance versus the time it takes
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  to go through Title 42 and essentially...
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  Again, it depends on whether or not the thing you're making the claim for is something covered
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  by the policy as a payable option.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  Okay.
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  And whether or not the city contests it.
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  If the city contests it, you're right back in the same boat, lawsuit time.
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  Right.
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  Right.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  Because it's looking like I probably have some issues that I can file a lawsuit with.
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  Well, not right now you don't because right now you have a conviction or at least you're
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  about to have one.
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  Right.
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  You're going to have to overcome that issue before you're going to have a leg to stand
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  on.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  Yeah, and so essentially I've got a win in appeal and if and when I can do that, I know
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  it's not...
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  What you need to do first and foremost is file a complaint with the appellate court system
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  against the lower court system and the prosecutor for using that plea agreement as a bargaining
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:38.000]  chip to get you out of jail and violate your rights by getting you to agree not to appeal
[01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  so that their illegal incarceration and excessive bond were not discovered by the appellate court.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  Okay.
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:53.000]  Now you can also make that plea at the federal level if you can find a federal judge that
[01:22:53.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  will agree with you.
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  Right.
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  So file a complaint against the prosecutor and the court with the higher court, the federal
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:01.000]  court.
[01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  Make sure that court has the power to hear the pleading that you're sending because not
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  every court above the trial courts, for instance here in Texas, the appellate courts do not
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:15.000]  have mandamus authority.
[01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  They don't have injunctive authority.
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:19.000]  Okay.
[01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  Okay.
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  And in that case you'd have to move on to...
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:27.000]  You'd have to go to the state supreme court on whatever side criminal or civil here in
[01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:29.000]  Texas to get your remedy.
[01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  Right.
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  Okay.
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  Makes sense.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  Yeah, I don't know how that's set up here.
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:38.000]  Yeah, that's what you got, one of the things you've also got to find out because that's
[01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  going to be important.
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:40.000]  Where to file.
[01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  The file and complaining, it's okay.
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:47.000]  And then after that complaint is filed, they're going to look into it.
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  They're going to say they're going to see that supreme court...
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  I can't tell you what they're going to look into and you need to be citing that supreme
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  court case in whatever you file in the first place.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:23:59.000]  Right.
[01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  That makes sense.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  Okay.
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  So I've got some things to work with here.
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  Hopefully he was informed and is for at least some of it.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  Well, I hope so.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  I think this thing applies to a lot of different areas of law, so it's good to know it either
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  way.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  Yep.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  All right.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  I appreciate your time.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  If I win anything over this, I'll definitely have to donate.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  Well, we definitely appreciate it.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  All right.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  All right, Sean.
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:34.000]  Have a good night.
[01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  You too.
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  Bye.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  Bye.
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  All right.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:40.000]  Now we have what appears to be Tina in California.
[01:24:40.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  Tina, what can we do for you?
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  Hi, Eddie.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  Let me just stick it off Bluetooth here.
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  Is that better?
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  Much better.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:53.000]  Yeah.
[01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  Right.
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  I can't stand there with the phone up my head for hours though.
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  Oh, I understand.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:09.000]  You were talking about due process rights earlier and the federal constitution and states.
[01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  Would, you know, I had something happen to me with the foreclosure case where I was not
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:25.000]  notified of a hearing where they got a default judgment on an in-rem, which is an emergency
[01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  relief order so that they can, so that I could not have bankruptcy protection for two years
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  against my property.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  Now I never got this notice.
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  I was actually in my own bankruptcy at the time.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  They did not notify my bankruptcy attorney.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  They did not notify the bankruptcy judge.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:55.000]  Have you gotten something from your bankruptcy attorney stating that he was never notified?
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:05.000]  No, that attorney, she's angry at me for, because she did, she screwed up on some other things.
[01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  But there was no notification in the court and I already had a different attorney after
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  that and she was never notified.
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  The judge in a state case that I was in that was moved federal was never notified and the
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  court rules, California court rules state that if there is a related case that the court
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:33.000]  must, all courts must be notified of any related case.
[01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:38.000]  Okay, then you should be able, according to what you've told me on our previous conversation
[01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  and tonight, you should be able to file to have the case reopened and the prior judgment
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  set aside.
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  They refused.
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  Who refused?
