[00:00.000 --> 00:07.720] The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your deli [00:07.720 --> 00:15.360] bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop [00:15.360 --> 00:23.200] into the tides of the alternative. [00:23.200 --> 00:28.160] Markets for Monday, the 4th of April, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,215.51 [00:28.160 --> 00:36.600] an ounce, silver at $14.96 an ounce, Texas crude at $36.79 a barrel, and Bitcoin is [00:36.600 --> 00:46.000] currently sitting at about $418 U.S. currency. [00:46.000 --> 00:52.040] Today in history, the year 1968, African American U.S. civil rights activist and minister Martin [00:52.040 --> 00:55.160] Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. [00:55.160 --> 00:58.740] He was shot while standing on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel where he and his team [00:58.740 --> 01:00.880] of civil rights activists were staying at. [01:00.880 --> 01:05.800] A circuit court of Shelby County, Tennessee, 13th Judicial District, at Memphis in December [01:05.800 --> 01:10.760] of 1999, found that unspecified U.S. government agencies were complicit and guilty in the [01:10.760 --> 01:11.760] assassination. [01:11.760 --> 01:19.800] Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and pronounced dead today in history. [01:19.800 --> 01:23.400] In recent news, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer called on the Federal Department [01:23.400 --> 01:27.200] of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to investigate a [01:27.200 --> 01:29.320] gun that appears to look like an iPhone. [01:29.320 --> 01:32.720] The manufacturer, Ideal Conceal, said that the government's concern over the weapon [01:32.720 --> 01:33.720] is misplaced. [01:33.720 --> 01:38.200] CEO Kirk Jilberg said that the gun is expected to be ready for market later in the year. [01:38.200 --> 01:42.640] Images of the weapon on the company's Facebook page show it appears to be a regular smartphone [01:42.640 --> 01:43.640] case. [01:43.640 --> 01:47.280] However, it's just not any case since this one opens up into a.38 caliber handgun. [01:47.280 --> 01:50.680] List price is expected to be around $395 U.S. dollars. [01:50.680 --> 01:54.680] Jilberg, who has a concealed carry license himself, says he came up with the idea for [01:54.680 --> 01:59.200] the gun after a young child in a restaurant caught a glimpse of his more obvious weapon [01:59.200 --> 02:01.120] and pointed it out in public. [02:01.120 --> 02:04.800] Schumer is arguing that the gun, which appears like an everyday item, could violate federal [02:04.800 --> 02:13.880] law, which is why he requested today that the Justice Department and the ATF investigate. [02:13.880 --> 02:17.600] A small fire today forced the evacuation of the Internal Revenue Service's headquarters [02:17.600 --> 02:19.000] in Washington, D.C. [02:19.000 --> 02:23.400] Apparently, the building was closed around 2.45 in the afternoon due to electrical issues [02:23.400 --> 02:25.920] concerning the heating and air conditioning systems. [02:25.920 --> 02:29.520] Of the 2,000 people or so who worked in the building, many had already left before the [02:29.520 --> 02:32.400] fire started around 3.30 when it was reported. [02:32.400 --> 02:35.880] The small fire, which was apparently contained to only one room in the basement, was in fact [02:35.880 --> 02:39.840] related to electrical issues, though the direct cause is still under investigation. [02:39.840 --> 02:44.220] Luckily, the IRS assured the public that tax returns are not processed at this particular [02:44.220 --> 02:48.320] building and will thus have no effect on tax return processing. [02:48.320 --> 02:52.520] There were no reported injuries. [02:52.520 --> 03:22.240] This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 4th, 2016. [03:53.240 --> 03:59.800] Okay, howdy, howdy. [03:59.800 --> 04:04.960] This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, on this Thursday, the 7th day [04:04.960 --> 04:07.880] of April, 2016. [04:07.880 --> 04:14.120] Well, I'm going to turn the phones on, we keep the phones on all night. [04:14.120 --> 04:18.280] I have Jeff from Mississippi. [04:18.280 --> 04:26.760] Just a little bit, I was down in Weatherford in De Parker County, and surprisingly, just [04:26.760 --> 04:33.240] from the show, I've got two or three different people from Parker County call me about the [04:33.240 --> 04:39.360] horrendous crap they're pulling in Parker County, so I went down there today and only [04:39.360 --> 04:47.520] got threatened with the rest once, so that was pretty good in the overall scheme of things. [04:47.520 --> 04:54.680] But we still haven't got the problem fixed, because these guys absolutely feel like the [04:54.680 --> 04:58.040] law simply does not apply to them. [04:58.040 --> 05:00.480] We've got one caller, so I'll take that. [05:00.480 --> 05:06.560] If we don't have a caller after that, I'll go into what went on in Parker County today. [05:06.560 --> 05:08.480] Okay, we got Jeff from Mississippi. [05:08.480 --> 05:10.200] Hello, Mr. Jeff. [05:10.200 --> 05:12.960] Hi, Randy. [05:12.960 --> 05:13.960] How are you today? [05:13.960 --> 05:19.520] Well, I got some really, really strange news. [05:19.520 --> 05:28.720] One of the parties that I'm suing in my Title 42 1983 suit has answered my complaint and [05:28.720 --> 05:40.900] is accusing me of not servicing her process serving correctly, that it has been done incorrect. [05:40.900 --> 05:48.620] So I called the clerk and the clerk did not have a straight answer because the marshal [05:48.620 --> 05:58.160] has not sent the receipt that service was processed, but that the clerk thinks that [05:58.160 --> 06:03.760] the woman got served because she's answering in the beginning. [06:03.760 --> 06:07.520] That was what I was going to say, so what? [06:07.520 --> 06:16.120] The only time that's relevant is in the matter of objecting to a no answer default. [06:16.120 --> 06:19.000] Oh. [06:19.000 --> 06:20.000] How were you... [06:20.000 --> 06:24.740] Okay, you weren't served properly, so how were you harmed? [06:24.740 --> 06:27.160] Do you not have constructive notice that there was a suit? [06:27.160 --> 06:30.000] It seems like you did because you answered it. [06:30.000 --> 06:31.960] So what's your problem? [06:31.960 --> 06:39.680] Okay, now can I move against her and end this case because of a fraudulent statement? [06:39.680 --> 06:45.560] Well, I mean, bar grieve there, or attorney for filing the stupid pleading. [06:45.560 --> 06:47.640] Oh, okay. [06:47.640 --> 06:50.000] I can't move for summary judgment based on... [06:50.000 --> 06:52.000] Oh, yeah, you can, but the judge... [06:52.000 --> 06:57.280] You know, you got a judge up here and you got these two parties bickering back and forth [06:57.280 --> 07:05.440] over minor nothingness, since you're pro se, probably what you could do is dismiss that [07:05.440 --> 07:11.920] in passing as irrelevant as she obviously filed the suit, so therefore she had constructive [07:11.920 --> 07:13.680] notice. [07:13.680 --> 07:16.800] Since we're not... [07:16.800 --> 07:22.400] Since we haven't moved for default judgment, for no answer default, the complaint about [07:22.400 --> 07:26.140] notice is irrelevant and just go on. [07:26.140 --> 07:32.840] If you do anything, then bar grieve the lawyer for filing it, but leave the judge out of [07:32.840 --> 07:33.840] it. [07:33.840 --> 07:35.840] All he'll do is get annoyed at both of you. [07:35.840 --> 07:36.840] Oh, okay. [07:36.840 --> 07:37.840] Okay. [07:37.840 --> 07:41.000] And it'll make you sound more professional. [07:41.000 --> 07:42.000] Okay. [07:42.000 --> 07:44.360] I got it. [07:44.360 --> 07:45.360] Okay. [07:45.360 --> 07:47.520] I think that is the... [07:47.520 --> 07:50.440] How complete was their answer? [07:50.440 --> 07:56.480] Well, their answers are very, very incomplete. [07:56.480 --> 08:01.040] Every item is either it's just denied and it doesn't have an explanation. [08:01.040 --> 08:06.880] In the case where they said that service of process was incomplete, that's all they said, [08:06.880 --> 08:14.120] that the defendant plaintiff's claims are insufficient due to insufficient service of [08:14.120 --> 08:19.880] process, and then it just goes on. [08:19.880 --> 08:28.080] But with the other, I'm trying to get at if the answer is sufficient, if the answer doesn't [08:28.080 --> 08:32.760] adequately respond, then you move for default judgment. [08:32.760 --> 08:33.760] Oh, really? [08:33.760 --> 08:34.760] Okay. [08:34.760 --> 08:40.600] Well, then all of their answers, their answers are basically defendant denies plaintiff's [08:40.600 --> 08:47.720] allegation in paragraph one, then plaintiff denies plaintiff's allegation in paragraph [08:47.720 --> 08:48.720] two. [08:48.720 --> 08:55.200] And on and on and on, finally with the service of process, plaintiff denies that any complaint [08:55.200 --> 08:56.200] from... [08:56.200 --> 09:02.560] Or defendant denies any complaint from plaintiff due to insufficient process of service, and [09:02.560 --> 09:03.560] then it just moves on. [09:03.560 --> 09:04.560] That's the whole thing. [09:04.560 --> 09:05.560] Nobody... [09:05.560 --> 09:06.560] Okay. [09:06.560 --> 09:09.800] I have to go back and look in some... [09:09.800 --> 09:10.800] Okay. [09:10.800 --> 09:11.800] You filed in the Fed. [09:11.800 --> 09:20.200] I think in the Fed, they have to answer the accusations with particularity. [09:20.200 --> 09:25.200] And you can move for summary judgment based on insufficient answer. [09:25.200 --> 09:33.840] A simple recitation of deny, the statement that you deny the allegation without specifics [09:33.840 --> 09:37.800] as to why you deny the allegation should be insufficient. [09:37.800 --> 09:40.800] You should move for summary judgment. [09:40.800 --> 09:41.800] That's what I want to hear. [09:41.800 --> 09:45.280] I'm going to jump on that. [09:45.280 --> 09:46.280] Do the research on it. [09:46.280 --> 09:48.160] I haven't researched that directly. [09:48.160 --> 09:52.400] It's been a long time since I've looked at it because I had the claim against me one [09:52.400 --> 09:58.400] time and it's been so long, I don't remember how we addressed that. [09:58.400 --> 09:59.400] Okay. [09:59.400 --> 10:03.160] I will research that and get on it. [10:03.160 --> 10:05.720] That is my only question that I had. [10:05.720 --> 10:09.360] It was just such of a weird thing that I wanted to jump on it. [10:09.360 --> 10:16.800] Well, it sounds like they didn't have either, didn't have much of an argument because they [10:16.800 --> 10:19.880] may be concerned because you're pro se. [10:19.880 --> 10:22.520] Have you filed any grievances against them yet? [10:22.520 --> 10:24.400] Oh yeah, everybody. [10:24.400 --> 10:29.040] I've filed bar claims against everybody from here to Pittsburgh. [10:29.040 --> 10:30.200] That may be the problem. [10:30.200 --> 10:38.920] They may be afraid to try to make some horse manure claim because they may be afraid you'll [10:38.920 --> 10:41.360] come back after them for it. [10:41.360 --> 10:42.520] Well, okay. [10:42.520 --> 10:48.560] Here is something I had to actually shuffle through on two or three of their arguments. [10:48.560 --> 10:51.040] They do cite case law. [10:51.040 --> 10:58.000] In one case, they are citing the Rooker Speldman doctrine that I can't sue because of that. [10:58.000 --> 11:01.880] And then I can't sue because of the heck doc doctrine. [11:01.880 --> 11:09.120] Well, I looked at both of those up and that's absolute rubbish. [11:09.120 --> 11:15.760] Heck doctrine, explain the heck doctrine. [11:15.760 --> 11:20.600] Well, okay. [11:20.600 --> 11:22.720] One or the other, I'm getting them mixed up. [11:22.720 --> 11:30.880] One of them is for the poison tree and in one case, a policeman jumped on a person and [11:30.880 --> 11:36.440] beat him up and then the person defended himself and then so he beat the cop up. [11:36.440 --> 11:41.280] And so in one of these doctrines, they were saying that, well, the assault could have [11:41.280 --> 11:47.960] been due to unlawful arrest and vice versa that one had to do with the other. [11:47.960 --> 11:58.680] And then the other doctrine had to do with someone trying to sue somebody twice. [11:58.680 --> 12:02.880] So it's not collateral estoppel, but it's almost... [12:02.880 --> 12:06.640] That's a pleading, that's double jeopardy. [12:06.640 --> 12:08.600] Yeah. [12:08.600 --> 12:12.880] And so, oh, well, and either way, I trampled all over them. [12:12.880 --> 12:20.720] I said that the opposing party violated the law clearly and I even listed the law that [12:20.720 --> 12:23.440] she broke. [12:23.440 --> 12:30.640] So in this case, their arguments were completely rubbish and I would like to jump all over [12:30.640 --> 12:31.640] them. [12:31.640 --> 12:32.640] Okay. [12:32.640 --> 12:37.520] Have you looked up the heck doctrine? [12:37.520 --> 12:40.600] I'm looking it up now. [12:40.600 --> 12:42.600] Okay. [12:42.600 --> 12:45.280] A favorable termination after freedom. [12:45.280 --> 12:51.640] Why heck's doctrine should reign within reason? [12:51.640 --> 12:58.320] It looks like the heck doctrine goes to a 1983 suit. [12:58.320 --> 13:04.280] An alleged violation of an individual's legal rights demands an opportunity for a redress [13:04.280 --> 13:09.920] that can be no more equitable position than this for a right and remedy to go hand in [13:09.920 --> 13:10.920] hand. [13:10.920 --> 13:18.200] In a democratic society, however, the availability and scope of a remedy is always commensurate [13:18.200 --> 13:23.120] with the value society places on the right at stake. [13:23.120 --> 13:29.080] The significant value the American people place on protecting their rights is reflected [13:29.080 --> 13:30.680] in 42 U.S. Code 1983. [13:30.680 --> 13:35.320] The statute provides litigants an avenue by which they may pursue a civil remedy against [13:35.320 --> 13:42.320] actors who under color of state law violate their federal rights. [13:42.320 --> 13:50.600] The United