[00:00.000 --> 00:05.800]  Should the United States return some lands taken from Native Americans as a step toward
[00:05.800 --> 00:06.800]  ending discrimination?
[00:06.800 --> 00:07.800]  The UN thinks so.
[00:07.800 --> 00:13.320]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albright and I'll discuss the issue of modern day compensation for historical
[00:13.320 --> 00:15.800]  injustice next.
[00:15.800 --> 00:17.520]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:17.520 --> 00:21.120]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:21.120 --> 00:26.120]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.120 --> 00:31.080]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:31.080 --> 00:33.920]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:33.920 --> 00:39.440]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[00:39.440 --> 00:41.240]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:41.240 --> 00:44.920]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:44.920 --> 00:47.360]  It's a dark chapter in American history.
[00:47.360 --> 00:52.800]  For more than a century, Native Americans suffered from land takings, genocide, and oppression.
[00:52.800 --> 00:56.640]  The U.S. government right those wrongs today, and who should say?
[00:56.640 --> 00:58.640]  The United Nations thinks it should.
[00:58.640 --> 01:02.760]  The UN Human Rights Council is commissioned to report on America's treatment of indigenous
[01:02.760 --> 01:08.240]  tribes, suggesting that the U.S. should return land in Arizona plus the Black Hills of South
[01:08.240 --> 01:09.760]  Dakota to make amends.
[01:09.760 --> 01:15.320]  We can't hide from history, and indigenous peoples are Americans who need help.
[01:15.320 --> 01:19.920]  Still, it's disturbing to have the U.N. telling us how to fix this wound to our national
[01:19.920 --> 01:20.920]  conscience.
[01:20.920 --> 01:34.400]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:34.400 --> 01:36.520]  Hold the cages and dump the crates.
[01:36.520 --> 01:40.400]  Burger King is improving the conditions of the animals it uses for meat.
[01:40.400 --> 01:43.440]  It's a victory for the animals and for BK customers.
[01:43.440 --> 01:45.080]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:45.080 --> 01:48.480]  Back with more on this whopper of an announcement next.
[01:48.480 --> 01:50.200]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:50.200 --> 01:53.840]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:53.840 --> 01:58.840]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:58.840 --> 02:00.360]  So protect your rights.
[02:00.360 --> 02:03.840]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:03.840 --> 02:06.600]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:06.600 --> 02:12.240]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[02:12.240 --> 02:13.920]  Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:13.920 --> 02:17.640]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:17.640 --> 02:22.360]  People who care about animal welfare are crowing over Burger King's promise to phase out breeding
[02:22.360 --> 02:26.520]  cages and crates for its chickens and pigs by 2017.
[02:26.520 --> 02:30.920]  It's the most sweeping pledge yet in the multi-billion dollar fast food industry.
[02:30.920 --> 02:35.840]  For years, animal rights groups have called for changes in the way livestock are treated,
[02:35.840 --> 02:41.040]  like confining animals in tiny pens with concrete floors covered in manure.
[02:41.040 --> 02:46.600]  With mad cow disease, plus undercover investigations into these inhumane conditions, the public
[02:46.600 --> 02:47.600]  wants a change.
[02:47.600 --> 02:52.920]  Isn't it great that consumer pressure can have an impact, even on the king of fast food?
[02:52.920 --> 03:20.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:20.480 --> 03:48.880]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:48.880 --> 04:18.680]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[04:18.680 --> 04:48.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[04:48.480 --> 05:18.280]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[05:18.280 --> 05:47.080]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[05:47.080 --> 05:53.520]  If all you got to do is watch these proceedings, understand what your rights are, and the disparities
[05:53.520 --> 05:57.640]  between the two will be glaring and obvious.
[05:57.640 --> 06:03.960]  It is absolutely disgusting how these people operate, and it's even more disgusting that
[06:03.960 --> 06:11.860]  they somehow manage to sleep at night justifying what they do and how they do it.
[06:11.860 --> 06:20.120]  No place have I found that to be more prevalent than in the Austin Municipal Court, the seat
[06:20.120 --> 06:24.000]  of judicial corruption in this state.
[06:24.000 --> 06:30.560]  And I literally mean this state, not Texas, but this state.
[06:30.560 --> 06:36.880]  Now what I'd like to go over is a document that is I am redoing, currently in the process
[06:36.880 --> 06:43.400]  of redoing for the seminar material, and this is the motion to quash the criminal complaint.
[06:43.400 --> 06:47.520]  And what I'm going to go over is some of the issues that I'm bringing up in this criminal
[06:47.520 --> 06:53.800]  complaint so everybody can get some understanding of exactly where these troubles begin.
[06:53.800 --> 07:00.040]  Okay, if you've ever tried to research the transportation code, the first thing you're
[07:00.040 --> 07:08.400]  going to find out is that the term transportation itself is nowhere defined in that code.
[07:08.400 --> 07:16.560]  In fact, transportation is not defined in any code whatsoever in all of Texas, nor is
[07:16.560 --> 07:20.200]  it defined in any code in this state.
[07:20.200 --> 07:24.600]  Now don't confuse this state with Texas.
[07:24.600 --> 07:28.320]  They are not the same thing, okay?
[07:28.320 --> 07:30.120]  So don't get into that presumption.
[07:30.120 --> 07:34.080]  They are not the same thing.
[07:34.080 --> 07:39.120]  Now that's going to be beyond the scope of the conversation tonight, but trust me.
[07:39.120 --> 07:46.520]  Okay, now one of the things that we're talking about is the systemic problems with the traffic
[07:46.520 --> 07:52.040]  court proceedings as they're conducted in these cases.
[07:52.040 --> 07:56.440]  Now one of the arguments we used in my case and that we're going to be using in all future
[07:56.440 --> 08:04.680]  cases is that first and foremost, traffic citations in Texas despite the general rhetoric
[08:04.680 --> 08:14.840]  of them being criminal or quasi-criminal in nature is absolutely false.
[08:14.840 --> 08:22.360]  Transportation is the actual proper name for these types of citations and it's the proper
[08:22.360 --> 08:24.760]  name for the actual proceedings.
[08:24.760 --> 08:31.320]  It should be called transportation court, not traffic court, and it should be called
[08:31.320 --> 08:37.200]  a transportation citation, not a traffic citation.
[08:37.200 --> 08:44.720]  One of the arguments we're making is that traffic is itself defined within the transportation
[08:44.720 --> 08:53.200]  code, therefore it is legally and functionally relevant only to the regulable activity of
[08:53.200 --> 08:56.200]  transportation.
[08:56.200 --> 09:03.600]  As I started off here, transportation is not defined in any law whatsoever in this state,
[09:03.600 --> 09:09.720]  not in the transportation code, not in any other code, including the occupations code.
[09:09.720 --> 09:14.240]  But that does not mean a definition does not exist.
[09:14.240 --> 09:16.600]  There is a definition for it.
[09:16.600 --> 09:22.960]  What matters though is that when you actually read the definition, there is no question
[09:22.960 --> 09:29.760]  that transportation means commercial use of the roads.
[09:29.760 --> 09:31.160]  That is beyond argument.
[09:31.160 --> 09:40.080]  The case law shows it, the definition shows it, plain old-fashioned logic shows it.
[09:40.080 --> 09:43.840]  There's just no question it's commercial.
[09:43.840 --> 09:45.640]  So what does that do for us?
[09:45.640 --> 09:52.520]  Well, right off the bat, we're alleging that if this case is to be treated as a criminal
[09:52.520 --> 09:57.280]  case, then certain things must occur.
[09:57.280 --> 10:05.720]  First and foremost, state must prove standing on the record that the alleged activity under
[10:05.720 --> 10:12.880]  which the alleged criminal offense could be committed was actually being engaged in by
[10:12.880 --> 10:15.920]  the person being accused.
[10:15.920 --> 10:22.480]  In other words, straight-up definition being the court only has criminal jurisdiction if
[10:22.480 --> 10:29.360]  the individual was engaging in transportation and committed an offense specifically defined
[10:29.360 --> 10:32.120]  and related to that activity.
[10:32.120 --> 10:39.520]  That's the only way this court can get jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter.
[10:39.520 --> 10:45.520]  The state can prove standing by showing first and foremost a regulable activity over which
[10:45.520 --> 10:50.240]  state had regulatory authority and jurisdiction was being engaged in.
[10:50.240 --> 10:56.000]  That's the only way that the individual can be brought into the court's jurisdiction.
[10:56.000 --> 11:04.200]  Otherwise, it's impossible to commit an offense under a regulatory act that you were not engaging
[11:04.200 --> 11:05.200]  in.
[11:05.200 --> 11:06.560]  See, it's common sense.
[11:06.560 --> 11:13.920]  You would think, unless you have a bar card, okay, I mean, what can bar really mean in
[11:13.920 --> 11:15.120]  this case?
[11:15.120 --> 11:17.960]  It certainly doesn't mean intelligent.
[11:17.960 --> 11:23.120]  I mean, if anything, it would have to be belligerent and retarded because it certainly does not
[11:23.120 --> 11:25.480]  indicate intelligence whatsoever.
[11:25.480 --> 11:30.480]  Otherwise, this argument would have made sense to a prosecuting attorney a long time ago and
[11:30.480 --> 11:34.840]  he would have begged a judge to dismiss the case.
[11:34.840 --> 11:39.480]  Because if he didn't, he knew full well that he was headed straight toward a malicious
[11:39.480 --> 11:42.280]  prosecution lawsuit.
[11:42.280 --> 11:49.200]  But no, these idiots don't have a clue, nor do they actually want to get one.
[11:49.200 --> 11:52.520]  There's too much money at stake.
[11:52.520 --> 11:54.400]  Way too much money.
[11:54.400 --> 12:00.760]  The city of Austin in 2010 stole over $64 million from the people traveling through
[12:00.760 --> 12:11.880]  Texas and within the territorial borders of Austin itself, $64 million in 2010 alone
[12:11.880 --> 12:23.240]  was outright stolen through fraud, malicious prosecution, and false conviction.
[12:23.240 --> 12:27.600]  The city of Austin got to keep 50% of that.
[12:27.600 --> 12:33.320]  The state, so-called, got the other 50%.
[12:33.320 --> 12:39.360]  So how do you get relief when both of the people that you have to go through to get
[12:39.360 --> 12:45.960]  relief, or both entities, I should say, that you have to go through to get that relief
[12:45.960 --> 12:49.480]  are profiteering from your misery?
[12:49.480 --> 12:56.520]  They don't want to give you relief because they don't get a profit if they give you relief.
[12:56.520 --> 13:02.920]  That's the entire reason why these cases, if unsuccessfully argued with relevant pertinent
[13:02.920 --> 13:08.520]  facts as to how they're instituted in the first place, always get shot down in the higher
[13:08.520 --> 13:09.520]  courts.
[13:09.520 --> 13:16.480]  We're the ones that are guilty of not knowing how to properly argue and rebut the assertion,
[13:16.480 --> 13:22.080]  but we need to understand what they have to prove and how they have to do it so that we
[13:22.080 --> 13:25.080]  can make that rebuttal.
[13:25.080 --> 13:30.280]  Now not only do we assert that there was no transportation taking place, but we're also
[13:30.280 --> 13:37.160]  going to go directly after the complaint because the complaint is falsely alleging facts that
[13:37.160 --> 13:45.000]  relate specifically to that regular activity, and that regular activity is not being engaged
[13:45.000 --> 13:46.000]  in.
[13:46.000 --> 13:50.200]  Now let me give you an example of a case I'm working on right now.
[13:50.200 --> 13:59.520]  In this particular case, the officer wrote on the ticket no question whatsoever that
[13:59.520 --> 14:04.840]  this was not a commercial vehicle.
[14:04.840 --> 14:15.240]  Now right there the officer is admitting that no commercial activity was taking place.
[14:15.240 --> 14:20.920]  Now it even goes on carrying materials.
[14:20.920 --> 14:24.480]  This says commercial vehicle, the officer circles no.
[14:24.480 --> 14:30.360]  Carrying materials, non-hazardous, it doesn't even show what materials.
[14:30.360 --> 14:36.840]  How can it be a commercial vehicle and still be carrying materials, hazardous or non-hazardous?
[14:36.840 --> 14:42.120]  It can't be a vehicle if it's not commercial.
[14:42.120 --> 14:48.480]  If you're not engaging in transportation, there is no vehicle.
[14:48.480 --> 14:53.040]  So the ticket itself says that the ticket was falsely issued, which is one of the things
[14:53.040 --> 14:54.760]  we're going to be bringing up.
[14:54.760 --> 15:00.360]  And if you check most of these tickets, they have a block on it for commercial or non-commercial.
[15:00.360 --> 15:05.360]  Normally the officer will check it stating that it was non-commercial, which means the
[15:05.360 --> 15:11.480]  officer is now admitting awareness of perpetrating fraud.
[15:11.480 --> 15:14.440]  And we're going to use that to our advantage.
[15:14.440 --> 15:21.360]  Now what we should be looking at in relation to these cases is where does the subject matter
[15:21.360 --> 15:22.960]  jurisdiction come from?
[15:22.960 --> 15:25.800]  Well there's a statement in this that's very straightforward.
[15:25.800 --> 15:30.880]  For there to be subject matter and personal jurisdiction in such cases, there must first
[15:30.880 --> 15:36.920]  be properly admissible evidence that the accused individual was actually engaging in a regular
[15:36.920 --> 15:44.880]  criminal activity to which the alleged offense pertains, i.e. transportation.
[15:44.880 --> 15:50.320]  If it's a criminal offense, then they're supposed to be doing certain things.
[15:50.320 --> 15:57.520]  Here's our argument and evidence that the case is not criminal at all.
[15:57.520 --> 16:04.320]  First and foremost, we have the right to assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions.
[16:04.320 --> 16:08.040]  It's written into Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution.
[16:08.040 --> 16:14.440]  It is codified and statuteed Article 1.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[16:14.440 --> 16:20.720]  But in these traffic cases, they're telling us we're being charged with a criminal act
[16:20.720 --> 16:27.720]  and yet they are telling us that we are being denied assistance of counsel.
[16:27.720 --> 16:34.280]  Now if we are being denied assistance of counsel, and this is a criminal proceeding, that violates
[16:34.280 --> 16:40.720]  Article 1, Section 10 and Article 1.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, okay, and the
[16:40.720 --> 16:43.000]  Texas Constitution Bill of Rights.
[16:43.000 --> 16:47.520]  In Article 1, Section 29 says they can't write a law that does that.
[16:47.520 --> 16:51.160]  Alright folks, we're going to go to break, we'll pick this discussion up on the other
[16:51.160 --> 16:52.160]  side.
[16:52.160 --> 16:53.760]  This is Eddie Craig, Randy Cowton, Debra Stevens.
[16:53.760 --> 17:00.880]  This is our Monday Night Traffic Show, we'll be right back after the break.
