[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:07.000 --> 00:13.000]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold $1,429 an ounce,
[00:13.000 --> 00:22.000]  silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil Texas crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent crude
[00:22.000 --> 00:29.960]  $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum
[00:29.960 --> 00:45.960]  $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:45.960 --> 00:52.680]  In history, the year 1916, the preparedness day bombing, a time suitcase bomb was detonated
[00:52.680 --> 00:58.000]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I preparedness day parade, killing
[00:58.000 --> 01:05.000]  the 10 and entering 40 today in history.
[01:05.000 --> 01:10.040]  In recent news, since the Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing Hempon attacks
[01:10.040 --> 01:14.640]  his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including Houston, Austin and San
[01:14.640 --> 01:19.080]  Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file new ones
[01:19.080 --> 01:23.080]  since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment to
[01:23.080 --> 01:24.960]  test the herb for THC.
[01:24.960 --> 01:28.680]  Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that
[01:28.680 --> 01:33.280]  she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the
[01:33.280 --> 01:34.280]  law.
[01:34.280 --> 01:37.840]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General stipulated in a letter
[01:37.840 --> 01:42.320]  that county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized
[01:42.320 --> 01:48.480]  in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as
[01:48.480 --> 01:51.440]  well as other cities too like the District Attorney.
[01:51.440 --> 01:57.480]  In El Paso, Kyma Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law quote
[01:57.480 --> 02:01.960]  will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso.
[02:01.960 --> 02:06.960]  However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender
[02:06.960 --> 02:11.400]  in Harris County who stated that quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something
[02:11.400 --> 02:13.680]  illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[02:13.680 --> 02:17.560]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're
[02:17.560 --> 02:22.800]  charged with.
[02:22.800 --> 02:27.640]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark.
[02:27.640 --> 02:32.560]  As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket
[02:32.560 --> 02:38.240]  shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East
[02:38.240 --> 02:39.240]  Pacific Ocean.
[02:39.240 --> 02:44.000]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near
[02:44.000 --> 02:50.280]  its front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the
[02:50.280 --> 03:16.000]  airflow.
[03:16.000 --> 03:21.000]  This is what happens when you call the cops. This is what happens when you call the cops.
[03:21.000 --> 03:24.000]  You get your rights violated or you won't get signed.
[03:24.000 --> 03:28.000]  People being victimized by criminal cops, psychopathic predators, terrorizing neighborhoods,
[03:28.000 --> 03:31.000]  and black people equipped with pepper spray made cocktails and glasses.
[03:31.000 --> 03:36.000]  Alright folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig.
[03:36.000 --> 03:42.000]  It is March 16, 2020. We are live tonight. This is not an archive.
[03:42.000 --> 03:47.000]  And I know sooner or later this is going to be an archive where you will hear those words repeated,
[03:47.000 --> 03:51.000]  but the date will be different, therefore you will know I hope.
[03:51.000 --> 03:57.000]  Now, what I want to get into tonight, and the phones are off and they will be off for a little while
[03:57.000 --> 04:01.000]  because I've got some stuff I want to read to you that I've been writing on today
[04:01.000 --> 04:04.000]  and that I will be writing on through the course of this entire week
[04:04.000 --> 04:09.000]  until I get a complete article for the blog done and posted.
[04:09.000 --> 04:20.000]  Now, this article is going to be addressing a series of court cases here in Texas called Perkins v. State.
[04:20.000 --> 04:27.000]  And it's all about how the Third Court of Appeals has tried to undermine the rule of law
[04:27.000 --> 04:37.000]  by illegitimately ruling that transportation is not a legitimate element and issue in transportation-related cases.
[04:37.000 --> 04:47.000]  This article is going to detail in every way possible a line-by-line dissection of those opinions
[04:47.000 --> 04:57.000]  and exactly where the Third Court of Appeals has either incompetently or intentionally used the rules
[04:57.000 --> 05:07.000]  and statutory interpretation to change the outcome of an opinion to suit how they want it to be
[05:07.000 --> 05:12.000]  rather than how the law actually requires it to be.
[05:12.000 --> 05:16.000]  So what I'm going to read to you is what I've written so far today.
[05:16.000 --> 05:18.000]  So please bear with me.
[05:18.000 --> 05:22.000]  It is a work in progress, though I think I've done okay so far.
[05:22.000 --> 05:25.000]  We will see when it's all said and done.
[05:25.000 --> 05:32.000]  The first title of the first section is fair and impartial or criminally incompetent.
[05:32.000 --> 05:38.000]  Okay, there are getting to be more and more naysayers trying to jump on the Eddie Craig's all-wrong bandwagon
[05:38.000 --> 05:45.000]  regarding the not engaged in transportation issue, claiming that it is an allegedly incorrect legal argument
[05:45.000 --> 05:48.000]  with no foundation in actual law.
[05:48.000 --> 05:55.000]  Apparently, other than simply disliking the fact that there are folks like me out here that can differentiate
[05:55.000 --> 06:03.000]  between the legal BS and the actual facts, thus allowing us to directly undermine the unsubstantiated myth
[06:03.000 --> 06:09.000]  that attorneys and judges are the only ones capable of knowing and understanding the law,
[06:09.000 --> 06:18.000]  their basis for boarding the bandwagon is a series of wholly legally illiterate opinions pinned by the judges
[06:18.000 --> 06:21.000]  of the Texas Third Court of Appeals out of Austin, Texas.
[06:21.000 --> 06:27.000]  These opinions regard several cases involving one lone individual named Wesley Perkins.
[06:27.000 --> 06:35.000]  The cases are titled Perkins v. State, all of which are linked within this article for easy review.
[06:35.000 --> 06:42.000]  I think it is probably fair to say that most of these naysayers and bandwagon writers all consider or call themselves
[06:42.000 --> 06:47.000]  judges, attorneys, or legal experts or researchers.
[06:47.000 --> 06:56.000]  All of whom have somehow concluded that their opinion, of my opinion, should be irrefutable on those claims alone,
[06:56.000 --> 07:01.000]  simply because I am just a nobody in terms of the legal credentials.
[07:01.000 --> 07:10.000]  They incorrectly believe makes them better and more capable critical thinkers and legal analyzers on the subject of law.
[07:10.000 --> 07:14.000]  However, to quote Uncle Remus from the Disney movie Song of the South,
[07:14.000 --> 07:21.000]  it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
[07:21.000 --> 07:28.000]  Unfortunately for them, it is far too easy to prove that a person's actual level of intelligence and knowledge
[07:28.000 --> 07:37.000]  of the subject doesn't automatically run parallel to one's schooling better understood as indoctrination about that subject.
[07:37.000 --> 07:46.000]  In fact, the knowledge and intelligence of people such as these on the subject of law is very often demonstrably much lower in comparison
[07:46.000 --> 07:53.000]  to that of someone with a self-imposed and extensively broad education on the thing or subject to be learned,
[07:53.000 --> 07:56.000]  especially when it comes to law.
[07:56.000 --> 08:04.000]  The difference between learning actual law and how it is supposed to work in American society versus learning some other incompetent attorney's
[08:04.000 --> 08:09.000]  mere opinion of the law once they've become an actual judge.
[08:09.000 --> 08:19.000]  Where and when did the myth first arise that the dawning of a black robe automatically increases the actual intelligence,
[08:19.000 --> 08:28.000]  physical capabilities, and moral and ethical respectability of a person from the level at which it rested only an instant before this action took place?
[08:28.000 --> 08:37.000]  I personally don't see it actually working in this way, but the attorneys and other legal professionals all seem to swallow it whole as irrefutable fact,
[08:37.000 --> 08:41.000]  and all evidence to the contrary be damned in their eyes.
[08:41.000 --> 08:51.000]  The primary differences in the knowledge and perspectives that I have for the subject of law comes from literally decades of studying not only the actual statutes and legislation
[08:51.000 --> 09:01.000]  that comprise the current body and spirit of some specific area of law, but also its legislative history which has been done hand in hand
[09:01.000 --> 09:06.000]  with very intensive study of the original history and philosophy of law itself.
[09:06.000 --> 09:17.000]  I have spent those decades contrasting everything I learned in the reading of statutes and court opinions with the writings of scores of knowledgeable men across the ages
[09:17.000 --> 09:28.000]  who are directly responsible for creating the foundational principle standards and philosophies of law used by every civilized nation on earth today.
[09:28.000 --> 09:39.000]  Men such as Sir Francis Bacon, Virgil, Horace, Justinian, Caesar, Tacitus, Lucretius, Phaedrus, Herodotus, Thucides, and Plato,
[09:39.000 --> 09:48.000]  I've read and studied the writings of the founding fathers such as Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and many others who were themselves lawyers as well as statesmen.
[09:48.000 --> 10:01.000]  I have informally attended law classes and presentations as an auditor and I've watched a multitude of the same online lectures that many other enrolled law students have received class credit for watching.
[10:01.000 --> 10:18.000]  So any claim that a YouTube study of law using the same video presentations made and presented by the same law professors in the same manner they were received by many currently licensed attorneys during their schooling simply doesn't qualify as studying
[10:18.000 --> 10:25.000]  or learning the law is just a bunch of envious horse apples disguised as apple pie.
[10:25.000 --> 10:40.000]  Did you know that not one of the founding fathers ever attended any formal school of law, but were entirely classically and often self educated on a multitude of subjects,
[10:40.000 --> 10:53.000]  and each of them to a man was more than passingly aware of the morally and ethically inherent limitations of man made law as well as the extent of its legitimate power.
[10:53.000 --> 11:04.000]  The study of law was something they could do to augment their classical education, but there was no formal schooling for the subject as a whole in their day and age.
