ROL_2013-08-02_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  Your listening to the Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and activist updates,
[00:10.000 --> 00:13.000]  online at TheLibertyBeat.com.
[00:13.000 --> 00:19.000]  Don Bush here with your Liberty Beat for Friday, August 2nd, 2013.
[00:19.000 --> 00:26.000]  Gold opened today at $1,300, silver at $19.71, and Bitcoin is trading at $106.
[00:26.000 --> 00:31.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Cabo Baja, the first high-protein corn syrup,
[00:31.000 --> 00:35.000]  free quick-serve restaurant in the country, serving Baja-California-style burritos
[00:35.000 --> 00:40.000]  and non-GMO corn tortillas and chips, and Austin at 500 East Ben White Boulevard,
[00:40.000 --> 00:45.000]  or by phone at 512-432-1111.
[00:45.000 --> 00:47.000]  And now the news.
[00:47.000 --> 00:51.000]  Postmaster General Patrick Donahue has revealed that the Postal Service takes pictures
[00:51.000 --> 00:54.000]  of every piece of mail processed in the United States.
[00:54.000 --> 00:56.000]  In a recent interview with the Associated Press,
[00:56.000 --> 01:01.000]  Donahue said the photos of the exterior of mail pieces are kept on hand for up to a month
[01:01.000 --> 01:05.000]  and used for the sorting process as well as to assist law enforcement.
[01:05.000 --> 01:08.000]  The Postmaster General went on to say that there is no central database of images
[01:08.000 --> 01:12.000]  because the images are kept on independent machines at facilities around the country.
[01:12.000 --> 01:16.000]  Machines take photographs so software can read the images to create a barcode
[01:16.000 --> 01:19.000]  that is stamped on the mail to show where and when it was processed
[01:19.000 --> 01:21.000]  and where it will be delivered.
[01:21.000 --> 01:24.000]  The program, known as Mail and Isolation Control and Tracking,
[01:24.000 --> 01:28.000]  was created after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed five people.
[01:28.000 --> 01:31.000]  The program collects information from the outside of your mail,
[01:31.000 --> 01:35.000]  including names, addresses, return addresses, and postmark locations,
[01:35.000 --> 01:39.000]  in the hopes of providing the government and law enforcement with a map of your contacts
[01:39.000 --> 01:44.000]  in order to solve crimes.
[01:44.000 --> 01:48.000]  Journalists Jason Leopold and Ryan Shapiro filed a joint suit on Friday
[01:48.000 --> 01:53.000]  after the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to respond to their Freedom of Information Act requests
[01:53.000 --> 01:56.000]  within the 20-hour working day period required by law.
[01:56.000 --> 02:01.000]  Following prominent journalist Michael Hastings' mysterious death in an early morning crash last month,
[02:01.000 --> 02:04.000]  Leopold and Shapiro both sent FOIA requests to the FBI.
[02:04.000 --> 02:09.000]  Channel 6 in San Diego has also investigated the death, filing FOIA requests for the police report,
[02:09.000 --> 02:16.000]  911 call, autopsy, bomb squad, and toxicology reports that they say continue to be ignored by the LAPD.
[02:16.000 --> 02:19.000]  Suspicion surrounding Hastings' death began to arise when it was revealed
[02:19.000 --> 02:23.000]  that he had sent out an email to friends 15 hours before his crash,
[02:23.000 --> 02:27.000]  stating he was on to a big story and needed to go off the radar for a bit.
[02:27.000 --> 02:31.000]  WikiLeaks also reported that Hastings had contacted them a few hours before his death,
[02:31.000 --> 02:34.000]  complaining of being under investigation by the FBI.
[02:34.000 --> 02:37.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Brave New Books,
[02:37.000 --> 02:40.000]  Austin's only brick and mortar store carrying teeny tangerine 2.0,
[02:40.000 --> 02:44.000]  in Austin, 1904 Guadalupe Street, or online at bravenewbookstore.com,
[02:44.000 --> 02:49.000]  and from Central Texas Dumb Works, CHL courses, self-defense training, and firearm sales,
[02:49.000 --> 02:52.000]  online at centraltexasdumbworks.com.
[02:52.000 --> 02:55.000]  This is the Liberty Beat for August 2, 2013.
[02:55.000 --> 03:00.000]  Be sure to check out our new and improved website at thelibertybeat.com.
[03:00.000 --> 03:15.000]  The Liberty Beat for August 2, 2013
[03:30.000 --> 03:32.000]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:32.000 --> 03:35.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:35.000 --> 03:38.000]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.000 --> 03:41.000]  When you were eight and you had bad traits
[03:41.000 --> 03:43.000]  You'd go to school and learn the golden rules
[03:43.000 --> 03:46.000]  So why are you acting like a fluffy fool?
[03:46.000 --> 03:49.000]  You get sugar, and you're much too cool
[03:49.000 --> 03:52.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
[03:52.000 --> 03:54.000]  Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.000 --> 03:56.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, bad boys
[03:56.000 --> 04:00.000]  Okay, hello everybody, this is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens,
[04:00.000 --> 04:02.000]  Rural Law Radio.
[04:02.000 --> 04:06.000]  Deborah's not here tonight, just me and you.
[04:06.000 --> 04:18.000]  And this is our four hour info marathon on this August 2, 2013 already.
[04:18.000 --> 04:23.000]  And we have a caller on the board already.
[04:23.000 --> 04:30.000]  This is Paul in Wisconsin, and Paul has been working over the prosecutors
[04:30.000 --> 04:34.000]  and lawyers and grand jury in Wisconsin.
[04:34.000 --> 04:38.000]  Paul, what do you have going tonight?
[04:38.000 --> 04:47.000]  Paul, Randy, I got the results back from the lawyer regulation, and of course...
[04:47.000 --> 04:50.000]  Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, don't start in the middle.
[04:50.000 --> 04:53.000]  You're talking to me, and you know I know most of this,
[04:53.000 --> 04:55.000]  but our listeners don't have a clue.
[04:55.000 --> 05:01.000]  Kind of give us a real quick synopsis to bring them up to speed on where you're at.
[05:01.000 --> 05:07.000]  Well, I filed a, I don't know, 10 plus bar grievances against an attorney
[05:07.000 --> 05:18.000]  for violations, and I've done that over a course of probably eight, nine months now.
[05:18.000 --> 05:20.000]  I didn't send them all in at once.
[05:20.000 --> 05:25.000]  I broke it down, sent one in probably, oh, every two, three weeks I sent one in.
[05:25.000 --> 05:34.000]  And then, of course, they send me back a letter that says, hey, the guy did nothing wrong.
[05:34.000 --> 05:46.000]  So what I did is they said they can reopen this and look at it if I request it
[05:46.000 --> 05:51.000]  within 30 days, and the director will take a look at this.
[05:51.000 --> 05:57.000]  So what I did is I wrote a letter, and I didn't list all the bar grievances in it.
[05:57.000 --> 06:05.000]  I just put a few of the bar grievances in it, what he did, and I took the actual number,
[06:05.000 --> 06:13.000]  like a 20.1.6 letter of violation that would be, I put that in there
[06:13.000 --> 06:18.000]  under what I, what he failed to do.
[06:18.000 --> 06:23.000]  And I just did that with a few of the bar grievances.
[06:23.000 --> 06:27.000]  And now I haven't nailed that off yet.
[06:27.000 --> 06:29.000]  I sent you a copy of it.
[06:29.000 --> 06:32.000]  I didn't know if you had looked at it or not yet.
[06:32.000 --> 06:40.000]  And at the end of it, what I figured I'd do is I also made it clear that I'd be forwarding this.
[06:40.000 --> 06:46.000]  It's a four- or five-page letter, and I'd be forwarding it to the governor, to the attorney general,
[06:46.000 --> 06:54.000]  to the Supreme Court justices, and to a few of their lawyer regulation committees,
[06:54.000 --> 06:58.000]  and also to some state legislatures and senators.
[06:58.000 --> 07:04.000]  So they know that they're going to be not just hearing about this for me,
[07:04.000 --> 07:07.000]  but there'll be other people that also know about this.
[07:07.000 --> 07:13.000]  Because the complaints that I filed all had documentation with them
[07:13.000 --> 07:18.000]  to prove this guy didn't do what he was supposed to do.
[07:18.000 --> 07:24.000]  Now, I just kind of wanted you to, I mean, am I going about the right approach on that
[07:24.000 --> 07:35.000]  by saying I'm going to send this in to other, like, governor, attorney general, people like that?
[07:35.000 --> 07:39.000]  I was wondering why you held back.
[07:39.000 --> 07:44.000]  Only the governor, you didn't send one to the president?
[07:44.000 --> 07:52.000]  If I was that lawyer, I would really be concerned about now.
[07:52.000 --> 07:59.000]  Have you, okay, you said you got a response from them?
[07:59.000 --> 08:00.000]  Correct.
[08:00.000 --> 08:08.000]  Did they, what was their, were all of their responses to your grievances the same?
[08:08.000 --> 08:15.000]  I'm looking for your emails as we speak.
[08:15.000 --> 08:20.000]  It looks to me like they just took my grievances, lumped them all up into one thing,
[08:20.000 --> 08:28.000]  and made the decision, and that includes all the grievances, is the way I read their letter.
[08:28.000 --> 08:37.000]  I wrote that into my letter to them, asking them, did you lump them all up into one thing,
[08:37.000 --> 08:45.000]  or are they separate incidences?
[08:45.000 --> 08:48.000]  Okay, what did they respond, or did they?
[08:48.000 --> 08:51.000]  I haven't sent the letter yet.
[08:51.000 --> 08:53.000]  Oh, okay.
[08:53.000 --> 09:04.000]  Okay, just for the listeners' listening enjoyment, first thing is your email was broken,
[09:04.000 --> 09:06.000]  old cowboy?
[09:06.000 --> 09:08.000]  Yep.
[09:08.000 --> 09:09.000]  I am not finding it.
[09:09.000 --> 09:12.000]  Did you send it to Rule of Law Radio?
[09:12.000 --> 09:17.000]  I sent it to that, and I sent it to Remedies also.
[09:17.000 --> 09:24.000]  Oh, okay, okay, if you sent it to both, okay, I am not finding it.
[09:24.000 --> 09:26.000]  I didn't remember seeing it, so I know it's in here.
[09:26.000 --> 09:33.000]  I get a lot of emails, so it doesn't take them long to really get buried.
[09:33.000 --> 09:42.000]  Okay, kind of give us a synopsis of what the grievances were that you filed.
[09:42.000 --> 09:50.000]  Well, what the guy didn't do, there was an injunction hearing set up,
[09:50.000 --> 09:54.000]  and he didn't show up for that.
[09:54.000 --> 09:59.000]  Now, that's a violation right there.
[09:59.000 --> 10:03.000]  He did not show up for it, and I asked for a continuance,
[10:03.000 --> 10:06.000]  and of course the judge said no one went ahead with the bailiffs.
[10:06.000 --> 10:10.000]  Wait a minute, was this your attorney or the other side's attorney?
[10:10.000 --> 10:12.000]  My attorney.
[10:12.000 --> 10:13.000]  Oh.
[10:13.000 --> 10:19.000]  My hired attorney that I paid for.
[10:19.000 --> 10:22.000]  And he didn't show up at your hearing.
[10:22.000 --> 10:24.000]  He did not show up at my hearing.
[10:24.000 --> 10:30.000]  He sent some letter to the judge, and that was it.
[10:30.000 --> 10:32.000]  And the judge still went ahead with it.
[10:32.000 --> 10:38.000]  Even after I asked for a continuance, he still did it.
[10:38.000 --> 10:44.000]  So the judge heard the case when your lawyer wasn't present?
[10:44.000 --> 10:46.000]  Correct.
[10:46.000 --> 10:49.000]  Did you file a judicial conduct complaint?
[10:49.000 --> 10:52.000]  I'm sorry, not the first question.
[10:52.000 --> 10:56.000]  Did you raise an objection to the hearing without counsel?
[10:56.000 --> 10:57.000]  Yes, I did.
[10:57.000 --> 11:02.000]  I did, and it's all on a transcript, and I have the transcript,
[11:02.000 --> 11:06.000]  and I did receive a complaint against the judge.
[11:06.000 --> 11:08.000]  Did you do judicial conduct?
[11:08.000 --> 11:12.000]  Good, that was my question, just judicial conduct complaint to judge.
[11:12.000 --> 11:16.000]  So did you hear anything from the judicial conduct complaint?
[11:16.000 --> 11:21.000]  Yes, I did, and the judge, of course, did nothing wrong either.
[11:21.000 --> 11:26.000]  Now, the Supreme Court rules, it says, you know, under Supreme Court Rule 62,
[11:26.000 --> 11:31.000]  paragraph G, it says, listen, you know, you can reschedule this to be fair
[11:31.000 --> 11:33.000]  and blah, blah, blah, blah, which he did not do.
[11:33.000 --> 11:37.000]  And I listed that in the judicial complaint.
[11:37.000 --> 11:42.000]  And, of course, they come back and say, oh, well, the judge did nothing wrong.
[11:42.000 --> 11:53.000]  So you need to look and see if there are judges on the committee,
[11:53.000 --> 11:59.000]  and rescind the complaint notifying them that the judge committed
[11:59.000 --> 12:05.000]  official oppression by denying you your right to counsel.
[12:05.000 --> 12:12.000]  And then when the judges on the counsel refuse to perform their duty
[12:12.000 --> 12:16.000]  as a magistrate, then file against the judges.
[12:16.000 --> 12:20.000]  Okay, I will do that.
[12:20.000 --> 12:21.000]  I didn't think about that.
[12:21.000 --> 12:22.000]  Does that make sense?
[12:22.000 --> 12:25.000]  Then I will do it.
[12:25.000 --> 12:30.000]  When you get done with them, they're not going to want to have any more problems.
[12:30.000 --> 12:33.000]  I suspect if you start going after the commission
[12:33.000 --> 12:39.000]  and those people who are protecting the lawyers and the judges,
[12:39.000 --> 12:43.000]  they're going to, yeah, that's going to create a lot of politics.
[12:43.000 --> 12:44.000]  Right.
