ROL_2009-09-04_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.840]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.840 --> 00:11.380]  U.S. envoys and lawmakers have warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai that American patience
[00:11.380 --> 00:17.760]  is running out, citing concerns about allegations of fraud and corruption and attempts to prejudge
[00:17.760 --> 00:20.960]  the outcome of last week's election.
[00:20.960 --> 00:26.320]  An unnamed former senior Scottish police officer says he planted the bomb timer fragment at
[00:26.320 --> 00:32.760]  the crash site of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing by order of the CIA.
[00:32.760 --> 00:39.000]  And Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer who is a crucial witness, has now confessed he lied
[00:39.000 --> 00:42.560]  about the origins of a timer switch.
[00:42.560 --> 00:48.060]  Fidel Castro has accused the U.S. of seeking to overthrow Venezuela's government and establish
[00:48.060 --> 00:51.600]  power through its future military bases in Colombia.
[00:51.600 --> 00:56.960]  Castro said Washington's only purpose is the ability to put U.S. troops in South America
[00:56.960 --> 00:58.600]  in a matter of hours.
[00:58.600 --> 01:06.320]  The U.S. insists the bases are aimed at fighting drug gangs and left-wing rebels.
[01:06.320 --> 01:11.000]  Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that AHIP, the multi-million dollar
[01:11.000 --> 01:18.160]  lobbying giant for the health insurance industry, has mobilized 50,000 employees to lobby Congress
[01:18.160 --> 01:21.800]  to defeat the public option in the new health care bill.
[01:21.800 --> 01:27.240]  The website ThinkProgress has learned AHIP's grassroots lobbying is being managed by the
[01:27.240 --> 01:31.520]  corporate consulting firm Democracy Data and Communications.
[01:31.520 --> 01:37.200]  DDC has made a name for itself as one of the most effective stealth lobbying firms.
[01:37.200 --> 01:43.320]  Earlier this summer, DDC was caught by reporters using a front group called Citizens for a
[01:43.320 --> 01:49.880]  Safe Alexandria to attack the Obama administration for seeking to prosecute Guantanamo prisoners
[01:49.880 --> 01:52.200]  in Alexandria, Virginia.
[01:52.200 --> 01:59.160]  DDC promises high-impact outreach programs that influence the grassroots and change attitudes
[01:59.160 --> 02:00.160]  for the long term.
[02:00.160 --> 02:06.640]  According to the Washington Post, DDC pays over 500 contract workers to telephone people
[02:06.640 --> 02:14.160]  around the country asking them to sign letters to Congress, the press for legislation.
[02:14.160 --> 02:19.120]  Economist Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says the flood of debt the U.S. is taking on to rescue the
[02:19.120 --> 02:25.200]  economy will combine with huge social insurance obligations, Medicare, Medicaid and Social
[02:25.200 --> 02:30.400]  Security, to create an unsustainable level of public indebtedness.
[02:30.400 --> 02:36.320]  Faced with this mountain of debt, Hummel says policymakers have just two choices, repudiate
[02:36.320 --> 02:39.640]  the debt or engage in hyperinflation.
[02:39.640 --> 02:44.760]  And faced with that choice, the Treasury will likely protect the currency and default on
[02:44.760 --> 02:45.760]  Treasuries.
[02:45.760 --> 02:50.200]  Hummel says a more likely outcome is that the U.S. will make good on Treasury debt but
[02:50.200 --> 02:55.200]  repudiate soft obligations like Social Security and Medicare.
[02:55.200 --> 03:08.920]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at RuleOfLawRadio.com, live free
[03:08.920 --> 03:20.920]  speech talk radio at its best.
[03:20.920 --> 03:27.920]  I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind, there was something so terrible
[03:27.920 --> 03:37.920]  about that place, even your emotions had an echo in so much space.
[03:37.920 --> 03:44.920]  And when you're out there without care, yeah I was out of touch, but it wasn't because
[03:44.920 --> 04:01.920]  I didn't know enough, I just knew too much, but that makes me crazy, that makes me crazy,
[04:01.920 --> 04:19.920]  that makes me crazy, I could be in all the trouble of having the time of your life.
[04:19.920 --> 04:31.920]  So think twice, that's my only advice, come on now who do you, who do you, who do you,
[04:31.920 --> 04:35.920]  who do you think you are?
[04:35.920 --> 05:03.920]  I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, that's my only advice,
[05:03.920 --> 05:30.920]  come on now who do you, who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
[05:30.920 --> 05:57.920]  I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, that's my only advice,
[05:57.920 --> 06:24.920]  come on now who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
[06:24.920 --> 06:41.920]  I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, I think you're crazy, that's my only advice,
[06:41.920 --> 06:49.920]  come on now who do you, who do you, who do you think you are?
[06:49.920 --> 06:58.160]  call on in. So that being said, we are now going to discuss the seminar. I have enough
[06:58.160 --> 07:04.480]  commitments from people now that the seminar is definitely on. So it's a sure thing right
[07:04.480 --> 07:11.360]  now. We haven't set the date yet. We'll have that date hopefully set by this coming Monday.
[07:11.360 --> 07:16.240]  So Randy, Eddie, y'all want to discuss just a little overview about the subject material
[07:16.240 --> 07:25.280]  we're going to be presenting? Yes, absolutely. Eddie's going to do the basic transportation
[07:25.280 --> 07:32.880]  code. That's his specialty. And from Eddie will come to me and I'll do the due process
[07:32.880 --> 07:40.480]  relative to the transportation, to the issues found that are common in the transportation
[07:40.480 --> 07:47.440]  code, the things they're doing wrong, whether police violate due process and what laws they
[07:47.440 --> 07:56.720]  violate, what charges we can make against them. And then Debra's going to take the violations
[07:58.160 --> 08:07.920]  of due process and tort and contort and go through the potential for civil litigation
[08:07.920 --> 08:15.280]  and the causes of action that are created. I'd like Eddie to kind of just do a brief
[08:16.560 --> 08:25.440]  on the traffic code and primarily the issue of commercial versus non-commercial.
[08:27.040 --> 08:35.440]  And from there, he'll come back to me and I'll briefly address the due process implications of
[08:35.440 --> 08:47.040]  that. You ready, Eddie? Oh, did we lose Eddie? I think I put him to sleep. Okay, hold on. We
[08:47.040 --> 08:56.880]  may have lost Eddie. I have that effect on people. He lost internet connection. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
[08:56.880 --> 09:03.840]  He'll either call back in or when he regains his internet, we'll get him back up. So Randy,
[09:03.840 --> 09:09.600]  I guess it's just you and me for now. So why don't you present your part? Okay. Well, I can start with
[09:09.600 --> 09:17.760]  just generally what Eddie has done. I've had a lot of people ask me about traffic, but I haven't
[09:17.760 --> 09:28.560]  went there yet. I was working on due process, everything from arrest to trial. I bumped into
[09:28.560 --> 09:36.000]  traffic a few times. And when I came across Eddie and his research was impeccable, the first place
[09:36.000 --> 09:45.600]  he started was with the definitions. And with the criminal law, it's a good thing, but it didn't
[09:45.600 --> 09:57.200]  turn out to be as monumental as it did in traffic. Because when he goes in and traffic and redefines
[09:57.200 --> 10:05.520]  all the terms according to the code, you have a conversation about a driver operating a motor
[10:05.520 --> 10:12.000]  vehicle in violation of the post speed limit. And you think you know what the officers are saying,
[10:13.280 --> 10:18.880]  but once you go back and redefine those terms, you find he's saying something else altogether.
[10:18.880 --> 10:27.040]  And frankly for me, that was a wake up call that reminded me to get back to work and go carefully
[10:27.040 --> 10:35.600]  examine my definitions. Because when the officer says he observed the person operating a motor
[10:35.600 --> 10:43.200]  vehicle, it assumes facts not in evidence and calls for conclusions. First he has to,
[10:43.200 --> 10:51.120]  he concludes that you are a person. And as Eddie will define person, it's not defined the same way
[10:51.680 --> 11:00.080]  as in normal conversation. In normal conversation, a person is a living, breathing human being
[11:00.800 --> 11:08.000]  to which we can have personal interaction. But in this particular context, a person is not a living
[11:08.000 --> 11:13.760]  human, breathing human being with whom you can have a personal interaction. It's a legal fiction,
[11:14.800 --> 11:25.600]  a corporation or a other form of legal entity. And a driver is not someone who just happens to
[11:25.600 --> 11:37.920]  get behind the wheel of a motorized piece of equipment and directs it down a street or highway.
[11:39.200 --> 11:46.240]  A driver is someone who operates a motor vehicle in commerce. And we do have Eddie back by the way.
[11:47.040 --> 11:52.880]  Who? Yeah, sorry about that. My internet just up and drop. Welcome to the world of remote access,
[11:52.880 --> 11:59.280]  AT&T. Right. Well, and listeners, just so you know, as we grow, we'll get all the hosts on ISDN or
[11:59.280 --> 12:07.120]  ComREXs so that won't happen anymore. But anyway, thanks for joining us again, Eddie. Yep. Okay,
[12:07.120 --> 12:13.200]  I was giving a brief synopsis. I was talking about definitions. Will you pick it up about
[12:13.200 --> 12:22.480]  what a driver is, as opposed to an operator, an automobile, as opposed to a private conveyance?
[12:23.840 --> 12:30.800]  Sure. What kind of license do I have? What am I doing with a chauffeur's license? Exactly. Actually,
[12:30.800 --> 12:39.360]  the definitions driver and operator, Texas law says that the driver slash operator is the person
[12:39.360 --> 12:48.880]  in physical control or legal control of the motor vehicle. Now, why is that particular definition
[12:48.880 --> 12:55.680]  important? Everybody goes thinking, well, hey, that's me, right? No. First off, are you in an
[12:55.680 --> 13:04.000]  automobile or are you in a motor vehicle? Only if you're in a motor vehicle, can you be a driver or
[13:04.000 --> 13:10.560]  an operator? That's exactly what the statute says. The person that is in legal control of the motor
[13:10.560 --> 13:19.040]  vehicle. So, when you get to looking at what a motor vehicle is, now where your commercial tie-in
[13:19.040 --> 13:26.400]  comes in, a motor vehicle by definition is only one being used for the purpose of business upon
[13:26.400 --> 13:29.600]  the roads and highways. Yes, and where's that definition?
[13:29.600 --> 13:35.760]  There are many definitions in the transportation code for motor vehicle, but if you look at them
[13:35.760 --> 13:41.760]  carefully, you will find that in almost every instance, motor vehicle is a compound definition,
[13:42.160 --> 13:48.960]  meaning it is comprised of the definition of vehicle in conjunction with some slight
[13:48.960 --> 13:56.400]  alteration of the meaning. For instance, vehicle in a couple of locations is defined as a vehicle
[13:56.400 --> 14:02.400]  that is self-propelled. Now, notice the term is defined within its own self, its own body.
[14:02.400 --> 14:11.360]  Vehicle is a vehicle that is self-propelled, but a motor vehicle is a vehicle whose purpose or
[14:11.360 --> 14:20.880]  primary design is the transport of goods and passengers upon a highway. Now, that's very
[14:20.880 --> 14:28.880]  important. We know what a good is. What's a passenger? A passenger by definition in law is
[14:28.880 --> 14:37.600]  one that is paying to be transported from point A to point B. Again, a commercial transaction. To
[14:37.600 --> 14:44.800]  have someone in your private automobile, they are your guest. They are not a passenger. In law, a
[14:44.800 --> 14:50.800]  passenger is paying for the ride. So, everybody keep that in mind.
[14:52.800 --> 14:58.800]  So, one thing I didn't touch on where to find the definitions.
[14:58.800 --> 15:04.160]  Okay. I'll tell you the easiest way to find them. They are in various locations in the
[15:04.160 --> 15:12.800]  transportation code. When you go to the government website, www.texas.gov, you'll find them.
[15:12.800 --> 15:19.360]  www.texas.gov. Then you click on the section in the blue banner that says government. And then
[15:19.360 --> 15:25.440]  under government, find the section that says laws, codes, and statutes. Click on that. Click on laws,
[15:25.440 --> 15:30.960]  codes, and statutes again. And then you will come up to a listing of all of the codes in Texas,
[15:30.960 --> 15:36.640]  except for the administrative code. You'll also see across the top three buttons, one of which
[15:36.640 --> 15:41.520]  will say search. If you click on search, it will bring up a page with a field for you to type in.
[15:41.520 --> 15:48.480]  The way to find definitions in the Texas statutes is, inside of double quotes, you wish to find the
[15:48.480 --> 15:56.000]  term you're looking for. In this case, which one do you want, Randy, motor vehicle or passenger?
[15:58.000 --> 16:00.000]  The motor vehicle.
[16:00.000 --> 16:04.960]  Okay. If you want to find the term motor vehicle, there are two ways to search for so that you're
[16:04.960 --> 16:12.080]  sure you've covered both your bases. Inside of double quotes, you will put motor vehicle means.
[16:13.040 --> 16:21.440]  And then you will also do a search motor vehicle includes. That will cover both ways that they set
[16:21.440 --> 16:28.080]  the definitions up. Now, the reason it's important that you look under both is that is exactly how I
[16:28.080 --> 16:33.920]  managed to find the definition in chapter 311 government code dealing with what a person is.
[16:33.920 --> 16:44.320]  Or isn't. Person includes is just like motor vehicle includes. It is illustrative of a grouping
[16:44.320 --> 16:52.400]  of particular things that that term encompasses. Basically, it builds a subject pool. And from that
[16:52.400 --> 17:01.440]  pool is where all the definitions that come with motor vehicle means or person means will draw
[17:01.440 --> 17:10.240]  their illustrative inferences from. They are the specifics that are drawn from the characterized
[17:10.240 --> 17:16.640]  general pool. Hopefully, when I illustrate this in the documentation for the seminar, I can make it
[17:16.640 --> 17:22.720]  a little less hard to understand. But basically, just think of it as includes creates a grouping
[17:22.720 --> 17:31.920]  and means draws something specific from that grouping. So when they say that person includes
[17:31.920 --> 17:39.920]  corporation, well, corporation is illustrative of any legal fiction that meets the legal definition
[17:39.920 --> 17:47.840]  of a corporation. It's illustrative of corporations in general. So when it goes over and says person
[17:47.840 --> 17:53.760]  means, the very first thing most of the terms person means has in the transportation code is
[17:53.760 --> 18:03.760]  individual. Now, Black's Law says an individual may mean a natural man. But in general terms,
[18:03.760 --> 18:11.920]  it can and does mean a legal entity. Well, here's how we match it up to what we're doing. Chapter 311
[18:11.920 --> 18:20.640]  government code says that in all cases in statute, the general definitions under Chapter 311 apply
[18:20.640 --> 18:29.200]  unless the statute you are referencing specifically states that Chapter 311 does not apply or that it
[18:29.200 --> 18:36.880]  is impossible to reconcile the meaning and intent of the statute with the general definitions in
[18:36.880 --> 18:44.720]  Chapter 311 to accomplish the purpose of the legislature. So when you take that, that's where
[18:44.720 --> 18:51.040]  I'm getting includes is your illustrative grouping and means pulls from that grouping. Because it
[18:51.040 --> 18:58.880]  also says that if they can be reconciled to work together, you must use both together. So they're
[18:58.880 --> 19:07.120]  not to be separated if at all possible. So to me, that is the original intent of the legislature.
[19:07.120 --> 19:13.520]  And when you look at how it's constructed, that's the only way it can be. To say otherwise would say
[19:13.520 --> 19:21.360]  that we, for instance, no one has the authority to say what I can or cannot do with my property.
