[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  Could the end be near for the shopping mall?
[00:07.000 --> 00:08.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[00:08.000 --> 00:13.000]  Back to tell you how a major shift in a tax code is creating a shipping revolution for
[00:13.000 --> 00:18.000]  Amazon.com, and that could change the way we shop.
[00:18.000 --> 00:19.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:19.000 --> 00:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:23.000 --> 00:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:28.000 --> 00:33.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:33.000 --> 00:36.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:36.000 --> 00:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[00:41.000 --> 00:43.000]  Yahoo, and VIN.
[00:43.000 --> 00:47.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:47.000 --> 00:51.000]  Retailers may have shot themselves in the foot with their biggest competitor, Amazon.
[00:51.000 --> 00:56.000]  See, they lobbied state lawmakers to force Amazon to collect sales tax so the online
[00:56.000 --> 00:58.000]  giant couldn't undercut prices.
[00:58.000 --> 01:03.000]  But now that Amazon's charging sales tax in many states, it figures it may as well open
[01:03.000 --> 01:05.000]  shipping centers in those states too.
[01:05.000 --> 01:10.000]  And that means Amazon could soon deliver goods to customers the same day they're purchased.
[01:10.000 --> 01:14.000]  This radical move could put brick and mortar retailers out of business.
[01:14.000 --> 01:18.000]  Who will drive to the store if they can have purchases on their doorstep within hours?
[01:18.000 --> 01:20.000]  Lesson to retailers?
[01:20.000 --> 01:23.000]  Be careful what you wish for, this plan backfired.
[01:23.000 --> 01:30.000]  On Dr. Kavern Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30.000 --> 01:39.000]  Google is sharing its omniscient knowledge of nearly every human on the planet with the government.
[01:39.000 --> 01:47.000]  On Dr. Kavern Albrecht, I'll have spooky details on how Google is becoming the new global cybercom in a moment.
[01:47.000 --> 01:49.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:49.000 --> 01:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:57.000 --> 01:59.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:59.000 --> 02:03.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:03.000 --> 02:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:05.000 --> 02:12.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.000 --> 02:15.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:16.000 --> 02:18.000]  Are you feeling lucky, punk?
[02:18.000 --> 02:25.000]  I wonder if Clint Eastwood uses Google, because they're using their search engine data to hunt down anyone the government thinks is a bad guy.
[02:25.000 --> 02:36.000]  Yep, Google Ideas, Google's think tank, is working with the Council on Foreign Relations, the DEA, and the Department of Defense, plus some UN agencies to hunt people down in cyberspace.
[02:36.000 --> 02:40.000]  But putting Big Google on the beat makes me nervous.
[02:40.000 --> 02:46.000]  If you search with Google, they know everything about your political views, medical issues, personal interests, and more.
[02:46.000 --> 02:51.000]  To avoid the piercing gaze of Big Brother, make the switch to StartPage.com.
[02:51.000 --> 02:54.000]  Add it to your browser and make it your homepage today.
[02:54.000 --> 03:18.000]  Contact your Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[03:18.000 --> 03:33.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google.
[03:33.000 --> 04:02.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[04:02.000 --> 04:12.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine alternative to Google.
[04:33.000 --> 04:35.000]  So, how do we do that?
[04:35.000 --> 04:37.000]  Well, we go to the government code.
[04:37.000 --> 04:46.000]  There is a recently enacted portion there, sub-chapter A-1, recusal or disqualification of municipal judges.
[04:46.000 --> 04:52.000]  And it gives you a step-by-step process for doing exactly that.
[04:52.000 --> 05:05.000]  So, what I'm going to try to do is go through this fairly quickly and I'm going to show you the necessary process for getting these people recused and some of the reasons why we can do it.
[05:05.000 --> 05:10.000]  Okay, it starts in section 29.051, which is the definition.
[05:10.000 --> 05:21.000]  It says, definitions in this chapter, one, active judge means a person who holds office as a district court judge or statutory county court judge.
[05:21.000 --> 05:29.000]  Presiding judge means the presiding judge of a municipal court, including a municipal court of record.
[05:29.000 --> 05:41.000]  Three, regional presiding judge means the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region appointed under section 74.005.
[05:41.000 --> 05:49.000]  All right, now we go to section 29.052, motion for recusal or disqualification, subsection A.
[05:49.000 --> 06:04.000]  A party in a hearing or trial in a municipal court, including a municipal court of record, may file with the clerk of the court a motion stating grounds for the recusal or disqualification of the municipal judge.
[06:04.000 --> 06:10.000]  The grounds may include any disability of the judge to preside over the case.
[06:10.000 --> 06:25.000]  Subsection B, a motion for the recusal or disqualification of a municipal judge must, one, be filed at least 10 days before the date of the hearing or trial, except as provided by subsection C.
[06:25.000 --> 06:50.000]  Two, be verified. And three, state with particularity the alleged grounds for recusal or disqualification of the judge based on sub-item A, personal knowledge that is supported by admissible evidence, or B, specifically stated grounds for belief of the allegations.
[06:50.000 --> 07:11.000]  C, or subsection C, a motion for recusal or disqualification must be filed at the earliest practicable time before the beginning of the trial or other hearing if a judge is assigned to a case 10 or fewer days before the date set for a trial hearing.
[07:11.000 --> 07:40.000]  Now we're going to go to section 29.053. Notice, a party filing a motion for recusal or disqualification under this sub-chapter shall serve on all other parties or their counsel, one, copies of the motion, and two, notice that the movement expects the motion to be presented to the judge three days after the filing of the motion unless the judge orders otherwise.
[07:40.000 --> 07:45.000]  Now we're going to stop there for just a second and we're going to discuss a couple of these sections.
[07:45.000 --> 07:56.000]  Let's begin with the definitions. Okay, the active judge simply means exactly what it says, a district court judge or statutory county court judge, such as a county court at law.
[07:56.000 --> 08:14.000]  Okay, a presiding judge means the presiding judge of the municipal court, the one you want to disqualify or recuse. Regional presiding judge means the head administrative judge of the judicial region that the municipality is located in.
[08:14.000 --> 08:29.000]  Okay, now the motion for recuse or disqualification where it's talking about what we must have, a motion must state and be filed within at least 10 days before the date of the hearing or trial.
[08:29.000 --> 08:39.000]  Now normally you're not going to know ahead of time if they do what they did in my case, which they did absolutely nothing prior to trial.
[08:39.000 --> 08:45.000]  They didn't do pre-trial, they didn't do a 15-17, they didn't do anything. They went straight to trial.
[08:45.000 --> 09:06.000]  They didn't even have jurisdiction to set a trial date when they did because the complaint didn't exist until six days prior to my trial date and even then the complaint was not accompanied by the mandatory information cited in 2.05 code of criminal procedure.
[09:06.000 --> 09:23.000]  Now once we know these things are missing and we have the lack of notice issue because we've never been served with a copy of it, like we have in the case of a young lady I'm helping in Rockdale who doesn't want me to refer to her as my girlfriend.
[09:23.000 --> 09:44.000]  But in any case, we took it down there and filed the motion to dismiss because of lack of notice. Well the judge conducted, as I said last week on the show, conducted an ex parte hearing and denied those motions but never notified us that those motions had even been heard, much less denied.
[09:44.000 --> 09:57.000]  So when we got down there we demanded that they review the motions. Well he only looked through part of one and then said I've already read these, I've already denied these, they're denied again just for the record they're denied.
[09:57.000 --> 10:07.000]  But he would never tell us when he conducted the other hearing to basically deny the motions in the first place.
[10:07.000 --> 10:21.000]  So what we're going to do now is we're going directly after this judge and this prosecutor on several grounds and we're going to use this section or this sub chapter of the government code to do that.
[10:21.000 --> 10:35.000]  And here's what the basis of this is going to be where it says you must have personal knowledge that is supported by admissible evidence or specifically stated grounds for belief of the allegation.
[10:35.000 --> 10:50.000]  Now that right there is making it where, you know, you don't have to know for certain why they should be disqualified, you can just make the assertion that hey, according to these rules, it would appear to be so.
[10:50.000 --> 11:00.000]  But we actually have criteria for both of these. A requires that you have admissible evidence. Well guess what? We have the court record.
[11:00.000 --> 11:14.000]  The court record shows that the complaint was never served. The court record shows that the complaint probably did not even exist on the day they conducted this so-called pretrial.
[11:14.000 --> 11:23.000]  So the problem that's going to give them is they're acting without jurisdiction all over again.
[11:23.000 --> 11:32.000]  So that's one of the accusations we're going to make. The judge is acting entirely without jurisdiction, as is the prosecutor.
[11:32.000 --> 11:44.000]  Second grounds for dismissal, denial of due process through denial of notice. They violated 45.018b, which is a violation of due process.
[11:44.000 --> 11:52.000]  And the judge and the prosecutor conspired to make that happen. So we actually have two additional reasons right there.
[11:52.000 --> 11:59.000]  Failure to provide notice and conspiracy to commit that deprivation of rights between the two.
[11:59.000 --> 12:05.000]  On top of that, we can now assert official oppression, official misconduct.
[12:05.000 --> 12:14.000]  We can also assert that violation of the rules of ethics and the code of judicial conduct. They are no longer being fair and impartial.
[12:14.000 --> 12:22.000]  They are no longer being ethical. They are simply trying to deprive you of your rights by judicial fiat.
[12:22.000 --> 12:41.000]  So we're going to use this particular chapter, subchapter, to go directly after the judge and the prosecutor in my girlfriend's case. And we are going to make it in such a way where the administrative judge is not going to have any choice but to agree with us and disqualify this judge.
[12:41.000 --> 12:53.000]  And at the same time, if they appoint a new judge, then we're going to rehear our motions to dismiss for lack of notice because they can't unring that bell.
[12:53.000 --> 12:59.000]  Once they've deprived you of their right of the right of notice, they can't go back and fix it.
[12:59.000 --> 13:13.000]  Not unless you allow them to do it or you negate the violation by entering a plea to the merits, thus giving them jurisdiction and waiving the right to notice.
[13:13.000 --> 13:20.000]  That's exactly one of the reasons why we never, ever enter a plea.
[13:20.000 --> 13:37.000]  By entering that plea, you are surrendering the last viable defense you have in these cases when you fail to properly set them up at the traffic stop as being not in transportation.
[13:37.000 --> 13:56.000]  If you produce a license, registration, insurance card, or any other stuff during the stop, you've negated the no transportation argument. Why? Because you gave them the accouterments that suggest their idea of you acting in transportation is accurate.
[13:56.000 --> 14:03.000]  And guess what? They got all that on video when you presented it. They got it all on audio when you agreed to give it to them.
[14:03.000 --> 14:12.000]  So right there at the traffic stop, you hang yourself on the transportation issue the moment you produce any of that documentation.
[14:12.000 --> 14:26.000]  Now, yes, I know if you don't produce it, they're going to arrest you. Well, guess what? You don't get into a prize fight with Tyson or Ollie and expect to come away without getting hit.
[14:26.000 --> 14:36.000]  It's plain and simple. But if you intend to get in there and fight to win the crown, then for a fight, it's going to be. You need to be prepared.
[14:36.000 --> 14:43.000]  You set it up where people know that you may be calling them because you've been arrested on instances like this.
[14:43.000 --> 14:49.000]  You have money ready in reserve for them to have on hand to come get you out in cases like this.
[14:49.000 --> 15:03.000]  So you spend as little time down there as possible. But you're not going to get away with not spending any unless the officer decides to act with proper discretion.
[15:03.000 --> 15:07.000]  Now, in my class, we teach every Sunday down at Brave New Books from two to five.
[15:07.000 --> 15:21.000]  I try to teach you how to force the officer to evaluate his choice and use the proper discretion and issue the citation rather than trying to take you into custody.
[15:21.000 --> 15:29.000]  But that's not going to always work, folks. You may as well bite that bullet now. It's not going to always work.
[15:29.000 --> 15:38.000]  These guys have an extremely high opinion of their authority and a very low mental capacity in which to evaluate.
[15:38.000 --> 15:47.000]  That's not true of all of them. There are some good ones out there. I've told you that and I honestly believe that. I've encountered a few of them. I was one of them, okay?
[15:47.000 --> 15:53.000]  But the majority of them do not fall into that category. They don't.
[15:53.000 --> 16:04.000]  They're hired to be armed goons. And that's how they will react most of the time and you need to be prepared for and expect that.
[16:04.000 --> 16:17.000]  So talk to your friends. Talk to your family. Let them know what's going to be going on ahead of time if you call them and say, hey, I've been arrested because I was standing up for my rights.
[16:17.000 --> 16:28.000]  Tell them where to come get you and minimize the time you spend down there. At least that way you haven't waived any of the rights you need to fight this case later on.
[16:28.000 --> 16:34.000]  You do anything else and you will have waived rights you can't call back again.
[16:34.000 --> 16:51.000]  Alright, we'll fix the take a break. We'll continue this on the other side. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call, folks. We'll see you on the other side of the break here. We'll be right back.
[17:04.000 --> 17:24.000]  The truth to you I'll tell MSG and GMO really ain't the way to go. There's a better way I've seen. It's called Tangy Tangerine.
[17:24.000 --> 17:40.000]  And we're all drinking Tangy Tangerine. Tangy Tangerine. Tangy Tangerine. We're all drinking Tangy Tangerine. Tangy Tangerine. Tangy Tangerine.
[17:40.000 --> 17:45.000]  Order beyond Tany Tangerine and other great young Jevity products at LogosRadioNetwork.com
[17:45.000 --> 17:48.000]  by clicking on the Tany Tangerine banner.
