ROL_2019-12-02_16k.timecode

[00:10.880 --> 00:18.720]  Gold at $1,429 an ounce, silver, $16.45 an ounce, copper, $2.75 an ounce, oil, Texas
[00:18.720 --> 00:25.280]  crude, $55.63 a barrel, Brent crude, $62.47 a barrel, and crypto is in order of market
[00:25.280 --> 00:37.400]  cap, Bitcoin Core, $10,566.52, Ethereum, $227.26, XRP, Ripple, $0.33, Litecoin, $100.31, and
[00:37.400 --> 00:42.320]  Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:42.320 --> 00:52.600]  Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a timed suitcase bomb, was detonated
[00:52.600 --> 00:57.920]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day parade, killing
[00:57.920 --> 00:59.920]  10 and injuring 40.
[00:59.920 --> 01:04.920]  Today in history.
[01:04.920 --> 01:09.560]  In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing hemp in
[01:09.560 --> 01:14.120]  a Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin,
[01:14.120 --> 01:18.240]  and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file
[01:18.240 --> 01:22.840]  new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment
[01:22.840 --> 01:24.920]  to test the herb for THC.
[01:24.920 --> 01:28.560]  Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that
[01:28.560 --> 01:33.160]  she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the
[01:33.160 --> 01:34.160]  law.
[01:34.160 --> 01:37.720]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter
[01:37.720 --> 01:42.220]  to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized
[01:42.220 --> 01:48.360]  in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works.
[01:48.360 --> 01:54.600]  As well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Jaime Esparza, a Democrat,
[01:54.600 --> 01:59.080]  who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the
[01:59.080 --> 02:01.800]  prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso.
[02:01.800 --> 02:06.840]  However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender
[02:06.840 --> 02:10.880]  in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes
[02:10.880 --> 02:13.600]  something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[02:13.600 --> 02:17.480]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're
[02:17.480 --> 02:22.720]  charged with.
[02:22.720 --> 02:27.360]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five-and-a-half-inch American pocket shark
[02:27.360 --> 02:32.480]  as the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket
[02:32.480 --> 02:37.840]  shark ever captured or recorded, with the other one being found way back in 1979 in
[02:37.840 --> 02:39.400]  the East Pacific Ocean.
[02:39.400 --> 02:43.920]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near
[02:43.920 --> 02:45.760]  its front fins.
[02:45.760 --> 02:51.040]  For the purpose, it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[02:51.040 --> 03:20.960]  This is Rook Rody with your Lowdown for July 22nd, 2019.
[03:21.040 --> 03:27.880]  I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops, psychopathic predators terrorizing
[03:27.880 --> 03:28.880]  neighborhood blocks.
[03:28.880 --> 03:32.720]  Equipped with pepper spray mace, cuffs, tasers, and glocks, they like serial killers acting
[03:32.720 --> 03:33.720]  out subliminal thoughts.
[03:33.720 --> 03:36.640]  Forget what you taught, these cops have got a license to kill.
[03:36.640 --> 03:39.160]  Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will.
[03:39.160 --> 03:41.640]  Code of silence means that the pigs will never let out a squeal.
[03:41.640 --> 03:44.320]  And if they go to court, they know the judge will make them a deal.
[03:44.320 --> 03:48.440]  For real, that's why they stopping me, locking me up and stopping me, confiscating my property,
[03:48.440 --> 03:53.000]  talking in my demography, making the poor commodities profiting off of poverty, enforcing
[03:53.000 --> 03:55.280]  policies, supporting prison economies, yeah.
[03:55.280 --> 03:59.240]  No one makes money when the violence stops, hating brutality is the way to make a criminal
[03:59.240 --> 04:00.240]  crop.
[04:00.240 --> 04:03.240]  Blood in the gut is how the rich butter they bread at the top, and that's why this is what
[04:03.240 --> 04:05.240]  happens when you call the cops, come on.
[04:05.240 --> 04:10.240]  This is what happens when you call the cops, this is what happens when you call the cops,
[04:10.240 --> 04:13.040]  this is what happens when you call the cops.
[04:13.040 --> 04:17.640]  Alright folks, good evening, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host
[04:17.640 --> 04:18.640]  Eddie Craig.
[04:18.640 --> 04:22.440]  It is December 2nd, 2019.
[04:22.440 --> 04:27.160]  Alright, real quick tonight I want to go over something.
[04:27.160 --> 04:34.220]  I've got somebody who is fighting a case and he is using the not engaged in transportation
[04:34.220 --> 04:40.040]  argument, but like most folks, he is doing it incorrectly, as did Wesley Perkins when
[04:40.040 --> 04:43.120]  he did this back in 2015.
[04:43.120 --> 04:50.420]  And what I mean by doing it incorrectly is this, you are making an argument without providing
[04:50.420 --> 04:58.400]  any substantive authority as to why they are bound by the definition you are attempting
[04:58.400 --> 04:59.720]  to provide.
[04:59.720 --> 05:01.080]  What do I mean by that?
[05:01.080 --> 05:04.880]  Well let me make it really simple.
[05:04.880 --> 05:09.760]  Right now, every time somebody brings up this argument, the prosecuting attorney in the
[05:09.760 --> 05:14.200]  case resorts to citing Perkins v. State.
[05:14.200 --> 05:23.600]  And in this, Wesley Perkins was being charged with evading a police officer.
[05:23.600 --> 05:28.840]  He wasn't being charged with speeding or anything like that, he was using this defense in relation
[05:28.840 --> 05:30.280]  to evading.
[05:30.280 --> 05:36.200]  And he was using it because the definition for evading requires that vehicle be defined
[05:36.200 --> 05:39.400]  the exact same way that it is in the transportation code.
[05:39.400 --> 05:46.040]  So he was making a non-transportation related argument to support his refutation of the
[05:46.040 --> 05:47.680]  charge.
[05:47.680 --> 05:53.720]  Now that's all well and good, provided you can cite something that compels the court
[05:53.720 --> 05:58.520]  to agree with you, which, without seeing his original pleadings, I can't say whether he
[05:58.520 --> 06:03.480]  did or didn't, but based upon the way the third court of appeals is attempting to spin
[06:03.480 --> 06:07.480]  his argument, I would have to say that he did not.
[06:07.480 --> 06:13.080]  And the reason for that is because they do not cite any authority upon which Perkins
[06:13.080 --> 06:19.520]  relied to establish the definition he attempted to use.
[06:19.520 --> 06:27.040]  Now you can argue law all day long, or you can argue your opinion about the law all day
[06:27.040 --> 06:28.600]  long.
[06:28.600 --> 06:34.200]  Without citing some authority that binds them, or citing something showing that no prior
[06:34.200 --> 06:42.800]  authority exists on which they're basing their determination, you're trying to pee up a flag
[06:42.800 --> 06:43.800]  pole.
[06:43.800 --> 06:44.800]  Okay?
[06:44.800 --> 06:48.000]  It's that simple.
[06:48.000 --> 06:56.640]  What I have yet to see anyone do in such a case, and to do properly, is to cite the government
[06:56.640 --> 07:07.040]  code, chapters 311 and 312, which specifically binds the courts to defining a term of art
[07:07.040 --> 07:14.600]  in a manner as prescribed by law, rather than their idiotic methodology of always attempting
[07:14.600 --> 07:19.980]  to use the common and ordinary meaning of a term, even when that term is defined in
[07:19.980 --> 07:27.920]  law as meaning something else, or where there is a single subject clause requirement.
[07:27.920 --> 07:37.200]  Now in the case that I was sent an email over here tonight, the district attorney that's
[07:37.200 --> 07:41.920]  attempting to prosecute the appeal at the state level is arguing in Perkins v. State
[07:41.920 --> 07:45.760]  that the definition of transportation is irrelevant.
[07:45.760 --> 07:47.240]  That's impossible.
[07:47.240 --> 07:52.360]  The definition of transportation cannot be legally irrelevant since it is the controlling
[07:52.360 --> 07:56.760]  element and context of the law in question.
[07:56.760 --> 08:00.720]  Therefore there is no way it is irrelevant.
[08:00.720 --> 08:07.700]  However, because this went through the third court of appeals, which has a history of stupidity
[08:07.700 --> 08:14.040]  at a humongous level, they cannot understand the law, they cannot read the law, they cannot
[08:14.040 --> 08:18.140]  interpret the law, they can barely comprehend anything about the law.
[08:18.140 --> 08:22.040]  The people on this court are so frickin' idiotic.
[08:22.040 --> 08:30.040]  They are the epitome of an attorney, knowledgeable in everything except for facts and law, simply
[08:30.040 --> 08:31.920]  their opinion about it.
[08:31.920 --> 08:34.960]  And that's what they enforce, is their opinion about it.
[08:34.960 --> 08:40.240]  But be that as it may, their opinion carries more weight than yours when it comes to making
[08:40.240 --> 08:43.380]  these arguments in an opinion, okay?
[08:43.380 --> 08:50.600]  So you have to force them to go into a decision that violates the law itself, so that you
[08:50.600 --> 08:56.440]  have a way to appeal above them to get a ruling on the actual law.
[08:56.440 --> 09:00.760]  Which from the court of criminal appeals here in Texas, I wouldn't bank on them operating
[09:00.760 --> 09:05.720]  any better because they also have proven time and time again that the law is only what they
[09:05.720 --> 09:10.840]  say it is, not what the legislature says it is, not what the United States Supreme Court
[09:10.840 --> 09:17.980]  says it is, not what other law says it is, but only what they say it is.
[09:17.980 --> 09:23.520]  But that being the case, let me go into something that is in Perkins v. State.
[09:23.520 --> 09:29.720]  At trial, Perkins took the stand and testified that on July 24, 2014, he was not moving persons
[09:29.720 --> 09:34.480]  or property from one place to another for hire in the state and therefore was not engaged
[09:34.480 --> 09:36.920]  in transportation as he defines that word.
[09:36.920 --> 09:44.040]  Now this is the third court of appeals interpreting the testimony given by Perkins, and they keep
[09:44.040 --> 09:47.300]  going to how he defines that word.
[09:47.300 --> 09:54.400]  Now the only way they can get away with saying how he defines it is by either ignoring and
[09:54.400 --> 10:01.860]  not citing for the record some authority he used to provide a definition, or he actually
[10:01.860 --> 10:06.280]  was attempting to define it without asserting any authority upon which that definition is
[10:06.280 --> 10:10.440]  to be based and that would bind the court to it.
[10:10.440 --> 10:13.160]  So those are your options here.
[10:13.160 --> 10:14.160]  Pick one.
[10:14.160 --> 10:16.280]  It doesn't matter.
[10:16.280 --> 10:22.200]  According to Perkins, transportation requires a commercial element, and because he was not
[10:22.200 --> 10:26.080]  engaged in commerce, he was not in transportation.
[10:26.080 --> 10:34.280]  Now, on the premise, his argument is valid, but on the authority side of forcing the court
[10:34.280 --> 10:42.360]  to either agree with him or argue against precedent-setting case law and precedent-setting
[10:42.360 --> 10:49.280]  other law, this would be a losing argument on the court's behalf.
[10:49.280 --> 10:55.280]  But we don't know whether or not Perkins cited any such authority.
[10:55.280 --> 10:57.160]  We don't have his original pleadings.
[10:57.160 --> 11:03.060]  We only have the court, the third court of appeals has decided to interpret and spin
[11:03.060 --> 11:07.080]  his argument at trial.
[11:07.080 --> 11:11.840]  Perkins also testified that he did not consent to being in commerce and did not consent to
[11:11.840 --> 11:16.880]  the presumption that he was operating a motor vehicle, which he denies at all times.
[11:16.880 --> 11:20.760]  On cross-examinations, Perkins agreed that Officer Rodriguez activated his lights in
[11:20.760 --> 11:23.360]  his siren and signaled for Perkins to pull over.
[11:23.360 --> 11:27.000]  He also agreed that rather than pull over immediately, he traveled about a half a mile
[11:27.000 --> 11:28.880]  before doing so.
[11:28.880 --> 11:32.880]  Perkins stated that he did not disagree with Officer Rodriguez's account of the events,
[11:32.880 --> 11:41.100]  but that his defense to the offense charged was that he was not subject to the Texas Transportation
[11:41.100 --> 11:46.700]  Code because he was not in commerce and was not moving persons or property from one place
[11:46.700 --> 11:52.120]  to another for hire and therefore was not engaged in transportation.
[11:52.120 --> 11:56.600]  Now ladies and gentlemen, this right here, if this is how he actually presented these
[11:56.600 --> 12:04.200]  facts at trial with absent any authority and requirements for how the court is meant to
[12:04.200 --> 12:11.160]  interpret that authority, you can see why I make the argument that people are screwing
[12:11.160 --> 12:17.920]  up the ability of others to make a proper argument.
[12:17.920 --> 12:22.840]  Right here you now have precedent that anyone raising the meaning of transportation is going
[12:22.840 --> 12:30.880]  to be automatically ignored because of this case, regardless of how they attempt to make
[12:30.880 --> 12:38.760]  the argument, because the court is not going to ever admit it made a mistake in how it
[12:38.760 --> 12:43.200]  interpreted this case.
[12:43.200 --> 12:48.060]  And without seeing how the facts were presented to them and how the definition of transportation
[12:48.060 --> 12:53.440]  was presented to them, we don't have any way of knowing whether or not the third court
[12:53.440 --> 12:58.200]  of appeals actually ignored the law in favor of how it wanted the outcome to be instead
[12:58.200 --> 13:02.400]  of what the law required it to be.
[13:02.400 --> 13:08.800]  This has always been my greatest fear about giving out this information to people when
[13:08.800 --> 13:14.500]  it came to using it in a court.
[13:14.500 --> 13:18.280]  This has always been my greatest fear.
[13:18.280 --> 13:25.320]  You can put a hammer in anybody's hands and give them the materials to build a house,
[13:25.320 --> 13:30.640]  but the question at the end of the day is what quality of is the house you're going
[13:30.640 --> 13:34.200]  to wind up with?
