[00:00.000 --> 00:06.760] The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown. [00:06.760 --> 00:13.560] Markets for Monday 22 July 2019 Open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429 an ounce, Silver [00:13.560 --> 00:22.760] $16.45 an ounce, Copper $2.75 an ounce, Oil, Texas Crew $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crew $62.47 [00:22.760 --> 00:32.240] a barrel, and Crypto is an order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum $227.26, [00:32.240 --> 00:46.240] XRP Ripple $0.33, Lint Coin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin. [00:46.240 --> 00:52.440] In history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day Bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated [00:52.440 --> 00:57.760] on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing [00:57.760 --> 01:04.760] 10 and injuring 40. [01:04.760 --> 01:09.400] And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing Hempett [01:09.400 --> 01:14.200] attacks his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin, [01:14.200 --> 01:18.120] San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file [01:18.120 --> 01:22.280] new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory [01:22.280 --> 01:24.880] equipment to test the herb for THC. [01:24.880 --> 01:28.440] Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that [01:28.440 --> 01:33.000] she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the [01:33.000 --> 01:34.000] law. [01:34.000 --> 01:37.640] Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General stipulated in a letter [01:37.640 --> 01:42.120] to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized [01:42.120 --> 01:48.280] in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as [01:48.280 --> 01:54.520] well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Caima Esparza, a Democrat [01:54.520 --> 01:59.000] who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the [01:59.000 --> 02:01.760] prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. [02:01.760 --> 02:06.760] However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender [02:06.760 --> 02:10.800] in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes [02:10.800 --> 02:13.520] something illegal based on its chemical makeup. [02:13.520 --> 02:17.400] It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're [02:17.400 --> 02:22.640] charged with. [02:22.640 --> 02:27.600] A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark as the [02:27.600 --> 02:32.760] first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark [02:32.760 --> 02:38.400] ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific [02:38.400 --> 02:39.400] Ocean. [02:39.400 --> 02:43.800] According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near [02:43.800 --> 02:50.080] its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the [02:50.080 --> 03:09.520] glow. [03:09.520 --> 03:12.520] You get your rights violated or you all get shot [03:12.520 --> 03:15.520] This is what happens when you calm the cops [03:15.520 --> 03:17.520] This is what happens when you calm the cops [03:17.520 --> 03:20.520] This is what happens when you calm the cops [03:20.520 --> 03:22.520] You get your rights violated or you all get shot [03:22.520 --> 03:25.520] I'm sick of people being victimized by criminal cops [03:25.520 --> 03:27.520] Psychopathic predators terrorize the neighborhood glass [03:27.520 --> 03:30.520] They grip with pepper spray, mate, cuffs, tazes and glass [03:30.520 --> 03:33.520] They like serial killers acting out subliminal fucks [03:33.520 --> 03:35.520] Forget what you talk, these cops have got a license to kill [03:35.520 --> 03:38.520] Witness intimidation means that they can use it at will [03:38.520 --> 03:40.520] I'm going to go to silence you at the bar [03:40.520 --> 03:43.520] Hi folks, good evening. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show [03:43.520 --> 03:48.520] With your host Eddie Craig. It is September 13th, 2021 [03:48.520 --> 03:51.520] We are live tonight. This is not a recording [03:51.520 --> 03:54.520] Before I'm done though, you may wish it were [03:54.520 --> 03:58.520] I am currently working on a project with Randy [03:58.520 --> 04:02.520] That I'm going to have to also use to facilitate my Thursday night classes [04:02.520 --> 04:06.520] We were working on a different thing this month in the classes [04:06.520 --> 04:09.520] It turns out that this is something that's hitting home [04:09.520 --> 04:12.520] In some things that are happening right now [04:12.520 --> 04:19.520] So it became an imperative effort to get this mapped out and done correctly [04:19.520 --> 04:24.520] What I'm doing is I'm in the process of mapping a flow chart that shows [04:24.520 --> 04:28.520] Exactly the process, the Constitution and the laws of Texas [04:28.520 --> 04:33.520] And the rules of procedure require the prosecutors, the cops [04:33.520 --> 04:38.520] And the judiciary to go through in relation to any arrest [04:38.520 --> 04:41.520] Whether with or without a warrant in the state of Texas [04:41.520 --> 04:44.520] Or upon the filing of a complaint [04:44.520 --> 04:52.520] Now in Texas, no criminal action can be initiated without a sworn complaint [04:52.520 --> 04:56.520] Not verified. That's one of the things we've been looking up about this [04:56.520 --> 05:00.520] And what they're doing directly violates Texas law [05:00.520 --> 05:03.520] Which I know we've talked about before in numerous ways [05:03.520 --> 05:06.520] But this time we're documenting it out [05:06.520 --> 05:11.520] The statutes in Texas specifically say that the complaint [05:11.520 --> 05:17.520] That is used to initiate the prosecution must be sworn [05:17.520 --> 05:21.520] By sworn it must not only be done under penalty of perjury [05:21.520 --> 05:27.520] It must be done under oath before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths [05:27.520 --> 05:31.520] That is someone other than a notary, like a county or district attorney [05:31.520 --> 05:34.520] Or a magistrate for instance [05:34.520 --> 05:42.520] In Texas we have a statute under 132, chapter 132 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code [05:42.520 --> 05:47.520] That deals with unsworn declarations [05:47.520 --> 05:53.520] And there it tells us that an unsworn declaration still requires [05:53.520 --> 06:00.520] The jurat that stipulates everything in it is being attested to under penalty of perjury [06:00.520 --> 06:03.520] But it can be signed in front of a notary [06:03.520 --> 06:08.520] Rather than being required to be signed in front of one of the other officers I just mentioned [06:08.520 --> 06:12.520] Or another officer authorized by law that is not a notary [06:12.520 --> 06:16.520] So an unsworn declaration is one that's made in front of a notary [06:16.520 --> 06:23.520] But it still requires a jurat that says the declaration is being made under penalty of perjury [06:23.520 --> 06:31.520] And the sworn declaration has to be made for a some specific officer authorized to administer the oath by law [06:31.520 --> 06:37.520] While also stating it is made under penalty of perjury [06:37.520 --> 06:44.520] Now everybody that's read one in Texas knows that the criminal complaints the courts are allowing to be used [06:44.520 --> 06:47.520] Do not have that jurat [06:47.520 --> 06:50.520] They don't have it [06:50.520 --> 06:58.520] Even though the language and the statute says that the affidavit is what the Constitution calls it [06:58.520 --> 07:08.520] And the affidavit made before a magistrate is called a complaint if it charges an actual criminal offence [07:08.520 --> 07:13.520] Affidavits by law must be sworn declarations [07:13.520 --> 07:16.520] They must have competent first-hand knowledge [07:16.520 --> 07:22.520] Of the facts that are asserted in there it can't be hearsay and it can't be some third party making it [07:22.520 --> 07:29.520] It must be sworn to before a specific officer and it must be done under penalty of perjury [07:29.520 --> 07:32.520] None of that exists in the complaints that are being filed [07:32.520 --> 07:36.520] None of that exists in the complaints filed in justice and municipal courts [07:36.520 --> 07:46.520] In other words a verified complaint being an unsworn declaration still must have a proper jurat and it does not [07:46.520 --> 07:50.520] All of these complaints say we have reason to believe and do believe [07:50.520 --> 07:59.520] That does not constitute first-hand knowledge of the facts alleged that is required for a sworn complaint [07:59.520 --> 08:03.520] That ladies and gentlemen is an unsworn declaration [08:03.520 --> 08:06.520] When it says I have reason to believe and do believe [08:06.520 --> 08:08.520] Okay [08:08.520 --> 08:16.520] But the statutes specifically say that the complaints that are filed that initiate the prosecution in Texas [08:16.520 --> 08:21.520] Have to be sworn and they're not [08:21.520 --> 08:27.520] This means that basically every criminal prosecution that's occurred in the state of Texas [08:27.520 --> 08:32.520] For the last several decades has been absolutely illegal [08:32.520 --> 08:39.520] Jurisdiction to prosecute and proceed to trial was never vested in the court to begin with [08:39.520 --> 08:48.520] Why? Because the declaration that initiated the prosecution was invalid on its face according to law [08:48.520 --> 08:50.520] Now here's the thing [08:50.520 --> 08:55.520] The Texas Constitution contains specific things about these instruments [08:55.520 --> 09:01.520] The indictments, information and the affidavit that is used to make a complaint [09:01.520 --> 09:09.520] But in the instances where it says affidavit or where it says sworn [09:09.520 --> 09:13.520] Those in the eyes of the law mean the same thing [09:13.520 --> 09:21.520] Because an affidavit is required to be sworn before a particular official who had and under penalty of perjury [09:21.520 --> 09:23.520] Okay [09:23.520 --> 09:28.520] If it's going to be used to prosecute in a criminal case, those are requisites that the Constitution says [09:28.520 --> 09:32.520] And the law says they must have [09:32.520 --> 09:39.520] However, when you look at the individual criteria that some of the statutes are being done [09:39.520 --> 09:44.520] Like 45.018 and 15.0 something or other [09:44.520 --> 09:48.520] I forget what it is, but I've got entire charts of these things I'm working on [09:48.520 --> 09:51.520] So bear with me in some of that [09:51.520 --> 10:01.520] But the fact of the matter is they all require that these be sworn [10:01.520 --> 10:09.520] If you look for instance at chapter 2 in the Code of Criminal Procedure [10:09.520 --> 10:11.520] You will see [10:11.520 --> 10:17.520] Hang on just a second here so I can find it [10:17.520 --> 10:20.520] Okay [10:20.520 --> 10:27.520] Alright 2.04 where it says that when a complaint is being made before a district or county attorney [10:27.520 --> 10:30.520] That an offense has been committed in his district or county [10:30.520 --> 10:37.520] He shall reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by the complainant [10:37.520 --> 10:41.520] And it shall be duly attested by said attorney [10:41.520 --> 10:46.520] This folks is a sworn statement or a sworn declaration [10:46.520 --> 10:51.520] It's required to be done in front of a specific officer, a county or district attorney [10:51.520 --> 10:56.520] The county or district attorney is required to administer the oath and attest to the delivery of that oath [10:56.520 --> 11:01.520] And the declaration must be sworn under penalty of perjury [11:01.520 --> 11:07.520] Okay, now this is facilitated by 2.06 which says specifically [11:07.520 --> 11:15.520] For the purpose mentioned in the two preceding articles which is 2.04 and 2.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [11:15.520 --> 11:20.520] District and county attorneys are authorized to administer oaths [11:20.520 --> 11:24.520] So that's what they're having to do in 2.04 [11:24.520 --> 11:27.520] Administer an oath [11:27.520 --> 11:31.520] Okay, now what's the problem? [11:31.520 --> 11:36.520] Well, the problem is nobody's doing that [11:36.520 --> 11:41.520] The court clerks are signing the criminal complaints without any competent first-hand knowledge [11:41.520 --> 11:48.520] Or the cops are doing it without attesting that everything they're stating in that complaint is made under penalty of perjury [11:48.520 --> 11:53.520] Now I was talking to Randy about this and the problem this presents is this [11:53.520 --> 12:01.520] Without the jurors making the statement that everything that's in this document is done under penalty of perjury [12:01.520 --> 12:07.520] The officer can get on the stand and lie his behind off and suffer no consequences for it [12:07.520 --> 12:09.520] Why is that? [12:09.520 --> 12:14.520] Because if you challenge him on the sufficiency of what's written in the complaint [12:14.520 --> 12:21.520] There's no legal obligation for him to tell the truth because he can't be held for perjury [12:21.520 --> 12:25.520] Absent that you're at on the document he signed [12:25.520 --> 12:33.520] But he's still allowed to get up there under oath in a court of law and attest that everything in that document is true and correct [12:33.520 --> 12:41.520] Based upon his own legal opinion and conclusions which he has not been sworn in as an expert witness to give [12:41.520 --> 12:46.520] Which makes his testimony pure speculation on his part [12:46.520 --> 12:49.520] It's inadmissible from the get-go [12:49.520 --> 12:54.520] And yet they are using this unsworn testimony [12:54.520 --> 12:58.520] Even though the cop takes the oath to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth [12:58.520 --> 13:04.520] He is being asked by the prosecutor to attest the facts of which he has no personal knowledge [13:04.520 --> 13:11.520] When he attest that the person he stopped was driving a motor vehicle there is no evidence in the record of that [13:11.520 --> 13:12.520] None! [13:12.520 --> 13:14.520] Absolutely no evidence of it [13:14.520 --> 13:22.520] And whether or not your car was being used as a motor vehicle is entirely his own opinion or legal conclusion [13:22.520 --> 13:27.520] Which he has not qualified by law to make [13:27.520 --> 13:37.520] Yet the prosecutor is subordinating perjury by getting them up there to testify to these facts as if they are 100% true and admissible in that form [13:37.520 --> 13:40.520] And they're not [13:40.520 --> 13:43.520] But it goes a lot further down the road than that [13:43.520 --> 13:50.520] See, here in Texas we used to have several different constitutions here in the state of Texas [13:50.520 --> 13:52.520] We've had several [13:52.520 --> 13:59.520] Starting back in 1824 or 1826, I forget what the earliest one is, but it's one of those two dates [13:59.520 --> 14:06.520] Then you've got the 1836 and then you've got 1845 to 1876, okay? [14:06.520 --> 14:18.520] However, from 1845 to the 1869 and there were four different versions in that time period, 1845, 1861, 1866 and 1869 [14:18.520 --> 14:30.520] Article 1, Section 8 of the Bill of Rights contained one clause that was essentially identical in every one of those four versions of the Texas Constitution [14:30.520 --> 14:34.520] And the pertinent part of that clause reads as follows [14:34.520 --> 14:49.520] No person shall be holding H-O-L-D-E-N, okay? To answer for any criminal charge but on indictment or information, okay? [14:49.520 --> 14:58.520] Right there, the Texas Constitution forbads someone to be prosecuted if there was not a proper indictment or a proper information filed in the case [14:58.520 --> 15:04.520] Well, right now in Texas we know that in these Class C finales and a lot of other cases [15:04.520 --> 15:11.520] The indictment is the only thing ever being filed in things like A and B misdemeanors and sometimes felonies [15:11.520 --> 15:15.520] Or an indictment is being filed, but there's no originating complaint [15:15.520 --> 15:27.520] And in the lower courts, in the final offenses, the complaint is the only thing being filed despite the fact the law requires an indictment and an information both [15:27.520 --> 15:34.520] And neither of those can exist without the existence of a properly sworn complaint [15:34.520 --> 15:45.520] Not just a verified complaint or an unsworn declaration, an actual sworn complaint made under penalty of perjury [15:45.520 --> 15:53.520] Okay? None of this is being done right, not one single thing [15:53.520 --> 16:04.520] So the reason this became important was because both Randy and another gentleman that were helping out here have been illegally arrested and charged [16:04.520 --> 16:17.520] Absent any valid means to do so and the guy that we're helping was actually prosecuted for a felony when the only offense he committed was actually a misdemeanor [16:17.520 --> 16:21.520] And they could not prosecute the individual for a felony [16:21.520 --> 16:33.520] Thus the courts that prosecuted him and the prosecutors that prosecuted him illegally convicted this gentleman without any jurisdiction of any kind [16:33.520 --> 16:41.520] Okay? They sent him to prison for felony conviction that it was impossible under the law yet [16:41.520 --> 16:45.520] And they had to criminally collude to make it happen [16:45.520 --> 16:46.520] Okay? [16:46.520 --> 16:51.520] Alright folks, hang on just a bit. Let me take this break. We'll come back and I'll finish this up [16:51.520 --> 17:17.520] In the meantime, call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back [17:17.520 --> 17:25.520] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need [17:25.520 --> 17:31.520] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject [17:31.520 --> 17:39.520] We have come to trust Jevity so much. We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others [17:39.520 --> 17:47.520] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio [17:47.520 --> 17:51.520] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us [17:51.520 --> 18:00.520] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now [18:00.520 --> 18:11.520] Are you wondering what this world is coming to and why God isn't stopping it? Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk [18:11.520 --> 18:16.520] Where Nana and guests study God's Word to find these answers and more [18:16.520 --> 18:25.520] Join us for both verse by verse Bible studies and topical Bible studies designed to explain God's plan as well as to provoke unto love and good works [18:25.520 --> 18:34.520] Our first-hour studies are in the book of Matthew. Our second-hour topics vary each week, exploring sound doctrine as well as Christian character development [18:34.520 --> 18:44.520] Our goal is in accord with Matthew 516. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven [18:44.520 --> 18:49.520] We wish to reflect God's light and to be a blessing to all those who have a hearing ear [18:49.520 --> 18:59.520] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. for an inspiring and motivating study of the Scriptures [19:20.520 --> 19:31.520] Alright folks, we aren't back. This is Rule of Law Radio, the calling number 512-646-1984 if you want to call and get in line [19:31.520 --> 19:36.520] Alright, now, how can I show that what I'm saying is accurate? [19:36.520 --> 19:57.520] Alright, well like I said, up until 1876, the 1845 through 1869 specifically contained a clause in the Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 8, that said, no one can be held to account for any criminal charge without an indictment or an information having been filed [19:57.520 --> 20:06.520] And an indictment or information cannot exist absent a sworn complaint. That's right out of the Texas Constitution, okay? [20:06.520 --> 20:18.520] Now, in 1876, they redid the Constitution again and they changed the Bill of Rights again and removed that clause [20:18.520 --> 20:38.520] Instead, it now reads in the 1876 version under Article 1, Section 10 instead of Section 8, unless on an indictment of a grand jury except in cases which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment otherwise than in the penitentiary [20:38.520 --> 20:51.520] So that's saying that if you're only being charged with a fine only offense or if you can be imprisoned in the county jail rather than the state penitentiary, then you don't have to have an indictment in order to be prosecuted [20:51.520 --> 21:03.520] But there's a problem. In order to be housed in the county jail, you cannot be charged with a felony. You can only be charged with a Class A or B misdemeanor offense. [21:03.520 --> 21:22.520] If you're charged with a felony, that's the penitentiary, okay? So they're saying that if you have been charged with an A or B misdemeanor, you can be held in the county jail from anywhere from six months to one year and you're not entitled to an indictment to be prosecuted [21:22.520 --> 21:44.520] But here's the problem. We have Article 5, Section 12B, which specifically states, or I'm sorry, Article 5, Section 17, Clause 3, which says, grand juries impaneled in the district courts shall inquire into misdemeanors [21:44.520 --> 21:54.520] It does not say misdemeanors requiring imprisonment. It does not say misdemeanors were punishment consists of imprisonment. It says misdemeanors [21:54.520 --> 22:06.520] And all indictments therefore returned into the district courts shall forthwith be certified to the county courts or other inferior courts [22:06.520 --> 22:16.520] Now what it means by county courts here are the county courts at law, which have appellate jurisdiction from municipal and justice courts [22:16.520 --> 22:28.520] The only courts inferior to the county courts at law are justice and municipal courts and the constitutional county court [22:28.520 --> 22:40.520] These cases are not heard in the constitutional county court. They are heard in justice or municipal courts, other inferior courts below the county courts [22:40.520 --> 23:00.520] The county courts at law, okay? So right here, even though they removed this from Article 1, Section 8, when they rewrote it and made it Article 1, Section 10, where the indictment or information is no longer required for fine only offenses [23:00.520 --> 23:05.520] Article 5, Section 17 still says it's a requirement [23:05.520 --> 23:16.520] Now, why does this matter that they amended the Bill of Rights and the amendment attempted to take away a protection against prosecution belonging to the people? [23:16.520 --> 23:20.520] Well, let's look at it this way [23:20.520 --> 23:35.520] The accepting cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise and in the penitentiary, that clause specifically conflicts with the clause under Article 5, Section 17, Clause 3 [23:35.520 --> 23:37.520] It's a direct conflict [23:37.520 --> 23:59.520] Now, the thing is, is the 1876 Bill of Rights was amended to do this in 1918, okay? However, Article 5, Section 17 was last amended in the 1990s [23:59.520 --> 24:15.520] Now, under the rules of statutory interpretation, the latest amendment supersedes any other amendment to the Constitution when there's a conflict, if they cannot be reconciled together [24:15.520 --> 24:23.520] Well, you cannot reconcile something that says this is an exception with something that says this is a requirement [24:23.520 --> 24:31.520] Those are direct conflicts that cannot be reconciled by reading them together and making them harmonized. It doesn't work that way [24:31.520 --> 24:49.520] So they are in direct conflict and according to the rules, that means that the Article 5, Section 17 has to prevail and it still is a required thing for the courts to do to get an indictment for misdemeanors [24:49.520 --> 24:56.520] This is also supported by Chapter 21, which deals with indictments and information [24:56.520 --> 25:13.520] Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure still says that the indictments are supposed to be taken from the district court, transferred to the justice court when it's a file-only offense, and the justice court is what receives jurisdiction, not the municipal court [25:13.520 --> 25:29.520] The justice court. Municipal courts are not even supposed to be hearing these cases if they require to have an indictment, which according to the Constitution and Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says they are [25:29.520 --> 25:52.520] Alright, it also brings up another constitutional issue. How is it possible that something contained in the Bill of Rights can be amended and removed to increase the prosecutorial power of the government at the expense of the protection of the people [25:52.520 --> 26:04.520] without violating Article 1, Section 29? Because when you look at Article 1, Section 29, it says this, and this is what it said forever [26:04.520 --> 26:24.520] To guard against transgressions of the high powers here indeligated, we declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain in violent [26:24.520 --> 26:40.520] Okay, let's look at that in two ways. The Bill of Rights contains provisions that says this, this, this, and this. Now they can add to the Bill of Rights to increase protections, but once it's in the Bill of Rights, they cannot remove it [26:40.520 --> 27:00.520] Nor can they amend the Bill of Rights in a way that destroys any of the rights that were once enumerated there. Because remember, the general powers of government come from us, the people. And we said our Bill of Rights is forever accepted from the general powers we delegate [27:00.520 --> 27:14.520] Including the ability to remove any protection in the Bill of Rights. Okay? That's why it is forever accepted from the powers of government and is to remain forever in violent [27:14.520 --> 27:32.520] So if we cannot be held to answer for a criminal charge except upon indictment or information in 1845, 61, 66, and 69, then no less could be true in 76. You get that? [27:32.520 --> 27:44.520] And because it cannot be true, that means the amendment to the Bill of Rights that removed that clause was invalid. Now, why is this a problem again? [27:44.520 --> 28:02.520] Because there are many other provisions that existed in all these original constitutions under this same clause saying they're forever accepted, including the right to have no property taxes, et cetera, et cetera, that have been removed by the powers of government [28:02.520 --> 28:14.520] Because the state has asked the people to amend the Constitution to take away that protection and give them a power that the Bill of Rights specifically prohibited them. [28:14.520 --> 28:30.520] So they have unconstitutionally amended the Bill of Rights to take away protections while increasing the government power to harm us in other ways, despite the fact that those rights were forever protected from the powers of government. [28:30.520 --> 28:46.520] So we've got a problem. We've got a really big convoluted, messy, messy problem because the attorneys wanted to work the way they wanted to work instead of how the Constitution and the laws of the state demanded it works. [28:46.520 --> 29:06.520] This is going to be a big uphill fight. No question about it. But the fact of the matter is you can't do a common sense reading of what these words mean and what they say at the time they were written and then say that the courts and the legislature of this state are doing it right. [29:06.520 --> 29:14.520] Can't do it. It's impossible. No sane person would agree this is possible. [29:14.520 --> 29:21.520] So every time you hear an attorney argue for the state, consider the fact that you're dealing with an insane person. [29:21.520 --> 29:26.520] He's insane because he thinks he has the right to determine what the Constitution means. [29:26.520 --> 29:41.520] He thinks that the servants of the people have the right to determine and they alone have the right to tell the people what their own document, finding their government, actually means. [29:41.520 --> 29:46.520] That is hubris on a galactic scale. [29:46.520 --> 29:50.520] And it needs to be ended permanently. [29:50.520 --> 29:59.520] All right, folks, I'll start taking calls on the other side of the break. 512-646-1984. Give us a call. Let's talk. [29:59.520 --> 30:16.520] Oh, Mr. Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun, won't you please shine down on me? I've got your Catherine Albrecht and in just a moment, I'll be back to tell you why we should celebrate the sun for a few minutes every day. [30:16.520 --> 30:26.520] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [30:26.520 --> 30:34.520] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [30:34.520 --> 30:45.520] 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. [30:45.520 --> 30:57.520] Feeling tired, sick, or blue? A bit of sun exposure can make you feel like a million bucks, and it won't cost you a dime. 10 or 15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen helps your body produce its daily vitamin D requirement. [30:57.520 --> 31:03.520] Vitamin D may prevent type 1 diabetes and decrease your risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. [31:03.520 --> 31:09.520] The sun can also help you get more Zs by stimulating production of melanin, the hormone that promotes better sleep. [31:09.520 --> 31:16.520] And when you're out of sorts, the sun can boost your body's production of endorphins and serotonin, the brain chemicals that lift your mood. [31:16.520 --> 31:30.520] So be sure to make every day a Sunday. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:30.520 --> 31:36.520] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [31:36.520 --> 31:43.520] The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. [31:43.520 --> 31:46.520] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [31:46.520 --> 31:49.520] Thousands of my fellow force responders have died. [31:49.520 --> 31:50.520] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [31:50.520 --> 31:51.520] I'm a structural engineer. [31:51.520 --> 31:52.520] I'm a New York City correction officer. [31:52.520 --> 31:53.520] I'm an Air Force pilot. [31:53.520 --> 31:55.520] I'm a father who lost his son. [31:55.520 --> 31:58.520] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [31:58.520 --> 32:01.520] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [32:01.520 --> 32:08.520] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, [32:08.520 --> 32:13.520] and 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. [32:13.520 --> 32:18.520] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, [32:18.520 --> 32:20.520] and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [32:20.520 --> 32:26.520] The traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [32:26.520 --> 32:31.520] Former Sheriff's Deputy A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available [32:31.520 --> 32:35.520] that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [32:35.520 --> 32:41.520] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleofLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today. [32:41.520 --> 32:45.520] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. the Lie, [32:45.520 --> 32:51.520] video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. [32:51.520 --> 32:55.520] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleofLawRadio.com. [32:55.520 --> 33:00.520] By ordering your copy today and together, we can have free society we all want and deserve. [33:25.520 --> 33:43.520] All right folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [33:43.520 --> 33:52.520] Calling number 512-646-1984. Our first caller up on the board is Larry in Arizona. [33:52.520 --> 33:54.520] Larry, what can we do for you? [33:54.520 --> 33:56.520] Good evening, Eddie. [33:56.520 --> 33:57.520] Good evening. [33:57.520 --> 34:06.520] Eddie, I'm still working on my land patent case. The federal court told me they didn't have jurisdiction, [34:06.520 --> 34:12.520] so right now I'm back in the state court going up against one of the lean holders. [34:12.520 --> 34:18.520] How can the federal court say it doesn't have jurisdiction under a federal land patent? [34:18.520 --> 34:32.520] They told me that they didn't have jurisdiction and it was a property rights case that was under the jurisdiction. [34:32.520 --> 34:40.520] Then you need to appeal that court's ruling because if this deals with a federal land patent, [34:40.520 --> 34:48.520] there's no way that the federal court can say that doesn't raise their jurisdiction. [34:48.520 --> 34:57.520] It's a federally issued agreement. They can't ignore that aspect of the property in question. [34:57.520 --> 35:01.520] It's federally granted, therefore it's a federal issue. [35:01.520 --> 35:09.520] If the Indians wanted to complain about the land on their reservation, even though it's a property rights issue, [35:09.520 --> 35:12.520] how would they have to go talk to? [35:12.520 --> 35:14.520] With the Feds. [35:14.520 --> 35:17.520] Exactly. [35:17.520 --> 35:29.520] Because all the land that was given by that patent, or in this case the patent that made the lands that the reservation itself are comprised of, [35:29.520 --> 35:35.520] is federal. It's under federal jurisdiction. [35:35.520 --> 35:48.520] It's granted that the federal government has relinquished jurisdiction of the property in relation to the purchaser that the patent was issued to. [35:48.520 --> 35:54.520] But they are still the party bound by the agreement. [35:54.520 --> 36:01.520] Not the state. It doesn't mention the state in the agreement, does it? [36:01.520 --> 36:06.520] At least not as being a party. Or does it? [36:06.520 --> 36:08.520] I know it doesn't. [36:08.520 --> 36:15.520] Okay. Then where would the state get jurisdiction to enter into an argument about the patent? [36:15.520 --> 36:30.520] Well, okay. The federal court, say we were arguing the patent, they said it was a property rights issue between me and the lean holder. [36:30.520 --> 36:37.520] Okay. Who's the lean holder? [36:37.520 --> 36:46.520] The county sold a couple of leans on my property to investors. [36:46.520 --> 36:57.520] But the county could not have jurisdiction over property they never had a right to. That's an illegal governmental taking. [36:57.520 --> 37:08.520] And that's a federal issue. Just like the land patent itself is a federal issue. [37:08.520 --> 37:21.520] When the state seized property under a lien, it had no legitimate authority to make. That's an illegal taking. That's a federally protected right. [37:21.520 --> 37:26.520] Okay. [37:26.520 --> 37:32.520] Okay. So I should be challenging the jurisdiction of the state court. [37:32.520 --> 37:38.520] You need to raise it as a federal issue of an illegal taking and a... All right. [37:38.520 --> 37:47.520] You remember what I was telling them about the land patents in the state of Texas and how they should be arguing these cases and no one is? [37:47.520 --> 37:57.520] I told you that the land patent is a binding agreement. The state of Texas is in breach of contract for taking any part in property taxes in the state of Texas. [37:57.520 --> 38:05.520] They get part of those taxes to fund public schools in breach of the agreement they have with the patent holder. [38:05.520 --> 38:18.520] The local political subdivisions, the counties and the municipalities that are assessing the taxes and collecting them and putting the leans on properties are in tortuous interference with that agreement. [38:18.520 --> 38:24.520] Now, the agreement you have in Arizona is with the federal government under that patent. [38:24.520 --> 38:33.520] The state of Arizona is in breach or in tortuous interference with that contract between you and the federal government. [38:33.520 --> 38:46.520] And in the process of this tortuous interference, they illegally leaned property they had no jurisdiction of authority over and took it for tax purposes and sold it to someone else. [38:46.520 --> 38:53.520] That's an illegal taking. That's how this should be argued in my opinion. [38:53.520 --> 38:58.520] Okay. [38:58.520 --> 39:11.520] The state of Arizona is engaged in tortuous interference with the land patent agreement between the land holder and their heirs and assigns and the federal government. [39:11.520 --> 39:20.520] Now, you raise that as your primary issue as the federal government is the grand tour of that patent. [39:20.520 --> 39:25.520] And I don't see how the federal courts will be able to say we lack jurisdiction. [39:25.520 --> 39:28.520] Okay. [39:28.520 --> 39:30.520] I will do that. [39:30.520 --> 39:38.520] Now, I'm curious, is there any point in bringing up homestead exemptions in this? [39:38.520 --> 39:41.520] That's under the state constitution, is it not? [39:41.520 --> 39:42.520] Yes. [39:42.520 --> 39:46.520] What does the state constitution have to do with federally-granted property? [39:46.520 --> 39:52.520] Because it's not within the state as far as the state is concerned. [39:52.520 --> 40:09.520] See, if you looked at a map of Texas and the map was plotted according to the land patents issued within the territorial borders of the outline of Texas, all you would see is Swiss cheese. [40:09.520 --> 40:21.520] Everywhere there's a hole, there's a piece of land the state of Texas is forbidden to touch because that land is under an original patent, period. [40:21.520 --> 40:28.520] And that's exactly how it would look in Arizona, except it's under a federal patent. [40:28.520 --> 40:30.520] Yes. [40:30.520 --> 40:36.520] So that's what the maps would look like if the maps were drawn in accordance to the actual patents issued. [40:36.520 --> 40:42.520] They would have to be because here the state of Texas waived all rights and claims to that property. [40:42.520 --> 40:50.520] They made no reservations in the patent for anything whatsoever, not mineral rights, not taxation, nothing. [40:50.520 --> 40:56.520] They didn't reserve any rights or claims to that property of any kind, therefore they have none. [40:56.520 --> 40:57.520] Why? [40:57.520 --> 41:05.520] Because they entered into a commercial transaction via a negotiable instrument in the form of a patent. [41:05.520 --> 41:14.520] And the terms of the patent very clearly stated they waived their claims, all of them. [41:14.520 --> 41:27.520] Now, the federal government, being the original holder of the land in Arizona, when they granted it, the land belonged to the federal government as a territory or whatever reason they still possessed it. [41:27.520 --> 41:37.520] It was not a part of the state of Arizona, especially if it was issued before Arizona became a state. [41:37.520 --> 41:47.520] So whatever the outline of the state of Arizona may be on the map, there's going to be Swiss cheese holes in that map for every plot of land that was issued under a federal land patent. [41:47.520 --> 41:53.520] There has to be, or somebody committed fraud. [41:53.520 --> 42:02.520] Okay. [42:02.520 --> 42:06.520] So any other questions? [42:06.520 --> 42:13.520] You are not making any claims under the state constitution because the state constitution is irrelevant to the terms of the patent. [42:13.520 --> 42:28.520] There is absolutely irrelevant if that patent doesn't make any mention of the state of Arizona, the Arizona Constitution, or any rights or claims thereof, especially if the original patent predates the formation of the state of Arizona. [42:28.520 --> 42:30.520] Yes, it does. [42:30.520 --> 42:35.520] Then they're screwed if you raise the argument correctly. [42:35.520 --> 42:45.520] Okay. [42:45.520 --> 42:46.520] Are you there, Eddie? [42:46.520 --> 42:49.520] I'm here. [42:49.520 --> 42:58.520] But you sound like you want to talk, so I shut up. [42:58.520 --> 43:02.520] Do you have any other questions on it? [43:02.520 --> 43:04.520] Hello. [43:04.520 --> 43:07.520] My phone, our connection just went away. [43:07.520 --> 43:10.520] I'm still here. [43:10.520 --> 43:11.520] Okay. [43:11.520 --> 43:16.520] For some reason, the connection is cutting out real bad. [43:16.520 --> 43:18.520] That would be your cell reception. [43:18.520 --> 43:20.520] I'm still connected as far as I can tell. [43:20.520 --> 43:21.520] Yeah. [43:21.520 --> 43:23.520] I'm in a hard blind. [43:23.520 --> 43:24.520] Okay. [43:24.520 --> 43:28.520] Well, whatever's going on, maybe the state of Arizona is monitoring your phone. [43:28.520 --> 43:29.520] Okay. [43:29.520 --> 43:30.520] Okay. [43:30.520 --> 43:32.520] You're back and I can hear you again. [43:32.520 --> 43:36.520] There's a long blank spot there. [43:36.520 --> 43:37.520] Okay. [43:37.520 --> 43:38.520] Well, hang on a second. [43:38.520 --> 43:42.520] I've got a break to take, and then you can finish up if you've got any other questions on the other side. [43:42.520 --> 43:43.520] Okay? [43:43.520 --> 43:44.520] Okay. [43:44.520 --> 43:45.520] Thank you. [43:45.520 --> 43:46.520] All right, folks. [43:46.520 --> 43:52.520] Call in number 512-646-1984 if you want to call in, ask a question, make a comment, whatever, [43:52.520 --> 43:55.520] and we will deal with that as soon as we get back after this break. [43:55.520 --> 44:00.520] So, y'all hang on. [44:00.520 --> 44:03.520] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [44:03.520 --> 44:10.520] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course [44:10.520 --> 44:14.520] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [44:14.520 --> 44:18.520] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [44:18.520 --> 44:22.520] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [44:22.520 --> 44:27.520] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [44:27.520 --> 44:33.520] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [44:33.520 --> 44:39.520] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles [44:39.520 --> 44:42.520] and practices that control our American courts. [44:42.520 --> 44:49.520] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [44:49.520 --> 45:00.520] safe tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [45:00.520 --> 45:05.520] I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [45:05.520 --> 45:09.520] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. [45:09.520 --> 45:14.520] I'd be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [45:14.520 --> 45:19.520] I 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 [45:19.520 --> 45:23.520] because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help logos? [45:23.520 --> 45:28.520] Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos [45:28.520 --> 45:32.520] with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. [45:32.520 --> 45:38.520] Now, go to LogosReguleNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [45:38.520 --> 45:43.520] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. [45:43.520 --> 45:48.520] Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything different when I order? No. [45:48.520 --> 45:51.520] Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes. [45:51.520 --> 45:57.520] Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. [45:57.520 --> 46:23.520] We are Logos. Happy Holidays, Logos. [46:23.520 --> 46:27.520] All right, folks. We are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [46:27.520 --> 46:33.520] Call in number 512-646-1984, and we are currently talking with Larry in Arizona. [46:33.520 --> 46:37.520] All right, Larry, please continue. Any questions? [46:37.520 --> 46:42.520] Eddie, this phone connection is so bad I'm going to get off right now. I'll try calling you back later. [46:42.520 --> 46:44.520] Okay. Thank you for all the information. [46:44.520 --> 46:48.520] Yes, sir. You have a good night. [46:48.520 --> 46:55.520] All right. Next up is Chris in Colorado. Chris, what can we do for you? [46:55.520 --> 46:59.520] Hey, Eddie. Hey, how are you doing? [46:59.520 --> 47:04.520] I'm okay. All right, just a quick vaccine question just for people. [47:04.520 --> 47:13.520] So places like Montana that have passed the House Bill, which denies prohibits vaccine passports or even asking about it, [47:13.520 --> 47:22.520] and then Wyoming's got an interesting thing they added to their constitution in 2012, which gives people the right to choose their health care and how it goes. [47:22.520 --> 47:27.520] Can that be used in other states as precedents, or does it have to be specific to the state? [47:27.520 --> 47:35.520] Well, it can be used to have them take it under advisement, but it can't be used as an authority. [47:35.520 --> 47:39.520] Right. So how does that work? But as far as advisement, you can use it as an argument. [47:39.520 --> 47:44.520] It's a simple state. My right to choose exists no matter where I live. [47:44.520 --> 47:48.520] As an example, some states have already recognized this right for their citizens. [47:48.520 --> 47:52.520] In this state, their state constitution was amended in this year to say the following. [47:52.520 --> 48:00.520] And in this state, their state law was amended to create this exclusive right and protection from such things, blah, blah, blah. [48:00.520 --> 48:04.520] That's having them take it under advisement, but they're not bound by it. [48:04.520 --> 48:11.520] Okay. All right. Well, at least it's enough to put some heat on the fire if necessary. [48:11.520 --> 48:19.520] This mandate actually, I mean, a vaccine that was approved, essentially another revised my email, but it actually was not approved. [48:19.520 --> 48:22.520] There is no vaccine that's been approved. What they did is they... [48:22.520 --> 48:25.520] I don't know. No, no, no. That's not absolutely correct. [48:25.520 --> 48:32.520] What's absolutely correct is there has not been one approved for use in the United States. [48:32.520 --> 48:40.520] There has one that's been approved. There has been one that's been approved by a foreign country for use overseas, but you can't