[00:00.000 --> 00:10.320]  The U.S. Senate has asked the UN to rescind the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War after
[00:10.320 --> 00:17.040]  its lead author said he was wrong to conclude Israel targeted civilians during the 2008-2009
[00:17.040 --> 00:18.040]  offensive.
[00:18.040 --> 00:23.740]  The Senate resolution also urged reform of the UN Human Rights Council so that it no
[00:23.740 --> 00:29.080]  longer unfairly disproportionately and falsely criticizes Israel.
[00:29.080 --> 00:33.880]  Three of the report's authors Thursday rejected calls to retract it.
[00:33.880 --> 00:39.680]  Eight people were killed Friday after forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi filed
[00:39.680 --> 00:43.040]  a hail of rockets into the besieged city of Misurata.
[00:43.040 --> 00:47.840]  Twenty were killed Thursday as Gaddafi's forces launched a heavy attack on the city.
[00:47.840 --> 00:52.800]  Rebel forces fear a massacre unless NATO does more to help them.
[00:52.800 --> 01:00.000]  ABC News reports Mary Tillman, mother of friendly fire victim Pat Tillman, is angry at Barack
[01:00.000 --> 01:05.360]  Obama for appointing General Stanley McChrystal to co-chair a White House commission on military
[01:05.360 --> 01:06.360]  families.
[01:06.360 --> 01:13.000]  Tillman said McChrystal pushed the false story her son had been killed by the enemy.
[01:13.000 --> 01:18.640]  International solidarity activist Vittorio Avigone was found dead in Gaza Friday.
[01:18.640 --> 01:24.320]  The Tawid, an extremist Islamic group operating in Gaza, abducted Avigone in an attempt to
[01:24.320 --> 01:29.320]  force the Hamas government to release its leader, who was arrested last month.
[01:29.320 --> 01:33.920]  The Tawid is one of several groups who have found willing supporters among young men,
[01:33.920 --> 01:36.920]  more than 70% of whom are unemployed.
[01:36.920 --> 01:41.600]  Foreigners and outsiders are welcomed by Palestinian communities who regard them as allies against
[01:41.600 --> 01:42.600]  Israel.
[01:42.600 --> 01:47.360]  Avigone risked his life accompanying Palestinians onto their farmland adjacent to the Israeli
[01:47.360 --> 01:51.640]  border in hopes his presence would deter Israeli violence.
[01:51.640 --> 01:56.080]  Avigone also promoted the rights of Gazan fishermen to fish without hindrance from
[01:56.080 --> 01:57.800]  the Israeli Navy.
[01:57.800 --> 02:03.880]  Last week a gunman shot dead Juliano Mea Kamis, an Israeli Arab actor who ran a theatre promoting
[02:03.880 --> 02:09.680]  creative means of resistance in the West Bank city of Jenin.
[02:09.680 --> 02:14.680]  Democrats took swings at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Thursday at a House Oversight
[02:14.680 --> 02:17.080]  Committee hearing on state budgets.
[02:17.080 --> 02:21.920]  A proposal by Walker to restrict collective bargaining rights for public employees triggered
[02:21.920 --> 02:25.440]  mass protests in Madison earlier this year.
[02:25.440 --> 02:30.000]  Democrat Elijah Cummings told Walker, quote, working Americans are not responsible for
[02:30.000 --> 02:35.680]  the reckless actions of Wall Street, which led to the financial crisis in the first place.
[02:35.680 --> 02:39.840]  Walker denied receiving contributions from the billionaire Koch brothers.
[02:39.840 --> 02:44.220]  During the union's fight against Walker's bill in February, a blogger impersonating
[02:44.220 --> 02:50.280]  David Koch called Walker, the phony Koch said, quote, once you crush these bastards, I'll
[02:50.280 --> 02:55.280]  fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time, to which Walker responded, that
[02:55.280 --> 03:16.240]  would be outstanding.
[03:25.280 --> 03:48.360]  All right, folks, we are back.
[03:48.360 --> 03:54.560]  Hour three of the rule of law tonight is Friday, April 15th.
[03:54.560 --> 04:00.880]  We are currently playing the clip from Eddie's meeting with the chief legal counsel for the
[04:00.880 --> 04:02.640]  Speaker of the House.
[04:02.640 --> 04:05.320]  We're going to continue about halfway through.
[04:05.320 --> 04:10.600]  And before we go on, I just want to make one comment that I like the discernment of this
[04:10.600 --> 04:17.360]  attorney because he made the comment that basically there's a couple of different issues here.
[04:17.360 --> 04:22.760]  One issue is that there's law on the books that is not being followed.
[04:22.760 --> 04:23.880]  That is good law.
[04:23.880 --> 04:25.040]  That's what Eddie's pointing out.
[04:25.040 --> 04:28.920]  And then there's also law on the books that's unconstitutional.
[04:28.920 --> 04:32.400]  And that's what the legislature can do something about because there's not really much that
[04:32.400 --> 04:38.920]  the legislature can do about law that's not being followed that is constitutional.
[04:38.920 --> 04:42.200]  There's already law in the books that says if you don't do it, you're breaking the law
[04:42.200 --> 04:44.280]  and there's already penalties laid out.
[04:44.280 --> 04:49.160]  And so basically it's not their job anymore at that point to do something about it.
[04:49.160 --> 04:54.240]  That's what the committee chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee very plainly
[04:54.240 --> 05:00.080]  stated to MAD and to the police that came to that committee hearing the other night.
[05:00.080 --> 05:07.400]  So at any rate, without further ado, we will continue with the rest of the clip.
[05:07.400 --> 05:12.600]  And we will be back at the end of the clip for further comments.
[05:12.600 --> 05:15.480]  Well, there's a citation.
[05:15.480 --> 05:21.640]  There's a picture of me taken from the officer's car.
[05:21.640 --> 05:22.640]  And that's it.
[05:22.640 --> 05:24.440]  I'm going where's the complaint?
[05:24.440 --> 05:25.440]  Where's the information?
[05:25.440 --> 05:27.840]  You hear the prosecuting attorney in the background.
[05:27.840 --> 05:28.840]  We don't need those.
[05:28.840 --> 05:33.400]  It's a ball-faced lie and he knows it.
[05:33.400 --> 05:41.000]  This is a public servant lying to his employer in order to steal from his employer and perpetrate
[05:41.000 --> 05:46.400]  fraud against his employer and deny his employer his due process rights.
[05:46.400 --> 05:50.000]  And it isn't just the eyeball court.
[05:50.000 --> 05:52.940]  It happens in Nacogdoches daily.
[05:52.940 --> 05:54.200]  It happens in Austin.
[05:54.200 --> 05:58.520]  It happens in every single municipality we've got in Texas.
[05:58.520 --> 06:01.280]  They do it constantly.
[06:01.280 --> 06:06.320]  You have the law that says that any municipality that has a court of record cannot operate
[06:06.320 --> 06:09.600]  a court of non-record simultaneously.
[06:09.600 --> 06:12.280]  You either have one or you don't have any.
[06:12.280 --> 06:19.800]  Yet you've got municipalities that are taking people to trial in courts of no record when
[06:19.800 --> 06:25.080]  they are a municipality whose courts are required to be courts of record.
[06:25.080 --> 06:27.800]  I had a guy that I helped win a case just the other day.
[06:27.800 --> 06:29.280]  His son got a traffic ticket.
[06:29.280 --> 06:32.560]  And he goes to court, no court reporter.
[06:32.560 --> 06:33.560]  Asks for a court of record.
[06:33.560 --> 06:35.760]  Judge says, we're not going to have a court of record today.
[06:35.760 --> 06:41.800]  I'm sorry, Judge, but 39.quad 03 subsection E says you have to have a court reporter.
[06:41.800 --> 06:45.640]  But we can't have court reporters available every day all the time.
[06:45.640 --> 06:48.960]  Not my problem, Judge.
[06:48.960 --> 06:51.000]  Okay?
[06:51.000 --> 06:53.360]  So again, what do you intend to do?
[06:53.360 --> 06:55.960]  Finally, they dismiss his case.
[06:55.960 --> 07:02.560]  Now, let's talk for a second about the police officers in the municipalities.
[07:02.560 --> 07:09.640]  543 transportation code, 543.001, a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person
[07:09.640 --> 07:15.920]  found committing a violation of this subtitle, meaning specifically subtitle C, transportation
[07:15.920 --> 07:16.920]  code.
[07:16.920 --> 07:24.320]  Now, agree or disagree, found committing means committed in the officer's view or presence.
[07:24.320 --> 07:28.080]  He must catch them in the act, okay?
[07:28.080 --> 07:32.640]  I helped the young lady get a case dismissed where the officer had written her a citation
[07:32.640 --> 07:38.440]  for failure to maintain assured clear distance, accused her of hitting another car from behind.
[07:38.440 --> 07:41.200]  Which didn't happen.
[07:41.200 --> 07:48.280]  The other car turned across the front of her car and the rear wheel of his SUV went over
[07:48.280 --> 07:50.120]  the front of her car.
[07:50.120 --> 07:53.920]  And the officer said she hit him from behind.
[07:53.920 --> 07:54.920]  Now two problems.
[07:54.920 --> 07:59.240]  First, the evidence of the collision did not show that.
[07:59.240 --> 08:03.240]  Two, neither officer was present to witness anything.
[08:03.240 --> 08:07.160]  They showed up 15 to 20 minutes afterward.
[08:07.160 --> 08:12.880]  Where is the officer's authority to place this young lady into custody for the purpose
[08:12.880 --> 08:19.720]  of issuing her a citation when he did not, she was not found committing any offense under
[08:19.720 --> 08:22.760]  subtitle C?
[08:22.760 --> 08:29.040]  He acted completely outside of his authority, it was a false arrest, it is false imprisonment
[08:29.040 --> 08:36.280]  because I'm not sure how well you studied this, but 543 and 1406 B and C make it very
[08:36.280 --> 08:42.800]  clear in Texas that if you are being held for the purpose of the issuance of a citation,
[08:42.800 --> 08:46.040]  you are in a custodial arrest.
[08:46.040 --> 08:48.400]  No ifs, no ands, no buts.
[08:48.400 --> 08:53.400]  And yet the cop is sitting here, which is another case I'm working on for an individual
[08:53.400 --> 08:57.160]  who has been charged with failure to identify.
[08:57.160 --> 09:01.640]  Now let's analyze 38.02 penal code for just a second.
[09:01.640 --> 09:09.320]  You can only be charged under 38.02A if you intentionally refuse to provide a name, address
[09:09.320 --> 09:16.880]  and date of birth to a peace officer who has already lawfully arrested the individual.
[09:16.880 --> 09:24.200]  He must already be in a lawful arrest before you can charge him with failure to identify.
[09:24.200 --> 09:27.320]  He was with the gentleman when this occurred.
[09:27.320 --> 09:32.480]  The officer asked for the gentleman's information, the gentleman gave it to him, however when
[09:32.480 --> 09:37.760]  he got to the part about his birthday all he did was act to protect his own rights which
[09:37.760 --> 09:41.800]  he has every right to do.
[09:41.800 --> 09:50.120]  The accused asked the officer, is this information something you can use against me in a court
[09:50.120 --> 09:52.120]  of law?
[09:52.120 --> 09:59.040]  The officer got absolutely PO'd and immediately got on the radio and called for backup because
[09:59.040 --> 10:05.880]  now we've got somebody here that actually thinks he's got rights, so I need help.
[10:05.880 --> 10:10.880]  Now this gentleman has both a heart condition and a diabetic condition, 60 some odd years
[10:10.880 --> 10:16.200]  old, didn't offer any threats of violence to these police officers, didn't threaten
[10:16.200 --> 10:23.240]  them verbally in any way, simply asked a question that was meant to protect his rights.
[10:23.240 --> 10:24.840]  So what happens?
[10:24.840 --> 10:29.080]  He gets punished for invoking his right to remain silent.
[10:29.080 --> 10:36.400]  38.02 violates the constitution by requiring, arrested or not, an individual to answer questions
[10:36.400 --> 10:40.160]  that could be used against them later.
[10:40.160 --> 10:46.480]  There's two ways you can look at a given scenario, an individual knows he has a warrant or doesn't
[10:46.480 --> 10:50.200]  know he has a warrant out for his arrest.
[10:50.200 --> 10:53.640]  What happens when he gives that officer his name?
[10:53.640 --> 10:57.000]  It tends to incriminate him, does it not?
[10:57.000 --> 11:01.760]  So how can the giving of your name be determined to not be something that in and of itself
[11:01.760 --> 11:03.520]  can be incriminating?
[11:03.520 --> 11:10.920]  It absolutely can be as certain pre-contextual events have occurred or circumstances exist.
[11:10.920 --> 11:13.920]  Same thing with an address, the same thing with a date of birth.
[11:13.920 --> 11:19.800]  He gives out an address that he doesn't know is on an FBI watch list and he's just staying
[11:19.800 --> 11:24.160]  there temporarily, it's not his home, but the next thing he knows there's an APBI for
[11:24.160 --> 11:26.240]  anybody associated with that address.
[11:26.240 --> 11:32.560]  He gives them the address, boom, he's under arrest and he don't have a clue why.
[11:32.560 --> 11:37.360]  Of course, they use the date of birth to try to match up all the other pieces of information
[11:37.360 --> 11:42.120]  that they garner from these investigative detentions.
[11:42.120 --> 11:48.760]  But the point being, 3802 forces you to waive one right in order to exercise another.
[11:48.760 --> 11:53.520]  I have to waive my right to remain silent in order to exercise my right to remain at
[11:53.520 --> 11:55.680]  liberty and not falsely arrested.
[11:55.680 --> 12:01.760]  That's a catch-22 or more appropriately in legal parlance, it's a Hobson's choice.
[12:01.760 --> 12:05.920]  Okay, so how does this happen?
[12:05.920 --> 12:13.240]  I mean, I thought part of the legislative committee's job was to review these things
[12:13.240 --> 12:21.520]  and ensure that there was no unconstitutional provision in them before they ever got published.
[12:21.520 --> 12:22.520]  And you're correct.
[12:22.520 --> 12:28.880]  When they are considering bills, what generally happens is you have the sponsor, let's say
[12:28.880 --> 12:34.840]  a representative here in Austin, just to pick an example, Representative Workman, more than
[12:34.840 --> 12:39.600]  you, a representative, he'll have a bill, he'll lay out a change that might impact Dakota
[12:39.600 --> 12:40.600]  criminal procedure.
[12:40.600 --> 12:49.760]  It goes through our, there's an agency called Legislative Council, their lawyers draft up
[12:49.760 --> 12:56.520]  the bills and they go through a reprocess to make sure that they are not a foul of the
[12:56.520 --> 12:59.120]  Constitution, at least the way the language is written.
[12:59.120 --> 13:02.960]  Then it comes out and it goes through the committee and the committee will hear it,
[13:02.960 --> 13:08.080]  the representative Workman in this example would lay it out and say, you know, ladies
[13:08.080 --> 13:14.560]  and gentlemen, I'm here to address, you know, Article 1517 and your specific provisions
[13:14.560 --> 13:16.320]  that I'd like to change.
[13:16.320 --> 13:21.720]  And so you have debate and discussion about that change and normally what happens is you
[13:21.720 --> 13:28.920]  would have, in this case, you would have witnesses that come and support the bill that he likely
[13:28.920 --> 13:34.040]  has invited or who are monitoring all the bills and you have watchdog groups, interest
[13:34.040 --> 13:37.040]  groups, support groups, and opposition groups.
[13:37.040 --> 13:43.040]  They'll come out and line up for or against the bill and they'll give their testimony.
[13:43.040 --> 13:48.040]  And then ultimately at the end of the day, that committee of how many members, 11 members
[13:48.040 --> 13:52.000]  maybe, will sit and vote on the bill.
[13:52.000 --> 13:59.320]  Now the constitutional issues will hopefully come up during that discussion if, provided
[13:59.320 --> 14:03.120]  someone even knows enough to know they're a constitutional problem, provided somebody
[14:03.120 --> 14:10.120]  knows that, you know, your defense groups, your prosecution groups, it just depends.
[14:10.120 --> 14:15.120]  I mean, you've got the Association of Prosecutors, Association of County Prosecutors, you've
[14:15.120 --> 14:20.120]  got Civil Liberties Justice Groups, you have Access to Justice Groups, you have, so they're
[14:20.120 --> 14:22.120]  all in the mix.
[14:22.120 --> 14:27.120]  You would hope that one of them would pick up on whether a provision is constitutional
[14:27.120 --> 14:28.120]  or not.
[14:28.120 --> 14:35.120]  The other way is if the law gets enacted, it's on the books until somebody challenges
[14:35.120 --> 14:36.120]  it.
[14:36.120 --> 14:37.120]  Right.
[14:37.120 --> 14:40.120]  But then you have the courts in Texas and the United States Supreme Court that said
[14:40.120 --> 14:45.120]  a citizen cannot be bound by an unconstitutional law.
[14:45.120 --> 14:47.120]  An unconstitutional law is void, not voidable.
[14:47.120 --> 14:50.120]  It is as if it never existed.
[14:50.120 --> 14:56.120]  Yet you have people being punished in Texas under a law that on its face is unconstitutional.
[14:56.120 --> 15:11.120]  It has, so the committee that you would be interested in visiting with, do you have any
[15:11.120 --> 15:16.120]  influence, if he has trouble getting into it, helping him get into this committee?
[15:16.120 --> 15:21.120]  Yeah, well, I mean, I can tell you how we can help him get to the meeting with the office,
[15:21.120 --> 15:24.120]  but the issue you're going to have is they're going to say, well, do you have a bill?
[15:24.120 --> 15:26.120]  Do you have somebody else?
[15:26.120 --> 15:28.120]  That's why you need to visit with these groups I was mentioning.
[15:28.120 --> 15:29.120]  Right.
[15:29.120 --> 15:34.120]  Because they're the ones that can go, if they agree, they can go pop an amendment on a bill.
[15:34.120 --> 15:37.120]  So right now what you have are bills that have been sitting in committee.
[15:37.120 --> 15:44.120]  I'll actually print you out a list of bills that, so for you, for these issues, let's
[15:44.120 --> 15:45.120]  see.
[15:45.120 --> 15:50.120]  Yeah, the other question becomes who do we talk to when the Constitution itself has been
[15:50.120 --> 15:53.120]  put into a reconcilable conflict?
[15:53.120 --> 16:01.120]  Well, you have talked to a group to bring a lawsuit against, whether it's municipalities,
[16:01.120 --> 16:05.120]  counties, district attorneys, city attorneys.
