[00:00.000 --> 00:06.760] The following news flash is brought to you by The Lowest Star Lowdown. [00:06.760 --> 00:13.160] Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429 an ounce, [00:13.160 --> 00:21.360] Silver $16.45 an ounce, Copper $2.75 an ounce, Oil Texas Crew $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crew [00:21.360 --> 00:29.720] $62.47 a barrel, and Cryptos in order of Market Cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum [00:29.720 --> 00:41.360] $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin. [00:41.360 --> 00:52.520] In history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated on [00:52.520 --> 00:58.240] Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and [00:58.240 --> 01:07.400] entering 40. Today in history. And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill [01:07.400 --> 01:12.600] 1325 legalizing HEPID attacks his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, [01:12.600 --> 01:16.960] including Houston, Austin, and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges, [01:16.960 --> 01:21.080] and even refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time [01:21.080 --> 01:26.760] or the laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District [01:26.760 --> 01:30.720] Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and [01:30.720 --> 01:35.160] delivery of marijuana cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, [01:35.160 --> 01:39.400] including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on [01:39.400 --> 01:44.400] Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas, and that these actions demonstrate [01:44.400 --> 01:50.760] a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the district attorney. [01:50.760 --> 01:56.840] In El Paso, Cayma Esparza, a Democrat, who also stated earlier this month that the law, [01:56.840 --> 02:02.760] quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue [02:02.760 --> 02:07.600] was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County, [02:07.600 --> 02:11.880] who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based [02:11.880 --> 02:16.400] on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test [02:16.400 --> 02:25.400] matches what they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half [02:25.400 --> 02:30.880] inch American pocket shark. As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being [02:30.880 --> 02:36.200] only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way [02:36.200 --> 02:41.760] back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the shark secretes a [02:41.760 --> 02:48.320] lumeous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure and pray [02:48.320 --> 03:12.320] may be drawn into the globe. This is Book Roadie with the lowdown for July 22, 2019. [03:12.320 --> 03:42.280] Okay. Good evening. The rule of law radio on this Friday evening, the 6th of September, [03:42.280 --> 03:51.560] 2019 with Randy Kelton and I'm Brett Fountain and we have a lot going on and we're having a lot [03:51.560 --> 04:00.400] of fun. Randy, what have you been doing today? Oh, no, no, no, no. You first. Before the show, [04:00.400 --> 04:06.600] Brett is trying to tell me what he's been up to. He's too busy laughing the whole time to get the [04:06.600 --> 04:15.480] story out. So you were apparently you picked somebody at random to annoy. Oh, before we do that, [04:15.480 --> 04:21.160] I'm turning the phone lines on and we'll be taking your phone, your calls all night. So if you have [04:21.160 --> 04:32.040] a question or comment, give us a call 9 1. No, no, no, not 9 1 2. Give us a call 5 1 2. 5 1 2, [04:32.040 --> 04:44.560] 6 4 6 1984. Okay. You have you been having fun, Brett? Well, I have. There's a county that I don't [04:44.560 --> 04:50.880] really have anything going on over there, but I did ask them for I sent in a public information [04:50.880 --> 04:57.400] request and asked for a simple small amount of information that they should be able to generate [04:57.400 --> 05:05.520] within about five minutes. And while they waited until they don't they assumed that they have 10 [05:05.520 --> 05:17.680] days. And yes, the law does allow them a maximum of 10 days. But then what they sent me was it was [05:17.680 --> 05:25.040] incomplete and didn't have names on it. I asked for an org charge or some kind of list that shows [05:25.040 --> 05:35.600] who works in their office and who reports to whom. Well, they sent me back this response that was [05:35.600 --> 05:41.640] really unresponsive, right? Is that what you would call it, Randy? Unresponsive to my request. [05:41.640 --> 05:52.920] I call it non responsive. Non responsive. So I told them that was non responsive. I said, [05:52.920 --> 05:58.600] I need you to put names on there. These are titles and that's handy. But I asked for names and I [05:58.600 --> 06:06.120] asked for contact information. And I get back a note today. Little did they know they've already [06:06.120 --> 06:15.200] been. I've already reached out to the Attorney General to to ding them to their delay because [06:15.200 --> 06:22.480] it's technically that's official misconduct and it is official oppression. So I guess they'll be [06:22.480 --> 06:31.920] probably hearing from the Attorney General next week. And the response I got today, asking for [06:31.920 --> 06:37.440] when I asked for the names and the other information, they said, Well, we don't have any [06:37.440 --> 06:43.520] of the other additional information. This is the only record that we have that corresponds to your [06:43.520 --> 06:52.000] request. So I wrote back to them and I said, Do you mean to tell me that the sheriff, the elected [06:52.000 --> 07:00.840] official in charge of the entire sheriff's office, you mean to tell me that he doesn't know who's [07:00.840 --> 07:08.680] working for him? He's got 252 people in that he's responsible for, but he doesn't know who they are. [07:08.680 --> 07:13.400] Is that what you're telling me? I need you to certify that response for me. [07:13.400 --> 07:26.040] Imagine that'll go over real well. Especially when the sheriff finds out that he's had criminal [07:26.040 --> 07:37.520] charges filed against him already. This is how we fix them. And doing these processes, [07:37.520 --> 07:44.360] we finally, they really work. I was, you know, I've been talking about stuff I've been doing here [07:44.360 --> 07:55.360] in Tennessee and how I had an issue with the prosecuting attorney who filed some criminal [07:55.360 --> 08:04.400] complaints against a bailiff for not letting me enter the courtroom with equipment that I could [08:04.400 --> 08:10.960] use to videotape the proceedings, specifically my phone. He told me to go ahead and put it in the [08:10.960 --> 08:14.560] car. They couldn't hold it. So I went down the car and put her in. I come back and they got the [08:14.560 --> 08:22.160] court locked and they tell me I can't go in the court. So I filed criminal charges against the [08:22.160 --> 08:30.120] bailiff for denying me in my right to record the proceedings and denying me access to the court [08:30.120 --> 08:41.240] and filed out with the prosecuting attorney's office after I had took, taken the complaints to [08:41.240 --> 08:45.760] just about everybody in the courthouse. So I'll refer me to the prosecutor. So I took him as [08:45.760 --> 08:54.480] prosecutor and they sent me a investigator and I filed him with him and three, four months later, [08:54.480 --> 09:03.280] I went to take care of a ticket that I had and I missed the date on it and then the prosecutor's [09:03.280 --> 09:07.120] office is right next door. So I went next door and there's a prosecutor sitting right by the door [09:07.120 --> 09:15.200] and I asked him about these complaints and he said he didn't know anything about him. So that [09:15.200 --> 09:25.680] was interesting. And then I told him about the aggravated assault charge I had against the captain [09:25.680 --> 09:31.520] on the sheriff's department and told him what had occurred and he said, well, he hasn't seen [09:31.520 --> 09:38.400] them but if he did have them, he wouldn't do anything with them. Really smart mouth and arrogant. [09:38.400 --> 09:46.680] And while he was telling me that I was standing in the door of his office, looking across the [09:46.680 --> 09:53.760] street at the courthouse and on the corner of the court, the courthouse, they've got a monument [09:53.760 --> 10:04.080] to people who died in military combat from the county and I never give fair warning but I thought [10:04.080 --> 10:10.240] about suggesting to him that he go over there and look at that monument and look at the Vietnam [10:10.240 --> 10:19.360] section, the last name on the Vietnam section. He would find that name very similar to mine [10:19.360 --> 10:27.920] and that's because it was my twin brother who died of gain-green fighting for these rights [10:27.920 --> 10:40.720] and he died hard. At this arrogance, smart mouth, a little prosecutor would just trash. Well, [10:40.720 --> 10:46.400] I told him when he said that if he had them, he wouldn't do anything with them. I told him, [10:46.400 --> 10:55.360] well, in that case, I'll make sure you get the opportunity. And I did that and just went today [10:55.360 --> 11:04.160] because the grand jury met on the third. And I had requested the names of all the grand jury [11:04.160 --> 11:10.640] members and this clerk told me that that was secret. They couldn't release that. So I did my [11:10.640 --> 11:22.400] research and in Tennessee, you have a statutory right to present to the grand jury. In Texas, [11:22.400 --> 11:27.920] only the prosecuting attorney has that right. But in Tennessee, a citizen has that right. [11:29.120 --> 11:35.920] You can petition to present to the grand jury. You petition to the foreman and you can pick [11:37.040 --> 11:42.720] two grand jury members to sit with the foreman to hear your complaint. Well, [11:44.000 --> 11:50.720] the only way I could pick two grand jury members is if I knew who all of them were. So I went back [11:50.720 --> 11:58.240] to the clerk's office today and I told this woman that handles the grand jury part. I said, you know, [11:58.960 --> 12:06.800] I'm old and I'm old combat veteran. I don't hear so well and sometimes I forget things. [12:08.000 --> 12:16.320] And I seem to remember coming down here and asking you something about all of the names of [12:16.320 --> 12:22.480] the grand jury members, but I'm not sure I remember for certain. And she started to say something. [12:22.480 --> 12:28.720] I said, hold on here. Hold on. I'm doing something real specific here. And she stopped. [12:29.760 --> 12:36.480] And I said, I think I remember something about it, but I'm not sure I forget. So I'm going to come [12:36.480 --> 12:44.640] back down here in a couple of days and ask that question again. But before I do, I handed her [12:44.640 --> 12:52.640] a piece of paper. I would like for you to read this statute. And by the end, she realized what I was [12:52.640 --> 13:01.120] doing. And the clerk was sitting there and she was kind of peed at me because, man, I only asked [13:01.120 --> 13:08.800] the bailiff to rest her once. And now she's got an attitude. Well, heck, I was just joking. [13:08.800 --> 13:24.080] So I indicated that I was going to come back and file a request for a request to petition [13:24.080 --> 13:29.040] the grand jury. And this clerk said, well, you'll have to talk to the prosecuting attorney about [13:29.040 --> 13:35.040] that. Oh, no, that's not going to happen. The prosecuting attorney is the one I want to present [13:35.040 --> 13:46.240] to the grand jury. And she said, well, he's expecting you. Say what? Oh, yeah, he's expecting you. [13:47.440 --> 13:54.160] Well, why is he expecting me? He said, well, she said, now this is one of the clerks. She said, [13:54.160 --> 14:03.360] he wants to apologize to you. What? Wait, who was going to apologize to you? [14:03.360 --> 14:10.640] Yeah. For the way he treated me when I was filing complaints against. Wow. [14:11.520 --> 14:21.040] That's what I thought. Holy crap. What I think is is Judge Moore told him what I told Judge Moore. [14:22.160 --> 14:28.480] I had given the complaints to Judge Moore, but he handled me so well. And this is a guy who, [14:28.480 --> 14:36.080] the only judge I ever saw who handled his courtroom the way I believe the courtroom [14:36.080 --> 14:44.000] should be handled. Nobody left his court feeling mistreated. Now, he may have threw him in jail [14:44.000 --> 14:49.360] or fined him, but he gave everybody deference. He treated them with dignity and respect. [14:50.320 --> 14:55.440] This is exactly what I asked for. So I'm the same one that was saying, well, thank you for [14:55.440 --> 15:06.080] thanking me. Same guy. And I told him, okay, based on what I've experienced with his court, [15:06.080 --> 15:11.280] I'm going to back off on this. And he reminded me what I went to. I went to the court and when [15:11.280 --> 15:17.600] he was done, he called me up and I said, I want you to take those complaints I gave you and give [15:17.600 --> 15:23.200] them to the prosecuting attorney. He said, Mr. Calton, I thought you were going to back off on [15:23.200 --> 15:29.040] those. I was until I talked to your smart, not arrogant little attorney, a prosecutor. [15:30.320 --> 15:35.440] And I told him about what he said about the complaint against the captain that if he had it, [15:36.000 --> 15:42.480] that he wouldn't do anything with it. And that I had told him that I will see if I can't give you [15:42.480 --> 15:49.040] the opportunity. So I want you to give those complaints to the prosecuting attorney and give [15:49.040 --> 15:54.880] him the opportunity to do nothing with them. I said, but don't worry. I'm not really after [15:54.880 --> 16:00.800] your prosecutor. I just, I've got a suit that I'm going to file against the SEC, [16:00.800 --> 16:05.920] Scourge's Exchange Commission, with the federal courts. And I'm going to do it down here in Jackson. [16:05.920 --> 16:11.680] But I don't know these courts. So I need to get a feel for how the courts work. So I'm going to use [16:11.680 --> 16:19.360] your prosecuting attorney as a crash dummy. And I know he told the prosecutor that. [16:20.800 --> 16:28.720] And I'm certain that he told the prosecutor, you do not want to get in court with this man. [16:29.440 --> 16:39.680] Because several times I instructed the judge in the fine points of law. And he told him, [16:39.680 --> 16:45.600] you don't want to get in court with this guy. So he wants to apologize and fix his arrogant [16:45.600 --> 16:53.360] behavior. And I told these clerks, that is not going to happen. Okay, hang on. Going to break [16:53.360 --> 16:57.920] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio, and we'll be right back. [17:01.360 --> 17:05.360] Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America, [17:05.360 --> 17:09.200] we live in an us against them society. And if we, the people are ever going to have a free society, [17:09.200 --> 17:13.280] then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to [17:13.280 --> 17:17.280] travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity. And most importantly, [17:17.280 --> 17:21.680] the right to do process of law traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to [17:21.680 --> 17:25.840] learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's deputy, [17:25.840 --> 17:29.440] Eddie Craig, in conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the most comprehensive [17:29.440 --> 17:33.280] teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold [17:33.280 --> 17:37.040] the courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going [17:37.040 --> 17:41.520] to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of [17:41.520 --> 17:45.440] Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, the law versus the lie. Video and audio of the [17:45.440 --> 17:49.920] original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. [17:49.920 --> 17:53.840] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [17:53.840 --> 17:57.920] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [18:00.480 --> 18:05.040] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [18:05.040 --> 18:11.280] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method. Michael Maris has won six cases [18:11.280 --> 18:16.080] in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step [18:16.080 --> 18:21.040] instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. [18:21.040 --> 18:26.320] What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons? How to answer letters and phone [18:26.320 --> 18:30.960] calls? How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports? How to turn the financial tables [18:30.960 --> 18:37.200] on them and make them pay you to go away? The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for [18:37.200 --> 18:42.480] how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, [18:42.480 --> 18:47.680] please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner or email [18:47.680 --> 18:57.600] Michael Maris 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. [18:57.600 --> 19:03.600] To learn how to stop debt collectors next. [19:03.600 --> 19:09.600] Logos Radio Network. Logos Radio Network.com. [19:09.600 --> 19:17.600] Logos Radio Network. [19:26.800 --> 19:33.280] Okay, we are back. Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, and I'm Brett Fountain, [19:33.280 --> 19:39.920] and we went out on break. Randy, you were telling us about that judge in the prosecutor. [19:40.480 --> 19:45.680] Yes, the clerks told me that the prosecutor wanted to apologize to me, [19:47.120 --> 19:55.120] and I think it's about, you know, the fact that he hurt my feelings. He don't get it. [19:55.120 --> 20:02.640] If he really wanted to apologize and really felt like he was doing something incorrect, [20:03.600 --> 20:09.360] then I would have found a presentment to the grand jury against this captain [20:10.320 --> 20:17.760] and this bailiff. I have about six complaints I filed, but I didn't find those in the record. [20:17.760 --> 20:26.960] So he's doing what he said he would do in doing nothing about my complaints. [20:27.920 --> 20:30.960] So what is it he wants to apologize to me about? [20:33.520 --> 20:40.640] That would be interesting to see. I suspect I would not be impressed, [20:40.640 --> 20:49.200] and I told them that I've already talked to the prosecutor once, and that didn't turn out so well. [20:50.560 --> 20:58.800] So I will avoid that in the future, and that makes what we're doing more powerful. I guess he thinks [20:59.920 --> 21:08.400] that I'm just in here trying to shame them or get them to make me feel good or some nonsense like that. [21:08.400 --> 21:16.720] I think he still doesn't understand that I have bigger fish to fry than him, [21:18.160 --> 21:24.080] and he's just a vehicle. He's cannon fodder I use to get me to the higher people. [21:25.280 --> 21:31.520] They crashed dummy. I like that. They crashed dummy, but he's going to find out. [21:33.440 --> 21:37.120] Yes, I am going to take him to the federal court because I do want to test him out, [21:37.120 --> 21:42.000] and I'm going to have the federal courts absolutely furious with me. [21:43.760 --> 21:48.320] Then I want to see how they handle themselves, and they're going to be furious with me [21:48.960 --> 21:56.320] because this prosecutor brought me to him. The special agent in charge of the FBI is not going [21:56.320 --> 22:01.840] to be happy with me because I'm going to land right in the middle of him when I file against [22:01.840 --> 22:08.640] this prosecutor, and the special agent for the FBI special agent in charge tries to shield [22:08.640 --> 22:20.640] the prosecutor from prosecution. We see how that works for him. If the prosecutor had any idea [22:20.640 --> 22:29.680] that I was just blowing smoke, I'll get that dispelled for him. But he gets a call from the [22:29.680 --> 22:36.960] special agent in charge of the FBI. I want to know what's going on. Then when the special [22:36.960 --> 22:43.920] agent for the FBI elects to take no action, when I start running the routine on him, [22:45.680 --> 22:55.120] file against him with the U.S. Attorney, and I am so looking forward to using this trick one of [22:55.120 --> 23:02.960] our callers brought in for us. I'm trying to remember who that was. Oh, this is so good. [23:05.840 --> 23:10.160] It's just devious. It's dirty rotten and low-down. [23:10.160 --> 23:12.640] We're talking about Ken in New York. [23:12.640 --> 23:24.480] No, no, no. Someone filed some complaint, filed a certified document, and insured it [23:26.160 --> 23:32.880] for 500 bucks. I thought that was Ken. It might have possibly been. Somehow, [23:32.880 --> 23:38.240] I wasn't thinking it was Ken. But it sounds like something Ken would do. Ken's pretty good. [23:38.240 --> 23:48.240] That is wonderful. It's a beautiful idea. It's the postal inspectors. The postal inspectors [23:48.240 --> 23:55.200] are treated like Aaron's stepchildren by the other feds. You give the postal inspectors [23:55.200 --> 24:00.160] an opportunity to step in the middle of these guys. They're going to love you for it. [24:00.160 --> 24:08.880] So, you insure this document for 500 bucks. You put a cover letter on it and ask them with [24:08.880 --> 24:17.360] a stamp self-addressed envelope and ask them, or was it usually mentioned using postcards? [24:17.360 --> 24:18.560] Yeah, I use postcards. [24:19.200 --> 24:24.880] So, you use a postcard and ask them to initial it and send it back to you. When you don't get that [24:24.880 --> 24:36.800] that within a reasonable time, then the reasonable presumption is that the recipient did not receive [24:36.800 --> 24:43.920] this document. Because if they did, they would certainly send that postcard back to me. [24:44.480 --> 24:45.600] Well, of course they would. [24:46.160 --> 24:51.680] Yeah, so I go down to the post office and I want my 500 bucks. [24:51.680 --> 25:02.240] Well, if the post office pays us that 500 bucks, it's going to go against their bond and it'll [25:02.240 --> 25:09.280] have the effect of raising the bond rating. And that, they don't care about 500 bucks, [25:09.280 --> 25:15.200] they care about their bond rating going up. So, they're going to send the postal inspectors down [25:15.200 --> 25:24.400] there and they're going to go in there and stomp in their feet the whole time. Oh, that is so [25:24.400 --> 25:31.840] devious. So, I will send these all, especially when you start chasing up the line with the [25:31.840 --> 25:38.480] point with the U.S. Attorney. So, I file criminal charges when I don't hear anything from the [25:38.480 --> 25:44.000] special agent in charge. I file criminal charges against him for shielding from prosecution. [25:44.000 --> 25:54.880] And with the U.S. Attorney. And I send that certified insured. [25:56.400 --> 25:59.760] Insured is better than restricted and restricted costs more. [26:00.480 --> 26:07.280] Restricted costs about 15 bucks. So, I just insured for 500 bucks and you'll never get a [26:07.280 --> 26:14.160] response back from the prosecutor. So, then we send the postal inspectors down there to harass them. [26:14.160 --> 26:22.560] And then the next one we send is to the grand jury against the prosecuting attorney for shielding [26:22.560 --> 26:30.960] the special agent in charge from prosecution for shielding this district attorney and his prosecuting [26:30.960 --> 26:43.120] attorney from prosecution. And we send that to the grand jury addressed to the U.S. Attorney's [26:43.120 --> 26:52.160] office with the same cover letter. And the U.S. Attorney will intercept it. When he opens it, [26:52.160 --> 27:02.560] it'll be criminal complaints against him. So, now he's either going to get the postal inspectors [27:02.560 --> 27:09.520] back down there or he has to take this to the foreman and the grand jury and show the foreman [27:09.520 --> 27:17.120] of the grand jury that he opened his mail. That's how this works for you, Bubba. [27:17.120 --> 27:27.680] And then we petition the attorney general in Washington, D.C. for a copy of the notice under [27:27.680 --> 27:35.520] 28 U.S. Code 535, which is required to give when they have it made known to them that a public [27:35.520 --> 27:40.720] official is violated, law-related to his office. And we don't get that. Then we start going after [27:40.720 --> 27:49.040] the U.S. Attorney, I mean the Attorney General in D.C. and pull the same inch you're dealing with [27:49.040 --> 27:54.880] them and get the postal inspectors down there. I suspect the postal inspectors are going to have [27:54.880 --> 28:03.120] a great time beating up all these feds as it pushed them around all the time. And we'll have [28:03.120 --> 28:11.920] everybody real upset at this little U.S. Attorney, this little po-dot Tennessee prosecuting attorney. [28:12.800 --> 28:18.400] Now, we're not going to ruin his career. We're not going to get him out of his office. [28:20.160 --> 28:26.160] We're just going to get him some serious embarrassment. And the last thing I would want [28:26.160 --> 28:34.480] to do is ruin his career. I want to make him a better prosecutor. I want to give him a little [28:34.480 --> 28:41.200] respect. Now, there's not anything that says you can't have great fun doing it. [28:43.040 --> 28:50.560] There's nothing in the law against that. But it is bad form to laugh out loud in their face. [28:50.560 --> 28:58.000] And when the clerks told me that he wanted, he was expecting me, you know, I thought that was odd. [28:59.680 --> 29:07.600] His expectation that if somebody said the prosecuting attorney wants to see you, [29:08.240 --> 29:13.200] that I would just drop everything and run over there and, oh my goodness, [29:13.200 --> 29:20.640] oh, wonderful. You'll see me. Oh, lucky me. That's kind of the way I felt about that. [29:22.000 --> 29:28.160] And I thought, you must really think, you must really think you're more important than I do. [29:30.000 --> 29:34.000] So at the end of the day, I don't think he's very important. I'm sure he does. [29:34.000 --> 29:38.160] And I'll see if I can help him out with that. When we come back, [29:38.160 --> 29:46.400] we're going to go to our college. We've got Ralph, Scott, and John. We will make sure we get to [29:46.400 --> 29:54.240] everybody because we've got our four hour show tonight. Hang on, going to break. We'll be right back. [30:02.320 --> 30:07.200] Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under the [30:07.200 --> 30:12.720] bloody alcohol image. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with a tale of bad breathalysers [30:12.720 --> 30:18.800] and a government cover-up in a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about [30:18.800 --> 30:24.160] yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms [30:24.160 --> 30:30.000] will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information [30:30.000 --> 30:35.280] to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to [30:35.280 --> 30:41.520] you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start [30:41.520 --> 30:48.800] over with StartPage. Ever hear the term fine farming? It's when cops find innocent people [30:48.800 --> 30:53.680] to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business in the Sunshine State of Florida. [30:53.680 --> 30:59.680] This case involves breathalysers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations. [30:59.680 --> 31:04.160] Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated. [31:04.160 --> 31:08.640] State officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing. In fact, [31:08.640 --> 31:14.000] the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document the problem. [31:14.000 --> 31:18.880] A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed, [31:18.880 --> 31:23.520] perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, [31:23.520 --> 31:26.400] more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:26.400 --> 31:36.960] I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, on September 11, 2000. Most people don't know that a third [31:36.960 --> 31:42.960] tower fell on September 11. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane. [31:42.960 --> 31:48.960] Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7, over 1,200 architects [31:48.960 --> 31:53.280] and engineers had looked into the evidence and believed there is more to the story. Bring justice [31:53.280 --> 31:59.520] to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son, go to buildingwatch.org. Why it fell, why it matters, [31:59.520 --> 32:03.760] and what you can do. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home [32:03.760 --> 32:07.680] receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government [32:07.680 --> 32:11.680] caused it with their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be [32:11.680 --> 32:15.840] kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance, [32:15.840 --> 32:20.320] and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket [32:20.320 --> 32:25.520] expense. And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with [32:25.520 --> 32:30.720] zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof [32:30.720 --> 32:38.320] right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. [32:38.320 --> 32:43.280] Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio [32:43.280 --> 32:48.080] Network to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, [32:48.080 --> 32:56.960] your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts [32:56.960 --> 33:00.800] are based on full roof replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails. [33:00.800 --> 33:16.080] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at Logos Radio Network.com. [33:31.600 --> 33:39.600] Discounts are based on full roof replacement. Discounts are based on dating. [33:41.120 --> 33:46.560] Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me. Prosecute them wicked leaders you see. [33:46.560 --> 33:51.520] They're my mother and a liar. Them tell me. Them are liars and I tell six stories. [33:51.520 --> 33:56.560] Me and a billy, me say what them tell me. 3% of America vote for pollution. [33:56.560 --> 34:00.880] So how did he get the president? That's why we have a wide range of pollution. [34:02.480 --> 34:11.200] Okay, we are back to the rule of law radio and Randy Kelton and I'm Brett Fountain. [34:11.760 --> 34:17.920] And we're going to go to the caller board here. First, we have Ralph in Texas. Hi, Ralph. [34:19.600 --> 34:22.800] Oh my, there we go. Gotcha. I'm muted. [34:22.800 --> 34:26.160] All right. Hello, Ralph. [34:28.320 --> 34:36.480] Hello, Brett. Hello, Randall. I should call Randall Mr. Wizard. I still have issues and [34:36.480 --> 34:47.040] trouble understanding due process. Okay. So my question is if a public servant [34:47.040 --> 35:03.680] violates the Public Information Act, that's 552.353 official misconduct class A misdemeanor. [35:04.240 --> 35:06.880] Yes. I just found one of those today. [35:06.880 --> 35:16.800] Okay. Say that again. I'm sorry. What number? 