[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 --> 00:26.500]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.500 --> 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 --> 00:45.500]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:45.500 --> 00:47.500]  Spar, it's what fighters do.
[00:47.500 --> 00:51.000]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:51.000 --> 00:54.000]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.000 --> 00:56.500]  Spar with an extra P.
[00:56.500 --> 01:03.000]  S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, and R for religion.
[01:03.000 --> 01:08.500]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly, and religion.
[01:08.500 --> 01:10.500]  But petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.500 --> 01:14.500]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.500 --> 01:17.500]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government,
[01:17.500 --> 01:21.000]  we can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:21.000 --> 01:30.500]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:30.500 --> 01:34.500]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:34.500 --> 01:38.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:38.000 --> 01:39.500]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:39.500 --> 01:43.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way
[01:43.000 --> 01:46.000]  to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:46.000 --> 01:48.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.000 --> 01:51.500]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:51.500 --> 01:56.500]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:56.500 --> 01:58.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:58.000 --> 02:01.500]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:01.500 --> 02:04.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[02:04.000 --> 02:08.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[02:08.000 --> 02:12.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.000 --> 02:15.500]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:15.500 --> 02:19.500]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms
[02:19.500 --> 02:22.000]  around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[02:22.000 --> 02:26.000]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms,
[02:26.000 --> 02:30.000]  arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[02:30.000 --> 02:33.500]  Get it? Two arms, bear hug, bear arms?
[02:33.500 --> 02:37.500]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captioned the spirit of the Second Amendment so well
[02:37.500 --> 02:38.500]  when he said,
[02:38.500 --> 02:43.500]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[02:43.500 --> 02:47.500]  one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America,
[02:47.500 --> 02:51.000]  but which historically has proved to always be possible.
[02:51.000 --> 03:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:17.000 --> 03:21.000]  Well, I received my remedy today.
[03:21.000 --> 03:25.000]  It came in a box just like this thing.
[03:25.000 --> 03:28.000]  I accepted it for value right away.
[03:28.000 --> 03:32.000]  It's not sooner, not later.
[03:32.000 --> 03:40.000]  We are originators and the pathway seems to get straighter every day.
[03:40.000 --> 03:47.000]  I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use.
[03:47.000 --> 03:50.000]  Well, that was good for the gander.
[03:50.000 --> 03:54.000]  Don't work for the fools.
[03:54.000 --> 03:58.000]  I know some architects.
[03:58.000 --> 04:01.000]  I know some engineers.
[04:01.000 --> 04:05.000]  They've seen the evidence.
[04:05.000 --> 04:08.000]  They know a certain seems queer.
[04:08.000 --> 04:11.000]  What's up with the blatant deception?
[04:11.000 --> 04:15.000]  What is the nature of what you might gain?
[04:15.000 --> 04:19.000]  I see something headed straight for you.
[04:19.000 --> 04:20.000]  I think it looks great.
[04:20.000 --> 04:21.000]  Okay, we are back.
[04:21.000 --> 04:22.000]  Red DeKalb and Brett Fountain.
[04:22.000 --> 04:23.000]  We live on radio.
[04:23.000 --> 04:27.000]  I'm talking to Jason in California.
[04:27.000 --> 04:33.000]  Okay, Jason, we were having too much fun on the break.
[04:33.000 --> 04:35.000]  Where were we?
[04:35.000 --> 04:38.000]  Have you bargained to these guys, their attorneys?
[04:38.000 --> 04:39.000]  I was just looking at it.
[04:39.000 --> 04:43.000]  Yes.
[04:43.000 --> 04:50.000]  Does that have anything to do with these three different ones that keep disappearing and something new pops up?
[04:50.000 --> 04:54.000]  I think one for sure, I think.
[04:54.000 --> 05:00.000]  The liar that signed the paperwork, he left before I bargained.
[05:00.000 --> 05:03.000]  I don't think that has anything to do with me.
[05:03.000 --> 05:09.000]  But the second one, he's on number three and he's no longer with the company.
[05:09.000 --> 05:17.000]  Actually, he's no longer with the company after the first bargaining.
[05:17.000 --> 05:20.000]  But he's still getting them at his new company.
[05:20.000 --> 05:22.000]  So he's on three.
[05:22.000 --> 05:26.000]  The new one, she's on number two.
[05:26.000 --> 05:36.000]  And then she also, in the opposition paperwork they sent me, she listed a second lawyer and she's on her number one.
[05:36.000 --> 05:41.000]  So they've got eight total.
[05:41.000 --> 05:49.000]  Don't you know that the ancillary lawyer is like, why did you put my name on there?
[05:49.000 --> 05:50.000]  Yes.
[05:50.000 --> 05:51.000]  I mean, I don't get it.
[05:51.000 --> 06:04.000]  Well, technically, so they tried to email me stuff and I told them I don't accept electronic service.
[06:04.000 --> 06:12.000]  And they're supposed to send me a notice of substitution of attorney.
[06:12.000 --> 06:15.000]  And I still haven't gotten it in the mail.
[06:15.000 --> 06:24.000]  But the substitution of attorney lists her and this other person, which I don't understand.
[06:24.000 --> 06:25.000]  Okay.
[06:25.000 --> 06:28.000]  Let me make a comment on that.
[06:28.000 --> 06:36.000]  While they're required to give you notice of a substitution of attorney, if they give notice to the court,
[06:36.000 --> 06:46.000]  then they can substitute an attorney and you don't have standing whether they properly noticed you or not.
[06:46.000 --> 06:51.000]  There's a code of civil procedure.
[06:51.000 --> 07:02.000]  So at the hearing on September 8, I was expecting, you know, lawyer number two to be there and it was the new lawyer.
[07:02.000 --> 07:05.000]  So I was prepared with these two codes.
[07:05.000 --> 07:09.000]  One of them says they're allowed to substitute if they give notice.
[07:09.000 --> 07:14.000]  The second one says they need to give notice to the adverse party.
[07:14.000 --> 07:15.000]  Oh, okay.
[07:15.000 --> 07:16.000]  Good.
[07:16.000 --> 07:17.000]  Yeah.
[07:17.000 --> 07:24.000]  So and that's the one good thing that the commissioner actually did was she made them do it.
[07:24.000 --> 07:31.000]  She's like, I'm going to insist that you do that.
[07:31.000 --> 07:35.000]  So that was good.
[07:35.000 --> 07:42.000]  But they've still been really horrible, the new ones.
[07:42.000 --> 07:44.000]  Let's see here.
[07:44.000 --> 07:54.000]  So right, when I say this thing is a shit show, it's like, so I submitted an opposition to remote appearances
[07:54.000 --> 08:03.000]  and they've just been all these people showing up on Skype while I'm appearing in person.
[08:03.000 --> 08:07.000]  And I don't, you know, it's a fraudulent thing.
[08:07.000 --> 08:12.000]  These employees are showing up like on the same camera.
[08:12.000 --> 08:19.000]  There were like four employees and I brought it up one and I'm just like, I don't trust these people, obviously.
[08:19.000 --> 08:24.000]  And if I'm making a trek down to the court, they can do it as well.
[08:24.000 --> 08:28.000]  And you know, and I, whatever, there's a bunch of reasons why.
[08:28.000 --> 08:39.000]  So the commission, now I don't, I think she made an error here by like allowing them to oppose, you know,
[08:39.000 --> 08:44.000]  give a response and she didn't make a ruling.
[08:44.000 --> 08:51.000]  Okay. When she allowed them to oppose, had they filed a written opposition?
[08:51.000 --> 08:52.000]  Yeah. Yeah.
[08:52.000 --> 08:59.000]  They sent it to me and I replied to it because it was ridiculous, the stuff they were saying.
[08:59.000 --> 09:07.000]  Yes. So, but the problem is the commission didn't rule on it.
[09:07.000 --> 09:15.000]  And this hearing, they've already signed up and there's a lot more people signed up than normal.
[09:15.000 --> 09:20.000]  So it's ridiculous.
[09:20.000 --> 09:26.000]  So they're going to rule on, you know, remote appearances while they're all appearing remotely.
[09:26.000 --> 09:30.000]  Like it's just ridiculous.
[09:30.000 --> 09:35.000]  So I'm not sure what to do about that.
[09:35.000 --> 09:38.000]  Does that make sense what I just explained?
[09:38.000 --> 09:45.000]  Look, you're saying a lot of people are appearing remotely through like Zoom or whatever.
[09:45.000 --> 09:46.000]  Yeah, I'm sorry.
[09:46.000 --> 09:48.000]  I checked the, well, two things.
[09:48.000 --> 09:49.000]  The liars emailed me.
[09:49.000 --> 09:54.000]  They tried to give me a notice of remote appearances.
[09:54.000 --> 10:02.000]  And I told them, you know, I don't accept, you know, I'm not accepting anything from you guys, not downloading anything.
[10:02.000 --> 10:05.000]  And they're like, we're going to send you in the mail.
[10:05.000 --> 10:11.000]  But I checked the court docket or the court file and online.
[10:11.000 --> 10:20.000]  And online I can see that there's a bunch of people signed up to appear remotely.
[10:20.000 --> 10:25.000]  Are you saying signed up for your case?
[10:25.000 --> 10:26.000]  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[10:26.000 --> 10:30.000]  So they're going to appear remotely without you?
[10:30.000 --> 10:33.000]  Whether, yeah, sure, if I don't show up, they'll appear remotely.
[10:33.000 --> 10:42.000]  No, they're going to appear remotely just letting everyone know that they're not appearing in person.
[10:42.000 --> 10:44.000]  But I don't know who it is.
[10:44.000 --> 10:50.000]  I need to, like I can't see the actual paperwork remote, like from home.
[10:50.000 --> 10:56.000]  So I have to go to the court and look up my case there to see the paperwork if I want to.
[10:56.000 --> 11:00.000]  Like if I want to go Monday and see what's going on.
[11:00.000 --> 11:05.000]  But I don't know what they're doing because I haven't received what they said.
[11:05.000 --> 11:07.000]  I haven't received anything in the mail.
[11:07.000 --> 11:11.000]  But this is the first time they've actually notified me, which they're supposed to do.
[11:11.000 --> 11:19.000]  So the other three hearings with the other liars, they didn't give me any notice of remote, you know, appearance.
[11:19.000 --> 11:23.000]  And that was one of the things that I objected to.
[11:23.000 --> 11:25.000]  I'm like, they're supposed to give me notice.
[11:25.000 --> 11:26.000]  I was right here.
[11:26.000 --> 11:35.000]  But because of the COVID rules, they just bypassed all the normal rules of court letting, you know,
[11:35.000 --> 11:39.000]  almost insisting that people do everything remotely.
[11:39.000 --> 11:49.000]  So I mean, it's not a big deal, but it is sketchy because they, these employees are liars.
[11:49.000 --> 11:56.000]  They provide in their statement and I've, you know, noticed twice they had multiple people
[11:56.000 --> 11:58.000]  on the same camera in the same room.
[11:58.000 --> 12:04.000]  And I know that that's not kosher.
