ROL_2019-09-16_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.840]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:06.840 --> 00:13.200]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019, open with precious metals, gold $1,429 an ounce,
[00:13.200 --> 00:21.440]  silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil, Texas crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent crude
[00:21.440 --> 00:29.760]  $62.47 a barrel, and crypto is an order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum
[00:29.760 --> 00:41.440]  $227.26, XRP, Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:46.080 --> 00:52.640]  In history, the year 1916, the preparedness day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated on
[00:52.640 --> 00:58.240]  Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and
[00:58.240 --> 01:07.440]  entering 40 today in history. And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill
[01:07.440 --> 01:12.640]  1325 legalizing heaven to Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state,
[01:12.640 --> 01:17.120]  including Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and
[01:17.120 --> 01:21.440]  even refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time
[01:21.440 --> 01:26.720]  or the laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District
[01:26.720 --> 01:30.720]  Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and
[01:30.720 --> 01:35.440]  delivery of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials,
[01:35.440 --> 01:39.440]  including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on
[01:39.440 --> 01:44.400]  Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas, and that these actions demonstrate
[01:44.400 --> 01:51.040]  a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney
[01:51.040 --> 01:57.280]  in El Paso, Kyma Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote,
[01:57.280 --> 02:02.720]  will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue
[02:02.720 --> 02:07.520]  was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County,
[02:07.520 --> 02:11.920]  who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based
[02:11.920 --> 02:15.920]  on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something,
[02:15.920 --> 02:25.040]  the test matches what they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified a five
[02:25.040 --> 02:30.000]  and a half inch American pocket shark. As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico,
[02:30.000 --> 02:35.520]  the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one
[02:35.520 --> 02:40.800]  being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the
[02:40.800 --> 02:47.680]  shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to
[02:47.680 --> 03:11.680]  lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow. This is work roadie with a lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[03:17.680 --> 03:22.960]  This is what happens when you call the cops, you get your rights violated or you all get
[03:22.960 --> 03:48.960]  shot.
[03:53.280 --> 03:58.160]  I'm not sure how great a show it's going to be because I've been working on some stuff and having
[03:58.160 --> 04:05.440]  some conversations with some people that just kind of got me in a mood. It's become apparent to me
[04:06.400 --> 04:16.960]  that people that do what I do, we just can't make an impact big enough or fast enough
[04:16.960 --> 04:22.480]  to make a change anywhere relevant. And the reason I say that is it's great to have listeners to
[04:22.480 --> 04:27.040]  this show and it's great to have a pocket of people that understand what's going on, but
[04:27.840 --> 04:35.760]  people in our position are literally swimming against the tide. And not just of those in the
[04:36.800 --> 04:42.640]  power play, so to speak, those in the system itself, but all of those that want to support them
[04:42.640 --> 04:53.200]  at all costs, even when the cost is their very lives and freedom. People today would rather
[04:53.200 --> 05:02.000]  feel their right than actually be able to prove their right. And the problem is that they don't
[05:02.000 --> 05:10.160]  even understand the difference. They will take the word of known liars over someone they don't
[05:10.160 --> 05:17.280]  even know who is giving them a way to verify the information they're being provided and they
[05:17.280 --> 05:25.280]  absolutely refuse to do it. Meanwhile, the known liar is just telling them stuff out of thin air
[05:25.280 --> 05:32.880]  and they're swallowing it hook line and sinker as if it's actual fact. An example being that on
[05:32.880 --> 05:39.760]  Facebook there's this group called We Support the Police and someone posted the video of the
[05:39.760 --> 05:45.600]  Scott Richardson stop where the cop broke out his window and arrested him and all this and of course
[05:45.600 --> 05:51.040]  everyone in this group is on the cop side. They don't understand what's actually happening. They
[05:51.040 --> 05:56.240]  don't understand why it's happening and part of the reason for that is Scott himself is screwing
[05:56.240 --> 06:01.760]  it up during the stop. Despite all the things that I tried to teach him in class and to understand
[06:01.760 --> 06:06.880]  about how this actually works to make the case, he's not helping himself a whole lot in the video.
[06:06.880 --> 06:14.800]  And so of course they're siding with the cop. The first comment I ever made on that was just
[06:14.800 --> 06:21.440]  simply that you people don't really understand the law on this subject. If you did, this is not
[06:21.440 --> 06:28.960]  the position you would be taking. And I was immediately attacked. I was attacked like I had
[06:28.960 --> 06:38.160]  just fallen into a pit full of rabbit dogs and I had literally. And they go on and on with this
[06:38.160 --> 06:45.360]  stuff and it doesn't matter how much factual information you give them, they will name call,
[06:45.360 --> 06:53.520]  they will ridicule, they will do anything but attempt to verify. They go right back to the same
[06:53.520 --> 06:59.520]  poison well that has been poisoning their mind with misinformation all of these years
[07:00.640 --> 07:07.440]  and cling to it like it's life giving water and it's none. It is life stealing water if it's
[07:07.440 --> 07:15.120]  anything and you can't make them understand that. And it's just one more example of why
[07:16.320 --> 07:20.640]  one voice in the wilderness may as well be screaming at the wind day in and day out.
[07:20.640 --> 07:26.640]  You help a handful of people and that's as far as it gets. That handful isn't able to
[07:26.640 --> 07:32.640]  pierce the veil any better than the one guy is and here we are. We're stuck. So what's the point?
[07:33.440 --> 07:42.080]  Why make the effort? Believe it or not, folks, I don't make this effort for y'all. As much as
[07:42.080 --> 07:47.840]  it's useful to you, as much as I hope it helps you, I don't make this effort and do what I do
[07:47.840 --> 07:58.560]  for y'all. I do it for myself and I do it for myself because I believe I'm right. It's a matter
[07:58.560 --> 08:05.040]  of principle. It's a matter of truth. It's a matter of standing up for what you believe in.
[08:06.080 --> 08:15.840]  I can't do that for you. I have to do it for me just like each of you have to do it for you.
[08:15.840 --> 08:18.880]  If you don't do it for you, then what is the point?
[08:23.280 --> 08:29.120]  So I do what I do on this show because I believe it to be right. I believe it to be
[08:29.120 --> 08:34.320]  accurate. I believe it is the real truth about what is being done and how it's being done.
[08:35.200 --> 08:39.920]  In fact, one of the things I've been working on for the last couple of weeks and then no closer
[08:39.920 --> 08:44.800]  to having done than when I started because it keeps evolving so much, there's just so much
[08:44.800 --> 08:50.080]  information you have to be able to boil down into so little information and still be able to make
[08:50.080 --> 08:54.240]  the point in order to hold people's interest or what you're doing is going to wind up five hours
[08:54.240 --> 09:01.760]  long and nobody's going to watch it. What I'm trying to do is I am trying to make a video
[09:01.760 --> 09:09.920]  presentation of how the courts, through their opinions, are intentionally misleading the public
[09:09.920 --> 09:16.800]  through intentionally misrepresenting the law. Now there's two ways you can look at the way
[09:16.800 --> 09:23.120]  the court opinions have gone over the decades in relation to this subject. You can look at it as
[09:23.120 --> 09:30.560]  being intentional or you can look at it as the court actually doing its job because whoever's
[09:30.560 --> 09:37.520]  fighting the case failed to do their own job and make the case properly from the very beginning.
[09:37.520 --> 09:45.840]  That's the only two ways to look at the outcomes in these opinions that are being done.
[09:47.600 --> 09:55.520]  And in all honesty, when you look at it, it really comes down to the second one.
[09:56.640 --> 10:03.520]  And I say that because in all of the years and all the cases that have gone up to the appeals court,
[10:03.520 --> 10:08.880]  not having seen what was actually filed in the court, the only thing you can go on is based upon
[10:08.880 --> 10:14.080]  the opinion of what the court itself wrote. Now assuming for a moment that the court is actually
[10:14.080 --> 10:20.720]  doing its job and stating all of the relevant legal questions, the individual in the appeal
[10:20.720 --> 10:29.200]  asked the court to respond to and enlighten us all about, the proper question has never been asked.
[10:29.200 --> 10:40.080]  The proper approach to fighting these cases has never been done. And if it has then the answer
[10:40.080 --> 10:46.400]  is the first option. The courts themselves are corruptly defrauding the public by intentionally
[10:46.400 --> 10:52.880]  misrepresenting the law and the facts of the case to support the opinion they want to write
[10:52.880 --> 11:04.320]  instead of the one the law requires. So how do you prove that? Well, I don't know how you would
[11:04.320 --> 11:08.880]  actually be able to prove anything when the people that are responsible for determining
[11:08.880 --> 11:15.120]  whether or not your proof is sufficient are the ones who are denying your proof from the get-go.
[11:15.120 --> 11:24.000]  How do you prove a court is corrupt when the court itself is the one that gets to rule about the
[11:24.000 --> 11:29.120]  facts you're providing and the evidence you submitted as to what its corruptness is?
[11:33.360 --> 11:37.520]  We have a literal catch-22 in the system as it exists.
[11:37.520 --> 11:43.680]  We, the people, have lost control of every department of our government including the most
[11:43.680 --> 11:58.560]  important, the judiciary. Now, the question that leaves us all with is how do we fix it?
[11:58.560 --> 12:05.040]  Well, that brings me back to the thing I've been saying for a couple of years now is I don't believe
[12:05.040 --> 12:18.160]  way to fix it. See, there's this thing about rebuilding an old car. Now, there are restorers
[12:19.120 --> 12:25.440]  who go out and do their best to find as many original parts for an old car as they possibly
[12:25.440 --> 12:35.680]  can. But one of these days, there are not going to be any pieces of original metal left to rebuild
[12:35.680 --> 12:42.800]  those old cars from. The only way you're going to be able to rebuild that old car is to fabricate a
[12:42.800 --> 12:51.840]  new car that looks like the old car because there will be nothing left of the old one to rebuild
[12:51.840 --> 12:58.320]  with. Eventually, that is going to happen to the supply of metal that's out there in those
[12:58.320 --> 13:02.880]  original bodies and those original frames and those original parts. One of these days,
[13:03.600 --> 13:09.440]  it can't be bored out anymore, it can't be retooled anymore, it can't be refinished anymore,
[13:09.440 --> 13:15.280]  it's going to have to be remade or it's not going to exist.
[13:15.280 --> 13:22.880]  And there, ladies and gentlemen, is where we are in the timeframe
[13:25.440 --> 13:34.000]  for our justice system, for our governmental system. Because all of the old parts that we
[13:34.000 --> 13:40.160]  relied on to make the government work in the manner for which it was originally designed,
[13:40.160 --> 13:52.640]  have corroded, corrupted, warped, self-destructed, wore out, or just flat don't exist anymore.
[13:54.960 --> 14:05.040]  We are at the point where there is no restoring what we had. We are going to have to build all
[14:05.040 --> 14:13.760]  new parts with all new purposes and all new designs to make a working machine.
[14:18.720 --> 14:21.760]  And if we don't, then there's not going to be a machine.
[14:23.680 --> 14:29.680]  And at that point, it's a free-for-all and we know that. That doesn't mean that the people that
[14:29.680 --> 14:33.360]  are currently in power won't be declaring that they remain in power and that now that they've
[14:33.360 --> 14:37.680]  got the force of arms to make it stay that way, they're going to go to war with us and
[14:37.680 --> 14:43.760]  fashion their own system, create their own new parts, build their own new machine.
[14:47.040 --> 14:48.480]  And that is what will happen.
[14:53.040 --> 14:58.720]  Someone on Facebook posted a post the other day, I forget exactly what the gist of it was,
[14:58.720 --> 15:07.680]  but it came down to something more or less, name something that you, that was once imaginary
[15:08.400 --> 15:17.840]  that has come true in your lifetime. And immediately only one response to that came to mind.
[15:17.840 --> 15:26.720]  1984 is no longer considered fiction.
[15:31.600 --> 15:38.400]  Think about that. Something that we never believed could ever be true
[15:40.080 --> 15:45.520]  has come true in my lifetime and it is absolutely the worst thing that you could
[15:45.520 --> 15:53.440]  possibly imagine having come true in your lifetime. 1984 is no longer fiction.
[15:58.560 --> 16:02.960]  You're living it. You just don't know it and some of you don't want to accept it.
[16:03.920 --> 16:10.400]  Some of you are more comfortable in feeling right than being right and being able to prove your right
[16:10.400 --> 16:17.840]  and you are incapable of accepting any information that disproves,
[16:17.840 --> 16:24.720]  disagrees or otherwise shows you that your faith in everything you believe in is misplaced.
[16:28.080 --> 16:30.240]  And where it's not misplaced, it's dead wrong.
[16:30.240 --> 16:41.040]  And some of you can't handle that and you would rather self-destruct than admit it
[16:44.400 --> 16:49.760]  and therein lies the problem. That's why it's so hard for us to make a living at what we do
[16:49.760 --> 16:55.760]  because there's too many of those and too few of you that are willing to keep us where we are.
[16:55.760 --> 17:02.560]  We'll be right back after this break, folks, so y'all hang on.
[17:26.720 --> 17:33.680]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book Legal 101,
[17:33.680 --> 17:39.520]  you get four chances to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[17:39.520 --> 17:44.480]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logo's Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep
[17:44.480 --> 17:50.080]  bringing you the best quality programming on Talk Radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other
[17:50.080 --> 17:57.440]  cryptocurrencies. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to logosradionetwork.com
[17:57.440 --> 18:03.760]  for details and donate today. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls,
[18:03.760 --> 18:09.440]  letters, or even losses? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method.
[18:09.440 --> 18:14.960]  Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:14.960 --> 18:19.760]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.760 --> 18:25.520]  civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons? How to answer
[18:25.520 --> 18:30.080]  letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports? How to turn the
[18:30.080 --> 18:36.080]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away? The Michael Mearris Proven Method is
[18:36.080 --> 18:41.360]  the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.360 --> 18:47.040]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:47.040 --> 18:56.480]  or email Michael Mearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-m
[18:56.480 --> 19:17.920]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:26.800 --> 19:48.560]  All right, folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[19:48.560 --> 19:52.560]  If you want to call in, get in line, ask a question, talk about an issue, whatever you got.
[19:52.560 --> 20:00.960]  In the meantime, until I do have some callers, I will keep going. All right, now I can deal
[20:00.960 --> 20:05.520]  with name calling. I can deal with whatever these people have to throw at me. It's not going to
[20:05.520 --> 20:10.960]  faze me one little bit. When it comes to that kind of crap I got Rhino had. Is it going to bother me?
