ROL_2019-09-23_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.760]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lowest Star of Lowdown.
[00:06.760 --> 00:14.040]  Markets for Monday 22 July 2019 Open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429.00 An ounce, Silver
[00:14.040 --> 00:22.680]  $16.45 An ounce, Copper $2.75 An ounce, Oil, Texas Crew $55.63 A barrel, Brent Crew $62.47
[00:22.680 --> 00:31.560]  A barrel, Crypto in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52 Ethereum $227.26
[00:31.560 --> 00:41.400]  XRP Ripple $0.33 Lint Coin $100.31 Bitcoin Cash $324.10 Crypto Coin
[00:41.400 --> 00:52.320]  Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a timed suitcase bomb, was detonated
[00:52.320 --> 00:58.240]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and
[00:58.240 --> 01:08.360]  entering 40. Today in history. In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325,
[01:08.360 --> 01:13.080]  legalizing HEP into Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including
[01:13.080 --> 01:17.400]  Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even
[01:17.400 --> 01:21.800]  refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the
[01:21.800 --> 01:26.720]  laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District
[01:26.720 --> 01:30.760]  Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and
[01:30.760 --> 01:35.160]  delivery of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials,
[01:35.160 --> 01:39.400]  including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter that county district attorneys back on
[01:39.400 --> 01:44.520]  Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a
[01:44.520 --> 01:51.000]  misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the district attorney in
[01:51.000 --> 01:57.280]  El Paso. Jaime Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote,
[01:57.280 --> 02:02.120]  will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However,
[02:02.120 --> 02:06.840]  the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in
[02:06.840 --> 02:11.160]  Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something
[02:11.160 --> 02:15.680]  illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something,
[02:15.680 --> 02:25.000]  the test matches what they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified a five
[02:25.000 --> 02:30.640]  and a half inch American pocket shark as the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen
[02:30.640 --> 02:36.200]  being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way
[02:36.200 --> 02:41.040]  back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the shark
[02:41.040 --> 02:47.880]  secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure
[02:47.880 --> 03:04.480]  and prey who may be drawn into the glow. This is Wolf Rody with your lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[03:17.880 --> 03:23.160]  This is what happens when you call the cops. You get your rights violated or you all get shot.
[03:23.160 --> 03:27.720]  I'm thinking people being victimized by criminal cops. Psychopathic predators terrorize the
[03:27.720 --> 03:32.200]  neighborhood blocks. Dequip with pepper spray, mate, cuff cases and glass. They like serial killers
[03:32.200 --> 03:36.160]  acting out subliminal thoughts. Forget what you taught. These cops have got a license to kill.
[03:36.160 --> 03:40.200]  Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will. Code of silence means that the pigs
[03:40.200 --> 03:43.880]  will never let out a squeal. And if they go to court, they know the judge will make them a deal.
[03:43.880 --> 03:48.200]  For real, that's why they're stoppin' me, lockin' me up and stoppin' me, confiscatin' my property,
[03:48.200 --> 03:52.560]  talkin' in my demography, makin' the poor commodity, profitin' off of poverty. Of course, the
[03:52.560 --> 03:56.840]  politics support the prison of kind. Yeah, no one makes money when the violence stops.
[03:56.840 --> 04:01.040]  Hatin's mentality's the way to make a criminal crock. Blood in the gutters, how to risk whether
[04:01.040 --> 04:04.440]  they bread at the top. And that's why this is what happens when you call the cops.
[04:04.440 --> 04:10.600]  This is what happens when you call the cops. This is what happens when you call the cops. This is
[04:10.600 --> 04:15.720]  what happens when you call the cops. You get your rights violated or you all get shot. This is
[04:15.720 --> 04:21.160]  what happens when you call the cops. This is what happens when you call the cops. This is what
[04:21.160 --> 04:25.800]  happens when you call the cops. You get your rights violated or you all get shot, baby.
[04:25.800 --> 04:28.360]  Okay, what's your right to go to jail anyway?
[04:28.360 --> 04:32.120]  I make the peace system and these prisons try and murder me. They make me, they take me, they
[04:32.120 --> 04:37.320]  train them to hate me. They're great at detain me and change us like slavery. Hands up, face down,
[04:37.320 --> 04:41.800]  left hook right quick. Throw you down, hold you down, pack you with that night shit. Night shit,
[04:41.800 --> 04:45.720]  ride them rounds, see you with your J's off. You'll get sprained on other skittles worth of
[04:45.720 --> 04:49.880]  trademark. All that people saying is it's crazy down in Florida. What you saying is you plan
[04:49.880 --> 04:54.040]  is the same in California. You're ganging like they're banging in or hanging down in Georgia.
[04:54.040 --> 04:57.960]  Frame you in a cage for what you say without a lawyer. Swarming with no warning, now they're
[04:57.960 --> 05:01.720]  sorting through your residence. Swarming with no warning, now they're sorting all the evidence.
[05:01.720 --> 05:04.280]  You better just learn to dodge a box.
[05:04.280 --> 05:07.960]  All right folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show.
[05:07.960 --> 05:12.360]  I apologize for the beginning of the show here. We did have a bit of a problem,
[05:12.920 --> 05:18.040]  technical side of things, and I think I've got that sorted out. We'll find out here in a minute.
[05:19.240 --> 05:26.440]  That being said, I want to go over something that I was reading today on some case law research,
[05:26.440 --> 05:31.640]  if I can find out where that dad blamed. You know, I hate when this happens. When you have
[05:31.640 --> 05:35.080]  everything right in front of you, you're getting ready for this and technical problems cause you
[05:35.080 --> 05:44.280]  to lose the stuff you're trying to read. Let me see here. No, that's not it either. Okay, let me see if
[05:44.280 --> 05:52.440]  I've, oh there we go. All right, I was doing some legal research today trying to do a little bit
[05:52.440 --> 05:58.600]  of work on the book and the seminar material and stuff like that, among the other multitude of things
[05:58.600 --> 06:07.320]  I've been doing today. And the problem I came up with here was here a while back I was having a
[06:07.320 --> 06:13.480]  discussion with a law student on Facebook who his own parents say thinks he's become a legal
[06:13.480 --> 06:21.560]  know-it-all. And I was explaining to him that the courts have classified and he's arguing that there
[06:21.560 --> 06:28.440]  is no specific case that says probable cause has to be based upon criminal conduct. The
[06:28.440 --> 06:35.560]  problem with his argument is that every single time you read a case about what constitutes
[06:35.560 --> 06:41.880]  reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the only thing under discussion is the presence
[06:42.680 --> 06:51.560]  of criminal conduct or the potential presence of criminal conduct. Now the case we're looking at
[06:51.560 --> 06:58.600]  in relation to what I was talking about is Ramirez Tamayo versus the state of Texas. This
[06:58.600 --> 07:06.440]  case is from 2016 out of the seventh court of appeals here in Texas. And this is the logic
[07:06.440 --> 07:15.000]  the court was arguing over in this opinion. At the district court level this guy was convicted
[07:15.000 --> 07:20.840]  because the judge refused to suppress the evidence against him and the because it was
[07:20.840 --> 07:27.480]  fruit of the poison tree of an illegal stop by a police officer. And throughout the entire
[07:27.480 --> 07:35.640]  testimony at trial the cops entire testimony was based upon it's been my prior experience.
[07:35.640 --> 07:42.200]  It's been my prior experience. It's been my prior experience. And so this is how the court
[07:42.200 --> 07:53.640]  of appeals addressed that chain of evidence and testimony in the court. A logical reasoning
[07:53.640 --> 08:01.000]  sequence based upon some training and experience. Because drug traffickers have been seen breathing,
[08:01.000 --> 08:07.400]  then breathing is an indicia of drug trafficking. Because they normally have two hands,
[08:07.400 --> 08:15.320]  then having two hands is an indicia of drug smuggling. Silly maybe. But one can wonder if
[08:15.320 --> 08:20.920]  that is the direction we are heading. Whether it be driving a clean vehicle as in contrarious v
[08:20.920 --> 08:28.680]  state or looking at a peace officer Gonzalez Galindo v state or looking away from a peace officer
[08:28.680 --> 08:35.640]  Gonzalez Galindo v state or a young person driving a newer vehicle Gonzalez Galindo v state
[08:35.640 --> 08:43.480]  or someone driving in a car with meal wrappers the shinnies versus state or someone driving
[08:43.480 --> 08:52.760]  carefully contrarious v state or driving on an interstate cclat v state. Let's see where in the
[08:52.760 --> 09:00.920]  official testified that I-35 was a drug corridor. Most anything can be considered as indicia of
[09:00.920 --> 09:07.640]  drug trafficking to law enforcement personnel. Maybe this is because drug smugglers just happen
[09:07.640 --> 09:12.920]  to be human beings and being such they tend to engage in the same innocuous acts in which
[09:12.920 --> 09:23.480]  law abiding citizens engage. All right. Now my argument with this law student was that probable
[09:23.480 --> 09:32.680]  cause cannot exist in relation to a civil matter. And in cases where such conduct is not considered
[09:32.680 --> 09:43.000]  criminal it is considered civil in nature. We have an issue here with the court's own reasoning as
[09:43.000 --> 09:48.840]  to what constitutes criminal conduct and thus provides the bedrock for establishing reasonable
[09:48.840 --> 09:56.280]  suspicion and probable cause because in every single opinion on the issue of probable cause
[09:56.280 --> 10:03.480]  and reasonable suspicion the court pounds and pounds and pounds upon the fact that it must
[10:03.480 --> 10:13.720]  be indicative based upon criminal conduct. And yet the same courts will turn around in cases
[10:13.720 --> 10:23.000]  including the United States Supreme Court by the way and in cases where these so-called civil
[10:25.560 --> 10:33.400]  anything exist in these other states okay. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause exists
[10:34.200 --> 10:41.960]  to make an arrest and to stop someone at their liberty etc etc etc. Even though a civil infraction
[10:41.960 --> 10:50.040]  has no criminal element to it at all the court at the Supreme Court level the United States
[10:50.040 --> 10:57.000]  Supreme Court level has ruled that simply violating the civil statute creates probable cause yet
[10:58.040 --> 11:04.120]  every single Supreme Court case dealing with reasonable suspicion and probable cause
[11:04.120 --> 11:16.200]  requires an element of criminal conduct either ongoing prior commission or about to be committed
[11:16.200 --> 11:23.560]  but it always hinges upon the existence of criminal conduct except in the case of civil
[11:23.560 --> 11:32.360]  infractions. How is this logically plausible and possible because I say it's not. In fact
[11:32.360 --> 11:38.360]  the seventh court of appeals went so far as to go by other court opinions here in Texas
[11:38.360 --> 11:48.600]  on page five of this case it reads as follows. Next as said in Lemming and it's me um let's see
[11:48.600 --> 12:00.280]  if it's got the full case citation in here for that. Lemming v. State PD 0072-15 2016 Texas
[12:00.280 --> 12:10.200]  Court of Criminal Appeals okay. Anyway in Lemming reasonable suspicion depends on the factual
[12:10.200 --> 12:17.480]  and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men not legal
[12:17.480 --> 12:25.480]  technicians act. Its existence depends upon and again reasonable suspicion is what it's talking
[12:25.480 --> 12:32.280]  about when it says its existence. Reasonable suspicions existence depends upon the presence
[12:32.280 --> 12:41.800]  of specific articulable facts that when combined with rational inferences from those facts would
[12:41.800 --> 12:50.040]  lead an ordinary prudent officer to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon
[12:50.040 --> 13:00.520]  will be engaged in criminal activity. Doesn't say jack squat about civil infraction activity.
[13:01.320 --> 13:10.760]  Criminal activity. You cannot categorize and act as non-criminal and then turn around and say that
[13:10.760 --> 13:21.000]  it is the grounds for criminal conduct requirements. And if it is not criminal in nature and it is
[13:21.000 --> 13:27.800]  required that the element of crime exists for probable cause and reasonable suspicion to apply
[13:29.000 --> 13:36.760]  then a civil infraction is incapable of imparting that level of detention by an officer.
[13:36.760 --> 13:48.600]  It's not a big jump in logic. It's not a haphazard step in reason. It is fundamentally
[13:48.600 --> 13:57.000]  sound based upon every opinion in existence unless it's the court ruling on a civil infraction
[13:58.280 --> 14:05.800]  where the court itself is rewriting the elements of the civil infraction statutes and the law of
[14:05.800 --> 14:13.640]  the individual state in which it exists to convert a civil act into a criminal act for the purpose
[14:13.640 --> 14:20.680]  of justifying an otherwise unconstitutional and illegal detention and arrest by a peace office.
[14:22.360 --> 14:28.760]  There is no two ways in the world to slice that piece of bread under those conditions
[14:28.760 --> 14:38.200]  and circumstances. Cannot be done. Either the conduct constitutes a crime which would allow
[14:38.200 --> 14:43.560]  the element to exist in order for probable cause or reasonable suspicion to be developed
[14:44.280 --> 14:54.520]  or it is not and they cannot be applied. And as a prequel to a legal detention or a legal
[14:54.520 --> 15:00.520]  warrantless arrest they are nonexistent in a civil infraction case.
[15:02.920 --> 15:09.880]  The United States Supreme Court cannot rewrite state law to make criminal that which the state
[15:09.880 --> 15:19.480]  itself has declared civil. Where would they get the authority for that? Nor would any court within
[15:19.480 --> 15:27.240]  the state get that authority. Yet in states like California they use the criminal rules
[15:27.960 --> 15:38.360]  to conduct the prosecution in a civil matter. So again how is this possible?
[15:40.680 --> 15:48.120]  It's not. In any form of actual logic and reasoning it's not because it goes against
[15:48.120 --> 15:55.000]  every grain of individual rights, individual due process protections, criminal due process
[15:55.000 --> 16:03.720]  protections and civil due process protection. They use a combination of all the rules to defeat
[16:03.720 --> 16:08.120]  all of the rules according to how they want the outcome to be.
[16:10.120 --> 16:14.680]  In the case of civil infractions they use the criminal rules to proceed with the prosecution
[16:14.680 --> 16:18.760]  except for where the criminal rules affords a protection that would prevent them from moving
[16:18.760 --> 16:24.200]  forward in which case we now switch to the civil rules so we could circumvent that protection
[16:24.200 --> 16:31.320]  because it's not available under the civil side. It's like keeping two set of financial books in
[16:31.320 --> 16:38.440]  a business. One you give the IRS and the other one you keep hidden that shows what your real income
[16:38.440 --> 16:47.400]  is. It's exactly what these morons are doing with the law. They're keeping two sets of books.