get it. [48:40.520 --> 48:43.520] You can only get it in that country. [48:43.520 --> 48:46.520] So they're tricking us even again. Wow. Amazing. [48:46.520 --> 48:52.520] Yes. They're lying through their teeth when they say that there has been an FDA approval of a vaccine in the United States. [48:52.520 --> 48:53.520] There has not been. [48:53.520 --> 48:58.520] I mean, wow. Yeah, I knew that, but I didn't know they were using it from another country. [48:58.520 --> 49:02.520] I knew there was a commonality approval license approval. [49:02.520 --> 49:08.520] There's only one country that has approved the use of the vaccine. [49:08.520 --> 49:15.520] I don't know which vaccine, but I just watched Dave Chapin do a video on that today. [49:15.520 --> 49:18.520] I think it's Sweden, but I'm not positive. [49:18.520 --> 49:24.520] But in any case, the country that approved it, the only place you can get it is that country. [49:24.520 --> 49:28.520] Okay. Well, that's more good news. Cool. Thank you. [49:28.520 --> 49:29.520] All right. [49:29.520 --> 49:34.520] Right now, they still can't make it compulsory because it has not been approved for use with the United States. [49:34.520 --> 49:38.520] It's still under an emergency use exception. [49:38.520 --> 49:40.520] Right. That I'm aware of. [49:40.520 --> 49:47.520] But they were using the end-to-end of a new approval for new trials as wording. [49:47.520 --> 49:49.520] And I even read it on the FDA. [49:49.520 --> 49:51.520] It's pretty interesting how they're screwing with their heads with it. [49:51.520 --> 49:54.520] But you added another component to that. It's pretty interesting. [49:54.520 --> 50:01.520] Yeah. They're trying to make it where, oh, well, somebody approved it somewhere, so now you're bound by it. [50:01.520 --> 50:02.520] Right. [50:02.520 --> 50:03.520] And that's complete BS. [50:03.520 --> 50:04.520] Right. [50:04.520 --> 50:07.520] Exactly. Exactly. [50:07.520 --> 50:09.520] Okay. Well, that's good. [50:09.520 --> 50:13.520] I hope they get some people a little bit of insight to push and dig a little harder there. [50:13.520 --> 50:16.520] My question is about my lawsuit that I got going on. [50:16.520 --> 50:19.520] I didn't get to answer this last week or the week before. [50:19.520 --> 50:25.520] I'm having some money, how to configure there, how to figure out the amount. [50:25.520 --> 50:28.520] So I've got multiple claims. [50:28.520 --> 50:30.520] I've only got two right now in my complaint. [50:30.520 --> 50:34.520] I'm going to amend it and add, but one is the consumer fraud. [50:34.520 --> 50:40.520] I haven't exactly found a number as to how you determine consumer fraud, but that's the claim of itself. [50:40.520 --> 50:47.520] Then there's conversion, which is the amount of the property that was converted plus legal interest. [50:47.520 --> 50:48.520] Right. [50:48.520 --> 50:56.520] However, at the time when they took my car, there was about 20 something thousand dollars worth of equipment in my car, [50:56.520 --> 51:00.520] computer, some medical things, et cetera, et cetera, clothing. [51:00.520 --> 51:02.520] Everything that was in that car was my property. [51:02.520 --> 51:03.520] It was taken. [51:03.520 --> 51:08.520] Could that be argued as part of the damages that was converted that night? [51:08.520 --> 51:09.520] Well, yeah. [51:09.520 --> 51:13.520] Any value of property that you lost due to conversion doesn't matter. [51:13.520 --> 51:15.520] The entire thing could be summed up. [51:15.520 --> 51:21.520] As far as the first part of your question dealing with consumer fraud, the way I'd calculate that is as follows. [51:21.520 --> 51:31.520] Since fraud can result in treble damages and fraud is an ongoing perpetration against persons as a whole. [51:31.520 --> 51:38.520] And the objective of a fraud allegation in suit is to punish the fraudster for their actions. [51:38.520 --> 51:48.520] I would try to determine the total number of cases of fraud that this company is liable for overall. [51:48.520 --> 51:53.520] Like, for instance, how many people is it believed they have defrauded? [51:53.520 --> 51:54.520] Let's say a hundred. [51:54.520 --> 51:55.520] Okay. [51:55.520 --> 52:02.520] And the average amount of money taken in each case of fraud is a thousand dollars. [52:02.520 --> 52:03.520] Okay. [52:03.520 --> 52:06.520] So that's a hundred thousand dollars total. [52:06.520 --> 52:17.520] Fraud being almost in every state can be sued for for treble damages three times the amount of actual damages. [52:17.520 --> 52:20.520] That doesn't even include punitive damages. [52:20.520 --> 52:21.520] Okay. [52:21.520 --> 52:31.520] So you can sue for the hundred thousand of actual damages for the, I'm sorry, for fraud overall. [52:31.520 --> 52:38.520] And then treble damages multiplied by that as punitive. [52:38.520 --> 52:42.520] So I can sue, I can insinuate, which I did in my lawsuit. [52:42.520 --> 52:50.520] I am suing on behalf of myself and all those similarly situated, but I did not imply that I was going to invoke a class action. [52:50.520 --> 52:52.520] I simply stated that once discovery. [52:52.520 --> 52:55.520] You don't have to necessarily invoke a class action to do that. [52:55.520 --> 53:03.520] The thing is, is the objective here when it comes to a fraud case, okay, is what can you claim as the fraud? [53:03.520 --> 53:09.520] What are the limitations in your state law when it comes to a case of fraud? [53:09.520 --> 53:19.520] Can it be based upon only your personal loss or can it be based upon the loss for the act of the fraud itself? [53:19.520 --> 53:27.520] If it's the act of the fraud, it can be against any number of people they've perpetrated that same act against. [53:27.520 --> 53:28.520] Okay. [53:28.520 --> 53:29.520] You see what I'm saying? [53:29.520 --> 53:30.520] Getting it out. [53:30.520 --> 53:32.520] Yeah, I was getting it out. [53:32.520 --> 53:39.520] So you need to see what your state law limits it to when it's a case of fraud and then what the punitive damages that you could go for are that. [53:39.520 --> 53:46.520] If they're treble, then whatever number you can come up with, you can ask for three times of that in punitive damages. [53:46.520 --> 53:47.520] Okay. [53:47.520 --> 53:56.520] I've got compensatory, which is moderate, and then I've got the punitive, which is also moderate, but still it's a decent chunk. [53:56.520 --> 53:58.520] It's, you know, 100,000. [53:58.520 --> 54:00.520] So, all right. [54:00.520 --> 54:08.520] Now, once I get the other things going on, they technically stole my car that night, but however, conversion is a form of larceny. [54:08.520 --> 54:10.520] So I think that's the civil side of it. [54:10.520 --> 54:15.520] I don't know if I can add staffs, but there was also vandalism to the car. [54:15.520 --> 54:25.520] Now, when you say larceny, understand something, that here in Texas, they lump conversion under fraud. [54:25.520 --> 54:26.520] Okay. [54:26.520 --> 54:35.520] So make sure when you say larceny, that that's what we're talking about, and that's how your state actually defines it, is larceny, or do they define it as fraud? [54:35.520 --> 54:38.520] Because they'll look for any reason to dismiss your case if they can. [54:38.520 --> 54:42.520] And if you word it wrong, they're allowed to go after it, so just be careful. [54:42.520 --> 54:47.520] They cannot get out of the consumer fraud. I've got a judgment, and I've got that very clearly defined. [54:47.520 --> 54:57.520] The conversion is another form of extortion, essentially, but the way it's broadly defined across the country is a form of larceny. [54:57.520 --> 55:01.520] It's like a common law conversion or something like that. [55:01.520 --> 55:06.520] Right. And Texas puts that under the fraud statute. [55:06.520 --> 55:07.520] Okay. [55:07.520 --> 55:11.520] So make sure where your state puts it is what I'm getting at. [55:11.520 --> 55:16.520] Is larceny considered a form of fraud in Colorado? [55:16.520 --> 55:19.520] Or is it considered robbery in Colorado? [55:19.520 --> 55:23.520] Or is it considered theft or burglary in Colorado? [55:23.520 --> 55:24.520] See what I'm saying? [55:24.520 --> 55:27.520] In Illinois, it's considered... [55:27.520 --> 55:29.520] Oh, I'm sorry, in Illinois then. [55:29.520 --> 55:35.520] ...unauthorized possession. That's very defined, and that's very clear. [55:35.520 --> 55:46.520] Unauthorized possession and... Okay, that's how the crime of conversion is defined, but the cause of action for a civil side may not be defined that way. [55:46.520 --> 55:48.520] You see what I'm saying? [55:48.520 --> 55:54.520] The criminal side and the civil side may not define the same act the same way. [55:54.520 --> 56:03.520] Here, conversion falls under both the criminal fraud statute and the civil suit statute. [56:03.520 --> 56:09.520] It has to be stated as fraud by conversion. [56:09.520 --> 56:11.520] It can't just be conversion. [56:11.520 --> 56:18.520] It has to be fraud by conversion. [56:18.520 --> 56:24.520] Okay. I'll look more deeply at the definitions. [56:24.520 --> 56:32.520] Well, try to find something that deals with the cause of action for conversion in Illinois and see how the courts have recognized it as such. [56:32.520 --> 56:38.520] Look for a case that settled on that point, and you'll have the language you need. [56:38.520 --> 56:43.520] That's what I use, actually. I plagiarize a couple other lawsuits, and that's the language I use to add it. [56:43.520 --> 56:44.520] Okay, all right. [56:44.520 --> 56:49.520] Then if that's coming out, but these are not really old lawsuits, right? [56:49.520 --> 56:52.520] No, they're all within the past decade. [56:52.520 --> 56:53.520] Okay, all right. [56:53.520 --> 56:54.520] And you should be fine. [56:54.520 --> 56:58.520] If you did plagiarize from a lawsuit on that subject, then you should be fine. [56:58.520 --> 57:02.520] Okay, but I will overlook it. I understand there's some nuances. [57:02.520 --> 57:08.520] So let's just say for argument's sake, I have a claim of fraud, a consumer fraud, the Consumer Fraud and Deception Act, [57:08.520 --> 57:11.520] which that is clearly they've already played liable to that. [57:11.520 --> 57:17.520] And then I also have a conversion claim, and then I have a rights claim, [57:17.520 --> 57:26.520] because there's some people that actually started some lawsuits basically saying that when a tow company is required to do certain things [57:26.520 --> 57:31.520] and hand over certain legislation that, you know, they're actually an extension of the government, even though they're private entities. [57:31.520 --> 57:32.520] So they're arguing those things. [57:32.520 --> 57:39.520] How do I stack the damages within separate claims into the toll amount? [57:39.520 --> 57:43.520] Is that a worded properly when I ask that question? [57:43.520 --> 57:46.520] Well, I know what you're trying to ask. [57:46.520 --> 57:49.520] I'm just not sure how to answer you. [57:49.520 --> 57:54.520] It would really depend upon how you are required to define the cause of action. [57:54.520 --> 57:59.520] You can't define the cause of action differently than what you've already got, [57:59.520 --> 58:09.520] than what you've got to figure out as a way to work the money side of those additional things into what you already have. [58:09.520 --> 58:10.520] Okay? [58:10.520 --> 58:17.520] You can make the claim, I suffered a monetary harm or punitive harm or an actual harm in the form of blah, blah, blah, [58:17.520 --> 58:20.520] with a monetary value of such and such. [58:20.520 --> 58:22.520] And add that to whatever totals you've got. [58:22.520 --> 58:26.520] I don't know precisely how you'd have to argue it. [58:26.520 --> 58:27.520] Okay. [58:27.520 --> 58:33.520] But the element of the claim is the most important, and make sure that they're unique enough where you can stack them. [58:33.520 --> 58:37.520] If, well, or that you can add them to one you've already got. [58:37.520 --> 58:43.520] It either has to be stated as a separate cause of action, or it has to be included in one you've got monetarily. [58:43.520 --> 58:46.520] Hang on a second, let me take this break and we'll finish up, okay? [58:46.520 --> 58:47.520] All right, folks, we'll be right back. [58:47.520 --> 58:49.520] Five, one, two, six, four. [58:49.520 --> 58:53.520] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. [58:53.520 --> 58:57.520] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. [58:57.520 --> 59:01.520] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [59:01.520 --> 59:06.520] but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture. [59:06.520 --> 59:08.520] Enter the recovery version. [59:08.520 --> 59:12.520] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [59:12.520 --> 59:17.520] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [59:17.520 --> 59:21.520] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, [59:21.520 --> 59:27.520] providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before. [59:27.520 --> 59:32.520] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [59:32.520 --> 59:43.520] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102, [59:43.520 --> 59:47.520] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [59:47.520 --> 59:50.520] That's freestudybible.com. [59:50.520 --> 59:53.520] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. [59:53.520 --> 01:00:16.520] LogosRadioNetwork.com [01:00:23.520 --> 01:00:28.520] And cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, [01:00:28.520 --> 01:00:31.520] Ethereum $227.26, [01:00:31.520 --> 01:00:34.520] XRP Ripple $0.33, [01:00:34.520 --> 01:00:36.520] Litecoin $100.31, [01:00:36.520 --> 01:00:41.520] and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10, a crypto coin. [01:00:41.520 --> 01:00:54.520] Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day Bombing, a Thai suitcase bomb, was detonated on Market Street in San Francisco [01:00:54.520 --> 01:00:59.520] during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and injuring 40. [01:00:59.520 --> 01:01:00.520] Today in history. [01:01:00.520 --> 01:01:11.520] And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing HEPA to tax his law back in June, [01:01:11.520 --> 01:01:17.520] county prosecutors around the state including Houston, Austin and San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges [01:01:17.520 --> 01:01:24.520] 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. [01:01:24.520 --> 01:01:33.520] 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. [01:01:33.520 --> 01:01:39.520] Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday [01:01:39.520 --> 01:01:47.520] that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, [01:01:47.520 --> 01:01:57.520] as well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Kaima Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, [01:01:57.520 --> 01:02:01.520] will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. [01:02:01.520 --> 01:02:08.520] However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County who stated that, quote, [01:02:08.520 --> 01:02:13.520] the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup. [01:02:13.520 --> 01:02:22.520] It is important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're