[19:21.360 --> 19:27.600]  My neighbor can't do it. Randy can't do it. Deborah can't do it. Much as I like them, I don't give them
[19:27.600 --> 19:34.640]  I don't give them permission to dictate how I can or cannot use my property. They have no authority
[19:34.640 --> 19:41.680]  to do anything to me in regard to the use of my property. Therefore, it is axiomatic that if they
[19:41.680 --> 19:47.120]  do not possess the power to do it themselves, they do not possess the power and authority to
[19:47.120 --> 19:56.000]  grant that power to someone else. So we cannot give an authority to our elected officials that
[19:56.000 --> 20:05.840]  we ourselves do not possess. That would just be impossible to do. But anyway, back to what we're
[20:05.840 --> 20:11.600]  talking about on the definition there. For the motor vehicle, once you do the includes versus
[20:11.600 --> 20:20.080]  the means and you find out that individual means something out of one of these legal entities from
[20:20.080 --> 20:25.920]  this group. So an individual can be an employee of a corporation. Now, one of the other things in the
[20:25.920 --> 20:33.040]  terminology for person is governmental entity or governmental agency. Well, can an individual work
[20:33.040 --> 20:38.000]  for the government? Sure, they can. Can they be acting in a governmental capacity? Sure, they can.
[20:38.000 --> 20:43.680]  But they're still a legal entity because their job, their position, and who they work for
[20:43.680 --> 20:50.960]  was created by statute. That's why it is not a natural man or a natural woman that is mentioned.
[20:50.960 --> 20:57.600]  It is only legal entities that are mentioned. So as you can see, the legislature wrote the laws
[20:57.600 --> 21:04.720]  correctly. They can only write laws that apply to the things over which the people granted them
[21:04.720 --> 21:11.840]  jurisdiction and authority. And we didn't grant them authority over us, only over the things
[21:11.840 --> 21:19.440]  that they create or that we ourselves cannot individually control as far as the corporations
[21:19.440 --> 21:25.680]  and all this kind of stuff. So they are creatures of statute. And that's a lot of where the traffic
[21:25.680 --> 21:30.400]  seminar is going to go from is we're going to learn what these terms are. We're going to learn
[21:30.400 --> 21:36.240]  how to dig them out of the code and make sense of them. Definitions in law are very, very, very
[21:36.240 --> 21:41.600]  important. One of the first things that we're going to go over in the lesson is do not assume
[21:41.600 --> 21:50.240]  you know what a word means. And hopefully it will be entertaining to boot. It's going to be awesome.
[21:51.200 --> 21:58.480]  I'm relatively certain if not just entertaining, it will certainly be informative. And
[22:00.160 --> 22:07.680]  once Eddie has gone through the technical end of the transportation code,
[22:07.680 --> 22:16.560]  then I get to work on it. If a police officer says, I observed the defendant operating a motor
[22:16.560 --> 22:28.160]  vehicle in excess of the speed limits, say, the objection calls for conclusion. It assumes facts
[22:28.160 --> 22:33.920]  not in evidence. Now that you've heard what Eddie had to say, you should understand where I'm going.
[22:33.920 --> 22:39.680]  Yeah. Now also, Randy, another thing I think we should make clear to them is one of the things
[22:39.680 --> 22:45.840]  you will see in traffic court from the prosecutor, I mean, almost in every instance, you're going to
[22:45.840 --> 22:51.680]  see the prosecutor speak to the witness, usually the police officer, in a manner where their
[22:51.680 --> 22:56.720]  question comes out as a statement of fact, which is not a direct question.
[22:56.720 --> 22:58.720]  Objection leading the witness.
[22:58.720 --> 23:05.680]  Objection leading the witness. Not only leading, but that particular prosecutor is also attempting
[23:05.680 --> 23:09.680]  to enter testimony into the record that there are no facts to support.
[23:10.320 --> 23:12.560]  Assumes facts not in evidence.
[23:12.560 --> 23:20.720]  Right. But one of my preferences is objection. That's testimony. If the prosecution intends to
[23:20.720 --> 23:25.360]  testify, please remove them from their position, have them sworn in and place them to stand for
[23:25.360 --> 23:32.400]  cross-examination. And at the same time, you should invoke the rule.
[23:35.200 --> 23:41.280]  Yeah. Don't give the prosecutor the ability to testify for the officer.
[23:41.280 --> 23:50.480]  We will put together a set of documents and motions to just essentially standard motions
[23:50.480 --> 23:58.080]  that you can fill in the blanks and just send to them. And for the most part, this will be addressed,
[23:58.960 --> 24:04.720]  the definitions, your position will all be addressed before you get in front of the prosecutor.
[24:04.720 --> 24:14.080]  And we will work out more or less how to deal with the prosecutor. If we have everything in the
[24:14.080 --> 24:20.880]  paperwork, we generally don't have to deal with him at all, because if we do our jobs right,
[24:20.880 --> 24:26.160]  they will never get to the merits. They'll never get to the point of putting the officer on the
[24:26.160 --> 24:32.400]  stand because they do everything so much wrong before they ever get there.
[24:32.400 --> 24:37.520]  Yeah. One of the other things I'm going to include in this is a motion for suppression of evidence,
[24:37.520 --> 24:44.800]  which is to block the ability of anybody to use any video or audio recordings from the patrol car,
[24:45.440 --> 24:51.040]  because under Texas law rules of evidence, any statements you make that are recorded in that way,
[24:51.760 --> 24:58.400]  they are required by law to provide you with a copy of it at least 20 days prior to trial.
[24:58.400 --> 25:06.240]  They never, ever do this, ever. Now, another thing I found, which I discussed with Randy the other day,
[25:06.240 --> 25:13.440]  is what you will also know as the trial de novo. This is where they send you from municipal or JP
[25:13.440 --> 25:21.440]  court to the county court on appeal if you lost. The law very specifically states that they have
[25:21.440 --> 25:28.000]  to be a court of record, because one of the requirements for a trial de novo is for the JP
[25:28.000 --> 25:37.120]  or municipal court to forward transcripts of the trial to the next court. If they don't have these
[25:37.120 --> 25:42.880]  transcripts, they are forwarding an incomplete record, which means they have now denied you due
[25:42.880 --> 25:50.560]  process and violation of law. So using their own code, we're going to beat them black and blue.
[25:50.560 --> 25:59.520]  Beat them black and blue, okay? Yes. This one will be fun to do. I doubt that there's a
[26:00.880 --> 26:06.560]  court out there that's a municipal court or a JP court that's had this one thrown at them.
[26:08.800 --> 26:14.400]  They'll have no idea what to do with it. Yeah, they'll try to argue against it. Well,
[26:14.400 --> 26:21.920]  we don't have to do that according to the law. Oh, yes, you do. And that would mean very quickly
[26:21.920 --> 26:27.040]  that you could say this court does not have jurisdiction as there is no court reporter
[26:27.040 --> 26:34.240]  present as required by law. And for them to say that, well, we don't have to have one,
[26:34.240 --> 26:41.360]  that is a straight up violation of your due process rights on appeal, because without that record,
[26:41.360 --> 26:45.520]  there is nothing to appeal in the trial de novo according to the statute.
[26:47.760 --> 26:54.480]  Even though the trial de novo is supposed to be a complete do over, it still says a transcript
[26:54.480 --> 27:00.640]  of the lower court's case must be presented to the higher court. But it's never done.
[27:01.680 --> 27:08.080]  Do you have a specific statute? Let's see. Let me dig my book out here.
[27:08.080 --> 27:13.760]  Let me get my book, Randy, you go ahead. Yeah, we can dig it out later. The reason I want the
[27:13.760 --> 27:20.960]  specific statute is when we tell, anytime we tell the court something, we want to give it,
[27:20.960 --> 27:26.000]  we want to tell it to them in terms of law. And one of the things that I'll specifically address
[27:26.800 --> 27:34.880]  is in our motions to the court, essentially what a motion is. A motion is a letter to the judge
[27:34.880 --> 27:41.600]  trying to get something done. And the way you construct the letter is, is you tell the judge
[27:41.600 --> 27:49.920]  what you want him to do. Then you tell the judge what the facts are concerning the situation.
[27:51.120 --> 27:58.000]  Then you tell him what the law is as it applies to those facts, and what conclusion he should
[27:58.000 --> 28:05.760]  come to based on the law, and then request that he come to that conclusion and issue an order
[28:07.840 --> 28:14.720]  doing what it is you ask him to do. So that's where you put a motion together. So we need the,
[28:14.720 --> 28:21.840]  primarily we need the law. It's never good to go into court and say, well, you have to,
[28:21.840 --> 28:25.040]  the law says you must do this, or you must do that.
[28:25.040 --> 28:34.640]  When I go into court and speak to a law, I tell them Article 2.03 Paragraph A says,
[28:36.080 --> 28:41.760]  so they don't hear what they must do out of my mouth. They hear what they must do out of the
[28:41.760 --> 28:49.200]  legislator's mouth. Good strategy. Yeah, Article 44.18, Original Papers Sent Up,
[28:49.200 --> 28:54.800]  and Appeals from Justice and Corporation Courts. Now dig that. It doesn't say municipal court. It
[28:54.800 --> 29:02.080]  says corporation courts. All the original papers in the case together with the appeal bond, if any,
[29:02.080 --> 29:09.840]  and together with a certified transcript of all of the proceedings had in the case before such court
[29:09.840 --> 29:15.840]  shall be delivered without delay to the clerk of the court to which the appeal was taken, who shall
[29:15.840 --> 29:24.800]  file the same and docket the case. Shall. Does not mean may, does not mean may, might or can if he
[29:24.800 --> 29:33.760]  wants to. All right, well, listen, guys, we're going to break. We'll finish this on the other side.
[29:33.760 --> 29:41.280]  And also we've got Kenny from California. He called back in. Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984.
[29:41.280 --> 29:47.920]  Callers, if you'd like to call in 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. The rule of law, Rainy Kelton,
[29:48.560 --> 29:49.760]  A. Craig, Deborah Stevens.
[29:49.760 --> 30:11.920]  Arial Spring, chemtrails, the modified atmosphere, heavy metals and pesticides,
[30:11.920 --> 30:19.600]  carcinogens and chemical fibers all falling from the sky. You have a choice to keep your body clean,
[30:19.600 --> 30:30.480]  detoxify with micro plant powder from hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608. It's odorless
[30:30.480 --> 30:37.200]  and tasteless and used in any liquid or food. Protect your family now with micro plant powder,
[30:37.200 --> 30:45.120]  cleaning out heavy metals, parasites and toxins. Order it now for daily intake and stock it now
[30:45.120 --> 31:08.080]  for long-term storage. Visit hempusa.org or call 908-691-2608 today.
[31:15.120 --> 31:38.080]  I won't, I won't, I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes.
[31:38.080 --> 31:48.240]  I only must refuse your news, all soaked up in lies. It seems you like the face,
[31:48.240 --> 32:09.200]  but please take some words to the wise. Stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
[32:18.720 --> 32:37.200]  I'm orange is an orange and will never be an apple.
[32:37.200 --> 32:45.200]  This image is a note, it is no tough concept to grapple.
[32:45.200 --> 32:53.200]  It's just too much to bear, I won't wear your evil shackles.
[32:53.200 --> 33:17.200]  The bird is a blue bird and will never be a crackle. Yeah. Please stop this.
[33:23.200 --> 33:47.200]  Can you say cover up? What's up? Get got you done. Please open your eyes further, don't help murder these soldiers so young.
[33:47.200 --> 33:57.200]  To profit from criminals at minimal must make you one.
[33:57.200 --> 34:04.200]  Cover up? What's up? Cat got your tongue. Talking about the mainstream media there.
[34:04.200 --> 34:11.200]  It's my husband Jerry Stevens on songwriting lyrics. He recorded that, that's him all by himself.
[34:11.200 --> 34:19.200]  Playing all the instruments, writing all the words. He's the man. So that's why we're doing our own media.
[34:19.200 --> 34:27.200]  Saw bumper sticker the other day that said, if you want freedom, freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.
[34:27.200 --> 34:33.200]  And it's too bad, but that's just about the way it's gotten these days. So that's why we own our own.
[34:33.200 --> 34:39.200]  So we have freedom to tell you guys the truth. So we're going to go now to Kenny from California.
[34:39.200 --> 34:46.200]  He's called back in and caller's got an open phone board here. So 512-646-1984. We're going to go to Kenny.
[34:46.200 --> 34:51.200]  Hey Kenny, thanks for calling in. What's on your mind? Good to talk again.
[34:51.200 --> 34:54.200]  We'll have a few statements to make and then ask some questions.
[34:54.200 --> 35:02.200]  First I wanted to let you two know that I will be a proud citizen of the Republic of Texas again here for a long.
[35:02.200 --> 35:10.200]  Moving back to spend more time with my daughter and grandson. So in a few weeks I'll be back in the state.
[35:10.200 --> 35:14.200]  And the second thing was I had actually a-
[35:14.200 --> 35:20.200]  Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm kind of concerned that when you come to Texas,
[35:20.200 --> 35:26.200]  there's a good chance you could lower the average IQ of both states.
[35:26.200 --> 35:32.200]  That's funny. You're such a funny guy, Randy. In my own defense though,
[35:32.200 --> 35:36.200]  I might suggest that I'm well above the national average on IQ.
[35:36.200 --> 35:41.200]  Last time I checked it was around 135. So I think the average is about 97.
[35:41.200 --> 35:48.200]  But I had also a recommendation for you guys for someone to have on the show sometime.
[35:48.200 --> 35:52.200]  Maybe you've heard of this guy. I'll just throw it out there and I won't be offended, of course,
[35:52.200 --> 35:56.200]  if you don't get this guy on. But there is a sheriff named Richard Mack.
[35:56.200 --> 35:58.200]  We have some really great stuff here now.
[35:58.200 --> 35:59.200]  We've had him on the show before.
[35:59.200 --> 36:03.200]  Had you? Well, that's wonderful. I missed it. So isn't he great?
[36:03.200 --> 36:05.200]  We need to have him on again. It's been a while.
[36:05.200 --> 36:11.200]  That's wonderful. The next statement I wanted to make was with regard to what Eddie was talking about,
[36:11.200 --> 36:18.200]  about how important definitions are. I totally agree in that I have learned that from one statute of code to another,
[36:18.200 --> 36:22.200]  the definition of the same term might be in fact different.
[36:22.200 --> 36:32.200]  And just an example of how people are unknowingly duped by definition in the state code,
[36:32.200 --> 36:37.200]  Title VI, Section 41.121, that's Texas Health and Safety Code.
[36:37.200 --> 36:48.200]  The definition of marijuana is, marijuana means the plant cannabis sativa L.
[36:48.200 --> 36:53.200]  Whether growing or not, the seeds of that plant and every compound manufacturer's salt derivative mixture
[36:53.200 --> 36:57.200]  or preparation of that plant, blah, blah, blah, blah, we get A, B, C, D, and E.
[36:57.200 --> 37:02.200]  But you might note that the definition of marijuana, this is true in California as well,
[37:02.200 --> 37:07.200]  does not include cannabis rotinalis or cannabis indica.
[37:07.200 --> 37:12.200]  Cannabis indica being, for all you pop smokers out there, I'm not anymore, I used to be years ago,
[37:12.200 --> 37:17.200]  but for all you folks out there and listeners who might have been arrested or know people that have been arrested
[37:17.200 --> 37:22.200]  for those charges, you might note that only sativa L is actually illegal.
[37:22.200 --> 37:30.200]  Yeah, there are actually five species of it and only the one is illegal, yet they will try to get you for any.
[37:30.200 --> 37:32.200]  Exactly.
[37:32.200 --> 37:40.200]  If you get pulled over and they find seeds or leaves of any of those, then they're going to try to get you.
[37:40.200 --> 37:46.200]  Now, which brings up another interesting point that an attorney that you might hire is incompetent, of course,
[37:46.200 --> 37:50.200]  which I'm going to guess maybe 90% of them probably are.
[37:50.200 --> 37:53.200]  Well, you use the term incompetent in the same sentence.
[37:53.200 --> 37:54.200]  That's redundant.
[37:54.200 --> 38:02.200]  Yeah. They're mostly never going to tell you that you should order a lab test
[38:02.200 --> 38:08.200]  and figure out that what you've actually been accused of is having something illegal.
[38:08.200 --> 38:10.200]  Wait a minute.
[38:10.200 --> 38:19.200]  If that's the case and these plants look and smell the same, then it's not your place to order the lab test,
[38:19.200 --> 38:22.200]  it's their place to order the lab test.
[38:22.200 --> 38:27.200]  They look pretty much alike, but a chemical analysis will show
[38:27.200 --> 38:33.200]  only one of them contains the THC component that makes it illegal.