[12:44.000 --> 12:51.000]  Because, yeah, they're going to feel like this judge sicked you on them,
[12:51.000 --> 12:54.000]  and they are not going to be happy with it.
[12:54.000 --> 13:01.000]  Well, that's why when I wrote this letter back to the lawyer regulation,
[13:01.000 --> 13:05.000]  that's why I listed at the bottom the letter who I'm going to send this letter to also.
[13:05.000 --> 13:07.000]  I'm going to forward it to these people.
[13:07.000 --> 13:10.000]  Because I figured they're going to look at this and go,
[13:10.000 --> 13:16.000]  gosh, you know, I'm the director, and if they don't like what I'm doing,
[13:16.000 --> 13:19.000]  the governor is going to know it, the attorney general is going to know it,
[13:19.000 --> 13:22.000]  the Supreme Court justice is going to know it, all these other committees are going to know it,
[13:22.000 --> 13:25.000]  and if they have any trouble, I guess they can fire me.
[13:25.000 --> 13:30.000]  They can replace me.
[13:30.000 --> 13:31.000]  So that's my...
[13:31.000 --> 13:33.000]  They can fire you?
[13:33.000 --> 13:38.000]  Well, the director, because, I mean, this is why I sent the letter to the investigator,
[13:38.000 --> 13:45.000]  also to the director, and he's the one that makes the, quote, final decision on this.
[13:45.000 --> 13:52.000]  Right. And, okay, he's the one you need to start throwing legal rocks at.
[13:52.000 --> 13:55.000]  Create a little high-level politics.
[13:55.000 --> 14:01.000]  You get all of these higher-level officials calling each other and wondering, asking what's going on.
[14:01.000 --> 14:07.000]  Because you've got to know this is not something that they get every day.
[14:07.000 --> 14:13.000]  So it's going to be something they really don't know what to do with.
[14:13.000 --> 14:20.000]  Make sure you send one to your senator and representative.
[14:20.000 --> 14:21.000]  Right. Right.
[14:21.000 --> 14:24.000]  The state rep is probably the best one.
[14:24.000 --> 14:30.000]  He's likely to generate more, just more action, more calls, more,
[14:30.000 --> 14:32.000]  what the heck is going on around here?
[14:32.000 --> 14:38.000]  Why are my constituents calling me complaining about you guys?
[14:38.000 --> 14:39.000]  Right. Because I put that final letter,
[14:39.000 --> 14:45.000]  I was going to send it to some state legislatures and senators.
[14:45.000 --> 14:46.000]  I put that letter also.
[14:46.000 --> 14:53.000]  I didn't list them, name them, but I just said I was going to do it.
[14:53.000 --> 14:54.000]  Make sure you do that.
[14:54.000 --> 14:59.000]  You know, write up a generic letter and just start sending it to everybody.
[14:59.000 --> 15:03.000]  Oh, I was going to send them to the school when I'm sending to them.
[15:03.000 --> 15:07.000]  They're going to get the same thing I sent to them.
[15:07.000 --> 15:08.000]  Oh, wonderful. Good.
[15:08.000 --> 15:15.000]  You know, we go down to these subcommittee hearings at the Capitol building
[15:15.000 --> 15:22.000]  and they're having hearings on matters that are important to the public.
[15:22.000 --> 15:31.000]  And almost nobody shows up except lawyers for businesses that have special interests.
[15:31.000 --> 15:36.000]  Ordinary citizens, they just don't show up.
[15:36.000 --> 15:43.000]  So the legislators get very little feedback from their constituents.
[15:43.000 --> 15:46.000]  This is the kind of feedback they'll tend to look at.
[15:46.000 --> 15:51.000]  You know, if I was an elected official, I would look at this and say,
[15:51.000 --> 15:56.000]  you know, being in the position of a representative,
[15:56.000 --> 16:00.000]  I can kind of stomp all over these guys down there at the bottom.
[16:00.000 --> 16:03.000]  It won't hurt me much.
[16:03.000 --> 16:10.000]  And I can put on a show of caring about the people who vote for me.
[16:10.000 --> 16:18.000]  And it won't cost me political influence.
[16:18.000 --> 16:22.000]  Matter of fact, it might gain him some political influence.
[16:22.000 --> 16:30.000]  So this is a good kind of thing for the elected officials to rattle their sabers over.
[16:30.000 --> 16:35.000]  And when they start rattling sabers at guys in high-level positions,
[16:35.000 --> 16:42.000]  these guys in low-level positions are going to start shaking in their boots.
[16:42.000 --> 16:45.000]  OK, hang on. We are about to go to break.
[16:45.000 --> 16:49.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[16:49.000 --> 16:53.000]  Our call-in number, 512-646-1984.
[16:53.000 --> 16:56.000]  This is our four-hour info marathon.
[16:56.000 --> 17:00.000]  So we're going to be going and taking calls all night.
[17:26.000 --> 17:31.000]  So come on. Nutrify me.
[17:31.000 --> 17:35.000]  I love you.
[17:35.000 --> 17:39.000]  Did you know that you could extend your life by as much as 15%
[17:39.000 --> 17:43.000]  by taking the unnevity products like Tangy Tangerine?
[17:43.000 --> 17:47.000]  My missus lost so much weight by taking Tangy Tangerine,
[17:47.000 --> 17:49.000]  she eventually disappeared,
[17:49.000 --> 17:53.000]  which will probably let me live an extra 15 years.
[17:53.000 --> 17:58.000]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and click the Ungevity banner.
[17:58.000 --> 18:03.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[18:03.000 --> 18:07.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[18:07.000 --> 18:11.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[18:11.000 --> 18:13.000]  and now you can win too.
[18:13.000 --> 18:17.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court
[18:17.000 --> 18:19.000]  using federal civil rights statutes.
[18:19.000 --> 18:23.000]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons.
[18:23.000 --> 18:25.000]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[18:25.000 --> 18:28.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[18:28.000 --> 18:32.000]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:32.000 --> 18:37.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:37.000 --> 18:39.000]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:39.000 --> 18:43.000]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com
[18:43.000 --> 18:45.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:45.000 --> 18:49.000]  or email MichaelMears at yahoo.com.
[18:49.000 --> 18:51.000]  That's RuleOfLawRadio.com
[18:51.000 --> 18:57.000]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[18:57.000 --> 19:00.000]  to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[19:00.000 --> 19:05.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[19:05.000 --> 19:30.000]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[19:30.000 --> 19:53.000]  Okay, we are back.
[19:53.000 --> 19:56.000]  We're Andy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio,
[19:56.000 --> 19:59.000]  and we're talking to Paul in Wisconsin.
[19:59.000 --> 20:03.000]  I spent the whole break trying to locate that email.
[20:03.000 --> 20:05.000]  I went down about six or eight pages.
[20:05.000 --> 20:08.000]  It must be way down there somewhere.
[20:08.000 --> 20:15.000]  Anyway, I'm glad you called in because I was going to do a dissertation on due process,
[20:15.000 --> 20:18.000]  and this kind of goes to it.
[20:18.000 --> 20:22.000]  This thing of bar grievances really gets your attention.
[20:22.000 --> 20:28.000]  David was in a meeting the other night with a woman and an attorney,
[20:28.000 --> 20:37.000]  and she mentioned to the attorney that she filed a bar grievance against another attorney.
[20:37.000 --> 20:41.000]  David said this lawyer was really, really angry.
[20:41.000 --> 20:46.000]  She said she was absolutely livid.
[20:46.000 --> 20:50.000]  This does make a big difference.
[20:50.000 --> 20:56.000]  You file these grievances, and you don't hear anything back.
[20:56.000 --> 21:02.000]  If I walk up to you and smack you upside the head, you're going to hit me back,
[21:02.000 --> 21:05.000]  or at least you're going to talk to me about it.
[21:05.000 --> 21:12.000]  You don't hear anything from the lawyer at all, and that's because he's forbidden to talk to you.
[21:12.000 --> 21:18.000]  When you do these things, it's not like normal civil interaction.
[21:18.000 --> 21:27.000]  There are special considerations, so we don't get the feedback that would make us feel a lot better.
[21:27.000 --> 21:32.000]  Even if it's negative feedback from the lawyer, at least we got him.
[21:32.000 --> 21:36.000]  At least we know that we got his attention.
[21:36.000 --> 21:46.000]  I suggest that the fact that he doesn't say a word, that indicates that you've nailed him pretty good.
[21:46.000 --> 21:58.000]  From all I've heard, we had a guy in Florida send me a letter, and he did precisely what you did.
[21:58.000 --> 22:03.000]  He sent one or two every couple weeks.
[22:03.000 --> 22:05.000]  They went to some meeting.
[22:05.000 --> 22:10.000]  This is over a homeowners association issue.
[22:10.000 --> 22:18.000]  When they came out of the meeting, going down the elevator, the lawyer asked him if he could ask him a question.
[22:18.000 --> 22:21.000]  He asked him about these bar grievances.
[22:21.000 --> 22:28.000]  He said, you know, I've been doing this for 15 years, and I've dealt with the best and I've dealt with the worst,
[22:28.000 --> 22:35.000]  but I've never had anybody take it to me the way you have.
[22:35.000 --> 22:43.000]  He said, I've spent most of my time these last few weeks just dealing with the bar association.
[22:43.000 --> 22:52.000]  This is Florida, and Florida, that's the only state that I know of where the bar insures the lawyers.
[22:52.000 --> 23:03.000]  It's that way in Australia, where the bar there is called the Law Society.
[23:03.000 --> 23:08.000]  The Law Society in Australia maintains insurance for the lawyers.
[23:08.000 --> 23:15.000]  People hear that, and they say, well, that's a prescription for disaster.
[23:15.000 --> 23:21.000]  Since the bar insures them, they don't have to worry about insurance.
[23:21.000 --> 23:23.000]  I talked to a lawyer.
[23:23.000 --> 23:26.000]  This guy was really a great guy.
[23:26.000 --> 23:27.000]  I tried to get him on the show.
[23:27.000 --> 23:30.000]  He was absolutely a hoot.
[23:30.000 --> 23:41.000]  He lives in Wagga Wagga, and what he said about it is since the Law Society maintains the insurance,
[23:41.000 --> 23:48.000]  what they do is every lawyer has to pay a certain amount into the Law Society for insurance protection,
[23:48.000 --> 23:55.000]  and these funds go into a pool, and while the funds are sitting there,
[23:55.000 --> 24:08.000]  the Law Society gets to use these funds as collateral for bonds and such so they can run some of their favorite projects.
[24:08.000 --> 24:14.000]  What he said, if you're a lawyer and you do anything to dip into their funds,
[24:14.000 --> 24:18.000]  they are really, really going to be unhappy with you.
[24:18.000 --> 24:23.000]  Apparently, lawyers are terrified of somebody suing them.
[24:23.000 --> 24:30.000]  They're not as worried about being sued as they're worried about what the bar suit, what the Law Society will do.
[24:30.000 --> 24:36.000]  So it appears as though even though Florida indemnifies its lawyers,
[24:36.000 --> 24:44.000]  it appears from the letter I got from this guy in Florida that they really kicked his behind big time.
[24:44.000 --> 24:50.000]  So it looks like no matter where you're at, the bar grievances really work.
[24:50.000 --> 24:54.000]  So, Paul, keep up the good work. Do you have anything else for us?
[24:54.000 --> 25:01.000]  Yeah, I do, Randy. I sent that to you at 726, if that helps the date.
[25:01.000 --> 25:06.000]  Okay, that'll help, and I can find it. I'll pull it out and look at it.
[25:06.000 --> 25:09.000]  I'll try to do it during the show since I'm going to get off later,
[25:09.000 --> 25:14.000]  and I've got a meeting after the show so I probably won't get it tonight.
[25:14.000 --> 25:21.000]  Yeah, Saturday's getting freed up, so you can call me Saturday morning. I'll have a look at it.
[25:21.000 --> 25:29.000]  Okay. Hey, I heard back from the district attorney over the criminal complaint.
[25:29.000 --> 25:36.000]  I sent it over a deputy for the false swearing,
[25:36.000 --> 25:43.000]  and the district attorney said that the deputy, he signed the thing, okay,
[25:43.000 --> 25:49.000]  but he didn't write it. The district attorney's office wrote it.
[25:49.000 --> 25:54.000]  And so I thought, well, let's see, since the district attorney wrote it
[25:54.000 --> 26:03.000]  and he lied about me giving a statement, which I never did, and the police reports reflect that.
[26:03.000 --> 26:08.000]  Wait a minute, say that again. You're assuming we know stuff.
[26:08.000 --> 26:19.000]  Oh, okay. Anyway, I filed a criminal complaint against the deputy.
[26:19.000 --> 26:22.000]  Give us a short on what the deputy did.
[26:22.000 --> 26:27.000]  Okay. Well, basically all he did was sign the criminal complaint,
[26:27.000 --> 26:36.000]  and in the criminal complaint, they said that I gave a statement against my best interest, which I never did.
[26:36.000 --> 26:43.000]  And the police reports reflect that they never talked to me, ever.
[26:43.000 --> 26:50.000]  And so I filed a criminal complaint against the deputy for false swearing.
[26:50.000 --> 26:56.000]  Well, of course, false swearing is, you know, you think something's true and it's not.
[26:56.000 --> 27:00.000]  Well, so what? He thought it was true.
[27:00.000 --> 27:10.000]  So I get this thing back from the district attorney stating he declined to, you know, go ahead with my complaint.
[27:10.000 --> 27:19.000]  But in his dissertation of why, he states that it's his office that wrote the complaint.
[27:19.000 --> 27:24.000]  It was prepared by the district attorney's office.
[27:24.000 --> 27:31.000]  Now, if they're the ones that wrote it and they wrote something that was untrue in that complaint,
[27:31.000 --> 27:38.000]  that means I can file charges against the district attorney for, what, perjury?
[27:38.000 --> 27:43.000]  Yes, same thing. Perfect.
[27:43.000 --> 27:52.000]  So it appears as though the prosecutor did not deny the accusation.
[27:52.000 --> 27:58.000]  He just testified that he committed the act and not the officer.
