[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  Hold it right there, bucko. That photo was poorly lit and your composition is all wrong.
[00:06.000 --> 00:10.000]  Those could be the last words you hear before police confiscate your camera.
[00:10.000 --> 00:13.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with the scoop.
[00:14.000 --> 00:19.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:19.000 --> 00:24.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:24.000 --> 00:29.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:29.000 --> 00:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[00:35.000 --> 00:42.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[00:43.000 --> 00:47.000]  Police are detaining people for taking perfectly legal pictures.
[00:47.000 --> 00:52.000]  They've apparently become art critics with instructions to determine whether people's photos have, quote,
[00:52.000 --> 01:00.000]  a parent's aesthetic value. The idea is to stop terrorists, though what a terrorist could do armed with just a camera is beyond me.
[01:00.000 --> 01:05.000]  One innocent photographer got stopped for taking pictures of a refinery in Long Beach, California.
[01:05.000 --> 01:09.000]  Another got a full patdown for filming the outside of the courthouse.
[01:09.000 --> 01:15.000]  In addition to judging people's photos, cops are harassing anyone with a camera who doesn't look like, quote,
[01:15.000 --> 01:22.000]  a regular tourist. So next time you visit Long Beach, wear a big Hawaiian shirt and make sure your photos are gorgeous.
[01:22.000 --> 01:27.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32.000 --> 01:40.000]  Could printed books soon be a thing of the past? Apparently a lot of kids these days are exchanging book pages for web pages.
[01:40.000 --> 01:44.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell you what's happening to literacy.
[01:44.000 --> 01:50.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:50.000 --> 01:55.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:55.000 --> 02:00.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:00.000 --> 02:06.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com.
[02:06.000 --> 02:13.000]  The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Start Page.
[02:13.000 --> 02:23.000]  Forget books and magazines. A recent study by the UK's National Literacy Trust found that text messages are the number one reading material for kids today.
[02:23.000 --> 02:31.000]  And numbers two and three are email and Facebook. That's not surprising since cell phones and computers outnumber novels in most homes.
[02:31.000 --> 02:34.000]  We adults are obviously not setting a very good example.
[02:34.000 --> 02:40.000]  Of course text messages are not known for their literary quality or for their outstanding spelling and grammar.
[02:40.000 --> 02:46.000]  In fact, there's some of the worst writing around. So if you want your kids to develop basic English skills,
[02:46.000 --> 02:51.000]  tell them to unplug from Facebook and turn off Twitter, then hand them an old-fashioned book.
[02:51.000 --> 03:11.000]  Contact your Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:21.000 --> 03:31.000]  What are you going to do?
[03:31.000 --> 03:37.000]  What are you going to do?
[03:37.000 --> 03:50.000]  Bad boys, bad boys. What are you going to do? What are you going to do when they come for you?
[03:50.000 --> 04:11.000]  Bad boys, bad boys. What are you going to do when they come for you?
[04:11.000 --> 04:31.000]  Bad boys, bad boys. What are you going to do when they come for you?
[04:31.000 --> 04:44.000]  Bad boys, bad boys. What are you going to do when they come for you?
[04:44.000 --> 04:52.000]  Alright folks, bad boys, bad boys. What are you going to do when we come for you here on the Rule of Law?
[04:52.000 --> 05:05.000]  On the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com. Tonight is Thursday, March 29th, 2012.
[05:05.000 --> 05:15.000]  And we have a special guest with us tonight, Mr. Ken Magnussen. He's going to be talking about the Sunset Commission.
[05:15.000 --> 05:26.000]  And there are some actions that need to be taken right away because apparently there's a hearing coming up, but they're going to allow little, if no, public testimony at all.
[05:26.000 --> 05:31.000]  And this is a very important hearing. Ken, welcome to the show. Let us know what's going on.
[05:31.000 --> 05:47.000]  Yes, thanks for having me. The issue here is the Sunset Advisory Commission is a commission that's set up between the Senate of the State of Texas and the House of Representatives of the State of Texas.
[05:47.000 --> 05:55.000]  And this commission meets with two public members that are appointed, one by the Speaker of the House, one by Lieutenant Governor.
[05:55.000 --> 06:08.000]  As it stands right now, those positions have not been filled. So they've been meeting and progressing on advisory sunset processes on a number of agencies.
[06:08.000 --> 06:26.000]  The next is it looks like it's scheduled for April 10th at 10 a.m. Senate Finance Committee Room E1036. So it looks like they've got it set to start at 10 a.m.
[06:26.000 --> 06:40.000]  I have no idea when they're going to end. There's actually four other agencies other than the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for the schedule for that day.
[06:40.000 --> 06:52.000]  And I'm just kind of looking through that right now, trying to figure out exactly what's going on. I have no idea whether or not they're going to have a specific schedule,
[06:52.000 --> 06:57.000]  what they're going to do first or second or whatever.
[06:57.000 --> 07:10.000]  There's been rumors, sources have told me that the State Representative Dennis Bonnin had spelled B-O-N-N-E-N.
[07:10.000 --> 07:18.000]  My spell checker kept changing it to Bonner. Anyway, he is notorious. He's a Republican out of South Texas,
[07:18.000 --> 07:28.000]  and he's notorious for playing games with people during public testimony. He doesn't like public testimony.
[07:28.000 --> 07:36.000]  So he bunches the meetings together so that there's limited time so people can't actually hear their grievances.
[07:36.000 --> 07:44.000]  So let's go back and look at what the Sunset Advisory Commission is for. It's supposed to collect information about an agency.
[07:44.000 --> 07:54.000]  Every agency within the state has this rotating schedule where it ceases to exist unless there's a reauthorization bill coming up.
[07:54.000 --> 08:00.000]  The reauthorization bill is submitted after the Sunset Review of that agency.
[08:00.000 --> 08:08.000]  So that means the reauthorization bill for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct will occur next legislative session in January.
[08:08.000 --> 08:16.000]  That will give us some more time and an opportunity to testify about the various failures of this agency.
[08:16.000 --> 08:23.000]  But at this point in time, the Sunset Advisory Commission gathers up information,
[08:23.000 --> 08:31.000]  and we're still not sure exactly what information is subject to public information disclosure requests.
[08:31.000 --> 08:40.000]  It looks like the information that's collected by the agency itself from the various agencies and sources within the government is shielded.
[08:40.000 --> 08:52.000]  However, I have a feeling that the public information, public testimony, public submissions will be subject to the public information act requests.
[08:52.000 --> 09:04.000]  The problem that we're having here is this entire agency is set up in order to review and makes recommendations to the Senate and the House with regards to an agency.
[09:04.000 --> 09:10.000]  On past agencies, they've actually closed various agencies. I can't give you any examples,
[09:10.000 --> 09:17.000]  but they've decided that an agency has become obsolete or a particular commission or some sort has become obsolete.
[09:17.000 --> 09:23.000]  They'll recommend it being closed, and if the legislature agrees, they'll close that agency and it goes away.
[09:23.000 --> 09:31.000]  The issue here with the Sunset Review of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct is they were last reviewed back in 2000,
[09:31.000 --> 09:35.000]  so it's been 12 years since they were last reviewed.
[09:35.000 --> 09:39.000]  Now, I didn't testify at the Sunset Advisory Commission.
[09:39.000 --> 09:48.000]  I testified when they had the reauthorization bill in the legislature in 2001, and I testified both in the House and the Senate,
[09:48.000 --> 09:53.000]  and it was pretty enlightening on how the agency operated.
[09:53.000 --> 10:04.000]  So anybody that's going to talk about or talk about this agency, you can't get mired down in the details of what the agency did or didn't do specifically.
[10:04.000 --> 10:09.000]  It's the fact that the agency procedures and processes are not transparent.
[10:09.000 --> 10:17.000]  We don't have a way to know when you file a judicial complaint whether or not anybody investigates or whether it just finds its way to, you know,
[10:17.000 --> 10:22.000]  File 13 and nobody ever sees the light of day and they send you back a standard form letter.
[10:22.000 --> 10:31.000]  Oh, has it been long enough? Yeah, it's been three weeks. Let's send them back a letter saying we don't find any reason to believe that any misconduct occurs.
[10:31.000 --> 10:33.000]  And that's what the agency is known for doing.
[10:33.000 --> 10:43.000]  Its annual reports are out there on its own website, and if you look at those reports and I suggest that anybody's ever filed a judicial complaint do that,
[10:43.000 --> 10:56.000]  you'll find that there's a category for criminal complaints indicating whether or not the agency took criminal action against someone within the context of a judicial conduct complaint.
[10:56.000 --> 10:59.000]  And at this point in time, they've never done it.
[10:59.000 --> 11:02.000]  It's never happened. There's never been a criminal complaint brought.
[11:02.000 --> 11:10.000]  Even though I am personally familiar with a number of judicial conduct complaints which were allegations of criminal wrongdoing,
[11:10.000 --> 11:18.000]  abuse of power, official oppression, and the list goes on from there, and the agency took no action whatsoever.
[11:18.000 --> 11:22.000]  And this is why this problem exists.
[11:22.000 --> 11:30.000]  If you have a complaint and you file it, the agency should have to give a copy of the complaint to the judge as you've complained about.
[11:30.000 --> 11:37.000]  The judge should have to file a response, and that response should have to be under oath.
[11:37.000 --> 11:42.000]  And then when that response comes back, the agency has to send you a copy of that response.
[11:42.000 --> 11:50.000]  If they don't send you a copy of the response, you don't know what kind of lies were told in the response to the agency from the judge.
[11:50.000 --> 11:53.000]  It's all shielded. They've made it all secret.
[11:53.000 --> 11:57.000]  Complaints filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission are all secret.
[11:57.000 --> 12:02.000]  They'll even send you a letter implying you're not even allowed to tell other people about it, which is not true.
[12:02.000 --> 12:10.000]  The secrecy only applies to disclosure by the agency, not by the principal who filed the complaint.
[12:10.000 --> 12:17.000]  So at this point, what we're looking at is it looks like the state legislature is up to its normal,
[12:17.000 --> 12:29.000]  let's cover this up type of situation. So with minimum public testimony on April 10th, we have no idea how much we're going to be allowed.
[12:29.000 --> 12:39.000]  Now, I've been exchanging letters with the chairman of the commission, and one of the letters that I believe Deborah's going to post later is the chairman's,
[12:39.000 --> 12:48.000]  Chairman Bonin's response to my letter, and that response was very sarcastic in that they,
[12:48.000 --> 12:54.000]  if you read the letter, it implies they're not going to allow any public testimony whatsoever.
[12:54.000 --> 13:01.000]  I've subsequently received emails from their legal representative at the agency, the Sunset Advisory Commission,
[13:01.000 --> 13:05.000]  and they've said that it's scheduled for three minutes, three minutes of hearing.
[13:05.000 --> 13:14.000]  Here's one of the problems we have. We wait 12 years, and we only get three minutes to actually make oral arguments as to what the problem is.
[13:14.000 --> 13:22.000]  Now, Ken, is there a way that isn't there also, don't you have a letter for people to fax in to their congressman,
[13:22.000 --> 13:35.000]  or do they need to fax it to the Sunset Advisory Commissioners or members of the committee to try to protest the fact that there's only going to be three minutes of public testimony on a review
[13:35.000 --> 13:41.000]  that we've been waiting for for 12 years? Isn't there some way that we could get the hearing postponed?
[13:41.000 --> 13:49.000]  Should people be, like, hammering down the doors of their legislators? What can we do about this?