[11:04.000 --> 11:21.000]  And yet these were men whose fundamental knowledge and understanding of the proper interpretation and application of law and government far exceeded that of the pathetic wannabes who have infiltrated and usurped the power and authority of our modern government and courts at every level
[11:21.000 --> 11:25.000]  so as to better facilitate and control their status agendas.
[11:25.000 --> 11:40.000]  On any given day I would place more trust and faith in the knowledge and understanding of someone who has driven themselves to train and learn the subject of law by means of a hands on and hard earned education
[11:40.000 --> 12:00.000]  that itself is built upon an in depth and extended study of the thoughts and ideas proliferated by a multitude of historically reputable and verifiable sources of the subject matter rather than the self serving opinions and theories
[12:00.000 --> 12:18.000]  of a small handful of modern day college law professors and court judges having the status minded inclination so commonly inherent in the socialist belief system currently controlling our centers of higher learning and offices of government.
[12:18.000 --> 12:42.000]  I would lay any amount of money I would lay any amount of money you would care to name that if any one of the founding fathers were alive today to see and understand what is happening in America.
[12:42.000 --> 12:56.000]  They would stand up openly and publicly to call for an immediate armed revolution and public hanging of virtually every attorney judge and politician holding office today with virtually no exceptions.
[12:56.000 --> 13:11.000]  And I am just as certain that the judges of the Texas Third Court of Appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals would never have their names on any such list of exceptions.
[13:11.000 --> 13:16.000]  And I am going to attempt to show you exactly why that is.
[13:16.000 --> 13:20.000]  Throughout your time reading this article do try to remember this.
[13:20.000 --> 13:26.000]  Whenever an attorney starts to say something to you that begins with I have half a mind.
[13:26.000 --> 13:32.000]  You should immediately interrupt them and say I agree with you.
[13:32.000 --> 13:38.000]  Next title interpreters of law or creators issuers of law.
[13:38.000 --> 13:53.000]  The purpose of any American court is to interpret the law as it is written while using the rules of statutory construction and interpretation promulgated by law specifically for that purpose.
[13:53.000 --> 14:07.000]  It is not to reinterpret or judicially rewrite the law via an opinion in whatever manner they might otherwise believe, imagine, envision or desire for a particular law to work.
[14:07.000 --> 14:21.000]  This is a lesson that the majority of Texas court judges has demonstrably never bothered to learn, especially the one seated in the third court and the TCOCA, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
[14:21.000 --> 14:24.000]  Now please don't misunderstand me.
[14:24.000 --> 14:34.000]  I am not limiting these allegations of supporting facts and documentation proving legal and judicial incompetence to just the judges of the third and the TCOCA.
[14:34.000 --> 14:47.000]  Because that would be both unfair and inaccurate in giving all the other incompetence sitting in the multitude of other courts they're just due as being all star imbeciles and state and federal sycophants in their own right.
[14:47.000 --> 15:03.000]  But for simplicity's sake, I am making the third and the TCOCA the poster children for the entire mountain of morons who sit upon the judicial benches in Texas and the federal districts and do the very same things day in and day out.
[15:03.000 --> 15:07.000]  Now for the primary question of import at the moment.
[15:07.000 --> 15:24.000]  How are you supposed to know and trust if my interpretation and understanding of how the courts are required to interpret law is actually accurate, considering that I am not officially schooled specifically in law in the same manner and degree as the judges and attorneys are?
[15:24.000 --> 15:35.000]  Well, would you trust my understanding and interpretation if the courts themselves have unanimously agreed that it is 100% accurate and true?
[15:35.000 --> 15:45.000]  Let's begin with what is still the controlling case precedent on the subject of statutory interpretation by members of the judiciary.
[15:45.000 --> 15:52.000]  Alright folks, I'm going to stop right there because I've only got a minute and 15 seconds before the next break and I will pick this up on the other side when we go.
[15:52.000 --> 15:59.000]  Remember the phones are currently off and they will remain off until I have gone through this and completed this reading.
[15:59.000 --> 16:05.000]  Now, once we start, if you want to make commentary on what I've written, please be my guest.
[16:05.000 --> 16:08.000]  If you want to email me something about it, that's fine too.
[16:08.000 --> 16:15.000]  This is going up in its entirety in an article on my legal blog when it's finished.
[16:15.000 --> 16:22.000]  And that's going to be at some point hopefully this week barring any other issues and interruptions.
[16:22.000 --> 16:26.000]  Now, while we're headed to the break, I also want to apologize for last week.
[16:26.000 --> 16:29.000]  I had a hardware snafu.
[16:29.000 --> 16:32.000]  I had to disconnect a bunch of stuff and then move it around and reconnect it.
[16:32.000 --> 16:44.000]  I could not get any feedback on my hookups to make sure that I was able to do the show last week and to do it where I could be heard and everything was functioning.
[16:44.000 --> 16:48.000]  So I aired on the side of caution and played an archive instead.
[16:48.000 --> 17:14.000]  But tonight we are live so y'all hang on and we will finish this or at least we will continue this when we get back from this break.
[17:14.000 --> 17:21.000]  We'll see you next time.
[17:44.000 --> 17:49.000]  So we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[17:49.000 --> 17:52.000]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:52.000 --> 17:56.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[17:56.000 --> 18:01.000]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[18:01.000 --> 18:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses?
[18:06.000 --> 18:15.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meares proven method. Michael Meares has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[18:15.000 --> 18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons.
[18:25.000 --> 18:27.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:27.000 --> 18:30.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports.
[18:30.000 --> 18:34.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.000 --> 18:39.000]  The Michael Meares proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.000 --> 18:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.000 --> 18:50.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Meares banner or email Michael Meares at yahoo.com.
[18:50.000 --> 19:01.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:01.000 --> 19:11.000]  If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, www.logosradio-network.com
[19:11.000 --> 19:31.000]  Yeah, there's a song on the roof that's on me in my head, wrapped up in slimes and thoughts that hit the bed. Yeah, there's a song on the roof that's on me in my head, wrapped up in slimes and thoughts that hit the bed.
[19:31.000 --> 19:41.000]  That's why that is the home that has been to me. How to feed if I keep home while we don't get home, down the moon and star.
[19:41.000 --> 19:47.000]  Where I'm gonna go now that I've gone too far, you will go.
[19:47.000 --> 19:51.000]  From the bottom and the bottom.
[19:51.000 --> 19:54.000]  You will go.
[19:54.000 --> 19:59.000]  All right, folks. We are back. This is rule of law radio.
[19:59.000 --> 20:08.000]  Okay, now to continue with what we are looking at here, I'm going to read the last sentence again and continue on with what I was reading.
[20:08.000 --> 20:17.000]  Let's begin with what is still the controlling case precedent on the subject of statutory interpretation by members of the judiciary.
[20:17.000 --> 20:27.000]  The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used.
[20:27.000 --> 20:32.000]  He is presumed to know the meanings of words and the rules of grammar.
[20:32.000 --> 20:39.000]  The courts have no function of legislation and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislature.
[20:39.000 --> 20:58.000]  It is true that there are cases in which the letter of the statute is not deemed controlling, but the cases are few and exceptional and only arise when there are constant reasons for believing that the letter does not fully and accurately disclose the intent.
[20:58.000 --> 21:16.000]  No mere omission, no mere failure to provide for contingencies, which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute.
[21:16.000 --> 21:32.000]  Certainly, there is nothing which imperatively requires the court to supply an omission in the statute or to hold that Congress must have intended to do that, which it has failed to do.
[21:32.000 --> 21:48.000]  This case is United States v. Goldberg 168 U.S. 95 and 18 Supreme Court 3, 42. This is from 1897, folks.
[21:48.000 --> 22:07.000]  This has been the rule since even before this. There's actually an earlier case that is not cited by Goldberg, but I found and it was written in 1810, and it says almost exactly the same thing.
[22:07.000 --> 22:19.000]  But the one that is currently cited and relied upon by all the current court decisions is Goldberg, or Goldenberg, I'm sorry, Goldenberg. This case here.
[22:19.000 --> 22:23.000]  So this is the case precedent. All right, let's continue.
[22:23.000 --> 22:36.000]  Okay, we can see that the current controlling precedent in Goldenberg holds that my version of the facts or statutory interpretation is true and accurate, but what have more current cases said about it?
[22:36.000 --> 22:54.000]  Let's check. While it is the duty of the courts at interpreting legislation to ascertain, if possible, the intent of the legislature, we must not overlook the general rule of statutory construction that such intent is to be found in the language employed.
[22:54.000 --> 23:14.000]  And this, again, is a citation of United States versus Goldenberg. And continuing, when the words used are plain, they give meaning to the act, and it is neither the duty nor the privilege of the courts to enter speculative fields in search of a different meaning.
[23:14.000 --> 23:25.000]  Camendetti versus United States, 242 US 470, and I don't know what year this case was, but it's there.
[23:25.000 --> 23:32.000]  It is contended, however, by plaintiff that a literal interpretation of this language would result in absurdity.
[23:32.000 --> 23:42.000]  She insists that it would be possible for an unscrupulous person to return to the district upon a single occasion within two years, and thus evade the operation of the act.
[23:42.000 --> 24:00.000]  We are of opinion that even this absurdity is not sufficient to bring this case within the broad rule that a literal interpretation of statutory language may be rejected when the consequences of such interpretation will be absurd, unjust, or oppressive.
[24:00.000 --> 24:20.000]  And it gives a citation of several cases, Holy Trinity Church versus United States, Bander versus Barnett, Ozawa versus United States. This is a DC appellate court case, Deruez versus Deruez in 1936.
[24:20.000 --> 24:32.000]  The task of resolving the dispute over the meaning of a statute begins where all such inquiries must begin with the language of the statute itself.
[24:32.000 --> 24:44.000]  United States versus Ron Pair enters Inc., Chevron USA versus Natural Resources Defense Council, United States, X-Rail, Harlan v. Bacon.
