[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  A plausible motive for ex-dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier's sudden return to Haiti has emerged.
[00:10.000 --> 00:17.000]  Cash. Duvalier has apparently frittered away most of the $300 million he's accused of embezzling.
[00:17.000 --> 00:25.000]  In order to claim some $6 million frozen in a Swiss bank account, Duvalier had to prove he was not under investigation in Haiti.
[00:25.000 --> 00:31.000]  Soon after his return, Baby Doc was charged with corruption and embezzlement.
[00:31.000 --> 00:40.000]  World-renowned government critic Professor Noam Chomsky has released a video calling on Iran to release two Americans detained on suspicion of espionage.
[00:40.000 --> 00:46.000]  Three Americans hiking along the Iran-Iraq border were detained in Tehran, suspected of spying in 2009.
[00:46.000 --> 00:50.000]  One of them, Sarah Shroud, was released last September.
[00:50.000 --> 00:57.000]  The other two, her fiancée Shane Bauer and their friend Josh Patel, are still in Iranian custody.
[00:57.000 --> 01:06.000]  In Amman, thousands of Jordanians Friday staged a protest demanding bread and freedom and calling for government officials to step down.
[01:06.000 --> 01:12.000]  The uprising in Tunisia that ousted the country's president has inspired dissidents across the Arab world.
[01:12.000 --> 01:24.000]  In Egypt, activists are planning to mark the country's National Police Day on January 25th as the beginning of a peaceful uprising against corruption, poverty and unemployment.
[01:24.000 --> 01:31.000]  Republican Representative Chris Smith introduced a bill Friday that would ban federal funding of abortions.
[01:31.000 --> 01:40.000]  Smith claimed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would simply codify the existing amendment that restricts Medicaid funding for abortions.
[01:40.000 --> 01:47.000]  But critics say it would go far beyond current law and compromise women's access to reproductive health care.
[01:47.000 --> 01:57.000]  The bill would also deny subsidies to private health insurance plans that cover abortion even when the cost of abortion coverage is paid for with private funds.
[01:57.000 --> 02:03.000]  Employers who cover abortions as part of their medical plans would incur tax penalties.
[02:03.000 --> 02:11.000]  Jessica Arons of the Center for American Progress says the measure, quote, would insert itself into every crevice of government activity
[02:11.000 --> 02:19.000]  and prohibit even private and non-federal government funds from being spent on any activity related to abortion.
[02:19.000 --> 02:29.000]  A Polish prosecutor Friday accepted the claims of a former CIA ghost prisoner that he was a victim of extraordinary rendition and secret detention in Poland.
[02:29.000 --> 02:37.000]  Abu Zubayda, one of 14 high-value detainees transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons in 2006,
[02:37.000 --> 02:42.000]  was held for four years in prisons whose existence were routinely denied by the U.S.
[02:42.000 --> 03:03.000]  Known as Black Sites, the CIA's global network of detention facilities were used to hold Zubayda, 27 other high-value detainees and other ghost prisoners.
[03:03.000 --> 03:13.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech talk radio at its best.
[03:33.000 --> 03:43.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at its best.
[04:03.000 --> 04:23.000]  All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you here on the Rule of Law,
[04:23.000 --> 04:34.000]  Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and of course I am Deborah Stevens. Tonight is Friday, January 21, 2011,
[04:34.000 --> 04:44.000]  and tonight, since it is a Friday night, we are going to be delivering to you folks our four-hour Friday info marathon.
[04:44.000 --> 04:47.000]  And Eddie is going to start off for us tonight.
[04:47.000 --> 04:53.000]  Eddie, you've been making some posts on the Ellis County Observer again. Tell us what's going on.
[04:53.000 --> 05:01.000]  Well, here a few days ago I got an email from Joey Dalbin, which is the editor and publisher of the Ellis County Observer.
[05:01.000 --> 05:07.000]  And you can get there by going to www.elliscountyobserver.com.
[05:07.000 --> 05:17.000]  And when you get there, look for, type in the search box, unauthorized practice of law. That will bring you up to a page
[05:17.000 --> 05:21.000]  where the very first thing says, updated Judge Bill Scott was wrong.
[05:21.000 --> 05:27.000]  All you have to do is click on the link right up under that title on the right side where it says 18 comments,
[05:27.000 --> 05:30.000]  and you can see everything that's been posted thus far.
[05:30.000 --> 05:37.000]  But what this posting was originally about, Joey had sent me an email requesting some information regarding
[05:37.000 --> 05:42.000]  the unauthorized practice of law statutes here in Texas.
[05:42.000 --> 05:47.000]  And I simply sent him information based upon what the statute actually says.
[05:47.000 --> 05:53.000]  And that is that the unauthorized practice of law is punishable as an offense
[05:53.000 --> 06:03.000]  only for those that are engaging in it as a lawyer or as someone receiving a financial benefit for themselves
[06:03.000 --> 06:12.000]  in a trial or case that involves recovery of damages for personal injuries.
[06:12.000 --> 06:25.000]  There is also another statute in Chapter 83 of the Government Code that deals with that it's alleged to be an offense,
[06:25.000 --> 06:27.000]  though it doesn't actually state that.
[06:27.000 --> 06:32.000]  It just simply says a person may not or shall not do this,
[06:32.000 --> 06:37.000]  but it doesn't cite it as an offense chargeable with any type of thing that I've seen so far.
[06:37.000 --> 06:45.000]  But anyway, in Section 83, it simply says that no person shall engage in the practice of preparing a legal document
[06:45.000 --> 06:58.000]  when that legal document is associated with the transfer of title to real property or is used to make or release a lien.
[06:58.000 --> 07:03.000]  Okay? That's all it deals with.
[07:03.000 --> 07:12.000]  What I have espoused on the site here is that there is no law prohibiting a private citizen from acting as legal counsel
[07:12.000 --> 07:23.000]  in a criminal or civil case that is espoused anywhere in Texas law except in the penal code in Section 38.123
[07:23.000 --> 07:31.000]  and more or less in 38.00, or I'm sorry, 83.001 of the Government Code.
[07:31.000 --> 07:39.000]  So that being said, of course, Ellis County being well known for having people that know tons about nothing,
[07:39.000 --> 07:47.000]  we immediately started getting postings doing everything short of calling me outright disowned by my parents
[07:47.000 --> 07:54.000]  rather than actually refuting the lawful and legal assertions that I made based upon the statutes.
[07:54.000 --> 08:02.000]  So if you would, folks, please kindly go out, locate those posts, and make one of your own after you read everything there.
[08:02.000 --> 08:05.000]  Whether you agree or disagree doesn't matter to me.
[08:05.000 --> 08:08.000]  I'm open to criticism. I'm open to discussion.
[08:08.000 --> 08:12.000]  I mean, I may as well be. I'm certainly responding to direct personal attacks.
[08:12.000 --> 08:15.000]  But that's beside the point.
[08:15.000 --> 08:21.000]  The assertion that I make is based on what the statutes say, not simply my opinion.
[08:21.000 --> 08:28.000]  It's based upon what case law says, historical and current, not my opinion.
[08:28.000 --> 08:34.000]  But all the refutations posted on this site deal strictly with their opinion.
[08:34.000 --> 08:38.000]  The name calling deals strictly with their opinion.
[08:38.000 --> 08:44.000]  So what I would like is for a more discerning individual such as our listeners to go to this site,
[08:44.000 --> 08:48.000]  read what's been written there, and make your own comments,
[08:48.000 --> 08:52.000]  just like what we did before dealing with the driver's license issue.
[08:52.000 --> 08:58.000]  Simple fact is the only way we're going to get the word out is by educating the masses.
[08:58.000 --> 09:03.000]  And the few that are attempting to rebut this are not the masses.
[09:03.000 --> 09:12.000]  They are members of the powers that be that want the illusion that the law is what they say it is to be maintained.
[09:12.000 --> 09:17.000]  It's the only way they can keep control of everything else.
[09:17.000 --> 09:22.000]  It's my job to ensure that control is returned to the people,
[09:22.000 --> 09:26.000]  not left in the hands of these self-serving individuals.
[09:26.000 --> 09:28.000]  So give me a hand with that.
[09:28.000 --> 09:38.000]  Go out to www.elliscountyobserver.com, type unauthorized practice of law in the search field,
[09:38.000 --> 09:44.000]  and then under that title click on comments, and go read them.
[09:44.000 --> 09:47.000]  Then make one of your own, please.
[09:47.000 --> 09:53.000]  As I was telling Randy earlier, it's the fact that I'm meticulous in the research and details that I apply
[09:53.000 --> 09:58.000]  and the arguments that I make that he actually asked me to be on this show.
[09:58.000 --> 10:04.000]  It's not because I flew by the seat of my pants in making accusations and assertions that I could not substantiate
[10:04.000 --> 10:11.000]  or at least feel that I had good reason to make because of other information available to me.
[10:11.000 --> 10:17.000]  You have a problem with being proven wrong, but you're not going to simply tell me I'm wrong
[10:17.000 --> 10:21.000]  and get away with making me believe it without providing facts.
[10:21.000 --> 10:24.000]  So please, go out, make a post.
[10:24.000 --> 10:30.000]  After you read everything out there, let everybody know what you guys think, okay?
[10:30.000 --> 10:35.000]  Randy, when we were talking before the show, you said that you had something you wanted to talk about.
[10:35.000 --> 10:47.000]  Well, I was looking at what's going on, and you know, I'm doing this program on foreclosure issues,
[10:47.000 --> 10:50.000]  and we're looking at the courts around the country.
[10:50.000 --> 10:55.000]  We are getting surprising rulings.
[10:55.000 --> 11:05.000]  It seems as though the judiciary is waking up to the fact that something is wrong in Denmark,
[11:05.000 --> 11:10.000]  that things aren't the way they've been led to believe they are
[11:10.000 --> 11:16.000]  because the courts are beginning to rule against the supposed powers that be.
[11:16.000 --> 11:22.000]  Now, this appears to be strictly limited to foreclosure at the moment,
[11:22.000 --> 11:28.000]  but the very nature of the kinds of rulings we were getting are surprising.
[11:28.000 --> 11:33.000]  You know, for a long time, we were saying before the elections in November
[11:33.000 --> 11:43.000]  that in November the politicians intended to throw the lenders to the wolves
[11:43.000 --> 11:49.000]  because that was the only stake they had, and that's what they did.
[11:49.000 --> 11:54.000]  But it got worse on the lender than we ever expected.
[11:54.000 --> 11:56.000]  Hey, Randy, hold on a second. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
[11:56.000 --> 11:59.000]  There's some really bad feedback going on on your channel.
[11:59.000 --> 12:01.000]  It's like a real high-pitched squeal, whistling.
[12:01.000 --> 12:06.000]  Can you move your mic, please?
[12:06.000 --> 12:12.000]  Let me turn my mic down a little bit.
[12:12.000 --> 12:15.000]  Yeah, I'm sorry. It's like ear piercing, the feedback.
[12:15.000 --> 12:18.000]  Okay, how is that? Is that better?
[12:18.000 --> 12:23.000]  Not really, a little bit. You just need to move it further away from your mic.
[12:23.000 --> 12:25.000]  Okay, how about that? I turned my headset way down.
[12:25.000 --> 12:28.000]  Okay, that's better. Thank you.
[12:28.000 --> 12:32.000]  Okay, you may have to yell for me to hear you.
[12:32.000 --> 12:35.000]  I'm an old guy. I don't hear well.
