[00:00.000 --> 00:05.500]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[00:05.500 --> 00:09.500]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.500 --> 00:11.000]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:11.000 --> 00:16.500]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember your First Amendment rights.
[00:16.500 --> 00:18.500]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.500 --> 00:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.000 --> 00:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:27.000 --> 00:32.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.000 --> 00:34.500]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.500 --> 00:38.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[00:38.000 --> 00:42.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.000 --> 00:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:45.000 --> 00:50.500]  Most of us know that taking the Fifth means you're choosing to remain silent about a criminal matter.
[00:50.500 --> 00:55.000]  It's a good way to remember that the Fifth Amendment spells out what can and can't happen to you
[00:55.000 --> 00:57.000]  when you're accused of a criminal offense.
[00:57.000 --> 01:02.000]  The Fifth guarantees due process, prohibits trying someone more than once for the same crime,
[01:02.000 --> 01:04.000]  and lets you keep your mouth shut.
[01:04.000 --> 01:09.000]  The Founding Fathers inserted these constitutional provisions to protect citizens from torture.
[01:09.000 --> 01:13.500]  Back in the day, governments often used painful methods to extract confessions.
[01:13.500 --> 01:18.000]  The Fifth Amendment also prohibits the government from taking your house and land without paying you for it.
[01:18.000 --> 01:20.000]  That used to happen a lot too.
[01:20.000 --> 01:25.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31.000 --> 01:35.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:35.000 --> 01:39.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:39.000 --> 01:41.000]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:41.000 --> 01:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:47.000 --> 01:49.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:49.000 --> 01:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.000 --> 01:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:57.000 --> 02:02.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:02.000 --> 02:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:05.000 --> 02:09.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[02:09.000 --> 02:13.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:13.000 --> 02:16.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:16.000 --> 02:19.000]  The number 666 reminds me of evil.
[02:19.000 --> 02:24.000]  I also associate it with the sick feeling one might get when falsely accused of a heinous crime
[02:24.000 --> 02:28.000]  or when thinking about sickos who actually do commit acts of murder and mayhem.
[02:28.000 --> 02:32.000]  Either way, the number 666 can help you remember that the Sixth Amendment
[02:32.000 --> 02:37.000]  deals with the constitutionally guaranteed rights Americans have in a criminal trial.
[02:37.000 --> 02:41.000]  Those include the right to a speedy public trial, the right to an impartial jury,
[02:41.000 --> 02:45.000]  the right to full information about the charges, the right to an attorney,
[02:45.000 --> 02:48.000]  and the right to confront any witnesses face to face.
[02:48.000 --> 02:53.000]  666, sick, sickos, and the Sixth Amendment, get it?
[02:53.000 --> 03:01.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:01.000 --> 03:26.000]  Thank you.
[03:26.000 --> 03:32.000]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:32.000 --> 03:38.000]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.000 --> 03:43.000]  When you work and you have bad traits, you go to school and learn the golden rules.
[03:43.000 --> 03:49.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get caught then you might get cool.
[03:49.000 --> 03:54.000]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.000 --> 04:00.000]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[04:00.000 --> 04:09.000]  Good evening. This is the Rule of Law Radio on Thursday, 22nd of September, 22.
[04:09.000 --> 04:15.000]  As Randy Kelton is not with us this evening, all you get is Brett Fountain.
[04:15.000 --> 04:22.000]  So I can go ahead and start and just to give you a quick little brief intro
[04:22.000 --> 04:28.000]  to some excitement that I'm having and we'll go ahead and turn the phone lines on here
[04:28.000 --> 04:31.000]  in case anybody else has any questions and comments.
[04:31.000 --> 04:36.000]  The call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[04:36.000 --> 04:40.000]  Well, let me tell you what's interesting with me lately.
[04:40.000 --> 04:44.000]  You know, I haven't been able to get a speeding ticket in a long time or any kind of traffic ticket.
[04:44.000 --> 04:48.000]  I think they're tired of playing with me or something.
[04:48.000 --> 04:53.000]  And so they come up behind my truck and they have just about enough time
[04:53.000 --> 04:57.000]  where they're going to run the plates and I look in the rear view
[04:57.000 --> 05:00.000]  and I'm thinking, yeah, maybe this one's gonna pull me over.
[05:00.000 --> 05:04.000]  And they don't. They just back off. They go somewhere else.
[05:04.000 --> 05:08.000]  They duck into a driveway. Something else happens. They flip a U-turn.
[05:08.000 --> 05:16.000]  And so, you know, I haven't been able to have any of this kind of interesting interactions lately.
[05:16.000 --> 05:22.000]  And I borrowed my wife's car who was tooling across Texas.
[05:22.000 --> 05:24.000]  What do you know? I got a speeding ticket.
[05:24.000 --> 05:29.000]  So, you know, she accuses me of trolling for cop stops.
[05:29.000 --> 05:37.000]  But yeah, so now I'm walking through the process of what do you do in this situation,
[05:37.000 --> 05:41.000]  taking it step by step, and I'm doing a little bit of testing,
[05:41.000 --> 05:50.000]  trying to do it in the most simple way that's most reproducible, least moving parts,
[05:50.000 --> 05:59.000]  trying to file fewer documents and less complex, and just see what we could do with that.
[05:59.000 --> 06:04.000]  And so if you'd like to follow along with that, it's on the Telegram site.
[06:04.000 --> 06:15.000]  Randy has The Law Society. And it's on Telegram. It's T.me slash The Law Society.
[06:15.000 --> 06:20.000]  And we've got a lot of fun things going on there.
[06:20.000 --> 06:27.000]  But yeah, I spun off from there to just speak to the specific issue of walking through a speeding ticket.
[06:27.000 --> 06:32.000]  So anybody that wants to join in on that, that would be great.
[06:32.000 --> 06:35.000]  All right. So we've got a couple of callers here.
[06:35.000 --> 06:40.000]  I'm going to go ahead to our first caller is Jason in California.
[06:40.000 --> 06:43.000]  Good evening, Jason. What's on your mind?
[06:43.000 --> 06:46.000]  Good evening. Hey, Brett.
[06:46.000 --> 06:48.000]  Hey.
[06:48.000 --> 06:56.000]  Yeah, your speeding ticket matter is like super, super interesting, super helpful.
[06:56.000 --> 06:58.000]  Oh, cool.
[06:58.000 --> 07:05.000]  It's like just really inspiring. I just, I mean, for a newbie, it's amazing to listen to.
[07:05.000 --> 07:16.000]  But like just the calm and cool manner that you have, it's really, really, really helpful.
[07:16.000 --> 07:18.000]  So I'm really glad you're doing that.
[07:18.000 --> 07:24.000]  Well, I'm glad that's helpful. That's great. That's exactly what I was hoping it would be.
[07:24.000 --> 07:29.000]  Yeah. So I still have questions.
[07:29.000 --> 07:33.000]  I'm still trying to understand.
[07:33.000 --> 07:39.000]  I'd like to make a decision on what my next moves are.
[07:39.000 --> 07:44.000]  So, you know, I'm dealing with, just for listeners sake,
[07:44.000 --> 07:56.000]  a fraudulent restraining order has been filed against me by a grocery store, Trader Joe's.
[07:56.000 --> 08:10.000]  And at the last hearing, everything got continued to November 1st,
[08:10.000 --> 08:20.000]  which I requested just to have enough time for some of the discovery requests to be fulfilled.
[08:20.000 --> 08:25.000]  Are they fulfilling discovery or are they just sitting on it and wasting time?
[08:25.000 --> 08:35.000]  No, they're sitting on it and the liar mentioned that I'm not going to be happy.
[08:35.000 --> 08:40.000]  Like she expects there to be more motion work after.
[08:40.000 --> 08:47.000]  Like they're going to wait until the total last minute, the whatever statutory allowed time,
[08:47.000 --> 08:52.000]  and then they're going to give me a bunch of nonsense it sounds like.
[08:52.000 --> 09:03.000]  I only did two. This is my first time and I only did interrogatories and requests for production so far.
[09:03.000 --> 09:07.000]  Oh, you definitely want to put some admissions in there.
[09:07.000 --> 09:09.000]  Definitely.
[09:09.000 --> 09:13.000]  So here's my take on admissions.
[09:13.000 --> 09:18.000]  Admissions are my favorite one, but you don't want to use them all at the beginning
[09:18.000 --> 09:20.000]  because you're going to want to have some at the end.
[09:20.000 --> 09:24.000]  And generally the rules will limit you to a certain number.
[09:24.000 --> 09:26.000]  Texas, we get 15.
[09:26.000 --> 09:35.000]  So, you know, put some out there as admissions early as you can and then start bombarding them with all these other ones.
[09:35.000 --> 09:38.000]  You know, send them a half dozen of production.
[09:38.000 --> 09:44.000]  I want to see the disclosure of this and that and then some interrogatories.
[09:44.000 --> 09:52.000]  And then while they're trying to keep up with those 30-day discovery request deadlines,
[09:52.000 --> 10:00.000]  the first one, which was admissions, will hit – quietly hit its 30-day deadline.
[10:00.000 --> 10:07.000]  And everything that you stated in there is deemed admitted and they can't argue otherwise.
[10:07.000 --> 10:14.000]  Geez. Well, I mean, I missed it. I didn't do it.
[10:14.000 --> 10:17.000]  I mean, I guess I could still do some, right?
[10:17.000 --> 10:19.000]  Sure you could.
[10:19.000 --> 10:22.000]  That starts the call.
[10:22.000 --> 10:31.000]  In the quasi-administrative courts, their timeframes are so weird.
[10:31.000 --> 10:38.000]  Like that's the reason – yeah, it's like they're setting hearing dates for like 15 days.
[10:38.000 --> 10:42.000]  You know, they don't give you enough time to do things correctly.
[10:42.000 --> 10:45.000]  So you just object to that.
[10:45.000 --> 10:48.000]  When they try to set something that doesn't give you enough time, object to that.
[10:48.000 --> 10:55.000]  It's like, no, we need a date that allows for proper discovery responses here.
[10:55.000 --> 11:01.000]  We've got outstanding discovery and the proposing counsel is being unresponsive.
[11:01.000 --> 11:05.000]  I'm anticipating that they're going to get right to the end.
[11:05.000 --> 11:09.000]  And if they continue with the pattern that they're demonstrating already,
[11:09.000 --> 11:13.000]  we're going to end up having another hearing just for a motion to compel.
[11:13.000 --> 11:18.000]  And they seem to be interested in wasting everybody's time here.
[11:18.000 --> 11:30.000]  And so it would be premature to set a trial date since they're not even cooperating with discovery yet.
[11:30.000 --> 11:33.000]  Well, okay.
[11:33.000 --> 11:40.000]  So that could potentially come up November 1st, right?
[11:40.000 --> 11:43.000]  So this is where I'm confused.
[11:43.000 --> 11:51.000]  So number one, I had mentioned before that they keep making mistakes with like the minutes
[11:51.000 --> 11:57.000]  and they made a pretty big mistake with the minutes.
[11:57.000 --> 12:05.000]  So two things, they – in the appearances, the people who appeared,
[12:05.000 --> 12:12.000]  they listed Trader Joe, the petitioner, as appearing for the hearing.
[12:12.000 --> 12:14.000]  And this is the first time they've –
[12:14.000 --> 12:16.000]  Okay.
[12:16.000 --> 12:17.000]  So they listed –
[12:17.000 --> 12:21.000]  Did they do that, you know, via – did they have like the CEO show up
[12:21.000 --> 12:26.000]  or was it a deposition that he had or – no, you said hearing.
[12:26.000 --> 12:29.000]  So did the CEO come?
[12:29.000 --> 12:30.000]  No one's come.
[12:30.000 --> 12:32.000]  No one's appearing in court.
[12:32.000 --> 12:33.000]  I'm the only one.