[17:00.880 --> 17:05.040]  All Coin and Bullion is a family-owned business built on the promise to bring you affordable
[17:05.040 --> 17:08.120]  pricing on all Coin and Bullion products.
[17:08.120 --> 17:12.560]  In addition to coins and bullions, we now offer storeable freeze-dried foods produced
[17:12.560 --> 17:18.560]  by Augustine Farms, ammunition at 10% above wholesale prices, Berkey Water Products, gift
[17:18.560 --> 17:23.880]  certificates, and our Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked
[17:23.880 --> 17:24.880]  price.
[17:24.880 --> 17:27.800]  We can even help you set up a metals IRA account.
[17:27.800 --> 17:32.320]  Call us at 512-646-644-0 for more details.
[17:32.320 --> 17:37.440]  As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals, give appraisals, and cater to those
[17:37.440 --> 17:39.840]  with all sizes of coin collections.
[17:39.840 --> 17:44.920]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig, next
[17:44.920 --> 17:47.600]  to the Ikebond Sushi and Genie Car Wash.
[17:47.600 --> 17:51.280]  We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[17:51.280 --> 17:57.560]  Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-644-0 and say you heard about us
[17:57.560 --> 18:00.720]  on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[18:00.720 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 18:09.480]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method.
[18:09.480 --> 18:13.840]  Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[18:13.840 --> 18:14.840]  can win two.
[18:14.840 --> 18:19.680]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.680 --> 18:25.120]  civil rights statute, what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, how to
[18:25.120 --> 18:27.120]  answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt to the court, how to get money, how to
[18:27.120 --> 18:31.560]  get debt collectors, how to view credit reports, how to turn the financial tables on them and
[18:31.560 --> 18:34.240]  make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.240 --> 18:39.120]  The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.120 --> 18:41.480]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.480 --> 18:47.040]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner
[18:47.040 --> 18:49.960]  or email michaelmearris at yahoo.com.
[18:49.960 --> 18:57.680]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:57.680 --> 19:24.040]  To learn how to stop debt collectors next, look again, we ask the question, don't know
[19:24.040 --> 19:32.240]  where you are, but just look well again, I'm ready to go now, but I'm sorry folks, we
[19:32.240 --> 19:35.240]  are back, this is rule of law radio.
[19:35.240 --> 19:41.440]  Okay, I see you guys there on the color board, if y'all will hang on, Chris and Roy, I will
[19:41.440 --> 19:45.200]  get to y'all here shortly, but I need to finish this discussion.
[19:45.200 --> 19:49.760]  Now along the lines of the other things that we need to know about this is we're going
[19:49.760 --> 19:54.520]  after the criminal complaint because when the state already is aware that the regular
[19:54.520 --> 20:00.520]  boy activity was not being engaged in, which we're filing an affidavit of not in transportation
[20:00.520 --> 20:06.800]  or commerce, so that fact is in the case, the fact is stated on the citation itself
[20:06.800 --> 20:15.240]  that this was a non-commercial stop which makes the stop illegal on its face, then what we're
[20:15.240 --> 20:22.320]  doing is we're saying that the state is entering into this in 100% bad faith.
[20:22.320 --> 20:29.160]  The state is already aware that the regular activity was not being engaged in, the citation
[20:29.160 --> 20:32.240]  itself proves that.
[20:32.240 --> 20:39.920]  They don't make any effort to address or rebut the affidavit, now until state proves
[20:39.920 --> 20:47.280]  the regular activity was being engaged in, then they didn't prove standing, therefore
[20:47.280 --> 20:55.480]  this cannot be a criminal case giving state any standing to proceed.
[20:55.480 --> 21:00.720]  Since this is a civil case, or as the courts call it, a non-case, which by definition
[21:00.720 --> 21:08.520]  is civil, then what that means is that an unrebudded affidavit in a civil case stands
[21:08.520 --> 21:13.280]  as an admission of fact and truth.
[21:13.280 --> 21:18.640]  Because that affidavit exists and the state makes no effort to address it, that's going
[21:18.640 --> 21:24.040]  to be in the record asserting our points up front that this is non-commercial, I was not
[21:24.040 --> 21:28.880]  engaging in transportation and there's no evidence or testimony or no actual evidence
[21:28.880 --> 21:37.240]  to the contrary and we will rebut any testimony at trial that tries to say there is.
[21:37.240 --> 21:41.680]  So when we go down through this, the things that we know prevent it from being a criminal
[21:41.680 --> 21:43.240]  case.
[21:43.240 --> 21:49.600]  They're trying to deny us assistance of counsel that violates Article 1.05, or I'm sorry,
[21:49.600 --> 21:55.080]  Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution and Article 1.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:55.080 --> 21:59.800]  They don't follow any of the procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:59.800 --> 22:04.200]  They never serve you with a copy of the complaint and the charging instrument as required by
[22:04.200 --> 22:16.680]  45.018b, 45.019f, 1.14, Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1, Section 10, Texas Constitution.
[22:16.680 --> 22:23.560]  They never give you a written copy of both the complaint and the information that they're
[22:23.560 --> 22:25.180]  required to have.
[22:25.180 --> 22:35.480]  No information violates 2.05 Code of Criminal Procedure, violates 27.01 Code of Criminal
[22:35.480 --> 22:42.320]  Procedure, 22.20, 22, 23, you name it, not to mention Article 1, Section 12b, or I'm
[22:42.320 --> 22:47.880]  sorry, Article 3, 5, Section 12b of the Texas Constitution, Article 5, Section 12b.
[22:47.880 --> 22:52.200]  Sorry, I've got so many thoughts running through my head right now, it's not even funny.
[22:52.200 --> 22:57.760]  But in any case, all these are violations of a protected right.
[22:57.760 --> 23:04.960]  The courts are trying to create decisions to remove our right to assistance of counsel
[23:04.960 --> 23:08.000]  in a criminal proceeding.
[23:08.000 --> 23:13.480]  Article 1, Section 29 of the Texas Bill of Rights says they can't do that.
[23:13.480 --> 23:21.560]  Any decision, any enactment, or any exercise of power by any Department of Government is
[23:21.560 --> 23:28.920]  automatically null and void according to Article 1, Section 29 if it violates any provision
[23:28.920 --> 23:38.200]  of the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights or any other provision of the Texas Constitution.
[23:38.200 --> 23:43.240]  Now there is absolutely no question that when the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure
[23:43.240 --> 23:50.560]  says all criminal prosecutions, that if the state is going to define this as a criminal
[23:50.560 --> 23:59.240]  prosecution, then that right is inherent and may not be revoked.
[23:59.240 --> 24:04.560]  Yet they're telling us we don't have the right to assistance of counsel.
[24:04.560 --> 24:09.240]  If we want counsel, we must pay for it.
[24:09.240 --> 24:15.760]  That put people as the very definition of a civil proceeding right to counsel.
[24:15.760 --> 24:18.680]  Not a criminal.
[24:18.680 --> 24:20.600]  It doesn't prove standing.
[24:20.600 --> 24:25.160]  Another indication this is not a criminal case.
[24:25.160 --> 24:32.920]  They do not provide an Article 15.17 registration hearing.
[24:32.920 --> 24:36.960]  That's a required proceeding in a criminal case.
[24:36.960 --> 24:43.920]  15.17G says it's required, but they don't do it.
[24:43.920 --> 24:48.920]  So if they're skipping over that, obviously this is not a criminal case.
[24:48.920 --> 24:57.440]  If they're not providing us notice in compliance with 45.018B of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[24:57.440 --> 25:08.880]  and 45.019F, 25.04 which violates the right to have a copy of the written instrument,
[25:08.880 --> 25:14.040]  then obviously they're completely ignoring the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[25:14.040 --> 25:21.720]  Just yet more indications this is not a criminal case.
[25:21.720 --> 25:29.320]  And by far their largest downfall is their insistence that notice not be provided regardless
[25:29.320 --> 25:32.280]  of the type of case it is.
[25:32.280 --> 25:38.560]  Notice is mandatory to the accused under any criminal or civil proceeding.
[25:38.560 --> 25:43.200]  And yet the courts in the prosecution are making it the rule of thumb that notice is
[25:43.200 --> 25:46.960]  not required to be provided.
[25:46.960 --> 25:51.520]  So the question then comes is, well, if we're not getting any of the benefits of either
[25:51.520 --> 25:57.680]  a civil or criminal proceeding, then just exactly what the heck are they doing?
[25:57.680 --> 26:06.080]  Well, the answer there is not truly administrative either because there are certain rules and
[26:06.080 --> 26:13.560]  procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act that none of these people are following.
[26:13.560 --> 26:19.280]  The problem for them is that they are bound by the Administrative Procedures Act if they're
[26:19.280 --> 26:23.000]  acting in an administrative capacity.
[26:23.000 --> 26:28.080]  If there is not a specific authority vested in this agency or in this court or in any
[26:28.080 --> 26:36.400]  other entity of government to act in an administrative capacity, their acts are null and void.
[26:36.400 --> 26:42.600]  And if that authority actually does exist, then it must be executed in compliance with
[26:42.600 --> 26:48.380]  the Administrative Procedures Act.
[26:48.380 --> 26:52.760]  So all you have to do is read these three things, the rules of civil procedure, the
[26:52.760 --> 26:57.880]  Code of Criminal Procedure and the Administrative Procedures Act, and you will very quickly
[26:57.880 --> 27:07.080]  find out that these lower courts that call themselves traffic courts and JP courts are
[27:07.080 --> 27:12.560]  not abiding by any rules whatsoever.
[27:12.560 --> 27:19.120]  They pick and choose, otherwise known as cherry picking, what they want to do and how they
[27:19.120 --> 27:20.600]  want to do it.
[27:20.600 --> 27:26.440]  And if the particular procedural rule from wherever they got it doesn't fit the way
[27:26.440 --> 27:31.520]  they want to do business, they simply throw it out or change it all together to suit their
[27:31.520 --> 27:34.560]  own ends and needs.
[27:34.560 --> 27:44.560]  And I simply do not find any law anywhere that gives these people that authority.
[27:44.560 --> 27:51.720]  Either they must play by the rules as enacted by the legislature or they have no authority
[27:51.720 --> 27:56.360]  to act at all.
[27:56.360 --> 28:03.800]  Now this goes hand in hand with what we did on the show Thursday night when I went over
[28:03.800 --> 28:10.440]  the Article III legislative requirements regarding the state of emergency they're using to pass
[28:10.440 --> 28:15.200]  all new laws and have been for several decades.
[28:15.200 --> 28:22.440]  We studied it in class this past Sunday, but when you read the actual emergency clause
[28:22.440 --> 28:28.320]  that they're putting on the bottom of all the new enacted bills, it says very clearly
[28:28.320 --> 28:38.360]  that a state of emergency exists due to the crowded calendars of each house thus creating
[28:38.360 --> 28:42.720]  an emergency.
[28:42.720 --> 28:51.280]  Now when you go read Article III, Section 32, it's got two pieces to it.
[28:51.280 --> 28:58.080]  One stating that no bill shall have the force and effect of law unless it has been read
[28:58.080 --> 29:05.520]  on the floor of each house for three several days before being voted on.
[29:05.520 --> 29:13.920]  In 1999 they added a second section to that particular section of Article III.
[29:13.920 --> 29:19.800]  That second section says but a four-fifths majority of the house in which the bill is
[29:19.800 --> 29:26.480]  currently being heard may vote to suspend this rule.
[29:26.480 --> 29:33.480]  Now when you take Section 32 of Article III and you look at it in connection with Section
[29:33.480 --> 29:41.600]  62 of Article III, you'll notice that all the new section did was create the numerical
[29:41.600 --> 29:47.320]  majority by which the house must vote in agreement for fifths.
[29:47.320 --> 29:52.040]  All right, we'll get back on this on the other side, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[29:52.040 --> 29:53.880]  Chris, Roy, I see you still there.
[29:53.880 --> 29:54.880]  Please hang on.
[29:54.880 --> 29:56.400]  We'll pick you up here after we get this done.
[29:56.400 --> 30:00.440]  We'll be right back after the break.
[30:00.440 --> 30:05.800]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature
[30:05.800 --> 30:06.800]  of terrorism.
[30:06.800 --> 30:10.680]  Based on the damage patting to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[30:10.680 --> 30:14.400]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:14.400 --> 30:18.160]  The decisions made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:18.160 --> 30:22.880]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:22.880 --> 30:26.560]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[30:26.560 --> 30:31.280]  Expose the cover up now at anobleye.com.
[30:31.280 --> 30:37.720]  HempUSA.org has a revolutionary wonder food for detoxing the body and rebuilding the immune
[30:37.720 --> 30:38.720]  system.
[30:38.720 --> 30:43.600]  Micro-plant powder can help unclog arteries and soften heart valves while removing heavy
[30:43.600 --> 30:46.760]  metals, virus, fungus, bacteria, and parasites.
[30:46.760 --> 30:50.920]  Plus, it cleans and purifies the blood, lungs, stomach, and colon.
[30:50.920 --> 30:54.200]  Keep your body clean with micro-plant powder.
[30:54.200 --> 31:01.480]  Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-69-120608 today.
[31:01.480 --> 31:06.320]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't
[31:06.320 --> 31:10.080]  so easy, and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[31:10.080 --> 31:13.280]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[31:13.280 --> 31:14.280]  Brave New Books?
[31:14.280 --> 31:15.280]  Yes.
[31:15.280 --> 31:19.440]  Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones,
[31:19.440 --> 31:21.440]  Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[31:21.440 --> 31:24.840]  They even stock inner food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soaps.
[31:24.840 --> 31:27.760]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[31:27.760 --> 31:29.200]  Go check it out for yourself.
[31:29.200 --> 31:33.280]  It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[31:33.280 --> 31:34.280]  Oh, by UT?
[31:34.280 --> 31:36.880]  There's never anywhere to park down there.
[31:36.880 --> 31:42.240]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking
[31:42.240 --> 31:44.360]  facility just behind the bookstore.
[31:44.360 --> 31:48.240]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[31:48.240 --> 31:52.960]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[31:52.960 --> 32:13.080]  Look at them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:13.080 --> 32:30.840]  All right, folks, we are back.
[32:30.840 --> 32:33.200]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[32:33.200 --> 32:37.440]  Calling number is 512-646-1984.
[32:37.440 --> 32:41.440]  This is our Monday Night Traffic Show, and this is your host, Eddie Craig.
[32:41.440 --> 32:42.440]  Okay.
[32:42.440 --> 32:45.160]  Now, let's see if we can wrap up this little discussion here.
[32:45.160 --> 32:50.200]  We were talking about the requirement that these bills, that these legislators are passing
[32:50.200 --> 32:54.680]  in relation to all the laws that they're using under the Transportation Code as enacted
[32:54.680 --> 32:57.360]  in 1995 and all this other.
[32:57.360 --> 33:01.320]  All this goes hand in hand with the requirement that these bills be properly passed to have
[33:01.320 --> 33:03.600]  the force and effect of law.
