[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.000 --> 00:10.000]  U.S. envoys and lawmakers have warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai
[00:10.000 --> 00:12.000]  that American patience is running out,
[00:12.000 --> 00:16.000]  citing concerns about allegations of fraud and corruption
[00:16.000 --> 00:20.000]  and attempts to prejudge the outcome of last week's election.
[00:20.000 --> 00:24.000]  An unnamed former senior Scottish police officer says
[00:24.000 --> 00:27.000]  he planted the bomb timer fragment at the crash site
[00:27.000 --> 00:32.000]  of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing by order of the CIA,
[00:32.000 --> 00:37.000]  and Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer who is a crucial witness,
[00:37.000 --> 00:42.000]  has now confessed he lied about the origins of a timer switch.
[00:42.000 --> 00:47.000]  Fidel Castro has accused the U.S. of seeking to overthrow Venezuela's government
[00:47.000 --> 00:51.000]  and establish power through its future military bases in Colombia.
[00:51.000 --> 00:56.000]  Castro said Washington's only purpose is the ability to put U.S. troops in South America
[00:56.000 --> 00:58.000]  in a matter of hours.
[00:58.000 --> 01:06.000]  The U.S. insists the bases are aimed at fighting drug gangs and left-wing rebels.
[01:06.000 --> 01:09.000]  Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that AHIP,
[01:09.000 --> 01:14.000]  the multi-million dollar lobbying giant for the health insurance industry,
[01:14.000 --> 01:19.000]  has mobilized 50,000 employees to lobby Congress to defeat the public option
[01:19.000 --> 01:21.000]  in the new health care bill.
[01:21.000 --> 01:27.000]  The website Think Progress has learned AHIP's grassroots lobbying is being managed
[01:27.000 --> 01:31.000]  by the corporate consulting firm Democracy Data and Communications.
[01:31.000 --> 01:37.000]  DDC has made a name for itself as one of the most effective stealth lobbying firms.
[01:37.000 --> 01:42.000]  Earlier this summer, DDC was caught by reporters using a front group called
[01:42.000 --> 01:47.000]  Citizens for a Safe Alexandria to attack the Obama administration
[01:47.000 --> 01:52.000]  for seeking to prosecute Guantanamo prisoners in Alexandria, Virginia.
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  DDC promises high-impact outreach programs that influence the grassroots
[01:57.000 --> 02:00.000]  and change attitudes for the long term.
[02:00.000 --> 02:05.000]  According to the Washington Post, DDC pays over 500 contract workers
[02:05.000 --> 02:10.000]  to telephone people around the country asking them to sign letters to Congress,
[02:10.000 --> 02:13.000]  the press for legislation.
[02:13.000 --> 02:18.000]  Economist Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says the flood of debt the U.S. is taking on
[02:18.000 --> 02:23.000]  to rescue the economy will combine with huge social insurance obligations,
[02:23.000 --> 02:26.000]  Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,
[02:26.000 --> 02:30.000]  to create an unsustainable level of public indebtedness.
[02:30.000 --> 02:35.000]  Faced with this mountain of debt, Hummel says policy makers have just two choices,
[02:35.000 --> 02:39.000]  repudiate the debt or engage in hyperinflation.
[02:39.000 --> 02:43.000]  And faced with that choice, the Treasury will likely protect the currency
[02:43.000 --> 02:45.000]  and default on Treasuries.
[02:45.000 --> 02:50.000]  Hummel says a more likely outcome is that the U.S. will make good on Treasury debt
[02:50.000 --> 02:54.000]  but repudiate soft obligations like Social Security and Medicare.
[02:54.000 --> 03:09.000]  I've got to tell you one thing right now, Texas is a terrible place to be.
[03:09.000 --> 03:10.000]  No, it's a terrible state.
[03:10.000 --> 03:11.000]  I mean, it looks like a tumor.
[03:11.000 --> 03:14.000]  Yeah, we have nothing to do with Texas, it's people in the organizations,
[03:14.000 --> 03:16.000]  like the loony libertarians, what are they called?
[03:16.000 --> 03:18.000]  Texas for cerebral insanity.
[03:18.000 --> 03:19.000]  No, no, Texas for accountable schmoozing.
[03:19.000 --> 03:21.000]  Texas for accountable government.
[03:21.000 --> 03:24.000]  We don't do anything to promote them in any way, never do any radio,
[03:24.000 --> 03:27.000]  public service announcements, especially when they got this party coming up
[03:27.000 --> 03:29.000]  this Friday at 7 p.m.
[03:29.000 --> 03:30.000]  Oh, yeah, with Jimmy Vaughn?
[03:30.000 --> 03:32.000]  Yeah, Jimmy Vaughn's going to play the part.
[03:32.000 --> 03:35.000]  Yeah, I don't know, sexy blue stuff, I mean, he could be like Billy Joel,
[03:35.000 --> 03:36.000]  Bon Jovi if you like the hot stuff.
[03:36.000 --> 03:38.000]  Now you're talking, now you're talking.
[03:38.000 --> 03:41.000]  So whatever you do, don't show up to the United States Art Authority
[03:41.000 --> 03:43.000]  at Spider House Cafe this Friday at 7 p.m.
[03:43.000 --> 03:45.000]  Tell me where it is so I don't go there.
[03:45.000 --> 03:49.000]  It's 510 West 29th and Bruce.
[03:49.000 --> 03:50.000]  Bruce?
[03:50.000 --> 03:51.000]  I've been waiting for a while.
[03:51.000 --> 03:53.000]  I'm going to tell you something, if they want 20 bucks at the door,
[03:53.000 --> 03:55.000]  if I can say Bruce 10 times fast, they should let me in for free.
[03:55.000 --> 03:56.000]  Oh, those cheap skates.
[03:56.000 --> 03:58.000]  Whatever you do, don't go to tagtexas.org for more info.
[03:58.000 --> 04:02.000]  I'll definitely.
[04:02.000 --> 04:08.000]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[04:08.000 --> 04:12.000]  Live free speech talk radio at its best.
[04:12.000 --> 04:22.000]  Thank you.
[04:22.000 --> 04:27.000]  I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind
[04:27.000 --> 04:31.000]  There was something so terrible about that place
[04:31.000 --> 04:39.000]  Even your emotions had an echo in so much space
[04:39.000 --> 04:44.000]  Without care, without care, yeah, I was out of touch
[04:44.000 --> 04:49.000]  But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
[04:49.000 --> 04:54.000]  I just knew too much
[04:54.000 --> 05:13.000]  That that makes me crazy
[05:13.000 --> 05:20.000]  And all that you have is time of your life
[05:20.000 --> 05:24.000]  But think why
[05:24.000 --> 05:25.000]  Okay, we're back.
[05:25.000 --> 05:28.000]  Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[05:28.000 --> 05:31.000]  Except it's just Randy Kelton tonight.
[05:31.000 --> 05:35.000]  Maybe Craig will show up here pretty soon.
[05:35.000 --> 05:38.000]  Okay, we're back.
[05:38.000 --> 05:42.000]  We were talking to Jerry from Oregon.
[05:42.000 --> 05:43.000]  Yep.
[05:43.000 --> 05:47.000]  Okay, we were, I was trying to look up something on the break,
[05:47.000 --> 05:57.000]  I was talking about this, the rest of mine here in Austin
[05:57.000 --> 06:03.000]  And we were talking about constitutional violations
[06:03.000 --> 06:11.000]  Well, when they arrested me, the first thing they did was
[06:11.000 --> 06:17.000]  The officer ordered me to leave an office and put his hand on me
[06:17.000 --> 06:21.000]  I called that aggravated assault
[06:21.000 --> 06:24.000]  But it wasn't a constitutional violation
[06:24.000 --> 06:31.000]  It was statutory out of the penal code
[06:31.000 --> 06:38.000]  Then the officer wanted to ask me questions and I refused to answer the questions
[06:38.000 --> 06:45.000]  And frankly, the first officer that I told him I didn't want to talk to him, big black guy
[06:45.000 --> 06:50.000]  And when he walked in the door, I looked at him and I said to myself
[06:50.000 --> 06:54.000]  That is a proud man and he was
[06:54.000 --> 06:56.000]  He come over and asked me questions
[06:56.000 --> 06:59.000]  But this is after the officer wouldn't let me leave
[06:59.000 --> 07:01.000]  The first officer wouldn't let me leave the building
[07:01.000 --> 07:06.000]  Because he wanted to check my license and such and I gave him some of a hard time
[07:06.000 --> 07:10.000]  And the second officer showed up and he wanted to ask me questions
[07:10.000 --> 07:12.000]  I told him I'm not answering questions
[07:12.000 --> 07:14.000]  He said, but I need to ask you some questions
[07:14.000 --> 07:17.000]  I said, you can ask me what you want to, I'm not going to answer
[07:17.000 --> 07:20.000]  He asked, he started to say something again
[07:20.000 --> 07:26.000]  I said, look, what part of I do not want to talk to you do you not understand?
[07:26.000 --> 07:32.000]  And he stepped back and looked at me a minute and he said, Mr. Kelton, I understand you perfectly
[07:32.000 --> 07:35.000]  But I can talk all I want to
[07:35.000 --> 07:39.000]  He said, okay, you talk, I'll ignore
[07:39.000 --> 07:43.000]  I was writing a criminal complaint against the other officer
[07:43.000 --> 07:45.000]  And the officer did nothing
[07:45.000 --> 07:47.000]  He stopped asking me questions
[07:47.000 --> 07:50.000]  He did his job like he was supposed to
[07:50.000 --> 07:56.000]  And then a sergeant showed up later and when I wouldn't talk to him, he lost it
[07:56.000 --> 08:01.000]  When I told him what part of I do not want to talk to you do you not understand
[08:01.000 --> 08:03.000]  He grabbed me and smashed my face in the wall
[08:03.000 --> 08:06.000]  That was aggravated assault, but it wasn't constitutional
[08:06.000 --> 08:14.000]  What was constitutional was that I refused to talk to him and was arrested for that reason
[08:14.000 --> 08:17.000]  That was constitutional
[08:17.000 --> 08:20.000]  Then he took me to jail
[08:20.000 --> 08:29.000]  And they subjected me to punishment prior to being charged with a crime
[08:29.000 --> 08:40.000]  Now the police are allowed to hold you for a reasonable amount of time that it takes to get you before a magistrate
[08:40.000 --> 08:43.000]  But they are not allowed to punish you
[08:43.000 --> 08:49.000]  And this is one of the arguments I make in all of my standard motions
[08:49.000 --> 08:55.000]  They run you through the booking process as a matter of course
[08:55.000 --> 09:01.000]  And it was not intended that you be subjected to that humiliation
[09:01.000 --> 09:10.000]  That's why 14.06 commands the officer to take you directly to the nearest magistrate
[09:10.000 --> 09:18.000]  Because if he finds no probable cause, which he would in this case, then he'd tell me to go home
[09:18.000 --> 09:25.000]  But they won't get a 99.6% conviction rate doing it that way
[09:25.000 --> 09:29.000]  They've got to make you afraid of them
[09:29.000 --> 09:34.000]  You may beat the time, but you won't beat the ride
[09:34.000 --> 09:37.000]  They've got to give you the ride
[09:37.000 --> 09:42.000]  Well, part of the reason I was asking is because when I read the article itself
[09:42.000 --> 09:48.000]  I noticed that there's only one period in the whole paragraph and it's at the very end
[09:48.000 --> 09:55.000]  And the rule of grammar is that from start to finish it's a complete thought
[09:55.000 --> 10:00.000]  That all of the elements are described within one paragraph
[10:00.000 --> 10:07.000]  And that dictates what you're to understand from reading it
[10:07.000 --> 10:10.000]  What article are you talking about?
[10:10.000 --> 10:20.000]  Article 6, in all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial
[10:20.000 --> 10:26.000]  by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
[10:26.000 --> 10:31.000]  which district shall have been previously ascertained by law
[10:31.000 --> 10:36.000]  and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
[10:36.000 --> 10:43.000]  to be confronted with the witness against him semicolon to have a compulsory process
[10:43.000 --> 10:52.000]  for obtaining witnesses in his favor, comma, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, period
[10:52.000 --> 10:59.000]  Well, the semicolons actually separate independent clauses
[10:59.000 --> 11:12.000]  with an implied dependent clause from the first sentence attached to each subsequent independent clause
[11:12.000 --> 11:14.000]  Does that make sense?
[11:14.000 --> 11:23.000]  So isn't it all inclusive from start to finish that that's a process or a form of due process described?
