[00:00.000 --> 00:09.040] The U.S. says it will probe the death of a Turkish-American killed in Monday's Gaza-bound [00:09.040 --> 00:10.460] aid flotilla. [00:10.460 --> 00:15.720] For Khan Dorgan, a 19-year-old born in Troy, New York, who moved to Turkey when he was [00:15.720 --> 00:20.560] four, was one of the nine activists killed during the Israeli attack. [00:20.560 --> 00:27.000] The Obama administration has sent BP a $69 million preliminary bill for cleanup operations. [00:27.000 --> 00:32.560] The White House has also said BP will be responsible for all costs associated with the worst oil [00:32.560 --> 00:35.280] spill in U.S. history. [00:35.280 --> 00:39.760] France has agreed to let the U.S. identify U.S.-bound travelers at Charles de Gaulle [00:39.760 --> 00:44.600] Airport, considered to be high risk, and stop them flying to the U.S. [00:44.600 --> 00:49.800] Under the Immigration Advisory Program, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel based [00:49.800 --> 00:55.200] in foreign airports make no board recommendations to carriers and host governments. [00:55.200 --> 01:00.560] The U.S. already has similar arrangements with seven other countries. [01:00.560 --> 01:05.360] Anthony Cordsman, one of Washington's most highly respected Middle East analysts, writes [01:05.360 --> 01:11.560] in an essay entitled, Israel as a Strategic Liability, quote, it is time Israel realized [01:11.560 --> 01:16.600] it has obligations to the United States and that it has to become far more careful about [01:16.600 --> 01:19.800] the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience. [01:19.800 --> 01:24.760] Cordsman added the Israeli government, quote, should be sensitive to the fact that its actions [01:24.760 --> 01:29.760] directly affect U.S. strategic interests in the Arab and Muslim worlds. [01:29.760 --> 01:33.920] Cordsman went on, Israel's government should act on the understanding that the long-term [01:33.920 --> 01:39.520] nature of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship will depend on Israel clearly and actively [01:39.520 --> 01:42.160] seeking peace with the Palestinians. [01:42.160 --> 01:46.920] Analysts say the fact that Cordsman, a former National Security Advisor to the staunchly [01:46.920 --> 01:53.000] pro-Israel Senator John McCain, wrote so bluntly, suggests the tide of elite opinion regarding [01:53.000 --> 01:58.280] the value of virtually unconditional support for Israel is turning. [01:58.280 --> 02:02.160] British military commanders returning from Afghanistan have warned corruption and the [02:02.160 --> 02:09.240] abuse of power among Afghan police have alienated local people and driven some to join the Taliban. [02:09.240 --> 02:15.440] Brigadier James Cohen, the last head of U.K. troops in Helmand Province, said, quote, we've [02:15.440 --> 02:20.960] had cases so often when captured Taliban mentioned the police, were why they joined the insurgency [02:20.960 --> 02:22.280] in the first place. [02:22.280 --> 02:28.400] Lieutenant Colonel Royally Walker of the Grenadier Guards said, quote, we've had reports of the [02:28.400 --> 02:33.040] Taliban putting on police uniforms, setting up checkpoints, and then stealing money, phones, [02:33.040 --> 02:34.040] and watches. [02:34.040 --> 02:38.400] Obviously, people would have no way of knowing whether these people were genuine police or [02:38.400 --> 02:39.400] the Taliban. [02:39.400 --> 02:44.680] Walker says, quote, but we've also seen that when properly trained police are introduced, [02:44.680 --> 02:46.240] the people welcome them. [02:46.240 --> 02:51.360] The Afghans are embarrassed about having outside forces defending them against the Taliban. [02:51.360 --> 02:53.600] They would rather have their own police do it. [02:53.600 --> 02:57.920] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [02:57.920 --> 03:07.960] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free [03:07.960 --> 03:22.760] speech talk radio at its best. [03:22.760 --> 03:41.160] Well, I received my remedy today, came in a box, just like they say, I accepted it for [03:41.160 --> 03:51.240] value right away, it's not sooner, not later, we are originators, and the pathway seems to [03:51.240 --> 04:01.640] get straighter every day, and I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use. [04:01.640 --> 04:09.160] Well, I was good for the gander, going to work for the goose. [04:09.160 --> 04:21.160] I know some architects, I know some engineers, they've seen the evidence, they know a certain [04:21.160 --> 04:28.280] thing, it seems queer, what's up with the blatant deception, what is the nature of what [04:28.280 --> 04:38.120] you might gain, I see something headed straight for you, I think it looks just like a train, [04:38.120 --> 04:45.960] it smells like a sham of something, I can see I'm playing fast and loose, what I was [04:45.960 --> 05:00.280] good for the gander, going to work for the goose. [05:00.280 --> 05:07.560] Okay we are back folks, for the second half of our Friday Night Info Marathon here on [05:07.560 --> 05:13.640] Rule of Law Radio, we've got Jason from Texas, a first time caller, thanks for calling in [05:13.640 --> 05:16.040] Jason, what's on your mind tonight? [05:16.040 --> 05:22.280] Not much, just sitting back listening to you guys, and let me tell you, V3 are straightening [05:22.280 --> 05:28.760] the, reinforcing the sovereign backbone, and it's damned empowering, and I thank you all [05:28.760 --> 05:31.320] for that. [05:31.320 --> 05:36.760] I guess for about 30 years I've thought that cops are good and everything, I've never had [05:36.760 --> 05:40.920] a real run in with them, and then back in August of last year I was jerked out of that [05:40.920 --> 05:46.520] dream, which is why I'm calling, I've been listening to a lot of the archives trying [05:46.520 --> 05:52.760] to make it so you guys don't have to feed me baby steps on this deal, and I guess I'll [05:52.760 --> 05:56.120] go ahead and start telling what's happening, and I don't want to get all into this story [05:56.120 --> 06:00.040] and then you'll tell me you don't understand or whatever, so please feel free to rep read [06:00.040 --> 06:08.440] my narrative here, back in August of last year I was stopped about 3 o'clock in the [06:08.440 --> 06:14.040] morning in front of my house, and I'm talking about, I pulled over on the side of the road [06:14.040 --> 06:19.880] in front of my house to park where I normally park my vehicle, and as I was doing that an [06:19.880 --> 06:23.240] officer pulled up behind me, turned on the lights, all that stuff, and when I look up [06:23.240 --> 06:28.080] I see 4 or 5 more cars coming around the corner and I'm wondering what was going on, long [06:28.080 --> 06:33.480] story short they pulled me out of the car at gunpoint, searched my vehicle, they put [06:33.480 --> 06:37.880] me in the back of their car first, searched my vehicle and came back and talked to me, [06:37.880 --> 06:42.480] and they said all right the reason we stopped you is because there was a report, somebody [06:42.480 --> 06:48.080] called 911 saying that there was somebody shooting on a vehicle that matched your description, [06:48.080 --> 06:53.040] so I told them well no I wasn't shooting but just me, you know like I say completely [06:53.040 --> 06:57.280] asleep at this time, I just said no I wasn't shooting but I do have my pistol in my vehicle, [06:57.280 --> 07:01.600] I said well where's that, so I told him and he went back and found it and about 10 minutes [07:01.600 --> 07:06.640] later he tells me that I'm under arrest for unlawful carry of a weapon, because my pistol [07:06.640 --> 07:12.080] was in plain view, and I told him I said oh that's not right because I had to tell you [07:12.080 --> 07:15.440] where it was and he went and found it and came back, and I do have a neighbor who is [07:15.440 --> 07:19.280] outside who just happened to witness it, he was working by all the lights that were going [07:19.280 --> 07:25.600] off in my front yard, so I went and I pulled the, what state are you in? [07:25.600 --> 07:26.600] In Texas. [07:26.600 --> 07:27.600] Okay, please continue. [07:27.600 --> 07:35.600] All right, so I went and I pulled all the paperwork, I got a CAD call from 911 and really [07:35.600 --> 07:41.560] I guess this was step one, because they did get into searching my vehicle thoroughly, [07:41.560 --> 07:45.080] I also planned a band and I had some band equipment from the night before and they dug [07:45.080 --> 07:50.280] through all that, tore everything out of the cases and all that stuff, but one of the remarks [07:50.280 --> 07:57.760] here on the 911 call is the vehicle description, and it says white van, thin stripes, tinted [07:57.760 --> 07:58.760] windows. [07:58.760 --> 08:04.280] My van is completely white, has no thin stripes at all, and I would guess at 3 o'clock in [08:04.280 --> 08:08.080] the morning, thin stripes would have to be a significant detail for somebody to see and [08:08.080 --> 08:09.080] report. [08:09.080 --> 08:18.240] I've got a lawyer and he says that he wants to suppress it based on the thin stripes argument [08:18.240 --> 08:20.320] because my vehicle does not have any. [08:20.320 --> 08:25.760] Okay, well there's another argument to be made here, Texas has legislation that says [08:25.760 --> 08:29.800] it is perfectly legal for you to carry a gun in your car. [08:29.800 --> 08:33.640] If you are out and traveling or anything else, it doesn't matter whether the gun is in plain [08:33.640 --> 08:35.840] view or not. [08:35.840 --> 08:37.200] Okay. [08:37.200 --> 08:40.800] So why is your lawyer not arguing this fact? [08:40.800 --> 08:48.040] Well, you know, another reason that I'm calling is because I don't think that he is 100% on [08:48.040 --> 08:49.040] this deal. [08:49.040 --> 08:56.040] Well, you can guarantee he's not 100% on this deal, but be that as it may, he should be [08:56.040 --> 09:01.120] arguing exactly what the law says, and the law says that you can carry that weapon in [09:01.120 --> 09:07.360] your automobile, especially when you're traveling across county lines or when you're at night. [09:07.360 --> 09:12.360] Right, but the only, I've looked it up and the only thing that it says is that it cannot [09:12.360 --> 09:15.960] be, it must be concealed. [09:15.960 --> 09:19.800] I think with a pistol it has to be concealed, but if it's a long arm, it doesn't have to [09:19.800 --> 09:20.800] be concealed. [09:20.800 --> 09:21.800] Right. [09:21.800 --> 09:23.240] They don't expect you to conceal a long arm. [09:23.240 --> 09:29.160] Right, it was a pistol and it was tucked up in a compartment, and it wasn't covered with [09:29.160 --> 09:33.120] anything, and if you look, you know, you'd have to be sitting in the front bench seat [09:33.120 --> 09:36.760] to see up into this compartment, you know, and it's completely dark at 3 o'clock in the [09:36.760 --> 09:37.760] morning, you couldn't see it. [09:37.760 --> 09:39.200] So you had to get up in there. [09:39.200 --> 09:41.000] Could you see it with a flashlight? [09:41.000 --> 09:46.360] Yes, if you look up in there, looking through the window, no, but if you look up, you know, [09:46.360 --> 09:47.360] from inside, sure. [09:47.360 --> 09:53.600] Okay, so you would actually have to be inside the automobile in order to see it. [09:53.600 --> 09:58.720] Yes, I mean, this hole that it's in is about a foot deep, you know, and it was pushed back [09:58.720 --> 10:02.360] up in there. [10:02.360 --> 10:06.920] And they didn't even see it when they searched the car, so that tells you something else. [10:06.920 --> 10:11.400] Right, well, there was six, there was six or seven, I know that they had a couple of [10:11.400 --> 10:16.120] cars, there was a couple of cars, I had two officers, and my neighbor told me later on, [10:16.120 --> 10:18.600] he said, well, I thought that you were right there at the van with them because they were [10:18.600 --> 10:23.600] laughing and telling jokes, and then they regrouped and went back in your van, so they [10:23.600 --> 10:25.000] didn't find it. [10:25.000 --> 10:30.040] This police report here that I have, or actually the narrative, the officer, the arresting [10:30.040 --> 10:35.080] officer's narrative, it does state that I told them upon contact that I did have a pistol, [10:35.080 --> 10:36.080] and this... [10:36.080 --> 10:41.440] I have a question concerning your counsel. [10:41.440 --> 10:43.240] What's that? [10:43.240 --> 10:44.720] Did you hire this attorney? [10:44.720 --> 10:47.160] Yes, I did. [10:47.160 --> 10:56.960] Okay, you need to bar-grief him, because you have to understand, this attorney has to stay [10:56.960 --> 11:03.440] on the good side of the court, or the courts will rule against him out of hand. [11:03.440 --> 11:07.080] This attorney is not going to try to protect your rights, he's going to try to protect [11:07.080 --> 11:15.200] his professional career, while he's extracting all the money from you that he can. [11:15.200 --> 11:21.680] So he's going to screw you, he doesn't care what the law is, his place, his purpose is [11:21.680 --> 11:25.800] to convince you to accept the deal that he's going to throw at you. [11:25.800 --> 11:29.160] And that's what I'm thinking, because it's already been reset, twice because of the court [11:29.160 --> 11:35.720] and once because of him, and I'm in a county right now where we're going to be in a shakeup, [11:35.720 --> 11:39.760] so we're getting all kinds of changes and setbacks, and I think the court's going to [11:39.760 --> 11:41.760] backlog until September. [11:41.760 --> 11:50.600] Okay, once we locate the statute that authorizes you to have the weapon in the car, then you [11:50.600 --> 11:56.000] file a bar grievance against your attorney for failing to properly adjudicate the case. [11:56.000 --> 11:58.720] What statute are they trying to charge you under? [11:58.720 --> 12:03.280] They're just saying, I'm lawful carry of a weapon. [12:03.280 --> 12:07.240] Yeah, but they have to tell you what law. [12:07.240 --> 12:10.480] What statute are they saying that you're violating? [12:10.480 --> 12:16.600] I'm not sure exactly on that, there's nothing that I have really that gives me any kind [12:16.600 --> 12:17.600] of number. [12:17.600 --> 12:25.000] I've been through my arraignment and that's pretty much it, and there was nothing as far [12:25.000 --> 12:34.160] as any paperwork on that specific violation for a specific statute number. [12:34.160 --> 12:39.200] Well I get zero hits in the penal code for unlawful carrying of a weapon. [12:39.200 --> 12:43.320] So that means the penal code doesn't know what the charge is. [12:43.320 --> 12:47.440] If the penal code doesn't know what the charge is, they have a problem. [12:47.440 --> 12:55.000] However, now section 46.02, penal code, unlawful carrying weapons. [12:55.000 --> 12:59.840] A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries [12:59.840 --> 13:08.880] on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not on the [13:08.880 --> 13:14.480] person's own premises or premises under the person's control, or inside of or directly [13:14.480 --> 13:19.720] in route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control. [13:19.720 --> 13:24.480] A1, a person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries [13:24.480 --> 13:29.240] on or about his person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under [13:29.240 --> 13:35.040] the person's control at any time in which the handgun is in plain view or the person [13:35.040 --> 13:40.000] is engaged in criminal activity other than a Class C misdemeanor, that is a violation [13:40.000 --> 13:46.440] of law or ordinance regulating traffic, B, prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, [13:46.440 --> 13:51.420] or C, a member of a criminal street gang as defined by section 7101. [13:51.420 --> 13:55.200] That right