[24:44.000 --> 24:58.000]  When construing a statute, we are obliged to look first to the plain meaning of the words employed by the legislature, and the court must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress, citing Chevron.
[24:58.000 --> 25:12.000]  United States versus Manti, 1992. When interpreting statutory language, the court must first look to the plain meaning of the language, citing North Dakota versus United States, 1983.
[25:12.000 --> 25:22.000]  The Supreme Court describes this rule as the one cardinal canon before all others, Connecticut National Bank versus Germain, 1992.
[25:22.000 --> 25:32.000]  Thus, courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there, citing Ron Pair.
[25:32.000 --> 25:46.000]  Let's see, O'Neal v. Thornton. That's the 1810 case, by the way. When the language of the statute is plain, the inquiry also ends with the language of the statute.
[25:46.000 --> 26:01.000]  For in such instances, the sole function of the courts is to enforce the statute according to its terms. Again, Ron Pair quoting Caminetti versus United States, Milan versus Pinnock Insurance Company, Inc., 1992.
[26:01.000 --> 26:17.000]  Plain meaning of a statute governs over ambiguous legislative history, citing Ron Pair Enterprises. As I recently observed in another case involving statutory interpretation, judicial fathoming of congressional intent is often a treacherous voyage.
[26:17.000 --> 26:39.000]  That is not so here. Führer v. Brown, 1995, and that's District Judge Bennett concurring with that. In the case that it was cited in is Reynolds v. Condon, 1995, and that's 908 Federal Supplement, 1494.
[26:39.000 --> 26:52.000]  So how about if we just use the opinion from the Texas Supreme Court? Surely they must disagree with me, seeing as that is the only way that the naysayers stand any chance of winning the debate on whether or not I'm right.
[26:52.000 --> 27:13.000]  But do they, though? Courts must take statutes as they find them. More than that, they should be willing to take them as they find them. They should search out carefully the intent of a statute, giving full effect to all of its terms.
[27:13.000 --> 27:31.000]  But they must find its intent in its language and not elsewhere. They are not the law making body. They are not responsible for omissions in legislation. They are responsible for a true and fair interpretation of the written law.
[27:31.000 --> 27:48.000]  It must be an interpretation which expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanctioned and will clearly sustain.
[27:48.000 --> 27:59.000]  Simmons v. Arnhem, 110, Texas 309, 220, Southwest 66, 1920. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Texas Supreme Court case.
[27:59.000 --> 28:02.000]  But wait, there's more.
[28:02.000 --> 28:13.000]  The fundamental rule controlling the construction of a statute is to ascertain if possible the intention of the legislature as expressed in the language of that statute.
[28:13.000 --> 28:29.000]  Calvert v. Texas Pipeline Company, 1974. Again, Texas Supreme Court. In ascertaining this intent, courts must examine the entire statute or act, and not merely an isolated portion thereof.
[28:29.000 --> 28:44.000]  Further, if the intent of the legislature is ascertained, courts must enforce that intent even though the intent is not altogether consistent with the strict letter of the statute.
[28:44.000 --> 29:00.000]  586, 200, Southwest 2nd, 813, 1947, and these are all cited within the case of Terrell v. State, 588, Southwest 2nd, 784, 1979.
[29:00.000 --> 29:15.000]  Therefore, it would seem to be irrefutable that all of the current federal and Texas court cases on statutory interpretation also rely upon and regurgitate the precedent set in Goldenburg and its progeny.
[29:15.000 --> 29:33.000]  Can we all agree now that my understanding of how the courts are supposed to interpret the law is actually true and accurate?
[29:33.000 --> 29:45.000]  All right, now here's music. We've got a break coming up. We will pick this up when I get back, so y'all hang on. We are getting right on through this here. We're down to page 8 of 10, so we're getting through this pretty quick.
[29:45.000 --> 30:02.000]  But it's important, and like I say, it's just the beginning of what I'm going to be doing with this before the week is out. So y'all hang on and we will be right back after the break.
[30:02.000 --> 30:15.000]  Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under the blood alcohol limit. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back with a tale of bad breathalysers and a government cover-up in a moment.
[30:32.000 --> 30:44.000]  It's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:44.000 --> 31:00.000]  Ever hear the term fine farming? It's when cops find innocent people to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business in the Sunshine State of Florida. This case involves breathalysers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations.
[31:00.000 --> 31:14.000]  Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated. State officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing. In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document the problem.
[31:14.000 --> 31:22.000]  A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed, perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier.
[31:22.000 --> 31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:52.000 --> 32:01.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We are Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:22.000 --> 32:26.000]  This is a massive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 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.
[32:36.000 --> 32:48.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar.
[32:48.000 --> 32:59.000]  Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[32:59.000 --> 33:07.000]  Live Free Speech Radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:30.000 --> 33:39.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[33:39.000 --> 33:54.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[33:54.000 --> 34:12.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[34:12.000 --> 34:26.000]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fake. I'd be lost without Logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[34:26.000 --> 34:35.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos?
[34:35.000 --> 34:44.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[34:44.000 --> 34:56.000]  Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos.
[34:56.000 --> 34:57.000]  Do I pay extra?
[34:57.000 --> 34:58.000]  No.
[34:58.000 --> 35:00.000]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[35:00.000 --> 35:01.000]  No.
[35:01.000 --> 35:02.000]  Can I use my Amazon pride?
[35:02.000 --> 35:03.000]  No.
[35:03.000 --> 35:04.000]  I mean, yes.
[35:04.000 --> 35:10.000]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[35:10.000 --> 35:11.000]  We are Logos.
[35:11.000 --> 35:35.000]  Happy holidays, Logos.
[35:41.000 --> 36:10.000]  All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. I apologize. I just found out that I was off the air that entire last segment, and it turns out that somehow or other I had a microphone cable come loose
[36:10.000 --> 36:15.000]  and absolutely no way to tell that it was loose until I noticed my meter wasn't jumping.
[36:15.000 --> 36:24.000]  I apologize, folks. As I told you, all this moving around and stuff I've got going on in here, things are just, I can't even begin to describe it.
[36:24.000 --> 36:27.000]  Oh, well, so much for shoeboxes, right?
[36:27.000 --> 36:43.000]  That said, as I was saying before, I found out I was talking to myself. I have a situation going on where I may have to take some time off from the show. I'm not leaving.
[36:43.000 --> 36:47.000]  I don't want to leave, not my agenda, so don't take that the wrong way.
[36:47.000 --> 37:01.000]  But things are changing around here for me to the point that I may have to go find some additional things to do, which is going to require me to relocate and then do whatever I need to do to earn a living while I'm there.
[37:01.000 --> 37:05.000]  And so I don't know what kind of schedule or time that's going to take.
[37:05.000 --> 37:18.000]  And that said, once I'm set back up, if I'm set back up, then I'll be able to get back on and do this some more regularly, but it may come to the point where this may have to take a back burner.
[37:18.000 --> 37:28.000]  If that happens, folks, we need somebody out there that's capable of taking over and doing what we do here because we're not going to be able to do this forever.
[37:28.000 --> 37:33.000]  I could do this for another 20 years and that's still not going to be forever, all right?
[37:33.000 --> 37:48.000]  And if you're going to do it to the degree that we've tried to do it, then you have to know that we put a lot of effort into bringing you true, correct, verifiable, accurate information that you can put to actual use.
[37:48.000 --> 38:05.000]  Unlike a lot of those folks in the patronut community that I tend to derive because they put out information claiming it to be true and factual with all of these theories, but know not one shred of evidence to support any of it.
[38:05.000 --> 38:15.000]  And then when they do get upset when you call them out on it and they throw their evidence at you and you do your due diligence in verifying what they've thrown at you,
[38:15.000 --> 38:19.000]  you find out that they can't freaking read.
[38:19.000 --> 38:23.000]  They don't understand the context of what they're reading.
[38:23.000 --> 38:28.000]  They cannot interpret the English language worth a damn, okay?
[38:28.000 --> 38:38.000]  In other words, most of it is BS from the word go because it's incorrectly read, it's incorrectly understood, it's incorrect context,
[38:38.000 --> 38:45.000]  and it's being used in a manner that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose for which it was written in the first place.
[38:45.000 --> 38:51.000]  That, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the patronut theology because there's no other description for it.
[38:51.000 --> 38:56.000]  It's their religion of misinformation.
[38:56.000 --> 39:14.000]  And I don't have a concern for giving them the handle patronut because if you're willing to blindly accept any piece of information as true without any effort whatsoever to verify that it is actually factual and accurate,
[39:14.000 --> 39:23.000]  then you deserve whatever comes down the pike your way in relation to the usage of that information.
[39:23.000 --> 39:33.000]  Now, what it does to you when you do that personally to yourself, I'm not going to get upset over and lose any sleepover whatsoever.
[39:33.000 --> 39:47.000]  My concern is and always will be the absolutely innocent, ignorant individual who doesn't know any better and thinks that you are someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
[39:47.000 --> 39:50.000]  Kind of like putting your faith in an actual attorney.
[39:50.000 --> 39:55.000]  It's just a mistake, okay?
[39:55.000 --> 40:07.000]  Because nine times out of ten, they don't know what they're talking about or what they're doing is intended to help them, but not you.
[40:07.000 --> 40:15.000]  And you need to keep that in mind because it is the way this system works when it comes to the information age we're in.
[40:15.000 --> 40:21.000]  You have the people that try to do it right and give you the means to verify it, that they know what they're talking about.
[40:21.000 --> 40:35.000]  They know it is what it is and you can go check it for yourself versus those who insist it's right but can provide you with absolutely nothing that shows their version of the facts is the correct one.
[40:35.000 --> 40:44.000]  Now, this is the thing that makes attorneys thrive, the ability to argue either side of a disagreement.
