[00:00.000 --> 00:10.720]  The New York Times company announced Tuesday it does not plan to shut down the Boston Globe
[00:10.720 --> 00:17.480]  after the Globe's largest union rejected $10 million of cost-cutting concessions.
[00:17.480 --> 00:24.160]  A three-judge panel has ordered Norm Coleman to pay Al Franken $95,000 related to Coleman's
[00:24.160 --> 00:28.280]  lawsuit over the still unresolved U.S. Senate race.
[00:28.280 --> 00:33.160]  The panel's order comes as both sides wait for the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule on
[00:33.160 --> 00:35.320]  Coleman's appeal.
[00:35.320 --> 00:41.320]  The World Health Organization declared a swine flu pandemic Thursday as infections worldwide
[00:41.320 --> 00:46.240]  climbed to nearly 30,000 cases, including 144 deaths.
[00:46.240 --> 00:56.440]  WHO will now ask drug makers to speed up production of a vaccine.
[00:56.440 --> 01:01.960]  The documentary Food, Inc. opens Friday, exposing the food industry's harmful effects on public
[01:01.960 --> 01:05.280]  health, the environment, and worker and animal rights.
[01:05.280 --> 01:11.240]  Monsanto, Tyson Food, and Purdue Farms all declined to be interviewed for the film.
[01:11.240 --> 01:17.280]  But trade associations across the $142 billion-a-year U.S. meat industry have banded together to
[01:17.280 --> 01:21.960]  promote the U.S. food supply as safe, abundant, and affordable.
[01:21.960 --> 01:27.600]  Food, Inc. shows food comes from industrial factories that put profit ahead of human health.
[01:27.600 --> 01:32.800]  The film shows footage inside cattle, pork, and chicken production plants, some secretly
[01:32.800 --> 01:35.160]  recorded by immigrant workers.
[01:35.160 --> 01:40.520]  Maryland farmer Carol Morrison let cameras in to show chickens collapsing and dying before
[01:40.520 --> 01:45.840]  they are put on the market because of fast weight gain caused in part by antibiotics
[01:45.840 --> 01:47.040]  in the feed.
[01:47.040 --> 01:52.560]  The film says U.S. food corporations now widely use industrial techniques linked to growing
[01:52.560 --> 02:00.160]  problems like obesity, diabetes, salmonella, toxic strains of common E. coli bacteria,
[02:00.160 --> 02:04.560]  and environmental pollution.
[02:04.560 --> 02:09.480]  According to a government report released Thursday, Americans saw $1.3 trillion of their
[02:09.480 --> 02:15.680]  wealth vaporize in the first quarter of 2009 as the stock market and home values continue
[02:15.680 --> 02:17.040]  to decline.
[02:17.040 --> 02:24.360]  The flow of funds report by the Federal Reserve found household net worth fell to $50.4 trillion.
[02:24.360 --> 02:30.600]  American stock holdings plunged 5.8 percent to $5.2 trillion, while home values dropped
[02:30.600 --> 02:34.000]  2.4 percent to $17.9 trillion.
[02:34.000 --> 02:39.720]  The nation's households have now seen their net worth shrink to seven straight quarters.
[02:39.720 --> 02:46.560]  Their net worth hit an all-time high of $64.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2007 thanks
[02:46.560 --> 02:49.840]  to the housing bubble and a strong stock market.
[02:49.840 --> 02:56.200]  In the first quarter of 2009, the Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 11.7 percent, while
[02:56.200 --> 03:11.760]  home values fell 14.2 percent from the prior year period.
[03:11.760 --> 03:31.240]  In the second quarter of 2009, the Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 11.7 percent, while
[03:31.240 --> 03:45.800]  home values fell 14.2 percent, while home values fell 14.2 percent from the prior year
[03:45.800 --> 03:46.800]  period.
[03:46.800 --> 04:03.880]  In the second quarter of 2009, the Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 11.7 percent, while
[04:03.880 --> 04:31.140]  home values fell 14.2 percent, while home values fell 14.2 percent from the prior year
[04:31.140 --> 04:32.140]  period.
[04:32.140 --> 04:35.140]  Who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
[04:36.140 --> 04:40.140]  Ha ha ha, let your soul
[04:41.140 --> 04:44.140]  You really think you're in control?
[04:45.140 --> 04:49.140]  Well, I think you're crazy
[04:50.140 --> 04:53.140]  I think you're crazy
[04:54.140 --> 04:58.140]  I think you're crazy
[04:58.140 --> 05:03.140]  Just like me
[05:04.140 --> 05:10.140]  My heroes have a heart to the life I want to live
[05:11.140 --> 05:18.140]  And all I remember is thinking I want to be like them
[05:19.140 --> 05:24.140]  Mmm, mmm, mmm, ever since I was little, ever since I was little
[05:24.140 --> 05:27.140]  And I like fun
[05:28.140 --> 05:31.140]  There's a whole coincidence I've come
[05:32.140 --> 05:36.140]  And I can die when I'm done
[05:37.140 --> 05:41.140]  But maybe I'm crazy
[05:42.140 --> 05:45.140]  Maybe you're crazy
[05:46.140 --> 05:50.140]  Maybe we're crazy
[05:50.140 --> 05:55.140]  I believe
[06:20.140 --> 06:32.140]  Okay, we are back. The rule of law. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie, and Gary. Sorry, we were talking about coils and transformers and electrical engineering and diodes and stuff.
[06:33.140 --> 06:43.140]  We got Gary to weigh in the way. At any rate, we're taking your calls. 512-646-1984. We've got a caller on the line. Brand new caller. Looks like from Austin.
[06:43.140 --> 06:49.140]  Caller from America 512. Thank you for calling in. What's your name and what's on your mind?
[06:50.140 --> 06:52.140]  Caller?
[06:53.140 --> 06:54.140]  Hello, it's me.
[06:55.140 --> 06:56.140]  Yes, you're on the air.
[06:57.140 --> 07:02.140]  Okay. My name is Al and I'm calling from Austin, Texas.
[07:02.140 --> 07:24.140]  I sent you an email before both you and Randy with regards to I was given a ticket by a police officer since around April and I didn't get any response, so I'm just calling to see what kind of advice I can get tonight.
[07:24.140 --> 07:32.140]  Okay. Well, why don't you tell us your story because we get a lot of emails and I'm sorry we didn't respond, but what's happening? What's happened?
[07:32.140 --> 07:56.140]  It happened around, I don't remember the street right now, but I was stopped by a cop that I was going 15 miles above the school zone limit, but on the ticket he marked 10 miles and I knew that some other people were even.
[07:56.140 --> 08:23.140]  I thought, I knew I was doing something wrong, but I knew it was not speeding because I was very slow. I even met some other people to pass around me, so I thought I was being stopped for being very slow in the traffic, but instead I was given a ticket for speeding in the school zone, so I don't know what kind of defense I can put off for this situation.
[08:23.140 --> 08:28.140]  Speeding in the school zone, that's pretty serious.
[08:29.140 --> 08:32.140]  Was it during school hours? Was it during the hours of the school zone?
[08:33.140 --> 08:36.140]  Yeah, because the light was flashing. The light was actually flashing.
[08:37.140 --> 08:42.140]  And they said that you were, the ticket said that you were going 15 miles over the school zone speed limit?
[08:43.140 --> 08:48.140]  He said 15, but he said he marked down 10. He said he marked 10.
[08:49.140 --> 08:50.140]  And what did they do to you?
[08:50.140 --> 08:56.140]  Well, so far I'm about to be going to the court on the 16th.
[08:57.140 --> 08:59.140]  Will that be your first time going to the court?
[09:00.140 --> 09:03.140]  Ever, yes. That will be my first time ever going to any court.
[09:04.140 --> 09:06.140]  Okay. They're going to try to make a deal with you.
[09:07.140 --> 09:08.140]  Okay.
[09:09.140 --> 09:17.140]  And it depends. There's a lot you can do, but it would take quite a bit of work on your part.
[09:17.140 --> 09:21.140]  Well, Eddie, what do you have to say about this? I mean, Eddie's the traffic guy, right?
[09:22.140 --> 09:23.140]  First off, what kind of car were you in?
[09:24.140 --> 09:28.140]  I was in the little Mr. Bishop Mirage, 1999.
[09:29.140 --> 09:30.140]  Any commercial markings on the car?
[09:31.140 --> 09:38.140]  Nothing, no. Just driving from my weekly meeting. No commercial.
[09:38.140 --> 09:49.140]  Okay. First thing is they have lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 201.904 Texas Transportation Code.
[09:50.140 --> 09:57.140]  Speed limit signs apply to commercial motor vehicles, trucks, truck tractors, truck semi-trailers,
[09:58.140 --> 10:03.140]  and commercial motor vehicles for the transportation of passengers for hire, meaning buses.
[10:03.140 --> 10:09.140]  So first off, you're not driving any of those. So how can they cite you for speeding?
[10:10.140 --> 10:16.140]  Now, the problem you've got is you were going through a zone where children were crossing and the lights were flashing.
[10:17.140 --> 10:19.140]  Expect them to ignore the law on that respect.
[10:20.140 --> 10:26.140]  Does the county that you're in, was it in Travis County?
[10:27.140 --> 10:28.140]  Yes, Travis County.
[10:28.140 --> 10:36.140]  Okay. Then they also must file an information by the – the prosecuting attorney must file an information
[10:37.140 --> 10:39.140]  because Travis County has a criminal district court.
[10:40.140 --> 10:45.140]  So if they do not file an information in your case, they do not grant jurisdiction to the court.
[10:46.140 --> 10:49.140]  So that's two grounds for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[10:50.140 --> 10:53.140]  Third ground is lack of administrative remedies.
[10:53.140 --> 11:00.140]  There has been no administrative hearing based upon the Department of Public Safety's delegated authority
[11:01.140 --> 11:04.140]  for the local officer to write a speeding ticket under state law.
[11:05.140 --> 11:08.140]  Without the administrative hearing, there can be no judicial hearing.
[11:09.140 --> 11:14.140]  So they've got multiple issues to deal with over jurisdiction all by itself.
[11:15.140 --> 11:16.140]  You're going to say, Randy?
[11:17.140 --> 11:20.140]  Someone's – you took the words out of my mouth again.
[11:20.140 --> 11:23.140]  I'm sorry? I got an email.
[11:24.140 --> 11:26.140]  I get a lot of emails with a lot of emotions people write.
[11:27.140 --> 11:36.140]  And a good portion of them are legal reform motions that go into a lot of ancillary stuff that frankly begins to annoy me.
[11:37.140 --> 11:41.140]  So I read them, but I'm kind of slow sometimes to read them.
[11:42.140 --> 11:48.140]  Well, someone sent me a motion and today I was going through and I hadn't read it and it was on traffic, so I pulled it up to read it.
[11:48.140 --> 11:52.140]  Wow, it was good.
[11:53.140 --> 11:57.140]  I don't know who wrote this thing, but it was very well done.
[11:58.140 --> 12:01.140]  And it went to this issue of administrative remedies.
[12:02.140 --> 12:04.140]  Did it have three or four other motions with it, Randy?
[12:05.140 --> 12:06.140]  No, I just had the one.
[12:07.140 --> 12:10.140]  Okay. That would be the one Tim Ulrich sent me that I revamped.
[12:11.140 --> 12:11.140]  That's it.
[12:12.140 --> 12:13.140]  Well, I have a couple of questions for Joe.
[12:13.140 --> 12:22.140]  Number one, is the citation a Class B misdemeanor?
[12:23.140 --> 12:24.140]  Joe?
[12:25.140 --> 12:26.140]  Myself?
[12:27.140 --> 12:28.140]  Yeah, the ticket.
[12:29.140 --> 12:31.140]  Is the charge higher than a Class C?
[12:32.140 --> 12:33.140]  Is it a Class B misdemeanor?
[12:34.140 --> 12:35.140]  No, no it won't be.
[12:36.140 --> 12:38.140]  If he had written it 15 miles over, it would have been.
[12:39.140 --> 12:41.140]  Well, that's what I was asking because he said something about 15.
[12:41.140 --> 12:42.140]  Yeah, he said he only wrote 10.
[12:43.140 --> 12:45.140]  He accused him of 15 and only wrote 10.
[12:46.140 --> 12:46.140]  Okay.
[12:47.140 --> 12:47.140]  And he did that to keep it in.
[12:48.140 --> 12:48.140]  In the Class C?
[12:49.140 --> 12:49.140]  In the Class C.
[12:50.140 --> 12:50.140]  Okay, I have another question.
[12:51.140 --> 12:56.140]  Joe, do you have a Texas driver's license or other state driver's license?
[12:57.140 --> 12:59.140]  Texas driver's license, Texas.
[13:00.140 --> 13:01.140]  Okay.
[13:02.140 --> 13:03.140]  All right, but that won't matter.
[13:04.140 --> 13:08.140]  If he was not actively engaged in commerce with that license and that automobile, it does not matter.
[13:08.140 --> 13:15.140]  Having the license is not the issue, it's the use that you're doing with the vehicle upon the road that makes the difference.
[13:16.140 --> 13:22.140]  Right, I was just mainly wondering if they had charged him with not having a driver's license or having an expired license.
[13:23.140 --> 13:25.140]  Is the speeding the only charge that they gave you?
[13:26.140 --> 13:27.140]  Yeah, speeding was the only charge.
[13:28.140 --> 13:29.140]  He asked for everything.
[13:30.140 --> 13:32.140]  I had my current insurance, everything was okay.
[13:32.140 --> 13:42.140]  So I politely packed for him, I think that's why he said, because of my cooperation with him, so he brought it down to 10 miles.
[13:43.140 --> 13:46.140]  But what I'm trying to say, I didn't think I was speeding.
[13:47.140 --> 13:50.140]  I was expecting him to tell me it was disrupting traffic or being too slow.
[13:51.140 --> 13:52.140]  You were going slow?
[13:52.140 --> 14:01.140]  Okay, here's the deal, if you ever go to the merits of the case, you will lose every time.
[14:02.140 --> 14:03.140]  And I know it's hard not to.
[14:04.140 --> 14:06.140]  You really want to say, I didn't really do this.
[14:07.140 --> 14:09.140]  You'll lose every time if you do that.
[14:10.140 --> 14:19.140]  Yeah, see Joe, it doesn't matter if you're going 90 miles an hour or if you're going 10 miles an hour, what they are doing is wrong.
[14:19.140 --> 14:26.140]  They are the ones breaking the law, not you, because you were not engaged in any commercial activity.
[14:27.140 --> 14:38.140]  Yeah, before they can get to the merits, because the judge will always side with the police officer, before they can get there, you want to challenge the due process.
[14:39.140 --> 14:41.140]  Did that policeman follow all the rules?
[14:42.140 --> 14:44.140]  Did, do the rules apply to you?
[14:45.140 --> 14:47.140]  Does the judge have subject matter jurisdiction?
[14:47.140 --> 14:55.140]  These are legal questions that they have to answer before they ever get to were you speeding or were you not.
[14:56.140 --> 15:01.140]  Yeah, these are the things they have to do before they can even address that question.
[15:02.140 --> 15:05.140]  In short, right now, what do I need to do?
[15:06.140 --> 15:12.140]  Because by the 16th, I need to go to the court and see what's going on or something like that.
[15:13.140 --> 15:14.140]  What would I do in nutshell?
[15:14.140 --> 15:31.140]  All right, if you will send me an email to rangerx64 at gmail.com, that motion that Randy is talking about, I've rewritten it where it can be used by virtually anybody.
[15:32.140 --> 15:38.140]  All you have to do is go through and adjust the statement of facts to your particulars, okay?
[15:39.140 --> 15:39.140]  Okay.
[15:39.140 --> 15:43.140]  And there's actually four of them in total that I'm working on.
[15:44.140 --> 15:45.140]  One of them is administrative remedies.
[15:46.140 --> 15:57.140]  One of them is failure to state the nature of the charge, which they have not advised you prior to entering the courtroom, whether they are charging you criminally or civilly.
[15:58.140 --> 16:02.140]  Your preparation for a trial is based upon how you're being charged.
[16:02.140 --> 16:08.140]  So without telling you the nature of the charge, they denied you the due process right at preparing a defense.
[16:09.140 --> 16:13.140]  Yes, and did they order you to be in court on or before a certain date?
[16:14.140 --> 16:15.140]  He dropped off the line.
[16:16.140 --> 16:21.140]  Okay, well, I've got a motion on that particular issue.
[16:22.140 --> 16:26.140]  Okay, Joe, if you're out there listening, download the archive from ruleoflawradio.com.
[16:26.140 --> 16:33.140]  Okay, so that you can go back and listen to what we've been saying.
[16:34.140 --> 16:35.140]  We're going to go to break now.
[16:36.140 --> 16:46.140]  We're still here with Gary Johnson from Smash the State and Live and Let Live, our newest host here on ruleoflawradio.com.
[16:47.140 --> 16:50.140]  We're here with Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, and myself, Deborah Stevens.
[16:51.140 --> 16:54.140]  We're taking your calls, 512-646-1984.
[16:54.140 --> 17:06.140]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk, has a 100% track record of returning profits,
[17:07.140 --> 17:14.140]  is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates, is publicly traded and SEC regulated?
[17:15.140 --> 17:21.140]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment, then Live Settlements is the investment for you.
[17:21.140 --> 17:27.140]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[17:28.140 --> 17:31.140]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:32.140 --> 17:35.140]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[17:36.140 --> 17:41.140]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:42.140 --> 17:43.140]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[17:44.140 --> 17:46.140]  100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:46.140 --> 17:56.140]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schover at 817-975-2431.