there should throw the cops in prison. [13:55.200 --> 13:58.600] But let's go back up here for a second on A1. [13:58.600 --> 14:03.920] A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries [14:03.920 --> 14:07.600] on or about his person or her person. [14:07.600 --> 14:13.200] So that means that the fact that the handgun is in plain view inside the automobile has [14:13.200 --> 14:15.360] nothing to do with it. [14:15.360 --> 14:19.920] This specifically says it must be on your person and in plain view. [14:19.920 --> 14:20.920] Okay. [14:20.920 --> 14:26.920] But the second one goes to if you're inside an automobile. [14:26.920 --> 14:29.360] That's the one I'm reading. [14:29.360 --> 14:33.400] It specifically says a person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or [14:33.400 --> 14:39.760] recklessly carries on or about his person or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle [14:39.760 --> 14:44.520] that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which the handgun is [14:44.520 --> 14:45.800] in plain view. [14:45.800 --> 14:46.800] Okay. [14:46.800 --> 14:52.300] So it has to be on his person and in plain view. [14:52.300 --> 14:55.240] On or about his person and in plain view. [14:55.240 --> 15:03.040] I know that in the past, before we were able to carry pistols in a vehicle, they've ruled [15:03.040 --> 15:10.760] that if you can get to it without adjusting your position from the driver's seat or without [15:10.760 --> 15:16.480] moving significantly, then it was considered on or about your person. [15:16.480 --> 15:18.680] But was it also in plain view? [15:18.680 --> 15:19.680] No. [15:19.680 --> 15:20.680] No. [15:20.680 --> 15:21.680] It was hidden. [15:21.680 --> 15:28.520] But I'm talking about previous presidents as far as what is on or about your person. [15:28.520 --> 15:31.280] What is considered on or about your person anyway. [15:31.280 --> 15:32.280] Yeah. [15:32.280 --> 15:36.240] So you could still have an honor about your person. [15:36.240 --> 15:40.400] But if it was not in plain view, then it still didn't violate statute. [15:40.400 --> 15:41.400] Right. [15:41.400 --> 15:42.400] Right. [15:42.400 --> 15:46.360] And I've got some more looking into, here's something interesting as far as the officer's [15:46.360 --> 15:49.520] narrative as to what happened. [15:49.520 --> 15:51.440] This was in late August when it happened. [15:51.440 --> 15:57.800] And the second week in September, I went down to the police department and pulled an open [15:57.800 --> 16:02.040] records report on it and got the officer's narrative. [16:02.040 --> 16:07.120] And then my trial at that point, because I went down for my arraignment, they basically [16:07.120 --> 16:08.560] gave me three options. [16:08.560 --> 16:15.400] It was waiver rights for this, you know, and talk to the attorney, waiver rights, and or [16:15.400 --> 16:16.880] go get a lawyer and plead not guilty. [16:16.880 --> 16:21.000] So of course, naturally, I wasn't going to surrender any of my rights. [16:21.000 --> 16:23.000] So they gave me a court date in December. [16:23.000 --> 16:29.320] So right around November, I went and I pulled another, the same report, the same narrative [16:29.320 --> 16:32.320] so that I could give it all to my lawyer. [16:32.320 --> 16:33.880] That was part of his deal. [16:33.880 --> 16:34.880] Oh, we got a break? [16:34.880 --> 16:37.880] Yeah, just hang on the line, Jason. [16:37.880 --> 16:44.280] All right, we're going to finish up on the other side and take more of your calls. [16:44.280 --> 16:47.960] This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens. [16:47.960 --> 16:50.560] We will be right back with Jason in Texas. [16:50.560 --> 16:52.960] We've got Todd and others. [16:52.960 --> 17:03.360] We'll be back on the other side. [17:03.360 --> 17:08.400] Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source for rare coins, precious metals and coin supplies [17:08.400 --> 17:10.400] in the Austin metro area. [17:10.400 --> 17:12.440] We also ship worldwide. [17:12.440 --> 17:16.480] We are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin [17:16.480 --> 17:17.480] and metals purchases. [17:17.480 --> 17:23.200] We buy, sell, trade and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious [17:23.200 --> 17:25.080] metals and scrap gold. [17:25.080 --> 17:28.680] We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. [17:28.680 --> 17:31.280] We offer daily specials on coins and bullion. [17:31.280 --> 17:37.400] We're located at 5448 Barnett Road Suite 3 and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 [17:37.400 --> 17:41.240] a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. [17:41.240 --> 17:48.640] You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 [17:48.640 --> 17:49.640] with any questions. [17:49.640 --> 17:54.360] Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. [17:54.360 --> 17:57.360] That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440. [17:57.360 --> 18:00.360] Well, don't let nothing get to you. [18:00.360 --> 18:03.360] Only the father can't deliver you. [18:03.360 --> 18:12.360] So don't let bad-minded people hurt you until they stand and get behind you. [18:12.360 --> 18:15.360] You know what I mean, my friend? [18:15.360 --> 18:34.360] Nala Jackson, baby, come on. [18:34.360 --> 18:49.360] Come on. [18:49.360 --> 19:04.360] Come on. [19:04.360 --> 19:19.360] Come on. [19:19.360 --> 19:44.360] Okay, folks, we're back. [19:44.360 --> 19:46.360] We're talking with Jason in Texas. [19:46.360 --> 19:49.360] Okay, Jason, please continue. [19:49.360 --> 19:54.360] Okay, for the break we're talking about the arrest report. [19:54.360 --> 20:00.360] It's right after the incident, I guess, two weeks later I went and pulled the arrest report [20:00.360 --> 20:03.360] and also did it in November. [20:03.360 --> 20:04.360] I pulled the same report. [20:04.360 --> 20:09.360] And reading through both of them, they're almost exactly the same except for in the [20:09.360 --> 20:14.360] later report that I pulled in November, there's an additional sentence in the narrative. [20:14.360 --> 20:17.360] I don't know how significant that is. [20:17.360 --> 20:20.360] I do know that... [20:20.360 --> 20:23.360] Does the sentence bear on the narrative? [20:23.360 --> 20:24.360] Not really. [20:24.360 --> 20:27.360] It just still was chambered and secured. [20:27.360 --> 20:32.360] But the thing is, I don't know, to me that's significant because, you know, here I am. [20:32.360 --> 20:38.360] I pulled the first report 12 days after the event on a Friday. [20:38.360 --> 20:43.360] So, you know, if we gave the officer the benefit of the doubt that he could have came in on Monday, [20:43.360 --> 20:48.360] you know, is it a normal course of action for him to go back and edit a narrative 15 days later [20:48.360 --> 20:51.360] at the quickest? [20:51.360 --> 20:54.360] Only if a particular fact pops into his mind. [20:54.360 --> 20:59.360] He's allowed to do that unless it's after trial has begun. [20:59.360 --> 21:00.360] Okay. [21:00.360 --> 21:08.360] Was the particular fact material in that he remembered something he should have put in the [21:08.360 --> 21:11.360] original narrative that he hadn't? [21:11.360 --> 21:15.360] And was the fact that he added true? [21:15.360 --> 21:16.360] Yeah. [21:16.360 --> 21:21.360] It just says the additional sentence says the pistol was chambered and secured. [21:21.360 --> 21:23.360] That's all it was. [21:23.360 --> 21:28.360] So I take that to mean it had a round in the chamber, but the safety was on. [21:28.360 --> 21:29.360] It was ready to go. [21:29.360 --> 21:31.360] There was no safety. [21:31.360 --> 21:33.360] That's all you had to do. [21:33.360 --> 21:36.360] I don't see how that's material. [21:36.360 --> 21:37.360] Right. [21:37.360 --> 21:38.360] You would expect... [21:38.360 --> 21:40.360] Well, but the secured part would be. [21:40.360 --> 21:44.360] You need to find out what this officer means by secured. [21:44.360 --> 21:48.360] Because secured could mean in a place where it was not in danger of being had by someone who had [21:48.360 --> 21:52.360] no authority or necessity for access. [21:52.360 --> 21:57.360] It could mean that it could not be appropriately misfired or handled in cause of misfire. [21:57.360 --> 21:58.360] It could mean a lot of things. [21:58.360 --> 22:02.360] It all depends upon what that officer's interpretation is. [22:02.360 --> 22:03.360] Okay. [22:03.360 --> 22:06.360] Well, and one thing that concerns me about this officer's narrative, [22:06.360 --> 22:13.360] if I'm remembering correctly from what you said earlier, was that the officer's claiming that upon [22:13.360 --> 22:20.360] first point of contact, I think you said, with the police, that you instructed them as to the [22:20.360 --> 22:22.360] whereabouts of the firearm and that you had one. [22:22.360 --> 22:25.360] And from your side of the story, that's not true. [22:25.360 --> 22:29.360] They did a thorough search of your car and never found it. [22:29.360 --> 22:31.360] And then much later you told them. [22:31.360 --> 22:35.360] And so I think that is very material to the case. [22:35.360 --> 22:36.360] Right. [22:36.360 --> 22:37.360] And that's right. [22:37.360 --> 22:40.360] Because basically after they pulled me out of my van at gunpoint, handcuffed me, [22:40.360 --> 22:43.360] and I'm trying to hand them my ID telling them, hey, I live here, [22:43.360 --> 22:45.360] because I was trying to figure out what's going on. [22:45.360 --> 22:49.360] You know, it was kind of a fight for me to get them just to take the ID out of my hands. [22:49.360 --> 22:50.360] They were cuffing me. [22:50.360 --> 22:52.360] And then they threw me straight in the car. [22:52.360 --> 22:55.360] Didn't really say anything to me because I was asking them, what are you all doing? [22:55.360 --> 22:56.360] What's going on? [22:56.360 --> 22:57.360] Okay. [22:57.360 --> 23:03.360] Well, you have an issue here where you probably have something you can go after them on. [23:03.360 --> 23:10.360] According to this statute, the most they could charge you with was a Class A misdemeanor. [23:10.360 --> 23:13.360] Now, did they actually arrest you? [23:13.360 --> 23:14.360] Oh, yeah. [23:14.360 --> 23:15.360] Yeah. [23:15.360 --> 23:16.360] And that's what they're charging me with. [23:16.360 --> 23:18.360] It is a Class A misdemeanor. [23:18.360 --> 23:19.360] Yeah. [23:19.360 --> 23:22.360] So where was their warrant? [23:22.360 --> 23:23.360] They didn't have one. [23:23.360 --> 23:25.360] They had a 911 call. [23:25.360 --> 23:29.360] Well, but the problem is they cannot arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor [23:29.360 --> 23:32.360] that doesn't involve a breach of the peace. [23:32.360 --> 23:35.360] They're the ones that was committing the breach of the peace. [23:35.360 --> 23:39.360] It was no breach of the peace committed in their presence. [23:39.360 --> 23:43.360] They had no grounds for the arrest without a warrant. [23:43.360 --> 23:45.360] Oh, okay. [23:45.360 --> 23:46.360] There we go. [23:46.360 --> 23:49.360] Now we're getting somewhere. [23:49.360 --> 23:53.360] Another thing, too, which just goes to show the racket that's going on. [23:53.360 --> 23:55.360] Like I say, I pulled over. [23:55.360 --> 23:58.360] I should have, and I was thinking about at the time, turning into my driveway. [23:58.360 --> 24:01.360] And I'll tell you what, from now on, I will. [24:01.360 --> 24:02.360] I didn't at the time. [24:02.360 --> 24:03.360] I did pull over. [24:03.360 --> 24:06.360] You know, I was within 18 inches of the curb and all that stuff. [24:06.360 --> 24:10.360] And they still called, it looks according to this 911 dispatch, [24:10.360 --> 24:13.360] they called three different tow trucks before one finally accepted, [24:13.360 --> 24:16.360] and they came and towed my vehicle from in front of my house. [24:16.360 --> 24:18.360] From in front of your house? [24:18.360 --> 24:19.360] From in front of my house. [24:19.360 --> 24:23.360] And what was their excuse for having your vehicle towed? [24:23.360 --> 24:24.360] They didn't have one. [24:24.360 --> 24:26.360] They just said that they were taking it. [24:26.360 --> 24:27.360] That's right. [24:27.360 --> 24:28.360] Theft. [24:28.360 --> 24:33.360] Wait a minute, they had a report that you were, [24:33.360 --> 24:36.360] that someone was stealing the vehicle? [24:36.360 --> 24:39.360] No, no, somebody was shooting out of a vehicle similar to mine. [24:39.360 --> 24:42.360] Oh, okay. [24:42.360 --> 24:46.360] That was the reason to search the vehicle for a weapon. [24:46.360 --> 24:50.360] Interesting that they searched it for a weapon and didn't find one. [24:50.360 --> 24:51.360] Right. [24:51.360 --> 24:53.360] And then they relaxed and came back. [24:53.360 --> 24:59.360] So yeah, they towed my vehicle and I had to pay to get all that stuff out there. [24:59.360 --> 25:03.360] They sent a tort letter to the toll company. [25:03.360 --> 25:06.360] Was this a city police department or county? [25:06.360 --> 25:08.360] Yes, yeah, the city. [25:08.360 --> 25:11.360] Well, ask your attorney this, okay? [25:11.360 --> 25:16.360] How is it possible to charge you with having a weapon in plain view [25:16.360 --> 25:19.360] when the officers could not find it on the initial search of the car [25:19.360 --> 25:22.360] until you explained exactly where to locate it? [25:22.360 --> 25:24.360] How did it suddenly become in plain view [25:24.360 --> 25:27.360] when they did not discover it during the initial search? [25:27.360 --> 25:28.360] Right. [25:28.360 --> 25:30.360] And that's what I told him from the beginning. [25:30.360 --> 25:32.360] And he said, well, we'll just try to suppress it. [25:32.360 --> 25:34.360] Well, see, I think that that's very important. [25:34.360 --> 25:39.360] That's why, and I think the police know that they have a problem with that exact point. [25:39.360 --> 25:43.360] And that's why in the police narrative it says that upon first contact [25:43.360 --> 25:47.360] that he told them that he had a weapon and where it was. [25:47.360 --> 25:49.360] They know that that's a major issue. [25:49.360 --> 25:52.360] And that's why they lied on their report. [25:52.360 --> 25:57.360] You need to get your hands on all recordings and videos of that night. [25:57.360 --> 26:01.360] You really need to do that before that evidence disappears. [26:01.360 --> 26:03.360] Okay, being that this was in August of last year, [26:03.360 --> 26:09.360] I'll see if that's already not gone because I did try to pull the 9-1-1 audio. [26:09.360 --> 26:12.360] And they tell me that they don't keep it any longer than 60 days. [26:12.360 --> 26:15.360] I lost count on that one. [26:15.360 --> 26:17.360] So do you need to pull it out? [26:17.360 --> 26:22.360] They still, if they intend to use anything in that automobile [26:22.360 --> 26:27.360] that was recorded during their stop of you as against you in court, [26:27.360 --> 26:30.360] they cannot have destroyed the cruiser recordings. [26:30.360 --> 26:33.360] The cruiser recordings have to still exist. [26:33.360 --> 26:36.360] Right, and not have to come out in discovery, right? [26:36.360 --> 26:38.360] That's correct. [26:38.360 --> 26:40.360] Okay. [26:40.360 --> 26:41.360] All right. [26:41.360 --> 26:44.360] Okay, our boards are really beginning to stack up again. [26:44.360 --> 26:47.360] Good, well, I'll sit back and listen. [26:47.360 --> 26:48.360] I appreciate your time. [26:48.360 --> 26:49.360] Okay, thanks, Jason. [26:49.360 --> 26:50.360] Thank you. [26:50.360 --> 26:53.360] All right, and our archives will be available later. [26:53.360 --> 26:58.360] And folks, also I just wanted to put this piece of information out there again as a request. [26:58.360 --> 27:04.360] Folks, even if you're out there listening on one of our various affiliates, AM or FM