[12:04.000 --> 12:06.000]  Like they're supposed to keep...
[12:06.000 --> 12:11.000]  Had you invoked the rule of witnesses?
[12:11.000 --> 12:13.000]  No, I don't know what that is.
[12:13.000 --> 12:19.000]  Rule of witnesses says that all the witnesses have to be sequestered from one another.
[12:19.000 --> 12:23.000]  So one witness can't hear the testimony of the other.
[12:23.000 --> 12:26.000]  Right.
[12:26.000 --> 12:27.000]  No, that makes perfect sense.
[12:27.000 --> 12:33.000]  And I, you know, the bailiff will do that in person at the courtroom,
[12:33.000 --> 12:36.000]  but no one's done it for the Zoom stuff.
[12:36.000 --> 12:37.000]  Or I guess...
[12:37.000 --> 12:40.000]  No, you have to invoke it.
[12:40.000 --> 12:42.000]  Okay.
[12:42.000 --> 12:46.000]  That is very good to know.
[12:46.000 --> 12:49.000]  Rule of witnesses.
[12:49.000 --> 12:51.000]  And that should be in a written motion.
[12:51.000 --> 12:55.000]  This is one of the motions you follow at the beginning of every trial.
[12:55.000 --> 12:57.000]  Oh, Jimmy, Christmas.
[12:57.000 --> 12:59.000]  Okay.
[12:59.000 --> 13:03.000]  It gets easier once you're going through this one time.
[13:03.000 --> 13:04.000]  Yeah.
[13:04.000 --> 13:10.000]  Once you've been through it once to back, front to back, like what you just discovered.
[13:10.000 --> 13:13.000]  That you won't miss again.
[13:13.000 --> 13:18.000]  And there are too many of those small things for us to address all of them.
[13:18.000 --> 13:21.000]  But we're trying to give you enough so you can get in.
[13:21.000 --> 13:23.000]  You got in court and you're holding there.
[13:23.000 --> 13:26.000]  There are just going to be some minor issues you'll miss.
[13:26.000 --> 13:29.000]  Don't be concerned about that.
[13:29.000 --> 13:31.000]  You won't miss them again.
[13:31.000 --> 13:32.000]  Sure.
[13:32.000 --> 13:34.000]  I mean, well, the thing is I still don't...
[13:34.000 --> 13:36.000]  It's like every motion needs to be set for hearing,
[13:36.000 --> 13:39.000]  and I need to send the other side the thing.
[13:39.000 --> 13:44.000]  So even this invoking the rule of witnesses, is that...
[13:44.000 --> 13:45.000]  Yeah.
[13:45.000 --> 13:47.000]  Both sides gets a part.
[13:47.000 --> 13:54.000]  The other side gets a copy of your motion to invoke so they can have opportunity to rebut.
[13:54.000 --> 13:56.000]  So that means there is a hearing.
[13:56.000 --> 13:57.000]  Yeah.
[13:57.000 --> 13:59.000]  Okay.
[13:59.000 --> 14:02.000]  Okay.
[14:02.000 --> 14:09.000]  Just to follow up with my line of questioning from last night was about...
[14:09.000 --> 14:19.000]  Because it was about motions and dealing with, you know, denials and the follow-up of...
[14:19.000 --> 14:24.000]  Like is there a timeframe to do a written exception to judicial error?
[14:24.000 --> 14:27.000]  Yes, generally always.
[14:27.000 --> 14:31.000]  Well, no.
[14:31.000 --> 14:33.000]  That's a good question.
[14:33.000 --> 14:38.000]  It depends on the type of objection you're doing.
[14:38.000 --> 14:43.000]  So I'm getting this right.
[14:43.000 --> 14:49.000]  Somebody made a mistake on something and you want to file a...
[14:49.000 --> 14:51.000]  Explain that again.
[14:51.000 --> 14:53.000]  I'm losing track.
[14:53.000 --> 14:55.000]  He's wondering about a timeframe.
[14:55.000 --> 15:03.000]  For raising an exception to judicial error, is there a certain timeframe when...
[15:03.000 --> 15:06.000]  Like a hard deadline on that.
[15:06.000 --> 15:10.000]  Exception to judicial error.
[15:10.000 --> 15:12.000]  That's what kind of threw me.
[15:12.000 --> 15:15.000]  You don't really file an exception to a judicial error.
[15:15.000 --> 15:23.000]  You file an objection exception to a ruling made by the court.
[15:23.000 --> 15:33.000]  If you have a judicial error, you file a motion based on the judicial error asking the court to correct it.
[15:33.000 --> 15:37.000]  But I don't think that's where we're going.
[15:37.000 --> 15:41.000]  You're kind of going for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[15:41.000 --> 15:43.000]  Am I correct?
[15:43.000 --> 15:48.000]  The judge issued an order and you want to know where he got that from.
[15:48.000 --> 15:53.000]  No, they didn't issue an order, but they made a ruling.
[15:53.000 --> 15:56.000]  Well, that's essentially an order.
[15:56.000 --> 16:02.000]  He rendered a ruling and you want to know the facts and law on which he based that ruling.
[16:02.000 --> 16:06.000]  That would go for a...
[16:06.000 --> 16:14.000]  I started to say an opposition, but not exactly findings of fact.
[16:14.000 --> 16:26.000]  Findings of fact and conclusions of law tend to only be appropriate after a dispositive motion or dispositive ruling.
[16:26.000 --> 16:28.000]  Like a grant of summary judgment.
[16:28.000 --> 16:32.000]  Then you can ask for findings of fact and conclusions.
[16:32.000 --> 16:47.000]  If it's a ruling that does not dispose of the case, then you file your request for findings, I think in Texas it's 10 days.
[16:47.000 --> 16:50.000]  Is that right, Brett?
[16:50.000 --> 16:53.000]  Are you saying how long they have to answer?
[16:53.000 --> 16:54.000]  No.
[16:54.000 --> 16:55.000]  Okay, hold on.
[16:55.000 --> 16:56.000]  Let's pick this up on the other side.
[16:56.000 --> 17:02.000]  We're going to be right back.
[17:26.000 --> 17:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[17:29.000 --> 17:33.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[17:33.000 --> 17:38.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[17:38.000 --> 17:40.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[17:40.000 --> 17:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[17:49.000 --> 18:00.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[18:00.000 --> 18:05.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[18:05.000 --> 18:07.000]  In today's America, we live in an us against them society.
[18:07.000 --> 18:12.000]  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.
[18:12.000 --> 18:17.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[18:17.000 --> 18:19.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[18:19.000 --> 18:25.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[18:25.000 --> 18:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio,
[18:28.000 --> 18:35.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[18:35.000 --> 18:40.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[18:40.000 --> 18:45.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[18:45.000 --> 18:50.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[18:50.000 --> 18:54.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:54.000 --> 19:00.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[19:00.000 --> 19:15.000]  We're listening to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com.
[19:15.000 --> 19:19.000]  Well, don't let nothing get to you. Only the father can't deliver you.
[19:19.000 --> 19:30.000]  He can't hurt you until he can get behind you. Know what I mean, my friend?
[19:30.000 --> 19:35.000]  Trust in God, my friend. Tell him you're probably in pain.
[19:35.000 --> 19:41.000]  Call on his name once again. Everybody will know he was in.
[19:41.000 --> 19:49.000]  Trust in God, my friend. Tell him you're probably in pain. Call on his name once again.
[19:49.000 --> 19:52.000]  Everybody will know he was in.
[19:52.000 --> 19:58.000]  He is my King, man. He is everything. He is everything to me. That's why I call him.
[19:58.000 --> 20:04.000]  Not only me, I pray to him. Because he is the only one who could answer him.
[20:04.000 --> 20:11.000]  Be in the business what we can man say. Mankind will know it is leading.
[20:11.000 --> 20:18.000]  Trust in God, my friend. Tell him you're probably in pain. Call on his name once again.
[20:18.000 --> 20:21.000]  Everybody will know he was in.
[20:21.000 --> 20:27.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Bret Fowl, ruleoflawradio, and we're talking to Jason in California.
[20:27.000 --> 20:32.000]  Okay, Jason. I'm trying to figure out where you're at.
[20:32.000 --> 20:39.000]  You've got a ruling against you that you don't like, and you want to take some action.
[20:39.000 --> 20:44.000]  You ask about findings of fact. That's going to be different by state.
[20:44.000 --> 20:52.000]  In Texas, you have 10 days to request findings of facts and conclusions,
[20:52.000 --> 20:59.000]  but that tends to be only on a dispositive motion.
[20:59.000 --> 21:06.000]  You ask for findings of facts and conclusions at law, and then they've got 20 days to respond.
[21:06.000 --> 21:11.000]  You have 10 days to ask for it. They've got 20 days to respond.
[21:11.000 --> 21:14.000]  Is that right, Bret? Or is it a little more? It seems like it's a little more.
[21:14.000 --> 21:23.000]  Yeah, they have 20 days to respond, but I don't see anything that says that you have to make the request within 10 days.
[21:23.000 --> 21:29.000]  I just see that once you do request it, the clerk has to immediately call the attention of the judge,
[21:29.000 --> 21:34.000]  and the judge will have 20 days from the day you asked.
[21:34.000 --> 21:41.000]  Okay, so he's got 20 days. And in Texas, if he doesn't respond within 20 days,
[21:41.000 --> 21:52.000]  then you can file a notice of late filing, and he's got another 10 days.
[21:52.000 --> 21:57.000]  But what we did was when they didn't respond, we filed criminally against them.
[21:57.000 --> 22:05.000]  Plus, we did the other stuff. So in California, California is a whole other animal.
[22:05.000 --> 22:11.000]  I wish Tina was on. She would have a better insight into California law,
[22:11.000 --> 22:18.000]  because in Texas, like, there's no arraignment in a Class C misdemeanor.
[22:18.000 --> 22:22.000]  There's odd little differences. I don't remember.
[22:22.000 --> 22:28.000]  In Texas, you've got 10 days to ask for findings of facts and conclusions of law.
[22:28.000 --> 22:34.000]  They've got 20 days to respond. If they don't respond within 20 days, you can file a motion of late filing.
[22:34.000 --> 22:43.000]  Well, we did that with the district court, but we also filed criminal charges against him with the grand jury,
[22:43.000 --> 22:51.000]  because he had a duty to act, and he didn't. We asked him for findings of facts and conclusions,
[22:51.000 --> 22:59.000]  but it really didn't. He didn't produce them within 20 days.
[22:59.000 --> 23:02.000]  It said he shall produce them within 20 days, and he didn't.
[23:02.000 --> 23:06.000]  So we filed for notice of late filing and gave him 10 more days,
[23:06.000 --> 23:11.000]  but we filed criminally against him for not filing within the 10 days.
[23:11.000 --> 23:15.000]  This is all still confusing, and I'm not really getting to where you're going.
[23:15.000 --> 23:25.000]  The judge made a ruling you didn't like. You wanted to challenge that ruling,
[23:25.000 --> 23:34.000]  but if you wait until the trial is over, then it will cause the ruling to become moot.