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  It was in somebody else's bankruptcy that they claimed I'd transferred my property, which
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:26:57.000]  I hadn't.
[01:26:57.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  I had no knowledge of these people.
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  The judge who heard that ER order.
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  Okay, but which judge in which court?
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:12.000]  It's the bankruptcy judge in California.
[01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  Yeah, but that's not necessarily federal.
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  Okay.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:20.000]  Okay.
[01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  I thought all bankruptcies were federal.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  Well, she refused to hear it.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  We took to the bankruptcy appeals court, because she, this particular judge said, I'm invoking
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  a mailbox rule, which is that if somebody mails you, you are deemed to have received it.
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  Yeah.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  Well, what was their proof they mailed it?
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  Just as somebody lower in the lower level of their organization had typed and somebody's
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  name in saying on both on the printed name part and the signature name part, it was typed
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:59.000]  in saying that they swore that they put it in the mail.
[01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  Yeah, well, that's already been proven to be a fraudulent means of providing such information,
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:10.000]  which means this judge is in cahoots with those entities that are doing these bankruptcies,
[01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:13.000]  because she's getting kickbacks from them most likely.
[01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  But I took it to the appeal court, they refused it.
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:22.000]  I filed for an on-bank appeal and they told me they were denying it.
[01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  The judge was right.
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  I wasn't really harmed and they won't let me file anything else.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  How can you lose your property and not be harmed?
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  Yeah.
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  Well, no shit, Sherlock.
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  Excuse my French, but that's what I said.
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Okay.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:44.000]  Well, then what you need to remember is that these bankruptcy courts, are they judicial
[01:28:44.000 --> 01:28:49.000]  or non-judicial?
[01:28:49.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  Are these administrative judges or are these actual judicial judges?
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  Because there's a big difference.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  Okay.
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  I think from what I found that they are judicial judges.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  Okay.
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  So you should have the right of appeal all the way up the line to the United States Supreme
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:12.000]  Court about the rulings in this case.
[01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:21.000]  I've done that, but I filed a writ of tertiary to have the mailbox rule either changed or
[01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:24.000]  overturned because it's a case that affects.
[01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  Well, the thing is they're not going to hear that because the United States Supreme Court
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  has already ruled on that many, many times and has said every single time, simply declaring
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:35.000]  it was mailed is not proof of receipt.
[01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  It is not proof of notice to the other party.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  You have to have something that shows the other party was served, whether it be video,
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  pictures, a signature, something, but you cannot just claim you served them and that be sufficient.
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  Hang on just a second, man, and we'll be right back after this break.
[01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:56.000]  Okay.
[01:29:56.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  Y'all hold on, folks.
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  In Wisconsin, an elderly woman who housed orphans was about to lose her home to foreclosure
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  when her 12-year-old grandson came to the rescue.
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the story of Noah the Dreamcatcher after this.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:40.000]  This message is brought to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:30:40.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  Start over with Start Page.
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  For years, Janice Sparhawk cared for dozens of orphans.
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  Many dropped on her doorstep after dark, but at 72, she was in trouble.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:31:00.000]  Her health failing, she couldn't pay the mortgage unless she found $10,000 the bank would foreclose.
[01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  She appealed to her congressman, her governor, and even the president, but it was her grandson, Noah, who saved the day.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  The 12-year-old posted her story on a website he'd created three years earlier, Noah's Dreamcatcher Network,
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:15.000]  to help hurricane victims.
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  Within days, enough money had poured in to rescue Sparhawk, her foster kids, and their faith in America.
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  I lost my son.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:33.000]  My nephew.
[01:31:33.000 --> 01:31:34.000]  My uncle.
[01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:35.000]  My son.
[01:31:35.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  On September 11, 2001.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  I will be official explanation is that fire brought down building 7.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believed there is more to the story.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  Bring justice to my son.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  My uncle.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  My nephew.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  My son.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  Go to building what.org.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:22.000]  That's why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:11.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  Logos Radio Network
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  Logos Radio Network
[01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  Logos Radio Network
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  We are half an hour left in the show, two segments.
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Call it number 512-646-1984 if you want to call and get in line for the couple of spaces we still have open on the board.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  And right now we are talking with Tina in California.
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:36.000]  All right, Tina, please continue.