[40:44.000 --> 41:05.000]  Now, what that means inherently is that even though in any disagreement there almost always is a cut and dry right side and wrong side, the attorneys will argue that they are always on the right side even when they know for a fact they are not.
[41:05.000 --> 41:22.000]  So when you read some of these court cases on how a government attorney turns around and tries to construe a law to favor the government over the individual or to favor some sanction or fine or fee that they are oppressing a business or individual with,
[41:22.000 --> 41:29.000]  you would have to ask yourself how in the world did this guy ever get a license to practice law?
[41:29.000 --> 41:36.000]  How did he ever get a jurist doctor to be considered competent?
[41:36.000 --> 41:39.000]  And I'll tell you why.
[41:39.000 --> 41:42.000]  Because he paid for it.
[41:42.000 --> 41:49.000]  Not because he earned it, but because he paid for it.
[41:49.000 --> 41:59.000]  Now that said, folks, remember, we do our best to give you the means to check up on the information we provide. We do it religiously.
[41:59.000 --> 42:06.000]  And because of that, it's one of the reasons why you come back and listen to us, I think.
[42:06.000 --> 42:07.000]  All right.
[42:07.000 --> 42:11.000]  But as I said, we're not going to be able to do this forever.
[42:11.000 --> 42:19.000]  Someone, if this is to continue, has to be capable of taking up the mantle and doing the same thing.
[42:19.000 --> 42:25.000]  They don't have to be done necessarily the exact same way as long as it covers the same points of what we do and how we do it.
[42:25.000 --> 42:26.000]  Okay.
[42:26.000 --> 42:30.000]  Which is the information must be true and accurate.
[42:30.000 --> 42:41.000]  It needs to be verifiable and it needs to be something that the people can research and source themselves outside of you.
[42:41.000 --> 42:43.000]  All right.
[42:43.000 --> 42:45.000]  And that's what we've always tried to provide here.
[42:45.000 --> 42:53.000]  We tell you what statute, what court case, where to find it, where to look it up, et cetera, et cetera, so that you can go check it.
[42:53.000 --> 42:54.000]  Okay.
[42:54.000 --> 42:56.000]  And I'm sorry if I sound a little distracted.
[42:56.000 --> 42:58.000]  I keep hearing voices in the background.
[42:58.000 --> 42:59.000]  I don't know what it is.
[42:59.000 --> 43:03.000]  It's kind of like I've got CB radio interference with Mike set up here.
[43:03.000 --> 43:06.000]  But at this point, I really don't know.
[43:06.000 --> 43:14.000]  But in any case, we do have some callers up on the board, a couple, 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[43:14.000 --> 43:19.000]  Our first caller up is Steve, who just disappeared off the board.
[43:19.000 --> 43:21.000]  Well, hopefully he will be back.
[43:21.000 --> 43:24.000]  That leaves us with Mike in Indiana.
[43:24.000 --> 43:28.000]  All right, Mike, what can we do for you?
[43:28.000 --> 43:36.000]  Hello, Mike.
[43:36.000 --> 43:41.000]  Mike in Indiana, are you there?
[43:41.000 --> 43:43.000]  No.
[43:43.000 --> 43:45.000]  He just dropped off the board, too.
[43:45.000 --> 43:48.000]  See, folks, this is what I was saying about technical difficulties.
[43:48.000 --> 43:51.000]  Things beyond my control that I can't do anything about.
[43:51.000 --> 43:53.000]  And yet here we are.
[43:53.000 --> 43:54.000]  Okay.
[43:54.000 --> 43:57.000]  Two callers up on the board, two callers immediately disappear the moment I try to activate them.
[43:57.000 --> 43:59.000]  So that we can talk to them.
[43:59.000 --> 44:02.000]  Guys, if you can still hear me out there, call back in.
[44:02.000 --> 44:04.000]  Let's see what happens.
[44:04.000 --> 44:07.000]  I need to see what's going on here because this ain't going to work.
[44:07.000 --> 44:15.000]  We've got an hour left in this show and I'm either going to be talking to myself or trying to come up with things to talk about.
[44:15.000 --> 44:21.000]  So that said, 512-646-1984.
[44:21.000 --> 44:24.000]  Anyone else out there that wants to talk, call in.
[44:24.000 --> 44:25.000]  Give us a try.
[44:25.000 --> 44:27.000]  Let's see if we can talk to you instead.
[44:27.000 --> 44:29.000]  Okay.
[44:29.000 --> 44:47.000]  So as far as the document that I was reading and its ability to be turned into an article, I'm trying to further my writing skills so I'm not as repetitive and I don't know.
[44:47.000 --> 45:04.000]  It's just I'm trying to find the best common denominator to get the point across to as many people as possible.
[45:04.000 --> 45:12.000]  So I'll give three or four different variations on why this is the way it is description-wise.
[45:12.000 --> 45:22.000]  It may seem like I'm being repetitive, but all I'm trying to do is to make sure that it reaches the broadest number of readers possible in a way that they can understand it.
[45:22.000 --> 45:25.000]  Now, I'm not saying that everybody's stupid.
[45:25.000 --> 45:33.000]  It's just a simple fact and one I learned long ago that I myself have a particular way of understanding certain things.
[45:33.000 --> 45:42.000]  If you can present it to me in the way that I understand it best, I will know it then and forever and I will learn it quicker than you can imagine.
[45:42.000 --> 46:09.000]  But when you try to give it to me in a way that is outside of how I'm either willing to accept it or how I can make sense of it, then I tend to not be as adept and intense about getting it internalized because it's not making sense to me the way you've presented it.
[46:09.000 --> 46:23.000]  So when I write, I tend to write it from several different perspectives and similes so as to try to get it into something that more people can digest.
[46:23.000 --> 46:27.000]  And so please don't think lesser of me for doing it that way.
[46:27.000 --> 46:31.000]  I'm not trying to be intellectually mean to anyone.
[46:31.000 --> 46:35.000]  I'm just trying to broaden the audience as much as possible.
[46:35.000 --> 46:48.000]  And I mean, you know what I'm talking about? You have those people that watch the news and listen to the radio and then go buy all the toilet paper and paper towels in the country off the store shelves for a virus.
[46:48.000 --> 46:53.000]  And I'm not quite sure how they think that is supposed to work.
[46:53.000 --> 46:59.000]  Toilet paper and paper towels solve the virus problem how?
[46:59.000 --> 47:05.000]  Nothing in the news says this virus gives you unending diarrhea for weeks at a time.
[47:05.000 --> 47:07.000]  So why all the toilet paper?
[47:07.000 --> 47:26.000]  And if you're worried about having to wash your hands that often, do you really not have any idea of why using the same paper towel is actually feasible when you're the only one using it and you've used hand sanitizer every time before you've used it?
[47:26.000 --> 47:29.000]  Or you've washed your hands every time before you've used it?
[47:29.000 --> 47:33.000]  Come on, folks, paper towels are more hearty than that.
[47:33.000 --> 47:38.000]  Anyhow, we have a caller up on the board, but we're about to go to another break.
[47:38.000 --> 47:42.000]  We will see when we get back if we can actually reach this individual and hear a voice.
[47:42.000 --> 48:02.000]  So y'all hang on and we will be right back.
[48:02.000 --> 48:10.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[48:10.000 --> 48:18.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[48:18.000 --> 48:21.000]  Enter the recovery version.
[48:21.000 --> 48:30.000]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[48:30.000 --> 48:40.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[48:40.000 --> 48:45.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[48:45.000 --> 48:56.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[48:56.000 --> 49:00.000]  by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[49:00.000 --> 49:03.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[49:03.000 --> 49:12.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com.
[49:12.000 --> 49:18.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown.
[49:18.000 --> 49:29.000]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold $1,429.00, silver $16.45.00, copper $2.75.00,
[49:29.000 --> 49:41.000]  oil, Texas crude $55.63 of barrel, Brent crude $62.47 of barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52,
[49:41.000 --> 49:58.000]  Ethereum $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 of cryptocoin.
[49:58.000 --> 50:12.000]  Today in History, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and entering 40.
[50:12.000 --> 50:16.000]  Today in History.
[50:16.000 --> 50:29.000]  In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing hemp into Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges,
[50:29.000 --> 50:36.000]  and even refusing to file new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment to test the herb for THC.
[50:36.000 --> 50:45.000]  Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the law.
[50:45.000 --> 51:00.000]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas, and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works,
[51:00.000 --> 51:13.000]  as well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Jaime Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso.
[51:13.000 --> 51:25.000]  However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[51:25.000 --> 51:34.000]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're charged with.
[51:34.000 --> 51:51.000]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark as the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[51:51.000 --> 52:03.000]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[52:03.000 --> 52:12.000]  This is Brook Brody with your lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[52:12.000 --> 52:39.000]  Make our own whiskey and our own smokes too, ain't too many things you don't boys can't do. The broke good old maters and homemade wine and country boy can't survive, country folks can't survive.
[52:39.000 --> 52:49.000]  Because you can't survive a bout and you can't make a run because wasn't more boys raised on shotguns.
[52:49.000 --> 52:58.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. The call in number is 512-646-1984.
[52:58.000 --> 53:04.000]  That said, we have a couple of callers up on the board and we're going to see if we can get them to come on here with us.
[53:04.000 --> 53:09.000]  First up is Eric in California. Eric, are you there?
[53:09.000 --> 53:11.000]  Yes, hey Eddie.
[53:11.000 --> 53:13.000]  Howdy?
[53:13.000 --> 53:24.000]  Alright, thank you for coming. I've been wanting to call in to ask, what is the best way to handle a sobriety test where they block the road, road stops?
[53:24.000 --> 53:27.000]  Don't.
[53:27.000 --> 53:37.000]  They're blocking the road giving drivers sobriety tests if they have no suspicion of having drank anything?