charged with. [01:02:22.520 --> 01:02:29.520] 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, [01:02:29.520 --> 01:02:39.520] 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. [01:02:39.520 --> 01:02:45.520] According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins. [01:02:45.520 --> 01:02:53.520] For the purpose, it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow. [01:02:53.520 --> 01:03:00.520] This is Wolf Rody with your lowdown for July 22, 2019. [01:03:00.520 --> 01:03:20.520] Music [01:03:20.520 --> 01:03:25.520] All right, folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:03:25.520 --> 01:03:31.520] Calling number 512-646-1984. We are still talking with Chris in Colorado. [01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:34.520] All right, Chris, anything else? [01:03:34.520 --> 01:03:42.520] Yeah. The last time I got off the phone with you, you gave me some really good hints, and I just sat with it for the past two weeks. [01:03:42.520 --> 01:03:52.520] As far as kind of a criminal conspiracy, when an insurance company intentionally or arrogantly or ignorantly insures illegal behavior, [01:03:52.520 --> 01:03:58.520] and we talked about, now, it's not necessarily easy to prove that they did it, [01:03:58.520 --> 01:04:08.520] but when you put them on the line to discovery to prove that they did not, that's where they can't exactly dismiss their case or ask her to dismissal. [01:04:08.520 --> 01:04:16.520] What might be some elements that I could point out, or how would I, how more specifically, since I needed to work, [01:04:16.520 --> 01:04:22.520] how do I look for the elements of that, because racketeering just looked like a big mountain for me, [01:04:22.520 --> 01:04:27.520] but I always liked the tone of it. I liked the, you know, the verbage of it. [01:04:27.520 --> 01:04:35.520] Well, the only thing you can look for is the element of the offense of aiding and abetting or conspiring. [01:04:35.520 --> 01:04:44.520] Those are the elements you're looking for, but you've got to be able to prove that they meet all of the elements of those things, aiding and abetting or conspiring. [01:04:44.520 --> 01:04:53.520] Okay? Is it illegal under state law for an insurance company to know they're insuring illegal acts? [01:04:53.520 --> 01:04:59.520] Is that illegal? Is there a law that prohibits it? [01:04:59.520 --> 01:05:03.520] For instance, let's take a hypothesis here. [01:05:03.520 --> 01:05:13.520] There is a place that is holding an illegal gambling establishment in a basement of a building in a state where gambling and abetting on the gambling is illegal. [01:05:13.520 --> 01:05:20.520] Like Texas, for instance. Okay? The insurance company ensures the building. [01:05:20.520 --> 01:05:29.520] How do you prove the insurance company knew about the illegal gambling in the basement? [01:05:29.520 --> 01:05:32.520] What we talked about last time is it's very hard to do that. [01:05:32.520 --> 01:05:38.520] However, once they've been made known that that's going on, why would they continue it? [01:05:38.520 --> 01:05:51.520] Therefore, I would ask for discovery of all interactions, all recordings, all emails between them and their party, between them and their client to show whether one, they even investigated it. [01:05:51.520 --> 01:05:58.520] Two, if they did, did their party lie to them? Or two, did their party just tell them and they just ignored it? [01:05:58.520 --> 01:06:01.520] Well, here's another option. [01:06:01.520 --> 01:06:12.520] Ask for the communications you provided them in forming them of the illegal activity that they were helping to finance. [01:06:12.520 --> 01:06:27.520] See, if they can provide you with copies of the notices you gave them on top of the fact that you've got your own notices showing it was delivered and received, that's a catch-22 they can't devoid. [01:06:27.520 --> 01:06:47.520] Because you can go to court and say, right here, I asked for discovery of all the notices sent to them by me in forming them with a criminal conduct that they were essentially helping aid in a bet by providing financial coverage if the people in the basement smoke in and gambling burn the place down. [01:06:47.520 --> 01:06:51.520] They did nothing. They continued. [01:06:51.520 --> 01:06:57.520] And right here, they supplied me through discovery all the documents that showed they were made aware. [01:06:57.520 --> 01:07:00.520] How are they not culpable? [01:07:00.520 --> 01:07:05.520] Now, whether or not a court will find they are culpable, that's a whole other matter. [01:07:05.520 --> 01:07:17.520] Right, but at least the, because it's a trial jury, demand that at least the judge won't be so eager to just dismiss them because they ask for a, you know, motion to dismiss based on not being culpable. [01:07:17.520 --> 01:07:26.520] Well, that's not necessarily true. It depends upon whether or not there's something in the law that can give the judge pause to hold them over and not grant them the dismissal. [01:07:26.520 --> 01:07:38.520] If there is some element of law that brings a fact of law into question that must be put in front of a jury, then he can't by law dismiss the case. [01:07:38.520 --> 01:07:50.520] But if he can look at the law and say, well, despite everything that they've given you and despite everything they've done, there's nothing in the law that makes what they did illegal. [01:07:50.520 --> 01:07:57.520] Therefore, there is no issue to put in front of a jury to decide. [01:07:57.520 --> 01:08:12.520] So I've got to imply a strong enough conviction that it will be found in discovery because they have not supplied any of that, even though it's been asked for, that either one, they aided and invited, which makes them a culpable, [01:08:12.520 --> 01:08:18.520] or two, they asked for the information and their client lied, and therefore they wouldn't be culpable. [01:08:18.520 --> 01:08:28.520] And because they refuse to submit any of that, we don't know and we won't know until they are subpoenaed and forced to submit that information. [01:08:28.520 --> 01:08:37.520] Well, you could just put in your suit that you have reason to believe and do believe that the insurance company was involved in the illegal activities. [01:08:37.520 --> 01:08:55.520] Based upon the information presented to the insurance company by me and the insurance company's failure to provide the discovery related to the request made in relation to the suit, my suspicions appear to be confirmed that they are directly involved in the criminal conduct. [01:08:55.520 --> 01:08:59.520] Now it's up to them to prove they're not. [01:08:59.520 --> 01:09:01.520] Okay. [01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:08.520] All right, that's what we're trying to do. Back them in there. [01:09:08.520 --> 01:09:19.520] Which I really think they were arrogant and just didn't, they just didn't do their job, which would be to be more thorough and make sure that they're not culpable, but they really attached themselves to these people by being so lazy. [01:09:19.520 --> 01:09:27.520] And that's what I'm trying to do is put it all on them to prove that they did not, and not have to be me prove that they. [01:09:27.520 --> 01:09:30.520] Okay, well, let's look at it this way. This is about the tow company thing, right? [01:09:30.520 --> 01:09:33.520] Okay. [01:09:33.520 --> 01:09:44.520] The state law say that if a tow company does something that violates their agreement and their licensing rules, that their licenses revoked before or after a hearing. [01:09:44.520 --> 01:09:48.520] Was the license revoked? Was there a hearing that suspended it? [01:09:48.520 --> 01:09:56.520] Any of those things? Is there any action in law that immediately suspends their ability to conduct business in a conducted business anyway? [01:09:56.520 --> 01:10:04.520] And while they were conducting the business illegally, was their insurance company still providing them coverage? [01:10:04.520 --> 01:10:06.520] Yes. So there is. [01:10:06.520 --> 01:10:11.520] Because that do enforce what you just said. There is law, but nobody's enforcing them. [01:10:11.520 --> 01:10:20.520] Right. But the thing is, is who's required to enforce them, the insurance company or the state? [01:10:20.520 --> 01:10:34.520] And even if the state's the one required to do it, is there a provision that says their insurance company is to be immediately notified and coverage suspended so that they can't operate? [01:10:34.520 --> 01:10:36.520] Good point. [01:10:36.520 --> 01:10:42.520] There's provision in law that says that and they didn't do it, then you've got them over a barrel. [01:10:42.520 --> 01:10:50.520] I'm looking for that verb. I cannot get the Department of Insurance of Illinois to even do their job. They're incompetent as every other agency. [01:10:50.520 --> 01:10:58.520] Well, you've got to remember, insurance companies have a lot of pull in every state because they are the ones that get people elected. [01:10:58.520 --> 01:11:04.520] They pay kickbacks and bribes and everything else to keep their monopolies intact. [01:11:04.520 --> 01:11:12.520] So that's not surprising. That's how the insurance lobby in Texas made it where they cannot be sued in the case of a car accident or anything else. [01:11:12.520 --> 01:11:23.520] You can only sue the person covered. You can't sue the insurance company, even though the insurance company is the one that refuses to pay and forces you into court. [01:11:23.520 --> 01:11:25.520] You still can't sue them. [01:11:25.520 --> 01:11:40.520] Right. I've heard some verbiage like that in Illinois, but it's not as distinct as it is in Texas, but I've heard some warnings that I need to dig a little deeper and the racketeering is kind of the criminal conspiracy is kind of the hook there. [01:11:40.520 --> 01:11:56.520] Well, if you can show the insurance company had a legal duty they did not do and a legal duty the state was required to enforce and did not, then you've got your criminal conspiracy and racketeering. [01:11:56.520 --> 01:12:10.520] Well, there's got to be a lobby. I've asked the common sense question and you said it too. If you're insuring a gambling operation and you know there's a gambling operation going on there and you don't withhold insurance, then you are part of that. [01:12:10.520 --> 01:12:18.520] That's part of that criminal activity and it's very easy to common sense, but I'm trying to find the law and I've asked this even to the insurance department. [01:12:18.520 --> 01:12:28.520] I'm going to come in as a commercial operator and I want to smuggle illegal substances across the state of Illinois in my truck. Are you okay with that? Insuring me? Everybody's last at me. [01:12:28.520 --> 01:12:41.520] Well, of course, no. Okay. Well, show me the law. Show me the statute. Show me the rules and regulations that would support, you know, or that would make that behavior legal and that an insurance company could not actually insure them. [01:12:41.520 --> 01:12:52.520] And nobody even has the wherewithal to even ask where it is, but you know it's got to be there somewhere because you can't do that. You can insure a whorehouse. You can insure faulty products. [01:12:52.520 --> 01:13:01.520] You can insure, you know, when you know... Well, you can as long as you have plausible deniability of the criminal conduct and therein lies the rub. [01:13:01.520 --> 01:13:12.520] Like I said, if you cannot positively prove knowing the existence of the criminal conduct, you're stuck as far as going after the insurance company. [01:13:12.520 --> 01:13:22.520] But if you can get it where you can show that they weren't aware and participated by continuing it, now you've got an option. [01:13:22.520 --> 01:13:34.520] Yeah, there I can do. I can show they were notified. It's their actions that behind the scenes of how they conducted, how they investigated it and what their actions were. I completely have no idea because they won't reveal it. [01:13:34.520 --> 01:13:38.520] So that's where I got to stick it on them to show that they actually did something. [01:13:38.520 --> 01:13:50.520] Correct. And you do that by alleging that they knowingly participated in the criminal conduct and thus forcing them to provide the requested discovery to show that they were not. [01:13:50.520 --> 01:14:01.520] But you got to remember something now. The civil case can force stuff into the open even when it's criminal that they can be prosecuted on later. [01:14:01.520 --> 01:14:06.520] So be aware they're going to avoid doing that at all costs if at all possible. [01:14:06.520 --> 01:14:19.520] So you need to find a way to lock it in where you can prove that they didn't do what they were ordered to do by the court in relation to discovery and that it was intentional to conceal criminal conduct. [01:14:19.520 --> 01:14:32.520] Okay. I already have some emails with them saying we have thoroughly investigated it. We have thoroughly talked with our client and then they should have all the records necessary to provide you in that investigation and you have every right to ask for it. [01:14:32.520 --> 01:14:38.520] Right. And they refused up until, you know, now there's a lawsuit. So now I can subpoena. [01:14:38.520 --> 01:14:40.520] Correct. [01:14:40.520 --> 01:14:46.520] Okay. All right, then. Thanks for the pep talk. I'll let you go. Thank you so much for all your help, Eddie. [01:14:46.520 --> 01:14:48.520] Yes, sir. Good luck. [01:14:48.520 --> 01:14:51.520] Okay. All right. Bye-bye. [01:14:51.520 --> 01:14:58.520] All right. Now we have John in New York. John, what can we do for you? [01:14:58.520 --> 01:15:07.520] Hi, Eddie. Good evening. I've got two scenarios and I'll make them real fast. Here we go. [01:15:07.520 --> 01:15:27.520] If the FDA has not approved the COVID vaccine and they have not in the United States, comment on what laws or amendments or rights are being violated and what you would do if this following situation happened to you. [01:15:27.520 --> 01:15:43.520] Somebody says to you, Mr. Craig, since you refused the COVID shot, we have suspended your social security payments. We have suspended your Medicaid food card, your SNAP benefits, and we will withhold medical care from you. [01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:51.520] Since obviously you need money and food to live, what's the first thing you would do, the second thing you would do, and so on? [01:15:51.520 --> 01:15:55.520] Remember, if the FDA has not approved a COVID vaccine. [01:15:55.520 --> 01:15:59.520] Who's making these statements? [01:15:59.520 --> 01:16:04.520] A possible employer. Maybe where you're working. [01:16:04.520 --> 01:16:11.520] How can an employer withhold social security payments? Employers don't make social security payments. The federal government does. [01:16:11.520 --> 01:16:28.520] No, no, what I'm saying is your employer tells you you need to get a COVID shot. Then the government comes along. I didn't say that. I forgot a line. The government comes along and says, well, you didn't get your COVID shot, son. [01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:34.520] So now we're going to suspend your social security payments. Your boss told you you got to have a COVID shot. [01:16:34.520 --> 01:16:43.520] Okay, hang on just a second. Let me get this break in and we'll talk about that. All right, folks, 512-646-1984. [01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:48.520] If you want to call us, a question, make a comment, get in line, or just talk about something you got going on. [01:16:48.520 --> 01:17:00.520] Anyhow, y'all hang on. We will be right back after this break. [01:17:00.520 --> 01:17:04.520] Are you wondering what this world is coming to and why God isn't stopping it? [01:17:04.520 --> 01:17:15.520] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk, where Nana and guests study God's Word to find these answers and more. [01:17:15.520 --> 01:17:25.520] Join us for both verse-by-verse Bible studies and topical Bible studies designed to explain God's plan as well as to provoke unto love and good works. [01:17:25.520 --> 01:17:34.520] Our first-hour studies are in the book of Matthew. Our second-hour topics vary each week, exploring sound doctrine as well as Christian character development. [01:17:34.520 --> 01:17:44.520] Our goal is in accord with Matthew 516. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. [01:17:44.520 --> 01:17:49.520] We wish to reflect God's light and to be a blessing to all those who have a hearing ear. [01:17:49.520 --> 01:17:59.520] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. for an inspiring and motivating study of the Scriptures. [01:17:59.520 --> 01:18:09.520] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. [01:18:09.520 --> 01:18:17.520] And it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:18:17.520 --> 01:18:25.520] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:18:25.520 --> 01:18:31.520] LogosRadioNetwork gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [01:18:31.520 --> 01:18:39.520] We have come to trust Jevity so much. We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others. [01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:47.520] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:18:47.520 --> 01:18:51.520] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:18:51.520 --> 01:19:10.520] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now. [01:19:22.520 --> 01:19:28.520] As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life and realize there's nothing left. [01:19:28.520 --> 01:19:34.520] Because I've been practicing and laughing so long that even my mama thinks that my mind is gone. [01:19:34.520 --> 01:19:40.520] But I ain't never cross a man that just deserves it. Maybe treat it like a pump, you know that's unheard of. [01:19:40.520 --> 01:19:43.520] You better watch how you're talking and where you're walking. [01:19:43.520 --> 01:19:53.520] Alright folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio, calling number 512-646-1984. We are currently talking with John in New York. [01:19:53.520 --> 01:20:00.520] Alright John, first and foremost, medical experimentation on human beings is a violation of the Nuremberg Code. [01:20:00.520 --> 01:20:05.520] Plain and simple. To wish the United States is a party by the way. [01:20:05.520 --> 01:20:13.520] The other problem is that the federal government has absolutely no legal authority of any kind to mandate vaccinations on anyone. [01:20:13.520 --> 01:20:21.520] Not even federal employees. Period. It's not a power they were given in the story. [01:20:21.520 --> 01:20:39.520] Okay. If any federal agency is attempting to coerce an injection of an unapproved vaccine or any other thing on the face of the planet and withholding federal benefits that they have a duty under law to pay out. [01:20:39.520 --> 01:20:45.520] With no legal authority to withhold, they are committing a crime. [01:20:45.520 --> 01:21:03.520] Multiple crimes in fact. If you can show that the people above them are responsible and knew of it and instigated it, they can be sued right along with them all the way up to Joe Biden if he's the one responsible for ultimately making this work the way it's working. [01:21:03.520 --> 01:21:05.520] Okay. [01:21:05.520 --> 01:21:06.520] Alright. [01:21:06.520 --> 01:21:15.520] So what laws? You have to look. There's a multitude of laws starting with the Nuremberg Code and a whole bunch of others. Okay. [01:21:15.520 --> 01:21:21.520] And the Geneva Convention. Yep. Yep. And the Geneva Convention. Right. [01:21:21.520 --> 01:21:30.520] So, well, there's a whole bunch of federal law on that too. Even the federal law specifically says they cannot mandate a vaccine that's not approved. Can't do it. [01:21:30.520 --> 01:21:50.520] They can authorize emergency use, but they cannot make it mandatory. They have to make it optional. Thus, they cannot do an end run around that prohibition by telling a state employer that they'll withhold funding or find them or any other thing that compels them to force you to do something. [01:21:50.520 --> 01:21:55.520] The federal government has no power to do directly. [01:21:55.520 --> 01:22:04.520] Okay. So the employer threatens to can you because you don't have a COVID shot. [01:22:04.520 --> 01:22:13.520] Now, what? And the government comes along and says, well, we're not going to give you your social security benefit. We're not going to give you Medicaid. [01:22:13.520 --> 01:22:24.520] I just answered that. Why are you asking me again? I just told you the state, what the employer does is irrelevant to what the federal agencies are doing. They're not tied together. [01:22:24.520 --> 01:22:33.520] I understand that. The federal agency is doing what it's doing without any law to back it up. Therefore, what they're doing is illegal. [01:22:33.520 --> 01:22:43.520] There's no other discussion to be had on that point. What the employer is doing is based upon state law, unless it's a federal employer. [01:22:43.520 --> 01:23:00.520] I presented those because those are very real scenarios that can happen in real life. Next. Now, if the FDA has approved a vaccine for COVID, how does that change things? [01:23:00.520 --> 01:23:12.520] The federal government still cannot compel anyone to take it. There's absolutely no such power given to the federal government at all. [01:23:12.520 --> 01:23:19.520] Okay. And how about the employer? The employer can't do it either. [01:23:19.520 --> 01:23:27.520] Okay, got it. Now, what would be the first thing you would do? Obviously, begin a lawsuit. [01:23:27.520 --> 01:23:39.520] What's your standing in ground for a lawsuit? At least as far as the employer is concerned. Especially when you work in an at-will state. [01:23:39.520 --> 01:23:43.520] You know what? An at-will state. [01:23:43.520 --> 01:23:47.520] Well, you can be fired for no reason at all in New York. [01:23:47.520 --> 01:23:50.520] Well, exactly. That's an at-will state. [01:23:50.520 --> 01:23:58.520] Oh, okay. That's what I thought you meant. I've never referred to it as that. But we live in a state where you can be fired for no reason at all. [01:23:58.520 --> 01:24:01.520] Exactly. [01:24:01.520 --> 01:24:06.520] So, I wouldn't have any recourse to an employer. Is that what you're saying? [01:24:06.520 --> 01:24:13.520] No, that's not what I said. I asked you to tell me what your standing and claim would be. [01:24:13.520 --> 01:24:26.520] Well, obviously, the federal government has no authority to force a person to take a vaccine neither does an employer. [01:24:26.520 --> 01:24:30.520] That still doesn't answer my question. [01:24:30.520 --> 01:24:37.520] Well, you're trying to make a logical argument without stating an answer to my question. [01:24:37.520 --> 01:24:47.520] Your employer doesn't own your body any more than the federal government does. The employer can't mandate what you put in your body any more than the federal government can. [01:24:47.520 --> 01:24:51.520] But what is your claim and how do you make it? [01:24:51.520 --> 01:24:57.520] Okay. You're going to have to answer that because I don't know the answer. [01:24:57.520 --> 01:25:00.520] Well, then, how are you going to use it? [01:25:00.520 --> 01:25:06.520] Well, that's why I'm calling you. [01:25:06.520 --> 01:25:11.520] What kind of rights violation is it? [01:25:11.520 --> 01:25:15.520] What kind of rights violation? [01:25:15.520 --> 01:25:19.520] I don't know how to term it. I don't know how to identify it. [01:25:19.520 --> 01:25:23.520] It's discrimination. [01:25:23.520 --> 01:25:30.520] Oh, okay. All right. So you're going to sue based on discrimination. [01:25:30.520 --> 01:25:32.520] Exactly. [01:25:32.520 --> 01:25:38.520] Oh, okay. See, I didn't know that. [01:25:38.520 --> 01:25:40.520] All right. [01:25:40.520 --> 01:25:48.520] Is the employer discriminated against you because you will not take an experimental drug? [01:25:48.520 --> 01:25:54.520] And they're hiring people who will and replacing you with those people. Are they discriminating? [01:25:54.520 --> 01:25:59.520] Oh, that is discrimination. That's right. Okay. [01:25:59.520 --> 01:26:07.520] Any other legal standing that a person would have besides discrimination? Or is that the only one? [01:26:07.520 --> 01:26:13.520] Well, I haven't gone through it in depth to see. I don't have to work for anybody stupid enough to try to make me take it. [01:26:13.520 --> 01:26:16.520] So I haven't sent down and put a whole lot of thought into it. [01:26:16.520 --> 01:26:20.520] Okay. But you've got that one, at least one. [01:26:20.520 --> 01:26:23.520] Well, that one pops out automatically. [01:26:23.520 --> 01:26:25.520] Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. [01:26:25.520 --> 01:26:37.520] You're telling me I can't or that I have to do something and if I don't do it, then you will replace me with someone who will when what you're telling me to do is a violation of my personal integrity to begin with. [01:26:37.520 --> 01:26:39.520] That's discrimination. [01:26:39.520 --> 01:26:42.520] Okay, got it. Got it. Okay. [01:26:42.520 --> 01:26:47.520] That's all I needed to know. [01:26:47.520 --> 01:26:50.520] Okay. All righty. Yep. [01:26:50.520 --> 01:26:52.520] All right. Well, thanks for calling me. [01:26:52.520 --> 01:26:53.520] Thank you. [01:26:53.520 --> 01:27:03.520] Yes, sir. All right. Now we have Ted in Washington. Ted, what do you got? [01:27:03.520 --> 01:27:09.520] Hello, Ted. [01:27:09.520 --> 01:27:13.520] Hello, Ted. [01:27:13.520 --> 01:27:15.520] Oh, Eddie, can you hear me? [01:27:15.520 --> 01:27:18.520] Yeah, I can hear you and everything else is going on right now. What's up? [01:27:18.520 --> 01:27:23.520] I am so sorry. I thought I was coming in on the listen line. I have two of your phone numbers. [01:27:23.520 --> 01:27:30.520] Yeah, we don't have a separate listen line. We've only got the talk line. [01:27:30.520 --> 01:27:36.520] Somehow I have a different number. I'm so sorry. I called another wrong line. Sorry about that. There's no issue tonight. [01:27:36.520 --> 01:27:46.520] Okay. All right. All right. That said, this is Oregon. I have to guess this is Truth Raider. Raider, is that you? [01:27:46.520 --> 01:27:50.520] No, you're back 1,000. [01:27:50.520 --> 01:27:54.520] Okay. Can you tell me what happened? [01:27:54.520 --> 01:27:55.520] What happened? [01:27:55.520 --> 01:27:59.520] Should you be a tad bit more specific? [01:27:59.520 --> 01:28:05.520] Well, did you send me anything? Notify me of the class on Thursday? [01:28:05.520 --> 01:28:12.520] I posted on Facebook that I was not having a class Thursday because of something I was stuck in the middle of and couldn't get out of. [01:28:12.520 --> 01:28:13.520] Okay. [01:28:13.520 --> 01:28:17.520] I did not have time to send out an email. [01:28:17.520 --> 01:28:22.520] Okay. So I'm not through the question mark. [01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:25.520] And? [01:28:25.520 --> 01:28:32.520] And are you aware that your rule of law radio address blocks everybody's email? [01:28:32.520 --> 01:28:36.520] Well, I'm not aware of that because I get a ton of email. [01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:42.520] Right. So what's going on right now? It's indicating, and I have three other people do it besides me. [01:28:42.520 --> 01:28:49.520] Send an email to eddiebye.ruleoflawradio.com. [01:28:49.520 --> 01:28:50.520] And? [01:28:50.520 --> 01:28:54.520] And it's down to your email was blocked by the sender. [01:28:54.520 --> 01:29:00.520] Well, I don't know why that would be. I'm getting emails to that address. [01:29:00.520 --> 01:29:05.520] I'm not. I don't run the address that that's attached to. That's a network address. [01:29:05.520 --> 01:29:12.520] If there's a problem with email bouncing back, that's a question that's got to be sent to Deborah because I won't see it to have any notice of it. [01:29:12.520 --> 01:29:18.520] If it's bouncing back from that address because that goes through her server, not me. [01:29:18.520 --> 01:29:22.520] So I emailed Deborah and she didn't respond either. [01:29:22.520 --> 01:29:25.520] Well, did her address bounce back? [01:29:25.520 --> 01:29:26.520] Nope. [01:29:26.520 --> 01:29:30.520] Well, then I don't know if she's had time to look at her email anymore than I have lately. [01:29:30.520 --> 01:29:38.520] But as far as I know, any email being sent to me is getting to me, and you're the first person to say it's not. [01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:49.520] Yeah. Well, the other people I've called don't have any, you know, they don't love your show or anything, but they just emailed it and it indicated it was bounced back and the email was blocked. [01:29:49.520 --> 01:29:53.520] All right. Well, I'll check into it and see if I can figure out why, but I don't have any notice of it. [01:29:53.520 --> 01:29:56.520] Hang on. Let me get this break out of the way. [01:30:23.520 --> 01:30:49.520] Forms, forms, forms, they're everywhere. But just because a piece of paper asks for information doesn't mean you have to give it. [01:30:49.520 --> 01:30:56.520] I usually blank spaces on forms all the time, or I write N slash A for not applicable, and usually nobody notices or cares. [01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:03.520] I never give my social security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government requirement, [01:31:03.520 --> 01:31:09.520] and I won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless I actually want them to call me, and that's pretty rare. [01:31:09.520 --> 01:31:14.520] To preserve our vanishing privacy, we need to practice saying no to random data requests. [01:31:14.520 --> 01:31:18.520] It's like exercising a muscle. It gets easier the more you do it. [01:31:18.520 --> 01:31:23.520] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31:48.520 --> 01:31:53.520] 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story. [01:31:53.520 --> 01:31:56.520] Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. [01:31:56.520 --> 01:31:58.520] Go to buildingwhat.org. [01:31:58.520 --> 01:32:19.520] Why it's self, why it matters, and what you can do. [01:32:28.520 --> 01:32:34.520] Working with Rule of Law Radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is [01:32:34.520 --> 01:32:36.520] and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [01:32:36.520 --> 01:32:41.520] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [01:32:41.520 --> 01:32:46.520] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law