[00:00.000 --> 00:11.000]  We've all seen movies where the bad guys plan to bug in someone's office, but what if the government secretly bugged thousands of innocent people?
[00:11.000 --> 00:16.000]  I'll get your account for an Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment to tell you where it actually happened.
[00:16.000 --> 00:21.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:21.000 --> 00:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.000 --> 00:31.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:31.000 --> 00:34.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.000 --> 00:41.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:41.000 --> 00:44.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:45.000 --> 00:51.000]  It's the toll trend sponder from hell. You know the easy pass people stick on their windshields to pay for tolls?
[00:51.000 --> 00:59.000]  Here in the U.S., they track each time you pass through a toll booth. That's pretty bad, but it's nothing compared to what they did in China.
[00:59.000 --> 01:07.000]  According to a Hong Kong newspaper, the Chinese government secretly hid powerful listening devices in the windshield transponders issued to Chinese drivers.
[01:07.000 --> 01:14.000]  Experts say the devices could pick up conversations and transmit them miles away to government authorities.
[01:14.000 --> 01:19.000]  Thousands of innocent people are believed to have been spied on in this way since 2007.
[01:19.000 --> 01:23.000]  Talk about a Trojan horse or a Chinese one.
[01:23.000 --> 01:28.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:32.000 --> 01:41.000]  The Stasi, East German secret police used to capture prisoners sent on pieces of felt stored in glass jars so dogs could hunt them down later.
[01:41.000 --> 01:46.000]  Unfortunately, some things never change. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with more.
[01:46.000 --> 01:52.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:57.000 --> 02:02.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:02.000 --> 02:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:05.000 --> 02:12.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.000 --> 02:16.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:16.000 --> 02:26.000]  In Germany, 68-year-old leftist Fritz S. thought he'd seen it all, till officials knocked on his door in 2007 demanding something new, his smell.
[02:26.000 --> 02:35.000]  They thought the aging revolutionary might disrupt the G8 summit, so they made him hold little metal tubes in his hands for several minutes to collect his scent just in case.
[02:35.000 --> 02:43.000]  Around that same time, the U.S. government sought research proposals for a similar system to collect human scent for tracking purposes.
[02:43.000 --> 02:52.000]  Those creepy interrogation jars I mentioned can be seen at the Stasi Museum in Berlin, along with other devices of surveillance and state control.
[02:52.000 --> 02:55.000]  Look closely. You may see our future.
[02:55.000 --> 03:01.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:01.000 --> 03:08.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[03:31.000 --> 03:39.000]  Alright folks, good evening. This is Rudolf Law Radio. This is the Monday Night Traffic Show. It is April 16th, 2012.
[03:39.000 --> 03:42.000]  This is your host, Eddie Craig.
[03:42.000 --> 03:51.000]  Please bear with me tonight. I am all alone on the front, so to speak. Deborah's out, Randy's out, so I am not only hosting the show, I am also producing the show.
[03:51.000 --> 03:57.000]  So take that into consideration as we go through this evening and I guess we'll be fine.
[03:57.000 --> 04:04.000]  Okay, I'm not going to tie up too much time tonight talking about various things unless of course I get no callers up on the board.
[04:04.000 --> 04:10.000]  That being said, let's get started collecting callers so when I do get through we have somewhere to go.
[04:10.000 --> 04:15.000]  Call in number is 512-646-1984.
[04:15.000 --> 04:22.000]  Again, 512-646-1984. And as I said, I am here alone tonight.
[04:22.000 --> 04:28.000]  So please keep your issues limited to traffic due process and things of that nature.
[04:28.000 --> 04:36.000]  I am not the credit card or mortgage guru. Those are not my areas of expertise.
[04:36.000 --> 04:40.000]  So please save those calls for Thursday or Friday.
[04:40.000 --> 04:50.000]  Okay, I would like to go over something that I've noticed a trend in because and I've noticed this trend because I've been getting a lot of phone calls for help about how to deal with it.
[04:50.000 --> 04:57.000]  And that is cases that have gone beyond the statute of limitations.
[04:57.000 --> 05:14.000]  Here lately I've had a bunch of people call me and say that they've been arrested on a warrant from an outstanding case that is 4, 5, 6 and in one case over 11 years old.
[05:14.000 --> 05:22.000]  Now the problem here is this. These are all traffic tickets and in each of these cases they are misdemeanors.
[05:22.000 --> 05:31.000]  They are specifically fine only misdemeanors and the statute of limitations on these cases is two years to prosecute.
[05:31.000 --> 05:45.000]  Now, it doesn't matter whether or not they've got a warrant out for you or not. The statute of limitations on the prosecution of the case is two years.
[05:45.000 --> 05:59.000]  They have two years to file the complaint, but filing of the complaint in 18 months out of that two years from the date that it occurred still only leaves them with six months to prosecute.
[05:59.000 --> 06:04.000]  It doesn't give them two more years from the date they filed the complaint.
[06:04.000 --> 06:16.000]  Otherwise the statute of limitations means nothing because they can wait till the very last day, file the complaint and then they've got an extension of two more years to come and get you.
[06:16.000 --> 06:20.000]  I don't think so. That's not the way the system is set up to work.
[06:20.000 --> 06:40.000]  What is supposed to happen is that they're supposed to file the complaint and initiate the prosecution by the filing of the complaint within a reasonable amount of time within the period in which the actual event occurred that they're accusing you of.
[06:40.000 --> 06:50.000]  Then they must within a reasonable time of filing the complaint pursue the prosecution of that complaint in court.
[06:50.000 --> 06:58.000]  If they don't do these things, the statute of limitations runs and it's over. They can't do anything.
[06:58.000 --> 07:11.000]  The case can be dismissed for failure to prosecute because even though the complaint's been filed, no one's done anything and the case is set there for months on end.
[07:11.000 --> 07:25.000]  Or they have spaced out your appearances and your other things over such an extended period of time of months and months that you haven't received the speedy trial you're entitled to.
[07:25.000 --> 07:33.000]  And thus again, that's a due process violation that results in a dismissal of the case and so on and so on and so on.
[07:33.000 --> 07:37.000]  They can't let these cases run forever.
[07:37.000 --> 07:43.000]  Even with an outstanding warrant, the statute of limitations is still running.
[07:43.000 --> 07:47.000]  It has to be for exactly the same reason.
[07:47.000 --> 08:09.000]  Now, there are cases where there are no statutes of limitations and I know personally of cases where someone has literally fled the country or at least the area where the warrant had been issued and they didn't return until after the statute of limitations had run.
[08:09.000 --> 08:22.000]  And once they've done that, even with the outstanding warrant, they can't prosecute the case because they did not apprehend the suspect and pursue the prosecution in a timely manner.
[08:22.000 --> 08:34.000]  So if they're actually trying to say that the warrant stops this tolling of the statute of limitations, then just exactly what is the purpose and fundamental function of a statute of limitations?
[08:34.000 --> 08:47.000]  That would mean the state could simply issue a warrant for any accusatory offense whatsoever, even if there's not a complaint, and the statute of limitations means nothing.
[08:47.000 --> 08:53.000]  As long as the warrant exists, the statute of limitation clock never runs.
[08:53.000 --> 09:00.000]  So why not just suspend every criminal act through the issuance of a warrant?
[09:00.000 --> 09:14.000]  Then, if and when we ever catch the schmo, then we can file the complaint, start the clock then, and now we've got the entire statute of limitations period to let it run.
[09:14.000 --> 09:20.000]  Why not just do that? If that's the way the system is actually supposed to function, why can't they do that?
[09:20.000 --> 09:24.000]  Because it isn't the way the system is supposed to function.
[09:24.000 --> 09:37.000]  A statute of limitations is exactly that. If you don't prosecute the guy and get a conviction or an acquittal within this amount of time, then you can't do anything at all.
[09:37.000 --> 09:40.000]  That's the purpose of the thing.
[09:40.000 --> 09:58.000]  So how can they toll it by issuing a warrant and thus suspending the case virtually forever? Because as long as the warrant's outstanding, sows the case, sows the statute of limitations clock, it's all in limbo.
[09:58.000 --> 10:08.000]  And I don't see how that can actually work, because that would mean a two-year prosecution can still be pursued 25 years down the road.
[10:08.000 --> 10:11.000]  You know, that just doesn't make any sense.
[10:11.000 --> 10:18.000]  For those acts that do not have a statute of limitations, that's not a problem.
[10:18.000 --> 10:34.000]  So if you don't want a limited period of time in which a prosecution can be had, then you should make a statute of no statute of limitations for that act, whether it be a classy misdemeanor or a murder case.
[10:34.000 --> 10:42.000]  If you don't want it to have a statute of limitations, then don't give it one. Simply say there isn't one.
[10:42.000 --> 10:51.000]  Otherwise, the function is the statute of limitations runs, and if you don't get the job done in that amount of time, it's a free pass.
[10:51.000 --> 11:01.000]  Okay? And the offense itself can't be raised as an argument as to why that can't be so, because the offense has a statute of limitations.
[11:01.000 --> 11:06.000]  If you didn't want it to have one, don't give it one.
[11:06.000 --> 11:09.000]  So whatever that period is, the period is.
[11:09.000 --> 11:16.000]  If they can't toll it through these other means, then statute of limitations means nothing, of course.
[11:16.000 --> 11:26.000]  So not only are they trying to bring these old prosecutions to bear, why, one, they're hurting for money.
[11:26.000 --> 11:38.000]  They figure if you're too dumb to know about the statute of limitations, and you're too dumb to object, then they're going to get the money out of you, even if it's illegal.
[11:38.000 --> 11:50.000]  And even if you find out later the prosecution was illegal, what do they care? They've already got their hands on your money, you're going to play hell getting it back if you ever get it back.
[11:50.000 --> 11:56.000]  Even if you get the appellate court to say, no, you can't do that and you have to refund this money, guess what?
[11:56.000 --> 12:04.000]  They've already used your money to earn interest and profit on that money elsewhere in the system.
[12:04.000 --> 12:16.000]  And even if they refund the money they stole from you, you're not going to see a dime of the excess profit your money generated in that system.
[12:16.000 --> 12:34.000]  So they've used your stolen money to make more money for themselves and deprived you of any interest or earning capacity for that money the entire time it's been in their possession, and they've used it for a public purpose.
[12:34.000 --> 12:49.000]  Now, in every law book I've ever read, when something is stolen or taken for public use without just compensation, that constitutes conversion.
[12:49.000 --> 13:00.000]  And in Texas, that conversion has actually been taken into the encompassing umbrella of fraud.
[13:00.000 --> 13:15.000]  So when these courts are trying to prosecute and collect on these old statutorily expired cases, they're committing fraud.
[13:15.000 --> 13:31.000]  Okay, they can't prosecute the case outside of the statute of limitations and they know it, but they're basing their activities on the fact and chance that you do not.
[13:31.000 --> 13:34.000]  This is fraud on its face.
[13:34.000 --> 13:39.000]  It is being perpetrated by our very own public servants.
[13:39.000 --> 13:51.000]  They are committing actual crimes, big surprise, and we're letting them once again get away with it.
[13:51.000 --> 14:12.000]  The moment they attempted to prosecute a case that was outside of the statute of limitations, we should immediately be filing a lawsuit against that judge, that prosecutor, and anybody else in the entire chain that's on that side of the equation.
[14:12.000 --> 14:13.000]  Why?
[14:13.000 --> 14:27.000]  Because they're all deemed to know the law. They're all deemed to know that in that law, this particular offense had a statutory expiration date.
[14:27.000 --> 14:43.000]  They should know just as the law requires that it is beyond that and therefore unprosecutable. Look at chapter 45 in 45.019 under the requisites of a complaint.
[14:43.000 --> 14:55.000]  Okay, I'm going to pull that section up here real quick and I'm going to read this to you so that there is no question here that they're required to know this in advance.
[14:55.000 --> 15:00.000]  Okay, they are absolutely required to know this in advance.
[15:00.000 --> 15:06.000]  We pull up the Texas statutes. We go into the code of criminal procedure.
[15:06.000 --> 15:25.000]  In the code of criminal procedure, we look in chapter 45 and in chapter 45, we look specifically at 45.019 and in 45.019, we are going to see what the requisites of a criminal complaint actually are.
