[00:00.000 --> 00:05.640]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[00:05.640 --> 00:13.360]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.360 --> 00:21.160]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.160 --> 00:27.240]  Markets for the 9th of October, 2015 opened up with gold at $1,155.56 an ounce, silver
[00:27.240 --> 00:33.520]  at $15.84 an ounce, Texas crude at $49.43 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:33.520 --> 00:42.880]  in about $244 U.S. currency.
[00:42.880 --> 00:48.600]  Today in history, Tuesday, October 9th, 1635, religious dissident Roger Williams is banished
[00:48.600 --> 00:52.800]  from the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the General Court of Massachusetts.
[00:52.800 --> 00:56.280]  Williams had been speaking out against the right of civil authorities to punish religious
[00:56.280 --> 00:59.080]  dissension and to confiscate Indian land.
[00:59.080 --> 01:02.560]  He went on to found the settlement, known as Providence, located in present-day Rhode
[01:02.560 --> 01:07.080]  Island, in which he declared it open to all those seeking freedom of conscience and the
[01:07.080 --> 01:09.520]  removal of the church from civil matters.
[01:09.520 --> 01:13.960]  Roger Williams also founded the First Baptist Church in America there and edited the first
[01:13.960 --> 01:16.000]  dictionary of Native American languages.
[01:16.000 --> 01:20.180]  The liberal concepts of religious freedom and liberty of conscience stem from articulations
[01:20.180 --> 01:26.000]  of this religious renegade.
[01:26.000 --> 01:30.120]  In recent news, a shooting where one person was injured and another killed occurred around
[01:30.120 --> 01:34.360]  1130 A.M. Central Standard Time yesterday near Texas Southern University's student
[01:34.360 --> 01:35.800]  housing complex.
[01:35.800 --> 01:39.400]  The campus was placed on lockdown and classes have been canceled for the day.
[01:39.400 --> 01:41.280]  A possible suspect has been detained.
[01:41.280 --> 01:44.080]  It is the second shooting at TSU this week.
[01:44.080 --> 01:48.600]  Earlier on Tuesday, a man was shot in the abdomen on a roadway that leads through the
[01:48.600 --> 01:49.600]  university.
[01:49.600 --> 01:52.000]  He was hospitalized in serious but stable condition.
[01:52.000 --> 01:59.040]  Texas Southern University has about 10,000 students.
[01:59.040 --> 02:02.520]  Chinese hackers who allegedly read through Obama's administration's emails, stole millions
[02:02.520 --> 02:06.960]  of federal employees' records, hacked U.S. health care records, and attacked anti-centership
[02:06.960 --> 02:10.200]  projects were reportedly arrested by Chinese authorities.
[02:10.200 --> 02:14.040]  The Washington Post reported that these arrests were made prior to the agreement on cyber
[02:14.040 --> 02:18.720]  espionage China and the U.S. announced during President Xi Jinping's state visit.
[02:18.720 --> 02:23.040]  The arrests did take place weeks before the Chinese president's visit to Washington last
[02:23.040 --> 02:24.040]  month.
[02:24.040 --> 02:27.720]  The hackers had been identified by U.S. officials as having stolen commercial secrets from U.S.
[02:27.720 --> 02:30.480]  firms to be sold to Chinese state-run industries.
[02:30.480 --> 02:34.880]  However, with the lack of any official statement from both U.S. and Chinese officials without
[02:34.880 --> 02:38.480]  independent verification, many are saying that these arrests were merely for show and
[02:38.480 --> 02:39.480]  gesture.
[02:39.480 --> 02:43.600]  There is a chance that these arrests had little to nothing to do with the Chinese-U.S. hacking
[02:43.600 --> 02:44.600]  wars.
[02:44.600 --> 02:48.480]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors, so if you have a product or
[02:48.480 --> 02:55.840]  service you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give us a call at 210-363-2257.
[02:55.840 --> 03:22.600]  This has been your Lowdown for October 9, 2015.
[03:25.840 --> 03:35.400]  Okay, howdy, howdy.
[03:35.400 --> 03:45.280]  This is Randy Kelton with Low Radio on this Friday, the 9th day of October, 2015.
[03:45.280 --> 03:52.040]  And I'm going to start out today, oh, all our phone lines are open, at least I think
[03:52.040 --> 03:53.040]  they're open.
[03:53.040 --> 03:54.040]  I'll get my pages up.
[03:54.040 --> 04:00.440]  We're going to have the phone lines open all night, we'll be taking your calls, we'll
[04:00.440 --> 04:08.160]  be taking questions on most any topic except those that are somewhat sensitive.
[04:08.160 --> 04:15.720]  We are not particularly political here, so we very seldom get into politics like a lot
[04:15.720 --> 04:21.160]  of other talk show hosts do.
[04:21.160 --> 04:25.760]  We primarily stay with the rule of law.
[04:25.760 --> 04:27.920]  So if you have a question or comment, give us a call.
[04:27.920 --> 04:36.840]  I'm going to start out with a bit of consternation, and it has to do with a certain guest we
[04:36.840 --> 04:41.800]  have on the show on a regular basis.
[04:41.800 --> 04:50.800]  He keeps bringing me all this really cool stuff, and sometimes I get it, sometimes I
[04:50.800 --> 04:51.800]  don't.
[04:51.800 --> 04:57.520]  And we have one right now that he's been trying to beat into my brain for quite a while.
[04:57.520 --> 05:00.960]  And once I finally get it, it's kind of frustrating.
[05:00.960 --> 05:08.760]  We like to think we're intelligent, that we pay attention and we understand things.
[05:08.760 --> 05:16.680]  But sometimes it takes a bit of pushing and prodding before you can get your head wrapped
[05:16.680 --> 05:18.120]  around a concept.
[05:18.120 --> 05:23.760]  And the concept that Jeff has been trying to pound into my head for a while is Chevron
[05:23.760 --> 05:32.200]  deference, the Chevron case, and it speaks to deference.
[05:32.200 --> 05:39.160]  It speaks to deference and how deference should be applied to regulations.
[05:39.160 --> 05:45.840]  And it took a while, and I finally went through some of the documentation, some of the cases
[05:45.840 --> 05:50.480]  he sent me, and it finally got through my head.
[05:50.480 --> 05:58.880]  I'm going to read this, and then I'm going to tell you what I finally got out of it.
[05:58.880 --> 06:06.120]  This is from Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
[06:06.120 --> 06:16.920]  It has to do with the EPA and the implementation of EPA regulations, generally.
[06:16.920 --> 06:29.960]  But more specifically, it has to do with the deference the court is required to give regulations.
[06:29.960 --> 06:38.080]  And that's what took a while for me to understand, and it took a while to understand why this
[06:38.080 --> 06:41.160]  was so important.
[06:41.160 --> 06:52.400]  I'm developing a webpage called LegalEarth.net, and we are in the process of putting together
[06:52.400 --> 07:04.440]  a set of software whereby we can capture an expert's expertise and make that expertise
[07:04.440 --> 07:12.920]  available to the non-expert in the form of an online dynamic questionnaire.
[07:12.920 --> 07:25.640]  And in order to organize these tools, I've come up with this idea for an icon, and it
[07:25.640 --> 07:32.680]  will give a demonstration of where regulations sit in the overall scheme of things.
[07:32.680 --> 07:43.080]  I'm trying to get a crystal globe created, like a map of the Earth, but it's glass, and
[07:43.080 --> 07:51.120]  the only markings on it are the political boundaries etched into the globe.
[07:51.120 --> 07:58.560]  We take a full-size globe, and then we take a second one and shrink it down to the size,
[07:58.560 --> 08:00.480]  say, of the core of the Earth.
[08:00.480 --> 08:04.040]  It's a small circle in the middle.
[08:04.040 --> 08:11.080]  That would represent all of the international treaties.
[08:11.080 --> 08:17.720]  And then around that one would be another one, a little bit larger.
[08:17.720 --> 08:27.200]  And that one would represent all of the laws and statutes enacted to enforce the treaties.
[08:27.200 --> 08:35.320]  Around that one would be another one that would constitute the rules established by
[08:35.320 --> 08:43.300]  the courts or the legislature for the implementation of the statutes.
[08:43.300 --> 08:52.800]  And then around that one would be another one that would represent the regulations developed
[08:52.800 --> 09:05.080]  by the individual agencies so that the behavior of the agency would enforce the rules in a
[09:05.080 --> 09:11.800]  way that is intended by the statutes so that the treaties are implemented the way they
[09:11.800 --> 09:13.840]  were intended.
[09:13.840 --> 09:25.600]  Now that's kind of an idea of how the treaties, statutes, rules, and regulations relate to
[09:25.600 --> 09:26.600]  one another.
[09:26.600 --> 09:31.640]  Well, you have a constitution, a constitution would be the core, and then you have statutes
[09:31.640 --> 09:34.600]  around that, rules and regulations.
[09:34.600 --> 09:46.240]  Well, intuitively you'd look at that and say that those portions of that mental image
[09:46.240 --> 09:54.440]  that would carry the most force and effect would be those deepest down in the structure,
[09:54.440 --> 09:57.440]  constitution or treaties.
[09:57.440 --> 10:09.920]  And then as you move out, each layer would have less essentially deference, less authority.
[10:09.920 --> 10:19.320]  But then it took a while for me to understand what Jeff was trying to get me to realize.
[10:19.320 --> 10:29.920]  And this will explain it about the effectiveness or authority that the courts must grant to
[10:29.920 --> 10:30.920]  regulations.
[10:30.920 --> 10:37.640]  When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is
[10:37.640 --> 10:40.080]  confronted with two questions.
[10:40.080 --> 10:46.080]  First, always, I'm sorry, first always is the question whether Congress has directly
[10:46.080 --> 10:50.880]  spoken to the precise question at issue.
[10:50.880 --> 10:57.360]  If the intent of Congress is clear, that's the end of the matter for the court, as well
[10:57.360 --> 11:01.500]  as the agency, I'm sorry.
[11:01.500 --> 11:08.320]  If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of it for the court.
[11:08.320 --> 11:11.000]  I'll get this right in a minute.
[11:11.000 --> 11:18.760]  If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter, for the court as well
[11:18.760 --> 11:26.720]  as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
[11:26.720 --> 11:33.000]  If however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question
[11:33.000 --> 11:39.520]  at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute as would
[11:39.520 --> 11:43.920]  be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation.
[11:43.920 --> 11:52.080]  Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question
[11:52.080 --> 11:58.080]  for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of
[11:58.080 --> 12:00.520]  the statute.
[12:00.520 --> 12:08.120]  The power of an administrative agency to administrate a congressionally created program necessarily
[12:08.120 --> 12:16.480]  requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left implicitly
[12:16.480 --> 12:20.040]  or explicitly by Congress.
[12:20.040 --> 12:30.960]  In Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, if Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to
[12:30.960 --> 12:39.360]  fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision
[12:39.360 --> 12:42.160]  of the statute by regulation.
[12:42.160 --> 12:50.560]  Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious,
[12:50.560 --> 12:54.760]  or manifestly contrary to the statutes.
[12:54.760 --> 13:00.720]  Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit,
[13:00.720 --> 13:09.600]  but rather than explicit in such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction
[13:09.600 --> 13:16.040]  of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of
[13:16.040 --> 13:19.040]  an agency.
[13:19.040 --> 13:31.920]  The key portion of this is the consideration that what the legislature did not specifically
[13:31.920 --> 13:45.800]  address, it granted to the agency or delegated to the agency the authority to make binding
[13:45.800 --> 13:51.200]  determinations concerning those considerations.
[13:51.200 --> 14:01.080]  Now in terms of what we do, we look at that and say, okay, so what?
[14:01.080 --> 14:07.400]  Well what Jeff's been trying to get me to understand is this does not just apply to
[14:07.400 --> 14:12.480]  EPA regulations, which this case happens to be about.
[14:12.480 --> 14:26.920]  It applies to all regulatory agencies, FDCPA, CBPA, all of the initial agencies, Office
[14:26.920 --> 14:35.160]  of the Comptroller of the Currency, all of these agencies that have been put in place
[14:35.160 --> 14:42.800]  to implement regulations.
[14:42.800 --> 14:49.800]  When they look at the regulations, like the SEC or the FCC, and they look at the statutes
[14:49.800 --> 15:05.560]  and then develop regulations for their enforcement personnel, these regulations become law, essentially,
[15:05.560 --> 15:10.200]  so far as the court is concerned.
