[00:00.000 --> 00:29.520]  Markets for the 11th of April 2018 close with gold $1,353.22 an ounce.
[00:29.520 --> 00:41.240]  It's over $16.68 an ounce, Texas Crude $65.51 a barrel, Bitcoin $6,902.19, Ethereum $420.80,
[00:41.240 --> 00:55.520]  Bitcoin Cash $652.90, and finally Litecoins at $114.34, a crypto coin.
[00:55.520 --> 01:01.240]  Today in History, the year 1968, President Lyndon M. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act
[01:01.240 --> 01:06.200]  of 1968, which prohibited private businesses from discriminating based on race, color,
[01:06.200 --> 01:08.000]  religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:08.000 --> 01:12.640]  It also prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial
[01:12.640 --> 01:18.160]  segregation in public schools, and employment, and public accommodations for places of business.
[01:18.160 --> 01:24.000]  Today in History.
[01:24.000 --> 01:28.000]  For recent news, tensions in Syria seem to reach new levels after a chemical attack
[01:28.000 --> 01:32.280]  on civilians in the city of Douma, which left 40 dead and many injured, an attack which
[01:32.280 --> 01:36.720]  is being blamed on the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, by the
[01:36.720 --> 01:41.480]  United States, and on Israel by Russia, either accusatory narrative without any verified
[01:41.480 --> 01:43.360]  evidence as of yet.
[01:43.360 --> 01:47.200]  President Trump tweeted today Wednesday that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and
[01:47.200 --> 01:51.560]  all missiles fired at Syria, get ready, Russia, because they will be coming in nice and new
[01:51.560 --> 01:56.360]  and smart, going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal
[01:56.360 --> 01:58.600]  who kills his people and enjoys it.
[01:58.600 --> 02:02.640]  Many in the West, including President Trump, have been quick to conclude that this chemical
[02:02.640 --> 02:06.800]  attack must have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[02:06.800 --> 02:11.040]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand, have given approval since yesterday for the organization
[02:11.040 --> 02:15.560]  for the prohibition of chemical weapons to investigate the sign of the chemical slaughter.
[02:15.560 --> 02:19.400]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support during Syria's seven-year civil
[02:19.400 --> 02:24.000]  war, a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria and anti-Assad Syrian
[02:24.000 --> 02:28.800]  rebels that are openly being funded by Western governments, with ISIS being one of the more
[02:28.800 --> 02:32.560]  notorious swimmer groups of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[02:32.560 --> 02:37.880]  No surprise then why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakoba posted on Facebook
[02:37.880 --> 02:42.200]  that smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which
[02:42.200 --> 02:47.120]  has been fighting terrorists, or is this a trick to destroy all traces with a smart missile
[02:47.120 --> 02:54.120]  strike, and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look at.
[03:17.120 --> 03:24.080]  This is what happens when you call the cops, you get your rights violated or you all get
[03:24.080 --> 03:25.080]  shot.
[03:25.080 --> 03:27.560]  I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops, psychopathic predators, terrorizing
[03:27.560 --> 03:30.880]  neighborhood blocks, equipped with pepper spray, mate, cuffs, tasers, and glass.
[03:30.880 --> 03:34.880]  They're like serial killers acting out subliminal thoughts, forget what you taught, the cops
[03:34.880 --> 03:35.880]  have got a license to kill.
[03:35.880 --> 03:39.880]  Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will, call the silencers means that the
[03:39.880 --> 03:43.200]  pigs will never let out a squeal, and if they go to court they know the judge will make
[03:43.200 --> 03:47.360]  them a deal for real, that's why they're stopping me, locking me up, they're stopping me confiscating
[03:47.360 --> 03:49.360]  my property, talking to my democracy.
[03:49.360 --> 03:50.360]  Alright folks, good evening.
[03:50.360 --> 03:53.560]  This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig, and it's
[03:53.560 --> 03:57.360]  July 30th, 2018.
[03:57.360 --> 03:59.960]  It's going to be one of those days, folks.
[03:59.960 --> 04:05.160]  And what I mean by that is you haven't really had to rack your brain till you've had to
[04:05.160 --> 04:11.360]  sit down and write an expose on each and every chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure
[04:11.360 --> 04:16.360]  and the Transportation Code to try to create a book with enough information in it to prove
[04:16.360 --> 04:20.160]  the points you're trying to make about how the law is ineffective, it's being abused,
[04:20.160 --> 04:25.360]  it's being misused, how it isn't applicable to certain classes of persons, etc., etc.,
[04:25.360 --> 04:26.360]  etc.
[04:26.360 --> 04:30.240]  It is a ton of work.
[04:30.240 --> 04:36.560]  So much work in fact that right now I've got a headache the size of Mount Rushmore from
[04:36.560 --> 04:39.880]  staring at these computer screens so much today.
[04:39.880 --> 04:45.320]  But that's just the way my day went, I don't know how yours went, but I hope it was better.
[04:45.320 --> 04:51.920]  Now that being said, I've been having several discussions on Facebook here lately or off
[04:51.920 --> 04:56.560]  and on on Facebook as I've been working on this, again with an attorney that I've had
[04:56.560 --> 05:02.240]  a discussion with before dealing with some changes that were made in 2017 to the Code
[05:02.240 --> 05:04.040]  of Criminal Procedure.
[05:04.040 --> 05:10.280]  Now the thing that I have found most astounding about attorneys is their complete refusal
[05:10.280 --> 05:19.800]  or inability to see the obvious even when presented with substantiating evidence of
[05:19.800 --> 05:29.000]  the truthfulness of the obviousness and how they will argue against it despite that evidence.
[05:29.000 --> 05:34.320]  For instance, here in Texas under the Texas Government Code, chapters 311 and 312 as I've
[05:34.320 --> 05:40.720]  talked about on the show many, many, many, many times, we are instructed as they are
[05:40.720 --> 05:42.440]  instructed especially.
[05:42.440 --> 05:47.960]  It's law written for them, but it also helps us to understand how they're supposed to
[05:47.960 --> 05:49.960]  do it.
[05:49.960 --> 05:57.560]  So when you read chapter 311 and it tells you that the law must be read in its entirety,
[05:57.560 --> 06:03.760]  which means not just one single provision of statute, but all provisions of statutes
[06:03.760 --> 06:10.720]  that relate to the same subject as that single provision does, when you're required to read
[06:10.720 --> 06:19.280]  it in its entirety, you are also commanded under chapter 311 to read it however all parts
[06:19.280 --> 06:21.280]  will harmonize.
[06:21.280 --> 06:29.800]  In other words, when you read it correctly, there should be no conflicts between those
[06:29.800 --> 06:33.520]  individual provisions.
[06:33.520 --> 06:41.240]  And where one provision talks about some specific thing that is not spoken of in relation to
[06:41.240 --> 06:47.360]  some other provision, it talks about a different part of it or a different means such as a
[06:47.360 --> 06:52.560]  provision that talks about what it must contain versus a provision that says how it must be
[06:52.560 --> 06:58.600]  formed when it is written, then you're talking about the difference between substance and
[06:58.600 --> 07:00.200]  form.
[07:00.200 --> 07:06.320]  And being two different criteria, therefore those two statutes have to be read together
[07:06.320 --> 07:10.880]  because they deal with different subjects that are not in conflict.
[07:10.880 --> 07:18.960]  Now when you have two provisions that talk about what substance must exist, and one is
[07:18.960 --> 07:24.000]  saying the substance in relation to this specific thing within the substance must read this
[07:24.000 --> 07:30.040]  way, and another one says it must read that way, now you've got what would be called in
[07:30.040 --> 07:36.640]  a reconcilable conflict between two different provisions of law dealing with a single subject.
[07:36.640 --> 07:41.480]  And that is where the other rule under Chapter 311, the local and specific versus general,
[07:41.480 --> 07:43.480]  comes in.
[07:43.480 --> 07:49.080]  Now when you're dealing with a specific statute in the beginning, like for instance a particular
[07:49.080 --> 07:54.800]  violation or offense under a particular code, then everything that's in that code is considered
[07:54.800 --> 07:56.640]  local and specific.
[07:56.640 --> 08:01.600]  And the more local and specific being what's within a particular chapter, subtitle, subchapter
[08:01.600 --> 08:07.840]  or subsection relating to the alleged offense or regulatory information you're reading,
[08:07.840 --> 08:09.800]  et cetera, et cetera.
[08:09.800 --> 08:15.560]  It's kind of like drilling down through the hierarchy tree files and folders on a windows
[08:15.560 --> 08:19.440]  explorer window.
[08:19.440 --> 08:25.080]  Now the rules specifically tell us that when we're dealing with a local statute and there
[08:25.080 --> 08:32.360]  is a conflict, the local statute will control over the general unless there is specific
[08:32.360 --> 08:40.160]  language in the local that says in the case of a conflict, the general shall be controlling.
[08:40.160 --> 08:47.040]  Now what most people don't realize is that 95 to 99 percent of the statutes in the Code
[08:47.040 --> 08:53.960]  of Criminal Procedure are generalized statutes, okay, they are general in nature.
[08:53.960 --> 08:57.360]  They are not specific in nature.
[08:57.360 --> 09:01.400]  That's not true of all of them, but it's true of most of them.
[09:01.400 --> 09:09.600]  So when you have an issue of say what a citation must contain, under the transportation code
[09:09.600 --> 09:15.280]  there are specific chapters and specific sections that say every citation issued in relation
[09:15.280 --> 09:21.560]  to transportation to state of Texas must have the following things on it, okay.
[09:21.560 --> 09:25.680]  But then you get into Chapter 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it also says that
[09:25.680 --> 09:29.800]  every citation must have the following specific things on it.
[09:29.800 --> 09:33.520]  Now you have a local and specific provision under the transportation code that says this
[09:33.520 --> 09:37.520]  must appear on that citation and then you have a general provision under the Code of
[09:37.520 --> 09:42.960]  Criminal Procedure that says all citations shall be contained the following information,
[09:42.960 --> 09:44.760]  okay.
[09:44.760 --> 09:53.120]  There is no conflict between those two codes as far as what the citation contains unless
[09:53.120 --> 10:03.320]  the citation item is being specifically discussed such as the name of the person accused must
[10:03.320 --> 10:07.840]  be contained a first name, last name, middle initial under the Code of Criminal Procedure
[10:07.840 --> 10:08.840]  as an example.
[10:08.840 --> 10:12.240]  It doesn't literally say that, but as an example let's look at it that way.
[10:12.240 --> 10:15.840]  It says it must contain the first, middle, and last name of the individual whereas the
[10:15.840 --> 10:20.240]  Code of Criminal Procedure or the transportation code specifically says it must contain the
[10:20.240 --> 10:23.480]  name of the individual, okay.
[10:23.480 --> 10:30.840]  Now the local and specific provision says what information which is the name of the individual
[10:30.840 --> 10:36.640]  that must be on there, but the Code of Criminal Procedure says specifically in what form first
[10:36.640 --> 10:41.680]  name, last name, middle initial must be on the citation, so you understand the difference?
[10:41.680 --> 10:44.240]  So they're not in conflict.
[10:44.240 --> 10:50.680]  One is simply augmenting the information required to be put in place by the other.
[10:50.680 --> 10:54.240]  So they're not in conflict.
[10:54.240 --> 10:58.760]  Now had there been a provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure that says the name of
[10:58.760 --> 11:06.000]  the individual if known, okay, versus how the transportation code says the name of the
[11:06.000 --> 11:12.880]  individual now there's a conflict because the transportation code says you have to put
[11:12.880 --> 11:14.040]  their name on it.
[11:14.040 --> 11:19.040]  The Code of Criminal Procedure says, as again as an example it doesn't really say this,
[11:19.040 --> 11:23.000]  that the name of the individual if it is known.
[11:23.000 --> 11:27.240]  Now under the transportation codes and so treating these as criminal offenses if they
[11:27.240 --> 11:29.480]  stopped you then they've arrested you.
[11:29.480 --> 11:34.840]  Now lawfully is another question, but they have arrested you, okay.
[11:34.840 --> 11:39.120]  You have been detained and arrested under a specific law that they're trying to use even
[11:39.120 --> 11:41.760]  though they're using it incorrectly.
[11:41.760 --> 11:46.360]  So the lawful part has not been met, but that's not an argument you're going to win on the
[11:46.360 --> 11:48.760]  side of the road, guaranteed.
[11:48.760 --> 11:52.400]  You're just not, not yet anyway.
[11:52.400 --> 11:56.580]  So that being said, when they turn around and say that you have to give them the information
[11:56.580 --> 12:02.480]  of name, address, and date of birth to avoid the failure to identify there's a provision
[12:02.480 --> 12:06.320]  you've got to understand that now they've invoked.
[12:06.320 --> 12:10.560]  And the court will almost always rule against you until you can make the court rule that
[12:10.560 --> 12:16.480]  the detention itself was unlawful, that the arrest itself was unlawful because transportation
[12:16.480 --> 12:18.760]  never existed.
[12:18.760 --> 12:25.280]  So until we get that ruling, this is the perilous waters you're in trying to make those arguments.
[12:25.280 --> 12:30.600]  I'm not saying don't do it, but you have to understand how much work you're going to
[12:30.600 --> 12:33.920]  create for yourself by taking that stand.
[12:33.920 --> 12:39.440]  That means you better know the transportation arguments inside and out because you're not
[12:39.440 --> 12:42.440]  going to have to defend against just those.
[12:42.440 --> 12:48.240]  You're going to have to defend against those and win in order to defend against the criminal
[12:48.240 --> 12:52.880]  charge under the penal code of failure to identify.
[12:52.880 --> 12:58.200]  So therein lies the rubble standing up for your rights even when you are right.
[12:58.200 --> 12:59.720]  So just understand that.
[12:59.720 --> 13:03.680]  I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying there's a lot of risk involved and you better
[13:03.680 --> 13:06.240]  know what you're doing when you do it.
[13:06.240 --> 13:11.040]  But that's a digress from where I'm trying to get to with this.
[13:11.040 --> 13:17.840]  The point of all this is that when you have a local and specific provision that does not
[13:17.840 --> 13:23.720]  directly conflict with the requirements of a general provision, they have to be read together.
[13:23.720 --> 13:27.520]  And part of the argument I was having with this attorney is that there have been some
[13:27.520 --> 13:34.040]  recent changes in the last legislative session to the code of criminal procedure dealing
[13:34.040 --> 13:37.480]  with the summons that they can issue.
[13:37.480 --> 13:42.360]  And I am working on trying to clarify my point on that.
[13:42.360 --> 13:49.680]  But I was arguing that the new provision that's been added is still acting as a local and
[13:49.680 --> 13:57.320]  specific but is not excluding the other requirements under Chapter 23.
[13:57.320 --> 14:03.720]  And the reason for it is because the Chapter 45 addition that they did in 2017, which I
[14:03.720 --> 14:13.240]  believe is 45.016e, that provision is talking about information that must be contained in
[14:13.240 --> 14:14.600]  a summons.
[14:14.600 --> 14:19.920]  And they're calling it a notice there, but it is essentially a summons versus what a
[14:19.920 --> 14:27.160]  summons must contain and how it must be formulated under Chapter 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[14:27.160 --> 14:34.440]  Now, as both of these sections exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure, we're not talking
[14:34.440 --> 14:37.960]  about the way it's written in two different codes, but we are talking about a local and
[14:37.960 --> 14:40.440]  specific provision versus a general.
[14:40.440 --> 14:42.760]  The one in Chapter 23 is general.
[14:42.760 --> 14:50.240]  It generally applies to all KPS warrants and summonses in the state of Texas.
[14:50.240 --> 14:56.060]  Whereas the 45.016e is local and specific to Chapter 45 and dealings in justice and
[14:56.060 --> 14:57.060]  municipal courts.
[14:57.060 --> 14:58.060]  Okay?
[14:58.060 --> 15:01.440]  So I'm still working on that.
[15:01.440 --> 15:06.040]  But the reason that this is going so slow on the seminar rewrite is because of having
[15:06.040 --> 15:11.920]  discussions like that and having to go through and explain those local and specific versus
[15:11.920 --> 15:16.160]  general versus how they have to be read together versus how they have to be reconciled versus
[15:16.160 --> 15:20.840]  what they have to, how they can be reconciled so as that one does a conflict and you're
[15:20.840 --> 15:26.640]  not losing from one to the other and you're not giving too much power to one because you
[15:26.640 --> 15:31.560]  think it's written one way when in fact it can't be written that way so as to override
[15:31.560 --> 15:35.000]  the other, et cetera, et cetera.
[15:35.000 --> 15:39.880]  But what this really means is because of the number of revisions that have been made to
[15:39.880 --> 15:45.840]  the various chapters of the transportation code in the last two sessions, my work has
[15:45.840 --> 15:52.080]  been quadrupled in trying to do the rewrite because the only way to do this and to redo
[15:52.080 --> 15:57.560]  my statutory matrix which is the matrix that tells you all of the statutes that are being
[15:57.560 --> 16:04.680]  invoked at any specific moment in time in relation to what's occurring in the transportation
[16:04.680 --> 16:08.520]  code versus what's occurring in the code of criminal procedure versus what's occurring
[16:08.520 --> 16:12.360]  in the penal code versus what's occurring in the government code, the local government
[16:12.360 --> 16:16.080]  code, et cetera, et cetera.
[16:16.080 --> 16:23.240]  There are tons of statutes between these various codes that are interrelated and at each step
[16:23.240 --> 16:27.920]  these statutes are being invoked together.