[13:49.000 --> 13:59.000]  The specific letters that I've been sending in the example letter that we're going to post is a sample letter of what I sent to my legislators locally in Fort Worth,
[13:59.000 --> 14:11.000]  and the letter basically had a copy of Chairman Bonin's response to me about we can't allow unlimited testimony, which was him being ridiculous.
[14:11.000 --> 14:24.000]  And what we can ask for is two things. Number one is that this is a public process. This is supposed to allow the public to err its grievances as well as provide the commission with useful information.
[14:24.000 --> 14:32.000]  Now, they say they're going to take written documents, but written documents, we have no way to know whether or not they're actually taken seriously.
[14:32.000 --> 14:46.000]  Through other sources, I've been led to believe that if we pose questions in our written comments to the agency, we ask, like, interrogatory questions about state commission on judicial conduct
[14:46.000 --> 14:56.000]  to the Sun's death commission that they must answer these in writing. I have no confirmation of that at this point in time.
[14:56.000 --> 15:05.000]  The issue would be to write to your state representative and state senator. U.S. Congress has nothing to do with this. This is entirely within the state.
[15:05.000 --> 15:18.000]  I'm going to be very pedantic about that because this is only a state issue. It's not about U.S. congressmen or U.S. senators. It's about our state representatives and our state senators that meet in Austin.
[15:18.000 --> 15:24.000]  Well, Ken, what can our state reps and our state senators do about this situation if they're not on the committee?
[15:24.000 --> 15:32.000]  They can put pressure on the committee chairman and or the speaker of the House and the lieutenant governor. There are two issues at stake right now.
[15:32.000 --> 15:48.000]  Number one is very limited time for public hearing. And number two, where are the public members? The public members have not been appointed, so I'm dubious that this agency cares anything about public process whatsoever.
[15:48.000 --> 16:01.000]  It looks like this is all just a dog and pony show, and they don't really care about doing anything at all. So the issue here is that that kind of sentiment needs to be expressed in the letters.
[16:01.000 --> 16:06.000]  Now, I always tell people, if you're going to write a letter about something, you've got to have the point of why you're writing it.
[16:06.000 --> 16:19.000]  So the issue here is no public members, short public testimony period, time period, three minutes, and there's five other, four other agencies being reviewed that same day.
[16:19.000 --> 16:34.000]  So we may be in a meeting room down there in the Capitol, and we might not be able to even get onto the stage to talk about what we want to discuss until 10 o'clock at night after we've heard from all of these other agencies.
[16:34.000 --> 16:39.000]  This is pretty typical process by...
[16:39.000 --> 16:49.000]  Okay, Kim, hold that thought because we're going to break. Linda from Texas, we see you on the line. Just hang tight there because we've got a guest right now.
[16:49.000 --> 17:00.000]  We'll take your call in a little bit. Folks, this is a very important issue. The Sunset Advisory Commission will be right back with Kim Magnuson.
[17:00.000 --> 17:09.000]  America is in trouble. Washington is a disgrace. Government has become too big. It's overtaxing, overspending. We need to change direction.
[17:09.000 --> 17:15.000]  We really need to change. You can't afford to make the same mistakes we've made in the past. Mitt Romney's reputation is a flip-flopper.
[17:15.000 --> 17:22.000]  He went the other way when he got paid to go the other way. There is need for economic stimulus. It's about serial hypocrisy.
[17:22.000 --> 17:30.000]  This election is about trust. There's been one true consistent candidate, and that's Dr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been so consistent from the very beginning.
[17:30.000 --> 17:40.000]  He seems like a more honest candidate. He tells the truth about what he believes, whether you like it or not. He's never once voted for a tax increase, never once voted for an unbalanced budget.
[17:40.000 --> 17:48.000]  Ron Paul's plan is bold. Cutting five departments is what we need. When he says he's going to cut a trillion dollars in the first year, I believe it.
[17:48.000 --> 17:53.000]  We don't like how things are going. He's tired of politicians. He's something different.
[17:53.000 --> 17:58.000]  Ron Paul is the one we've been looking for.
[17:58.000 --> 18:01.000]  I'm Ron Paul, and I approve this message.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 18:15.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method. Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:27.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:50.000]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner or email Michael Maris at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 19:12.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:12.000 --> 19:22.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[19:22.000 --> 19:34.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:34.000 --> 19:58.000]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[19:58.000 --> 20:05.000]  Okay folks, we're back. We're here with Ken Magnuson. We're talking about the Sunset Advisory Commission.
[20:05.000 --> 20:17.000]  And there is a hearing coming up on April 10th. And I believe the goal is to either get them to allow public testimony longer than just three minutes.
[20:17.000 --> 20:27.000]  That's nothing. Or to have them postpone the hearing while a decision is made on whether or not they're going to allow more testimony.
[20:27.000 --> 20:38.000]  I mean, this whole thing is just ridiculous. I mean, this commission, they have hearings for these agencies most of the time once every 10 years.
[20:38.000 --> 20:44.000]  And in this case, it's the agency on judicial conduct. Is that correct, Ken?
[20:44.000 --> 20:45.000]  Right.
[20:45.000 --> 21:04.000]  That's one of them. There are actually four other agencies. The State Preservation Board, the Ethics Commission, Higher Education Coordination Board, and the Lottery Commission are all up for examination for Sunset.
[21:04.000 --> 21:22.000]  Okay. And one thing that I just wanted to make a comment here. During regular session, when everything is so jammed and crammed in, their agendas and their schedules, because they're not in session, but once every other year, only for a few months at a time,
[21:22.000 --> 21:31.000]  they allow unlimited public testimony on every bill that comes up. And it doesn't matter if everyone's sitting in the room till four o'clock in the morning.
[21:31.000 --> 21:46.000]  This happens, or even 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 o'clock the next morning. But you've got a Sunset Advisory Commission. This is not during regular session. The Texas legislature is not in session right now.
[21:46.000 --> 21:59.000]  You've got these commissions that, I mean, you've got these agencies that come up for review by the Sunset Advisory Commission once every 12 years, and then, oh, but I'm sorry, we don't have time to hear public testimony on that.
[21:59.000 --> 22:03.000]  I'm sorry. That is just absolutely ridiculous.
[22:03.000 --> 22:23.000]  I want to correct your assessment. It's always up to the chairman of whatever committee you're hearing in the state legislature. I have been at committee hearings in which we've been bunched and only allowed one minute because there's no time to hear a subcommittee report or whatever if they've got other things that they're doing.
[22:23.000 --> 22:30.000]  I've seen that done. I've seen it when they specifically don't have a topic that they don't want to hear the public comment.
[22:30.000 --> 22:33.000]  Interesting.
[22:33.000 --> 22:51.000]  Yeah, so they'll do that. When I was trying to testify back in 2003 about the State Bar of Texas before the State Senate Committee on the Judiciary, they allowed 28 minutes of testimony by the bar chairman, the director of the State Bar of Texas.
[22:51.000 --> 23:02.000]  When I got up there and started telling them bad news, the chairman basically said, we're going to reduce the amount of time because we're limited in time down to three minutes.
[23:02.000 --> 23:22.000]  I basically said objection and he said, Mr. Magazine, you're not on the committee, but I said, I'm going to air the objection anyway. The objection is that you let 29 minutes go by to hear all of the puff piece about how great the State Bar is, but now when you get the idea that there's going to be negative comments, you limit the testimony.
[23:22.000 --> 23:36.000]  So I would like other members of the committee to deny the change in the rules and allow me to speak my piece, and that gave me 12 minutes. So that's what you have to do sometimes in order to get the time.
[23:36.000 --> 23:57.000]  Now, this committee, I have no doubt that this State Representative Dennis Bonin has been set up for running this, particularly for a couple reasons. Number one, he's not a lawyer, but he's their parliamentarian.
[23:57.000 --> 24:08.000]  I'm not even going to try that word again tonight. But anyway, he's their expert on how to finagle the meeting based on him being the chair and prevent people from testifying.
[24:08.000 --> 24:22.000]  So the idea at this point is, I don't think we're going to get any more meetings, any more time unless he actually commits that to writing. Nobody's committed anything but three minutes to writing to be, and that might change even.
[24:22.000 --> 24:36.000]  Well, Ken, if people are going to have to write a letter, what is the issue here? What do we want to tell this commission about the Judicial Conduct Agency?
[24:36.000 --> 24:50.000]  Well, the biggest issue is what we want to tell the legislators is that we need more time in order to bring out the specific sailing and details of what the agency has done or hasn't done as far as its process.
[24:50.000 --> 24:55.000]  And what are the failings of the Judicial Conduct Agency?
[24:55.000 --> 25:15.000]  Well, I've already started that discussion. The issue is, number one, all of it's done in secret. Number two, the members of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, several of them are judges, and they never take off their ministerial hat as being a magistrate.
[25:15.000 --> 25:26.000]  They have to be their magistrate all the time. If they hear that there's a criminal allegation somewhere, they have a duty to steal that and send it to the clerk or the court of proper jurisdiction.
[25:26.000 --> 25:35.000]  And that's not what they're doing. They're essentially setting it up and covering it up. We can't get into the specifics when we're castigating the agency.
[25:35.000 --> 25:48.000]  We've got to say that the agency is broken and either we fix the agency or we get rid of. And one of the problems, though, is they saddled the state with the secrecy is in the state constitution.
[25:48.000 --> 25:59.000]  So that's the fact that they got that in the state constitution is one way that they keep hiding all of the sins committed by the judges as well as the agency.
[25:59.000 --> 26:10.000]  My assessment of the agency, having watched it for almost 20 years now, is that it's worse now than it's ever been and that it covers up significant criminal longer.
[26:10.000 --> 26:26.000]  Let's talk about one particular judge that resigned in Dallas, Texas by the name of David Gibson. He was on a court of law in Dallas County and he had a case involving Mark Cuban, the owner of the Texas Mavericks, the basketball team.
[26:26.000 --> 26:35.000]  And the judge, David Gibson, solicited a bribe from Mark Cuban's attorney. Mark Cuban's attorney turned him in.
[26:35.000 --> 26:47.000]  But David Gibson wasn't prosecuted for criminal acts. He was allowed to resign without any kind of loss of pay, without any kind of penalty whatsoever except losing his seat.
[26:47.000 --> 26:58.000]  He didn't even lose his bar card so he went out and became another one of those shysters on the street screwing over people because he had no moral compass whatsoever.
[26:58.000 --> 27:06.000]  He was trying to solicit a bribe from Mark Cuban. But he had the agency did nothing about it other than getting him to resign.
[27:06.000 --> 27:10.000]  And this is unacceptable. This is absolutely unacceptable.
[27:10.000 --> 27:21.000]  We're in a situation where we have no tolerance for drugs, no tolerance for guns, no tolerance for almost everything that an individual person can do.
[27:21.000 --> 27:30.000]  And yet when we talk about officials that are in charge of making sure that the law works for everybody, that the rule of law is fair and equitable.
[27:30.000 --> 27:40.000]  And the due process rights are absolutely exact the same. These guys are not being held accountable at all.
[27:40.000 --> 27:45.000]  And this agency has failed for 20 years. It's time now to change this agency.
[27:45.000 --> 27:51.000]  So that's what I would say we need to talk about doing. And my report isn't finished yet. I'm still working on it.
[27:51.000 --> 28:03.000]  But the issue at this point is that anybody that's filed complaints, if they want to complain about how this agency operates, you can't get into the details of the complaint except for that there were criminal allegations.
