[00:00.000 --> 00:09.680]  Tuesday in Iraq, at least 10 Iraqis were killed and 33 more were wounded.
[00:09.680 --> 00:16.080]  A suicide bomber killed 7 people, 5 policemen and 3 civilians and wounded 18 others in Kirkuk.
[00:16.080 --> 00:19.720]  The body of a 13-year-old girl was discovered in Mandali.
[00:19.720 --> 00:22.580]  Two days ago, gunmen stormed her home and kidnapped her.
[00:22.580 --> 00:26.320]  The director of a forgery gang was arrested in Basra.
[00:26.320 --> 00:30.840]  Through counterfeit documents, the gang was able to steal 92 oil tankers.
[00:30.840 --> 00:35.440]  The U.S. military said that Sergeant John Russell was suspected of shooting the five
[00:35.440 --> 00:42.360]  soldiers at Camp Liberty near Baghdad airport on Monday.
[00:42.360 --> 00:46.960]  In Afghanistan, a commission concluded that 140 civilians were killed in the U.S. airstrikes
[00:46.960 --> 00:48.880]  in Faroe Province last week.
[00:48.880 --> 00:53.440]  The commission is providing relatives with $2,000 for each slain civilian.
[00:53.440 --> 00:56.000]  The U.S. still insists the toll was much lower.
[00:56.000 --> 01:00.680]  In other news from Afghanistan, 11 Taliban suicide bombers attacked government buildings
[01:00.680 --> 01:06.280]  in the eastern region on Tuesday that killed at least 20 people and wounded 3 U.S. troops.
[01:06.280 --> 01:12.040]  In Pakistan, a U.S. drone attack at a home in South Waziristan killed at least 9 people.
[01:12.040 --> 01:16.240]  One regional official claimed the dead included Taliban and foreign fighters.
[01:16.240 --> 01:20.220]  It does not appear, however, that the attack killed any high-value targets.
[01:20.220 --> 01:24.880]  In the Swat Valley, the number fleeing the fighting has now reached 1.3 million people,
[01:24.880 --> 01:42.280]  according to the military.
[01:42.280 --> 01:46.840]  Saudi media is quoting a top Iranian official as confirming the Revolutionary Guard of Iran
[01:46.840 --> 01:51.800]  has recently deployed anti-aircraft missile batteries in the Persian Gulf.
[01:51.800 --> 01:57.000]  The move follows reports of an imminent U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
[01:57.000 --> 02:02.000]  The Saudi Dali al-Watan reports that Iran has deployed several mobile surface-to-air
[02:02.000 --> 02:06.440]  and anti-ship missile batteries in the Straits of Hormuz, as well as in other areas in the
[02:06.440 --> 02:07.440]  Gulf region.
[02:07.440 --> 02:12.840]  U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned last week of Washington's tough response
[02:12.840 --> 02:16.600]  if the Islamic Republic rejects the latest U.S. dialogue proposal.
[02:16.600 --> 02:21.040]  Gates added that a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would not be enough to
[02:21.040 --> 02:32.840]  remove the perceived threat.
[02:32.840 --> 02:37.080]  British anti-war lawmaker George Galloway is taking legal action against the Canadian
[02:37.080 --> 02:41.240]  government because he was prevented from entering that country in March.
[02:41.240 --> 02:44.960]  The Canadian Department of Citizenship and Immigration said in March that Galloway would
[02:44.960 --> 02:50.480]  not be allowed entry and referred to a catch-all legal clause as the reason.
[02:50.480 --> 02:54.960]  Galloway has been a vocal critic of Israeli violence against Palestinians and has voiced
[02:54.960 --> 03:24.840]  support for the democratically elected government in the Gaza Strip.
[03:24.840 --> 03:28.660]  In her stance on this matter, contemporary
[03:54.840 --> 03:59.840]  You were eight and you had bad dreams You go to school and learn the golden rules
[03:59.840 --> 04:04.840]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get hot then you must get cool
[04:04.840 --> 04:09.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:09.840 --> 04:15.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:15.840 --> 04:21.840]  You took it on that one, you took it on this one You took it on your mother and you took it on your father
[04:21.840 --> 04:26.840]  You took it on your brother and you took it on your sister You took it on that one and you took it on me
[04:26.840 --> 04:31.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:31.840 --> 04:37.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:37.840 --> 04:42.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:42.840 --> 04:48.840]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:48.840 --> 05:08.600]  Bad boys, what are you going to do when we come for you?
[05:08.600 --> 05:15.680]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens.
[05:15.680 --> 05:24.480]  And tonight Randy is going to present the topic of cross-examination.
[05:24.480 --> 05:31.840]  Apparently we need to learn how to take the prosecutorial role and how to deal with people.
[05:31.840 --> 05:36.440]  So Randy, take it away.
[05:36.440 --> 05:39.560]  I have a book by Francis Wellman.
[05:39.560 --> 05:42.760]  It was published in 1908.
[05:42.760 --> 05:49.840]  It's on the art of cross-examination and I've heard of this book referenced quite a bit.
[05:49.840 --> 05:57.360]  And I finally got a copy and frankly I was astounded.
[05:57.360 --> 06:02.120]  My primary study is not law, it's psychology.
[06:02.120 --> 06:08.240]  And I've read most of the popular psychologies and I come to the conclusion that most of
[06:08.240 --> 06:11.480]  these guys weren't psychologists.
[06:11.480 --> 06:13.560]  They were theologians.
[06:13.560 --> 06:19.440]  They treated the study of psychology as if it was a religion because it wasn't based
[06:19.440 --> 06:24.520]  on any facts but just some ideas these guys made up.
[06:24.520 --> 06:32.560]  When I started reading through this book on the art of cross-examination, I found a very
[06:32.560 --> 06:37.800]  effective empirical psychologist.
[06:37.800 --> 06:45.320]  He wasn't trained in psychology but he learned empirically by experience and he talks about
[06:45.320 --> 06:52.800]  how to deal with people primarily from the perspective of cross-examination.
[06:52.800 --> 07:02.400]  But in doing so, he very adroitly goes to the nature of the human animal and it's remarkable.
[07:02.400 --> 07:11.800]  And I've talked before about my interest in getting into some study of the use of language
[07:11.800 --> 07:17.080]  as it helps us define how we think.
[07:17.080 --> 07:21.800]  He starts out with saying that the council who has a pleasant personality, who speaks
[07:21.800 --> 07:27.560]  with apparent frankness, who appears to be an earnest searcher for truth, who is courteous
[07:27.560 --> 07:34.760]  to those who testify against him, who avoids delaying constantly the progress of the trial
[07:34.760 --> 07:41.800]  by innumerable objections and exceptions to perhaps incompetent but harmless evidence,
[07:41.800 --> 07:46.920]  who seems to know what he is about and sits down when he has accomplished it, exhibiting
[07:46.920 --> 07:50.240]  a spirit of fair play on all occasions.
[07:50.240 --> 07:56.600]  He it is who creates an atmosphere in favor of the side which he represents, a powerful
[07:56.600 --> 08:02.440]  though subconscious influence with the jury in arriving at their evidence.
[08:02.440 --> 08:10.040]  And one of the things I see with the people in legal reform is they go into court with
[08:10.040 --> 08:22.280]  a chip on their shoulder and raise issues that even if they win the issue, it's unimportant.
[08:22.280 --> 08:26.400]  I will never talk about the fringe on a flag in a courtroom.
[08:26.400 --> 08:30.280]  If I have an objection to the fringe on the flag, I'll do that somewhere else, not in
[08:30.280 --> 08:34.240]  the court, because even if I win the argument, I don't win anything.
[08:34.240 --> 08:38.960]  And there are a lot of arguments that we can bring, a lot of objections we can bring, and
[08:38.960 --> 08:45.240]  a lot of issues that don't make any difference to the adjudication of the case.
[08:45.240 --> 08:56.080]  And when we come in angry already, everyone can feel it, and everybody tends to steal
[08:56.080 --> 08:59.840]  themselves against you.
[08:59.840 --> 09:09.800]  I'm going through some quotes in this book that, so I'll just be jumping from quote
[09:09.800 --> 09:10.800]  to quote.
[09:10.800 --> 09:18.560]  The next one is, speak distinctly yourself and compel your witness to do so.
[09:18.560 --> 09:24.640]  Bring your points so clearly that men of the most ordinary intelligence can understand
[09:24.640 --> 09:30.360]  them.
[09:30.360 --> 09:36.680]  One of the things that I try the most when I write my motions is I try to write them
[09:36.680 --> 09:43.800]  so that an ordinary person with no legal background can understand it.
[09:43.800 --> 09:51.400]  If I use a legal term, I will tend to define it, but I don't stop and write the definition.
[09:51.400 --> 09:58.480]  I'll rewrite my sentence so that I paraphrase the meaning of the term so that it appears
[09:58.480 --> 10:01.760]  to flow in the natural flow of the language.
[10:01.760 --> 10:06.840]  That way your listener or your reader doesn't feel patronized.
[10:06.840 --> 10:15.640]  Everything is about paying attention to how your listener is going to internally respond
[10:15.640 --> 10:24.120]  to the communication you're sending, because communication is not what you say.
[10:24.120 --> 10:31.200]  Communication is the result you get or the response that your listener has.
[10:31.200 --> 10:37.000]  Communication when I talk, I just make sounds with my face, and they may sound great to
[10:37.000 --> 10:44.040]  me, but if I don't pay close attention to my listener, they may wind up having no effect
[10:44.040 --> 10:46.360]  on them.
[10:46.360 --> 10:53.520]  There was one passage here I just have to read to you, you'll love this.
[10:53.520 --> 10:58.240]  I like his use of language because it's an older use of language, it has a quaint turn
[10:58.240 --> 10:59.840]  of phrase to it.
[10:59.840 --> 11:07.160]  He says, Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in his experiences, quotes an instance in the trial of a prisoner
[11:07.160 --> 11:14.520]  on the charge of homicide, where a once famous barrister had been induced by the insistence
[11:14.520 --> 11:21.800]  of the prisoner's attorney, although against his own judgment, to ask a question on cross-examination,
[11:21.800 --> 11:25.920]  the answer to which convicted his client.
[11:25.920 --> 11:30.800]  Upon receiving the answer, he turned to the attorney who had advised him to ask it, and
[11:30.800 --> 11:39.040]  he said, emphasizing each word, go home, cut your throat, and when you meet your client
[11:39.040 --> 11:44.200]  in hell, beg his pardon.
[11:44.200 --> 11:52.800]  This is a section on knowing the answer to the question before you ask it.
[11:52.800 --> 11:56.200]  It is a general rule of thumb.
[11:56.200 --> 12:01.080]  Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
[12:01.080 --> 12:07.880]  If you're looking for information, you need to do that before you get to trial.
[12:07.880 --> 12:13.040]  Once you get to trial, you need to already have your information.
[12:13.040 --> 12:14.640]  Okay.
[12:14.640 --> 12:20.560]  Am I still here?
[12:20.560 --> 12:21.560]  Can you hear me?
[12:21.560 --> 12:22.560]  Yes.
[12:22.560 --> 12:23.560]  Yes.
[12:23.560 --> 12:24.560]  This is excellent.
[12:24.560 --> 12:30.280]  Okay, I couldn't hear any feedback, so I wasn't sure if... I'm coming in on Skype
[12:30.280 --> 12:31.280]  tonight.
[12:31.280 --> 12:37.600]  I generally do this studio, but if Skype drops, I don't know, and I'm sitting here talking
[12:37.600 --> 12:39.080]  to air.
[12:39.080 --> 12:44.760]  I always do my best soliloquies when I've dropped the call.
[12:44.760 --> 12:45.760]  Don't worry.
[12:45.760 --> 12:46.760]  You're on.
[12:46.760 --> 12:47.760]  You're on.
[12:47.760 --> 12:48.760]  Okay.
[12:48.760 --> 12:49.760]  Yeah, and it's very important.
[12:49.760 --> 12:52.920]  Don't ask the question unless you already know the answer.
[12:52.920 --> 13:01.040]  I know the answer because you may get something you absolutely do not want to hear, but primarily
[13:01.040 --> 13:08.520]  he talks about how the human animal works.
[13:08.520 --> 13:18.640]  One of my favorite portions of this was the silent cross-examination.
[13:18.640 --> 13:31.400]  In silent cross-examination, he warns the attorney that if the opposing witness has
[13:31.400 --> 13:43.440]  testified and his testimony is of no value to the case, and cross-examining him will
[13:43.440 --> 13:46.160]  add nothing to the case.
[13:46.160 --> 13:49.360]  Silent cross-examine him.
[13:49.360 --> 13:56.240]  In my experience, I had a sheriff's deputy try to kill me one time, and couldn't get
[13:56.240 --> 14:04.640]  it done, so he filed criminal charges against me to hide what he did.
[14:04.640 --> 14:08.640]  In court, they called a witness.
[14:08.640 --> 14:14.320]  They only had one witness.
