[00:00.000 --> 00:10.160]  The lead investigator in Canada's largest ever climate change study has found sea ice
[00:10.160 --> 00:15.720]  in Canada's fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected.
[00:15.720 --> 00:21.240]  University of Manitoba Professor David Barber said the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario,
[00:21.240 --> 00:24.080]  be ice-free in three years.
[00:24.080 --> 00:30.720]  The Japanese whaling ship Yushin Maru III rammed the Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker, penetrating
[00:30.720 --> 00:37.040]  its hull and endangering the lives of its crew 180 miles off Cape Darnley in the Australian
[00:37.040 --> 00:38.960]  Antarctic Territory.
[00:38.960 --> 00:44.480]  The Bob Barker had been blocking the slipway of the Nishin Maru, the Japanese whaling fleet's
[00:44.480 --> 00:45.480]  factory ship.
[00:45.480 --> 00:50.360]  The Democratic representative John Murta, who became an outspoken critic of the Iraq
[00:50.360 --> 00:57.240]  War, has died age 77. Murta wields considerable clout as leader of the House subcommittee
[00:57.240 --> 01:02.920]  overseeing Pentagon spending, but frustration over the Iraq War led him to call for an immediate
[01:02.920 --> 01:05.720]  pullout of U.S. troops in 2005.
[01:05.720 --> 01:10.320]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[01:10.320 --> 01:16.520]  A coalition of San Francisco Bay Area activists and politicians are on a mission to have California
[01:16.520 --> 01:21.440]  become the first state to legalize, regulate, and tax the use of marijuana.
[01:21.440 --> 01:28.480]  In 1996, Proposition 215 legalized the medical use of marijuana, breaking down many long-held
[01:28.480 --> 01:33.240]  views on the drug, especially its use for cancer patients and other chronic disease
[01:33.240 --> 01:38.640]  sufferers. San Francisco and Oakland were among the first to see medical pot dispensaries.
[01:38.640 --> 01:45.600]  A section of downtown Oakland has become known as, quote, Oaksterdam, a play on Amsterdam,
[01:45.600 --> 01:48.240]  where pot use has been legal since the 70s.
[01:48.240 --> 01:54.680]  A political sea change on marijuana in California began in 2009, when Attorney General Eric
[01:54.680 --> 01:59.600]  Holder announced federal drug officers would no longer target the operators of medical
[01:59.600 --> 02:00.600]  pot dispensaries.
[02:00.600 --> 02:06.880]  Top of the hour news brought to you by INN World Report.
[02:06.880 --> 02:13.520]  Healthcare spending grew by 5.7 percent in 2009 and has now reached 2.5 trillion dollars
[02:13.520 --> 02:18.640]  a year. A report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found this is the
[02:18.640 --> 02:23.960]  largest increase since the federal government began tracking these figures in 1960.
[02:23.960 --> 02:29.160]  The CMS projects health expenditures will continue to grow at an annual rate of 6.1
[02:29.160 --> 02:34.120]  percent and climb to 4.5 trillion dollars in 10 years.
[02:34.120 --> 02:41.200]  Per capita, healthcare spending was just over 8,000 dollars in 2009 and is expected to increase
[02:41.200 --> 02:48.840]  to 13,300 by 2019. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
[02:48.840 --> 02:55.800]  the U.S. spent 7,200 dollars per person in 2007, by far the highest amount for any developed
[02:55.800 --> 03:00.000]  country. The U.K., which spent the average amount for developed countries.
[03:00.000 --> 03:08.400]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech
[03:08.400 --> 03:15.400]  talk radio at its best.
[03:39.400 --> 03:48.400]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys,
[03:48.400 --> 03:54.400]  bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? When you were eight
[03:54.400 --> 03:59.400]  and you had bad traits, you'd go to school and learn the golden rules. So why are you
[03:59.400 --> 04:05.400]  acting like a bloody fool? It's to get high and you must get cool. Bad boys, bad boys,
[04:05.400 --> 04:12.400]  whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha
[04:12.400 --> 04:17.400]  gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? You took it on that one, you took
[04:17.400 --> 04:21.400]  it on this one. You took it on your mother. And you took it on your father. You took
[04:21.400 --> 04:25.400]  it on your brother. And you took it on your sister. You took it on that one, and you took
[04:25.400 --> 04:31.400]  it on me. Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:31.400 --> 04:34.540]  Bad boys, bad boys, Whatcha gonna do?
[04:34.540 --> 04:36.820]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:36.820 --> 04:40.020]  Bad boys, bad boys, Whatcha gonna do?
[04:40.020 --> 04:42.540]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:42.540 --> 04:45.400]  Bad boys, bad boys, Whatcha gonna do?
[04:45.400 --> 04:48.140]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:48.140 --> 04:52.920]  Nobody know give me no break Police know give me no break
[04:52.920 --> 04:58.760]  The love soldiers might not give you no break Not keeping your eyes, you not giving no break
[04:58.760 --> 05:04.760]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[05:04.760 --> 05:07.760]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[05:07.760 --> 05:12.760]  All right, bad boys, bad boys, what are you gonna do when we come for you?
[05:12.760 --> 05:17.760]  Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, and Deborah Stevens.
[05:17.760 --> 05:22.760]  We're going after them. We're not waiting for them to come after us.
[05:22.760 --> 05:26.760]  We are going after them. It's always better to be the plaintiffs.
[05:26.760 --> 05:30.760]  You get to call the shots. Things go your way.
[05:30.760 --> 05:35.760]  So, Eddie, you were just on the line with Dr. Graves on the previous show
[05:35.760 --> 05:40.760]  talking to him about 521 Government Code here in Texas.
[05:40.760 --> 05:42.760]  Transportation Code, 521 Transportation Code.
[05:42.760 --> 05:46.760]  Sorry, 521 Transportation Code, so please continue.
[05:46.760 --> 05:52.760]  Yeah, we were discussing on what the three elements that can be comprised
[05:52.760 --> 05:56.760]  of the components of the definition of driver's license are.
[05:56.760 --> 06:01.760]  And here in Texas, there are not but three things that Chapter 521 deals with
[06:01.760 --> 06:02.760]  regarding a driver's license.
[06:02.760 --> 06:05.760]  And there is only two chapters in the Transportation Code that deals with
[06:05.760 --> 06:11.760]  the issue of licenses at all as far as operating a motor vehicle on the highway.
[06:11.760 --> 06:14.760]  That is 521 and 522.
[06:14.760 --> 06:17.760]  And as most of you out there have heard me say many, many times,
[06:17.760 --> 06:24.760]  once you take apart 521, it shows without a doubt that all driver's licenses
[06:24.760 --> 06:27.760]  in Texas are commercial in nature.
[06:27.760 --> 06:32.760]  They can't be anything else because there's just nothing left.
[06:32.760 --> 06:37.760]  So unless they've got some super secret law that we are not being told about
[06:37.760 --> 06:41.760]  and they themselves can't seem to produce in a court when they want to accuse you
[06:41.760 --> 06:45.760]  of violating it, we have to go with what's written and what we can find.
[06:45.760 --> 06:52.760]  And 521.001 Subsection 2 makes that very, very clear what that is.
[06:52.760 --> 06:54.760]  And I'll do a quick recap.
[06:54.760 --> 06:59.760]  In that section, the only thing that you can be required to have in the terms
[06:59.760 --> 07:05.760]  of a driver's license is either a temporary license, a learner's permit,
[07:05.760 --> 07:07.760]  or an occupational license.
[07:07.760 --> 07:11.760]  And as I was going over with Dr. Graves, the temporary license is one that is
[07:11.760 --> 07:17.760]  issued to an out-of-state resident or to a person serving in the United States
[07:17.760 --> 07:24.760]  Armed Forces outside of the state of Texas that needs a license.
[07:24.760 --> 07:29.760]  And that temporary license is issued to that out-of-state applicant without a
[07:29.760 --> 07:30.760]  picture.
[07:30.760 --> 07:32.760]  That's one of the things that's necessary.
[07:32.760 --> 07:36.760]  Besides being an out-of-state applicant, the license is issued without a
[07:36.760 --> 07:37.760]  picture.
[07:37.760 --> 07:42.760]  You have a certain number of days after you as the applicant enter the state
[07:42.760 --> 07:48.760]  of Texas in which you must go in and get that temporary license converted into
[07:48.760 --> 07:51.760]  some other kind of permanent license.
[07:51.760 --> 07:59.760]  Now, you do this by getting a picture made, which is then put on a new form of
[07:59.760 --> 08:02.760]  the license, and the license itself is reissued.
[08:02.760 --> 08:06.760]  So just common sense question would be, okay, well, if it was a temporary
[08:06.760 --> 08:12.760]  license when it didn't have the picture, what kind of license did it become
[08:12.760 --> 08:15.760]  after the picture got added to it?
[08:15.760 --> 08:19.760]  Now, we know that it can't go back to being a temporary license because it no
[08:19.760 --> 08:22.760]  longer meets the criteria for a temporary license.
[08:22.760 --> 08:23.760]  It now has a picture.
[08:23.760 --> 08:26.760]  You are no longer an out-of-state applicant.
[08:26.760 --> 08:31.760]  So none of the criteria for it to be the temporary license applies any longer.
[08:31.760 --> 08:36.760]  We know it doesn't meet the qualifications to be turned into a learner's permit,
[08:36.760 --> 08:38.760]  which is a completely different thing.
[08:38.760 --> 08:43.760]  And we also know that it does not meet the necessity and the qualifications to
[08:43.760 --> 08:48.760]  be considered the occupational license, which is one that can only be issued
[08:48.760 --> 08:54.760]  by a judge after a DUI conviction or an ARP review hearing, which
[08:54.760 --> 08:58.760]  administratively took your other license away.
[08:58.760 --> 09:02.760]  So that leaves us with the learner's permit.
[09:02.760 --> 09:05.760]  If the learner's permit problem arises, same thing.
[09:05.760 --> 09:10.760]  Once you pass your test, you're written and you're driving, and you go down and
[09:10.760 --> 09:15.760]  get a full-fledged license, what kind of license do they give you?
[09:15.760 --> 09:19.760]  It's not the one that would be considered temporary because you're not an
[09:19.760 --> 09:21.760]  out-of-state.
[09:21.760 --> 09:23.760]  You are getting one with a picture.
[09:23.760 --> 09:26.760]  So none of that criteria is met.
[09:26.760 --> 09:31.760]  It's also not going to be a learner's permit any longer, so it doesn't qualify
[09:31.760 --> 09:35.760]  to be that, and it's being issued by the Department of Public Safety,
[09:35.760 --> 09:40.760]  not by a judge, and you're not getting it because you lost your other license
[09:40.760 --> 09:44.760]  for a DUI conviction or an ARP revocation.
[09:44.760 --> 09:49.760]  So what kind of license does that learner's permit then become?
[09:49.760 --> 09:54.760]  And then, of course, when they take away your whatever license in order to
[09:54.760 --> 09:58.760]  issue you an occupational license because of the conviction that caused you
[09:58.760 --> 10:03.760]  to lose this other license, what kind of license did you lose?
[10:03.760 --> 10:08.760]  And on top of that, once you're off of that little probationary program the
[10:08.760 --> 10:12.760]  judge institutes you on where you have to have the occupational license and
[10:12.760 --> 10:18.760]  you get your other license back, what kind of license is it you get back?
[10:18.760 --> 10:22.760]  Well, considering that 521 and 522 are the only chapters that deal with
[10:22.760 --> 10:26.760]  licensing for the purpose of operating a motor vehicle on the highways of
[10:26.760 --> 10:30.760]  Texas, we can't go but to one place.
[10:30.760 --> 10:34.760]  We're back over in 522 now because we've eliminated all three of the
[10:34.760 --> 10:38.760]  possible options under 521.
[10:38.760 --> 10:43.760]  Now, the only way the state can win this argument in any way, shape,
[10:43.760 --> 10:48.760]  or form is to just with a broad stroke of the brush declare the people of
[10:48.760 --> 10:53.760]  Texas do not have the right to purchase an automobile.
[10:53.760 --> 10:55.760]  We just don't have that.
[10:55.760 --> 11:00.760]  We can't buy an automobile unless we are willing to accept that we must
[11:00.760 --> 11:05.760]  declare ourselves commercial operators and obtain a commercial license in
[11:05.760 --> 11:09.760]  order to use the property we purchased.
[11:09.760 --> 11:14.760]  I just don't see that being a reality-based argument or effort for that
[11:14.760 --> 11:18.760]  matter.
[11:18.760 --> 11:21.760]  Not that they wouldn't try it, but I don't see in the current state of
[11:21.760 --> 11:24.760]  things how the people of Texas are going to let that happen.
[11:24.760 --> 11:28.760]  Once the people of Texas find out that they've been lied to this long and
[11:28.760 --> 11:32.760]  had this much money stolen from them, I seriously doubt they're going to let
[11:32.760 --> 11:39.760]  this become something even more encroaching upon the liberties that we're
[11:39.760 --> 11:43.760]  losing at such a rapid rate right now.
[11:43.760 --> 11:47.760]  So given that, that was what I was getting into with Dr. Graze and
[11:47.760 --> 11:52.760]  discussing over where it's clear in Texas law that there can't be but one
[11:52.760 --> 11:55.760]  type of license, and it can only be commercial.
[11:55.760 --> 12:02.760]  And by the information we've got based upon who is a person, it just all,
[12:02.760 --> 12:07.760]  the only way it can all fit together and not be a direct violation of rights
[12:07.760 --> 12:12.760]  and the Constitution of the state of Texas itself is with the argument that
[12:12.760 --> 12:17.760]  I'm presenting, that it has nothing to do with us, because if it does have
[12:17.760 --> 12:20.760]  something to do with us, then all these administrative rules and procedures
[12:20.760 --> 12:25.760]  they put into place immediately become violative of the constitutional
[12:25.760 --> 12:29.760]  guarantees that we put into place to protect our rights.
[12:29.760 --> 12:32.760]  For instance, we can be arrested without a warrant just because some
[12:32.760 --> 12:34.760]  officer wants to.
[12:34.760 --> 12:37.760]  They can then go throw us in jail despite the fact they're told to take us
[12:37.760 --> 12:42.760]  immediately to a magistrate they never do.
[12:42.760 --> 12:45.760]  Basically, they search and seize our automobiles, which is our private
[12:45.760 --> 12:49.760]  property, without due process of law.
[12:49.760 --> 12:51.760]  There's no authority for this.
[12:51.760 --> 12:54.760]  Nowhere in the transportation code is there authority granted to take and
[12:54.760 --> 13:01.760]  tow an automobile if that automobile is not one that has been declared out
[13:01.760 --> 13:06.760]  of service using the North American safety standards, which only apply to
[13:06.760 --> 13:11.760]  commercial motor vehicles.
[13:11.760 --> 13:16.760]  There is no other place in the entire code that allows the towing of an
[13:16.760 --> 13:21.760]  automobile if it has not been declared out of service for safety reasons,
[13:21.760 --> 13:26.760]  and then it must be a commercial motor vehicle for that to have applied in
[13:26.760 --> 13:29.760]  the first place.
[13:29.760 --> 13:34.760]  So, Randy, Deborah, you all got any commentary on anything like that?
[13:34.760 --> 13:36.760]  I'm sick and tired of it.
[13:36.760 --> 13:39.760]  I'm not going to take it anymore.
[13:39.760 --> 13:44.760]  Well, that certainly sheds a new light on situations where, you know, the
[13:44.760 --> 13:51.760]  police have cars get towed without the owner's consent.
[13:51.760 --> 13:55.760]  Yeah, they are habitually stealing property in Texas under the guise of
[13:55.760 --> 14:00.760]  enforcing the transportation code rules, and they know they haven't read it.
[14:00.760 --> 14:04.760]  They are once again operating entirely off presumption.
[14:04.760 --> 14:07.760]  None of these officers have read the actual law.
[14:07.760 --> 14:12.760]  And even if they did, I doubt they understood it because they've taken no
[14:12.760 --> 14:16.760]  time to make the effort to understand it.
[14:16.760 --> 14:20.760]  And believe me, I've worked with some of these people.
[14:20.760 --> 14:25.760]  They're, you know, jellos got higher IQ ratings in some cases.
[14:25.760 --> 14:27.760]  But not to say they're all bad.
[14:27.760 --> 14:28.760]  They're not.
[14:28.760 --> 14:29.760]  Okay.
[14:29.760 --> 14:30.760]  All officers are bad.
[14:30.760 --> 14:35.760]  Not all officers are, you know, underpowered in the 4CC brain unit.
[14:35.760 --> 14:40.760]  But the simple fact of the matter is most of them just don't care.
[14:40.760 --> 14:44.760]  No matter how intelligent they are, they just don't care that they're
[14:44.760 --> 14:45.760]  violating your rights.
[14:45.760 --> 14:49.760]  They just don't care that they're doing it wrong.
[14:49.760 --> 14:50.760]  Why?
[14:50.760 --> 14:55.760]  Because the system is geared to protect them, not you.
[14:55.760 --> 14:57.760]  And that's what we need to fix.
[14:57.760 --> 15:01.760]  And the only way we're going to fix that is start basically having this
[15:01.760 --> 15:05.760]  officer stick his hand out and put a lawsuit in it that feels like a hot
[15:05.760 --> 15:08.760]  curling iron.
