[00:00.000 --> 00:04.000] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [00:04.000 --> 00:07.500] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [00:07.500 --> 00:09.000] Our liberty depends on it. [00:09.000 --> 00:14.500] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember your First Amendment rights. [00:14.500 --> 00:16.500] Privacy is under attack. [00:16.500 --> 00:20.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [00:20.000 --> 00:25.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [00:25.000 --> 00:30.000] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [00:30.000 --> 00:32.500] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [00:32.500 --> 00:36.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, [00:36.000 --> 00:40.000] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [00:40.000 --> 00:44.000] Start over with StartPage. [00:44.000 --> 00:46.000] Spar. It's what fighters do. [00:46.000 --> 00:49.000] It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment. [00:49.000 --> 00:52.000] If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you. [00:52.000 --> 01:01.000] Spar with an extra P. S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, and R for religion. [01:01.000 --> 01:06.000] Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly, and religion. [01:06.000 --> 01:09.000] But petition for redress is another matter. [01:09.000 --> 01:12.000] We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [01:12.000 --> 01:15.000] It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, [01:15.000 --> 01:19.000] we can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail. [01:19.000 --> 01:30.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:30.000 --> 01:36.000] Pressure. We usually associate it with stress and negativity, but sometimes a bit of pressure can be healing. [01:36.000 --> 01:40.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you how conditions like nausea can be cured [01:40.000 --> 01:44.000] using the traditional Chinese therapy known as acupressure. [01:44.000 --> 01:46.000] Privacy is under attack. [01:46.000 --> 01:49.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:49.000 --> 01:54.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. [01:54.000 --> 01:59.000] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:59.000 --> 02:02.000] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [02:02.000 --> 02:06.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, [02:06.000 --> 02:10.000] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [02:10.000 --> 02:13.000] Start over with StartPage. [02:13.000 --> 02:20.000] Acupressure is an ancient practice that uses finger or hand pressure to cure everything from headaches to constipation. [02:20.000 --> 02:26.000] The pressure is applied to points known as meridians that are believed to control the flow of energy in the human body. [02:26.000 --> 02:33.000] Acupressure offers a simple cure for nausea you might try the next time you get a queasy stomach or a case of motion sickness. [02:33.000 --> 02:36.000] Simply apply moderate pressure to the point known as P6. [02:36.000 --> 02:40.000] You'll find it on the inside of your wrist, about two fingers' width down from your palm. [02:40.000 --> 02:46.000] Placing pressure on the P6 point works on the same principle as those pricey anti-nausea wristbands. [02:46.000 --> 02:49.000] But this relief is free and always on hand. [02:49.000 --> 03:11.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [03:19.000 --> 03:21.000] Dr. Catherine Albrecht. [04:19.000 --> 04:21.000] This is what happens when you call the cops. [04:21.000 --> 04:25.000] You get your rights violated or you all get shot. [04:25.000 --> 04:27.000] Everyone, what's your regimen? [04:27.000 --> 04:29.000] I'm messed up in your system and these pigs are trying to murder me. [04:29.000 --> 04:31.000] They mace me, they daze me, they train them to hate me. [04:31.000 --> 04:34.000] Degrade and detain me and change us like slavery. [04:34.000 --> 04:36.000] Hands up, face down, left hook, right quick. [04:36.000 --> 04:40.000] Hi, folks. Good evening. This is the Monday Night Real Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. [04:40.000 --> 04:44.000] It is June 5th, right? [04:44.000 --> 04:45.000] Yes. [04:45.000 --> 04:49.000] June 5th, 2023. We are live tonight. [04:49.000 --> 04:52.000] I am sorry that I have missed a couple of shows here. [04:52.000 --> 04:59.000] I have got this new computer and stuff and I keep having issues with it with this Windows 11. [04:59.000 --> 05:03.000] I've had to reload this machine six or seven different times now in less than two months [05:03.000 --> 05:08.000] because every time something goes wrong, the video driver or some driver corrupts it [05:08.000 --> 05:11.000] and Windows won't boot back up. So it's just been a pain in the butt. [05:11.000 --> 05:15.000] Hopefully now I've got it up and running stable and it will not reboot [05:15.000 --> 05:19.000] in the middle of what I'm trying to do here tonight and cut me off the show. [05:19.000 --> 05:22.000] But that said, I have Randy Kelton on with me tonight [05:22.000 --> 05:28.000] and we're going to be having a discussion about something I've been working on for the new book [05:28.000 --> 05:34.000] and because of something else Randy's been working on in conjunction with the Speedy Trial issue. [05:34.000 --> 05:44.000] And that is what courts actually have jurisdiction over the Class C fine onlys. [05:44.000 --> 05:50.000] And I'm making the argument that the legislature did not [05:50.000 --> 05:59.000] and actually cannot grant municipal courts jurisdiction of state law offenses. [05:59.000 --> 06:05.000] Okay, not even as an assistance to the justice of the peace courts. [06:05.000 --> 06:09.000] And I'm going to go over all of the individual constitutional clauses [06:09.000 --> 06:15.000] and the clauses of the Code of Criminal Procedure that I've written up so far [06:15.000 --> 06:21.000] as to why I believe that is the case and why they are doing everything wrong [06:21.000 --> 06:32.000] and why a challenge to jurisdiction in a municipal court cannot be ignored by that court. [06:32.000 --> 06:37.000] So that's what I'm going to endeavor to do tonight in this discussion with Randy. [06:37.000 --> 06:42.000] I don't know whether he's going to agree with me when it's all over or not. [06:42.000 --> 06:48.000] But we did talk about Chapter 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure once in short [06:48.000 --> 06:51.000] and I had him read it and the next time we talked he was like, [06:51.000 --> 06:53.000] I think you're misinterpreting it. [06:53.000 --> 06:59.000] We did not get to have an actual discussion over my reasoning why I don't think I am. [06:59.000 --> 07:03.000] So hopefully tonight we're going to get that hashed out here on the air [07:03.000 --> 07:08.000] for the benefit of all of you out there. Evening Randy, thanks for coming. [07:08.000 --> 07:11.000] Howdy, howdy. [07:11.000 --> 07:16.000] All right, you do have the latest copy of the document I emailed to you, right? [07:16.000 --> 07:19.000] I just now got it open. [07:19.000 --> 07:20.000] Okay. [07:20.000 --> 07:24.000] Judicial power vested in courts, legislative power, Section 1. [07:24.000 --> 07:26.000] Section 1 of what? [07:26.000 --> 07:29.000] The Texas Constitution, that's the title right above it. [07:29.000 --> 07:31.000] Article what? [07:31.000 --> 07:35.000] Well, judicial power, it's Article 5. [07:35.000 --> 07:38.000] Okay. That's right, I knew that. [07:38.000 --> 07:44.000] Okay. Now, the judicial power vested in courts, legislative power regarding courts. [07:44.000 --> 07:51.000] The reason I highlighted Section 1 is dealing with the highlighted part of the second paragraph, Randy, [07:51.000 --> 07:54.000] where it says, prescribe the jurisdiction. [07:54.000 --> 08:01.000] Now, before the show tonight, you and I were discussing the original Speedy Trial Act, correct? [08:01.000 --> 08:02.000] Yes. [08:02.000 --> 08:10.000] Okay. And you can see the note I attached to that highlighted text of prescribe the jurisdiction, can you not? [08:10.000 --> 08:12.000] Yes. [08:12.000 --> 08:17.000] Okay. The note I have attached to those three words is this. [08:17.000 --> 08:25.000] Could jurisdiction be construed to apply to time limits for its acquisition and exercise, [08:25.000 --> 08:29.000] such as was intended by the original Speedy Trial Act? [08:29.000 --> 08:34.000] And what I mean by that is in the original Speedy Trial Act, the legislature said, [08:34.000 --> 08:40.000] for this level of offense or type of offense, the courts have this amount of time in order to prosecute. [08:40.000 --> 08:47.000] In other words, it's setting the jurisdiction of the court within a specific timeframe. [08:47.000 --> 08:53.000] Now, does the legislature under this paragraph have the authority to do that or not? [08:53.000 --> 08:56.000] Absolutely, the legislature does. [08:56.000 --> 09:00.000] Okay. However, we know that the court- [09:00.000 --> 09:11.000] Wait, wait, wait. Yes, because the constitution, as far as I can find, doesn't prescribe those time limits, so that's left to the legislature. [09:11.000 --> 09:15.000] Right. And it's not left to the judiciary to determine what the time limits are. [09:15.000 --> 09:18.000] It doesn't give them that power in here anywhere. [09:18.000 --> 09:26.000] Yet we know for a fact that the court declared the Speedy Trial Act unconstitutional. [09:26.000 --> 09:33.000] Now, what was the basis of the opinion that declared it to be unconstitutional? [09:33.000 --> 09:39.000] I'm assuming since you made reference to it earlier, you have the court case that allegedly overturned. [09:39.000 --> 09:44.000] I don't have the reference to it. I have an excerpt from it. [09:44.000 --> 09:47.000] Okay. And if I can find where I put it- [09:47.000 --> 09:50.000] Do you know what the case is? [09:50.000 --> 09:53.000] No, I didn't- [09:53.000 --> 09:56.000] And how can we verify the excerpt? [09:56.000 --> 09:59.000] You can't. You'll have to look it up. [09:59.000 --> 10:02.000] Well, that's kind of my point. How do we look it up? [10:02.000 --> 10:11.000] I was a little too busy going through all your other stuff to remember where I got this from. [10:11.000 --> 10:12.000] Okay. [10:12.000 --> 10:21.000] And now the page I had with it on there is down. Oh, my Speedy Trial Act. Where is it? [10:21.000 --> 10:26.000] I'll have to open that. [10:26.000 --> 10:42.000] But what it said was that the caption on the statute did not adequately inform the legislature. [10:42.000 --> 10:50.000] What the heck is that crap? That's the legislature's place to determine if they were happy with the caption. [10:50.000 --> 10:57.000] Well, no, not originally. They didn't make that change to the Constitution until 1994. [10:57.000 --> 11:04.000] They amended the Constitution to make it where only the legislature could determine whether or not the title was sufficient. [11:04.000 --> 11:11.000] But the Speedy Trial Act was 1979, at least according to the information you've given me today. [11:11.000 --> 11:21.000] It's Michelle v. State of Texas Appellate Number 1339-85. [11:21.000 --> 11:46.000] The state would show that the caption of said bill, Acts of the 77th Legislature and the 65th, Acts, 1977, 65th Legislature, Chapter 787, page 1970, is defective in that it does not and did not contain sufficient information as to inform members of the legislature as to its content [11:46.000 --> 11:53.000] and therefore violates the caption requirement of Article III, Section 35 of the Texas Constitution. [11:53.000 --> 11:59.000] Okay. You said it was Michelle v. State, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E? [11:59.000 --> 12:02.000] M-E-S-H-E-L-L. [12:02.000 --> 12:07.000] M-E-S-H-E-L-L. Okay, so it's Michelle. [12:07.000 --> 12:08.000] Okay. [12:08.000 --> 12:11.000] And what was the court number? [12:11.000 --> 12:17.000] Appellate Number 1339-85. [12:17.000 --> 12:25.000] Okay. That reason doesn't go to time limits. [12:25.000 --> 12:46.000] Further, the state would show that the Texas Speedy Trial Act is a violation of the separation of powers, Article II, Section 1, and is also a violation of the Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 8, Article V, Section 16, Article V, Section 19, and any other applicable provisions of the Texas Constitution. [12:46.000 --> 12:47.000] I wonder what that means. [12:47.000 --> 13:12.000] But what they're saying is, is that the statute required a judicial determination that if they're not brought to trial within the statutory time limits as laid out in the Act, the court shall, I didn't say discharge, I forgot exactly what it said, shall dismiss the case. [13:12.000 --> 13:19.000] And they said the legislature can't tell the court what to do as far as dismiss the case. [13:19.000 --> 13:29.000] But we'll talk about 16.17, which does direct the court to discharge a case, and that hasn't been overturned. [13:29.000 --> 13:42.000] So these are the two reasons they had nothing to do with the time limits indicated in the statute that the legislature considered timely. [13:42.000 --> 14:03.000] 60, 90, 120 days, CBA felony. All right, I see. Okay, the Speedy Trial Act was actually 1977, according to this, under the 65th legislature, which explains why we could not find it when we were looking for it earlier. [14:03.000 --> 14:17.000] Exactly. Because I found it listed on the Federal Department of Justice website, Senate Bill 1043 of the 83rd legislature. [14:17.000 --> 14:34.000] Okay, but what this says, the reason that I went to this is it has the preamble to the Speedy Trial Act. And in the preamble, it says all felonies must be brought to trial within 120 days of the commencement of the criminal action. [14:34.000 --> 14:51.000] If a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment for more than 180 days, the state must be ready within 90 days of the commencement of the prosecution. If the punishment is less than 180 days, the state has 60 days to prepare. [14:51.000 --> 14:59.000] If the offense is punishable by fine only, the prosecutor has a 30-day period to bring action. [14:59.000 --> 