[14:14.320 --> 14:18.200]  The prosecution, other than the police officer, had this one witness, and they called him
[14:18.200 --> 14:22.320]  and he explained all the stuff that happened, and then I got him on cross.
[14:22.320 --> 14:32.280]  I said, Mr. Starr, that night when you observed what went on, had you been drinking?
[14:32.280 --> 14:36.800]  Oh, no, no, no, no, I hadn't been drinking at all.
[14:36.800 --> 14:40.160]  Oh, that's wonderful.
[14:40.160 --> 14:44.000]  Tell me, Mr. Starr.
[14:44.000 --> 14:45.000]  Have you ever been arrested?
[14:45.000 --> 14:50.680]  Oh, well, yes, a time or two.
[14:50.680 --> 14:55.100]  Mr. Starr, I have your criminal history here.
[14:55.100 --> 14:59.920]  You have been a bad boy.
[14:59.920 --> 15:03.920]  Mr. Starr, have you ever been arrested for DUI?
[15:03.920 --> 15:07.640]  Well, yes, once or twice.
[15:07.640 --> 15:08.640]  Once or twice?
[15:08.640 --> 15:11.120]  Well, how about maybe three times?
[15:11.120 --> 15:14.160]  Have you been arrested three times for DUI?
[15:14.160 --> 15:17.440]  Well, yes, three times.
[15:17.440 --> 15:18.440]  Four maybe?
[15:18.440 --> 15:21.160]  Well, four, seven maybe?
[15:21.160 --> 15:22.160]  Nine?
[15:22.160 --> 15:25.200]  Ten, Mr. Starr?
[15:25.200 --> 15:28.640]  Could you have been arrested for DUI ten times?
[15:28.640 --> 15:32.920]  Well, yeah, no more questions.
[15:32.920 --> 15:38.120]  After the hearing, a friend of mine who had ran for US Senate, and he was an attorney,
[15:38.120 --> 15:45.240]  Robert Hopkins, came to me and he said, Mr. Kelton, you handled that witness very well.
[15:45.240 --> 15:49.600]  Have you ever thought of going to school and becoming an attorney?
[15:49.600 --> 15:52.360]  Oh, no, no, Robert, I couldn't do that.
[15:52.360 --> 15:53.360]  He said, well, why not?
[15:53.360 --> 15:59.600]  I said, well, I would probably wind up jerking one of those smart mouth judges right over
[15:59.600 --> 16:00.600]  that bitch.
[16:00.600 --> 16:08.980]  So he said, well, maybe you should become an attorney.
[16:08.980 --> 16:15.760]  But by not asking him any more questions, knowing exactly what you needed to do and
[16:15.760 --> 16:21.720]  when to stop, it's real important to know where we're at.
[16:21.720 --> 16:25.560]  We have Karen Rinick who's going to be on today.
[16:25.560 --> 16:32.960]  She wants to talk about a committee hearing and when we come back from break, we will
[16:32.960 --> 16:34.480]  go to Karen Rinick.
[16:34.480 --> 16:42.920]  Yes, maybe we can use some of these cross-examination techniques to put these legislators feet to
[16:42.920 --> 16:51.120]  the fire for the antics that they pulled during this committee hearing regarding this paper
[16:51.120 --> 16:52.120]  ballot bill.
[16:52.120 --> 16:53.120]  We'll be right back.
[16:53.120 --> 16:57.960]  This is the rule of law, Rainie Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Karen Rinick coming right up.
[16:57.960 --> 17:05.320]  Are you looking for an investment that has no stock market risk, has a 100% track record
[17:05.320 --> 17:12.080]  of returning profits, is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates, is publicly
[17:12.080 --> 17:13.920]  traded and SEC regulated?
[17:13.920 --> 17:19.160]  If this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for in an investment, then
[17:19.160 --> 17:21.880]  life settlements is the investment for you.
[17:21.880 --> 17:27.760]  Our annual rate of return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years.
[17:27.760 --> 17:31.520]  Our investments are insurance and banking commission regulated.
[17:31.520 --> 17:35.400]  Our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies.
[17:35.400 --> 17:41.440]  Even qualified retirement plans such as 401Ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer.
[17:41.440 --> 17:43.480]  We charge absolutely no commissions.
[17:43.480 --> 17:47.160]  100% of your investment goes to work for you.
[17:47.160 --> 17:56.640]  Please visit sleepwellinvestment.com or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431.
[17:56.640 --> 18:18.160]  That's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431.
[18:56.640 --> 19:09.240]  Alright, we asked the questions and they don't have the answers.
[19:09.240 --> 19:15.760]  Speaking of cross-examinations, and Randy, I want to figure out how we're going to cross-examine
[19:15.760 --> 19:21.680]  the chairman of the elections committee here in the House, Texas legislature.
[19:21.680 --> 19:25.480]  We've got Karen Rinick from Vote Rescue.
[19:25.480 --> 19:32.160]  This is the second session in a row that Karen and Vicki have presented, have managed to
[19:32.160 --> 19:40.320]  get a bill that actually Karen, you authored basically, you scratched out the code of the
[19:40.320 --> 19:44.840]  election code that was unacceptable and put in the language that was acceptable.
[19:44.840 --> 19:50.440]  Karen is the one who authored this a couple years ago and it didn't go up for committee
[19:50.440 --> 19:56.560]  hearing last session, last legislative session, but it did go up for committee hearing this
[19:56.560 --> 20:04.640]  legislative session and there was a public hearing and apparently there was an ambush.
[20:04.640 --> 20:09.240]  You guys got railroaded, so to speak, and I've heard part of the story.
[20:09.240 --> 20:14.760]  I'm anxious to hear the entire story and Randy says, from what you've told me, we can file
[20:14.760 --> 20:20.400]  criminal charges against the chairman of the elections committee of the House and the Texas
[20:20.400 --> 20:27.280]  legislature and we have, you guys have a standing to demand another public hearing on this bill
[20:27.280 --> 20:31.120]  in committee, so why don't you tell us what happened?
[20:31.120 --> 20:35.760]  Okay, well first of all, thanks for having me back on Deborah and Randy, appreciate it
[20:35.760 --> 20:36.760]  so much.
[20:36.760 --> 20:46.120]  Yeah, this was on the 27th of April and as you said Deborah, this is the first time that
[20:46.120 --> 20:52.400]  this bill has been heard before a committee and this session's committee is comprised
[20:52.400 --> 20:56.440]  of mostly different people than it was the last session.
[20:56.440 --> 21:05.040]  There were two holdovers, Representative Anchia who's from the Dallas area and Dwayne Boak,
[21:05.040 --> 21:09.200]  I think he's from up in that area as well.
[21:09.200 --> 21:13.680]  But the chair of this year's or this session's committee is Todd Smith and I'd like to just
[21:13.680 --> 21:17.320]  give a little bit of background.
[21:17.320 --> 21:27.200]  He was charged with a very serious task as far as the GOP goes and I think you have talked
[21:27.200 --> 21:38.660]  about this on your show in that voter ID was supposed to be the big success or victory
[21:38.660 --> 21:44.240]  I guess that the Republicans wanted to be able to pull off this session in the sense
[21:44.240 --> 21:50.880]  of making it mandatory that people when they registered and then also went to vote would
[21:50.880 --> 21:57.040]  have to produce a photo identification in order to vote and it was very contentious
[21:57.040 --> 22:03.680]  in the Senate although having a majority in both houses in the Senate it passed easily
[22:03.680 --> 22:07.960]  but they had this big dog and pony show that lasted all night and in the House they did
[22:07.960 --> 22:08.960]  have that committee.
[22:08.960 --> 22:15.320]  So Smith was picked for I believe to deliver the goods this session.
[22:15.320 --> 22:22.520]  So it gives you a little bit of background I think in terms of probably what his relationship
[22:22.520 --> 22:29.720]  is I guess with the speaker and maybe higher ups in that party but he was the one picked
[22:29.720 --> 22:31.560]  to carry this across.
[22:31.560 --> 22:37.280]  It has not been voted on in the House, the voter ID bill so that's still sort of pending
[22:37.280 --> 22:40.480]  at least as far as I know it may have happened today I didn't check.
[22:40.480 --> 22:46.360]  So with that as a backdrop we come in very late in the session with our hand counted
[22:46.360 --> 22:53.920]  paper ballot bill and for your listeners that haven't heard about this it basically takes
[22:53.920 --> 23:02.760]  any use of electronic voting machine and basically pulls it out of the code, it repeals the sections
[23:02.760 --> 23:09.920]  in the Texas election code that refer to any use of an electronic voting machine or voting
[23:09.920 --> 23:11.640]  system as they call it.
[23:11.640 --> 23:17.160]  There's a slight exception in that ballot marking machines which can be electronic that
[23:17.160 --> 23:23.440]  can be used by the disabled that's fine because that's just simply marking a ballot and assisting
[23:23.440 --> 23:28.920]  them in the marking of the ballot and then that paper ballot would then get counted by
[23:28.920 --> 23:34.160]  a hand or by people, by citizens along with all the other ballots so that was essentially
[23:34.160 --> 23:41.960]  it and we added a few other security measures then that we think would make it even safer
[23:41.960 --> 23:45.760]  then and to improve the chain of custody etc.
[23:45.760 --> 23:53.200]  So we line up a lot of speakers, we bring in two people from out of town, Lynn Landis
[23:53.200 --> 23:57.760]  who is an investigative reporter from Philadelphia who's written on this and was one of the first
[23:57.760 --> 24:03.520]  people to really ask the question why are we using machines to counter vote secretly
[24:03.520 --> 24:10.000]  and this was many, many years ago around 2000 and then we also decided to bring in Richard
[24:10.000 --> 24:16.840]  Hayes Phillips who's written a terrific book called Witness to a Crime in which he actually
[24:16.840 --> 24:22.960]  proves that the election in Ohio was stolen because he methodically went in and checked
[24:22.960 --> 24:29.560]  poll books and the sign in books and looked at ballots in Ohio I mean we're talking probably
[24:29.560 --> 24:37.360]  50,000 or maybe even low on that number and he could see where fraud was committed not
[24:37.360 --> 24:44.160]  only by machines because of discrepancies in the poll books but also where ballots where
[24:44.160 --> 24:48.760]  you'd have a punch card ballot with the sticker put over maybe the vote for Kerry and then
[24:48.760 --> 24:53.120]  it was run for Bush etc. So the guy knows this stuff and he has come
[24:53.120 --> 24:58.200]  out very adamantly for hand counted paper ballots as being the only way we can conduct
[24:58.200 --> 25:00.240]  our elections.
[25:00.240 --> 25:08.120]  So we had quite a number of local speakers who we consider to be experts, Vicki Carp,
[25:08.120 --> 25:16.720]  Abby Walden DeLosure, Kenny Clark, you name it and Vicki led off this sort of line up
[25:16.720 --> 25:19.560]  of speakers and we weren't going to repeat ourselves.
[25:19.560 --> 25:25.760]  We were basically going to handle a different topic so Vicki sort of lays the groundwork
[25:25.760 --> 25:31.240]  of what we're planning on talking about and proving our case that hand counted paper ballots
[25:31.240 --> 25:34.800]  really is the only way to go and that the machines we should be getting rid of them
[25:34.800 --> 25:38.880]  as per the bill and she does a very good job.
[25:38.880 --> 25:45.000]  I need to say that she actually read her testimony which is not uncommon.
[25:45.000 --> 25:53.480]  Now we then wanted to have Richard Hayes Phillips step up and so he was called NEXT and Richard
[25:53.480 --> 26:00.040]  had in his hand his testimony which he intended to read and it's just very, very interesting
[26:00.040 --> 26:08.200]  in that he had barely settled in at the podium in front of I have to say there were only
[26:08.200 --> 26:15.520]  three members of the committee out of let's see oh dear I think it's seven that are on
[26:15.520 --> 26:19.360]  the committee but only three members were there.
[26:19.360 --> 26:23.080]  The other members of the committee were off at other committees which usually happens
[26:23.080 --> 26:27.480]  late in the session but nonetheless it was you know disappointing in a sense that we
[26:27.480 --> 26:32.520]  only had three committee members there.
[26:32.520 --> 26:40.720]  One of which was Todd Smith the Chair and Representative Bonin and Representative Antia.
[26:40.720 --> 26:44.680]  Maybe Betty Brown was still there so maybe there were four.
[26:44.680 --> 26:52.960]  But Smith almost immediately comes out and asks Richard is that your testimony that's
[26:52.960 --> 26:59.800]  in your hand and he said yes and he said do you intend to read it and Richard answered
[26:59.800 --> 27:05.480]  saying well I traveled by two bus and two planes all day yesterday it took him about
[27:05.480 --> 27:11.560]  15 hours to get here from upstate New York and basically he was answering saying yes
[27:11.560 --> 27:15.520]  I do because I spent a lot of time getting here and I've also spent a lot of time preparing
[27:15.520 --> 27:16.520]  my remarks.