[12:33.000 --> 12:45.000]  There's not even an attorney that claims to be representing?
[12:45.000 --> 12:53.000]  It seems like somebody showed – somebody was on – no, they listed the attorney separate.
[12:53.000 --> 13:03.000]  So like the first time they listed the petitioner being Trader Joe's company via what they call LA Court Connect,
[13:03.000 --> 13:07.000]  which is their Zoom version of Zoom.
[13:07.000 --> 13:09.000]  Okay.
[13:09.000 --> 13:11.000]  So I mean that's ridiculous.
[13:11.000 --> 13:17.000]  I mean that they're not listing a name of a man or a woman.
[13:17.000 --> 13:18.000]  So I still know –
[13:18.000 --> 13:25.000]  It's okay just for them to have a corporation doing some kind of an action or defending or something,
[13:25.000 --> 13:30.000]  but they have to have somebody saying that they're representing.
[13:30.000 --> 13:39.000]  It can't just be, yeah, the fiction is here and there's nobody to speak for the fiction.
[13:39.000 --> 13:40.000]  That wouldn't work.
[13:40.000 --> 13:41.000]  Okay.
[13:41.000 --> 13:45.000]  So I mean – so that's not a huge issue then, but –
[13:45.000 --> 13:47.000]  I would say it is.
[13:47.000 --> 13:51.000]  I would say it's definitely a big issue.
[13:51.000 --> 13:56.000]  It's just – you're saying that it couldn't.
[13:56.000 --> 14:06.000]  And yes, I think it could appear via either the CEO who's principal for that fiction
[14:06.000 --> 14:11.000]  or somebody that the CEO hired or authorized to be hired as a representative.
[14:11.000 --> 14:17.000]  The attorney could stand up there and say, yeah, I'm appearing for – and here's this document
[14:17.000 --> 14:22.000]  that I can wave in front of you that has the CEO's signature on it that says that I have agency
[14:22.000 --> 14:27.000]  to stand here and speak for him.
[14:27.000 --> 14:28.000]  Okay.
[14:28.000 --> 14:29.000]  So –
[14:29.000 --> 14:31.000]  Usually they don't have that.
[14:31.000 --> 14:34.000]  Right.
[14:34.000 --> 14:38.000]  So that's the first issue on there.
[14:38.000 --> 14:49.000]  The big issue is that – and they have – they've screwed up the dates of the hearing date.
[14:49.000 --> 14:56.000]  Instead of having everything forwarded, continued to November 1st, like what happened at the hearing,
[14:56.000 --> 15:03.000]  they have the restraining order hearing scheduled for October 17th.
[15:03.000 --> 15:13.000]  And I have a motion to dismiss pending and a motion to correct the previous orders pending
[15:13.000 --> 15:18.000]  and an opposition to remote appearances pending.
[15:18.000 --> 15:19.000]  Those are all –
[15:19.000 --> 15:21.000]  So let me just get clear.
[15:21.000 --> 15:26.000]  Are the things that they're wanting to hear on October 17,
[15:26.000 --> 15:30.000]  would that be affected by the things that you have pending?
[15:30.000 --> 15:32.000]  Yeah.
[15:32.000 --> 15:33.000]  Okay.
[15:33.000 --> 15:37.000]  So they need to change their schedule around.
[15:37.000 --> 15:43.000]  They don't seem to mind too much.
[15:43.000 --> 15:50.000]  From my perspective, what it looks like is they don't seem to mind if they've got something on the schedule
[15:50.000 --> 15:57.000]  and they can just put one of your other hearings that needs to be heard before that into the same slot.
[15:57.000 --> 16:02.000]  They seem to get picky if, hey, we only slotted 30 minutes for this,
[16:02.000 --> 16:05.000]  and what you're now asking us to do is going to take an hour.
[16:05.000 --> 16:07.000]  They don't like that at all.
[16:07.000 --> 16:13.000]  But if it seems like you can go ahead and just slip your – you know,
[16:13.000 --> 16:19.000]  the hearing that needs to happen first, slip it into that slot, they don't seem to mind about that.
[16:19.000 --> 16:25.000]  So you might just check in with the court coordinator and ask if you can make an adjustment.
[16:25.000 --> 16:31.000]  So here's what I'm proposing, and then send out a notice of hearing to opposing counsel.
[16:31.000 --> 16:33.000]  Sir, I mean, we were all there.
[16:33.000 --> 16:40.000]  We say forwarded every – all the matters were to be continued in November 1st.
[16:40.000 --> 16:42.000]  Ah.
[16:42.000 --> 16:46.000]  So then the October 17 hearing shouldn't happen at all.
[16:46.000 --> 16:48.000]  Exactly. Exactly.
[16:48.000 --> 16:49.000]  I got you.
[16:49.000 --> 16:50.000]  Okay.
[16:50.000 --> 16:52.000]  I think I'm tracking with you now.
[16:52.000 --> 16:58.000]  We're just about to go to our sponsors, and so just hold that thought, and we will be right back.
[17:22.000 --> 17:25.000]  Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.000 --> 17:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[17:31.000 --> 17:36.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor
[17:36.000 --> 17:40.000]  along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.000 --> 17:43.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com,
[17:43.000 --> 17:47.000]  your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[17:47.000 --> 17:51.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.000 --> 17:56.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family,
[17:56.000 --> 17:58.000]  and increase your income.
[17:58.000 --> 18:00.000]  Order now.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word?
[18:05.000 --> 18:12.000]  Then tune in to logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk,
[18:12.000 --> 18:17.000]  where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[18:17.000 --> 18:22.000]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
[18:22.000 --> 18:24.000]  rightly dividing the word of truth.
[18:24.000 --> 18:28.000]  Starting in January, our first-hour studies are in the Book of Mark,
[18:28.000 --> 18:32.000]  where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message.
[18:32.000 --> 18:35.000]  Our second-hour topical studies will vary each week
[18:35.000 --> 18:39.000]  with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development.
[18:39.000 --> 18:43.000]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[18:43.000 --> 18:47.000]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[18:50.000 --> 18:56.000]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on logosradionetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m.
[18:56.000 --> 19:00.000]  to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[19:00.000 --> 19:23.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[19:23.000 --> 19:38.000]  Thank you very much.
[19:53.000 --> 20:16.000]  Okay, we are back.
[20:16.000 --> 20:18.000]  This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton.
[20:18.000 --> 20:24.000]  I'm Brat Fountain, and we are Kelton-less this evening, actually.
[20:24.000 --> 20:26.000]  We've got Jason in California.
[20:26.000 --> 20:32.000]  He is telling us about his court experiences.
[20:32.000 --> 20:35.000]  And Jason, you were just mentioning before we went to the sponsors,
[20:35.000 --> 20:42.000]  you were just mentioning that the court has continued all of these things
[20:42.000 --> 20:45.000]  that need to be heard to November,
[20:45.000 --> 20:50.000]  but somehow they still have an October 17 hearing.
[20:50.000 --> 20:52.000]  It sounds like maybe it's just unclear.
[20:52.000 --> 20:55.000]  They don't know, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing
[20:55.000 --> 20:57.000]  or what's going on there.
[20:57.000 --> 21:02.000]  So you might call up to the court coordinator and just ask,
[21:02.000 --> 21:07.000]  what is this scheduled for since everything was moved to November?
[21:07.000 --> 21:09.000]  What hearing is this?
[21:09.000 --> 21:13.000]  Then you would have an opportunity to clearly approach it,
[21:13.000 --> 21:18.000]  raise an exception, or ask for something.
[21:18.000 --> 21:20.000]  Does that make sense?
[21:20.000 --> 21:25.000]  Yeah, it makes sense, but I don't know that there's a...
[21:25.000 --> 21:29.000]  It seems like the court coordinator might be the judicial assistant,
[21:29.000 --> 21:34.000]  who's the one who's making these mistakes.
[21:34.000 --> 21:35.000]  Judicial what?
[21:35.000 --> 21:38.000]  An assistant.
[21:38.000 --> 21:40.000]  Oh, yeah, that's fine.
[21:40.000 --> 21:47.000]  Just talk to that person and see if he or she can tell you what that hearing is for,
[21:47.000 --> 21:51.000]  because most likely that's a mistake that you could just,
[21:51.000 --> 21:54.000]  in a phone conversation, you can get that cleared up
[21:54.000 --> 22:00.000]  and they'll realize that they made a mistake and they'll just fix it.
[22:00.000 --> 22:02.000]  Well, let me give you more info.
[22:02.000 --> 22:07.000]  So she's made like four mistakes.
[22:07.000 --> 22:11.000]  One was a pretty major one and she fixed it.
[22:11.000 --> 22:16.000]  The other two, I spoke to her and she had an attitude,
[22:16.000 --> 22:21.000]  and she was like, well, do you have a copy of the court transcripts?
[22:21.000 --> 22:23.000]  And I was like, no.
[22:23.000 --> 22:26.000]  She's like, well, how are you going to prove what you're saying?
[22:26.000 --> 22:28.000]  Like, how are you going to prove that I made a mistake?
[22:28.000 --> 22:30.000]  Oh, boy.
[22:30.000 --> 22:33.000]  So then that's why I made a motion to correct the minutes,
[22:33.000 --> 22:39.000]  and that's one of the motions that's scheduled for November 1st.
[22:39.000 --> 22:45.000]  But so what I'm saying is in the minute, the minute says what the hearing is for.
[22:45.000 --> 22:49.000]  I mean, there's three mistakes in the minutes,
[22:49.000 --> 22:54.000]  but it says the hearing is for the restraining order,
[22:54.000 --> 22:59.000]  the workplace violence restraining order.
[22:59.000 --> 23:05.000]  That's what's scheduled on the 17th, which is just insane.
[23:05.000 --> 23:13.000]  So I mean, we can't have that because, well, number one, it's a mistake.
[23:13.000 --> 23:19.000]  Number two, we have a motion to dismiss pending,
[23:19.000 --> 23:23.000]  and we still have discovery requests that are supposed to come in.
[23:23.000 --> 23:30.000]  So I guess my question is... Yeah, that's definitely untimely, that hearing.
[23:30.000 --> 23:35.000]  But you've got this other one about fixing the minutes.
[23:35.000 --> 23:37.000]  There's some corrections that need to be made,
[23:37.000 --> 23:39.000]  and it sounds like based on those corrections,
[23:39.000 --> 23:44.000]  you would have something different happen with the case.
[23:44.000 --> 23:46.000]  Is that right? Yeah, these really are minutes.
[23:46.000 --> 23:52.000]  No, no, no, no. These are minor errors, minor corrections.
[23:52.000 --> 23:56.000]  This one is a major error. Okay.
[23:56.000 --> 24:01.000]  So it's the question of like, do I submit a...
[24:01.000 --> 24:13.000]  Is an ex parte motion a special, like a quick way of getting this to the judge,
[24:13.000 --> 24:18.000]  or am I not understanding what an ex parte is?
[24:18.000 --> 24:22.000]  Yes, ex parte is just one side.
[24:22.000 --> 24:28.000]  It means we don't need to wait until you get the other opposing parties involved,
[24:28.000 --> 24:30.000]  you know, if there's one or more parties.
[24:30.000 --> 24:36.000]  All you need to do, Judge, is just deal with this one issue right here, right now,
[24:36.000 --> 24:39.000]  and you don't even have to have a hearing.
[24:39.000 --> 24:44.000]  I don't need to be in on it. Here's the pleading.
[24:44.000 --> 24:50.000]  You know, it's typically for emergency kind of use, and they tend to frown on ex parte
[24:50.000 --> 24:54.000]  because, you know, in general, the system is designed
[24:54.000 --> 24:57.000]  so that everybody has an opportunity to weigh in on things,
[24:57.000 --> 25:00.000]  and to object if appropriate and so forth.
[25:00.000 --> 25:07.000]  So you might try reaching out to opposing counsel
[25:07.000 --> 25:11.000]  and ask them if they would have any opposition to that.