[20:10.960 --> 20:23.920]  Okay. It's the mindset behind the words that I find most disheartening and disquieting. It is the
[20:23.920 --> 20:37.760]  blind faith in the poison information stream that just has me astounded. I do not understand
[20:37.760 --> 20:45.040]  how you could be connected to the world in the way that you are these days and have that much
[20:45.040 --> 20:53.440]  blind faith in the sources of information that you've got available to you to trust the ones that
[20:53.440 --> 21:05.920]  have been proven to be known liars and deceivers time and time and time again. I have people arguing
[21:05.920 --> 21:12.960]  my attorney says, I don't care what your attorney says, your attorney is a blithering idiot that
[21:12.960 --> 21:18.880]  is part of the problem. He's not there to solve the problem. He's not there to acknowledge the
[21:18.880 --> 21:26.320]  problem because he makes us living off of the existence of the problem and you will never
[21:26.320 --> 21:32.000]  convince the man whose livelihood depends upon the information they don't give out
[21:32.000 --> 21:40.160]  to give out that information. When an attorney tells you after you show him something that he
[21:40.160 --> 21:48.080]  doesn't a, bother to read, b, he doesn't bother to verify by doing any actual research and c,
[21:48.080 --> 21:54.160]  just immediately shuns it aside and says it's taken out of context, it's incorrect and blah,
[21:54.160 --> 22:02.240]  blah, blah and you don't take it from that point right there to understand and ask the question,
[22:02.240 --> 22:07.520]  how do you actually know that? You haven't looked up one thing, you haven't done this,
[22:07.520 --> 22:11.280]  you haven't done this, you haven't verified anything that he's talking about here,
[22:11.280 --> 22:15.680]  but you're going to say it's all wrong anyway. Can you please explain to me why that is?
[22:15.680 --> 22:22.240]  Oh, well the courts have said, but he says right here the courts have never addressed this particular
[22:22.240 --> 22:27.760]  issue in relation to these other issues and that this issue changes everything. Oh yeah,
[22:27.760 --> 22:31.920]  the court has, the court's addressed everything at one time or another, so it's all out there
[22:31.920 --> 22:38.720]  somewhere. Again, the attorney is talking out of his backside and these people are just going,
[22:38.720 --> 22:47.360]  oh okay, well good enough for me. You know one thing that I have never had happen in the years
[22:47.360 --> 22:55.680]  I've been doing this, I have never, ever lost a face-to-face debate with an attorney over the law,
[22:56.960 --> 23:03.600]  not once. Now I may have lost the debate in the fact that they're going to do what they're going
[23:03.600 --> 23:09.520]  to do regardless, but when it came to the facts and it came to the law, I have never lost a debate
[23:09.520 --> 23:17.200]  with an attorney. They have been wrong every single time and they're wrong because they are
[23:17.200 --> 23:24.400]  not applying the law. They are not applying the only way the law is written to work and they are
[23:24.400 --> 23:31.520]  simply doing what they want through fraud and deception and because they control every aspect
[23:31.520 --> 23:41.760]  of the judiciary, they get away with it. Every single time I've debated an attorney over the law,
[23:41.760 --> 23:47.680]  it has wound up just like the conversations in this group. They start name-calling,
[23:47.680 --> 23:53.760]  they start threatening, they do everything except provide actual proof I'm wrong
[23:56.240 --> 24:03.200]  or that they're right. They go right back to the same thing I'm arguing is written to deceive
[24:03.200 --> 24:08.560]  and then try to use that as evidence that the deception is factual. Well of course the deception
[24:08.560 --> 24:15.680]  is factual. That is the whole problem since when is a factual deception any less of a deception?
[24:18.160 --> 24:21.280]  When is a factual lie any less of a lie?
[24:29.200 --> 24:34.320]  See there's this thing in the law called nondisclosure
[24:34.320 --> 24:44.720]  and when you are discussing the law and you fail to disclose an aspect of the law that changes the
[24:44.720 --> 24:54.160]  outcome of the argument that's fraud by deception. That's fraud by nondisclosure. That's wrong in
[24:54.160 --> 25:01.760]  a criminal case in more ways than you can possibly imagine. It is the state lying about its facts
[25:01.760 --> 25:08.400]  in order to get a conviction that it knows it should not have.
[25:14.160 --> 25:22.720]  Do you understand that? Do you see why that is? When the state is allowed to make a case absent
[25:22.720 --> 25:35.680]  the necessary elements and facts then no one is safe. The state can incarcerate and punish anybody
[25:35.680 --> 25:45.040]  anytime it wants to because it can fabricate what it needs to get it and make it happen.
[25:45.040 --> 25:54.800]  And they get away with it because there is no one out there that knows what they're doing.
[25:57.360 --> 26:04.080]  And even worse even when there are people out there that have been shown what they're doing
[26:04.720 --> 26:11.200]  they refuse to accept it as fact. They just look at it and go no sorry I need the way it works it
[26:11.200 --> 26:16.960]  doesn't work that way it doesn't matter how much proof you give them it doesn't matter how much
[26:16.960 --> 26:22.960]  logic you throw at them it's going to get ignored. It is absolutely pointless. Okay
[26:25.360 --> 26:30.640]  well we're back to the old adage if you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink
[26:31.440 --> 26:37.600]  and I think we need to change that to you can lead a jackass to knowledge but you cannot make him think.
[26:37.600 --> 26:48.800]  And there folks is where we're at we have a field of jackasses and not a one of them
[26:48.800 --> 26:56.160]  capable or willing to think for themselves not one.
[26:56.160 --> 27:06.160]  They are so invested in where and what they are
[27:08.000 --> 27:12.240]  that they would literally fight the other jackasses in the field to make room for the
[27:12.240 --> 27:20.640]  wolves that are trying to kill them. You get that? That is how asinine the thought process
[27:20.640 --> 27:29.520]  is in the folks in this group. They are so enamored with their belief system and faith
[27:29.520 --> 27:38.000]  in government and the government employees that they would rather kill the other people
[27:38.560 --> 27:44.160]  who are trying to show them that their faith is misplaced their trust is severely
[27:44.160 --> 27:52.720]  brutal misplaced just like everything else and they just don't want to hear it.
[27:53.680 --> 27:55.600]  They do not want to hear it.
[27:59.040 --> 28:04.640]  And in the long run who does that harm? Well I'll tell you everybody
[28:06.880 --> 28:11.440]  not just those people who misplace their trust and their faith in the people in the system
[28:11.440 --> 28:19.760]  but everybody. Why? How? That's easy. These are the people that are sitting on your juries and
[28:19.760 --> 28:25.600]  the state makes sure that these are the people sitting on your jury therefore you get harmed
[28:25.600 --> 28:32.400]  by never having a jury of your peers. You don't have a jury of people who know what you know
[28:32.400 --> 28:36.800]  think like you think and understand the issues that you understand. What you have
[28:36.800 --> 28:41.840]  is a bunch of status-minded sycophants that would rather lick the boots kicking on right between
[28:41.840 --> 28:54.560]  the teeth than they would help their fellow man with what's right and wrong because they're more
[28:54.560 --> 29:02.160]  comfortable in their slavery of mind and body than they are in freedom of thought expression
[29:02.160 --> 29:13.120]  and ability to do. They need a keeper literally and the state is the one they've chosen
[29:15.920 --> 29:21.120]  and that ladies and gentlemen is why the rust bucket can't be restored.
[29:21.120 --> 29:30.800]  That is why you can't get decent parts to fix and restore the old system anymore
[29:32.080 --> 29:38.160]  because there's no good parts left not anywhere in any source in any way none.
[29:41.200 --> 29:47.440]  And the sooner we realize that the sooner we may actually get on the same page and start to do
[29:47.440 --> 29:56.400]  something about it. But we'll see. All right we're going to take a break we'll be right back five one
[29:56.400 --> 30:04.800]  two six four six nineteen eighty four. Want to pick the perfect gift? Head to the berry patch.
[30:04.800 --> 30:09.040]  Berries are not only delicious they're rich in antioxidants that could protect your special
[30:09.040 --> 30:13.920]  someone from the ravages of disease. I'm Dr. Catherine Albright and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:13.920 --> 30:20.240]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again
[30:20.240 --> 30:25.040]  and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.040 --> 30:31.200]  So protect your rights say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy
[30:31.200 --> 30:36.400]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com
[30:36.400 --> 30:44.240]  the private search engine alternative to Google Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage. Actor
[30:44.240 --> 30:49.440]  Michael J. Fox has it and so do half a million other Americans. It's Parkinson's disease a
[30:49.440 --> 30:54.080]  nervous system affliction that involves shaking that gets progressively worse over time. There's
[30:54.080 --> 30:59.360]  no cure for Parkinson's but new research suggests that eating berries might help prevent it. The
[30:59.360 --> 31:04.560]  National Institutes of Health reports that a special class of flavonoids called anthocyanins
[31:04.560 --> 31:09.840]  may significantly reduce the risk of developing Parkinson's. Berries are rich in anthocyanins
[31:09.840 --> 31:15.520]  and so are apples. Why might anthocyanins prevent Parkinson's? Researchers aren't sure but they
[31:15.520 --> 31:21.200]  suspect the flavonoids may suppress inflammation, reduce oxidative stress and increase dopamine
[31:21.200 --> 31:27.120]  release in the brain. So eat your berries. I'm Dr. Catherine Albright more news and information
[31:27.120 --> 31:35.520]  at CatherineAlbright.com. This is Building 7 a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon
[31:35.520 --> 31:40.640]  of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However 1500 architects and
[31:40.640 --> 31:45.520]  engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[31:45.520 --> 31:50.400]  given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.400 --> 31:53.760]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.760 --> 31:58.560]  I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to
[31:58.560 --> 32:05.680]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:05.680 --> 32:09.440]  In today's America we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to
[32:09.440 --> 32:13.920]  have a free society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights
[32:13.920 --> 32:17.200]  are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private
[32:17.200 --> 32:21.440]  capacity and most importantly the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the
[32:21.440 --> 32:25.280]  least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due
[32:25.280 --> 32:29.360]  process. Former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio has put
[32:29.360 --> 32:32.960]  together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what
[32:32.960 --> 32:37.040]  due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this
[32:37.040 --> 32:41.760]  invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now
[32:41.760 --> 32:45.680]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[32:45.680 --> 32:50.240]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful
[32:50.240 --> 32:53.520]  resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from
[32:53.520 --> 32:58.480]  ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want
[32:58.480 --> 33:21.920]  to and deserve. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:29.440 --> 33:37.840]  All right folks we are back. This is rule of law radio. The calling number is 512-646-1984
[33:37.840 --> 33:44.960]  if you want to call and get in line. All right first one up on the caller board tonight is Tim
[33:44.960 --> 33:46.960]  in Texas. Tim what can I do for you?
[33:51.360 --> 33:51.760]  Hello?
[33:51.760 --> 33:58.240]  Hello Tim are you there? Here. Okay there you are.
[34:01.280 --> 34:02.880]  I hear you what's up? There.
[34:05.360 --> 34:06.480]  Hello? Hello.
[34:08.960 --> 34:15.840]  Okay I'm trying to answer without it being on the intercom here. Sorry about that. Okay. Okay I
[34:15.840 --> 34:23.040]  guess you're familiar with my case and how it got dismissed eventually after I was convicted of
[34:24.240 --> 34:30.320]  the original $8,000 fine by an administrative hearing in the municipality I live in
[34:31.200 --> 34:40.400]  and then an additional $80,000 that they did with I think $1,000 a day for a vehicle that they said
[34:40.400 --> 34:48.480]  was a junk vehicle and I was disobeying the law for 80 days that's what they got me for and then
[34:49.680 --> 34:59.680]  we took it to the appeals court to get them to overthrow by mandamus the original $8,000 because
[34:59.680 --> 35:10.720]  they said well your city has never okayed voted in the administrative hearing so therefore they
[35:10.720 --> 35:18.640]  didn't have that so I thought once they did that we'd go back to the district court and the judge
[35:19.520 --> 35:25.360]  would say well since they didn't have the original charge you found guilty of
[35:25.360 --> 35:33.920]  then we'll dismiss the $80,000 but they did not do that and to this day we did a findings
[35:33.920 --> 35:41.120]  of facts conclusions of law proper to the district judge both times for the even the
[35:41.120 --> 35:48.160]  late one telling him he was late and he never told us and then when we took it to appeals
[35:48.160 --> 35:57.920]  afterwards we took the original countersuit that we had to appeal they said that the judge
[35:57.920 --> 36:05.440]  did everything right by throwing it out originally our countersuit and that the reason why was because
[36:08.480 --> 36:11.520]  we were suing the city and its employees at the same time
[36:11.520 --> 36:21.440]  and so therefore as the the court was immune and that the the employees you know it was overturned
[36:21.440 --> 36:28.000]  immediately because the employees that's what the law says basically I've read it myself so
[36:29.040 --> 36:34.000]  but if you read our countersuit that's not what it said we weren't really suing the city we were
[36:34.000 --> 36:40.640]  suing the the board the people that were on the board and we were suing the attorneys
[36:40.640 --> 36:45.680]  were you suing them in their official capacities yes sir then you were suing the city
[36:46.320 --> 36:52.720]  because the cities respond to superior when you sue in an official capacity okay so anyway
[36:52.720 --> 37:02.160]  so I talked to a acquaintance of yours in mind last week and he said that he read he read my
[37:02.160 --> 37:07.920]  original countersuit and he said that I really didn't have any facts in there that were proper
[37:07.920 --> 37:13.360]  and he asked me a little bit about my case and and really what it originated from was a city
[37:13.360 --> 37:19.520]  administrator she had it in for us because my wife was on counts for three times and when my wife
[37:19.520 --> 37:23.520]  got off she immediately started coming after us both and it went on for like five years
[37:24.800 --> 37:29.440]  and uh he said well she would have been the first one and I would have went after
[37:30.160 --> 37:35.040]  and uh and but she doesn't have her job anymore because of everything else that's gone along with
[37:35.040 --> 37:41.680]  this but since the appeals court agreed with the district court judge and the only reason why
[37:41.680 --> 37:46.400]  we got it dismissed and I'm thinking this is the only reason why we got it dismissed is because
[37:46.400 --> 37:51.120]  we had a bunch of our friends in this town who would go to the council meetings in protest
[37:51.920 --> 37:58.800]  with signs and everything during the council meetings so they did it right before Christmas
[37:58.800 --> 38:02.240]  and I don't know if they were just trying to be nice or what or just trying to get everybody
[38:02.240 --> 38:10.480]  off their back but uh this just I would if you read when you request a findings of facts and