[38:33.200 --> 38:37.200]  Exactly, but you're saying they being the state should order the lab test?
[38:37.200 --> 38:39.200]  Exactly.
[38:39.200 --> 38:45.200]  Yeah, they should have to prove that the one you had in your possession was the illegal one, not you have to prove it wasn't.
[38:45.200 --> 38:58.200]  Yes, they need to be able to prove that the white powder is cocaine and not talcum powder, like happened in Dallas.
[38:58.200 --> 39:05.200]  Right. I'm going to suggest that in most cases when people are arrested for supposed marijuana possession,
[39:05.200 --> 39:08.200]  the state is not ordering a lab test. I've not heard of it.
[39:08.200 --> 39:10.200]  No, they're not. I'd bet they're not either.
[39:10.200 --> 39:15.200]  My question is really in a different subject matter.
[39:15.200 --> 39:17.200]  This is kind of a setup.
[39:17.200 --> 39:25.200]  I know that Randy and Debra recall my calling in a couple of years ago about a civil case that I had been involved in,
[39:25.200 --> 39:32.200]  a third-party debt collection thing, in which case in the end I did not fail.
[39:32.200 --> 39:44.200]  It's not over, so it's over, but I'm looking at a couple of things to do in the continuing saga of this civil case,
[39:44.200 --> 39:50.200]  one filing federal civil suit and the other filing criminal complaint.
[39:50.200 --> 39:58.200]  My question for whomever of the three of you or anyone else that might want to chime in, or these,
[39:58.200 --> 40:09.200]  with regard to federal civil suit, which is where I'd be filing a civil suit against either the law firm or the plaintiff,
[40:09.200 --> 40:12.200]  it's really in some of these cases hard to determine which is which,
[40:12.200 --> 40:23.200]  but I wanted to see what you guys' thoughts were on whether I would be better off filing a suit against the law firm versus the plaintiff.
[40:23.200 --> 40:28.200]  And questions, that's like 1A. 1B would be...
[40:28.200 --> 40:29.200]  Well, you...
[40:29.200 --> 40:31.200]  Cause of action, we can't...
[40:31.200 --> 40:35.200]  Before we go past that, we need a cause of action.
[40:35.200 --> 40:37.200]  Well, we've already got one.
[40:37.200 --> 40:46.200]  Remember, the person has to prove agency by the person that hired them to be the agent.
[40:46.200 --> 40:53.200]  Okay, well, yeah, I knew that, but he didn't give us the question he was raising.
[40:53.200 --> 40:54.200]  Right.
[40:54.200 --> 40:56.200]  Yeah, we need the question that you're raising.
[40:56.200 --> 41:03.200]  That'll tell us if it goes to federal or state.
[41:03.200 --> 41:09.200]  Basically, what are you saying is your cause of action, Kenny?
[41:09.200 --> 41:20.200]  Well, basically, the cause of action, I mean, from a civil point of view, I'd be suing them for damages based on what they've done to me.
[41:20.200 --> 41:22.200]  Okay, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.
[41:22.200 --> 41:35.200]  When we ask what are the other cause of actions and you say, well, basically, that means that you have to back up and look at this differently.
[41:35.200 --> 41:40.200]  In a civil action, you can't just say they did this wrong or they did that wrong.
[41:40.200 --> 41:55.200]  If I file a criminal petition or criminal complaint, then I file the complaint based on an allegation that the person violated this particular statute, criminal statute.
[41:55.200 --> 41:56.200]  We're sitting civilly right now.
[41:56.200 --> 41:58.200]  We'll get to the criminal thing in a second.
[41:58.200 --> 42:18.200]  If I file a civil complaint, then I must state that this person created this cause of action, which has these elements, and I show each of the elements and that he violated, that he meets each of the elements.
[42:18.200 --> 42:25.200]  Civil claims are codified, essentially codified into causes of action.
[42:25.200 --> 42:30.200]  You have to claim them in the terms of a defined cause of action.
[42:30.200 --> 42:33.200]  You can't just say they did this wrong or they did that wrong.
[42:33.200 --> 42:45.200]  So in order to do the civil, we have to go back and look at the causes of action, fraud, common law fraud, fraud by nondisclosure.
[42:45.200 --> 42:52.200]  Maybe you're claiming a tort or a contort.
[42:52.200 --> 42:57.200]  In this particular case, you would be arguing fraud and standing.
[42:57.200 --> 42:58.200]  That's exactly correct.
[42:58.200 --> 43:12.200]  And from a criminal standpoint, I would be claiming fraud, mail fraud, RICO violations, and possibly federal false claims act violations as well.
[43:12.200 --> 43:16.200]  And almost every one of those creates a cause of action.
[43:16.200 --> 43:21.200]  Then we have to look up the cause of action that correlates to the allegations.
[43:21.200 --> 43:23.200]  Yes.
[43:23.200 --> 43:33.200]  But keep in mind, there are very specific elements required to prove and meet the burden for each of those causes of action, as Randy was saying.
[43:33.200 --> 43:34.200]  Precisely.
[43:34.200 --> 43:36.200]  All right.
[43:36.200 --> 43:37.200]  Okay, hang on.
[43:37.200 --> 43:39.200]  We'll be back.
[43:39.200 --> 43:40.200]  All right.
[43:40.200 --> 43:41.200]  All right.
[43:41.200 --> 43:42.200]  We'll be right back.
[43:42.200 --> 43:44.200]  Derek, we saw Derek call in.
[43:44.200 --> 43:45.200]  Derek, call back in.
[43:45.200 --> 43:46.200]  We'll take your call next.
[43:46.200 --> 43:49.200]  Callers 512-646-1984.
[43:49.200 --> 43:51.200]  We'll be right back.
[44:20.200 --> 44:25.200]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[44:25.200 --> 44:31.200]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[44:31.200 --> 44:40.200]  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.
[44:40.200 --> 44:49.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[44:49.200 --> 45:13.200]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[45:19.200 --> 45:41.200]  Okay, we are back.
[45:41.200 --> 45:46.200]  The rule of law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig.
[45:46.200 --> 45:51.200]  All right, we're speaking with Kenny from California, and also Dee from Georgia.
[45:51.200 --> 45:52.200]  You're up next.
[45:52.200 --> 45:54.200]  Okay, go ahead, Eddie.
[45:54.200 --> 45:57.200]  You were speaking with Kenny.
[45:57.200 --> 45:59.200]  Yeah, go ahead, Kenny.
[45:59.200 --> 46:01.200]  We were talking about your calls.
[46:01.200 --> 46:05.200]  Yeah, I interrupted you on A. You were about to go to B.
[46:05.200 --> 46:10.200]  Yeah, well, and obviously I'm in the beginning stages of this, so I have to formulate all this.
[46:10.200 --> 46:13.200]  But part of what I was trying to get at was a couple of things.
[46:13.200 --> 46:19.200]  One, would you agree that I would be, go ahead and be, once I formulate all this,
[46:19.200 --> 46:25.200]  I'd be suing the plaintiff and probably not the law firm since the plaintiff's prevailed,
[46:25.200 --> 46:28.200]  and that's you supposedly brought the cause of action in the first place.
[46:28.200 --> 46:30.200]  Okay, okay, hold on, hold on.
[46:30.200 --> 46:36.200]  That depends on whether or not the law firm can demonstrate agency.
[46:36.200 --> 46:38.200]  Correct.
[46:38.200 --> 46:44.200]  If the law firm can't demonstrate agency, you don't know if the law firm has anything to do
[46:44.200 --> 46:48.200]  with the alleged plaintiff.
[46:48.200 --> 46:54.200]  The law firm brought the suit, and according to Robert Fox,
[46:54.200 --> 46:58.200]  agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agent.
[46:58.200 --> 47:01.200]  It must be proven out of the mouth of the principal.
[47:01.200 --> 47:09.200]  So if you only have assertions of agency out of the mouth of the principal,
[47:09.200 --> 47:15.200]  I'm sorry, out of the mouth of the agent, the principal never becomes engaged.
[47:15.200 --> 47:22.200]  And if it's a credit card, the credit card company just lays it out there
[47:22.200 --> 47:25.200]  and lets any attorney pick it up if he wants to.
[47:25.200 --> 47:28.200]  So here's your potential problem.
[47:28.200 --> 47:33.200]  This attorney, this law firm comes in and says, hey, I'm the agent for the principal,
[47:33.200 --> 47:38.200]  and sues you, and the court's given the settlement and you pay it.
[47:38.200 --> 47:42.200]  And then this other law firm comes along and says, hey, I'm the agent for the principal,
[47:42.200 --> 47:48.200]  and sues you, and you say, wait a minute, I already paid him.
[47:48.200 --> 47:52.200]  And the principal comes along and says, I don't know what you think about that guy.
[47:52.200 --> 47:56.200]  You paid the wrong guy.
[47:56.200 --> 48:01.200]  So the agent who claims to be the agent has to provide proof,
[48:01.200 --> 48:04.200]  and the proof must come from the principal.
[48:04.200 --> 48:10.200]  If it's not there, he does not have standing to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[48:10.200 --> 48:16.200]  and you sue the judge because it was the judge.
[48:16.200 --> 48:17.200]  Go ahead.
[48:17.200 --> 48:21.200]  Well, you know, and of course in these third party collection type actions,
[48:21.200 --> 48:27.200]  it gets even more complicated in that the third party collector is claiming
[48:27.200 --> 48:31.200]  to have brought the evidence of a debt from the original creditor.
[48:31.200 --> 48:33.200]  He can claim to be Santa Claus.
[48:33.200 --> 48:35.200]  That doesn't make it so.
[48:35.200 --> 48:36.200]  Exactly.
[48:36.200 --> 48:39.200]  And this all goes back to standing.
[48:39.200 --> 48:45.200]  So the extension of that, or a separate question related to the civil side of this question,
[48:45.200 --> 48:48.200]  I have heard you guys tell me what your thoughts are.
[48:48.200 --> 48:52.200]  I'm hearing that there is a district court in the United States
[48:52.200 --> 48:55.200]  and a United States district court both being different.
[48:55.200 --> 49:01.200]  In other words, I'm hearing from some folks that there's different types of district court.
[49:01.200 --> 49:06.200]  Rod Glass goes to that issue,
[49:06.200 --> 49:21.200]  and he claims there is a Article III court in Washington, D.C., where you can sue individuals
[49:21.200 --> 49:32.200]  in the employ of the United, individuals doing business as the United States of America, the corporation.
[49:32.200 --> 49:40.200]  You can sue the corporation in the Article III court, but not in the statutory court.
[49:40.200 --> 49:42.200]  Right.
[49:42.200 --> 49:44.200]  But yeah, so that issue is there.
[49:44.200 --> 49:47.200]  I was listening to a tape by Rod Glass.
[49:47.200 --> 49:54.200]  I didn't get to finish it, and I didn't get to check out his assertions and citations.
[49:54.200 --> 50:03.200]  Let me add a caveat to this, because I got a document from Rod Glass or supposedly produced by him
[50:03.200 --> 50:12.200]  that claimed that when the government issues, initiates an action, they waive sovereign immunity.
[50:12.200 --> 50:17.200]  And that was not true.
[50:17.200 --> 50:24.200]  He made a statement supposedly coming out of a court case and named the court case.
[50:24.200 --> 50:27.200]  I looked up the court case.
[50:27.200 --> 50:37.200]  The statement appeared to be a quote out of the case, but it wasn't in there anywhere.
[50:37.200 --> 50:40.200]  And the case didn't say what he said it did.
[50:40.200 --> 50:53.200]  And I was extremely annoyed by that because I ran my mouth and repeated that before I personally checked it.
[50:53.200 --> 50:56.200]  And I made major big boo-boo.
[50:56.200 --> 51:04.200]  Yeah, actually, that radio show was the first one I heard a recording of that actually got me calling you guys to begin with.
[51:04.200 --> 51:05.200]  Is that right?
[51:05.200 --> 51:11.200]  Well, I was really, really unhappy about that.
[51:11.200 --> 51:23.200]  So while I have this about Rod Glass, and I certainly don't mean to disparage him because his information sounds very good.
[51:23.200 --> 51:27.200]  And from all I hear about him, he is an impeccable researcher.
[51:27.200 --> 51:37.200]  And there may be an explanation for what I found here, but I would want to check it all before I stood firmly on it.
[51:37.200 --> 51:53.200]  But if you're not suing the federal government, I don't see where the Article III court is going to help you greatly because you are in contract.
[51:53.200 --> 51:57.200]  Everything you're doing here is in contract.
[51:57.200 --> 51:59.200]  And you don't need to get to Article III.
[51:59.200 --> 52:05.200]  You can do it all in contract, primarily.
[52:05.200 --> 52:06.200]  Okay.
[52:06.200 --> 52:24.200]  A question about the adjudication of this issue, did the prosecution or the plaintiff ever bring a representative from the principal to the stand?
[52:24.200 --> 52:27.200]  Define the principal.
[52:27.200 --> 52:37.200]  Someone for, say it's a bank, someone who says, I work for this bank whose name is on the petition, and yes, we hired this attorney.
[52:37.200 --> 52:50.200]  Or I work for this, I represent this credit card company, and I hold this position with the credit card company, and we employed this attorney.
[52:50.200 --> 53:06.200]  Well, no, what we have in this case is credit card company, okay, who supposedly sold evidence of debt to third-party company, corporation, who filed the action.
[53:06.200 --> 53:18.200]  And they had an agent of their company who did not have firsthand knowledge of the actual account with the original credit card company.
[53:18.200 --> 53:26.200]  Someone from the original credit card company has to testify.
[53:26.200 --> 53:30.200]  Your debt was allegedly created with this company.
[53:30.200 --> 53:34.200]  They assert that they purchased the debt.
[53:34.200 --> 53:41.200]  Well, that would give them agency, but agency cannot be proven out of the mouth of the agent.
[53:41.200 --> 53:51.200]  Go get the person you bought this from and have them come and testify that they sold it to you, and then show us evidence of the transaction.
[53:51.200 --> 53:54.200]  Now you have standing.
[53:54.200 --> 54:05.200]  Until you do that, you're just coming up here, blah, blah, blah, and making statements that may or may not be true.
[54:05.200 --> 54:15.200]  That's the first place to go, and if they fail to do that, the best strategy is countersuit.
[54:15.200 --> 54:18.200]  Now, it depends how do we countersuit.
[54:18.200 --> 54:23.200]  You decide, do you want it in the state court or do you want it in the federal court?
[54:23.200 --> 54:33.200]  Well, I've been hearing that there's been quite a few people that have had success in the federal court going after these collection cases after judgments have been rendered against them.
[54:33.200 --> 54:35.200]  Yes, you have to.
[54:35.200 --> 54:43.200]  Well, the cases that I've seen are very focused, and they all went to standing.
[54:43.200 --> 54:48.200]  They all went to agency.
[54:48.200 --> 54:59.200]  The ones in Ohio against Countrywide, the judge said, you don't have a wedding signature contract.
[54:59.200 --> 55:15.200]  Absent that contract, you have no standing to come before this court because the ones bringing the issue couldn't prove that they owned the security, so they had no standing.
[55:15.200 --> 55:34.200]  The ones in Florida, there were a great number of those, and they were essentially on the same issues where there was no contract or no direct evidence of contract and clear indications of improprieties in the paperwork.
[55:34.200 --> 55:39.200]  None of these went to the merits ever.
[55:39.200 --> 55:53.200]  They all went to sufficiency of the paperwork to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[55:53.200 --> 55:59.200]  And we were talking about whether you want to do federal or civil, I mean federal or state.
[55:59.200 --> 56:13.200]  It appears as though the feds are beginning to throw these financial guys to the wolves, the mortgage companies and the credit card companies.
[56:13.200 --> 56:15.200]  Right.
[56:15.200 --> 56:27.200]  They created all of this money out of thin air, and it's like the government is saying, okay, here's a solution to our problem, let it go back to the thin air where it came from.
[56:27.200 --> 56:30.200]  So they're ruling against them.
[56:30.200 --> 56:35.200]  So that may be, you know, the feds may be a good place to go now as opposed to the state.
[56:35.200 --> 56:49.200]  And all you have to do to get it to the fed is if it's in the state and you countersue, is claim a constitutional violation or claim a violation of a federal code.
