ROL_2015-11-20_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:07.720]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:07.720 --> 00:09.920]  bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:09.920 --> 00:23.240]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.240 --> 00:29.560]  Markets for the 11th of November 2015 opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver
[00:29.560 --> 00:36.240]  at $14.30 an ounce, Texas crude at $44.21 an ounce, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[00:36.240 --> 00:44.840]  at about $310 U.S. currency.
[00:44.840 --> 00:50.720]  Today in history, Friday November 11th, Memorial Day 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated
[00:50.720 --> 00:55.360]  at the interment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery
[00:55.360 --> 00:59.600]  of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France.
[00:59.600 --> 01:07.400]  This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:07.400 --> 01:12.960]  In recent use, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in
[01:12.960 --> 01:15.920]  sales on Singles Day, November 11th.
[01:15.920 --> 01:21.000]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bare branches, a term used for
[01:21.000 --> 01:22.460]  bachelors in Chinese.
[01:22.460 --> 01:27.440]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales loan made up about 70% of it, while
[01:27.440 --> 01:31.600]  Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States.
[01:31.600 --> 01:36.260]  It's not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day
[01:36.260 --> 01:37.980]  of frivolous spending.
[01:37.980 --> 01:42.160]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make $14-plus billion
[01:42.160 --> 01:51.960]  in sales in a single day in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:51.960 --> 01:57.920]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros
[01:57.920 --> 02:02.480]  a day if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised
[02:02.480 --> 02:05.800]  and won by a Belgian's privacy watchdog group.
[02:05.800 --> 02:09.480]  Frederic de Bouchière, the lawyer behind the case, has stated that he is anticipating
[02:09.480 --> 02:10.820]  other cases to follow.
[02:10.820 --> 02:14.600]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the
[02:14.600 --> 02:18.200]  privacy rights of the country's citizens by tracking them around the internet, even
[02:18.200 --> 02:20.200]  if they hadn't signed up to the site.
[02:20.200 --> 02:24.280]  Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if
[02:24.280 --> 02:28.520]  they went onto a Facebook page, even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to track
[02:28.520 --> 02:31.000]  them when they came back to the site.
[02:31.000 --> 02:34.960]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computers' IP addresses and other unique
[02:34.960 --> 02:37.040]  identifiers via these cookies.
[02:37.040 --> 02:42.140]  However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[02:42.140 --> 02:47.080]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts
[02:47.080 --> 02:53.840]  have the authority to make such rulings.
[02:53.840 --> 03:17.720]  This was your Lowdown for November 11, 2015.
[03:17.720 --> 03:41.440]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Root of Law Radio, and we're talking to Chris in Pennsylvania.
[03:41.440 --> 03:46.280]  Okay, Chris, is that about not covering your issues or do you have something else for us?
[03:46.280 --> 03:48.680]  No, that was perfect, Randy.
[03:48.680 --> 03:49.680]  Thanks again.
[03:49.680 --> 03:50.680]  Okay.
[03:50.680 --> 03:52.120]  Hey, good luck on that.
[03:52.120 --> 03:56.400]  Keep us up to date on what occurs.
[03:56.400 --> 03:58.400]  For me, that sounds encouraging.
[03:58.400 --> 04:02.680]  Yeah, I'm hoping so.
[04:02.680 --> 04:04.960]  The judge didn't roll over you like a steamroller.
[04:04.960 --> 04:08.000]  That means you've got the judge in a quandary.
[04:08.000 --> 04:10.000]  That's always a good thing.
[04:10.000 --> 04:11.000]  Good.
[04:11.000 --> 04:12.000]  Okay.
[04:12.000 --> 04:13.000]  Thank you, Chris.
[04:13.000 --> 04:16.360]  Now we're going to go to Mark in Florida.
[04:16.360 --> 04:17.360]  Hello, Mark.
[04:17.360 --> 04:18.360]  Hello, Randy.
[04:18.360 --> 04:21.360]  How are you doing?
[04:21.360 --> 04:22.480]  Doing good.
[04:22.480 --> 04:24.600]  What do you have for us today?
[04:24.600 --> 04:27.840]  Well, I heard something.
[04:27.840 --> 04:36.200]  I turned into Agenda 21 talk a couple of weeks ago, and they had an interesting point on
[04:36.200 --> 04:37.200]  there.
[04:37.200 --> 04:38.840]  A man by the name of Shannon called in.
[04:38.840 --> 04:40.640]  Are you familiar with him?
[04:40.640 --> 04:42.920]  Yes, I'm familiar with him.
[04:42.920 --> 04:43.920]  Okay.
[04:43.920 --> 04:52.480]  I didn't know if you were familiar with these five questions that he writes up or has people
[04:52.480 --> 05:01.080]  write up, and they send them to the court, preferably before they make a plea.
[05:01.080 --> 05:08.280]  I thought these were kind of interesting, and I, in fact, just used them the other day.
[05:08.280 --> 05:13.560]  Unfortunately, I didn't know about this until right before an arraignment, so I did it the
[05:13.560 --> 05:14.560]  day before.
[05:14.560 --> 05:20.440]  But I got it on the record, and they did mention at any court that it was...
[05:20.440 --> 05:21.440]  Okay.
[05:21.440 --> 05:22.440]  What are these questions?
[05:22.440 --> 05:23.440]  Okay.
[05:23.440 --> 05:24.440]  They're very simple.
[05:24.440 --> 05:25.440]  Very simple questions to ask.
[05:25.440 --> 05:26.440]  Impossible for them to answer.
[05:26.440 --> 05:37.440]  First one is, what is the name and contact information of the accuser?
[05:37.440 --> 05:46.880]  Number two, what is the name, name or names, and contact information of the witnesses who
[05:46.880 --> 05:49.080]  will verify the accuser's accusations?
[05:49.080 --> 05:52.520]  I'm sure you can already see this.
[05:52.520 --> 05:56.320]  This is all constitutional.
[05:56.320 --> 06:01.880]  Number three, and I changed this to a document instead of a question.
[06:01.880 --> 06:06.600]  Now, mind you, these questions are not word for word exactly as his.
[06:06.600 --> 06:10.440]  I did not have a copy of that letter yet.
[06:10.440 --> 06:14.680]  I requested that, and they'll be sending that to me.
[06:14.680 --> 06:22.040]  Number three, provide a list of the damages, loss, and or harm that the accuser claims
[06:22.040 --> 06:30.280]  he has suffered due to the alleged actions of the accuser, of the accused, excuse me.
[06:30.280 --> 06:37.200]  Number four, provide a true copy of the accuser's criminal complaint form, which is sworn to
[06:37.200 --> 06:43.780]  under the Pains and Penalties of Perjury and which displays a proper jurat.
[06:43.780 --> 06:52.000]  Number five, provide a true copy of the contract for the public law, and I put in parentheses,
[06:52.000 --> 07:01.320]  not the statute, that was my creation, not Shannon's, that the accuser has allegedly violated,
[07:01.320 --> 07:06.920]  that the accused has allegedly violated.
[07:06.920 --> 07:15.440]  And that's the five questions, more or less, and not exactly as Shannon did it.
[07:15.440 --> 07:18.120]  I don't have an exact copy of that yet.
[07:18.120 --> 07:24.760]  Okay, the contact information for the accuser.
[07:24.760 --> 07:27.680]  That one is reasonable, and that's one they can answer.
[07:27.680 --> 07:30.760]  They probably won't, but they can.
[07:30.760 --> 07:35.040]  Contact information for any witnesses, it's almost, especially if it's a traffic citation,
[07:35.040 --> 07:42.360]  it's always going to be just the police officer, and that's not always the accuser because
[07:42.360 --> 07:47.400]  a lot of times the clerk is the accuser.
[07:47.400 --> 07:51.800]  And that's, at least in Texas, that's legal.
[07:51.800 --> 07:57.320]  In order to file a criminal complaint, you don't have to have personal knowledge of a
[07:57.320 --> 07:58.320]  crime.
[07:58.320 --> 08:04.280]  You can file a criminal complaint based on hearsay.
[08:04.280 --> 08:10.400]  Someone comes to me and says, I saw this guy murder somebody, but he knows me and I'm terrified
[08:10.400 --> 08:13.840]  of him, and I'm not telling anybody.
[08:13.840 --> 08:20.120]  If I believe this person, then I can go file a criminal complaint against that third party.
[08:20.120 --> 08:22.680]  Strictly hearsay, but I can make the complaint.
[08:22.680 --> 08:27.880]  So, the clerk can file the complaints herself.
[08:27.880 --> 08:30.960]  The police officer would be the witness.
[08:30.960 --> 08:41.520]  The harm, at least in Texas, we have a statute that says that when a penal statute is violated,
[08:41.520 --> 08:48.200]  the state is the injured party, but we don't have that for traffic.
[08:48.200 --> 08:53.640]  We don't need it for traffic because traffic goes to a contract, and the next one they
[08:53.640 --> 09:01.440]  ask for, one of the last one they asked for a contract, and the contract is the applications
[09:01.440 --> 09:04.760]  for a driver's license.
[09:04.760 --> 09:14.800]  And then the complaint form signed before a magistrate in Texas, when the officer writes
[09:14.800 --> 09:25.040]  a citation, the statute says that it is presumed to be filled out under oath, so that the officer
[09:25.040 --> 09:31.480]  doesn't have to go before a magistrate and swear to every ticket he writes, their statute
[09:31.480 --> 09:34.880]  to coverage that particular instance.
[09:34.880 --> 09:35.880]  All of these are pretty well-covered.
[09:35.880 --> 09:36.880]  Okay.
[09:36.880 --> 09:48.080]  I do have a question about your one statement, what you said about Texas law says the state
[09:48.080 --> 09:50.080]  is the injured party.
[09:50.080 --> 09:51.080]  Yes.
[09:51.080 --> 10:00.160]  That is a, as you well know, that's a third party.
[10:00.160 --> 10:04.080]  This is the only state where I have seen that statute.
[10:04.080 --> 10:05.080]  Okay.
[10:05.080 --> 10:11.960]  So, I haven't seen it in Florida, but Texas does have that in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[10:11.960 --> 10:15.160]  How can they get away with that?
[10:15.160 --> 10:23.600]  Because I'm sure you've read case law that states that it can't be affected, Texas third
[10:23.600 --> 10:28.600]  party has to be, you know, has to be real.
[10:28.600 --> 10:38.280]  This is, okay, this is criminal law and criminal law is a subset of civil law and criminal
[10:38.280 --> 10:46.160]  law contains special statutes and special statutes take precedence over general statutes.
[10:46.160 --> 10:53.760]  The rules of civil procedure define how cases are handled in the civil courts and those
[10:53.760 --> 11:03.120]  procedures apply to criminal courts unless a special statute is in place that addresses
[11:03.120 --> 11:08.000]  that issue, then the special statute takes precedence over the general statute.
[11:08.000 --> 11:15.840]  So, the Code of Criminal Procedure where the civil procedure requires that a person be
[11:15.840 --> 11:25.560]  able to show harm in this special subset of civil law in a violation of a penal statute,
[11:25.560 --> 11:34.520]  the state is the injured party as a matter of law and it is harm, it amounts to harm
[11:34.520 --> 11:35.520]  per se.
[11:35.520 --> 11:44.840]  So, they don't have to show harm even in civil where something is harm per se, fraud.
[11:44.840 --> 11:46.600]  Penal fraud is harm per se.
[11:46.600 --> 11:51.880]  If you were defrauded and you could show that you're defrauded, you don't have to show harm
[11:51.880 --> 12:02.440]  because the fraud is the harm on its face and penal is similar in that the penal, the
[12:02.440 --> 12:04.920]  violation of penal code is considered to harm the state.
[12:04.920 --> 12:05.920]  Does that make sense?
[12:05.920 --> 12:19.280]  Yes, yes it makes sense but you know, doesn't that go against all the, all the Supreme Court
[12:19.280 --> 12:24.880]  rulings, federal court rulings as to what a crime is and it's basically the same on
[12:24.880 --> 12:29.400]  civil, you know, that there has to be a definite injured party.
[12:29.400 --> 12:36.840]  No, it doesn't and you know, I've had this, had people bring this argument a lot and it's
[12:36.840 --> 12:44.440]  because they haven't looked closely at the way these laws are put together.
[12:44.440 --> 12:55.720]  They look at the civil law and they try to apply other areas of law to the civil procedure.
[12:55.720 --> 13:04.080]  So, you have to look at all of the law, the corpus juris, the whole body of law.
[13:04.080 --> 13:11.040]  We still have a lot of people trying to enforce maritime law but in 1965 maritime law was
[13:11.040 --> 13:16.360]  incorporated into the federal rules of civil, the federal civil procedure.
[13:16.360 --> 13:20.640]  So technically there is no more maritime law.
[13:20.640 --> 13:28.200]  It was incorporated into the civil codes and but people want to go back to laws that were
[13:28.200 --> 13:34.760]  operative 100 years ago that aren't operative anymore because the law was operative at one
[13:34.760 --> 13:37.920]  time doesn't mean it always is.
[13:37.920 --> 13:45.560]  We have to deal with the current law and you know, my issue is, is you know, I have to
[13:45.560 --> 13:51.320]  deal with these courts and I know that some people say that these courts are illegal.
[13:51.320 --> 13:55.560]  Well I don't know about that and they say that the statutes don't apply and that's Ralph
[13:55.560 --> 14:02.800]  Winnorak who just say that the statutes don't apply and that's not exactly true.
[14:02.800 --> 14:10.440]  What he goes to when he says that the statutes don't apply is he goes to the public law,
[14:10.440 --> 14:15.000]  the laws that were actually passed by the legislature.
[14:15.000 --> 14:19.360]  And I had him on the show and he was saying, oh the constitution don't apply and he was
[14:19.360 --> 14:22.080]  right about that.
[14:22.080 --> 14:24.880]  Constitution for the most part doesn't apply to us.
[14:24.880 --> 14:28.840]  It applies to other people and public officials.
[14:28.840 --> 14:38.800]  The constitution merely restricts government officials from interfering with certain of
[14:38.800 --> 14:45.200]  our specific rights or certain stipulated rights.
[14:45.200 --> 14:47.960]  But our rights are not granted by constitution.
[14:47.960 --> 14:55.720]  Our rights exist, we can do anything we want to unless we have passed law that specifically
[14:55.720 --> 14:57.800]  forbid us to do something.