[15:10.200 --> 15:25.880]  So we have been having the courts read the FDCPA, the rules and regulations that Congress
[15:25.880 --> 15:36.360]  has put in place, and the implementation by the regulatory agencies, the courts have pretty
[15:36.360 --> 15:47.720]  well been deciding how the regulations should be applied.
[15:47.720 --> 15:56.200]  And what this is saying, that they have no power to second-guess a regulatory agency.
[15:56.200 --> 16:05.080]  That is major when we're looking at the CFRs.
[16:05.080 --> 16:10.640]  When I would look at the statutes, we have the Federal Collections Practices Act is written
[16:10.640 --> 16:23.160]  into U.S. Code, but there are also a set of implementing regulations, and that's the CFRs.
[16:23.160 --> 16:32.520]  The Code of Federal Regulation, according to this, we need to pay a whole lot more attention
[16:32.520 --> 16:41.240]  to the Code of Federal Regulation than we do the statute itself, because where the statute
[16:41.240 --> 16:50.560]  is not implicit and the code addresses the gaps left by the legislature, that's a delegated
[16:50.560 --> 16:53.240]  authority.
[16:53.240 --> 17:23.120]  The courts can't override that delegated authority with their own idea of what it is.
[17:23.120 --> 17:42.920]  That's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's
[17:42.920 --> 18:08.000]  what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what
[18:08.000 --> 18:30.720]  we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we
[18:30.720 --> 18:51.080]  need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to
[18:51.080 --> 19:07.040]  do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do,
[19:07.040 --> 19:34.200]  that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's
[19:34.200 --> 19:52.280]  what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what
[19:52.280 --> 20:08.040]  we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do, that's what we
[20:08.040 --> 20:14.480]  interesting. We may have a glitch with Spencer. Hang on, Spencer. Spencer, let me try Steve
[20:14.480 --> 20:20.600]  from Washington, Spencer from Texas. Steve from Washington, are you there?
[20:20.600 --> 20:22.120]  I am here.
[20:22.120 --> 20:30.640]  Oh, my bad. I'm getting the names mixed together. Okay. All righty. What do you have for us
[20:30.640 --> 20:31.640]  today?
[20:31.640 --> 20:48.920]  Well, I just wanted to say I've been following regulations for a few years in the CFR, and
[20:48.920 --> 20:57.800]  they're hortatory, and that's in Chrysler v. Brown. They don't have the force and
[20:57.800 --> 21:05.320]  effect of law. However, they are housekeeping regulations for these agencies.
[21:05.320 --> 21:13.000]  You need to read Chevron deference, Chevron v. National Resources Council. That's not
[21:13.000 --> 21:22.080]  what it said. It said what the regulatory agency determines in terms of regulation,
[21:22.080 --> 21:25.320]  the courts have no power to overturn.
[21:25.320 --> 21:35.760]  That's true, but also where they don't comport with law, they're in violation.
[21:35.760 --> 21:47.120]  That's always an exception. A lot of times the court has a discretion on issues that
[21:47.120 --> 21:55.160]  have not been specifically handled or addressed by the legislature. When the legislature passes
[21:55.160 --> 22:02.600]  a law, they can't include every possibility and permutation. They put the courts in place
[22:02.600 --> 22:08.520]  and said to the courts that where there's an issue that arises under this statute, you're
[22:08.520 --> 22:14.800]  to take our stated intent and apply it to these circumstances.
[22:14.800 --> 22:23.400]  What this case said is in the matter of a regulatory agency, we don't delegate authority
[22:23.400 --> 22:31.400]  to you to decide how the statute should be implemented. We delegated that authority to
[22:31.400 --> 22:38.360]  the regulatory agency. As a regulatory agency made a determination, you can't revisit that
[22:38.360 --> 22:52.080]  determination unless it manifestly does not implement the intent of the legislature. This
[22:52.080 --> 23:01.640]  is the same kind of consideration that the courts can make on any law.
[23:01.640 --> 23:07.320]  Sometimes the law is written and it's very well written, but there are certain circumstances
[23:07.320 --> 23:15.440]  or situations where the law when applied to this situation does not work the remedy the
[23:15.440 --> 23:25.440]  legislature intended. They said, okay, courts, you can make adjustments in these cases. As
[23:25.440 --> 23:31.120]  to regulations promulgated by a regulatory agency, they said, no, the courts, you don't
[23:31.120 --> 23:37.200]  get to do that. The regulatory agency gets to do that. Does that make sense, Steve?
[23:37.200 --> 23:48.600]  Yeah. Well, they're deciding your rights based on the benefits.
[23:48.600 --> 23:52.040]  Everything doesn't go to a right.
[23:52.040 --> 24:02.640]  The courts have already ruled that the regulation cannot be violated and it cannot be punished
[24:02.640 --> 24:10.800]  for not in a tripartite government. It can't.
[24:10.800 --> 24:17.600]  Hold on, hold on. I always get a little tense when someone makes a proactive statement of
[24:17.600 --> 24:26.240]  law out of their own mouth. Can you give me foundation for that statement?
[24:26.240 --> 24:35.520]  The administrative state is beyond, it's outside of the tripartite government. It's
[24:35.520 --> 24:42.080]  not a part of the constitution. We're talking about the administrative state. We're not
[24:42.080 --> 24:44.880]  talking about the executive judicial or...
[24:44.880 --> 24:54.680]  Okay, hold on. You used the term the administrative state. That's what in psychology we call a
[24:54.680 --> 25:05.000]  nominalization. You took a process and turned it into a noun. I don't know of an administrative
[25:05.000 --> 25:06.000]  state.
[25:06.000 --> 25:12.080]  It is an administrative state because that's what the new deal was with...
[25:12.080 --> 25:25.560]  Again, where in the new deal does it establish an administrative state?
[25:25.560 --> 25:27.600]  Roosevelt established...
[25:27.600 --> 25:39.760]  I know who did it. Okay, I have a problem here. It's a matter of being careful in how
[25:39.760 --> 25:54.440]  I hold my mind. What this sounds like is a determination of what you think a set of regulations
[25:54.440 --> 26:06.800]  constitutes. You indicate that you think that the administrative portion of law under the
[26:06.800 --> 26:16.920]  new deal constitutes a separate state. I don't know how to get there. I can't just accept
[26:16.920 --> 26:24.760]  that and move along as if it were true because then we make decisions based on that as if
[26:24.760 --> 26:29.880]  it was true and it may or may not be.
[26:29.880 --> 26:37.600]  The Congress said it's true. If they said it's true, then they created the problem
[26:37.600 --> 26:43.040]  and it's the whole problem is they created all these problems and then they create more
[26:43.040 --> 26:49.640]  solutions to solve the problem and then we get more problems. You know how that goes.
[26:49.640 --> 26:57.840]  Life is incredibly complex and our founders understood that. Life in law is incredibly
[26:57.840 --> 27:05.640]  complex and there is no way that we could write laws so complete that they would address
[27:05.640 --> 27:12.080]  every eventuality. Otherwise, we would have a draconian set of laws that nobody can understand.
[27:12.080 --> 27:19.720]  When I was in Australia, I talked to them there. They were having problems when they
[27:19.720 --> 27:30.480]  would file a criminal appearance notice. In Australia, an individual could summon someone
[27:30.480 --> 27:39.960]  to court in the capacity of a common law public official. Unlike here, when it comes to a
[27:39.960 --> 27:44.960]  criminal complaint, we don't have any standing. We can give notice that a crime has been committed
[27:44.960 --> 27:49.500]  but we don't have any standing. In Australia, they have standing. It falls under the English
[27:49.500 --> 27:54.880]  law. They would file a criminal appearance notice. Well, if it pro se filed it, if it
[27:54.880 --> 28:01.320]  wasn't a lawyer or a police officer, then the registrar, the county clerk, would have
[28:01.320 --> 28:06.160]  to sign off on it to make sure that it met all the statutory requirements and they were
[28:06.160 --> 28:13.800]  complaining that registrars were not signing off on their cans. I asked them, okay, I have
[28:13.800 --> 28:18.440]  a bloody yank and I'm not going to pretend I know more about Australian law than you
[28:18.440 --> 28:25.760]  do, but under the 1996 New South Wales Crimes Act, what is a physical element of crime?
[28:25.760 --> 28:33.880]  They all sat there and looked at me. I said, okay, okay, okay. What is a fault element
[28:33.880 --> 28:41.960]  that renders a physical element criminal? Essentially, that was the same as ours, except
[28:41.960 --> 28:47.000]  it was stated a little different. They just sat there and looked at me. That's how it
[28:47.000 --> 28:56.520]  was stated in their own code. I said, guys, read the code. Then I got out the code. I
[28:56.520 --> 29:02.000]  was going through it, but I didn't have the whole thing, so I got the whole code. Their
[29:02.000 --> 29:13.720]  penal code is 500 pages. Our penal code is about 100. Their section, our section on intoxication
[29:13.720 --> 29:26.680]  offenses, is about a page and a half. There's just 30 pages. There's no way you can understand
[29:26.680 --> 29:38.040]  all that law. Jim and the Creeks, everything, it's just English law is old. Hang on, we'll
[29:38.040 --> 29:43.280]  pick this up when we come back on the other side. Randy Kelton, Rube Law Radio, we'll
[29:43.280 --> 30:04.960]  be right back.
[30:04.960 --> 30:09.640]  Mind reading vehicles? Imagine if your car decided when to apply the brakes based on
[30:09.640 --> 30:14.400]  your thoughts alone. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you about braking
[30:14.400 --> 30:17.840]  at the speed of thought next.
[30:17.840 --> 30:22.440]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:22.440 --> 30:28.640]  again. Once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. Protect
[30:28.640 --> 30:34.360]  your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's
[30:34.360 --> 30:39.680]  worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:39.680 --> 30:45.000]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.000 --> 30:50.760]  I'm a big fan of German engineering when it comes to cars. After all, they did create
[30:50.760 --> 30:55.480]  the Mercedes and the BMW. Plus, they have no speed limit on the Autobahn. But when they
[30:55.480 --> 31:00.480]  start developing cars that read minds, they've gone too far. To test cars that apply the
[31:00.480 --> 31:05.160]  brakes when the driver thinks of stopping, German researchers attached electrodes to
[31:05.160 --> 31:10.280]  people's skulls and legs and then had them drive in a simulator. When certain brain activity
[31:10.280 --> 31:15.280]  and leg tension were detected, the brakes engaged, milliseconds before the drivers actually
[31:15.280 --> 31:16.880]  hit the brake pedal.
[31:16.880 --> 31:21.920]  Donk is showing, guys, but no thanks. If I'm going to drive, I don't need my car to second
[31:21.920 --> 31:22.920]  guess me.
[31:22.920 --> 31:31.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.480 --> 31:35.840]  Did you know there are three million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:35.840 --> 31:41.080]  value of the hemp plant? HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder. It does not contain
[31:41.080 --> 31:47.440]  chemicals or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten free. Hemp protein powder burns fat,
[31:47.440 --> 31:55.240]  builds muscle, contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs. Call 888-910-4367
[31:55.240 --> 32:00.440]  and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you, only at HempUSA.org.
[32:00.440 --> 32:06.920]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[32:06.920 --> 32:09.920]  we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a
[32:09.920 --> 32:13.920]  free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those
[32:13.920 --> 32:17.560]  rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[32:17.560 --> 32:21.120]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts
[32:21.120 --> 32:25.160]  afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[32:25.160 --> 32:28.880]  through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law
[32:28.880 --> 32:32.400]  Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[32:32.400 --> 32:36.440]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get
[32:36.440 --> 32:40.500]  your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering
[32:40.500 --> 32:44.480]  your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation
[32:44.480 --> 32:49.080]  Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of
[32:49.080 --> 32:52.640]  research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights
[32:52.640 --> 32:57.280]  with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can
[32:57.280 --> 33:00.280]  have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:00.280 --> 33:11.280]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:11.280 --> 33:34.280]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna serve them, to the government them, prosecute them.
[33:34.280 --> 33:55.480]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we have Mr. Jeff Cedric up on the
[33:55.480 --> 34:03.040]  board with us. And we're going back to Steve in Washington. Steve, did I make sense there?
