[00:11.760 --> 00:17.320]  to Iraq and told US troops there is still a lot of work to do.
[00:17.320 --> 00:22.400]  Journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, famous for throwing his shoes at George Bush, had his
[00:22.400 --> 00:25.460]  prison sentence reduced to one year.
[00:25.460 --> 00:30.680]  In Afghanistan Tuesday, a Romanian officer was killed in a roadside blast. On Monday
[00:30.680 --> 00:34.640]  rockets killed a Dutch soldier and wounded five others.
[00:34.640 --> 00:40.040]  In London, England, police clashed with thousands of Tamils as they lay siege to parliament.
[00:40.040 --> 00:45.160]  Protesters flying the Tamil Tiger's flag threatened to leap en masse from Westminster
[00:45.160 --> 00:49.040]  Bridge if they were not allowed to speak to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
[00:49.040 --> 00:55.040]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INEN World Report.
[00:55.040 --> 01:01.120]  Peru's former president, Alberto Fujimori, has been jailed for 25 years after being found
[01:01.120 --> 01:06.560]  guilty of crimes against humanity and other charges. Fujimori, who said he would appeal
[01:06.560 --> 01:13.440]  the verdict, was found to have ordered massacres and kidnappings during the 1990s dirty war
[01:13.440 --> 01:18.760]  against the Shining Path rebel group. The former president, already serving a six-year
[01:18.760 --> 01:24.520]  term for abuse of power, was sentenced after the verdict was read to a packed courtroom
[01:24.520 --> 01:27.400]  in Lima, the capital, Tuesday.
[01:27.400 --> 01:33.480]  Maria McFarland, a senior Americas researcher at Human Rights Watch, said after years of
[01:33.480 --> 01:40.480]  evading justice, Fujimori is finally being held to account for some of his crimes. Fujimori
[01:40.480 --> 01:46.960]  could still be pardoned by Alan Garcia, the current Peruvian president, if he loses his
[01:46.960 --> 01:52.240]  appeal. Fujimori's jail sentence marks the first time a democratically elected Latin
[01:52.240 --> 01:56.720]  American leader has been found guilty of rights abuses.
[01:56.720 --> 02:02.400]  As Vancouver, British Columbia, prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, a new reality
[02:02.400 --> 02:08.520]  has taken hold. Canada's major west coast port, once described by The Economist as the
[02:08.520 --> 02:15.040]  most liveable city in the world, is now the battlefield in a war between drug gangs. Vancouver's
[02:15.040 --> 02:21.440]  mayor, Gregor Robertson, confessed police are fighting a losing battle. Since mid-January,
[02:21.440 --> 02:27.580]  the city has recorded 50 gang-related shootings, 18 of them fatal. Illegal drugs are now the
[02:27.580 --> 02:33.960]  third largest industry in the province, whose mild climate and well-educated horticulturalists
[02:33.960 --> 02:40.520]  has led to a supply of a premium brand of cannabis called BC Bud. The drug's superior
[02:40.520 --> 02:46.280]  quality also found favor with customers in the U.S., encouraging an imaginative core
[02:46.280 --> 02:52.880]  of smugglers. One enterprising crew emulated World War II prisoners digging a 100-yard
[02:52.880 --> 03:18.840]  tunnel under the U.S. border.
[03:22.880 --> 03:44.760]  Bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Bad boys, bad boys,
[03:44.760 --> 03:58.040]  whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha
[03:58.040 --> 03:59.040]  gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? When you were eight and you had bad
[03:59.040 --> 04:00.040]  dreams...
[04:00.040 --> 04:01.840]  All right, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you? Randy Kelton and Deborah
[04:01.840 --> 04:10.280]  Stevens and our special guest this evening, attorney Brian Michaels out of Oregon. We
[04:10.280 --> 04:17.120]  had him on the show a while back several months ago when we were still on WTPRN, attorney
[04:17.120 --> 04:23.240]  representing individuals from the Rainbow Gathering. I had the pleasure of meeting Brian
[04:23.240 --> 04:30.120]  at the Rainbow this past year in Wyoming. Had a wonderful time. And he's been fighting
[04:30.120 --> 04:35.800]  for people's rights for a long time, unlike most attorneys. And Brian, thank you so much
[04:35.800 --> 04:39.320]  for joining us this evening. Welcome to the show.
[04:39.320 --> 04:40.920]  Pleasure to be here. Thanks for having us.
[04:40.920 --> 04:46.920]  And you also have another associate with you, Mary Ann Dugan. Is that correct?
[04:46.920 --> 04:47.920]  Yep.
[04:47.920 --> 04:49.840]  That's excellent. That's excellent.
[04:49.840 --> 04:54.840]  She does a lot of work like this with me and she's pretty on the ball. Same. I think she
[04:54.840 --> 04:58.080]  has to say, she'll throw in and it'll be well worth hearing.
[04:58.080 --> 05:05.820]  Excellent. Okay. Well, what I wanted to start off tonight with was discussing this report
[05:05.820 --> 05:11.640]  that's been filed with the inspector general, apparently by the assistant secretary of the
[05:11.640 --> 05:13.200]  forestry. Is that correct?
[05:13.200 --> 05:17.880]  Yeah. The forest services is one of the divisions of the department of agriculture and he's
[05:17.880 --> 05:26.400]  the undersecretary to the secretary of the forest service. His name is Mark Ray. One
[05:26.400 --> 05:32.720]  of his tasks happens to be the, it falls on him, these Rainbow Gatherings and forest service
[05:32.720 --> 05:35.120]  land because there was a current forest service land.
[05:35.120 --> 05:39.920]  Is he part of this task management, incident management team?
[05:39.920 --> 05:48.600]  Well, it gets a little complicated in there. Like most federal agencies over the last 10
[05:48.600 --> 05:56.040]  to 20 years, they have developed an independent law enforcement branch, which originally in
[05:56.040 --> 06:02.640]  most agencies began as a subsidiary of the federal agency, in this case, the forest service
[06:02.640 --> 06:08.800]  and in true form to all other federal agencies, the law enforcement branch demanded to be
[06:08.800 --> 06:15.720]  considered a independent branch. And so the, what we call the resource folks have very
[06:15.720 --> 06:22.320]  little control over what the law enforcement do because no longer is it the resource people
[06:22.320 --> 06:27.560]  and people like Mark Ray who command what law enforcement does. They have very, very
[06:27.560 --> 06:32.960]  little control, no control and very little influence might be a better way to put it.
[06:32.960 --> 06:40.360]  But Mr. Ray, who has been to several gatherings and tries to work with us in our endless persecution
[06:40.360 --> 06:47.340]  by law enforcement, has in the last two years of his administration, because as you know,
[06:47.340 --> 06:54.240]  he was a Bush appointee and now that Bush administration is out of office, we do not
[06:54.240 --> 07:02.880]  yet have an Obama replacement. So we don't know who is going to be in Mr. Ray's position.
[07:02.880 --> 07:11.280]  But the incident command team is run by the law enforcement branch and they call the shots
[07:11.280 --> 07:18.320]  for themselves. Mr. Ray, to his credit, in the last two years of the gathering under
[07:18.320 --> 07:25.920]  his administration, has decided that the Rainbow Gatherings do not need a permit requirement.
[07:25.920 --> 07:33.360]  Their unique, our unique way of gathering and our unique way of being a, on the land
[07:33.360 --> 07:41.080]  does not lend itself to a permit type of authorization. Well, it's about time. It's about time. And
[07:41.080 --> 07:46.480]  so that is one of the ways he was able to slow law enforcement down because they no
[07:46.480 --> 07:53.720]  longer had this useless, artificial tool which they have used for so long, no permit, therefore
[07:53.720 --> 07:57.840]  we can go in and beat up anyone we want and take anybody's car and ticket anyone we want
[07:57.840 --> 08:03.200]  and do almost anything we want because it's an illegal gathering. And so the last two
[08:03.200 --> 08:09.040]  years it was a legal gathering. So it took a lot of the hot air out of the law enforcement
[08:09.040 --> 08:17.440]  balloon in whatever way Mr. Ray could. Last year, as you know, because you were there,
[08:17.440 --> 08:24.760]  law enforcement chose to do an armed invasion into the gathering, which culminated in the
[08:24.760 --> 08:32.000]  use of pepper balls and a paintball gun rapid fire at Kidd Village.
[08:32.000 --> 08:39.640]  Yeah, it was awful. It was, it was really, really bad. I interviewed people who had just
[08:39.640 --> 08:45.280]  been shot. I brought a satellite phone out there and, and I was doing the show remote
[08:45.280 --> 08:52.200]  that night and we were interviewing Rob. And in the middle of Rob's interview, he's, he
[08:52.200 --> 08:58.040]  heard on his scanner that there was a rioting and tear gas at Kidd village and calling for
[08:58.040 --> 09:03.040]  medical backup and all this stuff. And so we ran down there, which is about two and
[09:03.040 --> 09:07.800]  a half miles away from where we were at the time. And, and I got everybody's names, people
[09:07.800 --> 09:11.400]  that were shot and everything. And, and we brought a lot of them on the air.
[09:11.400 --> 09:15.920]  Most of the people shot were shot in the back. Shot in the back. I saw the winds. I've got
[09:15.920 --> 09:20.760]  pictures. I have it on video, everything. Exactly. Because we, we've trained folks over
[09:20.760 --> 09:26.840]  the years in a situation like that. Keep your head together, put your back to the police
[09:26.840 --> 09:32.240]  and try to keep the people away. So we have to prevent what we call a police riot. And
[09:32.240 --> 09:36.760]  those people who were doing that were the people who got shot. That's why they were
[09:36.760 --> 09:40.240]  shot in the back. And that's why the bullets were able to hit them because they were the
[09:40.240 --> 09:43.720]  closest people to the police. Yeah. The police were obviously trying to incite
[09:43.720 --> 09:48.720]  a riot. There's no question about it. And they were, a lot of kids got sick. A lot of
[09:48.720 --> 09:53.800]  kids got sprayed from the pepper balls, hitting the ground and spray going up. It was just,
[09:53.800 --> 09:58.560]  it was just nuts. And there's several videos. People, you know, in this day and age, everyone's
[09:58.560 --> 10:03.560]  got a video camera in their camera. I mean, in their cell phone. Right. So there's a lot
[10:03.560 --> 10:09.720]  of these videos on the, uh, YouTube, which there's several different ways that you can
[10:09.720 --> 10:15.520]  access them. One is kiddie village and one is kid village on the rainbow. And you can
[10:15.520 --> 10:23.360]  get a good idea of what happened. Um, and so less than a week, I think two days later,
[10:23.360 --> 10:32.680]  this was July 3rd. Yep. I think two days later, Mark Ray, uh, become aware of all of this,
[10:32.680 --> 10:37.760]  filed a complaint with the inspector general of the United States government. Wow. Asking
[10:37.760 --> 10:45.200]  the inspector general to look into the actions of forest service law enforcement. Um, that's
[10:45.200 --> 10:51.080]  incredible. It is quite remarkable. And of course we have, um, you know, garnered our
[10:51.080 --> 10:58.080]  resources to assist in this investigation and whatever way we can. Um, and you know,
[10:58.080 --> 11:01.440]  giving the videos of course that are on YouTube and of course some videos that didn't make
[11:01.440 --> 11:07.560]  it to YouTube and some, uh, witness statements and of that nature. And we have dozens of
[11:07.560 --> 11:13.280]  these. So he asked the inspector general to investigate into his own department. Correct.
[11:13.280 --> 11:19.160]  Wow. Well, that was actually a pretty smart move on his part because it takes the onus
[11:19.160 --> 11:24.960]  off of him as respondent superior. Well, we don't want to go anywhere near there, but
[11:24.960 --> 11:31.880]  what he, what I think he did was he, um, he realized that he trying to do the right thing
[11:31.880 --> 11:38.480]  as we have for decades with these law enforcement folks, he was getting resistance, which was
[11:38.480 --> 11:44.980]  evidently a very prejudicial resistance. It wasn't really a, you know, what you might
[11:44.980 --> 11:51.040]  call the public safety resistance. This was a sheriff bull Connor resistance. And I think
[11:51.040 --> 11:58.280]  it really upset him that, uh, realizing that law enforcement really is just dead set, prejudicially
[11:58.280 --> 12:05.680]  persecuting the gatherings. And so what they did in response to law enforcement, I have
[12:05.680 --> 12:09.520]  two years of no, no permit and they wanted to put an end to that. So they created this
[12:09.520 --> 12:17.720]  riot as a strategical move to prove the need for a permit. And Mr Ray being the smart and
[12:17.720 --> 12:24.760]  unwavering person that he is said, well, I'll meet you and double your bet. I'll file against
[12:24.760 --> 12:30.280]  the inspector general cause I think you violated these people's civil rights. Wow. Yeah. I
[12:30.280 --> 12:36.240]  mean it's just, I think it's just somebody doing the right thing with their best political
[12:36.240 --> 12:42.840]  savvy that they could muster because they wanted gatherings to be peaceful. Yeah, absolutely.
[12:42.840 --> 12:46.280]  And, and it, and the only time I've ever seen any trouble there, cause I've been going for
[12:46.280 --> 12:51.040]  years is when law enforcement starts to get involved. The only time I've ever seen any
[12:51.040 --> 12:59.840]  problems really is, is when the forestry service starts making trouble. You couldn't have said
[12:59.840 --> 13:06.200]  it better. I mean, you know, that's why, that's why we have been able to, for decades now,
[13:06.200 --> 13:11.480]  we have trained ourselves and learned early on how to prevent these police riots. It's
[13:11.480 --> 13:16.280]  only because we've seen them and we've developed a method to do it. And again, that's why the
[13:16.280 --> 13:20.880]  people who were hit with these pepper ball were hit in the back. Right. Cause they were
[13:20.880 --> 13:23.960]  closest people to the police. They had to back to the police and they were trying to
[13:23.960 --> 13:28.460]  keep people away to prevent what would have been a police riot. And as you may or may
[13:28.460 --> 13:34.240]  not know, there are several, there's a video and several witnesses who saw dozens of law
[13:34.240 --> 13:38.640]  enforcement vehicles at the end of the trail that the law enforcement was backing up on.
[13:38.640 --> 13:45.600]  And they had been there for quite some time. So which is an indication of they had, they
[13:45.600 --> 13:51.560]  had wanted, they had wanted to stage a police riot and call these people in as reinforcements
[13:51.560 --> 13:56.640]  and just really go at it. Yeah. That was the night of July 3rd. That was,
[13:56.640 --> 14:02.600]  that was that evening. And I remember getting the word right as the show was ending, uh,
[14:02.600 --> 14:09.560]  that they were planning on an invasion that night and yanking everyone out of their tents.
[14:09.560 --> 14:16.040]  And fortunately it didn't happen. And Randy called the FBI. He called the FBI that night
[14:16.040 --> 14:20.780]  and said, you better see what's going on. And he called the sheriff too. He said, these
[14:20.780 --> 14:27.240]  guys are going to go in there and kill people. Had a shouting match with the FBI agent. And
[14:27.240 --> 14:32.240]  he didn't know that I had him on the air. That's how the show started out that night.