[17:56.140 --> 18:16.140]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:26.140 --> 18:30.140]  Sleepwellinvestment.com
[18:57.140 --> 19:06.140]  Hey you white house, ha ha, charade you are
[19:06.140 --> 19:24.140]  You house brown town house, ha ha, charade you are
[19:24.140 --> 19:34.140]  You try to keep our feelings off the street
[19:35.140 --> 19:40.140]  You're nearly a real treat
[19:41.140 --> 19:44.140]  On triplets and trophies
[19:45.140 --> 19:48.140]  You know you'll feel like the oldest
[19:48.140 --> 19:54.140]  You got to stand the evil tide
[19:55.140 --> 19:58.140]  And keep it on the ill side
[19:59.140 --> 20:01.140]  Larry, you're nearly a treat
[20:02.140 --> 20:04.140]  Larry, you're nearly a treat
[20:04.140 --> 20:18.140]  You're nearly a cry
[20:34.140 --> 20:38.140]  You got to stand the evil tide
[20:39.140 --> 20:43.140]  And keep it on the ill side
[20:44.140 --> 20:47.140]  Larry, you're nearly a treat
[20:48.140 --> 20:51.140]  Larry, you're nearly a treat
[20:52.140 --> 20:55.140]  You got to stand the evil tide
[20:56.140 --> 20:59.140]  Larry, you're nearly a treat
[20:59.140 --> 21:07.140]  That particular verse of that song is concerning censorship of the mainstream media.
[21:08.140 --> 21:14.140]  Mary Whitehouse, she is the tipper gore, the tipper gore, I will say it again, of England.
[21:15.140 --> 21:18.140]  Trying to keep our feelings off the street.
[21:19.140 --> 21:22.140]  But you ain't going to keep my feelings off the street because I'm telling it like it is.
[21:23.140 --> 21:27.140]  We're here with Gary Johnson, Live and Let Live, Smash the State, Eddie Craig,
[21:27.140 --> 21:32.420]  Eddie Craig, talking about traffic code, Randy Kelton and myself.
[21:32.420 --> 21:34.980]  All right, we're going to your calls.
[21:34.980 --> 21:36.540]  We've got Joe in Ohio.
[21:36.540 --> 21:37.540]  Joe, thanks for calling in.
[21:37.540 --> 21:38.540]  What's on your mind tonight?
[21:38.540 --> 21:39.540]  Yes, hi.
[21:39.540 --> 21:47.980]  I just wanted to run something by you people about a traffic ticket that I fought about
[21:47.980 --> 21:54.340]  a year and a half ago, and I don't want to go through the case, but there's one aspect
[21:54.340 --> 21:55.340]  of it.
[21:55.340 --> 21:58.820]  I did want to run and just tell you guys about.
[21:58.820 --> 22:04.220]  This is a minor traffic infraction, and the way I was approaching it, I was going after
[22:04.220 --> 22:05.220]  the cop.
[22:05.220 --> 22:08.860]  I was basically going to prove that he's not a cop.
[22:08.860 --> 22:12.900]  Maybe I should say I'm going after the alleged cop, okay.
[22:12.900 --> 22:19.500]  And what I did is I started researching what it took for a person, what requirements a
[22:19.500 --> 22:22.620]  person must have to enter into police duties.
[22:22.620 --> 22:28.260]  In Ohio, this was difficult because they're scattered everywhere.
[22:28.260 --> 22:33.660]  I was finding a little bit here, a little bit there, but I never was satisfied or never
[22:33.660 --> 22:39.140]  felt comfortable that I had all of the requirements, and then I had an idea.
[22:39.140 --> 22:42.340]  I thought, well, why don't I just go down to City Hall and ask them?
[22:42.340 --> 22:46.460]  There are some points that are hiring the police that they should know.
[22:46.460 --> 22:53.460]  So I went down there, and I started asking them, and specifically, I wanted them to show
[22:53.460 --> 23:01.660]  me a list of all the qualifications and requirements a person must have to enter into police duties.
[23:01.660 --> 23:04.260]  City Hall couldn't do it.
[23:04.260 --> 23:08.220]  Part of the people who were saying they didn't know was the law director of the City Hall.
[23:08.220 --> 23:13.700]  He checked the city ordinances, couldn't find the list, didn't know what they were.
[23:13.700 --> 23:18.460]  I think another office I asked over there was the civil service secretary.
[23:18.460 --> 23:19.460]  I think that was her.
[23:19.460 --> 23:20.460]  I'm not sure anymore.
[23:20.460 --> 23:21.460]  She didn't know.
[23:21.460 --> 23:23.180]  She didn't have a list.
[23:23.180 --> 23:25.320]  She showed me a residency requirement.
[23:25.320 --> 23:26.740]  She showed me a notice of office.
[23:26.740 --> 23:28.740]  Yeah, well, okay, that's fine.
[23:28.740 --> 23:32.500]  But that led me to realize something else.
[23:32.500 --> 23:37.860]  If the city doesn't know what the requirements are of a person to enter into police duties,
[23:37.860 --> 23:40.340]  how am I supposed to know?
[23:40.340 --> 23:45.540]  And if I can't find out what the complete list of requirements are, how can I prove
[23:45.540 --> 23:46.540]  he's not a cop?
[23:46.540 --> 23:52.700]  And if I can't prove that he's a cop through no fault of my own, how can I defend myself
[23:52.700 --> 23:53.700]  in this case?
[23:53.700 --> 24:00.300]  I wrote that up on some motions, and basically, they just disregarded it.
[24:00.300 --> 24:01.300]  Okay.
[24:01.300 --> 24:11.460]  For one thing, in most municipalities, the city council does not specify a list of requirements
[24:11.460 --> 24:13.700]  for becoming a police officer.
[24:13.700 --> 24:22.180]  What they do is that city council appoints, or i.e. hires, a police chief who sets out
[24:22.180 --> 24:28.820]  all of those policies, okay, and unfortunately, in these cases, the police chief is not an
[24:28.820 --> 24:36.900]  elected official who would be directly accountable to the public, okay, and so city council is
[24:36.900 --> 24:43.540]  not going to have that information because they appoint the police chief who sets those
[24:43.540 --> 24:44.860]  policies.
[24:44.860 --> 24:53.420]  However, those policies are a matter of public record that can be obtained under open records.
[24:53.420 --> 24:57.060]  Yes, this will almost certainly be handled by the state.
[24:57.060 --> 25:05.420]  The state will set the requirements, and you will almost certainly have a state regulatory
[25:05.420 --> 25:12.660]  agency for police, like the state bar in Texas, it's called T-CLOS, that certifies police
[25:12.660 --> 25:13.660]  officers.
[25:13.660 --> 25:21.980]  You might look at your local community college because they generally have criminal justice
[25:21.980 --> 25:22.980]  courses.
[25:22.980 --> 25:26.900]  Okay, and hopefully you're not missing the point here.
[25:26.900 --> 25:28.340]  I was going on that route.
[25:28.340 --> 25:31.980]  I was searching for all these things, but like I said, I never felt comfortable that
[25:31.980 --> 25:38.940]  I had them all, and somewhere I'm thinking that the chief of police or the city or whoever
[25:38.940 --> 25:45.340]  hires these people must know if they're meeting all the requirements to be a police officer.
[25:45.340 --> 25:52.660]  Yeah, but the thing is, it's an agency, it's a, okay, it's a bureaucracy, okay, it's part
[25:52.660 --> 26:00.060]  of the executive branch, the legislature, the city council, our elected officials do
[26:00.060 --> 26:05.180]  not mandate a specified list of requirements.
[26:05.180 --> 26:07.800]  That's just the way it is, okay?
[26:07.800 --> 26:10.700]  You have to look into the training programs.
[26:10.700 --> 26:13.940]  I've been harping on this for the last several weeks, all right?
[26:13.940 --> 26:18.900]  We have to look into who is training these people, okay?
[26:18.900 --> 26:23.260]  This is part of the executive branch, and it's not like there's a specified list of
[26:23.260 --> 26:29.420]  requirements, all right, other than basically maybe you can't be a convicted felon or something
[26:29.420 --> 26:30.620]  ridiculous like that.
[26:30.620 --> 26:31.620]  It's going to be there.
[26:31.620 --> 26:36.100]  There's going to be... I think what you're doing is a very good idea.
[26:36.100 --> 26:42.700]  As I was listening to you, I was thinking, you know the harder this is for you to find,
[26:42.700 --> 26:50.180]  the less likely the police officers are to know that the requirements exist.
[26:50.180 --> 26:54.140]  And you mentioned that you figured the police chief would probably know, well, that's not
[26:54.140 --> 26:55.140]  necessarily an accurate assumption.
[26:55.140 --> 26:56.140]  Well, let's ask Eddie.
[26:56.140 --> 27:01.460]  Let's ask Eddie, because Eddie, you were involved in law enforcement, why don't you tell us
[27:01.460 --> 27:02.940]  about it?
[27:02.940 --> 27:08.300]  Well, basically the law enforcement personnel themselves are never given that information.
[27:08.300 --> 27:12.220]  All they know is there's a list of study courses they have to complete.
[27:12.220 --> 27:15.380]  And where did you take your courses?
[27:15.380 --> 27:22.620]  You can take them, usually they have some night classes in some locations of some cities.
[27:22.620 --> 27:24.780]  It really just varies.
[27:24.780 --> 27:28.100]  Sometimes they'll send you off to a different town or a different county because they're
[27:28.100 --> 27:32.300]  gathering several there in order to cut on costs.
[27:32.300 --> 27:35.940]  Counties are sharing the training costs by hiring out of the center big enough to hold
[27:35.940 --> 27:37.940]  everybody and so on and so forth.
[27:37.940 --> 27:39.860]  It really just depends.
[27:39.860 --> 27:45.220]  Now what you get into that makes a difference to them is when you get the officers that
[27:45.220 --> 27:51.060]  want to join Special Task Force, they get a whole other series of training seminars
[27:51.060 --> 27:56.940]  and classes that involve the Feds, DEA, FBI, things like that.
[27:56.940 --> 28:00.940]  They get to go and do some of the gung-ho type stuff.
[28:00.940 --> 28:02.460]  So it really just depends.
[28:02.460 --> 28:07.580]  But standard law enforcement training is just really nothing more than some community college
[28:07.580 --> 28:13.500]  attendance in some cases, some seminar type classes taught at the local level, it really
[28:13.500 --> 28:14.500]  just depends.
[28:14.500 --> 28:16.100]  There's nothing set in stone.
[28:16.100 --> 28:22.980]  Okay, but Eddie, to answer my question and Joe's question, who lays out the curriculum
[28:22.980 --> 28:30.100]  and who requires you guys to take blah, blah, blah courses wherever?
[28:30.100 --> 28:32.260]  The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement does.
[28:32.260 --> 28:36.740]  Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, okay, that's what we want to know.
[28:36.740 --> 28:40.140]  But they get their mandates from the legislature.
[28:40.140 --> 28:46.300]  The legislature mandates certain sets of required training and the TCLOS Commission, their job
[28:46.300 --> 28:54.060]  is to set up that training, develop the curriculum and then schedule it for the officers to attend.
[28:54.060 --> 28:55.780]  So you're going to have something similar?
[28:55.780 --> 28:56.780]  Right.
[28:56.780 --> 29:00.460]  We have a police academy here but I keep thinking you're missing the point.
[29:00.460 --> 29:05.900]  I'm looking at this, I'm trying to say that if I can't find the whole entire list then
[29:05.900 --> 29:12.580]  my ability to defend myself has been defeated.
[29:12.580 --> 29:18.740]  You can't determine if the officer has met all the requirements but can you find what
[29:18.740 --> 29:19.740]  they are?
[29:19.740 --> 29:20.740]  Right.
[29:20.740 --> 29:23.220]  And so I'm thinking that should be a defense in itself.
[29:23.220 --> 29:30.740]  Well, I'm thinking on the other side, if you can't find any requirements then you can't
[29:30.740 --> 29:32.460]  claim that he hasn't met them.
[29:32.460 --> 29:37.540]  Well, wait a minute, Eddie just said the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement sets those requirements.
[29:37.540 --> 29:38.540]  He's not in Texas.
[29:38.540 --> 29:39.540]  Ohio, right.
[29:39.540 --> 29:44.780]  Okay, so there's bound to be a commission like that in Ohio.
[29:44.780 --> 29:51.140]  Yeah, we have a police academy here and I found things like if he doesn't pass his tuberculosis
[29:51.140 --> 29:53.660]  x-ray he won't graduate from police academy.
[29:53.660 --> 29:58.460]  I find out all kinds of things like this but I never felt comfortable, I had them all and
[29:58.460 --> 30:05.220]  I felt if I can't have them all then I can't raise a defense in this issue and therefore
[30:05.220 --> 30:06.580]  should be thrown out.
[30:06.580 --> 30:07.580]  Okay, Joe.
[30:07.580 --> 30:12.220]  Well, here's the thing, Joe, now on that don't confuse the academy training with the other
[30:12.220 --> 30:15.900]  stuff that we're talking about here, Debra, because there are, Joe, they're not the same
[30:15.900 --> 30:16.900]  thing.
[30:16.900 --> 30:20.620]  The academy training is the basic training every officer has to attend which teaches
[30:20.620 --> 30:25.180]  them basically the driving skills, investigatory skills and so on and so forth.
[30:25.180 --> 30:28.140]  The rest of it is a continuing education class.
[30:28.140 --> 30:33.260]  Now generally when the legislature mandates a set of classes that must be handed down
[30:33.260 --> 30:38.700]  through TCLOS, there is a time limitation by which every officer must meet that training
[30:38.700 --> 30:39.700]  requirement.
[30:39.700 --> 30:43.740]  He's got x number of weeks, months, a year, whatever.
[30:43.740 --> 30:45.380]  For instance, if you're elected...
[30:45.380 --> 30:46.380]  I'm sorry?
[30:46.380 --> 30:48.780]  Can we have that year too in Ohio?
[30:48.780 --> 30:52.820]  Yeah, and that's what I'm saying, they're actually different things, the continuing
[30:52.820 --> 30:53.820]  training.
[30:53.820 --> 30:59.540]  After you actually have, say for instance I get elected sheriff, if I have not attended
[30:59.540 --> 31:06.420]  TCLOS before, then I have up to a year after assuming office to actually go to TCLOS and
[31:06.420 --> 31:07.820]  get the training.
[31:07.820 --> 31:13.020]  I can be sheriff for a year if I've never had TCLOS and still act as sheriff.
[31:13.020 --> 31:17.860]  We have something like that here in Ohio, the same thing, I forget the exact time frame
[31:17.860 --> 31:22.780]  that now, like I said, went through a year and a half ago, but yes, we do have that and
[31:22.780 --> 31:25.740]  that was some additional defenses that I had.
[31:25.740 --> 31:29.940]  Joe, Joe, can I offer you something here?
[31:29.940 --> 31:30.940]  Yeah.
[31:30.940 --> 31:31.940]  Okay.
[31:31.940 --> 31:35.700]  At risk of sounding maybe controversial, I think perhaps you're barking up the wrong
[31:35.700 --> 31:36.700]  tree.
[31:36.700 --> 31:37.700]  Okay.
[31:37.700 --> 31:44.620]  Okay, because even if you can dig up any specific legislative or other requirements for the
[31:44.620 --> 31:50.540]  training of the police and even if once you got that, you could possibly prove that a
[31:50.540 --> 31:56.500]  particular police officer did not meet the requirements, it's going to be such a rabbit
[31:56.500 --> 32:00.700]  hole and so hard to prove, I just don't think it's the way to go.
[32:00.700 --> 32:04.660]  I like Randy's approach, look at the law.
[32:04.660 --> 32:09.220]  What does the law require them to do?
[32:09.220 --> 32:15.140]  And if they break the law, then you take appropriate legal action, right Randy?
[32:15.140 --> 32:23.260]  Yeah, well, but what he's doing is on that same subject, he's saying...
[32:23.260 --> 32:24.260]  Yeah, but the problem is...
[32:24.260 --> 32:30.140]  He's going, but Joe's going to requirements of training, not necessarily what they are
[32:30.140 --> 32:36.220]  required to do or what they are bound to do by duty once they are in office.
[32:36.220 --> 32:38.060]  He's going to subject matter jurisdiction.
[32:38.060 --> 32:43.500]  Well, yeah, he is, but you got to remember that the only problem with this and it's not
[32:43.500 --> 32:49.340]  something I agree with, but it's still a substantial fact, is that they give these officers even
[32:49.340 --> 32:55.620]  with the training, a very wide range of discretion on how to apply that training.
[32:55.620 --> 33:01.700]  So even if they've attended classes early or not at all, the only thing that they're
[33:01.700 --> 33:07.500]  going to do is even if you prove he has not taken all of the necessary classes to hold
[33:07.500 --> 33:13.460]  the position he's got beyond a certain point, the problem is it does not address the issue
[33:13.460 --> 33:18.220]  at hand and the judge is usually going to turn around and say, that has nothing to do
[33:18.220 --> 33:20.340]  with this case, it doesn't address the facts of this case.
[33:20.340 --> 33:24.300]  Now, Randy, you know that as well as I do, it's wrong, but it's what they do.
[33:24.300 --> 33:32.260]  But then that'd give you a shot at the judge if the training was a requirement of the position.
[33:32.260 --> 33:39.340]  Well, the judge agreed to allow me to go in an affirmative defense to say that this person
[33:39.340 --> 33:43.020]  is not a cop, so we are going that route already.
[33:43.020 --> 33:50.700]  You have the right to disqualify the witness against you, and if you can show that he hasn't
[33:50.700 --> 33:59.860]  met the requirements to stand as a police officer, then he's discredited as a witness.