[11:23.000 --> 11:35.000]  Yeah, it's real clear that all of those items indicated are absolutely required in every criminal prosecution
[11:35.000 --> 11:42.000]  So at what point from your arrest does it qualify as a criminal prosecution?
[11:42.000 --> 11:49.000]  At the point when the officer first put his hand on me
[11:49.000 --> 11:52.000]  And wouldn't that be a battery?
[11:52.000 --> 11:55.000]  Aggravated assault
[11:55.000 --> 11:56.000]  Aggravated assault
[11:56.000 --> 12:05.000]  The way I read it in Texas, the act of placing his hand on me in a way that was intended
[12:05.000 --> 12:09.000]  such that it was intended I would find it offensive
[12:09.000 --> 12:13.000]  He intended that I find it threatening
[12:13.000 --> 12:19.000]  And he committed that act while displaying a deadly weapon
[12:19.000 --> 12:25.000]  The way I read the penal code in the state of Texas, that's aggravated assault
[12:25.000 --> 12:30.000]  It would normally be a second degree felony except that
[12:30.000 --> 12:37.000]  At the time he was a public official acting under color of authority
[12:37.000 --> 12:42.000]  He ordered me to leave an office and he had no authority to do so
[12:42.000 --> 12:46.000]  That makes it a first degree felony
[12:46.000 --> 12:50.000]  I just talked to my attorney today and told him Monday we're going to have us
[12:50.000 --> 12:55.000]  If they decide to go ahead and have the hearing it's going to be a hoot
[12:55.000 --> 12:57.000]  I can't wait to hear about it
[12:57.000 --> 13:06.000]  Because, Eddie Craig, I hope he gets on soon, he found something in the Texas Administrative Code
[13:06.000 --> 13:17.000]  In the Texas Administrative Code it stipulates the authority of the Texas Department of Public Safety
[13:17.000 --> 13:30.000]  They have authority to enforce the Federal Motor Carrier Act and the State Motor Carrier Act or Transportation Code
[13:30.000 --> 13:37.000]  And in the Texas Administrative Code that gives them this authority
[13:37.000 --> 13:50.000]  It specifically states the Department of Public Safety officers may not enforce criminal law
[13:50.000 --> 13:58.000]  Except while assisting a sheriff or other policing agency at their request
[13:58.000 --> 14:02.000]  Now that is a special statute
[14:02.000 --> 14:07.000]  When I told the attorney that he said well they're certified police officers
[14:07.000 --> 14:09.000]  I said yes they are
[14:09.000 --> 14:17.000]  But the legislature saw fit to specifically restrict their authority in this way
[14:17.000 --> 14:21.000]  So it must be construed as a special statute
[14:21.000 --> 14:29.000]  Yo bubba show me where you got subject matter jurisdiction to put your hand on me
[14:29.000 --> 14:33.000]  Whilst displaying that deadly weapon
[14:33.000 --> 14:35.000]  They got a problem
[14:35.000 --> 14:41.000]  And okay that goes to due process and that's fatal
[14:41.000 --> 14:49.000]  The reason it's fatal is once the actor becomes a criminal
[14:49.000 --> 14:59.000]  At any point from arrest or from the first meeting, first interaction
[14:59.000 --> 15:03.000]  To the time I'm out of his hands
[15:03.000 --> 15:14.000]  If he violates any due process right he becomes a trespasser ab initio from the beginning and all his acts are defeated
[15:14.000 --> 15:19.000]  Fortunately in Texas, Texas has great law
[15:19.000 --> 15:24.000]  I've looked at other states that New Mexico is the worst law I've ever seen
[15:24.000 --> 15:27.000]  But Texas has great law
[15:27.000 --> 15:30.000]  Statute that says 3823
[15:30.000 --> 15:41.000]  Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says that a court may not consider evidence secured in violation of law
[15:41.000 --> 15:45.000]  When the officer first put his hand on me he violated law
[15:45.000 --> 15:50.000]  Everything else is forbidden to be used by the court
[15:50.000 --> 15:53.000]  But it wasn't constitutional
[15:53.000 --> 15:56.000]  But it was aggravated assault
[15:56.000 --> 16:07.000]  Okay well I was just kind of curious about that distinction between the two and where one jurisdiction ends or begins and the other one starts
[16:07.000 --> 16:12.000]  I'll just go ahead and listen to you talk about the structural errors I guess
[16:12.000 --> 16:15.000]  Okay thank you
[16:15.000 --> 16:21.000]  The thing I want to go to next is malpractice
[16:21.000 --> 16:25.000]  I'm going to go through the elements of malpractice
[16:25.000 --> 16:29.000]  When I first read this book I was astounded
[16:29.000 --> 16:33.000]  At all of the things you can do to your attorney
[16:33.000 --> 16:38.000]  Nobody who's an attorney read this book before they became an attorney
[16:38.000 --> 16:40.000]  Or they wouldn't have done it
[16:40.000 --> 16:44.000]  Okay we're going to break
[16:44.000 --> 16:50.000]  I think I may just skip this break if I can figure out how to do it
[16:50.000 --> 16:54.000]  Okay it may be too late
[16:54.000 --> 16:58.000]  I'm running the show tonight so
[16:58.000 --> 17:03.000]  I've got to tell you one thing right now Texas is a terrible place to be
[17:03.000 --> 17:04.000]  Oh I can't think
[17:04.000 --> 17:06.000]  No it's a terrible state
[17:06.000 --> 17:07.000]  I mean it looks like a tumor
[17:07.000 --> 17:12.000]  Yeah we have nothing to do with Texas it's people and organizations like the loony libertarians what are they called?
[17:12.000 --> 17:14.000]  Oh Texans for cerebral insanity
[17:14.000 --> 17:16.000]  No Texans for accountable schmoozeries
[17:16.000 --> 17:17.000]  Texans for accountable government
[17:17.000 --> 17:20.000]  There you go we would never do anything to promote them in any way
[17:20.000 --> 17:22.000]  Never do any radio public service announcements
[17:22.000 --> 17:25.000]  Especially when they've got this party coming up this Friday at 7pm
[17:25.000 --> 17:27.000]  Oh yeah with Jimmy Vaughn
[17:27.000 --> 17:28.000]  Yeah Jimmy Vaughn's going to play the party
[17:28.000 --> 17:30.000]  Yeah I don't know the sexy blue stuff I mean
[17:30.000 --> 17:33.000]  Give me like Billy Joel and Bon Jovi if you like the hot stuff
[17:33.000 --> 17:34.000]  Now you're talking now you're talking
[17:34.000 --> 17:40.000]  So whatever you do don't show up to the United States Art Authority at Spider House Cafe this Friday at 7pm
[17:40.000 --> 17:42.000]  Tell me where it is so I don't go there
[17:42.000 --> 17:46.000]  It's 510 West 29th and Fruit
[17:46.000 --> 17:47.000]  Fruit?
[17:47.000 --> 17:48.000]  Fruit
[17:48.000 --> 17:50.000]  Well I'm going to tell you something they want 20 bucks at the door
[17:50.000 --> 17:52.000]  If I can say Fruit 10 times faster they should let me in for free
[17:52.000 --> 17:53.000]  Oh those cheap skates
[17:53.000 --> 17:55.000]  Whatever you do don't go to tagtexas.org for more info
[17:55.000 --> 17:57.000]  I'll definitely not
[18:19.000 --> 18:22.000]  Okay we're back I kind of screwed that one up
[18:22.000 --> 18:29.000]  I made a minor there's a switch to turn off the break and I was too late to get to it
[18:29.000 --> 18:34.000]  Anyway what I wanted to go to was
[18:34.000 --> 18:40.000]  The legal of the liability theories under malpractice
[18:40.000 --> 18:46.000]  When I first read this book I was astounded at all of the things that
[18:46.000 --> 18:52.000]  Subjected the attorney to potential litigation
[18:52.000 --> 18:57.000]  Okay the traditional element
[18:57.000 --> 19:03.000]  Okay the most common basis of lawyer liability is negligence
[19:03.000 --> 19:10.000]  Indeed the Texas Supreme Court has stated an attorney malpractice action in Texas is based on negligence
[19:10.000 --> 19:15.000]  So they kind of group everything into negligence
[19:15.000 --> 19:20.000]  The traditional elements of negligence of a negligence suit
[19:20.000 --> 19:25.000]  Applying a malpractice suit against a lawyer the plaintiff must prove that
[19:25.000 --> 19:30.000]  There is a duty owed to him by the defendant
[19:30.000 --> 19:32.000]  A breach of that duty
[19:32.000 --> 19:39.000]  That the breach approximately caused the plaintiff injury and that damages occurred
[19:39.000 --> 19:44.000]  That's the cause of action for negligence
[19:44.000 --> 19:51.000]  And one thing that a lot of proceeds miss is when you file a civil suit
[19:51.000 --> 19:58.000]  That it's not you don't just go in there and say well the dirty rat he did this and he did that and did the other
[19:58.000 --> 20:04.000]  Filing a civil suit is sort of like filing a criminal complaint they're both complaints
[20:04.000 --> 20:10.000]  In a criminal complaint you accuse the person of violating a statute
[20:10.000 --> 20:16.000]  In a civil complaint you accuse the person of violating a cause of action
[20:16.000 --> 20:19.000]  And they're all defined
[20:19.000 --> 20:27.000]  So you have to state a cause of action that's been defined by the court for which the court can grant relief
[20:27.000 --> 20:35.000]  That's why so many pro se civil litigants hear this
[20:35.000 --> 20:39.000]  Petitioner makes no claim on which recovery can be had
[20:39.000 --> 20:46.000]  It's not that he didn't give evidence and facts that would support a claim
[20:46.000 --> 20:51.000]  It's that he didn't make the claim under a cause of action
[20:51.000 --> 20:55.000]  So the primary one for attorneys is negligence
[20:55.000 --> 21:00.000]  And now I'm going to go through some of the
[21:00.000 --> 21:05.000]  Errors that the attorney can make and be sued for
[21:05.000 --> 21:09.000]  Statue of limitations
[21:09.000 --> 21:17.000]  See failure to sue the correct party before the limitations ran
[21:17.000 --> 21:21.000]  Termination of the lawyer-client relationship after 16 months of inaction by the lawyer
[21:21.000 --> 21:26.000]  But 77 days before limitations ran still raised a fact issue
[21:26.000 --> 21:32.000]  As to whether adequate time remained for another lawyer to take the case
[21:32.000 --> 21:36.000]  Failure to file a timely dissenting shareholder suit
[21:36.000 --> 21:38.000]  Let me go to the next one
[21:38.000 --> 21:42.000]  Drafting transaction documents
[21:42.000 --> 21:50.000]  Lawyer drafted a business separation agreement that was not immune from attack
[21:50.000 --> 21:54.000]  Ken Magnuson had someone sent to him once
[21:54.000 --> 21:59.000]  This was a couple that had
[21:59.000 --> 22:04.000]  They had CC's restaurants and they had accumulated six of them
[22:04.000 --> 22:08.000]  And they sold them to someone
[22:08.000 --> 22:13.000]  And paid an attorney $30,000 to write a contract
[22:13.000 --> 22:19.000]  And he did not include the restaurants as collateral
[22:19.000 --> 22:24.000]  So the guy bought the place, paid for it about six months and just quit paying for it
[22:24.000 --> 22:28.000]  And there was nothing these people could do
[22:28.000 --> 22:33.000]  By the time they got to Ken, it was too late to sue the attorney, they had waited too long
[22:33.000 --> 22:39.000]  But the attorney was potentially liable for everything that was lost
[22:39.000 --> 22:45.000]  Okay, error in title examination
[22:45.000 --> 22:48.000]  I'll go down, there's some more that are a lot more interesting than this
[22:48.000 --> 22:51.000]  Error in counseling the client
[22:51.000 --> 23:00.000]  Advising clients to consummate a standby contract thereby exposing clients to liability on an earlier contract
[23:00.000 --> 23:06.000]  Failure to inform a client of a right to share a military retirement benefits
[23:06.000 --> 23:12.000]  Failure to provide proper legal advice regarding a tax shelter
[23:12.000 --> 23:19.000]  Error in advice concerning whether the client had the right to rescind an arbitration agreement
[23:19.000 --> 23:24.000]  Failure to present required notification on a note acceleration
[23:24.000 --> 23:31.000]  Failure to notify a mortgager of a mortgagee's intent to accelerate a note
[23:31.000 --> 23:37.000]  I remember, I was in the county attorney's office once and we were talking about bar grievances
