[00:00.000 --> 00:05.800] The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. [00:05.800 --> 00:09.480] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [00:09.480 --> 00:10.920] Our liberty depends on it. [00:10.920 --> 00:14.880] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember [00:14.880 --> 00:17.000] your First Amendment rights. [00:17.000 --> 00:18.580] Privacy is under attack. [00:18.580 --> 00:22.200] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [00:22.200 --> 00:26.960] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [00:26.960 --> 00:32.040] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [00:32.040 --> 00:34.720] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [00:34.720 --> 00:39.000] This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search [00:39.000 --> 00:42.560] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [00:42.560 --> 00:44.760] Start over with Startpage. [00:44.760 --> 00:47.840] Spar, it's what fighters do. [00:47.840 --> 00:50.800] It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment. [00:50.800 --> 00:54.520] If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you. [00:54.520 --> 01:01.640] Spar with an extra P, S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, [01:01.640 --> 01:03.120] and R for religion. [01:03.120 --> 01:07.040] Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, [01:07.040 --> 01:10.560] assembly, and religion, but petition for redress is another matter. [01:10.560 --> 01:14.640] We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [01:14.640 --> 01:18.160] It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out [01:18.160 --> 01:20.840] the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail. [01:20.840 --> 01:31.200] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:31.200 --> 01:34.840] The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. [01:34.840 --> 01:38.280] They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. [01:38.280 --> 01:39.760] Our liberty depends on it. [01:39.760 --> 01:43.680] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember [01:43.680 --> 01:46.800] one of your constitutional rights. [01:46.800 --> 01:48.400] Privacy is under attack. [01:48.400 --> 01:52.000] When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. [01:52.000 --> 01:56.760] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:56.760 --> 02:01.760] So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. [02:01.760 --> 02:04.520] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. [02:04.520 --> 02:08.820] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search [02:08.820 --> 02:12.360] engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [02:12.360 --> 02:15.960] Start over with StartPage. [02:15.960 --> 02:20.320] When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill [02:20.320 --> 02:22.400] of Rights in a big old bear hug. [02:22.400 --> 02:26.920] It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, arms [02:26.920 --> 02:30.720] that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight. [02:30.720 --> 02:31.720] Get it? [02:31.720 --> 02:34.040] Two arms, bear hug, bear arms? [02:34.040 --> 02:37.640] The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well [02:37.640 --> 02:43.400] when he said, the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary [02:43.400 --> 02:47.960] conduct, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which [02:47.960 --> 02:50.600] historically has proved to always be possible. [02:50.600 --> 02:52.560] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. [02:52.560 --> 03:14.080] More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [03:14.080 --> 03:22.680] Thank you. [03:44.080 --> 03:52.080] too good to use. I thought I was good for the gander. I'm gonna work for the booze. [03:56.080 --> 04:02.960] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Root of La Radio on this Friday, the 10th of June, [04:02.960 --> 04:12.000] 2022, and we're talking to Chris in Colorado. Okay, Chris, where were we before I almost [04:12.000 --> 04:21.120] fell off the cliff? Just the procedure of making a mark for the record for appeal. [04:22.880 --> 04:27.440] Now, these federal prostate health deaths, people are supposed to be pretty on point, [04:28.080 --> 04:33.440] but half of them are not. Half of them read parts of my case, half of them don't. That's about how [04:34.080 --> 04:37.920] concerned they are about helping people. I think they get credit for doing pro bono stuff. I think [04:37.920 --> 04:45.520] that's how it works. But this one woman, she was about 50-50, and she helped me and then dissuaded [04:45.520 --> 04:52.080] me on some of my stuff. But the help part was you want the judge to reconsider some of these [04:52.080 --> 04:55.840] things. And she actually agreed with it, that I actually addressed most of them pretty clear, [04:55.840 --> 05:02.720] but he may be maneuvering some things. But she said, write your motion for reconsideration. [05:02.720 --> 05:09.280] You don't need to file another hearing before your next status hearing. And then do your amended [05:09.280 --> 05:14.640] complaint as well. And then in your motion for reconsideration, actually write up how your [05:15.760 --> 05:20.240] counts would be in your amended complaint. And then if he grants it, then you just add those into [05:20.240 --> 05:26.640] another amended complaint. And then if he doesn't grant it, then you have it noticed for appeal [05:27.520 --> 05:31.440] instead of having to put an objection or anything like that, because you already asked for a motion [05:31.440 --> 05:36.800] for reconsideration. I'm wondering how stringent the appeals courts would be [05:37.600 --> 05:44.640] if I don't have proper notices in my file? Well, generally, especially a federal appeals [05:44.640 --> 05:51.120] court, if you don't have proper notices of appeal, they don't touch them. They can't get to them. [05:52.160 --> 05:54.560] They'll tell you that you didn't perfect your claim. [05:54.560 --> 06:02.160] Okay. But this sounds like, you know, this lawyer, whoever it is, is giving you good information of [06:02.160 --> 06:09.840] how to handle it. You can perfect your claim by requesting reconsideration. That perfects your [06:09.840 --> 06:18.480] claim. It logs your objection to the ruling. Okay. So I'm kind of doing it all in one motion [06:18.480 --> 06:29.360] right there. Sounds efficient. Okay. Okay. And then the last thing, Randy, is one of the tricky [06:29.360 --> 06:34.800] things the judge did is he dismissed a lot of things without prejudice. Therefore, I can amend [06:34.800 --> 06:40.880] them in my complaint. But he dismissed one thing without prejudice and without leave to amend, [06:40.880 --> 06:48.000] without prejudice and without leave to amend, which means I have a claim if I want to bring it, [06:48.000 --> 06:54.480] he just won't let me bring it in his court. So that's going to be one of my motions for [06:54.480 --> 07:00.640] reconsideration. But if he, if he, if he upholds that, if he denies it, I'm wondering if I can [07:00.640 --> 07:08.720] bring that claim parallel in state court along with what the state court will do is you object [07:08.720 --> 07:14.720] to that ruling and the state court will rule whether or not they believe you should have had [07:14.720 --> 07:22.480] opportunity to bring that issue. And if they do, then they will remand it to the court to [07:24.080 --> 07:32.880] address that issue. I'll kick it back up. Yeah. Okay. Can I do that right now though? Can I do [07:32.880 --> 07:38.720] that in the next couple of months or do I have to wait for this case to end? It depends on how, [07:38.720 --> 07:43.520] how this ruling affects the adjudication of the rest of your case. [07:46.720 --> 07:56.800] If it eliminates your ability to defend or to prosecute your case, then it's grounds for [07:56.800 --> 08:03.360] either interlocutory or mandamus. If you believe the judge ruled improperly mandamus, [08:06.240 --> 08:12.640] if you believe he failed to properly apply the law to the facts, then interlocutory appeal. [08:15.760 --> 08:22.800] I see. I could do that. Him telling you, you can't appeal this and you can't [08:22.800 --> 08:26.400] ask for reconsideration. That goes to mandamus. [08:29.200 --> 08:35.360] Well, he's saying, he's saying, no, I can bring up the claim. I just can't bring it up in my suit [08:35.360 --> 08:39.920] because of the nature of the suit. It has to be in another court at a later time. That's basically [08:39.920 --> 08:45.120] what he's saying. He's referencing some case law, but the case law doesn't exactly say that. The [08:45.120 --> 08:50.640] case law says you can bring actions against insurance companies for fraud. I've quoted that, [08:50.640 --> 08:53.440] but he's ignoring it because I think he doesn't want to touch the subject. [08:54.800 --> 09:01.040] I'm wondering if I can play a chess move here and go ahead and file that particular claim in [09:01.040 --> 09:06.080] state court against the insurance company because he says it has to be separate from the client. [09:06.080 --> 09:11.360] That's fine. Then let them say, no, it's actually very related to the case. Like you said, [09:11.360 --> 09:15.200] have them kick it up to federal court or we just have two separate lawsuits going on. [09:15.200 --> 09:29.600] I would say that's one strategy. You can ask the federal court to order him to consider this issue [09:29.600 --> 09:36.720] in, no wait, you're in the federal court now. You can ask the court of appeals to order the [09:36.720 --> 09:41.280] federal judge to address this issue, or you can take it back to the state. [09:41.280 --> 09:49.280] Okay. That would probably be the least confrontational maybe and that way the [09:49.280 --> 09:55.680] state can say, well, yes. Now we have two opinions coming into the topic and they say, [09:55.680 --> 09:59.040] well, this needs to be addressed in the original suit or we'll go ahead and [09:59.040 --> 10:03.760] adjudicate it on our level and then it's parallel. That's what I'm confused about because [10:03.760 --> 10:10.480] they're so closely tied. I'm not sure if I'm going to be poking a rat's nest here or I'm going to run [10:10.480 --> 10:17.840] into- Well, the judge directed you to take it to the state. If the state raises an issue, [10:18.720 --> 10:25.120] then you can come back to the court of appeals and ask them to order the judge to [10:26.880 --> 10:30.640] hear this issue based on the ruling of the state court. [10:30.640 --> 10:40.880] Okay. Okay. All right. I'll find out if there's anything prohibiting having- I mean, [10:40.880 --> 10:43.680] the judge has basically given me permission to do it to the state because he's saying he [10:43.680 --> 10:49.440] doesn't want it in his court. So that's basically saying you have leave to go ahead and file it, [10:49.440 --> 10:55.600] but not here. So that's what he's ruling. So I might as well take advantage of it. [10:55.600 --> 11:00.880] Actually, I don't know what I'm thinking about it. I agree. I wouldn't do what the judges- generally [11:00.880 --> 11:10.880] federal judges give you good advice. Okay. Okay. That's all I got. Thank you, gentlemen. [11:11.680 --> 11:17.840] Okay. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Okay. Now we're going to go to a first-time caller, [11:17.840 --> 11:25.200] Ron in Florida. Hello, Ron. What do you have for us today? Hey, Brett. It's good to [11:25.200 --> 11:29.680] actually get to talk to you guys in person. I normally listen to you by podcast. I think [11:29.680 --> 11:36.640] I've been listening on podcasts since before Brett joined you. And I normally listen at [11:36.640 --> 11:40.640] a little over one and a half times a normal speed so that I can get a lot more information [11:40.640 --> 11:45.840] a lot more quickly. And I just wanted to say, Brett, you're right. Randy really does talk [11:45.840 --> 11:57.760] slow in real life. Well, I deliberately talk slower on the radio. Yeah. So people like [11:57.760 --> 12:03.840] me can understand you, right? Yeah. Well, you can't see my lips. Yeah. So you have to [12:03.840 --> 12:09.920] take what you hear and then formulate that in your mind. When you're looking at someone, [12:09.920 --> 12:16.400] being able to read their lips at the same time speeds up the process. So on the radio, [12:16.400 --> 12:23.600] I try to speak a little slower. All right. I'll accept that for an explanation. But anyway, [12:25.600 --> 12:30.400] I've learned a whole lot. It's been a lot of fun. And it's actually fun to participate a little. [12:32.800 --> 12:36.320] One thing I did want to mention before I actually go into what I wanted to talk about, [12:36.320 --> 12:44.000] and that is that I know Randy had mentioned many times that when you presented a petition for [12:44.000 --> 12:47.760] declaratory judgment, you found out that most of the lawyers and the judges really don't know what [12:47.760 --> 12:53.760] it's all about. And I found something really interesting in Florida in that there is a whole [12:53.760 --> 12:59.360] chapter, chapter 86. I know Brett, you're pretty good at doing research. There's a whole chapter [12:59.360 --> 13:06.080] on just declaratory judgments. And I went with a group of people, a group of homeschool kids, [13:06.080 --> 13:11.600] there was a homeschool child that we're kind of like grandparents to. And we went into the [13:11.600 --> 13:18.160] district court in Hillsborough County, which is the Tampa Bay area. And a young judge, Judge Palermo [13:18.160 --> 13:23.200] took us on a tour and he was appointed by Ron DeSantis. And I guess that kind of says he's a [13:23.200 --> 13:29.120] pretty conservative guy. But he actually brought up the whole idea of declaratory judgments in his [13:29.120 --> 13:35.120] tour. And I was a bit surprised because of all the problems you said you had had in the past in Texas. [13:35.120 --> 13:40.000] That Florida seems to have a pretty good focus on that. So I think that's a good thing. [13:40.720 --> 13:46.080] Wonderful. Yeah. We have Tina on and Tina had exactly the issue you're speaking to [13:47.120 --> 13:51.440] filing a declaratory judgment and the courts and the lawyers didn't know what it was. [13:52.560 --> 13:54.880] Yeah. And that's California, you would think they would. [13:57.760 --> 14:00.400] But then again, it is California after all. [14:00.400 --> 14:03.440] After all. Yeah, true. Yeah. [14:03.440 --> 14:06.800] But then there's also the possibility that they know exactly what it is [14:07.360 --> 14:11.040] and they're hoping that they can bluff and maybe she won't know what it is. [14:11.680 --> 14:18.960] Maybe they can get away with a little sleight of hand and throw it all away and see if she won't [14:18.960 --> 14:24.320] know how to hold him accountable. Yeah, they do a lot of that out there, don't they? [14:24.320 --> 14:33.280] So anyhow, I wanted to just get into the subject matter. But I did want to mention something. [14:34.400 --> 14:39.920] I actually, when this thing started back in May, I was a bit surprised when it happened. But [14:39.920 --> 14:45.360] because I did some research, something that you guys have kind of tutored us along the way, [14:46.400 --> 14:52.640] I kind of walked right into the solution. But at the same time, the way this thing was presented [14:52.640 --> 14:58.560] to me, I kind of felt like why should I just hand them a solution if I can sting them first [14:58.560 --> 15:03.840] for the way they approached it? So I guess in giving you the information, I'm kind of looking [15:03.840 --> 15:10.160] for an opinion whether or not, you know, my goal would be, I'm a guardian, a professional guardian [15:10.160 --> 15:18.320] by vocation. And I am a baby boomer. I'm 69 years old just about. So I don't really have any access [15:18.320 --> 15:23.120] to grind from the standpoint of, you know, I don't, you know, my kids are brought up, [15:23.120 --> 15:26.960] everything like you, Randy, you said it over and over again, you know, I've done all the things [15:26.960 --> 15:34.320] that I needed to do. And I can take time to fight, pick a fight and fight if it's worthwhile. So I'm [15:34.320 --> 15:38.880] kind of looking to you guys to say, Hey, you know, there's something here that, you know, maybe by [15:38.880 --> 15:46.160] picking a fight, might put some people in a place. And as a guardian, I mean, I really try to protect [15:46.160 --> 15:50.640] people from the kind of thing that I actually just got presented with. And that's, you know, things [15:50.640 --> 15:58.000] where you just, you think people are out of line and what they, what they do. And so I just thought [15:58.000 --> 16:05.760] that, you know, maybe it'd be worth a fight. So I wanted to just give you an idea what I'm talking [16:05.760 --> 16:14.560] about. And Randy, I actually sent you an email back in May. And it had two letter attachments [16:14.560 --> 16:18.720] from the Department of Elder Affairs of the state of Florida. Did that ring a bell to you at all? [16:20.320 --> 16:23.600] No, but I get so many emails. [16:24.240 --> 16:26.160] Department of Elder Affairs? [16:27.200 --> 16:33.680] Department of Elder Affairs. Yeah, they're the ones who handle, you know, retirees. They guard [16:33.680 --> 16:38.960] against exploitation of senior citizens, things like that. They run, you know, the senior health [16:38.960 --> 16:46.320] care system, things like that. And they actually preside over guardianship. I know a lot of people [16:46.320 --> 16:51.280] don't know what it is. We're falling off the cliff in a minute, I think here. Yep, you're right. [16:52.400 --> 16:57.360] We're just about to go to our sponsors and we'll check back with you on the other side. We'll be [16:57.360 --> 17:04.000] right back. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even [17:04.000 --> 17:09.680] lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has [17:09.680 --> 17:14.720] won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too. You'll get [17:14.720 --> 17:19.760] step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights [17:19.760 --> 17:25.280] statutes. What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons. How to answer letters [17:25.280 --> 17:29.920] and phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report. How to turn the financial [17:29.920 --> 17:36.480] tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears proven method is the solution [17:36.480 --> 17:41.200] for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more [17:41.200 --> 17:47.120] information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email [17:47.120 --> 17:57.040] michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com [17:57.040 --> 18:03.760] to learn how to stop debt collectors now. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law [18:03.760 --> 18:07.760] traffic seminar. In today's America we live in an us against them society and if we the people [18:07.760 --> 18:12.160] are ever going to have a free society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. [18:12.160 --> 18:15.840] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own [18:15.840 --> 18:20.240] private capacity, and most importantly the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us [18:20.240 --> 18:24.960] the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [18:24.960 --> 18:28.960] Former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio has put together the most [18:28.960 --> 18:33.040] comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how [18:33.040 --> 18:37.200] to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going [18:37.200 --> 18:41.920] to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's [18:41.920 --> 18:46.640] book The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 [18:46.640 --> 18:50.880] seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for [18:50.880 --> 18:55.120] your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and [18:55.120 --> 19:21.840] together we can have the free society we all want and deserve. [19:25.120 --> 19:25.840] My friend [19:55.600 --> 19:57.680] is everything to me that's why i call him [19:59.280 --> 20:03.520] and me pray to him because he's the only one who could answer him [20:18.080 --> 20:23.440] okay we are back i'm randy kelton brett fountain rule of our radio and we're talking to ron in [20:23.440 --> 20:32.240] Florida okay ron uh you are a guardian what is your primary issue you want to address today [20:33.280 --> 20:40.640] okay um just to give you a touch of background um i've been a guardian for 10 years and at the [20:40.640 --> 20:45.680] beginning of guardianship after being uh taking the course and being certified you have to go [20:45.680 --> 20:50.960] through a level two background check which is fingerprinting and they do a criminal background [20:50.960 --> 20:56.320] check and they get the report of course make sure that you haven't done anything that would [20:56.880 --> 21:04.880] disqualify you from you know taking care of the elderly so um this is the third time that i would [21:04.880 --> 21:11.520] have had a background check done and i got to florida in 2007 i actually had two background [21:11.520 --> 21:16.560] checks for other things i did when i first got there so this would be the fifth level two [21:16.560 --> 21:22.880] background check that i submitted to since i've been in florida since 2007 and i received this [21:24.000 --> 21:30.480] the guardians have to renew on basically the end of april every year and the background check of [21:30.480 --> 21:35.120] course like i said is once every five years so i did my background check on my 10 year anniversary [21:35.680 --> 21:42.720] and i got this letter in uh may 13th you know i thought that uh i had notes and i looked at it [21:42.720 --> 21:46.000] i said this letter is so short i'm probably better off reading the letter than i am talking about [21:46.000 --> 21:53.680] the notes so i'll just read it quickly if that's okay with you it says yes go ahead okay it says [21:53.680 --> 21:58.400] ron the office of public and professional guardians which they call OPPG here in florida [21:59.280 --> 22:03.600] with the department of elder affairs has a statutory oversight over registrations [22:03.600 --> 22:09.280] for professional guardians pursuant to section 744 which is the the code that all guardianship [22:09.280 --> 22:14.000] is under in florida as a part of the application process to become a professional guardian you [22:14.000 --> 22:18.560] completed a level two background check screen with the florida department of law enforcement [22:18.560 --> 22:25.760] this screen revealed a felony conviction from your past pursuant to section 744 309 florida [22:25.760 --> 22:32.000] statutes no person who has been convicted of a felony or two from any uh from any incapacity [22:32.000 --> 22:37.760] or illness is incapable of discharging the duties of a guardian or who is otherwise unsuitable to [22:37.760 --> 22:43.680] perform the duties of a guardian shall be appointed to act as guardian as a result your registration [22:43.680 --> 22:50.480] is being revoked this has been my occupation for 10 years right if you wish to contest [22:51.680 --> 22:56.480] the matter you have a right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with sections they [22:56.480 --> 23:01.360] give florida statutes and you will have the right to be represented by an attorney or other qualified [23:01.360 --> 23:08.000] representative at your own expense if you so desire so is this something that when they're [23:08.000 --> 23:14.240] talking about that there was a felony conviction is this something that is false that there never [23:14.240 --> 23:18.560] was a felony conviction or is this something that just never came up because it was somehow [23:18.560 --> 23:25.760] suppressed or sealed or something is it true does it need to be controverted or expunged or what's [23:25.760 --> 23:31.440] what's your you know see that's the meat that's where we're getting into it gets meatier and [23:31.440 --> 23:36.160] meatier the more research i did the meatier it got i thought it was pretty interesting and kind [23:36.160 --> 23:43.440] of convoluted all at the same time so this if i if i may just let me finish the last few couple [23:43.440 --> 23:49.760] of sentences uh and then um we can move on from there but you know that's that's the question i [23:49.760 --> 23:56.720] at the end of this paragraph i was just going to say hey guys i didn't i did not uh get convicted [23:56.720 --> 24:03.040] of a felony in my life so right off the bat the the assumption they made was false and there's [24:03.040 --> 24:08.720] a reason for the assumption uh and i and i i'll get into that in a second but it just says here [24:08.720 --> 24:13.680] now at the end of the letter you may resolve this matter without a hearing by signing the below [24:13.680 --> 24:19.040] waiver and returning it to oppg within 10 days of the date of this letter upon receipt of your [24:19.040 --> 24:25.040] waiver a voluntary agreement will be provided with your input and final order issue and below [24:25.040 --> 24:30.320] it's got a waiver that i signed it basically says i waived my right to a hearing to receiving an [24:30.320 --> 24:36.720] administrative complaint and basically lay down and let you guys assume that i committed a felony [24:36.720 --> 24:44.160] because i signed i did and that'll be the end of my career well no i i i never committed a felony [24:44.160 --> 24:49.520] in fact uh when i saw this my first thought was you know with all the id identity theft and [24:49.520 --> 24:53.760] everything that goes on today i thought well maybe somewhere along the line there's a mistake you [24:53.760 --> 24:58.880] know a mistaken identity thing going on here so how the heck did this turn up like i said i had [24:58.880 --> 25:03.120] five background checks in the state of floor and all of a sudden i get one that says hey it doesn't [25:03.120 --> 25:08.480] matter how many background checks to work it just matters that is is there something or not if [25:08.480 --> 25:14.080] there's not then there don't sign the waiver make them go ahead and produce their complaint [25:14.800 --> 25:20.880] if there is a complaint you know let them find it they say it exists show it [25:20.880 --> 25:31.840] it okay um actually um there's more to this in the process itself that kind of mitigates all that but [25:32.960 --> 25:40.160] i guess brett you're right um the the thing is is i really didn't want to have to go through [25:40.160 --> 25:46.720] receiving an administrative complaint and then go through processes in fact um this was a false [25:46.720 --> 25:51.760] accusation in the first place which is which it obviously is and in my response of course i [25:51.760 --> 25:57.280] mentioned that uh in fact the first the first sentence of my response says first to be concise [25:57.840 --> 26:03.520] unless i was able to go through the legal process of adjudication resulting in a felony conviction [26:03.520 --> 26:10.240] against me without my knowledge we have a problem because i don't ever remember going through [26:10.240 --> 26:17.600] anything that resulted in in a uh in a felony conviction i did finally find out i had to do [26:17.600 --> 26:22.400] research they gave me no information so i had to do a little research and i know that the background [26:22.400 --> 26:28.880] checks go through the local clerk before they go to talahassee so i called the local clerk and i [26:28.880 --> 26:33.360] said uh in the probate department interestingly enough because jason has been talking about [26:33.360 --> 26:41.120] probate in florida uh they they are the department that handles guardianship and they said yeah we [26:41.120 --> 26:46.560] do have a copy of that and i said well i'd like to uh i'd like to get a copy of it so i can see [26:46.560 --> 26:51.520] what the heck they looked at and uh they said well you need to come in because you need to show us [26:51.520 --> 26:57.040] your picture id because it is uh you know a confidential document i said well i'll be happy [26:57.040 --> 27:02.560] to do that and uh interestingly enough i remember you fellas talking about them trying to charge [27:02.560 --> 27:08.320] people for copies at a dollar a piece and things like that so just for the heck of it i went in [27:08.320 --> 27:14.240] and studied the the code and found out that they were supposed they're supposed to assist you [27:14.800 --> 27:18.560] to be able to if you want to photograph the documents so you don't have to pay for the copy [27:20.240 --> 27:24.800] i went into the probate department and they pulled out seven sheets of paper and said well [27:24.800 --> 27:30.800] here it is and it'll be seven dollars and i said well you know the code and i stated the code [27:30.800 --> 27:35.120] and i said the code says that you are supposed to assist me to be able to take photographs to [27:35.120 --> 27:39.680] those papers so i don't have to pay the seven dollars so they handed me the papers that said go [27:39.680 --> 27:44.320] ahead photograph them and let me go so i thought that was interesting because i learned that from [27:44.320 --> 27:52.560] you guys so um i did get uh get the information and i looked on it and in i again i'm 69 years [27:52.560 --> 28:05.280] old in 1974 i got arrested for possession of a very small amount of marijuana and it went to court [28:05.280 --> 28:12.240] and it was adjourned contemplating dismissal and it was