[33:59.860 --> 34:06.340]  Now, the very easy way to do that rather than have to dig up every single thing is find
[34:06.340 --> 34:11.820]  out what the training schedule his position requires is, has he met the training schedule
[34:11.820 --> 34:14.300]  and then see if he's got an oath of office.
[34:14.300 --> 34:20.300]  If he filed an oath of office certifying that he was eligible for that position and he isn't
[34:20.300 --> 34:25.860]  because he hasn't completed the required training for that legislative year within the time
[34:25.860 --> 34:29.380]  frame required, he's already disqualified himself.
[34:29.380 --> 34:30.380]  You know what?
[34:30.380 --> 34:34.140]  I didn't want to get into that part, but I already did that and they threw that out too.
[34:34.140 --> 34:39.700]  I found that where he was supposed to take his commission, his commission was supposed
[34:39.700 --> 34:47.020]  to be signed by the mayor of the city, and the thing with that piece of paper was, and
[34:47.020 --> 34:56.940]  I got it out of his file, the thing with the piece of paper was he took his oath one day,
[34:56.940 --> 35:03.580]  the mayor signed the commission some different day, and the notary who supposedly approved
[35:03.580 --> 35:09.060]  all this didn't sign it until over a year and a half or two years later.
[35:09.060 --> 35:13.060]  So I'm saying, wait a minute, I'm trying to tell him to turn to court, trying to show
[35:13.060 --> 35:19.460]  the court that this notary was not present when they were doing all this.
[35:19.460 --> 35:22.900]  Okay, your problem, you have a different problem.
[35:22.900 --> 35:26.660]  Well, that was another issue, like I said, I didn't want to get into it.
[35:26.660 --> 35:33.220]  Your problem is, is that the judge is not following law, and generally when I go in,
[35:33.220 --> 35:37.140]  I really want to set up the judge to give me some bogus ruling like that, then I get
[35:37.140 --> 35:38.140]  to go after the judge.
[35:38.140 --> 35:40.060]  Have you hammered the judge?
[35:40.060 --> 35:45.340]  I did not have enough expertise to do that.
[35:45.340 --> 35:48.700]  This part's relatively simple.
[35:48.700 --> 35:57.180]  The judge has a ministerial duty to apply the law as it's given to him by the higher
[35:57.180 --> 36:02.580]  courts and the legislature, to the facts that are developed in the case, if he fails to
[36:02.580 --> 36:11.860]  do that, he violates a ministerial duty for which he can be sued, and he violates his
[36:11.860 --> 36:12.860]  oath of office.
[36:12.860 --> 36:14.820]  So you go for him.
[36:14.820 --> 36:20.180]  And he has no immunity if he violates his oath of office or his ministerial duties.
[36:20.180 --> 36:24.980]  So when the judge doesn't give you the ruling that the law requires, hammer the judge.
[36:24.980 --> 36:25.980]  That's a lot more fun.
[36:25.980 --> 36:31.900]  Okay, well, I was just trying to get a reading on the issue of, if I can't find it, shouldn't
[36:31.900 --> 36:33.620]  that be a defense in itself?
[36:33.620 --> 36:42.300]  If I'm on the other side, I'm going to say, well, you're saying that because you can't
[36:42.300 --> 36:48.080]  find something, that we should disqualify this officer from something that may well
[36:48.080 --> 36:49.080]  not exist.
[36:49.080 --> 36:50.080]  Yeah.
[36:50.080 --> 36:53.260]  See, the whole thing is you're dealing with a bureaucracy.
[36:53.260 --> 36:59.100]  You're dealing with a segment of the executive branch where they set their own standards
[36:59.100 --> 37:01.900]  and their own rules, okay?
[37:01.900 --> 37:09.460]  The legislature does not define every little aspect of these training programs, okay?
[37:09.460 --> 37:12.420]  In my eyes, it should, but that's not the way it is, okay?
[37:12.420 --> 37:17.660]  Our city councils appoint our police chiefs, and then they take it from there.
[37:17.660 --> 37:23.260]  So to me, I mean, I still have to hold the ground that you're kind of barking up the
[37:23.260 --> 37:24.260]  wrong tree.
[37:24.260 --> 37:29.020]  I mean, you may eventually get to the point where you could prove that they violated their
[37:29.020 --> 37:34.420]  oath of office, but it's such a long, hard uphill climb.
[37:34.420 --> 37:38.180]  I just don't see how you're ever going to get something like that adjudicated.
[37:38.180 --> 37:43.460]  It's much better to show that they violated law, clear and simple, okay, or that they
[37:43.460 --> 37:49.660]  did you harm so that you can file a lien on the bond.
[37:49.660 --> 37:54.100]  I like the idea that you're taking on a unique issue.
[37:54.100 --> 37:55.820]  It gives us all more ammunition.
[37:55.820 --> 38:00.020]  Well, see, in a way, Joe's issue is the same as mine, okay?
[38:00.020 --> 38:08.940]  He wants to bust these cops for not adhering or not qualifying to the training programs.
[38:08.940 --> 38:12.460]  I want to get control of the training programs, okay?
[38:12.460 --> 38:17.260]  To me, it doesn't matter to me whether they're adhering to the training programs or not,
[38:17.260 --> 38:21.940]  because the training programs are coming down from Agenda 21 and the UN and the feds, okay?
[38:21.940 --> 38:26.980]  And they're training the cops to act like military and to police us like the military
[38:26.980 --> 38:29.620]  in a total police state martial law situation.
[38:29.620 --> 38:36.580]  So they could be adhering to their training programs just fine, but totally disregarding
[38:36.580 --> 38:40.300]  our rights and shredding the Constitution, okay?
[38:40.300 --> 38:46.180]  So even if they are abiding by their training programs, I want to know what the training
[38:46.180 --> 38:51.860]  programs are and get control of them, but in the meantime, let's beat them up with criminal
[38:51.860 --> 38:58.260]  charges for just breaking the law straight up and leaning them when they do us damage.
[38:58.260 --> 39:01.900]  Well, yeah, but I appreciate his position.
[39:01.900 --> 39:04.780]  He's going after a really focused issue.
[39:04.780 --> 39:06.060]  Well, I agree.
[39:06.060 --> 39:12.220]  And sometimes you come across real gems in there, and the harder it is for you to find,
[39:12.220 --> 39:14.900]  the less likely those guys are to know that it's there.
[39:14.900 --> 39:18.100]  Well, the first step in getting control of the training programs of the police is to
[39:18.100 --> 39:22.020]  find out just exactly what they are, so go for it, Joe.
[39:22.020 --> 39:27.460]  Yeah, well, Joe, there's another thing you can do, too, for instance, here in Texas.
[39:27.460 --> 39:29.140]  You can check the city charter.
[39:29.140 --> 39:34.860]  If the city charter does not allow the city to form a police department, there is no lawful
[39:34.860 --> 39:36.860]  authority for that to occur.
[39:36.860 --> 39:39.420]  Yeah, they've got that in the charter.
[39:39.420 --> 39:40.420]  I checked that, yeah.
[39:40.420 --> 39:41.420]  Okay.
[39:41.420 --> 39:47.940]  They're doing the duties of the chief of police, and he has the duty, whatever, to, you know,
[39:47.940 --> 39:48.940]  qualify these.
[39:48.940 --> 39:54.180]  I should choose to qualify, I don't think they use that, to make sure the police officer
[39:54.180 --> 39:55.180]  is a police officer.
[39:55.180 --> 40:00.660]  I guess put it that way, in legal and non-legal terms, however that was written.
[40:00.660 --> 40:06.700]  But I could not, because no one could tell me, I felt that, how am I supposed to know
[40:06.700 --> 40:07.700]  if you don't know?
[40:07.700 --> 40:09.700]  And it wasn't me not being able to find everything.
[40:09.700 --> 40:14.020]  I was going to the people who should know, and they couldn't tell me.
[40:14.020 --> 40:19.660]  And it's like, well, that's a defense to me, but I couldn't get, I couldn't go forward
[40:19.660 --> 40:20.660]  with that.
[40:20.660 --> 40:23.780]  Yeah, and you may be asking for something that's not there.
[40:23.780 --> 40:24.780]  Well, yeah.
[40:24.780 --> 40:25.780]  They may not have.
[40:25.780 --> 40:31.420]  I know it's not there, but I mean, because it's not there is, was the defense in itself.
[40:31.420 --> 40:38.500]  You could try, in those cases, filing a motion to show authority and make the cop prove that
[40:38.500 --> 40:40.220]  he has the authority to be a cop.
[40:40.220 --> 40:43.780]  Well, let me give you just one example of what I did.
[40:43.780 --> 40:48.740]  There were certain paperwork that he must have in his file there.
[40:48.740 --> 40:50.780]  So I asked for those paperwork.
[40:50.780 --> 40:53.980]  One of those papers came out blank.
[40:53.980 --> 40:58.780]  And the paper itself says, unless this is filled out, this form is null and void or
[40:58.780 --> 40:59.780]  something to that effect.
[40:59.780 --> 41:01.780]  So in court, I brought that out.
[41:01.780 --> 41:07.100]  Here's the paperwork, it's null and void, it's due, and it doesn't say that he's approved.
[41:07.100 --> 41:13.420]  And they threw it out saying, and I got this on tape here, but just for the fact that that
[41:13.420 --> 41:20.500]  paper was in his file, proves that he was a cop, and it's like, how can that be?
[41:20.500 --> 41:25.740]  This paper's saying it's not filled out, it's void, but they were looking at it as
[41:25.740 --> 41:26.740]  proving that he was.
[41:26.740 --> 41:31.880]  And it's like, I threw my hands up at that point, I can't.
[41:31.880 --> 41:39.460]  That's when you go after the judge, especially something like that, where it's nonsense.
[41:39.460 --> 41:42.780]  That's a good time to go for the judge.
[41:42.780 --> 41:46.980]  And once you hammer the judge a little bit, in traffic court, the judges just do whatever
[41:46.980 --> 41:47.980]  they want to.
[41:47.980 --> 41:52.420]  And they're used to nobody raising an issue because it costs too much, it's cheaper just
[41:52.420 --> 41:54.960]  to pay the fine and go on.
[41:54.960 --> 41:59.940]  So they get away with doing any kind of stuff they want to, sue the judge.
[41:59.940 --> 42:05.660]  You can counter sue in the traffic case.
[42:05.660 --> 42:10.020]  Well, this was a year and a half ago, and I think it's too late to do anything with
[42:10.020 --> 42:11.020]  that now.
[42:11.020 --> 42:14.260]  But you tell me, I don't know, a year and a half?
[42:14.260 --> 42:15.740]  In the future, you can do that.
[42:15.740 --> 42:17.740]  Oh, in the future, yeah, okay.
[42:17.740 --> 42:25.740]  But if you can show that the officer didn't have authority, then the officer is not able
[42:25.740 --> 42:31.060]  to invoke subject matter jurisdiction to the court, and subject matter jurisdiction can
[42:31.060 --> 42:36.220]  be challenged no matter how remote in history.
[42:36.220 --> 42:38.820]  But suits, you generally won't have two years.
[42:38.820 --> 42:39.820]  Yeah.
[42:39.820 --> 42:40.820]  Well, all right.
[42:40.820 --> 42:41.820]  I appreciate your input.
[42:41.820 --> 42:42.820]  Okay.
[42:42.820 --> 42:43.820]  Okay.
[42:43.820 --> 42:44.820]  Thanks for calling.
[42:44.820 --> 42:45.820]  Sure.
[42:45.820 --> 42:46.820]  Thank you.
[42:46.820 --> 42:47.820]  That was an interesting tact.
[42:47.820 --> 42:48.820]  Okay.
[42:48.820 --> 42:49.820]  All right, Joe.
[42:49.820 --> 42:50.820]  I agree with your position.
[42:50.820 --> 42:53.820]  I hope you can prove it.
[42:53.820 --> 42:54.820]  Well, next time.
[42:54.820 --> 42:55.820]  I don't know.
[42:55.820 --> 42:56.820]  This time.
[42:56.820 --> 43:01.900]  Well, this time, a year and a half ago, I can't go back and I don't think I can go back
[43:01.900 --> 43:02.900]  and redo it.
[43:02.900 --> 43:06.900]  Randy just said subject matter jurisdiction can always be challenged.
[43:06.900 --> 43:07.900]  Yeah.
[43:07.900 --> 43:12.620]  Civil suit, you don't have two years to sue.
[43:12.620 --> 43:15.420]  Or two years from the date you become aware of the violation.
[43:15.420 --> 43:16.420]  Yeah.
[43:16.420 --> 43:20.220]  And you just counter sue in the, so you don't have to pay a filing fee, you just counter
[43:20.220 --> 43:21.220]  sue in the case.
[43:21.220 --> 43:22.220]  Okay.
[43:22.220 --> 43:25.300]  So you're saying I can still counter sue at this point?
[43:25.300 --> 43:26.300]  Yeah.
[43:26.300 --> 43:27.300]  Yeah.
[43:27.300 --> 43:28.300]  You got two years on civil suits.
[43:28.300 --> 43:32.140]  And if you're going to claim a rights violation, it's also two years, or at least it is here
[43:32.140 --> 43:33.140]  in Texas.
[43:33.140 --> 43:36.580]  And you can simply reopen the case.
[43:36.580 --> 43:37.580]  Let me think on that.
[43:37.580 --> 43:38.580]  Okay.
[43:38.580 --> 43:39.580]  Appreciate it.
[43:39.580 --> 43:40.580]  All right.
[43:40.580 --> 43:41.580]  Yeah.
[43:41.580 --> 43:42.580]  Okay.
[43:42.580 --> 43:43.580]  Thank you.
[43:43.580 --> 43:44.580]  All right.
[43:44.580 --> 43:45.580]  Thank you, Joe.
[43:45.580 --> 43:46.580]  All right.
[43:46.580 --> 43:47.580]  Okay.
[43:47.580 --> 43:48.580]  We're going to break.
[43:48.580 --> 43:49.580]  We've got Randy from Texas, Brian from Pennsylvania.
[43:49.580 --> 43:50.580]  Also 512-646-1984.
[43:50.580 --> 43:52.740]  We'll be right back.
[43:52.740 --> 43:55.740]  Smash State.
[43:55.740 --> 43:58.740]  World of Law Radio.
[43:58.740 --> 44:02.780]  If your body isn't feeling too well these days, you're going to start taking this hemp,
[44:02.780 --> 44:03.780]  I say.
[44:03.780 --> 44:08.780]  Go to HempUSA.org.
[44:08.780 --> 44:13.540]  You may not like what I'm about to say, but you know I'm going to say it anyway.
[44:13.540 --> 44:15.780]  The government doesn't want the best for you.
[44:15.780 --> 44:17.220]  They keep you down.
[44:17.220 --> 44:18.220]  They keep you blue.
[44:18.220 --> 44:23.380]  They starve your body for all its nutrients.
[44:23.380 --> 44:25.540]  They won't let you grow industrial hemp.
[44:25.540 --> 44:29.940]  It really doesn't make any kind of sense when it's so healthy for the world and useful
[44:29.940 --> 44:32.940]  for you, my friends.
[44:32.940 --> 44:35.340]  I hope Mr. Bush will hear this song.
[44:35.340 --> 44:42.500]  For the heart of America wants this one, go to HempUSA.org.
[44:42.500 --> 44:47.460]  If you're a true thurian anarchist or renegade, you only want things that God has made.
[44:47.460 --> 44:51.980]  Go to HempUSA.org.
[44:51.980 --> 44:54.180]  We offer free shipping anywhere in the states.
[44:54.180 --> 45:20.100]  Go to HempUSA.org.
[45:20.100 --> 45:43.500]  We offer free shipping anywhere in the states.
[45:43.500 --> 45:53.820]  All right, we are back.
[45:53.820 --> 45:56.700]  The rule of law.
[45:56.700 --> 46:04.660]  Gary, you had a couple of points concerning your last caller regarding a couple of errors
[46:04.660 --> 46:05.860]  that the judge had made.
[46:05.860 --> 46:06.860]  Go ahead, Gary.
[46:06.860 --> 46:12.220]  Well, I think Randy made this point earlier that this judge made errors, which are really
[46:12.220 --> 46:13.620]  a blessing in disguise.
[46:13.620 --> 46:18.060]  It lets you do something about it.
[46:18.060 --> 46:22.380]  My question is, what do you do when a judge makes these errors?
[46:22.380 --> 46:27.140]  I thought you would just wait until appeal and challenge it on a... say, I'm appealing
[46:27.140 --> 46:29.940]  because the judge made errors.
[46:29.940 --> 46:34.720]  Here's the problem with appealing a traffic ticket in Texas.
[46:34.720 --> 46:42.100]  If you appeal, you have to post a bond and double the amount of the fines.
[46:42.100 --> 46:45.900]  Then they will never bring it to court.
[46:45.900 --> 46:53.700]  So if they screw you in the court and render a bogus decision, they get all your money.
[46:53.700 --> 46:59.220]  But if you don't like it, you can appeal and they get twice as much money.
[46:59.220 --> 47:02.380]  So they win either way.
[47:02.380 --> 47:06.060]  But there is a way around that in Texas.
[47:06.060 --> 47:14.020]  In a JP or municipal court, you can demand trial de novo, and they must move it to county
[47:14.020 --> 47:17.700]  court at that point as if the original never occurred.
[47:17.700 --> 47:23.380]  That's an appeal trial de novo, but you have to appeal it and you have to post the bond
[47:23.380 --> 47:24.900]  and then they never bring it to court.
[47:24.900 --> 47:25.900]  Well, wait a minute.
[47:25.900 --> 47:29.260]  What is... I want to get back to the point that Gary was making about the notary.
[47:29.260 --> 47:32.260]  That was one of the two errors.
