[00:00.000 --> 00:07.200] This news brief brought to you by the International News Net. [00:07.200 --> 00:11.480] Congressional investigators said Wednesday two-thirds of the U.S. health insurance industry [00:11.480 --> 00:17.640] used a faulty database that overcharged patients for seeing doctors outside their insurance [00:17.640 --> 00:23.320] network, costing Americans billions of dollars in inflated medical bills. [00:23.320 --> 00:29.720] As the July release date for Bax's H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, investigative [00:29.720 --> 00:36.160] journalist Jane Burgermeister has filed criminal charges against the World Health Organization, [00:36.160 --> 00:42.360] the U.N., and several high-ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism [00:42.360 --> 00:45.560] and attempts to commit mass murder. [00:45.560 --> 00:50.880] California's Comptroller John Chang said Wednesday he would have to issue IOUs in a [00:50.880 --> 00:56.400] week if lawmakers can't quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit. [00:56.400 --> 01:01.460] Chang said next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending [01:01.460 --> 01:12.400] plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression. [01:12.400 --> 01:17.640] John Leibowitz, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, gave some ammunition Tuesday to [01:17.640 --> 01:23.160] those who want to ban pharmaceutical companies from paying competitors who agree to delay [01:23.160 --> 01:25.800] the introduction of generic drugs. [01:25.800 --> 01:31.280] Leibowitz said an internal study had determined that eliminating such payments would save [01:31.280 --> 01:34.840] consumers $3.5 billion a year. [01:34.840 --> 01:40.200] The so-called exclusion payments, or pay-for-delay payments, are the subject of several bills [01:40.200 --> 01:44.160] in Congress and of litigation throughout the country. [01:44.160 --> 01:50.720] Leibowitz called the payments anti-competitive and said Congress ought to ban them, adding, [01:50.720 --> 01:56.480] �You have a permissive and conflicting legal regime that allows pharmaceutical companies [01:56.480 --> 01:59.960] to make collusive deals on the backs of consumers.� [01:59.960 --> 02:06.560] The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider another version as soon as Thursday. [02:06.560 --> 02:10.760] Leibowitz said the payments have become more common because of rulings in the U.S. Circuit [02:10.760 --> 02:15.360] Courts of Appeals. [02:15.360 --> 02:20.760] Randall Potter, a retired health insurance executive, confessed Wednesday that insurance [02:20.760 --> 02:26.560] companies deliberately confuse policyholders and attempt to dump sick patients to boost [02:26.560 --> 02:27.560] their profit margins. [02:27.560 --> 02:33.600] Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance [02:33.600 --> 02:40.000] companies Cigna and Humana, told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, [02:40.000 --> 02:45.520] companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet Wall Street's relentless [02:45.520 --> 02:47.240] profit expectations. [02:47.240 --> 02:53.460] They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness or a pre-existing [02:53.460 --> 02:59.000] condition when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel [02:59.000 --> 03:00.000] the policy. [03:00.000 --> 03:10.720] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com, live free speech [03:10.720 --> 03:23.720] talk radio at its best. [03:23.720 --> 03:47.720] Hello everybody, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, with our trusty sidekick, Eddie Craig, [03:47.720 --> 04:00.240] back on the radio, Deb is at the rainbow having fun while we're here slaving over a hot microphone. [04:00.240 --> 04:06.960] Tonight we're going to talk about traffic and some of the basic due process issues and [04:06.960 --> 04:16.880] how to, instead of just go in and be passive and defend yourself politely, how to be a [04:16.880 --> 04:20.880] little bit more aggressive with these municipal judges. [04:20.880 --> 04:27.440] If there's any place where this is somewhat easier to do, it's with a traffic ticket, [04:27.440 --> 04:31.240] because at worst you're going to have to pay for a traffic ticket. [04:31.240 --> 04:36.440] I mean, it's not like they're going to hang you up by your thumbs for six months. [04:36.440 --> 04:44.560] So if there's any place where we can begin to get more comfortable in court and begin [04:44.560 --> 04:50.800] to learn how to fight for our rights, traffic tickets are a great place to do it. [04:50.800 --> 04:55.280] So Eddie, you had a couple of emails you wanted to talk about. [04:55.280 --> 04:57.440] Yeah, actually I did. [04:57.440 --> 05:02.760] Let's see, right now, one of the ones I'm replying back to is a fellow by the name of [05:02.760 --> 05:07.800] Mike, you forwarded his email to me earlier today, and he was talking about how he got [05:07.800 --> 05:12.880] pulled over in Corpus Christi by a police officer because he noticed that the vehicle [05:12.880 --> 05:16.320] he was traveling in didn't have an inspection sticker on it. [05:16.320 --> 05:22.880] Well, when the police officer pulled him over, he wrote him a ticket, he impounded his car [05:22.880 --> 05:27.280] because there was no insurance on it. [05:27.280 --> 05:32.840] And then they proceeded to search his car, calling it an inventory, and basically went [05:32.840 --> 05:36.000] ahead and stole the car, all that good stuff. [05:36.000 --> 05:39.400] So what I've done is I've responded to him on the things that he needs to be working [05:39.400 --> 05:44.440] with as far as the information on the transportation code. [05:44.440 --> 05:48.400] Basically speaking, I'll just read to everybody what I'm replying back to Mike. [05:48.400 --> 05:52.720] In Texas transportation code chapter 501, it deals with a certificate of title which [05:52.720 --> 05:58.840] is required only for state and political subdivision owned vehicles, not private automobiles. [05:58.840 --> 06:03.440] Hence, only state and political owned vehicles can be classified as a motor vehicle that [06:03.440 --> 06:05.500] requires registration. [06:05.500 --> 06:12.120] And I based that upon chapter 502, which deals with the registration, which requires a certificate [06:12.120 --> 06:18.080] of title to accomplish, which is why it cannot apply to a private automobile because a certificate [06:18.080 --> 06:24.200] is required only for the state-owned and political subdivision-owned type of vehicles. [06:24.200 --> 06:28.800] So in that particular instance, when it says motor vehicle required to be registered, [06:28.800 --> 06:33.680] it can only be referring to those that are owned by the state and the political subdivisions. [06:33.680 --> 06:39.360] The second leg to that to support it is the requirement for insurance. [06:39.360 --> 06:45.520] No insurance company in any state of the union will insure an unregistered vehicle, nor will [06:45.520 --> 06:50.480] they insure a driver that does not have one of the two commercial driver's licenses that [06:50.480 --> 06:52.720] are available in Texas. [06:52.720 --> 06:58.800] Therefore, to say that you're required to have insurance on a private automobile that [06:58.800 --> 07:03.280] is not required to be registered and that you are not required to have a license in [07:03.280 --> 07:07.320] order to travel in it would be ludicrous. [07:07.320 --> 07:12.800] Basically they're trying to force you into giving up certain rights in order to obtain [07:12.800 --> 07:17.520] their privileges, which we are not required to do. [07:17.520 --> 07:22.000] Now the other thing I did was I went ahead and sent him the list of criminal complaints [07:22.000 --> 07:27.440] that I have written up for the various police agencies and so on and so forth for the aggravated [07:27.440 --> 07:33.440] kidnapping, aggravated assault, provided that he got arrested of course, theft of his automobile [07:33.440 --> 07:36.240] and so on and so forth. [07:36.240 --> 07:41.800] Now these are the things that if you get a traffic ticket, you immediately need to go [07:41.800 --> 07:45.800] through and refresh yourself on because these are all relevant. [07:45.800 --> 07:51.720] They deal with the specific issues that will appear in general application to almost any [07:51.720 --> 07:55.880] type of traffic stop. [07:55.880 --> 08:03.200] So the thing that stands out while you're saying that, I'm sitting here thinking about [08:03.200 --> 08:10.680] it from my perspective and my perspective is I'm the sovereign and you can only screw [08:10.680 --> 08:19.880] with me if I enter into a realm where I have given you specific authority and if you screw [08:19.880 --> 08:27.080] with me in an area where I haven't given you specific authority, I have legal remedy. [08:27.080 --> 08:34.720] One of the primary things is you don't have any subject matter, any official immunity [08:34.720 --> 08:38.280] from civil action from me. [08:38.280 --> 08:46.880] So the first thing I'm looking at is judge, who are you and how did you get subject matter [08:46.880 --> 08:49.960] jurisdiction over me? [08:49.960 --> 08:58.480] But I've heard this people making the argument over the right to travel and the judges are [08:58.480 --> 09:00.440] just ignoring it. [09:00.440 --> 09:10.040] So I'm thinking, how can we make a more succinct argument on the right to travel? [09:10.040 --> 09:15.160] Well what I'm thinking is, is let's stop arguing that we have a right to travel. [09:15.160 --> 09:20.520] It's clear by the law that we do. [09:20.520 --> 09:28.560] If a jurisdiction attempts to on a consistent basis exercising an authority, they are not [09:28.560 --> 09:36.720] specifically granted, what's the remedy? [09:36.720 --> 09:43.300] Well in our case, when they're acting outside of their authority, they would be acting outside [09:43.300 --> 09:44.840] of jurisdiction. [09:44.840 --> 09:50.480] If they're acting outside of jurisdiction, they have a severe procedural problem. [09:50.480 --> 09:54.880] Because unless they have jurisdiction, they can yell, scream, holler, point fingers and [09:54.880 --> 09:58.080] accusations all they want, but it's not going to apply to us. [09:58.080 --> 10:00.240] We're not within their jurisdiction. [10:00.240 --> 10:09.600] Well what do we do when they attempt to apply a jurisdiction to us that they don't have? [10:09.600 --> 10:10.600] The remedy. [10:10.600 --> 10:19.200] Well, one of the first things that I've started doing is I've got at the moment four motions [10:19.200 --> 10:25.880] to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to be filed, which I am also going to integrate [10:25.880 --> 10:33.000] judicial notice into both the motion itself and as a separate notice to the court that [10:33.000 --> 10:36.200] they are acting without jurisdiction in the matter. [10:36.200 --> 10:43.360] Okay, what if, what happens when you file the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction [10:43.360 --> 10:49.440] and the judge denies the motion or denies the challenge and claims that he has subject [10:49.440 --> 10:52.920] matter jurisdiction, what then is the remedy? [10:52.920 --> 10:57.880] Then the remedy is we file a motion of either mandamus to a higher court because the judge [10:57.880 --> 11:05.260] is disobeying their magisterial duty to apply the law, because a judge may not sit in determination [11:05.260 --> 11:09.280] of jurisdiction for which he has been challenged. [11:09.280 --> 11:13.240] Only a separate magistrate may make the ruling on jurisdiction. [11:13.240 --> 11:19.120] The judge that is being challenged for jurisdiction cannot render a decision on that subject, [11:19.120 --> 11:21.920] nor can they render a decision on disqualification. [11:21.920 --> 11:27.080] Okay, wait, wait, now, okay, that brings up an issue. [11:27.080 --> 11:36.320] I thought a judge could and had a duty to sit for jurisdiction, not disqualification. [11:36.320 --> 11:37.320] You can't for that. [11:37.320 --> 11:42.480] If you file a motion to recuse, the judge can sit for recuse. [11:42.480 --> 11:48.400] For recuse, yes, but now I've got Texas cases that show that when jurisdiction and Supreme [11:48.400 --> 11:54.760] Court cases, in fact, when jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven and it must [11:54.760 --> 12:00.080] be proven with a separate judge, not the one that is being challenged. [12:00.080 --> 12:01.400] That I very much need to see. [12:01.400 --> 12:10.000] I pulled a, I pulled down a page from Freedom Law School that had just the quote that you [12:10.000 --> 12:17.200] gave me, when, when jurisdiction is challenged, it may not be presumed, it must be proven. [12:17.200 --> 12:27.600] Problem, I pulled up the case, the case did not say that, and frankly, I was more than [12:27.600 --> 12:30.480] just a little annoyed. [12:30.480 --> 12:36.240] As a matter of fact, that whole page had lots of case law on it. [12:36.240 --> 12:43.560] None of it said what the sites on the page said they said. [12:43.560 --> 12:49.000] I was more than a little annoyed. [12:49.000 --> 12:53.360] Send me an email with the names of the cases so I can compare to the ones that I've got. [12:53.360 --> 12:55.440] I would very much like to see the case. [12:55.440 --> 13:02.960] This is a, for me, this is a new issue that a judge can't hear subject matter jurisdiction [13:02.960 --> 13:10.640] because frankly, that goes to a fundamental difficulty because it's my position and this [13:10.640 --> 13:14.400] is where I was going with my questions. [13:14.400 --> 13:21.040] It's not my place to determine whether or not the judge has subject matter jurisdiction. [13:21.040 --> 13:27.480] It is the judge's place to determine whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction [13:27.480 --> 13:35.000] because if he happens to accidentally sit in a case where subject matter jurisdiction [13:35.000 --> 13:42.160] doesn't exist, he is at risk of personal civil litigation. [13:42.160 --> 13:47.720] Right, but he also has a vested interest because of that, which is all the more reason for [13:47.720 --> 13:53.680] a separate impartial judge to determine the jurisdiction. [13:53.680 --> 13:56.040] That would just say logical. [13:56.040 --> 14:04.960] Yes, it's logical, but procedurally, before the judge can move ahead, if I go to the judge [14:04.960 --> 14:15.680] and offer the judge a case, before the judge sits and purports to exercise subject matter [14:15.680 --> 14:25.880] jurisdiction, one of the things he has a duty to do is look at the pleadings, be it a civil [14:25.880 --> 14:37.120] complaint or a criminal complaint, and determine one, does the pleading comply with sufficient [14:37.120 --> 14:43.720] law so that the pleading on its face is sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction [14:43.720 --> 14:45.880] of the court? [14:45.880 --> 14:54.880] Two, the person rendering the pleading, does that person have standing to bring the issue? [14:54.880 --> 15:04.480] So, as a judge, I would have to determine that before I did anything. [15:04.480 --> 15:05.480] That's my duty. [15:05.480 --> 15:12.040] That's just like a police officer when he sees me driving around in this 3,000 pound [15:12.040 --> 15:15.040] tin can. [15:15.040 --> 15:21.720] What I'm maintaining in traffic is he has to look at that 3,000 pound tin can and determine [15:21.720 --> 15:27.840] whether or not he has subject matter jurisdiction over that 3,000 pound tin can. [15:27.840 --> 15:34.160] If he does not, and he acts as if he does, then he's at risk. [15:34.160 --> 15:36.560] Right, and that's what they are now. [15:36.560 --> 15:41.160] Yeah, and I'm saying the same thing about the judge. [15:41.160 --> 15:48.200] I'm not going after the officer directly at this point, but I'll get to him. [15:48.200 --> 15:57.320] I suspect where the more powerful argument is going to be is going after the judge himself [15:57.320 --> 15:58.320] straight up. [15:58.320 --> 16:01.440] Who are you? [16:01.440 --> 16:06.680] I did do a show on Tuesday night with Pastor Massad, and he just went into court in New [16:06.680 --> 