[38:10.480 --> 38:15.520]  conclusions of law it doesn't say they have an option but I've heard other people say
[38:16.240 --> 38:22.080]  yeah they the judge has an option whether or not he tells you but I didn't see that written and
[38:22.080 --> 38:33.840]  I think it's rule 276 276 I believe so I don't know what is your thought I haven't read your suit I
[38:33.840 --> 38:42.080]  don't know what your suit said or didn't say right so if it doesn't have any facts in there he can
[38:42.080 --> 38:47.120]  just ignore it because there are no facts well without facts you have no claim without a claim
[38:47.120 --> 38:51.680]  you have no case without a case what's he going to do what's he going to find facts and conclusions
[38:51.680 --> 38:58.000]  of law about when they're in it okay that's what I wanted to hear kind of what I was saying I mean
[38:58.000 --> 39:03.600]  it's kind of like a staircase you know yeah either there's a landing at the top and at the bottom
[39:04.240 --> 39:12.000]  or what's supporting the stairs yeah yep that's kind of what I was thinking that we just we went
[39:12.000 --> 39:19.360]  at this the wrong way from the start it just it was just I think a bunch of threats and stuff on
[39:19.360 --> 39:26.960]  paper and it wasn't properly filed and it wasn't written properly so not having read it I can't
[39:26.960 --> 39:31.920]  say for sure but if you're talking about my co-host having read it then I can say that's probably
[39:31.920 --> 39:38.640]  accurate oh no it was it wasn't your co-host that that read it it was another guy named Naroni
[39:39.840 --> 39:45.520]  oh okay yeah then I can almost assuredly guarantee you that he knows what he's talking about yeah he
[39:45.520 --> 39:53.840]  just said I hate to say this but it's garbage so anyway that's where we went yeah you pinned your
[39:53.840 --> 39:58.560]  hopes to helium balloon and then you cut the string yeah I'll probably talk to him a little more but I
[39:58.560 --> 40:05.280]  want to just get your opinion before we hang up well based upon what you've told me and how you
[40:05.280 --> 40:10.960]  say you did what you did in it I'd have to agree with him you didn't make a case therefore you had
[40:10.960 --> 40:22.720]  no case yeah so since we sued the the attorneys in their official capacity if they did if a
[40:22.720 --> 40:28.640]  prosecutor is not an factual employee they're they're contracted law firm for a small town
[40:29.200 --> 40:36.000]  and you cannot sue them for suggesting an administrative hearing and then putting you
[40:36.000 --> 40:43.520]  through all you can sue them for malpractice for being idiot attorneys okay then that's
[40:43.520 --> 40:47.680]  probably where we need to go I could probably still do that even though I've done this other
[40:47.680 --> 40:54.720]  stuff and it was thrown out so it was probably I told told mr. Naroni I said you know I think
[40:54.720 --> 41:00.080]  that district judge was trying to do me a favor but he knew I was such an idiot I had never done
[41:00.080 --> 41:05.600]  this before this was the first time I'd ever had anything like this usually you go in you say guilty
[41:05.600 --> 41:12.720]  or no contest but this one I fought and I had a little help and a lot of it was good and they
[41:12.720 --> 41:20.240]  had to listen to a lot of it but I could see them shaking their heads so I guess we'll what do you
[41:20.240 --> 41:27.520]  mean go after a lot of it was good oh I'm sure it was yeah well wait a minute okay are you mocking me
[41:27.520 --> 41:35.200]  now well here here's the thing did you send them a version of Harry Potter to read or did you send
[41:35.200 --> 41:42.160]  them a lawsuit to get remedy send them a lawsuit to get remedy no you didn't you just said you
[41:42.160 --> 41:50.000]  didn't okay all right okay you sent them a Harry Potter story that's what you mean by I bet they
[41:50.000 --> 41:57.360]  found some of it interesting yeah well well I like that part about Voldemort yeah that's cool
[41:57.360 --> 42:04.720]  yeah no it wasn't anything like that it was it was try you'd have to read it you know we
[42:04.720 --> 42:11.440]  could sit there and go on and on about this but my point being yeah that it doesn't matter how
[42:11.440 --> 42:18.560]  interesting you make the suit when you do not formulate it as a suit when you make a statement
[42:18.560 --> 42:25.920]  of facts that have no basis for legal remedy written into the document in which you put them
[42:25.920 --> 42:33.120]  as to why you have a valid claim based upon those facts and what case law or other decisions of
[42:33.120 --> 42:41.680]  the court or statutory law supports your claim of remedy well yeah you've got a story you don't
[42:41.680 --> 42:50.320]  have a lawsuit you've got a story yeah and that's my point I was okay I was told that the 36 pages
[42:50.320 --> 42:58.560]  was probably too much and that that could have been I believe that the way the legal writing
[42:58.560 --> 43:05.120]  books tell me that it's done is this if you cannot accurately state each of your claims
[43:05.120 --> 43:12.320]  in three pages then you're not doing it right yeah now the three pages can be per claim
[43:12.320 --> 43:18.240]  but if you can't make the claim based upon the law in those three pages you're doing something wrong
[43:18.240 --> 43:30.560]  yes sir well you know there's got to be a way to educate us better than us just bang our head
[43:30.560 --> 43:36.320]  against the wall so y'all y'all teach us a lot you've got your blog try to read it try to understand
[43:36.320 --> 43:43.520]  that and then trying to put it to paper is two different things so I appreciate y'all being on
[43:43.520 --> 43:49.920]  the radio and I plan to donate well I appreciate that we could sure use it yes sir all right
[43:51.040 --> 43:55.840]  you have a good night and thanks for calling you too all right bye bye all right folks we'll be right
[43:55.840 --> 44:03.280]  back after this break five one two six four six 1984 are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit
[44:03.920 --> 44:09.440]  win your case without an attorney with jurors dictionary the affordable easy to understand
[44:09.440 --> 44:17.280]  for cd course that will show you how in 24 hours step by step if you have a lawyer know what your
[44:17.280 --> 44:23.360]  lawyer should be doing if you don't have a lawyer know what you should do for yourself thousands
[44:23.360 --> 44:30.080]  have won with our step by step course and now you can too jurisdiction area was created by a licensed
[44:30.080 --> 44:37.040]  attorney with 22 years of case winning experience even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what
[44:37.040 --> 44:43.120]  everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our american courts
[44:43.120 --> 44:50.800]  you'll receive our audio classroom video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics
[44:50.800 --> 44:57.680]  and much more please visit rule of law radio dot com and click on the banner or call toll free
[44:57.680 --> 45:05.840]  866 law easy i love logos without the shows on this network i'd be almost as ignorant as my friends
[45:05.840 --> 45:10.480]  i'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back i need my truth fake i'd be lost
[45:10.480 --> 45:15.520]  without logos and i really want to help keep this network on the air and i'd love to volunteer as a
[45:15.520 --> 45:20.480]  show producer but i'm a bit of a lie and i really don't have any money to give because i spent it all
[45:20.480 --> 45:27.040]  on supplements how can i help logos well i'm glad you asked whenever you order anything from amazon
[45:27.040 --> 45:32.000]  you can help logos but order your supplies or holiday gifts first thing you do is clear your
[45:32.000 --> 45:39.360]  cookies now go to logos radio network dot com tickle on the amazon logo and bookmark it now when
[45:39.360 --> 45:46.320]  you order anything from amazon you use that link and logos gets a few pesos do i pay extra no do i
[45:46.320 --> 45:53.120]  have to do anything different when i order no can i use my amazon prime no i mean yes wow giving
[45:53.120 --> 45:59.920]  without doing anything or spending any money this is perfect thank you so much we are welcome happy
[45:59.920 --> 46:12.400]  holidays logos
[46:30.560 --> 46:45.280]  all right folks we are back this is rule of law radio the calling number is five one two six
[46:45.280 --> 46:52.800]  four six nineteen eighty four and we've got a wireless caller here does not give me a name it
[46:52.800 --> 47:03.120]  appears to be eight four five is the area code hello are you out there speak up and i'll tell you if
[47:03.120 --> 47:19.600]  i hear you hello yeah hello i can hear your mom but i can't hear you talking
[47:19.600 --> 47:28.000]  your lines open are you going to speak
[47:34.080 --> 47:37.120]  area code eight four five are you there
[47:37.120 --> 47:44.480]  hello
[47:47.040 --> 47:51.200]  all right they dropped off all right j in texas what do you got
[47:56.480 --> 47:58.880]  hello seven six oh
[47:58.880 --> 48:01.200]  hello
[48:04.960 --> 48:10.240]  i seem to have an awful lot of people calling in nobody talking hello hello there you go
[48:12.400 --> 48:19.840]  all right eddie yes truth rares morgan and why does it say j in texas i have no idea
[48:21.040 --> 48:26.480]  look what my computer says i don't know i'm not in texas though used to be but i'm not in texas no
[48:26.480 --> 48:34.560]  longer okay what you got what can you please repeat for the listening audience the listening
[48:34.560 --> 48:42.160]  audience what you said a couple days ago about what uh when a judge says that traffic violations
[48:43.280 --> 48:53.520]  the the victim is society is as a whole i didn't say anything on it a couple days ago i made a
[48:53.520 --> 49:03.040]  post about it on facebook well i asked you about it you said had an answer to objection to that
[49:04.080 --> 49:08.000]  and you well i wrote an entire script for that and put it up on facebook
[49:09.840 --> 49:14.640]  okay i don't have facebook well that sort of limits your options of getting what i put out there
[49:14.640 --> 49:24.320]  don't because i hadn't put it up on the legal blog yet okay well you had an answer for me for that well
[49:24.320 --> 49:31.760]  i've got several but that one's got the most extensive and and well arguable one it's got a
[49:31.760 --> 49:39.920]  whole list of things in it it's got a whole list of questions not just that one okay all right so
[49:39.920 --> 49:44.880]  the end what though you can't explain what the answer is well of course i can explain it but
[49:44.880 --> 49:52.560]  it's a lot longer it'll take a while well anyway hang on just a second let me see if i can locate it
[49:52.560 --> 50:11.040]  here all right
[50:16.000 --> 50:19.520]  you want the answer to just that part of it or do you want the whole thing
[50:19.520 --> 50:26.080]  okay now just the brief answer would you say an objection to the judge asking which question
[50:27.280 --> 50:33.040]  when i ask the question who is the victim here or who is the corpus delectae here
[50:34.080 --> 50:36.960]  and this alleged civil infraction
[50:36.960 --> 50:44.960]  it
[50:44.960 --> 50:56.960]  hang on
[50:56.960 --> 51:06.480]  now let's see
[51:10.400 --> 51:16.000]  as this is not a case of murder where the alleged victim is incapable of levying charges or providing
[51:16.000 --> 51:21.120]  testimony themselves the accused would like to know who is actually claiming to be the alleged
[51:21.120 --> 51:26.240]  victim of an intentional or negligent injury or a demonstrable act of reckless disregard for public
[51:26.240 --> 51:31.680]  safety in the matter before the court and the court says the state the people of the state
[51:31.680 --> 51:38.080]  or society is or are the victims the accused would like to know the specific identity of
[51:38.080 --> 51:42.720]  whomever it is the state plans to call as a witness to the alleged injury or recklessness
[51:42.720 --> 51:48.400]  suffered by the alleged victim the state shall call the citing officers as the primary witnesses
[51:48.400 --> 51:55.280]  in this matter the accused would like to know does this court intend to allow the these witnesses
[51:55.280 --> 52:01.280]  to testify under oath as to their own personal legal opinions conjecture conclusions of law
[52:01.280 --> 52:06.320]  or to any alleged facts that the state has not submitted substantive evidence in support of
[52:07.360 --> 52:11.280]  the court will determine what testimony is allowed and whether or not that testimony
[52:11.280 --> 52:16.000]  is opinion conjecture or conclusory in nature as well as whether or not sufficient evidence
[52:16.000 --> 52:21.120]  has been introduced to support it the accused would like to know does this court intend to
[52:21.120 --> 52:25.680]  follow and comply with the Texas rules of evidence as to how and when such testimony is
[52:25.680 --> 52:31.040]  supporting evidence is admissible and is admitted in this matter the court is not required to comply
[52:31.040 --> 52:36.160]  with the Texas rules of evidence in cases such as this pursuant rule 101f and shall therefore
[52:36.160 --> 52:42.800]  determine for itself what is fair and what is admissible or inadmissible then the accused
[52:42.800 --> 52:47.040]  objects to these proceedings on the grounds that there is no standard rules requiring the state to
[52:47.040 --> 52:52.400]  actually provide any exculpatory evidence or testimony to the jury or this court or regarding
[52:52.400 --> 52:56.800]  how such evidence is to be submitted to and accepted by the jury or entered into the record of the
[52:56.800 --> 53:02.160]  court nor is there any standardized requirement to follow proper procedural and substantive due
[53:02.160 --> 53:07.280]  process much less for the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt including providing
[53:07.280 --> 53:12.720]  substantive evidence of any alleged facts offered in testimony by its witnesses without the rules
[53:12.720 --> 53:18.000]  of evidence there simply isn't any rules governing how supporting evidence of the alleged facts is
[53:18.000 --> 53:23.680]  to be admissible or presented in this matter or even what type and level of evidence is required
[53:23.680 --> 53:29.760]  to the state to prove the mandatory elements of its own case in short because the court is not bound
[53:29.760 --> 53:36.480]  by any rules of evidence the state itself is not bound to those rules thus the accused must presume
[53:36.480 --> 53:41.040]  that both the state and this court are free to do as they damn well please regardless of the due
[53:41.040 --> 53:46.640]  process rights of the accused or any semblance of fairness and impartiality well the court over
[53:46.640 --> 53:51.920]  rules your objection is there anything else then I object to these proceedings as there is no standard
[53:51.920 --> 53:56.400]  set of rules by which the accused or the court of appeals may measure the court's alleged intent
[53:56.400 --> 54:01.600]  or resolve to provide fair and impartial proceedings or protect the due process rights of the accused
[54:01.600 --> 54:05.920]  which is a direct denial of the accused's right to the equal application of protection of the laws
[54:05.920 --> 54:11.600]  especially in a criminal matter that objection too is overruled is there anything else the accused
[54:11.600 --> 54:16.000]  would like to know if the officers intend to testify that they are the alleged victims claiming
[54:16.000 --> 54:20.880]  injury in the matter before the court the court does not have any reason to believe that the
[54:20.880 --> 54:25.440]  state intends to allege or prove that these witnesses are the alleged victims or receive
[54:25.440 --> 54:30.640]  any testimony to those ends then the accused objects to the court's legal determination as
[54:30.640 --> 54:35.200]  to who will be allowed to testify in this matter and who is being named as the alleged victim on
[54:35.200 --> 54:40.160]  the following grounds the court has identified the victim as being an entity that is nothing more
[54:40.160 --> 54:45.440]  than a fictional political and legal concept absolutely incapable of suffering injury of any
[54:45.440 --> 54:51.600]  kind I demand to know if the state does or does not have an actual tangible victim who is capable
[54:51.600 --> 54:56.320]  of making a claim of their own accord and on their own behalf that can demonstrate and provide
[54:56.320 --> 55:01.520]  evidence of probable injury and who can and will take the stand as a witness against me in this