[47:32.260 --> 47:37.460]  Yeah, that notary signed it a year and a half, or notarized it a year and a half after it
[47:37.460 --> 47:39.620]  was signed.
[47:39.620 --> 47:40.620]  That's pretty blatant.
[47:40.620 --> 47:45.140]  Yeah, not to mention outright fraud.
[47:45.140 --> 47:53.300]  And for a judge to accept that, that's acting in concert and collusion with the fraud.
[47:53.300 --> 48:01.420]  So where does the judge get some kind of special immunity from criminal prosecution?
[48:01.420 --> 48:04.860]  So what do you do?
[48:04.860 --> 48:09.660]  You file criminal charges against the judge, motion to disqualify, petition for court warrant
[48:09.660 --> 48:15.100]  or removal, petition for a court of inquiry.
[48:15.100 --> 48:19.140]  And a judicial complaint and a bar complaint.
[48:19.140 --> 48:20.140]  Yeah.
[48:20.140 --> 48:22.140]  That'll get his attention.
[48:22.140 --> 48:26.740]  Excuse me, the judge did you a big favor by making these errors.
[48:26.740 --> 48:28.060]  That's my opinion.
[48:28.060 --> 48:36.260]  I'm in a case now, and I said earlier, I planned on being in jail next Wednesday.
[48:36.260 --> 48:43.420]  I hope they put me in jail because I will ream them good.
[48:43.420 --> 48:47.780]  They will give me all sorts of causes of action.
[48:47.780 --> 48:53.900]  I mean, I've actually seen judges do some really ludicrously stupid things on that bench.
[48:53.900 --> 49:00.140]  In one of my traffic cases for instance, I was on the stand giving testimony on the transportation
[49:00.140 --> 49:07.260]  code to the jury and the judge sitting on the bench who is forbidden by law to address
[49:07.260 --> 49:14.180]  any evidence or to testify from the bench says it does not say that after I'd already
[49:14.180 --> 49:18.900]  quoted it verbatim from the book and says it doesn't say that while he's sitting on
[49:18.900 --> 49:20.860]  the bench.
[49:20.860 --> 49:28.020]  And then when I move for a mistrial and his recusal ignores it and shuts up.
[49:28.020 --> 49:31.460]  But he's already damaged the testimony to the jury.
[49:31.460 --> 49:36.140]  He acted in complete disregard for the rules governing that court.
[49:36.140 --> 49:39.900]  Okay, so what do you do next?
[49:39.900 --> 49:44.180]  My favorite thing is say, Mr. Bailiff, did you hear that?
[49:44.180 --> 49:45.660]  Arrest that judge.
[49:45.660 --> 49:51.780]  There's a judge in temple that will probably never forget my case because I asked the bailiff
[49:51.780 --> 49:54.780]  to drag him down off the bench three different times.
[49:54.780 --> 49:57.020]  But did he arrest him?
[49:57.020 --> 50:02.260]  No, he jumped up and he said, clear the jury, clear the jury.
[50:02.260 --> 50:06.660]  The jury went out and we argued my objection.
[50:06.660 --> 50:12.460]  And I demanded that the judge stand down from the bench, that he was disqualified and of
[50:12.460 --> 50:15.820]  course the judge refused.
[50:15.820 --> 50:20.340]  Well I think what I'm going to do next time, I'm going to go into court prepared for that
[50:20.340 --> 50:22.900]  to happen again, no matter who's on the bench, Randy.
[50:22.900 --> 50:27.260]  What I'm going to do is I'm going to take in a prewritten writ of mandamus.
[50:27.260 --> 50:35.100]  And then if that judge pulls that crap, I'm going to say, I need for a brief recess, please.
[50:35.100 --> 50:39.140]  And since the municipal court is right across the street from the county and district courts,
[50:39.140 --> 50:43.180]  I'll walk across the street and I'll go file the writ of mandamus to have the judge removed
[50:43.180 --> 50:44.180]  by one of those judges.
[50:44.180 --> 50:48.580]  Okay, but would they do that?
[50:48.580 --> 50:49.580]  Probably not.
[50:49.580 --> 50:55.500]  But see, then you get to go after the next judge.
[50:55.500 --> 50:59.380]  If you take the writ to the county and the county doesn't act on it immediately, then
[50:59.380 --> 51:03.420]  you go to the district and file against the county.
[51:03.420 --> 51:07.300]  And then when the district doesn't act, you file against the district with the judge,
[51:07.300 --> 51:10.740]  with the district attorney, and they're all going to go back to this first judge and say,
[51:10.740 --> 51:13.580]  what the heck did you get us into?
[51:13.580 --> 51:17.780]  Well the other beauty of this is the mayor's office and the city manager's office is also
[51:17.780 --> 51:19.380]  very close to the municipal court.
[51:19.380 --> 51:24.860]  So I can also walk over there and go upstairs and say, okay, I am in your court across the
[51:24.860 --> 51:25.860]  street.
[51:25.860 --> 51:30.260]  Here's what your municipal court judge just did in direct violation of Texas law.
[51:30.260 --> 51:32.140]  So here's what I'm telling you.
[51:32.140 --> 51:34.460]  You're going to come back with me and witness the rest of this.
[51:34.460 --> 51:37.540]  And I'm also putting you on notice, by the way, that I intend to sue your ass if you
[51:37.540 --> 51:39.540]  don't do this.
[51:39.540 --> 51:45.300]  And come back over there and just by showing your face, get control of this judge.
[51:45.300 --> 51:49.020]  And let's see what happens then.
[51:49.020 --> 51:52.180]  Because the mayor is not going to do that, however.
[51:52.180 --> 51:55.220]  No, the city manager probably will.
[51:55.220 --> 52:01.580]  Well, whether he does or not, then he becomes tied up in the mess.
[52:01.580 --> 52:06.820]  And when we start filing against the bonds, we file against his too.
[52:06.820 --> 52:09.100]  So you get everybody involved.
[52:09.100 --> 52:12.140]  Everybody winds up with charges against him.
[52:12.140 --> 52:18.100]  You just make this a horrible mess that starts over seemingly nothing.
[52:18.100 --> 52:21.140]  This is how we make it miserable for him.
[52:21.140 --> 52:26.660]  And with the bond issue, we may actually start stinging him good.
[52:26.660 --> 52:30.740]  Yeah, especially if we make him unemployable.
[52:30.740 --> 52:36.820]  But anyway, that's what I'm suggesting.
[52:36.820 --> 52:42.020]  And I'm in a couple of issues now where I'll actually get to pursue that.
[52:42.020 --> 52:49.060]  One of them is in Travis County where they arrested me for telling the sergeant, asking
[52:49.060 --> 52:53.260]  him what part of I don't want to talk to you, do you not understand.
[52:53.260 --> 52:54.860]  That's going to be a good case.
[52:54.860 --> 53:00.260]  And I'm going to get to hammer the judge in this case.
[53:00.260 --> 53:06.060]  My attorney already knows what I'm prepared to do to him if he doesn't adjudicate my case.
[53:06.060 --> 53:10.540]  So now he has plausible deniability.
[53:10.540 --> 53:16.680]  He can go to the judge and say, Judge, I'm sorry I have to adjudicate all of these issues,
[53:16.680 --> 53:21.500]  but this guy's going to end my career if I don't.
[53:21.500 --> 53:27.740]  So we give it, we put up, the fix is really in defense counsel.
[53:27.740 --> 53:34.820]  If we can put defense counsel in a position of where they can actually adjudicate cases,
[53:34.820 --> 53:39.500]  we'll get a lot of these problems will just go away all by themselves.
[53:39.500 --> 53:46.980]  But as long as the judges can just do whatever they want to, it's just going to keep getting
[53:46.980 --> 53:47.980]  worse.
[53:47.980 --> 53:49.300]  So they're the ones to go after.
[53:49.300 --> 53:52.860]  I'm going after the attorney first.
[53:52.860 --> 53:54.980]  He's going to try to get removed from the case.
[53:54.980 --> 53:56.780]  The judge is going to remove him.
[53:56.780 --> 54:01.220]  Then I get to sue the judge.
[54:01.220 --> 54:05.980]  Everybody's going to be real unhappy about the guys that started this case.
[54:05.980 --> 54:12.780]  Those DPS officers who lied on their transcript on their statement of probable cause.
[54:12.780 --> 54:16.820]  He has himself a problem.
[54:16.820 --> 54:22.020]  He knows they have tape recordings and he knows that I know they have tape recordings.
[54:22.020 --> 54:27.860]  So I couldn't imagine them being this stupid to start with.
[54:27.860 --> 54:35.100]  But because it's a stupid charge, I get to just really roll over them because the last
[54:35.100 --> 54:40.220]  thing they ever wanted to do is get in front of a jury because they'll obviously lose.
[54:40.220 --> 54:44.380]  So if we're going to get the courts back, we got to fight back.
[54:44.380 --> 54:49.460]  So is the ultimate goal to get before a jury?
[54:49.460 --> 54:50.660]  No.
[54:50.660 --> 54:58.380]  The ultimate goal is to simply sting them and get them not ever to want to be put in
[54:58.380 --> 55:04.060]  this position again and change what they're doing.
[55:04.060 --> 55:07.060]  That's the goal.
[55:07.060 --> 55:15.980]  In the end result, everything that I'm doing for the most part moves toward a grand jury.
[55:15.980 --> 55:20.260]  I want to file against these guys in front of a grand jury because that's what scares
[55:20.260 --> 55:26.020]  them the most and I don't really want them indicted.
[55:26.020 --> 55:29.860]  I just want them to have to run the risk of indictment.
[55:29.860 --> 55:36.500]  If I get one indicted, well, that may be good.
[55:36.500 --> 55:37.500]  It may not.
[55:37.500 --> 55:38.500]  I'm not sure.
[55:38.500 --> 55:42.860]  Somebody spends 20 years doing what he's taught, trained to do and then right at the end of
[55:42.860 --> 55:48.660]  his career, I get him indicted and he loses his pension when he's just doing what he thinks
[55:48.660 --> 55:51.860]  he's right, what he's been taught to do.
[55:51.860 --> 55:58.620]  So is it appropriate to ruin somebody's career for doing what they think is right?
[55:58.620 --> 56:04.220]  So I don't really want to ruin their careers, I just want to sting them good.
[56:04.220 --> 56:08.620]  What's the difference?
[56:08.620 --> 56:13.180]  The end result is my outcome is I just want them to follow along.
[56:13.180 --> 56:14.180]  You know what?
[56:14.180 --> 56:15.180]  Let me tell a brief story.
[56:15.180 --> 56:16.180]  I'm not going to mention any names.
[56:16.180 --> 56:17.180]  I can't.
[56:17.180 --> 56:26.780]  I have had professional relation in another area of business that I engage in with a sheriff
[56:26.780 --> 56:34.180]  deputy here in Travis County and I did not let this person know who I was or my political
[56:34.180 --> 56:35.780]  views or anything like that.
[56:35.780 --> 56:41.260]  I just dealt with him in a professional manner regarding the business that I deal in.
[56:41.260 --> 56:49.020]  Well, he's the one that brought up to me, you know, I ask him, well, how are you doing
[56:49.020 --> 56:50.020]  today, sir?
[56:50.020 --> 56:55.940]  Oh, well, at least I haven't tazered any 72-year-old women lately, okay?
[56:55.940 --> 57:02.980]  And he started to proceed to tell me how wrong he thought all that was and how he thought
[57:02.980 --> 57:08.780]  it was total bogus and BS about that people have to sign the tickets or else they get
[57:08.780 --> 57:14.900]  taken to jail and he said in his 30 years of being a sheriff deputy, he's maybe taken
[57:14.900 --> 57:20.100]  one person to jail for not signing a ticket because they were becoming violent.
[57:20.100 --> 57:23.740]  And he said, you know, think about it, a 72-year-old woman and he looked at me and he said, look
[57:23.740 --> 57:24.740]  at you.
[57:24.740 --> 57:27.740]  You weigh 100 pounds, 110 pounds max.
[57:27.740 --> 57:32.980]  If you were arguing with me, even if you started beating on me and hitting on me, he said,
[57:32.980 --> 57:34.620]  I wouldn't taze you.
[57:34.620 --> 57:36.620]  I wouldn't take you to jail.
[57:36.620 --> 57:42.860]  I would just kind of cringe and back off and say, okay, ma'am, I'm sorry and go on off
[57:42.860 --> 57:52.220]  and then call in to have a female deputy come speak to me later at my residence, okay?
[57:52.220 --> 58:01.060]  And the way this gentleman talked to me, let me know we have a lot more people on our side
[58:01.060 --> 58:03.220]  than we really think.
[58:03.220 --> 58:09.540]  Yes, we just have to give them opportunity to be able to do the right thing and they
[58:09.540 --> 58:10.540]  will.
[58:10.540 --> 58:11.540]  Okay.
[58:11.540 --> 58:12.540]  Well, we're going to break.
[58:12.540 --> 58:14.020]  We've got an hour left.
[58:14.020 --> 58:16.100]  We've got Brian, Randy and Rick.
[58:16.100 --> 58:19.420]  We're going to take your calls as soon as we get back on the other side.
[58:19.420 --> 58:27.220]  And of course, also Gary Johnson from Smash the State and Live and Let Live.
[58:27.220 --> 58:28.220]  We'll be right back.
[58:28.220 --> 58:56.720]  Thanks a lot.
[59:58.220 --> 01:00:05.220]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[01:00:05.220 --> 01:00:29.020]  talk radio at its best. The preacher man says it's the end of time, in the Mississippi River,
[01:00:29.020 --> 01:00:39.820]  see the gold drive. The interest is up and the stock market's down, and you're only getting
[01:00:39.820 --> 01:00:51.820]  mugged if you go downtown. I live back in the woods you see, a woman and the kids and the
[01:00:51.820 --> 01:01:02.820]  girls and me. I got a shotgun, a rifle, and a four wheel drive, and a country boy can survive,
[01:01:02.820 --> 01:01:16.820]  country folks can survive. I can fly with field all day long, I can catch catfish from
[01:01:16.820 --> 01:01:27.820]  dusk till dawn. We make our own whiskey and our own smokes too, ain't too many things
[01:01:27.820 --> 01:01:38.820]  these old boys can't do. We grow good old tomatoes and homemade wine, and country boy
[01:01:38.820 --> 01:01:50.820]  can survive, country folks can survive. Because you can't talk about and you can't make us
[01:01:50.820 --> 01:01:59.820]  run, those Muslim old boys say don't shotgun. We say great, we say ma'am, if you ain't
[01:01:59.820 --> 01:02:09.820]  in the best we don't give a damn. We came from the West Virginia coal mines and the rocky
[01:02:09.820 --> 01:02:20.820]  mountains and the western skies. And we can skin a buck, we can run a trot line, and a
[01:02:20.820 --> 01:02:34.820]  country boy can survive, country folks can survive. I had a good friend in New York City,
[01:02:34.820 --> 01:02:45.820]  he never called me by my name, just Bill Billings. My grandpa taught me how to live off the land,
[01:02:45.820 --> 01:02:56.820]  and he taught him to be a business man. He used to send me pictures of the Broadway night,
[01:02:56.820 --> 01:03:07.820]  and I'd send him some homemade wine. But he was killed by a man with a switchblade knife,
[01:03:07.820 --> 01:03:17.820]  for forty three dollars my friend lost his life. I'd love to spit some beech nut in that
[01:03:17.820 --> 01:03:25.820]  dude's eye, but shoot him with my old forty five, cause a country boy can survive, country
[01:03:25.820 --> 01:03:37.820]  folks can survive. Cause you can't stop us out, and you can't make us run, those Muslim
[01:03:37.820 --> 01:03:45.820]  old boys say don't shotgun. We say great, we say ma'am, if you ain't in the best we
[01:03:45.820 --> 01:03:55.820]  don't give a damn. River north California and south Alabama, middle towns all around
[01:03:55.820 --> 01:04:07.820]  this land. And we can skin a buck, and run a trot line, and a country boy can survive,
[01:04:07.820 --> 01:04:14.820]  country folks can survive. We say great, and we say ma'am, and if you ain't into that,
[01:04:14.820 --> 01:04:24.820]  we don't give a damn. Okay, good old Hank Williams Jr. Alright, we can take care of
[01:04:24.820 --> 01:04:33.820]  our own. We can skin a buck, we make our own whiskey, and our own smoke too. Alright,
[01:04:33.820 --> 01:04:42.820]  in more ways than one. Alright, we are going now to Randy in Texas. Hey Randy, thanks
[01:04:42.820 --> 01:04:47.820]  for calling in with us on your mind tonight. Well, you know, I was listening to Joe there
[01:04:47.820 --> 01:04:53.820]  on his deal, and I was thinking about kind of what Randy and I talked about in the past
[01:04:53.820 --> 01:04:59.820]  is that, you know, on these citations, they're not complete on their face because you're
[01:04:59.820 --> 01:05:05.820]  supposed to go into the magistrate and have the examining trial, which they never do.
[01:05:05.820 --> 01:05:12.820]  They're asking you to eat, and that's why I always go in on a special appearance on
[01:05:12.820 --> 01:05:16.820]  paperwork. And so I was just going to throw that out to the guy, and it sounds like that
[01:05:16.820 --> 01:05:22.820]  they pretty much, you know, broke a lot of rules. And the other thing is I think Randy
[01:05:22.820 --> 01:05:28.820]  always says, you know, you're not trying to defend, you're trying to attack, go for
[01:05:28.820 --> 01:05:37.820]  their throat. Set them up, ambush them, and proceed on. Yeah, a lot of people say, well,
[01:05:37.820 --> 01:05:45.820]  I filed this, and they just threw it out. And that's a mindset I'm trying to get people
[01:05:45.820 --> 01:05:53.820]  to get over, is they think the judge is there and has some special power, and he will either
[01:05:53.820 --> 01:06:03.820]  grant you absolution or not. Well, he should act that way, but they never do, as you know.