16:12.920] York, and he took with him the Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill. [16:12.920 --> 16:16.720] Are you familiar with that, Eddie? [16:16.720 --> 16:18.480] It sounds familiar. [16:18.480 --> 16:22.840] Okay, Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill. [16:22.840 --> 16:34.520] The case is about a guy who buys crop insurance for winter wheat, and we'll get to this on [16:34.520 --> 16:37.320] the other side of the break. [16:37.320 --> 16:40.000] You're going to find this a real interesting tactic to take. [16:40.000 --> 16:43.440] I know Pastor Massad thought of this. [16:43.440 --> 16:47.320] And he said he used the classic term to describe it. [16:47.320 --> 16:49.320] It was a hoot. [16:49.320 --> 16:53.400] Okay, we're going to go to break. [16:53.400 --> 16:55.240] We'll talk about this on the other side. [16:55.240 --> 17:00.240] Kathy, we'll pick you up next segment, Kathy, thank you. [17:00.240 --> 17:01.240] You invest. [17:01.240 --> 17:02.240] You buy insurance. [17:02.240 --> 17:03.240] You wear your seatbelt. [17:03.240 --> 17:06.160] You do things to ensure your family's future and protection. [17:06.160 --> 17:07.160] But why? [17:07.160 --> 17:08.240] Just in case? [17:08.240 --> 17:11.280] With the current state of affairs, ask yourself, am I ready? [17:11.280 --> 17:14.560] Preparation starts at SurvivalGearSource.com. [17:14.560 --> 17:18.960] SurvivalGearSource.com has a huge selection of vital products, emergency survival kits, [17:18.960 --> 17:24.960] gas masks, MREs, communication devices, products for pet care, your car, home, office and school. [17:24.960 --> 17:29.120] Protect against all natural disasters and terror attacks that can happen at any time. [17:29.120 --> 17:33.280] If you are not prepared, the last place you want to be is standing in FEMA lines. [17:33.280 --> 17:35.040] Invest in your future now. [17:35.040 --> 17:40.280] Visit SurvivalGearSource.com or call 877-231-1925. [17:40.280 --> 17:44.720] That's 877-231-1925. [17:44.720 --> 17:46.720] SurvivalGearSource.com. [17:46.720 --> 17:48.200] Prepare for tomorrow now. [17:48.200 --> 17:54.720] When ordering from SurvivalGearSource.com, remember to use promo code RuleOfLawRadio.com. [17:54.720 --> 18:17.600] Again, that special promo code is RuleOfLawRadio.com. [18:17.600 --> 18:25.200] Okay, this is Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Deborah Stevens has the week off, she's up at the [18:25.200 --> 18:32.640] rainbow having a good time while we're down here slaving over these hot microphones. [18:32.640 --> 18:41.160] We were talking about subject matter jurisdiction and Eddie, I lost my place. [18:41.160 --> 18:44.600] Well, you're talking about going directly after the judge. [18:44.600 --> 18:45.600] Yes. [18:45.600 --> 18:54.240] Okay, like a police officer, before he enters a situation, he needs to be sure that he has [18:54.240 --> 18:55.240] authority to do so. [18:55.240 --> 18:59.360] If I run up to a police officer and I want him to go arrest somebody because they did [18:59.360 --> 19:03.760] something, he's going to want to know what it is first to know whether or not he has [19:03.760 --> 19:09.040] authority even to intercede in whatever's going on. [19:09.040 --> 19:10.480] The judge is the same way. [19:10.480 --> 19:13.880] Oh, I know where we're going. [19:13.880 --> 19:20.200] Mr. Massad talking about Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill. [19:20.200 --> 19:29.280] Guy gets insurance from a federal program intended to encourage farmers to plant more [19:29.280 --> 19:33.800] foods, 1947 case. [19:33.800 --> 19:38.280] The government agreed to set up a program to insure crops. [19:38.280 --> 19:43.880] The guy buys the insurance, the representative for the government assures him that his crop [19:43.880 --> 19:46.700] is insured, go ahead and plant. [19:46.700 --> 19:49.680] He plants winter wheat after summer wheat. [19:49.680 --> 19:59.480] Drought, crop fails, farmer files on the insurance, insurance refuses to pay because there is [19:59.480 --> 20:04.960] a provision in the contract that says they won't cover winter wheat if it's planted [20:04.960 --> 20:08.080] after summer wheat. [20:08.080 --> 20:11.040] So he's not happy. [20:11.040 --> 20:19.640] He went to the Supreme Court and what the Supreme Court said was, if he had gotten the [20:19.640 --> 20:25.360] insurance from a private insurance company, he would have had a claim. [20:25.360 --> 20:33.120] But since he got the insurance from a governmental agency, that the governmental agency was bound [20:33.120 --> 20:40.720] by law and could not violate that law simply because one of their officials misrepresented [20:40.720 --> 20:47.120] the fact to the buyer. [20:47.120 --> 20:55.520] So it is the responsibility of the individual to determine the limits of the authority of [20:55.520 --> 21:00.600] the official who would make a claim. [21:00.600 --> 21:09.080] Before he enters into a contract or an interaction with the official, this is good law, it has [21:09.080 --> 21:16.760] federal crop insurance and all of its progeny, which it has quite a bit, we have a duty before [21:16.760 --> 21:25.240] we submit to any authority to insure that that authority is what it says it is. [21:25.240 --> 21:30.760] If we submit to that authority and the person claiming the authority doesn't have it, then [21:30.760 --> 21:33.440] we are at personal risk. [21:33.440 --> 21:41.840] So Pastor Massad went before the court and said, frankly, Your Honor, who are you? [21:41.840 --> 21:43.720] I don't know who you are. [21:43.720 --> 21:47.440] I don't know what authority you have over me. [21:47.440 --> 21:55.000] Before we do anything in this court, I'm going to ask you to prove who you are. [21:55.000 --> 22:00.200] I have a motion I'd like to file, it's a motion for bona fides. [22:00.200 --> 22:13.200] I actually had a municipal attorney complain that he didn't know what bona fides were. [22:13.200 --> 22:17.880] I referred him to Webster. [22:17.880 --> 22:28.960] These are your official documentation establishing a set of professional credentials or professional [22:28.960 --> 22:32.840] position. [22:32.840 --> 22:36.360] First thing I want is the judge's bona fides. [22:36.360 --> 22:42.640] I want to see that you have a contract with the state to sit in the position you're sitting [22:42.640 --> 22:43.640] in. [22:43.640 --> 22:49.120] I want to see that you have the qualifications to sit in that place that you're sitting. [22:49.120 --> 22:56.560] And then I want you to demonstrate to me law that gives you in that position subject matter [22:56.560 --> 22:58.760] jurisdiction over me. [22:58.760 --> 23:04.320] We don't go anywhere until we've done that. [23:04.320 --> 23:11.120] I just finished rewriting a motion today on that subject and I will put this up on the [23:11.120 --> 23:14.240] website if anybody's interested in it. [23:14.240 --> 23:21.640] This is a, it's not a motion exactly, it's a notice and demand to the court where we [23:21.640 --> 23:30.480] notice the court that, a friend of mine, Ken's got one he calls his mother Hubbard motion [23:30.480 --> 23:36.920] because we notice the court that we waive no rights, that it shall not be construed [23:36.920 --> 23:45.360] by the court that defendant waives any right except those rights waived in court with counsel [23:45.360 --> 23:54.440] present after full disclosure, free of coercion in writing. [23:54.440 --> 24:01.000] It is, it's a common practice and this is how they get you, is they get you to waive [24:01.000 --> 24:04.840] these rights that you would otherwise challenge. [24:04.840 --> 24:10.640] So we stated up front how well that'll stand up in court, I'm not sure yet, but at least [24:10.640 --> 24:14.920] we've made the allegation and the assertion. [24:14.920 --> 24:25.680] We also relegate counsel to second chair in that we, while not waiving our right to counsel, [24:25.680 --> 24:36.000] we demand our right to represent ourselves while keeping counsel to give us counsel. [24:36.000 --> 24:41.040] And from there that's the first thing we file and then the second one is bona fides, who [24:41.040 --> 24:46.280] are you, what authority do you have to sit where you're sitting and what power do you [24:46.280 --> 24:55.080] have over me and the other thing that's in the demand is a demand that any challenge [24:55.080 --> 25:01.920] to subject matter jurisdiction be heard in accordance with law before any other matters [25:01.920 --> 25:04.000] brought before the court. [25:04.000 --> 25:11.920] We raise a standing objection to the court addressing any matter prior to subject matter [25:11.920 --> 25:19.400] jurisdiction and anybody going to court needs to keep that firmly in mind because the courts [25:19.400 --> 25:21.960] like to screw you around on this one. [25:21.960 --> 25:22.960] Big time. [25:22.960 --> 25:30.960] They'll go to another issue and what they'll generally do is begin a case and just start [25:30.960 --> 25:40.080] talking about an issue, start talking about when you can hold the next hearing or something [25:40.080 --> 25:43.480] about the case, anything about the case. [25:43.480 --> 25:54.280] What that does, if you don't raise an objection, is it bypasses, it gives the court standing [25:54.280 --> 26:02.000] claim that you waived impersonal jurisdiction and they will pretend like it waives subject [26:02.000 --> 26:07.560] matter jurisdiction and act as if it does, doesn't. [26:07.560 --> 26:12.640] But they figure if you don't know any better, they'll just roll right over you. [26:12.640 --> 26:18.200] So first thing we always want to do, subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, [26:18.200 --> 26:26.680] subject matter jurisdiction, object to anything that does not go to subject matter jurisdiction. [26:26.680 --> 26:31.080] Did you look at those four motions that I sent to you, Randy, to look at on subject [26:31.080 --> 26:32.080] matter jurisdiction? [26:32.080 --> 26:35.600] No, I didn't realize you did. [26:35.600 --> 26:42.240] I sent you four that basically, the way I wrote it up was a dismissal for lack of subject [26:42.240 --> 26:43.360] matter jurisdiction. [26:43.360 --> 26:52.120] What it did was it listed 27 pertinent facts relating to the particular stop and what was [26:52.120 --> 26:58.220] stated and said by both parties during the stop and the background of the questions necessary. [26:58.220 --> 27:05.840] But on top of that, what it does state is I put up a motion to dismiss for lack of an [27:05.840 --> 27:07.680] information being filed. [27:07.680 --> 27:15.120] I put up a motion to dismiss because the officer committed misconduct in office during the [27:15.120 --> 27:16.120] stop. [27:16.120 --> 27:21.920] He did not inform me I was under arrest nor did he read me my rights pursuant to arrest. [27:21.920 --> 27:25.800] Just wrote me a ticket, had me sign it and sent me on the way or in some cases bothered [27:25.800 --> 27:28.880] to arrest you, so on and so forth. [27:28.880 --> 27:33.240] But there are four of them and I'd really like to get your take on those. [27:33.240 --> 27:38.040] Okay, I'm looking for it as we speak. [27:38.040 --> 27:50.080] On the officer, what he did, I'm concerned about that right off the bat because if we [27:50.080 --> 27:55.680] start talking about anything the officer did, we're already two or three steps down the [27:55.680 --> 27:58.320] road. [27:58.320 --> 28:00.560] I don't see a current email from you. [28:00.560 --> 28:12.040] If you could send it to me again, it would be up on top, I get quite a few emails. [28:12.040 --> 28:18.480] If we start talking about the officer, we're two or three steps down the road. [28:18.480 --> 28:24.560] Well, no, actually no because the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that [28:24.560 --> 28:33.160] if the complaint or the information, if there are any errors or information in it that is [28:33.160 --> 28:40.040] not correct, it has to be challenged prior to the initiation of the prosecution in the [28:40.040 --> 28:41.040] court. [28:41.040 --> 28:49.920] But before we get to challenging the complaint, we need to challenge the court. [28:49.920 --> 28:53.440] But that's what I was saying, you don't necessarily appear in court before you get to challenge [28:53.440 --> 28:54.600] the complaint. [28:54.600 --> 28:55.600] Oh yeah, I know. [28:55.600 --> 28:57.600] We don't appear in court. [28:57.600 --> 29:00.200] We challenge the court's subject matter of jurisdiction. [29:00.200 --> 29:04.640] I guess this is a real technical issue I'm bringing. [29:04.640 --> 29:14.280] Instead of challenging the officer himself, my challenge is that the officer did not have [29:14.280 --> 29:19.880] authority standing to invoke subject matter of jurisdiction in the court. [29:19.880 --> 29:24.000] So I won't ask this about the officer, I'll ask this about the court. [29:24.000 --> 29:30.440] Where do you get subject matter of jurisdiction and how does the officer invoke your subject [29:30.440 --> 29:35.240] matter of jurisdiction? [29:35.240 --> 29:39.480] I'll form this question a little better on the other side of the break. [29:39.480 --> 29:45.520] I'm pressing on this, it sounds kind of picky, but if we can get our mind focused in the [29:45.520 --> 29:51.160] right place, it will keep them from being able to trip us over the issue of subject [29:51.160 --> 29:55.680] matter of jurisdiction and eat us like a tied goat. [29:55.680 --> 29:56.680] Yeah. [29:56.680 --> 30:00.040] Be right back. [30:00.040 --> 30:04.080] Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback, this is a great time [30:04.080 --> 30:05.080] to buy. [30:05.080 --> 30:09.560] With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties and instability [30:09.560 --> 30:13.080] in world financial systems, I see gold going up much higher. [30:13.080 --> 30:16.400] Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [30:16.400 --> 30:20.120] Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals. [30:20.120 --> 30:24.200] At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum with confidence [30:24.200 --> 30:29.080] from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977. [30:29.080 --> 30:32.840] If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information you [30:32.840 --> 30:37.280] need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us. [30:37.280 --> 30:41.600] Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you in [30:41.600 --> 30:44.980] the event that we would be required to report any transaction. [30:44.980 --> 30:49.080] If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate [30:49.080 --> 30:50.080] payment. [30:50.080 --> 30:53.880] Call us at 800-874-9760. [30:53.880 --> 30:58.880] We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760. [30:58.880 --> 31:13.340] Thank you. [31:13.340 --> 31:42.740] Okay, we're back. [31:42.740 --> 31:48.340] Randy Kelton, Mr. Steven, Eddie Craig, Real Law Radio. [31:48.340 --> 31:52.740] Before I continue this subject, Kathy's been waiting for quite a while. [31:52.740 --> 31:58.540] I'm going to bring her up and see if she's got a question on point. [31:58.540 --> 32:00.740] Kathy, you there? [32:00.740 --> 32:02.140] Yes, I'm here. [32:02.140 --> 32:03.140] Already. [32:03.140 --> 32:05.140] You've changed all my questions, actually. [32:05.140 --> 32:09.740] You haven't changed all my questions, but I do have one about the subject matter jurisdiction [32:09.740 --> 32:12.740] that you've been talking about. [32:12.740 --> 32:17.740] I don't know, I'm the bad penny that keeps turning up so somebody may even know what [32:17.740 --> 32:26.340] we're about right now in Hays County, but if, you know, Eddie, you were saying you challenged [32:26.340 --> 32:29.740] the subject matter jurisdiction for traffic stops and things. [32:29.740 --> 32:35.940] Is that the same challenge in criminal court as in civil court? [32:35.940 --> 32:38.140] It's still just subject matter, right? [32:38.140 --> 32:39.940] So it doesn't matter what court you're in? [32:39.940 --> 32:44.540] Is that what I'm hearing? [32:44.540 --> 32:48.340] Yeah, well, subject matter jurisdiction is going to apply