[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty Roundtable Radio Talk Show. Happy to have you along my fellow Americans. Some serious questions to ask and then we break it down on Liberty Roundtable Live. Number one, do you believe in the due process of law? Number two, do you believe in a jury of your peers?
[00:00:34] Number three, do you believe in a speedy trial? And number four, do you believe we can play games with words so that we can force folks to pay fines? In the Declaration of Independence they talk about eating out our substance, fining us and penalizing us for the smallest quote infractions. Ladies and gentlemen, we've got serious issues in America today. It's all over the country.
[00:01:01] We're going to use a local case to highlight a national serious, serious issue. And to break it down with me is Dr. Scott Bradley, freedomsrisingsun.com, well-known constitutional educator. He's created the incredible series, To Preserve the Nation. It's a collegiate series with lectures and a workbook and a book to read. It's just an incredible breakdown of God, family and country in the traditions of our founders.
[00:01:25] It's called To Preserve the Nation. A great effort to restore, to have a restoration, not a revolution, ladies and gentlemen. The next guest we have with us today, Jacob Oaks. He's the founder, president and director of Liberty United.
[00:01:44] Liberty United is a Utah-based, nonpartisan organization focused on strengthening families, educating citizens, uniting communities and promoting constitutional principles. Unitingliberty.com is the website for that. But Jacob is a public speaker. He talks about just everything under the sun, but it's always focused on the sacred principles of liberty.
[00:02:12] He's also a musician, an artist, if you will. I guess it's through the Revive music label that he gets that done. And his central message is that liberty begins with informed individuals, strong families, timeless principles and communities willing to work together. Now, this isn't a community that's willing to work together now. And that's the problem that we're facing, ladies and gentlemen, that I want to bring to your attention. Headline from KSL, the biggest news service in the state.
[00:02:42] Utah candidate in violation of a court order after refusing to pay a fine. Now, I believe that headline is misleading as all get out. Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen. Dr. Scott Bradley with me. Welcome, sir. Well, thank you, Sam. It sounds like we've got a bundle of things to unbundle. Amen to that, sir. Jacob Oaks, welcome to the show, sir. Thank you, Sam. We got lots unpacked. Yes, we do.
[00:03:12] So I want to start out and just tell the government's side of the story. KSL, I call it a hit piece on Jacob Oaks, ladies and gentlemen. KSL, you mean horror, horror, self-life. They say a Utah County candidate is in violation of a court order for not paying a fine after being charged with driving on a suspended license. Now, I find some interesting things about that. Number one, in violation of a court order.
[00:03:42] Wait a minute. I thought he was appealing. That's what he says he's doing. So does a court order stand if there's an appeal or is it on hold until the appeal is finished? Now, they say he's been charged. It doesn't say he's been convicted. That's an interesting twist in the case as well. Jacob Oaks argues that the fine is unconstitutional. Says he plans to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. Does he have that right? I think so.
[00:04:09] A written notice from last month says that he's in violation of the court's order for not paying the fine. But you know what, folks? Jacob Oaks right now is running for Utah County Commissioner. He's with the Independent American Party on that ticket. So it's a third-party run. And Oaks is 35. He wants to appeal the case. And he says, hey, I shouldn't be paying a fine.
[00:04:37] Because if I do so, to be an admission of guilt partway through a case that's not even adjudicated, don't I get a jury of my peers? What about due process of law? If I'm appealing, due process says I get to take it all the way before, if there is even a conviction. It's a big issue. Jacob, that's their claim. That's their deal. I say they're trying to short-circuit due process. Let's start there. Let's hear your side of the story.
[00:05:03] Well, Sam, under administrative rule, you need over 400 points to have a six-month suspension. Boy, that's quite a number of points. If you're driving around, I'd be a little worried about someone that doesn't know they're all the way up to 400 points if they don't know they have that many points. That'd be a little concerning if somebody didn't realize they had that many points.
[00:05:33] Well, I was nowhere near those points. And apparently, there's some kind of fine print loophole that the driver's license division found and love to take advantage of in my situation where I reached some threshold that required calling in, just get a little tap on the wrist. Hey, just so you know, we'll make you aware you're reaching this number of points. We just have to document that conversation. Well, I didn't know this. And because I didn't call in, they threw a default.