[56:49.200 --> 56:59.200]  And then automatically it's, well, not automatically, but it is, it's ripe for removal.
[56:59.200 --> 57:12.200]  If you accidentally in a state case reference the federal constitution, the other party can immediately remove it out to the federal court.
[57:12.200 --> 57:21.200]  If you reference the federal constitution and make a valid reference, now you're authorized to move it out to the federal court.
[57:21.200 --> 57:25.200]  So that's a way to do either one.
[57:25.200 --> 57:33.200]  If you want to keep it in the state, you cloak all of your accusations under state law.
[57:33.200 --> 57:49.200]  In Texas, I go so far as to call a due process violation a violation of due course, because Texas Constitution calls it due course, federal calls it due process.
[57:49.200 --> 57:56.200]  I don't want them bringing it, you know, jerking it out to the feds before I'm ready.
[57:56.200 --> 57:59.200]  So, okay, I've kind of interrupted.
[57:59.200 --> 58:02.200]  Do you have another question?
[58:02.200 --> 58:04.200]  Are we coming up around the break?
[58:04.200 --> 58:07.200]  Yes, yes, we're at the top of the hour.
[58:07.200 --> 58:15.200]  Yeah, we need to, yeah, we need to move on if we can, because we need to finish up on the other side, because we've got Dee and Derek.
[58:15.200 --> 58:18.200]  Quickly, because I cut off your last question.
[58:18.200 --> 58:21.200]  So we'll take that and then we'll try to move on.
[58:21.200 --> 58:39.200]  Okay, we'll be right back.
[58:51.200 --> 59:16.200]  Okay.
[59:16.200 --> 59:43.200]  Okay.
[59:43.200 --> 01:00:05.200]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:00:05.200 --> 01:00:23.200]  Live, free speech talk radio at its best.
[01:00:23.200 --> 01:00:35.200]  The preacher man says it's the end of time and the Mississippi River, she's a going dry.
[01:00:35.200 --> 01:00:46.200]  The interest is up and the stock market's down and you're only getting mugged if you go downtown.
[01:00:46.200 --> 01:00:55.200]  I live back in the woods, you see, a woman and the kids and the dogs and me.
[01:00:55.200 --> 01:01:00.200]  Okay, we are back, the Rule of Law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Eddie Craig.
[01:01:00.200 --> 01:01:02.200]  Okay, we're here with Kenny.
[01:01:02.200 --> 01:01:04.200]  We've got Derek, Dee, and Bill.
[01:01:04.200 --> 01:01:09.200]  So, all right, Randy, you wanted to finish up with Kenny?
[01:01:09.200 --> 01:01:12.200]  Yeah, you had one other question I cut you off.
[01:01:12.200 --> 01:01:17.200]  Real quick, from the criminal angle, I'm thinking about whacking this from two different angles.
[01:01:17.200 --> 01:01:22.200]  From the criminal complaint side, I'm wondering if I would,
[01:01:22.200 --> 01:01:27.200]  what's your thoughts on whether I'd be better off filing criminal complaints against the corporation
[01:01:27.200 --> 01:01:31.200]  or the individual principles of the corporations?
[01:01:31.200 --> 01:01:35.200]  Always with criminal complaints you file them against individuals.
[01:01:35.200 --> 01:01:37.200]  That was my thought, okay.
[01:01:37.200 --> 01:01:41.200]  Yeah, corporations can't commit crimes, people commit crimes.
[01:01:41.200 --> 01:01:42.200]  All right, okay.
[01:01:42.200 --> 01:01:44.200]  Thank you both, I mean all three.
[01:01:44.200 --> 01:01:46.200]  I'll let you move on to the other call.
[01:01:46.200 --> 01:01:47.200]  Okay, thanks.
[01:01:47.200 --> 01:01:48.200]  Bye.
[01:01:48.200 --> 01:01:51.200]  Okay, we're going to go to Derek in Texas.
[01:01:51.200 --> 01:01:53.200]  Derek, thanks for calling in.
[01:01:53.200 --> 01:01:54.200]  What's on your mind tonight?
[01:01:54.200 --> 01:01:56.200]  Hey, how you doing, Deborah?
[01:01:56.200 --> 01:01:58.200]  Hello?
[01:01:58.200 --> 01:01:59.200]  I'm doing good, thanks.
[01:01:59.200 --> 01:02:00.200]  What's your question?
[01:02:00.200 --> 01:02:06.200]  Hey, Deborah, did you turn in your Section 1 document?
[01:02:06.200 --> 01:02:08.200]  Did you file them already?
[01:02:08.200 --> 01:02:09.200]  I'm sorry?
[01:02:09.200 --> 01:02:12.200]  Your UCC-1, I think he's asking about.
[01:02:12.200 --> 01:02:13.200]  Freedom package?
[01:02:13.200 --> 01:02:17.200]  I did file UCC-1 for him, yeah.
[01:02:17.200 --> 01:02:19.200]  Okay, just the UCC form?
[01:02:19.200 --> 01:02:21.200]  That's all you filed?
[01:02:21.200 --> 01:02:24.200]  Well, further than that, that's my personal business.
[01:02:24.200 --> 01:02:27.200]  I'm not going to talk about, I mean, I'm not going to disclose right now.
[01:02:27.200 --> 01:02:32.200]  Okay, well the reason I asked that question is because I was trying to file my Section 1
[01:02:32.200 --> 01:02:39.200]  at the clerk of, what is that, off airport, and I don't know if that was the right county clerk
[01:02:39.200 --> 01:02:42.200]  or should I go there for the courthouse to file my Section 1?
[01:02:42.200 --> 01:02:44.200]  That was the right place.
[01:02:44.200 --> 01:02:47.200]  Did they not let you file your UCC-1 form?
[01:02:47.200 --> 01:02:50.200]  No, they wouldn't let me file my Section 1 packet, though.
[01:02:50.200 --> 01:02:53.200]  I don't know what Section 1 packet is.
[01:02:53.200 --> 01:03:00.200]  I mean, I filed a UCC-1 form, but I don't know what you mean by a Section 1 packet.
[01:03:00.200 --> 01:03:02.200]  I don't really know what that is.
[01:03:02.200 --> 01:03:05.200]  Okay, Section 1 packet from the Freedom Dock.
[01:03:05.200 --> 01:03:14.200]  Okay, I mean, you may want to contact the Agenda 21 guys to get them to help you,
[01:03:14.200 --> 01:03:17.200]  like, walk through that process.
[01:03:17.200 --> 01:03:20.200]  Okay, you don't need to file it with the court.
[01:03:20.200 --> 01:03:21.200]  He didn't file it with the court.
[01:03:21.200 --> 01:03:23.200]  He went to the county clerk.
[01:03:23.200 --> 01:03:24.200]  That's the court.
[01:03:24.200 --> 01:03:25.200]  That's the clerk.
[01:03:25.200 --> 01:03:26.200]  You don't need to file it with the clerk.
[01:03:26.200 --> 01:03:32.200]  You can file it with the companies that will publish it online.
[01:03:32.200 --> 01:03:35.200]  I think he's talking about the Register of Deeds, Randy.
[01:03:35.200 --> 01:03:39.200]  Yeah, you don't need to file it with the Register of Deeds.
[01:03:39.200 --> 01:03:42.200]  Actually, you need to file it with the Secretary of State.
[01:03:42.200 --> 01:03:44.200]  If you're going to file a UCC-1 form,
[01:03:44.200 --> 01:03:47.200]  you need to file it with the Secretary of State is the one that you need to file it with.
[01:03:47.200 --> 01:03:52.200]  No, I've already filed that with the Secretary of State.
[01:03:52.200 --> 01:03:58.200]  Now I'm trying to move my whole Section 1 to where it's supposed to go,
[01:03:58.200 --> 01:04:01.200]  to the county clerk's office, but they will not accept it.
[01:04:01.200 --> 01:04:07.200]  Understand, the only reason you file that with the county clerk's office is to make it public.
[01:04:07.200 --> 01:04:08.200]  Public, yeah.
[01:04:08.200 --> 01:04:12.200]  You can do that by making it public online.
[01:04:12.200 --> 01:04:18.200]  There's a company in, I think it's in Arlington, that you can file it with,
[01:04:18.200 --> 01:04:22.200]  and they will put it online for you, and it's published.
[01:04:22.200 --> 01:04:23.200]  It's public.
[01:04:23.200 --> 01:04:24.200]  Now it becomes a public document.
[01:04:24.200 --> 01:04:27.200]  You don't need to mess with these clerks.
[01:04:27.200 --> 01:04:28.200]  Okay, cool.
[01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:30.200]  Yeah, they've been giving me a hard time.
[01:04:30.200 --> 01:04:32.200]  They're pretty pricey, though.
[01:04:32.200 --> 01:04:33.200]  They're pretty pricey.
[01:04:33.200 --> 01:04:37.200]  You can get their contact info from the Section 1 documents themselves.
[01:04:37.200 --> 01:04:39.200]  Why don't you call into Agenda 21,
[01:04:39.200 --> 01:04:43.200]  and they can actually point you in a direction on that.
[01:04:43.200 --> 01:04:46.200]  There are nowhere near as pricey as a clerk.
[01:04:46.200 --> 01:04:49.200]  The clerk charges like 25 bucks a page.
[01:04:49.200 --> 01:04:50.200]  What?
[01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:52.200]  I went down, or 10 bucks.
[01:04:52.200 --> 01:04:57.200]  It cost me, they wanted 200 bucks to file the stuff I wanted to file.
[01:04:57.200 --> 01:04:59.200]  How many pages did you have?
[01:04:59.200 --> 01:05:00.200]  I don't remember.
[01:05:00.200 --> 01:05:01.200]  It wasn't that many.
[01:05:01.200 --> 01:05:05.200]  The people with the online, it was like 5 bucks per document,
[01:05:05.200 --> 01:05:08.200]  and they didn't care how big it was.
[01:05:08.200 --> 01:05:11.200]  So they're cheaper, and it's just as good.
[01:05:11.200 --> 01:05:14.200]  Actually, it's better because everybody has access to it.
[01:05:14.200 --> 01:05:19.200]  But all that is is to make it available to the public.
[01:05:19.200 --> 01:05:20.200]  Okay, well, that's cool.
[01:05:20.200 --> 01:05:22.200]  I can do it online.
[01:05:22.200 --> 01:05:30.200]  It was just I didn't have any other venues in my space for the public,
[01:05:30.200 --> 01:05:32.200]  because they wouldn't let me do it.
[01:05:32.200 --> 01:05:36.200]  Yeah, go look in the Section 1 documents themselves.
[01:05:36.200 --> 01:05:41.200]  I think it's called nationalrepublicregistry.com.
[01:05:41.200 --> 01:05:42.200]  Yeah, I got that.
[01:05:42.200 --> 01:05:45.200]  Okay, that's where you would file the rest of them.
[01:05:45.200 --> 01:05:48.200]  All right, well, that's all I really want to talk to you about.
[01:05:48.200 --> 01:05:49.200]  Okay, thanks.
[01:05:49.200 --> 01:05:50.200]  Yeah, thank you.
[01:05:50.200 --> 01:05:56.200]  Yeah, those documents, they'll have that information on how to contact those people.
[01:05:56.200 --> 01:06:02.200]  Okay, we're going to go now to Dee in Georgia.
[01:06:02.200 --> 01:06:03.200]  How are you guys doing?
[01:06:03.200 --> 01:06:05.200]  Randy, you were on the show the other day, I believe.
[01:06:05.200 --> 01:06:08.200]  It was your remedy in the law.
[01:06:08.200 --> 01:06:09.200]  Oh, yeah.
[01:06:09.200 --> 01:06:12.200]  And you spoke about a, and you spoke quite well.
[01:06:12.200 --> 01:06:20.200]  I always like to hear you on this, things like your energy level kind of increases when you're visiting.
[01:06:20.200 --> 01:06:30.200]  At any rate, you spoke about a traffic document that you had that I couldn't find in your document section for traffic kicks.
[01:06:30.200 --> 01:06:37.200]  Oh, do I have my Austin tickets up?
[01:06:37.200 --> 01:06:41.200]  I will try to get to that this evening or in the morning.
[01:06:41.200 --> 01:06:45.200]  I have some that I have turned to blanks.
[01:06:45.200 --> 01:06:54.200]  And I have some that I've written for my own case, which you can take and turn to blanks.
[01:06:54.200 --> 01:07:01.200]  And doing that keeps us from being charged with practicing law.
[01:07:01.200 --> 01:07:02.200]  Okay.
[01:07:02.200 --> 01:07:08.200]  So I was in court with a friend, and he had my red habeas corpus.
[01:07:08.200 --> 01:07:11.200]  And the judge asked who I was.
[01:07:11.200 --> 01:07:14.200]  And I said, oh, I'm the one that wrote that document.
[01:07:14.200 --> 01:07:16.200]  Well, are you an attorney?
[01:07:16.200 --> 01:07:18.200]  Oh, no.
[01:07:18.200 --> 01:07:22.200]  Well, you can't be writing documents for other people.
[01:07:22.200 --> 01:07:24.200]  Oh, why didn't, Your Honor?
[01:07:24.200 --> 01:07:29.200]  That scoundrel over there, he plagiarized my document.
[01:07:29.200 --> 01:07:34.200]  And the judge kind of rolled his eyes like, you jerks.
[01:07:34.200 --> 01:07:35.200]  We were a step ahead of him.
[01:07:35.200 --> 01:07:42.200]  So yeah, and just for the record, anything that's on my website, anybody can plagiarize it who wants to.
[01:07:42.200 --> 01:07:45.200]  And I will try to have those documents up tomorrow.
[01:07:45.200 --> 01:07:59.200]  The ones I was referring to go to 543-006, transportation code, where the officer has to,
[01:07:59.200 --> 01:08:04.200]  if your ticket says you must appear on it before a certain date, he violates that statute,
[01:08:04.200 --> 01:08:12.200]  and this goes after him for that, charges him criminally, moves to disqualify him as a witness,
[01:08:12.200 --> 01:08:22.200]  moves to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, claiming that since he violated a law relating to his office,
[01:08:22.200 --> 01:08:29.200]  he's disqualified as a witness and is unable to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court,
[01:08:29.200 --> 01:08:34.200]  and asks the court to throw him in jail, and just all kinds of really neat obnoxious stuff.
[01:08:34.200 --> 01:08:37.200]  Now, we also need to do one along that same line, Randy,
[01:08:37.200 --> 01:08:45.200]  dealing with the issue of the officer fail to place you under arrest before demanding you sign the notice to appear.
[01:08:45.200 --> 01:08:46.200]  You go, sir.
[01:08:46.200 --> 01:08:48.200]  I have one more other question.
[01:08:48.200 --> 01:08:51.200]  Can you represent someone in court with the power of attorney?
[01:08:51.200 --> 01:08:52.200]  No.
[01:08:52.200 --> 01:08:53.200]  Oh, wait, wait, wait.
[01:08:53.200 --> 01:08:55.200]  Stop, stop, stop.
[01:08:55.200 --> 01:08:57.200]  Depends.
[01:08:57.200 --> 01:09:00.200]  In criminal, no.
[01:09:00.200 --> 01:09:11.200]  But in civil, there's really nothing that says that an attorney has to represent an issue in court.
[01:09:11.200 --> 01:09:23.200]  Generally, the judges will refuse to allow you to, and that is a fight we could have, but we haven't had the fight yet.
[01:09:23.200 --> 01:09:29.200]  Well, actually, Randy, that's a perfect segue to what I was talking to you about on the break.
[01:09:29.200 --> 01:09:30.200]  Good.
[01:09:30.200 --> 01:09:33.200]  Which is, what is an attorney?
[01:09:33.200 --> 01:09:34.200]  Okay.
[01:09:34.200 --> 01:09:37.200]  What is the legal definition of an attorney?
[01:09:37.200 --> 01:09:43.200]  The root word for attorney is the word a turn, which is basically the A-T-T-O-R-N part.
[01:09:43.200 --> 01:09:47.200]  This is the definition on a Black's Law 6 for a turn.