[15:08.760 --> 15:11.760]  And we really need to work on that, which I am in the process right now
[15:11.760 --> 15:15.760]  of doing documents to help us do exactly that thing.
[15:15.760 --> 15:19.760]  Not only are we going to do the defensive posture on this, I am working
[15:19.760 --> 15:23.760]  diligently to try to create an offensive posture where we come at them like
[15:23.760 --> 15:28.760]  the biggest freight train on the track and make it work.
[15:28.760 --> 15:32.760]  So anybody that wants to contribute or has something to kick in, please feel
[15:32.760 --> 15:36.760]  free to go to the rule of law website and send me an e-mail.
[15:36.760 --> 15:39.760]  I'll be happy to read whatever information you've got.
[15:39.760 --> 15:41.760]  I can't say I'll be able to respond to it.
[15:41.760 --> 15:44.760]  I'm already responding to several hundred e-mails a day as well as trying
[15:44.760 --> 15:46.760]  to rewrite these documents.
[15:46.760 --> 15:48.760]  It is a time-consuming endeavor.
[15:48.760 --> 15:52.760]  But I will do my best.
[15:52.760 --> 15:54.760]  All right.
[15:54.760 --> 15:55.760]  Okay.
[15:55.760 --> 15:58.760]  There was another issue we talked about today.
[15:58.760 --> 16:00.760]  Yes, there was.
[16:00.760 --> 16:04.760]  And it came when it was talking about what happens when you go to your
[16:04.760 --> 16:09.760]  examining trial that you're supposed to get when you have been arrested with
[16:09.760 --> 16:15.760]  or without a warrant under Chapter 14 or Chapter 15, Code of Criminal
[16:15.760 --> 16:17.760]  Procedure.
[16:17.760 --> 16:21.760]  It talks about in 14 if you're arrested without a warrant, 15 if you're
[16:21.760 --> 16:23.760]  arrested with a warrant.
[16:23.760 --> 16:28.760]  Now, one of the things Randy's got in one of his motions shows that 15.17
[16:28.760 --> 16:33.760]  Code of Criminal Procedure tried in one single statute to cram all of
[16:33.760 --> 16:35.760]  Chapter 16.
[16:35.760 --> 16:38.760]  But we'll cover that in detail when we get back from the break.
[16:38.760 --> 16:39.760]  Okay.
[16:39.760 --> 16:40.760]  We'll be right back.
[16:40.760 --> 16:44.760]  Callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[16:44.760 --> 16:59.760]  We will be right back.
[16:59.760 --> 17:03.760]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[17:03.760 --> 17:04.760]  Sorry.
[17:04.760 --> 17:07.760]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[17:07.760 --> 17:08.760]  What?
[17:08.760 --> 17:11.760]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today,
[17:11.760 --> 17:12.760]  stupidity.
[17:12.760 --> 17:16.760]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was
[17:16.760 --> 17:18.760]  diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[17:18.760 --> 17:22.760]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost
[17:22.760 --> 17:24.760]  every home in America, the television.
[17:24.760 --> 17:28.760]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity.
[17:28.760 --> 17:29.760]  But there is hope.
[17:29.760 --> 17:32.760]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other
[17:32.760 --> 17:35.760]  Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[17:35.760 --> 17:38.760]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching
[17:38.760 --> 17:42.760]  educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[17:42.760 --> 17:46.760]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call
[17:46.760 --> 17:54.760]  512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 at Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[17:54.760 --> 17:56.760]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment
[17:56.760 --> 18:11.760]  in enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[18:11.760 --> 18:36.760]  Okay, we are back.
[18:36.760 --> 18:38.760]  Go ahead, Eddie.
[18:38.760 --> 18:44.760]  Okay, anyway, 1517 is basically a consolidation of everything that is in
[18:44.760 --> 18:48.760]  Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which talks about all the
[18:48.760 --> 18:52.760]  things the judge is required to do when the person is brought before them
[18:52.760 --> 18:55.760]  for the purposes of the examining trial.
[18:55.760 --> 19:02.760]  Now, one of the interesting things that I pointed out to Randy was that once
[19:02.760 --> 19:06.760]  the judge goes through the process, there is a whole list of things the
[19:06.760 --> 19:08.760]  judge is required to do in this instance.
[19:08.760 --> 19:11.760]  And we talked about several of them on previous shows dealing with traffic
[19:11.760 --> 19:15.760]  where what happens with a misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine only
[19:15.760 --> 19:17.760]  versus all the rest of it.
[19:17.760 --> 19:21.760]  Now, the ones that are punishable by fine only, this is not necessarily
[19:21.760 --> 19:22.760]  going to apply to them.
[19:22.760 --> 19:25.760]  This is talking more along the lines of those that actually got arrested for
[19:25.760 --> 19:31.760]  something more along the lines of a DUI or something of that nature.
[19:31.760 --> 19:35.760]  You need to pay very close attention to everything from the moment the
[19:35.760 --> 19:40.760]  officer stops you all the way through until you have either been given a
[19:40.760 --> 19:46.760]  bond and set loose on bail or you've been released to go home.
[19:46.760 --> 19:52.760]  Either way, take very close attention and record every detail mentally or
[19:52.760 --> 19:54.760]  physically if you're able to do so.
[19:54.760 --> 19:56.760]  But make a mental note.
[19:56.760 --> 19:58.760]  Follow everything through.
[19:58.760 --> 20:03.760]  And then look at 1517 and Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
[20:03.760 --> 20:07.760]  see if everything in your list matches what was done.
[20:07.760 --> 20:12.760]  Randy and I are willing to bet dollars to donuts that everything that the
[20:12.760 --> 20:15.760]  list should have on it doesn't.
[20:15.760 --> 20:21.760]  Now, once the judge goes through his process and decides that he needs to
[20:21.760 --> 20:23.760]  commit you is what it's called.
[20:23.760 --> 20:25.760]  He commits you to jail.
[20:25.760 --> 20:31.760]  According to the statutes, there is only one person he can issue a
[20:31.760 --> 20:36.760]  commitment order to, and that is to the sheriff.
[20:36.760 --> 20:43.760]  And the sheriff must then commit you to his county jail.
[20:43.760 --> 20:52.760]  Nowhere in Chapter 15 or Chapter 16 or Chapter 17 is there a single
[20:52.760 --> 20:58.760]  reference to allowing the judge to commit you to the jail of a municipal
[20:58.760 --> 21:02.760]  police department?
[21:02.760 --> 21:05.760]  Absolutely none.
[21:05.760 --> 21:10.760]  They can only remand you to the sheriff.
[21:10.760 --> 21:17.760]  Now, some things I thought about about this would mean that, one, my
[21:17.760 --> 21:25.760]  insistence about what 1517B means must be accurate.
[21:25.760 --> 21:26.760]  Why?
[21:26.760 --> 21:33.760]  Because the county court is the one who must issue the commitment.
[21:33.760 --> 21:35.760]  It's not the municipal court.
[21:35.760 --> 21:37.760]  It's not the justice court.
[21:37.760 --> 21:42.760]  It is the county court or the statutory county court.
[21:42.760 --> 21:49.760]  And since they're the only ones that can commit you to jail, they got a
[21:49.760 --> 21:54.760]  problem here if anybody else does it because this clearly says it can't be
[21:54.760 --> 21:57.760]  done for the purposes of the examining trial.
[21:57.760 --> 22:02.760]  In fact, the only thing it lists, nowhere does it list a municipal
[22:02.760 --> 22:03.760]  offense.
[22:03.760 --> 22:10.760]  It specifically states in 1518 that it's a county offense.
[22:10.760 --> 22:14.760]  There's nothing in here dealing with a municipal offense in this section
[22:14.760 --> 22:20.760]  of the code dealing with the examining trial process.
[22:20.760 --> 22:21.760]  Nothing.
[22:21.760 --> 22:24.760]  Can't find it anywhere.
[22:24.760 --> 22:29.760]  So that would mean that everything that this deals with has to be from the
[22:29.760 --> 22:33.760]  penal code because everything in here that you're being remanded to jail for
[22:33.760 --> 22:38.760]  and the court has jurisdiction over for the purposes of an examining trial or
[22:38.760 --> 22:46.760]  an arraignment or anything else are all offenses out of the penal code.
[22:46.760 --> 22:49.760]  Randy, you got any commentary on that?
[22:49.760 --> 22:58.760]  Well, I'm kind of concerned because there appears to be in Chapter 45,
[22:58.760 --> 23:03.760]  authority under certain circumstances put for a municipal or a JP or a
[23:03.760 --> 23:07.760]  municipal judge to put someone in jail because Chapter 45 applies to
[23:07.760 --> 23:12.760]  municipal as well as justice courts.
[23:12.760 --> 23:20.760]  This seems like a really big problem with paramateria here.
[23:20.760 --> 23:28.760]  Yeah, especially considering that 1517B specifically states that any Class C
[23:28.760 --> 23:35.760]  misdemeanor for which the punishment is fine only, the magistrate can only
[23:35.760 --> 23:42.760]  identify the accused and give them a date and time to appear at the county
[23:42.760 --> 23:47.760]  court or statutory county court, which if you look under 45, however,
[23:47.760 --> 23:50.760]  45 has nothing to do with an arraignment.
[23:50.760 --> 23:54.760]  Nowhere in here does it deal with the process of an arraignment or anything
[23:54.760 --> 23:56.760]  like that.
[23:56.760 --> 24:01.760]  45 deals strictly with the procedure at trial.
[24:01.760 --> 24:06.760]  But the problem is, is they don't have jurisdiction over a transportation
[24:06.760 --> 24:09.760]  code offense trial.
[24:09.760 --> 24:11.760]  Why?
[24:11.760 --> 24:14.760]  Because the administrative code specifically states the transportation
[24:14.760 --> 24:16.760]  code offenses are not criminal.
[24:16.760 --> 24:24.760]  They are administrative, which is why there is nothing in Chapter 14,
[24:24.760 --> 24:32.760]  Chapter 15, Chapter 16, or Chapter 45 that deals with the procedure for
[24:32.760 --> 24:39.760]  taking a plea or anything else under a transportation code offense.
[24:39.760 --> 24:43.760]  It's not there.
[24:43.760 --> 24:50.760]  It only deals with offenses that are criminal according to the penal code.
[24:50.760 --> 24:55.760]  And that offense, as far as the JP or the municipal court is concerned,
[24:55.760 --> 25:01.760]  can only be a penal code offense punishable by fine only.
[25:01.760 --> 25:04.760]  Now, how many penal code offenses are there that are punishable by fine
[25:04.760 --> 25:06.760]  only?
[25:06.760 --> 25:12.760]  Pretty much any Class C misdemeanor.
[25:12.760 --> 25:16.760]  Class As and Bs can both involve confinement as part of the punishment.
[25:16.760 --> 25:18.760]  Class Cs do not.
[25:18.760 --> 25:22.760]  Public intoxication, for instance.
[25:22.760 --> 25:24.760]  Let's see.
[25:24.760 --> 25:28.760]  Official oppression is a Class A, correct, Randy?
[25:28.760 --> 25:29.760]  Yes.
[25:29.760 --> 25:30.760]  Okay.
[25:30.760 --> 25:33.760]  So that one can involve jail time.
[25:33.760 --> 25:36.760]  Not in a state penitentiary, but jail time, nonetheless, up to a year,
[25:36.760 --> 25:38.760]  I believe.
[25:38.760 --> 25:40.760]  Yeah, a year in jail for Class A misdemeanor.
[25:40.760 --> 25:41.760]  Okay.
[25:41.760 --> 25:43.760]  $10,000 fine.
[25:43.760 --> 25:50.760]  So given that, it would appear that transportation code offenses fall within
[25:50.760 --> 25:56.760]  that legal black hole I talked about last week because there is no rate of
[25:56.760 --> 25:58.760]  due process.
[25:58.760 --> 26:04.760]  It seems that all municipal offenses or all offenses below the grade of
[26:04.760 --> 26:07.760]  Class B misdemeanor seem to fall in that hole.
[26:07.760 --> 26:09.760]  Yeah, exactly.
[26:09.760 --> 26:13.760]  But that would actually make sense, and let's consider why.
[26:13.760 --> 26:19.760]  We're dealing with a corporation court, which is not either an Article III
[26:19.760 --> 26:24.760]  nor is it a Texas constitutionally based court.
[26:24.760 --> 26:28.760]  It is a court created under the laws and powers of the legislature.
[26:28.760 --> 26:32.760]  Since it is not specifically addressed as a court that is allowed to be
[26:32.760 --> 26:37.760]  created pursuant to the state constitution, under what powers and
[26:37.760 --> 26:44.760]  authorities can the legislature create a municipal corporation court?
[26:44.760 --> 26:49.760]  There can't be but one set of powers.
[26:49.760 --> 26:51.760]  That would be the general powers, right?
[26:51.760 --> 26:52.760]  Exactly.
[26:52.760 --> 26:59.760]  And Article I, Section 29, pursuant to the exercise of the high powers
[26:59.760 --> 27:04.760]  delegated herein, all things within this Bill of Rights are forever accepted
[27:04.760 --> 27:10.760]  from the general powers of government.
[27:10.760 --> 27:11.760]  Now imagine that.
[27:11.760 --> 27:16.760]  How can the people be hauled into a corporation court created under the
[27:16.760 --> 27:22.760]  general powers and that court have jurisdiction over the people when it
[27:22.760 --> 27:26.760]  specifically says in the state constitution they are accepted from
[27:26.760 --> 27:32.760]  anything in the general powers as far as that Bill of Rights is concerned?
[27:32.760 --> 27:35.760]  And there's a lot in that Bill of Rights dealing with our right to due
[27:35.760 --> 27:40.760]  process, our right to deprivation of property without due process of law as
[27:40.760 --> 27:45.760]  being an offense against us and so on and so forth.
[27:45.760 --> 27:48.760]  If those things are forever accepted from the general powers of government,
[27:48.760 --> 27:54.760]  then how can a general power enabled court get jurisdiction unless we're
[27:54.760 --> 27:59.760]  actually an employee of the corporation?
[27:59.760 --> 28:03.760]  Now that makes sense.
[28:03.760 --> 28:09.760]  That they only have the authority to address the law against their own
[28:09.760 --> 28:14.760]  employees because they're the corporation and these are corporate employees.
[28:14.760 --> 28:17.760]  There you go.
[28:17.760 --> 28:24.760]  Chapter 45 is nothing more than the punishment side of the employee handbook.
[28:24.760 --> 28:29.760]  It's got nothing to do with us.
[28:29.760 --> 28:36.760]  So Ford can't hold me responsible for their employee discipline.
[28:36.760 --> 28:39.760]  Exactly.
[28:39.760 --> 28:43.760]  And since the administrative code, this brings up another problem from the
[28:43.760 --> 28:48.760]  administrative slash transportation side, where does the state legislature
[28:48.760 --> 28:55.760]  in any way, shape or form get the authority to make the people liable to the
[28:55.760 --> 29:01.760]  state in any way under an administrative statute when the people are not part
[29:01.760 --> 29:08.760]  of their administrative structure or policy or employment?
[29:08.760 --> 29:12.760]  By its very definition, an administrative rule has to do with internal
[29:12.760 --> 29:20.760]  administration of something, not external, internal.
[29:20.760 --> 29:28.760]  And if it's internal, why and how could it possibly apply to us?
[29:28.760 --> 29:36.760]  I just can't get there from here, as Randy would say.
[29:36.760 --> 29:38.760]  I ain't putting up with it anymore.
[29:38.760 --> 29:39.760]  That's all there is to it.
[29:39.760 --> 29:41.760]  I'm not putting up with it anymore either.
[29:41.760 --> 29:43.760]  Thanks, Eddie.
[29:43.760 --> 29:44.760]  Yes, ma'am.
[29:44.760 --> 29:45.760]  Okay.
[29:45.760 --> 29:46.760]  We will be right back.
[29:46.760 --> 29:47.760]  We do have a caller on the line.
[29:47.760 --> 29:48.760]  A couple of callers.
[29:48.760 --> 29:51.760]  We've got Randy from Texas, Jeff from Michigan.
[29:51.760 --> 29:52.760]  You guys want to go?
[29:52.760 --> 29:53.760]  Yeah, let's take some calls.
[29:53.760 --> 29:54.760]  We'll get back on the other side.
[29:54.760 --> 29:58.760]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens.
[29:58.760 --> 30:00.760]  We'll be right back.
[30:00.760 --> 30:05.760]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[30:05.760 --> 30:09.760]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[30:09.760 --> 30:14.760]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[30:14.760 --> 30:20.760]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[30:20.760 --> 30:26.760]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[30:26.760 --> 30:29.760]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[30:29.760 --> 30:33.760]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[30:33.760 --> 30:38.760]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[30:38.760 --> 30:41.760]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[30:41.760 --> 30:44.760]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[30:44.760 --> 30:49.760]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[30:49.760 --> 30:57.760]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[30:57.760 --> 31:00.760]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[31:00.760 --> 31:13.760]  Yeah, I got a warrant and I'm gonna solve them to the end, government them, prosecute them.
[31:13.760 --> 31:16.760]  Okay.
[31:16.760 --> 31:20.760]  Okay.
[31:20.760 --> 31:30.760]  This person's a rest for Mr. Bush. This person's a rest for the teen.