[00:06:03] And they defaulted me to suspend my license. After a traffic stop with an officer, he made me aware, cited me for driving on suspended license. I called the driver's license division. After calling them, they immediately reinstated it because they realized how stupid it was. And I thought for sure when I go to the preliminary hearing with the justice court, they'd be like, oh, okay, so it sounds like everything's taken care of.
[00:06:32] We'll just dismiss this. Well, no. I was told I wasn't allowed to make a legal argument. Among a whole other host of issues, convicted there, appealed to no vote to district court. At district court, I was denied a jury trial. I was denied cross-examination of the witness. I was, during all of this, every step of the way, I keep getting denied due process.
[00:07:02] And ultimately, the judge also told me with wrong information that there is no other avenues for further review. I pushed back and she unequivocally came down again saying, no, I am the appeal in this situation. There is no other way in our system at all for any more appeal or further review.
[00:07:30] And so, I'm wondering, while we have cases of fraud and other things like that happening, why they're chasing down someone whose license really shouldn't have been suspended. And it's still going on today. All right. When did this all start, Jacob? Just a couple days ago? A couple weeks ago? Uh, began clear back last summer.
[00:08:00] July 2025. Traffic stop in Pleasant Grove. They said he was driving without a license because it was suspended. The problem for Jacob is that he didn't know it was suspended. Now, that's really kind of the core of the argument, Jacob. As far as I understand, you didn't know it was suspended. So, how could you not drive on it if you didn't know? They claim you were told, right?
[00:08:23] So, they, their evidence, uh, now, again, in our, in our American court system, we get the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. So, their evidence is that the driver's license division has marked in their system that they mailed a letter.
[00:08:50] It's just, it's just somewhere in the system they added a checkmark that it was checked off as mailed. I asked if they had certified mail, if there was a tracking number. Even so much as a receipt, an email, there's no email. There's not even a receipt purchasing the postage. There's zero proof. Now, uh, the statute, I will say, the statute does not say they have to use certified mail or what it means,
[00:09:16] but it does say that they are required to provide notice. So, I asked if they can prove that notice was provided. Can they meet the statutory, uh, requirement? And they could not. Dr. Bradley, what's happening here?
[00:09:37] Why are we taking citizens, eating out their substance, denying them due process, um, suggesting that there's no appeal options, that, you know, the buck stops at me, I'm the judge, I am the appeal, and I say no, uh, the burden of proof being switched from the state, in this case, to an individual. I mean, I see so many things wrong with this case, I don't even know where to start, sir. Well, that's my problem, too.
[00:10:01] I mean, honestly, this is, um, there are so many strings to pull on on this case, and it just is, uh, basically an indication of how far down the path we have come in returning to the conditions that require the Declaration of Independence. Of course, none of us are attorneys, you know, none of us can do anything other than review back to what the original documentation says, look at the original intent of the founding fathers.
[00:10:28] What we see going on here is an awful lot of weasel words. I mean, they have infractions that they have special rules for. They have this driving privilege thing. And if you go back and you know, clear back as far as Blackstone, you see this idea of being able to travel freely if you're a free man. And they have changed that to say, well, yeah, you can relocate, but that doesn't mean you can drive yourself to it. Driving is a privilege now.
[00:10:57] Driving was not always a privilege. That kind of evolved over time. You know, back in the 20s and 30s in California, they started saying, well, you've got to have licensure and all this kind of stuff. And you've got to prove competency and all this kind of stuff. All of these kind of things have metastasized into where there is unequivocally a belief that driving is a privilege. And the idea that you can be stopped, pulled over, and fined, and have your, if you will, your property taken,
[00:11:27] you know, that kind of stuff that talked about in the Fifth Amendment, for example. The idea that because it's an infraction, you can't have a jury trial, which we could talk at length about how... Well, let's go into that a little bit because it started out as a misdemeanor. Yeah. And when he appealed to the district court, they didn't accept his appeal exactly, but they did change the misdemeanor to an infraction, Jacob. Well, and that actually...
[00:11:54] They only amended the charge not right as they picked up the case. See, with district court, I filed an official motion on the record. It's on the record petitioning and invoking my right to a jury trial. And it wasn't until after that, after I've already invoked my right to jury trial,
[00:12:20] that when we're in the preliminary hearing, the judge and the prosecutor agree to amend the charges down to infraction in attempt to deny and take away my jury right. See, what does the Constitution of the Founding Fathers say about this, Dr. Bradley? Because really, the Constitution doesn't really talk about infractions, does it? No, there's not that word anywhere to be found in their original intent. But here's the deal.