[55:01.520 --> 55:08.240]  matter so that I may engage in cross examination of any provided testimony the court has informed
[55:08.240 --> 55:13.440]  you of who the victim is in this case and that is all that is required objection this court is
[55:13.440 --> 55:17.840]  ignoring even the most basic fundamental rights of due process required to be afforded to the
[55:17.840 --> 55:22.640]  accused in a criminal matter which is to be able to face and cross examine their accuser in open
[55:22.640 --> 55:27.680]  court by its own declaration and volition this court is literally attempting to create an alleged
[55:27.680 --> 55:33.520]  victim out of thin air that deprives the accused of these basic fundamental rights that would also
[55:33.520 --> 55:40.000]  mean that the entire testimony of the state's only tangible witness the citing officer will be 100%
[55:40.000 --> 55:46.400]  unsubstantiated hearsay on behalf of the alleged victim in this matter that fact alone denies the
[55:46.400 --> 55:52.480]  accused of any ability whatsoever to verify or refute the officer's testimony by cross examination
[55:52.480 --> 55:58.160]  of the actual alleged victim for purposes of impeachment due to this court's own actions I
[55:58.160 --> 56:04.160]  have good cause to believe the court and its judge is both unwilling and incapable of providing
[56:04.160 --> 56:09.200]  and conducting fair and impartial proceedings in this matter due to its direct relationship with
[56:09.200 --> 56:14.480]  the alleged victim it is utterly inarguable that this court's office and authority exists solely
[56:14.480 --> 56:19.520]  upon the direct favor funding and authority of the court's alleged victim in the case which totally
[56:19.520 --> 56:25.520]  violates the rule of accountability to a degree that is unacceptable and cannot be ignored without
[56:25.520 --> 56:31.120]  violating even the most fundamental rights and concepts of due process now of course you would
[56:31.120 --> 56:36.880]  never get the opportunity to say all of that verbally that's why each one of these objections
[56:36.880 --> 56:43.280]  should be reduced to a written verified objection and filed at the proper time it's being made in
[56:43.280 --> 56:51.840]  open court but there is no just one set question or answer here in relation to what the court says
[56:51.840 --> 56:57.520]  about a victim this all goes to making a proper record by laying a proper foundation through a
[56:57.520 --> 57:04.880]  proper series of questions intended to show that you're in a situation that you cannot possibly
[57:04.880 --> 57:13.840]  receive a fair and impartial trial from it's impossible cannot be done exactly thank you
[57:15.120 --> 57:21.440]  question two what do you say in court when the judge answers the question of the saying
[57:22.320 --> 57:29.040]  is this civil or is this criminal and her answer is well it's quasi-criminal
[57:29.040 --> 57:32.880]  what did i tell you the answer was
[57:37.680 --> 57:43.280]  i get exactly word for word but you know the accused objects to these proceedings on the
[57:43.280 --> 57:47.520]  ground that this court lacks any such form of subject matter and personal jurisdiction over
[57:47.520 --> 57:53.520]  myself known as quasi-criminal both the state and federal constitutions establish and recognize
[57:53.520 --> 57:58.560]  only two forms of jurisdiction within the state and federal court civil or criminal and the court
[57:58.560 --> 58:04.160]  has just declared that this matter is neither and it cannot legitimately be both furthermore
[58:04.160 --> 58:08.880]  there is no law that has ever been enacted in the state of texas that creates or defines any
[58:08.880 --> 58:14.160]  such subject matter or personal form of jurisdiction within the jurisdiction authority of any court
[58:14.160 --> 58:18.160]  including this one therefore i move the court to dismiss this matter of prejudice for lack of
[58:18.160 --> 58:25.200]  both personal and subject matter jurisdiction that's how you respond but again you do it in
[58:25.200 --> 58:32.080]  writing as well as attempting to do it verbally absolutely okay question that's why till after
[58:32.080 --> 58:37.600]  the well hold on i got a break and we'll take your other question okay thanks sir all right all
[58:37.600 --> 58:42.800]  right folks this is a monday night show rule of law radio we host a craig i will be right back
[58:42.800 --> 58:54.400]  after this break so y'all hang in there the bible remains the most popular book in the world yet
[58:54.400 --> 58:59.680]  countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it some new translations
[58:59.680 --> 59:05.520]  try to help by simplifying the text but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of
[59:05.520 --> 59:12.720]  the scripture enter the recovery version first this new translation is extremely faithful and
[59:12.720 --> 59:19.600]  accurate but the real story is the more than 9 000 explanatory footnotes difficult and profound
[59:19.600 --> 59:25.520]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[59:25.520 --> 59:31.280]  which you've ever experienced before bibles for america would like to give you a free recovery
[59:31.280 --> 59:38.000]  version simply for the asking this comprehensive yet compact study bible is yours just by calling us
[59:38.000 --> 59:49.040]  toll free at 1 888 551 0102 or by ordering online at free study bible dot com that's free study
[59:49.040 --> 59:56.320]  bible dot com you are listening to the logos radio network logos radio network dot com
[01:00:00.720 --> 01:00:04.560]  the following flash is brought to you by the lowest star lowdown
[01:00:06.480 --> 01:00:11.680]  markets for monday the 22nd of july 2019 opened with precious metals gold at one thousand four
[01:00:11.680 --> 01:00:15.520]  hundred twenty nine dollars an ounce silver sixteen dollars forty five cents an ounce
[01:00:15.520 --> 01:00:20.000]  copper two dollars seventy five cents an ounce oil texas crude fifty five dollars and sixty three
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:24.720]  cents a barrel brand crude sixty two dollars and forty seven cents a barrel and cryptos in order
[01:00:24.720 --> 01:00:29.840]  of market cap bitcoin core ten thousand five hundred sixty six dollars and fifty two cents ethereum
[01:00:29.840 --> 01:00:35.280]  two hundred twenty seven dollars and twenty six cents xrp ripple thirty three cents light coin
[01:00:35.280 --> 01:00:45.600]  one hundred dollars and thirty one cents and bitcoin cash is at three hundred twenty four dollars and ten cents a crypto coin
[01:00:46.080 --> 01:00:52.640]  today in history the year 1916 the preparedness day bombing a time suitcase bomb was detonated
[01:00:52.640 --> 01:00:58.400]  on market street in san francisco during the world war one preparedness day parade killing 10 and
[01:00:58.400 --> 01:01:08.640]  entering 40 today in history and recent news since governor greg abbott signed house bill 1325
[01:01:08.640 --> 01:01:13.360]  legalizing heaven attacks his law back in june county prosecutors around the state including
[01:01:13.360 --> 01:01:17.920]  houston austin san Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing
[01:01:17.920 --> 01:01:22.480]  to file new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory
[01:01:22.480 --> 01:01:27.360]  equipment to test the earth for thc margaret moore the travis county district attorney
[01:01:27.360 --> 01:01:32.000]  announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:36.800]  cases because of the law mr abbott and other state officials including the attorney general
[01:01:36.800 --> 01:01:41.280]  stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on thursday that marijuana has
[01:01:41.280 --> 01:01:46.640]  not been decriminalized in texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how hb
[01:01:46.640 --> 01:01:54.640]  1325 works as well as other cities too like the district attorney in el paso kime asparza a democrat
[01:01:54.640 --> 01:01:59.840]  who also stated earlier this month that the law quote will not have an effect on the prosecution
[01:01:59.840 --> 01:02:05.440]  of marijuana cases in el paso however the issue was succinctly summarized by mr brandon ball and
[01:02:05.440 --> 01:02:10.400]  assistant public defender in harris county who stated that quote the law is constantly changing
[01:02:10.400 --> 01:02:14.720]  on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup it's important that if someone
[01:02:14.720 --> 01:02:24.240]  is charged with something the test matches what they're charged with a paper by tulane university
[01:02:24.240 --> 01:02:29.360]  identified a five and a half inch american pocket shark as the first of its kind in the gulf of
[01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:35.440]  mexico the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other
[01:02:35.440 --> 01:02:40.720]  one being found way back in 1979 in the east pacific ocean according to the university paper
[01:02:40.720 --> 01:02:47.600]  the shark secretes a lumus fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesize
[01:02:47.600 --> 01:02:55.920]  to lure and pray may be drawn into the glow this is book roadie with your lowdown for july
[01:02:55.920 --> 01:02:58.240]  22nd 2019
[01:03:02.240 --> 01:03:08.240]  make our own whiskey and our own smoke too ain't too many things these old boys can't do
[01:03:08.240 --> 01:03:13.760]  um
[01:03:13.760 --> 01:03:18.760]  Good old maters and homemade wine, and the country boy can survive.
[01:03:19.760 --> 01:03:22.760]  Country folks can survive.
[01:03:27.760 --> 01:03:30.760]  Because you can't drive us out, and you can't make us run.
[01:03:30.760 --> 01:03:33.760]  Those moans and moans, boys, pray, don't shot guns.
[01:03:35.760 --> 01:03:36.760]  We say, pray.
[01:03:36.760 --> 01:03:38.760]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:03:38.760 --> 01:03:44.760]  This is Rural Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:03:44.760 --> 01:03:49.760]  Got an hour left in the show, and we are still talking with Truth Raider in Oregon.
[01:03:49.760 --> 01:03:50.760]  Alright, Raider, go ahead.
[01:03:51.760 --> 01:03:52.760]  Thank you, Eddie.
[01:03:52.760 --> 01:03:54.760]  I can swear you sound just like Hank Williams, Jr.
[01:03:54.760 --> 01:03:56.760]  Please don't do that to me.
[01:03:56.760 --> 01:03:58.760]  I don't want to sound like Hank Williams, Jr.
[01:03:58.760 --> 01:04:01.760]  I couldn't sound that drunk and lost if I tried.
[01:04:03.760 --> 01:04:07.760]  I think the sentiment, though, must be at the heart, too, as well, though.
[01:04:07.760 --> 01:04:09.760]  I'm sorry to feel that way.
[01:04:09.760 --> 01:04:19.760]  The third question is, I went on the United States Department, a transportation site, transportation.gov,
[01:04:19.760 --> 01:04:21.760]  and I could not locate a form.
[01:04:21.760 --> 01:04:26.760]  I guess it's a form, and I'm not sure if you know this is the right thing to do still,
[01:04:26.760 --> 01:04:37.760]  but form 150 to apply and get a DOT number that you're not engaged in transportation and commercial use
[01:04:37.760 --> 01:04:39.760]  for the purposes of the highways.
[01:04:39.760 --> 01:04:44.760]  I said the same thing to Randy, who applied for one of those numbers for his truck.
[01:04:44.760 --> 01:04:57.760]  Why would you ask the government for something you're not required to have to make the argument that you're not required to have it?
[01:04:57.760 --> 01:04:59.760]  Alright, so that does...
[01:04:59.760 --> 01:05:01.760]  Let me put it this way.
[01:05:01.760 --> 01:05:11.760]  Have you ever known anything from government that came to you numbered that ever turned out to be a good idea to have?
[01:05:11.760 --> 01:05:13.760]  Not my recollection.
[01:05:13.760 --> 01:05:17.760]  Well, there you go.
[01:05:17.760 --> 01:05:25.760]  Alright, let's wrap that idea.
[01:05:25.760 --> 01:05:27.760]  Alrighty.
[01:05:27.760 --> 01:05:28.760]  Okay, I appreciate it.
[01:05:28.760 --> 01:05:29.760]  That's three questions I had for you.
[01:05:29.760 --> 01:05:30.760]  Okay.
[01:05:30.760 --> 01:05:31.760]  I'll let you jump.
[01:05:31.760 --> 01:05:32.760]  Thank you.
[01:05:32.760 --> 01:05:33.760]  Alright.
[01:05:33.760 --> 01:05:34.760]  We'll talk to you later.
[01:05:34.760 --> 01:05:35.760]  Alright.
[01:05:35.760 --> 01:05:36.760]  Bye-bye.
[01:05:36.760 --> 01:05:37.760]  Bye-bye.
[01:05:37.760 --> 01:05:41.760]  Okay, now we have Jerry in Pennsylvania.
[01:05:41.760 --> 01:05:44.760]  What can we do for you?
[01:05:44.760 --> 01:06:00.760]  Yeah, Eddie, on these and action clause, I ran across something here that says that Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, and one other state doesn't have an action clause in the Constitution.
[01:06:00.760 --> 01:06:03.760]  I have a copy of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
[01:06:03.760 --> 01:06:05.760]  You know, I couldn't find it.
[01:06:05.760 --> 01:06:09.760]  What state are you talking about?
[01:06:09.760 --> 01:06:19.760]  When I ran across it, it said that Pennsylvania didn't have an action clause and three other states here.
[01:06:19.760 --> 01:06:22.760]  It said something about the Commonwealth state.
[01:06:22.760 --> 01:06:24.760]  We didn't have them.
[01:06:24.760 --> 01:06:28.760]  I was wondering, do you know anything about that?
[01:06:28.760 --> 01:06:44.760]  Well, I haven't studied the Pennsylvania Constitution, but let's see.
[01:06:44.760 --> 01:07:00.760]  So if you keep saying under your and action clause in the Texas Constitution, I looked that one up and I found it. That's why I was trying to do a process to pass over the here.
[01:07:00.760 --> 01:07:08.760]  But then I ran across the statement that said that there were four states around here that didn't have it.
[01:07:08.760 --> 01:07:12.760]  And it mentions something about Commonwealth states.
[01:07:12.760 --> 01:07:17.760]  I don't know whether when they wrote these constitutions under...
[01:07:17.760 --> 01:07:23.760]  All you have to do is study in your Constitution, Article 2 and Article 3.
[01:07:23.760 --> 01:07:34.760]  Article 2 tells you what your legislature has, how they have to be capable and qualified to hold office, and Article 3 tells you how they're required to pass laws.
[01:07:34.760 --> 01:07:38.760]  Yeah, I know that one.
[01:07:38.760 --> 01:07:41.760]  I've used it in quite a few cases.
[01:07:41.760 --> 01:07:45.760]  Okay.
[01:07:45.760 --> 01:07:53.760]  Well, I didn't quite understand why they didn't have an enacting clause.
[01:07:53.760 --> 01:08:02.760]  Well, the thing about it is it does have one, even though it doesn't specifically call that.
[01:08:02.760 --> 01:08:05.760]  It might be mentioned under something else.
[01:08:05.760 --> 01:08:06.760]  Yeah, it is.
[01:08:06.760 --> 01:08:07.760]  Passage of laws.
[01:08:07.760 --> 01:08:10.760]  This is what it reads under passage of laws.
[01:08:10.760 --> 01:08:21.760]  No law shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall be so altered or amended on its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.
[01:08:21.760 --> 01:08:30.760]  So where does a bill by the Pennsylvania legislature state its original purpose?
[01:08:30.760 --> 01:08:33.760]  Okay, so that would be the enacting clause.
[01:08:33.760 --> 01:08:35.760]  That is the enacting clause.
[01:08:35.760 --> 01:08:40.760]  Something has to state the purpose of the legislation, right?
[01:08:40.760 --> 01:08:41.760]  Right.
[01:08:41.760 --> 01:08:49.760]  Well, if there is no statement of its original purpose, then how can it be compliant with those limitations?
[01:08:49.760 --> 01:08:55.760]  If it never states an original purpose, they can amend it any way they want to, right?
[01:08:55.760 --> 01:08:56.760]  Yeah.
[01:08:56.760 --> 01:09:01.760]  Which is no way for the law to work.
[01:09:01.760 --> 01:09:03.760]  Yeah, right.
[01:09:03.760 --> 01:09:08.760]  Okay, then you've got section three.
[01:09:08.760 --> 01:09:19.760]  No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriations bill.
[01:09:19.760 --> 01:09:22.760]  That is the enacting clause.
[01:09:22.760 --> 01:09:24.760]  Well, let me put it this way.
[01:09:24.760 --> 01:09:25.760]  It's an enacting title.
[01:09:25.760 --> 01:09:27.760]  It tells you what the subject is.
[01:09:27.760 --> 01:09:34.760]  The actual clause itself is hereby enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas.
[01:09:34.760 --> 01:09:39.760]  Okay, that's the actual verbiage of the clause.