[34:03.040 --> 34:13.560]  Sometimes I feel like I'm just rambling. Yeah, and you know, we're really, I've read through
[34:13.560 --> 34:23.640]  the whole, all of the government documents and histories, and I can't, what I came up
[34:23.640 --> 34:29.520]  with is, you know, just some basic stuff, but basically regulations, you know, when
[34:29.520 --> 34:39.200]  you go in and you submit your, you know, they have the proposal for a regulation, and you
[34:39.200 --> 34:48.720]  submit your comments, yeah, your comments, and your comment period. And, but it has to,
[34:48.720 --> 34:59.360]  under 5 U.S.C. 553-3, under the final rule, what they have to do is flesh out any right
[34:59.360 --> 35:07.000]  regulations that will affect your natural rights or your constitutional rights, and
[35:07.000 --> 35:14.120]  they can't include those unless, now this is what you're looking for, when you're
[35:14.120 --> 35:22.280]  looking for force and effective law, you're looking for the citation that are in parentheses,
[35:22.280 --> 35:29.840]  the ones that don't have it, the ones that are housekeeping rules or interpretive regulations
[35:29.840 --> 35:41.760]  are in brackets. Very rarely will you see anything with force and effective law in the
[35:41.760 --> 35:49.360]  source that will have parentheses. So they come down to Drake versus the tiny well, and
[35:49.360 --> 35:57.320]  they say right there, interpretive regulations cannot be violated. So they never have, they
[35:57.320 --> 36:03.080]  never put out interpretive regulations as law, they never say this is law, you know,
[36:03.080 --> 36:09.480]  it's like saying, that would be like saying that, well, you're required to register your
[36:09.480 --> 36:15.360]  vehicle, your, whatever it is, there's no law that says that.
[36:15.360 --> 36:23.840]  Right. And that's, Jeff, this is what you were talking about, the very narrow exceptions
[36:23.840 --> 36:30.880]  to the courts having to follow the determinations of the regulatory agency. Will you address
[36:30.880 --> 36:32.880]  those exceptions, Jeff?
[36:32.880 --> 36:41.400]  I'll try. Please keep in mind, this is a brand new discovery on our part out of the
[36:41.400 --> 36:51.400]  Hoke case in the appeals court out in California. But basically, there's only two exceptions
[36:51.400 --> 37:01.320]  when a regulation can be overruled and that can only be done at appeals court level. It
[37:01.320 --> 37:10.160]  cannot be done at district court level. They have no authority. The two exceptions would
[37:10.160 --> 37:23.280]  be something to the effect of, if it's unreasonable, or if you take the definition of what a debt
[37:23.280 --> 37:28.920]  collector is, and, you know, he collects debts on behalf of somebody else and they're all
[37:28.920 --> 37:35.080]  in default and whatnot, and then you write a regulation that says, but this does not
[37:35.080 --> 37:44.720]  apply to debt collectors whose name begins with A. That is an unreasonable interpretation
[37:44.720 --> 37:54.240]  and the appeals court can't overrule it. Okay. That's one instance where it's unreasonable
[37:54.240 --> 38:01.360]  and the other instance is where Congress has written the law and where there is no room
[38:01.360 --> 38:10.440]  for interpretation, but the regulatory agency wrote an interpretation anyway. Now, you don't
[38:10.440 --> 38:14.360]  see that happen very often, so you're not going to see that, you know, that sort of
[38:14.360 --> 38:22.440]  situation being overruled. Of course, it becomes clear with cobwebs and dust before you see
[38:22.440 --> 38:28.920]  much in the way of a statute that that's comprehensive. So, you know, it comes down
[38:28.920 --> 38:36.280]  to when a law is written, it is so spot on that there's no room for interpretation or
[38:36.280 --> 38:47.480]  if the regulation is unreasonable. Yeah. And the way I read this is essentially we can
[38:47.480 --> 38:54.400]  trust what's in the regulation as controlling, at least so far as the trial.
[38:54.400 --> 38:59.160]  Well, basically what they have stated is it is controlling.
[38:59.160 --> 39:08.600]  And for me, it's a matter of what do I bring before the court? And this sets a new rule
[39:08.600 --> 39:18.840]  in my research procedure is I look at CFR first or I look at the regulations of a particular
[39:18.840 --> 39:27.160]  agency like the SEC or the FCC. I look at their regulations before I look at the case
[39:27.160 --> 39:33.560]  law. Does it make sense where we're going, Steve?
[39:33.560 --> 39:40.480]  I think it's pretty safe in going with the case law first. And it's just that we have
[39:40.480 --> 39:50.720]  a controversial situation like the case with H. Davidson v. Capital One, where the Eleventh
[39:50.720 --> 39:57.480]  Circuit declared that Capital One was not a debt collector but was a creditor in a situation
[39:57.480 --> 40:06.360]  where Capital One had bought a substantive amount of HFBC's credit card accounts. And,
[40:06.360 --> 40:12.800]  you know, a great number of those accounts were either judgments accounts or defaulted
[40:12.800 --> 40:20.880]  accounts. But Capital One wanted the court to see Capital One as a creditor because
[40:20.880 --> 40:27.320]  it was collecting its own debt because it bought them from HFBC. And CFPB has entered
[40:27.320 --> 40:33.520]  an amicus brief requesting that the court rehear it and points out to the court that,
[40:33.520 --> 40:38.680]  yeah, there is a regulation that defines creditor and there is a regulation that defines debt
[40:38.680 --> 40:45.880]  collector to overlook these parts of the definition in your decision, and your decision is wrong.
[40:45.880 --> 40:52.560]  And they did use the word wrong.
[40:52.560 --> 40:53.560]  That's unusual.
[40:53.560 --> 41:03.760]  It startled me. I personally pushed my chair away from the desk. I couldn't believe it.
[41:03.760 --> 41:09.520]  Basically what they have told the Eleventh Circuit is you reopen the case and change
[41:09.520 --> 41:17.400]  your decision and do it now. And that came from the FTC.
[41:17.400 --> 41:19.880]  Before they get spanked from a higher court.
[41:19.880 --> 41:33.320]  Well, if you go and look at the YouTube recording of Ho versus C.G. Credit or C.G. Capital,
[41:33.320 --> 41:41.280]  something like that, you'll see there's a panel of three judges in the appeals court
[41:41.280 --> 41:50.680]  in California. And he keeps asking the creditor how they can reconcile their position with
[41:50.680 --> 41:58.800]  the brand X decision. And then he asked both councils, would you think we should get the
[41:58.800 --> 42:05.760]  CFPB to weigh into this with an amicus brief? And boy, they did. Boy, did they ever. And
[42:05.760 --> 42:11.400]  they were basically saying, you know, we don't really care what your underlying law is, trustee
[42:11.400 --> 42:13.400]  is a debt collector.
[42:13.400 --> 42:16.960]  So if they've bought a debt...
[42:16.960 --> 42:20.520]  We're waiting for the Ninth Circuit to come out with their decision.
[42:20.520 --> 42:26.760]  So if they purchase debt that's in default, they're a debt collector. If they purchase
[42:26.760 --> 42:32.600]  debt that's not in default, then they are a creditor.
[42:32.600 --> 42:39.280]  They can also be a debt collector, but they can also not be a debt collector. If Midland,
[42:39.280 --> 42:43.520]  which is a debt collector, purchases debt that is not in default, which just doesn't
[42:43.520 --> 42:49.680]  really happen, then in those instances, they would still be a debt collector because that's
[42:49.680 --> 42:59.280]  their primary business. Okay? If Capital One buys debt that is not in default, Capital
[42:59.280 --> 43:03.000]  One becomes creditor.
[43:03.000 --> 43:05.840]  Okay, Steve.
[43:05.840 --> 43:07.680]  Yeah.
[43:07.680 --> 43:11.440]  I think we kind of ran away from where you were going.
[43:11.440 --> 43:22.000]  Well, what I was trying to say is that the regulations are there for a good reason. We
[43:22.000 --> 43:35.560]  have everything run by Congress-created agencies to administer various benefits, and we have
[43:35.560 --> 43:41.280]  regulations to operate those agencies, and that's what they're there for. But they don't
[43:41.280 --> 43:42.280]  reach across...
[43:42.280 --> 43:49.040]  Okay. Hang on. I'm about to go to break. Randy Kelton, Ruevla Radio, our call-in number
[43:49.040 --> 43:57.720]  512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll be taking your calls all night. We'll be right back.
[43:57.720 --> 44:07.960]  Hello. My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our
[44:07.960 --> 44:13.480]  store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas, on Brave New Books and Chase
[44:13.480 --> 44:18.480]  Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes. Have a look
[44:18.480 --> 44:22.520]  at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. Take a
[44:22.520 --> 44:27.320]  peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian emu oil, lotion candles,
[44:27.320 --> 44:35.120]  olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us online
[44:35.120 --> 44:43.520]  at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like
[44:43.520 --> 45:01.040]  us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.040 --> 45:07.440]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[45:07.440 --> 45:14.160]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by
[45:14.160 --> 45:19.800]  step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have
[45:19.800 --> 45:26.080]  a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course,
[45:26.080 --> 45:32.600]  and now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[45:32.600 --> 45:38.120]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[45:38.120 --> 45:43.840]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[45:43.840 --> 45:51.200]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and
[45:51.200 --> 45:57.360]  much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[45:57.360 --> 46:04.360]  866-LAW-EZ.
[46:27.360 --> 46:54.840]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, here with Jeff Sedgwick, and we're
[46:54.840 --> 46:59.520]  talking to Steve in Washington. Okay, go ahead, Steve.
[46:59.520 --> 47:08.600]  Okay. Like I was saying, Congress created these agencies to service the public, and
[47:08.600 --> 47:15.440]  they have to create regulations to manage... You have to have some kind of company
[47:15.440 --> 47:22.600]  rules in any company to run it, and that's why they have... That's why they pass public
[47:22.600 --> 47:30.840]  law and blah, blah, blah, goes in for review so they can promulgate the regulation. Now
[47:30.840 --> 47:41.920]  under 5-53B, they provide your... They put a notice up for all interested person to comment
[47:41.920 --> 47:49.160]  on the proposed rule. They have, I think, a total of 90 days before the final rulemaking
[47:49.160 --> 47:56.200]  comes up, but they can't really... They don't affect your rights because they can't
[47:56.200 --> 48:06.000]  affect your rights unless it's a substantive issue, and they don't really... They don't
[48:06.000 --> 48:15.440]  reach across into your private life and rule your life. I mean, it seems to rule by legal
[48:15.440 --> 48:21.960]  notice, all it is. Doesn't it seem like that to you, rule by legal notice? I mean, but
[48:21.960 --> 48:22.960]  really they-
[48:22.960 --> 48:32.600]  Well, no. It seems like a method of implementing the statute. The police have rules into how
[48:32.600 --> 48:41.680]  they're going to conduct themselves in enforcing the law, and they have rules that say, this
[48:41.680 --> 48:48.600]  much activity, while it may be close to breaching the law, this doesn't breach it. But this
[48:48.600 --> 48:55.160]  other amount here does breach it. This is how you gauge whether someone violated this
[48:55.160 --> 49:04.480]  law or not. That's just implementation, and essentially that's what the administrative
[49:04.480 --> 49:09.760]  agencies are doing, except they don't happen to be arresting you. They're implementing
[49:09.760 --> 49:18.600]  other things, like in the Chevron case, it was the Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
[49:18.600 --> 49:19.600]  But-
[49:19.600 --> 49:33.040]  That's true. What they say is that those regulations are hortatory in nature rather than mandatory,
[49:33.040 --> 49:38.160]  and these interpretive rules can never be violated. A hortatory-
[49:38.160 --> 49:45.160]  Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. Say that again. I didn't get all of that.
[49:45.160 --> 49:51.160]  The regulations are hortatory rather than mandatory.
[49:51.160 --> 49:53.200]  Hortatory?
[49:53.200 --> 50:04.240]  Hortatory. It means that, yes, I can scare you to death. I can browbeat you. I can give
[50:04.240 --> 50:09.320]  you the eyeball, and everything. I can exhort you to do-
[50:09.320 --> 50:16.760]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Is this a maxim of law, or is this a comment on the nature
[50:16.760 --> 50:17.760]  of the regulation?
