[00:00.000 --> 00:09.600] The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the [00:09.600 --> 00:15.800] dollar as the world's reserve currency. The IMF said special drawing rights or SDRs could [00:15.800 --> 00:22.820] help stabilize the global financial system. SDRs created by the IMF in 1969 can be converted [00:22.820 --> 00:29.880] into any currency at exchange rates based on a basket of international currencies. [00:29.880 --> 00:35.360] China has frozen assets that may belong to Egyptian ex-president Hosni Mubarak. A Swiss [00:35.360 --> 00:41.360] Foreign Ministry spokesman said assets belonging to Mubarak's associates would also be targeted [00:41.360 --> 00:46.200] to limit the chance of state funds being plundered. Estimates have put Mubarak's wealth at up [00:46.200 --> 00:52.080] to $70 billion, which would make him the world's wealthiest man. [00:52.080 --> 00:59.480] A former Fox News employee told Media Watchdog Media Matters Friday, Fox makes stuff up. [00:59.480 --> 01:04.760] The employee, who remains anonymous, said of Fox, they insist on maintaining this charade, [01:04.760 --> 01:11.480] this façade, that they're balanced or that they're not right-wing extreme propagandists. [01:11.480 --> 01:17.320] The website ThinkProgress disclosed Friday the US Chamber of Commerce has hired security [01:17.320 --> 01:23.520] companies to sabotage unions and smear political opponents. ThinkProgress obtained emails from [01:23.520 --> 01:30.120] the Trade Association, which represents ExxonMobil, AIG, and other major corporations, showing [01:30.120 --> 01:35.920] the Chamber hired the lobbying firm, Hunton & Williams, to spearhead the sabotage. The [01:35.920 --> 01:41.840] firm's attorney, Richard White, hired security firms HB Gary Federal, Planeteer, and Barraco [01:41.840 --> 01:48.720] Technology to develop tactics for damaging progressive groups and labor unions. ThinkProgress, [01:48.720 --> 01:54.480] the labor coalition, changed to win. U.S. Chamber Watch and StopTheChamber.com were [01:54.480 --> 02:00.360] among those targeted. The three security firms proposed creating a false document to give [02:00.360 --> 02:06.360] to a group opposing the Chamber and then expose the document as a fake. ThinkProgress obtained [02:06.360 --> 02:11.320] the Chamber's emails through the hacktivist group Anonymous, who were retaliating against [02:11.320 --> 02:16.400] HB Gary Federal after an executive at the firm, Aaron Barr, tried to take Anonymous [02:16.400 --> 02:23.640] down. Afghanistan's spy service says a cell of suicide bombers in Kabul was run for three [02:23.640 --> 02:29.880] years by Taliban commander Talib Jahn, operating from the city's main prison. The National [02:29.880 --> 02:34.640] Directorate of Security said another suicide bomber cell recruited young men from religious [02:34.640 --> 02:39.700] schools and got them high on drugs before sending them on suicide missions. National [02:39.700 --> 02:45.680] Directorate spokesman Luftullah Mashal said Thursday most of the suicide attacks in Kabul [02:45.680 --> 02:51.400] were planned from inside this prison by this man, playing a videotape of Jahn confessing [02:51.400 --> 02:56.560] he had organized the January 28th suicide bombing of a Kabul supermarket that killed [02:56.560 --> 03:17.400] 14 people. [03:26.560 --> 03:51.760] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna [03:51.760 --> 04:00.760] do? Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? When [04:00.760 --> 04:06.160] you were eight and you had bad traits You go to school and learn the golden rule So [04:06.160 --> 04:12.160] why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get hot then you must get cool! Bad boys, [04:12.160 --> 04:18.560] bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, [04:18.560 --> 04:23.960] whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? You took it on that one, you [04:23.960 --> 04:27.160] took it on this one You took it on your mother and you took it [04:27.160 --> 04:29.960] on your father You took it on your brother and you took it [04:29.960 --> 04:32.960] on your sisters You took it on that one and you took it on [04:32.960 --> 04:38.760] me! Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha going to do when they come for you? [04:38.760 --> 04:44.760] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, [05:14.760 --> 05:17.260] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [05:17.260 --> 05:20.260] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? [05:20.260 --> 05:22.760] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [05:22.760 --> 05:25.760] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? [05:25.760 --> 05:29.260] Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? [05:39.260 --> 05:40.760] All right, folks, good evening. [05:40.760 --> 05:43.260] This is Rule of Law Radio. [05:43.260 --> 05:45.760] Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig. [05:45.760 --> 05:50.760] It is February 11, 2011. [05:50.760 --> 05:52.760] And tonight's show, we're gonna start off [05:52.760 --> 05:54.760] with a dissertation on a case [05:54.760 --> 05:57.760] that was forwarded to me today by Tim. [05:57.760 --> 06:00.260] And this case is gonna go into some things [06:00.260 --> 06:02.760] that I've been talking about for quite a while [06:02.760 --> 06:05.760] as to how the statutes relate to one another. [06:05.760 --> 06:06.760] We're gonna deal a little bit [06:06.760 --> 06:08.760] with what's known as imperimateria, [06:08.760 --> 06:11.760] in other words, related material. [06:11.760 --> 06:13.760] And we're also gonna be talking about [06:13.760 --> 06:15.760] the issue of whether or not you're actually [06:15.760 --> 06:19.760] in a custodial arrest during a traffic stop in Texas. [06:19.760 --> 06:21.260] Now, the case that was forwarded to me [06:21.260 --> 06:23.760] is called Aziz v. State, [06:23.760 --> 06:28.260] and that's A-Z-E-E-Z v. State. [06:28.260 --> 06:33.260] It's 248 Southwest 3rd, 182. [06:33.260 --> 06:35.260] Now, in this case, as you go through it, [06:35.260 --> 06:37.760] it's about eight pages long. [06:37.760 --> 06:41.260] And the Court of Appeals went to great extent [06:41.260 --> 06:44.760] to make a determination about what happens [06:44.760 --> 06:48.760] when an individual is charged with failure to appear [06:48.760 --> 06:50.760] in relation to a traffic citation [06:50.760 --> 06:56.760] versus the offense as listed under Penal Code 38.10. [06:56.760 --> 06:59.760] Now, what they've determined is [06:59.760 --> 07:03.760] is that the issue in 543.009, [07:03.760 --> 07:08.760] where it says that an individual commits a misdemeanor [07:08.760 --> 07:11.760] despite the disposition of the offense [07:11.760 --> 07:13.260] they were originally stopped for [07:13.260 --> 07:16.760] if they fail to appear for a traffic citation, [07:16.760 --> 07:22.760] is the same imperimateria subject matter [07:22.760 --> 07:24.760] as what is dealt with under the failure [07:24.760 --> 07:28.760] to appear in 38.10 Penal Code. [07:28.760 --> 07:31.760] Now, I've gone through this entire case. [07:31.760 --> 07:33.760] As good as all that is in linking [07:33.760 --> 07:37.260] those two particular codes together in that respect, [07:37.260 --> 07:41.760] the one thing this case still does not take into consideration [07:41.760 --> 07:45.760] as imperimateria or addresses at all for that matter [07:45.760 --> 07:52.760] is 15.17G of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [07:52.760 --> 07:55.760] which specifically in detail [07:55.760 --> 08:00.760] allows the court to only issue a warrant for failure to appear [08:00.760 --> 08:05.760] in relation to a Class C misdemeanor citation [08:05.760 --> 08:09.760] to those that fail to appear on the order [08:09.760 --> 08:14.760] to appear for arraignment versus the citation. [08:14.760 --> 08:18.760] Otherwise, 15.17 only allows the issuance of a warrant [08:18.760 --> 08:22.260] for failure to appear if the misdemeanor offense [08:22.260 --> 08:27.260] was an A or B misdemeanor. [08:27.260 --> 08:31.260] So as long as we're dealing with imperimateria subject matter, [08:31.260 --> 08:34.760] why aren't the courts addressing that? [08:34.760 --> 08:38.260] That would be something I would like to be able to ask them. [08:38.260 --> 08:41.260] But it is something we're putting into our affidavits [08:41.260 --> 08:43.760] that I'm writing up for these purposes. [08:43.760 --> 08:49.260] Now, part of what they go into in this particular case is this. [08:49.260 --> 08:52.760] I've also told folks at the seminars that [08:52.760 --> 08:54.760] when you have a statute [08:54.760 --> 08:58.260] that deals with a specific subject matter [08:58.260 --> 09:00.760] and it gives specific instruction [09:00.760 --> 09:05.760] to whomever that statute is relevant to [09:05.760 --> 09:10.760] as to how to do something versus a general statute, [09:10.760 --> 09:16.760] then the specific statute has greater force and effect [09:16.760 --> 09:18.760] than the general statute does, [09:18.760 --> 09:22.760] unless the language clearly shows [09:22.760 --> 09:27.760] that the legislature intended for the general statute to control. [09:27.760 --> 09:30.760] Well, guaranteed transportation code [09:30.760 --> 09:33.760] does not grant general authority [09:33.760 --> 09:36.760] over the specific authority written into it. [09:36.760 --> 09:38.760] Why is this important? [09:38.760 --> 09:41.760] It's important for several reasons. [09:41.760 --> 09:43.760] The first one being, let's go back to the issue [09:43.760 --> 09:46.760] of take me before a magistrate. [09:46.760 --> 09:50.760] The Texas transportation code in 543.002A [09:50.760 --> 09:55.260] specifically requires that when the individual arrested [09:55.260 --> 09:57.760] for the purpose of the issuance of the citation [09:57.760 --> 10:00.760] either will not sign the citation [10:00.760 --> 10:04.260] or demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate [10:04.260 --> 10:08.760] that that's exactly what the officer is required to do. [10:08.760 --> 10:11.760] But instead, what they are doing is switching [10:11.760 --> 10:16.760] from the requirements of 543.00 under the transportation code [10:16.760 --> 10:21.760] to the more general standard of any time within 48 hours [10:21.760 --> 10:28.760] as shown under the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1406A. [10:28.760 --> 10:32.760] Now, as we just said, this case very clearly shows [10:32.760 --> 10:35.760] that unless otherwise specifically made clear [10:35.760 --> 10:37.760] by the legislature, [10:37.760 --> 10:43.760] the specific localized non-general statute is controlling. [10:43.760 --> 10:46.760] And when the transportation code under that offense says [10:46.760 --> 10:50.760] you are to take them immediately before a magistrate, [10:50.760 --> 10:53.760] that supersedes the general requirement of any time [10:53.760 --> 10:56.760] within 48 hours. [10:56.760 --> 11:00.760] So this case very clearly shows they cannot make that argument [11:00.760 --> 11:02.760] and get away with it anymore. [11:02.760 --> 11:05.760] Now, this case is dated March of 2008, [11:05.760 --> 11:07.760] so this is not an old case. [11:07.760 --> 11:10.760] This is fairly recent. [11:10.760 --> 11:14.760] Now, there is another case that was sent to me [11:14.760 --> 11:17.760] in conjunction with this called Weisner v. State [11:17.760 --> 11:20.760] v. Weisner, something of that title, [11:20.760 --> 11:22.760] but I'll get to that later, [11:22.760 --> 11:24.760] that deals specifically with imperimateria, [11:24.760 --> 11:28.760] and it deals with it in relation to this case. [11:28.760 --> 11:30.760] So once I get into detail on that, [11:30.760 --> 11:33.760] we'll probably cover that in part on Monday night's show. [11:33.760 --> 11:35.760] But in any case, for the moment, [11:35.760 --> 11:37.760] let's go into what else this means to us [11:37.760 --> 11:40.760] in relation to the traffic offenses. [11:40.760 --> 11:44.760] Now, when a statute gives specific direction [11:44.760 --> 11:49.760] or a limitation upon the actions of those enforcing it [11:49.760 --> 11:51.760] versus a general statute, [11:51.760 --> 11:54.760] when they act under the general statute [11:54.760 --> 11:57.760] in violation of the specific statute, [11:57.760 --> 12:02.760] this ruling says that the act is illegal. [12:02.760 --> 12:05.760] And if it's an illegal act, [12:05.760 --> 12:07.760] they're doing it without authority [12:07.760 --> 12:11.760] and without jurisdiction. [12:11.760 --> 12:13.760] Now, this is going to go back to the issues [12:13.760 --> 12:15.760] that we've talked about again, [12:15.760 --> 12:16.760] dealing with the requirement [12:16.760 --> 12:19.760] to have a proper charging instrument. [12:19.760 --> 12:22.760] If we take all of the individual statutes [12:22.760 --> 12:24.760] that deal with charging instruments, [12:24.760 --> 12:26.760] who's allowed to sign them, [12:26.760 --> 12:30.760] why they have to have them, and so on and so forth, [12:30.760 --> 12:33.760] then it becomes extremely clear [12:33.760 --> 12:35.760] that they cannot get away with what they're doing [12:35.760 --> 12:39.760] in the city courts [12:39.760 --> 12:42.760] because the case law that they're relying on [12:42.760 --> 12:45.760] and the statute that case law is based on [12:45.760 --> 12:48.760] died 11 years ago, [12:48.760 --> 12:50.760] and they're still standing on it [12:50.760 --> 12:55.760] like it's solid ground, and it's not. [12:55.760 --> 12:57.760] So we have to get that argument [12:57.760 --> 12:59.760] in front of the courts again. [12:59.760 --> 13:00.760] But it's going to be there, [13:00.760 --> 13:03.760] and we do have bad case law to overcome, [13:03.760 --> 13:05.760] but when we show that the statute [13:05.760 --> 13:08.760] in which it rests is dead and gone, [13:08.760 --> 13:10.760] the case law is dead and gone. [13:10.760 --> 13:12.760] So we don't have to actually get it overturned. [13:12.760 --> 13:15.760] It can just simply no longer be considered [13:15.760 --> 13:17.760] for any reason. [13:17.760 --> 13:19.760] It's invalid. [13:19.760 --> 13:21.760] So it's ignored. [13:21.760 --> 13:22.760] It has to be. [13:22.760 --> 13:25.760] It doesn't have any relevance to the issue anymore. [13:25.760 --> 13:29.760] Now, one of the very important aspects [13:29.760 --> 13:31.760] of what I found as I was going through this, [13:31.760 --> 13:33.760] I'm going to read you an excerpt out of this, [13:33.760 --> 13:36.760] and this is what it says. [13:36.760 --> 13:40.760] It is a settled rule of statutory interpretation [13:40.760 --> 13:44.760] that statutes that deal with the same general subject [13:44.760 --> 13:47.760] have the same general purpose [13:47.760 --> 13:50.760] or relate to the same person or thing [13:50.760 --> 13:53.760] or class of persons or things [13:53.760 --> 13:56.760] are considered to be in paramateria [13:56.760 --> 14:00.760] though they contain no reference to one another. [14:00.760 --> 14:04.760] This is how we tie the reference in 543 [14:04.760 --> 14:06.760] to