[33:03.600 --> 33:13.440]  When you look at the Section 32, second part of Article 3, Section 32, where it added the
[33:13.440 --> 33:19.320]  four-fifth majority vote requirement to suspend the rule, when you go down to Section 62 of
[33:19.320 --> 33:29.720]  Article 3, there is absolutely no mention of by what numerical majority the legislature
[33:29.720 --> 33:37.280]  must or must vote in order to recognize the state of emergency.
[33:37.280 --> 33:44.760]  Not only that, Section 62 says the state of emergency exists only as a result of disasters
[33:44.760 --> 33:55.240]  caused by enemy attack, doesn't say a dang thing about a crowded calendar.
[33:55.240 --> 34:00.760]  It doesn't say a dang thing about public necessity.
[34:00.760 --> 34:07.880]  It specifically stipulates the state of emergency can only exist as a result of disasters resulting
[34:07.880 --> 34:16.280]  from enemy attack or enemy invasion.
[34:16.280 --> 34:22.320]  Then it goes down to say that the governor must create a proclamation after consulting
[34:22.320 --> 34:28.640]  with the Speaker of the House of each House and the Lieutenant Governor and that proclamation
[34:28.640 --> 34:36.600]  must specify where the legislature can meet if it's not going to be in Austin because
[34:36.600 --> 34:39.160]  of the invasion.
[34:39.160 --> 34:49.000]  It also stipulates that the legislature must concur by majority vote with the governor's
[34:49.000 --> 34:53.600]  proclamation in order for it to take effect.
[34:53.600 --> 35:00.720]  Now, that tells us right there that there must be a majority, but it doesn't really
[35:00.720 --> 35:07.360]  say whether that majority is a simple majority or by some other majority.
[35:07.360 --> 35:15.200]  So my argument is that the four-fifths majority specifically assigned in Section 32 is the
[35:15.200 --> 35:22.080]  numerical majority by which they must agree with the governor's proclamation.
[35:22.080 --> 35:28.080]  To do otherwise, create some very onerous conclusions of these sections and let me go
[35:28.080 --> 35:30.400]  into how that works.
[35:30.400 --> 35:36.400]  The courts have this thing about constitutional and statutory construction.
[35:36.400 --> 35:41.880]  Anytime there is an irreconcilable conflict between two statutes or two provisions of
[35:41.880 --> 35:44.200]  the Texas Constitution.
[35:44.200 --> 35:52.560]  The first thing they must do is determine whether or not the conflict is actually irreconcilable.
[35:52.560 --> 36:00.360]  And if the reading is determined to, after it's been shown to not be irreconcilable,
[36:00.360 --> 36:10.320]  if the reading would then prove to give an unintended and unwanted result, and the unintended
[36:10.320 --> 36:15.040]  and unwanted result in such a case would be, if they declared that it must be between the
[36:15.040 --> 36:23.120]  hours of 10 and 12 p.m. when someone can file a criminal complaint versus 24-7 someone
[36:23.120 --> 36:26.040]  can file a complaint, okay?
[36:26.040 --> 36:31.280]  Obviously, there can't be a time limitation on when someone can make a criminal complaint
[36:31.280 --> 36:33.800]  for a criminal act.
[36:33.800 --> 36:37.760]  So that would be an irreconcilable conflict in which trying to read the two together
[36:37.760 --> 36:41.520]  would create an unreasonable result.
[36:41.520 --> 36:46.920]  However, in this case, there is no unreasonable result when you take these two clauses or
[36:46.920 --> 36:54.920]  sections and read them together because they both depend upon the necessity of the state
[36:54.920 --> 36:58.400]  of emergency that is to be declared.
[36:58.400 --> 37:06.280]  And that state of emergency is clearly only available as a result of disasters from enemy
[37:06.280 --> 37:09.760]  invasion or attack.
[37:09.760 --> 37:12.400]  That's it.
[37:12.400 --> 37:19.000]  So there's nothing in Section 32 whatsoever that even uses the word emergency.
[37:19.000 --> 37:22.000]  I pretty much quote it to you verbatim.
[37:22.000 --> 37:27.120]  The word emergency does not appear in Section 32 of Article 3 at all.
[37:27.120 --> 37:34.600]  The only place that appears is in Section 62 of Article 3, and there it clearly defines
[37:34.600 --> 37:38.680]  how that state of emergency is brought about.
[37:38.680 --> 37:48.160]  So given that the 1995 enactment of the Transportation Code and possibly everything since the 60s
[37:48.160 --> 37:52.360]  that has used this emergency clause is null and void.
[37:52.360 --> 37:59.880]  It absolutely has no force and effect of law whatsoever because there is no valid state
[37:59.880 --> 38:06.480]  of emergency allowing the suspension of the three-day reading rule, and the legislature
[38:06.480 --> 38:14.440]  cannot arbitrarily declare such a rule in violation of constitutional prohibitions.
[38:14.440 --> 38:22.280]  And if they tried to do that, then Article 1, Section 29 kicks in, and it specifically
[38:22.280 --> 38:27.360]  says that everything in the Bill of Rights and all other parts of the Constitution are
[38:27.360 --> 38:35.200]  completely outside of the general powers of government, therefore ever prohibited from
[38:35.200 --> 38:38.360]  doing any act that interferes with that.
[38:38.360 --> 38:44.960]  And if they attempt to do so, and remember it says the general powers of government,
[38:44.960 --> 38:51.560]  not the general powers of the legislature, not the executive, not the judiciary.
[38:51.560 --> 38:56.920]  It's the general powers of every department of government, legislative, judicial and executive
[38:56.920 --> 38:58.520]  alike.
[38:58.520 --> 39:05.920]  So the courts can't create an opinion or interpretation that violates it, the executive can't execute
[39:05.920 --> 39:11.760]  a law in violation of it, and the legislature can't pass a statute that attempts to do away
[39:11.760 --> 39:15.080]  with it or diminish it.
[39:15.080 --> 39:21.120]  All of that's illegal under Article 1, Section 29, which says any attempt to do this is automatically
[39:21.120 --> 39:27.320]  and it doesn't have to say automatically, it simply says is void.
[39:27.320 --> 39:29.480]  That section is self-enforcing.
[39:29.480 --> 39:32.960]  We don't have to wait for the legislature to take a vote, we don't have to wait for
[39:32.960 --> 39:37.000]  the court to give an opinion, and we don't have to wait for the executive to refuse
[39:37.000 --> 39:39.960]  to enforce.
[39:39.960 --> 39:44.960]  The whatever is being done in violation of the Bill of Rights and any other provision
[39:44.960 --> 39:52.280]  of the constitution is dead before it began.
[39:52.280 --> 39:56.640]  We need to be holding these people accountable.
[39:56.640 --> 40:05.120]  They are criminally negligent in the fulfillment of their duties to we the people.
[40:05.120 --> 40:08.720]  They daily violate their oath of office.
[40:08.720 --> 40:12.320]  They daily violate our protected rights.
[40:12.320 --> 40:19.360]  They daily presume themselves to be above the law and above repercussions for their
[40:19.360 --> 40:23.240]  acts.
[40:23.240 --> 40:30.240]  Just like the verse in the new title song for this show, we just round up all of them
[40:30.240 --> 40:36.800]  bad boys and hang them high in the streets for all the people to see.
[40:36.800 --> 40:43.440]  If we don't start doing something, folks, we're going to lose everything.
[40:43.440 --> 40:46.800]  Because all they're going to have to do is declare it's no longer ours to make a decision
[40:46.800 --> 40:49.200]  over and it's gone.
[40:49.200 --> 40:56.400]  And all the sheep will still be sitting there twiddling their thumbs and asking what happened.
[40:56.400 --> 41:00.880]  Michael Moore at least did one thing right in his entire career when he made the movie
[41:00.880 --> 41:04.800]  with the title, hey dude, where's my country?
[41:04.800 --> 41:08.200]  Okay, or at least I think it was Michael Moore.
[41:08.200 --> 41:09.200]  I don't know.
[41:09.200 --> 41:11.040]  Most of the stuff he makes, who cares?
[41:11.040 --> 41:15.920]  But in any case, on that note, we're going to start taking your calls and we're going
[41:15.920 --> 41:18.520]  to start off with Chris in Texas.
[41:18.520 --> 41:21.320]  Chris, we got a little over two minutes before break.
[41:21.320 --> 41:22.320]  What do we got?
[41:22.320 --> 41:24.200]  Okay, I'm trying to make it quick.
[41:24.200 --> 41:29.040]  I was doing some research last night and ran into a guy named Richard Pine.
[41:29.040 --> 41:32.360]  He is attacking the California courts while I say attacking.
[41:32.360 --> 41:40.920]  He is actually trying to get judges disqualified and successfully doing so because those judges
[41:40.920 --> 41:44.440]  are receiving county funds.
[41:44.440 --> 41:51.040]  I was wondering if under Article 5, Section 1A of the Texas Constitution, we would be
[41:51.040 --> 41:57.480]  able to do the same thing with judges here in the state of Texas who do receive county
[41:57.480 --> 41:58.480]  funds.
[41:58.480 --> 42:07.040]  Well, I guess that depends upon what you mean by county funds.
[42:07.040 --> 42:11.240]  If the funds that they're getting is in the form of a paycheck, no.
[42:11.240 --> 42:15.840]  No, this is above their paycheck, this is county funds.
[42:15.840 --> 42:21.720]  But if the county funds are related to funds taken through proceedings over which they
[42:21.720 --> 42:30.040]  preside, which is exactly how traffic courts operate despite the rhetoric to the confrary,
[42:30.040 --> 42:35.640]  then yeah, there is absolutely a problem with them doing so.
[42:35.640 --> 42:41.320]  And you could file a motion for the judge to be disqualified because he's on the take?
[42:41.320 --> 42:46.640]  Well, again, if you have evidence that the funds are being paid above and beyond what
[42:46.640 --> 42:53.520]  they're allowed to receive as a proper public emolument, then yes, because the judge can't
[42:53.520 --> 42:58.600]  be fair and impartial in a case in which he has a vested financial outcome interest.
[42:58.600 --> 43:03.400]  Okay, that answers my question.
[43:03.400 --> 43:07.200]  I thought I read it the right way in the Constitution, but I was not sure.
[43:07.200 --> 43:13.000]  Yeah, they've done everything they could to keep Mr. Fine quiet and prevent him from
[43:13.000 --> 43:14.760]  getting this information put out there.
[43:14.760 --> 43:19.640]  They even threw him in jail and locked him up without any charges whatsoever, just to
[43:19.640 --> 43:20.640]  shut him up.
[43:20.640 --> 43:23.440]  I saw that he had spent 18 months.
[43:23.440 --> 43:27.600]  Yeah, he was in there for quite a while, but he wouldn't give up and he wouldn't back
[43:27.600 --> 43:28.600]  down.
[43:28.600 --> 43:34.040]  All right, well, I'll have to continue my research in that.
[43:34.040 --> 43:37.200]  All right, well, thanks for calling in, Chris.
[43:37.200 --> 43:38.200]  Thank you, sir.
[43:38.200 --> 43:39.200]  Yes, sir.
[43:39.200 --> 43:40.200]  Bye-bye.
[43:40.200 --> 43:41.200]  Bye-bye.
[43:41.200 --> 43:43.920]  All right, Roy, Crystal, Johnny, we see you there on the board.
[43:43.920 --> 43:44.920]  Hang on.
[43:44.920 --> 43:46.680]  We'll get to you on the other side of the break.
[43:46.680 --> 43:51.360]  This is Rule of Law Radio with your host Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton.
[43:51.360 --> 43:53.240]  This is the Monday Night Traffic Show.
[43:53.240 --> 43:55.240]  We are getting rockin' and rollin' here.
[43:55.240 --> 43:57.240]  We'll be right back after the break.
[43:57.240 --> 44:04.120]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.120 --> 44:09.880]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD
[44:09.880 --> 44:14.080]  course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[44:14.080 --> 44:18.480]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:18.480 --> 44:22.640]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:22.640 --> 44:27.920]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can, too.
[44:27.920 --> 44:34.480]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.480 --> 44:38.920]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about
[44:38.920 --> 44:43.360]  the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.360 --> 44:49.600]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.600 --> 44:52.040]  prosa tactics, and much more.
[44:52.040 --> 44:56.280]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[44:56.280 --> 45:01.480]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.480 --> 45:06.920]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[45:06.920 --> 45:09.680]  because they struggle to understand it.
[45:09.680 --> 45:15.080]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[45:15.080 --> 45:18.320]  the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[45:18.320 --> 45:20.120]  Enter the recovery version.
[45:20.120 --> 45:26.040]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more
[45:26.040 --> 45:29.760]  than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[45:29.760 --> 45:34.760]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance
[45:34.760 --> 45:39.440]  into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[45:39.440 --> 45:44.600]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[45:44.600 --> 45:55.040]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102
[45:55.040 --> 45:59.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[45:59.000 --> 46:09.000]  If you did not have any problems, wait on for one.
[46:09.000 --> 46:23.000]  If you could not wait any longer.
[46:23.000 --> 46:24.920]  Folks, we are back.
[46:24.920 --> 46:31.360]  This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[46:31.360 --> 46:34.160]  We do have several callers up on the board.
[46:34.160 --> 46:36.680]  Right now, we're going to go to Roy in Texas.
[46:36.680 --> 46:39.000]  Roy, what can we do for you?
[46:39.000 --> 46:40.000]  Yeah.
[46:40.000 --> 46:41.000]  Hello.
[46:41.000 --> 46:42.000]  Yes.
[46:42.000 --> 46:43.000]  Okay.
[46:43.000 --> 46:48.560]  I'm the one that went before the clerk and she said that I had to plead whether or not
[46:48.560 --> 46:52.720]  guilty, guilty, or no local tender for I could get any for her.
[46:52.720 --> 46:56.000]  Well, I asked for an extension and I got it.
[46:56.000 --> 47:02.840]  Yesterday, I filed an affidavit not engaged in commerce and tomorrow, I'll have until
[47:02.840 --> 47:09.000]  the 18th, Wednesday, tomorrow, I'm going to file a demand, been filed these, and I motion
[47:09.000 --> 47:14.000]  to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as the other two I'm going to file.
[47:14.000 --> 47:21.120]  But my question is, if I plead not guilty, am I really acquiescing to driving in commerce
[47:21.120 --> 47:22.120]  or...?
[47:22.120 --> 47:26.680]  Plea at all, you are waiving the right of notice.
[47:26.680 --> 47:28.240]  Okay.
[47:28.240 --> 47:32.300]  Do not enter a plea.
[47:32.300 --> 47:33.520]  All right.
[47:33.520 --> 47:40.280]  There is no law that requires anyone accused of anything to enter a plea.
[47:40.280 --> 47:41.600]  Good.
[47:41.600 --> 47:42.680]  Okay.
[47:42.680 --> 47:48.040]  So if I know what's going to happen, they're going to get tired of me saying no.
[47:48.040 --> 47:52.200]  I'm going to send me the judge and the first thing he does going to say, how do you plead?