[16:27.920 --> 16:32.480]  But you're never seeing the effect of them being invoked together because you're only
[16:32.480 --> 16:38.560]  seeing the one or two statutes that the particular individuals involved are looking at.
[16:38.560 --> 16:43.760]  So the matrix is a very important key to getting all of that in one place where you can find
[16:43.760 --> 16:44.760]  it.
[16:44.760 --> 16:50.560]  But the only way to do that is to go through each specific section and write it up.
[16:50.560 --> 16:54.560]  And that's what's going to be taking up most of my time over the next few months.
[16:54.560 --> 17:04.000]  Y'all hang on folks, we'll be right back after this break.
[17:04.000 --> 17:09.440]  That's the 2018 Logos Radio Network Annual Fundraiser and Gun Giveaway, sponsored by
[17:09.440 --> 17:11.600]  Central Texas Gun Works.
[17:11.600 --> 17:15.400]  Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win.
[17:15.400 --> 17:18.880]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:18.880 --> 17:25.640]  From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for grabs is the Spikes Tactical AR-15.
[17:25.640 --> 17:28.440]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[17:28.440 --> 17:34.560]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[17:34.560 --> 17:38.400]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[17:38.400 --> 17:42.920]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:42.920 --> 17:47.520]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can
[17:47.520 --> 17:52.040]  keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[17:52.040 --> 17:55.240]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:55.240 --> 18:00.680]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[18:00.680 --> 18:05.960]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:05.960 --> 18:09.440]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[18:09.440 --> 18:13.800]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[18:13.800 --> 18:14.800]  can win too.
[18:14.800 --> 18:19.600]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.600 --> 18:20.600]  civil rights statutes.
[18:20.600 --> 18:24.920]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons?
[18:24.920 --> 18:26.960]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:26.960 --> 18:29.560]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[18:29.560 --> 18:34.200]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[18:34.200 --> 18:39.320]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.320 --> 18:41.480]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.480 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:57.680]  It's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:57.680 --> 19:07.680]  To learn how to stop debt collectors next, you are listening to the Logos Radio Network
[19:07.680 --> 19:21.400]  for more information on how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go
[19:21.400 --> 19:22.400]  away.
[19:22.400 --> 19:39.480]  Thank you for listening to the Logos Radio Network for more information on how to turn
[19:39.480 --> 19:48.400]  the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[19:48.400 --> 20:10.400]  Thank you for listening to the Logos Radio Network for more information on how to turn
[20:10.400 --> 20:17.400]  the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[20:17.400 --> 20:22.480]  All right, folks, we are back.
[20:22.480 --> 20:25.120]  This is rule of law radio.
[20:25.120 --> 20:31.920]  Calling number is 512-646-1984 if you want to call and talk with us about some issue
[20:31.920 --> 20:37.400]  you've got or just to basically let us know how things are going in cases we may have
[20:37.400 --> 20:41.440]  provided you some information about, things of that nature.
[20:41.440 --> 20:47.720]  Also do remember that the network's fundraiser is ongoing and if you get into the drawing
[20:47.720 --> 20:52.360]  then there's good prizes to be had, check out the LogosRadioNetwork.com website for
[20:52.360 --> 20:56.480]  details on all of that.
[20:56.480 --> 21:03.200]  I do not as of yet have a due date for when the seminar 2.0 is going to be ready.
[21:03.200 --> 21:10.640]  As I say, the changes that I've got to go through and redo the matrix and everything,
[21:10.640 --> 21:12.760]  this is going to take some effort.
[21:12.760 --> 21:15.840]  It'd be great if I had a team of people helping, but I don't.
[21:15.840 --> 21:20.160]  It's just me, so I have to make do as best I can with the time I've got.
[21:20.160 --> 21:24.000]  That being said, let's start taking calls and see what we're going to be dealing with
[21:24.000 --> 21:25.000]  tonight.
[21:25.000 --> 21:30.200]  All right, let's start with Lloyd in Texas, which appears to be a first-time caller.
[21:30.200 --> 21:32.000]  Lloyd, what can we do for you?
[21:32.000 --> 21:34.600]  Yes, thanks, Eddie, this is my first time calling.
[21:34.600 --> 21:37.760]  I've been to your class, but it's been a while.
[21:37.760 --> 21:43.920]  The good news is, I have won every single traffic case so far.
[21:43.920 --> 21:53.560]  I think what worked for me was using Randy's Open Government Act 552 request and asking
[21:53.560 --> 21:58.880]  a question that was fairly lethal, I think, but that's...
[21:58.880 --> 22:00.720]  What do you mean asking a question?
[22:00.720 --> 22:03.400]  552 does not allow you to ask questions.
[22:03.400 --> 22:05.840]  552 is public records only.
[22:05.840 --> 22:11.800]  Well, yes, I was asking for a public record of such and such.
[22:11.800 --> 22:17.000]  Right, which is the officer's authority to enforce the code, right?
[22:17.000 --> 22:19.000]  Right, right, right.
[22:19.000 --> 22:21.960]  That's actually my PR, but okay.
[22:21.960 --> 22:29.520]  Yes, but anyway, but most of them were in the larger city jurisdictions, so municipalities
[22:29.520 --> 22:35.840]  until this last one wasn't a small, what I call a rental judge jurisdiction, which are
[22:35.840 --> 22:39.440]  a little bit more, you know, tips, I would say, a little bit more.
[22:39.440 --> 22:43.960]  You don't know what they're going to do because they do whatever they want to do.
[22:43.960 --> 22:50.960]  And I simply asked for the charging instrument record of, you know, that is in relationship
[22:50.960 --> 22:54.200]  to your ticket citation.
[22:54.200 --> 22:59.000]  And this little rental judge jurisdiction, they dropped it.
[22:59.000 --> 23:04.080]  They just said, well, we're just going to call it a warning.
[23:04.080 --> 23:10.360]  And I said, can I get a copy of this, you know, dismissal of a warning?
[23:10.360 --> 23:13.080]  He said, well, the judge is going to have to sign it.
[23:13.080 --> 23:16.360]  And he said, but that might cost you some money.
[23:16.360 --> 23:20.200]  So he wasn't prepared to give it to me because the judge hadn't signed it yet.
[23:20.200 --> 23:23.560]  Well, who was it who was telling you this?
[23:23.560 --> 23:24.560]  The prosecutor.
[23:24.560 --> 23:25.560]  Okay.
[23:25.560 --> 23:26.560]  No.
[23:26.560 --> 23:27.560]  The prosecutor.
[23:27.560 --> 23:30.960]  He asked you anything for a judge to sign an order dismissing a case.
[23:30.960 --> 23:33.720]  A dismissal means you won.
[23:33.720 --> 23:37.080]  They can't charge you a dime when you win.
[23:37.080 --> 23:39.280]  Well, that's, that's the funny part.
[23:39.280 --> 23:41.720]  He did allow me to take a picture of the document.
[23:41.720 --> 23:43.480]  That's the funny part.
[23:43.480 --> 23:45.400]  But I was going to go back in and get it.
[23:45.400 --> 23:52.360]  But my main question was, have you ever had them refuse to respond to that open government
[23:52.360 --> 23:53.360]  act by far too?
[23:53.360 --> 23:54.360]  Yeah.
[23:54.360 --> 23:58.320]  Lots of them do it all the time and they do it illegally.
[23:58.320 --> 24:01.840]  And that's why I tell people, when they do it, the first thing you have to do is file
[24:01.840 --> 24:07.840]  a criminal complaint against the judge of the court because he is the custodian of record
[24:07.840 --> 24:13.520]  in that court with the attorney general's office under 552.353.
[24:13.520 --> 24:16.160]  You file a criminal complaint against that judge.
[24:16.160 --> 24:18.960]  But the state attorney general.
[24:18.960 --> 24:19.960]  Yes.
[24:19.960 --> 24:20.960]  The office.
[24:20.960 --> 24:23.360]  You can do that online, correct?
[24:23.360 --> 24:25.800]  I don't know if you can or not.
[24:25.800 --> 24:31.040]  Well, I have done it before with the district attorney general, I'm just asking.
[24:31.040 --> 24:33.440]  But so that's what, so that's the process you want to do.
[24:33.440 --> 24:34.440]  That was my question.
[24:34.440 --> 24:35.440]  That's the process you want to do.
[24:35.440 --> 24:36.440]  Absolutely.
[24:36.440 --> 24:37.440]  State office.
[24:37.440 --> 24:43.920]  And in times past, I have filed a request within, somewhere within the neighborhood
[24:43.920 --> 24:48.520]  of the 10 days prior to the court date or appearance date.
[24:48.520 --> 24:53.520]  And sometimes I put them into the 10 days by the time I appeared and they dropped it.
[24:53.520 --> 25:00.880]  But I think what won me the case is, big time was, this particular case, San Antonio, was
[25:00.880 --> 25:09.120]  that the first cases that got me to your class when the officer grouped five crazy tickets
[25:09.120 --> 25:12.640]  together, trapper tickets, just because he didn't like me, he didn't like the questions
[25:12.640 --> 25:13.640]  I was asking.
[25:13.640 --> 25:15.160]  So we grouped five together.
[25:15.160 --> 25:20.760]  Well, I got into the first appearance date and it didn't even have it all written up.
[25:20.760 --> 25:25.080]  In other words, you can't get, you can't cram five on one ticket, right?
[25:25.080 --> 25:27.760]  Which is what he tried to do is that the information wasn't correct.
[25:27.760 --> 25:31.800]  So they got, they had to get the information back to me.
[25:31.800 --> 25:37.800]  And then they came back with an affidavit saying that, and there was a court clerk that
[25:37.800 --> 25:44.280]  had signed it saying, swore to that she saw me obviously doing those traffic citations
[25:44.280 --> 25:49.280]  and midnight in front of a particular hotel, obviously.
[25:49.280 --> 25:54.520]  So I always thought, I was suspicious that perhaps, because I walked up to the prosecutor's
[25:54.520 --> 25:57.880]  office and I just calmly asked them, does this person work here?
[25:57.880 --> 26:02.320]  That's the signature here, the applying signature, and she said, yes.
[26:02.320 --> 26:06.760]  You walked up to the prosecutor's office and asked if they worked there?
[26:06.760 --> 26:07.760]  Yes.
[26:07.760 --> 26:08.760]  Okay.
[26:08.760 --> 26:09.760]  Yes.
[26:09.760 --> 26:11.880]  And what capacity do they work there?
[26:11.880 --> 26:15.000]  As a court clerk, as a court worker, obviously.
[26:15.000 --> 26:18.160]  Well, the court clerk doesn't work for the prosecutor, they work for the court.
[26:18.160 --> 26:19.160]  That's why I'm asking.
[26:19.160 --> 26:20.160]  Well, whatever.
[26:20.160 --> 26:25.200]  I mean, but anyway, I asked him, because it was a prosecutor that had filed that affidavit.
[26:25.200 --> 26:27.760]  So I went up to prosecutor's office.
[26:27.760 --> 26:28.760]  Okay.
[26:28.760 --> 26:33.960]  The point is, is that how many people could I have put in jail if I had pursued that?
[26:33.960 --> 26:38.760]  A, and B, do you think that has some bearing in why I want every single traffic ticket
[26:38.760 --> 26:41.400]  after that in the same court?
[26:41.400 --> 26:45.040]  I can't answer that as far as why.
[26:45.040 --> 26:49.800]  But what I can say is that there is a major problem with the clerk of the court being
[26:49.800 --> 26:51.880]  the one that files the complaint.
[26:51.880 --> 26:52.880]  Of course.
[26:52.880 --> 26:53.880]  Of course.
[26:53.880 --> 26:56.320]  Of course there is, because she didn't see it.
[26:56.320 --> 26:59.880]  The person filing the complaint doesn't have to be a witness.
[26:59.880 --> 27:02.880]  You've got that mis, that's a misconception.
[27:02.880 --> 27:08.360]  Anyone can file a criminal complaint based solely upon their belief that a crime has been
[27:08.360 --> 27:11.040]  committed by some person.
[27:11.040 --> 27:13.640]  You don't have to see it to report it.
[27:13.640 --> 27:18.480]  You can simply believe that this individual committed this crime, and I'm telling you
[27:18.480 --> 27:20.840]  about it so someone can check it out.
[27:20.840 --> 27:24.280]  That's all a complaint is, okay?
[27:24.280 --> 27:27.640]  They don't have to be a witness to file a complaint.
[27:27.640 --> 27:34.600]  The problem with the clerk filing the complaint is that the clerk is an agent of the judge.
[27:34.600 --> 27:35.600]  Right.
[27:35.600 --> 27:42.360]  The judge cannot sit in a case where he is the one complaining of the act.
[27:42.360 --> 27:43.920]  Of course not.
[27:43.920 --> 27:46.480]  So we have an agency problem.
[27:46.480 --> 27:51.520]  When the clerk files the complaint, the judge is the one filing the complaint.
[27:51.520 --> 27:53.440]  Right, exactly.
[27:53.440 --> 27:56.560]  And then presiding over the same case.
[27:56.560 --> 27:58.080]  That is not allowed.
[27:58.080 --> 27:59.080]  Right.
[27:59.080 --> 28:00.080]  Okay?
[28:00.080 --> 28:01.560]  So there's where the problem lies.
[28:01.560 --> 28:04.600]  Not with the fact that the clerk did it, a clerk could do it.
[28:04.600 --> 28:08.320]  As long as the case is not going to be heard in the clerk's court.
[28:08.320 --> 28:09.320]  Right.
[28:09.320 --> 28:10.320]  Okay.
[28:10.320 --> 28:15.640]  So, yeah, so I won those five tickets that time.
[28:15.640 --> 28:17.120]  They just flat out dropped them.
[28:17.120 --> 28:24.320]  That's like $1,800 depending on, you know, if you try to get adjudication, I mean, it
[28:24.320 --> 28:25.320]  was ridiculous.
[28:25.320 --> 28:28.400]  So anyway, those five were dropped, that group of five.
[28:28.400 --> 28:33.680]  Then as to the preceding years, this was after I'd gone through your class a couple times,
[28:33.680 --> 28:39.920]  I had four others that were dropped in the same city, same jurisdiction, citizen, Italian.
[28:39.920 --> 28:46.680]  Anyway, and then there was one other that the misses got dropped from the Constable's
[28:46.680 --> 28:53.440]  court, you know, it was just an open government 552 that popped in there and they just dropped
[28:53.440 --> 28:54.440]  it.
[28:54.440 --> 28:59.680]  And I had some guy who picked up my documents, he took it, put his names in and they got
[28:59.680 --> 29:00.680]  dropped.
[29:00.680 --> 29:07.880]  But just with this last, this last one was the first time I had it in a what I call rent
[29:07.880 --> 29:11.800]  a judge jurisdiction where they don't have a judge once a month and they rent them from
[29:11.800 --> 29:13.040]  you know, somewhere else.
[29:13.040 --> 29:17.240]  She goes around, you know, once a day to every different municipality.
[29:17.240 --> 29:23.000]  So I was always a little bit, I should say in fear and trepidation about the smaller
[29:23.000 --> 29:28.040]  jurisdictions because I've heard, you know, first-hand witness, not myself but some other
[29:28.040 --> 29:34.320]  people to be from you and others that have said is a very difficult call because, because
[29:34.320 --> 29:36.720]  of, you know, they just do whatever they want to do.
[29:36.720 --> 29:37.720]  Yeah.
[29:37.720 --> 29:39.720]  And they generally will as long as you let them.
[29:39.720 --> 29:40.720]  Right.
[29:40.720 --> 29:41.720]  All right, Lloyd.
[29:41.720 --> 29:44.280]  Hang on just a second and we're going to take a break and then we'll come back and let
[29:44.280 --> 29:45.280]  you finish up.
[29:45.280 --> 29:46.280]  Okay.
[29:46.280 --> 29:47.280]  Thank you.
[29:47.280 --> 29:48.280]  All right, folks.
[29:48.280 --> 29:52.600]  This is rule of law radio calling number 512-646-1984.
[29:52.600 --> 29:54.200]  We will be right back after the break.
[29:54.200 --> 30:01.200]  So y'all hang on.
[30:01.200 --> 30:05.200]  I only have eyes for you.
[30:05.200 --> 30:08.760]  Soon, store mannequins may be singing that tune.
[30:08.760 --> 30:12.200]  They're being outfitted with cameras to watch us while we shop.
[30:12.200 --> 30:16.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with details after this.
[30:16.840 --> 30:18.560]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.560 --> 30:22.160]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:22.160 --> 30:27.160]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:27.160 --> 30:28.680]  So protect your rights.
[30:28.680 --> 30:32.400]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:32.400 --> 30:33.400]  Privacy.
[30:33.400 --> 30:34.920]  It's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.920 --> 30:39.880]  This message is brought to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to
[30:39.880 --> 30:42.240]  Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:42.240 --> 30:45.920]  Start over with Start Page.
[30:45.920 --> 30:49.960]  It's disturbing enough that big brother governments use facial recognition technology
[30:49.960 --> 30:53.160]  to identify and track people on the streets.
[30:53.160 --> 30:57.840]  Now clothing companies in Europe, Canada, and America are getting in on the act.
[30:57.840 --> 30:59.480]  So where do they hide the cameras?
[30:59.480 --> 31:01.480]  In the eyes of mannequins.
[31:01.480 --> 31:02.480]  That's right.
[31:02.480 --> 31:06.960]  Those glamorous plastic ladies in the display windows may be watching you back.
[31:06.960 --> 31:12.720]  They're called eye seers, and their job is to log the age, gender, and race of passersby
[31:12.720 --> 31:16.520]  so retailers can devise new schemes to get you to buy.