[27:16.520 --> 27:23.000]  Well the next thing that Smith says is I'm not willing to let you read your remarks but
[27:23.000 --> 27:31.600]  we will be willing for you to hand in copies of your testimony that we'll read but we would
[27:31.600 --> 27:36.800]  like you to just give us a summary of what you have you know are intending to say.
[27:36.800 --> 27:42.800]  And then I think the next remark he made was that it's the prerogative of the Chair to
[27:42.800 --> 27:49.360]  decide how the witness will present their testimony and basically he said I'm not going
[27:49.360 --> 27:52.120]  to let you read your testimony to us.
[27:52.120 --> 27:56.160]  Okay wait let me stop you right here Karen because I want to I want to I want to confer
[27:56.160 --> 28:04.000]  with Randy the three of us here this is a public hearing and people have the right to
[28:04.000 --> 28:12.400]  testify at the public hearing however I do it's my understanding that the legislature
[28:12.400 --> 28:18.240]  and these committee hearings and just the general just the general house as far as the
[28:18.240 --> 28:24.240]  legislative functioning functions according to Robert's Rules of Order.
[28:24.240 --> 28:31.520]  So Randy my question to you is how does the Robert's Rules of Order as implemented by
[28:31.520 --> 28:37.560]  the chair of the committee how does that jive with the fact that we have a right to public
[28:37.560 --> 28:42.280]  hearing and do they really have does the chairman really have a right to tell someone from the
[28:42.280 --> 28:47.720]  public that they can't read from a piece of paper because to me that means that they're
[28:47.720 --> 28:52.840]  denying our right to a public hearing but then again it's a committee hearing in the
[28:52.840 --> 28:56.880]  house that's governed by Robert's Rules of Order so do we have to comply with that what
[28:56.880 --> 29:00.720]  what where do we go from here Randy?
[29:00.720 --> 29:07.360]  This goes back to this is not so much a matter for Robert's Rules of Order.
[29:07.360 --> 29:13.800]  The right to a public hearing preempts Robert's Rules of Order now this person is a public
[29:13.800 --> 29:21.920]  official and he's acting under official capacity and he said it is his prerogative to interfere
[29:21.920 --> 29:29.320]  with a person's testimony before the committee well I want to see just for the heck he thinks
[29:29.320 --> 29:30.320]  he got that.
[29:30.320 --> 29:36.760]  Because you know what the Robert's Rules of Order thing that has to do with the legislators
[29:36.760 --> 29:42.920]  the legislators the reps have to abide by Robert's Rules of Order as implemented by
[29:42.920 --> 29:47.960]  the chairman but the public doesn't is that what you're saying well no the public has
[29:47.960 --> 29:52.120]  to abide by Robert's Rules of Order okay wait a minute we're going to break we're going
[29:52.120 --> 29:58.880]  to break we got two seconds we'll be right back.
[29:58.880 --> 30:02.960]  Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback this is a great time to
[30:02.960 --> 30:08.380]  buy with the value of the dollar risks of inflation geopolitical uncertainties and instability
[30:08.380 --> 30:13.680]  in world financial systems I see gold going up much higher hi I'm Tim Fry at Roberts
[30:13.680 --> 30:18.080]  and Roberts brokerage everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious
[30:18.080 --> 30:22.920]  metals and Roberts and Roberts brokerage you can buy gold silver and platinum with confidence
[30:22.920 --> 30:28.440]  from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977 if you are new to
[30:28.440 --> 30:32.920]  precious metals we will happily provide you with the information you need to make an informed
[30:32.920 --> 30:37.920]  decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us also Roberts and Roberts brokerage
[30:37.920 --> 30:41.880]  values your privacy and will always advise you in the event that we would be required
[30:41.880 --> 30:46.880]  to report any transaction if you have gold silver platinum you'd like to sell we can
[30:46.880 --> 30:54.080]  convert it for immediate payment call us at 800-874-9760 we're Roberts and Roberts brokerage
[30:54.080 --> 31:08.680]  800-874-9760
[31:08.680 --> 31:38.240]  all right we are back the rule of law with Randy Kelton
[31:38.240 --> 31:45.960]  Debra Stevens and we've got Karen Renick here and the main point here the main question
[31:45.960 --> 31:53.520]  is does the chairman of the committee in a legislative public hearing like this committee
[31:53.520 --> 32:00.960]  hearing does the committee chairman have the right to say or declare that a member of the
[32:00.960 --> 32:05.760]  public who's giving testimony cannot read from a piece of paper that they have to stand
[32:05.760 --> 32:10.520]  there without a piece of paper in their hand that's that's the main question okay what's
[32:10.520 --> 32:20.200]  what's the answer Randy well if they allow if they open the session for public remarks
[32:20.200 --> 32:28.240]  and the speaker doesn't interfere with other people who give public remarks and singles
[32:28.240 --> 32:35.480]  one out specifically then if I was the one singled out I would feel as though my right
[32:35.480 --> 32:41.960]  to a public hearing had been denied Karen did didn't did uh did anyone else get to
[32:41.960 --> 32:51.600]  read from a piece of paper yes they did okay so you don't get to single one person out
[32:51.600 --> 32:57.000]  for special treatment he said he had that prerogative I sure would like to test his
[32:57.000 --> 33:02.480]  prerogative I want to see where he got it so Randy do we file criminal charges against
[33:02.480 --> 33:09.600]  the committee chairman for violating the open meetings act yeah I'd like criminal charges
[33:09.600 --> 33:16.520]  but in this case there are probably this disciplinary procedures within the legislature that may
[33:16.520 --> 33:20.920]  well be more effective okay well we have to keep in mind what the goal is do we want another
[33:20.920 --> 33:28.120]  hearing or not I would certainly petition for another one all right because he via because
[33:28.120 --> 33:34.440]  the chairman violated this person's right to testify and I also want to add too is that
[33:34.440 --> 33:41.360]  prior to bringing Richard in as well as Lynn I wanted to be sure that when people from
[33:41.360 --> 33:47.560]  out of town were brought in that they would not be held to a you know a real short restricted
[33:47.560 --> 33:55.120]  time span such as three minutes and I was told by the the clerk of that committee that
[33:55.120 --> 34:02.280]  representative Smith is the chair typically or for this for this hearing coming up would
[34:02.280 --> 34:08.640]  not limit the time of the testimony it would just become a matter of you know if it just
[34:08.640 --> 34:14.280]  keeps dragging on somebody gets up there and speaks for half an hour or whatever then they
[34:14.280 --> 34:20.680]  will be you know they will be asked to conclude their remarks now I also want to just add
[34:20.680 --> 34:26.600]  that when the voter ID bill was heard in the House committee because there were so many
[34:26.600 --> 34:32.160]  people he did set the rule before anyone got up there that they had to limit their remarks
[34:32.160 --> 34:37.960]  to three minutes and I believe it's my understanding that even that even included experts that
[34:37.960 --> 34:43.240]  came in say from out of town so he made it clear to everybody that they would be limited
[34:43.240 --> 34:49.960]  but since I had called and asked specifically about this and then in turn told Richard you
[34:49.960 --> 34:57.240]  know he prepared remarks that would probably have taken about 20 minutes to present which
[34:57.240 --> 35:03.720]  is not unheard of for a you know so-called expert or bringing someone in from out of
[35:03.720 --> 35:11.440]  town who has you know has you know important information to share with the committee which
[35:11.440 --> 35:19.680]  is with the case with Richard so it wasn't like all of a sudden you know we were curtailed
[35:19.680 --> 35:25.480]  and other people I mean for instance Vickie's went on when she started I think her time
[35:25.480 --> 35:32.200]  was about 10 minutes and other people that got up to speak were probably you know ten
[35:32.200 --> 35:37.360]  maybe there was someone 15 I think Lynn was maybe up there for about 15 minutes so anyway
[35:37.360 --> 35:39.320]  I just wanted to add that in.
[35:39.320 --> 35:47.400]  The first thing he should do is bill that official for his time and his cost in coming
[35:47.400 --> 35:50.800]  there.
[35:50.800 --> 35:56.440]  He wants to interfere with him he wants to give him special negative treatment he should
[35:56.440 --> 36:03.880]  pay for the trip and he did this without specific authority he just assumed authority that you'll
[36:03.880 --> 36:12.600]  claim he doesn't have send him a tort letter with a bill for not just his fair but what
[36:12.600 --> 36:19.760]  this person would get as an expert witness for his time and then you sue the legislator
[36:19.760 --> 36:26.920]  for it and let him show that he absolutely has the authority to act with this level of
[36:26.920 --> 36:27.920]  bias.
[36:27.920 --> 36:28.920]  Wow.
[36:28.920 --> 36:34.440]  All right well Karen tell us what happened next.
[36:34.440 --> 36:40.520]  Yeah there was another incident there are several I have to say that I in looking at
[36:40.520 --> 36:52.720]  in hindsight my take on it is that his shakeup and curtail the remarks that Richard was planning
[36:52.720 --> 37:00.840]  to make I really believe that that was premeditated and part of a strategy because it had several
[37:00.840 --> 37:20.040]  effects well the biggest effect was that Richard's testimony anyway the Richard's testimony he
[37:20.040 --> 37:26.960]  you were telling me Richard didn't even get to testify because he was so distracted and
[37:26.960 --> 37:32.120]  flustered that he couldn't read from his presentation that he just walked out.
[37:32.120 --> 37:37.120]  He did and yeah that was the point I was trying to make I'm sorry somebody came in the room
[37:37.120 --> 37:42.000]  and interrupted my thinking and what happens which I found out at this hearing is that
[37:42.000 --> 37:47.160]  even if you turn in testimony for instance I mean you submitted written testimony and
[37:47.160 --> 37:52.160]  several other people did and we submitted it that testimony does not become part of
[37:52.160 --> 37:54.960]  the permanent public record for this hearing.
[37:54.960 --> 37:58.080]  I thought it did I thought that was the whole point.
[37:58.080 --> 38:03.920]  I know now I think in the Senate it does but not in the House so the only way that remarks
[38:03.920 --> 38:11.560]  will become part of history so to speak is if it is either you know spoken or read or
[38:11.560 --> 38:19.760]  it is performed you know in person in public so that it's recorded audibly and you know
[38:19.760 --> 38:26.120]  with the video so by Richard I mean it just does no good for him to turn in his testimony
[38:26.120 --> 38:33.320]  because it's not going to go anywhere it will go into you know everybody's round file probably
[38:33.320 --> 38:38.440]  so that was shocking to me to find that out and I think that's something that a lot of
[38:38.440 --> 38:46.040]  people should be made aware of because personally I don't think that's right but the other effects
[38:46.040 --> 38:53.080]  that it had in terms of tripping Richard up and they probably I don't know the calculated
[38:53.080 --> 39:02.020]  risk I guess that they took of you know stopping him was that it really just it shook everybody
[39:02.020 --> 39:09.200]  up who was planning to speak after him and people changed their remarks I did mine you
[39:09.200 --> 39:15.680]  know sort of got off my message to a certain degree and you know darn well that's a tactic
[39:15.680 --> 39:21.200]  that is used because it's just human nature when something upsetting like that happens
[39:21.200 --> 39:27.720]  it's going to you know have a ripple effect so it certainly did that but I think most
[39:27.720 --> 39:34.880]  importantly Richard's testimony is not part of you know a record that people could see
[39:34.880 --> 39:44.600]  at this point so oh and then at several points down at other times when other speakers were
[39:44.600 --> 39:50.720]  talking they would mention something about well I think that Richard's fundamental right
[39:50.720 --> 40:01.680]  to free speech was curtailed or you know was denied him and Smith rather defensively said
[40:01.680 --> 40:06.720]  well I certainly didn't get you know stop him from talking we gave him the option or
[40:06.720 --> 40:11.840]  we not that they gave him the option but we said he could speak he just couldn't read
[40:11.840 --> 40:22.520]  from his notes and then to one of the speakers he even said because the speaker paused for
[40:22.520 --> 40:28.520]  just about five seconds Smith was talking whispering or whatever talking to one of the
[40:28.520 --> 40:35.960]  members next to him so this particular witness who was also part of what rescue stopped until
[40:35.960 --> 40:41.360]  he could get Smith's attention which irritated Smith that somebody would be denying him the
[40:41.360 --> 40:50.560]  right to talk while a witness was talking Smith came out and said you know it doesn't
[40:50.560 --> 40:59.000]  say in the Constitution that I have to listen to you so there were just these sort of remarks
[40:59.000 --> 41:05.200]  and laughter even you know that they you know we felt like sort of we were being made fun
[41:05.200 --> 41:13.080]  of and we can take that we get that a lot but it just was one of those it was an interesting
[41:13.080 --> 41:26.360]  experience but Smith's behavior definitely needs I think some sort of response that might
[41:26.360 --> 41:29.320]  change his behavior in the future if he decides to do that.
