[00:00.000 --> 00:05.780] The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdowns, providing the jelly [00:05.780 --> 00:13.420] bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop [00:13.420 --> 00:19.300] into the tides of the alternative. [00:19.300 --> 00:27.060] Markets for Monday, the 4th of February, 2019 open with gold $1,313.67 an ounce, silver $15.84 [00:27.060 --> 00:34.960] an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil Texas crude $55.26 a barrel, Brent crude $61.87 [00:34.960 --> 00:41.760] a barrel, and cryptos in order of market capitalization, Bitcoin $3,452.88, Ripple [00:41.760 --> 00:49.760] XRP $0.30, Ethereum $107.58, and Eos is at $2.39 a crypto coin. [00:49.760 --> 00:57.840] Today in history, the year 1789, George Washington is unanimously selected as the first president [00:57.840 --> 01:00.840] of the United States by the U.S. Electoral College. [01:00.840 --> 01:08.000] Today in history, in recent years, 286 priests were identified as perpetrators in the sexual [01:08.000 --> 01:12.240] abuse of minors in a report released by the Catholic Church in Texas on Thursday, the [01:12.240 --> 01:17.400] head of the Archdiocese of Galveston, Houston, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, who is also president [01:17.400 --> 01:21.480] of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is expected to attend a February summit [01:21.480 --> 01:25.760] called by Pope Francis, set in a statement that, quote, the bishops of Texas have decided [01:25.760 --> 01:30.200] to release the names of the priests at this time because it is right and just and to offer [01:30.200 --> 01:32.920] healing and hope to those who have suffered. [01:32.920 --> 01:37.120] On behalf of all who have failed in this regard, I offer my sincerest apology. [01:37.120 --> 01:41.280] Our church has been lacerated by this wound and we must take action to heal it. [01:41.280 --> 01:46.280] These 286 priests accused of sexually abusing children come from 14 dioceses in Texas with [01:46.280 --> 01:50.480] the Fort Worth diocese being the only one not to provide names since it's already provided [01:50.480 --> 01:52.720] an update accounting back in October. [01:52.720 --> 01:56.600] This move by leaders in the Catholic Church of Texas comes a few months after the Shuffling [01:56.600 --> 02:01.360] Pennsylvania report in August, which outlined over half a century of sexual child abuse [02:01.360 --> 02:06.080] by more than 300 priests, as well as last month when the Illinois Attorney General reported [02:06.080 --> 02:10.680] that at least 500 Catholic clergy in the state had sexually abused children and total about [02:10.680 --> 02:15.680] 50 dioceses have released the names of over 1200 priests and others accused of abuse. [02:15.680 --> 02:18.960] Unfortunately, 60% of those priests have already died. [02:18.960 --> 02:23.960] Roughly another 30 dioceses are also investigating and have promised to release the identities [02:23.960 --> 02:28.160] of credibly accused priests in the coming months. [02:28.160 --> 02:33.160] It's being rumored that Microsoft will reveal a software development kit which will allow [02:33.160 --> 02:38.600] video games developers to set up cross-platform play, essentially linking the Xbox, Windows [02:38.600 --> 02:44.120] PC, Android, iOS and Nintendo Switch platforms together, de facto making it easier for games [02:44.120 --> 02:47.040] to be made and played on multiple video game consoles. [02:47.040 --> 02:50.920] This would allow for the Xbox Live platform to potentially expand from 400 million gaming [02:50.920 --> 03:20.720] devices to over 2 billion. [03:20.720 --> 03:50.240] Good evening folks, this is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host Eddie [03:50.240 --> 03:51.240] Craig. [03:51.240 --> 03:52.240] It is February 4, 2019. [03:52.240 --> 03:53.240] We are live tonight. [03:53.240 --> 03:54.240] This is not an archive. [03:54.240 --> 03:55.240] I apologize for having to run so many here lately. [03:55.240 --> 04:05.520] I got so much stuff on my plate and so many things going wrong between computers and everything [04:05.520 --> 04:06.520] else. [04:06.520 --> 04:12.280] This last week I had a serious sinus infection because the weather here in Texas went from [04:12.280 --> 04:18.320] hot to cold and hot to cold four different times within a matter of days and my sinuses [04:18.320 --> 04:22.400] went absolutely nuts over it. [04:22.400 --> 04:26.320] Something I've been studying here while I've been working on the stuff that I've got to [04:26.320 --> 04:32.680] work on is something called the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act. [04:32.680 --> 04:37.560] The reason I've been studying this is because of something that specifically appears in the [04:37.560 --> 04:39.360] Texas Rules of Evidence. [04:39.360 --> 04:46.800] First, I'm going to explain to you what the Uniform Rules of Evidence Act is and when [04:46.800 --> 04:54.120] and how and who brought it into being and then I'm going to go into what the Texas Rules [04:54.120 --> 04:59.000] of Evidence show us and you're not going to like it. [04:59.000 --> 05:05.360] I know I don't but we'll let you decide how you feel about it when I'm reading it to you. [05:05.360 --> 05:07.360] Just a brief history. [05:07.360 --> 05:13.120] The Uniform Rules of Evidence was originally promulgated in 1974 by the National Conference [05:13.120 --> 05:15.920] of Commissioners on Uniform State Law. [05:15.920 --> 05:20.280] Now remember, these people are not elected individuals. [05:20.280 --> 05:23.880] These people are not appointed individuals. [05:23.880 --> 05:33.880] This group was a group of private attorneys acting in concert to formulate this co-op [05:33.880 --> 05:39.280] that they have and to create this act. [05:39.280 --> 05:45.360] There were extensive amendments in 1986 and a minor amendment in 1988. [05:45.360 --> 05:49.720] Two amendments have been added in 1999 and 2005. [05:49.720 --> 05:55.840] The Uniform Rules of Evidence attempts to achieve uniformity of law of the law of evidence [05:55.840 --> 05:57.920] between all states. [05:57.920 --> 06:03.480] It also provides large scale unity between state rules of evidence and the federal rules [06:03.480 --> 06:04.480] of evidence. [06:04.480 --> 06:11.400] Now remember, it says unity, not matching requirements. [06:11.400 --> 06:19.240] In fact, the federal rules of evidence are spoken of strictly as being similar to the [06:19.240 --> 06:23.640] Uniform Rules of Evidence. [06:23.640 --> 06:29.840] When you break it down, you'll find out that every state is only similar. [06:29.840 --> 06:36.800] None of them match up and none of them have a real applicable code of evidence that can [06:36.800 --> 06:38.880] be used across the board by everyone. [06:38.880 --> 06:43.880] I'll explain why that is here in just a minute and you'll see where I'm getting that from. [06:43.880 --> 06:47.680] The Uniform Rules of Evidence attempts to achieve uniformity of the law of evidence [06:47.680 --> 06:49.280] between all states. [06:49.280 --> 06:53.800] It also provides large scale unity between state rules of evidence and the federal rules [06:53.800 --> 06:55.040] of evidence. [06:55.040 --> 07:01.200] The primary object of the act is to simplify and codify the rules pertaining to what may [07:01.200 --> 07:07.360] be introduced in evidence in any civil or criminal trial in a court of law. [07:07.360 --> 07:14.040] It closely reflects the federal rules of evidence. [07:14.040 --> 07:20.960] Now it says that many states in the U.S. have adopted the Uniform Rules of Evidence, though [07:20.960 --> 07:26.320] it doesn't tell us what specific states have actually done so. [07:26.320 --> 07:31.680] Now let's look at how Texas implements this. [07:31.680 --> 07:35.400] When you go to the Texas Rules of Evidence, you will find the very first rule which is [07:35.400 --> 07:42.760] Rule 101, Title, Scope, and Applicability of the Rules and Definitions. [07:42.760 --> 07:48.640] Now when you read these, A says the title, these rules may be cited as the Texas Rules [07:48.640 --> 07:57.280] of Evidence, B, Scope, these rules apply to proceedings in Texas courts except as otherwise [07:57.280 --> 08:04.640] provided in subdivisions D through F. Subsection C, Rules on Privilege. [08:04.640 --> 08:08.520] The rules on privilege apply to all stages of a case or proceeding. [08:08.520 --> 08:12.680] All right, here are our exceptions. [08:12.680 --> 08:20.360] Subsection D of Rule 101, exception for constitutional or statutory provisions or other rules. [08:20.360 --> 08:27.040] Despite these rules, a court must admit or exclude evidence if required to do so by the [08:27.040 --> 08:34.240] United States or Texas Constitution, a federal or Texas statute, or a rule prescribed by [08:34.240 --> 08:39.800] the United States or Texas Supreme Court or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. [08:39.800 --> 08:46.560] If possible, a court should resolve by reasonable construction any inconsistency between these [08:46.560 --> 08:53.320] rules and applicable constitutional or statutory provisions or other rules. [08:53.320 --> 08:56.240] E, exceptions. [08:56.240 --> 09:01.120] These rules, except for those on privilege, do not apply to. [09:01.120 --> 09:07.840] 1, the court's determination under Rule 104A on a preliminary question of fact governing [09:07.840 --> 09:15.960] and miscibility, 2, grand jury proceedings, and 3, the following miscellaneous proceedings. [09:15.960 --> 09:22.880] A, an application for habeas corpus and extradition, rendition, or interstate detainer proceedings. [09:22.880 --> 09:31.080] B, an inquiry by the court under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46B.004 to determine whether [09:31.080 --> 09:35.920] evidence exists that would support a finding that the defendant may be incompetent to stand [09:35.920 --> 09:36.920] trial. [09:36.920 --> 09:42.760] C, bail proceedings other than hearings to desire revoke or increase bail. [09:42.760 --> 09:48.440] D, hearings on justification for pretrial detention not involving bail. [09:48.440 --> 09:52.320] E, proceedings to issue a search or arrest warrant. [09:52.320 --> 09:57.320] And F, direct contempt determination proceedings. [09:57.320 --> 10:04.720] Now we get into my biggest issue with this, subsection F. Now remember, the exceptions [10:04.720 --> 10:13.720] to this are D through F. Well, I just read you D, here's F. Exception for justice court [10:13.720 --> 10:16.000] cases. [10:16.000 --> 10:23.440] These rules do not apply to justice court cases except as authorized by Texas Rule of Civil [10:23.440 --> 10:29.840] Procedure 500.3, okay? [10:29.840 --> 10:36.680] So what this is telling us is that not a single thing in the Texas Rules of Evidence applied [10:36.680 --> 10:44.000] to any of the cases that can be heard in a justice court, okay? [10:44.000 --> 10:53.400] Not a single rule of evidence can be used except as shown under Rule 500.3 of the Rule [10:53.400 --> 10:56.200] of Civil Procedure. [10:56.200 --> 11:03.760] Now let me read you at least the titles of each of the subsections of Rule 500.3 under [11:03.760 --> 11:06.920] the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. [11:06.920 --> 11:10.840] A, small claims, okay? [11:10.840 --> 11:15.960] So a small claims case is a lawsuit brought for the recovery of money damages, civil [11:15.960 --> 11:19.240] penalties, personal property, or other relief allowed by law. [11:19.240 --> 11:25.600] The claim can be no more than $10,000 excluding statutory interest in court costs but including [11:25.600 --> 11:28.080] attorney's fees if any. [11:28.080 --> 11:33.280] Small claims cases are governed by Rules 500 through 507 of Part 5 of the Rules of Civil [11:33.280 --> 11:35.880] Procedure, okay? [11:35.880 --> 11:39.320] B, debt claim case. [11:39.320 --> 11:44.320] C, repair and remedy case. [11:44.320 --> 11:47.840] D, eviction case. [11:47.840 --> 11:51.680] E, application of other rules. [11:51.680 --> 11:59.520] The other rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence do not apply except one [11:59.520 --> 12:04.680] when the judge hearing the case determines that a particular rule must be followed to [12:04.680 --> 12:10.120] ensure that the proceedings are fair to all parties or two when otherwise specifically [12:10.120 --> 12:13.960] provided by law or these rules. [12:13.960 --> 12:19.040] Now we know very well that these judges in these courts take full advantage of what they [12:19.040 --> 12:25.440] think is fair and what is not fair to the accused in their court and it's never to the [12:25.440 --> 12:32.520] accused individual's advantage especially when the state is the one doing the accusing. [12:32.520 --> 12:37.800] Subsection F, examination of rules, okay? [12:37.800 --> 12:42.720] The court must make the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence available for examination [12:42.720 --> 12:47.680] either in paper form or electronically during the court's business hours. [12:47.680 --> 12:54.520] Now that folks is the limit of the application of the rules of civil procedure in justice [12:54.520 --> 12:57.680] court under the rules of evidence. [12:57.680 --> 12:59.440] So guess what? [12:59.440 --> 13:06.960] In the criminal proceedings held in the justice courts there is absolutely no way for you [13:06.960 --> 13:11.280] to compel the court to review your evidence. [13:11.280 --> 13:16.600] There is no way to compel the court to allow you to introduce your evidence or to refute [13:16.600 --> 13:19.200] the evidence of the state. [13:19.200 --> 13:25.560] There is in fact no standard other than that that the judge and the prosecutor agree to [13:25.560 --> 13:34.120] use to beat you regardless of the facts and the law. [13:34.120 --> 13:39.680] This is why you cannot bring a statute into evidence even though the rules of evidence [13:39.680 --> 13:49.240] specifically say that a statute must be allowed to be brought in by the court, okay? [13:49.240 --> 13:52.960] Yet in these courts they don't have to follow those rules. [13:52.960 --> 13:57.320] So when you say I have the statute right here the judge can go I don't care, you're not [13:57.320 --> 13:59.920] going to be able to admit it. [13:59.920 --> 14:08.520] Folks, if you wanted to understand that it's a rigged game here is one of the biggest [14:08.520 --> 14:12.160] pointing fingers that you have. [14:12.160 --> 14:17.440] Now notice that this does not say anything about this exception applying in municipal [14:17.440 --> 14:24.800] courts even though when it comes to criminal cases the municipal court and the justice [14:24.800 --> 14:28.720] court have the same jurisdiction, okay? [14:28.720 --> 14:37.160] So now rule 204 says judicial notice of Texas municipal and county ordinances, Texas register [14:37.160 --> 14:42.200] contents and published agency policies, again the courts are required to take notice of [14:42.200 --> 14:44.880] those except in a justice court. [14:44.880 --> 14:52.160] They're not required to take notice of anything if they don't want to, okay? [14:52.160 --> 15:05.920] So there is only one mention of municipal in the entire section or the entire rules [15:05.920 --> 15:13.800] of evidence and I mean it just, it's ridiculous, oh I'm sorry there are four. [15:13.800 --> 15:21.760] Rule 204 there and let's see, any others? [15:21.760 --> 15:26.400] Subsection D of 204, yep, and where else? [15:26.400 --> 15:27.400] That's it. [15:27.400 --> 15:32.160] Rule 204 is the only place that