[27:58.000 --> 27:59.000]  Exactly.
[27:59.000 --> 28:05.000]  So what you might want to do is take this letter, send it back to the prosecutor,
[28:05.000 --> 28:14.000]  and request that the prosecutor appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute himself.
[28:14.000 --> 28:18.000]  Okay. I will do that.
[28:18.000 --> 28:21.000]  That'll make his day.
[28:21.000 --> 28:27.000]  Well, I also included this letter in with bar grievance against the attorney,
[28:27.000 --> 28:33.000]  because I brought this to the attorney's attention that I never gave a statement
[28:33.000 --> 28:44.000]  and that I wanted him to go after, you know, the deputy, you know, for Volkswagen and all that stuff, you know,
[28:44.000 --> 28:50.000]  and he wasn't going to do that. He refused to do it, wasn't going to go after this deputy at all.
[28:50.000 --> 28:57.000]  Well, in this letter that the district attorney wrote, he said that there was never any motions
[28:57.000 --> 29:04.000]  filed challenging the criminal complaint on grounds of sufficiency.
[29:04.000 --> 29:10.000]  And that goes back to one of my bar grievances, that the attorney didn't do his job.
[29:10.000 --> 29:16.000]  He didn't represent me. He didn't build my case. He didn't do his due diligence.
[29:16.000 --> 29:22.000]  You know, he wasn't representing me properly.
[29:22.000 --> 29:27.000]  Of course, none of this was ever mentioned in the letter.
[29:27.000 --> 29:33.000]  The letter was very generic that the bar grievance that the lawyer of office regulation sent in.
[29:33.000 --> 29:42.000]  Okay. The thing about that is, when the lawyer says that there was never an issue brought in case
[29:42.000 --> 29:50.000]  on the sufficiency of the complaint, objection relevance.
[29:50.000 --> 29:58.000]  What does that have to do with whether or not the officer committed the crime when he wrote out the complaint?
[29:58.000 --> 30:02.000]  Exactly.
[30:02.000 --> 30:06.000]  Jacob Boscov dreamed up the most sinister weapon he could think of.
[30:06.000 --> 30:10.000]  Then he built a prototype and tried to sell it in an international weapons trade show.
[30:10.000 --> 30:12.000]  The results were surprising.
[30:12.000 --> 30:15.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll tell you more in just a moment.
[30:15.000 --> 30:21.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.000 --> 30:26.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.000 --> 30:31.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.000 --> 30:34.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:34.000 --> 30:37.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[30:37.000 --> 30:41.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[30:41.000 --> 30:44.000]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.000 --> 30:47.000]  Governments can't be trusted with weapons.
[30:47.000 --> 30:53.000]  That's what Danish artist Jacob Boscov discovered when he marketed a fake weapon called the ID Sniper Rifle.
[30:53.000 --> 30:58.000]  He claimed it would allow government agents to shoot microchip implants into people from a distance
[30:58.000 --> 31:01.000]  and then secretly track them by satellite.
[31:01.000 --> 31:05.000]  The chip was supposed to feel like a mosquito bite and leave no obvious marks.
[31:05.000 --> 31:11.000]  It's a ridiculous notion, but government representatives from around the world bought the concept hook, line, and sinker.
[31:11.000 --> 31:17.000]  Reportedly, Chinese police were extremely interested, as were representatives from several other countries.
[31:17.000 --> 31:20.000]  Governments, they're always looking for new ways to stick it to you.
[31:20.000 --> 31:30.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:30.000 --> 31:36.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[31:36.000 --> 31:38.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[31:38.000 --> 31:43.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[31:43.000 --> 31:46.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[31:46.000 --> 31:48.000]  Thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[31:48.000 --> 31:50.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[31:50.000 --> 31:51.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[31:51.000 --> 31:52.000]  I'm a New York City Correctional Officer.
[31:52.000 --> 31:53.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[31:53.000 --> 31:55.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[31:55.000 --> 31:57.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[31:57.000 --> 32:00.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[32:00.000 --> 32:04.000]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[32:04.000 --> 32:05.000]  Sorry.
[32:05.000 --> 32:08.000]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[32:08.000 --> 32:09.000]  What?
[32:09.000 --> 32:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[32:13.000 --> 32:20.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt, and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[32:26.000 --> 32:31.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[32:31.000 --> 32:37.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports-zombieism recover.
[32:37.000 --> 32:44.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[32:44.000 --> 32:55.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[32:55.000 --> 33:01.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[33:01.000 --> 33:12.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:12.000 --> 33:28.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the government them, prosecute them. Okay.
[33:28.000 --> 33:45.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens with our radio.
[33:45.000 --> 33:54.000]  And we were talking to Paul in Wisconsin. Sorry about that, Paul. I ran over the break again. I'm going to get in trouble for that.
[33:54.000 --> 34:01.000]  That's okay. Okay. So the prosecutor may be more fun to go after.
[34:01.000 --> 34:10.000]  I really like it when they do stuff that allows me to come back after them.
[34:10.000 --> 34:17.000]  And here you apparently having the prosecuting attorney asserting that he wrote this document.
[34:17.000 --> 34:28.000]  And it's the document you're asserting is perjurious. So essentially, he's admitted to the perjury that you claim.
[34:28.000 --> 34:37.000]  So since he's the one that wrote the document, then we filed a complaint against him.
[34:37.000 --> 34:52.000]  And I'm not sure exactly how it works in Wisconsin, but in Texas, if a prosecutor gets a case in which his office would be disqualified,
[34:52.000 --> 34:59.000]  he is to petition the district court to appoint an attorney pro tem to prosecute the case.
[34:59.000 --> 35:07.000]  And that probably just happened in Travis County because our district attorney just went to jail for DUI.
[35:07.000 --> 35:17.000]  Just got reelected and got popped for DUI.
[35:17.000 --> 35:25.000]  Took a deal. She's going to jail. So they had to have appointed an attorney pro tem to prosecute the prosecutor.
[35:25.000 --> 35:31.000]  So you might ask them to do that. That will get them real excited.
[35:31.000 --> 35:36.000]  That will tell them that you know how to get past their office.
[35:36.000 --> 35:38.000]  OK. Good. Go ahead.
[35:38.000 --> 35:41.000]  Because I sent you a copy of that also. OK.
[35:41.000 --> 35:43.000]  OK. So you'll have a copy of that also.
[35:43.000 --> 35:47.000]  Yeah. It'll help if you resend it to me to be on top where I can find it.
[35:47.000 --> 35:50.000]  OK. Send that to me. We'll talk about it tomorrow.
[35:50.000 --> 35:57.000]  OK. Plus, I'll send you this stupid letter that the lawyer regulation people sent me.
[35:57.000 --> 36:00.000]  And it's very generic. And most of it's about me.
[36:00.000 --> 36:04.000]  And it hardly has anything to do with the lawyer.
[36:04.000 --> 36:07.000]  Good. Good. I would like to see that.
[36:07.000 --> 36:10.000]  Maybe we'll make up a nice rebuttal to that one.
[36:10.000 --> 36:12.000]  OK. Good.
[36:12.000 --> 36:14.000]  OK. Thank you, Paul. OK.
[36:14.000 --> 36:19.000]  We're going to go to Marshall in Oregon.
[36:19.000 --> 36:20.000]  Hello, Marshall.
[36:20.000 --> 36:21.000]  Randy?
[36:21.000 --> 36:22.000]  Evening, Randy.
[36:22.000 --> 36:23.000]  What do you have for...
[36:23.000 --> 36:24.000]  OK.
[36:24.000 --> 36:26.000]  Go ahead.
[36:26.000 --> 36:31.000]  Yep. For a question related to child support tonight.
[36:31.000 --> 36:35.000]  OK.
[36:35.000 --> 36:42.000]  Got a situation where for years I've been paying the court mandated dollars,
[36:42.000 --> 36:44.000]  X a month and all that business.
[36:44.000 --> 36:51.000]  And about eight months ago or so, I get some phrenic calls from the ex,
[36:51.000 --> 36:54.000]  and you had to come pick up one of the two sons.
[36:54.000 --> 36:58.000]  And literally begging me, I was actually expecting and hoping this would have happened sooner.
[36:58.000 --> 37:00.000]  And so I wasn't surprised that it happened.
[37:00.000 --> 37:04.000]  In any case, I went and got him, and he's been with me ever since.
[37:04.000 --> 37:10.000]  But now, so we each basically have one son.
[37:10.000 --> 37:17.000]  Now, I receive a letter from an attorney that she's hired saying,
[37:17.000 --> 37:22.000]  how come you're not continuing to pay child support?
[37:22.000 --> 37:28.000]  And technically, I didn't go in and have the court adjust the original order
[37:28.000 --> 37:30.000]  because originally she had both sons.
[37:30.000 --> 37:31.000]  We each had one.
[37:31.000 --> 37:36.000]  I stopped paying when I picked up the one son such that we both had one.
[37:36.000 --> 37:41.000]  OK, child support can get to be a real hassle.
[37:41.000 --> 37:47.000]  You really need to go back to the court and file a motion with the court
[37:47.000 --> 37:56.000]  to strike the trial support from the time you've held full custody and control of the child.
[37:56.000 --> 37:59.000]  They will most likely adjust that back.
[37:59.000 --> 38:03.000]  Do you have an attorney?
[38:03.000 --> 38:09.000]  When this was originally set up, I did use somebody, but I'd like to do it myself.
[38:09.000 --> 38:14.000]  This could go around if needed.
[38:14.000 --> 38:17.000]  So I don't have an attorney currently.
[38:17.000 --> 38:22.000]  Are we talking about a whole lot of money?
[38:22.000 --> 38:23.000]  Well...
[38:23.000 --> 38:26.000]  You know, I don't like lawyers, but...
[38:26.000 --> 38:27.000]  You have four.
[38:27.000 --> 38:31.000]  He typically only wants 5,000 retainer just to start doing anything.
[38:31.000 --> 38:41.000]  They're asking for 10,000 to 12,000 for the so-called time I haven't paid.
[38:41.000 --> 38:44.000]  OK, that's enough that they'll get real ugly about it.
[38:44.000 --> 38:49.000]  I would suggest you get a lawyer who can deal with them.
[38:49.000 --> 38:55.000]  The family courts are one of the most corrupt in the country.
[38:55.000 --> 38:56.000]  And the lawyers are corrupt.
[38:56.000 --> 38:59.000]  The judges are corrupt.
[38:59.000 --> 39:04.000]  And I hate to recommend a lawyer, but they're so corrupt.
[39:04.000 --> 39:08.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, you'll get screwed if you got a lawyer.
[39:08.000 --> 39:14.000]  You'll get screwed a whole lot worse if you don't have a lawyer.
[39:14.000 --> 39:18.000]  You can try it on your own, but if you start having a problem,
[39:18.000 --> 39:24.000]  then you might ask them to cease everything so you can seek counsel.
[39:24.000 --> 39:30.000]  But petition the court, file an affidavit showing that you have had full custody
[39:30.000 --> 39:33.000]  and control of the child for this period of time.
[39:33.000 --> 39:37.000]  How did you get custody of the child?
[39:37.000 --> 39:39.000]  At her request, I picked her up.
[39:39.000 --> 39:42.000]  I picked up my son.
[39:42.000 --> 39:45.000]  OK, so this was at the wife's request.
[39:45.000 --> 39:46.000]  It wasn't...
[39:46.000 --> 39:48.000]  Did it go through the court at all?
[39:48.000 --> 39:50.000]  No.
[39:50.000 --> 39:56.000]  OK, then explain to the court that the wife requested that you take custody
[39:56.000 --> 40:02.000]  of the child and that you did so, and you didn't...
[40:02.000 --> 40:05.000]  How long have you had custody?
[40:05.000 --> 40:07.000]  Seventy months.
[40:07.000 --> 40:09.000]  Seven months, OK.
[40:09.000 --> 40:16.000]  Tell them that you delayed in moving to adjust to child support
[40:16.000 --> 40:21.000]  to ensure that this situation was stable
[40:21.000 --> 40:26.000]  and you inadvertently delayed longer than you should have,
[40:26.000 --> 40:32.000]  but asked the court to strike all the back child support
[40:32.000 --> 40:35.000]  for the time in which you had full custody and control,
[40:35.000 --> 40:39.000]  because she had no right to child support if you were supporting the child.
[40:39.000 --> 40:47.000]  Actually, you should ask for back child support from her.
[40:47.000 --> 40:49.000]  Back support?
[40:49.000 --> 40:51.000]  Yes.
[40:51.000 --> 40:58.000]  You claim that she owes you child support.
[40:58.000 --> 41:01.000]  You won't win that one, but it's a great one.
[41:01.000 --> 41:06.000]  If you bring that up, or you might talk to your wife and say,
[41:06.000 --> 41:09.000]  look, if you pursue this, I'm going to ask...
[41:09.000 --> 41:12.000]  Maybe it makes this thing go away?
[41:12.000 --> 41:14.000]  Possibly.
[41:14.000 --> 41:19.000]  Yes, you tell her, look, you want to push this child support thing,
[41:19.000 --> 41:22.000]  then I'm going to ask for child support from you.
[41:22.000 --> 41:24.000]  I have a right to it.
[41:24.000 --> 41:27.000]  I would add that I don't know if it makes any difference,
[41:27.000 --> 41:29.000]  but maybe you have some ideas along this.
[41:29.000 --> 41:36.000]  The whole reason that I divorced her but was unable to take the boys with me
[41:36.000 --> 41:40.000]  is she's an alcoholic and she's always been,
[41:40.000 --> 41:44.000]  and the courts just basically say, and even my attorney says,
[41:44.000 --> 41:48.000]  you'll likely never get permanent custody.
[41:48.000 --> 41:50.000]  In fact, that was the case.
[41:50.000 --> 41:56.000]  They just have her go through these different programs for six months and so on,
[41:56.000 --> 42:01.000]  and she's done that, but she still continues to be a drunkard basically.
[42:01.000 --> 42:05.000]  Okay, don't even bring that up.
[42:05.000 --> 42:07.000]  Excuse me, sorry?