15:10.000] That's pretty clear. The legislature did not stutter and they did not bandy words. This is their stated legislative intent. [15:10.000 --> 15:23.000] So since they've overturned the act, they did not overturn the stated legislative intent, because the act was turned over for reasons that had nothing to do with this section. [15:23.000 --> 15:26.000] That's my story and I'm sticking to it. [15:26.000 --> 15:31.000] Yeah. Hang on just a second. [15:31.000 --> 15:41.000] Okay. Well, based upon that, I still can't find the bill because the Texas legislative website does not go that far back. [15:41.000 --> 15:46.000] It only goes back to 1989. [15:46.000 --> 15:55.000] You got further than I did. The best I got was 96. So yeah, we'll have to go to this legal library. [15:55.000 --> 15:59.000] Okay. [15:59.000 --> 16:09.000] The Speedy Trial Act itself is not the issue up for discussion tonight. It is the jurisdiction of justice courts versus municipal courts. [16:09.000 --> 16:27.000] And so that's why in that second paragraph of Article 5, Section 1, where it says prescribe the jurisdiction, all I wanted to make sure of is that the legislature, according to that language, could set the time frames for what constituted a speedy trial. [16:27.000 --> 16:40.000] But it can also specifically state the jurisdiction of any given court that the Constitution itself does not specifically provide. [16:40.000 --> 16:52.000] Now, this is where we get into the issue of the legislature having the power to create additional courts via statute, which are what are known as statutory courts. [16:52.000 --> 16:58.000] Okay. We're fixed to take a quick break and we will be back on the other side this Monday night. [16:58.000 --> 17:04.000] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word? [17:04.000 --> 17:15.000] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15. [17:15.000 --> 17:23.000] Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [17:23.000 --> 17:30.000] Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. [17:30.000 --> 17:37.000] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development. [17:37.000 --> 17:42.000] We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [17:42.000 --> 17:48.000] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus. [17:48.000 --> 17:59.000] So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures. [17:59.000 --> 18:04.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? [18:04.000 --> 18:08.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [18:08.000 --> 18:13.000] The Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. [18:13.000 --> 18:19.000] You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. [18:19.000 --> 18:23.000] What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons. [18:23.000 --> 18:25.000] How to answer letters and phone calls. [18:25.000 --> 18:28.000] How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. [18:28.000 --> 18:32.000] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [18:32.000 --> 18:37.000] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [18:37.000 --> 18:39.000] Personal consultation is available as well. [18:39.000 --> 18:48.000] For more information please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email MichaelMears at Yahoo.com. [18:48.000 --> 18:59.000] That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [18:59.000 --> 19:10.000] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com [19:29.000 --> 19:45.000] Music [19:45.000 --> 19:50.000] Alright folks, we are back. This is the Monday Night Rule Of Law Radio Show with your host Eddie Craig. [19:50.000 --> 20:02.000] It is June 5th, 2023 and we are here with Randy Kelton and we are talking about jurisdiction of the justice courts versus municipal courts. [20:02.000 --> 20:10.000] Now, besides the Speedy Trial Act, let's get into what the Constitution says about assigning jurisdiction to courts. [20:10.000 --> 20:19.000] Now Article 1 gives the legislature the authority to prescribe the jurisdiction for courts it creates by statute. [20:19.000 --> 20:28.000] But the Constitution assigns specific jurisdiction to certain courts within Article 5, Section 1. [20:28.000 --> 20:35.000] Now in Section 12 of Article 5, in subsection B, we have the following. [20:35.000 --> 20:45.000] An information is a written instrument presented to a court by an attorney for the state charging a person with the commission of an offense. [20:45.000 --> 20:51.000] Now I have a note in the document attached to that sentence and the note reads this. [20:51.000 --> 21:01.000] Nowhere does the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Texas Constitution recognize a city attorney as being an attorney for the state. [21:01.000 --> 21:16.000] Nor could they, since this title is directly related to a constitutionally delegated power and authority to prosecute in the name of the state, given only to county and district attorneys. [21:16.000 --> 21:37.000] The next sentence in the Constitution, Article 5, Section 12B is the practice and procedures relating to the use of indictments and information, including their contents, amendment, sufficiency, and requisites are as provided by law. [21:37.000 --> 21:53.000] Now this sentence is where the courts have attempted to replace the Constitution with the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus allow the Code of Criminal Procedure to supersede the Constitution. [21:53.000 --> 21:59.000] This is the first place where they do that relative to indictments and information. [21:59.000 --> 22:13.000] Let me make a comment on this sentence. Go ahead. It says the practice and procedures relating to the use of indictments, not the recreation of indictments. [22:13.000 --> 22:17.000] Correct. That's prescribed here in the Constitution. Correct. [22:17.000 --> 22:24.000] But see that the next sentence we'll get to after that goes in addition to this one to enhance my argument even further. [22:24.000 --> 22:32.000] Nowhere in the Texas Constitution does the word complaint ever appear ever. [22:32.000 --> 22:38.000] It only speaks of indictments, information and sworn statements. [22:38.000 --> 22:46.000] A criminal complaint as it's listed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a sworn statement. [22:46.000 --> 22:51.000] It is a verified statement, but it is not a sworn statement. [22:51.000 --> 23:00.000] Texas law also says that in order for something to be sworn, it must have a proper jurat, [23:00.000 --> 23:08.000] and that jurat must contain the language that the affirmation is made under penalty of perjury. [23:08.000 --> 23:18.000] So there is no way in hell a criminal complaint as it exists in the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes a sworn statement. [23:18.000 --> 23:23.000] Absolutely contradicts Texas law to say otherwise. [23:23.000 --> 23:28.000] Are you saying complaints the way they're used by the courts? [23:28.000 --> 23:36.000] The way they are formatted by the courts within the, or I'm sorry, within the Code of Criminal Procedure, [23:36.000 --> 23:42.000] there is no jurat that they are signed under penalty of perjury. None. [23:42.000 --> 23:48.000] They are simply verified as I have reason to believe and do believe. [23:48.000 --> 23:56.000] There is no threat of perjury for making a false statement in a criminal complaint either in Chapter 15 or in Chapter 45. [23:56.000 --> 24:06.000] That is because a criminal complaint can be made on information and belief. [24:06.000 --> 24:12.000] I actually read a case where it said that the complaint was improper, [24:12.000 --> 24:25.000] because it stated on penalty of perjury that they said they knew the facts to be true under penalty of perjury. [24:25.000 --> 24:27.000] They said this was improper for a complaint. [24:27.000 --> 24:31.000] Correct. That is correct. I am not arguing that point at all. [24:31.000 --> 24:37.000] No, I'm not arguing. I'm clarifying for everybody else so they understand the distinctions. [24:37.000 --> 24:40.000] That is absolutely correct. [24:40.000 --> 24:45.000] However, like I said, the Constitution does not mention complaints. [24:45.000 --> 24:48.000] It mentions sworn statements. [24:48.000 --> 24:56.000] A sworn statement, according to Texas law, must have that jurat under penalty of perjury. [24:56.000 --> 25:05.000] Thus, there is a very real difference between the criminal complaint and a sworn statement. [25:05.000 --> 25:11.000] Now, the difference is what jurisdiction is conveyed by those two different instruments. [25:11.000 --> 25:20.000] A policeman, if he has knowledge that a crime has been committed under 2.13, is required to give notice to some magistrate, [25:20.000 --> 25:25.000] and he gives notice to some magistrate by way of a criminal complaint. [25:25.000 --> 25:33.000] If a person has knowledge that a crime has been committed, they give notice to some magistrate by way of a criminal complaint. [25:33.000 --> 25:42.000] They don't want that to be under penalty of perjury, because they want a citizen to be comfortable that they can file a criminal complaint [25:42.000 --> 25:45.000] and not have the court come back on them. [25:45.000 --> 25:55.000] Correct. However, my argument is that that verified complaint, not a sworn statement, [25:55.000 --> 26:06.000] that verified complaint by that lack of a jurat does not convey prosecutorial jurisdiction on anybody. [26:06.000 --> 26:11.000] It doesn't convey it on a prosecutor, and it doesn't convey it on a court. [26:11.000 --> 26:18.000] And that is backed up by the next sentence in Article 5, Section 12 of the Texas Constitution, [26:18.000 --> 26:25.000] where it specifically states the presentment of an indictment or information to a court, [26:25.000 --> 26:31.000] invest the court with jurisdiction of the cause, not the complaint. [26:31.000 --> 26:44.000] Okay. Now, what that verified complaint can do is provide proper authority to begin an investigation into the allegation. [26:44.000 --> 26:53.000] Thus, it can empower a law enforcement officer to investigate the allegation to see whether or not [26:53.000 --> 26:58.000] there is sufficient facts and evidence to support it as being true. [26:58.000 --> 27:01.000] I'm going to take issue. [27:01.000 --> 27:02.000] Go ahead. [27:02.000 --> 27:10.000] What the complaint does is gives a magistrate jurisdiction to hold an examining trial [27:10.000 --> 27:14.000] and examine into the sufficiency of the allegation. [27:14.000 --> 27:22.000] But at the examining trial, while the complaint is sufficient to trigger the magistrate's jurisdiction [27:22.000 --> 27:28.000] to hold an examining trial, and this is under the practices and procedures relating to the use of [27:28.000 --> 27:32.000] indictments of information, including their contents and ammendments, [27:32.000 --> 27:34.000] as provided by law. [27:34.000 --> 27:42.000] And law provides the complaint, invest jurisdiction in the magistrate to hold an examining trial. [27:42.000 --> 27:49.000] But at the examining trial, the complaint is insufficient because it can be based on hearsay. [27:49.000 --> 27:58.000] At the examining trial, the rules of evidence apply as in the trial on the merits, 16.05. [27:58.000 --> 28:03.000] And in the trial on the merits, hearsay does not apply. [28:03.000 --> 28:14.000] Now they have to bring in a credible witness, a best evidence witness, in order to create a determination [28:14.000 --> 28:21.000] of probable cause, and we'll get to how important that is later because there cannot be an indictment [28:21.000 --> 28:23.000] without one of those. [28:23.000 --> 28:25.000] Okay, hang on just a second. [28:25.000 --> 28:29.000] Now, let me do a little search here. [28:29.000 --> 28:36.000] Do you know what word does not appear in Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [28:36.000 --> 28:38.000] where the examining trial takes place? [28:38.000 --> 28:43.000] Do you know what word does not exist in any section of Chapter 16? [28:43.000 --> 28:45.000] I'm sure you're looking for one in particular. [28:45.000 --> 28:47.000] I could think of a couple, but I can't. [28:47.000 --> 28:49.000] Complaint. [28:49.000 --> 28:55.000] Nowhere does Chapter 16 say the complaint invests the examining court with jurisdiction. [28:55.000 --> 28:56.000] Nowhere. [28:56.000 --> 28:58.000] Nowhere. [28:58.000 --> 29:04.000] The word complaint does not exist in Chapter 16. [29:04.000 --> 29:05.000] Okay. [29:05.000 --> 29:06.000] All right. [29:06.000 --> 29:12.000] So let me follow through with why I believe that timeline will not work. [29:12.000 --> 29:20.000] If the verified complaint can invest the examining court with jurisdiction to conduct an examining [29:20.000 --> 29:31.000] trial, when and where does a sworn statement result and who makes it after the examining [29:31.000 --> 29:32.000] trial has taken place? [29:32.000 --> 29:35.000] That's in the process of the examining trial. [29:35.000 --> 29:36.000] Where? [29:36.000 --> 29:37.000] Where? [29:37.000 --> 29:42.000] That's 1606. [29:42.000 --> 29:53.000] I don't have the whole thing memorized, but they have to present the accuser with the [29:53.000 --> 29:58.000] ... they have to present the accused with his accuser, give him the opportunity to face [29:58.000 --> 29:59.000] ... [29:59.000 --> 30:05.000] Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under [30:05.000 --> 30:07.000] the blood alcohol limit. [30:07.000 --> 30:11.000] I'm Dr. Kathryn Albrecht, and I'll be back with a tale of bad breathalyzers and a government [30:11.000 --> 30:13.000] cover-up in a moment. [30:13.000 --> 30:15.000] Privacy is under attack. [30:15.000 --> 30:19.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [30:19.000 --> 30:23.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [30:23.000 --> 30:25.000] So protect your rights. [30:25.000 --> 30:29.000] Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [30:29.000 --> 30:30.000] Privacy. [30:30.000 --> 30:31.000] It's worth hanging onto. [30:31.000 --> 30:36.