dismissed and in all this time nothing has [28:12.240 --> 28:18.080] ever shown up on a background report now i'm looking at where did this come from how did this [28:18.080 --> 28:29.040] happen was the report even supposed to show this well the record is sealed okay so this is how it [28:29.040 --> 28:38.240] starts to get complicated because when i responded to them i basically said hey guys you know uh how [28:38.240 --> 28:43.840] could you have checked my background for you know three this is the third time you've checked my [28:43.840 --> 28:51.920] background why didn't this show up i didn't have at the time i wrote my response a copy of the [28:51.920 --> 28:57.440] report so i really didn't know what was on it so i kind of shotgunned it and i put in that i you [28:57.440 --> 29:02.240] know i went through several background checks and nothing showed up in the past if this happened [29:02.240 --> 29:07.040] within the last five years then you're talking about something that would have taken away my [29:07.040 --> 29:12.560] right to vote would have taken away my right to be on jury duty and a whole list of other things [29:12.560 --> 29:20.400] and of course i haven't lost any of those i've never been adjudicated and um i you know i i i did [29:20.400 --> 29:24.480] you know kind of protest the idea that here they are telling me well if you want to you can just [29:24.480 --> 29:31.520] sign a waiver and you know we'll just take care of it for you um i thought it was uh i stated that [29:31.520 --> 29:39.680] i thought it was uh basically uh negligent on their part to assume because they saw an arrest [29:39.680 --> 29:45.760] record with a felony charge that i was convicted because they have no record of conviction [29:46.480 --> 29:52.720] and the hearing that they referred me to is a hearing to dispute material facts well i wrote [29:52.720 --> 29:57.440] in my letter well you don't have any material facts you know all right hey hold on just a second [29:57.440 --> 30:03.760] we're just about to go to our sponsors everyone knows that walking is great exercise but you [30:03.760 --> 30:08.560] might not know that the way you walk could predict how long you're going to live i'm dr [30:08.560 --> 30:14.160] catherine albrecht and i'll be back to tell you more about walking prognostication in just a moment [30:14.160 --> 30:19.600] privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again [30:19.600 --> 30:25.360] and once your privacy is gone you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your [30:25.360 --> 30:31.120] rights say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself privacy it's worth [30:31.120 --> 30:36.400] hanging on to this public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com the private [30:36.400 --> 30:44.400] search engine alternative to google yahoo and bing start over with startpage new research shows [30:44.400 --> 30:49.280] how fast you walk could predict how long you're going to live the journal of the american medical [30:49.280 --> 30:54.800] association reports that older adults who walk one meter per second or faster live longer than [30:54.800 --> 31:00.080] expected in case you're wondering one meter per second is about two and a quarter miles per hour [31:00.080 --> 31:05.280] a senior's age gender and walking speed were as good at predicting life expectancy as more [31:05.280 --> 31:10.480] traditional statistical measures generally speaking faster walkers live longer measuring [31:10.480 --> 31:15.760] walking speed is quick and inexpensive it only takes a stopwatch some space to walk in a few [31:15.760 --> 31:20.720] minutes researchers say it could help doctors identify older patients who need special care [31:21.360 --> 31:25.600] i'm dr catherine albrecht more news and information at catherinealbrecht.com [31:25.600 --> 31:36.000] i lost my son my nephew my uncle my son on september 11th 2001 most people don't know [31:36.000 --> 31:41.920] that the third tower fell on september 11 world trade center seven a 47 story skyscraper was not [31:41.920 --> 31:46.720] hit by a plane although the official explanation is that fire brought down building seven over [31:46.720 --> 31:52.240] 1200 architects and engineers has looked into the evidence and believed there is more to the story [31:52.240 --> 31:58.800] bring justice to my son my uncle my nephew my son go to building what.org why it fell why it [31:58.800 --> 32:04.880] matters and what you can do are you looking to have a closer relationship with god and a better [32:04.880 --> 32:11.280] understanding of his word then tune in to logosradio.com on wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m central [32:11.280 --> 32:16.400] time for scripture talk where nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with second [32:16.400 --> 32:22.720] simothy 215 study to show thyself approved unto god a workman that need is not to be ashamed [32:22.720 --> 32:28.240] rightly dividing the word of truth starting in january our first hour studies are in the book of [32:28.240 --> 32:33.920] mark where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message our second hour topical [32:33.920 --> 32:39.680] studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and christian character development [32:39.680 --> 32:45.040] we wish to reflect god's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear our goal is to [32:45.040 --> 32:49.840] strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our lord and savior [32:49.840 --> 32:56.720] jesus so tune in to scripture talk live on logosradio.com wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m [32:56.720 --> 32:59.760] to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures [32:59.760 --> 33:13.040] live free speech radio logosradio.com [33:30.480 --> 33:33.040] oh [33:42.320 --> 33:47.040] i won't let you [33:47.040 --> 33:52.080] cover my eye [34:05.120 --> 34:10.400] please stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes [34:10.400 --> 34:21.800] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rudovlog Radio, and we're talking to Ron in [34:21.800 --> 34:22.800] Florida. [34:22.800 --> 34:29.320] And Ron, this is not like a blog or something of that nature. [34:29.320 --> 34:30.320] This is radio. [34:30.320 --> 34:33.240] This is radio. [34:33.240 --> 34:36.960] On radio, we have to really get to the point. [34:36.960 --> 34:45.760] So I take it that you have been, after all of these searches, all of these checks, that [34:45.760 --> 34:50.200] all of a sudden a felony turned up and you're saying that there wasn't a felony. [34:50.200 --> 35:02.440] In the processes used, what is the statutory remedy for an error in one of these checks? [35:02.440 --> 35:13.960] Well, I'm not seeing a called statutory remedy, but in the letter to my response, I asked [35:13.960 --> 35:14.960] them for... [35:14.960 --> 35:15.960] No, no, no, no, no. [35:15.960 --> 35:16.960] You're going off. [35:16.960 --> 35:22.600] You've given us just massive details that we don't need to understand this. [35:22.600 --> 35:25.960] They're saying that you have a felony against you that you can't find. [35:25.960 --> 35:31.560] They're saying that a court hearing was sealed. [35:31.560 --> 35:35.720] Were you a juvenile at the time of this marijuana arrest? [35:35.720 --> 35:39.680] No, it was dismissed and therefore it was sealed. [35:39.680 --> 35:40.680] No, no, hold on. [35:40.680 --> 35:44.600] I'm talking about sealed. [35:44.600 --> 35:48.640] It takes a lot to seal a record. [35:48.640 --> 35:52.240] There's something else going on here or that record wouldn't be sealed. [35:52.240 --> 35:55.480] It's not just a minor misdemeanor arrest. [35:55.480 --> 36:03.200] Yeah, if it were just charged and then dismissed, then it would still show up as dismissed. [36:03.200 --> 36:06.120] All right. [36:06.120 --> 36:08.040] Where does it show up? [36:08.040 --> 36:09.040] What state? [36:09.040 --> 36:10.040] What court? [36:10.040 --> 36:13.440] It's Rochester, New York City Court. [36:13.440 --> 36:19.520] I called them up and talked with them, had a nice conversation and I explained what happened [36:19.520 --> 36:26.440] and they said, we did find a very small amount of information because it was so far back [36:26.440 --> 36:27.440] in history. [36:27.440 --> 36:33.680] They said that this was handled as an adjournment contemplating dismissal. [36:33.680 --> 36:38.240] What that means in the state of New York is it's adjourned and if nothing happens for [36:38.240 --> 36:43.680] the next 12 months, it is dismissed and they seal the record. [36:43.680 --> 36:46.040] That is part of what an ACD is in New York State. [36:46.040 --> 36:48.320] Of course, I had to go all the way back. [36:48.320 --> 36:49.920] Okay, hold on, hold on. [36:49.920 --> 36:57.440] Are you sure this is where they're finding the information or are you assuming that's [36:57.440 --> 36:59.760] where they found it? [36:59.760 --> 37:03.640] They found it on a police report in the city of Rochester. [37:03.640 --> 37:04.640] That's where they got it from. [37:04.640 --> 37:09.520] It's Rochester State Police Department report and I read up on it and they said sometimes [37:09.520 --> 37:15.440] even when the record is sealed, there is information that can kind of be floating around because [37:15.440 --> 37:16.440] it's not. [37:16.440 --> 37:17.440] Okay, that's okay. [37:17.440 --> 37:30.000] This board or whatever it is that did the evaluation, who are they and what governs [37:30.000 --> 37:31.000] them? [37:31.000 --> 37:32.000] They're in Florida, right? [37:32.000 --> 37:38.480] They're talking about, I'm sorry, Brett, go ahead and ask the question again. [37:38.480 --> 37:41.120] I think you said they're in Florida. [37:41.120 --> 37:42.120] Yes. [37:42.120 --> 37:46.520] Yeah, this is a Florida commission of some type. [37:46.520 --> 37:47.520] That's right. [37:47.520 --> 37:55.800] Can you just get the dismissal order and show it to the people in Florida and it's all done? [37:55.800 --> 38:01.600] Well that's actually what I found out was is when I talked to the lady in Rochester, [38:01.600 --> 38:08.120] she said, well, you know, we have a certified court disposition that'll show, a certificate [38:08.120 --> 38:12.680] of disposition that'll show what actually happened. [38:12.680 --> 38:15.200] I said, well, great, I'll get that. [38:15.200 --> 38:20.560] And then when they sent me a response to my response, she said, well, we may have committed [38:20.560 --> 38:27.240] an error, but if you want to correct the error, get yourself a record, a certificate of court [38:27.240 --> 38:30.080] disposition and send it to us, then the problem will be corrected. [38:30.080 --> 38:32.320] And I said, well, you know what? [38:32.320 --> 38:33.320] There it is. [38:33.320 --> 38:34.320] There's the correction. [38:34.320 --> 38:36.320] Did you do that? [38:36.320 --> 38:40.720] Well, I haven't received it yet because this all happened within the last few days. [38:40.720 --> 38:43.760] Okay, then what is your issue? [38:43.760 --> 38:51.040] Well the issue was that in fact the, and I guess you said to me, good luck with this [38:51.040 --> 38:58.360] when you read the two letters when I sent them to you, but my issue was if in fact they [38:58.360 --> 39:04.200] just decided that they were going to conclude that I had been convicted of a felony and [39:04.200 --> 39:08.040] they have no record of it, isn't that? [39:08.040 --> 39:12.840] Okay, I'm still not sure what your issue at this point is. [39:12.840 --> 39:18.960] Why are you calling us and what are you asking us for? [39:18.960 --> 39:23.560] Well, and again, I know that when I sent it to you, I mentioned the possibility of picking [39:23.560 --> 39:24.880] a fight. [39:24.880 --> 39:32.840] The thing about this that just seemed completely, as far as I'm concerned, should be illegal [39:32.840 --> 39:41.560] is for someone in an agency to have the discretion of just saying, well, we've got a record here [39:41.560 --> 39:46.120] that this person was arrested for something and so therefore we're going to conclude [39:46.120 --> 39:49.160] they were convicted of it if there's no report. [39:49.160 --> 39:53.160] Well that's pretty much the opposite of the way our system of jurisprudence works where [39:53.160 --> 39:57.480] if they don't have anything that shows that I'm guilty, then I'm innocent. [39:57.480 --> 40:00.680] Not if they don't have anything that shows that I'm innocent, I'm guilty. [40:00.680 --> 40:05.920] So they basically assumed that I was guilty of something that was never even adjudicated [40:05.920 --> 40:07.080] and- [40:07.080 --> 40:10.480] Okay, so you have a moral objection. [40:10.480 --> 40:15.440] If you don't clear this up, if you don't clear this up, we will go forward and we will revoke [40:15.440 --> 40:16.440] your- [40:16.440 --> 40:17.440] Wait a minute, wait a minute. [40:17.440 --> 40:18.440] I'm not understanding. [40:18.440 --> 40:28.040] It seems like you just have a moral objection and what have you done to eliminate this issue? [40:28.040 --> 40:34.960] Well, actually, I thought I had a legal objection and maybe I'm wrong and that's one of the [40:34.960 --> 40:39.240] reasons why I wanted to run it by you guys because- [40:39.240 --> 40:45.880] An error is not a crime and government's complex. [40:45.880 --> 40:52.360] Government officials are notoriously incompetent and they make mistakes, but generally there [40:52.360 --> 40:58.280] are methodologies for addressing those errors and it's not always intentional. [40:58.280 --> 41:01.680] We've got busy people, we've got a lot going on. [41:01.680 --> 41:04.800] Sometimes they misinterpret things. [41:04.800 --> 41:10.400] This is a matter of civility, we owe it to one another to give what under the Uniform [41:10.400 --> 41:16.440] Commercial Code is called, notice and opportunity to cure. [41:16.440 --> 41:21.400] Have you given the agency notice and opportunity to cure the error? [41:21.400 --> 41:23.800] Yes, I have. [41:23.800 --> 41:24.800] That was my point. [41:24.800 --> 41:29.680] The second letter I basically told them that they had no material facts- [41:29.680 --> 41:38.360] Didn't you say that they gave you instruction as to how to properly do this through the [41:38.360 --> 41:39.360] agency? [41:39.360 --> 41:45.320] Actually, they did not until this past Wednesday, two days ago. [41:45.320 --> 41:55.960] Did you give them notice in the way they're requesting? [41:55.960 --> 42:02.160] You're talking about actually the certificate that shows the information? [42:02.160 --> 42:12.040] No, I'm talking about instructing them that there is no felony conviction against them [42:12.040 --> 42:18.560] and against you and ask them to prove it up before they deny you in