[14:57.800 --> 15:04.680]  We've passed law to specifically forbid us from shooting other people without cause.
[15:04.680 --> 15:09.480]  We do it if we're protecting our life or somebody else's life but you can't just go out and
[15:09.480 --> 15:10.480]  shoot somebody.
[15:10.480 --> 15:13.880]  We've allowed those restrictions to be placed and put in place.
[15:13.880 --> 15:20.320]  We have a certain number of restrictions as long as we're not specifically restricted
[15:20.320 --> 15:23.080]  from doing something we can't do it.
[15:23.080 --> 15:29.960]  Okay then we have all these laws and those are where the restrictions are.
[15:29.960 --> 15:39.440]  They are passed as public law by the legislature and then they hired a publisher to go into
[15:39.440 --> 15:45.440]  the public laws and pull out all the laws that apply to one subject and assort them
[15:45.440 --> 15:49.320]  in a way, in a logical order so people could find it.
[15:49.320 --> 15:54.040]  And Ralph is saying, oh the statutes don't apply and I said, well what applies, the constitution
[15:54.040 --> 15:55.040]  don't apply, the statutes don't apply.
[15:55.040 --> 15:56.040]  Well what applies Ralph?
[15:56.040 --> 16:02.080]  Oh yeah but in the public law you got to go to the national register.
[16:02.080 --> 16:08.960]  I said, well Ralph that's about 45,000 pages, you want to be a little more specific.
[16:08.960 --> 16:14.040]  We could be more specific because you can't find anything in that unless you know exactly
[16:14.040 --> 16:15.400]  where to look.
[16:15.400 --> 16:25.040]  So while the statute is not the law, to the degree that the wording of the statute accurately
[16:25.040 --> 16:34.040]  reflects the wording of the public law, it does apply and even if it didn't apply, when
[16:34.040 --> 16:40.680]  I go to court it looks like it applies and these guys act like it applies and they'll
[16:40.680 --> 16:47.000]  throw my behind in jail just like it did apply whether it does or not.
[16:47.000 --> 16:48.000]  So I have to deal with it.
[16:48.000 --> 16:52.240]  Hang on we'll pick this up on the other side, Randy Kelton, review of our radio, I'll call
[16:52.240 --> 17:00.480]  it number 512-646-1984, we'll be right back.
[17:00.480 --> 17:06.480]  Non-GMOsolutions.com is now a proud sponsor of the Logos Radio Network with promo code
[17:06.480 --> 17:07.480]  Logos.
[17:07.480 --> 17:12.080]  We thank you for the opportunity to be your source for new man of foods, the leader in
[17:12.080 --> 17:15.040]  high quality food that you will truly enjoy.
[17:15.040 --> 17:20.800]  You'll find gluten free options and all products are free from high fructose corn syrup, aspartame,
[17:20.800 --> 17:22.520]  soy and MSG.
[17:22.520 --> 17:26.880]  Whether you're on a tight budget, looking for options to reduce food costs without compromising
[17:26.880 --> 17:33.680]  health or securing long term 25 years storable food for an uncertain future, then Non-GMOsolutions.com
[17:33.680 --> 17:35.680]  is your common sense answer.
[17:35.680 --> 17:39.080]  Take advantage of a 10% discount to promo code Logos.
[17:39.080 --> 17:43.960]  No longer will you compromise taste and quality for full term shelf life or eat poor quality
[17:43.960 --> 17:44.960]  food due to cost.
[17:44.960 --> 17:49.960]  Check out our flex pay options and design a no contract plan to satisfy your needs.
[17:49.960 --> 17:55.720]  Go to Non-GMOsolutions.com today and get 10% off with promo code Logos.
[17:55.720 --> 18:00.880]  That's Non-GMOsolutions.com with promo code Logos.
[18:00.880 --> 18:05.480]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area
[18:05.480 --> 18:06.880]  of nutrition.
[18:06.880 --> 18:11.640]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[18:11.640 --> 18:17.240]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[18:17.240 --> 18:23.640]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can
[18:23.640 --> 18:25.840]  provide the nutrients you need.
[18:25.840 --> 18:30.880]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[18:30.880 --> 18:31.880]  we reject.
[18:31.880 --> 18:37.120]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[18:37.120 --> 18:39.960]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[18:39.960 --> 18:46.240]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[18:46.240 --> 18:47.240]  quality radio.
[18:47.240 --> 18:51.840]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[18:51.840 --> 18:57.480]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[18:57.480 --> 18:58.480]  increase your income.
[18:58.480 --> 18:59.480]  Order now.
[18:59.480 --> 19:12.480]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:12.480 --> 19:41.520]  I just want to encourage you, it's not that your health isn't good, your health is bad.
[19:41.520 --> 20:00.520]  He's everything to me, that's why I call him I'm talking to me and I pray to him
[20:00.520 --> 20:06.520]  Because he's the only one who could answer me I'm in no business what wicked men say
[20:06.520 --> 20:11.520]  Mankind, you know, is this leading me kind of trusting by me creed
[20:11.520 --> 20:17.520]  Okay, we are back, Radio Chalk, News Law Radio, here with Marshall Denny
[20:17.520 --> 20:21.520]  And on the break, Marshall asked me a question, you asked that again Marshall
[20:21.520 --> 20:25.520]  You took exception to something that I said
[20:25.520 --> 20:31.520]  Well, you brought up the issue of not being able to bring the Constitution in directly
[20:31.520 --> 20:40.520]  And that may be true to an extent, but I have favor with the idea that the Constitution
[20:40.520 --> 20:45.520]  Is part of the employment contract of public officials
[20:45.520 --> 20:52.520]  And if they violate it, then I'm the intended third party beneficiary of the contract
[20:52.520 --> 20:56.520]  Which gives me standing to enforce
[20:56.520 --> 21:04.520]  Yes, and this is something that has been kicked around in the Patriot community for a long time
[21:04.520 --> 21:11.520]  A lot of Patriots get real upset when a judge says don't bring the Constitution into my court
[21:11.520 --> 21:16.520]  We've had people come on and say the judge has told them just exactly that
[21:16.520 --> 21:19.520]  And I have to say yeah, that's right
[21:19.520 --> 21:27.520]  Because the judge is not required to enforce the provisions of the Constitution
[21:27.520 --> 21:30.520]  Or at least not directly
[21:30.520 --> 21:39.520]  Because the Constitution is not a penal code that gives the judge a specific authority or duty
[21:39.520 --> 21:42.520]  The Constitution is a restricted document
[21:42.520 --> 21:47.520]  It entails public officials what they can do and what they can't do
[21:47.520 --> 21:52.520]  It sets limits on them, so it actually applies to public officials, not to us
[21:52.520 --> 21:56.520]  But it does apply to public officials for our benefit
[21:56.520 --> 21:58.520]  And Marshall, you're exactly right
[21:58.520 --> 22:04.520]  You are a third party beneficiary of that contract called the Constitution
[22:04.520 --> 22:10.520]  But in order to enforce the provisions of the Constitution in a court setting
[22:10.520 --> 22:20.520]  We need to bring the laws in that make it a crime to violate one of the provisions of the Constitution
[22:20.520 --> 22:26.520]  Primarily, that will be the official misconduct statutes
[22:26.520 --> 22:30.520]  In the Fed, it's 18 U.S. Code 242
[22:30.520 --> 22:36.520]  And in the state, in Texas, it's 39.03
[22:36.520 --> 22:42.520]  And most states have a statute that reflects 39.03
[22:42.520 --> 22:49.520]  In that it says if a public official acting under the color or pretense of an official capacity
[22:49.520 --> 22:55.520]  Exerts or purports to exert an authority he does not expressly have
[22:55.520 --> 22:59.520]  Or fails to perform a duty he's required to perform
[22:59.520 --> 23:04.520]  And in the process, denies a citizen in the form of free access to or enjoyment of a right
[23:04.520 --> 23:07.520]  That's Class A misdemeanor
[23:07.520 --> 23:11.520]  Now, that tracks Constitution
[23:11.520 --> 23:18.520]  That's what brings enforcement power of the Constitution into the state
[23:18.520 --> 23:21.520]  Fails to perform a duty he's required to perform
[23:21.520 --> 23:25.520]  Any duty put on him by the Constitution is enforceable right here
[23:25.520 --> 23:30.520]  Or exerts or purports to exert an authority he doesn't have
[23:30.520 --> 23:33.520]  If the Constitution says he can't do this
[23:33.520 --> 23:38.520]  Or it has not said that he can do this
[23:38.520 --> 23:44.520]  And he does this, and there's no intervening law that says that he can do these things
[23:44.520 --> 23:46.520]  And he does it anyway
[23:46.520 --> 23:51.520]  This is the statute you bring to court to enforce the Constitution
[23:51.520 --> 23:53.520]  Does that make sense?
[23:53.520 --> 23:59.520]  It makes sense, and I agree with you if you're going to try to criminally prosecute, for example
[23:59.520 --> 24:01.520]  That makes perfect sense
[24:01.520 --> 24:05.520]  But let's put a simpler case to the situation
[24:05.520 --> 24:08.520]  Let's say you go before a judge in a municipal court
[24:08.520 --> 24:15.520]  And let's say in some state it says that municipal courts only have jurisdiction over misdemeanors
[24:15.520 --> 24:18.520]  And they're charging you with a felony
[24:18.520 --> 24:22.520]  And I simply bring up to the judge, hey, you're a municipal judge, you don't have jurisdiction
[24:22.520 --> 24:26.520]  The Constitution says you can only handle misdemeanors
[24:26.520 --> 24:34.520]  Can the judge choose to stand down from the case solely on the basis of the Constitution?
[24:34.520 --> 24:36.520]  Absolutely
[24:36.520 --> 24:43.520]  And if you are correct, he has a statutory duty
[24:43.520 --> 24:49.520]  Because if he then moves forward, he runs afoul of 3903
[24:49.520 --> 24:53.520]  Or the official misconduct statutes
[24:53.520 --> 24:58.520]  Sure, but here's an additional, something that came up the other night with a friend of mine
[24:58.520 --> 25:03.520]  You know how lower court judges have to abide by higher court decisions
[25:03.520 --> 25:05.520]  And we were looking for exceptions
[25:05.520 --> 25:11.520]  And I think one exception is for a judge to recuse himself for bias
[25:11.520 --> 25:17.520]  He has an absolute power to do that regardless of what the higher courts want to do
[25:17.520 --> 25:19.520]  And we brought up a separate issue
[25:19.520 --> 25:25.520]  If a judge decides that he does not possess subject matter jurisdiction
[25:25.520 --> 25:28.520]  And he stands down from the case
[25:28.520 --> 25:33.520]  Can appeals, can a higher level court force him to hear the case?
[25:33.520 --> 25:35.520]  Not convincing, maybe they can convince him
[25:35.520 --> 25:44.520]  But can a higher court force him to hear the case when he still thinks he does not possess subject matter jurisdiction?
[25:44.520 --> 25:46.520]  Yes, absolutely they can
[25:46.520 --> 25:48.520]  Really?
[25:48.520 --> 25:51.520]  The higher court looks at the facts and the law
[25:51.520 --> 25:59.520]  And they make the determination that the facts and law grant the disjudged jurisdiction
[25:59.520 --> 26:06.520]  Then there's a case of the 1781 case
[26:06.520 --> 26:10.520]  And I've forgotten the name of it right now, I'll think of it in a minute
[26:10.520 --> 26:19.520]  But the court said, unlike the legislature, we may not avoid an issue because it is onerous
[26:19.520 --> 26:24.520]  We must take jurisdiction where jurisdiction is had
[26:24.520 --> 26:29.520]  And we may not take jurisdiction where jurisdiction is not had
[26:29.520 --> 26:33.520]  So if a lower court makes a determination
[26:33.520 --> 26:41.520]  And a higher court overrules that determination, the lower court is bound to follow the rulings of the higher court
[26:41.520 --> 26:45.520]  That potentially puts that judge in a pinch
[26:45.520 --> 26:48.520]  Let's take your case and make it one step further
[26:48.520 --> 26:51.520]  A local judge determines he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction
[26:51.520 --> 26:55.520]  The appeals court determines that he does have subject matter jurisdiction
[26:55.520 --> 26:59.520]  He tries the case, the case gets appealed to the Supreme Court
[26:59.520 --> 27:04.520]  And the Supreme Court says, oh no, you never had subject matter jurisdiction
[27:04.520 --> 27:06.520]  And now the judge can be sued
[27:06.520 --> 27:10.520]  No, no we can't
[27:10.520 --> 27:15.520]  Because the judge is acting under order
[27:15.520 --> 27:24.520]  The judge had subject matter jurisdiction based on a determination by the court of appeals
[27:24.520 --> 27:32.520]  So the judge himself would be acting in good faith reliance on competent authority
[27:32.520 --> 27:38.520]  Now, once, but this does raise an interesting question
[27:38.520 --> 27:41.520]  Once the Supreme says he doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction
[27:41.520 --> 27:46.520]  Who would you sue?
[27:46.520 --> 27:49.520]  I would think the state would be the one you would have to sue
[27:49.520 --> 27:57.520]  Because it would be unreasonable and the law is ultimately reasonable
[27:57.520 --> 28:01.520]  And almost always, sometimes you find some anomalies
[28:01.520 --> 28:05.520]  And sometimes you make mistakes because we don't understand all the underlying facts
[28:05.520 --> 28:13.520]  But for the most part, if something seems wrong, it almost certainly is wrong in law
[28:13.520 --> 28:18.520]  If something's right, it's almost certainly you'll find it's right in law
[28:18.520 --> 28:21.520]  Or if you look carefully at the law
[28:21.520 --> 28:25.520]  And where a judge determines he doesn't have jurisdiction
[28:25.520 --> 28:29.520]  And a higher court judge determines that he does
[28:29.520 --> 28:33.520]  Now the judge is acting in good faith
[28:33.520 --> 28:39.520]  Good faith reliance on competent authority would be inappropriate to now sue him
[28:39.520 --> 28:45.520]  When he acted in good faith in all things
[28:45.520 --> 28:52.520]  So the only thing that will give you a claim is mens reis
[28:52.520 --> 28:57.520]  If I harm you, in order for you to sue me
[28:57.520 --> 29:05.520]  You're going to have to establish either that I acted with an evil mind and an unlawful intent
[29:05.520 --> 29:09.520]  Or I acted with gross negligence
[29:09.520 --> 29:13.520]  If I harmed you by smashing into your car
[29:13.520 --> 29:18.520]  I'll give an example. When I was 16, I was in Chicago
[29:18.520 --> 29:21.520]  I was driving down a side street
[29:21.520 --> 29:26.520]  And through the glass of a parked car, I saw this tiny hit
[29:26.520 --> 29:29.520]  Darting out toward the street
[29:29.520 --> 29:34.520]  And a quick calculation said she's going to wind up right in front of me
[29:34.520 --> 29:38.520]  And it's going to be impossible for me to stop
[29:38.520 --> 29:42.520]  So as soon as she cleared the cars in the street in front of me
[29:42.520 --> 29:46.520]  I cut the wheel and smashed into this brand new Buick
[29:46.520 --> 29:48.520]  Caved in its door
[29:48.520 --> 29:54.520]  Or slammed this Buick into the car in front of me in the gap this little girl just ran out from
[29:54.520 --> 29:59.520]  And when my car stopped, this little girl put her hand on my hood
[30:01.520 --> 30:04.520]  Will a houseplant take care of you in your golden years?