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search [30:36.000 --> 30:39.000] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [30:39.000 --> 30:42.000] Start over with StartPage. [30:42.000 --> 30:45.000] Ever hear the term fine farming? [30:45.000 --> 30:49.000] It's when cops fine innocent people to bring in revenue, and it's apparently big business [30:49.000 --> 30:51.000] in the Sunshine State of Florida. [30:51.000 --> 30:57.000] This case involves breathalyzers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations. [30:57.000 --> 31:02.000] Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated. [31:02.000 --> 31:06.000] State officials knew about it for two and a half years, but did nothing. [31:06.000 --> 31:11.000] In fact, the head of Florida's breath testing program ordered inspectors not to document [31:11.000 --> 31:12.000] the problem. [31:12.000 --> 31:17.000] A DUI conviction can ruin somebody's life, but now that the cover-up has been exposed, [31:17.000 --> 31:20.000] perhaps Florida drivers can breathe a bit easier. [31:20.000 --> 31:21.000] I'm Dr. Kathryn Albrecht. [31:21.000 --> 31:29.000] More news and information at KathrynAlbrecht.com. [31:29.000 --> 31:34.000] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. [31:34.000 --> 31:37.000] The government says that fire brought it down. [31:37.000 --> 31:41.000] However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. [31:41.000 --> 31:44.000] Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. [31:44.000 --> 31:47.000] Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. [31:47.000 --> 31:48.000] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [31:48.000 --> 31:49.000] I'm a structural engineer. [31:49.000 --> 31:50.000] I'm a New York City correction officer. [31:50.000 --> 31:51.000] I'm an Air Force pilot. [31:51.000 --> 31:53.000] I'm a father who lost his son. [31:53.000 --> 31:56.000] We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [31:56.000 --> 31:59.000] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [31:59.000 --> 32:03.000] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. [32:03.000 --> 32:07.000] In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going [32:07.000 --> 32:11.000] to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [32:11.000 --> 32:14.000] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act [32:14.000 --> 32:18.000] in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. [32:18.000 --> 32:22.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve [32:22.000 --> 32:24.000] our rights through due process. [32:24.000 --> 32:27.000] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the [32:27.000 --> 32:31.000] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [32:31.000 --> 32:33.000] is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [32:33.000 --> 32:37.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and [32:37.000 --> 32:39.000] ordering your copy today. [32:39.000 --> 32:42.000] By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, [32:42.000 --> 32:46.000] The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research [32:46.000 --> 32:48.000] documents, and other useful resource material. [32:48.000 --> 32:52.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [32:52.000 --> 32:59.000] Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [32:59.000 --> 33:09.000] Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com. [33:09.000 --> 33:19.000] I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. [33:19.000 --> 33:30.000] I'm on the highway to hell, highway to hell. [33:30.000 --> 33:55.000] Don't stop me. [33:55.000 --> 34:00.000] Life ain't easy, life ain't free. [34:00.000 --> 34:04.000] Seasons take a long way right. [34:04.000 --> 34:08.000] Asking nothing, leave me be. [34:08.000 --> 34:12.000] Taking everything in my stride. [34:12.000 --> 34:18.000] Don't need reason, don't need right. [34:18.000 --> 34:20.000] Hi folks, we are back. [34:20.000 --> 34:23.000] This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host, Eddie Craig. [34:23.000 --> 34:26.000] It is June 5th, 2023. [34:26.000 --> 34:27.000] We are live tonight. [34:27.000 --> 34:33.000] I have Randy Kelton on the show with me tonight, and we are discussing the difference between [34:33.000 --> 34:39.000] criminal complaints, sworn statements, and jurisdiction of justice versus municipal courts. [34:39.000 --> 34:42.000] We're live so far, we haven't killed one another yet. [34:42.000 --> 34:43.000] Yes. [34:43.000 --> 34:46.000] That remains to be seen whether or not we shall continue that way. [34:46.000 --> 34:51.000] But in any case, now Randy and I discussed this a little bit off the air, so we're going [34:51.000 --> 34:54.000] to go back over again real quick what we were getting into. [34:54.000 --> 35:01.000] Randy was talking about how Chapter 16 allows an examining trial to take place based upon [35:01.000 --> 35:04.000] an allegation of criminal conduct. [35:04.000 --> 35:09.000] However, my question to Randy off the air was this. [35:09.000 --> 35:17.000] Where and when can a sworn statement be created after an examining trial has been conducted? [35:17.000 --> 35:21.000] Because there is no procedure for it in Chapter 16. [35:21.000 --> 35:29.000] Nowhere is there anything dealing with a sworn statement except in relation to postponing [35:29.000 --> 35:33.000] the examining trial for the purpose of securing a specific witness. [35:33.000 --> 35:34.000] That's it. [35:34.000 --> 35:42.000] And that deals specifically with a sworn affidavit by the defendant or the prosecutor that they [35:42.000 --> 35:47.000] need to postpone the examination for the purpose of getting a specific witness who is going [35:47.000 --> 35:50.000] to testify to these specific things. [35:50.000 --> 35:54.000] That's the only sworn statement mentioned in Chapter 16. [35:54.000 --> 35:57.000] And none of that's required in Chapter 16. [35:57.000 --> 35:59.000] The testimony reduced to writing. [35:59.000 --> 36:02.000] That's the only thing that speaks to testimony. [36:02.000 --> 36:04.000] The testimony of each witness shall be reduced to writing. [36:04.000 --> 36:06.000] This is 1609. [36:06.000 --> 36:13.000] By or under the direction of the magistrate and shall then be read to the witness or he [36:13.000 --> 36:15.000] may read it over himself. [36:15.000 --> 36:19.000] Such correction shall be made in the same as the witness may direct and he shall then [36:19.000 --> 36:23.000] sign the same by affixing thereto his name or mark. [36:23.000 --> 36:27.000] All the testimony thus taken shall be certified to by the magistrate. [36:27.000 --> 36:34.000] In lieu of the above provision, the statement of facts authenticated by state and defense [36:34.000 --> 36:39.000] counsel and approved by the presiding magistrate may be used to preserve the testimony of the [36:39.000 --> 36:40.000] witnesses. [36:40.000 --> 36:44.000] That's all it requires is some for a day. [36:44.000 --> 36:51.000] That signature only applies to the facts and evidence presented during the examining trial. [36:51.000 --> 36:56.000] That comes after jurisdiction in the examining trial has been established. [36:56.000 --> 37:03.000] So my question goes back to how and when does the examining court actually acquire jurisdiction [37:03.000 --> 37:06.000] to inquire into the allegation? [37:06.000 --> 37:13.000] And I am arguing that the verified complaint does not convey that jurisdiction. [37:13.000 --> 37:17.000] And here is my reasoning as to why. [37:17.000 --> 37:25.000] Since there is no sworn statement, it's just a verified complaint with no jurat on it. [37:25.000 --> 37:32.000] Anyone could go to a judge, file that and have no repercussions for getting somebody hauled [37:32.000 --> 37:37.000] into an examining trial every single day, every 15 minutes of the day. [37:37.000 --> 37:43.000] That's exactly true and exactly how it was intended. [37:43.000 --> 37:49.000] It was exactly because they didn't want the public to be afraid to give notice of crime. [37:49.000 --> 37:50.000] I disagree. [37:50.000 --> 37:52.000] That was not the purpose. [37:52.000 --> 37:58.000] The purpose is to also ensure that people are not making false allegations out of spite. [37:58.000 --> 38:03.000] The rights of the accused still exist no matter whether or not there's an allegation. [38:03.000 --> 38:12.000] So throwing somebody into a court for an examining trial just because someone said they might have done something, [38:12.000 --> 38:21.000] might have done something, which they have no actual facts or evidence because there's no jurat that says they have personal knowledge, [38:21.000 --> 38:24.000] I disagree that that's a valid... [38:24.000 --> 38:28.000] Well, there's nothing in law that requires. [38:28.000 --> 38:30.000] Yes, there is. [38:30.000 --> 38:35.000] The magistrate, the examining trial is not a court. [38:35.000 --> 38:38.000] You've got all the courts defined in there. [38:38.000 --> 38:42.000] I understand that. [38:42.000 --> 38:52.000] However, we are told in Article 2.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that when you make a complaint before a county or district attorney, [38:52.000 --> 38:58.000] then he must have the complaint signed and sworn. [38:58.000 --> 39:03.000] That makes it a criminal statement, not a verified complaint. [39:03.000 --> 39:09.000] Because to be sworn, that complaint would have to have the under penalty of perjury jurat language. [39:09.000 --> 39:11.000] It must have it or it's not. [39:11.000 --> 39:15.000] But that's only when the complaint is made before. [39:15.000 --> 39:19.000] How can it be only if it's made before those guys, Randy? [39:19.000 --> 39:21.000] That's what it says. [39:21.000 --> 39:28.000] The legislature didn't say that specifically and didn't mean sworn before anybody. [39:28.000 --> 39:36.000] Did you or did you not on the break also say that police officers can verify a complaint? [39:36.000 --> 39:38.000] Yes, they can. [39:38.000 --> 39:47.000] Now, I have made police reports based upon things that happened in Austin when I caught people breaking into cars or camping out in houses [39:47.000 --> 39:50.000] or crapping in the front yard of a house. [39:50.000 --> 39:53.000] I've called the police and reported that. [39:53.000 --> 40:03.000] And when I caught one guy digging through one of my neighbor's cars and confronted him on it and drove him off before the cops showed up, [40:03.000 --> 40:11.000] when that cop had me sign that statement, it contained a jurat that what I was saying was done under penalty of perjury. [40:11.000 --> 40:19.000] Now, I had to do that because I was the person with firsthand knowledge of the facts that were being alleged. [40:19.000 --> 40:28.000] Therefore, the statement I was making to that cop had a under penalty of perjury jurat on it or I could not have signed it. [40:28.000 --> 40:36.000] You're implying that in order to make a criminal accusation, you have to do so under penalty of perjury. [40:36.000 --> 40:38.000] And that is simply not the case. [40:38.000 --> 40:47.000] I am arguing that for the examining court to gain jurisdiction, they have to have a sworn statement made under penalty of perjury [40:47.000 --> 40:49.000] to make the allegation itself. [40:49.000 --> 40:52.000] I agree with what you said. [40:52.000 --> 40:58.000] And I'm saying if the legislature intended that to be the case, they would have said so. [40:58.000 --> 41:04.000] My argument here is the legislature did no such thing because the statutes are being misread [41:04.000 --> 41:10.000] and the timeline has not been established for when they're being invoked, which is what I've done. [41:10.000 --> 41:17.000] The thing here is that if you make it before the county or district attorney, it must be sworn under a jurat. [41:17.000 --> 41:23.000] If you make a factual statement to a police officer, it must be sworn with a jurat. [41:23.000 --> 41:25.000] It has to be. [41:25.000 --> 41:33.000] The only time that is not done is when the person does not have firsthand knowledge of the facts. [41:33.000 --> 41:41.000] You do not swear. You don't have to swear to anything before a magistrate. You just have to give him notice. [41:41.000 --> 41:51.000] Again, Randy, notice. My argument about notice is it only conveys jurisdiction to do one thing and one thing only. [41:51.000 --> 42:00.000] And that is to initiate an investigation in order to determine the facts and evidence necessary [42:00.000 --> 42:04.000] to actually provide information about a crime. [42:04.000 --> 42:10.000] It is the magistrate who initiates that investigation, and he does so by way of an examining trial. [42:10.000 --> 42:18.000] No, that is not what it says. It says that he is to inquire into the allegation itself. [42:18.000 --> 42:23.000] But the problem there is is what invests him with the jury. [42:23.000 --> 42:30.000] Actually, this is a gray area. It really does not say specifically. [42:30.000 --> 42:39.000] Look at all the statutes and the Texas Constitution. Only gray if you do that, because here is the thing. [42:39.000 --> 42:44.000] The magistrate is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. Only judges. [42:44.000 --> 42:49.000] A magistrate may be a judge, but not necessarily. He is a magistrate, and that is different. [42:49.000 --> 42:53.000] A magistrate should create a statute. [42:53.000 --> 43:01.000] I understand that. But my point here being is that in order to get before that examining court, [43:01.000 --> 43:05.000] there has to be actual facts, not mere belief. [43:05.000 --> 43:07.000] I am saying no, they do not. [43:07.000 --> 43:09.000] Here is why I say that. [43:09.000 --> 43:13.000] Those facts are to be developed in the examining court. [43:13.000 --> 43:21.000] How are you going to do that if the person in the examining court is someone with no personal knowledge? [43:21.000 --> 43:24.000] How can the examining court do that? [43:24.000 --> 43:34.000] You are presuming that the person who gives notice of crime must be a first person witness, [43:34.000 --> 43:38.000] and that is not the case. It is not the intent. [43:38.000 --> 43:43.000] You speak to this when we come back. [43:43.000 --> 43:47.000] Hi, folks. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Eddie Craig. [43:47.000 --> 43:51.000] I am on with the county tonight, and we are having an in-depth discussion. [43:51.000 --> 44:20.000] I do not know if I will get the caller, but we will hang on. We will be right back after the break. [44:21.000 --> 44:26.