[53:37.000 --> 53:38.000]  Correct.
[53:38.000 --> 53:43.000]  Incorrect. They can't do that.
[53:43.000 --> 53:48.000]  Well I understand they can't but I don't know if there was something that allowed them to do that.
[53:48.000 --> 53:57.000]  Well now, where does can't and something that allows ever see eye to eye?
[53:57.000 --> 54:04.000]  The sobriety test can only be administered to someone who has been stopped under suspicion of DUI.
[54:04.000 --> 54:13.000]  They can't simply treat it like they do license checkpoints and say, everybody pull over and show us your license.
[54:13.000 --> 54:20.000]  How when they're checking for insurance license and they're throwing in the DUI test?
[54:20.000 --> 54:25.000]  Again, they can't throw in a DUI test.
[54:25.000 --> 54:32.000]  Okay. So sobriety is out but the license checking and those insurance registration.
[54:32.000 --> 54:38.000]  Well here we have a different situation depending upon what state you're in.
[54:38.000 --> 54:45.000]  In California it's civil therefore it's administrative therefore it's somewhat allowable.
[54:45.000 --> 54:47.000]  Somewhat.
[54:47.000 --> 54:48.000]  Okay.
[54:48.000 --> 54:49.000]  Okay.
[54:49.000 --> 55:00.000]  But in states like Texas where it is considered a crime, it's not allowable at all by any stretch of the imagination.
[55:00.000 --> 55:02.000]  That's why checkpoints in Texas are illegal.
[55:02.000 --> 55:07.000]  They're unconstitutional.
[55:07.000 --> 55:11.000]  Wouldn't it be still illegal here in California?
[55:11.000 --> 55:12.000]  Again.
[55:12.000 --> 55:13.000]  Probable cause.
[55:13.000 --> 55:28.000]  Again, you have what is civil administrative acts being tried as criminal acts when the law itself says they are not criminal.
[55:28.000 --> 55:41.000]  Okay. That a civil infraction which is what 99.9% of your traffic infractions in California are are in no way criminal.
[55:41.000 --> 55:49.000]  Which means probable cause doesn't attach.
[55:49.000 --> 56:01.000]  But they run afoul of that reasoning when they start trying to prosecute you using criminal rules.
[56:01.000 --> 56:02.000]  See what I'm saying?
[56:02.000 --> 56:12.000]  But are they prosecuting us out here for speeding per se under the criminal rules with the court administrator?
[56:12.000 --> 56:18.000]  Are they finding you guilty or liable?
[56:18.000 --> 56:19.000]  They try.
[56:19.000 --> 56:21.000]  They make you enter a plea, but we have court...
[56:21.000 --> 56:26.000]  How do you enter a plea in a civil case?
[56:26.000 --> 56:33.000]  No one I've ever seen in a civil case goes into court and goes, well, I plead guilty or not guilty, judge.
[56:33.000 --> 56:38.000]  Guilty or not guilty only applies to criminal cases.
[56:38.000 --> 56:41.000]  Always has.
[56:41.000 --> 56:52.000]  What about the case law we have here for nearly 40 years in California that says that traffic infractions are civil, but yet they still ask you to enter a plea?
[56:52.000 --> 56:56.000]  What have I just got through saying here?
[56:56.000 --> 57:04.000]  They're trying to mix the rules of the game in a way that is not constitutionally legitimate.
[57:04.000 --> 57:07.000]  Okay.
[57:07.000 --> 57:10.000]  They're saying we can do this to you because it's not a crime.
[57:10.000 --> 57:17.000]  Then we can do this to you because we're going to treat it like a crime when we come after your money.
[57:17.000 --> 57:19.000]  And then how we punish you.
[57:19.000 --> 57:21.000]  See what I'm saying?
[57:21.000 --> 57:22.000]  The two don't mix.
[57:22.000 --> 57:28.000]  They're oil and water.
[57:28.000 --> 57:36.000]  So when they stop you at some checkpoint and they're asking for license, registration, prep, laser test or whatever,
[57:36.000 --> 57:42.000]  you can just say I'm not consenting to any of this, especially a probable cause.
[57:42.000 --> 57:52.000]  You could say it all day long, but the problem there comes up with the fact that they are not treating them as crimes at the time they're being done.
[57:52.000 --> 58:01.000]  They're only treating them as crimes after they've collected evidence against you unconstitutionally to charge you with it.
[58:01.000 --> 58:10.000]  So the best way to be to say I would invoke your rights and not hand over the documentation and say I'd be happy to do a sobriety...
[58:10.000 --> 58:14.000]  Well, that sounds like a somewhat familiar methodology.
[58:14.000 --> 58:16.000]  Okay.
[58:16.000 --> 58:20.000]  Just do the same thing as any other traffic stop.
[58:20.000 --> 58:28.000]  Is there some reason you think that what you're talking about is any different than any other traffic stop?
[58:28.000 --> 58:34.000]  I'm more worried about how you're perceiving this than in how they're doing it.
[58:34.000 --> 58:39.000]  I've been reading some stuff online where there are certain...
[58:39.000 --> 58:49.000]  It's probably come from wrong sources, but that the courts have allowed or the Supreme Court has allowed for the checkpoint.
[58:49.000 --> 59:01.000]  They have allowed for checkpoints under certain conditions and in certain states because the state constitution or laws are written a certain way,
[59:01.000 --> 59:05.000]  not because they're legitimate blanket wise.
[59:05.000 --> 59:11.000]  If that's true, they'd be valid in Texas and they're not.
[59:11.000 --> 59:26.000]  The Supreme Court does not set the law within the states when it comes to how the state rights the law regulating a particular thing unless that thing began as a federal thing and remains a federal thing.
[59:26.000 --> 59:39.000]  Then and only then does the Supreme Court opinion dictate what the state can and can't do with it unless it then violates federally protected rights.
[59:39.000 --> 59:43.000]  Okay.
[59:43.000 --> 59:53.000]  As far as getting the caption to the original bill of the transportation code, out here we have a motor vehicle code.
[59:53.000 --> 01:00:08.000]  From the 1950s, 1930s when they enacted that here, there is no single subject clause that specifically says that this is for transportation.
[01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  However...
[01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:18.000]  Does your state constitution require bills enacted by your legislature to have such a clause?
[01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:20.000]  Yes, we do.
[01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  The state constitution requires it?
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:24.000]  Yes.
[01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  You're 100% positive?
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  Yes.
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  Then how can it be a law if it doesn't have it?
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:41.000]  Now the question here is, are you looking at the statutes that are written after the enactment was completed?
[01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  Or are you looking at the actual enrolled bill that was signed by the members of each house and the governor?
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  That's different.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:55.000]  I was getting the annotated...
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.000]  The annotated statutes are not the enrolled bill.
[01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  The law is the enrolled bill, not the statutes annotated or otherwise.
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  Okay, it tells you where, like, which committee had enacted the bill.
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  The committee is not the issue here.
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  The issue here is whether or not your state constitution requires all legislative bills to have a single subject statement on them in its caption.
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  The enrolled bill will have that caption, which will and should contain that single subject that that set of laws is applicable to and must be constrained to.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:40.000]  Okay?
[01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  Okay.
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:57.000]  We don't care what committee did what with it, as long as that committee did not attempt to formulate a reading or writing of it that goes beyond the limitations of the subject matter expressed in that caption.
[01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  I've talked to some of the librarian and they're all confused about what exactly this is that I'm looking for.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  Ask them to look at the enrolled bill.
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  Okay, the enrolled bill.
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  Okay.
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  Say, okay, here's the statutes from this year.
[01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  Where's the enrolled bill for these statutes?
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  And it should tell them right there where to find the enrolled bill and which one it was.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  Last question is reckless driving if you are driving at a higher or traveling at a higher speed.
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:51.000]  At what point does the endangerment reckless driving kick in rather than just speeding if you're going to argue this?
[01:02:51.000 --> 01:02:57.000]  Do you see a statute that defines reckless?
[01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  Not senior, no.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:03.000]  It's beyond prudent and reasonable.
[01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:23.000]  Again, in order for prudent and reasonable to not be 100% subjective, what must have occurred as absolute proof that it's not subjective?
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  The statute I've seen is the amount of traffic, the road condition, the width of the highway.
[01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:32.000]  You're not answering my question.
[01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:35.000]  I did not ask you what you've seen in the statutes.
[01:03:35.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  I asked you specifically what constitutes a non-subjective reasoning of unreasonable and imprudent.
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:58.000]  Absolutely 100% without a doubt unreasonable and imprudent in order to constitute reckless.
[01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:04.000]  What element has to be there?
[01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:09.000]  Some sort of endangerment.
[01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  I don't know.
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:18.000]  It either has to be A, an actual injury or damage to property.
[01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:34.000]  Or B, proof that the act itself was so negligent and careless in its conduct that it was imminently capable of causing such injury or damage.
[01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:38.000]  Like firing a gun, a bullet into a crowd of people.
[01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  Even though you hit absolutely no one, that was inherently reckless and endangering of others.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:47.000]  Right?
[01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  Correct.
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:49.000]  Okay.
[01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  Same principle.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:53.000]  Okay.
[01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:56.000]  Is that something I can find in the penal code?
[01:04:56.000 --> 01:04:57.000]  No.
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:04:58.000]  Something that's in the, okay.
[01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  No.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  It's a logical reasoning of what constitutes reasonable and how the statutes themselves constitute the specific offense.
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:18.000]  If the offense for speeding requires a wreck or a collision is the exact word they tend to use.
[01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:37.000]  With another person or vehicle already lawfully upon entering the highway, how then could reckless not require a situation involving or extremely imminent in achieving the same result?
[01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:40.000]  I've heard you say that before because Texas has that.
[01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:42.000]  I don't think, at least I haven't.
[01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  I don't care what California says.