[30:04.520 --> 30:07.520]  Global Corporation Accenture is banking on it
[30:07.520 --> 30:12.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back in a moment with weird plans for greenery that keeps you company
[30:12.520 --> 30:14.520]  While watching your every move
[30:14.520 --> 30:16.520]  Privacy is under attack
[30:16.520 --> 30:20.520]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again
[30:20.520 --> 30:25.520]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too
[30:25.520 --> 30:30.520]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself
[30:30.520 --> 30:32.520]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to
[30:32.520 --> 30:40.520]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing
[30:40.520 --> 30:43.520]  Start over with StartPage
[30:43.520 --> 30:48.520]  The world's population is graying and Accenture plans to cash in
[30:48.520 --> 30:53.520]  It's hoping we'll farm out care for senior citizens to high-tech contraptions like its Caring Houseplant
[30:53.520 --> 30:59.520]  The company boasts that the Caring Plant listens as an elderly person talks to himself or someone else
[30:59.520 --> 31:04.520]  And provides on-site round-the-clock monitoring serving as the eyes and ears of caregivers
[31:04.520 --> 31:05.520]  Yikes!
[31:05.520 --> 31:10.520]  Cameras, microphones, and tracking devices are no substitute for human care and contact
[31:10.520 --> 31:13.520]  The elderly need our compassion and they need dignity
[31:13.520 --> 31:19.520]  No one deserves to be spied on by a houseplant or relegated to the hollow companionship of a machine
[31:19.520 --> 31:29.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[31:49.520 --> 31:51.520]  The body, the nutrients it needs
[31:51.520 --> 31:57.520]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you
[31:57.520 --> 32:00.520]  Only at mqsa.org
[32:00.520 --> 32:04.520]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar
[32:04.520 --> 32:07.520]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society
[32:07.520 --> 32:12.520]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights
[32:12.520 --> 32:15.520]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place
[32:15.520 --> 32:19.520]  The right to act in our own private capacity and, most importantly, the right to due process of law
[32:19.520 --> 32:25.520]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process
[32:25.520 --> 32:30.520]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:30.520 --> 32:35.520]  That will help you understand what due process is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law
[32:35.520 --> 32:40.520]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today
[32:40.520 --> 32:44.520]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie
[32:44.520 --> 32:50.520]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material
[32:50.520 --> 32:54.520]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com
[32:54.520 --> 33:19.520]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve
[33:19.520 --> 33:32.520]  Music
[33:32.520 --> 33:35.520]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio
[33:35.520 --> 33:38.520]  And I was talking about a little wreck I had
[33:38.520 --> 33:42.520]  I smashed into this brand new Buick, caved the door in
[33:42.520 --> 33:45.520]  It smashed into the car in front of me
[33:45.520 --> 33:49.520]  Could I be sued?
[33:49.520 --> 33:51.520]  Technically, yeah, I could be sued
[33:51.520 --> 33:57.520]  But in this case, the owner of the Buick was sitting up on the porch and saw what happened
[33:57.520 --> 34:03.520]  He came down, looked at his new car and said, just go on and get out of here
[34:03.520 --> 34:08.520]  But technically, it probably wasn't the best example
[34:08.520 --> 34:11.520]  It sounded like it was when I started with it
[34:11.520 --> 34:18.520]  I knowingly and deliberately smashed into that car
[34:18.520 --> 34:21.520]  But I did so in order to prevent something much worse
[34:21.520 --> 34:28.520]  So while I could technically be sued for anything, I have an affirmative defense
[34:28.520 --> 34:32.520]  That was a terrible example
[34:32.520 --> 34:35.520]  Well, no, Randy, I think it's a good example
[34:35.520 --> 34:39.520]  I think you could, you'd be protected from a vandalism charge
[34:39.520 --> 34:44.520]  But you would still be subject to the monetary tort
[34:44.520 --> 34:50.520]  Well, the reason it was a bad one is because the guy sitting on the porch
[34:50.520 --> 34:53.520]  That's his new car, he'd do anything
[34:53.520 --> 35:00.520]  And his car got damaged, so he would have a claim
[35:00.520 --> 35:06.520]  Whether he could win the claim against me or not was iffy
[35:06.520 --> 35:14.520]  Because the jury might say, you parked your car on the street, that's the risk you take
[35:14.520 --> 35:19.520]  But for my intent, it wasn't a good example
[35:19.520 --> 35:24.520]  Let me give you an example of law in Texas
[35:24.520 --> 35:29.520]  If you were in trouble, say your house is on fire
[35:29.520 --> 35:36.520]  And I come in and try to help and I knock over a can of gasoline that I didn't know was sitting there
[35:36.520 --> 35:41.520]  Or I do everything wrong and screw up everything and make it worse
[35:41.520 --> 35:50.520]  I am absolutely immune from suit because of a good Samaritan laws
[35:50.520 --> 36:01.520]  So in certain circumstances, if I act, so long as I act in good faith
[36:01.520 --> 36:05.520]  Then I'm absolutely immune and when the judge recuses himself
[36:05.520 --> 36:10.520]  That's an act in good faith, he can't be touched
[36:10.520 --> 36:17.520]  Nobody will challenge his decision
[36:17.520 --> 36:21.520]  I've screwed this whole thing up
[36:21.520 --> 36:24.520]  There's got to be a good example of this
[36:24.520 --> 36:26.520]  I'll leave that for the moment
[36:26.520 --> 36:29.520]  Let's go back to Mark in Florida
[36:29.520 --> 36:34.520]  Mark, do I have you totally confused?
[36:34.520 --> 36:37.520]  Well, just a little bit
[36:37.520 --> 36:43.520]  I got me confused, that was a horrible example
[36:43.520 --> 36:47.520]  I enjoy Mark for being on the show, I've heard him on there several times
[36:47.520 --> 36:51.520]  And you guys together bring up some very good points of law
[36:51.520 --> 36:54.520]  I thank you both
[36:54.520 --> 36:57.520]  Okay, so have we pretty well confused you to the point
[36:57.520 --> 37:03.520]  Do you even know why you want to talk to us to start with?
[37:03.520 --> 37:06.520]  Okay, thank you Mark
[37:06.520 --> 37:16.520]  Well, I got Terry from Missouri, I'll see if I can't confuse him as well
[37:16.520 --> 37:19.520]  Hello Terry, what do you have for us today?
[37:19.520 --> 37:21.520]  Yes sir, well good evening Randy
[37:21.520 --> 37:26.520]  And us one percenters sure appreciate you having this show
[37:26.520 --> 37:30.520]  You can talk all the fun stuff you want from time to time
[37:30.520 --> 37:37.520]  And kind of bring you up to snuff here on this Fair Credit Reporting Act case
[37:37.520 --> 37:42.520]  And I had just recently today emailed you two motions
[37:42.520 --> 37:46.520]  One is to refuse the judge, hopefully you'll read that
[37:46.520 --> 37:51.520]  And the other one is about the motion to vacate the judge's order
[37:51.520 --> 37:55.520]  And I've spent a lot of time looking at this judge's order
[37:55.520 --> 37:58.520]  And you're going to find this very interesting
[37:58.520 --> 38:07.520]  In three consecutive orders, he failed to cite four of my motions
[38:07.520 --> 38:13.520]  Okay, wouldn't you agree that that would be withholding evidence?
[38:13.520 --> 38:15.520]  No, not withholding evidence
[38:15.520 --> 38:24.520]  Okay, you filed a motion and so what you're saying is he didn't render a ruling on those motions?
[38:24.520 --> 38:26.520]  That's correct
[38:26.520 --> 38:32.520]  That's denial of due process, he denied you and your right to petition the court for redress of grievance
[38:32.520 --> 38:34.520]  Right
[38:34.520 --> 38:40.520]  You had the motion before the court and he denied you and your right to be heard on the motions
[38:40.520 --> 38:43.520]  Yes
[38:43.520 --> 38:48.520]  We have, that's the kind of issues we have all the time especially
[38:48.520 --> 38:52.520]  Lawyers tend not to challenge judges
[38:52.520 --> 38:59.520]  And if the judge gets to a dispositive ruling
[38:59.520 --> 39:05.520]  The lawyers tend not to address other motions before the court
[39:05.520 --> 39:09.520]  But this brings me to another question
[39:09.520 --> 39:20.520]  The ruling the judge gave, would that ruling be affected by the motion he did not hear?
[39:20.520 --> 39:25.520]  Absolutely
[39:25.520 --> 39:30.520]  So if he had heard the motions and ruled in your favor on the motions
[39:30.520 --> 39:37.520]  Those have acted essentially as collateral estoppel from him giving you the ruling that he gave
[39:37.520 --> 39:41.520]  So this makes sense
[39:41.520 --> 39:48.520]  I can raise issues in motions that don't necessarily go to the final adjudication of the case
[39:48.520 --> 39:52.520]  If the other side comes in and say they do a 12b6
[39:52.520 --> 39:57.520]  And say that for all the stuff he's got in the pleading
[39:57.520 --> 40:03.520]  He doesn't have a claim sufficient for the court to be able to render a ruling
[40:03.520 --> 40:08.520]  The court can then say you're right, the case is dismissed
[40:08.520 --> 40:10.520]  And you say I've got all these motions here
[40:10.520 --> 40:14.520]  So what would make any difference if I responded to those motions?
[40:14.520 --> 40:19.520]  They wouldn't change the fact that you don't have a claim
[40:19.520 --> 40:24.520]  So in that case he could just bypass those motions
[40:24.520 --> 40:31.520]  But if he didn't rule the summary judgment but ruled on the facts of the case
[40:31.520 --> 40:37.520]  And these motions went to the facts of the case
[40:37.520 --> 40:40.520]  That would appear to be a due process violation
[40:40.520 --> 40:44.520]  That he's denying you your right to petition the court for redress agreements
[40:44.520 --> 40:45.520]  That's correct
[40:45.520 --> 40:48.520]  And then of course one of the other motions
[40:48.520 --> 40:51.520]  Excuse me, one of the orders the judge put together
[40:51.520 --> 40:54.520]  He combined six motions
[40:54.520 --> 41:02.520]  And none of the motions had commonality between me and the other party whatsoever
[41:02.520 --> 41:07.520]  And the only reason I can see he did that is so he could combine the motions
[41:07.520 --> 41:10.520]  And when we was in the oral argument we never talked about it
[41:10.520 --> 41:13.520]  The dirty rotten judge just sat there and complained to me
[41:13.520 --> 41:20.520]  And I mean literally there was no discussion on the motions between mine or the attorney
[41:20.520 --> 41:25.520]  And of course the motions that I had filed, Randy, that were left out
[41:25.520 --> 41:33.520]  For dealing with the entry to default and default judgment based on her endless discovery
[41:33.520 --> 41:41.520]  Ambushes and failing to appear at mediation, failing to get me discovery timely
[41:41.520 --> 41:43.520]  Okay, wait a minute, hold on
[41:43.520 --> 41:46.520]  Let's talk about the motions
[41:46.520 --> 41:47.520]  Okay
[41:47.520 --> 41:52.520]  When you filed the motion, pick one of them
[41:52.520 --> 41:54.520]  Say the first one you filed
[41:54.520 --> 42:03.520]  What was the, what's the basic purpose of the motion?
[42:03.520 --> 42:07.520]  The basic purpose and well I'll pick one
[42:07.520 --> 42:16.520]  Was the fact that she could not defend real 8b6 against what I had
[42:16.520 --> 42:20.520]  And that was the fact they failed to do an investigation
[42:20.520 --> 42:23.520]  And the fact that one of the entities there is
[42:23.520 --> 42:30.520]  What did you ask the judge to rule in that case?
[42:30.520 --> 42:35.520]  Against them for failing to do a proper investigation
[42:35.520 --> 42:37.520]  No, no, no
[42:37.520 --> 42:45.520]  What did you ask the judge for as a ruling?
[42:45.520 --> 42:47.520]  Let me back up, when you write a motion
[42:47.520 --> 42:48.520]  Yes
[42:48.520 --> 42:50.520]  The first thing you tell them is what you're going to tell them
[42:50.520 --> 42:55.520]  You give them a brief, this is a motion for this purpose
[42:55.520 --> 43:00.520]  These are the facts, this is the law as it applies to those facts
[43:00.520 --> 43:05.520]  And this your honor is what I want you to rule
[43:05.520 --> 43:09.520]  Then you specifically ask them for what you want them to rule
[43:09.520 --> 43:16.520]  Someone sent me a motion of pleading an original petition recently
[43:16.520 --> 43:19.520]  And I went over it and he said what do you think?
[43:19.520 --> 43:21.520]  I said you don't have a prayer
[43:21.520 --> 43:22.520]  And he said why not?
[43:22.520 --> 43:25.520]  I said I don't know, you just don't have one
[43:25.520 --> 43:27.520]  The last thing has to be a prayer
[43:27.520 --> 43:32.520]  A prayer is you pray to someone, you ask them for something
[43:32.520 --> 43:38.520]  What specifically did you ask the judge to do or to rule?
