[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.
[00:00:17] Happy to have you along my fellow Americans, Sam Bushman, Dr. Scott Bradley, freedomsrisingsun.com and Jacob Oaks, ladies and gentlemen, Liberty United, all talking about this issue where KSL, in my humble opinion, to which I'm entitled, does a hit piece on the show. Why?
[00:00:41] Because I believe that the courts have backed themselves into a corner on this one, and they don't exactly know what they want to do about it. Okay? The issue is that they say a Utah candidate is in violation of a court order, refusing to pay a fine. I don't like how they use the term a Utah candidate because now it takes, puts his election, we always talk about election manipulation and tampering, puts his election front and center. Instead of his name, his name is Jacob Oaks, ladies and gentlemen.
[00:01:11] And they say he's in violation of a court order. The problem is the court order violates the law, in my humble opinion, of due process. Violates the law of saying, hey, he's appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court. They took a misdemeanor, degraded it to an infraction along the way. He's already been to the appellate court. They say he owes a fine within 90 days, 300 bucks. And if he doesn't pay, then there could be greater penalties. In my opinion, they're threatening. They're taking it to the media. They're misrepresenting the truth. And here's the bottom line.
[00:01:41] The founding fathers talked about this in detail. And what they did is they used a word that most of us in modern society haven't even heard of. It's called odious. And what they say is the founding fathers said that, hey, patriots, people who want freedom, freedom lived correctly is liberty. Right. And so he wants his agency. He wants to be free. He wants his God given rights. He wants due process. He wants all these different things.
[00:02:07] And so the problem is that patriots become odious. And I think that's what's happened here. And they don't know what to do about it. Doctor, let's go to you first. Why don't you describe the term odious? You kind of explain how it was used and kind of what the modern reality of this is. Well, let's put the term odious in context with the way it was used by George Washington. I'll just give you the little sentence that this is in just without reading the whole background.
[00:02:34] He said in his farewell address, real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious. While its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. So that I think that's heavily laden with heavily fraught with challenges.
[00:02:59] So odious, according to Noah Webster, one of the founding fathers, he has four definitions. And we're just going to briefly touch on those. Hateful, deserving hatred. Offensive to the senses, disgusting. Causing hate, invidious. Exposed to hatred. So real patriots become odious and that's a heavy burden.
[00:03:26] And the tools and dupes of the favorite get held up. Now we could talk about KSL being a tool and a dupe. We could talk about the political system of today having those same downsides. But odious is a pretty heavily laden, I guess, adjective to describe someone by. But see what happened with this. First of all, it becomes a very public issue. Oh, well, he's running for public office. We need to know all of these things. Well, if it bleeds, it leads.
[00:03:56] And so they're going to try and draw as much blood on this thing as they can in their news feed. And then the people that are in the legal positions are faced with this idea of, oh, this has become a public issue and we've got to, oh. And the problem is the headline shouts, doctor, but the details whisper. So the headline says, hey, he's violating a court order and he's a candidate. Look at this. And then the details says, wait a minute. They reinstated his license.
[00:04:24] They decreased it from a misdemeanor, which is already something pretty tiny. They reduced it from a misdemeanor down to an infraction. And then they reinstated his license. And they furthermore then said you owe a certain amount before you ever even continue. So we're going to decrease it. Then we're going to say you owe a fine. We're going to all these things are happening and all that's in the details of the article that that's a whisper. Right.
[00:04:54] All of the all of their movements to this point have been to just basically shred those things. The founders were so interested in protecting the idea of an infraction was under the infraction guidelines that they have written as weasel words, in my opinion, is you don't get a jury trial. I'm sorry. This is such a minor thing. Because here's what here's what will happen if you get a jury trial.
[00:05:20] And if enough Americans would stand up like Jacob Oaks is doing and there's jury trials about everything. Pretty soon I get called the jury duty over and over. And Americans start and they hear this and they're like, wait a minute, this guy, you guys reduced it from a misdemeanor, which is already virtually nothing to an infraction. And then you're then harassing him and making him pay 300 bucks while he's still on appeal. And you're and they're going to be smart, informed jurors over time. And they're going to start to go. We're going to judge the law that I don't know what you guys are doing with. This is bogus. And then they're going to dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.
[00:05:50] That's what's going to happen. And the American people are going to get frustrated going. I don't have time for jury duty for this clown stuff. I don't know. I don't want to. And that's why they don't want it in the public eye, Jacob. Yeah, I know I think I think one of the best parts is at the district court, the judge said, quote, quote, I believe something got messed up in the process.