[31:16.520 --> 31:17.520]  But hang on.
[31:17.520 --> 31:20.080]  Aren't mannequins spooky enough already?
[31:20.080 --> 31:22.960]  This is taking weird science to a whole new level.
[31:22.960 --> 31:31.640]  I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.640 --> 31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[31:37.000 --> 31:39.240]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:39.240 --> 31:44.040]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:44.040 --> 31:48.040]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, and thousands of my fellow
[31:48.040 --> 31:49.480]  force responders have died.
[31:49.480 --> 31:53.320]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a structural engineer, I'm a New York City correction officer,
[31:53.320 --> 31:58.040]  I'm an Air Force pilot, I'm a father who lost his son, we're Americans, and we deserve
[31:58.040 --> 31:59.040]  the truth.
[31:59.040 --> 32:03.040]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:03.040 --> 32:06.040]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar.
[32:06.040 --> 32:09.600]  In today's America, we live in a us against them society, and if we the people are ever
[32:09.600 --> 32:13.720]  going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.720 --> 32:17.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[32:17.000 --> 32:20.960]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.960 --> 32:24.880]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[32:24.880 --> 32:26.680]  our rights through due process.
[32:26.680 --> 32:30.240]  Former Sheriff's Deputy, A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[32:30.240 --> 32:34.000]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.400]  is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.400 --> 32:40.360]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[32:40.360 --> 32:43.920]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The
[32:43.920 --> 32:48.280]  Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[32:48.280 --> 32:51.880]  seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how
[32:51.880 --> 32:55.760]  to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order
[32:55.760 --> 33:00.760]  your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.760 --> 33:10.760]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[33:30.760 --> 33:45.280]  All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the calling number 512-646-1984
[33:45.280 --> 33:49.440]  and we are currently talking to Lloyd in Texas. All right, Lloyd, let's continue and get
[33:49.440 --> 33:51.040]  this wrapped up, if you don't mind.
[33:51.040 --> 33:55.280]  Yeah, the charging instrument. Have you ever seen them come up with a charging instrument
[33:55.280 --> 33:56.280]  related to that?
[33:56.280 --> 34:00.280]  Well, they try to say that they're either going to use the citation as a charging instrument
[34:00.280 --> 34:06.120]  or they're using just the complaint as a charging instrument. But the complaint is not a valid
[34:06.120 --> 34:08.960]  charging instrument because it's a hearsay instrument.
[34:08.960 --> 34:14.880]  Right. So when they do come up with a charging instrument, is it the citing officer that's
[34:14.880 --> 34:18.800]  filing, signing to Apple News, EFI in?
[34:18.800 --> 34:26.480]  It doesn't. Again, the complaint is the basis for a proper information and indictment, okay?
[34:26.480 --> 34:30.880]  It does not matter who signs the complaint as long as it's not the same court that's
[34:30.880 --> 34:37.920]  hearing the case and it's not someone in the prosecution's office as far as an actual assistant
[34:37.920 --> 34:44.800]  attorney or the county or district attorney themselves, okay? They can't sign the complaint
[34:44.800 --> 34:48.440]  against somebody. The magistrate of the court hearing the case can't do it and the clerk
[34:48.440 --> 34:55.960]  of the court hearing the case can't lawfully do it. Otherwise, anyone can do it.
[34:55.960 --> 35:00.920]  The prosecuting attorney is the one required to sign the information and the foreman of
[35:00.920 --> 35:06.840]  the grand jury is the one required to sign the indictment. There is no requirement anywhere
[35:06.840 --> 35:13.080]  that an actual witness against you has to sign any of those.
[35:13.080 --> 35:21.160]  Okay. So they have never really come up with a charging instrument in your experience. In
[35:21.160 --> 35:26.440]  other words, they just used the citation. No. They sometimes file the complaint, but
[35:26.440 --> 35:30.960]  if you read the Code of Common Procedure in the Texas Constitution, the complaint is not
[35:30.960 --> 35:37.720]  sufficient by itself. Never has been. But the Texas courts ignore the Texas Constitution
[35:37.720 --> 35:44.360]  and rule that they can use just a complaint. Despite all the facts to the contrary, that's
[35:44.360 --> 35:48.680]  how they've ruled. I guess what I'm looking for is how could
[35:48.680 --> 35:52.680]  I word that differently? Because I got another one coming up in two weeks here and another
[35:52.680 --> 35:57.440]  rent of just jurisdiction. How can you word what specifically differently?
[35:57.440 --> 36:05.720]  When asking for a charging instrument, would you ask that differently than just calling
[36:05.720 --> 36:08.280]  it the charging instrument related to citation numbers?
[36:08.280 --> 36:12.960]  I wouldn't tell them I was asking for it. I would simply go in and ask to see the record.
[36:12.960 --> 36:18.560]  Just ask for a copy of everything in the record that isn't something you filed. Never tell
[36:18.560 --> 36:23.840]  them what you're looking for. Don't ever do that. Because all you're doing there is
[36:23.840 --> 36:28.080]  causing them to look at the fact that it doesn't exist, which raises a red flag, and they'll
[36:28.080 --> 36:33.560]  go cook one up. Yeah, that's the answer I was looking for
[36:33.560 --> 36:39.960]  from you. So just ask for a record for everything related to me or the cost number.
[36:39.960 --> 36:43.960]  Correct. Okay. That helps. That's what I'm going to
[36:43.960 --> 36:48.080]  do then. That's what I'll do for this next one. Because I'm just always moving the leery
[36:48.080 --> 36:53.760]  of them. Even though I've won many cases, I am never satisfied with the last method.
[36:53.760 --> 36:59.840]  In other words, I'd like to sharpen it up a little bit. So this helps.
[36:59.840 --> 37:05.440]  The way I sharpen it is to take the fight to them. I don't wait for them. I go after
[37:05.440 --> 37:09.560]  them. So would you go in there before the first
[37:09.560 --> 37:12.320]  appearance date or just do it on the first appearance date?
[37:12.320 --> 37:16.760]  I always go before the first appearance date. I always tell everybody to go. The very first
[37:16.760 --> 37:21.360]  thing you want to do is file an affidavit of not engaging transportation. The very first
[37:21.360 --> 37:25.280]  thing you want to file and you want to get it file stamped to prove that you were there
[37:25.280 --> 37:29.440]  on or before the date on the citation, just like the citation says.
[37:29.440 --> 37:35.600]  Oh, okay. Sometimes they don't even have their stuff ready when you get there.
[37:35.600 --> 37:41.600]  It doesn't matter if they have it ready. You go in and you file and you say, look, here's
[37:41.600 --> 37:46.840]  the citation I got. Here's what I'm filing to begin with in the case. Whatever record
[37:46.840 --> 37:52.600]  you're going to create, I need you to put this in that record.
[37:52.600 --> 37:58.720]  So what I should do since these little house ladies at these city halls don't even take
[37:58.720 --> 38:02.280]  these documents. That's the problem with these little rent-of-judge jurisdictions.
[38:02.280 --> 38:03.880]  What do you mean they don't take them?
[38:03.880 --> 38:08.360]  Well, I tried to at the first appearance date. I tried to submit a document. They wouldn't
[38:08.360 --> 38:11.960]  even take it. No, we can't take that. They wouldn't take a legal document.
[38:11.960 --> 38:18.080]  Okay. Then you immediately file a criminal complaint for denial of access to the courts
[38:18.080 --> 38:23.120]  because that's illegal. They can't deny you the right to file a pleading in a case that
[38:23.120 --> 38:26.160]  is being filed in that court. They can't do it.
[38:26.160 --> 38:31.840]  I understand. I mean, the list of things that these little rental juicers do with the house
[38:31.840 --> 38:36.360]  ladies I call them preventing you access the legal system is ridiculous. I mean, it goes
[38:36.360 --> 38:43.560]  a minute. It's a mile long. And so what I, my remedy for that was simply mail it, certified
[38:43.560 --> 38:47.160]  mail. That way they have to take it. That way it is on a record.
[38:47.160 --> 38:49.520]  No, they can simply not sign for it.
[38:49.520 --> 38:53.160]  Well, I don't make them sign for it.
[38:53.160 --> 38:58.120]  Then you have a problem. You can't prove they got it if no one's signing for it.
[38:58.120 --> 39:05.920]  Right. I get that. I get it. See, this is what these people have. This is just unbelievable.
[39:05.920 --> 39:10.600]  But the prosecutor in his last case did have the document I send in certified mail. He
[39:10.600 --> 39:13.120]  had it underneath there, but he never talked about it.
[39:13.120 --> 39:18.440]  Well, of course not. If he addresses it, then he's talking about the facts of the case.
[39:18.440 --> 39:22.920]  Why would you talk with the person prosecuting you about the facts of the case?
[39:22.920 --> 39:28.520]  Exactly. As a rental judge, as a rental prosecutor, yeah.
[39:28.520 --> 39:35.200]  Well, he's not a rental prosecutor. If this is a JP court, he's an assistant county attorney.
[39:35.200 --> 39:38.080]  Well, this is a city. This is a city. This is just a small town.
[39:38.080 --> 39:41.600]  Then it'll be the city's attorney, out of the city's attorney's office. It'll be one
[39:41.600 --> 39:42.600]  of them.
[39:42.600 --> 39:44.720]  You're so small. They only have one of them.
[39:44.720 --> 39:48.400]  If they don't have a permanent city attorney, then you're right. They will contract with
[39:48.400 --> 39:54.560]  some local lawyer or law firm to handle those for them, which creates a whole other problem
[39:54.560 --> 39:59.840]  under the Texas Constitution in relation to who's allowed to prosecute cases in Texas
[39:59.840 --> 40:01.440]  courts in the name of the state.
[40:01.440 --> 40:07.520]  They don't care about that, Eddie. You know that. So we're trying to maneuver around them,
[40:07.520 --> 40:09.760]  not giving them care about the law.
[40:09.760 --> 40:15.240]  Well, the way that you maneuver around it is to get them in trouble for it. That's why
[40:15.240 --> 40:20.640]  the seminar material contains motions that challenges all the things we've talked about.
[40:20.640 --> 40:25.640]  Every last one of them, including the city attorney acting as a prosecutor, because it's
[40:25.640 --> 40:31.880]  absolutely unconstitutional for them to do so. The legislature cannot give them that
[40:31.880 --> 40:37.880]  power under Chapter 45 because that is a power of the Texas Constitution specifically and
[40:37.880 --> 40:43.560]  only delegated to the county and district attorney and to no one else.
[40:43.560 --> 40:50.960]  The city attorney is not a member of either of their offices.
[40:50.960 --> 40:56.120]  The city attorney has no oath of office. The city attorney is not elected. They're not
[40:56.120 --> 41:00.840]  even appointed. They're an employee of the same entity that's going to collect half
[41:00.840 --> 41:03.040]  the money for the ticket.
[41:03.040 --> 41:07.640]  I know. I've been to your class. I read a lot of your stuff. I know. I know exactly
[41:07.640 --> 41:08.640]  what you're talking about.
[41:08.640 --> 41:12.480]  So this is the reason the seminar material exists.
[41:12.480 --> 41:18.560]  Yeah. I'm trying to win these cases. I have won every single one of them. They're saying
[41:18.560 --> 41:22.880]  this is going to be number one when it's coming up and there's a rent to judge jurisdiction.
[41:22.880 --> 41:28.160]  Another little village thing trying to make some money. It's ridiculous. You can't even
[41:28.160 --> 41:32.440]  drive downhill coasting a little bit over a speed limit without these guys stopping
[41:32.440 --> 41:38.560]  you. It's just a waste of time, but I'm used to educate myself. But at this time I thought
[41:38.560 --> 41:44.440]  I either want to talk to you or Randy or somebody about further sharpening the tools that happen
[41:44.440 --> 41:46.560]  to you. I appreciate your time. I really do.
[41:46.560 --> 41:50.760]  Yes, sir. No problem. Thanks for all you do. It saves me a lot of money.
[41:50.760 --> 41:56.080]  Okay. We'll have a good night and keep going. Bye-bye.
[41:56.080 --> 42:05.880]  Thanks, sir. All right. Now, next in line is Adam in Texas. Adam, what do you got?
[42:05.880 --> 42:10.840]  Hey, Eddie. Can you hear me, man? I can hear you.
[42:10.840 --> 42:17.000]  All right. I'm going to the County Commissioners' Court. They're having their monthly open
[42:17.000 --> 42:26.960]  meeting tomorrow at 10 a.m. I can't find the code. The one about the County Commissioners'
[42:26.960 --> 42:37.560]  Court has to appoint the qualified peace officers that are authorized under the...
[42:37.560 --> 42:43.320]  It doesn't say appoint qualified peace officers. It says appoint deputy, sheriff's deputies,
[42:43.320 --> 42:50.000]  and it's in the transportation code. Okay. I can't. It's not in my notes. I can't find
[42:50.000 --> 42:56.800]  it anywhere, man. I'm going to... They can appoint up to five deputies to work traffic,
[42:56.800 --> 43:01.800]  but those deputies still have to be certified in accordance with the administrative code
[43:01.800 --> 43:07.280]  to enforce the transportation code. The only thing they can work in is wait stations for
[43:07.280 --> 43:11.800]  commercial motor vehicles. Yeah, and they got to be on motorcycles. Yeah. What is that
[43:11.800 --> 43:17.600]  code? I can't find it. Just search for the transportation code for
[43:17.600 --> 43:25.000]  deputy. You'll find it because deputy's not listed in there except in those places.
[43:25.000 --> 43:30.680]  Okay. Transportation code. Yeah. Okay. I was looking at the wrong code. All right. I'll
[43:30.680 --> 43:35.160]  find it. Yeah. Yeah. The one about where the County Commissioners' Court can't break.
[43:35.160 --> 43:39.840]  Yeah. That's all you should need to do. So just do a search in the transportation code
[43:39.840 --> 43:45.920]  for deputy, and you'll find it. Okay. One more question when you come back. Okay. We'll
[43:45.920 --> 43:49.640]  hang on just a second and then we'll do that. All right, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[43:49.640 --> 44:00.640]  We're about to take a break, but y'all hang in there, and we will be right back.
[44:00.640 --> 44:07.280]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[44:07.280 --> 44:13.600]  the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[44:13.600 --> 44:19.480]  step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't
[44:19.480 --> 44:24.960]  have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step
[44:24.960 --> 44:31.600]  course, and now you can, too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22
[44:31.600 --> 44:37.320]  years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone
[44:37.320 --> 44:43.280]  should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.280 --> 44:49.440]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[44:49.440 --> 44:56.120]  prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[44:56.120 --> 45:01.120]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[45:01.120 --> 45:09.040]  Hello. My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come
[45:09.040 --> 45:14.560]  by our store at 1904 Waterloo Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas. Find brave new books
[45:14.560 --> 45:19.520]  and taste things to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes.
[45:19.520 --> 45:23.880]  Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine.
[45:23.880 --> 45:27.840]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian E-Me oil,
[45:27.840 --> 45:36.040]  lotion candles, olive oil, soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find
[45:36.040 --> 45:44.480]  us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com. Don't
[45:44.480 --> 45:51.480]  forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[46:14.480 --> 46:43.480]  All right, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law radio. Call it number one.
[46:43.480 --> 46:51.480]  646-1984, and we are talking with Adam in Texas. All right, Adam, what was your other question?
[46:51.480 --> 46:59.480]  Well, I'm currently battling with municipality in Houston. I don't know if you recall, but
[46:59.480 --> 47:06.480]  they denied me access to the public court record, and I've already done. I just mailed off the
[47:06.480 --> 47:11.480]  criminal complaint on the presiding judge to the attorney general to see how that goes,
[47:11.480 --> 47:17.480]  certify, return to request, and along with the third judicial criminal complaint, and
[47:17.480 --> 47:22.480]  I've barged into it twice. Anyway, they've stopped communicating with me. Basically,
[47:22.480 --> 47:31.480]  they don't send me any more mail, and my concern is the, I guess, the initial bench warrant
[47:31.480 --> 47:37.480]  that is supposedly out for me, even though now I've been communicating with the court
[47:37.480 --> 47:45.480]  is that the bench warrant is still active. What was the grounds for issuing this so-called
[47:45.480 --> 47:53.480]  bench warrant? They claim that 13 years ago, I mean, I just got all this about three months
[47:53.480 --> 48:02.480]  ago from a third party collection law firm in San Antonio. They claim that 13 years ago
[48:02.480 --> 48:06.480]  I was in Houston, and I got pulled over and got through traffic citations. The problem
[48:06.480 --> 48:11.480]  is I was never in Houston. I've never had a white Ford truck, and so I've been talking
[48:11.480 --> 48:15.480]  to you and Randy and dealing with them, and I've been hammering them in. I mean, I'm
[48:15.480 --> 48:16.480]  throwing them in.
[48:16.480 --> 48:21.480]  Yeah, but I mean, where did the warrant come in? When was this warrant allegedly issued?
[48:21.480 --> 48:29.480]  That's what my question is. Do I PIR or who issued the warrant and when? Because if they
[48:29.480 --> 48:30.480]  did it-
[48:30.480 --> 48:34.480]  Well, what you're going to have to do is file a motion for discovery to get that, okay?
[48:34.480 --> 48:43.480]  You're not going to get that with a PIR. Unexecuted warrants are specifically excluded from those
[48:43.480 --> 48:48.480]  because until they're executed, they are administrative records of the court, and those are
[48:48.480 --> 48:54.480]  specifically exempted from open records. Therefore, the only way you're going to get a copy of
[48:54.480 --> 48:58.480]  the warrant, or at least the probable cost statement associated with the warrant, is to
[48:58.480 --> 49:00.480]  file a motion for discovery.