any mention of municipal exists. [15:32.160 --> 15:40.120] So what that's telling us is that there is an inconsistency and a hole in the law that [15:40.120 --> 15:44.360] we don't know whether or not the rules of evidence can be used in a municipal court [15:44.360 --> 15:50.520] at all because there's nothing here saying that they can't be or that they shouldn't [15:50.520 --> 15:56.880] be or that they're accepted from and yet the municipal courts do exactly the same thing [15:56.880 --> 16:03.280] the justice courts do when it comes to the admission of statutes and state law in the [16:03.280 --> 16:07.080] Texas Constitution as items of evidence. [16:07.080 --> 16:15.080] They refuse to allow them to be presented on what legal authority? [16:15.080 --> 16:23.240] Even more to the point, how do these rules establish law that is binding upon anyone [16:23.240 --> 16:27.000] in relation to how they must act? [16:27.000 --> 16:31.720] Because the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure aren't law. [16:31.720 --> 16:34.720] They're not created by legislatures. [16:34.720 --> 16:44.440] They are created by a private organization of attorneys, the National Conference of Commissioners [16:44.440 --> 16:47.640] on Uniform State Law. [16:47.640 --> 16:49.640] They're bar members. [16:49.640 --> 16:54.160] All right, y'all hang on just a second and we'll be right back after this break to continue [16:54.160 --> 16:55.160] on. [16:55.160 --> 17:04.320] Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. [17:04.320 --> 17:07.960] In today's America, we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever [17:07.960 --> 17:12.320] going to have a free society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [17:12.320 --> 17:15.360] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act [17:15.360 --> 17:19.360] in our own private capacity and most importantly the right to due process of law. [17:19.360 --> 17:23.400] The courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our [17:23.400 --> 17:24.400] rights through due process. [17:24.400 --> 17:28.600] Former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the [17:28.600 --> 17:32.360] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [17:32.360 --> 17:34.760] is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law. [17:34.760 --> 17:38.760] You can get your own copy of this valuable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and [17:38.760 --> 17:40.080] ordering your copy today. [17:40.080 --> 17:43.400] By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, [17:43.400 --> 17:47.880] The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of your original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research [17:47.880 --> 17:50.160] documents and other useful resource material. [17:50.160 --> 17:54.160] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [17:54.160 --> 18:00.680] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [18:00.680 --> 18:05.720] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? [18:05.720 --> 18:09.400] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris Proven Method. [18:09.400 --> 18:13.840] Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you [18:13.840 --> 18:14.840] can win too. [18:14.840 --> 18:19.680] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal [18:19.680 --> 18:25.400] civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons, how to answer [18:25.400 --> 18:30.040] letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, how to turn the [18:30.040 --> 18:34.240] financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:34.240 --> 18:39.360] The Michael Mearris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:39.360 --> 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 Mearris banner [18:47.000 --> 18:49.920] or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. [18:49.920 --> 18:57.680] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-f at yahoo.com. [18:57.680 --> 19:04.920] To learn how to stop debt collectors next, use your listening to the Logos Radio Network [19:04.920 --> 19:11.920] at yahoo.com. [19:34.920 --> 19:41.920] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com. [20:04.920 --> 20:14.800] Alright folks, we are back. [20:14.800 --> 20:17.800] This is rule of law radio. [20:17.800 --> 20:24.360] Okay, now, just so that you have a little more background here, this is, there is actually [20:24.360 --> 20:27.280] a website for the Uniform Law Commission. [20:27.280 --> 20:31.760] It's called uniformlaws.org, okay? [20:31.760 --> 20:36.520] And there you will find this overview about this organization. [20:36.520 --> 20:41.320] The Uniform Law Commission, ULC, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners [20:41.320 --> 20:48.640] on Uniform State Laws, established in 1892, provides states with nonpartisan, well-conceived [20:48.640 --> 20:54.040] and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of the state [20:54.040 --> 20:55.840] statutory law. [20:55.840 --> 21:00.960] ULC members must be lawyers qualified to practice law. [21:00.960 --> 21:07.920] They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators, and legislative staff and professors, okay, [21:07.920 --> 21:12.120] who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto [21:12.120 --> 21:18.800] Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft, and promote an enactment of uniform [21:18.800 --> 21:25.720] state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. [21:25.720 --> 21:33.200] So obviously, if the rules of evidence are not uniform among the states for any particular [21:33.200 --> 21:40.480] reason, and then they are given specific exceptions of applicability to money-generating courts [21:40.480 --> 21:47.720] like justice and municipal courts, for instance, then you have a very good indication that [21:47.720 --> 21:52.200] there is something rigged about the game, okay? [21:52.200 --> 21:58.960] Just like the guy who is the only one who knows the rules for monopoly, who tells everybody [21:58.960 --> 22:04.420] else that they have to pass GO to collect their $200, but he gets to collect it every [22:04.420 --> 22:09.280] time he rounds a corner, all right? [22:09.280 --> 22:13.880] And that's how this system is set up. [22:13.880 --> 22:21.640] There is no smoke and mirrors here as far as the patronut theories on this goes, okay? [22:21.640 --> 22:24.040] It is not about the Queen of England. [22:24.040 --> 22:26.520] It is not about the Vatican. [22:26.520 --> 22:30.280] It is not about any of those things. [22:30.280 --> 22:37.320] It is about one group of people controlling the law in every state or virtually every [22:37.320 --> 22:45.000] state, how that law can be used, to whom and how it can be applied, and how they write [22:45.000 --> 22:51.200] the rules to prevent any challenge to what they've created. [22:51.200 --> 22:56.720] They don't need to be any of those aforementioned things, excuse me, any of those aforementioned [22:56.720 --> 23:04.800] things for that to be the case and to do what it does and what it is actually doing. [23:04.800 --> 23:08.240] You need to get that through your heads, people. [23:08.240 --> 23:14.680] Now I've also got an email complaining about, you know, people working together to better [23:14.680 --> 23:17.400] themselves at doing this. [23:17.400 --> 23:22.520] And the person is complaining that what's going on is that everybody they talk to is [23:22.520 --> 23:28.040] either a statist or a patronut or whatever, better people to talk to for one. [23:28.040 --> 23:34.280] But when I say we need to work together to do this, this is what I mean by that. [23:34.280 --> 23:39.040] One of the things I was planning on getting done with the Tau of Law website had I ever [23:39.040 --> 23:43.760] gotten the money and the resources necessary to get that built and up and running, was [23:43.760 --> 23:51.480] a way for people in each state to get together to collaborate and study the actual law, even [23:51.480 --> 23:56.520] if they lived in completely different parts of the state or the country for that matter. [23:56.520 --> 24:01.520] They could get into a conference room on this website, they could talk about it, video [24:01.520 --> 24:06.640] conference, any number of things they wanted to do to discuss the law with each other and [24:06.640 --> 24:11.760] to help each other out on how things need to be addressed in their particular state. [24:11.760 --> 24:14.760] That did a couple of things of great benefit. [24:14.760 --> 24:21.280] One, it took all the pressure off of me and Randy and Deborah and those of us here in Texas [24:21.280 --> 24:26.760] on having to know what the hell the law is in every other state of the union, okay? [24:26.760 --> 24:30.760] Because we don't know what the law is in every other state of the union. [24:30.760 --> 24:35.480] The things that we tell you about on this show are specific to Texas, except for those [24:35.480 --> 24:43.120] general principles of procedure and due process that are supposed to be applicable no matter [24:43.120 --> 24:47.480] where you are in this entire country. [24:47.480 --> 24:53.760] The ones that are truly considered universal rights of due process. [24:53.760 --> 25:00.880] Procedure however can vary greatly between state to state and between the states, that's [25:00.880 --> 25:02.920] just the way it is. [25:02.920 --> 25:08.400] But the fact remains that we cannot know the law of every state on every subject, even [25:08.400 --> 25:15.760] one subject we can't know the law in every state as well as we can know it in one, okay? [25:15.760 --> 25:21.680] And I would much rather be the expert on the law where I live and have to do things on [25:21.680 --> 25:27.920] a regular basis than have to worry about being the expert on everyone else's where I'm not. [25:27.920 --> 25:35.960] Hence the reason why everybody needs to determine for themselves if they want to get into this [25:35.960 --> 25:41.520] and do what we do here, there, okay? [25:41.520 --> 25:44.960] I do not want to be the only source of this information. [25:44.960 --> 25:52.600] I have no desire to have that big a target on my back, but until somebody else steps [25:52.600 --> 26:00.160] up and digs into this and throws themselves into it on the deep end like I had to do and [26:00.160 --> 26:07.800] gets to where I am with it, I don't have a choice, none of us do because you're calling [26:07.800 --> 26:15.480] us for answers and for the most part you have to admit we have them. [26:15.480 --> 26:21.520] But the question is, is why didn't you? [26:21.520 --> 26:28.120] It's the only problem with having a resource like us is it takes a very huge amount of [26:28.120 --> 26:35.440] effort off of you as individuals to have to put into figuring things out so that it sticks [26:35.440 --> 26:38.920] in your own mind as to how to do it. [26:38.920 --> 26:44.440] When you have a place to go to get easy answers, but we don't have time to sit down and give [26:44.440 --> 26:49.560] you all of the information that surrounds that bit of fact that we gave you such as [26:49.560 --> 26:57.400] how to actually apply it, use it, argue it, the nuances of it, etc., etc., then you're [26:57.400 --> 27:05.120] only going in there half-cocked because you think you've got one specific scenario in [27:05.120 --> 27:09.800] which you want to use it, but you don't know the 10,000 other ways the other side may try [27:09.800 --> 27:15.560] to twist it and how to counter it and how to argue that it's a right or wrong interpretation [27:15.560 --> 27:23.040] because you are not putting the personal time and effort into having to learn it. [27:23.040 --> 27:26.080] And that is a failing. [27:26.080 --> 27:29.400] That is why you have such a hard time in the courts. [27:29.400 --> 27:39.680] That is why you find justice so evasive because you haven't taken the time to better prepare [27:39.680 --> 27:44.560] yourself for the crap they pull. [27:44.560 --> 27:54.320] The system has designed the law to work just like a greased pig contest, okay? [27:54.320 --> 27:55.760] No question about it. [27:55.760 --> 28:00.640] The difference is, is that the attorneys get to enter the courtroom with meat hooks. [28:00.640 --> 28:06.600] You got to go in bare-handed. [28:06.600 --> 28:12.600] So it's a whole lot easier for them to catch the pig than it is you until you learn that, [28:12.600 --> 28:17.040] hey, no one said you couldn't use a meat hook. [28:17.040 --> 28:25.080] You just assumed that because you didn't have one issued to you, you couldn't. [28:25.080 --> 28:29.520] But the fact is, the meat hooks are built into the law. [28:29.520 --> 28:35.640] You just have to know where to get them and how to use them. [28:35.640 --> 28:41.400] And that, folks, is what getting together and helping each other and studying and becoming [28:41.400 --> 28:50.640] knowledgeable and proficient at the same things the lawyers have tried to hide from us will [28:50.640 --> 28:57.880] make us that much better at fighting them off and getting them out of our lives, at [28:57.880 --> 29:05.160] least until we're able to regain control of our system of whatever. [29:05.160 --> 29:10.000] Because it certainly is not a system of government, it's a system of organized crime disguised [29:10.000 --> 29:14.600] as a government. [29:14.600 --> 29:19.440] We have a criminal organization wearing the mask of a justice department. [29:19.440 --> 29:24.000] We have a criminal organization wearing the mask of a legislature. [29:24.000 --> 29:33.040] We have a criminal organization wearing a mask as the executive department. [29:33.040 --> 29:36.880] And if you doubt that, you're not really paying attention. [29:36.880 --> 29:40.240] All right, folks, we'll be right back after this break. [29:40.240 --> 29:45.160] The phones are on 512-646-1984. [29:45.160 --> 30:04.200] We will start taking callers when we get back. [30:04.200 --> 30:15.080] The phones are on 512-646-1984. [30:15.080 --> 30:45.040] The phones are on 512-646-1984. [30:45.040 --> 30:50.880] When you think of nutritional deficiencies, you probably think of third-world countries, [30:50.880 --> 30:55.720] or maybe you think of iron, folic acid, or vitamin C. But nutritionists say many of us [30:55.720 --> 31:02.040] don't get enough iodine, a trace mineral that's essential for thyroid and immune function. [31:02.040 --> 31:07.600] Iodine is found in seafood, egg yolks, meat, and milk, and it's added to iodized salt. [31:07.600 --> 31:12.240] Vegetarians can get it through seaweed, but because the body does not make iodine, experts [31:12.240 --> 31:17.840] say up to three-quarters of us may be deficient, and that can lead to weight gain, depression, [31:17.840 --> 31:19.340] and even cancer. [31:19.340 --> 31:23.400] So put the eye back into iodine and check with your doctor to make sure you're getting [31:23.400 --> 31:24.400] enough. [31:24.400 --> 31:31.680] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [31:31.680 --> 31:37.040] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [31:37.040 --> 31:39.200] The government says that fire brought it down. [31:39.200 --> 31:44.120] Over 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. [31:44.120 --> 31:48.120] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, and thousands of my fellow [31:48.120 --> 31:49.560] force responders have died. [31:49.560 --> 31:53.400] I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a structural engineer, I'm a New York City correctionalist, [31:53.400 --> 31:58.120] I'm an Air Force pilot, I'm