in any court. [32:48.340 --> 32:51.940] If they don't have it, there's no reason for you to be there. [32:51.940 --> 32:56.740] Okay, because I know we're doing that in the criminal side. [32:56.740 --> 32:58.340] Isn't that what we did, Randy? [32:58.340 --> 33:05.140] Yes, what we're doing in the criminal side is a little bit different than traffic. [33:05.140 --> 33:15.540] We're saying that in traffic, the law that the judge is sitting to adjudicate does not [33:15.540 --> 33:17.540] apply to me. [33:17.540 --> 33:22.140] In this criminal case, we're not saying the law doesn't apply. [33:22.140 --> 33:29.540] We're saying that those individuals who would bring evidence to the court are not credible [33:29.540 --> 33:38.340] witnesses and that they have secured this evidence in violation of law and therefore [33:38.340 --> 33:43.540] the court is forbidden by law to consider any of the evidence. [33:43.540 --> 33:50.740] Without the evidence of these witnesses, there is not sufficient evidence to invoke, there's [33:50.740 --> 33:56.340] not sufficient testimony before the court to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction [33:56.340 --> 33:57.340] of the court. [33:57.340 --> 34:03.540] Okay, then does that come back to what Eddie was saying, that the judge that we present [34:03.540 --> 34:08.940] that to can't hear it, someone else has to decide if that's the case? [34:08.940 --> 34:13.140] That's an issue we certainly need to go to. [34:13.140 --> 34:20.740] For me, that is a new issue and on its surface, it smacks of a procedural problem. [34:20.740 --> 34:26.340] And the procedural problems are what's giving us grief right now. [34:26.340 --> 34:32.540] If a judge can't determine whether he has subject matter jurisdiction, then on every [34:32.540 --> 34:39.540] case that's filed, there would have to be a hearing by a judge who would not sit in [34:39.540 --> 34:44.340] the case to make a determination of subject matter jurisdiction. [34:44.340 --> 34:52.740] Now, I don't see where that would be so terribly difficult to do, but it's not anything I've [34:52.740 --> 34:56.740] ever heard of in any court I've ever been in. [34:56.740 --> 35:02.740] But it's not something we need to speak, Dan, because we're not aware of it. [35:02.740 --> 35:07.740] But if they choose to do it on their own, then they would do it, right? [35:07.740 --> 35:16.740] Well, if the judge has subject matter jurisdiction, he absolutely can proceed. [35:16.740 --> 35:24.740] But if we challenge jurisdiction and he does have subject matter jurisdiction, he can certainly [35:24.740 --> 35:26.740] proceed. [35:26.740 --> 35:35.740] And I've heard that there's case law that says once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, [35:35.740 --> 35:37.740] it must be proven. [35:37.740 --> 35:46.740] But like I told Eddie when it started, the case law I looked at, it didn't say what the [35:46.740 --> 35:49.740] citation claimed it did. [35:49.740 --> 35:56.740] I suspect that if I once have done all of the research, I'm going to find that if a [35:56.740 --> 36:02.740] judge in fact has subject matter jurisdiction, I can do all the dance I want to and he's [36:02.740 --> 36:05.740] still going to have it. [36:05.740 --> 36:12.740] So even if I challenge his jurisdiction, I've heard that the case law says that he loses [36:12.740 --> 36:19.740] it until he proves it, but I haven't actually found case law that I looked at and read [36:19.740 --> 36:21.740] and it actually said that. [36:21.740 --> 36:26.740] I'm thinking that this may be more patriot mythology. [36:26.740 --> 36:31.740] Well, the reason I based it on that is because of something else that I read regarding the [36:31.740 --> 36:34.740] issuance of a capious warrant. [36:34.740 --> 36:40.740] Basically speaking in Texas, it's been ruled by the appellate court that in the issuance [36:40.740 --> 36:45.740] of a capious warrant, it cannot be issued by the judge that is hearing the case. [36:45.740 --> 36:50.740] It has to be issued by a disinterested judge separate from the one that is hearing the [36:50.740 --> 36:51.740] case. [36:51.740 --> 36:55.740] And the reason for that is goes back to what we've talked about before, Randy, where if [36:55.740 --> 37:00.740] a judge has held an ex parte hearing to determine probable cause in the absence of the [37:00.740 --> 37:05.740] defendant, then he's already biased to issue the warrant. [37:05.740 --> 37:06.740] Okay. [37:06.740 --> 37:08.740] That's our case. [37:08.740 --> 37:18.740] This gets more complex because under 2022 Code of Criminal Procedure, where a grand [37:18.740 --> 37:29.740] jury has voted to True Bill, they're to come before the court and read the fact of the [37:29.740 --> 37:36.740] True Bill to the court and the clerk is to make notes in the minutes of the court. [37:36.740 --> 37:43.740] Except if the person has not been arrested, the clerk may not note the True Bill in the [37:43.740 --> 37:47.740] record until such time as the person's been arrested. [37:47.740 --> 37:57.740] And the clerk there in that circumstance is specifically authorized to issue a capious, [37:57.740 --> 37:59.740] not to judge. [37:59.740 --> 38:00.740] Yes. [38:00.740 --> 38:03.740] But again, this is the proceedings of a grand jury. [38:03.740 --> 38:08.740] We're talking before that even occurs, like in a traffic case, for example. [38:08.740 --> 38:11.740] When the officer goes in, he files his complaint. [38:11.740 --> 38:16.740] The judge swears or has him swear out the complaint and issues the warrant all in the same [38:16.740 --> 38:17.740] setting. [38:17.740 --> 38:20.740] It's done completely ex parte of the defendant. [38:20.740 --> 38:25.740] It's done without any introduction of evidence contradicting the officer's testimony. [38:25.740 --> 38:30.740] It's completely illegal according to the rules of procedure all the way around. [38:30.740 --> 38:31.740] Well, actually, no. [38:31.740 --> 38:33.740] That is authorized. [38:33.740 --> 38:36.740] But there are protections in place. [38:36.740 --> 38:39.740] And this is the issue I keep bringing. [38:39.740 --> 38:45.740] When a person is arrested with or without a warrant, if a person's arrested without a [38:45.740 --> 38:51.740] warrant, 14.06 commands the officer to take him directly to the nearest magistrate. [38:51.740 --> 39:00.740] If he's arrested with a warrant, 15.16 commands the officer to take the person to the magistrate [39:00.740 --> 39:02.740] who issued the warrant. [39:02.740 --> 39:06.740] And it must be a magistrate. [39:06.740 --> 39:14.740] The district clerk is authorized to issue a warrant in one particular circumstance and [39:14.740 --> 39:16.740] one alone. [39:16.740 --> 39:23.740] Otherwise, the warrant must be issued by a magistrate after a determination of probable [39:23.740 --> 39:24.740] cause. [39:24.740 --> 39:27.740] And he can do that in an ex parte hearing. [39:27.740 --> 39:28.740] And that's reasonable. [39:28.740 --> 39:33.740] We're not against the courts being able to adjudicate law. [39:33.740 --> 39:40.740] If I go to the court and say, my next door neighbor just shot my dog and my other next [39:40.740 --> 39:47.740] door neighbor, and I want you to issue a warrant and arrest him so that we can bring him before [39:47.740 --> 39:49.740] the court and have him answer to that. [39:49.740 --> 39:56.740] We want the police to be able to go out and arrest this guy based on a valid accusation [39:56.740 --> 39:59.740] by a credible person. [39:59.740 --> 40:01.740] So they need that power. [40:01.740 --> 40:10.740] However, since the warrant would have been issued in an ex parte hearing, that the other [40:10.740 --> 40:16.740] side wasn't available to give his side of the story. [40:16.740 --> 40:22.740] And the example I use is I once punched a woman upside the head as hard as I could and [40:22.740 --> 40:26.740] did everything I could to knock her smooth out. [40:26.740 --> 40:27.740] I did that. [40:27.740 --> 40:30.740] I'm glad it wasn't me. [40:30.740 --> 40:35.740] And that was sufficient cause for a magistrate to issue a warrant against me. [40:35.740 --> 40:36.740] It didn't happen in this case. [40:36.740 --> 40:40.740] But had it happened, that would have been sufficient cause, and the police would come [40:40.740 --> 40:43.740] out and jerk me up and take me directly to this magistrate. [40:43.740 --> 40:47.740] And the magistrate is supposed to say, why did you punch that woman upside the head and [40:47.740 --> 40:50.740] try to knock her smooth out? [40:50.740 --> 40:55.740] But if they took you straight to the jail, then they would still be in violation. [40:55.740 --> 40:56.740] Exactly. [40:56.740 --> 41:00.740] It's like what we're having now, all of the problems that we're having that I hear all [41:00.740 --> 41:01.740] over the place. [41:01.740 --> 41:02.740] Exactly. [41:02.740 --> 41:05.740] They don't take you to the magistrate with or without the warrant. [41:05.740 --> 41:07.740] That is exactly my argument. [41:07.740 --> 41:11.740] Well, the instant case I'm referring to though, Randy, is when they just have you sign the [41:11.740 --> 41:16.740] citation, then they go down and file the complaint whenever they decide to at the courthouse. [41:16.740 --> 41:20.740] They are specifically authorized by statute to do that. [41:20.740 --> 41:26.740] Special statute addressing a particular issue. [41:26.740 --> 41:32.740] And the special statute takes precedent over general statute. [41:32.740 --> 41:35.740] Now, here's the thing. [41:35.740 --> 41:41.740] The warrant that is issued by the municipal court judge here in Nacogdoches, the warrant [41:41.740 --> 41:45.740] says not to arrest you and bring you before the judge. [41:45.740 --> 41:51.740] It says to arrest you and remand you to the city jail. [41:51.740 --> 41:56.740] That is a warrant that's false on its face. [41:56.740 --> 41:58.740] The judge has no such authority. [41:58.740 --> 41:59.740] Exactly. [41:59.740 --> 42:01.740] But that's what they do. [42:01.740 --> 42:02.740] Oh, wonderful. [42:02.740 --> 42:05.740] Then, see, these are the issues I want to go after. [42:05.740 --> 42:09.740] Now we go after the judge's throat personally. [42:09.740 --> 42:10.740] And hold on. [42:10.740 --> 42:15.740] Kathy, did we get your question answered or did we just step all over you? [42:15.740 --> 42:17.740] No, I was asking that. [42:17.740 --> 42:21.740] I have more questions, but I'll pick them up with you tomorrow. [42:21.740 --> 42:25.740] Well, that's okay. [42:25.740 --> 42:26.740] We can get to those. [42:26.740 --> 42:27.740] I'm sorry. [42:27.740 --> 42:28.740] I didn't mean to interrupt you, Eddie. [42:28.740 --> 42:34.740] I just didn't want to lose Kathy's, lose our train, make sure we didn't just get away from it. [42:34.740 --> 42:38.740] Yeah, because this is really good and I'm learning by the moment. [42:38.740 --> 42:42.740] And everything that I'm – you know how it is right now. [42:42.740 --> 42:45.740] I've got my back to the thing while your back's to. [42:45.740 --> 42:54.740] Yes, and just so the listener understands, Eddie and I, when we started to show, we agreed to argue with one another on the air. [42:54.740 --> 43:01.740] We're going to discuss this issue on the air like we would do it if we were sitting in a restaurant together going over these issues. [43:01.740 --> 43:02.740] I think that would be – [43:02.740 --> 43:10.740] Yeah, the brainstorming should help, you know, everybody to get a good word in so we can get this hashed out as well as possible as what we're hoping. [43:10.740 --> 43:15.740] So if it sounds like I'm challenging Eddie's position, I am. [43:15.740 --> 43:17.740] I'm doing it on purpose. [43:17.740 --> 43:18.740] That's all right. [43:18.740 --> 43:20.740] That's good. [43:20.740 --> 43:25.740] But if I could slide in two questions really fast and then go – [43:25.740 --> 43:29.740] Okay, we've got about 30 minutes – 30 seconds to break. [43:29.740 --> 43:30.740] Okay. [43:30.740 --> 43:35.740] If you come back with the other side of break, we will go to you and get both of your questions. [43:35.740 --> 43:38.740] Okay, thanks. [43:38.740 --> 43:41.740] Kathy's one of my sweetheart's callers. [43:41.740 --> 43:43.740] I'll shut it. [43:43.740 --> 43:47.740] She goes in all the time. [43:47.740 --> 43:50.740] And her husband plays a cornea. [43:50.740 --> 43:52.740] I'm going to tell all my secrets. [43:52.740 --> 43:53.740] Yes. [43:53.740 --> 43:56.740] Oh, you're bad. [43:56.740 --> 43:59.740] We'll be right back. [43:59.740 --> 44:02.740] Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org. [44:02.740 --> 44:12.740] Our coffee grows in the dense volcanic-rich soil, herbicide and pesticide-free, and in the high altitudes of Guatemala, in conditions that are ideal for natural growth of this high-quality coffee. [44:12.740 --> 44:17.740] Try our mellow cup of coffee that is ground and roasted with 25% hemp seed from Canada. [44:17.740 --> 44:26.740] With a wonderful nutty flavor that contains 18% protein, our roasters bring a unique flavor that makes this the best cup of coffee you'll ever have. [44:26.740 --> 44:32.740] Try our new Special Roast Hemp Coffee from HempUSA.org and wake up your brain without the jitters. [44:32.740 --> 44:35.740] Our customers look forward to their next cup of hemp coffee. [44:35.740 --> 44:41.740] Visit us at HempUSA.org or call 908-691-2608. [44:41.740 --> 44:48.740] That's 908-691-2608 and see if you'll change your mind about drinking coffee again. [44:48.740 --> 44:54.740] Taste the difference, feel the difference at HempUSA.org today. [44:54.740 --> 45:14.740] Okay, we're back. [45:14.740 --> 45:19.740] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Debra Stevens out having fun tonight. [45:19.740 --> 45:28.740] We're going to go back to Kathy and let me, I just mentioned the accordion player because I didn't want everybody to think she was my girlfriend. [45:28.740 --> 45:36.740] I don't mind. I've had worse boyfriends, I tell you. [45:36.740 --> 45:47.740] I just had someone call me today that somebody, she was complaining that somebody was hitting on her and wanted me to do something about it. [45:47.740 --> 45:49.740] She didn't want anything to do with him. [45:49.740 --> 45:51.740] I said, well, I can help you out. [45:51.740 --> 45:55.740] I'll write him a love letter and sign your name to it. [45:55.740 --> 45:58.740] You better not. [45:58.740 --> 46:03.740] Okay, you had a couple more questions. [46:03.740 --> 46:04.740] Okay. [46:04.740 --> 46:13.740] We are, just for everyone who's listening, we are going to the grand jury, hopefully to knock some heads. [46:13.740 --> 46:17.740] I've been looking for copies of complaints from you. [46:17.740 --> 46:22.740] The ones you gave me, I'm looking through and I've made a few of them. [46:22.740 --> 46:25.740] I just had a couple of specific questions. [46:25.740 --> 46:33.740] We are, for everyone, we're going after the arresting officers for kidnapping. [46:33.740 --> 46:44.740] The real question I have is Sally is actually having post-traumatic stress syndrome and every time I ask her this really specific question [46:44.740 --> 46:47.740] so that I can get this down, she goes, I can't go there right now. [46:47.740 --> 46:48.740] Go away. [46:48.740 --> 46:49.740] It's like, wait a minute. [46:49.740 --> 46:55.740] At some point, I'm going to have to just kind of throw her against the wall or something. [46:55.740 --> 46:59.740] Let me suggest a little bit of a different tact. [46:59.740 --> 47:00.740] Okay. [47:00.740 --> 47:04.740] See if you can bring her up to it from the side. [47:04.740 --> 47:08.740] Often we can do this by misdirection. [47:08.740 --> 47:19.740] If we make up a story of someone you know that had almost the same thing happen to them [47:19.740 --> 47:33.740] and make it instead of a woman and a police officer, make it a boss and a subordinate. [47:33.740 --> 47:34.740] Okay. [47:34.740 --> 47:45.740] And tell her, describe this story as you think it occurred and ask her if that matches what happened to you. [47:45.740 --> 47:52.740] Sometimes we can bring someone to a difficult subject by disassociation. [47:52.740 --> 