the notice to appear [14:06.760 --> 14:11.760] to 1406 Code of Criminal Procedure notice to appear [14:11.760 --> 14:15.760] in 1406B and 1406C. [14:15.760 --> 14:17.760] They are in paramateria [14:17.760 --> 14:20.760] because they deal with the same subject matter, [14:20.760 --> 14:22.760] the issuance of a citation [14:22.760 --> 14:27.760] in lieu of taking an offender before a magistrate. [14:27.760 --> 14:30.760] So they are in paramateria. [14:30.760 --> 14:31.760] They are related, [14:31.760 --> 14:34.760] and they cannot be taken separately [14:34.760 --> 14:37.760] because of that fact. [14:37.760 --> 14:39.760] Now, it goes on. [14:39.760 --> 14:43.760] In order to arrive at a proper construction of a statute [14:43.760 --> 14:46.760] and determine the exact legislative intent, [14:46.760 --> 14:51.760] all acts and parts of acts in paramateria [14:51.760 --> 14:56.760] will therefore be taken, read, and construed together, [14:56.760 --> 14:59.760] each enactment in reference to the other, [14:59.760 --> 15:03.760] as though they were parts of one and the same law. [15:03.760 --> 15:06.760] Any conflict between their provisions [15:06.760 --> 15:09.760] will be harmonized, if possible, [15:09.760 --> 15:13.760] and effect will be given to all provisions of each act [15:13.760 --> 15:15.760] if they can be made to stand together [15:15.760 --> 15:18.760] and have concurrent efficacy. [15:18.760 --> 15:22.760] The purpose of the imperimateria rule of construction [15:22.760 --> 15:26.760] is to carry out the full legislative intent [15:26.760 --> 15:29.760] by giving effect to all laws and provisions, [15:29.760 --> 15:32.760] bearing on the same subject. [15:32.760 --> 15:35.760] The rule proceeds on the same supposition [15:35.760 --> 15:39.760] that several statutes relating to one subject [15:39.760 --> 15:42.760] are governed by one spirit and policy [15:42.760 --> 15:47.760] and are intended to be consistent and harmonious [15:47.760 --> 15:50.760] in their several parts and provisions. [15:50.760 --> 15:54.760] Thus, it applies where one statute deals with a subject [15:54.760 --> 15:57.760] in comprehensive terms and another deals [15:57.760 --> 16:01.760] with a portion of the same subject in a more definite way, [16:01.760 --> 16:07.760] but where a general statute and a more detailed enactment [16:07.760 --> 16:10.760] are in conflict, the latter will prevail, [16:10.760 --> 16:12.760] meaning the more detailed, [16:12.760 --> 16:15.760] regardless of whether it was passed prior to [16:15.760 --> 16:18.760] or subsequently to the general statute, [16:18.760 --> 16:22.760] unless it appears that the legislature intended to make [16:22.760 --> 16:26.760] the general act controlling. [16:26.760 --> 16:30.760] Now, there it is, folks, plain, simple, straightforward, [16:30.760 --> 16:33.760] the argument I have made from day one [16:33.760 --> 16:37.760] about how these statutes must be taken together. [16:37.760 --> 16:40.760] And it's exactly what the city prosecutor [16:40.760 --> 16:46.760] and the city judges refuse to do at every turn. [16:46.760 --> 16:48.760] All right, folks, we're about to go to break. [16:48.760 --> 16:50.760] This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, [16:50.760 --> 16:52.760] Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens. [16:52.760 --> 16:53.760] Just hang in there. [16:53.760 --> 17:00.760] We will be right back. [17:00.760 --> 17:03.760] Capital Coin and Bullion is your local source [17:03.760 --> 17:05.760] for rare coins, precious metals, [17:05.760 --> 17:08.760] and coin supplies in the Austin metro area. [17:08.760 --> 17:10.760] We also ship worldwide. [17:10.760 --> 17:12.760] We are a family-owned and operated business [17:12.760 --> 17:15.760] that offers competitive prices on your coin and metals purchases. [17:15.760 --> 17:18.760] We buy, sell, trade, and consign rare coins, [17:18.760 --> 17:22.760] gold and silver coin collections, precious metals, and scrap gold. [17:22.760 --> 17:26.760] We will purchase and sell gold and jewelry items as well. [17:26.760 --> 17:29.760] We offer daily specials on coins and bullions. [17:29.760 --> 17:33.760] We're located at 5448 Burnett Road, Suite 3, [17:33.760 --> 17:36.760] and we're open Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., [17:36.760 --> 17:39.760] Saturdays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. [17:39.760 --> 17:42.760] You are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours [17:42.760 --> 17:47.760] or call 512-646-6440 with any questions. [17:47.760 --> 17:52.760] Ask for Chad and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or 90.1 FM. [17:52.760 --> 17:59.760] That's Capital Coin and Bullion, 512-646-6440. [17:59.760 --> 18:04.760] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [18:04.760 --> 18:08.760] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. [18:08.760 --> 18:12.760] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, [18:12.760 --> 18:14.760] and now you can win too. [18:14.760 --> 18:18.760] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court [18:18.760 --> 18:20.760] using federal civil rights statutes, [18:20.760 --> 18:24.760] what to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons, [18:24.760 --> 18:26.760] how to answer letters and phone calls, [18:26.760 --> 18:28.760] how to get debt collectors out of your credit reports, [18:28.760 --> 18:33.760] how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:33.760 --> 18:38.760] The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:38.760 --> 18:40.760] Personal consultation is available as well. [18:40.760 --> 18:46.760] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [18:46.760 --> 18:49.760] or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. [18:49.760 --> 18:56.760] That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [18:56.760 --> 19:13.760] to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [19:13.760 --> 19:26.760] Thank you, Justice. [19:26.760 --> 19:29.760] The world is spinning like it's out of control [19:29.760 --> 19:33.760] on the edge of a hole inside a deep dark dome [19:33.760 --> 19:39.760] I'm always on the lookout for something to soothe my soul [19:39.760 --> 19:44.760] So I sit back and I watch the other dead sun fall [19:44.760 --> 19:51.760] And I see justice is the goal [19:51.760 --> 19:58.760] Yeah, justice is the goal [19:58.760 --> 20:01.760] Sometimes we fell a little too far at sea [20:01.760 --> 20:04.760] And then we got to get back on course to leave [20:04.760 --> 20:11.760] So we go under heavy visories from the man that came all the way from Galilee [20:11.760 --> 20:14.760] A place called a safe and warm place to be [20:14.760 --> 20:17.760] Where I don't have to work so hard to be free [20:17.760 --> 20:20.760] Some guys are trying to rewrite history [20:20.760 --> 20:24.760] But they got caught, now them guys got the plea [20:24.760 --> 20:37.760] It looks like justice is right here [20:37.760 --> 20:59.760] Yeah, yeah [20:59.760 --> 21:03.760] Hi folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio. [21:03.760 --> 21:07.760] Okay, what I'd like to do now is hold a little bit of discussion with Randy [21:07.760 --> 21:09.760] while we're waiting on our guest here [21:09.760 --> 21:12.760] about what I've just read out of his case and see what he thinks. [21:12.760 --> 21:19.760] Okay, yeah, something I have to admit to start with. [21:19.760 --> 21:23.760] You know, I get on here and I start rattling off the code [21:23.760 --> 21:26.760] and people sit out there and they hear all these numbers going past them [21:26.760 --> 21:31.760] and they wonder how in the heck can I keep up with all that stuff [21:31.760 --> 21:38.760] Your mind turns to mud, trying to keep up with it well [21:38.760 --> 21:42.760] Eddie's payback [21:42.760 --> 21:45.760] I keep listening, every time Eddie comes on [21:45.760 --> 21:49.760] he has new issues he's bringing, one after the other [21:49.760 --> 21:54.760] and all of these pieces are fitting together [21:54.760 --> 21:57.760] I am looking forward to going into court with this [21:57.760 --> 22:02.760] This last one is a primary tool [22:02.760 --> 22:07.760] This one will be the tool we get to use to stitch all these together [22:07.760 --> 22:11.760] I have some tickets in Travis County [22:11.760 --> 22:16.760] maybe a ward or two, but only minor little wards [22:16.760 --> 22:22.760] I want to take these tickets in and argue all of these issues [22:22.760 --> 22:27.760] and this is the one, this is where they've been saying well [22:27.760 --> 22:31.760] that law over there doesn't apply and that law over there doesn't apply [22:31.760 --> 22:35.760] and we're using this law over here and we don't care what you say [22:35.760 --> 22:41.760] So this is going to help string things together [22:41.760 --> 22:47.760] so that I can put more pressure on them [22:47.760 --> 22:52.760] and I can get them in a position to where they knowingly [22:52.760 --> 22:57.760] and intentionally fail to abide by a law [22:57.760 --> 23:00.760] and I can sew it down good and tight [23:00.760 --> 23:03.760] We're going to go to the grand jury [23:03.760 --> 23:05.760] and I suspect when we get to the grand jury [23:05.760 --> 23:10.760] that's when we're going to start getting their attention [23:10.760 --> 23:13.760] Eddie's going to have to bail me out when I get arrested [23:13.760 --> 23:17.760] Well, it ain't like I haven't done that so far [23:17.760 --> 23:22.760] But yeah, for the most part, I really appreciate the information in this case [23:22.760 --> 23:26.760] because this is something that I've been saying the whole time [23:26.760 --> 23:31.760] This just is another case reaffirmation of what I've been saying [23:31.760 --> 23:34.760] and that I definitely find gratifying is that [23:34.760 --> 23:37.760] yeah, I'm making the argument even before the courts do [23:37.760 --> 23:39.760] and then when they finally do make it [23:39.760 --> 23:42.760] turns out that they have to agree with me because there's no other way to do it [23:42.760 --> 23:46.760] and they do it using exactly the same material that I've been using to do it [23:46.760 --> 23:49.760] which is Chapter 311 Government Code [23:49.760 --> 23:53.760] This is the first time I've actually seen one of these case decisions [23:53.760 --> 23:55.760] where the court actually went and said [23:55.760 --> 24:01.760] well, you have to use the Code Construction Act to understand how these laws fit together [24:01.760 --> 24:05.760] All these other case decisions rely strictly upon the one sentence [24:05.760 --> 24:09.760] and the one piece of one statute that they want to apply and nothing else [24:09.760 --> 24:15.760] and this time they went through the painstaking process of saying [24:15.760 --> 24:18.760] there is a law that requires they be used together [24:18.760 --> 24:22.760] there is a law that says this is how you do it [24:22.760 --> 24:27.760] and there is a law that says this is who gets priority and why [24:27.760 --> 24:30.760] and this case covers all of that [24:30.760 --> 24:33.760] Oh, this is great [24:33.760 --> 24:37.760] These are one of the tools we get to put in the toolbox [24:37.760 --> 24:44.760] I'm going into Lexus as we speak and see what I can find associated with that [24:44.760 --> 24:48.760] We've actually got Tim Ulrich that sent me this case [24:48.760 --> 24:50.760] He's already in the process of doing that [24:50.760 --> 24:52.760] Tim, hopefully he won't mind me saying this [24:52.760 --> 24:55.760] Tim is taking a paralegal course right now [24:55.760 --> 24:59.760] and he's got access to Lexus through that paralegal course [24:59.760 --> 25:04.760] and through that paralegal course he is having a blast doing this research [25:04.760 --> 25:09.760] He is getting to be extremely proficient on Lexus [25:09.760 --> 25:15.760] and that may be a check coming in from him now saying what the heck are you doing? [25:15.760 --> 25:18.760] But in any case, yes, this is very important [25:18.760 --> 25:21.760] It is going to give us an additional tool to use [25:21.760 --> 25:27.760] and it's a very big sledgehammer [25:27.760 --> 25:30.760] Now, Randy, you were saying something when we started the show about [25:30.760 --> 25:32.760] you have a guest that you want to bring on [25:32.760 --> 25:34.760] Are we ready for that yet? [25:34.760 --> 25:40.760] Well, Marcus from Virginia had some interesting information [25:40.760 --> 25:43.760] about contradictory laws in Virginia [25:43.760 --> 25:47.760] and we have Ken Magnuson if he's up on the bridge yet [25:47.760 --> 25:49.760] Yes, he is. I see him up there now [25:49.760 --> 25:52.760] Do you want to go ahead and bring Ken in or do you want to go to Marcus first? [25:52.760 --> 25:54.760] Yeah, bring Ken in first [25:54.760 --> 25:58.760] I want to let Mark know that we see him there [25:58.760 --> 26:05.760] I've got something I want to talk about a little on the equitable estoppel [26:05.760 --> 26:09.760] and then we'll go to Ken, then we'll go to Mark [26:09.760 --> 26:13.760] Okay, Marcus, just hang in there [26:13.760 --> 26:17.760] Hang in there for Marcus and we'll get to you here in just a few minutes [26:17.760 --> 26:19.760] Hey, Ken, are you there? [26:19.760 --> 26:20.760] I'm here [26:20.760 --> 26:22.760] All right [26:22.760 --> 26:24.760] All right, Randy, all yours [26:24.760 --> 26:31.760] Okay, this is something that I talked to Ken about before [26:31.760 --> 26:33.760] is estoppel [26:33.760 --> 26:36.760] but Ken's kind of my strategy guy [26:36.760 --> 26:38.760] He's always pulled stuff out of the hat [26:38.760 --> 26:43.760] and we're doing these foreclosure issues [26:43.760 --> 26:47.760] and every time we file [26:47.760 --> 26:49.760] and I thought it was just us [26:49.760 --> 26:54.760] every time we file a case, they file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 [26:54.760 --> 27:00.760] Well, I'm pulling cases down off of Lexus [27:00.760 --> 27:06.760] and every single pleading I pull has associated with it [27:06.760 --> 27:09.760] a Rule 12 motion to dismiss [27:09.760 --> 27:11.760] every single one [27:11.760 --> 27:14.760] so it's kind of knee-jerk [27:14.760 --> 27:18.760] that after the Ashcroft ruling [27:18.760 --> 27:22.760] where they said no more notice pleadings [27:22.760 --> 27:23.760] no more general pleadings [27:23.760 --> 27:25.760] now you have to have notice pleadings [27:25.760 --> 27:29.760] you have to give more definite notice [27:29.760 --> 27:33.760] to the defendant of precisely what you're accusing him of [27:33.760 --> 27:35.760] that now attorneys [27:35.760 --> 27:40.760] they file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss as a matter of course [27:40.760 --> 27:42.760] and one of the things [27:42.760 --> 27:46.760] that's a primary problem with the mortgages [27:46.760 --> 27:48.760] is you get the mortgage and you start paying it [27:48.760 --> 27:50.760] you pay a few years [27:50.760 --> 27:54.760] and then the higher premiums start kicking in [27:54.760 --> 27:56.760] especially in the arms [27:56.760 --> 27:57.760] the adjustable arms [27:57.760 --> 28:01.760] you'll have a low rate for four or five years [28:01.760 --> 28:05.760] and then all of a sudden it skyrockets [28:05.760 --> 28:08.760] but they give you the low rate long enough [28:08.760 --> 28:13.760] for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act [28:13.760 --> 28:17.760] Truth in Lending Act, Home Equity Protections Act [28:17.760 --> 28:22.760] long enough for the statute of limitations on those to run [28:22.760 --> 28:24.760] so then when you can't pay this thing [28:24.760 --> 28:25.760] and you start looking at it [28:25.760 --> 28:28.760] and see all the problems with it [28:28.760 --> 28:30.760] it's too late to raise the issue [28:30.760 --> 28:32.760] and the first thing they do is come to the court [28:32.760 --> 28:36.760] whining that statute of limitations is told [28:36.760 --> 28:38.760] and the statute of limitation on fraud is five years [28:38.760 --> 28:40.760] the statute of limitations is told [28:40.760 --> 28:42.760] they can't claim it [28:42.760 --> 28:47.760] well, in the pleadings we make the accusation [28:47.760 --> 28:52.760] of criminal and civil fraud [28:52.760 --> 28:57.760] of knowing and deliberate fraud by non-disclosure [28:57.760 --> 28:59.760] they tell you part of the story [28:59.760 --> 29:03.760] the part of the story that would give you reason [29:03.760 --> 29:08.760] to purchase and give you reason to accept this loan [29:08.760 --> 29:10.760] but they don't tell you the part [29:10.760 --> 29:12.760] that would give you reason not to [29:12.760 --> 29:14.760] and that's fraud by non-disclosure [29:14.760 --> 29:17.760] well, we got talking about estoppel [29:17.760 --> 29:20.760] equitable estoppel [29:20.760 --> 29:25.760] and primarily we were talking about equitable estoppel [29:25.760 --> 29:28.760] in terms of loan modification [29:28.760 --> 29:30.760] where the lender says [29:30.760 --> 29:33.760] yeah, we'll give you a loan modification [29:33.760 --> 29:37.760] we'll go into negotiations [29:37.760 --> 29:39.760] but first you have to get behind on your payment [29:39.760 --> 29:42.760] to qualify [29:42.760 --> 29:44.760] and you get behind on your payment [29:44.760 --> 29:47.760] and we'll talk about what happens to that [29:47.760 --> 29:49.760] when we come back on the other side [29:49.760 --> 29:51.760] Randy Caldwell, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig [29:51.760 --> 29:52.760] Rule of Law Radio [29:52.760 --> 29:54.760] we'll be right back [29:59.760 --> 30:01.760] The Rule of Law Radio Network is proud to present [30:01.760 --> 30:03.760] a due process of law seminar [30:03.760 --> 30:05.760] hosted by our own Eddie Craig [30:05.760 --> 30:08.760] Eddie is a former Nacogdoches County Sheriff's Deputy [30:08.760 --> 30:11.760] and for the past 21 years he has studied the due process of law [30:11.760 --> 30:13.760] and now offers his knowledge to you at a law seminar [30:13.760 --> 30:16.760] every Saturday from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock [30:16.760 --> 30:17.760] at Brave New Books [30:17.760 --> 30:20.760] located at 1904 Guadalupe Street in Austin, Texas [30:20.760 --> 30:22.760] admission is $20 [30:22.760 --> 30:24.760] so please make plans to come and sit with Eddie [30:24.760 --> 30:28.760] and learn for yourself what the true intent of law really is [30:28.760 --> 30:30.760] when you surf the internet [30:30.760 --> 30:32.760] you may get the false impression that you're alone [30:32.760 --> 30:34.760] but advertisers are likely to be watching [30:34.760 --> 30:37.760] and a Gallup poll says we don't like it one bit [30:37.760 --> 30:39.760] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht [30:39.760 --> 30:41.760] and I'll be back to tell you more in just a moment [30:41.760 --> 30:44.760] Your search engine is watching you [30:44.760 --> 30:46.760] recording all your searches [30:46.760 --> 30:49.760] and creating a massive database of your personal information [30:49.760 --> 30:50.760] that's creepy [30:50.760 --> 30:52.760] but it doesn't have to be that way [30:52.760 --> 30:55.760] Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine [30:55.760 --> 30:57.760] Startpage doesn't store your IP address [30:57.760 --> 31:00.760] make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies [31:00.760 --> 31:02.760] and they're third party certified [31:02.760 --> 31:04.760] if you don't like Big Brother spying on you [31:04.760 --> 31:06.760] start over with Startpage [31:06.760 --> 31:08.760] great search results and total privacy [31:08.760 --> 31:12.760] Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine [31:12.760 --> 31:13.760] According to a new Gallup poll [31:13.760 --> 31:16.760] most Americans are not aware they're being trapped and profiled [31:16.760 --> 31:17.760] as they surf the internet [31:17.760 --> 31:19.760] but they clearly hate the idea [31:19.760 --> 31:22.760] Researchers ask internet users if advertisers should be allowed [31:22.760 --> 31:26.760] to customize online ads to match the websites they've visited [31:26.760 --> 31:28.760] 67% said no [31:28.760 --> 31:31.760] Nevertheless, advertisers continue their stealthy ways [31:31.760 --> 31:34.760] Here are three tips to stop the snooping [31:34.760 --> 31:37.760] Number one, stick to privacy friendly websites when possible [31:37.760 --> 31:38.760] especially for web searches [31:38.760 --> 31:40.760] Your search terms reveal a lot about you [31:40.760 --> 31:42.760] like your interests and your medical conditions [31:42.760 --> 31:44.760] Number two, delete tracking cookies [31:44.760 --> 31:47.760] And number three, visit websites through a proxy [31:47.760 --> 31:49.760] like the one at Startpage.com [31:49.760 --> 31:51.760] I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht [31:51.760 --> 32:05.760] More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com [32:21.760 --> 32:26.760] This person's a race for Mr. Bush [32:26.760 --> 32:30.760] This person's a race for Dick Cheney [32:30.760 --> 32:34.760] Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me [32:34.760 --> 32:36.760] Prosecute them wicked leaders [32:36.760 --> 32:38.760] You see, they're all liars [32:38.760 --> 32:41.760] They're liars, they tell sick stories [32:41.760 --> 32:43.760] You don't believe me, say what they tell me [32:43.760 --> 32:46.760] 3% of Americans vote for Bush [32:46.760 --> 32:49.760] So how the hell did he get the presidency? [32:49.760 --> 32:51.760] That's why we have a warrant for him [32:51.760 --> 32:53.760] Everybody listen carefully [32:53.760 --> 32:55.760] Listen to the words of the three-shoes pussies [32:55.760 --> 32:59.760] This person's a race for Mr. Bush [32:59.760 --> 33:04.760] This person's a warrant for Dick Cheney [33:04.760 --> 33:09.760] This person's a race for Mr. Bush [33:09.760 --> 33:14.760] This person's a warrant for Dick Cheney [33:14.760 --> 33:16.760] Well, we're not forget Rumsfield [33:16.760 --> 33:20.760] Hi, Randy, we are back, this is Rule of Law Radio [33:20.760 --> 33:23.760] Okay, let's pick back up and the echo will stop [33:23.760 --> 33:26.760] Okay, why are you telling me? I knew we were back [33:26.760 --> 33:29.760] Oh, okay, Randy Kelton is back [33:29.760 --> 33:31.760] It's the snoring that blew me off [33:31.760 --> 33:36.760] Okay, we're talking about, we're having problems with the [33:36.760 --> 33:41.760] A lot of people after 08 went into the loan modification business [33:41.760 --> 33:44.760] All these companies popped up all over the place [33:44.760 --> 33:46.760] They had to get a loan modification [33:46.760 --> 33:50.760] And then they found out they couldn't get a loan modification [33:50.760 --> 33:53.760] Because the banks would just screw them around [33:53.760 --> 33:55.760] And no matter what you did, they would [33:55.760 --> 34:01.760] I got three suits where the bank told them [34:01.760 --> 34:05.760] Or the lender told them that there are two documents that we need [34:05.760 --> 34:06.760] But we don't know what they are [34:06.760 --> 34:09.760] We have to check with these other people to find out what they are [34:09.760 --> 34:11.760] And they keep holding you off with that [34:11.760 --> 34:16.760] And then they call you up and say, well, you didn't get us those two documents we asked for [34:16.760 --> 34:20.760] So we denied your modification [34:20.760 --> 34:25.760] And in one case, they sold his house within minutes [34:25.760 --> 34:31.760] So the loan modification program was put in by Obama [34:31.760 --> 34:34.760] And I saw some figures today, 1.8 billion [34:34.760 --> 34:36.760] He allotted to it [34:36.760 --> 34:45.760] And these lenders are collecting stipends from the government in order to offer a modification [34:45.760 --> 34:47.760] Now they don't have to give one [34:47.760 --> 34:50.760] They just have to offer it and they can collect this money [34:50.760 --> 34:53.760] So they're offered it [34:53.760 --> 35:00.760] And then they use it to entice you into a foreclosure position [35:00.760 --> 35:05.760] While they're working the loan modification, they're running the foreclosure [35:05.760 --> 35:10.760] And tell you, oh, don't worry about that, notice of default [35:10.760 --> 35:12.760] We'll do the modification, we'll take care of everything [35:12.760 --> 35:17.760] Oh, you got a notice of acceleration added, don't worry about that [35:17.760 --> 35:19.760] And then the foreclosure, don't worry about it [35:19.760 --> 35:22.760] Loan modification, take care of it, and boom, they sell your house [35:22.760 --> 35:26.760] So we're going for equitable estoppel [35:26.760 --> 35:30.760] Let me read you what equitable estoppel says [35:30.760 --> 35:33.760] This is a case, it's a foreclosure case [35:33.760 --> 35:39.760] And they're addressing the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it applies to Truth in Lending Act [35:39.760 --> 35:43.760] The Real System of Procedures Act [35:43.760 --> 35:51.760] It says, equitable estoppel applies the principle that no man will be permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing [35:51.760 --> 35:54.760] Bamba v. Belvedere [35:54.760 --> 36:00.760] Estoppel arises where one, by his conduct, lulls another into a false security [36:00.760 --> 36:07.760] And into a position he would not take only because of such conduct [36:07.760 --> 36:10.760] Paganus Aldum [36:10.760 --> 36:14.760] Because equitable estoppel operates directly on the defendant [36:14.760 --> 36:20.760] It might apply no matter how unequivocally the applicable limitations period is expressed [36:20.760 --> 36:30.760] In essence, equitable estoppel prevents a defendant from pleading the statute of limitations to defeat a plaintiff's claim [36:30.760 --> 36:34.760] Spisk v. City of Chicago Heights [36:34.760 --> 36:40.760] So this is precisely what we've been needing [36:40.760 --> 36:49.760] Anybody out there with a mortgage who subsequently finds fraud in the mortgage [36:49.760 --> 36:58.760] And files an issue, the other side's going to come back immediately with latches essentially [36:58.760 --> 37:01.760] Barred by statute of limitations [37:01.760 --> 37:04.760] Statutory estoppel [37:04.760 --> 37:12.760] And then we can come, they never call it statutory estoppel, they just claim that you've exceeded the statute of limitations [37:12.760 --> 37:17.760] So we can come back with equitable estoppel [37:17.760 --> 37:21.760] Because they're a bunch of lion scoundrels [37:21.760 --> 37:26.760] And I have a ticket in Austin [37:26.760 --> 37:31.760] Where I went to court and I had a problem with the twos [37:31.760 --> 37:36.760] And I asked for a continuance and the guy said, oh just go out over here and fill out this document [37:36.760 --> 37:39.760] And wait here and give it to this clerk, I said well I'm supposed to be up in court [37:39.760 --> 37:43.760] Oh don't worry about it, you get this to the clerk and she'll take it up there [37:43.760 --> 37:50.760] Well the time I got that to the clerk, they'd already had court, I wasn't there, they should have failed to appear [37:50.760 --> 37:54.760] I get equitable estoppel [37:54.760 --> 38:05.760] I wouldn't have been in that position except for their court personnel advising me on what I should do even over my objection [38:05.760 --> 38:15.760] That's the beauty of this case that we've got here Randy, because that's exactly the issue this case dealt with on the Aziz [38:15.760 --> 38:20.760] Now here is the other aspect of what this does as far as your traffic ticket would go [38:20.760 --> 38:33.760] Since they are limited in their ability now, the Austin courts are using 38.10 for their failure to appear case in charge against you [38:33.760 --> 38:50.760] However, what they are limited to according to this case is using the provision of a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of no more than 200 versus 500 in 38.10 [38:50.760 --> 38:53.760] Wait a minute, I missed [38:53.760 --> 39:05.760] Okay because it's under a transportation cut offense, 543.009 misdemeanor that it specifies there as relating to a failure to appear limits the fine to $200 [39:05.760 --> 39:12.760] And they have to charge you under that section of law, they cannot charge you under 38.10 [39:12.760 --> 39:22.760] But that's what they're doing so that they can assess the $500 fine in lieu of the $200 limitation the transportation code sets up [39:22.760 --> 39:28.760] Your equitable estoppel will fall flat on top of that like a ton of bricks [39:28.760 --> 39:38.760] Also this is Ken cutting in, remember though that failure to appear has to be through, have no reasonable excuse [39:38.760 --> 39:47.760] And it was done so, and I'm paraphrasing, through conscious indifference or intentional actions [39:47.760 --> 39:55.760] All you have to do is say that you were there and that you were in the hallway and didn't hear the person call your name, you were there [39:55.760 --> 40:05.760] Now I'll even go you one better than that Ken, it actually says in the transportation code part of this when they issued this that yeah you committed an offense [40:05.760 --> 40:13.760] But it does not specify what the offense is in 543.009, it just says a misdemeanor, that's all it says [40:13.760 --> 40:25.760] Then you go into the 15.17G section of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there it specifically outlines that failure to appear can only be done [40:25.760 --> 40:33.760] Not for the citation but for the order to appear for arraignment in the case of a Class C [40:33.760 --> 40:44.760] Right, they can only issue a failure to appear on the citation if the citation was for an A or B class misdemeanor, not a Class C [40:44.760 --> 40:51.760] Okay, Eddie do you have the Code of Criminal Procedure in front of you? [40:51.760 --> 40:53.760] Yes I do [40:53.760 --> 40:57.760] Look up the failure to appear statutes [40:57.760 --> 41:00.760] Okay, that's penal code [41:00.760 --> 41:03.760] I'm sorry penal code [41:03.760 --> 41:15.760] Okay, the only time you can be charged with failure to appear is when you have promise to appear [41:15.760 --> 41:16.760] Correct [41:16.760 --> 41:30.760] And the problem they're having is the officer