[01:09:47.200 --> 01:09:54.200]  To turn over, to transfer to another money or goods, to assign to some particular use or service,
[01:09:54.200 --> 01:10:03.200]  to consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion, to agree to become tenant to one as owner or landlord of an estate
[01:10:03.200 --> 01:10:10.200]  previously held of another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.
[01:10:10.200 --> 01:10:14.200]  Now, this is the definition of attorney out of the same book.
[01:10:14.200 --> 01:10:26.200]  In the most general sense, this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another,
[01:10:26.200 --> 01:10:30.200]  an agent or one acting on behalf of another.
[01:10:30.200 --> 01:10:40.200]  In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended, this term means attorney at law, lawyer or counselor at law.
[01:10:40.200 --> 01:10:50.200]  Attorney means attorney, professional, law association, corporation or partnership, authorized under applicable law to practice law.
[01:10:50.200 --> 01:10:56.200]  So, that brought to mind an idea.
[01:10:56.200 --> 01:11:06.200]  When I went to court on this issue with the DPS, when the judge said,
[01:11:06.200 --> 01:11:11.200]  Mr. Kelton, do you have an attorney? And I said, no, I do not. I said, are you going to hire an attorney? No, I'm not.
[01:11:11.200 --> 01:11:21.200]  Would you like me to appoint an attorney? I should have said, no, you can appoint counsel if you choose.
[01:11:21.200 --> 01:11:22.200]  Correct.
[01:11:22.200 --> 01:11:24.200]  But not an attorney.
[01:11:24.200 --> 01:11:33.200]  Now, see, this is one of those things where we have a direct conflict between our state constitution and the federal constitution when it comes to this.
[01:11:33.200 --> 01:11:40.200]  The federal constitution very specifically states that you have the right to assistance of counsel.
[01:11:40.200 --> 01:11:46.200]  The state constitution says you have the right to the representation of counsel.
[01:11:46.200 --> 01:11:49.200]  What is the disparity between those two terms?
[01:11:49.200 --> 01:11:56.200]  Well, actually, there's no real disparity in that they are simply rights.
[01:11:56.200 --> 01:12:03.200]  The federal right carries to the state. The state adds a second right.
[01:12:03.200 --> 01:12:08.200]  I would argue they are different, and there is a distinction for this reason.
[01:12:08.200 --> 01:12:15.200]  The issue that we're having right now in Amarillo, what was the refusal reason the court gave?
[01:12:15.200 --> 01:12:29.200]  No one is able to have hybrid representation because as long as you have an attorney, you can't do anything for yourself. You're a ward of that attorney and thus the court.
[01:12:29.200 --> 01:12:33.200]  Horse hockey, they read this statute wrong.
[01:12:33.200 --> 01:12:37.200]  I understand that, but I'm telling you why they have read it wrong.
[01:12:37.200 --> 01:12:54.200]  I understand that. The fact that the state constitution grants you a right to representation does not take away your right to counsel.
[01:12:54.200 --> 01:12:59.200]  I'm not saying it does, Randy. What I'm saying is they've got it that way for a reason.
[01:12:59.200 --> 01:13:05.200]  When you have an attorney represent you, you're granting him authority over you.
[01:13:05.200 --> 01:13:10.200]  Wait a minute. Where does it say that in any law?
[01:13:10.200 --> 01:13:17.200]  Where does it say that right here? In the most general sense, this term denotes an agent or substitute.
[01:13:17.200 --> 01:13:20.200]  That's a definition. That's not law.
[01:13:20.200 --> 01:13:30.200]  Granted, it's not law, but where in law does it say that a judge has immunity for his acts? It doesn't. That's a judicial rule.
[01:13:30.200 --> 01:13:34.200]  That's in case law, so show me the case law.
[01:13:34.200 --> 01:13:37.200]  Wait a minute. What about power of attorney?
[01:13:37.200 --> 01:13:43.200]  When you sign over power of attorney, you're giving someone else authority to act on your behalf
[01:13:43.200 --> 01:13:50.200]  and make legal decisions for you and sign legal documents in your name, basically.
[01:13:50.200 --> 01:13:53.200]  That sounds to me like you're giving them authority over you.
[01:13:53.200 --> 01:13:55.200]  That's a different issue.
[01:13:55.200 --> 01:13:57.200]  But that's what you signed when the attorney will not-
[01:13:57.200 --> 01:14:02.200]  I'm talking about the attorney when you contract with an attorney, Randy. That's the topic at hand.
[01:14:02.200 --> 01:14:08.200]  I never signed a contract with my attorney, and I didn't, even if I did-
[01:14:08.200 --> 01:14:16.200]  Okay, wait a minute. Okay, so Randy, concerning your attorney, he's not your attorney.
[01:14:16.200 --> 01:14:24.200]  He's not representing you because you didn't contract with him. He is your assistance of counsel. Is that what you're saying?
[01:14:24.200 --> 01:14:29.200]  Yes, and I filed a document relegating him to assistance.
[01:14:29.200 --> 01:14:41.200]  Yeah, but Randy, hold on. If the court appointed him as your attorney just because you say he's your assistance of counsel,
[01:14:41.200 --> 01:14:49.200]  that doesn't nullify. That just means both of those situations exist simultaneously.
[01:14:49.200 --> 01:14:58.200]  You would have to renege the contract. You would have to say, no, he's not my court-appointed attorney.
[01:14:58.200 --> 01:14:59.200]  Okay?
[01:14:59.200 --> 01:15:00.200]  No, I wouldn't.
[01:15:00.200 --> 01:15:01.200]  I don't know.
[01:15:01.200 --> 01:15:06.200]  I only have to renege. I don't have to renege anything. All I have to do-
[01:15:06.200 --> 01:15:11.200]  Randy, if the court appointed him as your attorney, the court is basically-
[01:15:11.200 --> 01:15:19.200]  The court doesn't own my right. I do. The court cannot tell the judge. She said, do you want me to appoint counsel?
[01:15:19.200 --> 01:15:20.200]  Do you do anything you want to?
[01:15:20.200 --> 01:15:23.200]  Wait, then you just gave it away, Randy.
[01:15:23.200 --> 01:15:25.200]  I didn't waive any right.
[01:15:25.200 --> 01:15:33.200]  You told the court to do whatever they wanted to, and so they appointed you an attorney to represent you.
[01:15:33.200 --> 01:15:34.200]  So what?
[01:15:34.200 --> 01:15:36.200]  So you gave them power of attorney. That's what-
[01:15:36.200 --> 01:15:40.200]  Where did that strip the Constitution out of my hand?
[01:15:40.200 --> 01:15:42.200]  It doesn't, but you gave them power of attorney.
[01:15:42.200 --> 01:15:44.200]  I didn't give them anything.
[01:15:44.200 --> 01:15:51.200]  But here's the thing, though. They'll sit right there and tell you the Constitution has no place in this court.
[01:15:51.200 --> 01:15:56.200]  Yeah, I know they will, and I don't care what they tell me. They've lied to me for every term.
[01:15:56.200 --> 01:16:06.200]  Randy, hold on, Randy. See, when you told the judge, do whatever you want, they designated, they assigned you an attorney.
[01:16:06.200 --> 01:16:15.200]  They basically gave, they gave your power of attorney to that attorney because you told them to do whatever they wanted to.
[01:16:15.200 --> 01:16:21.200]  You need to file a revocation of power of attorney on your court-afforded attorney.
[01:16:21.200 --> 01:16:33.200]  What I filed was a contract, a notice in demand on your notice to the court that I do not waive my federal constitutional right to self-representation.
[01:16:33.200 --> 01:16:36.200]  Neither do I represent my right to counsel.
[01:16:36.200 --> 01:16:38.200]  Of course, but that's a different issue.
[01:16:38.200 --> 01:16:44.200]  That is the issue. I don't waive either one of those rights.
[01:16:44.200 --> 01:16:52.200]  It's too late. You already told them, you already told them they could do whatever they wanted, and so there's a power of attorney in effect.
[01:16:52.200 --> 01:17:00.200]  I'm just telling you this nonsense. Your rights don't just disappear. That judge can do anything he wants.
[01:17:00.200 --> 01:17:02.200]  I don't know, Randy.
[01:17:02.200 --> 01:17:05.200]  And I object to it. I either accept it or object to it.
[01:17:05.200 --> 01:17:08.200]  I'm not following that logic.
[01:17:08.200 --> 01:17:17.200]  Are you saying that if you have counsel, you are absolutely without any rights, any say whatsoever?
[01:17:17.200 --> 01:17:23.200]  I'm saying that if there's a difference between assistance of counsel and an attorney representing you,
[01:17:23.200 --> 01:17:33.200]  and yes, if an attorney represents you, then you have given them power of attorney and they have the right, I'm sorry, they have, hold on, hold on, don't interrupt me.
[01:17:33.200 --> 01:17:37.200]  They have the authority to make legal decisions on your behalf.
[01:17:37.200 --> 01:17:39.200]  You've even told me that, Randy.
[01:17:39.200 --> 01:17:44.200]  Randy, you have even told me that. You've even told me that, Randy.
[01:17:44.200 --> 01:17:54.200]  I just said when this started, the court read the statute wrong.
[01:17:54.200 --> 01:18:11.200]  What the statute says, that if a document is filed for or on behalf of a person, a defendant who has an attorney, an attorney of record must sign the motion.
[01:18:11.200 --> 01:18:14.200]  And they read that to mean?
[01:18:14.200 --> 01:18:17.200]  An attorney or the defendant must sign the motion.
[01:18:17.200 --> 01:18:18.200]  Yes.
[01:18:18.200 --> 01:18:24.200]  No, an attorney.
[01:18:24.200 --> 01:18:29.200]  This is paragraph A. If a person is represented by an attorney.
[01:18:29.200 --> 01:18:30.200]  There you go.
[01:18:30.200 --> 01:18:32.200]  Represented.
[01:18:32.200 --> 01:18:38.200]  Let me finish. You can't take two words and ignore the rest of them. That's what the court is doing.
[01:18:38.200 --> 01:18:40.200]  No, that's not what I'm doing.
[01:18:40.200 --> 01:19:00.200]  The statute said if a motion is filed for or on behalf of a defendant who is represented by counsel, an attorney of record must sign the motion.
[01:19:00.200 --> 01:19:10.200]  It doesn't say anything about a motion filed by the defendant.
[01:19:10.200 --> 01:19:14.200]  It addresses that later.
[01:19:14.200 --> 01:19:20.200]  A motion filed by the defendant must be signed by the defendant or his counsel.
[01:19:20.200 --> 01:19:49.200]  So the judges are trying to. Well then, Randy, how come all along up until this point, it's been the biggest problem that when people have an attorney that represents them, you can't get the court to accept documents, pleadings, motions filed by the individual themselves apart from the defendant.
[01:19:49.200 --> 01:20:05.200]  From their attorney and that if their attorney doesn't agree to file the motion or document or whatever it is, then the document can't get filed and the court won't accept it and you have to fire the attorney.
[01:20:05.200 --> 01:20:10.200]  This is the way. This is the strategy. This is the way it's been ever since I met you.
[01:20:10.200 --> 01:20:11.200]  Okay.
[01:20:11.200 --> 01:20:12.200]  No, it has.
[01:20:12.200 --> 01:20:33.200]  Yes, it has. I remember going through this with a client in Williamson County with the DWI and she's sitting in state penitentiary right now because we couldn't get her attorney to file the proper documents and he couldn't file them herself.
[01:20:33.200 --> 01:20:42.200]  That's why we were filing criminal charges against the sheriff's department for not doing their job. You're just saying that they're being criminals.
[01:20:42.200 --> 01:20:43.200]  No.
[01:20:43.200 --> 01:20:49.200]  That doesn't make it law because they're being criminals and they're doing this because nobody fights it.
[01:20:49.200 --> 01:20:53.200]  They're saying, well, they're doing it, therefore they can do it, so I can't do anything about it.
[01:20:53.200 --> 01:21:01.200]  See, we have to go back to the definitions. What does power of attorney really mean and what does represent really mean?
[01:21:01.200 --> 01:21:16.200]  The statute doesn't say anything about power of attorney. The statute is very clear if a motion is filed for someone or on their behalf and they're represented by counsel.
[01:21:16.200 --> 01:21:22.200]  It has to be both, then counsel has to sign it and that's the only time.
[01:21:22.200 --> 01:21:23.200]  There's a step missing here.
[01:21:23.200 --> 01:21:27.200]  The rest of the statute speaks to the defendant signing the documents.
[01:21:27.200 --> 01:21:29.200]  There's a step missing here.
[01:21:29.200 --> 01:21:34.200]  They're just misreading the law. They see the writing on the wall.
[01:21:34.200 --> 01:21:36.200]  I think there's a step missing here.
[01:21:36.200 --> 01:21:41.200]  Eddie, what is your take on this? The call board is starting to light up too.
[01:21:41.200 --> 01:21:52.200]  Well, from what I've always seen, they attempt to take away your ability to do anything on your own behalf using the representation of counsel as the excuse for you.
[01:21:52.200 --> 01:21:53.200]  That's what I was saying.
[01:21:53.200 --> 01:21:54.200]  That doesn't make it law.
[01:21:54.200 --> 01:22:00.200]  No, I didn't say it made it law, Randy. We're not arguing what the law is here. We're arguing what the court does.
[01:22:00.200 --> 01:22:04.200]  No, I was arguing what the law is. I understand what you're doing.
[01:22:04.200 --> 01:22:08.200]  I understand, but what I'm saying is that was never my point.
[01:22:08.200 --> 01:22:23.200]  My point simply was that when they appoint that attorney, they are in essence removing any and all ability you have to make your own argument based upon law because the attorney is going to work to the benefit of the court, not the client.
[01:22:23.200 --> 01:22:26.200]  That's the same point I was trying to make.
[01:22:26.200 --> 01:22:28.200]  Well, I'm well aware of that.
[01:22:28.200 --> 01:22:29.200]  Well, I know.
[01:22:29.200 --> 01:22:31.200]  That's what I'm finding against.
[01:22:31.200 --> 01:22:38.200]  Okay, so listen, Randy. So then it can't be both ways. Remember what we were talking earlier about inconsistencies?
[01:22:38.200 --> 01:22:41.200]  That's legal. One's not legal.
[01:22:41.200 --> 01:22:58.200]  No, no, no. It can't be both ways. You can't have someone represent you and also be pro se and have assistance of counsel. You either have someone represent you or because you have to look at what the definition is.
[01:22:58.200 --> 01:23:00.200]  They're mutually exclusive sets.
[01:23:00.200 --> 01:23:02.200]  Who says? Where did you get that?
[01:23:02.200 --> 01:23:06.200]  All right. Well, let's go to the definition and we'll find out.
[01:23:06.200 --> 01:23:09.200]  Let's go to the definition. That's where it all comes from.
[01:23:09.200 --> 01:23:24.200]  Let's go to the definition of represent and let's see if representing, if an attorney representing you, if that's a mutually exclusive set from being pro se and having assistance of counsel.
[01:23:24.200 --> 01:23:36.200]  Because I have a feeling that by definition those two things that I just described are mutually exclusive sets. It doesn't make sense to have it both ways. We're going to find out.
[01:23:36.200 --> 01:23:38.200]  No, it doesn't.
[01:23:38.200 --> 01:23:45.200]  That's why the federal constitution granted the right to assistance of counsel.
[01:23:45.200 --> 01:23:53.200]  Well, then fine. But if you're going to contract with someone to represent you, then they're representing you and making decisions on your behalf. It can't happen both ways.
[01:23:53.200 --> 01:23:54.200]  That's not what it says.
[01:23:54.200 --> 01:23:56.200]  What does the definition say, Eddie?
[01:23:56.200 --> 01:23:58.200]  Assistance of counsel.
[01:23:58.200 --> 01:24:01.200]  Eddie, what does the definition of represent mean?
[01:24:01.200 --> 01:24:16.200]  I'm actually to appear in character of, personate, to exhibit, to expose before the eyes, to represent a thing is to produce it publicly, to represent a person is to stand in his place.
[01:24:16.200 --> 01:24:17.200]  There you go.
[01:24:17.200 --> 01:24:25.200]  Speak or act with authority on behalf of such person to supply his place, to act as his substitute or agent.
[01:24:25.200 --> 01:24:30.200]  There you go. How can you have someone represent you to stand in your place?