[50:17.760 --> 50:39.080]  Well, it's the court commenting on the nature of the regulations. Hortatory is like, well,
[50:39.080 --> 50:49.720]  you should get a license plate, or you should get a license. I saw you driving. You can
[50:49.720 --> 51:03.040]  make all of these grandiose statements, but what's true is that they're exhorting you
[51:03.040 --> 51:08.720]  to do something, because this is for your own good, or this could be for your own good,
[51:08.720 --> 51:14.920]  or this could really help you. That's all it really is.
[51:14.920 --> 51:26.440]  That's a very general statement, and it doesn't fit all of the... It only fits a small part
[51:26.440 --> 51:36.000]  of the regulations. In this case, it was a case about the implementation of certain kinds
[51:36.000 --> 51:44.240]  of air quality equipment. It didn't have anything to do with anybody's rights. It had to do
[51:44.240 --> 51:52.320]  with the intent of the legislature on improving air quality. The regulatory agency was saying
[51:52.320 --> 52:01.760]  that while this particular application will maintain air quality now, it won't improve
[52:01.760 --> 52:11.200]  air quality in the future. They put in a regulation that required a different procedure because
[52:11.200 --> 52:16.720]  it would implement the intent of the legislature to improve air quality in the future. The
[52:16.720 --> 52:24.840]  courts decided what they thought the legislature meant when they passed the statute, and what
[52:24.840 --> 52:29.040]  the legislature intended, and they superimposed that over the regulatory agency. It didn't
[52:29.040 --> 52:35.000]  have anything to do with anyone's rights. It had to do with the implementation of regulations.
[52:35.000 --> 52:41.320]  Well, as far as the agency is concerned, they're not exempt from that. They have to come up
[52:41.320 --> 52:46.520]  with some kind of enforcement... Yeah, but you're just doing rocks at them.
[52:46.520 --> 52:54.800]  You're implying that if we have any regulations here, they are necessarily arbitrary and capricious,
[52:54.800 --> 53:01.240]  and they're abusing our rights. Well, for the most part, any regulatory scheme, you
[53:01.240 --> 53:10.880]  accept it. That's voluntary. You don't fall under the regulatory scheme unless you volunteer.
[53:10.880 --> 53:15.120]  Once you volunteer for the regulatory scheme, you can't complain about it.
[53:15.120 --> 53:22.760]  Well, it has to be consent. There has to be consent to it. That's not presumed.
[53:22.760 --> 53:28.000]  You don't fall under the State Settlement Procedures Act unless you voluntarily decide
[53:28.000 --> 53:36.880]  to be a lender. When you do, in order to be a licensed lender, you have to agree to the
[53:36.880 --> 53:41.760]  regulatory scheme. It doesn't go to rights. It goes to contract.
[53:41.760 --> 53:51.800]  Well, that's true. They got the license to do business, then yeah, then they're bound.
[53:51.800 --> 53:58.920]  None of this goes to rights. It all goes to privileges.
[53:58.920 --> 54:05.320]  It all cuts really... It's a foggy line. I mean, it does cross the bright line, but
[54:05.320 --> 54:15.240]  there is a foggy line there. There is a little bit of fog there. They're crossing over this
[54:15.240 --> 54:23.000]  thing that for the individual, it's horditory, but as far as the agency or things like General
[54:23.000 --> 54:28.240]  Motors, can they enforce the regulations in General Motors?
[54:28.240 --> 54:39.360]  Okay. I looked up horditory, H-O-R-T-A-T-O-R-Y. That was just exactly what you said it was.
[54:39.360 --> 54:45.040]  It's just huffing and puffing. As to the individual, a regulatory agency is just huffing
[54:45.040 --> 54:52.080]  and puffing, because if you're not licensed under the agency's regulatory scheme, you
[54:52.080 --> 55:02.840]  don't fall under. The only ones that their regulatory scheme is applicable to are people
[55:02.840 --> 55:13.120]  who have agreed to be governed by it. So yeah, in that regard, you're right, but I don't
[55:13.120 --> 55:21.920]  understand what your position is. You seem to have a position that there's something
[55:21.920 --> 55:25.040]  really wrong with the regulatory scheme.
[55:25.040 --> 55:33.040]  No. What my position is is that it's not wrong. There's nothing wrong with the regulatory
[55:33.040 --> 55:40.160]  scheme. What's wrong is that people think that they have no understanding. They don't
[55:40.160 --> 55:47.600]  understand that they're not an agency.
[55:47.600 --> 55:53.400]  That's kind of what we're... On this show is what we're trying to get sorted out so
[55:53.400 --> 56:00.280]  people understand where they stand within the laws, rules, and regulations. In this
[56:00.280 --> 56:06.200]  case, we're speaking to a regulatory scheme that's in the form of a consumer protection
[56:06.200 --> 56:07.200]  law.
[56:07.200 --> 56:08.200]  That's true.
[56:08.200 --> 56:16.400]  Jeff is going in and claiming this person's a debt collector, and they're claiming they're
[56:16.400 --> 56:23.680]  not. The court is deciding whether they're a debt collector or not. What Jeff is saying,
[56:23.680 --> 56:29.680]  make sure I'm phrasing this right, Jeff, is that the courts don't get to make that
[56:29.680 --> 56:33.560]  determination. It's the regulatory agency that makes that determination, and they have
[56:33.560 --> 56:36.320]  to follow what the regulatory agency says.
[56:36.320 --> 56:38.440]  Am I right?
[56:38.440 --> 56:40.880]  That's right. That is correct.
[56:40.880 --> 56:41.880]  It's a procedural error.
[56:41.880 --> 56:42.880]  You can't hear me?
[56:42.880 --> 56:43.880]  That's from what I understand.
[56:43.880 --> 56:44.880]  Yeah, we can hear you, Jeff.
[56:44.880 --> 56:45.880]  Okay.
[56:45.880 --> 56:55.880]  If they make a procedural error, the court can say they made a procedural error, but
[56:55.880 --> 56:59.960]  they can't rule on it, from what I understand.
[56:59.960 --> 57:04.000]  That's too vague and nebulous for me to deal with.
[57:04.000 --> 57:11.240]  Well, there's another position that the agencies take. I mean, look at the Veterans Administration.
[57:11.240 --> 57:17.280]  My view on the Veterans Administration is that it's there to act as a buffer between
[57:17.280 --> 57:21.320]  veterans and the court. That's my view.
[57:21.320 --> 57:22.320]  In the courts?
[57:22.320 --> 57:34.840]  The veterans admit, yes. We have guys finally get an adjudication on their case after 39
[57:34.840 --> 57:46.400]  years. I think there's many reasons for having agencies. I think this is one of them, having
[57:46.400 --> 57:47.400]  a bond.
[57:47.400 --> 57:53.520]  One of the problems that you have with that whole battery of laws, and you'll find that
[57:53.520 --> 57:59.400]  this is probably true through a number of different sections of law, is that there is
[57:59.400 --> 58:06.880]  nowhere in there given a private right of action so a citizen can actually take an action
[58:06.880 --> 58:09.880]  himself.
[58:09.880 --> 58:22.480]  That's true, which I think is a situation that needs to be corrected. The whole VA situation
[58:22.480 --> 58:25.480]  is totally repugnant.
[58:25.480 --> 58:30.760]  Okay, hang on. We're about to go to break. Steve, when we come back, we really need to
[58:30.760 --> 58:34.920]  finish up here. We have more people waiting on the line. This is Randy Kelton, Wheel of
[58:34.920 --> 58:43.320]  War Radio, our call-in number, 512-646-1984. This is the top of the hour break, so you
[58:43.320 --> 58:50.200]  might go to look at our sponsors and help support this station. We'll be right back.
[58:50.200 --> 58:55.200]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God? Bibles for America
[58:55.200 --> 59:00.880]  is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:00.880 --> 59:05.320]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:05.320 --> 59:09.800]  today. It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will
[59:09.800 --> 59:13.360]  help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.360 --> 59:18.600]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life. Chapter
[59:18.600 --> 59:24.320]  by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.320 --> 59:29.840]  growing in Christ and how to build up the Church. To order your free New Testament Recovery
[59:29.840 --> 59:36.400]  Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at
[59:36.400 --> 01:00:00.720]  888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:00.720 --> 01:00:06.560]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily
[01:00:06.560 --> 01:00:13.520]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[01:00:13.520 --> 01:00:21.320]  into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:21.320 --> 01:00:27.400]  Markets for the 9th of October 2015 opened up with gold at $1,155.56 an ounce, silver
[01:00:27.400 --> 01:00:33.680]  at $15.84 an ounce, Texas crude at $49.43 an ounce, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[01:00:33.680 --> 01:00:43.040]  in about 244 U.S. currency.
[01:00:43.040 --> 01:00:48.720]  Today in history, Tuesday, October 9, 1635, religious dissident Roger Williams is banished
[01:00:48.720 --> 01:00:53.160]  from the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the General Court of Massachusetts. Williams had been
[01:00:53.160 --> 01:00:58.160]  speaking out against the right of civil authorities to punish religious dissension and to confiscate
[01:00:58.160 --> 01:01:02.400]  Indian land. He went on to found the settlement, known as Providence, located in present-day
[01:01:02.400 --> 01:01:07.000]  Rhode Island, in which he declared it open to all those seeking freedom of conscience
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:11.560]  and the removal of the church from civil matters. Roger Williams also founded the First Baptist
[01:01:11.560 --> 01:01:16.200]  Church in America there and edited the first dictionary of Native American languages. The
[01:01:16.200 --> 01:01:20.320]  liberal concepts of religious freedom and liberty of conscience stem from articulations
[01:01:20.320 --> 01:01:26.160]  of this religious renegade.
[01:01:26.160 --> 01:01:30.320]  In recent news, a shooting where one person was injured and another killed occurred around
[01:01:30.320 --> 01:01:35.120]  1130 a.m. Central Standard Time yesterday near Texas Southern University's Student Housing
[01:01:35.120 --> 01:01:39.560]  Complex. The campus was placed on lockdown and classes have been canceled for the day.
[01:01:39.560 --> 01:01:44.520]  A possible suspect has been detained. It is the second shooting at TSU this week. Earlier
[01:01:44.520 --> 01:01:49.360]  on Tuesday, a man was shot in the abdomen on a roadway that leads through the university.
[01:01:49.360 --> 01:01:53.560]  He was hospitalized in serious but stable condition. Texas Southern University has about
[01:01:53.560 --> 01:01:59.080]  10,000 students.
[01:01:59.080 --> 01:02:02.680]  Chinese hackers who allegedly read through Obama's administration's emails, stole millions
[01:02:02.680 --> 01:02:07.120]  of federal employees' records, hacked U.S. health care records, and attacked anti-centership
[01:02:07.120 --> 01:02:11.300]  projects were reportedly arrested by Chinese authorities. The Washington Post reported
[01:02:11.300 --> 01:02:15.600]  that these arrests were made prior to the agreement on cyber espionage China and the
[01:02:15.600 --> 01:02:20.160]  U.S. announced during President Xi Jinping's state visit. The arrest did take place weeks
[01:02:20.160 --> 01:02:24.920]  before the Chinese president's visit to Washington last month. The hackers had been identified
[01:02:24.920 --> 01:02:29.360]  by U.S. officials as having stolen commercial secrets from U.S. firms to be sold to Chinese
[01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:33.520]  state-run industries. However, with the lack of any official statement from both U.S. and
[01:02:33.520 --> 01:02:37.980]  Chinese officials, without independent verification, many are saying that these arrests were merely
[01:02:37.980 --> 01:02:42.200]  for show and gesture. There is a chance that these arrests had little to nothing to do
[01:02:42.200 --> 01:02:45.200]  with the Chinese U.S. hacking wars.
[01:02:45.200 --> 01:02:48.640]  The Lone Star Lowdown is currently looking for sponsors, so if you have a product or
[01:02:48.640 --> 01:02:56.040]  a service you'd like to advertise with us, feel free to give us a call at 210-363-2257.
[01:02:56.040 --> 01:03:19.520]  This has been your Lowdown for October 9th, 2015.
[01:03:26.040 --> 01:03:51.840]  Steve, if we're not going somewhere particularly, we need to move along. Do you have a specific
[01:03:51.840 --> 01:03:56.560]  question or comment?
[01:03:56.560 --> 01:04:05.760]  My particular comment is I'll just leave you with two cases. The regulations appropriately
[01:04:05.760 --> 01:04:17.000]  apply to agencies, but as far as the private person goes, you need to read Drake vs. Honeywell
[01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:22.840]  or Chrysler vs. Brown. As a matter of fact, both of them.