can release you on a promise to appear before a magistrate, not before a court [41:30.760 --> 41:36.760] The court is the one who issues a failure to appear for failure to appear before the court [41:36.760 --> 41:47.760] You are correct and that's the argument that the appellate court originally made in this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals said that is an invalid and incorrect interpretation of 3810 [41:47.760 --> 41:54.760] Says it very clearly and it uses other sections of the statute to pull that together and show that was not the intent [41:54.760 --> 42:02.760] Because then that removes the ability to hold accountable an officer who arrests someone without a warrant [42:02.760 --> 42:10.760] So they said that interpretation is flat out wrong in this Aziz case because that was what the appeals court originally argued [42:10.760 --> 42:29.760] Yes, when in Cherokee County I filed criminal charges against the county judge and county attorney and the next day they filed criminal charges against me for operating an investigating business without a license [42:29.760 --> 42:39.760] And sent me a letter ordering me to be in court and I called them and told them that I wasn't going to come to their party [42:39.760 --> 42:52.760] That I was having a party of my own and inviting them to an examining trial in Denton County which the judge subsequently backed out on [42:52.760 --> 43:01.760] But anyway, they issued a warrant, an arrest warrant for failure to appear [43:01.760 --> 43:13.760] The problem, I'd never been to their court, I'd never appeared before anybody, I'd never been arrested, I had never promised to appear in their court [43:13.760 --> 43:19.760] Therefore they were absolutely without subject matter jurisdiction [43:19.760 --> 43:29.760] And I wound up getting arrested over that here in Travis County and thanks to Eddie and Andy Raylor, they put together a writ habeas corpus [43:29.760 --> 43:35.760] And the court here said we don't want anything to do with this guy, let him out [43:35.760 --> 43:37.760] So I have a real good case [43:37.760 --> 43:39.760] It worked out very well [43:39.760 --> 43:41.760] Yes, it's worked out well [43:41.760 --> 43:46.760] But anyway, you have to promise to appear before you can be cited for failing to appear [43:46.760 --> 43:51.760] Right, when we get back I'd like to go in real quick on how they're using the summons for that [43:51.760 --> 44:20.760] Alright folks, we'll be right back, please hang in there [44:20.760 --> 44:24.760] Centrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine [44:24.760 --> 44:27.760] In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition [44:27.760 --> 44:30.760] Adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component [44:30.760 --> 44:36.760] And organic hemp protein in greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base [44:36.760 --> 44:40.760] Plus, centrition tastes great in just water [44:40.760 --> 44:44.760] This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product [44:44.760 --> 44:46.760] And it's all natural [44:46.760 --> 44:55.760] Visit Centrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436 [44:55.760 --> 45:06.760] After you use centrition, you'll believe in supplements again [45:06.760 --> 45:11.760] Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere [45:11.760 --> 45:18.760] Heavy metals and pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky [45:18.760 --> 45:21.760] You have a choice to keep your body clean [45:21.760 --> 45:26.760] Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org [45:26.760 --> 45:31.760] Or call 908-691-2608 [45:31.760 --> 45:35.760] It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food [45:35.760 --> 45:39.760] Protect your family now with micro plant powder [45:39.760 --> 45:43.760] Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins [45:43.760 --> 45:48.760] Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage [45:48.760 --> 46:13.760] Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today [46:18.760 --> 46:33.760] Alright folks, we are back, Rule of Law Radio [46:33.760 --> 46:36.760] This is Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens, Randy Kelton [46:36.760 --> 46:42.760] Okay, we are talking about the impairment material statutes, equitable estoppel [46:42.760 --> 46:47.760] And now we're into the subject of issuing notices to appear from the courts [46:47.760 --> 46:51.760] And what we were saying on the way out, or what I was saying, is that [46:51.760 --> 46:57.760] What the courts are currently doing, at least as far as the municipal and justice courts are doing [46:57.760 --> 47:06.760] Chapter 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outlines exactly how a capias, which is a warrant, versus a summons [47:06.760 --> 47:08.760] Are to be performed in Texas [47:08.760 --> 47:13.760] Now this is all part of what Randy Redder sent me that we initially based our number one motion onto the court [47:13.760 --> 47:17.760] For failure to give us proper notice to appear [47:17.760 --> 47:23.760] Well, the summons is actually coming to you in the form of a letter from the court [47:23.760 --> 47:27.760] This creates multiple issues under the Code of Criminal Procedure in that [47:27.760 --> 47:32.760] It does not conform to the statutory requirements of a proper summons [47:32.760 --> 47:40.760] The summons, according to statute, must be identical to the form and content of an actual warrant [47:40.760 --> 47:48.760] With the exception of, rather than being directed to a peace officer to place someone under arrest and bring them before the court [47:48.760 --> 47:56.760] It's directed to the individual themselves, telling them that they are required to make an appearance before the court [47:56.760 --> 48:03.760] The other issue here is that the courts are issuing these notices of their own volition [48:03.760 --> 48:13.760] There is nothing in the court record showing that the summons or the capias was made at the request of the attorney for the state [48:13.760 --> 48:20.760] And the law is very clear, it says that that request can only come from the attorney for the state [48:20.760 --> 48:27.760] So this is where these courts are involving themselves in the prosecutorial process [48:27.760 --> 48:37.760] To ensure the chain or the process doesn't fall through the cracks and their revenue get depleted because they drop a case somewhere [48:37.760 --> 48:43.760] They're working together to ensure all the prosecutions get done [48:43.760 --> 48:48.760] And that's not how the process is set up to work, at least not according to law [48:48.760 --> 48:53.760] So guys, what do you got on that? [48:53.760 --> 48:55.760] I'll put him to sleep [48:55.760 --> 48:59.760] No, we're trying to digest it there [48:59.760 --> 49:05.760] The biggest issue is it looks like what the legislature has done is through some inadvertent act [49:05.760 --> 49:10.760] It's painted themselves into a corner where there's a process in place now [49:10.760 --> 49:15.760] And there's some fatal flaws in that process if you go strictly by the letter of the law [49:15.760 --> 49:20.760] Which, face it, that's the whole goal of having rule of law [49:20.760 --> 49:26.760] You have to follow the law, not just, oh well, we'll just shortcut it here or there [49:26.760 --> 49:31.760] So it looks like they've got a situation where they're sending out notices [49:31.760 --> 49:34.760] And let's be a little bit more specific about this [49:34.760 --> 49:41.760] They're actually sending you a notice of the appearance requirement by the court [49:41.760 --> 49:46.760] The notice is coming from the clerk which says the court's ordering you to be there [49:46.760 --> 49:51.760] But it doesn't send you a copy of the actual notice signed by the judge [49:51.760 --> 49:58.760] Now, one of the problems we get into here is also the aspect of what about a party involved in a case [49:58.760 --> 50:03.760] And you have the opportunity to know everything being filed in the court [50:03.760 --> 50:08.760] Is there a requirement for the prosecutor to send a copy of the notice to an opposing counsel [50:08.760 --> 50:14.760] If they're making a requirement for appearance? [50:14.760 --> 50:21.760] In civil cases, all civil cases, you're entitled to get a copy of everything that's filed with the court [50:21.760 --> 50:25.760] Yeah, well they tell you you have to file with opposing counsel in the criminal cases too [50:25.760 --> 50:29.760] If you file a motion in the court, you have a certificate of service for opposing counsel as well [50:29.760 --> 50:34.760] Provided, of course, you or the court knows who that is ahead of time [50:34.760 --> 50:41.760] Right, so the issue that comes out of this is if they do it strictly by the rule that you described, Eddie [50:41.760 --> 50:46.760] The prosecutor would have to make a request of the court for this appearance [50:46.760 --> 50:50.760] And send a copy of that request to the opposing side [50:50.760 --> 50:54.760] Correct, which is the way it ought to work, fair notice [50:54.760 --> 51:01.760] Which would also have to take place with regards to when the prosecutor decides that they want a continuance [51:01.760 --> 51:06.760] If they file a motion for continuance, they have to file a motion for continuance [51:06.760 --> 51:10.760] Or an agreement of all parties that they're going to continue the case [51:10.760 --> 51:16.760] I saw a situation in Farmers Branch, Texas, just north of Dallas [51:16.760 --> 51:25.760] In which a continuance was granted ex parte without any motion ever being sent to the opposing party, the accused [51:25.760 --> 51:29.760] What the heck is with that? [51:29.760 --> 51:32.760] That's ex parte communications, period [51:32.760 --> 51:35.760] So, you know, where do they get away with doing that? [51:35.760 --> 51:40.760] The order that was actually signed was never sent to the opposing party either, nor was it indicated [51:40.760 --> 51:42.760] They only indicated a new trial setting [51:42.760 --> 51:46.760] They didn't even indicate that they had postponed the first trial setting [51:46.760 --> 51:50.760] They had sent them a notice to the new trial setting [51:50.760 --> 51:52.760] Yeah, I agree [51:52.760 --> 51:55.760] And if you also look at Chapter 45 [51:55.760 --> 52:04.760] Chapter 45 clearly states that its intent is to allow for the process to be done in a less formal fashion [52:04.760 --> 52:05.760] Great [52:05.760 --> 52:12.760] But when one party invokes the formal fashion of a particular process or procedure [52:12.760 --> 52:18.760] Then the rules would have to apply equally to both sides at that point for that particular thing [52:18.760 --> 52:24.760] If I file a motion in the court, he should be required to respond in kind to the motion [52:24.760 --> 52:27.760] The judge should not be allowed to do it without him [52:27.760 --> 52:30.760] That goes to Hall v. State [52:30.760 --> 52:44.760] In Hall v. State, they said if the court will hold a litigant to a letter of law, it must hold itself to the same letter [52:44.760 --> 52:49.760] So they can't say, okay, it's relaxed for you but not for him [52:49.760 --> 52:51.760] Right [52:51.760 --> 52:55.760] And this thing of these summons [52:55.760 --> 52:59.760] A summons is not a summons if it doesn't tell you why you're summoned [52:59.760 --> 53:01.760] Exactly [53:01.760 --> 53:03.760] And see, this is my entire [53:03.760 --> 53:04.760] It's about our courts [53:04.760 --> 53:11.760] Yeah, this is my entire issue and argument with the citation attempting to act in place of that [53:11.760 --> 53:19.760] The fact that you call it a notice to appear but it meets all of the necessary criteria to be a summons [53:19.760 --> 53:26.760] Does not alter the fact that it's doing exactly the same job that the judicial process is supposed to do [53:26.760 --> 53:30.760] And to me, that's a violation of the separation of powers [53:30.760 --> 53:36.760] You're giving an executive officer the authority to issue a judicial instrument [53:36.760 --> 53:41.760] Because it's there to do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason [53:41.760 --> 53:45.760] As a matter of convenience to keep from taking you to a judge [53:45.760 --> 53:49.760] No, actually, there's a distinction here [53:49.760 --> 53:50.760] This is not [53:50.760 --> 53:53.760] You're not being summoned before a court [53:53.760 --> 53:56.760] This is not a summons [53:56.760 --> 53:58.760] This is different [53:58.760 --> 54:04.760] You're just promising the police officer that you'll troop yourself down to a magistrate [54:04.760 --> 54:07.760] Not to a court [54:07.760 --> 54:08.760] The court is separate [54:08.760 --> 54:13.760] We're talking about the subsequent process, not the initial process [54:13.760 --> 54:19.760] We're talking about when the policeman fills out the promise to appear [54:19.760 --> 54:23.760] We're treating that like it's a summons, it's not a summons [54:23.760 --> 54:26.760] You're only summoned to go to court [54:26.760 --> 54:27.760] This is not [54:27.760 --> 54:34.760] You're talking about the one the court sends you in the mail [54:34.760 --> 54:36.760] Well, I'm talking about both at this point [54:36.760 --> 54:39.760] I'm talking about it from both perspectives here [54:39.760 --> 54:43.760] The one the court sends you in the mail most assuredly does not comply with law [54:43.760 --> 54:45.760] Most assuredly does not [54:45.760 --> 54:55.760] When I went before the court in Travis County after they had arrested me at the Secretary of State's building [54:55.760 --> 55:04.760] First thing I did was told the judge that I had the summons here and doesn't tell me why I'm here [55:04.760 --> 55:07.760] You want to tell me what I'm doing here? [55:07.760 --> 55:13.760] And she said, well, we needed to find out if you had an attorney [55:13.760 --> 55:15.760] I said, well, that's interesting, Your Honor [55:15.760 --> 55:20.760] I read all through Article 28.01 Code of Criminal Procedure [55:20.760 --> 55:24.760] It listed all of those things you can summon me to court for [55:24.760 --> 55:25.760] That's not one of them [55:25.760 --> 55:30.760] To see if I have an attorney is not one of them [55:30.760 --> 55:37.760] And a court watcher said she sat back in her seat and you could see her jaw muscles working [55:37.760 --> 55:40.760] But yeah, they do this all the time [55:40.760 --> 55:46.760] And it's about time we started taking them to task [55:46.760 --> 55:52.760] And a plan on doing that big time [55:52.760 --> 55:54.760] Especially Travis County [55:54.760 --> 55:58.760] I'm looking forward to going into the court [55:58.760 --> 56:02.760] What I expect, I'm going to have a stack of motions before the court [56:02.760 --> 56:11.760] And I expect the judge to do what I've seen them do before and ask me to paraphrase my motion [56:11.760 --> 56:15.760] Do what? Absolutely not [56:15.760 --> 56:17.760] You read it [56:17.760 --> 56:22.760] If you're incapable of reading it or unwilling to read it, then stand down from that bench [56:22.760 --> 56:27.760] And get me a competent judge who's willing to perform his duty [56:27.760 --> 56:29.760] Go down off that bench [56:29.760 --> 56:33.760] That's probably when he'll start calling in the guys with the hairy knuckles [56:33.760 --> 56:38.760] Or just in lieu of that, just simply say fine, paragraph one [56:38.760 --> 56:41.760] And start reading it into the record [56:41.760 --> 56:43.760] They don't like it [56:43.760 --> 56:47.760] I am going to insist that he do his job [56:47.760 --> 56:54.760] If he is unable to do his job, get your behind down off that bench and get me a real judge up here [56:54.760 --> 57:00.760] I have a right to a competent and fair judge in the first instance [57:00.760 --> 57:02.760] That's what I'm planning to do [57:02.760 --> 57:06.760] That's one of my biggest problems with the way these judges operate [57:06.760 --> 57:09.760] And the arguments that people make in their defense is that [57:09.760 --> 57:12.760] Well remember, he's having to read all this and all this [57:12.760 --> 57:14.760] He took the damn job [57:14.760 --> 57:15.760] That's his job [57:15.760 --> 57:18.760] So do it [57:18.760 --> 57:21.760] That's exactly it, I'm not going to paraphrase for the judge [57:21.760 --> 57:24.760] I'm going to absolutely reduce [57:24.760 --> 57:26.760] And demand that he read the motion [57:26.760 --> 57:28.760] I'll stand right here while you do it [57:28.760 --> 57:30.760] We got all day [57:30.760 --> 57:33.760] I've seen case law where they make it very clear [57:33.760 --> 57:39.760] That in those cases, even though you have filed a written motion or brief with the court [57:39.760 --> 57:45.760] The moment you start making oral assertions as to subject matter and content [57:45.760 --> 57:48.760] That takes the written one out of the equation [57:48.760 --> 57:54.760] They will only go by what oral argument has been presented regardless of what was written [57:54.760 --> 58:04.760] Unless you ask the court to take judicial notice of all motions and pleadings filed in the case [58:04.760 --> 58:08.760] Exactly, but what I'm getting at is it's one of those unfair tricks they use [58:08.760 --> 58:15.760] To get those that are pro se and don't know this to throw out their written motions [58:15.760 --> 58:17.760] That's a good point [58:17.760 --> 58:21.760] Can you ask a judge to take judicial notice of it? [58:21.760 --> 58:26.760] Yes, as a matter of fact they don't have any choice but to take it [58:26.760 --> 58:27.760] Good [58:27.760 --> 58:30.760] Okay, we're about to go to breaks folks [58:30.760 --> 58:35.760] This is Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Ken Magnuson is our guest [58:35.760 --> 58:37.760] So we're about to go to break [58:37.760 --> 58:39.760] We will be back in a few minutes [58:39.760 --> 58:41.760] This is our four hour marathon night [58:41.760 --> 58:42.760] So please hang in there [58:42.760 --> 58:45.760] And we will be back in just a few minutes [58:45.760 --> 58:47.760] Okay, hold on just a second [58:47.760 --> 58:50.760] When we come back, Marcus, we'll take you on the next call [58:50.760 --> 58:53.760] You've been waiting quite a while, I apologize for the delay [58:53.760 --> 58:56.760] Okay, hang in there, Marcus [58:56.760 --> 58:59.760] I'm glad to come in now from the cold [58:59.760 --> 59:03.760] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world [59:03.760 --> 59:07.760] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it [59:07.760 --> 59:11.760] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text [59:11.760 --> 59:16.760] But in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture [59:16.760 --> 59:18.760] Enter the recovery version [59:18.760 --> 59:22.760] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate [59:22.760 --> 59:27.760] But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes [59:27.760 --> 59:31.760] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way [59:31.760 --> 59:37.760] Providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before [59:37.760 --> 59:42.760] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking [59:42.760 --> 59:52.760] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 [59:52.760 --> 59:56.760] Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com [59:56.760 --> 59:59.760] That's freestudybible.com [59:59.760 --> 01:00:03.760] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net [01:00:03.760 --> 01:00:09.760] Barack Obama's National Security Advisor has threatened to expel Pakistan's Ambassador Hussein Haqqani [01:00:09.760 --> 01:00:16.760] if U.S. official Raymond Davis, arrested in Lahore for killing two Pakistanis, was not released by Friday [01:00:16.760 --> 01:00:20.760] National Security Advisor Tom Donilon made the threat Monday [01:00:20.760 --> 01:00:24.760] Donilon also warned U.S. consulates in Pakistan may be closed [01:00:24.760 --> 01:00:31.760] and a forthcoming visit to Washington by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari could be cancelled [01:00:31.760 --> 01:00:37.760] North Korea has appealed to foreign governments for food aid following an admission by government officials [01:00:37.760 --> 01:00:41.760] They have found foot and mouth disease among the nation's livestock [01:00:41.760 --> 01:00:46.760] North Korea's dependence on animals to plow fields and haul harvests [01:00:46.760 --> 01:00:52.760] adds greater urgency to containing the disease before planting begins this spring [01:00:52.760 --> 01:00:59.760] In South Sudan, 105 people have been killed in clashes between rebels and South Sudanese troops [01:00:59.760 --> 01:01:07.760] Supporters of Renegade Southern General George Athor launched attacks on troops of the South Sudan People's Liberation Army Wednesday [01:01:07.760 --> 01:01:11.760] shattering a permanent ceasefire they signed just last month [01:01:11.760 --> 01:01:15.760] The civilian death toll of 39 included women and children [01:01:15.760 --> 01:01:24.760] Egypt erupted in joy Friday as Vice President Omar Suleiman announced President Hosni Mubarak was finally stepping down [01:01:24.760 --> 01:01:32.760] Suleiman stated Mubarak had, quote, charged the High Council of the Armed Forces to administer the affairs of the country [01:01:32.760 --> 01:01:36.760] Suleiman added, quote, may God help everybody [01:01:36.760 --> 01:01:41.760] Suleiman's statement was the clearest indication yet the military had carried out a coup [01:01:41.760 --> 01:01:45.760] led by Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tanawi [01:01:45.760 --> 01:01:49.760] It was not clear whether Suleiman would remain as head of the army-led government [01:01:49.760 --> 01:01:54.760] or to what extent the military elite would share power with the civilian counterparts [01:01:54.760 --> 01:01:59.760] The crowd in Tahrir Square chanted, quote, we have brought down the regime [01:01:59.760 --> 01:02:03.760] while people cried, cheered and embraced each other [01:02:03.760 --> 01:02:09.760] Egypt's leading opposition figure Mohammed al-Baradi has called for the dissolution of parliament [01:02:09.760 --> 01:02:13.760] and the establishment of a new Egypt based on freedom and social justice [01:02:13.760 --> 01:02:20.760] writing in the New York Times Friday the noble laureate criticized the West's frightened response to Egypt's democratic demands [01:02:20.760 --> 01:02:24.760] and the US for billions of dollars it has given the Mubarak regime [01:02:24.760 --> 01:02:32.760] al-Baradi wrote the United States spent the better part of the last decade at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars [01:02:32.760 --> 01:02:38.760] and countless lives fighting wars to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan [01:02:38.760 --> 01:02:43.760] now the youth of Cairo armed with nothing but Facebook and the power of their convictions [01:02:43.760 --> 01:02:47.760] have drawn millions into the street to demand a true Egyptian democracy [01:02:47.760 --> 01:02:53.760] al-Baradi expressed hope the Middle East would stop being viewed through the lens of war and radicalism [01:02:53.760 --> 01:03:08.760] but as contributors to the forward march of humanity [01:03:23.760 --> 01:03:33.760] It's all according to the will of the Almighty [01:03:33.760 --> 01:03:40.760] I read his book and it says he cares not for the unsightly [01:03:40.760 --> 01:03:49.760] These warmongers come by that term rightly [01:03:49.760 --> 01:03:53.760] I won't pay for the war with my body [01:03:53.760 --> 01:03:56.760] Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money [01:03:56.760 --> 01:03:59.760] I won't pay for the fun with my body [01:03:59.760 --> 01:04:02.760] I'm wicked in the night [01:04:02.760 --> 01:04:23.760] And when we went out and on the break about what happens when you speak in court what happens concerning the motion and Eddie you want to address what you're saying on the break how [01:04:23.760 --> 01:04:41.760] when you start addressing issues about a motion when and how they will tend to preempt the motion with what you say and Ken had a comment on how to correct that problem [01:04:41.760 --> 01:04:54.760] Yeah in the case of what you do when you go in for motions hearings when the judge asks you to make oral argument about your issue what the especially these lower courts are bad about doing [01:04:54.760 --> 01:05:03.760] because they can't stand up to the load of case law that we're putting into these documents and they've got to know this if they're ever bothering to read them anyway [01:05:03.760 --> 01:05:12.760] but what they'll do is they'll get you to start making oral argument they'll ask you about a particular issue they will get you to argue that issue [01:05:12.760 --> 01:05:19.760] and not make reference to its content within your motion or take notice of the motion or anything of that nature [01:05:19.760 --> 01:05:28.760] the next thing you know the judge is discarding the entirety of your motion and going only with the part they got you to argue over [01:05:28.760 --> 01:05:39.760] so that's his only point of contention that's the only thing we're going to deal with next thing you know your motion hearings is turned into a railroad job and you were your own engineer [01:05:39.760 --> 01:05:51.760] and they tricked you into doing that unbeknownst to you because you're not knowledgeable in the process they use to perform this trickery and how they're getting away with it but it is what they do [01:05:51.760 --> 01:06:05.760] now Ken you said in order to circumvent that you do what? Okay the pleading practices anyway a good approach to how you argue motions is you should go down your motion point by point anyway [01:06:05.760 --> 01:06:15.760] you don't have to necessarily do it line for line verbatim but those that are unfamiliar with the process probably should read it into the record if you can get away with it [01:06:15.760 --> 01:06:25.760] the issue is just have your salient points outlined and the salient arguments with it from your motion and you refer to the motion [01:06:25.760 --> 01:06:34.760] you say well as I stated in page 2 on section 3 and then the court has to take all of it into consideration then [01:06:34.760 --> 01:06:41.760] just because they're ruling on the argument you make in court doesn't mean that they haven't screwed up and created an appellate issue [01:06:41.760 --> 01:06:53.760] the case that I saw that started opening the door to exactly what you're talking about Eddie is in the rules of civil procedure in Texas they talk about motions for new trial [01:06:53.760 --> 01:07:03.760] motions for new trial never had to be set for hearings or even argued in open court they just had to state what your motion for new trial was [01:07:03.760 --> 01:07:12.760] and every issue in it preserved that issue for appeal then all of a sudden in 2008 the Dallas appellate court decided this is in Texas [01:07:12.760 --> 01:07:22.760] decided that they wanted to act like the federal court the federal court motions for new trial those are the only issues you can bring upon appeal [01:07:22.760 --> 01:07:32.760] is all of the errors and the arguments you make in the motion for new trial you have to argue in open court if you don't do it you waive that argument [01:07:32.760 --> 01:07:42.760] and that's what the Dallas court said and as far as I'm aware of that's how they've been acting ever since but the first person that got hammered on that was a pro se litigant [01:07:42.760 --> 01:07:54.760] who essentially had preserved all of the abuse by the trial court judge but then when the trial court judge had the motion for new trial hearing [01:07:54.760 --> 01:08:05.760] he intimidated the litigant into only making one or two arguments and then giving up because he saw that it was hopeless that this judge wasn't going to hear it [01:08:05.760 --> 01:08:15.760] the issue is regardless of how hopeless it is you argue every point of your motion and if the judge tries to fast track the whole thing saying oh I've heard enough [01:08:15.760 --> 01:08:23.760] excuse me your honor it's my motion I need to be able to argue it to its completeness not to where you decide you're tired of hearing it [01:08:23.760 --> 01:08:32.760] you need to get that kind of aspect on the record in order to show that the court is prejudicial anytime a judge won't rule on an objection [01:08:32.760 --> 01:08:43.760] or on a particular issue of the motion you need to get in their face and say excuse me I want to preserve this error for appeal would you rule on that objection [01:08:43.760 --> 01:08:55.760] it's either sustained or it's overruled and I want to hear a ruling on that you've got to get in their face about it if you don't there is no appeal issue [01:08:55.760 --> 01:09:01.760] you can't preserve the appeal issue without a ruling [01:09:01.760 --> 01:09:05.760] reasonable [01:09:05.760 --> 01:09:09.760] but that's the idea [01:09:09.760 --> 01:09:19.760] we need to break our motions apart into small pieces so that we don't have a large number of issues in a single motion [01:09:19.760 --> 01:09:22.760] this is Ken again [01:09:22.760 --> 01:09:23.760] go ahead Ken [01:09:23.760 --> 01:09:33.760] yeah I agree any motion that you bring before the court should be a list of a laundry list of specific goals of that motion [01:09:33.760 --> 01:09:42.760] what specific things are you complaining about what particular relief do you want and they shouldn't be running together they should be individual [01:09:42.760 --> 01:09:51.760] if you're wanting a motion for continuance for example you need to have the laundry list of things that are required to prove a motion for continuance is necessary [01:09:51.760 --> 01:09:59.760] and you go through that laundry list and you prove it and do testimony that's the other thing that I can recommend to people is when they get up there [01:09:59.760 --> 01:10:09.760] if you're actually testifying if you're actually stating facts that are not on the record already in the court you need to ask yourself to be sworn in [01:10:09.760 --> 01:10:22.760] if the other side the other opposing counsel gets up there and starts testifying you need to object saying excuse me counsel is testifying not about an argument it's not about the rules it's about facts [01:10:22.760 --> 