Micros, [27:04.360 --> 27:10.360] either here in Austin or elsewhere, if you would please still log into ruleoflawradio.com [27:10.360 --> 27:14.360] and pull the stream so that we can get our stream numbers up on Shoutcast [27:14.360 --> 27:20.360] so that we can start pushing for marketing and promotion of the network and of this show [27:20.360 --> 27:24.360] and getting more sponsors so that we can start getting some support for the network [27:24.360 --> 27:29.360] and for this show so we can expand our message and get our message to more people. [27:29.360 --> 27:33.360] So please remember to pull the stream from ruleoflawradio.com [27:33.360 --> 27:41.360] even if you're having the luxury of enjoying this show on one of our various AM or FM affiliates. [27:41.360 --> 27:45.360] Okay, we're going now to Todd in Ohio. [27:45.360 --> 27:46.360] Todd, thank you for calling in. [27:46.360 --> 27:48.360] What's on your mind tonight? [27:48.360 --> 27:49.360] How are you doing there, Deborah? [27:49.360 --> 27:50.360] Pretty good. [27:50.360 --> 27:51.360] That's good. [27:51.360 --> 28:00.360] Randy, Eddie, I'm the guy that's been calling in about the I'm back in court with the credit card case [28:00.360 --> 28:03.360] and did a couple of different things. [28:03.360 --> 28:06.360] I wanted to give you a general overview and see what you thought. [28:06.360 --> 28:11.360] I have the mirrors package, but I kind of want to feel around the local court for a while [28:11.360 --> 28:14.360] and, you know, when things start to get the federal at them [28:14.360 --> 28:19.360] and go for telling them to hold off in the local until the federal is done. [28:19.360 --> 28:25.360] But what I did first, after they sent a complaint, I sent a motion to dismiss [28:25.360 --> 28:30.360] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for unclean hands, [28:30.360 --> 28:34.360] because of the FDCPA and FCRA violations, [28:34.360 --> 28:38.360] and as well as the fact that they didn't provide a valid contract. [28:38.360 --> 28:44.360] This motion was dismissed by the judge and said I had 28 days to file an answer. [28:44.360 --> 28:53.360] So in lieu of filing an answer, I filed a compulsory counterclaim under FDCPA and FCRA. [28:53.360 --> 28:59.360] And I also filed another motion to dismiss with a little bit more case law in it. [28:59.360 --> 29:01.360] It was a little bit more thorough. [29:01.360 --> 29:03.360] And I also attached a judicial notice of foreign law, [29:03.360 --> 29:11.360] because I was quoting some other states other than Ohio case law. [29:11.360 --> 29:19.360] So the next step I'm going to do, if you have any ideas, feel free to interrupt. [29:19.360 --> 29:23.360] What I want to do next, if all else fails, [29:23.360 --> 29:28.360] I want to continue to challenge personal jurisdiction, [29:28.360 --> 29:30.360] because I feel that this... [29:30.360 --> 29:32.360] Well, now, wait, wait, wait. [29:32.360 --> 29:35.360] If you've already filed a motion in a court for any reason [29:35.360 --> 29:39.360] other than challenging the jurisdiction of the court, [29:39.360 --> 29:44.360] you've already granted impersonal. [29:44.360 --> 29:46.360] In the civil? [29:46.360 --> 29:50.360] In any case, if you've done anything other than challenge the jurisdiction of the court, [29:50.360 --> 29:53.360] you've waived impersonal. [29:53.360 --> 29:55.360] Oh, I thought that was after you filed an answer. [29:55.360 --> 29:57.360] Okay, listen, we're going to break. We'll be right back. [29:57.360 --> 30:01.360] Okay. [30:01.360 --> 30:06.360] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [30:06.360 --> 30:10.360] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [30:10.360 --> 30:15.360] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [30:15.360 --> 30:18.360] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English [30:18.360 --> 30:21.360] on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, [30:21.360 --> 30:25.360] what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, [30:25.360 --> 30:27.360] how to answer letters and phone calls, [30:27.360 --> 30:29.360] how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, [30:29.360 --> 30:34.360] how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [30:34.360 --> 30:39.360] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [30:39.360 --> 30:41.360] Personal consultation is available as well. [30:41.360 --> 30:47.360] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [30:47.360 --> 30:50.360] or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [30:50.360 --> 30:58.360] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [30:58.360 --> 31:01.360] to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [31:01.360 --> 31:24.360] MUSIC [31:24.360 --> 31:39.360] I won't, oh I won't, I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes [31:39.360 --> 31:54.360] I certainly must refuse your news also coming live It seems you like the fit but please take some words to the wise [31:54.360 --> 32:22.360] Please stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes [32:22.360 --> 32:33.360] MUSIC [32:33.360 --> 32:36.360] Okay, we are back. [32:36.360 --> 32:45.360] We are speaking with Todd in Ohio and Eddie, you were talking about waiving the impersonal. [32:45.360 --> 32:49.360] Yeah, I've actually been looking at that here in some court cases that I'm reading up on right now, [32:49.360 --> 32:56.360] but the courts have seemed to come to the conclusion that anytime you file anything in the court, [32:56.360 --> 33:03.360] whether it be an answer or any other type of motion or declaration before the court for any purpose other [33:03.360 --> 33:08.360] than challenging the jurisdiction, you are waiving impersonal. [33:08.360 --> 33:16.360] Now you cannot waive subject matter, but you are waiving impersonal if you do anything other than challenge jurisdiction. [33:16.360 --> 33:21.360] I've got a question for you. [33:21.360 --> 33:33.360] I've got a question for you regarding impersonal jurisdiction. [33:33.360 --> 33:44.360] Regarding impersonal jurisdiction, in my response, which isn't really an answer, it's a motion to dismiss, [33:44.360 --> 33:49.360] I said the attorney has failed to provide any proof in a relationship between themselves and the plaintiff, [33:49.360 --> 33:53.360] specifically the authority of the law firm to collect the debt on behalf of the plaintiff. [33:53.360 --> 33:57.360] In addition, there's been no proof brought forward that shows that the law firm is aging. [33:57.360 --> 34:06.360] Right, which means you're challenging jurisdiction, not just of the court in this case but of the suitor, the petitioner. [34:06.360 --> 34:10.360] So you are addressing jurisdiction. [34:10.360 --> 34:15.360] You're addressing subject matter jurisdiction, not impersonal. [34:15.360 --> 34:24.360] This is saying that the attorney on the other side has failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. [34:24.360 --> 34:29.360] Okay, but I missed that in the impersonal probably. [34:29.360 --> 34:30.360] No, no, no. [34:30.360 --> 34:32.360] You're challenging jurisdiction. [34:32.360 --> 34:34.360] It doesn't matter which jurisdiction. [34:34.360 --> 34:40.360] You're just simply challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the action or the plaintiff to pursue the action. [34:40.360 --> 34:47.360] Yes, and the issue of challenging jurisdiction, once you have challenged jurisdiction, [34:47.360 --> 34:59.360] if the court rules against your challenge, you can move ahead with adjudicating the other issues without waiving that argument for jurisdiction. [34:59.360 --> 35:02.360] That's still alive on appeal. [35:02.360 --> 35:11.360] So these guys that challenge jurisdiction and get ruled against it and refuse to deal with the court, they're shooting themselves in the foot. [35:11.360 --> 35:17.360] They're claiming that if you do anything else, then you waive the jurisdiction issue. [35:17.360 --> 35:18.360] No, you can't. [35:18.360 --> 35:27.360] Even if you challenge impersonal jurisdiction first and they rule against you, then you need to go ahead and adjudicate the rest of the case. [35:27.360 --> 35:29.360] You don't waive that issue. [35:29.360 --> 35:37.360] You simply waive it if you make a general appearance before you make a special appearance. [35:37.360 --> 35:48.360] If you make a general appearance to argue other things, any other thing, before you challenge subject matter or in personum, then you waive it. [35:48.360 --> 35:52.360] But once you've challenged it, you can go ahead and argue the issues and not waive anything. [35:52.360 --> 35:54.360] Does that make sense? [35:54.360 --> 35:57.360] Yes, it does now. [35:57.360 --> 35:59.360] Another thing that I... [35:59.360 --> 36:12.360] In the response to this, the lady gave some lady that allegedly works for the credit card company, filled out an affidavit saying that I do owe the money. [36:12.360 --> 36:13.360] But it was conclusory. [36:13.360 --> 36:16.360] It didn't have any supporting documents attached to it. [36:16.360 --> 36:19.360] It was just this Maggie blah, blah, blah. [36:19.360 --> 36:21.360] It says, I duly swear. [36:21.360 --> 36:25.360] And it signed with... [36:25.360 --> 36:27.360] Wait, wait, wait, wait. [36:27.360 --> 36:31.360] Have you read 285, Little Civil Procedure 285? [36:31.360 --> 36:32.360] I know. [36:32.360 --> 36:33.360] Okay. [36:33.360 --> 36:52.360] That's the one that requires that the filing of a petition on account be filed with an affidavit prepared by a person with personal knowledge sworn to under oath. [36:52.360 --> 36:58.360] Now, that's not something that you file somewhere down the road. [36:58.360 --> 37:02.360] That must be filed with the original petition. [37:02.360 --> 37:14.360] It must be verified or the petitioner failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court in the first instance. [37:14.360 --> 37:17.360] So the court had no subject matter jurisdiction. [37:17.360 --> 37:28.360] Here in Austin, I got one that way and no verification, so we sued the judge. [37:28.360 --> 37:32.360] You said that's federal rules of Civil Procedure 285? [37:32.360 --> 37:35.360] No, this is Texas rules of... [37:35.360 --> 37:37.360] He's in Ohio, Randy. [37:37.360 --> 37:39.360] Oh, my mistake. [37:39.360 --> 37:40.360] Ohio. [37:40.360 --> 37:43.360] I was thinking I was talking a lot on that one. [37:43.360 --> 37:47.360] Look at your rules of Civil Procedure. [37:47.360 --> 37:52.360] That's almost certainly going to be the case in Ohio state law. [37:52.360 --> 38:08.360] Any time you're suing on account, you have to bring the account and show what the accounting is, and every one I've seen so far requires that that accounting be verified. [38:08.360 --> 38:13.360] Normally, an original petition doesn't have to be verified. [38:13.360 --> 38:16.360] In Texas, that's the only case where it does. [38:16.360 --> 38:17.360] Oh, cool. [38:17.360 --> 38:24.360] Yeah, because I challenged that in my second motion to dismiss along with my compulsory counterclaim because what I'd really like to do is dig my name in. [38:24.360 --> 38:30.360] You should file a counterclaim against the judge. [38:30.360 --> 38:34.360] It's not your place to determine subject matter jurisdiction. [38:34.360 --> 38:36.360] The judge's place. [38:36.360 --> 38:47.360] Before the judge orders you to show up in his court or do anything, he better make sure he has authority to do that because if he doesn't, he's no different than me. [38:47.360 --> 38:55.360] If I go down to the local uniform store and rip me a little uniform, buy me a little sidey badge, give me a little bubblegum machine sticking on the card, I'll pull you over. [38:55.360 --> 38:56.360] Or a black dress. [38:56.360 --> 38:59.360] Are you going to want to challenge my jurisdiction? [38:59.360 --> 39:06.360] Are you going to want my behind thrown in the can for impersonating a public official? [39:06.360 --> 39:10.360] We sued the judge for impersonating a public official. [39:10.360 --> 39:14.360] And for granting jurisdiction when jurisdiction shouldn't have been granted? [39:14.360 --> 39:15.360] No. [39:15.360 --> 39:16.360] Oh, sorry. [39:16.360 --> 39:23.360] For purporting to exert an authority he did not expressly have. [39:23.360 --> 39:30.360] He exerted a jurisdiction that was not invoked by the petitioner. [39:30.360 --> 39:41.360] If the petitioner failed to meet the rules of court, his petition was insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, and the court was just pretending to be a judge. [39:41.360 --> 39:44.360] He wasn't actually a judge. [39:44.360 --> 39:52.360] Yeah, because all they had was a bunch of photocopies from zero to end, which wasn't validated at all. [39:52.360 --> 39:59.360] And we don't care what they produced later, because that bill's already been wrung. [39:59.360 --> 40:05.360] First crack out of the hat, the judge had to have subject matter jurisdiction, just like me. [40:05.360 --> 40:18.360] If I get a uniform and a badge and go pull you over and write you a ticket, and the chief says, well, you did a really good job, I think I'll just hire you. [40:18.360 --> 40:22.360] Does my act against you all of a sudden become legal? [40:22.360 --> 40:28.360] So I didn't mess it up by filing that second motion to dismiss with a compulsory counterclaim. [40:28.360 --> 40:33.360] Yeah, just the only thing you screwed up is you didn't include the judge in the counterclaim. [40:33.360 --> 40:35.360] Well, I could always file another one, right? [40:35.360 --> 40:38.360] Oh, and you'll find that's a hoot. [40:38.360 --> 40:45.360] And what happened in this case is the magistrate got the county attorney to write his answer. [40:45.360 --> 40:51.360] So we sued the county attorney for misappropriation of public funds. [40:51.360 --> 40:54.360] That was a hoot. [40:54.360 --> 40:57.360] This will for certain get their attention. [40:57.360 --> 41:03.360] You can expect the court to rule against you at every turn because you're pro se. [41:03.360 --> 41:07.360] And they're going to do that because they hate pro se. [41:07.360 --> 41:12.360] And the reason they hate pro se is not the ones that come in and write bad pleadings, [41:12.360 --> 41:16.360] but the ones that come in and write kick butt pleadings. [41:16.360 --> 41:20.360] And the judge has no power over them. [41:20.360 --> 41:27.360] Now, the judge can manipulate an attorney because he can take his bar card away from him. [41:27.360 --> 41:30.360] He can't do that to a pro se. [41:30.360 --> 41:33.360] So a pro se can make his life miserable. [41:33.360 --> 41:36.360] That's precisely what you should be doing. [41:36.360 --> 41:40.360] And she also filed a bar grievance against the judge, right? [41:40.360 --> 41:42.360] Judicial conduct complaint. [41:42.360 --> 41:45.360] Judicial conduct complaint, okay. [41:45.360 --> 41:51.360] If he has a bar card, then a bar grievance too. [41:51.360 --> 41:56.360] They're required to surrender the bar card if they're sitting as a judge. [41:56.360 --> 41:59.360] Different states are different. [41:59.360 --> 42:01.360] I'm just talking about here in Texas. [42:01.360 --> 42:06.360] Here in Texas, they're not required to surrender their bar card. [42:06.360 --> 42:09.360] They're just not allowed to practice. [42:09.360 --> 42:14.360] They can still hold the bar card, but most of them don't because it costs too much. [42:14.360 --> 42:19.360] But they're not allowed to have a private practice if you're an elected judge. [42:19.360 --> 42:24.360] Now, an appointed municipal judge apparently can. [42:24.360 --> 42:27.360] So can a municipal court of record judge. [42:27.360 --> 42:29.360] Well, they're elected. [42:29.360 --> 42:32.360] They're supposed to be elected, it appears they're not. [42:32.360 --> 42:35.360] But not in every case. [42:35.360 --> 42:39.360] The really low-level judges can sometimes have