[17:48.000 --> 17:52.000]  Sign up as a preferred customer for wholesale prices or become a distributor
[17:52.000 --> 17:55.000]  and support LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[17:55.000 --> 17:57.000]  So what do you say, Elvis?
[17:57.000 --> 18:00.000]  I am. I learn a lot.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even losses?
[18:05.000 --> 18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Merris Proven Method.
[18:09.000 --> 18:12.000]  Michael Merris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[18:12.000 --> 18:14.000]  and now you can win two.
[18:14.000 --> 18:18.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[18:18.000 --> 18:20.000]  using federal civil rights statute.
[18:20.000 --> 18:24.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons?
[18:24.000 --> 18:26.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:26.000 --> 18:28.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports?
[18:28.000 --> 18:33.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[18:33.000 --> 18:38.000]  The Michael Merris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.000 --> 18:40.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:40.000 --> 18:44.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflogradio.com
[18:44.000 --> 18:49.000]  and click on the blue Michael Merris banner or email Michael Merris at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 18:57.000]  That's ruleoflogradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.000 --> 19:12.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:12.000 --> 19:30.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[19:30.000 --> 19:35.000]  We're going to continue down this little ways now and talk a little bit more about this.
[19:35.000 --> 19:40.000]  So, we're going to go now to the section on this notice.
[19:40.000 --> 19:45.000]  The party filing a motion for recusal or disqualification under this sub-chapter
[19:45.000 --> 19:51.000]  will serve on all other parties or their council copies of the motion.
[19:51.000 --> 20:01.000]  And we have to serve a separate notice that the movement expects the motion to be presented to the judge
[20:01.000 --> 20:06.000]  three days after the filing of the motion unless the judge orders otherwise.
[20:06.000 --> 20:14.000]  Now, unfortunately, this doesn't make it clear what judge it's saying this notice has to be filed on.
[20:14.000 --> 20:17.000]  Do we file it with the active judge?
[20:17.000 --> 20:19.000]  Do we file it with the presiding judge?
[20:19.000 --> 20:21.000]  Or do we file it with the regional presiding judge?
[20:21.000 --> 20:22.000]  It doesn't say.
[20:22.000 --> 20:28.000]  It just says notice will be given to the judge, okay?
[20:28.000 --> 20:38.000]  And it's written ridiculous that the motion is to be presented to the judge three days after the filing of the motion.
[20:38.000 --> 20:47.000]  Why in the world would you give a judge that you're trying to dismiss through recusal or disqualification?
[20:47.000 --> 20:56.000]  Why would you give notice that says hold this and wait three days before you serve it on that judge?
[20:56.000 --> 20:59.000]  Unless the judge orders you to do otherwise.
[20:59.000 --> 21:00.000]  Well, here's the problem.
[21:00.000 --> 21:08.000]  If you don't serve it on the judge, how's the judge going to know it's there to tell you otherwise?
[21:08.000 --> 21:17.000]  Whatever legislative member wrote this needs their head examined because this makes no sense, okay?
[21:17.000 --> 21:23.000]  It doesn't clearly identify what judge we're supposed to be dealing with here.
[21:23.000 --> 21:25.000]  So it's kind of up in the air.
[21:25.000 --> 21:31.000]  Who gets the notice under 29.053 sub-item two?
[21:31.000 --> 21:34.000]  We don't know for sure.
[21:34.000 --> 21:40.000]  So 29.054 statement opposing or concurring with motion.
[21:40.000 --> 21:54.000]  A party may file with the clerk of the court a statement opposing or concurring with a motion for recusal or disqualification at any time before the motion is heard.
[21:54.000 --> 22:06.000]  Now, presumably, since this is saying a party, then that would be someone that is a party to the case, but party is not defined in this sub-chapter.
[22:06.000 --> 22:21.000]  So, you know, presumably we're limited to someone that's on either side of this particular case rather than some third party individual that has witnessed the events and knows a disqualification should be necessary.
[22:21.000 --> 22:30.000]  I would think that if it was actually allowing third party to do it, it would say a person could do it, okay?
[22:30.000 --> 22:41.000]  So that being said, 054 is dealing with either of the two parties, whoever is on the side that didn't file the motion to recuse or disqualify.
[22:41.000 --> 22:51.000]  29.055, procedure following filing of motion, recusal or disqualification without motion.
[22:51.000 --> 23:07.000]  A, before further proceedings in a case in which a motion for the recusal or disqualification of a municipal judge has been filed, the judge shall, one, recuse or disqualify himself or herself,
[23:07.000 --> 23:16.000]  or two, request the regional presiding judge to assign a judge to hear the motion.
[23:16.000 --> 23:25.000]  Subsection B, a municipal judge who with or without a motion recuses or disqualifies himself or herself,
[23:25.000 --> 23:47.000]  one, shall enter an order of recusal or disqualification and subatom A, if the municipal judge is not the presiding judge, request the presiding judge to assign any other judge of the municipal court, including the presiding judge to hear the case.
[23:47.000 --> 23:59.000]  B, if the municipal judge is the presiding judge, request the regional presiding judge to assign another judge of the municipal court to hear the case.
[23:59.000 --> 24:18.000]  Or C, if the municipal judge serves in a municipality with only one municipal judge, request the regional presiding judge to assign a judge of another municipal court in the county to hear the case.
[24:18.000 --> 24:30.000]  The action in the case except that a judge who recuses himself or herself for good cause may take other action as stated in the order in which the action is taken.
[24:30.000 --> 24:49.000]  A municipal judge who does not recuse or disqualify himself or herself, one, shall forward in original form or certified copy an order of referral the motion and all opposing and concurring statements to the regional presiding judge.
[24:49.000 --> 25:07.000]  And two, may not take other action in the case during the time after the filing of the motion for recusal or disqualification and before a hearing on the motion except for good cause stated in the order in which the action is taken.
[25:07.000 --> 25:15.000]  Now here this pretty much sounds like as long as they put what they want to do in the order, they can go back and continue to do anything they want.
[25:15.000 --> 25:22.000]  Again, this order does not appear to limit what they can or cannot do at all.
[25:22.000 --> 25:24.000]  Okay?
[25:24.000 --> 25:27.000]  So here's the problem.
[25:27.000 --> 25:36.000]  How do we ensure the judge does what he's supposed to do if he can continue to move forward by just writing what he wants to do in the order and having that carried out?
[25:36.000 --> 25:39.000]  What would be the point?
[25:39.000 --> 25:46.000]  Well, so far they don't abide by any statute that's put in front of them, why in heaven's name would they start with this one?
[25:46.000 --> 25:53.000]  Especially when it means they aren't supposed to be able to do anything or at least that's the way it's making it look.
[25:53.000 --> 25:58.000]  Now, let's look at 29.056, hearing on motion.
[25:58.000 --> 26:10.000]  Subsection 8, a regional presiding judge who receives a request for the assignment of a judge to hear a motion to recuse or disqualify shall, one,
[26:10.000 --> 26:26.000]  immediately set a hearing before the regional presiding judge, an active judge, or a judge on the list of judges who are eligible to serve on assignment under section 74.055.
[26:26.000 --> 26:33.000]  Two, cause notice of the hearing to be given to all parties or their counsel.
[26:33.000 --> 26:44.000]  And three, make any other orders, including orders on interim or ancillary relief in the pending cause, as justice may require.
[26:44.000 --> 26:47.000]  Now, let's talk about that last one right there for just a second.
[26:47.000 --> 26:59.000]  That means that that head administrative judge can actually issue an order to dismiss the case if that is the ancillary in, hey, sorry, dyslexia is a terrible disease.
[26:59.000 --> 27:01.000]  Please take these pills and cure it now.
[27:01.000 --> 27:17.000]  The interim or ancillary relief order that they can grant is to dismiss the case because of the due process violations that the court originally incurred by failing to provide notice and having jurisdiction.
[27:17.000 --> 27:23.000]  So the administrative judge can actually dismiss the case outright according to this statute.
[27:23.000 --> 27:43.000]  Okay, so we're going to write the motion up to do exactly that. Not only do we want Judge A disqualified, but we want, as the ancillary relief required by law, the administrative judge to dismiss the charges and the case because of the due process violations,
[27:43.000 --> 27:48.000]  Judge A tried to force us to accept.
[27:48.000 --> 27:52.000]  Thus, the whole reason we're disqualifying him in the first place.
[27:52.000 --> 28:03.000]  Also, head administrative judge, it does not help that the due process violations cannot be corrected by future actions.
[28:03.000 --> 28:10.000]  Once violated, they remain violated. They can't be fixed after the fact.
[28:10.000 --> 28:17.000]  The only fix would be waiver by the accused and we're not about to waive it.
[28:17.000 --> 28:22.000]  Now let's go to subsection B of 29.056.
[28:22.000 --> 28:37.000]  A judge who hears a motion for recusal or disqualification under subsection A may also hear any amended or supplemented motion for recusal or disqualification filed in the case.
[28:37.000 --> 28:49.000]  Subsection C, if none of the parties to an action object, a hearing under subsection A or B may be conducted by telephone.
[28:49.000 --> 28:57.000]  So again, do we want to make a road trip or do we want this to be held over the phone? Yeah, sure, we could do that.
[28:57.000 --> 29:03.000]  That's no skin off our nose. It saves us from having to travel all over the county to have it done or all over the state, for that matter.
[29:03.000 --> 29:10.000]  So we can actually file the motion to recuse and request that the hearing be made by a phone.
[29:10.000 --> 29:23.000]  And unless the prosecution objects to that, which I really don't see that happening, but if they do, then we'll both have to go to wherever it's going to be.
[29:23.000 --> 29:33.000]  Now the problem here is, is if they're going to put it back in the same county, then they're putting the hardship on the accused to have the motion heard in the first place.
[29:33.000 --> 29:43.000]  And so far, I have yet to have them conduct one of these hearings in front of either party, which this is saying they have to do.
[29:43.000 --> 29:53.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. I'm going to keep going until we get somebody.
[29:53.000 --> 29:55.000]  We'll be right back after this break.
[29:59.000 --> 30:05.000]  A noble lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[30:05.000 --> 30:09.000]  Based on the damage patting to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[30:09.000 --> 30:13.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:13.000 --> 30:17.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:17.000 --> 30:21.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:21.000 --> 30:25.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[30:25.000 --> 30:41.000]  Expose the cover up now at enobleye.com.
[30:56.000 --> 31:06.000]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy.
[31:06.000 --> 31:09.000]  And neither is finding like-minded people to share it with.
[31:09.000 --> 31:12.000]  Oh, well, I guess you haven't heard of Brave New Books then.
[31:12.000 --> 31:13.000]  Brave New Books?
[31:13.000 --> 31:20.000]  Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and G. Edward Griffin.
[31:20.000 --> 31:25.000]  They even stock enter food, Berkey products, and Calvin Soap's.
[31:25.000 --> 31:27.000]  There's no way a place like that exists.
[31:27.000 --> 31:32.000]  Go check it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT.
[31:32.000 --> 31:36.000]  Oh, by UT? There's never anywhere to park down there.
[31:36.000 --> 31:44.000]  Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore.
[31:44.000 --> 31:47.000]  It does exist, but when are they open?
[31:47.000 --> 31:52.000]  Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays.
[31:52.000 --> 31:59.000]  So give them a call at 512-480-2503, or check out their events page at bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:01.000 --> 32:06.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:06.000 --> 32:10.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:37.000 --> 32:41.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[32:59.000 --> 33:01.000]  Alright, folks, we are back.
[33:01.000 --> 33:03.000]  This is LiveLawRadion.
[33:03.000 --> 33:12.000]  Okay, we're going to continue on with this here for a minute and figure out what else we can do to these bad boys when they want to obey the rules.
[33:12.000 --> 33:19.000]  Alright, section 29.057, procedure following granting of motion, subsection A.
[33:19.000 --> 33:28.000]  If a motion for recusal or disqualification is granted after a hearing is conducted as provided by section 29.056,
[33:28.000 --> 33:35.000]  the judge who heard the motion shall enter an order of recusal or disqualification, and one,
[33:35.000 --> 33:40.000]  if the judge who was the subject of the motion is not the presiding judge,
[33:40.000 --> 33:47.000]  request that the presiding judge assign any other judge to the municipality including the presiding judge to hear the case.
[33:47.000 --> 33:52.000]  Two, if the judge who was the subject of the motion is the presiding judge,
[33:52.000 --> 33:55.840]  the regional presiding judge to assign another judge to the municipality to hear the case,
[33:56.480 --> 34:02.320]  or three, if the judge subject to recuse or disqualification is located in municipality with
[34:02.320 --> 34:07.520]  only one municipal judge, request the regional presiding judge to assign a judge of another
[34:07.520 --> 34:16.000]  municipal court in the county to hear the case. Subsection B, if the presiding judge is unable
[34:16.000 --> 34:21.440]  to assign a judge to the municipality to hear a case, when a municipal judge is recused or disqualified
[34:21.440 --> 34:29.520]  under section 29.055 or 29.056, because there are not any other municipal judges in the municipality,
[34:29.520 --> 34:34.880]  or because all the municipal judges have been recused or disqualified or are otherwise unavailable
[34:34.880 --> 34:40.480]  to hear the case, the presiding judge shall request the regional presiding judge to first
[34:40.480 --> 34:47.280]  assign a municipal judge from another municipality in the county, or if necessary, assign a municipal
[34:47.280 --> 34:55.120]  judge from a municipality in an adjacent county to hear the case. C, if the regional presiding judge
[34:55.120 --> 35:00.640]  is unable to assign a judge to hear a case, when a municipal judge is recused or disqualified
[35:00.640 --> 35:08.000]  under section 29.055 or 056, because there are not any other municipal judges in the county,
[35:08.000 --> 35:13.040]  or because all the municipal judges have been recused or disqualified, or are otherwise
[35:13.040 --> 35:18.240]  unavailable to hear the case, the regional presiding judge may assign a municipal judge
[35:18.240 --> 35:24.800]  from a municipality in an adjacent county to hear the case. That pretty much sounds redundant
[35:24.800 --> 35:30.720]  with the last part of B, but then again, our legislators are not known for being the brightest
[35:30.720 --> 35:40.720]  bulb in the box. So, look at the appeal 29.058, subsection A. After a municipal court of record
[35:40.720 --> 35:47.200]  has rendered a final judgment in a case, a party may appeal an order that denies a motion for recusal
[35:47.200 --> 35:53.680]  or disqualification as an abuse of the court's discretion. A party may not appeal an order
[35:53.680 --> 36:02.240]  that grants a motion for recusal or disqualification. Okay, content. Now, I love that part. We can
[36:02.240 --> 36:11.040]  appeal their denial of the disqualification. What it's not telling us is, to who do we make that appeal?