[31:30.760 --> 31:35.760]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leaders.
[31:35.760 --> 31:38.760]  You see, the mama where they're a liar, them tell me.
[31:38.760 --> 31:40.760]  Them a liar, not tell six stories.
[31:40.760 --> 31:42.760]  You don't believe me, say what them tell me.
[31:42.760 --> 31:45.760]  Three percent of Americans vote for Bush.
[31:45.760 --> 31:48.760]  So how the hell he get the presidency?
[31:48.760 --> 31:51.760]  That's why me have a warrant for him.
[31:51.760 --> 31:54.760]  Everybody listen carefully, listen to the word that the issue's passing.
[31:54.760 --> 31:59.760]  This person's a rest for Mr. Bush.
[31:59.760 --> 32:04.760]  I got a warrant for the teen.
[32:04.760 --> 32:09.760]  This person's a rest for Mr. Bush.
[32:09.760 --> 32:13.760]  I got a warrant for the teen.
[32:13.760 --> 32:16.760]  Well, enough of that rumsfield, warrant for him.
[32:16.760 --> 32:18.760]  All the trainee warrants for him.
[32:18.760 --> 32:21.760]  Fight about the citizens in the country.
[32:21.760 --> 32:23.760]  Them getting so mad and them getting angry.
[32:23.760 --> 32:26.760]  We have some warrant we need to solve.
[32:26.760 --> 32:30.760]  Need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them from any state we'll do.
[32:30.760 --> 32:33.760]  Come over and let me show them to him.
[32:33.760 --> 32:35.760]  Hear them tell you what me a tell you.
[32:35.760 --> 32:38.760]  Three issues, that is the issue, that is true.
[32:38.760 --> 32:43.760]  Hey Silverstein dude, you get the citizens a rest too.
[32:43.760 --> 32:48.760]  Silverstein and Hamilton clean, you know them and they never clean.
[32:48.760 --> 32:53.760]  Everybody bring them in, so we could solve them with warranting.
[32:53.760 --> 32:56.760]  They never need to quarantine, you know them like me.
[32:56.760 --> 33:01.760]  All right, citizens a rest.
[33:01.760 --> 33:07.760]  And there are provisions for citizens arrests here in Texas and under statute.
[33:07.760 --> 33:12.760]  We are not advocating violent overthrow of the government when we say these things, people.
[33:12.760 --> 33:14.760]  Strictly according to law.
[33:14.760 --> 33:19.760]  That's why we call this network and the show the rule of law.
[33:19.760 --> 33:21.760]  I'd like to interject something real quick, though.
[33:21.760 --> 33:23.760]  This is being an interesting thing here.
[33:23.760 --> 33:31.760]  Now, Randy, since the people have the right to arrest for felonies or misdemeanors committed in their view,
[33:31.760 --> 33:38.760]  yet the people are not permitted to resist an arrest of a police officer that is committing an illegal arrest,
[33:38.760 --> 33:45.760]  how do we solve that quandary since those particular statutes seem to be in direct opposition to each other?
[33:45.760 --> 33:49.760]  Hmm, things that make it kind of difficult when you're both arresting each other.
[33:49.760 --> 33:52.760]  Things that make it difficult, hmm.
[33:52.760 --> 34:04.760]  Well, in the real world I live in, trying to do a citizen's arrest on a man with a loaded pistol when you don't have one is not a good idea.
[34:04.760 --> 34:08.760]  Well, since he's wearing recording equipment, just get it on the record.
[34:08.760 --> 34:10.760]  I hereby place you under citizen's arrest.
[34:10.760 --> 34:17.760]  Everything you do at this point will be considered an assault upon a peace officer according to law.
[34:17.760 --> 34:21.760]  Okay, so let's go to some calls.
[34:21.760 --> 34:24.760]  All right, we are going to Randy in Texas.
[34:24.760 --> 34:25.760]  Go ahead, Randy, thanks.
[34:25.760 --> 34:27.760]  What's on your mind?
[34:27.760 --> 34:37.760]  I just wanted to remind Eddie about the 1925 Texas Code about the chauffeur license.
[34:37.760 --> 34:38.760]  Oh, yes.
[34:38.760 --> 34:45.760]  That was clearly a commercial license back then, and I don't think they've ever really changed the license from a chauffeur's license.
[34:45.760 --> 34:49.760]  They just have the three or four classifications now.
[34:49.760 --> 34:56.760]  And that was always, if you go back and look at it, it was civil.
[34:56.760 --> 35:05.760]  Yeah, as were the cases on that very same issue in the 40s, 50s, and 60s that I've got the case law on.
[35:05.760 --> 35:06.760]  Right.
[35:06.760 --> 35:08.760]  I don't think there's any way they can get around that.
[35:08.760 --> 35:12.760]  We probably need to research that and, you know, go to law.
[35:12.760 --> 35:14.760]  Well, I've got scans of the actual cases.
[35:14.760 --> 35:16.760]  I've got them straight out of the book.
[35:16.760 --> 35:21.760]  I've got actual physical scans of the pages of the book with the case law on it.
[35:21.760 --> 35:29.760]  And then in my current little tussle with the Oklahoma authorities on a speeding ticket,
[35:29.760 --> 35:37.760]  right now I'm putting together my tort letter to inform the governor of Oklahoma, the commissioner of the DPS,
[35:37.760 --> 35:43.760]  the district judge, the county commissioners, the district attorney, the sheriff, the undersheriff,
[35:43.760 --> 35:48.760]  and the court clerk that I'm going to be suing them in federal court.
[35:48.760 --> 36:00.760]  And I'm going to sue them under 28 U.S.C., 1343 A, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 42 U.S.C., 1983 and 1985.
[36:00.760 --> 36:03.760]  And you're going to sue their wives?
[36:03.760 --> 36:08.760]  Yeah, and all their wives and spouses.
[36:08.760 --> 36:15.760]  I would like to be a fly on the wall when the U.S. Marshals serve the governor's wife.
[36:15.760 --> 36:24.760]  Now, my question, though, is can I sue them in the capacity of a private attorney general?
[36:24.760 --> 36:27.760]  You can if you don't want to collect any money.
[36:27.760 --> 36:30.760]  Other similar situated?
[36:30.760 --> 36:36.760]  Well, you can sue for yourself and then for others similarly situated.
[36:36.760 --> 36:40.760]  In that regard, you sue for a jump to relief.
[36:40.760 --> 36:42.760]  Okay.
[36:42.760 --> 36:47.760]  So if I said something along the lines of suing a person with capacity
[36:47.760 --> 36:55.760]  and capacity of the private attorney general on behalf of others similarly situated?
[36:55.760 --> 36:57.760]  Sounds good to me.
[36:57.760 --> 37:05.760]  Now, can I somehow wrangle in a quiet hand?
[37:05.760 --> 37:12.760]  If you claim that all of these monies has been, if they've taken federal funds,
[37:12.760 --> 37:22.760]  which almost certainly have, and they've used those funds to perpetrate a fraud, I would think yes.
[37:22.760 --> 37:29.760]  Because what I'm trying to do is develop a planet killer suit here that will just be so unbelievable
[37:29.760 --> 37:35.760]  that they're just going to immediately fall down and say, how do we get rid of you?
[37:35.760 --> 37:39.760]  And what do you need to go away?
[37:39.760 --> 37:43.760]  Oh, you're expecting these guys to cry uncle.
[37:43.760 --> 37:48.760]  Well, actually, you can pull them into court.
[37:48.760 --> 37:53.760]  The problem with getting them into court is courts are also corrupt.
[37:53.760 --> 37:56.760]  And they know that.
[37:56.760 --> 38:03.760]  They pretty well feel like the court's going to rule in their favor no matter what.
[38:03.760 --> 38:11.760]  So you think they'd be willing to sit there and come after the, go into the federal court here in Austin?
[38:11.760 --> 38:17.760]  That would be, hadn't considered federal court in Austin.
[38:17.760 --> 38:20.760]  We talked about that earlier.
[38:20.760 --> 38:24.760]  That they might not want to do.
[38:24.760 --> 38:34.760]  But then again, when you sue them, they may want to move the venue back to Oklahoma.
[38:34.760 --> 38:37.760]  Well, it's an offense across the state lines, though.
[38:37.760 --> 38:39.760]  They're trying to go after a citizen in another state.
[38:39.760 --> 38:51.760]  Yeah, but they may want to pull it back to an Oklahoma federal court, to their venue.
[38:51.760 --> 38:57.760]  But it's worth a try. You know, if they do, you can argue against change of venue.
[38:57.760 --> 38:59.760]  That they committed the acts against you.
[38:59.760 --> 39:03.760]  It's inappropriate that they should be able to commit this kind of fraud against you
[39:03.760 --> 39:10.760]  and then subject you to this major inconvenience to try to protect yourself from their fraud.
[39:10.760 --> 39:17.760]  And since they're operating on, they're going to be using public money anyway.
[39:17.760 --> 39:22.760]  It's not costing them personally.
[39:22.760 --> 39:31.760]  And what about, I think, I believe that the judge in this thing actually has a private law practice there in Oklahoma.
[39:31.760 --> 39:40.760]  So I was thinking about going ahead and pinging him with one bar agreement just to let him know that I'm thinking about it.
[39:40.760 --> 39:48.760]  A lot of times the municipal judges do have their own practice, so that would be great.
[39:48.760 --> 39:51.760]  That's just for the fun of it.
[39:51.760 --> 39:59.760]  They also have some weird deal where I found that the sheriff's department is actually a private corporation
[39:59.760 --> 40:11.760]  and operates some kind of a, I don't know, the Paradise Fund or something. It's very, I mean, it's just bizarre.
[40:11.760 --> 40:16.760]  Can I go after that too?
[40:16.760 --> 40:18.760]  The fund?
[40:18.760 --> 40:22.760]  Well, they've got some kind of a, I don't know.
[40:22.760 --> 40:30.760]  They've got, if you find, I went online and I found the sheriff's department for the county and they were like a private,
[40:30.760 --> 40:41.760]  it said they were a private group and they were also doing business as and it was some kind of almost like a charity or something.
[40:41.760 --> 40:53.760]  Absolutely. You could sue them and take all this money out of these babies' and little kids' lunch funds.
[40:53.760 --> 41:00.760]  Yeah, I'm just looking to get as many people in the net as possible and then start to squeeze.
[41:00.760 --> 41:04.760]  That's the best way to do it.
[41:04.760 --> 41:12.760]  If you guys have any ideas, let me know because I really want to get after them. I just like what they're doing.
[41:12.760 --> 41:17.760]  This is the only way we're going to fix it. It'll be inconvenient. It'll take a lot of work.
[41:17.760 --> 41:21.760]  But if we're going to fix this mess, this is how we're going to do it.
[41:21.760 --> 41:23.760]  I agree.
[41:23.760 --> 41:29.760]  Well, I'll let you get to the other callers, but I just wanted to remind Eddie about that 1925 code which anybody can get online.
[41:29.760 --> 41:42.760]  I think it's at the Texas State Law Library. It's really kind of enlightening to read through it.
[41:42.760 --> 41:44.760]  It probably wouldn't be that hard to download.
[41:44.760 --> 41:52.760]  I would like to have a copy of it where I could cut and paste and compare.
[41:52.760 --> 41:53.760]  I think it would probably be good.
[41:53.760 --> 42:00.760]  I think, Eddie, you and I talked about this a while back is to go and research how they really don't do anything with the code
[42:00.760 --> 42:06.760]  other than to change it to make it, quote-unquote, more readable and understandable.
[42:06.760 --> 42:09.760]  Right. No substantive change.
[42:09.760 --> 42:12.760]  You say that they really don't do anything with it.
[42:12.760 --> 42:22.760]  They really are not supposed to do anything with it other than make it readable, and that's why we want to check.
[42:22.760 --> 42:35.760]  Larry Nelson is actually working right now to get the actual scanned images of particular acts from the 1925 statutes directly out of the legislature,
[42:35.760 --> 42:44.760]  not the actual statute itself, but the actual legislative bill so that I can see the original language,
[42:44.760 --> 42:49.760]  and he's going to try to get me a set of scans from the 1925 statutes themselves
[42:49.760 --> 42:55.760]  so we can see how they implemented the statute versus the original language of the bill.
[42:55.760 --> 43:02.760]  Right, and I think I may have to take a trip down to the UT Law Library or something and get some of this stuff
[43:02.760 --> 43:07.760]  because I think it would be real handy to show what they're really up to.
[43:07.760 --> 43:18.760]  Yeah, well, it would seem to me that when we say we make no substantive change, we actually know what that means, you know, but they don't.
[43:18.760 --> 43:29.760]  I've actually had people look at me and go, well, that just simply means that there's no large language changes through the entire statute.
[43:29.760 --> 43:37.760]  No, that's not what it means, you know.
[43:37.760 --> 43:43.760]  Okay, listen, thanks for calling in, Randy. I appreciate it.
[43:43.760 --> 43:45.760]  Tie that dog up, Randy.
[43:45.760 --> 43:48.760]  All right, we'll be right back. We're going to continue to take your calls.
[43:48.760 --> 43:51.760]  We've got Jeff from Michigan, Jerry from Texas, John in Florida.
[43:51.760 --> 44:00.760]  We will be back right after these messages. This is the rule of law.
[44:00.760 --> 44:05.760]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, micro plant powder,
[44:05.760 --> 44:12.760]  will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins, such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses,
[44:12.760 --> 44:16.760]  and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach wall so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:16.760 --> 44:25.760]  Micro plant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organ, spine, and brain.
[44:25.760 --> 44:31.760]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:31.760 --> 44:37.760]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:37.760 --> 44:43.760]  There is no better time than now to have micro plant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter.
[44:43.760 --> 44:46.760]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:46.760 --> 44:53.760]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org. It's a great way to change your life.
[44:53.760 --> 45:13.760]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:13.760 --> 45:25.760]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not wait any longer, would you purposefully die?
[45:25.760 --> 45:54.760]  Okay, watching the sparks fly.
[45:54.760 --> 45:58.760]  Here on the rule of law, rule of law radio.
[45:58.760 --> 46:02.760]  Eddie just sent us a beautiful t-shirt idea.
[46:02.760 --> 46:04.760]  Talk about some sparks.
[46:04.760 --> 46:09.760]  Take me to the nearest magistrate or I'm going to sue your sorry bleep.
[46:09.760 --> 46:16.760]  I heart Texas transportation code 543.002.
[46:16.760 --> 46:19.760]  Oh, I love that. That's cute. That's really cute. I love it.
[46:19.760 --> 46:22.760]  Okay, we're going now to Jeff from Michigan.
[46:22.760 --> 46:26.760]  Okay, Jeff, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind tonight?
[46:26.760 --> 46:28.760]  Hello, how are you doing?
[46:28.760 --> 46:33.760]  I wanted to tell you what happened to me on Friday morning.
[46:33.760 --> 46:44.760]  And Eddie was laying out so well how the administrative rules that they call laws are only applicable to the corporation.
[46:44.760 --> 46:52.760]  I went to court on Friday morning facing judicial foreclosure for my property.
[46:52.760 --> 47:02.760]  And I got my opportunity to ask the representative of the Treasury, the county, some questions.
[47:02.760 --> 47:08.760]  And the first thing I asked him was, is the county a corporation?
[47:08.760 --> 47:17.760]  And he squirmed like a stuck pig and looked at the corporate counsel and says, I don't know.
[47:17.760 --> 47:23.760]  Opened perjury in the courtroom in front of a judge and he did nothing.
[47:23.760 --> 47:26.760]  And I asked him several questions.
[47:26.760 --> 47:33.760]  I'm like, well, you were just in the room with us moments ago where you just said the county was a corporation.
[47:33.760 --> 47:36.760]  Oh, no, that was the corporate counsel.
[47:36.760 --> 47:48.760]  Well, by you calling them corporate counsel, does that not in fact evidence that you understand the county to be a corporation?
[47:48.760 --> 47:50.760]  No, I don't know.
[47:50.760 --> 48:06.760]  You know, it just goes to show how adamant or what lengths they will go to in a corrupt courtroom to cover up the fact that they are a fictional corporation and have no authority over a natural person.
[48:06.760 --> 48:18.760]  And then you should file a co-warrant action to remove him from office for incompetence.
[48:18.760 --> 48:21.760]  Co-warrant, okay.
[48:21.760 --> 48:28.760]  Co-warrant is a removal of a public official from office for cause.
[48:28.760 --> 48:31.760]  The guy doesn't even know if the county is a corporation.
[48:31.760 --> 48:34.760]  He has no idea what he's doing.
[48:34.760 --> 48:35.760]  I know.
[48:35.760 --> 48:38.760]  He was lying, but he knows it.
[48:38.760 --> 48:48.760]  And I was challenging them. I'm like, does the county claim to have a superior title than the land patent?
[48:48.760 --> 48:51.760]  Because I'm claiming I am the assignee of the land patent.
[48:51.760 --> 48:57.760]  And who is the county to divest me of my property for this ad valorem tax?
[48:57.760 --> 49:05.760]  I mean, the language of the land patent is clear for the heirs and assignees forever.
[49:05.760 --> 49:09.760]  I'm like, when did forever end?
[49:09.760 --> 49:12.760]  And I got no answers to any of these questions.