[23:34.000 --> 23:44.000]  The point of the ruling now is judicial economy.
[23:44.000 --> 23:50.000]  You need him to respond now, not after the trial is completely over.
[23:50.000 --> 23:58.000]  And then if he refuses to provide it, then you can file not an interlocutory,
[23:58.000 --> 24:04.000]  but a petition for writ of mandamus asking the higher court to order the lower court
[24:04.000 --> 24:16.000]  to issue the findings of fact that they're commanded to do by law.
[24:16.000 --> 24:21.000]  Okay, Brett, if they're not commanded to do that by law,
[24:21.000 --> 24:29.000]  we should be able to get there by way of 3903.
[24:29.000 --> 24:32.000]  And what's the other one?
[24:32.000 --> 24:38.000]  Well, but he's in California, so official misconduct is normal there.
[24:38.000 --> 24:41.000]  That's not a bad thing.
[24:41.000 --> 24:47.000]  You've reached a certain pinnacle in California when you're doing that.
[24:47.000 --> 24:51.000]  Well, we're saying he failed to perform a duty he is required to perform
[24:51.000 --> 24:57.000]  because he's denying you and your right to an effective appeal because of the judge.
[24:57.000 --> 24:58.000]  Menukin.
[24:58.000 --> 25:01.000]  Menukin, exactly.
[25:01.000 --> 25:05.000]  I mean, that's the best judge. If we can just get all judges to do this,
[25:05.000 --> 25:09.000]  that's the way they do things on a routine basis is official oppression.
[25:09.000 --> 25:11.000]  They don't have a crime for that.
[25:11.000 --> 25:16.000]  Yeah, the judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.
[25:16.000 --> 25:20.000]  So if he renders a ruling that on its face seems to contradict the facts,
[25:20.000 --> 25:32.000]  it's reasonable that you can ask him on what facts did you apply what law.
[25:32.000 --> 25:38.000]  Without finding the facts and conclusions at law, you can't appeal
[25:38.000 --> 25:42.000]  because you appeal an abuse on the part of the judge
[25:42.000 --> 25:46.000]  where the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts.
[25:46.000 --> 25:53.000]  Well, if you don't know what he did, then you're denying your right to an appeal.
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.000]  And that would go to a constitutional violation.
[25:59.000 --> 26:02.000]  Yeah, what they're doing is really confusing actually.
[26:02.000 --> 26:06.000]  But so at this hearing, I do have a motion to dismiss
[26:06.000 --> 26:14.000]  which is going to bring up some of these issues again, which are basically...
[26:14.000 --> 26:16.000]  Wait, these issues, what?
[26:16.000 --> 26:22.000]  In this motion to dismiss, what are the specific issues you're bringing?
[26:22.000 --> 26:26.000]  That's a petition like...
[26:26.000 --> 26:27.000]  Sorry about that.
[26:27.000 --> 26:41.000]  That they filed. The petition, it's on behalf of employees that need protection.
[26:41.000 --> 26:49.000]  It's supposed to be accompanied by declaration to support the allegation.
[26:49.000 --> 26:57.000]  And it was accompanied by statements that were not signed under penalty of perjury,
[26:57.000 --> 26:59.000]  so they're not declaration.
[26:59.000 --> 27:06.000]  And it was signed by one of the employees and not the employer.
[27:06.000 --> 27:16.000]  What defines the harm for which they can be protected?
[27:16.000 --> 27:26.000]  The elements are like a threat of violence, a physical...
[27:26.000 --> 27:30.000]  I don't have them in front of me, but yeah, let me see.
[27:30.000 --> 27:33.000]  Because that's some of the...
[27:33.000 --> 27:40.000]  The reason they don't want to answer my interrogatories is because it's going to just show the sham.
[27:40.000 --> 27:49.000]  Okay, one of them, the petition says that they were assaulted, battered, or stalked by me,
[27:49.000 --> 27:59.000]  that there is a credible threat of violence, a knowing or willful statement that was a threat.
[27:59.000 --> 28:04.000]  Wait a minute, knowing or willful statement.
[28:04.000 --> 28:05.000]  Yeah.
[28:05.000 --> 28:11.000]  Jason, I know for a fact your mother wears combat boots.
[28:11.000 --> 28:13.000]  How dare you?
[28:13.000 --> 28:15.000]  Yeah, big deal.
[28:15.000 --> 28:25.000]  What must the statement contain in order for it to fall within the scope of the prohibition?
[28:25.000 --> 28:30.000]  And was that alleged?
[28:30.000 --> 28:35.000]  It was in the petition, yeah.
[28:35.000 --> 28:38.000]  None of the statements alleged any of that.
[28:38.000 --> 28:44.000]  So that's why you want to ask the judge for findings of fact and conclusions at law.
[28:44.000 --> 28:45.000]  Yeah.
[28:45.000 --> 28:54.000]  If he doesn't have facts from which he can conclude a violation of law, then you have grounds for appeal.
[28:54.000 --> 29:03.000]  If he doesn't tell you what the facts in law are, then he's denied you your right to appeal.
[29:03.000 --> 29:05.000]  Okay, so...
[29:05.000 --> 29:13.000]  Read all of the words in the statute very carefully.
[29:13.000 --> 29:31.000]  You should be able to read that statute and know what every word means, what everything is referring to without question.
[29:31.000 --> 29:35.000]  And it sounds like they're doing a lot of vague and general stuff,
[29:35.000 --> 29:40.000]  and then the judge is drawing from that some very specific conclusions.
[29:40.000 --> 29:51.000]  So you need findings of fact and conclusions at law to be able to determine if he rendered his rulings correctly.
[29:51.000 --> 29:52.000]  Hang on.
[29:52.000 --> 29:55.000]  We're Andy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[29:55.000 --> 30:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[30:00.000 --> 30:03.000]  Everyone knows that walking is great exercise,
[30:03.000 --> 30:08.000]  but you might not know that the way you walk could predict how long you're going to live.
[30:08.000 --> 30:14.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back to tell you more about walking prognostication in just a moment.
[30:14.000 --> 30:16.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:16.000 --> 30:19.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:19.000 --> 30:24.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:24.000 --> 30:29.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:29.000 --> 30:32.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:32.000 --> 30:36.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[30:36.000 --> 30:40.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:40.000 --> 30:43.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:43.000 --> 30:48.000]  New research shows how fast you walk could predict how long you're going to live.
[30:48.000 --> 30:56.000]  The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that older adults who walk one meter per second or faster live longer than expected.
[30:56.000 --> 31:00.000]  In case you're wondering, one meter per second is about two and a quarter miles per hour.
[31:00.000 --> 31:07.000]  A senior's age, gender, and walking speed were as good at predicting life expectancy as more traditional statistical measures.
[31:07.000 --> 31:10.000]  Generally speaking, faster walkers live longer.
[31:10.000 --> 31:13.000]  Measuring walking speed is quick and inexpensive.
[31:13.000 --> 31:16.000]  It only takes a stopwatch, some space to walk, and a few minutes.
[31:16.000 --> 31:21.000]  Researchers say it could help doctors identify older patients who need special care.
[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 --> 31:52.000]  1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[31:52.000 --> 31:55.000]  Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[31:55.000 --> 32:01.000]  Go to buildingwatch.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[32:01.000 --> 32:06.000]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word?
[32:06.000 --> 32:13.000]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk,
[32:13.000 --> 32:18.000]  where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[32:18.000 --> 32:25.000]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
[32:25.000 --> 32:29.000]  Starting in January, our first-hour studies are in the Book of Mark,
[32:29.000 --> 32:33.000]  where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message.
[32:33.000 --> 32:40.000]  Our second-hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development.
[32:40.000 --> 32:44.000]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[32:44.000 --> 32:51.000]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[32:51.000 --> 32:57.000]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m.
[32:57.000 --> 33:11.000]  to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[33:27.000 --> 33:49.000]  I won't, I won't, I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes
[33:49.000 --> 33:57.000]  They must refuse your news also come in lies
[33:57.000 --> 34:00.000]  It seems you like to say
[34:00.000 --> 34:02.000]  Okay, we are back.
[34:02.000 --> 34:07.000]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Gulliver Radio, and we're talking to Jason in California.
[34:07.000 --> 34:12.000]  And Jason, I wasn't sure if we're actually answering your question
[34:12.000 --> 34:18.000]  or answering a question we kind of came up with in the middle of this discussion.
[34:18.000 --> 34:26.000]  So bring us back to precisely where you were so we make sure we've got everything covered.
[34:26.000 --> 34:30.000]  The judge rendered a ruling and you don't know why, how he got to that ruling.
[34:30.000 --> 34:33.000]  What did you do?
[34:33.000 --> 34:35.000]  Well, what do you mean what did I do?
[34:35.000 --> 34:37.000]  How did I respond?
[34:37.000 --> 34:39.000]  Yeah.
[34:39.000 --> 34:47.000]  Did you, and what do you have to do in California if a judge renders a ruling and doesn't tell you why?
[34:47.000 --> 34:49.000]  Oh, well, right. I don't know.
[34:49.000 --> 34:53.000]  I didn't, I didn't, you know, I asked her about that.
[34:53.000 --> 35:04.000]  I asked about it and she said, well, it's customary to do a finding as a fact on a judgment, but not a judgment.
[35:04.000 --> 35:07.000]  Okay, now they're playing with terms.
[35:07.000 --> 35:13.000]  In the Fed, you have a order and a judgment.
[35:13.000 --> 35:23.000]  There is no final order in a federal case until the judge has issued a ruling, an order, and he has filed a judgment.
[35:23.000 --> 35:28.000]  A judgment is in effect, findings a fact and conclusions at law.
[35:28.000 --> 35:33.000]  So you said the judge issued, said there was an order.
[35:33.000 --> 35:35.000]  What did she mean by that order?
[35:35.000 --> 35:38.000]  No, no, there was, she just made a ruling.
[35:38.000 --> 35:41.000]  Okay, she made a ruling.
[35:41.000 --> 35:46.000]  Is she required to issue a judgment?
[35:46.000 --> 35:50.000]  No. On the ruling?
[35:50.000 --> 36:03.000]  Is there a methodology in California law to ask, to get the judge to give you the facts and law in which she made her ruling?
[36:03.000 --> 36:07.000]  Without that, you don't know how to appeal.
[36:07.000 --> 36:11.000]  Right. I mean, I made the mistake.
[36:11.000 --> 36:15.000]  I didn't push, I didn't say on what grounds.
[36:15.000 --> 36:26.000]  I didn't make it clear that I wanted to know clearly why she had held the position that she was holding.
[36:26.000 --> 36:38.000]  Okay. So I guess my initial question was like, if this all went down in August, have I missed my opportunity to address those issues?
[36:38.000 --> 36:40.000]  Yes.
[36:40.000 --> 36:46.000]  Okay. So I just need to jump on whatever happens on Tuesday.
[36:46.000 --> 36:56.000]  Yes. Generally, you have 30 days to raise an opposition to a ruling.