[14:32.240 --> 14:39.720]  I must've made for great radio. Oh, it was wonderful radio. I got to crawl
[14:39.720 --> 14:45.920]  down this agent's throat and tell him if someone, he said, that's not my business. Well, if
[14:45.920 --> 14:51.320]  someone dies out there, I assure you, I will make it your business. And it wasn't long
[14:51.320 --> 14:58.160]  after that. We got word that these guys had pulled out and, and I got to tell him that,
[14:58.160 --> 15:03.600]  that Deborah was out there with a satellite phone and we had lots of videos, everybody
[15:03.600 --> 15:09.800]  videoing it. So I was hoping they got the word down that you try, this is going to go
[15:09.800 --> 15:16.240]  bad for you. Yeah. It's going to go South real fast. Well, they, um, they didn't get
[15:16.240 --> 15:21.920]  the riot in the full grandeur that they wanted. And, and for all their efforts, they are now
[15:21.920 --> 15:27.160]  being inspected by the inspector general investigated by the inspector general. And there's been
[15:27.160 --> 15:34.200]  an inspector assigned to this situation. What is the status of, of the inspector general
[15:34.200 --> 15:41.800]  investigating into this situation? As far as I know, it is ongoing. Wow. Um, we have
[15:41.800 --> 15:48.480]  not heard back. Now the ACLU of Wyoming did an investigation as well. Um, because in classic
[15:48.480 --> 15:54.720]  rainbow serendipity, one of the people that were shot by these things, you know, incidentally,
[15:54.720 --> 15:59.080]  not shot in the back, but just shot because they were just shooting randomly. Right. Was
[15:59.080 --> 16:08.120]  a local reporter wrote a scathing article about how this all came to pass. Yes. And
[16:08.120 --> 16:14.440]  so other news organizations located in Wyoming did similar stories or did stories and send
[16:14.440 --> 16:19.920]  people in and interview people. And so the ACLU decided that for Wyoming's sake, they
[16:19.920 --> 16:24.720]  were going to investigate this. Now, you know, bear in mind that the ACLU may be considered
[16:24.720 --> 16:29.840]  left of center and rainbow may be considered left of center. And even if you accept those
[16:29.840 --> 16:38.920]  assumptions, they really have no, um, loyalty to us. We go from state to state. You know,
[16:38.920 --> 16:43.400]  they have to live in Wyoming, uh, before and after we're there and they're gone somewhere
[16:43.400 --> 16:48.640]  else. So they have no real association. Okay, Brian, hold on, hold on one second. We're
[16:48.640 --> 16:52.480]  going to break. We're going to talk about the ACLU investigation on the other side of
[16:52.480 --> 16:56.280]  the break. This is a rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens with Brian Michaels. We'll
[16:56.280 --> 16:58.280]  be right back.
[16:58.280 --> 17:05.960]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk has a 100% track record
[17:05.960 --> 17:12.720]  of returning profits is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates is publicly
[17:12.720 --> 17:17.760]  traded and SCC regulated. If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking
[17:17.760 --> 17:23.300]  for in an investment, then life settlements is the investment for you. Our annual rate
[17:23.300 --> 17:30.400]  of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years. Our investments are insurance and banking
[17:30.400 --> 17:36.640]  commission regulated. Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies. Even qualified
[17:36.640 --> 17:43.040]  retirement plans such as 401ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer. We charge absolutely
[17:43.040 --> 17:51.280]  no commissions. 100% of your investment goes to work for you. Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com
[17:51.280 --> 18:14.080]  or call Bill Shober at 817-975-2431. That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:14.080 --> 18:25.280]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[18:25.280 --> 18:36.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[18:36.880 --> 18:46.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[18:46.880 --> 18:56.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[18:56.880 --> 19:06.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:06.880 --> 19:16.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:16.880 --> 19:26.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:26.880 --> 19:36.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:36.880 --> 19:46.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:46.880 --> 19:56.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[19:56.880 --> 20:06.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[20:06.880 --> 20:16.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[20:16.880 --> 20:26.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[20:26.880 --> 20:36.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-225-2431.
[20:36.880 --> 20:46.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-285-2431.
[20:46.880 --> 20:56.880]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-inated pace.
[20:56.880 --> 21:03.920]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens here on ruleoflawradio.com.
[21:03.920 --> 21:10.200]  We're here with attorney Brian Michaels representing members of the Rainbow family.
[21:10.200 --> 21:13.960]  Okay, so Brian, there's a lot of stuff going on here.
[21:13.960 --> 21:17.760]  People are doing something about this and you were talking about, you were just about
[21:17.760 --> 21:20.120]  to talk about the ACLU investigation.
[21:20.120 --> 21:21.640]  Can you go into that a little bit?
[21:21.640 --> 21:27.480]  Oh yeah, Wyoming ACLU decided on their own that this was worth investigating for the
[21:27.480 --> 21:30.440]  state of Wyoming and the people of Wyoming.
[21:30.440 --> 21:36.600]  So they undertook their own investigation and like I was trying to say earlier, they
[21:36.600 --> 21:40.080]  really have no associational loyalty to us.
[21:40.080 --> 21:45.260]  They're there before and after we are, we're just there for a few weeks.
[21:45.260 --> 21:49.320]  So they have no loyalty to us, they have no reason to put our interest ahead of the state
[21:49.320 --> 21:54.080]  of Wyoming's interest or the head of the Forest Service's interest.
[21:54.080 --> 21:58.520]  So in reality, I think they gave, even though they came out on our side, I think they can
[21:58.520 --> 22:04.640]  be seen as an unbiased investigative unit because they had no real bias toward either
[22:04.640 --> 22:07.120]  agency, the Forest Service or us.
[22:07.120 --> 22:11.200]  And if anything, the Forest Service is there after we leave and we're not, we're going
[22:11.200 --> 22:15.320]  into Mexico this year, we're far away.
[22:15.320 --> 22:20.080]  And they concluded through interviews with as many people from our team, as many people
[22:20.080 --> 22:26.200]  from the Forest Service team, as many people from the media who were there that the Forest
[22:26.200 --> 22:32.800]  Service has historically acted and then this occasion continued to act with a vengeance
[22:32.800 --> 22:39.600]  against the rainbow, a vengeance really on scene in any other context.
[22:39.600 --> 22:44.120]  And I can either email you or read to you, they have a website that you can get it, which
[22:44.120 --> 22:54.280]  is wyominggathering.blogspot.com slash 2008 slash 10 slash a-c-o-u.
[22:54.280 --> 22:57.440]  Yes, why don't you read us some of that, Brian?
[22:57.440 --> 22:59.360]  You want me to read it to you?
[22:59.360 --> 23:01.920]  Well, yeah, read us some of the key points.
[23:01.920 --> 23:08.960]  Well, it's going to be difficult for me to do that because I have to work through it
[23:08.960 --> 23:09.960]  and find out.
[23:09.960 --> 23:10.960]  Oh, okay.
[23:10.960 --> 23:11.960]  Okay, that's fine.
[23:11.960 --> 23:12.960]  Yeah, you know, it's...
[23:12.960 --> 23:17.800]  So give out that site again so people can look that up.
[23:17.800 --> 23:32.200]  Well, there's an ACLU Wyoming ACLU site, but this site is wyominggathering.blogspot.com
[23:32.200 --> 23:47.240]  slash 2008 slash 10 slash a-c-o-u dash report dash direct dash Linda dash burt b-u-r-t dot
[23:47.240 --> 23:48.240]  html.
[23:48.240 --> 23:49.240]  Wonderful.
[23:49.240 --> 23:52.920]  I don't know if that was clear enough.
[23:52.920 --> 23:54.160]  Yes, I think so.
[23:54.160 --> 23:58.360]  But if anyone wants any more information, they can email me at blmichaels.
[23:58.360 --> 24:03.320]  That's b-l-m-i-c-h-a-e-l-s at hotmail.com.
[24:03.320 --> 24:04.320]  Excellent.
[24:04.320 --> 24:05.320]  Excellent.
[24:05.320 --> 24:16.120]  Well, it's good that, you know, there's organizations looking into this and investigating the situation.
[24:16.120 --> 24:21.120]  Yeah, they, you know, like I say, the media was there and that's I think what triggered
[24:21.120 --> 24:26.560]  a lot of the ACLU interest is that there was an independent body there who was saying some
[24:26.560 --> 24:31.080]  things that were in violation of, sounded to be in violation of people's rights until
[24:31.080 --> 24:39.160]  they'd want to do an investigation and they realized as they concluded, indeed, this was
[24:39.160 --> 24:46.560]  a violation of extreme proportion to go in there with these type of weapons and to go
[24:46.560 --> 24:51.360]  into a place where the, you know, kid village for us is a place where the kids are.
[24:51.360 --> 24:53.160]  It's our daycare center.
[24:53.160 --> 24:54.160]  Exactly.
[24:54.160 --> 24:56.320]  We build a playground.
[24:56.320 --> 24:58.240]  We build a kitchen.
[24:58.240 --> 25:03.600]  We build an area for play, aside from the playground in little areas for different age
[25:03.600 --> 25:08.800]  groups to play and for adults to care for the children at the gathering.
[25:08.800 --> 25:15.280]  And to go in there of all places and set off these pepper spray paintballs, and I say paintballs
[25:15.280 --> 25:20.040]  because it's a paintball gun, except the balls are not filled with paint, they're filled
[25:20.040 --> 25:24.600]  with pepper spray and they're rapid fire automatic weapons.
[25:24.600 --> 25:29.600]  And so you watch the videos, you see these things come out of there at a pretty rapid
[25:29.600 --> 25:30.600]  rate.
[25:30.600 --> 25:33.840]  It's not like one shot every five or 10 seconds.
[25:33.840 --> 25:37.600]  Several balls are leaving the gun at a very rapid fire.
[25:37.600 --> 25:42.800]  And they're landing, you know, in random places, including right in front of children.
[25:42.800 --> 25:43.800]  Right.
[25:43.800 --> 25:44.800]  Yeah, it was bad.
[25:44.800 --> 25:47.800]  I mean, people were injured really bad.
[25:47.800 --> 25:48.800]  Very badly.
[25:48.800 --> 25:54.000]  And if you want to start a riot, what better place than building the most vulnerable area
[25:54.000 --> 25:58.240]  – Stage it right in the middle where they're taking care of all the kids.
[25:58.240 --> 26:02.480]  If you want a reaction, an emotional, passionate reaction, that's the best place to do it.
[26:02.480 --> 26:05.840]  There's no question about it.
[26:05.840 --> 26:08.960]  So how have you been assisting with the Inspector General?
[26:08.960 --> 26:10.480]  Can you speak to that?
[26:10.480 --> 26:17.560]  Well, we're collecting witnesses and videos, and like I say, a lot of them are on YouTube.
[26:17.560 --> 26:24.160]  We're directing the investigator to look at YouTube, sending him videos, sending him
[26:24.160 --> 26:26.600]  witness statements that we've collected.
[26:26.600 --> 26:32.480]  And witness statements, of course, need to include contact information, because they're
[26:32.480 --> 26:39.600]  more credible and more believable for understandable reasons, if a person allows themselves to
[26:39.600 --> 26:46.360]  be contacted by the Inspector, rather than just an anonymous statement.
[26:46.360 --> 26:47.840]  And we have very many of these.
[26:47.840 --> 26:52.360]  I mean, people who are – I don't want to go through the gathering, in fact, I would
[26:52.360 --> 26:58.520]  say more than most people who go to the gathering are not there to fight the government.
[26:58.520 --> 27:01.440]  They're there to gather with each other, and they just assume the government really
[27:01.440 --> 27:02.440]  didn't bother them.
[27:02.440 --> 27:06.160]  And they don't really want to get involved in a lot of the governmental politics.
[27:06.160 --> 27:08.880]  They're really not interested in it.
[27:08.880 --> 27:10.880]  More than most of them.
[27:10.880 --> 27:17.160]  And almost everyone who was at Kid Village was so impacted by what these folks did that
[27:17.160 --> 27:23.560]  all of them – almost all of them – are willing to step up and say, this was an atrocity.
[27:23.560 --> 27:29.360]  This was unprovoked, unnecessary, and a disaster of magnificent proportion.
[27:29.360 --> 27:37.240]  So we have a long list of people from all walks of life who are willing – you know,
[27:37.240 --> 27:45.920]  teachers, attorneys, you know, millionaires, all kinds of people who really are not well
[27:45.920 --> 27:53.720]  interested in this – are stepping forward and submitting statements to the Inspector
[27:53.720 --> 27:54.720]  General.
[27:54.720 --> 27:55.720]  Exactly.
[27:55.720 --> 27:56.720]  That's wonderful.
[27:56.720 --> 27:57.720]  That's fantastic.
[27:57.720 --> 28:04.080]  I mean, it's good that the Inspector General is actually doing something about it, or at
[28:04.080 --> 28:05.480]  least claiming to.
[28:05.480 --> 28:12.440]  Well, when you get a complaint from somebody that high up in government, you kind of take
[28:12.440 --> 28:13.440]  notice.
[28:13.440 --> 28:14.440]  Right.
[28:14.440 --> 28:15.440]  Right.
[28:15.440 --> 28:18.920]  I mean, I think they're almost obligated to.
[28:18.920 --> 28:19.920]  Exactly.
[28:19.920 --> 28:27.600]  Well, so can you speak to this article that you had sent me from Register Guard?
[28:27.600 --> 28:36.000]  Well, I did an op-ed in response to an op-ed written by someone from the National Review.
[28:36.000 --> 28:38.520]  His name is John Gilbert.
[28:38.520 --> 28:39.520]  Yes.
[28:39.520 --> 28:40.520]  John Gilbert?
[28:40.520 --> 28:41.520]  Yes.
[28:41.520 --> 28:42.520]  Yeah.
[28:42.520 --> 28:43.520]  Jonas Gilbert.
[28:43.520 --> 28:45.520]  That was his name.
[28:45.520 --> 28:52.400]  And he was writing an article and submitting his opinion on a recent Supreme Court decision
[28:52.400 --> 29:02.680]  regarding the search of an individual – a very narrow decision the search was allowed,
[29:02.680 --> 29:06.560]  but it had to do with the fact that an arrest warrant that was – that instigated the arrest,
[29:06.560 --> 29:12.680]  which precipitated the search, had become invalid, and whether or not that was a justifiable
[29:12.680 --> 29:17.480]  reason to conduct the arrest and the search, or whether an invalid warrant would necessarily
[29:17.480 --> 29:20.200]  constitute an invalid arrest.
[29:20.200 --> 29:27.040]  And he was, as many people do, expelling on the notion that, why are we even interested
[29:27.040 --> 29:30.360]  in suppressing evidence against criminals?
[29:30.360 --> 29:35.840]  Once we know evidence is found against a criminal, why are we even thinking about this?
[29:35.840 --> 29:40.060]  Why are we in a society where we're looking for – we're using the Constitution to
[29:40.060 --> 29:47.320]  set criminals free, and he just opined at length about the various, you know, absurd
[29:47.320 --> 29:54.280]  results that this could achieve, and he utilized the phrase, this is a system cuckoo for cocoa
[29:54.280 --> 29:55.280]  puffs.
[29:55.280 --> 30:01.760]  And so I kind of responded in a sense, and I think Marianne Dugan is the attorney that's
[30:01.760 --> 30:08.240]  here with me, who I work with a lot on these issues, will confirm that a lot of that is
[30:08.240 --> 30:12.720]  really to protect the innocent, rather than to protect the guilty.
[30:12.720 --> 30:17.920]  The problem is that the innocent victims of unlawful searches and seizures don't really
[30:17.920 --> 30:20.520]  get to court.
[30:20.520 --> 30:25.760]  Only the people who get to court because illegal evidence was found are the ones who get to
[30:25.760 --> 30:26.760]  court, rather.
[30:26.760 --> 30:31.200]  And so it gets to court primarily in what's called a motion to suppress.
[30:31.200 --> 30:33.780]  The evidence against me was seized illegally.
[30:33.780 --> 30:39.920]  And so I used three examples of my own life, and an example from a famous federal case,
[30:39.920 --> 30:45.440]  to demonstrate how innocent people, like myself who had my rights violated when I was stopped
[30:45.440 --> 30:49.180]  and searched and harassed and all that, but no criminal evidence was found.
[30:49.180 --> 30:50.180]  Where do I go?
[30:50.180 --> 30:53.220]  Where does the innocent victim go?
[30:53.220 --> 31:01.120]  And because as a society we're so unwilling to punish our police for violation of our
[31:01.120 --> 31:08.720]  rights, either through criminal or civil action, we're left with a system where the only
[31:08.720 --> 31:12.040]  persons who can enforce our rights are criminals.