[16:49.240 --> 16:54.840]  Okay it's not hard to understand. It's not hard to contemplate. It is what it is on its face
[16:54.840 --> 16:59.160]  and on its face it's fraud. Y'all hang on and we'll be right back.
[16:59.160 --> 17:09.480]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by
[17:09.480 --> 17:16.280]  Central Texas Gun Works. Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated.
[17:16.280 --> 17:21.560]  Everything helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gun Works the grand prize up for
[17:21.560 --> 17:29.320]  grabs is a Spikes Tactical AR 15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation is a
[17:29.320 --> 17:35.880]  chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's ebook Legal 101 you get four chances to win.
[17:35.880 --> 17:41.320]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed the shows on
[17:41.320 --> 17:47.240]  Logos Radio Network support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming
[17:47.240 --> 17:53.800]  on talk radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and remember every $25
[17:53.800 --> 18:01.640]  donation is a chance to win. Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today. Are you being
[18:01.640 --> 18:07.160]  harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors
[18:07.160 --> 18:12.760]  now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against
[18:12.760 --> 18:18.280]  debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on
[18:18.280 --> 18:23.720]  how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones,
[18:23.720 --> 18:28.840]  mail or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out of your
[18:28.840 --> 18:34.600]  credit reports? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away? The
[18:34.600 --> 18:40.440]  Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation
[18:40.440 --> 18:45.720]  is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the
[18:45.720 --> 18:52.440]  blue Michael Mears banner or email Michael Mears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com
[18:52.440 --> 19:11.720]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:22.600 --> 19:25.720]  My whole life spent into a prayer bed.
[19:29.160 --> 19:36.760]  Hell's my service to this white-eyed soul. The head says to me how to see if I keep on.
[19:36.760 --> 19:44.680]  I become careful about the moon and the stars. Personally though, now that I've gone too far,
[19:44.680 --> 19:57.960]  you are gone and go. Run about and hit the ball. You are gone and go. Run about and hit the ball.
[19:57.960 --> 20:20.920]  All right, folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. The call-in number is 512-646-1984 if
[20:20.920 --> 20:27.320]  you want to call and get in line on the caller board. Okay, now, as I was saying on these cases,
[20:27.320 --> 20:33.240]  there is something logically wrong with the way this is being done because the state is setting
[20:33.240 --> 20:38.120]  the level of the offense as non-criminal and the Supreme Court is converting it back into
[20:38.120 --> 20:45.800]  something criminal. They can't do that, okay? Now, it's just like everything else that's going on
[20:45.800 --> 20:51.400]  here in Texas with these traffic cases. Here in Texas, when they charge you with speeding,
[20:51.400 --> 20:58.440]  they ignore everything about the law that exists, and they simply do it based upon how they've been
[20:58.440 --> 21:03.800]  doing it, even though how they've been doing it is an absolute violation of law on your right
[21:03.800 --> 21:08.280]  of due process. They're charging you with a speeding offense, but the law very clearly
[21:08.280 --> 21:15.080]  states it is impossible for you to have committed, okay? You've got section 201.904 of the Texas
[21:15.080 --> 21:20.280]  Transportation Code, which says very clearly that posted speed limit only applies to commercial
[21:20.280 --> 21:27.960]  motor vehicles. A commercial motor vehicle is a specific designated weight, passenger capacity,
[21:27.960 --> 21:36.360]  or hazardous materials bearing class of vehicle. It doesn't apply to everything on the road,
[21:36.360 --> 21:42.120]  not even everyone engaged in commerce. For instance, it does not apply to taxicabs. Your
[21:42.120 --> 21:50.200]  taxicab can do 250 if they can do it and not kill anybody, and they cannot charge them with speeding,
[21:50.760 --> 21:58.280]  even if there's an accident. Why? Because the posted speed limit didn't apply to them.
[21:59.960 --> 22:08.120]  The Texas speed laws are meant to be remedial. That's why they're not designated as an offense
[22:08.120 --> 22:16.040]  in statute. They are there to be used as the means of determining the specific conditions
[22:16.040 --> 22:22.680]  and circumstances under which a person who suffers an injury due to the lack of control of another
[22:22.680 --> 22:31.960]  person's car relating to their speed so as to have a method of proving the harm in court,
[22:31.960 --> 22:39.560]  other than the actual injury itself. In other words, there would be a big difference between
[22:39.560 --> 22:46.920]  proving that a person had a collision and entered you, injured you, even though they were traveling
[22:46.920 --> 22:51.880]  the normal speed limit and lost control of their car for whatever reason and ran into you and
[22:51.880 --> 23:02.360]  injured you. Versus somebody who's doing 170 and blew a tire and then they injured you or killed
[23:02.360 --> 23:08.920]  some member of your family. The statutes on the books are meant to provide you with a way of
[23:08.920 --> 23:17.160]  determining how severe the other person's actions were in relation to negligence.
[23:17.160 --> 23:29.320]  That is why the word offense and the word misdemeanor do not exist in relation to a speeding
[23:29.320 --> 23:39.960]  statute anywhere in Texas law. It's not defined as an offense. It's remedial. But the courts
[23:39.960 --> 23:46.200]  have attempted to rewrite the law in Texas to apply a section of the transportation code
[23:46.200 --> 23:55.480]  that simply says for where no specific amount of a fine is related to an offense within this code,
[23:56.920 --> 24:07.000]  then the default is $200. That speaks to the monetary punishment for an actual codified offense
[24:07.000 --> 24:17.160]  and there is not one for speeding. But they are rewriting the law based upon that statute to
[24:17.160 --> 24:24.120]  create an offense that the legislature itself did not create and to steal money from the public
[24:24.120 --> 24:29.000]  through fraudulent misrepresentation of the law. Plain and simple.
[24:29.000 --> 24:38.840]  201.904. The state shall erect speed signs with the intent of regulating the speed of
[24:38.840 --> 24:44.200]  semi-semi tractor trailers and commercial motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers
[24:44.200 --> 24:51.480]  for compensation or hire. Commercial motor vehicles for the transportation of persons
[24:52.200 --> 24:58.280]  for compensation or hire. What is that? If you read what a commercial motor vehicle is in relation
[24:58.280 --> 25:04.360]  to the transportation of passengers, meaning buses, which is what it's got in parentheses,
[25:04.360 --> 25:10.040]  that's exactly what it does mean. A vehicle capable of carrying 16 or more passengers,
[25:10.040 --> 25:22.520]  including the driver, for commercial purposes. That speed sign cannot be applied to any
[25:22.520 --> 25:28.120]  active speeding other than one involving that kind of vehicle. Period.
[25:30.840 --> 25:36.680]  Then the conditions for speeding in order for the remedial statutes to kick in must also be
[25:36.680 --> 25:43.080]  applied. Did the person fail to control their speedings while operating a commercial motor
[25:43.080 --> 25:50.040]  vehicle identified by section 201.904 so as to have a collision with another person or vehicle
[25:50.040 --> 25:57.640]  already lawfully upon or entering the highway. So that such collision could be verified as having
[25:57.640 --> 26:06.120]  occurred because the person was beyond the speed limit necessary to control the actions of their
[26:06.120 --> 26:15.240]  vehicle in order to prevent it. This is not rocket science people, but these attorneys
[26:15.240 --> 26:21.000]  sure want you to think it is. They want you to think that they are the only ones capable of
[26:21.000 --> 26:25.640]  comprehending this, and yet you cannot get one of them to comprehend this. No matter how many
[26:25.640 --> 26:32.360]  ways you explain it, the only answer an attorney will ever give you in response to challenging
[26:32.360 --> 26:38.440]  them with this set of facts under the actual statute is, A, they will throw case law at you that
[26:38.440 --> 26:44.680]  does not deal with the actual facts. They will throw the statement, you're taking it out of context,
[26:44.680 --> 26:50.680]  yet they cannot supply you with another statutory context to replace it with.
[26:51.880 --> 26:58.440]  They will only cite a single piece of statute without consideration for all of the other relevant
[26:58.440 --> 27:04.760]  statute as the law is required to be read and interpreted by everyone, not just the attorneys,
[27:04.760 --> 27:14.360]  not just the courts, but everyone. Even a brain dead, moronic, insubordinate, retarded fricking attorney
[27:14.600 --> 27:20.360]  who would not know the law from his ass if you gave him a roadmap and a tour guide to find it with.
[27:24.280 --> 27:29.640]  These are the people to which you have entrusted your lives by letting them dictate what the law
[27:29.640 --> 27:34.520]  is, how the law is interpreted, how the law is understood, and how the law is applied. When it
[27:34.520 --> 27:43.240]  is very, very clear from the law itself that it is all fraud and lies. On that same note,
[27:44.280 --> 27:50.360]  I sent an email to the Dallas Morning News reporter, Kevin Kraus, about an article he wrote
[27:50.360 --> 27:56.120]  dealing with the cop that was up there falsifying traffic tickets to pad his overtime pay. And if
[27:56.120 --> 28:01.640]  y'all remember, over the years I've done several shows talking about that very thing. It is very,
[28:01.640 --> 28:08.360]  very easy for a cop to give himself a pay raise. Very easy. All he has to do is write more tickets,
[28:08.360 --> 28:14.280]  thus guaranteeing himself more overtime and thus guaranteeing his paycheck is bigger any time he
[28:14.280 --> 28:23.080]  needs it to be just by writing tickets. Does it matter if the ticket is justified? No. Does it
[28:23.080 --> 28:31.800]  matter if he wins the case? No. He can just write the ticket and he will be called to court to testify.
[28:31.800 --> 28:37.720]  And he gets overtime. It's very, very simple. It doesn't matter if he wins the case,
[28:37.720 --> 28:43.000]  proves the point, gets the conviction, does not matter. He still gets that overtime pay in his
[28:43.000 --> 28:54.360]  pocket. There is no justice in a system like that. There is no public interest in a system
[28:54.360 --> 29:01.480]  that does that. There is only self-interest in a system that does that. And the self-interest is
[29:01.480 --> 29:08.200]  always in the hands of the people that are trying to charge you and convict you of the alleged
[29:08.200 --> 29:13.720]  defense in the first place. The cop lines his pocket with overtime pay. The city lines its
[29:13.720 --> 29:18.520]  coffers with the court cost that they charge you on top of it once they get you convicted,
[29:18.520 --> 29:23.320]  which they always do because they refuse to comply with the law and follow the facts and apply them
[29:23.320 --> 29:33.720]  to the case at hand. Okay? It is engineered as a virtual no-win situation. The only time you
[29:33.720 --> 29:40.760]  can win hands down, no holds barred is to catch them doing something wrong, which I've done many,
[29:40.760 --> 29:50.280]  many times. Okay? We've got lots of wins because we caught them playing dirty and underhanded.
[29:51.720 --> 29:54.760]  All right folks, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back after this
[29:55.400 --> 29:58.600]  message. So y'all hang in there and I'll return.
[29:58.600 --> 30:06.520]  What a pick the perfect gift. Head to the berry patch. Berries are not only delicious,
[30:06.520 --> 30:11.480]  they're rich in antioxidants that could protect your special someone from the ravages of disease.
[30:11.480 --> 30:14.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:15.000 --> 30:20.520]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.520 --> 30:25.320]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.320 --> 30:31.480]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:31.480 --> 30:36.680]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[30:36.680 --> 30:42.680]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.120 --> 30:48.120]  After Michael J. Fox has it and so do half a million other Americans,
[30:48.120 --> 30:52.280]  it's Parkinson's disease, a nervous system affliction that involves shaking that gets
[30:52.280 --> 30:57.320]  progressively worse over time. There's no cure for Parkinson's, but new research suggests that
[30:57.320 --> 31:02.040]  eating berries might help prevent it. Financial Institutes of Health reports that a special
[31:02.040 --> 31:07.240]  class of flavonoids called anthocyanins may significantly reduce the risk of developing
[31:07.240 --> 31:13.640]  Parkinson's. Berries are rich in anthocyanins and so are apples. Why might anthocyanins prevent
[31:13.640 --> 31:18.840]  Parkinson's? Researchers aren't sure, but they suspect that flavonoids may suppress inflammation,
[31:18.840 --> 31:23.960]  reduce oxidative stress, and increase dopamine release in the brain. So eat your berries.
[31:24.840 --> 31:29.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:31.320 --> 31:36.760]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:36.760 --> 31:42.280]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1500 architects and engineers concluded
[31:42.280 --> 31:46.600]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:46.600 --> 31:50.920]  And thousands of my fellow first responders have died. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a
[31:50.920 --> 31:55.000]  structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who
[31:55.000 --> 32:01.080]  lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:02.760 --> 32:06.840]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America,
[32:06.840 --> 32:10.680]  we live in an us against them society. If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[32:10.680 --> 32:14.760]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[32:14.760 --> 32:18.760]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[32:18.760 --> 32:23.160]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to
[32:23.160 --> 32:27.320]  learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy
[32:27.320 --> 32:30.920]  Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive
[32:30.920 --> 32:34.760]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[32:34.760 --> 32:38.680]  courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[32:38.680 --> 32:43.240]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[32:43.240 --> 32:47.240]  book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Live, video and audio of the original
[32:47.240 --> 32:51.720]  2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how
[32:51.720 --> 32:55.720]  to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your
[32:55.720 --> 32:59.320]  copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.320 --> 33:11.320]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:29.640 --> 33:45.640]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the calling number 512-646-1984.
[33:45.640 --> 33:51.560]  I would like to remind y'all that the fundraiser is currently ongoing. Deborah has it up on the
[33:51.560 --> 33:59.160]  logosradionetwork.com website. So go read about the fundraiser. Please keep us. You got to make
[33:59.160 --> 34:03.880]  donations folks. We can't stay where we are without the donations. Not only to the network,
[34:03.880 --> 34:08.360]  but to us as individuals because the time that we spend doing all this other means holding down
[34:08.360 --> 34:12.680]  a regular job with regular hours is virtually impossible if we're going to make any headway
[34:12.680 --> 34:18.680]  with this. We do what we do because somebody's got to, but at the same time we still have to live.