[25:11.000 --> 25:17.000]  That way, when you go to the judge, you can mention that you have done that.
[25:17.000 --> 25:24.000]  You've spoken with opposing counsel, and they have no opposition.
[25:24.000 --> 25:31.000]  That would put that in the ex parte motion as, like, a fact.
[25:31.000 --> 25:33.000]  Yeah.
[25:33.000 --> 25:38.000]  I mean, because the other option, I mean, there's an option to, you know,
[25:38.000 --> 25:42.000]  speak to this woman who keeps making mistakes,
[25:42.000 --> 25:47.000]  and is there any way to, like, how can she do, like, if she's doing it for mine,
[25:47.000 --> 25:51.000]  she's making mistakes all over the place for everybody.
[25:51.000 --> 25:58.000]  She's, like, just wreaking havoc in this.
[25:58.000 --> 26:03.000]  You don't say. On the government payroll?
[26:03.000 --> 26:09.000]  No repercussions at all. It doesn't feel right.
[26:09.000 --> 26:12.000]  She should be fired at this point. She's made four mistakes.
[26:12.000 --> 26:16.000]  The first one was, you know, there was a continuance,
[26:16.000 --> 26:22.000]  and she wrote that my temporary restraining order is still in effect.
[26:22.000 --> 26:26.000]  There is no temporary restraining order. That got denied.
[26:26.000 --> 26:29.000]  So I had to thank God she fixed that without hassle,
[26:29.000 --> 26:35.000]  but I was just like, what in the world is this lady doing?
[26:35.000 --> 26:44.000]  So, yeah, major mistake, a couple minor ones, and now this one.
[26:44.000 --> 26:49.000]  And, okay, so I'll try and talk to her,
[26:49.000 --> 26:56.000]  and I'll have an ex parte motion ready to go to fix the myth,
[26:56.000 --> 26:59.000]  and to just remove that.
[26:59.000 --> 27:04.000]  Make sure everything is scheduled for the first like it was supposed to be.
[27:04.000 --> 27:08.000]  Yeah. So we don't need this hearing anymore.
[27:08.000 --> 27:14.000]  This is everything that moved to November, and this hearing, we're letting go of this time.
[27:14.000 --> 27:19.000]  The court can put something else in there. We don't need it.
[27:19.000 --> 27:25.000]  And then when we communicate with the liar, should we do it through email or telephone?
[27:25.000 --> 27:31.000]  Is there a preference as far as you're concerned?
[27:31.000 --> 27:35.000]  Well, sometimes a phone can be better.
[27:35.000 --> 27:40.000]  I don't want to talk to them in general. I want everything to be in writing.
[27:40.000 --> 27:42.000]  Right.
[27:42.000 --> 27:48.000]  It's just my personal preference. I want just the words to go,
[27:48.000 --> 27:53.000]  and so I'll email them or I'll send a fax if they haven't shared an email.
[27:53.000 --> 27:58.000]  But I would much rather do that than to get on the phone.
[27:58.000 --> 28:02.000]  But if I'm going to be on the phone, I'm going to record it.
[28:02.000 --> 28:07.000]  Yeah. And do you let them know or not?
[28:07.000 --> 28:16.000]  No. Different states have different privacy considerations about that, about recording.
[28:16.000 --> 28:20.000]  Texas is what they call one party state.
[28:20.000 --> 28:28.000]  So if either one of the parties, any party to the recording, knows about it, then it's legit.
[28:28.000 --> 28:31.000]  Some states, I don't know, you'd have to take a look and see.
[28:31.000 --> 28:34.000]  You're in California. I'm not sure how they treat it.
[28:34.000 --> 28:38.000]  You might have to say, hey, I'm recording this, or you might even have to ask for their permission.
[28:38.000 --> 28:41.000]  I don't know. But I would record it.
[28:41.000 --> 28:47.000]  For me, I would record it just so that I have good notes, even if I'm not going to share it to anybody,
[28:47.000 --> 28:50.000]  so that I know here's what happened and it's clear.
[28:50.000 --> 28:54.000]  Oh, no, I said that after he said this. Oh, okay, good.
[28:54.000 --> 28:57.000]  So then you have a way to reference that for yourself.
[28:57.000 --> 29:02.000]  Yeah. Okay.
[29:02.000 --> 29:09.000]  So the other thing, the more I go through this or the deeper down this rabbit hole,
[29:09.000 --> 29:13.000]  the more it feels like, I guess, like a poker match.
[29:13.000 --> 29:25.000]  Like it really feels like you're playing hand and you have different plays you can do.
[29:25.000 --> 29:34.000]  Yeah, you're right. I got that distinct impression today when I'm trying to serve a lawyer a fork in the road.
[29:34.000 --> 29:39.000]  I'm trying to give him an option to say, you know, carrot and stick kind of a thing.
[29:39.000 --> 29:50.000]  And I got the distinct impression that he just might try to double down on nothing when he really knows better.
[29:50.000 --> 29:53.000]  He knows he should fold, but his arrogance might take care of it.
[29:53.000 --> 29:55.000]  I don't know. We'll see.
[29:55.000 --> 30:01.000]  We're going to go to our sponsors and just hold on and we'll be right back.
[30:01.000 --> 30:06.000]  Businesses ask you for a lot of personal information and you may trust them to keep it safe.
[30:06.000 --> 30:11.000]  But it turns out that even the most trusted companies may be unwittingly revealing your secrets.
[30:11.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with details.
[30:15.000 --> 30:17.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.000 --> 30:20.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.000 --> 30:25.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.000 --> 30:27.000]  So protect your rights.
[30:27.000 --> 30:30.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:30.000 --> 30:33.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.000 --> 30:37.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[30:37.000 --> 30:41.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:51.000]  Data privacy is a big deal, so nearly every company has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information.
[30:51.000 --> 30:54.000]  But what happens if it escapes their control?
[30:54.000 --> 30:55.000]  It's not an idle question.
[30:55.000 --> 31:03.000]  According to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of U.S. companies admit their security was breached by hackers in the last year.
[31:03.000 --> 31:07.000]  That's one more reason you should trust your searches to Startpage.com.
[31:07.000 --> 31:11.000]  Unlike other search engines, Startpage doesn't store any data on you.
[31:11.000 --> 31:16.000]  They've never been hacked, but even if they were, there would be nothing for criminals to see.
[31:16.000 --> 31:17.000]  The cupboard would be bare.
[31:17.000 --> 31:21.000]  Too bad other companies don't treat your data the same way.
[31:21.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.000 --> 31:35.000]  I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11, 2001.
[31:35.000 --> 31:39.000]  Most people don't know that a third tower fell on September 11.
[31:39.000 --> 31:43.000]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[31:43.000 --> 31:47.000]  Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[31:47.000 --> 31:53.000]  the 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[31:53.000 --> 31:56.000]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[31:56.000 --> 31:58.000]  Go to buildingwhat.org.
[31:58.000 --> 32:02.000]  Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[32:02.000 --> 32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar.
[32:05.000 --> 32:08.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[32:08.000 --> 32:13.000]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:16.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[32:16.000 --> 32:20.000]  to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy, Dave Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[32:29.000 --> 32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[32:34.000 --> 32:36.000]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:44.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[32:44.000 --> 32:47.000]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[32:47.000 --> 32:50.000]  hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:50.000 --> 32:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[32:54.000 --> 33:14.000]  Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[33:14.000 --> 33:25.000]  Mr. Officer, you're taking the law in your hand. Won't you follow the law of the land? I don't understand.
[33:25.000 --> 33:31.000]  Your job is to protect our service, not beat and abuse.
[33:31.000 --> 33:45.000]  Okay, we are back. The Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton, I'm Brett Fountain, and we're talking with Jason in California this evening.
[33:45.000 --> 33:51.000]  All right, Jason, we're back. Let's see, where were we?
[33:51.000 --> 33:58.000]  We were talking about plays, like we're playing some type of card game.
[33:58.000 --> 34:03.000]  That's right. Yep.
[34:03.000 --> 34:08.000]  Sometimes they should fold, but they're going to just double down with their bad hand,
[34:08.000 --> 34:13.000]  and they're just going to try to pretend bluff you. Yep.
[34:13.000 --> 34:26.000]  Yeah, I mean, so there's just so many options, and I don't know, haven't decided which way to go yet.
[34:26.000 --> 34:33.000]  Number one, there's this commissioner. Okay, number one is the commissioner with a stipulation,
[34:33.000 --> 34:43.000]  and I put in a motion to withdraw the stipulation, and I forgot to put in a declaration and sign it.
[34:43.000 --> 34:49.000]  That's nothing. If they raise an issue about it, you just sign it. No big deal.
[34:49.000 --> 34:59.000]  She denied it, and I didn't know about that, that there's a code that says when they bring it up,
[34:59.000 --> 35:06.000]  they should give you an opportunity to sign it, an offer to sign it, and she just denied me.
[35:06.000 --> 35:14.000]  So that's an issue right there that you need to go and get a higher court to weigh in on.
[35:14.000 --> 35:19.000]  Can you please make this lower court obey the law?
[35:19.000 --> 35:22.000]  Or even if it's a rule, it doesn't matter if it's a law or a rule,
[35:22.000 --> 35:27.000]  the higher court will command that lower court to follow it.
[35:27.000 --> 35:32.000]  So then that's, I know that there's been a lot of talk about it recently,
[35:32.000 --> 35:42.000]  a writ of mandamus or a bit of an interrogatory appeal.
[35:42.000 --> 35:54.000]  So does that stop, if I go file one of those, does that stop everything until it's addressed?
[35:54.000 --> 36:01.000]  I'm not sure. What I usually do is if the higher court is taking more than a day or two,
[36:01.000 --> 36:08.000]  then I will send something to the lower court to say a motion to stay proceedings pending appellate review.
[36:08.000 --> 36:15.000]  I don't know if that's necessary or if they just do that anyway. I'm not really sure.
[36:15.000 --> 36:20.000]  But generally it should be a quick process?
[36:20.000 --> 36:21.000]  Yeah.
[36:21.000 --> 36:25.000]  You're writ and then it's quick?
[36:25.000 --> 36:36.000]  Yeah, the higher court looks at this as a very quick little small scope of something for them to review.
[36:36.000 --> 36:40.000]  Is this legit or not? Do we need to correct this error?
[36:40.000 --> 36:48.000]  They know that this is, for you to do this in one small little bite-sized piece is much more judicially efficient
[36:48.000 --> 36:54.000]  than for you to bring them a pile of problems after it's all gone to final judgment
[36:54.000 --> 36:58.000]  and you're trying to appeal the whole thing.
[36:58.000 --> 37:05.000]  It's really good if you can catch one little piece, the judge issues some bad ruling and says denied
[37:05.000 --> 37:11.000]  because of a correctable error such as I forgot to sign it.
[37:11.000 --> 37:19.000]  And you're supposed to be the rule says I need to be able to correct a correctable error if they bring it to my attention,
[37:19.000 --> 37:26.000]  then I need to be able to amend it or correct the error. And they didn't allow me that.
[37:26.000 --> 37:32.000]  They violated rule 11 point whatever. And so you just point this out and you say,
[37:32.000 --> 37:38.000]  you want the higher court to command the lower court to follow rule 11.3, whatever the thing is.
[37:38.000 --> 37:47.000]  So then that higher court looks at this as, I don't know, it's not priority like habeas corpus,
[37:47.000 --> 37:57.000]  but they do take care of it pretty quickly. They look at it like here's this little small module of this one issue.
[37:57.000 --> 38:03.000]  If we just knock this out really fast, then that's going to save us down the road from maybe having
[38:03.000 --> 38:09.000]  a giant pile of paperwork to figure out all these moving pieces.