[00:12:47] Like I say, there's plenty of weasel words in here that they've woven over the years to make this case. And honestly, now the Fifth Amendment, you know, we talked about the taking of the property. The Sixth Amendment, this idea about confronting witnesses against him, which he's been denied. Now let's talk about the Seventh Amendment for a minute. There's so many things we could, you know, we just need to get our arms around. But the Seventh Amendment has to do with basically civil suits. Okay, it suits a common law, it starts out.
[00:13:17] So this is not a civil, well, or is it? Okay, so you can argue about that for a while. But the reason I bring that up is that in suits at common law where the value and controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Okay? So here we have a case where Jacob is having his personal property taken. And there's no cross-examination possible with witnesses.
[00:13:48] And this idea that it's over $20. Now I know this is a civil thing. So the judge basically said you've got to pay $300 within 90 days. And my response is if the appeal all the way to the Supreme Court can happen faster than 90 days, fine. But if it can't, again, another violation, in my opinion, of his rights. How do you say you owe money before it's adjudicated? You've been charged. But there's no conviction, doctor.
[00:14:16] Well, what they're doing is they're kind of taking money as a guarantee that you'll show up for your case. But here's the deal, Sam. Now just think about this for a second. Jacob is a United States citizen. I'm pretty confident of that. I mean, the guy was born and bred here. And so here we have people that are sneaking across the border. They come across the border. Millions of them, literally millions of them have done this in recent years.
[00:14:43] And the most they get is a little piece of paper that says when we call you, we'll bring you back. Nope. Money is put forth. There's nothing except for some record that says when your case comes up, we'll call you. Now here we have a U.S. citizen that's been accused of something. He is appealing that accusation. And he gets more than a piece of paper. He gets a $300 fine. See, some of these things just don't make sense.
[00:15:12] And like I say, this craft of lawyership, which most of our attorneys ultimately someday seem to serve as a legislator. And they write other laws that are to the benefit of their craft. You know, they get into a municipality someplace, a city council. They go to, you know, the state legislature. They go to the national legislature.
[00:15:34] These guys are writing these weasel words into laws that really, truly puts the people at a real disadvantage. And that's the thing that's really interesting to me. Back in the Declaration, you brought up this thing about them eating out our substance. I go even earlier than that in the Declaration. I think that there's an interesting thing about, you know, creator. They're not endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It mentions a few.
[00:16:02] Then it says governments are instituted among men to be able to secure these rights. And it's like, no, no, no. The weasel words that are put in these infractions and these privileges and this idea that you can say, well, we don't have jury trials because at the infraction level it's not. Now, they talk about infractions being a minor thing. Well, 300 bucks to me is not minor.
[00:16:30] And it's not minor also when you start to add to that some things like you got to pay within 90 days whether your case is adjudicated or not. See, if it's not, if it's being appealed, they can't convict him. They can just charge him. And that's the kind of interesting part there. And what you're saying, Jacob, is if you were to pay that, it would be basically an admission of guilt, right? Correct. Correct. Now, some people say pay under protest.
[00:16:57] But now there's a whole other extra layer of things to try to fight. The chances of getting a good judge to actually pay attention to the Constitution are slim these days. Then to try to add another layer there to petition to get a refund on what I paid. I mean, the whole thing is just ridiculous. Now, Dr. Bradley mentioned they might be charging you the 300 bucks to try to make sure that you show up.
[00:17:24] But whether you show up or not isn't really important in my opinion. The law is what's important here. Now, here's what's interesting to me. They say you have to pay this within 90 days. And what I find strange about that is there's no conviction yet, folks. Appeals mean there's no conviction until it finishes in the courts. Due process says you should be able to at least finish and see where the chips fall before you have to pay or have to, you know. But then they say this.
[00:17:50] If you don't pay this $300 fine, you could face further penalties. Is that threatening to you, Jacob? Well, Sam, you know, organized crime typically is not just motivated by some impulse crime. I mean, it's thought out. It's planned. There's a whole institution of people behind it, and they use coercion and force.
[00:18:19] Does that kind of maybe sound familiar? And that's the problem that I'm pointing out. What do penalties beyond this mean? Might they create a citation and try to throw you in jail? Might they try to impound your vehicle? I mean, what penalties are we talking about? They leave that unspecified, which makes the threat 10 times worse than maybe what they lawfully can do. I mean, the debate's on about this, but I'm not comfortable with you better pay this in 90 days. Forget about your due process.