01:10:33.760] it's about what the other counsel knows or whatever you need to object and ask for counsel to be sworn in if he's going to testify or she this is an equal opportunity screw job you know [01:10:33.760 --> 01:10:38.760] and getting sworn in you get to cross [01:10:38.760 --> 01:10:39.760] absolutely [01:10:39.760 --> 01:10:48.760] the most fun I had was when I called a prosecutor to the stand that was a hoot [01:10:48.760 --> 01:11:00.760] when I said I called Stephen Hale the prosecuting attorney said well he can't do that and the judge said well yes Mr. Hale as a matter of fact he can [01:11:00.760 --> 01:11:05.760] and I think that's what won me the case [01:11:05.760 --> 01:11:21.760] okay we have Marcus he's been waiting a long time Marcus has an issue about where he's found contradicting law in Virginia [01:11:21.760 --> 01:11:38.760] got it okay Marcus are you there it's not contradictory law though maybe I'm misunderstood communications issues okay will you explain the issue [01:11:38.760 --> 01:11:57.760] okay all right well it's going to take me a little while to explain and I just I worked out a rough draft of the whole argument just as the call began because I only discovered this like yesterday so I apologize that this argument is really not that straightforward but anyway [01:11:57.760 --> 01:12:19.760] so like I said it's similar to the expert communications issue but it's not exactly the same anyway what I'd like you to think about here is what if the examining trial was held without the accused and before they issue the sum of your citation [01:12:19.760 --> 01:12:36.760] okay right when they pull you over okay and then consider that the cop takes your personal info goes back to his patrol car somehow makes contact with the court by radio [01:12:36.760 --> 01:12:50.760] and sets up a hearing at the court and together the cops and court decide that there is jurisdiction the issue is summoned where they name the accused as defendant okay [01:12:50.760 --> 01:13:13.760] the cop then comes back to the vehicle and tells the accused to find the owner they do this all the time now considering that I have a couple of statutes Virginia criminal criminal procedure type I think you're going to find very interesting I'm wondering if there's similar statutes in other states [01:13:13.760 --> 01:13:24.760] okay the first statute discusses the why and the second one discusses the how and you'll see what I'm talking about here [01:13:24.760 --> 01:13:45.760] procedure upon arrest without warrants 19.2-82 the person arrested without a warrant shall be brought forthwith before a magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction he shall proceed to examine the officer making the arrest under oath [01:13:45.760 --> 01:14:13.760] if the magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction has lawful probable cause upon which to believe that criminal offense has been committed and that the person arrested has committed such offense he shall issue either a warrant under the provisions of 19.2-72 or summoned under the provisions of 19.2-73 [01:14:13.760 --> 01:14:17.760] here's the interesting part [01:14:17.760 --> 01:14:40.760] as used in this section the term quote brought before a magistrate or other issuing authority having jurisdiction unquote shall include a personal appearance before such authority or any two-way electronic video and audio communication meeting the requirements of 19.2-3.1 [01:14:40.760 --> 01:14:52.760] in order that the accused and the arresting officer may simultaneously see and speak to such a magistrate or authority [01:14:52.760 --> 01:15:07.760] if electronic news are used any documents filed may be transmitted in accordance with 19.2-3.1 seems to me that they could be doing that and they don't [01:15:07.760 --> 01:15:14.760] all right now here's the other statute that goes as to how they're supposed to go about it [01:15:14.760 --> 01:15:33.760] if two-way electronic video and audio communication is used the magistrate intake officer or judge may exercise all powers conferred by law and all communications and proceedings shall be conducted in the same manner as if the appearance were in person [01:15:33.760 --> 01:15:47.760] now why isn't they to contact the court set up a hearing in the same jurisdiction that sounds like a family trial only you're not there participating in it speaking to the magistrate and they could do that [01:15:47.760 --> 01:16:04.760] what you read sounds very familiar it reads precisely the way the code reads here in Texas and I suspect that's because it's a model code [01:16:04.760 --> 01:16:20.760] and it essentially follows the federal requirements even to the video the hearing held on video except here it's required to be recorded [01:16:20.760 --> 01:16:32.760] so when we come back we're about to go to break that's what it says they're supposed to be doing but that's not what they're actually doing [01:16:32.760 --> 01:16:45.760] well that's what we've been saying the whole time so that is certainly not news around here okay this is Randy Kelton David Stevens Eddie Craig [01:16:45.760 --> 01:17:06.760] rule of law radio we'll be right back on the other side capital coin and bullion is your local source for rare coins precious metals and point supplies in the Austin metro area [01:17:06.760 --> 01:17:17.760] we also ship worldwide we are a family owned and operated business that offers competitive prices on your coin and metal purchasing we buy sell trade and consign rare coins gold and silver [01:17:17.760 --> 01:17:26.760] point collection precious metals and scrap gold we purchase and sell gold and jewelry items we offer daily specials on coins and bullion we are located at 5448 Burnett Road [01:17:26.760 --> 01:17:40.760] Suite 3 at the corner of Burnett and Shulmont and we're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6 Saturdays 10 to 5 you are welcome to stop in our shop during regular business hours or call 512-646-6440 [01:17:40.760 --> 01:17:52.760] any questions ask for Chad and say you heard about us on rule of law radio or Texas Liberty Radio that's capital coin and bullion at the corner of Burnett and Shulmont and we're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6 Saturdays 10 to 5 [01:17:52.760 --> 01:17:59.760] that's capital coin and bullion 512-646-6440 [01:17:59.760 --> 01:18:14.760] my name is Randall Kelton and I co-host on rule of law radio we specialize in showing people how to strike back against corrupt public officials with the mortgage crisis worsening we set our sights on finding a remedy for people who have been cheated by their lenders [01:18:14.760 --> 01:18:28.760] if you have a mortgage or have paid yours off you have probably been cheated out of thousands but there is a remedy go to remediesinrealestate.com or call me at 512-430-4140 [01:18:28.760 --> 01:18:42.760] and find out how to use the consumer protection laws to recover what the lenders have stolen through fraud and deception we will prepare for you a qualified written request that will expose the fraud and put the lenders on the dime [01:18:42.760 --> 01:18:59.760] lender fraud is bankrupting this country and it's time to fight back go to remediesinrealestate.com or call 512-430-4140 and get the information you need to stop the money changers in their tracks [01:19:12.760 --> 01:19:38.760] alright folks we are back this is rule of law radio the phone lines are open if you want to call in about an issue 512-646-1984 [01:19:38.760 --> 01:19:48.760] we are now an hour and 20 minutes into the show we still have another 2 hours and 40 minutes to go so give us a call if you got something you want to talk about [01:19:48.760 --> 01:19:52.760] right now Randy do you want to finish up with Marcus [01:19:52.760 --> 01:20:11.760] yeah Marcus I think what you perceived as a examining trial or an ex parte communication between the officer and the court was most likely it's very unlikely that a police officer could call into the court and get a judge [01:20:11.760 --> 01:20:23.760] so that he could tell his side to the judge the only reason he would do that was so that he could arrest you immediately with a warrant [01:20:23.760 --> 01:20:37.760] I couldn't imagine any other purpose other than call in the court to find out what the best day to put on your ticket to what day to appear by or what day to appear [01:20:37.760 --> 01:20:52.760] when the judge might be there or something he most likely just called a clerk so I didn't hear anything that sounded really damning [01:20:52.760 --> 01:21:00.760] he certainly didn't hold an examining trial or he wouldn't have had you sign the ticket and promise to go before the court [01:21:00.760 --> 01:21:12.760] because when you sign the citation you're not promising to go before a court I just spoke a second ago you're promising to go before a magistrate [01:21:12.760 --> 01:21:24.760] so that's why we were talking about the issue earlier when you sign that promise to appear by the police officer that's not a summons [01:21:24.760 --> 01:21:37.760] so you're not being summoned to court and as I know, as far as I know, breaking a promise is not necessarily criminal [01:21:37.760 --> 01:21:45.760] I don't know of anything that makes that criminal unless you've made the promise to the judge in court [01:21:45.760 --> 01:22:02.760] unless you were released by the judge on a promise that you would appear from day to day until the case was adjudicated [01:22:02.760 --> 01:22:12.760] I guess I'm kind of stumbling here I'm trying to sort out the difference between what you're writing on that promise to appear and an actual summons [01:22:12.760 --> 01:22:20.760] it's not an actual summons so you know we were talking about earlier about being arrested for not appearing on [01:22:20.760 --> 01:22:27.760] about the admission of warrant for not appearing on how that's not proper but yes in reading when you read the code [01:22:27.760 --> 01:22:39.760] that pretty much like the code here in Texas it was the same in substance if not exactly the same in language of the law [01:22:39.760 --> 01:22:49.760] the language of the law concerning the video hearing was almost exactly like Texas [01:22:49.760 --> 01:22:57.760] so I didn't see a problem with that other than they're not doing it and you said they're not doing that in Virginia [01:22:57.760 --> 01:23:05.760] we know we've yet to see a state where they are doing that callers are beginning to build up [01:23:05.760 --> 01:23:12.760] do you have any more questions or comments Marcus? [01:23:12.760 --> 01:23:18.760] Marcus oh I guess I should now do you have any more questions or comments? [01:23:18.760 --> 01:23:35.760] I did have a couple of comments but you couldn't hear me well first of all what section of the Texas Code are you talking about I don't like to look it up [01:23:35.760 --> 01:23:38.760] wait say that again I couldn't understand [01:23:38.760 --> 01:23:48.760] the section of code in the Texas Code is somewhere in the way I just read [01:23:48.760 --> 01:24:08.760] 14.06 is the one that goes to the promise to appear by the police officer 14.06 goes to the requirement for a 14.06 Code of Criminal Procedure goes to I'm sorry I'm not telling you what codes [01:24:08.760 --> 01:24:21.760] 14.06 of the Texas Transportation Code is the one that authorizes a police officer to release you on a traffic citation if you sign a promise to appear [01:24:21.760 --> 01:24:36.760] 14.06 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a police officer to release you on a misdemeanor and also that's the one that directs the is that right Eddie? [01:24:36.760 --> 01:24:47.760] yeah you're right it is in 14.06 they do both they order them to bring you before a magistrate but if it is a misdemeanor they can release you on your signature [01:24:47.760 --> 01:24:53.760] 14.06 says what they're supposed to do as far as bringing you in without a warrant [01:24:53.760 --> 01:25:10.760] yes and then yes 543 of the transportation code and sorry the 14.06 is in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and 543 of the transportation code is 543.006 [01:25:10.760 --> 01:25:14.760] as far as the notice to appear goes [01:25:14.760 --> 01:25:23.760] okay any more questions or comments we really need to move on our callers are building up [01:25:23.760 --> 01:25:32.760] well what I was trying to ask was is there any code that talks about any two-way communication between the court and the cops [01:25:32.760 --> 01:25:54.760] no that's not in the statutes it's in the case law the legislature hasn't specifically laid down a statute that says the policeman can't talk to the court about the case outside the proper hearing [01:25:54.760 --> 01:26:05.760] but that's been well established in case law that it creates a due process violation if they do that [01:26:05.760 --> 01:26:17.760] because there are procedures that you have you have a right to certain procedures before any evidence is presented to a judicial tribunal [01:26:17.760 --> 01:26:29.760] you have an opportunity to examine the evidence and raise an objection to it if someone's talking to a judge and you're not present it denies you in that right [01:26:29.760 --> 01:26:41.760] so it's not a statute it's directly but it denies you in other rights does that make sense [01:26:41.760 --> 01:26:54.760] point is this code here in Virginia explicitly says that we can in effect make an appearance for the magistrate right there just by going to the patrol vehicle [01:26:54.760 --> 01:27:03.760] and using some video and audio you know two-way communications between them and the court I mean you can have the examining trial right there [01:27:03.760 --> 01:27:16.760] then they that would be that would be perfect well that's what I'm going at and then they don't do that they could do that but they don't [01:27:16.760 --> 01:27:36.760] ask for it okay is it is it a requirement that they do that or is it optional we're required to either take you to a magistrate or physically make a physical appearance or make an appearance by two-way communication [01:27:36.760 --> 01:27:52.760] okay well the way they as far as I know I've never heard of them doing the two-way communications at the arrest site but that is a good idea a lot of times the magistrate when you're when people are in jail [01:27:52.760 --> 01:28:07.760] he will go down and do a but actually he'll stay in his office and do the examining trial on video but it has to be where they each can see and hear the other [01:28:07.760 --> 01:28:35.760] I expect on the other side of the road it to be a little bit more difficult to get real-time video anyway Eva myself and I'm sure that they can do that now that it's probably possible I doubt that the cars at the moment are equipped with the ability to do live streaming [01:28:35.760 --> 01:29:02.760] branding that's what you have yes is someone else be chirping in can go ahead yeah what I think he's talking about in that rule is exactly what you were talking about with them doing an examining trial from the jail that I don't think there's any intent to do it any other way because the prosecutor is not available prosecutor has to be there it's not an examining trial [01:29:02.760 --> 01:29:20.760] that's a good point both sides must be able to question witnesses examine evidence introduce evidence everything you can do at a trial on the merits is done there except argue before jury [01:29:20.760 --> 01:29:37.760] yeah precisely that's all in Chapter 16 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure okay we're about to go to break Marcus we really need to move along we've got a lot of calls thank you for calling [01:29:37.760 --> 01:29:54.760] and we'll talk to you next time this is Randy Kelton Debra Stevens Eddie Craig we love radio our call in number is 512-646-1984 call in questions and comments we'll be right back on the other side [01:29:54.760 --> 01:30:11.760] top 10 reasons to question the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing number nine the extra like former Oklahoma State Medical Examiner Dr. Fred Jordan had stated we had eight people with amputated left legs and nine left legs to account for [01:30:11.760 --> 01:30:25.760] chief pathologist for Northern Ireland TK Marshall who performed over 2500 autopsies in his time stated there's never been an unknown victim this leg belonged to a perpetrator close enough to the bomb or his body to be damaged leaving only a left leg behind [01:30:25.760 --> 01:30:42.760] who was this person please go to OKC bombing truth.com if you have a Gmail account Google reads every message you send or receive and records the keywords in a profile they keep on you I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I think that's just plain creepy I'll say more in a moment [01:30:42.760 --> 01:30:59.760] privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your rights say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself privacy [01:30:59.760 --> 01:31:11.760] it's worth hanging on to this public service announcement is brought to you by start page.com the private search engine alternative to Google Yahoo and then start over with start page [01:31:11.760 --> 01:31:27.760] Hey Gmail users ever seen an online ad that exactly matches something you discussed in a private email it's no coincidence see Google offers you Gmail about a $40 annual value for free so they can get inside your head and figure out your interest by reading your mail [01:31:27.760 --> 01:31:40.760] they say reading every message you send or receive helps them better target ads but most people have no idea that Google keeps a record of their email content and they'd be pretty upset if they knew when Gmail was first released dozens of privacy [01:31:40.760 --> 01:31:51.760] experts asked Google to stay out of people's private correspondence unfortunately Google ignored our request I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com [01:32:10.760 --> 01:32:39.760] The wicked come with temptations They're trying to buy the whole place They want a bullet in the nation [01:32:39.760 --> 01:33:06.760] Because they're falling from grace I will not drink that cup I just can't act that way They got this problem they're dreaming of I won't be the slave come what may [01:33:06.760 --> 01:33:18.760] Cause I'm way too young for man to get the gun man Because I'll save myself for the almighty one You know child alone can save my man You're loving me down with heart and peace in the face man [01:33:18.760 --> 01:33:40.760] You're loving me down with heart and peace in the face man Cause I'm way too young for man to get the gun man You're loving me down with heart and peace in the face man [01:33:40.760 --> 01:33:56.760] Cause I'm way too young for man to get the gun man You're loving me down with heart and peace in the face man Cause I'm way too young for man to get the gun man [01:33:56.760 --> 01:34:10.760] Cause I'm way too young for man to get the gun man You're loving me down with heart and peace in the face man [01:34:26.760 --> 01:34:38.760] What's going to happen is they're going to turn around and come and stop me They did And I was on the road that I live And they came back sure enough [01:34:38.760 --> 01:34:46.760] And I picked up my phone and called my wife My phone looked like it was burnt and not used Or couldn't be used But she pretty much heard the whole conversation or whatever [01:34:46.760 --> 01:34:58.760] And I basically wouldn't ID myself And they finally handcuffed me and searched me Found some ID on me And then they released me But they said I was like sweating profusely [01:34:58.760 --> 01:35:10.760] Well it was 46 degrees The officer said it was 36 degrees And I was jogging or whatever And like I said when I came up to the light I started walking [01:35:10.760 --> 01:35:22.760] Because it was red And I punched a button And then I saw the police drive slowly through the intersection And proceed to [01:35:22.760 --> 01:35:28.760] What was their stated probable cause for the original stop Well on the report [01:35:28.760 --> 01:35:38.760] He was sweating profusely I wasn't Didn't you know that's a crime in Texas these days Yeah it is [01:35:38.760 --> 01:35:46.760] What did they say is the reason for stopping Well on the report they said they thought that I was a runaway from the nursing home [01:35:46.760 --> 01:35:54.760] But I was going towards the nursing home In that nursing home I don't live in a nursing home though [01:35:54.760 --> 01:36:04.760] You need to check and see if there was a report of a runaway from a nursing home [01:36:04.760 --> 01:36:13.760] And then on top of that did you match the description given of the runaway if there was one Wait a minute is it illegal to run away from a nursing home [01:36:13.760 --> 01:36:26.760] Well no It's a complicit care it is Whoa what It's not illegal but they're your legal guardian more or less is the way it works [01:36:26.760 --> 01:36:35.760] Well they said they wanted to see if I was alright I said I was alright And they said you got any ID And I said no I don't have to give it to you [01:36:35.760 --> 01:36:43.760] And they said and he says well the best I can remember He says well you've got to when an officer asks you for your ID you've got to give it [01:36:43.760 --> 01:36:53.760] And I said no no you don't have to I'm not IDing And I got a report I picked up a report of what they said happened [01:36:53.760 --> 01:37:03.760] And they said I did have a screwdriver in my pocket But in another report they called someone else to find out if I was who I said I was [01:37:03.760 --> 01:37:13.760] Or whatever and didn't say who I was Some information in the like the post script of the report that I got from this person [01:37:13.760 --> 01:37:26.760] It has in there that they identified the screwdriver as a weapon Well really the real issue what it gets down to is I was stopped [01:37:26.760 --> 01:37:34.760] I wasn't doing anything wrong I do this a number of times I do it on a regular basis at least it might be at oddball times [01:37:34.760 --> 01:37:44.760] But my wife and I will walk or jog and walk or walk and run or however you want to call it [01:37:44.760 --> 01:38:07.760] Okay you're in Texas Yes Okay I suggest that oh I see your area code oh go down to the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department and file charges against these officers for false imprisonment [01:38:07.760 --> 01:38:22.760] Oh they'll do this song and dance Don't get assault They'll want to yeah aggravate it They'll want to send you down to what do you call it internal affairs [01:38:22.760 --> 01:38:29.760] The last time I talked to their internal affairs I handed them a criminal complaint against the officer [01:38:29.760 --> 01:38:41.760] The officer pulled out in front of me he was doing radar the radar the little gun and he caught somebody [01:38:41.760 --> 01:38:50.760] He drops his gun his radar gun down and he jerks it down in gear and pulled out right in front of me and I'm doing 60 miles an hour [01:38:50.760 --> 01:39:02.760] And oh for a year you could see my black tire marks turning off the road and heading right straight for a concrete pillar holding up an overpass [01:39:02.760 --> 01:39:12.760] Well I missed the pillar went down about a mile and he had this guy pulled over and I pulled in behind him and he looked up and saw me he knew who I was [01:39:12.760 --> 01:39:24.760] I walked up to him and he said can I help you card pardon me card card you got a card I want one [01:39:24.760 --> 01:39:33.760] He reached in his pocket pulled one out handed it to me thank you I got my card left I'm going to pick up [01:39:33.760 --> 01:39:45.760] And then I went down the Sheriff's Department filed a complaint against him and they sent me to internal affairs and we sat down and I handed internal affairs the criminal complaint [01:39:45.760 --> 01:39:54.760] And they said well I can't take this and why am I wasting my time with you get me a real police officer [01:39:54.760 --> 01:40:05.760] He said well I am a real police officer no you're not you're a public relations officer I need a police officer to take my criminal complaint [01:40:05.760 --> 01:40:15.760] Then I jerked him around for a while but I didn't really want to get the policeman in any real trouble I just didn't want him to kill anybody next time [01:40:15.760 --> 01:40:27.760] But if you do that go down there with a criminal complaint already made out okay then you don't do anybody any real harm [01:40:27.760 --> 01:40:42.760] And you know keep your cool keep in mind they're not going to do what you think they should do and you don't want them to [01:40:42.760 --> 01:40:55.760] When you think of it that way when they tell you I'm not going to take that complaint oh okay then they say what does he know that I don't know [01:40:55.760 --> 01:41:03.760] And the one thing I can tell you about these guys is how terrified of what comes down on them [01:41:03.760 --> 01:41:16.760] As much as we don't like the police they get flack from every direction so you know these cops weren't they didn't get abusive or anything [01:41:16.760 --> 01:41:23.760] The cuffs were that's getting to be a standard practice and it's not acceptable [01:41:23.760 --> 01:41:33.760] Yeah that's the truth and for Randy to say that you know it's getting to be the way he addressed this that's the same thing you know as saying Hitler just made the papers [01:41:33.760 --> 01:41:38.760] These cops get flack from every direction because they're taking the same trend [01:41:38.760 --> 01:41:45.760] Yeah they get flack from every direction and for the most part the policeman on the street is following policy [01:41:45.760 --> 01:41:57.760] And I don't want to kick him in the teeth too hard I don't want to kick any teeth out I just want to loosen a couple metaphorically [01:41:57.760 --> 01:42:04.760] So we go down and kick him in his professional teeth a little bit and then he goes to his boss and says what the heck is going on here [01:42:04.760 --> 01:42:16.760] I'm getting in trouble for doing what you told me to do and one thing you can be pretty sure of they will never do that to you again [01:42:16.760 --> 01:42:23.760] We're going to get out and leave this guy alone he'll come down here and he'll make your life miserable [01:42:23.760 --> 01:42:31.760] Actually let me tell you what they will do the first rookie that comes assigned to that station is going to be put on their beat [01:42:31.760 --> 01:42:39.760] And they're going to be told to watch out for you and then that rookie is going to make the same mistake just so he can get burned [01:42:39.760 --> 01:42:44.760] This is their own fun and games but it doesn't improve your situation any [01:42:44.760 --> 01:42:56.760] Your situation is easy to fix when the police refuse to take your complaint then you go to the prosecuting attorney [01:42:56.760 --> 01:43:05.760] And here this is different than when they do something really obnoxious when the police do something really obnoxious I don't go to the police at all [01:43:05.760 --> 01:43:19.760] If somebody acts ignorant you know just minor ignorant then I go down and jerk his chief around a little bit to get the chief to jerk him around a little bit just to adjust his attitude [01:43:19.760 --> 01:43:27.760] Now if he's done something really obnoxious I go straight to the prosecuting attorney I don't go to the police at all [01:43:27.760 --> 01:43:38.760] But if you go to the police first and then go to the prosecuting attorney they call each other and they talk about this and it's a big problem for them and they don't want it to happen anymore [01:43:38.760 --> 01:43:53.760] And it makes a nice attitude adjustment it's not too far out in left field okay this is Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Eddie Craig, Wheel of Love Radio, we'll be right back on the other side and we'll be taking Mark from Michigan [01:44:08.760 --> 01:44:20.760] You heard most of these benefits the team behind centrician believes that supplements should over deliver on their promises and centrician does just that [01:44:20.760 --> 01:44:30.760] Centrician utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine in conjunction with the science of modern nutrition adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component [01:44:30.760 --> 01:44:40.760] And organic hemp protein and greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base plus centrician tastes great in just water [01:44:40.760 --> 01:44:46.760] This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product and is all natural [01:44:46.760 --> 01:44:54.760] Visit centrician.