[00:06:21] But she still moves forward with the with the charge. The whole process is messed up. That's the problem. And the judicial all the judges, virtually all the judges in this country hold a legal degree. They have been trained for the ministry in this craft called lawyerly. And that's why so many of us have disdain. You know, I've run for office a few times.
[00:06:48] And and I am careful to point out that I'm not a lawyer. And I think, you know, you say, oh, well, OK, now we know he's not a lawyer. No, I do that for my own self-protection because so many people have brought the legal industry into disdain because of these weasel words that seem to drive everything we're doing. And we're sick and tired of it.
[00:07:12] This idea Sam brought up in the beginning of this segment and said, oh, yeah, he's eating out our substance with a swarm of officers. Well, this is just one example, one single example of hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions at this point, where the conditions that triggered the Declaration of Independence are being replayed upon the American people.
[00:07:35] And honestly, the Founding Fathers had a lot less patience than we do because we seem to it's a mother may I society now. We have to ask permission for everything. Everything we do. We got to go down to City Hall and get a piece of paper that says it's OK for you to do this or whatever. It's just appalling to me that free Americans.
[00:07:58] And by the way, Blackstone, who the Founding Fathers studied, he wrote a little four volume series published in 1865, excuse me, 1765 to 69. Four volumes about free men, free men, commentaries on the laws of England. And the American Founding Fathers at that time considered them, you know, they were loyal subjects to the king. But they were free men under those things that Blackstone wrote about.
[00:08:25] One of them, by the way, is this freedom to transport. And it's in volume one. I could quote you the whole section if you wanted. But the fact of the matter is they've changed that to say, oh, yeah, well, you can move to another location, but you can't drive to it because now that's a privilege. And that never was a privilege to begin with. We had had cars on the American streets for 20 or 30 years before they started calling it that.
[00:08:53] People say, well, it's a price we pay to use our roads. Well, whose roads are they? They're the taxpayers that paid for them. They're not some government officials' roads. Well, we limit it because we need order in society. Well, maybe so. But let's help people understand how to run on the roads. It doesn't have to be the big hammer on the head every time we do anything. Well, and here's the question. $300 to a Jake Oaks or to a Sam Bushman or to a Scott Bradley means a lot.
[00:09:23] $300 to the government really means nothing. What they're trying to do is put pressure so that he'll cave. And that's why they decreased the thing from a misdemeanor to an infraction. That's why they're basically trying to put pressure saying just pay because once you pay, it's kind of a, well, the deal's over. You already paid. Kind of a thing you've already complied. You've already proven we're the masters. We're the gods. And you're the, you know, et cetera. It's a bad precedent being set here. And that's the problem.
[00:09:52] I think $300 is a lot of money, especially when they reinstated his license and they didn't even tell him. They didn't even tell him when it was whatever you want to call it, not suspended. His license wasn't suspended. That's the big problem here. Well, you know, every, every step of the way they, they've demonstrated that they just, they thought, they thought I would just let go.
[00:10:20] With the justice court, I had three preliminary hearings. Now, when you have a case like the Charlie Kirk case where you have all these several, several sacked charges, and it's a very complicated situation, it might make sense to have several preliminary hearings to go over all the evidence and see what will be submitted, what won't.
[00:10:44] All the facts are, was his license suspended and was he found driving? That's the only, there was no reason for three preliminary hearings. They just wanted to exhaust me, get me to give up. Now, here we are. I'm going up to the Utah Supreme Court. At what point will they just say we were wrong? Well, Sam and Jacob, here's, here's another angle.
[00:11:12] And I can understand Jacob's concern of just, yeah, well, okay, I'll, I'll, I'll put this 300 bucks up as an assurance that I'll show up for my hearing. But, but you're, you're saying, why should I have to do that? And, and then you look at how they've handled it every step of the way to this point. Every step of the way has been fraught with incompetency. There's been a screw up at this level and another screw up at that level. And somebody's weasel wording this. And now they're stonewalling that.
[00:11:42] And what makes you think that if he gets to the end of the road and they say, oops, we, we blew it. Here's your 300 bucks back. Who's to say, well, no, you, you paid this. And this, this goes to the court for their troubles. And, and pretty soon, yeah, this is in abeyance of having any further charges and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Pretty soon you really lose confidence in the system. And I think Jacob's kind of maybe at that point right now. I'm just. I agree with that. And that's where admitting they're wrong.
[00:12:12] They could have admitted that early on and avoided a big thing. They could have went like they did. We're so sorry. We've reinstated your license. If that was the end of it, this wouldn't be a big deal anymore. Right. The problem is that they are incompetent every step along the way. But then what they're not incompetent about is abusing the citizen. That seems to never end, Jacob. Yes. Let's come back to the.