[01:04:22.840 --> 01:04:30.200]  Can you give me the citation numbers so I don't wind up getting another case with the
[01:04:30.200 --> 01:04:32.240]  same litigants' names?
[01:04:32.240 --> 01:04:42.480]  Okay. Let me see. My computer just quit here. I had it on a piece of paper and I had my
[01:04:42.480 --> 01:04:43.480]  files up.
[01:04:43.480 --> 01:04:50.880]  See, you're old school. You need a 10-year-old to show you how to use that annoying computer.
[01:04:50.880 --> 01:05:00.320]  Yeah, basically. But yeah, big cases, landmark cases, Drake v. Honeywell and Chrysler v.
[01:05:00.320 --> 01:05:01.320]  Brown.
[01:05:01.320 --> 01:05:13.840]  What are the case numbers?
[01:05:13.840 --> 01:05:21.880]  Chrysler is in the Eighth Circuit. I believe Drake v. Honeywell is in the Second Circuit.
[01:05:21.880 --> 01:05:27.760]  Likelihood, Honeywell and Chrysler is likely to give us a lot of hits, especially Chrysler
[01:05:27.760 --> 01:05:30.480]  v. Brown.
[01:05:30.480 --> 01:05:39.160]  Can you email me the specific citations and what do they go to?
[01:05:39.160 --> 01:05:51.440]  They talk about the enforceability of regulation. They talk about which ones create a private
[01:05:51.440 --> 01:06:00.320]  right and which ones do not. Interpretive regulations do not, only substantive. But
[01:06:00.320 --> 01:06:12.600]  the difference is that when the agency is making a regulation in accordance with their
[01:06:12.600 --> 01:06:19.360]  delegated powers and they consider that a substantive regulation, and when they're
[01:06:19.360 --> 01:06:31.040]  not, then they consider that all else an interpretive regulation. And those do not create a private
[01:06:31.040 --> 01:06:38.760]  right of action. Those are horditory. That's what they use in your traffic courts. They're
[01:06:38.760 --> 01:06:43.280]  all horditory. So if you consent, that's another thing.
[01:06:43.280 --> 01:06:53.080]  Well, actually, that's a misconception of how it works in a traffic court. If you fall
[01:06:53.080 --> 01:07:04.000]  under the regulatory scheme, the traffic laws are not interpretive. They're substantive.
[01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:12.240]  Problem is, for the most part, you don't fall under the statutory scheme or the citation
[01:07:12.240 --> 01:07:19.320]  does not establish that you fall under the statutory scheme. Therefore, they never accrued
[01:07:19.320 --> 01:07:28.280]  subject matter jurisdiction. This is exactly the argument we filed in a traffic case recently.
[01:07:28.280 --> 01:07:38.320]  We didn't say that the traffic laws didn't apply to us. In fact, I readily admit the
[01:07:38.320 --> 01:07:46.560]  traffic laws apply to me because I have a chauffeur's license. And if I get out there
[01:07:46.560 --> 01:07:57.180]  and I use that chauffeur's license, they apply to me. And when an officer writes a citation,
[01:07:57.180 --> 01:08:03.360]  in order for the citation to be sufficient, it must first establish that I do in fact
[01:08:03.360 --> 01:08:09.880]  fall under the regulatory scheme. Problem in traffic courts and in a lot of other situations
[01:08:09.880 --> 01:08:16.200]  is the agency was presumed that we fall under the regulatory scheme without establishing
[01:08:16.200 --> 01:08:17.200]  that fact.
[01:08:17.200 --> 01:08:26.000]  They wanted to provide evidence that you were conducting a compensatory act. Otherwise,
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:28.960]  that's a zilch.
[01:08:28.960 --> 01:08:39.400]  So they didn't say that they observed the defendant operating a commercial vehicle,
[01:08:39.400 --> 01:08:49.800]  hauling goods, commodity goods for hire or transporting persons for hire. That's not
[01:08:49.800 --> 01:08:57.400]  in there. So they didn't establish subject matter jurisdiction. It was a different way
[01:08:57.400 --> 01:09:01.720]  of going about it than to say you don't have subject matter jurisdiction because they absolutely
[01:09:01.720 --> 01:09:09.960]  do. They have subject matter jurisdiction and they have venue for the enforcement of
[01:09:09.960 --> 01:09:17.520]  the traffic laws in certain circumstances. Actually, I contradicted myself because in
[01:09:17.520 --> 01:09:26.280]  Texas, these guys, they never could have subject matter jurisdiction to start with because
[01:09:26.280 --> 01:09:30.280]  you have to have certain conditions in order to enforce the traffic code. You might look
[01:09:30.280 --> 01:09:39.280]  in your own state and see who may enforce the traffic code and what are the requirements
[01:09:39.280 --> 01:09:44.880]  for enforcing the traffic code. They didn't meet either one of those. Anyway, I'm off
[01:09:44.880 --> 01:09:51.760]  topic. Back to regulations. Yeah, the first thing they have to be established that you
[01:09:51.760 --> 01:10:02.200]  fall under. Once you fall under, then what we started with Chevron deference, the court
[01:10:02.200 --> 01:10:11.120]  has to give deference to the determinations of the regulatory agency. An awesome story
[01:10:11.120 --> 01:10:16.560]  that I'm sticking to. Okay, Steve, we do need to move along.
[01:10:16.560 --> 01:10:25.720]  Well, okay. We'll read those cases and I'll email you some citations for that.
[01:10:25.720 --> 01:10:26.720]  Good, good.
[01:10:26.720 --> 01:10:36.480]  And flesh it out. They can't just reach in and they just can't just reach down into
[01:10:36.480 --> 01:10:41.480]  your life and you're not a subject.
[01:10:41.480 --> 01:10:56.400]  Which brings up a good point. When any regulatory agency purports to exercise authority over
[01:10:56.400 --> 01:11:10.000]  you, always first question, who are you and where do you get authority to talk to me?
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:15.480]  We tend to forget that. We tend to jump to the defense right away. Recently, I was in
[01:11:15.480 --> 01:11:22.960]  a court and the bailiff came over and said, can I help you? I said, no. Do you have a
[01:11:22.960 --> 01:11:31.400]  case here today? No. Well, who are you? None of your business. We got all excited and finally
[01:11:31.400 --> 01:11:36.560]  he got the judge. The judge asked me who I was and I said, none of your business. And
[01:11:36.560 --> 01:11:46.120]  the judge said, may I ask you why you're in this courtroom? Entertainment. And the judge
[01:11:46.120 --> 01:11:54.280]  said, oh, okay. Mr. Bailiff, leave him alone. See, I started from the first thing. Who are
[01:11:54.280 --> 01:12:04.200]  you? And my question was, who are you to ask me that question? Beat it. I don't consent.
[01:12:04.200 --> 01:12:12.880]  So the first thing that anyone tries to enforce any regulation, rule, law, statute, first
[01:12:12.880 --> 01:12:18.480]  question before you get into defending yourself, who in the heck are you and where do you get
[01:12:18.480 --> 01:12:26.960]  your authority? Especially with regulations. Okay. Thank you very much, Steve. We do need
[01:12:26.960 --> 01:12:31.840]  to move along. We have Spencer in Texas. Hello, Spencer.
[01:12:31.840 --> 01:12:38.000]  Hey, hi. Thanks. What do you have for us today?
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:45.200]  Interesting conversation you just had. I just listened to. Fascinating. Randy, I've been
[01:12:45.200 --> 01:12:50.160]  listening to you for a bit and I left the state and came back and I got a traffic ticket
[01:12:50.160 --> 01:12:58.480]  here in Austin. And I remember you brought up this concept of right of inquiry. And I
[01:12:58.480 --> 01:13:01.200]  was wondering if you could discuss that a little bit with me and then I could ask you
[01:13:01.200 --> 01:13:07.000]  a few more things about that. Wait a minute. Right of inquiry.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:13.920]  Right of inquiry. You may be talking about Eddie Craig. That
[01:13:13.920 --> 01:13:20.920]  does not ring a bell with me. Give me a little more context. I may know what it is in a different
[01:13:20.920 --> 01:13:31.600]  context. Right. Well, let's say on video you're seeing
[01:13:31.600 --> 01:13:36.640]  what they call disregarding a stop sign, let's say. Wait a minute. You're talking faster
[01:13:36.640 --> 01:13:40.600]  than I can listen. You decide yourself, well, you know, I'm going
[01:13:40.600 --> 01:13:46.080]  to try to defend myself. And when you meet the county attorney, you say to her, you know,
[01:13:46.080 --> 01:13:51.200]  I've listened to the DVD and seen the audio and, you know, the audio is just from a car
[01:13:51.200 --> 01:13:56.640]  audio on the dashboard. It seems like my voice is muffled, the police is muffled. There are
[01:13:56.640 --> 01:14:03.200]  four police officers involved in this stop. It was a big ordeal. And so I would, my defense
[01:14:03.200 --> 01:14:09.560]  is basically running off the conversation I had with the officers. So I'm looking for
[01:14:09.560 --> 01:14:17.320]  a clear audio on my DVD. It shows me rolling through a stop sign, but it doesn't show me
[01:14:17.320 --> 01:14:23.160]  entering that intersection from a parking zone, which is not described as a roadway.
[01:14:23.160 --> 01:14:29.400]  The stop sign actually controls. Whoa, wait a minute. Hold on. Are they asserting
[01:14:29.400 --> 01:14:36.280]  that you ran a stop sign while entering the roadway from a parking lot?
[01:14:36.280 --> 01:14:43.200]  Well, here it's, you know, this listening to you has really inspired me. And the more
[01:14:43.200 --> 01:14:46.840]  I got into this topic, because in the beginning it's very intimidating.
[01:14:46.840 --> 01:14:55.040]  No, wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm going to a very fine legal point. A stop sign at
[01:14:55.040 --> 01:15:05.200]  an exit from a parking lot is not a stop sign. It only looks like a stop sign. It's what
[01:15:05.200 --> 01:15:13.800]  it really is, is a suggestion. I live in Fort Worth and there's a Whole Foods Market on
[01:15:13.800 --> 01:15:24.040]  Hewland and I-30. I'm drunk, driving out of that parking lot, run the stop sign, pulled
[01:15:24.040 --> 01:15:31.800]  out on the road. The cop pulled him over and arrested him for DUI. He challenged the arrest
[01:15:31.800 --> 01:15:41.000]  because the stop sign was from private property onto the thoroughfare and that stop sign did
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:50.240]  not apply. The only stop signs that apply are the ones that are on public property.
[01:15:50.240 --> 01:16:03.960]  Well, this is on UT. Well, that's an interesting case. This is on UT, on San Jacinto, where
[01:16:03.960 --> 01:16:09.760]  at a 45 degree angle you have parking lanes and then you have a roadway in one direction
[01:16:09.760 --> 01:16:13.720]  and a roadway in another direction and then you have those 45 degree parking lanes to
[01:16:13.720 --> 01:16:18.720]  the curb. That's kind of how it's set up by the stadium. I guess you're familiar
[01:16:18.720 --> 01:16:26.880]  with the stadium area. In other words, if you back out of a parking spot and don't
[01:16:26.880 --> 01:16:33.840]  back up into the roadway completely, but you direct your car down the parking lane and
[01:16:33.840 --> 01:16:41.080]  then you enter the intersection, it appears from a video that Jason up down street, it's
[01:16:41.080 --> 01:16:44.440]  a key intersection and the police officer's video is-
[01:16:44.440 --> 01:16:49.400]  Okay, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. I'm about to go to break. Randy Kelton, U of R radio.
[01:16:49.400 --> 01:17:00.880]  I call the number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.880 --> 01:17:04.880]  Chances are you've heard of My Magic Mud, but have you used it? Thousands of people
[01:17:04.880 --> 01:17:09.440]  are blown away by the clean and healthy feeling they experience after just one use. Here's
[01:17:09.440 --> 01:17:13.400]  what Harland Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, has to say about the product.
[01:17:13.400 --> 01:17:16.960]  Hey everybody, this is Harland Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books. Just want to tell everybody
[01:17:16.960 --> 01:17:21.600]  about My Magic Mud. I use the product and it makes my teeth feel clean and healthy.