47:57.740] And we have tried the thing about it wasn't you, it was someone else. [47:57.740 --> 48:00.740] It was a film that you saw and that isn't working. [48:00.740 --> 48:05.740] So let me try it from the side then the other way. [48:05.740 --> 48:12.740] But what I'm down to right now is the actual forms for the grand jury, the complaint form. [48:12.740 --> 48:20.740] My understanding was we need one complaint per person. [48:20.740 --> 48:24.740] Or can we do one complaint for three officers? [48:24.740 --> 48:25.740] No. [48:25.740 --> 48:26.740] Because they were all skinned. [48:26.740 --> 48:27.740] Okay. [48:27.740 --> 48:37.740] A complaint, a criminal action, each separate violation is a separate criminal action. [48:37.740 --> 48:38.740] Okay. [48:38.740 --> 48:47.740] Each person, the complaint must be initiated against a single person for a single criminal act. [48:47.740 --> 48:48.740] Okay. [48:48.740 --> 48:53.740] Each one is a separate action before the court and would have a separate cause number. [48:53.740 --> 48:57.740] And therefore, each one would have a separate complaint. [48:57.740 --> 49:03.740] Now, when I do this, I tend to make up the complaint. [49:03.740 --> 49:10.740] And you can find blank complaints on my website and you can also find complaints that I've made up. [49:10.740 --> 49:12.740] Yeah, I have the group. [49:12.740 --> 49:13.740] Yeah. [49:13.740 --> 49:22.740] And for the people listening, if you go in, for instance, and look into, I've got a folder up there of complaints. [49:22.740 --> 49:26.740] These are a group of complaints that we filed in the Robert Fox case. [49:26.740 --> 49:34.740] And if you pull the complaint up, there are some that I did where I have the heading and then I have the ending. [49:34.740 --> 49:39.740] Those are pretty well standard ways of doing a complaint. [49:39.740 --> 49:41.740] And then you have facts in the middle. [49:41.740 --> 49:48.740] Well, the facts in the middle on some of them is a complete statement of probable cause. [49:48.740 --> 49:57.740] I tell briefly what all the facts are, including all of the people and all of the things that were done. [49:57.740 --> 50:02.740] And then I list out all of the crimes that were committed there and who did them. [50:02.740 --> 50:20.740] And I take that same exact complaint and I say, and therefore, before the filing of this complaint, I put in the first person's name, committed, violated this law. [50:20.740 --> 50:22.740] And then I do the next one. [50:22.740 --> 50:24.740] The complaint stays the same for each one. [50:24.740 --> 50:26.740] I just change the name and the offense. [50:26.740 --> 50:33.740] Okay, that's what I was saying because in the body of it where we were describing it, we were actually naming names at the top. [50:33.740 --> 50:38.740] So basically I should say just arresting officers at the top? [50:38.740 --> 50:40.740] No, no. [50:40.740 --> 50:49.740] In the complaint itself, you can mention names in the other names in the statement of probable cause. [50:49.740 --> 50:58.740] What I do is I write up a statement of what occurred and I include the statement on every complaint. [50:58.740 --> 51:04.740] So when the grand jury reads it, they read my statement of probable cause on this complaint. [51:04.740 --> 51:10.740] And then based on this above statement, I accuse this guy of this crime, this person of this crime. [51:10.740 --> 51:12.740] And then they get the next one. [51:12.740 --> 51:16.740] They read my statement of probable cause again. [51:16.740 --> 51:23.740] And on the second one, they'll probably be three-quarters of the way through it before they realize that this is not going to change. [51:23.740 --> 51:26.740] This is actually the same one from the last one. [51:26.740 --> 51:30.740] And then you get the next one and there it is again. [51:30.740 --> 51:38.740] Okay, because on one of these that I was looking at, it goes through the statement kind of of what's happening [51:38.740 --> 51:47.740] and then it says for probable cause, see my included writ of habeas quipa. [51:47.740 --> 51:51.740] So I don't need to do that if I'm writing it this way, right? [51:51.740 --> 51:53.740] Right, exactly. [51:53.740 --> 52:03.740] If you put it all within the document, if the complaint, if the statement of probable cause is not so extensive that you can't get it in the complaint. [52:03.740 --> 52:06.740] If it only takes three pages, I'll include it. [52:06.740 --> 52:07.740] Okay. [52:07.740 --> 52:10.740] But if I'm going to do 20 complaints, that's a lot of papers. [52:10.740 --> 52:23.740] But if it takes 10 or 15 pages, I'll put just briefly a fact that establishes this particular crime. [52:23.740 --> 52:34.740] And generally when I have a lot of people involved and there are crimes across the board, everybody's guilty of everything because they're acting in concert inclusion. [52:34.740 --> 52:40.740] So I'll make the case for one crime and then use that exact same statement. [52:40.740 --> 52:44.740] And on the initial actor, I'll use the statement. [52:44.740 --> 52:59.740] On the rest of them, I'll put a little paragraph down below that accusing all actors of acting in concert, being criminally culpable for the conduct of all other actors and use that for everybody else. [52:59.740 --> 53:02.740] Just add that little paragraph and just put everybody's name on it. [53:02.740 --> 53:07.740] And in all of them, I'll say see, attach, statement of probable cause. [53:07.740 --> 53:08.740] Okay. [53:08.740 --> 53:12.740] It lessens some of the work not just for you but for the grand jury that's going to see it. [53:12.740 --> 53:20.740] You don't want the grand jury getting annoyed at you for forcing them to read the same things over and over and over. [53:20.740 --> 53:21.740] Right. [53:21.740 --> 53:28.740] I was trying to get this organized so that I can understand it so that if I can understand it, I know they will. [53:28.740 --> 53:29.740] Yes. [53:29.740 --> 53:32.740] Now my brain is jelly. [53:32.740 --> 53:44.740] And you really need someone else to read it, preferably have your husband play it on the accordion out loud. [53:44.740 --> 53:46.740] Someone to read it out loud. [53:46.740 --> 53:47.740] This will be different. [53:47.740 --> 53:51.740] This is one of Ken's primary tools is he reads something out loud. [53:51.740 --> 53:52.740] Right. [53:52.740 --> 53:58.740] And you use a different part of your brain to do that and a different part of your brain to listen to it. [53:58.740 --> 53:59.740] We do need to move along. [53:59.740 --> 54:00.740] Callers are stacking up. [54:00.740 --> 54:01.740] Okay. [54:01.740 --> 54:02.740] Did you have another question? [54:02.740 --> 54:03.740] No. [54:03.740 --> 54:08.740] I appreciate your time and I'm really listening to the jurisdiction thing so I'm hoping to get back to you. [54:08.740 --> 54:09.740] Okay. [54:09.740 --> 54:11.740] We may not the way the callers are stacking up. [54:11.740 --> 54:12.740] It's okay. [54:12.740 --> 54:13.740] But we'll try to. [54:13.740 --> 54:14.740] Thank you all. [54:14.740 --> 54:15.740] Okay. [54:15.740 --> 54:16.740] Thank you very much. [54:16.740 --> 54:17.740] Okay. [54:17.740 --> 54:18.740] Talk to you later. [54:18.740 --> 54:19.740] Okay. [54:19.740 --> 54:21.740] Unscreened and 124 was next, Randy. [54:21.740 --> 54:22.740] Okay. [54:22.740 --> 54:25.740] We're going to Mr. Unscreened from I don't know where. [54:25.740 --> 54:28.740] Will you give us your first name and where you're from? [54:28.740 --> 54:31.740] Will that be me, Nick from Philly? [54:31.740 --> 54:33.740] That would be you. [54:33.740 --> 54:34.740] Nick? [54:34.740 --> 54:35.740] How are you doing, sir? [54:35.740 --> 54:40.740] Mr. Kelton, I heard you on the Alex Jones show a couple, I guess, months back now. [54:40.740 --> 54:49.740] Calling today, first I guess I could have some insights into the matter of you guys were questioning subject matter jurisdiction earlier. [54:49.740 --> 54:51.740] That's definitely one issue I'd like to touch on. [54:51.740 --> 55:06.740] I've had a good deal of experience in the past few months in traffic court myself, and what I find is I make my presentment generally that first and foremost I'm on a special appearance by no means should it be construed as a general appearance [55:06.740 --> 55:21.740] and that, of course, I'm a sovereign man, not to be construed as an enslegis, you know, the all capitalized letter fiction of law that they seem to include on all their legal documents addressed to me. [55:21.740 --> 55:29.740] And I find that works pretty well up until the point where they try to always get you into traverse, okay? [55:29.740 --> 55:30.740] Traverse. [55:30.740 --> 55:31.740] Just recently- [55:31.740 --> 55:32.740] Traverse. [55:32.740 --> 55:33.740] Traverse, yes. [55:33.740 --> 55:34.740] To actually- [55:34.740 --> 55:35.740] Define traverse. [55:35.740 --> 55:39.740] Traverse means to actually speak about the facts of the case, okay? [55:39.740 --> 55:46.740] To actually get into what I would assert at that point is that they have subject matter jurisdiction you acquiesced. [55:46.740 --> 55:58.740] I think that you diagnosed it properly earlier when you said as soon as you start to get into the facts of the case at all, that's when they have, you know, you've waived your rights to a certain degree. [55:58.740 --> 56:01.740] Yeah, let me stipulate that. [56:01.740 --> 56:08.740] You can waive your right to in personam jurisdiction, but not to subject matter jurisdiction. [56:08.740 --> 56:16.740] The court will presume you've waived your right to subject matter jurisdiction, but that doesn't happen. [56:16.740 --> 56:20.740] That's part of the song and dance and seltzer down your pants that they like to do. [56:20.740 --> 56:21.740] Right. [56:21.740 --> 56:30.740] Well, in this recent case, what I found was that the moment I opened up my mouth to say the word motions, because just in a 48 hours prior, I attempted to file motions. [56:30.740 --> 56:32.740] This is another brilliant thing. [56:32.740 --> 56:42.740] In the state of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia County, for traffic, almost every single traffic offense falls under what's known as a summary offense. [56:42.740 --> 56:46.740] And you don't initially, you don't get to go to a municipal court. [56:46.740 --> 56:53.740] You're stuck in this traffic court, which in Philadelphia, I mean, it's like a, you know, you walk in there, it's a prison roundhouse. [56:53.740 --> 56:55.740] I mean, you've got people hanging out the windows. [56:55.740 --> 56:57.740] It's just, it's despicable. [56:57.740 --> 57:03.740] But anyhow, you go before this, I mean, this administrative judge, or I shouldn't even call him a judge. [57:03.740 --> 57:05.740] He's really a hearing officer. [57:05.740 --> 57:08.740] And you basically make your case right before him. [57:08.740 --> 57:19.740] He won't even, here's the more interesting point is that when you're charged at the traffic stop itself, the officer will, you know, he'll attempt to get you to sign the ticket. [57:19.740 --> 57:21.740] And I refused on this occasion. [57:21.740 --> 57:27.740] And he said, okay, I said, I'm reserving my rights not to sign. And he said, well, I'll just write you down as a refusal. [57:27.740 --> 57:29.740] And I said, that's not what I'm saying. [57:29.740 --> 57:31.740] I'm saying I'm reserving all my rights. [57:31.740 --> 57:33.740] And then he's like, well, I'm going to write you down as refusing. [57:33.740 --> 57:37.740] And I said, well, under threat, duress, and coercion, I will sign the ticket. [57:37.740 --> 57:41.740] And what I did was I signed it all rights reserved, no signature of my name or anything. [57:41.740 --> 57:43.740] So that was on the record. [57:43.740 --> 57:52.740] I went into court, and prior to this, I tried to serve them with a notice and demand, basically a notice of sovereignty and a demand to dismiss the case. [57:52.740 --> 57:54.740] They didn't even address it. [57:54.740 --> 57:56.740] They didn't have it on record. [57:56.740 --> 57:59.740] I start to get into pronouncement. [57:59.740 --> 58:02.740] I say, look, I'm a sovereign man, so on and so forth. [58:02.740 --> 58:07.740] And by the time I'm through all that, he's already got me, you know, he's like raising my hand. [58:07.740 --> 58:14.740] There's no officer there in Philadelphia. They don't even require the officer to be present at the summary hearing. [58:14.740 --> 58:21.740] They have a liaison officer who's just a bailiff who sits in there and he can, you know, attest to whatever's on the ticket. [58:21.740 --> 58:23.740] So that's how absurd that level is. [58:23.740 --> 58:24.740] Okay, just a second. [58:24.740 --> 58:26.740] We've got about 30 seconds to break. [58:26.740 --> 58:29.740] We'll come back to this right after the break. [58:29.740 --> 58:30.740] Sure. [58:30.740 --> 58:37.740] This is Randy Kelton, Eddie Stevens, Eddie Craig. [58:37.740 --> 58:39.740] Deborah Stevens has the night off. [58:39.740 --> 58:41.740] She's up playing in New Mexico. [58:41.740 --> 58:45.740] So we'll be right back right after this break. [58:45.740 --> 58:46.740] Hold on. [58:46.740 --> 59:01.740] Deborah's ain't me. [59:16.740 --> 59:38.740] Okay. [59:38.740 --> 01:00:06.740] You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com. [01:00:06.740 --> 01:00:31.740] It's live free speech talk radio at its best. [01:00:31.740 --> 01:00:36.740] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio, we're back. [01:00:36.740 --> 01:00:39.740] Mick, will you go ahead? [01:00:39.740 --> 01:00:45.740] We'd like to develop this because you're from Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania is a commonwealth. [01:00:45.740 --> 01:00:46.740] Yes, it is. [01:00:46.740 --> 01:00:50.740] Somewhat different than the Spanish law states. [01:00:50.740 --> 01:00:53.740] So now let me understand. [01:00:53.740 --> 01:00:59.740] This hearing, is it an administrative procedures act hearing? [01:00:59.740 --> 01:01:01.740] You know, that's not entirely clear. [01:01:01.740 --> 01:01:13.740] The legislature has developed just a quasi-judicial system within the judiciary wherein, [01:01:13.740 --> 01:01:18.740] I mean, specifically all that the Philadelphia traffic court deals with is just that, [01:01:18.740 --> 01:01:23.740] summary traffic offenses and the contest there too. [01:01:23.740 --> 01:01:29.740] So, I mean, when I, you know, when you step into that jurisdiction, it's a whole nother ballgame [01:01:29.740 --> 01:01:36.740] because the way that I look at this is, I mean, the founders specifically, you know, [01:01:36.740 --> 01:01:43.740] diagnosed this sort of systemic attempt to defraud the people of a correct trial [01:01:43.740 --> 01:01:49.740] with the prohibition of bills of attainment and the lesser pains and penalties. [01:01:49.740 --> 01:01:54.740] And I assert this because what you step into is not trial per se. [01:01:54.740 --> 01:01:57.740] It's just this, as you said, it's an administrative hearing, okay? [01:01:57.740 --> 01:01:58.740] It's not a trial. [01:01:58.740 --> 01:02:04.740] It's just basically them reading off a charge and your ability to contest it at that point in time [01:02:04.740 --> 01:02:08.740] is so limited because you're not able to confront your accuser. [01:02:08.740 --> 01:02:11.740] You're not able to bring forth witnesses in your favor. [01:02:11.740 --> 01:02:16.740] And, I mean, it's, you can't even, I can't even begin to question the jurisdiction. [01:02:16.740 --> 01:02:19.740] As soon as I started to raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction [01:02:19.740 --> 01:02:22.740] and impersonal jurisdiction, he just kept threatening me. [01:02:22.740 --> 01:02:26.740] The judge, this is Willie S. Singletary, has the title of judge. [01:02:26.740 --> 01:02:30.740] Again, I say he's just an administrative officer of the traffic court. [01:02:30.740 --> 01:02:34.740] He says, if you don't testify at this point, then I'm going to find you guilty. [01:02:34.740 --> 01:02:40.740] And I just kept objecting and I said that we need to establish subject matter jurisdiction. [01:02:40.740 --> 