[00:12:39] Let's come back to the original intent for the government that we were that we were forming. Why was government established? Is to protect our rights. Now, where's the where's the victim in this? If I've committed a crime. Surely I've taken away someone else's rights or their livelihood.
[00:13:08] I've affected somebody if I was charged with a crime. So where's the victim? Well, in Jacob's action, Dr. Bradley, I don't see any victim when it comes to the government's action. I see Jacob being the victim personally. Well, again, this we're we're revisiting the conditions that were not as heavily upon the people of the 1770s as they are today. And here's the deal. We the people.
[00:13:36] We the people are really responsible of what kind of government we have. And of course, us three have never voted to increase the power of government. But there's sure a lot of people that do. You know, you hear people. Oh, there ought to be a law. Well, you know what? If you become more debauched, you need more laws and you have more vicious rulers. What we really need is an informed American, a liberty minded person.
[00:14:03] We need to quit putting people into office that further encroach upon our God given rights. We need to have a movement going, uniting the people. This should be across all party lines and there shouldn't be any party. But but it should be across the spectrum of political belief that if you believe in liberty, if you want to be a free person, we are doing this to ourselves. We continue to put people in office that are completely tone deaf.
[00:14:33] And what they do is they put further officers out there, swarms of officers to eat out our substance. And it's almost any subject you want to talk about, whether it's water or whether it's getting a jab for something that you don't need a jab for and you're getting whether it's educational things. I mean, our property in my particular neck of the woods and all across the state, I saw something down in your neck of the woods, Sam, in the news the other day about increasing taxes. Well, you know why they're doing that?
[00:15:03] And they they never have deep enough pockets because the inflation that government creates through a stupid system called the Federal Reserve and profligate spending and all that kind of stuff keeps raising prices. And so government keeps saying, well, in order to continue to deliver these services, we need to raise your property taxes. Pretty soon we're we're slaves in our own country. And well, and the problem with that is, ladies and gentlemen, is it doesn't end, though. You can say, well, I don't agree with Jacob on this one. All he's got to do is pay the fine and go on on his on his way.
[00:15:33] What we don't understand, folks, is this is just one example of hundreds of thousands of examples all over the country where government gets rich 300 bucks at a time. And how much time does this take, Jacob, to fight? How much time does this take of the government to go ahead and continue, you know, having hearings and having court cases and having appeals? And and, you know, then they say this and they do that and they oh, he had to call and reinstate his license and all these things.
[00:16:02] How much money does it cost by the time they're done, even if at the end of the day they collect their 300? Now, what they're going to try to do is they're going to try to use Jacob. Now that it's hit the mainstream presses, make an example out of him. So what they'll do is they'll add insert insult to injury along the way and it'll be three hundred dollars plus. And then they'll find other ways to make it three thousand dollars or whatever the number be or ways to make it more. Yeah, we've we decreased it as a favorite of Jacob.
[00:16:28] But since he was so odious and belligerent, we're going to take away some of that. And so I expect what they're going to do is bring it all the way to the Supreme Court of Utah. They're going to deny it there. They're going to go ahead then and just add some insult to injury and make up some other reasons that he owes more money. I don't know, penalties and interest or after after the Utah Supreme Court, then I'm going to go to the 10th Circuit and then I'm going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. What will be picked up there? What will they say? We don't know. But you know what?
[00:16:58] This isn't this isn't about it's not about me. Just as when I stood up in covid, my job wasn't affected by covid. I was sent to go work at home, but I had a job. I was able to work at home. I wasn't necessarily being personally affected, but I stood up. Me and a friend, we organized rallies to help small businesses that were affected. This is about our liberties.
[00:17:26] And and I need people to put themselves in these shoes where it's easy to say, well, I haven't ever had to go to court for a traffic thing. But mind you, how how could you know if if you're not even anywhere near 400 points, how could you know your license is suspended if you never got noticed and they have some kind of fine print where they have this discretion?
[00:17:54] I mean, at a certain point, we have to be willing to stand together and stand up for for our liberties. Otherwise, the government will continue to grow and grow and grow. So I don't know. Perhaps you guys could educate me, but I don't know of a story or any incident where compliance. Led to tyranny backing down.
[00:18:20] Government never willfully gives up its power once it usurps something. Yeah. So compliance, especially with with what I'm going to call odious laws, never seems to help. All it does is give them more power and more carte blanche ability to abuse the rest of us, etc. Dr. Bradley, what do you expect to happen in this case then? What are they going to do? Are they going to be able to get out of it somehow? Boy, I sure hope so.