[31:12.040 --> 31:15.800]  My preference, of course, would be let's make it easier to sue these guys when innocent
[31:15.800 --> 31:19.880]  people are violated, let's make it easier to sanction these guys when innocent people
[31:19.880 --> 31:24.760]  are violated, and let's not suppress evidence against the criminals.
[31:24.760 --> 31:27.280]  But that's not the system we've chosen.
[31:27.280 --> 31:31.760]  And how would you make it easier to sue these guys?
[31:31.760 --> 31:40.640]  Well I think what Marianne will confirm is the amount of hurdles put in front of a plaintiff
[31:40.640 --> 31:44.520]  trying to sue a policeman is prohibitive for most people.
[31:44.520 --> 31:53.160]  Well for one thing, this is Marianne, if you choose to be so audacious as to sue the police,
[31:53.160 --> 32:05.160]  you have to agree to open up your entire life to discovery under the rules of court.
[32:05.160 --> 32:11.400]  I have a client whose pelvis was broken by a police officer who was on his own property,
[32:11.400 --> 32:20.080]  he's a business owner, and he's having to turn over every scrap of economic documents
[32:20.080 --> 32:27.160]  from his business and all of his personal medical records going back ten years, so one
[32:27.160 --> 32:33.920]  hurdle is just convincing somebody that it's a good idea to buy a lawsuit because you might
[32:33.920 --> 32:39.000]  get some money out of it and most people frankly don't sue the police because they want to
[32:39.000 --> 32:43.560]  get rich quick, they're trying to change things, and so you have to tell them it's going to
[32:43.560 --> 32:49.320]  take years and you're going to have to give up all of your privacy, so that's a huge hurdle.
[32:49.320 --> 32:59.160]  And the court puts a lot of hurdles in your way as well, and qualified immunity, you know.
[32:59.160 --> 33:01.240]  I would imagine so.
[33:01.240 --> 33:04.760]  There are some interesting ways around qualified immunity.
[33:04.760 --> 33:06.880]  Oh yeah.
[33:06.880 --> 33:17.680]  If we can show that the officers fired without provocation, then they acted outside of scope,
[33:17.680 --> 33:22.880]  and I just read a case recently about an officer arrested a woman, raped her on the way to
[33:22.880 --> 33:31.640]  the jail, was sued, claimed immunity, and the judge said, well, rape is not within the
[33:31.640 --> 33:35.480]  scope of your authority, Bubba.
[33:35.480 --> 33:36.480]  One wouldn't think so.
[33:36.480 --> 33:43.120]  But breaking somebody's pelvis while they're walking on their own property might be, though.
[33:43.120 --> 33:49.080]  Now, if he legitimately was trying to arrest the person for some legitimate reason, that
[33:49.080 --> 33:51.180]  would be one thing.
[33:51.180 --> 33:56.720]  I think it's going to be hard for these officers to maintain that they were legitimately shooting
[33:56.720 --> 33:57.720]  at these children.
[33:57.720 --> 34:04.640]  Well, yeah, especially when there's plenty of video that shows them firing at people
[34:04.640 --> 34:06.760]  and hitting them in the back unprovoked.
[34:06.760 --> 34:16.600]  If we're back to Kid Village, I do sort of think that they're going to find themselves
[34:16.600 --> 34:25.800]  in a difficult spot to justify if and when it gets to a court of law.
[34:25.800 --> 34:31.360]  And there's so many qualifiers there because, for example, on our initial discussions this
[34:31.360 --> 34:40.160]  year, because there's no replacement of Mr. Ray, the law enforcement commander is in charge,
[34:40.160 --> 34:42.040]  and they have a three-year rotation.
[34:42.040 --> 34:49.040]  So this is his third year of rotation, but it's the first year of the new administration.
[34:49.040 --> 34:58.820]  And so he is suggesting that, of course, no more permit requirement waiver, that we need
[34:58.820 --> 35:04.320]  to request, we need to require a permit, we need to make sure that a permit is properly
[35:04.320 --> 35:07.960]  executed or we will once again have an illegal gathering.
[35:07.960 --> 35:14.600]  That's his input, despite the fact that he and his team are being investigated by the
[35:14.600 --> 35:20.360]  inspector general as a result of Mr. Ray's insistence.
[35:20.360 --> 35:25.120]  Has anyone filed criminal accusations against any of these individuals?
[35:25.120 --> 35:31.840]  Well, that's a subject for interesting discussion that Mary Ann's leaving, but she and I had
[35:31.840 --> 35:38.280]  some interesting discussions about earlier concerning how one actually goes about doing
[35:38.280 --> 35:39.280]  that.
[35:39.280 --> 35:44.440]  And I was describing to her some of the previous discussions you and I had about that, and
[35:44.440 --> 35:53.200]  we don't see particularly eye-to-eye on the availability of a citizen to charge a public
[35:53.200 --> 35:58.400]  or anyone with a criminal act, but it's very difficult.
[35:58.400 --> 36:07.760]  The only real issue, the only real avenue available for a citizen is to sue these people.
[36:07.760 --> 36:12.680]  And so I know that you do this a lot and you've had some experience with it and some success
[36:12.680 --> 36:13.680]  with it.
[36:13.680 --> 36:14.680]  Are you there?
[36:14.680 --> 36:17.080]  Yes, I'm here.
[36:17.080 --> 36:22.520]  But I haven't found, as I said earlier, I haven't found a way through the maze to that
[36:22.520 --> 36:26.880]  piece of cheese to actually charge somebody with a crime.
[36:26.880 --> 36:36.160]  I just got an IRS agent in Fort Lauderdale fired just recently.
[36:36.160 --> 36:38.720]  Because of a series of complaints you filed.
[36:38.720 --> 36:39.720]  Yes.
[36:39.720 --> 36:42.240]  Criminal complaints, not administrative complaints.
[36:42.240 --> 36:46.720]  These were criminal accusations that we filed with the inspector general of the IRS.
[36:46.720 --> 36:53.920]  But I have someone else that I'm working with, Tony Davis, who specializes in going after
[36:53.920 --> 37:02.920]  feds and he has found an incredible mess with the US attorneys and the grand juries.
[37:02.920 --> 37:08.200]  I have a method to go, if I have the information, I'll be glad to do it myself, where I file
[37:08.200 --> 37:16.120]  with the US attorney under 18 US code 3332 and demand that he give it to the grand jury
[37:16.120 --> 37:18.120]  and he's going to refuse.
[37:18.120 --> 37:19.120]  Right.
[37:19.120 --> 37:23.920]  He'll either accept or refuse and he is the gatekeeper of that body.
[37:23.920 --> 37:25.560]  He thinks he is.
[37:25.560 --> 37:28.080]  3332 takes that away from him.
[37:28.080 --> 37:35.560]  So now I go to the federal judge in their capacity as a magistrate, petition the federal
[37:35.560 --> 37:41.520]  judge to appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute the prosecuting attorney, charge the prosecuting
[37:41.520 --> 37:47.640]  attorney with official oppression, 18 US code 242, and the judge is going to refuse.
[37:47.640 --> 37:48.640]  Correct.
[37:48.640 --> 37:52.080]  I'm glad you said that, I was wondering where you were going with that.
[37:52.080 --> 37:57.720]  Now I go for the judge, accuse the judge of violating a ministerial duty.
[37:57.720 --> 38:01.860]  It is not a ministerial duty, it's a discretionary act.
[38:01.860 --> 38:06.640]  He's a magistrate and as a magistrate, when he's presented with a criminal complaint,
[38:06.640 --> 38:11.880]  he has a magisterial duty, not a judicial duty.
[38:11.880 --> 38:12.880]  We can disagree on that.
[38:12.880 --> 38:13.880]  Well, I know.
[38:13.880 --> 38:14.880]  It's a discretionary act.
[38:14.880 --> 38:20.800]  He certainly has a discretion to do what you ask him to, he certainly has a discretion
[38:20.800 --> 38:23.360]  to refuse to do what you ask him to.
[38:23.360 --> 38:29.040]  Let him exercise his discretion and then I'll go after him for exercising his discretion
[38:29.040 --> 38:31.120]  and I make this horrible mess.
[38:31.120 --> 38:35.600]  Well, I can only wish you the best of luck.
[38:35.600 --> 38:38.880]  It's about making a mess for them.
[38:38.880 --> 38:43.880]  When I start going after the federal judge because of what the US attorney did and I
[38:43.880 --> 38:51.160]  can show stacks of improprieties on part of the US attorneys in that they are allowed
[38:51.160 --> 39:00.240]  by rule six to hold the grand jury records and because they can, we have stacks of evidence
[39:00.240 --> 39:04.120]  that they're indicting people without ever bringing them to the grand jury, they just
[39:04.120 --> 39:05.640]  stamp the form as name.
[39:05.640 --> 39:12.440]  So we start going after the US attorney and creating a really bad time for him, give them
[39:12.440 --> 39:16.320]  reason to do what we want them to.
[39:16.320 --> 39:18.040]  I can only wish you luck.
[39:18.040 --> 39:21.960]  I personally have not found a way through the maze to that piece of cheese.
[39:21.960 --> 39:22.960]  Well, Brian.
[39:22.960 --> 39:23.960]  You have.
[39:23.960 --> 39:25.840]  I certainly wish you luck.
[39:25.840 --> 39:28.160]  This is something that we've been working on quite a while.
[39:28.160 --> 39:33.520]  Well, Brian, when you kind of go after these guys, you're mainly going after them in the
[39:33.520 --> 39:35.320]  realm of the civil suit.
[39:35.320 --> 39:36.320]  Is that correct?
[39:36.320 --> 39:41.240]  This is the only way I know of other than, you know, motions to suppress in a criminal
[39:41.240 --> 39:42.240]  context.
[39:42.240 --> 39:47.440]  This is the only way innocent citizens have a way of going after these people that I know
[39:47.440 --> 39:48.440]  of.
[39:48.440 --> 39:50.680]  And I'm not claiming to know everything by any stretch.
[39:50.680 --> 39:55.680]  And what do you generally use as your causes of action in these cases?
[39:55.680 --> 40:02.200]  Well, generally, there's a 1983 constitutional violation, more often than not, a Fourth Amendment
[40:02.200 --> 40:08.480]  violation, either search and seizure and or excessive force.
[40:08.480 --> 40:14.160]  Sometimes there's also, or separately so, a First Amendment violation.
[40:14.160 --> 40:17.840]  Those are two biggies, first and fourth.
[40:17.840 --> 40:21.960]  Others come up occasionally, but generally, that's what you have.
[40:21.960 --> 40:28.080]  And then you have your state claims, which are the more mundane assault and battery,
[40:28.080 --> 40:32.920]  false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[40:32.920 --> 40:38.560]  Sometimes, you know, there's publicity, so you have publicity in full flight, things
[40:38.560 --> 40:45.720]  of that nature of just standard state torts of one person suing another person, non-constitutional.
[40:45.720 --> 40:52.920]  Do you generally sue the individual officer in his individual capacity, or do you sue
[40:52.920 --> 40:56.120]  the department or the state?
[40:56.120 --> 41:00.560]  This is, and I guess I jumped the gun a little bit, because when you asked that, I'm talking
[41:00.560 --> 41:09.200]  mostly about state actors, either state, county, or city actors, which is to say public officials,
[41:09.200 --> 41:10.720]  not federal.
[41:10.720 --> 41:13.400]  Right, right.
[41:13.400 --> 41:16.080]  The landscape is different if you're suing federal people.
[41:16.080 --> 41:20.240]  Well, so let's just go to the state venue for a moment and just give us some examples
[41:20.240 --> 41:22.640]  of your strategies, and then we'll take it to the federal.
[41:22.640 --> 41:27.200]  Well, you know, certainly, it's a case-by-case situation, and you need to determine from
[41:27.200 --> 41:31.520]  the facts what torts are applicable.
[41:31.520 --> 41:36.960]  But those are the general ones that apply, given different distinctions.
[41:36.960 --> 41:40.120]  First Amendment, you know, they're violating their right either for petitioning the government
[41:40.120 --> 41:45.680]  for redress of grievances, which is more often considered retaliation.
[41:45.680 --> 41:51.000]  They're violating their First Amendment rights because they're gathering and expressing themselves,
[41:51.000 --> 41:56.480]  and that's the onus for the action in the sense of the police officers.
[41:56.480 --> 42:02.720]  I did that for the barter fair in southern Oregon quite some time ago.
[42:02.720 --> 42:06.840]  Or more typically, you know, they're arresting someone or illegally searching them and seizing
[42:06.840 --> 42:16.360]  them temporarily or more long-term, falsely, by, you know, arresting them, charging them
[42:16.360 --> 42:21.840]  with crimes that don't exist or just arresting them and having the charges dropped, invading
[42:21.840 --> 42:26.400]  their home illegally, invading their person illegally, things of this nature.
[42:26.400 --> 42:31.400]  Now, there have been some more extreme cases here in Eugene, which is, you know, opens
[42:31.400 --> 42:36.080]  up another can of worms in terms of how police police the police.
[42:36.080 --> 42:44.560]  We happen here to have an officer who ultimately was disclosed by the police department and
[42:44.560 --> 42:52.680]  convicted of serially raping a number of women over and over again, using his power as a
[42:52.680 --> 43:01.280]  police officer to garner these sort of sexual favors from potential or actual defendants.
[43:01.280 --> 43:05.640]  And so there's a lawsuit in that regard that will supersede all the, you know, what I've
[43:05.640 --> 43:06.640]  said already.
[43:06.640 --> 43:11.640]  I mean, that just goes to a more heightened violation of one's rights and a more heightened,
[43:11.640 --> 43:14.320]  you know, cause of action, as you say.
[43:14.320 --> 43:21.360]  But it does open up the fact that, you know, it took them a number of years to finally
[43:21.360 --> 43:24.880]  disclose this guy, because they're not all that good at policing themselves.
[43:24.880 --> 43:30.840]  There were dozens of complaints by these women about this officer, and nobody paid much attention
[43:30.840 --> 43:31.840]  to them.
[43:31.840 --> 43:32.840]  Yeah.
[43:32.840 --> 43:37.000]  Well, that's when me and Randy would say, we'll see what the grand jury has to say about
[43:37.000 --> 43:38.000]  that.
[43:38.000 --> 43:41.840]  Well, the grand jury prosecuted this guy, and, you know, he's now in prison for decades.
[43:41.840 --> 43:42.840]  Good for them.
[43:42.840 --> 43:43.840]  Good for them.
[43:43.840 --> 43:44.840]  Okay.
[43:44.840 --> 43:45.840]  Listen, we're going to break.
[43:45.840 --> 43:49.280]  When we come back on the other side, we'll continue this discussion with attorney Brian
[43:49.280 --> 43:51.360]  Michaels from Eugene, Oregon.
[43:51.360 --> 43:54.160]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[43:54.160 --> 43:59.880]  We will be right back.
[43:59.880 --> 44:02.360]  Stock markets are taking hit after hit.
[44:02.360 --> 44:05.840]  Corrupt bankers are choking on subprime debt.
[44:05.840 --> 44:11.800]  The Fed is busy printing dollars, dollars, and more dollars to bail out Wall Street banks
[44:11.800 --> 44:14.040]  and the U.S. car industry.
[44:14.040 --> 44:19.160]  As investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face of a further devaluation of the
[44:19.160 --> 44:23.320]  dollar, the price of silver will only increase.
[44:23.320 --> 44:27.560]  Some of the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's
[44:27.560 --> 44:33.520]  most important commodities with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future.
[44:33.520 --> 44:40.840]  Now is the time to buy silver before it heads for $75 an ounce and the yellow metal roars
[44:40.840 --> 44:44.920]  back past $1,000 an ounce to new highs.
[44:44.920 --> 44:54.200]  Call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430 to find out how you can turn your IRA and
[44:54.200 --> 45:00.160]  401k into a solid investment, silver, without any penalties for early withdrawal.
[45:00.160 --> 45:04.800]  Even if you don't have a retirement account yet, we have fantastic investment opportunities
[45:04.800 --> 45:05.960]  for you.
[45:05.960 --> 45:12.040]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430 for more information.