[36:56.000 --> 37:08.000]  What about, what are your thoughts on, I mean, okay, I haven't read this yet, but I'm aware of a motion to reconsider an emotion for renewal.
[37:08.000 --> 37:13.000]  Are either one of those a viable thing to do?
[37:13.000 --> 37:19.000]  It is, but it's specific to California law.
[37:19.000 --> 37:20.000]  Yes.
[37:20.000 --> 37:31.000]  And you're over 30 days, and there's very few cases where they allow you more than 30 days to raise an opposition to a ruling.
[37:31.000 --> 37:42.000]  Okay. Gotcha. I think one of them, I don't know which one right now, one of them has a 60-day window, so I might be able to do that one if I want.
[37:42.000 --> 37:47.000]  I guess it all depends on what happens at this next hearing.
[37:47.000 --> 37:55.000]  So, oh, I did, this is a random side note question.
[37:55.000 --> 38:06.000]  If the judge has a bar card and we want to bar-grieve them, we still have to find a rule of professional conduct to do that, right?
[38:06.000 --> 38:07.000]  We're not bar-grieving them.
[38:07.000 --> 38:17.000]  No, you could accuse the judge, I once accused a lawyer of parting his hair on the left.
[38:17.000 --> 38:19.000]  You can believe that.
[38:19.000 --> 38:23.000]  The no-good rotten schreister should be disbarred.
[38:23.000 --> 38:27.000]  I got the same response I got from every other complaint.
[38:27.000 --> 38:34.000]  We find your complaint does not rise to the level of misconduct.
[38:34.000 --> 38:38.000]  It doesn't matter what you file, they're going to do the same thing, so it doesn't make any difference.
[38:38.000 --> 38:43.000]  You don't expect the bar to take action against the lawyer anyway.
[38:43.000 --> 38:45.000]  Right.
[38:45.000 --> 38:57.000]  What you expect is their insurance carrier to take their complaint seriously and increase their insurance premium.
[38:57.000 --> 39:00.000]  So at the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference what you complain about.
[39:00.000 --> 39:02.000]  I've probably got 100.
[39:02.000 --> 39:08.000]  We examined into your accusation, find it does not rise to the level of misconduct.
[39:08.000 --> 39:14.000]  That's standard, so that's not what you care about.
[39:14.000 --> 39:19.000]  You care about their insurance carrier bumping their rate.
[39:19.000 --> 39:20.000]  I hear you.
[39:20.000 --> 39:29.000]  I just wanted to be – I wanted to look and sound good and legit.
[39:29.000 --> 39:32.000]  I think you've answered my question.
[39:32.000 --> 39:40.000]  I'm talking specifically about a judge, so it doesn't matter.
[39:40.000 --> 39:42.000]  Hear me?
[39:42.000 --> 39:43.000]  Wait a minute.
[39:43.000 --> 39:46.000]  You're talking specifically about a judge.
[39:46.000 --> 39:52.000]  It doesn't matter if you're a bar grieving.
[39:52.000 --> 39:56.000]  I was waiting to finish the sentence and it didn't come.
[39:56.000 --> 39:59.000]  If you're bar grieving, it doesn't matter that he's a judge.
[39:59.000 --> 40:05.000]  If you're bar grieving, you use the rules that attorneys follow.
[40:05.000 --> 40:15.000]  If you're filing a judicial misconduct complaint, because he's a judge, he has both sets of rules that he has to follow.
[40:15.000 --> 40:31.000]  If you're filing against him as a judge, then the judicial misconduct is – you would tag him for a violation of some canon that you find in the code of judicial conduct.
[40:31.000 --> 40:34.000]  So it's two almost identical things.
[40:34.000 --> 40:37.000]  It's the same thing as filing a criminal complaint.
[40:37.000 --> 40:47.000]  You look at – you find the language that somebody's not allowed to do this or they must do that, and you point at that language.
[40:47.000 --> 40:51.000]  So for an attorney – an attorney has sworn that –
[40:51.000 --> 40:53.000]  Let me give you an example.
[40:53.000 --> 41:01.000]  I'd really like to say that the lawyer failed to speak with candor to the court.
[41:01.000 --> 41:02.000]  Yeah.
[41:02.000 --> 41:08.000]  Because the standard says the lawyer shall speak with candor to the court.
[41:08.000 --> 41:19.000]  So I take that language and just change the sentence around, but use the same internal verbiage.
[41:19.000 --> 41:21.000]  I'll shut up now, Brett.
[41:21.000 --> 41:25.000]  I interrupted you.
[41:25.000 --> 41:26.000]  That's fine.
[41:26.000 --> 41:32.000]  Yeah, if you're pointing at that rule – what is it, 309?
[41:32.000 --> 41:39.000]  So you say that as an attorney, he violated that rule of professional conduct.
[41:39.000 --> 42:01.000]  Whereas as a judge, if you're trying to say you're grieving a judge, you might be really thinking that you're – what you're looking for there is you're filing a report of judicial misconduct.
[42:01.000 --> 42:03.000]  It's a judicial misconduct complaint.
[42:03.000 --> 42:08.000]  And so look over there at the rules that a judge has sworn to follow.
[42:08.000 --> 42:12.000]  And they usually call them cannons instead of rules, whatever.
[42:12.000 --> 42:17.000]  But it's just a list of things that the judge must do.
[42:17.000 --> 42:18.000]  Yeah.
[42:18.000 --> 42:20.000]  I've looked at it.
[42:20.000 --> 42:27.000]  I guess I didn't want to go after the commissioner just yet.
[42:27.000 --> 42:30.000]  But I did – she does have a bar card.
[42:30.000 --> 42:34.000]  So I did look that up.
[42:34.000 --> 42:35.000]  Okay.
[42:35.000 --> 42:39.000]  Yes, you can hit her with both.
[42:39.000 --> 42:43.000]  We'll see how she behaves with this next hearing.
[42:43.000 --> 42:53.000]  So what – can you – can we go back to – so my latest thing was – so the hearing is for motions.
[42:53.000 --> 43:03.000]  It was supposed to be for a couple motions and then the actual hearing for the restraining order.
[43:03.000 --> 43:08.000]  But I filed that show cause motion as well.
[43:08.000 --> 43:23.000]  So if – I mean, I don't see how we could have a hearing for a restraining order without addressing the show cause that they didn't respond to discovery at all.
[43:23.000 --> 43:34.000]  And how do I deal with that? Like how can – is there a way to address this motion?
[43:34.000 --> 43:43.000]  Oh, the show cause motion at my hearing even though it's not scheduled?
[43:43.000 --> 43:54.000]  Pretty well. The judge can prove it for sure. What he wants to, if opposing doesn't – if the opposite side doesn't oppose, hang on.
[43:54.000 --> 44:14.000]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, We'll Be Right Back.
[44:24.000 --> 44:29.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:54.000 --> 44:59.000]  We'll be right back.
[45:24.000 --> 45:28.000]  We'll be right back.
[45:54.000 --> 46:02.000]  And click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:24.000 --> 46:33.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, We'll Be Right Back Radio.
[46:33.000 --> 46:38.000]  And we're talking to Jason in California. Jason, we need to figure out where we're at.
[46:38.000 --> 46:46.000]  I was thinking it was just me, but Brett's having the same problem trying to figure out where we're at here.
[46:46.000 --> 46:52.000]  And I don't know what's confusing me as to the issues.
[46:52.000 --> 47:02.000]  So Jason, where are we and what is your primary issue so that we can move ahead all in the same place?
[47:02.000 --> 47:18.000]  Well, where we're at is ultimately I have the hearing on Tuesday. And it should be addressing a motion to dismiss and for –
[47:18.000 --> 47:21.000]  Whose motion to dismiss?
[47:21.000 --> 47:23.000]  Mine.
[47:23.000 --> 47:24.000]  Grounds.
[47:24.000 --> 47:25.000]  My motion.
[47:24.000 --> 47:27.000]  Grounds for a motion to dismiss.
[47:27.000 --> 47:30.000]  Flawed petition.
[47:30.000 --> 47:33.000]  Wait, what did you say?
[47:33.000 --> 47:40.000]  The petition they filed for this restraining order is flawed, as major flaws.
[47:40.000 --> 47:45.000]  Okay, you're a little more specific. How is it flawed?
[47:45.000 --> 47:55.000]  Well, I mentioned it's not signed. It needs to be signed by the employer and it's signed by an employee.
[47:55.000 --> 48:06.000]  Does the employee have a dual power attorney filed in the court record?
[48:06.000 --> 48:10.000]  No, no, definitely not.
[48:10.000 --> 48:23.000]  Okay, so you're claiming that the document is not properly filed because it doesn't meet the rules of the court. Is that your position?
[48:23.000 --> 48:25.000]  Yes, yes, exactly.
[48:25.000 --> 48:31.000]  What rule is it in violation of?
[48:31.000 --> 48:42.000]  It's interesting. I don't have – there's not a rule. I have the – from the court the instructions on how to fill out that form.
[48:42.000 --> 48:52.000]  And I also have the webpage from the court of who can file that petition.
[48:52.000 --> 48:57.000]  Okay, is that petition, in your opinion, filed in accordance with the rules?
[48:57.000 --> 48:59.000]  No.
[48:59.000 --> 49:04.000]  What rules are – is it in violation of?
[49:04.000 --> 49:09.000]  Oh, I hear what you're saying. Like, I don't have a specific rule. I don't have a rule of court.
[49:09.000 --> 49:10.000]  You have to have that.
[49:10.000 --> 49:12.000]  You need to go look it up.
[49:12.000 --> 49:13.000]  You can't –
[49:13.000 --> 49:15.000]  You need to find it instead of just reference.
[49:15.000 --> 49:22.000]  Well, this rephrasing and paraphrasing on your website gave me the impression that it was filed incorrectly.
[49:22.000 --> 49:36.000]  Instead, you need to go find where you can say it's your rule, it's rule 34.6 subsection B, and you can point at it.
[49:36.000 --> 49:49.000]  That makes sense. What was – okay, if we were in Texas, is there a rule of court that says they have – when you have to follow the instructions to fill a certain form?
[49:49.000 --> 49:54.000]  Like, if there's a form that comes with instructions, like that's –
[49:54.000 --> 50:04.000]  I've never seen such a thing. I've never seen it say that you have to follow the instructions.
[50:04.000 --> 50:15.000]  Okay. Because it also says it must be accompanied by declaration as part of the instructions, like –
[50:15.000 --> 50:28.000]  Those instructions are made for this layperson that are – they're derived from some – some either legislative intent or the Supreme Court has given something.
[50:28.000 --> 50:29.000]  You have to find the –
[50:29.000 --> 50:34.000]  Wait a minute. He's running us around in circles.
[50:34.000 --> 50:43.000]  Declaration? You just threw in something else. What does declaration mean?
[50:43.000 --> 50:49.000]  It means that they're signed under penalty of perjury. There's a code of civil procedure.
[50:49.000 --> 50:57.000]  Okay. You're confusing because you're throwing these terms in there. You need to say it needs to be verified.