[23:37.000 --> 23:43.000]  And he said, oh yeah, he gets a copy of all the bar grievances that are filed against criminal attorneys
[23:43.000 --> 23:46.000]  And I thought that was odd because it's supposed to be secret
[23:46.000 --> 23:49.000]  But the prosecutor apparently gets them
[23:49.000 --> 23:54.000]  And he said he was looking through them and he said, oh oops, I did that, I did that
[23:54.000 --> 23:58.000]  He turns the page, oh yeah, I've done that, I've done that
[23:58.000 --> 24:01.000]  Everything in there he had done
[24:01.000 --> 24:08.000]  So these are things that attorneys do all the time, they just seldom get sued for it
[24:08.000 --> 24:14.000]  Failure to file a timely notice of intent to sue under the age of discrimination employment
[24:14.000 --> 24:24.000]  Failure to advise clients of the two-year time limit for presenting administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act
[24:24.000 --> 24:29.000]  Failure to appear in court on the day the case was set for trial
[24:29.000 --> 24:33.000]  Failure to pursue collection claims
[24:33.000 --> 24:36.000]  Failure to pursue collection of a note
[24:36.000 --> 24:41.000]  Failure to appear for trial of a worker's compensation suit
[24:41.000 --> 24:46.000]  Failure to prosecute a suit resulted in dismissal under local court rules
[24:46.000 --> 24:53.000]  I think if you don't move on something in six months, the court can dismiss for lack of prosecution
[24:53.000 --> 25:03.000]  Failure to pursue a medical malpractice suit, a divorce suit, and a suit recover property
[25:03.000 --> 25:07.000]  Failure to raise defenses
[25:07.000 --> 25:12.000]  Failure to raise the defense that a physician never examined the plaintiff
[25:12.000 --> 25:17.000]  Failure to file a verified answer denying partnership
[25:17.000 --> 25:25.000]  A number of times I've looked at people's cases and attorneys have filed answers that weren't verified
[25:25.000 --> 25:27.000]  Verified means notarized
[25:27.000 --> 25:33.000]  No verification, no answer, it's garbage
[25:33.000 --> 25:40.000]  Lawyer filed suit against the wrong party and did not discover the error until after limitations ran
[25:40.000 --> 25:45.000]  Failure to have counsel appointed for an absent defendant in adoption case
[25:45.000 --> 25:51.000]  Failure to sue proper parties before limitations ran
[25:51.000 --> 25:54.000]  Failure to investigate
[25:54.000 --> 26:01.000]  Failure to investigate to identify the proper party to be sued
[26:01.000 --> 26:10.000]  Delay in investigation of a claim deprived the client of witnesses, evidence, and testimony
[26:10.000 --> 26:18.000]  Failure to file a verified answer denying partnership resulted in a settlement higher than necessary
[26:18.000 --> 26:23.000]  Failure to file pleadings alleging existence of separate property in a divorce case
[26:23.000 --> 26:33.000]  This one, failure to file a verified answer denying partnership resulted in a settlement higher than necessary
[26:33.000 --> 26:41.000]  That looks like if you don't win as big as you expected to win and you can find anything the attorney didn't do right
[26:41.000 --> 26:46.000]  You get to sue him for what you lost
[26:46.000 --> 26:48.000]  Error in complying with discovery
[26:48.000 --> 26:51.000]  I've never seen an attorney comply with discovery
[26:51.000 --> 26:56.000]  Failure to respond timely to a request for production of documents
[26:56.000 --> 27:03.000]  Failure to produce documents at depositions and failure to comply with pretrial deadlines
[27:03.000 --> 27:09.000]  I think every attorney I've ever had anything to deal with or even talked about violated this one
[27:09.000 --> 27:21.000]  And I haven't read this case yet but it looks like they sued the other attorney for malpractice
[27:21.000 --> 27:29.000]  Failure to submit interrogatories, requests for admission and requests for abductions and failure to take or attend depositions
[27:29.000 --> 27:36.000]  Failure to notify client of an agreed deposition
[27:36.000 --> 27:43.000]  In the case that I was just working on where they just arrested the guy, this attorney did all of this just about
[27:43.000 --> 27:54.000]  Failure to comply with an order to file a cost bond and filing a defective motion to reinstate the case
[27:54.000 --> 27:58.000]  Withdrawal or termination of counsel
[27:58.000 --> 28:07.000]  Termination of lawyer-client relationship 77 days after limitation ran raised question of fact concerning rather sufficient time
[28:07.000 --> 28:11.000]  Unexplained withdrawal after an arbitration hearing
[28:11.000 --> 28:17.000]  So it appears you can sue the attorney if he withdraws from your case
[28:17.000 --> 28:27.000]  Failure to inform the client that the lawyer would not handle the suit during a time when the lawyer was representing the client in other matters
[28:27.000 --> 28:35.000]  Well that's interesting, so if I have an attorney and he's representing me in one matter
[28:35.000 --> 28:41.000]  And I assume he's going to represent another and he doesn't tell me, I get to sue him?
[28:41.000 --> 28:45.000]  Oh great
[28:45.000 --> 28:56.000]  Failure to present sufficient evidence to allow the wife in a divorce case to recover a larger share of the community in separate estates
[28:56.000 --> 29:05.000]  So it's not enough for the attorney to win, he has to win as big as he could win
[29:05.000 --> 29:11.000]  Oh this could be a lot of fun
[29:11.000 --> 29:17.000]  Allegation of unspecified negligent acts during trial
[29:17.000 --> 29:23.000]  So I can sue him for unspecified negligent acts, I'm sure that's going to have to be a little more specific
[29:23.000 --> 29:30.000]  Alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in the lawyers fail to call material witnesses in a criminal trial
[29:30.000 --> 29:35.000]  I think every defense attorney would get that one
[29:35.000 --> 29:40.000]  Okay we're going to go to break, call lines are open
[29:40.000 --> 29:57.000]  Randy Kelton, David Stevens, food law, we'll be back
[29:57.000 --> 30:03.000]  I got to tell you one thing right now, Texas is a terrible place to be
[30:03.000 --> 30:04.000]  Oh I can't stand it
[30:04.000 --> 30:05.000]  It's a terrible state
[30:05.000 --> 30:07.000]  I mean it looks like a tumor
[30:07.000 --> 30:12.000]  Yeah we have nothing to do with Texas, it's people in the organizations, like the loony libertarians, what are they called?
[30:12.000 --> 30:14.000]  Oh Texas for cerebral insanity
[30:14.000 --> 30:16.000]  No no, Texans for accountable schmoozy
[30:16.000 --> 30:17.000]  Texans for accountable government
[30:17.000 --> 30:22.000]  There you go, we would never do anything to promote them in any way, never do any radio public service announcements
[30:22.000 --> 30:25.000]  Especially when they got this party coming up this Friday at 7pm
[30:25.000 --> 30:27.000]  Oh yeah with Jimmy Vaughn
[30:27.000 --> 30:28.000]  Yeah Jimmy Vaughn is going to play the part
[30:28.000 --> 30:30.000]  Yeah I don't know, sexy blue stuff by me
[30:30.000 --> 30:33.000]  Jimmy like Billy Joel, Bon Jovi if you like the hard stuff
[30:33.000 --> 30:34.000]  Now you're talking, now you're talking
[30:34.000 --> 30:40.000]  So whatever you do, don't show up to the United States Art Authority at Spider House Cafe this Friday at 7pm
[30:40.000 --> 30:42.000]  Tell me where it is so I don't go there
[30:42.000 --> 30:45.000]  It's 510 West 29th and Fruits
[30:45.000 --> 30:46.000]  Fruits?
[30:46.000 --> 30:47.000]  Fruits
[30:47.000 --> 30:49.000]  Well I'm about to tell you something, they want 20 bucks at the door?
[30:49.000 --> 30:51.000]  If I can say Fruits 10 times faster they should let me in for free
[30:51.000 --> 30:55.000]  All those cheap skates, whatever you do, don't go to TechTexas.org for more info
[30:55.000 --> 31:07.000]  I'll definitely not
[31:25.000 --> 31:48.000]  Okay we're back, Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law
[31:48.000 --> 31:53.000]  Debra and Eddie are away at the moment
[31:53.000 --> 32:02.000]  Debra's at a meeting at the courthouse in Austin and Eddie's in transit
[32:02.000 --> 32:05.000]  He should be on, coming and going shortly
[32:05.000 --> 32:11.000]  The call lines are open, if you have any questions call in to 646-1984
[32:11.000 --> 32:15.000]  I'm sorry, 512-646-1984
[32:15.000 --> 32:21.000]  We have a caller
[32:21.000 --> 32:27.000]  Okay your area code is unscreened so the area code is 909
[32:27.000 --> 32:29.000]  Are you there, can you hear me?
[32:29.000 --> 32:30.000]  Yeah, can you hear me?
[32:30.000 --> 32:32.000]  I certainly can
[32:32.000 --> 32:35.000]  Are we going to be on air live or are you screening call?
[32:35.000 --> 32:38.000]  We're not, nobody's screening tonight, you're on air live
[32:38.000 --> 32:43.000]  Just your first name and what state you're from?
[32:43.000 --> 32:47.000]  I'm from, my name's Shane, I'm from California
[32:47.000 --> 32:50.000]  Okay good, do you have a question or comment?
[32:50.000 --> 33:02.000]  Well I was wondering if you do take dive in calling questions regarding, we had a sheriff into our property three nights ago
[33:02.000 --> 33:05.000]  Okay, purpose?
[33:05.000 --> 33:06.000]  What's that?
[33:06.000 --> 33:09.000]  Purpose of entry?
[33:09.000 --> 33:16.000]  They were looking for a felon rape suspect, they believed to be in the house
[33:16.000 --> 33:17.000]  Which was
[33:17.000 --> 33:23.000]  Okay, were they in hot pursuit?
[33:23.000 --> 33:29.000]  They didn't notify that, they arrived, I was in the hospital and my friend called me from his house
[33:29.000 --> 33:33.000]  with sheriffs outside and wanted to know what we should do
[33:33.000 --> 33:36.000]  I told them to go outside and ask them what they wanted
[33:36.000 --> 33:41.000]  and I could hear the cop over the phone and he said
[33:41.000 --> 33:47.000]  Who's here tonight, who's in the house, who else is in the house, we want inside the house
[33:47.000 --> 33:54.000]  I told my friend not to let him in, tell him not without a warrant
[33:54.000 --> 33:58.000]  He said that to the sheriff
[33:58.000 --> 34:07.000]  The sheriff says, he handed the phone to me and I repeated it to the sheriff to not enter the house
[34:07.000 --> 34:17.000]  Anyway, this goes back and forth, I get hung up on, I call back, Oscar's panicked, he doesn't know what to do
[34:17.000 --> 34:20.000]  I tell him don't let him in, it's really important
[34:20.000 --> 34:29.000]  He walked outside the door and locked it behind him and they took him into custody, or rather detention
[34:29.000 --> 34:37.000]  The sheriff then called me back on the phone, on Oscar's phone, and is demanding entry
[34:37.000 --> 34:41.000]  He wants to get in, they think he's a felon suspect
[34:41.000 --> 34:46.000]  I tell him I'm in the hospital, I can't give him entry
[34:46.000 --> 34:52.000]  Oscar's there, it's his house, he said no, I heard him say it
[34:52.000 --> 34:58.000]  He said well we're going to get a warrant, we're writing one right now for felon rape suspects in your house
[34:58.000 --> 35:02.000]  We have a complaint, blah blah blah
[35:02.000 --> 35:06.000]  I'm kind of streamlining it a little bit
[35:06.000 --> 35:11.000]  Then he hangs up on me, this is all around 2 to 3 in the morning
[35:11.000 --> 35:21.000]  Around 7 the next morning, I have the sheriff call me back
[35:21.000 --> 35:34.000]  He's got a warrant, they're inside the house, and he wants me to come down and answer some questions
[35:34.000 --> 35:37.000]  I refuse to, I tell him I need to speak to my lawyer first
[35:37.000 --> 35:43.000]  He said okay, no problem, he hangs up on me
[35:43.000 --> 35:50.000]  Also in that conversation, he said I asked what the warrant was for
[35:50.000 --> 35:54.000]  He says for culpability of marijuana
[35:54.000 --> 35:59.000]  My question is can they change the warrant like that?
[35:59.000 --> 36:03.000]  Is the first warrant disputable?