[16:05.120 --> 16:12.120]  Well, you have to get a group behind these, like one of these criminal defense side groups.
[16:12.120 --> 16:16.120]  Well, the reason I'm asking is because right now we have Article 1, Section 10, and Article
[16:16.120 --> 16:20.120]  5, Section 17, which are at odds with each other.
[16:20.120 --> 16:25.120]  The Texas legislature managed to get an amendment to the Bill of Rights, of all things, that
[16:25.120 --> 16:31.120]  said that we are not entitled to an indictment by a grand jury for any offense that involves
[16:31.120 --> 16:39.120]  less than one year incarceration in a state penal facility or under county jail or anything
[16:39.120 --> 16:40.120]  of that nature.
[16:40.120 --> 16:48.120]  The problem is Article 5, Section 17 says that the grand jury shall look into misdemeanors
[16:48.120 --> 16:50.120]  and hand down indictments therefor.
[16:50.120 --> 16:57.120]  The district judge is then required to take that, sign off on it with an order of transfer,
[16:57.120 --> 17:02.120]  and send it to the inferior court having jurisdiction of the cause.
[17:02.120 --> 17:03.120]  Okay?
[17:03.120 --> 17:08.120]  Now, again, that's A, B, and C misdemeanors.
[17:08.120 --> 17:11.120]  Those are the inferior courts below the level of district.
[17:11.120 --> 17:13.120]  That's all they can hear.
[17:13.120 --> 17:20.120]  So, clearly, indictments for misdemeanors are required in order to comply with Article
[17:20.120 --> 17:22.120]  5, Section 17.
[17:22.120 --> 17:27.120]  But that conflicts with Article 1, Section 10, where it says that an indictment isn't
[17:27.120 --> 17:34.120]  necessary for any offense that is less than one year in a state penal facility.
[17:34.120 --> 17:41.120]  I mean, and I really, really don't see the people of Texas throwing out pieces of the
[17:41.120 --> 17:42.120]  Bill of Rights.
[17:42.120 --> 17:43.120]  Sure.
[17:43.120 --> 17:44.120]  Especially right now.
[17:44.120 --> 17:45.120]  Exactly.
[17:45.120 --> 17:46.120]  Yeah.
[17:46.120 --> 17:47.120]  Okay.
[17:47.120 --> 17:49.120]  But that's one of the issues.
[17:49.120 --> 17:50.120]  Sure.
[17:50.120 --> 17:55.120]  So, if you're talking about just criminal jurisprudence, there's a House committee that
[17:55.120 --> 18:01.120]  has jurisdiction to hear all bills that relate to criminal jurisprudence.
[18:01.120 --> 18:03.120]  That's what I call them.
[18:03.120 --> 18:07.120]  That's chair and the vice chair, and there's your members.
[18:07.120 --> 18:14.120]  Then there's a Judiciary Committee, which has more general, more civil issues, and that's
[18:14.120 --> 18:17.120]  your chair there, Jackson, and his members.
[18:17.120 --> 18:21.120]  And then the Senate has a similar committee.
[18:21.120 --> 18:28.120]  Now, let me pull a list of bills just to give you an example of what's sitting there.
[18:28.120 --> 18:34.120]  Because what you might find is you might find a bill that's related to one of these needs.
[18:34.120 --> 18:36.120]  I don't know if you can tackle them all at once.
[18:36.120 --> 18:40.120]  Well, one of the things we've got to go into the debate on today is the bill dealing with
[18:40.120 --> 18:42.120]  the sobriety checkpoints.
[18:42.120 --> 18:48.120]  Again, how do we have a legislator that does not know that's a violation of a constitutional
[18:48.120 --> 18:49.120]  protection?
[18:49.120 --> 18:52.120]  And that's one of the issues that's going to be debated.
[18:52.120 --> 18:53.120]  Okay.
[18:53.120 --> 18:54.120]  I mean...
[18:54.120 --> 18:57.120]  Yeah, that's a very good issue.
[18:57.120 --> 19:06.120]  So what you have to have, you have to have a voice of some of these groups on the bill
[19:06.120 --> 19:08.120]  to get heard to go advocate for cancer treatment.
[19:08.120 --> 19:11.120]  Yeah, well, I mean, the same issue with the cops drawing blood.
[19:11.120 --> 19:12.120]  Right.
[19:12.120 --> 19:13.120]  I mean...
[19:13.120 --> 19:17.120]  So here's a bill that's referred to criminal abuse.
[19:17.120 --> 19:19.120]  I want to print this out.
[19:19.120 --> 19:20.120]  Now, that's pretty lengthy, but...
[19:20.120 --> 19:21.120]  Okay.
[19:21.120 --> 19:23.120]  Actually, if you can email it, then that would...
[19:23.120 --> 19:24.120]  Oh, yeah.
[19:24.120 --> 19:26.120]  Well, I can email you the link.
[19:26.120 --> 19:27.120]  Okay.
[19:27.120 --> 19:31.120]  So if you will give me the email...
[19:31.120 --> 19:35.120]  And if you have time, there are two other issues dealing with the assistance of counsel
[19:35.120 --> 19:38.120]  that I would like to bring up before we get out of your hair.
[19:38.120 --> 19:40.120]  I want to go ahead and paste this to this.
[19:40.120 --> 19:41.120]  Okay.
[19:41.120 --> 19:47.120]  I'll see the link, and there's 252 bills that were referred to this committee before.
[19:47.120 --> 19:49.120]  That's just many house bills.
[19:49.120 --> 19:50.120]  Yeah.
[19:50.120 --> 20:07.120]  This thing they have about declaring the fact that there's a congested docket being a necessity
[20:07.120 --> 20:10.120]  of emergency to avoid the reading of bills on the floor.
[20:10.120 --> 20:15.120]  When was the last time the Texas legislature actually read a bill over three several days
[20:15.120 --> 20:20.120]  on both the House and the Senate floors?
[20:20.120 --> 20:25.120]  Well, what they required to do is the first reason is the introduction bill.
[20:25.120 --> 20:29.120]  Second reason is when they actually lay out that debate and they voted on it.
[20:29.120 --> 20:32.120]  If they make it past that, then they vote a third time.
[20:32.120 --> 20:35.120]  Now, what they can do is they'll suspend the rule.
[20:35.120 --> 20:36.120]  Right.
[20:36.120 --> 20:37.120]  Which is what they do.
[20:37.120 --> 20:38.120]  Which is what they normally do.
[20:38.120 --> 20:39.120]  Especially right now...
[20:39.120 --> 20:40.120]  That's what I'm saying.
[20:40.120 --> 20:45.120]  When was the last time they actually had a reading of any bill on the floor?
[20:45.120 --> 20:46.120]  On three several days.
[20:46.120 --> 20:47.120]  Yeah.
[20:47.120 --> 20:48.120]  Yeah.
[20:48.120 --> 20:54.120]  I mean, the fact that one of them hadn't had his ice cream fixed today seems to be a good
[20:54.120 --> 20:57.120]  enough reason to declare an emergency to do that.
[20:57.120 --> 21:02.120]  Here, I pasted all the bills that are on that link.
[21:02.120 --> 21:03.120]  Okay.
[21:03.120 --> 21:14.120]  Okay, so I sent you the link and the face.
[21:14.120 --> 21:22.120]  Now, I apologize for not being as cognizant on all these points and issues today, being
[21:22.120 --> 21:23.120]  in the way I feel.
[21:23.120 --> 21:32.120]  Believe me, we've all had a speeding ticket or we've all gone to the wrong town.
[21:32.120 --> 21:35.120]  Well, this goes beyond just speeding tickets.
[21:35.120 --> 21:37.120]  I mean, I could give you a whole...
[21:37.120 --> 21:41.120]  In fact, I teach an entire seminar on Texas traffic laws.
[21:41.120 --> 21:47.120]  And what it applies to and what it doesn't, you wouldn't believe me if I told you.
[21:47.120 --> 21:52.120]  It would take you two years reading it before you'd agree with me, but eventually you'd
[21:52.120 --> 21:54.120]  come to find out that, you know what?
[21:54.120 --> 21:57.120]  Every ticket I've ever been given was a case of fraud.
[21:57.120 --> 21:59.120]  Every last one of them.
[21:59.120 --> 22:06.120]  Okay.
[22:06.120 --> 22:10.120]  Okay, now if I may, I'll wrap this up for you so we'll get out of your hair.
[22:10.120 --> 22:14.120]  Okay, now let's go back to the issue of assistance of counsel real quick.
[22:14.120 --> 22:19.120]  Not only are you being denied assistance of counsel, if you cannot afford an attorney,
[22:19.120 --> 22:22.120]  you are being denied assistance of counsel of choice.
[22:22.120 --> 22:26.120]  Now basically, they're sitting here saying that you cannot use a non-attorney as your
[22:26.120 --> 22:28.120]  assistance of counsel.
[22:28.120 --> 22:33.120]  What I want to see and what no judge or prosecutor cares to find, because it doesn't exist,
[22:33.120 --> 22:38.120]  is the law that says I can't represent someone in a court of law in a criminal case.
[22:38.120 --> 22:40.120]  Doesn't exist.
[22:40.120 --> 22:44.120]  In fact, Texas is one of the states where a private citizen could be both a defense
[22:44.120 --> 22:50.120]  attorney or a prosecuting attorney if there was a conflict of interest with either.
[22:50.120 --> 22:54.120]  Okay, historically speaking, we've always been able to do that.
[22:54.120 --> 22:56.120]  Prosecuting attorney as well?
[22:56.120 --> 23:01.120]  Yes, the county prosecutor in a 1940s case, the county prosecutor had to step aside
[23:01.120 --> 23:03.120]  because he had a personal involvement.
[23:03.120 --> 23:10.120]  Okay, a citizen, non-attorney stepped forward and took his place as the prosecuting attorney.
[23:10.120 --> 23:12.120]  Okay.
[23:12.120 --> 23:19.120]  But in any case, even if we don't prosecute, it's still in Vernon's.
[23:19.120 --> 23:23.120]  All the cases I'm citing to you, I get directly, I have a complete set of Vernon's.
[23:23.120 --> 23:28.120]  So I've got the annotated from way back when as well as current.
[23:28.120 --> 23:33.120]  But when you go through this and you look at it, there are two laws dealing with the
[23:33.120 --> 23:37.120]  unauthorized practice of law as far as being a penal statute.
[23:37.120 --> 23:43.120]  That is 38.122 and 38.123 penal code.
[23:43.120 --> 23:47.120]  122 is holding oneself out to be a lawyer, which I do not do.
[23:47.120 --> 23:52.120]  123 is unauthorized practice of law.
[23:52.120 --> 23:57.120]  However, that penal code is very specific as to what it applies to.
[23:57.120 --> 24:04.120]  It only applies in the case of an individual who, while attempting to garner a personal
[24:04.120 --> 24:14.120]  financial benefit to himself, represents another for the purpose of recovery of personal injury
[24:14.120 --> 24:24.120]  damages in a personal injury suit or acts as a broker for the purpose of procuring legal
[24:24.120 --> 24:27.120]  counsel in such a suit.
[24:27.120 --> 24:29.120]  That's it.
[24:29.120 --> 24:32.120]  It has nothing to do with a criminal action at all.
[24:32.120 --> 24:37.120]  Then you go to Government Code Chapter 83, Government Code Chapter 82.
[24:37.120 --> 24:41.120]  There's two sections in there dealing with unauthorized practice of law.
[24:41.120 --> 24:49.120]  The issues there are the transfer of real property or the transfer or release of a lien.
[24:49.120 --> 24:54.120]  Again, civil issues, not criminal issues.
[24:54.120 --> 25:00.120]  Where does a judge, if I decide that he decides he wants me to act as his legal counsel in
[25:00.120 --> 25:04.120]  a court of law to defend him in a traffic ticket, he and I draw up a private contract
[25:04.120 --> 25:06.120]  between us for that purpose.
[25:06.120 --> 25:10.120]  He wants to pay me $100.
[25:10.120 --> 25:14.120]  Where does the judge get the authority to interfere with a private contract that does
[25:14.120 --> 25:23.120]  not violate any law whatsoever, nor contains any requirement that only a bar card authorized
[25:23.120 --> 25:27.120]  individual can act in that capacity?
[25:27.120 --> 25:32.120]  There is no law that lets them do it, but it's what they're doing.
[25:32.120 --> 25:37.120]  Now, again, let's consider the fact that I'm also of the understanding that a public
[25:37.120 --> 25:42.120]  servant cannot do anything he's not authorized to do by law.
[25:42.120 --> 25:51.120]  If the power to do anything is not in law, it does not exist.
[25:51.120 --> 25:59.120]  That would only be the case, or it would only be an exception, if the other things they
[25:59.120 --> 26:05.120]  do are necessary and ancillary to the delegated power.
[26:05.120 --> 26:08.120]  In other words, they're the support things that must be done before the delegated power
[26:08.120 --> 26:16.120]  can be effectively exercised, but anything that's in excess of that isn't valid.
[26:16.120 --> 26:21.120]  Now, if there's no law that prevents me from acting as his legal counsel, not as his
[26:21.120 --> 26:26.120]  attorney, not as his lawyer, but as his legal counsel, why are they telling him,
[26:26.120 --> 26:28.120]  you can't have any counsel?
[26:28.120 --> 26:33.120]  We're not going to appoint you one, and if you can't afford one, too bad.
[26:33.120 --> 26:37.120]  But you're not allowed to hire anybody you want, no matter how knowledgeable they are
[26:37.120 --> 26:40.120]  in the law, because they don't have a bar card.
[26:40.120 --> 26:43.120]  Well, slight problem, a bar card is not a license.
[26:43.120 --> 26:47.120]  A bar card is a membership dues card, okay?
[26:47.120 --> 26:53.120]  Now, Texas law allows law students who have neither a license nor a bar card to represent
[26:53.120 --> 27:01.120]  people before a court, but it's very clear, only students of selected law schools and
[27:01.120 --> 27:05.120]  levels of this can do it, all right?
[27:05.120 --> 27:06.120]  Well, how?
[27:06.120 --> 27:08.120]  Selected cases, too, are selected courts?
[27:08.120 --> 27:10.120]  It does not say that.
[27:10.120 --> 27:14.120]  It just simply says law students under these conditions, and that's it.
[27:14.120 --> 27:21.120]  But in any case, we're sitting here telling people that, or they're being told,
[27:21.120 --> 27:23.120]  they cannot have assistance of counsel.
[27:23.120 --> 27:29.120]  If they cannot hire a bar card-carrying attorney, they don't get any, which goes back to the
[27:29.120 --> 27:32.120]  whole other issue of that being a direct violation of the Texas Constitution to begin with.
[27:32.120 --> 27:38.120]  And nowhere does the Texas Constitution say that your counsel must be a lawyer or attorney.
[27:38.120 --> 27:39.120]  It doesn't say that.
[27:39.120 --> 27:41.120]  You simply have the right to assistance.
[27:41.120 --> 27:51.120]  Our Constitution says representation, but the federal Constitution says assistance of counsel, okay?
[27:51.120 --> 27:56.120]  Now, this is the part that's probably going to get you upset with me and make you think I'm nuts.
[27:56.120 --> 28:00.120]  But this has to deal with attorneys specifically in Texas.
[28:00.120 --> 28:02.120]  You're familiar with the Texas Bar Act?
[28:02.120 --> 28:03.120]  Yes.
[28:03.120 --> 28:05.120]  Do you know what year it was made?
[28:05.120 --> 28:06.120]  I don't recall the year.
[28:06.120 --> 28:08.120]  1939.
[28:08.120 --> 28:15.120]  Are you aware that 49% of the members of the legislature in the House of Representatives were
[28:15.120 --> 28:24.120]  attorneys, and that 87% in the Senate were attorneys the year that bill was passed?
[28:24.120 --> 28:26.120]  Higher now.
[28:26.120 --> 28:27.120]  Yeah.
[28:27.120 --> 28:29.120]  Now, let's analyze this for a second.
[28:29.120 --> 28:38.120]  Chapter 81 Government Code says very clearly the State Bar Act is created as an administrative
[28:38.120 --> 28:43.120]  office of the judicial branch of government.
[28:43.120 --> 28:52.120]  That puts every bar card-carrying attorney directly into the judicial branch as a judicial officer.
[28:52.120 --> 28:55.120]  No ifs, no ands, no buts.
[28:55.120 --> 29:06.120]  He can't be an officer of an administrative agency under this Department of Government without it.
[29:06.120 --> 29:08.120]  Say that again, please.
[29:08.120 --> 29:10.120]  Chapter 81 Government Code.
[29:10.120 --> 29:13.120]  This is a new issue for me.
[29:13.120 --> 29:20.120]  The State Bar is created as an administrative office of the judicial branch of government.
[29:20.120 --> 29:22.120]  Attorneys must have bar cards.
[29:22.120 --> 29:28.120]  The bar cards are issued by the bar association, which the law says is an administrative office of
[29:28.120 --> 29:30.120]  the judicial branch of government.
[29:30.120 --> 29:42.120]  As a member of the bar, that attorney is by that fact alone a de facto judicial officer.
[29:42.120 --> 29:46.120]  Now, this creates a constitutional problem.
[29:46.120 --> 29:50.120]  Article 2, Texas Constitution, Division of Powers.
[29:50.120 --> 29:58.120]  No member of any branch of government shall exert no person or collection of persons shall
[29:58.120 --> 30:05.120]  exercise any power or authority of any member of any other branch.
[30:05.120 --> 30:10.120]  So if we have lawyers in the legislature, why didn't they resign their bar cards?
[30:10.120 --> 30:12.120]  That's mandatory.
[30:12.120 --> 30:17.120]  They are violating Article 2 by sitting in the legislature while they're still active
[30:17.120 --> 30:19.120]  card-carrying attorneys.
[30:19.120 --> 30:23.120]  Same thing with them acting in the executive branch, the attorney general's office.
[30:23.120 --> 30:29.120]  How can we have an attorney as an attorney general, the executive branch of government,
[30:29.120 --> 30:33.120]  with a bar card and it not be in violation of Article 2?
[30:33.120 --> 30:38.120]  Same thing with a governor that's an attorney and so on and so forth.
[30:38.120 --> 30:42.120]  How do these issues not see the light of day in common sense?
[30:42.120 --> 30:48.120]  This is an argument that cannot be ignored because the law says this is what it is.
[30:48.120 --> 30:52.120]  Has this provision been argued before, debated publicly?
[30:52.120 --> 30:58.120]  Again, 36 some odd issues, first blush, can't find a single argument, public case on it
[30:58.120 --> 31:02.120]  whatsoever, not one.
[31:02.120 --> 31:08.120]  But here we have a severe constitutional problem with illegal legislatures.