vs. The Lie, [01:32:46.520 --> 01:32:51.520] video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. [01:32:51.520 --> 01:32:55.520] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:32:55.520 --> 01:33:04.520] Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:04.520 --> 01:33:33.520] You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com. [01:33:34.520 --> 01:33:44.520] Hi folks, we are back. This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:33:44.520 --> 01:33:49.520] The calling number is 512-646-1984. [01:33:49.520 --> 01:33:52.520] If you want to call and talk about something, please get in line and let's do so. [01:33:52.520 --> 01:33:56.520] Alright, that said, Raider, what else you got? [01:33:56.520 --> 01:34:00.520] Are you good with my payment? You received that and we're good? [01:34:00.520 --> 01:34:04.520] I don't know, Raider. I haven't got to look at any of that stuff. [01:34:04.520 --> 01:34:08.520] I was not able to do the class last Thursday and I did post a notice about it. [01:34:08.520 --> 01:34:11.520] I just was not able to send out a group email. I didn't have time. [01:34:11.520 --> 01:34:13.520] No, I did not. [01:34:13.520 --> 01:34:15.520] Okay, well... [01:34:15.520 --> 01:34:22.520] But the classes on the next two weeks are going to be extended by one hour to make up for the time. [01:34:22.520 --> 01:34:32.520] Okay. Now, I did pull up the emails that you had previously and I wasn't made aware of this, [01:34:32.520 --> 01:34:36.520] but apparently you created another address called dowelbloggmail.com. [01:34:36.520 --> 01:34:40.520] So I'm noticing that now and researching this. [01:34:40.520 --> 01:34:45.520] I've had that address for quite a while. I've had it ever since I've had the legal blog. [01:34:45.520 --> 01:34:48.520] Okay, I was never made aware of that. [01:34:48.520 --> 01:34:52.520] Well, it was not a public consumption address. [01:34:52.520 --> 01:34:57.520] I only started using it to do the notices for the classes. [01:34:57.520 --> 01:35:01.520] Okay, well, after my struggle... [01:35:01.520 --> 01:35:05.520] And I wish you would stop saying it on the damn air. Thank you very much. [01:35:05.520 --> 01:35:07.520] What's that? [01:35:07.520 --> 01:35:10.520] And I wish you would stop saying it on air. Thank you very much. [01:35:10.520 --> 01:35:13.520] Oh, you don't want that address out there? [01:35:13.520 --> 01:35:19.520] What did you just say? Every spam marketer in the world that downloads this podcast and everything [01:35:19.520 --> 01:35:22.520] looking for email addresses to troll will not have it. [01:35:22.520 --> 01:35:25.520] It ain't just people that listen to this show that hear this stuff. [01:35:25.520 --> 01:35:29.520] All right, well, I didn't spell it. [01:35:29.520 --> 01:35:31.520] I didn't spell it out. [01:35:31.520 --> 01:35:34.520] Anyway, anything else? [01:35:34.520 --> 01:35:38.520] Yeah, you're going to send me an email Thursday. We're going to be good. [01:35:38.520 --> 01:35:43.520] If I got notice of your payment, which I will know when I have time to check the email, [01:35:43.520 --> 01:35:49.520] then notices will go out on Thursday to all the people that's paid just like regular. [01:35:49.520 --> 01:35:50.520] All right. [01:35:50.520 --> 01:35:55.520] Are you feeling lonely, depressed, and I left out Nicole some reason this week or what? [01:35:55.520 --> 01:36:00.520] Yes, absolutely. I couldn't reach you. [01:36:00.520 --> 01:36:02.520] Well, get a dog. [01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:08.520] So that's the paper class and I'm left in the dark and you put on Facebook. [01:36:08.520 --> 01:36:10.520] I don't use Facebook. [01:36:10.520 --> 01:36:13.520] Well, I don't know that. [01:36:13.520 --> 01:36:17.520] No, I told you before and I won't use Facebook. [01:36:17.520 --> 01:36:21.520] Well, we have no control over that. [01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:22.520] That's their platform. [01:36:22.520 --> 01:36:25.520] They could do anything they want with that platform. [01:36:25.520 --> 01:36:26.520] It isn't ours. [01:36:26.520 --> 01:36:28.520] It doesn't belong to us. [01:36:28.520 --> 01:36:33.520] And the point of that is what? We're fully aware of that aspect of it. [01:36:33.520 --> 01:36:35.520] But what is your point? [01:36:35.520 --> 01:36:40.520] Out of that Facebook, they can use that information for anything what there's a million. [01:36:40.520 --> 01:36:44.520] Well, who said you had to give them every dad blame thing they're asking for information-wise [01:36:44.520 --> 01:36:47.520] and you can't just make something up? [01:36:47.520 --> 01:36:52.520] No. No. I just don't use it for those purposes. [01:36:52.520 --> 01:36:57.520] Either way, I didn't have time to do an email blast along with a Facebook blast. [01:36:57.520 --> 01:37:00.520] I just didn't have time. [01:37:00.520 --> 01:37:01.520] All right. [01:37:01.520 --> 01:37:02.520] Okay. [01:37:02.520 --> 01:37:06.520] Let me know in the future that there's going to be times that you're going to be off and just... [01:37:06.520 --> 01:37:10.520] Well, hopefully something won't happen in the timeframe it did this time. [01:37:10.520 --> 01:37:18.520] So I'll be able to tell everybody on both ends of the discussion via email and Facebook that we're not having a class. [01:37:18.520 --> 01:37:20.520] All right. [01:37:20.520 --> 01:37:22.520] But I didn't know that. [01:37:22.520 --> 01:37:23.520] I'm just sitting here. [01:37:23.520 --> 01:37:25.520] So I don't know. [01:37:25.520 --> 01:37:29.520] Well, what? Did you think Austin ended or something? [01:37:29.520 --> 01:37:32.520] If I'm not there, then there's a reason for it. [01:37:32.520 --> 01:37:36.520] That much you can count on. [01:37:36.520 --> 01:37:41.520] Anything that I have to sit down and explain later, I will. [01:37:41.520 --> 01:37:45.520] But up until that point, nothing's changed. [01:37:45.520 --> 01:37:52.520] We just didn't have a class last Thursday because of something that came up. [01:37:52.520 --> 01:37:56.520] And you got to figure out what's going on with your rule of law radio address. [01:37:56.520 --> 01:38:02.520] Well, like I said, that's not under my control, but I will get everybody to look and see what's going on with it. [01:38:02.520 --> 01:38:03.520] Appreciate it. [01:38:03.520 --> 01:38:05.520] Okay. [01:38:05.520 --> 01:38:07.520] I'll see you Thursday night then. [01:38:07.520 --> 01:38:08.520] Okay. [01:38:08.520 --> 01:38:09.520] All right. [01:38:09.520 --> 01:38:10.520] Bye. [01:38:10.520 --> 01:38:11.520] Talk to you later. [01:38:11.520 --> 01:38:12.520] Bye. [01:38:12.520 --> 01:38:13.520] Bye. [01:38:13.520 --> 01:38:15.520] All right. [01:38:15.520 --> 01:38:17.520] So I don't have any other callers up on the board. [01:38:17.520 --> 01:38:21.520] 512-646-1984. [01:38:21.520 --> 01:38:26.520] Now, back to what I was talking about at the beginning of the show that we're working on here. [01:38:26.520 --> 01:38:39.520] Since we have all of these constitutional and statutory violations that the cops, the prosecutors, and the courts are all engaged in together, [01:38:39.520 --> 01:38:44.520] we have an issue of organized criminal activity and criminal conspiracy in the state of Texas. [01:38:44.520 --> 01:38:48.520] We also have a situation that borders on RICO. [01:38:48.520 --> 01:38:49.520] Okay. [01:38:49.520 --> 01:39:01.520] The people of Texas are being deprived of their right of due process and the courts complete and total application of law. [01:39:01.520 --> 01:39:10.520] See, part of due process is that the law will be properly applied and followed according to the way it is written. [01:39:10.520 --> 01:39:12.520] And that isn't happening. [01:39:12.520 --> 01:39:20.520] And because it isn't happening, specific due process steps are being skipped over. [01:39:20.520 --> 01:39:28.520] And because they're being skipped over, the trial courts are never properly obtaining jurisdiction, [01:39:28.520 --> 01:39:34.520] yet they are proceeding to prosecute cases as if they have. [01:39:34.520 --> 01:39:38.520] Ladies and gentlemen, this is illegal. [01:39:38.520 --> 01:39:46.520] A court operating without legal jurisdiction is a null and void court. [01:39:46.520 --> 01:39:49.520] Everything it does is a nullity. [01:39:49.520 --> 01:39:54.520] Everything it does is illegal. [01:39:54.520 --> 01:40:02.520] And for the last several decades, that is all we have had in the state of Texas. [01:40:02.520 --> 01:40:10.520] Right now, there is not a single conviction for at least 30 years, at least 30 years, [01:40:10.520 --> 01:40:16.520] that you can show was validly done in the state of Texas, not one. [01:40:16.520 --> 01:40:18.520] Why? [01:40:18.520 --> 01:40:24.520] Because there has been no examining trials held in the state of Texas in at least 30 years. [01:40:24.520 --> 01:40:26.520] And at least 30 years. [01:40:26.520 --> 01:40:33.520] And what we're mapping out is the statutes that show and the constitutional provisions that show [01:40:33.520 --> 01:40:36.520] that that is absolutely required. [01:40:36.520 --> 01:40:41.520] Now, this goes back to something I was talking about a week before last when I said that Randy, [01:40:41.520 --> 01:40:46.520] well, unbeknownst to him, it seems, actually took something we had argued over before [01:40:46.520 --> 01:40:53.520] where I was arguing exactly this same point and he kept arguing that the grand jury could find probable cause [01:40:53.520 --> 01:40:59.520] and the indictment established probable cause and the examining trial was no longer necessary. [01:40:59.520 --> 01:41:06.520] The point I was trying to make to him at the time is, Randy, that may be how it was set up to work [01:41:06.520 --> 01:41:14.520] by the founders as far as process goes, but the way it is written into law in the state of Texas, [01:41:14.520 --> 01:41:16.520] that is not how it works. [01:41:16.520 --> 01:41:22.520] The grand jury cannot find probable cause in the state of Texas. [01:41:22.520 --> 01:41:29.520] They can't because the laws of procedure do not allow it. [01:41:29.520 --> 01:41:36.520] An examining trial is the second step in the process in every single case. [01:41:36.520 --> 01:41:43.520] The first is a sworn, not unsworn, a sworn complaint. [01:41:43.520 --> 01:41:49.520] Not a verified complaint because a verified complaint is an unsworn complaint. [01:41:49.520 --> 01:41:54.520] They still have to have underpity of perjury on it, but they don't. [01:41:54.520 --> 01:41:57.520] Therefore, they're invalid on their face. [01:41:57.520 --> 01:42:04.520] Even though the requirement for the jurorate is not written specifically into 15-point whatever [01:42:04.520 --> 01:42:14.520] and 18-point 45.018b of the Code of Criminal Procedure on what constitutes a valid complaint, [01:42:14.520 --> 01:42:20.520] those requisites are not listed there, but they are listed in other parts of the Code [01:42:20.520 --> 01:42:23.520] of Criminal Procedure in the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, [01:42:23.520 --> 01:42:30.520] that these things must be sworn before an officer authorized to administer oaths. [01:42:30.520 --> 01:42:37.520] Therefore, it must have their signature, an affirmation that they administered the required oath [01:42:37.520 --> 01:42:42.520] and that that oath comprised of that they were signing this document under penalty of perjury [01:42:42.520 --> 01:42:49.520] and it must be so stated on the face of the document and it's not there. [01:42:49.520 --> 01:42:56.520] So we have a direct conflict with provisions that say in the Constitution that this is what it is [01:42:56.520 --> 01:43:04.520] that gives the court jurisdiction and all other things about use and content are by law. [01:43:04.520 --> 01:43:06.520] Well, here's the argument. [01:43:06.520 --> 01:43:12.520] If the Constitution says something must be sworn, then that is a requirement [01:43:12.520 --> 01:43:18.520] that it contain a proper jurorate and a proper statement of oath and a proper set of signatures, [01:43:18.520 --> 01:43:24.520] regardless of any other provision that follows that statement within the Constitution, [01:43:24.520 --> 01:43:32.520] such as all things relating to the form and content and use of indictments, [01:43:32.520 --> 01:43:37.520] information and complaints are established by the Legislature by law. [01:43:37.520 --> 01:43:46.520] The Legislature cannot ignore the constitutional requirement of sworn in lieu of what it writes by law [01:43:46.520 --> 01:43:51.520] because that's nullifying the constitutional requirement of a sworn declaration. [01:43:51.520 --> 01:43:54.520] You see the problem here? [01:43:54.520 --> 01:43:58.520] So the law itself is in conflict with the Constitution and what it requires. [01:43:58.520 --> 01:43:59.520] All right, folks, we'll be right. [01:43:59.520 --> 01:44:04.520] I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. [01:44:04.520 --> 01:44:08.520] I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. [01:44:08.520 --> 01:44:12.520] I'd be lost without logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [01:44:12.520 --> 01:44:15.520] I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite [01:44:15.520 --> 01:44:19.520] and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. [01:44:19.520 --> 01:44:21.520] How can I help logos? [01:44:21.520 --> 01:44:23.520] Well, I'm glad you asked. [01:44:23.520 --> 01:44:26.520] Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos. [01:44:26.520 --> 01:44:29.520] We're ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. [01:44:29.520 --> 01:44:31.520] First thing you do is clear your cookies. [01:44:31.520 --> 01:44:34.520] Now, go to LogosRegularNetwork.com. [01:44:34.520 --> 01:44:37.520] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [01:44:37.520 --> 01:44:43.520] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. [01:44:43.520 --> 01:44:44.520] Do I pay extra? [01:44:44.520 --> 01:44:45.520] No. [01:44:45.520 --> 01:44:47.520] Do you have to do anything different when I order? [01:44:47.520 --> 01:44:48.520] No. [01:44:48.520 --> 01:44:49.520] Can I use my Amazon Prime? [01:44:49.520 --> 01:44:50.520] No. [01:44:50.520 --> 01:44:51.520] I mean, yes. [01:44:51.520 --> 01:44:55.520] Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect. [01:44:55.520 --> 01:44:56.520] Thank you so much. [01:44:56.520 --> 01:44:58.520] We are welcome. [01:44:58.520 --> 01:45:27.520] Thank you. [01:45:28.520 --> 01:45:54.520] Thank you. [01:45:54.520 --> 01:46:20.520] Thank you. [01:46:20.520 --> 01:46:40.520] All right, folks, we are back. [01:46:40.520 --> 01:46:42.520] This is Rule of Law Radio. [01:46:42.520 --> 01:46:45.520] We are now in the last segment of the show. [01:46:45.520 --> 01:46:48.520] If anybody wants to call, this is the last chance you got. [01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:50.520] 512-646-1984. [01:46:50.520 --> 01:46:52.520] All right. [01:46:52.520 --> 01:47:00.520] Now, that said, what Rader was talking about a moment ago is we are doing online classes [01:47:00.520 --> 01:47:03.520] right now, the Tav Law Online classes. [01:47:03.520 --> 01:47:10.520] If you are on Facebook, you can follow along for the notices and all that