[36:12.640 --> 36:20.480]  Okay, 29.059, content. If a party files a motion to recuse or disqualify under this sub-chip,
[36:21.120 --> 36:26.240]  and it is determined by the judge hearing the motion at the hearing and on motion of the
[36:26.240 --> 36:31.600]  opposing party, that the motion to recuse or disqualify is brought solely for the purpose
[36:31.600 --> 36:37.440]  of delay and without sufficient cause, the judge may, in the interest of justice, find the party
[36:37.440 --> 36:44.640]  filing the motion in contempt under section 21.002c. Now, here's their problem if they attempt to charge
[36:44.640 --> 36:50.720]  you with contempt by filing the motion to recuse or disqualify. You have the code of criminal
[36:50.720 --> 36:56.560]  procedure that says they were supposed to do very specific things. The things you're citing
[36:56.560 --> 37:04.160]  in the motion to recuse or disqualify says that they specifically did not do those things.
[37:05.440 --> 37:10.640]  So, they're going to have a hard time charging you with contempt when you can show through the
[37:10.640 --> 37:17.840]  court record and through the statute that the required procedure was not being followed,
[37:17.840 --> 37:23.280]  and that failure resulted in a deprivation of a protected right to due process.
[37:23.280 --> 37:30.640]  So, as long as you couch the issues correctly based upon that premise,
[37:31.760 --> 37:37.120]  that contempt section will never get invoked. Even if they try to invoke it, it will be a
[37:37.120 --> 37:43.920]  lost cause for them, because you have the expectation that if the rules apply to you,
[37:43.920 --> 37:50.720]  that it must apply to them. If you have to abide by certain things, they have to abide by certain
[37:50.720 --> 37:57.600]  things. When they want to blanket shout out that, oh, we're not bound by any rules, well,
[37:57.600 --> 38:03.280]  then this is no longer a fair and impartial trial. Can't possibly be fair and impartial,
[38:03.280 --> 38:07.680]  because you're not even being informed as to what rules the game is being played by.
[38:07.680 --> 38:14.800]  How do you put up a defense against a case that has no rules about how it's presented
[38:14.800 --> 38:22.160]  and how it's conducted? And yet, you are limited by whatever rule they want to attach to you
[38:23.360 --> 38:29.120]  through its proceedings, such as not getting your motions in on time. The fact that you didn't get
[38:29.120 --> 38:34.160]  them in on time, well, they're denied. The fact that they don't care that their side never got
[38:34.160 --> 38:39.280]  them in at all, well, that's irrelevant. See, not fair and impartial, slight problem.
[38:39.280 --> 38:45.680]  Okay, we do have some callers on the board, or at least one. So what I'm going to do is I'm
[38:45.680 --> 38:50.080]  going to go ahead and take that caller, and then I'm going to spend a few minutes plugging our
[38:50.080 --> 38:59.680]  sponsors. All right, Jay, in Texas, what can we do for you? Hey, Eddie, it's the no front
[38:59.680 --> 39:06.800]  license plate deal. I got my trial actually coming up here in a couple of days. I just wanted to
[39:06.800 --> 39:10.800]  go over a couple of things and make sure I was going to, you know, I had everything I needed.
[39:12.080 --> 39:16.080]  Okay. I have a, I have a motion to dismiss.
[39:18.720 --> 39:21.440]  Failure to state a cause upon which relief can be granted.
[39:23.680 --> 39:32.960]  Yeah, well, I have the lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the incomplete
[39:32.960 --> 39:45.760]  thing. The incomplete, or no, no complaint, basically is what it is.
[39:46.560 --> 39:50.880]  Okay, well, there's actually several issues. You need to file something in each one of them.
[39:51.600 --> 39:58.800]  Okay. First off, there is no offense listed in the section for not having a front plate.
[39:58.800 --> 40:04.480]  In fact, the offense was accidentally omitted by the legislature in the last session.
[40:05.440 --> 40:12.080]  They can't charge you for a violation of a statute that does not contain an offense.
[40:13.600 --> 40:19.040]  Okay. If there is not an offense specifically spelled out in the statute,
[40:19.040 --> 40:22.320]  there's nothing to charge you with, and they ought to know that.
[40:22.320 --> 40:27.920]  So, you should be filing a motion to dismiss for failure to provide or failure to state a
[40:27.920 --> 40:33.600]  cause upon which relief can be granted. There's no offense in the statute for no license plate.
[40:35.520 --> 40:42.880]  Okay. Okay. Second one is no jurisdiction. There is no complaint and information filed in the court,
[40:42.880 --> 40:50.480]  as required by law. The court was never vested with jurisdiction. Third, third motion to dismiss,
[40:50.480 --> 40:58.480]  lack of notice. Notice was never provided properly, sufficiently, and timely in compliance with 45.018b,
[40:58.480 --> 41:04.240]  45.019f, 1.05, and 1.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[41:06.720 --> 41:15.280]  Okay. All right. I think I have one of those. I have the lack of notice. That was the lack of
[41:15.280 --> 41:20.320]  subject matter jurisdiction, one that I was talking about. No. Lack of notice is lack of personal
[41:20.320 --> 41:26.320]  jurisdiction, not subject matter. Lack of standing because they haven't proven transportation,
[41:27.120 --> 41:35.760]  that's subject matter. Okay. It would be standing, then. Yes. The prosecutor has failed to show
[41:35.760 --> 41:41.360]  standing on the record by showing that a regular activity such as transportation
[41:41.360 --> 41:52.480]  was being engaged in at the time of the alleged offense. Okay. All right. I've tried to get these
[41:52.480 --> 42:02.960]  motions in two or three times now, and the first time the judge, it was just me and the judge
[42:02.960 --> 42:09.440]  and the prosecutor, they didn't even want to hear him. He told me to hold on to him, and then
[42:09.440 --> 42:15.440]  did you file them? Just talk to him. Did you file them with the clerk? I tried to file them with
[42:15.440 --> 42:20.240]  the clerk, and I have her saying that you can give those to the judge that she didn't want them.
[42:20.240 --> 42:24.400]  Baloney. She's the one that has to file them. She's the custodian of records.
[42:25.600 --> 42:31.440]  Right. I have that in the recording of that. Okay. Then you're going to file another motion
[42:31.440 --> 42:37.920]  to disqualify and recuse because the judge and his clerk are preventing you from filing pleadings
[42:37.920 --> 42:41.280]  in your case. That's a disqualification right there.
[42:46.080 --> 42:49.520]  I would file a judicial conduct complaint against that judge,
[42:49.520 --> 42:53.680]  and then I'd file a criminal complaint against the clerk for acting like a judge.
[42:53.680 --> 43:08.160]  All right. All right. That all sounds good. I hope it goes well.
[43:09.760 --> 43:12.960]  It's coming up in two days, so hopefully I can get all that paperwork ready.
[43:14.800 --> 43:20.720]  I'll try to, I'll bring it in and try to give it to the clerk again, see what happens. I'll get
[43:20.720 --> 43:24.560]  that in the recording. Yeah. Tell her, look, I'm here to file pleadings in this case. Either you
[43:24.560 --> 43:29.760]  take them or I'm calling the cop to arrest you for blocking me from getting my due process.
[43:31.280 --> 43:35.760]  All right. Yeah. Okay. Talk about that. All right. All right, Jay. Thanks for calling in.
[43:36.800 --> 43:45.200]  No problem. Bye. Bye-bye. All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984.
[43:45.200 --> 43:51.840]  This is your host for Mondays, Eddie Craig. Deborah is producing for us tonight. We will be right
[43:51.840 --> 43:55.840]  back on the other side of this break, so please hang in there and give us a call.
[43:59.840 --> 44:04.720]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney
[44:04.720 --> 44:11.120]  with jurisdictionary. The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how
[44:11.120 --> 44:18.320]  in 24 hours, death by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you
[44:18.320 --> 44:24.160]  don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step
[44:24.160 --> 44:31.280]  course. And now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of
[44:31.280 --> 44:37.040]  case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[44:37.040 --> 44:42.800]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[44:42.800 --> 44:51.120]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[44:51.120 --> 44:59.040]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:00.640 --> 45:04.640]  The Oklahoma City bombing. Top 10 reasons to question the official story.
[45:04.640 --> 45:09.760]  Reason number one, John Doe number two, and other accomplices. On the day of the bombing,
[45:09.760 --> 45:14.720]  nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the writer truck report that he was accompanied
[45:14.720 --> 45:20.480]  by other perpetrators. The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone
[45:20.480 --> 45:25.040]  delivered the writer truck bomb to the Murrah building and detonated it. The only witness
[45:25.040 --> 45:29.920]  the government produced to place McVeigh at the building that morning, Dana Bradley, who lost her
[45:29.920 --> 45:34.720]  children and one of her legs in the bombing, testified that she saw McVeigh with another man,
[45:34.720 --> 45:40.080]  the faithful John Doe number two, exiting the writer truck. While at least 15 other witnesses
[45:40.080 --> 45:45.520]  claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing, no less than 226
[45:45.520 --> 45:50.800]  witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing, including when he
[45:50.800 --> 45:56.160]  rented the writer truck, and in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators.
[45:56.160 --> 46:07.600]  For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:26.560 --> 46:52.320]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio calling number 512-646-1984.
[46:52.320 --> 46:58.480]  Okay, real quick on the sponsors. Folks who really need you to support our sponsors because by
[46:58.480 --> 47:04.400]  supporting them, you're also supporting us in a roundabout sort of way. And also, you know,
[47:04.400 --> 47:10.400]  donate to us whenever you're able and can do so because every little bit helps us here.
[47:10.400 --> 47:16.080]  This does come completely out of our pocket to keep this thing going, and we could really use,
[47:16.080 --> 47:22.240]  you know, your help in making us capable to do what we do. But we'd like to let you know about
[47:22.240 --> 47:29.680]  you know, the product Tangy Tangerine, good extra vitamin supplement for you to drink,
[47:29.680 --> 47:35.760]  and it's really good for you. Most of the folks around here are using it. Also, a noble lie.
[47:35.760 --> 47:40.400]  Please, if you get a chance, if you haven't seen that movie, please go to the website and order it.
[47:41.120 --> 47:46.960]  It's an excellent documentary. It's something that everyone needs to know. Please invite people
[47:46.960 --> 47:50.720]  over to watch it that have no interest in buying it themselves. Invite them over and teach them
[47:50.720 --> 47:56.160]  the truth about what happened in Oklahoma City. We need to get that out just like we do 9-11.
[47:56.880 --> 48:03.360]  Also, One World Way, Juris Dictionary, the Mike Mirris Method for the debt collectors,
[48:03.920 --> 48:08.160]  Capital Coin and Bullion here in Austin for all your gold and silver needs,
[48:08.160 --> 48:13.680]  and also Jerry Stevens Piano Service if you're musically inclined, but it sounds like a clunker
[48:13.680 --> 48:19.440]  called Jerry and letting you tune back up. There's also our traffic seminar. The traffic
[48:19.440 --> 48:25.440]  seminar you can get on the website. So please, win in where you're able, support the sponsors,
[48:25.440 --> 48:29.760]  support the network, help keep us going and out here helping you with this information.
[48:30.400 --> 48:35.440]  All right. Now, let's take Gary in Texas. Gary, what can we do for you?
[48:36.480 --> 48:38.080]  Hey, good evening, Eddie. How are you doing?
[48:38.080 --> 48:40.560]  All right. I figured that might be you when I saw the area, Coach.
[48:40.560 --> 48:50.800]  Hey, as a matter of fact, I'm looking at the workbook that came from your transportation class
[48:52.000 --> 48:58.720]  and I've got, I'm trying to wrap my head around the doing a FOIA request
[48:58.720 --> 49:09.360]  for the qualifications of a DPS officer to make a traffic stop on a public highway.
[49:10.720 --> 49:10.960]  Okay.
[49:12.320 --> 49:20.480]  So I've read, yeah, I've read Rule 4.13 of Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code.
[49:21.680 --> 49:26.000]  And I'm getting a little confused on something and I wanted to see if you could help me kind of
[49:26.000 --> 49:34.160]  ferret it out. And this is right out of your traffic manual. It says paragraph A,
[49:34.160 --> 49:39.040]  says an officer of the department may stop, enter, or detain on a highway,
[49:39.840 --> 49:47.120]  or at a port of entry, a motor vehicle that is subject to Texas Transportation Code 644.
[49:47.680 --> 49:51.680]  So I went to 644 and it refers me to Transportation Code.
[49:51.680 --> 50:01.920]  Commercial motor vehicle safety inspection. Yes. And the type of vehicle that is referred to in
[50:01.920 --> 50:11.200]  Chapter 644 and defined in statute 548 is a vehicle of a specific weight.