[01:17:21.600 --> 01:17:24.800]  I think it makes them stronger. I've got lots of customers that come in and say the
[01:17:24.800 --> 01:17:27.480]  same thing. You can pick yours up at Brave New Books.
[01:17:27.480 --> 01:17:31.720]  If that wasn't enough, Dr. Griffin Cole, DDS, who's been featured on the Alex Jones
[01:17:31.720 --> 01:17:32.920]  show, loves it too.
[01:17:32.920 --> 01:17:37.360]  Hi, I'm Dr. Griffin Cole, and I've got to tell you, I really love this Magic Mud product.
[01:17:37.360 --> 01:17:41.440]  Because charcoal is so absorbent, it's very effective at taking off all the sticky plaque
[01:17:41.440 --> 01:17:44.920]  and debris that gets stuck on our teeth every day. I highly recommend My Magic Mud.
[01:17:44.920 --> 01:17:49.280]  If you haven't yet experienced My Magic Mud, it's never too late to brighten your smile
[01:17:49.280 --> 01:17:51.160]  and strengthen your teeth.
[01:17:51.160 --> 01:17:56.160]  Get your jar of My Magic Mud today at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street
[01:17:56.160 --> 01:18:00.640]  or order online today at MyMagicMud.com.
[01:18:00.640 --> 01:18:05.320]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.320 --> 01:18:10.360]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won
[01:18:10.360 --> 01:18:15.960]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step-by-step
[01:18:15.960 --> 01:18:21.240]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:18:21.240 --> 01:18:25.960]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and
[01:18:25.960 --> 01:18:30.440]  phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[01:18:30.440 --> 01:18:36.360]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the
[01:18:36.360 --> 01:18:41.440]  solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:18:41.440 --> 01:18:46.960]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:18:46.960 --> 01:18:57.520]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:18:57.520 --> 01:19:07.600]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:27.520 --> 01:19:39.600]  Well, ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again. I was blindsided but now I can
[01:19:39.600 --> 01:19:47.400]  see your plan. You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my hand. Ain't gonna
[01:19:47.400 --> 01:19:52.400]  fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:19:52.400 --> 01:19:58.160]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, Jeff Sedgwick, and we're talking to
[01:19:58.160 --> 01:20:09.360]  Spencer in Texas. Spencer, I detect a problem and it's a real common problem and prosecutors
[01:20:09.360 --> 01:20:20.560]  and municipal court judges use this to defeat us. You feel like you're innocent. I'm gonna
[01:20:20.560 --> 01:20:30.720]  suggest to you that at this point is irrelevant. You're fighting the wrong battle. When you
[01:20:30.720 --> 01:20:35.440]  go to the merits, you will lose every time.
[01:20:35.440 --> 01:20:40.400]  Oh, I heard you say that, but these are so good and so obvious.
[01:20:40.400 --> 01:20:47.760]  Yeah, I know. We have a guy that calls in on foreclosure issues and he really has done
[01:20:47.760 --> 01:20:51.840]  his homework. He did. He was a great researcher.
[01:20:51.840 --> 01:20:55.760]  It takes a lot of time, hours and hours and hours and hours.
[01:20:55.760 --> 01:21:00.560]  Yeah, they were out of time. So all this other stuff didn't matter. Yeah, but I've done all
[01:21:00.560 --> 01:21:09.240]  this research. Be careful the fights you pick. Were you driving a taxi at the time?
[01:21:09.240 --> 01:21:14.160]  No, no, no, I wasn't. I was driving a...
[01:21:14.160 --> 01:21:27.600]  Were you driving a truck that weighed in excess of 26,000 pounds? Were you in a vehicle that
[01:21:27.600 --> 01:21:36.200]  was rated to haul at a gross weight of 26,000 pounds or more?
[01:21:36.200 --> 01:21:38.440]  No.
[01:21:38.440 --> 01:21:46.800]  How do you fall under the scheme? Have you addressed that issue?
[01:21:46.800 --> 01:21:57.120]  It took too long to answer. Have you addressed that issue?
[01:21:57.120 --> 01:22:01.400]  No, I have not.
[01:22:01.400 --> 01:22:04.880]  Why don't you just shoot yourself right in the big toe?
[01:22:04.880 --> 01:22:11.920]  Well, yeah, but hold on. But back to the beginning, listen to this. You don't remember the right
[01:22:11.920 --> 01:22:17.000]  of inquiry term, which I think I heard you maybe use on one particular show. And I found
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  it so interesting, I wrote it down and I said, I've got to look into that.
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:28.600]  Okay, that goes to something I've just been working on. And it's Rules of Civil Procedure
[01:22:28.600 --> 01:22:40.160]  202, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a pre-litigation discovery. I'm reading the code and it's saying
[01:22:40.160 --> 01:22:54.320]  that Texas, unlike all other states except Alabama, Texas will allow you to do pre-litigation
[01:22:54.320 --> 01:23:02.960]  discovery, not just to preserve evidence, but to determine if in fact you actually have
[01:23:02.960 --> 01:23:09.680]  a claim. And they essentially said it's the Wild West when it comes to pre-litigation
[01:23:09.680 --> 01:23:17.960]  discovery. It cannot be removed. And the reason it can't be removed because there is no case
[01:23:17.960 --> 01:23:30.440]  in controversy. And there are no claims made, so they don't meet the $75,000 removal limit.
[01:23:30.440 --> 01:23:40.480]  So you're stuck in the state court and the courts are very liberal in authorizing discovery.
[01:23:40.480 --> 01:23:51.200]  So look at filing a motion for pre-litigation discovery and discover their jurisdiction.
[01:23:51.200 --> 01:24:04.720]  Okay, what the code says is that the sheriff, who can enforce the traffic code? The sheriff
[01:24:04.720 --> 01:24:11.640]  can appoint five people in a county to enforce the traffic code. That's what it says in the
[01:24:11.640 --> 01:24:19.840]  code. And those five people, they can be municipal police officers or whatever. Those five people
[01:24:19.840 --> 01:24:29.880]  must become certified in order to enforce the traffic code. In order for those five people
[01:24:29.880 --> 01:24:38.360]  to qualify for certification, they have to be in a county of so many people that has
[01:24:38.360 --> 01:24:48.440]  to border a port. There's just all these unbelievably complex circumstances they have to meet. If
[01:24:48.440 --> 01:24:57.940]  a municipality is under 8,500 in population and the individual intends to enforce within
[01:24:57.940 --> 01:25:08.480]  the municipality, then the municipality must border a county with over 3.1 million people
[01:25:08.480 --> 01:25:16.560]  and be on the Gulf of Mexico. And that's it. That's all. If you're not one of those,
[01:25:16.560 --> 01:25:26.080]  the code says you can't enforce it. Have you ever read that section?
[01:25:26.080 --> 01:25:33.560]  When you read it, it's crazy. In one second, I've got it here. I did a challenge subject
[01:25:33.560 --> 01:25:35.600]  made a jurisdiction and I'll get it here.
[01:25:35.600 --> 01:25:41.160]  Are we still on that right of inquiry? Look, here's the thing. I think I keep this going
[01:25:41.160 --> 01:25:45.840]  on and on because I won't be able to get the voice evidence that's being used against me
[01:25:45.840 --> 01:25:51.400]  for the conviction, for the possible conviction. The CVC is beautiful. It shows that the police
[01:25:51.400 --> 01:25:58.920]  officer is following me, telling me to shut up or arrest me and making me stand in the
[01:25:58.920 --> 01:25:59.920]  sun.
[01:25:59.920 --> 01:26:00.920]  Those are different issues.
[01:26:00.920 --> 01:26:08.280]  But I don't have the voice evidence. I can't even get the evidence to defend myself.
[01:26:08.280 --> 01:26:13.760]  So when you were speaking to the officer, were you attempting to address your civil
[01:26:13.760 --> 01:26:14.760]  rights?
[01:26:14.760 --> 01:26:26.280]  No, I was attempting to address my civil rights. No, I was addressing the fact that I was being
[01:26:26.280 --> 01:26:29.880]  held up by a bicycle for three quarters of a mile and I went to my right to speak to
[01:26:29.880 --> 01:26:36.440]  him and the cops showed up. I'm saying this is the reason why I was off the road, to the
[01:26:36.440 --> 01:26:40.680]  right of the road speaking to a guy on a bike who apparently was, I don't know, drunk and
[01:26:40.680 --> 01:26:46.640]  totally stupid violating five laws that I've looked up. So I was out there explaining,
[01:26:46.640 --> 01:26:50.840]  oh, I thought speaking to the cyclist was a good note.
[01:26:50.840 --> 01:26:58.760]  Wait a minute. You're just trying to say I'm innocent, I didn't do anything wrong.
[01:26:58.760 --> 01:27:01.760]  Well, I was telling you.
[01:27:01.760 --> 01:27:05.240]  I didn't even know there was a stop sign involved to tell you the truth, but I wasn't
[01:27:05.240 --> 01:27:06.240]  in the parking lot.
[01:27:06.240 --> 01:27:12.760]  You think you're innocent and you want to prove your innocence. I get that.
[01:27:12.760 --> 01:27:17.880]  Well, I guess more than that, I can prove it legally, I think, with all these crazy
[01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:23.440]  codes I've looked up, which sounds all good to me, but also just court discretion and
[01:27:23.440 --> 01:27:26.560]  under the fact that in the law, there's absolutely nothing-
[01:27:26.560 --> 01:27:28.560]  Wait a minute. Wait, are you kidding me?
[01:27:28.560 --> 01:27:30.560] ... when involved with a bicyclist.
[01:27:30.560 --> 01:27:34.400]  Wait a minute. You want to get the court's discretion?
[01:27:34.400 --> 01:27:41.400]  You clearly do not understand how it works.
[01:27:41.400 --> 01:27:56.200]  This is how it works. The court will rule against you out of hand at every turn. These
[01:27:56.200 --> 01:28:03.800]  courts are absolutely corrupt. Do you really think that municipal judge who hears a hundred
[01:28:03.800 --> 01:28:11.680]  cases a day really cares about whether you're innocent or guilty? He only cares about one
[01:28:11.680 --> 01:28:12.680]  thing.
[01:28:12.680 --> 01:28:15.680]  I might get away with it that time. Well, yeah, I'm hoping on that, right?
[01:28:15.680 --> 01:28:21.480]  No, that ain't what he cares about. He don't care about safety. He don't care about enforcing
[01:28:21.480 --> 01:28:25.240]  the traffic laws. He's there to generate revenue, period.
[01:28:25.240 --> 01:28:31.400]  Yeah, but hold on now. Now, if I can show that my vehicle was off what's described
[01:28:31.400 --> 01:28:34.840]  as a roadway, which is what's controlled by a stop sign, that's pretty clear evidence
[01:28:34.840 --> 01:28:37.200]  and there's no way he can say no to that.
[01:28:37.200 --> 01:28:38.200]  Yes, he can.
[01:28:38.200 --> 01:28:42.920]  I wasn't going to describe roadway. I was off a roadway. A parking lane isn't described
[01:28:42.920 --> 01:28:43.920]  as a roadway.
[01:28:43.920 --> 01:28:46.920]  A parking lane is part of the roadway.
[01:28:46.920 --> 01:28:56.960]  Why don't you go ahead and give this a good yeoman's try, and then call back and talk
[01:28:56.960 --> 01:29:01.760]  to Randy on the show and tell us what happened and how you got crucified.
[01:29:01.760 --> 01:29:05.240]  Okay, what should I do then?
[01:29:05.240 --> 01:29:06.240]  Okay.
[01:29:06.240 --> 01:29:11.400]  I'm not sure that we can tell you because from what I've heard so far, you don't listen.
[01:29:11.400 --> 01:29:16.880]  Well, I want to clearly describe what I've been like.
[01:29:16.880 --> 01:29:23.720]  Listen, one of the things you need to be aware of is nobody gives a damn about your story.
[01:29:23.720 --> 01:29:28.720]  They only care about what the facts are.
[01:29:28.720 --> 01:29:36.840]  I understand that when you get accused and you feel like you're innocent, that you want
[01:29:36.840 --> 01:29:42.520]  to prove your innocence, and I guarantee you they take advantage of that.
[01:29:42.520 --> 01:29:46.320]  The evidence doesn't show me a stop sign or my vehicle going through a stop sign because
[01:29:46.320 --> 01:29:50.640]  it's way up an adjacent block. The evidence on the video doesn't even show that. There's
[01:29:50.640 --> 01:29:52.320]  no view of me doing that violation.