[12:35.000 --> 12:39.000]  Okay, we're getting some really surprising rulings.
[12:39.000 --> 12:45.000]  The most recent is out of Minnesota, of all places,
[12:45.000 --> 12:50.000]  which we have considered to be by far the most corrupt state in the Union.
[12:50.000 --> 12:56.000]  And I believe it was Wells Fargo that went to the courts
[12:56.000 --> 13:02.000]  and asked the court to grant them quiet title on a group of homes
[13:02.000 --> 13:07.000]  that they had foreclosed on and were trying to sell.
[13:07.000 --> 13:11.000]  And the court looked at it and said,
[13:11.000 --> 13:18.000]  wait a minute, you didn't have standing to foreclose in the first place,
[13:18.000 --> 13:23.000]  and went back and overturned all of the foreclosures.
[13:23.000 --> 13:28.000]  Now, this wasn't the people who had been foreclosed on that did this.
[13:28.000 --> 13:32.000]  This was Wells Fargo trying to get a quiet title,
[13:32.000 --> 13:38.000]  and the court went back and reversed all of the foreclosures they had done.
[13:38.000 --> 13:42.000]  Wells Fargo appealed to the Court of Appeals.
[13:42.000 --> 13:44.000]  They appealed it.
[13:44.000 --> 13:46.000]  They appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court,
[13:46.000 --> 13:51.000]  and just last week the Minnesota Supreme Court appealed.
[13:51.000 --> 13:53.000]  A couple weeks before that,
[13:53.000 --> 13:59.000]  we've got a major ruling out of Massachusetts against the bankers.
[13:59.000 --> 14:05.000]  We've got one in Utah in a federal court
[14:05.000 --> 14:13.000]  where the judge told him to bring him a request for an injunction against the lender,
[14:13.000 --> 14:16.000]  and he would cite it.
[14:16.000 --> 14:18.000]  He didn't petition for it.
[14:18.000 --> 14:21.000]  The judge asked him to bring it to him.
[14:21.000 --> 14:25.000]  So I'm encouraged.
[14:25.000 --> 14:33.000]  The courts are beginning to pay attention to the problems that are around us.
[14:33.000 --> 14:38.000]  It's like they're beginning to wake up to the fact that something worked wrong.
[14:38.000 --> 14:41.000]  But I think more than that,
[14:41.000 --> 14:45.000]  they're beginning to realize that they can give different rulings.
[14:45.000 --> 14:49.000]  Judges hate to make new law.
[14:49.000 --> 14:55.000]  They hate to rule against the status quo
[14:55.000 --> 14:57.000]  because they don't want to be overturned.
[14:57.000 --> 15:01.000]  That's the worst thing that can happen to a higher judge is to get overturned.
[15:01.000 --> 15:07.000]  But they're beginning to enter some rather radical rulings,
[15:07.000 --> 15:11.000]  and for the most part against the lenders.
[15:11.000 --> 15:13.000]  Granted, there's still a lot of corrupt courts around it.
[15:13.000 --> 15:15.000]  I think the lower down we get in the courts,
[15:15.000 --> 15:21.000]  the more, from my experience, the more corrupt they are.
[15:21.000 --> 15:29.000]  But on the whole, we seem to be making some pretty serious headway.
[15:29.000 --> 15:32.000]  Now, we talked to Eddie on the break about it.
[15:32.000 --> 15:35.000]  He has a different opinion.
[15:35.000 --> 15:38.000]  Eddie, go ahead.
[15:38.000 --> 15:40.000]  Hammer me on the air.
[15:40.000 --> 15:43.000]  I wouldn't so much say it's a different opinion.
[15:43.000 --> 15:48.000]  I just went into the fact that when you say that the system is changing,
[15:48.000 --> 15:51.000]  that I would have an issue with.
[15:51.000 --> 15:55.000]  Portions of the system are changing.
[15:55.000 --> 16:01.000]  Those where the people have got such a high level of interest.
[16:01.000 --> 16:08.000]  And when I say interest, I mean livelihood at stake.
[16:08.000 --> 16:14.000]  And these judges know exactly what's going to happen to them and their courthouse
[16:14.000 --> 16:25.000]  when they start trying to enforce what is clearly an absolutely illegal, immoral contract
[16:25.000 --> 16:29.000]  that results in nothing but fraud and theft.
[16:29.000 --> 16:31.000]  That I'll go along with.
[16:31.000 --> 16:34.000]  But to say that the entire system is changing,
[16:34.000 --> 16:39.000]  that's what I'd take a step back from and say, I can't go there.
[16:39.000 --> 16:42.000]  We know this too well in what we're seeing every day.
[16:42.000 --> 16:45.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[16:48.000 --> 17:02.000]  We're about to go to break, so please hang in there with us, and we will be right back.
[17:02.000 --> 17:06.000]  Capital Coin and Bullions is your local source for rare coins, precious metals,
[17:06.000 --> 17:09.000]  and coin supplies in the Austin metro area.
[17:09.000 --> 17:11.000]  We also ship worldwide.
[17:11.000 --> 17:15.000]  We are a family-owned and operated business that offers competitive prices
[17:15.000 --> 17:17.000]  on your coin and metals purchases.
[17:17.000 --> 17:22.000]  We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, gold and silver coin collections,
[17:22.000 --> 17:24.000]  precious metals, and scrap gold.
[17:24.000 --> 17:28.000]  We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well.
[17:28.000 --> 17:30.000]  We offer daily specials on coins and bullions.
[17:30.000 --> 17:34.000]  We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3,
[17:34.000 --> 17:40.000]  and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[17:40.000 --> 17:43.000]  You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours
[17:43.000 --> 17:48.000]  or call 512-646-6440 with any questions.
[17:48.000 --> 17:53.000]  Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM.
[17:53.000 --> 18:00.000]  That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:13.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[18:13.000 --> 18:15.000]  and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:19.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[18:19.000 --> 18:21.000]  using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons,
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[18:27.000 --> 18:29.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports,
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:45.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[18:45.000 --> 18:50.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:58.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:58.000 --> 19:20.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:20.000 --> 19:35.000]  Thank you.
[19:35.000 --> 19:50.000]  Thank you.
[19:50.000 --> 20:05.000]  Thank you.
[20:05.000 --> 20:20.000]  Thank you.
[20:20.000 --> 20:35.000]  Thank you.
[20:35.000 --> 21:04.000]  Thank you.
[21:04.000 --> 21:31.000]  Thank you.
[21:31.000 --> 21:35.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[21:35.000 --> 21:37.000]  Sorry for the extended break.
[21:37.000 --> 21:43.000]  We're having technical difficulties with Randy's channel.
[21:43.000 --> 21:46.000]  We're going to try to get him to call in on the phone.
[21:46.000 --> 21:50.000]  In the meantime, Eddie and I are here and we do have a caller on the line.
[21:50.000 --> 21:53.000]  Would you like to take our caller, Eddie?
[21:53.000 --> 21:54.000]  Sure.
[21:54.000 --> 21:55.000]  Okay, awesome.
[21:55.000 --> 21:58.000]  All right, we've got Mark from Texas on the line.
[21:58.000 --> 22:00.000]  Mark, thanks for calling in.
[22:00.000 --> 22:02.000]  What is on your mind tonight?
[22:02.000 --> 22:12.000]  Well, I just really called to make a comment based on something that Randy had mentioned in terms of being encouraged by the judiciary.
[22:12.000 --> 22:24.000]  Perhaps it is possible that judges here and there might be moved to place a stake in the ground
[22:24.000 --> 22:31.000]  because they might be a little selfish perhaps or perhaps they think of things a little broader than themselves
[22:31.000 --> 22:42.000]  and their own self-interest in perpetuating the fear of making new law and being overturned in their professional lives to do the right thing.
[22:42.000 --> 22:50.000]  And the right thing involves the law, which is what we're supposed to be a country built upon,
[22:50.000 --> 22:58.000]  all those romantic ideals that guys like me run around and truly believe in and talk about freely to others,
[22:58.000 --> 23:06.000]  which is really the most important thing anybody can do listening to this right now can possibly accomplish is to talk to others,
[23:06.000 --> 23:14.000]  not worry about what others think, but the fact of the matter is that there is wholesale fraud going on,
[23:14.000 --> 23:18.000]  has been going on for a long time and we're just seeing the culmination of it.
[23:18.000 --> 23:26.000]  And we'll continue to see the culmination of it unless more judges such as those cited in Minnesota and Massachusetts
[23:26.000 --> 23:40.000]  begin to place a stake in the ground for the common American man and his promise and hope for property ownership,
[23:40.000 --> 23:45.000]  of which I count myself among them in that fight.
[23:45.000 --> 23:53.000]  So that's really the only reason I called in and because I have been encouraged by not only this program but others,
[23:53.000 --> 24:06.000]  Andrew Goss, who's on another network who has through his emissaries and agents encouraged me to fight and fight I will.
[24:06.000 --> 24:14.000]  And they won't get it unless they fight properly and correctly to get it and I doubt seriously they will do so.
[24:14.000 --> 24:16.000]  So that's the only reason I called in.
[24:16.000 --> 24:19.000]  Well, thank you for your comments, Mark. We appreciate that.
[24:19.000 --> 24:20.000]  My pleasure.
[24:20.000 --> 24:24.000]  Randy, do you have any comments on what Mark said?
[24:24.000 --> 24:33.000]  Unfortunately, I agree with him that if we're going to have our rights, we're going to have to fight for them.
[24:33.000 --> 24:42.000]  And what I ran out of time to say before the break was that Eddie was saying that maybe there's some changes in these major fraud cases,
[24:42.000 --> 24:44.000]  but not down here at the bottom.
[24:44.000 --> 24:50.000]  Well, there are changes down here at the bottom because the agents aren't going to make them.
[24:50.000 --> 25:01.000]  When we start hammering these guys in the local courts and judges wind up having to retire for personal reasons,
[25:01.000 --> 25:04.000]  we'll get some changes made.
[25:04.000 --> 25:10.000]  We change it on the bottom and it's beginning to change on the top.
[25:10.000 --> 25:12.000]  It's always good.
[25:12.000 --> 25:15.000]  While things are changing, we may actually be able to get some things done.
[25:15.000 --> 25:18.000]  I don't expect magic.
[25:18.000 --> 25:25.000]  I don't expect all of a sudden that all of these corrupt people will stop being corrupt.
[25:25.000 --> 25:30.000]  I mean, Judge Sparks paid half a million dollars for his position.
[25:30.000 --> 25:39.000]  I don't expect him to give up recovering that half a million dollars tomorrow by being corrupt.
[25:39.000 --> 25:46.000]  But we do have some pressure on our side.
[25:46.000 --> 25:51.000]  Sleeping giant's waking up and he is not happy.
[25:51.000 --> 26:00.000]  And you and I and those of us listening, the ones listening to this program, those of us who understand what's going on,
[26:00.000 --> 26:06.000]  if ever there was an opportunity, this is it.
[26:06.000 --> 26:15.000]  I kind of feel like my whole life has led me to be here in this place at this time doing this thing.
[26:15.000 --> 26:23.000]  And I suspect that a lot of you that are here are here for the same reason.
[26:23.000 --> 26:28.000]  We can fix it or at least fix part of it.
[26:28.000 --> 26:36.000]  We won't fix it if we sit back and say it's just too big, too hard, too difficult.
[26:36.000 --> 26:40.000]  We've got to get up and do something.