[50:11.200 --> 50:21.200]  And that vehicle would not include a private automobile. It only includes those that have a
[50:21.200 --> 50:27.440]  carrying capacity of, I think, 10,000 pounds and up. Right, which would be like a U-Haul
[50:27.440 --> 50:34.320]  moving truck or something of that nature. Yeah, yeah, or, you know, a tractor trailer rig
[50:34.320 --> 50:43.600]  or something of that nature. And then as I read through the additional information,
[50:43.600 --> 50:52.400]  it gives that there are certain demographics that limit, further limit that officer's right
[50:52.400 --> 50:59.760]  to stop a vehicle, a commercial motor vehicle. And it only allows him to do so. It only allows
[50:59.760 --> 51:08.320]  municipal police officers and deputy constables. Yeah, if they've also been certified by the DPS
[51:08.320 --> 51:14.800]  in the same manner. Yes, they have to be certified. There's, I think, 33 or 34 different
[51:14.800 --> 51:21.760]  certifications. And it has to be in certain counties only. Correct. Well, now that applies
[51:21.760 --> 51:28.080]  to everyone except for the DPS. The DPS, I'm not trying to remember if the DPS can do it in any
[51:28.080 --> 51:33.520]  county versus the rest of them, have specific geographical requirements before they're allowed
[51:33.520 --> 51:41.040]  to do it, such as the municipal and sheriff and constable. In fact, the constable's only duty
[51:41.040 --> 51:48.960]  in relation to this as far as transportation goes. He is only authorized to operate a way station.
[51:48.960 --> 51:54.240]  He's not allowed to do anything else. That's correct. That's correct. So what I'm having
[51:54.240 --> 51:59.520]  trouble with understanding, and it may be just the way I'm reading it, but it seems to me that
[51:59.520 --> 52:11.680]  all of these qualifications pertain only to those motor vehicles that are defined in Chapter 644.
[52:12.640 --> 52:21.200]  And it seems to me that the limitations of this section may only apply to those commercial vehicles
[52:21.200 --> 52:29.760]  and not to other types of transportation. That would be correct. That would be correct.
[52:30.320 --> 52:35.360]  But now if you want to understand, if you also want to set the scope of what they've got, Gary,
[52:35.360 --> 52:47.840]  don't forget, you've got Title 37, Part 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Rule 1.2. In Rule 1.2,
[52:47.840 --> 52:53.200]  this is how it reads, and this is why you need to use it and know it. The mission of the Texas
[52:53.200 --> 53:01.360]  Department of Public Safety is, one, to supervise traffic on rural highways, supervise only,
[53:02.320 --> 53:13.440]  as in directed. Two, to supervise and regulate commercial and for hire traffic, regulation
[53:13.440 --> 53:21.840]  being license and registration inspection, and so on. Three, to preserve the peace,
[53:21.840 --> 53:30.880]  to investigate crimes, and to arrest criminals. Four, to administer regulatory programs in
[53:30.880 --> 53:37.040]  driver licensing motor vehicle inspection and safety responsibility. That goes hand in hand,
[53:37.040 --> 53:45.760]  number four, with number two, regulate, to administer regulatory programs. Then it gives
[53:45.760 --> 53:52.560]  them specifically what the programs are, and then five, to execute programs supplementing
[53:52.560 --> 54:01.360]  and supporting the preceding activities. So again, right there in that rule alone,
[54:01.360 --> 54:07.680]  the commercial nature of the DPS is brought out in flashing neon clarity.
[54:10.080 --> 54:17.440]  They can only regulate commercial and for hire traffic, and all of their programs
[54:17.440 --> 54:25.120]  are geared to that alone. That would be licensing, registration, inspection, and insurance.
[54:25.120 --> 54:35.440]  Okay. Well, one thing I didn't hear you say is that they can't stop somebody for speeding or
[54:35.440 --> 54:40.800]  for swerving. That's right, because they are not commercial and for hire traffic.
[54:44.640 --> 54:49.120]  Again, regulate means to enforce the statutes upon, right?
[54:49.120 --> 54:57.760]  Okay, yeah. So if the enforcement is in the regulations associated with commercial and
[54:57.760 --> 55:00.720]  for hire traffic, then that's all they can apply them to.
[55:05.840 --> 55:15.840]  Okay, and in that case, what it appears is that, and I'm sure you know the specific
[55:15.840 --> 55:24.080]  circumstance that I'm referring to, the DPS officer makes a presumption that the vehicle,
[55:24.080 --> 55:28.000]  or that the automobile in front of him is actually a commercial motor vehicle.
[55:28.000 --> 55:28.720]  They all do.
[55:29.920 --> 55:40.480]  That's right, and as such, that DPS officer is not limited by this Rule 413 of Title 37.
[55:40.480 --> 55:50.400]  Right. Rule 4.13? Well, yes, he is, because he still has to be certified in accordance
[55:50.400 --> 55:52.960]  to Rule 4.13 before he can enforce.
[55:54.080 --> 56:04.320]  Okay, so he's not limited to being certified to regulate motor vehicles subject to Chapter 644,
[56:04.320 --> 56:13.040]  like it says in paragraph A1. Can he go beyond? Can he look at other motor vehicles that are not
[56:14.080 --> 56:16.080]  subject to Chapter 644?
[56:16.960 --> 56:23.120]  Not according to the way this is supposed to work. Basically, the administrative code
[56:24.000 --> 56:31.360]  is the agencies, the administrative agencies' understanding of what their duty and authority
[56:31.360 --> 56:40.560]  is in compliance with the actual statute. Right. So this, yeah, this is really what the DPS says,
[56:40.560 --> 56:42.800]  this is all we can do according to the statute.
[56:47.680 --> 56:52.080]  These are what's known as the implementing regulations here in the administrative code,
[56:52.080 --> 57:00.320]  and then the transportation code is the enforcing regulation.
[57:01.520 --> 57:06.720]  Okay, so that being the case, when you're dealing with the DPS officer,
[57:07.920 --> 57:14.880]  is doing, for example, a FOIA or Public Information Act request
[57:14.880 --> 57:23.040]  to request that officer's credentials, does that have any real relevance
[57:24.560 --> 57:27.680]  when you're dealing with a DPS officer, or does it only have relevant
[57:27.680 --> 57:33.040]  relevance? Well, sure it does, but what has more relevance than anything else is,
[57:33.040 --> 57:38.240]  what is your, what is your evidence I was engaging in transportation, you know,
[57:38.240 --> 57:42.080]  that commercial and for hire traffic, that's the only thing you can regulate?
[57:42.080 --> 57:45.760]  Where's your evidence I was engaging in that activity?
[57:47.680 --> 57:53.120]  There aren't, but two things they can actually get to do that, a passenger manifest or a bill
[57:53.120 --> 57:58.480]  of lading. They never ask you for those, which indicates right off the bat, they know
[57:59.200 --> 58:02.480]  you're not regular under that because you won't have those things.
[58:02.480 --> 58:11.760]  That's why they never ask for them unless they pull over an 18-wheeler or a Greyhound bus.
[58:15.120 --> 58:19.280]  So if you'll hang on, we can pick this up and carry on on the other side if you've got more
[58:19.280 --> 58:24.800]  questions. Yeah, thank you. All right, no problem Gary, hang in there. All right Steve, I see you
[58:24.800 --> 58:30.400]  on the line there, hang on and we'll pick you up after we get done with Gary. This is rule of law
[58:30.400 --> 58:39.680]  radio, call in number 512-646-1984. This is your Monday night host Eddie Craig. We will be right
[58:39.680 --> 58:43.200]  back on the other side of this break, so please hang in there and give us a call.
[58:49.360 --> 58:55.280]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because
[58:55.280 --> 59:00.880]  they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:00.880 --> 59:05.120]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.000 --> 59:12.480]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:12.480 --> 59:18.560]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound
[59:18.560 --> 59:24.560]  passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[59:24.560 --> 59:30.320]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery
[59:30.320 --> 59:37.040]  version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us
[59:37.040 --> 59:49.120]  toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:49.120 --> 59:55.280]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:19.440 --> 01:00:24.000]  up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone,
[01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:30.240]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance,
[01:00:30.240 --> 01:00:36.080]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought
[01:00:36.080 --> 01:00:42.160]  to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:00:42.160 --> 01:00:49.040]  Start over with Start Page. Men are said to prefer slimmer women because they appear younger
[01:00:49.040 --> 01:00:53.680]  and more fertile. But a new study finds that during hard times, men are more attracted to
[01:00:53.680 --> 01:00:59.680]  ladies with larger waistlines. British researchers split 80 volunteers into two groups,
[01:00:59.680 --> 01:01:04.320]  half were exposed to stress through mock job interviews and mental math tests.
[01:01:04.320 --> 01:01:09.120]  Later, both groups studied pictures of women. The men in the stress group consistently found
[01:01:09.120 --> 01:01:14.000]  normal and overweight women more physically attractive than the more laid back guys.
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:19.680]  The researchers' conclusion? Men view robust females as more mature and better equipped to cope
[01:01:19.680 --> 01:01:25.760]  with rough situations. Huh, in tough times, maybe size really does matter. I'm Dr. Catherine
[01:01:25.760 --> 01:01:29.360]  Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:01:33.120 --> 01:01:37.200]  As if your kids needed another reason to brush their teeth, here's one more.
[01:01:37.200 --> 01:01:43.520]  A plastic chemical used in fillings could cause small but long-term changes in children's behavior.
[01:01:43.520 --> 01:01:46.400]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment.
[01:02:14.160 --> 01:02:22.160]  Here's some not-so-smiley news for kids with cavities. A plastic resin in dental fillings
[01:02:22.160 --> 01:02:26.560]  has been linked to behavioral changes and making youngsters more anti-social.
[01:02:27.200 --> 01:02:32.560]  Bispinol A or BPA is the mainstay for treating cavities as an alternative to a malgum which
[01:02:32.560 --> 01:02:38.080]  contains mercury. But a five-year study of more than 500 children found kids with BPA
[01:02:38.080 --> 01:02:43.600]  fillings scored worse when asked if they had trouble making friends or felt anxious or depressed.
[01:02:43.600 --> 01:02:49.200]  The study didn't prove BPA caused the behavioral shift, the authors noted, but previous research
[01:02:49.200 --> 01:02:54.560]  has linked BPA exposure to hyperactivity and aggressive behavior in young children.
[01:02:54.560 --> 01:03:09.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:03:24.560 --> 01:03:50.720]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Right now we are going to finish up with
[01:03:50.720 --> 01:03:55.040]  Gary in Texas. All right Gary, let's wrap it up here and see what else we got.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:02.240]  Okay, well during the break I actually read through carefully again at section 413 of the
[01:04:02.240 --> 01:04:08.480]  administrative code and it seems like there's really, there's three basic criteria that the
[01:04:08.480 --> 01:04:22.320]  officer would have to prove in a hearing. Number one, it would have to be that he maintained
[01:04:22.320 --> 01:04:32.880]  evidence or had in his possession evidence that the man or woman that was in that automobile
[01:04:32.880 --> 01:04:39.360]  was indeed operating a motor vehicle and was either in possession of a passenger manifest
[01:04:39.360 --> 01:04:46.480]  or a bill of lading. He can't prove those and he can't prove that he had. Right, but the thing
[01:04:46.480 --> 01:04:51.520]  about it is you understand how to make the objection to prevent them from proving that.
[01:04:52.160 --> 01:04:58.000]  If they use any of the key commercial terms and you don't object to that usage properly,
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:05.600]  then they've built the prima facie case they need to win. Right, that I get, that I get.
[01:05:06.160 --> 01:05:12.720]  Secondly, they've got to be, they have to have completed the courses required.
[01:05:12.720 --> 01:05:17.600]  Well, wait, wait, wait, you're going to merits and that's the last thing in the world you want to do.
[01:05:18.560 --> 01:05:23.120]  If you're objecting- I'm not dealing with the hearing right now, I'm just dealing with the
[01:05:23.120 --> 01:05:29.120]  FOIA request. Okay. So, so they would have to, they would have to prove that they had
[01:05:29.120 --> 01:05:33.440]  completed the courses and within six months of the course completion,
[01:05:34.080 --> 01:05:41.520]  also successfully taken the certifications. Yeah, all you're going to do in the FOIA request
[01:05:41.520 --> 01:05:50.000]  is you're going to tell the DPS that you want a list of all names and locations of officers that
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:55.760]  have completed the training that complies with rule 4.13 of the Texas Administrative Code under
[01:05:55.760 --> 01:06:03.600]  all that subchapter, subtitle, blah, blah, blah. Gotcha. Okay. Now, we did that a while back and
[01:06:03.600 --> 01:06:08.640]  we got a spreadsheet from the DPS. There was 57 people on it statewide.
[01:06:11.440 --> 01:06:17.920]  Right, I think you also got a, got a Excel. Right, it was an Excel spreadsheet and it,
[01:06:17.920 --> 01:06:24.080]  it was, only had 57 officers listed on it statewide. Right, and it also listed the,
[01:06:24.080 --> 01:06:27.920]  the, the only counties that they could make those enforcement stops in.
[01:06:28.560 --> 01:06:31.440]  Well, yeah, they can only certify officers in those counties.
[01:06:32.240 --> 01:06:36.800]  Right. Okay. All right. Well, I may need to talk to you some more privately about this,
[01:06:36.800 --> 01:06:39.440]  but I really appreciate the explanation. It's helped me a lot.
[01:06:39.440 --> 01:06:43.440]  Sure, not a problem. Yeah, appreciate you all evening. You too, Gary.