[13:34.200 --> 13:40.280]  If the third court of appeals did not put their own unlawful spin on the arguments made
[13:40.280 --> 13:46.360]  at trial, this right here is a good indication that the house that was built by Perkins was
[13:46.360 --> 13:53.000]  crappy and leaked like a sieve.
[13:53.000 --> 14:02.200]  And if it wasn't, then he didn't cite anything that the court itself was willing to acknowledge
[14:02.200 --> 14:07.600]  in its opinion, which also is not something that would surprise me by the third court
[14:07.600 --> 14:13.600]  of appeals and the morons that populate it.
[14:13.600 --> 14:22.240]  This ladies and gentlemen is the problem with allowing the courts to be the sole interpreter
[14:22.240 --> 14:25.880]  of legislative intent.
[14:25.880 --> 14:30.820]  When the court is the only body that gets to decide what the legislature really meant
[14:30.820 --> 14:38.080]  by what it wrote, then the legislature becomes irrelevant because the court is free to determine
[14:38.080 --> 14:48.320]  what the legislature meant in any manner it wishes.
[14:48.320 --> 14:55.960]  And if you have ever watched how these government attorneys will attempt to make an argument
[14:55.960 --> 15:03.800]  validating a government decision or action, you should know why this kind of opinion is
[15:03.800 --> 15:10.120]  so inherently dangerous to the rights and liberties of everyone.
[15:10.120 --> 15:17.080]  Let's take for instance the recent Supreme Court case dealing with asset forfeiture cases.
[15:17.080 --> 15:23.360]  The government literally tried to make the argument that asset forfeiture authorized
[15:23.360 --> 15:30.400]  the government to seize a person's automobile for even such a minor offense as going five
[15:30.400 --> 15:35.280]  miles an hour over the speed limit, that the government had every right to seize and sell
[15:35.280 --> 15:40.760]  that automobile because of that violation of law, according to how they interpret that
[15:40.760 --> 15:41.760]  law.
[15:41.760 --> 15:51.400]  Now you want to talk about a dangerous precedent, there's one, but this one is no less dangerous
[15:51.400 --> 15:58.120]  and it is no less dangerous because it proves exactly my fear and exactly my point about
[15:58.120 --> 16:05.360]  how the court, if given enough leeway by the defendant in a case by not properly setting
[16:05.360 --> 16:14.540]  up the argument and citing the authority necessary to fortify it against the court's insistence
[16:14.540 --> 16:23.200]  on doing it wrong, then the defense gets defeated and this is the result.
[16:23.200 --> 16:28.600]  And now this is the precedent that every prosecuting attorney in the state of Texas is going to
[16:28.600 --> 16:34.800]  rely on to argue that the definition and meaning of transportation is irrelevant.
[16:34.800 --> 16:40.100]  They are attempting to make an argument that says the context of the legislative enactment
[16:40.100 --> 16:49.040]  is irrelevant. The subject of the legislative enactment is irrelevant. That's what these
[16:49.040 --> 16:55.160]  prosecutors are attempting to argue via Perkins v. State. That's what the court of appeals
[16:55.160 --> 17:04.280]  is attempting to argue. Y'all hang on and I'll carry this on.
[17:04.280 --> 17:10.080]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by Central Texas
[17:10.080 --> 17:16.560]  Gunworks. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated. Everything
[17:16.560 --> 17:21.960]  helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gunworks, the grand prize up for grabs
[17:21.960 --> 17:28.920]  is a Spikes Tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation
[17:28.920 --> 17:35.000]  is a chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's eBook, Legal 101, you get four chances
[17:35.000 --> 17:40.520]  to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed
[17:40.520 --> 17:45.320]  the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you
[17:45.320 --> 17:51.720]  the best quality programming on talk radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:51.720 --> 17:58.480]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details
[17:58.480 --> 18:02.880]  and donate today. Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:02.880 --> 18:08.200]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael
[18:08.200 --> 18:13.400]  Miras Proven Method. Michael Miras has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:13.400 --> 18:18.720]  and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[18:18.720 --> 18:24.080]  in court using federal civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail,
[18:24.080 --> 18:28.520]  or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out
[18:28.520 --> 18:33.760]  of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[18:33.760 --> 18:39.320]  away. The Michael Miras Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.320 --> 18:45.080]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com
[18:45.080 --> 18:50.480]  and click on the blue Michael Miras banner or email MichaelMiras at yahoo.com. That's
[18:50.480 --> 18:59.880]  RuleOfLawRadio.com 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
[18:59.880 --> 19:08.000]  now. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network,
[19:08.000 --> 19:21.520]  and you are watching RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[19:38.000 --> 19:51.920]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. If you want to call and get
[19:51.920 --> 19:58.560]  in line, the call-in number is 512-646-1984. But for the moment, we're going to continue
[19:58.560 --> 20:04.160]  on with the evaluation of this case and the argument in general. Now, one of the footnotes
[20:04.160 --> 20:09.320]  in this when the court is referring to how Perkins defines the term transportation, it
[20:09.320 --> 20:15.080]  has this written in the footnote. Other various complaints in Perkins's brief depend on this
[20:15.080 --> 20:22.880]  court's adopting Perkins's definition of transportation, which we previously rejected, are inadequately
[20:22.880 --> 20:28.260]  briefed or do not constitute comprehensible legal arguments that could support reversing
[20:28.260 --> 20:34.840]  the new trial or reversing the trial court's judgment of conviction for the charged offense.
[20:34.840 --> 20:41.160]  So they're trying to say that if maybe if it had done a better job of making the argument,
[20:41.160 --> 20:46.760]  maybe we could have done something about this. Okay, well, not having cited exactly how he
[20:46.760 --> 20:52.520]  attempted to define it, either in his briefs or during any testimony he may have presented
[20:52.520 --> 21:00.040]  at trial, we don't know how the court is determining what he did or didn't do. Now, we have prior
[21:00.040 --> 21:06.500]  cases that they've listed involving Perkins, of which there are several, because he's attempted
[21:06.500 --> 21:11.740]  to make this argument in several different cases for several different offenses. And
[21:11.740 --> 21:16.520]  I'm willing to bet you he did the exact same thing in every one of them. Now, not knowing
[21:16.520 --> 21:21.240]  exactly what he did, I can't say whether he was right or wrong in any of that, because
[21:21.240 --> 21:26.180]  I don't know what his original paperwork was. I don't know what edits he may have made to
[21:26.180 --> 21:32.500]  it if it was out of the seminar material. I just don't know. But given that we're dealing
[21:32.500 --> 21:38.120]  with the third court of appeals, I would be willing to err on his side that he made a
[21:38.120 --> 21:42.540]  better argument than they're willing to give him credit for. It's just they're so frickin
[21:42.540 --> 21:49.860]  incompetent and lazy minded that they don't care to attempt to understand it. It simply
[21:49.860 --> 21:57.180]  goes against how they want things to be, therefore it's wrong. End of discussion on part of the
[21:57.180 --> 22:02.220]  third court of appeals. That's generally how this works when an appeal goes before that
[22:02.220 --> 22:08.620]  court. These people are morons. Do not by any stretch of the imagination think any different,
[22:08.620 --> 22:12.860]  because I have read opinion after opinion after opinion that's come out of this court,
[22:12.860 --> 22:20.220]  and these people are frickin morons. They ignore the law no matter what it says to reach
[22:20.220 --> 22:25.940]  an outcome that is unsupported by that law and unsupported by the record itself in what
[22:25.940 --> 22:34.620]  they do. They are in charge of the legal engineering of case law in Texas, and where the court
[22:34.620 --> 22:39.660]  of criminal appeals wants that case law to maintain the status quo as is, the court of
[22:39.660 --> 22:48.340]  criminal appeals will uphold it. Where it doesn't, it will overturn it. It's that simple.
[22:48.340 --> 22:53.440]  Without having seen what he originally filed, I can't say what he actually did wrong. I
[22:53.440 --> 22:59.480]  can only base it as a guess on what they're claiming he did wrong. The claim is, based
[22:59.480 --> 23:06.300]  upon its absence in the opinion, is that he failed to cite any authority that would bind
[23:06.300 --> 23:13.620]  them to having to agree with him. Now, I'm not sure that even if he had provided it that
[23:13.620 --> 23:17.740]  they would have done it, because the third court of appeals ignores anything that is
[23:17.740 --> 23:24.180]  inconvenient to the outcome they want to have. They have in every opinion I've ever read.
[23:24.180 --> 23:32.020]  If they don't want the state to lose any ground whatsoever in a particular area of law, they
[23:32.020 --> 23:40.700]  will find a way to rule in the state's favor, even if it means ignoring the law to do it.
[23:40.700 --> 23:49.420]  That being said, understand why I have had such a problem with providing this information
[23:49.420 --> 23:55.820]  to you guys openly the way I have. I've always had reservations about it. It's information
[23:55.820 --> 24:03.980]  you need to know, but the fact is, as I have said numerous times, not everyone is equipped
[24:03.980 --> 24:12.060]  to take this to court. They just aren't. I don't care what you think your abilities are.
[24:12.060 --> 24:17.780]  When you cannot coherently argue a legal issue and string a proper sentence together in a
[24:17.780 --> 24:24.380]  paragraph to make those arguments and issues stand out, you shouldn't be making an effort
[24:24.380 --> 24:32.140]  to do it on your feet in open court. End of discussion. I can't do gymnastic backflips.
[24:32.140 --> 24:36.700]  You don't see me out in the middle of the street practicing every day anyway and getting
[24:36.700 --> 24:45.560]  my head sewn up later that evening. I am willing to accept my limitations and limit my activities
[24:45.560 --> 24:51.100]  to those which I know are not going to result in that injury, but more importantly, not
[24:51.100 --> 24:58.700]  result in an injury to someone else because of my efforts. And that, ladies and gentlemen,
[24:58.700 --> 25:07.660]  is what the Perkins cases have done. They have resulted in an injury to everyone else
[25:07.660 --> 25:17.980]  because of the rulings that were made of them. And if he failed to properly apply authority
[25:17.980 --> 25:27.020]  to the arguments that were made so as to give the court of appeals the leeway to ignore
[25:27.020 --> 25:33.700]  what transportation is and what it isn't, then that has resulted in case precedent that
[25:33.700 --> 25:40.940]  undermines every legitimate argument that follows behind it. No matter how well it's
[25:40.940 --> 25:49.740]  written, no matter how much authority it provides, and no matter how linguistically correct and
[25:49.740 --> 25:58.420]  proper from a legal perspective, the argument is. It's that simple. They have found a way
[25:58.420 --> 26:05.220]  to shore the underpinnings of truth and justice out from under the justice system and leave
[26:05.220 --> 26:13.580]  it precariously balanced on how they want the case to go, based upon cases just like
[26:13.580 --> 26:24.220]  this, where the pro se went to court, fought the fight, did it wrong, didn't supply the
[26:24.220 --> 26:30.420]  authority, didn't supply the framework, and didn't supply the issues in a manner that
[26:30.420 --> 26:37.320]  would require the court to agree with them. Instead, they argued them and wrote them in
[26:37.320 --> 26:44.500]  such a way as to make it appear to be their personal opinion over the substance of law
[26:44.500 --> 27:03.500]  and that is a losing combination every single time. By the same token, we have had cases
[27:03.500 --> 27:08.260]  where people have gone into court and won the argument hands down, no ifs, no ands,
[27:08.260 --> 27:17.740]  no buts, because they did it correctly. They did it in a way the court could not ignore.
[27:17.740 --> 27:24.660]  They did it in a way that the court was required to comply with or face consequences on the
[27:24.660 --> 27:35.900]  appeal. And no matter how stupid and arrogant and self-centered and status-minded these
[27:35.900 --> 27:43.020]  justices on these appellate courts may be, none of them like to be publicly embarrassed
[27:43.020 --> 27:50.240]  by being told by a higher court, you people are idiots. This is not simply a judicial
[27:50.240 --> 27:56.220]  error in judgment, interpretation, and understanding. This is outright judicial fraud by attempting
[27:56.220 --> 28:03.700]  to rewrite the law in a manner that the legislature did not. And that, ladies and gentlemen, we
[28:03.700 --> 28:11.540]  will not allow you to do. But without making the argument that that is what the courts
[28:11.540 --> 28:23.060]  themselves are doing, you're not framing that issue for the appeal. So now, not only do
[28:23.060 --> 28:29.060]  the pro se's have to make the argument about the elements of their own case, now they also
[28:29.060 --> 28:36.400]  have to make the arguments about why cases like Perkins were ruled upon incorrectly by
[28:36.400 --> 28:43.100]  the appeals court and why the appeals court should overturn its own opinion in that prior
[28:43.100 --> 28:56.420]  case as being invalid. Okay? You, someone beneath them from their lofty perching perspective,
[28:56.420 --> 29:06.340]  is attempting to force them down a path to change an opinion of theirs into yours. You
[29:06.340 --> 29:14.100]  want to talk about an uphill battle? There it is. And cases like this is what is making
[29:14.100 --> 29:23.600]  that hill steeper and more treacherous every single time someone goes to court and does
[29:23.600 --> 29:32.980]  it this way. Now again, I haven't seen his original pleadings. I don't know whether or
[29:32.980 --> 29:41.240]  not he did it absolutely correctly. All I can say is that if he did not supply the authority,
[29:41.240 --> 29:46.500]  it left the court with a way to undermine the argument and they took full advantage
[29:46.500 --> 29:52.260]  of it. It's that simple. All right, we've got a break coming up. We're going to take
[29:52.260 --> 29:56.020]  that and then we're going to try to get to the callers on the board. So y'all hang on
[29:56.020 --> 30:25.940]  and we'll be right back. Five, one, two, six, four, six, 1984.
[30:25.940 --> 30:32.340]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:32.340 --> 30:37.460]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[30:37.460 --> 30:45.180]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[30:45.180 --> 30:50.260]  Ever hear the term fine farming? It's when cops find innocent people to bring in revenue
[30:50.260 --> 30:55.820]  and it's apparently big business in the sunshine state of Florida. This case involves breathalyzers
[30:55.820 --> 31:01.660]  used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations. Recently, reporters discovered
[31:01.660 --> 31:06.380]  that the devices were improperly calibrated. State officials knew about it for two and
[31:06.380 --> 31:11.540]  a half years, but did nothing. In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered
[31:11.540 --> 31:17.220]  inspectors not to document the problem. A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but
[31:17.220 --> 31:22.020]  now that the cover up has been exposed, perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier.