[26:40.000 --> 26:42.000]  That's the story that I'm sticking to it.
[26:42.000 --> 26:44.000]  All right.
[26:44.000 --> 26:45.000]  We've got more callers on the line.
[26:45.000 --> 26:47.000]  We've got Keith from Texas.
[26:47.000 --> 26:49.000]  Keith, thank you for calling in.
[26:49.000 --> 26:51.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[26:51.000 --> 26:58.000]  I was hoping you guys could help me get our truck out of the pokey.
[26:58.000 --> 27:00.000]  Get the truck out of the pokey?
[27:00.000 --> 27:02.000]  That's right.
[27:02.000 --> 27:09.000]  My partner had a diabetic seizure during heavy traffic during the mornings here in Austin
[27:09.000 --> 27:17.000]  and managed somehow to get the truck to the side of the road during the seizure or while she was blacked out.
[27:17.000 --> 27:22.000]  And they took her to the hospital, but meanwhile they took the truck.
[27:22.000 --> 27:30.000]  It's our farm truck and it's a valuable tool for our personal lives and our business.
[27:30.000 --> 27:33.000]  They took it where or from where?
[27:33.000 --> 27:37.000]  From off the side of the road, off the highway.
[27:37.000 --> 27:45.000]  Was it parked in such a place or position as to make it an obstruction to traffic or a hazard to traffic?
[27:45.000 --> 27:47.000]  I'm sorry, both of you were talking at once.
[27:47.000 --> 27:51.000]  I didn't get any of that.
[27:51.000 --> 27:52.000]  Go ahead, Randy.
[27:52.000 --> 27:53.000]  Who else?
[27:53.000 --> 27:55.000]  Go ahead, Randy.
[27:55.000 --> 27:57.000]  No, no, you go ahead.
[27:57.000 --> 28:04.000]  Was the truck parked in such a way as to impede traffic or be a hazard to traffic?
[28:04.000 --> 28:08.000]  Well, as I understand it, it was off onto the shoulder.
[28:08.000 --> 28:18.000]  And so I don't think it was a hazard or an obstruction.
[28:18.000 --> 28:22.000]  How long was it there?
[28:22.000 --> 28:30.000]  It couldn't have been very long because the whole incident was witnessed by a trooper.
[28:30.000 --> 28:34.000]  And the trooper was there within minutes.
[28:34.000 --> 28:38.000]  Well, who called the tow truck guy?
[28:38.000 --> 28:40.000]  I'm not sure who called the tow truck guy.
[28:40.000 --> 28:43.000]  Maybe the trooper did.
[28:43.000 --> 28:45.000]  Let me make sure I got the beginning of this straight.
[28:45.000 --> 28:52.000]  However, you pulled off the side of the road to give medical aid to someone.
[28:52.000 --> 28:53.000]  No, Eddie.
[28:53.000 --> 28:54.000]  No, Eddie.
[28:54.000 --> 28:59.000]  The woman is driving having a diabetic seizure and got the truck off the road.
[28:59.000 --> 29:01.000]  That's right.
[29:01.000 --> 29:07.000]  So my question is, what is the difficulty with getting the truck back?
[29:07.000 --> 29:17.000]  It's in a tow yard, locked up in a tow yard, and of course tow yards charged daily, as I understand it.
[29:17.000 --> 29:19.000]  So it's a matter of money?
[29:19.000 --> 29:21.000]  It is.
[29:21.000 --> 29:25.000]  What kind of money are they claiming?
[29:25.000 --> 29:27.000]  How much?
[29:27.000 --> 29:30.000]  Well, it started at $193.
[29:30.000 --> 29:35.000]  It started at $193 plus about $25 a day.
[29:35.000 --> 29:40.000]  It's been in about a week.
[29:40.000 --> 29:41.000]  Okay.
[29:41.000 --> 29:45.000]  Well, we're about to go to break, so hang in and we'll get to this on the other side, okay?
[29:45.000 --> 29:47.000]  Thanks so much.
[29:47.000 --> 29:48.000]  All right.
[29:48.000 --> 29:54.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, 512-646-1984.
[29:54.000 --> 30:01.000]  Please give us a call and we will be right back.
[30:24.000 --> 30:31.000]  The U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to establish the Postal Service, but mismanagement is threatening to snatch it away.
[30:31.000 --> 30:38.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with news of the financial hemorrhage that threatens the U.S. Postal Service.
[30:38.000 --> 30:45.000]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database of your personal information.
[30:45.000 --> 30:47.000]  That's creepy.
[30:47.000 --> 30:54.000]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[30:54.000 --> 30:59.000]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine.
[30:59.000 --> 31:06.000]  Startpage doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies, and they're third-party certified.
[31:06.000 --> 31:10.000]  If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[31:10.000 --> 31:13.000]  Great search results and total privacy.
[31:13.000 --> 31:16.000]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:16.000 --> 31:23.000]  Neither snow nor rain nor poor financial planning has kept the U.S. Postal Service from making its rounds so far.
[31:23.000 --> 31:29.000]  But this privatized government agency has lost billions, $9 billion in 2010 alone.
[31:29.000 --> 31:37.000]  The U.S. Treasury has been coming to the rescue, but it looks like the Postal Service will exceed its $15 billion credit line this year, and that could mean trouble.
[31:37.000 --> 31:50.000]  The Constitution spells out the federal government's power to establish post offices and post roads, and for good reason, mail service is essential to liberty, and private companies couldn't financially justify serving everyone.
[31:50.000 --> 31:56.000]  So let's keep universal postal service alive and demand responsible management of the mails.
[31:56.000 --> 32:02.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:02.000 --> 32:15.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm going to serve them, to help government them, prosecute them.
[32:15.000 --> 32:19.000]  Okay.
[32:19.000 --> 32:39.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[32:39.000 --> 32:40.000]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[32:40.000 --> 32:43.000]  I know that's all right. I just didn't know who was going to start off.
[32:43.000 --> 32:44.000]  That's all right.
[32:44.000 --> 32:45.000]  We are back.
[32:45.000 --> 32:52.000]  Okay. Let's pick up with our caller and get back to the issue at hand dealing with their truck.
[32:52.000 --> 32:58.000]  Okay. Now, Keith, your truck is impounded currently.
[32:58.000 --> 33:08.000]  The issue for getting it out is money, but the other issue is why was it towed and impounded in the first place? Is this correct?
[33:08.000 --> 33:09.000]  Keith?
[33:09.000 --> 33:11.000]  Yes. Can you hear me?
[33:11.000 --> 33:13.000]  Yes, sir. I can hear you now.
[33:13.000 --> 33:14.000]  Okay.
[33:14.000 --> 33:16.000]  Yes, it is an issue.
[33:16.000 --> 33:27.000]  The problem here is that unless it is impeding traffic or presents a hazard, they're not allowed to tow the car within a certain time period.
[33:27.000 --> 33:31.000]  They have to give you time to come back and pick it up.
[33:31.000 --> 33:33.000]  Ah, okay.
[33:33.000 --> 33:46.000]  So the issue here is who authorized the taking of the automobile and how long after it was pulled over on the side of the road was it before the taking occurred?
[33:46.000 --> 33:48.000]  Who authorized it?
[33:48.000 --> 33:53.000]  Okay, I think the trooper probably authorized it, although...
[33:53.000 --> 33:55.000]  Well, do you have the trooper's name?
[33:55.000 --> 33:57.000]  Yes, I have the trooper's name.
[33:57.000 --> 34:04.000]  Then I would call his home base and get a discussion going with his boss.
[34:04.000 --> 34:05.000]  Okay.
[34:05.000 --> 34:18.000]  Okay. You're probably going to have difficulties there because they're going to claim that a vehicle parked on the shoulder is a hazard.
[34:18.000 --> 34:30.000]  Because if a speeding vehicle has a problem, they need the shoulder in which to get out of traffic and the truck's in the way, they're going to cause an accident.
[34:30.000 --> 34:31.000]  Yes.
[34:31.000 --> 34:39.000]  I think he's going to claim that it was creating a hazard and he's going to have a good claim.
[34:39.000 --> 34:41.000]  Okay.
[34:41.000 --> 34:45.000]  Yes, that really depends on how far off the shoulder it was pulled.
[34:45.000 --> 35:01.000]  But in either case, if you attempt to get it any other way than pay for it at this point, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot more fees are going to be racked up.
[35:01.000 --> 35:06.000]  You may eventually be able to give it back to you, but it's going to be a while.
[35:06.000 --> 35:21.000]  If you need the vehicle, I'm going to suggest the only viable way to go at the moment is to pay to get it out and then you can take action to try to recover what it cost you.
[35:21.000 --> 35:22.000]  Okay.
[35:22.000 --> 35:23.000]  All right.
[35:23.000 --> 35:26.000]  I don't see an easy way.
[35:26.000 --> 35:27.000]  Okay.
[35:27.000 --> 35:32.000]  Well, that's what I was checking on because she wasn't charged with anything.
[35:32.000 --> 35:38.000]  I mean, they had to take her to the hospital, so she was a little out of it and they just left the wrecker.
[35:38.000 --> 35:44.000]  Someone left the wrecker's business card on her chest.
[35:44.000 --> 35:45.000]  Okay.
[35:45.000 --> 35:48.000]  Consider the officer's position.
[35:48.000 --> 35:52.000]  If he left that automobile there and somebody hit the back of it.
[35:52.000 --> 35:53.000]  Yes.
[35:53.000 --> 35:55.000]  Let me give you an example.
[35:55.000 --> 36:04.000]  See, what the officer should have done is tried to find out if there was anybody that could come and get the car before calling the tow truck driver.
[36:04.000 --> 36:05.000]  Okay.
[36:05.000 --> 36:06.000]  That would have been nice.
[36:06.000 --> 36:07.000]  That's what should have happened.
[36:07.000 --> 36:22.000]  The officer had a responsibility to find another means to have the owner's car taken by a friend of the owner or a family member before just calling the tow truck driver immediately.
[36:22.000 --> 36:25.000]  Yeah.
[36:25.000 --> 36:32.000]  He had a civil responsibility, but did he have a legal duty?
[36:32.000 --> 36:37.000]  Let me give you an example of why the officer would be concerned.
[36:37.000 --> 36:46.000]  I was driving home one night and this parked semi jumped right out in front of me.
[36:46.000 --> 36:57.000]  I had nothing to do with it as I was sound asleep at the time, but I was doing about 70 miles an hour and drifted off on the shoulder and whack.
[36:57.000 --> 37:05.000]  This guy had parked his tractor trailer on the shoulder of the road and it darn near killed me.
[37:05.000 --> 37:07.000]  It broke bones all over the place.
[37:07.000 --> 37:09.000]  I woke up from a three-day coma.
[37:09.000 --> 37:19.000]  Had this officer not removed that vehicle and somebody smashed into it, they're going to blame him for leaving it there.
[37:19.000 --> 37:34.000]  Eddie, haven't you found something in transportation code already that says that these police have a legal duty to try to chase down a family member or a friend to remove the vehicle before just calling a tow truck driver right off the bat?
[37:34.000 --> 37:39.000]  I haven't ever asserted they've got a legal duty to do that.
[37:39.000 --> 37:56.000]  It would simply be if they're there as a public servant, then they should be considering the public before anything else in that matter and putting someone into an undue financial burden when it would have been just as easy to do it another way.
[37:56.000 --> 38:00.000]  What's the purpose of being a public servant if it's not to serve?