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  That's what you've got to find out.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:06:02.000]  But the point is, is there has to be some specific criteria that removes the notion of reckless from being entirely subjective to something that is not subjective in order to be valid.
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:03.000]  Hang on just a second.
[01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  Let me take this break.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:06.000]  We'll see if we can't wrap this up on the other side.
[01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  All right, folks.
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:08.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:15.000]  Y'all hang on.
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:23.000]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by Central Texas Gun Works.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:26.000]  Go to logosradionetwork.com and enter to win.
[01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  Any amount is appreciated.
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  Everything helps to keep us on the air.
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for grabs is the Spikes Tactical AR-15.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  More prizes and sponsors to be announced.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:42.000]  Every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:47.000]  When you purchase Randy Kelton's e-book, Legal 101, you get four chances to win.
[01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:51.000]  Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win.
[01:06:51.000 --> 01:07:00.000]  If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio today.
[01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:03.000]  We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:07.000]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win.
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  Go to logosradionetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris Proven Method.
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:27.000]  Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:33.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute.
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:36.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons?
[01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:41.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report?
[01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:50.000]  The Michael Mirris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:01.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner or email michaelmirris at yahoo.com.
[01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:12.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  Alright folks, we are back. This is ruleoflawradio.com at number 512-646-1984.
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:56.000]  We got a little bit of time left in the show, you know, like 45 minutes or so, so we should be good.
[01:08:56.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  Alright, let's see if we can wrap this up with Eric.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  Alright Eric, what else do you got?
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  I recently got a, this was over about a year ago, I got a citation for using my phone while traveling.
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  And the officer never filed the ticket with the court by the date on the ticket.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  I got proof that I'd gone to court to at least inquire about it.
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  They said he could come back and file whenever.
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:29.000]  Is that just a statute of limitations thing or is there anything specific else that I should know about?
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:33.000]  Well, that's what you need to find out is whether or not there's a statute of limitations thing.
[01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:40.000]  Some states have a requirement written directly on the citation that it has to be turned in with X number of days or it's invalid.
[01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:51.000]  Others have a statute that says something similar to that and others have absolutely nothing other than the class of offense itself determines what the statute of limitations is.
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  In Texas, it's two years for anything that's misdemeanor, three years for anything that's a felony and never when it's some kinds of fraud or murder.
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  Okay.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:09.000]  Alright.
[01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Well, that's it for tonight. Thanks for taking the call. I appreciate it. You do a great job.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:15.000]  Yes, sir. Thanks for calling in.
[01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:16.000]  Alright, bye-bye.
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  Good luck.
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:24.000]  We have David in Texas. David, are you there?
[01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:26.000]  Yeah, Eddie.
[01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Yes.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Yeah, are you there?
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  Yeah, I'm here.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  Oh, okay. Just a declaratory judgment.
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:43.000]  I filed one and I filed it under declaratory judgment for injunctive relief.
[01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  Injunctive relief.
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  Injunctive relief.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:49.000]  Okay.
[01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:53.000]  Yeah, the thing was I ran across this.
[01:10:53.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  A guy told me that I could put my name down as the plaintiff and also include the U.S. government because under that, they would be related to it or called the relay tour.
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:13.000]  Would that be sufficient or?
[01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  Well, I don't know. What are you trying to get declaratory relief and injunctive relief in? What is the case?
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:28.000]  Oh, the case is that they won't let me file in the county at the county court.
[01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:31.000]  They won't let you file documents in the county court.
[01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  Right. They won't let you file documents.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  What kind of documents?
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  Oh, they're a complaint against public officials.
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:41.000]  Okay.
[01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  So they won't let you file criminal complaints even though Texas law specifically says they must take them because they can be filed with any magistrate?
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:56.000]  Well, it's under federal. I mean, I filed this declaratory.
[01:11:56.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  You're trying to file a federal criminal complaint?
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:03.000]  Yeah, I have to file a federal criminal complaint against them.
[01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  Well, you can't file a federal criminal complaint in a state court.
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  They don't have any jurisdiction over it.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  I didn't. I filed it in the U.S. court.
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:18.000]  Wait a minute. You're not making any sense here. You keep backing up and changing the story on me.
[01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  First, you said they won't let you file in the county court. That's a state court.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  Right. So the next thing you have to do is go up to the next court, which is the U.S. court.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:35.000]  No. The next thing up is a higher state court.
[01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  They won't let me file there either.
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  Okay. Did you run out of state courts? Did you run out of state grand juries?
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  Did you run out of state and county and district attorneys?
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  Right.
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:49.000]  What do you mean, right?
[01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:53.000]  I ran out of everything. So I had to go to the federal.
[01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:01.000]  Did you send it to the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney's Office?
[01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  No.
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  As I say, I was at the U.S. Attorney's Office. They won't talk to you.
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  They won't talk to you either.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  So that's all you have left is the U.S. court.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:27.000]  Well, the U.S. Attorney is someone who acts on behalf of and in the U.S. courts.
[01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  Did you try to file them with the DOJ?
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:34.000]  No.
[01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  Then that would be my next suggestion.
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  Because I don't know that a federal court is required to take a criminal complaint directly.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  State courts? Yes. Federal court? I don't think so.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:54.000]  Oh, no. The federal court can't take a criminal complaint.
[01:13:54.000 --> 01:14:05.000]  I understand it. But they can take a declaratory judgment for injunction relief. They can't take that.
[01:14:05.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  Well, the thing about it is that's a suit. You have to file a suit.
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:19.000]  And it has to be heard and ruled upon by a federal judge in order for you to enforce it.
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:26.000]  That's all I need is an order. With that order, then I could take it to any court in the state to slide it under their notes.
[01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:32.000]  Did you file a suit and get a judgment in order to get an order?
[01:14:32.000 --> 01:14:37.000]  Yes. I just sent it out last week.
[01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  And they've already ruled on it?
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  No. I'm just saying I'm waiting for it to come back.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:52.000]  What is your question? Because somewhere we have the cart before the horse and we're on a cliff from the sound of things.
[01:14:52.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  So wait. This is the right procedure in your opinion.
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  Why? If you filed it in a federal court, why would you put the U.S. government on it?
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  You're going after the state for a violation of individual rights.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  And you're filing it in the federal court to get injunctive relief for that violation.
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  I have no concept of why putting the federal government on as a plaintiff with you is in any way whatsoever advisable or required.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  That's why I'm asking you.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  Well, that's why I'm answering you if that is what you're actually asking me.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:41.000]  But wouldn't they be related to the...
[01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:48.000]  How are you claiming they are related? How did they become a party to be related as a plaintiff?
[01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  I don't know. The guy was...
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  Exactly. You don't know. And until you can find something that says that's the way the law operates and requires it to be, what do you think your best option is?
[01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:12.000]  Oh, yeah, because I don't know what he filed it. But here's the thing. They were talking about this today over there, Jones, and...
[01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  That who?
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:29.000]  Oh, that was Jones over there. He said the attorney called in or else he was there and said that he would file a declaratory judgment for injunctive relief if Trump decides to...
[01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:32.000]  In relation to what? What is he going to file such a document about?
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:38.000]  I was trying to figure out if that's the same thing that I filed.
[01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:45.000]  Again, what is the case this attorney was talking about doing this in relation to?
[01:16:45.000 --> 01:16:51.000]  Oh, in reference to Trump saying that he's going to shut down the interstate on account of this virus.
[01:16:51.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  Well, you're talking about a federal actor being taken to court for injunctive relief about a federal act that he doesn't have the authority to make.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  That's not at all similar to your case.
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  That's why I was trying to think that's whether they were related.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:10.000]  No, they're not.
[01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:11.000]  Same thing.
[01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:30.000]  No, they're not. And that's why that guy could claim the federal government itself, or certain, some specific agency of it, is a plaintiff because they would be the one responsible for enforcing the law against the edicts of the president if the edict was illegal.
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.000]  Really?
[01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:37.000]  Oh, okay. I'll see how that works.
[01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  Okay.
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  Alrighty, I'll follow this up and see how it goes.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  Okay, good luck.
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  Okay.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  May it be clear to you that it has been to me, but thanks for calling in nonetheless.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Oh, all right. Well, I mean, I just keep following that.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Yes, sir. Bye-bye.
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  Okay.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Now we have Sam in North Dakota.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  Sam, I've got about one minute till I got to take a break.
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:18.000]  So if you can, like, hang on just a minute and let me get that far, then we'll pick you up on the other side.
[01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:19.000]  Is that cool with you?
[01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  That's okay.
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  All right.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  So hang on just a minute and when we're back from the break, I'll pick you up. Try not to fall off the line.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:26.000]  Okay?
[01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  All right.
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  Okay, folks.
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:38.000]  Now, everything we've got going here is hopefully directed at making things better for you in the long run.
[01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  We still need your help financially, supported, however we can.
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  I mean, whatever you can do for us, the better it is for us because this is how we spend our days
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  in trying to find ways to help you and other people to survive the situation that our own government has placed us in.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:05.000]  And it is not in any way, shape, or form something good.
[01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:08.000]  So you better know how to play the game and play it right.
[01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:12.000]  And that's what we're here to try to help you with.
[01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:17.000]  It seems like everywhere you turn nowadays, someone wants your name, social security number, and date of birth.
[01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:20.000]  But you should think twice before giving away your personal data.
[01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:24.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll say more in just a moment.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:57.000]  Forms, forms, forms, they're everywhere.
[01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  But just because a piece of paper asks for information doesn't mean you have to give it.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:08.000]  I leave blank spaces on forms all the time or I write N slash A for not applicable and usually nobody notices or cares.
[01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  I never give my social security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government requirement.
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:20.000]  And I won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless I actually want them to call me.
[01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:21.000]  And that's pretty rare.