[34:18.680 --> 34:24.280]  If you appreciate the information and the things we do, then please help us out. Show us that because
[34:24.280 --> 34:29.960]  we can't keep doing it for free forever. I don't have a trust fund waiting on me anywhere.
[34:30.840 --> 34:36.280]  Okay, believe me, nobody should have to live the life I do to do the things that I do for
[34:36.280 --> 34:42.760]  everybody else's benefit with nothing to show for it. But here I am anyway, called somebody has to.
[34:42.760 --> 34:49.560]  So even though somebody shouldn't have to do it, somebody is doing it and it would help a whole
[34:49.560 --> 34:55.960]  lot if somebody out there would appreciate it. The more of you, the better because we need it. We
[34:55.960 --> 35:04.200]  can't keep doing this without you. Okay, I don't even know what a full home cooked meal looks like
[35:04.200 --> 35:10.760]  anymore. I have no clue. I eat one item of one kind a day. That's all I can afford to eat.
[35:10.760 --> 35:16.600]  I barely have enough to keep me and my dog in food. Okay, but it wasn't for the fact that every now
[35:16.600 --> 35:22.840]  and then somebody buys a seminar at just the right time to cover my rent and my electric here.
[35:23.560 --> 35:27.800]  I wouldn't have a thing to do at all. I'd be out on the street right now and this show would be
[35:27.800 --> 35:35.800]  non-existent. You are what keeps us going through the fundraiser through donations. Without you,
[35:35.800 --> 35:41.320]  we're done. We're over. I'm going to find something else to do. That's not a threat. It's a necessity.
[35:42.280 --> 35:50.280]  It's just a fact of life. Everybody wants help from us when they're in need. Nobody,
[35:50.280 --> 35:55.480]  it seems, really cares about what we save them in order to donate any portion of that to us
[35:55.480 --> 35:59.880]  when it's over, though. Doesn't matter how much we help them out. Doesn't matter how much we save
[35:59.880 --> 36:03.720]  them. There's only a handful of you out there that give to us on a regular basis.
[36:03.720 --> 36:10.040]  And we appreciate that. Please don't get me wrong. For those of you that are doing whatever it needs
[36:10.040 --> 36:14.680]  to be done to keep us going, I appreciate that more than you can possibly imagine, especially
[36:14.680 --> 36:18.840]  those of you that are donating to me directly. Because without you, I wouldn't have two quarters
[36:18.840 --> 36:25.320]  rubbed together in my pocket any time of day. And I barely got that now, but I'm still here
[36:26.360 --> 36:32.680]  because I make what I do get last as long as I possibly can. And believe me, you get good at
[36:32.680 --> 36:36.840]  that after a while if you're going to keep a roof over your head of any kind. But pretty soon,
[36:36.840 --> 36:40.920]  that roof is going to turn into a cardboard box if things don't change. Or I'm going to have to
[36:40.920 --> 36:48.200]  quit and find something that pays better. All right. Anyhow, FundraiserLogosRadioNetwork.com,
[36:48.200 --> 36:53.160]  please donate however you can. Remember that every $25 gets you in the drawing for whatever
[36:53.160 --> 36:58.680]  the prize is this round. I don't know what that is. I haven't looked at the details of the Fundraiser.
[36:58.680 --> 37:06.760]  I don't try to use this platform to advertise things and just to sell things even though
[37:06.760 --> 37:11.800]  that's the only way that we survive. It's not what I see my purpose as being, but
[37:12.600 --> 37:16.520]  we got to ask. If we don't ask, we never get. If we never get, we don't stay.
[37:17.640 --> 37:23.480]  Okay? All right. That being said, consider how I open this show and think about that,
[37:23.480 --> 37:29.880]  about how the fraud that the system has created is used by the system to abuse every aspect of
[37:29.880 --> 37:39.320]  how we live and what we do. The system adapts itself to undermine the rule of law and the
[37:39.320 --> 37:45.640]  separation of powers. There's no denying that. You can look at court opinion after court opinion
[37:45.640 --> 37:52.040]  after court opinion, and there is no question that the courts are legislating from the bench,
[37:52.040 --> 37:56.280]  which they're not allowed to do. It's a direct violation of the separation of powers.
[37:56.280 --> 38:01.320]  Here in Texas, we've got court cases that say that the prosecution in the state of Texas
[38:01.320 --> 38:09.800]  can use similar meaning words to those that the statute itself contains in order to get a conviction.
[38:11.000 --> 38:17.320]  That's not possible, people. That simply is not possible. And a good reason for that is when
[38:17.320 --> 38:24.680]  that term is defined in law as being something specific to that law, the court is not free
[38:24.680 --> 38:30.040]  to replace it with some other term that does not have that same meaning. Because let's face facts.
[38:31.080 --> 38:39.000]  Similar meaning is not the same as precise legal meaning. And when it is defined in law,
[38:39.000 --> 38:48.600]  it is an absolute 100% certainty that the term is not being used in its common definition and
[38:48.600 --> 38:59.720]  meaning at all. So for the court to say that a non-statutorily defined term is equal in absolute
[38:59.720 --> 39:10.440]  meaning to the statutory term as defined is ludicrous. It's not possible. And of course,
[39:10.440 --> 39:17.480]  you have their own legal maxim. Something similar is never the same. And that's absolutely true.
[39:17.480 --> 39:23.960]  Imagine trying to prove a murder conviction. Well, Judge, we don't have the actual murder weapon
[39:23.960 --> 39:29.320]  to prove the murder, but we went down to the local gun shop and we found a gun that we believe
[39:29.320 --> 39:35.080]  is similar to the murder weapon. At least it's the right caliber. Even if we can't tell the
[39:35.080 --> 39:41.400]  correct making model, we're going to introduce the similar gun as the murder weapon in evidence
[39:41.400 --> 39:47.320]  to get our conviction. Okay? Is that all right with the court? Well, according to these Texas
[39:47.320 --> 39:54.280]  court decisions, absolutely. Why? Because a firearm is a firearm is a firearm, right?
[39:54.280 --> 40:02.280]  Because the word firearm is similar to the word gun. So we're going to introduce a gun in place
[40:02.280 --> 40:07.720]  of a firearm to get a conviction, even though the gun is not exactly the one that was used to commit
[40:07.720 --> 40:19.800]  the murder. That is how messed up the system we have run by attorneys at every level of government
[40:19.800 --> 40:26.440]  has become. The rule of law no longer exists. It is all the rule of opinion, and it is the
[40:26.440 --> 40:35.160]  opinion of only a very small group of people, those with bar cards and JD at the end of their name.
[40:37.640 --> 40:45.240]  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the absolute destruction of America by any designation you
[40:45.240 --> 40:53.400]  can give it. In this case, bar association is synonymous with the term self-destruct.
[40:56.600 --> 41:01.720]  Bet on it. The biggest problem this country has is attorneys.
[41:03.640 --> 41:09.880]  They're corrupt. They're conniving. They're scheming. They're manipulative, and they intentionally
[41:09.880 --> 41:17.000]  misrepresent facts and law to get the outcome they desire right or wrong. And then they call it
[41:17.000 --> 41:26.040]  vigorously defending or vigorously prosecuting. It's as if the word lie is something they forbid
[41:26.040 --> 41:32.760]  themselves to say, even though that's really what they're doing. So when an attorney calls
[41:32.760 --> 41:38.040]  a witness on the stand, judge, I object to them calling this testimony, I would like a similar
[41:38.040 --> 41:43.160]  term introduced in place of testimony. I would like for the prosecutor to use the term and ask
[41:43.160 --> 41:49.800]  the witness to lie on the stand, because that's what their testimony is. It's a lie.
[41:53.080 --> 41:57.160]  Just exactly how do you think the court and the prosecution is going to respond to that?
[41:57.160 --> 42:04.360]  Oh, I object. I object. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And yet, there is no question. It is absolutely
[42:04.360 --> 42:11.000]  similar to everything they've been doing so far. Now, they want to object because it cast them
[42:11.000 --> 42:18.680]  in a bad light for the truth to come out, just like they try to do to us. Now, what I was saying
[42:18.680 --> 42:23.960]  about writing to the reporter at the Dallas Morning News, all I did was ask him to go to the legal
[42:23.960 --> 42:29.720]  blog and to read some of the specific information contained there. But instead of doing that, I
[42:29.720 --> 42:36.920]  got a single, single line reply back. This is not one of those I'm traveling, not driving
[42:36.920 --> 42:43.400]  arguments, is it? I disagree with the sovereign citizen views and interpretation of law.
[42:44.600 --> 42:49.640]  I never mentioned sovereign citizen in the email I sent him. I never mentioned anything other than
[42:49.640 --> 42:55.320]  read this. It contains the specific statute, the specific court cases, and all the information
[42:55.320 --> 43:01.160]  is verifiable. It links everything in. It talks about or tells you where to go find it. He couldn't
[43:01.160 --> 43:08.040]  even bother to do any research himself. He just simply sent back that reply and blew it off.
[43:09.720 --> 43:15.000]  And of course, I posted his reply and my response up on Facebook along with the original email I
[43:15.000 --> 43:21.640]  sent and all that other good stuff. And I asked people to please go write this guy an email.
[43:21.640 --> 43:26.840]  Ask him to go look at this information, to go verify it, which of course he's not going to do,
[43:27.640 --> 43:31.880]  which is just proof positive that the media doesn't care about the facts. They don't care
[43:31.880 --> 43:41.320]  about the truth. They only care about what sells their media. Otherwise, the information stream
[43:41.320 --> 43:48.760]  is very carefully controlled just like it is in the courts by the attorneys as to what facts
[43:48.760 --> 43:53.080]  are used to create what conditions and circumstances to render their opinions.
[43:53.800 --> 43:57.000]  All right, folks, y'all hang on and we'll start taking calls when I get back.
[44:01.160 --> 44:07.560]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary.
[44:07.560 --> 44:14.040]  The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[44:14.040 --> 44:20.040]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have
[44:20.040 --> 44:26.120]  a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course
[44:26.120 --> 44:32.920]  and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[44:32.920 --> 44:38.360]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[44:38.360 --> 44:44.040]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[44:44.040 --> 44:51.720]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[44:51.720 --> 45:00.280]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.640 --> 45:06.520]  I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so
[45:06.520 --> 45:11.160]  addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be lost without
[45:11.160 --> 45:16.440]  logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer
[45:16.440 --> 45:20.920]  but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on
[45:20.920 --> 45:27.320]  supplement. How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon,
[45:27.320 --> 45:31.720]  you can help logos. They're ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do
[45:31.720 --> 45:39.480]  is clear your cookies. Now go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now
[45:39.480 --> 45:45.800]  when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos get a few pesos. Do I pay extra?
[45:45.800 --> 45:51.800]  No. Do I have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean
[45:51.800 --> 45:58.360]  yes. Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[45:58.360 --> 46:01.960]  We are welcome. Happy holidays, Logos.
[46:28.680 --> 46:37.720]  All right, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the call in number 512-646-1984.
[46:38.760 --> 46:44.440]  All right. Let's see who we got up on the board first. We have Chris in Colorado. All right,
[46:44.440 --> 46:51.880]  Chris, what can we do for you? Hey, Eddie. Howdy. Hi there. Glad to be on with you.
[46:52.520 --> 46:58.200]  Thanks for making the call. Yes, sir. I have a couple questions. I'm dealing with something
[46:58.200 --> 47:04.360]  in Colorado. The more I'm starting to read up on the law, the more I'm getting to really
[47:04.360 --> 47:09.080]  empathize with what you guys are doing. It's pretty crazy from what I'm trying to decipher.
[47:09.960 --> 47:15.480]  I had a ticket I got a few back about a month ago. I did a lot of work to get one part of it
[47:15.480 --> 47:21.160]  taken care of because it was a mistake from the DMV. Now the DMV, head of the DMV,
[47:21.160 --> 47:27.320]  actually called the sergeant of the officer. He asked for me. The sergeant ended up dropping
[47:27.320 --> 47:32.600]  part of the summon. He said that would be done the following week, Monday or Tuesday.
[47:32.600 --> 47:36.200]  This was on a Thursday Friday. He called me. I can't find any record of it anywhere.
[47:37.080 --> 47:45.240]  And I went to the court last week to make a motion for continuance because of all the work I did
[47:45.240 --> 47:50.840]  for the second part. And here's the part that I'm really struggling with. They don't have any case
[47:50.840 --> 47:58.760]  there. It hasn't been filed yet. And the court date, the summons is for Wednesday.
[48:00.520 --> 48:05.560]  And from all I know, it's still not filed. That doesn't make any sense to me. And so I looked
[48:05.560 --> 48:11.560]  up the statute for the summons for criminal in Colorado and they're supposed to file it
[48:11.560 --> 48:15.160]  immediately. Summons and complaints are to be filed immediately.
[48:15.160 --> 48:21.480]  Okay. Look, here's the situation as far as that goes. Don't be looking a gift horse in the mouth.
[48:23.400 --> 48:27.160]  If it's not filed in the court, it doesn't exist. Okay?
[48:28.200 --> 48:35.320]  Right. Now, but because they have a piece of paper that insinuates, it might exist. You need to show
[48:35.320 --> 48:41.160]  up at the appointed time. I can't do it. I'm not from the state. I'm an Arkansas.
[48:41.160 --> 48:45.880]  Well, then you're going to have a problem.
[48:46.920 --> 48:49.880]  That's why I tried to file the motion before I left for continuance.
[48:54.040 --> 49:00.200]  Okay. But again, if it's not filed in the case, they have to give you, what is the time that they
[49:00.200 --> 49:07.480]  have to give you notice of an appearance date? See, here in Texas, when they write to you a
[49:07.480 --> 49:12.600]  citation of some kind, they cannot give you less than 10 days from the date of citation in which
[49:12.600 --> 49:21.240]  to make the appearance. It has to be 10 days or more. Right. So I spent, when I, when the first
[49:21.240 --> 49:27.320]  clerk denied me the ability to file a motion because there is no case filed anywhere for
[49:27.320 --> 49:31.800]  continuance, I just walked out of my head scrambling. It's the first time I've really dealt this,
[49:31.800 --> 49:36.280]  you know, video tapes at all. And then I called back a few days later to get some more information
[49:36.280 --> 49:39.800]  and I got all the way to the head clerk. Now she was a lot more accommodating and a lot more
[49:39.800 --> 49:43.160]  cordial and professional. That's because she's the only one that actually knows anything.