[49:12.760 --> 49:23.760]  And I was just beginning, just the very beginning of my first argument, the first of five consecutive points I wanted to make in my case.
[49:23.760 --> 49:29.760]  And Judge closes his folder and says he's made his decision, get out.
[49:29.760 --> 49:33.760]  And they had pre-printed papers with the decision.
[49:33.760 --> 49:42.760]  It came hot off the press before the courtroom was even ended.
[49:42.760 --> 49:45.760]  So we're going back for a rehearing.
[49:45.760 --> 49:49.760]  And you should file criminally against the judge.
[49:49.760 --> 49:50.760]  Yeah.
[49:50.760 --> 49:56.760]  Move to disqualify the judge and sue the judge.
[49:56.760 --> 49:58.760]  When you sue everybody else.
[49:58.760 --> 50:00.760]  Throw the judge in there, too.
[50:00.760 --> 50:03.760]  Right down to his corporate toes.
[50:03.760 --> 50:12.760]  For not allowing you, for denying you your right to petition the court for redress of grievance.
[50:12.760 --> 50:17.760]  Well, we're just getting started because I don't want to pay it if I don't have to.
[50:17.760 --> 50:21.760]  And all my research is telling me I don't have to, that it's a scam.
[50:21.760 --> 50:24.760]  And we've got to take it to a federal court to prove that.
[50:24.760 --> 50:30.760]  If you're in a case, counter sue in the case.
[50:30.760 --> 50:34.760]  That way you don't have to pay a filing fee.
[50:34.760 --> 50:39.760]  Right.
[50:39.760 --> 50:44.760]  Well, I'm glad you found the stuff that I've covered useful for you.
[50:44.760 --> 50:45.760]  But I'm kind of confused.
[50:45.760 --> 50:48.760]  Are you saying that it actually worked out in your favor in some way
[50:48.760 --> 50:54.760]  or that you actually made them sit up and the short hairs on their necks stand up
[50:54.760 --> 50:56.760]  when you started bringing up these issues?
[50:56.760 --> 51:03.760]  No, it was just they gave me a judgment against me.
[51:03.760 --> 51:09.760]  It was just, it's appalling that they can just disregard this stuff.
[51:09.760 --> 51:17.760]  And they were citing just some stupid lower court's decision about the land patent
[51:17.760 --> 51:19.760]  that doesn't, you know, waive you from taxing.
[51:19.760 --> 51:22.760]  And I'm like, well, wait a minute here.
[51:22.760 --> 51:27.760]  No one's saying that I'm excused from taxation.
[51:27.760 --> 51:34.760]  Just by saying that you're excused grants some authority to somebody
[51:34.760 --> 51:41.760]  that you're asking to be exempt or, you know, excused from paying the tax.
[51:41.760 --> 51:47.760]  You know, this patented land, according to the Enabling Act of joining Michigan
[51:47.760 --> 51:55.760]  as a state in the union, was that it should never be taxed, ever, ever, ever.
[51:55.760 --> 52:00.760]  And they're saying that since I'm a private person, I'm not the government.
[52:00.760 --> 52:02.760]  If that government property wants to change hands,
[52:02.760 --> 52:07.760]  then they can charge and have the law on tax.
[52:07.760 --> 52:11.760]  Well, if you actually, for the folks in Texas, this will especially apply.
[52:11.760 --> 52:17.760]  But if you go to that charlton.edu website that I gave out the other night
[52:17.760 --> 52:23.760]  and look at all of the past and present iterations of the Texas,
[52:23.760 --> 52:28.760]  Republic of Texas Constitution, the 1836 Constitution,
[52:28.760 --> 52:34.760]  which is what we are based on here in Texas, specifically states right in the
[52:34.760 --> 52:42.760]  Constitution that the confiscation of private property is forever prohibited.
[52:42.760 --> 52:50.760]  It is forever prohibited, which means the power of eminent domain doesn't exist
[52:50.760 --> 52:54.760]  when it comes to private property.
[52:54.760 --> 52:57.760]  I mean, there's no way around that.
[52:57.760 --> 53:00.760]  Even if they tried to rewrite the Constitution for the purposes of the
[53:00.760 --> 53:05.760]  Reformation after the Civil War, they would have had to have dissolved the
[53:05.760 --> 53:08.760]  Texas Republic to do so.
[53:08.760 --> 53:13.760]  You can't keep intact the created instrument if you dissolve the instrument
[53:13.760 --> 53:15.760]  that created it.
[53:15.760 --> 53:19.760]  That's like piling all your groceries in a water-soluble bag and dropping it
[53:19.760 --> 53:22.760]  in a swimming pool and expect it to come out intact.
[53:22.760 --> 53:26.760]  This ain't going to happen.
[53:26.760 --> 53:31.760]  So one of the first things I'd recommend to everybody that's listening to this,
[53:31.760 --> 53:37.760]  no matter what state you're in, is find the past versions of your Constitution
[53:37.760 --> 53:39.760]  for your state.
[53:39.760 --> 53:43.760]  Research the history through that Constitution.
[53:43.760 --> 53:53.760]  Show where it has been changed to be in violation of itself.
[53:53.760 --> 53:58.760]  And show that it was never agreed upon by the people nor intended by the people
[53:58.760 --> 54:07.760]  at the formation for that to be allowed.
[54:07.760 --> 54:14.760]  We're working on getting driving without a license out here in Michigan.
[54:14.760 --> 54:17.760]  I've been preparing for it.
[54:17.760 --> 54:19.760]  I'm just not willing to do it right now.
[54:19.760 --> 54:22.760]  We've got such a corrupt system we're dealing with.
[54:22.760 --> 54:29.760]  They don't follow their own rules and laws and violate proper procedure due process
[54:29.760 --> 54:30.760]  left and right up here.
[54:30.760 --> 54:36.760]  Well, Newsflash, that same system exists in every single State of the Union.
[54:36.760 --> 54:38.760]  I don't doubt it.
[54:38.760 --> 54:45.760]  And trying to track down the applicable information from what you've got in Texas
[54:45.760 --> 54:48.760]  to here in Michigan is a little bit tricky.
[54:48.760 --> 54:54.760]  I've got some of it done, and as far as I was trying to explain to Dr. Graves
[54:54.760 --> 55:03.760]  how the Tax Act, Motor Carrier Fuel Tax Act of Act 119 and 1980,
[55:03.760 --> 55:09.760]  in the definitions it clearly states that public roads and highways means a road,
[55:09.760 --> 55:14.760]  street, or place maintained by the state or political subdivision of the state
[55:14.760 --> 55:19.760]  and is generally open to use by the public as a matter of right for the purpose
[55:19.760 --> 55:24.760]  of vehicular travel, notwithstanding that there may be temporary loss
[55:24.760 --> 55:27.760]  or travel restrictions due to construction.
[55:27.760 --> 55:32.760]  It clearly says that motor vehicle travel is a matter of right,
[55:32.760 --> 55:36.760]  and that they don't address that in the Motor Vehicle Code
[55:36.760 --> 55:43.760]  because the Motor Vehicle Code is strictly addressing commercial licensing.
[55:43.760 --> 55:49.760]  Yeah, well, just like here in Texas, if you look at it, you know, straight up,
[55:49.760 --> 55:55.760]  when you show that you must have the commercial license to operate a motor vehicle,
[55:55.760 --> 56:01.760]  there becomes the necessity of there being a direct correlation of what the motor vehicle
[56:01.760 --> 56:07.760]  must be being used for in relation to the license that you must have.
[56:07.760 --> 56:14.760]  And since the license itself is directly based upon the necessity to operate in commerce,
[56:14.760 --> 56:20.760]  the only logical nexus that can exist is that the motor vehicle that you're being licensed
[56:20.760 --> 56:27.760]  to operate must also be involved in that same nexus regarding commerce.
[56:27.760 --> 56:33.760]  Otherwise, you wouldn't need a commercial license to utilize it, would you?
[56:33.760 --> 56:37.760]  Well, there's another approach that I'm going to be trying,
[56:37.760 --> 56:40.760]  and they're having success with it in Canada.
[56:40.760 --> 56:45.760]  There's a video I found of a guy, this winter, I believe, gets pulled over,
[56:45.760 --> 56:50.760]  and the Canadian police pull him over, and he hands him his notice of intent
[56:50.760 --> 56:55.760]  and claim of right, his papers that he's filed, and, you know,
[56:55.760 --> 57:02.760]  had like an affidavit, you post it, and it becomes law because it's uncontested.
[57:02.760 --> 57:06.760]  And they sit there and they read it, and he's getting upset with them.
[57:06.760 --> 57:07.760]  He's like, you know, hey, it's freezing.
[57:07.760 --> 57:08.760]  I've got to go.
[57:08.760 --> 57:10.760]  And there's reading and reading and reading.
[57:10.760 --> 57:12.760]  Finally, they give it back to him and let him go,
[57:12.760 --> 57:15.760]  and they're asking him questions and kind of trick questions like,
[57:15.760 --> 57:17.760]  so you're not under this authority?
[57:17.760 --> 57:19.760]  No, no, I'm not, you know.
[57:19.760 --> 57:21.760]  But you're going to need insurance to get on the road.
[57:21.760 --> 57:24.760]  And he's like, well, actually, no, I don't.
[57:24.760 --> 57:27.760]  But I'm going to get it.
[57:27.760 --> 57:34.760]  And it's just amazing because the Canadian police are a little more reasonable
[57:34.760 --> 57:36.760]  and understanding.
[57:36.760 --> 57:39.760]  That's because there's deep snow banks for them to get buried in
[57:39.760 --> 57:46.760]  if they step across the wrong line with the wrong guy.
[57:46.760 --> 57:50.760]  But, yeah, it's a matter of truth, I mean, a matter of right.
[57:50.760 --> 57:58.760]  And the process that they're using is a notice of intent and a claim of right.
[57:58.760 --> 58:01.760]  You follow it up with just basically those two letters,
[58:01.760 --> 58:04.760]  and you send them out to notification of the county, the city, everybody,
[58:04.760 --> 58:11.760]  and it stands as law, uncontested.
[58:11.760 --> 58:13.760]  All right, listen, we're at the top of the hour break.
[58:13.760 --> 58:15.760]  Jeff, do you have anything else for us?
[58:15.760 --> 58:16.760]  That's it for tonight, thanks.
[58:16.760 --> 58:17.760]  Thank you so much.
[58:17.760 --> 58:19.760]  Great call, great input.
[58:19.760 --> 58:21.760]  All right, we're going to continue to take your calls.
[58:21.760 --> 58:24.760]  We've got Jerry from Texas when we get back on the other side.
[58:24.760 --> 58:26.760]  And after that, we've got John from Florida.
[58:26.760 --> 58:32.760]  So callers, if you'd like to call in, 512-646-1984.
[58:32.760 --> 58:34.760]  We are taking your calls.
[58:34.760 --> 58:36.760]  Tonight is traffic night.
[58:36.760 --> 58:40.760]  If you have questions about traffic issues, transportation code,
[58:40.760 --> 58:46.760]  got Eddie here on the scene, Eddie in the house, answering your questions.
[58:46.760 --> 58:48.760]  We will be back after the top of the hour news break.
[58:48.760 --> 58:51.760]  INN World Report, Tom Kiley.
[58:51.760 --> 58:55.760]  His show is here on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 6 to 8 p.m. Central Time.
[58:55.760 --> 59:01.760]  We'll be right back.
[59:01.760 --> 59:03.760]  This is Deborah Stevens from Rule of Law Radio.
[59:03.760 --> 59:08.760]  Many of you have been helped by the news and information you've received from 90.1
[59:08.760 --> 59:12.760]  here in Austin over the years, and now 90.1 needs your help.
[59:12.760 --> 59:16.760]  The operators of 90.1 are facing a long and expensive legal battle
[59:16.760 --> 59:19.760]  against the SEC to try to stay on the air,
[59:19.760 --> 59:23.760]  as well as potentially being fined up to $20,000.
[59:23.760 --> 59:26.760]  Rule of Law Radio is not associated with 90.1.
[59:26.760 --> 59:29.760]  However, we have offered to help with legal matters as best we can
[59:29.760 --> 59:31.760]  and to pass on your donations.
[59:31.760 --> 59:34.760]  Please give as generously as you can by mailing your checks to
[59:34.760 --> 59:40.760]  Deborah Stevens, care of 90.1 Legal Fund, 1516 South Lamar,
[59:40.760 --> 59:46.760]  number 112 Austin, Texas, 78704, or giving through PayPal or credit card
[59:46.760 --> 59:49.760]  at ruleoflawradio.com.
[59:49.760 --> 59:52.760]  If you have ideas or other resources you'd like to contribute,
[59:52.760 --> 59:58.760]  please call 512-796-4197 and leave a message.
[59:58.760 --> 01:00:01.760]  Thank you, Austin.
[01:00:01.760 --> 01:00:05.760]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:05.760 --> 01:00:08.760]  Following the Haiti earthquake that killed over 200,000 people,
[01:00:08.760 --> 01:00:12.760]  1 million people have still not received any international food aid.
[01:00:12.760 --> 01:00:15.760]  10,000 families are in tents.
[01:00:15.760 --> 01:00:19.760]  The rest are living under sheets, blankets and tarps.
[01:00:19.760 --> 01:00:24.760]  An Iraqi Shia faction tied to Iran has released a video showing a man
[01:00:24.760 --> 01:00:29.760]  being held captive, believed to be U.S. military contractor Isaf Salomi,
[01:00:29.760 --> 01:00:31.760]  missing since January 23rd.
[01:00:31.760 --> 01:00:35.760]  In the video, Salomi read the group's demands for the release of detainees
[01:00:35.760 --> 01:00:39.760]  and called for the conviction of Blackwater employees accused of killing
[01:00:39.760 --> 01:00:44.760]  unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2007.
[01:00:44.760 --> 01:00:48.760]  In Pakistan, thousands of people have attended a funeral in Karachi
[01:00:48.760 --> 01:00:52.760]  for 33 people who died in bomb attacks.
[01:00:52.760 --> 01:00:56.760]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:56.760 --> 01:01:00.760]  U.S. oil giant Chevron has responded to an environmental lawsuit
[01:01:00.760 --> 01:01:04.760]  brought by indigenous people in Ecuador by hiring 12 PR firms
[01:01:04.760 --> 01:01:06.760]  to debunk their claims.
[01:01:06.760 --> 01:01:10.760]  According to the lawsuit, Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic
[01:01:10.760 --> 01:01:15.760]  weights in the Amazon between 1964 and 1990, causing damages assessed
[01:01:15.760 --> 01:01:18.760]  at $27 billion.
[01:01:18.760 --> 01:01:22.760]  Originally filed in U.S. Federal District Court in 1993,
[01:01:22.760 --> 01:01:26.760]  the lawsuit was moved to courts in Ecuador at Chevron's behest.
[01:01:26.760 --> 01:01:30.760]  Having initially lauded Ecuador's legal system in an effort to have
[01:01:30.760 --> 01:01:34.760]  the case moved there, Chevron later began attacking the system
[01:01:34.760 --> 01:01:36.760]  after it found the company liable.
[01:01:36.760 --> 01:01:40.760]  Chevron shareholders are also upset with the company for its gross
[01:01:40.760 --> 01:01:44.760]  mismanagement for sidestepping the rule of law and employing
[01:01:44.760 --> 01:01:48.760]  guerrilla-style tactics in an effort to fend off an unfavorable ruling.
[01:01:48.760 --> 01:01:53.760]  Evidence at Chevron's trial included over 50,000 chemical samples
[01:01:53.760 --> 01:01:57.760]  taken by the company which proved all its former oil drilling sites
[01:01:57.760 --> 01:02:01.760]  were contaminated with carcinogenic byproducts.
[01:02:01.760 --> 01:02:06.760]  Iran has arrested seven people linked to a Farsi language radio station
[01:02:06.760 --> 01:02:11.760]  funded in part by the U.S., accusing them of fomenting unrest.
[01:02:11.760 --> 01:02:15.760]  The Iranian intelligence ministry claims the seven were trained outside
[01:02:15.760 --> 01:02:19.760]  Iran in sabotage, spreading rumors and overthrowing a government
[01:02:19.760 --> 01:02:21.760]  by soft means.
[01:02:21.760 --> 01:02:24.760]  Opposition street protests are expected on February the 11th,
[01:02:24.760 --> 01:02:28.760]  when Iran marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
[01:02:28.760 --> 01:02:33.760]  Anti-government demonstrations in Tehran on December 27th turned bloody.
[01:02:33.760 --> 01:02:38.760]  At least eight people were killed and hundreds arrested during violent clashes.
[01:02:38.760 --> 01:02:43.760]  Iran has accused Western powers of fueling the rage directed at the country's
[01:02:43.760 --> 01:02:49.760]  clerical regime, purportedly to bring about regime change without military action.
[01:02:49.760 --> 01:02:54.760]  The U.S.-sponsored Radio Fada is the Farsi language service of Radio Free Europe
[01:02:54.760 --> 01:03:21.760]  based in Prague and Washington.
[01:03:24.760 --> 01:03:26.760]  This is not being made.
[01:03:26.760 --> 01:03:28.760]  We're going to take this.
[01:03:28.760 --> 01:03:30.760]  This is being made.
[01:03:30.760 --> 01:03:32.760]  Six of us sing half of those.