[41:29.320 --> 41:35.360]  Now I'll tell you one thing right now even if it doesn't specifically say in the Constitution
[41:35.360 --> 41:41.360]  that he has to listen it sure does say that in the Open Meetings Act and that's the whole
[41:41.360 --> 41:47.040]  point of a public hearing in the legislature.
[41:47.040 --> 41:53.920]  It says that in Robert's Rules of Order but I would very much like him to do that to me
[41:53.920 --> 42:01.880]  because if he starts talking while I'm speaking yeah Mr. Chairman I rise to a question of
[42:01.880 --> 42:06.580]  privilege affecting the board well the whole point is that it's the Open Meetings Act
[42:06.580 --> 42:10.920]  and the whole point of the public hearing is that they have to listen is to hear the
[42:10.920 --> 42:16.640]  public and and isn't it in the first it's in the First Amendment the right to petition
[42:16.640 --> 42:24.080]  for redress and I would I would say that I think inherent in that right is that the people
[42:24.080 --> 42:30.160]  that you're petitioning for redress have to listen yes I mean so Randy you're going to
[42:30.160 --> 42:35.640]  use Robert's Rules of Order against them you're going to you're going to question I have the
[42:35.640 --> 42:42.160]  floor uh-huh when I have the floor you don't have to listen but you do need to keep your
[42:42.160 --> 42:48.600]  mouth shut there you go so that you do not take the floor from me and if you and under
[42:48.600 --> 42:55.600]  rise to a question of privilege under Robert's Rules of Order is you bring a matter before
[42:55.600 --> 43:01.840]  the board that if it's not addressed at this time it will create a harm that cannot be
[43:01.840 --> 43:07.800]  whited so I would have drawn him to a question of privilege and reminded him that I have
[43:07.800 --> 43:17.400]  the floor if you want to talk talk on your dime not on my dime well in a way this person
[43:17.400 --> 43:26.240]  was doing that by pausing and waiting it was sort of a unspoken challenge not challenge
[43:26.240 --> 43:30.920]  but a reminder I mean he didn't say the words I'm rising to questions you know to a question
[43:30.920 --> 43:38.120]  of privilege but it was very clear that's why he was pausing and that kicked him off
[43:38.120 --> 43:43.720]  no you know big time all right well listen we're going to break Karen if you would please
[43:43.720 --> 43:49.400]  stay with us so we can finish up what happened with this committee hearing okie dokie in
[43:49.400 --> 43:54.840]  the legislature regarding hand-counted paper ballots in public view gotta have it we'll
[43:54.840 --> 44:03.600]  be right back stock markets are taking hit after hit corrupt bankers are choking on
[44:03.600 --> 44:10.040]  subprime debt the Fed is busy printing dollars dollars and more dollars to bail out Wall
[44:10.040 --> 44:16.880]  Street banks and the US car industry as investors scramble for safety in the metals in the face
[44:16.880 --> 44:22.760]  of a further devaluation of the dollar the price of silver will only increase some of
[44:22.760 --> 44:27.920]  the world's leading financial analysts believe that silver is one of the world's most important
[44:27.920 --> 44:35.080]  commodities with unparalleled investment opportunity for the future now is the time to buy silver
[44:35.080 --> 44:40.960]  before it heads for seventy five dollars an ounce and the yellow metal roars back past
[44:40.960 --> 44:50.520]  one thousand dollars an ounce to new highs call Maximus Holdings now at 407-608-5430
[44:50.520 --> 44:57.180]  to find out how you can turn your IRA and 401k into a solid investment silver without
[44:57.180 --> 45:02.120]  any penalties for early withdrawal even if you don't have a retirement account yet we
[45:02.120 --> 45:10.560]  have fantastic investment opportunities for you call Maximus Holdings at 407-608-5430
[45:10.560 --> 45:40.280]  for more information.
[45:40.280 --> 45:45.280]  All right we are back the rule of law Randy Kelton Deborah Stevens we've got Karen Renick
[45:45.280 --> 45:55.240]  from Vote Rescue vote rescue dot org the mission is hand counted paper ballots in public view
[45:55.240 --> 46:02.040]  period into story no machines counting at all and we're talking about this committee
[46:02.040 --> 46:10.280]  hearing in the house the elections committee concerning this bill to try to that that Karen
[46:10.280 --> 46:16.600]  has authored to mandate the hand counted paper ballots in public view and so we just
[46:16.600 --> 46:24.760]  heard about how the chairman railroaded the railroad Richard and you know ruffled everyone
[46:24.760 --> 46:30.840]  else's feathers for that matter during the rest of the hearing and now we get to the
[46:30.840 --> 46:36.280]  part about the fiscal note and Karen from what you were telling me before you've been
[46:36.280 --> 46:41.320]  keeping on top of this regarding the fiscal note which is some analysis of how much it
[46:41.320 --> 46:47.520]  would cost to implement this bill and they sprung it on you guys at the last minute and
[46:47.520 --> 46:54.280]  it was some outrageous astronomical number with no justification or backup so can you
[46:54.280 --> 46:55.920]  please elaborate on that?
[46:55.920 --> 47:04.600]  Yeah I certainly will yeah we felt like this was another attempt at blind sighting us in
[47:04.600 --> 47:10.200]  a sense I mean they got the fiscal note in right under the wire it was dated the day
[47:10.200 --> 47:16.480]  of the hearing and I had been tracking it and I found it curious that they hadn't done
[47:16.480 --> 47:24.800]  a fiscal note yet but anyway so we went into the hearing unprepared to make any comments
[47:24.800 --> 47:28.800]  about it because we didn't know what was in it but we found out through a couple of other
[47:28.800 --> 47:36.080]  people's testimony that they had come up with this astronomical number of I think it's $32
[47:36.080 --> 47:44.400]  million of what it would cost to implement hand counted paper ballots in Texas and in
[47:44.400 --> 47:49.840]  the fiscal note which if anyone's interested in looking this up it's very easy to find
[47:49.840 --> 47:55.600]  if you go to the Texas House look under committees find the election committee and then look
[47:55.600 --> 48:05.480]  for the bill or you can just go straight to the bill and the bill's number is HB 4653
[48:05.480 --> 48:10.000]  and when you finally get the bill up on your screen you can there's a tab at the top that
[48:10.000 --> 48:17.880]  says text but right there on the screen let's see I think you have to hit text first I believe
[48:17.880 --> 48:23.000]  and then you'll see the bill itself and then there'll be a fiscal note and then a bill
[48:23.000 --> 48:32.360]  analysis and so that's where you'll find the you know the fiscal note written up so evidently
[48:32.360 --> 48:38.760]  in a case where it's dealing with elections the legislature there's a group in the legislature
[48:38.760 --> 48:47.240]  called the legislative budget board and that's the group that comes up with these fiscal
[48:47.240 --> 48:54.000]  notes and since they aren't on top of every single issue out there they turn to an agency
[48:54.000 --> 48:59.520]  or within the government that does have that expertise in this case it would be the secretary
[48:59.520 --> 49:05.520]  of state's office so that's what they did in this case so the secretary of state it
[49:05.520 --> 49:13.360]  appears went to five or six counties and I don't know maybe they sent out we don't know
[49:13.360 --> 49:18.440]  the all the details but anyway they reported in the fiscal note from about like I say five
[49:18.440 --> 49:23.920]  or six counties and I'd say with the exception of one county that said that there would be
[49:23.920 --> 49:31.080]  really no impact by going to hand can paper ballots all the other counties were just pulling
[49:31.080 --> 49:40.240]  out these humongous numbers not a single one took into consideration the cost savings that
[49:40.240 --> 49:48.000]  pulling the plug on these machines you know would you know would offer and so they were
[49:48.000 --> 49:56.480]  just strictly looking at it in terms of as an additive thing on top of their cost already
[49:56.480 --> 50:03.680]  and from what we've done in terms of doing cost studies we know that once you get rid
[50:03.680 --> 50:11.880]  of the incredible cost of the storage and the leasing of the programs and the technical
[50:11.880 --> 50:17.040]  support I mean you just the lists go on and on and on plus replacing the machines when
[50:17.040 --> 50:22.960]  they break down these machines for instance the ones in Travis County are about $3,000
[50:22.960 --> 50:28.480]  each it just gets up into the millions you know very quickly.
[50:28.480 --> 50:36.880]  So this was something else that caught us off guard and we I have gone back to Representative
[50:36.880 --> 50:43.200]  Donna Howard's office I've asked them to find out from the Secretary of State how they came
[50:43.200 --> 50:48.160]  up with these numbers and get you know sort of a report back from the Secretary of State's
[50:48.160 --> 50:53.840]  office we haven't heard back from them yet but I think that over time hopefully in the
[50:53.840 --> 51:01.360]  next few weeks we'll get to the bottom of this and see how they came up with this incredibly
[51:01.360 --> 51:07.520]  large number and to us we think it's just we think it's an irresponsible number and
[51:07.520 --> 51:13.400]  I think Randy you were saying that since it's a false number I mean it kind of represents
[51:13.400 --> 51:18.720]  did you say it represents a fraud you know fraud basically or how did you put it?
[51:18.720 --> 51:22.440]  Yeah tampering with a government document if you put a false statement on government
[51:22.440 --> 51:31.600]  document you know to be untrue and you intended it be taken as true that's a felony in Texas
[51:31.600 --> 51:34.640]  so whoever did that should be charged.
[51:34.640 --> 51:39.520]  Well Karen let me I want to back up for a minute as far as what the process is for the
[51:39.520 --> 51:46.520]  evaluation of these fiscal notes on these bills okay is there is there like one committee
[51:46.520 --> 51:52.880]  that does the fiscal notes for everything for all the bills across the board and if
[51:52.880 --> 51:57.400]  they don't do a good enough job then it gets referred to some other entity is there a statute
[51:57.400 --> 52:01.720]  that governs this because it's looking to me like okay there's a committee that does
[52:01.720 --> 52:07.600]  the fiscal note but then they referred to the Secretary of State and that's like he's
[52:07.600 --> 52:11.760]  governing himself he's investigating himself he's doing his own fiscal note because the
[52:11.760 --> 52:15.200]  Secretary of State is the one who governs the elections.
[52:15.200 --> 52:23.680]  Well it definitely is you're not getting a very objective you know evaluation in terms
[52:23.680 --> 52:28.960]  of the monies especially when you have a Secretary of State's office here in Texas that we know
[52:28.960 --> 52:34.840]  from many of the statements that Ann McGeehan makes who runs the election division here
[52:34.840 --> 52:42.600]  in Texas I mean they do not they are not in favor of going to hand kind of paper ballots
[52:42.600 --> 52:48.160]  they want to do I'd say everything they can to maintain the use of these machines.
[52:48.160 --> 52:53.120]  Okay well what authorizes what statute or what rule authorizes the Secretary of State
[52:53.120 --> 52:55.000]  to do the fiscal note for this bill?
[52:55.000 --> 53:01.520]  Well I can't cite the ruler of the law but there is the legislative budget board and
[53:01.520 --> 53:06.400]  it's like an office it's like an agency I guess if you want to classify it as that and
[53:06.400 --> 53:12.800]  they work hand in hand with the legislature and they are the ones that come up with these
[53:12.800 --> 53:24.800]  fiscal notes and generally they will go to the so-called experts I guess that deal with
[53:24.800 --> 53:31.640]  whatever the bill is about to get input to put these numbers together in this case they
[53:31.640 --> 53:37.920]  naturally it's elections so they said oh let's go to the Secretary of State's office so that's
[53:37.920 --> 53:42.120]  what they did in this case and then the Secretary of State's office in turn went to election
[53:42.120 --> 53:48.640]  officials in a handful of counties and I'd say that probably most of these counties they
[53:48.640 --> 53:55.120]  went to their officials are not they're not enamored with the idea of going to hand kind
[53:55.120 --> 54:02.960]  of paper ballots because my god it's you don't get out of the you probably wouldn't get out
[54:02.960 --> 54:09.000]  by eight or nine o'clock I mean a lot of these election officials just love pushing the button
[54:09.000 --> 54:16.280]  on these machines because by golly you can get out that much earlier so you know efficiency
[54:16.280 --> 54:23.920]  now rules our elections which is a sad it's sad it's just I don't know.
[54:23.920 --> 54:31.600]  So Randy let me let me ask you a couple things Randy does the requests that Karen put in
[54:31.600 --> 54:36.800]  regarding the explanation of this fiscal note does that number one is that constitute as
[54:36.800 --> 54:45.440]  an open records request and number two can we file charges against Secretary of State
[54:45.440 --> 54:50.720]  for tampering with the government document for producing this fault these inflate hyper
[54:50.720 --> 54:57.240]  inflated numbers if he can't come or she can't come up with reasonable backup for where these
[54:57.240 --> 54:59.160]  numbers came from.