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [44:26.000 --> 44:32.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [44:32.000 --> 44:37.000] Even if you are not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand [44:37.000 --> 44:41.000] about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [44:41.000 --> 44:47.000] You will receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [44:47.000 --> 44:54.000] pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, [44:54.000 --> 44:59.000] or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ. [44:59.000 --> 45:04.000] I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I would be almost as ignorant as my friends. [45:04.000 --> 45:08.000] I am so addicted to the truth now that there is no going back. I need my truth fixed. [45:08.000 --> 45:12.000] I would be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. [45:12.000 --> 45:15.000] I would love to volunteer as a show producer, but I am a bit of a Luddite, [45:15.000 --> 45:19.000] and I really don't have any money to give because I spend it all on supplements. [45:19.000 --> 45:21.000] How can I help logos? [45:21.000 --> 45:26.000] Well, I am glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos. [45:26.000 --> 45:28.000] You can order them your supplies or holiday gifts. [45:28.000 --> 45:34.000] First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. [45:34.000 --> 45:37.000] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. [45:37.000 --> 45:42.000] Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, and Logos gets a few pesos. [45:42.000 --> 45:43.000] Do I pay extra? [45:43.000 --> 45:46.000] No. Do you have to do anything different when I order? [45:46.000 --> 45:48.000] No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? [45:48.000 --> 45:50.000] No. I mean, yes. [45:50.000 --> 45:56.000] Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. [45:56.000 --> 45:57.000] We are welcome. [45:57.000 --> 46:13.000] Happy Holidays, Logos. [46:27.000 --> 46:50.000] Hi, folks. We are back. We are in our rule of law video show with Coach Eddie Craig. [46:50.000 --> 47:03.000] Right now, we're mired down in the examining trial portion of this, which I'm trying to get us out of, but we're not getting it. [47:03.000 --> 47:10.000] Let's let this go for a while. What we're talking about is not really clear in law. [47:10.000 --> 47:23.000] It says that the magistrate is to keep the peace in the state, and when he sits for the purpose of examining into a criminal accusation, that's an examining court. [47:23.000 --> 47:30.000] But that's really all it says about how he gets the examining trial started. It's kind of left up in the air. [47:30.000 --> 47:45.000] And I'm arguing that since if you go by the timeline of how things are supposed to work, I just don't see a belief being the basis of the examining trial. [47:45.000 --> 47:54.000] There has to be something more concrete to put somebody in front of a judge in order to determine whether or not they should be prosecuted for an actual crime. [47:54.000 --> 48:00.000] It goes to what the complaint says, what the complaint is commanded to say by statute. [48:00.000 --> 48:12.000] But here's the problem. A person that has no knowledge of law making an allegation of criminal conduct, who is going in front of that examining trial magistrate to do that? [48:12.000 --> 48:21.000] Is it the person saying, I have reason to believe and do believe, or is it somebody else going in and reporting hearsay with no actual facts? [48:21.000 --> 48:31.000] Okay, once the examining trial is convened, then it's the duty of the magistrate to summon competent witnesses. [48:31.000 --> 48:37.000] But the complaint just gives him notice that a crime has been committed. Now he looks into it. [48:37.000 --> 48:48.000] How does a magistrate summon competent witnesses with no facts and evidence to do so? All he's got is someone's belief of a crime. [48:48.000 --> 48:54.000] And based on that, he can call witnesses to extract competent evidence. [48:54.000 --> 48:55.000] What witnesses? [48:55.000 --> 48:58.000] Any witnesses named. [48:58.000 --> 48:59.000] But? [48:59.000 --> 49:04.000] You're asking for a level of detail that's absolutely impossible. [49:04.000 --> 49:12.000] Only a person who has absolute knowledge could prove beyond a reasonable doubt and swear on his oath can report a crime. That's horse crap. [49:12.000 --> 49:19.000] If I go into it, if I went into a magistrate and said, I saw some guy get mugged in an alley last night on 5th Street. [49:19.000 --> 49:26.000] And I think he got a serious head injury because the guy was beating him with a pipe. I don't know the name of the victim. [49:26.000 --> 49:32.000] I don't know the name of the assault, the person that committed the assault and the robbery. I don't know any of that shit. [49:32.000 --> 49:41.000] All I know is what I saw. And even with that person's knowledge, there's nothing for that judge to bring into that court. [49:41.000 --> 49:43.000] Of course there is. [49:43.000 --> 49:45.000] Who are they going to bring in there besides me? [49:45.000 --> 49:50.000] He can call the local police department. He can call the local hospitals. [49:50.000 --> 49:51.000] Yes, he can. [49:51.000 --> 49:54.000] And he can call witnesses. [49:54.000 --> 50:06.000] If anybody reported it. But if cops didn't show up and everybody got up and took off before the cops could arrive, who's going to report it to the judge? [50:06.000 --> 50:09.000] And how's he going to conduct an examining trial? [50:09.000 --> 50:12.000] So you're deciding you can only go to a... [50:12.000 --> 50:15.000] I'm not deciding anything. I'm straight up asking a question. [50:15.000 --> 50:16.000] Wait a minute. [50:16.000 --> 50:18.000] I'm asking a question. [50:18.000 --> 50:29.000] You're not asking a question. You're making a statement that only somebody with personal knowledge can give notice of crime. [50:29.000 --> 50:30.000] No, I'm not. [50:30.000 --> 50:32.000] That's exactly what you said. [50:32.000 --> 50:40.000] Making notice of a crime is very different than determining whether or not that crime actually exists. [50:40.000 --> 50:42.000] That's what the job of the magistrate. [50:42.000 --> 50:48.000] I understand that. But what does the magistrate have to use to do that? [50:48.000 --> 50:57.000] He has the power to summon witnesses. He has the power to order the police. [50:57.000 --> 51:01.000] I don't understand why this is such a problem. [51:01.000 --> 51:05.000] Believe me, if you were looking at it in the totality, I'm looking at it, you'd understand. [51:05.000 --> 51:09.000] But I agree. Let's table that for a little bit and go to the other stuff that I actually want to... [51:09.000 --> 51:11.000] Yeah, let's go to the other stuff. [51:11.000 --> 51:16.000] This is a little more in depth to a different part of it than what I actually wanted to get. [51:16.000 --> 51:24.000] Now, when we get into section 17 of Article 5 of the Texas Constitution, we have the following language. [51:24.000 --> 51:29.000] Grand juries impaneled in the district court shall inquire into misdemeanors. [51:29.000 --> 51:35.000] Now, notice the courts are telling us that grand juries don't do indictments for misdemeanors. [51:35.000 --> 51:41.000] But the Texas Constitution specifically says that grand juries that are impaneled by the district courts [51:41.000 --> 51:48.000] shall inquire into misdemeanors, period. That is not debatable. [51:48.000 --> 51:56.000] Now, and it follows that up with, and all indictments therefore returned into the district courts [51:56.000 --> 52:05.000] shall forthwith be certified to the county courts or other inferior courts having jurisdiction to try them for trial. [52:05.000 --> 52:10.000] What courts are inferior to the county courts, Randy? [52:10.000 --> 52:13.000] Municipal and justice. [52:13.000 --> 52:17.000] Exactly. There are only two, justice and municipal courts. [52:17.000 --> 52:22.000] There are no other inferior courts below the level of county court. [52:22.000 --> 52:29.000] And if such indictment be quashed in the county or other inferior court, [52:29.000 --> 52:35.000] the person charged shall not be discharged if there is probable cause of guilt, [52:35.000 --> 52:43.000] but may be held by such court or magistrate to answer an information or affidavit. [52:43.000 --> 52:51.000] An affidavit, according to Texas law, is the only thing that is an equivalent to a sworn statement. [52:51.000 --> 53:01.000] Why? Because an affidavit in Texas must have a penalty of perjury jurat on it, or it's not an affidavit. [53:01.000 --> 53:06.000] That's what's required for an indictment. [53:06.000 --> 53:11.000] But first, there has to be an examining trial. [53:11.000 --> 53:21.000] And 28.304 says that the grand jury, after they have voted, [53:21.000 --> 53:24.000] shall come before the court with a quorum of the grand jury present, [53:24.000 --> 53:27.000] and the foreman shall read the fact of the indictment into the record, [53:27.000 --> 53:30.000] and the clerk shall make notes in the minutes of the court, [53:30.000 --> 53:37.000] unless the person has not been arrested, in which case the clerk may not make notes in the minutes of the court. [53:37.000 --> 53:43.000] But how is that a sworn statement or an affidavit, Randy? How is that in hand and hand? [53:43.000 --> 53:47.000] Let me finish. [53:47.000 --> 53:59.000] The statement comes from the magistrate under Article 16.17. [53:59.000 --> 54:08.000] 16.1, okay. There can't be an indictment until there's been an examining trial. [54:08.000 --> 54:17.000] The code restricts the clerk from turning the true bill into an indictment by registering it in the court record. [54:17.000 --> 54:24.000] It can't be filed in the court record until the clerk has issued a capious and the accused has been arrested, [54:24.000 --> 54:33.000] because once the accused has been arrested, either on a warrant under 1516 or on an on-site offense under 1406, [54:33.000 --> 54:37.000] they're to be taken directly to the nearest magistrate. [54:37.000 --> 54:41.000] The magistrate is to examine into the sufficiency of the allegation, [54:41.000 --> 54:48.000] and when the magistrate's done under 16.17, he's to issue an order. [54:48.000 --> 54:57.000] And that order must be sealed in an envelope with the name, the order, [54:57.000 --> 55:03.000] the statement of all witnesses and all of the documents shall be sealed up in an envelope with the name of the magistrate [55:03.000 --> 55:10.000] written across the seal of the envelope and forwarded to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction under 17.30. [55:10.000 --> 55:18.000] 17.31 says the clerk shall keep all these papers safe and deliver them up to the next grand jury. [55:18.000 --> 55:27.000] Once they've got that, now the clerk can make notes in the minutes of the court and the true bill becomes an indictment. [55:27.000 --> 55:29.000] But it can't become an indictment. [55:29.000 --> 55:36.000] Nothing to do with the infor, the sworn statement or the affidavit this is talking about. [55:36.000 --> 55:45.000] The sworn statements are to be included in the order by the court in the examining trial. [55:45.000 --> 55:50.000] But again, that's not the issue I'm discussing here. [55:50.000 --> 55:54.000] You're still talking about how the examining trial process is ongoing. [55:54.000 --> 55:57.000] The judge elicits the sworn statements. [55:57.000 --> 55:58.000] No, he doesn't. [55:58.000 --> 56:00.000] I'm sorry, the magistrate does. [56:00.000 --> 56:02.000] Yeah, he does. It's right here in the code. [56:02.000 --> 56:11.000] There's nothing in Chapter 16 that deals with a sworn statement, absolutely nothing other than the delay for securing a specific witness. [56:11.000 --> 56:12.000] That's it. [56:12.000 --> 56:20.000] There's nothing in Chapter 17 dealing with a sworn statement to investigate the examining court with jurisdiction or to make an allegation. [56:20.000 --> 56:21.000] Okay. [56:21.000 --> 56:27.000] The magistrate's required to cause witnesses before the examining trial. [56:27.000 --> 56:30.000] Same rules of evidence on final trial. [56:30.000 --> 56:39.000] Same rules of evidence shall apply to govern a trial before an examining court that apply to govern a final trial. [56:39.000 --> 56:49.000] All witnesses who testify before the magistrate must do so under oath. [56:49.000 --> 56:52.000] And that becomes the sworn statement. [56:52.000 --> 56:53.000] No, it doesn't. [56:53.000 --> 56:59.000] How the hell does taking the oath that they're going to tell the truth become the sworn statement of a criminal allegation? [56:59.000 --> 57:00.000] How does that happen? [57:00.000 --> 57:04.000] How does it become a sworn statement without taking the oath? [57:04.000 --> 57:07.000] Again, that's exactly my point. [57:07.000 --> 57:08.000] It can't. [57:08.000 --> 57:19.000] But taking the oath to tell the truth is not the same thing as taking an oath that I'm not making a false allegation of criminal conduct against an innocent person. [57:19.000 --> 57:21.000] It is exactly the same thing. [57:21.000 --> 57:22.000] Wait a minute. [57:22.000 --> 57:24.000] You don't have to file a complaint. [57:24.000 --> 57:26.000] You don't have to swear under oath. [57:26.000 --> 57:27.000] Oh, God. [57:27.000 --> 57:28.000] Are we back to this again? [57:28.000 --> 57:30.000] I'm trying to tell you why that's wrong. [57:30.000 --> 57:33.000] But we're going into the weeds with that. [57:33.000 --> 57:34.000] Okay. [57:34.000 --> 57:37.000] I'm trying to get back to the justice court versus the municipal court. [57:37.000 --> 57:39.000] So stick with me here. [57:39.000 --> 57:52.000] When I'm talking about the indictment or information in the inferior courts here, I'm talking about the fact that they must have an indictment even for a misdemeanor, even for a fine only misdemeanor. [57:52.000 --> 58:01.000] Because the Texas Constitution does not make any distinction about the type of misdemeanor the grand jury is required to look into. [58:01.000 --> 