[36:03.000 --> 36:06.000]  They can lie to you
[36:06.000 --> 36:07.000]  That's what I'm getting
[36:07.000 --> 36:14.000]  They came by and claimed they were looking for a felon
[36:14.000 --> 36:18.000]  They probably knew there was no felon in there
[36:18.000 --> 36:23.000]  But they would think you would know there's no felon in there
[36:23.000 --> 36:27.000]  So no problem, you come look for a felon, you're not going to find a felon
[36:27.000 --> 36:30.000]  They really weren't looking for the felon
[36:30.000 --> 36:33.000]  They were looking for the cultivation lawyer I wanted to start with
[36:33.000 --> 36:38.000]  And they were trying to schmooze you into letting them into the house
[36:38.000 --> 36:41.000]  And you did everything right
[36:41.000 --> 36:43.000]  Thank you
[36:43.000 --> 36:45.000]  I haven't been charged with anything
[36:45.000 --> 36:48.000]  It's been like over a week
[36:48.000 --> 36:54.000]  But my friend who was in the house has been charged with cultivation
[36:54.000 --> 36:58.000]  Everyone we've talked to, the attorneys, the medical marijuana advocates
[36:58.000 --> 37:01.000]  We both have a prescription or a doctor's recommendation
[37:01.000 --> 37:06.000]  They all say that the cultivation charge is beatable, winnable
[37:06.000 --> 37:16.000]  But he has this one other charge called manufacture of concentrated cannabis
[37:16.000 --> 37:22.000]  And they all say he's probably going to have to take a year or hit on that
[37:22.000 --> 37:28.000]  I'm not familiar with the nature of that charge, of concentrated cannabis
[37:28.000 --> 37:34.000]  It's like an oil I guess, a hash oil concentrate of the plant
[37:34.000 --> 37:41.000]  It's lawful to have in California as a medicine
[37:41.000 --> 37:45.000]  He has his recommendation, it's all lawful
[37:45.000 --> 37:50.000]  Except for the actual charge is manufacture
[37:50.000 --> 37:56.000]  And everyone we've spoken to said that that might be a heavy hit
[37:56.000 --> 38:01.000]  That it might be illegal
[38:01.000 --> 38:06.000]  Anyway, I was real concerned about their entry
[38:06.000 --> 38:10.000]  Is it beatable if they have to articulate it somehow?
[38:10.000 --> 38:15.000]  Yeah, if they had a warrant, it makes no difference what they told you
[38:15.000 --> 38:20.000]  Always assume that if a police officer's mouth is moving, he's lying
[38:20.000 --> 38:24.000]  Because he's been authorized to lie to you
[38:24.000 --> 38:29.000]  So you always have to assume he is, and you handled that right
[38:29.000 --> 38:32.000]  Thank you
[38:32.000 --> 38:38.000]  But if you could have coaxed them into coming in without a warrant
[38:38.000 --> 38:47.000]  Even though you objected, then anything they found would have been inadmissible
[38:47.000 --> 38:53.000]  But since you forced them to get a warrant, it will probably be admissible
[38:53.000 --> 38:58.000]  Depending on how they knew it was there
[38:58.000 --> 39:01.000]  What their probable cause for the warrant was
[39:01.000 --> 39:07.000]  You may want to think about a Frank's hearing on the warrant
[39:07.000 --> 39:09.000]  Without a what on the warrant?
[39:09.000 --> 39:10.000]  A Frank's hearing
[39:10.000 --> 39:22.000]  A Frank's hearing is a hearing for the purpose of determining the veracity of the statement by the officer seeking the warrant
[39:22.000 --> 39:24.000]  Oh, okay
[39:24.000 --> 39:32.000]  So do you know how they knew it was there?
[39:32.000 --> 39:35.000]  Wouldn't they have to articulate that in the...
[39:35.000 --> 39:41.000]  Oh, what I left out was that we bailed out this friend of ours a couple days ago
[39:41.000 --> 39:45.000]  And the actual warrant we got a copy was for the felon rape suspect
[39:45.000 --> 39:47.000]  It wasn't for the commission
[39:47.000 --> 39:49.000]  They changed it
[39:49.000 --> 39:51.000]  So wouldn't they have to articulate...
[39:51.000 --> 39:55.000]  Wait a minute, wait a minute, they changed the warrant?
[39:55.000 --> 40:01.000]  Yeah, they entered, they went there looking for a felon suspect in the house basically
[40:01.000 --> 40:06.000]  When they entered the house, did they give you a copy of the warrant?
[40:06.000 --> 40:08.000]  I wasn't there, I was in the hospital
[40:08.000 --> 40:09.000]  No, whoever was there
[40:09.000 --> 40:16.000]  Right, but I didn't see it until I bailed the defendant out
[40:16.000 --> 40:26.000]  And he had the copy with him and it's marked suspected felon suspect on premise or something to that effect
[40:26.000 --> 40:28.000]  And it was for the rape thing
[40:28.000 --> 40:32.000]  So they entered the house looking for that suspect
[40:32.000 --> 40:44.000]  But when I spoke to the second detective later that morning around 7, 7.30, he said it was for cultivating a marijuana
[40:44.000 --> 40:46.000]  He said it was for it
[40:46.000 --> 40:55.000]  Okay, what you're going to get is the complaint is going to be for cultivating
[40:55.000 --> 41:03.000]  The supposed felon that they were looking for, is this someone that you know?
[41:03.000 --> 41:07.000]  No, no
[41:07.000 --> 41:10.000]  We haven't seen their evidence or we haven't had a chance
[41:10.000 --> 41:13.000]  It's not set, the arrangement's not set until 7.30
[41:13.000 --> 41:17.000]  Okay, that's what a Frank's hearing's for
[41:17.000 --> 41:20.000]  They've seen the veracity of the officer's statement
[41:20.000 --> 41:23.000]  Yeah, so that's a pretty slick maneuver
[41:23.000 --> 41:27.000]  You come along and you say, hey, we think there's a felon in there
[41:27.000 --> 41:32.000]  They just make up a felon's name or they just pick a name out of nowhere
[41:32.000 --> 41:44.000]  Now what you want to see is the articulatable evidence they have to give them cause to believe a felon is in your place
[41:44.000 --> 41:46.000]  That would be the Frank's statement
[41:46.000 --> 41:49.000]  That's what the Frank's hearing is for
[41:49.000 --> 41:57.000]  And if they don't have it, they don't have a warrant, everything they found is inadmissible
[41:57.000 --> 42:09.000]  The couple of attorneys we've spoken to are telling us that the victim, the supposed rape victim is all confidential
[42:09.000 --> 42:15.000]  They're confidential informants that we want them to get to
[42:15.000 --> 42:21.000]  So they're claiming that a rape victim, that's real convenient
[42:21.000 --> 42:23.000]  Sounds real convenient
[42:23.000 --> 42:28.000]  Yeah, a rape victim claims a felon's in your house
[42:28.000 --> 42:33.000]  This needs a Frank's hearing in camera
[42:33.000 --> 42:37.000]  For the judge to examine the evidence in camera
[42:37.000 --> 42:43.000]  It's nighttime service, it's like at 2, 3 a.m. in the morning
[42:43.000 --> 42:47.000]  When was the warrant issued? Does it have a time?
[42:47.000 --> 42:48.000]  August 24
[42:48.000 --> 42:51.000]  That means have a time?
[42:51.000 --> 42:54.000]  Oh yeah, it's like around 4.26 a.m.
[42:54.000 --> 43:02.000]  First phone call I got when they first were on property was like around 2 o'clock in the morning
[43:02.000 --> 43:11.000]  And they were at least 20 yards onto the property, it was a remote piece of property to even be at the door
[43:11.000 --> 43:18.000]  And I heard my friends say get off the property and I said it to them
[43:18.000 --> 43:28.000]  And they were there for, well till around 4.30 roughly, on property trying to get their warrant
[43:28.000 --> 43:35.000]  Oh and another thing, we had video cameras, four cameras recording
[43:35.000 --> 43:38.000]  Okay, okay, hold on, we're about to go to break
[43:38.000 --> 43:41.000]  Hold on, we'll be back on the other side
[43:41.000 --> 43:45.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig, Wheel of Law
[43:45.000 --> 43:48.000]  We'll be back shortly
[44:15.000 --> 44:16.000]  I take this for accountable schmooze
[44:16.000 --> 44:17.000]  I take this for accountable gubbas
[44:17.000 --> 44:20.000]  There you go, we would never do anything to promote them in any way
[44:20.000 --> 44:22.000]  Never do any radio public service announcements
[44:22.000 --> 44:25.000]  Especially when they got this party coming up this Friday at 7 p.m.
[44:25.000 --> 44:27.000]  Oh yeah, with Jimmy Vaughn
[44:27.000 --> 44:28.000]  Yeah, Jimmy Vaughn's gonna play the part
[44:28.000 --> 44:30.000]  Yeah, I don't know, it's sexy blue stuff, I mean
[44:30.000 --> 44:33.000]  It could be like Billy Joel's, Bon Jovi if you like the hot stuff
[44:33.000 --> 44:34.000]  Now you're talking, now you're talking
[44:34.000 --> 44:37.000]  So whatever you do, don't show up to the United States Art Authority
[44:37.000 --> 44:40.000]  It's by the House Cafe this Friday at 7 p.m.
[44:40.000 --> 44:42.000]  Tell me where it is so I don't go there
[44:42.000 --> 44:46.000]  It's 510 West 29th and Fruits
[44:46.000 --> 44:47.000]  Fruits
[44:47.000 --> 44:48.000]  For a while I'm gonna tell you something
[44:48.000 --> 44:49.000]  They want 20 bucks at the door
[44:49.000 --> 44:51.000]  And if I can say Fruits 10 times fast, they should let me in for free
[44:51.000 --> 44:52.000]  On those cheap skates
[44:52.000 --> 44:55.000]  Whatever you do, don't go to tagtexas.org for more info
[44:55.000 --> 44:57.000]  I'll definitely not
[44:57.000 --> 45:12.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty
[45:12.000 --> 45:19.000]  I read his book and he says he cares not for the unsightly
[45:19.000 --> 45:28.000]  These warmongers come by that term rightly
[45:28.000 --> 45:31.000]  I won't pay for the war with my body
[45:31.000 --> 45:35.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money
[45:35.000 --> 45:38.000]  I won't pay for the fun with my body
[45:38.000 --> 45:42.000]  Their plans wicked and their logic shoddy
[45:42.000 --> 45:45.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the war with my body
[45:45.000 --> 45:49.000]  I won't pay for the boys with my money
[45:49.000 --> 45:53.000]  Ain't gonna pay for the kids with my body
[45:53.000 --> 45:56.000]  Their whole agenda smells funny
[45:56.000 --> 46:03.000]  I wanna fight in a war of my own
[46:03.000 --> 46:10.000]  That one would be less accepted as wrong
[46:10.000 --> 46:15.000]  I wanna pay for the war of my own
[46:40.000 --> 46:44.000]  Let me kill that music
[46:44.000 --> 46:47.000]  Okay
[46:47.000 --> 46:50.000]  The thing we want to find out
[46:50.000 --> 46:55.000]  You want to find out if the rape was real or they made it up
[46:55.000 --> 46:57.000]  Right, that's exactly what I'm thinking
[46:57.000 --> 47:03.000]  You might want to file a discovery
[47:03.000 --> 47:11.000]  Demand the dispatch logs for the sheriff's department that night
[47:11.000 --> 47:16.000]  You want to hear that the police were dispatched
[47:16.000 --> 47:19.000]  You want all 911 calls
[47:19.000 --> 47:20.000]  Right
[47:20.000 --> 47:30.000]  If this was a rape then it may be that the person came to the police station and didn't call 911
[47:30.000 --> 47:38.000]  The way you could tell is if she came to the police station and filed a report
[47:38.000 --> 47:44.000]  Then the officers had to be dispatched somehow
[47:44.000 --> 47:45.000]  Right
[47:45.000 --> 47:47.000]  And that would be on the dispatch tapes
[47:47.000 --> 47:49.000]  You would hear it, right?
[47:49.000 --> 47:50.000]  Yeah
[47:50.000 --> 47:58.000]  Would you also hear some sort of coordinated effort to know if they were there for something else?
[47:58.000 --> 47:59.000]  You'd hear the opposite
[47:59.000 --> 48:01.000]  Very good chance you will
[48:01.000 --> 48:17.000]  And what you want to do is insist that the dispatch logs have no deletions or redactions
[48:17.000 --> 48:23.000]  Because they really like to delete the part they don't want you to see or hear
[48:23.000 --> 48:24.000]  Right
[48:24.000 --> 48:33.000]  So you want the full log, complete log, so that you can run it and time it
[48:33.000 --> 48:35.000]  Okay
[48:35.000 --> 48:40.000]  And if they start cutting stuff out, the timing won't be right
[48:40.000 --> 48:44.000]  Right, you notice there's a tampering too, right?