States Supreme Court has described the purpose of 1983 as interposing the federal [13:50.600 --> 13:57.360] courts between the states and the people as guardians of the people's federal rights. [13:57.360 --> 14:02.920] Section 83 creates a species of tort liability to address this end. [14:02.920 --> 14:08.640] Particular problem situation may arise, however, when a 1983 plaintiff has a criminal conviction [14:08.640 --> 14:13.000] that has never been invalidated. [14:13.000 --> 14:18.320] Consider a scenario imagined by Justice Scalia, an individual who was convicted of resisting [14:18.320 --> 14:20.160] arrest and sentenced to time in jail. [14:20.160 --> 14:24.800] His conviction is not overturned on appeal through habeas. [14:24.800 --> 14:29.120] He subsequently files 1983 action against the officer who arrested him, claiming his [14:29.120 --> 14:34.920] fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures was violated. [14:34.920 --> 14:41.040] In the underlying criminal trial, the state carried its burden and demonstrated the individual [14:41.040 --> 14:47.760] intentionally prevented a peace officer from affecting lawful arrest. [14:47.760 --> 14:53.720] If the plaintiff were to succeed on his 1983 claim, he would have to demonstrate that his [14:53.720 --> 14:56.120] arrest was unlawful. [14:56.120 --> 15:03.200] The showing would necessarily imply the invalidity of the underlying conviction or sentence. [15:03.200 --> 15:09.200] The possibility then arises that two judicial decisions could reach diametrically opposed [15:09.200 --> 15:17.920] results regarding the same set of operative facts if such a collaterally attacking 1983 [15:17.920 --> 15:20.640] claim was cognizable. [15:20.640 --> 15:25.520] If the true purpose of 83 is to interpose the federal courts, however, the significance [15:25.520 --> 15:33.000] in finding collaterally attacking 1983 claims noncognizable is magnified when the plaintiff [15:33.000 --> 15:39.880] is ineligible for federal habeas corpus relief and has no other access to the federal courts. [15:39.880 --> 15:46.320] Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not settled the issue of rather a collaterally attacking [15:46.320 --> 15:53.600] 1983 claim brought by a non-habeas eligible plaintiff is cognizable. [15:53.600 --> 15:59.640] As a result, the Circuit Court of Appeals are split as to the proper course of action [15:59.640 --> 16:06.760] with non-habeas eligible plaintiffs having the chance to succeed on their claims while [16:06.760 --> 16:16.200] others are categorically denied that opportunity. [16:16.200 --> 16:22.080] Part of this comment outlines the dictum opinions of the Supreme Court on the issues in Heck [16:22.080 --> 16:30.360] v. Humphrey and examines the manner in which the Federal Circuit Courts have interpreted [16:30.360 --> 16:32.120] and applied these cases. [16:32.120 --> 16:36.920] This will take too long to get to all of it. [16:36.920 --> 16:38.600] It gets to Heck. [16:38.600 --> 16:46.320] Okay, in Heck, the justices, let me see where I'm at, I'm out of time, hang on, Randy [16:46.320 --> 17:00.600] Kalten, Radio, we'll be right back. [17:00.600 --> 17:05.960] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of [17:05.960 --> 17:06.960] nutrition. [17:06.960 --> 17:11.320] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that. [17:11.320 --> 17:17.040] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [17:17.040 --> 17:23.360] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can [17:23.360 --> 17:25.640] provide the nutrients you need. [17:25.640 --> 17:30.480] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which [17:30.480 --> 17:31.600] we reject. [17:31.600 --> 17:36.840] We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with [17:36.840 --> 17:40.040] Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [17:40.040 --> 17:45.960] When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support [17:45.960 --> 17:47.600] quality radio. [17:47.600 --> 17:51.920] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. [17:51.920 --> 17:57.280] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and [17:57.280 --> 17:59.120] increase your income. [17:59.120 --> 18:00.680] Order now. [18:00.680 --> 18:04.960] Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network [18:04.960 --> 18:09.480] on top of the on-air talent, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind [18:09.480 --> 18:10.480] the scenes? [18:10.480 --> 18:14.640] Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners like you, [18:14.640 --> 18:19.240] and we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual fundraisers, [18:19.240 --> 18:22.480] which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air. [18:22.480 --> 18:25.760] The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th. [18:25.760 --> 18:29.840] Head on over to logosradionetwork.com to make your contribution. [18:29.840 --> 18:34.800] Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks, [18:34.800 --> 18:39.640] first prize being a Spikes Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus Curve. [18:39.640 --> 18:44.040] And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary [18:44.040 --> 18:46.000] jar of My Magic Mud. [18:46.000 --> 18:50.440] Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions by Bitcoin. [18:50.440 --> 18:56.020] The Logos Radio Network fundraiser, now through March 17th, head on over to logosradionetwork.com [18:56.020 --> 19:00.000] for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air. [19:00.000 --> 19:07.000] If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [19:30.000 --> 19:38.000] Thank you. [20:00.000 --> 20:07.000] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Jeff in Mississippi, [20:07.000 --> 20:14.000] and we have Jeff from Maryland that wanted to comment on Jeff's issue. [20:14.000 --> 20:21.000] Go ahead, Jeff. [20:35.720 --> 20:42.720] Okay, a couple of things. I do believe last week, Jeff, that I have strongly suggested [20:42.720 --> 20:49.720] to you that you sheath those claws of yours. And yet, first thing out of the bag on this [20:51.640 --> 20:57.840] call, I hear you, I want to get them. And I'm telling you, that's getting in the way [20:57.840 --> 21:04.840] of your judgment and your clarity of vision. Knock it off. That's one. Two, they answered [21:04.840 --> 21:11.840] to their complaint about not being properly served as moot. Is he there, Randy? [21:17.720 --> 21:24.720] Yeah, I'm here. Oh, it's Jeff. He's probably there, but he's probably there. I just got [21:24.720 --> 21:31.720] it. To draw or get blood, it's getting in your way. It's getting in the way of your [21:37.560 --> 21:42.560] clarity of vision. It's getting in the way of seeing things the way they are. You got [21:42.560 --> 21:44.520] to knock it off, guy. [21:44.520 --> 21:49.520] Okay, well, for one thing, I'm not trying to get blood in a personal sense. It's just [21:49.520 --> 21:55.200] a sport. I'm trying to go for the knockout in round one. It's just sport. I'm saying [21:55.200 --> 22:02.200] to people, if you're trying to fumble on the one-yard line and go in for the touchdown [22:03.320 --> 22:04.320] and win the game. [22:04.320 --> 22:09.880] I understand, but here's the thing. Have you ever been hunting? [22:09.880 --> 22:10.880] Not in a long time. [22:10.880 --> 22:17.880] Okay, have you ever been warned about sometimes a person that doesn't have an orange hat on [22:17.880 --> 22:24.880] standing amongst a bunch of lower-growing trees will look like a deer with antlers? [22:24.880 --> 22:28.880] Okay, yeah, I've heard that. [22:28.880 --> 22:35.880] A heifer with the big sign hanging over it that says, don't shoot me, I'm a cow, looks [22:39.320 --> 22:40.320] like a deer. [22:40.320 --> 22:48.320] Remember, there's the old cliche, the old saw of revenge is best served cold, but you're [22:48.320 --> 22:55.320] hot. Knock it off. I know you want it, but you're going to have to pick your time when [22:56.640 --> 23:03.640] the path is clear, the target is in the open, and you've got every opportunity to make your [23:07.320 --> 23:08.320] kill. [23:08.320 --> 23:15.320] That's a nice general platitude, but what about using an aggressive stance in order [23:20.240 --> 23:27.240] to make it more difficult for opposing counsel to force you to deal with frivolous pleadings? [23:29.360 --> 23:30.360] And that's what I'm doing. [23:30.360 --> 23:33.360] Hang on a second. [23:33.360 --> 23:40.360] You know, you have powers and abilities beyond those of immortal attorneys. Jeff, are you [23:47.880 --> 23:54.880] saying this will likely affect the way the judge rules in Jess's case? [23:54.880 --> 24:01.440] I don't know that it would necessarily affect the way he rules, but if he does something [24:01.440 --> 24:08.440] like this, it's definitely going to affect the way the judge sees him. [24:12.040 --> 24:19.040] If he gets a bad taste in his mouth, that's just favor. It's kind of like throwing somebody [24:19.040 --> 24:26.040] goes in for a job and their credentials and their backgrounds are virtually identical, [24:31.760 --> 24:36.360] and the sole difference is the way the two of them came off during the interview. Well, [24:36.360 --> 24:41.000] guess who's going to get the job? The guy that came off in the interview the best. And [24:41.000 --> 24:48.000] the guy that put a bad taste in the interviewer's mouth, he's going to lose. So don't go there. [24:49.360 --> 24:52.360] Wait a minute. This is not a job interview. [24:52.360 --> 24:59.360] I know. I'm using metaphors in order for people to be able to equate. [25:01.360 --> 25:06.360] But it implies what I would consider an inappropriate perspective. [25:06.360 --> 25:09.860] Well, maybe so. [25:09.860 --> 25:13.240] The judge has a duty to determine the facts in accordance with rules of evidence and apply [25:13.240 --> 25:18.120] the laws that come to him with the facts in the case. If he has himself another agenda, [25:18.120 --> 25:21.120] he needs to get himself down off that bench. [25:21.120 --> 25:28.120] Now I know where Jeff gets it from. You pull your claws back in. [25:28.440 --> 25:35.440] These judges have been ruling against us out of hand at every turn with absolutely no concern. [25:35.800 --> 25:39.640] And we're supposed to cater to them? [25:39.640 --> 25:45.360] Our group is virtually 100 percent successful. Not quite 100 percent, but almost. So maybe [25:45.360 --> 25:48.640] it has to do with the approach that's taken. [25:48.640 --> 25:50.240] Have you read my pleadings? [25:50.240 --> 25:51.320] Yeah. [25:51.320 --> 25:57.640] They have, I don't go after judges. I don't go after the other side. And it makes no difference [25:57.640 --> 25:59.720] what I put in a pleading. [25:59.720 --> 26:00.880] None. [26:00.880 --> 26:03.080] And you're in the Northern District of Texas, right? [26:03.080 --> 26:04.080] Yeah. [26:04.080 --> 26:09.080] Yeah. And the only way you're going to stand in the Northern District of Texas is on appeal. [26:09.080 --> 26:15.600] I don't care if that judge is upset with me or not. [26:15.600 --> 26:17.400] I know you don't. [26:17.400 --> 26:21.320] If he's upset with me, he's likely to make a more stupid ruling because he's going to [26:21.320 --> 26:25.560] rule against me in either case. [26:25.560 --> 26:32.560] That is a pure speculative statement. [26:32.560 --> 26:40.960] I have to come to the table from that perspective or I will fail to argue all of my issues. [26:40.960 --> 26:47.960] Well, you know, we have appeals that have been won and we're pro se. And we have court [26:47.960 --> 26:54.160] cases that have been won and we're pro se. And we have almost 100 percent track record. [26:54.160 --> 26:59.920] So maybe there's something that we're doing right that you might want to take a look at. [26:59.920 --> 27:04.920] What could that be? Not objecting to wrongful behavior on the part of the other side? [27:04.920 --> 27:05.920] No. [27:05.920 --> 27:06.920] Could that be what it is? [27:06.920 --> 27:13.920] No, no. We object. As a matter of fact, Guy, who was it to point out 37C to you last week? [27:17.280 --> 27:20.760] I don't understand what you're telling Jeff to do. [27:20.760 --> 27:27.360] I'm telling him to slow down on putting his hand on his sidearm because it's coloring [27:27.360 --> 27:34.360] his judgment. He doesn't really know that because they answered the damn complaint that [27:34.480 --> 27:40.480] the complaint about not being properly served is moot because he's too tied up with, I want [27:40.480 --> 27:41.480] to get sanctions. [27:41.480 --> 27:45.480] You seem to take that different. [27:45.480 --> 27:50.480] If that point is moot, that's a chance for me to go in and put a tackle on somebody's [27:50.480 --> 27:52.480] legs and get them. [27:52.480 --> 27:54.480] No, it's not. [27:54.480 --> 27:59.480] Because if they're lying, then I am going to put that on the record. [27:59.480 --> 28:06.480] No, that's a function of perception. It does what I'm saying to you, is because they answered [28:07.160 --> 28:14.160] their complaint is moot. Not because they lied, not because they didn't get served, [28:14.240 --> 28:16.920] but because they answered. [28:16.920 --> 28:23.840] It was obviously moot when they answered. While you and I are pro-says, we can make [28:23.840 --> 28:30.120] these kinds of mistakes, but if a lawyer does that, he does that deliberately for the purpose [28:30.120 --> 28:34.320] of forcing the pro-say to answer a frivolous argument. [28:34.320 --> 28:38.800] If the pro-say is stupid and ignorant. [28:38.800 --> 28:45.960] The Bar Association standards forbid the lawyer from doing that specifically. [28:45.960 --> 28:48.960] And the court's not going to do anything about that. [28:48.960 --> 28:55.960] They certainly won't do anything about it if you just, what did Shakespeare call it, [28:58.320 --> 28:59.680] wink at their discords. [28:59.680 --> 29:01.360] Say what, please? [29:01.360 --> 29:05.280] If you just let them do whatever they want to without judging. [29:05.280 --> 29:12.280] Did I say that? No, I didn't say that. It's an issue he can raise