[01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  To preserve our vanishing privacy, we need to practice saying no to random data requests.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:30.000]  It's like exercising a muscle. It gets easier the more you do it.
[01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:35.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  I lost my son.
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  My nephew. My uncle. My son.
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  On September 11th, 2000.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11th.
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:56.000]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[01:20:56.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  The official explanation is that fire brought down building 7.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  1,200 architects and engineers looked into the evidence and believed there is more to the story.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  Bring justice to my son. My uncle. My nephew. My son.
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:10.000]  Go to building what.org.
[01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  Why it fell. Why it matters.
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:14.000]  That's what you can do.
[01:21:14.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic similar.
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  In today's America, we live in an us against them society.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  The right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:38.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  Former sheriff's deputy, Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:48.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:53.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie,
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:00.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar.
[01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material.
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:47.000]  Logos Radio Network
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  Alright folks, we are back.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:18.000]  This is Rule of Law Radio.
[01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  We are now in the last half hour of the show, 512-646-1984.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:25.000]  It's called in number.
[01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  Alright, that said, we are talking to Sam in what appears to be North Dakota.
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  Sam, are you there?
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  Yes, I am.
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:34.000]  Alright, what can we do for you?
[01:23:34.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  The question is how to attack something.
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:43.000]  Here they got the, if you're caught, what they call it, driving without license.
[01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  Even if you never have one, it's not a criminal offense, but there is a fine.
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:57.000]  If you pay the fine you're admitting guilt and if you don't pay it, they suspend your record,
[01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:00.000]  which is they try to interpret it to be a suspended license.
[01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:06.000]  If you get caught the next time out on the road or to stop you, they put you in jail for suspended license.
[01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:15.000]  The question is, does the statute create a condition that is legally impossible?
[01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:20.000]  If it does, then it can be challenged as unconstitutional.
[01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  Unconstitutional, that never has been.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  It's not even a crime.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  I think it's like $30 fine.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  Yeah, but the fact of the matter is, if they write a statute that says that they can fabricate a false record of a suspended license,
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  even in cases where no such license was ever issued.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  That's true.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  Okay.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  Then that is a violation of existing state law.
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  It also basically makes a retroactive condition of the law.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  Doesn't matter if you ever had it, we're going to say you did.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  Thus retroactively, we are suspending it.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:07.000]  They fabricate numbers and it's on a record.
[01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  Bingo.
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:09.000]  Okay.
[01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  Now, on top of that, what else do they do punishment-wise when it comes to it?
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  If they can punish it once, twice, forever in the same manner, that's one thing.
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:30.000]  But if after the second or third time it becomes a criminal issue, then we have a real problem here, don't we?
[01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:34.000]  I'm not aware of that being the case as I last read.
[01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  I'm not aware of a state where it isn't the case.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  But would you think it is a second case?
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  If it's been convicted two, three or more times in most states of what originally was a civil offense, then it becomes a criminal offense automatically after that required conviction.
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:25:59.000]  I know the insurance laws that way.
[01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:00.000]  They recently changed that.
[01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:04.000]  I was part of that change because I challenged it to being criminal.
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  I did an appeal and then he didn't want to hear the appeal, he said it wasn't criminal without.
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:18.000]  It's not criminal yet, but what they're doing is they're elevating the status of a civil disobedience issue to a criminal issue.
[01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:19.000]  Yeah.
[01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  The second offense would be criminal.
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  That's what they said.
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:24.000]  Then you could appeal, but not the first.
[01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  And so therein lies the rub, okay?
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:34.000]  Those types of laws on their very face violate constitutional principles.
[01:26:34.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  I don't care what any court says.
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:41.000]  There is no question that that's what it does.
[01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  It's a law that should never have been allowed to be created, but it wouldn't line the pockets of the states if it didn't exist.
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  Hence the reason why it's allowed to exist.
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  Even if you have a judgment not even related to trafficking in any way at all, they'll fabricate a number for you and suspend your license.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  Yeah.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:11.000]  And that is a violation of their own state law of falsifying a government document.
[01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  I don't have such a problem with that because I go to court and I usually walk away out of there with anything.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:24.000]  What some people have that I know that I helped, they say, well, I'll get thrown into jail now and that kind of gives them a problem.
[01:27:24.000 --> 01:27:26.000]  How do we fight that?
[01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  I guess you have to sue them in some way for falsifying government.
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  Well, you need to see if you can find the cases that were filed by a gentleman named Charlie Sprinkle.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  I think I have your works and they're in there.
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:42.000]  Yeah, the federal ones.
[01:27:42.000 --> 01:27:43.000]  Yeah.
[01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:48.000]  I mean, what it all comes down to is you've got to do your research.
[01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  You've got to dig into the state law and its history and see how it came into existence.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:58.000]  And you have to remember one thing about any law enacted by a state.
[01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  It cannot convert a right into a privilege and the Constitution of the state is not the source of any rights belonging to the people.
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  It is simply the barrier between their violation and that of the powers of the state government.
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  But nothing in a state constitution grants the people of the state any of their rights.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:25.000]  No, you can't look to that for any authority for that.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:33.000]  So instead of the state making the argument that you have to show where the Constitution says it's a right, you have to make the argument,
[01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:39.000]  the state cannot point to any place in the Constitution where it says it isn't.
[01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:44.000]  Because the Constitution is not the source of the people's rights.
[01:28:44.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  And this is something we could do long before government even existed.
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:29:01.000]  And just like with the Second Amendment, changes in technology and capability have nothing to do with whether or not the right remains a right.
[01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  That's true, you know.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:10.000]  I'm aware of the, I haven't found any court cases about that.
[01:29:10.000 --> 01:29:17.000]  And I got the ones out of Texas and some other states in the North Dakota about how you can't suspend something you never had.
[01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  I can't find anything here.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:24.000]  Yeah, it's just exactly like what Robert Fox got decided in the federal courts.
[01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:34.000]  The federal court said that you cannot make a fictitious plate for a place that never existed.
[01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  And all of Robert's plates said kingdom of heaven and they wanted to charge him under state law with false and fictitious plates.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  But the thing is the federal court said you can't charge him with faking a plate to a place that doesn't exist.
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  It doesn't exist, yeah.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  And so that's exactly the same principle of thought in what you're talking about.
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:04.000]  That's what they're doing, they're making up numbers and it applies to your record and never nothing never applied for.
[01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:08.000]  Right, they're fabricating a crime out of thin air.
[01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  No.
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  Just like they do their money.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  So you suggest looking at Charlie Sprinkle's work and assuming I'm kind of like that.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:30.000]  Well, his work is what'll give you the idea of how government has fictionalized the rule of law to suit the outcome it wants instead of the one that's required to follow.
[01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  But the fact of the matter is if you go back far enough in the history of the legislation of the state, you will find where it was originally enacted, what it was originally enacted to cover,
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  and find out that it has never changed what it was enacted to cover, because then it would do something the state constitution itself forbids,
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  which would naturally have to be encompassed more than one subject.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  Assuming of course...
[01:30:57.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  Of course.
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:03.000]  I know it's transportation only, but they're still fabricating the record on you.
[01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:06.000]  They've passed it to your name and they threw people in jail on you.
[01:31:06.000 --> 01:31:11.000]  Yeah, but again, they're only fabricating records that are associated with what activity?
[01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:13.000]  Transportation.
[01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:14.000]  Bingo!
[01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  So what would they have to do to prove that transportation was something you were engaging in in order to fabricate a record saying you were?
[01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:25.000]  Where's the record of that?
[01:31:25.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  They have no evidence of transportation, thus fabricating a record relative to transportation is fraud.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  Not to mention falsifying government records.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  The actors will claim immunity in order for several people to suit them.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  The problem is, is that immunity needs to be something they can show that the law itself gives them in some sensible manner.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  And they can't.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  If the law says it applies to A and the actor isn't trying to apply the law to B, he has no remedy in claiming immunity for that application to B.
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  Because there's nothing he can point to in law that would have given him any ability to make the claim.
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:23.000]  Well, I thought that applied too.
[01:32:23.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  That's their excuse. Their only excuse is qualified immunity.
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:31.000]  Well, that's why you have to know how to take qualified immunity away from them.
[01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:47.000]  Qualified immunity only applies, or at least it's supposed to only apply, when the state actor has plausible deniability that his actions were something that his...
[01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:54.000]  that required him to do in the performance of his duties in order to perform them properly.
[01:32:54.000 --> 01:33:01.000]  For instance, if the law says that you can arrest someone for a felony without a warrant as long as you're in pursuit of them but not in their own home,
[01:33:01.000 --> 01:33:05.000]  and that's what you do, they can't say that the arrest was illegal.
[01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:08.000]  That would give you qualified immunity for that arrest.
[01:33:08.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  Hang on just a second and we'll wrap this up on the other side.
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:18.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:29.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:37.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:33:37.000 --> 01:33:43.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:51.000]  We have come to trust young jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:33:51.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:03.000]  As you realize the benefits of young jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:27.000]  The affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how, in 24 hours, you step by step.
[01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:31.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:40.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:34:40.000 --> 01:34:46.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:34:46.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  All right, folks, we are back.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:53.000]  We are now in the last segment of the show for this evening, and we are talking to Sam in North Dakota.
[01:35:53.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  All right, Sam, any other questions on this?
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  No, I guess that's it.
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  I guess I kind of know what to do.
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  I need to be the suit against them for doing that and do my homework and make sure it's foolproof before I do it.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  That would help.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:08.000]  Okay, thank you.
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  Thanks for calling.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:11.000]  All right.
[01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:12.000]  All right.
[01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:18.000]  Now we have Carl, i.e. Truth Raider, which I am assuming is still in Oregon.
[01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  Raider, are you there?
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:23.000]  I'm still in Oregon, and I am here.
[01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:24.000]  Okay.
[01:36:24.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  What can we do for you?