[31:22.020 --> 31:31.100]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:31.100 --> 31:36.500]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[31:36.500 --> 31:41.900]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[31:41.900 --> 31:45.820]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[31:45.820 --> 31:50.460]  lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.460 --> 31:53.540]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force
[31:53.540 --> 31:58.580]  pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[31:58.580 --> 32:04.980]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic
[32:04.980 --> 32:08.700]  seminar. In today's America, we live in an us against them society, and if we the people
[32:08.700 --> 32:12.220]  are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our
[32:12.220 --> 32:16.140]  own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the
[32:16.140 --> 32:19.540]  right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process
[32:19.540 --> 32:23.780]  of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce
[32:23.780 --> 32:28.060]  and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction
[32:28.060 --> 32:31.500]  with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:31.500 --> 32:35.820]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:35.820 --> 32:39.820]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and
[32:39.820 --> 32:43.180]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The
[32:43.180 --> 32:47.540]  Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[32:47.540 --> 32:51.220]  Freedom Seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn
[32:51.220 --> 32:54.500]  how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[32:54.500 --> 33:01.500]  Order your copy today and together we can have a free society we all want and deserve.
[33:01.500 --> 33:17.020]  Live, free speech radio. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[33:31.500 --> 33:43.500]  All right. All right folks, we are back. If you can't hear me out there, I hope somebody
[33:43.500 --> 33:48.180]  that's calling in will tell me about it. I've hopefully got this up where everybody out
[33:48.180 --> 33:55.180]  there can hear me, but we shall see. Anyway, calling number 512646 1984 is a call-in number.
[33:55.180 --> 34:02.180]  Our first caller up as coincidence would have it is named Perkins. Uh, Jaron Perkins. What
[34:02.180 --> 34:07.580]  can we do for you? Hey, how are you doing? I'm doing all right. Good, good. No relation
[34:07.580 --> 34:11.860]  to the case you were just talking about. Well, okay. I just wanted to, I was wondering, but
[34:11.860 --> 34:18.380]  I wanted to know. Uh, yeah, I had a quick question. Um, now I just bought your seminar
[34:18.380 --> 34:25.380]  package a few days ago. So I'm going through that. Um, I have a simple case. Um, well hopefully
[34:25.940 --> 34:31.660]  it's simple enough. It's a parking meter violation, um, in Phoenix, Arizona. It's under the Phoenix
[34:31.660 --> 34:38.660]  municipal court. Um, it's, um, 36154. It basically says unlawful for any person to park a motor
[34:40.860 --> 34:47.460]  vehicle in a meter parking space. And, um, I wasn't, my, my wife borrowed the car. She
[34:47.460 --> 34:53.020]  went downtown. So I can, I know I can argue that they have to prove that it was me that
[34:53.020 --> 34:58.180]  parked the vehicle there. Is that correct? Uh, potentially yes. It's just, it's just
[34:58.180 --> 35:02.540]  like either a, uh, a speeding camera or red light camera citation where all they get a
[35:02.540 --> 35:09.160]  picture of is the car and not the person behind the wheel. Okay. Now the thing is, is most
[35:09.160 --> 35:14.740]  likely since it's a parking violation, this is under a city ordinance, right? That is
[35:14.740 --> 35:20.820]  correct. Okay. So the other issue there becomes whether or not city ordinances are valid law
[35:20.820 --> 35:26.820]  in your state here in Texas. They're not, they're not valid binding public law. Um,
[35:26.820 --> 35:33.020]  in fact, because of the requirements in our code of criminal procedure, the code of criminal
[35:33.020 --> 35:40.020]  feature says a complaint is only valid when it cites a violation of a state law. Okay.
[35:40.020 --> 35:47.020]  And ordinance is not a state law. Therefore allowing said ordinance to exist in relation
[35:54.020 --> 35:58.300]  to a complaint when the requirements of a complaint do not allow an ordinance to be
[35:58.300 --> 36:05.300]  used, that they're in is kind of a problem because you have a conflict between the statutes.
[36:05.300 --> 36:12.300]  One word says the language can say, or in violation of said ordinance, whereas the requirements
[36:12.940 --> 36:19.580]  for the document upon which that would appear says the violation must be stated as a violation
[36:19.580 --> 36:25.300]  of state law, which an ordinance is not. So the ordinance would actually have to cite
[36:25.300 --> 36:32.300]  a state law in order to be valid, to be prosecutable here in the state of Texas. Okay. So I will
[36:32.300 --> 36:38.780]  check. So I probably would check in the transportation law here in Arizona is titled 28. So I will
[36:38.780 --> 36:43.980]  pretty much what I start there to look in regards to city ordinances and see if they,
[36:43.980 --> 36:50.780]  if they can be applied within the title. Yeah. Uh, yeah. Here that this stuff I was talking
[36:50.780 --> 36:54.420]  about in this particular case, there are so many things that have to go into the argument
[36:54.420 --> 36:58.780]  of transportation. It's not just the issue of whether or not it's commerce. There, there
[36:58.780 --> 37:05.580]  is a whole framework that has to be put in place that forces the court down the only
[37:05.580 --> 37:12.580]  logical avenue that can exist based upon specific chapters of law on how they must interpret
[37:13.100 --> 37:18.980]  the term. There's constitutional provisions, there's statutory provisions, and when the
[37:18.980 --> 37:25.980]  court ignores those, now you've got appealable error and that's whatever you do. You need
[37:25.980 --> 37:31.260]  to set your arguments up in such a way as to take full advantage of all that framework
[37:31.260 --> 37:38.260]  as it appears in your state. Okay. Okay. I will do that. Um, they, yeah, yeah, I've put
[37:41.700 --> 37:47.700]  them up now. They, this court, you can actually email them like a motion and things of that
[37:47.700 --> 37:53.140]  nature without having to go down there. I find that rather convenient. Um, so I did
[37:53.140 --> 38:00.140]  motion for dismissal. Um, they, when I, when she brought the ticket home, I just ignored
[38:00.700 --> 38:07.580]  it on purpose just to see what was going to happen. And they, on my registration, I have
[38:07.580 --> 38:14.580]  my PO box, uh, on the registration, but we since moved, so I had the mail forwarded to
[38:14.820 --> 38:21.820]  the new PO box and it was just, so when they mailed out the order to appear or notice to
[38:21.820 --> 38:27.380]  appear, it was, they sent it to the old PO box, but the post office did not forward it
[38:27.380 --> 38:31.600]  some way or another. Cause we all know they're dirty. What the court end up doing is they
[38:31.600 --> 38:37.660]  end up, I know they got it back cause I never received it. Uh, they still pushed in a judgment
[38:37.660 --> 38:42.860]  and the next thing you know, I got a collection letter from LDC collections. So I have some
[38:42.860 --> 38:49.860]  debt collection stuff. So I send them a, um, um, what do you call that? The validation
[38:49.860 --> 38:56.860]  letter? Yeah, I sent them that and they sent me over a copy of the, um, order to appear
[38:57.300 --> 39:03.980]  and then when the order to appear is not a final judgment. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Are,
[39:03.980 --> 39:10.980]  are, is this alleged violation civil or criminal in Arizona? It is non, it says non-criminal.
[39:10.980 --> 39:17.980]  Okay. So it's, it's completely administrative civil. Okay. Okay. So what they're counting
[39:24.540 --> 39:31.540]  on is basically for you to default, which you did by not answering. However, the problem
[39:31.940 --> 39:38.940]  with any civil action is proving service. Right. Okay. Since they can't prove you are
[39:38.940 --> 39:44.940]  ever served with the notice and the complaint against you in the civil matter, they do not
[39:44.940 --> 39:50.940]  have jurisdiction to default you. If you challenge the default judgment on those grounds, no
[39:50.940 --> 39:56.940]  service. Okay. And I did challenge that in motion for dismissal and they set it aside,
[39:56.940 --> 40:00.940]  but then they set a court date up for December 4th coming up in a few days, which prompted
[40:00.940 --> 40:10.940]  my call today. Okay. And what are the rules in Arizona for civil matters at this level?
[40:11.220 --> 40:17.760]  What timeframe do they have to adjudicate them to file the complaint and then get it
[40:17.760 --> 40:22.760]  into court? How long do they have that? I will have to look up. I'm not sure what I'll
[40:22.760 --> 40:27.260]  stop. Yeah. Those are all the things you, you want to know because everything about
[40:27.260 --> 40:32.540]  the process and procedure is what you can stick them on. And the better you know it,
[40:32.540 --> 40:36.940]  the better you know it than they do. And the more you can use it in your favor when they
[40:36.940 --> 40:42.100]  do something that's not allowed or violates your due process, even in a civil administrative
[40:42.100 --> 40:49.100]  matter, then you have recourse through the law to argue they can't do it. Okay. But you
[40:49.220 --> 40:53.980]  have to know what it is and you have to object to it timely and you need to do it in a way
[40:53.980 --> 41:00.980]  that builds a record, which means you do it always in writing and writing. Okay. Another
[41:01.180 --> 41:07.700]  quick thing here. So I do plan on appearing there on the floor in a couple of days. Um,
[41:07.700 --> 41:11.300]  I'm sure they're going to ask me if I, whether if I play or not, and I wasn't going to do
[41:11.300 --> 41:17.920]  that. How do you play in a civil matter? There is no plea in a civil matter. Okay. Okay.
[41:17.920 --> 41:24.580]  So if they ask you to enter a police, excuse me, this says this is non criminal. Therefore,
[41:24.580 --> 41:31.180]  why am I having to enter a plea as if it is suddenly criminal? Oh, well it's quasi criminal.
[41:31.180 --> 41:38.180]  Then I object nowhere to state law define any sort of jurisdictional authority as quasi
[41:38.220 --> 41:45.220]  criminal. It's true. No state defines quasi criminal as a valid jurisdiction of any court.
[41:45.220 --> 41:50.460]  Got it. Okay. And I appreciate that. And I did have a question in regards to the, to
[41:50.460 --> 41:56.380]  the seminar document. Um, there was a form that you mentioned that you will hand over
[41:56.380 --> 41:59.700]  to the police or to the cop what they pull you over.
[41:59.700 --> 42:03.740]  There was now it's now it's the transportation practice script.
[42:03.740 --> 42:06.580]  Oh, okay. I got it. Okay.
[42:06.580 --> 42:11.860]  Ever since that, when that first went out, the cops would take it, but then they were
[42:11.860 --> 42:16.020]  told don't ever take paperwork from anybody at these stops because they're giving you
[42:16.020 --> 42:20.780]  stuff that they can bring up later in court. So now the cops won't take anything you handle.
[42:20.780 --> 42:27.780]  Oh, okay. So now we protect our rights by means of the script, by what we say and do
[42:28.540 --> 42:34.540]  rather than trying to get them to admit to things by accepting documents from us.
[42:34.540 --> 42:37.740]  Make sense. That explains why I couldn't find it, but I do know, I do know what the script
[42:37.740 --> 42:42.700]  is at. So that's perfect. It's a lot of information for the, for the price. So I definitely appreciate
[42:42.700 --> 42:45.060]  it. Yeah. There's a ton of information in there
[42:45.060 --> 42:49.980]  and research on both sides of the aisle, what was right, what is wrong and what was just
[42:49.980 --> 42:55.380]  plum ass ignorance, excuse my French. But the fact is I wanted everybody to understand
[42:55.380 --> 43:00.340]  how I had come to the conclusions that I did. So I supplied everything I found, whether
[43:00.340 --> 43:06.860]  it was right, wrong or completely idiotic. I put it in there anyway with the caveat of
[43:06.860 --> 43:10.140]  this is what you use. This is what you don't use.
[43:10.140 --> 43:17.140]  Got it. Okay. So I will do some research tonight while I'm listening to you and figure out
[43:17.780 --> 43:22.460]  the city city ordinances, even a valid law in this state. And then also look at the civil
[43:22.460 --> 43:29.020]  rules of civil rules of procedure and look at that as well. So that's it for me. I don't
[43:29.020 --> 43:31.900]  really have a whole lot to ask you, but I do appreciate you.
[43:31.900 --> 43:35.100]  Yes, sir. Well, good luck. All right. Thank you.
[43:35.100 --> 43:38.980]  Yes, sir. All right, folks, we've got a break and then we'll get to our next caller up on
[43:38.980 --> 43:45.980]  the board here. The call-in number 512-646-1984. If you want to call and discuss a case, ask
[43:46.620 --> 43:51.820]  a question or just call me an idiot, whatever suits you. It doesn't matter. I can take anything
[43:51.820 --> 43:58.820]  you folks can dish out one way or the other. Y'all hang on and we will be right back.
[43:58.820 --> 44:05.820]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[44:07.580 --> 44:14.580]  the affordable, easy to understand 4CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[44:14.620 --> 44:20.900]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[44:20.900 --> 44:26.260]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and
[44:26.260 --> 44:32.820]  now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[44:32.820 --> 44:38.220]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[44:38.220 --> 44:43.940]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[44:43.940 --> 44:50.940]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and
[44:50.940 --> 44:57.500]  much more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[44:57.500 --> 45:04.500]  866-LAW-EZ. I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant
[45:05.340 --> 45:09.200]  as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my
[45:09.200 --> 45:14.220]  truth fixed. I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network on
[45:14.220 --> 45:18.500]  the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't
[45:18.500 --> 45:23.500]  have any money to give because I spend it all on supplements. How can I help logos?
[45:23.500 --> 45:28.380]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[45:28.380 --> 45:32.900]  You can order new supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[45:32.900 --> 45:39.660]  Now go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when
[45:39.660 --> 45:45.260]  you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay
[45:45.260 --> 45:50.620]  extra? No. Do I have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[45:50.620 --> 45:57.380]  No. I mean, yes. Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect.
[45:57.380 --> 46:21.860]  Thank you so much. You're welcome. Happy Holidays, Logos.