their own practice, [42:39.360 --> 42:44.360] as long as it's in a different area and doesn't conflict with this one. [42:44.360 --> 42:49.360] But all the county and district judges, they are not allowed to practice. [42:49.360 --> 42:52.360] But it hurts them anyway. [42:52.360 --> 42:57.360] The point is let the judge know that you're not afraid of him, [42:57.360 --> 42:59.360] that you're willing to go after him. [42:59.360 --> 43:05.360] And what winds up happening is he winds up going to the only influence he has. [43:05.360 --> 43:09.360] And we had someone out of Utah, [43:09.360 --> 43:13.360] after 25 bar grievances and seven judicial conduct complaints, [43:13.360 --> 43:17.360] the judge came in, told him he was giving them the courtroom all afternoon, [43:17.360 --> 43:19.360] and told the attorneys, [43:19.360 --> 43:26.360] when I come back tomorrow, you will have made Ms. Burton an offer she cannot refuse. [43:26.360 --> 43:31.360] I do not want to see her face in my courtroom again. [43:31.360 --> 43:35.360] Do I make myself clear? [43:35.360 --> 43:41.360] So he couldn't influence the pro se, because she's just hammering it. [43:41.360 --> 43:44.360] You can't influence the other attorney to make you go away. [43:44.360 --> 43:46.360] These are the tools we can use as pro se. [43:46.360 --> 43:49.360] All right, thanks for calling, Todd. [43:49.360 --> 43:52.360] Okay, when we get back, we're going to move on to more calls. [43:52.360 --> 43:55.360] We got Jessica, Ron, Chad, Gary, and others. [43:55.360 --> 43:57.360] We'll be right back on the other side. [43:57.360 --> 44:02.360] We're going to go to Jessica next. [44:02.360 --> 44:06.360] Attention, an important product from HempUSA.org, micro plant powder, [44:06.360 --> 44:10.360] will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins, [44:10.360 --> 44:13.360] such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, [44:13.360 --> 44:18.360] and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients. [44:18.360 --> 44:22.360] Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge [44:22.360 --> 44:26.360] that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organs, spine, and brain. [44:26.360 --> 44:29.360] This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, [44:29.360 --> 44:32.360] which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints. [44:32.360 --> 44:37.360] Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium [44:37.360 --> 44:38.360] and is great for the heart. [44:38.360 --> 44:42.360] There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf [44:42.360 --> 44:44.360] or in your storage shelter. [44:44.360 --> 44:47.360] And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere. [44:47.360 --> 44:53.360] Call 908-691-2608 or visit HempUSA.org. [44:53.360 --> 44:55.360] It's a great way to change your life. [44:55.360 --> 45:02.360] So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at HempUSA.org today. [45:02.360 --> 45:30.360] Music [45:30.360 --> 45:33.360] Okay, we're taking your calls. [45:33.360 --> 45:35.360] We're going to Jessica from Texas. [45:35.360 --> 45:36.360] Jessica, thanks for calling in. [45:36.360 --> 45:38.360] What's on your mind tonight? [45:38.360 --> 45:41.360] I am calling concerning the guy that was in the white van, [45:41.360 --> 45:44.360] and I'm wondering, perhaps I didn't hear it, [45:44.360 --> 45:51.360] but did you say anything about him getting the 9-11 call copy of that? [45:51.360 --> 45:54.360] He tried to, but they said they don't keep him after 60 days, [45:54.360 --> 45:56.360] and the event happened a year ago, [45:56.360 --> 46:00.360] and he's just now getting into the case, and so it's gone. [46:00.360 --> 46:02.360] But he did try that. [46:02.360 --> 46:03.360] Okay, I'm sorry. [46:03.360 --> 46:04.360] Thank you very much. [46:04.360 --> 46:05.360] Oh, that's okay. [46:05.360 --> 46:06.360] Is that all? [46:06.360 --> 46:07.360] You have any other questions? [46:07.360 --> 46:08.360] No, that was it. [46:08.360 --> 46:09.360] Okay, all right. [46:09.360 --> 46:10.360] Thanks, Jessica. [46:10.360 --> 46:15.360] Okay, we're going now to Ron in Louisiana. [46:15.360 --> 46:17.360] How are you doing tonight? [46:17.360 --> 46:19.360] Hey, Ron, what's on your mind tonight? [46:19.360 --> 46:23.360] Oh, I have a rather odd question for you. [46:23.360 --> 46:26.360] Back in January, just for some background, [46:26.360 --> 46:31.360] some kids stole my kid's iPod back in January. [46:31.360 --> 46:37.360] He pled guilty to the crime in, I think, February and has a year's probation, [46:37.360 --> 46:40.360] but he never returned the iPod. [46:40.360 --> 46:45.360] So we went down to see the DA today because we're tired of waiting, [46:45.360 --> 46:51.360] and I wanted to press charges against the kid and his parents for possession [46:51.360 --> 46:55.360] and accessory to possession and conspiracy for all three. [46:55.360 --> 46:57.360] And the DA says, no, we can't do that. [46:57.360 --> 46:58.360] That's double jeopardy. [46:58.360 --> 47:00.360] I'm like, I don't think so. [47:00.360 --> 47:06.360] Possession is a separate crime, and he's doing that today, not back in January. [47:06.360 --> 47:09.360] So is that double jeopardy or is it not double jeopardy? [47:09.360 --> 47:12.360] Should I bargain this jerk or not? [47:12.360 --> 47:17.360] Absolutely not double jeopardy. [47:17.360 --> 47:23.360] The prosecutor just doesn't want to do his job. [47:23.360 --> 47:29.360] So possession of stolen property is a separate crime from stealing property? [47:29.360 --> 47:34.360] Yes. If you steal the property and sell it to me, [47:34.360 --> 47:39.360] I can be charged with possession and not with theft. [47:39.360 --> 47:45.360] I can be charged with possession, and then they can find out that I also stole it. [47:45.360 --> 47:50.360] Then they can charge me with stealing it, but if they catch me stealing it, [47:50.360 --> 47:53.360] they can't charge me with both. [47:53.360 --> 47:54.360] Why? [47:54.360 --> 47:56.360] Because it's essentially one thing. [47:56.360 --> 47:59.360] Well, is that what the prosecutor's trying to say here? [47:59.360 --> 48:07.360] No, but after the theft, if I remain in possession of it, [48:07.360 --> 48:11.360] then I can be charged with possession. [48:11.360 --> 48:16.360] That's right. He's still in possession of the stolen property. [48:16.360 --> 48:23.360] Well, see, would the prosecutor somehow have to prove that this family is still in possession [48:23.360 --> 48:26.360] because they could have sold it on eBay by now? [48:26.360 --> 48:30.360] What if they're not in possession of it anymore? [48:30.360 --> 48:33.360] I mean, it seems like you would have to prove that. [48:33.360 --> 48:40.360] I have pictures of him with the iPod in his hand that we took not yesterday but a week ago. [48:40.360 --> 48:43.360] Okay, well, that'll do. [48:43.360 --> 48:45.360] Months after the crime. [48:45.360 --> 48:52.360] So he's being prosecuted for stealing this, and they didn't take the iPod into evidence? [48:52.360 --> 48:54.360] No, they didn't take the iPod into evidence. [48:54.360 --> 48:56.360] They didn't do anything of the sort. [48:56.360 --> 49:04.360] Now, they're scheduling a restitution hearing for August 4th. [49:04.360 --> 49:09.360] Well, who are the police officers, Law and Hardy? [49:09.360 --> 49:14.360] No, the Keystone cops. [49:14.360 --> 49:16.360] I guess that's a bit too old for you. [49:16.360 --> 49:17.360] Well, here's another one. [49:17.360 --> 49:19.360] I don't know what they are. [49:19.360 --> 49:25.360] Maybe, look, would suing them in small claims be an option? [49:25.360 --> 49:26.360] I hadn't thought of that. [49:26.360 --> 49:34.360] If you can't get the prosecutor to make them return the iPod, I mean, then sue them. [49:34.360 --> 49:42.360] Well, he's scheduled a restitution hearing for August 4th, but it seems to me like why bother with that? [49:42.360 --> 49:46.360] I mean, he's committing a crime today. [49:46.360 --> 49:47.360] Well, I would hammer the prosecutor. [49:47.360 --> 49:50.360] A crime that he committed back in January. [49:50.360 --> 49:51.360] Hammer the prosecutor again. [49:51.360 --> 49:54.360] File a bar grievance against the prosecutor. [49:54.360 --> 49:56.360] Take your own complaint to the grand jury. [49:56.360 --> 49:58.360] Yeah, there you go. [49:58.360 --> 50:06.360] And name the prosecutor for aiding and abetting in the delinquency of a minor and theft of private property. [50:06.360 --> 50:08.360] Works for me. [50:08.360 --> 50:13.360] And if you don't get it back at the restitution hearing, sue them. [50:13.360 --> 50:16.360] Oh, I'm going to sue the prosecutor if I don't get it back on August 4th. [50:16.360 --> 50:17.360] You're going to sue who? [50:17.360 --> 50:18.360] The prosecutor. [50:18.360 --> 50:22.360] Well, yeah, but I'm saying also sue the family. [50:22.360 --> 50:23.360] Absolutely. [50:23.360 --> 50:26.360] But I'd rather see him sitting in jail, to tell you the truth. [50:26.360 --> 50:32.360] I mean, at this point, I don't know if I'd even want it back because it could be damaged by now. [50:32.360 --> 50:34.360] Mm-hmm. [50:34.360 --> 50:37.360] And it's like, I wonder where they're going to go with that if it is. [50:37.360 --> 50:38.360] Well, that's what I'm saying. [50:38.360 --> 50:39.360] You sue them. [50:39.360 --> 50:44.360] I mean, if he's already been convicted, if the kid's already been convicted, then that's plenty evidence, [50:44.360 --> 50:50.360] and you've got the pictures that they see, still got it, then it sounds like a slam dunk case for me, you know, to me. [50:50.360 --> 50:53.360] Well, the question is, is how did they convict him without the evidence? [50:53.360 --> 50:56.360] That would be my question. [50:56.360 --> 51:08.360] What evidence did they use to prove he actually stole it and for him to now have that same item in his hands still after the fact? [51:08.360 --> 51:12.360] That's a pretty good question. [51:12.360 --> 51:14.360] Who signed the complaint? [51:14.360 --> 51:16.360] Who signed the complaint? [51:16.360 --> 51:19.360] Yeah, did the kid confess? [51:19.360 --> 51:20.360] The kid confessed. [51:20.360 --> 51:24.360] He pled guilty as soon as they arrested him. [51:24.360 --> 51:27.360] And so he gets to keep what he stole? [51:27.360 --> 51:29.360] Yeah, that's just. [51:29.360 --> 51:31.360] Yeah, that's what I was thinking. [51:31.360 --> 51:39.360] And I'm like, hey, the kid's committing a crime today, which is different from the crime that he committed back in January. [51:39.360 --> 51:41.360] Right, a lot of criminal complaint for that. [51:41.360 --> 51:47.360] Dealing with our trading in stolen property. [51:47.360 --> 51:51.360] That would be possession of stolen property. [51:51.360 --> 52:09.360] Well, the way I see it, sick complaint, possession of stolen property on the kid, accessory to possession to stolen property on the mother and the father, Jane and John Doe, mother or guardian of. [52:09.360 --> 52:15.360] And I also walked in there with conspiracy to commit for all three. [52:15.360 --> 52:22.360] A torn letter to the mother and father. [52:22.360 --> 52:25.360] Let them know you're going to sue the pants off of them. [52:25.360 --> 52:27.360] I mean, this is outrageous. [52:27.360 --> 52:28.360] This is the state. [52:28.360 --> 52:35.360] This is one reason why our country is so messed up today is because people don't know how to parent their kids anymore. [52:35.360 --> 52:37.360] I mean, the kid is convicted. [52:37.360 --> 52:38.360] He pleads guilty to theft. [52:38.360 --> 52:42.360] And the parents don't whip his behind and make him give back the iPod. [52:42.360 --> 52:45.360] I mean, come on. [52:45.360 --> 52:49.360] Those parents ought to be ashamed of themselves. [52:49.360 --> 52:51.360] Yeah, they ought to be prosecuted. [52:51.360 --> 52:52.360] They ought to be sued. [52:52.360 --> 52:53.360] Absolutely. [52:53.360 --> 52:54.360] They ought to be prosecuted. [52:54.360 --> 52:56.360] They ought to be prosecuted, too. [52:56.360 --> 52:58.360] Absolutely. [52:58.360 --> 53:11.360] If it had been one of my kids, after he finished mowing your yard, painting your house, grooming your dog, and cutting up all your firewood for the next 10 years, Danny might consider getting an honest job. [53:11.360 --> 53:20.360] I had the local chief of police call me one day because he had stopped my son and two other boys in a school parking lot. [53:20.360 --> 53:24.360] They were 13, driving a car in the parking lot, drinking beer. [53:24.360 --> 53:28.360] He threw them in the car and hauled them off to jail. [53:28.360 --> 53:30.360] He tried to locate the parents. [53:30.360 --> 53:32.360] And I was the only one it could get to. [53:32.360 --> 53:36.360] I walked over and looked in the car, and they all started their explanations. [53:36.360 --> 53:41.360] And I told them, just be quiet. I don't want to hear it. [53:41.360 --> 53:47.360] And turned and went over to the policeman and told him, I have a problem. [53:47.360 --> 53:52.360] And he had had some difficulty with me before, so he got real tense all of a sudden. [53:52.360 --> 53:55.360] He said, what's that, Mr. Kelton? [53:55.360 --> 53:58.360] This is not lasting long enough. [53:58.360 --> 54:03.360] What can we do to give them some more grief? [54:03.360 --> 54:06.360] And he kind of relaxed. He realized I wasn't upset at him. [54:06.360 --> 54:12.360] I said, can't you have these kids pick up cigarette butts in the school parking lot for the next month [54:12.360 --> 54:15.360] so all their friends will laugh at them and cheer at them, [54:15.360 --> 54:21.360] and maybe we'll keep them from doing something stupid down the road and getting them killed. [54:21.360 --> 54:27.360] And he apologized that there was nothing he could do, but if you talk to the JP, maybe she can. [54:27.360 --> 54:32.360] She couldn't either because of insurance, but that was a learning opportunity. [54:32.360 --> 54:37.360] And to keep the kids from having their lives ruined from that point in time forward. [54:37.360 --> 54:45.360] Yeah, and I really appreciated the officer for passing the opportunity to charge these three kids [54:45.360 --> 54:52.360] with public intoxication and their driving without analyzing. [54:52.360 --> 54:58.360] He had a lot of stuff he could throw at them, but he tried to do what was best for the children. [54:58.360 --> 55:01.360] Well, the felony misuse of a vehicle would also apply in this case. [55:01.360 --> 55:09.360] Yeah, and these three children, kids, we never had any problem like that out of them after that. [55:09.360 --> 55:13.360] But everybody, you know, this was an opportunity to teach. [55:13.360 --> 55:21.360] It sounds like this kid's parents are depriving him of tools he needs to have a good life. [55:21.360 --> 55:23.360] They need to be prosecuted. [55:23.360 --> 55:29.360] Yeah, the parents need to have their butts whipped big time. [55:29.360 --> 55:31.360] I'll concur in that assessment. [55:31.360 --> 55:35.360] So, Barbara, even though it is for Mr. DA, he should have known better. [55:35.360 --> 55:40.360] And charges against the child and against the parents. [55:40.360 --> 55:41.360] And the DA. [55:41.360 --> 55:42.360] That's right. [55:42.360 --> 55:45.360] Especially the DA. [55:45.360 --> 55:47.360] It's ridiculous. [55:47.360 --> 55:48.360] All right. [55:48.360 --> 55:50.360] Well, thanks for calling, Ron. [55:50.360 --> 55:51.360] Thank you very much. [55:51.360 --> 55:52.360] I love the show. [55:52.360 --> 55:53.360] Really do. [55:53.360 --> 55:54.360] Oh, thanks. [55:54.360 --> 55:55.360] Later. [55:55.360 --> 55:56.360] Okay, have a good night. [55:56.360 --> 56:01.360] Okay, we are going now to Gary in Texas and then Chad. [56:01.360 --> 56:03.360] Gary, thanks for calling in. [56:03.360 --> 56:07.360] What's on your mind tonight? [56:07.360 --> 56:09.360] Is Gary there? [56:09.360 --> 56:11.360] Yeah, I can barely hear him way in the background. [56:11.360 --> 56:12.360] Yeah, I'm here. [56:12.360 --> 56:16.360] Okay, Gary, Gary, you need to turn the radio off in the background, please. [56:16.360 --> 56:17.360] Yeah, I know. [56:17.360 --> 56:18.360] Let me do it. [56:18.360 --> 56:22.360] You guys just so good, I need to hear you twice. [56:22.360 --> 56:34.360] Hey, I wanted to know if I could share my IRS decision with you. [56:34.360 --> 56:35.360] I'm gay. [56:35.360 --> 56:37.360] Oh, Gary, absolutely. [56:37.360 --> 56:38.360] All right, let me read this. [56:38.360 --> 56:39.360] I'm pulling it out of the envelope. [56:39.360 --> 56:47.360] And actually, Randy knows about this, but I waited until I got the paper delivered through the U.S. Mail. [56:47.360 --> 56:54.360] This is a testament to the man that just never quits. [56:54.360 --> 56:56.360] Right. [56:56.360 --> 56:59.360] Okay, here it is. [56:59.360 --> 57:14.360] And I want to start off, I want to preface this by saying that many people will not agree with the position that I took as I approached this IRS decision. [57:14.360 --> 57:31.360] I had six notices of levy placed on my property, totaling almost $200,000. [57:31.360 --> 57:36.360] And I said, this isn't real. [57:36.360 --> 57:46.360] I looked at it, I said, you know, I can make all these, I had a choice, I can make a bunch of different constitutional arguments. [57:46.360 --> 57:53.360] But what I decided to do was to hit them where they are the weakest. [57:53.360 --> 58:03.360] And in my opinion, that was in their adherence to procedural due process. [58:03.360 --> 58:05.360] Are we going to the break? [58:05.360 --> 58:07.360] Why don't you hold that thought, Gary. [58:07.360 --> 58:24.360] You hit them with procedural violations, which is always a good thing, because then you don't have to ask the courts to make a ruling on some kind of constitutional issue or something like that, which the courts are often very reluctant to do, especially lately. [58:24.360 --> 58:27.360] Okay, so we're talking with Gary in Texas, and we're going to go to Chad. [58:27.360 --> 58:35.360] I just saw Bad Bob pop on the board and then drop off again. So Bad Bob, if you want to call back in, that'd be great. We also have Meta. [58:35.360 --> 58:41.360] We got one more hour, folks. This is the rule of law here on ruleoflawradio.com. [58:41.360 --> 58:54.360] And folks, like I said, if you're out there listening, if you have the luxury of listening on one of our AM or SM affiliates, please still tune in to the stream on the computer so that we can get our stream numbers up. [58:54.360 --> 59:02.360] We'll be right back after the break. [59:02.360 --> 59:10.360] It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. [59:10.360 --> 59:13.360] Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then. [59:13.360 --> 59:15.360] Brave New Books? [59:15.360 --> 59:25.360] Yes. Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin. They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps. [59:25.360 --> 59:28.360] There's no way a place like that exists. [59:28.360 --> 59:34.360] Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. [59:34.360 --> 59:37.360] By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there. [59:37.360 --> 59:45.360] Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility, just behind the bookstore. [59:45.360 --> 59:48.360] It does exist, but when are they open? [59:48.360 --> 01:00:00.360] Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays. So get them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at Brave New Bookstore. [01:00:00.360 --> 01:00:04.360] This news brief brought to you by the International News Network. [01:00:04.360 --> 01:00:12.360] Iranian troops Tuesday entered Iraq's semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan after Iranian artillery killed a 14-year-old girl Sunday. [01:00:12.360 --> 01:00:21.360] Iranian troops are targeting militants from the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, PJAK, an anti-Iranian Kurdish group. [01:00:21.360 --> 01:00:31.360] Iran says PJAK has close ties to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, and is sheltering in bases in the mountainous region of northern Iraq. [01:00:31.360 --> 01:00:42.360] The UN vote on a new round of sanctions against Iran, scheduled for Thursday, will be postponed because of Israel's commando raid Monday on the Gaza-bound flotilla. [01:00:42.360 --> 01:00:50.360] Barack Obama phoned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in an attempt to calm tensions between Turkey and Israel. [01:00:50.360 --> 01:00:56.360] Turkey is angry at the US's tepid response to the raid in which Turkish citizens were killed. [01:00:56.360 --> 01:01:09.360] Ri Jang-gon, North Korea's deputy ambassador in Geneva, said Thursday war could erupt at any time between North and South Korea over the sinking of a South Korean warship in March. [01:01:09.360 --> 01:01:20.360] North Korea, hit with UN sanctions after testing nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009, is under international pressure to dismantle its nuclear weapons. [01:01:20.360 --> 01:01:27.360] Doctors in poor areas of Mississippi are looking to Iran for solutions to the dire health care situation. [01:01:27.360 --> 01:01:37.360] Since the 1980s, rural Iranians have been able to seek treatment at health houses in formal sites set up in small communities rather than hospital emergency rooms. [01:01:37.360 --> 01:01:42.360] They're staffed by citizens, not doctors, and focused on preventive care. [01:01:42.360 --> 01:01:47.360] A group of volunteers is traveling to Iran this month to see how health houses work. [01:01:47.360 --> 01:01:55.360] Dr. Aaron Shirley is spearheading the effort to transform health care in a region where nearly three out of ten infants die. [01:01:55.360 --> 01:02:01.360] Residents are plagued by chronic illnesses, especially diabetes and heart disease, and few have health insurance. [01:02:01.360 --> 01:02:07.360] The Mississippi Delta's infant death rate is ten times higher than Iran's. [01:02:07.360 --> 01:02:20.360] Haneen Zoubi, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament who was on board the Gaza Bound flotilla that was attacked on Monday, accused Israel Wednesday of killing peace activists as a way to deter future convoys. [01:02:20.360 --> 01:02:30.360] Zoubi said Israeli naval vessels had surrounded the flotilla's flagship, the Mavi Marmara, and fired on it a few minutes before commandos absailed from a helicopter. [01:02:30.360 --> 01:02:39.360] Zoubi added that within minutes of the raid beginning, three bodies had been brought to the main room on the upper deck where she and most other passengers were confined. [01:02:39.360 --> 01:02:44.360] Two had gunshot wounds to the head in what she suggested were executions. [01:02:44.360 --> 01:02:53.360] Two other passengers slowly bled to death. After Israeli soldiers ignored messages in Hebrew, she held up at the window calling for medical help. [01:02:53.360 --> 01:03:00.360] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [01:03:54.360 --> 01:03:59.360] Am I concerned? [01:03:59.360 --> 01:04:04.360] Yeah, I realize I'm a farmer's cow. [01:04:04.360 --> 01:04:10.360] Will I need spades? [01:04:10.360 --> 01:04:15.360] I will guard these walls if I say [01:04:15.360 --> 01:04:22.360] they're going to take this place. [01:04:22.360 --> 01:04:32.320] Okay. We are back. We're taking your calls. Final hour here of the Friday Night Info Marathon [01:04:32.320 --> 01:04:39.360] on Rule of Law Radio. Folks, please go to ruleoflawradio.com and tune into the stream [01:04:39.360 --> 01:04:43.400] even if you're listening on the radio so that we can get our stream numbers up so we can [01:04:43.400 --> 01:04:49.080] start promoting, marketing, getting some syndication going, getting some sponsors going to help [01:04:49.080 --> 01:04:55.500] support this show and this network and the other shows and expanding our message to more [01:04:55.500 --> 01:05:02.840] people and more radio stations. Okay. We are speaking with Gary in Texas. Okay, Gary, you [01:05:02.840 --> 01:05:07.840] were talking about procedural violations and then we're going to chat. Go ahead, Gary. [01:05:07.840 --> 01:05:13.200] Yeah. Thank you so much. And I wanted to tell you that the song that you just played on [01:05:13.200 --> 01:05:20.200] the buffer music is probably my most favorite song by Three Shoes Posse. Well, thank you. [01:05:20.200 --> 01:05:27.080] That's actually Route 1 that Jerry and I have two different. Yeah, that's Jerry's main project [01:05:27.080 --> 01:05:32.480] and we're actually about to release two CDs, double CD release, one by Three Shoes Posse [01:05:32.480 --> 01:05:39.200] and one by Route 1 and actually that's the title track of the CD of the album, My Father's [01:05:39.200 --> 01:05:44.360] House, Occupy My Father's House. I want to tell you, I think it talks of grace and that [01:05:44.360 --> 01:05:51.160] is exactly what this court case is that I was recently involved with. And I'd like to [01:05:51.160 --> 01:05:57.040] tell you that many people, as I mentioned before, are going to disagree with my approach [01:05:57.040 --> 01:06:05.400] regarding the IRS, but I wanted to deal with something that I could be successful in and [01:06:05.400 --> 01:06:13.880] so I chose to go the administrative route and my premise was that the IRS fails at virtually [01:06:13.880 --> 01:06:28.000] every administrative procedure. And so I had a tax issue from 1999 through 2005 and if [01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:34.320] you could just imagine the pressure that's created by receiving seven to eight certified [01:06:34.320 --> 01:06:47.400] letters per week for months from the Internal Revenue Service. It's just almost unbelievable [01:06:47.400 --> 01:06:56.040] the mental pressure that it causes and that's intentional. They know it, they do it and [01:06:56.040 --> 01:07:02.840] of course they're violating United States mail code, Title 18, mail fraud, etc., etc. [01:07:02.840 --> 01:07:05.400] So tell us what you did. [01:07:05.400 --> 01:07:14.080] Okay, so what I did is I challenged their procedural due process. I said, look, IRS, [01:07:14.080 --> 01:07:29.920] you failed to follow the dictates of Internal Revenue Code 6330, 6320, 6310, and 6702 and [01:07:29.920 --> 01:07:39.760] I detailed some items that they failed to follow. I never once argued the factualness [01:07:39.760 --> 01:07:45.360] of their claim that I owed taxes. I never challenged any of those things. [01:07:45.360 --> 01:07:49.600] You didn't go to the merits of the case, in other words? [01:07:49.600 --> 01:07:50.600] Not at all. [01:07:50.600 --> 01:07:51.600] Right. [01:07:51.600 --> 01:08:01.680] So I challenged with, if I can use the term, extreme prejudice. I said that number one, [01:08:01.680 --> 01:08:08.600] I never received the Notice of Deficiency and number two, you had no proof that you [01:08:08.600 --> 01:08:17.760] sent it. Number three, you had no proof that I received it. Those are three integral, very [01:08:17.760 --> 01:08:25.280] important parts for people to remember because they keep no records of those items. [01:08:25.280 --> 01:08:38.680] I went to tax court on May 17th, first time in my life. I went as a pro se litigant and [01:08:38.680 --> 01:08:46.440] I'm going to tell you that I do not believe in pro se, sorry Randy, however I assumed [01:08:46.440 --> 01:08:58.000] that the legal fiction, my name in all capital letters is the pro se litigant. I declared [01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:06.720] that my presence as a physical being, a three part man, a body, soul, and spirit is not [01:09:06.720 --> 01:09:18.200] the legal fiction, but I made no argument. I said I'm speaking on behalf of the legal [01:09:18.200 --> 01:09:19.200] fiction. [01:09:19.200 --> 01:09:32.680] Here was the decision. The decision is, I'm going to read it verbatim, it's hereby stipulated [01:09:32.680 --> 01:09:42.520] that the court entered this foregoing decision in this case. It is further stipulated and [01:09:42.520 --> 01:09:52.960] stipulations means that these are statements of facts accepted by plaintiff and the respondent [01:09:52.960 --> 01:10:00.040] in the case. That's all the word stipulation means. It says it's further stipulated that [01:10:00.040 --> 01:10:11.400] the respondent will suspend for a period of 150 days from the entry of the decision all [01:10:11.400 --> 01:10:23.000] administrative collection of federal income taxes and penalties for the tax years at issue [01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:37.080] in this case. On the foregoing page it states that the years at issue are 1999 through 2005. [01:10:37.080 --> 01:10:45.240] It is further stipulated that the respondent, meaning the government, will abate the penalties [01:10:45.240 --> 01:10:57.320] under IRC, Section 6702A, for the 1999 through 2004 tax years. So what this means that in [01:10:57.320 --> 01:11:10.000] my case, because I was successful at arguing the disparities in the procedural due process [01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:22.280] of the IRS, that they waived all penalties, which means all interest on penalties, for [01:11:22.280 --> 01:11:30.640] seven years worth of tax filings. Now, as I mentioned before, most people will disagree [01:11:30.640 --> 01:11:38.720] with the stance that I took, which is that I took the stance that a United States citizen [01:11:38.720 --> 01:11:52.800] is required to file income tax information. And sorry, that is a fact and a truth of law. [01:11:52.800 --> 01:12:05.680] All US citizens are required to file US tax information reports, which is a 1040. However, [01:12:05.680 --> 01:12:13.680] they waived all penalties and interest. And if I just follow their stupid rules, they're [01:12:13.680 --> 01:12:23.280] going to owe me thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands, plus interest on the six [01:12:23.280 --> 01:12:32.280] years worth of filings. Now, I've got 150 days now officially to file those information [01:12:32.280 --> 01:12:40.760] returns. So the way I look at it, at this, it's a matter of what type of argument do [01:12:40.760 --> 01:12:42.240] you make. [01:12:42.240 --> 01:12:50.440] Well, making the, going after them for administrative procedural errors, I think is the best way [01:12:50.440 --> 01:12:54.920] to go when you're dealing with the feds, with these agencies, because whenever you start [01:12:54.920 --> 01:13:00.240] trying to argue the merits of the case, you're always going to lose. I mean, that's the approach [01:13:00.240 --> 01:13:06.440] that Randy and I and Eddie have always taken, even at the local and state level with these [01:13:06.440 --> 01:13:10.640] traffic issues and due process and other things. That's the approach we're taking with the [01:13:10.640 --> 01:13:16.120] FCC as well. We're going after, we're not even getting to the point of arguing for the [01:13:16.120 --> 01:13:21.400] merits of the case or whether we have a right to broadcast or not. That's not the question. [01:13:21.400 --> 01:13:24.240] The question is, what laws did they break? [01:13:24.240 --> 01:13:30.440] Yes, go back to the first step they took. Is that step proper? Then look at the second [01:13:30.440 --> 01:13:32.400] step. Take them apart on the details. [01:13:32.400 --> 01:13:33.400] Good job, Gary. [01:13:33.400 --> 01:13:34.400] Nice work, Gary. [01:13:34.400 --> 01:13:35.400] Good job, Gary. [01:13:35.400 --> 01:13:43.560] Well, I appreciate it. You know, I felt like this was the major victory. And the thing [01:13:43.560 --> 01:13:52.920] to realize is that these people are merely employees of the United States. That's all. [01:13:52.920 --> 01:13:57.440] They're no better than an employee of a Goodyear