[49:00.480 --> 49:07.480]  Okay, yeah, I'm going to jump right on that. Well, my plan was to, I got to go to Houston
[49:07.480 --> 49:12.480]  and take a class anyway, and it turns out it's right down the street from the municipality,
[49:12.480 --> 49:16.480]  so if the warrant is still active, the last thing I need is for them to pull me over in
[49:16.480 --> 49:21.480]  the morning when I'm already in my five-day class and call me in there.
[49:21.480 --> 49:27.480]  Well, you need to read the newly added, the 2017 edition to the Code of Criminal Procedure
[49:27.480 --> 49:35.480]  45.016. That specifically prohibits justices and magistrates from issuing warrants for
[49:35.480 --> 49:43.480]  Class C misdemeanors, and they are required to withdraw them if the person makes a reasonable
[49:43.480 --> 49:48.480]  effort to deal with them. So if you show up and say, look, I'm here in response to an alleged warrant
[49:48.480 --> 49:53.480]  that nobody seems to be able to tell me how it came into existence or when.
[49:53.480 --> 49:59.480]  So I'm here to turn myself in. Now, be aware that they may try to make you post a bond,
[49:59.480 --> 50:05.480]  but that's why you need to read 14.06. But the thing is, is I'm fighting this case,
[50:05.480 --> 50:10.480]  and I want you to understand I'm going to fight this case, and because I've turned myself in,
[50:10.480 --> 50:14.480]  the warrant's been executed. I want to copy that warrant, and I want to copy the problem
[50:14.480 --> 50:20.480]  call statement that was used to get it, because if it turns out that that warrant was recently
[50:20.480 --> 50:27.480]  filed for a 13-year-old Class C, then whoever signed that affidavit committed fraud and perjury.
[50:27.480 --> 50:32.480]  Yeah, big trouble. They're in big trouble. All right. Well, yeah, that's what I'm going to do, man.
[50:32.480 --> 50:39.480]  I'm going to roll in there to the municipal court in person, and that's exactly what I'm going to try
[50:39.480 --> 50:40.480]  to execute.
[50:40.480 --> 50:44.480]  Well, again, you need to make sure you've got somebody with you, and you need to make sure
[50:44.480 --> 50:49.480]  they're carrying enough money to bond you out if they try to force you to pay a bond.
[50:49.480 --> 50:55.480]  Which will be double whatever the amount of the alleged fines will be if you were convicted.
[50:55.480 --> 50:57.480]  So be aware of that.
[50:57.480 --> 51:02.480]  Oh, okay. Oh, man, maybe it's not a smart idea then.
[51:02.480 --> 51:08.480]  Well, like I say, if you're going to do it, you need to be fully prepared to do it, because that is a possibility.
[51:08.480 --> 51:15.480]  But I think, I haven't read it thoroughly enough to see what else they've added to it for that specific reason,
[51:15.480 --> 51:23.480]  but read 14 or 45.016 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because it deals specifically with that issue
[51:23.480 --> 51:29.480]  and see if there's anything else that's been added to that same area of the code that deals with something similar
[51:29.480 --> 51:33.480]  or continues to talk about that same thing.
[51:33.480 --> 51:35.480]  Okay.
[51:35.480 --> 51:40.480]  All right. Yeah, I just, I mean, I've been doing everything. I've been hammering them.
[51:40.480 --> 51:46.480]  I don't, you know, it's funny, you hammer these judges, you think that they would just send you a dismissal,
[51:46.480 --> 51:49.480]  but they just don't, they just sit there like, I don't know what they're waiting on.
[51:49.480 --> 51:53.480]  Yeah, because they don't think they can be held accountable for what they're doing.
[51:53.480 --> 51:55.480]  That's the problem.
[51:55.480 --> 51:59.480]  There's no repercussions for when they're doing it wrong.
[51:59.480 --> 52:05.480]  So my criminal complaint to the AG that I just sent,
[52:05.480 --> 52:10.480]  that's a different issue. That's a public information act issue.
[52:10.480 --> 52:13.480]  Whether or not the AG will act on it is another thing,
[52:13.480 --> 52:21.480]  but the fact is when it comes to their magisterial and judicial, they're very well protected and they know it.
[52:21.480 --> 52:28.480]  It's unconstitutional, it's illegal, but the courts are the one that have created that cage for them to hide in.
[52:28.480 --> 52:33.480]  The problem for them is, is that there are ways to open the door on that cage,
[52:33.480 --> 52:40.480]  and most of them are too stupid to understand what they're doing to give you the key.
[52:40.480 --> 52:42.480]  Okay.
[52:42.480 --> 52:48.480]  So when the attorney general refuses to act on the criminal complaint, it does nothing about my...
[52:48.480 --> 52:51.480]  Then you file with the county and district attorney locally,
[52:51.480 --> 52:57.480]  along with a copy of what you sent to the AG saying the AG has failed to perform his duty under the law,
[52:57.480 --> 53:00.480]  and you can then file a criminal complaint against the AG.
[53:00.480 --> 53:04.480]  And then when the county attorney or district attorney refuses to act,
[53:04.480 --> 53:08.480]  file against them and take all of them to the grand jury,
[53:08.480 --> 53:11.480]  and let the grand jury decide whether or not they want to act on it.
[53:11.480 --> 53:15.480]  The grand jury, and when do I bring the feds in?
[53:15.480 --> 53:21.480]  Well, you may never get to bring the feds in until you can prove that there's a large-scale corruption involved,
[53:21.480 --> 53:23.480]  that the feds may want to break up,
[53:23.480 --> 53:28.480]  but half of what they're doing is based upon money they're getting from the feds.
[53:28.480 --> 53:31.480]  That's why it's very hard to get the feds to do anything,
[53:31.480 --> 53:36.480]  because the feds are already the ones paying them to do what they're doing now.
[53:36.480 --> 53:39.480]  Okay.
[53:39.480 --> 53:41.480]  All right.
[53:41.480 --> 53:43.480]  All right, I'll keep talking.
[53:43.480 --> 53:44.480]  Next caller, thanks, Eddie.
[53:44.480 --> 53:47.480]  All right, thanks for calling in.
[53:47.480 --> 53:51.480]  All right, now we have Brett in Texas.
[53:51.480 --> 53:54.480]  Brett, what can we do for you?
[53:54.480 --> 53:55.480]  Hello there, Eddie.
[53:55.480 --> 53:57.480]  Hello?
[53:57.480 --> 54:00.480]  Well, I've got MSB on my mind.
[54:00.480 --> 54:02.480]  You've got what?
[54:02.480 --> 54:05.480]  MSB, Municipal Services Bureau.
[54:05.480 --> 54:06.480]  Okay.
[54:06.480 --> 54:16.480]  That group law firm down in Austin that the state of Texas contracts with.
[54:16.480 --> 54:19.480]  Every time a municipality says that you got your,
[54:19.480 --> 54:22.480]  I think their big claim to fame was DWIs,
[54:22.480 --> 54:26.480]  but they got me for grabbing with no license.
[54:26.480 --> 54:33.480]  And I found out what happened as they report the municipality reports to the MSB.
[54:33.480 --> 54:35.480]  MSB reports to the.
[54:35.480 --> 54:38.480]  Talk into your phone, please, Brett.
[54:38.480 --> 54:40.480]  Am I not coming through clear?
[54:40.480 --> 54:43.480]  You are when you're talking like you are right now,
[54:43.480 --> 54:45.480]  but everything you were just saying,
[54:45.480 --> 54:48.480]  it sounded like you were not talking directly into the phone.
[54:48.480 --> 54:51.480]  Oh, okay.
[54:51.480 --> 54:58.480]  So MSB is, apparently they're reporting,
[54:58.480 --> 55:02.480]  they're kind of re-reporting from what the municipalities tell them.
[55:02.480 --> 55:06.480]  They tell the DMV and then they turn around and act like debt collectors
[55:06.480 --> 55:10.480]  with these three-year payment plans.
[55:10.480 --> 55:14.480]  And I'm wanting to take them down.
[55:14.480 --> 55:18.480]  They just, I think this is core.
[55:18.480 --> 55:23.480]  I think they are, if they will go away,
[55:23.480 --> 55:32.480]  the cities won't have, the money flow will be disrupted to the cities and to the state.
[55:32.480 --> 55:37.480]  And maybe some of these people will be more inclined to follow the law.
[55:37.480 --> 55:42.480]  Well, the only way you're going to take them down is to prove that they are asking for money
[55:42.480 --> 55:47.480]  they're not legally authorized to collect, which would be fraud.
[55:47.480 --> 55:49.480]  All right.
[55:49.480 --> 55:55.480]  Otherwise the statute clearly allows municipalities to contract with entities to collect.
[55:55.480 --> 56:03.480]  Now the problem here is, is that the statute specifically says that the entity is going to act as a debt collector.
[56:03.480 --> 56:09.480]  The fact that it's a law firm doing it doesn't remove them from that requirement.
[56:09.480 --> 56:13.480]  So even though you've got a law firm acting as a debt collector for the state
[56:13.480 --> 56:18.480]  or the municipalities or other political subdivisions, the question now becomes
[56:18.480 --> 56:24.480]  are they actually governed by federal law in relation to debt collection practices?
[56:24.480 --> 56:29.480]  When the state statute specifically says they are debt collectors.
[56:29.480 --> 56:30.480]  Okay.
[56:30.480 --> 56:38.480]  So that's the other thing to look at is are they complying with the federal law on debt collection?
[56:38.480 --> 56:39.480]  Okay.
[56:39.480 --> 56:47.480]  But make sure you've got the state statutes on their activities, research and as to what they can charge,
[56:47.480 --> 56:53.480]  how much they can charge, what information they have to provide and whether or not what information
[56:53.480 --> 56:59.480]  they're required by the state does not run against the requirements under federal law
[56:59.480 --> 57:04.480]  because the federal law is controlling not the state law.
[57:04.480 --> 57:05.480]  Okay.
[57:05.480 --> 57:10.480]  Because these debt collectors operate across state lines?
[57:10.480 --> 57:14.480]  I got you.
[57:14.480 --> 57:19.480]  Yeah, this MSB, I think it's 11 different states that do business in.
[57:19.480 --> 57:23.480]  Yeah.
[57:23.480 --> 57:25.480]  Okay.
[57:25.480 --> 57:33.480]  Now one thing, tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but it seems like double jeopardy is a good flag to wave here
[57:33.480 --> 57:38.480]  because they are making you have to pay twice.
[57:38.480 --> 57:44.480]  You pay for the city when you pay your fines and they say, hey, you're guilty.
[57:44.480 --> 57:51.480]  If you paid the fine with the city, then there should be nothing to send to a debt collector.
[57:51.480 --> 57:54.480]  That's not what they're collecting on.
[57:54.480 --> 57:56.480]  They report the guilty conviction.
[57:56.480 --> 58:02.480]  The guilty conviction goes to the state and they say, hey, this guy's got an X number of problems on his driving record.
[58:02.480 --> 58:07.480]  How does that become a fee they can charge you for?
[58:07.480 --> 58:13.480]  It's a sick mess called the driver responsibility program and they add surcharges.
[58:13.480 --> 58:16.480]  Well, the surcharges are state added.
[58:16.480 --> 58:18.480]  The surcharges are state added.
[58:18.480 --> 58:20.480]  They're not added by that.
[58:20.480 --> 58:27.480]  But the problem is those surcharges have to be challenged as being unconstitutional because they were never adjudicated.
[58:27.480 --> 58:32.480]  No jury made a decision as to whether or not you could be charged those surcharges.
[58:32.480 --> 58:39.480]  They're administrative punishment without judicial review and that's not right.
[58:39.480 --> 58:40.480]  Hang on just a second.
[58:40.480 --> 58:42.480]  I've got to take another break here.
[58:42.480 --> 58:49.480]  All right, folks, y'all hold on and we'll be right back after this break.
[58:49.480 --> 58:53.480]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world.
[58:53.480 --> 58:57.480]  Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.480 --> 59:06.480]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:06.480 --> 59:08.480]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:08.480 --> 59:17.480]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.480 --> 59:27.480]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.480 --> 59:32.480]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:32.480 --> 59:47.480]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.480 --> 01:00:02.480]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:17.480 --> 01:00:34.480]  Markets for the 11th of April, 2018 close with gold $1,353.22 an ounce, silver $16.68 an ounce, Texas crude $65.51 a barrel,
[01:00:34.480 --> 01:00:55.480]  Bitcoins at $6,902.19, Ethereum at $420.80, Bitcoin Cash at $652.90, and finally Litecoins at $114.34 a crypto coin.
[01:00:55.480 --> 01:01:08.480]  Today in History, the year 1968, President Lyndon M. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited private businesses from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
[01:01:08.480 --> 01:01:18.480]  It also prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in public schools, and employment, and public accommodations for places of business.
[01:01:18.480 --> 01:01:31.480]  In recent news, tensions in Syria seem to reach new levels after a chemical attack on civilians in the city of Douma, which left 40 dead and many injured.
[01:01:31.480 --> 01:01:42.480]  An attack which is being blamed on the democratically elected president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, by the United States and on Israel by Russia, either accusatory narrative without any verified evidence as of yet.
[01:01:42.480 --> 01:01:52.480]  President Trump tweeted today Wednesday that if, quote, Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria, get ready, Russia, because they will be coming in nice and new and smart.
[01:01:52.480 --> 01:01:58.480]  Going on to warn Russia that you shouldn't be partners with a gas-killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it.
[01:01:58.480 --> 01:02:06.480]  Many in the West, including President Trump, have been quick to conclude that this chemical attack must have been conducted by Assad and his forces.
[01:02:06.480 --> 01:02:15.480]  Syria and Russia, on the other hand, have given approval since yesterday for the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to investigate the side of the chemical slaughter.
[01:02:15.480 --> 01:02:27.480]  Assad has been successful in maintaining rule and support during Syria's seven-year civil war, a civil war that is being fought by the government of Syria and anti-Assad Syrian rebels that are openly being funded by Western governments,
[01:02:27.480 --> 01:02:32.480]  with ISIS being one of the more notorious splinter groups of the American-backed Syrian rebels.
[01:02:32.480 --> 01:02:44.480]  Now, surprise then why Russian Foreign Minister Spokeswoman Maria Zakova posted on Facebook that smart missiles should be fired at terrorists and not at a legitimate government, which has been fighting terrorists.
[01:02:44.480 --> 01:02:51.480]  Or is this a trick to destroy all traces with a smart missile strike, and then there will be no evidence for international inspectors to look at?
[01:02:51.480 --> 01:03:15.480]  This is Rick Rody with your lowdown for April 11, 2018.
[01:03:15.480 --> 01:03:26.480]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984, and we are still talking with Brett in Texas.
[01:03:26.480 --> 01:03:30.480]  All right, Brett, continue.
[01:03:30.480 --> 01:03:42.480]  All right, so I was asking about double jeopardy. This is something that you pay one time, you've been punished, and then because of them reporting it to the state, and the state turns around.
[01:03:42.480 --> 01:03:50.480]  Well, it's not double jeopardy because double jeopardy only involves being tried for the same offense. Okay?
[01:03:50.480 --> 01:03:51.480]  Okay.
[01:03:51.480 --> 01:04:03.480]  The punishment on the back end is a different issue. In this particular case, we are talking about additional monies that are never put before a jury to determine whether or not you owe them.
[01:04:03.480 --> 01:04:21.480]  They are simply saying, well, you're going to pay us extra because a jury founds you guilty of the offense when that surcharge is not a part of the punishment, and it is not a part of the information given to the jury about are you prepared to charge him ex-money if he's convicted?
[01:04:21.480 --> 01:04:33.480]  You know how when you go in for the jury trial and they ask the jury, the fine for this can be anywhere from $1 to $200? Are you prepared to charge somebody with an offense and convict them and make them pay that?
[01:04:33.480 --> 01:04:36.480]  Do you ever hear them mention the surcharge?
[01:04:36.480 --> 01:04:37.480]  No.
[01:04:37.480 --> 01:05:02.480]  Exactly. No jury ever decided you owed that money. The administrative surcharges are 100% unconstitutional at punishments that are levied without judicial review. That makes them a bill of pains and penalties. Absolutely unconstitutional.
[01:05:02.480 --> 01:05:06.480]  Yeah.
[01:05:06.480 --> 01:05:09.480]  That's how you want to attack that.
[01:05:09.480 --> 01:05:16.480]  Okay. Good deal. Well, I sure do appreciate that.
[01:05:16.480 --> 01:05:17.480]  Yes, sir.
[01:05:17.480 --> 01:05:21.480]  I'm starting to research in that and researching the federal laws about the debt fine, too.
[01:05:21.480 --> 01:05:23.480]  Okay.
[01:05:23.480 --> 01:05:26.480]  I've got another question if your board's not too full.
[01:05:26.480 --> 01:05:28.480]  It's full, but go ahead real quick.
[01:05:28.480 --> 01:05:44.480]  Okay. Well, tomorrow I'm supposed to show up for a hearing, a municipal judge being disqualified because all kinds of crimes he did getting to that point, you know, about all those.
[01:05:44.480 --> 01:06:05.480]  They do them every day, but this disqualification hearing is they cherry picked one additional motion. I've got probably a dozen different motions before the court that they haven't addressed, and they cherry picked this one about motion to suppress evidence illegally obtained.
[01:06:05.480 --> 01:06:18.480]  In my motion there, I described how the arresting officer had no business bothering me in the first place, talking about transportation, and it wasn't even within the 541 to 600 and all that stuff.