[45:35.960 --> 45:54.040]  Call Maximus Holdings at 407-208-5430 for more information.
[45:54.040 --> 46:05.880]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[46:05.880 --> 46:31.240]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[46:31.240 --> 46:56.600]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[46:56.600 --> 47:14.360]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[47:14.360 --> 47:39.720]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[47:39.720 --> 47:57.960]  Call Maximus Holdings at 207-008-5430 for more information.
[47:57.960 --> 48:14.920]  We certainly hope we're not going to see anything like that again this year.
[48:14.920 --> 48:19.600]  By state level, we need to be clear, it's not the court per se because once you file
[48:19.600 --> 48:27.120]  an action invoking federal civil rights, which is what the 42 U.S.C. 1983 is, you're saying
[48:27.120 --> 48:32.640]  is a violation of the federal constitution and your federal right and a conspiracy to
[48:32.640 --> 48:39.900]  do so, then you can potentially be in federal court because it becomes a federal issue.
[48:39.900 --> 48:45.360]  So if as a plaintiff you don't choose federal court, but you choose to sue the state actors
[48:45.360 --> 48:54.120]  in state court, the attorneys for the actors can remove the case to federal court because
[48:54.120 --> 49:02.280]  one of the bases for federal jurisdiction is the aspect of deciding federal law.
[49:02.280 --> 49:07.240]  So when you say federal action, it is a federal action in terms of you're invoking federal
[49:07.240 --> 49:13.860]  law and you're more likely than not in federal court, but you are suing non-federal actors
[49:13.860 --> 49:20.960]  and the game plan is different when you're suing non-federal actors than when you're
[49:20.960 --> 49:27.400]  suing federal actors because when you're suing federal actors, they have different federal
[49:27.400 --> 49:33.440]  immunities and they have a different what they call a federal tort claims act, which
[49:33.440 --> 49:40.120]  is undergoing a lot of judicial scrutiny in terms of how one needs to handle that as we
[49:40.120 --> 49:42.400]  speak.
[49:42.400 --> 49:49.120]  And then there are the issues, you can't really sue federal agents for violating state torts,
[49:49.120 --> 49:55.800]  you can only sue them for violating federal issues and things of that nature.
[49:55.800 --> 50:01.640]  Can you please describe this federal tort claims act, is that what you said?
[50:01.640 --> 50:08.360]  Yeah, and states have these tort claims act also, and so you need to go to the statute
[50:08.360 --> 50:10.840]  of your state if you're suing state actors.
[50:10.840 --> 50:16.240]  It's not to be confused with the court or jurisdiction where you're suing them, but
[50:16.240 --> 50:21.280]  it is the defendant's, it is who you are suing, not where you are suing them.
[50:21.280 --> 50:31.300]  So I'm suing, say, some Eugene police officers, but I'm suing them in federal court, but I
[50:31.300 --> 50:34.440]  go by the state tort claims act.
[50:34.440 --> 50:39.180]  Or as if I'm suing federal law enforcement officers, even though the action occurred
[50:39.180 --> 50:46.160]  in Oregon, I have to abide by the federal tort claims act because it goes by the defendant
[50:46.160 --> 50:48.440]  not by the claim.
[50:48.440 --> 50:52.800]  So if you're suing a federal officer, you can only sue them for federal claims, and
[50:52.800 --> 50:57.140]  you can only sue them in federal court, and you have to abide by the federal tort claims
[50:57.140 --> 50:58.140]  act.
[50:58.140 --> 51:02.040]  And generally the federal tort claims act, it's complex, and like I said, it's going
[51:02.040 --> 51:08.060]  through a lot of judicial scrutiny in terms of what you have to do to comply with it,
[51:08.060 --> 51:13.000]  because you're supposed to go to the agency.
[51:13.000 --> 51:16.400]  Let's say we were going to sue over this kid village thing.
[51:16.400 --> 51:21.920]  We would have to go to the forest service and get their federal tort claim act form
[51:21.920 --> 51:26.760]  because we notify them, we give them notice that we're going to be filing a tort, and
[51:26.760 --> 51:33.320]  we describe in broad terms what the torts are, what the basis for the tort is, what
[51:33.320 --> 51:39.760]  event it is we're suing them for, how much we're suing them for, and a kind of overview
[51:39.760 --> 51:41.500]  of what it is we're doing.
[51:41.500 --> 51:48.120]  And the idea is you give the agency the opportunity to settle the court, settle the claim, before
[51:48.120 --> 51:49.120]  going to court.
[51:49.120 --> 51:53.320]  That's the ostensible reason why it's there.
[51:53.320 --> 51:59.160]  And so you need to do all that, and you go through the agency, and if the agency declines
[51:59.160 --> 52:01.960]  your claim, well then you get to sue in court.
[52:01.960 --> 52:02.960]  Right.
[52:02.960 --> 52:11.840]  That's similar to the state where you have to give a county 60-day notice, an opportunity
[52:11.840 --> 52:12.840]  to cure.
[52:12.840 --> 52:13.840]  States have that.
[52:13.840 --> 52:19.240]  Like in Oregon, you have to give a notice to a public body that you're going to sue
[52:19.240 --> 52:20.240]  them.
[52:20.240 --> 52:23.160]  The format in Oregon is much more broad.
[52:23.160 --> 52:30.760]  It's not a form that's issued by the defendant, it's a letter issued by the plaintiff to
[52:30.760 --> 52:34.640]  the defendant, notifying them that you're going to be sued, and you have to do that
[52:34.640 --> 52:38.800]  within 180 days of when the claim arose.
[52:38.800 --> 52:45.120]  In this situation, just say for Kitty Village, would the entity to be sued would be the forestry
[52:45.120 --> 52:52.440]  service or this team or the manager of the team, or would we be able to sue the individual
[52:52.440 --> 52:56.520]  actors in their personal capacity if we could show that they acted outside of the scope
[52:56.520 --> 52:57.520]  of their authority?
[52:57.520 --> 52:58.520]  Right.
[52:58.520 --> 53:04.320]  Because see, I'm kind of like, to me, it doesn't really sting them as bad if we sue
[53:04.320 --> 53:08.120]  the forestry service because it's no skin off these guys' nose.
[53:08.120 --> 53:11.460]  What about the guy who actually pulled the trigger and shot those people in the back
[53:11.460 --> 53:13.000]  or shot those kids?
[53:13.000 --> 53:17.200]  You know, I want it to come out of his hide.
[53:17.200 --> 53:18.200]  It never will.
[53:18.200 --> 53:25.240]  The government's always backed their employees and paid their claims, kept them from that.
[53:25.240 --> 53:31.760]  Even in this case where this cop raped all these women for years, all the lawsuits were
[53:31.760 --> 53:36.080]  paid by the city of Eugene.
[53:36.080 --> 53:45.320]  They very rarely, if ever, choose to allow the officer, him or herself, to pay the claim.
[53:45.320 --> 53:49.920]  Are people actually suing these officers personally, or are they mainly just suing the department?
[53:49.920 --> 53:55.680]  Well, there's a practical answer, and there's a technical answer.
[53:55.680 --> 53:57.560]  Technically you're suing them personally.
[53:57.560 --> 53:58.560]  Okay.
[53:58.560 --> 54:05.240]  Practically, in Oregon, the public body assumes liability for their officers unless they act
[54:05.240 --> 54:10.040]  outside the scope of their employment, which you could argue this guy who was raping these
[54:10.040 --> 54:11.040]  women did.
[54:11.040 --> 54:12.040]  Right.
[54:12.040 --> 54:14.120]  He certainly acted up, but nonetheless they end up paying.
[54:14.120 --> 54:16.720]  Well, what about the feds who shot the kids?
[54:16.720 --> 54:21.120]  I mean, I would say that's outside the scope of their authority, shooting kids.
[54:21.120 --> 54:24.360]  It's less clear that it is, frankly.
[54:24.360 --> 54:29.000]  We would like to think so, but they were acting as law enforcement officers in a law enforcement
[54:29.000 --> 54:32.720]  capacity, enforcing the laws at the Rainbow Gathering.
[54:32.720 --> 54:37.920]  They weren't outside grabbing women and raping them.
[54:37.920 --> 54:44.040]  Now, they may have abused that law enforcement authority, which I think it's pretty clear
[54:44.040 --> 54:46.240]  they did.
[54:46.240 --> 54:54.200]  In that regard, the Forest Service would be liable, and in that sense, that's who you
[54:54.200 --> 54:55.200]  would sue.
[54:55.200 --> 55:02.440]  It was the United States government, Forest Service, and then you would name the law enforcement
[55:02.440 --> 55:04.720]  personnel.
[55:04.720 --> 55:09.240]  For example, you wouldn't name Mark Wray, obviously, because he's clearly not liable
[55:09.240 --> 55:10.240]  for these guys.
[55:10.240 --> 55:11.240]  Right.
[55:11.240 --> 55:18.760]  You would name the Forest Service and the law enforcement personnel as the hierarchy
[55:18.760 --> 55:22.680]  and individuals responsible for these actions.
[55:22.680 --> 55:30.680]  Yeah, in this case, Wray has no direct control over this portion of the agency, so he would
[55:30.680 --> 55:35.600]  have no respondent superior capacity.
[55:35.600 --> 55:41.920]  There isn't technically a respondent superior capacity in these sorts of lawsuits, in any
[55:41.920 --> 55:48.560]  event from public bodies, but the reason I isolated Mark Wray is to be clear to anyone
[55:48.560 --> 55:56.240]  and everyone that he tried as good as he could to prevent violence, so he couldn't obviously
[55:56.240 --> 55:58.560]  be liable for violence.
[55:58.560 --> 55:59.560]  Right.
[55:59.560 --> 56:00.560]  Yeah.
[56:00.560 --> 56:01.560]  Absolutely.
[56:01.560 --> 56:02.560]  Absolutely.
[56:02.560 --> 56:05.960]  And it's kind of unfortunate that he's not going to be there anymore.
[56:05.960 --> 56:08.480]  Well, it changes an administration.
[56:08.480 --> 56:09.480]  Is that necessary?
[56:09.480 --> 56:12.600]  It has nothing to do with anything other than we're moving from Bush to Obama.
[56:12.600 --> 56:17.520]  And so all these people, he's an appointee.
[56:17.520 --> 56:25.480]  Is there anything to keep Obama from reappointing the same person?
[56:25.480 --> 56:28.160]  Nothing like a law.
[56:28.160 --> 56:31.680]  But you know, and we've learned this, and you have to understand something, and we've
[56:31.680 --> 56:39.440]  learned this in Rainbow, that we get more support from the true blue conservative than
[56:39.440 --> 56:45.080]  we do from the take the form of their container spineless liberals, and I think Mark Wray
[56:45.080 --> 56:50.680]  would be considered a true blue conservative who wants to do the right thing but has more
[56:50.680 --> 56:55.000]  conservative leanings politically than liberal leanings politically, which is why he was
[56:55.000 --> 56:57.720]  a Bush appointee.
[56:57.720 --> 56:59.200]  But you know, he's true to himself.
[56:59.200 --> 57:00.960]  He has a reflection, if you will.
[57:00.960 --> 57:05.680]  He examines himself, and that's why he came down on the side of the gathering.
[57:05.680 --> 57:12.640]  So I don't think Obama's going to hire a conservative who's a Bush appointee, but that's just a
[57:12.640 --> 57:13.640]  political question.
[57:13.640 --> 57:19.920]  There's nothing legally prohibiting him from appointing him again, but I sincerely doubt
[57:19.920 --> 57:20.920]  that law.
[57:20.920 --> 57:22.560]  And the office is vacant right now, Brian?
[57:22.560 --> 57:26.900]  Well, it's vacant only because, you know, it's not high on the list of appointees.
[57:26.900 --> 57:31.560]  You can see the trouble he's having getting some folks into some of these appointments.
[57:31.560 --> 57:33.480]  No fault of his own, for sure.
[57:33.480 --> 57:40.280]  But nonetheless, he has, I mean, you know, just talking grandiose politically, you know,
[57:40.280 --> 57:43.200]  he walked into a sinking ship and sinking quickly.
[57:43.200 --> 57:46.560]  I don't think appointing the Undersecretary of the Forest Service was going to try on
[57:46.560 --> 57:48.080]  his list of priorities.
[57:48.080 --> 57:49.080]  Who could blame him?
[57:49.080 --> 57:50.080]  Really?
[57:50.080 --> 57:51.080]  Yeah.
[57:51.080 --> 57:53.080]  So that's just a statement of fact.
[57:53.080 --> 57:58.760]  God, this guy's got more problems than Lincoln when he walked into the Ford Theater, you
[57:58.760 --> 57:59.760]  know?
[57:59.760 --> 58:03.600]  Well, do you think that the same incident team is going to show up this year if there
[58:03.600 --> 58:06.560]  hasn't been a new appointee to the Undersecretary's office?
[58:06.560 --> 58:07.560]  Oh, yeah.
[58:07.560 --> 58:13.200]  Like I say, it's his third year of rotation, so we know we're getting the same guy we have
[58:13.200 --> 58:15.200]  the last two years.
[58:15.200 --> 58:16.200]  Yes.
[58:16.200 --> 58:17.200]  We know this.
[58:17.200 --> 58:18.520]  He's the head of the incident command team.
[58:18.520 --> 58:19.520]  Yes.
[58:19.520 --> 58:29.280]  So unless we can persuade someone up above to not require a permit, or unless we figure
[58:29.280 --> 58:32.040]  out a way to negotiate a way where we can be legal...
[58:32.040 --> 58:36.000]  All right, well, listen, Brian, we're going to break.
[58:36.000 --> 58:38.720]  Would you stay with us for just a few more minutes to wrap up?
[58:38.720 --> 58:39.720]  Absolutely.
[58:39.720 --> 58:40.720]  Okay, great.
[58:40.720 --> 58:41.720]  All right.
[58:41.720 --> 58:43.440]  This is the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[58:43.440 --> 58:45.320]  We'll be right back after this short break.
[58:45.320 --> 58:49.600]  We're here with attorney Brian Michaels from Eugene, Oregon, representing members of the
[58:49.600 --> 58:54.600]  Rainbow family.
[58:54.600 --> 59:24.560]  Thank you for joining us today, and we'll see you in the next one.
[59:24.560 --> 59:51.880]  Bye-bye.
[59:54.560 --> 01:00:06.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:10.520]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:00:10.520 --> 01:00:27.520]  Yeah, Mr. Officer, you're taking the right to heaven. Won't you follow the law of the land? I don't understand.
[01:00:27.520 --> 01:00:35.520]  Your job is to protect and preserve, not be abused. Officer!
[01:00:35.520 --> 01:00:58.520]  When you gonna stop abuse your power?
[01:00:58.520 --> 01:01:14.520]  So please, Mr. Mackler, teach officers not to abuse their power. Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers. Tell them to uphold the law, and please don't abuse their power.
[01:01:14.520 --> 01:01:29.520]  Defeat and defeat and the chief and the chief and the light every hour. So, Mr. Officer, stop abusing your power.
[01:01:45.520 --> 01:02:02.520]  I interviewed some of them. I have everyone's names and such. And so we're talking about suing them and suing them personally versus suing the state. And, Randy, you had a couple of questions for Brian?
[01:02:02.520 --> 01:02:16.520]  You know, since we have videos of these officers shooting people in the back who are clearly holding themselves up as a barrier to ensure the officer's safety.
[01:02:16.520 --> 01:02:19.520]  And even shooting people who were sitting on the ground.
[01:02:19.520 --> 01:02:21.520]  Oh yeah, all of it.
[01:02:21.520 --> 01:02:37.520]  Now, I understand that in the Ruby Ridge incident, the officer who shot Randy Weaver's wife was acting within the scope of his authority because they were in an armed standoff.
[01:02:37.520 --> 01:02:40.520]  But this was not an armed standoff.
[01:02:40.520 --> 01:02:56.520]  Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. He was acting in the scope of his authority as a law enforcement officer for criminal purposes. The Attorney General of the state of Idaho tried to charge him with manslaughter, and he was not allowed to be charged with manslaughter.