[48:44.000 --> 48:47.000]  Yes, that would go to a pretty serious crime
[48:47.000 --> 48:55.000]  You can go online and do a search for veracity
[48:55.000 --> 48:56.000]  Is that it?
[48:56.000 --> 48:59.000]  Yeah, I think it's veracity 2
[48:59.000 --> 49:08.000]  That's a program that will let you take the tape and pull it up and look at the sound
[49:08.000 --> 49:12.000]  You can look at the sound itself
[49:12.000 --> 49:13.000]  Okay, once I have it
[49:13.000 --> 49:15.000]  Yeah, it's used for mastering
[49:15.000 --> 49:26.000]  But what you do with it is run it and watch it and see if you get any, you know, you got the sound going out and all of a sudden you get a break
[49:26.000 --> 49:27.000]  Alright, check now
[49:27.000 --> 49:33.000]  It looks like where they've cut and glued pieces together
[49:33.000 --> 49:44.000]  Right, and I've recorded my facts almost immediately, so I've got a pretty decent timeline and I have call records that I can maybe match up to when they arrive
[49:44.000 --> 49:46.000]  Good for you, you've done everything right
[49:46.000 --> 49:52.000]  That's the one thing people generally don't do is write everything down
[49:52.000 --> 49:57.000]  What was the name of that hearing, the Frank's hearing?
[49:57.000 --> 50:04.000]  A Frank's hearing, yes, and if you mention it to an attorney, he's probably not even going to know what it is
[50:04.000 --> 50:05.000]  Okay
[50:05.000 --> 50:15.000]  But it's a very specific hearing to determine if the officer who petitioned for the warrant lied or not
[50:15.000 --> 50:16.000]  So
[50:16.000 --> 50:19.000]  And that should be on video, huh?
[50:19.000 --> 50:23.000]  Not necessarily, they can petition for a warrant on the phone
[50:23.000 --> 50:37.000]  They probably went to the magistrate and there had to be a statement of probable cause, it should have been attached to the warrant
[50:37.000 --> 50:42.000]  Have you, you need to go look in the court record
[50:42.000 --> 50:46.000]  Go to the magistrate's office, whoever issued the warrant
[50:46.000 --> 50:48.000]  You can get this stuff this soon?
[50:48.000 --> 51:08.000]  Yeah, this is, well in Texas, the statute says that the magistrate who issues a warrant must make the warrant available for public inspection immediately after it is executed
[51:08.000 --> 51:20.000]  So this is all open record, this is all public record, the court will have it because the officer had to give it to the court in order for the court to find probable cause
[51:20.000 --> 51:21.000]  And that's
[51:21.000 --> 51:23.000]  The court case is filed in the patent
[51:23.000 --> 51:26.000]  Yeah, that's public record
[51:26.000 --> 51:30.000]  That he must release
[51:30.000 --> 51:39.000]  So, go to the magistrate, ask for the, you know, give him the warrant number, you want to see the statement of probable cause
[51:39.000 --> 51:48.000]  Now, I'm not sure about California law, but California is generally pretty thorough in these things
[51:48.000 --> 51:58.000]  In Texas, I'm sorry, in the Fed, they can phone in a request for a warrant
[51:58.000 --> 52:04.000]  But if they do, the magistrate has to record it
[52:04.000 --> 52:11.000]  So if he, if the magistrate doesn't have a written statement, they must have a recorded statement
[52:11.000 --> 52:14.000]  So it's a written or audio
[52:14.000 --> 52:19.000]  Yeah, so there has to be one or the other in the court record
[52:19.000 --> 52:23.000]  Okay, let us get, oh that's confidential, that's confidential
[52:23.000 --> 52:28.000]  Then call the police and ask them to arrest the magistrate
[52:28.000 --> 52:31.000]  Okay
[52:31.000 --> 52:40.000]  Actually, what I like to do, what works better is if the judge tells you or the clerk or anybody tells you that's confidential, say
[52:40.000 --> 52:47.000]  Wait right here, somebody's going to want to talk to you, I need to go get security, don't go away
[52:47.000 --> 52:52.000]  You don't want them calling security on you, which they'll do it in a heartbeat
[52:52.000 --> 52:55.000]  They'll use security to intimidate you
[52:55.000 --> 53:02.000]  So you go get security and say arrest her, now you've got security on the dime
[53:02.000 --> 53:12.000]  So to say anything or go to the magistrate would actually derive in court and check in with the clerk and have my name called
[53:12.000 --> 53:19.000]  No, no, no, you just go to the clerk, this is not a hearing or anything, you just go to the clerk and tell the clerk what you want
[53:19.000 --> 53:20.000]  She's got to give it to me
[53:20.000 --> 53:27.000]  Yep, she gives you any nonsense, then go get security, because you don't want her calling security so you'll get them first
[53:27.000 --> 53:32.000]  Go get security, tell them, come with me, I need you to arrest a criminal
[53:32.000 --> 53:35.000]  And that's going to get their attention
[53:35.000 --> 53:40.000]  And then when you take them over and point at the clerk and tell them arrest her
[53:40.000 --> 53:49.000]  Now you've really got their attention and you've got them on the dime, now they can't flex their muscles against you without it being retaliation
[53:49.000 --> 53:56.000]  It makes no difference whether your complaint is valid or not
[53:56.000 --> 54:01.000]  The fact that you're making a criminal accusation protects you
[54:01.000 --> 54:11.000]  If you're making a criminal complaint against a public official and they do anything to you, that's tampering with the witness
[54:11.000 --> 54:16.000]  What did she do to me, she refused to give me a public record
[54:16.000 --> 54:21.000]  She denied you in your constitutional right to a public court
[54:21.000 --> 54:23.000]  To a public what?
[54:23.000 --> 54:26.000]  Public court
[54:26.000 --> 54:30.000]  All courts shall be public
[54:30.000 --> 54:31.000]  Sure
[54:31.000 --> 54:37.000]  Every state's going to have that, that goes to the Sixth Amendment
[54:37.000 --> 54:52.000]  The right to a speedy public trial has been revved to mean everything in the court is public unless it is specifically restricted for cause shown
[54:52.000 --> 54:56.000]  So all the court records are absolutely public
[54:56.000 --> 55:01.000]  If she doesn't give it to you, go get security, ask them to arrest her
[55:01.000 --> 55:04.000]  They're obviously not going to arrest her
[55:04.000 --> 55:06.000]  Sure, but I've made the accusation
[55:06.000 --> 55:10.000]  But yeah, now you've really stirred up a stink
[55:10.000 --> 55:13.000]  Now they're all on the dime
[55:13.000 --> 55:16.000]  And they're jeopardized
[55:16.000 --> 55:22.000]  Everything's in jeopardy, you ask for the magistrate, go get the judge
[55:22.000 --> 55:25.000]  You make your complaint to the judge
[55:25.000 --> 55:32.000]  And the judge comes out, if he does, he'll want to run interference for his clerk
[55:32.000 --> 55:37.000]  And it depends on whether or not he gives you the documents
[55:37.000 --> 55:41.000]  Most likely he's going to give you the documents
[55:41.000 --> 55:45.000]  But what I'm talking about here is a posture
[55:45.000 --> 55:47.000]  Sure
[55:47.000 --> 55:52.000]  You're the sovereign, they have laws, they're bound to those laws
[55:52.000 --> 55:55.000]  And you don't particularly care if they like them or not
[55:55.000 --> 55:58.000]  You don't care if they want to abide by them or not
[55:58.000 --> 56:00.000]  Their problem, not your problem
[56:00.000 --> 56:04.000]  Your problem is that you have all these laws and they're required to follow them
[56:04.000 --> 56:07.000]  And they're not following them
[56:07.000 --> 56:12.000]  And it's perfectly acceptable, that's what security's there for
[56:12.000 --> 56:17.000]  Keep the peace, it makes no difference who breaches the peace
[56:17.000 --> 56:24.000]  Judge, I'm just writing about your stuff, okay
[56:24.000 --> 56:30.000]  Well, these archives should be up in an hour or so after we're done
[56:30.000 --> 56:34.000]  Unless Debra drinks too much wine at this meeting she's going to
[56:34.000 --> 56:37.000]  She may not put them up until in the morning
[56:37.000 --> 56:40.000]  But by tomorrow the archives will be up so you can pull them down
[56:40.000 --> 56:44.000]  And go through and pull this back out in case you miss something
[56:44.000 --> 56:48.000]  Is something maybe on a side note I can ask you real quick?
[56:48.000 --> 56:50.000]  Go ahead
[56:50.000 --> 56:56.000]  Have you heard of the UCC 102.7 issue or sovereignty thing?
[56:56.000 --> 57:03.000]  I don't have them memorized, is that the one about without prejudice?
[57:03.000 --> 57:04.000]  Yeah, without prejudice
[57:04.000 --> 57:05.000]  That's 207 I think
[57:05.000 --> 57:08.000]  Yeah, 207, 1207 or something
[57:08.000 --> 57:13.000]  Okay, I've heard a lot of people say that you have to invoke it
[57:13.000 --> 57:17.000]  And that doesn't sound right
[57:17.000 --> 57:23.000]  If it states that a contract is not a contract unless it's entered into
[57:23.000 --> 57:27.000]  With full disclosure, free of coercion
[57:27.000 --> 57:32.000]  Then that stands whether I invoke 207 or not
[57:32.000 --> 57:38.000]  So these guys who sign these documents with all rights reserved
[57:38.000 --> 57:41.000]  Your rights are reserved anyway
[57:41.000 --> 57:44.000]  So there may be some stipulation
[57:44.000 --> 57:49.000]  If there is, I don't know about it because the UCC is not what I do
[57:49.000 --> 57:56.000]  Right, my curiosity or understanding was that if you could take a broad jurisdiction
[57:56.000 --> 58:01.000]  By what social contract am I in
[58:01.000 --> 58:03.000]  I signed it, did I?
[58:03.000 --> 58:05.000]  Yeah, okay, we're going to go to break
[58:05.000 --> 58:08.000]  But we can address that when we come back
[58:08.000 --> 58:14.000]  Because you definitely are in a social contract
[58:14.000 --> 58:17.000]  Just by being in the state
[58:17.000 --> 58:21.000]  You're under contract to abide by the statutory laws of the state
[58:21.000 --> 58:24.000]  A lot of guys try to dance around it
[58:24.000 --> 58:27.000]  Okay, we're going to go to break
[58:27.000 --> 58:29.000]  We'll take this up when we come back on the other side
[58:29.000 --> 58:30.000]  Sure, thank you
[58:30.000 --> 58:36.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio
[58:36.000 --> 58:39.000]  Eddie Craig, he should be here soon
[58:39.000 --> 59:07.000]  Okay, we'll be right back
[59:09.000 --> 59:11.000]  Thank you
[59:39.000 --> 01:00:06.000]  Okay, we're back, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:09.000]  I made a boo-boo
[01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  Deborah's going to skin me alive
[01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:21.000]  You guys don't tell her I made that boo-boo
[01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:29.000]  Okay, let's try this again
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  Okay, I think I got it right this time
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  Okay, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law, we're back
[01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:42.000]  And I got in at the right time this time
[01:00:42.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  Okay, we're talking to Shane from California
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  There's something I would like to talk to you about in a moment
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  We have Dan from Connecticut
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:00:57.000]  I'd like to bring him up
[01:00:57.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  And Shane, I'd like you to hang on
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  I want to talk about cannabis
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  Sure
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  When I get done with Dan
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:11.000]  Hello, Dan, is this the real deal?
[01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:14.000]  I certainly hope so, and I'm calling in with good news
[01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  Oh, good, we can use that
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  You're probably in front of a computer
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:23.000]  You can go and look up the Green Party of Connecticut versus Garfield
[01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  Excellent decision just came down
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:29.000]  Green Party versus Garfield?
[01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  Yep, the Green Party of Connecticut versus Garfield
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  The libertarians participated in the suit as well
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  And we got rid of one of the most god-awful election laws on the face of the planet
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:46.000]  What state was that in?
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  This is in Connecticut
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  And essentially what it amounts to is it's public financing for campaigns, but it's skewed in such a way
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:02.000]  Where essentially it's a Democratic Incumbency Protection Plan
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:10.000]  And on its face, the judge indicated, it discriminates between major parties and minor parties
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  Where basically if you're a minor party, you have to go through so many hoops and you only get a third of the funding
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  But if you're a Republican or a Democrat and you show up, you'll pretty much get funded all the way
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  I remember you talking about this a while back
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  Yes, and it actually came out of the same court that told us it was too close to the election to reprint all the ballots even though we got enough signatures
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:46.000]  Was there a statutory time limit?