[31:08.120 --> 31:13.120]  We're having all these enactments passed and we don't have a valid quorum of legislators.
[31:13.120 --> 31:14.120]  Why?
[31:14.120 --> 31:21.120]  Because it's peopled with attorneys and lawyers in violation of Article 2.
[31:21.120 --> 31:28.120]  How can we have a single valid legislative session since 1939 when every single one of
[31:28.120 --> 31:34.120]  them has been in violation of the state constitution?
[31:34.120 --> 31:39.120]  I had not been aware of that provision of your science.
[31:39.120 --> 31:43.120]  Well, it's right there in Chapter 81.
[31:43.120 --> 31:44.120]  Well, look at that.
[31:44.120 --> 31:52.120]  But, I mean, if you find it incorrect, how does one rectify that problem?
[31:52.120 --> 31:57.120]  I mean, you've got judges in this state that say, oh well, when everybody's disqualified,
[31:57.120 --> 32:00.120]  we'll just do it anyway.
[32:00.120 --> 32:09.120]  Well, you have to have some kind of mandamus to stop the legislature from acting.
[32:09.120 --> 32:11.120]  Yeah, but who's going to issue it?
[32:11.120 --> 32:12.120]  Right.
[32:12.120 --> 32:14.120]  Because you have to have the judge side with you.
[32:14.120 --> 32:15.120]  Exactly.
[32:15.120 --> 32:17.120]  And the judge is protected by that bar act.
[32:17.120 --> 32:21.120]  It's his bread and butter, just like it is all the attorneys.
[32:21.120 --> 32:23.120]  So there's two ways we can do this.
[32:23.120 --> 32:29.120]  Either the state bar is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers,
[32:29.120 --> 32:33.120]  but it also violates one other major provision of the Texas Constitution.
[32:33.120 --> 32:36.120]  It violates forbidden monopolies.
[32:36.120 --> 32:41.120]  The state bar is a monopoly on the practice of law.
[32:41.120 --> 32:46.120]  And the Texas Constitution forbids monopolies in any form.
[32:46.120 --> 32:49.120]  It doesn't make an exception for government.
[32:49.120 --> 32:57.120]  It says they are against free people and are forbidden in Texas.
[32:57.120 --> 33:03.120]  So you've got two major issues with the state bar act.
[33:03.120 --> 33:07.120]  I've got contacts here at the state bar.
[33:07.120 --> 33:09.120]  I'll call them and ask them their thoughts on this.
[33:09.120 --> 33:15.120]  Well, the first thing I deal with is their governmental relations with President Laney.
[33:15.120 --> 33:22.120]  Well, I would love to hear any explanation as to how that can be circumvented,
[33:22.120 --> 33:25.120]  because either our Constitution means what it says
[33:25.120 --> 33:30.120]  or it's just somebody's idea of a postcard that can just be relied on when they want to.
[33:30.120 --> 33:35.120]  And I mean, I'm sorry.
[33:35.120 --> 33:40.120]  I wasn't always the kind of individual that was wide awake and seeing what was being done to him.
[33:40.120 --> 33:44.120]  But now that I am, I'm not going back to sleep for anybody.
[33:44.120 --> 33:51.120]  And I'm not going to accept what's being done peaceably in any way, shape, or form.
[33:51.120 --> 33:57.120]  Now, of course, that tends to create additional problems for me personally,
[33:57.120 --> 34:01.120]  because I tend to stand on my rights no matter who's trying to violate them.
[34:01.120 --> 34:09.120]  And so that does not keep me in the good graces of those I encounter in public service who want to violate them.
[34:09.120 --> 34:10.120]  Now, where are you from?
[34:10.120 --> 34:11.120]  I'm from Nacogdoches.
[34:11.120 --> 34:12.120]  Are you there now?
[34:12.120 --> 34:15.120]  Well, I've been up here since sometime in October.
[34:15.120 --> 34:21.120]  We came up here for the express purpose of coming before the legislature to introduce these issues.
[34:21.120 --> 34:25.120]  And, of course, we're stonewalled at every turn getting in here.
[34:25.120 --> 34:27.120]  I take care of that.
[34:27.120 --> 34:30.120]  I've called, and I've called, and I've called.
[34:30.120 --> 34:32.120]  And you're right.
[34:32.120 --> 34:33.120]  Well, you're right.
[34:33.120 --> 34:36.120]  The high-powered lobbyists seem to have a lot of access.
[34:36.120 --> 34:38.120]  I talked to my representative.
[34:38.120 --> 34:40.120]  And you're from Austin?
[34:40.120 --> 34:42.120]  Yeah.
[34:42.120 --> 34:43.120]  What did you say?
[34:43.120 --> 34:44.120]  Kurt Robson.
[34:44.120 --> 34:45.120]  He's your Senator.
[34:45.120 --> 34:46.120]  Senator.
[34:46.120 --> 34:48.120]  And then the records include?
[34:48.120 --> 34:51.120]  It's either Eddie Rodriguez or Mark Stroma.
[34:51.120 --> 34:52.120]  Mark Stroma.
[34:52.120 --> 34:54.120]  I called Mark Stroma's office to explain similar issues.
[34:54.120 --> 34:56.120]  They don't want to hear it.
[34:56.120 --> 34:57.120]  They do not want to hear this.
[34:57.120 --> 35:00.120]  And I said, what is his job?
[35:00.120 --> 35:02.120]  Well, we hear bills.
[35:02.120 --> 35:03.120]  We do bills.
[35:03.120 --> 35:11.120]  I said, well, what if we're showing you where the law is in Europe in conflict with the Constitution?
[35:11.120 --> 35:16.120]  Well, you know, we have groups that will look at that and say, what is his job in regarding this?
[35:16.120 --> 35:19.120]  The law says once you've been made aware of it, you need to, you know, you need to...
[35:19.120 --> 35:26.120]  Speaking of the law making you aware, let's go back real quick to prosecuting attorneys for the state.
[35:26.120 --> 35:29.120]  2.03 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[35:29.120 --> 35:31.120]  Here's a real biggie.
[35:31.120 --> 35:37.120]  If we actually had district and county attorneys that did their duty under 2.03,
[35:37.120 --> 35:41.120]  I guarantee you we wouldn't be having as many public server problems as we've got.
[35:41.120 --> 35:43.120]  2.03.
[35:43.120 --> 35:50.120]  It shall be the duty of the attorney representing the state to present by information to the court having jurisdiction
[35:50.120 --> 35:55.120]  any officer for neglect or failure of any duty enjoined upon such officer
[35:55.120 --> 35:59.120]  when such neglect or failure can be presented by information.
[35:59.120 --> 36:07.120]  Whenever it shall come to the knowledge of said attorney that there has been a neglect or failure of duty upon the part of said officer
[36:07.120 --> 36:13.120]  and he shall bring to the notice of the grand jury any act of violation of law or neglect
[36:13.120 --> 36:21.120]  or failure of duty upon the part of any officer when such violation, neglect, or failure is not presented by information
[36:21.120 --> 36:27.120]  and whenever the same may come to his knowledge.
[36:27.120 --> 36:36.120]  Now any public official that violates Texas law that comes to the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney for the
[36:36.120 --> 36:42.120]  or just the attorney representing the state, they are required to either submit an information to a district court
[36:42.120 --> 36:49.120]  or if it can't be done by information because it's a felony, to send it to the grand jury.
[36:49.120 --> 36:51.120]  Now this is not optional.
[36:51.120 --> 36:54.120]  This is mandatory.
[36:54.120 --> 37:01.120]  If you go to any prosecutor and say, I'm here to press charges against a district judge for violating the law associated with the duties of his office.
[37:01.120 --> 37:03.120]  Oh, we're not going to do that.
[37:03.120 --> 37:06.120]  Why aren't you going to do that?
[37:06.120 --> 37:08.120]  Okay, it's your job under the law.
[37:08.120 --> 37:12.120]  Oh, well I just interpret that differently.
[37:12.120 --> 37:16.120]  Okay, so who's going to hold these people accountable?
[37:16.120 --> 37:20.120]  When do we start having to say so over when they do their job?
[37:20.120 --> 37:31.120]  I agree, that's your issue, is getting a voice of a group of people to all come together and agree to pursue one or all of these things.
[37:31.120 --> 37:38.120]  I have been asked to say, just because you two would not do it alone, but you know the old saying, strength is a number.
[37:38.120 --> 37:40.120]  Yes, and I agree with that.
[37:40.120 --> 37:45.120]  But the problem they're going to put us into, God willing, that doesn't happen.
[37:45.120 --> 37:49.120]  But I'm very greatly afraid that's the only choice they're leaving, as Kennedy put it.
[37:49.120 --> 37:55.120]  He who makes peaceful resolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable.
[37:55.120 --> 38:04.120]  There's going to be a series of mass midnight hangings with some public officials before too much longer that will not do what the law requires them to do,
[38:04.120 --> 38:12.120]  and are, pardon the expression, completely screwing over the people they're supposed to be protecting.
[38:12.120 --> 38:18.120]  And I'm completely afraid that's where we're going to wind up.
[38:18.120 --> 38:20.120]  Well, that's what he's talking about here in the street.
[38:20.120 --> 38:23.120]  I'll interject one thing real quick, Eddie.
[38:23.120 --> 38:25.120]  This has happened.
[38:25.120 --> 38:27.120]  A judge wouldn't follow up.
[38:27.120 --> 38:30.120]  Would not allow a gentleman in Williamson County.
[38:30.120 --> 38:31.120]  I witnessed it.
[38:31.120 --> 38:33.120]  Williamson County is tough.
[38:33.120 --> 38:34.120]  Williamson County is not tough.
[38:34.120 --> 38:36.120]  Williamson County is absolutely corrupt.
[38:36.120 --> 38:38.120]  Don Bradley.
[38:38.120 --> 38:44.120]  Well, you've got a visiting judge over there right now.
[38:44.120 --> 38:49.120]  Shies, I think his name is, who has the attorney Carolyn Barnes thrown in jail.
[38:49.120 --> 38:51.120]  He revoked her bond.
[38:51.120 --> 38:52.120]  Yeah, I saw that.
[38:52.120 --> 38:56.120]  But what you didn't see was how he tricked her into letting him do that.
[38:56.120 --> 39:00.120]  She requested that the court remove the ankle bracelet they had her on.
[39:00.120 --> 39:05.120]  They've had her on a monitoring bracelet ever since they arrested her.
[39:05.120 --> 39:14.120]  Now, she was arrested the day after she brought several Williamson County deputies up on charges for violating the rights of
[39:14.120 --> 39:19.120]  Arnaldo Garza, which is the guy she was helping in a case over there.
[39:19.120 --> 39:21.120]  She beat Williamson County.
[39:21.120 --> 39:26.120]  The very next day is when Williamson County did to her what they've done to her now.
[39:26.120 --> 39:32.120]  Well, the judge removes her ankle bracelet because they're supposed to be doing jury voir dire that day.
[39:32.120 --> 39:38.120]  After they get done with everything, Carolyn Barnes calls a witness to the stand to testify about
[39:38.120 --> 39:43.120]  whether or not this judge has an oath of office, which he's required to have.
[39:43.120 --> 39:46.120]  He hasn't had an oath of office since 1999.
[39:46.120 --> 39:52.120]  The government code says very clearly a visiting judge must take an oath of office every time he sits
[39:52.120 --> 39:55.120]  in the new location for the purpose of hearing a case.
[39:55.120 --> 39:56.120]  I know it makes sense.
[39:56.120 --> 39:58.120]  And he doesn't.
[39:58.120 --> 40:00.120]  She got a witness on the stand.
[40:00.120 --> 40:04.120]  The judge ignored the fact that he was powerless to do anything.
[40:04.120 --> 40:06.120]  He cannot sit in this case.
[40:06.120 --> 40:10.120]  But he ignored it, overruled it, and went on.
[40:10.120 --> 40:16.120]  Then after they finally decided they were not going to get the jury voir dire, he turns to Carolyn Barnes
[40:16.120 --> 40:20.120]  and says, Ms. Barnes, would you like your bracelet put back on?
[40:20.120 --> 40:27.120]  And she just looks at him and she goes, well, no, I wouldn't like it, but what choice do I have?
[40:27.120 --> 40:31.120]  And he goes, good enough.
[40:31.120 --> 40:33.120]  Your bonds are voked, take her to jail.
[40:33.120 --> 40:35.120]  That was it.
[40:35.120 --> 40:43.120]  He tricked her into saying no, she didn't want it, so he could then say she refused to allow him to do it.
[40:43.120 --> 40:47.120]  Now, this is the kind of corrupt crap they're pulling in Williamson County.
[40:47.120 --> 40:51.120]  I've got people I'm helping on several traffic tickets over there.
[40:51.120 --> 40:55.120]  Again, what the law says they're supposed to be doing, they're refusing to do.
[40:55.120 --> 40:58.120]  And they're just railroading people through the system to take their money.
[40:58.120 --> 41:01.120]  I might need to contact you if I ever get a traffic ticket.
[41:01.120 --> 41:03.120]  Please do.
[41:03.120 --> 41:06.120]  They're calling me to go upstairs.
[41:06.120 --> 41:08.120]  You may want to listen in.
[41:08.120 --> 41:10.120]  My show is on Monday nights from 8 to 10.
[41:10.120 --> 41:14.120]  You can listen to us over the Internet or on 90.1 here in Austin.
[41:14.120 --> 41:15.120]  90.1?
[41:15.120 --> 41:16.120]  Yes.
[41:16.120 --> 41:21.120]  Now, the Internet site is ruleoflawradio.com.
[41:21.120 --> 41:25.120]  If you just click on the radio picture at the top, it will take you down to the links,
[41:25.120 --> 41:27.120]  and you have a Windows-based computer.
[41:27.120 --> 41:31.120]  Okay, then just click on the Windows Media Player stream now.
[41:31.120 --> 41:34.120]  And when you click that Windows Media Player, it will say what do you want to do with the file?
[41:34.120 --> 41:40.120]  Just tell it to open it in Windows Media Player, and it will start playing the show through your computer.
[41:40.120 --> 41:41.120]  What time is that, Monday nights?
[41:41.120 --> 41:43.120]  8 to 10 on Monday nights.
[41:43.120 --> 41:46.120]  We're also on from 8 to 10 on Thursdays and 8 to midnight on Fridays.
[41:46.120 --> 41:48.120]  That's our four-hour show.
[41:48.120 --> 41:54.120]  But Monday night is my show. It's all about traffic and due process.
[41:54.120 --> 41:59.120]  And if you would take it, I'd be more than happy to give you a copy of my seminar,
[41:59.120 --> 42:03.120]  which we sell for $250 to fund the radio station.
[42:03.120 --> 42:08.120]  But I go through and I dissect the Texas traffic statutes.
[42:08.120 --> 42:11.120]  I go through and dissect where they relate to the due process procedures
[42:11.120 --> 42:14.120]  and the code of criminal procedure that aren't being followed,
[42:14.120 --> 42:19.120]  and basically draw a roadmap of exactly here is every point where you can use
[42:19.120 --> 42:23.120]  to not only beat the ticket but go back after the individuals involved
[42:23.120 --> 42:27.120]  for denying you due process and committing fraud.
[42:27.120 --> 42:33.120]  What I'm going to get you is I'm going to inform the judge it's a private contract,
[42:33.120 --> 42:37.120]  and I'm going to inform the judge you don't have the authority to violate it.
[42:37.120 --> 42:42.120]  And when the judge tells me you are not going to be allowed to assist them as legal counsel,
[42:42.120 --> 42:44.120]  I'll go in after the judge for violation of that contract,
[42:44.120 --> 42:48.120]  cautious interference.
[42:48.120 --> 42:51.120]  Thank you very much for your time.
[42:51.120 --> 42:57.120]  Well, I appreciate that.
[42:57.120 --> 43:00.120]  And hopefully I was not too incoherent in all this.
[43:00.120 --> 43:03.120]  I mean, I was pretty impressed.
[43:03.120 --> 43:06.120]  All right, folks.
[43:06.120 --> 43:09.120]  That was Eddie talking to Jesse and Sarah,
[43:09.120 --> 43:13.120]  chief legal counsel for the Speaker of the House here in Texas.
[43:13.120 --> 43:19.120]  And, wow, he pretty much let you talk for over an hour there,
[43:19.120 --> 43:23.120]  and he wasn't cutting you off or shuffling you out the door.
[43:23.120 --> 43:26.120]  That in and of itself is impressive.
[43:26.120 --> 43:28.120]  Yeah, he actually did.
[43:28.120 --> 43:33.120]  He tried very hard to make sure that he paid attention, he was coherent,
[43:33.120 --> 43:35.120]  and he absorbed what I said.
[43:35.120 --> 43:37.120]  He was taking notes like a madman over there.
[43:37.120 --> 43:40.120]  So I'm sure he's going to go fact-checking on me here,
[43:40.120 --> 43:43.120]  which I would greatly appreciate.
[43:43.120 --> 43:48.120]  Eddie, I wanted to ask you one thing as I'm listening to this.
[43:48.120 --> 43:53.120]  One thing I think that he's correct about concerning getting groups on your side
[43:53.120 --> 44:00.120]  that may already have established lobbying power in the legislature
[44:00.120 --> 44:04.120]  and concerning getting sponsored for the bill.
[44:04.120 --> 44:07.120]  I remember, I guess it was two years ago,
[44:07.120 --> 44:12.120]  when Vote Rescue was trying to get their bill passed through
[44:12.120 --> 44:17.120]  to mandate paper ballots and specific situations
[44:17.120 --> 44:19.120]  of how those would be counted in public view
[44:19.120 --> 44:22.120]  and how the results would be reported, et cetera.
[44:22.120 --> 44:28.120]  I remember what Karen went through is that basically she took the election code
[44:28.120 --> 44:34.120]  and the text version and then she did in Word or whatever word processor
[44:34.120 --> 44:38.120]  a strike-through on the language that she wanted removed from the bill
[44:38.120 --> 44:42.120]  and then to add in the language that she wanted added to the bill.
[44:42.120 --> 44:46.120]  Have you done that yet concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure
[44:46.120 --> 44:50.120]  and these other statutes that you want to see changed?
[44:50.120 --> 44:52.120]  I've done it with some of them.
[44:52.120 --> 44:57.120]  One thing is that the Justice Act that I'm working on is an entirely new act,
[44:57.120 --> 44:59.120]  all in and of itself.
[44:59.120 --> 45:03.120]  I've written that one up to go into Chapter 2
[45:03.120 --> 45:10.120]  as the new Chapter 2 of the Texas Government Code.