[46:21.860 --> 46:29.540]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. The call in number 5126461984.
[46:29.540 --> 46:34.620]  I am your host, Eddie Craig. If you want to call and ask a question or just discuss an
[46:34.620 --> 46:39.900]  issue, then please feel free to use that number and get in touch and we will do so. Right
[46:39.900 --> 46:47.460]  now, our next caller up is Charles in Georgia. Charles, what can we do for you? How are you
[46:47.460 --> 46:58.460]  doing today, buddy? I'm doing alright so far. Well, I wanted to ask a quick question. When
[46:58.460 --> 47:07.180]  it comes to the registration, Alex, I am in Georgia. When it comes to registration, anything
[47:07.180 --> 47:13.060]  that has to do with traffic now is now of a higher and atrocious dye that they claim
[47:13.060 --> 47:21.900]  that is now misdemeanors is not civil here. It seems like to me that your information
[47:21.900 --> 47:26.340]  and other information is starting to actually get out there and people are starting to become
[47:26.340 --> 47:34.340]  aware. I wanted to know if it would be wise now since we have misdemeanor traffic tickets
[47:34.340 --> 47:41.180]  now for registration and insurance and they're starting to take people's cars and suspend
[47:41.180 --> 47:47.260]  people's registration and things of that nature. Would it be wise to have a jury trial instead
[47:47.260 --> 47:53.740]  of a trial by a judge? I've always advocated for a jury trial. However, there's two, there's
[47:53.740 --> 48:00.540]  problems either way and let me tell you why. First off, the state is going to ensure that
[48:00.540 --> 48:05.220]  you get no one on your jury that thinks like you do. In other words, you will not get a
[48:05.220 --> 48:12.420]  jury of your peers. You will get a jury hand picked for their absolute total ignorance
[48:12.420 --> 48:18.860]  about rights, justice and law. No ifs, no ands, no buts. They are going to be the cream
[48:18.860 --> 48:25.740]  of the crop on the side of if I gotta, you gotta. And they will never understand or accept
[48:25.740 --> 48:34.020]  the fact that there is a difference in who gotta. It's just like the income tax thing.
[48:34.020 --> 48:40.420]  You have more people scared to death of doing what's right and those who actually believe
[48:40.420 --> 48:45.900]  everything about it is right, then you do those willing to stand up and fight back and
[48:45.900 --> 48:53.500]  say no. And the state and the court and the prosecution and everyone else is going to
[48:53.500 --> 48:58.580]  do their absolute dead level best to ensure that no one that sits on your jury will have
[48:58.580 --> 49:08.860]  a single clue or iota of thought that favors that argument. Then you have the trial by
[49:08.860 --> 49:15.860]  judge. The judge knows the law well enough that if you make a mistake that gives the
[49:15.860 --> 49:22.320]  state the edge, the judge will exploit it for them. Just like they did in these opinions
[49:22.320 --> 49:31.320]  of Perkins's here. If you make a mistake that allows the judge to allow the state to win,
[49:31.320 --> 49:38.220]  he will make sure that they do. Even if everything else they do is dead wrong, if you give him
[49:38.220 --> 49:43.740]  any crack of daylight to see through your issue and your defense, he's going to make
[49:43.740 --> 49:51.540]  that crack bigger and act like it's an entire gateway. Okay, so there's a downside to both
[49:51.540 --> 49:58.900]  of them. You have to decide which way you can argue the case better. If you argue it
[49:58.900 --> 50:03.740]  in front of a jury they could still rule against you regardless of what the law is and simply
[50:03.740 --> 50:08.940]  because of what they feel and what they believe the law should be or how it should work. Not
[50:08.940 --> 50:14.920]  what it says or what it means because that's the one aspect of law you will never be allowed
[50:14.920 --> 50:24.760]  to make them see. The difference between them and the judge however is you can make him
[50:24.760 --> 50:33.000]  see and you can force him to comply or you can raise the issue of judicial error when
[50:33.000 --> 50:45.740]  he does not. So it really depends on what the specific goal at the end of the day is
[50:45.740 --> 50:51.380]  and a trial de novo because it's in a court of no record and it's a criminal case doesn't
[50:51.380 --> 50:57.700]  really matter what you do at that level in the initial trial. I say get a jury simply
[50:57.700 --> 51:04.220]  because they got to pay that jury no matter what and under Title II of the Texas Code
[51:04.220 --> 51:10.560]  of Criminal Procedure they cannot charge you despite what they try to charge you. The maximum
[51:10.560 --> 51:22.500]  amount of money they can charge a defendant for a jury trial is $4. The total amount of
[51:22.500 --> 51:29.300]  fees and excess of fines that the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes them to charge
[51:29.300 --> 51:37.500]  is less than $20. That's the total and yet you have cities and counties charging hundreds
[51:37.500 --> 51:43.200]  of dollars in court costs for these cases which directly violates Title II of the Code
[51:43.200 --> 51:48.400]  of Criminal Procedure. Not only that our Code of Criminal Procedure requires them to submit
[51:48.400 --> 51:56.120]  a signed bill for every itemized charge they are attempting to make and the judge is the
[51:56.120 --> 52:03.060]  one required to sign it or whatever judicial clerk issued the order and bill at the behest
[52:03.060 --> 52:09.560]  of the judge must sign it which means they are legally on the hook for what it contains.
[52:09.560 --> 52:18.880]  Guess what is never submitted to the defense? A signed itemized bill. You're just told to
[52:18.880 --> 52:23.440]  pay a lump sum of money and they break it down into two things the fines and the court
[52:23.440 --> 52:33.000]  costs and that's not what the law requires them to do. But these are all issues that
[52:33.000 --> 52:40.680]  no one ever raises on the appeal or at the next level if it's a trial de novo about what
[52:40.680 --> 52:44.960]  the trial court did and did wrong in violation of not only the rights of the accused but
[52:44.960 --> 52:50.960]  the law of the state itself. And that's why we always lose or we don't always lose that's
[52:50.960 --> 52:57.440]  why the majority of pro se lose. They don't understand everything that goes into this
[52:57.440 --> 53:03.000]  they don't understand the process overall from beginning to end and because of that
[53:03.000 --> 53:11.040]  they miss things that would eventually put a win in their hands instead of a loss.
[53:11.040 --> 53:21.280]  No that's by design that's part of the problem. Well yeah it's designed to be complicated
[53:21.280 --> 53:26.680]  obtuse and corrupt from the very beginning and that's exactly the point. That alone is
[53:26.680 --> 53:32.840]  what makes it the most imperative for us to understand what they're doing and what authority
[53:32.840 --> 53:39.160]  they're relying upon to do it and when they are violating that authority left and right
[53:39.160 --> 53:43.680]  so we can call them out on it we can point it out we can make it a part of the record
[53:43.680 --> 53:52.040]  so that we can prove corruption.
[53:52.040 --> 54:01.160]  I haven't had a chance to listen in a while and I wanted to know a lot has probably changed
[54:01.160 --> 54:08.040]  I wanted to know I guess there was a point in time when you were going to sue the legislature
[54:08.040 --> 54:11.640]  for some reason or another.
[54:11.640 --> 54:17.720]  We can't sue the legislature you can sue the executive and you can sue some parts of the
[54:17.720 --> 54:24.880]  judicial for violating what the legislature enacted but you can't literally sue the legislature
[54:24.880 --> 54:30.880]  the state constitution here at least forbids it. Okay. It specifically says that no legislator
[54:30.880 --> 54:35.600]  can be held accountable for what he says or does outside of the realms of the of the legislative
[54:35.600 --> 54:47.960]  offices. Gotcha. I was you were you were attempting to sue. I was going to sue the Texas Department
[54:47.960 --> 54:55.000]  of Public Safety. I was going to sue the state agency of the Department of Public Safety
[54:55.000 --> 55:01.040]  and I needed specific officers of course to sue for that and if they was city officers
[55:01.040 --> 55:07.120]  any city county or whatever law enforcement and their agencies and the Department of Public
[55:07.120 --> 55:14.480]  Safety has responded superior for their training. But I wasn't going to sue the legislature
[55:14.480 --> 55:17.920]  though I think that we should have a constitutional amendment that would make it where we could.
[55:21.680 --> 55:27.840]  Okay. I just wanted to know if there was um if that was still on the table. It's still on the
[55:27.840 --> 55:35.440]  table but I haven't gotten a ticket since then. Got it. Granted they stole my car here a few years
[55:35.440 --> 55:40.640]  ago parked out here in front of the house but that's another story even in the time that I had
[55:40.640 --> 55:46.080]  been traveling around in it all over town with no plates no registration no license none of that
[55:46.080 --> 55:52.800]  stuff I never got another ticket. I got I have been in Austin 10 years every Sunday I would go
[55:52.800 --> 56:00.480]  to Brave New Books to a class I would intentionally speed down I-35 at 90 miles an hour and it took
[56:00.480 --> 56:09.840]  them three years to finally write me a ticket. And when we did I went to court I lost at the city
[56:09.840 --> 56:16.720]  court but the case was overturned at the court of criminal or the uh county court at law and was
[56:16.720 --> 56:25.360]  remanded back and the city was ordered to pay my full cost of appeal and to uh proceed with new
[56:25.360 --> 56:32.240]  proceedings they didn't do any of that instead they kept my money they did not pay me a dime
[56:32.240 --> 56:36.640]  and they resubmitted the cases as if they had conducted a new trial when they did not
[56:38.080 --> 56:42.560]  everything about what they did was absolutely illegal every single thing
[56:42.560 --> 56:49.280]  but the judge who issued the order to them on the appeal retired before they did what they
[56:49.280 --> 56:56.800]  were supposed to do and now there was no one down at the county court at law willing to enforce the
[56:56.800 --> 57:05.280]  original order. Okay see this is the point where people have to start going to jail because now
[57:05.280 --> 57:10.560]  they're intentionally. Exactly exactly and the only way we're going to make that happen is to
[57:10.560 --> 57:15.360]  first and foremost educate the people that are sitting on our juries and make them where they
[57:15.360 --> 57:22.000]  are unwilling to convict somebody the state will drop this crap when they can't get make money off
[57:22.000 --> 57:29.920]  of it anymore when they can no longer make money off of a law that law disappears what do you think
[57:29.920 --> 57:35.440]  the issue is it got marijuana finally legalized the fact that people were no longer willing to
[57:35.440 --> 57:41.360]  convict somebody for possession and use of marijuana therefore the profit margins on such
[57:41.360 --> 57:47.920]  cases were now gone government can't afford to keep throwing hand over fist wads of money to
[57:47.920 --> 57:55.920]  fight a law that no one could get convicted under or to enforce the law that no one can get convicted
[57:55.920 --> 58:02.640]  on let me say that if there if there's a possible way that um when i talk to people i talk to a lot
[58:02.640 --> 58:06.480]  of people out here on the street and everybody seems to all be in agreeance that nobody should
[58:06.480 --> 58:11.760]  have to go down and register their car if they're not ice cream man or a garbage man or anything
[58:11.760 --> 58:16.080]  like that they're not having an agreement on the street an agreement in a jury box that's where
[58:16.080 --> 58:20.880]  the problem arises hang on just a second man and let me uh get this break done and we will come
[58:20.880 --> 58:24.560]  back at the top of the hour so it'll take about three or four minutes but hang on and we'll finish
[58:24.560 --> 58:30.720]  up this discussion okay yes all right folks this is rule of law radio the call-in number five
[58:30.720 --> 58:37.440]  one two six four six nineteen eighty four charles my only caller folks i need some more people up
[58:37.440 --> 58:42.160]  here let's get busy and get inquisitive we will be right back after this break
[58:48.480 --> 58:54.400]  the bible remains the most popular book in the world yet countless readers are frustrated because
[58:54.400 --> 58:59.680]  they struggle to understand it some new translations try to help by seeking the
[58:59.680 --> 59:04.560]  text but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture
[59:05.440 --> 59:11.920]  enter the recovery version first this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate
[59:11.920 --> 59:18.000]  but the real story is the more than 9 000 explanatory footnotes difficult and profound
[59:18.000 --> 59:23.200]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way providing an entrance into the riches of the
[59:23.200 --> 59:29.200]  word beyond which you've ever experienced before bibles for america would lead to the
[59:29.200 --> 59:34.640]  free recovery version simply for the asking this comprehensive yet compact study bible
[59:34.640 --> 59:42.080]  is yours just by calling us toll-free at one eight eight eight five five one zero one zero two
[59:42.080 --> 59:48.240]  or by ordering online at free study bible dot com that's free study bible dot com
[59:48.240 --> 59:58.080]  you are listening to the logos radio network logosradionetwork.com
[59:58.080 --> 01:00:05.040]  the following news flash is brought to you by the lone star lowdown markets for monday the 22nd of
[01:00:05.040 --> 01:00:14.080]  july 2019 open with precious metals gold at 1429 an ounce silver 16.45 cents an ounce copper 2.75
[01:00:14.080 --> 01:00:20.400]  cents an ounce oil texas crude 55.63 cents a barrel brent crude 62.47 cents a barrel
[01:00:20.400 --> 01:00:28.960]  and crypto is an order of market cap bitcoin core 10 566.52 cents ethereum 227.26 cents
[01:00:28.960 --> 01:00:41.760]  xrp ripple 33 cents litecoin 100.31 cents and bitcoin cash is at 324.10 cents a crypto coin
[01:00:46.160 --> 01:00:52.720]  today in history the year 1916 the preparedness day bombing a time suitcase bomb was detonated
[01:00:52.720 --> 01:00:57.680]  on market street in san francisco during the world war one preparedness day parade
[01:00:57.680 --> 01:01:00.560]  killing 10 and injuring 40 today in history
[01:01:04.800 --> 01:01:10.560]  and recent news since governor greg abbott signed house bill 1325 legalizing heppen to texas law
[01:01:10.560 --> 01:01:15.360]  back in june county prosecutors around the state including houston austin and san antonio have
[01:01:15.360 --> 01:01:19.520]  been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file new ones since they are
[01:01:19.520 --> 01:01:24.880]  stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment to test the herb for thc
[01:01:24.880 --> 01:01:29.040]  margaret moore the travis county district attorney announced earlier this month that she was
[01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:34.400]  dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the law mr abbott
[01:01:34.400 --> 01:01:38.800]  and other state officials including the attorney general stipulated in a letter to county district
[01:01:38.800 --> 01:01:43.680]  attorneys back on thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in texas and that these
[01:01:43.680 --> 01:01:50.080]  actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how hb 1325 works as well as other cities too like
[01:01:50.080 --> 01:01:56.720]  the district attorney in el paso kaima esparza a democrat who also stated earlier this month that
[01:01:56.720 --> 01:02:02.000]  the law quote will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in el paso
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:06.960]  however the issue was specifically summarized by mr brandon ball an assistant public defender
[01:02:06.960 --> 01:02:11.440]  in harris county who stated that quote the law is constantly changing on what makes something
[01:02:11.440 --> 01:02:15.520]  illegal based on its chemical makeup it's important that if someone is charged with
[01:02:15.520 --> 01:02:25.040]  something the test matches what they're charged with a paper by tulane university identified a
[01:02:25.040 --> 01:02:30.240]  five and a half inch american pocket shark as the first of its kind in the gulf of mexico
[01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:36.000]  the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:41.360]  found way back in 1979 in the east pacific ocean according to the university paper the shark
[01:02:41.360 --> 01:02:47.760]  secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized
[01:02:47.760 --> 01:02:57.200]  to lure and pray we may be drawn into the glow this is rook roadie with your lowdown for july 22nd
[01:02:57.200 --> 01:03:13.120]  2019.