[01:02:56.520 --> 01:03:05.520]  Ultimately, the federal government was sued by the great Terry Spence, by the way, for the actions of that officer and the other officers.
[01:03:05.520 --> 01:03:27.520]  What I'm thinking is, is it within the scope of a federal officer's authority to discharge a weapon, whether it be an actual pistol or a less lethal weapon, at someone who is clearly not a threat?
[01:03:27.520 --> 01:03:42.520]  Well, the premise of some questions begets only one answer. So obviously, if you phrase the question under those premises, and by the way, I agree with the premises, then the answer is obvious.
[01:03:42.520 --> 01:03:50.520]  They're not allowed to do that. Proving those premises is what we have to do, and it's very challenging.
[01:03:50.520 --> 01:03:55.520]  And it's more challenging when you're up against the feds.
[01:03:55.520 --> 01:04:06.520]  So our problem isn't truth. Our problem is proof. And our greatest weapon, like Rodney King taught us, is the video camera.
[01:04:06.520 --> 01:04:16.520]  And I think that's where we stand, and that's why I think we're in a very strong position to move in one direction or another, should we choose to do so.
[01:04:16.520 --> 01:04:27.520]  And it gets even more crazy than that, you know. When people started leaving on the 5th, because we culminate, if you will, on the 4th, so people begin leaving on the 5th.
[01:04:27.520 --> 01:04:41.520]  The feds kind of cordoned off the major routes through which people walk out of the gathering to their cars, and started identifying some people and requiring them to take off their shirts.
[01:04:41.520 --> 01:04:54.520]  And if they had paintball marks on them, they would be arrested for interfering in order to quash any subsequent lawsuit by these people.
[01:04:54.520 --> 01:05:02.520]  They arrested them, handcuffed them, searched them, drove them to jail, threw them in a cell.
[01:05:02.520 --> 01:05:13.520]  A couple of days later, they went to arraignment and they were offered a piddly ass deal.
[01:05:13.520 --> 01:05:22.520]  A couple of days later, they were brought to arraignment on the charge of interfering, because of course the feds filled out a probable cause affidavit.
[01:05:22.520 --> 01:05:32.520]  The person was interfering with police at the Kidd Village incident, and they were charged with the crime, and they went in front of a judge, and they were offered a deal.
[01:05:32.520 --> 01:05:41.520]  A $35 fine, go home now, and many of them took it, except for two women whose charges are still pending.
[01:05:41.520 --> 01:05:52.520]  Now the other criminal charge that's still pending in Wyoming is a kid who honked at a police officer.
[01:05:52.520 --> 01:05:57.520]  And while he was driving by the officer, the officer said, stop. And he said, why?
[01:05:57.520 --> 01:05:59.520]  He said, stop now or I'll arrest you.
[01:05:59.520 --> 01:06:03.520]  He said, why? I'm just trying to get around you. That's why I honked at you.
[01:06:03.520 --> 01:06:12.520]  He stopped now, and he finally stopped it, dragged him out of the car, threw him on the ground, and caved him four or five times, the last time of which he was already in the backseat of the car.
[01:06:12.520 --> 01:06:18.520]  And he charged him with a host of crimes.
[01:06:18.520 --> 01:06:23.520]  Is this the tasing incident that happened before the shooting at Kidd Village?
[01:06:23.520 --> 01:06:25.520]  Yes, the day before, July 6th.
[01:06:25.520 --> 01:06:30.520]  Yeah, that's what Rob was discussing on the satellite phone when the incident happened at Kidd Village.
[01:06:30.520 --> 01:06:36.520]  And those are the three criminal charges that are pending in Wyoming.
[01:06:36.520 --> 01:06:40.520]  Everyone else took the deal, except for these two women.
[01:06:40.520 --> 01:06:51.520]  And this guy, of course, because he was tased, he has to be charged with a host of crimes so they can cover up the fact that they assaulted him illegally.
[01:06:51.520 --> 01:06:54.520]  So that's the situation you're in.
[01:06:54.520 --> 01:07:02.520]  And so they tried to scare off a lot of these people from suing by charging them with these crimes and then letting them out.
[01:07:02.520 --> 01:07:09.520]  It gets that conspiratorial. It gets that strategic on the part of the feds.
[01:07:09.520 --> 01:07:14.520]  Then what about RICO?
[01:07:14.520 --> 01:07:22.520]  This is clearly predicate acts toward ongoing conspiracy.
[01:07:22.520 --> 01:07:29.520]  It's something to be considered down the road if and when anyone chooses to sue the feds.
[01:07:29.520 --> 01:07:34.520]  You get triple damages and all that stuff.
[01:07:34.520 --> 01:07:44.520]  But those are certainly issues that if anyone was going to sue them, we would consider in terms of filing a lawsuit.
[01:07:44.520 --> 01:08:03.520]  Well, we had a federal judge in Oklahoma tell us that filing a RICO suit is sort of like dropping an atomic bomb because you take the actors and place them in a position to where they're subject to criminal prosecution as well as civil.
[01:08:03.520 --> 01:08:06.520]  You get to take them on civilly.
[01:08:06.520 --> 01:08:10.520]  And this is how they took down the tobacco companies because they had such deep pockets.
[01:08:10.520 --> 01:08:16.520]  But when they went after him with RICO, the executive said, now, wait a minute, we can wind up in prison here.
[01:08:16.520 --> 01:08:18.520]  And it changed the whole perspective.
[01:08:18.520 --> 01:08:30.520]  But on the other hand, I was in Florida and talked to some folks and mentioned a RICO suit and they were talking to a litigation specialist.
[01:08:30.520 --> 01:08:45.520]  And their attorney was and he put him on the loudspeaker and he said, does your client have deep pockets? Because in RICO suits, usually the attorneys come away with all the money because they're so complex.
[01:08:45.520 --> 01:08:50.520]  So that was the other concern about a RICO suit.
[01:08:50.520 --> 01:09:02.520]  It doesn't further complicate the lawsuit, but I don't know how technical deeply you want to go into RICO. I mean, I personally have never filed a RICO lawsuit.
[01:09:02.520 --> 01:09:06.520]  You need to predicate acts, you get triple damages.
[01:09:06.520 --> 01:09:12.520]  You know, you've got to find someone worthy of suing in that regard.
[01:09:12.520 --> 01:09:18.520]  I personally have never filed one, so I can't really speak in any depth or breadth.
[01:09:18.520 --> 01:09:27.520]  Well, I was looking in terms of creating the greatest sounding threat, just like they do when they arrest you.
[01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:36.520]  Yeah, you don't threat in a sense. You're just screaming at a wall. You either do or you don't.
[01:09:36.520 --> 01:09:46.520]  No, I mean, by making the filing, it gives them room to give you a better settlement.
[01:09:46.520 --> 01:09:55.520]  Well, to be honest with you, if your filing isn't going to pass muster, then they'll just kick you away.
[01:09:55.520 --> 01:10:06.520]  There are so many hurdles and they have so many presumptions at law and presumptions in fact that they're very, very difficult to scare.
[01:10:06.520 --> 01:10:11.520]  They're very, very difficult to have them stand up and take notice.
[01:10:11.520 --> 01:10:19.520]  They're protected by so many layers of thick steel walls. You've got to find the right way in.
[01:10:19.520 --> 01:10:27.520]  And if you do, well, then you can talk. If you don't, then they're unconcerned.
[01:10:27.520 --> 01:10:34.520]  Suing the feds is, I don't know, I mean, pick your metaphor. It's extremely difficult.
[01:10:34.520 --> 01:10:41.520]  It sounds like it's a little bit more difficult or a lot more difficult with the feds to really try to crowbar the situation.
[01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:58.520]  Because, I mean, just knowing from experience with some of the strategies that Randy and I use here at the county level, municipal level and state level of filing charges with the grand juries here is enough to shake these guys loose and get some results.
[01:10:58.520 --> 01:11:05.520]  I mean, I know one of our listeners, Wendy in Tennessee, I mean, she's gotten judges removed from the bench.
[01:11:05.520 --> 01:11:11.520]  I mean, all kinds of stuff. You wouldn't believe what she's done by filing criminal complaints against these people.
[01:11:11.520 --> 01:11:17.520]  I think she's even unseated the secretary of agriculture of the state of Tennessee with criminal charges and grand juries.
[01:11:17.520 --> 01:11:25.520]  OK, but it sounds like it's going to take a lot to get to get through these layers with the feds.
[01:11:25.520 --> 01:11:30.520]  And again, this is an area that you guys have way more experience than I.
[01:11:30.520 --> 01:11:40.520]  I have never filed a, what I hear you say when you say the words criminal complaint is a criminal charge so that somehow they're being charged with a crime.
[01:11:40.520 --> 01:11:41.520]  Yes.
[01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:49.520]  I have never done that. I have submitted, I mean, I wouldn't even begin to know how to do that.
[01:11:49.520 --> 01:12:00.520]  For me, a U.S. citizen or citizen of the state of Oregon to file a criminal complaint against Officer X, Y, Z, I wouldn't know how to do that.
[01:12:00.520 --> 01:12:03.520]  And I've never seen district attorneys do that.
[01:12:03.520 --> 01:12:11.520]  I mean, other than the serial rapist, it seems like you could kill, assault and rob as a policeman and not get charged with a crime.
[01:12:11.520 --> 01:12:17.520]  Yes. I was just looking through reading through the penal code on aggravated assault.
[01:12:17.520 --> 01:12:18.520]  In what state?
[01:12:18.520 --> 01:12:26.520]  Don't get me wrong. I don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they're not guilty of the crimes. I just don't know how to get them charged with crimes.
[01:12:26.520 --> 01:12:33.520]  On aggravated assault under it's a second degree felony.
[01:12:33.520 --> 01:12:42.520]  But then it says, except if the person is a public official acting under color of his authority, then it's a first degree.
[01:12:42.520 --> 01:12:44.520]  Oh, you're talking about Texas code.
[01:12:44.520 --> 01:12:56.520]  Yeah. Or if the person assaulted the person who commits the assault knows that the victim is a public servant acting in his capacity as a public official.
[01:12:56.520 --> 01:13:08.520]  Now, when I ran Lexus on it, on the paragraph B on assault against a public official, I found got thousands of hits on paragraph A.
[01:13:08.520 --> 01:13:14.520]  Zero. Yeah. They're very reluctant to prosecute against a public official.
[01:13:14.520 --> 01:13:21.520]  This thing of police brutality. It's not police brutality. It's first degree felony aggravated assault.
[01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:25.520]  That's 20 to life in Texas. And that's what our legislature says.
[01:13:25.520 --> 01:13:28.520]  It has never been applied to a public official.
[01:13:28.520 --> 01:13:30.520]  Never. Not ever.
[01:13:30.520 --> 01:13:44.520]  It's one of the problems we have as a society is that we have developed and sold to the American public a criminal justice system that relies on punishment as deterrence.
[01:13:44.520 --> 01:13:50.520]  So that the more we punish someone, the more we will deter other people from doing it.
[01:13:50.520 --> 01:13:54.520]  And the more we will prevent that same person from doing it again because they're in prison.
[01:13:54.520 --> 01:14:03.520]  But somehow we have carved out a section of our society of people with badges from that criminal justice theory.
[01:14:03.520 --> 01:14:09.520]  There is no deterrent. There is no punishment. There is no accountability.
[01:14:09.520 --> 01:14:10.520]  Yeah, they've painted themselves.
[01:14:10.520 --> 01:14:24.520]  Well, they have been granted, by virtue of the way we conduct ourselves, pretty much immunity from doing almost anything other than serially raping women and refusing to stop.
[01:14:24.520 --> 01:14:26.520]  Yeah, because the prosecutor protects his buddies.
[01:14:26.520 --> 01:14:44.520]  And so what you have are people who, without that deterrence, without what our society has determined is a functional way to manage societal behavior, people who are free from that modifying of their behavior act out.
[01:14:44.520 --> 01:14:47.520]  And that's primarily what we're working on.
[01:14:47.520 --> 01:14:56.520]  When I look at the law, there's nothing in the law that gives them this immunity, especially in Texas.
[01:14:56.520 --> 01:15:00.520]  You hear a lot about prosecutorial discretion.
[01:15:00.520 --> 01:15:02.520]  There is no such thing under law in Texas.
[01:15:02.520 --> 01:15:07.520]  In Texas, it is specifically forbidden by statute.
[01:15:07.520 --> 01:15:08.520]  But they do it anyway.
[01:15:08.520 --> 01:15:21.520]  And I go out of my way to get the prosecutor to exercise discretion so that I can go after the prosecutor himself, go to the grand juries with complaints against the prosecutor.
[01:15:21.520 --> 01:15:25.520]  And since it's against him, he can't show his face.
[01:15:25.520 --> 01:15:31.520]  And once I've nailed him one time, I don't really want him indicted. I just want him stung real good.
[01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:43.520]  So the next time I come back with a complaint against a public official, he gives it to the grand jury and lets the grand jury know-bill him and scare the crapola out of the official so we get him to do it right.
[01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:44.520]  Or maybe true-bill him.
[01:15:44.520 --> 01:15:52.520]  It's not what I'm after, but really just to let them know that the threat is there.
[01:15:52.520 --> 01:15:55.520]  And we are working on that with the feds.
[01:15:55.520 --> 01:15:56.520]  We have...
[01:15:56.520 --> 01:15:58.520]  Go ahead, Bill.
[01:15:58.520 --> 01:16:01.520]  I can only wish you luck. I can only wish you luck.
[01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:09.520]  Again, I don't know anything about a citizen authority to charge a criminal complaint.
[01:16:09.520 --> 01:16:13.520]  I always thought the prosecutors were the gatekeepers.
[01:16:13.520 --> 01:16:27.520]  Now, there always is an area in law, this little escape hatch, that says citizens can go to a court of law as a separation of powers and request a judicial branch to initiate criminal proceedings because the executive branch will refuse to do so.
[01:16:27.520 --> 01:16:32.520]  I think it's more fairness in word, but not fairness in deed.
[01:16:32.520 --> 01:16:44.520]  Well, in state statute here in Texas, it specifically enumerates for citizens to be able to do that and for citizens to be able to go directly to the grand jury.
[01:16:44.520 --> 01:16:46.520]  Well, I've never...
[01:16:46.520 --> 01:16:50.520]  We're about to cut to break. Will you stay with us for a little while longer, Brian?
[01:16:50.520 --> 01:16:51.520]  Sure.
[01:16:51.520 --> 01:16:58.520]  All right, excellent. We'll be right back. This is the Rule of Law with our special guest, Brian Michaels. We'll be right back.
[01:17:21.520 --> 01:17:27.520]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[01:17:27.520 --> 01:17:31.520]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[01:17:31.520 --> 01:17:35.520]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[01:17:35.520 --> 01:17:41.520]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[01:17:41.520 --> 01:17:46.520]  We charge absolutely no commissions. 100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[01:17:46.520 --> 01:17:56.520]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Shober at 817-975-2431.
[01:17:56.520 --> 01:18:17.520]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[01:18:26.520 --> 01:18:53.520]  We'll meet up halfway through
[01:18:53.520 --> 01:19:00.520]  Halfway point is the only way
[01:19:00.520 --> 01:19:05.520]  We'll meet up halfway point
[01:19:05.520 --> 01:19:08.520]  Find common ground I say
[01:19:08.520 --> 01:19:18.520]  Cause this world, this world is my country too
[01:19:18.520 --> 01:19:27.520]  This world, this world is my country too
[01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:31.520]  My locality is my nationality
[01:19:31.520 --> 01:19:36.520]  We're here with attorney Brian Michaels out of Florida talking about
[01:19:36.520 --> 01:19:37.520]  Oregon
[01:19:37.520 --> 01:19:46.520]  I keep thinking Florida because we have a lot of people calling in from Florida and situations that arise that are very corrupt out of Florida.
[01:19:46.520 --> 01:19:50.520]  Actually, I was looking at the call screen. We've got Christian from Florida calling in right now.