[01:06:18.480 --> 01:06:23.480]  And they picked that motion to adjudicate, and I'm wondering...
[01:06:23.480 --> 01:06:33.480]  Well, you can always challenge that. Ask them flat out, is this a motions hearing? Is this the only motions hearing I'm getting, which the answer is going to be yes?
[01:06:33.480 --> 01:06:44.480]  Then I'm not here to talk about one motion. I'm here to talk about all the motions, and they may just turn around and go, well, then we'll just deny all those, and we'll just go with this one now that that's the only one we've got left to address.
[01:06:44.480 --> 01:06:59.480]  Okay. That's a good indication right there. No fairness, no impartiality. This is a complete rigged proceeding from the very beginning. This is why you need to be recording all of that, and you need to take witnesses.
[01:06:59.480 --> 01:07:10.480]  Now, Eddie, I'm inclined to not allow them to go forward with disqualification hearing until they first deal with the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. It's been challenged from day to one.
[01:07:10.480 --> 01:07:20.480]  Well, the fact is, is they can't hear the evidence motion if you've got a motion to disqualify in.
[01:07:20.480 --> 01:07:32.480]  And a judge can't determine jurisdiction other than his own, not the courts, when he's being challenged, is being unqualified to sit. So the only thing he can...
[01:07:32.480 --> 01:07:47.480]  And he can't rule on a disqualification motion. He can only rule on a recusal motion, because recusal is something they have to do themselves. You can move that they do it, but it's up to them whether or not they do it.
[01:07:47.480 --> 01:07:56.480]  Disqualifying them is a whole different animal, and they can't rule on a motion to disqualify themselves.
[01:07:56.480 --> 01:08:01.480]  Exactly. Unless they do, like the last one I went to.
[01:08:01.480 --> 01:08:23.480]  Then you send a copy to the head administrative judge with a motion for sanctions against that judge for doing that, because they're required by law to forward that disqualification to the administrative judge who is then required to appoint a hearing judge and schedule a hearing for this if he's not going to grant the motion outright.
[01:08:23.480 --> 01:08:35.480]  Yeah. Within three business days. And in this case... No, no, no. Not within three business days. That's no. No. The court has to forward it within three days.
[01:08:35.480 --> 01:08:49.480]  Right. But the administrative judge can take as much time as he needs to up to a certain amount, which is way more than three days, to get a hearing set up and appoint someone to hear it. So don't confuse the two.
[01:08:49.480 --> 01:08:56.480]  Right. This guy waited over five weeks, and he still didn't refer the matter to the admin judge.
[01:08:56.480 --> 01:09:06.480]  Which is why I don't leave it up to them. When I file a motion to disqualify, I forward a copy to the administrative judge for them.
[01:09:06.480 --> 01:09:18.480]  Good idea. So are you saying that I probably shouldn't try to make them deal with the jurisdiction issue first, subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:09:18.480 --> 01:09:31.480]  I'm saying that this judge can't rule on that if you've got a motion to disqualify them in. A disqualified judge can't make rulings. Period.
[01:09:31.480 --> 01:09:33.480]  Exactly.
[01:09:33.480 --> 01:09:38.480]  So how do you go to jurisdiction when you're in there trying to disqualify them?
[01:09:38.480 --> 01:09:46.480]  Well, there's several different judges in there, and I think any one of them that's not being disqualified should be able to talk to you whether or not there's a valid...
[01:09:46.480 --> 01:09:53.480]  They have to be assigned the case. Which judge has assigned the case, the one you're trying to disqualify or one of the others?
[01:09:53.480 --> 01:09:58.480]  Gotcha. Okay, so whoever gets assigned to it, the first thing they should deal with is jurisdiction.
[01:09:58.480 --> 01:10:00.480]  Absolutely.
[01:10:00.480 --> 01:10:01.480]  Okay.
[01:10:01.480 --> 01:10:04.480]  If a question of jurisdiction has been raised...
[01:10:04.480 --> 01:10:09.480]  Yes. Constantly. Okay, thank you for clarifying that for me.
[01:10:09.480 --> 01:10:10.480]  Sure.
[01:10:10.480 --> 01:10:12.480]  I'll go in there with a clearer head tomorrow. Thank you.
[01:10:12.480 --> 01:10:14.480]  Yes, sir.
[01:10:14.480 --> 01:10:16.480]  All right. Good night. Thank you.
[01:10:16.480 --> 01:10:19.480]  All right. Yes, sir. Good luck.
[01:10:19.480 --> 01:10:23.480]  All right. Now, who else do we have here?
[01:10:23.480 --> 01:10:28.480]  Max in Texas. Max, what can we do for you?
[01:10:28.480 --> 01:10:34.480]  So, Mr. Eddie Pegg, it's Max, a longtime caller. I called a couple of times anyway.
[01:10:34.480 --> 01:10:43.480]  Calling from a different number today, though, but anyway, I have a friend who is not so privileged just to own the seminar material and didn't go through the script.
[01:10:43.480 --> 01:10:50.480]  And went through his transportation stop, stop just capitulating to whatever the officer wanted.
[01:10:50.480 --> 01:10:55.480]  In other words, he gave all the accoutrements associated with transportation, so on and so forth.
[01:10:55.480 --> 01:10:56.480]  Right.
[01:10:56.480 --> 01:11:06.480]  Got a ticket for a citation for the stickers being out, registration stickers.
[01:11:06.480 --> 01:11:15.480]  And the number one, the date to appear was two months out from the ticket date, which I'd never seen before.
[01:11:15.480 --> 01:11:26.480]  And then also, you know, when he tried to show up on that date, well, the date that was printed on the ticket to show up was a Sunday.
[01:11:26.480 --> 01:11:34.480]  So, he showed up on the Sunday, and of course, there's nobody there.
[01:11:34.480 --> 01:11:39.480]  So, I'm assuming that they probably issued a FTA warrant for him.
[01:11:39.480 --> 01:11:49.480]  45.016 prevents them from doing that, says very specifically they can no longer issue warrants for failure to appear on Class C citations.
[01:11:49.480 --> 01:11:53.480]  Oh, wonderful. I'll be looking that up for him.
[01:11:53.480 --> 01:11:56.480]  Okay, and is there anything strange about it being a two-month...
[01:11:56.480 --> 01:11:58.480]  Yeah, the cops an idiot.
[01:11:58.480 --> 01:12:00.480]  No.
[01:12:00.480 --> 01:12:03.480]  Well, but that's weird. The computer printed it, not him.
[01:12:03.480 --> 01:12:10.480]  The computer doesn't care what day of the week it is. The computer said to calculate the number of days from a given date.
[01:12:10.480 --> 01:12:19.480]  And let's say put an actual coding algorithm in the line of code they wrote to do that to check for weekends and holidays,
[01:12:19.480 --> 01:12:24.480]  it's going to print out whatever date it calculates from that date. You know that, you're a programmer.
[01:12:24.480 --> 01:12:29.480]  Okay, so it's not smart enough to take into account the holidays.
[01:12:29.480 --> 01:12:32.480]  Whoever wrote the code wasn't.
[01:12:32.480 --> 01:12:36.480]  Gotcha. Okay, so I'll check out 45.016.
[01:12:36.480 --> 01:12:39.480]  And let's, is that code a common receiver?
[01:12:39.480 --> 01:12:42.480]  Yes.
[01:12:42.480 --> 01:12:45.480]  Okay, and let me see.
[01:12:45.480 --> 01:12:52.480]  And I guess that's just about it. Although your last show requested people share their success stories,
[01:12:52.480 --> 01:13:02.480]  so I think everyone listening has the right to know, you know, I've beaten, what, four tickets myself using your seminar material and two tickets for other people.
[01:13:02.480 --> 01:13:09.480]  So, definitely every single one I've ran into in dismissals.
[01:13:09.480 --> 01:13:12.480]  So, guys, it works.
[01:13:12.480 --> 01:13:22.480]  Any seminar is not a joke. It's a lot of information to, you know, to digest and you definitely need to do your homework and be in your toes and understand these arguments,
[01:13:22.480 --> 01:13:25.480]  but it certainly does work.
[01:13:25.480 --> 01:13:28.480]  Well, thanks for that. Appreciate it.
[01:13:28.480 --> 01:13:30.480]  All right, that's about all I got for you, brother.
[01:13:30.480 --> 01:13:32.480]  All right, Max, thanks for calling in.
[01:13:32.480 --> 01:13:34.480]  Yes, sir. You're welcome.
[01:13:34.480 --> 01:13:36.480]  You too. Bye-bye.
[01:13:36.480 --> 01:13:44.480]  All right, now we have Tina in, looks like California. Tina, what can we do for you?
[01:13:44.480 --> 01:13:48.480]  Hi, a couple of things.
[01:13:48.480 --> 01:13:52.480]  Hello?
[01:13:52.480 --> 01:13:58.480]  Tina, did you hit your mute button or did you accidentally cut yourself off?
[01:13:58.480 --> 01:14:00.480]  Tina?
[01:14:00.480 --> 01:14:02.480]  There you go.
[01:14:02.480 --> 01:14:04.480]  Yeah, there you go. Sorry.
[01:14:04.480 --> 01:14:16.480]  You'd mentioned something earlier about having to have judicial, something or other, to add charges.
[01:14:16.480 --> 01:14:27.480]  I have a case, it's a foreclosure case, where I, a couple of years ago, I went through an attorney to try to stop something and try to go after the bank.
[01:14:27.480 --> 01:14:34.480]  And the attorney was about as green as I was at that time and, you know, lost the case.
[01:14:34.480 --> 01:14:38.480]  He didn't even tell me what dismissed was prejudice meant.
[01:14:38.480 --> 01:14:41.480]  So, you know, that's been hurting me ever since.
[01:14:41.480 --> 01:14:57.480]  The bank added almost $30,000 in legal fees, some of which they claim, in a notice to me that, I mean, as an eventual bankruptcy, incurred on this date.
[01:14:57.480 --> 01:15:04.480]  So, $9,000 incurred on this date. We were not in litigation on that date.
[01:15:04.480 --> 01:15:11.480]  Do words have meaning? Yeah, but they could have been doing prep work to begin the litigation on such and such date.
[01:15:11.480 --> 01:15:20.480]  They don't necessarily have to already be suing you for the legal fees and the pre-filing prep work to be part of the bill.
[01:15:20.480 --> 01:15:24.480]  The question is, did the court award them those fees?
[01:15:24.480 --> 01:15:28.480]  No, they did not. They never asked the court for it.
[01:15:28.480 --> 01:15:37.480]  No, they never motion submitted. Depending upon what state you're in and how that works, they may not have a claim to those fees because they weren't awarded to them by the court.
[01:15:37.480 --> 01:15:41.480]  In certain states, they must specifically request attorney's fees in order to get them.
[01:15:41.480 --> 01:15:46.480]  I do not know if that is true in California, if that's where you actually are.
[01:15:46.480 --> 01:16:01.480]  I am actually in California and I did research today the California Rules of Court and it appears to me that they have to, they are allowed under the note, reasonable attorney's fees for collecting a debt.
[01:16:01.480 --> 01:16:16.480]  This was when they were answering a lawsuit but they never actually asked the court or requested attorney's fees. Well, but again, that's a general statute and that can change according to a specific type of case.
[01:16:16.480 --> 01:16:29.480]  So you need to see if there's anything under the foreclosure laws of California that specifically state whether or not they must specifically file for those fees and the court grant them those fees.
[01:16:29.480 --> 01:16:38.480]  They filed twice for different lawsuits and they filed for fees and they were denied.
[01:16:38.480 --> 01:16:44.480]  Well, then they have a problem. If they were denied the, but again, is this with your case?
[01:16:44.480 --> 01:16:46.480]  With my case.
[01:16:46.480 --> 01:16:54.480]  Okay. If it was for the same case, for the same issue and they were denied the fees, they don't have a right to them if they were denied them.
[01:16:54.480 --> 01:16:59.480]  Hang on just a second and we'll finish this up on the other side of the break.
[01:17:25.480 --> 01:17:33.480]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced. When you purchase Randy Kelton's ebook, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:17:33.480 --> 01:17:42.480]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:17:42.480 --> 01:17:51.480]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[01:17:51.480 --> 01:17:59.480]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:17:59.480 --> 01:18:04.480]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:18:04.480 --> 01:18:10.480]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be lost without Logos.
[01:18:10.480 --> 01:18:13.480]  And I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:13.480 --> 01:18:20.480]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:20.480 --> 01:18:22.480]  How can I help Logos?
[01:18:22.480 --> 01:18:29.480]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:29.480 --> 01:18:35.480]  First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:18:35.480 --> 01:18:43.480]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:43.480 --> 01:18:44.480]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.480 --> 01:18:45.480]  No.
[01:18:45.480 --> 01:18:47.480]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:47.480 --> 01:18:48.480]  No.
[01:18:48.480 --> 01:18:49.480]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:49.480 --> 01:18:50.480]  No.
[01:18:50.480 --> 01:18:51.480]  I mean yes.
[01:18:51.480 --> 01:18:57.480]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:57.480 --> 01:18:58.480]  We are Logos.
[01:18:58.480 --> 01:19:24.480]  Happy Holidays Logos.
[01:19:24.480 --> 01:19:31.480]  Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Calling number 512-646-1984.
[01:19:31.480 --> 01:19:34.480]  If you want to give us a call and get in line, please be my guest.
[01:19:34.480 --> 01:19:40.480]  We've got three more segments in the show and I will try to get to everybody just as quickly and expeditiously as I can.
[01:19:40.480 --> 01:19:43.480]  All right, let's get back to Tina in California.
[01:19:43.480 --> 01:19:58.480]  Tina, again, if you need to check specifically what the law is in California in relation to foreclosures as to whether or not attorney's fees have to be granted by the court and whether or not they must ask the court in order to get them.
[01:19:58.480 --> 01:20:16.480]  Now, you say they have file petitions for the attorney's fees or their legal fees and those were denied. If they're relating to the same case and the same issue and the same mortgage and they were denied those fees, then they don't have a leg to stand on and collecting them from you.
[01:20:16.480 --> 01:20:28.480]  So that's a whole other issue, but you need to make darn sure that that information is correct, that they were denied fees in relation to this case.
[01:20:28.480 --> 01:20:35.480]  Hello? Tina?
[01:20:35.480 --> 01:20:41.480]  Okay, well, there goes that one again. Tina, you may have to check your phone or call me back.
[01:20:41.480 --> 01:20:46.480]  All right, let's get to John in New York. John, what can we do for you?
[01:20:46.480 --> 01:20:51.480]  Hi, Randy. I apologize. Hi, Eddie.
[01:20:51.480 --> 01:21:05.480]  I heard you say something early. I just have two fast questions based on what you had said earlier tonight. I heard you say something about traffic tickets, state surcharges. Are they lawful or unlawful? They're unlawful, aren't they?
[01:21:05.480 --> 01:21:09.480]  Did you not hear the thing I presented about it after that?
[01:21:09.480 --> 01:21:23.480]  The administrative surcharges are never adjudicated. They are a form of fine punishment without any sort of judicial review or levy. None.
[01:21:23.480 --> 01:21:27.480]  Well, that's what I thought you said. All right. Then I did hear you correctly.
[01:21:27.480 --> 01:21:40.480]  Yeah, they're absolutely unconstitutional as bills of pains and penalties. It's an administrative punishment with no judicial review. No jury found you guilty of having to pay those fines.
[01:21:40.480 --> 01:21:56.480]  No jury was given an opportunity to decide whether or not you should have to pay those fines, and the state is simply basing the additional fines on a conviction in a case where those fines were never brought into the evidence or as an issue for the jury to debate or deliberate.
[01:21:56.480 --> 01:22:01.480]  Okay. Now, what if you go before a judge who finds you guilty?
[01:22:01.480 --> 01:22:09.480]  How does that change anything? The judge has nothing to do with the administrative fees. Nothing.
[01:22:09.480 --> 01:22:14.480]  Well, how do you approach that to prove to them that what they're doing is wrong?
[01:22:14.480 --> 01:22:22.480]  You sue the state agency that levied the administrative fees for unconstitutional bills of pains and penalties.
[01:22:22.480 --> 01:22:26.480]  And this is true in any state of the union.
[01:22:26.480 --> 01:22:30.480]  Does the Constitution apply in every state of the union?
[01:22:30.480 --> 01:22:31.480]  It sure does.
[01:22:31.480 --> 01:22:36.480]  Well, there you go. That's one of those self-epiphanies, isn't it?
[01:22:36.480 --> 01:22:47.480]  Yeah, that's right. Now, I've got about 10 copies of the Constitution, and I do read it periodically to refresh my memory. But what in the Constitution, again, is going to cover that?
[01:22:47.480 --> 01:22:51.480]  I missed that. When I went through it, I must have missed it.
[01:22:51.480 --> 01:22:59.480]  You don't know the part of your own state Constitution or the federal Constitution that says that bills of attainder are outlawed?
[01:22:59.480 --> 01:23:01.480]  Oh, yeah, bills of attainder.
[01:23:01.480 --> 01:23:06.480]  Well, a bill of pains and penalties is a lesser version of a bill of attainder.
[01:23:06.480 --> 01:23:07.480]  Yeah.
[01:23:07.480 --> 01:23:17.480]  The difference between the two is bills of attainders usually resulted in death, and bills of pains and penalties were any punishment lesser than death.
[01:23:17.480 --> 01:23:22.480]  Right. Okay, now, are bills of attainder also known as rid of assistance?
[01:23:22.480 --> 01:23:23.480]  No.