[43:38.520 --> 43:40.520]  We'll get to that on the other side
[43:40.520 --> 43:41.520]  Randy Kelton, Rule by Radio
[43:41.520 --> 43:45.520]  I'll call it number 513-646-1984
[43:45.520 --> 43:49.520]  We'll be right back
[44:16.520 --> 44:21.520]  Have a look at our miracle healing clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine
[44:21.520 --> 44:23.520]  Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products
[44:23.520 --> 44:29.520]  Including our Australian emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold
[44:29.520 --> 44:36.520]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturefureorganics.com
[44:36.520 --> 44:42.520]  That's 512-264-4043 naturefureorganics.com
[44:42.520 --> 44:46.520]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products
[44:46.520 --> 44:49.520]  naturefureorganics.com
[45:00.520 --> 45:03.520]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:03.520 --> 45:07.520]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary
[45:07.520 --> 45:15.520]  The affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step
[45:15.520 --> 45:19.520]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing
[45:19.520 --> 45:23.520]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself
[45:23.520 --> 45:28.520]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too
[45:28.520 --> 45:34.520]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[45:34.520 --> 45:40.520]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[45:40.520 --> 45:43.520]  that control our American courts
[45:43.520 --> 45:51.520]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more
[45:51.520 --> 46:04.520]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ
[46:22.520 --> 46:24.520]  always
[46:25.520 --> 46:28.520]  I must be careful what I'm wishing for
[46:28.520 --> 46:33.520]  when I'm hungry I like to know just what I'm fishing for
[46:33.520 --> 46:39.520]  I ain't asking for much I ain't trying to be no glutton
[46:39.520 --> 46:44.520]  I'm just here making my living pushing buttons
[46:44.520 --> 46:55.240]  I give my message out to anyone in shout and distance, I'm both for bravery and against
[46:55.240 --> 46:56.240]  slavery, showing resistance.
[46:56.240 --> 47:03.240]  First I'm crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting.
[47:03.240 --> 47:10.320]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, the Louvre Radio, and we're talking to Terry in Missouri.
[47:10.320 --> 47:13.440]  What was the prayer in your motion?
[47:13.440 --> 47:20.520]  To enter default judgment against the party.
[47:20.520 --> 47:28.800]  What was the nature of the cause for default judgment?
[47:28.800 --> 47:37.080]  Pretty much the fact that not only Randy was she unable to defend against it, it was really
[47:37.080 --> 47:47.760]  the discovery, abuses, and the ambushes, not showing up at mediation, the falsified affidavit,
[47:47.760 --> 47:50.120]  not getting discovery to be timely.
[47:50.120 --> 47:55.760]  Oh, so this was essentially a, you were asking for a sanction?
[47:55.760 --> 47:56.760]  Yes.
[47:56.760 --> 48:02.280]  Oh, okay, and he refused to rule on that?
[48:02.280 --> 48:03.880]  Yes.
[48:03.880 --> 48:09.840]  That's a big deal, okay, that was where I was going.
[48:09.840 --> 48:17.640]  Sometimes we get guys write motions who are not lawyers and we don't understand what the
[48:17.640 --> 48:25.800]  motion has to have in it in order for the judge to be able to rule on it, but regardless
[48:25.800 --> 48:36.480]  of what it has in it, the judge had a duty to rule on it.
[48:36.480 --> 48:41.440]  So that should go to, oh, let me think about that.
[48:41.440 --> 48:49.640]  Yeah, please, Randy, when you get a moment to review the two lengthy motions, I apologize,
[48:49.640 --> 48:51.120]  they're not finished.
[48:51.120 --> 48:58.480]  The other thing that this judge did, he took it upon himself to fabricate evidence on this
[48:58.480 --> 49:05.320]  one name that he wouldn't allow me discovery on, and he made up his own mind that it meant
[49:05.320 --> 49:10.760]  something that the evidence we're not sure about yet.
[49:10.760 --> 49:16.080]  Okay, that's an appealable issue.
[49:16.080 --> 49:20.480]  Did you ask him for findings of fact and conclusions at law?
[49:20.480 --> 49:21.880]  Yes.
[49:21.880 --> 49:28.600]  Did you prepare for him a set of findings of fact and conclusions at law and ask him
[49:28.600 --> 49:32.440]  to accept those?
[49:32.440 --> 49:34.480]  Or prepare his own?
[49:34.480 --> 49:35.640]  No.
[49:35.640 --> 49:42.840]  Okay, take your phone and beat yourself around the eyes and ears, but not too severely this
[49:42.840 --> 49:43.840]  time.
[49:43.840 --> 49:45.000]  Okay, here's the deal.
[49:45.000 --> 49:53.200]  When a judge renders a ruling on the case and you feel like the court failed to determine
[49:53.200 --> 49:57.240]  the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the law as it comes to
[49:57.240 --> 50:07.080]  him to the facts in the case, then you prepare the examination of the facts and law as you
[50:07.080 --> 50:13.400]  see it, as you see that they should have been addressed.
[50:13.400 --> 50:17.920]  You show the facts, you show the law that applies to those facts and the conclusion
[50:17.920 --> 50:25.240]  he should have come to, and you offer him this as a finding of fact and conclusions
[50:25.240 --> 50:31.440]  at law, or in the alternative, ask him to provide his own.
[50:31.440 --> 50:38.000]  This gives you kind of an alternative method of re-arguing your issue.
[50:38.000 --> 50:46.360]  It's a nice place to stick the law in his face, so you get to show him that he didn't
[50:46.360 --> 50:51.120]  rule correctly, how and why he didn't rule correctly, and give him an opportunity to
[50:51.120 --> 50:55.400]  fix it or prepare his own.
[50:55.400 --> 51:01.800]  If he doesn't prepare his own, then he is denying you and your right to an effective
[51:01.800 --> 51:12.720]  appeal because you can't appeal an order and show that the order was entered in error
[51:12.720 --> 51:18.160]  if you don't know why the judge entered the order.
[51:18.160 --> 51:24.760]  Depending on the case, if it's important to the case, you can petition the court of appeals
[51:24.760 --> 51:32.160]  for your mandamus, asking them to order him to produce findings of fact.
[51:32.160 --> 51:36.960]  Does that sound reasonable, Terry?
[51:36.960 --> 51:39.400]  Sounds interesting.
[51:39.400 --> 51:47.480]  This guy just did everything to railroad the case out the door.
[51:47.480 --> 51:53.720]  Okay, understand, don't let that get you upset.
[51:53.720 --> 52:02.080]  Please keep in mind, your only purpose in the trial court is set the record for appeal.
[52:02.080 --> 52:03.080]  Okay.
[52:03.080 --> 52:10.720]  You see, the appeals court looks at things different than the trial judge does.
[52:10.720 --> 52:17.840]  The vast majority of the cases don't get appealed, too costly, too much pain in the neck, most
[52:17.840 --> 52:22.360]  people walk away.
[52:22.360 --> 52:30.200]  When one does get appealed, then the court of appeals has to look at the facts, look
[52:30.200 --> 52:36.880]  at the law that applies to those facts and make a determination of how the law should
[52:36.880 --> 52:41.920]  be applied to this set of facts.
[52:41.920 --> 52:53.000]  If there are key issues in there where a negative ruling would be something that someone else
[52:53.000 --> 53:01.200]  could take and use to their unfair advantage, then the court of appeals can create some
[53:01.200 --> 53:09.040]  really, really bad law that they will eventually have to fix.
[53:09.040 --> 53:12.760]  Their focus is different than the trial judge.
[53:12.760 --> 53:27.080]  The trial judge is there to find a equitable solution to two people's disagreement.
[53:27.080 --> 53:32.680]  The trial court is there, I mean, the court of appeals is there to make sure that the
[53:32.680 --> 53:36.680]  judge correctly applied the law to the facts.
[53:36.680 --> 53:42.520]  Their focus is the corpus juris, the body of law.
[53:42.520 --> 53:51.600]  Their purpose is to keep the, maintain the sanctity of the body of law.
[53:51.600 --> 53:55.840]  Make sure they don't do things that cause it to begin to come apart at the seams.
[53:55.840 --> 53:59.640]  Does that make sense how their focus is different?
[53:59.640 --> 54:02.840]  Yeah, it does.
[54:02.840 --> 54:08.960]  You should always, when you're writing motions for the trial court, actually you need to
[54:08.960 --> 54:11.200]  write them for the court of appeals.
[54:11.200 --> 54:17.720]  Yeah, I understand that now.
[54:17.720 --> 54:21.880]  I'm in the process of developing this electronic lawyer.
[54:21.880 --> 54:29.000]  We're getting kind of down toward the, almost through the design phase, we're beginning
[54:29.000 --> 54:30.000]  to get to implementation.
[54:30.000 --> 54:41.400]  But in the process I'm building up a set of procedures for constructing motions and pleadings.
[54:41.400 --> 54:50.320]  And we're building portions of it to be centered in your conscious awareness and we have some
[54:50.320 --> 54:58.760]  other tools that are designed to be in peripheral awareness to keep you oriented in a complex
[54:58.760 --> 54:59.760]  document.
[54:59.760 --> 55:02.680]  And the visual part.
[55:02.680 --> 55:11.480]  We set up a structure where we start out with, you know, now comes so-and-so and we will
[55:11.480 --> 55:17.880]  move the court to do this, to tell the court where you're going to go.
[55:17.880 --> 55:24.160]  We're going to ask the court to give us a ruling generally of this nature for cause
[55:24.160 --> 55:25.160]  shown.
[55:25.160 --> 55:29.040]  We're going to ask you to rule this way for cause shown.
[55:29.040 --> 55:32.460]  So now you've told the judge where you're going.
[55:32.460 --> 55:35.400]  Now he has referential index for what comes next.
[55:35.400 --> 55:43.760]  You do parties, you do jurisdiction, if it's an original plea, and then we do a summary
[55:43.760 --> 55:44.760]  of the case.
[55:44.760 --> 55:48.400]  In the summary of the case, you give a little bit more detail generally about what it's
[55:48.400 --> 55:49.400]  about.
[55:49.400 --> 55:54.280]  And then right under that, we're going to produce a timeline.
[55:54.280 --> 55:56.640]  These are the events in the case.
[55:56.640 --> 56:00.280]  Just put down the date it happened and what the event was.
[56:00.280 --> 56:06.080]  No explanation, no argument, and just make a list of that.
[56:06.080 --> 56:11.920]  And then underneath that, you structure a statement of facts.
[56:11.920 --> 56:19.320]  You state what happened on these days and you state facts that are related to these
[56:19.320 --> 56:22.320]  occurrences.
[56:22.320 --> 56:25.840]  So you build a complete statement of facts.
[56:25.840 --> 56:33.360]  And then you build a points and authorities or statement, I like to call it a statement
[56:33.360 --> 56:41.640]  of factual accusation because the statement of facts will walk down the timeline.
[56:41.640 --> 56:47.880]  The statement of factual accusation will walk down the statement of facts.
[56:47.880 --> 56:54.680]  What it will do is take the facts and add law to it and show why these facts are important,
[56:54.680 --> 57:02.120]  how they stitch together, and what decision the court should come to.
[57:02.120 --> 57:03.880]  That's a basic structure we'll do for everything.
[57:03.880 --> 57:09.880]  And the last thing you put in, you put in a conclusion and then you put in the prayer.
[57:09.880 --> 57:14.600]  You always got to put in the prayer.
[57:14.600 --> 57:20.320]  You should actually write the prayer first.
[57:20.320 --> 57:24.640]  This is what I'm going to ask the judge to rule.
[57:24.640 --> 57:30.440]  Now when I'm coming down building this document, I need to make sure I have all the facts and
[57:30.440 --> 57:37.480]  law so the judge can give me each of the rulings I'm asking for in the prayer.
[57:37.480 --> 57:39.480]  Does that make sense?
[57:39.480 --> 57:43.520]  Well, of course.
[57:43.520 --> 57:45.440]  We need to do everyone the same way.
[57:45.440 --> 57:52.960]  This way we show the court when you do the timeline, a human being is going to look at
[57:52.960 --> 58:00.160]  the timeline and look at these events and try to formulate how these events relate to
[58:00.160 --> 58:03.880]  one another, how they fit together.
[58:03.880 --> 58:08.840]  And then when you do the statement of facts, you go over these events and give more information
[58:08.840 --> 58:13.560]  about it so he can adjust his opinion.
[58:13.560 --> 58:21.000]  And when you do the statement of factual accusation, he's oriented to how the case went.
[58:21.000 --> 58:27.800]  Now you add law to complete his understanding of the making so that when he's done with
[58:27.800 --> 58:30.800]  the document, he actually understands what it's about.
[58:30.800 --> 58:35.400]  The vast majority of the documents I read by lawyers, no human being can make sense
[58:35.400 --> 58:36.400]  of them.
[58:36.400 --> 58:43.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Louisville Radio, I'll call it number 512-646-1984.
[58:43.000 --> 58:50.280]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.280 --> 58:54.400]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.400 --> 58:59.600]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.600 --> 59:00.920]  can really help.
[59:00.920 --> 59:05.400]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:05.400 --> 59:06.400]  today.
[59:06.400 --> 59:10.280]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:10.280 --> 59:13.400]  to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.400 --> 59:18.640]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.640 --> 59:22.920]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan
[59:22.920 --> 59:27.840]  of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:27.840 --> 59:32.840]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:32.840 --> 59:45.640]  Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102, that's 888-551-0102, or visit
[59:45.640 --> 59:48.240]  us online at bfa.org.
[59:48.240 --> 01:00:02.760]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.760 --> 01:00:07.560]  You're following these flashes brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing the
[01:00:07.560 --> 01:00:10.560]  jelly bulletins for the commodities market.
[01:00:10.560 --> 01:00:23.360]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.360 --> 01:00:29.680]  Markets for the 11th of November, 2015 opened up with gold at $1,084.79 an ounce, silver
[01:00:29.680 --> 01:00:36.360]  at $14.30 an ounce, Texas crude at $44.21 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[01:00:36.360 --> 01:00:45.080]  at about $310 U.S. currency.
[01:00:45.080 --> 01:00:50.840]  Today in history, Friday, November 11th, Memorial Day, 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated
[01:00:50.840 --> 01:00:55.480]  at the internment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery
[01:00:55.480 --> 01:00:59.720]  of one of the four caskets exhumed from American cemeteries in France.
[01:00:59.720 --> 01:01:07.520]  This was the commemoration of the unknown soldier of World War I.
[01:01:07.520 --> 01:01:13.080]  In recent news, the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba broke records with $14.3 billion in
[01:01:13.080 --> 01:01:16.040]  sales on Singles Day, November 11th.
[01:01:16.040 --> 01:01:21.120]  11-11 is Singles Day in China because 11-11 looked like bare branches, a term used for
[01:01:21.120 --> 01:01:22.560]  bachelors in Chinese.