[28:03.000 --> 28:13.000]  There was an affidavit that made those allegations and essentially you didn't hear anything that judged it and yet they let them off the hook.
[28:13.000 --> 28:23.000]  So what's the response? We file a complaint essentially to a secret source, a secret star chamber, and they do nothing.
[28:23.000 --> 28:30.000]  We're not even told reasons or information they collected. We don't see any of the evidence that they collected even though we're the complaint.
[28:30.000 --> 28:38.000]  That has to change as well. I think the complaint needs to have equivalent rights as a prosecutor in prosecuting the complaint.
[28:38.000 --> 28:55.000]  And we need to have, as a complaint in filing the complaint against a judge, we need to have the right to appeal to some process and actually have a hearing where we get to air our grievances in front of some panel in order to further our complaint.
[28:55.000 --> 29:05.000]  But at this point in time it's all just a big dog and pony show and then they rubber stamp it that there's nothing that we can do about it.
[29:05.000 --> 29:17.000]  Approximately anywhere from 700 to 1300 complaints, that varies from year to year and essentially only a handful of judges are I would dealt with, usually municipal court judges and JP judges.
[29:17.000 --> 29:26.000]  I don't believe they've ever removed a sitting appellate court judge and I think they rarely go after a district court judge.
[29:26.000 --> 29:34.000]  I think there was a judge at Genevieve that was removed from the bench not too long ago but I haven't kept up with all the case law on exactly what happened there.
[29:34.000 --> 29:39.000]  There were some issues with regards to how he appealed it to federal court too.
[29:39.000 --> 29:46.000]  All right, this is just amazing stuff. All right, Ken, just hang on for a second. We're going to break. Linda, we see you.
[29:46.000 --> 29:56.000]  Folks, if you'd like to call and discuss this issue 512-646-1984, I will have Ken's letter posted shortly on the website.
[29:56.000 --> 30:00.000]  I'll let you all know when I get that and I get that posted. We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:07.000]  A NOBLE LIFE, Oklahoma City 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[30:07.000 --> 30:11.000]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, what the government says is impossible.
[30:11.000 --> 30:14.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:14.000 --> 30:18.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:18.000 --> 30:23.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:23.000 --> 30:26.000]  The people that did the things they did moved on well what they were doing.
[30:26.000 --> 30:30.000]  Expose the cover up now at anoblelife.com
[30:56.000 --> 31:01.000]  and see what our powders, sieves and oil can do for you.
[31:27.000 --> 31:32.000]  In order to show our appreciation for helping keep the bookstore on the front lines of the Battle for Liberty,
[31:32.000 --> 31:37.000]  for the whole month of April, mention this ad and it will take 5% off everything in the store.
[31:37.000 --> 31:41.000]  That's right, you can get 5% off the latest and extremist materials.
[31:41.000 --> 31:47.000]  Get your Ron Paul Yard signed or shirts, one of the last copies of the Oklahoma City Bombing's final report,
[31:47.000 --> 31:50.000]  or Charlotte Isherby's Deliver Dumbing Down of America.
[31:50.000 --> 31:54.000]  So come on down and help further the rise of the Patriot movement.
[31:54.000 --> 31:57.000]  The bookstore is located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[31:57.000 --> 32:26.000]  5% discount excludes precious metal sales.
[32:27.000 --> 32:31.000]  Okay folks, we are back.
[32:31.000 --> 32:39.000]  I'm in the process of uploading Ken's letter and making a post on the ruleoflawradio.com website
[32:39.000 --> 32:44.000]  so that folks can download this letter and send it.
[32:44.000 --> 32:49.000]  At this point you probably want to fax it in and mail it,
[32:49.000 --> 32:57.000]  but definitely get the fax in because it's getting so close to the hearing which is on April 10th
[32:57.000 --> 33:03.000]  and we want some changes made before April 10th either for the hearing to be postponed
[33:03.000 --> 33:07.000]  or for there to be a lot more time.
[33:07.000 --> 33:13.000]  And we're not sending letters directly to the chairman of this committee because,
[33:13.000 --> 33:21.000]  as Ken said on one of the breaks, it's like shouting at the devil, yelling at the devil is not really going to change things,
[33:21.000 --> 33:25.000]  but if we send it to our state reps and our state senators,
[33:25.000 --> 33:31.000]  we can hopefully get them to put some pressure on this committee and on the chairman of this committee.
[33:31.000 --> 33:38.000]  Now I was asking Ken on the break, what about letting this committee know what our beefs are
[33:38.000 --> 33:46.000]  concerning the judicial conduct agency and we have until April 13th to get our letters in on that matter
[33:46.000 --> 33:50.000]  because there's a lot of people across the state that wouldn't be able to go to the hearing anyway
[33:50.000 --> 33:53.000]  even if we did get more time.
[33:53.000 --> 33:57.000]  There's people, listeners that live in Dallas, Houston, they have jobs that just wouldn't be able to go to the hearing.
[33:57.000 --> 33:59.000]  There's a lot of listeners in Austin who would go to the hearing,
[33:59.000 --> 34:03.000]  but folks are going to be able to need to communicate by letter anyway.
[34:03.000 --> 34:10.000]  And Ken, you were mentioning that you're going to compile a report and have it in PDF format so that everyone can send it in.
[34:10.000 --> 34:14.000]  So you want to tell us about that and just continue on with your thoughts.
[34:14.000 --> 34:23.000]  Well, I don't want them to send in my report, but they can reflect upon what I'm saying and see whether or not they agree with the issues that I've raised.
[34:23.000 --> 34:28.000]  Recognize some of the issues I'm going to raise are not necessarily going to be.
[34:28.000 --> 34:39.000]  Whether or not we can implement it in a moment's notice is a hypothetical where could we go with making this agency more responsive to the need of the public
[34:39.000 --> 34:42.000]  and actually old judges more responsive.
[34:42.000 --> 34:55.000]  The key issue out there with regards to judicial conduct and judicial corruption is they feel absolutely immune from any kind of action.
[34:55.000 --> 35:09.000]  It's public recrimination against the public complaints, public process, public castigation, public fines, public suspensions.
[35:09.000 --> 35:17.000]  This kind of thing would serve as a real deterrent to judges misbehaving and violating the law.
[35:17.000 --> 35:22.000]  Everything okay, Randy? I heard you sighing. Is this making you upset?
[35:22.000 --> 35:27.000]  No, that wasn't me. I wasn't even in the room. I went through it. I had some sound in the background.
[35:27.000 --> 35:30.000]  Oh, okay. All right.
[35:30.000 --> 35:40.000]  So in any event, what we want to look at is if we don't get the necessary changes, we don't see any reason to keep this agency because all it is is a waste of time.
[35:40.000 --> 35:53.000]  That's the greatest political boondoggle ever to find the state and the state's got the tremendous historical perspectives on boondoggles and waste of money.
[35:53.000 --> 35:59.000]  So the issue here is that we either change this agency and make it responsive to the public need.
[35:59.000 --> 36:04.000]  Some of the suggestions that I'm going to come up with is, number one, it should be sunset more frequently.
[36:04.000 --> 36:12.000]  That's one of the big issues. Why wait 12 years if we only get three minutes to talk about it? Why don't we do it every other year?
[36:12.000 --> 36:17.000]  Why not every four years? Why not have it required on a separate day?
[36:17.000 --> 36:29.000]  My complaints against Texas Parks and Wildlife back in the 1980s was one of the reasons why they have an annual meeting at Texas Parks and Wildlife Headquarters
[36:29.000 --> 36:36.000]  where people come down there to air their grievances in front of the Commission. So why don't we have that requirement for judicial conduct?
[36:36.000 --> 36:45.000]  Why don't we have them required to have four meetings a year, spaced apart, at least two months apart, put them in different places in the state,
[36:45.000 --> 36:54.000]  like in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, or maybe even Amarillo, where I'll pass up, and take public testimony,
[36:54.000 --> 37:03.000]  announce and publicize that they're going to have these meetings and anything submitted by the public at these meetings should be public.
[37:03.000 --> 37:11.000]  The Commission won't be able to answer much of the questions that people are complaining about because it's all secret,
[37:11.000 --> 37:17.000]  but that's probably the biggest thing is the secrecy needs to go away. Complaints need to be public.
[37:17.000 --> 37:25.000]  Public needs to know when judges are misbehaving and why and how, and as soon as that becomes public, then these people are unelectable
[37:25.000 --> 37:32.000]  when they come up in November for election, and that's what they don't want. They don't want that to happen.
[37:32.000 --> 37:40.000]  The last bastion of secrecy complaints in the state for professionals is judges and lawyers. That's it.
[37:40.000 --> 37:48.000]  Complaints against doctors, nurses, nail manicurists, hair stylists. That's all public now.
[37:48.000 --> 37:52.000]  It used to be at one time all of that was private. Now it's all public.
[37:52.000 --> 38:00.000]  So the issue here at this point is that this is the last bastion of secrecy, and the reason why is because they don't want to let the public know what they're doing,
[38:00.000 --> 38:13.000]  which is the courts are just right with corruption. So any changes to the agency needs to be towards the direction of allowing more public scrutiny,
[38:13.000 --> 38:20.000]  more public input, and it needs to require a process by which the judges need to make a response.
[38:20.000 --> 38:29.000]  Now, similar to police officers, police officers have to cooperate with internal affairs investigations.
[38:29.000 --> 38:38.000]  Internal affairs investigations requiring that a police officer cooperate. If they invoke the Fifth Amendment, they essentially resign from being a police officer.
[38:38.000 --> 38:44.000]  They can invoke it if they think that they need to, but as soon as they do it, they're no longer a police officer anymore.
[38:44.000 --> 38:48.000]  It's taken as adverse inference that what they've done is wrong.
[38:48.000 --> 38:54.000]  Some of these rules may be a little different depending on the specific police department, but that's generally the effect.
[38:54.000 --> 39:01.000]  It should be the same way for judges. If a complaint comes in and it's a verified complaint, notarized, and there's documents supporting it,
[39:01.000 --> 39:07.000]  an investigation is made, the judge's response to this investigation should have to be notarized.
[39:07.000 --> 39:15.000]  If the judge feels that there's jeopardy and crimes may have been committed and they don't want to self-incriminate,
[39:15.000 --> 39:21.000]  they invoke the Fifth Amendment, that should be an administrative equivalency to resigning from office.
[39:21.000 --> 39:24.000]  That would stop a lot of these problems.
[39:24.000 --> 39:31.000]  But at this point, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has a long history of not doing anything.
[39:31.000 --> 39:38.000]  A number of years ago, one of the stories that I've told is a woman up in Highland Village in Denton County, Texas,
[39:38.000 --> 39:46.000]  had a judge that was really raking her over the coals and her attorney couldn't figure out what to do because no matter what he did,
[39:46.000 --> 39:49.000]  the judge wouldn't listen. So she filed a grievance.
[39:49.000 --> 39:53.000]  At that time, they actually gave you hearings where you'd come in and talk to the commission.
[39:53.000 --> 39:58.000]  The commission would come up from Austin, have a hearing, and hear testimony that you would give.
[39:58.000 --> 40:02.000]  And then I think they emptied the room and then would have a hearing from the judge.
[40:02.000 --> 40:07.000]  So even the accuser wouldn't even hear what the judge's responses were.
[40:07.000 --> 40:13.000]  But this one time, when she went in, it had taken almost a year before they had the hearing.