[01:03:27.360 --> 01:03:36.560]  because all right folks we are back this is rule of law radio the call in number 512-646-1984
[01:03:36.560 --> 01:03:40.320]  you want to give us a call and get in line we'll have a discussion
[01:03:40.320 --> 01:03:44.720]  all right that's it let's continue on with charles all right charles go ahead
[01:03:46.240 --> 01:03:52.960]  um i guess i got two more things the um here in here in georgia um
[01:03:52.960 --> 01:04:01.440]  it seems that the legislature all agreed that instead of having uh traffic as civil they wanted
[01:04:01.440 --> 01:04:07.760]  to be a criminal and i just wanted to know you know how is it that a group of people is going
[01:04:07.760 --> 01:04:16.240]  to get together and say you know what uh traffic and and registration and insurance this is such
[01:04:16.240 --> 01:04:22.960]  to such a degree that it is criminal that if someone was to butt the system uh that we should
[01:04:22.960 --> 01:04:28.800]  be charging people criminally instead of civilly i want to know how do they do that when you know
[01:04:28.800 --> 01:04:34.960]  we already have a definition that's been etched in stone since you know since you know 1690 something
[01:04:34.960 --> 01:04:40.080]  and now they want to come along and say well we'll just raise it to criminal and take it out of the
[01:04:40.080 --> 01:04:47.600]  and take it out of the civil courts uh you know how does that happen how is that legal
[01:04:47.600 --> 01:04:52.400]  now it's legal because they get to determine what's legal whether it's right is a whole
[01:04:52.400 --> 01:05:01.360]  another matter but this is what the courts and the legislature comprised of attorneys who also
[01:05:01.360 --> 01:05:08.880]  populate the courts and who are responsible for advising the executive policies and procedures
[01:05:08.880 --> 01:05:14.800]  that are written for those laws everything is controlled by attorneys every aspect of government
[01:05:15.440 --> 01:05:21.920]  no yes no ands no buts they are in every area of government even though they're not allowed to be
[01:05:21.920 --> 01:05:28.160]  they are and what's worse is they are in control of it so
[01:05:30.800 --> 01:05:35.200]  as the legislature they get to define what the law of the state is they get to determine whether
[01:05:35.200 --> 01:05:43.600]  it's civil whether it's criminal so unless the people themselves refuse to convict for the crimes
[01:05:43.600 --> 01:05:50.720]  that the legislature creates refuse to comply with the crimes or the other laws that the legislature
[01:05:50.720 --> 01:05:59.680]  creates then they will do whatever they want and they will get away with it and they do this under
[01:05:59.680 --> 01:06:09.440]  the guise of proclaiming it to be public policy now i don't know where any constitution has written
[01:06:09.440 --> 01:06:17.840]  down a delegated authority to state or federal government to institute a thing called public
[01:06:17.840 --> 01:06:27.040]  policy that shall supersede and control the exercise of individual rights especially where
[01:06:27.040 --> 01:06:36.800]  those the exercise of those rights do not directly and indiscriminately uh
[01:06:38.640 --> 01:06:43.600]  destroy or diminish the rights of another or damage their person or property
[01:06:45.360 --> 01:06:55.200]  so i don't know where public policy was allowed to become superior to our individual rights
[01:06:55.200 --> 01:07:02.400]  but it's what's happening they now place everything under policy this is why your rights
[01:07:03.120 --> 01:07:09.600]  are ruled to be irrelevant in the face of an official government policy that's why the police
[01:07:09.600 --> 01:07:15.760]  get away with murder that's why the police get a right get away with rape with uh abuse of
[01:07:15.760 --> 01:07:23.200]  authority with assault with manslaughter because it didn't violate the official policy
[01:07:23.200 --> 01:07:28.800]  and the policy therefore is superior to the rights of the individual that these and that these
[01:07:28.800 --> 01:07:39.440]  officials may have harmed it's where the courts used the completely fabricated premise of official
[01:07:39.440 --> 01:07:47.760]  immunity sovereign immunity and qualified immunity when it comes to police officers and other public
[01:07:47.760 --> 01:07:56.080]  officers and other public officials okay and every form of immunity given to a government official
[01:07:56.080 --> 01:08:02.160]  is exactly that it is judicially contrived because immunity is not a term that appears in any
[01:08:02.160 --> 01:08:10.480]  constitution anywhere when it comes to the actions of a government official in fact if anything they
[01:08:10.480 --> 01:08:16.560]  are exactly the opposite of that because the entire purpose of a constitution is to define
[01:08:16.560 --> 01:08:21.680]  what the authority of the government is and to provide a means for recognizing when they are
[01:08:21.680 --> 01:08:29.840]  acting outside of it so the people would have the grounds to do something about it whether those
[01:08:29.840 --> 01:08:38.560]  grounds be on an individual basis or on a collective basis and yet the attorneys via
[01:08:38.560 --> 01:08:45.280]  the mechanism of the courts have created an oligarchy where they are the only force that
[01:08:45.280 --> 01:08:50.880]  determines everything about our government and the law and that's where what you are talking about
[01:08:50.880 --> 01:09:02.160]  has evolved from yeah well they're they're you know there's another thing that we have to deal
[01:09:02.160 --> 01:09:09.120]  with um the last thing man you last monday i think it was i think you did a show or maybe
[01:09:09.120 --> 01:09:18.560]  it was a previous monday um in which you did a um did a commentary about uh the term good
[01:09:18.560 --> 01:09:23.600]  police officer and what i wanted to do is i wanted to thank you for that commentary
[01:09:24.320 --> 01:09:28.640]  i wanted to thank you and i really would like you to kind of reiterate that again tonight for
[01:09:28.640 --> 01:09:33.600]  all the listeners who didn't hear that commentary you obviously didn't hear another show where i
[01:09:33.600 --> 01:09:39.280]  explained about somebody asking me to repeat something i'd said before please please man
[01:09:39.280 --> 01:09:45.840]  yeah you have to do it it was awesome um and if i have to go into it basically man what you said
[01:09:45.840 --> 01:09:53.440]  was you know the term good police officer is an oxymoron it is and if you could just go ahead and
[01:09:53.440 --> 01:09:59.680]  i can i can tell you what i talked about but i'm not i cannot tell you what exactly i said
[01:09:59.680 --> 01:10:04.720]  i can tell you the premise of what i said but i can't tell you exactly but the point is is that
[01:10:04.720 --> 01:10:10.000]  there is no such thing as a good police officer because every police officer does the same thing
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:16.880]  when they join up they agree to enforce any edict made by those for whom they work whether it be the
[01:10:16.880 --> 01:10:21.120]  city whether it be the county whether it be the state or whether it be a combination of all of
[01:10:21.120 --> 01:10:29.840]  the above this includes supporting others who are acting unlawfully within their own profession
[01:10:29.840 --> 01:10:36.160]  to enforce the laws in an illegal and improper manner a good police officer cannot be good if
[01:10:36.160 --> 01:10:43.600]  he is not willing to ignore unconstitutional laws and refuse to enforce them and arrest those of his
[01:10:43.600 --> 01:10:49.840]  profession who are doing illegal actions in the course of attempting to allegedly enforce such
[01:10:49.840 --> 01:10:55.680]  laws themselves whether they are doing it in a manner that violates the law or it violates the
[01:10:55.680 --> 01:11:03.440]  rights persons or property of the people therefore to say that someone is a good police officer
[01:11:03.440 --> 01:11:10.960]  is oxymoronic from the perspective that it's good for the people because the only time a police
[01:11:10.960 --> 01:11:17.520]  officer can be recognized as good and it be something of validity is when it is from the
[01:11:17.520 --> 01:11:26.080]  inside of his profession by those who are acting illegally and allowed him to cover up for them
[01:11:26.080 --> 01:11:32.640]  that's the only time his actions are construed as actually being good because you can't be a
[01:11:32.640 --> 01:11:38.960]  two-faced individual in in the law enforcement profession for long you can't treat the public
[01:11:38.960 --> 01:11:46.720]  to its face one way while going behind its back and doing the very things that are violating their
[01:11:46.720 --> 01:11:54.480]  rights and the constitution by either a participation b willful ignorance or c complete
[01:11:54.480 --> 01:12:02.400]  and total apathy and ignoring of the problem itself and that by definition is what every
[01:12:02.400 --> 01:12:10.800]  single police officer does at some point or other throughout their entire career each and every day
[01:12:10.800 --> 01:12:17.600]  because there is no way any police officer can honestly say that he is or was totally
[01:12:17.600 --> 01:12:23.840]  and completely ignorant of any and all criminal conduct by his peers on any given day
[01:12:28.240 --> 01:12:30.080]  that is the basic gist of what i said
[01:12:31.280 --> 01:12:38.080]  yep well on that note man i'm gonna let you go and get to the other callers if you have some
[01:12:38.080 --> 01:12:42.480]  and if not i'm you know i'm gonna let you go anyway um i would definitely like to send you
[01:12:42.480 --> 01:12:47.600]  an email if you get around to what you do if you don't you don't well you can send it i can't make
[01:12:47.600 --> 01:12:52.080]  any guarantees but i'll i'll be happy to get it regardless when i do eventually manage to get to
[01:12:53.280 --> 01:12:57.680]  all right buddy listen you take care and keep up the good fight thanks charles you do the same
[01:12:58.560 --> 01:13:05.760]  thank you all right all right next caller up is adam in texas it would appear so let's see
[01:13:05.760 --> 01:13:08.480]  if we can get this to click there we go adam are you there
[01:13:11.200 --> 01:13:16.400]  adam are you there yeah i'm trying to turn off my speaker hold on okay
[01:13:23.600 --> 01:13:29.600]  you there yeah i'm here yeah uh how's it going eddie good and you
[01:13:29.600 --> 01:13:37.840]  oh good hope you had a good thanksgiving man um so i'm currently working on i got a lot of stuff
[01:13:37.840 --> 01:13:47.360]  going but i'm attempting this uh setting up the da you know with the uh criminal complaints
[01:13:47.360 --> 01:13:52.960]  addressed to the form of the grand jury and mailed to mail to his address and all that stuff it's in
[01:13:52.960 --> 01:14:01.760]  your seminar my question is how long do i wait when i don't hear a reply back from the foreman
[01:14:01.760 --> 01:14:10.720]  with his signature before i start go go ask for my 500 and how does that process work no wait a
[01:14:10.720 --> 01:14:17.760]  minute when you ask for a reply you're asking for a reply from a grand jury foreman yeah
[01:14:17.760 --> 01:14:24.800]  and you sent them what criminal complaints on public officials
[01:14:25.920 --> 01:14:30.000]  well there's nothing that requires the foreman of the grand jury to tell you what they do with
[01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:35.920]  your criminal complaint the only thing you what you have to do is see what they did with it
[01:14:36.480 --> 01:14:43.680]  and you can determine that by going down to the county clerk or the district clerk depending upon
[01:14:43.680 --> 01:14:49.120]  what we're dealing with here and asking to see the grand jury minutes for whatever period of
[01:14:49.120 --> 01:14:54.640]  time you want to see them for because those are those are 100 public record they're required to
[01:14:54.640 --> 01:15:00.960]  show them to you and you can look at everything the grand jury addressed in its session
[01:15:04.080 --> 01:15:09.440]  except for when they were uh deliberated well they don't put that in their grand jury minutes
[01:15:09.440 --> 01:15:14.320]  right the deliberations are 100 secret in private no one's allowed in there but the grand jury
[01:15:14.320 --> 01:15:22.240]  members not even the prosecuting attorney for the state okay but as far as the minutes the
[01:15:22.240 --> 01:15:28.480]  minutes says what business they took up and the business is what indictments and criminal
[01:15:28.480 --> 01:15:35.680]  complaints did they review and that will be in the record and what you sent them may or may not
[01:15:35.680 --> 01:15:43.360]  be there if it's not they haven't addressed it okay i wasn't aware that in the grand jury
[01:15:43.360 --> 01:15:51.040]  minutes would be under following the public information act right well yeah but it i mean
[01:15:51.040 --> 01:15:55.040]  it's completely open public record all you got to do is go down to ask to see them
[01:15:57.280 --> 01:16:01.520]  just go down to the county or district clerk and say i want to see a copy of the grand jury minutes
[01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:11.600]  for these dates okay well i'll do that but uh as far as the original letter i sent
[01:16:11.600 --> 01:16:18.800]  addressed to the foreman and shared for 500 if i never got that response back from the foreman
[01:16:18.800 --> 01:16:24.720]  saying that he got it not that when you say you sent it to him and you didn't get a response back
[01:16:24.720 --> 01:16:31.520]  did you what you saying you sent it certified return receipt requested no that's what i the one
[01:16:31.520 --> 01:16:39.200]  thing i learned is i went in there to insure it for 500 and when you insured 500 you're no longer
[01:16:40.640 --> 01:16:45.360]  allowed to send it certified return and they send it priority mail so you don't get the green card
[01:16:46.880 --> 01:16:50.480]  okay is someone required to sign for it with his priority mail
[01:16:50.480 --> 01:16:56.320]  priority mail i don't know i mean okay well hang on just a second
[01:16:56.320 --> 01:16:58.720]  we'll address this on the other side we'll be right back folks
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:09.440]  it's the 2019 logos radio network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by
[01:17:09.440 --> 01:17:16.160]  central texas gunworks go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win any amount is appreciated
[01:17:16.160 --> 01:17:21.360]  everything helps to keep us on the air from central texas gunworks the grand prize up for
[01:17:21.360 --> 01:17:29.200]  grabs is a spikes tactical ar-15 more prizes and sponsors to be announced every 25 donation is a
[01:17:29.200 --> 01:17:35.760]  chance to win when you purchase randy kelton's ebook legal 101 you get four chances to win
[01:17:35.760 --> 01:17:41.120]  purchase eddie craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win if you've enjoyed the shows on