[47:53.080 --> 47:58.200]  That's what I know. That's what he's going to say. But, uh, yeah. And how does that change
[47:58.200 --> 48:03.000]  the rules of the game at all? It doesn't change it with me. I say, I am not pleading.
[48:03.560 --> 48:08.040]  Not a man to trial. And I demand his dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
[48:09.720 --> 48:13.640]  And, uh, I don't know where to go from there, but, uh, I was going kind of, if there's any
[48:13.640 --> 48:20.200]  other ideas you got or anything you can shove. Where are you located at, Roy? It's at Baleen, Texas.
[48:20.200 --> 48:28.360]  Okay. Uh, well, the, the, there's a lot to learn and do. Do you have the seminar material?
[48:29.080 --> 48:33.000]  I have the one I bought a couple of years ago and only one update is all I've got.
[48:33.000 --> 48:38.200]  Okay. Have you sent me an update email? I'm about to try to finish this last set of documents and
[48:38.200 --> 48:44.120]  get updates out to everybody. I sent one about a month ago, but I know y'all are busy and I
[48:44.120 --> 48:49.240]  didn't send any more. Well, right now there's some issues that I've been trying to research and iron
[48:49.240 --> 48:54.600]  out. And I didn't want to distribute these things multiple times because there's, they're pretty
[48:54.600 --> 49:00.040]  good size. So I'm trying to get them finished and get the numbers called down before I actually
[49:00.040 --> 49:06.120]  send out the update. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And, and I'll tell you, this is a learning
[49:06.120 --> 49:12.040]  experience. This is the first ticket I've had in 30 years. And I'm learning a lot. I'll tell you
[49:12.040 --> 49:17.000]  what. Well, okay. I just want to let you know about the update and I'll probably go for the,
[49:17.000 --> 49:21.560]  before the judge on Wednesday and I'm going to stand my ground. I'm tired of this stuff.
[49:21.560 --> 49:26.680]  I'm really tired of it. Well, good. Okay. Well, thank you much. I appreciate what you're doing.
[49:26.680 --> 49:30.600]  Thank you, Roy. Appreciate the call. Okay. Do you want me to send another email?
[49:30.600 --> 49:37.640]  Yes, sir. Please. Please do. Okay. Thank you. All right. Bye-bye. Bye. All right. Now we're
[49:37.640 --> 49:43.800]  going to go to Crystal in Nevada. Crystal, what can we do for you? Well, two weeks ago, you were
[49:43.800 --> 49:49.320]  listening to seven things that are always to be objected to in a trial, in court, or even at a,
[49:49.320 --> 49:55.640]  at a stop. This day, transportation, vehicle, operate, drive, and police officers, that's only
[49:55.640 --> 50:02.040]  six. I don't know what the transportation. I said transportation. I only have six. Okay. There,
[50:02.040 --> 50:09.160]  there is operator or operate in any grammatical variation thereof, drive in any grammatical
[50:09.160 --> 50:21.160]  variation thereof, this state. Okay. Okay. Or vehicle, motor vehicle, transportation, police
[50:21.160 --> 50:27.640]  officer. Okay. And that's the one I had a question about. What makes the term police officer or how
[50:27.640 --> 50:33.960]  is that objectionable? In Texas, a police officer is specifically defined in the transportation
[50:33.960 --> 50:44.600]  code as one authorized to enforce and arrest traffic statutes. Okay. Okay. That is separate
[50:44.600 --> 50:51.880]  and distinct from a peace officer, which is defined in the code of criminal procedure. Okay. Now,
[50:51.880 --> 51:01.160]  there is nothing in the transportation code that explains how one becomes an authorized police
[51:01.160 --> 51:11.240]  officer. For instance, everybody in government that is tasked with enforcing some set of rules
[51:11.240 --> 51:21.080]  is, by definition, a police officer. Okay. The question is, is what policing authority do they
[51:21.080 --> 51:27.960]  have? Code enforcement, for instance, does not have criminal enforcement authority. They don't
[51:27.960 --> 51:36.120]  have transportation enforcement authority. They don't have, only certain ones would have health
[51:36.120 --> 51:42.760]  and safety code enforcement authority. Only certain ones would have building code enforcement
[51:42.760 --> 51:49.960]  authority. They're all police officers, but their area of authority is separate, distinct,
[51:49.960 --> 51:55.480]  and isolated from one another. And what if they're all calling themselves law enforcement
[51:55.480 --> 52:03.080]  officers, which they like to do? Well, that's irrelevant. There's no law enforcement per se
[52:03.080 --> 52:11.000]  defined anywhere, at least not in Texas. It's defined as peace officer. Correct. Technically
[52:11.000 --> 52:19.480]  speaking, law enforcement officer and police officer would be the same thing because their
[52:19.480 --> 52:26.200]  idea is that they're enforcing law. Now, in the case of those that are enforcing codes, i.e.,
[52:26.200 --> 52:35.560]  ordinances, they're not enforcing laws. They are absolutely only enforcing corporate rules and
[52:35.560 --> 52:43.640]  regulations. Okay. All right. Okay, I got it. Now, as far as the police officer in Texas relating
[52:43.640 --> 52:49.640]  to transportation, since there isn't anything that specifically spells out how they become
[52:49.640 --> 52:57.000]  authorized in Texas to enforce transportation statutes, we wind up having to look elsewhere.
[52:57.000 --> 53:03.480]  And that elsewhere is the administrative code. In the area entitled 37, which is specific to
[53:03.480 --> 53:10.760]  the Department of Public Safety, what we call our state police, then they are the ones responsible
[53:10.760 --> 53:19.080]  for qualifying, certifying, and assigning the authority to enforce to local police officers.
[53:20.200 --> 53:26.280]  I see. Okay. That makes sense. All right. Now, I understand. I got it. Okay. I appreciate you
[53:26.280 --> 53:33.640]  so much. Yes, ma'am. Thank you a lot. Yes, ma'am. Appreciate the call. All right. This leaves us
[53:33.640 --> 53:41.320]  with Johnny in Texas, then the caller board will be empty. So, folks, give us a call 512-646-1984.
[53:42.280 --> 53:48.120]  All right, Johnny, what can we do for you? Hey, Eddie, I just wanted to go over a couple things
[53:48.120 --> 53:54.520]  quickly and get your comments on them. On the traffic citations here in my nick of the woods,
[53:54.520 --> 53:58.840]  they're actually dumb enough to put in big red letters at the very top of the ticket before
[53:58.840 --> 54:06.440]  anything else, customer copy. So, when I take that into the courts, I raise a bunch of issues.
[54:06.440 --> 54:10.680]  I want to know exactly what is it that I'm a customer of as I become a customer.
[54:10.680 --> 54:13.800]  Yeah. What service did I request from you to be a customer?
[54:14.680 --> 54:19.560]  Right. And, well, actually, let me back up. Before that, at the time of the stop,
[54:19.560 --> 54:26.120]  you know, I will always ask the officer, you know, is the record of this stop being made?
[54:26.120 --> 54:30.520]  And he'll say, yes, there is. And I'll say, good, let the record show that I'm not engaged in any
[54:30.520 --> 54:34.920]  commerce. You are hereby informed, and it is hereby affirmatively brought to your attention
[54:34.920 --> 54:39.960]  for and on the record that I am engaged only in my private travel, in my private capacity,
[54:39.960 --> 54:44.520]  and my private automobile, and I'm serving all my rides, and so on and so forth. Later on,
[54:44.520 --> 54:48.200]  I can go get that. I can go pay 15 bucks and get a copy of that dash count if it's needed,
[54:48.200 --> 54:53.960]  but I've generally never had to use it. When I go in, I want to raise all kinds of issues about,
[54:53.960 --> 54:57.560]  you know, what I'm a customer of. They're presuming I'm a customer. I want to know
[54:57.560 --> 54:59.800]  what I'm a customer of and how I got to be that.
[55:03.320 --> 55:09.720]  That really makes me nervous. They don't want to just deny answers to it,
[55:09.720 --> 55:14.600]  for obvious reasons. They don't want to answer either. But they'll generally try to move on to
[55:14.600 --> 55:25.240]  a plea. Now, in the go-to criminal procedure, it says that if an accused refuses to enter a plea,
[55:25.240 --> 55:31.480]  then the judge will do it for him or her. So, when I ask for the plea, I don't refuse.
[55:31.480 --> 55:36.680]  I conditionally accept. I tell them I'll be happy to enter a plea, as long as I am permitted
[55:37.400 --> 55:42.440]  to fully comprehend with consumability what it is that I'm being asked to plea into.
[55:42.440 --> 55:46.200]  I'm not refusing. I'll be happy to do it. I just need to know. I need to be able to understand
[55:46.200 --> 55:50.680]  what it is. And they'll say, well, you know, what don't you understand? Well, you know,
[55:50.680 --> 55:55.400]  I don't understand the true, full, exact, and complete nature and cause of the charges.
[55:56.040 --> 56:01.160]  Beyond the mere citation of the statutes, you know, you were talking a little bit earlier
[56:01.160 --> 56:06.760]  about standing and, you know, indications that what's charging you with is not actually a real
[56:06.760 --> 56:13.400]  crime. So, when they say, what are, you know, okay, what are your questions, I get in very deeply
[56:13.400 --> 56:17.720]  with questions about, you know, standing, who's the injured party, you know, the, the, the,
[56:18.360 --> 56:23.640]  present them with all the case law and standing. And according to that, if there is no harm,
[56:23.640 --> 56:29.320]  loss, injury, violation of a primary right or breach of the peace, there is no crime. But
[56:29.320 --> 56:33.320]  you guys are calling this a crime. You're handling it under the code of criminal procedure. So,
[56:33.320 --> 56:38.120]  I want to know what it is. When I start digging into it, they'll usually eventually say, well,
[56:38.120 --> 56:43.880]  it's a quasi crime. Okay. Well, the definition of quasi is essentially close, but no cigar. So,
[56:43.880 --> 56:47.640]  you just told me that what we're dealing with here is not a real crime. I need to know what
[56:47.640 --> 56:52.600]  it is. Otherwise, I can't raise a meaningful defense. And if you don't tell me, then you
[56:52.600 --> 56:56.600]  violated my right of access to the court and you have insured for an on the record that I cannot
[56:56.600 --> 57:04.920]  possibly raise a meaningful defense. So, they will usually, after a whole lot of dancing,
[57:04.920 --> 57:10.680]  doing the chicken dances, or any likes to call it, interoperably. And then I go away from there
[57:10.680 --> 57:16.120]  and I file all kinds of traditional misconduct complaints after David's, you know, point by
[57:16.120 --> 57:21.640]  point of all the rights that were violated just at the plea hearing alone, denial of due process,
[57:21.640 --> 57:26.840]  and everything else. And on all of those after David's, I'll put, you know, on the certificate of
[57:26.840 --> 57:33.320]  service, I have not been informed of any plaintiff or any attorney representing any plaintiff upon
[57:33.320 --> 57:40.040]  whom a copy of this, you know, motion or after David or whatever it is to be served. And likewise,
[57:40.040 --> 57:44.600]  on any certificate of conference, basically driving the point home that, you know, I haven't
[57:44.600 --> 57:48.040]  been served with anything. I haven't been informed of anything. I haven't seen any kind of proper
[57:48.040 --> 57:56.440]  complaint. No after David, no criminal after David, nothing. And usually what they'll do is they'll
[57:56.440 --> 58:01.320]  get to a trial. When I show up for trial, they want to get a flip. That's the only thing they say,
[58:01.320 --> 58:06.280]  is they want to get a flip. They'll go for your, for your rate of sentence. I hear it with my break.
[58:07.400 --> 58:11.000]  Yeah, we're going to go to break Johnny. So, hang on just a minute and I'll pick up on the other side.
[58:11.000 --> 58:18.440]  All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio, the Monday night traffic show. This is your host,
[58:18.440 --> 58:26.680]  Eddie Craig. The call in number 512-646-1984. You need to call in. Johnny's our last caller,
[58:26.680 --> 58:30.200]  so I'm either going to have to hang on to him for a while or you folks are going to have to get
[58:30.200 --> 58:35.640]  in line. We've got just about an hour left in the show. So please give us a call. This is Rule of
[58:35.640 --> 58:52.840]  Law Radio, we'll be right back after this break. The Oklahoma City bombing. Top 10 reasons to
[58:52.840 --> 58:58.760]  question the official story. Reason number one, John Doe number two and other accomplices. On the
[58:58.760 --> 59:03.480]  day of the bombing, nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McBae and the Rider Truck report
[59:03.480 --> 59:09.080]  that he was accompanied by other perpetrators. The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim
[59:09.080 --> 59:14.200]  McBae alone delivered the Rider Truck bomb to the Murrah Building and detonated it. The only
[59:14.200 --> 59:19.000]  witness the government produced to place McBae at the building that morning, Dana Bradley,
[59:19.000 --> 59:23.480]  who lost her children and one of her legs in the bombing, testified that she saw McBae with
[59:23.480 --> 59:29.720]  another man, the fable John Doe number two, exiting the Rider Truck. While at least 15 other witnesses
[59:29.720 --> 59:36.200]  claim to have seen McBae with other perpetrators the day of the bombing, no less than 226 witnesses
[59:36.200 --> 59:41.160]  placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he rented the Rider
[59:41.160 --> 59:46.920]  Truck and in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators. For more information,
[59:46.920 --> 01:00:05.880]  please visit okcbombingtruth.com. With all the immigrants begging to come to America,
[01:00:05.880 --> 01:00:09.480]  you'd think people who were born here would be counting their lucky stars,
[01:00:09.480 --> 01:00:13.880]  so why then are record numbers of Americans renouncing their U.S. citizenship?
[01:00:13.880 --> 01:00:17.160]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. Back with the answer next.
[01:00:43.880 --> 01:00:52.680]  Last year, 1,800 Americans living overseas renounced their citizenship, a record number.
[01:00:52.680 --> 01:00:57.400]  Do these folks just hate our country? No, but they're fed up with burdensome tax laws.
[01:00:57.960 --> 01:01:03.160]  Most countries don't force citizens living abroad to pay federal taxes, but the U.S. does.
[01:01:03.160 --> 01:01:08.600]  In fact, since 2004, the government has hit Americans living overseas with steep fines and
[01:01:08.600 --> 01:01:14.200]  criminal charges, even forcing them to disclose information on spouses who are foreign nationals.
[01:01:14.760 --> 01:01:19.000]  It's high time the U.S. got off the backs of Americans living overseas,
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:21.080]  and come to think of it, the rest of ours too.
[01:01:21.800 --> 01:01:26.280]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:01:32.200 --> 01:01:36.840]  When their plane touched down in America, two British tourists were greeted by the feds,
[01:01:36.840 --> 01:01:42.360]  handcuffed, jailed, and deported. They're crying? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with Twitter.
[01:01:42.360 --> 01:01:45.960]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. I'll have the not-so-funny details in a moment.