[01:06:43.440 --> 01:06:48.880]  You're welcome. Hey, good night. Good night. All right. Now, we have Steven and Steve.
[01:06:49.600 --> 01:06:52.720]  Steven, you were first. So, what can we do for you?
[01:06:54.480 --> 01:06:57.520]  Would that be me? That would be you. Okay.
[01:06:59.440 --> 01:07:04.400]  My wife was in an accident and was cited for failure to maintain a shared clear distance.
[01:07:04.400 --> 01:07:09.760]  Right. In the collision. The cop didn't actually witness it and I know I've heard
[01:07:09.760 --> 01:07:14.480]  Randy talk about something to that extent once before. Actually, that was probably me.
[01:07:16.320 --> 01:07:27.360]  Okay. I had a couple questions about, they actually sent the first letter to us.
[01:07:29.360 --> 01:07:34.160]  Whose day? The municipal court. It's the municipal court. August 29th,
[01:07:34.160 --> 01:07:42.640]  29, telling us where to go for the day of trial. And we've been out of town for a few weeks dealing
[01:07:42.640 --> 01:07:47.840]  with some family issues. And when I got back, we had another letter in the mail with a duplicate
[01:07:50.400 --> 01:07:54.960]  of the first one, August 29th, and a complaint actually sent along with it. And I thought that
[01:07:54.960 --> 01:08:01.920]  was interesting. I've never seen that before. Okay. Well, they're attempting to comply with
[01:08:01.920 --> 01:08:06.800]  notice. See, the problem is, is my case has already kicked them in the teeth on that failure to
[01:08:06.800 --> 01:08:11.280]  provide notice. That's why you guys will start getting complaints with your letters now,
[01:08:12.240 --> 01:08:14.880]  because they know they've already screwed up in my case.
[01:08:18.480 --> 01:08:24.080]  The date on the complaint is 9.412 versus the whatever you want to call this other things,
[01:08:24.080 --> 01:08:32.720]  the summons, which is August 29th, 2012. Right. Is there anything to that as far as setting a
[01:08:32.720 --> 01:08:37.840]  trial before the actual complaint? Yeah. They acted without jurisdiction to hold a proceeding.
[01:08:37.840 --> 01:08:45.520]  For that to be proper, the complaint would have to have been served on you prior to the date
[01:08:46.080 --> 01:08:53.280]  that that other was signed or mailed, whichever is earlier. Because before that letter could be
[01:08:53.280 --> 01:08:58.000]  sent out telling you there's a date scheduled, there would have had to have been some sort of
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:06.800]  proceeding in order to set that scheduled date. So whatever that date was, you were entitled to
[01:09:06.800 --> 01:09:13.200]  a copy of that complaint no later than one day prior to that date if they were going to comply
[01:09:13.200 --> 01:09:22.720]  with 45.018b. See, these people have been acting without jurisdiction for so long, they think
[01:09:22.720 --> 01:09:26.800]  they're going to be able to continue to get away with it. We're not going to let them.
[01:09:31.200 --> 01:09:38.960]  Okay. Something else I heard a few shows back. You guys were talking about a plea
[01:09:38.960 --> 01:09:46.000]  to the jurisdiction. Uh-huh. Is that the same as opposed to pleading guilty, not guilty,
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:54.880]  no content? No, no, no, no. You don't enter a plea. I understand that. Okay. And that's why I was
[01:09:54.880 --> 01:10:00.880]  trying to tell Randy stop using that term. It's a challenge to the jurisdiction. Don't say a plea,
[01:10:00.880 --> 01:10:06.960]  a challenge to the jurisdiction. It just confuses people to say plea, don't know.
[01:10:07.920 --> 01:10:14.000]  Okay. Is that specifically done in writing? Yes. We do everything in writing, no exceptions.
[01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:22.720]  Everything in writing. Doesn't matter whether it's a court of record or not, everything in writing.
[01:10:27.440 --> 01:10:31.840]  So, if I look up challenge to jurisdiction, I can find something. Your challenge to jurisdiction
[01:10:31.840 --> 01:10:38.800]  is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the following grounds. Lack of notice,
[01:10:38.800 --> 01:10:47.520]  okay? Being one of those grounds. Failure to comply with 25 or 45.018B of the code of criminal
[01:10:47.520 --> 01:10:55.520]  procedure along with 45.019F, 1.05, 1.14, so on and so forth.
[01:11:02.560 --> 01:11:08.640]  Given that my understanding that the you can challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any
[01:11:08.640 --> 01:11:16.880]  time. Yes. If you're unable to get it in writing according to their 10 days prior, what have you,
[01:11:18.480 --> 01:11:26.720]  the day of, can you get it on record just the same by? By filing it, it's on the record.
[01:11:26.720 --> 01:11:32.560]  Doesn't matter whether it's within 10 days or not. The question becomes if they're not giving you
[01:11:32.560 --> 01:11:39.920]  the 10 day requirement to, and actually if it, is this Austin Municipal Court? Yes, it is. Then
[01:11:39.920 --> 01:11:49.200]  it's 14 days, not 10. Okay. If they're not serving you with notice well in advance of that, then
[01:11:49.200 --> 01:11:54.960]  they're depriving you of your right to do process because there's no way for you to go against it
[01:11:54.960 --> 01:12:04.000]  under 45.019F if you weren't served it with before those 14 days came along. Is that 14 business
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:11.600]  days or just 14 calendar days? Calendar days. Now the beginning and ending day however cannot
[01:12:11.600 --> 01:12:26.800]  fall on a holiday or weekend. Okay. And the first day is always no day because any part of a given
[01:12:26.800 --> 01:12:33.600]  day does not start the clock. So it will be whatever day it's postmarked as to when the
[01:12:33.600 --> 01:12:38.880]  clock will start. So that's one of the reasons I tell people don't write on any piece of paper
[01:12:38.880 --> 01:12:45.920]  you get from them, including the envelope. Don't throw the envelopes away. Keep them. They show
[01:12:45.920 --> 01:12:53.520]  the postmark. That's very important to your case. Don't throw away the envelopes and don't mess up
[01:12:53.520 --> 01:13:04.480]  the postmark. Okay. I've got both. Given that the first one was sent before the complaint
[01:13:04.480 --> 01:13:10.560]  and then they sent the complaint with an identical, that was postmarked sixth. The complaint was the
[01:13:10.560 --> 01:13:17.120]  fourth. So I see what you're saying there. So everything starts from the last envelope which
[01:13:17.120 --> 01:13:24.400]  is the sixth postmark of the sixth on the envelope as far as the 14-day count. What's the date that's
[01:13:24.400 --> 01:13:36.240]  in the letter? The trial date. Yeah. The 20th. Okay. So that they gave it. It's postmarked
[01:13:36.240 --> 01:13:41.760]  on the sixth. The trial date's the 20th and you think you're not getting your 14 days. You're
[01:13:41.760 --> 01:13:51.840]  absolutely right. There's no way you can respond to that within the timeframe you've got. So file
[01:13:51.840 --> 01:13:59.360]  anyway. And then when they tried to deny it based upon it not being timely within the 14 days,
[01:13:59.360 --> 01:14:06.400]  object and use the envelope to prove that they didn't give you 14 days in order to respond.
[01:14:08.240 --> 01:14:16.000]  Got it. And the actual day of trial, I've always been a little confused about
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:23.440]  what they're cramming in as far as examination, you know, how they're stacking.
[01:14:24.320 --> 01:14:28.160]  Well, that's the whole purpose of coming down to the class. Coming down to the
[01:14:28.160 --> 01:14:31.520]  classes where you're going to learn how, what they do and what to do about it.
[01:14:34.960 --> 01:14:40.400]  Yeah. I teach a class on Sunday as well that kind of months up against that.
[01:14:40.400 --> 01:14:46.720]  Okay. All right. So what is your exact question about what they do? Just a basic overview. If
[01:14:46.720 --> 01:14:52.240]  I'm coming there for the trial date, I mean, the only thing that's been done before that is going
[01:14:52.240 --> 01:14:59.840]  to the clerk for your first appearance, which was kind of funny. But what's happening
[01:14:59.840 --> 01:15:10.240]  procedurally? Are they stacking the examining trial and then, I mean, just kind of pushing
[01:15:10.240 --> 01:15:15.280]  you through? No, they're not doing any of the stuff they're required to do is how they're doing it.
[01:15:15.280 --> 01:15:21.360]  They're just skipping it. I mean, in their mindset, did they think that that's what's happening?
[01:15:21.360 --> 01:15:24.640]  They don't have a mindset. They just pray that you don't.
[01:15:24.640 --> 01:15:32.480]  They will do whatever it takes to separate you from your money. There's no preset plan. They just
[01:15:32.480 --> 01:15:36.560]  do whatever they have to do to deny whatever they have to deny as it comes along.
[01:15:39.040 --> 01:15:45.360]  They make no attempt, no effort whatsoever to comply with the law they're saying the games
[01:15:45.360 --> 01:15:50.160]  being played by, which is the code of criminal procedure. They don't follow it at all.
[01:15:50.160 --> 01:15:58.560]  So, that's the whole point of arguing lack of jurisdiction. This is a non-case. Why? You're
[01:15:58.560 --> 01:16:03.920]  not following the code of criminal procedure. If this were a criminal case, you would have to
[01:16:03.920 --> 01:16:10.240]  follow the code of criminal procedure. But here, proof positive is the fact that it's a civil case,
[01:16:10.240 --> 01:16:17.040]  is you're not following the code of criminal procedure. Therefore, this court lacks subject
[01:16:17.040 --> 01:16:25.280]  matter jurisdiction because it is a criminal only venue. It has no civil jurisdiction in these cases.
[01:16:27.040 --> 01:16:31.760]  That's the whole point of it. That's what you've got to object to, and that's what you've got to argue.
[01:16:35.520 --> 01:16:40.400]  Okay? I get it, yeah. All right. Anything else? Do I need to hold you over?
[01:16:40.400 --> 01:16:46.880]  Um, well, if we can expand on that last point, yeah, if not. Okay, hang on,
[01:16:46.880 --> 01:16:50.960]  and we'll cover that when we get back then. All right, folks, this is Riddle Law Radio.
[01:16:50.960 --> 01:16:56.720]  Call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back after the break.
[01:17:00.160 --> 01:17:04.160]  At Capital Coin in Berlin, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by
[01:17:04.160 --> 01:17:08.320]  delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:17:08.320 --> 01:17:13.040]  Capital Coin features a great selection of high-quality coins and precious metals.
[01:17:13.040 --> 01:17:16.640]  In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we want to bring you the
[01:17:16.640 --> 01:17:21.600]  best shopping experience both in-store and online. In addition to coins and bullion,
[01:17:21.600 --> 01:17:26.480]  we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and pollen boost.
[01:17:26.480 --> 01:17:31.040]  We offer freeze-dried, storeable foods by Augustin Farms, Bergy Water Products,
[01:17:31.040 --> 01:17:35.840]  ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. You can lock in a spot trace with our Silver
[01:17:35.840 --> 01:17:42.960]  Pool, and we set up Metals IRA accounts. Call us at 512-646-644-0 for more details.
[01:17:42.960 --> 01:17:48.080]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half-mile south of Anderson.
[01:17:48.080 --> 01:17:54.080]  We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com
[01:17:54.080 --> 01:17:56.880]  or call 512-646-644-0.
[01:17:56.880 --> 01:18:11.920]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, see what you've done to me. I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be.
[01:18:14.080 --> 01:18:21.600]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good. I don't eat so much food.
[01:18:21.600 --> 01:18:30.800]  Ain't I a sight compared to what I used to be? Calcium, magnesium,
[01:18:30.800 --> 01:18:38.800]  sodium and zinc. Take a moment now and think. If you have a little brain,
[01:18:38.800 --> 01:18:43.760]  every day will bring the life that you've been looking for.
[01:18:43.760 --> 01:18:51.360]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904
[01:18:51.360 --> 01:18:56.400]  Waterloo Street. The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallach, founder of
[01:18:56.400 --> 01:19:14.880]  Young Jevity and creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine.
[01:19:26.400 --> 01:19:34.880]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good. I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be.
[01:19:34.880 --> 01:19:44.880]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good. I'm losing weight and I'm not half the man I used to be.
[01:19:44.880 --> 01:19:52.880]  Hey Tangy Tangerine, you make me feel so good.
[01:19:52.880 --> 01:20:01.520]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:20:02.400 --> 01:20:08.320]  Okay, now let's continue on with Stephen in Texas, if we get him wrapped up.
[01:20:08.320 --> 01:20:10.960]  All right Stephen, let's finish up whatever you need there.
[01:20:10.960 --> 01:20:18.160]  Okay, the reason I asked about what happened today was my last personal experience in court was with
[01:20:18.160 --> 01:20:28.640]  Judge Evan, JP, and paraphrasing when I was speaking about my first appearance,
[01:20:30.320 --> 01:20:34.560]  thinking I was going before a magistrate for an examination trial, maybe I'm off on that,
[01:20:34.560 --> 01:20:40.000]  but he jumped in and said, oh, you wanted instant justice, and I don't know, maybe you
[01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:44.560]  was referring to the fact that it would be ex parte, the cop wouldn't be there or what have you,
[01:20:45.520 --> 01:20:49.520]  but it seemed to me in hindsight, after getting through with that whole thing that
[01:20:50.880 --> 01:20:57.520]  when they first called me up, were they considering that the examination before they
[01:20:57.520 --> 01:21:01.600]  had you sit back down and then deal with you later on the docket?
[01:21:01.600 --> 01:21:08.720]  No, the examining trial is a mini trial. It just doesn't have a jury. You do everything in
[01:21:08.720 --> 01:21:13.520]  examining trials that you would do in a regular trial, except do it in front of a jury.