[38:09.000 --> 38:19.000]  Okay. That's interesting because I mean, the thing, the big thing before the stipulation or including is
[38:19.000 --> 38:35.000]  that the petition for restraining order is totally deficient. It's not signed to bring back whoever this Trader Joe's company is.
[38:35.000 --> 38:40.000]  It's not signed by Trader Joe's. It's signed by one of the employees.
[38:40.000 --> 38:49.000]  And she's, the commissioners was accepting that. And in addition, they're supposed to have declarations
[38:49.000 --> 38:57.000]  to support the petition and none of the statements have signed declaration.
[38:57.000 --> 39:13.000]  So basically if I include that in the writ, should I make two separate writ or do one with both issues in it?
[39:13.000 --> 39:15.000]  That would be the question.
[39:15.000 --> 39:25.000]  I don't know. I guess I don't see a preference either way. I would probably do one, but yeah, I don't know.
[39:25.000 --> 39:29.000]  This is not something that you're going to have like with motions.
[39:29.000 --> 39:38.000]  I like to separate the motions when they're going to hearing and have it very cleanly one issue so that when it's denied,
[39:38.000 --> 39:44.000]  you can ask on what grounds and it's very clean. You're not dealing with a lot of stuff together.
[39:44.000 --> 39:49.000]  The fact set goes to the motion. Everything is right there clean.
[39:49.000 --> 39:58.000]  And then they can't just blanket deny everything just with one denial and throw the whole, all of your issues that were in the one document.
[39:58.000 --> 40:04.000]  It's better to have them separate. But this petition for a writ of mandamus, I don't know if it matters as much.
[40:04.000 --> 40:08.000]  You're not before the court. You're not, there's nothing to argue.
[40:08.000 --> 40:14.000]  Whatever points you put there in the document, they're either going to do it or not.
[40:14.000 --> 40:20.000]  I don't know if it would make a difference for you or not to split it up.
[40:20.000 --> 40:36.000]  Okay. I don't know. I mean, it just seems like just such a minor thing, but such a major step to do a writ of mandate.
[40:36.000 --> 40:40.000]  Not really. You can make it one page. It's not that big a deal.
[40:40.000 --> 40:46.000]  I'm saying what they, according to their fee schedule, it's a big deal.
[40:46.000 --> 40:55.000]  Though I'm under the fee waiver, so I shouldn't have to pay anything.
[40:55.000 --> 41:02.000]  They charge almost $800 for a writ of mandate.
[41:02.000 --> 41:04.000]  That's crazy.
[41:04.000 --> 41:05.000]  It's insane.
[41:05.000 --> 41:11.000]  Wow. Okay. It's California. What does that get you? One taking gas?
[41:11.000 --> 41:19.000]  So the thought of doing two is like, whoa, this is crazy.
[41:19.000 --> 41:27.000]  Okay. So that's one option. The other option was just submit a new one with a declaration.
[41:27.000 --> 41:33.000]  Let's submit one that's correct, which I prepared today.
[41:33.000 --> 41:39.000]  The other, the next option was, so submitted one to remove the stipulation.
[41:39.000 --> 41:47.000]  Another option was to just try to submit a motion to disqualify this person.
[41:47.000 --> 42:02.000]  But I don't know if I can. I don't know if, I think because she's a temporary judge that some of these things don't apply to her exactly.
[42:02.000 --> 42:13.000]  I don't know. I would be really, I would encourage you to go look for that in the rules and see if it specifically says that you can't do X, Y, Z because she's temporary.
[42:13.000 --> 42:24.000]  Okay, fine. But you've got an overarching constitutional guarantee that you're not going to be sitting under a biased judge.
[42:24.000 --> 42:29.000]  You're not going to be sitting under somebody who is prejudiced against you.
[42:29.000 --> 42:30.000]  Yeah.
[42:30.000 --> 42:38.000]  You have a right to that. And so that doesn't touch on, oh, well, how permanent or temporary is the judge.
[42:38.000 --> 42:45.000]  You have a right to a fair trial, impartial. So I would lean toward that direction.
[42:45.000 --> 43:04.000]  To maybe just go that way and then forget about this removing the stipulation. But I don't know if they would try to stick me with another like temporary judge or commissioner rather.
[43:04.000 --> 43:21.000]  Okay. Interesting. These are concerns or plays I'm thinking about. And then the other one was to submit a demand for trial by jury and see what happens.
[43:21.000 --> 43:23.000]  That might just throw everything.
[43:23.000 --> 43:29.000]  You're asking to have a trial by jury or you don't want to have a trial by jury?
[43:29.000 --> 43:32.000]  I was asked to have one.
[43:32.000 --> 43:37.000]  Okay. You thought about the pros and cons of that?
[43:37.000 --> 43:39.000]  No.
[43:39.000 --> 43:47.000]  Okay. So when we come back and we have a trial, let's talk about pros and cons because I see that there are some.
[43:47.000 --> 44:00.000]  Anybody else wants to call in on the caller board? We've got some space. It's 512-646-1984. All right. We will be right back.
[44:00.000 --> 44:10.000]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be lost without Logos.
[44:10.000 --> 44:22.000]  And I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos?
[44:22.000 --> 44:31.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos. You can order new supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[44:31.000 --> 44:43.000]  Now go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos.
[44:43.000 --> 44:44.000]  Do I pay extra?
[44:44.000 --> 44:45.000]  No.
[44:45.000 --> 44:47.000]  Do I have to do anything different when I order?
[44:47.000 --> 44:48.000]  No.
[44:48.000 --> 44:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[44:49.000 --> 44:50.000]  No.
[44:50.000 --> 44:51.000]  I mean, yes.
[44:51.000 --> 44:56.000]  Well, giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect. Thank you so much.
[44:56.000 --> 44:58.000]  We are welcome.
[44:58.000 --> 45:00.000]  Happy holidays, Logos.
[45:00.000 --> 45:15.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? 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.
[45:15.000 --> 45:27.000]  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. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[45:27.000 --> 45:43.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. 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.
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:14.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:14.000 --> 46:25.000]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not reach anybody too long, would your purpose ask you to die?
[46:25.000 --> 46:54.000]  Such a sentimental soldier, a warrior of heart's love, scuffling the keys of peace. All they're thinking is a misunderstanding. Somebody calls the police, watching the sparks fly.
[46:54.000 --> 47:13.000]  The friction is an addiction. The hard work can leave you cold as nails. An inability to touch tranquility. Heavy loads of safe and unscathed.
[47:13.000 --> 47:24.000]  The time is colliding with the conflict. You find out after a while. It's not your moral standard. It's your patience that's on trial.
[47:24.000 --> 47:45.000]  Okay, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton. I'm Brett Fountain, and we're speaking with Jason in California. Jason, when you do get to trial, you were talking about maybe having jury, and there's pros and cons to both of those options.
[47:45.000 --> 47:58.000]  Having a jury trial or a bench trial. And I think honestly it depends on what the case is and how you feel that the other people, like you're going to have a jury. Think about these jury of your peers.
[47:58.000 --> 48:11.000]  Are they all going to think you're crazy? Are they all going to think that you just don't know what you're talking about? If I go in there with a speeding ticket and I ask for a jury trial,
[48:11.000 --> 48:20.000]  all of those people are going to think, well, of course you have to go a certain speed. That's what the sign says. Everybody knows that.
[48:20.000 --> 48:33.000]  And so I can't expect them to rule according to what the law says. But a judge, if I go with the bench trial, I can hold the judge accountable to follow the law.
[48:33.000 --> 48:43.000]  He can't go with his feelings. He can't go with this is the way we've always done things or I thought that's what that meant. He has to go with the facts and the law. That's it.
[48:43.000 --> 48:57.000]  And if he does anything else, you can hold him accountable. One of the pros to having a jury is if you think there's a possibility that these people are, maybe they either they already would agree with you.
[48:57.000 --> 49:09.000]  They already, you know, everybody has this sense of a certain thing and you can pretty much bet that this is going to resonate with what's written on people's hearts.
[49:09.000 --> 49:38.000]  Okay. So then you can go with that. And if there's maybe a minor training issue, there's a process of jury selection at the beginning. It's called voir dire or voir dire. And it is a process of trying to pick which jurors are going to be kicked out of the pool and which ones may end up being in the jury.
[49:38.000 --> 50:03.000]  And during that process, you have an opportunity to ask some questions and it's an opportunity to kind of sideways teach the jurors, the prospective jurors about your rights or about what the law says that we have this and you can ask questions in a way that gets them to understand something.
[50:03.000 --> 50:14.000]  And you can watch their faces and you can see if they're kind of, are they getting this or are we going down a road of we need to take a different tack here.
[50:14.000 --> 50:21.000]  Yeah. So that's, that's another option. Anyway, just some things to consider.
[50:21.000 --> 50:35.000]  I mean, my whole purpose of my thought process was to throw that card down just to have everyone go, oh, screw this. We're not going through this.
[50:35.000 --> 50:58.000]  Like to have the other side, like, withdraw what they're getting. Yeah, that could be. If it's, if you've already gotten like the discovery, it's really good and clear who's going to win this. And the lawyers on the other side know that as soon as you step up on that witness stand, they're toast.
[50:58.000 --> 51:07.000]  Right. So I should wait till I get something before playing that.
[51:07.000 --> 51:18.000]  Yeah, I don't know. Maybe you're not to that point of deciding. You definitely need to fix this about you have this mystery hearing that doesn't have anything that needs to be associated with it in October.
[51:18.000 --> 51:29.000]  Make sure that everything is cleanly moved over to November, like the court said. And, and you also want to press on the opposing counsel about discovery.
[51:29.000 --> 51:36.000]  You know, I like to send them when I send discovery requests. Okay, so maybe the rules said that they have 30 days. I don't care.
[51:36.000 --> 51:46.000]  I'm going to ask them to respond by the end of Saturday, because I think that's reasonable. So I'm going to say, will you please answer by Saturday, Saturday, 1159 p.m. Please.
[51:46.000 --> 51:53.000]  I think that's reasonable. It's right there at your fingertips. Why should it take you two hours or two days? I expect you to be done.
[51:53.000 --> 52:06.000]  And so I'll go ahead and put that out there. And that sets an expectation. And then that also gives me a sort of an excuse to bother them about it on Monday and on Wednesday and on Friday.
[52:06.000 --> 52:16.000]  And their 30 days is not up, but that's OK. I'm sending them little reminders to say, hey, I'm still waiting for this. Meanwhile, my I never remind them about my admissions.
[52:16.000 --> 52:24.000]  I just let that go quietly ticking in the background. I remind them about the interrogatories. Hey, you haven't answered.
[52:24.000 --> 52:33.000]  You only answered the first question. I need questions two through six answered. What's wrong with you? What's the matter with you? Get on it.
[52:33.000 --> 52:47.000]  And then, you know, by the time the 30 days is up on admissions, then hopefully I've crafted the questions, the statements well enough, not questions, the statements.
[52:47.000 --> 52:58.000]  Hopefully I've crafted them well enough. It's an art. It's kind of fun. You write these statements sort of like you would be writing an affidavit,
[52:58.000 --> 53:11.000]  a statement of fact or an assertion for an affidavit. But with an affidavit, you're going to make a statement of fact. Well, you better have some some evidence to back that up.
[53:11.000 --> 53:23.000]  You need something. You can't just say that. Well, let's say that I was not involved in the regulated activity.
[53:23.000 --> 53:34.000]  I was not engaged in the regulated activity. And so I can say that I was not engaged in commerce or in any for hire.
[53:34.000 --> 53:42.000]  But I want them to say that they have no evidence that I was engaged in commerce or for hire activity.
[53:42.000 --> 54:00.000]  So I'll put that in a statement. And then when it hits 30 days, now they've admitted the statement that says that they have no evidence that I was involved in the transportation activity
[54:00.000 --> 54:12.000]  or in your case, you know, that any activity that was harmful or offensive to any Trader Joe people.