01:02:44.740] We need to establish what exactly the jurisdiction of the court is. [01:02:44.740 --> 01:02:46.740] And it refused again and again. [01:02:46.740 --> 01:02:47.740] Interesting. [01:02:47.740 --> 01:02:48.740] Go ahead. [01:02:48.740 --> 01:02:49.740] Okay. [01:02:49.740 --> 01:02:57.740] It would seem you would have option to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. [01:02:57.740 --> 01:02:58.740] That is correct. [01:02:58.740 --> 01:03:02.740] And that's where I went to. [01:03:02.740 --> 01:03:08.740] But beforehand, just running back to the traffic court, he actually, the judge, [01:03:08.740 --> 01:03:12.740] first he tells me, every time I walk into a courtroom, I always ask, are we on record? [01:03:12.740 --> 01:03:13.740] Are we on record? [01:03:13.740 --> 01:03:15.740] He finally says yes. [01:03:15.740 --> 01:03:16.740] All right. [01:03:16.740 --> 01:03:20.740] About halfway through my demur, asking the questions of jurisdiction and what have you, [01:03:20.740 --> 01:03:24.740] I find, you know, any time that they answer affirmatively, I said, [01:03:24.740 --> 01:03:26.740] is this under criminal action? [01:03:26.740 --> 01:03:28.740] He said, I said, is this civil or criminal? [01:03:28.740 --> 01:03:29.740] He said it was criminal. [01:03:29.740 --> 01:03:35.740] I said, well, the criminal, if it's criminal, then it needs to be under the common law or under, [01:03:35.740 --> 01:03:39.740] I guess, what is it, criminal or common law? [01:03:39.740 --> 01:03:42.740] However, but he answered affirmatively that it was under the common law. [01:03:42.740 --> 01:03:46.740] And that's when I said let the record reflect that this is criminal action under the common law. [01:03:46.740 --> 01:03:52.740] And then he reposted by saying, well, we're not on record here. [01:03:52.740 --> 01:03:55.740] I said, is this even a court? [01:03:55.740 --> 01:03:59.740] And at that time, I just, you know, you lose all continence at that point. [01:03:59.740 --> 01:04:01.740] When somebody says something, you get flustered. [01:04:01.740 --> 01:04:02.740] You're like, what is this? [01:04:02.740 --> 01:04:05.740] I mean, it's such a quasi-judicial entity. [01:04:05.740 --> 01:04:08.740] It has no bearing on reality. [01:04:08.740 --> 01:04:11.740] So, you know, go ahead. [01:04:11.740 --> 01:04:18.740] Okay, that is a, the judge knows that you're out of your element. [01:04:18.740 --> 01:04:22.740] He knows that you don't spend most of your time in a court like this, [01:04:22.740 --> 01:04:28.740] in a confrontational, structured situation like this. [01:04:28.740 --> 01:04:33.740] He also knows that people who come before him tend to be under stress [01:04:33.740 --> 01:04:38.740] because he has a certain amount of power to cause them harm. [01:04:38.740 --> 01:04:39.740] Indeed. [01:04:39.740 --> 01:04:48.740] And he can, by tactics, elicit internal responses from you that are not in your best interest. [01:04:48.740 --> 01:04:55.740] He's doing, he's deliberately trying to elicit exactly the kind of mental state that he did. [01:04:55.740 --> 01:04:57.740] Well, I think I would also converse with that. [01:04:57.740 --> 01:05:00.740] I would say I did the same to him because I was going to get to this point. [01:05:00.740 --> 01:05:03.740] He actually ended up walking up off the bench. [01:05:03.740 --> 01:05:07.740] He didn't call a recess, obviously, because, I mean, you're not on record anyway. [01:05:07.740 --> 01:05:09.740] But he just, he physically got off the bench. [01:05:09.740 --> 01:05:11.740] He went into a back room. [01:05:11.740 --> 01:05:14.740] And then he came, he said he was going to speak with the president judge [01:05:14.740 --> 01:05:20.740] or I think it was the assistant president judge, Bernice DeAngelis or whomever it was. [01:05:20.740 --> 01:05:24.740] And he ended up coming back into the room, into the courtroom with an individual, [01:05:24.740 --> 01:05:26.740] a man who was just playing close. [01:05:26.740 --> 01:05:28.740] He looked like a lawyer. [01:05:28.740 --> 01:05:33.740] And he sat off at the sidebar while the judge, you know, retook his position. [01:05:33.740 --> 01:05:39.740] And as I started asking questions, that gentleman started to interject and say, [01:05:39.740 --> 01:05:44.740] oh, no, it's under, you know, it's under the common, the Commonwealth, you know, [01:05:44.740 --> 01:05:48.740] the laws of the Commonwealth under statutory jurisdiction. [01:05:48.740 --> 01:05:50.740] Did you challenge who he was? [01:05:50.740 --> 01:05:51.740] Yeah, I said, I said, objection. [01:05:51.740 --> 01:05:52.740] I said, who is this gentleman? [01:05:52.740 --> 01:05:54.740] I said, he's not identified. [01:05:54.740 --> 01:05:55.740] I said, who are you? [01:05:55.740 --> 01:05:58.740] And that's when I confronted him and didn't respond. [01:05:58.740 --> 01:06:00.740] No response and the judge didn't address it. [01:06:00.740 --> 01:06:04.740] I said, Judge, would you please, would you please address who this gentleman is [01:06:04.740 --> 01:06:05.740] that you brought into the courtroom? [01:06:05.740 --> 01:06:06.740] No response. [01:06:06.740 --> 01:06:11.740] And that's, you know, I said, and at that point I was like, this is absurd. [01:06:11.740 --> 01:06:15.740] I'm going to absolutely be following criminal charges after this is all done. [01:06:15.740 --> 01:06:17.740] I mean, I threatened him on the spot. [01:06:17.740 --> 01:06:18.740] I have no qualms about that. [01:06:18.740 --> 01:06:22.740] And maybe it's not the best move, you know, in the heat of the moment. [01:06:22.740 --> 01:06:26.740] But, you know, you have to make yourself known that you're not going to be bullied around. [01:06:26.740 --> 01:06:32.740] But that gentleman I later found out, a friend who had accompanied me to the courtroom that day, [01:06:32.740 --> 01:06:33.740] recognized the gentleman. [01:06:33.740 --> 01:06:36.740] He was also another judge from the traffic court. [01:06:36.740 --> 01:06:40.740] So he was sitting in there out of, you know, uniform, so to speak. [01:06:40.740 --> 01:06:44.740] I wouldn't expect him to come in in, you know, black saturnian robe otherwise. [01:06:44.740 --> 01:06:48.740] But, you know, he's sitting there and he keeps, you know, interjecting time to time, [01:06:48.740 --> 01:06:53.740] basically, you know, giving tutelage to the sitting judge. [01:06:53.740 --> 01:06:57.740] And what more is worse is that the judge who presided over the matter, [01:06:57.740 --> 01:07:02.740] I found out the next day he had over 50 traffic offenses himself [01:07:02.740 --> 01:07:07.740] between the year of 1998 and 2008 when I believe he just went in. [01:07:07.740 --> 01:07:10.740] He was, you know, put in the position of judge. [01:07:10.740 --> 01:07:14.740] And his driver's license is suspended until 2012. [01:07:14.740 --> 01:07:21.740] I mean, this guy is just like, it is the most loopy, just incident you can imagine. [01:07:21.740 --> 01:07:25.740] But, yeah, now I've gotten into the court of common pleas with this. [01:07:25.740 --> 01:07:29.740] I went in there, same sort of, you know, vendetta. [01:07:29.740 --> 01:07:30.740] Go ahead. [01:07:30.740 --> 01:07:32.740] Okay, now you're getting to my area. [01:07:32.740 --> 01:07:34.740] Let me make a suggestion. [01:07:34.740 --> 01:07:35.740] Go ahead. [01:07:35.740 --> 01:07:43.740] Prepare a set of criminal complaints against both of these judges or whatever they are. [01:07:43.740 --> 01:07:47.740] Give them to the prosecuting attorney. [01:07:47.740 --> 01:07:50.740] At the common pleas level? [01:07:50.740 --> 01:07:51.740] Yes. [01:07:51.740 --> 01:07:52.740] Okay. [01:07:52.740 --> 01:07:56.740] The prosecuting attorney, it's different in Pennsylvania. [01:07:56.740 --> 01:08:04.740] In the Spanish law states, I have a duty to report crime if I have knowledge of it. [01:08:04.740 --> 01:08:06.740] It's a crime if I don't. [01:08:06.740 --> 01:08:12.740] So I can file a criminal complaint if I have either personal knowledge or hearsay knowledge. [01:08:12.740 --> 01:08:15.740] If I have hearsay from someone else and I believe that other person, [01:08:15.740 --> 01:08:17.740] I have a duty to report the crime. [01:08:17.740 --> 01:08:19.740] In Pennsylvania, it's different. [01:08:19.740 --> 01:08:22.740] In order to report crime, you must have standing. [01:08:22.740 --> 01:08:23.740] You must be harmed. [01:08:23.740 --> 01:08:25.740] And in this case, you're harmed. [01:08:25.740 --> 01:08:30.740] So there is, you know, people hear that and they say, well, that kind of sucks. [01:08:30.740 --> 01:08:33.740] Well, it has its benefits. [01:08:33.740 --> 01:08:41.740] In a Spanish law state, while I have a duty to report crime, I have no standing. [01:08:41.740 --> 01:08:49.740] Once I have reported the crime, I have no standing to raise any issue about how it's adjudicated. [01:08:49.740 --> 01:08:51.740] Pennsylvania is different. [01:08:51.740 --> 01:08:53.740] You have standing. [01:08:53.740 --> 01:08:55.740] So this is the strategy. [01:08:55.740 --> 01:08:57.740] We'll work this out to go after IRS agents. [01:08:57.740 --> 01:09:03.740] You go to the prosecutor and the courts have given him first blush. [01:09:03.740 --> 01:09:05.740] He gets to look at the complaint. [01:09:05.740 --> 01:09:06.740] Go ahead. [01:09:06.740 --> 01:09:09.740] I believe he's the district attorney. [01:09:09.740 --> 01:09:11.740] I believe that's what they're... [01:09:11.740 --> 01:09:12.740] The prosecuting attorney. [01:09:12.740 --> 01:09:17.740] Whichever one has original subject matter jurisdiction in this level of office. [01:09:17.740 --> 01:09:23.740] Well, just before you go much further, actually, the common please event already occurred. [01:09:23.740 --> 01:09:25.740] That court date has came and went. [01:09:25.740 --> 01:09:27.740] That was approximately 30 days ago. [01:09:27.740 --> 01:09:30.740] Now I'm on appeal to the Superior Court. [01:09:30.740 --> 01:09:32.740] This is a whole different tact. [01:09:32.740 --> 01:09:34.740] Right. Yeah, I understand. [01:09:34.740 --> 01:09:35.740] This is the second. [01:09:35.740 --> 01:09:39.740] I wear two hats when I work in court. [01:09:39.740 --> 01:09:42.740] The first hat is my litigant's hat. [01:09:42.740 --> 01:09:50.740] And I wear that litigant's hat until one of my public officials who are my servants step across one of my legal lines. [01:09:50.740 --> 01:09:54.740] Then I take off my litigant's hat and put on my sovereign's hat. [01:09:54.740 --> 01:09:58.740] My duty is invoked as the sovereign. [01:09:58.740 --> 01:10:05.740] And I start filing criminal charges and taking action to correct my deeds. [01:10:05.740 --> 01:10:11.740] In this case in Pennsylvania, you go in and file with the prosecuting attorney of original jurisdiction. [01:10:11.740 --> 01:10:13.740] And he has first blush. [01:10:13.740 --> 01:10:19.740] He can determine whether or not he believes there's sufficient cause to warrant prosecution. [01:10:19.740 --> 01:10:26.740] And he can elect to pursue or not to pursue prosecution. [01:10:26.740 --> 01:10:36.740] And what the courts have given the prosecutor is discretion to determine whether or not there is sufficient probable cause. [01:10:36.740 --> 01:10:39.740] They have not given him caprice. [01:10:39.740 --> 01:10:49.740] What he will do in this instance is exercise caprice and decide that he simply does not want to pursue this prosecution. [01:10:49.740 --> 01:10:58.740] And if these would be considered indictable offenses, would they not be subject to the oversight of the citizen's grand jury [01:10:58.740 --> 01:11:02.740] and their determination of probable cause? [01:11:02.740 --> 01:11:06.740] In Pennsylvania, you don't have direct access to a grand jury. [01:11:06.740 --> 01:11:07.740] Okay. [01:11:07.740 --> 01:11:11.740] Yeah, I'm thinking because I play in New Jersey court from time to time. [01:11:11.740 --> 01:11:14.740] I know they have the citizen's grand jury. [01:11:14.740 --> 01:11:22.740] They have grand juries in Pennsylvania, but only the district judge or district attorney can approach a grand jury. [01:11:22.740 --> 01:11:23.740] Wow. [01:11:23.740 --> 01:11:24.740] You're restricted. [01:11:24.740 --> 01:11:26.740] But there are compensations. [01:11:26.740 --> 01:11:28.740] And here's the compensation. [01:11:28.740 --> 01:11:34.740] When the prosecutor elects not to pursue prosecution, you do two things. [01:11:34.740 --> 01:11:42.740] Since you have standing, you can appeal to the Court of Common Pleas and ask the Court of Common Pleas to initiate prosecution. [01:11:42.740 --> 01:11:54.740] And you can maintain that the prosecuting attorney did not exercise discretion, but rather exercised caprice. [01:11:54.740 --> 01:12:04.740] While he has the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, he does not have the authority to decide who he wants to prosecute and who he does not. [01:12:04.740 --> 01:12:14.740] You maintain in this case, he abused his discretion and violated the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to file a complaint with the attorney general. [01:12:14.740 --> 01:12:21.740] In Pennsylvania, the attorney general, unlike Texas, has prosecutorial power. [01:12:21.740 --> 01:12:28.740] You file a criminal complaint against the prosecuting attorney with the attorney general, and he's going to refuse to prosecute. [01:12:28.740 --> 01:12:38.740] Now you come back to the Court of Common Pleas and file a complaint against the attorney general for shielding the prosecuting attorney from prosecution. [01:12:38.740 --> 01:12:43.740] And the Court of Common Pleas is going to refuse to hear both of them. [01:12:43.740 --> 01:12:46.740] Then you appeal both of those. [01:12:46.740 --> 01:12:50.740] I think it's Supreme Court in Pennsylvania is the next court. [01:12:50.740 --> 01:12:51.740] Above Common Pleas? [01:12:51.740 --> 01:12:52.740] Yes. [01:12:52.740 --> 01:12:53.740] Superior. [01:12:53.740 --> 01:12:54.740] Superior. [01:12:54.740 --> 01:13:07.740] You appeal to the Superior Court with criminal complaints against the prosecuting attorney, the Court of Common Pleas Court, and the attorney general. [01:13:07.740 --> 01:13:16.740] You accuse the Common Pleas Court of shielding the attorney general and the prosecuting attorney from prosecution by exercising caprice. [01:13:16.740 --> 01:13:30.740] Now, you won't get these adjudicated, but what you will do is get complaints against the attorney general for protecting the local prosecutor from prosecution. [01:13:30.740 --> 01:13:41.740] And the attorney general is not going to like that one little bit, because the next time he runs for office, there's a very good chance his opponent's going to bring this up. [01:13:41.740 --> 01:13:48.740] And if you get enough people doing that, the attorney general is going to say, well, these are all mogus. [01:13:48.740 --> 01:13:53.740] The voter is going to say, well, I don't know, maybe, but that's a lot of smoke. [01:13:53.740 --> 01:13:54.740] Indeed. [01:13:54.740 --> 01:14:05.740] You get the attorney general in a political position to where he has to go to the prosecutor and say, hey, look, Bubba, you better come up with some good reason because I'm not going to be able to keep protecting you. [01:14:05.740 --> 01:14:08.740] Get him by grabs in a bucket. [01:14:08.740 --> 01:14:09.740] Right. [01:14:09.740 --> 01:14:19.740] Actually, if you have a little more time, I have a rather more urgent matter, and it deals with, I understand you have quite an experience with the writ of habeas corpus. [01:14:19.740 --> 01:14:27.740] Recently, I had a friend who was incarcerated on some trumped-up charges in the state of New Jersey of receiving stolen property. [01:14:27.740 --> 01:14:47.740] Since his incarceration, he was taken to the county correctional facility, and from there, because of the nature of the situation where he had several charges against judges within the county court level, Camden County, he had charges literally against six judges. [01:14:47.740 --> 01:14:51.740] I think four of them had recused themselves during the process of his case. [01:14:51.740 --> 01:15:09.740] The assignment judge who