[01:23:23.480 --> 01:23:25.480]  Oh, they're totally different?
[01:23:25.480 --> 01:23:26.480]  Yes.
[01:23:26.480 --> 01:23:28.480]  Okay, that answers that question.
[01:23:28.480 --> 01:23:38.480]  All right, because I know that the colonists hated bills of attainder, and it's mentioned twice in the Constitution, as far as I know. Am I right?
[01:23:38.480 --> 01:23:46.480]  Well, I don't know what you mean by mentioned twice. It simply says they are forever outlawed. They're prohibited.
[01:23:46.480 --> 01:23:47.480]  Yeah.
[01:23:47.480 --> 01:23:58.480]  Yeah. Okay. Okay, I got you. I got you. So then you sue the state institution. Now, that's going to cost money. Is there a way to do it so that you can do it yourself?
[01:23:58.480 --> 01:24:14.480]  Well, you can always do it yourself. The question is whether or not you can file to get the filing fees and everything else removed so that you don't have to pay them, like filing an affidavit of indigency and so on and so forth.
[01:24:14.480 --> 01:24:25.480]  Boy, I never, yeah. Okay, yeah, I do know about bills of attainder and rifts of assistance. I didn't realize. I thought they were one and the same, but bills of attainder, okay, that applies. Thanks.
[01:24:25.480 --> 01:24:41.480]  All right, then the next thing I wouldn't say, and I'll get off the phone so you can take your other calls, I heard what you said, where would I look to see if local attorneys in my state can legally prosecute traffic court cases?
[01:24:41.480 --> 01:24:44.480]  What do you mean by local attorney?
[01:24:44.480 --> 01:24:54.480]  Well, they use, they sometimes use, like in my city, they sometimes use local attorneys to prosecute city traffic court.
[01:24:54.480 --> 01:24:57.480]  New York has a state constitution, right?
[01:24:57.480 --> 01:24:59.480]  Yes, it certainly does.
[01:24:59.480 --> 01:25:07.480]  In the state constitution, you have a judicial department clause or title, right?
[01:25:07.480 --> 01:25:19.480]  No, that I don't know. That I don't know. What do you mean you don't know? Every constitution has an individual article that establishes the independent branch of government over which it's talking about.
[01:25:19.480 --> 01:25:30.480]  There's the executive department, the legislative department, and the judicial department. Every constitution devises those three departments, right?
[01:25:30.480 --> 01:25:32.480]  All right, yeah.
[01:25:32.480 --> 01:25:41.480]  And then that judicial section, who is given the authority to prosecute in the name of the state?
[01:25:41.480 --> 01:25:50.480]  I don't know. That would probably be, hmm, medical is my thing. I don't do legal. That's why I'm on the phone with you.
[01:25:50.480 --> 01:25:56.480]  That would probably be a district attorney. Would it not?
[01:25:56.480 --> 01:26:06.480]  Well, again, it depends on who your constitution says. That's your question. Who in New York can do it? Well, read the constitution. It will tell you.
[01:26:06.480 --> 01:26:15.480]  All right. All right. That makes sense. But in doubt, read the constitution. That's simple enough.
[01:26:15.480 --> 01:26:28.480]  Like my old ag shop teacher used to tell us, Mr. Joe Buck Strong, smartest man I ever knew, when all else fails, read the damned instructions.
[01:26:28.480 --> 01:26:38.480]  Okay. I asked Randy about this. Can I sneak this in? And with your experience as a sheriff's deputy, were you not?
[01:26:38.480 --> 01:26:40.480]  Correct.
[01:26:40.480 --> 01:26:51.480]  Okay. I'd like to get your take on this. I may have asked you this before, but I'm the type of person that I'll ask a question a couple times because I may have not connected the dots the first time.
[01:26:51.480 --> 01:26:59.480]  I take notes, but here we go. It's a 35-year-old woman charged with second-degree harassment for Dolly 911 a lot of time.
[01:26:59.480 --> 01:27:04.480]  In the paperwork, they said that she was mad at the police because of something they had said or done.
[01:27:04.480 --> 01:27:17.480]  Actually, it wasn't that she's mad at the police. She is a person groupie. She's a police groupie. She loves police. She loves police cars. She collects police cars.
[01:27:17.480 --> 01:27:24.480]  It's one of those things where she, that's her fetish. She likes anything having to do with the police.
[01:27:24.480 --> 01:27:33.480]  And one of the officers gave her the number to call if you ever need anything, blah, blah, blah. And so she called it, but they said she called it too many times.
[01:27:33.480 --> 01:27:41.480]  Her appearance is in two weeks, and I spoke to a local attorney that I know well. I asked him legal questions, and he helps me with legal.
[01:27:41.480 --> 01:27:47.480]  He asked me medical. I asked him legal. And I help him with the medical. He helps me with the legal.
[01:27:47.480 --> 01:27:53.480]  He says in New York state, unless you're accused of obscenity, you're not entitled to a preliminary hearing.
[01:27:53.480 --> 01:28:07.480]  Now, that's disappointing to me because I'm always looking for something that I can hang on them to stop whatever they're doing in court and get them all messed up and maybe turn around and sue them for something.
[01:28:07.480 --> 01:28:17.480]  Is there any violation that you think that I could look for? I know you don't have the facts of the case in front of you, and you don't have a copy of the citation or whatever, or the appearance.
[01:28:17.480 --> 01:28:23.480]  Well, it doesn't matter. I don't know what the New York laws and rules of procedure are in these particular types of cases.
[01:28:23.480 --> 01:28:40.480]  However, any rule of procedure or statute that exists in the code relating to that procedure that they are doing that violates the Bill of Rights within your state constitution or some other provision of the New York Constitution can be challenged as unconstitutional.
[01:28:40.480 --> 01:28:48.480]  It really depends on what the actual purpose of a preliminary hearing is as to whether or not they're violating a right.
[01:28:48.480 --> 01:29:14.480]  If the purpose of a preliminary hearing, like here in Texas, that would be the one of the magistration where they're supposed to schedule you for an examining trial, which is the only place in the rules of procedure that allows a probable cause determination of the allegation itself and the validity of the warrantless procedure and arrest, that procedure is never done in misdemeanor cases.
[01:29:14.480 --> 01:29:20.480]  That is a denial of due process because probable cause is never established.
[01:29:20.480 --> 01:29:37.480]  Now, if the reason for that is similar in New York for that particular preliminary hearing, and they're not allowing anyone but felonies to have them, then they're saying they can charge a convict you of a misdemeanor without probable cause, and that they cannot do.
[01:29:37.480 --> 01:29:43.480]  So you're going to have to do your research and find out if that is what they're trying to do.
[01:29:43.480 --> 01:29:46.480]  All right, yeah, well, there's no clue.
[01:29:46.480 --> 01:29:49.480]  I got a break here, John, so hang on just a minute.
[01:29:49.480 --> 01:29:51.480]  All right, folks, this is rule of law radio.
[01:29:51.480 --> 01:29:52.480]  Y'all hang on.
[01:29:52.480 --> 01:29:53.480]  We've got a half an hour to go.
[01:29:53.480 --> 01:29:55.480]  We'll be right back after the break.
[01:30:02.480 --> 01:30:10.480]  In Wisconsin, an elderly woman who housed orphans was about to lose her home to foreclosure when her 12-year-old grandson came to the rescue.
[01:30:10.480 --> 01:30:15.480]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht, back with the story of Noah the Dreamcatcher after this.
[01:30:41.480 --> 01:30:48.480]  For years, Janice Sparhawk cared for dozens of orphans.
[01:30:48.480 --> 01:30:53.480]  Many dropped on her doorstep after dark, but at 72, she was in trouble.
[01:30:53.480 --> 01:30:59.480]  Her health failing, she couldn't pay the mortgage unless she found $10,000 the bank would foreclose.
[01:30:59.480 --> 01:31:06.480]  She appealed to her congressman, her governor, and even the president, but it was her grandson, Noah, who saved the day.
[01:31:06.480 --> 01:31:14.480]  The 12-year-old posted her story on a website he'd created three years earlier, Noah's Dreamcatcher Network, to help hurricane victims.
[01:31:14.480 --> 01:31:21.480]  Within days, enough money had poured in to rescue Sparhawk, her foster kids, and their faith in America.
[01:31:21.480 --> 01:31:26.480]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:30.480 --> 01:31:31.480]  I lost my son.
[01:31:31.480 --> 01:31:32.480]  My nephew.
[01:31:32.480 --> 01:31:33.480]  My uncle.
[01:31:33.480 --> 01:31:34.480]  My son.
[01:31:34.480 --> 01:31:35.480]  On September 11, 2001.
[01:31:35.480 --> 01:31:39.480]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[01:31:39.480 --> 01:31:43.480]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:31:43.480 --> 01:31:47.480]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down building 7,
[01:31:47.480 --> 01:31:51.480]  over 1,200 architects and engineers looked into the evidence,
[01:31:51.480 --> 01:31:53.480]  and believed there is more to the story.
[01:31:53.480 --> 01:31:54.480]  Bring justice to my son.
[01:31:54.480 --> 01:31:55.480]  My uncle.
[01:31:55.480 --> 01:31:56.480]  My nephew.
[01:31:56.480 --> 01:31:57.480]  My son.
[01:31:57.480 --> 01:31:58.480]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[01:31:58.480 --> 01:32:01.480]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[01:32:01.480 --> 01:32:03.480]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.480 --> 01:32:06.480]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:06.480 --> 01:32:09.480]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails,
[01:32:09.480 --> 01:32:11.480]  but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.480 --> 01:32:13.480]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails,
[01:32:13.480 --> 01:32:14.480]  but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:14.480 --> 01:32:15.480]  That's why you have insurance,
[01:32:15.480 --> 01:32:18.480]  and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you
[01:32:18.480 --> 01:32:21.480]  with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:21.480 --> 01:32:25.480]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau
[01:32:25.480 --> 01:32:26.480]  with zero complaints.
[01:32:26.480 --> 01:32:29.480]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim
[01:32:29.480 --> 01:32:32.480]  and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:32.480 --> 01:32:38.480]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:38.480 --> 01:32:40.480]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off,
[01:32:40.480 --> 01:32:43.480]  and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network
[01:32:43.480 --> 01:32:45.480]  to help continue this programming.
[01:32:45.480 --> 01:32:48.480]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking,
[01:32:48.480 --> 01:32:50.480]  your door should be locked in.
[01:32:50.480 --> 01:32:56.480]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:56.480 --> 01:32:58.480]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:58.480 --> 01:33:03.480]  I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:03.480 --> 01:33:32.480]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:33.480 --> 01:33:56.480]  All right folks, we are back.
[01:33:56.480 --> 01:33:59.480]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:59.480 --> 01:34:02.480]  All right, let's see who we got up on the board right now.
[01:34:02.480 --> 01:34:04.480]  We still have John and Tina.
[01:34:04.480 --> 01:34:06.480]  All right, John, continue, please.
[01:34:06.480 --> 01:34:09.480]  Okay, so I've learned from you and Randy both
[01:34:09.480 --> 01:34:14.480]  that the preliminary hearing, you call it examining trial.
[01:34:14.480 --> 01:34:15.480]  No, no, no.
[01:34:15.480 --> 01:34:18.480]  The preliminary hearing in Texas is the first thing
[01:34:18.480 --> 01:34:21.480]  they're supposed to take you to is called a registration.
[01:34:21.480 --> 01:34:23.480]  That's where they read to your rights,
[01:34:23.480 --> 01:34:27.480]  inform you of your right to counsel, and so on and so forth,
[01:34:27.480 --> 01:34:29.480]  and then they are supposed to, at that point,
[01:34:29.480 --> 01:34:33.480]  either move you into, if everything is there to proceed,
[01:34:33.480 --> 01:34:36.480]  move you either directly into an examining trial.
[01:34:36.480 --> 01:34:39.480]  If all witnesses and evidence or president could be presented
[01:34:39.480 --> 01:34:43.480]  to another judge, or to schedule for a later date
[01:34:43.480 --> 01:34:45.480]  that examining trial.
[01:34:45.480 --> 01:34:47.480]  They don't ever do it unless it's a felony,
[01:34:47.480 --> 01:34:50.480]  and then they try to skirt even that.
[01:34:50.480 --> 01:34:52.480]  So.
[01:34:52.480 --> 01:34:57.480]  Well, so the lawyer that prosecutes traffic cases told me
[01:34:57.480 --> 01:34:59.480]  that they never use the preliminary hearing.
[01:34:59.480 --> 01:35:01.480]  That's because in New York,
[01:35:01.480 --> 01:35:04.480]  90% of those are civil infractions, are they not?
[01:35:04.480 --> 01:35:07.480]  Only some of them are treated as criminally.
[01:35:07.480 --> 01:35:08.480]  No, no, no.
[01:35:08.480 --> 01:35:11.480]  Traffic court, traffic court, traffic violations
[01:35:11.480 --> 01:35:13.480]  are heard in criminal court.
[01:35:13.480 --> 01:35:15.480]  That is not my question.
[01:35:15.480 --> 01:35:17.480]  I didn't ask where they were heard.
[01:35:17.480 --> 01:35:20.480]  I asked what the law says they are.
[01:35:20.480 --> 01:35:24.480]  If the law says they're infractions and not crimes,
[01:35:24.480 --> 01:35:27.480]  then they're administrative.
[01:35:27.480 --> 01:35:30.480]  If the law hears them in criminal court
[01:35:30.480 --> 01:35:32.480]  because they consider them crimes,
[01:35:32.480 --> 01:35:34.480]  then they're criminal.
[01:35:34.480 --> 01:35:36.480]  So you need to distinguish which of the two
[01:35:36.480 --> 01:35:39.480]  we're talking about here because it makes a difference.
[01:35:39.480 --> 01:35:42.480]  Administrative doesn't require a preliminary hearing
[01:35:42.480 --> 01:35:44.480]  for probable cause.
[01:35:44.480 --> 01:35:46.480]  Okay.
[01:35:46.480 --> 01:35:49.480]  But crime does.
[01:35:49.480 --> 01:35:52.480]  And therein is where this attorney's problem will be
[01:35:52.480 --> 01:35:54.480]  if these are truly criminal.
[01:35:54.480 --> 01:35:56.480]  Now, what they're probably going to tell you is
[01:35:56.480 --> 01:35:58.480]  is that they're quasi-criminal.
[01:35:58.480 --> 01:36:01.480]  The problem with that is there is no such jurisdiction
[01:36:01.480 --> 01:36:03.480]  known to law in this country.
[01:36:03.480 --> 01:36:05.480]  It's quasi, yeah, I know that.
[01:36:05.480 --> 01:36:07.480]  That I do know.
[01:36:07.480 --> 01:36:11.480]  Because what they want to do is they want to charge you,
[01:36:11.480 --> 01:36:13.480]  they want to hold you criminally liable
[01:36:13.480 --> 01:36:17.480]  for a civil offense and penalty.
[01:36:17.480 --> 01:36:19.480]  And that is a mixing of things
[01:36:19.480 --> 01:36:22.480]  that's not allowed to the people.
[01:36:22.480 --> 01:36:25.480]  Yeah, that's why they got rid of debt prison,
[01:36:25.480 --> 01:36:27.480]  debtor's prison, no such thing.
[01:36:27.480 --> 01:36:29.480]  Well, no, two different things here.
[01:36:29.480 --> 01:36:31.480]  We're not talking about the debtor's prison aspect of it,
[01:36:31.480 --> 01:36:33.480]  what they do after the fact.
[01:36:33.480 --> 01:36:36.480]  I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deprive you
[01:36:36.480 --> 01:36:39.480]  of your due process rights
[01:36:39.480 --> 01:36:42.480]  by actually building a system
[01:36:42.480 --> 01:36:47.480]  that allows an in-between the cracks
[01:36:47.480 --> 01:36:50.480]  charge that doesn't fall into either one
[01:36:50.480 --> 01:36:53.480]  and it can't do that.
[01:36:53.480 --> 01:36:55.480]  Okay, tell me what to do because I'm...
[01:36:55.480 --> 01:36:58.480]  Well, that's the question of the day.
[01:36:58.480 --> 01:37:01.480]  What do you do when the attorneys control the system
[01:37:01.480 --> 01:37:04.480]  and have designed it this way intentionally?
[01:37:04.480 --> 01:37:07.480]  That's always been the question.
[01:37:07.480 --> 01:37:09.480]  You challenge it as what you do.
[01:37:09.480 --> 01:37:12.480]  You challenge it as being unconstitutional.
[01:37:12.480 --> 01:37:15.480]  You just got to figure out how to make that fly
[01:37:15.480 --> 01:37:17.480]  because that's really what it is.
[01:37:17.480 --> 01:37:20.480]  It's a denial of due process when they say
[01:37:20.480 --> 01:37:22.480]  you're not entitled to a probable cause hearing
[01:37:22.480 --> 01:37:25.480]  even though we're going to criminally try you,
[01:37:25.480 --> 01:37:30.480]  but we're going to criminally try you for a civil infraction.
[01:37:30.480 --> 01:37:33.480]  They're mixing their modes of law
[01:37:33.480 --> 01:37:36.480]  and that creates a problem
[01:37:36.480 --> 01:37:40.480]  because it violates due process.
[01:37:40.480 --> 01:37:43.480]  All right, now, I suppose it would help
[01:37:43.480 --> 01:37:45.480]  if I read the actual...
[01:37:45.480 --> 01:37:47.480]  It would not help.
[01:37:47.480 --> 01:37:51.480]  It would not help because I don't know the...