[01:01:22.560 --> 01:01:27.520]  The Alibaba Group holding limited said mobile sales loaned made up about 70% of it, while
[01:01:27.520 --> 01:01:32.080]  Alibaba Jack Ma has said that he'd like to export Singles Day to the United States is
[01:01:32.080 --> 01:01:36.520]  not likely, say experts, since it would turn a solemn day of remembrance into a day of
[01:01:36.520 --> 01:01:38.080]  frivolous spending.
[01:01:38.080 --> 01:01:42.240]  You know, like Thanksgiving and Christmas, Alibaba was able to make $14-plus billion
[01:01:42.240 --> 01:01:48.280]  in sales in a single day in a country that spends a third of what we do on military armament.
[01:01:48.280 --> 01:01:58.000]  The world's most popular social media site, Facebook, will now be charged 250,000 euros
[01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:02.560]  a day if it doesn't change the way it uses tracking cookies after a lawsuit was raised
[01:02:02.560 --> 01:02:05.840]  in one by a Belgian privacy watchdog group.
[01:02:05.840 --> 01:02:09.560]  Frederic de Bouchière, the lawyer behind the case, has stated that he is anticipating
[01:02:09.560 --> 01:02:10.880]  other cases to follow.
[01:02:10.880 --> 01:02:14.640]  The Belgian privacy watchdog successfully argued that Facebook was infringing on the
[01:02:14.640 --> 01:02:18.280]  privacy rights of the country's citizens by tracking them around the Internet, even
[01:02:18.280 --> 01:02:20.200]  if they hadn't signed up to the site.
[01:02:20.200 --> 01:02:24.360]  Apparently, Facebook had been enabling cookies which would load onto a user's browser if
[01:02:24.360 --> 01:02:28.320]  they went onto a Facebook page, even if they weren't logged in, and then used them to
[01:02:28.320 --> 01:02:31.080]  track them when they came back to the site.
[01:02:31.080 --> 01:02:36.040]  Facebook's defense is that it was only collecting computer IP addresses and other unique identifiers
[01:02:36.040 --> 01:02:37.040]  via these cookies.
[01:02:37.040 --> 01:02:42.240]  However, the court ruled that that information was personal data and should not be tracked.
[01:02:42.240 --> 01:02:47.160]  Facebook does plan to appeal the case, stating that only EU courts and not Belgian courts
[01:02:47.160 --> 01:02:53.920]  have the authority to make such ruling.
[01:02:53.920 --> 01:03:14.440]  This is your Lowdown for November 11, 2013.
[01:03:14.440 --> 01:03:38.560]  Okay, we are back, we're in Kelton, the evil radio, and we're talking to Terry in Missouri.
[01:03:38.560 --> 01:03:40.920]  Okay, Terry, where were we?
[01:03:40.920 --> 01:03:41.920]  Okay.
[01:03:41.920 --> 01:03:44.520]  Did you have any questions?
[01:03:44.520 --> 01:03:47.520]  Did you have another question?
[01:03:47.520 --> 01:03:50.080]  Did I answer what you called for?
[01:03:50.080 --> 01:03:51.560]  I'm confused today.
[01:03:51.560 --> 01:03:57.520]  Tonight, I do need you to review them because it involves other rule violations, and it's
[01:03:57.520 --> 01:03:59.440]  pretty lengthy.
[01:03:59.440 --> 01:04:05.480]  Maybe just gander through it kind of quickly and get an idea on Rule 60, do what you think.
[01:04:05.480 --> 01:04:10.760]  And I don't want to take up your whole evening tonight, but this judge just went out of his
[01:04:10.760 --> 01:04:17.160]  way to deceive me and use the court for things that it's not designed to do.
[01:04:17.160 --> 01:04:20.600]  Oh, that's great.
[01:04:20.600 --> 01:04:22.680]  That's part of what, that's good.
[01:04:22.680 --> 01:04:23.680]  That's good.
[01:04:23.680 --> 01:04:27.520]  The worse the judge does, the better for you.
[01:04:27.520 --> 01:04:31.720]  More likely you already get him overturned.
[01:04:31.720 --> 01:04:33.320]  Crap out of him.
[01:04:33.320 --> 01:04:34.320]  Okay.
[01:04:34.320 --> 01:04:39.320]  The real reason Randy's all this got started is I was disabled laying in a bed and they
[01:04:39.320 --> 01:04:40.320]  took advantage of it.
[01:04:40.320 --> 01:04:41.320]  I mean, I couldn't move.
[01:04:41.320 --> 01:04:50.240]  So it's pretty ridiculous what appeared here, occurred here, and also the fact you're using
[01:04:50.240 --> 01:04:53.720]  a false name and they're not allowing me to get the discovery I needed.
[01:04:53.720 --> 01:04:54.720]  Wait a minute.
[01:04:54.720 --> 01:04:55.720]  Wait a minute.
[01:04:55.720 --> 01:04:56.720]  Hold on.
[01:04:56.720 --> 01:04:57.720]  Hold on.
[01:04:57.720 --> 01:04:58.720]  Hold on.
[01:04:58.720 --> 01:04:59.720]  You're just, hold on.
[01:04:59.720 --> 01:05:00.720]  Let's go somewhere.
[01:05:00.720 --> 01:05:01.720]  You're ranting now.
[01:05:01.720 --> 01:05:07.880]  I realize you're probably angry at the court and part of what I'm telling you is a defense
[01:05:07.880 --> 01:05:11.120]  against that.
[01:05:11.120 --> 01:05:18.320]  We have against your feeling of anger toward the court.
[01:05:18.320 --> 01:05:29.120]  If we're to be able to win our cases against a corrupt system, we need certain defenses.
[01:05:29.120 --> 01:05:37.760]  If you expect the court to be fair and reasonable, the lawyers will use that against you because
[01:05:37.760 --> 01:05:47.240]  they know the effect of being betrayed by a court you have a need to be able to trust.
[01:05:47.240 --> 01:05:55.320]  Betrayal is probably the worst emotion that we have to deal with and they use that.
[01:05:55.320 --> 01:06:02.000]  It makes this case take a very large emotional toll on you.
[01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:13.560]  It makes you less capable of being decisive and being able to adequately adjudicate your
[01:06:13.560 --> 01:06:14.560]  case.
[01:06:14.560 --> 01:06:15.560]  They count on it.
[01:06:15.560 --> 01:06:17.480]  They wear you down.
[01:06:17.480 --> 01:06:25.120]  They get paid, so they're not having a hard time at all, but they want to make you nuts.
[01:06:25.120 --> 01:06:28.520]  Keep in mind, always put it in the forefront of your mind.
[01:06:28.520 --> 01:06:33.040]  Your only purpose is to set the record for appeal.
[01:06:33.040 --> 01:06:36.520]  The worst the judge's decisions are, great.
[01:06:36.520 --> 01:06:39.320]  More likely are to get them overturned.
[01:06:39.320 --> 01:06:47.560]  If you've got a really smart judge and he doesn't render bad decisions or he doesn't
[01:06:47.560 --> 01:06:52.760]  render decisions that appear to be bad and he shows you good reason, what appears to
[01:06:52.760 --> 01:06:58.440]  be good reason for his rulings, even if it's wrong, that's a hard guy to get past.
[01:06:58.440 --> 01:07:08.840]  When you've got an arrogant smart mouth judge that rules capriciously and arbitrarily, then
[01:07:08.840 --> 01:07:15.640]  you're more likely to get him overturned, so that works in your favor.
[01:07:15.640 --> 01:07:21.160]  Just give him more opportunities to screw up.
[01:07:21.160 --> 01:07:27.960]  Never interfere with him when he's screwing up.
[01:07:27.960 --> 01:07:32.400]  The other thing, keep in mind, when I first called you, the amount of money I was telling
[01:07:32.400 --> 01:07:37.920]  you about, there is a lot of money at stake and these people, I think they're really hiding
[01:07:37.920 --> 01:07:38.920]  something.
[01:07:38.920 --> 01:07:42.520]  I've got an attorney that's going to look at the contract.
[01:07:42.520 --> 01:07:50.840]  He feels like the secured party may not be able to be shown on his credit card application
[01:07:50.840 --> 01:07:58.800]  in the way they've designed it and if it's an intentional deceit, they're going to be
[01:07:58.800 --> 01:08:01.480]  in trouble.
[01:08:01.480 --> 01:08:05.120]  Well, they know that.
[01:08:05.120 --> 01:08:08.200]  They don't care.
[01:08:08.200 --> 01:08:16.560]  These guys, they violate all the laws controlling their behavior and once in a great, great
[01:08:16.560 --> 01:08:19.320]  while, somebody stings them.
[01:08:19.320 --> 01:08:26.760]  That's the cost of doing business.
[01:08:26.760 --> 01:08:32.840]  They don't worry about it, so you shouldn't worry about going after them.
[01:08:32.840 --> 01:08:35.960]  Hammer them as bad as you can.
[01:08:35.960 --> 01:08:41.240]  You've got to raise the cost of doing business to the point that it's not profitable, so
[01:08:41.240 --> 01:08:46.480]  it's not profitable for them to do it wrong and there aren't enough of them that's going
[01:08:46.480 --> 01:08:47.480]  after them.
[01:08:47.480 --> 01:08:49.800]  Right, well, they're hiding something, Randy.
[01:08:49.800 --> 01:08:51.840]  Let me also tell you this real quick.
[01:08:51.840 --> 01:08:57.240]  We drove and I usually never go face to face to talk to public officials.
[01:08:57.240 --> 01:09:03.480]  I always do open records requests, but the Missouri Division of Finance would not, it's
[01:09:03.480 --> 01:09:11.600]  hard to believe this, would not allow me in their office.
[01:09:11.600 --> 01:09:17.720]  Why did you want to enter the office?
[01:09:17.720 --> 01:09:24.560]  They said that they were busy and that I had to leave and put it in the mail to them.
[01:09:24.560 --> 01:09:29.000]  They're obviously either hiding something or they're putting on a good show.
[01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:34.800]  I'm not sure yet.
[01:09:34.800 --> 01:09:37.320]  I couldn't understand a lot of that.
[01:09:37.320 --> 01:09:42.680]  I think it's my internet connection is stringing out a little bit, but why wouldn't they let
[01:09:42.680 --> 01:09:43.680]  you in their office?
[01:09:43.680 --> 01:09:44.680]  Pardon me?
[01:09:44.680 --> 01:09:45.680]  Hello, Terry.
[01:09:45.680 --> 01:09:46.680]  Yes, hello.
[01:09:46.680 --> 01:09:47.680]  Okay, there you go.
[01:09:47.680 --> 01:09:48.680]  Why wouldn't they let you in your office on this part of that?
[01:09:48.680 --> 01:09:49.680]  Yeah, they didn't want to talk to me face to face.
[01:09:49.680 --> 01:10:04.680]  They just told me to put it in the mail to them and they'd answer me that way and I said
[01:10:04.680 --> 01:10:05.680]  that's fine.
[01:10:05.680 --> 01:10:08.680]  That's probably a good idea.
[01:10:08.680 --> 01:10:09.680]  Sure.
[01:10:09.680 --> 01:10:10.680]  Sure.
[01:10:10.680 --> 01:10:11.680]  Okay.
[01:10:11.680 --> 01:10:16.000]  Hey, do you have anything else for us?
[01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  No, sir.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:18.360]  That's it for tonight.
[01:10:18.360 --> 01:10:23.120]  Just please read my two motions and I'd like for you to review them and then maybe I'll
[01:10:23.120 --> 01:10:24.360]  call you back next week.
[01:10:24.360 --> 01:10:25.360]  How's that?
[01:10:25.360 --> 01:10:27.800]  I'll get to them if I can.
[01:10:27.800 --> 01:10:31.160]  I'm pretty busy right now with big motions.
[01:10:31.160 --> 01:10:32.160]  Okay.
[01:10:32.160 --> 01:10:35.160]  Well, mine's pretty big too, Randy.
[01:10:35.160 --> 01:10:42.280]  I'll get to them if I have time, but I've got a lot on my plate.
[01:10:42.280 --> 01:10:43.280]  All righty.
[01:10:43.280 --> 01:10:44.280]  Thanks, sir.
[01:10:44.280 --> 01:10:45.280]  Good evening.
[01:10:45.280 --> 01:10:46.280]  Okay.
[01:10:46.280 --> 01:10:47.280]  Okay.
[01:10:47.280 --> 01:10:48.280]  Bye-bye.
[01:10:48.280 --> 01:10:49.280]  Okay.
[01:10:49.280 --> 01:10:50.280]  Now we're going to go to Joe.
[01:10:50.280 --> 01:10:53.280]  We still have Mark and Florida on.
[01:10:53.280 --> 01:11:00.240]  Mark, did we finish with you or?
[01:11:00.240 --> 01:11:08.360]  No, I wanted to clarify about the five questions and then I have one other item.
[01:11:08.360 --> 01:11:13.760]  So basically you think the five questions are not useful?
[01:11:13.760 --> 01:11:26.520]  Well, I don't see their value and they don't hurt or anything and demanding to be faced
[01:11:26.520 --> 01:11:30.720]  by your accuser, the witness.
[01:11:30.720 --> 01:11:38.720]  The accuser is not of much value if the accuser is not the one who wrote the citation, but
[01:11:38.720 --> 01:11:43.680]  being faced by your accuser is a big deal and the witness is against you.
[01:11:43.680 --> 01:11:49.480]  That is a big deal, but in most cases that's not a problem.
[01:11:49.480 --> 01:11:56.840]  Some where cases where they can't find the original witness and that becomes a real issue.
[01:11:56.840 --> 01:12:06.000]  The copy of the complaint, that's never hard because they'll always have that and the contract
[01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:16.400]  under the law and the list of harm, but you'll have that if it's a civil case.
[01:12:16.400 --> 01:12:24.240]  I don't understand why they're asking for this this way.
[01:12:24.240 --> 01:12:32.040]  I tend not to do something unless I can tell you why.
[01:12:32.040 --> 01:12:41.720]  I was reading a really well constructed document today, but he had some statements in there.
[01:12:41.720 --> 01:12:48.680]  They were very accusatory statements and I looked at it and I asked myself, why did he
[01:12:48.680 --> 01:12:53.240]  put that statement in there?
[01:12:53.240 --> 01:12:59.880]  I had no idea how it led to an adjudication of the case.