[54:12.000 --> 54:20.000]  I had no evidence. I don't have evidence that I did anything that harmed any Trader Joe's people.
[54:20.000 --> 54:31.000]  But you're going to say in your statement that they're going to be asked to admit that they had no evidence.
[54:31.000 --> 54:43.000]  That's just and that's probably not the best example, because if somebody comes up with evidence later, they can always that could be
[54:43.000 --> 54:55.000]  kind of worthless to say, yeah, I admitted that. But here's some evidence. So you probably want to say, I don't know, you think through your facts that
[54:55.000 --> 55:03.000]  what is something that would go to an essential element of something they're accusing you of doing?
[55:03.000 --> 55:12.000]  That's definitely where you want to target an admission, a statement and your admissions is go to an essential element.
[55:12.000 --> 55:18.000]  If you look at the essential elements of whatever they're accusing you of harassment or something, look at those essential elements
[55:18.000 --> 55:25.000]  and find something that is the weak spot. You're going to look at those and you're going to say, well, this element I did.
[55:25.000 --> 55:33.000]  That actually did happen. I mean, I was there. I was physically present. Okay, I can't go after that. Here's this one.
[55:33.000 --> 55:40.000]  Did I initiate something? Actually, I didn't initiate anything. They always were the initiators. That would be really good.
[55:40.000 --> 55:49.000]  So then you can target that and you can say in your admissions, just like you would say in your own affidavit later on,
[55:49.000 --> 56:00.000]  if they end up, you know, leaving you with nothing, you put a statement in the admissions that says that all of the interactions
[56:00.000 --> 56:14.000]  were initiated by Trader Joe's employees. That leaves them with, they've admitted that all of the interactions were initiated
[56:14.000 --> 56:24.000]  by Trader Joe's employees, which means that just destroyed any offense that would have that as an element.
[56:24.000 --> 56:33.000]  You doing the initiating of some kind of some interaction. Yeah. Does that make sense? It's kind of fun.
[56:33.000 --> 56:45.000]  It does. And it just makes me think of like, well, just in my response to this petition, I made it into an affidavit.
[56:45.000 --> 56:52.000]  And I don't understand what's like, no one's responded to my response.
[56:52.000 --> 56:58.000]  That's okay. They don't have to respond to the affidavit. You've put evidence out there and, you know,
[56:58.000 --> 57:05.000]  now they're going to have to deal with that. But that would be at trial though.
[57:05.000 --> 57:11.000]  If you can get them to admit those things up front, then they know they're toast.
[57:11.000 --> 57:17.000]  They're not going to be able to do any kind of song and dance and try to distract and object and get you to, you know,
[57:17.000 --> 57:24.000]  off your game. They've got this down. You go in the courtroom and they do this, all this song and dance stuff.
[57:24.000 --> 57:31.000]  And they know exactly how to interrupt your train of thought by butting in at just the right moment when you're
[57:31.000 --> 57:39.000]  starting to deliver your sentence and you've gotten the beginning part out and they object and they say, you know,
[57:39.000 --> 57:48.000]  whatever. Then you're kind of thrown off. They're professionals at this.
[57:48.000 --> 57:54.000]  If you can get it handled up front where you've got all the evidence laid out before you even get to the courtroom,
[57:54.000 --> 58:01.000]  then you're golden. They're destroyed before it gets to the part where they get to do their little ugly arguing and playing dirty.
[58:01.000 --> 58:09.000]  They're destroyed. No, I get it. I mean, I knew that the admissions were powerful and that's why I was like,
[58:09.000 --> 58:19.000]  intimidated and I didn't do that. Yeah, go for it. You still can. And throw some more things in there after that.
[58:19.000 --> 58:29.000]  Think of something that would be reasonably calculated to produce admissible evidence and ask for that.
[58:29.000 --> 58:36.000]  You know, yeah, maybe you want to find out how many other people were in a similar situation.
[58:36.000 --> 58:44.000]  And so you are asking them to produce records about that. I don't know. Think of something that could help you out.
[58:44.000 --> 58:49.000]  I mean, OK, we're just about to go to our sponsors one more time. Hold on.
[58:49.000 --> 58:57.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[58:57.000 --> 59:05.000]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:05.000 --> 59:12.000]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:12.000 --> 59:17.000]  but the real story is the more than nine thousand explanatory footnotes.
[59:17.000 --> 59:21.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[59:21.000 --> 59:27.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.000 --> 59:32.000]  Bibles from America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[59:32.000 --> 59:43.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.000 --> 59:50.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:32.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:38.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:49.000]  Most people think of seven as a more civilized number than six.
[01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:54.000]  Think about the number six as implicated in evil, as in the biblical 666.
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:58.000]  So it would fit right in that the Seventh Amendment would be about civil trials.
[01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  Civil seven, civil trials, get it?
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  Civil trials are ones where people sue instead of beating each other up over a dispute, like the dividing line between properties.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:11.000]  They take their dispute to a courthouse and settle matters civilly without the fisticuffs.
[01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  The Seventh Amendment guarantees that Americans have the right to a jury in certain civil matters
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  instead of having a lone judge rule on the case.
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:47.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:58.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:03.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:22.000]  Remember the scene in George Orwell's novel, 1984, when Winston is threatened with his worst fear?
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:26.000]  That fear was having a cage of hungry rats unleashed on his face.
[01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:30.000]  But what if his worst fear was spiders, eight-legged spiders to be exact?
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:33.000]  Getting a face full of spiders would be pretty cruel and unusual.
[01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  That image of eight-legged spiders will help you remember the Eighth Amendment.
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:41.000]  Our founding fathers added the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
[01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  to protect us from creepy-crawly eight-legged punishments
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:48.000]  and other cruel and unusual prison practices that were common in their day.
[01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  The Eighth Amendment also prohibits the government from requiring excessive bail and charging excessive fines.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:04.000]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. More news and information at KatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:27.000]  What did we say?
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  What did we say?
[01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  Okay, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelpin. I'm Brent Townsend.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:37.000]  And this is the 22nd of September, Thursday evening, September 22, 2022.
[01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:41.000]  And we're still speaking with Jason in California.
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:47.000]  And Jason, I think we've pretty much covered a lot of ground with your issues there.
[01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  Is there anything else that stands out to you?
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  Just, yeah, real quickly. But submitting things to the court.
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:12.000]  You had mentioned last time I called in about submitting a request for clarification on a denial of a motion.
[01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  So when we submit things like that, they're not a motion.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  They're just like a request for the judge to do something, right?
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:22.000]  Yeah.
[01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:23.000]  What?
[01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:29.000]  And that's something that actually goes to the judge and not to the court, just as a mental distinction.
[01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:37.000]  Because sometimes you'll have some judge comes in as by assignment or somebody gets disqualified or something.
[01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:43.000]  You're actually sending a request. In Texas, this wouldn't be clarification.
[01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:47.000]  It would be request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  I think it's the same all over the place, but at least in Texas and the Fed, you're looking at findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:05:59.000]  Yeah.
[01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:07.000]  And what that means is, why did you rule the way you did?
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  When you denied this or you sustained that objection, that doesn't make any sense to me.
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:17.000]  It looks to me like you should have done the opposite.
[01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  So I'm going to ask you why.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  What facts were you relying on and what law did you apply to those facts in order to come to that ruling?
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:29.000]  Yeah.
[01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:30.000]  Because who knows?
[01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  You might need to go to the higher court in an auditory appeal or you might need to do a mandamus or you might need to raise an exception to judicial error, something.
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:45.000]  But you don't know what needs to happen until you find out why they ruled the way they did.
[01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  You might say, oh, that makes perfect sense.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  And then you don't need to do anything. They handled it properly.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  No, I mean, she verbally, everything she said doesn't make sense.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:01.000]  So you say it's arbitrary.
[01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  It appears arbitrary and contrary to the law, irreconcilable with the facts that are presented before the court.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:13.000]  And you're asking why.
[01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  It's just called a request. It's not a motion.
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  I don't need to send it to the other side.
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  I don't need to make a hearing.
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  Okay.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  It doesn't need to have a hearing.
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:28.000]  Good.
[01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  Well, I've got a lot to read and learn and do.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:46.000]  I will let you get on to another person online who's got some issues you can help on that.
[01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  Great.
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:48.000]  Well, thanks for calling in.
[01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  Jason, have a good evening.
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:52.000]  Okay.
[01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:56.000]  And next up, we have John in New York.
[01:07:56.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  Hey, John, how are you this evening?
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  Well, not bad. How are you? How are you, Randy?
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:04.000]  Hi, Brett.
[01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:06.000]  Randy's not with us this evening.
[01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:08.000]  He's on his way back from Victoria, Texas.
[01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:14.000]  And I'm sure we're going to hear all kinds of exciting stories tomorrow evening.
[01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  But he's on the road right now, and he's just going to go ahead and go home and crash.
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:22.000]  I don't blame him.
[01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:25.000]  Well, I wish him luck with what he's doing.
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  Yes.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:34.000]  I was four years old. Since I was four years old, I've been hot on the trail of traffic court, anywhere traffic court.
[01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:41.000]  I was first aware that traffic court was dirty when I was four years old.
[01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:47.000]  And ever since, a cop pulled my mother over for going past the school bus that didn't exist.
[01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:49.000]  My father saw no bus.
[01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:51.000]  My mother was driving and saw no bus.
[01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  My brother was in the car, and I was.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  And my brother was 12 and saw no bus.
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:01.000]  The New World Order has been destroying people's rights for years.
[01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:08.000]  That's why I take traffic tickets very seriously, just like the way they tax us.
[01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  All forms of taxation, as far as I last knew, they were not done properly and therefore unconstitutional.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  And that includes income tax.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:22.000]  But that's not what we're talking about tonight.
[01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:30.000]  The New World Order has been destroying people's rights for years, and they've used the traffic courts as one of the primary ways.
[01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:41.000]  So I take traffic tickets very seriously because it was one barometer the New World Order used to feel their way to see how much they could get away with.
[01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  Let's put it that way.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:46.000]  Yeah, that's an interesting perspective.
[01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:48.000]  Yeah.
[01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:57.000]  Like as a whole organism to see how much it could do to the people and thought of it like that, feeling it out.
[01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:05.000]  Yeah. Oh, absolutely. And I was only four years old when I figured out the traffic court is dirty.
[01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Traffic ticket descendants let it go by, and the judges and the cops are only too willing to keep it going like the Energizer Bunny.
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:20.000]  You've got a ticket. You've got six points coming on your license and a $300 fine.
[01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Well, the DA, the assistant DA, says, we're making deals tonight. Everybody line up and we're going to make a deal.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:35.000]  And they say, how about two points on your license and only $125 fine?
[01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:39.000]  And you go, oh, yeah, uh-huh. Oh, yeah, that's wonderful.
[01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  Thank you so much for finding me only $125, like a big bunch of stupid that we are.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  So once and for all, let me argue a traffic ticket for you now before the judge, any traffic ticket.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:06.000]  And then you tell me when I get something wrong. Once and for all, please provide me with the right wording because every time we go through this, something else is different.
[01:11:06.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  And so anyway, so I'm before the judge and I say, Your Honor, at this time, I ask the court's permission to enter a plea of or rather enter a dismissal to case to be dismissed.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  And the judge will say on what ground? Well, Your Honor, the traffic ticket is insufficient on its face.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  And because it's insufficient, it doesn't give the court proper jurisdiction over me or this case.
[01:11:44.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  And if there's no proper jurisdiction, then...
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:53.000]  Well, you're stacking things one after the other too fast for you to back up any of them.
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:59.000]  If you say that it's insufficient on its face, then you need to describe why.
[01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  You need to say what makes that true before you stack something else on top of what hasn't been substantiated yet.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:07.000]  You know what I mean?
[01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:10.000]  Okay, here I go. Let me do it right then. Let me see if I can do it right.