[50:57.000 --> 50:58.000]  Well –
[50:58.000 --> 51:06.000]  I'm trying to follow you, but you're mentioning terms, and this is not like decital conversation.
[51:06.000 --> 51:15.000]  In law, words all have specific meaning, and I've been getting lost on these terms that you're using.
[51:15.000 --> 51:19.000]  They're running me down rabbit holes. Declaration?
[51:19.000 --> 51:27.000]  I'm sorry. No. I'm using that on purpose. It needs to be a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. It doesn't need –
[51:27.000 --> 51:34.000]  No, no, no. Okay, no, no. That's not what a declaration is. That's what a declaration must include.
[51:34.000 --> 51:39.000]  Ah, interesting. Okay. Yeah.
[51:39.000 --> 51:47.000]  I'm confused. Okay. Declaration, I take that to mean a statement of facts.
[51:47.000 --> 51:59.000]  You're declaring certain facts to be true, and those facts must be verified.
[51:59.000 --> 52:06.000]  Yes. Okay. So what I'm trying to say is they're not verified.
[52:06.000 --> 52:11.000]  Okay. Then you have an unsworn declaration.
[52:11.000 --> 52:12.000]  Yes.
[52:12.000 --> 52:23.000]  Okay. That way, I know what that is. It's a declaration. I technically don't care what it's declaring, but it's an unsworn declaration, and that's what I care about.
[52:23.000 --> 52:25.000]  Okay. Okay.
[52:25.000 --> 52:28.000]  You're giving me a headache.
[52:28.000 --> 52:34.000]  I'm giving everyone a headache. I'm giving the court a headache. I'm giving the lawyers a headache.
[52:34.000 --> 52:40.000]  It's okay to give the court and the lawyers a headache. Well, it's better not to –
[52:40.000 --> 52:42.000]  Randy's fine with that part.
[52:42.000 --> 52:54.000]  Yeah. Don't give me one. No, there's a problem here. We really need to be careful with our use of language.
[52:54.000 --> 53:04.000]  You've been using language that I kept running into these empty spaces that I don't have anything to fill in.
[53:04.000 --> 53:10.000]  I'm lacking what neuro-linguistic programming is called referential index.
[53:10.000 --> 53:19.000]  You make these statements, and I get to the end of it, and I don't know where to go with it. I don't know where to put it.
[53:19.000 --> 53:21.000]  Okay.
[53:21.000 --> 53:27.000]  And what you're doing is so sophisticated, I've had trouble putting my finger on it.
[53:27.000 --> 53:36.000]  Brett and I just talked about that in the last break. I asked him, what is going on here? Why is this so hard? What am I missing?
[53:36.000 --> 53:42.000]  And it's an odd use of language. Who taught you to talk?
[53:42.000 --> 53:57.000]  Well, no. It was very confusing trying to understand what is verified, what is a declaration, what is an oath.
[53:57.000 --> 54:07.000]  This points to an anthology that I want to build. It's the only thing in my tools that will need artificial intelligence.
[54:07.000 --> 54:16.000]  I want to look up definitions of all terms in documents that are terms of art that have special meaning.
[54:16.000 --> 54:22.000]  Highlight those words so when you mouse over it, it will pop up these definitions.
[54:22.000 --> 54:32.000]  And then if you have one in particular that you intend to market, then we'll know what you're talking about.
[54:32.000 --> 54:46.000]  But if you're using a word that has a meaning to you, that when I read it, it's not clear to me what meaning you intend.
[54:46.000 --> 54:57.000]  I'm likely to give it another meaning. And we can have a very profound conversation when neither of us knows what the other is talking about.
[54:57.000 --> 55:01.000]  And that's what's been going on here.
[55:01.000 --> 55:07.000]  I'm concerned now about my motion.
[55:07.000 --> 55:14.000]  So, I mean, the points I'm making are correct. I don't have a rule.
[55:14.000 --> 55:22.000]  I don't have a rule. But I would think that this is – they're providing this. The court is providing this.
[55:22.000 --> 55:28.000]  You have to use this form. You can't get a – you can't –
[55:28.000 --> 55:33.000]  And the court is asking you to put information on the form.
[55:33.000 --> 55:41.000]  Is the court clearly defining each piece of information that you are to put on the form?
[55:41.000 --> 55:51.000]  Yeah. Yeah, I mean, they define, they give the – you know, they reference the code, the statute.
[55:51.000 --> 55:54.000]  Ah, there you go. That's what you need to reference.
[55:54.000 --> 56:02.000]  Instead of referencing their website that has instructions, reference what they – go find the code that they're referencing. Use that.
[56:02.000 --> 56:13.000]  Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I have done that. I just – I don't think I – I didn't specifically put that in the motion.
[56:13.000 --> 56:23.000]  Okay. Okay. I have a – we have a rule here. Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[56:23.000 --> 56:32.000]  Don't use your terms. Use the court's terms. Don't say they're required to do this certain thing.
[56:32.000 --> 56:40.000]  Say they're required by such and such a statute rule or regulation to do these certain things.
[56:40.000 --> 56:59.000]  And that – it sounds pedantic, but in law we need to be pedantic because it is the duty of opposing counsel to misinterpret anything he can to undermine your position.
[56:59.000 --> 57:15.000]  And we have a judge here that's really busy. You don't have time to dig and scratch in your linguistics to try to figure out what you mean. It needs to be very clear.
[57:15.000 --> 57:30.000]  And this has been target. I was reading – I was reading a book called Nonsense, How to Detect It and How to Avoid It.
[57:30.000 --> 57:40.000]  And this guy's a linguist and he's talking about how to construct clear language that is not target.
[57:40.000 --> 57:49.000]  What? Target? What the heck is that? It took two dictionaries to find it.
[57:49.000 --> 57:56.000]  The guy's talking about clear language and he uses a word nobody ever heard of.
[57:56.000 --> 58:12.000]  Do not do that in law. Pick your words very carefully so that you affect the mind of your listener the way you want them affected.
[58:12.000 --> 58:16.000]  Though you have to be specific, you have to be pedantic.
[58:16.000 --> 58:27.000]  Okay. We do need to get moving. We've got three more callers and we spent, what, two hours with you? Or just an hour, Jason?
[58:27.000 --> 58:30.000]  And I still don't know where we're at.
[58:30.000 --> 58:39.000]  Well, no, you've answered multiple questions. You've been very helpful. But I do still have a question on the phone call.
[58:39.000 --> 58:46.000]  Okay. Hold on. We've got to go to our sponsors. One more question on the other side and then we've got three more callers we've got to get to.
[58:46.000 --> 59:13.000]  Randy Kelp, Brett Fountain, we'll be right back.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:27.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the Church.
[59:27.000 --> 59:40.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[59:40.000 --> 59:52.000]  That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:52.000 --> 01:00:02.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:06.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:11.000]  We guarantee you the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:00:11.000 --> 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 --> 01:00:23.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:33.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:39.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:43.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:46.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed. They pull back the covers and find a third party there.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:55.000]  He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight.
[01:00:55.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent.
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:07.000]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, a common demand in the days of our founding fathers.
[01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:10.000]  Third party? Third Amendment? Get it?
[01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:13.000]  So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging,
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and re-read the Third Amendment.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:36.000]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  They guarantee a specific freedom Americans should know and protect. 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 --> 01:01:52.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:57.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:02.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:13.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, 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]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of x-ray goggles.
[01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  Fourth Amendment? Four eyes staring at you? Get it?
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:35.000]  Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of security.
[01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing.
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:47.000]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells.
[01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:01.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:27.000]  Thank you very much.
[01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:19.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel's Law Radio.
[01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:29.000]  On this Friday, the 28th day of October, 2022, and we're talking to Jason in California.
[01:04:29.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  Jason, that was an interesting hour for me because I try to study language and I try to develop methodologies for being clear.
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  I have this Legal 101 book, and there's a section in there that goes to mental flow.
[01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  And what that's about is you as the speaker need to always be cognizant.
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:07.000]  You got that one, Brett? You know what that one means? Yeah, okay.
[01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  You always need to be aware of when you create a question in the mind of your listener.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:31.000]  If you use a term that reasonable people of ordinary prudence are not likely to fully understand, you need to define that term.
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:45.000]  Because if you don't, the listener hears that term and applies a meaning to it, and you keep going, and the meaning doesn't fit, and all of a sudden your listener is confused.
[01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:52.000]  You've created a question in the mind of your listener, and your listener has dropped out of mental flow.
[01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  So they have to look around and figure out how they misinterpreted that and get it corrected.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  By the time they get it corrected, you've already gone on and you've lost them all together.
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  So you as the speaker, it's not the listener's responsibility to understand you.
[01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:35.000]  It's your responsibility to present information in a way so that it creates an image or understanding in the mind of your listener that matches the understanding you're trying to present.
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  It's difficult. That's a skill, yeah.
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:46.000]  And with all due respect, you suck at that. Thank you. I totally agree.
[01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:58.000]  You know exactly what you're talking about, and you speak to it with a degree of elegance that tells me I should know exactly what you're talking about.
[01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  And I'm trying to follow along, and all of a sudden I'm finding myself lost. I ran into a roadblock, and I don't know where I'm at.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:21.000]  So for me, it was interesting to finally figure out what was going on.
[01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  So let's try to be very clear. When you speak this next question or two, try to keep in mind the image you're creating in the mind of your listener.
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  Okay, go. Okay, one rule. I've been studying how to write well. I've been practicing.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:08:07.000]  One of the things that I found that in a sentence, if you have the, 90% of the time you can just take it out. It doesn't do anything.
[01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  The definition of the E is one previously mentioned. You said show cause. Tell me what the show cause is your showing cause about.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:42.000]  The showing cause was about the liars not providing discovery and lying to the lacking candor to the court.
[01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:50.000]  Okay. Brett, what's the term for that? He's got more than one issue.
[01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  You show cause for failure to provide discovery. Show cause for, no wait.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:00.000]  False statement.
[01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:03.000]  That was a show cause, and you included in that.
[01:09:03.000 --> 01:09:07.000]  It's better for him to not combine these issues into one motion.
[01:09:07.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  You're accusing them of lying and of not providing discovery in one sentence all jumbled together.
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:30.000]  Yeah, that needs to be very clearly separated so that they can't just gesture the whole thing away.
[01:09:30.000 --> 01:09:43.000]  Show cause hearing as to why they did not produce discovery and to show why and how they misrepresented the truth in this instance or that instance.
[01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  Try that.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:52.000]  I mean, I had already submitted, I mean, there's a hearing for this motion.
[01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:04.000]  Yeah, but you're trying to explain to us what it is so we understand what's going on. So you have a motion to show cause for failure to provide discovery. What else?
[01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:08.000]  Failure to follow a court order and making.
[01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:12.000]  A court order. What court order?
[01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  To give me written notice of change substitution of attorney.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:23.000]  What?
[01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:29.000]  Those two don't have anything to do with each other.
[01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  Okay, so we, okay, this, we needed to know when you, when you do those two together, we need something to tell us they're not connected.