your ability to make [42:18.560 --> 42:19.560] a living. [42:19.560 --> 42:21.760] In fact, I did it in the first letter. [42:21.760 --> 42:26.680] No, you're asking the question, Randy, and I'm answering it, I'm saying it simply. [42:26.680 --> 42:32.200] You're answering a lot of questions that I'm not asking and somewhere in there is the answer [42:32.200 --> 42:33.720] to the one I'm asking. [42:33.720 --> 42:38.000] I'm struggling to find something specific here. [42:38.000 --> 42:45.040] They specifically said that they concluded that I had committed a felony, was convicted [42:45.040 --> 42:46.400] of committing a felony. [42:46.400 --> 42:48.960] Of course, I hadn't. [42:48.960 --> 42:58.720] Okay, did they not give you a... Okay, they concluded. [42:58.720 --> 43:04.280] Was this some kind of definitive conclusion or was it a tentative conclusion? [43:04.280 --> 43:08.520] They came to this conclusion, they gave you notice, they came to this conclusion and gave [43:08.520 --> 43:12.800] you opportunity to correct it if you felt it was an error. [43:12.800 --> 43:17.800] Yeah, that's what I heard because I haven't come to a final decision until he either contests [43:17.800 --> 43:21.800] it or sends in the waiver saying you're not going to contest it. [43:21.800 --> 43:28.400] You're right, Brett, because it's a letter of intent to revoke a professional guardianship [43:28.400 --> 43:29.400] registration. [43:29.400 --> 43:33.560] So it is a letter of intent, it is not a complaint. [43:33.560 --> 43:41.240] They gave me the opportunity to waive receiving the complaint and having a hearing because- [43:41.240 --> 43:46.040] Okay, did you request a hearing? [43:46.040 --> 43:51.480] I have not because I was doing such a- That sounds like a remedy, just sending them an [43:51.480 --> 43:55.880] informal letter is insufficient. [43:55.880 --> 44:00.600] They're going to want you to come before them and- [44:00.600 --> 44:05.200] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area [44:05.200 --> 44:06.620] of nutrition. [44:06.620 --> 44:11.360] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that. [44:11.360 --> 44:17.080] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [44:17.080 --> 44:23.360] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can [44:23.360 --> 44:25.600] provide the nutrients you need. [44:25.600 --> 44:30.600] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which [44:30.600 --> 44:31.600] we reject. [44:31.600 --> 44:36.840] We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with [44:36.840 --> 44:39.640] Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [44:39.640 --> 44:46.080] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support [44:46.080 --> 44:47.080] quality radio. [44:47.080 --> 44:51.560] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. [44:51.560 --> 44:57.240] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and [44:57.240 --> 44:58.240] increase your income. [44:58.240 --> 44:59.240] Order now. [44:59.240 --> 45:04.360] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [45:04.360 --> 45:07.600] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary. [45:07.600 --> 45:14.280] The affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by [45:14.280 --> 45:15.280] step. [45:15.280 --> 45:18.880] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. [45:18.880 --> 45:23.160] If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [45:23.160 --> 45:28.840] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [45:28.840 --> 45:34.760] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [45:34.760 --> 45:39.280] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the [45:39.280 --> 45:43.560] principles and practices that control our American courts. [45:43.560 --> 45:49.720] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, [45:49.720 --> 45:52.000] pro se tactics, and much more. [45:52.000 --> 46:09.920] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [46:09.920 --> 46:24.720] Thank you. [46:24.720 --> 46:33.360] Always I must be careful what I'm wishin' for When I'm hungry, I like to know just what [46:33.360 --> 46:38.740] I'm fishin' for I ain't asking for much, I ain't trying [46:38.740 --> 46:49.740] be no glutton. I'm just here making my living pushing buttons. I give my message out to [46:49.740 --> 46:58.740] anyone in short and distance. I hope for bravery and against slavery showing resistance. First [46:58.740 --> 47:05.740] I'm crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting. I'm just so glad to make my living [47:05.740 --> 47:22.740] pushing buttons. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Yeah. It's that time to play Monopoly. [47:22.740 --> 47:28.740] We all wanted to win the games. They gave some guys. Okay, we are back. Randy Calton, [47:28.740 --> 47:33.740] Brett Fountain, Wheel of Life Radio, and we're talking to Ron in Florida. Ron, you are in [47:33.740 --> 47:43.740] a situation that's different than most of the general public. Generally when we deal [47:43.740 --> 47:50.740] with public officials, we do so in our capacity as essentially a sovereign in a republic. [47:50.740 --> 47:56.740] But you are not in that situation. You are a licensed professional, and as such you have [47:56.740 --> 48:04.740] agreed to a statutory scheme. It sounds to me like the agency has given you notice and [48:04.740 --> 48:12.740] opportunity to cure. Notice of a problem and an opportunity to cure that problem. All you [48:12.740 --> 48:19.740] have to do is follow the agency rules. Since you have agreed to those by applying for the [48:19.740 --> 48:30.740] license, you're bound to them. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does to a degree because there's [48:30.740 --> 48:36.740] a timeline here, Randy, and we've moved in and out of the timeline, and the cart went [48:36.740 --> 48:42.740] before the horse. You asked some questions, but in fact the order in which the answers [48:42.740 --> 48:48.740] came in to me were not in an order that would have been received in such a way that I could [48:48.740 --> 48:56.740] have acted. Can you still act? Now the first thing they told me to do, my only recourse [48:56.740 --> 49:03.740] was to ask for a hearing, which obviously takes time and effort. Did you do that? I [49:03.740 --> 49:09.740] did not. I responded to the letter because it was a notice of intent, and in the letter [49:09.740 --> 49:16.740] I basically said that there is no fact to dispute in a hearing because the hearing itself... [49:16.740 --> 49:22.740] You're missing the whole point. It's like you're standing on the street holding up a [49:22.740 --> 49:28.740] sign, railing in righteous indignation. You have agreed to a statutory scheme, and in [49:28.740 --> 49:32.740] this scheme there is a set of procedures, and you're somehow not wanting to follow [49:32.740 --> 49:38.740] those procedures. You wanted to do something else. No, Randy, because on the letter they [49:38.740 --> 49:47.740] responded back to me after I responded to them. They gave me a different solution, and [49:47.740 --> 49:52.740] it was much easier than having a hearing, but you see they didn't present that to me [49:52.740 --> 49:59.740] in the first place. What was that different solution? The different solution is a certificate [49:59.740 --> 50:07.740] of disposition that shows that I wasn't convicted, and I already had coming to me when [50:07.740 --> 50:12.740] they sent me this e-mail that I received. Did you send that to them? The process that [50:12.740 --> 50:20.740] I went through with their original letter, then my response to it, that prompted them [50:20.740 --> 50:25.740] to now give me the solution that all I had to do was provide them with... Wait a minute. [50:25.740 --> 50:29.740] Wait a minute. You're just complaining here. You're not telling me what the rules are. [50:29.740 --> 50:35.740] You're implying that because you sent them this letter that somehow they should take [50:35.740 --> 50:42.740] this letter and do something specific with it, and these are public officials, and they [50:42.740 --> 50:53.740] must follow the rules. What are the rules? The rules are that if I was convicted of a [50:53.740 --> 50:59.740] felony, they should disqualify me but give me the opportunity for a hearing. What are [50:59.740 --> 51:09.740] the rules addressing an opposition to their determination? How are they to correct their [51:09.740 --> 51:20.740] determination? You sent them what appears to be an informal letter. Is there a methodology [51:20.740 --> 51:27.740] for doing this informally, or do they need to convene a hearing to do this on the record? [51:27.740 --> 51:38.740] Okay. A hearing is not required. Let me repeat it again. What does the code say? The code [51:38.740 --> 51:47.740] says that if I've been convicted of a felony, I'm disqualified, and they say... I got that [51:47.740 --> 51:52.740] part. We're not talking about that part. We're talking about... The part about addressing [51:52.740 --> 51:58.740] what you're needing to address. You're addressing an error in their determination. What's the [51:58.740 --> 52:08.740] procedure for that? That is the certificate. The certificate of disposition from the court. [52:08.740 --> 52:13.740] What is done with the certificate? It just shows them that I wasn't convicted, and they [52:13.740 --> 52:21.740] say, oh, we're wrong. What is the procedure for getting this certificate before the commission? [52:21.740 --> 52:30.740] Oh, I have to send them a copy of it. You need to read the rules. You're assuming that [52:30.740 --> 52:35.740] all you have to do is send them a copy of it. They told me that. Is that what the rules [52:35.740 --> 52:43.740] say? Yeah. They basically said if they made an error, if I sent them a certificate of [52:43.740 --> 52:49.740] disposition to show they made an error, that the error would be corrected. Okay. But how [52:49.740 --> 52:54.740] would they correct the error? You got to read the rules. You got to know the rules. You [52:54.740 --> 53:03.740] can't do this informally. This is a governmental commission, and they're bound by rules. You [53:03.740 --> 53:10.740] got to know what they are. Randy, somehow along the line, we're talking [53:10.740 --> 53:16.740] apples and oranges here. I just don't know what to say. They basically... [53:16.740 --> 53:21.740] Did you send it to them, certified mail, and request that they correct your error? [53:21.740 --> 53:28.740] I went outside their scope. They went outside their scope, and they assumed that I was convicted [53:28.740 --> 53:32.740] of a felony. We got that part. You keep saying that, and [53:32.740 --> 53:38.740] you keep saying that as if you feel as though you've been personally condemned and affronted [53:38.740 --> 53:44.740] by it. We got that part. We're talking about how do you cure this? [53:44.740 --> 53:50.740] I told you they told me that all I had to do was prove... They wanted me to prove that [53:50.740 --> 53:54.740] I wasn't convicted by sending them a certificate of disposition. [53:54.740 --> 54:01.740] Under their statutory scheme, how is that proof made? [54:01.740 --> 54:07.740] Under their statutory scheme, they should have never accused me in the first place. [54:07.740 --> 54:12.740] You got to follow the rules, and the rules don't go to what they should do or what they [54:12.740 --> 54:16.740] should do or what you think they should do. You've got to read the rules. [54:16.740 --> 54:21.740] I'd recommend, Brett, if you want to research it and see if you can find it, because there [54:21.740 --> 54:26.740] is no rule. My whole point is they didn't follow the rules. [54:26.740 --> 54:30.740] They didn't file a complaint in the small claims court and draw them into court. That [54:30.740 --> 54:40.740] will get their attention, and ask the court to order them to change their determination. [54:40.740 --> 54:48.740] I don't have to give them the change of determination. You just about nailed it right there when [54:48.740 --> 54:55.740] you said file a complaint. My whole object here was once I had sent for the certificate [54:55.740 --> 55:00.740] impromptu because I had read information in New York, and they had mentioned the certificate [55:00.740 --> 55:04.740] when I talked to the lady on the lawn. You keep saying that over and over. We got [55:04.740 --> 55:08.740] that part. We got the part that they made a mistake. [55:08.740 --> 55:12.740] Randy, if you could let me... I've got a sentence to finish, and then you're going [55:12.740 --> 55:17.740] to know what I'm talking about. Okay, well, I'm getting impatient because [55:17.740 --> 55:19.740] we spent a lot of time, and we're getting nowhere. [55:19.740 --> 55:26.740] That's the way it goes. The certificate was sent. While it was on its way, I got the letter [55:26.740 --> 55:35.740] from the OPPG, the Registration Department for Guardians. The letter told me that if [55:35.740 --> 55:40.740] I provided them with a certificate that they had never mentioned before, but I had already [55:40.740 --> 55:44.740] ordered from Rochester, if I provided that certificate to them, I could correct the error [55:44.740 --> 55:49.740] that way. Now there is no hearing procedure that's necessary [55:49.740 --> 55:54.740] because they handled this ex parte because what they're saying is, hey, if we were wrong, [55:54.740 --> 55:57.740] that's okay that we were wrong as long as you prove we're wrong. That's exactly what [55:57.740 --> 56:02.740] I'm doing. I'm handing them a certificate from the state of New York showing that I [56:02.740 --> 56:09.740] was not convicted, and that's all they require. Okay. Let's say you're an official with this [56:09.740 --> 56:17.740] board. Can you just arbitrarily and capriciously make these determinations, or do you have [56:17.740 --> 56:23.740] to do this in some kind of formal setting? You've finally nailed it. They arbitrarily [56:23.740 --> 56:29.740] and capriciously said I was convicted of a... What do you want? I don't know what you're [56:29.740 --> 56:33.740] after. There's a procedure for doing this, and you don't want to use that procedure. [56:33.740 --> 56:39.740] You're just condemning these guys and saying how bad they are, and we're asking you to [56:39.740 --> 56:45.740] look at the rules and how this guy must adjudicate his case, and you're just doing some moral [56:45.740 --> 56:48.740] things. They don't have to adjudicate... [56:48.740 --> 56:54.740] What are the rules? Send me an order that says that... [56:54.740 --> 57:02.740] I got that. They sent you an order, and they told you if you give them notice that there [57:02.740 --> 57:10.740] was no felony, then this could all be going away, but how do you do that? Can you do it [57:10.740 --> 57:16.740] under their rules by, say, certified mail? [57:16.740 --> 57:18.740] I can do it by email. [57:18.740 --> 57:20.740] Have you ever read the rules? [57:20.740 --> 57:23.740] Yes. [57:23.740 --> 57:27.740] Well, can you do it by certified mail under the rules? [57:27.740 --> 57:32.740] I can just email it to them. They want a copy of the certificate. [57:32.740 --> 57:38.740] Is that what the rules said? Or is that what you think you ought to be able to do? [57:38.740 --> 57:41.740] Randy, they stepped outside the rules when they... [57:41.740 --> 57:42.740] I got that. [57:42.740 --> 57:44.740] ... committed a felony. [57:44.740 --> 57:51.740] Well, how do you expect God to come down and just unleash his wrath on them and make it [57:51.740 --> 57:53.740] all right? [57:53.740 --> 57:57.740] This is kind of fun, actually. It's getting crazy and kind of fun all at the same time. [57:57.740 --> 58:02.740] You're saying the same thing over and over. You want them to just magically make this [58:02.740 --> 58:09.740] go away, and you don't want to follow any of the rules. You've agreed to those rules. [58:09.740 --> 58:12.740] This is going nowhere. [58:12.740 --> 58:19.740] You're right, because there is no rule that I agreed to that this applies. If they basically [58:19.740 --> 58:23.740] said that if I'm in your felony, I cannot longer be a judge. [58:23.740 --> 58:26.740] Okay, what are you asking me? Why are you here? [58:26.740 --> 58:32.740] I was asking me if I could file a complaint for them moving forward on the fact that they [58:32.740 --> 58:33.740] do a... [58:33.740 --> 58:39.740] Of course you can. I said earlier, you should file an action in court, bring them to court, [58:39.740 --> 58:43.740] and get the judge to order them to do what they need to do. Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett [58:43.740 --> 58:49.740] Fountain, we'll do our radio. We'll be right back. [59:13.740 --> 59:20.740] We'll be right back. [59:43.740 --> 59:50.740] We'll be right back. [59:50.740 --> 59:57.740] We'll be right back. [59:57.740 --> 01:00:04.740] We'll be right back. [01:00:04.740 --> 01:00:14.740] We'll be right back. [01:00:14.740 --> 01:00:21.740] We'll be right back. [01:00:21.740 --> 01:00:38.740] We'll be right back. [01:00:38.740 --> 01:00:55.740] We'll be right back. [01:00:55.740 --> 01:01:19.740] We'll be right back. [01:01:25.740 --> 01:01:35.740] The bill of rights contains the first ten amendments of our constitution. They guarantee [01:01:35.740 --> 01:01:40.740] the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm [01:01:40.740 --> 01:01:44.740] Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember [01:01:44.740 --> 01:01:46.740] one of your constitutional rights. [01:01:46.740 --> 01:01:51.740] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back [01:01:51.740 --> 01:01:56.740] again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. [01:01:56.740 --> 01:02:01.740] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. [01:02:01.740 --> 01:02:06.740] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by [01:02:06.740 --> 01:02:13.740] StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with [01:02:13.740 --> 01:02:15.740] StartPage. [01:02:15.740 --> 01:02:20.740] Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of [01:02:20.740 --> 01:02:24.740] x-ray goggles. That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans [01:02:24.740 --> 01:02:29.740] freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment? Four eyes staring at you? [01:02:29.740 --> 01:02:33.740] Get it? Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the [01:02:33.740 --> 01:02:39.740] name of security. Keys in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing. When [01:02:39.740 --> 01:02:43.740] government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say it's [01:02:43.740 --> 01:02:48.740] time to sound the constitutional alarm bells. Join me in asking our representatives to dust [01:02:48.740 --> 01:02:53.740] off the Bill of Rights and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth. [01:02:53.740 --> 01:03:20.740] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. [01:03:23.740 --> 01:03:50.740] Thank you. [01:03:53.740 --> 01:04:05.740] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rue La Radio, and Ron, it sounds like you [01:04:05.740 --> 01:04:10.740] feel like you've been mistreated. That you feel like they're not doing what they should [01:04:10.740 --> 01:04:22.740] do. But we have to pick our fights really careful. This is your livelihood. And unfortunately, [01:04:22.740 --> 01:04:32.740] the life I live in is not fair. Never fair. Life puts opportunity in front of us disguised [01:04:32.740 --> 01:04:41.740] as difficulty. At our age, we should learn to accept that things are not always the way [01:04:41.740 --> 01:04:50.740] we want it to be and pick our fights careful. If you want to remain a guardian, you are [01:04:50.740 --> 01:04:56.740] under a statutory scheme. You've agreed to it. So you don't have the rights that the [01:04:56.740 --> 01:05:02.740] rest of us do out here in the private world. I'm not going to go back to this. We spent [01:05:02.740 --> 01:05:06.740] way too much time on it. But I suggest you contact these people and just talk to them [01:05:06.740 --> 01:05:11.740] like they're ordinary human beings and say, guys, you made a mistake. And here's the [01:05:11.740 --> 01:05:16.740] evidence to show that it was a mistake. And I almost guarantee you they'll fix it. [01:05:16.740 --> 01:05:25.740] Okay. Is Nicholas in Nevada a first time caller? No. Okay. I'm good. I don't think so. I'm [01:05:25.740 --> 01:05:33.740] going to go up to Tina in California. Hello, Tina. What do you have for us today? [01:05:33.740 --> 01:05:36.740] Well, hi, Randy and Brett. How are you? [01:05:36.740 --> 01:05:39.740] Hey, Tina. Thanks for being patient. [01:05:39.740 --> 01:05:43.740] I'm really good for an old fat guy. [01:05:43.740 --> 01:05:50.740] Well, I'm actually surprised I'm still on the phone because I've been sick for the [01:05:50.740 --> 01:06:01.740] last few days and I'm lucky to be awake right now. But I wanted to go over with you [01:06:01.740 --> 01:06:11.740] guys that email I received from the court in response to Bea Fountain's letter to the [01:06:11.740 --> 01:06:19.740] court, which they said the San Luis Obispo Superior Court is unable to receive filings [01:06:19.740 --> 01:06:28.740] via email. Please resubmit your filing to our electronic filing system. It's not my [01:06:28.740 --> 01:06:36.740] filing. It's Bea Fountain's filing. Why are they sending me this email asking me to [01:06:36.740 --> 01:06:45.740] e-file something that I didn't send to them? It's probably just an error. I don't [01:06:45.740 --> 01:06:53.740] know. It's pretty clear what he wrote and who signed it and how do I... [01:06:53.740 --> 01:06:58.740] Well, what I'm thinking, did you email anything to the court? [01:06:58.740 --> 01:07:06.740] No, it was an amicus that was totally, didn't say anything about from her, nothing [01:07:06.740 --> 01:07:17.740] like that. And this amicus went in there to the court and they assumed that it was [01:07:17.740 --> 01:07:23.740] her, like faking an amicus from elsewhere. [01:07:23.740 --> 01:07:28.740] Well, since it was an amicus, then it's filed as a friend of the court. They would [01:07:28.740 --> 01:07:37.740] have assumed that you knew the friend who filed that in your behalf. [01:07:37.740 --> 01:07:39.740] But that's an assumption. [01:07:39.740 --> 01:07:46.740] Yes, it is. If it was emailed to the court, certainly they have a return address, [01:07:46.740 --> 01:07:53.740] return email address of the person who filed it. So I'm considering myself as [01:07:53.740 --> 01:08:01.740] either the judge or the clerk and I've got a pro se litigant who's had a friend [01:08:01.740 --> 01:08:11.740] of theirs file an amicus curiae with the court, but they filed it improperly. So [01:08:11.740 --> 01:08:15.740] we need to give notice that it was filed improperly so they have opportunity to [01:08:15.740 --> 01:08:17.740] cure this error. [01:08:17.740 --> 01:08:20.740] If they wanted to do that, they could have hit reply and they could have sent it [01:08:20.740 --> 01:08:22.740] back to me. [01:08:22.740 --> 01:08:25.740] Are you the one that sent it? [01:08:25.740 --> 01:08:33.740] Yeah. They didn't hit reply and send it to me. Instead, they sent it to her and [01:08:33.740 --> 01:08:39.740] told her to do the e-filing, e-file your filing. [01:08:39.740 --> 01:08:51.740] Oh. Then what is the remedy since you don't necessarily have standing in the [01:08:51.740 --> 01:08:52.740] court? [01:08:52.740 --> 01:08:56.740] I don't and technically I don't even have notice from the court that there's [01:08:56.740 --> 01:09:01.740] anything wrong that needs to be re-filed or anything. I don't have an e-filing [01:09:01.740 --> 01:09:06.740] account in that case. I can't do anything. There's no possible way for me to [01:09:06.740 --> 01:09:09.740] file it. [01:09:09.740 --> 01:09:14.740] Then they may be addressing the way to get it e-filed and get it filed is you [01:09:14.740 --> 01:09:19.740] send it to Tina and Tina e-file it. [01:09:19.740 --> 01:09:25.740] Well, this is what I've kind of drafted up, you know, just a rough draft in my [01:09:25.740 --> 01:09:28.740] fog of sickness. [01:09:28.740 --> 01:09:37.740] Wait, hold on, hold on. Have they suspended certified mail? [01:09:37.740 --> 01:09:40.740] Not that I know of. [01:09:40.740 --> 01:09:47.740] Brett, send it by certified mail. [01:09:47.740 --> 01:09:54.740] Hmm. But they haven't given any kind of notice that it hasn't been received. So [01:09:54.740 --> 01:09:59.740] maybe I should instead, maybe I should ask them for confirmation that they [01:09:59.740 --> 01:10:01.740] filed it. [01:10:01.740 --> 01:10:05.740] That's probably a really good idea that will address this issue. I was trying to [01:10:05.740 --> 01:10:10.740] think how do we address this e-mail issue because they got constructive notice [01:10:10.740 --> 01:10:17.740] of it. I would want to say that if the court got constructive notice of this [01:10:17.740 --> 01:10:25.740] filing, if there was no filing fee for filing this kind of document, you know, [01:10:25.740 --> 01:10:30.740] in Texas you pay one fee and then there's no fees for filing documents. Some [01:10:30.740 --> 01:10:35.740] states require a fee for each document. There's no filing fee. Then the clerk [01:10:35.740 --> 01:10:41.740] had a duty to file that. [01:10:41.740 --> 01:10:47.740] I would think, because that's notice, whether it's kind of notice they like or [01:10:47.740 --> 01:10:55.740] not, who cares? It's like the judge that I schmoozed him in Henderson County to [01:10:55.740 --> 01:10:59.740] get him to look at this motion and tell me where it should be filed. And he [01:10:59.740 --> 01:11:03.740] looked at it and he said, this is for this court, but this filing is closed in [01:11:03.740 --> 01:11:07.740] this court. And he handed it back to me. I'm not going to touch it. You got it. [01:11:07.740 --> 01:11:11.740] Well, if you leave it here, I'll just throw it in the trash. I don't care what [01:11:11.740 --> 01:11:15.740] you do with it. But once he touched it, he had constructive notice and he [01:11:15.740 --> 01:11:22.740] couldn't untouch it. Does the e-mail give them constructive notice so that [01:11:22.740 --> 01:11:24.740] they can't untouch it? [01:11:24.740 --> 01:11:33.740] Yeah, it all kind of boils down to what the rules in Texas service is complete [01:11:33.740 --> 01:11:39.740] as soon as they receive it. So if I send a fax and the fax gives a success [01:11:39.740 --> 01:11:44.740] message, boom, it's received. And that's when it has to be considered received [01:11:44.740 --> 01:11:50.740] according to the rules. Now they don't want to receive via fax, so I'll send it [01:11:50.740 --> 01:11:56.740] via fax and mail and I'll beat them up for three days while they fuss about [01:11:56.740 --> 01:11:59.740] they're not supposed to be receiving it via fax. And I'll beat them up about [01:11:59.740 --> 01:12:03.740] what the rules says and they have to receive it via fax. Meanwhile, it's [01:12:03.740 --> 01:12:08.740] already on its way in the snail mail. [01:12:08.740 --> 01:12:12.740] Yeah, this is a good and interesting question because technology is moving [01:12:12.740 --> 01:12:16.740] along and the courts are having a hard time keeping up. E-file is a horrible [01:12:16.740 --> 01:12:23.740] mess because it's new and all of these issues coming up that they haven't [01:12:23.740 --> 01:12:32.740] worked out and handled yet and Zoom hearings are even a worse mess. So all [01:12:32.740 --> 01:12:37.740] this new stuff still got horrible errors with it and this may be a good way [01:12:37.740 --> 01:12:43.740] to test one of those errors. The clerk has notice of this filing and she [01:12:43.740 --> 01:12:50.740] didn't file it. So file a criminal complaint against the clerk for tampering [01:12:50.740 --> 01:12:58.740] the government document and let her prove why that wasn't tampering. [01:12:58.740 --> 01:13:03.740] That's interesting. I did respond by email and said, I am not sure why I am [01:13:03.740 --> 01:13:08.740] being asked to file a document that someone else, in brackets as public [01:13:08.740 --> 01:13:12.740] court watcher, sent to the court that I was unaware of until you forwarded to [01:13:12.740 --> 01:13:20.740] me. They have not responded to that email. [01:13:20.740 --> 01:13:28.740] And then I had a draft of something saying that I was notified by the clerk [01:13:28.740 --> 01:13:34.740] via email of a letter they received from a bee fountain and then I put what they [01:13:34.740 --> 01:13:40.740] sent me and I puzzled as I did not submit this filing. Upon reading it, it is [01:13:40.740 --> 01:13:44.740] clear it came from a bee fountain. So surely the court should be contacting [01:13:44.740 --> 01:13:49.740] bee fountain about this document. Why am I being asked to e-file it as if it was [01:13:49.740 --> 01:13:55.740] my writing and my filing when clearly it is not. It is apparent to me that a [01:13:55.740 --> 01:14:00.740] bee fountain is a member of the public who has taken an interest in this case [01:14:00.740 --> 01:14:04.740] for whatever reason. Has researched and read filings and attended the last [01:14:04.740 --> 01:14:10.740] hearing on June 1st as is their right to do so as a concerned citizen slash [01:14:10.740 --> 01:14:14.740] court watcher. I believe the court should be contacting bee fountain directly [01:14:14.740 --> 01:14:19.740] about this issue instead of asking me to file it, insinuating that it is my [01:14:19.740 --> 01:14:24.740] work. But to that end, I will comply with the court's request and e-file it as I [01:14:24.740 --> 01:14:29.740] believe concerned citizens should not be shut out of contacting the court when [01:14:29.740 --> 01:14:34.740] they take the time to write to a judge. I wish to make it abundantly clear that [01:14:34.740 --> 01:14:39.740] I did not write this letter and did not solicit this letter to be written. This [01:14:39.740 --> 01:14:43.740] statement came from the court. The statement from the court is false and [01:14:43.740 --> 01:14:48.740] then I put where it says please resubmit your filing to our electronic filing [01:14:48.740 --> 01:14:53.740] system or in the court's drop box. So I am not sure if that is good, bad, is [01:14:53.740 --> 01:14:59.740] different, could be a little done or what. Tina, that is exactly what I was about [01:14:59.740 --> 01:15:10.740] to say. Perfect. Yes. This raises a question. What are the rules concerning [01:15:10.740 --> 01:15:21.740] amicus curiae in these courts? Who can file when and how? I am not sure but [01:15:21.740 --> 01:15:26.740] they have told me to e-file it. I just want to make sure they understand. I am [01:15:26.740 --> 01:15:31.740] happy to do it for someone who is a concerned citizen because we should have [01:15:31.740 --> 01:15:38.740] a right to file. And I know I can e-file it into my case, free and easily. But I [01:15:38.740 --> 01:15:44.740] want to make sure they understand that I did not write this letter. It is not my [01:15:44.740 --> 01:15:54.740] filing. So is that sufficient what I have written? Yes. In my opinion, yes. And [01:15:54.740 --> 01:16:00.740] then maybe B Fountain, and I made sure not to say Mr. Fountain or anything, [01:16:00.740 --> 01:16:06.740] just saying B Fountain as you had written, that maybe you should contact them [01:16:06.740 --> 01:16:12.740] and say did you receive this something and go after it from another angle as [01:16:12.740 --> 01:16:20.740] well. This way that you get to see it and you come in on the side and make [01:16:20.740 --> 01:16:33.740] comments. I think that makes sense. California Rules of Court 8.520 [01:16:33.740 --> 01:16:41.740] subdivision F3 states that an application to file an amicus curiae brief must [01:16:41.740 --> 01:16:47.740] state the applicant's interest and how the proposed amicus curiae brief will [01:16:47.740 --> 01:16:54.740] assist the court in deciding this matter. Did you do that? I did not. Oh, [01:16:54.740 --> 01:17:01.740] wrap your knuckles, bubba. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with [01:17:01.740 --> 01:17:06.740] phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the [01:17:06.740 --> 01:17:11.740] Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court [01:17:11.740 --> 01:17:15.740] against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step [01:17:15.740 --> 01:17:19.740] instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights [01:17:19.740 --> 01:17:24.740] statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to [01:17:24.740 --> 01:17:27.740] answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit [01:17:27.740 --> 01:17:32.740] report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go [01:17:32.740 --> 01:17:37.740] away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt [01:17:37.740 --> 01:17:41.740] collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, [01:17:41.740 --> 01:17:46.740] please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or [01:17:46.740 --> 01:17:51.740] email MichaelMears at Yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email [01:17:51.740 --> 01:17:59.740] M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. [01:17:59.740 --> 01:18:03.740] I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my [01:18:03.740 --> 01:18:07.740] friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my [01:18:07.740 --> 01:18:11.740] truth fixed. I'd be lost without Logos and I really want to help keep this [01:18:11.740 --> 01:18:14.740] network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a [01:18:14.740 --> 01:18:18.740] Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on [01:18:18.740 --> 01:18:23.740] supplements. How can I help Logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order [01:18:23.740 --> 01:18:27.740] anything from Amazon, you can help Logos. You can order your supplies or [01:18:27.740 --> 01:18:33.740] holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. [01:18:33.740 --> 01:18:38.740] Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, [01:18:38.740 --> 01:18:44.740] you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to [01:18:44.740 --> 01:18:49.740] do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, [01:18:49.740 --> 01:18:54.740] yes. Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. [01:18:54.740 --> 01:18:59.740] Thank you so much. We are welcome. Happy holidays, Logos. [01:19:24.740 --> 01:19:47.740] If I can't get everything I want. If I can't get a range yet. If I can't get [01:19:47.740 --> 01:19:59.740] everything I need. If I can't get a range yet. If the people of the world can't [01:19:59.740 --> 01:20:10.740] get happiness and peace. If I can't get a range yet. If we can't get all these [01:20:10.740 --> 01:20:18.740] crazy waters to see. And then I got a range yet. [01:20:32.740 --> 01:20:37.740] Okay, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton. I'm Brett Fountain. [01:20:37.740 --> 01:20:44.740] And this is Friday, the 10th of June, 2022. We are currently talking with Tina [01:20:44.740 --> 01:20:52.740] in California. And Tina, when we went out, we were talking about one way to deal [01:20:52.740 --> 01:20:58.740] with this is to respond back to the court. And Randy was looking up the [01:20:58.740 --> 01:21:05.740] California rules and found, I think, 8.5. Yes, I did. And here's what it says [01:21:05.740 --> 01:21:22.740] under Section F, 8.520. 8.520, Section F. After the court orders review, [01:21:22.740 --> 01:21:28.740] any person or entity may serve and file an application for permission of the [01:21:28.740 --> 01:21:35.740] Chief Justice to file an amicus curiae brief. This sounds like it's only for [01:21:35.740 --> 01:21:40.740] the Supreme. The application must be filed no later than 30 days after all [01:21:40.740 --> 01:21:45.740] briefs that the parties may file under this rule, other than supplemental [01:21:45.740 --> 01:21:51.740] briefs have been filed or were required to be filed for good cause, and Chief [01:21:51.740 --> 01:21:58.740] Justice may allow later filing. The application must state the applicant's [01:21:58.740 --> 01:22:03.740] interest and explain how the proposed amicus curiae brief will assist the [01:22:03.740 --> 01:22:08.740] court in deciding the matter. The application must also identify any party [01:22:08.740 --> 01:22:14.740] or counsel for a party in the pending application who authored the proposed [01:22:14.740 --> 01:22:22.740] amicus curiae in whole or in part, B, or 2, made a monetary contribution intended [01:22:22.740 --> 01:22:27.740] to fund the preparation or submission of the brief, and every person or entity [01:22:27.740 --> 01:22:31.740] who made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or [01:22:31.740 --> 01:22:36.740] submission of the brief, other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its [01:22:36.740 --> 01:22:42.740] counsel in the pending appeal. The proposed brief must be served. It must [01:22:42.740 --> 01:22:49.740] accompany the application and may be combined with it. The covers of the [01:22:49.740 --> 01:22:57.740] application and proposed brief must identify the party and applicant supports, [01:22:57.740 --> 01:23:04.740] if any. If the court grants the application, any party may file either an [01:23:04.740 --> 01:23:10.740] answer to the individual amicus curiae brief or a consolidated answer to [01:23:10.740 --> 01:23:16.740] multiple amicus curiae briefs filed in the case. The answer must be filed [01:23:16.740 --> 01:23:20.740] within 30 days after either the court rules on the last timely filed [01:23:20.740 --> 01:23:26.740] application to file an amicus curiae brief or the time for filing applications [01:23:26.740 --> 01:23:31.740] to file amicus curiae brief expires, whichever is later. The answer must be [01:23:31.740 --> 01:23:38.740] served on all parties and the amicus curiae. The attorney general may file an [01:23:38.740 --> 01:23:42.740] amicus curiae brief without the Chief Justice's permission, unless the brief [01:23:42.740 --> 01:23:48.740] is submitted on behalf of another state officer or agency. [01:23:48.740 --> 01:23:52.740] That's it. [01:23:52.740 --> 01:23:59.740] You have to serve everybody. [01:23:59.740 --> 01:24:06.740] So here's what I'm seeing. Are you saying that the amicus, the person who [01:24:06.740 --> 01:24:12.740] files the amicus, me, has to also serve opposing counsel just as if I were a [01:24:12.740 --> 01:24:13.740] party? [01:24:13.740 --> 01:24:17.740] Yes. I have to serve everybody. [01:24:17.740 --> 01:24:19.740] So the one... [01:24:19.740 --> 01:24:27.740] The court did not say that. The court just said that the San Luis Obispo [01:24:27.740 --> 01:24:32.740] Superior Court is unable to receive filings via email. Please resubmit your [01:24:32.740 --> 01:24:38.740] filing through our electronic filing system or in the court's drop box, which [01:24:38.740 --> 01:24:44.740] would be by mail to the court. The electronic filing system information may [01:24:44.740 --> 01:24:49.740] be found on the court's website. I don't know if an outsider can file, but I [01:24:49.740 --> 01:24:55.740] know I can file this as maybe just a notice because they've instructed me to [01:24:55.740 --> 01:25:02.740] file, and if I file it with my explanation, it will automatically get served to [01:25:02.740 --> 01:25:04.740] the other party. [01:25:04.740 --> 01:25:08.740] Yeah. And maybe that's what they were going for. This is the easiest way to get [01:25:08.740 --> 01:25:15.740] it in the record. Maybe that's because I was looking here also at Rule 8.25 [01:25:15.740 --> 01:25:22.740] talking about there doesn't have to necessarily be an application for an [01:25:22.740 --> 01:25:27.740] amicus. It can just be the amicus itself can be sent in there, and that's [01:25:27.740 --> 01:25:35.740] 8.25. And then I was looking at the service methods in Section 1010.6. They [01:25:35.740 --> 01:25:43.740] do consider email, fax. Those are also legit service methods, but it says it's [01:25:43.740 --> 01:25:48.740] authorized when a party has agreed to accept service electronically in that [01:25:48.740 --> 01:25:50.740] action. [01:25:50.740 --> 01:25:55.740] And we've all agreed for electronic service, so all parties have agreed for [01:25:55.740 --> 01:25:56.740] electronic service. [01:25:56.740 --> 01:26:03.740] Right, but I sent a fax to the court. They have to receive it. They can't [01:26:03.740 --> 01:26:08.740] complain and say they didn't receive it, but I also don't have permission from [01:26:08.740 --> 01:26:15.740] somebody else to receive a fax, like whoever is the opposing counsel. And then [01:26:15.740 --> 01:26:20.740] why? I don't see anything clear that says that, but really, if there is [01:26:20.740 --> 01:26:25.740] something, then the court clerk should have replied back to me at the email [01:26:25.740 --> 01:26:32.740] address supplied and should have told me actually you need to fax this to such [01:26:32.740 --> 01:26:38.740] and such opposing counsel as well or say is it okay if we serve it to them or [01:26:38.740 --> 01:26:42.740] whatever they want to do, but not just turn around and start talking to you [01:26:42.740 --> 01:26:44.740] about it. [01:26:44.740 --> 01:26:49.740] I'm wondering if this is a kind of a nice little way from that pleasant [01:26:49.740 --> 01:26:55.740] clerk that I thought that's always been helpful. I wonder if it's her that sort [01:26:55.740 --> 01:27:00.740] of tentatively did this to give me a chance to file it, but the wording is not [01:27:00.740 --> 01:27:07.740] correct and I need to maybe, you know, put my explanation with it just to let [01:27:07.740 --> 01:27:11.740] the court know I'm doing this to make sure that a member of the public who has [01:27:11.740 --> 01:27:16.740] taken an interest in the case gets their filing on record. I am sure the other [01:27:16.740 --> 01:27:21.740] side will object to it, but that's okay. [01:27:21.740 --> 01:27:25.740] That's okay. They just receive it. They don't have to talk to it. They can't [01:27:25.740 --> 01:27:26.740] if they want. [01:27:26.740 --> 01:27:31.740] And at least this way the judge sees it, it's before the 22nd. She can object, [01:27:31.740 --> 01:27:35.740] she can strike it, they can strike it, but at least it's on record for the [01:27:35.740 --> 01:27:43.740] appeals also. Yeah. I think what I'll do is I will reach out to them again at [01:27:43.740 --> 01:27:52.740] the same address and will ask them to confirm that it got entered or to give me [01:27:52.740 --> 01:27:57.740] contact information of all the parties who might need to give approval for [01:27:57.740 --> 01:28:03.740] service for me to serve to them directly. [01:28:03.740 --> 01:28:07.740] Yeah, that would be good. Then I don't have to give it to you directly, which I [01:28:07.740 --> 01:28:12.740] can, but it's best if it comes from the court that you're an insider submitting [01:28:12.740 --> 01:28:14.740] this asking for this. [01:28:14.740 --> 01:28:18.740] Yeah. [01:28:18.740 --> 01:28:23.740] So should I wait to file it until you've contacted them? [01:28:23.740 --> 01:28:30.740] Either way, I don't think you've heard anything for it to go to in parallel. I [01:28:30.740 --> 01:28:32.740] don't see that would be a problem. [01:28:32.740 --> 01:28:37.740] Okay. Well, that way I'm responding to them and doing what they ask. And then [01:28:37.740 --> 01:28:41.740] you're saying, wait a minute, you know, I haven't heard that from you. So it [01:28:41.740 --> 01:28:43.740] comes from two different angles. [01:28:43.740 --> 01:28:45.740] Exactly. [01:28:45.740 --> 01:28:51.740] Okay. Great. Well, that's what I'll do. And then I'll wait to see what they [01:28:51.740 --> 01:28:54.740] say when you contact them again. [01:28:54.740 --> 01:28:56.740] Okay. [01:28:56.740 --> 01:29:02.740] Yeah. That was, let's see, Wednesday, June 1st. So they've been sitting on it [01:29:02.740 --> 01:29:08.740] for 10 days and didn't say anything back to me. [01:29:08.740 --> 01:29:13.740] And there was clearly contact information for you that they could contact you [01:29:13.740 --> 01:29:14.740] by. [01:29:14.740 --> 01:29:21.740] Yes. I set up an email address specifically for this. [01:29:21.740 --> 01:29:25.740] Yeah. I like that email address there anyway. [01:29:25.740 --> 01:29:28.740] You should think that got their attention. [01:29:28.740 --> 01:29:32.740] I think it might've got their attention. It will certainly get the attention of [01:29:32.740 --> 01:29:38.740] the other side when they see it. [01:29:38.740 --> 01:29:41.740] We're running way off the cliff. Not my fault. [01:29:41.740 --> 01:29:45.740] I think it'll be Randy's turn to talk now. [01:29:45.740 --> 01:29:49.740] Are we done? Are we done with your issue, Tina? [01:29:49.740 --> 01:29:51.740] We are. Yes. Thank you. [01:29:51.740 --> 01:29:54.740] Okay. [01:29:54.740 --> 01:29:55.740] Okay. Thank you, Tina. [01:29:55.740 --> 01:29:56.740] Thanks for calling. [01:29:56.740 --> 01:29:57.740] Hang on. We'll be right back. [01:29:57.740 --> 01:30:00.740] Thank you. [01:30:00.740 --> 01:30:05.740] A top cybersecurity expert has a warning for America. If you build an [01:30:05.740 --> 01:30:09.740] electrical smart grid, the hackers will come and they could cause a [01:30:09.740 --> 01:30:13.740] catastrophic blackout. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the shocking [01:30:13.740 --> 01:30:15.740] details in a moment. [01:30:15.740 --> 01:30:19.740] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get [01:30:19.740 --> 01:30:24.740] it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will [01:30:24.740 --> 01:30:29.740] start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep [01:30:29.740 --> 01:30:31.740] your information to yourself. [01:30:31.740 --> 01:30:35.740] Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by [01:30:35.740 --> 01:30:40.740] StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. [01:30:40.740 --> 01:30:44.740] Start over with StartPage. [01:30:44.740 --> 01:30:48.740] Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power [01:30:48.740 --> 01:30:52.740] going into your home too with a smart grid. So they're installing a national [01:30:52.740 --> 01:30:57.740] network of smart meters to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and [01:30:57.740 --> 01:31:02.740] avoid grid failure. But cybersecurity expert David Chalk says not so fast. If [01:31:02.740 --> 01:31:06.740] we make the national power grid controllable through the web, hackers will [01:31:06.740 --> 01:31:10.740] have a field day. Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the [01:31:10.740 --> 01:31:15.740] entire nation, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. I've long opposed smart [01:31:15.740 --> 01:31:20.740] meters for privacy and health reasons. The catastrophic failures caused by [01:31:20.740 --> 01:31:24.740] hackers? There's nothing smart about that. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for [01:31:24.740 --> 01:31:30.740] StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine. [01:31:30.740 --> 01:31:35.740] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of [01:31:35.740 --> 01:31:39.740] September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 [01:31:39.740 --> 01:31:43.740] architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over [01:31:43.740 --> 01:31:47.740] 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. And thousands of my [01:31:47.740 --> 01:31:50.740] fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a [01:31:50.740 --> 01:31:53.740] structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force [01:31:53.740 --> 01:31:58.740] pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. [01:31:58.740 --> 01:32:02.740] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. [01:32:02.740 --> 01:32:06.740] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. In today's [01:32:06.740 --> 01:32:09.740] America, we live in an us-against-them society. And if we, the people, are ever [01:32:09.740 --> 01:32:12.740] going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our [01:32:12.740 --> 01:32:15.740] own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to [01:32:15.740 --> 01:32:18.740] place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, [01:32:18.740 --> 01:32:22.740] the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive [01:32:22.740 --> 01:32:26.740] opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. [01:32:26.740 --> 01:32:29.740] Former Sheriff's Deputy A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has [01:32:29.740 --> 01:32:32.740] put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you [01:32:32.740 --> 01:32:36.740] understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can [01:32:36.740 --> 01:32:39.740] get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com [01:32:39.740 --> 01:32:43.740] and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's [01:32:43.740 --> 01:32:46.740] book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of [01:32:46.740 --> 01:32:50.740] the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful [01:32:50.740 --> 01:32:53.740] resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this [01:32:53.740 --> 01:32:57.740] material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can have [01:32:57.740 --> 01:33:02.740] the free society we all want and deserve. [01:33:02.740 --> 01:33:12.740] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com. [01:33:12.740 --> 01:33:33.740] I see a tool, I see a tool, the everything I'm attempting to do. I see tools of ingenuity, to use against the workers of iniquity. Tools of massive capability, [01:33:33.740 --> 01:33:42.740] they come from natural humility. When I step past roots and authenticity, [01:33:42.740 --> 01:33:51.740] I see tools of rigging iniquity, to rebuild the credibility. And I say, true to nature... [01:33:51.740 --> 01:33:58.740] Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're ready to go to another caller. [01:33:58.740 --> 01:34:05.740] We have another first-time caller. We're going to Guy in Texas. Hello, Guy. [01:34:05.740 --> 01:34:14.740] Hello, Mr. Randy. I have, I think, an easy question, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find a straight answer. [01:34:14.740 --> 01:34:24.740] So, filed a section 1983 suit in federal court in Texas, and of course, my opponent did the motion to dismiss. [01:34:24.740 --> 01:34:32.740] I responded, and he replied, that was like a little over a month ago, but no one really tells you what to do next. [01:34:32.740 --> 01:34:40.740] So, I'm kind of sitting here, and I don't know if I'm just waiting on the judge. Should I bother them to rule on it? [01:34:40.740 --> 01:34:48.740] I kind of want to move things along, but... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Brett, can you understand him? I'm struggling here. [01:34:48.740 --> 01:34:55.740] Yeah, your audio is not that clear, Guy. I think I understood what you're saying, and I'll just repeat for Randy, [01:34:55.740 --> 01:35:09.740] and correct me if I'm getting something a little wrong here, but I understood Guy to be saying that he filed a 1983 suit in the Fed in Texas, [01:35:09.740 --> 01:35:19.740] and that he is right now waiting for some kind of response from the judge, and he's wanting to know, should he bother the judge, [01:35:19.740 --> 01:35:30.740] and kind of push on this to get some action here, or how patient should he be? Nobody's really saying what should happen next. [01:35:30.740 --> 01:35:41.740] Here's what should happen next. If you filed a 1983 suit in the Fed, did you serve the opposing party? [01:35:41.740 --> 01:35:48.740] The opposing party already got it. They responded, and he responded to theirs, and now it's just crickets. [01:35:48.740 --> 01:36:02.740] Now move to set a hearing. Let's see. You got a response. Did they file a Rule 12B motion to dismiss for failure of state acclaim? [01:36:02.740 --> 01:36:04.740] Yes, yes. [01:36:04.740 --> 01:36:09.740] Okay, then move to... Did you respond to the 12B? [01:36:09.740 --> 01:36:15.740] Yes, I responded, and they replied after that, but yeah, that was a little over a month ago. [01:36:15.740 --> 01:36:25.740] Then move to set the... Contact the clerk, and ask the clerk for two dates on which to set the motion for a hearing. [01:36:25.740 --> 01:36:35.740] Give those... Contact the lawyers on the other side, and notice them of the two dates on which you want to set this hearing, [01:36:35.740 --> 01:36:47.740] and ask which is better for them. If they say neither one, then ask them to contact the clerk, and bring you a date that's acceptable to them, [01:36:47.740 --> 01:36:53.740] two dates that's acceptable to them, and then you pick from one of those. [01:36:53.740 --> 01:37:07.740] I called the clerk today, and that's what I thought I should do, kind of feeling them out, and I said, you know, can I schedule a hearing? [01:37:07.740 --> 01:37:16.740] I think it's called a motion hearing, and he said that I had to file that as a motion, a written motion. [01:37:16.740 --> 01:37:25.740] So I don't know what to do from there. I don't know... I looked for examples online, like what's a motion hearing, you know, what the... [01:37:25.740 --> 01:37:26.740] Okay. [01:37:26.740 --> 01:37:28.740] A motion to hear a motion? [01:37:28.740 --> 01:37:29.740] Yeah, that doesn't make sense. [01:37:29.740 --> 01:37:32.740] A motion to make the court hear your other motion? [01:37:32.740 --> 01:37:40.740] Just call in and ask for the court... the judge's coordinator or the judge's clerk. [01:37:40.740 --> 01:37:41.740] Yeah. [01:37:41.740 --> 01:37:51.740] And ask her to check the calendar and find out when the judge is hearing motions. They generally set aside certain days just to hear motions. [01:37:51.740 --> 01:37:58.740] So find two days when the judge will be sitting for the purpose of hearing motions. [01:37:58.740 --> 01:38:16.740] And then send those two days to opposing counsel and ask them to pick one, and then you file a document with the clerk asking the clerk to set your motions for hearing on the date that they agreed to. [01:38:16.740 --> 01:38:32.740] Okay, okay. I think I get that. And one other quick question there is, so what should I expect at this hearing? Do I have to, like, direct the show there, or what should I expect at the hearing, and what should I say? [01:38:32.740 --> 01:38:50.740] No, the judge will direct the show, and what I suggest you do is object to oral argument. It's patently unfair to pit a learned counsel against a person litigant and move the court to rule on the documents. [01:38:50.740 --> 01:38:52.740] Okay. [01:38:52.740 --> 01:39:05.740] In that case, the courts want to do that. So you'll still set the date to hear the motion, but you may not have to show up. [01:39:05.740 --> 01:39:16.740] Okay, okay. And I'm not, I mean, I don't even care at this point, but am I angering the judge? I just want to know what I'm getting myself into here. [01:39:16.740 --> 01:39:22.740] Okay, none of this is going to anger the judge. This is just standard procedure. [01:39:22.740 --> 01:39:27.740] Okay. All right. Yeah, thank you very much. That's all I need. [01:39:27.740 --> 01:39:39.740] Okay. Well, thank you very much, Guy. Now we're going to go to Nicholas in Nevada. Hello, Nicholas. What do you have for us today? [01:39:39.740 --> 01:39:57.740] Well, to bring you up to speed, you know, I've, so I went down to file criminal complaints on this unlawful search going into the County Commission chambers with the metal detector and then searching our belongings. [01:39:57.740 --> 01:40:10.740] And so I went down, I wrote up the criminal complaint and I went down to the rental justice courthouse and I went to the clerk and presented it to be entered. [01:40:10.740 --> 01:40:17.740] And so when I got there, they informed me that they wouldn't do it. And so they denied it. [01:40:17.740 --> 01:40:27.740] So eventually they got it to a supervisor who said, all right, because what I started was saying, I just need to see, I need to see a magistrate. [01:40:27.740 --> 01:40:34.740] And they denied that. And then, so I said, well, I'd like to present these and have these filed. [01:40:34.740 --> 01:40:40.740] And so then eventually they got the supervisor who then went and met with one of the judges. [01:40:40.740 --> 01:40:52.740] And she came back and informed me that the judge said that the only people who can file a criminal complaint are people who are government agency employees. [01:40:52.740 --> 01:40:58.740] Oh, oh, yes. Did you get the judge's name? [01:40:58.740 --> 01:41:10.740] Yes. So I demanded that they give me the NRS code that defined that and they refused to do that. [01:41:10.740 --> 01:41:18.740] So unfortunately, I was not recording that part of the phone call or not the call, but that part of the discussion. [01:41:18.740 --> 01:41:30.740] So I reviewed it and found the NRS code 171.102 that tells that you have to in order to file a criminal complaint, you have to be a magistrate. [01:41:30.740 --> 01:41:44.740] So you can do it under oath or you can do a notarized affidavit indicating that these are true and that if you're lying, you're subject to perjury and therefore the consequences of perjury. [01:41:44.740 --> 01:41:49.740] So I fulfilled both of their number one and number two of 102. [01:41:49.740 --> 01:41:57.740] 103 indicated that the clerk can receive complaints via electronic. [01:41:57.740 --> 01:42:07.740] And what they do with electronic is that they electronically date and time stamp that and then send that to the prosecuting attorney, which is up in the DA's office. [01:42:07.740 --> 01:42:19.740] And so I read that to them as well. No need to read it to them. Take that and copy and paste it and that's in your criminal complaint against them. [01:42:19.740 --> 01:42:23.740] You don't have to read it to them. They should know it already. [01:42:23.740 --> 01:42:30.740] Well, they don't seem to know a whole lot because every time I ask them a question, they are very bewildered. [01:42:30.740 --> 01:42:39.740] So I have two clerks, then two supervisors, now a judge, and it gets better. So they finally said, you know, we're just not going to take this. [01:42:39.740 --> 01:42:44.740] So if you are out, you have to go to the DA's office. So I went to the DA's office. [01:42:44.740 --> 01:42:52.740] And so I went up to the fourth floor and then I talked to a clerk who kind of had some conniptions because they weren't sure what to do. [01:42:52.740 --> 01:43:02.740] And then another, I don't know, supervisor, someone stepped in and finally agreed to take it, date and time stamp it, [01:43:02.740 --> 01:43:06.740] acknowledging and then a cover and a copy of that would get back to me. [01:43:06.740 --> 01:43:13.740] Then they said that, I said, well, what, you know, how many days do they have to review this and to start an action on it? [01:43:13.740 --> 01:43:21.740] They didn't know. But they said the next step is that we're going to send it to the civil division. [01:43:21.740 --> 01:43:25.740] I said, why would you, or department, I said, why