of their inappropriate [29:12.280 --> 29:19.280] response in their answer. And leave it, and leave it at that. [29:20.120 --> 29:26.480] That does not stick his neck out in any way, shape, or form for the judge to develop any [29:26.480 --> 29:30.200] kind of disfavor or distaste for him. [29:30.200 --> 29:33.480] Okay, I have a problem with that. [29:33.480 --> 29:36.120] More than likely you would. [29:36.120 --> 29:41.280] This perception, and it's a problem I have with people going into court. They're terrified [29:41.280 --> 29:45.280] that the judge might not like them, or might get upset at them. [29:45.280 --> 29:49.360] If we don't fix that, we're not going to have fair and honest courts. [29:49.360 --> 29:56.360] Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brutal Law Radio, I'll call your number, 512-646-1984. We'll be right [29:56.360 --> 29:57.360] back. [29:57.360 --> 30:10.360] Forget the tanning booths, hours in the sun, and instant tan lotions. There's a much better [30:10.360 --> 30:13.280] way to boost your skin color, and it's really good for you. [30:13.280 --> 30:18.280] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with a Skinsational Tip. [30:18.280 --> 30:23.120] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back [30:23.120 --> 30:28.720] again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [30:28.720 --> 30:33.880] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [30:33.880 --> 30:38.320] Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This public service announcement is brought to you by [30:38.320 --> 30:45.040] StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with [30:45.040 --> 30:48.200] StartPage. [30:48.200 --> 30:52.120] Humans prefer a healthy glow, but not the kind from a beach or a bottle. This kind of [30:52.120 --> 30:57.040] glow comes from carotenoids. Carotenoids are red and yellow antioxidants found in foods [30:57.040 --> 31:01.400] like carrots, spinach, and pumpkins. Researchers say that people who eat lots of fruits and [31:01.400 --> 31:05.760] veggies have higher levels of carotenoids in their skin and a more yellow hue to their [31:05.760 --> 31:10.560] face, and people like it. Study participants were shown images of a face. The original [31:10.560 --> 31:15.600] one mimicked a suntan, and one mimicked carotenoid coloring. The carotenoid look was judged [31:15.600 --> 31:20.120] most healthy. So instead of basking in the sun, hit the salad bar. It's better for you [31:20.120 --> 31:21.520] and you'll look healthier for it. [31:21.520 --> 31:50.520] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [31:51.520 --> 32:14.160] We're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right [32:14.160 --> 32:17.480] to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, [32:17.480 --> 32:21.560] and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least [32:21.560 --> 32:25.640] expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [32:25.640 --> 32:29.600] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the [32:29.600 --> 32:33.380] most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process [32:33.380 --> 32:37.360] is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable [32:37.360 --> 32:41.520] material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now [32:41.520 --> 32:45.000] you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus [32:45.000 --> 32:49.400] the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and [32:49.400 --> 32:52.680] other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of [32:52.680 --> 32:57.120] this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the [32:57.120 --> 33:03.000] free society we all want and deserve. [33:03.000 --> 33:16.000] Free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com. [33:33.000 --> 34:02.120] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio. [34:02.120 --> 34:18.560] Randy says that I was unfair to you by having characterized you as being so anxious to get [34:18.560 --> 34:26.640] sanctions as you could see the defect in their answer where their complaint about not being [34:26.640 --> 34:33.920] properly served was moot. And if you felt that I was unfair, I apologize. It wasn't [34:33.920 --> 34:35.920] intended to be that way. [34:35.920 --> 34:44.240] Oh, it doesn't bother me. I sat for a year in a Mississippi penitentiary and a judge [34:44.240 --> 34:53.920] put me there. So when I walk in the room, I've bar-grieved both attorneys about 20 [34:53.920 --> 34:58.720] times. And then I start questioning the judge about his being unfair. So everybody's red [34:58.720 --> 35:04.480] in the face. So I'm a very uncomfortable person to be in the courtroom with. [35:04.480 --> 35:12.880] Okay, that's fine with me. But as I said, because they answered your complaint, their [35:12.880 --> 35:17.760] complaint about you not being properly served is moot. [35:17.760 --> 35:18.760] Is moot. [35:18.760 --> 35:19.760] It's moot. [35:19.760 --> 35:20.760] Well, I'm going to run with that. [35:20.760 --> 35:26.040] Come on, guy. Get some bigger fish to fry. [35:26.040 --> 35:34.160] Well, that's what we were suggesting. While it was crappy and dumb of them to do that, [35:34.160 --> 35:42.080] that wasn't very important. Now, if they put in a filing that was absolutely totally fabricated [35:42.080 --> 35:47.520] and slandered you and all kinds of other things, you might want to raise the issue. And no, [35:47.520 --> 35:53.320] I don't suggest that you ask for sanctions for something that's essentially frivolous [35:53.320 --> 35:58.760] or your request for sanctions to be deemed as frivolous. [35:58.760 --> 35:59.760] Or de minimis. [35:59.760 --> 36:06.960] De minimis, yeah. Before you came on, Jeff, that's exactly what we were saying. What we [36:06.960 --> 36:12.040] suggested is this is not important enough to waste any time with. [36:12.040 --> 36:17.760] Okay, so my answer to their answer is paragraph one is moot. [36:17.760 --> 36:20.760] Wait a minute. What answer? [36:20.760 --> 36:22.760] I'm answering their answer. [36:22.760 --> 36:23.760] Why? [36:23.760 --> 36:27.400] Just so I can have something on the record. [36:27.400 --> 36:28.400] Why? [36:28.400 --> 36:32.640] I don't know. Just so I can have something on the record. [36:32.640 --> 36:33.640] Why? [36:33.640 --> 36:34.640] It's not appropriate. [36:34.640 --> 36:41.480] Yeah, let me go to the point. You file a petition, they file an answer, then you address it in [36:41.480 --> 36:47.880] court. Unless their answer is so insufficient as to being a non-answer, then you file a [36:47.880 --> 36:49.920] motion for default judgment. [36:49.920 --> 36:50.920] Right. [36:50.920 --> 36:56.120] But just to challenge their answer. But you don't really answer their answer. It's always [36:56.120 --> 37:05.120] in court, somebody files a motion, somebody else files an answer, and the filer can respond [37:05.120 --> 37:11.800] to the answer if it's necessary. And then your response, if the other side doesn't like [37:11.800 --> 37:18.680] it, they can't answer that unless they go to the judge first and ask his permission. [37:18.680 --> 37:21.840] Because they don't want this back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Whatever you [37:21.840 --> 37:28.800] have to state, state it and be done with it. And the other side is going to state his position. [37:28.800 --> 37:36.680] It's not going to agree with you. But you don't have to go in and micro-examine every [37:36.680 --> 37:42.920] issue because you'll do that in the process of the court. Does that make sense? [37:42.920 --> 37:47.960] Yeah, and that's really nice because I hate going to the post office every other day. [37:47.960 --> 37:48.960] Okay. [37:48.960 --> 37:51.640] Okay, I have some questions for you. [37:51.640 --> 37:54.560] I have more responses to these people and it's driving me crazy. [37:54.560 --> 38:04.240] Yeah, I have some questions for you, Jeff. Do you know if, according to your local court [38:04.240 --> 38:10.480] rules, if the judge sets up 26F conference? [38:10.480 --> 38:16.240] I guess I've got it coming up on the 14th of April in about eight days. [38:16.240 --> 38:17.240] You guess. [38:17.240 --> 38:26.000] No, it is coming up on April 14th in, I guess, seven days. [38:26.000 --> 38:35.960] Has the judge sent you a schedule for review or is he going to send you an order to conduct [38:35.960 --> 38:37.960] your 26F? [38:37.960 --> 38:44.400] Yeah, he did send me an order for the 26F and then it just says telephonic conference. [38:44.400 --> 38:51.000] Okay, did he send you a copy of what his proposed 26F is? [38:51.000 --> 38:52.000] No. [38:52.000 --> 38:53.000] Okay. [38:53.000 --> 38:59.760] Did opposing counsels send you a proposed schedule order? [38:59.760 --> 39:00.760] No. [39:00.760 --> 39:09.920] Okay, here's the thing. In my particular jurisdiction, they will send you a proposed, the judge will [39:09.920 --> 39:15.440] send you a proposed 26F and you have to argue it. [39:15.440 --> 39:16.440] Okay. [39:16.440 --> 39:21.400] Do you know what a 26F is? [39:21.400 --> 39:25.480] But that's the scheduling conference or the conference report. You have to come up with [39:25.480 --> 39:31.920] the report saying that you met with the opposing counsel and that you're going to get the discovery [39:31.920 --> 39:38.240] in 30 days and get all other electronic filing in 60 days. So it's like a timing schedule [39:38.240 --> 39:40.360] report. Disagreeing. [39:40.360 --> 39:45.080] Are you committed to the 30 days and 60 days you just said? [39:45.080 --> 39:49.080] It doesn't matter to me because I'm already done. So I don't care. [39:49.080 --> 39:50.080] Okay. [39:50.080 --> 39:53.080] But if you think it's best, I'll do. [39:53.080 --> 40:03.440] Okay. Jeff, hold on. We're in the Fifth Circuit and at least here in the Northern District, [40:03.440 --> 40:11.680] you have to, the parties must exchange proposed scheduling orders and then they're to agree [40:11.680 --> 40:17.280] on a scheduling order and file that with the court. If they can't agree on the scheduling [40:17.280 --> 40:23.320] order, then both send a proposed scheduling order to the court and the court will rule [40:23.320 --> 40:24.760] on what he wants to. [40:24.760 --> 40:33.080] Okay. So here's what I would suggest you do, Jeff. You call up the clerk, not the judge's [40:33.080 --> 40:41.840] clerk, the clerk at the court and find out how they conduct their 26F conferences that [40:41.840 --> 40:47.640] the judge has ordered, whether everything is supposed to be worked out during that conference [40:47.640 --> 40:52.040] or if everything is supposed to be worked out in advance of the conference and all the [40:52.040 --> 40:55.440] judge does is basically take dictation. [40:55.440 --> 40:58.200] Got it. [40:58.200 --> 41:03.280] And don't overlook your 26A1 disclosures. [41:03.280 --> 41:04.280] Okay. [41:04.280 --> 41:08.960] Do you know what the disclosures are? [41:08.960 --> 41:12.920] No, I don't have 26A1 in front of me. [41:12.920 --> 41:18.960] Okay. It's all the documents that they have in their custody or control and all the witnesses [41:18.960 --> 41:24.040] that they have in their custody or control that they intend to use a trial. [41:24.040 --> 41:25.040] Okay. [41:25.040 --> 41:33.200] Okay, it's not the same as corporate disclosures. Okay, like, you know, if I'm General Electric [41:33.200 --> 41:37.920] and I have to list out all the various companies that I own so the judge knows whether or not [41:37.920 --> 41:43.520] he might have a conflict of interest because he owns 90% interest in some particular subsidiary [41:43.520 --> 41:52.720] that she owns, you know, that sort of thing. 26A1 disclosures are basically the documents [41:52.720 --> 41:56.680] that they intend to use and the witnesses that they tend to call. [41:56.680 --> 42:03.320] Yeah, and they tend to have disclaimers saying these are all that I'm aware of at the moment. [42:03.320 --> 42:07.800] Right. And that's not a disclaimer. That's a caveat. [42:07.800 --> 42:13.280] A caveat. Well, do they protect themselves in case something else comes up there? [42:13.280 --> 42:14.280] Oh, yeah. [42:14.280 --> 42:20.000] So that these disclosures are not definitive and you're not strictly bound by them. [42:20.000 --> 42:21.000] Okay. [42:21.000 --> 42:23.120] I'll do that tomorrow. [42:23.120 --> 42:24.120] Okay. [42:24.120 --> 42:30.320] Okay, one more thing before you leave, Jeff. I've got Max who wanted to make a comment [42:30.320 --> 42:33.120] on your issue. Max? [42:33.120 --> 42:35.600] Yes, sir. [42:35.600 --> 42:38.040] You wanted to comment on Jeff's issue? [42:38.040 --> 42:45.920] Yes, I did. And this has been a wonderful Thursday show so far, might I add. [42:45.920 --> 42:51.240] You just like it because me and Jeff Sedgwick are fighting like cats and dogs. [42:51.240 --> 42:55.840] Oh, you know, I thought that might be blood. I was worried about that guy's butt, but [42:55.840 --> 42:57.880] you know what, it makes for great listeners. [42:57.880 --> 43:03.240] Okay. Move the mic just below your mouth a little. Your mic is kind of distorting. [43:03.240 --> 43:07.680] Okay. You know what, it's probably my booming voice. [43:07.680 --> 43:08.680] Much better. [43:08.680 --> 43:16.560] I had thought that Jeff in Maryland is correct for warning Jeff in Mississippi about getting [43:16.560 --> 43:20.640] too involved in the fight. In fact, Randy, I've heard you issue the same warning about [43:20.640 --> 43:27.000] knowing your intended outcome. So I thought that, you know, I mean, Jeff has been aggrieved. [43:27.000 --> 43:33.320] He's been harmed here. So the Jeff in Mississippi, that is, has been harmed here. So it's up [43:33.320 --> 43:37.320] to his discretion as to how far he wants to take this. I hear the break music. You go [43:37.320 --> 43:40.320] ahead and give us an outro. [43:40.320 --> 43:50.280] Okay. This is Randy Kelton, Rue La Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. And okay, [43:50.280 --> 43:55.320] this is a short break. When we go to the next break, make sure you go to Logos Radio Network [43:55.320 --> 44:02.480] and look over our sponsors. We need all the help we can do. [44:02.480 --> 44:07.920] Hello. My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com. And I would like to invite you to come buy [44:07.920 --> 44:12.880] our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas, behind Brave New [44:12.880 --> 44:16.720] Books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very [44:16.720 --> 44:21.480] own eyes. Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative [44:21.480 --> 44:25.720] medicine. Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian [44:25.720 --> 44:34.160] emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 [44:34.160 --> 44:43.160] or find us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com. [44:43.160 --> 45:01.280] Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com. [45:01.280 --> 45:06.640] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris [45:06.640 --> 45:14.240] Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, [45:14.240 --> 45:19.880] step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't [45:19.880 --> 45:24.840] have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step [45:24.840 --> 45:31.120] by step course, and now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney [45:31.120 --> 45:36.920] with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can [45:36.920 --> 45:41.880] learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control [45:41.880 --> 45:48.320] our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms [45:48.320 --> 45:55.400] for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and [45:55.400 --> 46:02.400] click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EASY. [46:25.400 --> 46:38.160] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Jeff in Mississippi. [46:38.160 --> 46:42.160] Max, I'll get back to you. We've got two or three more call-ins ahead of you. I wanted [46:42.160 --> 46:49.240] to pull you in for Jeff in Mississippi. Jeff, do we have anything else for you? [46:49.240 --> 46:51.480] No, that's it. [46:51.480 --> 46:54.120] Okay, have we beat you up enough? [46:54.120 --> 47:05.960] Yeah, I mean, that's great. I'm a very assertive person, so I'm either gonna go for a default [47:05.960 --> 47:10.760] judgment or summary judgment. I'm not sure which one you told me that I could go for, [47:10.760 --> 47:16.760] but if these people are lying in an answer, I'm gonna put the hurt on them. And you just [47:16.760 --> 47:18.760] call me Hannibal Lecter. [47:18.760 --> 47:30.360] Okay. Thank you, Hannibal. Okay, now we're gonna go to Eric in California. Hello, Eric. [47:30.360 --> 47:33.200] Hi, how are you doing? [47:33.200 --> 47:36.480] I'm good. What do you have for us today? [47:36.480 --> 47:44.400] Well, I am going to court on Monday for a traffic ticket, and this is in California. [47:44.400 --> 47:48.640] There's two violations on the ticket. One of them is speeding and the other one is lack [47:48.640 --> 47:55.800] of insurance. I did actually have insurance at the time, but I didn't have current papers [47:55.800 --> 47:57.640] to show the cop. [47:57.640 --> 47:59.840] Did you ask for a jury trial? [47:59.840 --> 48:05.280] No, I did not at the time. [48:05.280 --> 48:10.680] I'd love to do that when they give me a ticket for no insurance. Make them panel the jury, [48:10.680 --> 48:16.840] go through all of that, let the prosecutor go through his whole spiel, and then I pull [48:16.840 --> 48:27.960] out my proof of insurance. The last time I tried that, the JP was ready for me and coming [48:27.960 --> 48:33.640] out and dismissed the case. She said, Mr. Keltley, if you have insurance, just pay $10 [48:33.640 --> 48:40.360] and we'll dismiss the case. I'm not paying anything. I want a jury trial. She dismissed [48:40.360 --> 48:46.600] the case. Don't we get out of here? Okay, go ahead. Speeding and no insurance. [48:46.600 --> 48:54.080] Right. So the court date on Monday is for the arraignment, the first court appearance. [48:54.080 --> 48:59.520] And I'm wondering, how do I handle pleading? I know I've heard before you shouldn't enter [48:59.520 --> 49:01.400] into a plea. [49:01.400 --> 49:14.680] All this stuff about not pleading is the kind of thing Jeff complains about. That's a worthless [49:14.680 --> 49:24.000] fight. I go in and the only fight I have over entering a plea is I don't want to enter not [49:24.000 --> 49:31.560] guilty. I want to enter innocent as the driven snow. And they never want to accept that. [49:31.560 --> 49:39.200] So I wouldn't start a fight over something that doesn't matter. But a good challenge [49:39.200 --> 49:48.440] subject matter jurisdiction, that's something that's fun to do. [49:48.440 --> 49:51.240] Have you listened to Eddie's Monday night show? [49:51.240 --> 49:57.000] Yes, I have. Yeah. [49:57.000 --> 50:08.320] Like Max said earlier about, always know what your intended ultimate outcome is. Now, everything [50:08.320 --> 50:16.560] you do, gauge that against, is this going to give me a dismissal? Because I'm assuming [50:16.560 --> 50:21.560] that's what your outcome is, unless you have a different one. Some people just want to [50:21.560 --> 50:27.680] have a fight and learn the law by having a nice fight in traffic court. What do you want [50:27.680 --> 50:31.640] as an ultimate outcome in these two cases? [50:31.640 --> 50:39.360] Well, I want to get the violation dismissed, the charges dismissed. [50:39.360 --> 50:46.040] The insurance one, that's a fault or gone. Once you show the proof of insurance, that [50:46.040 --> 50:51.760] one will go away. You probably could have already got that one tossed just by bringing [50:51.760 --> 50:58.600] your proof of insurance down to them. And if you go in to the arraignment hearing and [50:58.600 --> 51:05.720] hand them the proof of insurance, they'll dismiss that one right off the bat. They have [51:05.720 --> 51:17.120] less leverage. But for the most part, if you go to the merits, then the judge has discretion [51:17.120 --> 51:24.480] to determine who he believes and who he doesn't believe. And he will almost always believe [51:24.480 --> 51:32.640] the officer, because it's to his benefit to do so. They're there to generate revenue. [51:32.640 --> 51:37.360] So if you go to the merits, you're likely to lose. I'm not saying you always will. [51:37.360 --> 51:42.240] You have to cop something really stupid. And you have a halfway honest judge, sometimes [51:42.240 --> 51:52.680] they'll actually dismiss. But you have a lot better shot going after the underlying law. [51:52.680 --> 52:02.280] And the judges seem to be getting sensitive to this right to travel issue. Do you have [52:02.280 --> 52:16.560] Eddie's right to travel? I've seen that before. I know mentioned the constitutional [52:16.560 --> 52:24.720] right to travel and the idea that a constitutional right cannot be turned into a privilege or [52:24.720 --> 52:31.640] cannot be turned into a crime. That's basically it. What this goes to is subject matter jurisdiction. [52:31.640 --> 52:38.000] And that can be problematic for the court. And my position on traffic tickets and most [52:38.000 --> 52:42.240] of these lower court issues is you won't win your case simply because you have the law [52:42.240 --> 52:52.200] and the facts on your side. This is our politics. So how do you get political pressure to get [52:52.200 --> 53:01.040] the courts to drop the case? Now we've got Scott from Dallas. He calls in on a regular [53:01.040 --> 53:08.400] case. And he gets them to drop his case because they don't want to mess with him. He had [53:08.400 --> 53:12.520] an officer break his window out because he wouldn't roll his window down. He wanted [53:12.520 --> 53:20.360] his supervisor. And the officer broke his window out. Problem. Scott had his video [53:20.360 --> 53:29.520] camera in his pocket, put it on eBay, got 1.8 million hits. They couldn't get him [53:29.520 --> 53:37.080] out of their court fast enough. So the right to travel issue is a real annoyance for the [53:37.080 --> 53:45.840] courts. One of the cases, Scott went in and the judge said he started the right to travel [53:45.840 --> 53:52.760] issue and the judge said there won't be any of that in this court and shouted him down. [53:52.760 --> 53:57.560] So what do you do in that case? Well, you go to the grand jury and file criminal charges [53:57.560 --> 54:06.800] against the judge. That's what Scott did. And all of the cases so far except one that [54:06.800 --> 54:16.160] he's had have been dropped. And he's filing on the judge in that one. In these lower courts [54:16.160 --> 54:21.080] it's all about the money. You give them enough trouble to cost them too much money to prosecute [54:21.080 --> 54:29.160] you. Good chance they'll dismiss the case just to get you to go anyway. But it takes [54:29.160 --> 54:37.800] a lot of work. You have to do your homework. There's no way around it. [54:37.800 --> 54:47.680] Right. Now I noticed on the court website it has a docket history for the case and I [54:47.680 --> 54:52.400] haven't entered into a plea. As I said, the appearance Monday is in arraignment so I haven't [54:52.400 --> 54:57.200] entered into any plea yet. It says on the website not guilty. Is there any significance [54:57.200 --> 55:03.200] to that? No. They will assume not guilty unless you [55:03.200 --> 55:13.960] tell them otherwise. That's the only assumption they can have because that's the only assumption [55:13.960 --> 55:18.840] that has no potential of harming you. Right. [55:18.840 --> 55:24.000] If you want to come in and correct that presumption, you're perfectly at liberty. Oh yeah, I'm [55:24.000 --> 55:32.400] guilty as sin. But they're not going to do that. So no, that won't have any significance. [55:32.400 --> 55:44.360] Okay. Now can I file a motion in court during the arraignment as far as, you know, challenge [55:44.360 --> 55:47.200] subject matter jurisdiction and stuff like that? [55:47.200 --> 55:53.040] That is the only one. There's a pleading in our motion. There's a pleading you can [55:53.040 --> 56:01.280] file. Well, technically subject matter jurisdiction is a pleading. You can file double jeopardy [56:01.280 --> 56:09.320] and you can file subject matter. There's other pleadings, but they don't apply to a ticket. [56:09.320 --> 56:14.960] Subject matter can be filed at any time and I really annoy these judges because I go in [56:14.960 --> 56:23.600] and file a 30 page challenge subject matter jurisdiction 20 minutes before trial and I've [56:23.600 --> 56:27.880] had judges complain about that several times. Mr. Castle, you just filed that 20 minutes [56:27.880 --> 56:34.040] ago. Yes you are. As a matter of fact, I did, but it is a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction [56:34.040 --> 56:41.240] and it may be filed at any time, no matter how remote in history. So even if they rule [56:41.240 --> 56:47.040] against you, you can always file a challenge subject matter jurisdiction. But since your [56:47.040 --> 56:55.360] hearing is Monday, normally they want seven days notice on a citation. [56:55.360 --> 57:02.320] So if you didn't file anything within that seven day time period, you're kind of barred [57:02.320 --> 57:10.680] from doing it. It's not something that can be heard in this particular hearing because [57:10.680 --> 57:20.240] the prosecutor hasn't had time to examine the document and come up with a response. [57:20.240 --> 57:28.600] But this is only an arraignment and it would be nice to have one and drop it on them. You [57:28.600 --> 57:33.220] don't expect them to hear it now. You do ask them to hear it now, but what the judge [57:33.220 --> 57:40.520] can do is when you file a challenge subject matter jurisdiction, you come to the court [57:40.520 --> 57:48.800] at arm's length. There's a lot of pro se stuff about not entering into the jurisdiction [57:48.800 --> 57:53.640] of the court. Well, this one is the real deal. When you file a subject matter jurisdiction [57:53.640 --> 58:00.880] challenge, you're not admitted to the jurisdiction of the court. That is a, Jeff, what's the [58:00.880 --> 58:10.120] term for that? The threshold issue. That has to be heard before anything else can be touched. [58:10.120 --> 58:15.280] So if they go to anything else and you have a subject matter jurisdiction challenge, that [58:15.280 --> 58:22.240] gives you a due process claim against them. Now you've got something you can work with. [58:22.240 --> 58:27.560] So hang on, pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton, we're here with our radio, here [58:27.560 --> 58:37.880] with our very special guest and two time radio show boxing champ, Jeff Cedric. We'll be [58:37.880 --> 58:52.800] right back. The Bible remains the most popular book in [58:52.800 --> 58:58.440] the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some [58:58.440 --> 59:03.840] new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise [59:03.840 --> 59:10.880] the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation [59:10.880 --> 59:16.800] is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory [59:16.800 --> 59:22.800] footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing [59:22.800 --> 59:28.240] an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles [59:28.240 --> 59:34.040] for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This [59:34.040 --> 59:43.800] comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 [59:43.800 --> 59:53.120] or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. You're listening [59:53.120 --> 01:00:04.120] to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com. The following news flash is brought to you [01:00:04.120 --> 01:00:10.560] by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily bulletins for the commodities market. Today [01:00:10.560 --> 01:00:23.360] in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative. Markets [01:00:23.360 --> 01:00:30.280] for Monday, the 4th of April, 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,215.51 an ounce, [01:00:30.280 --> 01:00:37.360] silver $14.96 an ounce, Texas crude $36.79 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting [01:00:37.360 --> 01:00:50.600] at about $418 U.S. currency. Today in history, the year 1968, African American U.S. civil [01:00:50.600 --> 01:00:55.320] rights activist and minister Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. [01:00:55.320 --> 01:00:58.920] He was shot while standing on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel where he and his team [01:00:58.920 --> 01:01:03.120] of civil rights activists were staying at. A circuit court of Shelby County, Tennessee, [01:01:03.120 --> 01:01:08.440] 13th Judicial District at Memphis in December of 1999 found that unspecified U.S. government [01:01:08.440 --> 01:01:13.160] agencies were complicit and guilty in the assassination. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. [01:01:13.160 --> 01:01:21.760] was shot and pronounced dead today in history. In recent news, New York Democratic Senator [01:01:21.760 --> 01:01:25.760] Charles Schumer called on the Federal Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, [01:01:25.760 --> 01:01:30.120] Firearms and Explosives to investigate a gun that appears to look like an iPhone. The manufacturer [01:01:30.120 --> 01:01:35.160] Ideal Conceal said that the government's concern over the weapon is misplaced. CEO Kirk Jilberg [01:01:35.160 --> 01:01:38.800] said that the gun is expected to be ready for market later in the year. Images of the [01:01:38.800 --> 01:01:43.000] weapon on the company's Facebook page show it appears to be a regular smartphone case. [01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:47.560] However, it's just not any case since this one opens up into a.38 caliber handgun. List [01:01:47.560 --> 01:01:53.640] price is expected to be around $395 U.S. Jilberg, who has a concealed carry license himself, [01:01:53.640 --> 01:01:56.980] says he came up with the idea for the gun after a young child in a restaurant caught [01:01:56.980 --> 01:02:02.120] a glimpse of his more obvious weapon and pointed it out in public. Schumer is arguing that [01:02:02.120 --> 01:02:06.040] the gun, which appears like an everyday item, could violate federal law, which is why he [01:02:06.040 --> 01:02:14.040] requested today that the Justice Department and the ATF investigate. [01:02:14.040 --> 01:02:17.760] A small fire today forced the evacuation of the Internal Revenue Service's headquarters [01:02:17.760 --> 01:02:22.600] in Washington, D.C. Apparently, the building was closed around 2.45 in the afternoon due [01:02:22.600 --> 01:02:26.600] to electrical issues concerning the heating and air conditioning systems. Of the 2,000 [01:02:26.600 --> 01:02:30.560] people or so who worked in the building, many had already left before the fire started around [01:02:30.560 --> 01:02:34.440] 3.30 when it was reported. The small fire, which was apparently contained to only one [01:02:34.440 --> 01:02:38.680] room in the basement, was in fact related to electrical issues, though the direct cause [01:02:38.680 --> 01:02:42.640] is still under investigation. Luckily, the IRS assured the public that tax returns are [01:02:42.640 --> 01:02:47.240] not processed at this particular building and will thus have no effect on tax return [01:02:47.240 --> 01:02:50.080] processing. There were no reported injuries. [01:02:50.080 --> 01:02:57.080] This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 4th, 2016. [01:03:20.080 --> 01:03:36.040] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, ruler of our radio. And Eric, did you, other than [01:03:36.040 --> 01:03:44.000] subject matter jurisdiction, and I know you mentioned the right to travel, it's my position [01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:50.880] that the best way to bring the right to travel issue is in a subject matter jurisdiction [01:03:50.880 --> 01:03:59.320] challenge, because that's really where it goes. It says you don't have authority to [01:03:59.320 --> 01:04:07.440] interfere with me when I'm not in commerce. So, what do you plan to do Monday? [01:04:07.440 --> 01:04:17.800] Well, I want to either file a motion, or I don't know if I can do it verbally in front [01:04:17.800 --> 01:04:22.840] of a judge, but I want to file a motion doing just that, challenging the subject matter [01:04:22.840 --> 01:04:27.840] jurisdiction. So, any advice you have on how to do that? [01:04:27.840 --> 01:04:41.560] Oh, okay. Have you got Eddie's traffic seminar? No, I haven't. [01:04:41.560 --> 01:04:46.480] I have a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction for a traffic issue, but it's written to [01:04:46.480 --> 01:04:57.000] Texas law. It won't be of much value in California. If you'll send me an email, randy at rootoflawradio.com, [01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:04.000] I'll send you my challenge subject matter jurisdiction. The subject matter jurisdiction [01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:14.280] section is valid. The traffic code section is not valid, because that goes strictly to [01:05:14.280 --> 01:05:22.500] Texas law. You need to get the transportation code for the state of California, and see [01:05:22.500 --> 01:05:31.000] if you can cross-reference the citations that are in this, the Texas citations I have in [01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:37.960] this document. There's probably somebody out there who's [01:05:37.960 --> 01:05:46.440] done that, but since it's Monday, okay, Monday's not a really big deal. What's going to happen [01:05:46.440 --> 01:05:51.720] is they actually force you to come down there so that the prosecutor can try to make a deal [01:05:51.720 --> 01:05:56.160] with you. Okay. [01:05:56.160 --> 01:06:03.560] So you don't have to have anything in here. You go in there, then they'll set a court [01:06:03.560 --> 01:06:08.760] date, and now you have time to file a motion. So I would suggest you just go down there [01:06:08.760 --> 01:06:15.960] and plead not guilty. If you want to get rid of the insurance one, just hand them the proof [01:06:15.960 --> 01:06:24.920] of your insurance. That one will go away. And then set a jury trial for the other one. [01:06:24.920 --> 01:06:29.820] That's going to annoy them, because now they've got to pay a jury. And then you have time [01:06:29.820 --> 01:06:37.280] to go to Eddie's show and see if someone who's one of his listeners has a challenge [01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:45.120] subject matter jurisdiction for California. Okay. You don't think there's any problem [01:06:45.120 --> 01:06:50.840] with pleading not guilty? I mean, doesn't that mean I'm agreeing to their jurisdiction? [01:06:50.840 --> 01:06:58.360] No, that doesn't agree either. Okay. Here's the deal. Let's say you don't like the judge [01:06:58.360 --> 01:07:07.560] down there. So I tell you what, Eric, why don't you just let me be the judge? We'll [01:07:07.560 --> 01:07:14.360] have this trial and I'll be the judge for you. Tell me, what can you do that would give [01:07:14.360 --> 01:07:25.120] me jurisdiction to rule in that case? Nothing, I guess. Exactly. There's not anything you [01:07:25.120 --> 01:07:31.200] can do to give this judge jurisdiction if you don't have it. Right. There's a lot [01:07:31.200 --> 01:07:37.960] of huffing and puffing about that, but if he doesn't, we're talking subject matter. [01:07:37.960 --> 01:07:42.880] If he don't have it, he can't get it. You can't give it to him, period. So you don't [01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:48.040] have to worry about that. You've agreed to make an appearance, make the appearance, plead [01:07:48.040 --> 01:07:56.840] not guilty. It won't harm you in any way. It doesn't agree to anything. And part of [01:07:56.840 --> 01:08:02.080] your not guilty is not guilty by way of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But you just [01:08:02.080 --> 01:08:08.160] plead not guilty. It's not the place to start a fight. Get the insurance ticket tossed and [01:08:08.160 --> 01:08:15.160] all you have to deal with is the traffic. They have less leverage. They don't have as [01:08:15.160 --> 01:08:23.600] much money to make on you, so the fight relatively costs them more. So then get on Eddie's show. [01:08:23.600 --> 01:08:31.720] He's the traffic guy and I try to stay out of his area and see if someone on the show [01:08:31.720 --> 01:08:35.120] is from California. And I'm sure there are. There's a number of people from California. [01:08:35.120 --> 01:08:43.680] You can probably get one already structured for you. Just sign it and send it. Okay. Okay. [01:08:43.680 --> 01:08:50.400] Another question. Is there any need for me to say that I'm there by special appearance? [01:08:50.400 --> 01:08:55.960] I've heard the mention of that before. No, you only do that when you file the subject [01:08:55.960 --> 01:09:04.360] matter jurisdiction challenge. Okay. You're here at arm's length to the court. This is [01:09:04.360 --> 01:09:12.520] saying I'm not here to agree to the jurisdiction of the court. I'm here to challenge the subject [01:09:12.520 --> 01:09:19.720] matter jurisdiction of the court. But that is never necessary anyway. You don't have [01:09:19.720 --> 01:09:26.120] to say any of those. There's no magic incantations here. You just file the subject matter jurisdiction [01:09:26.120 --> 01:09:34.760] and it's before the court. It doesn't matter what you say. Okay. Okay. Good luck. Are you [01:09:34.760 --> 01:09:43.840] telling me to plead not guilty and then file a motion after that? Yes. Okay. Pleading not [01:09:43.840 --> 01:09:51.480] guilty doesn't harm, doesn't affect the jurisdiction in any way. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, thank [01:09:51.480 --> 01:09:56.400] you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Eric. Okay. Now we're going to go to Gary [01:09:56.400 --> 01:10:05.120] in Texas. Hello, Gary. Hey, Randy. What's up, my friend? Oh, it's been a long time. [01:10:05.120 --> 01:10:12.480] I know it. I know it. Hey, I've got an easy question for you. In helping somebody who [01:10:12.480 --> 01:10:19.080] got arrested, a criminal offense in another county, and filed a few Public Information [01:10:19.080 --> 01:10:25.560] Act requests, and when they weren't timely answered, I sent a notice to the Texas Attorney [01:10:25.560 --> 01:10:35.200] General to ask for intervention. And the AG came back and ordered them to supply the documents [01:10:35.200 --> 01:10:44.680] that had been requested originally. So anyway, the attorney that's involved with the accused [01:10:44.680 --> 01:10:50.960] spoke to the prosecuting attorney and said, you know, you really got a problem with this [01:10:50.960 --> 01:10:57.280] case, so you really think you ought to just dismiss it because the videos are really, [01:10:57.280 --> 01:11:02.400] really not good. They're not in your favor. And they said, there is no way that we're [01:11:02.400 --> 01:11:09.720] going to dismiss this case. I'm taking it all the way because I'm so angry at all those [01:11:09.720 --> 01:11:17.920] Public Information Act requests. I want to make him pay a price. And I thought that to [01:11:17.920 --> 01:11:31.880] me, that sounds like... 3606, 3605, penal code, witness tampering, [01:11:31.880 --> 01:11:43.200] obstruction of justice. That's the way I read it. How about official misconduct? [01:11:43.200 --> 01:11:52.320] Official misconduct, Texas is the only state that I know of that has two separate designations. [01:11:52.320 --> 01:12:01.120] Official misconduct in Texas applies to someone misappropriating public funds or government [01:12:01.120 --> 01:12:14.400] equipment. Official oppression goes to misfeasance or malfeasance in office. So there's one other [01:12:14.400 --> 01:12:20.480] place where there is an official misconduct statute and you have that available, and that [01:12:20.480 --> 01:12:31.960] is the 552 Government Code, the Open Records Act. And in that one, that is the one place [01:12:31.960 --> 01:12:40.200] where the attorney general is given original jurisdiction. When you file a complaint under [01:12:40.200 --> 01:12:47.240] open records accusing the district or county attorney of violating the act, that is filed [01:12:47.240 --> 01:12:52.920] with the attorney general directly. So I suggest you file a criminal accusation against the [01:12:52.920 --> 01:13:00.760] district attorney with the attorney general. That should get interesting. And then also [01:13:00.760 --> 01:13:12.680] attached to that, an associated accusation of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. [01:13:12.680 --> 01:13:19.040] Suspension of justice is also the retaliation statute. Okay. I don't understand the witness [01:13:19.040 --> 01:13:27.640] tampering. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Because the defendant took legal action [01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:35.080] in order to secure evidence that he could use in court, the prosecutor retaliated against [01:13:35.080 --> 01:13:44.040] him in order to prevent him from using that evidence in court. That's how I get there. [01:13:44.040 --> 01:13:52.360] That's interesting. Let him dance with that. Let him explain that to a grand jury. Does [01:13:52.360 --> 01:14:02.000] abuse of authority fall in this plethora of complaints? That's 39.03. If a public official [01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:08.680] acting under the color or meeting pretense of an official capacity fails to perform a [01:14:08.680 --> 01:14:15.440] duty he's required to perform or exerts or purports to exert an authority he does not [01:14:15.440 --> 01:14:22.640] expressly have, that's official oppressions class essay misdemeanor. [01:14:22.640 --> 01:14:30.320] Okay. Now, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 2 talks about duties of a prosecuting [01:14:30.320 --> 01:14:38.080] attorney and about seeking justice and not to seek a conviction. Does any of this- [01:14:38.080 --> 01:14:44.840] 2.01. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney not to secure conviction, but to [01:14:44.840 --> 01:14:50.440] ensure that justice is served. He shall not seek with evidence or witnesses that may show [01:14:50.440 --> 01:14:54.080] the innocence of the accused or mitigate the guilt of the accused. That's exactly the way [01:14:54.080 --> 01:15:00.280] it used to read. They've changed it up. It doesn't read exactly like that anymore, but [01:15:00.280 --> 01:15:11.520] that's a paraphrase. It goes to exactly that thing. However, it does not give the prosecutor [01:15:11.520 --> 01:15:18.000] a specific duty, so it's not very useful. It's just kind of high-minded rhetoric. [01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:29.240] Okay. Yeah. I was about to say I don't read any type of penalty associated with that declaration [01:15:29.240 --> 01:15:30.760] in Chapter 2. [01:15:30.760 --> 01:15:42.840] Well, he did have a duty to release all of the evidence that he had, but he had that [01:15:42.840 --> 01:15:51.360] duty under the Open Records Act as well. He has it under the Code of Criminal Procedure. [01:15:51.360 --> 01:15:56.520] He also has it under the Open Records Act. Anything that doesn't fall under his work [01:15:56.520 --> 01:16:06.880] product, anything that's not considered secret, not everything that the prosecutor has is [01:16:06.880 --> 01:16:12.880] open records. But if you are a litigant, then there are things that would normally not be [01:16:12.880 --> 01:16:21.040] open records that you would have access to. And that's what he failed to give. [01:16:21.040 --> 01:16:26.960] What about bar grievances, Randy? [01:16:26.960 --> 01:16:32.880] Oh, absolutely. Is the prosecutor who did this the elected prosecutor or is he an ADA, [01:16:32.880 --> 01:16:33.880] an assistant? [01:16:33.880 --> 01:16:34.880] Elected. [01:16:34.880 --> 01:16:42.920] Oh, good. If he gets unelected, he's going to have a problem getting himself malpractice [01:16:42.920 --> 01:16:45.440] insurance. [01:16:45.440 --> 01:17:00.200] Hang on, Randy Kelton. We'll be right back. [01:17:00.200 --> 01:17:04.920] Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? [01:17:04.920 --> 01:17:09.920] Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won [01:17:09.920 --> 01:17:15.400] six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step [01:17:15.400 --> 01:17:20.720] instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes, [01:17:20.720 --> 01:17:25.440] what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and [01:17:25.440 --> 01:17:29.920] phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial [01:17:29.920 --> 01:17:35.840] tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the [01:17:35.840 --> 01:17:40.680] solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. [01:17:40.680 --> 01:17:46.560] For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner [01:17:46.560 --> 01:17:55.960] or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s [01:17:55.960 --> 01:18:00.600] at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:18:00.600 --> 01:18:04.880] Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network [01:18:04.880 --> 01:18:09.400] on top of the on-air talent, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind [01:18:09.400 --> 01:18:13.680] the scenes? Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners [01:18:13.680 --> 01:18:18.200] like you, and we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual [01:18:18.200 --> 01:18:23.200] fundraisers, which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air. The 2016 [01:18:23.200 --> 01:18:28.640] fundraiser has been extended to March 17th. Head on over to logosradio.com to make your [01:18:28.640 --> 01:18:33.800] contribution. Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas [01:18:33.800 --> 01:18:39.520] Gunworks, first prize being a Spikes Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus [01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:43.920] Curve. And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary [01:18:43.920 --> 01:18:49.360] jar of My Magic Mud. Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions [01:18:49.360 --> 01:18:55.920] by Bitcoin. The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th. Head on over to logosradio.com [01:18:55.920 --> 01:19:02.000] for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air. [01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:09.000] This is the Logos Logos Radio Network. [01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:54.720] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Radio. And we're talking to Gary in Texas. Okay, Gary. [01:19:54.720 --> 01:20:08.400] I'd like the witness tampering. It's not so much about what actually happened. It's [01:20:08.400 --> 01:20:16.600] about what kind of really cool story you can create about what happened. You request this [01:20:16.600 --> 01:20:21.440] information under open records and the prosecutor don't want to give it to you and you have [01:20:21.440 --> 01:20:27.120] to get the attorney general to force you to. And then when you get it, it turns out to [01:20:27.120 --> 01:20:33.240] be exculpatory evidence. Correct. [01:20:33.240 --> 01:20:42.640] So you can say he violated Article 2.01 by failing to provide voluntary, failing to provide [01:20:42.640 --> 01:20:51.960] exculpatory evidence. And he will say, well, I did provide it. I said, yeah, but you didn't [01:20:51.960 --> 01:20:58.920] provide it when you were required to. Like I went to Weatherford County, to Parker County, [01:20:58.920 --> 01:21:03.600] Texas today, and I brought some information requests and gave them to the receptionist. [01:21:03.600 --> 01:21:12.600] And then they sent these to, is it appropriate for me to say big, fat, sloppy looking lieutenants? [01:21:12.600 --> 01:21:17.280] No, that's not appropriate. So I won't say that. They sent these two lieutenants out [01:21:17.280 --> 01:21:24.000] and I asked them a couple of questions that were very pointed and they decided not to [01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:32.960] answer my questions. So I said, is there any question I can ask you that you will answer? [01:21:32.960 --> 01:21:40.480] And they said, no. Then why am I talking to you? You can go, you're dismissed. And one [01:21:40.480 --> 01:21:49.480] of them said, and what's your name? My name is you are dismissed. You can go. They ordered [01:21:49.480 --> 01:22:03.040] me to leave the jail and the receptionist refused to take my information requests. [01:22:03.040 --> 01:22:09.360] Now I went to the sheriff and filed criminal charges. Now if they respond to my information [01:22:09.360 --> 01:22:22.640] requests, sorry, bubba, that bell's already been rung, they can respond to it later. But [01:22:22.640 --> 01:22:28.560] when they refused to thin, they rung that bell and they can't unring it. The prosecutor [01:22:28.560 --> 01:22:37.800] refused to provide exculpatory evidence. The bell was rung. They can't say that you ran [01:22:37.800 --> 01:22:45.720] the stop sign and say, okay, okay, I'll come back and I won't run it this time. So the [01:22:45.720 --> 01:22:55.240] allegation should be since there was exculpatory evidence in there, that implies that he was [01:22:55.240 --> 01:23:11.160] deliberately attempting to hide that evidence. What is that? Hold on. Secret evidence. These [01:23:11.160 --> 01:23:21.000] are government documents, 3710 penal code. If you secret a government document from the [01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:27.920] person or office it's intended for, that's tampering. You might try tampering with a [01:23:27.920 --> 01:23:37.440] government document. And then violating 552 government code, violating 127 I think it is, [01:23:37.440 --> 01:23:50.160] code of criminal procedure, CD127 or 129 that says all courts shall be public. In court, [01:23:50.160 --> 01:24:01.640] public issues. The Open Records Act does not apply. 1.27, the statutory version of the [01:24:01.640 --> 01:24:08.920] constitutional right to a public court applies. So when you go to the court and ask for records [01:24:08.920 --> 01:24:15.320] and they say, ask me what I'm asking, what law I'm asking for this under. And I tell [01:24:15.320 --> 01:24:23.000] them any law that applies. You want legal advice, go to the prosecutor. If I say under [01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:28.080] the Open Records Act, they say, oh, the Open Records Act doesn't apply here. So I just [01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:35.640] tell them whatever applies. 1.27 applies. So if he fails to produce it, that's official [01:24:35.640 --> 01:24:44.040] oppression by misfeasance in office. Failing to perform a duty is required to perform. [01:24:44.040 --> 01:24:53.440] And if he does it for the purpose of denying you access to exculpatory evidence, that's [01:24:53.440 --> 01:25:03.840] obstruction of justice 3606. And if you take some other action in retaliation for your [01:25:03.840 --> 01:25:13.400] exercising a right, that's retaliation also 3606. And if he does this to prevent you from [01:25:13.400 --> 01:25:23.320] testifying, that's 3605. Sound like fun, Gary? [01:25:23.320 --> 01:25:31.480] Yeah, it does. I wanna grab hold of this retaliation against the accused. Because the prosecutor- [01:25:31.480 --> 01:25:34.680] That is probably the best one, yeah. [01:25:34.680 --> 01:25:42.880] Yeah, the prosecutor said definitely, no, we're going to take this all the way. Because [01:25:42.880 --> 01:25:49.000] he made me mad because he asked all those questions with the Public Information Act [01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:54.440] request. And I'm gonna basically saying, I'm gonna teach him a lesson, I'm gonna make an [01:25:54.440 --> 01:26:04.000] example. And that is clearly retaliation. And the prosecuting attorney told an officer [01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:10.640] of the court that that's what they're gonna do. [01:26:10.640 --> 01:26:16.440] The legal specification for that is an oops. [01:26:16.440 --> 01:26:19.920] Yeah. [01:26:19.920 --> 01:26:30.680] Never interfere with someone when they're screwing up. We had a woman who was in court [01:26:30.680 --> 01:26:38.320] over a home equity note on eviction. So that goes to the district court. And she filed [01:26:38.320 --> 01:26:43.000] a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Now what her claim was, is that [01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:50.960] the plaintiffs lack capacity to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. [01:26:50.960 --> 01:26:56.240] But the judge gets it and he says, normally, these lawyers don't like me because normally [01:26:56.240 --> 01:27:03.720] I try to help borrowers to prevent eviction. But since you challenged my jurisdiction, [01:27:03.720 --> 01:27:07.480] I'm gonna rule against you. [01:27:07.480 --> 01:27:20.360] What? You did that in open court? Duh. Excuse me. So that was a good thing. We can get them [01:27:20.360 --> 01:27:27.760] to do something really stupid and wonderful. You've got almost precisely the same thing. [01:27:27.760 --> 01:27:33.360] Odd how these things come in groups. [01:27:33.360 --> 01:27:44.960] So does the person who is accused file the complaint? Or do you file it, Gary? [01:27:44.960 --> 01:27:48.160] I think anybody can file it. [01:27:48.160 --> 01:27:49.160] Absolutely. [01:27:49.160 --> 01:27:54.120] If you're made of aware that a crime has been committed, anybody can file it. [01:27:54.120 --> 01:27:56.840] Heck, you have a duty. [01:27:56.840 --> 01:28:02.040] That's right. You're actually commanded to under statute. [01:28:02.040 --> 01:28:09.360] And what I've been doing is taking my complaints directly to the grand jury, to the grand jury [01:28:09.360 --> 01:28:16.000] bailiff. And I'm about to take another set to Tarrant County because what they're doing [01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:21.320] is they're pretending to take them and then they're giving them to the prosecuting attorney. [01:28:21.320 --> 01:28:30.480] So what I'm gonna do is give a set of complaints to the bailiff and then wait two or three [01:28:30.480 --> 01:28:36.800] months until this grand jury is out of session. Come back and look at the minutes of the grand [01:28:36.800 --> 01:28:46.600] jury. And when I don't find a true bail, I'm gonna file criminal charges against the bailiff. [01:28:46.600 --> 01:28:55.820] Accused him of shielding from prosecution by secreting these complaints from the foreman. [01:28:55.820 --> 01:29:04.560] And what the defense, the bailiff will have is good faith reliance on competent authority. [01:29:04.560 --> 01:29:14.680] Well, prosecuting attorney told me to do this, that or the other. When the prosecuting attorney [01:29:14.680 --> 01:29:22.240] directs the bailiff, he's not a prosecuting attorney, he's a lawyer. [01:29:22.240 --> 01:29:24.560] That's right. [01:29:24.560 --> 01:29:35.480] Conducting legal advice, no immunity, zero. So my plan is to sue the prosecuting attorney [01:29:35.480 --> 01:29:43.520] for giving the bailiff. I'll sue them both and force them to stop interceding between [01:29:43.520 --> 01:29:51.920] us and the grand jury. Hang on, Gary, pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton, Deborah [01:29:51.920 --> 01:30:01.120] Stevens, the ruler of our radio. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. [01:30:01.120 --> 01:30:06.040] You've heard of hairspray, but how about DNA spray? It's a high-tech way to catch robbers, [01:30:06.040 --> 01:30:10.160] but down the road, it could be abused. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in [01:30:10.160 --> 01:30:14.520] a moment with what you need to know about aerosol microdots. [01:30:14.520 --> 01:30:18.880] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back [01:30:18.880 --> 01:30:24.480] again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:30:24.480 --> 01:30:30.640] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, [01:30:30.640 --> 01:30:35.800] it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, [01:30:35.800 --> 01:30:43.840] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage. [01:30:43.840 --> 01:30:48.120] Exploding ink can cover thieves in a profusion of purple, but nowadays they need to look [01:30:48.120 --> 01:30:53.720] out for spray on polka dots the size of pinheads too. The SelectiMark security system uses [01:30:53.720 --> 01:30:58.840] DNA spray on robbers as they make a getaway. The coating glows under ultraviolet light [01:30:58.840 --> 01:31:04.960] for weeks, and police can identify the crime scene because the spray contains unique microdots. [01:31:04.960 --> 01:31:09.320] While it's currently used to nab criminals, the spray could be turned to other purposes. [01:31:09.320 --> 01:31:14.880] Imagine attending a political rally and later glowing under ultraviolet light at the airport. [01:31:14.880 --> 01:31:19.840] It could give a whole new meaning to the no-fly list. Maybe we should all be wary of DNA spray. [01:31:19.840 --> 01:31:30.840] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31:30.840 --> 01:31:36.200] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11. [01:31:36.200 --> 01:31:41.640] The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded [01:31:41.640 --> 01:31:45.680] it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their [01:31:45.680 --> 01:31:50.080] lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. [01:31:50.080 --> 01:31:53.240] I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force [01:31:53.240 --> 01:31:58.280] pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to [01:31:58.280 --> 01:32:03.400] RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did [01:32:03.400 --> 01:32:07.260] your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the [01:32:07.260 --> 01:32:11.040] government caused it with their chem trails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. [01:32:11.040 --> 01:32:14.760] Okay, I might be kidding about the chem trails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why [01:32:14.760 --> 01:32:19.360] you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to [01:32:19.360 --> 01:32:24.420] no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept Bitcoin. As a multi-year A-plus member of the Better [01:32:24.420 --> 01:32:28.760] Business Bureau with zero complaints, you can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to [01:32:28.760 --> 01:32:36.560] handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to [01:32:36.560 --> 01:32:41.320] hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate [01:32:41.320 --> 01:32:46.040] another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. So if those [01:32:46.040 --> 01:32:54.520] out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. That's 512-992-8745 or [01:32:54.520 --> 01:32:59.040] hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. May not [01:32:59.040 --> 01:33:05.040] actually be kidding about chem trails. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. [01:33:05.040 --> 01:33:06.760] Logosradionetwork.com. [01:33:06.760 --> 01:33:33.640] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Radio. It looks like we lost Gary over the break. [01:33:33.640 --> 01:33:38.320] So we're going to go to Ralph in Texas. Hello, Ralph. What do you have for us today? [01:33:38.320 --> 01:33:43.000] Hello, Randy. How are you? [01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:46.520] I am good. I don't care what everybody says. [01:33:46.520 --> 01:33:52.160] Yeah, you sounded pretty good the earlier talking to Jeff. [01:33:52.160 --> 01:33:57.920] Well, Jeff beat me up over the break. There's still blood all over the studio. [01:33:57.920 --> 01:34:03.960] Well, I was surprised to hear him talk like that, but he did say he was doing some good [01:34:03.960 --> 01:34:06.200] up there in Maryland, so. [01:34:06.200 --> 01:34:09.800] Jeff, they are really doing well up there. [01:34:09.800 --> 01:34:18.280] Is he still there? Because I wanted to get you and him both discussing in agreement my [01:34:18.280 --> 01:34:25.400] question. Is Jeff still there? [01:34:25.400 --> 01:34:27.400] Go ahead. [01:34:27.400 --> 01:34:38.720] Okay. I heard on your show last week, I believe, that common law is case law. Is that correct? [01:34:38.720 --> 01:34:46.280] That is correct. That's the only common law we have now. Prior to the statutory codes, [01:34:46.280 --> 01:34:57.760] they impaneled judges or elected judges and expected those judges to dispense common sense [01:34:57.760 --> 01:35:08.120] law. So the law essentially was what the judge believed was fair and equitable. And then [01:35:08.120 --> 01:35:20.800] when we put in statutory law, the only remnant of common law was the way that the judges [01:35:20.800 --> 01:35:29.080] interpreted the intent of the statutory law. So yes, the only common law existing now that [01:35:29.080 --> 01:35:34.760] I can find after years of looking is case law. [01:35:34.760 --> 01:35:40.120] Right. And that's what all of our laws are today, unless it's something like Admiralty [01:35:40.120 --> 01:35:41.560] Maritime or? [01:35:41.560 --> 01:35:50.120] Well, the Maritime really doesn't exist when it exists, but not by itself. In 1965, Maritime [01:35:50.120 --> 01:35:57.880] law was merged with federal civil law. So if you go look for Maritime law, you won't [01:35:57.880 --> 01:36:02.160] find it. You'll find it in the Civil Code. [01:36:02.160 --> 01:36:10.040] So federal civil lawsuits would be considered common law, AKA case law? [01:36:10.040 --> 01:36:21.160] Well, no, they would be statutory law. There's no court system that we have that doesn't [01:36:21.160 --> 01:36:28.920] act under the dictates of a statutory code. And I once did a presentment to the Republic [01:36:28.920 --> 01:36:34.160] of Texas, and they're advocating the common law. And I addressed that with them. Are you [01:36:34.160 --> 01:36:44.880] kidding me? Right now, you can't get judges to enforce a very strict statutory code. And [01:36:44.880 --> 01:36:53.840] you want to take away that code and let judges rule any way they want to? I don't like that [01:36:53.840 --> 01:37:02.600] idea. I want a very strict statutory code. I can hold a judge too. I was just in Weatherford, [01:37:02.600 --> 01:37:09.920] Parker County, Texas. And this is a case on the right to travel, and this judge is doing [01:37:09.920 --> 01:37:18.080] everything he can to stamp that out. I have a motion in Lemony filed by the prosecuting [01:37:18.080 --> 01:37:25.560] attorney that asks the judge to forbid the defendant from bringing up anything related [01:37:25.560 --> 01:37:34.240] to the right to travel. And the judge granted that. Now I'm going to go to a grand jury [01:37:34.240 --> 01:37:41.720] and ask a grand jury to indict that judge for granting that, because it flies in the [01:37:41.720 --> 01:37:48.560] face of constitution and statutory law. If we were in the common law, I couldn't do [01:37:48.560 --> 01:37:56.520] this. I'm stuck with whatever the judge says. So I'm not much in one for common law. [01:37:56.520 --> 01:38:05.280] Okay. It makes sense to me. Early on, years ago, I heard that case law was not good because [01:38:05.280 --> 01:38:11.640] it just lets the judge queat the law the way he wants to. And then other judges come by [01:38:11.640 --> 01:38:15.080] and say, okay, well, I'm going to use that. And then I'm going to tweak it a little bit. [01:38:15.080 --> 01:38:19.520] And so before long, the law is just what anybody says it is. [01:38:19.520 --> 01:38:27.440] Okay. Well, it's not quite that simple. And we have a lot of people making those complaints, [01:38:27.440 --> 01:38:36.560] but those are generally the ones that haven't researched the law closely. A trial judge, [01:38:36.560 --> 01:38:41.840] the only purpose of the trial court is to set the record for appeal. It doesn't make any [01:38:41.840 --> 01:38:48.440] difference. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the judge rules. What matters [01:38:48.440 --> 01:38:53.720] is that you get the facts and the law on the record, because when you get it to the appeals [01:38:53.720 --> 01:39:01.440] court, they live in a whole different world than the trial judge does. The appeals court [01:39:01.440 --> 01:39:08.560] makes these rulings. And once this ruling is made, all of these Shisra lawyers out here [01:39:08.560 --> 01:39:15.600] can take these rulings and run with them. So if the appeals court issues bad law, then [01:39:15.600 --> 01:39:23.400] they undermine the corpus juris, the body of law. A trial judge can rule against you because [01:39:23.400 --> 01:39:28.880] he got paid or he went out and played golf with the other attorney and the other attorney [01:39:28.880 --> 01:39:34.920] lost 500 bucks to him in a golf game. The judge come in and rule against you. Well, [01:39:34.920 --> 01:39:42.000] in the end, you don't care. And the dumber he's ruling is the better, the more likely [01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:49.000] the court of appeals is to overturn it. So we used to have a lot of people making these [01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:54.240] complaints and that's because they didn't understand that the trial court is not that [01:39:54.240 --> 01:40:02.320] important. Appeals court is what's important. And because they live in this other house, [01:40:02.320 --> 01:40:09.040] they're responsible for the corpus juris. So when they issue a ruling, everybody starts [01:40:09.040 --> 01:40:17.040] using it and you'll find where they come back and change a ruling. They issued this ruling [01:40:17.040 --> 01:40:23.440] and they find that lawyers used it in a way they didn't anticipate. So they got to come [01:40:23.440 --> 01:40:33.280] back and fix it. We really do have a good system. And the problems we're having in [01:40:33.280 --> 01:40:41.600] the lower courts is that you and I are not taking these judges to task. Thus, my difference [01:40:41.600 --> 01:40:48.200] with Jeff at the beginning, he's apparently having a whole lot better luck than me because [01:40:48.200 --> 01:40:54.440] I'm not winning 100% of my cases. And I've had a lot of lawyers look at my pleadings. [01:40:54.440 --> 01:41:03.440] They like my work. And I really struggled to get well crafted documents, but the judges [01:41:03.440 --> 01:41:13.080] just don't care in the lower courts. I just had a ruling out of New York and the issues [01:41:13.080 --> 01:41:18.440] they didn't want to look at, they just ignored. Didn't respond to them at all. So I'm filing [01:41:18.440 --> 01:41:26.200] against the judge for official official oppression. He denied me in my right to petition the court [01:41:26.200 --> 01:41:32.440] for redress of grievance. Well, actually not me, this was someone else I'm helping. But [01:41:32.440 --> 01:41:36.400] he denied denied this guy and his right to petition the court for redress of grievance [01:41:36.400 --> 01:41:41.600] because he didn't hear the issue that he brought before the court. And most of the time lawyers [01:41:41.600 --> 01:41:48.000] don't take that on. And that's because lawyers are dangling before that judge by their bar [01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:55.640] card. I'm not. So I don't have to put up with this nonsense. So if you don't want to do [01:41:55.640 --> 01:42:01.760] your job, get on off that bench and we'll have you replaced by somebody who will. You [01:42:01.760 --> 01:42:07.640] don't like me? I don't care. You just determine the facts in accordance with the rules of [01:42:07.640 --> 01:42:12.760] evidence. Apply the laws, it comes to you the facts in the case you failed to do that. [01:42:12.760 --> 01:42:21.520] Then you as the servant are subject to me as the master. That's what I see is the real [01:42:21.520 --> 01:42:26.600] problem. And it don't make any difference how we change laws. If you and I, the individuals [01:42:26.600 --> 01:42:34.440] don't start policing our public officials, it will make a difference what the law is. [01:42:34.440 --> 01:42:43.080] So back to you. I think you had a more specific question. I've been kind of going over really [01:42:43.080 --> 01:42:52.960] general stuff. Okay. Well, throw a couple of things out here. Paraphrasing a quote, [01:42:52.960 --> 01:43:02.600] no law shall be written that the common man cannot understand. Right. It goes to the reasonable [01:43:02.600 --> 01:43:13.120] person of ordinary prudent standard. Okay. Okay. Now I read this in a civil complaint. [01:43:13.120 --> 01:43:19.960] It was item number 17, which is irrelevant really. It says plaintiff required the services [01:43:19.960 --> 01:43:29.600] of an attorney to bring this action and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably. [01:43:29.600 --> 01:43:38.240] Now I have a problem with that. Okay. What is reasonable? Wait, wait, wait, hang on. [01:43:38.240 --> 01:43:43.960] We're about to go to break. This is Randy Kelp, Deborah Stevens, the ruler of our radio. [01:43:43.960 --> 01:43:48.680] We'll give out the call number of this. This is the last segment, but make sure you go [01:43:48.680 --> 01:44:00.840] to our sponsors and help us support this radio network. We'll be right back. You feel tired [01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:05.560] when talking about important topics like money and politics. Are you confused by words like [01:44:05.560 --> 01:44:10.100] the constitution or the federal reserve? If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest [01:44:10.100 --> 01:44:15.560] disease known today. Stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions of other [01:44:15.560 --> 01:44:20.600] Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number [01:44:20.600 --> 01:44:26.080] one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately, [01:44:26.080 --> 01:44:30.760] that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at [01:44:30.760 --> 01:44:34.640] Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports [01:44:34.640 --> 01:44:39.880] zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational [01:44:39.880 --> 01:44:45.240] documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from [01:44:45.240 --> 