[49:44.600 --> 49:49.160]  Well, she didn't know something this for sure. No, I didn't say that she knows everything. I
[49:49.160 --> 49:54.760]  said she's the only one that knows anything. Well, she should have known this. So I told her
[49:54.760 --> 49:58.440]  that I have a summons and complaint. The first thing on the ticket says summons number, not
[49:59.480 --> 50:03.480]  penalty assessment, not anything else. Summons number is the very first thing top left hand
[50:03.480 --> 50:07.240]  court. And then it says summons and complaint. And then there's the, you know, I supposed to show
[50:07.240 --> 50:12.280]  up to court. Here we go, the state versus myself. I mean, it's like, it looks like a very strange
[50:12.280 --> 50:17.560]  ticket with basically a summons. So I explained that to her, but she kept trying to tell me,
[50:17.560 --> 50:23.880]  I think it might be a penalty assessment. And I don't, without having it here in front of me,
[50:23.880 --> 50:27.560]  this is why I'm challenging her with all the tickets, the thousands of tickets that I was,
[50:27.560 --> 50:30.040]  that was quoted that come through there all the time. She should know the difference.
[50:30.040 --> 50:33.640]  But she says, without seeing it, I don't know if it's actually a summons. I said, well,
[50:33.640 --> 50:40.360]  it says summons all over this ticket. That's okay. So what she then described is two different
[50:40.360 --> 50:45.400]  sides of it, a penalty assessment and then a summons. They're two different things, essentially.
[50:46.280 --> 50:50.760]  And she said a penalty assessment was more along the lines of what you were saying. They had like
[50:50.760 --> 50:55.000]  a 40 day to 90 day or 50 day or something like that. And so they try to make a date somewhere
[50:55.000 --> 50:59.080]  within that ballpark that if you don't pay the penalty assessment, then you need to show up for
[50:59.080 --> 51:05.640]  the ticket. Okay. It's a contested ticket if you want. Well, coming up, I remember tickets
[51:05.640 --> 51:10.840]  back in the day like that. Speeding tickets, you get a little bit of a, or whatever. It's not a
[51:10.840 --> 51:15.080]  big of a deal, but you could pay the fine or show up the court. This was a big deal. They accused me
[51:15.080 --> 51:20.920]  of not having a driver's license. They accused me of, and then the second was minor, failure to yield
[51:20.920 --> 51:27.080]  of a parking lot, which was nonsense. But I got the driver's license, which was the summons,
[51:27.080 --> 51:32.360]  which they must take you to the magistrate or they must force you to sign in order to show up
[51:32.360 --> 51:36.920]  for the court date. That's the way I understand. It's actually a pretty major fine. I got that
[51:36.920 --> 51:41.320]  dropped, essentially. So now I've been trying to find out where, where does it fall now that
[51:41.320 --> 51:45.080]  that's been dropped? Let's go back to the municipal court, et cetera, et cetera. It's a little confusing
[51:45.080 --> 51:52.200]  and nobody can give me a straight answer. So that date, regardless what the clerk told me,
[51:52.200 --> 51:57.240]  said it doesn't matter. They have to submit this. It doesn't matter if you convicted or not of those
[51:57.240 --> 52:01.240]  two charges. If they have a, they want to drop one, that's fine, but that's the ones that are
[52:01.240 --> 52:08.360]  going to enter. And they haven't entered those yet. And I said, that's okay. I mean, what's,
[52:08.360 --> 52:11.880]  isn't there a speedy trial rule? You know, I didn't know, I didn't know what to look up yet.
[52:11.880 --> 52:15.080]  And he just, he just told me basically they get thousands of tickets and they,
[52:15.080 --> 52:18.840]  they dropped the ball on 98% of them. Literally told that to me.
[52:18.840 --> 52:24.040]  Yeah. That's the reason I said, why are you looking a gift horse in the mouth?
[52:24.760 --> 52:27.480]  A case it isn't filed can't be counted against you, can it?
[52:28.600 --> 52:33.080]  No, but what the second clerk told me is they have till five minutes before the court time
[52:33.080 --> 52:37.000]  on that court date, if that ticket ends. Maloney, that's not proper notice.
[52:38.600 --> 52:45.240]  They can't. Okay. If they gave you a specific date and time that you had to appear, does it
[52:45.240 --> 52:57.400]  say on or before in relation to that date? It says, it says Wednesday 9.25 at 1.15 PM.
[52:57.400 --> 53:01.320]  It does not say on or before when it mentions that date?
[53:02.280 --> 53:07.960]  You're here by summons to appear in Jefferson County Court on Wednesday 9.25.
[53:07.960 --> 53:11.240]  Okay. Then it's a specific date and time. Right.
[53:11.240 --> 53:20.680]  Okay. So they're, in which case if it had said on or before like it does here in Texas,
[53:20.680 --> 53:23.560]  you can show up five minutes after you get the ticket if you want.
[53:24.920 --> 53:27.640]  And you've made the appearance of compliance with the citation.
[53:30.040 --> 53:34.040]  But when it gives you a specific date and time, there's nothing that binds them to
[53:34.040 --> 53:41.640]  hearing the facts of the case in relation to that citation until that date and time.
[53:41.640 --> 53:47.400]  The problem here becomes is whether or not they're allowed to use that citation as the actual complaint.
[53:50.440 --> 53:58.360]  Okay. Because a complaint is something that has to be verified. It can't just be signed by a person
[53:58.360 --> 54:04.520]  and that be the end of it. It has to be the signature of the complainant has to be verified by someone
[54:04.520 --> 54:10.840]  else with the authority to administer an oath. This is something that can't happen on the side
[54:10.840 --> 54:21.320]  of the highway with just you and the cop. Okay. So the question here becomes do you have a legal
[54:21.320 --> 54:27.320]  standard of when it's issued to you, it's not binding and then later on when the cop
[54:27.320 --> 54:32.120]  slides it in front of somebody else, but you're not given a copy of that in order to know it's
[54:32.120 --> 54:36.840]  been properly filed, but you're still expected to comply with the unsigned cop.
[54:39.560 --> 54:44.680]  Right. So I've looked up a lot of the summons rules and they are supposed to attach a copy of
[54:44.680 --> 54:50.600]  the complaint. Now under the penalty assessment, they can kind of squeak away with some of that.
[54:51.320 --> 54:55.000]  But understand something. You're playing by two different sets of rules here.
[54:55.000 --> 55:01.080]  One that is geared specifically toward the issuance of a citation and using a citation in
[55:01.080 --> 55:07.080]  place of a plethora of other things as if that's somehow proper when it actually isn't
[55:08.920 --> 55:16.520]  versus the rules for everything else. So if you were charged with shoplifting,
[55:16.520 --> 55:20.120]  they would have to follow that set of rules over there, but because they're charging you
[55:20.120 --> 55:25.720]  with something under a commercial code and a regulatory code over here, they can use the
[55:25.720 --> 55:30.120]  traffic ticket as the complaint that they would have to generate separately for that offense
[55:30.120 --> 55:37.320]  over there. See what I'm saying? Yes. So you have to see what the specific rules dealing
[55:37.320 --> 55:43.960]  with the issuance of a citation is and what that citation is allowed to act in place of, if anything.
[55:43.960 --> 55:54.600]  Okay. Because the fact that a cop issued a summons is a problem. That's a judicial function. A cop
[55:54.600 --> 56:02.920]  is not a judicial officer. Yet most states allow the citation to act as a summons issued by a cop
[56:02.920 --> 56:09.960]  without a signature from a judicial officer. Here in Texas, that's actually a felony. That's
[56:09.960 --> 56:16.040]  called simulation of legal process. And it's against the law unless they do it on a traffic citation.
[56:20.120 --> 56:25.000]  So you got to find out if they're using two sets of books. You see the problem?
[56:26.280 --> 56:30.920]  I do. That's why I'm checking in. Yeah. Well, that's the problem. I'm not an expert on every
[56:30.920 --> 56:38.120]  state set of laws. I can't be. It's impossible. I'm familiar enough with the states that I visited
[56:38.120 --> 56:43.560]  enough. I used to live in Colorado. I fought tickets in Colorado and I won cases in Colorado,
[56:43.560 --> 56:48.680]  but it's been a long time ago and there's been a lot of changes since then. Sure.
[56:50.520 --> 56:54.920]  So I was just going to file a motion for a continuance so I could prepare. Well,
[56:54.920 --> 57:00.920]  you can't file for a continuance in a case that hasn't been filed. Right. And therein lies the
[57:00.920 --> 57:06.520]  rub. This is exactly how they get people in a situation where they can say you failed to appear.
[57:06.520 --> 57:14.600]  Right. But they also have an out because they gave you notice well in advance of when that date
[57:14.600 --> 57:19.800]  and time is. It doesn't matter whether you live there or not. The whole reason they write out
[57:19.800 --> 57:25.400]  of state tickets is because they know 99.9% of the time the person is going to pay because they're
[57:25.400 --> 57:29.880]  not going to be able to show up. Right. The whole reason they do it.
[57:29.880 --> 57:36.520]  So the head clerk, when I spoke to her, I wrote, we talked for almost 45 minutes
[57:37.400 --> 57:41.480]  and she was more than more than willing to work with me on some of this stuff. And I said,
[57:41.480 --> 57:45.160]  you see the dilemma that I meant is exactly what you just described, Eddie. Yeah. He says,
[57:45.160 --> 57:51.320]  yes, I understand it can be frustrating. She says, I'll make an exception. I'll let you file a motion
[57:51.320 --> 57:55.400]  ahead of time so that it's there in case this actually shows up. It's great.
[57:56.200 --> 57:59.400]  She said, but you have to mail it. I said, mail is not going to get there by the time this happens.
[57:59.400 --> 58:03.160]  She says, okay, I'll make another overnight. What do you mean it's not going to get there overnight?
[58:03.160 --> 58:09.160]  The damn thing. Well, you know, she's gonna let me email it. She allowed me to email. Okay.
[58:10.360 --> 58:16.680]  Okay. Make sure you print out a hard copy of that email and save the copy of both you receiving
[58:16.680 --> 58:25.080]  and sending from her. Okay. I will. We headed to break. Yes, we are. So if you'll hang on,
[58:25.080 --> 58:30.360]  let me get this wrapped up and we'll be back to finish this. Okay. Okay. All right, folks,
[58:30.360 --> 58:37.080]  this is a Monday night rule of law radio show with your host Eddie Craig calling number 5126461984.
[58:37.080 --> 58:40.920]  Give us a call, get in line, bring a problem, whatever you got, we'll see what we can do,
[58:40.920 --> 58:43.560]  if we can do y'all hang on. We'll be right back.
[58:43.560 --> 58:56.200]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:56.200 --> 59:02.120]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:02.120 --> 59:06.360]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.360 --> 59:13.720]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.720 --> 59:19.800]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound
[59:19.800 --> 59:25.000]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the
[59:25.000 --> 59:31.000]  word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:31.000 --> 59:37.080]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours
[59:37.080 --> 59:48.120]  just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.120 --> 01:00:04.920]  That's freestudybible.com. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:18.120 --> 01:00:23.880]  Oil, Texas Crude, $55.63 of barrel, Brent Crude, $62.47 of barrel,
[01:00:23.880 --> 01:00:32.520]  and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core, $10,566.52, Ethereum, $227.26,
[01:00:32.520 --> 01:00:41.880]  XRP, Ripple, $0.33, Litecoin, $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 of crypto coin.
[01:00:41.880 --> 01:00:52.040]  Today in History, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a Thai suitcase bomb,
[01:00:52.040 --> 01:00:57.800]  was detonated on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade,
[01:00:57.800 --> 01:01:00.680]  killing 10 and injuring 40. Today in History.
[01:01:04.920 --> 01:01:08.840]  And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325,
[01:01:08.840 --> 01:01:13.000]  legalizing HEPA to tax his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state,
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:17.320]  including Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges,
[01:01:17.320 --> 01:01:21.800]  and even refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time
[01:01:21.800 --> 01:01:25.720]  or the laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore,
[01:01:25.720 --> 01:01:29.640]  the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing
[01:01:29.640 --> 01:01:33.800]  32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the law.
[01:01:33.800 --> 01:01:38.040]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter
[01:01:38.040 --> 01:01:43.240]  that county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas
[01:01:43.240 --> 01:01:48.440]  and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works,
[01:01:48.440 --> 01:01:52.760]  as well as other cities, too, like the district attorney in El Paso.
[01:01:52.760 --> 01:01:57.640]  Kaima Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote,
[01:01:57.640 --> 01:02:02.680]  will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However,
[01:02:02.680 --> 01:02:07.080]  the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender,
[01:02:07.080 --> 01:02:11.640]  in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something
[01:02:11.640 --> 01:02:16.360]  illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something,
[01:02:16.360 --> 01:02:18.520]  the test matches what they're charged with.
[01:02:22.920 --> 01:02:28.280]  A paper by Tulane University identified a 5.5-inch American pocket shark. As the first
[01:02:28.280 --> 01:02:33.960]  of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured
[01:02:33.960 --> 01:02:39.480]  or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[01:02:39.480 --> 01:02:44.680]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a lumus fluid from a gland near its
[01:02:44.680 --> 01:02:50.840]  front fins. For the purpose, it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[01:02:53.960 --> 01:02:58.440]  This is Book Roadie with a lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[01:02:58.440 --> 01:03:02.440]  Music
[01:03:02.440 --> 01:03:08.440]  To make our own whiskey and our own smoke too ain't too many things you don't boys can do.
[01:03:12.920 --> 01:03:18.760]  On the broke good old tomatoes and homemade wine and cut your boy can survive.
[01:03:20.120 --> 01:03:22.440]  Cut your folks can't survive.
[01:03:22.440 --> 01:03:32.440]  Music
[01:03:32.440 --> 01:03:40.440]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:03:40.440 --> 01:03:45.560]  And we are going to continue our call with Chris in Colorado. Alright, Chris, please continue.
[01:03:45.560 --> 01:03:50.200]  She's going to give, she's giving you a special exception to file a motion for continuance
[01:03:50.200 --> 01:03:54.840]  despite the fact that they don't yet have a specific case listed for that citation.
[01:03:54.840 --> 01:04:00.520]  So here's the problem is I see it about to come before you on the horizon.