[01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:51.000]  Oh, on this particular, on either of those things, no
[01:02:51.000 --> 01:02:56.000]  The court in the case of the petitioning, they said it was just too close to the election
[01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  It was two weeks away when the case was all done
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:06.000]  But in terms of the funding thing, they basically went on First Amendment grounds
[01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:15.000]  And they were basically saying to participate in this program, not only did it favor the incumbents and the major parties
[01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:24.000]  But to participate and to actually get funding, you have to limit your spending
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:29.000]  Wait a minute, the minor party has to limit their spending?
[01:03:29.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  Yes, in order to participate in this program, you can't spend over a certain amount
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:41.000]  And basically once you get into it, we would only get a third of the funding, that is if we went through all the hoops and qualified
[01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  And just to give you a hypothetical example, the last third party or unaffiliated candidate we had that really went anywhere in Connecticut was Governor Lowell Weicker
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:59.000]  Weicker actually used to be a senator and he used to be a congressman, so he had quite the substantial network
[01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:06.000]  He went through and he formulated a form that was called a Connecticut party, and this is actually in the decision
[01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  Now if he went through all the loopholes and everything like that, and he had, I think, if he had another 10,000 signatures over what he did
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:24.000]  Which would amount to 110,000 signatures just to participate in this, he would still only get a third of the funding
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:30.000]  And even when he ran and won, he raised something like $3 million
[01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  And he basically was elected to governor, and this is the race that was used as a hypothetical example
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  So what was the outcome?
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  The outcome is the entire citizen's election program was thrown out, and Connecticut is going to appeal it
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  I mean on what grounds, I don't know, because I was looking through the document
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:01.000]  And my understanding is if you don't argue the case correctly in trial and you're not raising any objection to, you know, rules of evidence or procedure
[01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:05.000]  You've got no grounds to appeal
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  And the really interesting thing is, you know, this isn't any just, you know, odd attorney general
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:15.000]  This is Sue him Dick Blumenthal, I mean this guy is known for consumer advocacy
[01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  I know he was going after AIG bonuses and stuff of that nature
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  So yeah, this guy was pulling a tarot over it
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  Wait a minute, I misunderstood that
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:36.000]  This is the guy who was trying to get the statute overturned or fighting for it?
[01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  He was fighting in support of it
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  I mean he being the attorney general obviously, he was defending the state in this case
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:55.000]  So, okay, so you're saying he's actually a good guy and he was doing what he had to and didn't like it?
[01:05:55.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  I know, I'm basically saying this guy argued it very poorly
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  And, you know, in general after reading this case he seems like your run-of-the-mill idiot lawyer who just doesn't do his homework
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:12.000]  Or he might have done it on purpose
[01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  That could be a possibility, but, you know, he basically is saying he's going to appeal it
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  But I'm looking through, I'm like, buddy, I don't think you have any kind of opportunity to do that
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  I know this case has been in the works for the last two years
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:34.000]  And that decision finally came down and the judge was really methodical about it
[01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  He went through all of the voting data and in a lot of cases for all intents and purposes
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:44.000]  He illustrated that in towns like Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven
[01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  There's only something like 5% registered Republicans
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:54.000]  And as a matter of fact, I mean the statistics for voters themselves are just so embarrassing that
[01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  Oh, let me just break it down like this
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:01.000]  42% of the voters in Connecticut are unaffiliated, they have no party whatsoever
[01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  The next biggest block are the Democrats, they have something like 37%
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:10.000]  The Republicans, they're teetering around 20%
[01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:16.000]  And unless they win more than 20% of the vote in a statewide election next year
[01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  They're no longer a major party
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  And the judge actually went through the different formula used to calculate what kind of a grant you would get
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:31.000]  And in 78% of the races in 2006, they were deemed not to be competitive
[01:07:31.000 --> 01:07:39.000]  That is, the candidate that won was well beyond 20% of the vote ahead of his or her opponent
[01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  And in most cases, they were just unopposed
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:54.000]  So if they kept this law in place, they would ensure that there were no viable candidates
[01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  Exactly, the Democrats especially would get many times more money
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  And if you even tried to apply for the funding, you'd only get a third end
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  Oh, by the way, they were even giving this money to candidates who were running without an opponent
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  That was in the law too
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  This sounds like a really bad law
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  Yeah, if you read that case, I was just laughing
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  I know the Secretary of State was complaining about it and she's contemplating a run for governor
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  And considering my position where her own office couldn't even get the petitions we turn into them to the right towns for validation
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  I was just laughing and thinking, wow, you just got a taste of hero medicine
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  Well, wonderful, this is good news
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  So does that mean that you're likely to put in another bid?
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  As a matter of fact, my website is launching sometime next month
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:04.000]  And Peter Schiff's doing pretty good down here too
[01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  He's actually raised, I think, a million dollars already
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  And that's only with three weeks of trying
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:25.000]  So he is the front-running Republican and if the Republicans in Connecticut don't nominate him, they have another two parties before they actually are a minor party in Connecticut
[01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:28.000]  Another two parties?
[01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:31.000]  Another two election cycles, I'm sorry
[01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  Oh, okay, okay
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  Yeah, it was just, you know, I just finished reading all 138 pages of this decision, I really wanted to call in and tell you about it
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  Well, wonderful, that is good news, we don't get much good news lately
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  Yeah, it was just highly entertaining, you know, the way the judge broke it down in comprehensive detail
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:10:00.000]  And I'm thinking this came out of the same court we were just at
[01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  Well, wonderful
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  Okay, you have any more comments or questions?
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  No, you're doing fine and I won't tell Deborah about that little mistake you just made
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  One little mistake? I made a mistake once
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  I thought I had screwed up but I was mistaken
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  Yes
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  Okay
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Well, that was your mistake, anyway, you're doing a good job, keep it up
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Okay, thank you, Dan
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  Yeah, talk to you later
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:33.000]  Okay, Shane
[01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  Yeah, I'm here
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  I would like you to tell us about cannabis in California and the law concerning the medical use of cannabis
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:56.000]  Oh, well, I forget what year it was, it was late 90s, California passed a compassionate use act where cannabis is medicine
[01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  where the doctors can write patients' recommendations
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:08.000]  and the law included where they're called collective groups of people that don't normally want to grow their own
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  could be in a collective that will grow it for them
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:25.000]  just to provide a safe access for our cannabis for patients
[01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  I've had my doctor's recommendations for probably over seven years
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  How did this Rumsfeld invasion affect your ability to get in use of cannabis?
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:46.000]  I'm not sure I understand
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  When Rumsfeld came, when the feds came in and went into a clinic and circles?
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  Oh, sure
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:02.000]  Yeah, a lot of times the entire city like West Hollywood had 11 of them
[01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:08.000]  but all the cities around it combined, there were over probably 200 of those clinics
[01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:15.000]  so the feds would come in and try to get just West Hollywood and take down all 11 inside the city
[01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  and it was because the city of West Hollywood the day earlier had passed a resolution saying that they would support
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  the cannabis clinics in the city and were issuing business permits and such
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  so the fed was punishing the city for making such a statement
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:43.000]  So if they had just kept quiet about it, then the fed probably wouldn't have stepped on them?
[01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  Well, Californians had passed the law, right?
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  We had the right to in just a tenth of a minute
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:12:57.000]  Yeah, so they were basically saying they had been punished
[01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:00.000]  I was at the press conference later in the day
[01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:08.000]  and city officials and city councilmen and mayors were all making statements in support of the clinics
[01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:14.000]  So has there been any federal action after that?
[01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:20.000]  I guess when the new administration came in and stopped
[01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  Okay, so I don't expect we'll have any more problem with that
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  The biggest concern we had about that was that it was a major invasion of state rights
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:42.000]  and I think that may have caused the Bush administration more grief than they had counted on
[01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:55.000]  Now we have states passing or reaffirming the 10th amendment telling the feds to butt out
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:13:57.000]  Yeah, there's a big secession movement, right?
[01:13:57.000 --> 01:14:08.000]  Yes, even the governor of Texas spoke about secession from the union
[01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  So the major objection against the overreaching of federal powers
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:18.000]  and that particular incident where they came in and raided the clinics
[01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  and jerking old people out of their sickbeds, that may have been the beginning of their downfall
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:31.000]  Right, I think Texas was the first state to do it in the 90s in California
[01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  I think there's like almost 40 states right now that have made similar resolutions that's been legislated
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  It's basically the principles of 98, Jefferson
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:51.000]  Saying that states deserve the right to nullify federal laws if they become unjust
[01:14:51.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  Precisely, and after all the fed was just a union
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:06.000]  I was in a union once, AFL-CIO, and it was rather corrupt
[01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  All the states got together and decided, well, we're broke, we're struggling
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  and we've got all these people that want to beat us up
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  So instead of us fighting by ourselves, let's all form this union
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  and create one army to fight for all of us
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  That was really all it was, it's still just a union, all of the states
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  The one thing that people seem to forget, we hear the term state
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:51.000]  and we think of a state as kind of like a county, except a county is a section in a state
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:55.000]  and the state is a section in the United States
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:57.000]  Well, that's not how it is
[01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:06.000]  State means sovereign, just like England is a sovereign state
[01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  France is a sovereign state, Texas is a sovereign state
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  So they're all essentially countries of their own that all have gotten together in an agreement
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  And when the feds came into California claiming commerce
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  when nothing indicated commerce, that was an incredible invasion of state sovereignty
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:37.000]  That was the biggest deal about it
[01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  Okay, we're going to go to break
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig, rule of law
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  We'll be back on the other side
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:17:18.000]  Hear anything
[01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:22.000]  Never do anything to promote them in any way, never do any radio public service announcements
[01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:25.000]  Especially when they've got this party coming up this Friday at 7pm
[01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:27.000]  Oh yeah, with Jimmy Vaughn
[01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:28.000]  Yeah, Jimmy Vaughn's going to play the part
[01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:30.000]  Yeah, I don't know, sexy blue stuff, I mean
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  Give me like Billy Joel, Bon Jovi if you like the hard stuff
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Now you're talking, now you're talking
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  So whatever you do, don't show up to the United States Art Authority's Spider House Cafe this Friday at 7pm
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:42.000]  Tell me where it is so I don't go there
[01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  It's 510 West 29th and Ruth
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:48.000]  Ruth, Ruth, for a while I'm going to tell you something
[01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  They want 20 bucks at the door
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  If I get they food ten times faster, they should let me in for free
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  All those cheap skates
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:17:55.000]  Whatever you do, don't go to tagtexas.org for more info
[01:17:55.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  I'll definitely not
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:30.000]  Okay, Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Ruth Law Radio, we're back
[01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:35.000]  I kind of cut Shane off there, it was going to break
[01:18:35.000 --> 01:18:38.000]  And I see that Shane dropped off
[01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  Thanks Shane, we appreciate it
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  We have another unscreened call
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  Looks like a first time caller
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  Area code 763, can you hear me?
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  Yes I can
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  Okay, first name, state?
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:57.000]  Freeman, Minnesota
[01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  Freeman, Minnesota, that's not a first time call
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:05.000]  I've still got you listening on another line
[01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:07.000]  Oh, okay, there you just dropped off
[01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:08.000]  Oh, okay
[01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:10.000]  Yeah, well, whichever one answers first, right?
[01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:12.000]  Okay, I thought you were just listening
[01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:15.000]  Oh, okay, so you have another question or comment?
[01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:18.000]  Well, a few things I wanted to bring up
[01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:23.000]  Now, you said something about the right to counsel at crucial points in the process
[01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:27.000]  Now, a crucial point in the process is the preparatory phase
[01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  The phase in which you would have the opportunity to prepare
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:37.000]  So, I mean, that's really from the very beginning as a crucial, you know, point in the process
[01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  Which you should be entitled to
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:42.000]  They're talking about hearings
[01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:45.000]  But you have to prepare for that and you're entitled to counsel of choice
[01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  Not just counsel, but counsel of choice
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  Exactly
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  And you have to prepare for that
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  You don't just wait until the hearing and all of a sudden you get counseled five minutes before you go up for your hearing
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  Well, in order to get counsel, you have to have a hearing
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  So it will be the first hearing
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  Primarily the first hearing is the one before the magistrate and that requires counsel
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  Now, all states don't have that magistrate language, but I think I made a little mistake in the way I was looking at it
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  I was thinking that you saying, you know, crucial point in the process
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:32.000]  I guess I interpreted that as inferring like trial or something beyond arraignment
[01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  Arraignment in itself is a crucial point is basically what you're telling me, right?