[01:21:14.480 --> 01:21:19.760]  You get witnesses to testify, their testimony is supposed to be reduced to writing,
[01:21:19.760 --> 01:21:24.800]  you and the prosecutor get to approve of that testimony, and then later on, if that testimony
[01:21:24.800 --> 01:21:31.520]  gets contradicted at trial, you've got something to go after the witness on. Plus, that has to
[01:21:31.520 --> 01:21:37.120]  determine also at the examining trial whether or not the warrantless arrest that the officer had
[01:21:37.120 --> 01:21:44.320]  to perform to write the ticket was indeed valid. That's the whole purpose of the examining trials,
[01:21:44.320 --> 01:21:51.120]  determine whether or not the warrantless arrest was lawful, and is there indeed probable cause
[01:21:51.120 --> 01:21:54.000]  that the charges are true and accurate in order to proceed the trial?
[01:21:56.560 --> 01:22:01.520]  Right, because that morning Judge Evans was like, I haven't even looked in the file. I don't even know
[01:22:01.520 --> 01:22:07.440]  what's in here. So, again, looking back on it, I'm going, well, is this what he's considering the
[01:22:07.440 --> 01:22:13.040]  first examination of what's before the court? Is that what he's trying to play at? And should
[01:22:13.040 --> 01:22:18.400]  I treat it that way? Ask him. Ask him what he thinks it is, because I can't presume to tell
[01:22:18.400 --> 01:22:25.520]  you what they think they think it is. You'll have to ask him. But now in the Austin Municipal Court,
[01:22:26.320 --> 01:22:29.920]  Evans' Court too doesn't matter. It's a railroad job either way.
[01:22:29.920 --> 01:22:36.000]  Right. So, don't concentrate on what they're doing. Concentrate on what they're not doing.
[01:22:37.280 --> 01:22:40.560]  And make sure you're documenting what they're not doing.
[01:22:43.360 --> 01:22:50.720]  Your entire argument should be three things in this, not in transportation, no notice,
[01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:57.520]  no jurisdiction, because this is a civil case. Proof positive being the code of criminal
[01:22:57.520 --> 01:23:05.600]  procedure is not being followed. The court record is proof and evidence that the code
[01:23:05.600 --> 01:23:18.400]  of criminal procedure is not being followed. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right. Thanks. You're
[01:23:18.400 --> 01:23:25.280]  welcome. Thanks for calling in. You bet. All right. Now we're going to go to Steve in Texas.
[01:23:25.280 --> 01:23:30.000]  Steve, what can we do for you? Yes, sir, Eddie. I'm one of your students,
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:35.760]  but I haven't been there in a while. Probably a couple of months almost. I've had a pretty
[01:23:35.760 --> 01:23:40.720]  rough case for the last almost four months. And I just got to say thank you, Eddie,
[01:23:40.720 --> 01:23:44.880]  because I've taken your class, I believe nine times and I got enough information from you
[01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:51.200]  to successfully fight my case. I got a dismissal. I'm not going to say I won. You taught me that.
[01:23:51.200 --> 01:23:59.680]  But I got a dismissal and it didn't take me. I was setting up my appeal, but it didn't take me that
[01:23:59.680 --> 01:24:04.800]  because I believe this because I believe this because I prayed to God. I tell you the truth
[01:24:04.800 --> 01:24:10.400]  because I really did. That always helps. It did help, but I think it's because the prosecutor
[01:24:10.400 --> 01:24:15.920]  took a look at all my evidence. I had a stack of it and against the cop and then he went straight
[01:24:15.920 --> 01:24:22.720]  to the cop and had a little huddle. I'm sitting there talking to the jury. I'm talking to them
[01:24:22.720 --> 01:24:29.760]  off the deck. The jury's assembled and I'd already made all my arguments and I filed
[01:24:29.760 --> 01:24:34.240]  15 different motions. I filed everything that I learned from you. And I thought one of those
[01:24:34.240 --> 01:24:37.920]  would work. At least transportation could seven or eight points or five would work.
[01:24:38.480 --> 01:24:44.480]  And I will say this, the judge did scare him and he thought about it for about five minutes.
[01:24:44.480 --> 01:24:49.520]  And then after the trial, after I got a dismissal, the judge actually said that he
[01:24:49.520 --> 01:24:53.840]  should have dismissed. He said to the prosecutor that he should have dismissed the case because
[01:24:53.840 --> 01:24:58.480]  of that transportation could seven or eight. I heard him and he was on record as well.
[01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:05.520]  But yeah, I did beat the case and I'm happy and I'll be back as soon as I can. That's really
[01:25:05.520 --> 01:25:09.120]  all I want. Okay. Well, you realize you are now in the perfect position to sue, right?
[01:25:09.120 --> 01:25:13.680]  I am absolutely. I don't know if I'm not that vindictive.
[01:25:14.480 --> 01:25:20.320]  It has nothing to do with vindictiveness. Don't look at it that way. It's just like when you
[01:25:20.320 --> 01:25:26.240]  tell the child not to do something and you come in two minutes later and they are doing exactly
[01:25:26.240 --> 01:25:31.840]  that thing you told them not to do. Yeah, because I kept perfect records. I filed every single motion
[01:25:31.840 --> 01:25:37.120]  and I've still got them. And every motion that I need to, every updated bonus support, that did
[01:25:37.120 --> 01:25:42.000]  nothing wrong. And I even argued pretty well that the right objections are the right time
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:47.520]  and free trial. And I thought I did everything right and he just shot down every single motion
[01:25:48.720 --> 01:25:53.280]  for no reason at all, really honestly. And that's the way they'll do it. That's the way
[01:25:53.280 --> 01:25:57.680]  they'll do it. That's why we get it in as part of the record. We know they're going to shoot it down,
[01:25:57.680 --> 01:26:04.160]  but at the same time, we're not going to just leave it up to the appeals court to look at something
[01:26:04.160 --> 01:26:10.560]  that's incomplete. We want a complete record. I thought I had an appealable case and I didn't
[01:26:10.560 --> 01:26:15.040]  care that I was about to lose, but then the prosecutor just came. So I got lucky.
[01:26:16.320 --> 01:26:20.800]  Well, I'm pretty well sure you luck didn't have anything to do with it. If you followed the
[01:26:20.800 --> 01:26:26.800]  paperwork and made the arguments, the arguments are valid. They just wish to ignore them as much
[01:26:26.800 --> 01:26:33.360]  as they can. Because if everybody knows the argument, then their ability to continue this
[01:26:33.360 --> 01:26:40.080]  scam is going to disappear. I got to tell you this, Eddie. About three or four different things,
[01:26:40.080 --> 01:26:44.000]  including in personal jurisdiction, it seemed like this judge had never heard of it.
[01:26:44.880 --> 01:26:50.960]  And he didn't rule on it. He just kept quiet and I kept pushing it. But he didn't seem to know
[01:26:50.960 --> 01:26:55.360]  about it and he certainly didn't know about transportation code 708. He didn't even ever
[01:26:55.360 --> 01:27:00.720]  even heard of it. Yeah. Well, you're presuming that they would actually read the laws that are
[01:27:00.720 --> 01:27:05.600]  associated with what they're trying to charge people with and they don't? Yeah, absolutely.
[01:27:05.600 --> 01:27:13.120]  And I asked for, I said, what, as far as the subject manager sticks in, he said he brought up
[01:27:15.120 --> 01:27:26.480]  criminal procedure 4501, 4502. And I told him 4501 had been repealed in 1999 and he had the
[01:27:26.480 --> 01:27:32.080]  prosecutor and he didn't even know that at all. So I believe that I proved to the prosecutors
[01:27:32.080 --> 01:27:37.360]  that he had no information and had no right to try me. But the judge basically just kind of
[01:27:37.360 --> 01:27:42.160]  mumbled, oh, well, there's all kinds of case law. And I asked him, well, your honor, if there's case
[01:27:42.160 --> 01:27:46.560]  law, tell me what it is. And he didn't say he didn't. He said, I don't know. I don't remember.
[01:27:46.560 --> 01:27:51.600]  Well, the thing about it is you bring that up again. But judge the case law that you're going
[01:27:51.600 --> 01:27:59.120]  to be relying on all relies on 4501, which is dead. That point a minute twice. And he basically
[01:27:59.120 --> 01:28:04.000]  got tired of hearing it. He literally said the words, I don't care. Literally.
[01:28:06.240 --> 01:28:12.320]  Well, now you understand why you're in a position to sue. It is time to make him care.
[01:28:13.840 --> 01:28:18.880]  How long do you think I have? You have two years from the day to this missile.
[01:28:18.880 --> 01:28:23.760]  All right. I'm going to look into that and I'll be back in your class as soon as I can.
[01:28:23.760 --> 01:28:26.800]  Okay. That's all I wanted to say is because of your class, I weren't.
[01:28:27.360 --> 01:28:31.840]  Well, I appreciate that. Glad you could come on here and let us know you had a success story.
[01:28:31.840 --> 01:28:36.480]  We're trying to keep track of those as much as possible. We want to know how well what we're
[01:28:36.480 --> 01:28:43.200]  teaching is how it's being used and whether or not it's exceeding. Because it's true. It's based
[01:28:43.200 --> 01:28:48.400]  on the law. What we assert is based entirely on the law. The fact that the courts are ignoring
[01:28:48.400 --> 01:28:55.520]  the law is not the fault of the material or the truth of what we're teaching. What it is
[01:28:55.520 --> 01:29:01.760]  is proof positive that the courts won't obey the law. That's why we document it.
[01:29:02.560 --> 01:29:07.520]  The judge just ignored every argument that I made that were legal arguments and he didn't
[01:29:07.520 --> 01:29:15.280]  seem to care. And only a couple of points did he even address me, you know. But he even seemed
[01:29:15.280 --> 01:29:20.160]  like a fair judge. He wasn't like the rest. Oh, by the way, I recused another judge that I actually
[01:29:20.160 --> 01:29:24.800]  asked you for advice on this and told me to recuse her. It's not going to mention any names.
[01:29:24.800 --> 01:29:28.240]  But yes, she just snapped. She didn't even put up a fight.
[01:29:29.280 --> 01:29:34.960]  Good. Pretty easy to recuse it. Good. Glad to hear it. Well, Steve, thanks for calling in. Is there
[01:29:34.960 --> 01:29:40.400]  anything else? That's it. Thanks so much. All right. Thanks for calling in. All right, Jay, George,
[01:29:40.400 --> 01:29:45.520]  I see you there. We eat up a segment with each of you who have just enough time to get both of you
[01:29:45.520 --> 01:29:49.920]  in. So hang in there, folks. We'll be right back on the other side of this break. This is Rule of
[01:29:49.920 --> 01:30:01.600]  Law Radio with your Monday night host Eddie Craig. We'll be right back. This is Building 7, a 47-story
[01:30:01.600 --> 01:30:06.560]  skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:30:06.560 --> 01:30:12.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:16.240]  6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. And thousands of my fellow force
[01:30:16.240 --> 01:30:20.000]  respond to this applying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:24.800]  York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans.
[01:30:24.800 --> 01:30:29.120]  And we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:30:30.560 --> 01:30:35.360]  The Rule of Law Radio Network is proud to present a due process of law seminar hosted by our own
[01:30:35.360 --> 01:30:39.760]  Eddie Craig. Eddie is a former Nacodotius Seraph's deputy. And for the past 21 years,
[01:30:39.760 --> 01:30:44.320]  he's been studying the due process of law and now offers his knowledge to you at a seminar every
[01:30:44.320 --> 01:30:50.000]  Sunday from 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:30:50.000 --> 01:30:54.800]  Admission is $20, so please make plans to come by and sit with Eddie and learn for yourself
[01:30:54.800 --> 01:31:02.640]  what the true intent of law really is. At hempusa.org, we offer chemical-free products
[01:31:02.640 --> 01:31:07.840]  to people around the world, detoxifying, self-healing while rebuilding the immune system.
[01:31:07.840 --> 01:31:13.600]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest selling product, micro-plant powder.
[01:31:13.600 --> 01:31:19.680]  Our micro-plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc, and silica to help rebuild
[01:31:19.680 --> 01:31:24.640]  the immune system. And to create a healthy stomach flora, micro-plant powder is excellent
[01:31:24.640 --> 01:31:29.600]  for daily intake and is perfect to add to your storage shelter. We urge our listeners to please
[01:31:29.600 --> 01:31:35.600]  visit us at hempusa.org. And remember, all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:31:35.600 --> 01:31:40.960]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality, and rapid shipping anywhere.
[01:31:40.960 --> 01:31:47.120]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the U.S. Please visit us at hempusa.org
[01:31:47.120 --> 01:31:57.200]  or call 908-6912608. That's 908-6912608. See what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you
[01:31:57.200 --> 01:32:01.840]  at hempusa.org.
[01:32:01.840 --> 01:32:27.840]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:32:31.840 --> 01:32:41.840]  Hi, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Now we're going to go to Jay in California.
[01:32:41.840 --> 01:32:43.840]  Jay, welcome to New For You.
[01:32:43.840 --> 01:32:51.840]  Hi, Eddie. I am calling because I have called before about a situation that was happening
[01:32:51.840 --> 01:32:58.560]  in the courts of New Jersey. I filed a federal complaint on the probate proceedings because
[01:32:58.560 --> 01:33:04.240]  they violated the Fourth Amendment. Well, when I filed in the Ninth Circuit, they ended up
[01:33:04.240 --> 01:33:10.960]  remanding it to the court. The judge says that it was dismissed by the court. It was not dismissed.