[45:10.120 --> 45:11.120]  Okay.
[45:11.120 --> 45:14.120]  I think that that's one thing that is going to be key
[45:14.120 --> 45:17.120]  in getting these changes put through the legislature
[45:17.120 --> 45:22.120]  because we go to the legislature with these issues
[45:22.120 --> 45:25.120]  and we can even get people to agree with us,
[45:25.120 --> 45:30.120]  but the representatives' aides are not going to want to sit there
[45:30.120 --> 45:34.120]  and try to comprehend all of this and go through the statute
[45:34.120 --> 45:36.120]  and do the strike-throughs and adding the language.
[45:36.120 --> 45:40.120]  I think that that's something that we are going to have to do on our own
[45:40.120 --> 45:45.120]  and then get a sponsor, go to these legislators and say,
[45:45.120 --> 45:48.120]  look, give them a presentation like what you did
[45:48.120 --> 45:52.120]  and then show them exactly in the statute, here's where I struck through
[45:52.120 --> 45:56.120]  and here's where I added in the language to implement these kinds of changes.
[45:56.120 --> 45:57.120]  Exactly.
[45:57.120 --> 45:58.120]  I think that that would be helpful.
[45:58.120 --> 46:00.120]  That's called a white paper.
[46:00.120 --> 46:05.120]  I thought a white paper was an explanation of the changes that you did.
[46:05.120 --> 46:07.120]  That's exactly what we're talking about.
[46:07.120 --> 46:13.120]  No, no, I'm not talking about an explanation of why you want to make the changes.
[46:13.120 --> 46:15.120]  I thought that's what a white paper is.
[46:15.120 --> 46:20.120]  The bill is actually when you strike through the language in the statute
[46:20.120 --> 46:21.120]  and add in the language you want.
[46:21.120 --> 46:24.120]  That's actually the bill itself.
[46:24.120 --> 46:25.120]  That's what I thought.
[46:25.120 --> 46:30.120]  Yeah, with some other preliminary information and things added to it, yes, that is correct.
[46:30.120 --> 46:36.120]  Because when you make a change to existing law, you don't get to just rewrite the law.
[46:36.120 --> 46:41.120]  They actually want to see what is being removed and what is replacing it.
[46:41.120 --> 46:42.120]  Right.
[46:42.120 --> 46:46.120]  And then the white paper, isn't the white paper like the explanation
[46:46.120 --> 46:49.120]  or the dissertation of why you're making those changes?
[46:49.120 --> 46:56.120]  No, the white paper is all the documentation the legislature needs to make the,
[46:56.120 --> 47:03.120]  to give him a way to present the legislation and argue for the legislation.
[47:03.120 --> 47:05.120]  So it's not just the research.
[47:05.120 --> 47:09.120]  You show him what you want to change, precisely how you want to change it,
[47:09.120 --> 47:13.120]  and why you want to change it the way you're asking.
[47:13.120 --> 47:15.120]  You don't just give him a piece of it.
[47:15.120 --> 47:18.120]  The white paper is the whole thing.
[47:18.120 --> 47:24.120]  That's how you're going to change the statute is part of the white paper.
[47:24.120 --> 47:25.120]  Okay.
[47:25.120 --> 47:28.120]  The legislators don't want to do any work.
[47:28.120 --> 47:33.120]  To their credit, they don't have time to research out issues that are important to someone else.
[47:33.120 --> 47:39.120]  So if you want them to support your issue, you have to do all their homework for them.
[47:39.120 --> 47:43.120]  Well, what kind of, sorry, go ahead.
[47:43.120 --> 47:46.120]  Bring them all the information they need to give you what you want.
[47:46.120 --> 47:57.120]  Well, what kind of groups, did he suggest any specific groups that we could go to to back us up on these types of changes?
[47:57.120 --> 48:00.120]  No, he didn't make any direct recommendations,
[48:00.120 --> 48:05.120]  but he is sending me a list of groups that are there for that purpose.
[48:05.120 --> 48:08.120]  But what I was considering after talking to him about this,
[48:08.120 --> 48:11.120]  I've been thinking about this for the last couple days,
[48:11.120 --> 48:14.120]  all the groups we could ever hope to meet are already here.
[48:14.120 --> 48:19.120]  We just need to talk to them and say, hey, you know what, what you're doing is great,
[48:19.120 --> 48:26.120]  but here's something that would ensure that we can do something about what you're doing when they won't do the right thing.
[48:26.120 --> 48:32.120]  So if your organization wouldn't mind, how about supporting our bill and help us lobby it?
[48:32.120 --> 48:39.120]  We can go to TERF, we can go to TAG, we can go to every group that's known in the Patriot community over this
[48:39.120 --> 48:42.120]  and ask them to throw their support behind the bill.
[48:42.120 --> 48:45.120]  I bet the ACLU would back it too.
[48:45.120 --> 48:49.120]  I wouldn't trust the ACLU with sealing my boots for bad weather.
[48:49.120 --> 48:51.120]  No, I wouldn't either. I wouldn't either.
[48:51.120 --> 48:57.120]  But if they do think this is a good idea and they support the bill,
[48:57.120 --> 49:04.120]  then hey, the more the merrier because they do have lobbying power.
[49:04.120 --> 49:11.120]  I mean, I wouldn't rule any group out to lobby.
[49:11.120 --> 49:15.120]  So to speak, for support for an issue like this.
[49:15.120 --> 49:23.120]  Now, if they wanted to take control of the lobbying effort and try to make changes to the mission,
[49:23.120 --> 49:26.120]  well, then certainly we couldn't allow that.
[49:26.120 --> 49:33.120]  But if we could get their endorsement and other folks' endorsement, I don't see why not.
[49:33.120 --> 49:40.120]  Yeah, as long as the bill remains intact for its purpose, I'm not going to soft-side it for anybody.
[49:40.120 --> 49:45.120]  No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.
[49:45.120 --> 49:50.120]  Well, I thought he was very receptive and he was asking questions.
[49:50.120 --> 49:58.120]  And I thought that he was really on point and especially exercising discernment of trying to figure out,
[49:58.120 --> 50:04.120]  well, regarding you and Larry's concerns, yours and Larry's concerns,
[50:04.120 --> 50:13.120]  which of these concerns can be appropriately addressed by the legislature and which concerns really can't be?
[50:13.120 --> 50:16.120]  I appreciated that discernment on his part.
[50:16.120 --> 50:18.120]  Yeah, he was very good at that.
[50:18.120 --> 50:24.120]  And yes, folks, that other voice in the background there was Papa Smurf, Larry Nelson.
[50:24.120 --> 50:26.120]  He went down there with me.
[50:26.120 --> 50:29.120]  Larry's gone with me to a lot of these meetings, in fact.
[50:29.120 --> 50:31.120]  He is very supportive.
[50:31.120 --> 50:36.120]  He is the little pit bull we need when we need it to get things done,
[50:36.120 --> 50:42.120]  because he is voracious at tracking people down through the telephone system or face-to-face conversations.
[50:42.120 --> 50:44.120]  But for some reason, people just adore him.
[50:44.120 --> 50:50.120]  I don't know why it is, but he's very useful for us and we appreciate his contribution in helping them.
[50:50.120 --> 50:56.120]  Larry has been an extreme help to this network and to many organizations.
[50:56.120 --> 51:02.120]  He helped with the 9-11 Truth event last March.
[51:02.120 --> 51:12.120]  The Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, their big conference here in Austin concerning their celebration
[51:12.120 --> 51:15.120]  of signing 1,000 architects and engineers on their petition.
[51:15.120 --> 51:18.120]  Now it's up to like 1,400, 1,500.
[51:18.120 --> 51:23.120]  But he helped with that event, and I was very thankful for that as well.
[51:23.120 --> 51:29.120]  So, yeah, big shout out there to Larry Nelson.
[51:29.120 --> 51:32.120]  Let's not say too much good about him.
[51:32.120 --> 51:34.120]  He'll get the big head.
[51:34.120 --> 51:35.120]  Well, good.
[51:35.120 --> 51:39.120]  That will make him an inch taller and almost waist high.
[51:39.120 --> 51:40.120]  All right.
[51:40.120 --> 51:51.120]  Well, folks, do you all have any more, guys, do you all have any more comments on this interaction between Eddie and Jesse and Sarah?
[51:51.120 --> 52:00.120]  I thought it was great, but every time you say his name, I keep expecting you to say Jesse Ventura.
[52:00.120 --> 52:01.120]  He didn't have quite that attitude.
[52:01.120 --> 52:03.120]  That would have been a joy to behold.
[52:03.120 --> 52:07.120]  Well, and Jesse Ventura is kicking some serious butt too with his new book,
[52:07.120 --> 52:14.120]  and he also has a lawsuit against TSA right now concerning these invasive procedures.
[52:14.120 --> 52:18.120]  So we need to definitely keep a watch on that lawsuit.
[52:18.120 --> 52:23.120]  I'm interested in watching that as it progresses.
[52:23.120 --> 52:29.120]  I would not want to be the one to have to pat down Jesse Ventura.
[52:29.120 --> 52:31.120]  Well, he's not going to allow it anymore.
[52:31.120 --> 52:35.120]  That's just the whole point.
[52:35.120 --> 52:47.120]  He is a veteran, and he has metal pieces in his body basically from surgery to repair bones and things.
[52:47.120 --> 52:50.120]  So he always sets off the metal detectors every time,
[52:50.120 --> 52:55.120]  and so then they have wanted to make him go through the naked body scanners and get groped and stuff,
[52:55.120 --> 52:57.120]  and he just says, I'm not going to do it no more.
[52:57.120 --> 53:05.120]  And so he's got a lawsuit against TSA right now because of that, and I'm really happy to see that.
[53:05.120 --> 53:12.120]  Because there are people out there that have had bones broken and shattered,
[53:12.120 --> 53:20.120]  and they have metal in their bones for the healing process that cannot be removed.
[53:20.120 --> 53:22.120]  So what are you going to do?
[53:22.120 --> 53:25.120]  These people are under constant attack when they go through the airports.
[53:25.120 --> 53:26.120]  It's just unacceptable.
[53:26.120 --> 53:29.120]  It's just unacceptable for all of us.
[53:29.120 --> 53:36.120]  Well, now that we may finally have a way of preventing ourselves from being sexually molested by these folks,
[53:36.120 --> 53:40.120]  the next time I have to go to the airport, I'm going to find someone and say, hey, I've got a flight tomorrow.
[53:40.120 --> 53:41.120]  Go ahead and tape my knuckles.
[53:41.120 --> 53:46.120]  I've got to go through a TSA checkpoint.
[53:46.120 --> 53:51.120]  Well, I am very encouraged about the TSA bill, really, because, like I said,
[53:51.120 --> 54:00.120]  we've got a third of the House has signed on to both the bill that's in the Transportation Committee,
[54:00.120 --> 54:06.120]  which would prohibit all full-body imaging devices,
[54:06.120 --> 54:14.120]  and a third of the House has already signed on to the bill, which would prohibit the touching,
[54:14.120 --> 54:24.120]  the physical contact of public servants onto the bodies of people as a means of a prerequisite
[54:24.120 --> 54:29.120]  to gain access to a public building, to a public facility.
[54:29.120 --> 54:33.120]  And so it's much stronger than a sexual assault bill.
[54:33.120 --> 54:44.120]  And, in fact, originally the bill was geared to modify the penal code regarding the subsections of assault,
[54:44.120 --> 54:54.120]  and they changed it to basically fall under the statutes that would govern public servants and official oppression,
[54:54.120 --> 55:00.120]  because the point is it doesn't matter what the intent is.
[55:00.120 --> 55:05.120]  Already right now there are laws on the books that go to intent,
[55:05.120 --> 55:14.120]  and like Judith had testified, which unfortunately showed that she wasn't quite up on the legal aspects of the situation,
[55:14.120 --> 55:16.120]  and who can blame her, who can blame anybody?
[55:16.120 --> 55:21.120]  It takes time to research these things, but it doesn't really matter what the intent of the person is,
[55:21.120 --> 55:27.120]  because there's already laws on the books that show that if a security agent
[55:27.120 --> 55:32.120]  or a public servant during the course of a search, whether it's warranted or not,
[55:32.120 --> 55:41.120]  if they inappropriately touch with a lewd intent, there's already laws on the books to prohibit that sort of thing,
[55:41.120 --> 55:44.120]  and there's already penalties for that, so that doesn't matter.
[55:44.120 --> 55:52.120]  And that's why this district attorney's testimony was basically out of line, I would say.
[55:52.120 --> 55:55.120]  It just didn't apply concerning the House Bill 1471.
[55:55.120 --> 55:57.120]  The intent doesn't matter.
[55:57.120 --> 56:01.120]  This bill would make it so that they just can't do it, period, and that's the way it should be.
[56:01.120 --> 56:03.120]  If there's no probable cause, you don't touch me.
[56:03.120 --> 56:05.120]  That's just all there is to it.
[56:05.120 --> 56:07.120]  It's the way it's got to be.
[56:07.120 --> 56:09.120]  I mean, otherwise...
[56:09.120 --> 56:10.120]  Go ahead, Debra.
[56:10.120 --> 56:14.120]  No, I was just going to say, otherwise, things are going to get totally out of control.
[56:14.120 --> 56:19.120]  They're already working on the technology for full-body scanning,
[56:19.120 --> 56:25.120]  where the rays penetrate several inches deep into your body so that they can try to determine
[56:25.120 --> 56:28.120]  whether or not you've swallowed something or put something in a body cavity.
[56:28.120 --> 56:30.120]  I mean, folks, you can't do that.
[56:30.120 --> 56:36.120]  I mean, full-body X-raying and millimeter wave technology, which is radio waves,
[56:36.120 --> 56:43.120]  which is on the other side of the visible light spectrum, these types of radiation,
[56:43.120 --> 56:50.120]  it is unprecedented use even in the medical industry, and these TSA agents
[56:50.120 --> 56:55.120]  and the operations of these machines, they're not being held to OSHA requirements
[56:55.120 --> 57:01.120]  or any of the other laws that govern or regulations that govern the use of medical equipment.
[57:01.120 --> 57:07.120]  I mean, dousing somebody with radiation, full-body, is unprecedented in the medical industry,
[57:07.120 --> 57:11.120]  even with chiropractors and orthopedics.
[57:11.120 --> 57:18.120]  They never do that unless it is the last resort necessary to take full-body X-ray.
[57:18.120 --> 57:20.120]  I mean, this is just outrageous.
[57:20.120 --> 57:24.120]  I mean, I can't believe we're having to talk about this, but this is what our country has come to.
[57:24.120 --> 57:28.120]  So I'm very happy to see the legislature is standing up to this,
[57:28.120 --> 57:35.120]  and like I told them in the committee hearing in response to John Rollins' statement
[57:35.120 --> 57:38.120]  that they could be starting a fight because the feds are going to try to remove it
[57:38.120 --> 57:41.120]  and these sorts of things, I told them, you know what?
[57:41.120 --> 57:44.120]  Maybe it's time we started a fight, okay?
[57:44.120 --> 57:52.120]  Maybe it's time we started a fight because if we don't, it's just going to lose everything.
[57:52.120 --> 57:56.120]  So at any rate, when we're coming up to the top of the hour break here, folks,
[57:56.120 --> 58:06.120]  and when we get back on the other side, I am going to play the audio from the hearing on House Bill 1471,
[58:06.120 --> 58:12.120]  which would amend the penal code, official oppression 22.03,
[58:12.120 --> 58:21.120]  to make it such that if a victim of official oppression suffered bodily injury from the public servant
[58:21.120 --> 58:26.120]  while the public servant was acting, committed official oppression in the line of,
[58:26.120 --> 58:33.120]  in his official capacity under color of law, if there was bodily injury inflicted,
[58:33.120 --> 58:38.120]  official oppression, they could be charged with a class C felony, I'm sorry, a third degree felony
[58:38.120 --> 58:44.120]  or a second degree felony depending on the severity of the bodily injury.
[58:44.120 --> 58:49.120]  And Eddie testified, and this is just, there is some incredible testimony and information,
[58:49.120 --> 58:55.120]  so I would like to play some of this testimony of this hearing on House Bill 1471 when we get back.
[58:55.120 --> 58:59.120]  This is the rule of law, April 15, 2011, we'll be right back on the other side.
[58:59.120 --> 59:04.120]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[59:04.120 --> 59:07.120]  because they struggle to understand it.
[59:07.120 --> 59:10.120]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[59:10.120 --> 59:15.120]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:15.120 --> 59:18.120]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:18.120 --> 59:22.120]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:22.120 --> 59:27.120]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:27.120 --> 59:31.120]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:31.120 --> 59:37.120]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:37.120 --> 59:42.120]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:42.120 --> 59:52.120]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:52.120 --> 59:56.120]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:56.120 --> 59:59.120]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:59.120 --> 01:00:04.120]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Network.
[01:00:04.120 --> 01:00:08.120]  BP executives faced angry protests from shareholders in London this week,
[01:00:08.120 --> 01:00:13.120]  days before the first anniversary of the BP disaster that killed 11 workers
[01:00:13.120 --> 01:00:17.120]  and spewed five million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
[01:00:17.120 --> 01:00:23.120]  Diane Wilson, a fourth generation fisher from Texas, one of several who bought shares in BP
[01:00:23.120 --> 01:00:29.120]  in order to attend the meeting, was ejected after covering her face with oil-like syrup.
[01:00:29.120 --> 01:00:34.120]  The Federal Reserve said Wednesday it had taken enforcement action against 10 banks
[01:00:34.120 --> 01:00:41.120]  over, quote, a pattern of misconduct and negligence related to residential mortgage loans and foreclosures.
[01:00:41.120 --> 01:00:46.120]  The Fed said, quote, these deficiencies represented significant and pervasive compliance failures
[01:00:46.120 --> 01:00:49.120]  and unsafe and unsound practices.
[01:00:49.120 --> 01:00:54.120]  The banks include Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.
[01:00:54.120 --> 01:01:00.120]  In Yemen's capital Sana'a, hundreds of thousands took part in an anti-regime protest Friday
[01:01:00.120 --> 01:01:03.120]  demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh's ouster.
[01:01:03.120 --> 01:01:09.120]  Saleh, in power since 1978, has warned of the breakup of Yemen if he is forced to step aside
[01:01:09.120 --> 01:01:13.120]  before organizing parliamentary and presidential elections over the next year.
[01:01:13.120 --> 01:01:17.120]  The opposition says enough is enough.
[01:01:17.120 --> 01:01:22.120]  As Congress fought over the federal budget last week, the Pentagon quietly issued a report
[01:01:22.120 --> 01:01:26.120]  entitled, A National Strategic Narrative.