[01:04:01.880 --> 01:04:09.000]  One, linking what you found now with what may or may not show up later correctly and on time.
[01:04:10.040 --> 01:04:13.880]  That's going to be something that we've got to figure out how that's going to work.
[01:04:13.880 --> 01:04:16.840]  Where are they going to file what she received from you?
[01:04:16.840 --> 01:04:21.880]  And how is she going to remind herself to attach it to a record that doesn't exist yet?
[01:04:22.760 --> 01:04:28.040]  How is she going to read that information to the other people in her office who may receive
[01:04:28.680 --> 01:04:34.840]  that eventual case under that eventual number that they do not yet have in order to take the
[01:04:34.840 --> 01:04:40.760]  email that you supplied her with or whatever printed file she put it in in order to merge the two
[01:04:40.760 --> 01:04:44.120]  together and apply them to the case at hand?
[01:04:44.120 --> 01:04:46.680]  See where I'm going with this?
[01:04:47.640 --> 01:04:48.120]  Yep.
[01:04:48.120 --> 01:04:54.040]  You're putting an awful lot of faith in their organization and ability to keep up.
[01:04:55.480 --> 01:04:58.200]  I don't see that ending well for you.
[01:05:00.360 --> 01:05:03.400]  Her words were basically similar.
[01:05:03.400 --> 01:05:06.840]  Your concerns were usually pretty on top of this, so we should be able to do it.
[01:05:06.840 --> 01:05:07.640]  Right.
[01:05:07.640 --> 01:05:11.800]  Which is why the case isn't even there yet because they're pretty on top of this.
[01:05:11.800 --> 01:05:17.320]  It's why no one can answer any of your questions because they're pretty on top of this.
[01:05:17.320 --> 01:05:22.920]  You would think somebody that's pretty on top of something would be able to explain the process
[01:05:22.920 --> 01:05:27.160]  in order to track down something involved in that process.
[01:05:27.160 --> 01:05:27.720]  Would you not?
[01:05:29.080 --> 01:05:29.880]  Oh yeah.
[01:05:29.880 --> 01:05:34.920]  So I would say we're getting contradicting information as to who's capable of doing what.
[01:05:38.360 --> 01:05:39.480]  Very much agreed, Eddie.
[01:05:39.480 --> 01:05:41.240]  Very much agreed.
[01:05:41.240 --> 01:05:46.600]  The interesting thing is she almost halfway encouraged me to write the second motion for
[01:05:46.600 --> 01:05:52.760]  dismissal for basically not following the statute under the criminal code.
[01:05:52.760 --> 01:05:58.440]  What does the statute say the justifiable result is if the thing is not filed within
[01:05:58.440 --> 01:06:00.680]  time specified in the statute?
[01:06:00.680 --> 01:06:08.040]  Does the statute provide a remedy if they fail to comply with the time period?
[01:06:10.040 --> 01:06:11.880]  Not necessarily, no.
[01:06:11.880 --> 01:06:16.280]  But there is a thing at the bottom of the description that says if a police officer
[01:06:16.280 --> 01:06:20.600]  doesn't follow this guideline, he is in, what's the word?
[01:06:25.880 --> 01:06:27.560]  Oh man, I wrote it down and I forgot.
[01:06:27.560 --> 01:06:34.520]  Okay, but how does a punitive action against a police officer for not doing his job and
[01:06:34.520 --> 01:06:38.920]  getting it in with a certain amount of time solve your problem of having to appear in court?
[01:06:40.280 --> 01:06:41.080]  It doesn't.
[01:06:41.080 --> 01:06:41.640]  Exactly.
[01:06:44.040 --> 01:06:44.840]  Doesn't.
[01:06:44.840 --> 01:06:50.120]  So my question is, is there anything in the statute that says if not filed within a certain
[01:06:50.120 --> 01:06:56.520]  amount of time, then it may not be filed at all or the case is considered unprosecutable or,
[01:06:56.520 --> 01:07:04.200]  you know, whatever or that the accused may request a dismissal based upon failure to prosecute.
[01:07:05.240 --> 01:07:06.920]  Well, why would they put that in there?
[01:07:08.200 --> 01:07:12.280]  Well, generally if they're going to put a time limit on something, then there should be
[01:07:12.280 --> 01:07:17.400]  something relating to that time limit as to what the result of failing to meet that time limit will be.
[01:07:20.840 --> 01:07:23.000]  Yeah, I don't know what that may be.
[01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:24.200]  That's what I'm asking you.
[01:07:24.200 --> 01:07:26.920]  Did you read anything that says what that might be?
[01:07:28.280 --> 01:07:31.720]  Yeah, I looked all the way through that and in the summons it doesn't say if this
[01:07:31.720 --> 01:07:34.040]  isn't filed that they can be thrown out or dismissed.
[01:07:34.040 --> 01:07:38.760]  Okay, so what they did then was they said, okay, we're going to punish the officer for
[01:07:38.760 --> 01:07:43.880]  not helping us get the money in our pockets fast enough if he doesn't file it within this time,
[01:07:43.880 --> 01:07:47.080]  but we're not going to let the person he's supposed to be accusing off the hook
[01:07:48.200 --> 01:07:50.760]  if they don't file it in time.
[01:07:50.760 --> 01:07:54.280]  Sounds about right.
[01:07:54.280 --> 01:07:59.320]  Okay, so I don't see that information as being all that helpful to you unless you
[01:07:59.320 --> 01:08:01.560]  find the condition that I'm referring to.
[01:08:03.960 --> 01:08:04.760]  I'll keep looking.
[01:08:05.800 --> 01:08:10.680]  So when I started, I was just going to do the file for continuance because we're getting
[01:08:10.680 --> 01:08:16.120]  down to the wire here, but I started looking for other suits and other motions of people who
[01:08:16.120 --> 01:08:21.960]  filed for dismissals and I found an interesting thing today about somebody who was written
[01:08:21.960 --> 01:08:28.440]  two tickets for the same crime, essentially a civil and a criminal at a park here in Colorado
[01:08:29.240 --> 01:08:35.160]  and their lawyer filed for a motion dismissed using double jeopardy saying you wrote them
[01:08:35.160 --> 01:08:40.440]  both a penalty assessment and a criminal violation.
[01:08:40.440 --> 01:08:41.240]  You can't do that.
[01:08:42.040 --> 01:08:42.280]  Right.
[01:08:42.280 --> 01:08:47.960]  And so, but that's because they designated the assessment as civil and the actual
[01:08:48.520 --> 01:08:49.720]  allegation is criminal.
[01:08:51.080 --> 01:08:52.760]  And that's, he's exactly right.
[01:08:52.760 --> 01:08:55.480]  That's two categories of punishment for the same offense.
[01:08:56.280 --> 01:08:56.920]  Can't do that.
[01:08:56.920 --> 01:08:58.120]  That is double jeopardy.
[01:08:59.480 --> 01:08:59.800]  Okay.
[01:09:00.680 --> 01:09:05.800]  Double jeopardy is not limited just to prosecuting you for the same offense more than once.
[01:09:05.800 --> 01:09:12.120]  It's also punishing you for that offense more than once.
[01:09:13.720 --> 01:09:20.280]  So by hooking me to either, and by the way, a penalty assessment in the criminal code
[01:09:20.280 --> 01:09:24.280]  is defined as a summons and complaints here in Colorado.
[01:09:24.840 --> 01:09:31.080]  So by hooking me with a penalty assessment, but also holding me to a summons and complaint,
[01:09:31.800 --> 01:09:34.040]  are we questioned upon double jeopardy possibly?
[01:09:34.040 --> 01:09:40.040]  Well, the thing about it is, is they're not prosecuting you for the penalty assessment.
[01:09:41.240 --> 01:09:47.080]  That's simply saying if you will give us your money without argument before this time expires,
[01:09:47.800 --> 01:09:50.840]  then this is what you'll pay us and you won't have to worry about anything else.
[01:09:51.640 --> 01:09:57.000]  But if you fight us, then we're going to throw that out and we're going to go after you with this.
[01:10:00.840 --> 01:10:01.160]  Okay.
[01:10:01.160 --> 01:10:05.400]  In other words, they're willing to take a bribe.
[01:10:05.400 --> 01:10:07.320]  That's what that translates into.
[01:10:07.320 --> 01:10:12.200]  If you bribe us ahead of time by just not arguing with us and paying this amount,
[01:10:12.920 --> 01:10:18.280]  then we'll forgo the rest of it and blah, blah, blah, and we'll just take whatever you pay us here.
[01:10:19.560 --> 01:10:20.840]  That's all it is.
[01:10:20.840 --> 01:10:22.920]  It's a bribe to not defend yourself.
[01:10:22.920 --> 01:10:32.600]  They even have all the rights that you will give up if you pay the penalty assessment.
[01:10:32.600 --> 01:10:33.080]  It's amazing.
[01:10:33.080 --> 01:10:36.360]  I've never seen that on a ticket, but all your Miranda rights and everything on the ticket.
[01:10:39.400 --> 01:10:39.720]  All right.
[01:10:42.200 --> 01:10:47.240]  So, Eddie, I started listening to you guys about a month ago and you are, it seems,
[01:10:47.240 --> 01:10:54.840]  it's very good at tracking these things back across kind of the void from when it was
[01:10:55.480 --> 01:10:59.960]  pretty common sense law to chaos and then things got lost in that.
[01:10:59.960 --> 01:11:00.600]  Oh, believe me.
[01:11:01.320 --> 01:11:03.080]  Chaos is not what this is.
[01:11:03.800 --> 01:11:05.240]  This is sub-diffuse.
[01:11:05.240 --> 01:11:06.600]  The sky is this chaos.
[01:11:07.720 --> 01:11:08.040]  Okay.
[01:11:09.080 --> 01:11:09.400]  Okay.
[01:11:11.560 --> 01:11:13.800]  Only being in this about a month, a month and a half,
[01:11:13.800 --> 01:11:17.480]  as far as the traffic and criminal laws here in Colorado.
[01:11:17.480 --> 01:11:21.880]  I'm a little bit more up to small, maybe not in Illinois, but I'm dealing with another
[01:11:21.880 --> 01:11:23.960]  matter out there I've actually had some success with.
[01:11:25.480 --> 01:11:30.040]  What do you recommend for when you get to that place where the state just says,
[01:11:30.040 --> 01:11:33.880]  no, these are where all the laws came from and we're telling you that, so trust us.
[01:11:34.600 --> 01:11:39.960]  And then you push a little further and you see the real truth of what they've taken and
[01:11:39.960 --> 01:11:45.240]  what they've twisted and turned and changed all the definitions up. How do I do that in a state,
[01:11:45.240 --> 01:11:47.320]  obviously, that you're not from here?
[01:11:49.240 --> 01:11:52.920]  Well, you have to do it the same way in any state, whether you're from there or not.
[01:11:52.920 --> 01:11:57.880]  You have to be able to do the study, whether you have to do it online or locally,
[01:11:57.880 --> 01:11:59.400]  that depends upon where you're at.
[01:12:00.280 --> 01:12:06.520]  But I can find almost anything as far as an actual state law online.
[01:12:06.520 --> 01:12:14.280]  Now, generally speaking, there's a limited availability of historical law for most given
[01:12:14.280 --> 01:12:20.600]  states unless you know exactly where to find it. But in a lot of them, you can do a good amount
[01:12:20.600 --> 01:12:26.520]  of both. You can almost always find the current law and it's not always maintained by the state
[01:12:26.520 --> 01:12:34.040]  itself. Several states actually go through a company that handles that stuff for the state
[01:12:34.040 --> 01:12:40.280]  and they also handle it for certain municipalities within those states, etc., etc.
[01:12:40.280 --> 01:12:44.920]  Not every state has its own state managed and run website for the state laws.
[01:12:46.280 --> 01:12:49.720]  So some of those are harder to get to or to find because of that.
[01:12:50.440 --> 01:12:56.280]  But I have found that if you will go on Google and the reason I use Google is because it has
[01:12:56.280 --> 01:13:01.880]  a bigger catalog than anyone else. Regardless of the fact that it tracks the search,
[01:13:01.880 --> 01:13:04.440]  it is the bigger catalog. There's no question about that.
[01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:10.920]  And if you will put in the name of the state and the words laws, codes, statutes,
[01:13:11.880 --> 01:13:18.520]  you will almost always find a link that contains the current laws, codes, and statutes of that
[01:13:18.520 --> 01:13:22.840]  given state. Whether it's on a state run site or not, you'll find it.
[01:13:22.840 --> 01:13:33.560]  And so you can almost always find the current law online. You can also call the Secretary of
[01:13:33.560 --> 01:13:41.880]  State or a state law library within the state and ask them for a specific web address to research
[01:13:41.880 --> 01:13:49.160]  older law or historical law because some libraries run their own online system where they maintain
[01:13:49.160 --> 01:13:55.880]  that. The state law library here in Texas maintains an online historical catalog of laws all the way
[01:13:55.880 --> 01:14:01.480]  back to 1925. You just have to know the correct address to go get it because it does not turn
[01:14:01.480 --> 01:14:10.280]  up in any web searches. Okay. Okay, I'll do that. I'll keep going. I've talked to the law library
[01:14:10.280 --> 01:14:14.760]  here. I didn't know I could call the Secretary. That would be great. Yeah, the Secretary of State
[01:14:14.760 --> 01:14:20.280]  can point you to almost anything that happens within the state in relation to law, even to a law
[01:14:20.280 --> 01:14:28.440]  library itself. And don't forget that if the state doesn't have its own law library, if the state
[01:14:28.440 --> 01:14:33.960]  contains a major university, a lot of major universities have an online law library.
[01:14:36.280 --> 01:14:41.800]  And they will give the public access to that if they will just call and get in touch with them
[01:14:41.800 --> 01:14:50.600]  and get the information necessary to get into it. Okay. Most universities have, just like the state
[01:14:50.600 --> 01:14:56.520]  law library here, most universities in their law library have publicly usable Lexis accounts.