[42:07.000 --> 42:10.000]  Don't even think about it.
[42:10.000 --> 42:16.000]  This is what parents always do and the courts hate it.
[42:16.000 --> 42:20.000]  This is not about whether your wife is competent or not.
[42:20.000 --> 42:23.000]  The courts have already ruled that issue.
[42:23.000 --> 42:29.000]  If you go in there making ad hominem attacks against the wife,
[42:29.000 --> 42:32.000]  the court's not going to trust you.
[42:32.000 --> 42:36.000]  What if I have records, for example, from the local police department?
[42:36.000 --> 42:38.000]  Stop it.
[42:38.000 --> 42:41.000]  I'm telling you, that's already been adjudicated.
[42:41.000 --> 42:46.000]  If you go back and try to adjudicate that, they're going to kick your butt.
[42:46.000 --> 42:49.000]  This is what every angry parent does.
[42:49.000 --> 42:54.000]  You have an issue, you go in and beat up the other side.
[42:54.000 --> 42:56.000]  Didn't you guys fight enough when you were married?
[42:56.000 --> 43:00.000]  You're not married now, quit fighting.
[43:00.000 --> 43:03.000]  The judges hear this stuff all the time.
[43:03.000 --> 43:05.000]  It makes them nuts.
[43:05.000 --> 43:08.000]  They're human beings.
[43:08.000 --> 43:12.000]  You go in there telling the judge what a scoundrel your wife is,
[43:12.000 --> 43:17.000]  he is really going to get peoed, I guarantee you.
[43:17.000 --> 43:19.000]  Don't do that.
[43:19.000 --> 43:25.000]  Just say, she gave you custody of the child.
[43:25.000 --> 43:32.000]  If the judge asks you why she gave you custody of the child, then tell him.
[43:32.000 --> 43:38.000]  But do it with as little attack on the mother as possible.
[43:38.000 --> 43:40.000]  Hang on, we're about to go to break.
[43:40.000 --> 43:44.000]  It's not about the mother.
[43:44.000 --> 43:49.000]  It's about getting the judge to trust you.
[43:49.000 --> 43:51.000]  Okay, hang on, we're about to go to break.
[43:51.000 --> 43:54.000]  This is Randy Caldwell Stevens, Wheel of Law Radio.
[43:54.000 --> 43:57.000]  Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[43:57.000 --> 44:02.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:02.000 --> 44:05.000]  Mr. President, members of Congress,
[44:05.000 --> 44:09.000]  you've been making a lot of noise about taking our guns away.
[44:09.000 --> 44:11.000]  But you might want to review history.
[44:11.000 --> 44:15.000]  1835, Gonzales, Texas Territory.
[44:15.000 --> 44:20.000]  The authorities wanted to confiscate the big gun that protected that colony.
[44:20.000 --> 44:22.000]  You know what the people said?
[44:22.000 --> 44:24.000]  Come and take it.
[44:24.000 --> 44:29.000]  Because they were willing to fight for their freedom and their guns.
[44:29.000 --> 44:31.000]  So are we.
[44:31.000 --> 44:34.000]  Come and take it if you want it.
[44:34.000 --> 44:37.000]  Come and take it if you think you can.
[44:37.000 --> 44:40.000]  Come and take it, but I warn you,
[44:40.000 --> 44:43.000]  you'll have to fight it from our own dead ends.
[44:43.000 --> 44:46.000]  We want the freedom that God gave us,
[44:46.000 --> 44:49.000]  so you best not cross that line.
[44:49.000 --> 44:54.000]  If you want this gun, you've got to come through us and take it.
[44:54.000 --> 44:57.000]  One shot at a time.
[44:57.000 --> 45:01.000]  Just like Gonzales, we're keeping our guns.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:07.000]  Win your case without an attorney with jurisdictionary.
[45:07.000 --> 45:12.000]  The affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course that will show you how
[45:12.000 --> 45:15.000]  in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:31.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:31.000 --> 45:34.000]  with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:39.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:43.000]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:47.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[45:47.000 --> 45:52.000]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 45:56.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner
[45:56.000 --> 46:24.000]  or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:24.000 --> 46:44.000]  Okay, we are back.
[46:44.000 --> 46:49.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and Marshall.
[46:49.000 --> 46:54.000]  Did I sound frustrated going out?
[46:54.000 --> 46:56.000]  A little bit.
[46:56.000 --> 46:58.000]  Here's why.
[46:58.000 --> 47:05.000]  There's something I'm having a real hard time helping people get past.
[47:05.000 --> 47:11.000]  I deal with a lot of people who are having traumatic issues.
[47:11.000 --> 47:16.000]  And when you have traumatic issues, you tend to talk about it.
[47:16.000 --> 47:24.000]  And as you talk about it, you tend to walk through those areas of the issue
[47:24.000 --> 47:29.000]  to which you have the greatest emotional attachment
[47:29.000 --> 47:34.000]  or to which you have responded to the most strongly.
[47:34.000 --> 47:38.000]  Criminal, IRS, everything.
[47:38.000 --> 47:45.000]  And if you're not real careful, you kind of lose your perspective
[47:45.000 --> 47:55.000]  and it becomes about the emotion and how you feel as though you've been mistreated.
[47:55.000 --> 48:00.000]  And when you talk about it, it re-evokes all of that anger and frustration.
[48:00.000 --> 48:07.000]  And no matter where you're trying to go, you wind up going down that same road again.
[48:07.000 --> 48:09.000]  And that's what you were starting to do.
[48:09.000 --> 48:13.000]  You were starting to launch into all of the things you always go through
[48:13.000 --> 48:18.000]  about why you divorced your wife and what are the problems with us and all that.
[48:18.000 --> 48:21.000]  The judge hears this all the time.
[48:21.000 --> 48:27.000]  And as to child support, it's irrelevant.
[48:27.000 --> 48:37.000]  Unless you're trying to extract custody from your wife, any of those issues are irrelevant.
[48:37.000 --> 48:54.000]  The best way to get the cleanest decision is to state precisely what this issue is
[48:54.000 --> 48:57.000]  and stay strictly with this issue.
[48:57.000 --> 49:03.000]  If your wife turned the child over to you voluntarily,
[49:03.000 --> 49:09.000]  I wouldn't even explain to the judge why.
[49:09.000 --> 49:12.000]  As to child support, that's not relevant.
[49:12.000 --> 49:16.000]  The only thing that's relevant is that you're holding the child
[49:16.000 --> 49:25.000]  and you're holding the child without controversy with the other parent's permission.
[49:25.000 --> 49:33.000]  While you're supporting the child, the other parent has no right to child support.
[49:33.000 --> 49:35.000]  Now she's coming asking for child support.
[49:35.000 --> 49:39.000]  What I would do is bar grieve her attorney.
[49:39.000 --> 49:46.000]  I've done that already, and I was going to ask what if any contact with her attorney
[49:46.000 --> 49:54.000]  might be advantageous possibly other than, if any, than a bar grievance or 10?
[49:54.000 --> 49:55.000]  Wait a minute, say that again.
[49:55.000 --> 49:58.000]  I missed part of that.
[49:58.000 --> 50:06.000]  Other than bar grieve her attorney, what if any contact might possibly be beneficial to me
[50:06.000 --> 50:08.000]  in dealing with her attorney?
[50:08.000 --> 50:09.000]  Okay.
[50:09.000 --> 50:15.000]  I would have no phone conversations with her attorney.
[50:15.000 --> 50:19.000]  Her attorney will lie like a dog.
[50:19.000 --> 50:23.000]  You talk to him on the phone and he'll make up all kind of crapola
[50:23.000 --> 50:26.000]  and accuse you of saying that because he's an officer of the court,
[50:26.000 --> 50:32.000]  the court will accept everything he says and believe and accept nothing you say.
[50:32.000 --> 50:35.000]  So make everything in writing.
[50:35.000 --> 50:41.000]  Send him a notice that you have had custody of the child over this amount of time.
[50:41.000 --> 50:50.000]  And the child, the parent had no claim on support as you've been supporting the child.
[50:50.000 --> 50:55.000]  And you have not up to this point asked for child support from the mother,
[50:55.000 --> 51:02.000]  so you are prepared to petition the court to strike all the back child support that wasn't paid
[51:02.000 --> 51:10.000]  and grant you child support for the time, for this period of time.
[51:10.000 --> 51:13.000]  Just give him, give the other lawyer notice.
[51:13.000 --> 51:21.000]  And what the lawyer is going to do is he's going to try to make this a long and protracted fight
[51:21.000 --> 51:25.000]  to see how much money he can get out of the both of you.
[51:25.000 --> 51:30.000]  That's what they do.
[51:30.000 --> 51:36.000]  So you accuse the lawyer of fomenting litigation.
[51:36.000 --> 51:43.000]  And if the lawyer doesn't relent, if you've already bargrieved the lawyer,
[51:43.000 --> 51:47.000]  he might be ready to make this go away.
[51:47.000 --> 51:53.000]  So that's what I'd tell him first, you know, set a negotiating position,
[51:53.000 --> 51:59.000]  is you paid all this child support, you know, for the child that they have,
[51:59.000 --> 52:04.000]  but at the same time she should have been paying you child support for the one that you're holding,
[52:04.000 --> 52:06.000]  and that would negate all the child support.
[52:06.000 --> 52:11.000]  So you're going to ask the court to strike what you didn't pay
[52:11.000 --> 52:14.000]  and order her to pay you child support for this period of time,
[52:14.000 --> 52:18.000]  so it will zero out what you've been paying,
[52:18.000 --> 52:26.000]  and ask for a new order where neither has to pay child support.
[52:26.000 --> 52:28.000]  And most likely you'll get it.
[52:28.000 --> 52:32.000]  This is reasonable.
[52:32.000 --> 52:34.000]  Okay.
[52:34.000 --> 52:38.000]  But whatever you do, do not attack your wife.
[52:38.000 --> 52:41.000]  If the judge asks you why you have the child,
[52:41.000 --> 52:45.000]  then you can address the fact that she has a problem with alcohol
[52:45.000 --> 52:50.000]  and she called you to pick up the child,
[52:50.000 --> 52:56.000]  and then let her explain to the judge why she gave the child to you.
[52:56.000 --> 52:59.000]  That's going to be tough for her,
[52:59.000 --> 53:04.000]  because the courts are not going to like that one little bit.
[53:04.000 --> 53:08.000]  Courts tend to want the child to stay with the mother,
[53:08.000 --> 53:11.000]  and when the mother doesn't want to keep the child,
[53:11.000 --> 53:16.000]  the courts tend to frown on that.
[53:16.000 --> 53:18.000]  So you should have yourself a one-up position,
[53:18.000 --> 53:23.000]  and as long as you keep, you know, don't fall into that trap
[53:23.000 --> 53:26.000]  of an antihomonym attack against your wife,
[53:26.000 --> 53:30.000]  just write them a good, clean letter,
[53:30.000 --> 53:32.000]  make them do everything in writing.
[53:32.000 --> 53:36.000]  If the lawyer complains to the judge about that,
[53:36.000 --> 53:46.000]  that'll just make you look like you're paying attention and being careful.
[53:46.000 --> 53:49.000]  So is that about answered?
[53:49.000 --> 53:51.000]  It does, yes.
[53:51.000 --> 53:53.000]  Thank you, Randy.
[53:53.000 --> 53:59.000]  Most of what you're doing in court, especially in family courts like this,
[53:59.000 --> 54:02.000]  think of what's reasonable.
[54:02.000 --> 54:06.000]  You know, when I look at law and I say, you know,
[54:06.000 --> 54:13.000]  based on objective reasonableness, this thing here should be against the law.
[54:13.000 --> 54:18.000]  I go look in there, and I tend to always find that it is.
[54:18.000 --> 54:23.000]  And if I say under objective reasonable, this should not be against the law.
[54:23.000 --> 54:25.000]  I go in there and look, and it's not.
[54:25.000 --> 54:27.000]  You know, or something's against the law,
[54:27.000 --> 54:31.000]  and I say under this kind of circumstance, that shouldn't apply.
[54:31.000 --> 54:33.000]  You go in and look, and there's an exclusion.
[54:33.000 --> 54:36.000]  Law's been around a long time,
[54:36.000 --> 54:41.000]  and we've had a long time to tweak it and adjust it to circumstances.
[54:41.000 --> 54:43.000]  So when you're dealing with the courts,
[54:43.000 --> 54:48.000]  think of what has the appearance of being just and reasonable,
[54:48.000 --> 54:55.000]  and almost always the courts will see it the same way.
[54:55.000 --> 54:59.000]  So it's not near as complex as it seems.
[54:59.000 --> 55:05.000]  And keep in mind that the judge lives in a different place than we do.
[55:05.000 --> 55:10.000]  You go in there once every three or four years and state your case.
[55:10.000 --> 55:19.000]  He sits in there and hears the same thing over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.
[55:19.000 --> 55:27.000]  So sometimes I can understand why judges get kind of cranky and difficult.
[55:27.000 --> 55:29.000]  They get bored.
[55:29.000 --> 55:36.000]  When I go before the court, I try to bring them something that gets their attention.
[55:36.000 --> 55:42.000]  The last time I was in the court, the judge wasn't happy, but he wasn't bored,
[55:42.000 --> 55:47.000]  and he really wasn't angry.
[55:47.000 --> 55:52.000]  He read my pleading, and about three or four backing forth between me
[55:52.000 --> 55:55.000]  and the other lawyer, and the judge said,
[55:55.000 --> 55:59.000]  Mr. Kelton, what are you doing here?
[55:59.000 --> 56:03.000]  Well, Judge, I'm here. They're trying to steal my property.
[56:03.000 --> 56:09.000]  I know, I know, Mr. Kelton, but what are you doing here?
[56:09.000 --> 56:13.000]  Because he looked at my pleading, and it really got his attention.
[56:13.000 --> 56:18.000]  He said, something else is going on here. I'm not getting the whole story.
[56:18.000 --> 56:23.000]  And I finally told him, well, I really didn't want to go here, Judge,
[56:23.000 --> 56:27.000]  but you see, I do this radio show on legal reform.
[56:27.000 --> 56:30.000]  He said, you do? And what do you do on that show?