58:03.000] I absolutely agree. [58:03.000 --> 58:04.000] Huh? [58:04.000 --> 58:06.000] I absolutely agree. [58:06.000 --> 58:07.000] Okay. [58:07.000 --> 58:10.000] Let's take the top of the hour break and we'll get back on this. [58:10.000 --> 58:14.000] We've only got one hour left to get through the JP versus the municipal courtship. [58:14.000 --> 58:16.000] And I would like to do that, please. [58:16.000 --> 58:19.000] Let's not go back to the examining trial and all that. [58:19.000 --> 58:22.000] I want to stick to that. [58:22.000 --> 58:23.000] Okay. [58:23.000 --> 58:24.000] All right. [58:24.000 --> 58:25.000] That said, folks, y'all hang on. [58:25.000 --> 58:26.000] This is the top of the hour break. [58:26.000 --> 58:30.000] We're going to be back in about six to seven minutes. [58:30.000 --> 58:33.000] And then we'll get back on this and continue on. [58:33.000 --> 58:35.000] Oh, all right. [58:35.000 --> 58:41.000] Again, this is the Monday Night Rule of All radio show with your host, Eddie Craig, June 5th, 2023. [58:41.000 --> 58:48.000] We'll be right back. [58:48.000 --> 58:52.000] The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. [58:52.000 --> 58:56.000] Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. [58:56.000 --> 59:00.000] Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, [59:00.000 --> 59:05.000] but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. [59:05.000 --> 59:07.000] Enter the recovery version. [59:07.000 --> 59:11.000] First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, [59:11.000 --> 59:16.000] but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. [59:16.000 --> 59:20.000] Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, [59:20.000 --> 59:26.000] providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. [59:26.000 --> 59:31.000] Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. [59:31.000 --> 59:42.000] This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 [59:42.000 --> 59:46.000] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. [59:46.000 --> 59:49.000] That's freestudybible.com. [59:49.000 --> 59:59.000] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [59:59.000 --> 01:00:03.000] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:06.000] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:08.000] Our liberty depends on it. [01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:14.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights. [01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:50.000] When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug. [01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:54.000] It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, [01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:58.000] arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight. [01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:02.000] Get it? Two arms? Bear hug? Bear arms? [01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:06.000] The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well when he said, [01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:11.000] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, [01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:15.000] one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, [01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:19.000] but which historically has proved to always be possible. [01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:31.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:39.000] You may think our brains deteriorate with age, but new research shows that as brains get older, they actually work more efficiently. [01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:45.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with new research on how aging makes the mind sharper after this. [01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:51.000] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:56.000] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:01.000] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:04.000] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. [01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:11.000] This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:14.000] Start over with StartPage. [01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:19.000] It's a widely held notion that the older people get, the more doddering they become. [01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:24.000] But new research shows that even as our brains age, they can actually become more efficient. [01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:34.000] Scientists asked two groups of volunteers, one age 18 to 35 and the other 55 to 75, to associate different words with given topics. [01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:37.000] At one point, they told everyone they'd made a mistake. [01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000] When that happened, the younger group's brains lit up and lost focus. [01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:46.000] But the older group's brains didn't even flinch, and they stayed focused on solving the next task. [01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:49.000] The moral? There's something to be said for experience. [01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:55.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:23.000] We are back. This is the Monday Night Rule of Law radio show with your host, Teddy Craig. [01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:27.000] And we're here with Andy Helton, the art and discussion team. [01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:30.000] The discussion team. [01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:34.000] So, turn off that hillbilly music. [01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:37.000] Yeah, let's see if I can get it back on track. [01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:44.000] So we know that the grand juries are supposed to inquire into all misdemeanors just like they do felonies. [01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:49.000] We know that because that is what is written in Article 5, Section 17. [01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:52.000] It says it right there in front of you. [01:03:52.000 --> 01:04:02.000] It also says, now, notice that the indictment is the only instrument the Constitution says can be quashed. [01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:05.000] It's the only one, the indictment itself. [01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:14.000] It does not say there is a method of quashing an information or a sworn affidavit. [01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:18.000] In fact, it says if the indictment itself is quashed, [01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:27.000] the person can still be held for prosecution based upon the information and sworn statement. [01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:33.000] Now, we know that the information cannot exist without a sworn statement. [01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:37.000] We know that the indictment cannot exist without the sworn statement, [01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:43.000] the information both being together and filed with the grand jury. [01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:49.000] That's laid out very clearly in the Constitution and in the Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:04:49.000 --> 01:05:01.000] So, if these misdemeanors are even the fine onlys are something that justice and municipal courts have jurisdiction over, [01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:07.000] then here is where we're getting into the area of who actually has the trial jurisdiction. [01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:13.000] Is it the JP courts? Is it the municipal courts? Or is it both of them together? [01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:16.000] All right, so we go down to Article 5, Section 21. [01:05:16.000 --> 01:05:27.000] It tells us that the county attorney shall represent the state in all cases in the district and in barrier courts in their respective counties. [01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:33.000] Now, once again, the Constitution does not distinguish in the types of inferior courts. [01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:38.000] It doesn't limit it to just the county courts. It says inferior courts to the district court. [01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:45.000] Well, what are the inferior courts? The county courts, the county courts at law, the justice courts, and the municipal courts. [01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:47.000] Is that right or wrong, Randy? [01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:48.000] That's right. [01:05:48.000 --> 01:06:03.000] Okay. Now, here is the other place where the Texas legislature and the Texas courts have attempted to replace the Texas Constitution with the Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:18.000] But if any county shall be included in a district in which there shall be a district attorney, the respective duties of district attorneys and county attorneys shall be in such counties regulated by the legislature. [01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:28.000] Now, here's the problem. The constitutional power to prosecute the name of the state is given only to county and district attorneys, not to a city attorney ever anywhere. [01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:31.000] It's not even given to the state attorney general to do so. [01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:38.000] Nowhere. It's given only to county and district attorneys and in some cases, criminal district attorneys. [01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:52.000] Okay. However, the courts have decided that the city attorney is somehow synonymous with county and district attorney. [01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:08.000] And they have gotten the legislature to write that into the Code of Criminal Procedure under Article 45.201, saying that in municipal courts, the city attorney has the jurisdiction to prosecute. [01:07:08.000 --> 01:07:13.000] However, once again, to prosecute what kind of cases? [01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:18.000] Is it all misdemeanors or is it only city ordinance cases? [01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:33.000] Well, since the county attorney is the one that represents the state and a state law is under the jurisdiction of the state and an ordinance is under the jurisdiction of the municipality and not the state. [01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:43.000] I am going to argue that there is a division of powers here that makes it where the municipal court cannot actually prosecute as the court of original jurisdiction. [01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:48.000] Any state law crime of a misdemeanor level can't do it. [01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:53.000] And I'm going to go into explaining why I believe that as we go through the rest of this. [01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:04.000] Now, here in Chapter four of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have specific statutes dealing with justice courts and county courts, starting with Article 4.07. [01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:17.000] Jurisdiction of county courts. The county courts shall have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors of which exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to the justice court. [01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:22.000] Doesn't say municipal court. It says the justice court. [01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:33.000] And when the fine to be imposed shall exceed five hundred dollars, remember, justice courts and municipal courts are limited to specific fines under state law to two hundred dollars. [01:08:33.000 --> 01:08:40.000] However, state law is the issue with the municipal court because there they're given under ordinance. [01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:45.000] They're giving jurisdiction for fines up to two thousand dollars. [01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:48.000] A big difference, a ten times difference. [01:08:48.000 --> 01:09:00.000] In fact, Article 4.08 appellate jurisdiction of county courts, the county courts shall have appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases of which justice courts [01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:04.000] and other inferior courts have original jurisdiction. [01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:11.000] So this one tells us that justice and municipal courts appeal to the county court. [01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:17.000] So any case they decide is appealed to the county court. [01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:23.000] All right. But notice that we still specifically speak of justice courts in 4.08. [01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:29.000] Then we go to 4.09 appeals from inferior court. [01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:37.000] If jurisdiction of any county court has been transferred to the district court or to a county court at law. [01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:46.000] And Randy, this is the part that was talking that I told you about earlier where the county court at law then shares appellate jurisdiction with the county court. [01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:51.000] That's this is the statute that does that 4.09 of Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:09:51.000 --> 01:10:00.000] Then an appeal from a justice or other inferior court will lie to the court to which such appellate jurisdiction has been