552.353. [35:19.920 --> 35:26.400] 353. Okay. So let me look that up real quick. [35:26.400 --> 35:36.400] That's the one that says that the Open Government Act is not a civil statute. [35:37.520 --> 35:43.280] It is a criminal statute and a violation of the Act is official misconduct [35:44.720 --> 35:47.440] and it is designated a class A misdemeanor. [35:47.440 --> 35:57.200] The official misconduct is also defined by 39.02, but that's a specific case where [35:58.080 --> 36:04.160] Texas is the only state I've seen that has a distinction between misfeasience and [36:04.160 --> 36:11.280] malfeasance on the part of a public official and abuse of office. [36:11.280 --> 36:20.480] In Texas, official misconduct goes to abuse of office and 39.02 goes to whether [36:20.480 --> 36:27.760] they misappropriate public funds or public equipment and stuff like that. 39.03 goes [36:27.760 --> 36:32.720] to failing to perform a duty to require the reform or exerting or purporting to [36:32.720 --> 36:36.320] absurd authority they don't have and denying a citizen in a right. [36:36.320 --> 36:46.400] Well, 552 Government Code 3.353 is a separate designation of official misconduct. [36:49.280 --> 37:00.880] So they can violate both 39.03 and 552.353. [37:00.880 --> 37:06.640] Yes. I'm facedly with one Act that it can do both. [37:07.680 --> 37:11.920] Yeah, it can be either one, but specifically if it's a violation of the Open Records Act, [37:11.920 --> 37:16.000] you should go to the Open Records Act statute specifically. [37:17.920 --> 37:22.160] Okay. Well, what I'm having double rep in my mind around is a claim, a damage, [37:22.160 --> 37:27.440] and a rule offering a remedy. So if I have a right under the Public Information Act [37:27.440 --> 37:32.480] and I request information and the Public Information Officer sends me the information [37:32.480 --> 37:38.320] I requested, however, I can tell by looking at the information that it's been altered, [37:39.600 --> 37:45.920] then they are, they violated, let me work that right here, destruction, [37:45.920 --> 37:50.480] removal or alteration of public information 552.351. [37:50.480 --> 37:57.520] Yes. Okay. So that also, hold on, that goes, that borders on tampering. [37:58.880 --> 38:05.680] Now removal is one thing, redaction, if they can redact, but they have to provide you with [38:05.680 --> 38:11.680] the Attorney General's specific authorization for that redaction. If they've altered it [38:11.680 --> 38:21.840] without the specific authority from these Texas Attorney General, that goes to 37.10 Texas Penal [38:21.840 --> 38:32.160] Code, tampering with the government document. Okay. Well, separate offense. [38:32.160 --> 38:42.080] But I don't understand how a person makes that claim in a civil lawsuit. [38:42.080 --> 38:50.480] You don't. The claim that you make is a violation of due process. [38:52.480 --> 38:55.520] You have a right to the due course of the laws. [38:55.520 --> 39:03.520] If the public official violates the due course of laws to your detriment, [39:03.520 --> 39:10.640] you do not have to show harm. A due process violation is harm per se, harm on its face. [39:13.760 --> 39:18.640] Now all you have to do is establish the value of the harm. And the way you do that is look at [39:18.640 --> 39:23.920] other similar cases where governments have been, or individuals have been sued for this [39:23.920 --> 39:30.800] kind of thing, and see what the juries have awarded. And use the juries award as a precedent [39:31.600 --> 39:41.440] to justify what you're asking for. Okay. But between what I'm thinking I know, [39:41.440 --> 39:47.360] and what the district court is coming back at me with, it's really hard for me to tell if I'm [39:47.360 --> 39:54.400] actually making a legitimate claim, because the district courts denied me everything. Oh, [39:54.400 --> 39:58.080] good. Did you ask the district court for findings, effect, and conclusions at law? [39:59.360 --> 40:02.560] No, because... Oh, hold on. Let me take a step back. [40:04.400 --> 40:10.720] How did the district court get involved in this? I've made a civil lawsuit. [40:10.720 --> 40:14.720] Did you file a suit? [40:16.560 --> 40:23.600] Yes. Oh. I filed a suit, and I've lost everything, so I've got to do an appeal. [40:23.600 --> 40:28.160] And what I... Okay. Did you ask the court for findings, effect, and conclusions at law? [40:29.680 --> 40:36.880] No, because it's civil. No, no. It's civil. You have to. How long ago did you get a ruling against you? [40:36.880 --> 40:40.400] Uh, I don't know. Four months ago. [40:42.560 --> 40:46.960] About a time. Okay. We've got to find a way to get you back into the court. [40:48.000 --> 40:54.400] I am still in the court. I am still in the court because I did listen to Ken, your federal guy. [40:55.120 --> 41:00.080] I listened to him, and I thought, I don't need that information, but I listened, [41:00.080 --> 41:04.720] and guess what? I used it. So, I'm still in the court, but what I'm... [41:04.720 --> 41:11.040] Okay. How are you in the court? Well, okay. Let me explain what I'm looking for. [41:12.560 --> 41:18.800] After a final determination in the court, you have 10 days to request findings of fact. [41:20.000 --> 41:24.080] If you're still in the court, then somehow there's no final determination. [41:25.760 --> 41:31.280] Now, there is a final judgment, and I asked the court to alter the final judgment, [41:31.280 --> 41:38.080] and they said no. And the process of doing that took several months because, one, [41:38.080 --> 41:41.520] they didn't send me the paperwork as required, which is odd because [41:42.160 --> 41:46.480] they're required to send me a report and recommendation of a magistrate, [41:46.480 --> 41:51.120] but they're not required to send me a copy of the final judgment. [41:51.840 --> 41:55.680] Hold on. Are you in a state court or federal court? [41:55.680 --> 42:07.120] Federal court. Oh. Okay. Okay. Do you have... The findings of fact and conclusions at law [42:08.160 --> 42:17.200] are in the judgment. In a federal, that's what the judgment is. You will have an order, [42:17.920 --> 42:24.480] but the order is only half. In order to have a final judgment, there must be an order, [42:24.480 --> 42:29.920] and a judgment. The judgment is findings of fact and conclusions at law. [42:31.280 --> 42:37.280] Right. Now, I have a hard time explaining it, but all I can say is, as best as I understand, [42:37.280 --> 42:41.840] I am properly before the appeals court right now. They've given me a date. [42:42.400 --> 42:47.280] Okay. That's good. Let me explain to everybody else why we're being so particular about this. [42:47.280 --> 42:53.840] If you're in the state court and you get a final ruling, in order to be able to [42:53.840 --> 43:00.000] perfect your appeal, you have to ask for findings of fact. If the judge did not include findings [43:00.000 --> 43:07.040] of fact in his ruling, you must ask for it. If you don't, you waive all of the judgments [43:07.040 --> 43:11.840] the judge made. You can't argue about them, but since you're in the federal court, [43:11.840 --> 43:21.360] a federal ruling, a final ruling is not final until the judgment is filed and the judgment [43:21.360 --> 43:26.560] amounts to findings of fact and conclusions at law. Does it make sense why we went there now? [43:28.480 --> 43:33.200] No, because I still don't understand findings of facts and conclusions of law in a civil matter. [43:33.840 --> 43:41.360] Okay. That is a, just, that's a brief. Just to read your judgment. That's what that judgment is. [43:41.360 --> 43:49.200] That's findings of fact. Here are the facts that we considered and this is the law we apply to those [43:49.200 --> 43:58.240] facts. Hang on. About to go to break. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Ruvila Radio, you will be right back. [44:01.120 --> 44:04.960] At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by [44:04.960 --> 44:09.040] delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price. [44:09.040 --> 44:13.200] We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality [44:13.200 --> 44:17.920] coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions [44:17.920 --> 44:22.640] for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited [44:22.640 --> 44:27.120] metals dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it. [44:27.120 --> 44:31.520] In addition, we carry popular young Jebedee products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and [44:31.520 --> 44:36.800] Pollen Burks. We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storeable Foods, Berkey Water Products, [44:36.800 --> 44:41.680] ammunition at 10 percent above wholesale and more. We broker metals IRA accounts and we also [44:41.680 --> 44:48.960] accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, [44:48.960 --> 44:53.360] Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through Friday, 10 to 6, [44:53.360 --> 44:59.520] Saturdays, 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440. [45:01.120 --> 45:03.680] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [45:03.680 --> 45:09.760] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, [45:09.760 --> 45:17.040] four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, [45:17.040 --> 45:21.760] know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do [45:21.760 --> 45:28.960] for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary [45:28.960 --> 45:35.440] was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not [45:35.440 --> 45:41.120] in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices [45:41.120 --> 45:48.000] that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, [45:48.000 --> 45:55.200] forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com [45:55.200 --> 46:00.800] and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [46:25.760 --> 46:32.000] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain of ruleoflaw radio [46:32.720 --> 46:37.120] and we're talking to Ralph in Texas and I haven't told you before Ralph, [46:38.320 --> 46:44.960] but I really like your calls. You always ask complex sophisticated questions [46:46.400 --> 46:53.520] and in my emails I get from people, you would think that when we're talking about something [46:53.520 --> 46:58.720] really complex and esoteric that people would get bored with it and annoy it, but [46:59.280 --> 47:06.400] I get more positive feedback on these sophisticated analyses than about anything else. [47:06.400 --> 47:09.520] So, I appreciate the kind of questions you're asking us. [47:11.280 --> 47:15.040] Well, thank you. You know that I'm asking them because I believe that I'm getting [47:15.040 --> 47:22.320] some good information in response. So, it goes both ways. One day, one evening on radio show, [47:22.320 --> 47:28.320] I really like that you spend four hours on due process. That will cost a lot of people who [47:28.320 --> 47:34.560] have questions, you know, some serious answers, but at the same time, well, that would help a lot [47:34.560 --> 47:40.320] of people because I never understood due process to begin with, but I'm slowly beginning to [47:40.320 --> 47:46.960] understand it by listening to you. So, I don't know if this question is fair for several reasons. [47:46.960 --> 47:52.960] One, it sounds like I'm asking you to write this for me, which I'm not and I'll explain why. [47:52.960 --> 47:57.520] And two, you don't know all the issues and you can't know because we've just got a few minutes [47:57.520 --> 48:05.680] on the radio. But what I'm looking for is the words to express a civil claim for a public [48:05.680 --> 48:11.920] information act violation and I'm having trouble with it because I'm understanding there's three [48:11.920 --> 48:18.640] parts. I've actually finally delved into your legal 101. Lots of reasons, lots of things going [48:18.640 --> 48:24.640] on in my life, but I delved into it the other night and I broke down the claim equal to damage, [48:24.640 --> 48:30.160] equal to rule, equal to remedy, equal to rule. And half asleep, I don't even remember exactly [48:30.160 --> 48:34.240] why I wrote that and I look for it, couldn't make sense out of it, but I still have that written [48:34.240 --> 48:41.440] on piece of paper while reading your legal 101. So, what I'm trying to understand is that if a [48:41.440 --> 48:49.200] public information officer or public servant violates, has a duty under Public Information Act, [48:49.200 --> 48:55.200] you make a request. They give you a response that you can tell is obviously been altered. [48:56.160 --> 49:00.480] So, that's the violation of, you gave me several, I'll have to go back to this to the recording, [49:00.480 --> 49:10.000] 3903, 552.33. Okay, let me ask you something about that. The open records law says that it's [49:10.000 --> 49:22.400] a crime for them to do that. When they commit that crime, do they give you annoyance? Do they [49:22.400 --> 49:32.000] cause you stress and discomfort? Do they cost you time and effort in trying to find a way [49:32.000 --> 49:40.720] to get the information that you already had a right to? All those plus one more. [49:42.080 --> 49:48.720] Okay, see where I'm going? All those are torts. What's the plus one more? [49:49.440 --> 49:54.480] Yes, so the plus one more is I was going to use the information in the civil lawsuit I have right [49:54.480 --> 50:02.800] now. But they cut that part out of the public information request and sent me the altered version [50:03.440 --> 50:08.480] which did not show one of the public servants violating the law. [50:09.600 --> 50:17.360] That is tampering with a government document. And if they tamper with a government document [50:17.360 --> 50:27.280] to your detriment, that is harm per se. That's a due process violation. And a due [50:27.280 --> 50:33.760] process violation is a cause of action. And it is harm on its face. You don't have to show [50:33.760 --> 50:42.400] that you were harmed. You are harmed by the violation. The state of Texas has held that [50:42.400 --> 50:51.920] or the legislature has asserted that in a violation of a criminal statute, [50:52.880 --> 51:00.400] the state is an injured party. So they understand this injured party thing. [51:01.440 --> 51:07.840] When someone commits a criminal act and that criminal act harms you, [51:07.840 --> 51:20.000] that is a tort against you. If the person is a public official, then the tort becomes the tort [51:20.000 --> 51:28.560] of due process violation. And that violation is harm on its face. You don't have to show that you [51:28.560 --> 51:38.400] were harmed because they altered this government document. It is harmed by its very nature. [51:40.080 --> 51:46.880] The only thing you will have to show is why you should get as much in damages as you should [51:47.840 --> 51:56.080] or as you ask for. And there are ways of calculating that by looking at other cases [51:56.080 --> 52:06.400] where the jury was incensed at the public officials for their bad behavior and issued a judgment [52:06.400 --> 52:16.560] against them in like false imprisonment. There's the Trezevant case. Did I get the emphasis on [52:16.560 --> 52:28.400] the right sololable that time? He got $22,000 a minute or something like that for the time he [52:28.400 --> 52:37.680] was in jail, falsely imprisoned. So they take that calculation and say, well, a jury found that [52:37.680 --> 52:42.640] in the case of false imprisonment, this guy had a right to this much recovery. [52:42.640 --> 52:47.280] I think it wasn't that much. It was over $1,000. I think it was $1,086. [52:47.920 --> 52:52.880] Okay. Well, that much a minute. So whatever it is that acts as a precedent, [52:54.240 --> 53:01.360] and then based on that precedent, you can claim that much in your case. And if they feel like [53:01.360 --> 53:05.920] your case is sufficiently different and you shouldn't get that much, let the other side [53:05.920 --> 53:14.640] argue that part. You can't just reasonably reach up and pull a claim out of the clear blue sky. [53:15.920 --> 53:22.720] Well, early on in this litigation, they asked me, I had to tell them how much I was asking for. [53:23.360 --> 53:28.560] And I used Trezevant if I'm saying it right. I used that. What I did was I got on the federal [53:28.560 --> 53:33.120] government calculator, increased the cost of living, and I figured out what it was whenever [53:33.120 --> 53:41.840] Trezevant was awarded his and then brought it up to the time whenever I was unlawfully arrested [53:41.840 --> 53:50.560] and injured. That is perfect. Great idea. It doesn't make any difference whether or not [53:50.560 --> 54:00.080] the circumstances are the same or similar. All you have to have is a reason. It don't have to [54:00.080 --> 54:06.640] be a good reason. You just kind of have one. And you got Trezevant. Okay. You got your reason. Now, [54:07.280 --> 54:14.880] they have to come back and argue that it doesn't apply in this case. And that puts the ball in [54:14.880 --> 54:22.560] their court. So you're good. Okay. Now, what I'm trying to understand about this due process [54:22.560 --> 54:28.880] and this Public Information Act, I'm figuring if I ever understand how to write it for this [54:28.880 --> 54:38.160] Public Information Act abuse, then I'll be able to apply it to other due process violations. [54:38.960 --> 54:46.960] That was a major problem with the criminal, with the civil lawsuit is I didn't include enough due [54:46.960 --> 54:55.360] process. And 90% of what they did to me was due process. I believe if a magistrate issues a warrant [54:55.360 --> 55:02.400] for someone's arrest and there's no probable cause, then that's a liberty interest plus a due [55:02.400 --> 55:06.800] process right. Is that right? Yeah, but that's one thing you can't sue for. [55:10.160 --> 55:13.280] The magistrate is absolutely immune. [55:16.880 --> 55:23.600] Unless he commits a crime. When a magistrate can issue a warrant for your arrest stating, [55:23.600 --> 55:29.200] let me read it. Let me read this. On this, the blank day of blank, I'm leaving out the [55:29.200 --> 55:34.480] pertinent, the field imparts. This is the form she signed. On this day, I hear the [55:34.480 --> 55:39.920] by-a-nods that I have examined the ongoing affidavit and have determined that probable cause [55:39.920 --> 55:45.360] does exist for the issuance of an arrest warrant for the individual accused herein. [55:46.400 --> 55:51.280] And so if there's no probable cause, like the person is arrested for failure to identify, [55:51.280 --> 55:56.480] you can't arrest for failure to identify, then the magistrate gets a free ride? [55:57.600 --> 56:06.960] Yep. It's one of those trade-offs. The courts have said that when the magistrate issues this [56:06.960 --> 56:16.320] determination, it would be inconsistent with the ends of justice to put the magistrate in a position [56:16.320 --> 56:22.880] to where they have to consider the likelihood or possibility of a lawsuit against them [56:23.760 --> 56:26.640] in attempting to make a determination of probable cause. [56:28.080 --> 56:36.800] So with the possibility that this could be abused, the legislature felt that the [56:36.800 --> 56:48.640] likelihood of abuse was much less than the likelihood that the magistrate would let guilty [56:48.640 --> 56:54.640] people go free in order to ensure that he doesn't get sued. [56:54.640 --> 57:05.040] Okay. What about Article 15.17? Are they also exempt from a civil suit if they [57:06.160 --> 57:12.240] send the papers to the district court stating, you know, that they have jurisdiction to hear [57:12.240 --> 57:24.800] that? Okay. Now, this is a whole other animal. 