[01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  Yes, so what my point is, I've been told that when you file a writ of surgery in the Supreme Court and you file prostrate and informal porpoise, the chances are slim to none of getting it heard unless it's of vital importance to all Americans.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  Right, and that's the reason I said what I said right before the break about the issue you were raising.
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  They have addressed that issue numerous times.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  And if that's the only issue you raised, most likely they're not going to take the case because that's already been addressed.
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  Well, that's what I was advised.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  So why is the mailbox rule still there if...
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  Just because the Supreme Court ruled a particular way doesn't mean the state or federal courts are following it until you force them to.
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  But how do I...where do I go from here then or can I go after the judges for not following, applying all points of the law to the facts of the case and for denying...
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Then the issue you need to raise is not the mailbox rule itself, but the court's violation of the Supreme Court ruling regarding the mailbox rule.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:47.000]  Court's violation, okay.
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  Okay, you're not asking for the appeal on the mailbox rule, you're asking for an appeal based upon the state or federal court's refusal to comply with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court about the mailbox rule.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:17.000]  See, and my attorney didn't say that at the time and he, you know, he actually...I had an attorney that was filing, you know, for the... for me in the appeals court, the bankruptcy court and everything. He never ever said that.
[01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  Well, you have to remember the reason they don't say that and they're not going to advise you of it is because that is essentially saying the judge was wrong and knew they were wrong and did it anyway.
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  It's basically accusing the judge of running a fiefdom, okay, and no attorney is going to do that in a court where he has to appear before that same judge with regularity.
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  That's why they're not going to tell you that. That's why they're not going to do that themselves.
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  Like I said, they are not there to fight for you. They're there to fight for their ability to keep food on the table and money in their pocket.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  And if what your defense requires is for them to violate those principles and actually stand up for what is right, you're going to lose.
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  Because they will never choose what is right over what is self-preserving.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  Yes, self-preserving. So what is my choice? Because I can't change. I can't amend.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:23.000]  Refile.
[01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:33.000]  Refile. Is it too late? I don't know. If they haven't rejected it, it's possible that it's not too late.
[01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  You can refile asking, filing it as an amended question, you know, and repeal your original filing and replace it with the amended one.
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Okay. Do you happen to have an idea of what to look up for in the Supreme Court to find that?
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  I do not. You need to call the court clerks. They're going to be the best resource in the world for asking questions like that, too.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:03.000]  Okay.
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  I don't get a lot of opportunity to sit down and have conversations with Supreme Court clerks, so I couldn't tell you.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  That's okay. Is there anything I can do to go after the judges also?
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:29.000]  That depends on how the Supreme Court couches what the judge did. If this is actually ruled to be a non-judicial proceeding, then the judge was acting administratively, and that judge does not have any immunity for what they did.
[01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  And you could sue the living crap out of them all day long because they were acting as an administrator and not as a judge, and they are 100% liable for everything they did if it violated law or your rights.
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  It's only when they're acting judicially that they have almost total immunity, and I do emphasize almost.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:57.000]  Almost. Would that be the same in any, because in any foreclosure case then in California?
[01:38:57.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  Again, it depends on how the state treats the case. If it's non-judicial, then it's absolutely 100% administrative.
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  If it's judicial, then it will depend upon how the Supreme Court defines judicial acts.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  If the Supreme Court says a judicial act cannot be performed in the way that California is actually doing it, and thus the way they're actually doing it is a due process violation, hence it's administrative and not judicial, therein would be something else that you could hope to get a ruling on.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:37.000]  You don't necessarily have to raise one issue and one question to the Supreme Court.
[01:39:37.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  You can raise a multitude of them if they're relevant to the case, and they require an answer that the court has not addressed because of split decisions within different regions and courts, or because there's a decisive issue of rights violations at this type of proceeding regardless of what happens.
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  So those are issues that you can raise individually as well.
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  I did bring up split decisions because the Third Circuit has a great argument on it and great ruling, Texas has a different ruling.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  Well, they're not in the same judicial district though. So yeah, you can raise the argument. See, the difference there is you've got different districts covering California that have that.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:32.000]  You've got the Ninth, you've got the Third, and so on and so forth. You need to worry about the ones that cover that state.
[01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  Now, if the judicial district in that state is in complete agreement with what's happening versus all the other states saying, no, you're not, then you've got a case.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  Yeah, we've got crazy, crazy judges and stuff.