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  You got, they failed to give you notice of a substitution of an attorney and they failed to provide court order discovery.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:58.000]  But you had something else in there. You accused them of lying and misrepresented facts or truth.
[01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:01.000]  What was that?
[01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  That was connected with the discovery.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  Failure.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  How is it connected to discovery?
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  Okay, the issue was they failed to provide discovery.
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:21.000]  How was lying related to failure to provide discovery?
[01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  Because at the last hearing, the judge asked them if they were working on discovery and they said, yes, they're drafting responses.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:39.000]  Okay, that goes to referential index.
[01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:49.000]  You needed to tell us that at the last hearing, the judge ordered them to provide discovery.
[01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  And they lied to the court claiming they were preparing discovery.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  But then they failed to provide that discovery and you asked them to show cause.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:04.000]  Brett, did that make sense to you?
[01:12:04.000 --> 01:12:06.000]  It does now.
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:11.000]  They did not get ordered to provide discovery.
[01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  That's not what happened.
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:24.000]  They answered a question that they were working on discovery, that they received my request and they were working on it.
[01:12:24.000 --> 01:12:28.000]  Okay, did the judge order them to produce discovery?
[01:12:28.000 --> 01:12:30.000]  No.
[01:12:30.000 --> 01:12:38.000]  The judge granted a continuance to allow enough time to complete discovery.
[01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:41.000]  Okay.
[01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  This is a lot of work to get to a simple place.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  You needed to tell us all of that, that you requested discovery.
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:55.000]  They had not produced discovery yet.
[01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  How did the judge get involved?
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:12.000]  Because I requested a continuance on the grounds that I sent discovery requests.
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:19.000]  Did you ask the judge to direct the opposing party to produce discovery?
[01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  No.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:31.000]  The opposing party made it sound like they were going to and they were working on it and they were going to do it.
[01:13:31.000 --> 01:13:33.000]  And I take it they did not.
[01:13:33.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  And so you asked for a continuance to give the other side time to produce discovery.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:52.000]  Not entirely, but basically, yes.
[01:13:52.000 --> 01:14:01.000]  Again, these hearings in this quasi, they don't allow enough time for any of the normal processes.
[01:14:01.000 --> 01:14:04.000]  So there was a hearing in August.
[01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  I sent discovery requests.
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:09.000]  Then we had a hearing at the beginning of September.
[01:14:09.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  You know, they still had 30 days, you know, they have another 20 days to do it.
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:24.000]  I'm going to suggest that the problem is not so much that there's not enough time in these hearings.
[01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  The problem is you're not carefully framing your issues so they can be succinctly presented.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:47.000]  If the judge had as much trouble understanding what's going on here as I have had, he's likely to get frustrated and just blow right past it.
[01:14:47.000 --> 01:14:49.000]  Okay.
[01:14:49.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  You have to be very succinct.
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  There's no confusion.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  I sent discovery requests.
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  The liars on the other side said they were again they're working on it.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:09.000]  I got a continuance to allow enough time and everything was pushed to November 1st.
[01:15:09.000 --> 01:15:14.000]  In the meantime, they decided not to give me anything.
[01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:22.000]  I sent them, I filed a motion to show cause for contempt.
[01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:23.000]  Okay.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  So if you had given us that sentence at the beginning, this would not have been difficult.
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:35.000]  You know what you're thinking.
[01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  I don't.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:47.000]  So you have to go into my mind and pull out the information I need to stitch these pieces together.
[01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:49.000]  You especially have to do that with a judge.
[01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:54.000]  A judge, this is law, I can't presume.
[01:15:54.000 --> 01:16:00.000]  I can't take a word and say I think I know what he meant.
[01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  I can't do that.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  I have to ask us.
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:11.000]  If I guess at what you mean, I will get it wrong almost every time.
[01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  This is a problem with how you're presenting information.
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  You're not accustomed to presenting information in court.
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:22.000]  That's the truth.
[01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:35.000]  We have to be very succinct. We have to think of what facts does the judge need in order to come to the conclusion that I need him to come to.
[01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:43.000]  And the fact that the other side are liars doesn't help bring you to the point that you need.
[01:16:43.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  They may be liars, but that doesn't have anything to do with reproduction of discovery.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  This just takes a mental discipline.
[01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:00.000]  Hang on, we'll be right back.
[01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:20.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:24.000]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:26.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:33.000]  How to turn your financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:41.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:49.000]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:01.000]  I love logos.
[01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:07.000]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:18:07.000 --> 01:18:08.000]  I need my truth fixed.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:10.000]  I'd be lost without logos.
[01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:13.000]  And I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:16.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite.
[01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:20.000]  And I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:20.000 --> 01:18:22.000]  How can I help logos?
[01:18:22.000 --> 01:18:24.000]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  You can order your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:31.000]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  Now, go to logosradionetwork.com.
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:37.000]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:43.000]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  No.
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:47.000]  Do I have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  No.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  No.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  I mean, yes.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  Wow.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:54.000]  Giving without doing anything or spending any money.
[01:18:54.000 --> 01:18:55.000]  This is perfect.
[01:18:55.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  Thank you so much.
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:18:58.000]  We are welcome.
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:00.000]  Happy holidays, logos.
[01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:13.000]  This is the Logos, Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:36.000]  Oh, come on.
[01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:44.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:47.000]  And we've got to finish up, Jason.
[01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:51.000]  We've got three more callers, and I'm running out of time.
[01:19:51.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  And Scott here has been online for three hours, three minutes less than you have.
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:04.000]  So, call us back next week.
[01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:09.000]  I can't spend any more time today, but think about that, how you present this.
[01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  You need to present it so I will understand it, so other people will understand it.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:16.000]  It doesn't matter what you understand.
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  It doesn't matter what you say.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  What matters is what your other party hears and understands.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:28.000]  Okay.
[01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:29.000]  Go ahead.
[01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:30.000]  I had you muted by mistake.
[01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  Go ahead.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:34.000]  No, well, thank you.
[01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:46.000]  I mean, just the final, the main question was that, you know, how do I address the show cause?
[01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  I don't think it should be a show cause.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:21:00.000]  When you get there, just turn it into a ask the judge to order counsel to produce discovery.
[01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:03.000]  I don't care why he didn't produce discovery.
[01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:07.000]  If he's had problems, he's been busy, his problem, not your problem,
[01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:19.000]  ask the court to order counsel to produce discovery or ask for sanctions for delaying the case.
[01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  All right.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:22.000]  I will.
[01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  Thank you.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  I appreciate all the time.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:27.000]  Sorry for the confusion.
[01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:28.000]  That's okay.
[01:21:28.000 --> 01:21:29.000]  This is how we get better.
[01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  And that was a good example for everybody else because Brett and I were really struggling to understand what's going on.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:42.000]  And on the break, we come in and I don't know what's going on here.
[01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:45.000]  Am I just confused?
[01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:46.000]  What's going on?
[01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  It took me a while to figure out what was going on.
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:54.000]  And it was use of language.
[01:21:54.000 --> 01:21:56.000]  Work on it.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:21:57.000]  Right on.
[01:21:57.000 --> 01:21:58.000]  Yes, I will.
[01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:03.000]  Call us back next week and we will pick on you unmercifully.
[01:22:03.000 --> 01:22:05.000]  That would be fabulous.
[01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:06.000]  Okay.
[01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:07.000]  Thank you, Jason.
[01:22:07.000 --> 01:22:08.000]  All right.
[01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  Okay.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:12.000]  Now we're going to go to Scott in Georgia.
[01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:24.000]  Now, if anybody has any trouble understanding Scott, I used to live in Tennessee, so I speak Hew Billy and I can interpret.
[01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  You there, Scott?
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:29.000]  Brett?
[01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:30.000]  Yes.
[01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:31.000]  Randy?
[01:22:31.000 --> 01:22:32.000]  Yes.
[01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  Hey.
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  Can you hear me?
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:36.000]  I can hear you.
[01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:39.000]  What do you have for us today?
[01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  I was just calling.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  I wanted to see your getting the grand jury involved in something.
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  I remember some of the stories you told me about getting the grand jury.
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:23:03.000]  And the district attorney would obstruct you from exercising that right?
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:07.000]  Yes, and then I get to go after the district attorney.
[01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  Well, I'm working on a petition to get the judge to mandate compliance from the district attorney so we can get the grand jury involved in the civil nature of the proceedings.
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:35.000]  What does Georgia law say about duties of grand jurors?
[01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:49.000]  The duties of the grand jurors, they can invest the records and investigate the offices, investigate officials, the records, the books, accounts.
[01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:53.000]  Oh, that sounds more like California.
[01:23:53.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  California, while California is about the most corrupt state in the union, they really do have a good grand jury because they can investigate into government contracts, the police, and just about anything they want to.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:12.000]  That's why I asked that question.
[01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:22.000]  In Texas it says it shall be to the duty of the grand jury to examine into all crimes subject to indictment.
[01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  That's all.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:24.000]  Yeah.
[01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:27.000]  They can't investigate into government contracts and other things.
[01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:30.000]  It sounds like Georgia can.
[01:24:30.000 --> 01:24:31.000]  Yeah, yeah.
[01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:34.000]  The jury's got a lot of power here.
[01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:41.000]  So what does it say about grand jurors' duties to hear complaints?
[01:24:41.000 --> 01:24:50.000]  How do they get noticed of crime or notice of something of which they need to investigate?
[01:24:50.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  Who can invoke the duty of a grand jury?
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:04.000]  In a criminal nature, a private individual can bring complaint through a magistrate.
[01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:11.000]  And what is the magistrate commanded to do with that complaint?
[01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000]  I guess if you show probable cause, you know the evidence of a crime.
[01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  No, no, no. We don't get to guess.
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:22.000]  Okay.
[01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  Let me explain why I'm asking it that way so you'll know what to look for.
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:36.000]  In Texas, when a complaint is presented to a magistrate, the magistrate shall issue a warrant for threat.
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:37.000]  Yes.
[01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:49.000]  The person is arrested. With a warrant or without a warrant, the arresting officer is commanded to take the person directly to the nearest magistrate.
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:56.000]  With a warrant, 15.16. Without a warrant, 14.03.
[01:25:56.000 --> 01:26:03.000]  The magistrate is then ordered to hold an examining trial, make a determination of probable cause.
[01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:13.000]  Once he's made the determination, he's to issue an order stating whether he found probable cause, reached him at the liberty, reached him on bail, whatever he did.
[01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:20.000]  And he is to file that order with the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  Now, 17.30, the next chapter says after an examining trial, the magistrate shall seal all documents had in the hearing.
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:45.000]  The complaint, statement of witnesses, and all other documents shall be sealed up in an envelope with the name of the magistrate written across the seal of the envelope and forwarded to the clerk of the court of jurisdiction.
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:53.000]  And the clerk shall keep all, 17.31, the clerk shall keep all those papers safe and deliver them up to the next grand jury.
[01:26:53.000 --> 01:26:58.000]  That's criminal procedure 101 by statute.