Service Center or the employee of a local [01:13:57.440 --> 01:14:02.200] service station. And they have no more authority. And the next thing is going to happen... [01:14:02.200 --> 01:14:05.640] I think you're doing much credit in that regard, Gary. [01:14:05.640 --> 01:14:12.880] Well, maybe so. Now, the next thing is, the next thing is going to be the filing of criminal [01:14:12.880 --> 01:14:23.640] complaints against the actors for the IRS. I'm going to file RICO action against them [01:14:23.640 --> 01:14:31.400] as a, and I know you guys are going to hate this, but as a pro se litigant. Now, another [01:14:31.400 --> 01:14:37.400] thing, and Randy is aware of this, and Randy, I'm going to temper these statements because [01:14:37.400 --> 01:14:45.760] I have not yet received transcript of the proceedings. But during these proceedings, [01:14:45.760 --> 01:14:54.440] the judge began immediately to berate me in front of the court and to ridicule me in front [01:14:54.440 --> 01:15:03.320] of the court for something I didn't do. And for that, and thankful to Randy, I will be [01:15:03.320 --> 01:15:12.720] filing judicial grievances against that judge. And I will absolutely put her out of business [01:15:12.720 --> 01:15:17.440] because she ridiculed me strictly on bias. [01:15:17.440 --> 01:15:23.520] If you can even file judicial conduct complaints against a judge of an administrative hearing. [01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:28.480] Hey, all she is is a United States employee, nothing more. [01:15:28.480 --> 01:15:33.400] Well, what I'm saying is that she's not a judge in the court system, in the judicial [01:15:33.400 --> 01:15:39.600] branch. If she's just an IRS employee, she may not be subject to a judicial conduct complaint [01:15:39.600 --> 01:15:40.600] is what I'm saying. [01:15:40.600 --> 01:15:48.680] Now, wait just a minute. Now, she is an administrative judge in the United States tax court, and [01:15:48.680 --> 01:16:01.320] through a really unique, slick trick of legal verbiage, she is subject to judicial conduct [01:16:01.320 --> 01:16:02.320] complaints. [01:16:02.320 --> 01:16:03.520] Excellent. [01:16:03.520 --> 01:16:06.360] I will ruin her career. [01:16:06.360 --> 01:16:12.120] And I want to make sure you take a shot at the Inspector General for the IRS as well. [01:16:12.120 --> 01:16:19.040] Oh yeah, he already knows who I am because I filed a complaint against a revenue officer [01:16:19.040 --> 01:16:25.520] who trespassed upon my property. My premise there was that my land is not ceded to the [01:16:25.520 --> 01:16:29.320] United States. My land is private property. [01:16:29.320 --> 01:16:34.160] And he probably didn't go through the sheriff's office either before approaching you, which [01:16:34.160 --> 01:16:38.840] federal agents are required to clear their activities through the sheriff. [01:16:38.840 --> 01:16:43.440] All right. Well, Gary, listen, thank you for the excellent information. We really appreciate [01:16:43.440 --> 01:16:44.440] it. [01:16:44.440 --> 01:16:45.440] You're welcome. [01:16:45.440 --> 01:16:49.880] All right. When we get back, we're going to go to Chad from Texas. And after that, the [01:16:49.880 --> 01:16:56.000] call board is clear. So callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984, we will be right [01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:03.000] back. [01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:07.680] Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals, and coin [01:17:07.680 --> 01:17:13.280] supplies in the Austin metro area. We also ship worldwide. We are a family-owned and [01:17:13.280 --> 01:17:17.840] operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. [01:17:17.840 --> 01:17:23.040] We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections, precious [01:17:23.040 --> 01:17:28.760] metals, and scrap gold. We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. We offer [01:17:28.760 --> 01:17:35.480] daily specials on coins and bullions. We're located at 5448 Barnett Road, Suite 3, and [01:17:35.480 --> 01:17:41.080] we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. You [01:17:41.080 --> 01:17:48.480] are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 with [01:17:48.480 --> 01:17:54.400] any questions. Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. [01:17:54.400 --> 01:17:59.400] That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440. [01:17:59.400 --> 01:18:06.400] Oh, come on. [01:18:06.400 --> 01:18:33.400] If I can't get everything I want, yeah, we'll get a range, yeah. [01:18:33.400 --> 01:18:48.840] Okay, we are back. We're taking your calls, and we are going to go now to Chad in Texas [01:18:48.840 --> 01:18:53.400] who's been patiently waiting. Thanks for calling in, Chad. What's on your mind tonight? [01:18:53.400 --> 01:19:01.400] Hi. I know you guys don't give legal advice, so this is a hypothetical case. If a defendant [01:19:01.400 --> 01:19:06.400] appears in court on a trial date and the officer and video evidence are not there, the prosecutor [01:19:06.400 --> 01:19:11.400] says they have the video. It's just not decrypted yet. The judge asks the defendant if you'd [01:19:11.400 --> 01:19:15.400] like to view the video. The defendant cannot recall at the moment the words, motion for [01:19:15.400 --> 01:19:20.400] dismissal due to lack of evidence, but instead says that it's unreasonable to ask them to [01:19:20.400 --> 01:19:25.400] take off work again after appearing for trial and prosecution had no evidence and no witness. [01:19:25.400 --> 01:19:30.400] The judge and prosecutor exchange a knowing look like, let's run over this guy. He doesn't [01:19:30.400 --> 01:19:34.400] know what he's doing. The judge says, in the interest of justice, it might be a good idea [01:19:34.400 --> 01:19:39.400] to see the video. The defendant falls into the trap and says, yes, I would like to see [01:19:39.400 --> 01:19:43.400] the video. I don't believe I ran the red light and agrees to continuance for production of [01:19:43.400 --> 01:19:52.400] the video. Has jurisdiction been waived or can subject matter jurisdiction still be challenged? [01:19:52.400 --> 01:20:02.400] This is not a jurisdictional issue. The defendant had a right to dismissal because the prosecution [01:20:02.400 --> 01:20:08.400] was not prepared to prosecute and the prosecution didn't call the defendant and say, hey, is [01:20:08.400 --> 01:20:14.400] this a convenient time for you to show up? The prosecutor ordered you to show up on this [01:20:14.400 --> 01:20:21.400] day at this time or the court ordered you to show up on this day at this time. The state [01:20:21.400 --> 01:20:26.400] had a duty to be ready to proceed with trial, so you had a right to dismissal. This didn't [01:20:26.400 --> 01:20:28.400] go to jurisdiction. [01:20:28.400 --> 01:20:38.400] I didn't say the defendant didn't use the words I object and motion for dismissal. [01:20:38.400 --> 01:20:49.400] That's the problem. The defendant had a right to dismissal, but defendant had to invoke [01:20:49.400 --> 01:20:51.400] that right. [01:20:51.400 --> 01:20:57.400] It was waived by agreeing to continuance. [01:20:57.400 --> 01:20:59.400] They got you. [01:20:59.400 --> 01:21:02.400] Has jurisdiction also been waived? [01:21:02.400 --> 01:21:07.400] No. That issue doesn't go to jurisdiction. [01:21:07.400 --> 01:21:14.400] Subject matter jurisdiction could still be challenged. [01:21:14.400 --> 01:21:22.400] Yes. If they didn't have jurisdiction in the beginning, subject matter jurisdiction, [01:21:22.400 --> 01:21:30.400] impersonal jurisdiction can be waived. For instance, if they prosecute you in the wrong [01:21:30.400 --> 01:21:37.400] or inconvenient venue. Like a justice of the peace in a county, he has jurisdiction over [01:21:37.400 --> 01:21:43.400] the whole county, but he only has venue within his precinct. If you're charged with committing [01:21:43.400 --> 01:21:51.400] a crime in one precinct and the charge is brought before a magistrate in another precinct, [01:21:51.400 --> 01:21:59.400] the magistrate has subject matter jurisdiction, but he does not have impersonal jurisdiction. [01:21:59.400 --> 01:22:06.400] The magistrate in the precinct where the alleged offense occurred would have had impersonal. [01:22:06.400 --> 01:22:13.400] But if you don't object to this judge hearing the case, you waive your objection to impersonal. [01:22:13.400 --> 01:22:23.400] However, if the offense allegedly occurred in another county and you were brought before [01:22:23.400 --> 01:22:30.400] the magistrate in this county to trial, that goes to subject matter jurisdiction and that [01:22:30.400 --> 01:22:37.400] can never be waived. If the judge didn't have the authority in the first place, he never, [01:22:37.400 --> 01:22:45.400] ever gets it, period. And you cannot give it to him by anything that you do. [01:22:45.400 --> 01:22:54.400] Okay. Well, on the point of subject matter jurisdiction, on what do you base the assertion [01:22:54.400 --> 01:23:00.400] that an information separate from the complaint must be presented for a municipal court to [01:23:00.400 --> 01:23:08.400] establish subject matter jurisdiction? Eddie, you're on. Say that one more time. [01:23:08.400 --> 01:23:15.400] On what do you base the assertion that an information separate from the complaint must be presented [01:23:15.400 --> 01:23:22.400] for a municipal court to establish subject matter jurisdiction? The fact that 46.01 Code [01:23:22.400 --> 01:23:34.400] of Criminal Procedure or 45.01 was repealed prior to 1999. 45.01 specifically used to state [01:23:34.400 --> 01:23:40.400] that they could prosecute on complaint alone, just as 2.05 does for a county attorney right now. [01:23:40.400 --> 01:23:46.400] However, that was repealed sometime prior to 1999. [01:23:46.400 --> 01:23:57.400] Well, that's funny because in 1998, a court of appeals in Corpus Christi said that a complaint [01:23:57.400 --> 01:24:02.400] in county court has a different meaning than a complaint in justice or municipal court. [01:24:02.400 --> 01:24:05.400] In the latter, injustice or municipal court. [01:24:05.400 --> 01:24:07.400] How did they get that? [01:24:07.400 --> 01:24:15.400] Well, they refused the petition in the latter, meaning a justice or municipal court [01:24:15.400 --> 01:24:19.400] defendant pleads not guilty. The complaint itself serves as a charging instrument. [01:24:19.400 --> 01:24:21.400] This was 1998. [01:24:21.400 --> 01:24:31.400] No, that is specifically a lie. It says right in 2.05 that a complaint can only be filed [01:24:31.400 --> 01:24:41.400] by itself in a justice court if there is no county attorney in the district. [01:24:41.400 --> 01:24:48.400] Otherwise, the complaint is required because it says in that section that in any county [01:24:48.400 --> 01:24:57.400] with one or more criminal district courts, all misdemeanor cases must have an information filed. [01:24:57.400 --> 01:24:59.400] It says it right in 2.05. [01:24:59.400 --> 01:25:01.400] 2.05? [01:25:01.400 --> 01:25:05.400] Yes, Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:25:05.400 --> 01:25:08.400] 2.05. [01:25:08.400 --> 01:25:14.400] Okay. [01:25:14.400 --> 01:25:15.400] I had another question. [01:25:15.400 --> 01:25:20.400] Where is the right to travel enumerated? [01:25:20.400 --> 01:25:29.400] In the right of liberty, the right to locomotion according to the Supreme Court of the United States. [01:25:29.400 --> 01:25:33.400] You misunderstand something. [01:25:33.400 --> 01:25:40.400] The authority of public officials to act must be stipulated. [01:25:40.400 --> 01:25:47.400] The citizen, the sovereign, is not restricted to those things he's authorized to do. [01:25:47.400 --> 01:25:54.400] A sovereign may do anything he is not specifically forbidden to do. [01:25:54.400 --> 01:26:03.400] But the right to travel was never restricted by any law or ordinance. [01:26:03.400 --> 01:26:05.400] It doesn't have to be stipulated. [01:26:05.400 --> 01:26:06.400] Yeah. [01:26:06.400 --> 01:26:09.400] Actually, it is very well adjudicated in the case law. [01:26:09.400 --> 01:26:18.400] Absolutely, and law cannot authorize us to do anything or not do anything anyway. [01:26:18.400 --> 01:26:21.400] We are sovereigns. We're the citizens. [01:26:21.400 --> 01:26:25.400] We do whatever we want whenever we want as long as we're not harming other people [01:26:25.400 --> 01:26:34.400] or violating specific penal laws prohibiting certain actions which are designated as crimes. [01:26:34.400 --> 01:26:38.400] That's not the way it is with public servants. [01:26:38.400 --> 01:26:43.400] They can only do what we specifically authorize them to do by law, [01:26:43.400 --> 01:26:46.400] and they have to do what is required of them. [01:26:46.400 --> 01:26:48.400] It's like children. [01:26:48.400 --> 01:26:52.400] This is going back to one of the reasons our country is so messed up these days. [01:26:52.400 --> 01:26:56.400] Most parents I see these days, they just let their kids do whatever they want [01:26:56.400 --> 01:27:02.400] unless something gets a little bit too outrageous, and then they try to tone it down. [01:27:02.400 --> 01:27:05.400] That's not the way it's supposed to be. [01:27:05.400 --> 01:27:11.400] Kids shouldn't do anything unless the parents specifically give them permission to do it, [01:27:11.400 --> 01:27:15.400] and then they have to do what's required of them like their chores and their homework, et cetera. [01:27:15.400 --> 01:27:18.400] The parents are the ones that get to do whatever they want. [01:27:18.400 --> 01:27:22.400] Everybody's got it backwards these days. [01:27:22.400 --> 01:27:26.400] When I was a kid, I had to ask permission before I could do anything. [01:27:26.400 --> 01:27:33.400] Nowadays, kids just do whatever they want unless the parents specifically stop them from doing it. [01:27:33.400 --> 01:27:36.400] By then, it's too late because the kids are already out of control. [01:27:36.400 --> 01:27:39.400] People have to get a different idea here. [01:27:39.400 --> 01:27:41.400] I think that's one of the reasons why we've lost control of our government [01:27:41.400 --> 01:27:44.400] because people don't know how to raise their kids anymore. [01:27:44.400 --> 01:27:46.400] If they don't know how to raise their kids properly, [01:27:46.400 --> 01:27:49.400] if they don't have the proper attitude towards keeping control of their children, [01:27:49.400 --> 01:27:57.400] they sure as heck ain't going to have the right attitude towards keeping control of the public servants. [01:27:57.400 --> 01:28:02.400] We need to remember that we are the sovereign. [01:28:02.400 --> 01:28:09.400] We are the ones to whom all of our public officials owe their allegiance. [01:28:09.400 --> 01:28:14.400] We're like the CEO of a company. [01:28:14.400 --> 01:28:21.400] It is our duty to ensure that our public officials follow the law we lay down for them, [01:28:21.400 --> 01:28:29.400] just like it's our duty as parents to ensure that our children follow the rules we lay down for them. [01:28:29.400 --> 01:28:34.400] We as sovereigns have forgotten our position. [01:28:34.400 --> 01:28:42.400] We're here, Deborah, Eddie, and I, to remind folks that this country remains, [01:28:42.400 --> 01:28:47.400] becomes and remains stable by the actions of the sovereigns. [01:28:47.400 --> 01:28:53.400] Although we can point fingers at everybody else at the courts and the police and the prosecutors, [01:28:53.400 --> 01:28:59.400] but in the end, either we set them straight or they don't get strict. [01:28:59.400 --> 01:29:02.400] That's all there is to that. [01:29:02.400 --> 01:29:04.400] That's my story and I'm sticking to it. [01:29:04.400 --> 01:29:05.400] All right. [01:29:05.400 --> 01:29:07.400] That makes good sense. [01:29:07.400 --> 01:29:14.400] I wonder why O'Connor's Criminal Code Plus would have cited that appeals