[01:01:46.520 --> 01:01:52.120]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.120 --> 01:01:56.520]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.160 --> 01:02:02.520]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.520 --> 01:02:08.040]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by startpage.com,
[01:02:08.040 --> 01:02:14.040]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Start Page.
[01:02:15.960 --> 01:02:19.720]  Here's a tip for anyone planning to visit us here in the land of liberty. Don't
[01:02:19.720 --> 01:02:23.880]  wisecrack about America on the web. Big brother won't be amused.
[01:02:23.880 --> 01:02:29.160]  Lee Van Bryan and Emily Bunting of Great Britain learned this recently at Los Angeles International
[01:02:29.160 --> 01:02:34.760]  Airport, where they restricted their passports, interrogated handcuffed, and hauled off to jail.
[01:02:34.760 --> 01:02:39.400]  Why the warm welcome? Well, before the trip, Lee had joked on Twitter that he wanted to
[01:02:39.400 --> 01:02:45.880]  destroy America. British slang for party it up and dig up Marilyn Monroe's grave on Hollywood
[01:02:45.880 --> 01:02:51.880]  Boulevard. Humor apparently is no defense with homeland security. After spending 12 hours detained
[01:02:51.880 --> 01:02:57.640]  alongside drug dealers, the Brits were deported. Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com,
[01:02:57.640 --> 01:03:03.160]  the world's most private search engine.
[01:03:03.160 --> 01:03:29.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. This is the Monday night traffic show.
[01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:33.800]  We have about an hour left in the show. Right now we are talking to Johnny in Texas.
[01:03:34.360 --> 01:03:41.160]  He is our last caller. Call in number 512-646-1984. So give us a call, folks.
[01:03:41.960 --> 01:03:49.720]  All right, Johnny, let's continue on. Okay. Well, basically, you know, when I go to the
[01:03:49.720 --> 01:03:55.160]  plea hearing, I don't refuse to enter a plea. You know, I'm happy to enter one as long as I can
[01:03:55.160 --> 01:04:00.600]  completely and fully comprehend what it is that I'm being asked to plea into, which will eventually
[01:04:00.600 --> 01:04:05.480]  draw a very condescending, okay, what are your questions? And when they open that door, I get
[01:04:05.480 --> 01:04:10.520]  to walk through it. So I have a lot of questions about standing. I get to raise the issue that the
[01:04:10.520 --> 01:04:17.080]  court may not lawfully afford any redress to any party that has not proven and demonstrated standing
[01:04:17.080 --> 01:04:21.160]  to the court. And I want to know, who is that party that has each and every element? And here
[01:04:21.160 --> 01:04:25.480]  they are. You tell me who it is and how this individual has demonstrated to you that he or
[01:04:25.480 --> 01:04:31.880]  she has met all of these elements of standing. And I go through, you know, is this civil or
[01:04:31.880 --> 01:04:36.920]  criminal? Well, okay, you're saying it's criminal, but, you know, it doesn't really
[01:04:36.920 --> 01:04:41.320]  has a veneer of criminal, but let's dig into it a little more and talk about what it is
[01:04:41.320 --> 01:04:45.800]  and eventually get them to admit that, well, it's really not criminal. You know, I go through,
[01:04:45.800 --> 01:04:51.720]  you know, I know that there are various types of judges who are acting in various types of
[01:04:51.720 --> 01:04:57.000]  capacities. I don't know which kind of judge you are or what capacity you're acting in,
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:02.520]  or even that you are a judge. And unless and until I know these things, I can't raise meaningful
[01:05:02.520 --> 01:05:06.840]  defense. And I don't know, you know, what kind of you're calling this criminal, but I don't know
[01:05:06.840 --> 01:05:11.320]  exactly what it is. And unless and until I know these things, I cannot raise meaningful defense
[01:05:11.320 --> 01:05:16.200]  and just go down the line of everything that they're supposed to have already informed me of.
[01:05:16.200 --> 01:05:21.480]  And generally what will happen is they will set a trial. And then when I show up for trial,
[01:05:22.280 --> 01:05:25.960]  the only thing that they're concerned with is we need to get a plea from you.
[01:05:25.960 --> 01:05:29.880]  And I go through the same song and dance again, every time every plea hearing draws,
[01:05:29.880 --> 01:05:33.960]  all kinds of judicial misconduct complaints. Every once in a while, they'll try to get
[01:05:33.960 --> 01:05:37.720]  the prosecutor to come and make a deal with me, you know, pull me out in the hallway,
[01:05:37.720 --> 01:05:42.680]  they'll want to talk. And I can't recognize the prosecutor because he doesn't represent any party
[01:05:42.680 --> 01:05:47.080]  with standing. So go back in the courtroom, go through the whole song and dance again.
[01:05:47.080 --> 01:05:52.840]  They will usually, in every case, they will usually schedule three or four trials. And the only
[01:05:52.840 --> 01:05:57.480]  thing they want to know is, you know, how do you plead, even though this is scheduled as a trial,
[01:05:58.040 --> 01:06:02.120]  they need to, and I'm not refusing, because the only authority that they have in their code of
[01:06:02.120 --> 01:06:06.040]  criminal procedure to enter a plea on anyone's behalf is if you refuse, and I'm not refusing to
[01:06:06.040 --> 01:06:13.720]  do it. And then eventually, you know, I'll put in a motion to dismiss based on standing
[01:06:13.720 --> 01:06:19.000]  or lack thereof. And so pretty much every time they'll go ahead and dismiss it.
[01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:24.120]  Another thing that I've noticed is on the issue of the judge himself. You mentioned,
[01:06:24.120 --> 01:06:30.200]  you know, everybody's violating their oath of office. I generally do request information requests
[01:06:30.200 --> 01:06:35.160]  and where judges are concerned, requests under rules of judicial administration for oaths of
[01:06:35.160 --> 01:06:41.160]  office. And I've noticed that every time I request an oath of office, that judge will disappear.
[01:06:41.160 --> 01:06:46.840]  And a new judge will show up. And there was even one case where I requested the judges's oath of
[01:06:46.840 --> 01:06:53.000]  office. That judge stepped down. And on the day of trial, a new judge after going to three or four
[01:06:53.000 --> 01:06:59.720]  plea hearings before the same judge, a new judge from a different city came in and announced herself
[01:06:59.720 --> 01:07:06.600]  as a, I think she said she was a temporary judge or something. Visiting judge? Yeah.
[01:07:06.600 --> 01:07:11.640]  The original judge was actually sitting out in the gallery with all the other people watching
[01:07:11.640 --> 01:07:18.280]  what was going on. So, I mean, you know, there is a lot of validity to what you say about,
[01:07:18.280 --> 01:07:23.960]  you know, entering the plea. There are a lot of issues that can be raised about the plea. You
[01:07:23.960 --> 01:07:29.480]  don't have to refuse. You can conditionally accept as long as you are allowed to understand
[01:07:29.480 --> 01:07:33.560]  what it is that you're pleading into. Of course, they're not going to like your questions. They're
[01:07:33.560 --> 01:07:37.000]  not going to want to answer them. And if they don't, they violate your, you know, right of due
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:41.080]  process, right of access to the court, so on and so forth. And all of that goes in affidavits and
[01:07:41.080 --> 01:07:45.480]  gets all kinds of, you know, bar grievances, judicial misconduct, complaints and so on and so
[01:07:45.480 --> 01:07:50.520]  forth. And by the time they finally do schedule a trial, they won't even want to deal with it. Or
[01:07:50.520 --> 01:07:53.640]  in my experience, they don't want to deal with it. They'll just throw it out.
[01:07:53.640 --> 01:07:57.480]  Yeah. Well, there is another thing you could do in that instance. You can ask them,
[01:07:57.480 --> 01:08:02.120]  one of the questions I would recommend since you're up on exactly what to ask,
[01:08:02.120 --> 01:08:06.200]  and I do not recommend your approach for everybody because yours is a very technical
[01:08:06.200 --> 01:08:11.720]  approach, which if done properly should absolutely work. But it requires that it be done properly.
[01:08:13.240 --> 01:08:18.680]  But in any case, one of the questions you can ask is, would the entering of a plea constitute a
[01:08:18.680 --> 01:08:25.080]  proceeding in the prosecution? Yeah, I've done that. And I've actually asked in a couple of cases,
[01:08:25.080 --> 01:08:29.080]  if I enter a plea, will I have entered into a contract with you? And after beating around the
[01:08:29.080 --> 01:08:33.720]  bush, they say yes. And I tell them I don't want to enter into any contracts with you.
[01:08:33.720 --> 01:08:38.600]  Yeah. Well, I'm not even going down that path. What I'm getting into is 45.018b.
[01:08:39.400 --> 01:08:47.080]  If they admit that the entering of a plea is a proceeding and they have never served you with
[01:08:47.080 --> 01:08:55.800]  a copy of the complaint and the information, then they have failed to comply with 45.018b
[01:08:55.800 --> 01:09:03.480]  and deprived you of the protected right of notice, as well as a written copy of the complaint itself
[01:09:03.480 --> 01:09:09.800]  and the necessary charging instrument. Yep. I came across that just not too long ago.
[01:09:09.800 --> 01:09:15.240]  You are correct about that. So when we ask them that question and they say, well,
[01:09:15.240 --> 01:09:20.360]  yes, this would constitute a proceeding, then, you know, hey, well, by the way,
[01:09:20.360 --> 01:09:26.360]  you haven't served me. Another reason I can't enter a plea is because I don't have the intention
[01:09:26.360 --> 01:09:32.920]  of waving notice. And by entering a plea, that's exactly what I'm doing is waving notice to
[01:09:32.920 --> 01:09:41.080]  notification of the alleged offense. And I'm not going to do that. So you're not declining to
[01:09:41.080 --> 01:09:48.040]  plea for the sake of declining. You're declining because to not decline automatically constitutes
[01:09:48.040 --> 01:09:53.240]  a waiver of a right that you don't agree to. Exactly. And that was the next point that I
[01:09:53.240 --> 01:09:59.880]  was getting to you. I've heard you and Randy talk about acquiescence before. And acquiescence is
[01:09:59.880 --> 01:10:04.600]  an extremely powerful thing in law, and it's something that can be used against them just
[01:10:04.600 --> 01:10:09.720]  like they use it against us. But when you go in there at the point they're asking you for a plea,
[01:10:09.720 --> 01:10:16.440]  they've already violated due process on numerous points. Yeah, I teach in class that the officer
[01:10:16.440 --> 01:10:21.320]  has committed a minimum of five due process violations before the end of the traffic stop,
[01:10:21.320 --> 01:10:27.000]  a minimum of five. Yeah, the officer has. And by the time the by the time the words,
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:30.040]  how do you plead come out of the judge's mouth, he's already committed a few more.
[01:10:32.360 --> 01:10:37.400]  But if you go ahead and enter a plea at that point, you are acquiescing that, you know,
[01:10:37.400 --> 01:10:42.680]  basically you guys have the cart way ahead of the court, the cart way ahead of the court,
[01:10:42.680 --> 01:10:47.400]  the horse at this point, but it's okay. I'm going to go ahead and waive that. I'm going to go ahead
[01:10:47.400 --> 01:10:52.760]  and acquiesce that I am doing for a plea right now. That's basically, you know, some people look
[01:10:52.760 --> 01:10:58.360]  at it as a contract, but it is. You know, if they have you before them and they've already violated
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:03.080]  due process, numerous other rights, and you don't raise them at the point that they say,
[01:11:03.080 --> 01:11:09.800]  how do you plead, you're basically agreeing that it's okay. I absolutely agree.
[01:11:11.560 --> 01:11:18.200]  So yeah, I just wanted to convey those things and maybe just get your comments and
[01:11:18.200 --> 01:11:23.400]  feedback on it. Well, what you're doing should work just fine. Like I say, you're
[01:11:24.360 --> 01:11:29.960]  knowledgeable enough, Johnny, that you're above the curve as far as most people go. Most people
[01:11:29.960 --> 01:11:35.720]  do not have the technical legal savvy to understand what they're doing by entering a plea.
[01:11:36.280 --> 01:11:41.560]  Every single class or every time I get a phone call from somebody new, the first thing they want
[01:11:41.560 --> 01:11:46.920]  to tell me about their case is, well, I didn't come to you until after I'd already entered a plea.
[01:11:47.800 --> 01:11:51.320]  Well, then what I can do to help you at this point is very minimal.
[01:11:51.880 --> 01:11:53.320]  Yeah, you've already put your foot in the barricade.
[01:11:53.320 --> 01:12:00.200]  Yeah, exactly. I mean, I might can help you retrieve the end of your leg from the bear trap,
[01:12:01.720 --> 01:12:04.200]  but your foot's gone. Yep.
[01:12:04.200 --> 01:12:09.320]  But there's nothing I can do when you step off in the bear trap up to your eyeballs and set it off.
[01:12:11.160 --> 01:12:17.560]  Yep, absolutely. Well, it's a good way to get around because if you refuse to enter a plea,
[01:12:17.560 --> 01:12:22.920]  they'll enter one for you. But if you don't refuse and make it clear for the record and for
[01:12:22.920 --> 01:12:27.960]  all witnesses observers and onlookers in the room that, hey, I'm not refusing. I'll be happy to do
[01:12:27.960 --> 01:12:32.280]  it. I just need to understand what it is that you're trying to get me to plea to. And if during
[01:12:32.280 --> 01:12:36.840]  that process, there is a showing that I'm required to plea, I'll go ahead and do it, which it never,
[01:12:36.840 --> 01:12:44.680]  you know, that never pans out. But also doing things the way I do completely avoids ever having
[01:12:44.680 --> 01:12:50.200]  to traverse into the merits of the case. You never, ever have to get into anything, you know,
[01:12:50.200 --> 01:12:54.360]  related to the traffic code or anything like that, because it just never gets that far.
[01:12:54.360 --> 01:12:59.240]  Right. And that's the beauty of asking it the way I was talking about is not only does it allow you
[01:12:59.240 --> 01:13:06.040]  to refuse, but it ties the judge's hands of entering it for you. Because the judge just admitted
[01:13:06.680 --> 01:13:14.520]  that, yes, you would have to waive the right of notice to enter this plea. Well, the judge can't
[01:13:14.520 --> 01:13:21.400]  use your refusal to waive a right against you, which is exactly what he would be doing if he
[01:13:21.400 --> 01:13:26.680]  attempted to enter a plea for you, knowing full well you have been deprived of notice.
[01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:35.960]  Yep. And since he's already admitted that that would be a proceeding under the prosecution,
[01:13:35.960 --> 01:13:44.680]  under the complaint, then they've already violated 45.018b and that's unrecoverable.