[01:29:52.320 --> 01:29:59.080]  Yes. You know you're innocent and you want to prove it, and I understand that.
[01:29:59.080 --> 01:30:06.920]  Hey, what's that smell? In the not too distant future, you might actually reply, that's my
[01:30:06.920 --> 01:30:12.480]  perfume pill. Yes, pills, not spray bottles may soon be the way we apply scent in the
[01:30:12.480 --> 01:30:16.640]  future. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll have details in a moment.
[01:30:16.640 --> 01:30:21.520]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:30:21.520 --> 01:30:27.320]  again, and once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.320 --> 01:30:33.560]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:33.560 --> 01:30:38.600]  it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[01:30:38.600 --> 01:30:45.280]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.280 --> 01:30:50.320]  When I see someone covered in sweat, I do my nose a favor and steer clear, but someday
[01:30:50.320 --> 01:30:55.920]  sniffing someone's sweat might be as sweet as a spritz of cologne. That is, if Lucy McRae's
[01:30:55.920 --> 01:31:02.440]  invention pans out. McRae, a 31-year-old artist, is working with Dutch chemists on a pill you
[01:31:02.440 --> 01:31:07.720]  could swallow to turn your perspiration into cologne. Packing beauty products into pills
[01:31:07.720 --> 01:31:12.600]  isn't new. Some pills provide sun protection, and L'Oreal is working on a supplement to
[01:31:12.600 --> 01:31:17.860]  keep your hair from turning gray. McRae says her perfume pill will smell unique on each
[01:31:17.860 --> 01:31:24.320]  individual who uses it. But internal perfume? Hmm. I'm not sure that idea passes my sniff
[01:31:24.320 --> 01:31:31.400]  test. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.400 --> 01:31:36.760]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.760 --> 01:31:42.200]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:42.200 --> 01:31:46.120]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:46.120 --> 01:31:50.680]  lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.680 --> 01:31:53.840]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force
[01:31:53.840 --> 01:31:58.880]  pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.880 --> 01:32:04.000]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.840]  your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the
[01:32:07.840 --> 01:32:11.680]  government caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.680 --> 01:32:15.360]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why
[01:32:15.360 --> 01:32:19.320]  you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you
[01:32:19.320 --> 01:32:24.200]  with little to no out-of-pocket expense, and we accept Bitcoin. As a multi-year A-plus
[01:32:24.200 --> 01:32:28.360]  member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints, you can trust Hill Country
[01:32:28.360 --> 01:32:33.000]  Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:41.440]  512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off,
[01:32:41.440 --> 01:32:46.080]  and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[01:32:46.080 --> 01:32:55.140]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. That's 512-992-8745
[01:32:55.140 --> 01:32:59.680]  or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. May not
[01:32:59.680 --> 01:33:27.440]  actually be kidding about chemtrails. Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:30.680 --> 01:33:48.680]  The wicked come with temptations They're trying to buy the whole place
[01:33:48.680 --> 01:33:59.680]  They want to force a new nation Because they've fallen from grace
[01:33:59.680 --> 01:34:10.680]  I will not drink from that cup I just can't act that way
[01:34:10.680 --> 01:34:18.680]  They've got this problem they're dreaming of And won't get to sleep
[01:34:41.680 --> 01:34:49.680]  And I come across this a lot. I had a friend who did help people with IRS issues, and we
[01:34:49.680 --> 01:34:56.680]  were in Pennsylvania, and she said she's going to quit doing this. And I asked her why, and
[01:34:56.680 --> 01:35:01.680]  she said, oh, people just don't listen. They make me crazy. I said, what happened? Well,
[01:35:01.680 --> 01:35:05.680]  she was staying with these people. They were real good friends, and the next door neighbor
[01:35:05.680 --> 01:35:10.680]  had some IRS tax liens they were trying to get rid of. And they asked if she would go
[01:35:10.680 --> 01:35:15.680]  help them out with it. And Katherine said, sure, she went over there. And these people
[01:35:15.680 --> 01:35:22.680]  have been fighting these tax liens, two tax liens, for several years. And they showed
[01:35:22.680 --> 01:35:26.680]  them to Katherine, she looked them over, and she said, so you want to get rid of these
[01:35:26.680 --> 01:35:30.680]  tax liens? They said, yes. She ripped them up, threw them in the trash. Okay, they're
[01:35:30.680 --> 01:35:39.680]  gone. And they were flabbergasted. And she told them they expired a year ago, and the
[01:35:39.680 --> 01:35:49.680]  IRS didn't renew them. So what do these people do? They write a scathing letter to the IRS.
[01:35:49.680 --> 01:36:01.680]  What do the IRS do? Oh, oops, oversight. They renewed their tax liens. Sometimes we lose
[01:36:01.680 --> 01:36:10.680]  our focus. We take our eyes off the prize. So I guess the first and most appropriate
[01:36:10.680 --> 01:36:19.680]  question to you, Spencer, is at the end of the day, for you as concerns this traffic
[01:36:19.680 --> 01:36:31.680]  citation, what would be an equitable outcome? You see, if you don't know where you're
[01:36:31.680 --> 01:36:46.680]  going, I got that it's criminal. If you don't know where you're going, there's a good
[01:36:46.680 --> 01:36:55.680]  chance you'll wind up somewhere else. So where is it you're trying to get to? Well,
[01:36:55.680 --> 01:37:01.680]  the first thing is that there's really no evidence because in view... You didn't answer
[01:37:01.680 --> 01:37:09.680]  my question. Where do you want to get to? At the end of the day, what would be a win
[01:37:09.680 --> 01:37:33.680]  for you? Spencer, are you unable to say not guilty? You have to know where you're going.
[01:37:33.680 --> 01:37:47.680]  Now, what will it take to get you to a not guilty verdict? Well, the reason I put up
[01:37:47.680 --> 01:37:53.680]  the right of inquiry is because... You know, Spencer, if you don't know, it's actually
[01:37:53.680 --> 01:37:59.680]  okay to say you don't know. Well, I know what I intended to in relation to that question.
[01:37:59.680 --> 01:38:04.680]  You know what? You got it all planned out, what you're going to do. It's like when you
[01:38:04.680 --> 01:38:09.680]  get in the rowboat and you got it all figured out how you're going to sit in the boat and
[01:38:09.680 --> 01:38:13.680]  how you're going to hold the oars and how you're going to stroke and watch over your
[01:38:13.680 --> 01:38:17.680]  shoulder to see where you're going, except you don't know where the heck you're going.
[01:38:17.680 --> 01:38:23.680]  Yeah, but listen, I'm basing this on a beautiful thing that you said probably two months ago,
[01:38:23.680 --> 01:38:27.680]  two and a half, three months ago, on right of inquiry. And that's just about me acquiring
[01:38:27.680 --> 01:38:32.680]  the evidence that I need to defend myself. What I can't do is what I'm finding. And
[01:38:32.680 --> 01:38:42.680]  I... But Randy has basically just told you to go to the underlying statute to supposedly
[01:38:42.680 --> 01:38:49.680]  conveys the authority to them to do what they do and destroy it. Were you listening?
[01:38:49.680 --> 01:38:55.680]  Yeah, I got that. Yeah, I got that down. So let me renege on everything I've felt so
[01:38:55.680 --> 01:39:01.680]  far. Where can I research that or read about that and pursue that?
[01:39:01.680 --> 01:39:11.680]  644 Texas Government Code. Let me read you a little something from the Texas Transportation
[01:39:11.680 --> 01:39:21.680]  Code. Transportation Code Title VII, Subtitle F, Commercial Motor Vehicles at Chapter 644.
[01:39:21.680 --> 01:39:30.680]  644-101 stipulates who can be certified to enforce transportation code. This is under
[01:39:30.680 --> 01:39:38.680]  the enforcement section. You got all that other stuff that says what all the codes are.
[01:39:38.680 --> 01:39:46.680]  This section says who can enforce it. And there's a spot I'm missing here. It essentially
[01:39:46.680 --> 01:39:56.680]  says that the sheriff can appoint five people in the county to enforce the code. And once
[01:39:56.680 --> 01:40:05.680]  the sheriff appoints five people in the county, then those five people must be certified.
[01:40:05.680 --> 01:40:11.680]  Certification of certain pieces of officers. The department shall establish procedures,
[01:40:11.680 --> 01:40:16.680]  including training, for the certification of municipal police officers, sheriffs, and
[01:40:16.680 --> 01:40:24.680]  deputies to enforce this chapter. A police officer of any of the following municipalities
[01:40:24.680 --> 01:40:31.680]  is eligible to apply for certification under this section. A municipality with a population
[01:40:31.680 --> 01:40:39.680]  of 50,000 or more. A municipality with a population of 25,000 or more and any part of which is
[01:40:39.680 --> 01:40:45.680]  located in a county with a half a million or more. A municipality with a population
[01:40:45.680 --> 01:40:52.680]  of less than 25,000 and any part of which is located in a county with a population of
[01:40:52.680 --> 01:41:01.680]  3.3 million and that contains or is adjacent to an international port. A municipality with
[01:41:01.680 --> 01:41:11.680]  a population of 34,000 that is located in a county that borders two or more states.
[01:41:11.680 --> 01:41:18.680]  A municipality, any part of which is located in a county bordering the United's Mexican
[01:41:18.680 --> 01:41:26.680]  states. A municipality with a population of less than 5,000 that is located adjacent to
[01:41:26.680 --> 01:41:33.680]  a bay connected to the Gulf of Mexico and any county adjacent to a county with a population
[01:41:33.680 --> 01:41:43.680]  greater than 3.3 million. Does this sound crazy yet? A municipality that is located
[01:41:43.680 --> 01:41:53.680]  within 25 miles of an international airport and in a county that does not contain a highway
[01:41:53.680 --> 01:42:00.680]  that is part of the national system of interstate and defense highways and is adjacent to a
[01:42:00.680 --> 01:42:06.680]  county with a population greater than 3.3 million. A municipality with a population
[01:42:06.680 --> 01:42:15.680]  of less than 8,500 that is the county seat and contains a highway that is part of the
[01:42:15.680 --> 01:42:21.680]  national system of interstate and defense highways. A sheriff or a deputy sheriff of
[01:42:21.680 --> 01:42:28.680]  a county bordering the United's Mexican states of a county with a population of 1 million
[01:42:28.680 --> 01:42:33.680]  or more is eligible to apply for certification under this section. A sheriff, a deputy sheriff
[01:42:33.680 --> 01:42:39.680]  or any peace officer that does not attend continuing education courses on the enforcement
[01:42:39.680 --> 01:42:44.680]  of traffic and traffic highway laws and on the use of radar equipment as prescribed by
[01:42:44.680 --> 01:42:51.680]  Subchapter F, Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, shall not enforce the traffic and highway
[01:42:51.680 --> 01:42:58.680]  laws. The department by rule shall establish reasonable fees sufficient to recover from
[01:42:58.680 --> 01:43:02.680]  the municipality or county the cost of certifying as police officer under this section. Is the
[01:43:02.680 --> 01:43:10.680]  police officer that wrote you the ticket certified?
[01:43:10.680 --> 01:43:14.680]  Spencer, that was a question to you.
[01:43:14.680 --> 01:43:22.680]  In a huge population like this, there's pretty much too many tickets written.
[01:43:22.680 --> 01:43:29.680]  Okay, you're in Austin. I take it you're in Austin. Yeah, if you're UT. So Austin is
[01:43:29.680 --> 01:43:37.680]  a municipality that can, it's a population of more than 50,000. So it can, it's officers
[01:43:37.680 --> 01:43:47.680]  who are in the municipal police officers in the city of Austin can't. But we'll pick
[01:43:47.680 --> 01:43:52.680]  this up on the other side. There's only five for the county. We'll be right back. We're
[01:43:52.680 --> 01:43:59.680]  going to call up the radio. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.680 --> 01:44:04.680]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? Are you confused
[01:44:04.680 --> 01:44:08.680]  by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve? What? If so, you may be diagnosed
[01:44:08.680 --> 01:44:14.680]  with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions
[01:44:14.680 --> 01:44:19.680]  of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[01:44:19.680 --> 01:44:25.680]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[01:44:25.680 --> 01:44:30.680]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity. But there is hope. The staff at
[01:44:30.680 --> 01:44:34.680]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports
[01:44:34.680 --> 01:44:39.680]  zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[01:44:39.680 --> 01:44:45.680]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from
[01:44:45.680 --> 01:44:54.680]  stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.680 --> 01:44:57.680]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:57.680 --> 01:45:03.680]  and an overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.680 --> 01:45:10.680]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4 CD course
[01:45:10.680 --> 01:45:17.680]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your
[01:45:17.680 --> 01:45:22.680]  lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.680 --> 01:45:28.680]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was
[01:45:28.680 --> 01:45:34.680]  created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're
[01:45:34.680 --> 01:45:39.680]  not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and
[01:45:39.680 --> 01:45:45.680]  practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video
[01:45:45.680 --> 01:45:52.680]  seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit
[01:45:52.680 --> 01:46:19.680]  RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.680 --> 01:46:50.680]  Okay, we are back.