[54:59.160 --> 55:05.860]  Well according to what Karen said that one of the counties demonstrated or claimed that
[55:05.860 --> 55:15.360]  it would cause no impact so that leads a reasonable person to ask some serious questions how is
[55:15.360 --> 55:24.120]  it that one county finds no increase and another county finds that finds an astronomical increase
[55:24.120 --> 55:30.680]  I would consider that reasonable probable cause to believe that one of the two has fudged
[55:30.680 --> 55:38.400]  the documents and I would seriously suspect that it is the two.
[55:38.400 --> 55:44.800]  Well Randy do we do we need to file open records request with the county with the county officials
[55:44.800 --> 55:49.880]  regarding how that their spreadsheet or their worksheet of how they came up with these numbers.
[55:49.880 --> 55:56.720]  No we can't do that okay and let me address the open records request you can't request
[55:56.720 --> 56:04.600]  a an agency to produce a record they don't already have like you're asking them to produce
[56:04.600 --> 56:13.120]  an explanation what you can ask them to do is produce all of the documentation on which
[56:13.120 --> 56:22.800]  they made the evaluation and all the available documentation concerning the costs because
[56:22.800 --> 56:29.160]  if you just ask for the documentation on which they made the evaluation they will leave out
[56:29.160 --> 56:33.920]  what they ignored right so you want to get it all.
[56:33.920 --> 56:38.800]  Well see also what I want to see is the ledger I want to see the spreadsheet or the excel
[56:38.800 --> 56:46.600]  document or whatever where they put the entries in the fields of the numbers and then add
[56:46.600 --> 56:53.880]  them up that's what I want to see and I want to see what those numbers represent.
[56:53.880 --> 57:03.640]  And when you look at causes of action one good cause of action is fraud by non-disclosure
[57:03.640 --> 57:10.760]  where they have facts they had a duty to disclose and they did not disclose those facts and
[57:10.760 --> 57:14.880]  they knew that you were not aware of those facts and that if you were aware of those
[57:14.880 --> 57:18.880]  facts you would have made a different decision.
[57:18.880 --> 57:23.720]  So this would not only go to tampering the government document it goes to knowing and
[57:23.720 --> 57:25.240]  deliberate fraud.
[57:25.240 --> 57:29.920]  So do we go after the county officials that that provided this information to the secretary
[57:29.920 --> 57:33.280]  of state or we do do we go after the secretary of state or both?
[57:33.280 --> 57:39.240]  We go after the county officials okay they're better to go after anyway the secretary of
[57:39.240 --> 57:45.160]  state won't be quite so frightened as these public officials will when you go to their
[57:45.160 --> 57:50.320]  county and try to get a grand jury to indict them.
[57:50.320 --> 57:57.520]  But first we have to homework when you start requesting all of the financial data concerning
[57:57.520 --> 58:09.080]  elections concerning the holding of elections and I like to send them a very general all
[58:09.080 --> 58:17.960]  encompassing request and the first thing I get is a request that I narrow the scope and
[58:17.960 --> 58:27.160]  when they ask me to narrow the scope I tell them no I want to see everything we got and
[58:27.160 --> 58:33.760]  in my request I make it clear that I am not requesting copies of any of the documents
[58:33.760 --> 58:39.920]  that I demand to see the originals they can't charge me for that.
[58:39.920 --> 58:45.040]  So it really puts them between a rock and a hard place.
[58:45.040 --> 58:48.200]  But then you have to be at the county in order to see that I take it.
[58:48.200 --> 58:53.160]  All right well listen wait hold on Karen we're going to break we'll be right back and we'll
[58:53.160 --> 58:58.160]  wrap it up on the other side.
[58:58.160 --> 58:59.160]  Thanks.
[58:59.160 --> 59:02.320]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[59:02.320 --> 59:09.080]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary the affordable easy to understand 4 cd course
[59:09.080 --> 59:15.760]  that will show you how in 24 hours step by step if you have a lawyer know what your lawyer
[59:15.760 --> 59:21.560]  should be doing if you don't have a lawyer know what you should do for yourself thousands
[59:21.560 --> 59:27.480]  have won with our step by step course and now you can too Jurisdictionary was created
[59:27.480 --> 59:33.400]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience even if you're not in
[59:33.400 --> 59:39.000]  a lawsuit you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[59:39.000 --> 59:41.520]  that control our American courts.
[59:41.520 --> 59:47.720]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[59:47.720 --> 59:54.920]  pro se tactics and much more please visit WTPRN.com and click on the banner or call
[59:54.920 --> 01:00:06.640]  toll free 866 LAW EASY you are listening to the rule of law radio network at ruleoflawradio.com
[01:00:06.640 --> 01:00:18.280]  live free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:00:18.280 --> 01:00:47.480]  All right we are back the rule of law Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens we're here with
[01:00:47.480 --> 01:00:56.240]  Karen Rinnick from vote rescue we're going to open up the phone lines 512-646-1984 and
[01:00:56.240 --> 01:01:01.160]  we are going to segue into how we're going to actually file these open records requests
[01:01:01.160 --> 01:01:07.600]  and with whom so we can find out exactly where these people got these numbers from for this
[01:01:07.600 --> 01:01:11.080]  fiscal note so Randy where do we go from here?
[01:01:11.080 --> 01:01:20.660]  Okay open records and this is a good point on how to use open records as an art form.
[01:01:20.660 --> 01:01:26.480]  Open records is an extremely powerful tool a lot of times when I file an open records
[01:01:26.480 --> 01:01:32.520]  request I'm not interested in seeing the records I'm requesting.
[01:01:32.520 --> 01:01:43.960]  What I'm interested in doing is feeding information to the agency that I want them to have like
[01:01:43.960 --> 01:01:52.960]  in this case I wouldn't ask them how they came to these conclusions I would demand all
[01:01:52.960 --> 01:02:03.200]  of the financial records of the district that concern the costs of holding an election and
[01:02:03.200 --> 01:02:08.800]  they're going to get this and they're going to say why is he asking for that and then
[01:02:08.800 --> 01:02:17.560]  I like to go in and ask if I can find something that looks somewhat shady then I start asking
[01:02:17.560 --> 01:02:27.240]  more pointed for more pointed requests toward that particular issue and I've had some great
[01:02:27.240 --> 01:02:34.320]  results I did this to the sheriff's department years ago and because I had information that
[01:02:34.320 --> 01:02:42.440]  a sheriff's deputy a chief deputy was using inmates to work in his construction business
[01:02:42.440 --> 01:02:53.920]  and I made my request my request in a way that the head chief deputy he's now the justice
[01:02:53.920 --> 01:03:02.520]  of the peace in Boyd Texas his name was Mark Autry and I gave him a my scope and content
[01:03:02.520 --> 01:03:10.040]  request and it asks for everything and asked for nothing at the same time.
[01:03:10.040 --> 01:03:15.760]  It demands whenever a jurisdiction gives me any problem when I'm trying to find a record
[01:03:15.760 --> 01:03:24.560]  they get the scope and content I demand to know the name of every record that you keep
[01:03:24.560 --> 01:03:32.720]  what you keep in that record what type of media it's kept in where it's kept who keeps
[01:03:32.720 --> 01:03:40.240]  it I want to know everything about this record except what's what information is in there
[01:03:40.240 --> 01:03:46.400]  I'm not asking for the information I'm asking for the substantive scope and content of the
[01:03:46.400 --> 01:03:57.200]  record I went in there and he sat with me all day long and went through this and I have
[01:03:57.200 --> 01:04:07.280]  to give that's when I first met Mark Autry chief deputy for the cat Wise County he was
[01:04:07.280 --> 01:04:18.040]  exceptionally polite extremely annoyed but never let his annoyance out he really wanted
[01:04:18.040 --> 01:04:27.680]  to know what I was looking for but never asked me the guy was a consummate professional I
[01:04:27.680 --> 01:04:34.280]  walked out of that room thinking if you meet this guy if he pulls you over on the side
[01:04:34.280 --> 01:04:41.000]  of the road do not mess with him he is smart he is professional and if I need somebody
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:48.560]  with a pistol send me him he won't fight me oh yeah they're not allowed under law to ask
[01:04:48.560 --> 01:04:56.240]  what you're looking for or why he knew he knew I was baiting him I do this all the time
[01:04:56.240 --> 01:05:01.400]  I'll go in and ask for some really pointed records and they'll say well who are you okay
[01:05:01.400 --> 01:05:06.000]  let me tell a little story it's not real long you like the story I went to the probation
[01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:11.520]  department in Wise County and the reason I did is I looked through all of the criminal
[01:05:11.520 --> 01:05:23.520]  cases for one year there were 1653 felony indictments brought and one person pled not
[01:05:23.520 --> 01:05:30.840]  guilty by the court record of 1653 and he was found guilty and had it overturned on
[01:05:30.840 --> 01:05:39.560]  appeal but there were six fines assessed and I said wait a minute six fines the heck is
[01:05:39.560 --> 01:05:48.560]  going on here then I said wait a minute wait a minute where does the money go so everybody's
[01:05:48.560 --> 01:05:54.040]  put on probation so I want to see what happens to all the probation fees turns out they stay
[01:05:54.040 --> 01:06:02.000]  in the county fines go to the general fund so they sting you all they can with probation
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  and if you got any money left over they hit you with a fine to get that so I went to the
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:13.680]  probation department and asked to see asked for the custodian of the record and the receptionist
[01:06:13.680 --> 01:06:19.360]  behind the the glass there she's used to dealing with people on probation so she said if there's
[01:06:19.360 --> 01:06:22.560]  something I could do for you yes ma'am I need to know who is the custodian of the record
[01:06:22.560 --> 01:06:28.080]  at this department is there something you need so figure okay you want to be the custodian
[01:06:28.080 --> 01:06:35.160]  of the record that's fine with me so yes ma'am I want to see all your financial records she
[01:06:35.160 --> 01:06:41.440]  said well who are you well I'm Randall Kelton well who are you with and I look behind me
[01:06:41.440 --> 01:06:49.440]  look back nobody back there well why do you want to see these don't ask me that she said
[01:06:49.440 --> 01:06:53.920]  well I'm asking you that no ma'am you're not asking me that yeah that usually we get
[01:06:53.920 --> 01:07:01.320]  a 911 call from Randy yes I wasn't after her if you were asking me that I'd have to take
[01:07:01.320 --> 01:07:06.120]  out my cell phone here and call 911 and ask for a sheriff's deputy come down here and
[01:07:06.120 --> 01:07:13.120]  arrest you who is the custodian of the record well I don't know who's runs this office
[01:07:13.120 --> 01:07:20.080]  Randy Moon get him zip she's gone Randy Moon comes out he said hello I'm Randy Moon can
[01:07:20.080 --> 01:07:24.920]  I help you yes you can I want to see all your financial records who are you well I'm Randall
[01:07:24.920 --> 01:07:31.320]  Kelton well who are you with look behind me look back there's nobody back there well why
[01:07:31.320 --> 01:07:35.400]  do you want to see these don't ask me that he said I'm asking that I told you not to
[01:07:35.400 --> 01:07:38.800]  ask me that he said look if you don't tell me why you want to see him I'm not going to
[01:07:38.800 --> 01:07:46.040]  show him to you oh man you shouldn't have said that take out my cell phone dial 911
[01:07:46.040 --> 01:07:52.840]  and I get the Decatur police report and the dispatcher answers the phone I said hello
[01:07:52.840 --> 01:07:59.240]  I'm over here at the the probation office here in Decatur I need you to send an officer
[01:07:59.240 --> 01:08:05.560]  to arrest hey you what'd you say your name was I remembered but I made him tell me again
[01:08:05.560 --> 01:08:13.120]  Randy Moon yeah Randy Moon for Class A misdemeanor official misconduct criminal violation 552
[01:08:13.120 --> 01:08:20.240]  government code I'll swear out the complaint I'll wait and the dispatcher says just a moment
[01:08:20.240 --> 01:08:28.480]  Mr. Kelton I'll get Rex Rex is the chief of police she recognized my voice I don't know
[01:08:28.480 --> 01:08:38.160]  how that happened he said he sent someone over when I did that to the the Randy Moon
[01:08:38.160 --> 01:08:43.120]  he was standing there his face is bright red his eyes are bugging out and he's breathing
[01:08:43.120 --> 01:08:48.440]  like he's run around the block three times he is not believing I just did that to him
[01:08:48.440 --> 01:08:53.500]  yeah you should have seen what the head investigator looked like for the district attorney of Williamson
[01:08:53.500 --> 01:08:59.160]  County when Randy called 911 on him in the Williamson County courthouse oh my god it
[01:08:59.160 --> 01:09:08.720]  was hilarious he just stood there with his jaw just hanging like he could not believe
[01:09:08.720 --> 01:09:14.080]  that that Randy just called 911 on him because he wouldn't take the criminal complaint which
[01:09:14.080 --> 01:09:23.160]  is required to take by law yeah well that's how I use open records when I go in I am deliberately
[01:09:23.160 --> 01:09:32.000]  cryptic and after the first shot of that they realized what I'm doing after this this got
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:40.640]  all around the county and let me ask you something let me ask you something here in relation
[01:09:40.640 --> 01:09:48.860]  to this bill okay the hand counted paper ballots if it can be shown that there was fraudulent
[01:09:48.860 --> 01:09:58.660]  information in these fiscal notes can we therefore demand another committee hearing or possibly
[01:09:58.660 --> 01:10:06.280]  even or possibly even force a special session over this I would say absolutely we can petition
[01:10:06.280 --> 01:10:14.040]  for a bit of mandamus to the court of appeals and ask them to command the legislature to
[01:10:14.040 --> 01:10:20.880]  hold a hearing in accordance with law well you know the court here in Texas they they
[01:10:20.880 --> 01:10:26.280]  forced the legislature into special session I believe it was last session over the property
[01:10:26.280 --> 01:10:31.680]  tax issue that's right of how the schools would be funded yeah right so I mean if they
[01:10:31.680 --> 01:10:36.400]  submitted fraudulent and if these counties and or the secretary of state submitted fraudulent
[01:10:36.400 --> 01:10:41.800]  information for the fiscal note and plus combined with the fact that they denied these people
[01:10:41.800 --> 01:10:48.600]  from the public their right to testify in the public hearing I would certainly it makes
[01:10:48.600 --> 01:10:53.040]  sense to me that we could at least forced force another committee hearing if not a special
[01:10:53.040 --> 01:11:01.040]  session of it if it drags on that long let me say something about the fiscal note because
[01:11:01.040 --> 01:11:08.120]  the effect that that obviously has is that if you know when the committee brings it up
[01:11:08.120 --> 01:11:12.240]  for a vote whether it's going to be sent you know out of the committee on its way to the
[01:11:12.240 --> 01:11:18.760]  floor or you know to be discussed by the entire house the committee members will look at the
[01:11:18.760 --> 01:11:23.600]  fiscal note and say we're crazy I mean how can we send the bill that's got a 32 million
[01:11:23.600 --> 01:11:29.720]  dollar price tag on it out there I mean everybody's in dire straits so if if anything's going
[01:11:29.720 --> 01:11:36.640]  to cut off you know the future progress of a bill like this would be essentially the
[01:11:36.640 --> 01:11:44.640]  I mean it'd be the fiscal note right this is a big deal that is if that is untrue in
[01:11:44.640 --> 01:11:52.080]  which you know it is that is really a big deal and this chairman who's showing clear
[01:11:52.080 --> 01:12:01.160]  and deliberate bias I would maintain that he knows full well that that's perjured and
[01:12:01.160 --> 01:12:09.080]  because he's acting in a biased manner and denying people a public hearing by not letting
[01:12:09.080 --> 01:12:16.880]  this person speak because he was knowledgeable against this or in favor of this bill that
[01:12:16.880 --> 01:12:22.880]  he's against that this individual is against I would that's enough to tie him to the perjury
[01:12:22.880 --> 01:12:30.160]  well this whole thing just doesn't even make any sense I mean if any reasonable person
[01:12:30.160 --> 01:12:36.200]  who would be a member of this committee as an elected public servant when they look at
[01:12:36.200 --> 01:12:44.560]  this and there's a 32 million dollar bill attached with no backup whatsoever no spreadsheet
[01:12:44.560 --> 01:12:52.160]  no budget no breakdown of how much it's going to cost for these pieces of paper and this
[01:12:52.160 --> 01:12:57.840]  that and the other thing I mean if I was on that committee I would be like okay you want
[01:12:57.840 --> 01:13:02.280]  me to accept that this thing is going to cost 32 million dollars you're going to have to
[01:13:02.280 --> 01:13:07.520]  show me why it's going to cost 32 million dollars this is ridiculous.