[56:30.000 --> 56:34.000]  Well, you see, it's like this.
[56:34.000 --> 56:38.000]  I show people how to go after public officials.
[56:38.000 --> 56:41.000]  Oh, you do? Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact.
[56:41.000 --> 56:44.000]  Well, what officials do you show them how to go after?
[56:44.000 --> 56:51.000]  Well, prosecutors and district judges and county judges,
[56:51.000 --> 56:54.000]  and he said, and justice is in the peace?
[56:54.000 --> 56:56.000]  Well, yeah, justice is in the peace.
[56:56.000 --> 56:59.000]  He said, justice is in the peace.
[56:59.000 --> 57:02.000]  That was absolutely hilarious.
[57:02.000 --> 57:06.000]  The whole courtroom was trying to keep from breaking out laughing,
[57:06.000 --> 57:10.000]  and even he was trying to keep from laughing.
[57:10.000 --> 57:19.000]  He ruled against me, but I didn't trigger anything really negative in him,
[57:19.000 --> 57:25.000]  so he would rule against me even when he may later wish he hadn't,
[57:25.000 --> 57:32.000]  just because he was upset or angry or frustrated or I triggered some personal prejudice.
[57:32.000 --> 57:37.000]  We want to watch for that kind of thing, you know, kind of remember where the Judge lives.
[57:37.000 --> 57:41.000]  You have to give the Judge facts and law.
[57:41.000 --> 57:44.000]  That's all he can pay attention to.
[57:44.000 --> 57:48.000]  Anything beyond that, you're going to trigger responses you may not like,
[57:48.000 --> 57:52.000]  so that's all I got to say on that subject.
[57:52.000 --> 57:56.000]  I hope this works for you. Let us know how it works out.
[57:56.000 --> 57:58.000]  Okay, thank you, Andy.
[57:58.000 --> 58:01.000]  You can probably get rid of this whole thing.
[58:01.000 --> 58:06.000]  You never have to go to court if the lawyer on the other side thinks you're paying attention,
[58:06.000 --> 58:11.000]  especially if you've already bar-grieved him. That's going to help.
[58:11.000 --> 58:13.000]  Okay, thank you, Marshall.
[58:13.000 --> 58:15.000]  We're about to go to break.
[58:15.000 --> 58:20.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio.
[58:20.000 --> 58:25.000]  I see Mark in Wisconsin, Gary in Texas, Rob in New Mexico.
[58:25.000 --> 58:31.000]  We're going to our top-of-the-hour break, so this will be a little bit longer when we get back.
[58:31.000 --> 58:36.000]  I have it on screen. We will get that when we get back.
[58:36.000 --> 58:39.000]  But I will get to all of you, so hang in there.
[58:39.000 --> 58:45.000]  Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, 512-646-1984.
[58:45.000 --> 58:50.000]  Best to give us a call earlier. We have a lot tonight, so they're going to build up.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:01.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:06.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.000 --> 59:11.000]  It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God
[59:11.000 --> 59:13.000]  and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:24.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.000 --> 59:28.000]  growing in Christ, and how to build up the Church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:34.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:34.000 --> 59:45.000]  call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  You're listening to The Liberty Beat, your daily source for Liberty news and activist updates,
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:15.000]  online at TheLibertyBeat.com.
[01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:19.000]  Don Bush here with Your Liberty Beat for Friday, August 2, 2013.
[01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:26.000]  Gold opened today at $1,300, silver at $19.71, and bitcoin is trading at $106.
[01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:31.000]  Supports of The Liberty Beat comes from Cabo Bob's, the first high-priced toast corn syrup,
[01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:35.000]  free quick-serve restaurant in the country, serving Baja California-style burritos
[01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  and non-GMO corn tortillas and chips, and Austin at 500 East Fenway Boulevard,
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:45.000]  or by phone at 512-432-1111.
[01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:47.000]  And now the news.
[01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  Postmaster General Patrick Donahue has revealed that the Postal Service takes pictures
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:54.000]  of every piece of mail processed in the United States.
[01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  In a recent interview with the Associated Press,
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  Donahue said the photos of the exterior of mail pieces are kept on hand for up to a month
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:05.000]  and used for the sorting process as well as to assist law enforcement.
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:08.000]  The Postmaster General went on to say that there is no central database of images
[01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:12.000]  because the images are kept on independent machines at facilities around the country.
[01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:16.000]  Machines take photographs so software can read the images to create a barcode
[01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:19.000]  that is stamped on the mail to show where and when it was processed
[01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  and where it will be delivered.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  The program, known as Mail and Isolation Control and Tracking,
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  was created after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed five people.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  The program collects information from the outside of your mail,
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  including names, addresses, return addresses, and postmark locations,
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:39.000]  in the hopes of providing the government and law enforcement with a map of your contacts
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  in order to solve crimes.
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:48.000]  Journalists Jason Leopold and Ryan Shapiro filed a joint suit on Friday
[01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  after the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to respond to their Freedom of Information Act requests
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  within the 20-hour working day period required by law.
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:01.000]  Following prominent journalist Michael Hastings' mysterious death in an early morning crash last month,
[01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:04.000]  Leopold and Shapiro both sent FOIA requests to the FBI.
[01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  Channel 6 in San Diego has also investigated the death, filing FOIA requests for the police report,
[01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:16.000]  911 call, autopsy, bomb squad, and toxicology reports that they say continue to be ignored by the LAPD.
[01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:19.000]  Suspicions surrounding Hastings' death began to arise when it was revealed
[01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  that he had sent out an email to friends 15 hours before his crash,
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:27.000]  stating he was on to a big story and needed to go off the radar for a bit.
[01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:31.000]  WikiLeaks also reported that Hastings had contacted them a few hours before his death,
[01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  complaining of being under investigation by the FBI.
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:37.000]  Support for the Liberty Beat comes from Brave New Books,
[01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  Austin's only brick and mortar store carrying tinny tangerine 2.0,
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  in Austin, 1904 Guadalupe Street, or online at bravenewbookstore.com,
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  and from Central Texas Gumworks, CHL courses, self-defense training, and firearm sales,
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:52.000]  online at centraltexasgumworks.com.
[01:02:52.000 --> 01:02:55.000]  This is the Liberty Beat for August 2, 2013.
[01:02:55.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  Be sure to check out our new and improved website at thelibertybeat.com.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:14.000]  It's all according to the will of the Almighty. I read his book and it says,
[01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  Come see your journey.
[01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  with my body. Ain't gonna pay for the car with my money. I won't pay for the fun with
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:44.000]  my body. The plans wicked and the logic shoddy. Ain't gonna pay for the oil with my money.
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:48.920]  Luke K, we are back. Brandy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Wheel of Life Radio, and we're going
[01:03:48.920 --> 01:03:57.920]  to Gary in Texas. Hello, Gary. There we go. Hello, Gary. Where have you been? It's been
[01:03:57.920 --> 01:04:03.160]  a long time. Hey, man. I've been keeping underwater for a while, but I came up here
[01:04:03.160 --> 01:04:16.200]  tonight just for you. Oh, good for you. Yeah, listen, I've got a question. My young son
[01:04:16.200 --> 01:04:27.000]  got stopped last year for a DUI. The court never prosecuted it. They decided to, and
[01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:32.440]  really I'm very thankful that they did. They did not prosecute the DWI. They did a lesser
[01:04:32.440 --> 01:04:41.640]  charge and he's on a six month probation, which is okay. So anyway, we get, or he gets
[01:04:41.640 --> 01:04:52.080]  a notice from the Department of Public Safety that they are going to suspend his license.
[01:04:52.080 --> 01:05:04.680]  So he filed for the hearing. They sent a notice of hearing to the wrong address. Seven days
[01:05:04.680 --> 01:05:12.240]  later, they sent a notice of hearing to the right address, but they set the hearing for
[01:05:12.240 --> 01:05:22.960]  five business days after they mailed the notice. So he didn't even get the notice of hearing.
[01:05:22.960 --> 01:05:31.920]  20 days later, he gets another letter stating that they have decided that they have authorization
[01:05:31.920 --> 01:05:41.880]  to suspend his license. And yesterday, he gets a letter stating that on July the 8th,
[01:05:41.880 --> 01:05:50.280]  they suspended his license. Their letter was dated July 22nd, and it was not postmarked
[01:05:50.280 --> 01:06:00.440]  until July 30th. So no notice, no notice, no notice, no notice. So anyway, I'm thinking
[01:06:00.440 --> 01:06:05.000]  I need a little help on this. I'm thinking that what we need to do immediately is go
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:18.200]  to the court and file a request for occupational license. The county attorney has already said
[01:06:18.200 --> 01:06:24.880]  that she will not oppose that motion. And then I'm thinking we need to follow up and
[01:06:24.880 --> 01:06:35.000]  sue the director of the DPS for all sorts of stuff. But I wanted to have your opinion
[01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:39.880]  on whether or not you would handle it the way I'm thinking of handling it.
[01:06:39.880 --> 01:06:49.040]  Okay. What I would do is I would sue the director of the DPS for all sorts of stuff. That's
[01:06:49.040 --> 01:06:56.400]  exactly how you should do it, in my opinion, because all of those other guys work for the
[01:06:56.400 --> 01:07:07.800]  director. They work for him as respondee at Superior. The director works for you. So absolutely
[01:07:07.800 --> 01:07:15.760]  sue the director. He is not going to be happy. Before you sue him, send him a tort letter.
[01:07:15.760 --> 01:07:22.640]  And notify him of all the stress, that all of this stress has driven your son to drink.
[01:07:22.640 --> 01:07:30.440]  That he's completely off the booze after the last debacle, but this has caused so much
[01:07:30.440 --> 01:07:40.280]  stress. Look what you've done, you scoundrels. But when the director gets this and you accuse
[01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:48.200]  his people of not following law and not following policy, this seems to be some sort of standard
[01:07:48.200 --> 01:07:58.160]  procedure on part of the DPS. I would suggest that if you want your situation adjudicated
[01:07:58.160 --> 01:08:11.040]  better, you might look at the likelihood of a private attorney general suit. They've probably
[01:08:11.040 --> 01:08:19.760]  done this to a lot of other people. If they're this outrageously behind on everything, then
[01:08:19.760 --> 01:08:30.760]  they might do this once, but not every time. That's a pattern. That's a pattern that includes
[01:08:30.760 --> 01:08:39.160]  predicate acts toward an ongoing criminal conspiracy. They're going to, by revoking
[01:08:39.160 --> 01:08:46.520]  his license, you come back and you fight them and then you get the license back and then
[01:08:46.520 --> 01:08:53.280]  they get the SR 22 and they charge him all sorts of fines and fees. This is all about
[01:08:53.280 --> 01:09:03.240]  getting more money from the public. So accuse them of doing this as a pattern of improper
[01:09:03.240 --> 01:09:10.600]  behavior. Accused the director of doing it. The director is not going to like being accused.
[01:09:10.600 --> 01:09:22.600]  So do this in a tort letter first. Accus them of deliberately failing to give proper notice
[01:09:22.600 --> 01:09:32.800]  and I need to talk to Ken. I keep forgetting which one it is. I think it's 240 or 241 Code
[01:09:32.800 --> 01:09:38.880]  of Criminal Procedure. While we're talking, let me see if I can do a quick search. Pre-litigation
[01:09:38.880 --> 01:09:53.080]  discovery. We have pre-litigation discovery in Texas. Pre-litigation discovery. Pre-litigation
[01:09:53.080 --> 01:10:04.440]  discovery, discovery for the purpose of preserving evidence. It's a Texas rule of civil procedure
[01:10:04.440 --> 01:10:12.080]  tool 2.1. A person may petition the court for an order authorizing the taking of a pre-suit
[01:10:12.080 --> 01:10:19.040]  deposition to perpetuate or obtain the person's own testimony or that of any other person
[01:10:19.040 --> 01:10:25.640]  for use in an anticipated suit to investigate a potential claim suit. The petition must
[01:10:25.640 --> 01:10:31.880]  be verified, be filed, blah, blah, blah, blah. You can petition for pre-litigation discovery.
[01:10:31.880 --> 01:10:42.640]  If you file a tort letter with the DPS, before you can sue the DPS or any governmental agency
[01:10:42.640 --> 01:10:49.120]  in Texas and it's this way through most states, you have to send them a tort letter, notify
[01:10:49.120 --> 01:10:55.280]  them that you have been harmed and give them opportunity to cure. They will always refuse
[01:10:55.280 --> 01:11:02.120]  to cure as a matter of course and because they kind of feel like they have qualified
[01:11:02.120 --> 01:11:08.800]  immunity or sovereign immunity and you're going to maintain that the actions that harmed
[01:11:08.800 --> 01:11:18.000]  you were illegal actions and therefore not within scope. It makes them suable. You might
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:26.680]  consider suing the state of Texas itself. If you sue the state of Texas itself, you
[01:11:26.680 --> 01:11:38.600]  sue them in Washington DC, the Supreme. That would be great fun. And for the most part
[01:11:38.600 --> 01:11:46.000]  when you deal with the feds, you don't ever have to go into court. What I do, what I help
[01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:55.760]  people file a federal suit is include an objection to oral argument. Since you're pro se, you
[01:11:55.760 --> 01:12:01.880]  maintain that oral argument would create an unfair burden on the pro se litigant. Move
[01:12:01.880 --> 01:12:07.400]  the court to make all its rulings on the pleadings. Especially in the federal court, they do not
[01:12:07.400 --> 01:12:14.320]  want to see you in court. They want to render all the rulings based on the pleadings without
[01:12:14.320 --> 01:12:20.200]  oral argument. Anyway, that's the suggestion. What do you think Gary?
[01:12:20.200 --> 01:12:32.880]  I have another question. What do you think about filing causes of action against the
[01:12:32.880 --> 01:12:41.760]  director and the administrative judges involved in this conspiracy in the county constitutional
[01:12:41.760 --> 01:12:56.480]  court rather than the county court of law? You can't. The constitutional court is only
[01:12:56.480 --> 01:13:06.840]  the commissioner's court. They don't have any judicial powers. The civil litigation
[01:13:06.840 --> 01:13:17.520]  is relegated to the county court of law. Now you sue the constitutional court in the county.