[01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  Your Honor, I'd like to enter motion to dismiss at this time. Oh, on what ground?
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:23.000]  Well, Your Honor, the traffic ticket is insufficient on its face.
[01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:37.000]  And the reason why it's insufficient on its face, it does in order to accuse a defendant of a crime,
[01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:49.000]  in order to charge a defendant with a crime, you have to allege all the elements of the crime.
[01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  That could be one reason. One reason why it would be insufficient.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  That's not the first one I would go to.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:04.000]  The first one I would go to is that the traffic ticket is not the document that starts the case.
[01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:09.000]  And the document that starts the case is missing.
[01:13:09.000 --> 01:13:10.000]  Okay, let me tell you.
[01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:17.000]  But yes, as a traffic ticket, it may also be invalid for not alleging all the elements.
[01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:24.000]  But maybe a traffic ticket doesn't need to allege elements in order to be sufficient as a traffic ticket.
[01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  But that doesn't magically make it into something besides a traffic ticket,
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:37.000]  like an indictment or information which would be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, right?
[01:13:37.000 --> 01:13:41.000]  Let me take it from there and see if I'm doing it right. That would be my next step.
[01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  When you said that, that tips me off.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  All right, now since a traffic ticket, and I asked a lawyer once who asked, or I once asked a lawyer,
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  he's in my family, and he handles traffic court as a prosecutor for the city, for one of the local towns.
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:13.000]  And he told me a bunch of nonsense.
[01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:17.000]  He said that, I said, well, you know, there's two kinds of court.
[01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  There's civil court and criminal court.
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:23.000]  And he said, yeah, but traffic tickets are a violation.
[01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:26.000]  It's somewhere a quasi thing in between.
[01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:33.000]  And I know that's nonsense. I know that's absolute nonsense.
[01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:41.000]  All right, so let me tell you how I would do it. Your Honor, it's insufficient on its face.
[01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  The traffic ticket itself is not in the correct form.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  If this is traffic court, and one of my other friends, I was helping with a ticket,
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:05.000]  the judge said that in New York State, get this, the judge said this, that it's a civil court.
[01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  Traffic tickets are in civil court, and that's not true.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:11.000]  So the judge didn't even know.
[01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:18.000]  That opens up all kinds of interesting avenues for the defendant, because now the cop,
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  the only way a cop can stop you is if there's a crime, however minor.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:25.000]  And if it's a civil case...
[01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  Not necessarily.
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:28.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:33.000]  Okay, so the feds have this transportation.
[01:15:33.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  It's 49 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:45.000]  It's a federal program. It has been implemented, adopted and implemented by the states individually.
[01:15:45.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  So they took the federal program and kind of stamped it into the states.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  More or less, they've done a few little small tweaks here and there to make it how they wanted it to be.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  But one thing that they have done differently per state is to treat...
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:15.000]  When somebody doesn't do what this regulatory scheme demands that they do,
[01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  some states call that a crime and other states call that a traffic infraction or an administrative violation,
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  and they will handle those things differently.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:41.000]  But still, no matter what, you have to be involved in the regulated activity before you can be guilty of violating its provisions.
[01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:44.000]  And so one of the things that...
[01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:47.000]  You said they have to have a crime before they can stop you?
[01:16:47.000 --> 01:16:49.000]  That's not exactly true.
[01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:56.000]  You could be violating your provisions that you signed on, that you got the license and you promised you would follow it.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  Hold on, we'll be right back.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:32.000]  Our next hour studies are in the Book of Mark where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message.
[01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:44.000]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:50.000]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[01:17:50.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LocalsRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:25.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  Order now.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:10.000]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:50.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton.
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:56.000]  I'm Brett Fountain, and we are talking with John in New York.
[01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  John, when we went out, we were trying to get, I don't know if you've got a question or if you just kind of wanted to go through some hypothetical script.
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:11.000]  Kind of, we were talking about what would you say to a judge?
[01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  Yep. Okay, let me run with the ball. Let me run with the ball. Your Honor.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  Okay, but let's not get too deep in the weeds about what might happen, because everything is always different.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  I mean, you go to different states, you've got different rules that are in place, and you've got different judges that are, sometimes they're bored,
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  and they just want to go golfing, and other times they might care more about justice.
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  You don't know who you're going to get. You don't know how it's going to go.
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  So, yeah, but go ahead.
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:48.000]  Okay, here we go.
[01:20:48.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  Your Honor, motion to dismiss based on the fact that the ticket is not, I just said it, it's insufficient on its face.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  And you see, Your Honor, if it's a crime, there's a set protocol that's followed with a criminal case,
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  not a cop, but the proper designated person must write up the complaint, and the cop isn't the proper designated person.
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  A crime means that the charging instrument must be an information, because that...
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:31.000]  I can guarantee you that no judge is going to let you continue to teach the judge for that long.
[01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:40.000]  If you have a point that you need to make, you've got to sum it up in a few words and get it to a punchline really quickly.
[01:21:40.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  And then if you need to make multiple points, then you can do that in succession, but you can't just keep teaching the judge.
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  It doesn't usually work. I mean, I guess for some judges it might, but they don't want to listen to you teach them.
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:02.000]  No, I realize that. All right.
[01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  As for arguing, if you've got some arguments to make, I would say try to steer clear of all of those assertions.
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:17.000]  You're making a lot of assertions that need to be backed up.
[01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  And try to lean toward, anywhere you can, lean toward denying something.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:34.000]  Deny that any document exists in the record of the court that has invoked the jurisdiction of this court, for example.
[01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:45.000]  And when you deny that it exists, that is a simple and clear, clean, focused issue that somebody needs to look at the record and see,
[01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:48.000]  oh my goodness, let's see if we can rebut that.
[01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:52.000]  Then now they need to prove that it does exist in the record.
[01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  Whoever is going to assert is the one who has to prove.
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:58.000]  The burden of proof is on the one doing the asserting.
[01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:01.000]  The one who denies doesn't have any burden of proof.
[01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  So steer clear, if you can, where possible, steer clear of trying to assert that this is the way things are.
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:13.000]  And so this is absolutely a certain way.
[01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  Even if you're right, try to phrase it in a way that you're, if you're needing to argue, this is just in general because you're off in hypothesis land.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  So just in general, you're wanting to try to deny that something is a certain way.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:40.000]  That way, if the opposing counsel wants to try to get you on the hook, they've got to have the burden of proof on them.
[01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:45.000]  Exactly. Always throw the burden of proof to the other side.
[01:23:45.000 --> 01:23:46.000]  Yeah.
[01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:47.000]  I got you. All right.
[01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  So then tell me if this is the right way then, Your Honor.
[01:23:51.000 --> 01:23:56.000]  There's not really the right way, but yeah, go ahead.
[01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  Your Honor, this is not a proper charge.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  There is nothing in the record, Your Honor, to show that a proper charging instrument was used to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  Right. That's great.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:16.000]  That's really good because then you're going to have the attorney on the other side.
[01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:21.000]  Well, Judge, this citation is the charging instrument.
[01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  Excuse me, Your Honor, I object to this man testifying.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:32.000]  He's making statements of law unsupported, unsubstantiated.
[01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:36.000]  I ask that you would have him prove that up.
[01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:42.000]  Where in the world is he going to find some law that says that the citation can commence a case?
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:48.000]  Not going to happen.
[01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:57.000]  I know where you're going with that, but part of that, you lost it because they're going to argue that the traffic ticket, obviously, full.
[01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  We've been doing traffic tickets now for 200 years, and that's the charging instrument.
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:07.000]  Well, you see, you and I both know that's not what the law says.
[01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  If it's a crime, it has to be an information.
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  So you ask him to prove it up.
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  He says that the citation is a charging instrument.
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:17.000]  Prove it up.
[01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:18.000]  Okay.
[01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:23.000]  In other words, where's the law that says that a citation called the traffic ticket is a charging instrument?
[01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  Yeah.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:27.000]  Citing the law.
[01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:32.000]  Now, when he can't cite the law, is it over and done with?
[01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:33.000]  Probably not.
[01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  It should be, but probably not.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  Yeah, because he's not going to take that.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:39.000]  He's going to say, well, we've been doing that for the last 100 years.
[01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:41.000]  And the judge will go, well, that's right.
[01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  The traffic ticket has been a charging instrument.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:52.000]  More likely, you have to hold them accountable for every little thing they do wrong.
[01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  There's not any magic script you can ever have.
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  And I know you would love to have the perfect wording and to be able to package it up in a way that you can put it on a three-by-five card and read it off and all tickets will disappear.
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:07.000]  You can't.
[01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:09.000]  I wish there were something like that.
[01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:11.000]  It won't happen.
[01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  All right.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:13.000]  So then what do we do next?
[01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  When he says that the traffic ticket was written, Your Honor, the traffic ticket is the charging instrument, then what should be my next statement?
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:23.000]  Where should I go with that?
[01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:26.000]  Now I don't know where to go.
[01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:33.000]  So you deny that the traffic ticket is a charging instrument, and then they're going to sit there and try to say that it is.
[01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:37.000]  And you asked them to prove it up, just like we just said.
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:45.000]  Yeah, but they're going to come up with some, just like that lawyer that I spoke with who acts as a town prosecutor in traffic cases.
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  He said, well, there's, you know, there's traffic court, different hats that they wear.
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:27:02.000]  And he said that traffic court, or excuse me, criminal court, civil court, and a traffic court where it's a violation.
[01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:06.000]  It's neither criminal nor civil.
[01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:07.000]  It's in between.
[01:27:07.000 --> 01:27:09.000]  And that's nonsense.
[01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  If you plead guilty in a court of law or innocent, that's a criminal court.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:21.000]  You don't plead guilty or innocent in a violation court.
[01:27:21.000 --> 01:27:23.000]  It's a criminal court.
[01:27:23.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  Yeah, that goes back to the very core of what's the nature and cause here.
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  And if they can't show you the nature and cause, then you can't formulate a defense.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:44.000]  So if they're going to say that it's a quasi something, then you say, where is the body of law that shows me anything about this quasi something?
[01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:46.000]  Because I don't find anything like that.
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  I can't go into a law library and find whatever it is that you're talking about.
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:50.000]  It doesn't exist.
[01:27:50.000 --> 01:27:51.000]  It doesn't exist.
[01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  Yeah, I know it doesn't.
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:54.000]  Yeah.
[01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:56.000]  So that would be where I'd go with that.
[01:27:56.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  But all right.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:01.000]  So I think that's probably about enough of the theoretical stuff.
[01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:10.000]  If there's not like, do you have something that's actually going on that you want to question of how to deal with something that's live for you right now?
[01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:11.000]  Well, all right.
[01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  Just two questions that I've got.
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:16.000]  Can you go this route?
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:22.000]  You'd actually have to prove that the following is true in a court of law, especially traffic court.
[01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:32.000]  The judge is not an impartial judge because part of those fines, you've got to prove this, go to fund the retirement account.
[01:28:32.000 --> 01:28:33.000]  Wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  Do you ever go that route?
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:40.000]  You're asking me if you can go that route?
[01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:47.000]  You'd have to actually prove it, that the fine money, part of it goes to fund their retirement account.
[01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  Look, if you do have some proof of that, sure, bring it up.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  But all that's going to do is disqualify the guy that you found the proof on.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:02.000]  You still need to, I would say, you still need to deal with due process.
[01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  Okay.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:04.000]  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[01:29:04.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  You're right.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:06.000]  You're right.
[01:29:06.000 --> 01:29:07.000]  I see where you're going.
[01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  All right.
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  This route, judges are supposed to have some type of license, and I know what you're going to say the same thing,
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:21.000]  but is it true that judges are supposed to have some type of judge license to be a judge?
[01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:22.000]  No.
[01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  In other words, like a bar card for a lawyer?
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:28.000]  No.
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:31.000]  Well, that's not true.