[40:13.000 --> 40:19.000]  And the commission chairman kept asking her, well, you know, why are you filing this complaint?
[40:19.000 --> 40:26.000]  You're the only one to file a complaint. This is a very good jurist and very eminently qualified and very honorable and everything.
[40:26.000 --> 40:33.000]  By the time she got this hearing, she had collected 11 other complaints that had been filed by other people in Denton County.
[40:33.000 --> 40:40.000]  And when the chairman of the Judicial Conduct Commission heard about the fact that she had the other 11 complaints,
[40:40.000 --> 40:48.000]  her focus was now how she got those, not that the judge was a corrupt, devious SOV,
[40:48.000 --> 40:52.000]  it was that she got hold of these other complaints.
[40:52.000 --> 40:54.000]  And she did it and I'll tell you how you do it.
[40:54.000 --> 40:58.000]  You go out there and you look at other cases that look like yours that went bad
[40:58.000 --> 41:04.000]  and you contact the people that got the losing end of the stick and ask them what they think and they'll tell you
[41:04.000 --> 41:09.000]  and if they file a judicial conduct, you can get a copy of their complaint to the more of the merrier.
[41:09.000 --> 41:13.000]  But that's an example of what they did in the past.
[41:13.000 --> 41:16.000]  Now, they don't even have those kinds of hearings now.
[41:16.000 --> 41:18.000]  It's all been swept under the carpet.
[41:18.000 --> 41:24.000]  One of my colleagues at Dallas had filed a grievance against a district judge in Denton County
[41:24.000 --> 41:32.000]  and in Dallas County sent it down there and sent copies of the complaints to the Department of Public Safety
[41:32.000 --> 41:33.000]  and the Texas Rangers.
[41:33.000 --> 41:38.000]  There's a white collar division that they have for investigating white collar crime.
[41:38.000 --> 41:43.000]  And essentially when the investigating officer started contacting Judicial Conduct,
[41:43.000 --> 41:50.000]  Judicial Conduct told him that he had told the officer investigating it
[41:50.000 --> 41:55.000]  that my colleague had essentially broken the law by disclosing this publicly
[41:55.000 --> 42:00.000]  and the ranger called my friend and after about an hour they found out that that was not true,
[42:00.000 --> 42:02.000]  that he was fully allowed to disclose this.
[42:02.000 --> 42:07.000]  But that's exactly the kind of tactics used by this agency against the public
[42:07.000 --> 42:17.000]  to shield corrupt judges from any kind of recriminations or accountability.
[42:17.000 --> 42:20.000]  Well, it's clear that something must be done.
[42:20.000 --> 42:23.000]  And they definitely don't want to hear what we have to say about it,
[42:23.000 --> 42:26.000]  but we've got to make some changes in that regard.
[42:26.000 --> 42:28.000]  I totally agree.
[42:28.000 --> 42:30.000]  This is not our only shot at this.
[42:30.000 --> 42:37.000]  I mean, the next legislative session coming next year, we have every committee,
[42:37.000 --> 42:47.000]  every committee that is going to hear about Judicial Conduct will be a committee in the Senate,
[42:47.000 --> 42:48.000]  a committee in the House.
[42:48.000 --> 42:51.000]  Whoever is assigned to those committees, we need to go in and talk to them.
[42:51.000 --> 42:56.000]  All the members of the committee can talk about doing something about significantly changing this agency.
[42:56.000 --> 43:00.000]  That includes the constitutional amendment getting rid of the privacy.
[43:00.000 --> 43:04.000]  We need to do that.
[43:04.000 --> 43:07.000]  Randy, what do you have to say about it?
[43:07.000 --> 43:09.000]  I hear you sighing again. What's going on?
[43:09.000 --> 43:11.000]  Is this making you upset?
[43:11.000 --> 43:16.000]  No, no, no. You must hear my chair squeaking every time I unmute my mic.
[43:16.000 --> 43:22.000]  Yeah, I am sitting here looking at my Judicial Conduct site,
[43:22.000 --> 43:24.000]  and I'm frustrated that I don't have it up yet,
[43:24.000 --> 43:30.000]  but I fully intend to have this up long before the next legislative session.
[43:30.000 --> 43:37.000]  And what Ken said about contacting other people who have been screwed over by a judge is a wonderful idea.
[43:37.000 --> 43:43.000]  We're about to go to break, but I would like to touch on that when we come back on the other side.
[43:43.000 --> 43:47.000]  If I get the site up, we'll have a place to send them.
[43:47.000 --> 43:51.000]  And if we start sending people on a judge that's been screwing us around,
[43:51.000 --> 43:55.000]  I think we'll start getting ourselves some action.
[43:55.000 --> 44:00.000]  This is your friend, Calvin Davis, David Craig. We'll have a radio, and we'll be right back.
[44:25.000 --> 44:28.000]  We've got the page to not come in today.
[44:28.000 --> 44:32.000]  Bruce Shaw, as interviewed on KFOR TV, was also told by ATF agents
[44:32.000 --> 44:35.000]  that they had been paged to not come in to work.
[44:35.000 --> 44:41.000]  The ATF initially denied these claims, and now variously claim that one of their agents was in a free-falling elevator,
[44:41.000 --> 44:44.000]  which has been disproven, or that they had been in an all-night stick out,
[44:44.000 --> 44:46.000]  or that they had been in a golf tournament.
[44:46.000 --> 44:51.000]  As they try to sort out their lies, all we want to know is, did the ATF receive a warning,
[44:51.000 --> 44:56.000]  and if so, why did they not pass it on to others in the middle of all this?
[44:56.000 --> 45:22.000]  For more information, go to OJCFalminTruth.com.
[45:26.000 --> 45:52.000]  For more information, go to OJCFalminTruth.com.
[45:56.000 --> 46:02.000]  OJCFalminTruth.com
[46:26.000 --> 46:38.000]  OJCFalminTruth.com
[46:38.000 --> 46:46.000]  Okay folks, we are back, and I need to make a clarification here,
[46:46.000 --> 46:52.000]  because I've been getting some emails, there are some people who are confused,
[46:52.000 --> 47:00.000]  and they probably won't even be able to hear my voice right now, because they think that they can't listen online unless they log in.
[47:00.000 --> 47:04.000]  Folks, you don't have to pay anything to listen.
[47:04.000 --> 47:06.000]  You don't have to log in to listen.
[47:06.000 --> 47:10.000]  When you go to LogosRadioNetwork.com, just click on the listen button.
[47:10.000 --> 47:15.000]  The login is for people who want to participate in the social networking.
[47:15.000 --> 47:17.000]  So I just sent back this person an email.
[47:17.000 --> 47:20.000]  I hope she gets it so that she can log into the show.
[47:20.000 --> 47:23.000]  You do not have to pay for archives.
[47:23.000 --> 47:28.000]  The archives are free at archive.logosradionetwork.com.
[47:28.000 --> 47:31.000]  Or you can go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and click on the archive button.
[47:31.000 --> 47:34.000]  You can go to ruleoflawradio.com and click on the archive button.
[47:34.000 --> 47:36.000]  Archives are free.
[47:36.000 --> 47:37.000]  Listening is free.
[47:37.000 --> 47:42.000]  The paying login is for people who want to participate in the social networking.
[47:42.000 --> 47:46.000]  So they can network with the other listeners and participate in the forums and all this sort of thing.
[47:46.000 --> 47:53.000]  All right, speaking of the website, I do have Ken's sample letter posted on ruleoflawradio.com right now.
[47:53.000 --> 47:59.000]  Just scroll down below the top section where our photographs are in the description of the show.
[47:59.000 --> 48:03.000]  And you'll see right above the chip in for Eddie's legal defense fund.
[48:03.000 --> 48:08.000]  You'll see a little paragraph with a link where you can click and download Ken's sample letter.
[48:08.000 --> 48:12.000]  This is to be sent to your legislators, your representatives.
[48:12.000 --> 48:17.000]  Okay, Randy, you had some comments you wanted to make about the judicial conduct complaints.
[48:17.000 --> 48:22.000]  Yeah, I noticed you didn't mention the chip in to Randy Spear fund button.
[48:22.000 --> 48:28.000]  Well, what actually we need more than anything right now is a chip in to the LogosRadio Network telephone fund.
[48:28.000 --> 48:35.000]  Because what's been happening is that since everyone has been donating to Eddie for Eddie's legal fund,
[48:35.000 --> 48:38.000]  the donations for the network have pretty much dried up.
[48:38.000 --> 48:43.000]  And folks, we really, really do appreciate you donating to Eddie's legal defense fund.
[48:43.000 --> 48:45.000]  That's very much appreciated.
[48:45.000 --> 48:50.000]  But the network still goes on and we need to stay on the air and we need to maintain our telephone lines.
[48:50.000 --> 48:56.000]  It's getting more expensive every month and we're looking for new providers, but it is still difficult.
[48:56.000 --> 48:58.000]  The Internet bill is high every month.
[48:58.000 --> 49:00.000]  It does cost money to run this radio network.
[49:00.000 --> 49:09.000]  So, folks, please don't neglect your donations to LogosRadio Network and Rule of Law Radio just because you've given to Eddie's defense fund.
[49:09.000 --> 49:17.000]  Because, you know, things are really, really tight around here and we're having to dig into our own pockets as usual to keep things going.
[49:17.000 --> 49:19.000]  So, I just wanted to make that comment.
[49:19.000 --> 49:22.000]  And Randy, I'm sorry, your beer fund is just going to have to wait, dude.
[49:22.000 --> 49:24.000]  You've got to pay the bill first.
[49:24.000 --> 49:25.000]  That's okay.
[49:25.000 --> 49:32.000]  I had to migrate from the barley to the root and then I had to get off the root because I had too much carbonation inside.
[49:32.000 --> 49:33.000]  It doesn't matter.
[49:33.000 --> 49:38.000]  I was talking about the judicial conduct.
[49:38.000 --> 49:41.000]  I'm trying to get my slide up.
[49:41.000 --> 49:44.000]  It's pretty close, but I've got so many other things I haven't been able to get to it.
[49:44.000 --> 49:48.000]  I have some help for a little while, but I seem to have lost that.
[49:48.000 --> 49:57.000]  As soon as I can get it up, we will have a place to a repository for these complaints.
[49:57.000 --> 50:08.000]  And what Ken said about if you're in court and a judge is jerking you around, you know, one of the things I keep looking for are remedies.
[50:08.000 --> 50:13.000]  And that would be a wonderful remedy.
[50:13.000 --> 50:27.000]  If the judge is jerking you around and you start going to all the other people he's jerked around and get everybody going after him, that'll get his attention.
[50:27.000 --> 50:37.000]  One judicial conduct complaint does not like to have much effect, but if a judge gets half a dozen, you will begin to get their attention.
[50:37.000 --> 50:48.000]  And it's not because they want to police, but the judge will have the appearance of becoming too great a liability.
[50:48.000 --> 51:01.000]  And a number of complaints against a single judge will have the effect of raising his monitoring, which can cause the county or whoever's backing his bond to have some serious money problems.
[51:01.000 --> 51:19.000]  Now, you might not be able to get this fixed because it's right and correct and just, but if it's costing them money, if it's taking away from their general fund to pay more in insurance because of this judge, then he becomes a political liability.
[51:19.000 --> 51:23.000]  So I think that's a wonderful idea.
[51:23.000 --> 51:36.000]  And if I can get the side up, which I hope to have soon, then we can contact people that's been messed around with by the same judge and point them toward the site.