a father who lost his son, we're Americans, and we deserve [31:58.120 --> 31:59.120] the truth. [31:59.120 --> 32:01.120] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [32:01.120 --> 32:04.280] Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. [32:04.280 --> 32:07.280] Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? [32:07.280 --> 32:10.960] Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting [32:10.960 --> 32:11.960] them to pay for it. [32:11.960 --> 32:15.560] Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. [32:15.560 --> 32:19.360] That's why you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for [32:19.360 --> 32:24.640] you with little to no out-of-pocket expense, and we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus [32:24.640 --> 32:27.720] member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints. [32:27.720 --> 32:32.080] You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the [32:32.080 --> 32:33.080] first time. [32:33.080 --> 32:42.280] You can just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com, mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate [32:42.280 --> 32:46.440] another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. [32:46.440 --> 32:51.560] So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in. [32:51.560 --> 32:57.640] That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. [32:57.640 --> 32:59.520] Discounts are based on full roof replacement. [32:59.520 --> 33:06.520] I may not actually be kidding about chemtrails. [33:29.520 --> 33:36.520] That's 512-992-8745. [33:59.520 --> 34:05.400] Alright folks, we are back. [34:05.400 --> 34:08.040] This is Rule of Law Radio. [34:08.040 --> 34:14.120] Alright, now, the other thing that was in this email that was sent to me asking that [34:14.120 --> 34:18.200] question before about how people work together is this. [34:18.200 --> 34:23.240] From my experience, Rule of Law Radio isn't just the best out there, it's the only thing [34:23.240 --> 34:26.960] out there that deals with the rules of the law. [34:26.960 --> 34:32.680] Well, I hate to say it, but as far as I know, that's absolutely correct. [34:32.680 --> 34:39.600] I don't know of anyone else out there doing any sort of show where they actually talk [34:39.600 --> 34:42.440] about the law. [34:42.440 --> 34:46.560] They will talk about all kinds of stuff, the common law and everything else, but they won't [34:46.560 --> 34:52.760] talk about the law that the state is currently using or that the federal government is currently [34:52.760 --> 34:57.400] using to do whatever it's doing in a given case. [34:57.400 --> 35:03.120] They won't talk about that, and I have to ask why. [35:03.120 --> 35:10.520] The thing is, is you're trying to play their game by your set of rules and your understanding [35:10.520 --> 35:13.400] of those rules. [35:13.400 --> 35:18.400] You're not playing by what the system itself has implemented, whether you like it or not [35:18.400 --> 35:23.960] is not of any import to them at the moment, only whether or not you understand and play [35:23.960 --> 35:31.280] by their rules when you're engaged in their activities, so to speak. [35:31.280 --> 35:36.840] Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment, it is their activities, it's not yours. [35:36.840 --> 35:44.040] It is not your justice system, it is theirs, it is not your legislature, it is theirs, [35:44.040 --> 35:52.440] it is not your executive department, it is theirs, and they are only in it for themselves [35:52.440 --> 35:59.000] and their crony network, and if you doubt that, get yourself elected and find out how [35:59.000 --> 36:04.920] quickly that fact becomes apparent. [36:04.920 --> 36:09.200] This is not about law. [36:09.200 --> 36:13.160] This is not about right or wrong. [36:13.160 --> 36:17.240] It is not about our rights and our understanding of those rights. [36:17.240 --> 36:24.600] It's about what they want us to believe we do or don't have according to them, and for [36:24.600 --> 36:34.080] the most part, we are the minority when it comes to believing what they say in that regard. [36:34.080 --> 36:43.800] Those of us that know we're being lied to are very, very much in the minority. [36:43.800 --> 36:49.960] Again, if you doubt that, try to convince a jury of what you know and you understand [36:49.960 --> 36:57.160] about the law, no matter how correct it is, versus what the prosecuting attorney gets them [36:57.160 --> 37:04.160] to believe without any evidence to support his side of it at all. [37:04.160 --> 37:10.880] He is going to prey upon what they believe and what they have been taught as to be reality, [37:10.880 --> 37:17.160] whether it is or it isn't, and the court is going to allow him to get away with it. [37:17.160 --> 37:18.160] Why? [37:18.160 --> 37:22.760] Because you don't have the rules of evidence to protect you from arguing, objection, that's [37:22.760 --> 37:24.960] argumentative, it's inadmissible. [37:24.960 --> 37:28.840] You know what, the rules of evidence don't apply here, so he can do whatever he wants [37:28.840 --> 37:32.600] and I'm going to uphold it, unless you try it, then I'm going to slap it down and tell [37:32.600 --> 37:34.960] you you can't do it. [37:34.960 --> 37:39.240] Oh yeah, it is a rigged game. [37:39.240 --> 37:45.440] It's just not rigged the way the majority of the patronage think it is. [37:45.440 --> 37:53.040] It doesn't work the way the majority of them think it does, never has. [37:53.040 --> 37:58.360] The stuff that they're coming up with, I wish to God I could figure out how they jump to [37:58.360 --> 38:04.400] these conclusions that they do, and even more so, how they managed to jump that damn far [38:04.400 --> 38:11.040] and not completely miss the other side and fall to the bottom. [38:11.040 --> 38:17.120] Because some of it is so far-fetched, there's no, evil couldn't evil couldn't jump to the [38:17.120 --> 38:20.920] other side and make that conclusion. [38:20.920 --> 38:24.520] And yet, here we are. [38:24.520 --> 38:28.760] These people have convinced themselves that the Vatican owns and controls everything. [38:28.760 --> 38:32.080] They've convinced themselves that the Queen of England still controls your courts. [38:32.080 --> 38:36.320] They have convinced themselves that the Queen still rules America. [38:36.320 --> 38:40.160] No, the Queen has nothing to do with it. [38:40.160 --> 38:45.560] The Queen is just as much under the thumb of these same international organizations as [38:45.560 --> 38:49.360] anyone else is to a certain degree. [38:49.360 --> 38:51.800] The Queen doesn't make law in England. [38:51.800 --> 38:56.960] She may express an opinion about how she wants it to be, but Parliament still makes the law, [38:56.960 --> 39:01.440] whether she wants it or not. [39:01.440 --> 39:06.920] They may give a whole lot of preference and deference to what she wants, but that doesn't [39:06.920 --> 39:12.840] mean that she made it. [39:12.840 --> 39:15.560] And she certainly doesn't do it here. [39:15.560 --> 39:19.240] No, our group of tyrants are much closer. [39:19.240 --> 39:24.320] Like I said a couple of shows ago, it's right back to that scene out of the movie The Patriot [39:24.320 --> 39:29.400] with Mel Gibson, where his character stands up and says, why should I trade one tyrant [39:29.400 --> 39:34.080] 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? [39:34.080 --> 39:37.680] Well, folks, that's where you are. [39:37.680 --> 39:42.760] You are in the middle of those 3,000 tyrants one mile away. [39:42.760 --> 39:49.120] Because we failed throughout our history to hold accountable those that we gave certain [39:49.120 --> 39:57.660] power and authority to to make sure that they did not extend its limits beyond those we [39:57.660 --> 40:02.240] intended it to have, ever. [40:02.240 --> 40:08.160] There's a reason why politicians regularly found themselves ridden out of towns, on [40:08.160 --> 40:10.800] rails, tarred and feathered. [40:10.800 --> 40:13.000] There was a reason for that. [40:13.000 --> 40:20.400] When was the last time we had a good tarring, feathering and rail riding for a politician [40:20.400 --> 40:21.400] in this country? [40:21.400 --> 40:28.240] When was the last time we threw crates of tea into the bay? [40:28.240 --> 40:38.440] When was the last time that we said, here they come, one if by land, two if by sea? [40:38.440 --> 40:46.920] So we had a warning on the necessity to fight if we were really going to be free. [40:46.920 --> 40:50.520] Yes it rhymed, but that was not the intent, but it came out that way. [40:50.520 --> 40:59.360] But you get the idea, we've been there before, but for some reason we are definitely afraid [40:59.360 --> 41:08.040] to ever go there again when the abuses that we're currently suffering are just as great [41:08.040 --> 41:18.040] if not greater than those of our forefathers. [41:18.040 --> 41:27.240] And you have the system as it's been designed to thank for that ignorance and apathy that [41:27.240 --> 41:35.320] we're all having to live with out of the rest of you. [41:35.320 --> 41:37.960] We don't change it folks, it's going to eat us up. [41:37.960 --> 41:40.400] It's going to destroy us from within. [41:40.400 --> 41:43.160] We don't need the communist manifesto to destroy us. [41:43.160 --> 41:45.880] We don't need socialism to destroy us. [41:45.880 --> 41:49.800] We're doing a really great job just sitting back on our laurels and watching the world [41:49.800 --> 41:55.000] burn around us. [41:55.000 --> 41:59.760] Apathy, the real silent killer. [41:59.760 --> 42:07.200] Think about that, because that's where we are finding ourselves more and more every single [42:07.200 --> 42:10.800] day. [42:10.800 --> 42:12.720] And you have to wonder why. [42:12.720 --> 42:16.520] When you're sitting here knowing the things I know based upon the things I've studied [42:16.520 --> 42:22.080] and researched and learned over all these years that I've been doing this with you guys, [42:22.080 --> 42:23.920] you have to wonder why. [42:23.920 --> 42:26.440] Why are people so blind? [42:26.440 --> 42:33.240] Why are they so intentionally blind and ignorant of what is going on around them? [42:33.240 --> 42:39.800] It's so that they can spend their time in an armchair at the end of the day and pretend [42:39.800 --> 42:46.280] that everything is okay. [42:46.280 --> 42:52.760] I mean, that's, I just can't wrap my mind around that. [42:52.760 --> 42:54.520] I just can't. [42:54.520 --> 42:56.320] But it's what I'm stuck with. [42:56.320 --> 43:00.200] It's what a lot of us are stuck with that don't want to be stuck with it. [43:00.200 --> 43:06.280] But like I said, we're in the vast minority. [43:06.280 --> 43:11.200] And we would have to take on everybody that supports the system as it exists as well as [43:11.200 --> 43:16.200] the system itself to implement the change that needs to take place, unless of course [43:16.200 --> 43:21.440] you're still so apathetic that you won't even get out of your armchair to fight us. [43:21.440 --> 43:27.560] Nowadays, even if you're not apathetic, guaranteed your waistline won't let you get up and do [43:27.560 --> 43:30.760] it. [43:30.760 --> 43:32.040] We got to fix this, folks. [43:32.040 --> 43:33.560] We got to fix it fast. [43:33.560 --> 43:34.800] All right. [43:34.800 --> 43:36.720] We will start on callers when we get back. [43:36.720 --> 43:40.600] Y'all hang in there, 512-646-1984. [43:40.600 --> 43:41.600] Phones are on. [43:41.600 --> 43:45.400] If you cannot get on, keep trying because we've got a limited number of slots. [43:45.400 --> 43:49.200] And if they're all full, well, it won't connect you until there's an empty one. [43:49.200 --> 43:51.240] So just keep trying if you're trying to call in. [43:51.240 --> 43:52.240] All right. [43:52.240 --> 44:00.880] We'll be right back after this break, so y'all hang on. [44:00.880 --> 44:04.080] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [44:04.080 --> 44:10.840] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course [44:10.840 --> 44:14.840] that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. [44:14.840 --> 44:18.640] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [44:18.640 --> 44:22.720] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [44:22.720 --> 44:27.720] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [44:27.720 --> 44:34.440] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [44:34.440 --> 44:38.920] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about [44:38.920 --> 44:43.280] the principles and practices that control our American courts. [44:43.280 --> 44:49.400] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [44:49.400 --> 44:51.960] pro se tactics, and much more. [44:51.960 --> 45:02.480] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [45:02.480 --> 45:06.000] At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination [45:06.000 --> 45:10.400] by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price. [45:10.400 --> 45:14.320] We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high-quality [45:14.320 --> 45:15.880] coins and precious metals. [45:15.880 --> 45:19.680] We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors. [45:19.680 --> 45:24.480] We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metal stealers [45:24.480 --> 45:25.480] and journalists. [45:25.480 --> 45:28.440] If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it. [45:28.440 --> 45:32.680] In addition, we carry popular young Jebedee products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and [45:32.680 --> 45:33.680] Pollen Burst. [45:33.680 --> 45:38.560] We also offer one-world way, Mountain House storeable foods, Berkey Water products, ammunition [45:38.560 --> 45:40.720] at 10% above wholesale, and more. [45:40.720 --> 45:44.680] We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept big coins as payment. [45:44.680 --> 45:47.680] Call us at 512-646-640. [45:47.680 --> 45:52.640] We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half-mile south of Anderson. [45:52.640 --> 45:55.840] We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2. [45:55.840 --> 46:19.840] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [46:19.840 --> 46:44.880] We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2. [46:44.880 --> 47:09.880] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [47:09.880 --> 47:35.880] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [47:35.880 --> 48:01.880] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [48:01.880 --> 48:29.880] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [48:29.880 --> 48:49.880] Call us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-640. [48:49.880 --> 49:02.880] Now, what I did with that, I just wanted to make sure that I'm doing this correctly. [49:02.880 --> 49:08.880] Everything that was listed in the categories, firm, individual, firm, corporation, association, [49:08.880 --> 49:11.880] they're all business entities. [49:11.880 --> 49:14.880] As far as I know, they're creating state. [49:14.880 --> 49:20.880] No, individual, I guarantee you, individual is also not defined in your statute. [49:20.880 --> 49:21.880] Guarantee. [49:21.880 --> 49:22.880] It's not. [49:22.880 --> 49:23.880] Okay. [49:23.880 --> 49:24.880] No. [49:24.880 --> 49:28.880] But it will be defined in your code of penal code. [49:28.880 --> 49:38.880] And they use the definitions of penal codes across all codes unless the specific code has its own local definition. [49:38.880 --> 49:45.880] The penal code