[01:13:17.520 --> 01:13:26.720]  If the issue concerns county employees or a county elected official, then that's who
[01:13:26.720 --> 01:13:45.320]  you would sue is the commissioner's court. Okay. That's interesting. So any county official,
[01:13:45.320 --> 01:13:53.800]  would that also include any official that is under the jurisdiction of the county?
[01:13:53.800 --> 01:14:04.080]  Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Any elected official who is a county official,
[01:14:04.080 --> 01:14:13.800]  county attorney, county clerk, not district attorney, or anyone who works for the county,
[01:14:13.800 --> 01:14:19.000]  that'll go to the county commissioner's court. District attorney, district clerk, district
[01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:24.080]  judge, that goes to the state because they're state officials.
[01:14:24.080 --> 01:14:27.160]  Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. All right.
[01:14:27.160 --> 01:14:29.800]  It depends on who pays them.
[01:14:29.800 --> 01:14:39.440]  Okay. That's clear. Follow the money. I wanted to ask you, is there any way that when you
[01:14:39.440 --> 01:15:01.680]  go to break, could you speak to me privately for just a moment? Hello, Randy?
[01:15:01.680 --> 01:15:08.880]  Somebody you did my mic again when I wasn't looking. Yeah, we can try to do that when
[01:15:08.880 --> 01:15:15.560]  we go to break. I'll have the producer bring you up on the guest bridge. Normally on break
[01:15:15.560 --> 01:15:20.840]  on the call in bridge, you can't hear us on the break, but I'll have you bring you up
[01:15:20.840 --> 01:15:26.200]  to the guest bridge. Okay. We can do that.
[01:15:26.200 --> 01:15:29.040]  Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[01:15:29.040 --> 01:15:37.440]  Okay. You are welcome. Now we're going to go to Mark in Wisconsin. Mark, what kind of
[01:15:37.440 --> 01:15:46.240]  trouble have you been causing now? I've been pretty calm lately. I did have a question
[01:15:46.240 --> 01:15:51.800]  for you though. I got somebody with a due process violation and I wanted to see if we
[01:15:51.800 --> 01:15:55.240]  could take it to federal court to see if we could get out of these making malice municipal
[01:15:55.240 --> 01:16:00.800]  courts and all that. I was looking at another case and an attorney brought a similar case.
[01:16:00.800 --> 01:16:06.800]  It was a Title 42, 1983 case and he brought it for violating the 14th amendment. I heard
[01:16:06.800 --> 01:16:12.360]  Deborah and Eddie say a couple of times, do not bring the constitution in. You have to
[01:16:12.360 --> 01:16:22.040]  bring it in under something else. Right. Constitution is a restrictive document. It merely restricts
[01:16:22.040 --> 01:16:29.320]  public officials from doing certain things. Never bring the constitution into the court
[01:16:29.320 --> 01:16:39.480]  unless you're claiming one of the privileges that are specifically protected by the constitution.
[01:16:39.480 --> 01:16:45.680]  What you bring into court are claims and you do those based on statutes. Statutes are causes
[01:16:45.680 --> 01:16:51.280]  of action. So everything's in the constitution is in statutes. So that is not hard. Okay.
[01:16:51.280 --> 01:16:55.320]  Hang on. We're going to break. This is Randy Felton, Deborah Stevens, Wheel of Law Radio,
[01:16:55.320 --> 01:17:02.320]  our calling number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:17:25.320 --> 01:17:53.000]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine is available at Brave New Books, located at 1904 Guadalupe Street.
[01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:58.120]  The bookstore also carries the works of Dr. Joel Wallach, founder of Young Jeopardy and
[01:17:58.120 --> 01:18:03.880]  creator of Beyond Tangy Tangerine. At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your
[01:18:03.880 --> 01:18:08.040]  preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding
[01:18:08.040 --> 01:18:12.720]  value at an affordable price. Capital Coin features a great selection of high quality
[01:18:12.720 --> 01:18:17.240]  coins and precious metals. In addition to providing the best prices in the nation, we
[01:18:17.240 --> 01:18:22.200]  want to bring you the best shopping experience both in store and online. In addition to coins
[01:18:22.200 --> 01:18:26.680]  and bullion, we carry popular Young Jeopardy products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and
[01:18:26.680 --> 01:18:32.360]  Pollenburst. We offer freeze-dried storable foods by Augustin Farms, Berkey Water Products,
[01:18:32.360 --> 01:18:37.040]  ammunition at 10% above wholesale and more. You can lock in a spot price with our silver
[01:18:37.040 --> 01:18:44.400]  pool and we set up metals IRA accounts. Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details. We're
[01:18:44.400 --> 01:18:49.800]  located at 7304 Burnett Road Suite A, about a half a mile south of Emerson. We're open
[01:18:49.800 --> 01:18:55.360]  Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2. Visit us at capitalcoinandbullion.com
[01:18:55.360 --> 01:19:22.760]  or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:25.360 --> 01:19:35.560]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, into Mark in Wisconsin.
[01:19:35.560 --> 01:19:37.560]  Okay, Mark, go ahead.
[01:19:37.560 --> 01:19:44.360]  Yeah, so this attorney, all he did was bring in the 14th Amendment and claim violations
[01:19:44.360 --> 01:19:49.760]  of illegal search and seizure. And I've got a filmer case, but it's not illegal search
[01:19:49.760 --> 01:19:57.560]  and seizure. It's just due process violations. They're completely going against the statutes.
[01:19:57.560 --> 01:20:05.280]  Yeah, that's the way to do it, going against the statutes, because I haven't seen anything
[01:20:05.280 --> 01:20:09.080]  in the Constitution that's not been codified in the statute.
[01:20:09.080 --> 01:20:16.440]  All right. So if they're breaking procedure, what do you think a good cause of action would
[01:20:16.440 --> 01:20:17.440]  be?
[01:20:17.440 --> 01:20:28.920]  Oh, due process. Due process is harm per se. Okay, depends on what they did. Okay, if it's
[01:20:28.920 --> 01:20:35.080]  false imprisonment, false imprisonment is a cause of action, at least it is here in Texas.
[01:20:35.080 --> 01:20:45.120]  False imprisonment is not a crime. The crime for false imprisonment is kidnapping. False
[01:20:45.120 --> 01:20:52.120]  imprisonment in Texas is a cause of action. It's like conversion. Conversion used to be
[01:20:52.120 --> 01:20:57.800]  a cause of action. Now they've changed it into a crime. And now they have a separate
[01:20:57.800 --> 01:21:07.400]  statute that establishes a cause of action for conversion. So you might look at your
[01:21:07.400 --> 01:21:15.760]  statutes. Do you have any litigation guides there in Wisconsin?
[01:21:15.760 --> 01:21:21.440]  Specifically for Wisconsin, not that I know of, no.
[01:21:21.440 --> 01:21:27.320]  You might call a lawyer at law office and tell them your kid's doing a paper in high
[01:21:27.320 --> 01:21:34.240]  school or something and ask him, what are the major primary litigation guides for Wisconsin?
[01:21:34.240 --> 01:21:38.760]  There absolutely has to be some. Yeah, the last time I did that, one lawyer
[01:21:38.760 --> 01:21:43.120]  said, I just got rid of a boatload of that last week. And the rest of the attorneys say,
[01:21:43.120 --> 01:21:47.520]  oh, it's all electronic now, we can't even give it to you.
[01:21:47.520 --> 01:21:55.920]  Yeah, call two or three attorneys, one of them, Eddie did that. And I had a woman in
[01:21:55.920 --> 01:22:01.760]  Randall County do that. Eddie got a truckload. The woman in Randall County, second lawyer
[01:22:01.760 --> 01:22:06.880]  she called, she asked if you had any old litigation guides laying around.
[01:22:06.880 --> 01:22:18.680]  And he said to her, do you have a station wagon or a pickup truck? They get these and
[01:22:18.680 --> 01:22:23.880]  they renew them. And when they renew them, they don't want them using the old ones. And
[01:22:23.880 --> 01:22:28.320]  they never bothered to throw them out. They just push them back in the corner.
[01:22:28.320 --> 01:22:33.720]  So if one's a couple of years old, we don't care because they'll have all the forms there.
[01:22:33.720 --> 01:22:41.520]  We have Texas Causes of Action. It is absolutely incredible. We have Texas Civil Trials. It
[01:22:41.520 --> 01:22:48.160]  lists every motion you can think of. How to file it, when to file it, all the supporting
[01:22:48.160 --> 01:22:55.440]  case law, how to argue against it. These lawyers don't start this stuff from scratch.
[01:22:55.440 --> 01:23:04.120]  No, they probably could. But it would be a really bad idea.
[01:23:04.120 --> 01:23:10.320]  Because it's like I was talking about the judge earlier. Here's the stuff over and over.
[01:23:10.320 --> 01:23:18.540]  When he gets a motion for a particular thing, it always looks the same. Because all these
[01:23:18.540 --> 01:23:25.760]  lawyers use the litigation guide. So he finds all of the parts exactly where he expects
[01:23:25.760 --> 01:23:34.320]  to find them. When he looks at jurisdiction and venue, it will have exactly the case law
[01:23:34.320 --> 01:23:41.680]  he expects to see. That he's seen a hundred times. All he needs to do is see what it looks
[01:23:41.680 --> 01:23:46.920]  like and he knows what the case law is. He does not need to look at it.
[01:23:46.920 --> 01:23:52.880]  The only thing he needs to pay attention to on this document is what's different in the
[01:23:52.880 --> 01:23:59.180]  statement of the case. All the rest of that, he wants to pay attention to it. In the statement
[01:23:59.180 --> 01:24:03.880]  of the case, for the most part, it's going to have the same case law. Maybe one or two
[01:24:03.880 --> 01:24:10.400]  cases is new or different. That's why you hear these guys kicking these cases back and
[01:24:10.400 --> 01:24:15.040]  forth and everybody knows what the cases are. That's because they're litigation guys. They
[01:24:15.040 --> 01:24:17.160]  do same ones over and over.
[01:24:17.160 --> 01:24:22.960]  If you want the judge to give you a good reading, give him one based on the litigation guide.
[01:24:22.960 --> 01:24:31.120]  So find that first and you will have one that lists all of the causes of action, all of
[01:24:31.120 --> 01:24:40.920]  the torts and the due process. It'll tell you how to sue government agencies. It gives
[01:24:40.920 --> 01:24:47.680]  you all of these practice details that you need. It'll make your job a whole lot easier.
[01:24:47.680 --> 01:24:52.360]  Is there any way to get that online? Because I've got access to a law library down here
[01:24:52.360 --> 01:24:54.680]  and they've got a pretty huge...
[01:24:54.680 --> 01:25:01.480]  Oh yeah. I bet they all have it. Just ask the librarian, what's the primary litigation
[01:25:01.480 --> 01:25:13.720]  guide for Wisconsin? And they will absolutely have it. I like to have old copies. I have
[01:25:13.720 --> 01:25:19.480]  a couple of them here that I want to take to a printer and have him cut the binding
[01:25:19.480 --> 01:25:25.800]  off of it so I can drop it in my scanner. I need a duplex scanner. I want to scan it
[01:25:25.800 --> 01:25:36.000]  into an electronic format. So if I want to do a particular motion, I want to do a temporary
[01:25:36.000 --> 01:25:45.120]  restraining order, I can just go and pull the page with that audit. Now actually, I
[01:25:45.120 --> 01:25:51.680]  don't know if you have it in Wisconsin or not, but O'Connor's has O'Connor's forms.
[01:25:51.680 --> 01:25:58.560]  So I have all of the forms for every kind of motion you can think of. And I'm in the
[01:25:58.560 --> 01:26:06.920]  process now of getting them broke apart into sections because every motion has... It has
[01:26:06.920 --> 01:26:16.440]  a header, it has a salutation of closing, it has a verification, a certificate of service,
[01:26:16.440 --> 01:26:24.520]  all of these things. It has a venue, jurisdiction and venue will almost always be the same.
[01:26:24.520 --> 01:26:30.320]  There are these sections that are almost always the same, don't change much. I'm going to
[01:26:30.320 --> 01:26:37.000]  program those into a database. You open a page, you fill out the questionnaire and bam,
[01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:43.640]  it spits it out. But if you check the litigation guides, they will probably have the forms
[01:26:43.640 --> 01:26:53.840]  on CD. Now there are forms you have to go in and fill in the blanks. But even so, quick
[01:26:53.840 --> 01:26:59.840]  story, friend of mine's in foreclosure, needs a TRO, he's a fellow researcher, he writes
[01:26:59.840 --> 01:27:04.680]  one, he sends it to me, asked me what I think. I read it, I said, I read it, kids, piece
[01:27:04.680 --> 01:27:09.120]  of crap. He said, think you can do better? I said, darn right I could. I sent him one,
[01:27:09.120 --> 01:27:14.280]  he went to court with it, gave it to the judge, the lawyer showed up, he didn't expect him
[01:27:14.280 --> 01:27:20.080]  to, they go in, the judge hands the lawyer his hat, gives him the TRO. They come out,
[01:27:20.080 --> 01:27:24.960]  the lawyer said, are you an attorney? He said, well no I'm not, but my brother is. Did you
[01:27:24.960 --> 01:27:33.920]  write this? He said, well I had some help. He said, this is very good. And Ken told me
[01:27:33.920 --> 01:27:41.440]  that and I'm thinking, what in the world is going on here? I took that right out of O'Connor's
[01:27:41.440 --> 01:27:43.920]  forms and filled in the blanks.
[01:27:43.920 --> 01:27:47.440]  They call that very good.
[01:27:47.440 --> 01:27:53.520]  But the judge, no he looked at it, it took me a while to figure it out. The lawyer looked
[01:27:53.520 --> 01:28:01.760]  at it and thought, what the heck? This pro se filed a motion exactly like we do. How
[01:28:01.760 --> 01:28:07.400]  did he do that? He's a new lawyer, they give the new lawyers the pro se's. The new lawyer
[01:28:07.400 --> 01:28:14.600]  didn't realize this was taken out of O'Connor's forms. That law firm used the same forms and
[01:28:14.600 --> 01:28:21.280]  that's why he got the TRO because the judge gets a pleading from a pro se and it looks
[01:28:21.280 --> 01:28:26.760]  exactly like a lawyer did it.