[38:00.000 --> 38:03.000]  What was the traffic conditions at the time?
[38:03.000 --> 38:07.000]  It was early morning, morning rush hours, morning rush hour.
[38:07.000 --> 38:09.000]  Morning rush hour.
[38:09.000 --> 38:12.000]  You've got to consider the truck position.
[38:12.000 --> 38:22.000]  It was dropping going very slow and I think that's the reason that the truck was able to get over even while she was basically passed out at the wheel.
[38:22.000 --> 38:27.000]  She doesn't even know how she got it over all the way.
[38:27.000 --> 38:35.000]  That would go directly toward making it more in your favor that there was no reason to actually tow it.
[38:35.000 --> 38:48.000]  If the traffic was having to move that slowly, the odds of someone accidentally running off the road and hitting it would have been much less.
[38:48.000 --> 39:08.000]  Plus, the officer created a much greater traffic impediment by attempting to work traffic for wrecker access to both get to the truck, hook it up, and extract it back into traffic if it's during rush hour.
[39:08.000 --> 39:24.000]  That would have seemed to have taken far more time and been a much more dangerous method of dealing with it at that point than simply leaving it for you to return and pick it up as long as it was going to be within a short amount of time.
[39:24.000 --> 39:27.000]  I hear you.
[39:27.000 --> 39:30.000]  These are all issues you can raise.
[39:30.000 --> 39:39.000]  The problem here is this, who ultimately is going to be held liable for the money and how do you do it?
[39:39.000 --> 39:43.000]  Because they're going to argue they had good reason to have it removed.
[39:43.000 --> 39:45.000]  You're going to argue that they didn't.
[39:45.000 --> 39:58.000]  The wrecker company is going to argue that they were called properly and did only what they were directed by a peace officer to do and were acting on that necessity alone.
[39:58.000 --> 40:03.000]  So everybody's got a good argument for why they shouldn't be held accountable here.
[40:03.000 --> 40:06.000]  But ultimately, someone's going to have to.
[40:06.000 --> 40:22.000]  The one recommendation I can make to you is pay the money, whatever it costs, to get it out now because the longer you fight this by leaving it there, the worse it's going to be and you could still wind up having to pay it.
[40:22.000 --> 40:24.000]  Yeah, okay.
[40:24.000 --> 40:31.000]  So I would get it out and worry about making someone accountable for the money later.
[40:31.000 --> 40:34.000]  Thanks so much, guys.
[40:34.000 --> 40:42.000]  I'm sorry, I know it's not the answer you wanted, but from a financial point of view and a necessity point of view, right now that's what I would do.
[40:42.000 --> 40:50.000]  I wasn't expecting to win the lottery, but I just needed some idea because it just didn't seem right.
[40:50.000 --> 40:58.000]  Well, in a lot of ways it's not, but then again there is the possibility of a public safety factor to have to consider here.
[40:58.000 --> 41:09.000]  It just seems that based upon your description of the traffic patterns at that time of day that the option chosen was actually more dangerous to the public than leaving it alone.
[41:09.000 --> 41:16.000]  No, that's an issue I can possibly bring up later if I need to.
[41:16.000 --> 41:17.000]  Okay.
[41:17.000 --> 41:20.000]  Is there anything else we can do for you, Keith?
[41:20.000 --> 41:21.000]  Thanks so much.
[41:21.000 --> 41:22.000]  You're very welcome.
[41:22.000 --> 41:23.000]  Thanks for calling in.
[41:23.000 --> 41:25.000]  You're my favorite show.
[41:25.000 --> 41:26.000]  All right.
[41:26.000 --> 41:28.000]  Well, thank you.
[41:28.000 --> 41:29.000]  Bye-bye.
[41:29.000 --> 41:33.000]  Okay, we have Ronnie in Texas and Rose in Colorado.
[41:33.000 --> 41:35.000]  Ronnie, how can we help you?
[41:35.000 --> 41:48.000]  Well, let me tell you, my First Amendment rights are sacrificed by the Austin City Council because they have this policy.
[41:48.000 --> 41:50.000]  And the problem is imagine...
[41:50.000 --> 41:51.000]  Which right?
[41:51.000 --> 41:53.000]  Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion?
[41:53.000 --> 41:55.000]  What are we talking about here?
[41:55.000 --> 42:14.000]  Freedom of speech, they hold these public meetings, city council meetings, in their high-dollar, ridiculously expensive city council building that we taxpayers had to sacrifice a huge amount of money for.
[42:14.000 --> 42:25.000]  And these public meetings that are supposedly open to the public have a little segment they call Citizens Communications.
[42:25.000 --> 42:39.000]  And that is where we citizens get 180 seconds to speak to these individuals and several of them often don't bother to show up, but regardless...
[42:39.000 --> 42:46.000]  Well, yeah, why should they be bothered with having to spend their time and effort in listening to those that pay their salaries?
[42:46.000 --> 42:48.000]  Right, exactly.
[42:48.000 --> 42:54.000]  So my complaint is that the problem is about this imagine...
[42:54.000 --> 42:56.000]  It's an imagine problem.
[42:56.000 --> 42:59.000]  It's all to keep me quiet.
[42:59.000 --> 43:00.000]  They don't like what I have to say.
[43:00.000 --> 43:12.000]  But the problem, they say, is some citizens supposedly complain that they never get the chance to speak during these Citizens Communication segments.
[43:12.000 --> 43:16.000]  Again, 180 seconds that we're allowed to speak.
[43:16.000 --> 43:27.000]  And one of the problems, and I think the main problem, is they made the decision on their own to limit that to only 10 citizens.
[43:27.000 --> 43:32.000]  In other words, a maximum of 30 minutes of them listening to citizens.
[43:32.000 --> 43:36.000]  Yeah, and not only that, you can only speak if you're a citizen.
[43:36.000 --> 43:41.000]  Each individual citizen can only speak like every other week or every three weeks or something.
[43:41.000 --> 43:46.000]  And not only that, people cannot donate their time to anyone else.
[43:46.000 --> 43:54.000]  And so that way you can never get like one person with a block of time to present any material that's anything worthwhile.
[43:54.000 --> 43:56.000]  So yeah, I hear what you're saying, Ronnie.
[43:56.000 --> 43:57.000]  We'll be right back.
[43:57.000 --> 44:01.000]  We'll talk about this more on the other side.
[44:01.000 --> 44:08.000]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of well-being.
[44:08.000 --> 44:12.000]  How many supplements have you heard boast of these benefits?
[44:12.000 --> 44:17.000]  The team behind Centrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on their promises.
[44:17.000 --> 44:21.000]  And Centrition does just that.
[44:21.000 --> 44:25.000]  Centrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[44:25.000 --> 44:31.000]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component.
[44:31.000 --> 44:37.000]  And organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[44:37.000 --> 44:41.000]  Plus, Centrition tastes great in just water.
[44:41.000 --> 44:47.000]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[44:47.000 --> 44:56.000]  Visit Centrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[44:56.000 --> 45:07.000]  After you use Centrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[45:07.000 --> 45:14.000]  Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[45:14.000 --> 45:18.000]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky.
[45:18.000 --> 45:22.000]  You have a choice to keep your body clean.
[45:22.000 --> 45:31.000]  Detoxify with microplant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608.
[45:31.000 --> 45:36.000]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food.
[45:36.000 --> 45:40.000]  Protect your family now with microplant powder.
[45:40.000 --> 45:46.000]  For cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins, order it now for daily intake.
[45:46.000 --> 45:49.000]  And stock it now for long-term storage.
[45:49.000 --> 46:14.000]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[46:19.000 --> 46:28.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[46:28.000 --> 46:30.000]  We're speaking with Ronnie in Texas.
[46:30.000 --> 46:36.000]  We're talking about these unscrupulous practices of the Austin City Council.
[46:36.000 --> 46:43.000]  Now, when they are having citizens input for items that are on the agenda,
[46:43.000 --> 46:49.000]  people are allowed to donate their time to each other so that we can get one person up there
[46:49.000 --> 46:55.000]  with a block of time to be able to say something that actually makes sense,
[46:55.000 --> 47:00.000]  you know, have enough time to actually present some material on the topic.
[47:00.000 --> 47:02.000]  But, yeah, Ronnie is correct.
[47:02.000 --> 47:08.000]  When it's just open citizen input for items that are not on the agenda,
[47:08.000 --> 47:14.000]  you're limited to 180 seconds and not only that, you cannot donate your time to anyone else.
[47:14.000 --> 47:20.000]  So there's never an opportunity for anyone to have a block of time within that 30 minutes
[47:20.000 --> 47:24.000]  in order to say anything that could make a difference.
[47:24.000 --> 47:30.000]  And so what I've suggested to people that they do is go ahead and get a group of y'all.
[47:30.000 --> 47:39.000]  And what you do is you plan out a speech and each person takes 180 seconds of that speech.
[47:39.000 --> 47:42.000]  And so that way you just get up one right after the other.
[47:42.000 --> 47:47.000]  And so that way it will be a congruent presentation even though it will be multiple presenters.
[47:47.000 --> 47:51.000]  So that's what I would suggest since you can't donate your time to each other.
[47:51.000 --> 47:52.000]  Okay, Ronnie?
[47:52.000 --> 47:53.000]  Can I speak?
[47:53.000 --> 47:54.000]  Yes.
[47:54.000 --> 47:55.000]  That's not really the issue.
[47:55.000 --> 48:03.000]  The issue is it's more personal than that because I try to address the council whenever I can.
[48:03.000 --> 48:06.000]  They've made a special rule basically about me.
[48:06.000 --> 48:14.000]  They only enforce it against me that I can only speak one in every four meetings,
[48:14.000 --> 48:21.000]  meaning that my First Amendment right is denied 75% of the time.
[48:21.000 --> 48:25.000]  And thus I can never – they just don't like what I have to say.
[48:25.000 --> 48:29.000]  And as far as doing this group thing and all that, that's another issue.
[48:29.000 --> 48:31.000]  And that's not really what I'm calling about.
[48:31.000 --> 48:36.000]  But I'm trying to find a way – some advice from you guys.
[48:36.000 --> 48:37.000]  Who to call?
[48:37.000 --> 48:38.000]  Where do I turn?
[48:38.000 --> 48:44.000]  I'm a poor person and I've tried – I've sought legal aid twice already
[48:44.000 --> 48:49.000]  and gone through all that you have to go through to do that and have been refused help on this.
[48:49.000 --> 48:52.000]  It seems like such a clearly constitutional issue.
[48:52.000 --> 48:56.000]  First Amendment, I have the right to speak and I've searched the Constitution.
[48:56.000 --> 49:00.000]  Nowhere in there does it say you can only speak 25% of the time
[49:00.000 --> 49:04.000]  or you can only speak 180 seconds or any of that.
[49:04.000 --> 49:09.000]  Now, I've accepted that as a rule that they've got this 180-second thing, you know.
[49:09.000 --> 49:15.000]  But the way they've got it set up now is they only take 10 slots.
[49:15.000 --> 49:20.000]  And as it turns out, they've got these weird rules like you have to call in two weeks ahead of time.
[49:20.000 --> 49:26.000]  And, you know, by that time, every single time,
[49:26.000 --> 49:30.000]  they never have all those 10 slots filled by the time the meeting takes place.
[49:30.000 --> 49:32.000]  So there's no real problem there.
[49:32.000 --> 49:39.000]  It's just a made-up, you know, imaginary problem that these imaginary citizens who never get the chance to speak,
[49:39.000 --> 49:45.000]  well, by golly, there's usually at least three slots that people don't bother to show up.