definition will apply and every penal code does define individual in every state. [49:45.880 --> 49:47.880] I'm almost positive of that. [49:47.880 --> 49:48.880] Okay. [49:48.880 --> 49:59.880] Now, generally the term individual is defined as a person who is a, someone who was born and is alive. [49:59.880 --> 50:00.880] Okay. [50:00.880 --> 50:04.880] That's generally how the term individual is defined. [50:04.880 --> 50:11.880] However, as I have stated in both posts on my legal blog and on this show prior to, [50:11.880 --> 50:21.880] when you read the term individual in relation to all of those other things that are in a definition of person, [50:21.880 --> 50:27.880] such as person means an individual, association, corporation, limited liability company, [50:27.880 --> 50:34.880] what is the distinction between everything else in that list as opposed to individual? [50:34.880 --> 50:36.880] They're all business entities. [50:36.880 --> 50:41.880] They're all legal entities, not necessarily business, but they are legal entities. [50:41.880 --> 50:43.880] They are fictions of law. [50:43.880 --> 50:44.880] Right. [50:44.880 --> 50:51.880] Can a fiction of law act in and of itself to do anything? [50:51.880 --> 50:52.880] No. [50:52.880 --> 50:53.880] No. [50:53.880 --> 51:07.880] Who must act on behalf of a fiction of law in order for it to do something? [51:07.880 --> 51:09.880] I should know the answer to that, but I'm not sure. [51:09.880 --> 51:10.880] Yeah, you should. [51:10.880 --> 51:12.880] It's all one and the same. [51:12.880 --> 51:18.880] Someone who was born and is alive, an individual. [51:18.880 --> 51:19.880] Right. [51:19.880 --> 51:20.880] Okay. [51:20.880 --> 51:28.880] So an individual in relation to those things, if a list of things in a statute must have some correlation [51:28.880 --> 51:34.880] that makes them part of the same group, what would that be? [51:34.880 --> 51:40.880] In this particular instance, where you have individual, which is something natural, [51:40.880 --> 51:46.880] listed with a bunch of things that are not natural. [51:46.880 --> 51:54.880] What is the similarity that can exist between those things? [51:54.880 --> 51:55.880] That's the thing. [51:55.880 --> 51:57.880] I don't see one. [51:57.880 --> 51:59.880] I just told you what it was. [51:59.880 --> 52:11.880] The fictions of law can only be represented and acted in accordance with and on behalf of by an individual. [52:11.880 --> 52:12.880] Okay. [52:12.880 --> 52:24.880] So in this particular case, an individual is someone who is representative of or acting on behalf of those listed legal entities. [52:24.880 --> 52:25.880] Right. [52:25.880 --> 52:28.880] That's the only way that can work. [52:28.880 --> 52:34.880] And the rules of statutory construction not be completely violated. [52:34.880 --> 52:35.880] Yeah. [52:35.880 --> 52:36.880] Right. [52:36.880 --> 52:43.880] Okay, because when you look, you will find that it says includes these things. [52:43.880 --> 52:44.880] Right? [52:44.880 --> 52:48.880] Yeah, it says includes the operator of a motor vehicle. [52:48.880 --> 52:49.880] No. [52:49.880 --> 52:50.880] Any operator. [52:50.880 --> 52:52.880] Go back to the definition of person. [52:52.880 --> 52:53.880] Okay. [52:53.880 --> 52:55.880] I got it. [52:55.880 --> 52:56.880] Read it. [52:56.880 --> 53:00.880] Is this person just individual? [53:00.880 --> 53:01.880] No. [53:01.880 --> 53:05.880] What is the word immediately after persons? [53:05.880 --> 53:09.880] It just says any individual. [53:09.880 --> 53:10.880] Person. [53:10.880 --> 53:12.880] It doesn't say person means. [53:12.880 --> 53:16.880] Person includes. [53:16.880 --> 53:18.880] I know. [53:18.880 --> 53:19.880] No. [53:19.880 --> 53:22.880] It just says, well, it says person means. [53:22.880 --> 53:23.880] Okay. [53:23.880 --> 53:24.880] Yeah. [53:24.880 --> 53:28.880] Person means an individual and then a bunch of legal entities. [53:28.880 --> 53:29.880] Right? [53:29.880 --> 53:30.880] Right. [53:30.880 --> 53:31.880] Right. [53:31.880 --> 53:32.880] Okay. [53:32.880 --> 53:47.880] So what changes between means and includes in that regard? [53:47.880 --> 53:51.880] Well, the answer is nothing, Tyler. [53:51.880 --> 53:52.880] Right. [53:52.880 --> 53:53.880] Right. [53:53.880 --> 53:54.880] Okay. [53:54.880 --> 53:57.880] Now, here's the part you're still not getting and why you're still banging your head against [53:57.880 --> 53:58.880] the wall. [53:58.880 --> 53:59.880] Okay? [53:59.880 --> 54:00.880] Yeah. [54:00.880 --> 54:03.880] Do you read the definition of person? [54:03.880 --> 54:08.880] Do you see the legislative subject at the beginning or the end of that definition? [54:08.880 --> 54:09.880] No. [54:09.880 --> 54:14.880] Then why don't you try reading it as if it were? [54:14.880 --> 54:16.880] Okay. [54:16.880 --> 54:25.880] What does the legislative bill that created that statute say the subject matter of that [54:25.880 --> 54:28.880] statute is limited to? [54:28.880 --> 54:31.880] Driver's license act. [54:31.880 --> 54:32.880] No. [54:32.880 --> 54:38.880] The subject of an act can't be an act. [54:38.880 --> 54:40.880] It has to be a subject. [54:40.880 --> 54:44.880] The driver's license act is the act. [54:44.880 --> 54:45.880] Okay. [54:45.880 --> 54:46.880] Yeah. [54:46.880 --> 54:48.880] Then it just be driver's license. [54:48.880 --> 54:49.880] No. [54:49.880 --> 54:50.880] Okay. [54:50.880 --> 54:51.880] Again. [54:51.880 --> 54:52.880] No. [54:52.880 --> 54:58.880] Because then they could not put them in one bill and say driver's licenses, motor vehicles, license [54:58.880 --> 55:01.880] plates because they're all different subjects, right? [55:01.880 --> 55:02.880] Right. [55:02.880 --> 55:07.880] So they couldn't enact them in one bill if your state has a single subject clause requirement, [55:07.880 --> 55:08.880] right? [55:08.880 --> 55:09.880] Yes, it does. [55:09.880 --> 55:13.880] Which is? [55:13.880 --> 55:20.880] What is the single subject that was used to enact the entire title or code that relates [55:20.880 --> 55:24.880] to motor vehicles? [55:24.880 --> 55:26.880] You know, I can't find that, Eddie. [55:26.880 --> 55:27.880] I'll be honest with you. [55:27.880 --> 55:33.880] Have you found what bill the legislature used to create that title or code? [55:33.880 --> 55:34.880] Yes. [55:34.880 --> 55:40.880] Does that bill have a title or caption section? [55:40.880 --> 55:46.880] It just says the same thing that's in the session while it's driver's license. [55:46.880 --> 55:48.880] It can't, Tyler. [55:48.880 --> 55:51.880] It absolutely can't. [55:51.880 --> 55:52.880] You're reading the wrong thing. [55:52.880 --> 55:53.880] Okay. [55:53.880 --> 55:54.880] You have to be. [55:54.880 --> 55:55.880] I'll go back and look. [55:55.880 --> 55:56.880] I'll go back and look. [55:56.880 --> 56:03.000] Because the title of driver's license, if that is the subject, then you can't be listing [56:03.000 --> 56:04.880] motor vehicles under it, can you? [56:04.880 --> 56:07.880] Because they're not a driver's license. [56:07.880 --> 56:09.880] You can't be listing driver under it. [56:09.880 --> 56:12.880] They're not a driver's license. [56:12.880 --> 56:16.880] So you're reading one section out of the whole thing. [56:16.880 --> 56:17.880] Okay. [56:17.880 --> 56:20.880] What is the whole thing? [56:20.880 --> 56:23.880] I have to go back and look at that, Eddie. [56:23.880 --> 56:25.880] You're talking about the original bill. [56:25.880 --> 56:26.880] Yeah. [56:26.880 --> 56:31.880] The original bill that enacted the entire motor vehicle title. [56:31.880 --> 56:33.880] Not just one part of it. [56:33.880 --> 56:34.880] The whole thing. [56:34.880 --> 56:39.880] Because I guarantee you it went through recodification sometime in the early 1960s. [56:39.880 --> 56:41.880] Guaranteed it did. [56:41.880 --> 56:42.880] Okay. [56:42.880 --> 56:47.880] It was re-written, re-numbered, reorganized, and re-done sometime in the 60s. [56:47.880 --> 56:49.880] Almost a dead bank certainty. [56:49.880 --> 56:50.880] Okay. [56:50.880 --> 56:54.880] And they re-enacted the entire thing as one act. [56:54.880 --> 57:02.880] Therefore, that entire collection of things had to be listed under one single subject. [57:02.880 --> 57:04.880] What was it? [57:04.880 --> 57:08.880] I haven't found that because of which chapter do you look at? [57:08.880 --> 57:10.880] Motor vehicle course down. [57:10.880 --> 57:17.880] I'm going to have to come to Wyoming and take you on a fishing trip and feed you to a frickin' grizzly bear. [57:17.880 --> 57:23.880] I just told you don't look at the frickin' individual chapters. [57:23.880 --> 57:24.880] Okay. [57:24.880 --> 57:28.880] Don't look at the individual titles. [57:28.880 --> 57:32.880] How many chapters are in your motor vehicle code? [57:32.880 --> 57:35.880] Well, there's 18. [57:35.880 --> 57:40.880] Under 18 chapters, all of them deal with different things, don't they? [57:40.880 --> 57:41.880] Yes. [57:41.880 --> 57:52.880] So, if they're enacted under one act, then there has to be somewhere, the bill, that enumerates all 18 of those chapters. [57:52.880 --> 57:54.880] And I bet you there's a lot more than that. [57:54.880 --> 57:57.880] I bet you're thinking of titles and not chapters. [57:57.880 --> 58:15.880] But in either case, it remains the same, there has to be a bill with a caption or title heading that enumerates the specific single subject that every single title and chapter of that code is limited to. [58:15.880 --> 58:22.880] So you're talking about the whole entire motor vehicle course? [58:22.880 --> 58:23.880] Yeah. [58:23.880 --> 58:28.880] Hang on just a second, we gotta break and I'll be right back, okay? [58:28.880 --> 58:29.880] Alright. [58:29.880 --> 58:30.880] Alright. [58:30.880 --> 58:57.880] Let's go. [58:57.880 --> 59:05.880] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture. [59:05.880 --> 59:08.880] Enter the recovery version. [59:08.880 --> 59:17.880] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [59:17.880 --> 59:27.880] 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. [59:27.880 --> 59:32.880] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [59:32.880 --> 59:47.880] 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. [59:47.880 --> 59:50.880] That's freestudybible.com. [59:50.880 --> 59:53.880] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. [59:53.880 --> 59:59.880] LogosRadioNetwork.com. [59:59.880 --> 01:00:04.880] The following newsflash is brought to you by The Low Star of Lowdown. [01:00:04.880 --> 01:00:07.880] Providing your deli bulletins for the commodities market. [01:00:07.880 --> 01:00:18.880] Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative. [01:00:18.880 --> 01:00:32.880] Markets for Monday the 4th of February 2019 open with gold $1,313.67 an ounce, silver $15.84 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil, Texas crude $55.26 an ounce of barrel, [01:00:32.880 --> 01:00:51.880] Brent crude $61.87 an ounce of barrel, and cryptos in order of market capitalization, Bitcoin $3,452.88, Ripple XRP $0.30, Ethereum $107.58 and Eos is at $2.39 a crypto coin. [01:00:51.880 --> 01:01:00.880] Today in history, the year 1789, George Washington is unanimously selected as the first president of the United States by the U.S. Electoral College. [01:01:00.880 --> 01:01:11.880] In recent years, 286 priests were identified as perpetrators in the sexual abuse of minors to report released by the Catholic Church in Texas on Thursday. [01:01:11.880 --> 01:01:18.880] The head of the Archdiocese of Galveston, Houston, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, [01:01:18.880 --> 01:01:23.880] and is expected to attend a February summit called by Pope Francis, set in a statement that, quote, [01:01:23.880 --> 01:01:32.880] the bishops of Texas have decided to release the names of the priests at this time because it is right and just and to offer healing and hope to those who have suffered. [01:01:32.880 --> 01:01:40.880] On behalf of all who have failed in this regard, I offer my sincerest apology. Our church has been lacerated by this wound and we must take action to heal it. [01:01:40.880 --> 01:01:51.880] These 286 priests accused of sexually abusing children come from 14 dioceses in Texas, with the Fort Worth diocese being the only one not to provide names since it's already provided an update accounting back in October. [01:01:51.880 --> 01:02:02.880] This move by leaders in the Catholic Church of Texas comes a few months after the shocking Pennsylvania report in August, which outlined over half a century of sexual child abuse by more than 300 priests, [01:02:02.880 --> 01:02:09.880] as well as last month when the Illinois Attorney General reported that at least 500 Catholic clergy in the state had sexually abused children, [01:02:09.880 --> 01:02:15.880] and total about 50 dioceses have released the names of over 1200 priests and others accused of abuse. [01:02:15.880 --> 01:02:28.880] Unfortunately, 60% of those creditors have already died. Roughly another 30 dioceses are also investigating and have promised to release the identities of credibly accused priests in the coming months. [01:02:28.880 --> 01:02:36.880] It's being rumored that Microsoft will reveal a software development kit which will allow video game developers to set up cross-platform play, [01:02:36.880 --> 01:02:46.880] particularly linking the Xbox, Windows PC, Android, iOS and Nintendo Switch platforms together, de facto making it easier for games to be made and played on multiple video game consoles. [01:02:46.880 --> 01:02:52.880] This would allow for the Xbox Live platform to potentially expand from 400 million gaming devices to over 2 billion. [01:02:52.880 --> 01:02:59.880] This is Rick Rody with your lowdown for February 4th, 2019. [01:02:59.880 --> 01:03:09.880] Thank you and see you next week. [01:03:29.880 --> 01:03:35.880] Make a run, cause wisdom old boys raise, don't shot guns. [01:03:35.880 --> 01:03:44.880] We say craze, we say ma'am, if you ain't in the back, we don't give a damn. [01:03:44.880 --> 01:03:54.880] We came from the West Virginia coal mines, and the Rocky Mountains, and the Western skies. [01:03:54.880 --> 01:04:01.880] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rural Law Radio, and we're talking still with Tyler in Wyoming. [01:04:01.880 --> 01:04:04.880] Alright Tyler, continue. [01:04:04.880 --> 01:04:06.880] Okay, I'll try to. [01:04:06.880 --> 01:04:13.880] Where I'm getting confused at, he is, there's different acts in the whole title. [01:04:13.880 --> 01:04:17.880] Here's title 31, while because the whole motor vehicle code. [01:04:17.880 --> 01:04:18.880] So what you're saying is... [01:04:18.880 --> 01:04:26.880] No, there are different sections of the same act, is what I'm trying to get you to understand. [01:04:26.880 --> 01:04:36.880] Okay, well the reason that confused me, cause there's like for example chapters 1 through 4 of title 31, they call that 1 act. [01:04:36.880 --> 01:04:38.880] I don't care what they call it. [01:04:38.880 --> 01:04:43.880] Okay, what I'm telling you is that at the bottom of this thing somewhere, [01:04:43.880 --> 01:04:49.880] you're going to find a number that shows the original bill that was used to recodify that chapter, [01:04:49.880 --> 01:04:53.880] and you're going to find that number in every single one of them. [01:04:53.880 --> 01:04:59.880] Here in Texas, that was SB 971 in 1995. [01:04:59.880 --> 01:05:09.880] Now that was when they recodified and reenacted all of the