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  Well, remember, that crazy judge was always an attorney first, so that should tell you where the breeding stock came from.
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  I have never seen anything good come out of a cesspool.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  No, that's a good analogy there. I like that. Yes, there's nothing good coming out of this.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  I don't even think they read off the filings because they, in my appellate, in a different, it's the same similar case.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  I mean, it's still a different case in a different court, but this, I went to the appeal court and the appellate judges actually put something in their ruling that was completely false.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  They, you know, the other side put...
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:43.000]  See, then that is an issue that you can raise with the Supreme Court.
[01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:56.000]  The appellate court, blah, blah, blah, made a false statement in their conclusion that was not an issue or a fact brought up in the record or at trial or during the process or of any kind.
[01:41:56.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  They simply created this fictitious fact out of thin air.
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Well, let me tell you what it was. They said this deed was recorded in the LA County's reporters office.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  And there's two deeds in question. And they said at the same time for each one, this was recorded.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  These deeds were never recorded, and they knew that because we'd filed a motion to state and prove they were not recorded, but they were just going on what the...
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:32.000]  Right. And right there you have a court ruling in contravention of best evidence, which they can't do.
[01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  That right there is what tells you 100% that this is a rigged system for the purposes of these foreclosures and bankruptcies.
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  Okay? When the appellate court...
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  I appealed to my Supreme Court and they denied my appeal.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:57.000]  Well, then that's the thing. If this were a federal court this bankruptcy was occurring in, then you could not have appealed to your state Supreme Court to overturn it.
[01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:04.000]  Well, no, the bankruptcy part was slightly different. That was a different part of the foreclosure.
[01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  The other ruling where the appeal judges made this ruling and put this wrong fact in their opinion was the same foreclosure, but a different...
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:16.000]  We filed a different case.
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  Okay. But the thing you've got to make the argument on is how you were harmed by that false fact.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  You have to be able to show how the inclusion of that false fact in the ruling was what caused your harm or at least was very contributive to the harm.
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  And had it been different, it would have changed the outcome.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  That's part of the process they've got in place.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  If you can't show that that false fact would have greatly affected the actual outcome, they're not going to help you.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  Hang on just a second and we'll be right back after this break.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  Okay.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  So now you know hemp is not marijuana and marijuana is not hemp.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  HempUSA.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about.
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  It's gluten-free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO and is loaded with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367. 888-910-4367 and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempUSA.org.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:35.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  The head nurse woke up, said leave this one alone. She could tell right away that I was bad as a bone. Bad as a bone. Bad as a bone.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  Bad as a bone. I broke a thousand hearts before I met you. I broke a thousand more, baby. I broke a thousand hearts before I met you.
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  I broke a thousand more, baby. Before I am through. I want to be yours, baby. Yours and yours alone. I'm here to tell you honey. Bad as a bone. Bad as a bone.
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  Alright folks, we are back. We are now in the last segment of the show. Alright, let's see what we can do with Tina here. Alright, Tina.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  At the moment, those are the best suggestions I can make to you about how to deal with this situation.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  Well, it seems like no matter what we do, we are pretty good here in the state. Well, unfortunately, I would have to agree. The last place on the entire planet, I'd rather live in Cambodia than Commiforna.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  Yeah, you'd like that, but right now I don't have much of a choice. I'm reliant upon living with someone, you know.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  Well, let me put a bug in your ear. There's this business called U-Haul. Yeah.
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:48:01.000]  And they can go a long way to solving that choice problem.
[01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  Well, if the bank hadn't stolen my home and my income with it.
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:21.000]  Well, I can understand how they can be precarious, believe me. I've given up an awful lot to do what I'm doing right now, believe me. I know what the issues with not having anything are.
[01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  I'm sitting here in the middle of nothing to tell you that.
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  Yep. Well, I'll keep fighting as long as I can.
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:42.000]  I wish you all the best in the world on getting it done. Be tenacious. That's one thing they cannot easily overcome is somebody that is tenacious.
[01:48:42.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  Well, I've got that.
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  Well, there you go.
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:49.000]  So, thank you for all you do for everybody, you know.
[01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  We will keep hoping that one day we have enough to donate to you to keep you all going.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  I appreciate that, too. Whatever you can do is fine with us. Every little bit helps.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  Even $5 a month?