[01:19:50.520 --> 01:19:51.520]  We're going to take Christian's call in.
[01:19:51.520 --> 01:19:57.520]  Well, you can confuse me with ultimate states of being.
[01:19:57.520 --> 01:19:58.520]  Indeed.
[01:19:58.520 --> 01:20:03.520]  That's because of the stuff you do at the rainbow.
[01:20:03.520 --> 01:20:07.520]  Which, by the way, is going to be in New Mexico this year in case people haven't heard that yet.
[01:20:07.520 --> 01:20:08.520]  Yes, in New Mexico.
[01:20:08.520 --> 01:20:12.520]  Just a hop, skip, and a jump from Texas here.
[01:20:12.520 --> 01:20:13.520]  You'll be there, won't you?
[01:20:13.520 --> 01:20:14.520]  Of course.
[01:20:14.520 --> 01:20:15.520]  Absolutely.
[01:20:15.520 --> 01:20:16.520]  It's close.
[01:20:16.520 --> 01:20:19.520]  I mean, gosh, I won't have to take a plane this time.
[01:20:19.520 --> 01:20:21.520]  Actually, I'm never getting on a plane again anyway.
[01:20:21.520 --> 01:20:28.520]  I'm going to have to, unless I do a private charter because this, just the situation at the airport has become intolerable for me.
[01:20:28.520 --> 01:20:33.520]  So I have to, no more planes for me anymore unless it's private charter.
[01:20:33.520 --> 01:20:34.520]  I have a friend with a Cessna.
[01:20:34.520 --> 01:20:37.520]  Maybe I can talk him out of it and fly us in there.
[01:20:37.520 --> 01:20:39.520]  Well, it's going to be so close.
[01:20:39.520 --> 01:20:41.520]  We may as well drive this time.
[01:20:41.520 --> 01:20:44.520]  But would you like to take a call, Brian?
[01:20:44.520 --> 01:20:46.520]  I will listen.
[01:20:46.520 --> 01:20:47.520]  Okay.
[01:20:47.520 --> 01:20:48.520]  All right.
[01:20:48.520 --> 01:20:49.520]  He's going to listen.
[01:20:49.520 --> 01:20:50.520]  Maybe speak.
[01:20:50.520 --> 01:20:51.520]  We've got Christian from Florida.
[01:20:51.520 --> 01:20:55.520]  Christian, do you have a question for our guest or a comment on the topic at hand?
[01:20:55.520 --> 01:20:56.520]  Yeah.
[01:20:56.520 --> 01:20:57.520]  Hi, Randy.
[01:20:57.520 --> 01:20:58.520]  Hi, Debra.
[01:20:58.520 --> 01:20:59.520]  How are you doing tonight?
[01:20:59.520 --> 01:21:00.520]  Hello.
[01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:12.520]  Hey, I was thinking, listening to you people on this little thing here you're talking about here, that to come at the agents in federal, have you ever thought of coming at them under admiralty, under commercial?
[01:21:12.520 --> 01:21:18.520]  What, the Harry versus the Tompkins and the Clearfield Doctrine?
[01:21:18.520 --> 01:21:21.520]  And coming under Rule 9H, under admiralty?
[01:21:21.520 --> 01:21:23.520]  No, I haven't.
[01:21:23.520 --> 01:21:26.520]  There are other people who are more familiar with that.
[01:21:26.520 --> 01:21:29.520]  That reduces their immunity to zero because they're doing commerce.
[01:21:29.520 --> 01:21:31.520]  Well, I'm looking at something.
[01:21:31.520 --> 01:21:41.520]  I'm not so interested in getting the individual himself as I am getting the system changed.
[01:21:41.520 --> 01:21:45.520]  We were talking on the break about, I want to set them up.
[01:21:45.520 --> 01:21:50.520]  We have a lot of information about the corrupt practices of U.S. attorneys.
[01:21:50.520 --> 01:21:52.520]  It's horrendous.
[01:21:52.520 --> 01:22:03.520]  So what I want to do is go in and set up the U.S. attorney using the very laws he uses every day against him to create trouble for himself.
[01:22:03.520 --> 01:22:14.520]  So I was telling him on the break about bushwhacking a U.S. magistrate in Florida and getting her not to let me videotape her courtroom.
[01:22:14.520 --> 01:22:27.520]  So I claim that she violated my First Amendment right and accused her of official oppression, denying me in a right and acting under the color of her authority.
[01:22:27.520 --> 01:22:30.520]  I don't care if I get her prosecuted. I don't want to get her prosecuted.
[01:22:30.520 --> 01:22:34.520]  It gives me standing to raise an issue, so I file it with the U.S. attorney.
[01:22:34.520 --> 01:22:38.520]  The U.S. attorney looks at it and says, this is crapola. I'm not going to work on it.
[01:22:38.520 --> 01:22:44.520]  But in my filing, I demand that he give it to the grand jury, and that's in 3332.
[01:22:44.520 --> 01:22:49.520]  If you demand to give it to the grand jury, he's required to by the statute.
[01:22:49.520 --> 01:22:55.520]  Now I got the prosecutor set up, so I get to examine 3332.
[01:22:55.520 --> 01:23:07.520]  I go to the U.S. to a district judge and invoke the bushwhack the district judge with criminal charges against the U.S. attorney and a petition for a court of inquiry,
[01:23:07.520 --> 01:23:15.520]  a petition for the U.S. for the district judge to appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute the prosecutor,
[01:23:15.520 --> 01:23:24.520]  and a request that the district judge convene a special investigative grand jury to investigate the prosecutor because the current grand jury is already compromised.
[01:23:24.520 --> 01:23:28.520]  And of course the district judge is going to say, get out of my courtroom.
[01:23:28.520 --> 01:23:42.520]  And then I get to run to the U.S. attorney general, file it with him, file it with a district judge in Washington, D.C., and just make a thorough nuisance of myself.
[01:23:42.520 --> 01:23:50.520]  Bar grievances against the attorneys, judicial conduct complaints against the judge, just make their life misery.
[01:23:50.520 --> 01:23:57.520]  Challenges against the judge's bond. If I can get a bond pull, the judge's history.
[01:23:57.520 --> 01:24:05.520]  Well, yeah, and Christian, you know, I would like to look at this commercial aspect a little bit more, too, because I say hit them with all sides.
[01:24:05.520 --> 01:24:14.520]  And in the case of the rainbow shooting, I do want to go after the individuals because they're the ones that pull the trigger, not the system.
[01:24:14.520 --> 01:24:24.520]  And I can tell you from experience from being there year after year, it's the same feds that are there year after year after year, the same incident management team.
[01:24:24.520 --> 01:24:30.520]  I've seen them since the late 80s. That's how long this same group of people have been harassing the rainbow.
[01:24:30.520 --> 01:24:38.520]  And they have an attitude big time. These particular agents have an attitude.
[01:24:38.520 --> 01:24:48.520]  OK, they go around, they've printed up T-shirts that say six up hippies down or rainbow down or whatever they we call that we call the the guys with the guns.
[01:24:48.520 --> 01:24:52.520]  We call them six ups for their six shooters. And so they've got six up hippie down.
[01:24:52.520 --> 01:24:57.520]  OK, they've got an attitude and they harass us and they like it, they enjoy it.
[01:24:57.520 --> 01:25:02.520]  And I do want to take these guys down individually. OK, in this case, yes.
[01:25:02.520 --> 01:25:07.520]  And I would like to investigate the commercial side of this as well.
[01:25:07.520 --> 01:25:12.520]  So can you please explain these statutes and this code that you cited, Christian?
[01:25:12.520 --> 01:25:21.520]  Under Rule 9H, you can come at them. And under Title 28, under savings, the suitors clause 1332, reducing them down to having no immunity.
[01:25:21.520 --> 01:25:26.520]  You can come at them as individual agents or come at the United States as an agency, whichever one you want.
[01:25:26.520 --> 01:25:28.520]  How do you reduce them to having no immunity?
[01:25:28.520 --> 01:25:36.520]  Well, under the clear, clear, fildinary doctrines, anybody who does commerce is reduced down to a mere corporation and corporations have no immunity.
[01:25:36.520 --> 01:25:39.520]  Well, these officers were not doing commerce.
[01:25:39.520 --> 01:25:43.520]  Oh, yes, they are. OK. They're always doing commerce.
[01:25:43.520 --> 01:25:46.520]  That's easy enough to say. That's the issue.
[01:25:46.520 --> 01:26:01.520]  That's the one thing I run into when I go here is they start leading me down a legal line and then we always reach a place where they jump this little gap with a conclusion.
[01:26:01.520 --> 01:26:07.520]  Well, I could put in a a libel review.
[01:26:07.520 --> 01:26:13.520]  And instead of the plaintiff having the burden and the onus to prove up the claim, it's reversed.
[01:26:13.520 --> 01:26:23.520]  OK, now the defendant, how you didn't you didn't get me into admiralty jurisdiction because you haven't.
[01:26:23.520 --> 01:26:34.520]  How do I get a a police officer shooting pepper pellets at people in commerce?
[01:26:34.520 --> 01:26:39.520]  I'm at them under Rule 9H, under supplemental rules of admiralty.
[01:26:39.520 --> 01:26:46.520]  The argument was 28 USC 1332 and go from there.
[01:26:46.520 --> 01:26:53.520]  30. Explain 28 USC 1332. That's the savings of suitors clause.
[01:26:53.520 --> 01:26:59.520]  What does it say? But then under the Erie and Clearfield doctrines, they have no no immunity.
[01:26:59.520 --> 01:27:03.520]  OK, you know this, you're making this sound real simple.
[01:27:03.520 --> 01:27:07.520]  It really is under a model when you're looking at the model.
[01:27:07.520 --> 01:27:11.520]  Yeah, I'm to actually do it to make the details work.
[01:27:11.520 --> 01:27:16.520]  Personally, I've never done that, but it's doable under the doctrine.
[01:27:16.520 --> 01:27:20.520]  Brian, do you have any comments on this commercial aspect?
[01:27:20.520 --> 01:27:24.520]  No. OK, you may want it.
[01:27:24.520 --> 01:27:29.520]  You see, that's a problem. We have an experienced attorney here and he can't get there.
[01:27:29.520 --> 01:27:34.520]  I've been doing this show for a couple of years. I've been trying to get answers.
[01:27:34.520 --> 01:27:38.520]  And all I get is, oh, yeah, you can do this and you can do this.
[01:27:38.520 --> 01:27:46.520]  And then when I start going down to the actual nitty gritty details, I always wind up with legal conclusions.
[01:27:46.520 --> 01:27:54.520]  The only thing that I could see is maybe if you want to treat if you want to treat that forestry agency as a corporation, which it is,
[01:27:54.520 --> 01:28:01.520]  you may be able to do something with that. But I don't see how we're going to get to the individual actors through commerce.
[01:28:01.520 --> 01:28:08.520]  Because he's under a statutory or a constitutional executive branch authority.
[01:28:08.520 --> 01:28:12.520]  And it's not that I'm challenging that we can or cannot do this.
[01:28:12.520 --> 01:28:22.520]  It's just that when I get down to the actual nuts and bolts of getting it done, I never wind up with all the nuts and bolts.
[01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:24.520]  There's always a couple missing.
[01:28:24.520 --> 01:28:25.520]  Yeah, we need to step by step.
[01:28:25.520 --> 01:28:30.520]  Let me send you some information and review it and then let me know what you think.
[01:28:30.520 --> 01:28:31.520]  OK, that sounds great, Christian.
[01:28:31.520 --> 01:28:36.520]  I know I've got one listener that's going to be all over me tomorrow about this.
[01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:43.520]  And I really want these answers. Frankly, I don't like going into unusual places.
[01:28:43.520 --> 01:28:51.520]  I like to take these guys on directly with the very laws they use every day and challenge.
[01:28:51.520 --> 01:28:57.520]  They don't really want you to understand because this this reduces them down to having, you know, the emperors got.
[01:28:57.520 --> 01:29:01.520]  Well, send the documentation, Christian, if I can sting them that way, I would love to.
[01:29:01.520 --> 01:29:13.520]  But until I can, I want to take the law the way they use it, challenge them with it so that if the higher court gives me a negative ruling,
[01:29:13.520 --> 01:29:20.520]  they set a precedent that others can walk through and build a big hole in their system.
[01:29:20.520 --> 01:29:23.520]  That's why I try to use the very same laws that they use.
[01:29:23.520 --> 01:29:27.520]  That's why we're trying to find a way to go after U.S. attorneys.
[01:29:27.520 --> 01:29:35.520]  We have clear evidence that U.S. attorneys keep a stamp of the foreman's signature on it.
[01:29:35.520 --> 01:29:38.520]  Yes. So who knows if the foreman is really approving it or not?
[01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:41.520]  Yeah, the U.S. attorney keeps all the records.
[01:29:41.520 --> 01:29:46.520]  Yeah, instead of the clerk of the court, which is just preposterous.
[01:29:46.520 --> 01:29:56.520]  We have a guy that in California gets an indictment. So Tony had him go back down and get the records of the grand jury for the day he was indicted.
[01:29:56.520 --> 01:30:00.520]  And the clerk told him, well, grand jury didn't meet that day.
[01:30:00.520 --> 01:30:03.520]  Isn't that funny? Isn't that cute?
[01:30:03.520 --> 01:30:18.520]  They're finding a lot of things like this. We have a video of a meeting in Ohio of federal judges where a U.S. appellate judge comes before them and explains to them how to screw pro se clients
[01:30:18.520 --> 01:30:27.520]  and assures them that if they get rule against a pro se and it goes to the appeals court, they will uphold the ruling.
[01:30:27.520 --> 01:30:28.520]  Yeah, it's amazing.
[01:30:28.520 --> 01:30:34.520]  All right. Well, listen, listen, Christian, we need to move on because we got some other callers on the line and I want to get back to our guest.
[01:30:34.520 --> 01:30:38.520]  OK, thank you, Christian. We're going to go now to Dominic in Texas.
[01:30:38.520 --> 01:30:43.520]  Dominic, you have a question for our guest or us or comment about this rainbow situation?
[01:30:43.520 --> 01:30:45.520]  Yes. How's everybody doing?
[01:30:45.520 --> 01:30:46.520]  Good. Good.
[01:30:46.520 --> 01:30:49.520]  Good. I just wanted to throw this out there.
[01:30:49.520 --> 01:31:02.520]  Since the sheriff is the highest law enforcement agent in the county, isn't there a way to make the sheriff or respondent superior because it's so difficult to go after the feds like that?
[01:31:02.520 --> 01:31:04.520]  You can give the sheriff teeth.
[01:31:04.520 --> 01:31:10.520]  We were we were discussing this and maybe Brian has an answer for us about the jurisdiction in the national force.
[01:31:10.520 --> 01:31:13.520]  This happened in the national forest.
[01:31:13.520 --> 01:31:29.520]  OK. And so I'm still not quite clear here on whether the sheriff has ultimate authority in the county where the national forest is or whether the sheriff does not in the feds have ultimate authority.
[01:31:29.520 --> 01:31:36.520]  Brian, do you do you know what this what the deal is with the jurisdiction of law enforcement inside the national forest?
[01:31:36.520 --> 01:31:43.520]  Yes. And although the language is the same, you're mixing jurisdictional metaphors.
[01:31:43.520 --> 01:31:44.520]  OK.
[01:31:44.520 --> 01:32:05.520]  The jurisdiction of the national forest is presumed to be under the feds, but there's a shared jurisdiction with local state and law enforcement in order so that the sheriff will have the ability to patrol federal land in a non rainbow gathering setting and arrest people who are committing crimes.
[01:32:05.520 --> 01:32:10.520]  You know, the kind of crimes we would like to share to prosecute.
[01:32:10.520 --> 01:32:15.520]  Now, when you're talking about federal actors.
[01:32:15.520 --> 01:32:20.520]  The federal actors, they're superior to everyone from a legal sense.
[01:32:20.520 --> 01:32:24.520]  No one is above them. No one is responsible for them.