[51:36.000 --> 51:42.000]  And that'll make it an easy place for them to be able to create the complaints.
[51:42.000 --> 51:58.000]  And there we can have complaints that other people have filed concerning the same judge. So it'll make it even easier for people to construct complaints that will demonstrate patterns of abuse.
[51:58.000 --> 52:01.000]  This is going to be fun.
[52:01.000 --> 52:12.000]  And it'll also, when this site writes the complaint, it'll keep a copy on the site.
[52:12.000 --> 52:20.000]  So that'll be helpful. I'm talking with my programmer now to try to get him to fix Bargreaves.net. I need to upgrade it somewhat.
[52:20.000 --> 52:28.000]  It turned out, building these sites were a lot more complex than I had hoped because I have to do each state separate.
[52:28.000 --> 52:36.000]  But I'll try to get Texas first since we have the Sunset Commission that makes it more immediate.
[52:36.000 --> 52:41.000]  I should be able to get Texas up within a couple of weeks.
[52:41.000 --> 52:47.000]  And then we'll get Ken back on and we'll start funneling complaints to the site.
[52:47.000 --> 52:50.000]  What do you think, Ken?
[52:50.000 --> 52:57.000]  Sounds like what we needed to be doing for the last 12 years.
[52:57.000 --> 53:00.000]  Well, why didn't you do it?
[53:00.000 --> 53:05.000]  Well, I was busy doing other things.
[53:05.000 --> 53:15.000]  That's always the problem. It seems like everybody who gets things done seems to have more things than they can get done.
[53:15.000 --> 53:34.000]  But I have a very large complaint that I'll be filing with the commission. And I'm learning in doing what I'm doing to pay more attention to the politics of what's going on.
[53:34.000 --> 53:45.000]  So the original complaints here were prepared to file with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
[53:45.000 --> 53:51.000]  And we try to play chess, not checkers.
[53:51.000 --> 54:10.000]  In support of that, the way I get to the Chief Justice is because through the disqualification process, when you filed a disqualification on the judge and went to the head administrative judge in the district, and he mishandled it, so I filed a disqualification for him.
[54:10.000 --> 54:16.000]  And once I disqualified him, you're required to notice the Chief Justice of the Supreme.
[54:16.000 --> 54:35.000]  So if you're in an issue where the judge is messing you around, and the head administrative judge of the district doesn't disqualify him, then just move to disqualify the Chief Justice of the head administrative judge and you get to go right straight to the Supreme Court.
[54:35.000 --> 54:53.000]  And the head of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So in this case, I will be going to him with 38 criminal accusations as affidavits in support.
[54:53.000 --> 55:05.000]  And this is one thing that I will be suggesting people do, that judges claim absolute immunity.
[55:05.000 --> 55:11.000]  And they say absolute, but they really don't mean absolute. They want you to think they do.
[55:11.000 --> 55:18.000]  What they mean is absolute immunity from civil litigation.
[55:18.000 --> 55:39.000]  They have no immunity from civil prosecution. So I'm suggesting that if a judge fails to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[55:39.000 --> 55:54.000]  It's my contention that he has breached a ministerial duty and in the process denied you the full and free access to your right to the due course of the laws.
[55:54.000 --> 56:00.000]  And that's a crime in Texas. That's a class A misdemeanor.
[56:00.000 --> 56:10.000]  So you include that as an affidavit in support. You write up a statement of what the judge did.
[56:10.000 --> 56:20.000]  And then you attach a verified criminal affidavit accusing the judge of a criminal act and act and attach it.
[56:20.000 --> 56:29.000]  And then you send in the complaint with the your affidavit and the criminal complaint attached.
[56:29.000 --> 56:37.000]  And that's a bank shot because the commission will get it and they will read it.
[56:37.000 --> 56:47.000]  And there are two judges on that commission. And Ken mentioned this earlier. They forget they are judges.
[56:47.000 --> 56:50.000]  And if those judges forget their judges.
[56:50.000 --> 56:53.000]  You mean they forget their magistrates.
[56:53.000 --> 57:02.000]  So let's go in there and forget that being a judge makes them a magistrate as a matter of law.
[57:02.000 --> 57:07.000]  And they fail to perform their duty as a magistrate.
[57:07.000 --> 57:12.000]  Then we start going to the grand jury with complaints against the commission.
[57:12.000 --> 57:17.000]  Now that can start getting our attention.
[57:17.000 --> 57:27.000]  Because whether we get to the grand jury or not, the likelihood that we might puts them all in serious jeopardy.
[57:27.000 --> 57:35.000]  And it'll create politics. That's the best part.
[57:35.000 --> 57:39.000]  I'll be doing this exact thing to the Chief Justice.
[57:39.000 --> 57:50.000]  If he doesn't act on these 38 criminal complaints, I'll petition the district, the grand jury to indict him.
[57:50.000 --> 57:57.000]  And the reason for that is I don't expect to get the Chief Justice indicted.
[57:57.000 --> 58:09.000]  But in any pool of fishes, if you go after a bigger fish, he would be more than happy to feed you a smaller fish to get you to leave him alone.
[58:09.000 --> 58:12.000]  And there's two small fish in Cherokee County.
[58:12.000 --> 58:16.000]  There are about three or four. I'd very much like him to feed to me.
[58:16.000 --> 58:24.000]  This is Randy, Calvin, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig. We have got radio.
[58:24.000 --> 58:28.000]  I've lost my color page, Deb. You want to take this out so I don't miss it?
[58:28.000 --> 58:33.000]  Sure. And we do have Linda from Texas. Linda, we're going to get to you on the other side of the top of the hour break.
[58:33.000 --> 58:42.000]  All right, folks, if you'd like to call in and ask Ken a question or ask us a question about other topics, 512-646-1984.
[58:42.000 --> 59:01.000]  We'll be right back, folks.
[59:01.000 --> 59:17.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:17.000 --> 59:20.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:20.000 --> 59:38.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you'd ever experienced before.
[59:38.000 --> 59:58.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:58.000 --> 01:00:01.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  Childhood obesity is a hefty problem, but we don't need bureaucrats to solve it. Parents can help kids maintain a healthy weight by simply sitting down to meals with them.
[01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albert and I'll be back with the benefits of breaking bread with your children.
[01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  The family that prays together stays together. We've all heard that and studies show it's true, but there's another family activity that can help kids avoid obesity and eating disorders, sitting down to family meals.
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:05.000]  Research shows that when families eat meals together, kids are less likely to be overweight or pick out on junk food, plus they have 34% fewer eating disorders.
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  They also consume healthier foods like fruits and vegetables. Amazingly, it takes just three sit-down meals a week to see the benefits.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  So take the time to prepare a nutritious family meal and serve lots of veggies. You'll set a good example for the kids and your own health may improve as well.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:33.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  Take a right turn at the gas station and go two blocks, turn left on Main and it's the third house.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:46.000]  Oh, hi! Catherine Albert here, giving driving directions that involve left turns. Well, I still can. Details coming up.
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:15.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:24.000]  A super street is a road where the left hand turns are rerouted. Drivers instead have to make a right turn and then make a U turn around a broad median.
[01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  Well, this may seem silly and time consuming. Research shows a 20% overall reduction in travel time compared to conventional intersections.
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:50.000]  What's more, super street intersections have nearly 50% fewer reported automobile collisions and 63% fewer cases of personal injury. The super street concept has been around for over 20 years, but until now little research had been done to assess its effectiveness under real-world conditions.
[01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  Given the latest data, left turns may soon become an endangered species.
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:03.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:29.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:38.000]  How are we safe?
[01:03:38.000 --> 01:04:06.000]  OK folks, we're back. This is the rule of law.
[01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:07.000]  Randy Kelton.
[01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  Eddie Craig.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  Deborah Stevens.
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  We're here with our guest, Ken Magnuson.
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:19.000]  If you have a question or comment on judicial conduct complaints, the Judicial Conduct Agency,
[01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:25.000]  the Sunset Advisory Committee, this whole process, please call in 512-646-1984.
[01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:26.920]  We do have a couple of callers on the line.
[01:04:26.920 --> 01:04:29.000]  They're slightly off topic, but we're going to go ahead and take the call.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:31.000]  Linda's been waiting since the beginning of the show.
[01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  I believe she has a question about a DUI.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  Linda, thank you for calling in.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  Well, it's not about a DUI.
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:47.000]  I've received one in the past and my license was suspended and this was back in...
[01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:50.000]  Linda, are you on a speaker phone?
[01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:51.000]  Oh, sorry.
[01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  Yes, I am.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  Let me fix that.
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  Okay.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  So my license was suspended in 2006 or 2007.
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  I'm not quite sure which...I had a lot of traffic violations going on at that time due
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  to another situation.
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:20.000]  However, I was pulled over recently in a small Texas town and the officer asked me for my
[01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  license.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  I stated I didn't have one.
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:34.000]  He pulled me over because I had my expired registration sticker and my current registration
[01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  sticker displayed on my window and he said that that is why he pulled me over, that you
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  cannot do that.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:50.000]  I am trying to find a way to see and then in the process of things, you know, do you
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:53.000]  have a license?
[01:05:53.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  No, I do not and I was arrested.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  I was taken to the jail but I was on the phone with my husband at the time and he immediately
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  came and posted bond and I have a court date.
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  And what I'm trying to figure out is what I can argue that he should not have pulled
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:22.000]  me over for starters and that I do not need to have a license to travel anywhere in the
[01:06:22.000 --> 01:06:23.000]  state.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  And I have found lots of things through your prison stuff and things like that but I'm
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:31.000]  a little lost.
[01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:35.000]  I was hoping for a little bit of guidance.
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  Okay.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  Well, guidance I can give you and the first thing I want to guide you to not do is go
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  in and argue don't pull me over, I have the right to travel.
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:49.000]  That is not the correct argument to fight this issue in court.
[01:06:49.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Never has been, never will be.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  The issue here is whether or not you're engaging in transportation.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  You didn't have a license, you informed him, I'm hoping that you were not in commercial
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:04.000]  transportation.
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  That's why you didn't have a license.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  You're not required to have it unless you're doing those things.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  Then if he proceeded to do what he did against you, now you've got a federal lawsuit you can
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  come back at him with.
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  Here's the issue.
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:23.000]  You are not going to win your case at trial.
[01:07:23.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  Am I clear on that?
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:26.000]  Yes.
[01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  You may get them to dismiss it because you're too much trouble but you will not win at trial.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:43.000]  Not unless somebody like me or somebody out of my class just happens to be on the jury.
[01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  Okay, and they're going to make darn sure we aren't.
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  Right.
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  So what you have to do is you have to put up the proper defense so that when you are
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  railroaded through the trial court, then the appellate court is left with no alternative
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  but to overturn the conviction.
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  Okay, so it's a completely different defense than anything that people are actually using
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  and what they're using is incorrect.
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:23.000]  What I've come to understand about fighting these issues in court is court does not operate
[01:08:23.000 --> 01:08:24.000]  on logic.
[01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:30.000]  You do not fight fire with water, which is the logical thing to do.
[01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:35.000]  You have to fight fire with opposing fire.
[01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  They're insisting that transportation is what you're engaging in.
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:45.000]  You have to insist no transportation occurred.
[01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  Okay, it's fighting fire with the same fire, just a negative form of it.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:52.000]  Right.
[01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:55.000]  Okay, so they cancel each other out.