[01:37:51.480 --> 01:37:53.480]  John, listen to me.
[01:37:53.480 --> 01:37:55.480]  I don't know the New York Constitution
[01:37:55.480 --> 01:37:58.480]  and I don't know the rules of procedure
[01:37:58.480 --> 01:38:03.480]  in order to have what the ticket says make any difference.
[01:38:03.480 --> 01:38:10.480]  I don't know what I'm comparing what the ticket says to.
[01:38:10.480 --> 01:38:13.480]  You understand that?
[01:38:13.480 --> 01:38:16.480]  Without a frame of reference for what the ticket says
[01:38:16.480 --> 01:38:20.480]  as to what they can constitutionally do
[01:38:20.480 --> 01:38:22.480]  or legally do,
[01:38:22.480 --> 01:38:26.480]  I can't tell you what difference the ticket's going to make.
[01:38:26.480 --> 01:38:30.480]  Well, if I read the ticket and it says civil infraction,
[01:38:30.480 --> 01:38:32.480]  it's all my...
[01:38:32.480 --> 01:38:34.480]  Then it's administrative.
[01:38:34.480 --> 01:38:38.480]  It's 100% administrative if it says civil infraction.
[01:38:38.480 --> 01:38:41.480]  Well, it doesn't.
[01:38:41.480 --> 01:38:44.480]  Again, the citation isn't required
[01:38:44.480 --> 01:38:48.480]  to say if it is or isn't, most likely.
[01:38:48.480 --> 01:38:51.480]  So you need to see how the statutes
[01:38:51.480 --> 01:38:56.480]  or the courts have said they apply.
[01:38:56.480 --> 01:38:58.480]  All right. Please summarize it
[01:38:58.480 --> 01:39:00.480]  and then I'll get off the phone
[01:39:00.480 --> 01:39:02.480]  so you can get to your next caller.
[01:39:02.480 --> 01:39:07.480]  Search the state statutes for the phrase civil infraction
[01:39:07.480 --> 01:39:09.480]  or just infraction
[01:39:09.480 --> 01:39:14.480]  and see what the law says about infractions.
[01:39:14.480 --> 01:39:18.480]  Then go find case law that deals with the statute
[01:39:18.480 --> 01:39:21.480]  involving the use of infraction
[01:39:21.480 --> 01:39:23.480]  and see what it says.
[01:39:23.480 --> 01:39:26.480]  Okay. Got it.
[01:39:26.480 --> 01:39:28.480]  And that's the crux of the whole issue.
[01:39:28.480 --> 01:39:30.480]  That'll give me what I need.
[01:39:30.480 --> 01:39:32.480]  Well, I can't say if it will or it won't,
[01:39:32.480 --> 01:39:34.480]  but odds are if you can show
[01:39:34.480 --> 01:39:37.480]  that they are denying due process
[01:39:37.480 --> 01:39:39.480]  by not having this preliminary hearing
[01:39:39.480 --> 01:39:41.480]  for a probable cause finding,
[01:39:41.480 --> 01:39:43.480]  if that's what it does,
[01:39:43.480 --> 01:39:46.480]  then you can show that they are attempting
[01:39:46.480 --> 01:39:49.480]  to circumvent due process unconstitutionally
[01:39:49.480 --> 01:39:51.480]  by creating a class of offense
[01:39:51.480 --> 01:39:54.480]  that somehow denies the general protections
[01:39:54.480 --> 01:39:57.480]  within the Bill of Rights in every state.
[01:39:57.480 --> 01:40:00.480]  Got it. All right.
[01:40:00.480 --> 01:40:02.480]  Thank you very much.
[01:40:02.480 --> 01:40:04.480]  Yes, sir?
[01:40:04.480 --> 01:40:06.480]  You have a fine day in Texas.
[01:40:06.480 --> 01:40:08.480]  I'm going to try, even though it's already night,
[01:40:08.480 --> 01:40:10.480]  but we'll see what we can do.
[01:40:10.480 --> 01:40:12.480]  We'll have a fine day anyway.
[01:40:12.480 --> 01:40:14.480]  Okay. All right.
[01:40:14.480 --> 01:40:15.480]  Let's try one more time
[01:40:15.480 --> 01:40:18.480]  to see if we can get Tina back up on the line here.
[01:40:18.480 --> 01:40:21.480]  Tina, are you there?
[01:40:21.480 --> 01:40:22.480]  I am here.
[01:40:22.480 --> 01:40:23.480]  Okay.
[01:40:23.480 --> 01:40:25.480]  Now, what I was going to tell you before,
[01:40:25.480 --> 01:40:27.480]  before it got to where either you couldn't hear me
[01:40:27.480 --> 01:40:29.480]  or I couldn't hear you,
[01:40:29.480 --> 01:40:31.480]  is that you have got to look and see specifically
[01:40:31.480 --> 01:40:34.480]  what the law is in relation to foreclosures.
[01:40:34.480 --> 01:40:35.480]  Okay.
[01:40:35.480 --> 01:40:37.480]  If the law says that they have to petition
[01:40:37.480 --> 01:40:38.480]  for attorney's fees
[01:40:38.480 --> 01:40:40.480]  and that the court has to grant them
[01:40:40.480 --> 01:40:43.480]  and they have been denied those by a court,
[01:40:43.480 --> 01:40:45.480]  they have no legal leg to stand on
[01:40:45.480 --> 01:40:47.480]  in claiming you owe them attorney's fees.
[01:40:47.480 --> 01:40:49.480]  Okay.
[01:40:49.480 --> 01:40:54.480]  This is what Rule 3.1702 Claiming Attorney's Fees,
[01:40:54.480 --> 01:40:57.480]  the California Rules of Court.
[01:40:57.480 --> 01:41:00.480]  It says, except as otherwise provided by statute,
[01:41:00.480 --> 01:41:03.480]  this rule applies in several cases
[01:41:03.480 --> 01:41:06.480]  for claims of statutory attorney's fees
[01:41:06.480 --> 01:41:10.480]  and claims for attorney's fees provided for in contract.
[01:41:10.480 --> 01:41:12.480]  Subdivisions B and C apply when the court determines
[01:41:12.480 --> 01:41:14.480]  and triples into the fees,
[01:41:14.480 --> 01:41:16.480]  the amount of the fees or both,
[01:41:16.480 --> 01:41:18.480]  whether the court makes that determination
[01:41:18.480 --> 01:41:20.480]  because the statute of contract
[01:41:20.480 --> 01:41:23.480]  refers to reasonable fees, which it does,
[01:41:23.480 --> 01:41:25.480]  because it requires the determination
[01:41:25.480 --> 01:41:27.480]  of the prevailing party
[01:41:27.480 --> 01:41:30.480]  for other reasons.
[01:41:30.480 --> 01:41:31.480]  Okay.
[01:41:31.480 --> 01:41:34.480]  So again, it says exactly what I said,
[01:41:34.480 --> 01:41:37.480]  except as otherwise provided by statute,
[01:41:37.480 --> 01:41:39.480]  not just the rules of court,
[01:41:39.480 --> 01:41:41.480]  but actual statute,
[01:41:41.480 --> 01:41:43.480]  because the rules of court are not statute.
[01:41:43.480 --> 01:41:45.480]  All right.
[01:41:45.480 --> 01:41:47.480]  So you need to see what the law is
[01:41:47.480 --> 01:41:49.480]  in relation to foreclosures,
[01:41:49.480 --> 01:41:51.480]  whether or not they're considered judicial or nonjudicial,
[01:41:51.480 --> 01:41:53.480]  and what the rules of attorney's fees are
[01:41:53.480 --> 01:41:55.480]  in those particular types of foreclosures,
[01:41:55.480 --> 01:41:59.480]  et cetera, et cetera.
[01:41:59.480 --> 01:42:00.480]  Okay.
[01:42:00.480 --> 01:42:03.480]  Now, in relation to the mortgage contract,
[01:42:03.480 --> 01:42:05.480]  it also addresses that.
[01:42:05.480 --> 01:42:08.480]  If the mortgage contract specifically says
[01:42:08.480 --> 01:42:10.480]  that attorney's fees are to be awarded
[01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:12.480]  in accordance with whatever,
[01:42:12.480 --> 01:42:15.480]  that contract still has to comply
[01:42:15.480 --> 01:42:18.480]  with the state law on attorney's fees.
[01:42:18.480 --> 01:42:21.480]  So you've got to look at all of those together.
[01:42:21.480 --> 01:42:23.480]  You can't look at just one or the other
[01:42:23.480 --> 01:42:26.480]  and come to a correct conclusion,
[01:42:26.480 --> 01:42:29.480]  except by accident.
[01:42:29.480 --> 01:42:31.480]  Okay.
[01:42:31.480 --> 01:42:34.480]  Then I will check all of those
[01:42:34.480 --> 01:42:36.480]  and see what it says.
[01:42:36.480 --> 01:42:39.480]  It's just interesting that they applied to the court,
[01:42:39.480 --> 01:42:41.480]  so the last two times for it,
[01:42:41.480 --> 01:42:44.480]  but not the first time,
[01:42:44.480 --> 01:42:46.480]  and they were denied.
[01:42:46.480 --> 01:42:48.480]  But the second question is,
[01:42:48.480 --> 01:42:50.480]  you were talking about unconstitutional laws,
[01:42:50.480 --> 01:42:54.480]  which states do, which deny you do process.
[01:42:54.480 --> 01:42:56.480]  Is a nonjudicial state,
[01:42:56.480 --> 01:43:00.480]  isn't that a denial of a constitutional right
[01:43:00.480 --> 01:43:02.480]  to do process?
[01:43:02.480 --> 01:43:05.480]  Well, it depends on what right you're referring to.
[01:43:05.480 --> 01:43:07.480]  The thing about it is,
[01:43:07.480 --> 01:43:10.480]  there's something inherently wrong with
[01:43:10.480 --> 01:43:12.480]  nonjudicial foreclosures being allowed
[01:43:12.480 --> 01:43:15.480]  to take place in any state.
[01:43:15.480 --> 01:43:16.480]  Yes.
[01:43:16.480 --> 01:43:17.480]  Okay.
[01:43:17.480 --> 01:43:18.480]  It can be challenged,
[01:43:18.480 --> 01:43:20.480]  but it's not going to be changed immediately.
[01:43:20.480 --> 01:43:22.480]  You can bet on it,
[01:43:22.480 --> 01:43:24.480]  because if the law is already written in a way
[01:43:24.480 --> 01:43:26.480]  that allows it to happen,
[01:43:26.480 --> 01:43:28.480]  then they're going to do it.
[01:43:28.480 --> 01:43:30.480]  It's that simple.
[01:43:30.480 --> 01:43:33.480]  Yes, because it makes it easy for them and quick.
[01:43:33.480 --> 01:43:35.480]  Yes, it does,
[01:43:35.480 --> 01:43:38.480]  which was the whole point of writing it that way,
[01:43:38.480 --> 01:43:40.480]  because they serve the banks and not the people.
[01:43:40.480 --> 01:43:42.480]  That's the problem.
[01:43:42.480 --> 01:43:44.480]  There is a big problem here.
[01:43:44.480 --> 01:43:46.480]  It's a big problem everywhere.
[01:43:46.480 --> 01:43:48.480]  Again, it's a big problem everywhere,
[01:43:48.480 --> 01:43:50.480]  hence the problem,
[01:43:50.480 --> 01:43:52.480]  but we keep putting the same people back in office
[01:43:52.480 --> 01:43:54.480]  and expecting things to be different.
[01:43:54.480 --> 01:43:56.480]  It's not going to happen.
[01:43:56.480 --> 01:43:58.480]  Hang on just a second,
[01:43:58.480 --> 01:44:19.480]  and we'll be right back.
[01:44:28.480 --> 01:44:30.480]  Thank you so much for watching.
[01:44:59.480 --> 01:45:02.480]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:02.480 --> 01:45:05.480]  Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary.
[01:45:05.480 --> 01:45:09.480]  The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course
[01:45:09.480 --> 01:45:13.480]  that will show you how, in 24 hours, you step by step.
[01:45:13.480 --> 01:45:17.480]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:17.480 --> 01:45:21.480]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:21.480 --> 01:45:24.480]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course,
[01:45:24.480 --> 01:45:28.480]  and now you can, too.
[01:45:28.480 --> 01:45:31.480]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[01:45:31.480 --> 01:45:34.480]  with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:34.480 --> 01:45:36.480]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[01:45:36.480 --> 01:45:39.480]  you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:39.480 --> 01:45:41.480]  about the principles and practices
[01:45:41.480 --> 01:45:43.480]  that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.480 --> 01:45:45.480]  You'll receive our audio classroom,
[01:45:45.480 --> 01:45:47.480]  video seminar, tutorials,
[01:45:47.480 --> 01:45:49.480]  forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.480 --> 01:45:52.480]  prose tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.480 --> 01:45:55.480]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:45:55.480 --> 01:46:24.480]  and click on the banner.
[01:46:25.480 --> 01:46:38.480]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:46:38.480 --> 01:46:40.480]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:40.480 --> 01:46:43.480]  We are now in the last segment of the show.
[01:46:43.480 --> 01:46:46.480]  We are talking to Tina in California.
[01:46:46.480 --> 01:46:48.480]  Hang on just a second, Tina.
[01:46:48.480 --> 01:46:50.480]  Let me get this music out of the way here.
[01:46:50.480 --> 01:46:54.480]  All right, let's go.
[01:46:54.480 --> 01:46:59.480]  So it's going to be hard to challenge
[01:46:59.480 --> 01:47:02.480]  a non-judicial as unconstitutional,
[01:47:02.480 --> 01:47:04.480]  but it is.
[01:47:04.480 --> 01:47:07.480]  You and I both believe it and many others do.
[01:47:07.480 --> 01:47:10.480]  Is it worth the long fight?
[01:47:10.480 --> 01:47:12.480]  I can't answer that.
[01:47:12.480 --> 01:47:15.480]  That answer is going to imply
[01:47:15.480 --> 01:47:17.480]  what you've got X amount to lose,
[01:47:17.480 --> 01:47:20.480]  and some people are willing to lose less
[01:47:20.480 --> 01:47:22.480]  or more than others.
[01:47:22.480 --> 01:47:24.480]  So it's all going to depend upon the individual
[01:47:24.480 --> 01:47:26.480]  as to whether or not it's worth it.
[01:47:26.480 --> 01:47:28.480]  I can't answer that question for you.
[01:47:28.480 --> 01:47:30.480]  Yeah.
[01:47:30.480 --> 01:47:32.480]  For instance, I'm one of those people.
[01:47:32.480 --> 01:47:35.480]  I gave up absolutely everything of material value
[01:47:35.480 --> 01:47:37.480]  to do what I'm doing.
[01:47:37.480 --> 01:47:41.480]  I believe me, I have.
[01:47:41.480 --> 01:47:44.480]  The most expensive thing I own is my computer
[01:47:44.480 --> 01:47:51.480]  and the best relationship I've got is my dog.
[01:47:51.480 --> 01:47:53.480]  Well, I'm kind of with you on that.
[01:47:53.480 --> 01:47:54.480]  I lost everything.
[01:47:54.480 --> 01:47:56.480]  I've sold everything that I have.
[01:47:56.480 --> 01:48:02.480]  I would be homeless if it wasn't for my significant other
[01:48:02.480 --> 01:48:07.480]  and living in his house under his roof.
[01:48:07.480 --> 01:48:09.480]  Yeah, well, like I say, you've got to decide
[01:48:09.480 --> 01:48:11.480]  what's most important to you.
[01:48:11.480 --> 01:48:15.480]  I can't answer that question for you.
[01:48:15.480 --> 01:48:17.480]  Yeah, well, I've got to go after the fees first
[01:48:17.480 --> 01:48:20.480]  and try to get some kind of justice because they're...
[01:48:20.480 --> 01:48:22.480]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:48:22.480 --> 01:48:25.480]  Check those out and see what they will do for you, okay?
[01:48:25.480 --> 01:48:26.480]  Surely will.
[01:48:26.480 --> 01:48:28.480]  Thank you very much for educating us all.
[01:48:28.480 --> 01:48:30.480]  We really appreciate it.
[01:48:30.480 --> 01:48:33.480]  Well, I try and I try to do it right and you're welcome.
[01:48:33.480 --> 01:48:36.480]  Hopefully I won't get any tickets.
[01:48:36.480 --> 01:48:39.480]  Well, you're in the best place to get a traffic ticket.
[01:48:39.480 --> 01:48:42.480]  They're really easy to beat out there.
[01:48:42.480 --> 01:48:43.480]  They are?
[01:48:43.480 --> 01:48:44.480]  They are.
[01:48:44.480 --> 01:48:47.480]  You just have to know what to do about it.
[01:48:47.480 --> 01:48:50.480]  Well, does your course cover any state?
[01:48:50.480 --> 01:48:53.480]  My course can be adapted to any state,
[01:48:53.480 --> 01:48:57.480]  but my legal blog has material on it specific to states
[01:48:57.480 --> 01:48:59.480]  that were their civil infractions
[01:48:59.480 --> 01:49:01.480]  and that's what they are in California.
[01:49:01.480 --> 01:49:04.480]  So what you need to do is go to my legal blog,
[01:49:04.480 --> 01:49:10.480]  tauoflaw, T-A-O-O-F-L-A-W dot wordpress dot com
[01:49:10.480 --> 01:49:12.480]  and do a search for civil infractions
[01:49:12.480 --> 01:49:15.480]  and then read that article on civil infractions
[01:49:15.480 --> 01:49:18.480]  because it applies to any citation issued in California
[01:49:18.480 --> 01:49:23.480]  where the allegation involves a civil infraction.