[01:28:26.760 --> 01:28:35.160]  They give the litigation gods, they are just invaluable as an aid. And all your questions
[01:28:35.160 --> 01:28:41.320]  about causes of action and how to plead them, they'll all be in there.
[01:28:41.320 --> 01:28:46.160]  Right I was going to say, I know you're a master plagiarist Randy, but if you make that
[01:28:46.160 --> 01:28:50.600]  O'Connor is available for everybody, somebody's going to be coming after you.
[01:28:50.600 --> 01:28:58.800]  Well I'm breaking them apart and I will be making theirs directly available. I'll be
[01:28:58.800 --> 01:29:02.640]  breaking them apart. Once they're filed in the court, they're public domain anyway so
[01:29:02.640 --> 01:29:07.880]  they can't make that claim unless I just take that CD and make it available and I won't
[01:29:07.880 --> 01:29:14.520]  do that. And that's just a matter of integrity, I wouldn't do that. But I'll take all the
[01:29:14.520 --> 01:29:20.240]  parts and break them apart in separate pieces and this is not like what O'Connor's does.
[01:29:20.240 --> 01:29:25.200]  You go in, I'll build a questionnaire. You fill out the questionnaire and based on your
[01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:30.320]  answers it will go to different places in the database and pull pieces and drop the
[01:29:30.320 --> 01:29:31.320]  pieces in.
[01:29:31.320 --> 01:29:36.040]  And I'll be rewriting the pieces. This is going to be the electronic lawyer.
[01:29:36.040 --> 01:29:40.200]  Right. Okay well thanks a lot.
[01:29:40.200 --> 01:29:46.080]  Okay. Thank you Mark. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. Our call
[01:29:46.080 --> 01:29:56.440]  in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. Calls tend to build up toward the end. So give us
[01:29:56.440 --> 01:29:59.760]  a call, get in line, we'll be right back.
[01:29:59.760 --> 01:30:06.080]  Should U.S. Postal Service mail trucks become government spy mobiles? One high ranking attorney
[01:30:06.080 --> 01:30:10.680]  with the Postal Regulatory Commission thinks it's a great idea. I'm Dr. Catherine Albert.
[01:30:10.680 --> 01:30:14.680]  I'll be back with the Orwellian postal proposal in just a moment.
[01:30:14.680 --> 01:30:20.000]  Your search engine is watching you, recording all your searches and creating a massive database
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:21.680]  of your personal information.
[01:30:21.680 --> 01:30:22.960]  That's creepy.
[01:30:22.960 --> 01:30:25.080]  But it doesn't have to be that way.
[01:30:25.080 --> 01:30:29.320]  Startpage.com is the world's most private search engine. Startpage doesn't store your
[01:30:29.320 --> 01:30:33.440]  IP address, make a record of your searches or use tracking cookies and they're third
[01:30:33.440 --> 01:30:39.080]  party certified. If you don't like big brother spying on you, start over with Startpage.
[01:30:39.080 --> 01:30:41.680]  Great search results and total privacy.
[01:30:41.680 --> 01:30:44.960]  Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:30:44.960 --> 01:30:49.600]  The U.S. Postal Service is in financial trouble, but a senior postal official thinks he has
[01:30:49.600 --> 01:30:55.080]  the answer, selling postal surveillance services. Chief Counsel Michael Rabnitsky believes equipping
[01:30:55.080 --> 01:30:59.440]  mail delivery trucks with high tech snooping equipment could be quite profitable. He wants
[01:30:59.440 --> 01:31:04.680]  onboard cameras to take Google-esque snapshots of the 4 million miles of city streets and
[01:31:04.680 --> 01:31:09.720]  rural roads that postal workers drive every day. He also wants invasive sensors to map
[01:31:09.720 --> 01:31:15.520]  private communication signals, scan the environment for biohazards, and monitor citizens' home-based
[01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:16.520]  activities.
[01:31:16.520 --> 01:31:20.320]  The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects us from this kind of unreasonable
[01:31:20.320 --> 01:31:24.080]  search and seizure. Join me in opposing this invasive scheme.
[01:31:24.080 --> 01:31:30.920]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.920 --> 01:31:35.080]  Here at Zombie Killer Ammo and Guns, we believe that the Second Amendment guarantees our rights
[01:31:35.080 --> 01:31:39.200]  as citizens to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones. We also believe that the
[01:31:39.200 --> 01:31:43.680]  right to carry weapons comes with the responsibility of being safe and smart about guns. So if
[01:31:43.680 --> 01:31:51.240]  you're going to be in the Corpus Christi area, give us a call at 361-704-6103. Ask for Chris
[01:31:51.240 --> 01:31:56.040]  or Portia and mention this radio ad for a 10% discount. We can ship ammo, parts, and
[01:31:56.040 --> 01:32:00.040]  accessories. Like us on Facebook at Zombie Killers, LLC.
[01:32:00.040 --> 01:32:06.680]  Nutritious food is real body armor. It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion, and
[01:32:06.680 --> 01:32:11.320]  feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs. Did you know the U.S. government banned the
[01:32:11.320 --> 01:32:15.760]  hemp plant from growing in the United States and classified it as a Schedule I drug to
[01:32:15.760 --> 01:32:20.040]  hide it behind the marijuana plant? People have been confused about this plant for over
[01:32:20.040 --> 01:32:26.000]  80 years and many still don't know what hemp is. So now you know hemp is not marijuana
[01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:31.680]  and marijuana is not hemp. They are different varieties of the same species. HempUSA.org
[01:32:31.680 --> 01:32:36.320]  wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein
[01:32:36.320 --> 01:32:41.160]  powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about. Remember, hemp protein
[01:32:41.160 --> 01:32:47.760]  powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO, and is loaded
[01:32:47.760 --> 01:32:56.560]  with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367. 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can
[01:32:56.560 --> 01:33:06.080]  do for you. Only at HempUSA.org. Looking for some truth? You found it. Logos
[01:33:06.080 --> 01:33:13.080]  Radio Network dot com.
[01:33:36.080 --> 01:33:47.880]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, Rue of La Radio. And we're going to Rob in
[01:33:47.880 --> 01:34:00.280]  New Mexico. Hello Senior Rob. Hey Randy, how's it going? Doing well. What do you have going
[01:34:00.280 --> 01:34:07.600]  on tonight? Well, I'm on my last day's deadline for filing
[01:34:07.600 --> 01:34:17.880]  an appeal to the 10th Circuit if I want to on the magistrate's judgment order issuing
[01:34:17.880 --> 01:34:26.120]  $2,000 sanctions against me for alleged discovery violations. So my first question is, since
[01:34:26.120 --> 01:34:34.120]  I objected to everything up until that point, including citing how the case that he cited
[01:34:34.120 --> 01:34:40.600]  to justify issuing the sanctions totally does not apply in this case, do I need to spend
[01:34:40.600 --> 01:34:45.040]  the $450 trying to get into the 10th Circuit yet when I'm probably going to have to spend
[01:34:45.040 --> 01:34:57.080]  $450 to get the whole case into the 10th Circuit? Well, that is a good question. Rather you
[01:34:57.080 --> 01:35:05.920]  throw in good money after bad because the courts are corrupt. But then when the circuit
[01:35:05.920 --> 01:35:15.280]  court renders a ruling, that becomes law. So if the circuit court rules that the trial
[01:35:15.280 --> 01:35:24.000]  judge or the magistrate can ignore local law and issue sanctions, then that becomes precedent.
[01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:33.040]  That would be really, really bad. Yeah, they would not want that to happen.
[01:35:33.040 --> 01:35:38.560]  But it's my position. You should fight these guys. You should fight them all the way to
[01:35:38.560 --> 01:35:46.360]  the end. But you know, this is going to cost you time. And this is your last day to file
[01:35:46.360 --> 01:35:54.360]  an appeal? Yeah. A brief? Well, yeah. No, it's the last day to file the notice. I'm
[01:35:54.360 --> 01:36:02.480]  sorry. Last day to file a notice of appeal. Okay. Well, if it was today the last day or
[01:36:02.480 --> 01:36:11.280]  Monday the last day? I think tomorrow. I don't know if it goes by the date of mailing or
[01:36:11.280 --> 01:36:16.520]  date they receive it. I can't find that anywhere. But if it goes by date they receive it, I'm
[01:36:16.520 --> 01:36:21.320]  already out of luck. If it goes by date of mailing, it's the last day. If it goes by
[01:36:21.320 --> 01:36:30.760]  the date you receive it? By the date I receive it? Yes. Okay. Okay. Well, then I've got until
[01:36:30.760 --> 01:36:41.480]  Monday to file a notice of appeal. The judgment order was issued on the third. Okay. Well,
[01:36:41.480 --> 01:36:49.560]  I would identify it, but that's a decision you have to make. I can't make that one. That's
[01:36:49.560 --> 01:36:56.880]  your money that you're spending and your time, not mine. Right. Well, would I be hosed if
[01:36:56.880 --> 01:37:02.440]  I don't do it? I mean, since I've got all the objections on record, you know, I still
[01:37:02.440 --> 01:37:10.600]  got a valid appeal. So even if they toss the case because I didn't pay the $2,000 sanctions,
[01:37:10.600 --> 01:37:16.440]  that's still appealable, right, from the final decision? Yeah. Okay. Well, yeah, it would
[01:37:16.440 --> 01:37:24.920]  be appealable, but you would lose it because, wait a minute, the case is not over. You don't
[01:37:24.920 --> 01:37:32.080]  want an appeal yet. Well, no, this should be just an appeal of the judgment on the sanctions
[01:37:32.080 --> 01:37:38.640]  issued by a magistrate. Okay. Then you might want to appeal. It's costing $400 to appeal
[01:37:38.640 --> 01:37:49.160]  a $2,000 sanction. Yeah. There's a problem with that. I'm not going to pay the sanctions.
[01:37:49.160 --> 01:37:56.600]  So if, you know, he said in his order that if I don't pay them, that the case may be
[01:37:56.600 --> 01:38:03.000]  dismissed, but he didn't say it would be. And that was one of my objections is that
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:09.440]  he is not empowered to make any dispositorial rulings. Okay. And issuing sanctions I can't
[01:38:09.440 --> 01:38:18.760]  possibly pay is a de facto dispositorial ruling. If they dismiss based on the sanction, you
[01:38:18.760 --> 01:38:25.360]  could certainly dismiss that. I mean, I'm appealed at. Okay. So that might give you
[01:38:25.360 --> 01:38:31.360]  a better avenue to appeal. Right. Because then you could, you could appeal the sanction.
[01:38:31.360 --> 01:38:43.520]  This is not a, it's not a final determination of the case. So the case still ongoing. Okay.
[01:38:43.520 --> 01:38:53.080]  Did you judicial conduct complain the magistrate? Yeah. Did you sign a waiver authorizing the
[01:38:53.080 --> 01:39:07.040]  magistrate to intercede in the case? Heck no. Randy didn't. If you didn't, if you didn't
[01:39:07.040 --> 01:39:14.480]  sign the waiver, send me an email and I'll send you the brief I did on that subject.
[01:39:14.480 --> 01:39:22.320]  Is that the petition for reconsideration? No, that's an appeal brief. Oh, okay. Well,
[01:39:22.320 --> 01:39:29.280]  you sent me that one and I modified it and filed that already. Oh, okay. Well, I wrote
[01:39:29.280 --> 01:39:35.720]  an appeal on the magistrate on that very issue. Did I send you that? Yeah. This is the one
[01:39:35.720 --> 01:39:41.480]  about the magistrate lacking any authority to do basically. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, you
[01:39:41.480 --> 01:39:45.080]  did the appeal. All you have to do is change the names and dates and you've got the appeal
[01:39:45.080 --> 01:39:54.680]  then. Cool. Okay. My next question is, does the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment
[01:39:54.680 --> 01:40:04.200]  ever apply to civil cases or is that only criminal? That's on it. I don't see how it
[01:40:04.200 --> 01:40:16.600]  could apply to civil, civils of a different nature. That's a good question. That's a stump
[01:40:16.600 --> 01:40:26.320]  to chump question, but I don't think so because in a civil case, the plaintiff is the one
[01:40:26.320 --> 01:40:33.040]  that has to file the suit and by filing the suit, he makes appearance. In criminal, it
[01:40:33.040 --> 01:40:43.480]  is the prosecutor that files the suit. So the complainant doesn't necessarily make an
[01:40:43.480 --> 01:40:53.480]  appearance. In a civil, the complainant makes an appearance as a matter of course. That's
[01:40:53.480 --> 01:40:58.440]  the only way to institute the proceeding is the complainant actually institutes the proceeding.
[01:40:58.440 --> 01:41:10.040]  So he makes an appearance. More along the lines of using that to reinforce the statutes
[01:41:10.040 --> 01:41:18.640]  like the FDCPA and UCC 3501. Okay. Well, there's more to that, that argument
[01:41:18.640 --> 01:41:25.280]  that the person making the claim of standing in capacity, we talked about this last week
[01:41:25.280 --> 01:41:36.760]  somewhat is if the person coming to the court holds the note and if they hold the tangible
[01:41:36.760 --> 01:41:47.400]  note, the original wedding signature note and they hold the mortgage or deed of trust,
[01:41:47.400 --> 01:41:55.120]  that does not necessarily mean they have authority to collect because since 2000, it has been
[01:41:55.120 --> 01:42:04.040]  the practice of these banks to sell the beneficial interest on the note. Well, if the guy is
[01:42:04.040 --> 01:42:12.560]  standing here holding the note and the note is endorsed to him with a complete chain of
[01:42:12.560 --> 01:42:18.680]  endorsements from the original lender, that still doesn't mean he has standing to collect
[01:42:18.680 --> 01:42:30.160]  because if he has sold the beneficial interest, the right to the income stream, then by non-payment
[01:42:30.160 --> 01:42:38.680]  he cannot be harmed. So therefore he cannot bring a controversy before the court. The
[01:42:38.680 --> 01:42:44.280]  only one who can bring a controversy is the one who can be harmed and that is the one
[01:42:44.280 --> 01:42:52.200]  holding beneficial interest. But the beneficial interest holder doesn't hold the deed of trust
[01:42:52.200 --> 01:42:59.120]  or the mortgage, the security instrument. So they can't come to the court with an in
[01:42:59.120 --> 01:43:08.560]  realm against the property. They would simply have to sue you to recover the debt directly.