[01:12:59.880 --> 01:13:06.760]  It just seemed like he was ranting against these folks.
[01:13:06.760 --> 01:13:12.400]  It's kind of important that we know exactly why we're doing what we're doing.
[01:13:12.400 --> 01:13:21.120]  Did they explain, did Don or any of them explain why they're asking each one of these questions?
[01:13:21.120 --> 01:13:31.480]  Yes, they related all of them to the federal constitution, also Alabama and he said he's
[01:13:31.480 --> 01:13:39.040]  seen basically the same thing in several other constitutions and a lot of it goes to the
[01:13:39.040 --> 01:13:41.560]  legal definition of a crime.
[01:13:41.560 --> 01:13:49.120]  I understand where they go to, but why is he asking them at this?
[01:13:49.120 --> 01:13:50.120]  Where is he asking?
[01:13:50.120 --> 01:13:57.280]  Is this like a police officer or is this when he first goes to court?
[01:13:57.280 --> 01:14:02.720]  He likes using this before the plea and of course they don't answer and they send it
[01:14:02.720 --> 01:14:10.360]  again and they don't get an answer and then he goes to the arraignment stating, I have
[01:14:10.360 --> 01:14:13.200]  to have answers to these questions before I can plea.
[01:14:13.200 --> 01:14:17.120]  I don't know whether to plead guilty or not guilty.
[01:14:17.120 --> 01:14:22.480]  I can't give a plea until I have answers to these questions.
[01:14:22.480 --> 01:14:31.080]  When I asked you what's the purpose in asking the question, the thought came to my mind,
[01:14:31.080 --> 01:14:40.720]  okay, if they don't answer the question, what's the remedy and they're right.
[01:14:40.720 --> 01:14:47.080]  If I ask for contact information for the acute reason, they don't give it to me.
[01:14:47.080 --> 01:14:58.080]  That's not one, if asking for contact information is not the right question exactly, you need
[01:14:58.080 --> 01:15:01.720]  to ask to be faced by your accuser.
[01:15:01.720 --> 01:15:06.280]  I want to speak to my accuser.
[01:15:06.280 --> 01:15:11.580]  So if you go to court, so you get a ticket and you go to court, you say, I want to speak
[01:15:11.580 --> 01:15:12.580]  to my accuser.
[01:15:12.580 --> 01:15:17.440]  When they say he's not here, then you need to dismiss the case because you can't find
[01:15:17.440 --> 01:15:19.960]  probable cause, you have no witness.
[01:15:19.960 --> 01:15:23.000]  That's why that would be important.
[01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:29.920]  Then witnesses against me, okay, if the accuser's not here, I want to confront the witness against
[01:15:29.920 --> 01:15:30.920]  me.
[01:15:30.920 --> 01:15:35.240]  Well, the witness is not here, move to dismiss the case.
[01:15:35.240 --> 01:15:37.080]  You can't find subject managers.
[01:15:37.080 --> 01:15:43.400]  You can't find probable cause because you have no witness.
[01:15:43.400 --> 01:15:56.120]  List of harm, list of harm would go to the specific statute you're claimed to have violated.
[01:15:56.120 --> 01:16:05.400]  A lot of times when a policeman writes a ticket or someone arrests another person and they
[01:16:05.400 --> 01:16:10.560]  write out the complaint, they write out the complaint and say, well, he did this or he
[01:16:10.560 --> 01:16:18.640]  did that and it doesn't really specify a statutory violation.
[01:16:18.640 --> 01:16:30.760]  If it just says that I robbed a liquor store of two and a half empty cans of beer, so what?
[01:16:30.760 --> 01:16:32.800]  What statute did I violate?
[01:16:32.800 --> 01:16:39.680]  If I don't know what statute I violated, then I don't know, I can't determine what the elements
[01:16:39.680 --> 01:16:45.440]  of the crime are and then apply the alleged facts to the elements of the crime to see
[01:16:45.440 --> 01:16:49.480]  if all of the elements are stated in the facts.
[01:16:49.480 --> 01:17:00.240]  So list of harm that might go to that, I'm not sure, hang on, we'll be right back.
[01:17:00.240 --> 01:17:04.840]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:17:04.840 --> 01:17:09.040]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:17:09.040 --> 01:17:13.360]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[01:17:13.360 --> 01:17:14.360]  can win too.
[01:17:14.360 --> 01:17:19.160]  You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:17:19.160 --> 01:17:24.960]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer
[01:17:24.960 --> 01:17:29.600]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[01:17:29.600 --> 01:17:33.800]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.800 --> 01:17:38.920]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.920 --> 01:17:40.880]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:46.600]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:17:46.600 --> 01:17:49.600]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.600 --> 01:17:58.580]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt
[01:17:58.580 --> 01:18:01.320]  collectors now.
[01:18:01.320 --> 01:18:04.880]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[01:18:04.880 --> 01:18:08.920]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[01:18:08.920 --> 01:18:12.760]  We provide a wide assortment of your favorite products featuring a great selection of high
[01:18:12.760 --> 01:18:14.720]  quality coins and precious metals.
[01:18:14.720 --> 01:18:18.600]  We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors.
[01:18:18.600 --> 01:18:23.320]  We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited metals dealers
[01:18:23.320 --> 01:18:24.320]  and journalists.
[01:18:24.320 --> 01:18:27.240]  If we don't have what you're looking for, we can find it.
[01:18:27.240 --> 01:18:32.440]  In addition, we carry popular longevity products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollenburst.
[01:18:32.440 --> 01:18:37.400]  We also offer One World Way, Mountain House Storable Foods, Berkey Water Products, ammunition
[01:18:37.400 --> 01:18:39.560]  at 10% above wholesale, and more.
[01:18:39.560 --> 01:18:43.160]  We broker metals IRA accounts and we also accept Bitcoins as payment.
[01:18:43.160 --> 01:18:46.520]  Call us at 512-646-6440.
[01:18:46.520 --> 01:18:51.480]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson.
[01:18:51.480 --> 01:18:54.640]  We're open Monday through Friday 10 to 6, Saturdays 10 to 2.
[01:18:54.640 --> 01:18:59.640]  Visit us at CapitalCoinAndBullying.com or call 512-646-6440.
[01:19:24.640 --> 01:19:45.360]  Okay, I'm back, Randy Kelton, Wheelbarrow Radio, and I'm looking at these questions.
[01:19:45.360 --> 01:19:56.360]  I can figure out a reason to ask these questions, but when I look at the questions and consider
[01:19:56.360 --> 01:20:02.000]  what if they don't answer the questions, for the most part, the only time these would
[01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:09.480]  be relevant is if I was, I'm not sure, already in court.
[01:20:09.480 --> 01:20:15.280]  I really don't understand why they're asking these questions the way they are.
[01:20:15.280 --> 01:20:21.080]  Probably this is at the first arraignment hearing.
[01:20:21.080 --> 01:20:31.640]  And my issue is, is this something you can do, but I don't see how it serves a purpose.
[01:20:31.640 --> 01:20:37.720]  Mark, did they explain it all, how these, what purpose these served?
[01:20:37.720 --> 01:20:42.120]  Yeah, I can't explain it as well as they do.
[01:20:42.120 --> 01:20:51.760]  If you want to check the archive, the first show was on 11-3 and the next one was on 11-10.
[01:20:51.760 --> 01:20:55.000]  And it starts, both of them started in the second segment.
[01:20:55.000 --> 01:21:00.600]  But, you know, he gives a fairly detailed explanation and it makes good sense.
[01:21:00.600 --> 01:21:07.160]  You know, I've listened to you for a long time and Eddie for a long time and, you know,
[01:21:07.160 --> 01:21:12.440]  I believe in what both of you say, but this just seemed like something to add to that.
[01:21:12.440 --> 01:21:17.520]  Now, what I did the other day in my arraignment, you know, I filed this.
[01:21:17.520 --> 01:21:21.880]  Unfortunately, I didn't know about it sooner, so it was a day before court when I filed
[01:21:21.880 --> 01:21:28.640]  it, but the court did get it and the state attorney had it too.
[01:21:28.640 --> 01:21:33.840]  And of course, she didn't want to answer it, kind of wanted to ignore it.
[01:21:33.840 --> 01:21:40.760]  And I told him, I need this information before I can, you know, make a plea.
[01:21:40.760 --> 01:21:46.760]  And I did what Eddie always said, I said, is the court willing to accept an unconscionable
[01:21:46.760 --> 01:21:47.760]  plea?
[01:21:47.760 --> 01:21:53.360]  And of course, the judge's lady said no and she said, why would it be unconscionable?
[01:21:53.360 --> 01:21:57.800]  And I said, well, I need this information before I can determine whether I need to plead
[01:21:57.800 --> 01:22:00.400]  guilty or innocent.
[01:22:00.400 --> 01:22:07.440]  And she wanted to, she said, well, I'm going to convert this to a demand for discovery
[01:22:07.440 --> 01:22:12.560]  because the state has already prepared discovery for you and she held up, you know, a stack
[01:22:12.560 --> 01:22:13.560]  of papers.
[01:22:13.560 --> 01:22:20.320]  And at that point, I believe I should have an objective, am I correct?
[01:22:20.320 --> 01:22:35.640]  No, if this is effectively a request for discovery, you're asking them to produce information.
[01:22:35.640 --> 01:22:38.920]  So she was right, this is a discovery request.
[01:22:38.920 --> 01:22:48.560]  Now if the state had a discovery packet already, that would be fine, so long as all of this
[01:22:48.560 --> 01:22:58.440]  was in there, but being faced by your accuser, that's not going to be in discovery.
[01:22:58.440 --> 01:23:07.960]  The list of harm and copy of the complaint and the contract, that all could be in discovery,
[01:23:07.960 --> 01:23:11.800]  but being faced by your accusers wouldn't get it done.
[01:23:11.800 --> 01:23:19.800]  So it wasn't by the accuser who just wanted to name the contact information.
[01:23:19.800 --> 01:23:26.200]  Still, what is the purpose of this?
[01:23:26.200 --> 01:23:33.520]  Basically as I understand it, and like I said, Shannon explains this a lot better than I
[01:23:33.520 --> 01:23:45.160]  do, but what they're getting at is the constitutional requirements for one, for them to have jurisdiction
[01:23:45.160 --> 01:23:46.160]  over the case.
[01:23:46.160 --> 01:23:49.320]  It's all a jurisdiction issue.
[01:23:49.320 --> 01:23:58.440]  So next time you might call in and say, okay, I've got these questions, what if they don't
[01:23:58.440 --> 01:24:03.120]  answer any of them, what do I do next?
[01:24:03.120 --> 01:24:04.600]  What is my remedy?
[01:24:04.600 --> 01:24:09.960]  Well, that's what I'm getting at with my arraignment.
[01:24:09.960 --> 01:24:17.000]  They did not answer these questions in the discovery they gave me, and the judge went
[01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:23.720]  ahead and said she was going to enter a plea on my behalf of not guilty, and I objected
[01:24:23.720 --> 01:24:28.680]  instantly, and she said no to it and kept going.
[01:24:28.680 --> 01:24:36.200]  And then at the end of all of it, I objected again and made a statement that I object to
[01:24:36.200 --> 01:24:41.640]  you entering a plea of not guilty, I have not refused to enter a plea, and I will be
[01:24:41.640 --> 01:24:47.440]  more than willing to enter a plea as soon as I have answers to these questions.
[01:24:47.440 --> 01:24:50.160]  And she just noted it, and you know.
[01:24:50.160 --> 01:24:53.560]  Okay, so my question is what's the remedy?
[01:24:53.560 --> 01:24:59.760]  Well, first, what's the harm, and second, what's the remedy?
[01:24:59.760 --> 01:25:00.760]  What can I do?
[01:25:00.760 --> 01:25:01.760]  Did I do anything wrong?
[01:25:01.760 --> 01:25:07.960]  Could I have done something different, and what can I do from here?
[01:25:07.960 --> 01:25:14.240]  Okay, that's the harm.
[01:25:14.240 --> 01:25:15.960]  What was the remedy?
[01:25:15.960 --> 01:25:24.320]  What advantage or legal claim does that give you?
[01:25:24.320 --> 01:25:29.480]  Right.
[01:25:29.480 --> 01:25:30.480]  Why do it?
[01:25:30.480 --> 01:25:34.080]  There's got to be a reason to do it.
[01:25:34.080 --> 01:25:40.120]  Well, it's all about the conviction.
[01:25:40.120 --> 01:25:43.640]  Let me back up just a second.
[01:25:43.640 --> 01:25:49.520]  One of the things that we should always know is before we do anything, we should know what
[01:25:49.520 --> 01:25:52.200]  our intended outcome is.
[01:25:52.200 --> 01:26:00.200]  Before you take any action in this nature, you need to understand why you're doing it
[01:26:00.200 --> 01:26:04.400]  and what the likely ramifications are.
[01:26:04.400 --> 01:26:12.520]  So here, essentially, they're asking these questions, hoping that they don't get answers.
[01:26:12.520 --> 01:26:23.480]  So, when they don't get answers, how does that create an adjudicatable issue?
[01:26:23.480 --> 01:26:26.520]  How does that create harm?
[01:26:26.520 --> 01:26:36.520]  Now, I can tell you what Shannon said on the show was that they've had a fair amount of
[01:26:36.520 --> 01:26:45.240]  success doing this, the people he's given it to, and now this is usually in municipal
[01:26:45.240 --> 01:26:50.280]  court, from what he was talking about, and they sent a copy to the mayor and to the city
[01:26:50.280 --> 01:26:51.280]  council too.
[01:26:51.280 --> 01:27:00.440]  And several times the mayor has stepped in and told the prosecutor to drop the case.
[01:27:00.440 --> 01:27:09.280]  And that's likely, but I've had people claim that they're doing this thing and it has great
[01:27:09.280 --> 01:27:10.280]  results.
[01:27:10.280 --> 01:27:17.000]  And then when I look at it, it's not because of what they did, but when the mayor steps
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:24.960]  in and says, drop the case, it's because traffic court's all about making money.
[01:27:24.960 --> 01:27:29.040]  And they came in and did this and they're looking at it and they're thinking, I don't
[01:27:29.040 --> 01:27:30.040]  know what this is.
[01:27:30.040 --> 01:27:32.840]  I'm going to have to research all this out.
[01:27:32.840 --> 01:27:36.200]  And this guy is going to be such a pain in the butt.