[01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:14.000]  What does Georgia law say about you give a complaint to this magistrate, what is he supposed to do, how does that complaint get to the clerk or the grand jury?
[01:27:14.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  Yes, that's in a criminal nature, but we're trying to do it in a civil nature.
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  Oh, okay. In a civil nature, who can present issues to grand juries of a civil nature?
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:39.000]  You're talking about contracts or misapplication, improper acts of government.
[01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:41.000]  Is that what you're going to?
[01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  Yeah, in the civil nature, we have a county official that has disobeyed subpoena, and they have records of video.
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  Okay, that's not civil.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:01.000]  Well, yeah, it does have a criminal nature also, you're right.
[01:28:01.000 --> 01:28:07.000]  But what we're wanting to do, we're not necessarily wanting to go criminal with it.
[01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:26.000]  Now, that is an option, but we're just trying to extra the civil part of it just to bring notice, like for the grand jury to expect the corruption that's going on and just give a general present.
[01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:44.000]  And what are you asking the grand jury to do? To look into the records, to see the suspense, to see the subpoenas and all of our motions that have been ignored.
[01:28:44.000 --> 01:28:52.000]  We've been completely ignored. The judge has not made any decision.
[01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:57.000]  Okay, well, hold on. This does not sound like something that would go to a grand jury.
[01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  This sounds like something that would go to a writ of mandamus.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:14.000]  Yeah, that's why I'm working on a mandamus for this, to mandate all this, but to mandate to get to the grand jury for them to take notice of it, just to bring notice.
[01:29:14.000 --> 01:29:27.000]  Okay, hold on. Let me take a step back. Is there a civil prosecution or a civil case in working now?
[01:29:27.000 --> 01:29:30.000]  Yes, we're in a civil proceeding ourselves.
[01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:42.000]  Okay, then you have grounds to move for, this goes to mandamus, not to a grand jury indictment.
[01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:45.000]  Well, yeah, we're presenting it though.
[01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:49.000]  Well, you're saying you filed this stuff and the judge didn't do anything.
[01:29:49.000 --> 01:29:51.000]  Yeah.
[01:29:51.000 --> 01:30:02.000]  Hang on. We'll pick this up on the other side, Randy Calhoun, Brat Fountain Wheel of Law Radio. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:12.000]  Some cyber security expert has a warning for America. If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers will come and they could cause a catastrophic blackout.
[01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:16.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the shocking details in a moment.
[01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:22.000]  Privacy is under attack. 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 --> 01:30:32.000]  Protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:41.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. 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 --> 01:30:52.000]  Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into your home too with a smart grid.
[01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  So they're installing a national network of smart meters to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and avoid grid failure.
[01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:08.000]  But cyber security expert David Chalk says not so fast. If we make the national power grid controllable through the web, hackers will have a field day.
[01:31:08.000 --> 01:31:15.000]  Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the entire nation, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies.
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:18.000]  I've long opposed smart meters for privacy and health reasons.
[01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:23.000]  The catastrophic failures caused by hackers? There's nothing smart about that.
[01:31:23.000 --> 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 --> 01:31:43.000]  The government says the fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:49.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:58.000]  I'm a father who lost his son. 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 --> 01:32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:10.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:13.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:18.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:20.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve 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,
[01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:34.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:36.000]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.000 --> 01:32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research 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 --> 01:33:12.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:55.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:55.000 --> 01:34:00.000]  Randy Kelton, Bret Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Scott in Georgia.
[01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:07.000]  Okay, Scott, you have an issue that you're bringing before the grand jury.
[01:34:07.000 --> 01:34:15.000]  How does the grand jury have authority to look into this issue?
[01:34:15.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  What we have filed in the court has been ignored.
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  So we want to see that before.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:30.000]  Okay, hold on. You're talking about motions or pleadings have been ignored?
[01:34:30.000 --> 01:34:32.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  Did you contact the court coordinator for the court that you're in
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  and ask the court coordinator for dates to hear these motions
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:52.000]  and then file a request for a docketing of this motion on a certain day?
[01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:55.000]  No, I haven't done any of that.
[01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:58.000]  Okay, this is how it generally works.
[01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:02.000]  Filing a motion in the court doesn't do anything.
[01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  You have to get that motion set for hearing.
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  If you haven't done that, then you can't accuse the judge of ignoring your motion.
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  It has to be put before him.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:18.000]  Well, it was put before him as per view.
[01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  These motions have been put before him.
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:28.000]  Okay, then why are you going for a grand jury instead of mandamus?
[01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  Well, I'm going both ways.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:43.000]  Okay, what specific authority does the grand jury have to intercede in an ongoing court case?
[01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  Because the record has been ignored.
[01:35:46.000 --> 01:35:57.000]  No, what in law gives the grand jury to second-guess a judge?
[01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:01.000]  Well, I can present that the record has been ignored.
[01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  Well, so what?
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:09.000]  What's wrong with that?
[01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  Well, the judge is supposed to rule or decide on these motions.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:15.000]  Who says?
[01:36:15.000 --> 01:36:20.000]  Wait, Scott, I'm not being facetious here.
[01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  When I say who says, then you tell me what the legislature said in a law they passed that orders this judge to do what he's not doing.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:47.000]  Okay, I got a statute, a Georgia statute that states that in a county of 100,000 inhabitants or more, a judge has 90 days to respond to all motions.
[01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:48.000]  The judge?
[01:36:48.000 --> 01:36:51.000]  It's the whole record.
[01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:53.000]  The judge?
[01:36:53.000 --> 01:37:01.000]  Yes, he has 90 days to respond or decide and file it with the clerk of court to put it on the record.
[01:37:01.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Okay, so a judge has a statutory time in which to render a ruling?
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:11.000]  Yes.
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  Oh, that is interesting.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:16.000]  I've never heard of a state that had that.
[01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:19.000]  So has he exceeded that time?
[01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:22.000]  Well, in four days he will.
[01:37:22.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  Okay, in four days I'm going to suggest that the remedy for this particular situation is a petition for writ of mandamus to the court of appeals.
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:54.000]  Well, that's what I'm doing. I'm going to try to attack it both ways, writ of mandamus to set the record up in a direct appeal that if it's refused or granted or possibly ignored,
[01:37:54.000 --> 01:38:17.000]  that a directable appeal of a refused or granted writ of mandamus to the appellate within the writ of mandamus, I'm requesting the compliance by the district attorney to get that out of the way because he's going to obstruct me if I go for it.
[01:38:17.000 --> 01:38:26.000]  So go ahead and get him out of the way to get to the grand jury to show the record and that statute that's being ignored, the record's being ignored.
[01:38:26.000 --> 01:38:28.000]  Okay.
[01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  Okay, I'm still not sure how you got to grand jury instead of appellate court judges.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  Well, like I said, I'm going to try to get it both ways, bring attention from the higher court and from the grand jury.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  And that may be a good idea depending on how powerful the Georgia grand jury is.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  I'm just wondering where the Georgia grand jury has standing to address this particular issue.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:11.000]  Well, they can present in civil suits, they can present a general or special presentment and a special presentment here in Georgia is like an indictment.
[01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:20.000]  But we're going to suggest a general presentment just to show the abuse of the courts, not necessarily to charge anybody.
[01:39:20.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  Oh, okay.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:24.000]  We'll play 30, we'll play 32.
[01:39:24.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  Okay, that sounds interesting.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  That is not something I've come across before.
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  Yes.
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:38.000]  And I take it you've done the case law research to find precedent for this in Tennessee law.
[01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  I'm sorry, in Georgia law.
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:52.000]  Well, I'm just I'm going off of a writ of mandamus that is in a direct appealable appeal.
[01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:59.000]  And if it's refused or granted, it can go straight to the appellate.
[01:39:59.000 --> 01:40:08.000]  And I would suggest that it's ignored also.
[01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:23.000]  And the I'm reading the jury handbook on and the attorney general opinions that the grand jury can be exercised
[01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:37.000]  in a civil nature to investigate officials negligence and and possible criminal offenses.
[01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:44.000]  Okay, in this case, what does negligence refer to in this context?
[01:40:44.000 --> 01:40:58.000]  We've got we've got four subpoenas in the record, and three of them were disobeyed to produce documents and video video evidence.
[01:40:58.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  Okay.
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:07.000]  Still, everything you're telling me to point points to writ of mandamus.
[01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  Yeah, well, that writ of mandamus that appeals direct appeal to the higher court,
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:30.000]  but a writ of mandamus for this judge to mandate the district attorney to comply with us to get him out of the way so we can present our record that's being ignored.
[01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:37.000]  We can show on the record that none of the motions have been decided.
[01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:50.000]  What specific power you're asking a grand jury to intercede in a court case and usurp a judge.
[01:41:50.000 --> 01:42:03.000]  That needs to be explicit. We're showing that the grand jury as one branch representative one branch of government,
[01:42:03.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  you're asking to intercede in another branch of government.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:25.000]  Well, they have a civil nature, according to the attorney or attorney general to review the record, you know, and the county officials actions.
[01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:39.000]  Okay. Okay. And that makes sense if they're authorized to examine into the operations of any one officer person.
[01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:40.000]  Yes.
[01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:50.000]  Okay. So now we got where we're at. I led you the wrong way, the long way around. What did you want to ask?
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:55.000]  Oh, I just wanted to see what you thought about that.
[01:42:55.000 --> 01:43:00.000]  I think that's a great idea if you can actually get to them.
[01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  Yeah, that's right. That's why I'm trying to think ahead of getting a mandamus put into the hands of the judge saying,
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:17.000]  hey, we want to mandate this district attorney to comply with us to get him out of the way because he's going to try to decrypt us.
[01:43:17.000 --> 01:43:23.000]  Yeah, I'm thinking mandamus is a primary key for this issue.
[01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  I suspect that trying to invoke the power of a grand jury in a way they're not accustomed to invoking it is going to lead you to a lot of difficulty.
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:44.000]  Okay. Okay. Do you have anything else for us? I've got one segment and one call that's been on for three hours.
[01:43:44.000 --> 01:43:51.000]  Oh, yeah. I'm good. I'm just going to run that by you. You said it sounds like an interesting idea. I'm good.
[01:43:51.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  It does. Thank you, Scott. And hang on. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:06.000]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:11.000]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  In a world where natural fruits have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:31.000]  Logo Sheridian Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:40.000]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:40.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:52.000]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:52.000 --> 01:44:59.000]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:03.000]  Order now.
[01:45:03.000 --> 01:45:06.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:17.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[01:45:17.000 --> 01:45:25.000]  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.
[01:45:25.000 --> 01:45:30.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:36.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:45.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:45.000 --> 01:45:54.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:54.000 --> 01:46:04.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:25.000 --> 01:46:31.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Bret Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:46:31.000 --> 01:46:37.000]  And Scott, at the end of that last segment, I said hang on. I was talking to everybody else.
[01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:38.000]  Okay.
[01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:41.000]  Scott, you can hang up, you hillbilly.
[01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:43.000]  Okay.
[01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:45.000]  All right, thank you.