[01:46:50.680 --> 01:46:57.680]  We are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio is here with Judge Cedric and we were reading
[01:46:57.680 --> 01:47:03.680]  from a challenge subject matter jurisdiction I had prepared and I read those conditions
[01:47:03.680 --> 01:47:11.680]  on who can be certified to enforce the traffic code. Now let me read you another little section
[01:47:11.680 --> 01:47:31.680]  here. If I can re-find it again. On the sheriff.
[01:47:31.680 --> 01:47:50.680]  Say that again. According to the code, here's the one I was looking for. Enforcement of
[01:47:50.680 --> 01:48:00.680]  the Texas transportation code is limited by section 701.001 as follows. Except as provided
[01:48:00.680 --> 01:48:05.680]  by subsection C, acting in conjunction with the sheriff of the county, the commissioner's
[01:48:05.680 --> 01:48:13.680]  court of the county may employ not more than five regular deputies as county traffic officers.
[01:48:13.680 --> 01:48:20.680]  Except as provided by subsection C, the commissioner's court may employ not more than two additional
[01:48:20.680 --> 01:48:26.680]  deputies as county traffic officers to aid the regular officers in special emergencies.
[01:48:26.680 --> 01:48:32.680]  Now subsection C. The limitation on the number of deputies that may be employed under subsections
[01:48:32.680 --> 01:48:39.680]  A and B does not apply to a county with a population of more than two million. Austin
[01:48:39.680 --> 01:48:46.680]  does not fall under that one. So they can only have five officers. And those five officers
[01:48:46.680 --> 01:48:52.680]  can apply for certification. The department shall establish procedures including training
[01:48:52.680 --> 01:48:57.680]  for the certification of municipal police officers, sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs to
[01:48:57.680 --> 01:49:04.680]  enforce this chapter. And then it goes into what I read earlier, the ones who could be,
[01:49:04.680 --> 01:49:16.680]  who could apply for certification. So Austin can have certified traffic officers, but the
[01:49:16.680 --> 01:49:25.680]  most that the county of Travis can have is five. Is this officer who wrote you this citation
[01:49:25.680 --> 01:49:32.680]  one of those five officers? That's the first question you should ask.
[01:49:32.680 --> 01:49:34.680]  I definitely think not.
[01:49:34.680 --> 01:49:35.680]  Okay.
[01:49:35.680 --> 01:49:41.680]  I have a good reason for that. I want to introduce this to you. One thing about this video is
[01:49:41.680 --> 01:49:44.680]  that it's from the inside of the officer's vehicle.
[01:49:44.680 --> 01:49:52.680]  Man, wait a minute. You are not getting it. You're going down a road and I can't get
[01:49:52.680 --> 01:50:00.680]  you to recognize the road you're going down. Everything is yes, but. Yes, but I got all
[01:50:00.680 --> 01:50:02.680]  these really cool facts.
[01:50:02.680 --> 01:50:08.680]  Well, I was going to introduce the officers in training because he had to ask a lot of
[01:50:08.680 --> 01:50:11.680]  questions of his trainer how to write the ticket out. It's pretty hilarious.
[01:50:11.680 --> 01:50:19.680]  Okay. In this case, let's go back to the citation. What does the citation say?
[01:50:19.680 --> 01:50:22.680]  Anyway, so the answer is no, he's not certified.
[01:50:22.680 --> 01:50:27.680]  Okay. Do you have the ticket in front of you?
[01:50:27.680 --> 01:50:29.680]  Yeah.
[01:50:29.680 --> 01:50:40.680]  Okay. That's the charging instrument. Is the charging instrument sufficient?
[01:50:40.680 --> 01:50:48.680]  Okay. When you were arrested, when you got the ticket, did he take you to jail or did
[01:50:48.680 --> 01:50:50.680]  he have you sign the citation?
[01:50:50.680 --> 01:50:56.680]  He had me sign the citation under threat of arrest.
[01:50:56.680 --> 01:51:03.680]  Okay. That's not exactly accurate. You were already under arrest.
[01:51:03.680 --> 01:51:05.680]  I'm going to arrest you.
[01:51:05.680 --> 01:51:11.680]  No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You don't care what he said. You were already under
[01:51:11.680 --> 01:51:19.680]  arrest. I'll show you why. Section 543.002 Texas Transportation Code. A person arrested
[01:51:19.680 --> 01:51:27.680]  must be taken before a magistrate. This is transportation code. A person arrested for
[01:51:27.680 --> 01:51:33.680]  a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before
[01:51:33.680 --> 01:51:38.680]  a magistrate if the person is arrested on a charge of failure to stop in the event of
[01:51:38.680 --> 01:51:44.680]  an accident causing damage to property or the person demands an immediate appearance
[01:51:44.680 --> 01:51:51.680]  before a magistrate or refuses to make a written promise to appear in court as provided in
[01:51:51.680 --> 01:51:58.680]  this sub-chapter. This sub-chapter.
[01:51:58.680 --> 01:52:00.680]  Yeah, that's what it says.
[01:52:00.680 --> 01:52:08.680]  The person must be taken before a magistrate who has jurisdiction of the offense, is in
[01:52:08.680 --> 01:52:15.680]  the county in which the offense charged to have been committed, and is nearest or most
[01:52:15.680 --> 01:52:23.680]  accessible to the place of arrest. Okay. An officer is granted discretion to release an
[01:52:23.680 --> 01:52:28.680]  arrest for you under the condition that the person sign a promise to appear as follows.
[01:52:28.680 --> 01:52:37.680]  543.003 notice to appear required. Person not taken before a magistrate. An officer
[01:52:37.680 --> 01:52:44.680]  who arrests a person for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor and who
[01:52:44.680 --> 01:52:50.680]  does not take the person before a magistrate shall issue a written notice to appear in
[01:52:50.680 --> 01:52:55.680]  court showing the time and place the person is to appear, the offense charged, the name
[01:52:55.680 --> 01:53:00.680]  and address of the person charged, and if applicable, the license number of the person's
[01:53:00.680 --> 01:53:08.680]  vehicle. Said officer in the instant case. Okay. Now, notice to appear requirements.
[01:53:08.680 --> 01:53:15.680]  543.004 notice to appear required. Certain offenses. An officer shall issue a written
[01:53:15.680 --> 01:53:21.680]  notice to appear if the offense charge is speeding or a violation of the open container
[01:53:21.680 --> 01:53:28.680]  law, section 49.03. Here he must, he didn't have any option to arrest you. And the person
[01:53:28.680 --> 01:53:35.680]  makes a written promise to appear in court as provided by section 543.005. If the person
[01:53:35.680 --> 01:53:41.680]  is a resident of or is operating a vehicle license in the state or county other than
[01:53:41.680 --> 01:53:47.680]  this state, subjection A applies only as provided by chapter 703. The offense specified by
[01:53:47.680 --> 01:53:54.680]  section A are the only offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is
[01:53:54.680 --> 01:54:05.680]  mandatory. Okay. 543.005. Promise to appear. To secure release, the person arrested must
[01:54:05.680 --> 01:54:11.680]  make a written promise to appear in court by signing the written notice prepared by
[01:54:11.680 --> 01:54:18.680]  the arresting officer. The signature may be obtained on a duplicate form of an electronic
[01:54:18.680 --> 01:54:24.680]  device capable of creating a copy of the signed notice. The arresting officer shall retain
[01:54:24.680 --> 01:54:30.680]  the paper or electronic original of the notice and deliver the copy of the notice to the
[01:54:30.680 --> 01:54:37.680]  person arrested. The officer shall promptly release the person from custody. Now we get
[01:54:37.680 --> 01:54:50.680]  to the big one. 543.006. The time and place of appearance. The time specified in the notice
[01:54:50.680 --> 01:54:56.680]  to appear must be at least 10 days after the date of arrest unless the person arrested
[01:54:56.680 --> 01:55:03.680]  demands an earlier hearing. Okay. This is the good one. The place specified in the notice
[01:55:03.680 --> 01:55:11.680]  to appear must be before a magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense who is in the
[01:55:11.680 --> 01:55:18.680]  municipality or county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. Question.
[01:55:18.680 --> 01:55:32.680]  Did your citation state a time and place to appear? No, it did not. So it said on or before?
[01:55:32.680 --> 01:55:44.680]  No. No. They gave you 30 days to enter a plea by calling a number which is the justice of
[01:55:44.680 --> 01:55:51.680]  the peace. Since it's the county attorney that's... Okay. Okay. It did not meet the
[01:55:51.680 --> 01:56:01.680]  requirements of 543. Did you go to court ever? Well, the procedure is to visit with the county
[01:56:01.680 --> 01:56:06.680]  attorney which is a young girl that's... I'm not asking you what the procedures are. I
[01:56:06.680 --> 01:56:19.680]  just read the code and this code says this is what must be done. I'm asking, did you
[01:56:19.680 --> 01:56:33.680]  go to court? No. No. I did not go to court. No. Okay. I did not go to court. No. That's
[01:56:33.680 --> 01:56:45.680]  step two in this process. Okay. When did you... Did you go to the court building or did you
[01:56:45.680 --> 01:56:57.680]  make a plea by phone? No. They gave me 30 days to enter a plea and I went personally to the
[01:56:57.680 --> 01:57:04.680]  courthouse here in town to the justice of the peace courthouse. The judge is a justice
[01:57:04.680 --> 01:57:10.680]  of the peace judge. Okay. Hold on. UT is controlled by... Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Did you
[01:57:10.680 --> 01:57:22.680]  get a ticket from the Austin municipal police or DPS? UT office which are not municipal.
[01:57:22.680 --> 01:57:27.680]  That's why it's county. Okay. That's why you went to the justice of the peace. Did you
[01:57:27.680 --> 01:57:34.680]  go to the justice of the peace office? So the court where you make your plea, the actual
[01:57:34.680 --> 01:57:41.680]  courtroom is just 20 feet from there. You go in a door there. You got to learn how to
[01:57:41.680 --> 01:57:47.680]  answer questions. If you're going to go to court, you really got to learn how to answer
[01:57:47.680 --> 01:57:54.680]  questions. You realize you haven't answered a single question I've asked you? Well, you
[01:57:54.680 --> 01:58:02.680]  know, when you visit with the county attorney, it's like visiting the court. I mean, she's
[01:58:02.680 --> 01:58:08.680]  representing the court so... Wait a minute. Do you realize I just asked you a question
[01:58:08.680 --> 01:58:15.680]  about asking you questions and you didn't answer that question? You're going to have
[01:58:15.680 --> 01:58:27.680]  a real hard time when you get to court. There's a procedure and it works very well. They ask
[01:58:27.680 --> 01:58:32.680]  a question. You answer the question. You ask a question. They answer the question. Hang
[01:58:32.680 --> 01:58:40.680]  on. We'll pick this up on the other side of this. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll
[01:58:40.680 --> 01:58:44.680]  be right back.
[01:58:44.680 --> 01:58:55.680]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.680 --> 01:59:00.680]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[01:59:00.680 --> 01:59:06.680]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter
[01:59:06.680 --> 01:59:13.680]  the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the
[01:59:13.680 --> 01:59:19.680]  real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[01:59:19.680 --> 01:59:24.680]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[01:59:24.680 --> 01:59:26.680]  which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:26.680 --> 01:59:32.680]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:32.680 --> 01:59:42.680]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:42.680 --> 01:59:49.680]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:49.680 --> 01:59:55.680]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.