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  Well, if that's whatever they call it in Minnesota, when you're arrested, the police officer
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  And this goes to Gerstein Pugh
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  It's the controlling case and it's a Florida case
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:57.000]  A police officer has the authority to arrest without a warrant
[01:20:57.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  That's a practical compromise
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  They said that it would be better if every arrest could be made on a warrant
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  But that's impractical and as a practical compromise, they allow a police officer to arrest without a warrant for an on-site offense
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  However, and they will allow the police officer to hold a person for a reasonable amount of time
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  That it would take to ensure the safety of the officer and protect against the escape of the accused
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  After those goals are accomplished, the case says the authority of the officer to hold evaporates
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:50.000]  He must get the person before a neutral magistrate for a determination of probable cause
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  This is federal and it applies to all of the states
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  So whatever they call it, I know in Minnesota they call judges magistrates
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  In Texas, we have judges that are also magistrates
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  When the judge sits for the purpose of examining into a criminal accusation, then he sits as a magistrate, not as a judge
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  He has different jurisdiction and authority as a magistrate than he does as a judge
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  He has jurisdiction to hear any complaint, felony or misdemeanor, state or federal, from anywhere in the state
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:41.000]  But he can only make a determination of probable cause and set bail and that's it
[01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:50.000]  When he's finished with that, then he's to forward all the documents to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction and he has no more authority
[01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:51.000]  That's the magistrate?
[01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  That's the magistrate, so whatever they call it in Minnesota, they'll have other names for it
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  Now in Texas, arraignment is a hearing for the purpose of identifying the accused and taking a plea
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  I'm not very prepared to endeavor to speak to that as far as magistrate in Minnesota
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  I can't say that there's third-party information that I've gotten from the quote-unquote experts
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  Which is nothing to rely on, of course
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  It's only something to challenge or confirm or disconfirm through investigation
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  They told me there's blah, blah, blah, no such thing as a magistrate in Minnesota
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  No requirement to bring anyone before a magistrate
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  Now this does change between misdemeanor and felony levels, but other than that
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  Kirsten Pugh goes to a federal requirement
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  And finding a probable cause is a federal requirement that applies to all the states
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  So whoever's telling you this is just simply lying to you
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  Well, I appreciate you telling me that
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:07.000]  I'm going to actually read the black ink on white paper and see what it says for myself instead of listening to, as I said before,
[01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  quote-unquote experts telling me their quote-unquote interpretation
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  Now speaking to the federal level of jurisdiction,
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  I want to say I was looking at the federal register yesterday for the first time in my life
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  And there's so much of interest there
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  There's about 40 different submissions that I could see in the particular 2009 relevant listing
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:43.000]  There was a number which pertained to a variety of the 40 pertained to minimum reserve requirements
[01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  for the fractional reserve banking system, which we're subject to
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  And I found it interesting that from $0 to $10.2 million of what I believe to be borrowing power
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:02.000]  That's what it seemed to me to be related to, that the minimum reserve requirement was zero
[01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:05.000]  Well, that's not a very large amount of money, to say the least
[01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:14.000]  Now from $10.2 million plus to $44.4 million, all of a sudden minimum reserve requirements jumped to 3%
[01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  Now those were specifically enumerated, those percentiles
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  Now the next tier, the third and final bracket, was $44.4 million plus
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:28.000]  And I don't know where it ended, maybe infinity
[01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:34.000]  They gave out kind of a formula to maybe fog up the actual percentile
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  And that's because the percentile for the very largest of lending power for minimum reserve requirements
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  seems to be slightly over possibly 1%
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  And of course, who's making the biggest mistakes, these lenders?
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:55.000]  And so I think that's parallel to the obliteration of the middle class
[01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  Have you ever read Money Mechanics?
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  Yeah, I have that, and I have not read it thoroughly, I've just kind of perused it
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  That was very interesting
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:16.000]  It went through all of the things you just spoke to, of how the Fed sets the reserve rates
[01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  and how they use the setting of those reserve amounts to essentially control the economy
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  It would be a very informative book to go through in some detail
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:33.000]  Well, I have to look at it in greater detail
[01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:40.000]  I also want to say that from what I looked at at the Federal Register, out of 40 different things
[01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:46.000]  maybe five or six pertain to minimum reserve requirements, but there was one that really caught my interest
[01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  which I was entitled, and it was the final, which I don't know if that would indicate latest submission
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:58.000]  to this category in the Federal Register
[01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:05.000]  It's entitled Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
[01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:15.000]  So that's really interesting that we would need a particular program tailored to injuries attributed to vaccines
[01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:24.000]  if that were not a big issue or anticipated to be a big issue or both, semicolon
[01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  That's a pretty interesting thing to see in the Federal Register
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  The Federal Vaccination Injury Compensation Program, very interesting
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  That does sound interesting
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  Has it been, okay, it's obviously been codified in the law if it's in the registry
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  Were you able to get the text of the statute of the law?
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:55.000]  You know, I wanted to look at it in greater detail
[01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  I just saw the title yesterday
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  I do have a phone that I could look at it, but I failed to do so on the phone
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  I had a little complication with the Internet, so I'm not able to look at it, you know, my home Internet
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:19.000]  But I wanted to bring that to your attention and everybody listening because that's pretty indictful, I think
[01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  Well, I've bumped into the Federal Registry before and it's a pretty big read
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  What, 35, 40,000 pages, something like that?
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  Well, this is pertaining specifically not to anything other than 2009
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  And so I did have a little bit of difficulty finding it in a general category today, which is how I found it yesterday
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  But today because I was not able to figure out which category I went to
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  I clicked on everything that said 2009, didn't see it
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  So what I did was they have, you know, of course they have a query box
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  And so I queried vaccination injury or vaccine injury
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:10.000]  And I got, coincidentally, I got 40 listings for that
[01:29:10.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  And one of them was exactly what I saw yesterday, which was some 2009 submission entitled
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  Federal Vaccination Injury Compensation Program
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  I would like to see the limits of the compensation
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm sure it's not to our credit
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  It only serves to strengthen the claim that vaccines are dangerous
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  Yes. Okay, we're about to go to break
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Root of Law Radio
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  We'll be back shortly. We've got two more segments of the info marathon
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:55.000]  Okay, we'll be right back
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Boring!
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:07.000]  What?
[01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:10.000]  What may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today?
[01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:11.000]  Stupidity
[01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  The television
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  But there is hope
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sport zombieism recover
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:53.000]  Or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com
[01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  And an overall increase in mental functioning
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:28.000]  For more information, please visit www.bravenewbooks.com
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  Okay, we're back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Root of Law Radio
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  Freeman, did you have any more questions or comments?
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:21.000]  Yes, sir, I did. I wanted to say that H.R. 1207, which is casually referenced as the Federal Transparency Act of 2009
[01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  And then it's Fifth District Senate Bill S604, casually referenced as the Federal Sunshine Act of 2009
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  Now, H.R. 1207 was gaining some 5 to 10 co-sponsors, 5 to 10 signatures out of however many people in Congress I forget
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  5 to 10 per week, and I just want to comment that it's been stagnant at, now I haven't checked today, but I did check today
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:59.000]  Thomas.gov, which is surprisingly, that's the Congress' congressional website. Now, how would you find it under Thomas.gov?
[01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:06.000]  That's another question for another discussion. Anyways, still said as of yesterday, 282 co-sponsors
[01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  Now, that's the same number I saw five weeks ago, and I've been checking a few times a week
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:21.000]  So I'm getting a little bit concerned as to what is the big hang-up so far as we can't, I think my mathematics said
[01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  There's 153 potential holdouts left who have yet to sign. We haven't got so much as one of them to sign in over five weeks
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  And then S604 is almost as long for a sign
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  Okay, S604, what is that?
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  S is in SAM 604, that's the sister bill to HR 1207, that's in the Senate, S604 is the Federal Sunshine Act of 2009
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  On the other side, HR side, it's HR 1207, the Federal Transparency Act of 2009
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  Basically the same thing, all it is is a requirement for a full audit of the Fed, just as any other private corporation we're subject to
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  To be carried out in full before the end of 2010, and that within 90 days of completion
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:17.000]  The Comptroller General of the United States will report to Congress on the results
[01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  Okay, this is the bill that Ron Paul's pushing for Audit Fed
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  Yeah, and the Fed has got under Title 31 USC immunity from the standard audit procedure that every other private corporation
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:37.000]  Which does not affect us to the same level as the Fed does
[01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  You know, they're all subject to full audit
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  Why should the Federal Reserve Bank, which has a much further effect on us through their actions
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  Why should they be the standout example of exception to the full audit process?
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  That's beyond me, and I can't understand why it's been stagnant
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:08.000]  Where it has, that the velocity that it had before, you know, all of a sudden it's been stagnant for over a month on both sides
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  Well, somebody's going to have to have something to sell
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  These are politicians after all
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  I guess the thing I was thinking was because the two-thirds mark being, making it more difficult for the would-be vetoers to veto
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:32.000]  I.e., Obama, Bernanke, etc., Geithner, etc.
[01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:41.000]  That 282 is, you know, eight away from 290, which I believe to be that two-thirds crucial pivot point, if you could call it that
[01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  I'm not sure if you actually can, but, you know, it seems indictful that at 282 with 153 potentials yet to go
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  We have got not so much as one in the last five weeks
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  282 is pretty close to 290, and that is pretty much a point of desperation for those who would like to veto such an act
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  To give an offer that cannot be refused, if you've seen the Godfather, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  Yes
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  So, it has, apparently has enough to pass, just not enough to survive a veto
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:26.000]  Has Obama given any indication how he would treat this?
[01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  Obama seems to be pretty sympathetic to the federal, to the federal, to the central banking interest
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  and that doesn't really seem to be coinciding with these bills
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:44.000]  Has he presented any objection to it?
[01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  So far as I know, through his actions, he showed collusion with the opposition, that's all I can say
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  Oh, but he hasn't made any kind of public statement on what he would do with this bill if it passes
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  I don't believe so, I think that it's a hot-button issue and that that's one that, you know, someone like the President would be
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:14.000]  within their job description, obligated to avoid in the public limelight
[01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:19.000]  Okay, so, right now we really don't know what he will do
[01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  No
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  And I would suspect that he would be reserving all his options
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  If it looks like
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  Hopefully, hopefully
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  Yeah, if it looks like they could overcome the veto, then he's likely not to veto, even if he hated it
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:38.000]  But we'll see
[01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  Okay
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:40.000]  Yeah, we will see
[01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:42.000]  Do you have any other comments?
[01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  I just think that maybe we need an extra effort right now to persuade the people who are still holding out on the House side, on the HR side
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:06.000]  Maybe a little extra pressure, and on the Senate side it's 23 out of some 100 or so, on the House side it's 282 out of, I don't know, 434 or something
[01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:12.000]  So the House side is almost 70 percent, the Senate side is not even a quarter, you know
[01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  But the House side is approaching such a crucial mark that, you know, we need eight more signatures
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:24.000]  And I think with a little more pressure, you know, we can make more progress
[01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:32.000]  You know, five weeks stagnating at 282 is, that's, that's, I don't know, seems like people have gone on vacation
[01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  I don't know what's going on
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  Could be, well, keep us up to date on that
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  Do you have any other comments or questions?
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:49.000]  I want to say that Congress call in their website where you look at what they're doing, thomas.gov
[01:38:49.000 --> 01:38:55.000]  And then you look it up, I never found their website, the Library of Congress website under thomas.gov
[01:38:55.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  And when I finally did, it was surprising to me, it was thomas.gov, I wondered why
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  I saw on their home page it said, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:08.000]  Well, that's very interesting being that Thomas Jefferson said things like from time to time
[01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  And if you ever allow the banking institutions to control the system of credit and currency
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  That those banks will grow up around you and continue to deprive you of the fruits of your labor
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  Until your kids wind up slaves on the land that their fathers once conquered
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:35.000]  You know, Thomas Jefferson didn't seem to be very sympathetic to the British central banking concept
[01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:42.000]  And so it's interesting that the FOMC meetings, the free market open committee meetings
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  Or whatever they're called, free open market committee meetings
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  For example, Alan Greenspan, now replaced by Bernanke of course
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:55.000]  Now Greenspan would open up the FOMC meetings with quotes such as
[01:39:55.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  We haven't had such a gathering of brilliant minds in one room since Thomas Jefferson died alone
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  I think Thomas Jefferson wouldn't appreciate his name being invoked by either Congress or Alan Greenspan
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:15.000]  On behalf of the Federal Reserve Bank being that Thomas Jefferson was diametrically opposed
[01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  To the pillars of pursuit of those two institutions
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  Well, at least he considered him the only smart guy in the room
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  Yeah, it's just a perversion of something good for something
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  Which may not be good or may be at least questionable in nature, right?