[01:06:03.820 --> 01:06:15.820]  He should only follow law. If I lose by law, I lose righteous, but it better be by law.
[01:06:15.820 --> 01:06:23.820]  And generally, it's just more effective if you keep the judge in his place. You're still
[01:06:23.820 --> 01:06:31.820]  the master, and he's still the servant. That role keeps getting reversed. We go to the
[01:06:31.820 --> 01:06:37.820]  judge and ask the judge to do something for us, and he does or he doesn't. I don't ask
[01:06:37.820 --> 01:06:44.820]  the judge to do anything. I tell him what the law commands him to do, and if he doesn't,
[01:06:44.820 --> 01:06:50.820]  I fully intend to hold him responsible for it. Now, as you know, Randy, we've talked
[01:06:50.820 --> 01:06:59.820]  about my situation on this up-and-coming trial. What do you suggest I do as far as, I mean,
[01:06:59.820 --> 01:07:04.820]  they're just totally ignoring everything that I've done to this point, as usual. File criminal
[01:07:04.820 --> 01:07:12.820]  charges against the judge. Right, and I intended to do that, but in my opinion, I'm still going
[01:07:12.820 --> 01:07:17.820]  to have to walk into this court date, and no matter what I've done, they're still going
[01:07:17.820 --> 01:07:22.820]  to just roll over me. Sure, they are. Who cares? But I'm going to be in this situation
[01:07:22.820 --> 01:07:28.820]  where I'm going to have to post a bond three times, whatever it was, just so I can appeal
[01:07:28.820 --> 01:07:33.820]  this, even though they have no jurisdiction and they never have. Well, what you do is,
[01:07:33.820 --> 01:07:41.820]  before I got to court, I would file criminal charges against the judge for impersonating
[01:07:41.820 --> 01:07:47.820]  a public official, motion to disqualify the judge, and a countersuit suing the judge
[01:07:47.820 --> 01:07:53.820]  himself. And in actuality, to address the directness of your question there, no, you
[01:07:53.820 --> 01:07:57.820]  will not have to post a bond, you will not have to make an appeal, because if the judge
[01:07:57.820 --> 01:08:03.820]  had no jurisdiction to proceed to begin with, the judge has committed a violation of law.
[01:08:03.820 --> 01:08:10.820]  You can go to the next higher court, and you can file to have the entire decision vacated
[01:08:10.820 --> 01:08:16.820]  because the judge had no jurisdiction to issue it to begin with. Mandamus. Let me explain
[01:08:16.820 --> 01:08:23.820]  where we're going here because we didn't tell how we got there. A constable gave Randy
[01:08:23.820 --> 01:08:31.820]  a ticket because his dog was running loose, but the legislature didn't designate the
[01:08:31.820 --> 01:08:42.820]  constable that authority. The local, the municipality has to designate someone to enforce the animal
[01:08:42.820 --> 01:08:50.820]  control statutes. And they didn't designate, either someone designated by the municipality
[01:08:50.820 --> 01:08:56.820]  or someone, or a, isn't it a county sheriff? Yeah, wait a minute, wait a minute, you're
[01:08:56.820 --> 01:09:02.820]  not in an annexed municipality, are you, Randy? No, I'm in Travis County, but the thing is,
[01:09:02.820 --> 01:09:08.820]  is that it's the Travis County Commissioner's Court, they were the ones that set up what's
[01:09:08.820 --> 01:09:15.820]  called a regulation in this situation. And it only designates the Travis County Sheriff's
[01:09:15.820 --> 01:09:23.820]  Department, and then the Animal Control Authority, which is a specific group of people, and it
[01:09:23.820 --> 01:09:30.820]  is not, so it excludes the constables. And I think it actually might even exclude the
[01:09:30.820 --> 01:09:39.820]  Austin Police. Well, yeah, it designated, it specified precisely who could enforce this
[01:09:39.820 --> 01:09:45.820]  statute. And that was unusual to see. Generally, a police officer can enforce any statute,
[01:09:45.820 --> 01:09:52.820]  but this one was different. It specifically said county sheriff's deputies and someone
[01:09:52.820 --> 01:09:59.820]  designated as an animal control officer. Constable wasn't it. So he lacked authority to file
[01:09:59.820 --> 01:10:07.820]  the complaint. Therefore, his pleading or his filing with the court was insufficient
[01:10:07.820 --> 01:10:14.820]  to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. And the court's responsible
[01:10:14.820 --> 01:10:23.820]  for knowing that. He's purporting to exercise an authority, he needs to make sure he has
[01:10:23.820 --> 01:10:29.820]  it first. Because if he doesn't, then he's impersonating a public official. And that's
[01:10:29.820 --> 01:10:37.820]  crime in Texas. Well, now here's another thing though, Randy. Since when does a commissioner's
[01:10:37.820 --> 01:10:49.820]  court have the authority to hold such a case, a trial? Well, the state legislature in the
[01:10:49.820 --> 01:10:58.820]  health and safety code under rabies control. Oh, no misunderstanding. The municipal and
[01:10:58.820 --> 01:11:05.820]  the counties to adopt as a minimum standard these, this kind of law, but it's pretty obvious
[01:11:05.820 --> 01:11:10.820]  that they only did it to restrict people's rights. It had nothing to do with rabies.
[01:11:10.820 --> 01:11:15.820]  It's just about leash law. Yeah. What it was, it wasn't that the commissioner's court didn't
[01:11:15.820 --> 01:11:22.820]  adjudicate, a justice of the peace adjudicated. A municipal justice of the peace? No, no,
[01:11:22.820 --> 01:11:27.820]  no. You don't have, you have a justice of the peace in municipal judges. This is a JP.
[01:11:27.820 --> 01:11:32.820]  It's unincorporated. So the JP is a judge of original jurisdiction. It went before the
[01:11:32.820 --> 01:11:38.820]  judge. It wasn't that the commissioner's court did any kind of actual adjudication.
[01:11:38.820 --> 01:11:43.820]  They just passed a statute. Okay. Well, they passed the regulation, which, you know, I
[01:11:43.820 --> 01:11:48.820]  found it interesting too, when I was kind of doing some more research, you know, some
[01:11:48.820 --> 01:11:55.820]  of the people that are saying how things are all in commerce and commercial. And if you
[01:11:55.820 --> 01:12:05.820]  look in the black salt dictionary, regulations are about regulating commerce. Right. So once
[01:12:05.820 --> 01:12:12.820]  again, we find the little dirty hand in there that this probably doesn't apply to us directly
[01:12:12.820 --> 01:12:20.820]  because we're not acting in commerce. Well, in that particular statute, who does it say
[01:12:20.820 --> 01:12:27.820]  can be issued the citation? Well, not who can do the issuing, but who is the recipient
[01:12:27.820 --> 01:12:34.820]  when it's issued? The statute is the Texas statute from the legislature is under the
[01:12:34.820 --> 01:12:44.820]  health and safety code. And it's like 826, I believe. And then it's an enabling thing
[01:12:44.820 --> 01:12:53.820]  that allows a municipality or a county to adopt as a minimum standard for rabies control
[01:12:53.820 --> 01:13:00.820]  these various things. And one of these is restraint of dog. And that's what they did
[01:13:00.820 --> 01:13:09.820]  in the county commissioner's court in Travis County adopted this. And they basically adopted
[01:13:09.820 --> 01:13:19.820]  it, you know, the same way it was written. Randy, I think what he's going to is, do they
[01:13:19.820 --> 01:13:25.820]  designate person? Who do they designate? And how do they designate the individual who can
[01:13:25.820 --> 01:13:35.820]  be cited? Owner? I believe they say owner only. And that's interesting question too,
[01:13:35.820 --> 01:13:43.820]  because it's really not my dog, it's my son's dog. Yeah. What does it define as owner? What's
[01:13:43.820 --> 01:13:48.820]  the legal definition for owner in that statute? Dad is not defined in the statutes anywhere
[01:13:48.820 --> 01:13:56.820]  that I have found. Okay. Well, wait a minute. I have another question. Is your son a minor?
[01:13:56.820 --> 01:14:04.820]  No. Well, then why are they citing you? Well, if his son's a minor. No, he said no. His
[01:14:04.820 --> 01:14:13.820]  son is not a minor. Wait, how old is your son? He's 18, getting ready to be nine. Well,
[01:14:13.820 --> 01:14:22.820]  then why are they citing you? Abatement. Because I was there. Then you need to abate the filing,
[01:14:22.820 --> 01:14:29.820]  but then they'll just refile against your son. Sure. I mean, the whole thing is, I mean,
[01:14:29.820 --> 01:14:34.820]  here's the deal. They have violated so many rules. They never had the examining trial.
[01:14:34.820 --> 01:14:42.820]  They've just overstepped themselves 15 ways to Sunday. And I've constantly stood on the
[01:14:42.820 --> 01:14:47.820]  thing. You have no jurisdiction, challenge the jurisdiction upfront. And they have never
[01:14:47.820 --> 01:14:53.820]  proven jurisdiction. They haven't even tried. So this is a great case to go for the judge.
[01:14:53.820 --> 01:14:57.820]  Well, that's what I intend to do. Then there's two judges in it. As you recall, there's Meeker
[01:14:57.820 --> 01:15:05.820]  and there's Steed. Yes. And then there's the court clerk who deserves to get hung high.
[01:15:05.820 --> 01:15:10.820]  And then there's the constable. You get to sue them all. I know. All right. It's going
[01:15:10.820 --> 01:15:17.820]  to be fun. Guess what? The term person in that particular section is defined only once.
[01:15:17.820 --> 01:15:22.820]  It is defined under a completely unrelated subchapter, which means Chapter 311 Government
[01:15:22.820 --> 01:15:29.820]  Code terminology for person applies. Therefore, the only one that can be issued the ticket
[01:15:29.820 --> 01:15:38.820]  is an agent for a corporate entity or some other type of legal or governmental entity.
[01:15:38.820 --> 01:15:46.820]  Where is this? I'd like to see this. Chapter 311 Government Code tells you what is included
[01:15:46.820 --> 01:15:51.820]  in the term person in every Texas statute. Well, wait a minute. Doesn't the statute say
[01:15:51.820 --> 01:15:57.820]  owner? Yeah. Randy? Yeah. This one doesn't say person. No, no, no, no. Hold on. Hold
[01:15:57.820 --> 01:16:07.820]  on. Hold on. It specifically says owner means a person who owns or controls an animal. And
[01:16:07.820 --> 01:16:15.820]  person is a corporate? Legal entity out of Chapter 311 because the term person is not
[01:16:15.820 --> 01:16:20.820]  defined in that same chapter or in any other relevant chapter to that specific section.
[01:16:20.820 --> 01:16:31.820]  So, Chapter 311 applies. And this is Chapter 311 of what now? Government Code. Oh, I love
[01:16:31.820 --> 01:16:37.820]  it when it comes together. Okay. This goes to the Tim Turner document. You have to separate
[01:16:37.820 --> 01:16:47.820]  yourself from your straw man. I'm seeing it more and more. If you do not separate yourself
[01:16:47.820 --> 01:16:55.820]  from your straw man, you're leaving yourself very vulnerable. So, if I go into the Texas
[01:16:55.820 --> 01:17:01.820]  statute under Government Code, I look into 311. Is there a specific section I'm looking
[01:17:01.820 --> 01:17:11.820]  at? Right there in the very first part, Chapter 311.005, sub-item 2, person. You will like
[01:17:11.820 --> 01:17:18.820]  Chapter 311. Oh, yeah. It tells you exactly how every statute in Texas must be constructed,
[01:17:18.820 --> 01:17:23.820]  including the language. And it tells you very specifically that any time a definition is
[01:17:23.820 --> 01:17:30.820]  not defined, the general definition within Chapter 311 shall be used. Well, the term
[01:17:30.820 --> 01:17:35.820]  person in the section you're dealing with or in that entire title does not apply. There
[01:17:35.820 --> 01:17:42.820]  isn't one except in Chapter 822, and it's only for that sub-chapter. Therefore, 311
[01:17:42.820 --> 01:17:49.820]  applies, and 311 says everything that person is is a legal entity. Now, even if the Commissioner's
[01:17:49.820 --> 01:17:56.820]  Court adopts this under the authority of the legislature, then that still would apply?
[01:17:56.820 --> 01:18:04.820]  Yes, because it's the Government Code, and every statute in Texas falls under the Government
[01:18:04.820 --> 01:18:11.820]  Code. God bless you. I'm going to beat them to death with this. Now, if you look in Chapter
[01:18:11.820 --> 01:18:18.820]  1 of the Health and Safety Code, it will tell you right there at the top in Section 1.002,
[01:18:18.820 --> 01:18:23.820]  construction of code. Chapter 311, Government Code applies to the construction of each provision
[01:18:23.820 --> 01:18:29.820]  of this code, except as otherwise expressly provided by this code. Now, Randy got a crash
[01:18:29.820 --> 01:18:34.820]  course in exactly what that expressly provided means when I looked up the charge he was getting
[01:18:34.820 --> 01:18:40.820]  hit with in Rusk for the Investigative Security Service. It specifically says that Chapter
[01:18:40.820 --> 01:18:48.820]  311 definition of person does not apply to this section. That's the exception or the
[01:18:48.820 --> 01:18:56.820]  exclusion that must exist before 311 does not apply. So, technically, every one of these
[01:18:56.820 --> 01:19:02.820]  tickets that these YAHUs has done is just total bull crap. Well, yeah, haven't I been
[01:19:02.820 --> 01:19:07.820]  saying that for what, three months now? That's the technical legal...
[01:19:07.820 --> 01:19:10.820]  Well, we all know that, but it's kind of fun to prove it.
[01:19:10.820 --> 01:19:18.820]  Yeah, but the thing is, Randy, if you lay the groundwork with filing certain commercial
[01:19:18.820 --> 01:19:26.820]  paperwork, then you have a lot more wind-up, so to speak, to throw the punch at them.
[01:19:26.820 --> 01:19:35.820]  And I'm working on that too, but here's the other thing is, Randy, you told me about...
[01:19:35.820 --> 01:19:42.820]  because the other thing in this regulation is all the funds are supposed to go to ACA,
[01:19:42.820 --> 01:19:47.820]  the Animal Control Authority, which we know these guys aren't sending the money the right
[01:19:47.820 --> 01:19:55.820]  way. And you told me about a fact that we could go after them to cover those misappropriated
[01:19:55.820 --> 01:19:56.820]  funds.
[01:19:56.820 --> 01:19:57.820]  QITAM.
[01:19:57.820 --> 01:19:58.820]  I'd like to know about that.
[01:19:58.820 --> 01:20:09.820]  A QITAM action. Q-U-I, one word, T-A-M. QITAM is where it's essentially a whistleblower
[01:20:09.820 --> 01:20:20.820]  suit, where you go after a government agency to recover misappropriated funds, and you
[01:20:20.820 --> 01:20:27.820]  get to keep 25 percent of what you collect, except if the government decides to join you
[01:20:27.820 --> 01:20:33.820]  in the suit, then you get, I think, 10 percent.
[01:20:33.820 --> 01:20:37.820]  And where is that? Is that in the code somewhere or what?
[01:20:37.820 --> 01:20:47.820]  That's in a federal code, but QITAM is available everywhere. I'll have to go back and look
[01:20:47.820 --> 01:20:49.820]  and see where it is in Texas.
[01:20:49.820 --> 01:20:53.820]  I think it's going to be really fun to go after these guys with something like that,
[01:20:53.820 --> 01:20:57.820]  because you know that they're doing this totally wrong.
[01:20:57.820 --> 01:20:58.820]  Oh, yeah.
[01:20:58.820 --> 01:21:07.820]  If the county, they're using county funds, and the county collects, if they collect $1
[01:21:07.820 --> 01:21:10.820]  in federal funds, federal QITAM applies.
[01:21:10.820 --> 01:21:17.820]  Yeah, if you actually check out the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, you'd find that the
[01:21:17.820 --> 01:21:25.820]  last one they did in 2007 or 2008, they made over $3 billion in traffic fines, and most
[01:21:25.820 --> 01:21:30.820]  of those are out of yours and my pocket with the illegal tickets.
[01:21:30.820 --> 01:21:34.820]  Now, I want my QITAM action 25 percent of that.
[01:21:34.820 --> 01:21:39.820]  Yeah, I think we should, you know, I've often thought that what we should do is we should
[01:21:39.820 --> 01:21:46.820]  look at the beast, and we should target his, you know...
[01:21:46.820 --> 01:21:47.820]  Testicles?
[01:21:47.820 --> 01:21:49.820]  His moneybags?
[01:21:49.820 --> 01:21:52.820]  The points where he is shielding is less.
[01:21:52.820 --> 01:21:56.820]  Well, Randy, Randy, listen, I wanted to ask you something, okay, and this is just for
[01:21:56.820 --> 01:22:04.820]  the sake of our guest and our new host, Gary, who is, you know, libertarian ideologist.
[01:22:04.820 --> 01:22:10.820]  Maybe I'm not representing him properly, but okay, we're getting into some very fine points
[01:22:10.820 --> 01:22:13.820]  of law here, but let me ask you something.
[01:22:13.820 --> 01:22:15.820]  Was anybody harmed over this episode?
[01:22:15.820 --> 01:22:21.820]  I mean, other than the state claiming that you broke some ordinance or law?