[01:09:39.760 --> 01:09:46.760]  But the fact is, is that the enacting clause is simply more than the declaration that the legislature enacted it.
[01:09:46.760 --> 01:09:54.760]  It is also a statement of what the subject matter that bill is limited to.
[01:09:54.760 --> 01:09:55.760]  Right.
[01:09:55.760 --> 01:10:01.760]  And your subject matter clause, which every bill has to have.
[01:10:01.760 --> 01:10:11.760]  The only thing that's different in yours is it doesn't have specific verbiage saying that the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania enacted it.
[01:10:11.760 --> 01:10:14.760]  Right.
[01:10:14.760 --> 01:10:16.760]  So that would be it.
[01:10:16.760 --> 01:10:19.760]  I'm going to say, wouldn't you like to send yourself this part?
[01:10:19.760 --> 01:10:20.760]  Yeah.
[01:10:20.760 --> 01:10:30.760]  I've never argued that the bill in question didn't have the enacting clause being enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas.
[01:10:30.760 --> 01:10:32.760]  It's got that.
[01:10:32.760 --> 01:10:40.760]  But what it doesn't have is a definition of its subject matter, which is transportation.
[01:10:40.760 --> 01:10:44.760]  It specifically says that all items in that bill are limited to transportation.
[01:10:44.760 --> 01:10:53.760]  And it was passed without reading on the floor of each house, which is mandatory under the Texas Constitution for any bill to have the force and effective law,
[01:10:53.760 --> 01:11:03.760]  unless the legislature complied with the proper waiver procedures for that, which they absolutely did not in this case.
[01:11:03.760 --> 01:11:06.760]  Right.
[01:11:06.760 --> 01:11:09.760]  Okay.
[01:11:09.760 --> 01:11:18.760]  So as far as the actual enacting clause, that's simply the verbiage being enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas or the state of Pennsylvania legislature.
[01:11:18.760 --> 01:11:20.760]  Okay.
[01:11:20.760 --> 01:11:21.760]  All right.
[01:11:21.760 --> 01:11:25.760]  But the actual subject matter clause is where this becomes an important issue.
[01:11:25.760 --> 01:11:46.760]  And if you've got any emergency suspension clauses that allow them to not follow the procedural rules, then did they comply with whatever the Constitution says they have to in order to legally suspend those rules to enact that bill?
[01:11:46.760 --> 01:11:50.760]  Here in Texas, they absolutely did not.
[01:11:50.760 --> 01:12:01.760]  I didn't find that emergency clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution unless they worried it was a little different than I overlooked it.
[01:12:01.760 --> 01:12:05.760]  All you got to do is search it for emergency.
[01:12:05.760 --> 01:12:14.760]  And there are 20 instances of emergency on this page, special emergency legislation, emergency seats of government.
[01:12:14.760 --> 01:12:18.760]  And then it goes into explaining what those are.
[01:12:18.760 --> 01:12:24.760]  You can also do a search for the word suspension.
[01:12:24.760 --> 01:12:30.760]  And that's in there 19 times.
[01:12:30.760 --> 01:12:33.760]  And some of it deals with suspension of legislative members.
[01:12:33.760 --> 01:12:41.760]  And you'll have to read through it and see if any of it deals with suspension of procedural rules, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:12:41.760 --> 01:12:42.760]  Okay.
[01:12:42.760 --> 01:12:45.760]  I'll take a look at it again.
[01:12:45.760 --> 01:12:51.760]  Okay.
[01:12:51.760 --> 01:12:53.760]  But anything else?
[01:12:53.760 --> 01:12:55.760]  Oh, no, that was about that.
[01:12:55.760 --> 01:12:56.760]  Thank you.
[01:12:56.760 --> 01:12:57.760]  You're welcome.
[01:12:57.760 --> 01:13:00.760]  Thanks for calling in.
[01:13:00.760 --> 01:13:02.760]  Okay.
[01:13:02.760 --> 01:13:07.760]  Now, this goes back to what I was originally talking about at the beginning of the show.
[01:13:07.760 --> 01:13:09.760]  We don't have any more callers up on the board yet.
[01:13:09.760 --> 01:13:14.760]  So 512-646-1984, if you want to call in, get in line and ask a question.
[01:13:14.760 --> 01:13:19.760]  And while I'm waiting, I will go back to something else dealing with what I was talking about at the beginning.
[01:13:19.760 --> 01:13:39.760]  Another debate that I had on Facebook, which I did put an article up on the legal blog about, was this guy calling me a liar and a fraud when I made mention of the fact that every single state of the union has weather manipulation and experimentation statutes on the books since the 60s.
[01:13:39.760 --> 01:13:43.760]  Every single state.
[01:13:43.760 --> 01:13:46.760]  And this guy called me an outright ball face liar.
[01:13:46.760 --> 01:13:53.760]  I told him exactly how to go to his state legislature site and prove it and find it out for himself.
[01:13:53.760 --> 01:13:58.760]  And instead, he does things his own way and of course does not find it.
[01:13:58.760 --> 01:14:00.760]  Okay.
[01:14:00.760 --> 01:14:08.760]  And goes right back to calling me a liar and a fraud and all this stuff because he can't find the information I told him was there.
[01:14:08.760 --> 01:14:09.760]  Okay.
[01:14:09.760 --> 01:14:11.760]  That's fine.
[01:14:11.760 --> 01:14:23.760]  Before I did anything else, I went and took screenshots of all his comments, all his name calling, all of his BS, so I would have it for the record.
[01:14:23.760 --> 01:14:30.760]  And then after I took screenshots of everything he had posted, I then went to his state's legislative website.
[01:14:30.760 --> 01:14:42.760]  I looked up weather modification and experimentation and I found the exact act and statute and everything online exactly where I said it would be if he had actually go bother to look.
[01:14:42.760 --> 01:14:45.760]  And I made copies of the links.
[01:14:45.760 --> 01:14:50.760]  I made a screenshot of the opening page there for all of it.
[01:14:50.760 --> 01:14:54.760]  And I went back and I posted it on Facebook in this commentary.
[01:14:54.760 --> 01:15:03.760]  And then I put all of the screenshots of everything he had posted and everything I had said up in an article on my blog along with that information.
[01:15:03.760 --> 01:15:12.760]  And I believe the title of that article is Homie Don't Play That because I'll Make You Famous.
[01:15:12.760 --> 01:15:25.760]  And I mean, I went after this guy just to show him how his belligerence and refusal to accept factual information had affected his ability to reason.
[01:15:25.760 --> 01:15:33.760]  And I made an example out of it and I have absolutely no qualms about it whatsoever.
[01:15:33.760 --> 01:15:41.760]  And after I published the article on my blog, I went and linked it back to that same conversation on Facebook.
[01:15:41.760 --> 01:15:55.760]  And this guy went back and deleted every single comment he had made on that entire post, every last one of which, of course, didn't help him any because I'd already screenshot him on and put him up on the legal block.
[01:15:55.760 --> 01:15:59.760]  And they're all still there in that article.
[01:15:59.760 --> 01:16:11.760]  But this is exactly the same kind of mindset that I was talking about at the beginning of the show when it came to the people in this We Support Police group on Facebook.
[01:16:11.760 --> 01:16:18.760]  They are so sure they're right even though they have never done any actual research on the subject.
[01:16:18.760 --> 01:16:27.760]  They don't know how to do the research on the subject, obviously, because you couldn't find it even with instructions on how to find it.
[01:16:27.760 --> 01:16:38.760]  And yet they're going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone who has and try to bully them into admitting they're wrong when they know damn good and well they're not.
[01:16:38.760 --> 01:16:51.760]  And these are the people that you have to pardon the expression, but you have to slap across a face with an entire hard salami to get their attention and make them pay attention to what's going on.
[01:16:51.760 --> 01:16:58.760]  I ain't heard a peep out of this guy since the course, but go pick. All right, we'll be right back after this break, so y'all hanging in there.
[01:17:21.760 --> 01:17:30.760]  Purchase is a spiked tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:30.760 --> 01:17:39.760]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's ebook, Legal 101, you get four chances to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[01:17:39.760 --> 01:17:48.760]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on Talk Radio today.
[01:17:48.760 --> 01:17:55.760]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:55.760 --> 01:18:00.760]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:18:00.760 --> 01:18:05.760]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.760 --> 01:18:14.760]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirrors Proven Method. Michael Mirrors has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too.
[01:18:14.760 --> 01:18:20.760]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in Flame English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:18:20.760 --> 01:18:26.760]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:18:26.760 --> 01:18:33.760]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:33.760 --> 01:18:40.760]  The Michael Mirrors Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:40.760 --> 01:18:49.760]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirrors banner or email Michaelmirrors at yahoo.com.
[01:18:49.760 --> 01:19:11.760]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:19:19.760 --> 01:19:28.760]  As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life and realize there's nothing left.
[01:19:28.760 --> 01:19:34.760]  Cause I've been practicing and laughing so long that even my mama thinks that my mind is gone.
[01:19:34.760 --> 01:19:40.760]  But I ain't never crossed a man that didn't deserve it. Maybe treated like a punk, you know that's unheard of.
[01:19:40.760 --> 01:19:43.760]  You better watch how you're talking and where you're walking.
[01:19:43.760 --> 01:19:50.760]  Or you and your homies might be lying to each other. I really hate the trip, but I gotta look as they cook.
[01:19:50.760 --> 01:19:59.760]  Alright folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio 512-646-1984 is the call in number.
[01:19:59.760 --> 01:20:06.760]  And it looks like Tim in Texas may have called back. Tim, did you call back with something else?
[01:20:06.760 --> 01:20:14.760]  Yes sir. I had told you about the district judge not dismissing the other 80 grand.
[01:20:14.760 --> 01:20:25.760]  But I didn't explain the whole thing because the reason why the city took me to district court was to get a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction.
[01:20:25.760 --> 01:20:35.760]  And they were granted that. And then there was a temporary judge there until the other judge had died.
[01:20:35.760 --> 01:20:42.760]  And so they put another judge in there after the case got started and he's the one that had it.
[01:20:42.760 --> 01:20:56.760]  So thinking that if they take you, get an injunction against you, they don't have to have where you were a defendant in a court of law and lost.
[01:20:56.760 --> 01:21:01.760]  And then they sue you for that. They don't have to have that.
[01:21:01.760 --> 01:21:05.760]  What do you mean they don't have to have that?
[01:21:05.760 --> 01:21:15.760]  Okay, they took me to court to get a temporary injunction, temporary restraining order against me for parking cars at my automotive repair facility.
[01:21:15.760 --> 01:21:24.760]  What relationship are you trying to claim that the two cases have to each other that they would have to introduce that other loss as part of this case?
[01:21:24.760 --> 01:21:31.760]  Well, because they mentioned it a lot in the statement of facts that they presented.
[01:21:31.760 --> 01:21:33.760]  They mentioned the prior case?
[01:21:33.760 --> 01:21:34.760]  Yes.
[01:21:34.760 --> 01:21:38.760]  Okay. And?
[01:21:38.760 --> 01:21:44.760]  Well, it was overturned by the appeals court.
[01:21:44.760 --> 01:21:51.760]  How did they present it in this case? Did they present it as a win on their behalf?
[01:21:51.760 --> 01:21:54.760]  The administrative hearing? Yeah, they presented it.
[01:21:54.760 --> 01:21:57.760]  No, wait a minute, wait a minute. The administrative hearing is not a court of law.
[01:21:57.760 --> 01:22:01.760]  It's an administrative hearing. This is not a judicial law. It's not the district court.
[01:22:01.760 --> 01:22:04.760]  It's got nothing to do with it.
[01:22:04.760 --> 01:22:08.760]  I am talking about in the suit you're talking about at the district court.
[01:22:08.760 --> 01:22:12.760]  Did they say that they had won the other case?
[01:22:12.760 --> 01:22:17.760]  In the paperwork they submitted to the district court for the injunction.
[01:22:17.760 --> 01:22:30.760]  Yes, sir. They said that, yeah, but it was, what I'm saying is that you can go and just present, I guess, your pictures and things like that to the judge and you can get it injunction.
[01:22:30.760 --> 01:22:37.760]  Okay, wait a minute. You're giving me inconsistent information here. It's the best way I can put it.
[01:22:37.760 --> 01:22:38.760]  Well, okay.
[01:22:38.760 --> 01:22:53.760]  If they're mentioning the other case in the documents they're using in this case, not just the pictures, but the actual finding by the other court and the ruling of the other court.
[01:22:53.760 --> 01:22:54.760]  Yeah.
[01:22:54.760 --> 01:23:00.760]  Did they lie to the district court about the outcome and say that they won when they didn't?
[01:23:00.760 --> 01:23:02.760]  Yes, they lied.
[01:23:02.760 --> 01:23:07.760]  And what did you say in response to that in the district court?
[01:23:07.760 --> 01:23:11.760]  That was in our countersuit.
[01:23:11.760 --> 01:23:26.760]  Okay, again, if all you did was tell a story you didn't file a countersuit therefore you did not answer the claims of the other side in order to give that information to the court and a proper objection to what was being done in their paperwork.
[01:23:26.760 --> 01:23:27.760]  Yeah.
[01:23:27.760 --> 01:23:28.760]  Do you not follow that?
[01:23:28.760 --> 01:23:29.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:23:29.760 --> 01:23:42.760]  Okay, because of that you can't use your counterclaim as the grounds for saying I properly objected to their misstatement of the facts because you didn't, obviously.
[01:23:42.760 --> 01:24:03.760]  Well, there was one point when the judge was really like in the other people, the head attorney from the law firm was there and he had a list of supposed violations that I had had over 21 years at my shop, but none of them were convictions.
[01:24:03.760 --> 01:24:05.760]  None of them were citations.
[01:24:05.760 --> 01:24:08.760]  I had never been to court on any of them.
[01:24:08.760 --> 01:24:12.760]  And he was able to use those.
[01:24:12.760 --> 01:24:19.760]  I stood up and said objection and the judge told me to sit down and be quiet.
[01:24:19.760 --> 01:24:22.760]  But what were you objecting to?
[01:24:22.760 --> 01:24:35.760]  He was being able to put that in as evidence that they were saying I should have been fined for these and it amounted to over $5 million.
[01:24:35.760 --> 01:24:36.760]  Okay.
[01:24:36.760 --> 01:24:38.760]  I know it sounds crazy.
[01:24:38.760 --> 01:24:40.760]  Let me put this another way.
[01:24:40.760 --> 01:24:45.760]  What was the exact statement you made in relation to objection?
[01:24:45.760 --> 01:24:48.760]  Well, when he told me to sit down, I sat down.
[01:24:48.760 --> 01:24:50.760]  I mean, he shut me.
[01:24:50.760 --> 01:24:51.760]  He was ready to because-
[01:24:51.760 --> 01:24:55.760]  I didn't ask what you did after the judge dealt with you saying it.
[01:24:55.760 --> 01:24:59.760]  I asked what you said when you said it.
[01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:01.760]  Oh, I just said objection.
[01:25:01.760 --> 01:25:03.760]  And by the time I got objection, I put him out.