[01:13:44.680 --> 01:13:49.080]  Okay. I'm going to have to look into that a little bit more deeply, because there have been a
[01:13:49.080 --> 01:13:54.040]  couple of cases where I've stood there and said, look, I'm not refusing. You know, I'm conditionally
[01:13:54.040 --> 01:13:57.800]  accepting. And they'll say, well, I'm going to enter one on your behalf. Well, you know,
[01:13:57.800 --> 01:14:01.720]  Code of Criminal Procedure only permits you to do that if I'm refusing and clearly I'm not. And
[01:14:01.720 --> 01:14:08.040]  sometimes they'll go ahead and do it anyway. Right. And again, that's a rightful use of a judicial
[01:14:08.040 --> 01:14:14.120]  conduct complaint. Yeah. So based on what you're saying now, that's a good way to swap them on
[01:14:14.120 --> 01:14:17.560]  the hand when they go ahead and do that. I'll look into that a little bit more deeply. But I will
[01:14:17.560 --> 01:14:22.280]  say that even at the times when they have said, well, I'm just going to go ahead and enter a
[01:14:22.280 --> 01:14:27.640]  plea anyway, they will still schedule a trial. And even though the judge has already said,
[01:14:27.640 --> 01:14:31.800]  I'm going to enter a plea for you anyway, they will still, next time I see them, they want a
[01:14:31.800 --> 01:14:37.400]  plea. Yeah, because they're actually required in the Code to ask for that under Chapter 45
[01:14:37.400 --> 01:14:44.120]  after the jury is in panel, not before. See, there are arraignment proceedings to get a plea
[01:14:44.120 --> 01:14:50.040]  is completely in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to municipal and JP courts.
[01:14:50.040 --> 01:14:57.160]  The entering of a plea in these cases is under Chapter 45. It's not in the other part of the
[01:14:57.160 --> 01:15:03.640]  Code. It's specifically dealt with in Chapter 45. And it specifically says that it is to be taken
[01:15:03.640 --> 01:15:10.040]  after the jury is in panel. Well, and let me ask you, just based on something that you just said,
[01:15:10.600 --> 01:15:16.840]  there is a maximum law which says consent makes the law. A contract between parties
[01:15:16.840 --> 01:15:23.560]  is the law which can apply or force only by consent. So when you're talking about violation
[01:15:23.560 --> 01:15:27.880]  of Code of Criminal Procedure and violation of due process and violation of this and that,
[01:15:28.440 --> 01:15:34.120]  is it really a violation if you act with us to it and tacitly agree that it's okay through your
[01:15:34.120 --> 01:15:39.800]  actions? No, because at that point, you would have waved their alleged violations. You would have
[01:15:39.800 --> 01:15:45.480]  said, yeah, I know you screwed up, but that's okay. I'll play the game anyway. Right. So that's
[01:15:45.480 --> 01:15:51.480]  my point. If you acquiesce to these things, you cannot come back later and say it's a violation
[01:15:51.480 --> 01:15:56.760]  because you went along with it. Absolutely. But if that judge files that plea on your behalf and
[01:15:56.760 --> 01:16:03.160]  you absolutely steadfastly held your ground in either in your case where, hey, I'm happy to enter
[01:16:03.160 --> 01:16:08.280]  one if you will allow me to understand what I'm pleading to, or in my case where it's like,
[01:16:08.280 --> 01:16:15.960]  wait a minute, you can't force me to waive a right in order to let you enter this plea
[01:16:16.600 --> 01:16:22.840]  in violation of that right. That just isn't going to fly. Yep. In either of those cases,
[01:16:23.400 --> 01:16:29.080]  if that judge enters a plea, you immediately file a motion to withdraw that magistrally entered plea.
[01:16:29.080 --> 01:16:34.200]  Then you get it into the record that you never act with yes. The judge tried to override you
[01:16:34.200 --> 01:16:42.760]  in violation of your rights to do process. Yep. All right, Johnny, anything else? No, that's it.
[01:16:42.760 --> 01:16:46.760]  Keep up the good work, but I appreciate you. No problem. I appreciate the call. Thanks for your
[01:16:46.760 --> 01:16:51.480]  input. All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio. Paul, I see you on the board. Hang in there.
[01:16:51.480 --> 01:16:57.800]  We'll get you on the other side. Call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back after the break.
[01:16:57.800 --> 01:17:04.520]  Capital Coin and Bullion is a family-owned business built on the promise to bring you
[01:17:04.520 --> 01:17:09.800]  affordable pricing on all Coin and Bullion products. In addition to Coins and Bullion,
[01:17:09.800 --> 01:17:15.240]  we now offer storeable freeze-dried foods produced by Augustine Farms, ammunition at 10%
[01:17:15.240 --> 01:17:20.760]  above wholesale prices, Berkey Water Products, gift certificates, and our Silver Pool,
[01:17:20.760 --> 01:17:25.880]  a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked price. We can even help you set up a
[01:17:25.880 --> 01:17:34.200]  metals IRA account. Call us at 512-646-6404 for more details. As always, we buy, sell,
[01:17:34.200 --> 01:17:39.640]  and trade precious metals, give appraisals, and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:39.640 --> 01:17:45.080]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig next to the
[01:17:45.080 --> 01:17:51.160]  Ichiban Sushi and Genie Car Watch. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[01:17:51.160 --> 01:17:57.640]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com or call 512-646-6404 and say you heard about us on
[01:17:57.640 --> 01:18:03.720]  Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio. What's been the problem with phone companies? High prices
[01:18:03.720 --> 01:18:09.240]  and contracts that lock you in for two years minimum, not freedomtelephones.com. Freedom
[01:18:09.240 --> 01:18:14.840]  telephones are designed around the concept and reality of patriotism, loyalty, and privacy.
[01:18:14.840 --> 01:18:20.520]  With freedomtelephones.com, there are no contracts, no credit checks, and no social security numbers
[01:18:20.520 --> 01:18:26.520]  required. That's why our name is freedomtelephones.com. Finally, residential, mobile, and business
[01:18:26.520 --> 01:18:31.800]  telephones and plans that are private and never lock you into a long-term contract. Want a low
[01:18:31.800 --> 01:18:38.520]  price? Residential and business plans started only $14.99 and mobile plans started just $39.99.
[01:18:38.520 --> 01:18:43.880]  Plus, every month you pay your bill, freedomtelephones.com contributes to your favorite programs.
[01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:49.160]  Don't wait. Support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling
[01:18:49.160 --> 01:18:59.480]  1-800-600-5553. That's 800-600-5553. Freedomtelephones.com. Portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:19.160 --> 01:19:28.680]  Rule of law radio. Call in number 512-646-1984. We do have one more caller on the board now, Paula.
[01:19:29.480 --> 01:19:38.440]  Paula in Maine, what can we do for you? I think you might know my story already
[01:19:39.400 --> 01:19:45.080]  regarding the fallen in possession of firearm. Yes, ma'am. Has been facing those charges.
[01:19:45.080 --> 01:19:54.840]  Well, the question, I have questions about him being in front of the judge without an attorney
[01:19:55.480 --> 01:20:05.240]  after he had asked for counsel, but before it was granted. Now, I wanted to assist him. I didn't
[01:20:05.240 --> 01:20:13.880]  want him to sign anything without an attorney. So, I told the judge that I wanted to do that,
[01:20:13.880 --> 01:20:19.720]  to assist him. The judge said, no, you cannot do that, Miss Michele. So, I sat down.
[01:20:21.480 --> 01:20:24.440]  Actually, you can do it under the doctrine of next friend.
[01:20:25.800 --> 01:20:33.800]  As his wife, he has that capability as do you to go forward under the doctrine of next friend
[01:20:33.800 --> 01:20:39.320]  if he shows that he is not capable and you are capable of assisting him to that degree.
[01:20:39.320 --> 01:20:47.480]  Okay. Yeah. Well, we had put in, I had helped him put in a motion for court appointed counsel
[01:20:47.480 --> 01:20:54.440]  and the judge knew that. But so anyway, my husband had not been arrested when they came to our house
[01:20:54.440 --> 01:21:02.200]  to get the guns because of a 30-year-old fellow in charge, which is still on his record. So,
[01:21:02.200 --> 01:21:10.520]  they say he can't have guns. Anyway, he had not been arrested. Now, the judge wanted to put the
[01:21:10.520 --> 01:21:19.640]  DA, the assistant DA wanted to put bail conditions on. And I told my husband, don't sign when they
[01:21:19.640 --> 01:21:25.320]  tried to get him to sign the paperwork. And the judge said, you can't be speaking like that in
[01:21:25.320 --> 01:21:31.000]  my courtroom, Miss Michele. And I said, well, there are things you shouldn't be doing either.
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:37.480]  And at that point, he said he told me to leave the courtroom and he sent the bail
[01:21:37.480 --> 01:21:43.640]  as after me and had me handcuffed for 45 minutes. So, during that time,
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:52.760]  my husband was coerced by the judge and the prosecutor to agree to the bail conditions,
[01:21:52.760 --> 01:22:02.840]  you know. So, they had him sign paperwork without his attorney present. I'd like to know if you
[01:22:02.840 --> 01:22:10.200]  think it's a good possibility of getting those bail conditions revoked because he did not have
[01:22:10.200 --> 01:22:17.560]  counsel. And also, if you think I have a case for false imprisonment, I was already on my way
[01:22:17.560 --> 01:22:24.440]  out of the courtroom when he sent the bail as after me. Well, absolutely. He can't put you
[01:22:24.440 --> 01:22:29.000]  in cuss for no reason whatsoever. He wasn't investigating anything. He just did that to
[01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:33.960]  punish you and he's not allowed to do that. You can also judicially conduct,
[01:22:33.960 --> 01:22:38.200]  complain the judge for depriving your husband of his protected rights, which is the right to
[01:22:38.200 --> 01:22:44.440]  assistance of counsel. I did that and they dismissed it. Who dismissed it? The Committee
[01:22:44.440 --> 01:22:50.920]  for Judicial Responsibility. Well, then you need to be complaining to your legislature about them
[01:22:50.920 --> 01:22:56.840]  because when they deny that out of hand, knowing full well that that's a violation of a protected
[01:22:56.840 --> 01:23:02.360]  right, then you already know they're not working for the public. They're working for the interest
[01:23:02.360 --> 01:23:09.720]  of the judges and lawyers. Well, they did get an S on their report card from Halt, which stands for
[01:23:09.720 --> 01:23:18.760]  help abolish legal tyranny. So, we know that they're not working for the public. So, anyways,
[01:23:18.760 --> 01:23:28.600]  that's... If I put in this lawsuit, would it be for a false imprisonment? Would that put a stop
[01:23:28.600 --> 01:23:35.080]  to their prosecution of my husband? No, separate issue, separate case. What you can,
[01:23:35.080 --> 01:23:41.720]  what your husband needs to do is file a motion to disqualify the judge and the prosecutor
[01:23:42.280 --> 01:23:48.120]  for acting in concert and collusion to deprive him of his protected right of legal counsel.
[01:23:49.400 --> 01:23:55.640]  And at the same... And in the same time, file a motion to request a re-hearing on the bond.
[01:23:57.080 --> 01:24:02.040]  Okay. And that'd be released on a PR bond, personal reconnaissance bond instead.
[01:24:02.040 --> 01:24:08.920]  Okay. Because this agreement was obtained by the deprivation of his rights alone.
[01:24:10.520 --> 01:24:17.800]  Okay. He does have a court-appointed attorney now. However, it's very messed up. They did not
[01:24:17.800 --> 01:24:24.760]  notify the attorney until two months after they had appointed her. And at that time, it was...
[01:24:24.760 --> 01:24:35.400]  She says time had run out to file any pre-trial motion. He's supposed to be getting his...
[01:24:36.520 --> 01:24:43.320]  That's not going to be true. Okay. They have... If they did not notice his appointed counsel,
[01:24:44.040 --> 01:24:49.720]  then the time allotted does not start until counsel has been notified.
[01:24:49.720 --> 01:24:56.280]  Okay. The clerk... I called the courthouse and the court... The clerk did tell me that
[01:24:56.840 --> 01:25:01.880]  the attorney can file pre-trial motions up until, you know, the very end.
[01:25:03.640 --> 01:25:09.480]  Now, his jury trial... I think he's scheduled to have the jury selected in August.
[01:25:11.720 --> 01:25:18.520]  And he kind of wants to go plead guilty, but I think he has a good case because this is cruel
[01:25:18.520 --> 01:25:25.160]  and unusual punishment to continue to punish him for something he's already done his time for 30 years
[01:25:25.160 --> 01:25:33.640]  ago. And he's got no record for the past 30 years of any trouble with what things or any really
[01:25:33.640 --> 01:25:37.800]  major trouble. Well, I believe what we've talked about before is whether or not this is being a
[01:25:37.800 --> 01:25:43.880]  retroactive law. If they're trying to affect the rights of an individual that has already been
[01:25:43.880 --> 01:25:50.840]  previously convicted and has already served the time for that, they can't make a law that
[01:25:50.840 --> 01:25:57.960]  retroactively continues to punish that individual. So, do you think he would have some kind of case,
[01:25:57.960 --> 01:26:02.600]  and if he filed the case in federal court, saying this is a retroactive law?
[01:26:05.480 --> 01:26:07.320]  Whose law are they charging him under?
[01:26:07.320 --> 01:26:13.640]  The State of Maine, I think. Okay. When was that law enacted?
[01:26:14.600 --> 01:26:21.640]  I'm going to have to try to get... Well, I tried to get that information from his previous attorney,
[01:26:21.640 --> 01:26:25.880]  and he never really gave us any answer. Well, but you should be able to do that by looking
[01:26:25.880 --> 01:26:32.760]  up the bill that created that law. That'll tell you what legislature signed or passed it,
[01:26:32.760 --> 01:26:39.480]  and when the governor signed it, and when it became effective. You should be able to find
[01:26:39.480 --> 01:26:44.360]  that on the website associated with the laws, codes, and statutes for your state.
[01:26:47.480 --> 01:26:54.200]  Okay. I know I've done research on it before, but it's confusing. Maybe there's something about
[01:26:54.200 --> 01:27:00.520]  codifying. I mean, there's... Codifying just means just being written into a code. That's all
[01:27:00.520 --> 01:27:10.200]  codification means. What we want to know is when was the law enacted, and when did it take force
[01:27:10.200 --> 01:27:17.880]  and effect? When was the law enacted? Okay. I'm trying to get him to let me speak with his attorney,
[01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:22.760]  or at least to communicate with her so that I could get... But I could ask the questions,
[01:27:22.760 --> 01:27:27.640]  and she would respond. She doesn't want to, you know, of course talk to me unless she has permission
[01:27:27.640 --> 01:27:37.480]  from him, and he's just... Sebert. Yeah. Sebert wants to get this over with, but I think he has
[01:27:37.480 --> 01:27:48.200]  a good case to get his rights to carry it. Well, the problem is that the fight's only going to go
[01:27:48.200 --> 01:27:54.760]  as well as he's willing to put the effort into. If he's already given up and isn't going to try,
[01:27:54.760 --> 01:28:01.400]  then nothing you do is going to change that. Oh, I wanted to actually put in as a third-party
[01:28:01.400 --> 01:28:09.640]  interpreter because those guns were purchased after we were married and after this incident from 30
[01:28:09.640 --> 01:28:17.400]  years ago. So, it doesn't the state bear some responsibilities since they kind of... They're
[01:28:17.400 --> 01:28:25.800]  supposed to check the records of the gun dealers that sold these... Some of these guns to him
[01:28:25.800 --> 01:28:33.240]  without checking to see if he was a felon. Now, they allowed him to amass, you know, thousands of
[01:28:33.240 --> 01:28:40.040]  dollars worth of guns. They don't check the dealers, and then they come in and just say,
[01:28:40.040 --> 01:28:42.680]  okay, we're taking the guns now because you shouldn't have them.