actually chooses the foreman of the jury which sentenced him, he also had charges against him, so we can fairly assert with some certainty that the foreman that is was probably corrupted. [01:15:09.740 --> 01:15:17.740] Anyhow, he was sentenced to a stint of approximately four to six years for receiving stolen property. [01:15:17.740 --> 01:15:27.740] As of 20, we're now at 23 days ago, he was transferred out of the county correctional facility, and now he was taken to central processing. [01:15:27.740 --> 01:15:28.740] You could track them. [01:15:28.740 --> 01:15:35.740] They have an online prison tracking system, and he was transferred to three different prisons. [01:15:35.740 --> 01:16:04.740] We still, ostensibly, in any qualified manner, we have not had any contact with him. However, just three to four days ago, his sister received a letter that was written on his behalf by another inmate that said that basically, word for word, I guess he conveyed the message, and it was written out on his behalf, that he was being abused, that he had been transferred from facility to facility. [01:16:04.740 --> 01:16:24.740] Because of his refusal to sign himself in to give blood and urine, he was stripped of the nude, left in a padded cell with a concrete floor, it was cold, it was dank, there was no toilet, just a hole in the ground, and he was being beaten rather viciously. [01:16:24.740 --> 01:16:34.740] And this was happening at nearly every facility. He would sometimes stay in a facility for eight hours, and then he was transferred either to a different cell block or to another prison entirely. [01:16:34.740 --> 01:16:41.740] And he's been gone now for over 20-some days, and we're trying to get his whereabouts and see if he's even alive. [01:16:41.740 --> 01:16:51.740] Okay. We're about to go to break. We'll address this when we come back. There should be an emergency writ that you will be able to stop this. [01:16:51.740 --> 01:16:52.740] Right. [01:16:52.740 --> 01:16:59.740] Randy Kelt, native Craig, we'll be right back on the other side. [01:17:22.740 --> 01:17:27.740] When ordering from SurvivalGearSource.com, remember to use promo codes. [01:17:27.740 --> 01:17:54.740] When ordering from SurvivalGearSource.com, remember to use promo code RuleOfLawRadio.com. [01:17:54.740 --> 01:17:59.740] Again, that special promo code is RuleOfLawRadio.com. [01:18:24.740 --> 01:18:48.740] Okay. We're back. Randy Kelt, native Craig. We're talking to Mick from Philadelphia. Go ahead. This is scary business. [01:18:48.740 --> 01:18:57.740] Yeah, it certainly is. I mean, we're talking, I mean, it's red alert level people out there listening. I mean, we have Guantanamo-style, you know, Iraqi-style rendition going on. [01:18:57.740 --> 01:19:05.740] I mean, people being taken in secrecy, transferred from facility to facility, albeit, you know, it is published to some degree where they're at. [01:19:05.740 --> 01:19:12.740] I mean, communication, I mean, he has been incommunicado for, we're looking at almost four weeks now. [01:19:12.740 --> 01:19:20.740] We got a letter from a third party, someone who doesn't even know him, just a concerned individual within the system, [01:19:20.740 --> 01:19:30.740] another inmate that said that he was being beaten, he was being tortured, all on the merit that basically he is reserving his rights. [01:19:30.740 --> 01:19:35.740] He went in there from day one and he said, I will reserve all my rights. I will not sign anything. [01:19:35.740 --> 01:19:44.740] I will not, you know, and I won't consent to the incarceration any more than, you know, physically like moving through the cattle herders and going into the cell. [01:19:44.740 --> 01:19:50.740] I mean, he would, you know, consent to that, but he would not acquiesce to any sort of waiver of his rights. [01:19:50.740 --> 01:19:55.740] And as a result of that, he's being forced into these important conditions. [01:19:55.740 --> 01:20:03.740] Okay. Take the letter that you have. I'm not familiar with New Jersey law. [01:20:03.740 --> 01:20:13.740] Do you know anyone who lives in New Jersey who could possibly talk to, either talk to an attorney or find an attorney, [01:20:13.740 --> 01:20:23.740] call some attorneys in New Jersey and ask them if they have a New Jersey criminal practice manual or litigation guide? [01:20:23.740 --> 01:20:26.740] Criminal practice manual, okay, litigation. [01:20:26.740 --> 01:20:33.740] Okay, litigation, every state has litigation guides of one form or another. Attorneys don't know squat and they're lazy. [01:20:33.740 --> 01:20:38.740] So when they get an issue they're not familiar with, they go to the litigation guides. [01:20:38.740 --> 01:20:44.740] And those litigation guides have the most current case law in them. [01:20:44.740 --> 01:20:49.740] Would you say that that would be accessible at, you know, a standard law library, one of the universities would have it? [01:20:49.740 --> 01:20:51.740] Yes, yes, but they're very expensive. [01:20:51.740 --> 01:20:54.740] I'll just go to the law library. [01:20:54.740 --> 01:21:02.740] Well, wait a minute. See, the attorneys, because it has the most current case law, they tend to repurchase every year. [01:21:02.740 --> 01:21:05.740] And they'll get rid of less. They may keep them a couple of years and then get rid of them. [01:21:05.740 --> 01:21:08.740] Oh, so you're saying I might be able to get a back copy? [01:21:08.740 --> 01:21:13.740] Exactly. Call a few law firms and say, hey, have you got any back copies of, you know, [01:21:13.740 --> 01:21:19.740] ask them first what litigation guides are appropriate to whatever area you're looking at. [01:21:19.740 --> 01:21:25.740] And then ask them if they have any old copies that they need to get rid of that you'd be glad to haul them off for them. [01:21:25.740 --> 01:21:29.740] I told that to a woman in Amarillo and she's her second call. [01:21:29.740 --> 01:21:33.740] She got a complete set of O'Connor's. Just come and get them. [01:21:33.740 --> 01:21:36.740] Just get them out of our way. We don't need them anymore because we replaced them. [01:21:36.740 --> 01:21:41.740] That's a very good resource for materials. I'll show you how to do this. [01:21:41.740 --> 01:21:47.740] And in the litigation guide, they will have a section on habeas corpus. [01:21:47.740 --> 01:21:53.740] How to file it, when to file it, how to argue against it. It gives you the whole deal. [01:21:53.740 --> 01:21:59.740] From my understanding, there is a dichotomy of the habeas corpus writ at the state level [01:21:59.740 --> 01:22:03.740] and then at the national level, so to speak. There's two different kinds. [01:22:03.740 --> 01:22:10.740] Isn't the one that I'm looking for like the, I don't want to call it federal writ of habeas corpus, [01:22:10.740 --> 01:22:16.740] but it's the great writ rather than the state writ? Is that the case here? [01:22:16.740 --> 01:22:22.740] Well, the writ applies to, you can apply it to, you can file it under state law or federal law. [01:22:22.740 --> 01:22:23.740] It's universal. [01:22:23.740 --> 01:22:32.740] And this one I would file under federal law because the feds will look less kindly on state actors [01:22:32.740 --> 01:22:35.740] than the state courts will. [01:22:35.740 --> 01:22:36.740] Absolutely. [01:22:36.740 --> 01:22:42.740] So this is absolutely something, especially at this time. [01:22:42.740 --> 01:22:49.740] I would suggest you make up a set of criminal complaints, federal, first amendment right complaint, [01:22:49.740 --> 01:22:56.740] I'm sorry, federal civil rights complaints, file it with the local FBI. [01:22:56.740 --> 01:23:01.740] File it with the FBI and go to a federal judge with a writ of habeas corpus. [01:23:01.740 --> 01:23:02.740] Okay. [01:23:02.740 --> 01:23:05.740] Now remember the writ is an emergency writ. [01:23:05.740 --> 01:23:06.740] Okay. [01:23:06.740 --> 01:23:12.740] And generally the way it's done is you bring the writ to the clerk of the court. [01:23:12.740 --> 01:23:22.740] The clerk assigns it a cause number and gives it back to you or takes it directly to a judge himself. [01:23:22.740 --> 01:23:27.740] When I take in a writ, I give it to the clerk and ask the clerk, [01:23:27.740 --> 01:23:34.740] are you going to take this to the judge this minute or do I need to do that myself? [01:23:34.740 --> 01:23:36.740] I do this in Weaves and County, Texas as well. [01:23:36.740 --> 01:23:39.740] We'll get to it when we can. [01:23:39.740 --> 01:23:41.740] No, ma'am. [01:23:41.740 --> 01:23:45.740] You will either take this to the judge this minute or I will go to the judge. [01:23:45.740 --> 01:23:48.740] And she said, well, the judge is impaneling a jury. [01:23:48.740 --> 01:23:52.740] Well, the judge will stop impaneling the jury. [01:23:52.740 --> 01:23:54.740] Well, I'll go talk to the judge. [01:23:54.740 --> 01:23:55.740] Thank you. [01:23:55.740 --> 01:23:57.740] That's how it's done. [01:23:57.740 --> 01:24:00.740] It is the great writ. [01:24:00.740 --> 01:24:04.740] Everything in law stands down before the writ. [01:24:04.740 --> 01:24:11.740] If the judge does not stop what he's doing and hear the writ, then you move against the judge. [01:24:11.740 --> 01:24:15.740] You can move against federal judges. [01:24:15.740 --> 01:24:20.740] You file a complaint against the judge with risk management. [01:24:20.740 --> 01:24:23.740] That's where the weakest place is. [01:24:23.740 --> 01:24:31.740] But insist that the judge hear it immediately and ask the judge for an emergency restraining order [01:24:31.740 --> 01:24:37.740] to restrain these state officials from any abusive treatment of this person [01:24:37.740 --> 01:24:46.740] and demand that he be brought before the court immediately because you're concerned for his life and his safety. [01:24:46.740 --> 01:24:48.740] That's the case. [01:24:48.740 --> 01:24:49.740] Absolutely. [01:24:49.740 --> 01:24:55.740] Just to put this forth as well, his sister is already contacted. [01:24:55.740 --> 01:24:56.740] I wouldn't know. [01:24:56.740 --> 01:25:06.740] I think it was Eternal Affairs or one of the state agencies to investigate exactly what the disposition of Mr. [01:25:06.740 --> 01:25:10.740] we'll just call him my friend at this point in time is. [01:25:10.740 --> 01:25:14.740] It's rather, as I said, it's extremely urgent. [01:25:14.740 --> 01:25:18.740] We don't know in all honesty whether he is even alive. [01:25:18.740 --> 01:25:24.740] What you can expect Internal Affairs to do is run interference. [01:25:24.740 --> 01:25:30.740] Internal Affairs tends to be a public relations agency for the department. [01:25:30.740 --> 01:25:31.740] I figured as much out. [01:25:31.740 --> 01:25:36.740] So all they'll do is help them hide their tracks. [01:25:36.740 --> 01:25:43.740] I would only go to Internal Affairs after I've exhausted other, after I've taken other actions [01:25:43.740 --> 01:25:50.740] because once the criminal actions have been taken, anything Internal Affairs does [01:25:50.740 --> 01:25:55.740] will be done under the threat of criminal prosecution. [01:25:55.740 --> 01:25:59.740] And I let them know real fast that I've already filed criminal charges. [01:25:59.740 --> 01:26:03.740] So you be real careful how you help your buddies out here. [01:26:03.740 --> 01:26:07.740] I tend never to go to Internal Affairs. [01:26:07.740 --> 01:26:09.740] Right. Yeah, that wasn't my call. [01:26:09.740 --> 01:26:13.740] I objectively did it without even consulting with me. [01:26:13.740 --> 01:26:15.740] That's not a criticism. [01:26:15.740 --> 01:26:19.740] She's doing the best she knows how, and that's where they always sent you. [01:26:19.740 --> 01:26:20.740] Right. [01:26:20.740 --> 01:26:24.740] It's just a program nature that we respond that way. [01:26:24.740 --> 01:26:25.740] But I understand. [01:26:25.740 --> 01:26:28.740] Light up a writ tomorrow. [01:26:28.740 --> 01:26:30.740] Do you have a model writ? [01:26:30.740 --> 01:26:33.740] I think I saw something on your site. [01:26:33.740 --> 01:26:41.740] You can look on my website, on the Jurisimprudence.com, top fog on the left. [01:26:41.740 --> 01:26:45.740] That is a writ under Texas law. [01:26:45.740 --> 01:26:55.740] And because a writ is an emergency filing, the specific form of the writ is not terribly important. [01:26:55.740 --> 01:26:58.740] It shall not be denied for lack of form. [01:26:58.740 --> 01:27:00.740] Right, yeah, that's the general rule. [01:27:00.740 --> 01:27:01.740] Absolutely. [01:27:01.740 --> 01:27:10.740] If you're close to what that writ is, and the writ starts out with a statement invoking the jurisdiction of the court [01:27:10.740 --> 01:27:19.740] and has a table of contents and a table of authorities, you can put it in or not if it's not terribly important. [01:27:19.740 --> 01:27:23.740] But just look at the steps that are in there. [01:27:23.740 --> 01:27:24.740] I see. [01:27:24.740 --> 01:27:25.740] I'm looking at, I believe it's the file. [01:27:25.740 --> 01:27:27.740] Is it called Merge Habeas? [01:27:27.740 --> 01:27:28.740] Yes. [01:27:28.740 --> 01:27:35.740] Okay, in the, I guess the header, it says ex parte, and then it has, you know, you would fill in your name there. [01:27:35.740 --> 01:27:40.740] Is that, I mean, when you say ex parte, is that almost like third-party intervener? [01:27:40.740 --> 01:27:47.740] Well, okay, in Texas, anyone can file a writ of habeas corpus for anyone. [01:27:47.740 --> 01:27:48.740] Right. [01:27:48.740 --> 01:27:50.740] I'm not sure what the law is. [01:27:50.740 --> 01:27:58.740] In the federal court, the writ must be filed by the person or by his attorney. [01:27:58.740 --> 01:28:04.740] Well, that's problematic because, first of all, during this whole process, he was, you know, [01:28:04.740 --> 01:28:10.740] an inappropriate persona, unrepresented, you know, he chose to reserve that right. [01:28:10.740 --> 01:28:12.740] Do it anyway. [01:28:12.740 --> 01:28:13.740] Okay. [01:28:13.740 --> 01:28:16.740] Let the judge, you bring the issue before the court. [01:28:16.740 --> 01:28:18.740] Here's the problem the judge has. [01:28:18.740 --> 01:28:20.740] It's a political football. [01:28:20.740 --> 01:28:25.740] You tell the judge, you're afraid these people are going to kill him. [01:28:25.740 --> 01:28:30.740] And now, if anything happens to him, your fault. [01:28:30.740 --> 01:28:36.740] It's your duty to protect him from this kind of treatment, and you demand that he do that. [01:28:36.740 --> 01:28:43.740] And the judge may complain that you don't have a standing to issue the writ. [01:28:43.740 --> 01:28:46.740] Well, then, treat it like a mandamus. [01:28:46.740 --> 01:28:47.740] Right. [01:28:47.740 --> 01:28:52.740] Go in there and don't let these people kill this individual. [01:28:52.740 --> 01:28:57.740] You put the whole point is to put the judge on a political dime. [01:28:57.740 --> 01:29:03.740] And if you go to the judge with the writ, in the real world we live in, [01:29:03.740 --> 01:29:07.740] what he's going to do is have one of his clerks call the state and say, [01:29:07.740 --> 01:29:09.740] hey, what's going on? [01:29:09.740 --> 01:29:13.740] I got a guy down here trying to push a writ in this guy's behalf. [01:29:13.740 --> 01:29:18.740] You guys better get your stuff in order. [01:29:18.740 --> 01:29:20.740] That gets it fixed very quickly. [01:29:20.740 --> 01:29:27.740] Another question is, can I couple within this writ a redress of the matter of his, [01:29:27.740 --> 01:29:32.740] you know, he was convicted on the merits or I should rather... [01:29:32.740 --> 01:29:35.740] No, you can't go to that in the writ. [01:29:35.740 --> 01:29:36.740] Okay. [01:29:36.740 --> 01:29:37.740] We're going to go to break. [01:29:37.740 --> 01:29:39.740] We'll touch on this when we come back on the other side. [01:29:39.740 --> 01:29:40.740] All right, thank you. [01:29:40.740 --> 01:29:43.740] Also, if you're still out there, call back, we'll get to you. [01:29:43.740 --> 01:29:46.740] This is Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig. [01:29:46.740 --> 01:29:48.740] Debra Steven has the night off. [01:29:48.740 --> 01:29:59.740] We'll be right back on the other side. [01:29:59.740 --> 