[15:25.000 --> 15:39.000]  Now, when we go down this, we will see very quickly that it has the following requisites.
[15:39.000 --> 15:47.000]  One, it must be in writing. Two, it must commence in the name and by the authority of the state of Texas.
[15:47.000 --> 15:58.000]  Three, it must state the name of the accused if known or if unknown must include a reasonably definite description of the accused.
[15:58.000 --> 16:13.000]  Four, it must show that the accused has committed an offense against the law of this state or state that the Afian has good reason to believe and does believe that the accused has committed an offense against the law of this state.
[16:13.000 --> 16:21.000]  Five, it must state the date the offense was committed as definitely as the Afian is able to provide.
[16:21.000 --> 16:25.000]  Six, it must bear the signature or mark of the Afian.
[16:25.000 --> 16:41.000]  And seven, it must conclude with the words against the peace and dignity of the state and if the offense charges an offense only under a municipal ordinance, it may also conclude with the words contrary to the said ordinance.
[16:41.000 --> 16:46.000]  We'll continue this on the other side of the break, folks. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[16:46.000 --> 17:00.000]  The call in number is 512-646-1984. I'll continue this on the other side. This is Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio. We will be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:02.000]  America is in trouble.
[17:02.000 --> 17:04.000]  Washington is a disgrace.
[17:04.000 --> 17:07.000]  Government has become too big. It's overtaxing, overspending.
[17:07.000 --> 17:09.000]  We need to change direction.
[17:09.000 --> 17:11.000]  We really need change.
[17:11.000 --> 17:15.000]  We can't afford to make the same mistakes we've made in the past. Mitt Romney's reputation is a flip-flopper.
[17:15.000 --> 17:18.000]  He went the other way when he got paid to go the other way.
[17:18.000 --> 17:20.000]  There is need for economic stimulus.
[17:20.000 --> 17:22.000]  It's about serial hypocrisy.
[17:22.000 --> 17:24.000]  This election is about trust.
[17:24.000 --> 17:26.000]  There's been one true consistent candidate.
[17:26.000 --> 17:27.000]  And that's Dr. Ron Paul.
[17:27.000 --> 17:30.000]  Ron Paul has been so consistent from the very beginning.
[17:30.000 --> 17:32.000]  He seems like a more honest candidate.
[17:32.000 --> 17:35.000]  He tells the truth about what he believes, whether you like it or not.
[17:35.000 --> 17:40.000]  He's never once voted for a tax increase, never once voted for an unbalanced budget.
[17:40.000 --> 17:44.000]  Ron Paul's plan is bold. Cut five departments is what we need.
[17:44.000 --> 17:48.000]  When he says he's going to cut a trillion dollars in the first year, I believe it.
[17:48.000 --> 17:53.000]  If you don't like how things are going, if you're tired of politicians, keep something different.
[17:53.000 --> 17:54.000]  Ron Paul.
[17:54.000 --> 17:55.000]  Ron Paul.
[17:55.000 --> 17:56.000]  Ron Paul.
[17:56.000 --> 17:57.000]  Ron Paul.
[17:57.000 --> 17:58.000]  He's the one we've been looking for.
[17:58.000 --> 17:59.000]  I'm Ron Paul.
[17:59.000 --> 18:01.000]  And I approve this message.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:06.000 --> 18:10.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris proven method.
[18:10.000 --> 18:15.000]  Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons?
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:27.000 --> 18:30.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[18:30.000 --> 18:34.000]  Turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Mearris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:47.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner,
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 18:58.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:58.000 --> 19:01.000]  You can learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:19.000 --> 19:23.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is ruleoflawradio.
[19:23.000 --> 19:28.000]  Again, the calling number is 512-646-1984.
[19:28.000 --> 19:35.000]  What we are talking about right now are these old cases that are outside of their statute of limitations,
[19:35.000 --> 19:41.000]  but the courts are attempting to prosecute them anyway,
[19:41.000 --> 19:46.000]  knowing full well that they don't have a time limit in which to do this.
[19:46.000 --> 19:55.000]  Now, subsection B, a complaint of 45.019 subsection B,
[19:55.000 --> 20:02.000]  a complaint filed in a Justice Court must allege that the offense was committed in the county in which the complaint is made.
[20:02.000 --> 20:09.000]  C, a complaint filed in municipal court must allege that the offense was committed in the territorial limits of the municipality
[20:09.000 --> 20:11.000]  in which the complaint is made.
[20:11.000 --> 20:17.000]  D, a complaint may be sworn to before any officer authorized to administer O's.
[20:17.000 --> 20:22.000]  E, a complaint in the municipal court may be sworn to before the municipal judge,
[20:22.000 --> 20:30.000]  the clerk of the court or deputy clerk, the city secretary, or the city attorney or deputy city attorney.
[20:30.000 --> 20:37.000]  Subsection F, if the defendant does not object to a defect error or a regularity of form or substance in a charging instrument
[20:37.000 --> 20:41.000]  before the date on which the trial on the merits commences,
[20:41.000 --> 20:47.000]  the defendant weighs in forfeits the right to object to the defect error or irregularity.
[20:47.000 --> 20:53.000]  Nothing in this article prohibits a trial court from acquiring an objection to a charging instrument be made in an earlier time.
[20:53.000 --> 21:00.000]  G, in a county with a population of more than 2 million that does not have a county attorney,
[21:00.000 --> 21:08.000]  a complaint for an offense under section 32.41 penal code must be approved by the district attorney,
[21:08.000 --> 21:17.000]  regardless of whether a collection proceeding is initiated by the district attorney under section 32.41e penal code.
[21:17.000 --> 21:19.000]  All right.
[21:19.000 --> 21:27.000]  Now, if we go over and look at chapter 15, records it's of a complaint, it's even much shorter than this.
[21:27.000 --> 21:33.000]  A complaint shall be sufficient without regard to form, and this is under article 1505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[21:33.000 --> 21:39.000]  If it have these substantial records, it's one, it must state the name of the accused, if known, and if not known,
[21:39.000 --> 21:42.000]  must give some reasonably definite description of him.
[21:42.000 --> 21:50.000]  Two, it must show that the accused has committed some offense against the laws of the state either directly or that the affian has good reason to believe
[21:50.000 --> 21:53.000]  and does believe that the accused has committed such an offense.
[21:53.000 --> 21:59.000]  Three, it must state the time and place of the commission of the offenses definitely as can be done by the affian.
[21:59.000 --> 22:04.000]  Four, it must be signed by the affian by writing his name or fixing his mark.
[22:04.000 --> 22:05.000]  Okay.
[22:05.000 --> 22:10.000]  So, 45 is even more detailed than what it requires.
[22:10.000 --> 22:22.000]  But notice that in neither of these is there a requirement that the complaint contain all of the necessary elements required to be proven at trial.
[22:22.000 --> 22:32.000]  This is exactly one of the reasons why I argue that a complaint cannot and is not a charging instrument.
[22:32.000 --> 22:33.000]  Why?
[22:33.000 --> 22:44.000]  Because there is no requirement that it have all of the necessary elements of the offense that are required to be proven.
[22:44.000 --> 22:52.000]  Even if it has all of the elements, it still is not an indictment or information.
[22:52.000 --> 23:04.000]  And according to Article 5, Section 12b of the Texas Constitution, those are the only two things that constitute a charging instrument vesting a court with jurisdiction of the cause.
[23:04.000 --> 23:07.000]  A complaint alone is not sufficient.
[23:07.000 --> 23:10.000]  Let's imagine how this argument would work.
[23:10.000 --> 23:17.000]  Hey, judge, this complaint doesn't contain any of the necessary elements of the offense.
[23:17.000 --> 23:21.000]  Well, the judge says, well, your objection is overruled.
[23:21.000 --> 23:27.000]  There's nothing in the statute that requires a complaint to list all of the elements.
[23:27.000 --> 23:31.000]  Well, but judge, it's the only thing you're trying to use to prosecute me on.
[23:31.000 --> 23:37.000]  Well, this is a municipal court or this is a justice court, so we can use the complaint by itself.
[23:37.000 --> 23:40.000]  And wrong answer.
[23:40.000 --> 23:43.000]  No, you can't.
[23:43.000 --> 23:51.000]  Nowhere in Texas law has it ever said that the case can be prosecuted on complaint alone.
[23:51.000 --> 24:02.000]  Some idiotic appellate court judge came up with that determination to a completely screwed up interpretation of the statute.
[24:02.000 --> 24:21.000]  He went and picked and picked and choose how he wanted to interpret specific words and then made it where the Chapter 45 terms that match the ones under Chapter 15 somehow mean something different than those in Chapter 15.
[24:21.000 --> 24:26.000]  Notice Chapter 15 is the general requirements of a complaint.
[24:26.000 --> 24:41.000]  But every prosecution that would occur using Chapter, any part of the Code of Criminal Procedure that is not a Class C fine only misdemeanor, requires an information and or an indictment.
[24:41.000 --> 24:43.000]  Why?
[24:43.000 --> 24:47.000]  The language under Chapter 15 is exactly the same.
[24:47.000 --> 25:03.000]  When you read 1504, a complaint, the affidavit made before the magistrate or district or county attorney is called a complaint if it charges the commission of an offense.
[25:03.000 --> 25:17.000]  The idiotic appellate judge said that because in Chapter 45, the complaint charged the commission of an offense, it was good as a charging instrument, baloney.
[25:17.000 --> 25:19.000]  It's not good in Chapter 15.
[25:19.000 --> 25:22.000]  Why would it be good in Chapter 45?
[25:22.000 --> 25:27.000]  This is the language from Chapter 45, 45.0188.
[25:27.000 --> 25:35.000]  In the purposes of this Chapter, a complaint is a sworn allegation charging the accused with the commission of an offense.
[25:35.000 --> 25:39.000]  There's no difference.
[25:39.000 --> 25:43.000]  Charging the accused with a commission of an offense.
[25:43.000 --> 25:46.000]  Back to 15, what does it say?
[25:46.000 --> 25:49.000]  Call the complaint if it charges the commission of an offense.
[25:49.000 --> 25:55.000]  The only thing it left out was charges the accused with the commission of an offense.
[25:55.000 --> 25:58.000]  There's no difference.
[25:58.000 --> 25:59.000]  Okay?
[25:59.000 --> 26:05.000]  You're accused in Chapter 15 just like you're accused in Chapter 45.
[26:05.000 --> 26:11.000]  So how did they come to the conclusion that a complaint alone is all they needed?
[26:11.000 --> 26:13.000]  The courts made it up.
[26:13.000 --> 26:14.000]  Why?
[26:14.000 --> 26:29.000]  Because by that time, so many prosecutions had occurred on complaint alone that they would have owed so much money to people for wrongful convictions, the entire economy of the courts would have gone bankrupt.
[26:29.000 --> 26:35.000]  Having to refund the money they stole with illegal convictions.
[26:35.000 --> 26:50.000]  So rather than say we screwed up and we owe you, they said let's fabricate a method where what we did is legal so that it looks like we did it right and thus we don't have to give the money back.
[26:50.000 --> 26:52.000]  And that's exactly what they did.
[26:52.000 --> 26:53.000]  Why?
[26:53.000 --> 27:18.000]  Because you can't argue the exact same verbiage in one section that says the same thing when applied to the same circumstance and instrument somehow means something different than the other words that are still exactly the same and still apply to the same circumstances and instrument in a different place.
[27:18.000 --> 27:34.000]  They both do the same thing, they both do it for the same purpose, they both do it to the same individual, they both do it for the same reason and they both use the same instrument to convey that reason.
[27:34.000 --> 27:44.000]  And yet somehow in one chapter we don't need anything but that complaint and in the other we need the other stuff to go with it.
[27:44.000 --> 27:46.000]  It's idiocy.
[27:46.000 --> 27:48.000]  Okay?
[27:48.000 --> 27:56.000]  This is exactly why something like the stare decisis doctrine should be flushed right down the toilet.
[27:56.000 --> 27:58.000]  Why?
[27:58.000 --> 28:06.000]  Because every case is different, every defendant is different, every set of circumstances is different.