prior existing statutes relating to transportation. [01:05:09.880 --> 01:05:14.880] That's the single subject that is listed in the caption section, [01:05:14.880 --> 01:05:19.880] or title section, of the bill itself. [01:05:19.880 --> 01:05:24.880] Not the statutes within the bill, but the bill itself, [01:05:24.880 --> 01:05:34.880] to which all of those underlying statutes in whatever title, whatever chapter, and whatever section, they may appear. [01:05:34.880 --> 01:05:42.880] They all must fall under that subject, or they could not be in that act, that reenactment. [01:05:42.880 --> 01:05:43.880] Okay, period. [01:05:43.880 --> 01:05:47.880] That recodification, they couldn't do it. They couldn't put it in there. [01:05:47.880 --> 01:05:52.880] They couldn't put something dealing with banking under the transportation bill. [01:05:52.880 --> 01:05:57.880] They couldn't put something dealing with prisons under the transportation bill. [01:05:57.880 --> 01:06:04.880] Everything, motor vehicles, drivers, operators, license plates, licenses. [01:06:04.880 --> 01:06:10.880] All of that stuff had to be relevant to the subject of transportation, [01:06:10.880 --> 01:06:13.880] or it could not be put into that bill. [01:06:13.880 --> 01:06:14.880] Okay? [01:06:14.880 --> 01:06:15.880] Right. [01:06:15.880 --> 01:06:18.880] That's what you're looking for. [01:06:18.880 --> 01:06:19.880] Okay. [01:06:19.880 --> 01:06:23.880] So would that need to be back when they codified all these chapters, [01:06:23.880 --> 01:06:27.880] and that's the part you need to find out? [01:06:27.880 --> 01:06:28.880] Okay. [01:06:28.880 --> 01:06:30.880] That's the one that I can't find in this state. [01:06:30.880 --> 01:06:32.880] I can't find a bill. [01:06:32.880 --> 01:06:39.880] You can find at the bottom of every statute, whether it be published or online, [01:06:39.880 --> 01:06:42.880] they generally have a section that says, [01:06:42.880 --> 01:06:46.880] each year in legislature that made a revision, [01:06:46.880 --> 01:06:49.880] even though it may not tell you what revision, [01:06:49.880 --> 01:06:53.880] it'll say this year, this legislature, blah, blah, blah. [01:06:53.880 --> 01:06:54.880] Okay? [01:06:54.880 --> 01:06:57.880] It'll give that much information at least, [01:06:57.880 --> 01:07:00.880] and it may start in the 1960s, [01:07:00.880 --> 01:07:03.880] and it may go all the way through this year. [01:07:03.880 --> 01:07:04.880] Okay? [01:07:04.880 --> 01:07:05.880] Right. [01:07:05.880 --> 01:07:06.880] But the fact is, [01:07:06.880 --> 01:07:12.880] every statute I've ever seen has that information at the bottom of the section of statute. [01:07:12.880 --> 01:07:13.880] Right. [01:07:13.880 --> 01:07:15.880] Somewhere in there, [01:07:15.880 --> 01:07:23.880] there is a common legislature in every single section. [01:07:23.880 --> 01:07:24.880] Okay? [01:07:24.880 --> 01:07:25.880] Okay. [01:07:25.880 --> 01:07:33.880] That will most likely be the one legislature and the year in which that bill was enacted [01:07:33.880 --> 01:07:35.880] that did the recodification. [01:07:35.880 --> 01:07:38.880] Years could have been before the 1990s. [01:07:38.880 --> 01:07:39.880] It could have been during. [01:07:39.880 --> 01:07:41.880] It could have been after. [01:07:41.880 --> 01:07:42.880] Yeah. [01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:46.880] But you'll find it somewhere. [01:07:46.880 --> 01:07:48.880] Well, I did find one. [01:07:48.880 --> 01:07:49.880] Maybe I have it here. [01:07:49.880 --> 01:07:53.880] It says that it was a restructuring act from 1991. [01:07:53.880 --> 01:07:54.880] Uh-huh. [01:07:54.880 --> 01:08:03.880] And what it mentioned was that the Department of Transportation [01:08:03.880 --> 01:08:14.880] took over like the Department of Revenue and in different things. [01:08:14.880 --> 01:08:16.880] You got away from your phone. [01:08:16.880 --> 01:08:18.880] You got back up. [01:08:18.880 --> 01:08:21.880] Okay. [01:08:21.880 --> 01:08:27.880] They called them transportation-related things. [01:08:27.880 --> 01:08:30.880] So would that be what you're referring to? [01:08:30.880 --> 01:08:38.880] Right, somewhere you're going to find a whole bill that has a title on it or caption whatever [01:08:38.880 --> 01:08:44.880] your state constitution calls it that says something similar. [01:08:44.880 --> 01:08:53.880] This is a recodification of existing statute without substantive change related to the subject [01:08:53.880 --> 01:08:59.880] of blah, blah, blah and whatever else it may say. [01:08:59.880 --> 01:09:03.880] But that's the key to understanding you're in the right places where it says without [01:09:03.880 --> 01:09:09.880] substantive change and it lists the subject of. [01:09:09.880 --> 01:09:10.880] Okay. [01:09:10.880 --> 01:09:12.880] I'll look for that. [01:09:12.880 --> 01:09:15.880] So it's a recodification bill, though. [01:09:15.880 --> 01:09:17.880] Well, probably. [01:09:17.880 --> 01:09:19.880] Okay. [01:09:19.880 --> 01:09:20.880] All right. [01:09:20.880 --> 01:09:21.880] All right. [01:09:21.880 --> 01:09:23.880] I'll be quick on this next question, Eddie. [01:09:23.880 --> 01:09:28.880] Chapter 7, we talked about this a couple weeks ago. [01:09:28.880 --> 01:09:34.880] They're, in Chapter 7, they're citing it says to how it reads the serious traffic violation [01:09:34.880 --> 01:09:41.880] means as defined by rule and regulation from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, [01:09:41.880 --> 01:09:44.880] that's 15 miles per hour over. [01:09:44.880 --> 01:09:52.880] And we talked about that is for Wyoming to reference the federal, okay, in this case [01:09:52.880 --> 01:09:57.880] the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, it has to be the exact same subject matter, correct? [01:09:57.880 --> 01:09:59.880] Yeah. [01:09:59.880 --> 01:10:03.880] So in the title of it was serious traffic violation. [01:10:03.880 --> 01:10:08.880] So that means it has to deal with the same traffic that the federal deals with. [01:10:08.880 --> 01:10:09.880] Am I correct on that? [01:10:09.880 --> 01:10:16.880] It has to deal with the same accouterments of traffic that the federal does. [01:10:16.880 --> 01:10:18.880] Yes, whatever that may entail. [01:10:18.880 --> 01:10:20.880] Here's what I don't understand, though. [01:10:20.880 --> 01:10:28.880] Is that, when they get that, did they adopt that statute or was it preemption? [01:10:28.880 --> 01:10:32.880] The state cannot preempt federal law. [01:10:32.880 --> 01:10:36.880] I told you that already. [01:10:36.880 --> 01:10:40.880] No, in this case, no, but the federal, would the federal be preemptive? [01:10:40.880 --> 01:10:42.880] The federal's not preempting the state. [01:10:42.880 --> 01:10:46.880] The state is basing its act on the federal law. [01:10:46.880 --> 01:10:48.880] So is that an adoption? [01:10:48.880 --> 01:10:51.880] Yeah, it's an adoption. [01:10:51.880 --> 01:10:53.880] Okay. [01:10:53.880 --> 01:10:58.880] But it's not anything to do with preemption? [01:10:58.880 --> 01:10:59.880] No. [01:10:59.880 --> 01:11:00.880] Okay. [01:11:00.880 --> 01:11:07.880] The only way it could be preemption is if the federal law said that the state law specifically is being preempted [01:11:07.880 --> 01:11:12.880] because it violates such and such constitutional delegation of powers or so on and so forth. [01:11:12.880 --> 01:11:17.880] You'd have to find some ruling by some court that declared that as a preemption. [01:11:17.880 --> 01:11:18.880] Okay. [01:11:18.880 --> 01:11:22.880] Unless the law itself specifically said it was intended as a preemption. [01:11:22.880 --> 01:11:29.880] In either case, it didn't matter because both with adoption and preemption, it still has to be the exact same matter. [01:11:29.880 --> 01:11:35.880] I researched the case long enough, but I didn't know if it was an adoption or if it was a preemption. [01:11:35.880 --> 01:11:46.880] Well, if it can't be one and it references something that is not inclusive of its own power, then what would it have to be? [01:11:46.880 --> 01:11:47.880] It would have to be adopted. [01:11:47.880 --> 01:11:49.880] Thank you. [01:11:49.880 --> 01:11:50.880] Okay. [01:11:50.880 --> 01:11:51.880] All right. [01:11:51.880 --> 01:11:53.880] You answered that question. [01:11:53.880 --> 01:11:54.880] This is my last question. [01:11:54.880 --> 01:11:55.880] I really got out of the callers. [01:11:55.880 --> 01:12:02.880] They define under Article II registration, which is 31-2 out here, Wyoming. [01:12:02.880 --> 01:12:07.880] It says factors that indicate a resident is in control of a vehicle include. [01:12:07.880 --> 01:12:11.880] Basically, that means you're a driver or operator, correct? [01:12:11.880 --> 01:12:16.880] It said they include but are not limited to the following. [01:12:16.880 --> 01:12:19.880] And it's A, the resident was approached for the vehicle. [01:12:19.880 --> 01:12:23.880] B, the resident operator restored the vehicle in Wyoming. [01:12:23.880 --> 01:12:24.880] And C, here is the key. [01:12:24.880 --> 01:12:31.880] The resident is a partner, member or shareholder of the business entity that purports to be the owner of the vehicle. [01:12:31.880 --> 01:12:32.880] Yeah. [01:12:32.880 --> 01:12:34.880] What I don't know is when that says... [01:12:34.880 --> 01:12:40.880] That last one is a good key interest point there about what it's limiting things to. [01:12:40.880 --> 01:12:41.880] Well, exactly. [01:12:41.880 --> 01:12:44.880] And I did follow that bill back in 1984. [01:12:44.880 --> 01:12:45.880] Okay. [01:12:45.880 --> 01:12:46.880] But you're still doing it wrong. [01:12:46.880 --> 01:12:54.880] You are still asking me questions that if you will find the one damn bill I'm telling you to find, will answer everything. [01:12:54.880 --> 01:12:55.880] Why? [01:12:55.880 --> 01:13:02.880] Because every single thing you're reading has to be read within the context of that subject. [01:13:02.880 --> 01:13:11.880] And the easiest way to do that is to either prefix or suffix the subject to each and every definition and section. [01:13:11.880 --> 01:13:18.880] When you read a definition of person and it says person means individual, corporation, association, [01:13:18.880 --> 01:13:24.880] limited liability company, pigeon crap on a bench for the purpose of transportation, [01:13:24.880 --> 01:13:34.880] then you know right away everything you're talking about has to have a nexus with transportation in order for that statute to be applicable. [01:13:34.880 --> 01:13:35.880] Correct. [01:13:35.880 --> 01:13:36.880] Correct. [01:13:36.880 --> 01:13:40.880] And I went back to the chapter five, it says regulation of traffic. [01:13:40.880 --> 01:13:44.880] That bill was introduced in 1939. [01:13:44.880 --> 01:13:53.880] But instead of giving a clear title, it just said it's introduced by committee number 10, which was the transportation bridges and highways committee. [01:13:53.880 --> 01:13:56.880] So they listed the committee as being the traffic. [01:13:56.880 --> 01:14:01.880] And way back before they were organizing all of these into one big code and they changed. [01:14:01.880 --> 01:14:03.880] See, here's the thing. [01:14:03.880 --> 01:14:16.880] The state constitutions originally to almost without exception read under legislative enactments that all enactments must be limited to one object. [01:14:16.880 --> 01:14:17.880] Okay? [01:14:17.880 --> 01:14:18.880] Yeah. [01:14:18.880 --> 01:14:26.880] And here it says if they were going to make a law dealing with turn signals, it couldn't talk about anything but a turn signal. [01:14:26.880 --> 01:14:28.880] Period. [01:14:28.880 --> 01:14:32.880] That was the sole object it could be limited to. [01:14:32.880 --> 01:14:33.880] Okay. [01:14:33.880 --> 01:14:46.880] When they got the amendment to the Constitution to change object to subject, they ran into without realizing it at first, a whole new problem for themselves. [01:14:46.880 --> 01:14:58.880] They were trying to open up the way they could write law so that they could write these big humongous acts that confused everybody by making references to crap that nobody was going to go look up. [01:14:58.880 --> 01:14:59.880] Okay? [01:14:59.880 --> 01:15:00.880] Yeah. [01:15:00.880 --> 01:15:10.880] And thus get out from under the one object limitation, but they managed to completely get caught up in the limitation of a subject. [01:15:10.880 --> 01:15:26.880] Now, even though they can enact 500 sections under 14 chapters and six titles, all at the same time, every single one of them must deal with that one single subject alone. [01:15:26.880 --> 01:15:30.880] And if they can't, then they're unconstitutional. [01:15:30.880 --> 01:15:31.880] Okay? [01:15:31.880 --> 01:15:33.880] I'm going to be looking for that. [01:15:33.880 --> 01:15:35.880] I'm going to be doing some more work here. [01:15:35.880 --> 01:15:36.880] Yeah, work? [01:15:36.880 --> 01:15:39.880] I think I told you what, a month ago to be doing? [01:15:39.880 --> 01:15:42.880] Yeah, I've been working on it. [01:15:42.880 --> 01:15:47.880] These bills, I mean, I've always focused too much on the individual bills when I keep on. [01:15:47.880 --> 01:15:55.880] I keep telling you that codified bill that you're talking about subject matter, old title. [01:15:55.880 --> 01:15:57.880] That's what I'm looking for. [01:15:57.880 --> 01:16:04.880] Look, I'm trying to get you to understand that I spent the first two years of doing this, doing exactly the thing you're talking about right now. [01:16:04.880 --> 01:16:08.880] That's when I came to the realization something here is not kosher. [01:16:08.880 --> 01:16:15.880] This can't be talking about this and this talking about that and then they treat them as if they're somehow completely different subjects by themselves. [01:16:15.880 --> 01:16:19.880] Not when there is a single subject requirement in the Constitution. [01:16:19.880 --> 01:16:20.880] Great. [01:16:20.880 --> 01:16:23.880] So I need to find how all of these got enacted. [01:16:23.880 --> 01:16:26.880] Oh, wait, they all got enacted under one bill? [01:16:26.880 --> 01:16:27.880] Well, when was this? [01:16:27.880 --> 01:16:29.880] Oh, it was 1995. [01:16:29.880 --> 01:16:30.880] Well, what was the bill? [01:16:30.880 --> 01:16:32.880] SB 971. [01:16:32.880 --> 01:16:33.880] Great. [01:16:33.880 --> 01:16:43.880] Look in there, sure enough, every single title, every single chapter, every single section, but they all are limited to transportation. [01:16:43.880 --> 01:16:45.880] I need to find that. [01:16:45.880 --> 01:16:46.880] Okay. [01:16:46.880 --> 01:16:48.880] All right, Tyler, I'm going to go to somebody else. [01:16:48.880 --> 01:16:51.880] I'm getting a migraine here and I'm going to talk to you later, okay? [01:16:51.880 --> 01:16:52.880] Thanks, Eddie. [01:16:52.880 --> 01:16:53.880] All right, have a good night. [01:16:53.880 --> 01:16:59.880] All right, folks, y'all hang on and we will be right back after this break to take the next caller. [01:16:59.880 --> 01:17:04.880] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:17:04.880 --> 01:17:08.880] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris Proven Method. [01:17:08.880 --> 01:17:13.880] Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. [01:17:13.880 --> 01:17:20.880] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute. [01:17:20.880 --> 01:17:23.880] What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons? [01:17:23.880 --> 01:17:25.880] How to answer letters and phone calls? [01:17:25.880 --> 