[01:13:07.520 --> 01:13:14.520]  So we file against the chairman we file against the officials who wrote those documents and
[01:13:14.520 --> 01:13:23.080]  filed them with the committee and then we petition the court of appeals for a writ
[01:13:23.080 --> 01:13:31.000]  of mandamus or even the supreme court because I believe that would be the place to go for
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:33.840]  remedy in this matter I'd have to do the research.
[01:13:33.840 --> 01:13:38.160]  Should we ask the committee chairman or petition the committee chairman or maybe the speaker
[01:13:38.160 --> 01:13:42.840]  of the house to say hey guys you know let's just schedule another hearing and let's do
[01:13:42.840 --> 01:13:46.920]  it right this time or if you don't we're going to go into the courts or should we just go
[01:13:46.920 --> 01:13:47.920]  straight to the courts?
[01:13:47.920 --> 01:13:56.000]  Go straight to the courts these are criminals I don't talk to criminals I don't try to negotiate
[01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:01.600]  with them to give them a way out of being a criminal I was in court once and when I
[01:14:01.600 --> 01:14:07.800]  came out of the courtroom the justice of the peace came to me and he said you know when
[01:14:07.800 --> 01:14:14.200]  that constable testified that he was a constable for Denton County that was false he had been
[01:14:14.200 --> 01:14:19.560]  fired I said yes I knew that but but you didn't bring it up in the court I said well no I
[01:14:19.560 --> 01:14:24.440]  didn't because on the one hand it didn't make any difference because he was a constable
[01:14:24.440 --> 01:14:31.640]  when he arrested me so it wouldn't matter and besides if I brought it up he'd get a
[01:14:31.640 --> 01:14:42.160]  opportunity to recant and the judge stepped back and said Mr. Kelton you can really be
[01:14:42.160 --> 01:14:52.240]  an SOB yes judge I can and I immediately filed aggravated perjury charges against it now
[01:14:52.240 --> 01:14:59.400]  it was not a material fact I didn't care let him show before the court that it wasn't
[01:14:59.400 --> 01:15:05.360]  a material fact well it puts into question everything else he said exactly so I sneak
[01:15:05.360 --> 01:15:13.840]  up I like to sneak up on him I like to bushwhack I don't go in there and say oh I got all these
[01:15:13.840 --> 01:15:19.020]  rights and you're denying me in my right I go in there and try to get them to deny me
[01:15:19.020 --> 01:15:23.960]  in my right then I then I get to go to the district attorney and kick them right in their
[01:15:23.960 --> 01:15:30.120]  teeth and the first time they realize that I'm upset it's when the district attorney
[01:15:30.120 --> 01:15:37.160]  calls them and say hey why's this guy trying to get you arrested with open records that
[01:15:37.160 --> 01:15:44.840]  is such a slick maneuver because they never expect it and they never hear it from me I
[01:15:44.840 --> 01:15:51.000]  go in and ask for the records and they send me a letter back that's non-responsive you
[01:15:51.000 --> 01:16:02.840]  see under open records before an agency can request an attorney general's opinion they
[01:16:02.840 --> 01:16:10.160]  must first examine all the existing attorney general opinions to see if there is already
[01:16:10.160 --> 01:16:19.720]  a preliminary already a decision covering the issue if there is a decision covering
[01:16:19.720 --> 01:16:27.440]  the issue and they request an opinion anyway that's a crime in Texas so if I can get them
[01:16:27.440 --> 01:16:36.480]  to do that the scope and content they never get it what a slickster they never get the
[01:16:36.480 --> 01:16:41.840]  scope content it's two pages all right listen listen we're going to break Karen thank you
[01:16:41.840 --> 01:16:46.520]  so much for joining us we really appreciate it well thank you for taking this up and talking
[01:16:46.520 --> 01:16:51.720]  about it I just think it furthers just you know just the education of yes and it looks
[01:16:51.720 --> 01:16:59.640]  against and it looks like we got a good strategy everyone go to vote rescue.org are you looking
[01:16:59.640 --> 01:17:05.400]  for an investment that has no stock market risk has a 100% track record of returning
[01:17:05.400 --> 01:17:11.640]  profits is not affected by fluctuations in oil prices and interest rates is publicly
[01:17:11.640 --> 01:17:17.040]  traded and SEC regulated if this kind of peace of mind is what you have been looking for
[01:17:17.040 --> 01:17:22.320]  in an investment then life settlements is the investment for you our annual rate of
[01:17:22.320 --> 01:17:29.360]  return has been 15.83% for the last 17 years our investments are insurance and banking
[01:17:29.360 --> 01:17:35.560]  commission regulated our returns are assured by the largest insurance companies even qualified
[01:17:35.560 --> 01:17:41.960]  retirement plans such as 401ks and IRAs are eligible for transfer we charge absolutely
[01:17:41.960 --> 01:17:50.200]  no commissions 100% of your investment goes to work for you please visit sleepwellinvestment.com
[01:17:50.200 --> 01:18:06.000]  or call Bill Schober at 817-975-2431 that's sleepwellinvestment.com or call 817-975-2431
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  that's sleepwellinvestment.com
[01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:14.000]  with that same old sucker punch I get it now but then I must have him out of here
[01:19:14.000 --> 01:19:19.000]  back then you had room to move but now you're feeling the grind
[01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  ain't gonna get me with that same old sucker punch
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:49.000]  ain't gonna please me with that same old sucker punch
[01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:54.000]  you thought you were out but now you got me all wrong
[01:19:54.000 --> 01:19:59.000]  it was a weak moment for me but I had the power all along
[01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  ain't gonna please me with that same old sucker punch
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  alright they're not gonna school us with the same old tricksterisms anymore we're not buying it
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  and we never did it to begin with for that matter
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:37.000]  okay we've got a bunch of callers on the board and we are going to go to Charlie in Missouri
[01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:41.000]  who called in earlier in the show and called back after our guest was done
[01:20:41.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  Charlie thanks for calling in what's on your mind tonight
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  oh hi Deborah can you hear me fine?
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:50.000]  yes yes
[01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:52.000]  okay cause I got so much speakerphone
[01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:57.000]  yeah if you could please yeah and callers please no bluetooth no speakerphone
[01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  okay please but uh yeah go ahead
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:02.000]  I'm gonna shut it off
[01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  okay
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:04.000]  Debbie?
[01:21:04.000 --> 01:21:06.000]  yes yes go ahead
[01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:08.000]  okay I shut the speakerphone off
[01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:09.000]  okay
[01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:15.000]  thanks for taking my call I've been listening to you guys for a long time now
[01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  and I've been studying as much as I can
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  I'm in St. Louis yeah and I'm trying
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  now I've got like a thousand million questions I could ask you guys
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  so I'm gonna start not to take too much of your time
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:32.000]  cause I know you probably have other callers
[01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:34.000]  yeah we have like eight callers on the board
[01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:39.000]  but yeah go ahead ask you know a couple of your most important questions
[01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  yeah I got two quick things I'd like to cover if I can
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:44.000]  one is on this stuff
[01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  we've got a municipality up here part of St. Louis County
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  it's called Pine Lawn
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  and Pine Lawn from what I've been hearing from you guys talking in Texas
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:57.000]  they're one of the most corrupt places there is in the city
[01:21:57.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  who?
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  and it's called Pine Lawn it's a county of St. Louis
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  it's just a municipality of St. Louis
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  it's a small city as far as I know there's only probably about 1500 people in it or so
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  but they're one of the most corrupt places there is in the world
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000]  how are they corrupt?
[01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  how are they what are they doing that's so corrupt?
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  well it's it's it's primarily I'll tell you it's a depressed section of St. Louis
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  and it seems to me like they want to keep it as much depressed as they can
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  I work I'm a construction worker and I work for a client
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  who owns properties in Pine Lawn and I happen to know other construction companies that own 50 or 70 properties in Pine Lawn
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  and all they I mean I don't know how to begin how corrupt they are I could tell you a couple of examples
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:56.000]  wait a minute wait a minute who is that?
[01:22:56.000 --> 01:22:58.000]  you're taking too much time we really need to get to a point
[01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  where are we going?
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:03.000]  okay yeah I understand I'm sorry
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:10.000]  well one of the things that they've recently done is I've got a property there in the area
[01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:17.000]  and and and they won't let me get a building permit on it occupancy permit on it
[01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  what they do is they come in they inspect it and then after they inspect it then they come back
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  and I do everything that they asked me to do and and then they asked me to do more things
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:30.000]  okay I've had exactly that experience in Denton County
[01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:31.000]  but that's not
[01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:37.000]  I had the inspector camp come in and he inspected I fixed everything he said he said for me to fix
[01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  uh huh
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:46.000]  and then he came back and he started picking out other things I told him get out
[01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:48.000]  what what?