[01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:32.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:29:32.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  They got elected into that position, or they, in some cases, got appointed into that position.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:40.000]  But, you know, it's not a...
[01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:41.000]  That's not a valid...
[01:29:41.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  All right.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  We're going to go ahead and go to our sponsors here.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  Thanks for calling, John.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  We're going to go after the sponsors.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  We're going to go ahead and go to our first-time caller that we have in Florida, and we will be right back.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:09.000]  Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing,
[01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  but now researchers say we can add stress to the list.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:14.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  Back with details in a moment.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:18.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:18.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:32.000]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:30:41.000 --> 01:30:45.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:48.000]  Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects?
[01:30:48.000 --> 01:30:52.000]  If so, you might think that multitasking proves you're smart.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:53.000]  But think again.
[01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:56.000]  All that stress might be eating your brain.
[01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:00.000]  A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons,
[01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:04.000]  which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems.
[01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:10.000]  Researchers at Yale University found that stressed-out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex.
[01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:15.000]  That's the part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions.
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  So take a deep breath and chill out.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack.
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Thousands of my fellow first responders have died.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a New York City correction office.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:09.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going
[01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:13.000]  to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:16.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[01:32:16.000 --> 01:32:20.000]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:24.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:26.000]  our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:29.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[01:32:40.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:44.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:49.000]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[01:32:49.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  documents, and other useful resource material.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:55.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:55.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:07.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:57.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  This is the Rule of Law Radio, Eddie Kelton.
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:01.000]  I'm Brett Felton.
[01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  We're going to go to our first time caller in Florida.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:07.000]  I believe it's Chris.
[01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  Chris?
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:10.000]  Yes, I'm here.
[01:34:10.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  Hey, Brett.
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:12.000]  How you doing?
[01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  Good evening.
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:14.000]  I'm doing well.
[01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  Glad you called.
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:17.000]  What's on your mind?
[01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:19.000]  So, your speeding ticket.
[01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  I had a couple of questions.
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:24.000]  I'm on the Telegram group.
[01:34:24.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  Okay.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  I'd like you to discuss a little bit about something you had on there.
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:35.000]  One of them was TRCP12.
[01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  This was in your court case.
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:41.000]  You taped it for us to listen to.
[01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  And you talked about how the attorney should not have been talking at that point.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:49.000]  Right.
[01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:50.000]  They should have been talking.
[01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:59.000]  So, there's a rule that says that if you believe that a case is being prosecuted or,
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:01.000]  like it says, prosecuted, let me go and pull up that rule.
[01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  If you believe that the attorney is representing his side of the case without any authority,
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:10.000]  then you swear to that in a motion.
[01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  You say, I believe that there's no authority here.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  Okay.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  And that triggers a duty that he has now to show authority.
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:25.000]  He doesn't get to just assume anymore.
[01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  Prior to that, everybody just imagines that he has authority and everybody goes along with it
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:33.000]  and everything's fine.
[01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  But then when you raise the flag and you say, whoa, I don't think this guy ought to be talking.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:42.000]  So, that rule says attorney to show authority.
[01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  Here, I'll read it.
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:50.000]  A party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state may, by sworn written motion,
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:56.000]  stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority,
[01:35:56.000 --> 01:36:03.000]  cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court and show his authority to act.
[01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:04.000]  Okay.
[01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  The notice of the motion shall be served.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:10.000]  It tells about how when it will be served and how you have to give notice of it.
[01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  But at the hearing on the motion, the burden of proof shall be upon the challenged attorney
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:22.000]  to show sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit on behalf of the other party.
[01:36:22.000 --> 01:36:30.000]  On his failure to show such authority, the court shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear in the cause
[01:36:30.000 --> 01:36:37.000]  and shall strike the pleadings if no person who is authorized to prosecute or defend appears.
[01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:43.000]  So, it's a pretty powerful motion that says, I don't think this guy should be here.
[01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  I believe he has no authority, make him prove it up.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:49.000]  What's he going to do?
[01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  Show his bar card?
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:54.000]  Yeah.
[01:36:54.000 --> 01:36:59.000]  The other thing was your jurisdiction that you brought up.
[01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:08.000]  So, it didn't seem like he had, or the judge either, didn't seem to understand every time you brought that up to them.
[01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:09.000]  Yeah, you're right.
[01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:12.000]  I do think that the judge was not understanding.
[01:37:12.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  I mean, the judge, she was nice, but I could see on her face, she wasn't getting this.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:26.000]  She was, she seemed open to try to figure it out, but she kept on, she would motion with her hands,
[01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:35.000]  she would gesture to point to me or to the opposing counsel to tell us that it was our turn to talk or something.
[01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  But she didn't have a lot of understanding on her face.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:45.000]  As for jurisdiction, what did you want to speak to exactly about that?
[01:37:45.000 --> 01:37:50.000]  Should I clarify why jurisdiction was lacking?
[01:37:50.000 --> 01:38:00.000]  I did understand why it was lacking, but I guess my question was why you didn't stick with it.
[01:38:00.000 --> 01:38:02.000]  Okay.
[01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  Why I didn't stick with it.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  Why didn't you prove it? Yeah, why didn't you make him prove that he had jurisdiction?
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:14.000]  Oh, as far as the attorney.
[01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  Correct.
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  Is that what you mean? Yeah, I was thinking that that would have been good for me to do as well.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  I shouldn't have let him talk as much as he did.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  He kept on talking and I should have been more firm about not letting him talk.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  But every time he opened his mouth, he embarrassed himself again and I got to slap him around a little bit.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:38.000]  So I didn't mind too much.
[01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:44.000]  But as I was listening to my own recording, I thought, wow, why did I let him spew so much nonsense?
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  That's true.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:49.000]  We learned a lot though.
[01:38:49.000 --> 01:39:01.000]  So my other thing is what's next? Is it an examining trial or will you somehow try to go back for this jurisdiction?
[01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:07.000]  So, yeah, jurisdiction is still before the court and I'm not going to have any other hearings before that.
[01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:18.000]  I'm going to demand that there be an examining trial and demand that if they're going to get past that, like, oh, we found probable cause.
[01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  Okay, great. You must have sensed that from your ESP.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:25.000]  Okay, there's nothing written on the paper.
[01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:29.000]  But then I'm going to go to pretrial.
[01:39:29.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  Now, they called this a pretrial, but everything that I had to be heard, the pleadings of the defendant are to be heard,
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  exceptions to the charging instrument are to be heard, anything about discovery.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  I was ready with all of those things and the opposing counsel was ready for none of it.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:59.000]  He was whining and fussing about how we were blindsiding him, lay behind a log in ambush and trying to litigate by surprise and all that kind of stuff.
[01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:05.000]  And when, in fact, he never read the motions. He had them in plenty of time, but he didn't read them.
[01:40:05.000 --> 01:40:06.000]  And that's normal.
[01:40:06.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  Exactly.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:09.000]  It's unfortunate, but that's what they do.
[01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:14.000]  That's very typical. They don't even open the folder until a few minutes before the hearing.
[01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:19.000]  Okay. Okay, so that's pretty normal.
[01:40:19.000 --> 01:40:25.000]  One I had a question about was the TCCP 2603.
[01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:26.000]  Yes.
[01:40:26.000 --> 01:40:29.000]  It says here it prohibits them from doing prior serving.
[01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  So is this all of your paperwork?
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:39.000]  So the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is that TCCP.
[01:40:39.000 --> 01:40:45.000]  Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in Chapter 26 talks about what is the arraignment.
[01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:50.000]  And what they were trying to do, what they always try to do is hear a plea.
[01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  They want me to say I'm guilty or I'm not guilty because then we're skipping past the question of I've been accused properly and we're acting like I already know what I've been accused of
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:04.000]  and I'm answering to some charges which haven't even been properly presented.
[01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:11.000]  So they want to skip past that as best they can, hurry up and get over to the part where I say I'm guilty or not guilty.
[01:41:11.000 --> 01:41:13.000]  Are you going to pay or do you want to go to trial?
[01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  That's all they want to hear.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:15.000]  They're definitely doing that.
[01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  But that's a question that, yeah, that's a question for arraignment.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  And the arraignment, it specifically says that one that you just mentioned, 26.03, it says that you can't have an arraignment until a full two days after the indictment or the information has been served on the defendant.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  So the defendant has to get the indictment or the information and have two days, two full days to chew on it, decide, okay, this is how I need to respond to this and then they can hold an arraignment.
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:41:56.000]  Okay.
[01:41:56.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  So they just are not following procedures at all?
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:00.000]  No, not at all.
[01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:02.000]  They don't even have an indictment or information.
[01:42:02.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  It doesn't exist.
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:06.000]  They're trying to pretend like the ticket was good enough.
[01:42:06.000 --> 01:42:16.000]  They can get me to buy that and they've got a piece of oceanfront Arizona to sell me or something because the indictment or information does not exist.
[01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:24.000]  And Code of Criminal Procedure 27.01 tells us that that's what the initial pleadings are supposed to be.
[01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:30.000]  When somebody is going to, just like in a civil case, if you want to start a civil case, it doesn't just magically start by itself.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:34.000]  Somebody has to step up to the court and say, hey, I have a problem.
[01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:37.000]  And they bring their primary pleadings to the court.
[01:42:37.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  Sometimes it's called a complaint or a petition.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:45.000]  And they put that into the court and say, I'm starting a case.
[01:42:45.000 --> 01:42:47.000]  Well, this guy didn't do that.
[01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:48.000]  Nobody did that.
[01:42:48.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  Nothing happened.
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:56.000]  The only thing that's in there is e-filed from the DPS, Department of Public Safety.
[01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:03.000]  They send this e-filing thing in there and they act like that's just because they got a copy of the ticket electronically.
[01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:06.000]  From somebody that's not even a party to the case.
[01:43:06.000 --> 01:43:08.000]  Well, suddenly, what?
[01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  That's going to magically start the case or like I was calling it, immaculate commencement.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:23.000]  There's no way that you can start this case based on some electronic ticket.
[01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:26.000]  It's just not anywhere in law.
[01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:27.000]  Yeah.
[01:43:27.000 --> 01:43:38.000]  And today or yesterday, I don't remember which one, you tried to go ahead and serve the lawyer.
[01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:39.000]  Let's see.
[01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  Serve who?
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:41.000]  Oh, yeah.
[01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  But talk about it when you come back, maybe.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:46.000]  Okay.
[01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:47.000]  Yep, we'll do that.
[01:43:47.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  Thank you.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:49.000]  Okay.
[01:43:49.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  So we've got, after we come back, we'll talk about serving the lawyer.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:58.000]  We've also got a couple more people and we'll try to get to everybody.
[01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:26.000]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[01:44:28.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  Okay.
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:57.000]  Thank you.
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:00.000]  Thank you.
[01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:29.000]  Thank you.
[01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:09.000]  Call free, 866-LAW-EASY.
[01:46:09.000 --> 01:46:11.000]  Hello.
[01:46:11.000 --> 01:46:12.000]  Oh, man.
[01:46:12.000 --> 01:46:14.000]  You're in jail.
[01:46:14.000 --> 01:46:15.000]  You got busted, man.
[01:46:15.000 --> 01:46:23.000]  Oh, man, I'm broken.
[01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:28.000]  Okay.
[01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:29.000]  We are back.
[01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:30.000]  This is the Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  Randy Kelton.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:32.000]  I'm Brett Fountain.
[01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:35.000]  And we're speaking with Chris in Florida.
[01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  And, Chris, you were asking about what do we serve, a prosecutor.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:42.000]  Let's see.
[01:46:42.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  What was I serving?
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  I did a bar grievance yesterday.
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:47.000]  I did a day before.
[01:46:47.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  I sent in an exception to judicial error.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:56.000]  And I sent a copy of these things to – I can't serve him directly.
[01:46:56.000 --> 01:46:57.000]  Okay.