01:17:28.880] How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports? [01:17:28.880 --> 01:17:33.880] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away? [01:17:33.880 --> 01:17:38.880] The Michael Mirris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:17:38.880 --> 01:17:40.880] Personal consultation is available as well. [01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:48.880] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner or email Michaelmirris at yahoo.com. [01:17:48.880 --> 01:17:56.880] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com. [01:17:56.880 --> 01:17:59.880] To learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:17:59.880 --> 01:18:00.880] I love logos. [01:18:00.880 --> 01:18:04.880] Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [01:18:04.880 --> 01:18:06.880] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. [01:18:06.880 --> 01:18:07.880] I need my truth fix. [01:18:07.880 --> 01:18:12.880] I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [01:18:12.880 --> 01:18:19.880] 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. [01:18:19.880 --> 01:18:21.880] How can I help logos? [01:18:21.880 --> 01:18:23.880] Well, I'm glad you asked. [01:18:23.880 --> 01:18:28.880] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. [01:18:28.880 --> 01:18:30.880] First thing you do is clear your cookies. [01:18:30.880 --> 01:18:33.880] Now, go to LogosRegular network.com. [01:18:33.880 --> 01:18:36.880] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [01:18:36.880 --> 01:18:42.880] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. [01:18:42.880 --> 01:18:43.880] Do I pay extra? [01:18:43.880 --> 01:18:44.880] No. [01:18:44.880 --> 01:18:46.880] Do I have to do anything different when I order? [01:18:46.880 --> 01:18:47.880] No. [01:18:47.880 --> 01:18:48.880] Can I use my Amazon Prime? [01:18:48.880 --> 01:18:49.880] No. [01:18:49.880 --> 01:18:50.880] I mean, yes. [01:18:50.880 --> 01:18:53.880] Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money. [01:18:53.880 --> 01:18:54.880] This is perfect. [01:18:54.880 --> 01:18:56.880] Thank you so much. [01:18:56.880 --> 01:18:57.880] We are Logos. [01:18:57.880 --> 01:18:59.880] Happy holidays, Logos. [01:18:59.880 --> 01:19:21.880] This is the Logos Radio Network. [01:19:21.880 --> 01:19:31.880] Thank you so much. [01:19:51.880 --> 01:20:02.880] All right, folks. [01:20:02.880 --> 01:20:03.880] We are back. [01:20:03.880 --> 01:20:05.880] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:20:05.880 --> 01:20:08.880] Our next caller up is Ralph in Texas. [01:20:08.880 --> 01:20:12.880] Ralph, what can we do for you? [01:20:12.880 --> 01:20:13.880] Hello, Eddie. [01:20:13.880 --> 01:20:14.880] Hello. [01:20:14.880 --> 01:20:22.880] I was told to ask you or talk about the general statute status of the transportation code [01:20:22.880 --> 01:20:25.880] and questionable pleas. [01:20:25.880 --> 01:20:30.880] But you went and threw a monkey wrench in my works with talking about rules of practice [01:20:30.880 --> 01:20:32.880] in JP courts. [01:20:32.880 --> 01:20:35.880] No rules of evidence in JP courts. [01:20:35.880 --> 01:20:36.880] Okay. [01:20:36.880 --> 01:20:37.880] Yes. [01:20:37.880 --> 01:20:38.880] Okay. [01:20:38.880 --> 01:20:42.880] So, let me say this. [01:20:42.880 --> 01:20:48.880] Broaden your imagination for a simplistic look at the evidence rule. [01:20:48.880 --> 01:20:49.880] Okay? [01:20:49.880 --> 01:20:53.880] Because this is new to me and it really messes me up. [01:20:53.880 --> 01:20:56.880] This is an area I'm working on. [01:20:56.880 --> 01:21:01.880] So, 500.3E1. [01:21:01.880 --> 01:21:03.880] You read that, I believe. [01:21:03.880 --> 01:21:04.880] Okay. [01:21:04.880 --> 01:21:06.880] Applications of other rules. [01:21:06.880 --> 01:21:08.880] The other rules are still figuring the rules of evidence. [01:21:08.880 --> 01:21:10.880] Do not apply except. [01:21:10.880 --> 01:21:11.880] I like A. [01:21:11.880 --> 01:21:13.880] I mean, I like one. [01:21:13.880 --> 01:21:16.880] When the judge hearing the case determines that a particular rule must be followed to [01:21:16.880 --> 01:21:20.880] ensure that proceedings are fair to all parties. [01:21:20.880 --> 01:21:21.880] Okay. [01:21:21.880 --> 01:21:30.880] Now, if you were to sub motion the court to allow certain things as evidence and they [01:21:30.880 --> 01:21:33.880] said, no, you know, that's up to me and I'm going to stop. [01:21:33.880 --> 01:21:34.880] Wait a minute. [01:21:34.880 --> 01:21:35.880] Wait a minute. [01:21:35.880 --> 01:21:36.880] What are you trying to read? [01:21:36.880 --> 01:21:40.880] Are you trying to read rule 101? [01:21:40.880 --> 01:21:44.880] No, I'm reading rule 500.3. [01:21:44.880 --> 01:21:45.880] Okay. [01:21:45.880 --> 01:21:51.880] And you're trying to read number one under subsection C or E rather? [01:21:51.880 --> 01:21:52.880] E. [01:21:52.880 --> 01:21:54.880] Yes, under E. [01:21:54.880 --> 01:21:59.880] I think there's one word in there that, you know, it's just like all these other things. [01:21:59.880 --> 01:22:00.880] It's a big puzzle. [01:22:00.880 --> 01:22:01.880] Okay. [01:22:01.880 --> 01:22:06.880] So, you asked the judge to accept, I can't think of stuff on the fly. [01:22:06.880 --> 01:22:10.880] I think it's time to sit down and figure it all out, but if you were going to say, okay, [01:22:10.880 --> 01:22:15.880] well, the evidence of where the transportation code comes from has to be in the evidence. [01:22:15.880 --> 01:22:16.880] Okay. [01:22:16.880 --> 01:22:19.880] And the judge says, no, my determination, I'm going to say that's not relevant. [01:22:19.880 --> 01:22:20.880] Okay. [01:22:20.880 --> 01:22:25.880] According to this rule, the way I read it, when the judge hearing the case determines, [01:22:25.880 --> 01:22:34.880] okay, if she determines it improperly, then it's not the law for the facts, cases come [01:22:34.880 --> 01:22:36.880] in. [01:22:36.880 --> 01:22:37.880] Okay. [01:22:37.880 --> 01:22:40.880] That would be an abuse of discretion in other words. [01:22:40.880 --> 01:22:45.880] Well, the thing about it is, is how can you accuse a judge of applying the law to the [01:22:45.880 --> 01:22:50.880] facts improperly when you're not being allowed to introduce evidence of the facts? [01:22:50.880 --> 01:22:55.880] How do you allege the fact is correct when you cannot produce the evidence that supports [01:22:55.880 --> 01:22:56.880] it? [01:22:56.880 --> 01:23:00.880] And there's no record of the evidence in a JP court to begin with. [01:23:00.880 --> 01:23:01.880] Okay. [01:23:01.880 --> 01:23:07.880] Well, now, granted, I understand very little of this, especially the evidence stuff, but [01:23:07.880 --> 01:23:10.880] what if it was placed into the folder, placed into the file? [01:23:10.880 --> 01:23:11.880] In other words, you... [01:23:11.880 --> 01:23:14.880] If what was placed into the file? [01:23:14.880 --> 01:23:17.880] Let's see. [01:23:17.880 --> 01:23:19.880] Grading motion, motion for discovery. [01:23:19.880 --> 01:23:21.880] None of that is evidence. [01:23:21.880 --> 01:23:24.880] The pleadings in a case are not evidence. [01:23:24.880 --> 01:23:29.880] The only way you're going to get it established as evidence is to introduce it at the evidentiary [01:23:29.880 --> 01:23:33.880] phase of the trial. [01:23:33.880 --> 01:23:41.880] If you do not introduce it at the evidentiary phase of the trial, then it is not evidence. [01:23:41.880 --> 01:23:47.880] And if this judge is blocking you from doing that by doing what you're talking about, you [01:23:47.880 --> 01:23:50.880] have no way to prove your case. [01:23:50.880 --> 01:23:51.880] All right. [01:23:51.880 --> 01:23:52.880] Well, okay. [01:23:52.880 --> 01:23:53.880] Okay. [01:23:53.880 --> 01:23:55.880] But I'm still playing with it in my head. [01:23:55.880 --> 01:24:00.880] And it goes like, if I do the discovery, that leads to evidence. [01:24:00.880 --> 01:24:05.880] What you can do, the discovery isn't going to get you anywhere. [01:24:05.880 --> 01:24:10.880] You cannot ask for them to produce statutes as evidence through discovery. [01:24:10.880 --> 01:24:11.880] Why? [01:24:11.880 --> 01:24:17.880] Because it's considered legal research, which discovery does not cover. [01:24:17.880 --> 01:24:18.880] Okay. [01:24:18.880 --> 01:24:23.880] Now, I was planning on studying this this week, so maybe it's not fair to ask questions when [01:24:23.880 --> 01:24:25.880] they go back and review this material. [01:24:25.880 --> 01:24:31.880] But it seems like you guys have discussed information and complaints before, especially [01:24:31.880 --> 01:24:33.880] in these traffic courts. [01:24:33.880 --> 01:24:34.880] We have. [01:24:34.880 --> 01:24:38.880] But again, none of that is evidence of anything. [01:24:38.880 --> 01:24:44.880] The only way you're going to get anything document-wise as evidence is when you file [01:24:44.880 --> 01:24:46.880] it as judicial notice. [01:24:46.880 --> 01:24:52.880] Now, again, judicial notice is a requirement under the rules of evidence that are not being [01:24:52.880 --> 01:24:55.880] allowed to be applied in a justice court. [01:24:55.880 --> 01:25:00.880] But the documents are in the record. [01:25:00.880 --> 01:25:07.880] The fact that the court forbads you to introduce them does not then limit their ability to [01:25:07.880 --> 01:25:12.880] be used on appeal, like it would if you were not allowed to introduce it at all and you [01:25:12.880 --> 01:25:13.880] hadn't. [01:25:13.880 --> 01:25:14.880] Right. [01:25:14.880 --> 01:25:25.880] So by filing it as a written judicial notice, there's an issue right there of getting it [01:25:25.880 --> 01:25:26.880] into evidence. [01:25:26.880 --> 01:25:32.880] Whether the court accepts it at the evidentiary phase or not, you can object to the court's [01:25:32.880 --> 01:25:36.880] refusal to accept it at that point because it's already in the file. [01:25:36.880 --> 01:25:41.880] They can't just throw it out of the file and thus hide the evidence. [01:25:41.880 --> 01:25:42.880] Right. [01:25:42.880 --> 01:25:48.880] So at the conclusion of what you're doing, you file written objections to everything [01:25:48.880 --> 01:25:56.880] the judge did at denying you the ability to introduce those things as evidence through [01:25:56.880 --> 01:26:01.880] proper judicial notice. [01:26:01.880 --> 01:26:08.880] Now, you've got an issue that you can appeal on the evidence. [01:26:08.880 --> 01:26:14.880] Okay, so I may be looking at this sideways, not necessarily backwards, but sideways. [01:26:14.880 --> 01:26:21.880] So what I'm thinking I want to do is I want to put the transportation code in as evidence [01:26:21.880 --> 01:26:24.880] because of its single-subject matter. [01:26:24.880 --> 01:26:30.880] Where are you going to get an entire copy of the transportation code? [01:26:30.880 --> 01:26:33.880] 4,300-some-odd-plus pages. [01:26:33.880 --> 01:26:35.880] USB drive. [01:26:35.880 --> 01:26:37.880] Electronic filing in JP courts. [01:26:37.880 --> 01:26:39.880] Not going to happen. [01:26:39.880 --> 01:26:45.880] Besides, what do you attend to prove by introducing that as evidence? [01:26:45.880 --> 01:26:49.880] The code in its entirety, that the code exists? [01:26:49.880 --> 01:26:51.880] No, single-subject. [01:26:51.880 --> 01:26:55.880] The code doesn't contain the single-subject requirement. [01:26:55.880 --> 01:26:57.880] The bill does. [01:26:57.880 --> 01:26:58.880] Well, okay, you're right. [01:26:58.880 --> 01:26:59.880] I'm talking about the bill. [01:26:59.880 --> 01:27:00.880] I am talking about it. [01:27:00.880 --> 01:27:02.880] You don't need the whole bill. [01:27:02.880 --> 01:27:08.880] You only need a certified copy of the single-subject clause requirement. [01:27:08.880 --> 01:27:11.880] Well, okay, so now we've got that. [01:27:11.880 --> 01:27:13.880] Do you have the seminar material? [01:27:13.880 --> 01:27:15.880] Yes, I do. [01:27:15.880 --> 01:27:20.880] Well, then let's see. [01:27:20.880 --> 01:27:27.880] You can go to the Secretary of State and you can ask for a certified copy of the bill caption. [01:27:27.880 --> 01:27:31.880] These are the things I recommend you get from the Secretary of State. [01:27:31.880 --> 01:27:33.880] They're every transportation case. [01:27:33.880 --> 01:27:35.880] You only have to get it once and then you can use it forever. [01:27:35.880 --> 01:27:46.880] In any case, you get a certified copy of the bill title of SB 971 by the 84th legislature, [01:27:46.880 --> 01:28:10.880] or I'm sorry, something like that of 74th and 95th. [01:28:10.880 --> 01:28:20.880] You want a certified copy of the emergency clause section used to enact the bill without reading on the floor of each house, okay? [01:28:20.880 --> 01:28:34.880] You want the signature page where the bill was signed off on and where the waiver of the reading was signed off on, okay? [01:28:34.880 --> 01:28:39.880] You do not need a certified copy of the actual statute. [01:28:39.880 --> 01:28:49.880] You can judicial notice and provide a text copy taken directly off the web or typed in out of a book [01:28:49.880 --> 01:28:54.880] into whatever judicial notice you're giving as long as it is 100% accurate. [01:28:54.880 --> 01:28:58.880] It must say what the statute says it says. [01:28:58.880 --> 01:28:59.880] Wait, wait, wait. [01:28:59.880 --> 01:29:02.880] You said text copy, I didn't catch all that. [01:29:02.880 --> 01:29:08.880] You can get the text of an actual statute from anywhere and put it into a judicial notice [01:29:08.880 --> 01:29:13.880] as long as it is the current correct statute for the case. [01:29:13.880 --> 01:29:19.880] Now, current is limited to the time of the alleged defense. [01:29:19.880 --> 01:29:29.880] Like if the offense is a year and a half old, it's whatever the statute was when the offense was allegedly committed, not what it is today. [01:29:29.880 --> 01:29:33.880] Okay. [01:29:33.880 --> 01:29:37.880] All right. [01:29:37.880 --> 01:29:38.880] Hang on just a second. [01:29:38.880 --> 01:29:41.880] I got a break here and then I'll come back and finish up with you, okay? [01:29:41.880 --> 01:29:42.880] Okay. [01:29:42.880 --> 01:29:43.880] All right, folks. [01:29:43.880 --> 01:29:45.880] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:29:45.880 --> 01:29:47.880] We will be right back after this break. [01:29:47.880 --> 01:29:51.880] We got two more segments in the show, so y'all hang in there and we will be right back. [01:29:51.880 --> 01:30:18.880] All right. [01:30:18.880 --> 01:30:44.880] Thank you. [01:30:44.880 --> 01:31:13.880] All right. [01:31:13.880 --> 01:31:29.880] Thank you. [01:31:29.880 --> 01:31:31.880] I lost my son. [01:31:31.880 --> 01:31:32.880] My uncle. [01:31:32.880 --> 01:31:33.880] My uncle. [01:31:33.880 --> 01:31:35.880] On September 11, 2001. [01:31:35.880 --> 01:31:38.880] Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11. [01:31:38.880 --> 01:31:42.880] World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper was not hit by a plane. [01:31:42.880 --> 01:31:46.880] Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7, [01:31:46.880 --> 01:31:50.880] over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence [01:31:50.880 --> 01:31:52.880] and believed there is more to the story. [01:31:52.880 --> 01:31:53.880] Bring justice to my son. [01:31:53.880 --> 01:31:54.880] My uncle. [01:31:54.880 --> 01:31:55.880] My nephew. [01:31:55.880 --> 01:31:56.880] My son. [01:31:56.880 --> 01:31:57.880] Go to BuildingWhat.org. [01:31:57.880 --> 