[28:06.000 --> 28:11.000]  They may be similar, but what is the legal maxim here?
[28:11.000 --> 28:16.000]  Something similar is never the same.
[28:16.000 --> 28:29.000]  Now if that is a maximum of law that the judges abide by under all cases, then how can they say stare decisis is a good thing?
[28:29.000 --> 28:36.000]  Because it takes something similar and under the decision makes it the same.
[28:36.000 --> 28:46.000]  When their own maximum says it's never the same, it's complete nonsense.
[28:46.000 --> 29:00.000]  If a judge is required to obey the Constitution first, the statute second, and only when read in compliance with the Constitution,
[29:00.000 --> 29:14.000]  and then the judge applied moral sound reasoning to the application of the law to the individual in front of him,
[29:14.000 --> 29:21.000]  that would be sufficient if they could be trusted to do that.
[29:21.000 --> 29:25.000]  But the problem is they're idiots.
[29:25.000 --> 29:29.000]  They're idiots because they believe they're infallible.
[29:29.000 --> 29:37.000]  They're idiots because they believe they don't and are not accountable for what they do.
[29:37.000 --> 29:41.000]  That is a perception we need to change badly.
[29:41.000 --> 29:48.000]  And we do that by making them pay for those decisions in a federal courtroom.
[29:48.000 --> 29:53.000]  Alright folks, we're going to another break. We do have a couple of callers up on the board.
[29:53.000 --> 30:00.000]  Dan, Gail, I see you there. Hang on. I'll get you on the other side of the break. This is Grilled Law Radio. We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:07.000]  A Noble Lie, Oklahoma City, 1995 will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism.
[30:07.000 --> 30:11.000]  Based on the damage pattern to the building, but the government seems impossible.
[30:11.000 --> 30:14.000]  The grand jury did not want to hear anything I had to say.
[30:14.000 --> 30:18.000]  The decision was made not to pursue any more of those individuals.
[30:18.000 --> 30:23.000]  Some of these columns were ripped up, shredded, tossed around.
[30:23.000 --> 30:27.000]  The people that did the things they did knew doggone well what they were doing.
[30:27.000 --> 30:31.000]  Expose the cover up now at anoblelie.com.
[30:31.000 --> 30:38.000]  HempUSA.org has a revolutionary wonder food for detoxing the body and rebuilding the immune system.
[30:38.000 --> 30:44.000]  Micro plant powder can help unclog arteries and soften heart valves while removing heavy metals,
[30:44.000 --> 30:51.000]  virus, fungus, bacteria, and parasites. Plus, it cleans and purifies the blood, lungs, stomach, and colon.
[30:51.000 --> 30:54.000]  Keep your body clean with micro plant powder.
[30:54.000 --> 31:01.000]  Visit us at hempUSA.org or call 908-69-12608 today.
[31:01.000 --> 31:06.000]  Attention, listeners. Harlan Dieter, owner of Brave New Books, here with a special announcement
[31:06.000 --> 31:10.000]  according to the Southern Poverty Law Center's new report titled The Year in Hate Extremism.
[31:10.000 --> 31:15.000]  In the past three years, the number of patriot groups has grown by 755%,
[31:15.000 --> 31:18.000]  once again making the list Brave New Books.
[31:18.000 --> 31:24.000]  Also, congratulations to Austin's own ruleoflawradio.com for joining the ranks of the SPLC's favorite patriots.
[31:24.000 --> 31:28.000]  And shout out to Deborah Medina's Weed Texans for making the list as well.
[31:28.000 --> 31:32.000]  In order to show our appreciation for helping keep the bookstore in the front lines of the battle for liberty,
[31:32.000 --> 31:38.000]  for the whole month of April, mention this ad and we'll take 5% off everything in the store.
[31:38.000 --> 31:42.000]  If that's right, you can get 5% off the latest in extremist materials.
[31:42.000 --> 31:48.000]  Get your Ron Paul Yard signed or shirts, one of the last copies of the Oklahoma City Bombing's final report,
[31:48.000 --> 31:51.000]  or Charlotte Izabee's Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
[31:51.000 --> 31:55.000]  So come on down and help further the rise of the patriot movement.
[31:55.000 --> 31:58.000]  The bookstore is located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[31:58.000 --> 32:05.000]  5% discount excludes precious metal sales.
[32:05.000 --> 32:12.000]  I got a warrant and I'm gonna solve that to the head of America.
[32:12.000 --> 32:15.000]  Prosecute them.
[32:15.000 --> 32:18.000]  Okay.
[32:18.000 --> 32:21.000]  All set.
[32:21.000 --> 32:26.000]  The Texans are rich from tabusha.
[32:26.000 --> 32:31.000]  Texans are rich for the team.
[32:31.000 --> 32:35.000]  Well I need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[32:35.000 --> 32:37.000]  Prosecute them wicked leaders you see.
[32:37.000 --> 32:39.000]  They're my mother and a liar.
[32:39.000 --> 32:40.000]  Them tell me.
[32:40.000 --> 32:42.000]  Them are liars and I tell six stories.
[32:42.000 --> 32:43.000]  Me and a billy.
[32:43.000 --> 32:44.000]  Me say what them tell me.
[32:44.000 --> 32:47.000]  3% of America vote for motion.
[32:47.000 --> 32:49.000]  So how do you help me get the president?
[32:49.000 --> 32:52.000]  That's why we have a warrant for him.
[32:52.000 --> 32:54.000]  Everybody listen carefully.
[32:54.000 --> 32:56.000]  Listen to the words of the three.
[32:56.000 --> 33:01.000]  3% of America vote for motion.
[33:26.000 --> 33:37.000]  Alright, let's try this again. Sorry, I had my own mic muted and I wasn't even paying attention.
[33:37.000 --> 33:40.000]  Okay, let's go to Dan in Connecticut. Dan, are you there?
[33:40.000 --> 33:44.000]  I am there. It went silent for a bit, but...
[33:44.000 --> 33:53.000]  Yeah, I apologize. I was sitting here. I turned my mic off on my headset and I came back in and didn't even realize I'd had it turned off.
[33:53.000 --> 34:00.000]  I'm used to doing that when I have other co-hosts on the show so that I can talk to folks here where I'm at and not disturb them.
[34:00.000 --> 34:04.000]  So I apologize folks for the momentary silence. Okay, Dan, go ahead.
[34:04.000 --> 34:08.000]  I was worrying you already. I was like, that fast.
[34:08.000 --> 34:17.000]  Yeah, they got me. They just yanked me off the air like they did that lady on that other radio show one day.
[34:17.000 --> 34:19.000]  But yeah, anyway...
[34:19.000 --> 34:21.000]  Okay, go ahead.
[34:21.000 --> 34:24.000]  No, that's what I'm saying. You go ahead.
[34:24.000 --> 34:29.000]  Yeah, I'll go ahead. My comments are as twofold.
[34:29.000 --> 34:37.000]  One, it was very interesting what you were saying earlier regarding the legal sufficiency of a complaint.
[34:37.000 --> 34:42.000]  I know in Connecticut we have two ways you can attack a complaint in and of itself.
[34:42.000 --> 34:45.000]  And that's both criminal and civil and I'm not sure how it is in Texas.
[34:45.000 --> 34:51.000]  But I wanted you to comment on this after I was done making my comments on it.
[34:51.000 --> 34:54.000]  One vehicle we have is a motion to dismiss.
[34:54.000 --> 34:58.000]  And the motion to dismiss is used to attack subject matter jurisdiction.
[34:58.000 --> 35:02.000]  On the other hand, we have what's called a motion to strike.
[35:02.000 --> 35:10.000]  A motion to strike basically states that the allegations made in the complaint and be a criminal or civil
[35:10.000 --> 35:16.000]  are legally insufficient to support the accusation being made.
[35:16.000 --> 35:25.000]  Sometimes, and in a lot of cases, you'll find that many of the elements will actually go to a motion to dismiss
[35:25.000 --> 35:27.000]  and make the motion to strike redundant.
[35:27.000 --> 35:31.000]  I say what the heck, raise them on both just because.
[35:31.000 --> 35:36.000]  I mean, for instance, if somebody is alleging that something...
[35:36.000 --> 35:42.000]  Actually, let me rephrase that, if somebody is alleging that something didn't happen in particular jurisdiction,
[35:42.000 --> 35:50.000]  then obviously the allegations wouldn't support subject matter jurisdiction and they would be legally sufficient.
[35:50.000 --> 35:59.000]  But in Connecticut law, there's a distinction between both the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike.
[35:59.000 --> 36:07.000]  The motion to strike is primarily to challenge legal sufficiency, which it's generally a step ahead of the motion to dismiss.
[36:07.000 --> 36:13.000]  So I'm not sure exactly how you would do that in Texas and I'm not sure if there's a...
[36:13.000 --> 36:19.000]  In Texas, the motion to strike is equivalent to the motion to quash.
[36:19.000 --> 36:22.000]  In Texas, it's a motion to quash the complaint.
[36:22.000 --> 36:29.000]  And you can also do a motion to dismiss if the complaint is insufficient on other grounds as well.
[36:29.000 --> 36:33.000]  But now here, you want some commentary, let me throw a couple at you.
[36:33.000 --> 36:40.000]  Most of these courts want you to state specifics as to why a complaint is not sufficient
[36:40.000 --> 36:45.000]  or why it's factually insufficient or inaccurate.
[36:45.000 --> 36:48.000]  I have a problem with that requirement.
[36:48.000 --> 36:55.000]  First off, how can you compel me to testify against myself
[36:55.000 --> 36:59.000]  by stating that certain facts in the document need to be corrected
[36:59.000 --> 37:05.000]  because I didn't commit the crime on that date or in that place?
[37:05.000 --> 37:07.000]  You see what I'm saying?
[37:07.000 --> 37:12.000]  How can you get me to say no, it wasn't that address, it was this address.
[37:12.000 --> 37:17.000]  It wasn't that date, it was this date.
[37:17.000 --> 37:23.000]  I mean, basically you are helping write the instrument that they're going to prosecute you with
[37:23.000 --> 37:29.000]  rather than just saying it's wrong and because it's wrong, it's not any...
[37:29.000 --> 37:33.000]  You can't use it and because I'm the one being accused under it,
[37:33.000 --> 37:38.000]  it's your job as the prosecution to ensure it's accuracy, not mine.
[37:38.000 --> 37:46.000]  It's not my job to help you prosecute me by supplying you with the necessary facts to go into your document.
[37:46.000 --> 37:48.000]  Well, let me interject on that.
[37:48.000 --> 37:52.000]  I would hypothetically say this in the instance of the Connecticut case,
[37:52.000 --> 37:55.000]  and again, Texas and all other states are different,
[37:55.000 --> 38:02.000]  but let's hypothetically suppose that we in Connecticut had a statute for first-degree burglary
[38:02.000 --> 38:08.000]  and let us hypothetically suppose that that statute had several elements,
[38:08.000 --> 38:15.000]  including and limited to the following, that one, the defendant broke into a dwelling or an entering
[38:15.000 --> 38:25.000]  and two, the defendant did so at night and three, the defendant did so with intent to steal something.
[38:25.000 --> 38:30.000]  Now, if the defendant did in fact or regardless of what it was,
[38:30.000 --> 38:34.000]  let's just hypothetically suppose one of those elements was missing.
[38:34.000 --> 38:40.000]  Let's just say the complaint did not allege that the defendant intended to steal something.
[38:40.000 --> 38:46.000]  The complaint would be legally insufficient, therefore we could attack it with a motion to strike.
[38:46.000 --> 38:49.000]  That's the kind of thing I'm saying here.
[38:49.000 --> 39:00.000]  Right, but in that motion to strike, does Connecticut law or case law require you to specify what the missing element is
[39:00.000 --> 39:05.000]  in order to substantiate your motion to strike?
[39:05.000 --> 39:15.000]  It does not require you to specify what the missing element is, it just requires that you specify that there is an element missing.
[39:15.000 --> 39:22.000]  Yeah, but again, that's still assisting the prosecution to come against you, the accused.
[39:22.000 --> 39:28.000]  You're giving them an indication of how they screwed up in prosecuting you.
[39:28.000 --> 39:39.000]  They're actually requiring you to assist the prosecution in letting them know, hey, one of your necessary elements isn't here.