[49:45.000 --> 49:49.000]  But they still deny me the right to speak each and every time.
[49:49.000 --> 49:51.000]  Now, luckily, this upcoming Thursday, I get to speak.
[49:51.000 --> 49:56.000]  But it's been like a couple of months since I was able to speak, you know, the last time.
[49:56.000 --> 50:02.000]  And so my problem again is that they've made up this rule with no reason, no logic to it.
[50:02.000 --> 50:08.000]  And it's just to keep me, Ronnie, re-foreseed from speaking to them.
[50:08.000 --> 50:10.000]  They don't like what I have to say or what I have to talk about.
[50:10.000 --> 50:13.000]  And so they invent this rule.
[50:13.000 --> 50:18.000]  And I'm, again, trying to find out a way to get around it.
[50:18.000 --> 50:27.000]  I just have, you know, as much right as anybody else in my understanding of the Constitution to address these people.
[50:27.000 --> 50:32.000]  This is a public meeting taking place in a very expensive public building.
[50:32.000 --> 50:39.000]  And these, you know, regularly scheduled public meetings that happen maybe once every couple of weeks.
[50:39.000 --> 50:41.000]  And they allow us to address them.
[50:41.000 --> 50:51.000]  You know, we lowly citizens who pay their salaries, we can only address them for 180 seconds at a time and at the most 10.
[50:51.000 --> 50:55.000]  So my solution is to do away with that.
[50:55.000 --> 51:04.000]  They could follow the leadership of the Travis County Commissioner's Court, which has a similar kind of thing, an 180-second limit.
[51:04.000 --> 51:08.000]  But they don't have a limit on how many people can address them.
[51:08.000 --> 51:09.000]  So if there are 30 people in charge...
[51:09.000 --> 51:11.000]  Ronnie, can I interject here for a second?
[51:11.000 --> 51:12.000]  Yeah.
[51:12.000 --> 51:13.000]  Okay.
[51:13.000 --> 51:21.000]  The question you're asking about the who and how to fix it, well, it's the same thing as asking at Christmas time,
[51:21.000 --> 51:25.000]  which turkey out of the 500 in my farm do I want to eat for dinner?
[51:25.000 --> 51:28.000]  You pick one out and you do your best to catch it.
[51:28.000 --> 51:35.000]  That's how you select who to go after to get this changed if you want to deal with it on a one-by-one basis,
[51:35.000 --> 51:38.000]  which isn't really going to get you very far, in my opinion.
[51:38.000 --> 51:44.000]  What I would much more recommend as a viable solution is get a citizen's petition together
[51:44.000 --> 51:49.000]  and get signatures demanding that that limitation be removed.
[51:49.000 --> 51:50.000]  Hmm.
[51:50.000 --> 51:57.000]  I would quit dealing with it like it's a personal attack on you unless you can show where the ordinance or rule
[51:57.000 --> 52:03.000]  or whatever they've got specifically says it was instituted because of you personally.
[52:03.000 --> 52:09.000]  That makes it a personal issue instead of a public issue, and that's not what you're trying to do here, I hope.
[52:09.000 --> 52:11.000]  No, you're right. Yeah.
[52:11.000 --> 52:12.000]  Okay.
[52:12.000 --> 52:20.000]  So in that regard, address it as a citizen, not as just a single offended individual that thinks he's being personally denied
[52:20.000 --> 52:23.000]  because you're not going to get many signatures and support that way.
[52:23.000 --> 52:25.000]  That's a good idea.
[52:25.000 --> 52:35.000]  So I'd make a petition to the effect of something like, please don't limit citizens' ability to address the...
[52:35.000 --> 52:42.000]  You know, we the citizens of Austin hereby demand the City Council remove the rule that limits the availability
[52:42.000 --> 52:53.000]  of participants of these meetings to speak on the issues presented except in certain days of certain points in time,
[52:53.000 --> 53:02.000]  that if there are slots available that they are able to be taken and used by any citizen with any statement to make on that issue.
[53:02.000 --> 53:10.000]  And they can do it on a first-come, first-served basis unless it is specifically reserved in advance.
[53:10.000 --> 53:18.000]  And the person that is to use that slot has made themselves known as present to the committee in advance.
[53:18.000 --> 53:22.000]  Set up some guidelines of your own that they can use.
[53:22.000 --> 53:28.000]  If you do that, then they can't say that you haven't presented them with a viable alternative.
[53:28.000 --> 53:33.000]  Yeah. Well, I tried to throw out that idea that the Travis County Commissioner's Court allowed...
[53:33.000 --> 53:39.000]  Yeah, but who did you try to throw it out to?
[53:39.000 --> 53:43.000]  I think I've addressed the City Council about that.
[53:43.000 --> 53:46.000]  Right. Is the City Council listening to you alone?
[53:46.000 --> 53:51.000]  No. That's why I say do this with a petition and make the assertion there.
[53:51.000 --> 53:58.000]  File a copy of it with the City Council, but send it to the mayor, to the city manager.
[53:58.000 --> 54:00.000]  Get it published in the paper.
[54:00.000 --> 54:04.000]  Make a public acclamation of what the problem is.
[54:04.000 --> 54:09.000]  Get the media interested in it where and when you can.
[54:09.000 --> 54:14.000]  Stand on the street. Get the passerbys to take an interest in it, you know?
[54:14.000 --> 54:19.000]  Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you for guiding me here.
[54:19.000 --> 54:25.000]  I've been struggling with this for like a year now, and I'm so poor I haven't been able to get legal help.
[54:25.000 --> 54:30.000]  But like you said, just get it in front of the public. See what they think about it.
[54:30.000 --> 54:42.000]  And it's so outrageous. I mean, you know, denying my First Amendment rights just because they're making up some imaginary rule about some imaginary problem is not helping.
[54:42.000 --> 54:49.000]  The government's good at that. It'll make a rule for a problem that doesn't exist because they fully intend to create it later.
[54:49.000 --> 54:59.000]  Yeah. Or use it in the meanwhile to stomp on somebody's First Amendment rights or not to hear things they don't want to hear.
[54:59.000 --> 55:03.000]  Yeah. All right. Well, that's a great help.
[55:03.000 --> 55:12.000]  And again, just let me say that in contrast, Judge Biscoe, who runs the Travis County Commissioner's Court, he doesn't have this problem.
[55:12.000 --> 55:16.000]  He allows any number of people to speak who bother to show up.
[55:16.000 --> 55:23.000]  And I show up literally every week when I can, and he never denied me the right to speak.
[55:23.000 --> 55:28.000]  So he doesn't agree with anything I say, but he understands the Constitution.
[55:28.000 --> 55:38.000]  And that's Judge Biscoe here in the Travis County Commissioner's Court, as opposed to our mayor, our city manager, all those city council criminals who sit up there.
[55:38.000 --> 55:50.000]  And, you know, they, in fact, just briefly, a couple times ago I asked them about, you know, they make us all pay for fluoridated water, for example.
[55:50.000 --> 55:58.000]  Over a million dollars of taxpayer funds go to pay for this toxic sludge that they put in our water. It's poison, if you haven't heard.
[55:58.000 --> 56:09.000]  Fluoridated water. And I asked them on my way off, would you all please raise your hand if you drink tap water, these people who make us pay for it?
[56:09.000 --> 56:13.000]  And not a single one of them raised their hand.
[56:13.000 --> 56:22.000]  So they're all really a bunch of sociopathic killers who are just in it for I don't know what, just for the sake of evil.
[56:22.000 --> 56:34.000]  And they need to be spoken to. And I really appreciate your comatensical advice on how I can go forward, and that is to make a citizen's petition about it and see what happens.
[56:34.000 --> 56:42.000]  Do you know how many citizens, how many signatures I need to get to make an impact or where I could?
[56:42.000 --> 56:48.000]  I have no idea. But I can honestly say the more, the merrier.
[56:48.000 --> 56:56.000]  Is there an initiative in referendum in city of Austin?
[56:56.000 --> 57:02.000]  They did make a special rule about people who bother to show up.
[57:02.000 --> 57:08.000]  No, no, no, wait, wait, wait. Do you have the, do the citizens have the right to initiative in referendum?
[57:08.000 --> 57:13.000]  No, no, no, Randy, no.
[57:13.000 --> 57:19.000]  There's no citizens initiative in referendum in Austin or in the state of Texas at all for that matter.
[57:19.000 --> 57:22.000]  That's right. Yeah, that's true.
[57:22.000 --> 57:27.000]  And we're, you know, we're one of those states that all the states west of us basically can.
[57:27.000 --> 57:33.000]  That's why all the states west of us have decriminalized medicinal marijuana.
[57:33.000 --> 57:44.000]  We can get it. We came within one measly vote of getting it out of committee for full debate on the floor of the legislature a couple of years ago.
[57:44.000 --> 57:51.000]  And the issue was brought up by former sheriff Terry Keel, who knows about these things.
[57:51.000 --> 58:01.000]  And he had this hemp friendly situational, you know, resolution, but it became one vote short.
[58:01.000 --> 58:06.000]  So it's going to happen. And we're trying to make it happen here in Texas.
[58:06.000 --> 58:09.000]  That'll change the world.
[58:09.000 --> 58:11.000]  All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Ronnie.
[58:11.000 --> 58:14.000]  And I don't think that they made that rule just for you personally.
[58:14.000 --> 58:18.000]  I remember talking to Linda at Florida Free Austin.
[58:18.000 --> 58:23.000]  It's a standard rule across the board that people are only allowed to speak once a month.
[58:23.000 --> 58:25.000]  So it's not personally targeted at you.
[58:25.000 --> 58:29.000]  So it's just something. It's just something that we need to get changed. That's all.
[58:29.000 --> 58:31.000]  You're right. Thank you. Thank you.
[58:31.000 --> 58:32.000]  Thank you, Ronnie.
[58:32.000 --> 58:34.000]  Say thanks to Linda for me.
[58:34.000 --> 58:37.000]  OK, I sure will. All right. Good night.
[58:37.000 --> 58:43.000]  All right. We've got Rose, Troy and Elmas coming up next hour.
[58:43.000 --> 58:49.000]  Folks would like to call in 512-646-1984. This is the rule of law.
[58:49.000 --> 58:52.000]  We've got Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[58:52.000 --> 58:56.000]  Three more hours of our four hour Friday info marathon coming up.
[58:56.000 --> 58:59.000]  Right now, I am in Wall Report News.
[59:26.000 --> 59:28.000]  This is an explanatory footnote.
[59:28.000 --> 59:32.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:32.000 --> 59:38.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:38.000 --> 59:43.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:43.000 --> 59:53.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:53.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:04.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hirsch says high ranking members of the U.S. military are members of secret societies.
[01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:18.000]  Hirsch named General Stanley McChrystal, Vice Admiral William McRaven and others in the Joint Special Operations Command
[01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  as members of the Knights of Malta and Opus Dei, two secretive Catholic orders,
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  saying they see the war on terror as a crusade.
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:36.000]  The Australian government has opened an investigation into the role Australian intelligence officers played in CIA renditions and torture.
[01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  Australia now joins Britain, Germany, Poland, Spain and Italy
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  in conducting formal investigations into CIA renditions on their soil or involving their government personnel.