[01:15:00.360 --> 01:15:07.960]  Okay. I've gotten some help from the university in Boulder. So, all right. So, the last thing I
[01:15:07.960 --> 01:15:13.640]  don't want to keep, I know you have lots of people calling in, is my motion to dismiss. I mean,
[01:15:13.640 --> 01:15:18.440]  the whole time I'm doing this that I'm listening to things and due process and all that, and then
[01:15:18.440 --> 01:15:27.240]  I typed in denial of access to the courts. And that pops up all kinds of stuff. So, basically,
[01:15:27.240 --> 01:15:33.800]  I'm trying to draft a motion to dismiss and I'm doing my best to word it and know what my grounds
[01:15:33.800 --> 01:15:38.680]  are. But due process, obviously, has not been afforded by the fact that they summoned me without
[01:15:38.680 --> 01:15:44.760]  even having a complaint filed. And then when I went to file a motion based on that complaint,
[01:15:45.400 --> 01:15:51.160]  they wouldn't let me file a motion because this is the first part, because there's no case. So,
[01:15:51.720 --> 01:15:56.040]  you'd have pretty much a cluster here. Right. And that's the way it is in every state when it
[01:15:56.040 --> 01:16:02.600]  comes to these kinds of cases. They will say that they're using the citation as the complaint. But
[01:16:02.600 --> 01:16:08.040]  if that complaint has not been filed with the court, what are you supposed to act on? There's
[01:16:08.040 --> 01:16:13.880]  nothing you can act on. You're expected to comply with what it says, but you can't get anything
[01:16:13.880 --> 01:16:18.280]  done in the matter even when you comply because it wasn't filed in the court.
[01:16:20.680 --> 01:16:27.080]  It's a catch-22 type problem and they know it. Remember, this system is designed to be inconvenient,
[01:16:27.080 --> 01:16:36.200]  aggravating, frustrating, and force people into wanting to give up and just pay. That is by design.
[01:16:37.720 --> 01:16:43.640]  But it's a violation of due process. Absolutely. But how are you going to prove that that was
[01:16:43.640 --> 01:16:50.600]  their intent in doing it that way? They always have plausible deniability. Well, right here,
[01:16:50.600 --> 01:16:55.480]  we have a statute that said 10 days we can't twist his arm and make him do it. See what I'm
[01:16:55.480 --> 01:16:59.480]  saying? Hang on just a sec. We'll be right back to wrap this up. Okay.
[01:17:04.120 --> 01:17:09.560]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by
[01:17:09.560 --> 01:17:16.280]  Central Texas Gun Works. Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated.
[01:17:16.280 --> 01:17:21.560]  Everything helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for
[01:17:21.560 --> 01:17:29.320]  grabs is a Spikes Tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation is a
[01:17:29.320 --> 01:17:35.880]  chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's ebook, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:17:35.880 --> 01:17:41.320]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed the shows on
[01:17:41.320 --> 01:17:47.240]  Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming
[01:17:47.240 --> 01:17:52.600]  on talk radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And remember,
[01:17:52.600 --> 01:17:59.640]  every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:18:00.920 --> 01:18:05.480]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:06.040 --> 01:18:11.640]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meyers Proven Method. Michael Meyers has won six cases
[01:18:11.640 --> 01:18:16.440]  in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[01:18:16.440 --> 01:18:21.480]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:18:21.480 --> 01:18:27.240]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:18:27.240 --> 01:18:31.800]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[01:18:31.800 --> 01:18:37.800]  and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Meyers Proven Method is the solution for how
[01:18:37.800 --> 01:18:42.840]  to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[01:18:42.840 --> 01:18:48.040]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Meyers banner or email
[01:18:48.040 --> 01:18:57.960]  Michael Meyers at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:18:57.960 --> 01:19:13.640]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:27.960 --> 01:19:52.200]  Alright folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. Call in number 5126461984 and we're
[01:19:52.200 --> 01:19:59.320]  going to try to wrap up with Chris in Colorado. Okay, so where are we? I'm just like working
[01:19:59.320 --> 01:20:04.440]  on the wording for due process. I've got some examples, but that violation is one that screams
[01:20:04.440 --> 01:20:10.600]  in my mind, you know. Yeah, it's like I was saying, how are you going to prove that it was
[01:20:10.600 --> 01:20:14.920]  intentionally a due process violation or even fundamentally a due process violation?
[01:20:15.480 --> 01:20:19.640]  Because they always have plausible deniability in the way they've got this set up.
[01:20:19.640 --> 01:20:25.320]  The cop was supposed to do it in 10 days, the cop didn't do it within 10 days, but there's nothing
[01:20:25.320 --> 01:20:29.800]  in the law that says the case is dismissed if he fails to do it within 10 days and there's nothing
[01:20:29.800 --> 01:20:34.920]  that says that they can punish you for lack of that 10 days. So where's the due process violation?
[01:20:35.720 --> 01:20:39.640]  If they're using that as the complaint and even though it doesn't cover all the necessary
[01:20:39.640 --> 01:20:44.680]  relevant statutory requirements of a complaint, does it allege enough specific facts and
[01:20:44.680 --> 01:20:50.360]  circumstances to be treated as a complaint? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They always
[01:20:50.360 --> 01:20:57.560]  come up with some way to justify the crap they've pulled to make this seem like justice. And what
[01:20:57.560 --> 01:21:04.600]  you've got to do is dig until you can show a relationship that spits in the face of justice.
[01:21:04.600 --> 01:21:12.280]  It is undeniably engineered to work that way. And that's where the hard work comes in.
[01:21:12.280 --> 01:21:17.800]  Here in Texas, they've made that fairly easy to do because they have a multitude of them.
[01:21:19.960 --> 01:21:26.360]  And there is no way a reasonable individual of reasonable intelligence could look at what's
[01:21:26.360 --> 01:21:40.040]  going on and say, that's by accident, isn't it? Okay. Well, I got a large percentage of it. I don't
[01:21:40.040 --> 01:21:46.280]  have all of it. I think the fact that I haven't found the reciprocal of it, they don't do it,
[01:21:46.280 --> 01:21:50.600]  what the punishment is, I think I got enough police to complain to a large extent.
[01:21:51.480 --> 01:21:57.960]  And then we'll see what happens after that. But I think the fact that it's not filed,
[01:21:58.920 --> 01:22:02.280]  there is something that does say that there has to be a certain amount of,
[01:22:03.320 --> 01:22:06.680]  there has to be notation as to a description of the crime, not just the statement.
[01:22:06.680 --> 01:22:10.920]  Right. See, that's the thing. Most of them are just putting the statute on it.
[01:22:11.880 --> 01:22:18.280]  And some abbreviation is supposed to represent some specific charge. That's not a specific list
[01:22:18.280 --> 01:22:24.680]  of facts. And you are not required to infer what those abbreviations mean. So when they give you
[01:22:24.680 --> 01:22:38.280]  something like that, there is no way that's a valid complaint. Okay. Okay. I'll keep on it.
[01:22:39.480 --> 01:22:42.920]  I was originally just going to call in and ask you, I've been doing some digging about the
[01:22:43.640 --> 01:22:47.720]  contracts between states, the compacts. Right. The reciprocity agreements.
[01:22:48.600 --> 01:22:53.240]  Yeah, I find that very interesting how that's working. But we'll save it for another time.
[01:22:53.240 --> 01:22:58.040]  Yeah. Well, the fact is that no state can enter into compact with any other state without the
[01:22:58.040 --> 01:23:03.240]  express approval of the United States Congress. The United States Congress having limited power
[01:23:03.240 --> 01:23:09.080]  functionality to endorse such compacts can only do so in relation to its enumerated powers.
[01:23:09.080 --> 01:23:14.440]  Therefore, what is the enumerated power that they could apply to a compact between states
[01:23:14.440 --> 01:23:21.320]  in relation to what kind of activity? That's what I'm going to ask when I call.
[01:23:21.320 --> 01:23:23.960]  Who are you going to call and ask that of?
[01:23:25.160 --> 01:23:29.880]  There's a couple of organizations that represent these different compacts between states,
[01:23:29.880 --> 01:23:32.040]  and they actually have a website and a faith.
[01:23:32.760 --> 01:23:35.720]  Yeah, but you actually expect them to answer that question honestly?
[01:23:36.760 --> 01:23:38.280]  I don't know. I might find somebody who's nice.
[01:23:39.080 --> 01:23:44.440]  Nice, ain't honest. I might find somebody who screws up too. That'd be fun.
[01:23:44.440 --> 01:23:48.280]  Yeah, but then how are you going to use what they say as evidence in court?
[01:23:48.280 --> 01:23:54.680]  I'm just trying to figure out how they can use a federal supported necessary,
[01:23:54.680 --> 01:23:58.680]  you know, they have to have a federally, it has to be federally supported in order for it to work.
[01:23:59.400 --> 01:24:03.480]  And then once the federal is supported, then how can they just revert all the way back to their
[01:24:03.480 --> 01:24:07.960]  state? Okay, here's the thing. You don't need to call the companies that run the
[01:24:07.960 --> 01:24:14.200]  compacts to do that. Your legislature has to have that on file. Your secretary of state would
[01:24:14.200 --> 01:24:19.000]  have to have the congressional endorsement of the compact on file. Would they not?
[01:24:20.360 --> 01:24:27.000]  Okay, yes. If this is an agreement between the United States Congress and that state,
[01:24:28.440 --> 01:24:32.920]  the secretary of state is the person responsible for the maintaining of those agreements.
[01:24:36.600 --> 01:24:41.080]  Okay. So I would like a certified copy of that, please.
[01:24:41.080 --> 01:24:45.960]  Okay, I'll do that.
[01:24:49.560 --> 01:24:52.440]  Okay, I won't take up any more of your time. This has been fun.
[01:24:52.440 --> 01:24:54.440]  All right, Chris. Thanks for calling in and good luck, man.
[01:24:55.320 --> 01:25:00.680]  You're a big thank you, Randy. Randy, come on now. Surely you haven't been in his beer fund.
[01:25:03.080 --> 01:25:05.400]  Sorry, Eddie. All right, you have a good night, Chris.
[01:25:05.400 --> 01:25:12.680]  Yeah, good night. You too, man. Bye. Bye. All right, now we have Eric in Washington.
[01:25:12.680 --> 01:25:14.120]  Eric, what can we do for you?
[01:25:17.080 --> 01:25:23.720]  Hello, Eddie. Okay. Well, can you hear me? I can hear you.
[01:25:25.080 --> 01:25:30.920]  Okay. What is your new version of your seminar coming out? I think I have two of your old ones.
[01:25:30.920 --> 01:25:37.080]  Well, a new one when that comes out. Like I say, between all the stuff I'm having to do just to
[01:25:37.080 --> 01:25:41.560]  survive and the amount of time I get to spend actually working on it, there ain't no telling.
[01:25:41.560 --> 01:25:47.720]  I'm trying to find not only am I trying to get it done, I'm trying to find a way to conduct a
[01:25:47.720 --> 01:25:54.040]  seminar online so that more people can attend without having to travel. It's easier to do.
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:00.040]  We have more time to actually do the seminar because there is no travel time to and from.
[01:26:00.040 --> 01:26:04.040]  Everybody can attend it online and all that kind of stuff. But it's just a matter of being able to
[01:26:04.040 --> 01:26:08.760]  find a place I can afford to set it up and get it done and have it ready and have all the material
[01:26:08.760 --> 01:26:14.520]  with it too. And I mean, I'm the only one doing any of this stuff. So it's just me doing the work
[01:26:14.520 --> 01:26:21.240]  of 50 people and that takes time. Yeah. Well, speaking to your rant at the beginning of the
[01:26:21.240 --> 01:26:27.080]  show, you know, what is our remedy? What is the people's remedy when they're entrusted public
[01:26:27.080 --> 01:26:37.000]  servants make up the laws they go along or dismay what they're sworn to do and the only remedy I
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:43.640]  can think of in bulls, lampposts and rope? Well, ultimately, that may be where we're headed.
[01:26:44.840 --> 01:26:51.560]  But I have said time and again that I well believe that we are past the point of
[01:26:51.560 --> 01:26:58.680]  peaceful resolution to this because it goes right along with what JFK said. He who makes peaceful
[01:26:58.680 --> 01:27:04.680]  resolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable. And there is absolutely no question
[01:27:04.680 --> 01:27:11.720]  that with the bar associations controlling every aspect of government, peaceful resolution is no
[01:27:11.720 --> 01:27:19.560]  longer possible because they have converted inherent, unalienable rights into civil rights
[01:27:19.560 --> 01:27:25.880]  that are limited in their ability to be protected. They're limited in what they can be protected from
[01:27:26.360 --> 01:27:32.680]  versus the inherent rights. And they have tried to reclassify everything we do into a category
[01:27:32.680 --> 01:27:38.920]  of right that only the government can grant or take away. And that's just not how this is supposed
[01:27:38.920 --> 01:27:44.280]  to work. So you cannot go to the courts for resolution. They make sure it's utterly impossible
[01:27:44.280 --> 01:27:51.640]  to prosecute one of their own. And you see it more and more every single day. There is no longer
[01:27:51.640 --> 01:27:58.360]  any accountability to the public for the actions of government employees. There is no reliable
[01:27:58.360 --> 01:28:04.520]  method by which to get it. So I think we are way beyond the point of getting peaceful resolution
[01:28:04.520 --> 01:28:10.040]  from these guys. And it goes right hand in hand with something else I've said for quite a long time
[01:28:10.040 --> 01:28:19.720]  now. No government in the entire history of man has ever relinquished one iota of power that it has
[01:28:19.720 --> 01:28:26.520]  usurped unlawful in a peaceful manner. It has never relinquished it peacefully once it's got its hands
[01:28:26.520 --> 01:28:33.720]  on it. Never. Well, I can't disagree with that. And it's a nice segue to what I actually wanted
[01:28:33.720 --> 01:28:40.520]  to talk about tonight. You're talking about rights. And that's what I'm going to talk about,
[01:28:40.520 --> 01:28:46.760]  which is the right to property. I have Dave Champion's book, Income Tax Shattering the Mess.
[01:28:46.760 --> 01:28:54.440]  I've read it a couple of times. I almost got it understood. But I think one of the main points
[01:28:54.440 --> 01:29:01.960]  in it is that people have a right to own property. I don't even, that's just a natural right or
[01:29:01.960 --> 01:29:08.280]  pre-political right. You don't have the right to own property. And you don't have the means to
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:14.600]  sustain your own life, I would argue. So you do or you don't?
[01:29:16.200 --> 01:29:22.520]  You do. Well, you, I would say it's an absolute right to own property. Otherwise,
[01:29:22.520 --> 01:29:30.200]  how can you sustain your own life? You have to have food, clothing, and shelter. And
[01:29:30.200 --> 01:29:36.600]  otherwise, you're not going to, you're not going to be able to survive. So I think you're, I think
[01:29:36.600 --> 01:29:40.600]  you could be argued that you have to have a right to property. Otherwise, you don't have a right.