[01:24:30.200 --> 01:24:43.200]  I'm not. How many times do I have to say this? I am not having someone represent me. That's not my constitutional right in the federal realm.
[01:24:43.200 --> 01:24:44.200]  Wait a minute.
[01:24:44.200 --> 01:24:50.200]  The federal constitution, which applies to the states, grants me the right to assistance of counsel.
[01:24:50.200 --> 01:24:51.200]  Of course. That's not the point.
[01:24:51.200 --> 01:24:55.200]  I invoke my right to the states.
[01:24:55.200 --> 01:25:02.200]  Eddie, you're not getting it. You're not getting it. I understand all that. Eddie and I understand all that. What we want to know.
[01:25:02.200 --> 01:25:04.200]  You understand it, but it doesn't matter.
[01:25:04.200 --> 01:25:22.200]  No. What I'm saying, Randy, Randy, Randy, Randy, Randy, stop. What we're saying is we need to dig deep and find out if you somehow contracted with this attorney to represent you and not realized it.
[01:25:22.200 --> 01:25:23.200]  I dug into it.
[01:25:23.200 --> 01:25:26.200]  Okay. Well, all right.
[01:25:26.200 --> 01:25:31.200]  I did the case law on it. There is none.
[01:25:31.200 --> 01:25:37.200]  Well, when you told the judge you guys do whatever you want, it sounds to me like, you know.
[01:25:37.200 --> 01:25:40.200]  This is my problem with people making statements of that.
[01:25:40.200 --> 01:25:44.200]  You told them to do whatever they want, so let's see what they actually did.
[01:25:44.200 --> 01:26:06.200]  Okay. Hang on just a sec, guys. Now we've covered what represent is. This is assist to help, aid, soaker, lend countenance or encouragement to participate in as an auxiliary to contribute effort in the complete accomplishment of an ultimate purpose intended to be affected by those engaged.
[01:26:06.200 --> 01:26:26.200]  Now, this is assistance of counsel. Sixth Amendment to Federal Constitution guaranteeing accused in criminal prosecution, assistance of counsel for his defense means effective assistance as distinguished from bad faith, sham, mere pretense or want of opportunity for conferences in preparation.
[01:26:26.200 --> 01:26:43.200]  Again, effective assistance, not effective representation. Okay. Effective assistance. Represent is to stand in the place of. Assist is to act on behalf of and to help accomplish.
[01:26:43.200 --> 01:26:50.200]  They are distinctively different, and they are used by the courts to your detriment.
[01:26:50.200 --> 01:26:53.200]  I understand, and they're hoodwinking you.
[01:26:53.200 --> 01:27:00.200]  Randy, has this attorney been filing documents and signing them and filing documents in your case on your behalf?
[01:27:00.200 --> 01:27:09.200]  Well, in Randy's defense and in his case, he's done it different, Deborah. Randy set his case up from the beginning to relegate this guy to second chair.
[01:27:09.200 --> 01:27:10.200]  Okay, well good.
[01:27:10.200 --> 01:27:15.200]  Because he did that, he now has assistance, not representation.
[01:27:15.200 --> 01:27:16.200]  Okay, well good.
[01:27:16.200 --> 01:27:24.200]  I think he's arguing he's 100% correct, and I'm not arguing against that part of it at all. I'm talking about Joe Blow average that doesn't know any better.
[01:27:24.200 --> 01:27:25.200]  Right.
[01:27:25.200 --> 01:27:29.200]  And this goes to the Mother Hubbard motion.
[01:27:29.200 --> 01:27:53.200]  They are assuming that since you accepted representation of counsel, that you waived your right to assistance. Well, no, of course you didn't, Randy. But if you decide later on that you don't want someone to represent you, and you would rather be pro se and have assistance, then you have to.
[01:27:53.200 --> 01:28:00.200]  You have to revoke that original contract and say, no, this person is no longer representing me.
[01:28:00.200 --> 01:28:01.200]  Okay.
[01:28:01.200 --> 01:28:03.200]  Whoa, where did you come up with that?
[01:28:03.200 --> 01:28:12.200]  Because they're mutually exclusive. You can't have somebody stand in your place and you also stand there in your own behalf, Randy. You can't have it both ways.
[01:28:12.200 --> 01:28:13.200]  Yes, I can.
[01:28:13.200 --> 01:28:18.200]  Okay, go ahead. Be two people at the same time. Give me a break. That's illogical.
[01:28:18.200 --> 01:28:22.200]  Look, look, look, stop just for a second. Let me finish this sentence here.
[01:28:22.200 --> 01:28:24.200]  It's illogical.
[01:28:24.200 --> 01:28:27.200]  I can have counsel here.
[01:28:27.200 --> 01:28:39.200]  And this is exactly what I told my attorney when he read my document relegating him to second chair, said, Mr. Kelton, do you want to represent yourself and have me sit back?
[01:28:39.200 --> 01:28:41.200]  I'm not talking about your case, Randy.
[01:28:41.200 --> 01:28:44.200]  Will you let me finish?
[01:28:44.200 --> 01:28:52.200]  And do you want me to sit back and stand by counsel? I said no.
[01:28:52.200 --> 01:29:07.200]  I want you to represent me until or unless we come to a disagreement, in which case I exercise my right to self-representation.
[01:29:07.200 --> 01:29:08.200]  Oh, boy.
[01:29:08.200 --> 01:29:14.200]  In that case, I will ask you to defer to what I decide.
[01:29:14.200 --> 01:29:25.200]  And he said, fair enough. I can do both of those. I direct my case. He is my employee.
[01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:26.200]  Oh, boy.
[01:29:26.200 --> 01:29:32.200]  He does what I tell him. That's how it was intended.
[01:29:32.200 --> 01:29:46.200]  Yeah. Yeah. It's intended that from moment to moment, somebody else's rep, one minute someone else is standing in your place, the next minute you're standing there yourself, the next minute someone else is representing you, the next minute you're there.
[01:29:46.200 --> 01:29:47.200]  He's my employee.
[01:29:47.200 --> 01:29:50.200]  That's just a little too complicated for me. I don't know.
[01:29:50.200 --> 01:29:58.200]  If it were me, I would just decide this attorney is going to represent me for this case or I would decide I'm going to go pro se and have assistance of counsel.
[01:29:58.200 --> 01:30:05.200]  I would not sit there and shape shift back and forth from minute to minute someone represents me or then I'm myself.
[01:30:05.200 --> 01:30:10.200]  Whatever. That's just me. I don't like that strategy. Sounds like shape shifting to me.
[01:30:10.200 --> 01:30:17.200]  But if you say you have the right to do it and you want to do it and you think it's a good strategy, go ahead. It just doesn't make no sense to me.
[01:30:17.200 --> 01:30:26.200]  Well, you're saying that if you allow your attorney to represent you, then he can do anything he chooses.
[01:30:26.200 --> 01:30:28.200]  Eddie, read the definition again.
[01:30:28.200 --> 01:30:31.200]  Well, but we've seen them do that.
[01:30:31.200 --> 01:30:35.200]  I know they do that. I'm not going to let one do that to me.
[01:30:35.200 --> 01:30:40.200]  Right. But again, that's where we're unique in that perspective.
[01:30:40.200 --> 01:30:43.200]  Then why bother having an attorney represent you at all?
[01:30:43.200 --> 01:30:48.200]  Because the definition says that they have authority to stand in your place and make decisions.
[01:30:48.200 --> 01:30:58.200]  If you don't want to grant someone else authority to stand in your place and make decisions, then don't do it even for one second.
[01:30:58.200 --> 01:31:00.200]  Horse crap. Why would I do that?
[01:31:00.200 --> 01:31:08.200]  Why bother? Why bother? Why give someone authority over you for one single millisecond? Don't do it at all.
[01:31:08.200 --> 01:31:22.200]  I don't understand this. It's either you give up every single right that you have or you absolutely take everything completely on your own shoulders.
[01:31:22.200 --> 01:31:31.200]  All I know is that when Eddie read the definition of represent, it said to stand in your place and have authority to make decisions on your behalf.
[01:31:31.200 --> 01:31:37.200]  So you either are giving it all away or you're not giving it away at all.
[01:31:37.200 --> 01:31:40.200]  You can't have it both ways.
[01:31:40.200 --> 01:31:46.200]  The other day we were working on some electronic equipment and you assisted me.
[01:31:46.200 --> 01:31:52.200]  I didn't have to do every single tiny little thing.
[01:31:52.200 --> 01:31:56.200]  I just go back to the definition. Eddie said to represent.
[01:31:56.200 --> 01:31:58.200]  You keep going back to representation.
[01:31:58.200 --> 01:32:01.200]  That's what I'm talking about. Yeah.
[01:32:01.200 --> 01:32:02.200]  Well, I'm not.
[01:32:02.200 --> 01:32:04.200]  We're not talking about your case.
[01:32:04.200 --> 01:32:09.200]  That if I have counsel, we're not talking about your case.
[01:32:09.200 --> 01:32:11.200]  OK, this is not going anywhere. Let's go on.
[01:32:11.200 --> 01:32:14.200]  No, this is going somewhere.
[01:32:14.200 --> 01:32:21.200]  You can't have someone represent you and also represent yourself at the same time.
[01:32:21.200 --> 01:32:24.200]  How do you get there?
[01:32:24.200 --> 01:32:25.200]  By the definition.
[01:32:25.200 --> 01:32:30.200]  What definition? I can have either assistance or representation.
[01:32:30.200 --> 01:32:35.200]  Like I said, if you want to change back and forth from minute to minute, that's your right.
[01:32:35.200 --> 01:32:38.200]  OK, let's go on.
[01:32:38.200 --> 01:32:43.200]  Let's go to Bill in Arkansas.
[01:32:43.200 --> 01:32:45.200]  Bill, thanks for calling in.
[01:32:45.200 --> 01:32:48.200]  What's on your mind?
[01:32:48.200 --> 01:32:49.200]  Thanks for taking my call.
[01:32:49.200 --> 01:32:59.200]  I'm wondering if there's a way to change a plea if my attorney has entered a guilty plea on my behalf
[01:32:59.200 --> 01:33:04.200]  or what I didn't realize when he was describing it to me that it was a plea bargain.
[01:33:04.200 --> 01:33:11.200]  He was saying that he could get my case dismissed and then I would just have to pay the court costs.
[01:33:11.200 --> 01:33:15.200]  A plea bargain is not a dismissal.
[01:33:15.200 --> 01:33:18.200]  OK.
[01:33:18.200 --> 01:33:26.200]  That's like saying, you know, shooting yourself in the head with a gun is not the same as dying.
[01:33:26.200 --> 01:33:32.200]  It's not, but it's close. It depends on the nature of the plea bargain.
[01:33:32.200 --> 01:33:39.200]  If you have three charges against you and you cop to one, they can dismiss the other two.
[01:33:39.200 --> 01:33:48.200]  Generally, a plea bargain involves a deferred adjudication, and that should never be construed as a dismissal.
[01:33:48.200 --> 01:33:52.200]  It's never dismissed.
[01:33:52.200 --> 01:34:01.200]  These guys are fighting for expungement, and they always treat a deferred adjudication as a conviction.
[01:34:01.200 --> 01:34:03.200]  Really?
[01:34:03.200 --> 01:34:06.200]  Yes. It will never get expunged.
[01:34:06.200 --> 01:34:08.200]  It will never get expunged?
[01:34:08.200 --> 01:34:13.200]  Never. Ron Sanderford will tell you that. It will never get expunged.
[01:34:13.200 --> 01:34:16.200]  They'll tell you it will, but it won't.
[01:34:16.200 --> 01:34:19.200]  What about nondisclosure?
[01:34:19.200 --> 01:34:25.200]  No, this goes to nondisclosure. You can change your plea.
[01:34:25.200 --> 01:34:30.200]  Has this already been completely adjudicated?
[01:34:30.200 --> 01:34:38.200]  Well, there was a 30-day probationary period for the deferred adjudication, but I think the agreement has already been made.
[01:34:38.200 --> 01:34:43.200]  I just don't think that the judge signed the paper for it,
[01:34:43.200 --> 01:34:51.200]  but then there was some kind of error, some type of clerical error, so that it was a finding of guilt and a plea of guilty,
[01:34:51.200 --> 01:34:55.200]  and then my lawyer talked to him and said, no, there wasn't supposed to be a finding of guilt.
[01:34:55.200 --> 01:35:03.200]  There was a plea of guilty, which I would have put no contest, but I don't remember him mentioning that as part of the deal.
[01:35:03.200 --> 01:35:08.200]  You need to understand that a plea of no contest is a plea of guilty.
[01:35:08.200 --> 01:35:09.200]  Is it?
[01:35:09.200 --> 01:35:10.200]  Yes, it is.
[01:35:10.200 --> 01:35:13.200]  In other words, you're going to – you're accepting this.
[01:35:13.200 --> 01:35:18.200]  There's no question, no contest to the accusation.
[01:35:18.200 --> 01:35:27.200]  But wouldn't that have a practical difference or a background check for a potential job or a background check?
[01:35:27.200 --> 01:35:28.200]  No.
[01:35:28.200 --> 01:35:29.200]  Wouldn't they look at that difference?
[01:35:29.200 --> 01:35:34.200]  A conviction is a conviction, a conviction as far as an employer is concerned.
[01:35:34.200 --> 01:35:36.200]  It will show up as a conviction.
[01:35:36.200 --> 01:35:40.200]  It will show up as a conviction without a finding of guilt.
[01:35:40.200 --> 01:35:41.200]  It will sign guilt.
[01:35:41.200 --> 01:35:46.200]  How can you get convicted if there is no guilt?
[01:35:46.200 --> 01:35:50.200]  See, you're not admitting guilt.
[01:35:50.200 --> 01:35:53.200]  They are assigning guilt.
[01:35:53.200 --> 01:36:00.200]  Well, my lawyer entered a plea of guilty on my behalf, which I didn't know he was going to do.
[01:36:00.200 --> 01:36:01.200]  Guess what?
[01:36:01.200 --> 01:36:04.200]  Is he defending you?
[01:36:04.200 --> 01:36:08.200]  He's not much of a defense attorney if he's willing to plead you guilty.
[01:36:08.200 --> 01:36:11.200]  No, you see, you're misunderstanding.
[01:36:11.200 --> 01:36:14.200]  He pled no lo contendi for you.
[01:36:14.200 --> 01:36:15.200]  No.
[01:36:15.200 --> 01:36:17.200]  That's a plea of guilt.
[01:36:17.200 --> 01:36:21.200]  I talked to the clerk, and it was a plea of guilty.
[01:36:21.200 --> 01:36:22.200]  Okay, you're missing this.
[01:36:22.200 --> 01:36:24.200]  This is semantics.
[01:36:24.200 --> 01:36:32.200]  A no lo contendi is saying, I don't admit guilt, but I plead guilty.
[01:36:32.200 --> 01:36:34.200]  That's what it is.
[01:36:34.200 --> 01:36:38.200]  A plea of no lo contendi is a plea of guilty.
[01:36:38.200 --> 01:36:50.200]  Yeah, it's the same as a corporation wanting to cut a deal where they'll pay you off under the table with no admission of fault on their part, even though you know they're dead wrong and they're willing not to have it dragged into the public.
[01:36:50.200 --> 01:36:52.200]  But it's basically the same thing.
[01:36:52.200 --> 01:36:58.200]  If you plead anything other than not guilty, you're hosed.
[01:36:58.200 --> 01:37:01.200]  Yeah.
[01:37:01.200 --> 01:37:04.200]  So is it possible to change my plea?
[01:37:04.200 --> 01:37:07.200]  If you're going to fire your attorney and withdraw?
[01:37:07.200 --> 01:37:12.200]  Well, if the case has already been adjudicated, it may not be.
[01:37:12.200 --> 01:37:14.200]  And frankly, it's a question.
[01:37:14.200 --> 01:37:21.200]  Would I be able to appeal if no right to appeal was listed by the judge as part of the deal?
[01:37:21.200 --> 01:37:24.200]  Most likely not because that will be part of the plea agreement.
[01:37:24.200 --> 01:37:26.200]  There will be no attempt to appeal.