[01:27:36.200 --> 01:27:38.400]  He's going to cost us way more than it's worth.
[01:27:38.400 --> 01:27:43.200]  Let's just drop the thing and go make some money from the next guy.
[01:27:43.200 --> 01:27:48.920]  So I can see that they will get some remedy that way.
[01:27:48.920 --> 01:27:51.760]  What I'm looking for is something more specific.
[01:27:51.760 --> 01:27:59.040]  When I do something, I want to be able to use that to take my next step.
[01:27:59.040 --> 01:28:06.280]  I need to always know what my intended outcome is and how this step will lead me toward my
[01:28:06.280 --> 01:28:09.000]  intended outcome.
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:12.720]  I'm not saying Don and Shannon doesn't have it.
[01:28:12.720 --> 01:28:18.280]  It's just, I don't know what their intent is.
[01:28:18.280 --> 01:28:21.920]  If I listen to the show, I'll probably understand it a lot better.
[01:28:21.920 --> 01:28:26.080]  So I certainly don't want to criticize what they're doing because I don't see who's
[01:28:26.080 --> 01:28:30.040]  doing the wrong thing.
[01:28:30.040 --> 01:28:33.040]  I can't explain it in any way.
[01:28:33.040 --> 01:28:34.040]  Yeah.
[01:28:34.040 --> 01:28:35.040]  Yeah.
[01:28:35.040 --> 01:28:38.720]  And I'm, we just stomp the chomp.
[01:28:38.720 --> 01:28:40.760]  I don't know why they ask them this way.
[01:28:40.760 --> 01:28:48.240]  There are other issues I like to take up, but the first thing when I step in the door,
[01:28:48.240 --> 01:28:50.600]  I don't want to talk to a judge.
[01:28:50.600 --> 01:28:54.120]  I want to talk to a magistrate.
[01:28:54.120 --> 01:28:58.040]  When I signed the ticket, I agreed to appear before a magistrate of the county.
[01:28:58.040 --> 01:29:02.000]  I did not appear to agree to appear before a judge.
[01:29:02.000 --> 01:29:07.640]  And I had one in Lakeside, Texas say, well, you know, he was the judge.
[01:29:07.640 --> 01:29:09.040]  He said, well, I am a magistrate.
[01:29:09.040 --> 01:29:10.040]  And I said, yes, your honor.
[01:29:10.040 --> 01:29:11.040]  I understand that.
[01:29:11.040 --> 01:29:12.040]  I'm sorry.
[01:29:12.040 --> 01:29:13.040]  He said, all judges are magistrates.
[01:29:13.040 --> 01:29:14.040]  I said, yes, your honor.
[01:29:14.040 --> 01:29:15.260]  I understand that.
[01:29:15.260 --> 01:29:20.040]  So tell me right now, which hat do you have on?
[01:29:20.040 --> 01:29:24.320]  Do you have on your judge's hat or your magistrate's hat?
[01:29:24.320 --> 01:29:29.640]  He said that looked at me like he wanted to slap me.
[01:29:29.640 --> 01:29:30.640]  Yes.
[01:29:30.640 --> 01:29:35.800]  All judges are magistrates, but they're not always acting in that capacity.
[01:29:35.800 --> 01:29:40.400]  In this case, you agreed to appear before a magistrate and they put you in front of
[01:29:40.400 --> 01:29:42.560]  a judge.
[01:29:42.560 --> 01:29:45.160]  That should have been adjudicated first.
[01:29:45.160 --> 01:29:46.160]  Hang on.
[01:29:46.160 --> 01:30:02.200]  I'll get you out on the radio, I'll call in number 512-646-1984, we'll be right back.
[01:30:02.200 --> 01:30:06.560]  When workplace stress follows people home, women have a tougher time dealing with it
[01:30:06.560 --> 01:30:07.560]  than men.
[01:30:07.560 --> 01:30:11.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll have details of a study that looked at the emotional
[01:30:11.520 --> 01:30:15.920]  cost of staying connected to the workplace in a moment.
[01:30:15.920 --> 01:30:17.680]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:17.680 --> 01:30:21.280]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:21.280 --> 01:30:26.240]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.240 --> 01:30:31.480]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:31.480 --> 01:30:34.040]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.040 --> 01:30:39.640]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:30:39.640 --> 01:30:41.380]  Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:41.380 --> 01:30:45.240]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.240 --> 01:30:50.120]  Cell phones, pagers, laptops, there's no end to the ways we're linked to the workplace,
[01:30:50.120 --> 01:30:51.120]  even after hours.
[01:30:51.120 --> 01:30:56.800]  But a new study finds women have an especially hard time when contacted at home by bosses,
[01:30:56.800 --> 01:30:58.840]  coworkers and clients.
[01:30:58.840 --> 01:31:02.760]  At first, researchers thought this had to do with women's need for family time.
[01:31:02.760 --> 01:31:06.760]  So they learned that both genders balance work and family equally.
[01:31:06.760 --> 01:31:08.040]  So what's the real issue?
[01:31:08.040 --> 01:31:13.540]  Guilt, it turns out, shaped by the cultural expectation that women put family first and
[01:31:13.540 --> 01:31:15.000]  work second.
[01:31:15.000 --> 01:31:19.920]  So bosses hold off on those weekend emails and husbands, the next time your wife takes
[01:31:19.920 --> 01:31:22.960]  a call from the office, give her a little extra TLC.
[01:31:22.960 --> 01:31:31.480]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.480 --> 01:31:36.840]  This is building seven, a 47 story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.840 --> 01:31:38.920]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.920 --> 01:31:43.880]  However, 1500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.880 --> 01:31:46.640]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.640 --> 01:31:49.360]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.360 --> 01:31:50.800]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.800 --> 01:31:51.800]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.800 --> 01:31:53.160]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.160 --> 01:31:54.160]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.160 --> 01:31:55.800]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.800 --> 01:31:58.440]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.440 --> 01:32:00.920]  Go to rememberbuildingseven.org today.
[01:32:00.920 --> 01:32:03.760]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.760 --> 01:32:07.040]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.040 --> 01:32:10.680]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their Kim trails, but good luck getting
[01:32:10.680 --> 01:32:11.680]  them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.680 --> 01:32:15.320]  Okay, I might be kidding about the Kim trails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.320 --> 01:32:19.120]  That's why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for
[01:32:19.120 --> 01:32:21.880]  you with little to no out of pocket expense.
[01:32:21.880 --> 01:32:26.120]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[01:32:26.120 --> 01:32:27.440]  zero complaints.
[01:32:27.440 --> 01:32:31.800]  You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the
[01:32:31.800 --> 01:32:32.880]  first time.
[01:32:32.880 --> 01:32:40.740]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com, mention the crypto show and get a hundred
[01:32:40.740 --> 01:32:41.740]  dollars off.
[01:32:41.740 --> 01:32:45.520]  And we'll donate another hundred dollars to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this
[01:32:45.520 --> 01:32:46.520]  programming.
[01:32:46.520 --> 01:32:51.320]  So if those out of town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.320 --> 01:32:57.720]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.720 --> 01:32:59.600]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:32:59.600 --> 01:33:01.640]  May not actually be kidding about Kim trails.
[01:33:01.640 --> 01:33:11.080]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:11.080 --> 01:33:40.740]  Okay.
[01:33:40.740 --> 01:33:46.140]  We are back, Randy Kelton, the leader of our radio, and we're talking to Mark in Florida.
[01:33:46.140 --> 01:33:54.180]  Yeah, Mark, I don't know enough about what their reasoning is, so I couldn't really comment
[01:33:54.180 --> 01:33:56.380]  on what you're doing there.
[01:33:56.380 --> 01:33:59.580]  So I may try to talk to him and see if I can get that sorted out.
[01:33:59.580 --> 01:34:02.220]  Do you have anything else for us?
[01:34:02.220 --> 01:34:05.660]  Yeah, you mentioned something earlier.
[01:34:05.660 --> 01:34:12.500]  I have one misdemeanor where the officer that wrote the ticket was not the one on the scene
[01:34:12.500 --> 01:34:13.500]  later.
[01:34:13.500 --> 01:34:28.020]  He's not the one that allegedly saw me commit this crime, and he mentioned in his note that
[01:34:28.020 --> 01:34:33.380]  it is as the other officer said, but yet he's...
[01:34:33.380 --> 01:34:38.340]  Did you object to the testimony in his hearsay?
[01:34:38.340 --> 01:34:40.420]  It hasn't gotten that far yet.
[01:34:40.420 --> 01:34:41.420]  Oh, okay.
[01:34:41.420 --> 01:34:42.420]  That's my plan.
[01:34:42.420 --> 01:34:48.940]  But didn't you just say something about an officer can do that even though he's...
[01:34:48.940 --> 01:34:58.340]  Well, in a complaint, they can do that, but that cannot be used in a trial court.
[01:34:58.340 --> 01:35:02.860]  That can only be used before a magistrate.
[01:35:02.860 --> 01:35:08.660]  In a trial court, they have to have firsthand witness.
[01:35:08.660 --> 01:35:09.660]  Okay.
[01:35:09.660 --> 01:35:18.420]  So once it gets to trial, I can just have him disqualified then.
[01:35:18.420 --> 01:35:19.420]  Disqualified.
[01:35:19.420 --> 01:35:25.100]  I didn't understand the context of that.
[01:35:25.100 --> 01:35:26.100]  Disqualified.
[01:35:26.100 --> 01:35:39.580]  Oh, okay, if the accuser doesn't have firsthand knowledge, if he's not a best witness, then
[01:35:39.580 --> 01:35:44.100]  you can have him disqualified as a witness because he has no personal knowledge.
[01:35:44.100 --> 01:35:45.100]  Right.
[01:35:45.100 --> 01:35:53.500]  Now, should I move to strike the citation before as hearsay?
[01:35:53.500 --> 01:35:59.100]  No, well, I don't see that the citation is...
[01:35:59.100 --> 01:36:07.180]  Not just the fact that someone other than the police officer filed the complaint.
[01:36:07.180 --> 01:36:08.180]  That can be done.
[01:36:08.180 --> 01:36:09.180]  That's legal.
[01:36:09.180 --> 01:36:16.940]  So you can move to strike it, but I don't know what reason you would have to move to
[01:36:16.940 --> 01:36:21.020]  strike, not just because it's not the witness.
[01:36:21.020 --> 01:36:34.420]  If the first person witness testified to a third party that something happened, the third
[01:36:34.420 --> 01:36:38.500]  party can file the complaint, so you don't really have grounds to move to strike the
[01:36:38.500 --> 01:36:39.500]  complaint.
[01:36:39.500 --> 01:36:47.980]  What you have grounds to do is challenge the denial of a examining trial because you were
[01:36:47.980 --> 01:36:53.220]  required to appear before a magistrate, not a judge.
[01:36:53.220 --> 01:36:57.380]  You might look up arraignment in Florida.
[01:36:57.380 --> 01:37:08.420]  In Texas, an arraignment is a hearing for the purpose of identifying the accused and
[01:37:08.420 --> 01:37:17.340]  taking a plea, but an arraignment hearing can only be held for an accusation wherein
[01:37:17.340 --> 01:37:27.300]  a person is charged with a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment.
[01:37:27.300 --> 01:37:31.940]  Municipal court has no power to hold an arraignment.
[01:37:31.940 --> 01:37:34.380]  They're supposed to hold an examining trial.
[01:37:34.380 --> 01:37:35.380]  Okay.
[01:37:35.380 --> 01:37:38.380]  We don't have municipal court down here.
[01:37:38.380 --> 01:37:41.640]  Say that again.
[01:37:41.640 --> 01:37:43.820]  We don't have municipal court.
[01:37:43.820 --> 01:37:47.540]  This is a county court.
[01:37:47.540 --> 01:37:48.540]  Okay.
[01:37:48.540 --> 01:37:54.620]  Well, if it's a site, you look up arraignment.
[01:37:54.620 --> 01:38:03.860]  It's not the court, it's the charge that makes the determination.
[01:38:03.860 --> 01:38:10.540]  In Texas, this is a detail I haven't looked at in Florida, but in Texas, you can only
[01:38:10.540 --> 01:38:18.140]  be arraigned if it's a criminal accusation punishable by imprisonment.
[01:38:18.140 --> 01:38:21.620]  Yeah, these are misdemeanors.
[01:38:21.620 --> 01:38:22.620]  Very clear in the law.
[01:38:22.620 --> 01:38:28.340]  So you might look in your criminal procedure code in Florida, just look up arraignment
[01:38:28.340 --> 01:38:30.340]  and see what it says.
[01:38:30.340 --> 01:38:31.340]  Yeah.
[01:38:31.340 --> 01:38:39.180]  These are all misdemeanors and the officer that wrote the ticket is the detective that
[01:38:39.180 --> 01:38:40.660]  put me under arrest.
[01:38:40.660 --> 01:38:43.340]  He was the one on the scene.
[01:38:43.340 --> 01:38:48.300]  The other officers came in later and one of those officers wrote up the ticket, checked
[01:38:48.300 --> 01:38:53.820]  the box at the bottom that he certified the above to be true and correct, and that I was
[01:38:53.820 --> 01:38:55.820]  given a true copy.
[01:38:55.820 --> 01:39:00.620]  Now, his copy, he had a note stood in the bottom.
[01:39:00.620 --> 01:39:05.980]  My copy does not have that.
[01:39:05.980 --> 01:39:08.980]  Is that a...
[01:39:08.980 --> 01:39:13.660]  Well, the one that goes to the courts, the one that's determinative.
[01:39:13.660 --> 01:39:18.740]  Well, his copy goes to the court.
[01:39:18.740 --> 01:39:23.860]  So his copy has notes on it that my copy does not have.
[01:39:23.860 --> 01:39:24.860]  Oh, notes.
[01:39:24.860 --> 01:39:26.860]  I missed that part.
[01:39:26.860 --> 01:39:31.420]  Notes could be a problem.
[01:39:31.420 --> 01:39:41.220]  You need to look and get a copy of the one the court has and see what those notes say.
[01:39:41.220 --> 01:39:50.740]  Well, one of my tickets, there's just a few letters and some numbers.
[01:39:50.740 --> 01:39:51.740]  It starts out with an F.
[01:39:51.740 --> 01:39:52.740]  Okay.
[01:39:52.740 --> 01:39:53.740]  Then that's what...
[01:39:53.740 --> 01:39:54.740]  Okay.