[39:39.000 --> 39:42.000]  Would you like to guess which one out of the possible three?
[39:42.000 --> 39:47.000]  No, you're basically telling them which one is not there in the complaint.
[39:47.000 --> 39:50.000]  Exactly, that's my other point.
[39:50.000 --> 40:00.000]  If you're not required to tell them or you are required to tell them specifically which element is missing, then you're prosecuting yourself.
[40:00.000 --> 40:10.000]  What you're basically telling them is your complaint is legally insufficient, therefore it should be dismissed.
[40:10.000 --> 40:19.000]  And effectively what you're doing in that is you're throwing the whole case out and once it's thrown out, they can't bring it back again.
[40:19.000 --> 40:23.000]  Why can't they? Why can't they refile with a corrected complaint?
[40:23.000 --> 40:25.000]  Double jeopardy.
[40:25.000 --> 40:38.000]  Double jeopardy only attaches if jeopardy itself attaches and that will only happen if the complaint is filed and a jury is impaneled under that complaint.
[40:38.000 --> 40:43.000]  The complaint alone does not constitute jeopardy.
[40:43.000 --> 40:59.000]  The impaneling of the jury constitutes jeopardy or any hearing before a judge toward prosecution of that complaint is established as jeopardy if you're not having a jury trial.
[40:59.000 --> 41:07.000]  That constitutes double jeopardy according to the case law.
[41:07.000 --> 41:18.000]  Well, what I was going to say is in Connecticut you can actually get it thrown out on a motion to strike if the facts are legally insufficient to support the complaint.
[41:18.000 --> 41:32.000]  Right, and you can do that here, but what I'm saying is in Texas the case law appears to indicate that when you move to quash, you have to tell them why the thing is insufficient.
[41:32.000 --> 41:45.000]  Which is basically requiring that you testify against yourself or at the very least you assist in the perfection of the document used to prosecute you.
[41:45.000 --> 41:49.000]  And I don't see how that can be valid in any way, shape or form.
[41:49.000 --> 41:55.000]  Well, basically in Connecticut once you win on a motion to strike on one of those things, it's gone.
[41:55.000 --> 42:00.000]  I mean, they can't come back and do it all over again.
[42:00.000 --> 42:08.000]  Well, then Connecticut law regarding the establishment of jeopardy is different than it is here.
[42:08.000 --> 42:25.000]  But our case law says that the jeopardy attaches when the prosecution under the complaint has actually started by the impaneling of the jury or by appearing in court for the purpose of trial with the judge.
[42:25.000 --> 42:36.000]  Everything I've got, you know, just filing of the complaint or the indictment alone didn't instantiate jeopardy.
[42:36.000 --> 42:44.000]  It wasn't until someone was brought forward to make a decision on the facts presented that jeopardy attached.
[42:44.000 --> 42:50.000]  In this case, a jury or a bench trial judge.
[42:50.000 --> 42:55.000]  If it's different in Connecticut, then that's a benefit you've got.
[42:55.000 --> 42:58.000]  Yeah, it's a huge benefit that I've noticed.
[42:58.000 --> 43:07.000]  And, you know, granted, Connecticut's one of the older states and that's one of the good things that thankfully we've ironed out.
[43:07.000 --> 43:13.000]  The other thing I wanted to mention was, sorry to cite this, I know you had some commentary there.
[43:13.000 --> 43:21.000]  Your commentary on things being similar, well, that's correct, but unfortunately a lot of people don't even challenge it.
[43:21.000 --> 43:24.000]  Let me give you a practical example that I've seen.
[43:24.000 --> 43:27.000]  We had a mortgage case up here very recently.
[43:27.000 --> 43:35.000]  And in Connecticut law and in the Connecticut rules of practice, there are actually two kinds of protective orders.
[43:35.000 --> 43:38.000]  I hear the music, so I'll carry over.
[43:38.000 --> 43:44.000]  All right, hang on just a moment then, Gail, you're still on the board, so hang on, we'll get to you momentarily.
[43:44.000 --> 43:47.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[43:47.000 --> 43:51.000]  Call in number is 512-646-1984.
[43:51.000 --> 43:58.000]  Call in if you got a question, query, or pondry, or you just want to shoot back at me for my commentary.
[43:58.000 --> 44:00.000]  We'll be right back after the break.
[44:00.000 --> 44:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[44:04.000 --> 44:11.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course
[44:11.000 --> 44:15.000]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[44:15.000 --> 44:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[44:19.000 --> 44:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[44:23.000 --> 44:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:28.000 --> 44:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:34.000 --> 44:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[44:39.000 --> 44:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[44:43.000 --> 44:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:52.000 --> 45:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:01.000 --> 45:05.000]  The Oklahoma City bombing, top 10 reasons to question the official story,
[45:05.000 --> 45:09.000]  reason number one, John Doe number two, and other accomplices.
[45:09.000 --> 45:14.000]  On the day of the bombing, nearly all of the witnesses that saw Tim McVeigh and the writer Chuck
[45:14.000 --> 45:17.000]  report that he was accompanied by other perpetrators.
[45:17.000 --> 45:25.000]  The FBI and federal prosecutors insist that Tim McVeigh alone delivered the writer Chuck bomb to the Murra building and detonated it.
[45:25.000 --> 45:30.000]  The only witness the government produced to place McVeigh at the building that morning, Dana Bradley,
[45:30.000 --> 45:33.000]  who lost her children and one of her legs in the bombing,
[45:33.000 --> 45:39.000]  testified that she saw McVeigh with another man, the fabled John Doe number two, exiting the writer Chuck.
[45:39.000 --> 45:44.000]  While at least 15 other witnesses claim to have seen McVeigh with other perpetrators the day of the bombing,
[45:44.000 --> 45:50.000]  no less than 226 witnesses placed him with other men in the days before the bombing,
[45:50.000 --> 45:57.000]  including when he rented the writer Chuck, and in some cases have positively identified the other perpetrators.
[45:57.000 --> 46:15.000]  For more information, please visit okcbombingtruth.com.
[46:28.000 --> 46:32.000]  All right, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[46:32.000 --> 46:38.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984. This is The Monday Night Traffic Show, and I am your host Eddie Craig.
[46:38.000 --> 46:44.000]  We are on with Dan in Connecticut. All right, Dan, let's get this wrapped up.
[46:44.000 --> 46:50.000]  Yeah, the second part of my commentary was related to story decisive,
[46:50.000 --> 46:57.000]  and I think if you were going to, it's an application in a lot of cases.
[46:57.000 --> 47:03.000]  Just to give a practical example, there was a mortgage case that I had seen recently.
[47:03.000 --> 47:10.000]  What happened is the fraud closure bank, and they were trying to do a fraud closure,
[47:10.000 --> 47:16.000]  and I call it that for a reason, is they were trying to get a protective order
[47:16.000 --> 47:22.000]  to prevent discovery pursuant to practice book 13-5 in Connecticut.
[47:22.000 --> 47:30.000]  Now, 13-5 applies to discovery that is oppressive, burdensome, and entirely unnecessary.
[47:30.000 --> 47:38.000]  Now, on the other hand, there is another part of the practice book that has to deal with the same term, protective order.
[47:38.000 --> 47:48.000]  And that has to do with practice book 7-4b, which happens to do with medical records, psychiatric records, things of that nature.
[47:48.000 --> 48:03.000]  So, what ended up happening is the trial judge entered a decision granting the mortgage trust motion for protective order.
[48:03.000 --> 48:12.000]  And in doing so, he cited a case that was called the Risotto via the Bridgeport Catholic Diocese Corporation.
[48:12.000 --> 48:17.000]  Now, here's the thing about that particular case that was very interesting.
[48:17.000 --> 48:25.000]  In that case, the New York Times intervened and sought sealed psychiatric and medical records,
[48:25.000 --> 48:29.000]  identifying each of the different priests that were involved in sexual abuse,
[48:29.000 --> 48:33.000]  namely John Doe's number one, two, and three.
[48:33.000 --> 48:39.000]  And in that particular case, they had said, well, you know, this is sensitive information,
[48:39.000 --> 48:45.000]  and it shouldn't be released, at least until the point where, you know, they can settle the matter.
[48:45.000 --> 48:54.000]  So, the complicated thing here for that particular matter was that the New York Times wanted to know who these particular priests were,
[48:54.000 --> 49:02.000]  and they wanted to do it in such a fashion that was, you know, in the interest of public justice.
[49:02.000 --> 49:10.000]  In this particular case, the Risotto decision, it had to do with the New York Times wanting to know who these guys were
[49:10.000 --> 49:13.000]  after the litigation had been settled.
[49:13.000 --> 49:17.000]  And again, it involved medical and psychiatric records.
[49:17.000 --> 49:26.000]  So, in effect, what the judge in this particular instance did involving the mortgage is he cited that decision
[49:26.000 --> 49:36.000]  ignoring the difference between what a protective order was for the purposes of practice books 7-4b and 13-5.
[49:36.000 --> 49:40.000]  So, basically, there's not only a motion for reconsideration,
[49:40.000 --> 49:46.000]  but I would also suggest if anybody has a question on what a judge has done or why he or she has done it,
[49:46.000 --> 49:51.000]  I would suggest filing what's called a motion for articulation,
[49:51.000 --> 49:58.000]  because the thing about a motion for articulation is it actually makes the judge explain to him or herself why he or she has done it.
[49:58.000 --> 50:05.000]  Now, I know you said a lot, in a lot of cases, a lot of these judges are just, you know, corrupt, which I agree,
[50:05.000 --> 50:12.000]  and stupid, which I agree, but I think in this case, more often than not, you will find that judges are lazy.
[50:12.000 --> 50:17.000]  So, I'd like some commentary there as well.
[50:17.000 --> 50:25.000]  Well, here in Texas, the motion you're talking about is called a finding of facts and conclusions of law.
[50:25.000 --> 50:38.000]  Basically, the facts being here's what the law says, and the conclusions of law being here's how the courts have ruled on what this means.
[50:38.000 --> 50:46.000]  So, what you do is you're asking the judge to, one, show me what law you're basing your opinion on,
[50:46.000 --> 50:53.000]  and two, show me the case law that supports your version of the opinion.
[50:53.000 --> 51:01.000]  And usually, that can only be brought up under certain conditions and circumstances.
[51:01.000 --> 51:03.000]  Are you allowed to request that?
[51:03.000 --> 51:07.000]  They do not allow them in these Class C misdemeanor cases.
[51:07.000 --> 51:14.000]  Even though the judge isn't relying on any law and we know it, he is ignoring every facet of the law, in fact,
[51:14.000 --> 51:21.000]  and we can prove it easily by showing what is brought up in court from the court transcript.
[51:21.000 --> 51:23.000]  We can say, you didn't do this, I don't care.
[51:23.000 --> 51:26.000]  Well, you didn't do this either, I still don't care.
[51:26.000 --> 51:35.000]  You know, it's very clear the judge is criminally inept and incompetent and criminally negligent in the performance of his duties.
[51:35.000 --> 51:39.000]  Or wait, is he or she?
[51:39.000 --> 51:49.000]  The question that we've developed here in my case, for instance, is, are you prosecuting this case under the rules of the criminal procedure at all?
[51:49.000 --> 51:55.000]  If you were prosecuting them under the rules of the criminal procedure, why aren't you following it?
[51:55.000 --> 52:05.000]  Why is every single step of this process in complete conflict with the rules under the code of criminal procedure?
[52:05.000 --> 52:09.000]  If that's what's actually governing the process of this case?
[52:09.000 --> 52:18.000]  Well, it turns out that we're arguing that this was a civil case to begin with because the state never established standing.
[52:18.000 --> 52:23.000]  And until state does so, a criminal matter is not criminal.
[52:23.000 --> 52:27.000]  It is civil and we've got case law backing that up.
[52:27.000 --> 52:32.000]  If state never proves standing in the case, it's a civil case.
[52:32.000 --> 52:38.000]  But they're not following the rules of civil procedure either.
[52:38.000 --> 52:44.000]  They're just doing what they want because it's what they've been doing.
[52:44.000 --> 52:52.000]  It's what they've been getting away with and they have yet to be successfully challenged on the way they're doing it.