[01:33:10.960 --> 01:33:17.120]  It was remanded. But in the suit that was filed with the Ninth Circuit, the judge himself was named
[01:33:17.120 --> 01:33:24.960]  as a party to the case because of negligence. The end result of it is that today he had a hearing
[01:33:24.960 --> 01:33:29.680]  and I asked him. I said, how are you hearing? I asked the judge to recuse himself prior to the
[01:33:29.680 --> 01:33:37.840]  case. He refused. So I asked him a direct question when he allowed me to call in. And I said to him,
[01:33:37.840 --> 01:33:43.120]  I said, if you're a named party to the case, would you please mind explaining to me on the record
[01:33:43.120 --> 01:33:49.760]  how it is that you are hearing the case? I'm not a party. The action was dismissed by the United
[01:33:49.760 --> 01:33:55.040]  States Court. I'm not a party. He dismissed all my criminal charges against them and different things
[01:33:55.040 --> 01:34:02.480]  like that because I accused him of conspiracy, conspiring against my right. So when I asked
[01:34:02.480 --> 01:34:08.560]  him to clarify his position, he hangs up the call before the case is even heard so he can make his
[01:34:08.560 --> 01:34:14.560]  own decision and do what he likes. So the end result of it is that I ended up being cut off.
[01:34:14.560 --> 01:34:20.240]  And I wanted to know what's the best way to deal with this because what I've also found out is that
[01:34:20.240 --> 01:34:26.400]  not all attorneys have to have insurance in the state of New Jersey. If they're a corporation,
[01:34:26.400 --> 01:34:33.760]  they must have insurance. But if they're sole proprietor, if they can, if they want, they don't
[01:34:33.760 --> 01:34:45.280]  want, they don't have to. Okay. I'm confused here. What do you mean do about what? If the judge is
[01:34:45.280 --> 01:34:49.440]  acting in a place where he shouldn't have jurisdiction because he's a party,
[01:34:52.080 --> 01:34:57.280]  okay, then all you have to do is file a motion disqualify with the judge above him.
[01:34:57.280 --> 01:35:08.160]  Okay. Okay. Okay. Because I named him in the suit and he was like,
[01:35:08.160 --> 01:35:13.920]  I don't have to answer that. And I said, yes, you do, your honor. This is about honest services.
[01:35:14.880 --> 01:35:19.040]  I don't have to answer that. I don't have no more questions, no more questions. And I said,
[01:35:19.040 --> 01:35:24.480]  well, I do have questions for you. And before we can proceed, I need to get this bitter procedure
[01:35:24.480 --> 01:35:31.840]  out of the way. No, don't interrupt me. I said, your honor. He says, that's it. It's over. And
[01:35:31.840 --> 01:35:39.600]  hangs up. Hangs up. You had him on the telephone? On the telephone. I was on court call today.
[01:35:39.600 --> 01:35:46.480]  Okay. File a motion to disqualify with the head administrative judge and say that this judge
[01:35:46.480 --> 01:35:56.080]  can't conduct these proceedings. He is a party. Okay. Okay. All right. Then that's what I'll do.
[01:35:56.080 --> 01:36:03.120]  I will serve. I will send it back to the court and file it with the administrative judge. Okay.
[01:36:03.760 --> 01:36:06.960]  And I will keep you posted. All right. Well, good luck.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:12.240]  All right. Thank you, Eddie. You're very welcome. Have a great evening. You too.
[01:36:12.240 --> 01:36:19.440]  All right. Now we're going to go to George in Texas. George, what can we do for you?
[01:36:21.680 --> 01:36:24.880]  And George immediately drops off the line. I guess we don't have a George.
[01:36:26.160 --> 01:36:30.320]  Okay. George, if you're still listening, call back in. Sorry you dropped off there.
[01:36:31.120 --> 01:36:36.880]  We've got a few minutes left in this. So once again, yeah, in Jay's case, when this judge was
[01:36:36.880 --> 01:36:44.880]  required to dismiss himself from this case or recuse himself because he was named as a party
[01:36:44.880 --> 01:36:48.560]  and doesn't, then we do the exact same thing we do. And in the other case where there's a
[01:36:48.560 --> 01:36:54.640]  conflict of interest, we move to get him disqualified because the judge cannot be a party and preside
[01:36:54.640 --> 01:36:59.200]  over the case. It doesn't matter what level of court it is, the results the same. It's not a
[01:36:59.200 --> 01:37:03.920]  fair and impartial trial and it can't be seen as anything else if it's going to be valid.
[01:37:03.920 --> 01:37:10.960]  So we file the motion to disqualify and get rid of them. Now that takes us back once again to
[01:37:10.960 --> 01:37:14.640]  what we're starting this evening off with since we don't have any other callers up on the board.
[01:37:14.640 --> 01:37:19.040]  We've only got about six minutes or so left. So if we don't get George back on here really quick,
[01:37:19.040 --> 01:37:24.640]  we may not get to his call. But we're back to the disqualification of these municipal judges.
[01:37:25.440 --> 01:37:31.520]  Now, unfortunately, so far the legislature has not created a section specific to justices of
[01:37:31.520 --> 01:37:36.240]  the piece that I've found. Now, if there is and you know about it, please let me know because
[01:37:36.240 --> 01:37:43.040]  I'm still looking for it as I have time anyway. But for the rest of this, we can definitely
[01:37:43.040 --> 01:37:51.120]  disqualify the municipal court judges. And if we make the arguments correctly, we can get them
[01:37:51.120 --> 01:37:58.000]  kicked off the bench for the purposes of the case. So if we keep disqualifying judges because
[01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:04.880]  they keep violating the law, then Chapter 29 is going to make it very difficult for them to hear
[01:38:04.880 --> 01:38:11.120]  these cases because if every judge keeps making the same mistake and they have to keep disqualifying
[01:38:11.120 --> 01:38:18.320]  these judges, they're going to run out of judges eventually. So it would behoove them to come up
[01:38:18.320 --> 01:38:23.600]  with the idea of, oh wait, we have to dismiss this because we can't fix this problem now. It's already
[01:38:23.600 --> 01:38:30.640]  happened and we can't undo it. Eventually, that will dawn on them. But the moment it does, it
[01:38:30.640 --> 01:38:35.920]  will also dawn on them that it's going to put a serious crimp in their revenue stream. They know
[01:38:35.920 --> 01:38:42.400]  this already. That's the entire reason why they won't follow the law. The law has too many steps.
[01:38:42.880 --> 01:38:51.040]  The law requires too many hands. And by too many hands, I mean too many bodies with hands attached
[01:38:51.040 --> 01:38:57.440]  to do the work and the processing and everything else. And of course, that drives up the cost.
[01:38:57.440 --> 01:39:04.320]  If it drives up the cost, it diminishes the profit because the maximum amount they can charge is
[01:39:04.320 --> 01:39:10.400]  already set. So if they actually have to pay more to prosecute than what they make,
[01:39:10.400 --> 01:39:16.720]  system's going to go bankrupt. That, folks, is one of the reasons why you should help everyone
[01:39:16.720 --> 01:39:25.600]  understand that everyone should fight every ticket. Doesn't matter whether or not they're
[01:39:25.600 --> 01:39:35.200]  going to win. Doesn't matter. All they have to do is fight it hard enough to drive the cost
[01:39:35.200 --> 01:39:45.360]  of prosecution beyond the profit margin of the citation. If we do that, the system will have
[01:39:45.360 --> 01:39:51.920]  to self-destruct because if they try to set the fines higher, then the people are going to start
[01:39:51.920 --> 01:39:56.800]  fighting them anyway because they can't afford to pay the fine. That's why the price point is where
[01:39:56.800 --> 01:40:03.920]  it is right now. It's enough to hurt but not enough to make you give up an entire day's work
[01:40:03.920 --> 01:40:10.080]  and earnings and all that stuff to go down and fight it. But if they have to up it enough to
[01:40:10.080 --> 01:40:16.720]  keep the profit margin high enough to do it, that's going to change. So more likely they're
[01:40:16.720 --> 01:40:22.720]  going to come out with a different illegal taxation scheme than the one they're currently using.
[01:40:22.720 --> 01:40:30.640]  And believe me, folks, when I tell you, that's exactly what this is. This is nothing more than an
[01:40:30.640 --> 01:40:40.640]  entire multiple decades worth of illegal taxation of the people of Texas. Plain and simple.
[01:40:41.760 --> 01:40:48.880]  The only people required to pay these privileges or those engaging in the privilege
[01:40:49.600 --> 01:40:58.320]  of transportation. They can't license those of us that aren't in transportation. They can't
[01:40:58.320 --> 01:41:05.680]  regulate us through the means of registration, inspection, insurance. So they get a kickback
[01:41:05.680 --> 01:41:12.000]  on every single dollar's worth of policy out there. I bet you didn't know that, did you?
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:16.800]  The state gets a cut of every insurance policy. They get a kickback off of every premium
[01:41:17.840 --> 01:41:21.600]  enumerated by the dollar amount of the premium or the policy itself.
[01:41:21.600 --> 01:41:28.160]  The state makes money every time somebody buys insurance. Is it any wonder they started telling
[01:41:28.160 --> 01:41:34.560]  you that insurance was mandatory? Imagine if they only had to insure those in commerce versus
[01:41:34.560 --> 01:41:41.120]  everybody, how much less money they would be stealing. But that's what they're doing, folks,
[01:41:41.120 --> 01:41:49.680]  hand over fist, day in, day out, and you are letting them get away with it. Why? Because it's
[01:41:49.680 --> 01:41:55.600]  not worth your time in trouble to stand up for your rights. It's not worth your time in trouble
[01:41:55.600 --> 01:42:04.960]  to stand up for yours to make it possible to stand up for mine. This is going to require numbers.
[01:42:06.160 --> 01:42:13.360]  Okay? And those numbers can come about in different ways. We either create numbers by the number of
[01:42:13.360 --> 01:42:24.880]  cops and judges and cities and counties getting sued and losing lots of money, or we get enough
[01:42:24.880 --> 01:42:30.720]  numbers to make them realize we're not buying into this system anymore, and we're going to make sure
[01:42:30.720 --> 01:42:37.600]  that you take it out of the law and apply only what applies to those engaging in the privilege.
[01:42:37.600 --> 01:42:47.760]  And it's not going to be us. So, either way, it will take numbers. Okay? So, if you don't want
[01:42:47.760 --> 01:42:55.280]  to be fighting the fight, that's okay. But fund and support those of us that do by contributing
[01:42:55.280 --> 01:43:00.560]  to this network, by contributing, going on to rule of law, and contributing to the legal fund
[01:43:00.560 --> 01:43:05.600]  that we've got set up there to help me get this federal lawsuit paid for when we get it there
[01:43:05.600 --> 01:43:12.560]  out of the appeals courts, help us. If you don't want to be going into court and having to do this
[01:43:12.560 --> 01:43:17.760]  for yourself, then give those of us that have the knowledge and the power and the tools to do it
[01:43:17.760 --> 01:43:24.240]  and make it work for everybody the support we need to get it done. And right now, that support,
[01:43:24.240 --> 01:43:31.760]  unfortunately, is financial. It's what we have to have. So, folks, we're relying on you.
[01:43:31.760 --> 01:43:41.760]  All right, we got one segment left. We still have no callers on the board. Call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:43:41.760 --> 01:43:45.920]  If you're out there and got an issue, now's the time to call. You're going to keep listening to me
[01:43:45.920 --> 01:43:51.520]  talk on the other side of this break. We'll be right back. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law
[01:43:51.520 --> 01:43:54.880]  traffic show with your host, Eddie Craig, and we'll see you on the other side of the break.
[01:43:54.880 --> 01:44:05.360]  It is so enlightening to listen to 90.1 FM, but finding things on the Internet isn't so easy,
[01:44:05.360 --> 01:44:09.600]  and neither is finding like-minded people to share it with. Oh, well, I guess you haven't
[01:44:09.600 --> 01:44:15.200]  heard of Brave New Books then. Brave New Books? Yes, Brave New Books has all the books and DVDs
[01:44:15.200 --> 01:44:20.400]  you're looking for by authors like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Angie Edward Griffin. They even stock
[01:44:20.400 --> 01:44:26.400]  inner food, Burkey products, and Calvin's Soaps. There's no way a place like that exists. Go check
[01:44:26.400 --> 01:44:32.880]  it out for yourself. It's downtown at 1904 Guadalupe Street, just south of UT. Oh, by UT,
[01:44:32.880 --> 01:44:37.680]  there's never anywhere to park down there. Actually, they now offer a free hour of parking
[01:44:37.680 --> 01:44:44.480]  for paying customers at the 500 MLK parking facility just behind the bookstore. It does exist,
[01:44:44.480 --> 01:44:51.120]  but when are they open? Monday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 1 to 6 p.m. on Sundays,
[01:44:51.120 --> 01:44:58.000]  so get them a call at 512-480-2503 or check out their events page at BraveNewBookStore.com.
[01:45:00.560 --> 01:45:05.440]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney
[01:45:05.440 --> 01:45:12.640]  with jurisdictionary. The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24
[01:45:12.640 --> 01:45:19.280]  hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't
[01:45:19.280 --> 01:45:24.880]  have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step
[01:45:24.880 --> 01:45:31.760]  course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years
[01:45:31.760 --> 01:45:37.760]  of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:37.760 --> 01:45:43.680]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our
[01:45:43.680 --> 01:45:51.760]  audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.760 --> 01:46:09.760]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:15.840 --> 01:46:21.440]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. All right, we got callers now.