[01:32:24.520 --> 01:32:33.520]  So you can't assume that the sheriff and you use the term respondent superior in as much as it may be considered a misnomer.
[01:32:33.520 --> 01:32:36.520]  Well, I don't want to go deep into that.
[01:32:36.520 --> 01:32:44.520]  But the point is that there's no one superior in law to a federal actor.
[01:32:44.520 --> 01:32:52.520]  So that which is why a federal actor is not subject to any jurisdiction of a state court, not by a subpoena.
[01:32:52.520 --> 01:33:17.520]  And as Randy pointed out earlier in the Randy Weaver case, the fellow who actually shot and killed his wife was attempted to be charged criminally by the Idaho attorney general because he was so appalled by the actions of the federal government in his state.
[01:33:17.520 --> 01:33:24.520]  In his view, they killed that woman without provocation or cause and they need to be held accountable.
[01:33:24.520 --> 01:33:35.520]  But the federal law is that no federal actor, when he's acting within his capacity as a federal actor, is subject to any state jurisdiction.
[01:33:35.520 --> 01:33:37.520]  That would include the sheriff.
[01:33:37.520 --> 01:33:42.520]  So the sheriff cannot be held liable for any actions on the part of a federal actor.
[01:33:42.520 --> 01:33:53.520]  Now, of course, if the federal actor is just in his home living his life and he goes outside and he shoots his neighbor, well, then, of course, he's subject to state jurisdiction.
[01:33:53.520 --> 01:33:57.520]  He's not immune from state jurisdiction because his job is a federal agent.
[01:33:57.520 --> 01:34:05.520]  But while he's acting as a federal employee, those actions are only subject to federal superior jurisdiction.
[01:34:05.520 --> 01:34:13.520]  So, Brian, what you're saying is it would not have the sheriff would not have had authority in the case of the Wyoming gathering.
[01:34:13.520 --> 01:34:18.520]  Like say the sheriff was standing right there when those feds were shooting the kids.
[01:34:18.520 --> 01:34:32.520]  Are you saying that the sheriff would not have had authority to arrest those those forestry agents because they were they happened to be on duty and acting in their so-called capacity as a federal agent?
[01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:34.520]  Absolutely correct.
[01:34:34.520 --> 01:34:35.520]  OK.
[01:34:35.520 --> 01:34:38.520]  In the same way that the Idaho attorney general.
[01:34:38.520 --> 01:34:39.520]  Right.
[01:34:39.520 --> 01:34:45.520]  Would not prosecute the federal FBI agent who shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife.
[01:34:45.520 --> 01:34:52.520]  But once those feds were off duty, if they decide they just wanted to go in and mash up the place, then the sheriff could have done something about it.
[01:34:52.520 --> 01:34:53.520]  Sure.
[01:34:53.520 --> 01:34:54.520]  Then they're just American citizens.
[01:34:54.520 --> 01:34:55.520]  Right.
[01:34:55.520 --> 01:34:58.520]  Not protected by the cloak of their federal act.
[01:34:58.520 --> 01:34:59.520]  OK.
[01:34:59.520 --> 01:35:00.520]  That makes sense.
[01:35:00.520 --> 01:35:01.520]  That makes sense.
[01:35:01.520 --> 01:35:02.520]  Does that answer your question, Dominic?
[01:35:02.520 --> 01:35:05.520]  Well, I don't like it, but it's OK.
[01:35:05.520 --> 01:35:16.520]  If the sheriff if the sheriff were out there and observed someone committing a crime, he has a concurrent jurisdiction where he can enforce the crime.
[01:35:16.520 --> 01:35:20.520]  But not if the crime is being committed by an on duty federal agent.
[01:35:20.520 --> 01:35:21.520]  That would correct.
[01:35:21.520 --> 01:35:23.520]  Yeah, absolutely correct.
[01:35:23.520 --> 01:35:27.520]  Abuse of power doesn't apply to federal agents.
[01:35:27.520 --> 01:35:32.520]  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
[01:35:32.520 --> 01:35:33.520]  It does.
[01:35:33.520 --> 01:35:35.520]  It cannot be prosecuted by state actors.
[01:35:35.520 --> 01:35:37.520]  It can be prosecuted by federal.
[01:35:37.520 --> 01:35:42.520]  A federal U.S. attorney can prosecute a federal actor for actions committed while he's acting.
[01:35:42.520 --> 01:35:45.520]  But not a state, not a state attorney.
[01:35:45.520 --> 01:35:49.520]  So what we have to do is bring enough pressure on the U.S. attorney.
[01:35:49.520 --> 01:35:51.520]  And this is goes to what Ken says.
[01:35:51.520 --> 01:35:52.520]  Everything's political.
[01:35:52.520 --> 01:35:55.520]  We have to make it political.
[01:35:55.520 --> 01:36:04.520]  And whether or not you can get the prosecution to prosecute a law enforcement within that jurisdiction in any jurisdiction.
[01:36:04.520 --> 01:36:06.520]  I think it's like building a rocket to the moon.
[01:36:06.520 --> 01:36:08.520]  You're just not going to do it.
[01:36:08.520 --> 01:36:16.520]  Law enforcement has been told by chapter and verse that they are immune from the deterrence of punishment.
[01:36:16.520 --> 01:36:20.520]  They are unaccountable for their actions.
[01:36:20.520 --> 01:36:22.520]  It's so sad.
[01:36:22.520 --> 01:36:27.520]  Which is why we have this outbreak of law enforcement abuse.
[01:36:27.520 --> 01:36:30.520]  It's not because they're bad people by nature.
[01:36:30.520 --> 01:36:39.520]  It's just that we've isolated this group of people as being not subject to any accountability, to any punitive deterrence.
[01:36:39.520 --> 01:36:45.520]  And so if we did that to any other group of people, they would probably, you know, a number of them, not all of them,
[01:36:45.520 --> 01:36:52.520]  you know, would behave in an extreme manner.
[01:36:52.520 --> 01:36:55.520]  Because they're not subject to the same accountability as the rest of us.
[01:36:55.520 --> 01:36:57.520]  It's just natural human behavior.
[01:36:57.520 --> 01:36:59.520]  Not all law enforcement do this.
[01:36:59.520 --> 01:37:01.520]  There's no question about it.
[01:37:01.520 --> 01:37:03.520]  It's just there's no accountability for those who do.
[01:37:03.520 --> 01:37:08.520]  We need to move for legislation similar to what we have in Texas.
[01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:18.520]  In the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, under duties of officers, the first officer they deal with is the prosecuting attorney.
[01:37:18.520 --> 01:37:26.520]  201, the very first one says, shall be a primary duty to prosecute an attorney not to secure conviction, but to ensure that justice is served.
[01:37:26.520 --> 01:37:29.520]  Well, that's nice high-minded rhetoric, but it doesn't tell him to do anything.
[01:37:29.520 --> 01:37:33.520]  202 tells him what cases he'll handle.
[01:37:33.520 --> 01:37:42.520]  203, the very first one that places a specific duty on the prosecutor tells him that when a criminal complaint,
[01:37:42.520 --> 01:37:49.520]  when a prosecuting attorney is made known in any manner that a public official has violated a law relating to his office,
[01:37:49.520 --> 01:37:52.520]  he shall present the complaint to the grand jury.
[01:37:52.520 --> 01:37:53.520]  Yeah.
[01:37:53.520 --> 01:37:54.520]  No discretion.
[01:37:54.520 --> 01:37:55.520]  Absolutely no discretion.
[01:37:55.520 --> 01:38:02.520]  And it's very specific about when a complaint is presented to him against a public official.
[01:38:02.520 --> 01:38:09.520]  Well, 204, 205 address complaints against private citizens, but they addressed a public official first.
[01:38:09.520 --> 01:38:12.520]  Yeah, the legislature was very concerned about that, as they should be.
[01:38:12.520 --> 01:38:20.520]  If we could get that in the Fed, 99% of the time, because the prosecutor is forced to give it to the grand jury,
[01:38:20.520 --> 01:38:28.520]  if he feels that the complaint is not valid, then he could certainly go in there and argue against indictment.
[01:38:28.520 --> 01:38:33.520]  But the grand jury is the one that makes the decision, and that's the critical part,
[01:38:33.520 --> 01:38:40.520]  because what my district attorney told me that you just never know what a grand jury is going to do.
[01:38:40.520 --> 01:38:43.520]  And that's what we want, not the guys indicted,
[01:38:43.520 --> 01:38:51.520]  but to have to look at the specter of explaining themselves to a grand jury of my peers, not their peers.
[01:38:51.520 --> 01:38:57.520]  Well, yeah, and then the problem is, even though it says that in the law, they still don't do it.
[01:38:57.520 --> 01:39:05.520]  We still have to find ways to make that prosecutor give those complaints to the grand jury against those public officials,
[01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:12.520]  because even though the law specifically requires him to, under state statute, they still don't do it.
[01:39:12.520 --> 01:39:15.520]  Yeah, but we've got teeth, and that's what I do.
[01:39:15.520 --> 01:39:16.520]  We do have ways to do that.
[01:39:16.520 --> 01:39:24.520]  I get to go bite him on his rear for not doing that, because I get to go down and jump up and down and rail in righteous indignation,
[01:39:24.520 --> 01:39:30.520]  ask everybody to arrest him, and just make his life misery.
[01:39:30.520 --> 01:39:34.520]  And he's an elected official too, so it puts political pressure on him.
[01:39:34.520 --> 01:39:43.520]  That's a very powerful tool we have, and in the feds we may well need a piece of legislation similar to that.
[01:39:43.520 --> 01:39:47.520]  Well, it's unfortunate that the attorney general is not an elected official at the federal level,
[01:39:47.520 --> 01:39:53.520]  because since the district attorney is an elected official, and in Texas the attorney general is also an elected official,
[01:39:53.520 --> 01:39:56.520]  we can apply political pressure.
[01:39:56.520 --> 01:40:05.520]  But I wanted to ask Brian one other question about this jurisdictional issue between the sheriff and the feds and such.
[01:40:05.520 --> 01:40:16.520]  Brian, is this case law, or is this statute, or where does it, who has made the determination that the sheriff cannot arrest,
[01:40:16.520 --> 01:40:23.520]  or the attorney general cannot prosecute a federal agent for doing something while he was on duty as a federal agent?
[01:40:23.520 --> 01:40:25.520]  I mean, who says?
[01:40:25.520 --> 01:40:33.520]  It stems from a constitutional clause called the supremacy clause, which talks about the federal,
[01:40:33.520 --> 01:40:40.520]  and that's why the phrase is that the federal government is supreme, because they have the supremacy clause,
[01:40:40.520 --> 01:40:47.520]  so that only federal agents and federal government can be sued in federal courts,
[01:40:47.520 --> 01:40:54.520]  and federal law supersedes state law in federal courts to have the supremacy clause, and so it flows from that.
[01:40:54.520 --> 01:41:04.520]  But specifically, the Idaho case, where the Idaho attorney general wanted to prosecute this person for committing this heinous crime in his jurisdiction,
[01:41:04.520 --> 01:41:11.520]  went through the Ninth Circuit. They tried to prosecute him in state court,
[01:41:11.520 --> 01:41:18.520]  the feds took over the defense of their FBI agent and removed it to federal court,
[01:41:18.520 --> 01:41:28.520]  and then the state of Idaho appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that you cannot prosecute.
[01:41:28.520 --> 01:41:32.520]  Wow, and the Ninth Circuit is usually bucking up against the feds.
[01:41:32.520 --> 01:41:36.520]  Well, they have that reputation, but I view it a little differently.
[01:41:36.520 --> 01:41:43.520]  I view the Ninth Circuit as adhering to the rule of law, and more and more,
[01:41:43.520 --> 01:41:53.520]  many of the other circuits are leaving the rule of law in favor of some political partisanship that they want to pursue.
[01:41:53.520 --> 01:41:57.520]  And the rule of law is that you cannot prosecute a federal agent.
[01:41:57.520 --> 01:42:00.520]  We may want the rule of law to be different, and there's no doubt we do.
[01:42:00.520 --> 01:42:03.520]  And that stems from the supremacy clause of the Constitution?
[01:42:03.520 --> 01:42:09.520]  Yeah, right. I'm not saying, what I say is the rule of law. I don't say that I agree with it.
[01:42:09.520 --> 01:42:12.520]  I think, there are a lot of laws I don't agree with.
[01:42:12.520 --> 01:42:16.520]  You know, my clients come in here with, for example, you're possessing marijuana.
[01:42:16.520 --> 01:42:21.520]  Well, why should that be a crime? I'm going to sit and talk about why it should never be a crime.
[01:42:21.520 --> 01:42:24.520]  But we have to come to terms with the fact that it is a crime.
[01:42:24.520 --> 01:42:25.520]  Right.
[01:42:25.520 --> 01:42:28.520]  And I don't like it. I don't support it.
[01:42:28.520 --> 01:42:30.520]  But we still have to deal with it.
[01:42:30.520 --> 01:42:35.520]  And that's the same thing with the supremacy clause. I mean, we're not here to discuss our likes and dislikes.
[01:42:35.520 --> 01:42:37.520]  I mean, if we are, then let's do that.
[01:42:37.520 --> 01:42:41.520]  But we really have to be careful what we ask for.
[01:42:41.520 --> 01:42:50.520]  Most anything can be abused, but if the states could all prosecute federal officials,
[01:42:50.520 --> 01:42:56.520]  they would almost be impotent to do the positive things that they should be.
[01:42:56.520 --> 01:43:01.520]  Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. This is going to go to places that we could spend five shows on,
[01:43:01.520 --> 01:43:07.520]  because people would argue that the feds have no jurisdiction inside the state boundaries anyway,
[01:43:07.520 --> 01:43:13.520]  unless it's federal land, okay, which in the case of the rainbow gathering, it is, it's a national forest.
[01:43:13.520 --> 01:43:16.520]  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not true either.
[01:43:16.520 --> 01:43:18.520]  Well, some people do argue that.
[01:43:18.520 --> 01:43:24.520]  The feds have jurisdiction over every inch of land within the United States.
[01:43:24.520 --> 01:43:30.520]  Which is why, for example, in California, not in Oregon, I can explain that in a minute,
[01:43:30.520 --> 01:43:37.520]  you have a lot of medical marijuana prosecutions in the state of California, because it's still federal land.
[01:43:37.520 --> 01:43:42.520]  And so the federal government has jurisdiction over every square inch of federal land.
[01:43:42.520 --> 01:43:44.520]  Interesting.
[01:43:44.520 --> 01:43:52.520]  Okay, now we can talk about whether or not we like it or not like it, but if you want to be accurate.
[01:43:52.520 --> 01:43:59.520]  They do have that jurisdiction, and there was those issues about, the Supreme Court issued those cases about,
[01:43:59.520 --> 01:44:03.520]  you know, the Commerce Clause and whether or not you're on your own merit.
[01:44:03.520 --> 01:44:10.520]  And the law is what the legislators say it is, and ultimately it's what the Supreme Court says it is.
[01:44:10.520 --> 01:44:13.520]  All right, well, let's, go ahead, Brian.
[01:44:13.520 --> 01:44:19.520]  And that is the science. It's a human-made science. It's not a natural-born science.
[01:44:19.520 --> 01:44:20.520]  Right.
[01:44:20.520 --> 01:44:23.520]  It is what people say it is. It's not anything else.
[01:44:23.520 --> 01:44:24.520]  Right.
[01:44:24.520 --> 01:44:29.520]  All right, well, listen, Dominic, I hope that answers your question. We need to move on. We've got some callers stacking up.
[01:44:29.520 --> 01:44:34.520]  I want to go quickly to Chris Emery in Oklahoma. He's one of our hosts. Chris, thanks for calling in.
[01:44:34.520 --> 01:44:37.520]  Do you have a question for Brian Michaels or us?
[01:44:37.520 --> 01:44:40.520]  Yes, actually I do for Randy.