[01:01:26.120 --> 01:01:31.120]  The report, written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the pseudonym
[01:01:31.120 --> 01:01:38.120]  Mr. Y, is a takeoff of diplomat George Kennan's 1946 long telegram from Moscow
[01:01:38.120 --> 01:01:43.120]  that helped set containment as the cornerstone U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union.
[01:01:43.120 --> 01:01:48.120]  The narrative argues Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism,
[01:01:48.120 --> 01:01:52.120]  under-investing in their youth and failing to embrace the sense of competition
[01:01:52.120 --> 01:01:56.120]  and opportunity that made America a world power.
[01:01:56.120 --> 01:02:01.120]  Instead of pumping more money into defense, Mr. Y says the U.S. should create, quote,
[01:02:01.120 --> 01:02:06.120]  a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services
[01:02:06.120 --> 01:02:11.120]  to provide for the continuing development and growth of America's youth.
[01:02:11.120 --> 01:02:16.120]  The New York Times reported Friday that as the U.S. poured billions of dollars' worth
[01:02:16.120 --> 01:02:21.120]  of military aid into Arab dictatorships, it spent a paltry sum on organizations
[01:02:21.120 --> 01:02:24.120]  allegedly promoting democracy.
[01:02:24.120 --> 01:02:29.120]  Officials claim U.S. democracy building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests
[01:02:29.120 --> 01:02:33.120]  than has been previously acknowledged. Institutes loosely affiliated with the Republican
[01:02:33.120 --> 01:02:38.120]  and Democratic parties are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy
[01:02:38.120 --> 01:02:45.120]  to train grassroots campaigners abroad in networking and organizing skills.
[01:02:45.120 --> 01:02:51.120]  But critics say the programs are established to promote U.S. interests, not democracy.
[01:02:51.120 --> 01:02:56.120]  In 2003, whistleblowing former CIA agent Philip Agee named the National Endowment
[01:02:56.120 --> 01:03:00.120]  for Democracy as a CIA operation.
[01:03:00.120 --> 01:03:09.120]  For more details on these stories, visit www.inmworldrecord.net.
[01:03:09.120 --> 01:03:16.120]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com,
[01:03:16.120 --> 01:03:20.120]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:03:20.120 --> 01:03:49.120]  Music
[01:03:49.120 --> 01:03:52.120]  Okay folks, we are back.
[01:03:52.120 --> 01:03:57.120]  And we want to say we thank you callers, listeners, for being patient with us.
[01:03:57.120 --> 01:04:00.120]  We're probably not going to be able to take any calls tonight.
[01:04:00.120 --> 01:04:06.120]  We spend most of our shows doing nothing but calls, but sometimes we reserve the right
[01:04:06.120 --> 01:04:11.120]  to actually present some material and play some audio clips of some situations
[01:04:11.120 --> 01:04:16.120]  that we feel are very pertinent for the education of our listeners.
[01:04:16.120 --> 01:04:21.120]  We want you all to hear excerpts from some of these committee hearings
[01:04:21.120 --> 01:04:26.120]  so that you all can get the idea of what it's like to interact with the legislature
[01:04:26.120 --> 01:04:31.120]  if you've never done so before so that you can realize that it's really not all that scary
[01:04:31.120 --> 01:04:37.120]  and that it can actually be fun and that it does do some good.
[01:04:37.120 --> 01:04:39.120]  These folks really do listen to us.
[01:04:39.120 --> 01:04:46.120]  I mean an hour and 15 minutes this Chief Counsel for the Speaker of the House listened to Eddie
[01:04:46.120 --> 01:04:49.120]  and interacted with him and was very interested in taking notes.
[01:04:49.120 --> 01:04:53.120]  And I can testify from my own experience with these committee hearings,
[01:04:53.120 --> 01:04:59.120]  the legislators are very interested in hearing what we have to say and they're taking notes.
[01:04:59.120 --> 01:05:02.120]  And I can tell when they're faking it and when they're not.
[01:05:02.120 --> 01:05:05.120]  And for the most part, they're not.
[01:05:05.120 --> 01:05:12.120]  I know that there are some bad eggs, but there are a lot of good eggs too concerning the legislature.
[01:05:12.120 --> 01:05:15.120]  And they really do mean well, especially in the House.
[01:05:15.120 --> 01:05:20.120]  So I believe that it's very pertinent, it's very important to interact with them.
[01:05:20.120 --> 01:05:24.120]  It means a lot when citizens go up and speak in these committee hearings.
[01:05:24.120 --> 01:05:27.120]  Personally, I think it's more important than voting.
[01:05:27.120 --> 01:05:29.120]  You really have a chance to have your voice heard.
[01:05:29.120 --> 01:05:31.120]  It makes a big difference.
[01:05:31.120 --> 01:05:35.120]  So what I'd like to play now is part of a hearing,
[01:05:35.120 --> 01:05:37.120]  I'm not going to play the whole thing, there's not enough time,
[01:05:37.120 --> 01:05:43.120]  of the hearing on House Bill 1471, which would, like I explained before,
[01:05:43.120 --> 01:05:48.120]  allow for felony penalties, third degree and second degree, for official oppression.
[01:05:48.120 --> 01:05:51.120]  It would modify the official oppression statute here in Texas,
[01:05:51.120 --> 01:05:53.120]  which is one of Randy's favorite statutes,
[01:05:53.120 --> 01:05:58.120]  in the situation where bodily harm is inflicted during the course of official oppression.
[01:05:58.120 --> 01:06:05.120]  Now one thing that has been noted by Randy and Eddie is that there is already law on the books
[01:06:05.120 --> 01:06:10.120]  concerning aggravated assault being committed by a public servant
[01:06:10.120 --> 01:06:13.120]  while he or she is acting under color of law.
[01:06:13.120 --> 01:06:20.120]  In other words, while he or she is acting within their scope of their official duties
[01:06:20.120 --> 01:06:23.120]  or official capacities, if they commit aggravated assault,
[01:06:23.120 --> 01:06:26.120]  they can already be charged with a first degree felony.
[01:06:26.120 --> 01:06:32.120]  However, the reason there's a big push for this Bill 1471 is because right now
[01:06:32.120 --> 01:06:39.120]  there is splashing across the news in Houston a highly publicized case
[01:06:39.120 --> 01:06:44.120]  of what they want to call police brutality, when technically it's assault,
[01:06:44.120 --> 01:06:51.120]  where there was seven police officers, HPD, that brutally assaulted
[01:06:51.120 --> 01:06:56.120]  and beat a 15-year-old boy after he had been handcuffed
[01:06:56.120 --> 01:07:01.120]  and was face down with his arms out in front of him for over a minute and a half,
[01:07:01.120 --> 01:07:06.120]  and the prosecutors in Harris County made a public statement at a press conference
[01:07:06.120 --> 01:07:13.120]  and have told the family of the boy that all they can charge the officers with is official oppression.
[01:07:13.120 --> 01:07:15.120]  That in and of itself is a lie.
[01:07:15.120 --> 01:07:17.120]  I don't know if these prosecutors are just uninformed
[01:07:17.120 --> 01:07:22.120]  or if they're purposefully misinforming the public in their press statements,
[01:07:22.120 --> 01:07:25.120]  but either way it has the same result.
[01:07:25.120 --> 01:07:30.120]  They're trying to say that they can only charge these officers with official oppression,
[01:07:30.120 --> 01:07:34.120]  and the highest penalty or the highest sentence would be a Class A misdemeanor,
[01:07:34.120 --> 01:07:37.120]  and so that's why there's a big push for this Bill.
[01:07:37.120 --> 01:07:42.120]  And Eddie brought up at the committee hearing that there's already law on the books
[01:07:42.120 --> 01:07:48.120]  concerning aggravated assault that is a Class A felony,
[01:07:48.120 --> 01:07:55.120]  a first-degree felony for public servants who commit aggravated assault during the course of their,
[01:07:55.120 --> 01:07:57.120]  if they're acting under color of law.
[01:07:57.120 --> 01:08:00.120]  But apparently these prosecutors either don't know about that law
[01:08:00.120 --> 01:08:03.120]  or they're pretending like they don't know about this law,
[01:08:03.120 --> 01:08:05.120]  and so that's why there's a big push for this Bill,
[01:08:05.120 --> 01:08:07.120]  and I think it's a good idea personally.
[01:08:07.120 --> 01:08:08.120]  Oh, they know.
[01:08:08.120 --> 01:08:11.120]  They have to know, okay? They have to know.
[01:08:11.120 --> 01:08:13.120]  All right, they absolutely have to know,
[01:08:13.120 --> 01:08:20.120]  and one of the expert witnesses at this hearing was a pastor, D.Z. Cofield,
[01:08:20.120 --> 01:08:25.120]  who is, he is the pastor of the Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church.
[01:08:25.120 --> 01:08:27.120]  He is working with the family,
[01:08:27.120 --> 01:08:30.120]  and he is going to be a guest on our show this coming Wednesday,
[01:08:30.120 --> 01:08:35.120]  and we are going to discuss how the family can file criminal complaints
[01:08:35.120 --> 01:08:43.120]  for aggravated assault, first-degree felony under the Penal Code, Section 2202, Paragraph A,
[01:08:43.120 --> 01:08:47.120]  for the assault that was committed against their son.
[01:08:47.120 --> 01:08:54.120]  But in the meantime, I'm going to play this clip here up until the point where Eddie finishes his testimony.
[01:08:54.120 --> 01:09:02.120]  It's about 35, 40 minutes long, and folks, the gem in this clip is the grilling
[01:09:02.120 --> 01:09:07.120]  of a Harris County District Attorney by the legislature.
[01:09:07.120 --> 01:09:10.120]  Folks, Randy has always talked about the chicken dance, okay,
[01:09:10.120 --> 01:09:12.120]  for the last four years that we've been on the air.
[01:09:12.120 --> 01:09:22.120]  Folks, you have not seen a chicken dance until you have seen a district attorney being grilled,
[01:09:22.120 --> 01:09:29.120]  fried by the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the legislature of the state of Texas.
[01:09:29.120 --> 01:09:31.120]  This was the chicken dance to end all chicken dance.
[01:09:31.120 --> 01:09:34.120]  I mean, I'm telling you what, this was the grilling, the frying.
[01:09:34.120 --> 01:09:38.120]  I mean, it was roasted district attorney, I'm telling you.
[01:09:38.120 --> 01:09:42.120]  It was so funny, and it was even funnier the second time I heard it last night when I was editing.
[01:09:42.120 --> 01:09:44.120]  It was absolutely unbelievable.
[01:09:44.120 --> 01:09:50.120]  As soon as one legislator finished, the next one would start, the next one would start, the next one would start.
[01:09:50.120 --> 01:09:55.120]  I mean, the guy, the DA, was hopping back and forth on one foot to the next so fast.
[01:09:55.120 --> 01:09:59.120]  I mean, it was hilarious beyond belief.
[01:09:59.120 --> 01:10:01.120]  At any rate, here we go.
[01:10:01.120 --> 01:10:04.120]  This is the Committee hearing, Criminal Jurisprudence Committee hearing,
[01:10:04.120 --> 01:10:09.120]  this past Tuesday night on House Bill 1471.
[01:10:09.120 --> 01:10:20.120]  The Chair recognizes House Bill 1471 and author, Representative Miles, to lay out the bill.
[01:10:20.120 --> 01:10:30.120]  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.
[01:10:30.120 --> 01:10:42.120]  HB 1471 amends Section 39.03 of the penal code, enhancing the penalty prescribed for police officers who commit an official oppression.
[01:10:42.120 --> 01:10:49.120]  Under this bill, if a police officer causes a bodily injury to another that will constitute a third degree felony,
[01:10:49.120 --> 01:10:55.120]  if the cause is serious bodily injury, that will constitute a second degree felony under this bill.
[01:10:55.120 --> 01:11:00.120]  Also under this bill, the bodily injury is defined by the penal code,
[01:11:00.120 --> 01:11:05.120]  means physical pain, illness, or impact, impairment of physical condition.
[01:11:05.120 --> 01:11:12.120]  Serious bodily injury means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death,
[01:11:12.120 --> 01:11:20.120]  serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss of impairment of the functional of any body members or organs,
[01:11:20.120 --> 01:11:25.120]  which you all already know that most of you all are DAs and attorneys sitting up there.
[01:11:25.120 --> 01:11:30.120]  The Committee substitute amends subsection B of the bill by adding and clarifying language
[01:11:30.120 --> 01:11:35.120]  that will make the enhanced penalties only applicable to the licensed police officer,
[01:11:35.120 --> 01:11:38.120]  only applicable to the licensed police officers.
[01:11:38.120 --> 01:11:48.120]  Currently, under the Texas Penal Code, a penalty related to official oppression by a public servant
[01:11:48.120 --> 01:11:55.120]  acting under the color of an officer for employment is a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:11:55.120 --> 01:11:59.120]  In the past weeks, I'm sure that many of you have heard or seen the footage of a brutal beating
[01:11:59.120 --> 01:12:04.120]  of a 15-year-old boy, Chad Holly, by Houston police officers as he laid face down
[01:12:04.120 --> 01:12:08.120]  with his arms stretched out in a surrender position.
[01:12:08.120 --> 01:12:15.120]  And my staff will provide you with copies of the DVDs since we were unable to show them here in the Committee.
[01:12:15.120 --> 01:12:20.120]  So you have your own personal copy to go back and view and take time to look at and understand
[01:12:20.120 --> 01:12:25.120]  the allegations of what we're talking about and the importance of us having to change this bill, Mr. Chairman.
[01:12:25.120 --> 01:12:28.120]  The police officer involved not only demonstrated excessive force,
[01:12:28.120 --> 01:12:35.120]  but their actions were blatant, abuse of power, and showed entrained infants of human life.
[01:12:35.120 --> 01:12:40.120]  For the officers were only charged with a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:12:40.120 --> 01:12:43.120]  They were only charged with a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:12:43.120 --> 01:12:48.120]  It is incomprehensible that under the current law, if a citizen attacks a police officer,
[01:12:48.120 --> 01:12:51.120]  the charges of a felony will be charged on them.
[01:12:51.120 --> 01:12:55.120]  But the officer who was sworn to serve the protected and act under the citizens
[01:12:55.120 --> 01:13:01.120]  is only charged with a Class A, only with a Class A.
[01:13:01.120 --> 01:13:06.120]  Police officers should be held to a much higher standard than ordinary citizens.
[01:13:06.120 --> 01:13:11.120]  They take on the duty and commitment to provide for the safety and well-being of each and every individual.
[01:13:11.120 --> 01:13:17.120]  And when one of those violates the infringement of disregard, the oath they have made,
[01:13:17.120 --> 01:13:21.120]  there is no doubt that they should be held accountable to the highest degree.
[01:13:21.120 --> 01:13:26.120]  Myself, I'm a former police officer trained at San Francisco State University in law enforcement police science,
[01:13:26.120 --> 01:13:32.120]  so I have a little background on that, Mr. Chairman, on how we should be operating and conducting ourselves.
[01:13:32.120 --> 01:13:38.120]  Members, this bill comes from the outcry of Texas citizens who have been brutalized by the hands of low police officers
[01:13:38.120 --> 01:13:43.120]  and have seen many of them go unpunished across this great state of Texas.
[01:13:43.120 --> 01:13:46.120]  Now, I know that we have many good law enforcement officers in this state,
[01:13:46.120 --> 01:13:50.120]  but this legislation is designed to ensure that the bad ones are punished.
[01:13:50.120 --> 01:13:54.120]  This bill has no fiscal note, no fiscal impact on the state whatsoever.
[01:13:54.120 --> 01:13:56.120]  It has no impact on the criminal justice,
[01:13:56.120 --> 01:14:00.120]  no fiscal impact on the program for workload of the state correction agencies,
[01:14:00.120 --> 01:14:02.120]  or on the demand of the resources and services.
[01:14:02.120 --> 01:14:07.120]  Mr. Chairman, I have several expert resources, witnesses here today,
[01:14:07.120 --> 01:14:09.120]  and I reserve the right to close at a little later time.
[01:14:09.120 --> 01:14:10.120]  Thank you.
[01:14:10.120 --> 01:14:14.120]  Any questions, members?
[01:14:14.120 --> 01:14:16.120]  Thank you, Michelle.
[01:14:16.120 --> 01:14:21.120]  We need to lay out the substitute, and have that, I failed to lay out the substitute,
[01:14:21.120 --> 01:14:22.120]  but we'll do that so we're legal.
[01:14:22.120 --> 01:14:24.120]  Please, Mr. Chairman, we'll have a point of order.
[01:14:24.120 --> 01:14:25.120]  That's right.
[01:14:25.120 --> 01:14:26.120]  Thank you.
[01:14:26.120 --> 01:14:32.120]  And Ms. Carter lays out the substitute for House Bill 1471, and it's now laid out.
[01:14:32.120 --> 01:14:33.120]  Thank you.
[01:14:33.120 --> 01:14:34.120]  So we're legal.
[01:14:34.120 --> 01:14:36.120]  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[01:14:36.120 --> 01:14:43.120]  Okay, the Chair calls Kevin Petroff with the Harris County District Attorney's Office to speak neutral on the bill.
[01:14:43.120 --> 01:14:46.120]  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. My name is Kevin Petroff.
[01:14:46.120 --> 01:14:48.120]  I am with the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
[01:14:48.120 --> 01:14:53.120]  I'm here today as a resource witness just to discuss how this differs.
[01:14:53.120 --> 01:15:01.120]  Texas does have a couple of separate laws that can be violated by only public servants and police officers.
[01:15:01.120 --> 01:15:05.120]  Those include official oppression, abuse of official capacity.
[01:15:05.120 --> 01:15:10.120]  In addition to that, a police officer can be charged with a crime just as anyone else can.
[01:15:10.120 --> 01:15:15.120]  I think this bill under 1471 targets police officers only.
[01:15:15.120 --> 01:15:20.120]  However, it doesn't exclude them from being charged by any other offense currently within the code,
[01:15:20.120 --> 01:15:29.120]  and it does up a level significantly currently if an individual non-public servant commits an assault by bodily injury.
[01:15:29.120 --> 01:15:31.120]  It's a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:15:31.120 --> 01:15:34.120]  This has, if it's a police officer acting under the color of duty,
[01:15:34.120 --> 01:15:40.120]  it bumps it up to a third degree with serious bodily injury being bumped up to a second degree,
[01:15:40.120 --> 01:15:47.120]  and that would include things like loss of organs, permanent disfigurement, things of that nature, risk of death.