[01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  get out you can't do that get out of here
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  I threw him out went straight to the mayor's office
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:24:03.000]  said here's the deal Mr. Mayor I have to pay your inspector to come out and inspect my place
[01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  and I expect your inspector to do his job and let me know everything I need to fix so that I don't miss anything
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:19.000]  when he comes back out you have him tell me everything I need to fix
[01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:25.000]  if he comes back and tells me anything else I'm going to fix it and I'm going to bill you for it
[01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:26.000]  we understand
[01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  and Randy what about filing criminal charges for trespass
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:34.000]  yeah it's hard to do that with an inspector but I can sue him for my time
[01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  well the next time the inspector came out he apologized for causing the problem
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:45.000]  he inspected my place gave me a written inspection I fixed it all he came back
[01:24:45.000 --> 01:24:52.000]  and checked it all out and he looked up at some venting for the exhaust fan in the bathroom
[01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  and all the drains being out the route and he pointed at it and I said don't even think about it
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  okay okay and he left
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  that's how it handled the billing factor
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  even if this is a corrupt city they understand civil suit
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  and if you think they'll go ahead
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  no I was just going to say I know other people that own several properties and the civil suits are going through
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  and they pay but that doesn't seem to stop them
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:30.000]  well see Charlie we have to show that they're breaking a law
[01:25:30.000 --> 01:25:38.000]  I mean just because they're pushing the envelope to tax us for property taxes or for permits
[01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:44.000]  for building codes and stuff like that I mean yeah it's unethical it's underhanded it's corrupt
[01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:50.000]  but in order for us to really be able to do something about it we have to show that they broke a law
[01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  okay we can't just we can't just say oh these guys are unethical and they're corrupt
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:02.000]  because it's our moral judgment according to our own moral compass okay
[01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  we have to show on the books that they actually violated statute in order for us to really be able to do something about it
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:18.000]  so I would suggest to you to look at the ordinances the city ordinances the municipal ordinances and the state laws
[01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  regarding building codes and see if these guys these inspectors have violated any laws regarding their inspection procedures
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:29.000]  okay we have to nail them on their procedures
[01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:36.000]  yeah and here's how you do it if they ask you to do anything that's not in the code
[01:26:36.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  then you charge them with official oppression and it depends on what you do depends on what your intended outcome is
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  if your outcome is to get your certificate of occupancy then accuse him of doing all these things
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  because I think he's trying to get me to offer him a bribe every time he comes he finds new stuff
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:08.000]  and I'm getting the impression he just wants me to pay him some money and then he'll stop harassing me this way
[01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:18.000]  that'll get their attention yes but if you if you if it's you feel like he really is violating law and not just being a jerk
[01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  then you have a duty to file criminal charges against you yes and listen Charlie I'm sorry we really have to move on
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  because we have a lot of callers on the board okay and you're welcome to call back in again
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:36.000]  I know you said you had several topics but we really do have a lot of callers that we need to get to
[01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  so I hope we answered your question yeah and write out your topics with bullet points so we go to the topic more quickly
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  yes radio we have to be more succinct and leave out some of the details so we get to it a little more quickly
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:59.000]  yes okay we're going to move on now and thank you so much Charlie from Missouri and I just want to give a shout out to our affiliates
[01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  we have AM stations in St. Louis Missouri we've got AM stations in Corvallis, Oregon, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:20.000]  okay we've got Omaha, Nebraska, Madison, Wisconsin okay so thank you to all our affiliates all right we're going now to John in Texas
[01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:23.000]  thank you John for calling in what's on your mind tonight
[01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  hey everyone hi Governor Randy, Randy on the election fraud and the budget issues and looking at tampering with a governmental record
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  are you there? I'm here yes we hear you
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  okay here's some thought can I a couple of thoughts because the burden really is to prove intent on any fraud case
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:58.000]  and I think the situation I like your plan of attack on that
[01:28:58.000 --> 01:29:09.000]  but looking at it from an investigator what I would do is I would hammer on the committee chair who denied the gentleman the right to speak
[01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  and uses notes and I would use the budgetary issues as sort of a background issue possibly because to try to run that down would be
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:36.000]  as you and I both probably know would be extremely difficult and there would be their defense is going to be that they were acting on good faith
[01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:48.000]  putting those numbers together and well part of my point is it's not my intent really to get them convicted
[01:29:48.000 --> 01:29:54.000]  so I don't care if I have enough evidence to convict them I just want enough to kick them in the teeth
[01:29:54.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  well yeah and from my point of view I just want to know what the real numbers are and John I have to say you know coming from the point of view
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  of a mathematician because that's what my degree is in at the University of Texas I have a degree in math from UT alright
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:24.000]  there's no such thing as writing down numbers on good faith okay it's very concrete and exact alright you don't just throw out numbers
[01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  I mean if they're going to put down that there's a cost of $500,000 for the election there's no such thing as good faith
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  they have to show where that number came from no but I'm speaking of good faith in that they relied on information provided to them alright
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  to put their budget together yeah I wasn't thinking of going after the other members but only the one who demonstrated a clear and obvious bias
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  by violating Robert's Rules of Order and denying this person an opportunity to have a public hearing that shows culpability on his part
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:17.000]  and it shows bias on his part and then they come in and surprise us at the last minute with outrageous sounding numbers
[01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:25.000]  I just want to make the connection that these two are tied together and let him explain that he's not
[01:31:25.000 --> 01:31:40.000]  now on your public record well I'm used to let me ask a question here alright like with the Attorney General's office you file a public information request
[01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  a PIR and they have a complete division actually in the Attorney General's that does nothing but handle PIR
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:32:01.000]  now at the county level is it still called PIR or is it open record and does it vary county to county or do they have to follow a state guideline
[01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  552 government code very clear alright very clearly stipulates what they're required to do
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  right now because the one that to me you got to drill and you got to drill them hard is on electronic on IE emails and things of this nature
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  and they'll say well I erased it and you know I'm sorry but like most every almost every government agency backs their stuff up every 15 minutes
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  so it's in there and because I filed a PIR against the AG and they came back and handed me a piece of paper
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  and I'm like this isn't all of it and I said why and I said there are emails and they go how do you know this
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  and I said because I got two in my hand that were sent to me by a third party so you didn't hand me everything
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:12.000]  oh if I could get two emails I very one of the things I do when I make my request is I want them to think that I already have some information
[01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:23.000]  and in the case I cited earlier I told the captain that there is one very specific document that I'm looking for
[01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:33.000]  well Mr. Kelton if you'll tell me what it is it'll be a lot easier for me to find it yes I know but if I told you what it is someone would have to shoot you
[01:33:33.000 --> 01:33:44.000]  I said is that right I said yeah it would compromise you because if I look for this and I don't find it and you knew what I was looking for who would I point at
[01:33:44.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  and he said point well made so yeah I'm looking for one specific piece of document piece of paper and you don't know what it is
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  so now what are they going to try to hide because they don't know what I have in my hand and if I look in the record and I don't find the document I have in my hand
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  I am not going to tell him I'm going to find criminal charges against him for not giving it to me
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:23.000]  and the first he's going to know about it is the fact that the district attorney is asking him why I'm trying to get him arrested
[01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  and you bushwhack him that way one time now they're terrified of what to do with you
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  now yeah good point excellent Randy let me ask this real quick what about going to a civil arena in a matter like this and you file a class action
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  because obviously if it's affecting voters and voting and filing class action and therefore in a civil court your burden of proof is less than it would be in a criminal
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  the problem with a civil is people are filing civil suits against these individuals all the time
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  and it won't have the political impact that a charge of fraud and felony tampering with a government document would have
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  I can go in there and take the chairman of this committee big time high level public official and file felony charges against him
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  and it's nothing he can do about it see because in the arena I worked in oftentimes we would go make a criminal case
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:44.000]  and then other agencies would file civilly because we've made this criminal case and they just waltz in
[01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  and take our leftover evidence that we didn't use and file civilly on them and tear them apart
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:36:02.000]  and if you reversed it and went after them criminally I mean civilly and then from the information obtained through discovery
[01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  and doing all of this and depositions and everything like this and then pop up and run criminal on them
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  you could but it's really not generally my position my intent to get them indicted
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:34.000]  now with the last arrest they finally gave me a criminal charge now I get to go in for records that the attorney general said
[01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  the department did not have to release I demanded the recordings from the officers personal recording devices
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  attorney general said you don't have to release them now that they've charged me I get them under discovery
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:57.000]  and discovery in criminal is a lot more extensive than in civil and they know I'm going to use the criminal discovery
[01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  to crucify them in the civil court who was the AG at that time do you know do you remember Cornyn Morales
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  wait at which time when you were working this case against those deputies oh it's going on right now oh okay
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:24.000]  that's the last arrest okay okay yeah and I want to make I want to make a comment here I just want to interject a comment here
[01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:36.000]  about this civil versus criminal in what order I don't really feel that we should have to go through all the tribulation
[01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:44.000]  and jump through all the hoops of discovery and the whole thing and take so long going through a civil case
[01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:51.000]  building a civil case to press the point that these people are breaking the law okay
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:56.000]  they're breaking the law and that's just the way it is and we can't allow them to do it
[01:37:56.000 --> 01:38:00.000]  so that's I mean for me it's kind of cut and dry but I understand where you're coming from John
[01:38:00.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  I mean it kind of depends on what your intended outcome is if you really want to get these people indicted
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  then you may need to look at which direction you need to head first yeah this is all about strategy yeah
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  yeah because I mean like at the end of the day at the end of the day you want to put the guy up on the hook
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:27.000]  okay and you know and level the playing field and the question is once again it's tactic
[01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:37.000]  on Deborah and how you go there and politics being what they are and the fact that you're dealing with the rule makers
[01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  you know you got to find that chink in the armor to work through there and to work through as unimpeded as possible
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  and hopefully scare the bejesus out of a couple of them so that they sit down and talk to you okay
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:03.000]  and don't go behind go hide behind a state rep or the attorney general's office or whatever they roadblocks
[01:39:03.000 --> 01:39:13.000]  they throw in front of you okay because once again this is all getting back to the core problem of the draconian government
[01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  making rules basically just saying we're the government you're not we're going to do what we want tough
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:27.000]  and you've got to like still be willing to sit there and stick the finger in the eye or in their ear
[01:39:27.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  and it's just trying to find that point to go through Deborah and having come at it from a side where
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:47.000]  like having federal prosecutors who don't want to prosecute someone because of politics or whatever
[01:39:47.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  and same happens in county you can come back and civilly come at them and hit them in the pocketbook
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:40:04.000]  get their license you get them on a civil fraud charge alright and in the case in the arena I was working in
[01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:11.000]  their medical license still gets hammered alright and I get them out of the program I get them at that point
[01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:20.000]  I'm used to going like where Randy looks at it like I want to shake them up and do something to make force them
[01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  do the right thing to change their system their way of doing business to the correct way of doing business okay
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:38.000]  absolutely I totally agree it's a chess game I like to bushwhack I really like to bushwhack people
[01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  so in that vein next Thursday I would like to do a show with you John about investigation and tactics and techniques
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:41:00.000]  so the listener can better understand how it's done yeah because so many people think it's like TV
[01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:11.000]  you know or a lot of what people think you can do and a lot of people get crossed up between unethical
[01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  it's like I used to say unethical and immoral is not necessarily illegal you know but yeah I would be
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:27.000]  more than happy to do that I had sent you guys some contact info I don't know if you received it or not
[01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  do I need to re-send that to you no I've got it I've got it okay great alright say yes yes we do
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  and we really appreciate all your input John yeah and we need to move along because we've got to
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:48.000]  yeah we have like we have like six other callers alright well you guys have a great show and thank you
[01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  for what you're doing and keep it up thank you thank you John thank you John for calling in
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:01.000]  we've got such great callers so knowledgeable so much information alright we're going to move on now
[01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  to Mitchell from Texas hey Mitchell thank you for calling in what's on your mind tonight
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  hey Deborah hey Randy I just wanted to give you a heads up on I was also at that hearing that Karen was at
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:23.000]  and when I got home or actually at the hearing too I was wondering about a number of procedures the guy
[01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  was following or not following and the first on my mind was the issue of the quorum so when I got home
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:36.000]  I looked online to see if I could find any rules of procedure and sure enough there is something posted
[01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:42.000]  there I don't know whether it's the only rules or not but I'm sort of just giving a heads up because
[01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  there's nothing in that document at least that refers to Robert's rules so my warning or whatever
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:59.000]  or my caution is not to make too many assumptions about what rules are in place they may have their own
[01:42:59.000 --> 01:43:05.000]  sort of rules unless like the Open Meetings Act has other things that govern it so
[01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:13.000]  it's standing rule that all of these meetings are held all open meetings are held according to Robert's
[01:43:13.000 --> 01:43:21.000]  rules of order that's just standard well but where do you where do you pull that why do you say that
[01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  well that's with all of government but why I'm like we all speak the rule of law and something
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  that has to be written so I mean I'm not I don't want to sound like I'm over challenging I'd like to be
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  somewhere where that yeah that's a really good question Mitchell I think it's more of tradition than anything
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  I think it's in the Open Meetings Act but I can't put my finger on where okay well I do know for sure
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  at the federal level in the Constitution the Constitution authorizes the different parliamentary
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:44:02.000]  bodies of Congress you know the Senate and the House to operate under whatever rules of functioning
[01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  that they set up for themselves and it cannot be challenged I know that for sure at the federal level
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:16.000]  and I think Mitchell has a good point that I want to see the statute that requires these different
[01:44:16.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  agencies of these different branches of government to function under Robert's rules because you know
[01:44:21.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  it looks to me like it could just be a matter of tradition.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:33.000]  I'll give you one example and I sent you an email with the PDF attached to it but on one of the pages
[01:44:33.000 --> 01:44:39.000]  it talks about quorum and it says the majority of committees are constitute quorum but in the key
[01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:45.000]  sentence it says no action or recommendation of a committee shall be valid unless taken at a meeting
[01:44:45.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  at the committee with a quorum actually present and then it goes on so almost by not stating that other
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:05.000]  hearings or what not need to have a quorum it's almost saying that by default a quorum is not required
[01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:12.000]  so I guess what I'm getting at is I've never read the whole thing about Robert's rules so what I'm
[01:45:12.000 --> 01:45:18.000]  pointing out is if Robert's rules says that a quorum is required then here would be something
[01:45:18.000 --> 01:45:20.000]  contrary to that.