transferred. [01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:10.000] So they can transfer jurisdiction from the county court to either the district court or to the county courts at law. [01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:15.000] That's where their jurisdiction comes from from the from the county court. [01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:25.000] Article four point one one jurisdiction of justice courts a justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction in criminal cases. [01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:44.000] One punishable by fine only or punishable by a a fine and B as authorized by statute a sanction not consisting of confinement or imprisonment or two arising under Chapter one oh six of the alcoholic [01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:49.000] beverage code that do not include confinement as an authorized sanction. [01:10:49.000 --> 01:11:12.000] Subsection B the fact that a conviction in a justice court has as a consequence the imposition of a penalty or sanction by an agency or entity other than the court such as a denial suspension or revocation of a privilege does not affect the original jurisdiction of the justice court. [01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:36.000] Subsection C a justice court has concurrent jurisdiction with a municipal court in criminal cases that arise in the municipalities extraterritorial jurisdiction and that arise under an ordinance of the municipality applicable to the extraterritorial jurisdiction under section two sixteen point nine oh two of the local government code. [01:11:36.000 --> 01:11:59.000] And section two six regulation of outdoor signs in municipalities extraterritorial jurisdiction. [01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:19.000] So that section deals only with signage notice that arise under the municipality criminal cases under the municipalities extraterritorial jurisdiction and that arise under an ordinance relating to section two one six point nine oh two. [01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:29.000] So right there this section the concurrent jurisdiction of the municipality relates only to an ordinance dealing with signage. [01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:47.000] That's the concurrent jurisdiction this section talks about doesn't talk about all criminal cases because there's a conjunctive and that says the criminal case must be an ordinance and related to signage. [01:12:47.000 --> 01:13:07.000] Now we go down to article four point one two misdemeanor cases precinct in which defendant to be tried in justice court subsection a except as otherwise provided by this article on misdemeanor case to be tried in justice court shall be tried one in the precinct in which the offense [01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:26.000] was committed to in the precinct in which the defendant or any other defendants reside three with the written consent of the state and each defendant or the defendant's attorney in any other precinct within the county or for if the offense was committed in a county with a population of three point [01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:42.000] three million or more in any precinct in the county that is adjacent to the precinct in which the offense was committed of section B in any misdemeanor case in which the offense was committed in a precinct where there is no qualified justice court. [01:13:42.000 --> 01:14:03.000] The then trial shall be held one in the next adjacent precinct in the same county which has a duly qualified justice court or two in the precinct in which the defendant may reside subsection C in any misdemeanor case in which each justice of the piece in the precinct [01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:22.000] where the offense was committed is disqualified for any reason such case may be tried in the next adjoining precinct in the same county having a duly qualified justice of the piece subsection D a defendant who was taken before a magistrate in accordance with article fifteen point one [01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:41.000] eight may waive trial by jury and enter a plea of guilty arnola contender E the justices of the piece in each county shall by majority vote adopt local rules of administration regarding the transfer of a pending misdemeanor case from one precinct to a different [01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:59.000] precinct notice municipal courts are not discussed here at all now we go down to article four point one three talks about how a justice may forfeit a bond a justice of the piece shall have the power to take forfeitures of all bonds given for the appearance of any party in his court [01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:19.000] regardless of the amount article four point one four jurisdiction of municipal court subsection a municipal court including a municipal court of record shall have exclusive original jurisdiction within the territorial limits of the municipality in all criminal cases that one [01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:33.000] arise under the ordinance of the municipality and are punishable by a fine not to exceed a two thousand dollars four thousand dollars or five hundred dollars. [01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:53.000] Okay and all of those are cases arising under municipal ordinances subsection B of four point one four the municipal court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court of a precinct in which the municipality is located in all criminal cases arising under state law that one [01:15:53.000 --> 01:16:14.000] arise within the territorial limits of the municipality and are punishable by fine only as defined in such subsection C of this article or to arise under chapter one point oh six alcoholic beverage code and do not include confinement as an authorized [01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:39.000] sanction subsection C in this article an offense which is punishable by fine only is defined as an offense that is punishable by fine and such sanctions if any as authorized by statute not consisting of confinement in jail or imprisonment. [01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:48.000] All right so far it appears the municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction under state law and I say appears. [01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:51.000] That's what I was going to say appears. [01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:59.000] Hey hang on folks we'll take another break and we'll be right back. [01:16:59.000 --> 01:17:13.000] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word then tune into logos radio network.com on Wednesdays from eight to 10 p.m. Central time for scripture talk where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in [01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:22.000] accord with second Timothy two fifteen study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. [01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:30.000] Starting in January our first hour studies are in the book of Mark where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. [01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:37.000] Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development. [01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:42.000] We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear. [01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:48.000] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus. [01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:59.000] So tune into scripture talk live on logos radio network.com Wednesdays from eight to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures. [01:17:59.000 --> 01:18:04.000] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls letters or even lawsuits. [01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:08.000] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. [01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:13.000] Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. [01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:19.000] You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. [01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:27.000] What to do when contacted by phone mail or court summons how to answer letters and phone calls how to get debt collectors out of your credit report. [01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:32.000] How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. [01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:37.000] The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. [01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:48.000] Personal consultation is available as well. For more information please visit rule of law radio dot com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email Michael Mears at Yahoo dot com. [01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:51.000] That's rule of law radio dot com or email. [01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:58.000] M I C H A E L M I R R A S at Yahoo dot com to learn how to stop debt collectors. [01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:22.000] Now this is the Logos Logos Radio Network. [01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:33.000] All right folks we are back. [01:19:33.000 --> 01:19:43.000] All right now as I was saying I am in article 4.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I got down to subsection D of that specific article. [01:19:43.000 --> 01:20:00.000] However the rest of that article deals with municipal courts and their authority over bonds municipal courts and their authority to make agreements with other municipalities for offenses within certain distances of the demarcation lines between the two municipalities. [01:20:00.000 --> 01:20:04.000] They can overlap they can be a certain distance blah blah blah. [01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:09.000] The rest of 4.14 is not relevant to the discussion as I as we're going forward here. [01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:15.000] However now we go down to article 4.15 and it says may sit at any time. [01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:22.000] Justice courts and corporation courts may sit at any time to try criminal cases over which they have jurisdiction. [01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:27.000] Any case in which a fine may be assessed shall be tried in accordance with the rules of evidence and this code. [01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:36.000] Now we know for a fact the rules of evidence say they are specifically exempted from use and application within a justice court setting. [01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:46.000] Doesn't say that about municipal courts but it explicitly accepts the rules of evidence from justice courts despite what 4.15 says. [01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:50.000] Rules of evidence say they do not apply in a justice court. [01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:54.000] Now we go to article 4.16 concurrent jurisdiction. [01:20:54.000 --> 01:21:06.000] Now Randy based upon what we read before in 4.14C or 4.14C where it says concurrent jurisdiction with the justice and municipal courts. [01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:17.000] Let's look at 4.16 concurrent jurisdiction when two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction of any criminal offense. [01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:30.000] The court in which an indictment or complaint shall first be filed shall retain jurisdiction except as provided by article 4.14 or 4.12. [01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:43.000] Which takes us back to just the justice courts where the justice courts could transfer them between precincts based upon the conditions of 4.12. [01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:47.000] With me so far? Yes. All right. [01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:59.000] Now under chapter 21 of the code of criminal procedure we start going to this article 21.26 order transferring cases. [01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:19.000] Upon the filing of an indictment in the district court which charges an offense over which such court has no jurisdiction the judge of such court shall make an order transferring the same to such inferior court as may have jurisdiction. [01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:29.000] Stating in such order the cause transferred into what court transferred. Now correct me if I'm wrong but have we not agreed to the following in this discussion so far? [01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:35.000] Yes. The Texas Constitution requires indictments of misdemeanors in justice courts. [01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:38.000] Yes. Or I'm sorry of class C fine onlys right? [01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:44.000] And the Constitution says nothing about certifying to a municipal court. [01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:53.000] Correct. And it says it must be certified to the district court or should then hand it down to an inferior court and one of those inferior courts is the justice court. [01:22:53.000 --> 01:23:04.000] Okay. And right here it tells us that when the district court has no jurisdiction it shall transfer that indictment to the court having jurisdiction to try it for trial. [01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:30.000] Now we get to article 21.27 causes transferred to justice court. Causes over which justices of the peace have jurisdiction may be transferred to a justice of the peace at the county seat or in the discretion of the judge meaning the district judge to a justice of the precinct in which the same can be most conveniently tried. [01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:43.000] This takes us Randy straight