[01:17:41.120 --> 01:17:47.040]  logos radio network support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming
[01:17:47.040 --> 01:17:53.600]  on talk radio today we also accept bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and remember every 25
[01:17:53.600 --> 01:17:59.520]  donation is a chance to win go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today
[01:18:00.720 --> 01:18:05.280]  are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls letters or even lawsuits
[01:18:05.280 --> 01:18:11.040]  stop debt collectors now with the michael miras proven method michael miras has won six cases in
[01:18:11.040 --> 01:18:16.320]  federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too you'll get step-by-step instructions
[01:18:16.320 --> 01:18:21.600]  in plain english on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes what to do when
[01:18:21.600 --> 01:18:27.120]  contacted by phone mail or court summons how to answer letters and phone calls how to get debt
[01:18:27.120 --> 01:18:32.720]  collectors out of your credit report how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you
[01:18:32.720 --> 01:18:39.040]  to go away the michael miras proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors personal
[01:18:39.040 --> 01:18:44.320]  consultation is available as well for more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:18:44.320 --> 01:18:50.080]  and click on the blue michael miras banner or email michael miras at yahoo.com that's rule
[01:18:50.080 --> 01:18:59.360]  of law radio.com 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
[01:18:59.360 --> 01:19:08.320]  now this is the logos logos radio network
[01:19:29.360 --> 01:19:35.760]  all right folks we are back this is rule of law radio sorry for the slow response there i've got
[01:19:35.760 --> 01:19:41.120]  a new mouse and this joker is ultra sensitive and i'm trying to get used to it here it uh i mean just
[01:19:41.120 --> 01:19:46.160]  even the slightest movement that jumps clean across the screen but i'm trying to get oriented
[01:19:46.160 --> 01:19:55.600]  to it anyway back to adam in texas all right adam please continue yeah so i went and i was going to
[01:19:55.600 --> 01:20:01.760]  try to send it certified returns to your request and ensure 500 let me ask this why are you
[01:20:01.760 --> 01:20:11.200]  insuring it for 500 so when i get any evidence at all or that that's the uh district attorney
[01:20:11.200 --> 01:20:15.520]  intercepted that federal mail that was supposed that was addressed to the former the grand jury
[01:20:15.520 --> 01:20:22.960]  i could go in there and ask for 500 to get the postal inspector down there to uh investigate why
[01:20:22.960 --> 01:20:28.160]  the federal mail never got to its intended recipient well but the same thing except for
[01:20:28.160 --> 01:20:33.680]  the 500 dollar part the same thing would hold true for any mail that is sent return receipt
[01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:42.160]  requested person to person yeah because the only the person it's addressed to could sign for it
[01:20:42.160 --> 01:20:55.280]  yeah so i don't know i guess i'm still waiting to see what happens okay either way continue
[01:20:58.240 --> 01:21:02.720]  the point here that i'm getting at though is there's nothing that requires
[01:21:02.720 --> 01:21:09.440]  a grand jury foreman to respond to any such letter or set of complaints their response
[01:21:09.440 --> 01:21:14.960]  is done through the grand jury proceedings that's it that's the only thing they're there to deal
[01:21:14.960 --> 01:21:19.600]  with they don't have to address whether or not they personally respond to someone that sends
[01:21:19.600 --> 01:21:24.480]  them such a complaint that's not their function and there's no requirement in law that they do it
[01:21:26.320 --> 01:21:30.800]  so you could be waiting in perpetuity for something here that's never going to happen
[01:21:31.520 --> 01:21:36.880]  that's why i say your best bet is to just go look at the grand jury minutes and see what they did or
[01:21:36.880 --> 01:21:46.720]  did not address okay yeah so if i go get the minutes well there's no telling when yeah but
[01:21:46.720 --> 01:21:50.640]  there's no telling how long they would wait to address those criminal criminal complaints that's
[01:21:50.640 --> 01:21:56.560]  true too but you can you can get minutes for every minute they're in session however long that is
[01:21:58.400 --> 01:22:05.280]  well could i say i say i know that say i know the grand jury foreman indirectly
[01:22:05.280 --> 01:22:09.440]  can i find him and show a picture of the letter i said priority mail if they did you ever
[01:22:10.240 --> 01:22:14.160]  as long as you can do it in a way that it doesn't appear to be jury tampering sure
[01:22:15.760 --> 01:22:27.440]  right in other words don't threaten don't lecture don't blame anything about them not responding
[01:22:28.160 --> 01:22:31.840]  just ask them hey did you get a copy of this that i sent to you here's the receipt that shows i
[01:22:31.840 --> 01:22:37.440]  mailed it to you do you remember whether or not you got a copy of this yeah i would just be asking
[01:22:37.440 --> 01:22:48.080]  if he ever received the mail because if he didn't receive the mail then the da intercepted it if he
[01:22:48.080 --> 01:22:52.560]  didn't receive it then you have a valid complaint to the us postal service that someone is
[01:22:52.560 --> 01:23:02.720]  interfering with the delivery of the us mail whether it's insured or not right okay all right
[01:23:02.720 --> 01:23:07.200]  yeah that clears it up a little bit i've just i don't know i'm just experimenting do it i mean
[01:23:07.200 --> 01:23:11.600]  i got really good criminal complaints on public officials but yeah experiment's fine as long as
[01:23:11.600 --> 01:23:19.840]  you can afford it huh i said experimentation is fine as long as you can afford it well a little
[01:23:19.840 --> 01:23:24.160]  priority mail that ain't much money when we're talking it is well you ain't got it
[01:23:27.840 --> 01:23:35.040]  well now i just i got really good you know dead banger criminal criminal complaints on public
[01:23:35.040 --> 01:23:40.960]  officials in several counties and it's just it is really hard to ever get these public servants
[01:23:42.080 --> 01:23:46.400]  you know they don't have to go through the same criminal code of criminal procedure as the accused
[01:23:46.400 --> 01:23:52.320]  we do they just get pop skip pass go and collect their money and keep on moving like nothing ever
[01:23:52.320 --> 01:24:04.000]  happened it seems like to me so i'm just trying to and that's where we've got to change the public
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:08.880]  mindset about what our government can and can't do right now we have too many people thinking
[01:24:08.880 --> 01:24:19.920]  that they can do whatever they want right yeah all right well um well that's all i want to talk
[01:24:19.920 --> 01:24:25.200]  about man i guess i'll let it go for next caller all right well thanks for calling in thank you
[01:24:25.200 --> 01:24:32.800]  eddie yes sir all right now real quick next up all right come on mouse settle down here a little
[01:24:32.800 --> 01:24:41.600]  bit all right bill in texas bill what can we do for you hello eddie hello hello can you hear me
[01:24:42.400 --> 01:24:48.480]  yes sir i can hear you oh all right all right uh hey thanks for taking my call uh really
[01:24:48.480 --> 01:24:55.600]  appreciate you and your program well thank you um we do our best i've got a uh traffic ticket
[01:24:55.600 --> 01:25:02.880]  over in um in one of these counties here in texas and anyhow uh i'll be going to court on the uh
[01:25:03.840 --> 01:25:11.120]  coming up here on the 11th and um anyhow just kind of want to look at what motion
[01:25:11.680 --> 01:25:16.400]  uh i should file and kind of you know what my game plan needs to be what's the charge
[01:25:17.360 --> 01:25:23.280]  but the charge was speeding then go to my legal blog there's a ton of information on speeding
[01:25:23.280 --> 01:25:31.520]  including a motion right there right right uh well i put in uh in the very beginning
[01:25:31.520 --> 01:25:40.240]  at the pre-trial the pre-trial motions hearing i put in the uh i put in a um motion for uh
[01:25:40.240 --> 01:25:46.320]  you know the not not engaged in transportation their challenge of jurisdiction um and all these
[01:25:46.320 --> 01:25:52.880]  things that was uh and anyhow when i got in there they just kind of railroaded it and you know
[01:25:52.880 --> 01:25:58.880]  didn't listen to much of anything and um so you've already filed motions and had a motions hearing
[01:25:59.840 --> 01:26:07.520]  yes sir okay and where did you get the motions you filed oh i had a pretty traffic seminar okay
[01:26:08.480 --> 01:26:12.000]  but you didn't go to the blog and get the latest updated one for the speeding
[01:26:13.280 --> 01:26:19.440]  no sir because there's everything to fight a speeding charge is right there on uh the one
[01:26:19.440 --> 01:26:25.200]  where that is posted there's the affidavit of not engaged in transportation there is a complete
[01:26:25.200 --> 01:26:30.800]  worksheet dealing with exactly what the process is going to be in court and the motion itself to
[01:26:30.800 --> 01:26:36.160]  dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and lack of failure to state an offense because they didn't
[01:26:36.160 --> 01:26:45.360]  state an offense no well they it um do you have a copy of the criminal complaint
[01:26:45.360 --> 01:26:51.440]  yes sir okay where in the criminal complaint does it allege that you collided with another person
[01:26:51.440 --> 01:26:58.080]  or vehicle lawfully entering or already upon the highway oh it doesn't of course then they did not
[01:26:58.080 --> 01:27:10.720]  state a valid complaint oh because under 545.352 or 351 that's a requirement
[01:27:10.720 --> 01:27:17.760]  one that's a requirement the other aspect of it is that there is no such thing in texas
[01:27:17.760 --> 01:27:28.080]  law defined as an offense for speeding there just isn't one and 1.03 of the code of criminal
[01:27:28.080 --> 01:27:33.680]  or the uh penal code specifically says that no one may be prosecuted for an offense that
[01:27:33.680 --> 01:27:39.440]  the law does not specifically define as an offense and nowhere is speeding defined in
[01:27:39.440 --> 01:27:47.200]  texas law as an offense in fact the term speeding and offense is never associated
[01:27:47.200 --> 01:27:52.400]  in the same part of the code ever neither is misdemeanor
[01:27:57.760 --> 01:28:04.000]  yeah it's uh you go into these things and they just they just kind of pretend like you're not
[01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:09.920]  even there well of course they do they go into these this again is we're knowing what the procedure
[01:28:09.920 --> 01:28:15.200]  and what the law is works in your favor to make a record to show that you have an appealable error
[01:28:15.200 --> 01:28:21.920]  at the trial level because the judges are ignoring the actual law in lieu of doing what they want
[01:28:24.160 --> 01:28:29.040]  see we can't file judicial conduct complaints and get these people removed from these offices
[01:28:29.040 --> 01:28:37.360]  without a valid record showing how they have broken the law how they have acted in violation
[01:28:37.360 --> 01:28:44.640]  of the judicial canons the only way to do that is to make a valid record to do that requires you file
[01:28:44.640 --> 01:28:50.080]  the proper written objections the proper written motions that you make the verbal objections and
[01:28:50.080 --> 01:28:56.320]  you know how to make them so that they're part of the record this is how we get rid of this stuff
[01:28:56.320 --> 01:29:01.520]  but until people start learning that and doing that it's it's all a bunch of lost effort
[01:29:04.080 --> 01:29:10.560]  now this uh this court it is a court of record and one of my questions was going to be um
[01:29:12.240 --> 01:29:18.560]  before i go into this trial there was a i mean there was a lot of uh i mean i got a stack of
[01:29:18.560 --> 01:29:24.240]  due process violations that have occurred over here but my question is when i go in there
[01:29:24.240 --> 01:29:33.920]  um to address the to to be able to bring those up in court uh do i have to write that out before and
[01:29:33.920 --> 01:29:38.560]  send it in okay so i hang on let me take this break and i'm going to address that on the other
[01:29:38.560 --> 01:29:44.880]  side both in how you set it and what you should be doing hang on just a minute all right folks
[01:29:44.880 --> 01:29:50.560]  this is rule of law radio we're at the bottom half of the second hour so y'all hang on we got
[01:29:50.560 --> 01:30:04.240]  two segments to go it seems like everywhere you turn nowadays someone wants your name social
[01:30:04.240 --> 01:30:08.960]  security number and date of birth but you should think twice before giving away your personal data
[01:30:08.960 --> 01:30:14.640]  i'm dr catherine albrecht and i'll say more in just a moment google is watching you recording
[01:30:14.640 --> 01:30:19.680]  everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive database of your personal information
[01:30:19.680 --> 01:30:25.040]  that's creepy but it doesn't have to be that way startpage.com is the world's most private
[01:30:25.040 --> 01:30:30.240]  search engine startpage.com doesn't store your ip address make a record of your searches or use
[01:30:30.240 --> 01:30:35.600]  tracking cookies and they're third-party certified if you don't like big brothers spying on you start
[01:30:35.600 --> 01:30:42.080]  over with startpage great search results and total privacy startpage.com the world's most private
[01:30:42.080 --> 01:30:47.520]  search engine forms forms forms they're everywhere but just because a piece of paper asks for
[01:30:47.520 --> 01:30:52.240]  information doesn't mean you have to give it i leave blank spaces on forms all the time or i
[01:30:52.240 --> 01:30:58.160]  write n slash a for not applicable and usually nobody notices or cares i never give my social
[01:30:58.160 --> 01:31:02.960]  security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government
[01:31:02.960 --> 01:31:07.840]  requirement and i won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless i actually want
[01:31:07.840 --> 01:31:12.800]  them to call me and that's pretty rare to preserve our vanishing privacy we need to practice saying
[01:31:12.800 --> 01:31:18.720]  no to random data requests it's like exercising a muscle it gets easier the more you do it
[01:31:18.720 --> 01:31:22.960]  i'm dr catherine albrecht more news and information at catherinealbrecht.com
[01:31:31.760 --> 01:31:37.680]  i lost my son my nephew my uncle my son on september 11th 2001 most people don't know that
[01:31:37.680 --> 01:31:43.680]  a third tower fell on september 11 world trade center seven a 47 story skyscraper was not hit