[01:44:40.520 --> 01:44:48.520]  Randy, I had a recent conversation with an attorney that you are familiar with that is deeply involved still with the Oklahoma City case.
[01:44:48.520 --> 01:44:53.520]  Are you familiar with the PACER filing system, legal files?
[01:44:53.520 --> 01:44:59.520]  We have Russell on. He's waiting to come up and he has PACER.
[01:44:59.520 --> 01:45:01.520]  Yes, I'm familiar with PACER.
[01:45:01.520 --> 01:45:02.520]  Okay.
[01:45:02.520 --> 01:45:09.520]  There is this particular, real quick, I'll just give you a quick summary and then I'll get off and take your answer off of here.
[01:45:09.520 --> 01:45:20.520]  This particular attorney was looking for case files on the Oklahoma City bombing that had been on there for years and he went back with them about three months ago and they were completely banished.
[01:45:20.520 --> 01:45:21.520]  They were erased.
[01:45:21.520 --> 01:45:30.520]  And my question is, is there any legal recourse or was there any laws violated by those case files taken off of PACER?
[01:45:30.520 --> 01:45:34.520]  Hang on, hang on, hang on. Can I chime in on this one?
[01:45:34.520 --> 01:45:36.520]  Yes, of course. Please, Brian.
[01:45:36.520 --> 01:45:43.520]  PACER is an electronic filing system that the feds have adopted in the last several years.
[01:45:43.520 --> 01:45:49.520]  Its existence was born many years after the Oklahoma City bombing.
[01:45:49.520 --> 01:45:52.520]  Okay.
[01:45:52.520 --> 01:46:10.520]  Exactly, but he was able to find the case files on there. In fact, there was reference to them being on there after the federal trials of McBay and Nichols were over and then subsequent litigation actually with the state trial here in Oklahoma.
[01:46:10.520 --> 01:46:16.520]  He went back to reference them about, he said actually less than three months ago and they were completely wiped off. PACER.
[01:46:16.520 --> 01:46:25.520]  The point is that when that litigation occurred, PACER wasn't born yet.
[01:46:25.520 --> 01:46:31.520]  So they wouldn't have been electronically filed into the PACER system.
[01:46:31.520 --> 01:46:33.520]  They would just add it on later?
[01:46:33.520 --> 01:46:55.520]  PACER was something that the feds have initiated to, you know, you can debate whether or not it's a good or bad idea, I think it's a good idea, so that all filings are electronic so that when I file something in federal court, I file it through the PACER system and now it can be accessed electronically by just about anyone who can access the PACER account.
[01:46:55.520 --> 01:46:57.520]  It doesn't necessarily have to be a lawyer.
[01:46:57.520 --> 01:47:11.520]  But for example, there are several cases that I've looked at where they began before PACER, but they didn't conclude until after PACER was initiated.
[01:47:11.520 --> 01:47:24.520]  So I can get all of the documents that were submitted after PACER was born, but all the documents that were filed prior to the birth of PACER in that jurisdiction are not available through PACER.
[01:47:24.520 --> 01:47:38.520]  And so maybe these cases were just added on later, but Brian, what you're saying is that they were not filed through PACER and so there's no legal recourse if they decided to take them off.
[01:47:38.520 --> 01:47:56.520]  Well, I had another issue. Since PACER is not the court, it's not the clerk, does PACER have to maintain these on PACER? I mean, if they don't, is it a specific crime not to?
[01:47:56.520 --> 01:48:12.520]  Or is this just something that the federal government provides so that we can have access, but aren't under some specific legal requirement to keep PACER exactly accurate?
[01:48:12.520 --> 01:48:21.520]  PACER is the acronym name for the electronic filing system adopted by the federal courts.
[01:48:21.520 --> 01:48:26.520]  So are they held to the same statutory requirements as the clerk of the court?
[01:48:26.520 --> 01:48:31.520]  That's what I'm trying to express. When you say they, it's an electronic system.
[01:48:31.520 --> 01:48:55.520]  Yeah, I'm thinking the administrators of PACER, are they like the clerk of the court? Do they have the same requirement to make everything public on PACER so that if they lose a drive and drop off a whole bunch of files, are they somehow criminally liable because you can't get it on PACER?
[01:48:55.520 --> 01:49:06.520]  I know local governments here have public access, but it's something that they choose to do, and I can't hold them legally responsible if the case is missed.
[01:49:06.520 --> 01:49:29.520]  I think your analogy is accurate, but I'm an old timer, and this whole electronic frontier situation is, I'm in the Jurassic Age and these guys are flying around the universe. I don't believe there are a they, and I may be mistaken because of my ignorance of the system.
[01:49:29.520 --> 01:49:38.520]  I just think it's an electronic, like the internet. Are they liable? It's just an electronic system that has been developed.
[01:49:38.520 --> 01:49:47.520]  But somebody has to manage the computer. Somebody has to make sure that the power is on on the computer. Somebody has to make sure there's no bugs in the program.
[01:49:47.520 --> 01:49:52.520]  I don't know that. You may know that. I don't know that. Does somebody have to do that? I don't know that.
[01:49:52.520 --> 01:50:04.520]  They're electronic questions beyond my knowledge. I think what Chris was getting at was, some of these documents were available, and then he went back and looked and they were gone.
[01:50:04.520 --> 01:50:15.520]  So his question is, can they just take them off? And I'm thinking... I don't know who they is. I mean, it's like the internet. Can you take something off the internet? They say it's like peeing in a pool.
[01:50:15.520 --> 01:50:30.520]  Well, whoever's managing a website can certainly take it off. I mean, just like I manage... I'm the administrator of ruleoflawradio.com. I can put what I want, and I can take down what I want to take down.
[01:50:30.520 --> 01:50:36.520]  It's not just something that just exists on its own. Somebody has to administer these things.
[01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:40.520]  You're way more knowledgeable about that electronic frontier than I am. Way more.
[01:50:40.520 --> 01:50:49.520]  Yeah, his implication was that someone administrating PACER deliberately removed these records from the PACER system.
[01:50:49.520 --> 01:51:00.520]  Hey, I understood his implication. My only comment was, given the timing of the Oklahoma bombing and the litigation that ensued thereafter, it was before PACER was born.
[01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:03.520]  So I don't know how it would have gotten onto PACER.
[01:51:03.520 --> 01:51:04.520]  Yeah, that's a good...
[01:51:04.520 --> 01:51:05.520]  The premise was...
[01:51:05.520 --> 01:51:10.520]  That was my only comment. The rest of it, I'm in a Jurassic age. I'm still hanging out with the director right now.
[01:51:10.520 --> 01:51:12.520]  Well, let's go to Russell because he...
[01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:14.520]  Russell does PACER.
[01:51:14.520 --> 01:51:18.520]  He uses PACER. Russell, thanks for calling in. Do you have any comments about this?
[01:51:18.520 --> 01:51:28.520]  Well, I don't know the legality part of it, but PACER is tied into all the court clerks. Whatever the court clerks does, it's supposed to come out on PACER.
[01:51:28.520 --> 01:51:42.520]  But like in my case in 2006, all of a sudden what I did, they wanted to keep it from the public and they turned around to change five or six of the documents from PACER to where they couldn't be downloaded and even changed names of documents.
[01:51:42.520 --> 01:51:47.520]  So somebody is pulling somebody's string to keep things quiet on PACER.
[01:51:47.520 --> 01:51:48.520]  Interesting.
[01:51:48.520 --> 01:51:58.520]  Yes, and my concern was, were the records changed in the court clerk's office or only on PACER?
[01:51:58.520 --> 01:52:01.520]  Well, you'd have to go to the court clerk to find that out.
[01:52:01.520 --> 01:52:04.520]  I would suspect it was only on PACER.
[01:52:04.520 --> 01:52:14.520]  Yeah, and if it's only on PACER, do the same laws that apply to the clerk apply to the guys who administer PACER?
[01:52:14.520 --> 01:52:27.520]  Well, that I don't know. I couldn't answer that because from my knowledge and what I've read and stuff, PACER is just basically set up by the administrative part of the Office of the U.S. Courts.
[01:52:27.520 --> 01:52:31.520]  So I'm going to bet that they can pretty much put up or take down whatever they feel like it.
[01:52:31.520 --> 01:52:36.520]  Especially if it's not in statute or case law somewhere.
[01:52:36.520 --> 01:52:45.520]  It sounds to me like it's kind of a private organization or a private company of a sort that is contracted by the court system.
[01:52:45.520 --> 01:52:46.520]  Yeah, it doesn't go-
[01:52:46.520 --> 01:52:53.520]  Well, that's basically it. You can't use it unless you join and it costs you eight cents a page every time you use it.
[01:52:53.520 --> 01:53:00.520]  Yeah, it sounds like a commercial enterprise and not a legal requirement, so I'm going to bet.
[01:53:00.520 --> 01:53:01.520]  Yeah, and if that's the case-
[01:53:01.520 --> 01:53:09.520]  No, wait a second. You go down to the clerk's office, they charge you 25 cents a page, and that's not a commercial enterprise. That's a government agency.
[01:53:09.520 --> 01:53:21.520]  I think what Randy was saying is that if it's not constitutionally set up under statute as a governmental entity, then it's probably not.
[01:53:21.520 --> 01:53:31.520]  Yeah, but my guess is it's a function of the federal court. Just like the federal clerk will go pull up a file and if you want copies of the file,
[01:53:31.520 --> 01:53:37.520]  will charge you 25, although I think recently actually it went up to 50 cents per page for copying.
[01:53:37.520 --> 01:53:47.520]  In case there is a function of that same federal court and they do charge you eight cents a page for sending you pages from a particular file.
[01:53:47.520 --> 01:53:58.520]  Well, if that's true, Brian, then I would say that they are held, the administrators of PACER would be held under the same requirements as the clerk of the court
[01:53:58.520 --> 01:54:06.520]  if it's simply a function of the court and not some private company that has been contracted for the sake of convenience.
[01:54:06.520 --> 01:54:18.520]  I can imagine that that's the same. I guess the person to go to would be the attorney for the side that you're in favor of, which would be the side obviously opposing the government,
[01:54:18.520 --> 01:54:27.520]  and call those folks and say, hey, I understand you guys are on PACER and you did this litigation and now you're not on PACER.
[01:54:27.520 --> 01:54:32.520]  Do you have a copy of what you've done? Can I buy that from you? What's your opinion on this?
[01:54:32.520 --> 01:54:41.520]  I mean, if I put something on PACER and I had a lawsuit against some government agency and suddenly it was no longer on PACER and you contacted me,
[01:54:41.520 --> 01:54:43.520]  well, I'd certainly hunt it down.
[01:54:43.520 --> 01:54:44.520]  Yeah, really?
[01:54:44.520 --> 01:54:51.520]  Yeah. So that's where I think your real motivator might be.
[01:54:51.520 --> 01:54:55.520]  Russell, did you have any other questions or comments?
[01:54:55.520 --> 01:55:08.520]  Yeah, I wanted to enlighten you when it comes to your rainbow thing. Every man, woman, and child that had that done to them there needs to file an SF-95,
[01:55:08.520 --> 01:55:12.520]  Sam Frank 95 form for a federal tort claim.
[01:55:12.520 --> 01:55:15.520]  Yeah, that was the form I was discussing earlier, yeah.
[01:55:15.520 --> 01:55:25.520]  It must be done to exhaust your administrative remedies so you don't go suing later on and then the court turn around and throw you out because you didn't exhaust administrative remedies.
[01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:26.520]  Interesting.
[01:55:26.520 --> 01:55:29.520]  That's the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[01:55:29.520 --> 01:55:32.520]  Yeah, that's what Brian was discussing earlier.
[01:55:32.520 --> 01:55:44.520]  Because it had to do with the feds. Anything has to do with the feds, whether it's forestry, whether it's a federal officer, anything has to be approached through the Federal Tort Claims Act first.
[01:55:44.520 --> 01:55:49.520]  Yeah, I think that was what you were talking about initially, wasn't it, Brian? The form?
[01:55:49.520 --> 01:55:58.520]  Yes. And whoever this person is, you've got to give them credit because there's not a very high percentage of people who know that.
[01:55:58.520 --> 01:56:02.520]  So thank you for your ability to even know that.
[01:56:02.520 --> 01:56:12.520]  I didn't even know that until a couple of years ago. And I mean, I've been called into federal court a couple of times and I've filed six federal tort claims and, you know, five of them have been rejected.
[01:56:12.520 --> 01:56:15.520]  And the sixth one they've been playing around with for a year now.
[01:56:15.520 --> 01:56:28.520]  Russell's a hoot. We were in court in Hays County and the attorney for the attorney general came in and was complaining because Russell had filed about 100 criminal complaints.
[01:56:28.520 --> 01:56:33.520]  And he was saying, if we allow people to do that, they'll shut down the courts.
[01:56:33.520 --> 01:56:34.520]  Yeah, too bad.
[01:56:34.520 --> 01:56:37.520]  And Russell said, well, just don't quit commit crimes. No problem.
[01:56:37.520 --> 01:56:39.520]  Yeah, that's right.
[01:56:39.520 --> 01:56:51.520]  Yeah, yeah. But consider what you just said. But in light of the recent Supreme Court case under in June of 2008 on the Roth Gary versus Gillespie County, Texas, they are criminals.
[01:56:51.520 --> 01:56:53.520]  Absolutely. Yeah.
[01:56:53.520 --> 01:57:02.520]  Because they're the entire Texas and six other states are arresting people and then bringing them before magistrate without counsel.
[01:57:02.520 --> 01:57:08.520]  And the Supreme Court said that's a no no. And they've said it for quite a few years. But these states still do it.
[01:57:08.520 --> 01:57:16.520]  Yes. When you were talking earlier, Brian, about an arraignment, I didn't address that at the time.
[01:57:16.520 --> 01:57:23.520]  But when someone is arrested, they're not brought before a magistrate for any arraignment.
[01:57:23.520 --> 01:57:29.520]  These guys want to call it an arraignment. And in Texas, they call it a magistrate.
[01:57:29.520 --> 01:57:33.520]  But if you type magistrate into Microsoft Word, it puts a red line under it.
[01:57:33.520 --> 01:57:35.520]  Yeah, well, more importantly, there's nowhere in statute.
[01:57:35.520 --> 01:57:41.520]  Yeah, that's some crapola they make up to hide the fact that they're supposed to do an examining trial.
[01:57:41.520 --> 01:57:48.520]  And in the Fed, they've got six hours to get them to an examining trial.
[01:57:48.520 --> 01:57:50.520]  To have a problem, to show probable cause.
[01:57:50.520 --> 01:57:53.520]  This is what I do. This is the part that I do.
[01:57:53.520 --> 01:58:02.520]  If you get arrested, like in Texas, if you get arrested, they're going to search your cuff, your stuff you put in the patrol car, crank it, point it towards the jail.
[01:58:02.520 --> 01:58:06.520]  And I maintain this aggravated kidnapping.
[01:58:06.520 --> 01:58:08.520]  I'll address how I get there.
[01:58:08.520 --> 01:58:10.520]  Yeah, we're going to break. We've got some more callers.
[01:58:10.520 --> 01:58:18.520]  We've got one of our affiliates on the line who broadcast us in Madison, Wisconsin, and also one of our hosts, Greg from Alabama.
[01:58:18.520 --> 01:58:21.520]  Can you hang with us for a little while longer, Brian?
[01:58:21.520 --> 01:58:22.520]  I'm right here.
[01:58:22.520 --> 01:58:24.520]  All right. Excellent. OK, we're going to go to break.
[01:58:24.520 --> 01:58:26.520]  Russell, please stay on the line also.
[01:58:26.520 --> 01:58:29.520]  And I'll close out quickly on this when I get back.
[01:58:29.520 --> 01:58:35.520]  OK. All right. We will be right back. This is the rule of law. Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens on Rule of Law Radio dot com.
[01:58:35.520 --> 01:59:04.520]  We'll be right back.
[01:59:05.520 --> 01:59:09.520]  We.
[01:59:35.520 --> 01:59:40.520]  Mr.