01:32:23.880] Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do. [01:32:23.880 --> 01:32:49.880] All right. [01:32:49.880 --> 01:33:04.880] Thank you. [01:33:04.880 --> 01:33:11.880] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com. [01:33:11.880 --> 01:33:39.880] All right. [01:33:39.880 --> 01:34:08.880] Thank you. [01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:12.880] We are back this evening with Logos Radio. [01:34:12.880 --> 01:34:17.880] And we are now going to pick up again with Ralph in Texas. [01:34:17.880 --> 01:34:19.880] All right, Ralph. [01:34:19.880 --> 01:34:20.880] Okay. [01:34:20.880 --> 01:34:23.880] My last thing is Conscionable Plea. [01:34:23.880 --> 01:34:27.880] This would be in the JCP or municipal court either one. [01:34:27.880 --> 01:34:30.880] So the way I understand it, Conscionable Plea, [01:34:30.880 --> 01:34:34.880] a person can't make Conscionable Plea until they know the law. [01:34:34.880 --> 01:34:36.880] They're told they violated. [01:34:36.880 --> 01:34:40.880] So if an officer gives you customization and he has a reference [01:34:40.880 --> 01:34:47.880] to transportation codes, they cannot enter a Conscionable Plea [01:34:47.880 --> 01:34:51.880] until they have been properly notified and made aware [01:34:51.880 --> 01:34:54.880] of the allegation, the nature, the cause, [01:34:54.880 --> 01:34:58.880] and the facts relevant there, too. [01:34:58.880 --> 01:34:59.880] Okay. [01:34:59.880 --> 01:35:05.880] No one can enter a Conscionable Plea without that information. [01:35:05.880 --> 01:35:06.880] Okay. [01:35:06.880 --> 01:35:11.880] So when, if a person goes in and the clerk says, [01:35:11.880 --> 01:35:14.880] well, you have to make a plea, how will you respond? [01:35:14.880 --> 01:35:15.880] No. [01:35:15.880 --> 01:35:18.880] The clerk is, just look at the clerk and say, [01:35:18.880 --> 01:35:20.880] thank you very much for the legal advice. [01:35:20.880 --> 01:35:24.880] However, I can find no such requirement within the code [01:35:24.880 --> 01:35:26.880] of criminal procedure that says a plea is mandatory [01:35:26.880 --> 01:35:27.880] from any defendant. [01:35:27.880 --> 01:35:32.880] Can you please point it out to me? [01:35:32.880 --> 01:35:33.880] Okay. [01:35:33.880 --> 01:35:37.880] Because any time a clerk tells you, you must do this, [01:35:37.880 --> 01:35:41.880] you must do that, the clerk is providing legal advice [01:35:41.880 --> 01:35:45.880] or practicing law, which they cannot do. [01:35:45.880 --> 01:35:46.880] Right. [01:35:46.880 --> 01:35:47.880] Okay. [01:35:47.880 --> 01:35:52.880] So what I'm trying to do is find grounds for criminal complaints [01:35:52.880 --> 01:35:55.880] on the JP due to the clerk. [01:35:55.880 --> 01:35:56.880] You don't have to find them. [01:35:56.880 --> 01:35:59.880] Everything they do is a criminal ground. [01:35:59.880 --> 01:36:01.880] Well, I'll find the words. [01:36:01.880 --> 01:36:02.880] Okay. [01:36:02.880 --> 01:36:03.880] I'll find the words I can. [01:36:03.880 --> 01:36:06.880] Chapter 45 of the code of criminal procedure tells you [01:36:06.880 --> 01:36:08.880] exactly when a plea is required to be entered. [01:36:08.880 --> 01:36:10.880] And according to the code of criminal procedure, [01:36:10.880 --> 01:36:13.880] that is when the jury has been impaneled. [01:36:13.880 --> 01:36:16.880] Period. [01:36:16.880 --> 01:36:17.880] Huh. [01:36:17.880 --> 01:36:18.880] I hadn't heard that one. [01:36:18.880 --> 01:36:19.880] Okay. [01:36:19.880 --> 01:36:20.880] Well, you don't have to hear it. [01:36:20.880 --> 01:36:21.880] Go read it. [01:36:21.880 --> 01:36:22.880] It's there. [01:36:22.880 --> 01:36:24.880] Well, I mean, unless you got pretty regular, [01:36:24.880 --> 01:36:25.880] I hadn't heard that one. [01:36:25.880 --> 01:36:27.880] So I don't know if I just missed it or what. [01:36:27.880 --> 01:36:30.880] Well, I've only said it about 5,000 times, but okay. [01:36:30.880 --> 01:36:33.880] Well, I was waiting for 5,001. [01:36:33.880 --> 01:36:34.880] Okay. [01:36:34.880 --> 01:36:38.880] So special appearance and yeah. [01:36:38.880 --> 01:36:39.880] Okay. [01:36:39.880 --> 01:36:40.880] I think that does it. [01:36:40.880 --> 01:36:41.880] Eddie, I really appreciate it. [01:36:41.880 --> 01:36:43.880] Yes, sir. [01:36:43.880 --> 01:36:44.880] Hang on just a second. [01:36:44.880 --> 01:36:47.880] I'll tell you exactly where to find that. [01:36:47.880 --> 01:36:51.880] It's in Chapter 45. [01:36:51.880 --> 01:36:59.880] And let's see. [01:36:59.880 --> 01:37:04.880] Plea offered by the defendant. [01:37:04.880 --> 01:37:08.880] Pleadings. [01:37:08.880 --> 01:37:11.880] Pleas of a minor. [01:37:11.880 --> 01:37:18.880] Plea of guilty or no look contender. [01:37:18.880 --> 01:37:19.880] Defendants, please. [01:37:19.880 --> 01:37:23.880] Article 45.023, Defendants, please. [01:37:23.880 --> 01:37:27.880] Subsection A, after the jury is impaneled, [01:37:27.880 --> 01:37:31.880] but after the defendant has waived trial by jury, [01:37:31.880 --> 01:37:36.880] the defendant may one, plead guilty or not guilty. [01:37:36.880 --> 01:37:39.880] Two, enter a plea of no contest. [01:37:39.880 --> 01:37:42.880] Or three, enter the special plea of double jeopardy, [01:37:42.880 --> 01:37:47.880] as described by Article 27.05. [01:37:47.880 --> 01:37:50.880] Okay. [01:37:50.880 --> 01:37:52.880] That's great. [01:37:52.880 --> 01:37:56.880] You know, it's nice to go meet these guys with a suit of armor. [01:37:56.880 --> 01:37:59.880] Or at least a good helmet. [01:37:59.880 --> 01:38:00.880] Yeah. [01:38:00.880 --> 01:38:04.880] Well, I'd rather go in with a bigger stick. [01:38:04.880 --> 01:38:05.880] Well, okay. [01:38:05.880 --> 01:38:07.880] Maybe you'll get one one day. [01:38:07.880 --> 01:38:08.880] Sounds to me like you're working on it pretty good. [01:38:08.880 --> 01:38:10.880] I've already got one. [01:38:10.880 --> 01:38:16.880] The statutes are my bigger stick because I know them and they don't. [01:38:16.880 --> 01:38:17.880] Right. [01:38:17.880 --> 01:38:21.880] That all goes back to what I was giving my diatribe over at the beginning. [01:38:21.880 --> 01:38:25.880] Taking the time and necessary effort needed to learn this stuff well [01:38:25.880 --> 01:38:30.880] enough to know how to use it properly. [01:38:30.880 --> 01:38:31.880] Yeah, it does. [01:38:31.880 --> 01:38:34.880] What if you have no idea how to use it? [01:38:34.880 --> 01:38:36.880] Yeah. [01:38:36.880 --> 01:38:42.880] It takes a lot of time and effort, and I'm starting to put a, [01:38:42.880 --> 01:38:46.880] I don't know, a second oomph into mine. [01:38:46.880 --> 01:38:52.880] I know I got errors in all of my work, but at least it's still working. [01:38:52.880 --> 01:38:55.880] Like a flat tire, but it's still on the car. [01:38:55.880 --> 01:38:59.880] So put some air in it, I guess. [01:38:59.880 --> 01:39:01.880] Well, good luck. [01:39:01.880 --> 01:39:02.880] All right. [01:39:02.880 --> 01:39:03.880] You have a good evening. [01:39:03.880 --> 01:39:04.880] Thank you. [01:39:04.880 --> 01:39:05.880] Yes, sir. [01:39:05.880 --> 01:39:06.880] Thanks for calling. [01:39:06.880 --> 01:39:07.880] You bet. [01:39:07.880 --> 01:39:08.880] Bye-bye. [01:39:08.880 --> 01:39:09.880] Bye-bye. [01:39:09.880 --> 01:39:10.880] All right. [01:39:10.880 --> 01:39:12.880] Now we have Carl in Oregon. [01:39:12.880 --> 01:39:14.880] Truth Raiders. [01:39:14.880 --> 01:39:16.880] Two questions, Eddie. [01:39:16.880 --> 01:39:17.880] Okay. [01:39:17.880 --> 01:39:20.880] Have you seen the video online? [01:39:20.880 --> 01:39:23.880] I sent you a couple emails a few times about it. [01:39:23.880 --> 01:39:27.880] I didn't see it online over what? [01:39:27.880 --> 01:39:31.880] Oregon Law Enforcement is acting in fraud because it's been deceived by a [01:39:31.880 --> 01:39:33.880] turkey lawyer. [01:39:33.880 --> 01:39:36.880] Nine-minute video on YouTube. [01:39:36.880 --> 01:39:37.880] Okay. [01:39:37.880 --> 01:39:39.880] What about it? [01:39:39.880 --> 01:39:40.880] Have you watched it? [01:39:40.880 --> 01:39:41.880] No. [01:39:41.880 --> 01:39:43.880] Okay. [01:39:43.880 --> 01:39:45.880] Could you watch it? [01:39:45.880 --> 01:39:46.880] Not right this minute. [01:39:46.880 --> 01:39:47.880] Would you watch it? [01:39:47.880 --> 01:39:51.880] No, well, when you get a chance to, would you watch it? [01:39:51.880 --> 01:39:52.880] I don't know. [01:39:52.880 --> 01:39:56.880] It depends on what it looks like it's saying or not saying. [01:39:56.880 --> 01:40:00.880] Well, it's basically saying that the attorneys have screwed everything up. [01:40:00.880 --> 01:40:04.880] Well, we already know that my entire dive round at the beginning was this. [01:40:04.880 --> 01:40:05.880] Right. [01:40:05.880 --> 01:40:08.880] But it breaks it down and makes it simple. [01:40:08.880 --> 01:40:14.880] The wearer in the senate, at the state senate where they have these group of [01:40:14.880 --> 01:40:19.880] lawyers and one main lawyer that goes in there and changes the sense of the [01:40:19.880 --> 01:40:21.880] meaning of the statutes. [01:40:21.880 --> 01:40:22.880] Yeah. [01:40:22.880 --> 01:40:24.880] It's called the statutory revision committee. [01:40:24.880 --> 01:40:25.880] What about them? [01:40:25.880 --> 01:40:26.880] Okay. [01:40:26.880 --> 01:40:27.880] That's what I say. [01:40:27.880 --> 01:40:31.880] That's still not telling me what benefit this video is. [01:40:31.880 --> 01:40:33.880] That's information I've already got. [01:40:33.880 --> 01:40:36.880] So what is the benefit of the video? [01:40:36.880 --> 01:40:37.880] See if it does. [01:40:37.880 --> 01:40:40.880] If you agree with it. [01:40:40.880 --> 01:40:42.880] If you agree with it. [01:40:42.880 --> 01:40:46.880] That's why I want you to take a view and see if this falls in line with your work [01:40:46.880 --> 01:40:51.880] and say that's a good video that explains exactly what I'm talking about. [01:40:51.880 --> 01:40:55.880] That's what I wanted to see if you would look at it and see if you agree with it. [01:40:55.880 --> 01:40:58.880] If I get time, I'll see what I can find out. [01:40:58.880 --> 01:40:59.880] Okay. [01:40:59.880 --> 01:41:07.880] Number two, have you posted on the tower of law my victory that I had in the court [01:41:07.880 --> 01:41:10.880] last year where they found me not guilty because the city could not prove it's [01:41:10.880 --> 01:41:11.880] certain? [01:41:11.880 --> 01:41:12.880] No. [01:41:12.880 --> 01:41:17.880] Because a lot of my case work files got destroyed when windows corrupted one of my [01:41:17.880 --> 01:41:20.880] drives and that happened to be the one that all of that was on it. [01:41:20.880 --> 01:41:24.880] All of my case documents and everything are wiped out from my cases. [01:41:24.880 --> 01:41:29.880] All the cases I've been working on past, it's just all gone. [01:41:29.880 --> 01:41:30.880] Okay. [01:41:30.880 --> 01:41:32.880] All right. [01:41:32.880 --> 01:41:36.880] I got a so-called trial coming up on March 27. [01:41:36.880 --> 01:41:39.880] I went to the mailbox and got the notice. [01:41:39.880 --> 01:41:40.880] And it's the same thing. [01:41:40.880 --> 01:41:45.880] The computer generated the same language, same wording, everything that the judge [01:41:45.880 --> 01:41:47.880] denied my motion to dismiss. [01:41:47.880 --> 01:41:53.880] And it set a trial for March 27 at 9.30 a.m. in my local municipal court. [01:41:53.880 --> 01:41:55.880] So that's what's going on right now with that. [01:41:55.880 --> 01:41:59.880] From the November 29, unlawful seizure by the officer. [01:41:59.880 --> 01:42:05.880] Now, once again, I'm going to hammer hard with the seven interrogatories because it's [01:42:05.880 --> 01:42:07.880] considered civil and practice here in Oregon. [01:42:07.880 --> 01:42:12.880] Actually, the commercial civil and practice and allegations is what they truly are in [01:42:12.880 --> 01:42:15.880] the definition of its entirety. [01:42:15.880 --> 01:42:16.880] That's what it is. [01:42:16.880 --> 01:42:18.880] We have none to do with that. [01:42:18.880 --> 01:42:25.880] But I'm going to hammer home where did the officer have any jurisdiction or [01:42:25.880 --> 01:42:27.880] terrible probable cause of any criminal... [01:42:27.880 --> 01:42:29.880] The jurisdiction is irrelevant. [01:42:29.880 --> 01:42:32.880] You bring up jurisdiction, you're stepping in a bear trap. [01:42:32.880 --> 01:42:33.880] Don't do that. [01:42:33.880 --> 01:42:41.880] The question is, where were the facts supporting probable cause to suspect a crime? [01:42:41.880 --> 01:42:42.880] Okay. [01:42:42.880 --> 01:42:44.880] To accuse someone of a crime. [01:42:44.880 --> 01:42:46.880] I guess I should say, don't say suspect. [01:42:46.880 --> 01:42:52.880] Where is the articulable facts supporting probable cause to see someone at their [01:42:52.880 --> 01:42:55.880] liberty without a warrant? [01:42:55.880 --> 01:42:59.880] Or actual evidence of a crime? [01:42:59.880 --> 01:43:04.880] Subsequent to this, because I was looking to find a parking lot because I was [01:43:04.880 --> 01:43:06.880] riding up a street that has a bike lane. [01:43:06.880 --> 01:43:12.880] So I can't even pull over and stop without parking any bike lane. [01:43:12.880 --> 01:43:15.880] This guy sees my truck. [01:43:15.880 --> 01:43:21.880] So does he have any standings for doing that when I try to explain to him that I'm [01:43:21.880 --> 01:43:25.880] trying to pull over into the parking lot just around the corner there so I'm safe. [01:43:25.880 --> 01:43:27.880] And you're safe and we're all safe. [01:43:27.880 --> 01:43:29.880] He claims that I cannot do that. [01:43:29.880 --> 01:43:32.880] I have to pull to the right of the road immediately. [01:43:32.880 --> 01:43:35.880] Well, I don't know where the law says that. [01:43:35.880 --> 01:43:38.880] Does the law say must immediately do so? [01:43:38.880 --> 01:43:44.880] Does it give a specific difference about what constitutes immediately? [01:43:44.880 --> 01:43:45.880] It's general. [01:43:45.880 --> 01:43:48.880] It generally says that you should be responsible to the right. [01:43:48.880 --> 01:43:49.880] Okay. [01:43:49.880 --> 01:43:53.880] The thing about it is you need to ask y'all, could you please for us tell us what the [01:43:53.880 --> 01:43:55.880] law defines as immediately? [01:43:55.880 --> 01:43:59.880] We'll be right back after this break. [01:43:59.880 --> 01:44:04.880] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area [01:44:04.880 --> 01:44:05.880] of nutrition. [01:44:05.880 --> 01:44:08.880] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. [01:44:08.880 --> 01:44:10.880] And it's time we changed all that. [01:44:10.880 --> 01:44:16.880] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:16.880 --> 01:44:21.880] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, [01:44:21.880 --> 01:44:25.880] young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:25.880 --> 01:44:29.880] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, [01:44:29.880 --> 01:44:31.880] most of which we reject. [01:44:31.880 --> 01:44:33.880] We have come to trust Jevity so much. [01:44:33.880 --> 01:44:39.880] We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:39.880 --> 01:44:42.880] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, [01:44:42.880 --> 01:44:47.880] your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:44:47.880 --> 01:44:51.880] As you realize the benefits of Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:44:51.880 --> 