15.17, that is not, that does not go to an [57:24.800 --> 57:31.680] examining trial. Does that say they have a right to one? Yes. It says you have a right to one, [57:32.240 --> 57:37.440] but a hearing, this hearing they have under 1517, they call it a registration. [57:37.440 --> 57:44.320] They call it a registration because it is not an examining trial. [57:46.080 --> 57:53.440] And 1517 only applies in an arrest on an existing warrant out of county. [57:55.600 --> 57:58.880] That's the only time they can hold a 1517 hearing. [57:58.880 --> 58:08.800] See, Chapter 15 goes to arrest on warrant. In an arrest on a warrant, the warrant says, [58:09.520 --> 58:19.120] arrest this person and bring him before me. Well, if you're out of county in order to more [58:19.120 --> 58:30.240] expeditiously provide the warnings that are referenced in 1416 or wherever, they can take [58:30.240 --> 58:36.560] them to the nearest magistrate out of county, and they can issue these warnings, but not hold [58:36.560 --> 58:43.920] an examining trial. Once they're brought back into the county, they have a right to an examining [58:43.920 --> 58:51.440] trial. Hang on, we'll pick this up on the other side, Randy Kelton. Would you like to make more [58:51.440 --> 58:57.040] indefinite progress in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering a free study [58:57.040 --> 59:02.560] Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament recovery version [59:02.560 --> 59:07.680] is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation, [59:07.680 --> 59:12.560] and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of [59:12.560 --> 59:18.400] life. The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life. [59:18.400 --> 59:23.200] Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of [59:23.200 --> 59:29.520] salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church. To order your free New Testament [59:29.520 --> 59:36.320] recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll-free [59:36.320 --> 59:49.120] at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org. [59:50.880 --> 59:54.960] Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com. [59:54.960 --> 01:00:04.560] The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown. [01:00:06.480 --> 01:00:12.560] Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold at $1,429 [01:00:12.560 --> 01:00:20.960] an ounce, silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil, Texas crude $55.63 a barrel, [01:00:20.960 --> 01:00:29.280] Brent crude $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, [01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:41.600] Ethereum $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin. [01:00:41.600 --> 01:00:51.760] Today in History, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, [01:00:51.760 --> 01:00:57.520] was detonated on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, [01:00:57.520 --> 01:01:00.400] killing 10 and entering 40. Today in History. [01:01:04.640 --> 01:01:09.200] And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing [01:01:09.200 --> 01:01:13.840] heaven attacks his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including Houston, [01:01:13.840 --> 01:01:18.240] Austin, and San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file [01:01:18.240 --> 01:01:22.800] new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment [01:01:22.800 --> 01:01:27.920] to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney announced earlier [01:01:27.920 --> 01:01:32.560] this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases [01:01:32.560 --> 01:01:37.200] because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General stipulated [01:01:37.200 --> 01:01:42.240] in a letter that county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized [01:01:42.240 --> 01:01:48.160] in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, [01:01:48.160 --> 01:01:54.560] as well as other cities too like the District Attorney in El Paso, Kyman Esparza, a Democrat [01:01:54.560 --> 01:01:59.760] who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution [01:01:59.760 --> 01:02:05.200] of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball [01:02:05.200 --> 01:02:09.920] and assistant public defender in Harris County who stated that, quote, the law is constantly [01:02:09.920 --> 01:02:14.320] changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if [01:02:14.320 --> 01:02:18.160] someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're charged with. [01:02:22.560 --> 01:02:28.000] A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark as the first [01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:33.680] of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured [01:02:33.680 --> 01:02:39.200] or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. [01:02:39.200 --> 01:02:44.320] According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its [01:02:44.320 --> 01:02:50.560] front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow. [01:02:50.560 --> 01:03:00.560] This is Book Roadie with a lowdown for July 22, 2019. [01:03:20.560 --> 01:03:46.560] Okay, we are back. [01:03:46.560 --> 01:03:59.360] We're talking with Ralph in Texas. Ralph, one thing that occurs to me that this document, [01:03:59.360 --> 01:04:04.560] when they tampered with the public record that way and they gave you the altered version, [01:04:04.560 --> 01:04:13.520] stands out to me as Texas Penal Code 3221 forgery. I don't know if you've considered that angle as [01:04:13.520 --> 01:04:23.360] well. 3221? Yes, sir. Might be something to look at there for you. Forgery, it says to alter, [01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:31.440] make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports and has several [01:04:31.440 --> 01:04:38.080] different kinds of things to be executed at a different time numbered sequence than it wasn't [01:04:38.080 --> 01:04:53.520] that one. Let's see. Government record listed in 3701. Depending on the value that is touched [01:04:53.520 --> 01:05:02.400] by this forgery, the punishment ratchets up. It ranges all the way from a Class C misdemeanor [01:05:02.400 --> 01:05:09.200] all the way up to a felony of the first degree, depending on the value. If there's 300 grand [01:05:10.640 --> 01:05:16.960] that's the value of the property or service that's being touched by this, [01:05:18.880 --> 01:05:25.440] then that's a felony of the first degree. Okay, but how do I use that municipal lawsuit? I must [01:05:25.440 --> 01:05:32.080] be having some mental block because I am trying to do that while looking at what the [01:05:32.080 --> 01:05:36.720] court is saying, which I think they're wrong, but that's the only thing I've got to go by at this [01:05:36.720 --> 01:05:43.280] point. Well, I think you hit it right at the nail on the head. A few minutes ago you were talking [01:05:43.280 --> 01:05:49.760] about that this is due process. Randy was talking about you have a right to due process, [01:05:49.760 --> 01:06:02.960] the due course of the law. When you see that the actors here are committing crimes and they're [01:06:02.960 --> 01:06:09.200] keeping you from having the due course of the law, that goes to the due process, [01:06:09.840 --> 01:06:13.840] which is you're treating that in a civil way that you're suing them because [01:06:13.840 --> 01:06:21.920] they didn't give you the due process. Yeah, due process is not the crime. Due process is a tort. [01:06:23.920 --> 01:06:33.920] A violation of due process gives you a claim and it is harm per se so you don't have to show [01:06:33.920 --> 01:06:44.560] that you were damaged. Anytime they commit a crime, the commission of that crime has the effect of [01:06:44.560 --> 01:06:53.040] harming you in any way that creates a tort as opposed to a cause of action. The tort in this [01:06:53.040 --> 01:07:01.600] case is violation of due process. Okay, it feels like it's starting to sink in, but let me go back [01:07:01.600 --> 01:07:07.760] to this magistrate that issued a warrant that liked probable cause. Let me give you two points [01:07:07.760 --> 01:07:13.440] and if you're still saying that... Okay, hold on. Hold on. This one thing I need to ask before it gets [01:07:13.440 --> 01:07:22.720] past us. Is there an order under 16.17 code of criminal procedure in the public record? No. [01:07:22.720 --> 01:07:30.480] Nobody has jurisdiction. Nobody has immunity. [01:07:33.440 --> 01:07:37.600] Well, I don't know how many arguments I can make. I'm already making a lot of argument, [01:07:37.600 --> 01:07:42.080] so that sounds good. I like it because I'm made with that. When you talked about it recently, [01:07:42.080 --> 01:07:48.160] very clearly, how did courts get jurisdiction? And I'm like, yeah, wow, because I never did that. [01:07:48.160 --> 01:07:54.320] I gave the... It's not in this civil lawsuit, but I sent a letter to the judge specifically [01:07:54.320 --> 01:07:59.920] asking for that. She never responded. So I called her on the phone and said, I have a letter [01:08:00.640 --> 01:08:07.280] that I sent you requesting the 16.7 package that you sent to the district court. [01:08:08.080 --> 01:08:10.560] And she says, I have no idea what you're talking about. [01:08:10.560 --> 01:08:18.720] The problem is, is that's on the phone unless you had it recorded. [01:08:19.840 --> 01:08:25.360] No, I record on my conversation. Yeah, I've got to record it. But I think it's too late. Unless [01:08:25.360 --> 01:08:29.040] the field court sends it back down, I may be able to bring... I can't bring it up now, but [01:08:29.040 --> 01:08:32.560] unless if the field court sends it back down, I think I've got enough that they're going to send [01:08:32.560 --> 01:08:39.760] it down. But who knows? If you haven't challenged subject matter jurisdiction, you can do that now. [01:08:41.760 --> 01:08:45.680] Well, where would I do that? In the criminal case? Because the criminal case is already... [01:08:45.680 --> 01:08:52.720] No, you do that in the civil case, in the district court where you filed it. [01:08:55.680 --> 01:08:59.440] You go back and challenge subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction [01:08:59.440 --> 01:09:03.120] can be challenged at any time, no matter how remote in history. [01:09:04.240 --> 01:09:08.160] Why would I challenge subject matter jurisdiction in the civil case? Because I've [01:09:08.160 --> 01:09:14.480] issued an issue. Because you had the case ruled against you, [01:09:16.160 --> 01:09:22.720] now you can go back and reinvigorate the case and file... Now you can sue the judge. [01:09:22.720 --> 01:09:27.120] When the judge acts without subject matter jurisdiction, then you can sue him. [01:09:27.120 --> 01:09:36.240] Well, not the judge. You can't sue the judge that did not file the 16.17 order, [01:09:37.360 --> 01:09:45.200] but you can sue everybody else that acted subsequent to the warrant issued by the judge. [01:09:47.520 --> 01:09:51.520] Okay, I understand that. I do understand what you're saying. I'll get the study [01:09:51.520 --> 01:09:57.520] to be able to do it, but I understand what you're saying. Okay, now two things about [01:09:57.520 --> 01:10:04.480] this magistrate that issued an arrest warrant. I was arraigned in the jail. I wasn't taken before [01:10:05.440 --> 01:10:11.920] the magistrate, so we know that's a violation due process on the arresting officer's part. [01:10:11.920 --> 01:10:19.840] So... Okay, have you read my habeas corpus on the Juris Imprudence website? [01:10:19.840 --> 01:10:24.080] No. Oh, you've got to go read that. [01:10:25.360 --> 01:10:34.320] Okay. It walks through due process in Texas, and it takes that apart piece by piece. [01:10:35.520 --> 01:10:39.920] Oh, okay, I need that. If you were not taken before magistrate and there was no [01:10:40.640 --> 01:10:46.960] examining trial, that's what this goes through. All the problems they got, they got lots of [01:10:46.960 --> 01:10:53.840] claims that you can still make. If you didn't make these claims in your lawsuit, you can go back [01:10:54.400 --> 01:10:59.520] sue every jailer, sue everyone who had anything to do with this. [01:11:01.600 --> 01:11:06.560] No 16.17 order, no jurisdiction for anybody. [01:11:07.440 --> 01:11:13.120] Okay, that's what you gave me last Friday, and unfortunately, I'm suing everybody to touch it, [01:11:13.120 --> 01:11:18.400] and that's putting a heck of a burden on me. Lots of claims and lots of defendants. [01:11:19.200 --> 01:11:24.000] So I want to keep going back to this magistrate. There's two details, very short, very sweet. [01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:28.880] I want you to hear just to get your opinion on it. The magistrate during the reign that says [01:11:31.920 --> 01:11:38.000] I'm arraigned on failure to identify, and I told the magistrate, I said that's not an arrestable [01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:43.280] offense. She looked me right in the eye and said, well, I'm going to take the officer's word on that. [01:11:44.560 --> 01:11:53.840] Okay? Yeah, I know. Then she says... Oh, hold on. Walker V. Packer. [01:11:55.360 --> 01:12:04.240] I think that's the right citation. A judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the [01:12:04.240 --> 01:12:11.440] facts of failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion that has the effect of [01:12:11.440 --> 01:12:16.960] denying a citizen full-free access to or enjoyment right is the class A misdemeanor in the state of [01:12:16.960 --> 01:12:24.640] Texas. Does it mean I can say similarly? That means you can file a criminal against a judge. [01:12:27.760 --> 01:12:33.360] Five years after the fact, this has been going on a while. It doesn't matter if it's still in [01:12:33.360 --> 01:12:41.520] litigation and it's not over. Okay. Good. I like doing that. In fact, when I get rid of this, [01:12:41.520 --> 01:12:46.560] that's all I'm going to do. One after another, I got a bunch of them floating around right now [01:12:46.560 --> 01:12:51.600] that I don't have time to tend to because of this civil thing. Okay, so the judge says, I'm going to [01:12:51.600 --> 01:12:58.720] take the officer's word on that. She says, how do you treat? I said, not guilty. Then she tells me, [01:12:58.720 --> 01:13:04.080] are you ready for this? This is a good one. Let me find it. I said, I'm not guilty. [01:13:05.040 --> 01:13:12.560] And she gives me a paper that says handwritten first signature. You need to contact my court [01:13:12.560 --> 01:13:17.040] and it has an address of the court by this date to pay the fine amount. [01:13:19.680 --> 01:13:23.600] Now, if I plead not guilty, why is she giving me a piece of paper telling me I've got to pay [01:13:23.600 --> 01:13:32.000] my fine amount by a certain date? Wow. That is a very good question. But I would like to back up [01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:44.800] to arraignment. Let's make sure our verbiage is correct. Okay. 20 2601 says an arraignment may be [01:13:44.800 --> 01:13:58.000] had in the matter of a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. 