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:13.000]  Every little bit helps. Just imagine, if a couple of hundred people donated only $5 a month, how much better off would we be?
[01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:19.000]  Well, yeah. I mean, that's pretty much all I could do right now, but if that would work.
[01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  If everybody that was listening to this show or had called in and asked us how to help them out would do that every month, this would not be a...
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:34.000]  We wouldn't have to run the fundraiser year-round. We could do it a few months and that would be it.
[01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Well, maybe you should do that and ask on every time. Just say and tell people how much the power of compounding, like throwing the pebble in the lake, you know, the ripples run out.
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  So if you gave an example and said, if 10 people did this...
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  All right. Well, on your advice, I'll do that right now. Folks, I guarantee you the network would benefit from your contributions a whole lot more with a regular $5 a month donation to the fundraiser and to this network than a single $20 donation for the whole year.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  Guarantee it.
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:16.000]  Right. You keep saying that every week and is it through PayPal we have to donate?
[01:50:16.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  You can PayPal is the easiest way if you want to do it over a distance and make sure it's immediate.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:23.000]  Yes.
[01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  But you can mail checks as long as the name on the checks are blank so they can put in whoever is actually cashing them.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  But it all goes into the money to keep the network going.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:43.000]  And is it easy to find it on your website where to go for the $5 a month to the rule of law?
[01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:57.000]  Yes, it should be. If you go up to the fundraiser or to make a donation off the menu up there, then it will show you how to make a recurring donation and that will set it up for monthly.
[01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:04.000]  Oh, okay. Well, then everybody listening, please do this because they are giving a tremendous service.
[01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  Trust me, I know I wish that found you three years ago because you and Randy would have saved me from losing my home, I believe.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:19.000]  Well, I wished if that was possible that that had been the case, most certainly.
[01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  Yes. Okay. Well, keep up the good work.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  Thank you. You have a great night, Tina.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  You too. Bye-bye.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  All right. Now we have Charles in Washington. Charles, what do you got?
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  I got a few things going on. I lost all the information that you had sent me and that I had gathered over the past year.
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  How many times does that make? This is like the sixth time you've lost the Washington Statute information I've sent you.
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  Do you not keep the same email account?
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  That's the other thing I was calling you about. My phone got lost when I just came back from Texas. I was trying to call you.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  Yeah, but your phone is not your account. Your phone is just a way to access your account.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  You can access your account with any device connected to the Internet. I'm sure if you're using, especially using Yahoo or Gmail or something like that, right?
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:17.000]  Gmail.
[01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  Okay. All you got to do is get on something connected to the Internet, log in to Gmail and find the emails from me, unless you specifically deleted them.
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  Those emails and those documents are still sitting out there.
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:37.000]  Great. Okay, I didn't know that because I can tell you, I'm totally angry when it comes to this computer stuff.
[01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:43.000]  And so I'm really so worried about myself and that's the problem I have. Besides, I still got the short memory problem from the injury.
[01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  So you just told me what I needed to know because I was frustrated and I was calling you back to get your email again as well as that website.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:55.000]  But my son said he would do it because you know when it comes to...
[01:52:55.000 --> 01:53:07.000]  Yeah, all you got to do is log into your Gmail, do a search for either the Ranger X64 email or Larry Mullen Curly, which is the name it comes in under.
[01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  And you will find any previous emails unless you have specifically deleted them.
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  Oh, no, I don't delete them.
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  Okay, so those emails that have that attached document with that information in it should still be up there waiting on you to find it again.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  Okay.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:37.000]  So I can go to the library. I've been going to the library quite a bit. They should be able to help me with that. Sometimes they can but because I've had issues where I had to go there before and it wasn't that good to know who's working there.
[01:53:37.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  Right. You're going to have those that are new and those that are experienced.
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:46.000]  I always try to find the one that runs the place because they'll have the most experience.
[01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  Okay, then what you just told me should pop up there.
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  So let me get to two many things because I don't know if people want to get to you.
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  I got a ticket again, as always. Let's make my second one. And this time with no license, no registration, no insurance, driving to the pool lane, no seat belt, $1,500.
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  So I met this gentleman up here. He called himself a southern citizen. And this is what he told me to do.
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:18.000]  He said from the left bottom corner to the top right corner of the ticket to write four things. And these are the four things he told me to write.