[01:28:42.680 --> 01:28:47.880]  Yeah. Well, but Bob, if they were purchased after you were married,
[01:28:49.080 --> 01:28:51.400]  or is his name the registered owner of the gun?
[01:28:53.240 --> 01:28:59.000]  Yeah. Okay. Well, see, was that also after the conviction?
[01:29:00.360 --> 01:29:06.360]  Yes. All right. Well, see, that's the problem. If the guns have been registered in your name,
[01:29:06.360 --> 01:29:08.840]  they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on and couldn't have touched it.
[01:29:08.840 --> 01:29:16.920]  Hmm. There's something in the statute that says that if I had the right to possess the gun
[01:29:17.880 --> 01:29:25.240]  to the exclusivity of him, like exclusive of him, then I have standing, or that I can
[01:29:26.600 --> 01:29:31.240]  ask the... Well, unless you've been convicted, you absolutely have the right exclusive of him.
[01:29:31.240 --> 01:29:37.560]  Okay. Okay. The problem here, though, is his name is the one that was on the ownership papers.
[01:29:39.640 --> 01:29:47.160]  That's the problem. Okay. But there's nothing that couldn't be argued that he did not sell
[01:29:47.160 --> 01:29:51.880]  the guns to you. You're not required to re-register them just because you bought them from him.
[01:29:51.880 --> 01:29:55.400]  Hang on just a second, Paula, we'll be right back. This is rule of law radio,
[01:29:55.400 --> 01:30:03.880]  512-646-984. Carl will get you next. This is building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell
[01:30:03.880 --> 01:30:09.000]  on the afternoon of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1500
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:13.800]  architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow
[01:30:13.800 --> 01:30:18.440]  service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow force responders have died. I'm not
[01:30:18.440 --> 01:30:22.200]  a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an
[01:30:22.200 --> 01:30:27.720]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:30:27.720 --> 01:30:34.440]  RememberBuilding7.org today. The rule of law radio network is proud to present a due process of
[01:30:34.440 --> 01:30:39.480]  law seminar hosted by our own Eddie Craig. Eddie is a former Nacodotius Sheriff's Deputy and for
[01:30:39.480 --> 01:30:44.200]  the past 21 years he's been studying the due process of law and now offers his knowledge to you at
[01:30:44.200 --> 01:30:50.200]  a seminar every Sunday from 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe
[01:30:50.200 --> 01:30:55.560]  Street. Admission is $20, so please make plans to come by and sit with Eddie and learn for yourself
[01:30:55.560 --> 01:31:04.200]  what the true intent of law really is. At hempusa.org we offer chemical-free products to people around
[01:31:04.200 --> 01:31:09.880]  the world, detoxifying, self-healing while rebuilding the immune system. We urge our listeners to
[01:31:09.880 --> 01:31:16.600]  please consider our largest-selling product, micro plant powder. Our micro plant powder is rich in
[01:31:16.600 --> 01:31:23.240]  iodine, probiotics, zinc and silica to help rebuild the immune system and to create a healthy stock
[01:31:23.240 --> 01:31:28.200]  flora. Micro plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage
[01:31:28.200 --> 01:31:34.360]  shelter. We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org and remember all of our products
[01:31:34.360 --> 01:31:39.720]  are chemical-free and healthy to eat. We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest
[01:31:39.720 --> 01:31:45.640]  quality and rapid shipping anywhere and we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the US. Please
[01:31:45.640 --> 01:31:56.200]  visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608. That's 908-6912608. See what our powder,
[01:31:56.200 --> 01:32:05.000]  seeds and oil can do for you at hempusa.org. You're listening to the Logos Radio Network
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:17.480]  and the Logos Radio Network dot com.
[01:32:17.480 --> 01:32:38.120]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio at the Bundy Night Traffic Show.
[01:32:38.120 --> 01:32:44.600]  Right now we are talking to Paula in Maine. Carl, Ryan, I see you on the board. Hang in there. We'll
[01:32:44.600 --> 01:32:49.880]  be right with you as soon as we get done with Paula. All right Paula, again what I was saying
[01:32:49.880 --> 01:32:57.560]  before I went to break is it's very easy to make the argument that the guns were transferred to
[01:32:57.560 --> 01:33:03.640]  you. The problem is is if you purchased them after the conviction and his name is on the paperwork,
[01:33:03.640 --> 01:33:11.640]  that's still going to constitute a felon in possession. So the issue here becomes whether
[01:33:11.640 --> 01:33:18.040]  or not this is a retroactive law that attempts to inflict the continued punishment after time
[01:33:18.040 --> 01:33:26.360]  has already been served. Okay, if the law attempts to affect his rights after the conviction has
[01:33:26.360 --> 01:33:32.760]  been completed, in other words, he's served his time and he's out, he's not on probation
[01:33:32.760 --> 01:33:39.560]  or anything of that nature when this law is enacted. Now they're attempting to deprive him of
[01:33:39.560 --> 01:33:48.200]  rights after the fact and that's a retroactive law. Okay, I'm going to see if I can get him to
[01:33:48.200 --> 01:33:55.720]  cooperate with me so that we can ask his attorney that question. Well, don't expect the attorney
[01:33:55.720 --> 01:34:03.960]  to give you a good answer. Yeah, I know. Now if I wanted to put in an affidavit into his case,
[01:34:03.960 --> 01:34:10.920]  if this ever got to trial, would that affidavit have to be heard by the jury? No. No.
[01:34:14.760 --> 01:34:20.120]  A judge would decide whether or not it would be? The evidence has to be admissible and in order
[01:34:20.120 --> 01:34:27.080]  for it to be admissible, there must be a foundation upon which to admit the evidence.
[01:34:27.080 --> 01:34:33.080]  So the whoever's acting as counsel, whether it's an attorney or your husband or whatever,
[01:34:33.080 --> 01:34:39.560]  would have to lay proper foundation in order to introduce the evidence or introduce the affidavit
[01:34:39.560 --> 01:34:46.120]  as evidence and they could only do that if the person that made the affidavit is there to testify.
[01:34:46.120 --> 01:34:54.040]  Otherwise, the affidavit is hearsay. So if I went, then it would count. I could...
[01:34:54.040 --> 01:34:59.080]  If you were called to the stand to testify to its contents.
[01:35:00.680 --> 01:35:05.720]  So that would be totally up to his lawyer. Correct. Okay.
[01:35:08.680 --> 01:35:15.320]  I guess. What do you think about the false imprisonment charges? Do you think that's
[01:35:15.320 --> 01:35:20.600]  something I could predict? Well, for you personally, yes, but there's not going to help your husband
[01:35:20.600 --> 01:35:28.600]  at all other than to... That alone, if you file charges against the judge, that should disqualify
[01:35:28.600 --> 01:35:36.520]  the judge from sitting in your husband's case. Why? Because the judge now has a vested financial
[01:35:36.520 --> 01:35:41.560]  interest in the outcome of your husband's case via your case against the judge.
[01:35:43.720 --> 01:35:46.840]  Okay. All right. Well, thanks. Yes, ma'am.
[01:35:46.840 --> 01:35:52.440]  Don't mind if I call in again about these things. No, ma'am. Do your best and hang in there and
[01:35:52.440 --> 01:35:59.080]  good luck. Okay, thanks. You're welcome. All right. Now we're going to go to Carl in Texas.
[01:35:59.080 --> 01:36:06.280]  Carl, what can we do for you? Well, I have just recently... I wanted to say first, I'm a one of
[01:36:06.280 --> 01:36:12.520]  your seminar students from two years back and I've done really well with that. I'm about six
[01:36:12.520 --> 01:36:18.760]  for eight on no convictions, but I recently discovered that I had a... Going through an
[01:36:18.760 --> 01:36:25.560]  insurance agent for a new quote, they said, Mr. Kirkman, you have a speeding ticket on your
[01:36:25.560 --> 01:36:33.560]  record. And I had gotten a warning back in November of 2011 for speeding by a trooper.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:40.920]  And I believe that I might have that warning still in my file. I'm not certain.
[01:36:40.920 --> 01:36:48.280]  I'm in the middle of a move right now. In any case, when the insurance agent pulled my record,
[01:36:48.280 --> 01:36:55.160]  he said, no, you have a speeding ticket, but I've never seen this before. It has an asterisk
[01:36:55.160 --> 01:37:01.960]  with a special notation. It says special detail beside the speeding ticket. And as I thought
[01:37:01.960 --> 01:37:08.520]  back about this, I said, I got a warning, but not a speeding ticket. So I haven't done my
[01:37:08.520 --> 01:37:12.680]  diligence yet. I haven't been in town, and I'm going to be pulling my record this next week.
[01:37:13.960 --> 01:37:20.200]  But any thoughts on how to proceed, do they have to be able to show me that a copy of the
[01:37:20.200 --> 01:37:26.280]  citation, would it be in a file? Well, it can actually be on your record unless there's been
[01:37:26.280 --> 01:37:37.320]  a conviction. So to get them to prove that up, if they cannot produce the ticket and the conviction,
[01:37:37.320 --> 01:37:43.080]  then I would have to, they'd have to expunge that, wouldn't they?
[01:37:44.600 --> 01:37:47.400]  Well, absolutely. Okay.
[01:37:50.200 --> 01:37:56.200]  Well, I guess I'll just proceed by going to the DPS, pulling my record, and then I guess,
[01:37:56.840 --> 01:38:02.600]  is it a situation you think where you just have to contest it, or do you, and if they don't relent?
[01:38:02.600 --> 01:38:08.360]  Okay. Well, the first thing is, is they, you need to know when this alleged ticket was issued.
[01:38:08.360 --> 01:38:11.880]  The insurance agent should have been able to say, well, this ticket appears to have been issued on
[01:38:11.880 --> 01:38:17.720]  such a such day. And he did. Okay. And does it match the timeframe of the one you're talking about?
[01:38:18.520 --> 01:38:25.080]  Yes. Okay. So where you'd need to see on that ticket, where you were directed to report,
[01:38:25.080 --> 01:38:34.520]  then you need to contact that court and say, I want to know why that you guys posted a speeding
[01:38:34.520 --> 01:38:45.480]  conviction on my record for a warning ticket. Right. Give them the citation number, tell them to
[01:38:45.480 --> 01:38:51.000]  look it up. And then, and then no matter what they say, say, look, it's showing up to my insurance
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:57.400]  company as a conviction. You better look into it. You better get it withdrawn. And right now,
[01:38:57.400 --> 01:39:02.520]  I want you to send me something in writing stating that there is no speeding conviction
[01:39:02.520 --> 01:39:09.720]  on my record associated with this citation so that I can take that to my insurance company
[01:39:09.720 --> 01:39:18.680]  and get my rate the way it ought to be. Right. I was just, but I guess my main question is,
[01:39:18.680 --> 01:39:23.160]  if they persist that, no, sir, you do have a speeding ticket. It was a conviction.
[01:39:23.160 --> 01:39:28.120]  It can't be a conviction if you were never noticed and never went to trial. They can't
[01:39:28.120 --> 01:39:37.560]  convict you in absentia. I understand. But like I say, as a clerical era, for them to even insist
[01:39:37.560 --> 01:39:43.240]  that it is there, they would have to be able to produce the ticket, the court, the date, the court.
[01:39:43.240 --> 01:39:47.480]  They would have to produce the entire court record showing that there was a trial,
[01:39:47.480 --> 01:39:56.360]  a jury conviction, the whole nine yards. Right. Okay. But I've never, and you know,
[01:39:56.360 --> 01:40:05.400]  it might be because of my success with your seminar. It seems like they always
[01:40:05.400 --> 01:40:11.320]  give me a warning now for whatever that's worth. Well, that's good. They may have just turned
[01:40:11.320 --> 01:40:18.760]  you into a please do not accost. I hope that's what we've done. Well, I wish you all the luck,
[01:40:18.760 --> 01:40:23.720]  and that's how it turns out. That's for sure. Well, that's all I had for you tonight.
[01:40:24.440 --> 01:40:29.160]  Okay. Well, I appreciate the call. Thanks for calling in, Carl. Thank you so much. All right.
[01:40:30.920 --> 01:40:35.320]  All right. Now we're going to go to Ryan in Texas. Ryan, what can we do for you?
[01:40:35.320 --> 01:40:42.360]  Well, this is a little bit sideways of what we're talking about. This is a traffic law.
[01:40:44.520 --> 01:40:51.400]  I've been served with a protective order. I haven't been served, but one has been adjudicated by
[01:40:51.400 --> 01:40:57.320]  some gents down in Bear County, Texas, and now I can't get my guns from a pawn shop in Austin.
[01:40:57.960 --> 01:41:01.000]  And I'm wondering, what in the world can I do to get rid of the
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:08.600]  protective order temporary restraining order in order to get my guns that I rightfully own?
[01:41:08.600 --> 01:41:13.080]  I'm not a felon. I'm not an abuser. I have no convictions that will prevent me from owning
[01:41:13.080 --> 01:41:23.400]  firearms. And what in the world do I do now? Well, right now, Texas has a lot of illegal laws on
[01:41:23.400 --> 01:41:32.680]  the books. One of those laws is that if you have been named in a protective order, then you may
[01:41:32.680 --> 01:41:40.440]  not be allowed to possess firearms. How do I get rid of it? Well, on what basis was it issued?
[01:41:42.680 --> 01:41:47.720]  I have no conviction of family violence. I have... Okay, wait. That's not my question.
[01:41:47.720 --> 01:41:55.800]  We're not talking about a conviction here. Yes, sir. On what basis did the judge hear evidence
[01:41:57.160 --> 01:42:05.800]  to issue the protective order? I have no idea. I was not present when the judge and the attorney
[01:42:05.800 --> 01:42:14.840]  for my sin to be ex-wife met. Okay. So, they asked for a protective order out of the blue for no
[01:42:14.840 --> 01:42:25.080]  reason? Absolutely. Okay. Well, then normally the judge is not going to grant a protective order
[01:42:25.080 --> 01:42:30.360]  without some information showing there's probable cause to issue said protective order.
[01:42:31.560 --> 01:42:37.000]  Okay. So, the first thing you would need to see is the court record associated with this to see
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:44.200]  what the statement of probable cause to issue such an order is. I have a copy of the protective order.