[52:52.000 --> 52:58.000]  Now, from my point of view, that's not a judge that's lazy.
[52:58.000 --> 53:04.000]  That's not a judge that's simply unaware of the facts.
[53:04.000 --> 53:12.000]  That's a judge that is criminally negligent in the performance of his duties to the detriment of all who appear before them.
[53:12.000 --> 53:18.000]  And I have yet to find one of these judges in Texas at this level that isn't doing that.
[53:18.000 --> 53:22.000]  Hell, I haven't found one at the district level that isn't doing that.
[53:22.000 --> 53:30.000]  Now, there are some I've seen bend over backwards to help a defendant figure out which way they're supposed to go without actually telling them.
[53:30.000 --> 53:37.000]  But believe me, when I tell you that has been a rarity, an exception, it is never the rule.
[53:37.000 --> 53:42.000]  So that being said, was that commentary enough on what you've got?
[53:42.000 --> 53:52.000]  Yeah, and I would add, I think for our part up here, the motion for articulation and for your part down there,
[53:52.000 --> 53:59.000]  the motion for finding a fact and conclusions at law, it's a nice way to build an excellent box to make it,
[53:59.000 --> 54:06.000]  at least if they're going to go ahead and be corrupt, entirely embarrassing for them.
[54:06.000 --> 54:11.000]  Oh yeah, that's exactly why I instruct everyone in class.
[54:11.000 --> 54:14.000]  We do everything in writing.
[54:14.000 --> 54:18.000]  Why? Because that document becomes a part of the record.
[54:18.000 --> 54:23.000]  That record will be reviewed on appeal by a higher court.
[54:23.000 --> 54:28.000]  If we document what that lower court judge is doing and how he is doing it,
[54:28.000 --> 54:35.000]  and why our argument exists to say it's not right, then they have to evaluate that.
[54:35.000 --> 54:40.000]  Any argument we don't make never gets evaluated.
[54:40.000 --> 54:45.000]  And it will continue to be abused at the lower, at the trial court level.
[54:45.000 --> 54:53.000]  So we have to document everything and we have to do it in such a way to prove that it was wrongfully done
[54:53.000 --> 54:56.000]  and thus reign embarrassment upon these people.
[54:56.000 --> 55:04.000]  And hopefully do it in such a way that they actually become liable for what they did.
[55:04.000 --> 55:13.000]  And that's the catch all right there. Can we get the case overturned in such a way that will allow us to go after the judge
[55:13.000 --> 55:19.000]  and the prosecutor, or the other side in this case, whatever it may be,
[55:19.000 --> 55:26.000]  for either a malicious prosecution or wrongful suit, a vexaceous litigant suit.
[55:26.000 --> 55:28.000]  Let's put it that way.
[55:28.000 --> 55:36.000]  If we can do that, we've got to do it by documenting everything they do and making sure it's accurate, it's timely,
[55:36.000 --> 55:40.000]  and the argument is well made.
[55:40.000 --> 55:42.000]  Anything else, Dan?
[55:42.000 --> 55:45.000]  Yeah, let me just be really quick about the appeals process here.
[55:45.000 --> 55:49.000]  I think you've been really good on the points about this.
[55:49.000 --> 55:54.000]  In Connecticut, when you file an appeal, it starts with the appeal form,
[55:54.000 --> 55:59.000]  but there's another document that you have to file called the preliminary statement of issues
[55:59.000 --> 56:05.000]  where you list all the issues in the form of questions stating what are the questions relating to this appeal.
[56:05.000 --> 56:12.000]  In most cases, not necessarily all, you will create what is called a draft judgment file,
[56:12.000 --> 56:16.000]  which will be completed with the assistance of the clerk,
[56:16.000 --> 56:20.000]  and that will include all the decisions that are made in the case.
[56:20.000 --> 56:27.000]  You will also list the parties of controversy, namely everybody who has an interest in the appeal,
[56:27.000 --> 56:33.000]  but most importantly, you will file a document that is called a designation of the contents of the record.
[56:33.000 --> 56:41.000]  Specifically, what that means is a document that identifies each specific pleading on the date it was filed,
[56:41.000 --> 56:47.000]  what the title of the document was, and the record that you wish to be included on the appeal.
[56:47.000 --> 56:51.000]  This is why I tell everybody, make your record for appeal,
[56:51.000 --> 56:56.000]  because if you don't, you can't include it on the appeals process.
[56:56.000 --> 57:05.000]  Once you file all those preliminary papers, those are the things that you can cite in your appellate brief.
[57:05.000 --> 57:09.000]  Aside from that, that's pretty much it on my end.
[57:09.000 --> 57:14.000]  All right. Well, I appreciate you much for calling in and helping out with that information.
[57:14.000 --> 57:19.000]  Well, keep up the good work and let me know any way I can help.
[57:19.000 --> 57:22.000]  All right, Dan, appreciate it.
[57:22.000 --> 57:26.000]  All right, now we're going to go to Gail in Tennessee.
[57:26.000 --> 57:29.000]  If I can give this to click. Gail, you still there?
[57:29.000 --> 57:31.000]  Yes, sir. How are you?
[57:31.000 --> 57:34.000]  I'm fine, but you don't sound like a Gail.
[57:34.000 --> 57:39.000]  Hey, it's felt like a strong wind, so it's still masculine.
[57:39.000 --> 57:45.000]  Ah, okay. All right. Well, let's hope you're not going to get on here and do an impression of a strong wind.
[57:45.000 --> 57:49.000]  Hey, I really like your show.
[57:49.000 --> 57:53.000]  I first heard about it.
[57:53.000 --> 58:00.000]  Where I live in Tennessee, a local radio station carries out a show, and that's where I first heard about it.
[58:00.000 --> 58:06.000]  And I kind of put it on the back first, and there's so much information out there about law and everything.
[58:06.000 --> 58:11.000]  Oh, Gail, hang on just a second. We're going to go to break here.
[58:11.000 --> 58:15.000]  It's the top of the hour break, so it'll be about three to four minutes long.
[58:15.000 --> 58:19.000]  But if you'll hang on, I will pick you up on the other side when we get back from that, okay?
[58:19.000 --> 58:21.000]  Yes, sir.
[58:21.000 --> 58:23.000]  All right, hang on just a couple minutes.
[58:23.000 --> 58:26.000]  All right, folks, this is Rule of Law Radio.
[58:26.000 --> 58:31.000]  Gail is our last caller on the board, so if you've got anything you want to get in, please don't wait till the last minute
[58:31.000 --> 58:36.000]  because I am here alone and I will never get to all of you if we don't get this done.
[58:36.000 --> 58:40.000]  So if you've got something you do you want to talk about, call in now and get in line.
[58:40.000 --> 58:46.000]  512-646-1984. This is Rule of Law Radio with your host, Eddie Craig.
[58:46.000 --> 58:49.000]  I will be right back.
[58:49.000 --> 59:08.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[59:08.000 --> 59:16.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:16.000 --> 59:19.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[59:19.000 --> 59:28.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[59:28.000 --> 59:38.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:38.000 --> 59:43.000]  Bibles from America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:43.000 --> 59:54.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:54.000 --> 01:00:14.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:24.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  It's used for everything from packing peanuts to coffee cups, but now the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says styrene, a component of styrofoam, may cause cancer.
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  The government based its warning on studies that linked the chemical with lymphatic cancer and genetic damage.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  Styrene is used to make plastic products like pipes, carpet backing, insulation, and of course, styrofoam cups.
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:18.000]  Chronic exposure leads to memory loss, headaches, vertigo, and tiredness. So don't let your kids drink out of styrofoam cups, which are also tempting to bite down on and chew or pick into little pieces.
[01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:22.000]  And be sure to drink your own coffee out of a ceramic mug.
[01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:42.000]  Attention, 40-something male creeps. If you're logging onto the Internet from your mom's basement pretending to be a 16-year-old girl, I'm onto your tricks. Well, sort of.
[01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how researchers can determine your gender online.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:06.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  OMG! You can totally tell I'm a girl, exclamation mark.
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  Women and women communicate differently, even in microbursts of text. Researchers at the MITRE Corporation say they can tell a person's gender 75% of the time by reading all their tweets.
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:38.000]  And with just one tweet, 140 tiny characters, they get it right two times out of three.
[01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  Women use more punctuation, convey more emotion, and use more phrases like ha-ha in LOL.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:52.000]  Knowing that could be useful to marketing vultures and other creeps, so keep a lookout for imposters and be careful what you share with strangers.
[01:02:52.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  I'll feel that advice with a smiley.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:35.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:42.000]  We are currently talking to Gail in Tennessee. Walt, I'll see you there on the board. Hang on and I'll get to you as soon as we're done with Gail.
[01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  Alright Gail, let's continue on. You were saying before we went to break and I interrupted you.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:04:01.000]  Okay, I think I first heard about your Malik Stone Show. This was about maybe about six months ago. There's so much misinformation about law, which struck out in my mind when you were talking to him.
[01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:05.000]  You were talking about public rights and private rights.
[01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  And I said to myself, this is a guy that, hey, I'd like to research later because we just built a cabin in Tennessee. We're originally from another state and I was interested on getting my house off of the proper tax rolls.
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  And I kind of put you on the back burner because that was the main thing that I was researching and it seems like your expertise on being a former state trooper, I believe.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  Deputy Sheriff.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  So, make a long story short, my wife's just got a ticket on Friday. So, I looked you up interested in on, maybe you could help on this and I got your website and I saw that you had seminars available.
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:13.000]  And I was, I guess you could say, I don't know if I should be saying this on air or not or if it's in person. It's my wife that's involved in the citation.
[01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:30.000]  And I wanted to get the seminar package, but I'm worried about the time that it would take because we're looking at alternative methods of payment and also getting her prep before a date.
[01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:38.000]  We're actually looking at 27 days now. And also, I tried 27 days until she makes her first appearance or she goes to trial.
[01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  So, well, when she's supposed to show up before.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  Okay, that's your initial appearance. Okay.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  That 27 days just means that they want you to come in and acknowledge the ticket and enter a plea, which I highly recommend the entering the plea part you do not do.
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  Correct.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:09.000]  Now, how familiar are you with the statutes in Tennessee relating to transportation and or motor vehicles?
[01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:19.000]  Well, this weekend I went through a barrage. The other, most of the stuff that I was looking at prior to that was mainly revolving around getting off the puppy pack rules.
[01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  But I kind of bombarded myself. We don't have internet access here because I'm on top of a mountain.
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  That's going to make all this a lot more difficult.
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  Right. That's why I'm calling. And I tried calling earlier and I got another radio station to order because I didn't want to order with a credit card one line at the time that I first saw it.
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:54.000]  And then I saw that there was other payment options if the contact Deborah. And then I was thinking that the time delay that that would take for me to spend in the payment and you understand what I'm saying about that.
[01:06:54.000 --> 01:07:06.000]  And also, I'm more knowledgeable about law, but my wife is way more ignorant than me. So the time delay of everything.
[01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  I've been looking at the statutes and I've been talking with my wife every day since actually started the day that she got sick.
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:19.000]  And every day that we've been pretty much talking about for about an hour, we've got a three and a two year old. We don't have much time.
[01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:27.000]  To try to get my mind a little bit more around it so I can teach her to get her mind around this.
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  Okay. Let me ask you a couple of questions here first off. And this will help determine whether we need to continue down the path of fighting this or not fighting this.
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:44.000]  The first thing is in Tennessee, are they are traffic citations criminal or civil?
[01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  That's what I try to find out today. The ticket that she got her, because we're on the top of the mountain, we're not really classified as the post office, which we have.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  But where she works, I called the chief municipal court today and they could not give me an answer on what the rules are.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  And they told me to call the clerk of court, which is closed today.
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  So we're not really caring about the rules at this point. All we need to know is what rules is the case handled under.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:20.000]  Are they handled under the criminal rules or are they handled under the civil rules?
[01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  Right. I do not know. I'm from another state, so exactly on violations in a municipal court. On that municipal court, I have no idea.
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:36.000]  Okay, if we have any listeners out there from, you are currently in Tennessee, correct?