[01:08:55.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  That's how you have to do it.
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:00.000]  The defense is different than the right to travel.
[01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  The right to travel is a water argument to a fire accusation, and it will not work in court.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:17.000]  Do you think that the argument that I have found in much research in the transportation
[01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  code that there is nowhere that it states that you have to remove an expired registration sticker from a vehicle?
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  Okay, and therefore that the reason he pulled me over was invalid and he would not have discovered
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:51.000]  that even if I was engaged in transportation that my license to do so was not valid.
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:59.000]  The transportation code does not require you to have a valid registration displayed, only
[01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  a valid inspection.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  You do not have to have a registration sticker on the car at all.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:14.000]  However, they're assuming that they have the power because it's an offense to not be registered.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  They're assuming that they have blanket power to stop you when the registration is not current.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  That's not true.
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  Registration is in chapter 502 of the transportation code.
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  It is far outside of the provisions of subtitle C.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  Subtitle C is the only title where authority to arrest without warrant has been granted to the officer.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  And that all covers people just engaged in transporting people or goods.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  Right, that's true, but they are making the presumption that you are one of those people.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  Why? Because they think a car and a motor vehicle are the same thing and they're not.
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  They think traveling in your car is the same thing as conducting transportation and it isn't.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  No, it's not.
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  So the only way to reconcile their ignorance is to sue them for it.
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  You cannot win it at trial.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  You have to get it overturned on appeal and then you have to sue.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:29.000]  That's exactly what we're doing in my case to go after the city of Austin.
[01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:35.000]  They not only ignored all of the due process requirements that they're required to operate under,
[01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:45.000]  but then they turned around and completely denied me a defense on transportation.
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  So I have a cause of action.
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  You have a cause of action.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  You just have to know how to preserve it.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  If you go into court arguing right to travel, you will not preserve your argument.
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  You will lose and then you will also destroy your lawsuit.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  How close are you to the city of Austin?
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  Far, far away.
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  Far, far away.
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:19.000]  This is one of the reasons why I wish I had a way to internet stream the Sunday classes
[01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  where people that aren't in Austin can also learn from them.
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  We're working on a way to make that happen that we can actually afford to support.
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  But for the time being, you've got some learning to do about what the actual issue is,
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  but I'm telling you do not go to court and argue right to travel.
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  What about the registration thing?
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:50.000]  If you have no reason to really pull me over, then wouldn't that...
[01:12:50.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  Again, they're operating on the presumption that they're allowed to arrest for any offense they witness.
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:02.000]  They're using 1401B to support that.
[01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  However, something that has never been adjudicated in Texas that I've raised the argument on
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  is that the authority to arrest without warrant is specifically provided for in 543 of the Transportation Code.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  Therefore, it is local and it supersedes the general provision under 1401B.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  Since it is a superseding local provision by omission of the authority to arrest for all other offenses in the Transportation Code,
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  they must have a warrant to arrest for anything outside of Subtitle C.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  And Subtitle C only encompasses those things from Chapter 541 through Chapter 600.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:58.000]  Anything outside of that is beyond their power to arrest without a warrant.
[01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  That would include an invalid registration sticker because it's in 502, well away from Chapter 541.
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:12.000]  Yeah, that's far, far away from it.
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  Well, I appreciate your guidance and I will do some more research.
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:28.000]  Well, if you do want some assistance, I can do it, but it ain't going to be for free and I can do it offline if you want it.
[01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  But if you want to send me a contact email at Eddie at Rule of Law Radio,
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  I'll be happy to help you or get back with you and let you know what all that will be and how it will work.
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Well, Deborah has my email address because I was the person that was having trouble listening to you guys online
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  and I responded to her email saying, you know, you don't have to do that.
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  Yeah, Linda, just send Eddie an email because everything gets so confusing.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  I have so many emails in my box that come in like a dozen, a minute really.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:03.000]  I understand.
[01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  It's nuts.
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  Just send to Eddieeddie at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  We'll do it in just a few minutes.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:19.000]  I appreciate your time and I'm really interested in the sunset commission thing and I'm going to investigate further
[01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:24.000]  and see if I can, whatever I can do.
[01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  And by the way, I did as was suggested on your program.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  I donated to the defense fund.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  So good luck because where you go, I probably will end up following.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  Well, hopefully you and I, 10 million other people.
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  All right.
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  Well, thank you very much and y'all have a good evening.
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  Thank you, Linda.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  Thank you for your donation.
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:48.000]  Yes, thank you.
[01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:52.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:53.000]  Okay.
[01:15:53.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  We've got some other callers on the line, but I want to hold off on that because Ken and Randy had more to say about this whole sunset commission stuff.
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  Ken, you want to pick that up?
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  Well, yeah, I'm here.
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:26.000]  Yeah, I was just out on the sunset commission website and there's apparently, there's five comments that have been submitted to the agency by people other than two of them are attorneys and two are just one of them is a person who's
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:39.000]  apparently an independent insurance assessor and apparently he's run into a lot of problems in Austin and has a long list of issues with the agency.
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  All right, we'll have to talk about that on the other side.
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:42.000]  We're at a break right now.
[01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  Okay.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  Okay, Ken, when we get back, we're going to talk about this some more.
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  This is the rule of law streaming on the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com. We will be right back after this break, folks.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:08.000]  Capital Coin and Bullion is a family-owned business built on the promise to bring you affordable pricing on all coin and bullion products.
[01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:17.000]  In addition to coins and bullion, we now offer storeable freeze-dried foods produced by Augustin Farms, ammunition at 10 percent above wholesale prices,
[01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  Berkey Water Products, Give Certificates, and our Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked price.
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  We can even help you set up a metals IRA account.
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals, give appraisals, and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig next to the Ikebon Sushi and Jeanne Carwash.
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440 and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:03.000]  What's been the problem with phone companies?
[01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  High prices and contracts that lock you in for two years minimum, not FreedomTelephones.com.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  Freedom Telephones are designed around the concept and reality of patriotism, loyalty, and privacy.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  With FreedomTelephones.com, there are no contracts, no credit checks, and no social security numbers required.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:24.000]  That's why our name is FreedomTelephones.com.
[01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Finally, residential, mobile, and business telephones and plans that are private and never lock you into a long-term contract.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  Want a low price? Residential and business plans started only $14.99 and mobile plans started just $39.99.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Plus, every month you pay your bill, FreedomTelephones.com contributes to your favorite programs.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:53.000]  Don't wait. Support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling 1-800-600-5553.
[01:18:53.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  FreedomTelephones.com. Portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  I was blindsided but now I can see your plans. You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my head.
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:41.000]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  Hang on to me.
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  Okay folks, we are back. There are a number of callers on the line, and callers, we may not be able to get to you all tonight
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  because we do have a guest, and from what my call screener is typing to us, most of the topics have nothing to do with what we invited our guest on the show to talk about.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:20.000]  I mean, that's fine. Normally, we have open topics, but we do have a guest tonight, so folks, if we don't get to your call tonight, just please call back in tomorrow night.
[01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  We have four-hour info marathon on Friday night. There'll be plenty of time to take everyone's calls and discuss everyone's topics.
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  So, right now, we're gonna go back to our guest, Ken Magnuson.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  Okay, Ken, please continue reading these comments you were talking about.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  Well, it's just an overview statement for all of this. If the callers aren't calling in, it may be because they're not familiar with this process.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  Most people have never even heard of this commission. Most people are kind of surprised that there isn't even a state commission on the judicial conduct,
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  and they need to make themselves unique and educated about this because this is why the system is in such bad shape,
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  is because most of us are so busy with the tree right in front of our face that we missed the entire forest around it.
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  And the problem there is that if we help participate in helping shape the system as a whole,
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:26.000]  we're only gonna end up with going into court in whatever legal battles we might be involved in with one bad judge after another or one bad attorney after another.
[01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  The only way we have any kind of weapon to change this is through also political force and power.
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  The ability to tell our representatives that we're not happy with the way the system is, you guys created it, it's your responsibility.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  It's partly your fault that it's messed up, and you need to take responsibility for it, and you need to do something about it.
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  Another set of letters I just sent to you, Deb, was the two letters I sent, one to the Lieutenant Governor and one to the Speaker of the House.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  The same letter just addressed differently. It's about the public members that are supposed to be on the Sunset Advisory Commission.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  I'm at a loss to know other than they don't want to really hear any public comments and they don't want anybody asking those leading questions at the hearing where there's going to be embarrassing answers in an open mic at the actual public hearing.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  So I don't understand how they can have a commission fully functional if they don't have these two public members.
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  So this is starting to really smell bad. The whole setup for this judicial conduct review at this time with this particular commission, with this particular commission chairman, with the missing members,
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  with three minutes for testimony, you know, this starts to look like real bad government.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  So we need to start paying attention to this. We need to start making sure we collect information about our local judges and officials.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  When we go down to vote at election time, we need to pay attention to who the judges are, who's being run for election.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:11.000]  You need to pay attention to newspaper articles that are good, bad, or indifferent about the local judges so you understand.
[01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  And then if you have a problem, you can't just get on with your life. If you don't go out and air the dirty laundry of corruption in the courts and abusive power, somebody else is going to be subject to the same kind of abuses.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  And it happens over and over and over again. That's why we're in the position we're in right now.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  I couldn't believe when I saw the system back in the early 90s, when I was first introduced to a lot of this, that it could be this bad.
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  And then now we get to this point that's even worse, especially someplace over the last few years.
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  It seems to be that the judges are so arrogant that if you don't have counsel, they will frequently not give you any consideration whatsoever.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  So the issue here is that we're creating a dual system, the system being one for attorneys and one for the public, and the people in the public sector aren't given due process and equal protection under the law.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:34.000]  So we need to be articulate about learning the rules and educating our state representatives. The one thing I keep hearing from our state representatives, oh, that didn't happen in my district, or that happened somewhere else, or that's not my problem because I didn't study law.
[01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:44.000]  And this is an excuse that they always give when they don't want to do anything. And you need to hold their feet to the fire and say, look, you took the oath of office, you got elected to state government.
[01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  Now it's your responsibility to see that state government operates all over the state correctly, not just where you live.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:25:06.000]  So that's kind of the overview that we need to do, and we need to be collecting complaints. And the complaint process is that complaints that you file, you file those, but also getting me a copy or Randy a copy of those complaints
[01:25:06.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  and the response back from the agency goes a long way to providing us with ammunition at the next legislative hearings to say, look, here's this agency and the agency doesn't do anything about it.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  It's all rubber stamp for corruption and anything short of finding the bank account numbers or whatever.
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  You know, we need to have those complaint letters and response from the agency to show that this agency isn't doing anything. We have no use for the agency as it exists now.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  We need to reform this agency. We need to forge it into a tool that will hold judges accountable. And then the idea of a private reprimand is irrelevant.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:53.000]  Private reprimands. I don't know if anybody has even mentioned that. They do a private reprimand. What's that?
[01:25:53.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  It's like being scolded at by your friends at the clause that, you know, who cares? There needs to be fines.
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  There needs to be a process by which when a judge gets overruled by an appellate court and they say he or she abused their discretion, there needs to be a fine associated with abusive discretion.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  You abuse your discretion and you get reversed on appeal. There's a fine. The judge should have to pay that fine.