court case. [01:29:14.400 --> 01:29:20.400] Maybe they didn't, it was an oversight? [01:29:20.400 --> 01:29:21.400] We had missed that. [01:29:21.400 --> 01:29:23.400] What appeals court case? [01:29:23.400 --> 01:29:34.400] Where they said that the complaint could serve as the charging instrument in a justice or municipal court. [01:29:34.400 --> 01:29:36.400] We have to get a little more specific. [01:29:36.400 --> 01:29:46.400] I've got lots of case law on complaints, and what Eddie was talking about wasn't case law, it was statutory law. [01:29:46.400 --> 01:29:48.400] So which takes precedence? [01:29:48.400 --> 01:29:53.400] Okay, listen, we're going to break, Chad. We'll finish up on the other side. [01:29:53.400 --> 01:29:54.400] All right. [01:29:54.400 --> 01:30:01.400] Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984. [01:30:01.400 --> 01:30:04.400] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:30:04.400 --> 01:30:07.400] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, [01:30:07.400 --> 01:30:15.400] the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [01:30:15.400 --> 01:30:19.400] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:30:19.400 --> 01:30:23.400] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:30:23.400 --> 01:30:28.400] Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too. [01:30:28.400 --> 01:30:34.400] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [01:30:34.400 --> 01:30:43.400] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:30:43.400 --> 01:30:52.400] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:30:52.400 --> 01:31:01.400] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:31:01.400 --> 01:31:13.400] I see a tool, I see a tool, the every time, the every time, the most useful tool. [01:31:13.400 --> 01:31:19.400] I see tools of ingenuity, to use against the workers of iniquity. [01:31:19.400 --> 01:31:25.400] Tools of massive capability, made of overall eternity. [01:31:25.400 --> 01:31:31.400] They come from natural divinity, with step by step rules and authenticity. [01:31:31.400 --> 01:31:37.400] The tools of regal dignity, to rebuild the crime of iniquity. [01:31:37.400 --> 01:31:43.400] All right, tools of ingenuity, that's what we got here on the rule of law. [01:31:43.400 --> 01:31:48.400] We are speaking with Chad in Texas. [01:31:48.400 --> 01:31:52.400] And Eddie, you wanted to answer this question, what takes precedence? [01:31:52.400 --> 01:31:57.400] Yeah, the statute will always take precedence over the case law, [01:31:57.400 --> 01:32:04.400] unless the case law has specifically said the statute is unconstitutional. [01:32:04.400 --> 01:32:12.400] Otherwise, the interpretation is required to abide by legislative intent and the words used to create the statute. [01:32:12.400 --> 01:32:15.400] If it goes outside of those limitations or anything else, [01:32:15.400 --> 01:32:23.400] the case law itself is invalid upon its face because the judiciary is creating law, which they're not allowed to do. [01:32:23.400 --> 01:32:31.400] Now again, that's a common sense, straight up approach from the way that law worked prior to the morons we have in charge today. [01:32:31.400 --> 01:32:35.400] There hasn't been any revision to case law to alter that. [01:32:35.400 --> 01:32:45.400] They just decided they're going to do what they want until we hold them accountable in more ways than one. [01:32:45.400 --> 01:32:46.400] Okay. [01:32:46.400 --> 01:32:47.400] Does that make sense? [01:32:47.400 --> 01:32:49.400] Sure. [01:32:49.400 --> 01:32:51.400] All right, anything else Chad? [01:32:51.400 --> 01:32:52.400] No. [01:32:52.400 --> 01:32:55.400] All right, thanks Chad. [01:32:55.400 --> 01:32:56.400] All right. [01:32:56.400 --> 01:32:58.400] Okay, all right, before we go to the next call, [01:32:58.400 --> 01:33:06.400] I had an issue that I wanted to bring up concerning FCC cases that we're involved with. [01:33:06.400 --> 01:33:15.400] As many of you may know, Randy and I and some other folks sued an FCC agent personally [01:33:15.400 --> 01:33:23.400] for basically violations of state law for acting without authority, acting under color of law, [01:33:23.400 --> 01:33:29.400] because this guy Stephen Lee doesn't have an oath of office, it's not dated, it's not notarized, et cetera, et cetera. [01:33:29.400 --> 01:33:40.400] He doesn't have legitimate authority to act in the name of the FCC in an enforcement capacity to deprive citizens of their property. [01:33:40.400 --> 01:33:49.400] Okay, and so we sued in the state court and he got the U.S. attorney to remove the case to federal court [01:33:49.400 --> 01:33:58.400] and then immediately federal judge in this district dismissed the case with prejudice. [01:33:58.400 --> 01:34:05.400] He made a substantive ruling in the case, but yet the judge admitted that he had no subject matter jurisdiction. [01:34:05.400 --> 01:34:08.400] Well, he just committed a crime, he broke the law. [01:34:08.400 --> 01:34:11.400] If he's going to say he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction, [01:34:11.400 --> 01:34:15.400] then the only thing he can do according to law is remand the case back to the state. [01:34:15.400 --> 01:34:19.400] If we had sued in federal court, it would have been a different story, but we sued in the state, [01:34:19.400 --> 01:34:25.400] so he can't dismiss it with prejudice if he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction. [01:34:25.400 --> 01:34:34.400] So we wrote up a writ of mandamus, a petition for writ of mandamus to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals [01:34:34.400 --> 01:34:37.400] with all kinds of broodles of case law. [01:34:37.400 --> 01:34:46.400] Randy had over 200-something hits of 200 pieces of case law on Lexis regarding this exact issue, [01:34:46.400 --> 01:34:50.400] which clearly shows that the case has to be remanded to the state. [01:34:50.400 --> 01:34:57.400] So at any rate, it took us about a month to get that filing in because we had to correct some sayings, [01:34:57.400 --> 01:35:00.400] we had to serve the judge, Judge Sparks and all these things. [01:35:00.400 --> 01:35:03.400] So at any rate, we finally perfected the writ, [01:35:03.400 --> 01:35:08.400] and it's been sitting in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for about a month now, [01:35:08.400 --> 01:35:14.400] and they haven't made a ruling on it, and I don't know exactly how long they have to sit on it, [01:35:14.400 --> 01:35:21.400] but the courts of appeals get literally thousands of petitions for writ of mandamus a month, [01:35:21.400 --> 01:35:23.400] and so it could be a while. [01:35:23.400 --> 01:35:27.400] But at any rate, I wanted to let you guys know the update on that. [01:35:27.400 --> 01:35:34.400] We need your prayers for the Fifth Circuit to order the lower court to remand the case back to the state [01:35:34.400 --> 01:35:38.400] so we can start hammering these guys in state court. [01:35:38.400 --> 01:35:40.400] So that's one piece of information. [01:35:40.400 --> 01:35:46.400] And additionally, as I was researching through Title 47 some more, [01:35:46.400 --> 01:35:52.400] which is the law that set up the FCC and the communications laws and such, [01:35:52.400 --> 01:36:02.400] I ran into a nugget, which all you Admiralty Maritime people out there will really give a hoot and a holler about. [01:36:02.400 --> 01:36:08.400] It turns out that these Admiralty Maritime guys are not so far off the mark after all. [01:36:08.400 --> 01:36:12.400] It's just that maybe many of them hadn't found it in statute. [01:36:12.400 --> 01:36:15.400] But I found it in Title 47. [01:36:15.400 --> 01:36:16.400] It's in the statute. [01:36:16.400 --> 01:36:19.400] It's in the code. [01:36:19.400 --> 01:36:27.400] It's in the law, Section 510, Title 47, Chapter 5, Section 510, regarding seizures and forfeitures. [01:36:27.400 --> 01:36:32.400] And I already knew that they were operating under maritime and admiralty law anyway, [01:36:32.400 --> 01:36:40.400] because whenever you see the word forfeiture or in-rem arrest against property or in-rem arrest of property [01:36:40.400 --> 01:36:46.400] or criminal sanctions and things like this, then you know that they're operating in maritime [01:36:46.400 --> 01:36:51.400] because those are all catchphrases. Those are all terms that are used in maritime and admiralty law. [01:36:51.400 --> 01:37:01.400] So at any rate, I found it in Section 510 of Title 47, Paragraph B, under seizures regarding forfeitures of property. [01:37:01.400 --> 01:37:06.400] It says any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under this section [01:37:06.400 --> 01:37:13.400] may be seized by the Attorney General of the United States upon process issued pursuant to the supplemental rules [01:37:13.400 --> 01:37:22.400] for certain admiralty and maritime claims by any district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the property. [01:37:22.400 --> 01:37:24.400] Bang. [01:37:24.400 --> 01:37:28.400] Okay, so now it makes me wonder, and then the other phrase says except the seizure, [01:37:28.400 --> 01:37:33.400] without such process may be made of seizures incident to a lawful arrest or search. [01:37:33.400 --> 01:37:38.400] So if they've got something, if some other law enforcement agency has something else going on, [01:37:38.400 --> 01:37:43.400] they may be able to seize the property under like an arrest warrant or something or search warrant. [01:37:43.400 --> 01:37:54.400] But in general, that's not the case. For Title 47 forfeitures of property, you know, regarding the FCC, it's maritime. [01:37:54.400 --> 01:38:04.400] And so it makes me wonder just how many of these other federal agencies are operating under maritime and admiralty law [01:38:04.400 --> 01:38:11.400] as well as everyone has suspected all along, and people just haven't been able to or, you know, [01:38:11.400 --> 01:38:16.400] just haven't come through the statutes well enough to actually find it in the law. [01:38:16.400 --> 01:38:25.400] So there you go. So what do you guys think about that? [01:38:25.400 --> 01:38:29.400] Well, I like the idea. We already knew it. [01:38:29.400 --> 01:38:39.400] The problem was, as you said, no one's actually found it, or at least they've never mentioned it if they found it. [01:38:39.400 --> 01:38:44.400] Now, Harry, it's specifically by a district court having jurisdiction over the property. [01:38:44.400 --> 01:38:47.400] So anyway, go ahead, Randy. [01:38:47.400 --> 01:38:54.400] This is, you know, I've never really, you know, I've never had a real objection to maritime. [01:38:54.400 --> 01:39:01.400] I always liked it. But I never got any, you know, everybody gave me a legal opinion about maritime. [01:39:01.400 --> 01:39:07.400] They hadn't been giving me law about maritime. So if I can find law to use it with, I'll be thrilled. [01:39:07.400 --> 01:39:13.400] Well, there you go. So if they're going to operate, if they're going to invoke maritime law, [01:39:13.400 --> 01:39:19.400] then that means that we can start filing maritime liens against them for their violations, [01:39:19.400 --> 01:39:28.400] which is something that, you know, has seemed to be a dangerous thing to do to just invoke maritime jurisdiction [01:39:28.400 --> 01:39:37.400] and file maritime liens if there's no real grounds or standing to invoke maritime law. [01:39:37.400 --> 01:39:42.400] But hey, we're not the ones invoking maritime law. They did it. They said it. [01:39:42.400 --> 01:39:46.400] It's right there in the statute. It's right there in their own statute. [01:39:46.400 --> 01:39:51.400] So all's fair. Okay. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. [01:39:51.400 --> 01:40:03.400] So to me, this opens up a whole new realm of possibilities of how to go after these guys under maritime and admiralty law. [01:40:03.400 --> 01:40:11.400] Because it's not a secret anymore. I mean, it's not guesswork anymore. It's right there in the statute. So. [01:40:11.400 --> 01:40:15.400] Good. So if they can use the maritime, we can use the maritime. [01:40:15.400 --> 01:40:20.400] Absolutely. Absolutely. [01:40:20.400 --> 01:40:25.400] Okay. So there you go. So all you admiralty maritime folks out there, [01:40:25.400 --> 01:40:30.400] maybe y'all could jump on this and maybe send me some e-mails and look at the statute yourself [01:40:30.400 --> 01:40:38.400] and help me come up with some ideas of how we can go after these guys under maritime and admiralty law. [01:40:38.400 --> 01:40:51.400] So that's my little rant for concerning Title 47 and I guess just one other rant concerning the DOJ. [01:40:51.400 --> 01:40:58.400] They're trying to trick us into signing a contract for a payment plan on a debt that doesn't exist [01:40:58.400 --> 01:41:08.400] because the forfeiture has not been translated into a debt yet under Title 47. So we'll see where that goes. [01:41:08.400 --> 01:41:10.400] We'll just see where that goes. [01:41:10.400 --> 01:41:18.400] Because if they try to file lawsuits against these people for to collect a debt that doesn't exist, [01:41:18.400 --> 01:41:26.400] I'm going to hit them with the Meitner's method and I'm going to start filing lawsuits against them for filing a frivolous lawsuit. [01:41:26.400 --> 01:41:28.400] And civil rights claims against them. [01:41:28.400 --> 01:41:36.400] Absolutely. Absolutely. See, they're trying to bypass this little issue called a trial de novo. [01:41:36.400 --> 01:41:41.400] You know, they want to just jump straight to collecting the debt. Well, it don't work that way. [01:41:41.400 --> 01:41:51.400] It's not a debt unless you have already made a payment or unless a court of competent jurisdiction has made a final ruling on the forfeiture, [01:41:51.400 --> 01:41:57.400] which has not happened. And so they just want to collect the debt. Give me a break. Give me a break. [01:41:57.400 --> 01:42:02.400] I would just love it if they got into some of these people's credit reports. [01:42:02.400 --> 01:42:05.400] But I don't think they're going to push it that far. We'll see. [01:42:05.400 --> 01:42:11.400] So these people are just pathetic. They know we got them. We got them backed into a corner. [01:42:11.400 --> 01:42:14.400] You know, and we can't think that we've automatically just won. [01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:19.400] I mean, I'm sure there's still a big fight ahead, but, you know, there should be some encouragement. [01:42:19.400 --> 01:42:21.400] But anyway, folks, we need some prayer. [01:42:21.400 --> 01:42:28.400] And if the DOJ is going to act, I sure do hope that they try to collect this nonexistent debt. [01:42:28.400 --> 01:42:30.400] That would be just awesome. [01:42:30.400 --> 01:42:34.400] And we need to pray that our case gets remanded back to the state. [01:42:34.400 --> 01:42:42.400] So at any rate, and now we need to start figuring out ways of how we're going to hit them with maritime and admiralty remedies. [01:42:42.400 --> 01:42:46.400] Okay. We're going to continue to go to your calls now. [01:42:46.400 --> 01:42:50.400] We've got Meta in San Antonio that's called back in. [01:42:50.400 --> 01:42:53.400] Hey, Meta, thanks for calling in. What do you got for us? [01:42:53.400 --> 01:42:55.400] I just had a question. [01:42:55.400 --> 01:43:04.400] If you asked anybody about a 911 call, they can pull up all this data, how many shootings or whatever. [01:43:04.400 --> 01:43:10.400] And I was just thinking about the gentleman with the van. [01:43:10.400 --> 01:43:19.400] Did he get the SOP from Austin or Travis County for the emergency service to see what their regulations are? [01:43:19.400 --> 01:43:23.400] Because I know that the feds pay 50 percent on 911 calls, [01:43:23.400 --> 01:43:28.400] and I used to be told that you're required to keep the information for something like five years. [01:43:28.400 --> 01:43:30.400] Maybe not the tape itself. [01:43:30.400 --> 