2602 says an arraignment [01:13:58.000 --> 01:14:05.360] is held for the purpose of determining the identity of the accused and taking a plea. [01:14:05.360 --> 01:14:14.880] That is not an examining trial. That first hearing was required to be an [01:14:14.880 --> 01:14:19.680] examining trial. Did the judge read you your rights and tell you that you had to write [01:14:20.240 --> 01:14:24.160] to an interest statement before any evidence was entered into the court against you? [01:14:27.120 --> 01:14:32.880] Not that matter part. Then it wasn't an examining trial in that you had a right to [01:14:32.880 --> 01:14:38.400] do. The denial of an examining trial is a denial of due process. [01:14:40.400 --> 01:14:45.280] The courts will say that they've been saying that in the matter of a misdemeanor, [01:14:45.280 --> 01:14:50.480] you don't have a right to an examining trial. Then we say so what? What's that got to do [01:14:50.480 --> 01:14:59.680] with anything? The statute absolutely commands it. So, since the statute commands it, [01:14:59.680 --> 01:15:07.520] that becomes a part of due process. And due process is something you have a right to. So, [01:15:07.520 --> 01:15:14.560] the judge in holding an arraignment hearing, but was this a classy misdemeanor? Was this [01:15:14.560 --> 01:15:22.160] a traffic charge? Classy misdemeanor. The judge had no power to hold an arraignment. [01:15:22.160 --> 01:15:31.760] Zero. I have no idea why the legislature wrote 2601. [01:15:34.240 --> 01:15:41.520] Why did they specifically exempt classy misdemeanors from arrangements? [01:15:41.520 --> 01:15:51.200] They did that. So, they cannot have an arraignment in a classy misdemeanor. Period. [01:15:54.400 --> 01:15:57.760] So, they held this arraignment. It should have been an examining trial. [01:15:58.800 --> 01:16:03.040] That's criminal behavior on part of the judge and everybody involved. [01:16:03.040 --> 01:16:13.520] And the judge had no authority to hold an examining trial. Therefore, the judge is [01:16:13.520 --> 01:16:23.920] out of scope and is suitable. Out of scope or not, I mean for having an arraignment [01:16:23.920 --> 01:16:29.680] instead of an examining trial. Exactly. Holding an arraignment, she had no power to hold. [01:16:29.680 --> 01:16:35.680] So, she exerted or purported to exert an authority she did not expressly have [01:16:35.680 --> 01:16:43.840] and in the process committed a classy misdemeanor. Crimes are not within scope and we have case law [01:16:43.840 --> 01:16:49.360] on that. But how do we know that they really excluded? Oh, we're about to take a break here. [01:16:49.920 --> 01:16:56.400] But how is that they really excluded? No 1617 order means there was no examining [01:16:56.400 --> 01:17:03.360] trial. Hang on and be right back. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, [01:17:03.360 --> 01:17:09.360] letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Merris proven method. Michael [01:17:09.360 --> 01:17:14.800] Merris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll [01:17:14.800 --> 01:17:20.080] get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights [01:17:20.080 --> 01:17:26.080] statute. What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons. How to answer letters and phone [01:17:26.080 --> 01:17:30.720] calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial tables [01:17:30.720 --> 01:17:36.960] on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Merris proven method is the solution for [01:17:36.960 --> 01:17:42.160] how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, [01:17:42.160 --> 01:17:47.760] please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Merris banner or email Michael [01:17:47.760 --> 01:17:57.280] Merris 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. [01:17:57.280 --> 01:18:02.800] To learn how to stop debt collectors now. I love logos. Without the shows on this network, [01:18:02.800 --> 01:18:07.200] I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going [01:18:07.200 --> 01:18:12.800] back. I need my truth fit. I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network [01:18:12.800 --> 01:18:16.960] on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really [01:18:16.960 --> 01:18:22.240] don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos? [01:18:22.240 --> 01:18:27.440] Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos with [01:18:27.440 --> 01:18:32.160] ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, [01:18:32.160 --> 01:18:39.120] go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything [01:18:39.120 --> 01:18:45.600] from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do [01:18:45.600 --> 01:18:52.080] anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes. Wow. Giving [01:18:52.080 --> 01:18:58.000] without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. We are [01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:16.720] welcome. Happy holidays, logos. This is the Logos. Logos RadioNetwork. [01:19:28.000 --> 01:19:41.000] You ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again I was blindsided, but now I can see you in my head [01:19:41.000 --> 01:19:50.000] You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my head Ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again [01:19:50.000 --> 01:20:03.000] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain moved to our radio and we're talking to Ralph in Texas and on the break we're talking about 15.17 [01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:08.000] And will you read what 15.17 says Brett? [01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:15.000] Sure, I was looking at that subsection B, it was talking about an arraignment in a misdemeanor punishable by fine only. [01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:25.000] It says, after an accused charged with a misdemeanor punishable by fine only is taken before a magistrate under subsection A, [01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:29.000] that's where they give you all the warnings including you have a right to an examining trial, [01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:34.000] and the magistrate has identified the accused with certainty. [01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:43.000] The magistrate may release the accused without bond and order the accused to appear at a later date for arraignment in the applicable justice court, [01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:46.000] that's JP, or municipal court. [01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:51.000] And it goes on to say what that arraignment order should look like and all. [01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:58.000] Okay, consider what 15, chapter 15 is. [01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:03.000] Chapter 15 is a rest on warrant. [01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:05.000] And he under warrant, yeah. [01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:09.000] Chapter 14 is a rest without a warrant. [01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:17.000] If there is a warrant, there must have necessarily already been an examining trial. [01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:22.000] That's the only way to get a warrant. [01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:34.000] So then the reference to an arraignment in a classy misdemeanor is in direct conflict with 2601, [01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:45.000] where the legislature authorizes the courts to hold arraignments. [01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:52.000] The only statute that speaks to that issue of who can hold an arraignment or when an arraignment can be held, [01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:57.000] and it specifically excludes classy misdemeanors. [01:21:57.000 --> 01:22:00.000] So there's no way to... [01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:03.000] Well, it specifically includes all the others. [01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:08.000] What is not included is excluded. [01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:19.000] So they said this is when you can hold an arraignment in a felony or misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. [01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:22.000] That was a very clear distinction. [01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:27.000] So you have to look at the totality of the law. [01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:36.000] They went to a very specific purpose to exclude classy misdemeanors. [01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:40.000] And it makes a lot of sense because it goes on in 26. [01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:48.000] It goes on to say that the purpose of the arraignment is to fix his identity and hear his plea. [01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:55.000] How is he going to enter a plea if he's never even been given a charging instrument and time to formulate a defense and everything? [01:22:55.000 --> 01:23:06.000] And in 26.03, it's talking about the time of the arraignment, that it shall not take place until he's got two entire days after he gets the indictment served on him. [01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:11.000] So there has to be an examining trial prior to indictment. [01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:14.000] I mean, prior to an arraignment. [01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:16.000] There has to be. [01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:27.000] They've tried to get rid of the examining trials, but they can't get the law to work for them because the pieces just don't fit together. [01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:36.000] They try to go to 1517, but 1517 only applies in an arrest on an existing warrant. [01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:39.000] And that implies there already was an examining trial. [01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:41.000] Go ahead, Ralph. [01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:48.000] Yeah, Article 14.06 must take offender before magistrate. [01:23:48.000 --> 01:24:00.000] Now, A, except as otherwise provided by this article, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, or to provide more expeditious to the person arrested in the morning described by Article 15.17. [01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:10.000] So in 14.06, rest without warrant, they're telling the officer that he must abide by Article 15.17, which is arrest with the warrant. [01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:14.000] Well, actually 15, that reference is meaningless. [01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:16.000] Just for the warnings. [01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:26.000] Yeah, because the 1517 goes to an arrest on an existing warrant out of county. [01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:33.000] This officer, if he makes this arrest, he has no option. [01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:36.000] He must get this person before magistrate. [01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:41.000] And any warnings they might get him are meaningless. [01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:46.000] You know, he has a duty to give Miranda warnings. [01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:58.000] And the only effect that this is where they made these changes to try to bring in this registration thing instead of an examining trial. [01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:00.000] These were later adjustments. [01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:05.000] Actually, that last one in 14.06 is really recent. [01:25:05.000 --> 01:25:13.000] But they didn't look closely at the rest of the law to see how it fit within the rest of the law. [01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:19.000] There is no purpose in doing this 1517 notice of the rights. [01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:24.000] The arresting officers required to do that. [01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:30.000] So what's the point of bringing them before a magistrate just to do that? [01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:44.000] When the magistrate will advise them at that time, they have a right to an examining trial while they are in the process of denying them in an examining trial. [01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:46.000] What's that? [01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:51.000] 1517 assumes there's already been one. [01:25:51.000 --> 01:25:54.000] And when the warrant was issued. [01:25:54.000 --> 01:25:59.000] But even if there was, it was an ex parte examining trial. [01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:01.000] Necessarily. [01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:05.000] Because the warrant says arrest this person and bring him before me. [01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:09.000] Well, if he's already standing in front of you, there'd be no grounds to issue a warrant. [01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:18.000] So since the person's not in front of you, you just hear in one side of it, you hold an ex parte examining trial issue a warrant. [01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:21.000] And then arrest this person and bring him before me. [01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:26.000] So now we can have an examining trial with both parties present. [01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:34.000] The first thing that has to happen is the accused is given opportunity to enter a statement before any evidence is entered against them. [01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:38.000] And that's why they want it not to happen. [01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:45.000] They do not want the accused to have opportunity to enter exculpatory evidence. [01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:48.000] Ties the hands of the prosecutors. [01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:52.000] But the problem is, is they can't get the laws to work for them. [01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:56.000] They put in extra laws to try to finagle that in. [01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:07.000] But they are inconsistent with the, they are not in paramateria with the Corpus Juris, with the body of law. [01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:15.000] The paramateria means in concert with the body of law. [01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:17.000] They're in conflict with it. [01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:19.000] So they're not in paramateria. [01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:24.000] There's no way they can make this work. [01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:26.000] But lawyers don't argue it. [01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:33.000] So it stays in the law until some pro se like Ralph gets in there and rips him to shreds on it. [01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:34.000] Okay. [01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:47.000] So I've been, I've been claiming that I had a right to be taken before magistrate without delay under article 15.17 when I should be using article 14.6.06 [01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:51.000] because there was no warrant when I was arrested. [01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:52.000] Exactly. [01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:55.000] That's exactly the one you should be claiming. [01:27:55.000 --> 01:27:57.000] It's 14.06. [01:27:57.000 --> 01:27:59.000] Okay. [01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:00.000] All right. [01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:03.000] You're giving me a lot to work with Randy and Brett. [01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:05.000] I appreciate both of you. [01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:10.000] I think I'll just go over here and let somebody else call in and