[01:25:03.760 --> 01:25:09.760]  Can I ask a question? What does objection by itself mean?
[01:25:09.760 --> 01:25:12.760]  You object to what the opposing party just said.
[01:25:12.760 --> 01:25:14.760]  That is not a legal objection.
[01:25:14.760 --> 01:25:19.760]  How is the court supposed to make sense of what you mean by objection?
[01:25:19.760 --> 01:25:20.760]  Okay.
[01:25:20.760 --> 01:25:22.760]  Well, what grounds are you objecting on, sir?
[01:25:22.760 --> 01:25:26.760]  What legal basis do you have for making such an objection?
[01:25:26.760 --> 01:25:27.760]  Yeah.
[01:25:27.760 --> 01:25:33.760]  If you jumped up and just said objection and stood there, and the judge looks at you for half a second,
[01:25:33.760 --> 01:25:36.760]  and nothing else comes out of your mouth and he goes, sit down and shut up,
[01:25:36.760 --> 01:25:38.760]  because you obviously don't know what you're doing here.
[01:25:38.760 --> 01:25:39.760]  Yeah.
[01:25:39.760 --> 01:25:40.760]  Okay.
[01:25:40.760 --> 01:25:41.760]  Okay.
[01:25:41.760 --> 01:25:42.760]  Yeah, I didn't know what I was doing.
[01:25:42.760 --> 01:25:43.760]  Okay.
[01:25:43.760 --> 01:25:49.760]  The proper thing to say would be objection, speculation, legal conclusion.
[01:25:49.760 --> 01:25:54.760]  The attorneys cannot introduce evidence of what never happened and should never have been.
[01:25:54.760 --> 01:25:56.760]  Right.
[01:25:56.760 --> 01:25:57.760]  Okay.
[01:25:57.760 --> 01:26:08.760]  In response to this, what you just said, since it's all the same law firm that did all of this,
[01:26:08.760 --> 01:26:13.760]  can I use all of that in malpractice suit?
[01:26:13.760 --> 01:26:14.760]  Okay.
[01:26:14.760 --> 01:26:19.760]  Fraud upon the court is different than malpractice.
[01:26:19.760 --> 01:26:20.760]  Okay.
[01:26:20.760 --> 01:26:26.760]  The thing about it is, is you didn't establish anything in the record upon which to base such a complaint,
[01:26:26.760 --> 01:26:30.760]  because you didn't properly object to anything to preserve that record.
[01:26:30.760 --> 01:26:32.760]  Right.
[01:26:32.760 --> 01:26:33.760]  Okay.
[01:26:33.760 --> 01:26:36.760]  It's great when you want to fight for yourself.
[01:26:36.760 --> 01:26:43.760]  It's another thing when you're dumb enough to pick a fight with Mike Tyson and you've never boxed before.
[01:26:43.760 --> 01:26:45.760]  Yeah.
[01:26:45.760 --> 01:26:49.760]  Well, I had some coaching.
[01:26:49.760 --> 01:26:52.760]  From who?
[01:26:52.760 --> 01:26:54.760]  Your co-host.
[01:26:54.760 --> 01:26:56.760]  Okay.
[01:26:56.760 --> 01:26:57.760]  Yeah.
[01:26:57.760 --> 01:27:00.760]  And he basically told me, do not object.
[01:27:00.760 --> 01:27:01.760]  He said, don't say anything.
[01:27:01.760 --> 01:27:03.760]  He said, they'll tie you up and not throw you outside.
[01:27:03.760 --> 01:27:06.760]  If you don't know what the hell you're saying and doing, he's absolutely right.
[01:27:06.760 --> 01:27:07.760]  Well, I knew he was right.
[01:27:07.760 --> 01:27:08.760]  Sure.
[01:27:08.760 --> 01:27:09.760]  Okay.
[01:27:09.760 --> 01:27:11.760]  But you stood up and objected anyway.
[01:27:11.760 --> 01:27:13.760]  Yeah.
[01:27:13.760 --> 01:27:15.760]  So you didn't follow his advice?
[01:27:15.760 --> 01:27:16.760]  Yeah.
[01:27:16.760 --> 01:27:21.760]  You stood in the middle of the ring, you threw a punch at Mike and he knocked you on your ass.
[01:27:21.760 --> 01:27:23.760]  Didn't he?
[01:27:23.760 --> 01:27:24.760]  Yeah.
[01:27:24.760 --> 01:27:26.760]  Okay then.
[01:27:26.760 --> 01:27:33.760]  Well, anyway, that was the main thing is that, okay, you still haven't answered my question.
[01:27:33.760 --> 01:27:42.760]  I guess they can get an injunction against me without having anything that proves it just as long as they can accuse me
[01:27:42.760 --> 01:27:45.760]  and I can't tell them that they don't have any facts.
[01:27:45.760 --> 01:27:55.760]  They can get anything they want as long as they can prove there's a certain set of facts that allow them to have it
[01:27:55.760 --> 01:27:59.760]  and you don't offer anything to refute the facts they're basing it on.
[01:27:59.760 --> 01:28:01.760]  Right.
[01:28:01.760 --> 01:28:04.760]  And by your own admission, you didn't.
[01:28:04.760 --> 01:28:06.760]  Yeah.
[01:28:06.760 --> 01:28:08.760]  Okay.
[01:28:08.760 --> 01:28:13.760]  Getting an injunction is not a really hard thing to do.
[01:28:13.760 --> 01:28:14.760]  Apparently not.
[01:28:14.760 --> 01:28:15.760]  Okay.
[01:28:15.760 --> 01:28:18.760]  It's a standard everyday kind of thing.
[01:28:18.760 --> 01:28:19.760]  Yeah.
[01:28:19.760 --> 01:28:23.760]  It's basically a cookie cutter process for most of these law firms.
[01:28:23.760 --> 01:28:24.760]  Yeah.
[01:28:24.760 --> 01:28:28.760]  Which means you have to do what if you're going to keep up?
[01:28:28.760 --> 01:28:33.760]  You have to get evidence because they give you a big packet statement of facts and everything.
[01:28:33.760 --> 01:28:37.760]  So you got to go over each line of those things and figure out what they're saying.
[01:28:37.760 --> 01:28:39.760]  And then respond to it.
[01:28:39.760 --> 01:28:40.760]  And then respond to each one of them.
[01:28:40.760 --> 01:28:41.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:28:41.760 --> 01:28:43.760]  And that's what I did not do.
[01:28:43.760 --> 01:28:44.760]  Bingo.
[01:28:44.760 --> 01:28:45.760]  Puno.
[01:28:45.760 --> 01:28:46.760]  Yahtzee.
[01:28:46.760 --> 01:28:48.760]  But let me say this.
[01:28:48.760 --> 01:28:55.760]  In our original case and the administrative hearing, we filed a rebuttal to that.
[01:28:55.760 --> 01:29:01.760]  And then after they didn't answer it, it was a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction in there.
[01:29:01.760 --> 01:29:06.760]  After they didn't answer it 72 days later, we filed for summary judgment.
[01:29:06.760 --> 01:29:08.760]  They didn't answer that and then they got an injunction.
[01:29:08.760 --> 01:29:09.760]  Okay.
[01:29:09.760 --> 01:29:11.760]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
[01:29:11.760 --> 01:29:12.760]  Okay.
[01:29:12.760 --> 01:29:14.760]  First off, this is Texas, right?
[01:29:14.760 --> 01:29:15.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:29:15.760 --> 01:29:24.760]  What is the rule in Texas about a motion that is not responded to by the court and not addressed by the court?
[01:29:24.760 --> 01:29:25.760]  I don't know, sir.
[01:29:25.760 --> 01:29:30.760]  In 60 days, it's presumed denied as a matter of law.
[01:29:30.760 --> 01:29:31.760]  Oh.
[01:29:31.760 --> 01:29:33.760]  Okay.
[01:29:33.760 --> 01:29:34.760]  Okay.
[01:29:34.760 --> 01:29:35.760]  So when I went...
[01:29:35.760 --> 01:29:38.760]  And the answer to my question isn't what you did do.
[01:29:38.760 --> 01:29:43.760]  It is, it means you study, you learn, and you follow the rules.
[01:29:43.760 --> 01:29:44.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:29:44.760 --> 01:29:45.760]  And you didn't do that.
[01:29:45.760 --> 01:29:46.760]  Right.
[01:29:46.760 --> 01:29:49.760]  And you shot yourself in the foot because of it.
[01:29:49.760 --> 01:29:51.760]  Almost literally.
[01:29:51.760 --> 01:29:52.760]  Hey, I'll just second.
[01:29:52.760 --> 01:29:55.760]  Let me take this break and we'll finish this up on the other side.
[01:29:55.760 --> 01:29:56.760]  Okay.
[01:29:56.760 --> 01:29:57.760]  All right, folks.
[01:29:57.760 --> 01:29:58.760]  Y'all hang on.
[01:29:58.760 --> 01:29:59.760]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.760 --> 01:30:04.760]  Fishing is a wonderful pastime.
[01:30:04.760 --> 01:30:07.760]  It's a terrific way to bond with family and get in touch with nature.
[01:30:07.760 --> 01:30:10.760]  But there's this scary kind of fishing you'll want nothing to do with.
[01:30:10.760 --> 01:30:39.760]  I've got your Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[01:30:40.760 --> 01:30:47.760]  Fishing, spelled with a pH, isn't very sporting.
[01:30:47.760 --> 01:30:51.760]  The goal is to reel in personal information and compromise your accounts.
[01:30:51.760 --> 01:30:53.760]  The pH in fishing stands for phony.
[01:30:53.760 --> 01:30:57.760]  Fishing scams involve impersonating legitimate organizations like banks.
[01:30:57.760 --> 01:30:59.760]  And the bait is usually a phony email.
[01:30:59.760 --> 01:31:04.760]  A fishing email may ask for account information or provide a link to an official looking website.
[01:31:04.760 --> 01:31:05.760]  But don't fall for it.
[01:31:05.760 --> 01:31:09.760]  Never email your bank account number, your user ID, or passwords.
[01:31:09.760 --> 01:31:11.760]  Legitimate companies won't ask you to.
[01:31:11.760 --> 01:31:17.760]  And it's best to enter a website address directly rather than clicking on an email link to check an account or make a purchase.
[01:31:17.760 --> 01:31:21.760]  Accidentally typing data into a fishing website could cost you thousands.
[01:31:21.760 --> 01:31:23.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:31:23.760 --> 01:31:26.760]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.760 --> 01:31:31.760]  I lost my son.
[01:31:31.760 --> 01:31:32.760]  My nephew.
[01:31:32.760 --> 01:31:33.760]  My uncle.
[01:31:33.760 --> 01:31:34.760]  On September 11, 2000.
[01:31:34.760 --> 01:31:38.760]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:31:38.760 --> 01:31:42.760]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:42.760 --> 01:31:46.760]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[01:31:46.760 --> 01:31:50.760]  over 1,200 architects and engineers has looked into the evidence
[01:31:50.760 --> 01:31:52.760]  and believed there is more to the story.
[01:31:52.760 --> 01:31:53.760]  Bring justice to my son.
[01:31:53.760 --> 01:31:54.760]  My uncle.
[01:31:54.760 --> 01:31:55.760]  My nephew.
[01:31:55.760 --> 01:31:56.760]  My son.
[01:31:56.760 --> 01:31:57.760]  Go to BuildingWhat.org.
[01:31:57.760 --> 01:32:00.760]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:01.760 --> 01:32:04.760]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Center.
[01:32:04.760 --> 01:32:08.760]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people,
[01:32:08.760 --> 01:32:10.760]  are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand
[01:32:10.760 --> 01:32:12.760]  and defend our own rights.
[01:32:12.760 --> 01:32:15.760]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:17.760]  the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[01:32:17.760 --> 01:32:19.760]  the right to due process of law.
[01:32:19.760 --> 01:32:22.760]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to
[01:32:22.760 --> 01:32:25.760]  enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:25.760 --> 01:32:28.760]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[01:32:28.760 --> 01:32:30.760]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[01:32:30.760 --> 01:32:34.760]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the Rule of Law.
[01:32:34.760 --> 01:32:38.760]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleofLawRadio.com
[01:32:38.760 --> 01:32:40.760]  and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:40.760 --> 01:32:42.760]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[01:32:42.760 --> 01:32:44.760]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie,
[01:32:44.760 --> 01:32:48.760]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents,
[01:32:48.760 --> 01:32:50.760]  and other useful resource material.
[01:32:50.760 --> 01:32:53.760]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleofLawRadio.com.
[01:32:53.760 --> 01:33:00.760]  Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:00.760 --> 01:33:24.760]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:30.760 --> 01:33:52.760]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:33:52.760 --> 01:33:57.760]  This is Rule of Law Radio, the calling number 512-646-1984,
[01:33:57.760 --> 01:34:00.760]  and we are still talking with Tim in Texas.
[01:34:00.760 --> 01:34:02.760]  Alright Tim, go ahead.
[01:34:02.760 --> 01:34:08.760]  Okay, so the last thing is, the only thing I did at the hearing for the injunction
[01:34:08.760 --> 01:34:13.760]  is a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:34:13.760 --> 01:34:18.760]  And the judge there said, it's too late.
[01:34:18.760 --> 01:34:21.760]  I really didn't know what to say after he said that,
[01:34:21.760 --> 01:34:25.760]  so that's really all I had to say to him that day.
[01:34:25.760 --> 01:34:33.760]  So, even though you have those things in the record, they don't matter, right?
[01:34:33.760 --> 01:34:36.760]  Well, I guess it depends on what it is you're trying to do with them,
[01:34:36.760 --> 01:34:38.760]  whether or not it matters.
[01:34:38.760 --> 01:34:39.760]  Okay.
[01:34:39.760 --> 01:34:42.760]  If you're trying to learn from it, matters a lot.
[01:34:42.760 --> 01:34:43.760]  Yeah, well.
[01:34:43.760 --> 01:34:47.760]  If you're trying to pursue further action, doubtful.
[01:34:47.760 --> 01:34:48.760]  Yeah.
[01:34:48.760 --> 01:34:56.760]  Yeah, I was trying to do both, you know, quick learn, but I wasn't very quick at learning, so.
[01:34:56.760 --> 01:35:03.760]  But anyway, so I'm going to attempt to perhaps message you or something
[01:35:03.760 --> 01:35:06.760]  and try to be a little more clear here on the live.
[01:35:06.760 --> 01:35:09.760]  You're a little intimidating, you know, on this phone line.
[01:35:09.760 --> 01:35:12.760]  So, me trying to...
[01:35:12.760 --> 01:35:15.760]  Well, you should have seen me in live class.
[01:35:15.760 --> 01:35:16.760]  Yeah.
[01:35:16.760 --> 01:35:19.760]  And I did that for a reason, just like I do it here.
[01:35:19.760 --> 01:35:25.760]  If you can deal with me, then these attorneys and judges aren't going to be a problem.
[01:35:25.760 --> 01:35:29.760]  I will treat you far worse than they're going to, and I do it intentionally.
[01:35:29.760 --> 01:35:30.760]  Yeah.
[01:35:30.760 --> 01:35:36.760]  Because if I can flush you and get you to stop thinking and react instead of think, I've won.