01:30:02.740] Gold prices are at historic highs and with the recent pullback, [01:30:02.740 --> 01:30:04.740] this is a great time to buy. [01:30:04.740 --> 01:30:08.740] With the value of the dollar, risks of inflation, geopolitical uncertainties [01:30:08.740 --> 01:30:12.740] and instability in rural financial systems, I see gold going up much higher. [01:30:12.740 --> 01:30:15.740] Hi, I'm Tim Fry at Roberts and Roberts Brokerage. [01:30:15.740 --> 01:30:19.740] Everybody should have some of their assets in investment grade precious metals. [01:30:19.740 --> 01:30:22.740] At Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, you can buy gold, silver and platinum [01:30:22.740 --> 01:30:28.740] with confidence from a brokerage that specialized in the precious metals market since 1977. [01:30:28.740 --> 01:30:31.740] If you are new to precious metals, we will happily provide you with the information [01:30:31.740 --> 01:30:36.740] you need to make an informed decision whether or not you choose to purchase from us. [01:30:36.740 --> 01:30:40.740] Also, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage values your privacy and will always advise you [01:30:40.740 --> 01:30:44.740] in the event that we would be required to report any transaction. [01:30:44.740 --> 01:30:49.740] If you have gold, silver or platinum you'd like to sell, we can convert it for immediate payment. [01:30:49.740 --> 01:30:53.740] Call us at 800-874-9760. [01:30:53.740 --> 01:30:59.740] We're Roberts and Roberts Brokerage, 800-874-9760. [01:30:59.740 --> 01:31:26.740] Okay, we're back. [01:31:26.740 --> 01:31:34.740] Randy Kelp, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law, and Stephen to be back when she gets through playing [01:31:34.740 --> 01:31:37.740] while we're sitting here slaving over these hot microphones. [01:31:37.740 --> 01:31:39.740] Well, not so hot. [01:31:39.740 --> 01:31:47.740] Okay, we were talking about the reality of the writ. [01:31:47.740 --> 01:31:53.740] It probably is not so important that the writ get heard as it is that you get an opportunity [01:31:53.740 --> 01:31:59.740] to get in front of a federal judge and jump up and down and wave your arms [01:31:59.740 --> 01:32:05.740] and make all sorts of noises so that everybody begins to look at the issue. [01:32:05.740 --> 01:32:13.740] We've had most of the times when a writ has worked, the writ was never actually heard by the court. [01:32:13.740 --> 01:32:20.740] The writ is filed, phone calls are made, the problem writes itself immediately. [01:32:20.740 --> 01:32:22.740] It just acts as fair warning. [01:32:22.740 --> 01:32:25.740] It's the mere presence of the writ, right? [01:32:25.740 --> 01:32:28.740] Yes, and then the writ becomes moot. [01:32:28.740 --> 01:32:38.740] And I assure you that the state officials are going to want to make a federal writ moot quickly. [01:32:38.740 --> 01:32:42.740] They're not going to want to go into the federal courts and start explaining themselves. [01:32:42.740 --> 01:32:48.740] And then you need to go back to every facility that has housed him [01:32:48.740 --> 01:32:56.740] and file an information request and demand to know the names of all employees who were on duty [01:32:56.740 --> 01:33:03.740] at any time when this particular individual was in your facility. [01:33:03.740 --> 01:33:08.740] And more decisively, could I then ask if this is a FOIA request [01:33:08.740 --> 01:33:11.740] or like Freedom of Information state-level request, right? [01:33:11.740 --> 01:33:12.740] Yes. [01:33:12.740 --> 01:33:18.740] I could then ask also who was in charge of handling, who was on that block at that particular time, [01:33:18.740 --> 01:33:20.740] who was perhaps interacting. [01:33:20.740 --> 01:33:21.740] Exactly. [01:33:21.740 --> 01:33:30.740] Okay, yeah, what this is is a way of, this is more threatening than you coming straight at them. [01:33:30.740 --> 01:33:34.740] Then they're saying, why is he asking for this information? [01:33:34.740 --> 01:33:35.740] What is he planning? [01:33:35.740 --> 01:33:42.740] And I assure you, when you do this, if you don't tell them why you're coming, [01:33:42.740 --> 01:33:47.740] but give them cause to try to figure out why you're coming, [01:33:47.740 --> 01:33:52.740] they will come up with something much worse than what you're thinking of. [01:33:52.740 --> 01:33:54.740] Yeah, absolutely. [01:33:54.740 --> 01:33:55.740] I don't mind. [01:33:55.740 --> 01:33:59.740] This you do in order to give everybody fair warning. [01:33:59.740 --> 01:34:07.740] And if you can find any specifics on any specific treatment, then you go, [01:34:07.740 --> 01:34:12.740] then you start preparing, we need to look at what we can do in New Jersey, [01:34:12.740 --> 01:34:14.740] how it's different from Pennsylvania. [01:34:14.740 --> 01:34:15.740] Right. [01:34:15.740 --> 01:34:22.740] One of the things I looked at in Pennsylvania is you're standing as a citizen [01:34:22.740 --> 01:34:26.740] before public officials violated your law. [01:34:26.740 --> 01:34:31.740] Your standing as a sovereignty gave you standing to raise issues, [01:34:31.740 --> 01:34:35.740] not in an individual's behalf who's been mistreated, [01:34:35.740 --> 01:34:41.740] but in your behalf as a sovereign citizen over public officials violating your law. [01:34:41.740 --> 01:34:42.740] Right. [01:34:42.740 --> 01:34:46.740] That may not stand up, but it makes a good enough argument [01:34:46.740 --> 01:34:48.740] that they're going to have to prepare an answer. [01:34:48.740 --> 01:34:54.740] So you go in and start making allegations against these facilities [01:34:54.740 --> 01:34:59.740] and just go for the director of the facility as Respondent Superior [01:34:59.740 --> 01:35:01.740] and accuse him personally. [01:35:01.740 --> 01:35:07.740] If his people are screwing around with somebody and he gets in trouble for it, [01:35:07.740 --> 01:35:10.740] he is not going to be the happy camper. [01:35:10.740 --> 01:35:14.740] When he's called on the carpet, everybody gets called on the carpet. [01:35:14.740 --> 01:35:16.740] As a sovereign, I always go to the top. [01:35:16.740 --> 01:35:20.740] I blame the guy at the top for everything everybody does. [01:35:20.740 --> 01:35:25.740] Now, what if I told you that I have specific names, [01:35:25.740 --> 01:35:29.740] such as one of the doctors in the psychiatric wards [01:35:29.740 --> 01:35:33.740] and one of the guards potentially, perhaps a shift commander? [01:35:33.740 --> 01:35:36.740] I have some names to work with. [01:35:36.740 --> 01:35:39.740] You have the name of a psychiatrist? [01:35:39.740 --> 01:35:40.740] Oh, yes. [01:35:40.740 --> 01:35:47.740] Oh, you file a complaint with the Board of Psychiatry? [01:35:47.740 --> 01:35:52.740] You have no idea the misery it will cause to psychiatrists. [01:35:52.740 --> 01:35:55.740] Well, I have it in writing. [01:35:55.740 --> 01:35:58.740] As I said, I'm not sure whether this is my friend's writing or not [01:35:58.740 --> 01:36:02.740] or if it was just scripted from a distance. [01:36:02.740 --> 01:36:09.740] He claims that the psychiatrist is holding the key to the lock over his head, [01:36:09.740 --> 01:36:14.740] basically saying, look, unless you cooperate and moreover, [01:36:14.740 --> 01:36:18.740] when I say so, is when you'll be released from these conditions. [01:36:18.740 --> 01:36:19.740] Good. [01:36:19.740 --> 01:36:24.740] File a complaint with the psychiatric professional board, [01:36:24.740 --> 01:36:28.740] whatever they call it, and wherever he's practicing. [01:36:28.740 --> 01:36:29.740] Now, what's the order of this? [01:36:29.740 --> 01:36:31.740] I should definitely go for the writ first [01:36:31.740 --> 01:36:34.740] and then start to file these individual charges? [01:36:34.740 --> 01:36:35.740] Right, writ first. [01:36:35.740 --> 01:36:39.740] Or are there the individual warnings or however you want to structure it? [01:36:39.740 --> 01:36:44.740] I would, yeah, the writ first and just as a matter of time, [01:36:44.740 --> 01:36:48.740] unless you have people who can help do each one, [01:36:48.740 --> 01:36:53.740] that the writ first and then start hammering each individual. [01:36:53.740 --> 01:36:57.740] The psychiatrist is a great one to hammer. [01:36:57.740 --> 01:37:04.740] A complaint to the Board of Psychiatry will give him untold grief. [01:37:04.740 --> 01:37:08.740] And if he is acting inappropriately, this is the way to get to them. [01:37:08.740 --> 01:37:16.740] Most people try to use the criminal procedures to address criminal issues. [01:37:16.740 --> 01:37:19.740] But the people who are violating these criminal laws [01:37:19.740 --> 01:37:24.740] get very good at jerking around the system. [01:37:24.740 --> 01:37:26.740] So we go behind them. [01:37:26.740 --> 01:37:29.740] We go to issues that's hard for them to address. [01:37:29.740 --> 01:37:33.740] And Board of Psychiatry will really hammer this guy. [01:37:33.740 --> 01:37:34.740] Very good. [01:37:34.740 --> 01:37:39.740] That absolutely is a strong inroad and I'll exploit it as best I can. [01:37:39.740 --> 01:37:44.740] Another thing that should be put forth here is that he is basically [01:37:44.740 --> 01:37:48.740] a public enemy number one, at least in his county, [01:37:48.740 --> 01:37:54.740] if not in New Jersey at large because of the way that he proceeded during [01:37:54.740 --> 01:38:00.740] the judicial proceedings, the way that he declared himself a sovereign [01:38:00.740 --> 01:38:04.740] and invoked, I'm sure you're familiar with the Yick, Woe v. Hopkins [01:38:04.740 --> 01:38:09.740] and all the classic declarations that the people are the authors of law, [01:38:09.740 --> 01:38:11.740] therefore they can't be subject to it. [01:38:11.740 --> 01:38:15.740] I mean, there's no injured party and elements of corpus dielecti [01:38:15.740 --> 01:38:16.740] and so on and so forth. [01:38:16.740 --> 01:38:20.740] And he was, of course, railroaded through the whole proceedings. [01:38:20.740 --> 01:38:27.740] But the way that he basically offensively went after the judge... [01:38:27.740 --> 01:38:35.740] Okay, prepare a tort letter indicating all of the things [01:38:35.740 --> 01:38:42.740] that you have any kind of knowledge of and send it to whatever facility [01:38:42.740 --> 01:38:47.740] you think he's in and send it addressed to him at that facility [01:38:47.740 --> 01:38:52.740] with notation on the front, legal documents included. [01:38:52.740 --> 01:38:55.740] Now, they're going to take these out and read them. [01:38:55.740 --> 01:39:00.740] So you prepare them so that the facility can read them. [01:39:00.740 --> 01:39:04.740] And this is a tort letter notifying the facility of your intent [01:39:04.740 --> 01:39:11.740] to sue these individual jailers for their behavior. [01:39:11.740 --> 01:39:15.740] And so the jailers... [01:39:15.740 --> 01:39:17.740] Hello? [01:39:17.740 --> 01:39:19.740] Randy, you're still there. [01:39:19.740 --> 01:39:20.740] Randy must have got dropped. [01:39:20.740 --> 01:39:21.740] Hang on just a second. [01:39:21.740 --> 01:39:23.740] Let me see if I can get him back in. [01:39:23.740 --> 01:39:27.740] Y'all hold on, we're going to go to a quick break and we will be right back. [01:39:53.740 --> 01:39:55.740] Thank you. [01:40:23.740 --> 01:40:25.740] Thank you. [01:40:53.740 --> 01:40:55.740] Thank you. [01:41:23.740 --> 01:41:24.740] Okay, we're back. [01:41:24.740 --> 01:41:27.740] Sorry about the interruption. [01:41:27.740 --> 01:41:30.740] It seems that I had to reboot Skype. [01:41:30.740 --> 01:41:32.740] I'm not at the studio today. [01:41:32.740 --> 01:41:35.740] I'm in Dallas instead. [01:41:35.740 --> 01:41:37.740] Okay, Mickey there? [01:41:37.740 --> 01:41:39.740] Yes, I'm still with you. [01:41:39.740 --> 01:41:41.740] Okay, good. [01:41:41.740 --> 01:41:48.740] But, you know, I go after law and I want all my officials to follow [01:41:48.740 --> 01:41:49.740] the letter of the law. [01:41:49.740 --> 01:41:53.740] But in the real world we live in, that doesn't happen. [01:41:53.740 --> 01:41:56.740] We are fighting to see that that does happen. [01:41:56.740 --> 01:42:02.740] And in order to get it to happen, we have to resort to other tools. [01:42:02.740 --> 01:42:06.740] And politics is one of the tools we resort to. [01:42:06.740 --> 01:42:11.740] When those officials receive a tort letter, [01:42:11.740 --> 01:42:17.740] and the tort letter will be addressed to the director of the facility [01:42:17.740 --> 01:42:24.740] notifying him that this individual has been harmed by the facility [01:42:24.740 --> 01:42:26.740] in violation of Duke Court's law, [01:42:26.740 --> 01:42:31.740] and you make specific allegations against unknown jailers who are [01:42:31.740 --> 01:42:35.740] subjecting him to torture and, you know, [01:42:35.740 --> 01:42:38.740] every horrible thing you can think of that you think a jury, [01:42:38.740 --> 01:42:43.740] they'll look at it and something that would incense a jury. [01:42:43.740 --> 01:42:47.740] In a tort letter you can make allegations of, you know, [01:42:47.740 --> 01:42:50.740] you can reference Abu Ghraib or, you know, anything you want to. [01:42:50.740 --> 01:42:51.740] Right. [01:42:51.740 --> 01:42:53.740] Just lay it on thick. [01:42:53.740 --> 01:42:55.740] Make it inflammatory, I hear that. [01:42:55.740 --> 01:42:57.740] Exactly. [01:42:57.740 --> 01:42:59.740] And that goes to fair warning. [01:42:59.740 --> 01:43:04.740] When they start getting these, and if you have people out there who can [01:43:04.740 --> 01:43:07.740] help by sending in letters. [01:43:07.740 --> 01:43:09.740] What would you say? [01:43:09.740 --> 01:43:13.740] I was considering like amicus curiae briefs to accompany the writ. [01:43:13.740 --> 01:43:15.740] Are you familiar with that kind of? [01:43:15.740 --> 01:43:20.740] Yes, but I don't think that would help in this case. [01:43:20.740 --> 01:43:23.740] I don't even know if you could do that with a writ habeas corpus. [01:43:23.740 --> 01:43:24.740] I suppose you could. [01:43:24.740 --> 01:43:28.740] But an amicus curiae would only go to legal issues. [01:43:28.740 --> 01:43:29.740] Right. [01:43:29.740 --> 01:43:30.740] Well, yes. [01:43:30.740 --> 01:43:33.740] I mean, I'd say every man, woman, and child has a legal interest in the [01:43:33.740 --> 01:43:36.740] matter because obviously it affects us all. [01:43:36.740 --> 01:43:40.740] If this, you know, treatment can be subjected to any one of us, so. [01:43:40.740 --> 01:43:41.740] It certainly wouldn't hurt. [01:43:41.740 --> 01:43:44.740] The more you put in, the more they have to do. [01:43:44.740 --> 01:43:46.740] But, yeah, I'd like you to explain what then you had in mind. [01:43:46.740 --> 01:43:47.740] Are we hitting a break? [01:43:47.740 --> 01:43:49.740] We're just about to. [01:43:49.740 --> 01:43:50.740] We'll be right back. [01:43:50.740 --> 01:43:52.740] We'll pick this up on the other side. [01:43:52.740 --> 01:44:05.740] Randy Kelton, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio. [01:44:05.740 --> 01:44:11.740] Aerial spraying, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and [01:44:11.740 --> 01:44:17.740] pesticides, carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. [01:44:17.740 --> 01:44:20.740] You have a choice to keep your body clean. [01:44:20.740 --> 01:44:30.740] Detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. [01:44:30.740 --> 01:44:34.740] It's odorless and tasteless and used in any liquid or food. [01:44:34.740 --> 01:44:38.740] Protect your family now with micro plant powder. [01:44:38.740 --> 01:44:42.740] Cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. [01:44:42.740 --> 01:44:47.740] Order it now for daily intake and stock it now for long-term storage. [01:44:47.740 --> 01:45:06.740] Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today. [01:45:06.740 --> 01:45:20.740] Hello. Oh, man. In jail. I'm broken. [01:45:20.740 --> 01:45:24.740] Some things in this world I will never understand. [01:45:24.740 --> 01:45:28.740] Some things I realize fully. [01:45:28.740 --> 01:45:33.740] Somebody's gonna call the police, that policeman. [01:45:33.740 --> 01:45:37.740] Somebody's gonna call