I'll work on what you've given me. [01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:11.000] Okay. [01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:15.000] Thank you and I do enjoy these kinds of sophisticated analysis. [01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:17.000] Thank you, Ralph. [01:28:17.000 --> 01:28:19.000] Don't work on some more. [01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:20.000] Bye. [01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:21.000] Okay. [01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:23.000] Now we're going to go to Scott in Texas. [01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:27.000] Scott, what do you have for us today? [01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:31.000] Oh, I just had a couple of comments I was going to make. [01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:36.000] And when it comes, you can correct me if I'm wrong or anything, but it comes to this. [01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:37.000] You're wrong. [01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:38.000] You're wrong. [01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:39.000] Okay. [01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:44.000] Well, I just wanted to get that out of the way early so I don't interrupt you in the process. [01:28:44.000 --> 01:28:47.000] Oh, well, thank you. [01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:52.000] Due process is basically just my understanding of the law of the land. [01:28:52.000 --> 01:29:01.000] So whenever they violate a law, so that when they have to break a law so that they can charge you with a crime, [01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:05.000] they've obviously violated due process along the way. [01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:09.000] So that was my kind of interpretation of due process. [01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:22.000] And that's exactly what due process is. You have a right to a reasonable expectation that the law will be followed as written. [01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:25.000] And that is your right to due process. [01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:26.000] Right. [01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:37.000] And a lot of people, because I know when I first started this, I really wrestled with this whole due process thing and how are you supposed to frame due process? [01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:39.000] It's just the law. [01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:41.000] It's the law of the land. [01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:53.000] And when they violate the law, they violated your due process because you have a fair equal right to the law. [01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:54.000] Okay, okay. [01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:55.000] Hold on, hold on. [01:29:55.000 --> 01:29:56.000] About to go to break. [01:29:56.000 --> 01:29:57.000] Randy Kelton. [01:29:57.000 --> 01:29:58.000] Brett Fountain. [01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:03.000] We'll be right back. [01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:09.000] Since 9-11, our government has used invasive measures like warrantless phone taps to keep us safe from terrorists. [01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:13.000] But too much government surveillance could actually put us at greater risk. [01:30:13.000 --> 01:30:18.000] I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht and I'll be back with the unsettling truth in just a moment. [01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:20.000] Privacy is under attack. [01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:23.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:28.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:33.000] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:36.000] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:44.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:47.000] Start over with StartPage. [01:30:47.000 --> 01:30:50.000] Our greatest threat isn't terrorists, it's government. [01:30:50.000 --> 01:31:00.000] According to political science professor RJ Rummel, 20th century governments murdered nearly 300 million of their own citizens six times more than all the centuries war is combined. [01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:04.000] And governments that kill have one thing in common, too much power. [01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:06.000] Surveillance is government power. [01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:10.000] And historically governments have used surveillance to protect themselves rather than citizens. [01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:14.000] If you think such abuse couldn't happen in the U.S., just look back to Watergate. [01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:18.000] Join me in opposing the Patriot Act and let's return to the best protection. [01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:23.000] A federal government with limited powers in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. [01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:31.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:37.000] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000] The government says that fire brought it down. [01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000] However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. [01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:49.000] 3,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives and thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. [01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:51.000] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000] I'm a structural engineer. [01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000] I'm a New York City correction office. [01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000] I'm an Air Force pilot. [01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:56.000] I'm a father who lost his son. [01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:58.000] We're Americans and we deserve the truth. [01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:01.000] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:06.000] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. [01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:13.000] In today's America we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free society then we're going to have to stand and defend our home rights. [01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:20.000] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly the right to due process of law. [01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:26.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:36.000] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:41.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:46.000] By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie. [01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:48.000] Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. [01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:51.000] Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. [01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:55.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:32:55.000 --> 01:33:00.000] Order your copy today and together we can have a free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:06.000] Looking for some truth? You found it. [01:33:06.000 --> 01:33:11.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com [01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000] Okay, we are back. Rule of Law Radio. [01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:35.000] This is the 6th of September, 2019. [01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:40.000] And we're talking with Scott in Texas. [01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:42.000] Scott? [01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:50.000] Okay. Well, now we got past the due course of law and all that stuff. [01:33:50.000 --> 01:34:03.000] What I was really calling about was the open record request that we're making to, or been making, because I filed a whole bunch back in 2017 to all the district attorneys. [01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:11.000] And this was straight going after the Brady training of officers and stuff. [01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:19.000] And so I had these information requests and it was three points that I was making. [01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:41.000] And basically, this was going straight after the officers and how that, because there's a list that officers can get on when they lack credible training or it was called a do not support list. [01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:46.000] Yeah, they become known as NCW, non-credible witness. [01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:58.000] Exactly. And so what that means is anybody that has an officer on that list, you can tell, when you go to court, you can say, hey, I'm going to appeal this. [01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:09.000] And as soon as I get this up to an appeals court, it's automatically going to be dismissed because the officer is not a credible witness and they will toss that thing in a heartbeat. [01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:16.000] But it's trying to find out how or who are these officers on this. [01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:32.000] So when I was making up these information requests, I would ask that, you know, as one of my questions of all officers, absent credibility, therefore unable to testify before a superior court. [01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:49.000] So my favorite one was the last question, and it was any and all evidence of the Brady List training schedule dates, policy requirements for training and certifications and last known completed date of training by prosecutors instructing police on the limitations [01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:53.000] and potential constitutional violations of the Brady policy. [01:35:53.000 --> 01:36:07.000] Because if they don't have that training, they are lacking their, in other words, they don't have the training to go out there to protect your constitutional rights. [01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:12.000] So therefore they're violating your constitutional rights, which is our bill of rights. [01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:21.000] And they have a fiduciary duty to know what their rights are and their training to remain in scope. [01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:25.000] And that's pretty much all I had for y'all this evening. [01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:28.000] Will you send that to me? [01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:29.000] Sure. [01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:31.000] I want to plagiarize it. [01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:34.000] Yeah, that sounded great. [01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:36.000] Oh, yeah. [01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:37.000] This was good. [01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:46.000] I sent this out to about, when I was firing these off, I got up to about, I think it was 40 district attorneys in the state. [01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:51.000] I started at A and ended at D because I was already up to about 45 at that time. [01:36:51.000 --> 01:37:07.000] And I mailed them all out and I got responses back from all over the state of Texas from they didn't know their butt from a hole in the ground till they, I mean, the responses back were just staggeringly stupid. [01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:19.000] And I thought, holy crap, man, none of these guys are doing anything and I have their own writing to prove it. [01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:27.000] So what are their statutory requirements or are the case law requirements that they do this? [01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:30.000] How do we hold them responsible for it? [01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:50.000] It's supposed to be, it should be statutory because it's the prosecutor, in order for the prosecutor to remain in scope, he's supposed to train the officers in their constitutional duties, powers, duties and limitation. [01:37:50.000 --> 01:38:03.000] So by the officers not receiving this training, the prosecutor is the one that's liable by his strict and vicarious liability. [01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:13.000] He's acting in his vicarious liability by allowing the officers to go out and engage with the public absent credible training. [01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:19.000] That's in his vicarious liability allowing the cops to remain in their strict liability. [01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:24.000] How is the prosecutor required to do this? [01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:28.000] He's required to make sure all his officers have... [01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:32.000] No, no, you're making proactive statement for the law out of your own mouth. [01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:42.000] You're saying this is what he's required to do, but in order to take him on, we have to have the specific requirement that we can cite. [01:38:42.000 --> 01:38:49.000] And all it goes back to is Brady v. Maryland, 63. That's where everything came out of. [01:38:49.000 --> 01:39:10.000] And in fact, they just, there was a case today that's going on where General Flynn, the judge, just had an ex parte hearing to go back and investigate the Brady evidence that was withheld on General Flynn's case. [01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:21.000] And the ex parte hearing today was for the judge to review if the prosecutor did not exculpatory evidence favorable to the... [01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:26.000] So this Brady thing is really cracking ground on a lot of fronts. [01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:33.000] Yeah, that should get Class A misdemeanor official oppression against the prosecutor. [01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:35.000] Agreed. [01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:40.000] And what I'm getting at is these are things that are becoming because... [01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:48.000] I don't know if we're talking about them all the time and they're starting to creep out into the lexicon of the people or whatever. [01:39:48.000 --> 01:40:01.000] But once you start hearing this more and more, everything is going back to Brady and Brady and Brady because the prosecutors are the ones that are withholding the exculpatory evidence in the beginning. [01:40:01.000 --> 01:40:09.000] How better? They're deemed to know this stuff. [01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:14.000] I need to see your document. This is a great tool. [01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:16.000] All right, I'll email you. [01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:21.000] And I will plagiarize it and build it into my tools. [01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:29.000] Sure. But anyhow, that's all I got. I was going to mention that, you know, yesterday or something. [01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:32.000] Because I've done this, like I said, back in 17. [01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:37.000] And the responses you get back from the prosecutors was just delirious. [01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:40.000] It was amazing. [01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:44.000] I thought, holy crap, man, these guys know about this and they are strictly not... [01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:49.000] I have one prosecutor say, yeah, we