01:43:35.400] You know, they may distort the tape, but they have to just transcribe the information. [01:43:35.400 --> 01:43:40.400] So he could still find out if there really was a call that night, at what time and what was said. [01:43:40.400 --> 01:43:44.400] So he should ask for transcripts. Wonderful. [01:43:44.400 --> 01:43:47.400] Okay, we're going to go to break. We'll be right back. [01:43:47.400 --> 01:43:48.400] Go ahead. Thank you. [01:43:48.400 --> 01:43:50.400] All right. Thanks, Meta. [01:43:50.400 --> 01:43:53.400] All right. We've got Ken from Texas when we get back. [01:43:53.400 --> 01:44:00.400] This is the final segment. So folks, call in if you want to talk with us. We'll be right back. [01:44:00.400 --> 01:44:05.400] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:44:05.400 --> 01:44:09.400] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [01:44:09.400 --> 01:44:15.400] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. [01:44:15.400 --> 01:44:21.400] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, [01:44:21.400 --> 01:44:27.400] what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, [01:44:27.400 --> 01:44:34.400] how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:44:34.400 --> 01:44:39.400] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:44:39.400 --> 01:44:41.400] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:44:41.400 --> 01:44:50.400] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [01:44:50.400 --> 01:45:00.400] That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:45:00.400 --> 01:45:24.400] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech talk radio at its best. [01:45:30.400 --> 01:45:44.400] All right, coming into the homestretch, final segment of the Rule of Law here on our Friday Night Info Marathon. [01:45:44.400 --> 01:45:52.400] We've got Ken in Texas, Meta in San Antonio. Meta's still on the line. Meta, did you have anything else for us? [01:45:52.400 --> 01:45:59.400] Okay, Meta's not there. All right, we've got Ken in Texas. Ken, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind? [01:45:59.400 --> 01:46:10.400] Well, hi. Your discussion or mentioning that you had given a little more validity to your beliefs about the maritime was interesting, [01:46:10.400 --> 01:46:18.400] and on that I've kind of taken a license to throw something else in there that might be interesting as well. [01:46:18.400 --> 01:46:26.400] A few years ago I discovered a book called The Law of Land Warfare, which is a pretty obscure title, [01:46:26.400 --> 01:46:37.400] but let me just start by saying as my American history, as I recall it, the United States of America was formed [01:46:37.400 --> 01:46:49.400] to protect the 13 colonies in maritime and to provide a force of war to defend against other sovereigns and to protect all the states. [01:46:49.400 --> 01:46:59.400] Of course, that was expanded into commerce. Now, many of us believe that since the bankruptcy in 1933 that we've been under war powers. [01:46:59.400 --> 01:47:06.400] Now, if we've been under war powers, there's a book here. I just mentioned the title, The Law of Land Warfare, [01:47:06.400 --> 01:47:17.400] and it's an Army manual, Department of the Army Field Manual, and the number is FM, like Field Manual, 27-10. [01:47:17.400 --> 01:47:23.400] You can get this on the Internet as well currently, and it's still a current manual. [01:47:23.400 --> 01:47:33.400] It dictates how an occupier is to treat the country that they are occupying. [01:47:33.400 --> 01:47:43.400] It's my personal opinion that the United States, the administrative agency, is occupying illegally all the states, so that's why this is valid to me. [01:47:43.400 --> 01:47:49.400] It's very interesting if you get into reading some of this. It's only about a 200-page book. [01:47:49.400 --> 01:47:56.400] Every situation that they say is how to treat a country that they occupy. [01:47:56.400 --> 01:48:06.400] For example, Chapter 6, Occupation, it says military occupation is a question of fact. [01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:19.400] It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, [01:48:19.400 --> 01:48:27.400] and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government and the territory invaded. [01:48:27.400 --> 01:48:39.400] Anyway, as I said, this is about 200 pages, but to me it's a very interesting read because it defines exactly what the occupying country can do. [01:48:39.400 --> 01:48:53.400] I believe under this manual, the occupying country, the United States, being in Texas, has violated many, many of its own rules, and that's my little bit for the show tonight. [01:48:53.400 --> 01:49:03.400] Just look into it if you wish. Anybody have a comment? [01:49:03.400 --> 01:49:06.400] No, I think it's very well extrapolated. [01:49:06.400 --> 01:49:11.400] Well, thank you. I'll hang up and let you take some other calls. Thanks. [01:49:11.400 --> 01:49:14.400] All right. Thank you, Ken. [01:49:14.400 --> 01:49:26.400] Yeah, and just to clarify also, the reason that I'm giving the maritime admiralty thing more credence in this specific case is because it's in statute. [01:49:26.400 --> 01:49:31.400] It's in Title 47. It's right there, Section 510, paragraph B. [01:49:31.400 --> 01:49:44.400] From our point of view, we don't want to take actions in court or otherwise on a belief or a hunch. [01:49:44.400 --> 01:49:55.400] We want to see it in the statute, in the code, or in case law so that we know we have firm footing when we start taking actions. [01:49:55.400 --> 01:50:06.400] A lot of people that have gone into this maritime admiralty route and started filing maritime liens against public officials and such, and they've gotten themselves in a lot of trouble. [01:50:06.400 --> 01:50:15.400] Even if the courts can't remove the liens and they're saying, oh, see, that's real, the courts can't remove the liens, well, that doesn't mean that what they're doing is lawful. [01:50:15.400 --> 01:50:20.400] It just may mean that they've got them tied up somehow, but they're still getting themselves in a lot of trouble. [01:50:20.400 --> 01:50:33.400] We just want to see that there is something in the law that we can read, that we can quote in the statute and case law that backs this up before we start taking such actions. [01:50:33.400 --> 01:50:50.400] Even in this case, when it cites the admiralty and maritime rules, it's regarding forfeiture of communication devices, not forfeiture of Federal Reserve notes. [01:50:50.400 --> 01:51:07.400] Even in this case, it looks to me like it's possible that we couldn't even really initiate maritime remedies unless they initiated a forfeiture proceeding of equipment first, [01:51:07.400 --> 01:51:16.400] because it doesn't say that it's pursuant to supplemental rules of admiralty and maritime forfeiture of Federal Reserve notes. [01:51:16.400 --> 01:51:20.400] At this point, all we're dealing with right now is forfeitures of Federal Reserve notes. [01:51:20.400 --> 01:51:31.400] I would have to even question that we could even assert these maritime remedies at this point unless they initiate a forfeiture of equipment, [01:51:31.400 --> 01:51:42.400] because we want to make sure we're doing everything according to statute so it's not just like a belief system, or we believe, or we're just going to try things and maybe they'll work. [01:51:42.400 --> 01:51:50.400] Some people have found that they work, but just because it's worked for some people doesn't mean that it's legitimate. [01:51:50.400 --> 01:51:56.400] It just may mean that they're trying stuff and that the bad guys just haven't figured out a way to deal with it yet. [01:51:56.400 --> 01:52:00.400] It doesn't mean that it's lawful, so we just want to make sure we're on firm footing. [01:52:00.400 --> 01:52:02.400] Randy, do you have any comments? [01:52:02.400 --> 01:52:14.400] That was exactly my position. We have people like Wendy in Tennessee who files these negative aversions, and I'm hearing a lot about negative aversions. [01:52:14.400 --> 01:52:26.400] But when I looked at Tim Turner's work, he may be right. Everything he's saying may be true, but I didn't have the law behind it. [01:52:26.400 --> 01:52:30.400] All I had was his opinion of how he thinks things should work. [01:52:30.400 --> 01:52:44.400] And when I started checking the case law, the case law that he provided wasn't what the citations he claimed weren't in the cases that he cited. [01:52:44.400 --> 01:52:51.400] So when I start getting that kind of thing, I get real concerned really fast. [01:52:51.400 --> 01:53:01.400] And like these liens that the Republic of Texas started filing against public officials, it took them a while to get their ducks in a row, [01:53:01.400 --> 01:53:06.400] and when they did, they came back after them with a vengeance. [01:53:06.400 --> 01:53:13.400] A lot of people went to prison, and a lot of people spent a lot of money trying to stay out of prison. [01:53:13.400 --> 01:53:20.400] I don't want to wind up there. I do not want to give them that piece of leverage. [01:53:20.400 --> 01:53:27.400] But I would very much like to have the maritime remedies available. [01:53:27.400 --> 01:53:32.400] Just give me something I can use to invoke the maritime remedy. [01:53:32.400 --> 01:53:40.400] Right. Well, I've got it here in Title 47, but again, even in this case, it looks like they're only invoking maritime and admiralty for forfeiture of property, [01:53:40.400 --> 01:53:46.400] not of Federal Reserve notes. So even at this point, we may not be able to invoke those remedies. [01:53:46.400 --> 01:53:53.400] Unless I can find it in Title 47 that it applies for forfeiture of Federal Reserve notes as well. [01:53:53.400 --> 01:53:55.400] Okay. We have Gary back up. [01:53:55.400 --> 01:54:02.400] Okay. We've got Gary. He may have some comments. Gary, what's on your mind? [01:54:02.400 --> 01:54:03.400] Okay. You there? [01:54:03.400 --> 01:54:05.400] Yes. What's on your mind, Gary? [01:54:05.400 --> 01:54:12.400] Oh, hey, a quick message to Randy. Randy, do you want to call me after hours? [01:54:12.400 --> 01:54:17.400] Okay, Gary, there's a lot of background noise on your end. [01:54:17.400 --> 01:54:20.400] I think we've discussed that before. [01:54:20.400 --> 01:54:22.400] Okay. [01:54:22.400 --> 01:54:29.400] Okay, Gary, we gotta let you go. You got too much background noise on your end. [01:54:29.400 --> 01:54:36.400] Okay, callers, we only have a few minutes left. If anyone wants to call in, there's no calls. [01:54:36.400 --> 01:54:46.400] Okay, well, and if anybody's got the real law on the maritime and not just opinion about what you think we can do, [01:54:46.400 --> 01:54:50.400] but give me that hammer to beat them up with. [01:54:50.400 --> 01:54:55.400] Well, yeah, and it seems like it would have to be there in the statute, you know, [01:54:55.400 --> 01:55:03.400] specifically authorizing whatever agency to use that like what I found in Title 47. [01:55:03.400 --> 01:55:09.400] And that doesn't mean that every federal agency has the authority to do that or that every court is operating a maritime. [01:55:09.400 --> 01:55:18.400] It's just in this specific case with the FCC regarding seizures of equipment, not even Federal Reserve notes. [01:55:18.400 --> 01:55:22.400] I haven't found that yet. [01:55:22.400 --> 01:55:24.400] So I'm certainly going to look at that. [01:55:24.400 --> 01:55:33.400] And any help anybody can give me, I would appreciate because when I did the research on the maritime, from what I could find, [01:55:33.400 --> 01:55:38.400] the maritime simply did not extend to the land. [01:55:38.400 --> 01:55:42.400] Neither did it extend to the air above the land. [01:55:42.400 --> 01:55:55.400] It only extended to matters of transport on navigable waters or extensions from that. [01:55:55.400 --> 01:56:04.400] If you started out with a ship transport and went intermodal to, say, train and then truck, [01:56:04.400 --> 01:56:14.400] a suit on the contract could be brought in the civil or the maritime because part of it was in maritime and part of it was in civil. [01:56:14.400 --> 01:56:17.400] So you could choose the venue. [01:56:17.400 --> 01:56:28.400] But if there was no transport over navigable over waters, there was no maritime. [01:56:28.400 --> 01:56:30.400] OK, we've got a caller, Todd from Ohio. [01:56:30.400 --> 01:56:32.400] Todd, we only got about a minute and a half left. [01:56:32.400 --> 01:56:34.400] What do you got for us? [01:56:34.400 --> 01:56:35.400] I'll make it real quick. [01:56:35.400 --> 01:56:36.400] There's two things I wanted to say on my last call. [01:56:36.400 --> 01:56:38.400] I didn't squeeze it in quick enough. [01:56:38.400 --> 01:56:42.400] First of all, when you're filing a bar grievance, do you know the contact of the insurance company [01:56:42.400 --> 01:56:47.400] that you can notify that there's been a bar grievance filed against the attorney? [01:56:47.400 --> 01:56:49.400] It's not necessary. [01:56:49.400 --> 01:56:54.400] The attorney is required to do that himself. [01:56:54.400 --> 01:56:56.400] If he fails to do that. [01:56:56.400 --> 01:57:02.400] There's no bar and I didn't get any response yet, so I don't even know if they sent it to the attorney or just threw it out. [01:57:02.400 --> 01:57:07.400] Well, then we had a caller say that there was that he worked in that area. [01:57:07.400 --> 01:57:12.400] He's from Colorado, and I'm hoping he'll call back. [01:57:12.400 --> 01:57:17.400] But he said that Lloyds of London underwrites all of them. [01:57:17.400 --> 01:57:24.400] So we could go to Lloyds of London and find out who the malpractice insurance carriers are. [01:57:24.400 --> 01:57:30.400] And one of the things I haven't got to is I want to create a list so when we file a bar grievance, [01:57:30.400 --> 01:57:40.400] we can just cc to the entire list or make up a copy and send one to each insurance company that's on the list. [01:57:40.400 --> 01:57:42.400] That way we're sure to get the right one. [01:57:42.400 --> 01:57:44.400] I think there's only nine. [01:57:44.400 --> 01:57:51.400] Because I was wondering if the Ohio State Bar Association may have thrown it out because they didn't find it to be, [01:57:51.400 --> 01:57:55.400] you know, a good case worth researching or if they have to contact the lawyer. [01:57:55.400 --> 01:57:57.400] Yeah, that's the deal. [01:57:57.400 --> 01:58:00.400] They throw them all out. [01:58:00.400 --> 01:58:03.400] And the insurance company knows that. [01:58:03.400 --> 01:58:08.400] So they can't gauge their level of risk by valid bar grievances only by the numbers. [01:58:08.400 --> 01:58:16.400] And the attorneys are required to notice the insurance company when they get a grievance filed. [01:58:16.400 --> 01:58:24.400] Not when they're adjudicated against them, but when it's filed because the insurance companies [01:58:24.400 --> 01:58:27.400] know that the bar protects their own and throw them all out. [01:58:27.400 --> 01:58:30.400] So they just go by the numbers. [01:58:30.400 --> 01:58:34.400] I don't think that's a problem, but I would very much like to find the names of all these companies [01:58:34.400 --> 01:58:41.400] so we could cover that area and make sure that they get notified. [01:58:41.400 --> 01:58:44.400] There's another one maybe to keep in mind for next call. [01:58:44.400 --> 01:58:46.400] Yeah, we're out of time. [01:58:46.400 --> 01:58:47.400] We're out of time. [01:58:47.400 --> 01:58:48.400] All right, thank you. [01:58:48.400 --> 01:58:50.400] Okay, call back in on Monday. [01:58:50.400 --> 01:58:51.400] All right, sorry folks, we're out of time. [01:58:51.400 --> 01:58:52.400] We'll be back on Monday. [01:58:52.400 --> 01:58:56.400] This is the rule of law with Randy, Eddie, and Deborah. [01:58:56.400 --> 01:59:15.400] We'll see y'all next time. [01:59:26.400 --> 01:59:45.400] Thank you. [01:59:45.400 --> 01:59:58.400] Thank you.