[01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:37.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  Okay, if we have any listeners out there that are readily familiar with the statutes of Tennessee in relation to transportation and motor vehicles, please call into the show.
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  512-646-1984. I have not had an opportunity myself to research the Tennessee statutes, but here's the things you need to know.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  The first thing is you have to know what the nature and cause is. The nature is one of three things, civil, criminal, or administrative.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  There are no others, okay?
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  Each one is a different set of rules that have different requirements for their side and for you.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  If it's administrative, then they have a jurisdictional problem. How did a private citizen become subject to an administrative process under some corporate anything?
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:38.000]  That's problem number one if it's all administrative.
[01:09:38.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  The second thing is, being all administrative is, that means that what you have in your hand is not a citation, it's a bill of pains and penalties, and it is strictly forbidden.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:06.000]  A bill of attainer or a bill of pains and penalties by definition is any administrative or legislative determination of guilt without judicial review.
[01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  So if there is no civil or criminal process involved, it's administrative only, then it is a bill of attainer or a bill of pains and penalties depending upon the level of the offense.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:19.000]  Okay?
[01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  If it's criminal, you will need to study up on the specific criminal procedures of Tennessee.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Yes, title.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  Now, yeah, they may do it like they do it in Texas. There is one specific chapter that's been dedicated and written specifically for the prosecution of Class C misdemeanors in justice and municipal courts.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  However, that is, that chapter is not exclusive. It is where they start. It is where they differentiate in the actual procedures between the other general procedures dealing with the same point in the process, but it is by no means exclusive.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:17.000]  If this chapter does not contain something required to be done in a criminal prosecution, then the relevant other section of the code applies.
[01:11:17.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  Okay.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:29.000]  So you need to know whether or not they have a dedicated chapter to this procedure for a particular type of court and whether or not it is exclusive or non-exclusive in its venue.
[01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:30.000]  Okay?
[01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  Okay.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:36.000]  Then if it's civil, then we have a contract problem.
[01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  If you're charging me with a civil violation, then where is the contract's whole agreement that you're saying I violated the terms of in order to be in breach and thus incur this penalty?
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Where is it?
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:00.000]  Produce the document, and it better have my signature on it.
[01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:02.000]  You see what they're getting into here?
[01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  So depending upon which set of rules you're having to play the game under, how you attack it changes?
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  Right. That's what I'm kind of worried about because my wife, I actually am scheduled for May 17th, and I've got to go on out of town from the 16th through 20th, so I won't even be there with her.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:25.000]  So...
[01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:33.000]  Okay, well this leads me to the other question here is, does your wife wish to fight this?
[01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  I think after...at first she said, I don't think I can do this.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:48.000]  And then as we were listening to your radio stations, I downloaded a bunch this weekend, and I've done about 10 of them.
[01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  I'm probably through six or seven now, and I think she's getting more confident that that is something that she should do.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  But there was...I can't...I was going backwards on my downloads from the website, and I think it might have been from the 5th of March.
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  And you were talking about a client or somebody that you were helping with their case, and how the judge was just pretty much railroading the client, pretty much acting unprofessional.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  And I just don't know how she would react in that situation, but if she could set the motions up before and the objections.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:45.000]  And the main thing that we were looking at, and we were talking about this weekend, was just the first thing, the citation.
[01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  Is it a complaint, and how that pertains, but now you've got my mind working in a different way that...
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:14:01.000]  Well, maybe that wouldn't be the right angle to start off with, because it should be whether it's civil or criminal.
[01:14:01.000 --> 01:14:07.000]  That's one of the questions that I was hoping to get answered today when I called the Ministry of Court, and they didn't answer them.
[01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:10.000]  Yeah, maybe you just didn't ask it in the way they understood it.
[01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  The simple question to ask is, how are traffic citations handled as criminal, civil, or administrative type cases?
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  That's the question.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:31.000]  Which rulebook do I have to play by, civil, criminal, or administrative?
[01:14:31.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Okay.
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  Once you know that, then you have a place to start reading up on catching them with their finger in the pie, so to speak.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  Right. That's right. I've been reading two titles today, 40 and 39, one's civil, procedure one's criminal.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:53.000]  And they're similar, but different, and I'm just trying to get my brain around it, let alone...
[01:14:53.000 --> 01:14:59.000]  Okay, in Tennessee, let's also deal with the aspect of the code dealing with the citation.
[01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:04.000]  In Tennessee, is it a motor vehicle code, or is it a transportation code?
[01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:12.000]  Well, I didn't even go through this. I went through the transportation code, but I understand that that's kind of a different fight, and that's something that...
[01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:13.000]  From my understanding...
[01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  Well, no, no, no. It's relevant because that's what they're accusing your wife of. They're saying, because you're in transportation, you committed this offense.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  And the obvious fact here is, she's not in transportation. Therefore, it's impossible for her to have committed this offense.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  They're both relevant. You have two aspects of your case. You have the due process procedures that are required to follow, because they are the law and they're binding on the courts.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  Then you have the trial on the merits, the merits being the specific facts of the case.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:09.000]  The reason I wanted to know whether or not they call it a motor vehicle code or a transportation code is because it changes the context of your argument slightly.
[01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:10.000]  Okay.
[01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:27.000]  For instance, in Colorado, they have written the code to make it appear to apply even more so than most states. They have specifically stated that they can regulate both commercial and private activity on the road.
[01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  And that's just flat-beloning. They can't. But in Texas, it's a transportation code and these rules are all in that one code and it's only meant to regulate those engaging in transportation, which a private individual isn't.
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  But hang on just a second. We'll finish this up on the other side. We're going to break again.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  Well, I see you. So hang on. Call in number folks 512-646-1984. This is Rule of Law Radio. I'm your host, Eddie Craig. We will be right back after the break.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  A new way to guarantee silver by prepaying at a locked price. We can even help you set up a metals IRA account. Call us at 512-646-644-0 for more details.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:40.000]  As always, we buy, sell and trade precious metals, give appraisals and cater to those with all sizes of coin collections.
[01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:51.000]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig next to the Ikiban Sushi and Genie Car Wash. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2.
[01:17:51.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  Visit us at capitalcoinandbullying.com or call 512-646-644-0 and say you heard about us on Rule of Law Radio or Texas Liberty Radio.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  That's why our name is FreedomTelephones.com. Finally, residential, mobile and business telephones and plans that are private and never lock you into a long-term contract.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Want a low price? Residential and business plans started only $14.99 and mobile plans started just $39.99. Plus, every month you pay your bill, FreedomTelephones.com contributes to your favorite programs.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  Don't wait. Support the cause and get the highest quality and the lowest prices by calling 1-800-600-5553. That's 800-600-5553.
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  FreedomTelephones.com. Portable, private, perfect.
[01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:29.000]  And folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in number 512-646-1984. Right now we are talking to Gail in Tennessee.
[01:19:29.000 --> 01:19:32.000]  All right, Gail, let's see if we can get you wrapped up here.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:42.000]  Okay, so depending upon whether it's a motor vehicle code or a transportation code, that's going to affect the way you make your argument just a little bit.
[01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  But here, like I said in Texas, it specifically is a transportation code and the definition of transportation means it is commerce.
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  You must be a carrier using the roads and the vehicle for transportation purposes, which is the movement of persons or property from one place to another for compensation or hire as a carrier.
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  Gail, are you there?
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  Oh, yeah, I'm here. I'm here.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  Okay. So does that – do you follow what I'm saying there?
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:22.000]  Yes, yes.
[01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  So you've got two aspects of the argument or the case that you need to do. One is the rules of the game, which is the rules the court is using, and you need to know those rules just as well or better than they do.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  So when they don't do what the rules require, you document it and you call them on it.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:43.000]  Correct.
[01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  If you get them making enough mistakes and they're big enough mistakes, even if you lose, the appellate court would have to overturn the trial decision just on the fact that they screwed you over on due process alone.
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:20:59.000]  Right.
[01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  Okay. The other is going to the merits of the case. If it is actually titled a transportation code, that's the easiest.
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:21.000]  Why? Because the argument simply is, no, I was not engaging in transportation. Therefore, that code does not apply to me.
[01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  Okay. And how do we make that argument?
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  We don't make it with those words. We have to make them slightly different. Why?
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  Because they never outright say that the person was engaging in transportation when they committed the offense.
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  They insinuate it and they do that by the use of certain terms during the trial.
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  When they use terms like vehicle, motor vehicle, anything that's in that code that you saw that deals with whatever type of mechanical device or mechanism that is being used for that purpose.
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  However they describe it, like for instance in Texas, vehicle is defined as a device used upon the highway for the purpose of transporting persons or property.
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  Okay. Or for the drawing of persons or property, which of course references a trailer.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  But a trailer in Texas is also called a motor vehicle, even though there's not a motor in it.
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  Okay. So, given that, you need to become familiar with the particular terms in the code and what the definition for that term is in relation to whatever section constitutes the alleged offense your wife was supposedly committed.
[01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:57.000]  Those definitions will be important, not for you to use, but for her to use, but for her to object to the use of.
[01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:05.000]  Every time they try to use one of those terms in court, your wife needs to object.
[01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  The objection goes as follows and remember the first words out of your mouth will always be objection.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  If you don't precede anything you say with objection, then all you're doing is arguing with the court and that will be ignored on appeal.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  You must clearly state that you are making a legal objection. Are we clear? Yes, sir.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  Okay. The objection is as follows. Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:24:19.000]  Okay. That is the objection. Every time you hear the word vehicle, motor vehicle, operator or any grammatical variation such as operator or operating, drive or driving or driver, any of those grammatical variations, transportation or this state.
[01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  They won't say in Tennessee they will say this state. This state is not a physical place.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:38.000]  No matter what they want you to think it is, it is not the physical state. Okay? Yes.
[01:24:38.000 --> 01:25:00.000]  But if you hear any of those terms, that objection must come out immediately and it does not matter who's using the term. Whether it's the prosecutor, whether it's the cop on the stand or any other witness or whether it's the judge, anybody who uses those terms gets an objection.
[01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  Okay? Yes. That will destroy their prima facie case of alleging transportation without actually having to prove it.
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  If you never object to the assertion through the use of these terms, then they will have a prima facie case that you have agreed to being in transportation because you did not object to those terms being applicable to the activity that you were engaging in.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  See the convoluted mess they make out of this? You're convicted on a presumption, not a fact. You must destroy the presumption. The mechanism of its destruction is that objection. Clear?
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  All right. First thing you need to do tomorrow, find out what rules the game is played under. After that, call us back Thursday or Friday night and let's talk some more.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  You got it. Thank you so much, Mr. Eddy.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:15.000]  You're welcome. Have an excellent evening and good luck.
[01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  Thank you, Mr. Eddy. One last question. How do I get in touch with Deborah? When should I...
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  The best way to do it is send her an email.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:28.000]  Okay, we'll do it.
[01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  Yeah, just send it to Deborah, spelled like the biblical Deborah, at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  You got it. Thank you so much.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  You're welcome. Thanks for calling in.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:48.000]  All right. We see Chris and Texas on the board and now we're going to go to Walt in New York. Chris, hang in there. We will be with you momentarily.
[01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:59.000]  All right, Walt. My call screener said you have some question about recording the fuzz. Is this the fuzz on your lip, your navel, or your backside?
[01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  It's the ones in public. If the police give you...
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  Oh, the ones with guns and badges. Okay.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  All right. What you got?
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  I got a couple of transportation questions and some not quite related, but anyway, if you're in public on the sidewalk, in your car, or any place that has public access
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:27.000]  and the cops happen to be there and there's trouble, and you put your hand in your pocket to get your audio recorder and you want to do that to have an electronic witness
[01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:36.000]  and they tell you to get your hands out of your pocket or you're not allowed to use it, what do I do? What would you recommend that someone do in that situation?
[01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:46.000]  Well, every situation is going to be different, but the fact is if you're in a public place, the Supreme Court has already said you have an absolute right to record the police
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  and there's nothing they can do about it.
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Now, take into consideration that these people like to hurt people.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  Yes.
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  So take that with a grain of salt. You being the one present have to evaluate the level of risk you are engaging in by continuing in your actions.
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:20.000]  Now you can tell them, hey, Supreme Court, public place, I can record you. You don't like it, talk to the justices.