[01:49:23.480 --> 01:49:24.480]  Okay.
[01:49:24.480 --> 01:49:25.480]  I will do that.
[01:49:25.480 --> 01:49:26.480]  Hopefully I won't get one,
[01:49:26.480 --> 01:49:28.480]  but I'd like to prepare just in case.
[01:49:28.480 --> 01:49:31.480]  Being prepared is always a good thing.
[01:49:31.480 --> 01:49:32.480]  Yes.
[01:49:32.480 --> 01:49:33.480]  Thank you again.
[01:49:33.480 --> 01:49:34.480]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:49:34.480 --> 01:49:35.480]  You have a great night.
[01:49:35.480 --> 01:49:36.480]  You too.
[01:49:36.480 --> 01:49:37.480]  Bye-bye.
[01:49:37.480 --> 01:49:38.480]  Bye-bye.
[01:49:38.480 --> 01:49:39.480]  All right.
[01:49:39.480 --> 01:49:40.480]  Now we have Larry in Arizona.
[01:49:40.480 --> 01:49:42.480]  Larry, what can we do for you?
[01:49:42.480 --> 01:49:43.480]  Good evening, Eddie.
[01:49:43.480 --> 01:49:44.480]  Good evening.
[01:49:44.480 --> 01:49:46.480]  I talked to you a few months ago
[01:49:46.480 --> 01:49:50.480]  about a property tax situation I have here in Arizona
[01:49:50.480 --> 01:49:54.480]  and you had referred me to really scrutinize
[01:49:54.480 --> 01:49:57.480]  the Enabling Act.
[01:49:57.480 --> 01:50:02.480]  And so between the federal constitution
[01:50:02.480 --> 01:50:05.480]  that says no direct tax shall be laid
[01:50:05.480 --> 01:50:09.480]  unless it's in proportion to the census,
[01:50:09.480 --> 01:50:12.480]  I found a section in the Enabling Act
[01:50:12.480 --> 01:50:17.480]  that says this Constitution shall be Republican in form
[01:50:17.480 --> 01:50:20.480]  and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution
[01:50:20.480 --> 01:50:22.480]  in the United States and the principles
[01:50:22.480 --> 01:50:25.480]  of the Declaration of Independence.
[01:50:25.480 --> 01:50:26.480]  Right.
[01:50:26.480 --> 01:50:29.480]  And then in our current Arizona Constitution,
[01:50:29.480 --> 01:50:32.480]  it says all property in the state
[01:50:32.480 --> 01:50:36.480]  not exempt under the laws of the United States
[01:50:36.480 --> 01:50:40.480]  or under this Constitution, blah, blah, blah,
[01:50:40.480 --> 01:50:43.480]  or ascertain to be taxable.
[01:50:43.480 --> 01:50:46.480]  Well, see, you have a very big deal right there
[01:50:46.480 --> 01:50:48.480]  in the reference to the Declaration of Independence
[01:50:48.480 --> 01:50:50.480]  because the Declaration of Independence
[01:50:50.480 --> 01:50:53.480]  specifically addresses the right of men
[01:50:53.480 --> 01:50:55.480]  to have their own property.
[01:50:55.480 --> 01:50:58.480]  It specifically says that he has sent swarms of agents
[01:50:58.480 --> 01:51:01.480]  to eat out our substance, which is what taxation is
[01:51:01.480 --> 01:51:05.480]  and what it's meant to do.
[01:51:05.480 --> 01:51:09.480]  Okay, so are those three things enough to go after
[01:51:09.480 --> 01:51:11.480]  our county assessor?
[01:51:11.480 --> 01:51:14.480]  That really depends on how you make the argument
[01:51:14.480 --> 01:51:17.480]  and how you tie it all together
[01:51:17.480 --> 01:51:20.480]  and what you can use as evidence to support it.
[01:51:20.480 --> 01:51:22.480]  One of the things I'd highly recommend you do
[01:51:22.480 --> 01:51:27.480]  is round up every certified quote of the founding fathers
[01:51:27.480 --> 01:51:32.480]  in relation to taxation of private property
[01:51:32.480 --> 01:51:33.480]  and add that to it.
[01:51:33.480 --> 01:51:35.480]  What do you mean by a certified quote?
[01:51:35.480 --> 01:51:37.480]  You need to make sure that they come from
[01:51:37.480 --> 01:51:40.480]  actual authenticated original documents
[01:51:40.480 --> 01:51:42.480]  and writings of the founding fathers
[01:51:42.480 --> 01:51:46.480]  as being an original quote pinned or said by them
[01:51:46.480 --> 01:51:51.480]  and when and where in history in relation to that subject.
[01:51:51.480 --> 01:51:53.480]  Okay.
[01:51:53.480 --> 01:51:56.480]  Because they have to be certified as authentic
[01:51:56.480 --> 01:51:58.480]  before they would be admissible as evidence,
[01:51:58.480 --> 01:52:01.480]  otherwise they're hearsay.
[01:52:01.480 --> 01:52:03.480]  Okay.
[01:52:03.480 --> 01:52:07.480]  And then you had also told me to look for
[01:52:07.480 --> 01:52:10.480]  Ninth Circuit Court conversion cases
[01:52:10.480 --> 01:52:12.480]  and I really haven't found anything there,
[01:52:12.480 --> 01:52:16.480]  but I have found two RICO cases
[01:52:16.480 --> 01:52:21.480]  in relation to property tax that the Ninth Circuit Court has done.
[01:52:21.480 --> 01:52:23.480]  Okay, but RICO in relation to what?
[01:52:23.480 --> 01:52:25.480]  Is that better to go than conversion?
[01:52:25.480 --> 01:52:29.480]  Well, that depends on what the issue of the RICO case was.
[01:52:29.480 --> 01:52:32.480]  If they were saying that the county tax assessor
[01:52:32.480 --> 01:52:35.480]  illegally elevated the price of taxes
[01:52:35.480 --> 01:52:38.480]  to secure more funding for the county illegally
[01:52:38.480 --> 01:52:40.480]  or pocketed the property taxes
[01:52:40.480 --> 01:52:44.480]  or portion of the property taxes for their own use
[01:52:44.480 --> 01:52:47.480]  and that they had two or more people involved in that,
[01:52:47.480 --> 01:52:52.480]  that would be RICO, but it wouldn't solve your problem.
[01:52:52.480 --> 01:52:55.480]  Oh, okay.
[01:52:55.480 --> 01:52:58.480]  So it depends on what the issue of the RICO case is.
[01:52:58.480 --> 01:53:01.480]  If it was about them levying the taxes in the first place
[01:53:01.480 --> 01:53:04.480]  and it being wrong, then most certainly it would help you.
[01:53:04.480 --> 01:53:06.480]  But if that's not the issue,
[01:53:06.480 --> 01:53:09.480]  then it's not what good is it?
[01:53:09.480 --> 01:53:14.480]  Okay.
[01:53:14.480 --> 01:53:16.480]  Okay, and so what, I mean,
[01:53:16.480 --> 01:53:19.480]  if I go with this constitutional stuff,
[01:53:19.480 --> 01:53:25.480]  what is the basis there that the taxation is unconstitutional?
[01:53:25.480 --> 01:53:26.480]  Okay.
[01:53:26.480 --> 01:53:29.480]  It all comes down to where does the state claim
[01:53:29.480 --> 01:53:32.480]  that the authority of the taxed private property came from?
[01:53:32.480 --> 01:53:34.480]  Okay.
[01:53:34.480 --> 01:53:38.480]  And the thing is, is that no state constitution
[01:53:38.480 --> 01:53:41.480]  supersedes the federal constitution.
[01:53:41.480 --> 01:53:43.480]  Okay.
[01:53:43.480 --> 01:53:46.480]  The federal constitution is based upon the preliminaries
[01:53:46.480 --> 01:53:50.480]  of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence
[01:53:50.480 --> 01:53:53.480]  and the law that was in place for the colonies at the time
[01:53:53.480 --> 01:53:57.480]  under the Articles of Confederation.
[01:53:57.480 --> 01:53:59.480]  Okay?
[01:53:59.480 --> 01:54:00.480]  Okay.
[01:54:00.480 --> 01:54:03.480]  So the question there becomes is,
[01:54:03.480 --> 01:54:06.480]  what is the founding basis for private property tax
[01:54:06.480 --> 01:54:08.480]  and was it ever constitutional to begin with?
[01:54:08.480 --> 01:54:11.480]  Well, if the founding fathers said absolutely not
[01:54:11.480 --> 01:54:15.480]  and there was no provision for private taxation of property
[01:54:15.480 --> 01:54:17.480]  or taxation of private property
[01:54:17.480 --> 01:54:20.480]  ensconced within the language of the federal constitution,
[01:54:20.480 --> 01:54:24.480]  then the states don't have the ability to add to that.
[01:54:24.480 --> 01:54:27.480]  Once your constitution says that it cannot run afoul
[01:54:27.480 --> 01:54:31.480]  of the federal constitution or the Declaration of Independence,
[01:54:31.480 --> 01:54:33.480]  then you've got additional fighting authority
[01:54:33.480 --> 01:54:35.480]  in the language of the declaration
[01:54:35.480 --> 01:54:37.480]  that taxation is inherently wrong
[01:54:37.480 --> 01:54:40.480]  in relation to private persons and property.
[01:54:40.480 --> 01:54:44.480]  But once again, you're going to have to go with the writings
[01:54:44.480 --> 01:54:47.480]  of the founding fathers that did the constitution
[01:54:47.480 --> 01:54:52.480]  and omitted that specifically for a reason.
[01:54:52.480 --> 01:54:53.480]  Okay.
[01:54:53.480 --> 01:54:55.480]  And then one other question.
[01:54:55.480 --> 01:54:56.480]  Okay.
[01:54:56.480 --> 01:55:00.480]  I mean, everybody says real property is commercial property.
[01:55:00.480 --> 01:55:05.480]  How do you, what's the delineation
[01:55:05.480 --> 01:55:09.480]  between private property and real property?
[01:55:09.480 --> 01:55:12.480]  Well, you're going to have to go back in time
[01:55:12.480 --> 01:55:14.480]  and look at the original inception
[01:55:14.480 --> 01:55:17.480]  of real property versus private property.
[01:55:17.480 --> 01:55:21.480]  When did the term real become associated with property?
[01:55:21.480 --> 01:55:24.480]  And in what context was real applied?
[01:55:24.480 --> 01:55:26.480]  See, in the original language,
[01:55:26.480 --> 01:55:29.480]  real could simply have meant physical,
[01:55:29.480 --> 01:55:37.480]  but it doesn't necessarily mean taxable.
[01:55:37.480 --> 01:55:38.480]  Okay.
[01:55:38.480 --> 01:55:39.480]  Okay.
[01:55:39.480 --> 01:55:41.480]  But again, you have to go back in time
[01:55:41.480 --> 01:55:44.480]  to see if there was ever a specific distinguishing
[01:55:44.480 --> 01:55:50.480]  between real property and private property.
[01:55:50.480 --> 01:55:51.480]  Okay.
[01:55:51.480 --> 01:55:54.480]  Now, I would affirm belief that there has been,
[01:55:54.480 --> 01:55:58.480]  because we know very well the founding fathers absolutely said
[01:55:58.480 --> 01:56:02.480]  that taxation of private property was wrong.
[01:56:02.480 --> 01:56:04.480]  It was not to be done.
[01:56:04.480 --> 01:56:06.480]  It is theft of a man's property,
[01:56:06.480 --> 01:56:09.480]  and they were absolutely against it.
[01:56:09.480 --> 01:56:13.480]  So the fact that it would be part of the constitution
[01:56:13.480 --> 01:56:17.480]  as allowing it is idiotic.
[01:56:17.480 --> 01:56:20.480]  But then again, idiots are currently running the system.
[01:56:20.480 --> 01:56:22.480]  So what do you expect?
[01:56:22.480 --> 01:56:27.480]  Okay.
[01:56:27.480 --> 01:56:28.480]  Okay.
[01:56:28.480 --> 01:56:30.480]  Well, I guess that answers all my questions this evening.
[01:56:30.480 --> 01:56:31.480]  Okay.
[01:56:31.480 --> 01:56:33.480]  Well, good luck with the research.
[01:56:33.480 --> 01:56:34.480]  Okay.
[01:56:34.480 --> 01:56:35.480]  Well, thank you.
[01:56:35.480 --> 01:56:36.480]  Yes, sir.
[01:56:36.480 --> 01:56:37.480]  You have a great night.
[01:56:37.480 --> 01:56:38.480]  You too.
[01:56:38.480 --> 01:56:39.480]  Thank you.
[01:56:39.480 --> 01:56:40.480]  Yes, sir.
[01:56:40.480 --> 01:56:41.480]  All right.
[01:56:41.480 --> 01:56:42.480]  That is our last caller,
[01:56:42.480 --> 01:56:44.480]  and we got two minutes before we are off the air here,
[01:56:44.480 --> 01:56:46.480]  so I guess we are done for the evening in that regard.
[01:56:46.480 --> 01:56:48.480]  I am going to turn off the phones,
[01:56:48.480 --> 01:56:51.480]  and I am just going to segue my way out of here tonight
[01:56:51.480 --> 01:56:54.480]  by saying please, if you have the opportunity to fund us
[01:56:54.480 --> 01:56:58.480]  by getting into the fundraiser, please do that.
[01:56:58.480 --> 01:57:01.480]  Personal donations always appreciated to those that have donated
[01:57:01.480 --> 01:57:07.480]  to me directly for the MRI and Dr. Bills and everything,
[01:57:07.480 --> 01:57:09.480]  dealing with my shoulder.
[01:57:09.480 --> 01:57:10.480]  Thank you so much.
[01:57:10.480 --> 01:57:12.480]  I greatly appreciate all that.
[01:57:12.480 --> 01:57:14.480]  You know who you are.
[01:57:14.480 --> 01:57:16.480]  I am sorry I have not got a chance to call you personally
[01:57:16.480 --> 01:57:19.480]  and tell you that, but you know who you are
[01:57:19.480 --> 01:57:21.480]  out there listening.
[01:57:21.480 --> 01:57:24.480]  Pat, Mehta, y'all especially, thank you very much.
[01:57:24.480 --> 01:57:27.480]  I appreciate all that you have done to help me out with that
[01:57:27.480 --> 01:57:29.480]  because it is definitely expensive in Austin
[01:57:29.480 --> 01:57:33.480]  to have anything medically checked out, believe me.
[01:57:33.480 --> 01:57:38.480]  It is just exasperating, but it is what it is.
[01:57:38.480 --> 01:57:40.480]  Now, the fundraiser, like I said, gets you in a drawing
[01:57:40.480 --> 01:57:41.480]  for the prizes.
[01:57:41.480 --> 01:57:43.480]  Check out the details of that.
[01:57:43.480 --> 01:57:46.480]  LogosRadioNetwork.com if you want to know what you can win
[01:57:46.480 --> 01:57:49.480]  and how much you got to put in to do so.
[01:57:49.480 --> 01:57:52.480]  Every $25 gets you an entry in the drawing.
[01:57:52.480 --> 01:57:54.480]  Purchase of the seminar gets you 10 entries.
[01:57:54.480 --> 01:57:57.480]  Purchase of Randy's book gets you four entries, et cetera, et cetera.
[01:57:57.480 --> 01:58:01.480]  Check all of that out on Logos and we will hopefully
[01:58:01.480 --> 01:58:05.480]  have a really good drawing and a really good fundraiser
[01:58:05.480 --> 01:58:08.480]  and be able to stay around for a little bit longer
[01:58:08.480 --> 01:58:11.480]  because folks, we are here for you,
[01:58:11.480 --> 01:58:14.480]  but we can only stay here because of you
[01:58:14.480 --> 01:58:16.480]  and because you are willing to donate
[01:58:16.480 --> 01:58:19.480]  and give us the money we need to keep things running.
[01:58:19.480 --> 01:58:22.480]  We don't draw salary for doing this job.
[01:58:22.480 --> 01:58:24.480]  None of that money goes directly in any of our pockets
[01:58:24.480 --> 01:58:27.480]  other than to pay the bills to keep us running.
[01:58:27.480 --> 01:58:30.480]  So please, give what you can as much as you can.
[01:58:30.480 --> 01:58:32.480]  The personal nations, we do get to keep
[01:58:32.480 --> 01:58:34.480]  and that is also appreciated,
[01:58:34.480 --> 01:58:37.480]  so please help us out there individually whenever you can.
[01:58:37.480 --> 01:58:41.480]  Y'all have a great week, good night, and God bless.
[01:58:50.480 --> 01:58:53.480]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free,
[01:58:53.480 --> 01:58:57.480]  a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.480 --> 01:59:01.480]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes
[01:59:01.480 --> 01:59:04.480]  that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse,
[01:59:04.480 --> 01:59:08.480]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.480 --> 01:59:11.480]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.480 --> 01:59:16.480]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:16.480 --> 01:59:20.480]  or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.480 --> 01:59:22.480]  This translation is highly accurate
[01:59:22.480 --> 01:59:25.480]  and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.480 --> 01:59:28.480]  plus charts and maps and an outline
[01:59:28.480 --> 01:59:30.480]  for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.480 --> 01:59:32.480]  This is truly a Bible you can understand
[01:59:32.480 --> 01:59:35.480]  to get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:59:35.480 --> 01:59:40.480]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.480 --> 01:59:44.480]  That's 888-551-0102
[01:59:44.480 --> 02:00:03.480]  or visit us online at bfa.org.