[01:15:47.120 --> 01:15:51.120]  I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[01:15:51.120 --> 01:15:54.120]  Any questions, members? Ms. Davis.
[01:15:54.120 --> 01:15:59.120]  Under official oppression, how would you, tell me, what do you think is appropriate?
[01:15:59.120 --> 01:16:04.120]  When we think in terms of police officers, we think in terms of somebody who's going to be protecting us,
[01:16:04.120 --> 01:16:12.120]  and so when they violate that code and under the color of their uniform end up being involved in something
[01:16:12.120 --> 01:16:18.120]  that appears to be official oppression, what's the appropriate mechanism in your judgment?
[01:16:18.120 --> 01:16:20.120]  Well, and we're here neutrally.
[01:16:20.120 --> 01:16:24.120]  I think in large part because of the case that you have the DVD that comes out of Harris County.
[01:16:24.120 --> 01:16:27.120]  It's a case that we're currently prosecuting, so I can't get into specifics.
[01:16:27.120 --> 01:16:32.120]  When you talk about the case, how would you talk about specifically what you think beyond this case
[01:16:32.120 --> 01:16:35.120]  or other cases that have occurred, this is just the one before us,
[01:16:35.120 --> 01:16:41.120]  but what do you think is the appropriate way that we would deal with official oppression?
[01:16:41.120 --> 01:16:46.120]  Well, official oppression currently really deals primarily with three things.
[01:16:46.120 --> 01:16:53.120]  It deals with mistreatment, unlawful mistreatment of an inmate or a prisoner or someone in their custody.
[01:16:53.120 --> 01:16:57.120]  It also includes denying them a right, a lawful right.
[01:16:57.120 --> 01:17:00.120]  And then finally there's a lot of it deals with sexual harassment.
[01:17:00.120 --> 01:17:05.120]  This is the first time I think bodily injury comes into play,
[01:17:05.120 --> 01:17:11.120]  and so I certainly understand the argument that there should be an enhancement for that type of injury
[01:17:11.120 --> 01:17:15.120]  for those who are being paid and entrusted for the public safety.
[01:17:15.120 --> 01:17:21.120]  But this isn't the first case where there's been official oppression in terms of someone being harmed.
[01:17:21.120 --> 01:17:23.120]  I'm sure you're not saying that are you?
[01:17:23.120 --> 01:17:27.120]  No, no, I'm saying that the current statute is limited really to those three things.
[01:17:27.120 --> 01:17:29.120]  It doesn't speak to actual physical injury.
[01:17:29.120 --> 01:17:32.120]  And so my question to you was then appropriately,
[01:17:32.120 --> 01:17:40.120]  what do you think is an appropriate thing to do based on those kinds of activities that they do under the color law?
[01:17:40.120 --> 01:17:44.120]  I know the statute doesn't speak to it, which is why we're dealing with it today,
[01:17:44.120 --> 01:17:50.120]  and since you're neutral on it, I'm wanting to know what you think is an appropriate measure to take
[01:17:50.120 --> 01:17:54.120]  given that this is something we see occurring quite often
[01:17:54.120 --> 01:18:01.120]  and always gets kind of dismissed as being really an issue of oppression, official oppression.
[01:18:01.120 --> 01:18:06.120]  So from your perspective, what do you think is an appropriate way to move this
[01:18:06.120 --> 01:18:10.120]  because certainly this is something we really need to be dealing with.
[01:18:10.120 --> 01:18:12.120]  And let me just clarify what you're asking.
[01:18:12.120 --> 01:18:15.120]  You're asking me what I believe the proper penalty range should be
[01:18:15.120 --> 01:18:18.120]  or if there's different wardings that there should be.
[01:18:18.120 --> 01:18:23.120]  You said that you were on the bill because it dealt with official oppression
[01:18:23.120 --> 01:18:27.120]  and it didn't usually include bodily harm,
[01:18:27.120 --> 01:18:35.120]  and such that we're now talking about the inclusion of bodily harm or extreme bodily harm.
[01:18:35.120 --> 01:18:37.120]  What do you think is an appropriate way?
[01:18:37.120 --> 01:18:40.120]  How do we handle it since it's not currently in statute?
[01:18:40.120 --> 01:18:45.120]  And what we're attempting to do is address that kind of activity.
[01:18:45.120 --> 01:18:48.120]  I'm wanting to know, from your perspective,
[01:18:48.120 --> 01:18:54.120]  what would be what you deem an appropriate way to deal with it?
[01:18:54.120 --> 01:18:58.120]  I certainly am not up here to tell you that the bill,
[01:18:58.120 --> 01:19:01.120]  House Bill 1471, from Representative Miles, is inappropriate.
[01:19:01.120 --> 01:19:08.120]  I think that what this bill would require us as prosecutors to prove is that,
[01:19:08.120 --> 01:19:10.120]  first of all, the person is a public servant.
[01:19:10.120 --> 01:19:15.120]  And the important thing is that they were acting under the color of their office at the time
[01:19:15.120 --> 01:19:17.120]  in committing this offense.
[01:19:17.120 --> 01:19:21.120]  So we don't obviously have any opposition to that.
[01:19:21.120 --> 01:19:30.120]  And so my question is, based on your having to prove that they were acting under the color of law,
[01:19:30.120 --> 01:19:35.120]  tell me what I'm missing in terms of you being supportive of this.
[01:19:35.120 --> 01:19:40.120]  Why is this something that you can't be supportive of from the district attorneys
[01:19:40.120 --> 01:19:44.120]  who said you need to prove that they're operating under the color of law?
[01:19:44.120 --> 01:19:47.120]  I see. I think I understand.
[01:19:47.120 --> 01:19:52.120]  I'm testifying today neutrally on the bill to sort of explain the practical effects.
[01:19:52.120 --> 01:19:55.120]  This is a big issue in Houston right now.
[01:19:55.120 --> 01:19:58.120]  It's a big case that is, of course, of pending and that we are prosecuting.
[01:19:58.120 --> 01:20:04.120]  For those reasons, I believe for those reasons, I have been asked to only testify neutrally.
[01:20:04.120 --> 01:20:06.120]  That's about the only answer I can give you.
[01:20:06.120 --> 01:20:09.120]  Okay. Well, I was really wanting to be clear.
[01:20:09.120 --> 01:20:11.120]  I wasn't asking you to talk about the case.
[01:20:11.120 --> 01:20:15.120]  I was wanting to talk about the activity that brought the case forward.
[01:20:15.120 --> 01:20:19.120]  And to the extent that that's something you're familiar with as a district attorney,
[01:20:19.120 --> 01:20:25.120]  you would be able to determine what's an appropriate way for us to approach this.
[01:20:25.120 --> 01:20:29.120]  I was trying to get you to go in terms of...
[01:20:29.120 --> 01:20:31.120]  I'm not arguing that this isn't appropriate.
[01:20:31.120 --> 01:20:38.120]  I mean, I think to classify certain offenses that are specific to public servants,
[01:20:38.120 --> 01:20:41.120]  and in this case specific to police officers,
[01:20:41.120 --> 01:20:48.120]  all this would additionally require us to prove is that they were acting under the color of their office.
[01:20:48.120 --> 01:20:51.120]  And it has the enhanced penalties as well.
[01:20:51.120 --> 01:20:58.120]  Is that a standard that you can meet in terms of determining whether or not they're acting under color law?
[01:20:58.120 --> 01:21:04.120]  Absolutely. And frankly, with police officers, it's a lot easier because there are uniforms involved.
[01:21:04.120 --> 01:21:06.120]  So that always helps.
[01:21:06.120 --> 01:21:09.120]  And there are clocks to determine when they're on duty and off duty.
[01:21:09.120 --> 01:21:14.120]  So all of that are things that you might see in evidence.
[01:21:14.120 --> 01:21:18.120]  Okay. So I guess my last question is, do you think...
[01:21:18.120 --> 01:21:24.120]  Tell me how would we move forward if we wanted to prosecute this kind of crime?
[01:21:24.120 --> 01:21:28.120]  I mean, tell me how would we move forward?
[01:21:28.120 --> 01:21:33.120]  And the reason I'm really trying to understand this is because you all can be part of the solution
[01:21:33.120 --> 01:21:36.120]  or part of the problem, as I see it.
[01:21:36.120 --> 01:21:44.120]  And so I'm wanting to understand from your perspective a means in which to reach a solution to address that issue.
[01:21:44.120 --> 01:21:50.120]  I think that this does not create a standard that we could never meet.
[01:21:50.120 --> 01:21:59.120]  This is a law under this bill, 1471, that the state can prove and often does prove for the non-injury cases
[01:21:59.120 --> 01:22:04.120]  that involve, as I said currently, the sexual harassment or denying a right.
[01:22:04.120 --> 01:22:08.120]  And I will say when we talk about denying a right or just basic mistreatment,
[01:22:08.120 --> 01:22:16.120]  that can be sometimes difficult to prove because it is a rather vague notion when we're talking about mistreatment.
[01:22:16.120 --> 01:22:20.120]  A serious bodily injury is certainly a lot less vague. Does someone feel pain?
[01:22:20.120 --> 01:22:24.120]  Serious bodily injury, generally we're looking at medical records and medical treatment.
[01:22:24.120 --> 01:22:28.120]  So I think there are things within this bill that would certainly allow us to enforce it.
[01:22:28.120 --> 01:22:36.120]  Do you have any knowledge of the number of cases you all have prosecuted under official oppression?
[01:22:36.120 --> 01:22:39.120]  Would the police help you? Do you have any idea of what that looks like?
[01:22:39.120 --> 01:22:45.120]  I don't have those numbers, but those are numbers that I can get you and I'll be happy to provide your office with that.
[01:22:45.120 --> 01:22:53.120]  I'm just curious if this is something you're doing, but it's under, can you tell me which one you typically do,
[01:22:53.120 --> 01:23:00.120]  mistreatment, sexual harassment? Is it ever about abuse where you beat somebody down?
[01:23:00.120 --> 01:23:05.120]  I think like many large offices, we have a separate division.
[01:23:05.120 --> 01:23:09.120]  Ours is called Public Integrity Division. Everybody else is called something different.
[01:23:09.120 --> 01:23:13.120]  Where we focus on public servants that commit crimes.
[01:23:13.120 --> 01:23:17.120]  We also have in Harris County a separate division called Civil Rights Division,
[01:23:17.120 --> 01:23:23.120]  which is geared more towards, I think what this bill is addressing, which is police officers.
[01:23:23.120 --> 01:23:28.120]  That's what common folks like me would call brutality under oppression.
[01:23:28.120 --> 01:23:34.120]  If there is a claim of brutality, then our Civil Rights Division does investigate that.
[01:23:34.120 --> 01:23:39.120]  Any police shooting, we have prosecutors who go to the scene from that division
[01:23:39.120 --> 01:23:45.120]  to begin investigating the nature of the shooting from when the police officer fires a weapon.
[01:23:45.120 --> 01:23:50.120]  So we do prosecute these. I don't have the numbers, but I can and would be happy to provide you with those.
[01:23:50.120 --> 01:23:55.120]  Okay, I appreciate it. I'd like to just see if you can provide us some information
[01:23:55.120 --> 01:24:05.120]  with regard to the various categories where you prosecute it under the office.
[01:24:05.120 --> 01:24:09.120]  We have a special oppression to determine, and if you can break it down,
[01:24:09.120 --> 01:24:14.120]  whether it was because they mistreated someone, whether or not somebody was beat up
[01:24:14.120 --> 01:24:19.120]  or someone was shot or whether or not somebody did. You know what I'm saying?
[01:24:19.120 --> 01:24:20.120]  I do.
[01:24:20.120 --> 01:24:25.120]  Because the categories, I think this speaks to a specific category of activity.
[01:24:25.120 --> 01:24:26.120]  Sure.
[01:24:26.120 --> 01:24:32.120]  So I'm just curious about that specific category. Are you catching it as well as you're catching the others?
[01:24:32.120 --> 01:24:36.120]  I see what you're saying. Focusing on this physical abuse.
[01:24:36.120 --> 01:24:41.120]  I think this is geared toward that, and I think it would be interesting to see if you've had cases like this
[01:24:41.120 --> 01:24:48.120]  where there's been prosecution, how it ranks in terms of how you treat it with the other cases of official oppression
[01:24:48.120 --> 01:24:51.120]  to determine whether or not it's been taken seriously or not.
[01:24:51.120 --> 01:24:55.120]  Yes ma'am. I would be happy. I believe that we can differentiate the physical abuse cases,
[01:24:55.120 --> 01:25:00.120]  and I'd be happy to provide your office as well as Representative Miles' office with those statistics.
[01:25:00.120 --> 01:25:02.120]  Thank you. I appreciate it.
[01:25:02.120 --> 01:25:03.120]  Thank you, ma'am.
[01:25:03.120 --> 01:25:10.120]  Thank you, Mr. Smith. Before you go, I just wanted to make sure I have my microphone on.
[01:25:10.120 --> 01:25:16.120]  Mr. Chair, your mic's not on, and I also have a question to show you.
[01:25:16.120 --> 01:25:25.120]  Here's the issue, as I understood your testimony from hearing it remotely and the other testimony.
[01:25:25.120 --> 01:25:30.120]  I just want to tell you that the votes are in this committee to get out House Bill 1937,
[01:25:30.120 --> 01:25:42.120]  which amends the same section of the penal code, 3903, which talks about acting under color at law,
[01:25:42.120 --> 01:25:48.120]  and it talks about intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly touching the other person
[01:25:48.120 --> 01:25:51.120]  in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.
[01:25:51.120 --> 01:26:02.120]  So we're talking about the folks who are the TSA employees who are doing airport searches in an airport.
[01:26:02.120 --> 01:26:13.120]  And if this committee is going to make a statement that touching in that manner is a violation of law,
[01:26:13.120 --> 01:26:21.120]  then I find it inconsistent to then argue that causing bodily injury,
[01:26:21.120 --> 01:26:27.120]  which is to me significantly worse than touching.
[01:26:27.120 --> 01:26:35.120]  I would find it hard to harmonize that we would do one without the other.
[01:26:35.120 --> 01:26:38.120]  What's your position on this?
[01:26:38.120 --> 01:26:43.120]  I can only speak as a prosecutor when it becomes offensive touching.
[01:26:43.120 --> 01:26:50.120]  Because I'm telling you, if we pass the TSA bill, you, as a prosecutor, you're going to get TSA kicked.
[01:26:50.120 --> 01:26:52.120]  I expect that I will.
[01:26:52.120 --> 01:27:01.120]  And so how are you going to harmonize the TSA, which I'm sitting here reading, with, you know,
[01:27:01.120 --> 01:27:08.120]  how can we, you didn't testify, at least to my recollection, you didn't testify against the TSA bill.
[01:27:08.120 --> 01:27:09.120]  Yes, sir.
[01:27:09.120 --> 01:27:11.120]  Nor am I testifying against this, just to be clear.
[01:27:11.120 --> 01:27:12.120]  He's on the bill.
[01:27:12.120 --> 01:27:17.120]  And you didn't testify on the TSA bill, as I recall.
[01:27:17.120 --> 01:27:25.120]  And so the fact that you are testifying on this bill indicates to me that somehow this,
[01:27:25.120 --> 01:27:30.120]  your level of interest in this bill is more significant than your level of interest in the TSA bill.
[01:27:30.120 --> 01:27:35.120]  And I understand that the Chair's comment on that.
[01:27:35.120 --> 01:27:42.120]  I can tell you that as a prosecutor, offensive touching can be a difficult case to prove,
[01:27:42.120 --> 01:27:51.120]  especially if there's going to be an argument that the touching that's being questioned was necessary for whatever means.
[01:27:51.120 --> 01:27:56.120]  I mean, if someone just runs up and grabs someone offensively and runs away, that's one thing.
[01:27:56.120 --> 01:28:00.120]  If someone is doing a job, whether we believe they're doing it lawfully or not,
[01:28:00.120 --> 01:28:04.120]  and commits an offensive touching, that's going to become a grayer area.
[01:28:04.120 --> 01:28:05.120]  I think to...
[01:28:05.120 --> 01:28:09.120]  I don't dispute that touching somebody may be a gray area.
[01:28:09.120 --> 01:28:18.120]  But Ms. Davis's line was more that hurting somebody is not a gray area.
[01:28:18.120 --> 01:28:19.120]  Exactly.
[01:28:19.120 --> 01:28:26.120]  And I think that's the differentiation that I would make is that in this bill, in Representative Miles 1471,
[01:28:26.120 --> 01:28:32.120]  we are dealing with law enforcement officers not touching someone offensively, but actively hurting someone,
[01:28:32.120 --> 01:28:39.120]  actually working to cause them pain and, in certain instances, serious bodily injury.
[01:28:39.120 --> 01:28:46.120]  And maybe it's wrong that I do differentiate between that and an offensive touching, but it is a matter of degree.
[01:28:46.120 --> 01:28:52.120]  And certainly, I would find a bodily injury, a serious bodily injury, to be a higher degree of concern for myself,
[01:28:52.120 --> 01:28:56.120]  as I would expect many prosecutors.
[01:28:56.120 --> 01:28:59.120]  Mr. Alito.
[01:28:59.120 --> 01:29:01.120]  Is this the only way to...
[01:29:01.120 --> 01:29:07.120]  Of course, you can use the assault statute to prosecute as a normal assault.
[01:29:07.120 --> 01:29:18.120]  Is this the only way we treat officers when they commit a crime like official oppression?
[01:29:18.120 --> 01:29:19.120]  No.
[01:29:19.120 --> 01:29:26.120]  Because we can charge them as any other individual, we have the regular cases such as ag assault.
[01:29:26.120 --> 01:29:32.120]  There is actually currently an aggravated assault enhancement that if it's a public servant that causes serious bodily injury
[01:29:32.120 --> 01:29:37.120]  or displays a deadly weapon, that actually bumps it up to a first degree.
[01:29:37.120 --> 01:29:44.120]  So this actually provides some middle ground without excluding the ability to use the first degree.
[01:29:44.120 --> 01:29:53.120]  I think Representative Miles' point is we have a special category of crime for officers when we bump it up a degree.
[01:29:53.120 --> 01:30:00.120]  If they get a bodily injury, what do we make it, an aggravated case if they have a bodily injury?
[01:30:00.120 --> 01:30:06.120]  And what he's saying is vice versa, that an officer should be held to a higher standard as well.
[01:30:06.120 --> 01:30:08.120]  And I can understand that.
[01:30:08.120 --> 01:30:10.120]  Certainly.
[01:30:10.120 --> 01:30:11.120]  All right.
[01:30:11.120 --> 01:30:14.120]  Thank you.
[01:30:14.120 --> 01:30:15.120]  Ms. Carter.