[00:18:46] But to tell you the truth, I don't have a lot of faith in the system that has been weasel worded to the point by the attorneys, those that are in the legislature and those that are in the city and county councils and those that are in the general government. I think that everything has been weasel worded to the point that that really they're putting the news pretty tight around the common citizen. And Jacob's Jacob's going to push the buttons and keep going.
[00:19:15] But sometimes they get so stubborn. These guys, I'm not talking about Jacob. I'm talking about the people that are internal in the system. Really, we're doing it to ourselves where they say we can't let this guy win. We just can't because it becomes too big a thing. Now, I could tell you stories that I'm aware of and even participated in where a devoted effort over time was able to prevail.
[00:19:43] But it wasn't in his public eye as KSL has made it now. And so here we have they're going to, you know, they'll come out with a follow up story. Even if Jacob wins, they're going to say, oh, the system folded or whatever, you know. And then it looks that makes the system look like they're weak and imperfect. The system can't have that. I guess what they're going to do is they're going to say somehow he got off on some technicality and he was really guilty. But the technicality saved his bacon and this and that.
[00:20:12] But here's the other problem. What about the damage they've done to his character as a leader, the president, the founder of Liberty United? And then what about his candidacy as well? No matter what they come back with and say, remember, the headlines shout the stories down the road in the sub paragraphs below in the story are a whisper. And so no matter what, even if they come back and say, well, they worked it out. Jacob's right. We waived the fine. He's he's all good. Technicality.
[00:20:39] That's not going to be shouted like the first headline that besmirched his character, doctor. Oh, no. I mean, the big front page stuff, which this wasn't. But let's just say in this vernacular front page. And then they have the retraction back on the 67th page. You know, the newspaper has in fine print somewhere. Oh, yeah, he was cleared. But it doesn't get the same noise that this broadcast they sent out about a guy that's running for office.
[00:21:07] And oh, by golly, he's he's this radical that's trying to beat the system. And and he won't pay the fine. And so now he's been found in contempt and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of that stuff is is kind of like the weasel words they use to scare everybody to death about the covid con. I mean, KSL was in the center of that, too. I mean, scare words for sure. So I would say this, though, you know, they might call Jacob Oaks and his stand odious.
[00:21:34] I would say that their beliefs or their belligerent abuse of citizens has become odious. And it's delightful that somebody stands up as a breath of fresh air for somebody to stand up and say, no, no, no. Yes, there was an omission of I didn't know my license was suspended. The second I found out about it, I did something about it to remedy it. But and it reminds me of an issue that I had with the radio station. A fence fell down around my tower and I don't know if it was vandals or the weather, but the government found out before I did.
[00:22:03] And then they said that I willfully violated the FCC. I hired an attorney and took them to the cleaners on that. I won. They lost. Of course, it didn't cost them any money. They don't have to pay me for my troubles. But I had showed that I took I took a picture and fixed the fence as soon as I could. Apologized that I didn't realize that it happened. But this is an example of they wanted to charge me thousands of dollars. And I'm just telling you that this is where we get government out of control and they need to stop and we need to push back. Jacob, final word to you. What do you think they're going to do?
[00:22:33] And what are you going to do? You're going to push it all the way, right? Yes. So so I have I have actually several friends have come out after hearing about this, both from KSL and word to spreading of my case, word of mouth.
[00:22:49] They've come out and said that similar things had happened to them in different charges where they were denied jury trial by prosecution amending down to down to infraction. Even if the courts don't look at the Constitution, Utah code actually has established saying prosecutors can't amend charges, but not in such a way that is prejudice to the right of the defendant.
[00:23:16] I'd say taking away an evoked right of jury trial that is guaranteed. I would say that's prejudice to the right. And so there there there is there is a big constitutional question that I think the Supreme Court needs to take a look at here. It's more than just a three hundred dollar fine that there's something much bigger here.
[00:23:39] And and this is what KSL very carefully crafted to avoid that those that just read the headlines. If you go look at the at the comments on their Facebook post, they just chose the headlines. People didn't read the story. So I'm missing the point. But there is a severe constitutional question here that I want us to look at. Let the cowards chase their pages. State the state the point. That is that you have God given rights. They shall not be violated. And that's the whole purpose of government.
[00:24:14] Jacob Oaks, ladies and gentlemen, we'll keep an eye on this case as it unfolds. Dr. Bradley, thanks for joining us and helping us break this down from a constitutional perspective. They call us odious, ladies and gentlemen. I say it's all about God, family and country. And why are they odious to we, the people and our sacred cause of liberty? That's my question. Thanks, everybody. God, family and country is what we need to talk about everywhere we go. God save our constitutional republic.