01:44:53.320] stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or Brave New [01:44:53.320 --> 01:44:57.040] Bookstore.com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment [01:44:57.040 --> 01:45:02.120] and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff [01:45:02.120 --> 01:45:08.400] or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, [01:45:08.400 --> 01:45:15.720] easy to understand, four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If [01:45:15.720 --> 01:45:20.920] you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know [01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:26.240] what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and [01:45:26.240 --> 01:45:32.720] now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case [01:45:32.720 --> 01:45:38.160] winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should [01:45:38.160 --> 01:45:43.960] understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive [01:45:43.960 --> 01:45:51.320] our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and [01:45:51.320 --> 01:45:57.480] much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free [01:45:57.480 --> 01:46:08.960] 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:08.960 --> 01:46:23.880] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio. We're talking to Ralph in Texas. Okay, [01:46:23.880 --> 01:46:32.880] go ahead, Ralph. Well, what I'm trying to figure out is how to put what I believe is [01:46:32.880 --> 01:46:42.640] a novel argument into a civil lawsuit. I cannot find references on the internet as of yet [01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:53.000] and I have spent some time trying to find any reference to pro se compensation. Attorneys [01:46:53.000 --> 01:47:01.400] are paid for, well, clients are paid, reimbursed for their attorney. Just like this article [01:47:01.400 --> 01:47:05.160] I just read, I think it required the services of an attorney to bring this action and to [01:47:05.160 --> 01:47:11.760] obligate it to compensate his attorney reasonably. So those are attorney's fees. But if ignorance [01:47:11.760 --> 01:47:16.120] of the law is no excuse for violating it, then no law should be written that the problem [01:47:16.120 --> 01:47:24.960] a man cannot understand. Why is it that people who choose, freely choose to go to work, make [01:47:24.960 --> 01:47:31.200] a bunch of money, give some of that to the attorney, and then get reimbursed and whenever [01:47:31.200 --> 01:47:37.880] they get paid, attorneys get paid. They're getting paid so much money that it covers [01:47:37.880 --> 01:47:41.680] their paper, their ink, their printers, their copiers, their internet connection, their [01:47:41.680 --> 01:47:49.800] books, whereas a pro se goes in, he gets cost. He doesn't get, you know, hey, I had to buy [01:47:49.800 --> 01:47:57.040] a small package of paper clips, forget it, you can't get it, you know. Pro se is only [01:47:57.040 --> 01:48:05.880] getting his fees and cost. So this really, you know, this has been a problem for years. [01:48:05.880 --> 01:48:15.920] Let me address that. Ordinarily, it wasn't intended that litigants be reimbursed for [01:48:15.920 --> 01:48:23.840] their cost of litigating a case. And then we get lawyers that help people litigate case. [01:48:23.840 --> 01:48:33.240] Now you don't have to hire a lawyer. So you can litigate the case yourself. But if you [01:48:33.240 --> 01:48:42.760] choose to hire a lawyer, the legislature put in a special authorization for the courts [01:48:42.760 --> 01:48:52.240] to allow for fees to that hired counsel. There was no provision for allowing a litigant to [01:48:52.240 --> 01:49:00.240] collect fees for litigating his own case. And the courts have consistently held that. [01:49:00.240 --> 01:49:12.920] Okay, hold on. Can you hear me? Yes. What if we change that word from fees to time compensated? [01:49:12.920 --> 01:49:24.280] That would, okay, restate the code with that adjustment in it. Well, I don't have the [01:49:24.280 --> 01:49:32.560] code. I need to find it. Okay, okay, okay. Then that would make it so that whoever loses [01:49:32.560 --> 01:49:46.200] the case pays for the whole case. And that is problematic from my perspective, because [01:49:46.200 --> 01:49:57.720] nobody's ever 100% guilty. And it would have a strong detrimental effect on an ordinary [01:49:57.720 --> 01:50:08.120] person's ability to fight these cases. Because if you don't have the personal funds to keep [01:50:08.120 --> 01:50:16.760] up with the other guy, these guys with deep pockets, they can hire lawyers and drive you [01:50:16.760 --> 01:50:25.440] in the dirt. And we have this now where they can hire lawyers and just beat you by attrition. [01:50:25.440 --> 01:50:34.080] This is what the banks do. If we allow not only the lawyer to be paid, but the litigant [01:50:34.080 --> 01:50:39.280] to be paid, it would be much easier for them to swallow us. [01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:47.200] Sorry, I don't see it. I thought that's what was happening now. [01:50:47.200 --> 01:50:53.320] It is happening now. They're doing that now, but I'm afraid that if we made it so that [01:50:53.320 --> 01:51:01.480] the litigant could claim his cost for litigating the case as well as his lawyer's cost, it [01:51:01.480 --> 01:51:10.320] would only exacerbate the problem. The thing that would fix the problem is if they couldn't [01:51:10.320 --> 01:51:12.320] get attorney fees. [01:51:12.320 --> 01:51:16.320] Yeah, but I... [01:51:16.320 --> 01:51:20.920] Yeah, that wouldn't fix it either, really. [01:51:20.920 --> 01:51:24.800] That sounds like a pretty big goal there. [01:51:24.800 --> 01:51:31.600] For the most part, if you're a pro se litigant, the other side doesn't get fees from you. [01:51:31.600 --> 01:51:37.800] We almost never have the court allow fees against a pro se litigant. [01:51:37.800 --> 01:51:42.600] Okay, I was not thinking of that. [01:51:42.600 --> 01:51:49.320] I mean, it can happen and I'm sure it has, but we never run into it. Hey, well, they [01:51:49.320 --> 01:51:52.320] always ask for it, but they don't get it. [01:51:52.320 --> 01:52:01.320] Well, that just threw the biggest wrench in my argument right there. I am going to still [01:52:01.320 --> 01:52:08.600] consider how to put this in the wherefore clause of an argument to be compensated for [01:52:08.600 --> 01:52:19.520] my time. And for them to compensate attorneys is just sanctioning a... [01:52:19.520 --> 01:52:26.600] Oh, maybe I misunderstood. I think maybe I understand your position better. You're saying [01:52:26.600 --> 01:52:33.000] don't compensate the attorneys, compensate the litigants. And if the litigant wants to [01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:38.480] hire an attorney, he takes it out of his compensation. Instead of him keeping the compensation, he [01:52:38.480 --> 01:52:41.840] gives it to the lawyer. Is that where you're going? [01:52:41.840 --> 01:52:46.720] No, but that sounds better than where I was going. [01:52:46.720 --> 01:52:55.560] So if I'm a litigant now and I win, I have a right to get the time that I spent defending [01:52:55.560 --> 01:52:56.560] this. [01:52:56.560 --> 01:53:04.040] Well, so you're taking my argument and just tweaking it a little bit to all litigants [01:53:04.040 --> 01:53:10.440] instead of pro se litigants. And I like it better. But what I had started with was if [01:53:10.440 --> 01:53:17.400] the clients can be reimbursed for the money they spent on their attorney, why can't pro [01:53:17.400 --> 01:53:23.840] se be reimbursed? They're going to spend twice the amount of time that an experienced [01:53:23.840 --> 01:53:31.280] lawyer will. And in many cases, they achieve the same, if not better results. The ADA in [01:53:31.280 --> 01:53:40.280] 2007 or 2008 said that 50%, over 50% of all court-appointed attorneys were incompetent. [01:53:40.280 --> 01:53:44.480] I think it's way over 50%. [01:53:44.480 --> 01:53:51.320] Well, I heard that on NTR News. I haven't been able to get a copy of it in the archives, [01:53:51.320 --> 01:53:53.720] but that's good to hear now. [01:53:53.720 --> 01:54:04.800] And in the lawyer's defense, they are incompetent because they're forced to be by the judges. [01:54:04.800 --> 01:54:08.760] They're afraid to adequately adjudicate your case, afraid those judges have kicked their [01:54:08.760 --> 01:54:14.840] behinds. Anyway, that's a different issue. [01:54:14.840 --> 01:54:18.960] But that's what they get for having a bar card, huh? [01:54:18.960 --> 01:54:28.000] You just can't get a lawyer who will actively adjudicate your case if there's any chance [01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:34.120] it may annoy the judge. Because when your case is gone, he's going to be back before [01:54:34.120 --> 01:54:42.800] this judge with another client. And the lawyer is in business. He's not Perry Mason. He's [01:54:42.800 --> 01:54:51.520] not independently wealthy. He has to make money. And if the judge will rule against [01:54:51.520 --> 01:54:56.760] his next client to get back at him over this client, he's not going to actively adjudicate [01:54:56.760 --> 01:55:04.680] your issue, not near as aggressively as you would yourself. [01:55:04.680 --> 01:55:13.800] Randy, what if I put this in my wherefore clause that I want to be re-accomplished for [01:55:13.800 --> 01:55:24.920] my time spent and I use, say, about 300 words, a couple of big paragraphs, and it goes into [01:55:24.920 --> 01:55:29.320] things like, no law shall be written if combatant cannot understand. Ignorance of the law is [01:55:29.320 --> 01:55:40.560] no excuse. And there is no one required to hire an attorney. It's done by free choice. [01:55:40.560 --> 01:55:45.440] What would you think of that? Just imagine it written best possible light. I'm not going [01:55:45.440 --> 01:55:50.220] to try to read all of it right now. But what would you think of that? I mean, we were talking [01:55:50.220 --> 01:55:53.960] on it. We were touching on it. Can you kind of recap? What do you think they would do [01:55:53.960 --> 01:56:03.080] with it? Do you think it's a silly idea? The problem with that is we're graduating [01:56:03.080 --> 01:56:13.960] 40,000 lawyers a year. We've got way more lawyers than are needed. Per capita, we have, [01:56:13.960 --> 01:56:21.440] I forget how many magnitudes of times more lawyers than any other country. And you're [01:56:21.440 --> 01:56:27.760] going to have all of those lawyers rising up in arms to prevent any legislation of that [01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:40.880] nature. That's going to be a large hill to get over. These lawyers have a fit at any [01:56:40.880 --> 01:56:46.800] time you do. Lawyers are trying to get it so that no private citizen can adjudicate [01:56:46.800 --> 01:56:51.400] their own case. They're struggling to get that. They're just bumping up against the [01:56:51.400 --> 01:57:00.320] constitution, but they're doing everything they can to get there anyway. Would that fall [01:57:00.320 --> 01:57:05.200] into a Supreme Court challenge, constitutional Supreme Court challenge? Hey, if these people [01:57:05.200 --> 01:57:09.920] can be reimbursed for their attorney, why can't I be reimbursed for my time? [01:57:09.920 --> 01:57:15.800] Randy, can I jump in here, Randy? Absolutely. Yeah. I just wanted to make a quick comment. [01:57:15.800 --> 01:57:22.600] Yeah. We should be able to be compensated for our time as pro se litigants, but here's [01:57:22.600 --> 01:57:28.440] why it's never going to fly besides the political reasons that Randy's saying that the lawyers [01:57:28.440 --> 01:57:35.600] run the legislature and they're not going to allow it. It's because when there's compensation [01:57:35.600 --> 01:57:42.720] for attorney's fees, that's considered damages. That's considered an out of pocket expense [01:57:42.720 --> 01:57:48.520] that you're being reimbursed for. And if it's your own time, that's not damages because [01:57:48.520 --> 01:57:52.940] you're not out any federal reserve notes. And the reason they're not going to compensate [01:57:52.940 --> 01:57:58.600] you for your time is because you're not licensed to practice law and so you're not allowed [01:57:58.600 --> 01:58:06.560] to bill for your time. Now, maybe if you had some kind of paralegal certification, maybe [01:58:06.560 --> 01:58:13.240] you could bill paralegal fees, but probably not. It's because you can't bill for your [01:58:13.240 --> 01:58:19.280] time for legal services. If you could bill for your time for legal services under a license, [01:58:19.280 --> 01:58:24.960] then they would let you do it. But just some random person, I mean, what's the standard? [01:58:24.960 --> 01:58:29.680] What are you going to bill? I mean, $500 an hour, $10 an hour. There's no standard. There's [01:58:29.680 --> 01:58:34.920] no profession like that. So that's why it's never going to happen. Okay. [01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:38.920] Well, that's really, really good point. I hadn't considered that. [01:58:38.920 --> 01:58:42.560] Okay. Listen, folks, we are out of time. Randy, bring us out. [01:58:42.560 --> 01:58:47.040] Okay. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. We'll be back tomorrow night [01:58:47.040 --> 01:58:50.600] on our four hour informer. [01:58:50.600 --> 01:58:56.680] Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament [01:58:56.680 --> 01:59:02.120] Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain [01:59:02.120 --> 01:59:07.720] what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of [01:59:07.720 --> 01:59:16.720] life. Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 [01:59:16.720 --> 01:59:23.880] or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over [01:59:23.880 --> 01:59:30.340] 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. [01:59:30.340 --> 01:59:34.920] This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament [01:59:34.920 --> 01:59:46.640] Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at [01:59:46.640 --> 01:59:59.560] bfa.org.