[01:35:36.760 --> 01:35:40.760]  And that's exactly what they're going to do to you every single time.
[01:35:40.760 --> 01:35:43.760]  And the rule is never let that happen.
[01:35:43.760 --> 01:35:45.760]  Right.
[01:35:45.760 --> 01:35:50.760]  Well, college is not cheap, so...
[01:35:50.760 --> 01:35:53.760]  No, sometimes it's not even pleasant.
[01:35:53.760 --> 01:35:55.760]  No, no, it's not.
[01:35:55.760 --> 01:36:01.760]  So, I just, you know, what really got me was that they even came back later during all of this
[01:36:01.760 --> 01:36:06.760]  and the lead attorney, the Code Enforcement Officer had the lead...
[01:36:06.760 --> 01:36:10.760]  Excuse me, the lead attorney had the Code Enforcement Officer.
[01:36:10.760 --> 01:36:19.760]  He even said so in his paperwork to citation me for one of the original vehicles that was still on my property.
[01:36:19.760 --> 01:36:22.760]  But I had antique license plates for it.
[01:36:22.760 --> 01:36:24.760]  All the tires were aired up.
[01:36:24.760 --> 01:36:26.760]  It was, you know, parked properly.
[01:36:26.760 --> 01:36:28.760]  It ran.
[01:36:28.760 --> 01:36:30.760]  So, it was not a junk vehicle.
[01:36:30.760 --> 01:36:34.760]  And so, they cited me on that, and I had to go to court.
[01:36:34.760 --> 01:36:39.760]  And I had to go to court twice for prelim hearings.
[01:36:39.760 --> 01:36:44.760]  And eventually, they just went ahead and dismissed it.
[01:36:44.760 --> 01:36:46.760]  I can't remember the wording.
[01:36:46.760 --> 01:36:49.760]  Something for justice is what they put in there.
[01:36:49.760 --> 01:36:51.760]  So, they dismissed the case again.
[01:36:51.760 --> 01:36:52.760]  In the interest of justice?
[01:36:52.760 --> 01:36:53.760]  Yeah, in the interest of justice.
[01:36:53.760 --> 01:36:55.760]  Okay, well, let me ask a question.
[01:36:55.760 --> 01:36:59.760]  When they took you to court on those, what happened in court?
[01:36:59.760 --> 01:37:01.760]  Just short and sweet, what happened?
[01:37:01.760 --> 01:37:02.760]  Who took the stand?
[01:37:02.760 --> 01:37:03.760]  What did they say on the stand?
[01:37:03.760 --> 01:37:05.760]  Did you cross-examine anybody?
[01:37:05.760 --> 01:37:07.760]  Did you take the stand?
[01:37:07.760 --> 01:37:09.760]  On the injunction, they took...
[01:37:09.760 --> 01:37:11.760]  No, in the case you just talked about,
[01:37:11.760 --> 01:37:14.760]  citing you on the old antique car.
[01:37:14.760 --> 01:37:16.760]  Oh, I never went to actual court.
[01:37:16.760 --> 01:37:17.760]  I just went for the prelim.
[01:37:17.760 --> 01:37:18.760]  I just went to go to...
[01:37:18.760 --> 01:37:20.760]  That's still actual court.
[01:37:20.760 --> 01:37:21.760]  It's just not trial.
[01:37:21.760 --> 01:37:23.760]  Well, I went up to the prosecutor.
[01:37:23.760 --> 01:37:25.760]  She asked me, how do I plea?
[01:37:25.760 --> 01:37:26.760]  I said, I don't.
[01:37:26.760 --> 01:37:29.760]  I said, I don't understand what you're charging me with.
[01:37:29.760 --> 01:37:32.760]  And basically, it went from there.
[01:37:32.760 --> 01:37:34.760]  Then I went before the judge.
[01:37:34.760 --> 01:37:36.760]  I looked at a bunch of paperwork she had and everything.
[01:37:36.760 --> 01:37:40.760]  I tried to tell her, the vehicles license it wrong.
[01:37:40.760 --> 01:37:41.760]  Okay, look.
[01:37:41.760 --> 01:37:43.760]  Let me put it to you this way.
[01:37:43.760 --> 01:37:44.760]  Yeah.
[01:37:44.760 --> 01:37:47.760]  The prosecutor is the one that decides whether or not to go to court.
[01:37:47.760 --> 01:37:50.760]  This is your first and best opportunity to get the case thrown out
[01:37:50.760 --> 01:37:52.760]  before it ever gets started.
[01:37:52.760 --> 01:37:53.760]  Yeah.
[01:37:53.760 --> 01:37:56.760]  So, the more prepared you are before you meet the prosecutor,
[01:37:56.760 --> 01:37:57.760]  the better.
[01:37:57.760 --> 01:37:58.760]  Yeah.
[01:37:58.760 --> 01:37:59.760]  Okay?
[01:37:59.760 --> 01:38:01.760]  So, what would have been a list of things
[01:38:01.760 --> 01:38:05.760]  to specifically ask the prosecutor about their alleged case
[01:38:05.760 --> 01:38:10.760]  to make them want to drop it right then?
[01:38:10.760 --> 01:38:13.760]  The registration and the insurance.
[01:38:13.760 --> 01:38:15.760]  It's an antique car in Texas.
[01:38:15.760 --> 01:38:18.760]  It's not required to be registered until we're 25 years old.
[01:38:18.760 --> 01:38:19.760]  Right.
[01:38:19.760 --> 01:38:22.760]  Well, it has to have an antique license plate.
[01:38:22.760 --> 01:38:26.760]  Okay, again.
[01:38:26.760 --> 01:38:27.760]  Yeah.
[01:38:27.760 --> 01:38:29.760]  I've talked to her about that.
[01:38:29.760 --> 01:38:30.760]  Okay.
[01:38:30.760 --> 01:38:32.760]  You still kind of missing my point.
[01:38:32.760 --> 01:38:34.760]  That's irrelevant.
[01:38:34.760 --> 01:38:35.760]  Oh, it is.
[01:38:35.760 --> 01:38:37.760]  It's irrelevant.
[01:38:37.760 --> 01:38:40.760]  That is not the only element of a jumped vehicle, is it?
[01:38:40.760 --> 01:38:41.760]  No, sir.
[01:38:41.760 --> 01:38:43.760]  It has to be dismantled.
[01:38:43.760 --> 01:38:44.760]  Bingo.
[01:38:44.760 --> 01:38:45.760]  Yeah.
[01:38:45.760 --> 01:38:51.760]  Does your witness in this case intend to offer any testimony
[01:38:51.760 --> 01:38:55.760]  that they attempted to start the car?
[01:38:55.760 --> 01:38:56.760]  Right.
[01:38:56.760 --> 01:39:02.760]  Does your witness intend to testify that they personally saw the car dismantled?
[01:39:02.760 --> 01:39:03.760]  Okay.
[01:39:03.760 --> 01:39:06.760]  Well, let me ask you this since you brought that up.
[01:39:06.760 --> 01:39:15.760]  It says in the law, it says that it is presumed inoperable unless you prove it in the court.
[01:39:15.760 --> 01:39:16.760]  No.
[01:39:16.760 --> 01:39:22.760]  If they're charging you with a criminal case, it cannot be presumed that you're guilty of the offense.
[01:39:22.760 --> 01:39:23.760]  Okay.
[01:39:23.760 --> 01:39:27.760]  And if it does say that, then you need to challenge it as unconstitutional on its face
[01:39:27.760 --> 01:39:30.760]  because it creates an automatic presumption of guilt.
[01:39:30.760 --> 01:39:31.760]  Okay.
[01:39:31.760 --> 01:39:33.760]  Well, that's what it does.
[01:39:33.760 --> 01:39:38.760]  And later on, it says that they can come onto your property and then force you to show them that it runs.
[01:39:38.760 --> 01:39:40.760]  It's a commercial business, right?
[01:39:40.760 --> 01:39:41.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:39:41.760 --> 01:39:42.760]  He never did it.
[01:39:42.760 --> 01:39:46.760]  He would only come to my business after I closed.
[01:39:46.760 --> 01:39:48.760]  Well, then again, there you go.
[01:39:48.760 --> 01:39:55.760]  Does your witness intend to offer any testimony that they showed up during normal business hours to do their inspections and do whatever?
[01:39:55.760 --> 01:39:56.760]  Yeah.
[01:39:56.760 --> 01:39:58.760]  All of which would be lies, right?
[01:39:58.760 --> 01:39:59.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:39:59.760 --> 01:40:03.760]  At which point at the end of it, the prosecutor goes, well, yeah, they're going to testify to that.
[01:40:03.760 --> 01:40:04.760]  Yeah, they're going to testify to that.
[01:40:04.760 --> 01:40:09.760]  It says, okay, so you are going to subordinate perjury from your witness on the stand in open court.
[01:40:09.760 --> 01:40:11.760]  Am I understanding your case correctly?
[01:40:11.760 --> 01:40:13.760]  What do you mean?
[01:40:13.760 --> 01:40:16.760]  Because everything you just said is an absolute lie.
[01:40:16.760 --> 01:40:19.760]  And I've got the security video.
[01:40:19.760 --> 01:40:20.760]  I've got the facts.
[01:40:20.760 --> 01:40:23.760]  I've got witnesses that none of this ever happened.
[01:40:23.760 --> 01:40:28.760]  And if your witness is going to take the stand and say that it did, then either you're asking them to lie,
[01:40:28.760 --> 01:40:34.760]  or they're going to get up there and lie and you know it because you would be asking the questions that let them lie.
[01:40:34.760 --> 01:40:35.760]  Yeah.
[01:40:35.760 --> 01:40:39.760]  Well, then that's probably why they dropped the case.
[01:40:39.760 --> 01:40:48.760]  Yeah, after I filed against the bailiff for who's going to, he was doing the threatening motions to me after I turned around.
[01:40:48.760 --> 01:40:54.760]  I had everything recorded on a phone, so I never raised my voice or gave her any hard time or anything.
[01:40:54.760 --> 01:40:58.760]  Well, I didn't say you had to raise your voice, I'm just simply making the point.
[01:40:58.760 --> 01:41:01.760]  They have to be able to prove their case.
[01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:04.760]  And they can't do it with perjured or false testimony.
[01:41:04.760 --> 01:41:11.760]  And the goal here is to make sure that they understand that's exactly what they're going to be offering at trial if they go there.
[01:41:11.760 --> 01:41:13.760]  Okay.
[01:41:13.760 --> 01:41:16.760]  Okey-dokey.
[01:41:16.760 --> 01:41:18.760]  I appreciate it.
[01:41:18.760 --> 01:41:20.760]  I won't take up any more of your time.
[01:41:20.760 --> 01:41:21.760]  Okay.
[01:41:21.760 --> 01:41:22.760]  Well, thanks for calling in.
[01:41:22.760 --> 01:41:23.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:41:23.760 --> 01:41:24.760]  Have a good night.
[01:41:24.760 --> 01:41:25.760]  Yes, you too.
[01:41:25.760 --> 01:41:26.760]  All right.
[01:41:26.760 --> 01:41:28.760]  Now we have Eric in California.
[01:41:28.760 --> 01:41:31.760]  Eric, I've got two and a half minutes before I take a break.
[01:41:31.760 --> 01:41:32.760]  So let's get started.
[01:41:32.760 --> 01:41:35.760]  But I'm about to interrupt you before you're done probably.
[01:41:35.760 --> 01:41:36.760]  All right.
[01:41:36.760 --> 01:41:38.760]  I'll go fast here.
[01:41:38.760 --> 01:41:43.760]  I sat in a couple of days last week in some traffic courts just to see how they're doing it.
[01:41:43.760 --> 01:41:51.760]  And one thing the commissioner said to everybody in the courtroom that was traffic out here is criminal,
[01:41:51.760 --> 01:41:53.760]  which I thought was kind of funny.
[01:41:53.760 --> 01:41:58.760]  And he was convicting everybody beyond a reasonable doubt.
[01:41:58.760 --> 01:42:04.760]  And I just wanted to get your take on both of those two things.
[01:42:04.760 --> 01:42:06.760]  What do you mean you get my take?
[01:42:06.760 --> 01:42:09.760]  I have a blog about this on my legal blog.
[01:42:09.760 --> 01:42:12.760]  I have an article about it.
[01:42:12.760 --> 01:42:18.760]  When the commissioner stand up in court and just say that to everybody before he begins,
[01:42:18.760 --> 01:42:23.760]  do you stand up in the, I don't know, we're just sitting out in the chairs and just,
[01:42:23.760 --> 01:42:27.760]  I don't know, can you say anything to them then or do you have to wait until your call is up?
[01:42:27.760 --> 01:42:30.760]  You can stand up and object, object.
[01:42:30.760 --> 01:42:34.760]  The commissioner is attempting to mislead the people in this courtroom.
[01:42:34.760 --> 01:42:41.760]  California law specifically says these are civil infractions that cannot be prosecuted as crimes.
[01:42:41.760 --> 01:42:46.760]  And you've got this case, this case, and this case, all of which are linked in that article on the blog.
[01:42:46.760 --> 01:42:52.760]  Civil infractions and what to do about them if your state has them.
[01:42:52.760 --> 01:42:56.760]  Do you have any say about the beyond a reasonable doubt conviction?
[01:42:56.760 --> 01:42:58.760]  Yeah, it relates to crime.
[01:42:58.760 --> 01:42:59.760]  That's criminal.
[01:42:59.760 --> 01:43:02.760]  Civil is preponderance of the evidence.
[01:43:02.760 --> 01:43:07.760]  Crime is beyond a reasonable doubt.
[01:43:07.760 --> 01:43:08.760]  Yep.
[01:43:08.760 --> 01:43:13.760]  Okay, I didn't know if there was more to it or not.
[01:43:13.760 --> 01:43:20.760]  Oh, is there a way to submit Title 49 definition through a judicial notice?
[01:43:20.760 --> 01:43:25.760]  Or do you have some other sort of tactic to get those definitions?
[01:43:25.760 --> 01:43:29.760]  What does the rules of evidence say?
[01:43:29.760 --> 01:43:31.760]  I've talked to some other people.
[01:43:31.760 --> 01:43:33.760]  I didn't ask who you talked to.
[01:43:33.760 --> 01:43:38.760]  I specifically asked you what does the California rules of evidence say?
[01:43:38.760 --> 01:43:40.760]  I haven't gotten there yet.
[01:43:40.760 --> 01:43:42.760]  Well, there you go.
[01:43:42.760 --> 01:43:49.760]  Indeed, you might find the answer to that question when it comes to what is required for judicial notice and how to get it in.
[01:43:49.760 --> 01:43:52.760]  Is it worth trying to do that or if I just left the question?
[01:43:52.760 --> 01:43:54.760]  Only if you want to win and you want to get it in.
[01:43:54.760 --> 01:43:55.760]  Okay.
[01:43:55.760 --> 01:43:56.760]  Hang on just a second.
[01:43:56.760 --> 01:44:00.760]  We'll be right back after the break.