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity into the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl
[01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  has found Pearl's kidnapping was a complex, chaotic plot by 27 members of three militant groups, at least 14 of whom remain free.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  The U.S. resumed deporting Haitians Thursday on the first anniversary of the devastating earthquake.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:20.000]  Twenty-seven Haitian nationals were returned to their homeland, the first of 700 classified as criminal aliens
[01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  who have been targeted for removal to the Western Hemisphere's poorest country.
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  Those deported included Ligosyn Lamourin, a legal U.S. resident who was acquitted of all charges
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  in Miami's so-called Liberty City 7 terrorism conspiracy case in December 2007.
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:43.000]  Haiti is still recovering from the earthquake and locked in a dispute over last November's presidential election results,
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  as well as a cholera epidemic that killed nearly 4,000 people.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  On January 6th, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an emergency petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  to halt the roundups, detention and imminent deportation of hundreds of Haitians.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  Eric Prince, founder of the infamous Blackwater Worldwide, is backing an effort by a South African mercenary firm
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  to get involved in Somalia's civil war.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:15.000]  The secretive Saracen International is believed to be run by Lafras Le Ting,
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:21.000]  former leader of a security force responsible for killing government opponents during the apartheid era.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:27.000]  Saracen's Ugandan subsidiary was implicated in a 2002 U.N. Security Council report
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  for training rebel paramilitary forces in Congo.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  One of Saracen Uganda's owners, retired Lieutenant General Salim Saleh,
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  was named in the report for using his ties to paramilitaries to plunder Congo for gold, diamonds and timber.
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  Saracen would protect government leaders, train Somali troops and battle pirates and Islamic militants.
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:57.000]  Prince made billions of dollars in U.S. government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan where his operatives killed civilians.
[01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:47.000]  These warmongers come by that term rightly
[01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  I won't pay for the war with my body
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:54.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:57.000]  I won't pay for the fun with my body
[01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:04.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my body
[01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  I won't pay for the boys with my money
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.000]  Their whole agenda smells funny
[01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  I wanna fight in a war of my own
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  That one would be less accidental
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  I wanna pay for war of my own
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  They live in glass houses so I can watch them throw bones
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  I wanna fight in a war I can win
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  I can never win the one that they got me in
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  That one I lose one before it begins
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  I wanna fight in a war I can win
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:14.000]  I wanna fight in a war
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  Is that a legal dictionary or is there some reference to the jurisprudence?
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:37.000]  You can tell I'm relatively new
[01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  Jurisprudence is Randy's website
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:50.000]  Jurisprudence is a term relating to the system of justice and the activities in it
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:55.000]  And where would I find a jurisprudence?
[01:05:55.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  Is it a dictionary or...?
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  No, no, jurisprudence is a term like carpe diem
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:10.000]  Jurisprudence is just a term that refers to the rule of law
[01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:12.000]  Okay
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:15.000]  So it's not a reference manual or anything
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  There is a juris secundum which is essentially a legal dictionary or a legal encyclopedia
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  In the legal library you can find a number of encyclopedias
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  And if you're trying to research an issue that's generally the first place to go
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:37.000]  Okay
[01:06:37.000 --> 01:06:43.000]  Because they generally have a volume on words and phrases
[01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  The hardest thing in trying to find law is finding a case on point
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:56.000]  And in the legal encyclopedias they have key phrases
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  You can go down and pick terms that tend to apply to the issues you have in mind
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  And go see if you can find those terms
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  And then it'll tell you what cases use those terms
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:14.000]  It'll help you find the law, that's one of the best places to go is legal dictionaries
[01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  And they don't get near as much use as they probably should
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  Okay
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:32.000]  And just so you know, I'm in the process of choosing to pursue a lawsuit against Bank of America in Colorado
[01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  In the federal courts because of some of the information that you've been sharing
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:45.000]  And I'm really grateful for this and cannot tell you how long it took me
[01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  Well, you probably already understand this much better than most
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  But it's amazing how much time and effort it has required just to find an attorney to explain to me
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  What the process was in the foreclosure process
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:14.000]  And so I've gotten one of my foreclosures to the point that Wells Fargo showed up at my 120 hearing
[01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  With a forged document, which was the deed of trust
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:32.000]  So I'm currently residing in the property that Wells Fargo has already made one major error
[01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  And that I was displaced from what I was considering my primary home by Bank of America
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  Because of course they would not work with me, which I'm seeing now is probably a benefit
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  Because they've already gone through the processes that I have been evicted
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  And so now I'm going to sue Bank of America in federal court pro se
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  And I'm getting excited about it
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  Wonderful
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Quick question I have is I have a friend who is asking, are you familiar with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:32.000]  Yes, Rooker-Feldman is what they use to deny us a restraining order
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  Under Rooker-Feldman they don't want to interfere with state jurisdiction
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  So if Rooker-Feldman lifts out those things you have to, I'm a little uncomfortable here
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  I'm not a Rooker-Feldman, but I have a good chance I could be applying the wrong case to Rooker-Feldman
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  Well this is, the statement that's being made is it's being used as a fast and loose, quick way to have cases tossed out or dismissed
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  I'm not a Rooker-Feldman
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  Rooker-Feldman is what the federal judges have been throwing it up
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  To keep from giving us a temporary restraining order
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  Okay, I'm a little uncomfortable here, I know Rooker-Feldman
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  And I think what I'm saying is applying to Rooker-Feldman
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  But I'm an old guy and I could be switching Rooker-Feldman for a different case
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:54.000]  But as I remember Rooker-Feldman, it dealt with when the federal court can interfere with state jurisdiction
[01:10:54.000 --> 01:11:04.000]  And it lifted certain conditions that had to be met for the federal court before they could enter a ruling that interfered with state jurisdiction
[01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:06.000]  But you're in Colorado
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:12.000]  And that should not apply because you're in a non-judicial state
[01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:19.000]  So in a matter of foreclosure, there is no federal jurisdiction to interfere with
[01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  I'm sorry, there is no state jurisdiction for the federal court to have a problem interfering with
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  So say that to me one more time
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:42.000]  We have actually, one of the people who work for me is the man in the phone, but he probably knows this
[01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  In fact, if I check my Skype, he's probably correcting me
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  Let's see, have you corrected me, Chris? No, he hasn't
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  So I may be actually right
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  Yeah, if I'm right about something, I'm thinking of the right case, it strictly goes to when the feds can intercede in a state action
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:26.000]  And if not, we weren't the one that used Wicker-Fellman, it was the other side that would use Wicker-Fellman to keep the federal court from entering a restraining order to restrain the lender from foreclosing
[01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  Okay
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  If I find that I am mistaken, I will come on the air and get Eddie to admit it
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  Okay, I like that
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  Yeah, good luck with that
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  You're so kind
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  He likes to try to set me up that way
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  So, you know, I would appreciate understanding also the difference in when a case is dismissed with prejudice versus when it is dismissed without prejudice
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  Okay, a case is dismissed with prejudice, that means it's over, you cannot go back and repetition
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:29.000]  If it's dismissed without, then you have leave to re-file whatever your proceeding is, but we get a number dismissed without prejudice
[01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:38.000]  Because what they're doing, especially if you're pro se now, is they're dramatically raising the standard
[01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:47.000]  The standard for pro se is supposed to be quite a bit less than the standard for an attorney
[01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:54.000]  But in fact, it is not only higher, it's much, much higher
[01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:59.000]  As a pro se, they will make you jump through every legal hoop you can find
[01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  And when they run out of legal hoops, they'll make up a few more of their own and make you jump through those and then they'll turn you down out of hand
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  Or at least that's what you have to expect
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  And you have to treat your case as if that's how it's going to go
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  And keeping in mind what Dr. Gray says in Jurisdictionary, if you are going to try to save your house and you're going to try to do it through the legal system
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  I suggest you get Jurisdictionary, you can order it off our rule of law radio
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:48.000]  He will give you a really good basic understanding of how law works
[01:14:48.000 --> 01:15:00.000]  But what he says is everything in the trial court is only about setting the record for the appeals court because that's where the real action is
[01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  They're the ones that will rule strictly on the law
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  So don't be concerned about what they do in the trial court
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  As long as you get the record set for the appeals court, you're most likely winning the appeal
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  And the kinds of questions you were asking are exactly what's in Jurisdictionary
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  And Dr. Gray says he wrote it for an integrator
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:36.000]  And I admonished him about that, that he obviously did not intend that attorneys be able to read it
[01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  He said, Mr. Kelton, if he's an attorney
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  But he has written it, when you go down to the library, you see all this stuff
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  It can give you a headache
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  And it's kind of like me when I work on a car
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  I'm a really good mechanic
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  I am good enough that I know better than to open that hood and look down in there
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:07.000]  Because all that will do is confuse me
[01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  It's kind of like going to the legal library and looking at all that stuff
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  That would make me nuts trying to figure all that out
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  Before I open the hood on your car, I want you to tell me what he was doing
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  And what that tells me is all that stuff I don't have to pay attention to
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  And I know exactly where it looked
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  In your case, you only care about one minor, very focused area of law
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  That's all you want to look at
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  And when you go through jurisdictionary, he'll go very basic
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  These are the kind of motions that are there, this is how you file the motion
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  Hang on, Randy, we're going to break
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  All right, folks, we'll be right back, 512-646-1984
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:16:59.000]  Hang in there, folks
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  That's Capitol Point in Bullion
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:03.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM
[01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  But finding things on the Internet isn't so easy
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:12.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books, then
[01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:16.000]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for
[01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  By authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Angie Edward Griffin
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:24.000]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps
[01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  There's no way a place like that exists
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:28.000]  Go check it out for yourself
[01:18:28.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:36.000]  By UT, there's never anywhere to park down there
[01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:42.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility
[01:18:42.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Just behind the bookstore
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 AM to 9 PM, and 1 to 6 PM on Sundays
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:23.000]  Or check out their events page at BraveNewBookstore.com
[01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  Alright, folks, we are back with Law Radio
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  Randy was finishing up speaking with Rose
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  So let me get Rose back up on the board here
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  Okay, Rose, go ahead, and Randy, finish what you were saying
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  Rose, you're obviously new to this, and I have no doubt that it appears overwhelming
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  It shouldn't
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  If I were going into learning how to sew, there would be so much stuff there
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  I would have no clue I'd be overwhelmed
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:24.000]  But if somebody walked me through the basics, it wouldn't take long before I'd start putting the pieces together
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  So that's what I suggest you do if you're going to try to save your homes
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  Is get jurisdictionary, he'll walk you through the basics
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:40.000]  He'll explain what pleadings are as opposed to what motions are, to what orders are
[01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:43.000]  There aren't really many things there
[01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  And once you kind of understand generally what they are
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:51.000]  When to file them and how to file them
[01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  It's pretty simple in how to file them and how to settle for hearings
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  Just the really basic stuff
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  They don't teach this in law school
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  Attorneys don't learn how to file motions until they get into practice
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  And this is just the basics of how it's physically done
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:13.000]  And you will be surprised how much confidence it will give you
[01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:17.000]  I have people call in asking me questions
[01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:22.000]  And if they've been through jurisdictionary, I can tell
[01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  I had one guy asking me questions about what he should do
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:29.000]  And I said, well, you should file a writ of mandamus
[01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  He said, I did that
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:35.000]  And then he talked on, well, you should file a writ of habeas corpus, I did that
[01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  Wait a minute
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  I've been through jurisdictionary? Oh yeah, I've been through jurisdictionary
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  You can tell
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  And it's just a 21-hour course
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  Absolutely
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  I'm not pushing jurisdictionary because we're trying to sell jurisdictionary
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  I don't care about that
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  This is the most valuable thing you can do
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  And then you'll call us back and you'll be asking me hard questions
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  Just give me a headache like Booker Feldman
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  So could you tell me if you feel that
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:13.000]  Since my friend has already filed in federal court and had it thrown out
[01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:16.000]  Because of the Booker Feldman
[01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:20.000]  Do you feel that he needs to pursue this in district court first?