[01:22:21.820 --> 01:22:27.820]  I mean, did your dog or your son's dog actually cause any physical harm to another human being
[01:22:27.820 --> 01:22:29.820]  or their property?
[01:22:29.820 --> 01:22:31.820]  No, nothing like that.
[01:22:31.820 --> 01:22:34.820]  I mean, it's just ridiculous on its face.
[01:22:34.820 --> 01:22:40.820]  I mean, basically, what I understand is the worst that happened is that your dog came
[01:22:40.820 --> 01:22:47.820]  home with pellets in his butt, right, and you are upset about it, and I told you, it's
[01:22:47.820 --> 01:22:52.820]  like, go keep your dog in the yard and your dog won't get shot in his ASS.
[01:22:52.820 --> 01:23:00.820]  I mean, but if your dog or your son's dog, excuse me, or your son's strawman's dog or
[01:23:00.820 --> 01:23:05.820]  the trust that you've set up for your son's strawman or whatever that the dog belongs
[01:23:05.820 --> 01:23:11.820]  to has not caused another trust or another strawman or another living soul or the property
[01:23:11.820 --> 01:23:17.820]  any damage, that's what I'm trying to get to right here.
[01:23:17.820 --> 01:23:20.820]  Has any of the above happened?
[01:23:20.820 --> 01:23:22.820]  No, the dog hurt no one.
[01:23:22.820 --> 01:23:27.820]  And in fact, when everyone was out here raising cane about it, the dog was chasing squirrels
[01:23:27.820 --> 01:23:29.820]  down in the dry creek bed.
[01:23:29.820 --> 01:23:30.820]  So who complained?
[01:23:30.820 --> 01:23:31.820]  Who called the constable?
[01:23:31.820 --> 01:23:34.820]  Why did the constable show up?
[01:23:34.820 --> 01:23:37.820]  It was the neighbor that released the dog.
[01:23:37.820 --> 01:23:39.820]  The neighbor that, what do you mean the neighbor released the dog?
[01:23:39.820 --> 01:23:42.820]  I thought it was your dog or your son's dog or your son's strawman's dog.
[01:23:42.820 --> 01:23:44.820]  What do you mean the neighbor released the dog?
[01:23:44.820 --> 01:23:49.820]  As I told you a long time ago, the gate was, somebody came over and opened up the gate.
[01:23:49.820 --> 01:23:51.820]  I believe it might have been the neighbor.
[01:23:51.820 --> 01:23:57.820]  And then he called the constable to come out so that, you know, because he didn't like the dog.
[01:23:57.820 --> 01:24:06.820]  He didn't shoot the dog that day, but he's been shooting it and shooting it over the several months.
[01:24:06.820 --> 01:24:07.820]  Okay.
[01:24:07.820 --> 01:24:11.820]  So then what, are you saying that the neighbor actually imprisoned the dog at some point
[01:24:11.820 --> 01:24:14.820]  and called the constable to come pick it up or something?
[01:24:14.820 --> 01:24:17.820]  No, he let the dog out of his yard.
[01:24:17.820 --> 01:24:18.820]  Yeah, he just released the dog.
[01:24:18.820 --> 01:24:27.820]  And then I think he thought better of it because he won't file a complaint at all in the case.
[01:24:27.820 --> 01:24:33.820]  And he's kind of gotten much more calm and mellow about the whole deal.
[01:24:33.820 --> 01:24:42.820]  Well, okay, I guess what I'm trying to get to for point of law is if the neighbor is pressing charges.
[01:24:42.820 --> 01:24:43.820]  He's not.
[01:24:43.820 --> 01:24:44.820]  Okay.
[01:24:44.820 --> 01:24:47.820]  So this is just totally the state.
[01:24:47.820 --> 01:24:49.820]  It's totally the state.
[01:24:49.820 --> 01:24:52.820]  The constable has picked this up and running with the ball.
[01:24:52.820 --> 01:24:55.820]  Because of income, because of revenue.
[01:24:55.820 --> 01:24:58.820]  Is there any chance that the dog pooped on the cost of his food?
[01:24:58.820 --> 01:25:00.820]  Will you stop it?
[01:25:00.820 --> 01:25:02.820]  I mean, that would be harm.
[01:25:02.820 --> 01:25:03.820]  You know what?
[01:25:03.820 --> 01:25:07.820]  The constable is without standing.
[01:25:07.820 --> 01:25:13.820]  Well, the only thing I can imagine is that the constable is related to the squirrels.
[01:25:13.820 --> 01:25:14.820]  That could be.
[01:25:14.820 --> 01:25:16.820]  That's another loose nut.
[01:25:16.820 --> 01:25:22.820]  Look, there's probably a quota and they can't lose face.
[01:25:22.820 --> 01:25:25.820]  This is getting out of hand.
[01:25:25.820 --> 01:25:28.820]  No, I just try to find out what's going on.
[01:25:28.820 --> 01:25:36.820]  I mean, the thing is that these guys, you know, when I went to the first hearing, the illegal hearing with the court clerk,
[01:25:36.820 --> 01:25:43.820]  the county prosecutor and the constable who was there, after I talked to them,
[01:25:43.820 --> 01:25:46.820]  you would think that these people would wake up and say, you know what?
[01:25:46.820 --> 01:25:50.820]  This guy seems to know what he's doing and he probably is going to come after us.
[01:25:50.820 --> 01:25:52.820]  They're not going to, Randy.
[01:25:52.820 --> 01:25:58.820]  They're going to fight it until the bitter end because that's how they're trained and they're just in it for the revenue.
[01:25:58.820 --> 01:26:02.820]  Because you're a civilian and they can't be outdone by a civilian.
[01:26:02.820 --> 01:26:03.820]  Oh.
[01:26:03.820 --> 01:26:09.820]  See, they picture themselves with this invisible force field around them that we can't penetrate.
[01:26:09.820 --> 01:26:11.820]  Well, we're going to penetrate it.
[01:26:11.820 --> 01:26:14.820]  I can guarantee you that because I'm kind of like my dog.
[01:26:14.820 --> 01:26:15.820]  I won't quit.
[01:26:15.820 --> 01:26:16.820]  Okay, can I make a suggestion?
[01:26:16.820 --> 01:26:21.820]  Can you make an impenetrable fence around your yard so your dog doesn't get out?
[01:26:21.820 --> 01:26:24.820]  No, the dog has never gotten out since that day.
[01:26:24.820 --> 01:26:27.820]  Okay, well, good for you.
[01:26:27.820 --> 01:26:29.820]  Or good for your son.
[01:26:29.820 --> 01:26:30.820]  Electrify it for your neighbor.
[01:26:30.820 --> 01:26:32.820]  Let him come open it again.
[01:26:32.820 --> 01:26:34.820]  Although the other neighbor tore down the other fence,
[01:26:34.820 --> 01:26:39.820]  so I can't even let the dog out without it being on a chain now.
[01:26:39.820 --> 01:26:47.820]  Well, if it's your dog or your son's dog on the property, it's your responsibility to maintain control.
[01:26:47.820 --> 01:26:49.820]  It doesn't get away.
[01:26:49.820 --> 01:26:50.820]  It's totally safe.
[01:26:50.820 --> 01:26:53.820]  All right.
[01:26:53.820 --> 01:26:56.820]  You get a golf clap.
[01:26:56.820 --> 01:26:58.820]  See, Randy, you'd love my situation.
[01:26:58.820 --> 01:27:02.820]  I've got three border collies, and I live right in the big middle of Nacogdoches town here,
[01:27:02.820 --> 01:27:05.820]  and I never put mine on a leash when I take them outside.
[01:27:05.820 --> 01:27:10.820]  I had three police officers and animal control show up threatening to write me a ticket,
[01:27:10.820 --> 01:27:12.820]  and I said, well, you have one problem.
[01:27:12.820 --> 01:27:16.820]  First off, my dogs have never left my property.
[01:27:16.820 --> 01:27:20.820]  You have no complaint from anyone to be on my property.
[01:27:20.820 --> 01:27:25.820]  So the only one here that's where they're not supposed to be is you.
[01:27:25.820 --> 01:27:29.820]  So there's a sign posted over there that says, criminal trespass.
[01:27:29.820 --> 01:27:30.820]  I would like for you to go read it.
[01:27:30.820 --> 01:27:33.820]  Then I would like for you to do what it says and leave.
[01:27:33.820 --> 01:27:34.820]  And they did.
[01:27:34.820 --> 01:27:39.820]  Yes, see, and I just have to make this point again just for the sake of our guest
[01:27:39.820 --> 01:27:44.820]  and our new host, Gary Johnson, who's been hanging on the line for so long listening.
[01:27:44.820 --> 01:27:52.820]  I don't believe that the state should have any business pressing charges
[01:27:52.820 --> 01:27:56.820]  or dealing with these kinds of situations or pursuing these matters
[01:27:56.820 --> 01:28:02.820]  if nobody is claiming harm, okay?
[01:28:02.820 --> 01:28:03.820]  Randy, you said yourself.
[01:28:03.820 --> 01:28:07.820]  I mean, neighbors not pressing charges, okay?
[01:28:07.820 --> 01:28:12.820]  This is strictly the state, nothing else, and for what purpose?
[01:28:12.820 --> 01:28:14.820]  For revenue and for control.
[01:28:14.820 --> 01:28:20.820]  And I can't agree with that on a fundamental basis.
[01:28:20.820 --> 01:28:23.820]  There's another interesting twist.
[01:28:23.820 --> 01:28:29.820]  In this case, they're not acting on state statutes.
[01:28:29.820 --> 01:28:39.820]  The state statute says that when a law in the penal code of the state of Texas is violated,
[01:28:39.820 --> 01:28:43.820]  the state is inter-parted, but this is not a penal law.
[01:28:43.820 --> 01:28:44.820]  This is a county rule.
[01:28:44.820 --> 01:28:45.820]  No, wait a minute.
[01:28:45.820 --> 01:28:48.820]  Randy said that it was a state matter.
[01:28:48.820 --> 01:28:52.820]  No, the state authorized them to make up their rules.
[01:28:52.820 --> 01:28:53.820]  Wait a minute.
[01:28:53.820 --> 01:29:02.820]  Since when does the state authorize the county to make up what ordinances they want?
[01:29:02.820 --> 01:29:04.820]  I mean, local governments can...
[01:29:04.820 --> 01:29:06.820]  The legislature has to do that.
[01:29:06.820 --> 01:29:07.820]  No.
[01:29:07.820 --> 01:29:10.820]  They have to delegate the authority, and they did.
[01:29:10.820 --> 01:29:14.820]  But they delegated it to the county, not to the state.
[01:29:14.820 --> 01:29:18.820]  So this is a county rule or county ordinance, not a state ordinance.
[01:29:18.820 --> 01:29:25.820]  So violation of a county ordinance doesn't necessarily harm the state or the county.
[01:29:25.820 --> 01:29:28.820]  State lacks standing to bring a cause of action.
[01:29:28.820 --> 01:29:32.820]  So they're moving in the wrong venue as far as the party,
[01:29:32.820 --> 01:29:37.820]  because they're saying it's the state of Texas against me in the county.
[01:29:37.820 --> 01:29:40.820]  Yeah, but the complaining party has no standing.
[01:29:40.820 --> 01:29:43.820]  And it's not the state of Texas.
[01:29:43.820 --> 01:29:44.820]  This is a county.
[01:29:44.820 --> 01:29:49.820]  No, all criminal prosecutions must be brought in the name of the state of Texas.
[01:29:49.820 --> 01:29:52.820]  They have to cite a specific statute that's been broken.
[01:29:52.820 --> 01:29:55.820]  Yeah, but the thing about it is, Randy, you just said it yourself.
[01:29:55.820 --> 01:29:59.820]  This can't be a criminal prosecution in that case,
[01:29:59.820 --> 01:30:02.820]  because the state of Texas would have no standing,
[01:30:02.820 --> 01:30:07.820]  because it's a violation of an ordinance at a local level.
[01:30:07.820 --> 01:30:12.820]  Are ordinances by default not criminal matters?
[01:30:12.820 --> 01:30:13.820]  No.
[01:30:13.820 --> 01:30:17.820]  No, but they are in the municipality of the county.
[01:30:17.820 --> 01:30:19.820]  They're not at the state level.
[01:30:19.820 --> 01:30:24.820]  The state would have no standing to sue or to bring a cause of action under that.
[01:30:24.820 --> 01:30:25.820]  Okay, but wait a minute.
[01:30:25.820 --> 01:30:26.820]  Those are two separate issues.
[01:30:26.820 --> 01:30:37.820]  The first question is, are ordinances of the county or any municipality just by default not on the criminal side of law?
[01:30:37.820 --> 01:30:38.820]  Right.
[01:30:38.820 --> 01:30:41.820]  Are they or are they not?
[01:30:41.820 --> 01:30:42.820]  They are.
[01:30:42.820 --> 01:30:43.820]  They are.
[01:30:43.820 --> 01:30:46.820]  But here's where you're letting that get in the way of a certain fact.
[01:30:46.820 --> 01:30:52.820]  Person, okay, they can do what they want to the corporate entity,
[01:30:52.820 --> 01:30:55.820]  because it's under their jurisdiction.
[01:30:55.820 --> 01:30:56.820]  There we go again.
[01:30:56.820 --> 01:30:57.820]  Okay.
[01:30:57.820 --> 01:31:00.820]  What they're doing to the people is a whole other matter.
[01:31:00.820 --> 01:31:16.820]  Okay, again, people, okay, I totally agree with Greg Chapman and Wendy from Tennessee and Don Terry and Tim Turner and others that I won't mention.
[01:31:16.820 --> 01:31:19.820]  You have to separate yourself from your straw man.
[01:31:19.820 --> 01:31:25.820]  All of this is a fraud. It's a total fraud.
[01:31:25.820 --> 01:31:26.820]  Everything is in commerce.
[01:31:26.820 --> 01:31:28.820]  The whole state is a corporation.
[01:31:28.820 --> 01:31:29.820]  I'm seeing it more and more.
[01:31:29.820 --> 01:31:33.820]  I've been hearing about this for like 20 years, but I'm seeing it more and more.
[01:31:33.820 --> 01:31:34.820]  It's just like every time.
[01:31:34.820 --> 01:31:35.820]  Here we go.
[01:31:35.820 --> 01:31:39.820]  And it's laid out very clearly in statute.
[01:31:39.820 --> 01:31:46.820]  I mean, if you don't separate yourself from your straw man, it's just you're just leaving yourself sitting duck.
[01:31:46.820 --> 01:31:54.820]  Now, Randy, when you read chapter 311 of the government code, read it carefully, because everything you need to know to tear our statute apart is right there,
[01:31:54.820 --> 01:32:02.820]  including the section that says if there is a conflict between the general statute and the local statute,
[01:32:02.820 --> 01:32:09.820]  the first attempt to resolve them will be that so they both can be used together.
[01:32:09.820 --> 01:32:21.820]  In other words, unless the conflict is absolutely irreconcilable, you must merge 311 and the local section, whatever it is, together if it can be done.
[01:32:21.820 --> 01:32:29.820]  If it cannot be done, then and only then does the local provision take precedent.
[01:32:29.820 --> 01:32:36.820]  So what you're saying is 311 is what is part of the proof that it is all in commerce as we all –
[01:32:36.820 --> 01:32:38.820]  It's part of it, yes.
[01:32:38.820 --> 01:32:43.820]  And so what that would do for you in the case of this is what I've brought to Randy's attention.
[01:32:43.820 --> 01:32:54.820]  In chapter 311, it says person includes, and then it gives you a list of legal fictions, governmental agency, corporations, associations, things like that.
[01:32:54.820 --> 01:32:58.820]  And at the end, it says any other legal entity.
[01:32:58.820 --> 01:33:00.820]  But the key word there is includes.
[01:33:00.820 --> 01:33:06.820]  Includes builds a group to draw from, okay, in chapter 311.
[01:33:06.820 --> 01:33:10.820]  Then you go to the local provision where it says person means.
[01:33:10.820 --> 01:33:15.820]  Means that includes don't have a conflict because they don't do the same thing, do they?
[01:33:15.820 --> 01:33:18.820]  Well, Eddie, let me ask you this, okay?
[01:33:18.820 --> 01:33:19.820]  All right.
[01:33:19.820 --> 01:33:25.820]  In my study of mathematics and Boolean logic, includes means a subset.
[01:33:25.820 --> 01:33:34.820]  In other words, other things could be in that set other than what that thing is saying includes.
[01:33:34.820 --> 01:33:41.820]  I mean, in other words, it's not an if and only if.
[01:33:41.820 --> 01:33:44.820]  It's not an if and only if exclusive relation.
[01:33:44.820 --> 01:33:50.820]  Are you saying that in this particular area of law, the word includes means if and only if?
[01:33:50.820 --> 01:33:51.820]  Yes.
[01:33:51.820 --> 01:33:54.820]  It is always in law an if and only if.
[01:33:54.820 --> 01:33:55.820]  Always.
[01:33:55.820 --> 01:34:01.820]  Well, that's very misleading as far as language because includes does not mean equals.
[01:34:01.820 --> 01:34:11.820]  There's a legal maxim that says inclusio unus est exclusio alterius, meaning the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others.
[01:34:11.820 --> 01:34:17.820]  In other words, if there is something specifically listed after includes, only what's listed applies.
[01:34:17.820 --> 01:34:23.820]  It's like if it says if this statute includes all blue cars, that's it.
[01:34:23.820 --> 01:34:26.820]  Blue cars are the only thing the statute applies to.
[01:34:26.820 --> 01:34:29.820]  Not red, not yellow, not bright green or pea pink.
[01:34:29.820 --> 01:34:30.820]  I don't care.
[01:34:30.820 --> 01:34:33.820]  It is simply blue cars.