[01:45:20.000 --> 01:45:27.000]  Well yeah anything that any rule that they make would absolutely govern over Robert's rules of order
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:35.000]  but I just I know all of the meetings that I've been to have been very clearly held according to
[01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:42.000]  Robert's rules and I have it in my mind that I've read it in Open Records Act or Open Meetings Act
[01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:44.000]  although I'm not sure.
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  Yeah we need to look it up I mean to me it makes sense that each parliamentary body or governmental
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:02.000]  body has the authority to decide whatever rules of order they want to operate by and generally you
[01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:08.000]  know like with neighborhood associations it's in the bylaws okay and it's stated as part of their
[01:46:08.000 --> 01:46:16.000]  charter that they will operate according to Robert's rules of order so we may need to look at the
[01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:23.000]  charters or the bylaws or whatever you want to call it the rules of order of each body to see if
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  that's what they have proactively adopted or if they are required to operate under that by state
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  law.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  Randy is saying that you Randy you think you've seen that in Open Meetings Act.
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  I can't be certain.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  I think that if they don't state otherwise it defaults to Robert's rules of order.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  That's what I think I've read.
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:48.000]  Otherwise we essentially have no pattern to work from.
[01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:49.000]  Right.
[01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  We really need to move on we've got a bunch of callers.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  Is that all you have for us Mitchell?
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:46:58.000]  Yeah that's it thanks for listening.
[01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  Thank you Mitchell excellent point excellent point.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:06.000]  We need to be able to challenge the inner workings of these governmental agencies and
[01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  parliamentary bodies.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  All right we're going to go now to Gail in Minnesota who is in the midst of a trial.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:15.000]  Gail thank you for calling in tonight.
[01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  Give us the update.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:21.000]  Gail?
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:29.000]  Maybe I'm going to be sleeping on the floor of a hotel room probably because the hotel the motel is
[01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  full and we have I have got I paid for a room for Jim a room for Charmaine a room for one other room.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:46.000]  Is that you?
[01:47:46.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  You have a lot of background noise Gail.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  What do you have a question?
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  What is going on with with your case?
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  Gail?
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:02.000]  Okay I think we lost her.
[01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:04.000]  Okay she's sleeping on the floor.
[01:48:04.000 --> 01:48:06.000]  Yeah we'll take her right away.
[01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  Yeah we'll preempt any other callers for Gail.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:16.000]  Sounds like the story of Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus no room in the hotel.
[01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:18.000]  He was born in a manger.
[01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  Our dear Lord Jesus.
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:27.000]  Okay we are going now to Dwayne in Louisiana.
[01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:28.000]  Hello how y'all doing?
[01:48:28.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  Hey Dwayne thanks for calling in.
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:31.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:48:31.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  I've got a couple of things.
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  Listen to John I heard his first night on your show a couple of weeks ago.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:45.000]  It sounds like he comes from a government agency and I heard the comment tonight that the you know when they did their
[01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  investigations other agencies were able to use the evidence they didn't get that they gathered but didn't use to go after whoever on a civil case.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  When you all do your show I would request that you do how do we investigate without the budget of a federal state or county or city agency because...
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  That's a good point.
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:20.000]  See listen Dwayne this has been one of my ultimate goals and missions concerning the grand jury.
[01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:31.000]  Okay traditionally the grand jury has been the investigative and prosecutorial body of the criminal justice system that goes way back all the way to the Magna Carta.
[01:49:31.000 --> 01:49:41.000]  Okay there has never been such a thing as a state prosecutor or state attorney or whatever district attorney only within the last 150 years was that set up.
[01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:53.000]  And one of my main goals as part of re-empowering the grand jury is as much of a conservative as I am I want to see a budget okay.
[01:49:53.000 --> 01:50:06.000]  I want to see government funding for grand juries so that they can hire private investigators so that they can commission forensic laboratory analysis of evidence.
[01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:22.000]  I want to see grand juries empowered with budgets and staff all right of employees at their command and attorneys private counsel all paid for by the state just like the prosecuting attorney.
[01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  I want to see grand juries having all the funding and all the tools at their disposal and command at least as much or more than the state prosecutor.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:36.000]  That's my answer to the situation and that's my long term goal.
[01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:47.000]  And for us for them to the possibility for them to make the decision on what to pursue we got to be able to do our work without the budgets that you just described.
[01:50:47.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  Well that's kind of that's going to be kind of that's going to be kind of hard Dwayne because...
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  I don't know I'm just...
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:51:02.000]  That's going to be kind of hard Dwayne because how you know you have to have staff and investigators and attorneys to give legal counsel and stuff.
[01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  I had the vice department of that just stepped out of every boundary in Las Vegas come after me for some stuff I did to fire the sergeant's girlfriend and this was on me for three years.
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:16.000]  So I understand one man against the police department.
[01:51:16.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  Well Dwayne look the reality of the situation is this.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:31.000]  There's no way that a grand jury can function as powerfully as the state prosecutor if they don't have the staff and the funding and that's just a reality.
[01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  A very wise man once told me if you really want to fight these evil corrupted people you got to have deep pockets.
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  Okay you got to have deep pockets to fund it. Look at the radio network okay.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:51.000]  It costs money all right you have to have some kind of budget to do these things.
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:56.000]  Well I agree I totally agree I'm just but we still got to live in a budget.
[01:51:56.000 --> 01:52:01.000]  Well first off let's get the grand jury a budget at all.
[01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:06.000]  Well no they don't and they're not used the way that they were meant to be used either.
[01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:15.000]  So but what I called about was another theory on another tangent in conjunction with these government officials.
[01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:28.000]  To me aren't these legislators that are elected like members of the corporate officers of a corporation and if they are they have a fiduciary responsibility to know the laws
[01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:36.000]  and whether they disdain the laws through ignorance or through arrogance as this man sounded like this committee chairman did.
[01:52:36.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  If it costs the taxpayers more money then they've breached their fiduciary responsibility in addition to their oath and is there a way to tie that to a criminal breach versus trying to go after the fraud?
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  It's difficult.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:54.000]  Okay.
[01:52:54.000 --> 01:53:04.000]  It might be possible but to try to get a court to adjudicate something that novel and dubious would be would take a massive amount of research.
[01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:05.000]  Okay all right.
[01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:11.000]  And even then they're not going to want to interfere with our legislators.
[01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  Understood.
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  The courts just absolutely don't want to mess with them because they don't want to be accused of stepping across those lines.
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:22.000]  Anymore than they already do.
[01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  Okay just a thought that's all.
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:25.000]  All right guys and gals keep it up.
[01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:26.000]  Thank you.
[01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  Thank you.
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:28.000]  Yes thank you Dwayne.
[01:53:28.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  We have some great cars.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:31.000]  Let's try Gail again.
[01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:32.000]  We're going to try Gail again.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  I just want to make one quick comment.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:48.000]  Just because the court may have incorporated itself or any of the constitutional officers may be corporate officers that doesn't necessarily mean there's any laws broken.
[01:53:48.000 --> 01:53:49.000]  Okay.
[01:53:49.000 --> 01:53:52.000]  I'm the owner of two or three businesses.
[01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  Randy owns five businesses.
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:55.000]  Okay.
[01:53:55.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  Just because Randy is the CEO or owner or major stockholder in certain businesses that doesn't mean he's breaking a law when he acts in other capacity.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  So just because the court is a corporation that doesn't mean that these people are breaking laws.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:16.000]  We have to really nail them specifically in black letter law.
[01:54:16.000 --> 01:54:18.000]  Okay we're going to go now to go ahead Randy.
[01:54:18.000 --> 01:54:21.000]  Wait wait let me address that corporate thing.
[01:54:21.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  Even if they are incorporated, the legislator is not acting as the head of the corporation.
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:31.000]  He's acting as a constitutionally elected officer.
[01:54:31.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  That's what I was trying to get at.
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:35.000]  That's exactly what I was trying to get at.
[01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:39.000]  Okay let's go to Gail in Minnesota.
[01:54:39.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  Gail are you back?
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:45.000]  Okay she has not returned.
[01:54:45.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  Okay we're going to go now to Christian in Florida.
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  Christian thanks for calling in.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:54:54.000]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:55.000]  How are you doing guys?
[01:54:55.000 --> 01:54:57.000]  Randy?
[01:54:57.000 --> 01:55:06.000]  My question tonight is along the lines of a void order where a void order may be challenged by any court at any time even by a third party.
[01:55:06.000 --> 01:55:09.000]  And a void order has no legal force in effect.
[01:55:09.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  As one court stated that a void order is equivalent to a blank piece of paper.
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:21.000]  And a party may have a court vacate a void order.
[01:55:21.000 --> 01:55:30.000]  Now my question is how can we force or command the court to vacate a void judgment by a party for a recipe or mandamus or something?
[01:55:30.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  Mandamus.
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:36.000]  If you petition the court to do it first.
[01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:41.000]  But if the court doesn't then mandamus to the next court.
[01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:45.000]  Now we did a 60B motion equivalent in state.
[01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:49.000]  I think it's a 1540B motion to vacate.
[01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:51.000]  It was overruled.
[01:55:51.000 --> 01:55:53.000]  So would we put in a mandamus?
[01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:54.000]  Appeal it.
[01:55:54.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  Appeal the decision to overrule.
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:02.000]  Do an interlocutory appeal.
[01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  Interlocutory appeal okay.
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:09.000]  Randy can you explain what an interlocutory appeal is?
[01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:14.000]  Generally you can only appeal after a final order in the case.
[01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:26.000]  But if an order is issued in the case that will affect the rest of the trial and you feel that the order or the ruling is improper.
[01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:31.000]  Then you can do an appeal from inside the case before it's finished.
[01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  And that's an interlocutory appeal.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:37.000]  How about if the case is already closed?
[01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  Is there a certain amount of time?
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:41.000]  Yes.
[01:56:41.000 --> 01:56:47.000]  There are generally there are certain procedures when the final order you have to.
[01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:50.000]  Over the ten day mark.
[01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:53.000]  Ten days is notice of appeal.
[01:56:53.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  But before you get before the clock starts you ask for reconsideration.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  That buys you time.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:07.000]  If they deny the reconsideration then you can ask for a reconsideration in bank.
[01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:11.000]  And they'll either grant or deny that.
[01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:15.000]  And once that is done then you file notice of appeal.
[01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:18.000]  And then that's when the ten day clock starts.
[01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:22.000]  I think in Texas now it's 30 days.
[01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  Okay.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:29.000]  All you have to do is file a notice of appeal.
[01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  Once you file a notice of appeal the local court forwards all of its records to the court of appeals
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:45.000]  and the court of appeals will contact you and tell you when you have to have your appeal in by.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  But that's not necessarily like I don't know when the 60B motion you have the ten day rule versus the 459.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  That's federal.
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:56.000]  That's in the federal court.
[01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  Right.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  And there is a you have to look at which court it's in.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:06.000]  I know in a JP court or a municipal.
[01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:08.000]  It's something counting.
[01:58:08.000 --> 01:58:13.000]  You have ten days to notice the court of your intent to appeal.
[01:58:13.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  And I'm not exactly certain but I'm thinking it's 30 days in a misdemeanor class B or up.
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  But I'm not certain.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  It may also be 10 days.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  But all that is is you say guys I'm going to appeal.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  That's all it is.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:35.000]  That's what you know.
[01:58:35.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Hang on.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:39.000]  Go ahead.
[01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  Go ahead.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:41.000]  No.
[01:58:41.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  OK.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:43.000]  Listen.
[01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000]  Listen.
[01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:45.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  We're at the end of the show.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:47.000]  OK.
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  12 seconds.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:49.000]  All right.
[01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:51.000]  Thank you listeners.
[01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:52.000]  Thank you callers for calling in.
[01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:54.000]  We'll be back on Thursday night.
[01:58:54.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  The rule of law.
[01:59:55.000 --> 01:59:56.000]  OK.
[01:59:56.000 --> 02:00:24.000]  Thank you.