back to article 4.12 where the transfer between JP precincts can be done if there's not a valid JP. [01:23:43.000 --> 01:24:02.000] Okay. As may appear by memorandum endorsed by the grand jury on the indictment or otherwise. So the great the indictment must have a or may have a memorandum on it saying that it goes to a specific justice court right on the indictment. [01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:14.000] And if not the district judge is required to hand it down to a JP court within a with a precinct and to know who that is. [01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:39.000] If it appears to the judge that the offense has been committed in any incorporated town or city meaning a municipality the cause shall be transferred to a justice in said town or city if there be one there in and any justice to whom such cause may be transferred shall have jurisdiction to try the same. [01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:57.000] So all the class C final needs require an indictment the district court must hand that indictment down to the court having jurisdiction to try it for trial to 21.27 says that cause must be transferred to a justice court. [01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:18.000] And if there is done within a municipality it must be given to a justice court within the boundaries of that municipality if one exists if not the rules of 4.12 kick in and it must be transferred to a neighboring precinct or some other JP within the county having jurisdiction to try it. [01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:22.000] There is no escaping that. [01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:44.000] Let me get this 28 21.28 duty on transfer the clerk of the court without delay shall deliver the indictments in all cases transferred together with all the papers relating to each case to the proper court or justice as directed in the order of transfer. [01:25:44.000 --> 01:26:03.000] 21.29 proceedings of inferior court any case so transferred shall be entered on the docket of the court to which it is transferred all process there on shall be issued and the defendant tried as if the court the case had originated in the court to which it was transferred. [01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:25.000] Article 21.30 cause in providently transferred when a cause has been in providently transferred to a court which has no jurisdiction of the same the court to which it has been transferred shall order it to be re transferred to the proper court and the same proceedings shall be had as in the case of the original transfer. [01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:37.000] In such case the defendant and the witnesses shall be held bound to appear before the court to which the cause the case has been re transferred and the same as they were bound to appear before the court. [01:26:37.000 --> 01:27:00.000] So transferring same right here we know indictments are required for class C fine only the court of original jurisdiction for for crimes under state law is the justice court we know that in the case of the indictment the district court is required to hand it down to the court having jurisdiction [01:27:00.000 --> 01:27:18.000] for trial and that specifically states that it is transferred to a justice court not to a municipal court and if the offense occurred within the territory of boundaries of a municipal court that it must be transferred to a justice of the peace within the boundaries of that court [01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:36.000] if one exists and if it does not the rules under 4.12 code of criminal procedure are invoked to transfer it to a different justice within a different precinct or a different part of the county and precinct do we agree that that's what we've covered so far. [01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:59.000] I agree that's okay then there is no way in hell a municipal court has original jurisdiction to hear a traffic offense no way whatsoever they do not have concurrent jurisdiction to hear it because the indictment required must be given to an injustice court it can't be given to a municipal court. [01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:07.000] Oh I like this one I have two courts right now I want to file that on. [01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:13.000] Well now you have the recording of the show to go make it in this time instead of plagiarizing mine. [01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:35.000] I'd rather plagiarize yours I know you would because I've done all the legwork yeah but the point I can that when you take all of these provisions of the Constitution and the code of criminal procedure into account there is no way in hell a municipal court can be here in the cases it's here. [01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:50.000] Oh this is going to be so much fun I have just moved a municipal court issue to the county court and this is before a judge I've known for 30 years. [01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:56.000] Oh am I going to have fun putting him on a dime. [01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:00.000] This is the guy that used to be the district attorney. [01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:14.000] I went into his office one day with a dime in my hand and he looked at it and I'm holding it and he said Mr Kelton I'm sure you're going to tell me what that is well that's a dime. [01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:26.000] Yeah but you're going to tell me what it's for I put it down on his desk I said yes since I was going to put you on one the least I can do is bring my own. [01:29:26.000 --> 01:29:29.000] So I may come into the court with a dime. [01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:36.000] Now do you understand why I said you really needed to consider what was in Chapter 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? [01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:37.000] Yes. [01:29:37.000 --> 01:29:45.000] Because 4.12 locks in everything that's in Chapter 21. [01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:50.000] It prevents it from ever getting to a municipal. [01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:54.000] I'm going to have to go through this a couple of times to get it get it locked in. [01:29:54.000 --> 01:29:59.000] Alright folks we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back. [01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:04.000] It seems like everywhere you turn nowadays someone wants your name social security number and date of birth. [01:30:04.000 --> 01:30:07.000] But you should think twice before giving away your personal data. [01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:11.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll say more in just a moment. [01:30:11.000 --> 01:30:18.000] Google is watching you recording everything you've ever searched for and creating a massive database of your personal information. [01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:19.000] That's creepy. [01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:21.000] But it doesn't have to be that way. [01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:24.000] Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. [01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:31.000] Startpage.com doesn't store your IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies and they're third party certified. [01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:35.000] If you don't like Big Brother spying on you, start over with Startpage. [01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:38.000] Great search results and total privacy. [01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:41.000] Startpage.com the world's most private search engine. [01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:44.000] Forms, forms, forms. They're everywhere. [01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:48.000] But just because a piece of paper asks for information doesn't mean you have to give it. [01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:55.000] I leave blank spaces on forms all the time or I write N slash A for not applicable and usually nobody notices or cares. [01:30:55.000 --> 01:31:02.000] I never give my social security number or date of birth unless it's absolutely mandatory for employment or a government requirement. [01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:07.000] And I won't give my phone number to a company or an organization unless I actually want them to call me. [01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:08.000] And that's pretty rare. [01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:13.000] To preserve our vanishing privacy we need to practice saying no to random data requests. [01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:15.000] It's like exercising a muscle. [01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:17.000] It gets easier the more you do it. [01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:21.000] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:52.000] 200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story. [01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:55.000] Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. [01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:57.000] Go to buildingwhat.org. [01:31:57.000 --> 01:32:00.000] Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do. [01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:04.000] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. [01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000] In today's America we live in an us against them society. [01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:12.000] 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. [01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:16.000] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, [01:32:16.000 --> 01:32:19.000] and most importantly the right to due process of law. [01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:24.000] Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:30.000] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available [01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:34.000] that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. [01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:40.000] You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. [01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:44.000] By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie. [01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:50.000] Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. [01:32:50.000 --> 01:32:54.000] Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. [01:32:54.000 --> 01:33:22.000] Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:39.000] Music [01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:43.000] Look at them yo-yos, that's the way you do it. [01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:46.000] You play the guitar on the MTV. [01:33:46.000 --> 01:33:50.000] That ain't working, that's the way you do it. [01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:53.000] Money for nothing and your checks are free. [01:33:53.000 --> 01:33:57.000] Now that ain't working, that's the way you do it. [01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:00.000] Let me tell you, them guys ain't dumb. [01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:04.000] Maybe get a blister on your little finger. [01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:07.000] Maybe get a blister on your thumb. [01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:11.000] We got to install microwave ovens. [01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:14.000] Custom kitchen delivery. [01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:30.000] I want my MTV. [01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:32.000] Alright folks, we are back. [01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:35.000] This is the Monday Night Rule of Law Radio Show with your host Eddie Craig. [01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:41.000] Randy Kelton was my guest tonight and he has dropped off to get himself some rest. [01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:48.000] The phone lines are now open, call in number 512-648-646-1984. [01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:51.000] It's been so long since I've actually had to say the number, I've almost forgotten it. [01:34:51.000 --> 01:34:54.000] That's the first time I've ever messed that number up. [01:34:54.000 --> 01:34:58.000] 512-646-1984 is the call in number. [01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:02.000] I've got a half an hour left if you want to call and ask me any questions or anything. [01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:06.000] But if I don't get anybody, that's okay because I'm going to keep talking about this for a minute. [01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:10.000] Until the end of the show if necessary. [01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:19.000] Now, because the courts are doing, here in Texas, are doing everything wrong. [01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:25.000] I mean everything when it comes to how they're prosecuting these cases. [01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:31.000] The odds of us getting justice on this and getting the way they're doing things overturned [01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:40.000] without actually suing the courts is astronomically low. [01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:47.000] I mean we're never going to fix this as long as they control what the Constitution means [01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:52.000] and what state law means regardless of what it actually says. [01:35:52.000 --> 01:35:55.000] See, this is the thing about