[01:34:33.820 --> 01:34:40.820]  So by saying that person means versus the grouping of includes, means has to draw from the grouping.
[01:34:40.820 --> 01:34:42.820]  It can't do anything else.
[01:34:42.820 --> 01:34:53.820]  So when it says person means an individual, association, corporation, partnership, LLC or any other thing like that,
[01:34:53.820 --> 01:34:58.820]  the similarity here is another legal maxim that says like things are listed together.
[01:34:58.820 --> 01:35:05.820]  So when you have all these legal fictions with the word individual stuck out right in front of them,
[01:35:05.820 --> 01:35:12.820]  that means individual has to be closely tied to the remainder of that list or it shouldn't be there in law.
[01:35:12.820 --> 01:35:22.820]  So if you take individual and you put it back against that pool of what was included, an individual can be an agent for anything in that list.
[01:35:22.820 --> 01:35:28.820]  A corporation, he can be an officer, he can be an employee, he can be an agent of any of those things in that list.
[01:35:28.820 --> 01:35:30.820]  So individual makes sense.
[01:35:30.820 --> 01:35:38.820]  Corporation is just a specific one of the things that are included in that pool that is included in this means.
[01:35:38.820 --> 01:35:46.820]  But nothing else could be in that pool other than what is listed in the included list?
[01:35:46.820 --> 01:35:47.820]  Is that what you're saying?
[01:35:47.820 --> 01:35:53.820]  Yes, right, except for the term on the end that says any other legal entity.
[01:35:53.820 --> 01:35:58.820]  So in other words, if there's a legal entity out there that was not specifically defined in that list,
[01:35:58.820 --> 01:36:02.820]  it can be included because of that ending statement.
[01:36:02.820 --> 01:36:05.820]  But it still must be a legal entity.
[01:36:05.820 --> 01:36:08.820]  It can't be a flesh and blood man or woman.
[01:36:08.820 --> 01:36:09.820]  Okay.
[01:36:09.820 --> 01:36:15.820]  It's got to be something created by statute or by law or by government authority, but it is not something new.
[01:36:15.820 --> 01:36:18.820]  It can't be by statute or by private contract.
[01:36:18.820 --> 01:36:22.820]  Right, but like I say, it's not something that occurred naturally.
[01:36:22.820 --> 01:36:24.820]  It brought into existence by law.
[01:36:24.820 --> 01:36:26.820]  In this case, it can't be by private contract.
[01:36:26.820 --> 01:36:34.820]  This is what's created by law because this is statutory law and not contract law.
[01:36:34.820 --> 01:36:40.820]  Wait a minute, but legal entity, what is the definition of legal entity?
[01:36:40.820 --> 01:36:46.820]  Let me get that to you out of Blacks One Night. A legal entity is anything that is created by statute.
[01:36:46.820 --> 01:36:47.820]  By statute.
[01:36:47.820 --> 01:36:51.820]  Okay, but is Black's law, I mean-
[01:36:51.820 --> 01:36:53.820]  It is at the state level.
[01:36:53.820 --> 01:36:59.820]  Is Black's law taken as the definition and the end all?
[01:36:59.820 --> 01:37:03.820]  If it's not defined within the statute, yes.
[01:37:03.820 --> 01:37:04.820]  Okay.
[01:37:04.820 --> 01:37:07.820]  Or within the general section under Chapter 311.
[01:37:07.820 --> 01:37:14.820]  It says, if a term is not defined within the law, that term shall be given it, construed as its common usage.
[01:37:14.820 --> 01:37:24.820]  Remember, common usage means its usage in law, which means a law dictionary, not Webster's, not American heritage, but a law dictionary.
[01:37:24.820 --> 01:37:27.820]  And the counties, cities, and states all use Blacks.
[01:37:27.820 --> 01:37:34.820]  The Supreme Court uses Bouvier's 1856.
[01:37:34.820 --> 01:37:37.820]  Okay.
[01:37:37.820 --> 01:37:39.820]  You should have a lot of fun with that, Randy.
[01:37:39.820 --> 01:37:41.820]  I think I like math better.
[01:37:41.820 --> 01:37:44.820]  It's a lot more discreet.
[01:37:44.820 --> 01:37:46.820]  Math is a lot more logical.
[01:37:46.820 --> 01:37:49.820]  It really is.
[01:37:49.820 --> 01:37:52.820]  Well, we never said we were dealing with logic here.
[01:37:52.820 --> 01:37:57.820]  What we are dealing with is a true smoke and mirrors magic act.
[01:37:57.820 --> 01:37:59.820]  That's exactly what we're dealing with.
[01:37:59.820 --> 01:38:02.820]  And these guys understand about logic.
[01:38:02.820 --> 01:38:04.820]  Logic is not truth.
[01:38:04.820 --> 01:38:11.820]  It merely has the ring of truth and therefore is the first refuge of the scoundrel.
[01:38:11.820 --> 01:38:15.820]  I don't know about that.
[01:38:15.820 --> 01:38:22.820]  So, Randy, what do you think of what Wendy's doing in her deal with that Admiralty maritime lien stuff?
[01:38:22.820 --> 01:38:25.820]  Well, I've been to Tim Turner's seminar.
[01:38:25.820 --> 01:38:40.820]  And frankly, because there's so many people that's called to me to try to get me to help them keep out of jail for filing liens against public officials, what she's doing terrifies them.
[01:38:40.820 --> 01:38:44.820]  However, she has really worked them over.
[01:38:44.820 --> 01:38:54.820]  Yeah, but are those people who are in jail for filing liens against the public officials, are those people who are necessarily filing the doctrines and practices of Tim Turner?
[01:38:54.820 --> 01:39:01.820]  No, but the problem with that is you've got all these guys out there saying, oh, you can do this.
[01:39:01.820 --> 01:39:03.820]  And the other guy says, you can do this.
[01:39:03.820 --> 01:39:07.820]  And we have a number of them have their people going to jail.
[01:39:07.820 --> 01:39:16.820]  So I don't know yet that what Tim Turner's doing is magic and nobody will go to jail doing what he's saying.
[01:39:16.820 --> 01:39:18.820]  Well, there is no magic.
[01:39:18.820 --> 01:39:35.820]  Well, now, according to what Greg on Agenda 21 said is he's actually researched some of the cases that Tim Turner has said that he's filed, or at least one of them, and won and got judges removed and everything else.
[01:39:35.820 --> 01:39:45.820]  And he has not confirmed the judge's thing yet, but the court case that Tim filed and won, he said it is absolutely 100% true.
[01:39:45.820 --> 01:39:52.820]  Everything that Tim taught in the seminar about that case is exactly what's been put up in the case.
[01:39:52.820 --> 01:39:55.820]  And we talked about this a little bit earlier.
[01:39:55.820 --> 01:40:09.820]  Most of the people that we know of or I know of that have gone to jail have done it because they filed the lien under the authority of a makeshift judiciary, or at least what the state considers a makeshift judiciary.
[01:40:09.820 --> 01:40:19.820]  And so that's where the state has used its power to go after these people to throw them in jail is falsification of a judicial process and so on and so forth.
[01:40:19.820 --> 01:40:21.820]  That's what they've gone after them with.
[01:40:21.820 --> 01:40:38.820]  According to my understanding of what we listened to tonight on the show, these guys are actually using the existing UCC law that the system itself is using to steal our property to enforce the methods that we can now use against those same individuals.
[01:40:38.820 --> 01:40:42.820]  Well, I very much like that idea.
[01:40:42.820 --> 01:40:48.820]  I'm just dubious because I've seen too many people go to jail, so I still worry about it.
[01:40:48.820 --> 01:40:59.820]  Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, let's face it, Randy, if they really want to just ignore the rules they're going to, and if they want to throw you in jail just because they want to, as you're very familiar with, they're going to do that.
[01:40:59.820 --> 01:41:06.820]  The question is, is what can we do about it before it gets to that point, or worse than it is now?
[01:41:06.820 --> 01:41:12.820]  Listen, guys, we've got some callers stacking up. I want to try to take as many calls as we can before midnight.
[01:41:12.820 --> 01:41:19.820]  We can go over if y'all like, but I just want to be respectful. We've had a couple of callers drop off the line.
[01:41:19.820 --> 01:41:23.820]  Randy, is that okay? Randy in Texas?
[01:41:23.820 --> 01:41:26.820]  Yeah, hop them in. I mean, I didn't want to take up all this.
[01:41:26.820 --> 01:41:29.820]  No, these are great points.
[01:41:29.820 --> 01:41:32.820]  That Randy, he'll just steal your show every time.
[01:41:32.820 --> 01:41:38.820]  Oh, well, you know, neighbor, neighbor, keep your dog out of me yard. You know, that's my song for Randy.
[01:41:38.820 --> 01:41:44.820]  Okay, Randy, look, you're welcome to hang on the line, but okay, look. Love you, Randy.
[01:41:44.820 --> 01:41:51.820]  Okay, let's go now to Rick in California who's been holding for quite a while.
[01:41:51.820 --> 01:41:54.820]  Rick, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:41:54.820 --> 01:42:00.820]  How's it going, guys? Great show, as always. Just wanted to say, can you guys hear me?
[01:42:00.820 --> 01:42:02.820]  Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
[01:42:02.820 --> 01:42:10.820]  Quick thing, I had court again in Glendale. I recorded all of it, beginning to end basically.
[01:42:10.820 --> 01:42:20.820]  And this judge was so because when I filed a counterclaim that same day, so they won't do that switching judges kind of thing, you know.
[01:42:20.820 --> 01:42:22.820]  And so I had him on the dime.
[01:42:22.820 --> 01:42:30.820]  And long story short, he says, well, you can do what you want with this thing here with your paperwork,
[01:42:30.820 --> 01:42:33.820]  but it seems like you're not going to plead anything, so I'm going to do it for you.
[01:42:33.820 --> 01:42:38.820]  And I asked him, well, he said you, so, you know, if he would have said a defendant,
[01:42:38.820 --> 01:42:42.820]  then I would have been fine with that because I'm separate myself from the defendant because that's not me.
[01:42:42.820 --> 01:42:47.820]  But since he said you, I said, well, are you representing me?
[01:42:47.820 --> 01:42:52.820]  And he said, oh, well, pursuant to penal code, blah, blah, blah, I can't.
[01:42:52.820 --> 01:42:55.820]  Anyways, I said, okay, well, for the record, I object.
[01:42:55.820 --> 01:42:59.820]  Then he proceeded to talk about some other stuff.
[01:42:59.820 --> 01:43:03.820]  And then I said, well, sir, since I'm not an attorney, I don't understand.
[01:43:03.820 --> 01:43:05.820]  I have a couple more questions.
[01:43:05.820 --> 01:43:09.820]  And he says, well, I'm not going to do that right now because I'm going to take recess.
[01:43:09.820 --> 01:43:13.820]  Then if you want, you can go ahead and refer to counsel or something to that effect.
[01:43:13.820 --> 01:43:17.820]  And he gets a gavel and literally, I mean, there's two or three people still behind me.
[01:43:17.820 --> 01:43:19.820]  I thought I was going to be last place for the first time I wasn't.
[01:43:19.820 --> 01:43:22.820]  And he literally runs down and goes into the chambers.
[01:43:22.820 --> 01:43:24.820]  And I'm looking like, what happened?
[01:43:24.820 --> 01:43:27.820]  And then the plaintiff's like, is that it?
[01:43:27.820 --> 01:43:30.820]  And then the clerk looks at him just nodding his head like, yeah,
[01:43:30.820 --> 01:43:34.820]  because he had spoken with me earlier and saw my paperwork.
[01:43:34.820 --> 01:43:36.820]  And he told me he's going to be last.
[01:43:36.820 --> 01:43:37.820]  I said, I know.
[01:43:37.820 --> 01:43:42.820]  And so now I'm wondering as to what's going on here because I had a couple questions to ask him
[01:43:42.820 --> 01:43:44.820]  and I accepted his oath of office for the record.
[01:43:44.820 --> 01:43:46.820]  So that got him kind of nervous.
[01:43:46.820 --> 01:43:51.820]  And when I posed to the student, I hear him speaking to a man, a grown man,
[01:43:51.820 --> 01:43:57.820]  calling him like a little kid, I mean demeaning this poor man for whatever reason.
[01:43:57.820 --> 01:44:02.820]  And when it came to, you know, it was my turn, he was very jittery
[01:44:02.820 --> 01:44:04.820]  and just wouldn't let me talk.
[01:44:04.820 --> 01:44:07.820]  He just kept cutting me off and, you know, saying his rules and stuff.
[01:44:07.820 --> 01:44:10.820]  And I just, of course, kept objecting for the record.
[01:44:10.820 --> 01:44:12.820]  And I said, with all due respect, I object.
[01:44:12.820 --> 01:44:17.820]  And so long story short, I'm trying to figure out here now what am I going to do in the sense
[01:44:17.820 --> 01:44:20.820]  because they wanted me to sign something, so I went down to the court clerk.
[01:44:20.820 --> 01:44:22.820]  They said she signed it.
[01:44:22.820 --> 01:44:25.820]  They said, no, ma'am, I do not because from what I understand,
[01:44:25.820 --> 01:44:30.820]  it is the judge that wants to move this forward without hearing my counseling first
[01:44:30.820 --> 01:44:33.820]  because I am suing the judge and the city of Glendale.
[01:44:33.820 --> 01:44:35.820]  And she said, oh, you are.
[01:44:35.820 --> 01:44:37.820]  So she went back out on the phone.
[01:44:37.820 --> 01:44:42.820]  They basically put refused to sign and gave me some paperwork or whatever.
[01:44:42.820 --> 01:44:47.820]  And so that's going to be for some reason it says arraignment and trial.
[01:44:47.820 --> 01:44:49.820]  It's like I'm redoing it again, Mitch.
[01:44:49.820 --> 01:44:51.820]  It's not what I want to do.
[01:44:51.820 --> 01:44:53.820]  Have they heard your motions?
[01:44:53.820 --> 01:44:56.820]  Do you have motions before the court?
[01:44:56.820 --> 01:44:57.820]  No, I don't.
[01:44:57.820 --> 01:44:58.820]  It's a counterclaim.
[01:44:58.820 --> 01:44:59.820]  I'm suing the judge and the city.
[01:44:59.820 --> 01:45:00.820]  I don't really believe them.
[01:45:00.820 --> 01:45:04.820]  You should have discovery.
[01:45:04.820 --> 01:45:10.820]  I mean, discovery would be like, oh, and I also said for the record that there's a verified criminal complaint filed
[01:45:10.820 --> 01:45:12.820]  and I haven't received it.
[01:45:12.820 --> 01:45:16.820]  And that's when he started rambling on and coming off and didn't let me speak from then on.
[01:45:16.820 --> 01:45:21.820]  Then you need to file, if there's no criminal complaint in the record,
[01:45:21.820 --> 01:45:29.820]  then the pleadings in the case are not sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[01:45:29.820 --> 01:45:34.820]  You need to file criminal charges against the court for impersonating a public official.
[01:45:34.820 --> 01:45:39.820]  I was also thinking of going after the judge for barricade.
[01:45:39.820 --> 01:45:41.820]  No, I don't.
[01:45:41.820 --> 01:45:42.820]  Okay, barricade.
[01:45:42.820 --> 01:45:43.820]  Was he?
[01:45:43.820 --> 01:45:45.820]  We don't have a DA in California,
[01:45:45.820 --> 01:45:50.820]  so the only person that's there would be the judge or commissioner,
[01:45:50.820 --> 01:45:51.820]  because that's what he was, a commissioner.
[01:45:51.820 --> 01:45:57.820]  And the officer at arraignment, that commissioner, in my opinion, should know if it's valid or not,
[01:45:57.820 --> 01:46:01.820]  since there is nothing entered into evidence except my counterclaim.
[01:46:01.820 --> 01:46:07.820]  Well, he's exercising a jurisdiction.
[01:46:07.820 --> 01:46:08.820]  He doesn't have it.
[01:46:08.820 --> 01:46:10.820]  My counterclaim is challenging jurisdiction.
[01:46:10.820 --> 01:46:18.820]  What I'm saying is he's purporting to act in the capacity of a judge or a commissioner,
[01:46:18.820 --> 01:46:23.820]  but the pleadings in the case, absent a verified criminal affidavit,
[01:46:23.820 --> 01:46:28.820]  are insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[01:46:28.820 --> 01:46:31.820]  so he has no authority.
[01:46:31.820 --> 01:46:38.820]  So he's pretending to enforce an authority he doesn't have,
[01:46:38.820 --> 01:46:44.820]  just like if you went down to the uniform store and ran into uniform and a badge in a bowl.
[01:46:44.820 --> 01:46:47.820]  There's no difference.
[01:46:47.820 --> 01:46:50.820]  That's a crime in every state, so you should file on him for it.
[01:46:50.820 --> 01:46:54.820]  It's not your place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:46:54.820 --> 01:46:57.820]  It's his place.
[01:46:57.820 --> 01:47:01.820]  He has to make sure the pleadings are sufficient to give him jurisdiction,
[01:47:01.820 --> 01:47:07.820]  otherwise he's impersonating a public official and subject to civil suit.
[01:47:07.820 --> 01:47:11.820]  Yeah, now there's another thing, too, Rick, that here in Texas,
[01:47:11.820 --> 01:47:15.820]  another rule they don't follow, but it's in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[01:47:15.820 --> 01:47:22.820]  2.02 and 2.03 spell out the duties of the district attorney and the county attorney, respectively,
[01:47:22.820 --> 01:47:25.820]  and both of those, according to definition,
[01:47:25.820 --> 01:47:32.820]  there are only three people allowed to represent themselves as an attorney for the state.