[01:03:32.760 --> 01:03:34.760]  Are you ready?
[01:03:34.760 --> 01:03:35.760]  Come on, man.
[01:03:35.760 --> 01:03:37.760]  Come on.
[01:03:37.760 --> 01:03:38.760]  Come on.
[01:03:38.760 --> 01:03:40.760]  This is people.
[01:03:40.760 --> 01:03:54.760]  This is people.
[01:03:54.760 --> 01:03:56.760]  This is people.
[01:03:56.760 --> 01:04:10.760]  This is people.
[01:04:10.760 --> 01:04:26.760]  This is people.
[01:04:26.760 --> 01:04:40.760]  This is people.
[01:04:40.760 --> 01:04:56.760]  This is people.
[01:04:56.760 --> 01:05:10.760]  This is people.
[01:05:10.760 --> 01:05:26.760]  This is people.
[01:05:26.760 --> 01:05:40.760]  This is people.
[01:05:40.760 --> 01:05:56.760]  This is people.
[01:05:56.760 --> 01:06:10.760]  This is people.
[01:06:10.760 --> 01:06:14.760]  Okay, that one goes out to Randy Raylor who was on earlier.
[01:06:14.760 --> 01:06:19.760]  Neighbor, neighbor, get your dog out of my yard.
[01:06:19.760 --> 01:06:21.760]  Simple.
[01:06:21.760 --> 01:06:25.760]  That's the solution, Randy, to all your legal problems.
[01:06:25.760 --> 01:06:29.760]  All right, we are going now to Jerry in Texas.
[01:06:29.760 --> 01:06:31.760]  Thanks for calling in, Jerry.
[01:06:31.760 --> 01:06:33.760]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:06:33.760 --> 01:06:36.760]  Well, hello, all y'all.
[01:06:36.760 --> 01:06:39.760]  I'd like to address something with Eddie.
[01:06:39.760 --> 01:06:49.760]  I've got his material that he produced for the traffic seminar in front of me,
[01:06:49.760 --> 01:06:55.760]  and I wanted to address includes and including.
[01:06:55.760 --> 01:06:59.760]  I think I understand what's going on with that,
[01:06:59.760 --> 01:07:07.760]  but I think it might be helpful for the general understanding here to go over this a little bit.
[01:07:07.760 --> 01:07:12.760]  I'm looking at page 83 of your materials here,
[01:07:12.760 --> 01:07:20.760]  and you're talking about Government Code 311.005,
[01:07:20.760 --> 01:07:25.760]  and you're talking about the definition of person.
[01:07:25.760 --> 01:07:30.760]  311.005 is general definitions in the Government Code.
[01:07:30.760 --> 01:07:41.760]  What you're saying is that the grouping created by the term person is illustrative
[01:07:41.760 --> 01:07:44.760]  of the things to be encompassed by the term.
[01:07:44.760 --> 01:07:49.760]  The courts have ruled consistently that the terms includes and including
[01:07:49.760 --> 01:07:53.760]  are illustrative of what is listed following the term,
[01:07:53.760 --> 01:08:00.760]  but the terms so illustrated are the only things to which the definition will apply.
[01:08:00.760 --> 01:08:06.760]  The legal term for the limitation is inclusio unius exclusio alterius,
[01:08:06.760 --> 01:08:11.760]  which is Latin for the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others.
[01:08:11.760 --> 01:08:14.760]  Then later on here, a little bit further down the page,
[01:08:14.760 --> 01:08:20.760]  you were talking about if the statute specifically refers to lemons
[01:08:20.760 --> 01:08:24.760]  and does not mention limes or grapefruit or other fruit,
[01:08:24.760 --> 01:08:35.760]  courts should obey this rule and not expand the legislative intent to include limes and grapefruit.
[01:08:35.760 --> 01:08:43.760]  I generally think that that is the correct understanding of includes and including
[01:08:43.760 --> 01:08:52.760]  because we don't have any law if they can just put anything in there.
[01:08:52.760 --> 01:09:00.760]  An underperson includes corporation, organization, government, etc.
[01:09:00.760 --> 01:09:12.760]  If they can use includes to include anything they want, there's no law.
[01:09:12.760 --> 01:09:14.760]  Am I understanding this correctly?
[01:09:14.760 --> 01:09:16.760]  That's absolutely correct.
[01:09:16.760 --> 01:09:22.760]  If you consider the fact the great debate over includes and including in law
[01:09:22.760 --> 01:09:31.760]  was raised specifically because of the way the IRS enforces its own statutes,
[01:09:31.760 --> 01:09:42.760]  it uses every definition that uses the term including to say that it can include anything we want just because we said so,
[01:09:42.760 --> 01:09:46.760]  despite whatever is listed there in the actual code itself.
[01:09:46.760 --> 01:09:52.760]  The courts have gone over those issues numerous times in arguments put forth over the decades
[01:09:52.760 --> 01:09:57.760]  and have flat said the IRS is incorrect.
[01:09:57.760 --> 01:10:02.760]  Here is what it means and exactly what you're talking about is the only way that it can work
[01:10:02.760 --> 01:10:06.760]  and the law be reasonable and not overbroad.
[01:10:06.760 --> 01:10:09.760]  It would be basically what I've talked about before.
[01:10:09.760 --> 01:10:17.760]  If the law specifically says that the term motor vehicle includes all red cars,
[01:10:17.760 --> 01:10:23.760]  by necessity of that inclusion, blue cars are exempted, are they not?
[01:10:23.760 --> 01:10:27.760]  Well, that's the way I would read it, especially after thinking about it
[01:10:27.760 --> 01:10:33.760]  and understanding your point of view on it.
[01:10:33.760 --> 01:10:43.760]  However, I do have a little hiccup here in Government Code 311.005.
[01:10:43.760 --> 01:10:48.760]  Okay, where it talks about includes and including are terms of expansion and not limitation?
[01:10:48.760 --> 01:10:49.760]  I'll read it for you.
[01:10:49.760 --> 01:10:56.760]  Includes and including are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration
[01:10:56.760 --> 01:11:04.760]  and the use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.
[01:11:04.760 --> 01:11:05.760]  Correct.
[01:11:05.760 --> 01:11:12.760]  It does not create a presumption, but lack of anything in the language expanding it
[01:11:12.760 --> 01:11:16.760]  does not create the presumption that it's to be enlarged either, does it?
[01:11:16.760 --> 01:11:24.760]  No, and I can come to that conclusion fairly easily, but why did they put that in there?
[01:11:24.760 --> 01:11:26.760]  Are they just trying to throw us off?
[01:11:26.760 --> 01:11:28.760]  I mean, what's the deal?
[01:11:28.760 --> 01:11:32.760]  Believe me, I wish I could answer the question over what these people,
[01:11:32.760 --> 01:11:36.760]  I want to say something different, were actually thinking when they did this.
[01:11:36.760 --> 01:11:39.760]  I guess a better term would be public serpents,
[01:11:39.760 --> 01:11:45.760]  but the fact of the matter is just like the serpent with Eve in the Garden of Eden,
[01:11:45.760 --> 01:11:49.760]  say the exact same thing the way it should be said with a slight difference
[01:11:49.760 --> 01:11:53.760]  and you wind up with something totally different than what was intended, do you not?
[01:11:53.760 --> 01:11:58.760]  That's right.
[01:11:58.760 --> 01:12:04.760]  When I saw that, it just kind of threw me off the track.
[01:12:04.760 --> 01:12:07.760]  Yeah, and that's from all intents and purposes what I can see,
[01:12:07.760 --> 01:12:12.760]  that's the way it's intended to be because that language in the statute,
[01:12:12.760 --> 01:12:16.760]  if it's taken to be literal the way they seem to imply it,
[01:12:16.760 --> 01:12:25.760]  it blows the ability of the legislature to create law that can be understood by the common man
[01:12:25.760 --> 01:12:31.760]  and applied by the common police officer or judge right out the window
[01:12:31.760 --> 01:12:37.760]  because now enforcement of any law that uses the term includes becomes utterly impossible,
[01:12:37.760 --> 01:12:44.760]  as does obeying it because now, let's go back to the example of the red car.
[01:12:44.760 --> 01:12:50.760]  The law says all red cars, yet the officer is now arresting you because you're in a blue car.
[01:12:50.760 --> 01:12:55.760]  Why? Because his arbitrary decision to include something beyond the language
[01:12:55.760 --> 01:13:02.760]  of what the statute itself encompasses is now binding upon you if the enlargement is allowed.
[01:13:02.760 --> 01:13:05.760]  If the enlargement is allowed.
[01:13:05.760 --> 01:13:06.760]  That's correct.
[01:13:06.760 --> 01:13:14.760]  If the officer is allowed to subject the inclusion of red cars to his own interpretation of what can be included,
[01:13:14.760 --> 01:13:17.760]  then he can put anything in there he wants, red or otherwise, can't he?
[01:13:17.760 --> 01:13:19.760]  That's a problem.
[01:13:19.760 --> 01:13:23.760]  And then by the same token, the judge can do exactly the same thing.
[01:13:23.760 --> 01:13:25.760]  That's a problem.
[01:13:25.760 --> 01:13:28.760]  Yeah, see, it can't, this whole thing with the including,
[01:13:28.760 --> 01:13:34.760]  it can't mean that they can just add in whatever they want whenever they feel like it
[01:13:34.760 --> 01:13:36.760]  at any point in the future.
[01:13:36.760 --> 01:13:40.760]  It cannot mean that or else we have no law.
[01:13:40.760 --> 01:13:42.760]  That just can't be the way it is.
[01:13:42.760 --> 01:13:44.760]  That doesn't make any sense.
[01:13:44.760 --> 01:13:50.760]  Yeah, any law can then be expanded to encompass things far beyond the initial vision of the legislative act
[01:13:50.760 --> 01:13:54.760]  that created it, its enforcement, its implementation,
[01:13:54.760 --> 01:14:00.760]  and how can any citizen determine whether or not they're in compliance
[01:14:00.760 --> 01:14:06.760]  when they themselves don't have the vivid imagination of these public serpents
[01:14:06.760 --> 01:14:13.760]  that want to add far beyond what the legislator put in writing?
[01:14:13.760 --> 01:14:24.760]  Do you suppose that the definition of includes and including are necessary there?
[01:14:24.760 --> 01:14:37.760]  I mean, the one that's in Government Code 311, number 13, do you see that as being necessary?
[01:14:37.760 --> 01:14:42.760]  Did they need to put that in there for some reason?
[01:14:42.760 --> 01:14:51.760]  I don't see how it could be necessary if it was not intended to basically lead us astray.
[01:14:51.760 --> 01:14:57.760]  I really don't see how a term used in that manner could be anything else.
[01:14:57.760 --> 01:15:02.760]  I mean, another example I use a lot is when you go buy something in the store,
[01:15:02.760 --> 01:15:05.760]  the box tells you what's inside of it, does it not?
[01:15:05.760 --> 01:15:11.760]  Usually it says this box includes this, this, and this, but not the batteries.
[01:15:11.760 --> 01:15:12.760]  All right?
[01:15:12.760 --> 01:15:13.760]  Yeah.
[01:15:13.760 --> 01:15:18.760]  Like three AAA batteries required not included.
[01:15:18.760 --> 01:15:19.760]  Yeah.
[01:15:19.760 --> 01:15:21.760]  All right?
[01:15:21.760 --> 01:15:28.760]  So if that's the case, and now we can interpret it that it's got things beyond what's actually listed,
[01:15:28.760 --> 01:15:33.760]  well, I'm going to sue the manufacturer because he did not give me a battery when I bought it in the store,
[01:15:33.760 --> 01:15:38.760]  or I'm going to go back and sue the store because I want to include a lifetime supply of batteries,
[01:15:38.760 --> 01:15:42.760]  and they're saying that wasn't in the box, so it's not there.
[01:15:42.760 --> 01:15:51.760]  Well, like you say, there is a lot of case law to support the more reasonable definition of the words.
[01:15:51.760 --> 01:15:52.760]  Right?
[01:15:52.760 --> 01:15:53.760]  Yes.
[01:15:53.760 --> 01:15:54.760]  Okay.
[01:15:54.760 --> 01:15:57.760]  I've got one other quick question for you.
[01:15:57.760 --> 01:16:03.760]  I was talking with another listener earlier, and I believe he had an issue in court.
[01:16:03.760 --> 01:16:05.760]  He's in traffic court.
[01:16:05.760 --> 01:16:13.760]  And his question to me was, do we have or do we need, my question is, do we need,
[01:16:13.760 --> 01:16:32.760]  and also do we have any accumulation of any case law in Texas concerning this issue of the commerce in traveling?
[01:16:32.760 --> 01:16:42.760]  We do, and it deals with being charged with operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license,
[01:16:42.760 --> 01:16:47.760]  and that's the cases I spoke to earlier that said there's no such thing as a driver's license in Texas law,
[01:16:47.760 --> 01:16:50.760]  but if you'll hang on, we'll cover that on the other side of the break.
[01:16:50.760 --> 01:16:51.760]  All right.
[01:16:51.760 --> 01:16:54.760]  Okay, Jerry, just hang on the line so we can quickly finish answering this question
[01:16:54.760 --> 01:16:57.760]  because we've got a whole bunch of callers waiting in the queue.
[01:16:57.760 --> 01:17:01.760]  We'll be right back.
[01:17:01.760 --> 01:17:02.760]  Hello, Austin.
[01:17:02.760 --> 01:17:06.760]  My name is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here in town.
[01:17:06.760 --> 01:17:10.760]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[01:17:10.760 --> 01:17:14.760]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Katherine Albrecht,
[01:17:14.760 --> 01:17:19.760]  Webster Tarpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement,
[01:17:19.760 --> 01:17:21.760]  but now Brave New Books needs your help.
[01:17:21.760 --> 01:17:26.760]  In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials,
[01:17:26.760 --> 01:17:30.760]  we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore.
[01:17:30.760 --> 01:17:34.760]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer.
[01:17:34.760 --> 01:17:38.760]  We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists.
[01:17:38.760 --> 01:17:42.760]  Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[01:17:42.760 --> 01:17:47.760]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message.
[01:17:47.760 --> 01:17:49.760]  Remember, you vote with your dollars.
[01:17:49.760 --> 01:17:51.760]  We're counting on you, Austin.
[01:17:51.760 --> 01:17:58.760]  If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:17:58.760 --> 01:18:00.760]  Thank you, everyone.
[01:18:28.760 --> 01:18:31.760]  But now I can feel your pain
[01:18:31.760 --> 01:18:34.760]  You put the fear in my pocket
[01:18:34.760 --> 01:18:36.760]  Look at my lips on my ass
[01:18:36.760 --> 01:18:41.760]  Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again
[01:18:41.760 --> 01:19:01.760]  Ain't gonna fool me
[01:19:01.760 --> 01:19:06.760]  Ain't gonna drive me with that same old sucker punch
[01:19:06.760 --> 01:19:11.760]  I get it now, but then I must have had enough to run
[01:19:11.760 --> 01:19:16.760]  Back then you had room to move, but now you're feeling the run
[01:19:16.760 --> 01:19:41.760]  Ain't gonna get me with that same old sucker punch
[01:19:41.760 --> 01:19:46.760]  Ain't gonna please me with that same old man and wrong
[01:19:46.760 --> 01:19:51.760]  You thought you were right, but now you got it all wrong
[01:19:51.760 --> 01:19:56.760]  It was a weak moment for me, but I had the power all along
[01:19:56.760 --> 01:19:59.760]  Ain't gonna please me with that same old...
[01:19:59.760 --> 01:20:02.760]  Alright, ain't gonna fool us with the same old tricks again.
[01:20:02.760 --> 01:20:05.760]  Okay, we're finishing up with Jerry from Florida.
[01:20:05.760 --> 01:20:09.760]  Okay, go ahead, Eddie, you are answering Jerry's second question.
[01:20:09.760 --> 01:20:14.760]  Yeah, the case law here in Texas from the 40s, 50s, and 60s
[01:20:14.760 --> 01:20:17.760]  all deals with the commercial nature of the license
[01:20:17.760 --> 01:20:22.760]  because it specifically addresses that Texas law only has
[01:20:22.760 --> 01:20:26.760]  the commercial operator's license, the operator's license,
[01:20:26.760 --> 01:20:29.760]  and the chauffer's license as the type of licenses
[01:20:29.760 --> 01:20:32.760]  that were authorized to be issued by the state.
[01:20:32.760 --> 01:20:36.760]  And yet the officers were constantly citing people
[01:20:36.760 --> 01:20:39.760]  for driving without a driver's license,
[01:20:39.760 --> 01:20:41.760]  and the courts rule time and time again
[01:20:41.760 --> 01:20:44.760]  that the charge of driving without a driver's license
[01:20:44.760 --> 01:20:46.760]  charges no offense as there is no such thing
[01:20:46.760 --> 01:20:49.760]  as a driver's license known to Texas law.
[01:20:49.760 --> 01:20:51.760]  Brown v. Texas is one of those cases,
[01:20:51.760 --> 01:20:56.760]  and I believe it's a 1945 case.
[01:20:56.760 --> 01:21:03.760]  So there's no more recent case law concerning any of this, correct?
[01:21:03.760 --> 01:21:05.760]  I don't know to tell you the truth, Jerry.