[01:22:20.000 --> 01:22:23.000]  Absolutely, how long ago was it?
[01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:26.000]  I think it was just a week or two ago
[01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  Okay, he needs to move quickly
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  He needs to get a motion for reconsideration
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  That stops the appeals clause
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  Okay, now keep in mind that this gentleman has an attorney
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  And he's already jealous of me because I'm choosing to do pro se
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  No, the attorneys don't like that because they don't make any money
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  Okay, I know, but I'm saying my friend
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:23:02.000]  Okay, one thing you need to mention to your friend is bar grievance
[01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:04.000]  Say that again?
[01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  Bar grievance
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  Have your friend ask the attorney, what is that?
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  Rosie is telling me about that, what is that?
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:20.000]  And if you listen real close, you can hear him pucker
[01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  Because that will really get his attention and then he'll really not like you
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  However, bar grievance is so bad for attorneys
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  That makes him very careful not to screw your friend around
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  Bar grievance is the attorney's weakness
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  So all your friend has to ask the attorney, what is a bar grievance?
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  You've already given me the idea to use that with the attorney that's representing me with the Wells Fargo case
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:09.000]  Because I'm choosing, I've already notified him that I will be representing myself as a pro se in federal court with Bank of America
[01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  So thank you for giving me that for up my sleeve the next time I deal with him
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  Okay, but you're stepping into some really deep water here, make sure you have good assistance
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  In respect to my own?
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:37.000]  Yes, someone who is knowledgeable about federal procedure, knowledgeable about law
[01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  Who can keep you falling into traps because they will be laying traps for you
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:49.000]  You mean my attorney or the federal court?
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  The attorneys on the other side and very likely your own attorney
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  Your own attorney by necessity is interested in three things
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  One is adjudicating your case
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  Second is not getting the court P.O.ed at him
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  And third is making money
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:25.000]  And your case will take second seat to both the others
[01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  I understand that
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  And that's not intended as a slight against the attorney, that's the reality, that's the world he has to live in
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  He can't avoid it
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:47.000]  So even if he wants to be your best buddy and do the greatest job for you, he can't afford to ruin his career
[01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:51.000]  Then I could choose to fire him
[01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  Well, you could also choose to sue the crapola out of him
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  Or give him reason to believe you're going to sue the crapola out of him
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  And then he goes to the judge, who's going to sue the crapola out of me?
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  You've got to help me out
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  Instead of the judge screwing you around, now you put the judge in a position where he has to protect your attorney against you
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  That's what happened in the last case I had
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:25.000]  My attorney was afraid I was going to file bar grievances against him
[01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  The judge was afraid I was going to file bar grievances against him
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:32.000]  He was a young attorney, that would end in one bar grievance
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  He couldn't practice anymore
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  So the judge had to wind up protecting my attorney from me
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  So he had to be real careful how he ruled against me to keep me from grieving my attorney
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  So the best way to get your attorney's attention is to file bar grievances
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  And when he tries to quit your case, you tell him, no chance
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  We have a contract
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  You don't get to walk away from it just because you want to
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  You walk away from it, I'll grieve you for that, then I'll sue you for malpractice
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  Just go in there and do your job
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:24.000]  Go tell the attorney, go tell the judge I'm going to sue you and bar grieve you
[01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  And then I'll get the judge, then the judge is in it, but these are all buddies
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:32.000]  They all work together, they see one another all the time
[01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:38.000]  And all of a sudden you've got this no-good, rotten client who's screwing you around
[01:27:38.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  I need some help
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  Judge, I helped you out all these times
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:46.000]  Now it's time I need to collect
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  Consider that if your attorney's not doing his job well
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  Well, I feel, you know, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:00.000]  As with this being so new and unusual in the state of Colorado
[01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  But I don't feel that way anymore
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  Good, because it's not new or unusual for these guys
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  This is business as usual for them
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:17.000]  The attorney wants to collect your retainer and then get rid of you as quickly as possible
[01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:20.000]  If he can win your case real fast, that's wonderful
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:24.000]  But if he can't, he wants to get rid of you in another way
[01:28:24.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  So he can go on to the next client and make more money
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:30.000]  The reality of the world we live in
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  But I'm seeing that truth
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  So if you get in a position where you're going to cost him a fortune
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:48.000]  Then that changes everything
[01:28:48.000 --> 01:28:55.000]  Now all of a sudden he has to actually do his job
[01:28:55.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  Or now he loses one month because you're going to barbreed him
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  His malpractice insurance is going to double or triple
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  Or he's going to not be able to get it at all and then he can't practice
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  In the end, everything is political
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:21.000]  If you want him to do the best job for you, you have to invoke politics
[01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:26.000]  This is how we do it
[01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  Okay, do you have any more questions or comments?
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  No, no, that's it and thank you very much
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:35.000]  You will be hearing from me some more
[01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  Okay, thank you, thank you for calling
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  You bet
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  Tell all your friends
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  I will
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  All right, Rose, thank you very much
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  Okay, folks, we're about to go to break again
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  Troy, Elmas, Rob, Mark, we see you there
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  Just hang on, we will be right back on the other side of this break
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  Folks, 512-646-1984, give us a call
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  Top ten reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  Number nine, the extra leg
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  Former Oklahoma State medical examiner Dr. Fred Jordan had stated
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  We had eight people with amputated left legs and nine left legs to account for
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  Chief pathologist for Northern Ireland T.K. Marshall, who performed over 2500 autopsies in his time, stated
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  He had never been an unknown victim
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  This leg belonged to a perpetrator close enough to the bomb or his body to be damaged, leaving only a left leg behind
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Who was this person? Please go to okcbombingtruth.com
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Computer jargon can be confusing
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  Take SSL encryption
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  You may have heard the term, but did you know that using it could save you thousands of dollars and your privacy?
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell you more in just a moment
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:49.000]  Privacy is under attack
[01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[01:30:57.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:12.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing
[01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  Start over with Startpage
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  SSL is short for Secure Sockets Layer, a way to transmit information securely over the Internet
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:30.000]  Hackers can eavesdrop on your wireless Internet connections, but although pickup is a gobbledygook when you use SSL, that's why it's so important to you
[01:31:30.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  You can tell you're protected with SSL when the Internet address in your browser window shows HTTPS, not just HTTP
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  The S is for secure
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  In addition, a little yellow padlock pops up at the bottom of your computer screen
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  You should always look for that padlock symbol before paying for purchases over the Internet or typing in a username and password
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:32.000]  The wicked come with temptations
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:38.000]  They're trying to buy the whole place
[01:32:38.000 --> 01:32:43.000]  They want to force new nations
[01:32:43.000 --> 01:32:48.000]  Alright folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio
[01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  Okay, Randy, if you have your caller phased up, do you want to go ahead and take the next caller there on the board?
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Yes, I've got the caller phased up. It looks like Troy from Minnesota
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Troy, you have a question or comment?
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:11.000]  Yes, sir. Yeah, I've got a few questions for you guys tonight, and the first one being statutes versus common law or case law
[01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:19.000]  I've got a statute in Minnesota. I'm a business owner, just a sole shareholder of a corporation
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:30.000]  And there's a statute in the state of Minnesota that says that the sole shareholder of a corp may appear on behalf of the corp in court
[01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:35.000]  I had a complaint served against myself and my corporation
[01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:47.000]  I answered that complaint pro se, and then I've got a court order stating that a corporation must be represented by an attorney
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:58.000]  From what I've been reading, that case law overrules any statute. Is that correct?
[01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  I mean, how are you in violation of law if there's a statute stating that you can do that and the attorneys or the judges who are attorneys saying that you can?
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  Well, the case law will only override the statute, one, if it deals specifically with that statute, and two, the statute is vague and ambiguous enough to require an interpretation by the court
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:39.000]  Otherwise, any assertion by the court to the contrary of the statute can be challenged as being invalid because it is basically a rewrite of the statute from what the language says
[01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  And courts cannot rewrite the law. They're limited to what the legislature enacted
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:56.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute. This is Minnesota. Actually, I think they can
[01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:03.000]  Oh, that's right. Minnesota is where they threw the rule book out the window and let the courts make up laws that go along
[01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  Which means you need to file a federal suit against the entities there in Minnesota for violation of the separation of powers doctrine within your state constitution
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  Okay. All right. Yeah, because I mean, I read on like an attorney website and the way the appellate court cases, you know, you read through those and it pretty much says
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  The courts are going to ignore that, whether you're a sole shareholder or if there's a million shareholders, you're going to be represented by, the corporation is going to be represented by an attorney
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  You know, and like I said, the statute's there. Okay. That pretty much answers that question. Second question
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:59.000]  Well, you can remove such a case to federal court if that's the case because the state law gives you a specific protection
[01:35:59.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  The court is attempting to rewrite a legislative enactment to deny you that protection
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:15.000]  So you have a constitutional argument that the separation of powers is being denied and that there is no remedy for that at the state level because the courts are the ones that's doing the violating
[01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute. There's a problem here. Only one? The state is the one that granted this right
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:41.000]  The corporation doesn't have any rights. If the state granted a right, they can take it away or limit it and a violation of that right does not go to a federal issue
[01:36:41.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  But the point here being that the state did grant the right, the legislature did. The courts therefore lack the authority to take it away unless they declare the statute unconstitutional
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  Yes, the problem is that this is strictly a state issue. It does not go to a constitutional right or a federal question
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  Well, but in a manner of speaking, it does if it violates the separation of powers doctrine because that violates the requirement of a republican form of government
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:33.000]  That would have to be in a federal case, in federal, not in state. Separation of powers in the state is a state issue
[01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  The feds don't have any say over the state constitution. If the state constitution forbids separation of powers in the state, it's going to stay a state issue
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that simply because the requirement there is that one, no state constitution can violate any provision of the federal constitution
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  And one of those is the requirement of a republican form of government, which by definition requires representative law and representative state divisions
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  The problem is the separation of powers is a specific constitutional enactment that is not required by the federal constitution. You can have a republican form of government
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  That doesn't have a restriction on separation of powers. That is, if a state has that restriction, it's a state restriction. The federal government has no say in how the state government does their business
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:58.000]  Unless it interferes with the federal, the constitutionally protected right, and this does not
[01:38:58.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  Well, but again, what we're looking at here is that by definition of a republican form of government, we're talking about a representative government
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:22.000]  The people do not elect the judges to act as representatives. When the judges attempt to create law, they are acting in that capacity. That would violate the very definition of a republican form of government
[01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  Okay, that's a generalization. We can't get there with that generalization. We have to get there with a specific constitutional, federal constitutional violation
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  But what law am I breaking? I mean, you know, they're going to say, you violated a court order, and I can sit there and point right to the statue, I violated nothing. This will open the door for appeal, but it doesn't go to a federal issue
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  Right, we addressed this recently, and the courts have shot that down, over and over. If the courts have refused to enforce this law, do you really think you can change their minds?