[00:18:48] And by the way, if you don't cooperate, there's greater penalties. It sounds like, you know, it's like the velvet hammer, Jake. Yeah. Yeah. Well, they're saying they may suspend my license again. And, you know, some people have gone to jail for being in contempt of court.
[00:19:09] But like you said, I'm in process of filing a petition to the Utah Supreme Court. You know, Sam, it's interesting to me, Sam and Jacob, and well, everybody that's listening. There's this little book out written by a guy by the name of Frederick Bastiat. He wrote it in 1850. Everybody should read this book today. The Law. It's pretty short. It's only about 70 pages or so, right?
[00:19:36] You can read it in a single sitting, and you'll be cheering all the way through. This little Frenchman in 1850 captured so much in essence of just law. And one of the comments he makes in there, he talks about those that are in power make laws that put the gendarmes. He was French, remember. So the police on their side to facilitate their pillage and plunder.
[00:20:03] And so you have the police, and Jacob brings up the organized crime stuff, where they have actually made the police officers complicit in their crimes against justice in the United States system that, you know, 250 years ago, we just celebrated the birthday. You know, the 4th of July, 250 years ago, we had this Declaration of Independence. And it has strayed so far.
[00:20:31] And, you know, the Declaration was in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 17—well, actually, for technicality, 1788, and implemented in 1789. And this Constitution was there to limit and bound things. And that's the total power given to the general government.
[00:20:55] Our Utah Constitution bounds the people, in addition to that, within, you know, their authority to act. But when that United States Constitution was brought out, Madison was so excited he had been through the convention, and he wrote to Jefferson, who was in France as our ambassador. And their correspondence is fascinating.
[00:21:21] But Jefferson wrote back that one of the things that bothered him about the Constitution, it didn't have a Bill of Rights. And he specifically, in that letter, protects the jury trial. That was really important. And so when we did get our Bill of Rights, we have jury trial mentioned in the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment. This was a reiteration of the fact that we get to have a jury trial of our peers. And all of this is being denied to Jacob.
[00:21:51] And you say, oh, well, yeah, well, it's an infraction, and it's a privilege, and we can weasel word our way all the way around. When it started, though, it was based on this idea that his license was suspended. They didn't communicate that fact to him. When he found out about it, he quickly went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and said, what's going on here? They said, oh, my gosh, we're sorry this was a weird technicality. This shouldn't have happened. And they reinstated it. At that point, this should be done.
[00:22:17] But the problem is what you've got is, in my opinion, a political persecution going on here where you say, you know, Jacob's running for office. And we'll get into this next segment. He's kind of an odious, vexious patriot. He runs this group called Liberty United. He's a public speaker, and he speaks out pretty boldly. And so what I think they did was they decided, well, let's take this misdemeanor. Let's call it infraction. Deny him a lot of his rights by doing that.
[00:22:44] But then, you know, they thought Jacob would probably give up and go away and take their, you know, cutting the sentence or cutting the thing to an infraction. The problem is, doctor, they miscalculated. Yeah. I don't want to call Jacob a knothead, but he's hardheaded. He's going to pursue this thing, it sounds like. And so really, but that's the thing is almost all of us probably could tell stories about where injustices have been done.
[00:23:14] And they've gotten away with it because somebody just said, look, it's not worth the hassle. And Jacob's going to pursue it. But here's the deal, though, too. Now, this idea of a grand jury was there to keep things out of the public eye. This is not a grand jury level. It's not a capital or otherwise infamous crime. But the fact is that KSL, this big 50,000-watt clear-channel radio station broadcasts all over
[00:23:42] the Intermountain West is called. Not only is it that, it's got an FM counterpart, too, to increase its reach. Okay, so anyway, the grand jury was to prevent this public airing of things. But KSL grabbed a hold of it, shoved it in the public eye, and now Jacob is, you know, looking at that thing where they're besmirching his character. And now it's affecting his candidacy to become a county commissioner.
[00:24:10] It's affecting all kinds of things relating to his Liberty United standing. They're trying to add insult to injury and up the ante and get him to quit. I don't think it's going to happen, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to follow this thing all the way through, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Sam Bushman. Dr. Scott Bradley is with me. So is Jacob Oaks, ladies and gentlemen. We're talking about principles. We're talking about things that matter most. You want to learn more about Jake? UnitingLiberty.com. I'm Sam Bushman.
[00:24:37] God save our constitutional republic.