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:28.000]  I have a victory.
[01:36:28.000 --> 01:36:31.000]  Would you like me to send you the victory?
[01:36:31.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  I'm pretty sure you already have.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:39.000]  I send an announcement.
[01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  Well, when you say send me the victory, you talking about the documentation?
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:46.000]  Yeah, I can send you the documentation if you'd like me to.
[01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  Well, why is that even something you have to ask?
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  How many times on this show do I have to say?
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  If you have a win, it can show the record, please do.
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:59.000]  Because you said it was not working or you had a problem being able to upload it onto your site.
[01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  It depends on what it is you tried to send me.
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  If it's some sort of audio or video file, then yeah, it could be a problem because I don't have the paid control necessary to display video directly on my blog page.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  But if you're just talking about documents, that's easy enough to do.
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  Yeah, document.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:25.000]  No video, no audio.
[01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:30.000]  Well, then I don't understand the issue or the question.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:34.000]  Well, you said in the past you had difficulty being able to post it up on your blog.
[01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:39.000]  You had difficulty with your computer in the past.
[01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  I don't recall saying any such thing in relation to documents, but okay.
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  Okay, now I have two of them to send you.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  I won two years ago and I won about two weeks ago.
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Okay.
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:00.000]  I won from March of 18 and I won from just recently here in February of 20.
[01:38:00.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  Okay.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  And how the victory came through?
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  Well, I used most of all your material.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  I objected at every turn.
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  I challenged the subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:21.000]  And I forced the judge, Allen for the record, to declare that the answer to all the seven questions
[01:38:21.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  in the interrogatory, the seven interrogatories, the answer was no.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:34.000]  So therefore, I proclaimed in court that Allen for the record, the judges answered the questions
[01:38:34.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  or the interrogatories as they're formally called with a no answer.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:43.000]  Therefore, the officer is disqualified.
[01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  Motion order to dismiss.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:53.000]  All allegations and charges in their entirety with prejudice in the interest of justice.
[01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:55.000]  Well, good.
[01:38:55.000 --> 01:38:57.000]  See, knowledge is power.
[01:38:57.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  It is.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  And the ability to wield that knowledge is even more powerful.
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  Yes.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:09.000]  So therefore, I gave constructive notice to a few of the agencies around, including the city.
[01:39:09.000 --> 01:39:16.000]  I served the chief of police at theness of this decision.
[01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  And they have left me alone from sending me back though.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  Of course, the virus has a lot to do with their actions.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  They don't want to do anything.
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  They want to make contact with the public unless they absolutely necessarily have to do so.
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  Well, that's possible.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:36.000]  But the thing that would back them off further and longer would be to take one of his house.
[01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  It's in the worst.
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:42.000]  And that just easing the backbone.
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  Don't hurt either.
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  There you go.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  All right.
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:51.000]  Well, that sounds good.
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:39:53.000]  Keep it up.
[01:39:53.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  And the main thing I get at, I invoke God, the creator, the God, the Paul, or Yahweh to take over this court because he is the true judge.
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  That wasn't pretty good.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  It kind of resonated as well.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:13.000]  So it does work.
[01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  Well, if it works, it works.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  It works as well.
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:18.000]  They're willing to pull any trick out of their head.
[01:40:18.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  They can.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  Why shouldn't you?
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:21.000]  Yeah.
[01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:23.000]  Amen, brother.
[01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  So that's what I got.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  I'll send it to you.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:27.000]  Thank you.
[01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:28.000]  All right.
[01:40:28.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  God bless.
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:30.000]  Thank you.
[01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:33.000]  And we'll talk about it a little bit later.
[01:40:33.000 --> 01:40:35.000]  I've got another one coming up.
[01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:36.000]  I'm going to do the same thing.
[01:40:36.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  Use the same thing and use the examples that I have here.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:44.000]  So if I'm not guilty on these, how in the world would I ever be guilty on anything else?
[01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:54.000]  Well, again, in order to prevent there ever being anything else, you're going to have to set the precedent that coming after me for this stuff is not in your best interest.
[01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  And here's some guy who has to live on the street to prove it.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:08.000]  So I'm considering filing a tort against the city with their insurance company and see what they got to say about that.
[01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  See if there's some compensation here for damages for malicious prosecution.
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:16.000]  Well, they took you to court.
[01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:18.000]  The decision was done in your favor.
[01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:23.000]  That is all the criteria necessary for a suit for malicious prosecution.
[01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  The outcome of the case was in your favor, thus malicious prosecution.
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:39.000]  And I have this collection agencies that bought the so-called fines in the past over the years are wanting to collect $15,000 for me right now.
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:45.000]  So I have another source of income to collect money against.
[01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:51.000]  Don't try to confuse the law with one with the other.
[01:41:51.000 --> 01:41:54.000]  Yeah, same premise over.
[01:41:54.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  All they're trying to do is, you know, as they say, transfer the wealth, I guess, from the people.
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  All right.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:05.000]  Well, there's the facts, buddy.
[01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:07.000]  Well, thanks for calling me and tomorrow.
[01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  All right.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:09.000]  All right.
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:10.000]  Glad you talked to you later.
[01:42:10.000 --> 01:42:11.000]  Yes.
[01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  Thanks, buddy.
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:14.000]  All right, folks.
[01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:20.000]  Well, as luck would have it, more testimonial that the information provided.
[01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  By us does work.
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  You just have to be willing to put in the effort to learn how to use it properly and stick to your guns.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  Don't let them intimidate you into surrendering your guns because when you do, literally or figuratively, you've already lost.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:45.000]  And that is what they're hoping for, to win without a fight.
[01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  And I don't know about the rest of you, but that's just not in me to let them do.
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  So here I am.
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  And because here I am, I have to ask you once again to please help us out whenever and however you can donation wise, support the network in any manner you can as often as you can, because this is what we do.
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:11.000]  It's all we've got time for if we're going to do it well.
[01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  And there's an awful lot that goes into this.
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  I mean, you don't know the amount of reading from multiple sources and trying to put this into a coherent explanation and set a paragraph like this requires to do.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:33.000]  I'm not saying I'm the best writer on the planet by any stretch of the imagination.
[01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  I do the best I can with the education and skills that I've got, and I've gotten better at it than I did originally.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  But I've always got more thoughts than I've got capacity to express them.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:44:03.000]  And unfortunately, the written word in English can be so varied as to make it complicated to reach as many people as possible.
[01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:11.000]  And I don't want to write it Dick and Jane style, even though that's how most attorneys would understand it best.
[01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:20.000]  I don't want to make the reader think that I'm belittling their intelligence by trying to write it at that level for everybody.
[01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:24.000]  But in some cases I'm starting to think that would simplify things a great deal.
[01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:35.000]  In any case, please keep us in your prayers and in your finances, financial stream, whenever and however you can.
[01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:46.000]  It's no exaggeration when I say that you folks are literally the only thing keeping us alive and going around here in a very literal sense of the word for me.
[01:44:46.000 --> 01:44:51.000]  If it wasn't for you guys, I would have gone away the dodo bird a long time ago.
[01:44:51.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  And especially for Pat and Metta, they have done so much to help me out when things have gotten dire that it's not even funny.
[01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:06.000]  And for those of you, the rest of you out there that have donated and kept me going, I appreciate you just as much.
[01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:08.000]  Don't get me wrong.
[01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:18.000]  But the fact of the matter is, I don't know everybody that contributes directly to me all the time because everything does it come directly to me like some of it does.
[01:45:18.000 --> 01:45:24.000]  Only a very small portion of anything received comes in here directly to me.
[01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  And it itself is a very small portion compared to the overall cost of living.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:36.000]  But the fact of the matter is, it is what it is and it is what has helped me survive to this point.
[01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  Hence the reason why I'm having to go seek other ways of earning a living because this just isn't going to cut it anymore.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:53.000]  Prices are going too high and my level of revenue is not going up in a commensurate way with it.
[01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:55.000]  So I've got to do something else.
[01:45:55.000 --> 01:46:03.000]  I know that's the story of the American livelihood these days, but what else are you going to do?
[01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:11.000]  We do the best we can with what we've got and when you ain't got much, it don't stretch as far, believe me.
[01:46:11.000 --> 01:46:16.000]  Well, I want to say that I appreciate all the callers that have called in tonight.
[01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:20.000]  I appreciate all the listeners that are sitting out there and the ones that emailed me to say,
[01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:23.000]  hey, dude, you got dead air in that entire segment.
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:26.000]  Which, again, I greatly apologize for.
[01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  I do not know what caused this mic cable to come loose.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  I did not realize at the moment that in that segment that my microphone was not working.
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  I did not notice my meter was not jumping.
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:46.000]  And then when I finally saw the messages in the email, that's when it clicked and I started checking stuff.
[01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  So again, my apologies for that segment of dead air.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  But all things considered, you didn't miss anything because I repeated it on the next segment.
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  So you didn't miss out.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:03.000]  I covered it all again on the next segment when the mic was working.
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:07.000]  Well, I hear the music.
[01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  It sounds like we are out of time for this here show, but I would love to say again thank you all for listening.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  We greatly appreciate our listeners.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:23.000]  We greatly appreciate our fans and we greatly appreciate those that have donated over the years to keep us going.
[01:47:23.000 --> 01:47:25.000]  Please continue to the best of your ability.
[01:47:25.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  Keep us alive and well so we can help you get a better handle on the situation that you're having to live with.
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  That said, folks, I want to wish y'all a great week.
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:45.000]  Good night, God bless, stay coronavirus free and toilet paper wealthy.
[01:47:45.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  Have a great week, folks.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  God bless, God bless, God bless, God bless.
[01:48:40.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:53.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:48:53.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:03.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:49:03.000 --> 01:49:05.000]  Looking for some truth?
[01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  Be found at LogosRadioNetwork.com.