[01:21:05.760 --> 01:21:08.760]  There's actually been lots of different case law
[01:21:08.760 --> 01:21:09.760]  over different issues,
[01:21:09.760 --> 01:21:13.760]  none of them going directly to the issue of the driver's license
[01:21:13.760 --> 01:21:16.760]  because that's when they started amending the statute
[01:21:16.760 --> 01:21:18.760]  to include the term.
[01:21:18.760 --> 01:21:21.760]  So the case law that said there's no such thing in Texas
[01:21:21.760 --> 01:21:24.760]  as a driver's license would no longer be valid at that point
[01:21:24.760 --> 01:21:26.760]  because now there is.
[01:21:26.760 --> 01:21:30.760]  But what you're not being told is that the things that make up
[01:21:30.760 --> 01:21:32.760]  that driver's license have not changed.
[01:21:32.760 --> 01:21:37.760]  They just created a term for the combined method
[01:21:37.760 --> 01:21:39.760]  of calling them one thing.
[01:21:39.760 --> 01:21:43.760]  That's all they did.
[01:21:43.760 --> 01:21:46.760]  Well, do we need case law?
[01:21:46.760 --> 01:21:49.760]  According to some stuff that Randy and I found
[01:21:49.760 --> 01:21:54.760]  in my 1996 version of Vernon's civil statutes annotated,
[01:21:54.760 --> 01:21:57.760]  the case law in Texas specifically states,
[01:21:57.760 --> 01:22:02.760]  the statute is controlling, case law is not,
[01:22:02.760 --> 01:22:05.760]  specifically because the state appellate and Supreme Court
[01:22:05.760 --> 01:22:09.760]  have determined that errors creep into the decisions
[01:22:09.760 --> 01:22:12.760]  of the courts in the termination of law.
[01:22:12.760 --> 01:22:17.760]  Therefore, the law shall be given priority over case law.
[01:22:17.760 --> 01:22:19.760]  Now that's from Vernon's?
[01:22:19.760 --> 01:22:22.760]  That's in the Vernon's annotated civil statutes
[01:22:22.760 --> 01:22:24.760]  from the 1996 version I've got.
[01:22:24.760 --> 01:22:27.760]  And Randy's got those case sightings written down somewhere.
[01:22:27.760 --> 01:22:30.760]  He was going to look them up, but I don't know how far he got.
[01:22:30.760 --> 01:22:32.760]  Is that still applicable?
[01:22:32.760 --> 01:22:35.760]  If it hasn't been overturned by something else, it is.
[01:22:35.760 --> 01:22:38.760]  Okay.
[01:22:38.760 --> 01:22:40.760]  Okay, I am done.
[01:22:40.760 --> 01:22:41.760]  Thank you.
[01:22:41.760 --> 01:22:42.760]  All right, thank you, Jerry.
[01:22:42.760 --> 01:22:43.760]  Okay.
[01:22:43.760 --> 01:22:45.760]  Okay, continuing on to your calls.
[01:22:45.760 --> 01:22:47.760]  We've got a full board of callers here.
[01:22:47.760 --> 01:22:50.760]  We're going to John in Florida.
[01:22:50.760 --> 01:22:51.760]  John, thanks for calling in.
[01:22:51.760 --> 01:22:54.760]  Thank you for being so patient. What's on your mind tonight?
[01:22:54.760 --> 01:22:55.760]  Good evening, guys.
[01:22:55.760 --> 01:22:57.760]  Eddie, yeah, I was on a call, obviously,
[01:22:57.760 --> 01:22:59.760]  you heard me earlier with Dr. Graves.
[01:22:59.760 --> 01:23:04.760]  And, you know, I was going to get to the question with him
[01:23:04.760 --> 01:23:08.760]  as I was getting into just the point of fact about these laws,
[01:23:08.760 --> 01:23:11.760]  the traffic laws having to do with commerce.
[01:23:11.760 --> 01:23:14.760]  And as far as, like, we've discussed,
[01:23:14.760 --> 01:23:18.760]  I've heard you guys discuss on these calls regarding, you know,
[01:23:18.760 --> 01:23:22.760]  whether you're going to sue for either muck damages
[01:23:22.760 --> 01:23:24.760]  or injunctive relief.
[01:23:24.760 --> 01:23:28.760]  Now, I don't know what, you know, your collective opinion is
[01:23:28.760 --> 01:23:33.760]  on the potential for me to sue within my punitive,
[01:23:33.760 --> 01:23:36.760]  not punitive damages, but my injunctive relief.
[01:23:36.760 --> 01:23:41.760]  What the possibility would be is that I could,
[01:23:41.760 --> 01:23:43.760]  part of my injunctive relief would include not only him,
[01:23:43.760 --> 01:23:46.760]  either the judge going back and either overturning the decision
[01:23:46.760 --> 01:23:51.760]  or dismissing it or however it may be, but rather or also,
[01:23:51.760 --> 01:23:56.760]  I should say, to have him sign basically what would be an order
[01:23:56.760 --> 01:23:59.760]  to any police officer that pulls me over,
[01:23:59.760 --> 01:24:02.760]  that he would have to have substantial evidence that I'm engaging
[01:24:02.760 --> 01:24:05.760]  in commerce in order for any of the, you know,
[01:24:05.760 --> 01:24:09.760]  the motor vehicle code to apply to me
[01:24:09.760 --> 01:24:13.760]  and therefore make me liable to any citation within there.
[01:24:13.760 --> 01:24:18.760]  What is your experience and what is your opinion
[01:24:18.760 --> 01:24:22.760]  that I could potentially get that to happen?
[01:24:22.760 --> 01:24:25.760]  Well, unless you've actually rooted out the statute
[01:24:25.760 --> 01:24:29.760]  that puts them in that context, John, it's not going to be easy.
[01:24:29.760 --> 01:24:32.760]  Okay.
[01:24:32.760 --> 01:24:35.760]  Basically, you've got to show that commercial link,
[01:24:35.760 --> 01:24:39.760]  and I can almost guarantee you that if you tear apart the license
[01:24:39.760 --> 01:24:44.760]  itself, find where the authority for it is grounded
[01:24:44.760 --> 01:24:47.760]  and what its historical implementation has been
[01:24:47.760 --> 01:24:52.760]  through the various years there in Florida regarding the statutes,
[01:24:52.760 --> 01:24:56.760]  then you will see what has developed over time,
[01:24:56.760 --> 01:24:59.760]  and you will see that that development shows
[01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:02.760]  that it was originally intended for the purpose of commerce.
[01:25:02.760 --> 01:25:06.760]  It's always been commerce, and that's never changed.
[01:25:06.760 --> 01:25:08.760]  You've changed the words, you've changed the language,
[01:25:08.760 --> 01:25:10.760]  you've done everything possible,
[01:25:10.760 --> 01:25:13.760]  but nowhere has the actual underlying law,
[01:25:13.760 --> 01:25:17.760]  just like what we've got here in Texas, ever been changed
[01:25:17.760 --> 01:25:22.760]  to allow you to take away the people's right to use their property
[01:25:22.760 --> 01:25:24.760]  or the roads that we bought and paid for.
[01:25:24.760 --> 01:25:29.760]  Now, and that's really the only way that you're going to do it
[01:25:29.760 --> 01:25:32.760]  and stand a snowball's chance of winning.
[01:25:32.760 --> 01:25:36.760]  And, I mean, that's why it took me 11 years to get everything together
[01:25:36.760 --> 01:25:39.760]  because computers didn't have access
[01:25:39.760 --> 01:25:41.760]  to the information they have currently.
[01:25:41.760 --> 01:25:44.760]  Even, I mean, five or six years ago,
[01:25:44.760 --> 01:25:48.760]  you didn't have as much access to online statutes here in Texas
[01:25:48.760 --> 01:25:50.760]  as you've got now.
[01:25:50.760 --> 01:25:52.760]  So the research was really, really hard
[01:25:52.760 --> 01:25:55.760]  if you didn't live in a law library.
[01:25:55.760 --> 01:25:57.760]  Okay, no, I understand that,
[01:25:57.760 --> 01:26:00.760]  and I would definitely have to present such a case.
[01:26:00.760 --> 01:26:03.760]  It was just a matter of whether you think that,
[01:26:03.760 --> 01:26:06.760]  knowing that you've dealt with judges before in this capacity,
[01:26:06.760 --> 01:26:09.760]  whether or not there would really be a snowball's chance in hell
[01:26:09.760 --> 01:26:12.760]  that I'm going to get this judge to actually sign it,
[01:26:12.760 --> 01:26:15.760]  given that I could establish such a case,
[01:26:15.760 --> 01:26:20.760]  because I'm guessing here that this lawsuit is never going to go to trial.
[01:26:20.760 --> 01:26:24.760]  I mean, they're going to want to settle in terms of the injunctive relief.
[01:26:24.760 --> 01:26:28.760]  And I guess part of this question also is that it costs $250 to file.
[01:26:28.760 --> 01:26:30.760]  I want that money back.
[01:26:30.760 --> 01:26:33.760]  You know, maybe I can't get it back whether I have to choose
[01:26:33.760 --> 01:26:35.760]  injunctive relief or money damages,
[01:26:35.760 --> 01:26:38.760]  but if it's going to be both, he's going to pay for that,
[01:26:38.760 --> 01:26:41.760]  because I shouldn't be having to file this lawsuit in the first place.
[01:26:41.760 --> 01:26:42.760]  Right.
[01:26:42.760 --> 01:26:44.760]  Well, what you can do, as Randy suggests,
[01:26:44.760 --> 01:26:49.760]  is you can counter-file in what the suit is they filed against you.
[01:26:49.760 --> 01:26:53.760]  The charge they've got against you, you can file a counter-suit in that.
[01:26:53.760 --> 01:26:55.760]  And then you don't have to pay a filing fee
[01:26:55.760 --> 01:26:59.760]  because you're filing a counter-suit to the accusation made against you.
[01:26:59.760 --> 01:27:02.760]  Because in Florida it's a civil charge, right,
[01:27:02.760 --> 01:27:06.760]  and therefore I have to counter-suit under the same case number.
[01:27:06.760 --> 01:27:07.760]  Is that correct?
[01:27:07.760 --> 01:27:09.760]  Yes.
[01:27:09.760 --> 01:27:10.760]  Okay.
[01:27:10.760 --> 01:27:16.760]  Now, given that same thing, what I would highly recommend you do,
[01:27:16.760 --> 01:27:19.760]  rather than at this point in time attacking it
[01:27:19.760 --> 01:27:23.760]  through the transportation code side of things,
[01:27:23.760 --> 01:27:27.760]  start tearing apart the procedures they're required to follow and haven't.
[01:27:27.760 --> 01:27:31.760]  The things that they must do in order for a civil charge to apply,
[01:27:31.760 --> 01:27:35.760]  what things must exist, what authority must be there,
[01:27:35.760 --> 01:27:39.760]  how did you become civilly liable, so on and so forth.
[01:27:39.760 --> 01:27:42.760]  And that would find that, of course, in the administrative code.
[01:27:42.760 --> 01:27:43.760]  Most likely.
[01:27:43.760 --> 01:27:47.760]  You would find it in the administrative code, government code,
[01:27:47.760 --> 01:27:53.760]  and so on and so forth, whatever the Florida versions of those are.
[01:27:53.760 --> 01:27:58.760]  Okay, so let's even just say one point of fact in terms of rules of civil procedure for Florida.
[01:27:58.760 --> 01:28:03.760]  Now, one thing I've been able to determine is through the statutes I've looked at
[01:28:03.760 --> 01:28:09.760]  as they apply to the citations being issued and whatnot, and traffic citations,
[01:28:09.760 --> 01:28:15.760]  it doesn't clearly state right then and there that a citation is a summons.
[01:28:15.760 --> 01:28:24.760]  Within the definitions, or actually I should say the description of how a citation has to be responded to,
[01:28:24.760 --> 01:28:26.760]  it does state that it is a summons,
[01:28:26.760 --> 01:28:32.760]  and therefore a reasonable person is going to conclude that a traffic citation is also a summons.
[01:28:32.760 --> 01:28:37.760]  Now, if you look at the rules of civil procedure for Florida under rule, I believe it is by memory,
[01:28:37.760 --> 01:28:48.760]  1.070.A, it states clearly that you either have to be a judge or a clerk in order to issue one,
[01:28:48.760 --> 01:28:53.760]  in other words, execute it, write it, and then anyone can deliver it.
[01:28:53.760 --> 01:28:55.760]  So the cop can give it to me, he can hand it to me,
[01:28:55.760 --> 01:29:01.760]  but he went to his computer machine in his car, printed it up, and basically executed it.
[01:29:01.760 --> 01:29:05.760]  Now, that would be a part of the procedure that obviously is not being followed,
[01:29:05.760 --> 01:29:07.760]  and that's what you're referring to.
[01:29:07.760 --> 01:29:08.760]  Right.
[01:29:08.760 --> 01:29:16.760]  So then I can bring him up on charges of impersonating a public official and fraud and on and on and on.
[01:29:16.760 --> 01:29:19.760]  Right. That is correct.
[01:29:19.760 --> 01:29:25.760]  Okay. So the one thing I found, looking at the statutes, it's fairly easy.
[01:29:25.760 --> 01:29:30.760]  I imagine there's just a lot of reading going through it, but they're laid out fairly easily by section and chapter.
[01:29:30.760 --> 01:29:33.760]  The administrative code, when you and I were on the phone privately,
[01:29:33.760 --> 01:29:36.760]  and we've kind of gone through some of the Florida Administrative Code,
[01:29:36.760 --> 01:29:40.760]  I was having problems, like really, it just looks like it's not as easy to navigate.
[01:29:40.760 --> 01:29:46.760]  I mean, it just looks like, I don't know, information, how it's put together and how it's laid out,
[01:29:46.760 --> 01:29:49.760]  it's obviously not made to be user-friendly.
[01:29:49.760 --> 01:29:55.760]  So what, I mean, what is the best overall strategy as far as...
[01:29:55.760 --> 01:29:56.760]  Okay, hold on, Sean, hold on.
[01:29:56.760 --> 01:29:58.760]  The music's playing, we're about to go to break.
[01:29:58.760 --> 01:30:01.760]  Stay on the line, we'll answer your question in a bit.
[01:30:01.760 --> 01:30:04.760]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:30:04.760 --> 01:30:07.760]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary,
[01:30:07.760 --> 01:30:15.760]  the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:30:15.760 --> 01:30:19.760]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:30:19.760 --> 01:30:23.760]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:30:23.760 --> 01:30:28.760]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:30:28.760 --> 01:30:34.760]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:30:34.760 --> 01:30:39.760]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:30:39.760 --> 01:30:43.760]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:30:43.760 --> 01:30:49.760]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:30:49.760 --> 01:30:52.760]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:30:52.760 --> 01:31:01.760]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:31:22.760 --> 01:31:34.760]  Okay, we are back.
[01:31:34.760 --> 01:31:36.760]  All right, John, sorry I had to cut you off there.
[01:31:36.760 --> 01:31:38.760]  This is going to commercial break.
[01:31:38.760 --> 01:31:43.760]  All right, so you're saying it seems very difficult to navigate, continue?
[01:31:43.760 --> 01:31:44.760]  Yeah, I apologize.
[01:31:44.760 --> 01:31:45.760]  I didn't hear music coming in for the break.
[01:31:45.760 --> 01:31:50.760]  But yeah, regarding administrative code, it just seems like a big mammoth,
[01:31:50.760 --> 01:31:55.760]  you know, gargantuan piece of, you know, obviously coded.
[01:31:55.760 --> 01:31:59.760]  I don't even know how to best navigate it, and I'm sure every state is different.
[01:31:59.760 --> 01:32:07.760]  But Eddie, is there structure to it, or does it just go by, you know, timelines?
[01:32:07.760 --> 01:32:11.760]  Well, I'm not sure what you mean by structure.
[01:32:11.760 --> 01:32:15.760]  Well, structure in terms of, let's say, for the statutes, you know,
[01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:19.760]  I can look at how they're laid out by section and then the chapters,
[01:32:19.760 --> 01:32:24.760]  and I can look at, like, the table of contents before I start to open up each statute as it is.
[01:32:24.760 --> 01:32:29.760]  That really depends on what kind of drugs your legislators were on when they wrote it,
[01:32:29.760 --> 01:32:34.760]  to tell you the truth, because there have been states that I've tried to research.
[01:32:34.760 --> 01:32:40.760]  How they have constructed their codes makes no sense whatsoever.
[01:32:40.760 --> 01:32:42.760]  I mean, absolutely none.
[01:32:42.760 --> 01:32:46.760]  You cannot trace a statute from beginning to end to save your life.
[01:32:46.760 --> 01:32:48.760]  Minnesota is like that.
[01:32:48.760 --> 01:32:53.760]  I mean, you can't find anything you're looking for if you don't already know where to look.
[01:32:53.760 --> 01:32:58.760]  Yeah, and that would seem to become the problem, because it's almost, I'm sure, done by design.
[01:32:58.760 --> 01:33:00.760]  Yeah, most likely.
[01:33:00.760 --> 01:33:04.760]  They've got their own system for finding what they want and tying it together.
[01:33:04.760 --> 01:33:08.760]  That is provided, of course, they even bother to attempt to tie it together
[01:33:08.760 --> 01:33:14.760]  rather than just use the one little piece of it to suit their own ends like they do here in Texas.