[01:37:26.200 --> 01:37:28.200]  That doesn't mean anything.
[01:37:28.200 --> 01:37:39.200]  The courts have said that you can't agree not to appeal, that if that is included in a plea agreement, that it's null and void.
[01:37:39.200 --> 01:37:42.200]  The whole agreement or that clause?
[01:37:42.200 --> 01:37:44.200]  That clause.
[01:37:44.200 --> 01:37:45.200]  Okay.
[01:37:45.200 --> 01:38:02.200]  I would say you almost certainly can appeal based on error, that you were misinformed by your counsel and you entered into the plea agreement, which is a contract, absent full disclosure.
[01:38:02.200 --> 01:38:05.200]  And a contract requires informed consent, right?
[01:38:05.200 --> 01:38:07.200]  Exactly.
[01:38:07.200 --> 01:38:13.200]  You waived your right to trial, but you did so without full disclosure.
[01:38:13.200 --> 01:38:15.200]  Okay.
[01:38:15.200 --> 01:38:27.200]  And the statute says you could waive it, but you must do so in court, with counsel present, free of coercion, with full disclosure.
[01:38:27.200 --> 01:38:35.200]  So you can claim you didn't have full disclosure and revoke your plea?
[01:38:35.200 --> 01:38:37.200]  Right.
[01:38:37.200 --> 01:38:43.200]  I'm saying that, but this is not, it's kind of a complex issue.
[01:38:43.200 --> 01:38:49.200]  It's a specific issue that I haven't actually briefed out myself.
[01:38:49.200 --> 01:38:57.200]  So I'm not sure, you know, if the court says screw you, I wouldn't, I'm not sure how to handle it.
[01:38:57.200 --> 01:39:01.200]  I would have to research that out.
[01:39:01.200 --> 01:39:14.200]  If I get a file for non-disclosure and one of these data mining companies already has the information on that, can they release it if there's non-disclosure?
[01:39:14.200 --> 01:39:18.200]  Does that only apply to the court or is that anybody?
[01:39:18.200 --> 01:39:19.200]  Oh, wait, no.
[01:39:19.200 --> 01:39:21.200]  Has what information?
[01:39:21.200 --> 01:39:24.200]  About the charge and the plea and the...
[01:39:24.200 --> 01:39:26.200]  Oh, no, okay.
[01:39:26.200 --> 01:39:29.200]  That's not the non-disclosure I was talking about.
[01:39:29.200 --> 01:39:37.200]  The attorney didn't fully disclose the nature of your plea.
[01:39:37.200 --> 01:39:38.200]  Okay.
[01:39:38.200 --> 01:39:41.200]  He misinformed you about the nature of the plea.
[01:39:41.200 --> 01:39:45.200]  Then you can claim ineffective assistance of counsel for that.
[01:39:45.200 --> 01:39:49.200]  That'll get it overturned.
[01:39:49.200 --> 01:39:52.200]  But then would I have to go back to trial for it?
[01:39:52.200 --> 01:40:02.200]  Yeah, just claim ineffective assistance of counsel in that you were not fully informed and that ineffective assistance of counsel,
[01:40:02.200 --> 01:40:08.200]  if upheld, it's mandatory that the decision be reversed.
[01:40:08.200 --> 01:40:10.200]  I'm going to...
[01:40:10.200 --> 01:40:11.200]  No.
[01:40:11.200 --> 01:40:14.200]  You get to have the hearing again, have your trial again.
[01:40:14.200 --> 01:40:21.200]  Okay.
[01:40:21.200 --> 01:40:32.200]  So, but if they don't re-reverse it and set another file, then what can I do?
[01:40:32.200 --> 01:40:35.200]  Appeal.
[01:40:35.200 --> 01:40:45.200]  You file ineffective assistance of counsel and if they deny it, then you file an appeal.
[01:40:45.200 --> 01:40:47.200]  And they have to grant me an appeal in that case?
[01:40:47.200 --> 01:40:49.200]  Oh, they grant you appeal.
[01:40:49.200 --> 01:40:52.200]  I mean, the appealing...
[01:40:52.200 --> 01:40:54.200]  I mean, I'm sorry.
[01:40:54.200 --> 01:40:56.200]  A new trial?
[01:40:56.200 --> 01:41:02.200]  Whether they will overturn the conviction and send it back, you know, that's up to the court.
[01:41:02.200 --> 01:41:07.200]  And if you do it pro se, they'll rule against you out of hand.
[01:41:07.200 --> 01:41:08.200]  Really?
[01:41:08.200 --> 01:41:14.200]  Most likely when you need the pleading.
[01:41:14.200 --> 01:41:23.200]  Do you have an attorney that you paid or is the court appointed?
[01:41:23.200 --> 01:41:29.200]  My lawyer did tell me that there was not a finding of guilt.
[01:41:29.200 --> 01:41:35.200]  Then filed bar grievance, filed malpractice suit against your attorney.
[01:41:35.200 --> 01:41:40.200]  Did you hire the attorney or was he appointed?
[01:41:40.200 --> 01:41:42.200]  Hired.
[01:41:42.200 --> 01:41:54.200]  It's been 10 years since the original charge and I didn't receive notice twice when they set the date for it.
[01:41:54.200 --> 01:42:01.200]  Of course, you know, granted, I did move and I didn't update my address with them, but I thought it had been dismissed.
[01:42:01.200 --> 01:42:03.200]  Looks like we're going to have to go into overtime mode.
[01:42:03.200 --> 01:42:05.200]  We've got the call boards stacked up.
[01:42:05.200 --> 01:42:07.200]  Okay, yeah, we have to move along.
[01:42:07.200 --> 01:42:08.200]  It's probably too late.
[01:42:08.200 --> 01:42:10.200]  It's been 10 years.
[01:42:10.200 --> 01:42:14.200]  It's unlikely you'll be able to do anything with it.
[01:42:14.200 --> 01:42:21.200]  Your time to appeal is way past and you don't have a challenge to jurisdiction.
[01:42:21.200 --> 01:42:24.200]  The court may well have lost plenty of your power.
[01:42:24.200 --> 01:42:32.200]  But actually, see, the thing is the deal has only been in the past month.
[01:42:32.200 --> 01:42:35.200]  Oh, wait, this is confusing me.
[01:42:35.200 --> 01:42:37.200]  We need to take this one on the side.
[01:42:37.200 --> 01:42:45.200]  We need to take this one on the side because we only have 15 more minutes to be on the air on our affiliates and we have like six more callers.
[01:42:45.200 --> 01:42:51.200]  I mean, we can go into overtime mode, but a lot of our affiliates, you know, they have other programs scheduled at midnight.
[01:42:51.200 --> 01:42:56.200]  Some of them continue our show, but I want to be respectful to the other callers who have been waiting.
[01:42:56.200 --> 01:42:57.200]  Right, right.
[01:42:57.200 --> 01:42:58.200]  Well, I thank you for your time.
[01:42:58.200 --> 01:42:59.200]  I'll let you move on to other callers.
[01:42:59.200 --> 01:43:00.200]  Okay, thanks, Bill.
[01:43:00.200 --> 01:43:03.200]  Okay, we're going to go to Rick in California.
[01:43:03.200 --> 01:43:04.200]  I hadn't heard from him for a while.
[01:43:04.200 --> 01:43:06.200]  Rick, thanks for calling.
[01:43:06.200 --> 01:43:07.200]  What's on your mind?
[01:43:07.200 --> 01:43:08.200]  How's it going?
[01:43:08.200 --> 01:43:09.200]  Thanks for having me.
[01:43:09.200 --> 01:43:13.200]  Real quick, I want to say that I just recently beat two cases.
[01:43:13.200 --> 01:43:15.200]  I lost one, but we'll be appealing.
[01:43:15.200 --> 01:43:22.200]  And for everybody out there, what I do is I set it up as if I'm going to lose.
[01:43:22.200 --> 01:43:32.200]  So I go ahead and set it up so that, in other words, I'm ready to appeal because they are going to go against prostate litigants.
[01:43:32.200 --> 01:43:38.200]  Another thing I wanted to say was that as far as what you guys were talking about without, you know,
[01:43:38.200 --> 01:43:43.200]  obviously really getting into it because you guys don't have that much time, I agree with both of you.
[01:43:43.200 --> 01:43:49.200]  However, what he had read, I believe it was Eddie who read it, it said they wanted to bring it into the public.
[01:43:49.200 --> 01:43:50.200]  Well, that's the problem.
[01:43:50.200 --> 01:43:59.200]  See, what usually happens is that when they offer you an attorney to represent you, people say, no, I don't want it.
[01:43:59.200 --> 01:44:02.200]  Well, now you are going against the court.
[01:44:02.200 --> 01:44:08.200]  So what I've heard that helps is I accept the attorney.
[01:44:08.200 --> 01:44:13.200]  However, the only way I will accept him is, you know, you make your own conditions.
[01:44:13.200 --> 01:44:19.200]  I can pay him with my own money because now he's private and attorneys cannot do that because it is illegal.
[01:44:19.200 --> 01:44:20.200]  It is treason.
[01:44:20.200 --> 01:44:22.200]  So now you are accepting what they said.
[01:44:22.200 --> 01:44:28.200]  However, you're making it in such a way that he really can't represent you because there will be treason.
[01:44:28.200 --> 01:44:30.200]  From what I understand.
[01:44:30.200 --> 01:44:35.200]  So as long as you stay on the private side, they really, you know, what are they going to do?
[01:44:35.200 --> 01:44:36.200]  They can't do anything as far as that goes.
[01:44:36.200 --> 01:44:39.200]  And people usually say, no, I don't want that.
[01:44:39.200 --> 01:44:43.200]  So the first thing they do is say, well, we don't think you understand what's going on,
[01:44:43.200 --> 01:44:48.200]  so we want to go ahead and evaluate you, you see, because you have said no.
[01:44:48.200 --> 01:44:52.200]  And now they say, well, obviously you don't know how serious this is.
[01:44:52.200 --> 01:44:56.200]  But from what I understand, you can either accept it and try to pay them privately,
[01:44:56.200 --> 01:45:00.200]  which they really won't want because, you know, either way, you know,
[01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:05.200]  you're accepting what they're saying, or you go ahead and just stay,
[01:45:05.200 --> 01:45:10.200]  because I've read and understand when you have an attorney represent you,
[01:45:10.200 --> 01:45:13.200]  you become a ward of the court and since they are officers of the court,
[01:45:13.200 --> 01:45:19.200]  you have gone and crafted impersonal jurisdiction, which you can reverse anything at any time.
[01:45:19.200 --> 01:45:22.200]  But I don't think the average person knows how to do that.
[01:45:22.200 --> 01:45:24.200]  So that was just my take on that.
[01:45:24.200 --> 01:45:27.200]  So I want to thank you guys for having me.
[01:45:27.200 --> 01:45:28.200]  See you at the next one.
[01:45:28.200 --> 01:45:29.200]  Yeah.
[01:45:29.200 --> 01:45:30.200]  Okay.
[01:45:30.200 --> 01:45:36.200]  A quick comment on you're paying the attorney privately.
[01:45:36.200 --> 01:45:37.200]  Right.
[01:45:37.200 --> 01:45:45.200]  If I understand H.R. 172 correctly, you are forbidden to do that.
[01:45:45.200 --> 01:45:47.200]  Then why is that?
[01:45:47.200 --> 01:45:50.200]  You can't use gold or silver.
[01:45:50.200 --> 01:45:54.200]  You can only use – you can only discharge debt.
[01:45:54.200 --> 01:45:55.200]  Right.
[01:45:55.200 --> 01:45:59.200]  For private contracts, you can use whatever you want.
[01:45:59.200 --> 01:46:00.200]  Okay.
[01:46:00.200 --> 01:46:01.200]  That was going to be my question.
[01:46:01.200 --> 01:46:05.200]  That only restricts the state from using gold or silver.
[01:46:05.200 --> 01:46:06.200]  Right.
[01:46:06.200 --> 01:46:07.200]  Right.
[01:46:07.200 --> 01:46:12.200]  Because from what I was told that whenever they want to put someone in jail,
[01:46:12.200 --> 01:46:18.200]  I believe it says that they have to – the person has to have access to an attorney or be represented by one.
[01:46:18.200 --> 01:46:23.200]  So that's how they get around that and say, well, he had access to one, but therefore –
[01:46:23.200 --> 01:46:24.200]  Well, no.
[01:46:24.200 --> 01:46:25.200]  Okay.
[01:46:25.200 --> 01:46:26.200]  No, no.
[01:46:26.200 --> 01:46:32.200]  They can't get around it that way because the federal constitution guarantees you the right to assistance of counsel.
[01:46:32.200 --> 01:46:33.200]  Right.
[01:46:33.200 --> 01:46:35.200]  It doesn't make any difference what the state says.
[01:46:35.200 --> 01:46:37.200]  They cannot change that.
[01:46:37.200 --> 01:46:38.200]  Exactly.
[01:46:38.200 --> 01:46:44.200]  And the way I think that they go around that and they do give you assistance of counsel is that they operate.
[01:46:44.200 --> 01:46:50.200]  And when you say no, well, that was a chance and now, you know, you've got to do it and hold you.
[01:46:50.200 --> 01:47:03.200]  The strategy I've been using is all about changing representation of counsel to – or representation by counsel to assistance of counsel.
[01:47:03.200 --> 01:47:09.200]  And that's to use bar grievances to kick his behind every time he does the least little thing you don't like.
[01:47:09.200 --> 01:47:12.200]  Yeah, I agree with you because I've seen people do that.
[01:47:12.200 --> 01:47:15.200]  But the average person won't do that because they don't know how to do that.
[01:47:15.200 --> 01:47:16.200]  That's true.
[01:47:16.200 --> 01:47:18.200]  And that's never going to change.
[01:47:18.200 --> 01:47:21.200]  We know the cases you won.
[01:47:21.200 --> 01:47:22.200]  Excuse me?
[01:47:22.200 --> 01:47:25.200]  What were the cases regarding that you won?
[01:47:25.200 --> 01:47:31.200]  One was no registration and another one was no registration and talking on my cell phone while driving.
[01:47:31.200 --> 01:47:32.200]  I argued.
[01:47:32.200 --> 01:47:39.200]  And the way – the last one I lost, the third one was my headlight was out and no registration.
[01:47:39.200 --> 01:47:44.200]  But it was funny because I filed an Armstrong motion.
[01:47:44.200 --> 01:47:46.200]  Basically, I wanted a co-reporter.
[01:47:46.200 --> 01:47:50.200]  They actually gave me a floor to myself from what I saw because I saw nobody on that floor.
[01:47:50.200 --> 01:47:51.200]  And it was a real judge.
[01:47:51.200 --> 01:47:55.200]  I did not stipulate to a pro tem judge because they're there today and gone tomorrow.
[01:47:55.200 --> 01:47:58.200]  And you can't hold them accountable as much as you can with a real judge.
[01:47:58.200 --> 01:48:00.200]  And so I had a co-reporter there.
[01:48:00.200 --> 01:48:03.200]  And that's actually an appealable decision here in California, I just found out.
[01:48:03.200 --> 01:48:12.200]  So if you don't have a co-reporter, it is an appealable decision, one of many appealable things you can do.
[01:48:12.200 --> 01:48:13.200]  Cool.
[01:48:13.200 --> 01:48:15.200]  This is Rick from California.
[01:48:15.200 --> 01:48:19.200]  He's one of the few people that called in and said, what do I do?
[01:48:19.200 --> 01:48:20.200]  And I told him what to do.
[01:48:20.200 --> 01:48:24.200]  And he actually went out and did it.
[01:48:24.200 --> 01:48:26.200]  He read the code.
[01:48:26.200 --> 01:48:30.200]  Now he's bad news.
[01:48:30.200 --> 01:48:35.200]  And the judge was walking on axles, but from what I understand, she just, you know,
[01:48:35.200 --> 01:48:37.200]  they don't want to give me a transcript now even though I asked for it.
[01:48:37.200 --> 01:48:40.200]  So that's one thing I'm going to start writing up against them.
[01:48:40.200 --> 01:48:45.200]  Yeah, Rick, now on Thursdays I need you to listen in to your remedies in the law as well.
[01:48:45.200 --> 01:48:47.200]  There's a gentleman out there in California.