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  Okay.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:29.000]  Now you address it and deal with it entirely up to you, but try not to get yourself injured in the process.
[01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:30.000]  Okay.
[01:28:30.000 --> 01:28:34.000]  All right. I got this three other short questions.
[01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:35.000]  Okay.
[01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:43.000]  I live in this area in this boulevard. It's very busy and dangerous, Eddie. And I like to, I do a lot of walking every day. I'm a senior citizen.
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  And I go into these two plazas, one across from each other.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  And unlike Christmas, when they're closed, that's the only day they're closed.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:59.000]  One plaza has a private property sign, but it doesn't say you can't walk through there or you can't drive through there.
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  There's a post office box there. And on the other plaza across the street, there's no signs.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  And there's a post office box there. It's a huge plaza. And there's public phones.
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  So if you go in there, when the places are closed, supposedly, and the shares hang around in those places on those holidays,
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:23.000]  and they come up and try to give you a hard time and tell you to leave.
[01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  Don't you ever like to be there if there's like a post office box there? And if you want to walk, just walk through.
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  Absolutely. It's a publicly accessible place. And it's meant for access by the public.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  If that mailbox and those phones are outside for public use, just because the businesses in that area are closed
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  does not mean that those services are closed.
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  Okay, can I ask you a couple more quick ones?
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:52.000]  Yeah, but hang on Walt. We're about to take another break. We'll pick that up on the other side.
[01:29:52.000 --> 01:30:00.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio. Call in numbers 512-646-1984. Chris, hang in there and I'll get to you as soon as I'm done.
[01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:13.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  And thousands of my fellow force responders have died.
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  I'm a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans. And we deserve the truth.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:31.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:37.000]  MPUSA.org has moved and expanded its operations for faster worldwide shipping.
[01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:43.000]  Our product line has grown from five to nearly 100 items in less than five years.
[01:30:43.000 --> 01:30:47.000]  Our food has grown naturally, always chemical-free, not found in stores.
[01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  Great for daily intake and perfect for your emergency storage shelter.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:31:01.000]  Call 908-6912608 or visit MPUSA.org and see what our powders, sieves and oil can do for you.
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:09.000]  More energy, stronger immune power, improved sense of well-being.
[01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  How many supplements have you heard? Both of these benefits.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  The team behind Centrition believes that supplements should over-deliver on their promises.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:22.000]  And Centrition does just that.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:26.000]  Centrition utilizes the ancient healing wisdom of Chinese medicine.
[01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  In conjunction with the science of modern nutrition, adaptogenic herbs serve as the healing component.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  And organic hemp protein and greens and superfoods act as a balanced nutrient base.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  Plus, Centrition tastes great in just water.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:48.000]  This powder supplement is everything you'd want in a product, and it's all natural.
[01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:57.000]  Visit Centrition.com to order yours or call 1-866-497-7436.
[01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  After you use Centrition, you'll believe in supplements again.
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:09.000]  Thank you for watching.
[01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  Thank you for watching.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  Before we get back to Walt here, I would like to take a moment and just say we really do appreciate all the listenership we have.
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:26.000]  For some reason our stream numbers are down.
[01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  I'm not sure whether or not that's because the micro's power that has been broadcasting us in these other states as well as here have amplified their wattage enough that more people are listening on a car radio or something of that nature.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  But even if you can pick us up better on an actual radio, please, please, please go to either the Logos Radio Network site or the Rule of Law Radio site and run the stream through your computer.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:34:08.000]  We really need to work on keeping our internet streams high and hopefully eventually we can wind up in syndication like Alex Jones and everybody, Joyce Riley and all these people on the power hour and such things.
[01:34:08.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  Heaven knows after listening to some of these shows we need people that are doing more than what we're getting right now from them for those that are in syndication.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  But in any case, if you can and you have it, please get this stream up and running on your computer even if you're listening to us over the radio, turn the volume down on the computer, whatever.
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Just help us get our stream numbers up and keep them up.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  Also, please don't forget that we exist only by the grace of God and your financial support because it is a struggle for us to keep enough money in our own pockets doing what we're doing.
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  In fact, I have literally had to go out and for the past two weeks I have a job literally digging ditches just to have enough money to do anything.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:57.000]  I've got bills to pay and everything else.
[01:34:57.000 --> 01:35:03.000]  It's cutting way down on my ability to research, update the seminar material documents and all that.
[01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  It really hampers our ability to provide this service to you folks when we have to go out and do these other things in place of this.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  In fact, the reason we had to run an archive last Monday was because I was out on a job and could not get back in time to do it.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:23.000]  We hadn't finished the job yet.
[01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  So folks, we really need and rely on your support for this radio network.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  So please don't forget that because you've donated to one particular thing that we needed, the network as a whole still needs your support.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  So please give as much whenever you can as often as you can.
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  Appreciate it greatly.
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  All right, let's finish this up with Walt in New York.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  Walt is our last caller, folks, so don't leave us hanging.
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  512-646-1984.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:54.000]  All right, Walt, go ahead.
[01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  We were talking about the two plazas that both contain telephones and mailboxes that are accessible by the public even when the businesses in the particular plazas are closed.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  Well, my question would be this.
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  If the businesses are closed and it is automatically a trespass to enter the grounds when the businesses are closed, what in the hell is the Sheriff's Department doing there?
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:27.000]  They have no more business being there than any member of the general public if the thing is closed.
[01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:29.000]  Okay.
[01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  So if they can be there, why can't the general public?
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  All right, I've got just two more quick questions for you.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  Okay.
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:55.000]  All right, I talked to you about this a month ago, was with Randy and Deborah and you, and Randy responded, and it was where the police came to my former wife's house into the apartment without probable cause.
[01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  You remember that?
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  And he only came in after I said, what is your probable cause for being here?
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  So he made the probable cause, me asking him the question.
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:14.000]  He came in the apartment and he says, what's your name? He stayed at the bottom of the stairs and I says, I don't have to give him my name because what's the probable cause?
[01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  And he says, you're under arrest.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  He ran up the stairs in my face and we had a debate and basically I said, what's the law that you're using to come in here?
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:28.000]  And he says, administrative procedure.
[01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:29.000]  I says, that's not probable cause.
[01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  You don't belong in here.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  And he says, are you the owner of the house? I says, no. And I told my former wife standing next to me. I said, tell him to leave.
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:43.000]  As soon as I said that, he started running down the stairs with his lady sheriff with him.
[01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  He was a police officer.
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  So here's the thing, Eddie.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:48.000]  I want to do something.
[01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:55.000]  Randy told me to take action, but he didn't take me in the custody, but he actually said the word you're under arrest.
[01:37:55.000 --> 01:38:01.000]  And I called the police department four days later. They said there's no police report, just a 911 call.
[01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  And then the sheriff's department gave me a hard time over the phone.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  They wouldn't tell me who the sheriff's lady's name was.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:09.000]  And they already knew about it.
[01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:10.000]  And he says, you didn't...
[01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Well, your wife, ex-wife, testifies a witness that he did so.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:16.000]  Yes, but here's my question.
[01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  If I take action, could they retaliate and then take me in the custody?
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  Because he did say I was under arrest, but he never took me in.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  Seagully, no. He had no probable cause to enter the house without a warrant.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  And if he had actually facilitated a physical taking of your person without that warrant, he would have been up the creek without a paddle or toilet paper.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:41.000]  Sorry, but you don't think he would have...
[01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:52.000]  Because the Supreme Court has made it very, very clear that a warrantless arrest in someone's home, whether they're a guest or the owner,
[01:38:52.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  is patently illegal if the officer cannot identify the ongoing commission of a felony.
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:03.000]  That's what happened.
[01:39:03.000 --> 01:39:06.000]  Now, here's the last question I have only, Eddie.
[01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:17.000]  I went to the law library like you folks told me to do, and I had the librarian there try to look up criminal complaint forms for these issues.
[01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  She says there's thousands. She looked it up for half an hour, couldn't find. So can I make up some kind of generic complaint form?
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  Or should I just sue that officer?
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:34.000]  I think I heard Deborah talking last week about there were law cases where they sued for police officers doing illegal acts like this.
[01:39:34.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  Yeah, you can sue the officer, and you can sue his department.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:42.000]  What would you call that suit?
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:44.000]  What do you mean, what would you call the suit?
[01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:46.000]  It's a federal tort.
[01:39:46.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  All right.
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  You sue him in federal court for deprivation of rights.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  All right, what rights?
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:39:56.000]  Now, what would you could get because I'm, because I'm taping this.
[01:39:56.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  He placed you under arrest.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:03.000]  Whether he removed you or not, the arrest was illegal.
[01:40:03.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  Okay, so then would you do that in state?
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  He criminally trespassed.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  Oh, yes, he did.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  Okay.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:12.000]  Was he wearing a gun?
[01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  Yes.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  That's aggravated assault by a public servant.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Yes.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:22.000]  All of these are harms.
[01:40:22.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  Well, every last one of them.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  They're all actionable in the federal court.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:31.000]  Okay.
[01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  I guess that's the last question.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  I had another one, but I forgot.
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  I'm sorry about that, but I thank you very much, Eddie, for helping me.
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  You're welcome.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:41.000]  Yes, here's the thing.
[01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  Complaint forms.
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:46.000]  You make generic complaint forms.
[01:40:46.000 --> 01:40:51.000]  The complaint needs to comply with whatever the statutes are of your state.
[01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:55.000]  It will tell you in the statutes, the code of criminal procedure,
[01:40:55.000 --> 01:41:01.000]  or whatever it's called in your state, exactly what the requisites of a complaint are.
[01:41:01.000 --> 01:41:03.000]  And it may be in more than one location.
[01:41:03.000 --> 01:41:11.000]  Like I said, in Texas, you have Chapter 15, which is the generic everyday form of a complaint
[01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:12.000]  and its requisites.
[01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:19.000]  And then you have Chapter 45, which is a local provision that gives specific requirements
[01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:24.000]  for a complaint when it's used in a justice or municipal court setting.
[01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  So what you need to do is find out where in your state statutes it tells you what the
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  requirements of a complaint are and be aware there can be more than one place.
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  Read them both, compare them, and see if there's any differences.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  If there are no differences between the two, one just simply has more requirements than
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:56.000]  the other, then use the requirements based upon the more portion of the statute, and
[01:41:56.000 --> 01:41:58.000]  you can't go wrong.
[01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  If it has all of those requirements, then it will also have all of the other minimal requirements,
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  right?
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  Yeah, but my question always, can you make a generic complaint for yourself?
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:18.000]  Anything that meets the requisites of what the statute says constitutes a complaint.
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:19.000]  Okay.
[01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:26.000]  There's no such thing as a set form as long as it contains the things that the statute
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  says it must have to be a valid complaint.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:31.000]  Okay.
[01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  Now, can I ask one more question or you've got another caller?
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:38.000]  I do have another caller and I've only got about a minute and a half left in this segment,
[01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  so if you have another question, shoot, and then we'll start with the Doug on the other
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  side.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:44.000]  Okay.
[01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:46.000]  You can just answer this on the way back, okay, after the call.
[01:42:46.000 --> 01:42:51.000]  Telfrey was on your show and he said something about we don't have, we're not required to
[01:42:51.000 --> 01:42:52.000]  pay debt.
[01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:54.000]  I didn't understand that.
[01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  Did you know what he was talking about, Eddie?
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:00.000]  It's not that you're not required to pay debt.
[01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  It's the fact that you can never pay a debt with another debt.
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:12.000]  And right now, that's what a Federal Reserve note is, is a promissory note.
[01:43:12.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  It is and is recognized as a debt instrument and you cannot ever satisfy one debt with
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:24.000]  the exchange of another debt.
[01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:25.000]  Incredible.
[01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  Thank you very much, Eddie.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:29.000]  You are very welcome, Walt.
[01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  Take care, everybody.
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:31.000]  Bye-bye.
[01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  All right.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:36.000]  We've got about 30 seconds left before we go to break, Doug, so please hang in there
[01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  and I'll pick you up on the other side.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  Oh, wait, Chris just popped back up on the board.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  So, Doug, I'll take Chris first on the other side and then I will get back with you since
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Chris was disconnected a moment ago.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  We didn't get a chance to get to it.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  So, Chris, hold on and I will get you on the other side of this break.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:44:01.000]  We're about to hit our last segment, so hang in there and we'll be right back.