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  And if it happens the same way over and over and over again, you're removed from office for being incompetent.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  If it's an abusive process, then you need to be criminally prosecuted for abusive process. That's a crime.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  That's what needs to happen with this agency. The complaint process needs to be public.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  Most of these guys would never get in for a second term and you'd find judges that would actually be kind and, you know, smiling and friendly in the courtroom instead of these ogres that are omnipotent and abusive.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:58.000]  So now I'm not saying there aren't some good guys out there. There are.
[01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  I've run into a couple of them. When I run into an honest court and I can go in and make my argument and present it to a jury, I win because I have the law and the facts that support my case.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  That's why I'm there to begin with. And if I don't have a judge that's interfering with that process by abusing the rules, that's what we should have.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:29.000]  And I've seen courts where that works, where they treat a person even without an attorney fairly inequitably.
[01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  But that's not the norm at this point in time. There's become this degradation of the entire society ever since the corruption in Wall Street that we seem to find these judges just don't want to follow the law.
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  They don't want to apply it. And most of the time when I have a lot of close friends or lawyers that I talk to and get to collect the information from it.
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:28:06.000]  And when I talk to these people, most of the time, and they're friends, usually it takes, you know, 30-minute hour conversation or even several conversations before they feel comfortable to tell me the horror stories that they've experienced in private judge.
[01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:20.000]  So now when I talk to these people, it's about five minutes into the conversation, and they want to tell me the latest horror story, the abusive process, the violation of the rules, and so forth.
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  So we need to document these. People need to learn to bring in witnesses to watch what happens in court and to be able to fill out after David's and file a complaint.
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:37.000]  It has to be your court case to complain. Anybody can look in on a case or even just go through the case file and file a grievance.
[01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  So that needs to be considered as well. Anything else, Randy?
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  Well, the thing I'm looking at doing, you know, it's gotten so bad that it's clear that the judicial conduct system is not, or commission is not working.
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  But there is another avenue of redress, and if we can't get the judges to police themselves or get the government to police the judges, then we need to start holding the judges criminally liable.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  It's a little more radical than filing a judicial conduct complaint. But if we don't do something, we'll wind up in the worst police state the world has ever seen.
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  Wait a minute. We're already in it.
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  I think we're already there, rolling away.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  It's just going to get worse.
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  Okay, this is Randy Kelton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig, we live on radio with our special guest, Ken Magnuson. Our calling number is 512-646-1984.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  We have about three callers, and I think we should start going to the other side. We'll take as many as we can in this lesson.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  And thousands of my fellow first responders have died.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:21.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:25.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:39.000]  HempUSA.org has a revolutionary wonder food for detoxing the body and rebuilding the immune system.
[01:30:39.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Micro-plant powder can help unclog arteries and soften heart valves while removing heavy metals, virus, fungus, bacteria, and parasites.
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  Plus, it cleans and purifies the blood, lungs, stomach, and colon.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:54.000]  Keep your body clean with micro-plant powder.
[01:30:54.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  Visit us at hempUSA.org or call 908-69-12608 today.
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  More energy.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:06.000]  Stronger immune power.
[01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:09.000]  Improved sense of well-being.
[01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:11.000]  How many supplements have you heard?
[01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  Both of these benefits.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  The team behind Centrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on their promises.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  And Centrition does just that.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  Centrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  And organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  Plus, Centrition tastes great in just water.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  Visit Centrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  After you use Centrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:06.000]  Yeah, we want to check who you take with free toilet.
[01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:09.000]  Free toilet.
[01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:11.000]  Okay, folks, we are back.
[01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:13.000]  This is the rule of law.
[01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:22.000]  And we are going to be taking your calls for the rest of the show for the next two segments.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  Ken has pretty much said everything that's pertinent for now concerning the Sunset Advisory Committee.
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:34.000]  There's a couple more letters that I'll be posting on the website by the end of the evening,
[01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.000]  which you can get started on the one that's posted now.
[01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:44.000]  Ken is going to stay on the line with us if he has any comments he wants to add in to answer any of the caller's questions.
[01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  But we are going to go to the call board right now.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:48.000]  We've got Mike from Texas on the line.
[01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:50.000]  Mike, thank you for calling in.
[01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  What is your question for us tonight?
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  Well, thank you very much for answering.
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  I have a quick question, and then I would like to ask some questions about the Sunset Committee.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  This is more or less a question for the group.
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:08.000]  Let's see.
[01:33:08.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  I'm trying to work a process to where I can get to the grand jury.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:24.000]  I notified a district judge that ruled in a probable cause warrant based on perjured affidavits,
[01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  and apparently she may or may not have looked at evidence that would have disproved their statements.
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  So I'm trying to angle to the grand jury.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:46.000]  So I sent, she received criminal complaints today, spoke with an assistant to the district attorney in Travis,
[01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  and it was kind of interesting where she did bring up the grand juries in option.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:54.000]  Would you like to be invited to the grand jury?
[01:33:54.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  I said yes, I would, and then she immediately tasked me off to someone else when she found out that that was my interest.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  So tomorrow I'll be preparing a document package to the district attorney with criminal complaints against the officers and expect both.
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  Hold on, Mike.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:18.000]  You went to the Travis County district attorney.
[01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  Contacted my phone.
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:28.000]  Okay, contacted them, and wanted to file criminal charges with the grand jury,
[01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:32.000]  and they didn't tell you you'd have to give those to the prosecuting attorney?
[01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  No.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  This is wonderful.
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  Yeah, I've got that recorded.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  This tells me that what we've been doing is having its effect.
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  Because before I started hammering them, that's exactly what they told me, that I'd have to give them to the prosecuting attorney.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  So it looks like our pressure against them is having an effect. This is very good news.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  I say it looks like it, because they may get around to trying to shunt you away from the grand jury anyway,
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  but we certainly want to be kept up to speed on how this works out for you.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  Oh, thank you.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:24.000]  Well, initially they wanted me to contact the sheriff's department about a complaining document,
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  and I said no, I don't want to file a criminal complaint.
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  And they did ask me to elect a voicemail message, which no one responded back.
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  You know, some investigators supposedly in the district attorney's office who will perform an investigation.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  So I expect that not to go anywhere.
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  So I'm just going to notify the district attorney with two criminal complaints tomorrow.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:50.000]  She should receive them Monday.
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  Okay, hold on, Mike. Did they say they were going to send an investigator to talk to you?
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:36:00.000]  Oh, they didn't say they would send an investigator to talk to me.
[01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  They just said, here's a voicemail message that you can contact an investigator.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  Oh, okay, because when I would go to try to file a criminal complaint with a prosecuting attorney,
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  what they would always do is send me the investigator.
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  So I figured out how to handle the investigator.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  And if they want you to talk to your investigator, then you take two sets of complaints with you.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  One of them verified, the other not verified.
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  And when you sit down with the investigator, you tell him,
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  the first thing you ask him is, are you a certified police officer?
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  And they will always say, yes, I am.
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  I verified these.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  When you put those criminal complaints in front of him and ask him to verify in his capacity as a certified police officer,
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  now you get to see the chicken dance.
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  And now he's not going to want to talk to you.
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  He's going to want you to talk to the prosecutor because he's going to feel like he's out of his league all of a sudden.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  And when you get to the prosecutor, you give him the verified set.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  Okay, Mike, thank you for calling in.
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  Well, I was wondering, I do have some questions about...
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:29.000]  I don't want to take up too much time.
[01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:35.000]  I do have some questions about the Judicial Commission, Sunset Committee.
[01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  I was wondering, is it still too late to testify?
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  No, that'll be April.
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:43.000]  That's April 10.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  Go ahead, Kim.
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  April 10th, but didn't you have to file things by February 25th?
[01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:51.000]  No, they'll take written testimony.
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  I've got an email from their legal liaison and it says they'll take written testimony submitted all the way until April 13th.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  If you're going to make...
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  If you want to do a website, they'll say that if you want to submit written testimony and you're going to be there for verbal testimony,
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  they want you to give them 15 copies.
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:13.000]  Okay.
[01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:19.000]  So I would bring former judicial complaints that I had filed with the Judicial Commission?
[01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  No.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:31.000]  That's the problem is you've got to summarize what they did or didn't do and the fact that you can't get into the nitty-gritty of the actual merits of the complaint
[01:38:31.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  as much as the general overall sense of what the complaints were about.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:40.000]  If they were about criminal conduct, you could reduce it down to that discussion.
[01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:48.000]  If you get into arguing the merits of the actual complaint, you're trying to retry the judicial complaint now before the Sunset Commission
[01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:50.000]  and that's not the purpose of the commission.
[01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  The commission is to look at how the agency functions.
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  So you want to talk about how long the process took, whether they gave you any feedback, whether you saw a copy of the response by the judge,
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:05.000]  all of these things that would be showing good faith in the process.
[01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:10.000]  But if you saw nothing and just got this letter saying this doesn't rise to the level of misconduct,
[01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  then you're concerned that essentially they're sweeping stuff under the rug and that's what you need to focus on, not the actual complaint.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  Okay.
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:19.000]  That's what all my questions are about.
[01:39:19.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  You understand that?
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Ben, that it's nothing had risen to the level of where any action could be taken.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  Now keep in mind, Mike, what we've been talking about this whole show is the fact that they're only going to allow three minutes total
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  for all the public in general to testify at this hearing.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:45.000]  That's what the point of the show is that for people to put pressure on their state reps and state senators
[01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  to also apply pressure to the chairman of the Sunset Advisory Committee to allow more time for public testimony.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  But worst case scenario, we're just going to have to submit the letters regarding our complaints.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:01.000]  Only three minutes for the entire public?
[01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  Yes, that's what we've been talking about the whole show.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  No, three minutes each.
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  I'm sorry, three minutes each.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  That could be subject to being shortened as well by the committee chairman.
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  So the issue is the three-minute spiel must be the salient points about your written report.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  And I don't want to call it a letter.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  I want to call it a report.
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  Here's what the agency was supposed to do.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  Here's what the agency hasn't done.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  Here's what we'd like to see the agency do in the future, what we'd like to reshape the agency to do.
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  That should be what the focus of the report is.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  Okay.
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  I didn't mean to take up some.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  I know there's other people waiting.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  No, no questions.
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  All right.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  Thanks, Mike.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:41.000]  Thank you.
[01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Okay.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:43.000]  All right.
[01:40:43.000 --> 01:40:44.000]  We are going now to Chantel in Texas.
[01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  Chantel, thank you for calling in.
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  What is your question tonight?
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  Hi.
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:49.000]  Thanks for taking my call.
[01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  I know it's kind of off topic, but I had a traffic ticket question that I was wondering if you guys could help me out with.
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:57.000]  Go ahead, please.
[01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  I got a speeding ticket, but on the turnout he gave me, which is what he put in the system, he asked me down, was going six miles per hour.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  I was just wondering if I'd be able to get that to mention how it would go about that, because there's no minimum speed limit here.
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  Well, you most certainly should be able to because the complaint is going to have to say six miles an hour.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:34.000]  Why? Because the clerk gets their information that goes into the complaint, which they write from the citation.
[01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:41.000]  So I want to see a clerk of a municipal court do something stupid like accuse someone of going six miles an hour.
[01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:47.000]  Unless, of course, you're on the interstate, then the minimum is supposed to be 40 if it's marked, but I-35 isn't.
[01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  No, I wasn't on the interstate.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  So should I just go to the interstate?
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  Well, do me a favor. When you get a copy of that complaint, scan it in and email it to me.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  I have the ticket, because this is what he put in the system. They have their little printout thingy in it to give you on the spot.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  Yeah, you'll want a copy of that, send me a copy of that, front and back if it's got one, and a copy of the complaint when they actually file one if they ever bother to.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  Okay.