[01:42:45.080 --> 01:42:48.680]  Okay. That's not what I'm saying. I don't care about the protective order.
[01:42:49.320 --> 01:42:55.400]  In order to issue the protective order, there has to be some statement of probable cause filed by
[01:42:55.400 --> 01:43:02.840]  somebody giving the judge a reason to issue that order. Right. Said to be ex-wife signing
[01:43:02.840 --> 01:43:09.080]  affidavit which contradicts itself 58 times throughout it. Okay. Well, I don't know if that's
[01:43:09.080 --> 01:43:15.640]  a literal or figurative number, but in any case, if you feel you're being deprived of your rightful
[01:43:15.640 --> 01:43:21.000]  liberty to own and use your property, then the proper method is a habeas corpus.
[01:43:22.360 --> 01:43:29.000]  Okay. Critic me on the habeas corpus. What do I need to do? You'll file a habeas corpus with a higher
[01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:37.400]  court demanding that the court override your inability to access your property through the
[01:43:37.400 --> 01:43:44.600]  restraining order because there is no supporting documentation for the issuance of such an order.
[01:43:44.600 --> 01:43:49.240]  But again, you need the court record to affirm what is and is not there.
[01:43:51.320 --> 01:43:55.480]  Okay. Hang on just a second. We're about to go to break. We'll pick this up on the other side.
[01:43:55.480 --> 01:44:00.360]  This is rule of law radio. We'll be right back.
[01:44:26.440 --> 01:44:34.840]  Or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000
[01:44:34.840 --> 01:44:40.040]  cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:44:40.040 --> 01:44:44.760]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament
[01:44:44.760 --> 01:44:59.000]  recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:45:14.920 --> 01:45:20.200]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:20.200 --> 01:45:26.040]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and now
[01:45:26.040 --> 01:45:32.600]  you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:45:32.600 --> 01:45:38.360]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.360 --> 01:45:44.040]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:44.040 --> 01:45:51.640]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.640 --> 01:46:15.240]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.640 --> 01:46:51.560]  All right folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. We are in the last segment
[01:46:51.560 --> 01:46:58.040]  of the show. Call in number 512-646-1984. This is your last chance to get in something on Monday
[01:46:58.040 --> 01:47:02.920]  night if you've got a traffic issue. Right now we're talking to Ryan. Ryan, okay, let's see if
[01:47:02.920 --> 01:47:09.160]  we can wrap this up for you. Yes sir. Okay, the habeas corpus, since you're being bound at your
[01:47:09.160 --> 01:47:14.760]  liberty to use and access your property, you're being deprived of that right. Then you need to get
[01:47:14.760 --> 01:47:19.400]  the information that's in the court record so that you can use it to file or attempt to file that
[01:47:19.400 --> 01:47:25.400]  habeas corpus to get that temporary restraining order removed because the record should show
[01:47:26.200 --> 01:47:37.400]  there was no lawful basis for the judge to issue it. Okay, now I was privy to the information. I've
[01:47:37.400 --> 01:47:45.720]  not been served with temporary orders or any kind of divorce suit at this time. I have provided her
[01:47:45.720 --> 01:47:53.000]  attorney and her with my address, my phone number, and PO box number in order to find me and serve
[01:47:53.000 --> 01:48:01.720]  me so I can show up at court. As far as I'm aware, some time around about the 12th or 13th of last
[01:48:01.720 --> 01:48:11.720]  week, it was either Thursday or Friday, her attorney said she was able to have the temporary
[01:48:11.720 --> 01:48:18.680]  orders or protective orders signed by the judge in Bear County, Texas, of which all of the alleged
[01:48:18.680 --> 01:48:26.440]  incidents happened in another county, not in Bear County. She ran there after we had a fight
[01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  saying all kind of things and potentially she got this protective order. So if nothing she said
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:42.920]  happened in Bear County or anything she said happened in Bear County, how can it be enforced in
[01:48:42.920 --> 01:48:51.560]  Bear County? Well, any place in the state has the right to enforce the protection of a protected
[01:48:51.560 --> 01:49:00.440]  right. Okay, so that location in and of itself is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not
[01:49:01.160 --> 01:49:06.840]  the actual issue is within the jurisdiction of the judge to issue the order for the actual
[01:49:06.840 --> 01:49:12.280]  case, but this is not the actual case. This is a pre-trial or a pre-case proceeding.
[01:49:13.240 --> 01:49:20.840]  Now, I don't know what's in the paperwork that they use to get this order against you. Now,
[01:49:20.840 --> 01:49:29.960]  if there are prior incidents... A protective order with, if I will, a BSF of David behind it,
[01:49:29.960 --> 01:49:37.400]  and the BSF of David contradicts itself, like I said, 58 times. Okay. Well, in any case, the thing
[01:49:37.400 --> 01:49:43.640]  here about the protective order is if there are prior cases and police reports of domestic abuse
[01:49:44.200 --> 01:49:52.520]  going either direction, if there is reason to believe that the person has been threatened
[01:49:52.520 --> 01:49:58.680]  by one of the parties to which they are a domestic partner, then they can issue it.
[01:49:58.680 --> 01:50:04.360]  But without evidence of any of that... There's a police report, but there's no
[01:50:04.360 --> 01:50:12.200]  rest made, and it's all nothing but accusations. Okay, again, until... I'm living up here,
[01:50:12.200 --> 01:50:16.200]  I'm living up here in North, you know, Central Texas, and she's down there in Bear County.
[01:50:16.840 --> 01:50:25.160]  And, you know, I made a phone call to see my son and my wife, Cindy BX, and she called the cops and
[01:50:25.160 --> 01:50:32.040]  said a bunch of things that were untrue, and roundabout, in a way, she was able to... And this
[01:50:32.040 --> 01:50:38.440]  was, you know, one or two days after she left me. So, what I'm trying to figure out is how is that
[01:50:38.440 --> 01:50:42.680]  evidence for the court, if none of it can be proven? Why did she wait till she got to Bear
[01:50:42.680 --> 01:50:47.160]  County to follow a police report when she could have done it here in Bastrop for Travis?
[01:50:48.360 --> 01:50:54.680]  Well, I can't answer the whys of your question. Okay. Okay. But the point here being that she
[01:50:54.680 --> 01:51:03.240]  can file it wherever she is. All right? The issue here is what is in the court record that would
[01:51:03.240 --> 01:51:11.160]  give the judge a reasonable legal basis for issuing the protective order? Until you get
[01:51:11.160 --> 01:51:19.400]  your hands on the record, you will not have that answer. Without that answer, you have no facts
[01:51:19.400 --> 01:51:28.760]  to put into the habeas corpus request. Right. Now, I have a copy of what they had filed for
[01:51:28.760 --> 01:51:34.200]  the protective order. As I said before, I have a copy of the protective order filed in Bear County
[01:51:34.200 --> 01:51:40.680]  along with the affidavit for the particular order, and it's totally bogus. It doesn't count for anything.
[01:51:40.680 --> 01:51:46.120]  Then take that information, write the rebuttal to it into your habeas corpus,
[01:51:46.120 --> 01:51:54.360]  and demand that you be released from the protective order. Okay. Until such facts can
[01:51:54.360 --> 01:52:00.120]  be ascertained and proven to be true in a proper hearing. Thanks, man. I'll see you Sunday. Please
[01:52:00.120 --> 01:52:05.480]  get somebody else down. Actually, you're the only caller I got on the board, but I do have a Skype
[01:52:05.480 --> 01:52:11.320]  request for another answer. So if that'll help you, then I'll go on and answer that before the end
[01:52:11.320 --> 01:52:16.920]  of the show. I'm going to be at my keyboard this evening. Okay. You're welcome. All right. The
[01:52:16.920 --> 01:52:21.880]  request that came in was about next friend. I've been researching next friend here lately,
[01:52:22.440 --> 01:52:28.520]  and I did have the idea of attempting to use that doctrine in certain ways because the definition
[01:52:28.520 --> 01:52:34.520]  of it alludes to the possibility of it applying in more ways than the courts actually allow it to
[01:52:34.520 --> 01:52:43.240]  apply. But basically speaking, the doctrine of next friend deals with someone related to or
[01:52:43.240 --> 01:52:48.520]  the spouse of an individual that is going through some legal process or proceeding,
[01:52:49.320 --> 01:52:57.480]  but who is not capable of dealing with those proceedings of their own capabilities. Okay.
[01:52:57.480 --> 01:53:06.040]  They're unable or in such a state or capacity as to not be able to handle the situation for
[01:53:06.040 --> 01:53:13.560]  themselves. Now, the argument can be made that applies to 99% of the population who knows nothing
[01:53:13.560 --> 01:53:21.400]  at all about law and court proceedings. But unfortunately, the courts have put a severe
[01:53:21.400 --> 01:53:31.320]  link to that leash for next friend, and they have curtailed it basically only to the area of those
[01:53:31.320 --> 01:53:38.120]  completely and mentally deficient or those that are directly related through blood or
[01:53:38.120 --> 01:53:45.480]  marriage to someone that is of a diminished or physical capability of doing these, a diminished
[01:53:45.480 --> 01:53:52.280]  capacity or physical incapability of handling the case themselves. Otherwise, they pretty much
[01:53:52.280 --> 01:53:59.800]  will disallow any attempted use of the doctrine of next friend. So I hope that that helps you
[01:54:00.760 --> 01:54:07.720]  with your request on getting it explained. I did look into it. It did look promising for a while.
[01:54:07.720 --> 01:54:15.080]  However, the one thing that does look absolutely promising is the fact that there is absolutely
[01:54:15.080 --> 01:54:23.400]  no law on the books in all of Texas that prevents anybody from acting as legal counsel in a criminal
[01:54:23.400 --> 01:54:31.400]  case on behalf of anyone. All right. Now, we've had discussions about whether or not we can do it
[01:54:31.400 --> 01:54:42.440]  as paid counsel, but if you're not getting paid, there's absolutely nothing on the books anywhere
[01:54:42.440 --> 01:54:48.200]  that would allow them to prevent that. None. In fact, as we discussed before, if they're trying
[01:54:48.200 --> 01:54:54.040]  to call this a criminal proceeding in any way, shape, or form, the right to assistance of counsel
[01:54:54.040 --> 01:55:03.000]  is absolute. So either this is a criminal case or it isn't. Quasi criminal is not a criminal
[01:55:03.000 --> 01:55:12.600]  capacity recognized in Texas law anywhere. Quasi criminal is not defined. It is not used
[01:55:12.600 --> 01:55:20.520]  in any place except for some judicial opinion made by some cross-dressing moron with a God complex
[01:55:22.920 --> 01:55:28.680]  because it doesn't exist except as a judicially created fallacy.
[01:55:28.680 --> 01:55:38.120]  The unauthorized practice of law on the books has very limited application,
[01:55:38.840 --> 01:55:48.280]  that application being under the penal code, which is dealing with holding oneself out to
[01:55:48.280 --> 01:55:57.080]  be a lawyer, which I don't do. And the unauthorized practice of law written directly into the penal
[01:55:57.080 --> 01:56:06.600]  code and that specifically requires that you be attempting to either broker legal services with
[01:56:06.600 --> 01:56:14.040]  exclusive rights to broker those services to someone for the purpose of recovery of personal
[01:56:14.040 --> 01:56:24.200]  injury damages. You must be preparing legal documents or asking to represent or otherwise
[01:56:24.200 --> 01:56:32.760]  acting for someone seeking recovery of personal injury damages and that's all in the penal code.
[01:56:33.800 --> 01:56:42.280]  Or under chapter 81 of the government code, you must be either preparing or representing someone
[01:56:42.280 --> 01:56:53.960]  for the purpose of the transfer or release of a lien or the transfer of ownership of real property.
[01:56:55.320 --> 01:57:03.000]  Those are the only things in law that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
[01:57:03.960 --> 01:57:08.920]  And every single one of these things is civil.
[01:57:08.920 --> 01:57:17.720]  But in every instance, it must be either the transfer or release of a lien or the transfer
[01:57:17.720 --> 01:57:23.880]  of real property or something dealing with the brokering of legal services to somebody
[01:57:23.880 --> 01:57:31.400]  for a personal injury damage recovery or acting in some capacity on behalf of someone seeking
[01:57:31.400 --> 01:57:36.920]  personal injury damage recovery or stating you're a lawyer when you're not. That's it.
[01:57:36.920 --> 01:57:44.520]  That's all. No more. Too bad. So sad. So acting as legal counsel is not forbidden
[01:57:44.520 --> 01:57:52.120]  despite what the Black Road cross-dressing morons want us to believe. It is to protect
[01:57:52.120 --> 01:58:02.360]  the profiteering of the lawyer priest class. That's all. The bar association, belligerent and
[01:58:02.360 --> 01:58:09.400]  retarded. That's all their license to be because it's all they actually are and all they ever do.
[01:58:10.440 --> 01:58:14.280]  All right, folks. This has been Rule of Law, the Monday night traffic show with your host,
[01:58:14.280 --> 01:58:19.560]  Eddie Craig. My co-host, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, and I will be back Thursday
[01:58:19.560 --> 01:58:25.160]  and Friday starting at 8 p.m. So please tune in and give us a listen. Listen to us over the
[01:58:25.160 --> 01:58:33.880]  internet at www.logosradionetwork.com or you can go to the ruleoflawradionetwork.com
[01:58:34.440 --> 01:58:39.880]  and go over from there. Rule of Law Radio, sorry. And we thank you for listening.
[01:58:39.880 --> 01:58:42.280]  Thank you all. God bless and good night.
[01:58:50.440 --> 01:58:53.720]  Hey, did you hear? Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012.
[01:58:53.720 --> 01:58:57.320]  Who's Ron Paul? Really? Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[01:58:57.320 --> 01:59:00.600]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[01:59:00.600 --> 01:59:03.640]  Oh, but I'd love to make the little smiley faces with punctuation marks.
[01:59:03.640 --> 01:59:07.720]  Of course you do. Now, listen closely. You need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much
[01:59:07.720 --> 01:59:11.880]  as you can about Ron Paul and his message before it's too late. They have all of his books and
[01:59:11.880 --> 01:59:16.200]  many of the books he talks about. They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that
[01:59:16.200 --> 01:59:19.960]  you can show your support for him during the campaign. Brave New Books? Do they have Harry's
[01:59:19.960 --> 01:59:24.920]  Hotter and Twilight? No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books
[01:59:24.920 --> 01:59:29.160]  to protect your family in time of emergency. Ugh, that sounds like that show in the Discovery
[01:59:29.160 --> 01:59:33.000]  Channel. Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:37.240]  Earth Skills School that you can sign up for on the website bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:59:37.240 --> 01:59:41.320]  What are you doing? I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to bravenewbookstore.com
[01:59:41.320 --> 01:59:45.720]  or down to the bookstore in person. Where's it located? 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:59:45.720 --> 01:59:54.040]  There, it's set. I even made a smiley face. Great. Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.040 --> 02:00:18.040]  LogosRadioNetwork.com