had like a camphor drive and we did this and we talked about that and blah, blah, blah. [01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:55.000] And we memorialized it. And that's where I even got the term memorialized for one of these guys. [01:40:55.000 --> 01:40:58.000] I was like, oh, wow, that's a great term. I love it. [01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:02.000] Okay, send that to me. I definitely want to see that. [01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:05.000] All right, I'll let y'all go and get to the next caller. [01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:08.000] Thank you, Scott. [01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:14.000] Okay, now we're going to Adam in Texas. Hello, Adam. [01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:17.000] Where have you been? It's been a while. [01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:19.000] How y'all doing? [01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:21.000] Can you hear me? [01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:23.000] Yes, I can hear you. [01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:26.000] Yeah, I'm good. How are y'all doing tonight? [01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:30.000] You're doing good. What do you have for us today? [01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:33.000] Well, golly, man, I got so much. [01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:36.000] You know, I took the aptitude test in seventh grade. [01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:39.000] They never recommended that I'd be a professional juggler. [01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:43.000] They told me I should operate heavy equipment. [01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:46.000] But I'm over here. I'm over here juggling. [01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:54.000] I got one judge that got a bench warrant out for me. [01:41:54.000 --> 01:41:59.000] And according to the clerk, municipal clerk, [01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:02.000] the warrant wasn't issued for failure to appear, [01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:06.000] which would be one of the only reasons that the judge could issue the warrant. [01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:09.000] According to the clerk's language, [01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:14.000] the warrant was issued for not entering in, because I did appear, [01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:22.000] the warrant's issued for not entering in a plea and failing to take care of my case, [01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:26.000] failing to follow up and take care of my case. [01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:32.000] What criminal statute might that be? [01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:37.000] It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. [01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:40.000] Anyway, I'm working on handling that guy. [01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:48.000] I got another judge that got a bench warrant out for me from 13 years ago [01:42:48.000 --> 01:42:54.000] for a traffic violation, and I've been wrestling with this municipal court [01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:59.000] the last year and a half, and I finally, after, you know, [01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:01.000] back and forth, back and forth trying to get, [01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:04.000] just get a simple copy of my own case record, [01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:11.000] and I finally got a hold of the court clerk, [01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:15.000] and she emailed me a copy of my case file. [01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:20.000] Well, lo and behold, there's no charging instrument. [01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:22.000] There was never a complaint file. [01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:24.000] There was never an information file. [01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:27.000] The only thing in the case file is the citation issued. [01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:30.000] Now, 14 years ago, yet... [01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:37.000] Is there a waiver of complaint in the record? [01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:39.000] No, absolutely not. [01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:42.000] That was kind of a rhetorical question. [01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:50.000] In order for the jurisdiction to pursue on the complaint, [01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:54.000] the ticket alone, there must be a waiver of a complaint. [01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:58.000] Hang on, go into break, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, [01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:00.000] we'll be right. [01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, [01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:06.000] except in the area of nutrition. [01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:09.000] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, [01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:11.000] and it's time we changed all that. [01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:14.000] Our primary defense against aging and disease [01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:17.000] in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:20.000] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, [01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:22.000] adulterated, and mutilated, [01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:25.000] young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:28.000] Logo's radio network gets many requests [01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:31.000] to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:34.000] We have come to trust Jevity so much, [01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:36.000] we became a marketing distributor, [01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:40.000] along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:43.000] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, [01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:47.000] your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:50.000] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, [01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:52.000] you may want to join us. [01:44:52.000 --> 01:44:55.000] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, [01:44:55.000 --> 01:44:59.000] help your friends and family, and increase your income. [01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:01.000] Order now. [01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:07.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, [01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:11.000] the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course [01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:15.000] that will show you how, in 24 hours, you step-by-step. [01:45:15.000 --> 01:45:19.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:26.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, [01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:28.000] and now you can too. [01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:31.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney [01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:34.000] with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:37.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, [01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:39.000] you can learn what everyone should understand [01:45:39.000 --> 01:45:41.000] about the principles and practices [01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:43.000] that control our American courts. [01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:45.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, [01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:48.000] video seminar, tutorials, [01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:50.000] forms for civil cases, [01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:52.000] prosay tactics, and much more. [01:45:52.000 --> 01:45:55.000] Please visit Lulavlogradio.com [01:45:55.000 --> 01:45:57.000] and click on the banner. [01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:04.000] It's all toll-free, 866-LAW-E-Z. [01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:37.000] Okay, we are back. [01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:40.000] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Lulavlogradio. [01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:42.000] And on the break, we were talking, [01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:44.000] Brett was doing some research, [01:46:44.000 --> 01:46:47.000] and you were talking about 15.16 code of criminal procedure. [01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:49.000] Will you go back to that, Brett? [01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:51.000] Well, sure. [01:46:51.000 --> 01:46:56.000] I didn't want to take away from what you got going on with Adam right now, [01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:00.000] but, yeah, Ralph had mentioned a moment ago [01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:02.000] about, there was a lot of back and forth [01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:05.000] about with a warrant, without a warrant. [01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:10.000] And I was looking at the code of criminal procedure [01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:14.000] in Article 15.16, [01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:17.000] and it says how a warrant is executed. [01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:21.000] And this is almost word-for-word what you would see [01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:24.000] if you're looking at the paper version of a warrant. [01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:27.000] You're going to arrest this person and bring him to me. [01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:33.000] And so this is what you would get if you're being arrested [01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:36.000] and they insist that you're being arrested on a warrant. [01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:38.000] The reason for the arrest is because you got a warrant. [01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:41.000] It's an active warrant, and we're arresting you. [01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:42.000] Well, show me the warrant. [01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:44.000] Well, I don't have it. [01:47:44.000 --> 01:47:46.000] Well, where is it? [01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:49.000] Well, will you, don't worry, you'll see it. [01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:53.000] And then five hours later, they just magically somehow [01:47:53.000 --> 01:47:56.000] update this paperwork, and now it all looks official [01:47:56.000 --> 01:47:58.000] and justified. [01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:02.000] But here we have in the statute, Article 15.16, [01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:08.000] it specifically says how warrant is executed. [01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:11.000] Now, you'll notice in here the complete absence [01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:14.000] of anything about incarceration. [01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:17.000] It does not say take anybody to jail. [01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:19.000] Listen to what it says. [01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:23.000] The officer or person executing a warrant of arrest [01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:26.000] shall, without unnecessary delay, take the person [01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:30.000] or have him taken before the magistrate who issued the warrant [01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:33.000] or before the magistrate named in the warrant [01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:35.000] if the magistrate is in the same county [01:48:35.000 --> 01:48:37.000] where the person is arrested. [01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:41.000] If the issuing or named magistrate is in another county, [01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:44.000] the person arrested shall, without unnecessary delay, [01:48:44.000 --> 01:48:48.000] be taken before some magistrate in the county [01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:53.000] in which he was arrested. [01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:59.000] Now, where does it say take this person and book him? [01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:00.000] Exactly. [01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:07.000] This has been my primary argument from the beginning. [01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:11.000] Okay, let's go back to Adam. [01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:13.000] Are you there, Adam? [01:49:13.000 --> 01:49:15.000] Yeah, I'm here. [01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:18.000] Okay, sorry we kind of interrupted you there. [01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:20.000] That's okay. [01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:26.000] So you're on the second issue where they had a warrant for you [01:49:26.000 --> 01:49:31.000] and you couldn't find a complaint in the record. [01:49:31.000 --> 01:49:34.000] Yeah, no complaint in the record. [01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:40.000] And you were just about to go to 2714D. [01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:41.000] Brandy? [01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:42.000] I was? [01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:47.000] Yeah, you were mentioning this. Was there a waiver? [01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:52.000] Oh, I did remember it was 2714D. [01:49:52.000 --> 01:49:53.000] Okay, man. [01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:56.000] Will you read that? [01:49:56.000 --> 01:49:58.000] Let me see how I have to pull that up. [01:49:58.000 --> 01:50:01.000] I can't quote that one. [01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:06.000] Yeah, the rest of the one that brought this up a while back [01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:12.000] they can prosecute on the citation alone, [01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:19.000] but only if they have a signed waiver of the complaint from the accused. [01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:22.000] Yeah, it can be any mere written notice. [01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:23.000] It can be the citation. [01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:28.000] It can be any scribbling that they have if you agree to it. [01:50:28.000 --> 01:50:31.000] So it says here, this is code of criminal procedure. [01:50:31.000 --> 01:50:36.000] And it's chapter 27, that's point 14, subsection D. [01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:44.000] If written notice of an offense for which maximum possible punishment is by fine only [01:50:44.000 --> 01:50:50.000] or of a violation relating to the manner, time and place of parking [01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:54.000] has been prepared, delivered and filed with the court [01:50:54.000 --> 01:50:57.000] and a legible duplicate copy has been given to the defendant. [01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:01.000] The written notice, and so you can read into that, [01:51:01.000 --> 01:51:05.000] the citation is what they're trying to slip into this