[01:29:40.600 --> 01:29:45.000]  The courts have all agreed that you have a right to property. The courts have all agreed that that
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:51.560]  property is the fruit of a man's most prized possession, which is his labor. So the courts are
[01:29:51.560 --> 01:29:55.640]  not in disagreement with you on that. Hang on just a second. Let me take this break and we'll
[01:29:55.640 --> 01:30:04.360]  continue the discussion. All right, folks, y'all hang on. We'll be right back. Fishing is a wonderful
[01:30:04.360 --> 01:30:09.320]  pastime. It's a terrific way to bond with family and get in touch with nature. But there's a scary
[01:30:09.320 --> 01:30:13.400]  kind of fishing you'll want nothing to do with. I've got your Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell
[01:30:13.400 --> 01:30:19.480]  you more in just a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself,
[01:30:19.480 --> 01:30:24.520]  you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will
[01:30:24.520 --> 01:30:30.360]  start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to
[01:30:30.360 --> 01:30:35.640]  yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you
[01:30:35.640 --> 01:30:42.280]  by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over
[01:30:42.280 --> 01:30:49.240]  with StartPage. Fishing spelled with a pH isn't very sporting. The goal is to reel in personal
[01:30:49.240 --> 01:30:55.240]  information and compromise your accounts. The pH in fishing stands for phony. Fishing scams involve
[01:30:55.240 --> 01:31:00.760]  impersonating legitimate organizations like banks and the bait is usually a phony email. A phishing
[01:31:00.760 --> 01:31:05.320]  email may ask for account information or provide a link to an official looking website, but don't
[01:31:05.320 --> 01:31:10.920]  fall for it. Never email your bank account number, your user ID, or passwords. Legitimate companies
[01:31:10.920 --> 01:31:15.800]  won't ask you to. And it's best to enter a website address directly rather than clicking on an email
[01:31:15.800 --> 01:31:20.680]  link to check an account or make a purchase. Accidentally typing data into a fishing website
[01:31:20.680 --> 01:31:46.680]  could cost you thousands. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:50.920 --> 01:31:55.960]  And believe there is more to the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[01:31:55.960 --> 01:32:00.680]  Go to buildingwatch.org. Why it's felt, why it matters, is what you can do.
[01:32:02.360 --> 01:32:06.360]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[01:32:06.360 --> 01:32:10.200]  we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[01:32:10.200 --> 01:32:14.280]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[01:32:14.280 --> 01:32:18.280]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[01:32:18.280 --> 01:32:22.760]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to
[01:32:22.760 --> 01:32:26.920]  learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's deputy
[01:32:26.920 --> 01:32:30.520]  Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the most comprehensive
[01:32:30.520 --> 01:32:34.280]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[01:32:34.280 --> 01:32:38.200]  courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[01:32:38.200 --> 01:32:42.760]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[01:32:42.760 --> 01:32:47.560]  book, the Texas Transportation Code, the law versus the lie. Video and audio of the original 2009
[01:32:47.560 --> 01:32:51.720]  seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for
[01:32:51.720 --> 01:32:55.960]  your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and
[01:32:55.960 --> 01:33:06.120]  together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. You're listening to the Logos Radio
[01:33:06.120 --> 01:33:18.680]  Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:36.520 --> 01:34:05.800]  All right folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio and we are talking to Eric in Washington.
[01:34:05.800 --> 01:34:11.480]  All right Eric, please continue. Okay Eddie, I think you and I agree that the people have the
[01:34:11.480 --> 01:34:18.760]  right to own property and so it's what's some confusion that I read in the Idaho Statutes,
[01:34:18.760 --> 01:34:25.800]  Title 63, Revenue and Taxation, Chapter 2, Definitions, General Provisions. All property
[01:34:25.800 --> 01:34:30.600]  subject to property taxation, all property within the jurisdiction of this state,
[01:34:30.600 --> 01:34:35.720]  not expressly exempted, is subjected to appraisal assessment and property taxation.
[01:34:38.440 --> 01:34:48.280]  So that is, I'm, you have a better, you know this business better than I do in the tricks they
[01:34:48.280 --> 01:35:02.760]  play to create some sort of scheme by which they make it seem like something applies when it doesn't
[01:35:02.760 --> 01:35:09.960]  really apply. But when I read this, this Title 63 statute, it doesn't seem to be too much wiggle
[01:35:09.960 --> 01:35:15.480]  room here, all property within the jurisdiction of this state. Here's the problem. First off,
[01:35:15.480 --> 01:35:19.320]  what does the phrase within the jurisdiction mean?
[01:35:26.440 --> 01:35:34.120]  Right. What court opinion tells you what that phrase means? What statute tells you what that
[01:35:34.120 --> 01:35:40.120]  phrase means? If there isn't one, then you're left with using the common definition of what
[01:35:40.120 --> 01:35:48.920]  that may mean provided there's even one of those. But all property within the jurisdiction of this
[01:35:48.920 --> 01:35:56.600]  state, well let's look at what's reasonable here. If the government is meant to exist in relation
[01:35:56.600 --> 01:36:02.760]  to the people solely for the purpose of protecting the individual rights of those people, and one
[01:36:02.760 --> 01:36:08.600]  of those rights is to own and possess property, then until something happens to interfere with
[01:36:08.600 --> 01:36:14.200]  that person's right to own that property, the government's jurisdiction doesn't extend to it,
[01:36:14.200 --> 01:36:22.360]  does it? Or until that property is used to harm another, the government's jurisdiction does not
[01:36:22.360 --> 01:36:31.160]  extend to it, does it? Well, that's from logic, just from a logical representation.
[01:36:33.960 --> 01:36:38.440]  If we begin with the premise that the sole purpose of government in relation to the people
[01:36:38.440 --> 01:36:42.920]  is to protect the people's individual rights, that's premise number one.
[01:36:44.120 --> 01:36:48.600]  What do you and I can agree to that? That's all we're doing here is discussing this.
[01:36:48.600 --> 01:36:56.360]  So let's look at it from a logical point and that's step one in the logic. Step two, all people,
[01:36:56.360 --> 01:37:04.200]  natural people have a right to own property, right to its possession, right to its acquisition,
[01:37:04.200 --> 01:37:16.040]  right to its use for its intended purpose, right? Well, yeah, I agree. So far we have the reason
[01:37:16.040 --> 01:37:21.720]  government was created versus one of the rights that government's creation was intended to protect.
[01:37:24.120 --> 01:37:30.760]  The government's purpose in protecting rights also limits our ability to use that property
[01:37:30.760 --> 01:37:36.840]  to harm others or their property. By doing that it's enforcing its first
[01:37:36.840 --> 01:37:41.960]  position of protecting their rights just as it's protecting ours, okay?
[01:37:44.360 --> 01:37:49.240]  So far we don't have anything that's within the jurisdiction with the state unless a harm has been
[01:37:49.240 --> 01:37:56.280]  involved and that's where the second condition I mentioned where we use our property to harm another,
[01:37:56.280 --> 01:38:02.680]  that's when the state's jurisdiction is in vote. But here is something that's more important even
[01:38:02.680 --> 01:38:15.480]  than that set of arguments. How historically is land in Idaho sold and transferred to the
[01:38:15.480 --> 01:38:22.120]  possession and ownership of an individual from that of a state or territory? Was Idaho a territory
[01:38:22.120 --> 01:38:26.920]  or a state when these land acquisitions occurred? Like in Nevada, for instance, where it was a
[01:38:26.920 --> 01:38:33.640]  territory and the federal government controlled the property and was responsible for the deeds and
[01:38:33.640 --> 01:38:41.560]  contracts that transferred it? Well, in this particular case, Idaho was a state, but the land
[01:38:41.560 --> 01:38:50.840]  was sold on a land patent. Okay. And what are the terms of the land patent? Yeah, all rights of
[01:38:50.840 --> 01:38:59.560]  any nature aside from just a few canals were transferred without reservation to be held
[01:39:01.480 --> 01:39:08.920]  by the original purchaser and his assigns for... Hairs and assigns. Does the words
[01:39:08.920 --> 01:39:12.440]  relinquish all rights and claims forever appear in it?
[01:39:12.440 --> 01:39:21.560]  It's probably. Well, that's not going to help you in a court.
[01:39:22.280 --> 01:39:26.600]  Probably is not a term that gets used often in court and for good reason.
[01:39:29.320 --> 01:39:35.800]  Here in Texas, it absolutely says that the state hereby relinquishes all claims and title to said
[01:39:35.800 --> 01:39:45.000]  property forever. There is no gray area for anything whatsoever. Any property relinquished under
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:53.480]  a land patent with that verbiage cannot have a tax tied to it by the state because that's a claim
[01:39:53.480 --> 01:39:59.480]  the state has against that property that the land patent itself says they can't have and they signed
[01:39:59.480 --> 01:40:06.680]  off on it. They agreed to it and when they sign a contract, they are not a government.
[01:40:06.680 --> 01:40:13.000]  They are a commercial body engaging in business just like any other legal entity who engages
[01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:18.040]  in commerce and that too is something the courts have said over and over again.
[01:40:19.960 --> 01:40:26.600]  So I guess the bottom line is that I need to look at the case law that interprets what the
[01:40:26.600 --> 01:40:33.080]  courts have said about the state's power to do. No. What you need to look at is a land patent.
[01:40:34.360 --> 01:40:38.600]  Well, I have it right in front of me. Then how come you can't tell me if that verbiage appears in
[01:40:38.600 --> 01:40:42.920]  it or not? Well, because I just got it in my hand about two seconds ago. Okay.
[01:40:45.720 --> 01:40:50.280]  United States of America took consideration of premises and in conformity with the several
[01:40:50.280 --> 01:40:57.480]  United States of America, then that's a land patent issued as a territory, not as a state.
[01:41:01.320 --> 01:41:08.520]  Well, it stated 1892 and I believe Idaho became the state in 1891.
[01:41:09.880 --> 01:41:15.480]  Okay. Why would the United States be named in it then?
[01:41:15.480 --> 01:41:22.840]  Well, they had jurisdiction over, they owned it. They don't have jurisdiction over a state,
[01:41:22.840 --> 01:41:23.960]  only a territory.
[01:41:28.200 --> 01:41:35.160]  If they declared Idaho a state in 1991 and this thing is dated 92, we have a transfer problem
[01:41:35.160 --> 01:41:41.000]  here unless the land that's named in that patent was not relinquished to the state of Idaho at the
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  time when it became a state. Right, but perhaps could have retained ownership of that land even
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:54.600]  though Idaho had become a state. Right, which is what you've got to know. And so if the federal
[01:41:54.600 --> 01:42:00.920]  relinquishment says all rights and claims to the person, the heirs and the assigns of the person
[01:42:00.920 --> 01:42:07.880]  named in this, then the state has no claim over it at all, never did. They couldn't tax it when
[01:42:07.880 --> 01:42:11.960]  this federal property, how they're going to tax it when the federal government says we give this
[01:42:11.960 --> 01:42:16.200]  property to this person under these terms. The state's not free to violate the terms of that
[01:42:16.200 --> 01:42:20.280]  contract if the federal government signed it any more than they would be if they signed it.
[01:42:22.760 --> 01:42:25.240]  Because they have no stake in the property to begin with.
[01:42:29.960 --> 01:42:37.320]  No, it would appear not. That's why it's confusing to me to see this title 63,
[01:42:37.320 --> 01:42:42.680]  that they think they can tax all property. No, it says exactly what it's mean,
[01:42:42.680 --> 01:42:48.920]  all lands within the jurisdiction of this state. Well, didn't I start off with this asking whether
[01:42:48.920 --> 01:42:55.960]  not jurisdiction of the state applied? Under the terms of the land patent, it cannot apply for
[01:42:55.960 --> 01:43:03.080]  the purpose of taxation. Okay, so they never had jurisdiction. So that's the argument.
[01:43:03.080 --> 01:43:10.360]  Okay. They have no claim to the property. The government cannot tax that to which it has no
[01:43:10.360 --> 01:43:16.120]  claim. They can't, just like the federal government can't tax a French citizen or a piece of land
[01:43:16.120 --> 01:43:22.840]  in France and expect to collect, the state of Idaho cannot tax property that was in possession
[01:43:22.840 --> 01:43:26.840]  of the federal government and the federal government itself delegated to an individual.
[01:43:26.840 --> 01:43:36.360]  Makes sense. That is interfering with the terms and conditions of a contract,
[01:43:36.360 --> 01:43:39.000]  which your all state constitution forbids, does it not?
[01:43:41.240 --> 01:43:44.520]  Yes. There you go. So what are we arguing about?
[01:43:46.680 --> 01:43:52.280]  What the term jurisdiction means. Well, in this case, we've limited jurisdiction based upon
[01:43:52.280 --> 01:43:57.400]  constitutional bill of rights requirements, federal law requirements, and a contract agreement.
[01:43:57.400 --> 01:44:04.680]  They got a problem. Hang on. Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved,
[01:44:04.680 --> 01:44:09.640]  except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves,
[01:44:09.640 --> 01:44:15.480]  and it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic
[01:44:15.480 --> 01:44:20.680]  environment is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated,
[01:44:20.680 --> 01:44:25.960]  adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.960 --> 01:44:30.360]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products,
[01:44:30.360 --> 01:44:36.840]  most of which we reject. We have come to trust Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor,
[01:44:36.840 --> 01:44:43.640]  along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com,
[01:44:43.640 --> 01:44:49.560]  your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of
[01:44:49.560 --> 01:44:56.040]  Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your
[01:44:56.040 --> 01:45:03.240]  friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant
[01:45:03.240 --> 01:45:09.320]  in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to
[01:45:09.320 --> 01:45:17.400]  understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[01:45:17.400 --> 01:45:22.120]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do
[01:45:22.120 --> 01:45:28.360]  for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.360 --> 01:45:34.280]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.920 --> 01:45:40.440]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[01:45:40.440 --> 01:45:45.960]  and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom,
[01:45:45.960 --> 01:45:52.680]  video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.680 --> 01:46:19.400]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:22.680 --> 01:46:49.240]  All right folks, we are back for the last segment of
[01:46:49.240 --> 01:47:18.760]  one minute.