[01:46:57.000 --> 01:46:59.000]  I think that would probably be appropriate.
[01:46:59.000 --> 01:47:00.000]  Correct.
[01:47:00.000 --> 01:47:01.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:02.000]  Go ahead.
[01:47:02.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  You did try to serve him and it bounced back through an email?
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:09.000]  Yes.
[01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:10.000]  Yes.
[01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:12.000]  He wouldn't give me his contact information.
[01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:16.000]  I was wanting him to – I had a piece of paper there.
[01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  I guess you can't tell from the recording.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:27.000]  I had a piece of paper that says full name, bar number, and email address, and facts,
[01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  and boss's name, and boss's email.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  And he could see that.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:36.000]  And he saw that I was starting over there and that I had already written his full name in there.
[01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:38.000]  And I was asking him for his bar number.
[01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  And he didn't like where that was going.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:42.000]  So he didn't want to give me any information at all.
[01:47:42.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  He told me he's not going to cooperate if I'm going to be talking about frivolous.
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:49.000]  He knows that's bar grievance terminology.
[01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:54.000]  I couldn't tell exactly what he meant, but it was funny.
[01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:58.000]  So yeah, I didn't get any contact information from him.
[01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:00.000]  Okay.
[01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:06.000]  The DA's office, district attorney's office, does have a facts number.
[01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  Okay.
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  And so I served things there.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:10.000]  They've already got a copy of it.
[01:48:10.000 --> 01:48:15.000]  But here he was in open court, lying to the court, saying that he has never seen – he
[01:48:15.000 --> 01:48:17.000]  didn't get a copy of anything.
[01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:22.000]  And he's insinuating by that that I never gave a copy.
[01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:26.000]  He never read it, but that's not my problem.
[01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  It goes to his office, he has it, whether he looked at it or not is his problem.
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:37.000]  So he's misleading the court by saying it that way.
[01:48:37.000 --> 01:48:46.000]  But what I'm trying to do is give him even less of an excuse by hand delivering something to his home address.
[01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  Now he can't come up with any excuses about he didn't get it.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:55.000]  So I'm sending copies of things to him.
[01:48:55.000 --> 01:48:59.000]  Right now, I'm doing something off to the side.
[01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  This is not part of the case.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:07.000]  I'm sending him a wheel and deal kind of letter.
[01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:08.000]  Okay.
[01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:10.000]  That's the one where –
[01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:12.000]  I read it very good.
[01:49:12.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  Yeah, they always want to do some kind of a deal.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:16.000]  Let's work out a deal.
[01:49:16.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  Let's figure out a way that I can call this a guilty and I can bump my conviction ratio to look better and I can get a promotion.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:27.000]  Nothing about justice.
[01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:28.000]  He just wants to work out a deal.
[01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  So I labeled the email.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:35.000]  I put the subject there and it says, let's work out a deal.
[01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:38.000]  And I gave the ticket number.
[01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  And attached is the document that just kind of rips into shreds.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:56.000]  And he will have to decide whether he wants to continue to try to pursue this empty case that's full of nothingness.
[01:49:56.000 --> 01:50:04.000]  He literally alleged no essential – no facts that go to any essential elements of any offense.
[01:50:04.000 --> 01:50:07.000]  He just put the label of the offense on there and called it good.
[01:50:07.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  Correct.
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:13.000]  Sorry, but you've got to have some facts, buddy.
[01:50:13.000 --> 01:50:15.000]  There's something called the Four Corners Doctrine.
[01:50:15.000 --> 01:50:17.000]  I don't know how familiar you are.
[01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:18.000]  Go ahead.
[01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  I'm sorry.
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:26.000]  I was just going to say, did you personally serve this or did you go ahead and pay someone to serve it to their office?
[01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:28.000]  I didn't go to the office.
[01:50:28.000 --> 01:50:35.000]  I went to a house that I thought was his house and it was a different Clifford W. Thomas.
[01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:37.000]  So they received it just fine.
[01:50:37.000 --> 01:50:45.000]  But by the time I pulled back into my own driveway, I got an email from the person saying, wait, this is somebody else.
[01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:50.000]  It's not that Clifford W. Thomas.
[01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  So my bad.
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  I'm going to email in the morning and I'm also going to hand deliver to another address.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:50:59.000]  Okay.
[01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  And go ahead and go back and talk about the Four Corners, please.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:10.000]  Yeah, the Four Corners Doctrine means once they put pleadings into a case, they say, this is what my case is about.
[01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:12.000]  It doesn't matter if it's civil, criminal.
[01:51:12.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  They've put their primary pleadings in to the court and they said, let's start a case.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:24.000]  That document, whatever's on that document defines the scope of what that case is about.
[01:51:24.000 --> 01:51:29.000]  You don't get to go and start talking about more stuff that's not in your original pleadings.
[01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:33.000]  Now, if you had to amend the pleadings, okay, then that would be different.
[01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  But the primary pleadings themselves define the edges of what can be proven in court.
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:40.000]  Anything else?
[01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:41.000]  Okay.
[01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  It's irrelevant and can't be brought into court.
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:46.000]  It's inadmissible.
[01:51:46.000 --> 01:51:56.000]  So you can only prove what you have pled or some say pleaded.
[01:51:56.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  If it's not in the original pleadings or in the, should I say the primary pleadings, then you can't bring it up.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:16.000]  Now, since they didn't allege any facts, that gives them no possible way of winning lawfully.
[01:52:16.000 --> 01:52:23.000]  The only way they can win is just by bluff and bluster and steamroll, you know, which they may do.
[01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:31.000]  And then we'll end up throwing the assumptions everywhere and reporting judicial error and having the higher court command them to follow the law.
[01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  And who knows, it may get messy with all of that.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:39.000]  It just depends on when they decide to buckle and follow the law.
[01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:40.000]  Yeah.
[01:52:40.000 --> 01:52:47.000]  Well, I really think you're the right person and you're helping us really learn a lot.
[01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:49.000]  Oh, good.
[01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:50.000]  That's the whole point.
[01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  I'm glad.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:59.000]  And I hope it's coming across as approachable and reproducible and not just something like, oh, well, this is how somebody else would do it.
[01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  I would never be able to do that.
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:07.000]  I hope it's coming across in, you know, bite-sized pieces that looks like, oh, this is why we do that.
[01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:12.000]  And this is how that fits into the scope, I hope.
[01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:18.000]  Well, that and your calm in the storm is really making a difference for a lot of people as well.
[01:53:18.000 --> 01:53:19.000]  Oh, good.
[01:53:19.000 --> 01:53:20.000]  Thank you.
[01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:22.000]  Well, thanks.
[01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:23.000]  That's encouraging.
[01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:29.000]  Yeah, we'll continue to listen to you guys' show, and we look forward to hearing more.
[01:53:29.000 --> 01:53:30.000]  Okay.
[01:53:30.000 --> 01:53:32.000]  Well, thanks for calling, Chris.
[01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:33.000]  All right.
[01:53:33.000 --> 01:53:35.000]  Well, we're going to go ahead and go.
[01:53:35.000 --> 01:53:41.000]  We've got a few minutes left, and we've got Jack in Texas.
[01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  E.J., I don't know if we'll be able to get to you or not.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:46.000]  I see you on the board.
[01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:47.000]  Let's see.
[01:53:47.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  All right, Jack, what's on your mind this evening?
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:54.000]  Hi, Brett, how are you doing?
[01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:57.000]  I'm doing great.
[01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:07.000]  I still need a little help on how to get the traffic out.
[01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:10.000]  This is about the two traffic citations.
[01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:20.000]  To stumble over the 644.101 and the rest of the transportation code, you know,
[01:54:20.000 --> 01:54:28.000]  how do I work that into the...
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:29.000]  Okay.
[01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:33.000]  So just to kind of catch everybody up, listeners, really briefly,
[01:54:33.000 --> 01:54:44.000]  644.101 is in the Texas transportation code, and it's the provision that says which cities are eligible
[01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:50.000]  to send their officers down to Austin, down to the Capitol, and go to the state trooper,
[01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:56.000]  go to the DPS training, which will then give them a certificate that's good for a year,
[01:54:56.000 --> 01:55:01.000]  and they will be authorized to enforce the Texas transportation code.
[01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  Not all cities are eligible to even send their officers down there for that.
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  In fact, most are not.
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:18.000]  So the way you would fit that in to your pleadings or your arguments is you would take a look at which restrictions
[01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:22.000]  or, you know, it says something about between this population and that population,
[01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:27.000]  and more than 25 miles away from an international seaport,
[01:55:27.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  and within X number of miles from the next county, and whatever.
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:44.000]  All of those crazy little restrictions and characteristics find where they fit the city or they don't fit the city.
[01:55:44.000 --> 01:55:50.000]  You know, whatever cop issued the ticket is commissioned to work for a certain city.
[01:55:50.000 --> 01:55:55.000]  He's a peace officer in Texas, but he's also commissioned to work for the city.
[01:55:55.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  So in that city, the city would have to meet all those restrictions, qualifications, and be eligible to send him down there.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:11.000]  So did they send him down there? Probably not.
[01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:17.000]  Are they even eligible to send them? That's where the 644 would come in, 644-101.
[01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:27.000]  No, they're not eligible. But how do I, like I would have to cross-examine the police officer on these.
[01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  I would probably start with the Texas Administrative Code instead of starting with the 644-101.
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:39.000]  I mean, you're going to get there anyway when you find out, when the facts come out,
[01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:42.000]  that he's not eligible to even be sent to the training.
[01:56:42.000 --> 01:56:48.000]  But I would start with the Texas Administrative Code in that rule.
[01:56:48.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  Let's see, it's rule 4.13 and 4.14 talking about the authorization to enforce.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:04.000]  You've got municipal officers and county officers like a deputy sheriff.
[01:57:04.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  And these, both of them have to be authorized to enforce because they're not state troopers.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:17.000]  State troopers are the ones that are supposed to be enforcing this Texas Transportation Code, right?
[01:57:17.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  Right.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:24.000]  So we've got a whole bunch of peace officers that are not state troopers.
[01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  So the peace officers could come and nab you for a violation of the penal code.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:37.000]  They saw you committing a crime where they have some kind of probable cause to suspect that,
[01:57:37.000 --> 01:57:41.000]  you know, 30 seconds after that bank was robbed, you come running around the corner.
[01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:43.000]  And so they've got probable cause.
[01:57:43.000 --> 01:57:47.000]  They're not stopping you because of a traffic issue.
[01:57:47.000 --> 01:57:49.000]  They're stopping you because of a crime.
[01:57:49.000 --> 01:57:54.000]  And they've all got that prerogative.
[01:57:54.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  In order to have authorization to enforce the Texas Transportation Code, they need to be,
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  they need to go to that journey in Austin.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:10.000]  That's what you see in the Texas Administrative Code, 4.13 and 4.14.
[01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  Okay. So all I have to do is ask the cop if she went to the Texas Administrative Code.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:22.000]  Yeah. Yeah.
[01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:25.000]  That would be a good cross-exam question.
[01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  That seems easy enough.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  Thank you.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  Much appreciated.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  All right.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:33.000]  Have a great night.
[01:58:33.000 --> 01:58:34.000]  All right, you too.
[01:58:34.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  Thanks for calling in, Jack.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  Well, E.J., I'm so sorry.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:40.000]  We're right to the end of the show.
[01:58:40.000 --> 01:58:46.000]  And I hope you will be able to call in tomorrow night and we'll be able to talk about your issue.
[01:58:46.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  Thanks, everyone.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  And good night.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:55.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called
[01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:57.000]  the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.000 --> 01:59:03.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says
[01:59:03.000 --> 01:59:08.000]  verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:11.000]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:20.000]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:25.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:25.000 --> 01:59:30.000]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.000 --> 01:59:32.000]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.000 --> 01:59:40.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:49.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.000 --> 02:00:11.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.