Texas courts. [01:35:55.000 --> 01:36:03.000] The courts here legislate from the bench so much and so often it's not even funny. [01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:08.000] For instance, I had a nephew who was convicted of a DUI. [01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:15.000] And get this, even though the statute specifically requires the operation of a motor vehicle [01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:21.000] on a highway or other publicly accessible roadway, [01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:27.000] he was convicted of a DUI while standing in a parking lot [01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:32.000] at the rear of his car with his keys in his hand. [01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:37.000] And the judge rewrote the statute using, [01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:45.000] via the opinion that because he had control of the keys and access to the car, [01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:49.000] he could have gotten behind the wheel and drove it. [01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:55.000] In other words, he was guilty of a minority report crime, [01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:01.000] i.e. a potential future crime that had not yet occurred. [01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:08.000] And the judge convicted him of DUI by rewriting the statute [01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:12.000] to encompass holding your keys near your car, [01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:16.000] rather than actually operating a motor vehicle on a highway [01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:20.000] or other publicly accessible roadway. [01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:22.000] So the courts in Texas do this. [01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:24.000] They're not the only place that does it. [01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:29.000] But the Texas courts are egregiously bad about it. [01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:34.000] They have rewritten the Code of Criminal Procedure without any legal authority to do so. [01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:38.000] They've rewritten the Texas Constitution without any authority to do so. [01:37:38.000 --> 01:37:46.000] And they have upheld the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure over the Texas Constitution. [01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:52.000] They did this in a case that we talked about in class from 1899, [01:37:52.000 --> 01:37:58.000] where the court ruled that an information was not required to prosecute the case [01:37:58.000 --> 01:38:02.000] because the Code of Criminal Procedure did not require it. [01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:08.000] The Code of Criminal Procedure ignored the requirement of an indictment or information [01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:13.000] in lieu of just a verified complaint. [01:38:13.000 --> 01:38:18.000] And that's a problem because what the 1899 court case did [01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:40.000] was use the Code of Criminal Procedure to ignore Article 5 under Section 12, [01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:44.000] where it specifically states that it is an indictment or information [01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:47.000] that invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause. [01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:53.000] They can't use the Code of Criminal Procedure to get rid of that requirement [01:38:53.000 --> 01:38:55.000] within the Texas Constitution. [01:38:55.000 --> 01:39:02.000] So saying that the law does not allow an information to be used in a misdemeanor case [01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:08.000] is a direct violation of Article 5, Section 12B of the Texas Constitution. [01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:11.000] No ifs, no ands, no buts. [01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:14.000] All right, I've got to call her up on the board here. [01:39:14.000 --> 01:39:17.000] This is Mr. Pat, the one I've got to talk to in a while. [01:39:17.000 --> 01:39:20.000] Mr. Pat, what can we do for you, sir? [01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:22.000] And welcome. [01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:25.000] Morning. [01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:27.000] Morning. [01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:33.000] I'm feeling like I haven't been to bed so it could be as morning as much as it is night for me. [01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:39.000] This is the first time in a long time I've had a chance to sit and listen to you on a Monday evening. [01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:42.000] Well, I'm glad you're still around to do that. [01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:44.000] That's your able. [01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:45.000] Yeah. [01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:48.000] Oh, believe me, it's been a trial. [01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:55.000] Well, I sent you over a little email this evening on allocution. [01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:59.000] It'll fit right in with what you're talking about, what Randy wants to do. [01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:00.000] Okay. [01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:04.000] Don't contract with the court. [01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:06.000] I know that sounds funny. [01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:13.000] Read the article and what it says there and where it's referenced and everything and you'll understand. [01:40:13.000 --> 01:40:19.000] And don't forget sheriff of these. [01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:21.000] Yeah, these v state, you mean? [01:40:21.000 --> 01:40:23.000] Yeah. [01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:25.000] And what goes in with that? [01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:32.000] And now there's a lot of judges that don't like it. [01:40:32.000 --> 01:40:34.000] I can swear to it by personal. [01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:44.000] Well, there's a lot of judges in Texas that think they're God, not just that they don't like something, but they think they have the power to overturn the constitution in lieu of their rules and procedures. [01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:48.000] And I think I've met a number of them. [01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:49.000] Yeah. [01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:51.000] I vehemently disagree. [01:40:51.000 --> 01:40:53.000] Yeah. [01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:57.000] I'll tell you, it is great. [01:40:57.000 --> 01:40:58.000] Go ahead, Pat. [01:40:58.000 --> 01:40:59.000] Go ahead. [01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:00.000] No, that's fine. [01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:04.000] Go ahead. [01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:07.000] I have considered running for the office of president. [01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:09.000] However, I would change it. [01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:12.000] I would campaign on this. [01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:16.000] And that is I am not running for the office of president. [01:41:16.000 --> 01:41:21.000] I want the office of absolute dictator for four years. [01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:24.000] Absolute dictator, not president. [01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:26.000] Okay, Mr. Biden. [01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:38.000] Every single problem we've got with government, I will fix by throwing all of them in jail immediately. [01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:41.000] And we will do what they have done to us. [01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:46.000] You will go to jail until you prove you're innocent enough to be let back out again. [01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:54.000] And everything that we find out about you, you're insider trading because you wrote the laws to make it where you could do something you forbid us to do. [01:41:54.000 --> 01:42:03.000] Every law you voted for that does something that harms the people while making an exception for yourself, you're guilty of sedition. [01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:08.000] And each act of sedition will get you no less than 25 years. [01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:15.000] There is not a single one of them that would ever get out of jail again, not one. [01:42:15.000 --> 01:42:21.000] I got a better one than that one, Eddie. [01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:27.000] Why incur the debt to keep those people alive? [01:42:27.000 --> 01:42:28.000] Take them out and hang them. [01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:29.000] Oh, no, no, no. [01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:32.000] I wasn't saying about by jail. [01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:35.000] I didn't mean keeping them in prison forever. [01:42:35.000 --> 01:42:37.000] That's not what I meant. [01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:45.000] Our jail is we take them to an island in the middle of the ocean, hundreds of miles from any shipping lane. [01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:49.000] And we say you want to make society that operates the way you made the rules. [01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:53.000] All of you, this is your home and this is where you will stay. [01:42:53.000 --> 01:42:59.000] And we're going to make sure that it's patrolled so that no one takes you off of here ever. [01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:02.000] That's as much of a prison as I'm willing to give them. [01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:04.000] They can fend for themselves. [01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:06.000] They can find their own food, their own water. [01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:10.000] And if there isn't none, well, we just picked the wrong island. [01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:13.000] That's all. [01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:14.000] Yeah. [01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:15.000] All right. [01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:17.000] Eddie, you have good night. [01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:20.000] And I was good hearing you tell Randy. [01:43:20.000 --> 01:43:21.000] I said, hello. [01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:23.000] It's been a long time. [01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:24.000] All right. [01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:25.000] Well, thanks for calling in, Pat. [01:43:25.000 --> 01:43:26.000] I appreciate it. [01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:28.000] Glad to hear you're still out there. [01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:29.000] Yeah. [01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:32.000] Take care. [01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:33.000] All right. [01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:34.000] I got another break again. [01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:37.000] Calling number 512-646-1984. [01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:42.000] I'm about to be done. [01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:59.000] All right, back after this break. [01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:05.000] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. [01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:07.000] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. [01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:09.000] And it's time we changed all that. [01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:15.000] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:20.000] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, [01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:23.000] Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:23.000 --> 01:44:29.000] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:34.000] We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor, [01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:38.000] along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:46.000] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:44:46.000 --> 01:44:50.000] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:44:50.000 --> 01:44:57.000] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. [01:44:57.000 --> 01:44:59.000] Order now. [01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:02.000] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:02.000 --> 01:45:09.000] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course [01:45:09.000 --> 01:45:13.000] that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:13.000 --> 01:45:17.000] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:21.000] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:21.000 --> 01:45:26.000] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:32.000] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:37.000] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand [01:45:37.000 --> 01:45:41.000] about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:48.000] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:59.000] pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.