[01:46:21.440 --> 01:46:25.760]  We got George, Aaron, and Dean. I'm going to try to get you boys wrapped up here. George,
[01:46:25.760 --> 01:46:41.280]  what can we do for you? Hello, George. I was wondering earlier, you told the guest that
[01:46:42.080 --> 01:46:48.880]  they needed to, or the statute needs to, like, state in a sense.
[01:46:48.880 --> 01:46:54.800]  Yes, the statute must specifically state an offense for anything it's attempting to punish for.
[01:46:56.400 --> 01:47:04.160]  Okay, and so maybe you don't know this or maybe you do, but do you know what the offense is for,
[01:47:04.160 --> 01:47:08.480]  like, possession of drugs? What do they say? That's a penal code offense,
[01:47:11.200 --> 01:47:13.200]  and it's possession of a controlled substance.
[01:47:13.200 --> 01:47:26.160]  So, but, I mean, somebody else also told me that you could try to state if the court has,
[01:47:26.720 --> 01:47:34.560]  or if the state has no standing to prosecute you, because corpus selecti must be proven,
[01:47:34.560 --> 01:47:38.560]  and there's no specific loss, injury, or harm in a drug possession case. You know,
[01:47:38.560 --> 01:47:43.680]  have you heard anything like that before? Yeah, and that's true. Under the common law,
[01:47:43.680 --> 01:47:50.160]  there cannot be a crime if there's not an injured party. But the state, the way the courts have
[01:47:50.160 --> 01:47:54.960]  rigged the system these days, the state is claiming it's harmed just by the fact that
[01:47:54.960 --> 01:48:05.120]  you violated what it wrote into a book. Right. What's the best way to go around,
[01:48:05.120 --> 01:48:10.800]  I mean, like, I don't have a case or anything yet, but, you know, it doesn't matter the time
[01:48:10.800 --> 01:48:17.440]  before I get caught with a joint or something. I'm wondering, like, what's the best way it goes
[01:48:17.440 --> 01:48:26.480]  about if that happens to try to, you know, eliminate the problem. Well, again, that's going to depend
[01:48:26.480 --> 01:48:38.720]  on what you're charged with. There is no one solution to every problem. Okay, so let's say
[01:48:38.720 --> 01:48:45.520]  it's a, like, possession of marijuana under possession with enough to be intent to distribute
[01:48:45.520 --> 01:48:52.880]  or possession with enough for personal use. Well, I guess let me ask about both.
[01:48:52.880 --> 01:48:58.480]  Well, we ain't got enough time in this entire show to go into both. We really don't have enough
[01:48:58.480 --> 01:49:06.000]  time to go into one, especially in the last segment of the show. Okay. I was just wondering
[01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:14.080]  mostly about that corpus, the way they think, would you file a pleading with, like...
[01:49:14.080 --> 01:49:18.480]  What I would do is file according to how things went at the time of the arrest.
[01:49:18.480 --> 01:49:24.320]  It, everything that you do is based upon what they don't do and should have done.
[01:49:25.360 --> 01:49:29.440]  And in order to answer your question, I'd have to give you what all the rules are,
[01:49:29.440 --> 01:49:32.800]  and there isn't enough time in the show to do that. That's what the code of
[01:49:32.800 --> 01:49:38.240]  criminal procedure is. That's why you need to read it. That's the rules of the game.
[01:49:38.240 --> 01:49:41.840]  Then you have the rules of the accusation, which is what's in the penal code.
[01:49:42.880 --> 01:49:47.280]  So you have to go look at the specific charge, and then you have to look at how it plays into
[01:49:47.280 --> 01:49:52.720]  the code of criminal procedure as either a misdemeanor or a felony, so you know which procedures
[01:49:52.720 --> 01:50:00.640]  apply to the prosecution of that type of case. And then you document everywhere that they fail
[01:50:00.640 --> 01:50:12.320]  to follow that procedure. That's the process. Okay. Okay. And that's your dictionary thing that
[01:50:12.320 --> 01:50:18.000]  you also... That's for civil lawsuits in federal court. It doesn't have anything to do with the
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:26.560]  criminal side. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right, George. Thanks for calling
[01:50:26.560 --> 01:50:31.440]  in. All right. Now we're going to go to Aaron in Texas. Aaron, what can we do for you?
[01:50:33.040 --> 01:50:34.800]  Hey, Eddie. How are you doing? All right. How are you?
[01:50:35.920 --> 01:50:39.920]  Doing well. First off, I just want to say thanks to you and Deborah and Randy and everybody at
[01:50:39.920 --> 01:50:45.360]  the Rule of Law, Logos, Ritter Network for educating everybody out here. So thanks for that. And then
[01:50:45.840 --> 01:50:51.840]  next, I have a couple questions. First off, I was considering forming an LLC. I know you don't
[01:50:51.840 --> 01:50:56.320]  haven't gone much into contract law or corporate type law, but I was wondering if you could answer
[01:50:56.320 --> 01:51:02.000]  briefly just a basic question about LLCs. I noticed when you're looking through the LLC
[01:51:02.720 --> 01:51:08.960]  documents that you're basically just binding yourself to reporting lots of material to the
[01:51:08.960 --> 01:51:14.320]  IRS. What are your feeling on different types of corporations or the best way of doing business?
[01:51:15.600 --> 01:51:21.200]  All depends on the kind of business you're trying to do. Really, the only reason a corporate
[01:51:22.160 --> 01:51:28.480]  a corporation exists is so that it can have a diversified structure of people responsible
[01:51:28.480 --> 01:51:34.080]  for what it does and so that those people can hide behind what's legally known as the corporate
[01:51:34.080 --> 01:51:42.320]  veil. There is far more corporate crime in America than there ever was by individuals.
[01:51:43.280 --> 01:51:47.440]  I mean corporations that make dangerous products like Ford with the Ford Pinto
[01:51:48.320 --> 01:51:54.160]  and so on and so forth, they actually hide behind that corporate shield so that the
[01:51:54.160 --> 01:52:00.160]  individuals that are responsible for its operation cannot be directly prosecuted because
[01:52:00.160 --> 01:52:06.960]  they have plausible deniability of knowledge that there was ever anything dangerous going on.
[01:52:07.760 --> 01:52:13.440]  To me, that's always been the real purpose of a corporation. It's something to hide behind.
[01:52:14.400 --> 01:52:18.640]  If you're going to conduct an honest business that you're not going to try to make public
[01:52:18.640 --> 01:52:25.120]  offerings in order to raise funds and so on and so forth and you know that you can operate the
[01:52:25.120 --> 01:52:31.280]  business in a way that's not going to get you sued at every turn and so on and so forth, I would never
[01:52:31.280 --> 01:52:37.440]  apply to be a corporation. Never. It puts you way too far under the thumb and heel of the state's
[01:52:37.440 --> 01:52:45.120]  hand. Great. That's a good suggestion. Awesome. Thank you. Then I guess my second question would
[01:52:45.120 --> 01:52:51.920]  just be you've gone over this a few times but just to repeat on what to do if you're pulled
[01:52:51.920 --> 01:52:56.800]  over by a policeman and you know that you've been doing the speed limit and they want you to
[01:52:56.800 --> 01:53:01.920]  get out of your car and do the same thing and write you a ticket. What's the best way to approach
[01:53:01.920 --> 01:53:09.120]  that? Well, that doesn't change. Well, it sort of does. I've been trying to educate people on
[01:53:09.120 --> 01:53:13.920]  getting this out there and it's always the same shield. It doesn't matter whether you were doing
[01:53:13.920 --> 01:53:18.800]  anything or not. The presumption is always not unless you're actually a commercial driver.
[01:53:18.800 --> 01:53:24.240]  Basically, what you're doing is you're asking the cop what's the emergency and how can I help?
[01:53:25.120 --> 01:53:29.040]  You keep asking that until you get an answer from him. Then you can ask him,
[01:53:29.040 --> 01:53:35.360]  is there a record being made of this encounter? When he says yes, there is, you can state,
[01:53:35.360 --> 01:53:40.560]  for the record, I am not engaging in transportation or commercial use of the roads at all. Do you
[01:53:40.560 --> 01:53:47.120]  acknowledge you have been so informed? Keep asking that until he admits, yeah, he's been informed on
[01:53:47.120 --> 01:53:57.120]  the record. Then you can say, am I under arrest? Am I free to go and keep going from there? But
[01:53:57.120 --> 01:54:02.960]  under no circumstances produce the information they're asking for and explain to us, they look.
[01:54:03.680 --> 01:54:07.760]  When you ask for this information, is it information that you can further
[01:54:07.760 --> 01:54:14.800]  charge me with or use against me in a court of law? If it is, then I have to invoke my right
[01:54:14.800 --> 01:54:21.920]  not to testify against myself. And since your power of arrest is discretionary at this point,
[01:54:23.120 --> 01:54:30.240]  do you intend to punish me for invoking my protected right of not further incriminating myself
[01:54:30.240 --> 01:54:33.280]  or providing information that can be used against me?
[01:54:35.360 --> 01:54:42.720]  Put the spot on him to make that choice. If he proceeds to physically haul you away and cuss,
[01:54:42.720 --> 01:54:46.080]  he made the wrong choice, but at least you gave him the option.
[01:54:47.840 --> 01:54:53.440]  Right. Now, it's so amazing that what you don't know, what you don't say,
[01:54:53.440 --> 01:54:56.240]  just makes all the difference. Absolutely.
[01:54:56.240 --> 01:55:01.280]  Crazy. Absolutely. That's exactly why the Fifth Amendment exists, so that you can stop talking
[01:55:01.280 --> 01:55:06.560]  and be protected by doing so. Right. Awesome. Well, thank you, Eddie.
[01:55:06.560 --> 01:55:08.160]  You're welcome, Aaron. Thanks for calling in.
[01:55:08.160 --> 01:55:12.640]  All right, take care. Bye. All right. Now, we have Dean in Wisconsin. Dean,
[01:55:12.640 --> 01:55:19.840]  we got about three minutes and five seconds. Yeah, I got, I called last week about
[01:55:20.800 --> 01:55:29.840]  seatbelt ticket in Amarillo and I did call and she didn't know what good it would send me anything,
[01:55:29.840 --> 01:55:39.360]  but she would. But she told me that... She who? The clerk or whoever or the justice of the piece.
[01:55:39.360 --> 01:55:43.920]  Okay. That I called for information. She said,
[01:55:47.920 --> 01:55:57.680]  what is that time lapse that, what do you call that, too much time has lapsed?
[01:55:57.680 --> 01:56:05.600]  The statute of limitations? The statute of limitations didn't apply because it was before
[01:56:05.600 --> 01:56:12.400]  that law didn't come into effect till 2009. Anything before that still stands.
[01:56:15.840 --> 01:56:22.800]  Okay. Surely that state had a statute of limitations on those offenses long before 2009.
[01:56:22.800 --> 01:56:33.440]  Okay. Now, they may have changed the amount of time in 2009, but there had to have been
[01:56:33.440 --> 01:56:40.880]  a statute of limitations already published. So, look, look in your, whatever serves as
[01:56:40.880 --> 01:56:46.960]  your state penal code and it should tell you what the predetermined amount of time is
[01:56:46.960 --> 01:56:54.000]  for each type of and level of offense and it will give you a running history at the bottom of it
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:57:01.120]  normally saying when each part of that was added or amended and then you can go back and research
[01:57:01.120 --> 01:57:07.920]  that online in the state statutes and find out exactly when the last set of changes occurred
[01:57:07.920 --> 01:57:14.480]  and what they were prior to those changes as far as the then existing statute of limitations.
[01:57:14.480 --> 01:57:18.720]  For instance, they may have changed the statute of limitations from two years to one year.
[01:57:19.440 --> 01:57:25.200]  Well, you would still be under the two years, not the one year. That's true, but there's still a
[01:57:25.200 --> 01:57:30.400]  statute of limitations out there it's got to be complied with. You just need to know what it is.
[01:57:32.800 --> 01:57:38.560]  Real quick, what about parking tickets? What about them? Generally they're issued under city
[01:57:38.560 --> 01:57:47.280]  ordinances. Yeah, so can I just fight them? Sure, you can fight them. A city ordinance doesn't
[01:57:47.280 --> 01:57:52.800]  apply to the people. A city ordinance is not law. It cannot possibly be law and your state
[01:57:52.800 --> 01:58:00.480]  constitution will tell you that. Okay, that's good. I got two of them. Yeah, look at the state
[01:58:00.480 --> 01:58:06.960]  constitution and look at specifically who is given authority to create law and how and I guarantee
[01:58:06.960 --> 01:58:14.080]  you I mean this the county is not going to be one of them. Okay, then Eddie. All right. I'm still
[01:58:14.080 --> 01:58:20.640]  waiting for that information to return from them so I can fax it to you. Okay, we appreciate that,
[01:58:20.640 --> 01:58:26.400]  Dean. Okay, thank you. All right, good night. All right folks, this has been the Monday night
[01:58:26.400 --> 01:58:31.280]  rule of law radio traffic show with your host Eddie Craig. Thank you so much for listening.
[01:58:31.280 --> 01:58:36.240]  Thank you for all the callers we've had tonight. I wish all of you a very great and
[01:58:36.240 --> 01:58:39.280]  blessed week. Good night and God bless.
[01:58:49.440 --> 01:58:55.920]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:55.920 --> 01:59:01.360]  recovery version. The New Testament recovery version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:01.360 --> 01:59:07.440]  what the Bible says verse by verse helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:07.440 --> 01:59:15.760]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:15.760 --> 01:59:24.080]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000
[01:59:24.080 --> 01:59:30.240]  cross references plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly
[01:59:30.240 --> 01:59:34.960]  a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version,
[01:59:34.960 --> 02:00:00.240]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.