[01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  Keep us up to speed on how this goes. This sounds interesting.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:53.000]  It is very interesting. Thank you, sir.
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  Okay, thank you, Scott.
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:47:05.000]  Now we're going to Adam in Texas. Hello, Adam. What do you have for us today?
[01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:08.000]  Ooh.
[01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:11.000]  Did we put Adam to sleep?
[01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:13.000]  Oh, my goodness.
[01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:17.000]  Oh, Bret's going to be disappointed because he won't be here.
[01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:18.000]  I've been looking forward.
[01:47:18.000 --> 01:47:20.000]  Yeah.
[01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:24.000]  Hello. Are you there?
[01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:31.000]  I guess we must have, our dulcet tones must have lulled him into unconsciousness.
[01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:32.000]  Okay.
[01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:37.000]  Oh, I heard a little something. I heard, I think his mic is maybe flaking out or something.
[01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:40.000]  I heard a little snippet.
[01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:47.000]  Okay, Adam. He said you're a flake.
[01:47:47.000 --> 01:47:52.000]  I'm going to leave your mic open while we go to Stephen in Texas.
[01:47:52.000 --> 01:47:59.000]  Hello, Stephen. What do you have for us today?
[01:47:59.000 --> 01:48:05.000]  Oh, help if I unmuted you. There we go. Try it now, Stephen.
[01:48:05.000 --> 01:48:07.000]  Yes, sir. Can you hear me?
[01:48:07.000 --> 01:48:09.000]  Yes, I can.
[01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:11.000]  All right, good deal.
[01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:13.000]  What have you got for us?
[01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:20.000]  All right. Well, this goes back to the issues I've been having with the property I had in the city of Hillsboro.
[01:48:20.000 --> 01:48:24.000]  And it's been a while since I've talked with you guys.
[01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:32.000]  They ended up, I was pretty distracted with life to the short point.
[01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:38.000]  Wait, wait, wait. I have a question. Do you know Leon?
[01:48:38.000 --> 01:48:41.000]  Not that I know of.
[01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:48.000]  Six foot seven, 500 pounds.
[01:48:48.000 --> 01:48:50.000]  Not that I know of, sir.
[01:48:50.000 --> 01:48:58.000]  He lives in Ikea. He just talked to me recently. He wants me to come down to Hillsboro and work on the case.
[01:48:58.000 --> 01:49:00.000]  He lives in Ikea?
[01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:01.000]  Yeah.
[01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:02.000]  Wait a minute.
[01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:06.000]  That's a tiny little town where Farrah Fossett is from.
[01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  Isn't he a former deputy?
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:11.000]  No.
[01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:15.000]  No. Okay. All right.
[01:49:15.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  All right. So anyways, they ended up having the, I called, they sent me a notice back at the end of June and the 1st of July.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:33.000]  And I sent them a reply with a notice right back saying things, you're criminally trespassing, I'm none of the persons under this code.
[01:49:33.000 --> 01:49:47.000]  And they, let's see, the abuse of office, misuse of, anyways, just to get to the point, that's about the time that things went off rail and life.
[01:49:47.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  They ended up having a, this is all under the guise of a Department of Public Safety that doesn't exist anywhere in a charter for the city of Hillsboro.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:05.000]  And so when there was no public notice of an actual hearing anywhere, we didn't know one even happened.
[01:50:05.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  Couldn't find it in the city, couldn't find it in the paper, couldn't find it in the city secretary's calendar online.
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:21.000]  When they did have one months before, I said, well, okay, I guess then they aren't having one. The guy's a liar in the first place.
[01:50:21.000 --> 01:50:29.000]  A few days after that, we got a notice, well, we had a hearing and your property was condemned, this or the other, which we weren't able to go to.
[01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:33.000]  We couldn't possibly have made it to this hearing in the first place.
[01:50:33.000 --> 01:50:49.000]  And again, still going through other issues, didn't make a, they had their own notice to where you'd only have 30 days to appeal to an actual judicial hearing is what they're telling you.
[01:50:49.000 --> 01:50:53.000]  That's what the code is. I didn't say there's not other case law now that says otherwise.
[01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:58.000]  I'm just saying that's what, if you just read verbatim out of their statute.
[01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:06.000]  But even so, if they had a hearing and failed to give notice, that should be relatively easy to get overturned.
[01:51:06.000 --> 01:51:13.000]  Is this the city of Hillsboro or county commissioner's court?
[01:51:13.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  Negative, it's the city of Hillsboro.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:26.000]  Okay, these guys don't get to hold hearings. They have to, did they post it 72 hours before?
[01:51:26.000 --> 01:51:39.000]  No, I got, they had, I was given in the notice I got at the 1st of July, to which they didn't give me time to respond to the first one they sent in June.
[01:51:39.000 --> 01:51:47.000]  So I've been dealing with these people for three years, to which I've always rebutted. And I sent a rebuttal to this one.
[01:51:47.000 --> 01:51:55.000]  But by the time I got to do that, I know they had cut the 10 days and just sent one that says this is a commission.
[01:51:55.000 --> 01:52:04.000]  Then there is a committee, a commission, excuse me, that they're allowed to form as a municipality on buildings and standards.
[01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:09.000]  This commission will decide whether or not your house can be repaired or such and such.
[01:52:09.000 --> 01:52:14.000]  I'm like, well, that doesn't sound right. What's the tear to him, excuse me, right, to decide what.
[01:52:14.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  Anyways, but he claims personal autonomy.
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:26.000]  Sounds highly unconstitutional. And it's a deprivation of somebody's property without due process.
[01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:35.000]  And due process can't be defined by them in their little mahogany room and deciding what kind of rules they want to set for themselves.
[01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:38.000]  There's much higher standards than that.
[01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:41.000]  You have to make it up.
[01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  These are city council members or city employees?
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:53.000]  Negative. They're just appointed people that are appointed to the committee, not even a city council.
[01:52:53.000 --> 01:52:58.000]  Their charter, they can do that. I'm not saying there's nothing else.
[01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:06.000]  Anyways, well, they moved forward. They wrote my wife 10 days worth of citation starting on the 28th.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:11.000]  Well, I don't get the city newspaper. My father does at his place.
[01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:16.000]  I happened to look and I never noticed anything of a public hearing in the first place.
[01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:21.000]  So again, I don't know. I mean, this is all under the guise of a dang department that doesn't even exist.
[01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:27.000]  If you go to the city's website, there's no such thing as a department, if I would say. Anyways.
[01:53:27.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  You need to look at the local government code and at the charter for the city to see under what authority this committee was convened.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:53.000]  They reference Vernon, straight up Vernon's 1925 in their charter. I'm not as familiar with Vernon.
[01:53:53.000 --> 01:53:56.000]  However, I've got copies of it.
[01:53:56.000 --> 01:54:03.000]  Well, Vernon is effectively the penal code and code of criminal procedure.
[01:54:03.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  It's been re-numerated and everything.
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:12.000]  Yes, it has. Vernon's was just a publishing house.
[01:54:12.000 --> 01:54:23.000]  They published the public law and now you'll find all the public law and the statutes and codes.
[01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:32.000]  But this sounds like Leon, when he called me, he addressed some issues of corruption in Hillsboro.
[01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:42.000]  So I may be down there looking at these issues, some of these issues anyway.
[01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:52.000]  Send me an email. When I come to Hillsboro, I will send you an email, let you know when I'm down there.
[01:54:52.000 --> 01:55:02.000]  Okay. It's pretty complicated. Listen, they went two months and one day I got a call from a disabled Vietnam vet neighbor.
[01:55:02.000 --> 01:55:05.000]  They watched the property for us because we don't live there.
[01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:11.000]  And he gave me a call one morning at work, Steve, they're moving into a place, they cut the lock, they're stealing all your stuff.
[01:55:11.000 --> 01:55:20.000]  And I said, excuse me? So I had to leave work, call up one time, try and sign the law, this, that, and the other, get down there.
[01:55:20.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  And this is, like I said, I could go on.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:29.000]  Anyways, they threatened to arrest me for going in my own house, take my own stuff while they got people walking in, not any of it.
[01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:35.000]  No safety protection, no nothing, walking in and out of my house, carrying out the things we use as storage.
[01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  And while threatening to arrest me for going in, they threatened to arrest him being on a public sidewalk right beside it, told him he could get hurt.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:52.000]  And he was interfering with obstruction of justice. They were going to interfere with obstruction of justice.
[01:55:52.000 --> 01:55:57.000]  I said, what the heck? If I got a rental locker that I didn't pay the rent on, that is what it looked like.
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:56:00.000]  They took care of it anyways. And...
[01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:04.000]  What was the nature of, was it a condemnation?
[01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:07.000]  Yes.
[01:56:07.000 --> 01:56:13.000]  Under what, what was the nature of the claim?
[01:56:13.000 --> 01:56:19.000]  That it's a substandard structure.
[01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:20.000]  They call...
[01:56:20.000 --> 01:56:24.000]  Okay, I have a document for you.
[01:56:24.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  We filed this in Newark, Texas.
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:34.000]  And we argued that the city ordinances did not apply to you,
[01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:45.000]  as you were not an employee of the city and you were not, had not entered into a contractual agreement with the city,
[01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:49.000]  where you agreed to abide by their statutory scheme.
[01:56:49.000 --> 01:56:58.000]  If the municipality attempted to apply the ordinances to the general public, then they had the effect of law.
[01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:05.000]  And only the legislature may enact law.
[01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  So that made them an unconstitutional application of the code, of the ordinances.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:19.000]  The Court of Appeals found a really obscure issue.
[01:57:19.000 --> 01:57:27.000]  They scoured the codes to find a reason to dismiss this case and give us the dismissal we wanted.
[01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:30.000]  But not on the issue we brought.
[01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  This is a very good constitutional issue and this is likely to make them back up.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  It's even more than that.
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  We did this in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus.
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  Writ of mandamus is only accepted 12% of the time, ruled in favor of the filer 2% of the time.
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:58:03.000]  And this is the second Court of Appeals which you would be in.
[01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:11.000]  And we filed it pro se and they gave us a ruling because they did not want this to get to the Supreme
[01:58:11.000 --> 01:58:19.000]  and at risk the Supreme ruling that ordinances are not applicable to the general public.
[01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  Stephen, did you just say that they already tore it down?
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:28.000]  I remember you telling me that they stole all your stuff and were walking out the door with it.
[01:58:28.000 --> 01:58:31.000]  But did you say they tore it down?
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:32.000]  Yes, they destroyed it.
[01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:38.000]  They used a freaking mini axe to beat the damn thing to death until it fell over.
[01:58:38.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  Okay, send me an email. We're out of time.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  I'll let you know when I'm going to be in Hillsboro and I'll get you a copy of this petition.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Thank you all for listening.
[01:58:50.000 --> 01:58:58.000]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:58.000 --> 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 --> 01:59:26.000]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.000 --> 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 --> 01:59:41.000]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.000 --> 01:59:49.000]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.000 --> 01:59:54.000]  Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:59:54.000 --> 02:00:02.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com