[01:47:18.760 --> 01:47:23.760]  It says that it wasn't within the state's jurisdiction to begin with because it was transferred from the federal government.
[01:47:23.760 --> 01:47:30.760]  It's not within its jurisdiction now because that contract is enforced forever to all heirs and assigns.
[01:47:30.760 --> 01:47:34.760]  Is it not?
[01:47:34.760 --> 01:47:40.760]  You have a protected right on your state bill of rights that says the state cannot interfere with those contracts.
[01:47:40.760 --> 01:47:43.760]  Does it not?
[01:47:43.760 --> 01:47:46.760]  I'm pretty sure, yeah.
[01:47:46.760 --> 01:47:48.760]  I think I've seen that.
[01:47:48.760 --> 01:47:50.760]  This is not just limited to jurisdiction.
[01:47:50.760 --> 01:47:55.760]  It is limited to a specific prohibition upon a violation of rights.
[01:47:55.760 --> 01:47:58.760]  It is a specific commercial provision.
[01:47:58.760 --> 01:48:01.760]  They cannot violate the terms of an agreement.
[01:48:01.760 --> 01:48:03.760]  They're not even a party to.
[01:48:03.760 --> 01:48:07.760]  They have no say so over.
[01:48:07.760 --> 01:48:09.760]  Okay, sounds reasonable.
[01:48:09.760 --> 01:48:12.760]  I just need to come up with the...
[01:48:12.760 --> 01:48:18.760]  It always sounds reasonable, but they always try to find a way to argue why it's not as long as it favors them.
[01:48:18.760 --> 01:48:21.760]  So keep that in mind while you're doing that.
[01:48:21.760 --> 01:48:27.760]  Right, and that's why my paperwork's got to be done well.
[01:48:27.760 --> 01:48:41.760]  Your best bet here is to deal with contract law, the bill of rights in your state constitution, and the federally protected right against the state interfering with the terms and provisions of a contract.
[01:48:41.760 --> 01:48:48.760]  Because that violates the provision of interstate commerce, which would make it a federal claim of protection of rights.
[01:48:48.760 --> 01:48:54.760]  Especially considering the federal government's a party to that agreement.
[01:48:54.760 --> 01:48:56.760]  Okay.
[01:48:56.760 --> 01:49:01.760]  All right, we'll all pursue it along that train of logic.
[01:49:01.760 --> 01:49:02.760]  Okay, good luck.
[01:49:02.760 --> 01:49:03.760]  That's it, Eddie. Thanks.
[01:49:03.760 --> 01:49:04.760]  Yes, sir.
[01:49:04.760 --> 01:49:05.760]  Bye-bye.
[01:49:05.760 --> 01:49:06.760]  Bye-bye.
[01:49:06.760 --> 01:49:10.760]  All right, now...
[01:49:10.760 --> 01:49:12.760]  All right, we have Ted in Washington.
[01:49:12.760 --> 01:49:15.760]  Ted, what can we do for you?
[01:49:15.760 --> 01:49:19.760]  Hello, good evening, Eddie. I'm so glad I was the next caller. Thank you for taking me.
[01:49:19.760 --> 01:49:22.760]  No problem, but we got limited time, so what you got?
[01:49:22.760 --> 01:49:28.760]  No problem. Really quick, I do want to encourage you for the online seminars that you talked about earlier.
[01:49:28.760 --> 01:49:30.760]  I'm really looking forward to that.
[01:49:30.760 --> 01:49:32.760]  And then I have two points that I'm calling about.
[01:49:32.760 --> 01:49:33.760]  Okay.
[01:49:33.760 --> 01:49:40.760]  What do you think about a judicial conduct complaint against the judge recently court watching?
[01:49:40.760 --> 01:49:44.760]  And she was tardy by a whopping 11 minutes.
[01:49:44.760 --> 01:49:56.760]  And then publicly said an artificial sorry, but yet proceeded to quickly rule failure to appear for at least eight people on the docket in a matter of a few seconds.
[01:49:56.760 --> 01:49:59.760]  What do you mean? Did she call their names?
[01:49:59.760 --> 01:50:00.760]  Yes, exactly.
[01:50:00.760 --> 01:50:03.760]  And where were these people?
[01:50:03.760 --> 01:50:10.760]  Obviously, they weren't in the courtroom, so, I mean, she did a failure to appear, which is fine, but the court session...
[01:50:10.760 --> 01:50:12.760]  Well, it's not necessarily fine.
[01:50:12.760 --> 01:50:16.760]  What does the law say is required for a failure to appear?
[01:50:16.760 --> 01:50:20.760]  For instance, here in Texas, a failure to appear is not up to the judge.
[01:50:20.760 --> 01:50:29.760]  A failure to appear on a citation has to be something the prosecutor themselves request the court to issue, and they have to make that request in writing.
[01:50:29.760 --> 01:50:37.760]  The court simply can't declare a failure to appear on its own under Texas law.
[01:50:37.760 --> 01:50:43.760]  So what is the law in Washington, assuming that's where you're at according to your phone number here?
[01:50:43.760 --> 01:50:44.760]  Right.
[01:50:44.760 --> 01:50:51.760]  No, that's a great question, and it's going to require a little bit of research to see how it correlates from Texas to Washington.
[01:50:51.760 --> 01:50:57.760]  But that's a great point that she just can't say that haphazardly.
[01:50:57.760 --> 01:50:59.760]  Yeah, if...
[01:50:59.760 --> 01:51:05.760]  Was anyone, to your knowledge, sent out in the hall to let people know the court had been called in the session?
[01:51:05.760 --> 01:51:08.760]  No, to my knowledge, I can't say with confidence.
[01:51:08.760 --> 01:51:18.760]  Okay, so you don't know whether or not the judge, while in chambers, ordered someone to go out and notify everyone in the hallway that the court was about to go in the session before she showed up?
[01:51:18.760 --> 01:51:20.760]  That is correct. I do not know that.
[01:51:20.760 --> 01:51:33.760]  So unless you can find a statute that goes with what I just said, like you could hear in Texas under the Code of Criminal Procedure, then you aren't going to have a justifiable complaint about her actions.
[01:51:33.760 --> 01:51:43.760]  Because you don't know what length she went to prior to her coming into the court to make sure that the people that were supposed to be there were there.
[01:51:43.760 --> 01:51:47.760]  That's true. No, that would require a little bit of research and due diligence.
[01:51:47.760 --> 01:51:55.760]  But my question was, can a judicial conduct complaint be filed just because she was partying herself by 11 minutes?
[01:51:55.760 --> 01:51:57.760]  No, because you...
[01:51:57.760 --> 01:52:04.760]  The court's business is the court's business, and it doesn't always run on the time schedule that's given to the public.
[01:52:04.760 --> 01:52:07.760]  Okay, understood. Thank you for clarifying.
[01:52:07.760 --> 01:52:14.760]  I mean, she could have very well been hung up on a stand in another courtroom acting as a witness in another case or as a legal expert in another case.
[01:52:14.760 --> 01:52:17.760]  I don't know what she was doing before she showed up in that court.
[01:52:17.760 --> 01:52:22.760]  That's true. Anything's possible. Okay.
[01:52:22.760 --> 01:52:33.760]  Now, if you could show she regained consciousness on the floor of her chambers from being drunk before she showed up, then you might have an argument and a legitimate gripe.
[01:52:33.760 --> 01:52:36.760]  But that too is going to take some due diligence to find out, isn't it?
[01:52:36.760 --> 01:52:39.760]  Yes, very true.
[01:52:39.760 --> 01:52:48.760]  So, no, that first point was more for entertainment, but the second point, we're probably going to run out of time tonight.
[01:52:48.760 --> 01:53:07.760]  So, the next one is, for those of us that actually do have a NCO on a personal conveyance, how can we prevent or at least minimize any type of harassment or damage control once we get stopped on the road for using this non-registered, non-state-plated personal conveyance?
[01:53:07.760 --> 01:53:13.760]  Well, you're not. The old saying goes, you might beat the rap, but you're not going to beat the ride.
[01:53:13.760 --> 01:53:19.760]  The only way you're going to make a cop stop making those stops is to sue the cop and win.
[01:53:19.760 --> 01:53:31.760]  Fortunately, if you're actually in Washington State, the law makes that very easy to do because the law specifically says it's commercial and only commercial.
[01:53:31.760 --> 01:53:42.760]  It says it right in the law that that's all it applies to. There is no gray area for it. There is no guesswork involved.
[01:53:42.760 --> 01:53:43.760]  Excellent.
[01:53:43.760 --> 01:53:59.760]  So, if you file suit against the cop and you get him on the stand for making illegal arrests, illegal extorted citations, no probable cause to suspect the person of being commercial prior to making the stop, then everything falls apart from what they're doing.
[01:53:59.760 --> 01:54:07.760]  The cop is not going to risk his pension and getting fired and getting sued every five minutes for making those illegal stops.
[01:54:07.760 --> 01:54:13.760]  They're going to have to change their practices or they're going to have to change the law.
[01:54:13.760 --> 01:54:20.760]  Sure, but that's just one of many, quote, law enforcement officers, whether it's a state trooper or a police or...
[01:54:20.760 --> 01:54:38.760]  There you go. Like I said, this system was engineered to be the way it is for a reason. However, if you sue him in state and federal court and you win, you have set precedent for every one of those other cops to get sued and they're going to be made aware of it.
[01:54:38.760 --> 01:54:40.760]  Guaranteed.
[01:54:40.760 --> 01:54:50.760]  Fascinating. Ooh, I love it. Okay, how about just the real world scenario, most likely the personal convents would get towed or stolen off the side of the road.
[01:54:50.760 --> 01:55:07.760]  That's still part of your lawsuit. Right now, you suck it up, you do what you have to do to get it back, you be prepared for it, expect it to happen, and do what you got to do, and then add that into the financial remedy you were at demanding in your lawsuit.
[01:55:07.760 --> 01:55:21.760]  Because you were monetarily harmed by the illegal acts of the individual in question who had no legal justification or authority under any law to do what they did. Therefore, no form of immunity can be applied.
[01:55:21.760 --> 01:55:33.760]  Qualified immunity only when the officer is acting reasonably under his duties as an officer. If his duties do not include stopping cars that are not commercial, he doesn't have coverage for that, does he?
[01:55:33.760 --> 01:55:34.760]  Right.
[01:55:34.760 --> 01:55:47.760]  He's not acting under qualified immunity because he's not acting within his lawful authority, is he, when he's stopping something the law doesn't apply to, which he's required to know.
[01:55:47.760 --> 01:55:56.760]  Alrighty. What would you say would be a reasonable percentage to make the lawsuit based on the purchase price of the personal conveyance?
[01:55:56.760 --> 01:56:11.760]  Based on whether or not I didn't say anything about it being a percentage of the conveyance. The entire purpose of punitive damages is to ask for an amount of money that would make them hesitate in committing the same act again.
[01:56:11.760 --> 01:56:25.760]  So if they're making 10 million to 150 million a year off of illegal stops, do you think $10,000 is going to stop them from making the rest of those stops?
[01:56:25.760 --> 01:56:27.760]  Absolutely not. That's pennies.
[01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:37.760]  Exactly. So the amount you ask for in punitive damages should not be less than two to three times what they're actually stealing.
[01:56:37.760 --> 01:56:38.760]  Gotcha.
[01:56:38.760 --> 01:56:51.760]  And if you can show that fraud is the entire basis of how they get away with it, then you can do trouble damages, which is three times the amount of the harm.
[01:56:51.760 --> 01:56:57.760]  I'm so glad I called you along with all the callers that have the honor to speak with you. Thank you so much.
[01:56:57.760 --> 01:57:00.760]  I'm not really sure it's an honor, but you're welcome.
[01:57:00.760 --> 01:57:05.760]  It's a compliment. You're a great mentor on the other line, so thank you, Eddie.
[01:57:05.760 --> 01:57:08.760]  Well, thank you for calling. Anything else?
[01:57:08.760 --> 01:57:13.760]  Absolutely. No, I am satisfied for this evening and I'll keep in touch with you.
[01:57:13.760 --> 01:57:17.760]  Have you sent me an email to get the laws related to Washington state?
[01:57:17.760 --> 01:57:22.760]  I did, yes. Oh, thank you for bringing that up because when I tried to call last week, the call kept dying.
[01:57:22.760 --> 01:57:28.760]  It wouldn't even ring and get through. I did get that paper from you, but how do I interpret that to my advantage?
[01:57:28.760 --> 01:57:36.760]  I mean, how do you interpret it? You read it. It tells you right there that each of the statutes specifically says it relates to commerce.
[01:57:36.760 --> 01:57:38.760]  Does it not?
[01:57:38.760 --> 01:57:42.760]  Oh, great. I'm reading it, but then what? Do I put it in my case? Do I file it in an application?
[01:57:42.760 --> 01:57:46.760]  You're going to cite the statutes and you're going to make the arguments just as they appear in that document.
[01:57:46.760 --> 01:57:54.760]  This statute deals with commercial use of the highways, which the officer has no articulable facts to suspect the individual of having been engaged in.
[01:57:54.760 --> 01:58:04.760]  Therefore, probable cause and reasonable suspicion could not have possibly existed because the elemental facts required to make the allegation did not exist.
[01:58:04.760 --> 01:58:13.760]  It's like a cop arresting you and charging you a bank robbery, but he can't identify any bank in the entire city that's been robbed.
[01:58:13.760 --> 01:58:18.760]  I love that analogy. Excellent. I really do understand. Thank you. You're like a sensei.
[01:58:18.760 --> 01:58:21.760]  Alright, you're welcome. Thanks for calling.
[01:58:21.760 --> 01:58:27.760]  Alright, folks. We're at the end of the show. I apologize to the remaining callers on the board I was not able to get to.
[01:58:27.760 --> 01:58:32.760]  If you have a really important question, please send me an email and I'll get to it if I am able.
[01:58:32.760 --> 01:58:38.760]  In the meantime, please donate. Please go take a fundraiser on LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:58:38.760 --> 01:58:43.760]  Thank you all for listening. Have a great week. Good night and God bless.
[01:59:08.760 --> 01:59:20.760]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.760 --> 01:59:30.760]  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.
[01:59:30.760 --> 01:59:41.760]  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.
[01:59:41.760 --> 01:59:51.760]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:51.760 --> 02:00:01.760]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.