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  No, but I mean, it's kind of a conflict of interest, isn't it? The judges have
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  Yeah, yeah. Okay, this is the reality
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  Yeah
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  Okay
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  We have to deal with what the courts are actually doing. We can read the law and say, this is what they should be doing, this is how it ought to be, but in the end, when it is your property at stake
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  You have to look at the way it actually is, and weigh what you have to lose on the principle
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  Right? Unlikely you'll win this, and if you have a statue, it's a great argument, but it's going to be a real hard fight to win, especially in Minnesota
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  Technically in Minnesota, the judges don't have to follow law if they don't think it's just or appropriate. They can do whatever they want to, and in Minnesota, you can gift a judge $150, is it a week or a month, Eddie, do you remember?
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  A sign for what?
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  You can gift a judge $150, it's either a week or a month, I think it's a week
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  A month
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  A month, okay, without having to report it. The judge doesn't have to report it, so this is a prescription for corruption
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  Definitely
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  So how much have you gifted your judge lately?
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  None
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  Minnesota has to be the most corrupt state I've ever seen. So if you're trying to get the judge to say that you don't have to hire an attorney for a corporation, then they're going to limit income for their fellow attorneys. Good luck on that one
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  Right, okay. Otherwise, another alternative, you let them get a judgment against your corporation, and I mean if you're a sole shareholder anyways, they're pretty much getting nothing anyways, correct?
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  Well, unless they swallow the corporation
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  Well, there's pretty much nothing there
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:10.000]  Oh, then you don't have a problem, then it may be a fight, then you can fight the fight and you don't have a whole lot to lose
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  Right, but anyways, I'll get on to my next one, and this is pretty simple, and I do have jurisdictionary, and I'm probably making more out of this than anything.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:35.000]  Jurisdiction, I'm on the same complaint, you know, I know Mr. Graves talks about how these shoddy lawyers will throw out a garbage complaint, you know, going to break
[01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Okay, we're going to go to break, it would be better if we start this on the other side anyway. We've got a lot of callers, so we have to kind of move a bit quickly to make sure we get everybody in
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:56.000]  Okay, we will pick you up on the other side. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, Ludo Law Radio, we'll be right back.
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  And centrician does just that
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  Centrician utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  And organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:41.000]  Plus, centrician tastes great in just water
[01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  Visit centrician.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  After you use centrician, you'll believe in supplements again
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:03.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.000 --> 01:45:07.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary
[01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:22.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:49.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  pro se tactics, and much more
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:04.000]  or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  All right, folks, we are back
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  Randy, you want to finish up with Troy there?
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  Yeah, Troy, you had one more question
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  Jurisdiction, a complaint served against me
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  and they brought it to a district court that is not where I reside
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  That grounds to dismiss that I answered the complaint
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  kind of before I had the Jurisdictionary deal, no affirmative defenses
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  Okay, where is the corporation located?
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  That's my residence
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:11.000]  Does the corporation do business in the venue or the jurisdiction where the complaint was filed?
[01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  No, it's probably done work there once
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  No, what I'm saying, are they claiming, is their claim based on something that occurred in another jurisdiction?
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  No, the complaint or whatever they're alleging happened in another district, I guess, or where I reside
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  My residents and my corporation are in a whole completely different district than that court that I was filed in
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  And so nothing happened in that district
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  You don't reside in the district, the district doesn't have it
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  It may have Jurisdiction
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  Because it is a district court and it would have Jurisdiction over this topic of the issue, but it does not have venue
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:08.000]  Okay
[01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:12.000]  So therefore it can't exercise Jurisdiction
[01:48:12.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  Okay, so that grounds for, I mean, is that a change, you can do a change of venue or do a motion to dismiss?
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  This would be not a motion to dismiss, a motion for change of venue, an unspoken
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  Okay
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  In an inappropriate or inconvenient way
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:34.000]  Okay, all right
[01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  Can I squeeze one more question in?
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:44.000]  What? I missed that
[01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:49.000]  You guys were talking, well, I don't need that one, agent or principal, can you go over that quick?
[01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:54.000]  Agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agent
[01:48:54.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  It must be proven out of the mouth of the principal
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:06.000]  If an attorney claims to be an agent for the principal, you can demand that he prove up agency
[01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  He has to do that with demonstrating a contract between him and the agent
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:24.000]  Okay, and is that something a person wants to do on discovery or just, no, motion, that's the rule here, it would be rule 12
[01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  But you'll have a rule on that and it should be right up in the front of your rule for civil procedure
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  Okay, all right, I thank you much guys, I'll get off the phone and let you get going
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  Okay, thank you for calling
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  You better have a good night guys, thank you
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  Okay, now we're going to go to Elvis
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Hello
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  Elvis in Texas, did I pronounce that right?
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  Oops, wrong button
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  Okay, hello
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  Now you're not using Elvis, you're there
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  Yeah, I'm there
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:02.000]  Did I pronounce it right?
[01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  Yes, that's correct
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:09.000]  Okay, you had a question or comment?
[01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  A question really, I'm up in Marble Falls, Texas and I was in my driveway, I'll say about 9 o'clock in the night
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  And I had just come from like a family get-together at my grandmother's a few miles away which my wife drove us home
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  I'd been drinking at my grandmother's and I live in a duplex
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  So I get out of the car and my wife goes in, she brings our daughter in the house or in our duplex forever
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  But I'm in my driveway and the police pull up, a police car pulls up and asks me what am I doing here?
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  And I said well I live here, so then they start asking me where do I work and all this other stuff
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  So I give them the information, now I'm like 20 feet from my front door
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  So they go and knock on my door and my wife answers and lets them know that yeah, that I'm her husband
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:11.000]  That I live here, that it was my vehicle, that I was beside and all this stuff
[01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  And so they told her that they were taking me to jail for public intoxication
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  They took me to jail for public intoxication in my driveway
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  Now is that really public being in my driveway?
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  Yes, well essentially it is
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:36.000]  Eddie you want to handle this, you may have a little more specifics on it
[01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  Well the problem they have is this, the statute very clearly states that first and foremost before an arrest without warrant can occur
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  It must be shown that you are intoxicated to the point that you present a danger to yourself or others
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  Correct, I read that on the internet bill
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  Right, and the other part is that it clearly limits where they can apply that law to a place involving someone that is licensed to sell alcohol
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  Do you have a license to sell alcohol out of your house?
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  No sir
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:21.000]  Then I'd say they got a problem
[01:52:21.000 --> 01:52:29.000]  Okay, here's my suggestion, file criminal charges against the officers
[01:52:29.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  As you want to fight, let's fight
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  Well yeah, I have a trial coming up January 26th, I opted to take it to a jury trial under court
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  Have you filed, oh January 26th, how long has it taken to get to trial?
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  I believe I was arrested back in say October, November
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  But they told me that they couldn't do trial in November or December because of holidays they had a hard time getting a jury
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  To contact them at the beginning of the year which I did and now they've sent me a certified letter saying that trial is January 26th
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  Okay, do you have an attorney?
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:15.000]  No I don't
[01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:18.000]  I mean I can't afford an attorney
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  Have you requested an attorney?
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:22.000]  No
[01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  Do so
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:29.000]  Request court appointed counsel
[01:53:29.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  First thing you tell counsel
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:38.000]  You fail to properly adjudicate every single one of my rights
[01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  I'll file a book if it's against you for everyone you fail to adjudicate
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  And he's going to, this is what I told my attorney
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  First thing I told him, he's telling me how things are going to go and I told him no, no, no
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  That's not how it's going to go
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  This is how it's going to go
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:04.000]  You're going to go to the judge and ask the judge to remove you from this case
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  And I'm going to go to the judge and tell the judge to care remove him from that case
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  He's my counsel of choice and he's under contract
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  And the attorney said well Mr. Kelton I'm not under contract with you, I'm under a contract with the state, yes you are
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  And I'm the intended third party beneficiary
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  So the reason I told him that is the first time you land in the middle of it he's going to run to the judge and ask to be removed
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:38.000]  And I set him up to keep him from doing that
[01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  What I told him was is the attorney is going to go ahead and remove you from the case
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  And then I'm going to get to sue that judge for interfering with a contract
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  And he said oh no, this guy is going to keep me just barred
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  So now I eliminated the option of going to the court and asking to be removed from the case because I'm barred for that
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  And you got control of your attorney
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  Now the court has a bigger problem in trying to protect the attorney from the litigants
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  You got nothing to lose, they're going to screw you oil
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:24.000]  You know what the average conviction rate in Texas is, don't you?
[01:55:24.000 --> 01:55:26.000]  Yeah, about 99 percent
[01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:32.000]  99.6, so what do you think your chances are?
[01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:38.000]  Well, pro se
[01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:40.000]  So I mean
[01:55:40.000 --> 01:55:44.000]  Your best shot is first thing forced him to point you counsel
[01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  They told me to take a $250 fine and I refused it and told them, you know, I was at my drawing
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  Wait a minute, what level of offense they attempted to charge you under because last time I looked, that's only a class C
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  Yeah, that's what they charged me, class C
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  Oh, they're going to claim they don't have to point counsel
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  Right, that's what I was
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  So you're in a municipal court?
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Yes
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:15.000]  Eddie?
[01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:19.000]  Yeah, you need to talk to Eddie
[01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  Well, the point here is that I would go with the first thing Randy said
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  And I'd walk into court with a handful of criminal complaints against these officers
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  And then I'd also go ahead and write some out against the prosecutor
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:35.000]  I would have judicial conduct complaints in my hands for the judge
[01:56:35.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  And I would have them bar grievances for malicious prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  And numerous other things for the prosecutor themselves
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:55.000]  And I'd make it known and file them in my case with my motion to dismiss
[01:56:55.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  The problem is that, one, these officers that write citations after the fact and use those citations as a reason to arrest someone
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  Have a real problem in that the law requires them to witness the act
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  It has to be committed in their presence or within their view
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  They can't come along after the fact and issue the citation as if they were there
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  They weren't
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  Well, now these were there
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:33.000]  There was nothing being done
[01:57:33.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  I was beside my jeep and they pulled up and asked me, did I live here, what was I doing here?
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  I told them, yeah, I live here, my door's 20 feet over there
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  And then they went and asked my wife and she told them, yeah, I live here
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  Well, the thing is, you're not required to answer those types of questions
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  They stated no probable cause to begin such an intercourse with you
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:01.000]  You should have simply said, what do you want?
[01:58:01.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  Why are you here?
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  Because they had no legal cause that they stated that would give them probable cause to begin questioning you anyway
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  Okay, wait a minute, there's a real important question to ask
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  Okay
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  Were you stumbling to fall down drunk?
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  No
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  What in the heck made them think you were intoxicated?
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  I don't know, the lady officer that stopped first, she just said she was just making her like regular rounds
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  And she noticed me standing out in the parking lot
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  So then she stopped to question me, what was I doing out here?
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  And I told her, I live here, I was just now getting home, getting some stuff out of my jeep
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  And she asked me...
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  Okay, hang on Elvis, we've got about 10 seconds to the break
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  So hang on and we'll pick this up on the other side, okay?
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  Sure
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:59:00.000]  Alright folks, Rule of Law Radio, 512-646-1984, we will be right back
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:07.000]  Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it
[01:59:07.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:16.000]  But in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:19.000]  Enter the recovery version
[01:59:19.000 --> 01:59:23.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate
[01:59:23.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes
[01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  Providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking
[01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free
[01:59:48.000 --> 01:59:53.000]  At 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:53.000 --> 01:59:57.000]  Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com
[01:59:57.000 --> 02:00:26.000]  That's freestudybible.com