would you send it to the civil division or department? [01:43:25.740 --> 01:43:31.740] It's a criminal matter. They said, well, we're going to start sending it to the criminal, they go in and. [01:43:31.740 --> 01:43:38.740] Yeah, I think we're going to alert the Fish and Wildlife Department and see if they want to do anything about it. [01:43:38.740 --> 01:43:43.740] So they said they make a decision whether it's civil or it's criminal. [01:43:43.740 --> 01:43:57.740] So on Thursday morning, I get a call from the DA's office and I'm informed that again, they're not going to do anything with this because I'm not a government employee. [01:43:57.740 --> 01:43:59.740] And so. [01:43:59.740 --> 01:44:05.740] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. [01:44:05.740 --> 01:44:10.740] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed all that. [01:44:10.740 --> 01:44:16.740] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition. [01:44:16.740 --> 01:44:24.740] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. [01:44:24.740 --> 01:44:30.740] Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. [01:44:30.740 --> 01:44:39.740] We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. [01:44:39.740 --> 01:44:47.740] When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. [01:44:47.740 --> 01:44:51.740] As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. [01:44:51.740 --> 01:44:58.740] As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. [01:44:58.740 --> 01:45:02.740] Order now. [01:45:02.740 --> 01:45:05.740] Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? [01:45:05.740 --> 01:45:16.740] Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. [01:45:16.740 --> 01:45:24.740] If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. [01:45:24.740 --> 01:45:29.740] Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. [01:45:29.740 --> 01:45:35.740] Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. [01:45:35.740 --> 01:45:44.740] Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. [01:45:44.740 --> 01:45:53.740] You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. [01:45:53.740 --> 01:46:03.740] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ. [01:46:23.740 --> 01:46:50.740] The people come down from the hill [01:46:50.740 --> 01:47:00.740] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and Nicholas, you ran off the cliff. [01:47:00.740 --> 01:47:02.740] I did, sorry. [01:47:02.740 --> 01:47:10.740] Yeah, but it was Brett's fault. I take no responsibility. I absolutely refuse. [01:47:10.740 --> 01:47:15.740] Okay, you're having too much fun. You're on a roll. [01:47:15.740 --> 01:47:18.740] Yeah, rolling them right up. [01:47:18.740 --> 01:47:27.740] So yes, I went to the DA. They called me and informed me that they weren't going to process it because, again, I wasn't a government employee. [01:47:27.740 --> 01:47:37.740] So this is starting to look like obstruction of justice, and because they're all in on it and they're all saying the same story, it actually looks like a conspiracy. Am I on the right track? [01:47:37.740 --> 01:47:45.740] This is exactly what I said to Brett on the break, that you're getting set up for a RICO suit. [01:47:45.740 --> 01:47:49.740] In the Fed. [01:47:49.740 --> 01:47:58.740] They are all passing out T-shirts to each other when they're all got bullseyes, crosshairs on the T-shirt. Here, wear this. Wear this. [01:47:58.740 --> 01:48:18.740] What I suggest is you put together your complaint against the prosecutor and all the people that everybody who stepped across the line so far, you make up a set of complaints and mail it to a district judge. [01:48:18.740 --> 01:48:40.740] And put a cover letter on it asking the judge to, on the cover letter, note the date on which he holds a preliminary hearing based on your criminal complaints and send it back to you in the included stamp self-addressed envelope. [01:48:40.740 --> 01:48:43.740] Or you could use a postcard. [01:48:43.740 --> 01:48:48.740] Well, you're not going to get that. You are not going to get that back. [01:48:48.740 --> 01:48:59.740] But if you don't get it back within, say, two weeks, then you have reason to believe that the judge did not perform his duty as magistrate. [01:48:59.740 --> 01:49:09.740] And then you file against him with another district judge. How many district judges do you have locally? [01:49:09.740 --> 01:49:17.740] So these are, I think there are, so there's, are you talking about, so a district judge is different than a justice as a piece, right? [01:49:17.740 --> 01:49:22.740] Oh, yes. The district judge is the highest level judge in the district. [01:49:22.740 --> 01:49:29.740] I want to say there's, I want to say there's four or five here in the Washoe County area. [01:49:29.740 --> 01:49:54.740] Okay. Send a set of complaints to speed it up. Take some of the officials and send them to one judge, complaints to one judge, some to another, and spread them around to all the judges so that all the judges can refuse to hold a preliminary hearing and then file with the Fed. [01:49:54.740 --> 01:50:04.740] Now those states, I did find a bunch of state judges who would be magistrates. And so those are, those are state judges or is there a federal? [01:50:04.740 --> 01:50:07.740] The district judge will be a state judge. [01:50:07.740 --> 01:50:10.740] Okay. [01:50:10.740 --> 01:50:36.740] So then, then you claim that you have exercised all available remedy in the state and every official in the state acted criminally to shield the accused from prosecution and in a set of predicate acts toward an ongoing criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. [01:50:36.740 --> 01:50:40.740] To deprive you of your rights. [01:50:40.740 --> 01:50:42.740] Right to the protection of the law. [01:50:42.740 --> 01:50:45.740] It's also record tampering. [01:50:45.740 --> 01:50:48.740] Yes. [01:50:48.740 --> 01:50:51.740] But read your code real careful. [01:50:51.740 --> 01:51:02.740] Read the code concerning magistrates in Nevada and make sure that you have the underlying code. [01:51:02.740 --> 01:51:10.740] See the code that directs the magistrate to hold a preliminary hearing. [01:51:10.740 --> 01:51:14.740] That you're asking them to do that and they're not doing that thing. [01:51:14.740 --> 01:51:15.740] Okay. [01:51:15.740 --> 01:51:21.740] And then I don't mind the code that says they are under obligation to do just that. [01:51:21.740 --> 01:51:23.740] Yeah, I looked that up the other day. [01:51:23.740 --> 01:51:27.740] 171. [01:51:27.740 --> 01:51:35.740] I think it's what it was under Brazilian code. [01:51:35.740 --> 01:51:37.740] That convoluted. [01:51:37.740 --> 01:51:39.740] This one's Nevada. [01:51:39.740 --> 01:51:41.740] I think you were on last week. [01:51:41.740 --> 01:51:44.740] And I looked that up. [01:51:44.740 --> 01:51:52.740] But look up the section on magistrate in Nevada law and cite the code. [01:51:52.740 --> 01:51:57.740] You file it with the special agent in charge. [01:51:57.740 --> 01:52:03.740] That's the only FBI agent whose name you can get. [01:52:03.740 --> 01:52:05.740] All the rest of them are now secret police. [01:52:05.740 --> 01:52:16.740] So you file with the special agent in charge and ask him to present your complaints to some magistrate. [01:52:16.740 --> 01:52:29.740] And include a cover letter for him to initial and indicate what magistrate he gave notice of this crime to. [01:52:29.740 --> 01:52:33.740] Some little fill in the blanks and check the boxes and throw it in the mail. [01:52:33.740 --> 01:52:41.740] You're not going to get that back either. [01:52:41.740 --> 01:52:49.740] So what you might do is send it, what do you call it, insure it when you send it. [01:52:49.740 --> 01:52:50.740] Yes. [01:52:50.740 --> 01:52:51.740] Yeah, I remember you said that. [01:52:51.740 --> 01:52:53.740] I do have that listed. [01:52:53.740 --> 01:52:55.740] Okay, so do that. [01:52:55.740 --> 01:53:09.740] And then file against the special agent in charge for shielding and obstruction with the federal grand jury by way of the prosecuting attorney's office. [01:53:09.740 --> 01:53:17.740] With the cover letter asking the foreman to initial this document. [01:53:17.740 --> 01:53:19.740] Don't sign it. [01:53:19.740 --> 01:53:30.740] Because the prosecuting attorney has a rubber stamp with your name on it that he uses to rubber stamp superseding indictments. [01:53:30.740 --> 01:53:32.740] See, they come in and get an initial indictment. [01:53:32.740 --> 01:53:36.740] When they get an indictment, then they start their real investigation. [01:53:36.740 --> 01:53:42.740] And all of the crimes they subsequently find, they don't take that back to the grand jury. [01:53:42.740 --> 01:53:45.740] The prosecutor just rubber stamps it. [01:53:45.740 --> 01:53:56.740] So when you ask the foreman to initial it instead of sign it because the prosecutor has a rubber stamp with his name on it, [01:53:56.740 --> 01:54:03.740] what do you think the chances are that the prosecuting attorney will give that to the foreman of the grand jury? [01:54:03.740 --> 01:54:09.740] Yeah, he doesn't want the foreman to even know about that. [01:54:09.740 --> 01:54:12.740] So you're not going to get that back either. [01:54:12.740 --> 01:54:20.740] So I did inquire about the grand jury being impaneled, and it has not been impaneled for over 26 months. [01:54:20.740 --> 01:54:23.740] Which grand jury, state or federal? [01:54:23.740 --> 01:54:33.740] The local grand jury in, I think it's District 2 here in Washoe County. [01:54:33.740 --> 01:54:34.740] Oh, okay. [01:54:34.740 --> 01:54:39.740] Then before you go to the special agent in charge, take up all these complaints [01:54:39.740 --> 01:54:46.740] and send them to the grand jury foreman by way of the prosecuting attorney's office. [01:54:46.740 --> 01:54:49.740] Same cover letter. [01:54:49.740 --> 01:54:57.740] Okay, so I called the office, they called me back and said that it had been sworn in two weeks ago, [01:54:57.740 --> 01:55:03.740] and they didn't know what the workload was because they had been gone for two years. [01:55:03.740 --> 01:55:09.740] And then I asked for the name of the foreman so I could send this stuff to the foreman. [01:55:09.740 --> 01:55:13.740] But you're saying I should take this to the district attorney's office? [01:55:13.740 --> 01:55:20.740] No, no, no. What I'm saying is the only address I have ever found for a grand jury [01:55:20.740 --> 01:55:22.740] is a district attorney's address. [01:55:22.740 --> 01:55:23.740] Okay. [01:55:23.740 --> 01:55:27.740] So you put the address, you don't put his name on it. [01:55:27.740 --> 01:55:29.740] Oh, okay. [01:55:29.740 --> 01:55:32.740] Yeah, you put foreman of grand jury. [01:55:32.740 --> 01:55:38.740] And look up in Nevada law, duties of grand jurors. [01:55:38.740 --> 01:55:41.740] Okay, I have that. [01:55:41.740 --> 01:55:45.740] Does it have them swearing that they're going to inquire into everything [01:55:45.740 --> 01:55:48.740] or just only what the DA gives them? [01:55:48.740 --> 01:55:51.740] Well, that's what I think they lean towards now. [01:55:51.740 --> 01:55:55.740] I don't think the IRS code specifies that, but I will go verify it. [01:55:55.740 --> 01:56:00.740] But I think that they believe they're under the direction of the DA, which is... [01:56:00.740 --> 01:56:03.740] Oh, wait, wait, wait. They do that in every state. [01:56:03.740 --> 01:56:04.740] Right. [01:56:04.740 --> 01:56:06.740] And that's all horse to manure. [01:56:06.740 --> 01:56:11.740] In Texas, it says the grand jury shall investigate into all crimes [01:56:11.740 --> 01:56:17.740] that come to their attention by way of any member of the grand jury, [01:56:17.740 --> 01:56:23.740] the prosecuting attorney, or any credible person. [01:56:23.740 --> 01:56:29.740] California and the Fed says the grand jury shall examine into all crimes [01:56:29.740 --> 01:56:38.740] subject to indictment that come to their knowledge by whatever means. [01:56:38.740 --> 01:56:39.740] Wow. [01:56:39.740 --> 01:56:42.740] And see what your state says. [01:56:42.740 --> 01:56:45.740] Okay, so my next one, just so I'm clear, [01:56:45.740 --> 01:56:49.740] so my next thing is to write up a criminal complaint on all these people [01:56:49.740 --> 01:56:55.740] who have been doing a conspiracy to obstruct justice by denying my right [01:56:55.740 --> 01:57:00.740] to file a criminal complaint. I take that along with my first criminal complaint, [01:57:00.740 --> 01:57:03.740] send both of those into... [01:57:03.740 --> 01:57:09.740] Send them to the district attorney's office addressed to the foreman of the grand jury. [01:57:09.740 --> 01:57:10.740] Yes. [01:57:10.740 --> 01:57:11.740] Okay. [01:57:11.740 --> 01:57:18.740] And I'll tell you, one thing I do with a criminal complaint, I don't want to waste it. [01:57:18.740 --> 01:57:23.740] After I've notarized it, I get colored copies so that everybody who I think [01:57:23.740 --> 01:57:30.740] needs to be balled up in this tar baby gets a color original of their own, you know? [01:57:30.740 --> 01:57:37.740] What I do is I have the notary notarize multiple copies. [01:57:37.740 --> 01:57:41.740] That way you have multiple originals. [01:57:41.740 --> 01:57:44.740] Okay. [01:57:44.740 --> 01:57:46.740] All right. [01:57:46.740 --> 01:57:48.740] And in there, one of the things I included, [01:57:48.740 --> 01:57:55.740] which I think we talked about before, Brett, a week ago, was that I had a link in there to a... [01:57:55.740 --> 01:57:58.740] Okay, quickly. We only got 50 seconds. [01:57:58.740 --> 01:58:06.740] Yeah, a video that they can look at and see that it supports my criminal complaint. [01:58:06.740 --> 01:58:12.740] Okay, good. You just walk them down, run the routine on them. [01:58:12.740 --> 01:58:17.740] We'll have to talk about this next week. We're out of time today. [01:58:17.740 --> 01:58:20.740] Nicholas, make sure you call us back. [01:58:20.740 --> 01:58:23.740] We'll take you earlier. This is a lot of fun. [01:58:23.740 --> 01:58:27.740] This is Randy Kelvin, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. [01:58:27.740 --> 01:58:33.740] We'll be back next week at our regular time, 8 o'clock Central, Thursday, [01:58:33.740 --> 01:58:37.740] for our two-hour show and Friday for our four-hour show. [01:58:37.740 --> 01:58:42.740] And check out Eddie Craig on Monday nights, same time, same station. [01:58:42.740 --> 01:58:47.740] Thank you all for listening, and good night. [01:59:12.740 --> 01:59:14.740] We'll see you next week. [01:59:42.740 --> 01:59:49.740] Five one zero one zero two, or visit us online at BFA.org. [01:59:49.740 --> 01:59:54.740] Looking for some truth? You found it. [01:59:54.740 --> 02:00:13.740] That's RadioNetwork.com.