[01:33:14.760 --> 01:33:20.760]  Even though the code is very well organized, they always try to read just the piece of the code that they want to use.
[01:33:20.760 --> 01:33:23.760]  They don't take it in its entirety the way the law says they must.
[01:33:23.760 --> 01:33:28.760]  They just use the part they want to try to prove their point.
[01:33:28.760 --> 01:33:30.760]  And so be wary of that.
[01:33:30.760 --> 01:33:33.760]  Every state does that that I've ever been in and watched this happen.
[01:33:33.760 --> 01:33:36.760]  Every one of them do that.
[01:33:36.760 --> 01:33:39.760]  But you're not, it's an uphill battle, folks.
[01:33:39.760 --> 01:33:41.760]  I'm going to be honest with you.
[01:33:41.760 --> 01:33:43.760]  This is not an overnight fix.
[01:33:43.760 --> 01:33:50.760]  Like I said, it took 11 years of study on all kinds of subjects to get all this stuff put together here in Texas
[01:33:50.760 --> 01:33:57.760]  so I could show you from point to point to point how it's all tied up in one neat package if you know where to look.
[01:33:57.760 --> 01:34:02.760]  But it's that if you know where to look part that's going to be hard for your individual state.
[01:34:02.760 --> 01:34:06.760]  And I wished it wasn't, but it is.
[01:34:06.760 --> 01:34:07.760]  Okay.
[01:34:07.760 --> 01:34:13.760]  So just quickly I want to go back to one point that I asked you about regarding the suit.
[01:34:13.760 --> 01:34:17.760]  And then there's one final question I have that's separate from this issue.
[01:34:17.760 --> 01:34:19.760]  It ties into traffic.
[01:34:19.760 --> 01:34:26.760]  But you said I could counter sue on the fact that I'm being charged civil without a state for a traffic citation.
[01:34:26.760 --> 01:34:32.760]  Now if the case is like I remember that the case I had been through, I went to final trial.
[01:34:32.760 --> 01:34:36.760]  The judge shut me down inside of a few minutes, didn't want to hear what I had to say,
[01:34:36.760 --> 01:34:38.760]  didn't want anybody else in the courtroom to hear what I had to say.
[01:34:38.760 --> 01:34:41.760]  And he found me guilty on both charges and maxed out the fine.
[01:34:41.760 --> 01:34:45.760]  He did everything he could to get me out of there and not come back.
[01:34:45.760 --> 01:34:50.760]  So upon my filing civil suit, I'm going to file against him personally.
[01:34:50.760 --> 01:34:51.760]  Is that correct?
[01:34:51.760 --> 01:34:57.760]  I'm going to file against him personally rather than against him because he'd be immune as far as being a judge.
[01:34:57.760 --> 01:34:59.760]  Is that correct?
[01:34:59.760 --> 01:35:03.760]  Not if he's in violation of law.
[01:35:03.760 --> 01:35:04.760]  Go ahead, Randy.
[01:35:04.760 --> 01:35:05.760]  Yeah.
[01:35:05.760 --> 01:35:06.760]  He's immune as a judge.
[01:35:06.760 --> 01:35:07.760]  Easy, Randy, easy.
[01:35:07.760 --> 01:35:09.760]  You need some water over there?
[01:35:09.760 --> 01:35:10.760]  I'm okay.
[01:35:10.760 --> 01:35:17.760]  If you sue him for the decision that he made, he has immunity.
[01:35:17.760 --> 01:35:26.760]  But if you sue him in his personal capacity for acting outside the limits of his authority and denying you a right,
[01:35:26.760 --> 01:35:29.760]  then you sue him personally.
[01:35:29.760 --> 01:35:40.760]  And in doing so, if I sue him in that capacity, am I only able to seek money damages or can I also seek injunctive relief because...
[01:35:40.760 --> 01:35:43.760]  Okay, you can always seek injunctive relief.
[01:35:43.760 --> 01:35:44.760]  Okay.
[01:35:44.760 --> 01:35:48.760]  There's never any immunity from injunctive relief.
[01:35:48.760 --> 01:35:52.760]  There's only immunity from damages.
[01:35:52.760 --> 01:36:04.760]  Okay. My question, the reason I asked that question is because if I was going after him personally for what he did as far as outside the scope of his powers
[01:36:04.760 --> 01:36:11.760]  and violating my due process rights, then I wasn't sure if I could still go after injunctive relief because now I'm going after him personally.
[01:36:11.760 --> 01:36:13.760]  But you're saying I can do both.
[01:36:13.760 --> 01:36:14.760]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:36:14.760 --> 01:36:15.760]  Okay.
[01:36:15.760 --> 01:36:22.760]  Now, my final question has to do with, you know, Eddie, you mentioned something about putting new things together as far as hitting these guys with a freight train.
[01:36:22.760 --> 01:36:31.760]  And my idea that I came up with in the last couple of weeks, I'm thinking about the best way to kind of nip the traffic stop in the bud.
[01:36:31.760 --> 01:36:41.760]  And the affidavit notice that you give to the cops when they pull you over, you know, I thought to myself, you know, this is going to be a lot of work, but I'm okay with that.
[01:36:41.760 --> 01:36:51.760]  What I thought was, you know, writing kind of a long, detailed notice to every chief and captain of my surrounding, you know,
[01:36:51.760 --> 01:36:58.760]  the city I live in and the surrounding townships and cities that are right around me because, you know, I go five miles, I'm in another city.
[01:36:58.760 --> 01:37:01.760]  And I imagine I'm going to get a pull over quite a bit here.
[01:37:01.760 --> 01:37:07.760]  So if I could send notice to the chief and the captain, letting them know that being that they're a commander, they're officers,
[01:37:07.760 --> 01:37:14.760]  that they should know they've been put on notice on exercising a right that I have given through the Florida State Constitution.
[01:37:14.760 --> 01:37:22.760]  And therefore, in that there will be a case and a case number created with the clerk at the court holding the very documents he's been given,
[01:37:22.760 --> 01:37:27.760]  which would be the affidavit that I would give the officer at the stop, the letter that I've sent him,
[01:37:27.760 --> 01:37:37.760]  plus any and all relevant information as it relates to these statutes and how they don't apply to me and that they would be brought up on charges.
[01:37:37.760 --> 01:37:44.760]  And then when I get pulled over, I would then refer to the, you know, to the cop and just say, listen, here's my affidavit warning to you.
[01:37:44.760 --> 01:37:50.760]  And then, you know, if he proceeds and he wants to ignore it, I could give him a case number and tell him he better call his chief or his captain
[01:37:50.760 --> 01:37:58.760]  and understand that this is the case number that they're going to have to refer to for, you know, the charges that are going to be coming their way.
[01:37:58.760 --> 01:38:03.760]  And I don't know if that's going to make them think twice or if he would actually get on the phone or the radio with his captain,
[01:38:03.760 --> 01:38:09.760]  whether it's 12 at night or whatever time it may be, and it may kind of stop the process there.
[01:38:09.760 --> 01:38:14.760]  And I don't know what you think about that.
[01:38:14.760 --> 01:38:22.760]  Well, like I say, you can do it that way as long as you are prepared for what's going to happen when you do.
[01:38:22.760 --> 01:38:30.760]  One of the things I would also recommend you do in order to facilitate this process for yourself, start writing your legislators.
[01:38:30.760 --> 01:38:32.760]  Get information from them.
[01:38:32.760 --> 01:38:35.760]  Get them to tell you by what authority are you doing this.
[01:38:35.760 --> 01:38:40.760]  If this is a civil offense, please explain to me how I became civilly liable.
[01:38:40.760 --> 01:38:44.760]  Try to get your legislators involved in giving you this information.
[01:38:44.760 --> 01:38:49.760]  Let them put their own foot in their mouth that they really don't have a clue.
[01:38:49.760 --> 01:38:59.760]  But at the same time, they may also inadvertently point you in a direction to discover something you might have otherwise not known about.
[01:38:59.760 --> 01:39:15.760]  Don't discount any possible source of information because you'd be surprised how them trying to mislead you can actually put you in a position to discover things they hadn't thought about.
[01:39:15.760 --> 01:39:33.760]  Okay. But as far as creating a case file with the clerk and including the information and sending this to the chief of what state and town I live in, does this sound like something that would be helpful or hurtful to me as far as a traffic stop and saying,
[01:39:33.760 --> 01:39:41.760]  listen, the chief is aware. I gave him notice that I'm simply exercising my right. I don't know if that's going to –
[01:39:41.760 --> 01:39:48.760]  I don't see that unless you've got this stuff to back up what you're – say you're exercising that it would help you.
[01:39:48.760 --> 01:40:00.760]  The one way it could definitely hurt you is if there is an intent to commit the act section somewhere in your statutes,
[01:40:00.760 --> 01:40:09.760]  basically where they can charge you for knowingly and willingly committing a violation this time, this time, and this time so that they can make it a worse offense on you each time.
[01:40:09.760 --> 01:40:18.760]  You know what I'm saying? Sure. So by doing that, you may be hurting yourself if something like that exists in your statutes.
[01:40:18.760 --> 01:40:32.760]  If it doesn't, then no, I don't see how it would hurt to do that. The problem, however, is that that in and of itself is not going to help you in each individual instance when they do something to you.
[01:40:32.760 --> 01:40:39.760]  Well, I mean, because the problem I'm faced with at this point is because this judge shut me down, he suspended my license,
[01:40:39.760 --> 01:40:46.760]  because he gave me a threat early on before I really started speaking to try and ask him questions.
[01:40:46.760 --> 01:40:53.760]  He had the power to suspend my license as well as finding contempt. Of course, he wanted to try and intimidate me.
[01:40:53.760 --> 01:41:01.760]  And therefore, he did. He suspended my license along with maxing out all the fees so that now he's trying to leave me as if I can't go anywhere.
[01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:08.760]  And that doesn't fly with me. I get my car and go where I need to go. The problem is that it's already been pulled over once.
[01:41:08.760 --> 01:41:15.760]  My license has been taken away. So now it's on record as far as they're concerned that I now have knowledge of my suspensions.
[01:41:15.760 --> 01:41:23.760]  So one more pullover, it becomes, and I need a statute, but the police officer told me that it becomes criminal, not civil anymore.
[01:41:23.760 --> 01:41:28.760]  And I'm sure they're going to take me to jail on the spot. So that's the position I'm in right now.
[01:41:28.760 --> 01:41:38.760]  So I'm trying to just figure I've got to do whatever I can to build the best case I can and hopefully prevent being taken to jail,
[01:41:38.760 --> 01:41:47.760]  but it's probably not going to happen, but at least have the best case built before any of this happens.
[01:41:47.760 --> 01:41:58.760]  Well, the one thing I'd do right now is I would find whatever the statute is that grants his authority to suspend the license,
[01:41:58.760 --> 01:42:05.760]  especially if you weren't, if this is a civil offense, were you in front of a jury?
[01:42:05.760 --> 01:42:09.760]  No. I mean, it was a total sham. It was a judge.
[01:42:09.760 --> 01:42:20.760]  Okay. Then you can come back and stipulate that it was treated as a bill of attainder, because if this is a civil offense, all right,
[01:42:20.760 --> 01:42:36.760]  that means that there was no crime. If there was no crime, then you were not in, Randy, would you agree this would not in that case be a judicial finding of fact?
[01:42:36.760 --> 01:42:43.760]  It would be a, whatever the judge finds is a finding of, wait a minute, I missed part of that.
[01:42:43.760 --> 01:42:52.760]  Okay. If this is an administrative process they put him through because they did not allow him a trial by jury, they say the offense is civil in nature.
[01:42:52.760 --> 01:43:00.760]  So everything was done through an administrative type of process where he was denied a jury and all this other stuff.
[01:43:00.760 --> 01:43:05.760]  Well, if an administrative judge finds a fact, it's still established as a fact.
[01:43:05.760 --> 01:43:10.760]  Yeah, but were you in an administrative court, John, or were you in a judicial court?
[01:43:10.760 --> 01:43:20.760]  Okay. Good question, because that's what I asked him. I asked him once, I said, is this an administrative, judicial, or civil form?
[01:43:20.760 --> 01:43:29.760]  And he didn't want to answer my question. Then when I pressed it, he said, first he tried to give me some loaded bull that he's a county judge,
[01:43:29.760 --> 01:43:34.760]  therefore he hears cases of both of a civil and criminal nature. So it's a quasi form.
[01:43:34.760 --> 01:43:37.760]  Okay. Wait a minute, guys. We're going to break.
[01:43:37.760 --> 01:43:46.760]  And I would like to try to wrap this up as soon as possible because we have one more segment left and we've got three other callers on the line that have been waiting for a long time.
[01:43:46.760 --> 01:43:55.760]  Okay. So John, stay on the line and let's try to finish this up on the other side so we can get to Maritha and Ken and Jim and hopefully Gary.
[01:43:55.760 --> 01:44:01.760]  We're going to have to blaze through the rest of the calls on the other side. We'll be right back.
[01:44:01.760 --> 01:44:10.760]  In a time where telling the truth is a revolutionary act, radicals across the globe are rising up and uniting behind one simple yet profound message, choose freedom.
[01:44:10.760 --> 01:44:22.760]  Join the revolution and tune in to the Rise Up Radio Show with Kathryn Bleich and John Bush every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 7 to 10 a.m. on 90.1 FM in Austin or ruleoflawradio.com on the Internet.
[01:44:22.760 --> 01:44:29.760]  That's right, folks. John Bush and I will be bringing you the latest news from the front lines and examining successful activist strategies from states across the Union.
[01:44:29.760 --> 01:44:38.760]  Come along for the rise this January as we speak truth to power and embark on Operation D-Fuse, a multi-state tour and expose on the mechanics of the modern police state.
[01:44:38.760 --> 01:44:44.760]  Check out OperationsD-Fuse.com for more information and be sure to tune in all this week to hear from these great guests.
[01:44:44.760 --> 01:44:55.760]  Monday, January 4th, renowned author and liberty defender G. Edward Griffin. Wednesday, January 6th, Mark Lerner of the Stop Real ID Coalition and Friday, January 8th, Michael Bolden of the Tenth Amendment Center.
[01:44:55.760 --> 01:45:01.760]  So tune in, folks, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning from 7 to 10 a.m. And don't just wake up. Rise up.
[01:45:01.760 --> 01:45:27.760]  Okay. We got one segment left.
[01:45:27.760 --> 01:45:37.760]  All right, John, we may have to, like, more thoroughly examine your situation on Thursday and spend, like, an hour on it because we've already spent almost a half an hour on it.
[01:45:37.760 --> 01:45:42.760]  And we need to wrap it up so we can try to take some other callers in the rest of the segment.
[01:45:42.760 --> 01:45:49.760]  So, all right, it's unclear whether it's administrative or judicial. So, Eddie, comments?
[01:45:49.760 --> 01:46:02.760]  Yeah, if it turns out that it was an administrative court, then you can definitely go after it as a bill of attainder, which is an administrative or legislative punishment without a judicial finding of fact.
[01:46:02.760 --> 01:46:03.760]  Okay.
[01:46:03.760 --> 01:46:14.760]  So, I mean, we'll definitely pick this up on Thursday when all these other guys get in with their questions, but just briefly, you know, I don't know how to determine that it was administrative because when I finally pressed the issue with him,
[01:46:14.760 --> 01:46:19.760]  he told me it was judicial, and I confirmed. I said, this is a judicial form. He said, yes.
[01:46:19.760 --> 01:46:23.760]  And then I said, well, where's the state? Does no one represent the state?
[01:46:23.760 --> 01:46:26.760]  He said, no. And he simply went on and told the cop to give his testimony.
[01:46:26.760 --> 01:46:35.760]  So, I mean, clearly he's violating the law, and I guess Thursday will go through exactly how I can, you know, take it from there.
[01:46:35.760 --> 01:46:42.760]  Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, but that definitely sounds like they were not in a judicial forum in that case,
[01:46:42.760 --> 01:46:45.760]  especially if they were not allowing you a trial by jury.
[01:46:45.760 --> 01:46:46.760]  Right.
[01:46:46.760 --> 01:46:50.760]  Right. I know it was me, the cop, and the judge, and the judge was running the whole show.
[01:46:50.760 --> 01:46:53.760]  All right. Well, thank you very much, and we'll all dial in on Thursday.
[01:46:53.760 --> 01:46:56.760]  Okay. Yeah. Let's pick this up on Thursday. Thanks, John.
[01:46:56.760 --> 01:46:59.760]  Okay. We're going to go to Marisa in Texas.
[01:46:59.760 --> 01:47:00.760]  Hey.
[01:47:00.760 --> 01:47:03.760]  Hey, Marisa. Thanks for waiting. What's on your mind?
[01:47:03.760 --> 01:47:14.760]  Yes. I called a couple weeks ago about a public intoxication of my son, and you talked about the jurisdiction of a public place
[01:47:14.760 --> 01:47:22.760]  being under alcohol and beverage jurisdiction, and that 4902, do you remember?
[01:47:22.760 --> 01:47:24.760]  4902 is the offense itself.
[01:47:24.760 --> 01:47:25.760]  Right.
[01:47:25.760 --> 01:47:43.760]  But the part of the statute that says that for the intents and purposes of this section, a public place is a location licensed to sell alcohol or sells alcohol.