[01:30:15.120 --> 01:30:17.120]  Thank you.
[01:30:17.120 --> 01:30:21.120]  Thank you for testifying on the still.
[01:30:21.120 --> 01:30:30.120]  My question for you is we could prosecute these under the assault statute, and under the assault statute,
[01:30:30.120 --> 01:30:35.120]  we have intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
[01:30:35.120 --> 01:30:43.120]  And are you able to testify to whether that language is necessary here versus the standard of causing bodily injury,
[01:30:43.120 --> 01:30:46.120]  which is, I think, broader?
[01:30:46.120 --> 01:30:47.120]  It is.
[01:30:47.120 --> 01:30:49.120]  I think it's certainly broader.
[01:30:49.120 --> 01:30:57.120]  The intent or the mens rea of the person acting is something that is generally attached to criminal penalties.
[01:30:57.120 --> 01:30:59.120]  And for good reason.
[01:30:59.120 --> 01:31:05.120]  Accidental assault is not going to obviously be the same crime as purposeful one.
[01:31:05.120 --> 01:31:11.120]  And that may be a key difference in the statute with the Class A assaults
[01:31:11.120 --> 01:31:18.120]  or higher level assaults that we have for non-police officers, non-public servants.
[01:31:18.120 --> 01:31:26.120]  So, sorry, the last thing you said was we don't have that standard for, repeat your last sentence, please.
[01:31:26.120 --> 01:31:28.120]  That could be tough.
[01:31:28.120 --> 01:31:31.120]  I don't always listen to exactly what I'm saying.
[01:31:31.120 --> 01:31:33.120]  Even you are.
[01:31:33.120 --> 01:31:39.120]  Currently, for non-police, for anyone else committing an assault or an aggravated assault,
[01:31:39.120 --> 01:31:45.120]  we do have to prove the mens rea, what the person's intent or conduct was.
[01:31:45.120 --> 01:31:48.120]  And there are varying degrees of that, as you mentioned.
[01:31:48.120 --> 01:31:51.120]  So that may be a difference in this.
[01:31:51.120 --> 01:31:56.120]  So I think it's, I don't want to speak on behalf of the whole thing, but in my opinion, we have to do something about this.
[01:31:56.120 --> 01:31:59.120]  This is kind of an outrageous case, right?
[01:31:59.120 --> 01:32:07.120]  And, you know, so I guess my question is, do we need, kind of a yes or no would be suitable, I think, or sufficient,
[01:32:07.120 --> 01:32:13.120]  intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly in this bill or not?
[01:32:13.120 --> 01:32:23.120]  I think that might take out some criticism of, or frankly, a defense situation of accidental injury.
[01:32:23.120 --> 01:32:28.120]  I mean, because I'm imagining that, and I mean, I'm sure this really isn't, I mean, it could happen, potentially.
[01:32:28.120 --> 01:32:31.120]  You know, the handcuffs are really tight.
[01:32:31.120 --> 01:32:37.120]  And you are, these are tight, and I'm going to file something with the state, and I'm going to be mad about that.
[01:32:37.120 --> 01:32:46.120]  And now it's, you get two to ten years, and it's signed up to $10,000, because that's considered maybe D-1 auto injury.
[01:32:46.120 --> 01:32:50.120]  And so, I mean, we have to do something.
[01:32:50.120 --> 01:32:54.120]  And I think that maybe that type of language would be helpful.
[01:32:54.120 --> 01:32:59.120]  I don't know how Representative Miles feels, and I haven't spoken to him about it yet, because I'm just seeing this for the first time.
[01:32:59.120 --> 01:33:11.120]  But now, what about the actual offenses here, or the grade, the felony to third degree, second degree?
[01:33:11.120 --> 01:33:14.120]  Are you able to testify if you guys are okay with that?
[01:33:14.120 --> 01:33:17.120]  Or, not that you have to be, but I'm just asking.
[01:33:17.120 --> 01:33:19.120]  Again, I'm not opposed.
[01:33:19.120 --> 01:33:26.120]  We're just simply testifying neutrally to sort of explain if there were any questions of how the bill would operate.
[01:33:26.120 --> 01:33:35.120]  Is this consistent, seems like it would be, with other areas of the law, if somebody's causing serious bodily injury?
[01:33:35.120 --> 01:33:43.120]  Right now, serious bodily injury for just a regular person, non-public servant, is a second degree felony.
[01:33:43.120 --> 01:33:45.120]  Second degree.
[01:33:45.120 --> 01:33:48.120]  Currently, that is consistent.
[01:33:48.120 --> 01:33:55.120]  Currently, there is an additional enhancement that if it is a public servant that causes serious bodily injury, that can actually be increased to a first degree as well.
[01:33:55.120 --> 01:33:56.120]  Okay.
[01:33:56.120 --> 01:34:02.120]  So there is a full range of, frankly, all felony punishments available under this bill.
[01:34:02.120 --> 01:34:04.120]  Okay. Thanks.
[01:34:04.120 --> 01:34:08.120]  Thank you, Rep.
[01:34:08.120 --> 01:34:10.120]  Any other questions?
[01:34:10.120 --> 01:34:11.120]  Thank you.
[01:34:11.120 --> 01:34:13.120]  Thank you.
[01:34:13.120 --> 01:34:17.120]  Mr. Petroff, if you would get to committee the information that Ms. Davis has asked for.
[01:34:17.120 --> 01:34:18.120]  I certainly would.
[01:34:18.120 --> 01:34:25.120]  Let me, Mr. Miles, I'm going to beg your indulgence, let me leave your bill pending just for a second.
[01:34:25.120 --> 01:34:40.120]  And the Chair would once again lay out House Bill 1471 and would lay out the committee substitute to House Bill 1471 and recognize the next witness, I believe, is D.Z.
[01:34:40.120 --> 01:34:48.120]  Thank you.
[01:34:48.120 --> 01:34:56.120]  Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I'm Senior Pastor of the Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church of Houston, Texas, President of the NAACP Houston branch,
[01:34:56.120 --> 01:35:01.120]  member of the Executive Committee of the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative of Harris County.
[01:35:01.120 --> 01:35:06.120]  I serve as a superintendent of Hope Academy Charter School for At-Risk Youth.
[01:35:06.120 --> 01:35:13.120]  I'm a chaplain for the Youth and Fire Department and Harris County Constable Precinct 7, former probation officer for Dallas County,
[01:35:13.120 --> 01:35:22.120]  the son of a former New York City police officer, and I stand in favor of House Bill 1471.
[01:35:22.120 --> 01:35:23.120]  My name is D.Z.
[01:35:23.120 --> 01:35:24.120]  Cofield.
[01:35:24.120 --> 01:35:34.120]  This is an interesting concept idea that common sense is not always common, but I'm going to appeal to our common sense today.
[01:35:34.120 --> 01:35:42.120]  If a police officer goes into an establishment in uniform and demands services rendered to him, something as simple as a meal,
[01:35:42.120 --> 01:35:48.120]  he can be charged with criminal or official oppression, a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:35:48.120 --> 01:35:58.120]  If an officer captures a defendant, uses excessive force in subduing that defendant, handcuffs the suspect,
[01:35:58.120 --> 01:36:09.120]  beats the suspect after handcuffing him, and takes him into custody, the most he can be charged with under our current penal code is official oppression.
[01:36:09.120 --> 01:36:20.120]  I think all of us would agree beating a suspect who is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a much more egregious offense than getting a hamburger in uniform,
[01:36:20.120 --> 01:36:25.120]  and yet those two offenses are charged the same thing.
[01:36:25.120 --> 01:36:31.120]  We hosted a town hall meeting regarding the Chad Holly beating on our campus.
[01:36:31.120 --> 01:36:39.120]  We invited the mayor of Houston, who came, the chief of police, as well as the district attorney, district attorney Pat Likas.
[01:36:39.120 --> 01:36:43.120]  Her first chair, first assistant, Jim Leitner, was there.
[01:36:43.120 --> 01:36:51.120]  In the midst of an angry and concerned community, Mr. Leitner made the statement very clear,
[01:36:51.120 --> 01:37:01.120]  and it was confirmed by district attorney Pat Likas that that was all the officers who were engaged in the Chad Holly beating could be charged with.
[01:37:01.120 --> 01:37:07.120]  They had no other choice but to charge them with official oppression, a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:37:07.120 --> 01:37:13.120]  When you look at the videotape in real time, the beating of this young man from the time he laid on the ground
[01:37:13.120 --> 01:37:22.120]  and assumed a surrender position to the last blow being inflicted while he was handcuffed was over one minute and 30 seconds.
[01:37:22.120 --> 01:37:27.120]  Over seven officers participated in this beating.
[01:37:27.120 --> 01:37:32.120]  None could be charged with more than official oppression, a Class A misdemeanor.
[01:37:32.120 --> 01:37:37.120]  We deal with degrees every day in terms of the law.
[01:37:37.120 --> 01:37:47.120]  For example, a person who speeds five miles an hour is not going to be charged with the same offense as a person who speeds 50 miles an hour.
[01:37:47.120 --> 01:37:53.120]  They'll both be charged with speeding, but there are greater penalties depending on the degree of the offense.
[01:37:53.120 --> 01:38:02.120]  And our submission is that this should be true, and we believe House Bill 1471 will begin to make right some of these wrongs.
[01:38:02.120 --> 01:38:07.120]  There are policing agencies and law enforcement officers who have expressed concern over this bill.
[01:38:07.120 --> 01:38:12.120]  But this bill, we believe, provides accountability to those officers.
[01:38:12.120 --> 01:38:14.120]  Good officers have nothing to fear.
[01:38:14.120 --> 01:38:17.120]  Officers who obey the law have nothing to fear.
[01:38:17.120 --> 01:38:27.120]  This is to control and curtail the behavior of rogue officers and to hold bad officers accountable for bad behavior.
[01:38:27.120 --> 01:38:37.120]  We believe and wholeheartedly support this bill because we believe enforcers of the law should be held to a higher standard of accountability than ordinary citizens.
[01:38:37.120 --> 01:38:40.120]  Thank you.
[01:38:40.120 --> 01:38:43.120]  Are there any questions?
[01:38:43.120 --> 01:38:53.120]  Thank you so much for your testimony.
[01:38:53.120 --> 01:39:00.120]  The Chair calls Dwight Watson, who wishes to testify for the bill.
[01:39:00.120 --> 01:39:08.120]  Mr. Chairman, my name is Dr. Dwight David Watson, social professor of history at Texas State University, author of Race in the Houston Police Department,
[01:39:08.120 --> 01:39:15.120]  former parole officer, former probation officer, former assistant warden in Arkansas Department of Corrections.
[01:39:15.120 --> 01:39:23.120]  My work on police examines what happens when police violence goes too far.
[01:39:23.120 --> 01:39:32.120]  My book, Race in the Houston Police Department, I examine at least four major cases where police violence and the use of police violence went too far.
[01:39:32.120 --> 01:39:40.120]  The case of Jose Campos Torres in 1979 fundamentally changed how people policed in the state of Texas.
[01:39:40.120 --> 01:39:45.120]  The case of Randy Webster, Billy Keith Jovis also changed.
[01:39:45.120 --> 01:39:56.120]  In the case of Janet Cowart, who did not die but suffered irreparable harm in terms of having her eye ruptured by police officers in Houston in 1979.
[01:39:56.120 --> 01:40:04.120]  So there is a pattern of aggressive violence in the city of Houston, but there was also a pattern of violence in the state of Texas.
[01:40:04.120 --> 01:40:12.120]  And this violence is sometimes cyclical. When it starts to occur, you start to see it over and over again in patterns.
[01:40:12.120 --> 01:40:21.120]  The cases that I mentioned where death occurred, you saw that these things happened within a seven to ten year span.
[01:40:21.120 --> 01:40:28.120]  Houston Police Department seemed to have cleaned up this act, but then in the last six to seven years,
[01:40:28.120 --> 01:40:38.120]  you start to see a shift away from due diligence on the part of the department itself and a more aggressive police force in terms of arrest,
[01:40:38.120 --> 01:40:43.120]  the use of deadly force or the use of attempted deadly force and police violence.
[01:40:43.120 --> 01:40:48.120]  This case in this young man, which I have not seen the full tape because we're here in Austin.
[01:40:48.120 --> 01:40:50.120]  I'm here in Austin and not in Houston.
[01:40:50.120 --> 01:41:01.120]  But in this case, this case is just one of the places that suggests to me that there is some fundamental breakdown within the context of the Houston Police Department.
[01:41:01.120 --> 01:41:11.120]  And that breakdown can be remedied by the veiled threat of the penalties will be brought on by this bill.
[01:41:11.120 --> 01:41:14.120]  Thank you.
[01:41:14.120 --> 01:41:15.120]  Mr. Otter, sir.
[01:41:15.120 --> 01:41:20.120]  You mentioned you were a correctional officer.
[01:41:20.120 --> 01:41:24.120]  This same thing could have happened to this young man in custody.
[01:41:24.120 --> 01:41:25.120]  Is that not right?
[01:41:25.120 --> 01:41:26.120]  Absolutely.
[01:41:26.120 --> 01:41:28.120]  And it has happened in Houston.
[01:41:28.120 --> 01:41:37.120]  So you understand we're limiting this strictly to a licensed police officer, but we could add correctional officer as well.
[01:41:37.120 --> 01:41:39.120]  You could.
[01:41:39.120 --> 01:41:40.120]  All right.
[01:41:40.120 --> 01:41:42.120]  Thank you.
[01:41:42.120 --> 01:41:49.120]  I just wanted to ask a question that I kind of posed to the DA maybe differently,
[01:41:49.120 --> 01:41:57.120]  but in absence of this or without this kind of language to to address this issue,
[01:41:57.120 --> 01:42:01.120]  is there anything else we could do to maybe to deter or change behavior?
[01:42:01.120 --> 01:42:07.120]  I guess deter is the appropriate word that if we were trying to deter police officers,
[01:42:07.120 --> 01:42:12.120]  would this be something or two that in your mind would be something we could have in place
[01:42:12.120 --> 01:42:16.120]  to suggest that it's not a behavior we're going to tolerate?
[01:42:16.120 --> 01:42:18.120]  Yes, it could be.
[01:42:18.120 --> 01:42:19.120]  Yes, it could be.
[01:42:19.120 --> 01:42:24.120]  Thank you.
[01:42:24.120 --> 01:42:31.120]  Dr., as a citizen, I must have been very naive to the fact that I trust those in power,
[01:42:31.120 --> 01:42:33.120]  those and we know it's no perfect world.
[01:42:33.120 --> 01:42:41.120]  My concern as a legislator is not to do something that will cause damage
[01:42:41.120 --> 01:42:47.120]  that I don't foresee as to dissuade policemen from actually doing their job
[01:42:47.120 --> 01:42:49.120]  because they're afraid I've done something to put into law.
[01:42:49.120 --> 01:42:51.120]  So I want you to know where I'm coming from.
[01:42:51.120 --> 01:42:53.120]  So I appreciate your expertise in this.
[01:42:53.120 --> 01:43:02.120]  Is there a place we risk on this of scaring off legitimate policemen from doing their job?
[01:43:02.120 --> 01:43:04.120]  Do you see anything in this with your expertise?
[01:43:04.120 --> 01:43:09.120]  I really don't because I looked at 30, almost 50 years of policing in my book.
[01:43:09.120 --> 01:43:15.120]  I'm doing a new book on civil rights, the civil rights movement west of the Mississippi,
[01:43:15.120 --> 01:43:18.120]  and I'm also doing a book on the chapter formation NAACP.
[01:43:18.120 --> 01:43:21.120]  One of the things I look at is police brutality,
[01:43:21.120 --> 01:43:27.120]  and what we find is the vast majority of police officers do an excellent job.
[01:43:27.120 --> 01:43:31.120]  They don't go to work every day assuming that they're going to put somebody's,
[01:43:31.120 --> 01:43:33.120]  they don't go to work like that.
[01:43:33.120 --> 01:43:34.120]  They don't function like that.
[01:43:34.120 --> 01:43:39.120]  Somebody asked me as a black person who did a history of police, how did I get information?
[01:43:39.120 --> 01:43:41.120]  People talked to me.
[01:43:41.120 --> 01:43:43.120]  These guys were nice people for the most part,
[01:43:43.120 --> 01:43:52.120]  but sometimes nice people do extremely bad things whether they're police officers or private citizens.
[01:43:52.120 --> 01:43:58.120]  We must hold people accountable to the same standard.
[01:43:58.120 --> 01:44:03.120]  How do we not find the administrative people in the police department,
[01:44:03.120 --> 01:44:08.120]  the law enforcement agencies, taking care of these problems?
[01:44:08.120 --> 01:44:11.120]  That's where I get, that's where I get unhappy.
[01:44:11.120 --> 01:44:15.120]  I think in the appropriate place in the legislation, do it when they don't.
[01:44:15.120 --> 01:44:20.120]  Here's my problem looking at it historically.
[01:44:20.120 --> 01:44:24.120]  The governor is upstairs.
[01:44:24.120 --> 01:44:28.120]  You guys are a little step below the governor.
[01:44:28.120 --> 01:44:31.120]  The people who do the work are down here on the ground.
[01:44:31.120 --> 01:44:34.120]  They have their own functional work culture.
[01:44:34.120 --> 01:44:42.120]  Within the context of the work culture, those who make the decisions are so far removed from what really is going on
[01:44:42.120 --> 01:44:47.120]  that they make rules and decisions that sometimes are just ignored
[01:44:47.120 --> 01:44:54.120]  or it takes five, ten, sometimes 20 years to actually filter into the department.
[01:44:54.120 --> 01:44:57.120]  You're talking about the administration, such as the police?
[01:44:57.120 --> 01:45:03.120]  The commissioner can say something's going to change, but they're not out at night policing.
[01:45:03.120 --> 01:45:09.120]  They're not out at night with due diligence, with oversight over some of these people.
[01:45:09.120 --> 01:45:11.120]  I've been living in Austin for the last 12 years.
[01:45:11.120 --> 01:45:18.120]  You know, you shout a lot of people around here, you know, and one of the things that concerns me is who's watching this?
[01:45:18.120 --> 01:45:20.120]  They fix it in other cities.
[01:45:20.120 --> 01:45:21.120]  Why can't we fix it here?
[01:45:21.120 --> 01:45:31.120]  So again, up top we make decisions, but when we put it into place, an ordinary guy goes to work every day.
[01:45:31.120 --> 01:45:36.120]  He has his own work and his own work culture of doing things.
[01:45:36.120 --> 01:45:37.120]  He knows what works.