[01:44:00.760 --> 01:44:06.760]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.760 --> 01:44:09.760]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:44:09.760 --> 01:44:11.760]  And it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.760 --> 01:44:17.760]  The primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.760 --> 01:44:25.760]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.760 --> 01:44:31.760]  Logos' radio network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.760 --> 01:44:34.760]  We have come to trust Jevity so much.
[01:44:34.760 --> 01:44:39.760]  We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.760 --> 01:44:47.760]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.760 --> 01:44:51.760]  As you realize the benefits of Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.760 --> 01:44:58.760]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:44:58.760 --> 01:45:00.760]  Order now.
[01:45:00.760 --> 01:45:03.760]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.760 --> 01:45:14.760]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:14.760 --> 01:45:18.760]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.760 --> 01:45:22.760]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.760 --> 01:45:27.760]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.760 --> 01:45:34.760]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.760 --> 01:45:43.760]  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.
[01:45:43.760 --> 01:45:52.760]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.760 --> 01:46:01.760]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.760 --> 01:46:40.760]  All right, folks, we are now in the last segment of the show, and we are still talking to Eric in California here.
[01:46:40.760 --> 01:46:44.760]  All right, let me see if I can get this wrapped up and see where we go.
[01:46:44.760 --> 01:46:48.760]  All right, Eric, please continue.
[01:46:48.760 --> 01:46:57.760]  As far as filing a standing objection to all the seven deadly sins, do you have any advice on that?
[01:46:57.760 --> 01:47:07.760]  You can simply file a written objection that says the defense has a standing objection to the use of the following terms in relation to any allegations without submission approved by the prosecution
[01:47:07.760 --> 01:47:13.760]  that these are in fact factual rather than legal conclusions or personal opinions.
[01:47:13.760 --> 01:47:15.760]  You can do anything to that effect.
[01:47:15.760 --> 01:47:29.760]  The fact is, is that any time they use those terms and no evidence has been submitted into the record to substantiate those terms, they are opinions, legal conclusions, and perceptions.
[01:47:29.760 --> 01:47:33.760]  They are not at all facts.
[01:47:33.760 --> 01:47:35.760]  So that's why we object to them.
[01:47:35.760 --> 01:47:55.760]  We object as soon as facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to in other words, I never agreed that those were correct uses of the terminology and that they were applicable in this case and requires a legal conclusion, which they do, which the officer is not allowed to make, and certainly not allowed to submit as evidence.
[01:47:55.760 --> 01:48:06.760]  Unless, of course, in those courts, like they do here in Texas for the JP courts, the rules of evidence are specifically stated as to not to apply.
[01:48:06.760 --> 01:48:15.760]  And even with the standing objection filed, should I be objecting every single time he uses one of those terms?
[01:48:15.760 --> 01:48:22.760]  You can simply say objection, remind the court there's a standing objection to the use of those terms.
[01:48:22.760 --> 01:48:25.760]  Okay.
[01:48:25.760 --> 01:48:29.760]  A couple of the cases I watched were there's a lot of speeding stuff going on.
[01:48:29.760 --> 01:48:34.760]  And the cop always referred back to reasonable and prudent as did the judge.
[01:48:34.760 --> 01:48:37.760]  Reasonable and prudent is an opinion and a conclusion.
[01:48:37.760 --> 01:48:40.760]  How do you prove reasonable and prudent?
[01:48:40.760 --> 01:48:46.760]  How is the state required to prove that something was not reasonable and prudent?
[01:48:46.760 --> 01:48:50.760]  I haven't found where they said what exactly that constitutes.
[01:48:50.760 --> 01:48:56.760]  Yes, you have. If you've bothered to read the statute on the subject of speeding, you absolutely have.
[01:48:56.760 --> 01:49:01.760]  But you don't know what it is because you don't understand what you read, right?
[01:49:01.760 --> 01:49:05.760]  One, California speed limits are prima facie, aren't they?
[01:49:05.760 --> 01:49:06.760]  Yes, correct.
[01:49:06.760 --> 01:49:09.760]  You've seen that in the law, haven't you?
[01:49:09.760 --> 01:49:10.760]  Yes.
[01:49:10.760 --> 01:49:27.760]  So if on its face this is not reasonable and prudent, then what is evidence that proves reasonable and prudent applies and is correct and was not violated?
[01:49:27.760 --> 01:49:29.760]  Let me put it this way.
[01:49:29.760 --> 01:49:35.760]  If the state says 60 is the only reasonable and prudent speed limit as a prima facie speed limit,
[01:49:35.760 --> 01:49:51.760]  and that you could not possibly have traveled one fraction of a mile per hour over 60 and not caused it harm, thus making it not reasonable and prudent, how do you refute that?
[01:49:51.760 --> 01:49:55.760]  By showing that you maintain control of your car.
[01:49:55.760 --> 01:50:02.760]  By showing that no injury or harm to persons or property occurred due to that overage.
[01:50:02.760 --> 01:50:04.760]  Okay.
[01:50:04.760 --> 01:50:12.760]  What evidence is the state going to introduce to show that reasonable and prudent is supported by an accident that never happened?
[01:50:12.760 --> 01:50:14.760]  By an injury that never happened?
[01:50:14.760 --> 01:50:17.760]  By property damage that never happened?
[01:50:17.760 --> 01:50:21.760]  What evidence are they going to put in to support that?
[01:50:21.760 --> 01:50:22.760]  I mean, they can't.
[01:50:22.760 --> 01:50:23.760]  They don't.
[01:50:23.760 --> 01:50:25.760]  They just use their opinion.
[01:50:25.760 --> 01:50:28.760]  The judge's opinion, the cop's opinion that you were speaking about.
[01:50:28.760 --> 01:50:29.760]  Objection.
[01:50:29.760 --> 01:50:31.760]  Calls for speculation.
[01:50:31.760 --> 01:50:36.760]  It is an opinion. It is inadmissible.
[01:50:36.760 --> 01:50:37.760]  Gotcha.
[01:50:37.760 --> 01:50:39.760]  The officer is claiming not reasonable and prudent.
[01:50:39.760 --> 01:50:46.760]  The officer has not introduced one shred of evidence the speed was not reasonable and prudent on its face.
[01:50:46.760 --> 01:50:49.760]  Okay, now I got you with the speculation.
[01:50:49.760 --> 01:50:53.760]  So if I want to travel at 100, then I'm good.
[01:50:53.760 --> 01:50:55.760]  No.
[01:50:55.760 --> 01:50:59.760]  There is this thing called reckless negligence or criminal negligence.
[01:50:59.760 --> 01:51:02.760]  Reckless disregard for public safety.
[01:51:02.760 --> 01:51:07.760]  You want to travel 100 miles an hour on a busy freeway in the dead of winter.
[01:51:07.760 --> 01:51:09.760]  How do you think that's going to turn out?
[01:51:09.760 --> 01:51:15.760]  And even if it doesn't, what was the likelihood?
[01:51:15.760 --> 01:51:19.760]  Well, I guess it also depends on the situation of the road condition.
[01:51:19.760 --> 01:51:23.760]  Well, it depends on whether or not you're the only one out there, doesn't it?
[01:51:23.760 --> 01:51:24.760]  It does.
[01:51:24.760 --> 01:51:31.760]  Other than that, you would be endangering somebody, wouldn't you?
[01:51:31.760 --> 01:51:32.760]  Correct.
[01:51:32.760 --> 01:51:34.760]  There you go.
[01:51:34.760 --> 01:51:39.760]  But then couldn't they make the same argument if you're traveling 10 miles over the speed limit?
[01:51:39.760 --> 01:51:42.760]  No, not necessarily.
[01:51:42.760 --> 01:51:53.760]  In order to make the argument, they have to be able to show that you lost control and that that loss of control was enough to have injured someone,
[01:51:53.760 --> 01:51:57.760]  had there been someone there to injure.
[01:51:57.760 --> 01:52:10.760]  But when they cannot show that loss of control and they cannot show that circumstances and conditions were such that the loss of control was more likely than not,
[01:52:10.760 --> 01:52:16.760]  then they can't prove that element, can they?
[01:52:16.760 --> 01:52:17.760]  No.
[01:52:17.760 --> 01:52:18.760]  So where's that gray area?
[01:52:18.760 --> 01:52:21.760]  I mean, if I want to travel at a high speed.
[01:52:21.760 --> 01:52:43.760]  Then you better make damn sure that the weather conditions, the road conditions, and the traffic conditions make it where it's virtually impossible for you to harm anyone or anything other than yourself.
[01:52:43.760 --> 01:52:45.760]  Okay.
[01:52:45.760 --> 01:52:57.760]  I don't know if you've seen this, but doing some research and the people versus battle that same year, just after that case, there was one that it didn't overturn the battle case,
[01:52:57.760 --> 01:53:01.760]  but they ruled that infractions out here were crimes.
[01:53:01.760 --> 01:53:03.760]  And then the next year you got people versus thought.
[01:53:03.760 --> 01:53:08.760]  I deal with that in the article on the blog, and that is not what the case actually decided.
[01:53:08.760 --> 01:53:10.760]  That is not what it says at all.
[01:53:10.760 --> 01:53:13.760]  I'll reread that then.
[01:53:13.760 --> 01:53:20.760]  All of the cases in California that are controlling on the issue of civil infractions are leaked at the bottom of that article on the blog.
[01:53:20.760 --> 01:53:21.760]  Okay.
[01:53:21.760 --> 01:53:23.760]  Yeah, I've seen those.
[01:53:23.760 --> 01:53:24.760]  Okay.
[01:53:24.760 --> 01:53:26.760]  All right.
[01:53:26.760 --> 01:53:27.760]  That's it.
[01:53:27.760 --> 01:53:28.760]  All right.
[01:53:28.760 --> 01:53:29.760]  Thanks, Eddie.
[01:53:29.760 --> 01:53:30.760]  Okay.
[01:53:30.760 --> 01:53:31.760]  All right.
[01:53:31.760 --> 01:53:32.760]  All right.
[01:53:32.760 --> 01:53:33.760]  Thanks for calling.
[01:53:33.760 --> 01:53:34.760]  All right, folks.
[01:53:34.760 --> 01:53:41.760]  I got about five minutes for the end of the show here, and I just want to go back and iterate a couple of things from the beginning in the middle of the show.
[01:53:41.760 --> 01:53:46.760]  If you're not willing to accept new information, you're stuck where you are.
[01:53:46.760 --> 01:53:54.760]  If you're stuck where you are and where you are is a bad place to be, the wrong place to be, or is based upon a hill of lies,
[01:53:54.760 --> 01:53:57.760]  what do you do when it all finally gets washed out from under you?
[01:53:57.760 --> 01:54:02.760]  Because it eventually will.
[01:54:02.760 --> 01:54:03.760]  What do you do?
[01:54:03.760 --> 01:54:18.760]  How does your mind cope with the fact that everything you believed in was wrong because you refused to accept any other information to the contrary until it was too late?
[01:54:18.760 --> 01:54:22.760]  I learned at a very early age, everybody lies.
[01:54:22.760 --> 01:54:33.760]  It's very much the house motto, the TV show house, the doctor, where his motto is everybody lies.
[01:54:33.760 --> 01:54:35.760]  It's true.
[01:54:35.760 --> 01:54:41.760]  Now, the reason they lie may vary, but the fact is everybody lies.
[01:54:41.760 --> 01:54:49.760]  And some lies are intentional and some are meant to protect and so on and so forth.
[01:54:49.760 --> 01:54:56.760]  But there is no such thing as a protective government lie.
[01:54:56.760 --> 01:55:10.760]  A government lie is always meant to do two things, cover up the real facts and mislead the public into an agenda that the government itself wishes them to have.
[01:55:10.760 --> 01:55:15.760]  There is no protection variation of a government lie.
[01:55:15.760 --> 01:55:19.760]  They can tell you, oh, we didn't want to tell the whole story. It would create a mass panic.
[01:55:19.760 --> 01:55:21.760]  Bologna.
[01:55:21.760 --> 01:55:23.760]  It might have created mass outrage.
[01:55:23.760 --> 01:55:29.760]  It may have got some government officials put in prison because they were actually responsible for whatever happened.
[01:55:29.760 --> 01:55:32.760]  But they want to treat you like you're a child.
[01:55:32.760 --> 01:55:38.760]  And unfortunately, too many people out there are giving them a good sound reason for doing that.
[01:55:38.760 --> 01:55:42.760]  These people in this We Support Police group being a good example of that.
[01:55:42.760 --> 01:55:52.760]  This guy called me all kinds of names over the weather experimentation statute. Perfect examples of that.
[01:55:52.760 --> 01:56:08.760]  If we cannot adapt our way of thinking to the reality of the world around us, we're going to be caught blindsided when it counts the most.
[01:56:08.760 --> 01:56:15.760]  You're never going to see it coming. You're never going to expect it because face facts.
[01:56:15.760 --> 01:56:18.760]  You want to believe it's impossible and it couldn't possibly happen.
[01:56:18.760 --> 01:56:26.760]  And therefore, there's no way you're going to be looking for it. There's no way you're going to expect it.
[01:56:26.760 --> 01:56:31.760]  And that is a recipe for disaster.
[01:56:31.760 --> 01:56:34.760]  Founding fathers knew it.
[01:56:34.760 --> 01:56:40.760]  People much earlier in time than us knew it.
[01:56:40.760 --> 01:57:01.760]  And it's why the government had to get control of the schools to get it out of the mainstream so that we would stop being aware of its history, its lies, its intentions.
[01:57:01.760 --> 01:57:07.760]  This car cannot be restored.
[01:57:07.760 --> 01:57:14.760]  There are no more workable parts.
[01:57:14.760 --> 01:57:28.760]  It is time to create something new, something sustainable, something accountable to the people.
[01:57:28.760 --> 01:57:37.760]  Because we have not had that for a very long time.
[01:57:37.760 --> 01:57:41.760]  Many of you out there know this.
[01:57:41.760 --> 01:57:47.760]  Many of you out there have no clue about this.
[01:57:47.760 --> 01:57:52.760]  But you better get one and you better know.
[01:57:52.760 --> 01:58:08.760]  Before that knock on the door happens, and the next thing that happens is a gun gets shoved in your face and is telling you where you're going to live, where you're going to stay, and how you're going to work for the state for free for the rest of your life.
[01:58:08.760 --> 01:58:23.760]  Alright folks, this has been the Money in Outrule of Law radio show. Your host Eddie Craig. Please, please donate to the network. Donate to us whenever you can. We really, really need your financial support. We cannot survive. I am down to my last row of groceries in the cabinet.
[01:58:23.760 --> 01:58:34.760]  I'm done folks. I can't do better than this. I'm going to dig ditches somewhere. This is ridiculous. Can't make a living sitting here doing this anymore. It's just not possible because nobody's supporting us.
[01:58:34.760 --> 01:58:45.760]  So folks, I want to wish y'all a great week. God bless. And if you don't hear from me again, it's because I had to get some work to actually eat. Y'all have a great week. Thanks for listening.
[01:59:04.760 --> 01:59:19.760]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross-references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament, you can click on the link in the description below.
[01:59:19.760 --> 01:59:40.760]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross-references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.760 --> 01:59:49.760]  That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.