[01:47:43.760 --> 01:47:52.760]  Well, when we went up in front of the judge, he said that that was an addendum and has nothing to do with the location of his arrest.
[01:47:52.760 --> 01:47:57.760]  Then the judge obviously can't read.
[01:47:57.760 --> 01:48:05.760]  Well, listening to all of your other callers today, I did think it was very interesting how often these courts actually don't follow the law,
[01:48:05.760 --> 01:48:12.760]  and it broke my heart watching my son struggle with a lying judge because they-
[01:48:12.760 --> 01:48:20.760]  Well, I agree, and I am actually currently working on revisions to the documents that we're going to be sending to you for this,
[01:48:20.760 --> 01:48:28.760]  one of which hopefully you will be able to use to put them in such a spot that they're going to wish they'd never heard his name.
[01:48:28.760 --> 01:48:42.760]  Well, our court case is the 25th of February, and I fully expect him to go to jail because they were telling him that they were mocking his motions to dismiss,
[01:48:42.760 --> 01:48:52.760]  saying on the one of kidnapping that it was some law from 1925, and how the hell would he know at 21 whether that law was still valid or not?
[01:48:52.760 --> 01:48:56.760]  He yelled at him. He cajoled him.
[01:48:56.760 --> 01:48:58.760]  He who?
[01:48:58.760 --> 01:49:04.760]  The judge. The judge yelled at my son and tried to cajol him into getting angry.
[01:49:04.760 --> 01:49:12.760]  And at one point, he said, you need a lawyer, my son, and my son turned around and said, well, no offense,
[01:49:12.760 --> 01:49:22.760]  but I don't want anybody who's pledged allegiance to a British communist agency or something like that because he was getting angry.
[01:49:22.760 --> 01:49:27.760]  And the judge said, are you calling me a communist? And it just got wild.
[01:49:27.760 --> 01:49:29.760]  Well, if the shoe fits, Judge.
[01:49:29.760 --> 01:49:41.760]  Well, he threw out both of our orders for dismissal, the one for kidnapping and then the one for the fact that he was not in a legal public place.
[01:49:41.760 --> 01:49:48.760]  And because Marty, my son, was unable to use the legal lingo.
[01:49:48.760 --> 01:49:52.760]  I mean, he was just stopped in his tracks and ridiculed.
[01:49:52.760 --> 01:49:58.760]  Where is the public defender he requested at the examining trial?
[01:49:58.760 --> 01:50:00.760]  The public defender.
[01:50:00.760 --> 01:50:02.760]  I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this.
[01:50:02.760 --> 01:50:09.760]  According to the law, the judge was required to ask your son if he wished assistance of counsel.
[01:50:09.760 --> 01:50:12.760]  There's nothing in the record that shows the judge did this.
[01:50:12.760 --> 01:50:20.760]  Now, your son says that he did say he wanted assistance of counsel, but there's nothing in the record that shows the judge ever asked him.
[01:50:20.760 --> 01:50:32.760]  Matter of fact, there's nothing in the record period that even exists from the day of his examining trial except for the actual bond order at 1-1237 that afternoon.
[01:50:32.760 --> 01:50:34.760]  Hey, did you check into this?
[01:50:34.760 --> 01:50:38.760]  I've read everything that you sent to me and I've looked at all of it.
[01:50:38.760 --> 01:50:42.760]  Everything on it is date stamped at least four days after the arrest.
[01:50:42.760 --> 01:50:51.760]  And then it was not filed in the court record until the 7th of January, which is a week past when it was actually done,
[01:50:51.760 --> 01:51:01.760]  which means the judge at the examining trial did nothing that 1517 instructs him to do.
[01:51:01.760 --> 01:51:05.760]  But as you can see, I'm no lawyer, so you confuse me and confound me.
[01:51:05.760 --> 01:51:10.760]  And I'm sorry to say that I don't know if we can come up to stuff by the 25th.
[01:51:10.760 --> 01:51:14.760]  Well, I'm no lawyer either and don't wish to ever be.
[01:51:14.760 --> 01:51:17.760]  I promised my mother I wouldn't grow up to be a crook.
[01:51:17.760 --> 01:51:33.760]  But the point here being that Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.17 says step by step by step everything that judge must do when someone is arrested and taken in to see them.
[01:51:33.760 --> 01:51:42.760]  Chapter 16 is the full-blown version of what is basically condensed into 15.17.
[01:51:42.760 --> 01:51:49.760]  So if you go through Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it's not but three or four printed pages, all large type.
[01:51:49.760 --> 01:51:51.760]  I mean, it's very short read.
[01:51:51.760 --> 01:51:52.760]  Okay, I will.
[01:51:52.760 --> 01:52:01.760]  But if you go through that and look at it, you will see according to the scans of the documents you sent me that virtually nothing that that judge was required to do was done.
[01:52:01.760 --> 01:52:12.760]  He was a complete violation of process from the get-go, as was the officer when he took your son straight to jail rather than to a magistrate.
[01:52:12.760 --> 01:52:15.760]  And the documents I'm working on is going to make that very plain.
[01:52:15.760 --> 01:52:17.760]  Your son's not going to have to argue anything.
[01:52:17.760 --> 01:52:19.760]  He's simply going to have to file these.
[01:52:19.760 --> 01:52:30.760]  And if the judge wants to argue with him, all he's got to do is pick up his copy and start reading it into the record, which he has every right to do.
[01:52:30.760 --> 01:52:43.760]  While he – okay, this is while he is trying to defend himself, or is this for his final words, or is this as they open up the – you know, because we're going to – the next one is the trial.
[01:52:43.760 --> 01:52:45.760]  And the prosecutor –
[01:52:45.760 --> 01:52:49.760]  I mean, when you file these motions, you're going to schedule them for a hearing date.
[01:52:49.760 --> 01:52:52.760]  You're not going to let them sit and languish until trial.
[01:52:52.760 --> 01:52:54.760]  You're going to set a date to hear them.
[01:52:54.760 --> 01:52:55.760]  But you need to be –
[01:52:55.760 --> 01:52:56.760]  Call a motion hearing.
[01:52:56.760 --> 01:52:57.760]  Yeah.
[01:52:57.760 --> 01:53:02.760]  Your son needs to practice and prepare what he's going to say based upon the contents of these motions.
[01:53:02.760 --> 01:53:03.760]  Okay.
[01:53:03.760 --> 01:53:05.760]  And he should not deviate from them.
[01:53:05.760 --> 01:53:07.760]  Just read the motions.
[01:53:07.760 --> 01:53:08.760]  Oh, sorry.
[01:53:08.760 --> 01:53:11.760]  At pretrial, we filed two motions.
[01:53:11.760 --> 01:53:12.760]  He threw them out.
[01:53:12.760 --> 01:53:14.760]  I thought that was our last chance to file motions.
[01:53:14.760 --> 01:53:15.760]  No.
[01:53:15.760 --> 01:53:16.760]  No.
[01:53:16.760 --> 01:53:20.760]  You file motions all the way up to – even during the day of trial, you can make motions upon the court.
[01:53:20.760 --> 01:53:22.760]  Oh, okay.
[01:53:22.760 --> 01:53:23.760]  Okay.
[01:53:23.760 --> 01:53:24.760]  All right.
[01:53:24.760 --> 01:53:30.760]  Move the court at any point of the process when you want the court to do something.
[01:53:30.760 --> 01:53:32.760]  I wish I was smarter.
[01:53:32.760 --> 01:53:33.760]  Okay.
[01:53:33.760 --> 01:53:38.760]  Well, I will send you – I'm going to scan what they sent us.
[01:53:38.760 --> 01:53:44.760]  Oh, when my son asked for copies of everything in the file, he screamed and yelled at my son.
[01:53:44.760 --> 01:53:53.760]  And then at the last minute, he ordered the court clerk to give him everything as if it was not – like he didn't have to do it.
[01:53:53.760 --> 01:53:56.760]  He was just doing it because he was angry.
[01:53:56.760 --> 01:53:57.760]  Yeah.
[01:53:57.760 --> 01:54:03.760]  And he was being vindictive, which is just something else your son could go after the judge for.
[01:54:03.760 --> 01:54:05.760]  Well, I don't know.
[01:54:05.760 --> 01:54:06.760]  I don't know.
[01:54:06.760 --> 01:54:10.760]  But I'll send you the stuff that we got and we'll see.
[01:54:10.760 --> 01:54:11.760]  And I do appreciate all your time.
[01:54:11.760 --> 01:54:13.760]  And I'll get off now and let somebody else talk.
[01:54:13.760 --> 01:54:14.760]  Okay?
[01:54:14.760 --> 01:54:15.760]  Yes, ma'am.
[01:54:15.760 --> 01:54:16.760]  All right.
[01:54:16.760 --> 01:54:17.760]  Thanks, Marutha.
[01:54:17.760 --> 01:54:18.760]  It's not about being smart.
[01:54:18.760 --> 01:54:19.760]  It's just about being diligent, really.
[01:54:19.760 --> 01:54:25.760]  None of us knew any of this either until we picked it up and started reading it.
[01:54:25.760 --> 01:54:31.760]  It's more about, you know, having knowledge versus ignorance rather than being smart.
[01:54:31.760 --> 01:54:33.760]  So don't beat yourself up over that.
[01:54:33.760 --> 01:54:36.760]  Just get yourself up to speed.
[01:54:36.760 --> 01:54:37.760]  Y'all are getting there.
[01:54:37.760 --> 01:54:39.760]  Y'all will be fine.
[01:54:39.760 --> 01:54:40.760]  Okay.
[01:54:40.760 --> 01:54:41.760]  Okay.
[01:54:41.760 --> 01:54:42.760]  All right.
[01:54:42.760 --> 01:54:43.760]  Thanks, Marutha.
[01:54:43.760 --> 01:54:44.760]  Okay.
[01:54:44.760 --> 01:54:45.760]  That's great.
[01:54:45.760 --> 01:54:46.760]  Okay.
[01:54:46.760 --> 01:54:47.760]  We're here for you.
[01:54:47.760 --> 01:54:48.760]  All right.
[01:54:48.760 --> 01:54:49.760]  Let's see if you like.
[01:54:49.760 --> 01:54:50.760]  All right.
[01:54:50.760 --> 01:54:51.760]  We got Ken from Texas.
[01:54:51.760 --> 01:54:52.760]  We're running low on time.
[01:54:52.760 --> 01:54:53.760]  Go ahead, Ken.
[01:54:53.760 --> 01:54:54.760]  What's on your mind?
[01:54:54.760 --> 01:54:55.760]  Hi there.
[01:54:55.760 --> 01:55:03.760]  I just had a really kind of a quick situation I wanted to tell you about.
[01:55:03.760 --> 01:55:06.760]  I have this little traffic case in Plano.
[01:55:06.760 --> 01:55:08.760]  Are you on a speaker phone, Ken?
[01:55:08.760 --> 01:55:11.760]  I'm on a microphone.
[01:55:11.760 --> 01:55:13.760]  Can you hear me better now?
[01:55:13.760 --> 01:55:14.760]  Okay.
[01:55:14.760 --> 01:55:15.760]  Yes.
[01:55:15.760 --> 01:55:16.760]  And we have literally like three minutes.
[01:55:16.760 --> 01:55:18.760]  So you're going to have to make it short.
[01:55:18.760 --> 01:55:19.760]  And I'm sorry.
[01:55:19.760 --> 01:55:22.760]  The rest of the callers I don't think we're going to be able to get to you.
[01:55:22.760 --> 01:55:24.760]  Jim, Gary, Clayton.
[01:55:24.760 --> 01:55:28.760]  So let's do the best we can in three minutes.
[01:55:28.760 --> 01:55:29.760]  Okay.
[01:55:29.760 --> 01:55:34.760]  I'll just say my thing here real quick and then you can say what you want then.
[01:55:34.760 --> 01:55:41.760]  I discovered when I went to go look at my file in the traffic course that they didn't really
[01:55:41.760 --> 01:55:47.760]  have me fill out a form to get the file and I was talking with one of the other listeners
[01:55:47.760 --> 01:55:51.760]  and I said, you know, they probably don't have the file in there.
[01:55:51.760 --> 01:55:57.760]  And in fact I found some government code 2714D, criminal code of procedure,
[01:55:57.760 --> 01:56:04.760]  which says they don't have to have a complaint unless you have already pleaded not guilty.
[01:56:04.760 --> 01:56:06.760]  I just want to see if you had any comments about that.
[01:56:06.760 --> 01:56:08.760]  That's my question.
[01:56:08.760 --> 01:56:13.760]  Well, the rest of the criminal procedure code says that the court has no jurisdiction
[01:56:13.760 --> 01:56:16.760]  to have an examining trial without a complaint.
[01:56:16.760 --> 01:56:21.760]  And then an information or indictment is the only thing that can grant the court
[01:56:21.760 --> 01:56:24.760]  that's holding the trial jurisdiction to hear it.
[01:56:24.760 --> 01:56:28.760]  And both of those require a complaint for them to be based upon.
[01:56:28.760 --> 01:56:33.760]  So I don't see where they can get off on any point saying they don't have to have one.
[01:56:33.760 --> 01:56:36.760]  Now you said it's 27 what?
[01:56:36.760 --> 01:56:42.760]  27.14D and it's just a couple of sentences here.
[01:56:42.760 --> 01:56:47.760]  Yeah, but that's if you're making a plea of guilty or no lo contendere,
[01:56:47.760 --> 01:56:51.760]  then they can waive the right to have a signed and verified complaint.
[01:56:51.760 --> 01:56:57.760]  You have to waive it, not them.
[01:56:57.760 --> 01:56:58.760]  Okay.
[01:56:58.760 --> 01:57:05.760]  And it also says if I plead not guilty, only then do they have to prepare the complaint.
[01:57:05.760 --> 01:57:10.760]  If you're initially going to plead guilty or no lo contendere,
[01:57:10.760 --> 01:57:15.760]  you basically said, oh, yeah, I'm guilty, I confess.
[01:57:15.760 --> 01:57:16.760]  Right.
[01:57:16.760 --> 01:57:19.760]  So why would they need a complaint?
[01:57:19.760 --> 01:57:23.760]  You just said, I confess, do to me whatever you want to.
[01:57:23.760 --> 01:57:26.760]  Then if you're going to say not guilty, what do they have to do?
[01:57:26.760 --> 01:57:28.760]  Take you to trial, right?
[01:57:28.760 --> 01:57:29.760]  Right.
[01:57:29.760 --> 01:57:33.760]  And if they take you to trial, what do they got to have?
[01:57:33.760 --> 01:57:34.760]  A complaint.
[01:57:34.760 --> 01:57:38.760]  Which is this says they've got to fill out if you plead not guilty, right?
[01:57:38.760 --> 01:57:39.760]  Right.
[01:57:39.760 --> 01:57:41.760]  Okay.
[01:57:41.760 --> 01:57:44.760]  Well, the dichotomy is that they want you to go in and plead to something,
[01:57:44.760 --> 01:57:48.760]  but you're supposed to go in and plead to the citation.
[01:57:48.760 --> 01:57:49.760]  Right.
[01:57:49.760 --> 01:57:51.760]  And that's what you don't do.
[01:57:51.760 --> 01:57:58.760]  I move to dismiss all charges with presence for lack of a valid verified complaint.
[01:57:58.760 --> 01:58:02.760]  And with the judge trying to say we're using the citation as a complaint,
[01:58:02.760 --> 01:58:08.760]  it's an objection, the citation does not meet the statutory requisites of a complaint.
[01:58:08.760 --> 01:58:09.760]  Excellent.
[01:58:09.760 --> 01:58:11.760]  I got it right there.
[01:58:11.760 --> 01:58:12.760]  Thank you.
[01:58:12.760 --> 01:58:13.760]  All right.
[01:58:13.760 --> 01:58:14.760]  Thank you, Ken.
[01:58:14.760 --> 01:58:15.760]  All right.
[01:58:15.760 --> 01:58:18.760]  I'm sorry, Jim, Gary, Clayton, we didn't have time to take your calls.
[01:58:18.760 --> 01:58:19.760]  Call back in on Thursday.
[01:58:19.760 --> 01:58:20.760]  We'll take your calls.
[01:58:20.760 --> 01:58:29.760]  I got a message from Terry in Michigan who wants to get in touch with Jeff from Michigan who called in earlier.
[01:58:29.760 --> 01:58:33.760]  So Jeff from Michigan, if you're out there listening, if you could please send me an email
[01:58:33.760 --> 01:58:39.760]  so I can get you in touch with Terry so that you guys can get together
[01:58:39.760 --> 01:58:41.760]  and work on this Michigan traffic code together.
[01:58:41.760 --> 01:58:46.760]  Terry's trying to set up a group in Michigan to work on the Michigan transportation code.
[01:58:46.760 --> 01:58:51.760]  So Jeff from Michigan, please send me an email so I can hook you up with Terry.
[01:58:51.760 --> 01:58:53.760]  Terry attended our seminar.
[01:58:53.760 --> 01:58:54.760]  All right.
[01:58:54.760 --> 01:58:59.760]  We'll be back on Thursday night, folks, Thursday night, 8 to 10.
[01:59:24.760 --> 01:59:25.760]  Thank you.
[01:59:54.760 --> 01:59:59.760]  Thank you.