[01:48:47.200 --> 01:48:50.200]  His name is Kevin.
[01:48:50.200 --> 01:48:57.200]  And he seems to have the same grasp on the California transportation code as I've tried to develop for the one in Texas.
[01:48:57.200 --> 01:49:03.200]  He can quote it to you chapter and verse and it tells you very, very plainly in the California code,
[01:49:03.200 --> 01:49:07.200]  every single bit of it is for commercial purposes.
[01:49:07.200 --> 01:49:10.200]  And it makes no bubbles about it.
[01:49:10.200 --> 01:49:12.200]  Is that Kevin Michaels?
[01:49:12.200 --> 01:49:13.200]  I believe so.
[01:49:13.200 --> 01:49:14.200]  Yes.
[01:49:14.200 --> 01:49:16.200]  Actually, he has been helping me.
[01:49:16.200 --> 01:49:23.200]  And we actually, he actually showed me where states in California more review the code 40600.
[01:49:23.200 --> 01:49:24.200]  Yep, that's his favorite.
[01:49:24.200 --> 01:49:30.200]  I understand, yeah, which I understand it says that an officer cannot give you notice to appear unless you've been in an accident
[01:49:30.200 --> 01:49:32.200]  or have caused one.
[01:49:32.200 --> 01:49:35.200]  But they're giving notices to appear for pretty much any reason.
[01:49:35.200 --> 01:49:36.200]  Yeah.
[01:49:36.200 --> 01:49:45.200]  Well, see here in Texas it says that a notice to appear is required only for speeding or an open container violation.
[01:49:45.200 --> 01:49:52.200]  No, it says that's the only time they're commanded to give you a notice to appear.
[01:49:52.200 --> 01:49:59.200]  No, it says a notice to appear is required only for those two things.
[01:49:59.200 --> 01:50:02.200]  Yes, that's when they can't arrest you for those.
[01:50:02.200 --> 01:50:04.200]  They have to give you a notice to appear.
[01:50:04.200 --> 01:50:09.200]  For all others, they can give you a notice to appear or they can arrest you to have the option.
[01:50:09.200 --> 01:50:13.200]  But for open container and speeding, they don't have an option.
[01:50:13.200 --> 01:50:16.200]  They must give you a notice to appear.
[01:50:16.200 --> 01:50:18.200]  Well, now that sounds sort of contradictory, doesn't it?
[01:50:18.200 --> 01:50:23.200]  Considering those would be considered worse violations, especially the open container, but you've got to let them go.
[01:50:23.200 --> 01:50:24.200]  You can't arrest them?
[01:50:24.200 --> 01:50:33.200]  No, there's special purpose violations to keep the local police and local municipalities from abusing the law.
[01:50:33.200 --> 01:50:34.200]  Oh, okay.
[01:50:34.200 --> 01:50:35.200]  I don't know why they-
[01:50:35.200 --> 01:50:37.200]  That's working great, isn't it?
[01:50:37.200 --> 01:50:39.200]  Well, I don't know why they did open container.
[01:50:39.200 --> 01:50:41.200]  I was surprised by that one.
[01:50:41.200 --> 01:50:47.200]  But the one on speeding was done because years ago every little town was a speed trap.
[01:50:47.200 --> 01:50:48.200]  Yeah.
[01:50:48.200 --> 01:50:55.200]  But the problem is, is if that's the purpose they're using it for, they've shot themselves in the proverbial foot, not to mention a couple of other locations.
[01:50:55.200 --> 01:50:57.200]  I understand that.
[01:50:57.200 --> 01:51:00.200]  So, yeah, I wanted to thank you guys for having me.
[01:51:00.200 --> 01:51:01.200]  I really do appreciate it.
[01:51:01.200 --> 01:51:03.200]  And you guys have a great night.
[01:51:03.200 --> 01:51:04.200]  You too, Rick.
[01:51:04.200 --> 01:51:06.200]  Thank you.
[01:51:06.200 --> 01:51:07.200]  Okay.
[01:51:07.200 --> 01:51:08.200]  Okay.
[01:51:08.200 --> 01:51:09.200]  All right.
[01:51:09.200 --> 01:51:15.200]  Now we are going to Carl in Texas.
[01:51:15.200 --> 01:51:16.200]  Hello.
[01:51:16.200 --> 01:51:17.200]  Carl, thanks for calling in.
[01:51:17.200 --> 01:51:19.200]  I have good news.
[01:51:19.200 --> 01:51:20.200]  I'm just like Rick.
[01:51:20.200 --> 01:51:23.200]  I just beat a seatbelt ticket here at Carl's.
[01:51:23.200 --> 01:51:24.200]  Hey, wait.
[01:51:24.200 --> 01:51:25.200]  Hold on, Carl.
[01:51:25.200 --> 01:51:26.200]  Are you on a speakerphone?
[01:51:26.200 --> 01:51:27.200]  Here.
[01:51:27.200 --> 01:51:28.200]  Let me change.
[01:51:28.200 --> 01:51:29.200]  Yeah, yeah.
[01:51:29.200 --> 01:51:30.200]  Listeners, listen.
[01:51:30.200 --> 01:51:31.200]  I'm sorry.
[01:51:31.200 --> 01:51:32.200]  I don't have a call screener tonight.
[01:51:32.200 --> 01:51:35.200]  Please, no speakerphones, no Bluetooth.
[01:51:35.200 --> 01:51:38.200]  You've got to hold the mouthpiece of the phone down by your chin.
[01:51:38.200 --> 01:51:40.200]  I know people have to hold for a long time.
[01:51:40.200 --> 01:51:42.200]  So, you know, while you're holding, you can have your speakerphone.
[01:51:42.200 --> 01:51:45.200]  But when we call you up, you need to switch to the handset.
[01:51:45.200 --> 01:51:46.200]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:51:46.200 --> 01:51:47.200]  Of course.
[01:51:47.200 --> 01:51:48.200]  Yeah, go ahead, Carl.
[01:51:48.200 --> 01:51:49.200]  Okay.
[01:51:49.200 --> 01:51:50.200]  Very good.
[01:51:50.200 --> 01:51:51.200]  And no slobbering on the microphone.
[01:51:51.200 --> 01:51:52.200]  Well, that's his microphone.
[01:51:52.200 --> 01:51:53.200]  It's his mic.
[01:51:53.200 --> 01:51:55.200]  He can slobber on it if he wants.
[01:51:55.200 --> 01:52:03.200]  Well, I actually, on this seatbelt ticket, I took him to task on 543.006 of the Texas
[01:52:03.200 --> 01:52:07.200]  Transportation Code on the time and place of appearance.
[01:52:07.200 --> 01:52:16.200]  Two days before going to trial, I had went down and filed a motion for open records request.
[01:52:16.200 --> 01:52:22.200]  And they actually gave me, tried to fill out a form and make it first, be the accusing
[01:52:22.200 --> 01:52:23.200]  party on it.
[01:52:23.200 --> 01:52:28.200]  And once the lead counsel saw what they had done with the officer there, they dismissed
[01:52:28.200 --> 01:52:30.200]  everything, sent everybody home.
[01:52:30.200 --> 01:52:32.200]  So, it was good news.
[01:52:32.200 --> 01:52:33.200]  Good news.
[01:52:33.200 --> 01:52:35.200]  I'm glad to hear it.
[01:52:35.200 --> 01:52:37.200]  So, where was this?
[01:52:37.200 --> 01:52:41.200]  This was in Austin City, Municipal Court.
[01:52:41.200 --> 01:52:42.200]  Oh, wonderful.
[01:52:42.200 --> 01:52:43.200]  Yes, sir.
[01:52:43.200 --> 01:52:46.200]  Nice to hear we're getting some wins.
[01:52:46.200 --> 01:52:51.200]  The other reason I called is just a quick question.
[01:52:51.200 --> 01:52:56.200]  I recently had a decline of credit on a mortgage application.
[01:52:56.200 --> 01:53:00.200]  And I feel like I was damaged pretty well, but I want to get y'all's take on it.
[01:53:00.200 --> 01:53:06.200]  I had recently sold some properties on the outside, getting ready for this thing that's
[01:53:06.200 --> 01:53:07.200]  coming.
[01:53:07.200 --> 01:53:16.200]  And after having sold everything that was where I was living, I had went in and found
[01:53:16.200 --> 01:53:21.200]  some other property to buy and was going to just go ahead and take out a mortgage with,
[01:53:21.200 --> 01:53:24.200]  you know, a large down payment should be no problem.
[01:53:24.200 --> 01:53:29.200]  Well, in the process, I found out that I had a judgment against me from a repo from a large
[01:53:29.200 --> 01:53:34.200]  car company here this last year.
[01:53:34.200 --> 01:53:40.200]  And I pulled my credit, and exactly the reason that they gave for the decline on the mortgage
[01:53:40.200 --> 01:53:43.200]  was because of this judgment.
[01:53:43.200 --> 01:53:50.200]  Well, I pulled my credit report, and this large company had turned it in a year ago
[01:53:50.200 --> 01:53:55.200]  as a charge off, and then a year later, they turned it in as a judgment.
[01:53:55.200 --> 01:54:00.200]  So I went down to the county court, found out I don't have any judgments, everything
[01:54:00.200 --> 01:54:06.200]  is clear, even had an attorney check on a national database, and I don't have a judgment.
[01:54:06.200 --> 01:54:08.200]  So effectively...
[01:54:08.200 --> 01:54:10.200]  They falsified a record.
[01:54:10.200 --> 01:54:11.200]  Well...
[01:54:11.200 --> 01:54:12.200]  Falsified records.
[01:54:12.200 --> 01:54:13.200]  Okay.
[01:54:13.200 --> 01:54:17.200]  You know, I was even looking at, you know, slander, mail fraud because this is a piece
[01:54:17.200 --> 01:54:19.200]  of information that was in the mail.
[01:54:19.200 --> 01:54:20.200]  Is that correct?
[01:54:20.200 --> 01:54:22.200]  It's all of the above, actually.
[01:54:22.200 --> 01:54:23.200]  Okay.
[01:54:23.200 --> 01:54:25.200]  They have falsified a credit report.
[01:54:25.200 --> 01:54:27.200]  That's a felony.
[01:54:27.200 --> 01:54:30.200]  Okay.
[01:54:30.200 --> 01:54:34.200]  And it's actionable because they've done it in a manner that causes you harm.
[01:54:34.200 --> 01:54:38.200]  It's deprived you of the ability to get any other credit.
[01:54:38.200 --> 01:54:45.200]  Yeah, the fact that you didn't get the loan, that's the harm you needed to be able to claim.
[01:54:45.200 --> 01:54:49.200]  So now you are the injured party.
[01:54:49.200 --> 01:54:55.200]  And they actually cited that exact judgment on the letters of decline.
[01:54:55.200 --> 01:54:56.200]  Perfect.
[01:54:56.200 --> 01:54:58.200]  From two different banks.
[01:54:58.200 --> 01:55:03.200]  So do I start this in a district court?
[01:55:03.200 --> 01:55:05.200]  What do you want to do?
[01:55:05.200 --> 01:55:08.200]  Yeah, what do you want the end result to be?
[01:55:08.200 --> 01:55:12.200]  I want to go for three times the damages, the cost of the house that I was going to buy,
[01:55:12.200 --> 01:55:14.200]  that I already had a contract on.
[01:55:14.200 --> 01:55:19.200]  And then you start in the district court with a civil action.
[01:55:19.200 --> 01:55:28.200]  Since this is not against a public agency, they don't get a tort letter in 60 days to repair.
[01:55:28.200 --> 01:55:33.200]  You could do that, and it would probably increase your standing,
[01:55:33.200 --> 01:55:38.200]  but it would also give them more time to answer.
[01:55:38.200 --> 01:55:45.200]  Since you're not required in this case to send a tort letter, you know, I recommend tort letters
[01:55:45.200 --> 01:55:51.200]  when you're trying to get the other side to do something without having to sue them.
[01:55:51.200 --> 01:56:03.200]  But since you already got these guys dead bang, you might want to make up a petition.
[01:56:03.200 --> 01:56:07.200]  Do you even need discovery?
[01:56:07.200 --> 01:56:11.200]  I don't think I do, because that was the documentation I already had.
[01:56:11.200 --> 01:56:16.200]  This sounds like you can file the petition and file a motion for summary judgment.
[01:56:16.200 --> 01:56:20.200]  I would put together a statement of facts.
[01:56:20.200 --> 01:56:26.200]  Well, now, the one question I would have is when you had this attorney do the search and everything,
[01:56:26.200 --> 01:56:30.200]  he provided you with documentation showing that his search came up negative,
[01:56:30.200 --> 01:56:33.200]  that this judgment did not exist?
[01:56:33.200 --> 01:56:36.200]  I need to go ahead and get the documentation in hand.
[01:56:36.200 --> 01:56:42.200]  Yes, you need to get the documentation that shows there is no such judgment in any location
[01:56:42.200 --> 01:56:48.200]  that is designated by the accuser's paperwork, and it is a falsified document.
[01:56:48.200 --> 01:56:54.200]  What I suggest is wherever they claim this lien is filed,
[01:56:54.200 --> 01:57:04.200]  go to the clerk and give the clerk a written request for any and all liens on a given property
[01:57:04.200 --> 01:57:07.200]  or on your name or whatever.
[01:57:07.200 --> 01:57:10.200]  And they're going to say, well, we don't have any such thing.
[01:57:10.200 --> 01:57:11.200]  You tell them, that's no problem.
[01:57:11.200 --> 01:57:18.200]  Just give me back a letter stating that you have no records responsive to my request.
[01:57:18.200 --> 01:57:22.200]  Have them stamp it and take that to the court.
[01:57:22.200 --> 01:57:28.200]  Yeah, and what I would do to make sure you back that up is submit your request to them also in writing
[01:57:28.200 --> 01:57:33.200]  when you go down there, give it to them in a written form and have them stamp that for you too.
[01:57:33.200 --> 01:57:39.200]  Yes, and you might look on my website under blanks and jurisprudence, under blanks and research,
[01:57:39.200 --> 01:57:44.200]  and then click blanks and look for blank information request.
[01:57:44.200 --> 01:57:47.200]  It's really obnoxious.
[01:57:47.200 --> 01:57:50.200]  Do I need to be a secured party before I start this?
[01:57:50.200 --> 01:57:52.200]  Does it help or hinder?
[01:57:52.200 --> 01:57:54.200]  Oh, no, you don't need to do that.
[01:57:54.200 --> 01:57:56.200]  I don't think it's going to have anything to do with that.
[01:57:56.200 --> 01:57:57.200]  You're a damaged party.
[01:57:57.200 --> 01:57:58.200]  That's all you need.
[01:57:58.200 --> 01:58:05.200]  Yeah, you only need to be a secured party if you're going to do like liens and commercial dealings.
[01:58:05.200 --> 01:58:07.200]  Okay, listen, we're coming to...
[01:58:07.200 --> 01:58:08.200]  I'll let y'all move to the next one.
[01:58:08.200 --> 01:58:11.200]  Okay, yes, we're actually, the bumper music is playing,
[01:58:11.200 --> 01:58:14.200]  so I have to take a break because of the affiliates.
[01:58:14.200 --> 01:58:17.200]  We can't just talk all the way up through midnight and have our voices cut off.
[01:58:17.200 --> 01:58:20.200]  We've got Gene from Wisconsin, Mark from Illinois,
[01:58:20.200 --> 01:58:25.200]  and we'll come back after midnight and answer Gene and Mike's questions.
[01:58:25.200 --> 01:58:29.200]  We'll take a few more calls if y'all want to hang in there for a little while longer.
[01:58:29.200 --> 01:58:32.200]  This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, and Craig.
[01:58:32.200 --> 01:58:39.200]  We'll be right back after this song and one more song.
[01:58:39.200 --> 01:58:41.200]  All right, we'll be right back.
[01:58:41.200 --> 01:58:56.200]  Let's go.
[01:58:56.200 --> 01:59:11.200]  Let's go.
[01:59:11.200 --> 01:59:26.200]  Let's go.
[01:59:26.200 --> 01:59:41.200]  Let's go.
[01:59:41.200 --> 01:59:56.200]  Let's go.