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Right, okay, well I'm going to move ahead
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  There's one more thing that I wanted to talk about
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:48.000]  We've got just a little over one segment
[01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  And that's what we're doing with mortgages
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  We have been working on a program to help people with mortgage problems
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:02.000]  Even if they don't have mortgage problems
[01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:09.000]  And here lately we seem to be getting a good number of rulings
[01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  In favor of the consumer as opposed to the mortgage companies
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  Recent ruling that I got from Jeff in Maryland
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  A case where they ruled that the only one withstanding to pursue a mortgage issue is the owner of the note
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  And that was a really important ruling because what they do with these notes is they bundle them up and sell them
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  Paul, he was on our show, this is something he talked about
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  He worked in the mortgage industry and this is the part that he worked in
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Their bank would get a loan, a $50 million loan from Wells Fargo
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:13.000]  They would take that loan and convert it into 20 and 30 year mortgages
[01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:20.000]  Problem is they had to pay that loan back to Wells Fargo within six months
[01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:27.000]  So when they wrote the notes, they had no intention of keeping them
[01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:32.000]  They write the note, they get the note as a security
[01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  This is not a bond, it's a security
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  And they take that security and they sell it to someone else
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  The person pays for the security
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  They pay for the security back to the one who made the loan
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  And then Paul's bank would pay off Wells Fargo and they get to keep a percentage
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  So they make their profit and they go on to the next one
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  It used to be that banks made loans and then they serviced the loans
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  Well, this bank makes the loan and they service the loan but they don't own it anymore
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  They service it to someone else because they sold it to someone else
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  And what Paul said was most of these are sold to China
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  And what this recent ruling said, if somebody wants to foreclose
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  China's going to have to be the one to do it because they own the note
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Okay, we're going to our final break, the Red DeKalton rule of law
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  We've got Mark from Wisconsin, we'll take him as soon as we get back
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:44:12.000]  Aerial spring, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides
[01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:16.000]  Carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky
[01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  You have a choice to keep your body clean
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  Or call 908-691-2608
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:34.000]  It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food
[01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:38.000]  Protect your family now with micro plant powder
[01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:42.000]  Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins
[01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  Store it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:45:13.000]  Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today
[01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Music
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:36.000]  Okay, we're back, Randy Kalten, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, rule of law
[01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:42.000]  Okay, we have Mark from Wisconsin, he's one of our affiliates
[01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  Mark, you there?
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  Yeah, I'm here, how are you doing Randy?
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:50.000]  Oh, I think I'm doing pretty good, I only made one major blunder
[01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:58.000]  and Debra will only skin me half alive
[01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:06.000]  Hey, that guy who called in, Randy, he said he might be able to find out who the witnesses are against him
[01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:15.000]  Tony Davis has, he knows how to file motions to where they have to put on the table all their secret witnesses
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:23.000]  and most of the times they won't comply and so you can, even if you get convicted, you probably still beat it on appeal
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:24.000]  Yes
[01:46:24.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  You might want to hook that guy up with Tony Davis
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  He's already hooked up with Tony Davis
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:33.000]  Oh, is he?
[01:46:33.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  Yeah, here was the concern, talking about the, wait a minute, I'm not sure which one you're talking about
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  The guy with the, he said they changed his warrant and then he
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:48.000]  Oh, okay, him, yeah
[01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  He just sort of mentioned that he might not have access to the witnesses against him
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  Right, this one, oh no, the problem here is, is the accusation has nothing to do with the reason they entered
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:10.000]  This is what I think they did
[01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:17.000]  Oh, so they would actually need a secondary warrant to go after the incidentals that they found at his place, right?
[01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:20.000]  No, they wouldn't need a warrant at all
[01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  They get a warrant to come in and search for a felon that they know full well is not there
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  They just make this up
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  While they're looking for the felon, oh, well look what I found
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  And because they had a warrant to come in and look for the felon
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:48.000]  And if they see something they believe is criminal, they can't ignore it
[01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:55.000]  In Robert Fox's case, they came in looking for a supposed felon who turned out not to be a felon
[01:47:55.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  And they opened this door to this closet, which turned out to be a medicine cabinet
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  And they found these antibiotics, so that gave them cause to act on them
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  Now, it sounds like from what he was saying, these guys knew exactly what they were looking for
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  But they had no evidence
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  So, they make up this story about a rape victim who's
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:36.000]  To keep her name out of the public, and we can understand that, poor rape victim
[01:48:36.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  We don't want to subject them to more mistreatment
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  Except I suspect there was no rape
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:48.000]  There was no victim and there was no felon
[01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  Poison fruit, isn't it?
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  Absolutely, it's poison fruit
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  And that was the purpose of the Frank's hearing
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  But before he gets to the Frank's hearing, he needs to develop all of the evidence that he can
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  When he gets the dispatch logs, they should have timing marks in them
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  And if he gets, like, veracity 2, he can pull it up and look at it and see if it's been cut and pasted
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  So, if they cut out portions of the dispatch logs, you want to hear a dispatch to a rape
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  Or a dispatch to look for a rape suspect
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  Something tells me they're not going to have that
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  Something tells me that, too
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:51.000]  I mean, on the police part, that's a pretty clever maneuver
[01:49:51.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  I once caught, I was in Pennsylvania, I had a client there and he was afraid that the IRS was going to raid him
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  And I had some friends here in Dallas who were raided
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:11.000]  They had no criminal charges against them, no investigations, no nothing
[01:50:11.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  Just one day, the feds show up, jerk them out of their house, go in, take all their computers, guns, gold
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:27.000]  Just took whatever they wanted and disappeared, never heard from them again
[01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:37.000]  So I was doing some research and I found that when a warrant is issued by a federal magistrate
[01:50:37.000 --> 01:50:44.000]  The federal district clerk issues a cause number for that warrant
[01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  If the magistrate then seals the warrant, the cause number is taken out of the records
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:50:55.000]  It's not there anymore
[01:50:55.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  So, what I was maintained was happening was, and I made up a letter and sent it to every federal magistrate in Pennsylvania
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  And I told them that it was an information request, FOIA request, for all of the cause numbers of all warrants
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:25.000]  Issued by the magistrate that were sealed and subsequently executed
[01:51:25.000 --> 01:51:32.000]  And I maintained, well actually it was a little song and dance and seltzer down your pants
[01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  I told them that I was a radio announcer in Texas and I do a program on legal reform
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:47.000]  And I had these people calling in who had been raided, but there was no prosecution against them
[01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:54.000]  They just come out and take all their stuff and they go check on it and everything is sealed
[01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:57.000]  So they can't find out anything about anything
[01:51:57.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  The new freedom, Randy
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:02.000]  The new freedom
[01:52:02.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  And what I believe was happening, I believe you have some rogue agents out there
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:11.000]  That are going through the court record and finding where a number is missing
[01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  And writing up a warrant and then taking it to the local police and say,
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  Hey, I got this federal warrant, I need you guys to provide security
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  So you get local police to come out and drag everybody out and handcuff them and hold them on the street
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:32.000]  While the feds steal everything you got and then the feds just disappear
[01:52:32.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  So I want you to provide for me the cause numbers of all warrants you've issued and sealed
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:45.000]  That have subsequently been executed so that I can petition the district court for a writ of mandamus
[01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  Ordering you to come before the court and show cause as to why those warrants are still sealed
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  I suspect we will find a number of warrants with the same number on them
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  When I compare the warrants you've issued to the warrants the people I know have in their hands
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  Well, as you might guess, not one magistrate responded in any way to my mailing
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  However, I haven't heard anything about any of these raids anymore, that's all quit
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  So that was a hoot, that was a hoot
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  Yeah, that's good, I mean that had to ring some alarm bells all over the place if you sent a letter to every magistrate
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  Yeah, everyone in Pennsylvania
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  I went to the U.S. Marshals, first I went to the FBI
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:47.000]  And they brought out this young guy and he's behind bulletproof glass
[01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  And I'm talking to him and he's about, told him what I wanted, that I wanted these cause numbers
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:01.000]  For all warrants issued to the FBI that have been sealed and subsequently executed
[01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:05.000]  So that I can petition the district court for writ of mandamus
[01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:08.000]  He said, well, we can't get those
[01:54:08.000 --> 01:54:14.000]  And in the conversation I asked him what his name was
[01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:22.000]  And he ducked his head, looked down at the table and he said, we're not allowed to identify ourselves
[01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  I said, what? What, we got secret police now?
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:30.000]  And Deborah's sitting behind me over here
[01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  So what do I call you, head on this garish blue tie?
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:37.000]  So what do I call you, secret agent blue tie?
[01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:43.000]  The guy just turned bright red, he was mortified
[01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:46.000]  He turned red because he wasn't red
[01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:49.000]  Deborah liked to fell out on the floor
[01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:57.000]  And that made it even worse, she's looking at this hot babe she had on this black outfit that you see on the website
[01:54:57.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  She looked hot, and she is laughing at this guy, he was mortified
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:03.000]  Good for her
[01:55:03.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  So then we went to the U.S. Marshals
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:12.000]  And I'm asking him about these and he said, oh, nothing like that happens
[01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:17.000]  Whenever we confiscate something, it all goes in the property room
[01:55:17.000 --> 01:55:19.000]  I said, well, how do we know that?
[01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  Since it's sealed, there's no way to tell, there's no way to come back and check
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:30.000]  How do we know that the computer that you seized yesterday is not on your desk at your house today?
[01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:38.000]  And Deborah said that when I said that, she said, have you ever seen a cat with a feather sticking out of his mouth?
[01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  He had feathers flying out of his mouth
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:48.000]  I asked him three times what his name was and he just ignored it
[01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  The fourth time I asked him his name and he just kept talking and I said, stop
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  Name, you got one, what is it?
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  He stopped and stared at me a minute and then he said, Dan
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:08.000]  Dan, huh?
[01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  They give you guys last names?
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  Dan will do
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  So, do I call you Deputy Dan or Marshall Dan?
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:25.000]  Marshall Dan will do, I said, well, Dan
[01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  I'm through with you, you're dismissed, you can go
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:36.000]  You could tell he wanted to reach through the glass and grab him by the throat
[01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  But now they're all secret police
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:46.000]  Hey, I wanted to mention something to you before, the show's over, Randy
[01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  There's a lady, she's got a website, it's called Operation Facts to Stop the Vax
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  That's Operation Facts to Stop the Vax and she's put together a four-step program
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:06.000]  to get out flyers to mothers and fathers about this upcoming flu pandemic
[01:57:06.000 --> 01:57:14.000]  She's asking that people deliver these flyers to police agencies and judges
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  That way there's no plausible deniability anymore
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:20.000]  It's really a nice looking flyer
[01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  I mean, it's got a list of all the toxins that they're finding in these vaccines
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  and it's just horrendous
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  Good, good, we might want to have her on the show
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  Yeah, you want me to try and get a hold of her?
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:36.000]  Yes
[01:57:36.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  Okay, we'll do that because she actually lives in Holland
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  and she just did a show on Cordite Country over at oraclebroadcasting.com
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:49.000]  and it's a really good show
[01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:53.000]  Oh, Evil Rival Network
[01:57:53.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  Yeah, the only reason I mention it is because it's a really good show
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  Oh, that's okay, we don't mind that we're not really competing with them
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  But yeah, get her in touch with me, I'm afraid we're running out of time
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:12.000]  Okay, good night
[01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  Thanks a lot
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Root of Law
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  Thank you all for listening and we'll see you Monday
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:59.000]  Yeah, it don't feel right
[01:58:59.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  I better lie today
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:07.000]  If I don't get the show done
[01:59:07.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  I'm not gonna make it
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:16.000]  One good night
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:19.000]  Down the way, down the way
[01:59:19.000 --> 01:59:24.000]  One good night
[01:59:24.000 --> 01:59:36.000]  Down the way, down the way
[01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  Yeah, it don't feel right
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:44.000]  I better lie today
[01:59:44.000 --> 01:59:47.000]  If I don't get the show done
[01:59:47.000 --> 01:59:50.000]  I'm not gonna make it
[01:59:50.000 --> 02:00:17.000]  One good night