[01:43:08.560 --> 01:43:17.120]  Does that make sense Rob? Absolutely. Absolutely. It's kind of like me coming to you with a
[01:43:17.120 --> 01:43:24.280]  check that you wrote and I want you to make it good, but you wrote it to somebody else,
[01:43:24.280 --> 01:43:33.360]  not me. Yeah. You're going to say, well you don't have a right to be paid on it, that
[01:43:33.360 --> 01:43:38.720]  other guy over there does. Right and the only issue I'm having with that which I've pretty
[01:43:38.720 --> 01:43:43.720]  much overcome because they're not showing. Okay. Okay. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We're
[01:43:43.720 --> 01:43:48.880]  about to go to break. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Root of Law Radio. Our call
[01:43:48.880 --> 01:43:57.000]  in number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. This is our four hour info marathon. We'll be right
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:04.920]  back. You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics? Are you confused
[01:44:04.920 --> 01:44:09.400]  by words like the constitution or the federal reserve? What? If so, you may be diagnosed
[01:44:09.400 --> 01:44:15.160]  with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions
[01:44:15.160 --> 01:44:20.560]  of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[01:44:20.560 --> 01:44:26.040]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[01:44:26.040 --> 01:44:30.760]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at
[01:44:30.760 --> 01:44:34.600]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other foxaholics suffering from sports
[01:44:34.600 --> 01:44:39.840]  zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[01:44:39.840 --> 01:44:45.200]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from
[01:44:45.200 --> 01:44:53.280]  stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or brave new
[01:44:53.280 --> 01:44:57.000]  bookstore dot com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment
[01:44:57.000 --> 01:45:02.120]  and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff
[01:45:02.120 --> 01:45:08.400]  or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable,
[01:45:08.400 --> 01:45:15.640]  easy to understand, poor CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If
[01:45:15.640 --> 01:45:20.920]  you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know
[01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:26.200]  what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and
[01:45:26.200 --> 01:45:32.800]  now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[01:45:32.800 --> 01:45:38.240]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:38.240 --> 01:45:43.960]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[01:45:43.960 --> 01:45:51.320]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and
[01:45:51.320 --> 01:45:57.520]  much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[01:45:57.520 --> 01:46:26.920]  866-LAW-EASY.
[01:46:26.920 --> 01:46:32.040]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton Davis Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Rob
[01:46:32.040 --> 01:46:42.840]  in New Mexico. Okay, Rob, where were we? I got distracted on the break. We were busy
[01:46:42.840 --> 01:46:53.040]  telling truck driver jokes. Yeah, I believe that and I probably resemble that. Okay, where
[01:46:53.040 --> 01:46:58.880]  were we? We're talking about the tangible promissory note, the intangible promise to
[01:46:58.880 --> 01:47:09.680]  pay and the mortgage. Yeah, and anymore I'm looking more and more just at the breach of
[01:47:09.680 --> 01:47:17.400]  contract issues. Right. A lot easier for the judge to wrap his head around and it's more
[01:47:17.400 --> 01:47:26.960]  local. He's making a decision that's not going to extend beyond this particular case.
[01:47:26.960 --> 01:47:35.200]  The issue of the magistrate, that's a harder decision because that extends way beyond the
[01:47:35.200 --> 01:47:43.040]  case at bar. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, they have to rule, that goes to all the magistrates.
[01:47:43.040 --> 01:47:50.320]  But the argument that I wanted to make about the magistrate primarily is that you didn't
[01:47:50.320 --> 01:47:59.840]  file the waiver. You didn't sign the waiver. Right. So that makes it local. Well, and now
[01:47:59.840 --> 01:48:08.600]  he could rule, okay, you didn't sign the waiver, therefore you can't proceed. That's not saying,
[01:48:08.600 --> 01:48:16.200]  that's not a general ruling on the magistrates in whole, it's just a ruling on the particular
[01:48:16.200 --> 01:48:28.520]  facts of this case. And anytime we can, we want to keep the ruling that we ask for bound
[01:48:28.520 --> 01:48:37.080]  to the four corners of this particular pleading so that it doesn't bleed out into the general
[01:48:37.080 --> 01:48:45.520]  legal world and give the judge heartburn when he's trying to come up with a decision. We've
[01:48:45.520 --> 01:48:52.880]  done that before and a number of cases in the FCC case, they asked the judge to render
[01:48:52.880 --> 01:49:03.320]  a ruling that would affect everybody in the country. Right. They had the law and the case
[01:49:03.320 --> 01:49:11.040]  law and everything, but man, he just would not do it. And when he ruled, he essentially
[01:49:11.040 --> 01:49:18.720]  told the court of appeals to overturn his ruling. What he was saying is, I'm going to
[01:49:18.720 --> 01:49:28.080]  step off this dime and I'm going to let you climb up on it. It was clear that he from
[01:49:28.080 --> 01:49:35.440]  his answer, from his order, that he really believed we should have got the ruling we
[01:49:35.440 --> 01:49:43.400]  asked for, but he just didn't have the political courage to give it to us. So when we're crafting
[01:49:43.400 --> 01:49:52.480]  arguments for the courts, we need to realize everything is political and we do not want
[01:49:52.480 --> 01:50:00.600]  politics infringing on the decision we're trying to get the judge to make. Now we'll
[01:50:00.600 --> 01:50:07.560]  make those arguments like with the suit I'm putting together right now for the state,
[01:50:07.560 --> 01:50:16.800]  I'm accusing the lender of money laundering. Okay. This is what I'm claiming. This was
[01:50:16.800 --> 01:50:24.000]  so much fun to write. A lawyer could never do this. He'd get sanctioned. I maintained
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:35.040]  it at closing that prior to closing, the borrower exercised due diligence in that according
[01:50:35.040 --> 01:50:43.840]  to the statute, he is a unsophisticated purchaser. No matter how knowledgeable he is under statute,
[01:50:43.840 --> 01:50:51.080]  he is an unsophisticated purchaser because he is purchasing a residential property as
[01:50:51.080 --> 01:50:57.680]  a consumer. He's purchasing the property for the purpose of consuming the property by living
[01:50:57.680 --> 01:51:07.280]  inside it. So in an exercise of due diligence, he exercised care to ensure that he only dealt
[01:51:07.280 --> 01:51:16.240]  with licensed professions. And as such, he had a reason to expect good faith and fair
[01:51:16.240 --> 01:51:26.080]  dealing from these licensed professionals. At closing, the closing agent put before the
[01:51:26.080 --> 01:51:34.080]  lender a note and security instrument that the lender had never seen before. I'm sorry.
[01:51:34.080 --> 01:51:41.280]  The borrower had never seen before. The lender crafted the documents and made them available
[01:51:41.280 --> 01:51:50.840]  to the closing trustee or closing agent, whatever he's called in your state. And the agent made
[01:51:50.840 --> 01:51:57.720]  the document available to the borrower. And for the most part, the security instruments
[01:51:57.720 --> 01:52:07.120]  contain a footer that states that this is a Fannie Mae Freddie Mac uniform instrument.
[01:52:07.120 --> 01:52:14.920]  So that footer gave the borrower reason to believe that the document was uniform and
[01:52:14.920 --> 01:52:28.920]  regular. And at closing, the lender presented himself as a licensed lender, licensed with
[01:52:28.920 --> 01:52:40.240]  the federal government to engage in these kinds of loans. And he did so by giving and
[01:52:40.240 --> 01:52:48.640]  in doing so, he gave the borrower the impression that the transaction was regular in that the
[01:52:48.640 --> 01:52:57.800]  lender in order to secure the warranty deed for the borrower as his part of the bargain.
[01:52:57.800 --> 01:53:05.640]  That he went to the Federal Reserve Bank with your promise to pay. And based on the promise
[01:53:05.640 --> 01:53:12.840]  to pay, the Federal Reserve Bank issued to him funds in an amount sufficient to purchase
[01:53:12.840 --> 01:53:22.320]  the warranty. Now we have a lot of these patriot guys arguing that the bank has no claim because
[01:53:22.320 --> 01:53:31.280]  they have no funds involved in the transaction. Well, in a way, that's true because the Federal
[01:53:31.280 --> 01:53:36.000]  Reserve Bank literally created this money out of the thin air. And that's what these
[01:53:36.000 --> 01:53:43.960]  patriots argue. But what they don't understand is they are not increasing the volume of money.
[01:53:43.960 --> 01:53:52.300]  They create this money as an entry on a ledger with the stipulation that when the money is
[01:53:52.300 --> 01:54:01.360]  paid back to the lender, the lender will return this money to the Federal Reserve and the
[01:54:01.360 --> 01:54:06.480]  Federal Reserve will mark those amounts off of that ledger and send that money back to
[01:54:06.480 --> 01:54:13.520]  the thin air from which it came. So while it maintains the velocity of money, it does
[01:54:13.520 --> 01:54:21.880]  not increase the volume of money. So that's the impression that they gave. But based on
[01:54:21.880 --> 01:54:35.720]  relevant revelations in the news about HSBC, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and current investigations
[01:54:35.720 --> 01:54:44.160]  going on against Bank of America and Wells Fargo concerning money laundering activities
[01:54:44.160 --> 01:54:50.760]  where in these banks are laundering money, incredibly huge amounts of money from the
[01:54:50.760 --> 01:54:57.840]  Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, we have reason to believe and do believe that the
[01:54:57.840 --> 01:55:07.560]  lender at closing was not the lender but rather was a pretender lender, that the lender pretended
[01:55:07.560 --> 01:55:14.280]  to be the source of these funds that secured the warranted deed when in fact the source
[01:55:14.280 --> 01:55:22.880]  of the funds was actually the special purpose vehicle. It was a table-funded note wherein
[01:55:22.880 --> 01:55:28.520]  the special purpose vehicle provided the funds to purchase the warranted deed so that the
[01:55:28.520 --> 01:55:34.320]  lender never owned the note in the first place. They did not sell it to the special purpose
[01:55:34.320 --> 01:55:39.760]  vehicle because the special purpose vehicle owned it in the first place. They're the ones
[01:55:39.760 --> 01:55:47.960]  that purchased it. The lender in fact, the only lending that the lender did was the lender
[01:55:47.960 --> 01:55:57.000]  loaned his license to an otherwise unlicensed lending institution. The special purpose vehicle
[01:55:57.000 --> 01:56:07.400]  that was put together under the guise of an investment entity put together for the purpose
[01:56:07.400 --> 01:56:18.960]  of purchasing residential mortgages, gathering them together into a large pool and then filing
[01:56:18.960 --> 01:56:24.960]  that pool with the Internal Revenue Service as a real estate mortgage investment conduit
[01:56:24.960 --> 01:56:33.720]  and then they recovered their funds by selling tranches or slices off of these 10,000 notes
[01:56:33.720 --> 01:56:45.680]  to different investment organizations like primarily our retirement funds.
[01:56:45.680 --> 01:56:53.640]  Well there is reason to believe and okay the impression was is that the special purpose
[01:56:53.640 --> 01:56:58.920]  vehicle would go to Wells Fargo Bank of America, one of the large banks, and secure a six-month
[01:56:58.920 --> 01:57:06.280]  loan, 90, 100 million dollars. They had six months to pay it back so they would pool these
[01:57:06.280 --> 01:57:14.000]  notes together, sell them to investment companies and then pay off the banks. Well in fact they
[01:57:14.000 --> 01:57:22.120]  did not get that money from the banks. They got the money from illegal sources and by
[01:57:22.120 --> 01:57:28.800]  using this cover they were able to inject those legal sources into the economy under
[01:57:28.800 --> 01:57:38.480]  the cover of residential mortgage contracts so that when the money is paid back the lender
[01:57:38.480 --> 01:57:44.120]  does not send it back to the Federal Reserve to be marked off the ledger because it's
[01:57:44.120 --> 01:57:50.160]  never put on the ledger in the first place but rather puts it in the bank in an account
[01:57:50.160 --> 01:57:58.760]  that goes back to these drug cartels front companies as fully laundered funds. Now the
[01:57:58.760 --> 01:58:10.760]  borrower as a person of moral center would have a serious objection to being part of
[01:58:10.760 --> 01:58:16.320]  the largest money laundering scheme in the history of the planet and therefore was subjected
[01:58:16.320 --> 01:58:22.600]  to fraud by non-disclosure. Had the lender disclosed these facts to him he would have
[01:58:22.600 --> 01:58:28.840]  never entered into this contract. Hang on, when we come back on the other side I'll explain
[01:58:28.840 --> 01:58:34.720]  to you why we're making this argument that we know the courts are going to rule against.
[01:58:34.720 --> 01:58:39.400]  This is going to be fun. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. Our call
[01:58:39.400 --> 01:58:47.000]  is number 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We're going to our top of the hour. We're going
[01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:53.000]  into the third hour so give us a call. The Bible remains the most popular book in the
[01:58:53.000 --> 01:58:58.600]  world yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some
[01:58:58.600 --> 01:59:04.000]  new translations try to help by simplifying the text but in the process can compromise
[01:59:04.000 --> 01:59:11.040]  the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First this new translation
[01:59:11.040 --> 01:59:16.960]  is extremely faithful and accurate but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory
[01:59:16.960 --> 01:59:22.920]  footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way providing
[01:59:22.920 --> 01:59:28.400]  an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles
[01:59:28.400 --> 01:59:34.240]  for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This
[01:59:34.240 --> 01:59:43.960]  comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:43.960 --> 01:59:51.800]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. You are listening
[01:59:51.800 --> 02:00:00.080]  to the Logos Radio Network. Logosradionetwork.com.