there, or you [01:47:10.520 --> 01:47:18.520] can go to either the ruleoflawradio.com or logosradionetwork.com websites and subscribe [01:47:18.520 --> 01:47:21.520] to the classes down toward the bottom of the page. [01:47:21.520 --> 01:47:25.520] There will be a drop down down there that will let you select the subscription option [01:47:25.520 --> 01:47:29.520] monthly, bi-yearly, and yearly. [01:47:29.520 --> 01:47:30.520] Okay? [01:47:30.520 --> 01:47:37.520] So you get a discount of 10% for the bi-yearly and 15% for the yearly off of the regular [01:47:37.520 --> 01:47:40.520] $80 a month for the monthly subscription. [01:47:40.520 --> 01:47:47.520] Now, that entitles you to a class every Thursday night that is two hours long, and any time [01:47:47.520 --> 01:47:52.520] we have to make any adjustments to that time wise, the time is reallocated across the remaining [01:47:52.520 --> 01:47:56.520] classes, et cetera, et cetera, so that you are never losing out on anything. [01:47:56.520 --> 01:48:02.520] Some months you will have more than four classes in a single month, but I don't think [01:48:02.520 --> 01:48:05.520] there is a single month where you will have less than four. [01:48:05.520 --> 01:48:12.520] You may have five on occasion due to the number of days in the month and when it starts, but [01:48:12.520 --> 01:48:16.520] you will never have less than four, I don't think. [01:48:16.520 --> 01:48:20.520] And if we do have to skip a class, then we try to make it up on the following classes [01:48:20.520 --> 01:48:23.520] for the rest of that month, okay? [01:48:23.520 --> 01:48:28.520] So I do my best to make sure that you're never without what you paid for and that you get [01:48:28.520 --> 01:48:34.520] your money's worth every time that we have a class, that we also record them, we do them [01:48:34.520 --> 01:48:41.520] over Zoom, so you are able to download the recordings for the months that you paid for [01:48:41.520 --> 01:48:45.520] and you can always go back and watch those to see whatever you've missed or need a reminder [01:48:45.520 --> 01:48:47.520] about and go from there. [01:48:47.520 --> 01:48:50.520] Each class builds upon the next. [01:48:50.520 --> 01:48:54.520] I don't backtrack like I had to do in the downtown class when I had more new people [01:48:54.520 --> 01:48:56.520] than I had regulars. [01:48:56.520 --> 01:48:59.520] I would have to backtrack so they wouldn't be completely lost. [01:48:59.520 --> 01:49:05.520] In this particular case, we're breaking particular things up into different subjects and different [01:49:05.520 --> 01:49:10.520] areas of study and we will go through those areas of study sequentially. [01:49:10.520 --> 01:49:15.520] We will not be backing up, we will not be stopping and changing things and if you want to learn [01:49:15.520 --> 01:49:22.520] that, then you'll have to get a subscription and get the prior videos and catch up, okay? [01:49:22.520 --> 01:49:25.520] So that's what Raider was asking about. [01:49:25.520 --> 01:49:29.520] All right, next up, it appears we have Larry and Arizona back on now. [01:49:29.520 --> 01:49:33.520] All right, Larry, did you get your phone problem fixed? [01:49:33.520 --> 01:49:35.520] It's better than it was last time. [01:49:35.520 --> 01:49:36.520] Okay. [01:49:36.520 --> 01:49:38.520] It's not real well. [01:49:38.520 --> 01:49:42.520] What I was curious about, I was just looking on the archives and Deborah hasn't upgraded [01:49:42.520 --> 01:49:43.520] them for a while. [01:49:43.520 --> 01:49:50.520] Is there any way that I can get an archive of my segment with you tonight? [01:49:50.520 --> 01:49:55.520] Well, the thing is, I have no way of recording these while I'm doing them. [01:49:55.520 --> 01:49:59.520] Everything is going, if I did, I could only record what I'm saying. [01:49:59.520 --> 01:50:01.520] I couldn't record both sides of the conversation. [01:50:01.520 --> 01:50:06.520] Everything goes through Deborah's network as recorded by her software that runs on her [01:50:06.520 --> 01:50:09.520] machines, so I've got no direct access to any of it. [01:50:09.520 --> 01:50:14.520] The only way you can get an archive of it is to send her an email asking her. [01:50:14.520 --> 01:50:20.520] She'd be willing to send you a copy of it as quickly as possible and see what happens. [01:50:20.520 --> 01:50:25.520] I don't have any control over any of that part of it. [01:50:25.520 --> 01:50:26.520] Okay. [01:50:26.520 --> 01:50:27.520] Yeah, interesting thing. [01:50:27.520 --> 01:50:34.520] I don't know about this VOIP telephone stuff, but the phone's starting to do the same thing [01:50:34.520 --> 01:50:35.520] right now. [01:50:35.520 --> 01:50:37.520] Yeah, it's voice over IP. [01:50:37.520 --> 01:50:42.520] If you've got something running on your network that's causing heavy traffic, it will definitely [01:50:42.520 --> 01:50:45.520] interfere with your voice over IP. [01:50:45.520 --> 01:50:47.520] Yeah, it's not on my end. [01:50:47.520 --> 01:50:50.520] It's on your end, Deborah's end. [01:50:50.520 --> 01:50:56.520] Well, I mean, that's possible as well because her phone system, I don't know what else is [01:50:56.520 --> 01:50:59.520] going on on it right now. [01:50:59.520 --> 01:51:00.520] Okay, I'll let you go. [01:51:00.520 --> 01:51:04.520] I just wanted to check on that because, like I said, I couldn't hear a lot of this. [01:51:04.520 --> 01:51:05.520] Okay. [01:51:05.520 --> 01:51:09.520] Yeah, you can email her and ask Larry, but I can't speak for her about what she's willing [01:51:09.520 --> 01:51:12.520] to do or what she's able to do. [01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:13.520] Okay. [01:51:13.520 --> 01:51:14.520] Okay. [01:51:14.520 --> 01:51:15.520] Have a good evening. [01:51:15.520 --> 01:51:16.520] Yes, sir. [01:51:16.520 --> 01:51:17.520] You too. [01:51:17.520 --> 01:51:18.520] Thanks for calling. [01:51:18.520 --> 01:51:19.520] Bye. [01:51:19.520 --> 01:51:21.520] All right. [01:51:21.520 --> 01:51:26.520] Now, also, again, back to this other part of the subject. [01:51:26.520 --> 01:51:31.520] When I get this map done, which is probably going to take me the rest of this week to [01:51:31.520 --> 01:51:33.520] finish because it's pretty big in size. [01:51:33.520 --> 01:51:40.520] And I have to go through it and basically argue over what the exact steps of the process are [01:51:40.520 --> 01:51:47.520] as it's written by the statutes and the Constitution so that we get everything in the right order. [01:51:47.520 --> 01:51:56.520] By having this picture of how things are connected, we can then show where the courts are not [01:51:56.520 --> 01:51:57.520] complying. [01:51:57.520 --> 01:51:59.520] It becomes a whole lot easier. [01:51:59.520 --> 01:52:05.520] The problem is, is we've got several provisions of both the rules of procedure and the Constitution [01:52:05.520 --> 01:52:08.520] that happen to be in conflict with each other. [01:52:08.520 --> 01:52:16.520] We've also got issues where it uses terms in the procedures like court having jurisdiction [01:52:16.520 --> 01:52:18.520] or court of jurisdiction. [01:52:18.520 --> 01:52:24.520] And that basically means a different court under a different set of circumstances. [01:52:24.520 --> 01:52:29.520] In some cases, it's talking about the examining trial court. [01:52:29.520 --> 01:52:33.520] In some cases, it's talking about the court having jurisdiction for trial, which is who [01:52:33.520 --> 01:52:37.520] gets the records from the examining court. [01:52:37.520 --> 01:52:43.520] So that sequential set of steps is extremely important. [01:52:43.520 --> 01:52:49.520] Fortunately, it looks like the only time they get to skip the examining trial, according [01:52:49.520 --> 01:52:56.520] to the statutes, and go directly to the court having jurisdiction for the purpose of trial [01:52:56.520 --> 01:53:03.520] is when it's a prosecuting attorney accusing a public official of violating his oath of [01:53:03.520 --> 01:53:11.520] office, acting in violation of state law, or in some other way basically doing something [01:53:11.520 --> 01:53:13.520] he's not supposed to do. [01:53:13.520 --> 01:53:18.520] 2.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is what controls that and says how it's supposed [01:53:18.520 --> 01:53:19.520] to do. [01:53:19.520 --> 01:53:25.520] And the way that it says it, the prosecuting attorney, in one instance, if he's doing it [01:53:25.520 --> 01:53:32.520] with an information, is required to send it to the court having jurisdiction, and if he [01:53:32.520 --> 01:53:37.520] cannot do an information, then he has to send it to the grand jury. [01:53:37.520 --> 01:53:42.520] In those two instances, it's not going through an examining court. [01:53:42.520 --> 01:53:46.520] And that's one of the things that I've told Randy he needs to take a deeper look at, [01:53:46.520 --> 01:53:50.520] because his premise was that they always are directed to send it to a magistrate. [01:53:50.520 --> 01:53:54.520] That does not appear to be exactly true. [01:53:54.520 --> 01:54:01.520] When a police officer does it, or when someone like a peace officer or a citizen is making [01:54:01.520 --> 01:54:08.520] a complaint about criminal conduct not related to a public official to a county or district [01:54:08.520 --> 01:54:15.520] attorney, then the court having jurisdiction is the examining court, i.e., some magistrate. [01:54:15.520 --> 01:54:22.520] But when the person is aware of criminal conduct or a violation of their oath of office or breach [01:54:22.520 --> 01:54:30.520] of duty under the law by a public official, then they are directed to, if they can file [01:54:30.520 --> 01:54:37.520] it with an information, to the court having jurisdiction for the case at trial, or if [01:54:37.520 --> 01:54:41.520] they're doing it without an information by sending it up to the grand jury. [01:54:41.520 --> 01:54:49.520] The problem there is that makes 2.03 in direct conflict with both the state constitution and [01:54:49.520 --> 01:54:52.520] Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:54:52.520 --> 01:54:57.520] So, as you can see, we've got our work cut out for us because they have gone through [01:54:57.520 --> 01:55:04.520] and piecemeal changed so many parts of these individual rules of procedure that they now [01:55:04.520 --> 01:55:07.520] have reconcilable conflicts. [01:55:07.520 --> 01:55:16.520] There's no way to resolve and harmonize 2.03 with the Texas Constitution under Article [01:55:16.520 --> 01:55:25.520] 5, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 17 and Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:34.520] There's no way, cannot be done, nor can it harmonize with Chapter 16, which is the process [01:55:34.520 --> 01:55:37.520] and procedure for an examining trial. [01:55:37.520 --> 01:55:42.520] So, there we have a problem, and we've got to figure out how to overcome it or how to [01:55:42.520 --> 01:55:48.520] argue it to show you people have screwed up this mess up beyond all recognition. [01:55:48.520 --> 01:55:53.520] This is why attorneys should not be in the legislature. [01:55:53.520 --> 01:55:59.520] This is why legislators should not be allowed to write law the way they're doing it, [01:55:59.520 --> 01:56:06.520] especially without reading it and before they get it signed and enacted. [01:56:06.520 --> 01:56:12.520] Most of the laws that they have enacted were enacted using an invalid emergency clause that [01:56:12.520 --> 01:56:20.520] itself is in direct violation of the Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 62. [01:56:20.520 --> 01:56:24.520] They are not, they are suspending the rules of procedure for the enactment of laws under [01:56:24.520 --> 01:56:31.520] Article 3, Section 35, and that is screwing with the consistency of the law across the [01:56:31.520 --> 01:56:40.520] board and creating judicial misconduct holes and due process violation holes. [01:56:40.520 --> 01:56:49.520] And that's a problem because the courts, the prosecutors and the cops are engaging in [01:56:49.520 --> 01:57:03.520] criminal conduct by glossing over those things to maintain their 99.6 conviction rate. [01:57:03.520 --> 01:57:09.520] This goes to something that I wrote in a document I was working on for the class, [01:57:09.520 --> 01:57:15.520] which basically goes like this, this criminal conspiracy by these individual agencies has [01:57:15.520 --> 01:57:22.520] relegated due process to a mere potential side effect of the law instead of being its primary [01:57:22.520 --> 01:57:25.520] purpose. [01:57:25.520 --> 01:57:36.520] Due process and justice are a side effect, not the purpose of the law any longer because [01:57:36.520 --> 01:57:39.520] of how they're doing things. [01:57:39.520 --> 01:57:42.520] That is a big, big problem. [01:57:42.520 --> 01:57:46.520] Due process and justice are not supposed to be the side effect. [01:57:46.520 --> 01:57:51.520] They are supposed to be the whole purpose and intent of any law. [01:57:51.520 --> 01:57:57.520] And when it's not, that law should automatically be invalid on its face. [01:57:57.520 --> 01:58:01.520] And ladies and gentlemen, what the courts and the prosecutors and the cops in Texas are [01:58:01.520 --> 01:58:06.520] doing is invalid on its face. [01:58:06.520 --> 01:58:08.520] All right, we are out of time for this evening. [01:58:08.520 --> 01:58:12.520] I want to thank all the callers for calling in. [01:58:12.520 --> 01:58:14.520] I want to thank all the listeners out there as well. [01:58:14.520 --> 01:58:17.520] Please keep supporting the network financially as much and as often as you can. [01:58:17.520 --> 01:58:22.520] And to all the people that are helping me personally by doing that, thank you so much. [01:58:22.520 --> 01:58:25.520] You have kept me going when nothing else has. [01:58:25.520 --> 01:58:27.520] And I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. [01:58:27.520 --> 01:58:29.520] Thank y'all very, very much. [01:58:29.520 --> 01:58:31.520] I want y'all to have a great week. [01:58:31.520 --> 01:58:32.520] Good night. [01:58:32.520 --> 01:58:34.520] God bless. [01:58:34.520 --> 01:58:42.520] If you are a bully, a bully, I beg you to speak. [01:58:42.520 --> 01:58:44.520] I'm like a step in the craze. [01:58:44.520 --> 01:58:46.520] I don't do what's my size. [01:58:46.520 --> 01:58:50.520] I'm dangerous, dangerous. [01:58:50.520 --> 01:58:56.520] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament [01:58:56.520 --> 01:58:57.520] Recovery Version. [01:58:57.520 --> 01:59:02.520] The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible [01:59:02.520 --> 01:59:07.520] says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. [01:59:07.520 --> 01:59:10.520] Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. [01:59:10.520 --> 01:59:19.520] Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. [01:59:19.520 --> 01:59:25.520] This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, [01:59:25.520 --> 01:59:29.520] plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:29.520 --> 01:59:32.520] This is truly a Bible you can understand. [01:59:32.520 --> 01:59:40.520] To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. [01:59:40.520 --> 01:59:59.520] That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.