[01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  I do not want to contract with you.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:26.000]  Okay, wait, wait, wait. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. I already know what the four things are they told you to write.
[01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  And I'm going to tell you right now, if you do this, the next thing that's going to happen is you're going to get arrested and thrown in jail.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  I knew it. That's what I called you.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:41.000]  That is one of those patronut myths that flat out does not work.
[01:54:41.000 --> 01:54:47.000]  Now, the one benefit of it is they're almost right about one thing.
[01:54:47.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  In Washington, these are civil infractions. They are not crimes.
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:55:00.000]  So there does have to be some sort of agreement in place, but that agreement is to engage in commerce.
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Okay?
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:03.000]  Right.
[01:55:03.000 --> 01:55:13.000]  So again, the issue to be raised is jurisdiction, not what they're telling you to write on this thing about contract.
[01:55:13.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  The contract argument is not correct.
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  Okay? It is absolutely not correct.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  Okay.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:30.000]  So the issue here is, one, were you pulled over by a cop to be given these tickets?
[01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  Yeah.
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:32.000]  Okay.
[01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:42.000]  That was an illegal arrest and seizure because a civil infraction does not establish probable cause because there is no articulable facts
[01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  that a crime was being committed.
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  Hence, no legal authority to seize and arrest.
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  None.
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  That's problem number one with what they have in the state where there are civil infractions.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  Okay?
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  Okay.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:56:05.000]  So the blog on my legal blog has that article on civil infractions and you can use those in the state of Washington.
[01:56:05.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Those same seven interrogatories.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:17.000]  Okay? But the stuff that's in the documents that I have mailed you that deal specifically with Washington statute that says very plainly that the
[01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  Washington statutes are based on the use of the road for commerce takes you completely out of the jurisdiction of any allegation made under those statutes.
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  They must both allege commerce and prove commerce at trial and they can't do it because the officer cannot articulate facts of commerce that would have
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  given them probable cause if this had been a criminal act.
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:43.000]  But it's not.
[01:56:43.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  It's civil.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  Hence, the arrest itself was illegal.
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  And when they seize you at your liberty and prevent you from moving forward based upon some show of authority, which in this case is the activation of their emergency lights to
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  force you to pull over or get charged with a felony crime of evading with a vehicle, then that is an arrest according to the United States Supreme Court.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:13.000]  Okay?
[01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:14.000]  Okay.
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  So it does not matter how the state defines it if it goes against how the United States Supreme Court has defined it.
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  And here in Texas, it absolutely does go against how the United States Supreme Court has defined it.
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  All right.
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  Even though here in Texas, they're still treated as crimes.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  But they keep arguing that you're not arrested when the cop pulls you over, but even the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had to finally agree.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  Yeah, it's an arrest.
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:49.000]  Okay.
[01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  All right.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  So again, you told me to go on to the block.
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  Yeah, the legal block.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  Call of law.wordpress.com and do a search for civil infractions.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  You'll get an article called civil infractions and what to do if your state has them or uses them.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  It's one of those phrases.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  Okay.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  So it's tau of law.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  Tau.
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:12.000]  T-A-O.
[01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  Thomas.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  Alpha.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  Omega.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:16.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:17.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:17.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:26.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  And I'm glad you reported on my son, just with faith.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  Okay.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  All right, man.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  Well, I got to let you go.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  I'm three seconds out.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  Thank you, folks, for listening.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  You all have a great week.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  Thank you, folks, for listening.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  Y'all have a great week.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Bye.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:51.000]  Bye.
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  Bye.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  Bye.
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  Bye.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Bye.
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:56.000]  Bye.
[01:58:56.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bye.
[01:58:58.000 --> 01:58:59.000]  Bye.
[01:58:59.000 --> 01:59:00.000]  Bye.
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  Bye.
[01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:02.000]  Bye.
[01:59:02.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  Bye.
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:04.000]  Bye.
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:10.080]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. Order your free copy today from Bibles
[01:59:10.080 --> 01:59:21.360]  for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation
[01:59:21.360 --> 01:59:27.920]  is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an
[01:59:27.920 --> 01:59:33.840]  outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy
[01:59:33.840 --> 01:59:44.800]  of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102
[01:59:44.800 --> 02:00:06.560]  or visit us online at bfa.org. Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com