[01:31:43.680 --> 01:31:49.520]  by a plane although the official explanation is that fire brought down building seven over 1200
[01:31:49.520 --> 01:31:54.000]  architects and engineers looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story bring
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:32:00.720]  justice to my son my uncle my nephew my son go to building what.org why it fell why it matters
[01:32:00.720 --> 01:32:06.880]  and what you can do rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar in today's
[01:32:06.880 --> 01:32:10.640]  america we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free
[01:32:10.640 --> 01:32:14.800]  society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights among those rights are
[01:32:14.800 --> 01:32:18.720]  the right to travel freely from place to place the right to act in our own private capacity and most
[01:32:18.720 --> 01:32:22.960]  importantly the right to due process of law traffic courts afford us the least expensive
[01:32:22.960 --> 01:32:27.360]  opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process former sheriff's
[01:32:27.360 --> 01:32:31.360]  deputy eddie craig in conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the most comprehensive
[01:32:31.360 --> 01:32:35.280]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[01:32:35.280 --> 01:32:39.120]  courts to the rule of law you can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[01:32:39.120 --> 01:32:43.920]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today by ordering now you'll receive a copy of eddie's book
[01:32:43.920 --> 01:32:48.960]  the texas transportation code the law versus the lie video and audio of the original 2009 seminar
[01:32:48.960 --> 01:32:52.880]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material learn how to fight for your
[01:32:52.880 --> 01:32:56.800]  rights with the help of this material from rule of law radio.com order your copy today
[01:32:56.800 --> 01:32:59.840]  and together we can have free society we all want and deserve
[01:32:59.840 --> 01:33:15.760]  you're listening to the logos radio network at logosradionetwork.com
[01:33:30.640 --> 01:33:37.520]  all right folks we are back this is rule of law radio call in number five one two six four six
[01:33:37.520 --> 01:33:43.200]  1984 and we are currently talking with bill in texas all right bill continue
[01:33:44.960 --> 01:33:52.320]  yeah um i was just kind of wanting to know that um well the what it's the first the at the first
[01:33:52.320 --> 01:34:01.760]  primo uh pretrial motions here and the judge had uh entered in a plea of not guilty um because i
[01:34:01.760 --> 01:34:09.040]  declined to plea and um was that before or after you had been served with a copy of the complaint
[01:34:10.640 --> 01:34:16.960]  uh this was after but it was before the day of the trial and before the jury had been
[01:34:16.960 --> 01:34:22.480]  impaneled so okay wait a minute you've already gone to trial no sir
[01:34:24.880 --> 01:34:32.480]  okay no he did it he entered in the plea at the pretrial motion hearing right and so uh
[01:34:33.760 --> 01:34:39.360]  right so i filed a judicial conduct complaint on him the judge ended up recusing himself
[01:34:39.360 --> 01:34:48.080]  and uh they assigned a they had assigned another uh judge to do the case but one of the questions
[01:34:48.080 --> 01:34:58.080]  i had was uh what was that would the uh new judge have to go over all of the motions that i put in
[01:34:58.080 --> 01:35:03.200]  nope but you can file a request if they do you can file a request stating that the original judge in
[01:35:03.200 --> 01:35:08.160]  the case was prejudicial and refused to apply the law of the facts in the case and you would like
[01:35:08.160 --> 01:35:16.800]  the judge to review his findings and rescind his original uh opinion or uh ruling on the uh motions
[01:35:18.240 --> 01:35:25.520]  okay so file a motion for reconsideration and ask the judge to re-review the original judge's
[01:35:25.920 --> 01:35:27.760]  responses to what was in those motions
[01:35:30.160 --> 01:35:35.520]  the the other thing about it is it's been over two years and they're still moving forward with
[01:35:35.520 --> 01:35:44.960]  it even though uh it's been two years from when from the uh the day of the that the citation was
[01:35:44.960 --> 01:35:51.120]  issued okay then they are well beyond the statute of limitations file a new motion demanding
[01:35:51.120 --> 01:35:57.600]  dismissal on two grounds failure to provide a speedy trial and failure to prosecute the offense
[01:35:57.600 --> 01:36:05.120]  okay uh and that uh because the offense is now beyond the statute of limitations to prosecute
[01:36:05.120 --> 01:36:10.800]  all right you never asked for a continuance did you no sir okay then they're screwed
[01:36:12.080 --> 01:36:20.480]  oh yeah i mean now if if my question is why didn't you already know that
[01:36:20.480 --> 01:36:27.440]  i did know that i just i mean i i'll put in the mo i could put in the motion yeah but
[01:36:27.440 --> 01:36:32.480]  you could have put in the motions at five months you didn't have to wait the whole two years
[01:36:32.480 --> 01:36:40.480]  if they had filed the complaint and they had not prosecuted the case by the fifth month
[01:36:40.480 --> 01:36:44.800]  of having filed that complaint they were way beyond the speedy trial limitations
[01:36:44.800 --> 01:36:50.880]  i didn't know that yep and then once they hit two years they're way beyond the statute of limitations
[01:36:56.240 --> 01:37:02.880]  well the the uh i brought that up this is it gets even better so okay wait
[01:37:02.880 --> 01:37:06.400]  before you continue what do you mean by brought it up
[01:37:06.400 --> 01:37:13.520]  well i was summoned i was summoned to come in for a uh another pre-trial motions hearing
[01:37:14.080 --> 01:37:21.600]  it was called a reset or something from the prosecutor and uh the prosecutor sat in there
[01:37:21.600 --> 01:37:27.520]  and took an entire docket of people and granted deferred adjudication dismissed cases
[01:37:28.320 --> 01:37:36.320]  all sorts of things and uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh
[01:37:36.320 --> 01:37:43.120]  of things without a judge present and the same thing same thing with me i uh then you need to
[01:37:43.120 --> 01:37:48.480]  file okay here's what i keep telling people this is exactly the kind of thing i'm talking about
[01:37:49.920 --> 01:37:53.840]  what you should have been doing and i'm saying this for the benefit of everyone not just you
[01:37:55.280 --> 01:37:59.920]  when this kind of thing occurs this is what you should be doing you should be recording
[01:37:59.920 --> 01:38:06.160]  every case number that is called out you should make an before that even begins you should make
[01:38:06.160 --> 01:38:10.480]  a list of all persons present in the courtroom from the side of the state whether it be the
[01:38:10.480 --> 01:38:17.200]  prosecuting attorney the judge the court clerk the bailiff whatever and all those who are not
[01:38:18.160 --> 01:38:26.640]  okay then you have for each and every case that's called who rendered the determination in the case
[01:38:26.640 --> 01:38:34.160]  as to what the judgment was was it the judge was there a trial or was it the prosecutor of his own
[01:38:34.160 --> 01:38:41.280]  volition because the prosecutor now the prosecutor can make agreements about deferred adjudication
[01:38:41.280 --> 01:38:45.840]  etc etc and he can submit those to the court later for a ruling as to whether or not the court agrees
[01:38:45.840 --> 01:38:53.280]  to grant them that's different however from the prosecutor rendering an outcome to the case as a
[01:38:53.280 --> 01:39:02.560]  whole so the question is is is the prosecutor making agreements or is the prosecutor actually
[01:39:02.560 --> 01:39:10.640]  rendering judgments and signing judgment orders that's what you've got to find out and the only
[01:39:10.640 --> 01:39:15.600]  way to do that is to get a copy of those records for each of those cases which is why you need the
[01:39:15.600 --> 01:39:21.920]  case list because if it turns out that's what's happening now you have a separate set of
[01:39:21.920 --> 01:39:29.360]  complaints for each and every case that was called that day including yours right
[01:39:29.360 --> 01:39:42.800]  right yeah it there was that i had i i i i filmed i filmed the whole thing and uh can you hear
[01:39:42.800 --> 01:39:48.320]  everything sure okay then you've got it then you've got what you need to make that record from
[01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:55.680]  right but right now deal with your case if they're beyond two years of the filing of the complaint
[01:39:55.680 --> 01:40:02.640]  and the actual original offense they are way beyond the borders of a speedy trial
[01:40:02.640 --> 01:40:07.760]  they are way beyond the borders of statute of limitations they are way beyond the borders of
[01:40:07.760 --> 01:40:18.560]  due process yeah now make sure that you get court cases in the state of texas on speedy trial in
[01:40:18.560 --> 01:40:26.880]  class c misdemeanor cases make sure they are specific to class c misdemeanor cases
[01:40:26.880 --> 01:40:34.160]  okay okay and that the statute of limitations on class c misdemeanors is two years to prosecute
[01:40:34.160 --> 01:40:39.920]  which the code of criminal procedure specifically says in chapter 45 that the complaint is not
[01:40:39.920 --> 01:40:45.120]  barred from prosecution by the statute of limitations it's not time barred which it now is
[01:40:45.120 --> 01:40:51.280]  so get case law supporting that on all of those psychos in your motions to dismiss and get them
[01:40:51.280 --> 01:40:58.480]  filed or one of your one motion to dismiss but name those as multiple grounds okay
[01:41:00.720 --> 01:41:08.400]  okay um what about as far as not having an not having an information they're not required to
[01:41:08.400 --> 01:41:12.800]  have an information in class c misdemeanors according to the criminal justice system
[01:41:12.800 --> 01:41:16.400]  class c misdemeanors according to the criminal the court of criminal appeals
[01:41:17.200 --> 01:41:20.880]  it's not what they're it's not what the constitution says it's not what the code
[01:41:20.880 --> 01:41:25.360]  of criminal procedure says but it is what the court of criminal appeals has allowed them to
[01:41:25.360 --> 01:41:34.480]  get away with okay yeah that was one question that i had oh what about three if what about
[01:41:34.480 --> 01:41:41.760]  three uh preliminary jury strikes am i am i allowed those well of course you're allowed
[01:41:41.760 --> 01:41:49.040]  those but why do you need them when they can't prosecute the case well that right i mean i'm
[01:41:51.520 --> 01:41:55.200]  right you're splitting hairs on a bald head at this point
[01:41:59.280 --> 01:42:07.920]  yeah uh i mean i need to put these motions in and whatnot uh now what would happen if um
[01:42:07.920 --> 01:42:14.800]  let me ask you this what what would happen if the trial was set outside of the statute of
[01:42:14.800 --> 01:42:23.840]  limitations and i just didn't show up to it would that be and they would don't do that
[01:42:24.640 --> 01:42:31.360]  okay don't give them anything to use against you that's that's ignorant you don't have to do it so
[01:42:31.360 --> 01:42:41.040]  don't okay all right well yeah well then i guess i'll just follow these i'll just follow these
[01:42:41.040 --> 01:42:47.680]  motions uh motion for dismiss i'll state the case law for classy misdemeanors and uh submit that and
[01:42:47.680 --> 01:42:55.680]  get it in good that would be the way to go anyway yes sir well eddie thank you so much for your time
[01:42:55.680 --> 01:43:02.480]  yes sir and you have a good evening and thanks for calling yes sir bye bye bye all right we've got
[01:43:02.480 --> 01:43:07.520]  less than a minute before the next break so i'm going to hold off to take the next caller
[01:43:07.520 --> 01:43:13.040]  uh and then we will get from there to the end of the show so hopefully i'll be able to finish these
[01:43:13.040 --> 01:43:17.280]  up and get the other callers that are up on the board in the next 15 minutes once we return from
[01:43:17.280 --> 01:43:24.480]  the upcoming break now folks i want you to understand the process that is being built
[01:43:24.480 --> 01:43:33.600]  and used against us is of our own making one by not being educated in it two by not being educated
[01:43:33.600 --> 01:43:42.080]  in our rights as to why it is invalid to be used against us in the first place and because it
[01:43:42.080 --> 01:43:50.240]  violates every single thing about rights and liberty that was set up for us to live by and
[01:43:50.240 --> 01:43:56.480]  by and we don't know it because of the first two rules our first two violations anyhow y'all hang
[01:43:56.480 --> 01:44:04.560]  on and we will be right back through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved
[01:44:04.560 --> 01:44:09.520]  except in the area of nutrition people feed their pets better than they feed themselves
[01:44:09.520 --> 01:44:15.360]  and it's time we changed all that our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic
[01:44:15.360 --> 01:44:21.360]  environment is good nutrition in a world where natural foods have been irradiated adulterated
[01:44:21.360 --> 01:44:27.360]  and mutilated younggevity can provide the nutrients you need logos radio network gets
[01:44:27.360 --> 01:44:32.960]  many requests to endorse all sorts of products most of which we reject we have come to trust
[01:44:32.960 --> 01:44:39.120]  younggevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with alex jones ben fuchs
[01:44:39.120 --> 01:44:45.840]  and many others when you order from logos radio network.com your health will improve as you help
[01:44:45.840 --> 01:44:52.400]  support quality radio as you realize the benefits of younggevity you may want to join us as a
[01:44:52.400 --> 01:44:58.640]  distributor you can experience improved health help your friends and family and increase your income
[01:44:59.200 --> 01:45:06.160]  order now are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit win your case without an attorney
[01:45:06.160 --> 01:45:12.560]  with jurisdictionary the affordable easy to understand 4cd course that will show you how
[01:45:12.560 --> 01:45:20.160]  in 24 hours step by step if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer should be doing if you don't have
[01:45:20.160 --> 01:45:26.240]  a lawyer know what you should do for yourself thousands have won with our step-by-step course
[01:45:26.240 --> 01:45:33.440]  and now you can too jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:45:33.440 --> 01:45:39.440]  experience even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about
[01:45:39.440 --> 01:45:45.760]  the principles and practices that control our american courts you'll receive our audio classroom