[01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:02.000]  Hey, did you hear?
[01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012.
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  It is Ron Paul.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:06.000]  Really?
[01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:11.000]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:14.000]  Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces with punctuation marks.
[01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  Of course you do.
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:16.000]  Now, listen closely.
[01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  You need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can about Ron Paul and
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  his message before it's too late.
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:23.000]  They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about.
[01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:27.000]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers and yard signs so that you can show your support
[01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  for him during the campaign.
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  Brave New Books?
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:32.000]  Do they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:37.000]  your family in time of emergency.
[01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  Ugh, that sounds like that show on the Discovery Channel.
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  School that you can sign up for on the website bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:48.000]  What are you doing?
[01:44:48.000 --> 01:44:52.000]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to bravenewbookstore.com or down to the
[01:44:52.000 --> 01:44:53.000]  bookstore in person.
[01:44:53.000 --> 01:44:54.000]  Where's it located?
[01:44:54.000 --> 01:44:56.000]  1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:44:56.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  There, it's set.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:44:59.000]  I even made a smiley face.
[01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Great.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  At hempusa.org, we offer chemical-free products to people around the world, detoxifying, self-healing,
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:10.000]  while rebuilding the immune system.
[01:45:10.000 --> 01:45:15.000]  We urge our listeners to please consider our largest-selling product, micro-plant powder.
[01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:21.000]  Our micro-plant powder is rich in iodine, probiotics, zinc and silica to help rebuild
[01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:22.000]  the immune system.
[01:45:22.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  And to create a healthy stomach flora, micro-plant powder is excellent for daily intake and is
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  perfect to add to your storage shelter.
[01:45:29.000 --> 01:45:33.000]  We urge our listeners to please visit us at hempusa.org.
[01:45:33.000 --> 01:45:37.000]  And remember, all of our products are chemical-free and healthy to eat.
[01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:42.000]  We constantly strive to give you the best service, highest quality and rapid shipping
[01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  anywhere.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:46.000]  And we offer free shipping on orders over $95 in the U.S.
[01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:53.000]  Please visit us at hempusa.org or call 908-6912608.
[01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:56.000]  That's 908-6912608.
[01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:18.000]  See what our powder, seeds and oil can do for you at hempusa.org.
[01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:20.000]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:23.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:28.000]  Okay, we are going to try to wrap this up real fast here.
[01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  I've got now a full caller board in the last segment of the show.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  Guys, I keep trying to tell you about cutting it close like this.
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:39.000]  I can't guarantee I'm going to get you all, but I'm going to try.
[01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  Okay, right now let's go to Chris in Texas.
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  Chris, what's your question?
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  My question is, I received a ticket for driving with no registration.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  And I've been listening to you for a while and doing a lot of studying and things like
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  that.
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  But unfortunately, I got a little intimidated when I went down to my first appearance to
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  the courthouse.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  And they gave me the information, the plea and all that stuff like that.
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:10.000]  And basically I signed it.
[01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  That was the end result.
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  I got a little intimidated and I signed it.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  Is there anything that I can do to still fight my case or have I already lost?
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  Yeah, you can still fight it on procedural due process.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  But what you have done is waived in person on jurisdiction.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:35.000]  The moment you enter that plea, you have made a general appearance.
[01:47:35.000 --> 01:47:41.000]  The moment you make a general appearance, a special appearance is no longer possible.
[01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  Once you accept the general appearance rules, all you've got left is the merits or procedural
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:51.000]  due process violations.
[01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  You can no longer stand at arm's length under the umbrella of a special appearance.
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  Yes, you can still fight.
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  You've just made it harder on yourself by kicking one of the tripod legs of necessary jurisdiction
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  out from under yourself and giving it to them for free.
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  So I'm pretty sure this is not going to be my last thing.
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  What do you do about the intimidation that you receive when you're at the courthouse
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:23.000]  and they're like, if you don't sign this, we're going to come after you or you didn't show up
[01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:25.000]  and you got to tell you to appear?
[01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  Well, the first thing is you have to know the rules.
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:33.000]  You have to know that what they're telling you is a bald face lie.
[01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:40.000]  You never agreed to come in and do anything other than appear.
[01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  In fact, is that not exactly what the officer tells you on the side of the road?
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:47.000]  This is not a plea of guilty.
[01:48:47.000 --> 01:48:52.000]  This is only to ensure that you appear.
[01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:54.000]  Right?
[01:48:54.000 --> 01:48:56.000]  They give you the still in my head.
[01:48:56.000 --> 01:48:58.000]  You do not have to sign it.
[01:48:58.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  You object to any effort to get you to sign it.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:04.000]  Here's their problem.
[01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  If they're sitting there telling you that if you don't do this and enter a plea,
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:17.000]  we're going to lie and say that you just did not appear.
[01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:19.000]  Now think about that for a second.
[01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:23.000]  That is exactly what they're telling you.
[01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  If you don't sign our document and enter a plea,
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:37.000]  we're going to falsify the record and lie and say that you never came to court.
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:40.000]  That's what they're threatening you with.
[01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:42.000]  Who's in danger of getting in trouble here?
[01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:44.000]  You or them?
[01:49:44.000 --> 01:49:46.000]  Them or them.
[01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:48.000]  Exactly.
[01:49:48.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  And you need to make them aware of that.
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:57.000]  That's exactly why you never go into the public arena or into any of these courts
[01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:00.000]  without a recorder and witnesses.
[01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  If you can take both, that's better.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  But you get it on recording.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:10.000]  You simply look back at them and instead of being intimidated,
[01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:13.000]  say, let me see if I understand this.
[01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  And then you say it back to them just like I said it to you.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  Let me make sure I understand what you're telling me.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  You're telling me that you are going to falsify the records of the court
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:39.000]  by making a false entry in the record that says I never appeared in compliance with this citation
[01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  while I am currently standing in front of you in the same court
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:52.000]  but am doing nothing more than refusing to inter-apply on your paperwork.
[01:50:52.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  Do I understand the situation correctly?
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:05.000]  No matter what they say, they're screwed.
[01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  You understand the predicament they put themselves in by making that threat?
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  Yes, I see it.
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  There is no law in Texas that requires anybody to inter-apply ever.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:27.000]  Therefore, threatening you with an arrest warrant
[01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  because you will not waive personal jurisdiction
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  and inter-apply is a direct violation of your due process rights.
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:43.000]  So we record it. We have a witness that will sign an affidavit for it.
[01:51:43.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  We sign our own affidavit for it.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:52.000]  We put it into the record and we let the river flow as it may.
[01:51:52.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  And hopefully they're in its path when it reaches them and we drown them.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:03.000]  So instead of being intimidated,
[01:52:03.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  look at them like they're a red-headed stepchild that you'd rather plant up to their neck in an anthill.
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:12.000]  Okay?
[01:52:12.000 --> 01:52:19.000]  And say, excuse me, but let me just make sure that I'm understanding your threat correctly.
[01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  Turn the tables on them. It's a lot of fun,
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:29.000]  especially when you do it that way because it suddenly dawns on them what they just did.
[01:52:29.000 --> 01:52:33.000]  And if you're holding that little recorder up to their face when they do it,
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  they're going to turn three different colors. None of them good.
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  So all I have left is due process.
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:51.000]  Yeah, when they make that threat, that's a direct violation of your right of due process.
[01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:54.000]  There's nothing that requires you to sign their paperwork.
[01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  There's nothing that requires you to enter a plea ever.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  You can go through your entire trial and never enter a plea.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  The law is very clear that if you won't enter a plea, the court may enter one for you,
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  but there is no authority whatsoever for the court to arrest you
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  or create a warrant for your arrest because you won't enter one.
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  And if they're stupid enough to do that and you know to look for it
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  and want to do about it, then let them know when you're sitting in their living room
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:44.000]  waving at their cold sorry butt on the street that they screwed up.
[01:53:44.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  Send them a card. Wish you were here. Glad you're not.
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:54:04.000]  So from this point right now with the signed plea, I have a good shot, a little shot.
[01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:07.000]  No shot. It went in the case against the no registration.
[01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  Again, it all depends on how well you know the rules and what they do in the process.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:17.000]  How well you document their screw ups is going to go a long way
[01:54:17.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  determining whether or not you have a chance.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:27.000]  I will tell you this. At the trial court level, you have no chance.
[01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  No one does. If you win at the trial level, it's a fluke.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:36.000]  Okay? It is not the rule.
[01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  You have to go into the trial court knowing and accepting that you're going to get railroaded.
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  You have to care. All we care about is documenting the fact that we were railroaded,
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:57.000]  proving in the record that we were railroaded so that when the appellate court reads it,
[01:54:57.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  they come to the conclusion that, hey, this guy was railroaded.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:10.000]  Unfortunately, even at this level, we don't sell train tickets, so we have to refund his case.
[01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:16.000]  Now you get to sue the judge and the prosecutor as well for malicious prosecution,
[01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  but you're only going to get there if you document everything along the way.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:25.000]  Got it?
[01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:28.000]  Got it. Got it. Definitely done a lot of help.
[01:55:28.000 --> 01:55:33.000]  So if you are anywhere available for the Sunday seminars at Brave New Books,
[01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  I highly recommend you make a trip or two if you're close enough.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  I got people that come from Dallas, San Antonio, Corpus Christi.
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  There ain't hardly any place around Texas they haven't come from to come up here
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  and go to a class to see what happens.
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:56.000]  And in virtually every class, we are conducting some form or stage of a mock trial
[01:55:56.000 --> 01:55:59.000]  to make you comfortable with the process.
[01:55:59.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  We're generally doing that for those that come in and have cases that are coming up.
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:08.000]  Okay.
[01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  All right, but those are from two to five at Brave New Books on Sunday. Okay?
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:17.000]  All right. Hey, thanks, Eddie. I appreciate it. I'll see you soon.
[01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  No problem, Chris. Thanks for calling in.
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  All right. We have Doug in Texas. Doug, let's make it quick. I got one other caller ahead of you.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  All right. I'm talking about the good old days when I called the cop the bad word
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  and he called me sir and we'd go to court and my lawyer would be smoking his pipe
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  and the judge would have big Havana cigar that my lawyer gave him.
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:54.000]  And this is just a minor thing, but I never heard my lawyer say object.
[01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:59.000]  I don't know if we won six times in a row, but he would just stand up and say,
[01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:04.000]  no bar exception.
[01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  That's it.
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:13.000]  Well, normally exception only applies when an objection has been made and the judge overrules it.
[01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  And then whoever made the objection takes exception to being overruled.
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  So what he was entering the exception to without an objection, I don't know.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:28.000]  I'm not saying it's not proper or anything like that,
[01:57:28.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  but I don't know of any other time I've heard it used except in response to an overruling of an objection.
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:39.000]  But if it worked out and you won, great. Anything else?
[01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  That's it. No more exception.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  All right. Okay, Doug, thanks for calling in.
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  All right, now we have Jim in Ohio. Jim, I got about one minute. What you got?
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:58:00.000]  All right, I had three for my case, but let's go with one tonight and then I'll try to get to you later out of the week.
[01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  First of all, just a statement. I'm going into a court that I told you guys so we could go with Mayor's Court.
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:15.000]  And I don't think there's going to be any city prosecutor there.
[01:58:15.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  I don't think we're going to get there. What's the question?
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  I was going to ask just for a clarification between whether a state is transportation state or motor vehicle state.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Well, it all depends upon how the code is set up, whether it actually states that it's dealing with transportation or it's dealing with the use of motor vehicles.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  A motor vehicle is always something used for transportation unless they try to take their statutes and declare that it also applies in terminology to private conveyances.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  You'd have to read the statutes to know for sure.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:59:00.000]  I'm sorry, that's all we got for tonight. This is Rule of Law Radio. Good night.
[01:59:00.000 --> 01:59:04.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:16.000]  The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[01:59:16.000 --> 01:59:23.000]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:23.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  The free books are a three volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:38.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[01:59:38.000 --> 01:59:51.000]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:51.000 --> 02:00:00.000]  That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.