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:21.000]  So you're on the phone number, though, that you're in Austin, right?
[01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:28.000]  Okay, then I'll probably expect to see you at the class Sunday, right?
[01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  I do want to try to go to the house.
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  Because if you're going to fight it, then you need to know how, and that's an awful lot to learn if you don't know where to look.
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:41.000]  Okay.
[01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  All right, thank you.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  You're welcome.
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:46.000]  Thanks, Shantel.
[01:42:46.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  We're going now to Lee in California.
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  We're about to head to a break, but Lee, you can start off. What is your question for us tonight?
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  My question was, thank you for having me in.
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  Again, I'm trying to file a suit against the San Diego Police Department for taking my car for my possession with armed guns next to them.
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  I want to know how I go about getting compensation.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  I know that they felt to do process with me, but I want to know, why am I entitled to after that?
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  How can I go into a federal court and sue them?
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:31.000]  What steps do I need to take?
[01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  Well, you're starting kind of at the end of a long conversation.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Before we can talk about that stuff, we need to have some kind of an understanding of what the issues are.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Okay, we're about to go to break.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  This is Randy Calton, David Stevens, Eddie Craig.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  We're going into our last segment.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:55.000]  We'll see.
[01:43:55.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  I think we're taking mic.
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:43:59.000]  We've got Adrian.
[01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:01.000]  We'll pick you up on the other.
[01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:02.000]  Attention, listeners.
[01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, here with a special announcement.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  According to the Southern Poverty Law Center's new report titled The Year in Hate Extremism,
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  in the past three years, the number of patriot groups has grown by 755%.
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  Once again, making the list Brave New Books.
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  Also, congratulations to Austin's own ruleoflawradio.com for joining the ranks of the SPLC's favorite patriots.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  And shout out to Deborah Medina's weak Texans for making the list as well.
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:32.000]  In order to show our appreciation for helping keep the bookstore in the front lines of the Battle for Liberty,
[01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  for the whole month of April, mention this ad, and we'll take 5% off everything in the store.
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:38.000]  That's right.
[01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:41.000]  You can get 5% off the latest in extremist materials.
[01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  Get your Ron Paul Yard signed or shirts, one of the last copies of the Oklahoma City Bombing's final report,
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:50.000]  or Charlotte Isserby's Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
[01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  So come on down and help further the rise of the patriot movement.
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  The bookstore is located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  5% discount excludes precious metal sales.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:12.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course
[01:45:12.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:20.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:20.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:35.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:40.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:53.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:53.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  Some things in this world I will never understand, some things I realize fully.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:40.000]  Somebody's on a police, that police man, somebody's on a police, police.
[01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  There's always a room at the top of the hill, I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely left too.
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  They're wishing it was more than I could listen to them.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  They know that if they don't do it, somebody will.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  Okay, we're back.
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  We're in California and we're talking to Lee in California and Lee.
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  Before you can do anything or even get started, you have to determine what the causes of action that you have are.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:28.000]  Causes of action in civil law are sort of like penal statutes in criminal law.
[01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  You can be prosecuted in the criminal courts for violating statute and you can be prosecuted in the civil court for creating a cause of action.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  Causes of action come in a number of forms, they can be torts or contractual violations, generally they come under one of the two.
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  Either you have an agreement with someone and they breach the agreement and that creates a cause of action.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  Or somebody does something to you that causes you harm and that creates a cause of action.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:21.000]  But you can't just say the guy took my car improperly and it made me unhappy and caused me distress and caused me money.
[01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  You have to frame your claim under a defined cause of action.
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  So the first thing you have to do and the first thing I would suggest you do is sit down and write out a timeline.
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  This happened and this happened and this happened and this happened.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  And then go back to your timeline and fill in these many details as you can and have that timeline ready tomorrow.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  And call back, we have a four hour show tomorrow, we'll have more time to get to you.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  And the first thing we'll do is go over the details.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  Now, when you write a timeline, we don't want to hear any argument, we want to hear just the facts, ma'am.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  This happened, this happened, this happened, this happened.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:22.000]  And once you have that down and then you start talking about it, you will tend to go from one emotional high point to the next to the next.
[01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  And we won't do that, we will go from one legal point to the next to the next.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  So if we have the timeline, then we can tell when you miss a big place and we can fill in all these thoughts.
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:39.000]  Then we can give you a good idea of where you stand.
[01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  Cool, cool, cool.
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  Alright, so we'll do that.
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:44.000]  I'll do that tomorrow and call in.
[01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  I really appreciate it.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Alrighty, talk to you tomorrow.
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:48.000]  Thank you.
[01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:49.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:54.000]  Okay, we're going to go to Adrian in California.
[01:49:54.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  Adrian, what do you have for us?
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:58.000]  Hello?
[01:49:58.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  Hello?
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:01.000]  Adrian?
[01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:03.000]  Hello, can you hear me?
[01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:04.000]  Yes, we can hear you.
[01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  Go ahead, please.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  Okay, just making sure.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:12.000]  I had a couple of issues regarding traffic.
[01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:25.000]  Now, let's see, I went to trial and I'm at the appeal process now.
[01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  Now, I did not make the defense of being engaged in commerce.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:46.000]  So my question is how can I raise new issues in my brief?
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:51:01.000]  You can't raise any new issue that was not raised at trial other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:07.000]  Well, that's what the traffic issue is, right, the travel issue goes to.
[01:51:07.000 --> 01:51:09.000]  You mean transportation issue?
[01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  Not if he waives certain things by producing the license.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:14.000]  No.
[01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  If he produced the license, subject matter is going to be presumed.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:21.000]  It cannot waive subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  I know he can't waive it, but he can waive the impersonum.
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:34.000]  He can waive notice and if he can waive any objection to being construed as being in transportation,
[01:51:34.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  if he produces that notice or that license or fails to object to the usage of the terms.
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:45.000]  Remember, every traffic court conviction is a prima facie case.
[01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  There's never factual evidence to make the conviction, never, but they make them every day.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  And they do it with prima facie what is known as an irrebutable presumption.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:07.000]  By failing to object to the insinuation and usage of the terms that trap you into transportation,
[01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  you give them the presumption that you're engaging in it.
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:13.000]  Don't you do that?
[01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:14.000]  Go ahead.
[01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  You can still raise the subject matter jurisdiction issue, however, it is right in that by not raising this earlier,
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  you have created a much more difficult position than someone will have if they bring it immediately.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  And when they bring it immediately, the court will toss it.
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:44.000]  But you have a better argument on appeal.
[01:52:44.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  Trying to bring this up for the first time on the appeal, even though it goes to subject matter jurisdiction,
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  it's going to be very difficult because the court is going to want to know why you waited this long to bring this issue.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  What subject matter, what are you trying to argue as far as lack of jurisdiction or what other issue were you attempting to raise?
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:17.000]  Well, the only issue was probably lack of standing.
[01:53:17.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  Lack of standing based on what?
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  Based on, well, no jurisdiction.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  Lack of standing is not based on no jurisdiction.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:38.000]  Lack of standing is based upon the fact that the state can't show it has the authority to act under a particular cause.
[01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  That's lack of standing.
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  Lack of standing results in a lack of jurisdiction because there can't be an issue in front of the court
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  if the initiating party lacks standing.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.000]  Right. I see what you mean.
[01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  The only question that I asked the officer was, I think it was personal injury or violation of legal rights.
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:13.000]  Okay, hold on.
[01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:15.000]  You're in Texas?
[01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:16.000]  No, I'm in California.
[01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:19.000]  Oh, you're in California? Okay.
[01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  California, is it a motor vehicle code or a transportation code?
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:25.000]  It's a vehicle code.
[01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:31.000]  Okay, the vehicle code in California very clearly states it applies only to commercial vehicles.
[01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  That it is there to regulate commerce.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  If you read it, you'll find it.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  It's in there.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  Right.
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:38.000]  I've actually seen it.
[01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:40.000]  Okay.
[01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  But the argument is exactly the same as it is here in Texas.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  Not engaging in commercial use of the roads.
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  Okay.
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  Not in transportation.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:54:54.000]  Exactly the same issue.
[01:54:54.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  If you failed to object at trial to the prosecution's use of those terms, then the prima facie case against you is in the record.
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:18.000]  And unless you can show where that prima facie assertion was disproven or you objected to it or contains no evidence consistent with the verdict,
[01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  then the case against you is set and submit when it gets to appeal as far as defending it on the merits goes.
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  Now, if you can show that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction through some other procedural mechanism, such as lack of standing,
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:42.000]  but in order to get lack of standing, you would have had to made the objections you're already telling me you failed to make.
[01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  So you're not getting there from where you're standing.
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:47.000]  There's no route.
[01:55:47.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  So my best bet was to try and raise new issues and sort of see what happens.
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  You can't raise new issues.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  You have to find something that deals with subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  It's the only issue you've got now.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:03.000]  Right.
[01:56:03.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  Because you didn't object to the prima facie assertion of the others.
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  Okay.
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:22.000]  If I accuse you of stealing my car and you go to court and say you never stole my jacket, you object to me insisting that I stole your jacket.
[01:56:22.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  Guess what?
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:25.000]  Okay.
[01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  You're never trying to rebut the stealing of the car.
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  Right.
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  That's exactly what you're doing in these traffic cases when you argue right to travel or anything else.
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:40.000]  You're not addressing the root issue here.
[01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:45.000]  I'm not in transportation.
[01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  Right.
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  I see what you mean.
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  Okay.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  That makes sense.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  Now, I had one more question, which was regarding parking violations.
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:14.000]  The tickets that aren't, you know, if you leave your car parked somewhere in the end of your ticket, and the only option you have is to do administrative review where you kind of send your letter and things like that.
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  Yes.
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  You know, I'm pretty sure that that's not right what they're doing.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  I know that.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:23.000]  It isn't right.
[01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  But do you know why it isn't right?
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  I'm sorry?
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  What was that last thing?
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  I said it isn't right.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:32.000]  But do you know why it isn't right?
[01:57:32.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  Well, because I'm not getting my hearing that I'm entitled to or anything like that.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:51.000]  No, you're getting an administrative hearing, but what's the problem with a legislative or administrative only process that results in a determination of guilt and a punitive punishment?
[01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  I'm not sure.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  It hurts.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  It violates the constitutional requirements of no bill of attainder or no bill of pains and penalties.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  Deb got that one.
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:18.000]  Yeah, anytime you're convicted of something without judicial review because of administrative rules or legislative intent, that's a bill of attainder or bill of pains and penalties.
[01:58:18.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  And it's illegal.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:21.000]  Yes.
[01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  Okay.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  I think that.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  And it hurts.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  Yeah.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  All right, Adrian, at the end of the show, we're going out to let you go.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Folks, thank you so much for everything tonight. I've been awful quiet, so I'll let Deborah and Randy finish there. Good night.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  Oh, that's all right. Folks, please go to ruleoflawradio.com to contribute to Eddie's legal defense fund and also to contribute to the telephone fund.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Just send a general donation if you would please.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  We still need donations for the network.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Of course, there's Randy's beer funds.
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:59.000]  Oh, well, that's just the kind of gal I am.
[01:58:59.000 --> 01:59:01.000]  See you next tomorrow night, folks.
[01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:31.000]  BFA.org.
[01:59:31.000 --> 01:59:41.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:43.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:43.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at BFA.org.