[01:45:37.120 --> 01:45:42.120]  He is pragmatic in his approach to what work is, and it's called work culture.
[01:45:42.120 --> 01:45:47.120]  And in this work culture, people do, and the police are an interesting group.
[01:45:47.120 --> 01:45:53.120]  They, in their work culture, isolate themselves from citizens at large.
[01:45:53.120 --> 01:45:58.120]  They see themselves as primarily almost a paramilitary unit.
[01:45:58.120 --> 01:46:01.120]  They speak of themselves as civilian, non-civilian.
[01:46:01.120 --> 01:46:06.120]  And that separation in the minds of some creates a problem.
[01:46:06.120 --> 01:46:10.120]  But you've got to understand the nature of the job they do as well.
[01:46:10.120 --> 01:46:15.120]  So I mean, I'm a realist in how I approach and look at management.
[01:46:15.120 --> 01:46:21.120]  When management makes a decision, I'm going to do what keeps me from getting in trouble.
[01:46:21.120 --> 01:46:24.120]  And if I don't get caught, I didn't get in trouble.
[01:46:24.120 --> 01:46:30.120]  Why I ask you that is my concern is I'm a real believer in local control as much as we can allow this possible.
[01:46:30.120 --> 01:46:34.120]  Those that are close, it bothers me that we're way up here making decisions
[01:46:34.120 --> 01:46:40.120]  that I believe should have been the reprimands, the punishment, this recognition and correction,
[01:46:40.120 --> 01:46:43.120]  I believe should have been done locally in problems like that.
[01:46:43.120 --> 01:46:49.120]  And I'm just concerned because I've seen us pass a rule for a specific local situation,
[01:46:49.120 --> 01:46:52.120]  even for the entire state of Texas, and it sometimes comes back to bite.
[01:46:52.120 --> 01:46:55.120]  So that's why I appreciate your testimony and your expertise.
[01:46:55.120 --> 01:46:56.120]  Thank you, sir.
[01:46:56.120 --> 01:46:58.120]  I have a question, though.
[01:46:58.120 --> 01:47:01.120]  As someone who's done a lot of research in this area,
[01:47:01.120 --> 01:47:05.120]  it seems to me that there's a difference between the administrators getting fired.
[01:47:05.120 --> 01:47:07.120]  I agree that they should get fired.
[01:47:07.120 --> 01:47:11.120]  They need not be working.
[01:47:11.120 --> 01:47:16.120]  But it seems to me that whether or not you have a job
[01:47:16.120 --> 01:47:21.120]  is separate from whether or not you violated the law.
[01:47:21.120 --> 01:47:29.120]  Because if you violated the law and you're not prosecuted,
[01:47:29.120 --> 01:47:31.120]  then why is it that you're not prosecuted?
[01:47:31.120 --> 01:47:35.120]  Because everybody else would be prosecuted.
[01:47:35.120 --> 01:47:36.120]  Okay.
[01:47:36.120 --> 01:47:40.120]  And so if you are prosecuted for violating the law,
[01:47:40.120 --> 01:47:45.120]  then it seems to me that the law, the lawyer in me was taught
[01:47:45.120 --> 01:47:48.120]  that we're all equal before the bar of justice.
[01:47:48.120 --> 01:47:55.120]  And so is there not a distinction between, you know,
[01:47:55.120 --> 01:47:59.120]  I understand the, to me, the local aspect of that
[01:47:59.120 --> 01:48:01.120]  would be whether or not they worked there.
[01:48:01.120 --> 01:48:04.120]  Yeah.
[01:48:04.120 --> 01:48:11.120]  And the statewide aspect would be whether or not you violated the law.
[01:48:11.120 --> 01:48:12.120]  That's true.
[01:48:12.120 --> 01:48:15.120]  And in a perfect world, that is absolutely true.
[01:48:15.120 --> 01:48:17.120]  But then you've got to look at...
[01:48:17.120 --> 01:48:20.120]  Because I think those, at least in my mind, those are two separate questions.
[01:48:20.120 --> 01:48:22.120]  Here's one issue.
[01:48:22.120 --> 01:48:26.120]  Who's going to charge them, who's going to do the investigation?
[01:48:26.120 --> 01:48:28.120]  Who's going to provide them with investigation
[01:48:28.120 --> 01:48:31.120]  to make it rise to the criminal offense study?
[01:48:31.120 --> 01:48:35.120]  Perhaps we might, as a citizen, think it is.
[01:48:35.120 --> 01:48:36.120]  That's number one.
[01:48:36.120 --> 01:48:42.120]  Number two, once charged, who's going to be a witness against them?
[01:48:42.120 --> 01:48:46.120]  And your cameras was only police officers
[01:48:46.120 --> 01:48:50.120]  or a few great private citizens who would step up.
[01:48:50.120 --> 01:48:52.120]  So you run into some problems there.
[01:48:52.120 --> 01:48:57.120]  But in terms of local control, if I may lump this together if you don't mind,
[01:48:57.120 --> 01:49:01.120]  sometimes local control simply does not work.
[01:49:01.120 --> 01:49:02.120]  I'm a Southerner.
[01:49:02.120 --> 01:49:06.120]  I'm from Arkansas originally, been in Texas nearly 30 years.
[01:49:06.120 --> 01:49:11.120]  Local control just sometimes doesn't work when the local interest is at hand
[01:49:11.120 --> 01:49:15.120]  and they have to challenge a strong conviction of the local people.
[01:49:15.120 --> 01:49:16.120]  It just doesn't work.
[01:49:16.120 --> 01:49:23.120]  Sometimes Big Brother does have to say something.
[01:49:23.120 --> 01:49:25.120]  Members, are there any other questions?
[01:49:25.120 --> 01:49:28.120]  Thank you so much for your testimony.
[01:49:28.120 --> 01:49:39.120]  I'm sure we'll call Eddie Craig.
[01:49:39.120 --> 01:49:40.120]  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[01:49:40.120 --> 01:49:41.120]  My name is Eddie Craig.
[01:49:41.120 --> 01:49:46.120]  I'm from Nacogdoches County, representing the Christian areas from my neck of the woods.
[01:49:46.120 --> 01:49:50.120]  I spent 14 years in the United States Air Force as an MLSD.
[01:49:50.120 --> 01:49:52.120]  I am an ex-Deputy Sheriff.
[01:49:52.120 --> 01:49:57.120]  I completely and totally support the necessity of what this bill is trying to do.
[01:49:57.120 --> 01:50:02.120]  However, there's a caveat problem and this gentleman brought it up to a great deal.
[01:50:02.120 --> 01:50:03.120]  Who's going to charge them?
[01:50:03.120 --> 01:50:05.120]  Who's going to prosecute them?
[01:50:05.120 --> 01:50:11.120]  We have law in place that says it's a district attorney's job, 2.03 Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:50:11.120 --> 01:50:17.120]  Anytime that the district attorney is made aware that any public officer has violated a law
[01:50:17.120 --> 01:50:21.120]  associated with the duties of his office or the rights of an individual,
[01:50:21.120 --> 01:50:26.120]  he is required in the case of an opportunity to charge under an information
[01:50:26.120 --> 01:50:29.120]  to immediately file an information with the district court.
[01:50:29.120 --> 01:50:31.120]  That's never done.
[01:50:31.120 --> 01:50:36.120]  In the case where they cannot be charged under an information, it must be under indictment,
[01:50:36.120 --> 01:50:39.120]  they are required by law to take it directly to a grand jury.
[01:50:39.120 --> 01:50:42.120]  That also is never done.
[01:50:42.120 --> 01:50:45.120]  Now, I've talked with Representative Christian there many times
[01:50:45.120 --> 01:50:47.120]  when he's been in some of our town hall meetings,
[01:50:47.120 --> 01:50:52.120]  even gone up to dinner with him afterwards to discuss some direct issues of my own.
[01:50:52.120 --> 01:50:58.120]  I personally have 481 criminal charges pending against police officers
[01:50:58.120 --> 01:51:03.120]  and the district attorney and state employees in Nacogdoches County.
[01:51:03.120 --> 01:51:06.120]  Do you know how many of them have been taken before a grand jury?
[01:51:06.120 --> 01:51:08.120]  Not one.
[01:51:08.120 --> 01:51:11.120]  Do you know how many of them were submitted to a judge on information?
[01:51:11.120 --> 01:51:14.120]  Not one.
[01:51:14.120 --> 01:51:16.120]  How does this happen?
[01:51:16.120 --> 01:51:23.120]  It happens because the elected people that we put into certain offices won't do their job.
[01:51:23.120 --> 01:51:28.120]  Now, you have a district attorney, regardless of where they are,
[01:51:28.120 --> 01:51:31.120]  the district attorney has to work with these officers.
[01:51:31.120 --> 01:51:36.120]  He doesn't want to look them in the face and say, well, you screwed up, I've got to punish you,
[01:51:36.120 --> 01:51:39.120]  because he will eventually see that officer again
[01:51:39.120 --> 01:51:43.120]  or he will be working with the people associated with that officer.
[01:51:43.120 --> 01:51:47.120]  Now they're not going to work so hard for the district attorney to help him prove his cases
[01:51:47.120 --> 01:51:49.120]  because they're afraid they're going to do something wrong.
[01:51:49.120 --> 01:51:51.120]  You brought up that point.
[01:51:51.120 --> 01:51:54.120]  Well, I would like to counter that just a little bit.
[01:51:54.120 --> 01:51:59.120]  In regards to the officers shying away from their job, I agree.
[01:51:59.120 --> 01:52:06.120]  No officer goes to work saying, I'm going to go and kick somebody's rights right out the window today.
[01:52:06.120 --> 01:52:10.120]  But you do have officers that live on adrenaline.
[01:52:10.120 --> 01:52:17.120]  You do have officers that live on power and authority, not just public service.
[01:52:17.120 --> 01:52:26.120]  Those officers are to be feared, not respected, not congratulated, and most assuredly not promoted.
[01:52:26.120 --> 01:52:30.120]  But that is almost always what happens.
[01:52:30.120 --> 01:52:36.120]  Now, when we take a criminal complaint, according to 2.03, before that district attorney, why doesn't he act on it?
[01:52:36.120 --> 01:52:40.120]  There's nothing in the statute that grants him discretionary authority to do anything.
[01:52:40.120 --> 01:52:44.120]  It says he shall do it, and he doesn't.
[01:52:44.120 --> 01:52:47.120]  Who do you go to then to report him?
[01:52:47.120 --> 01:52:52.120]  Because you're in the middle of a good old boy's club around here, and everybody knows it.
[01:52:52.120 --> 01:52:55.120]  My hometown's got just over 30,000 people.
[01:52:55.120 --> 01:53:04.120]  In 47 years of life, the largest I've ever seen that number rise is 26,000 people.
[01:53:04.120 --> 01:53:08.120]  And I base that simply on the fact we've got Steve and F. Austin right in the middle of our town.
[01:53:08.120 --> 01:53:12.120]  That's why the population fluctuates at all.
[01:53:12.120 --> 01:53:21.120]  But I'm telling you, as a deputy sheriff, I work for a bigger crook than we ever had in the jail.
[01:53:21.120 --> 01:53:25.120]  And that sheriff that we had is now chief of police over in Jacksonville,
[01:53:25.120 --> 01:53:29.120]  and he's still doing the same thing there that he did in Nacogdoches.
[01:53:29.120 --> 01:53:35.120]  No one's prosecuting him. No one's taking a complaint against him.
[01:53:35.120 --> 01:53:42.120]  So even though the efforts of this bill is to seek a greater level of punishment, which should be well-earned,
[01:53:42.120 --> 01:53:50.120]  absolutely well-earned, how do you get it before someone to see the punishments done,
[01:53:50.120 --> 01:53:57.120]  when the only people you have to rely on will turn their back on it in favor of who they have to work with
[01:53:57.120 --> 01:54:00.120]  instead of who they're supposed to be working for?
[01:54:00.120 --> 01:54:04.120]  That's a problem.
[01:54:04.120 --> 01:54:10.120]  Now, I really, truly appreciate the good police officers we have.
[01:54:10.120 --> 01:54:14.120]  I have nothing against them. I will support them every step of the way.
[01:54:14.120 --> 01:54:20.120]  I would just join them on the line of fire at the drop of a hat if it was required.
[01:54:20.120 --> 01:54:24.120]  But at the same time, just like what the officers like to testify to that,
[01:54:24.120 --> 01:54:30.120]  well, any time we make a traffic stop, we have to be aware that that person in that car could kill us,
[01:54:30.120 --> 01:54:36.120]  well, that may be. But the question becomes, how much fear have you instilled in the general public
[01:54:36.120 --> 01:54:41.120]  where the person in the car feels like in order to save his own life or his own body for personal injury,
[01:54:41.120 --> 01:54:45.120]  he may have to kill you just to protect himself?
[01:54:45.120 --> 01:54:52.120]  Because you could be one of those officers who seek to do nothing more than just be forceful.
[01:54:52.120 --> 01:54:59.120]  And too many of those do exist. There are quite a few of them in Nacogdoches County.
[01:54:59.120 --> 01:55:04.120]  I've had them pull SWAT-style raids on my business.
[01:55:04.120 --> 01:55:09.120]  Understand that? SWAT-style, double-body armor, automatic weapons.
[01:55:09.120 --> 01:55:14.120]  And I'm a computer repair technician.
[01:55:14.120 --> 01:55:20.120]  What was the reason for this? Oh, you owe $300 in sales tax.
[01:55:20.120 --> 01:55:23.120]  And this is the result.
[01:55:23.120 --> 01:55:29.120]  $80,000 worth of expenditure and personnel to come in and threaten me with a gun.
[01:55:29.120 --> 01:55:33.120]  Actually, a crap load of guns.
[01:55:33.120 --> 01:55:36.120]  Not a happy individual.
[01:55:36.120 --> 01:55:41.120]  Most assuredly not happy that the people I trust to protect me from this type of action look at me and go,
[01:55:41.120 --> 01:55:49.120]  well, I understand that 2.03 says I got to do this, but as a district attorney, I choose to interpret it differently.
[01:55:49.120 --> 01:55:53.120]  That's the attitude. That's the problem.
[01:55:53.120 --> 01:55:58.120]  Sure, we could raise this all the way up to a capital offense against the police officer.
[01:55:58.120 --> 01:56:04.120]  What good is it going to do when you can't get him in front of a judiciary body to be tried?
[01:56:04.120 --> 01:56:09.120]  What good is it going to do when the district attorney takes the criminal complaint,
[01:56:09.120 --> 01:56:16.120]  goes and hands it to the grand jury and says, well, because he was in uniform and because he was acting under presumed authority,
[01:56:16.120 --> 01:56:21.120]  the most you guys can indict him on is going to be this.
[01:56:21.120 --> 01:56:26.120]  Maloney, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
[01:56:26.120 --> 01:56:30.120]  Mr. Craig, if you would keep your comments to the bill.
[01:56:30.120 --> 01:56:32.120]  Well, that's what I'm trying to do.
[01:56:32.120 --> 01:56:39.120]  The context of this bill is these officers should be held to the same degree of punishment as what we're dealing with here.
[01:56:39.120 --> 01:56:40.120]  Okay?
[01:56:40.120 --> 01:56:44.120]  We still have to have the people that are going to prosecute them to do that.
[01:56:44.120 --> 01:56:49.120]  And that's the one thing that even the change in this bill won't fix.
[01:56:49.120 --> 01:56:52.120]  There's other things that have to be done.
[01:56:52.120 --> 01:56:59.120]  And I'm working my behind off to get meetings with people up here to get some new bills put in that will help us do that.
[01:56:59.120 --> 01:57:07.120]  But in the meantime, I applaud this gentleman's efforts, absolutely, because I've been on both sides of that badge.
[01:57:07.120 --> 01:57:15.120]  I can tell you I never once put it on thinking this gives me the power to violate a right or to break a law and get away with it.
[01:57:15.120 --> 01:57:17.120]  Not once.
[01:57:17.120 --> 01:57:21.120]  But we have those that do.
[01:57:21.120 --> 01:57:23.120]  That's all I got.
[01:57:23.120 --> 01:57:25.120]  Any questions?
[01:57:25.120 --> 01:57:26.120]  All right.
[01:57:26.120 --> 01:57:28.120]  Very powerful.
[01:57:28.120 --> 01:57:30.120]  So I've got a couple of comments.
[01:57:30.120 --> 01:57:32.120]  We're about to the end of the show, folks.
[01:57:32.120 --> 01:57:34.120]  I'm very sorry.
[01:57:34.120 --> 01:57:36.120]  Two comments quickly on me.
[01:57:36.120 --> 01:57:42.120]  I love the comment by the chair about the difference between violating law and doing something to get fired.
[01:57:42.120 --> 01:57:47.120]  And to me, I see the solution here.
[01:57:47.120 --> 01:57:50.120]  We've got to restore private prosecution.
[01:57:50.120 --> 01:57:51.120]  We have to.
[01:57:51.120 --> 01:57:55.120]  The district attorney has too much power, even though there's laws in the books.
[01:57:55.120 --> 01:57:57.120]  We've got to restore private prosecution.
[01:57:57.120 --> 01:57:59.120]  We've got about 60 seconds left.
[01:57:59.120 --> 01:58:04.120]  We're going to resume this conversation on Thursday.
[01:58:04.120 --> 01:58:07.120]  Randy, do you have comments?
[01:58:07.120 --> 01:58:11.120]  I'm just wondering why Eddie was holding back.
[01:58:11.120 --> 01:58:17.120]  Well, Randy, do you agree that, you know, we've got to make a change here?
[01:58:17.120 --> 01:58:18.120]  Yes, we've got to make a change.
[01:58:18.120 --> 01:58:28.120]  And I think your suggestion of private prosecutions would be the most subtle and the most effective way to make this change.
[01:58:28.120 --> 01:58:33.120]  Randy, do you want to continue into overtime to make some comments since we're at the end of the show?
[01:58:33.120 --> 01:58:36.120]  Yes, if you want to, I'm game.
[01:58:36.120 --> 01:58:43.120]  Okay, we're going to go for one or two more segments, folks, for the affiliates, listeners on the affiliates.
[01:58:43.120 --> 01:58:48.120]  If you could tune in to ruleoflawradio.com or you can download the archive later.
[01:58:48.120 --> 01:58:52.120]  We are going to go into overtime mode for discussion on this issue.
[01:58:52.120 --> 01:58:55.120]  We will be back in a few minutes, folks.
[01:58:55.120 --> 01:59:16.120]  Listeners online, just stay tuned.
[01:59:25.120 --> 01:59:46.120]  Thank you.
[01:59:46.120 --> 01:59:58.120]  Thank you.