the police. [01:45:37.740 --> 01:45:42.740] There's always a room at the top of the hill. [01:45:42.740 --> 01:45:46.740] I hear things are great, violent, it's lonely, that's true. [01:45:46.740 --> 01:45:50.740] They're wishing it was more than opposition to fail. [01:45:50.740 --> 01:45:54.740] They know that if they don't do it, somebody will. [01:45:54.740 --> 01:45:58.740] Some things in this world I will never understand. [01:45:58.740 --> 01:46:02.740] Some things I realize fully. [01:46:02.740 --> 01:46:07.740] Somebody's gonna call the police, that policeman. [01:46:07.740 --> 01:46:11.740] Somebody's gonna call the police. [01:46:11.740 --> 01:46:14.740] Okay. We're back. Randy Kelp, Eddie Craig. [01:46:14.740 --> 01:46:17.740] Debra Steven has the week off. [01:46:17.740 --> 01:46:21.740] We're talking to Mick from Philadelphia. [01:46:21.740 --> 01:46:24.740] Mick, this is getting pretty complex. [01:46:24.740 --> 01:46:27.740] We have a couple more callers and this is our last segment. [01:46:27.740 --> 01:46:30.740] Would you be available to call in tomorrow night? [01:46:30.740 --> 01:46:33.740] We do a four-hour show. [01:46:33.740 --> 01:46:37.740] Yeah, I think I can make some space for it tomorrow evening. [01:46:37.740 --> 01:46:40.740] You're on from what time, Central? [01:46:40.740 --> 01:46:44.740] Central, we're on from 8 to midnight. [01:46:44.740 --> 01:46:47.740] Okay, yes, that's 9 to 1 a.m. my time. [01:46:47.740 --> 01:46:50.740] Yeah, I'd be happy to try to jump on. [01:46:50.740 --> 01:46:53.740] If we could, I guess, reserve the first portion of the show to resume this, [01:46:53.740 --> 01:46:55.740] I think that would be best if you have it. [01:46:55.740 --> 01:47:01.740] Yes, and this will give you time to formulate more directed questions. [01:47:01.740 --> 01:47:02.740] Right. [01:47:02.740 --> 01:47:08.740] And kind of think about what we've done here and think up some approaches. [01:47:08.740 --> 01:47:14.740] If you get more than one person putting in information requests, [01:47:14.740 --> 01:47:17.740] or if you can find more than one address to use yourself [01:47:17.740 --> 01:47:23.740] and give them two or three or four information requests from different sources. [01:47:23.740 --> 01:47:28.740] I can certainly manage to get at least minimal three different addresses [01:47:28.740 --> 01:47:30.740] and individuals making the requests. [01:47:30.740 --> 01:47:34.740] Email me one and I'll send one in from Rule of Law Radio. [01:47:34.740 --> 01:47:36.740] Very good. [01:47:36.740 --> 01:47:40.740] Actually, I have one from Rule of Law Radio and I'll get Ken to send one in [01:47:40.740 --> 01:47:49.740] from Henry David Thoreau Foundation Documentary Films Division. [01:47:49.740 --> 01:47:55.740] Yeah, definitely got to shake them up, keep them in compliance with the law, right? [01:47:55.740 --> 01:47:57.740] That's the whole game. [01:47:57.740 --> 01:47:58.740] Okay. [01:47:58.740 --> 01:48:01.740] Thanks for calling and we'll talk to you tomorrow night. [01:48:01.740 --> 01:48:03.740] Yeah, thank you for all your help and advice. [01:48:03.740 --> 01:48:04.740] I'll be in touch. [01:48:04.740 --> 01:48:05.740] All right. [01:48:05.740 --> 01:48:06.740] Thanks, Randy. [01:48:06.740 --> 01:48:07.740] Good night. [01:48:07.740 --> 01:48:09.740] Okay, now we're going to Jerry from Oregon. [01:48:09.740 --> 01:48:11.740] Jerry, you there? [01:48:11.740 --> 01:48:12.740] Yeah, Randy. [01:48:12.740 --> 01:48:16.740] Actually, I had a question back to the subject matter jurisdiction. [01:48:16.740 --> 01:48:19.740] When you're challenging that subject matter jurisdiction [01:48:19.740 --> 01:48:24.740] and you're putting in that notice of demand, [01:48:24.740 --> 01:48:30.740] wouldn't you also file a motion for the court to take judicial notice [01:48:30.740 --> 01:48:38.740] of that Supreme Court ruling that you pointed to with the federal crop insurance? [01:48:38.740 --> 01:48:40.740] No. [01:48:40.740 --> 01:48:41.740] No? [01:48:41.740 --> 01:48:43.740] This goes to the screws doctrine. [01:48:43.740 --> 01:48:47.740] No motions to the court yet. [01:48:47.740 --> 01:48:52.740] I'm not even going to talk to this guy until he shows me that he has jurisdiction, [01:48:52.740 --> 01:48:55.740] that he has authority to stand over me. [01:48:55.740 --> 01:48:58.740] I won't be making the legal argument here. [01:48:58.740 --> 01:49:04.740] That's what they're going to want you to do is get into a legal argument with them. [01:49:04.740 --> 01:49:08.740] So that would be going into the merits of the case then at that point, [01:49:08.740 --> 01:49:12.740] and then they would make all kinds of presumptions from that point. [01:49:12.740 --> 01:49:15.740] That's exactly what they're going to want you to do. [01:49:15.740 --> 01:49:17.740] They want to create a yes set. [01:49:17.740 --> 01:49:21.740] They want to create a mental momentum. [01:49:21.740 --> 01:49:23.740] They get you to talking about issues. [01:49:23.740 --> 01:49:25.740] We're not going to any of that place. [01:49:25.740 --> 01:49:27.740] Who the heck are you? [01:49:27.740 --> 01:49:31.740] What are you doing ordering me to do anything? [01:49:31.740 --> 01:49:37.740] And it is presumed that the judge already knows the law. [01:49:37.740 --> 01:49:41.740] Screws versus U.S. [01:49:41.740 --> 01:49:46.740] Sheriff and two deputies, Mississippi 1945, sitting in a bar drinking, [01:49:46.740 --> 01:49:47.740] upset at this black guy. [01:49:47.740 --> 01:49:49.740] They want to go arrest him. [01:49:49.740 --> 01:49:50.740] Bartender tries to talk him out of it. [01:49:50.740 --> 01:49:52.740] They won't be dissuaded. [01:49:52.740 --> 01:49:56.740] They arrest him and wind up beating him to death on the courthouse steps. [01:49:56.740 --> 01:49:58.740] They are prosecuted in the state. [01:49:58.740 --> 01:49:59.740] They're sued in the state, [01:49:59.740 --> 01:50:05.740] and then they're sued a second time in the Fed for the civil rights violation. [01:50:05.740 --> 01:50:08.740] And they complained that they didn't have adequate notice [01:50:08.740 --> 01:50:11.740] that they could be sued in the federal court. [01:50:11.740 --> 01:50:15.740] And what the court held was that a private citizen [01:50:15.740 --> 01:50:20.740] cannot claim the ignorance of the law as a defense. [01:50:20.740 --> 01:50:23.740] A public official in a position to affect the rights of a citizen [01:50:23.740 --> 01:50:26.740] is held to a much higher standard. [01:50:26.740 --> 01:50:33.740] If a public official violates a ruling of this court and he be sane, [01:50:33.740 --> 01:50:37.740] he may not be heard to say he knows not what he does. [01:50:37.740 --> 01:50:46.740] The presumption is the judge knows the law relating to his exercise of authority. [01:50:46.740 --> 01:50:50.740] This does not go to the adjudication of a case. [01:50:50.740 --> 01:50:56.740] This goes to a public official exerting an authority. [01:50:56.740 --> 01:51:03.740] It is presumed by law that an official exercising an authority [01:51:03.740 --> 01:51:08.740] knows not only the law concerning his position, [01:51:08.740 --> 01:51:13.740] but also all of the case law relating to that position. [01:51:13.740 --> 01:51:20.740] So in this case, we're not asking the judge to make a judicial determination. [01:51:20.740 --> 01:51:24.740] This comes before he makes a judicial determination. [01:51:24.740 --> 01:51:27.740] He cannot make a judicial determination [01:51:27.740 --> 01:51:31.740] until he establishes that he has subject matter jurisdiction. [01:51:31.740 --> 01:51:34.740] So no, he's not going to get a brief from me. [01:51:34.740 --> 01:51:37.740] He's not going to get any law from me. [01:51:37.740 --> 01:51:42.740] Until he attempts to exercise the jurisdiction he didn't have, [01:51:42.740 --> 01:51:48.740] he'll get that brief attached to the criminal complaint I filed against him. [01:51:48.740 --> 01:51:51.740] So what if he refuses to comply? [01:51:51.740 --> 01:51:58.740] Then, well, what I have done in Temple, Texas, I said, [01:51:58.740 --> 01:52:02.740] Mr. Bailiff, did you hear that? Bailiff said, yes, Mr. Kelton, I did. [01:52:02.740 --> 01:52:04.740] Drag that judge down off that bench. [01:52:04.740 --> 01:52:07.740] Judge, you get down off that bench, you are disqualified. [01:52:07.740 --> 01:52:11.740] The judge jumped up, clear the jury, clear the jury. [01:52:11.740 --> 01:52:13.740] That's one method. [01:52:13.740 --> 01:52:20.740] It's a little drastic, but take that approach in a less drastic form. [01:52:20.740 --> 01:52:28.740] There's been a number of times that I've actually asked the bailiff to take my criminal complaint against the judge [01:52:28.740 --> 01:52:30.740] and ask the judge to stand down. [01:52:30.740 --> 01:52:34.740] You don't have to ask the bailiff to drag him off the bench. [01:52:34.740 --> 01:52:38.740] That tends to get the judge's attention. [01:52:38.740 --> 01:52:45.740] He knows he's subject to criminal prosecution for acting without subject matter jurisdiction. [01:52:45.740 --> 01:52:48.740] But they always get away with it. [01:52:48.740 --> 01:52:54.740] They don't have people who are aggressive enough to go for him. [01:52:54.740 --> 01:53:03.740] This jurisdiction needs to be challenged at the first instance so you will tend not to be enmeshed in a trial. [01:53:03.740 --> 01:53:08.740] You'll be in a motion hearing or something or an arraignment hearing. [01:53:08.740 --> 01:53:12.740] So there's not much the judge can do at this point. [01:53:12.740 --> 01:53:19.740] As soon as that hearing is over, you go straight to the police and file criminal charges against the judge [01:53:19.740 --> 01:53:23.740] or to the prosecuting attorney and file against the judge. [01:53:23.740 --> 01:53:31.740] You prepare a complaint to whatever form of risk management they have. [01:53:31.740 --> 01:53:35.740] Who has insurance for the judge? [01:53:35.740 --> 01:53:40.740] People like to call that the bond, but it's actually insurance. [01:53:40.740 --> 01:53:42.740] Where's the judge? [01:53:42.740 --> 01:53:46.740] If it's the municipal judge, then it's going to be the city. [01:53:46.740 --> 01:53:48.740] If it's the county judge, it will probably be the county. [01:53:48.740 --> 01:53:54.740] If it's a higher level judge, district judge in Texas, it would be the state. [01:53:54.740 --> 01:53:58.740] You find out who risk management is, file a complaint with risk management. [01:53:58.740 --> 01:54:02.740] File a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. [01:54:02.740 --> 01:54:04.740] Every state has one. [01:54:04.740 --> 01:54:10.740] The judge has a bar card, file a bar grievance. [01:54:10.740 --> 01:54:13.740] It's all really easy to do. [01:54:13.740 --> 01:54:15.740] It doesn't take much. [01:54:15.740 --> 01:54:18.740] Three sentences will make the allegation. [01:54:18.740 --> 01:54:24.740] And when he gets these coming at him from every direction, now you've got his attention. [01:54:24.740 --> 01:54:25.740] I was just kind of curious. [01:54:25.740 --> 01:54:31.740] What happened to the other gentleman that challenged the jurisdiction of the court? [01:54:31.740 --> 01:54:35.740] I'm trying to tell us about it, but then we've got to try. [01:54:35.740 --> 01:54:39.740] Oh, they didn't know what to do. [01:54:39.740 --> 01:54:41.740] He stopped the court completely. [01:54:41.740 --> 01:54:46.740] They brought in a prosecutor, and he did the same thing to the prosecutor. [01:54:46.740 --> 01:54:53.740] And finally the judge continued the hearing so that they could figure out what to do. [01:54:53.740 --> 01:54:56.740] He stopped them in their tracks. [01:54:56.740 --> 01:55:02.740] And because he never let them get past subject matter jurisdiction. [01:55:02.740 --> 01:55:05.740] Who are you? [01:55:05.740 --> 01:55:08.740] Who are you to stand before me? [01:55:08.740 --> 01:55:18.740] But this was passed from acid, and he is articulate, and he thinks out his issues very well, and he presents himself well. [01:55:18.740 --> 01:55:25.740] It helps if you are not emotional in the court. [01:55:25.740 --> 01:55:27.740] It makes you more threatening. [01:55:27.740 --> 01:55:34.740] And this helped him in this instance, that he was very deliberate and articulate in his arguments. [01:55:34.740 --> 01:55:47.740] He actually, he raised the Federal Crawford Church v. Murrell in the court, and verbally he didn't do it in writing. [01:55:47.740 --> 01:55:53.740] And demanded that they prove who they are. [01:55:53.740 --> 01:55:58.740] Sometimes the court is going to move right past you. [01:55:58.740 --> 01:56:07.740] And you, it's not a good idea to say you don't have jurisdiction to walk out on the court. [01:56:07.740 --> 01:56:10.740] So how did he know when the proceeding was over? [01:56:10.740 --> 01:56:11.740] I mean, who decides? [01:56:11.740 --> 01:56:13.740] He does, doesn't he? [01:56:13.740 --> 01:56:16.740] He decides when it's over at that point. [01:56:16.740 --> 01:56:21.740] I'm not the judge because he's the sovereign, correct? [01:56:21.740 --> 01:56:26.740] Well, he's the one that everybody's going to listen to. [01:56:26.740 --> 01:56:32.740] So once he moves past subject matter jurisdiction, you object to everything. [01:56:32.740 --> 01:56:39.740] But go ahead and participate under your standing objection. [01:56:39.740 --> 01:56:40.740] Okay. [01:56:40.740 --> 01:56:45.740] Once your objection has been made, then it stands. [01:56:45.740 --> 01:56:51.740] Then everything he does becomes more tort action against him. [01:56:51.740 --> 01:56:55.740] Even if there's no courtroom reporter? [01:56:55.740 --> 01:56:57.740] Wait, I missed that. [01:56:57.740 --> 01:57:04.740] Even if there's no courtroom reporter, how do you get that objection on the record when there's no courtroom reporter? [01:57:04.740 --> 01:57:09.740] And in most traffic incidents there aren't. [01:57:09.740 --> 01:57:16.740] It depends on the state. You're in Oregon, so I'm not sure what the law is in Oregon. [01:57:16.740 --> 01:57:21.740] Most municipal courts now in Texas have made themselves courts of record. [01:57:21.740 --> 01:57:30.740] If the court is not a court of record, I suggest you demand that the court keep a record. [01:57:30.740 --> 01:57:35.740] If they don't, take out a pencil and piece of paper and start writing. [01:57:35.740 --> 01:57:41.740] And ask the judge, Your Honor, can you hold up a second? I can't write that fast. [01:57:41.740 --> 01:57:43.740] I have tribal-Northern walls. [01:57:43.740 --> 01:57:45.740] Okay. [01:57:45.740 --> 01:57:46.740] Okay. [01:57:46.740 --> 01:57:48.740] Those were all of my questions. [01:57:48.740 --> 01:57:49.740] Thank you. [01:57:49.740 --> 01:57:50.740] I'll listen. [01:57:50.740 --> 01:57:51.740] Okay. [01:57:51.740 --> 01:57:52.740] You're welcome. [01:57:52.740 --> 01:57:53.740] Thank you. [01:57:53.740 --> 01:57:55.740] We're running out of time. [01:57:55.740 --> 01:58:01.740] I would like just a final word on subject matter jurisdiction. [01:58:01.740 --> 01:58:09.740] The thing we really wanted to address today was how the courts hoodwink you into falling into their jurisdiction. [01:58:09.740 --> 01:58:17.740] When a court tries to do anything that doesn't address subject matter jurisdiction, I object. [01:58:17.740 --> 01:58:28.740] If the court overrules, let the court reflect defendants' exception to the ruling that preserves the objection for appeal. [01:58:28.740 --> 01:58:38.740] And the judge will recognize that you're preserving it for appeal because the appellate court is really where all the action is anyway. [01:58:38.740 --> 01:58:39.740] Yeah. [01:58:39.740 --> 01:58:43.740] Don't jump up with a, you sorry, SOB, you're supposed to listen to me. [01:58:43.740 --> 01:58:48.740] That'll get you in cuffs. [01:58:48.740 --> 01:58:49.740] Okay. [01:58:49.740 --> 01:58:50.740] We are out of time. [01:58:50.740 --> 01:58:54.740] This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens with Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio. [01:58:54.740 --> 01:58:58.740] We'll be back tomorrow at the same time, same station. [01:59:54.740 --> 01:59:56.740] Thank you.