slot. [01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:11.000] The written notice serves as a complaint to which the defendant may plead guilty, [01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:14.000] not guilty or no low contendering. [01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:16.000] It serves as a complaint. [01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:19.000] You catch that as a complaint. [01:51:19.000 --> 01:51:21.000] And then it continues here. [01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:24.000] It says, if the defendant pleads not guilty to the offense [01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:27.000] or fails to appear based on the written notice, [01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:34.000] a complaint shall be filed that conforms to the requirements of chapter 45 of this code. [01:51:34.000 --> 01:51:39.000] Just a little side note, complaints are in chapter 15. [01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:45.000] 1504 and 1505 talk about what a complaint is and how its requirements are. [01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:48.000] So they're pointing at chapter 45. [01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:57.000] If you allow them to do this, then they can do another kind of complaint, [01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:01.000] a complaint that conforms to the requirements of chapter 45. [01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:07.000] And then it says, and that complaint serves as an original complaint. [01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:11.000] A defendant may waive the filing of a sworn complaint [01:52:11.000 --> 01:52:17.000] and elect that the prosecution proceed on the written notice of the charged defense. [01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:21.000] If the defendant agrees in writing with the prosecution, [01:52:21.000 --> 01:52:27.000] finds the agreement and files it with the court. [01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:30.000] Did you do that, Adam? [01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:36.000] Absolutely not. I never waive any rights. [01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:39.000] Never waive any rights. You're a hard man, then. [01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:42.000] So did you take notes on that one? [01:52:42.000 --> 01:52:45.000] That's something you're absolutely going to want to look at. [01:52:45.000 --> 01:52:50.000] You were in this case 13 years ago, [01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:54.000] and has anything happened in the case? [01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:59.000] Did you go to court? Was a hearing in process? [01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:03.000] No, the citations were issued. [01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:07.000] I was born around Houston back in my early 20s, [01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:12.000] and I didn't even remember getting pulled over and even getting the tickets. [01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:15.000] And nothing ever happened. Years went by. [01:53:15.000 --> 01:53:18.000] I even got my driver's license renewed and all that stuff. [01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:21.000] Well, then about two years ago, [01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:24.000] all of a sudden I got started getting these threatening letters in the mail [01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:28.000] from a firm called Lionbarger, Sampson & Blair, [01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:30.000] and they said, they said, [01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:33.000] if you don't give us $1,400, [01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:37.000] you've got a warrant issued for your arrest out of Spring Valley Billards Houston. [01:53:37.000 --> 01:53:40.000] If you don't give them this money, you're going to get arrested. [01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:45.000] And this popped out, you know, this was like 12 years after the fact. [01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:50.000] So I took my, you know, my Eddie Craig teachings, [01:53:50.000 --> 01:53:52.000] and I've been missing you all for a long time, [01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:55.000] so I started going in and investigating what's going on. [01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:58.000] And like I said, I wrestled and drove well over a year [01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:00.000] just trying to get a copy of my case file, [01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:02.000] and I finally got it about a month ago, [01:54:02.000 --> 01:54:07.000] and it turns out that, yeah, [01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:10.000] the only thing in there is the citation. [01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:13.000] Well, since that time, I've hammered the judge, [01:54:13.000 --> 01:54:15.000] I've filed barred grievances on him, [01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:18.000] I've used his account and complained him for various things, [01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:21.000] and I've, you know, P.I.R.ed him, [01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:24.000] and just, you know, just mess around with him. [01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:27.000] I even sent him a discovery, most of his discovery, [01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:31.000] most of his discovery is also not in the case copy of the case file [01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:36.000] that's supposed to be verified by the municipal clerk. [01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:38.000] And I even sent him a P.I.R. [01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:41.000] I finally got the names of the municipal prosecutor [01:54:41.000 --> 01:54:43.000] who Brett helped me out with that [01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:45.000] when asking him for an org chart. [01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:48.000] Well, I got it, I got the names of the prosecutors in that office, [01:54:48.000 --> 01:54:50.000] and I got all their names now, [01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:55.000] and they haven't done anything with my discovery. [01:54:55.000 --> 01:54:57.000] And that was the one thing I was going to ask, [01:54:57.000 --> 01:54:59.000] is where's the rule, I can't find it, [01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:04.000] that it's motion, somebody's got to respond to these motions [01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:07.000] when they're doing third date, because... [01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:10.000] Well, you know, you don't want them to respond on that one. [01:55:10.000 --> 01:55:12.000] You want them to not respond, [01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:14.000] and they're going to be happy to comply with that. [01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:16.000] That's the request for admissions. [01:55:16.000 --> 01:55:19.000] You're talking about Texas rule of civil procedure, [01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:22.000] and it's, I think it's 192... [01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:25.000] No, it's 198.2, I believe. [01:55:25.000 --> 01:55:29.000] And it's talking about request for admissions. [01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:31.000] There are different kinds of discovery, right? [01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:33.000] There's some that you ask them to admit something [01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:35.000] and that's supposed to be narrowing down the scope [01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:39.000] of what actually has to be adjudicated at trial, [01:55:39.000 --> 01:55:43.000] and there's a discovery request for production [01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:46.000] where you want them to come up with something [01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:48.000] and show it to you, [01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:52.000] or there's interrogatories where you ask them questions [01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:58.000] and you say, well, what's the factual or legal basis [01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:00.000] on which you're relying, [01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:02.000] and they have to answer your questions. [01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:04.000] And then, of course, they're going to blow everything off. [01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:06.000] They don't want to answer your questions [01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:08.000] or show you anything, [01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:10.000] and that's when you go to the court, [01:56:10.000 --> 01:56:13.000] because previously you only go to the other party. [01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:15.000] You don't take motion for discovery, [01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:17.000] it doesn't go to the court. [01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:19.000] That's probably why it didn't show up in there. [01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:21.000] Clark just gave it to the prosecutor, [01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:24.000] because the prosecutor is the one that's supposed to have it. [01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:26.000] But then when the prosecutor doesn't do their job, [01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:29.000] they do not provide you with your discovery, [01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:31.000] then you go like a tattle tail, [01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:33.000] and you go to the judge and you say, [01:56:33.000 --> 01:56:36.000] I have a motion here for you to compel discovery [01:56:36.000 --> 01:56:40.000] from this uncooperative counsel over here. [01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:42.000] So then the motion to compel discovery [01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:45.000] is what goes into your case file. [01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:48.000] One thing that stands out to me about this is, [01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:51.000] now that you know that all of this, [01:56:51.000 --> 01:56:54.000] that they're just rattling their swords over here, [01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:56.000] is all about something that's, [01:56:56.000 --> 01:57:00.000] it was 12 years, now 13, 14 years old, [01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:04.000] you look at the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1202, [01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:07.000] subsection B. [01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:11.000] A complaint or information for any class-themed misdemeanor [01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:14.000] may be presented within two years [01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:17.000] from the date of the commission of the offense [01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:19.000] and not afterward. [01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:21.000] So it's now too late for them to get the paperwork [01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:23.000] that they needed. [01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:29.000] They needed to have both documents in the case, [01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:31.000] a file stamped to say, [01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:35.000] within two years of the alleged offense. [01:57:35.000 --> 01:57:38.000] So even if they got the complaint in there, [01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:39.000] which some of them do, [01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:41.000] we'll go ahead and have a complaint in there, [01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:44.000] even if it's somehow not quite a valid complaint [01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:46.000] or it wasn't sworn or whatever, [01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:49.000] but they'll put something in there called a complaint, [01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:51.000] but rarely will they go back [01:57:51.000 --> 01:57:55.000] and actually do their duty to have a district attorney [01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:58.000] or a county attorney present an information [01:57:58.000 --> 01:58:00.000] based on that complaint. [01:58:00.000 --> 01:58:03.000] Well, they only have two years to get it right. [01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:06.000] If they haven't gone and done that within two years, [01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:07.000] it's too late. [01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:09.000] They can't present either one of those. [01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:12.000] A complaint or an information cannot be inserted into the case. [01:58:12.000 --> 01:58:14.000] It is too late. [01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:16.000] This is a bar. [01:58:16.000 --> 01:58:21.000] Okay, have you looked at the American Bar Association standards [01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:25.000] for the prosecution function? [01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:29.000] Yes, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the ADA law. [01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:33.000] Okay, find this section where a prosecutor [01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:36.000] is required to give notice to the judge [01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:40.000] when the judge is screwing up. [01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:43.000] And then bar grieve each one of those prosecutors [01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:47.000] for not giving that notice to the judge. [01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:50.000] Yeah, yeah. [01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:54.000] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, [01:58:54.000 --> 01:58:56.000] yet countless readers are frustrated [01:58:56.000 --> 01:58:58.000] because they struggle to understand it. [01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:02.000] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [01:59:02.000 --> 01:59:04.000] but in the process can compromise [01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:07.000] the profound meaning of the Scripture. [01:59:07.000 --> 01:59:09.000] Enter the recovery version. [01:59:09.000 --> 01:59:13.000] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [01:59:13.000 --> 01:59:18.000] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:22.000] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, [01:59:22.000 --> 01:59:25.000] providing an entrance into the riches of the Word [01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:28.000] beyond which you've ever experienced before. [01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:30.000] Bibles for America would like to give you [01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:33.000] a free recovery version simply for the asking. [01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:36.000] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible [01:59:36.000 --> 01:59:43.000] is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 [01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:48.000] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [01:59:48.000 --> 01:59:51.000] That's freestudybible.com. [01:59:51.000 --> 01:59:54.000] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. [01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:22.000] LogosRadioNetwork.com