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436 [01:44:54.760 --> 01:45:00.760] After you use centrician you'll believe in supplements again [01:45:25.760 --> 01:45:27.760] And now you can too [01:45:27.760 --> 01:45:33.760] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience [01:45:33.760 --> 01:45:42.760] Even if you're not in a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts [01:45:42.760 --> 01:45:51.760] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more [01:45:51.760 --> 01:46:00.760] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ [01:46:21.760 --> 01:46:38.760] As we so shall we read [01:46:38.760 --> 01:47:02.760] Okay this is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig with LAW Radio, we're back going to Mark in Michigan [01:47:02.760 --> 01:47:06.760] Hello Mark, what have you got for us today? [01:47:06.760 --> 01:47:11.760] Hey guys, okay this is a good one [01:47:11.760 --> 01:47:15.760] I belong to this father's rights group out of Michigan [01:47:15.760 --> 01:47:20.760] And we've been going over, we've got an agency called the Friend of the Court [01:47:20.760 --> 01:47:28.760] I don't know if you have a similarly named agency but basically they're the guys that go after you for child support and blah blah blah [01:47:28.760 --> 01:47:30.760] They're the bullies [01:47:30.760 --> 01:47:37.760] Okay so some information was sent to me and I've tried a couple Freedom of Information requests and messed around with them [01:47:37.760 --> 01:47:42.760] And kind of all came back at the same time saying that you know we're part of the judiciary [01:47:42.760 --> 01:47:50.760] And in Michigan the Freedom of Information excludes the judiciary, you can't request any documents through them [01:47:50.760 --> 01:47:57.760] Do you have a special right to access to the court? [01:47:57.760 --> 01:48:08.760] I know that's the same way in Texas that you have article 1.24 that says all courts shall be covered [01:48:08.760 --> 01:48:14.760] That means that everything belonging to the judiciary is in the public domain [01:48:14.760 --> 01:48:23.760] But you request it through a judicial request rather than an open records request [01:48:23.760 --> 01:48:26.760] Do you have that in Michigan? [01:48:26.760 --> 01:48:28.760] We do have a similar statute [01:48:28.760 --> 01:48:31.760] But you know I was just screwing around with them [01:48:31.760 --> 01:48:36.760] The information was not necessary, I was just messing with them a little bit [01:48:36.760 --> 01:48:38.760] But you know I got to thinking about it [01:48:38.760 --> 01:48:44.760] And one of the things that the Friend of the Court does is a party will go to them and request help [01:48:44.760 --> 01:48:49.760] And then they'll end up representing them in court [01:48:49.760 --> 01:48:57.760] They'll make their recommendations and they'll represent the party in court if that's truly how they feel [01:48:57.760 --> 01:49:04.760] And I thought about it and I thought that's really a violation of the Separation of Powers Act [01:49:04.760 --> 01:49:11.760] Because if they're part of the judiciary and they're going into court and making recommendations for one party or the other [01:49:11.760 --> 01:49:17.760] First off that shows a bias and secondly they're representing a party [01:49:17.760 --> 01:49:22.760] And any other action they would be excluded from being able to do that [01:49:22.760 --> 01:49:27.760] Are they being paid for the service provided to this defendant? [01:49:27.760 --> 01:49:31.760] They're not specifically by that defendant [01:49:31.760 --> 01:49:37.760] Now it's kind of dubious of how they're getting paid [01:49:37.760 --> 01:49:45.760] There was somebody who wrote a book about them and said basically the Friend of the Court is the only agency in the court that makes money [01:49:45.760 --> 01:49:50.760] Because through child support they get a cut of that and they get fees [01:49:50.760 --> 01:49:53.760] And they'll do all kinds of nasty stuff [01:49:53.760 --> 01:50:01.760] They'll move the court without your permission or without you requesting them for enforcement of the payments [01:50:01.760 --> 01:50:05.760] Things of that nature and I think Mark Adams has talked about that a while back [01:50:05.760 --> 01:50:07.760] But have you figured out how they're getting paid? [01:50:07.760 --> 01:50:08.760] Who supplies the money? [01:50:08.760 --> 01:50:12.760] Because here's the question and issue associated with it [01:50:12.760 --> 01:50:17.760] If public funds is how they're getting paid, that's embezzlement [01:50:17.760 --> 01:50:21.760] They're using public funds for a private interest in this case [01:50:21.760 --> 01:50:23.760] That's also a good point [01:50:23.760 --> 01:50:26.760] And going maybe to the QTAM [01:50:26.760 --> 01:50:31.760] Because I do believe they get some federal funding as well [01:50:31.760 --> 01:50:34.760] But my question was this [01:50:34.760 --> 01:50:37.760] I was thinking strategy and thinking this [01:50:37.760 --> 01:50:43.760] In my particular case I was just about to move for custody since I moved to New Hampshire [01:50:43.760 --> 01:50:49.760] But I thought about this and I thought why don't I go to the federal court with a habeas [01:50:49.760 --> 01:50:57.760] And claim that every judge in Michigan is disqualified because they're part of the same agency [01:50:57.760 --> 01:51:01.760] Which has already been represented on the other side [01:51:01.760 --> 01:51:04.760] Because she's used Friend of the Court in this [01:51:04.760 --> 01:51:06.760] And I thought that might be a great test case [01:51:06.760 --> 01:51:10.760] What do you guys think about that? [01:51:10.760 --> 01:51:17.760] Are you following me with a clear on that? [01:51:17.760 --> 01:51:19.760] Randy? [01:51:19.760 --> 01:51:21.760] I'm confused [01:51:21.760 --> 01:51:22.760] Okay [01:51:22.760 --> 01:51:25.760] I'm trying to figure out this is not [01:51:25.760 --> 01:51:27.760] We have attorney general [01:51:27.760 --> 01:51:34.760] The attorney general here in Texas essentially does the same thing [01:51:34.760 --> 01:51:36.760] As far as child support [01:51:36.760 --> 01:51:46.760] He will enforce in lieu of the individual who's supposed to be receiving child support [01:51:46.760 --> 01:51:51.760] And essentially act as their counsel [01:51:51.760 --> 01:51:54.760] And he's a member of the executive [01:51:54.760 --> 01:51:55.760] Right [01:51:55.760 --> 01:51:57.760] So it doesn't raise that issue [01:51:57.760 --> 01:51:58.760] And these guys [01:51:58.760 --> 01:52:04.760] And they specifically claim you know I've seen a couple cases where they claim judicial immunity [01:52:04.760 --> 01:52:08.760] Because you know that's the branch they're under [01:52:08.760 --> 01:52:12.760] So they're specifically saying hey we're with the judge [01:52:12.760 --> 01:52:19.760] So my point was is that instead of moving for a change of custody in the state courts [01:52:19.760 --> 01:52:22.760] What if I went to the federal courts with a habeas [01:52:22.760 --> 01:52:26.760] And my argument when they want to know why the heck are you here [01:52:26.760 --> 01:52:32.760] My argument would be every judge in the state of Michigan is disqualified [01:52:32.760 --> 01:52:36.760] Because a friend of the court has touched this case [01:52:36.760 --> 01:52:38.760] They work for the same office [01:52:38.760 --> 01:52:42.760] How do you get there? [01:52:42.760 --> 01:52:48.760] Disqualification is generally constitutional [01:52:48.760 --> 01:52:51.760] Right [01:52:51.760 --> 01:53:01.760] And it's very focused on what goes to what you can do with habeas [01:53:01.760 --> 01:53:03.760] I mean with disqualification [01:53:03.760 --> 01:53:10.760] Well also the fact in this case disqualification will be limited only to the judges having jurisdiction of such cases [01:53:10.760 --> 01:53:12.760] It wouldn't apply to others [01:53:12.760 --> 01:53:14.760] They wouldn't be able to hear it anyway [01:53:14.760 --> 01:53:18.760] Now I've been successful in a couple of disqualifications up to this point [01:53:18.760 --> 01:53:21.760] But my point is this [01:53:21.760 --> 01:53:25.760] What's that? Sorry [01:53:25.760 --> 01:53:28.760] Okay this is Ken [01:53:28.760 --> 01:53:31.760] Oh Ken go ahead [01:53:31.760 --> 01:53:38.760] First off federal courts don't want to touch the issue of divorce and child custody and child support [01:53:38.760 --> 01:53:39.760] They're avoiding it [01:53:39.760 --> 01:53:44.760] It's like the third rail of judicial politics in the federal venue [01:53:44.760 --> 01:53:47.760] They leave it to the state because that's who has jurisdiction [01:53:47.760 --> 01:53:52.760] But basically if this process was the friend of the court issue [01:53:52.760 --> 01:53:56.760] In Texas the equivalent of that would be an attorney ad litem [01:53:56.760 --> 01:54:02.760] And the attorney ad litem is appointed by the court to act in behalf of the child [01:54:02.760 --> 01:54:11.760] And or maybe an indigent spouse that may not be able to afford representation in some extenuating circumstances [01:54:11.760 --> 01:54:16.760] They are not part of the judiciary as far as being part of the judges part [01:54:16.760 --> 01:54:20.760] They are like a third party in the case [01:54:20.760 --> 01:54:25.760] They still have to file documents and file copies with all the parties [01:54:25.760 --> 01:54:29.760] And all the documents they file in the court are public records [01:54:29.760 --> 01:54:32.760] So anything that they do they have to make it public [01:54:32.760 --> 01:54:35.760] Right and these guys don't fall under that [01:54:35.760 --> 01:54:39.760] And I wish they did because it would make attacking them so much easier [01:54:39.760 --> 01:54:42.760] But they don't quite fall under that [01:54:42.760 --> 01:54:47.760] When they say we're part of the judiciary they don't have to go through all the rigmarole [01:54:47.760 --> 01:54:52.760] That another party's attorney would have to do [01:54:52.760 --> 01:54:57.760] In order for them to be that and to perform in that capacity [01:54:57.760 --> 01:55:01.760] There would have to be a legislative enactment that created them as a state agency [01:55:01.760 --> 01:55:04.760] And an office of the branch of the judiciary [01:55:04.760 --> 01:55:07.760] Where's that enactment? [01:55:07.760 --> 01:55:13.760] There is, I'm not sitting by the computer but there is an enactment that has that [01:55:13.760 --> 01:55:16.760] But my point is it's unconstitutional in nature [01:55:16.760 --> 01:55:18.760] And then there's another argument that I won't go into [01:55:18.760 --> 01:55:24.760] But it's unconstitutional in nature because of the separation of powers act [01:55:24.760 --> 01:55:25.760] Okay [01:55:25.760 --> 01:55:26.760] Because I [01:55:26.760 --> 01:55:27.760] Ken [01:55:27.760 --> 01:55:29.760] Oh go ahead Ken I'm sorry [01:55:29.760 --> 01:55:31.760] Okay I agree [01:55:31.760 --> 01:55:37.760] So the attack should be with the state courts in Michigan with regards to that particular statute [01:55:37.760 --> 01:55:44.760] And the fact that it's unconstitutional because it deprives you as one of the principal parties in the case of due process [01:55:44.760 --> 01:55:47.760] I thought about that but wouldn't you think [01:55:47.760 --> 01:55:50.760] Now this was my problem with the disqualification as well [01:55:50.760 --> 01:55:55.760] You're asking a judge who's also a party to every action [01:55:55.760 --> 01:55:58.760] You know every judge is part of the judiciary [01:55:58.760 --> 01:56:00.760] They're part of the judiciary [01:56:00.760 --> 01:56:02.760] So you're going to another judge [01:56:02.760 --> 01:56:05.760] You know I could ask for disqualification of a judge [01:56:05.760 --> 01:56:07.760] I could attack this statute [01:56:07.760 --> 01:56:09.760] But they're a party to the action [01:56:09.760 --> 01:56:12.760] So it all gets real nasty [01:56:12.760 --> 01:56:15.760] I mean just I was trying to think it through [01:56:15.760 --> 01:56:19.760] Think what might be the best way to attack this [01:56:19.760 --> 01:56:23.760] Unfortunately the equivalent, this is Ken again [01:56:23.760 --> 01:56:26.760] The equivalent issue here in Texas [01:56:26.760 --> 01:56:30.760] They started getting involved because of what was it just collection of child support [01:56:30.760 --> 01:56:32.760] Oh in my case [01:56:32.760 --> 01:56:33.760] Yeah [01:56:33.760 --> 01:56:36.760] No she moved for custody and stuff like that [01:56:36.760 --> 01:56:39.760] I'm not concerned about my case [01:56:39.760 --> 01:56:42.760] I'll win my case I don't care about that [01:56:42.760 --> 01:56:49.760] The issue is how can I take down a big organization that's so corrupt with me [01:56:49.760 --> 01:56:51.760] That's what I'm looking for [01:56:51.760 --> 01:56:53.760] I think you're mixing up one thing though Mark [01:56:53.760 --> 01:56:57.760] You're assuming that because these guys declare they're part of the judiciary [01:56:57.760 --> 01:56:58.760] They're equivalent to a judge [01:56:58.760 --> 01:57:00.760] That's not true [01:57:00.760 --> 01:57:06.760] That simply makes them as like for instance the state bar here in Texas [01:57:06.760 --> 01:57:11.760] They are an administrative office of the judicial branch of government [01:57:11.760 --> 01:57:13.760] But they are not judges [01:57:13.760 --> 01:57:15.760] They're lawyers [01:57:15.760 --> 01:57:17.760] They are in the same branch [01:57:17.760 --> 01:57:21.760] But they are separate and distinct from the capacity of the judge [01:57:21.760 --> 01:57:25.760] What your argument here is is you think the judge is a party to the complaint [01:57:25.760 --> 01:57:29.760] Just because these guys say they're in a judicial function [01:57:29.760 --> 01:57:30.760] That's not true [01:57:30.760 --> 01:57:37.760] Every attorney is in a judicial function in Texas because they're part of a state administrative office [01:57:37.760 --> 01:57:39.760] But they're still not the judge [01:57:39.760 --> 01:57:42.760] So the judge would not be a party to the claim [01:57:42.760 --> 01:57:47.760] Unless the judge is one that actually has a vested interest in the outcome [01:57:47.760 --> 01:57:52.760] Or who has made prior determinations in your case [01:57:52.760 --> 01:57:54.760] Or the case at issue anyway [01:57:54.760 --> 01:57:55.760] Sure, sure [01:57:55.760 --> 01:57:59.760] So wouldn't it be the same thing as if the court clerk [01:57:59.760 --> 01:58:06.760] The judge's court clerk brought an action in her court? [01:58:06.760 --> 01:58:10.760] The court clerk could not bring it before the judge of her court [01:58:10.760 --> 01:58:15.760] That would be a vested interest on the part of the judge [01:58:15.760 --> 01:58:23.760] He would have to be disqualified or recuse himself because of that association [01:58:23.760 --> 01:58:25.760] All right, I hear the music [01:58:25.760 --> 01:58:31.760] Let me think over this and I'll give you guys a ring back next week and we can rehash it [01:58:31.760 --> 01:58:34.760] Okay, Mark, I appreciate that [01:58:34.760 --> 01:58:35.760] All right, have a good night [01:58:35.760 --> 01:58:39.760] All right, folks, this is our top of the hour break [01:58:39.760 --> 01:58:40.760] This is Rule of Law Radio [01:58:40.760 --> 01:58:41.760] Randy Kelton [01:58:41.760 --> 01:58:42.760] Deborah Stevens [01:58:42.760 --> 01:58:43.760] Eddie Craig [01:58:43.760 --> 01:58:44.760] Our guest, Magnuson [01:58:44.760 --> 01:58:48.760] 512-646-1984 is the call-in number [01:58:48.760 --> 01:58:50.760] We have two hours left in the show [01:58:50.760 --> 01:58:54.760] So if you have any issues or questions, please give us a call [01:58:54.760 --> 01:58:56.760] Marshall Honda Walf will be with you on the other side [01:58:56.760 --> 01:58:58.760] So hang in there [01:58:58.760 --> 01:59:02.760] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world [01:59:02.760 --> 01:59:06.760] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it [01:59:06.760 --> 01:59:10.760] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text [01:59:10.760 --> 01:59:15.760] But in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture [01:59:15.760 --> 01:59:18.760] Enter the recovery version [01:59:18.760 --> 01:59:22.760] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate [01:59:22.760 --> 01:59:26.760] But the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes [01:59:26.760 --> 01:59:31.760] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way [01:59:31.760 --> 01:59:36.760] Providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before [01:59:36.760 --> 01:59:42.760] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking [01:59:42.760 --> 01:59:52.760] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 [01:59:52.760 --> 01:59:56.760] Or by ordering online at freestudybible.com [01:59:56.760 --> 02:00:06.760] That's freestudybible.com