[01:47:32.820 --> 01:47:36.820]  That's the district attorney, the county attorney, and the attorney general.
[01:47:36.820 --> 01:47:41.820]  Therefore, they're the only ones that can prosecute violations of state law,
[01:47:41.820 --> 01:47:47.820]  and they are limited here in Texas. A DA can practice in district court and above.
[01:47:47.820 --> 01:47:50.820]  In anything below the level of district court,
[01:47:50.820 --> 01:47:54.820]  only the county attorney has authority to represent the state.
[01:47:54.820 --> 01:47:58.820]  So here in Texas, they screw up royally when they get these hired gun attorneys
[01:47:58.820 --> 01:48:04.820]  or the city attorney to actually prosecute an offense to which the state is a party,
[01:48:04.820 --> 01:48:07.820]  or a complaining party, anyway.
[01:48:07.820 --> 01:48:13.820]  So you might want to check real careful and see if anything like that applies to you guys out there.
[01:48:13.820 --> 01:48:15.820]  Okay, I'm going to do that.
[01:48:15.820 --> 01:48:20.820]  And one thing that I saw, there's a video on YouTube that somebody's been making.
[01:48:20.820 --> 01:48:24.820]  They've gone through the California law, basically.
[01:48:24.820 --> 01:48:30.820]  It shows that infractions are not a public offense, and therefore they're not crimes,
[01:48:30.820 --> 01:48:36.820]  not listed as crimes, but something basically, it's an infraction of infraction of a crime,
[01:48:36.820 --> 01:48:37.820]  whatever you want to call it.
[01:48:37.820 --> 01:48:42.820]  This is why we don't get a district attorney or a public defender to come after us.
[01:48:42.820 --> 01:48:49.820]  And I look now from my last encounter with the judge or commissioner in Los Angeles,
[01:48:49.820 --> 01:48:57.820]  where I recorded him stating that I consented because I signed a contract, which was the driver's license.
[01:48:57.820 --> 01:49:01.820]  So I'm assuming this is all contract, and that's basically what I think,
[01:49:01.820 --> 01:49:06.820]  because obviously if it's not a crime, you know, well, they're reporting it's a crime,
[01:49:06.820 --> 01:49:12.820]  but here's the judge or commissioner say, okay, go ahead and pay the fee and civil assessment.
[01:49:12.820 --> 01:49:17.820]  I'm thinking, wait a minute, how can this be a civil assessment if it's supposed to be a criminal matter,
[01:49:17.820 --> 01:49:21.820]  which I think they do that on purpose, obviously, to confuse people.
[01:49:21.820 --> 01:49:26.820]  Well, yeah, and Rick, not only that, just because you may have a driver's license,
[01:49:26.820 --> 01:49:31.820]  which would license you or enable you to practice in commerce while traveling,
[01:49:31.820 --> 01:49:39.820]  that does not mean that every time you travel, that equals that you are engaging in commerce.
[01:49:39.820 --> 01:49:40.820]  Well, here's another problem.
[01:49:40.820 --> 01:49:45.820]  It just means that you can engage in commerce while traveling if you want to.
[01:49:45.820 --> 01:49:50.820]  It does not mean that every time you are traveling that that necessarily means you are in commerce.
[01:49:50.820 --> 01:49:52.820]  Yeah, you're commercial already.
[01:49:52.820 --> 01:49:58.820]  I have raised that issue, but this is what I'm finding out so far, at least in California.
[01:49:58.820 --> 01:50:00.820]  I'm pretty sure every other state as well.
[01:50:00.820 --> 01:50:07.820]  The people are fighting back, saying jurisdiction, travel, and abatement, I'm not a person, I'm a man,
[01:50:07.820 --> 01:50:10.820]  you know, I'm a living man, or whatever they want to do.
[01:50:10.820 --> 01:50:17.820]  The point is that the courts are still moving forward, obviously, in violation of many rules.
[01:50:17.820 --> 01:50:25.820]  Now, what I think is that if people were to start just filing lawsuits,
[01:50:25.820 --> 01:50:32.820]  this, I believe, would stop, I mean, period, because from what I was told,
[01:50:32.820 --> 01:50:36.820]  this was happening also in the revolution when people started filing lawsuits against the government,
[01:50:36.820 --> 01:50:38.820]  and that's also as well.
[01:50:38.820 --> 01:50:40.820]  You have to have a cause of action.
[01:50:40.820 --> 01:50:42.820]  Right, people don't have time, though.
[01:50:42.820 --> 01:50:45.820]  I have people calling me saying, hey, what can I do?
[01:50:45.820 --> 01:50:47.820]  I say, well, this is what I do.
[01:50:47.820 --> 01:50:48.820]  Maybe you want to do it.
[01:50:48.820 --> 01:50:50.820]  They say, well, I have too much time, you know.
[01:50:50.820 --> 01:50:55.820]  Just so you guys know, I can't say too much, but hopefully Charlie, Charlie Sprinkle, and I,
[01:50:55.820 --> 01:50:59.820]  and some other people, we might start a class action lawsuit against the DMV,
[01:50:59.820 --> 01:51:03.820]  just on that matter itself, on traveling and driving, and what the difference is,
[01:51:03.820 --> 01:51:07.820]  and hopefully we get that started from time at the end of this year.
[01:51:07.820 --> 01:51:09.820]  Just make sure you have a cause of action.
[01:51:09.820 --> 01:51:12.820]  You have to have a secure cause of action that will stand up to appeal.
[01:51:12.820 --> 01:51:17.820]  There's another deal about that judge telling you that your license is a contract.
[01:51:17.820 --> 01:51:24.820]  That's completely untrue, and the reason is because a driver's license is a contrived document.
[01:51:24.820 --> 01:51:27.820]  The contract, in order to be valid, has to have full disclosure
[01:51:27.820 --> 01:51:31.820]  and your willing acceptance of the terms of that contract.
[01:51:31.820 --> 01:51:39.820]  A driver's license is made up of different pieces of different documentation at different times
[01:51:39.820 --> 01:51:44.820]  after you've signed a different piece of paperwork.
[01:51:44.820 --> 01:51:48.820]  Therefore, it will never hold up in court as a contract
[01:51:48.820 --> 01:51:51.820]  because it is a contrived document after the fact.
[01:51:51.820 --> 01:51:56.820]  They've piece-milled it together out of your presence and without your knowledge.
[01:51:56.820 --> 01:51:58.820]  Well, that makes sense.
[01:51:58.820 --> 01:52:00.820]  Thank you for that information.
[01:52:00.820 --> 01:52:04.820]  So if you guys can, please go to my YouTube site.
[01:52:04.820 --> 01:52:08.820]  I don't want to plug it so many times, but if it's okay with you guys,
[01:52:08.820 --> 01:52:09.820]  can I do that right now?
[01:52:09.820 --> 01:52:10.820]  Yes, go ahead.
[01:52:10.820 --> 01:52:15.820]  And then I want to leave some time for Brady from North Carolina because he's the first on call.
[01:52:15.820 --> 01:52:16.820]  Okay.
[01:52:16.820 --> 01:52:31.820]  When you go to YouTube.com, it's forward slash T-A-P-T-I-K-A-L-G-U-Y and the number one.
[01:52:31.820 --> 01:52:33.820]  Tactical guy one.
[01:52:33.820 --> 01:52:37.820]  Yes, that's my home page, and that's what I update every day.
[01:52:37.820 --> 01:52:40.820]  I have like 140 videos more or less.
[01:52:40.820 --> 01:52:43.820]  So if you guys also can go in and just see what I've been posting,
[01:52:43.820 --> 01:52:47.820]  because by tomorrow I'm going to post what happened, what I just explained,
[01:52:47.820 --> 01:52:53.820]  and you guys can see for yourselves because I need to start studying more of the rules of the court
[01:52:53.820 --> 01:52:57.820]  and what a judge can and cannot do because these guys are obviously doing what they're not supposed to.
[01:52:57.820 --> 01:52:59.820]  So I want to thank you guys for your time though.
[01:52:59.820 --> 01:53:00.820]  All right.
[01:53:00.820 --> 01:53:01.820]  Thank you.
[01:53:01.820 --> 01:53:02.820]  Thank you, Rick.
[01:53:02.820 --> 01:53:03.820]  Thank you, Rick.
[01:53:03.820 --> 01:53:04.820]  Okay.
[01:53:04.820 --> 01:53:07.820]  Let's get jurisdiction area.
[01:53:07.820 --> 01:53:08.820]  I'm sure you have already.
[01:53:08.820 --> 01:53:09.820]  All right.
[01:53:09.820 --> 01:53:10.820]  We're going to go to Brady in North Carolina.
[01:53:10.820 --> 01:53:11.820]  Brady, thanks for calling in.
[01:53:11.820 --> 01:53:12.820]  Thanks for holding for so long.
[01:53:12.820 --> 01:53:14.820]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:53:14.820 --> 01:53:15.820]  Good evening, Deborah.
[01:53:15.820 --> 01:53:18.820]  Thanks for taking my call.
[01:53:18.820 --> 01:53:24.820]  First time caller, but have been listening since the old days at WTPRN.
[01:53:24.820 --> 01:53:26.820]  Thank you.
[01:53:26.820 --> 01:53:33.820]  But I have a question about clarification of some of the terms.
[01:53:33.820 --> 01:53:42.820]  I've been talking about the 311, and there's some seems, at least to my way,
[01:53:42.820 --> 01:53:51.820]  I think it's some confusion and like some clarification surrounding the person
[01:53:51.820 --> 01:53:56.820]  that includes corporation, organization, government, our governmental subdivision,
[01:53:56.820 --> 01:54:03.820]  our agency, business trust, estate trust, partnership, association,
[01:54:03.820 --> 01:54:09.820]  and any other legal entity, which seems fairly clear.
[01:54:09.820 --> 01:54:16.820]  But in the general definitions, they use both includes as well as means.
[01:54:16.820 --> 01:54:23.820]  And 311.13 confuses me a bit because it says includes
[01:54:23.820 --> 01:54:28.820]  and including are terms of enlargement and not of limitation,
[01:54:28.820 --> 01:54:31.820]  are exclusive enumeration.
[01:54:31.820 --> 01:54:37.820]  And use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed
[01:54:37.820 --> 01:54:40.820]  are excluded.
[01:54:40.820 --> 01:54:49.820]  So I'd like to get some explanation on exactly what that means.
[01:54:49.820 --> 01:54:53.820]  Can you repeat that one more time, the last couple of sentences you said?
[01:54:53.820 --> 01:54:55.820]  Sure.
[01:54:55.820 --> 01:55:07.820]  311.13 in the general definitions says includes and including are terms of
[01:55:07.820 --> 01:55:14.820]  enlargement and not of limitation, are exclusive enumeration.
[01:55:14.820 --> 01:55:19.820]  And use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed
[01:55:19.820 --> 01:55:22.820]  are excluded.
[01:55:22.820 --> 01:55:23.820]  Okay.
[01:55:23.820 --> 01:55:29.820]  Well, then that is exactly what I was saying according to my schooling of mathematics.
[01:55:29.820 --> 01:55:34.820]  And now, Eddie, you told me that including is an exclusive term.
[01:55:34.820 --> 01:55:35.820]  So what's up with that?
[01:55:35.820 --> 01:55:36.820]  It is.
[01:55:36.820 --> 01:55:39.820]  What's up with it is the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise,
[01:55:39.820 --> 01:55:41.820]  as have the maximums of law themselves.
[01:55:41.820 --> 01:55:44.820]  Well, Brady, what are you reading from, Brady?
[01:55:44.820 --> 01:55:47.820]  He's reading from Chapter 311 Government Code.
[01:55:47.820 --> 01:55:48.820]  Okay, okay.
[01:55:48.820 --> 01:55:49.820]  Go ahead.
[01:55:49.820 --> 01:55:50.820]  All right.
[01:55:50.820 --> 01:55:51.820]  And he's right.
[01:55:51.820 --> 01:55:52.820]  That does say that.
[01:55:52.820 --> 01:55:59.820]  However, the Supreme Court has a huge, huge amount of cases dealing with that issue.
[01:55:59.820 --> 01:56:04.820]  And in each and every case, they have stated if it is a listed thing,
[01:56:04.820 --> 01:56:12.820]  that is all that it applies to and that is exactly where the maximum of law comes from on the
[01:56:12.820 --> 01:56:18.820]  exclusio unis, exclusio alterius, is that if you list it, that's all there is.
[01:56:18.820 --> 01:56:24.820]  So, Eddie, are you saying that the Supreme Court has struck down this Government Code?
[01:56:24.820 --> 01:56:27.820]  They struck down this interpretation of includes.
[01:56:27.820 --> 01:56:28.820]  Well, no, wait a minute.
[01:56:28.820 --> 01:56:30.820]  This is not an interpretation.
[01:56:30.820 --> 01:56:32.820]  Brady is reading from Government Code.
[01:56:32.820 --> 01:56:33.820]  That's right.
[01:56:33.820 --> 01:56:35.820]  It is an interpretation.
[01:56:35.820 --> 01:56:39.820]  They're saying that it can do something the Supreme Court has already said it cannot do.
[01:56:39.820 --> 01:56:44.820]  Are you saying this Government Code was written after the Supreme Court rulings?
[01:56:44.820 --> 01:56:48.820]  When was the last updated date on that, Brady, 2000?
[01:56:48.820 --> 01:56:50.820]  Let's see.
[01:56:50.820 --> 01:56:56.820]  I'm reading from caselaw.ip.finelaw.com.
[01:56:56.820 --> 01:56:58.820]  Let's see if it has the date on it.
[01:56:58.820 --> 01:57:01.820]  And certainly I'm not being argumentative.
[01:57:01.820 --> 01:57:02.820]  No.
[01:57:02.820 --> 01:57:03.820]  I understand.
[01:57:03.820 --> 01:57:06.820]  And I've had people question this before.
[01:57:06.820 --> 01:57:11.820]  But I've got probably, Lori, I can't tell you how many cases from the Supreme Court and even cases in
[01:57:11.820 --> 01:57:14.820]  Texas where they say exactly the same thing.
[01:57:14.820 --> 01:57:21.820]  And basically, Deborah, the reason it works like this is because if they could write a statute that had an
[01:57:21.820 --> 01:57:30.820]  unlimited application, even though the items they're trying to say are here, if they can take things like,
[01:57:30.820 --> 01:57:34.820]  okay, perfect example, the dog thing with Randy a while ago.
[01:57:34.820 --> 01:57:41.820]  If the authority is given to only the Sheriff's Department or the animal control people,
[01:57:41.820 --> 01:57:46.820]  they're the only ones included in the folks the authority is delegated to.
[01:57:46.820 --> 01:57:48.820]  Well, then they should say if and only if.
[01:57:48.820 --> 01:57:49.820]  They should say only.
[01:57:49.820 --> 01:57:50.820]  They should not say included.
[01:57:50.820 --> 01:57:51.820]  But they don't.
[01:57:51.820 --> 01:57:52.820]  They don't.
[01:57:52.820 --> 01:57:57.820]  You're talking about the way it ought to read to make it clear and the fact that they're trying to make it very unclear.
[01:57:57.820 --> 01:57:59.820]  It gives them an advantage, okay?
[01:57:59.820 --> 01:58:07.820]  Okay, so then what is the deal with the government code falling in line linguistically with Boolean logic and
[01:58:07.820 --> 01:58:16.820]  mathematical terms, whereas you're saying, Eddie, that the Supreme Court is saying otherwise?
[01:58:16.820 --> 01:58:18.820]  Exactly what I'm talking about.
[01:58:18.820 --> 01:58:25.820]  It's a method of them to try to make it appear to have an authority it can't have, just like the term person, okay?
[01:58:25.820 --> 01:58:26.820]  Okay, wait a minute.
[01:58:26.820 --> 01:58:29.820]  We're coming to the end of the show.
[01:58:29.820 --> 01:58:30.820]  All right.
[01:58:30.820 --> 01:58:31.820]  I'm sorry.
[01:58:31.820 --> 01:58:32.820]  Listen, Brady, you're welcome to hang on the line.
[01:58:32.820 --> 01:58:34.820]  We'll continue into overtime mode.
[01:58:34.820 --> 01:58:41.820]  And Brian from Pennsylvania, other listeners, if you want to continue listening or if you want to call in, we'll leave the phone lines open.
[01:58:41.820 --> 01:58:44.820]  This is a very important point, okay, because I'm a logician.
[01:58:44.820 --> 01:58:46.820]  I'm a mathematician.
[01:58:46.820 --> 01:58:49.820]  Includes is a subset.
[01:58:49.820 --> 01:58:51.820]  It does not mean if and only if, all right?
[01:58:51.820 --> 01:58:55.820]  And so if the Supreme Court's saying otherwise, it's a problem, all right?
[01:58:55.820 --> 01:58:57.820]  Talk about this on the other side.
[01:59:25.820 --> 01:59:28.820]  Oh,
[01:59:28.820 --> 01:59:33.820]  I know.
[01:59:33.820 --> 01:59:37.820]  Oh,
[01:59:37.820 --> 01:59:41.820]  oh,
[01:59:41.820 --> 01:59:45.820]  oh,
[01:59:45.820 --> 01:59:48.820]  oh,
[01:59:48.820 --> 01:59:52.820]  oh,
[01:59:52.820 --> 01:59:56.820]  oh,
[01:59:56.820 --> 02:00:00.820]  oh,
[02:00:00.820 --> 02:00:04.820]  oh,
[02:00:04.820 --> 02:00:08.820]  oh,
[02:00:08.820 --> 02:00:13.820]  oh,
[02:00:13.820 --> 02:00:17.820]  oh,