[01:45:45.760 --> 01:45:53.600]  video seminar tutorials forms for civil cases pro se tactics and much more please visit rule
[01:45:53.600 --> 01:46:05.360]  of law radio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EASY
[01:46:23.600 --> 01:46:27.360]  to the bone
[01:46:39.120 --> 01:46:45.360]  i broke a thousand hearts before i met you i break a thousand more baby
[01:46:45.360 --> 01:46:54.320]  before i am through i want to be yours pretty baby yours and yours alone i'm here to tell you
[01:46:57.920 --> 01:47:04.320]  all right folks we are back this is rule of law radio we are now in the last segment of our show
[01:47:05.120 --> 01:47:11.440]  and we have one caller left up on the board and it is john in new york john what can we do for you
[01:47:11.440 --> 01:47:20.880]  um well hello hi ran uh yeah hi uh hi eddie sorry about that um now that i got the names right with
[01:47:20.880 --> 01:47:27.440]  your help and randy's help we've gotten the judicial commission in new york state to start
[01:47:27.440 --> 01:47:37.360]  breathing down the neck of one of the very corrupt judges and what i'd like to know is now we need to
[01:47:37.360 --> 01:47:42.960]  file a conduct complaint against the officers and there's a couple of real good serious charges
[01:47:42.960 --> 01:47:49.200]  against them there's two charges of perjury which i can prove well perjury is not a conduct complaint
[01:47:49.200 --> 01:47:55.840]  perjury is a criminal right well yeah but i still want to file one anyway um to file the criminal
[01:47:55.840 --> 01:48:03.920]  complaint i more or less know what to do right now but first i can't find who certifies police
[01:48:03.920 --> 01:48:09.360]  officers because that's who i have to find what difference does it make who certifies them as
[01:48:09.360 --> 01:48:15.840]  irrelevant their department or their agency if it's a state agency is who's responsible for
[01:48:15.840 --> 01:48:23.280]  reprimands and everything else relating to that officer well if it's uh if it's a local village
[01:48:23.280 --> 01:48:28.720]  cop or city cop you file you mean you file a conduct complaint with the village of the city
[01:48:28.720 --> 01:48:33.200]  with the internal affairs department of the police department yeah now you can file criminal
[01:48:33.200 --> 01:48:40.560]  complaints with the prosecuting attorney for that county or district but as far as going after the
[01:48:40.560 --> 01:48:45.840]  police officer directly you file it with the internal affairs department of that department
[01:48:45.840 --> 01:48:52.720]  now if the offense is egregious enough and you can show that their agency is known for covering
[01:48:52.720 --> 01:48:59.760]  up such activities you can also send one directly to the department of justice as well as the united
[01:48:59.760 --> 01:49:07.360]  states attorney's office but sending one to the agency that certifies them isn't going to get you
[01:49:07.360 --> 01:49:13.280]  anywhere because the agency that certifies law enforcement officers can do absolutely
[01:49:13.280 --> 01:49:19.120]  nothing to revoke said certification without action from their department or their agency
[01:49:21.280 --> 01:49:27.680]  uh question you mean when you file if you were to file with this agency that's certified
[01:49:27.680 --> 01:49:33.920]  will they file that information no they will not i just said insurance for instance with the intro
[01:49:33.920 --> 01:49:39.360]  they will not oh okay got it okay now i understand okay i thought maybe they filed it with the
[01:49:39.360 --> 01:49:45.120]  insurance they once they certify the officer all they're certifying is that officer has completed
[01:49:45.120 --> 01:49:50.240]  the required training to be certified after that they have no control over the officer ever
[01:49:51.520 --> 01:49:56.160]  and that includes reporting to the insurance company correct okay gotcha all right
[01:49:56.160 --> 01:50:05.120]  gotcha all right okay um question no then file with the district attorney is that the idea
[01:50:06.560 --> 01:50:11.200]  if it's a criminal complaint yes if it's a professional complaint you file it with internal
[01:50:11.200 --> 01:50:16.880]  affairs but you can file both with internal affairs and they're supposed to investigate them
[01:50:16.880 --> 01:50:22.480]  but just as a safeguard you need to file the criminal complaints with as many different people
[01:50:22.480 --> 01:50:28.480]  as possible that's responsible for acting on them okay now a verified complaint should it be
[01:50:28.480 --> 01:50:34.720]  a verified complaint well what good is it if no one signs it well no no what i'm saying is before
[01:50:34.720 --> 01:50:43.360]  a notary public verified is simply that it is verified by someone authorized to administer o's
[01:50:43.360 --> 01:50:48.160]  upon a document yeah notary public so a notary would qualify for that yes
[01:50:48.160 --> 01:50:54.720]  okay so you're listening and if the state if the requirement is that for a complaint to be valid
[01:50:54.720 --> 01:51:00.800]  it must be a verified complaint then the notary the notary is sort of mandatory isn't it yeah
[01:51:00.800 --> 01:51:06.960]  gotcha all right so i got that right all right now next now that we covered that real quick
[01:51:07.680 --> 01:51:12.480]  are i heard you talking about this earlier this evening you mentioned somebody mentioned license
[01:51:12.480 --> 01:51:19.680]  plates is a license plate necessary in any of the states to have it on your car well that's
[01:51:19.680 --> 01:51:24.960]  sort of a loaded question it it's like the income tax is anyone required to pay income tax the
[01:51:24.960 --> 01:51:33.600]  answer is yes some people actually are right okay all right whom would be required to have a plate
[01:51:33.600 --> 01:51:41.360]  commercial driver and not a private again it depends upon the context of what they're in
[01:51:41.360 --> 01:51:47.440]  what they're in there is no such thing as a private driver when you're talking about
[01:51:47.440 --> 01:51:55.520]  transportation law except in the case of it being a chauffeur who is required to be licensed
[01:51:57.040 --> 01:52:03.840]  see legal vernacular is very important when you start arguing over terminology
[01:52:03.840 --> 01:52:08.800]  and using terms you have not defined you're setting yourself up for failure
[01:52:08.800 --> 01:52:14.400]  so when you say a private driver are we talking about a chauffeur or are we talking about some
[01:52:14.400 --> 01:52:18.800]  soccer mom going to and from the grocery store or taking the kids to school or whatever
[01:52:19.920 --> 01:52:28.240]  a private traveler going to the grocery store that's correct okay then no they are not under
[01:52:28.240 --> 01:52:36.720]  a historical american law required to have any such license the question now is are the states
[01:52:36.720 --> 01:52:43.040]  are the states attempting to enforce the laws in a manner other than that to include persons and
[01:52:43.040 --> 01:52:49.680]  property within them that the legislature never intended nor could constitutionally require
[01:52:49.680 --> 01:52:59.280]  and the answer to that question is also yes so if somebody gets arrested get the ticket for driving
[01:52:59.280 --> 01:53:09.520]  without place how would you defend against that that that charge it depends on what state i'm in
[01:53:09.520 --> 01:53:18.000]  and what the law says about it all right okay how i would do it in texas is not going to do
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:23.440]  any good to explain to you for new york right okay how would you do it in texas
[01:53:23.440 --> 01:53:30.880]  in texas in texas i would show where the texas transportation code is limited in its application
[01:53:30.880 --> 01:53:37.760]  to a specific class of persons who are operating under commercial aspects of transportation and
[01:53:37.760 --> 01:53:43.280]  then i would use chapters 311 and 312 of the texas government code to show why the court is required
[01:53:43.280 --> 01:53:49.040]  to interpret the term transportation in the following manner and then i would also show
[01:53:49.040 --> 01:53:53.760]  that texas law in regards to the texas transportation code is foundationally
[01:53:53.760 --> 01:54:01.680]  established upon title 49 of the united states code and thus involves federal law as under the
[01:54:01.680 --> 01:54:08.640]  supremacy clause as federal law is limited to a commercial application of said law the state law
[01:54:08.640 --> 01:54:14.720]  is limited to said commercial application as well and cannot extend the subject or object of the law
[01:54:14.720 --> 01:54:22.560]  beyond those boundaries but that requires a ton of public records to be in your possession to
[01:54:22.560 --> 01:54:28.320]  submit as evidence in support of the argument most of which includes federal funds allocated to the
[01:54:28.320 --> 01:54:33.840]  state for the purpose of enforcing those transportation schemes there's also the texas
[01:54:33.840 --> 01:54:39.840]  administrative code which clearly states that the department of public safety is the law enforcement
[01:54:39.840 --> 01:54:45.760]  agency responsible for every aspect of enforcement under the transportation code when it comes to
[01:54:45.760 --> 01:54:52.400]  licensing and public safety and financial responsibility and under that administrative
[01:54:52.400 --> 01:54:57.440]  code it specifically limits the mission of the department of public safety to commercial and for
[01:54:57.440 --> 01:55:05.520]  higher traffic and then it specifically states the types of programs they will use to facilitate
[01:55:05.520 --> 01:55:12.720]  that mission which specifically says licensing uh financial responsibility and public safety
[01:55:15.280 --> 01:55:19.520]  okay i i i begin to see exactly what you're saying got it all right
[01:55:21.920 --> 01:55:30.800]  sounds good um yeah with yours and randy's help we've got that judge and whether or not they throw
[01:55:30.800 --> 01:55:39.040]  him off the bench or not remains to be seen but in the meantime with everybody's help with yours
[01:55:39.040 --> 01:55:45.600]  and randy's help we've got the commission to come breathe down his neck and you should have seen
[01:55:46.880 --> 01:55:53.040]  the courtroom when the commission was in there the judge was very aware of
[01:55:54.160 --> 01:56:00.000]  and he saw faces that he saw a face in there he didn't know and right away he can tell their
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:04.400]  demeanor the way they're sitting there and they got a pad of paper and a pencil and they're
[01:56:04.400 --> 01:56:12.480]  writing and i'm sure he figured it out and everything he did was picture perfect that night
[01:56:12.480 --> 01:56:21.920]  in court and he was just as polite as could be but i don't think it's going to help him any anyhow
[01:56:22.640 --> 01:56:29.120]  thank you again thanks for all your help and your patience because law is not my thing medicine
[01:56:29.120 --> 01:56:35.840]  it's a good thing that i don't do medicine like i do law it really be in trouble anyway all right
[01:56:35.840 --> 01:56:43.120]  well thank good luck thank you very much have a good night you too bye-bye all right now the
[01:56:43.120 --> 01:56:48.800]  problem is i've got two minutes here and i've only got a minute of that before the music's
[01:56:48.800 --> 01:56:52.400]  going to start so brett i don't know what you got but let's see how quick you can get it out
[01:56:52.400 --> 01:56:58.000]  well good evening eddie it is a quick question okay i tuned in a little while ago and i heard
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:06.160]  you say that the court of appeals upholds that the information is not necessary in the class c
[01:57:06.160 --> 01:57:12.720]  misdemeanor and boy i'm tired of them doing that to us i've been fighting it and i would love to
[01:57:12.720 --> 01:57:19.600]  know which court of appeals and if you can point me to it because i'm fighting them well you're
[01:57:19.600 --> 01:57:24.080]  going to have to fight them because it's the texas court of criminal appeals the supreme court on the
[01:57:24.080 --> 01:57:34.080]  criminal side can you point me to a ruling about that that's recent well it doesn't have to be
[01:57:34.080 --> 01:57:37.760]  recent it's going to cite the original case precedent whatever it is all you got to do is
[01:57:37.760 --> 01:57:45.680]  find the original case well i've been seeing a bunch of they've got han and shindy and they've
[01:57:45.680 --> 01:57:51.840]  got a bunch of them that the lawyers like to point out but they're all referencing this pre-1990
[01:57:51.840 --> 01:57:59.040]  go to my legal blog i put an article up there dealing with this subject and i and i even cite
[01:57:59.040 --> 01:58:04.400]  all of the original cases i did a white paper on it and posted it up on the legal blog and then it
[01:58:04.400 --> 01:58:10.800]  is all the cases they based that ruling or have based that original ruling on ever since
[01:58:10.800 --> 01:58:15.600]  and it was faulty from the very beginning the judge that rendered that opinion absolutely
[01:58:15.600 --> 01:58:22.480]  ignored the law in every possible respect when he made it was that rose no i don't think so and it
[01:58:22.480 --> 01:58:30.720]  was quite a while ago believe it or not all right man all right but anyhow if you got the seminar
[01:58:30.720 --> 01:58:34.880]  material it's in the case law research in the organized case folder you just got to find it
[01:58:34.880 --> 01:58:40.480]  okay okay thank you yes sir all right folks this has been the monday night rule of law radio show
[01:58:40.480 --> 01:58:44.320]  with your host danny craig i want to thank you all for listening y'all have a great week good night
[01:58:44.320 --> 01:58:52.160]  and god bless bibles for america is offering absolutely free a unique study bible called
[01:58:52.160 --> 01:58:57.360]  the new testament recovery version the new testament recovery version has over 9 000
[01:58:57.360 --> 01:59:03.120]  footnotes that explain what the bible says verse by verse and the new testament recovery version
[01:59:03.120 --> 01:59:09.600]  of the bible says verse by verse helping you to know god and to know the meaning of life order
[01:59:09.600 --> 01:59:18.960]  your free copy today from bibles for america call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online
[01:59:18.960 --> 01:59:27.040]  at bfa.org this translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13 000 cross references
[01:59:27.040 --> 01:59:32.800]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the bible this is truly a bible you can
[01:59:32.800 --> 01:59:37.920]  find it to get your free copy of the new testament recovery version call us toll free
[01:59:37.920 --> 01:59:49.840]  at 888-551-0102 that's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org
[01:59:49.840 --> 02:00:01.520]  looking for some truth you found it logosradionetwork.com