01:44:56.880] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, [01:44:56.880 --> 01:44:58.880] and increase your income. [01:44:58.880 --> 01:45:00.880] Order now. [01:45:00.880 --> 01:45:03.880] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:03.880 --> 01:45:07.880] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. [01:45:07.880 --> 01:45:13.880] The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, [01:45:13.880 --> 01:45:15.880] step by step. [01:45:15.880 --> 01:45:18.880] To have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:18.880 --> 01:45:22.880] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:22.880 --> 01:45:27.880] Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too. [01:45:27.880 --> 01:45:33.880] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. [01:45:33.880 --> 01:45:38.880] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand [01:45:38.880 --> 01:45:42.880] about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:42.880 --> 01:45:48.880] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [01:45:48.880 --> 01:45:51.880] pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:51.880 --> 01:45:55.880] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner. [01:45:55.880 --> 01:46:13.880] Or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:25.880 --> 01:46:42.880] All right, folks, we are back. This is rule of law radio. [01:46:42.880 --> 01:46:47.880] We are now in the final segment of the show, and we are speaking with truth raider in Oregon. [01:46:47.880 --> 01:46:49.880] All right, Raider, go ahead. [01:46:49.880 --> 01:46:52.880] Okay, thank you, Eddie. I won't take much more of your time. [01:46:52.880 --> 01:46:57.880] Now, you said on the show last week after I called, you're talking to another caller. [01:46:57.880 --> 01:47:02.880] We'll call later in the show, and you told the caller that the action of the officer [01:47:02.880 --> 01:47:08.880] impounding your conveyance was a retaliatory act. That's all it is. It's retaliation. [01:47:08.880 --> 01:47:15.880] If it's not being seized as evidence of a crime, and it's going to be used for that purpose, [01:47:15.880 --> 01:47:21.880] what lawful authority does the officer have to seize the property? Absolutely none. [01:47:21.880 --> 01:47:26.880] The law does not give him that power, so why is he doing it? [01:47:26.880 --> 01:47:31.880] By what authority is he doing it? [01:47:31.880 --> 01:47:38.880] Since he lacks both, there is no other conclusion to be made other than it being retaliatory. [01:47:38.880 --> 01:47:53.880] Okay, because I won a case last year, and of course I got an inbound reverse last year, and I got reimbursed for the fees for that, the city claim responsibility, and reimbursed my fees. [01:47:53.880 --> 01:47:57.880] The release fee and the penalty, they reimbursed me for it last year. [01:47:57.880 --> 01:48:07.880] So I feel, I don't have any evidence to support and prove that, but I feel that this is an act of retaliation. [01:48:07.880 --> 01:48:12.880] Again, was it taken for the purpose of evidence? No. [01:48:12.880 --> 01:48:16.880] Then what you feel is fricking irrelevant. All right. [01:48:16.880 --> 01:48:27.880] The fact is, he cannot produce a law that said he could tell it. The fact is, the law does not exist that says he could tell it under those conditions and circumstances. [01:48:27.880 --> 01:48:33.880] Unless, leaving it where it was, presented a public safety hazard. [01:48:33.880 --> 01:48:42.880] Okay. It was in a bike lane. He trapped me in the bike lane. [01:48:42.880 --> 01:48:43.880] And? [01:48:43.880 --> 01:48:45.880] So with that, give him authority. With that, grant him authority. [01:48:45.880 --> 01:48:48.880] I don't know. I'm not an organ. [01:48:48.880 --> 01:48:51.880] Okay. [01:48:51.880 --> 01:48:56.880] I'll have to figure those things out. Okay. That's it. That's all I've got. Good night, and God bless. [01:48:56.880 --> 01:49:00.880] All right. Have a good one. [01:49:00.880 --> 01:49:06.880] All right. Now, last minute of the edition here, we have John in New York. John, what can I do for you? [01:49:06.880 --> 01:49:10.880] Hi, Randy. Hi, Ed. Sorry about that. [01:49:10.880 --> 01:49:14.880] Hi, Jennifer. I'll be John. [01:49:14.880 --> 01:49:21.880] Okay. Here we go. This will take about a minute since I last spoke with you. [01:49:21.880 --> 01:49:27.880] Since I last spoke with you. By the way, we can't hear your audio very clearly. You're like you're waiting in the background. [01:49:27.880 --> 01:49:33.880] I don't know why that is, but okay. Okay. Well, I can hear the other callers real good. All right. [01:49:33.880 --> 01:49:39.880] Since I last spoke with you and Randy, I found new information that may make all the difference in the world. [01:49:39.880 --> 01:49:42.880] This is about that seat belt ticket case that went to trial. [01:49:42.880 --> 01:49:43.880] Okay. [01:49:43.880 --> 01:49:51.880] All right. The ticket says no seat belt. The cop got up during the trial court and changed the material fact by saying, [01:49:51.880 --> 01:49:58.880] now did I say that right? He changed the material fact by saying, and I'm quoting word for word from the officer, [01:49:58.880 --> 01:50:05.880] it was later determined the defendant may very well have been wearing the seat belt, [01:50:05.880 --> 01:50:11.880] but it was worn improperly under the left arm instead of over the chest. [01:50:11.880 --> 01:50:15.880] So that's what the cop said during the trial court. [01:50:15.880 --> 01:50:25.880] Again, do either set of conditions authorize a stop in the issuance of a citation? [01:50:25.880 --> 01:50:31.880] Does the statute specifically address the issue of improper use? [01:50:31.880 --> 01:50:35.880] Well, let me get to that. Let me get to that. [01:50:35.880 --> 01:50:47.880] I got this set up so that we'll get to that too. All right. Now, I just found two cases with the same precisely exact situation as mine. [01:50:47.880 --> 01:50:53.880] The defendant was wearing the seat belt under the left arm instead of across the chest. [01:50:53.880 --> 01:51:01.880] The tickets in all cases, in those both cases rather, were dismissed and the defendant won the case. [01:51:01.880 --> 01:51:05.880] There were two cases exactly like mine, totally parallel. [01:51:05.880 --> 01:51:13.880] It was in the city court, city of Watertown, New York, and the same situation happened. [01:51:13.880 --> 01:51:22.880] The woman that was ticketed, it's people versus lock, L-O-C-K-E, and the woman said, [01:51:22.880 --> 01:51:28.880] I wore it under my left arm officer because it's more comfortable for me there. [01:51:28.880 --> 01:51:42.880] Now, somewhere either in the law or somewhere in the case, there was mention that one size fits all isn't a real great situation. [01:51:42.880 --> 01:51:50.880] And I think that has something to do with the reason why the judge dismissed those tickets in both those cases. [01:51:50.880 --> 01:51:54.880] Now, is that, those cases going to help me? [01:51:54.880 --> 01:51:58.880] Can that municipal court set precedent for other courts? [01:51:58.880 --> 01:52:03.880] Okay. Now, I can barely understand you because you're very garbled. [01:52:03.880 --> 01:52:10.880] I said, can that municipal court set precedent for other municipal courts? [01:52:10.880 --> 01:52:15.880] Yeah, that's what I'm asking. [01:52:15.880 --> 01:52:20.880] I highly doubt it. [01:52:20.880 --> 01:52:24.880] Oh, so those cases are not going to help me? [01:52:24.880 --> 01:52:31.880] No, but what would help you is the answer to my question. [01:52:31.880 --> 01:52:33.880] Okay. [01:52:33.880 --> 01:52:40.880] If you have actually gone and read the statute in question, you should already have the answer too. [01:52:40.880 --> 01:52:45.880] Yeah, I read it 30 times and it doesn't say anything about that. [01:52:45.880 --> 01:52:50.880] It doesn't say anything about improper use or improper wearing of a seat belt. [01:52:50.880 --> 01:52:51.880] Nope. [01:52:51.880 --> 01:52:52.880] Okay. [01:52:52.880 --> 01:52:55.880] Then the officer has no legal basis for the ticket. [01:52:55.880 --> 01:52:58.880] End of discussion. [01:52:58.880 --> 01:53:01.880] Okay, and I think I know the reason for that. [01:53:01.880 --> 01:53:06.880] The reason is the officer is interpreting the law instead of enforcing it is my right. [01:53:06.880 --> 01:53:08.880] No, he's not interpreting anything. [01:53:08.880 --> 01:53:12.880] There's nothing there on that specific subject to interpret. [01:53:12.880 --> 01:53:19.880] He is creating law of his own will and now he wants it to work and he can't do that. [01:53:19.880 --> 01:53:22.880] Okay, now here's what I wrote up. [01:53:22.880 --> 01:53:24.880] This will take one minute. [01:53:24.880 --> 01:53:26.880] The charge on the ticket is no seat belt. [01:53:26.880 --> 01:53:28.880] This is for the appeals court. [01:53:28.880 --> 01:53:30.880] The charge on the ticket is no seat belt. [01:53:30.880 --> 01:53:39.880] The burden of proof is with the plaintiff to first prove the evidence or charge against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. [01:53:39.880 --> 01:53:43.880] The accuser has to show proof of his claims and charges. [01:53:43.880 --> 01:53:52.880] How could the officer prove the charge no seat belt beyond a reasonable doubt when the officer, by his own testimony in trial court, [01:53:52.880 --> 01:53:55.880] changed the material facts causing an injury? [01:53:55.880 --> 01:53:57.880] Okay, wait a minute. [01:53:57.880 --> 01:53:59.880] Is this on appeal? [01:53:59.880 --> 01:54:01.880] This is for appeal, yeah. [01:54:01.880 --> 01:54:03.880] Okay. [01:54:03.880 --> 01:54:10.880] Again, what you have the ability to defend against on appeal depends upon what you did at trial to make the record. [01:54:10.880 --> 01:54:20.880] There was one very straightforward question that could have been asked of the officer to submit the law as it is written [01:54:20.880 --> 01:54:26.880] and to make sure that the appellate court couldn't do anything but say overturn the case. [01:54:26.880 --> 01:54:29.880] Okay, and here is that question. [01:54:29.880 --> 01:54:40.880] Officer, by your testimony, you have admitted that the person was wearing the seat belt, yes or no? [01:54:40.880 --> 01:54:42.880] And he would have said yes. [01:54:42.880 --> 01:54:45.880] Bingo, end of discussion. [01:54:45.880 --> 01:54:48.880] There's nothing else to ask. [01:54:48.880 --> 01:54:54.880] You turn to the court and go, judge, right here, the officer has admitted no law was broken. [01:54:54.880 --> 01:54:57.880] Therefore, there is no legal controversy. [01:54:57.880 --> 01:55:04.880] Therefore, we demand a finding and a directed verdict for the defense. [01:55:04.880 --> 01:55:06.880] Well, what happened was exactly that. [01:55:06.880 --> 01:55:11.880] The defendant turned to the judge and said, I was wearing my seat belt. [01:55:11.880 --> 01:55:13.880] The cop even said so. [01:55:13.880 --> 01:55:16.880] Why are we here? [01:55:16.880 --> 01:55:23.880] And the idea was that the cop said you weren't wearing it properly. [01:55:23.880 --> 01:55:24.880] That was the excuse. [01:55:24.880 --> 01:55:25.880] Now, you and I both know. [01:55:25.880 --> 01:55:38.880] And again, officer, can you please point to the section of statute that deals with the allegation of improper use or wearing of a seat belt? [01:55:38.880 --> 01:55:44.880] Again, very simple, very direct question that the officer did not have a legal basis to answer. [01:55:44.880 --> 01:55:46.880] You win. [01:55:46.880 --> 01:55:54.880] Well, we lost even though the defendant brought up the fact that first the cop said no seat belt. [01:55:54.880 --> 01:55:56.880] Are you listening to me at all? [01:55:56.880 --> 01:55:59.880] I know what you said the defendant brought up. [01:55:59.880 --> 01:56:02.880] I'm telling you what you should have done to address it. [01:56:02.880 --> 01:56:05.880] Now, whether you did it or not, something different. [01:56:05.880 --> 01:56:08.880] Now, supposing we didn't do it. [01:56:08.880 --> 01:56:10.880] And what I'm saying happened. [01:56:10.880 --> 01:56:16.880] Did you do the second thing I'm talking about just now? [01:56:16.880 --> 01:56:17.880] I didn't. [01:56:17.880 --> 01:56:18.880] I'm not the defendant. [01:56:18.880 --> 01:56:20.880] You know what I'm asking, John? [01:56:20.880 --> 01:56:23.880] Did the defendant do what I'm talking about? [01:56:23.880 --> 01:56:26.880] Well, let me tell you what the defendant did. [01:56:26.880 --> 01:56:27.880] Hold on. [01:56:27.880 --> 01:56:34.880] Give me a second. [01:56:34.880 --> 01:56:41.880] I can answer your question. [01:56:41.880 --> 01:56:46.880] Basically, this is quote, word for word, what the defendant told the judge. [01:56:46.880 --> 01:56:49.880] Basically, Your Honor, I didn't feel I'm guilty. [01:56:49.880 --> 01:56:51.880] I was wearing my seat belt. [01:56:51.880 --> 01:56:56.880] Mr. Jackson, my witness, saw me wearing my seat belt as I pointed out already. [01:56:56.880 --> 01:57:07.880] There's no way that Officer Smith could have seen that running down the side of the seat in the way he described it after he changed his reasoning for giving me a ticket. [01:57:07.880 --> 01:57:10.880] First, the ticket says I wasn't wearing a seat belt. [01:57:10.880 --> 01:57:13.880] And I had proof that I was wearing my seat belt properly. [01:57:13.880 --> 01:57:17.880] Then he changed it to say I wasn't wearing it properly. [01:57:17.880 --> 01:57:20.880] It was running down under my arm. [01:57:20.880 --> 01:57:27.880] So he recognized that I was wearing the seat belt one way or the other. [01:57:27.880 --> 01:57:33.880] That's the answer to the first response from the cop. [01:57:33.880 --> 01:57:49.880] When the judge didn't give the directed verdict or the cop went back and changed the testimony to say improper use through his language, did you address it the second way I just said? [01:57:49.880 --> 01:57:53.880] Nothing in what you read to me says you did. [01:57:53.880 --> 01:57:57.880] Okay, then that's the answer. I just answered you. [01:57:57.880 --> 01:58:06.880] Okay, so the point here being that if you're not going to follow through and cover everything that the witness is doing, then why are you there in the first place? [01:58:06.880 --> 01:58:10.880] You've got to be able to fight everything they're doing. [01:58:10.880 --> 01:58:13.880] And everything the judge is trying to ensure they get away with. [01:58:13.880 --> 01:58:18.880] Because when you don't address it, the appellate court's not going to address it. [01:58:18.880 --> 01:58:28.880] So I hope that what you've got will work because your record only reflects the fact that there is nothing that the officer admitted you were wearing the seat belt. [01:58:28.880 --> 01:58:39.880] If there's nothing in the statute dealing with that, but it was never addressing court, you're going to have a hard time making that argument to the appeals court because it's not in the evidence of trial. [01:58:39.880 --> 01:58:42.880] That's all I got time for, John. I'm out of it. [01:58:42.880 --> 01:58:48.880] All right, man, y'all have a great week. I want to thank y'all for listening. Have a great week. Good night and God bless. [01:59:12.880 --> 01:59:19.880] At 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:19.880 --> 01:59:29.880] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:29.880 --> 01:59:32.880] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:32.880 --> 01:59:49.880] To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.