[01:39:54.740 --> 01:39:56.460]  That was a code.
[01:39:56.460 --> 01:40:06.540]  You need to do discovery to find out what that code is because it may be that he's improperly
[01:40:06.540 --> 01:40:09.540]  communicating with the judge.
[01:40:09.540 --> 01:40:10.540]  Okay.
[01:40:10.540 --> 01:40:16.540]  Now, would that discovery be to the state attorney?
[01:40:16.540 --> 01:40:17.540]  Yes.
[01:40:17.540 --> 01:40:18.540]  Okay.
[01:40:18.540 --> 01:40:21.540]  I will do that.
[01:40:21.540 --> 01:40:32.460]  Get a copy of it and mark out the sections where it has the notes and you want to see
[01:40:32.460 --> 01:40:39.340]  something showing what those notations mean and you might go down and look at a few other
[01:40:39.340 --> 01:40:45.740]  citations and see if they have notes on them as well.
[01:40:45.740 --> 01:40:51.620]  The one I was talking about the most here where the officer wrote a ticket and he was
[01:40:51.620 --> 01:40:57.860]  not the one on the scene that saw the alleged crime.
[01:40:57.860 --> 01:40:58.860]  That is another issue.
[01:40:58.860 --> 01:40:59.860]  Okay.
[01:40:59.860 --> 01:41:01.580]  You need to look at Florida law.
[01:41:01.580 --> 01:41:09.460]  In Texas law, you can only be arrested for an on-site offense or a felony where there
[01:41:09.460 --> 01:41:16.180]  is a felony where he has reason to believe that you may escape.
[01:41:16.180 --> 01:41:24.540]  He can arrest you for a felony without a warrant or a misdemeanor committed in his sight and
[01:41:24.540 --> 01:41:28.380]  within his hearing.
[01:41:28.380 --> 01:41:34.220]  If the other officer did not see or hear the offense being committed, he could not perform
[01:41:34.220 --> 01:41:39.660]  the arrest or write the citation.
[01:41:39.660 --> 01:41:44.100]  At least that is how it is in Texas and most every other state I have looked at is about
[01:41:44.100 --> 01:41:45.100]  the same.
[01:41:45.100 --> 01:41:49.500]  That is what I understood too.
[01:41:49.500 --> 01:41:57.780]  I agree with you on that and in his notes he wrote the detective said that all of this
[01:41:57.780 --> 01:41:58.780]  happened.
[01:41:58.780 --> 01:41:59.780]  Okay.
[01:41:59.780 --> 01:42:00.780]  Hold on.
[01:42:00.780 --> 01:42:06.220]  This is how this can happen legally.
[01:42:06.220 --> 01:42:14.300]  An officer observes you committing a crime, he arrests you and holds you and he tells
[01:42:14.300 --> 01:42:23.700]  this other officer what occurred and the other officer can then go to the JP and file a complaint
[01:42:23.700 --> 01:42:29.340]  with the JP and this officer would have to release you.
[01:42:29.340 --> 01:42:36.540]  But if one officer arrests you, that officer would have to file a complaint in order to
[01:42:36.540 --> 01:42:39.700]  support the arrest.
[01:42:39.700 --> 01:42:45.020]  Say I see someone commit a crime and I have the authority to arrest him but I am not going
[01:42:45.020 --> 01:42:46.020]  to do it.
[01:42:46.020 --> 01:42:47.380]  He would dot my eye.
[01:42:47.380 --> 01:42:50.460]  So I go to the JP and I fill out a complaint.
[01:42:50.460 --> 01:42:56.420]  Now I can do that or you come to me and tell me you saw somebody commit a crime and I can
[01:42:56.420 --> 01:43:02.740]  go to the JP and fill out a complaint but I'm not arresting the person.
[01:43:02.740 --> 01:43:08.860]  If I arrest the person then I am required to take him directly to the nearest magistrate
[01:43:08.860 --> 01:43:15.100]  but in the case of a ticket, the police officer is authorized to issue a citation but he can
[01:43:15.100 --> 01:43:20.980]  only do that after he's arrested the person for an on-site offense.
[01:43:20.980 --> 01:43:26.020]  If an officer other than the one who actually saw the offense being committed writes to
[01:43:26.020 --> 01:43:30.300]  citation, then they're violated due process.
[01:43:30.300 --> 01:43:32.300]  Does that make sense Mark?
[01:43:32.300 --> 01:43:42.020]  Okay, we only have one more segment and I've got one more caller so I'd like you to move
[01:43:42.020 --> 01:43:43.020]  along.
[01:43:43.020 --> 01:43:45.020]  Okay, thank you Mark.
[01:43:45.020 --> 01:43:54.780]  This is Randy Kelton, Wheelbarradio, I call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:43:54.780 --> 01:44:00.180]  Joe we'll get you on the other side, we'll be right back.
[01:44:00.180 --> 01:44:03.620]  You feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:03.620 --> 01:44:04.620]  Sorry!
[01:44:04.620 --> 01:44:07.500]  Are you confused by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve?
[01:44:07.500 --> 01:44:08.500]  What?
[01:44:08.500 --> 01:44:12.380]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:12.380 --> 01:44:17.860]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt and like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity
[01:44:17.860 --> 01:44:18.860]  at an early age.
[01:44:18.860 --> 01:44:23.060]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home
[01:44:23.060 --> 01:44:25.140]  in America, the television.
[01:44:25.140 --> 01:44:30.180]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope.
[01:44:30.180 --> 01:44:33.940]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering
[01:44:33.940 --> 01:44:38.860]  from sports zombieism recover and because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and
[01:44:38.860 --> 01:44:42.580]  watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:42.580 --> 01:44:50.500]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503
[01:44:50.500 --> 01:44:54.580]  or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:54.580 --> 01:44:57.980]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary
[01:44:57.980 --> 01:44:59.940]  and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:44:59.940 --> 01:45:04.340]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.340 --> 01:45:11.100]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[01:45:11.100 --> 01:45:15.060]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:15.060 --> 01:45:18.860]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.860 --> 01:45:23.620]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.620 --> 01:45:28.860]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too.
[01:45:28.860 --> 01:45:34.780]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.780 --> 01:45:39.380]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:39.380 --> 01:45:43.620]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.620 --> 01:45:49.780]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:49.780 --> 01:45:52.060]  pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:52.060 --> 01:46:21.820]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.820 --> 01:46:27.260]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio and we're going to Joe in Illinois.
[01:46:27.260 --> 01:46:28.260]  Hello, Joe.
[01:46:28.260 --> 01:46:29.260]  Hi, Randy.
[01:46:29.260 --> 01:46:30.260]  How are you?
[01:46:30.260 --> 01:46:31.260]  I am good.
[01:46:31.260 --> 01:46:32.260]  Okay, what do you have for us today?
[01:46:32.260 --> 01:46:41.260]  I got a couple of things I want to just talk about and we don't have much time.
[01:46:41.260 --> 01:46:50.220]  But, you know, first of all, work on the motion for reconsideration for closure and the question
[01:46:50.220 --> 01:47:02.140]  to you is, okay, to put the subject matter of jurisdiction as a cause of action.
[01:47:02.140 --> 01:47:04.140]  You're blanking out there.
[01:47:04.140 --> 01:47:14.180]  Okay, let me repeat, I working on a, right now I'm working on a subject, on a motion
[01:47:14.180 --> 01:47:17.940]  for reconsideration in foreclosure and...
[01:47:17.940 --> 01:47:22.300]  Okay, and a challenge to subject matter of jurisdiction.
[01:47:22.300 --> 01:47:28.460]  How do you get to the challenge for subject matter of jurisdiction?
[01:47:28.460 --> 01:47:30.300]  I got a couple of things.
[01:47:30.300 --> 01:47:42.340]  I want to just claim the law decision and standing and probably put on a card.
[01:47:42.340 --> 01:47:49.300]  So there's actually things, you know, I probably can throw at them at this point.
[01:47:49.300 --> 01:47:50.300]  Okay.
[01:47:50.300 --> 01:47:51.300]  Okay.
[01:47:51.300 --> 01:48:00.220]  So what your claim will be is that the plaintiff lacked agency standing or legal capacity to
[01:48:00.220 --> 01:48:04.620]  invoke the subject matter of jurisdiction in the court.
[01:48:04.620 --> 01:48:05.620]  Correct.
[01:48:05.620 --> 01:48:06.740]  Okay.
[01:48:06.740 --> 01:48:13.540]  So have you sent a qualified written request to the plaintiff?
[01:48:13.540 --> 01:48:18.220]  Oh, yes, I did.
[01:48:18.220 --> 01:48:23.940]  Did you claim statutory estoppel against the plaintiff?
[01:48:23.940 --> 01:48:27.060]  Oh, I'm sorry.
[01:48:27.060 --> 01:48:30.260]  Did the plaintiff respond to your qualified written request?
[01:48:30.260 --> 01:48:32.260]  No, he didn't.
[01:48:32.260 --> 01:48:35.260]  Wait, say that again?
[01:48:35.260 --> 01:48:37.420]  No, he didn't.
[01:48:37.420 --> 01:48:38.420]  He didn't.
[01:48:38.420 --> 01:48:47.020]  In your qualified written request, did you make a claim of an accounting error and request
[01:48:47.020 --> 01:48:48.820]  that he correct the error?
[01:48:48.820 --> 01:48:55.820]  No, I was using kind of, you know, long form, you know, and there was, you know, accounting
[01:48:55.820 --> 01:48:58.820]  error not wasn't in it.
[01:48:58.820 --> 01:48:59.820]  Okay.
[01:48:59.820 --> 01:49:00.820]  Wait a minute.
[01:49:00.820 --> 01:49:02.380]  He didn't answer my question.
[01:49:02.380 --> 01:49:05.540]  Did you make a claim of an accounting error?
[01:49:05.540 --> 01:49:06.540]  No.
[01:49:06.540 --> 01:49:07.540]  Okay.
[01:49:07.540 --> 01:49:09.300]  Let me explain.
[01:49:09.300 --> 01:49:15.260]  If it doesn't claim an accounting error, then it's not considered a qualified written request
[01:49:15.260 --> 01:49:18.500]  and it doesn't invoke his duty to respond.
[01:49:18.500 --> 01:49:21.900]  No, that's correct.
[01:49:21.900 --> 01:49:22.900]  Okay.
[01:49:22.900 --> 01:49:28.380]  So what was the nature of the accounting error or was there no accounting error?
[01:49:28.380 --> 01:49:34.780]  Right now, I know how to claim it, but, you know, right now I don't have the time to work
[01:49:34.780 --> 01:49:39.780]  this lawsuit.
[01:49:39.780 --> 01:49:43.340]  You're not answering my question.
[01:49:43.340 --> 01:49:44.780]  So I can't move ahead.
[01:49:44.780 --> 01:49:46.940]  Did you claim an accounting error?
[01:49:46.940 --> 01:49:49.260]  No, I didn't.
[01:49:49.260 --> 01:49:50.500]  Okay.
[01:49:50.500 --> 01:49:53.580]  Did you dispute the debt?
[01:49:53.580 --> 01:49:57.260]  Yes, I did.
[01:49:57.260 --> 01:50:02.540]  Okay, then it's not a qualified written request.
[01:50:02.540 --> 01:50:12.100]  It's a dispute letter and that falls under Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 1692 G.
[01:50:12.100 --> 01:50:18.080]  So he didn't respond to the dispute and the reason I went to that is both of these go
[01:50:18.080 --> 01:50:22.380]  to statutory estoppel.
[01:50:22.380 --> 01:50:30.660]  If you file a debt validation letter under 1692 G where you dispute the entire debt and
[01:50:30.660 --> 01:50:38.600]  demand that the debt collector prove up agency standing and capacity.
[01:50:38.600 --> 01:50:49.920]  If the debt collector fails to respond with validation, then the debt collector is forbidden
[01:50:49.920 --> 01:50:55.780]  to continue collection practices until they answer.
[01:50:55.780 --> 01:51:03.860]  So you go to the court and say, this plaintiff is subject to statutory estoppel under the
[01:51:03.860 --> 01:51:13.220]  Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and this court has no power to hear any claim by this
[01:51:13.220 --> 01:51:25.500]  plaintiff since they are forbidden by federal statute to continue collection practices.
[01:51:25.500 --> 01:51:30.700]  Is that where you were going with your child and subject matter jurisdiction?
[01:51:30.700 --> 01:51:40.780]  So in other words, you are just claiming that validation is not responding to this validation
[01:51:40.780 --> 01:51:41.780]  letter?
[01:51:41.780 --> 01:51:50.540]  Exactly, and claim statutory estoppel, E-S-T-O-P-P-E-L.
[01:51:50.540 --> 01:52:03.340]  But first, you know, that was over two years ago, so FDCPA, FDCPA just works, you know,
[01:52:03.340 --> 01:52:07.780]  for, it's going to be filed in three years.
[01:52:07.780 --> 01:52:12.060]  I'm not understanding anything you're saying.
[01:52:12.060 --> 01:52:17.940]  FDCPA claim is valid for two years, so it's over that period.
[01:52:17.940 --> 01:52:28.820]  Oh no, FDCPA, when you get a new servicer, you can revalidate the debt.
[01:52:28.820 --> 01:52:32.500]  I have the same one, and I have the same one, so I didn't change the servicer.
[01:52:32.500 --> 01:52:43.340]  The only thing, you know, I, right now, you know, this is kind of, you know, the claim.
[01:52:43.340 --> 01:52:51.100]  As to debt validation, the limitation, okay, wait a minute, I think you're mixing things
[01:52:51.100 --> 01:52:52.100]  up.
[01:52:52.100 --> 01:53:00.540]  The two-year statutory limitations, that's not FDCPA, that's Real Estate Settlement
[01:53:00.540 --> 01:53:05.220]  Procedures Act and Truth in Lending Act.
[01:53:05.220 --> 01:53:17.620]  The FDCPA goes to, when you get a demand for payment, then you can demand, by a new party,
[01:53:17.620 --> 01:53:21.060]  then you can demand debt validation.
[01:53:21.060 --> 01:53:28.940]  But you can demand debt validation anyway, and claim a stopple, if you're out of time
[01:53:28.940 --> 01:53:34.340]  to claim a debt validation, they have to, the other side has to plead that.
[01:53:34.340 --> 01:53:45.380]  So that means, so I can claim, right now, on a motion for the consideration, the subject
[01:53:45.380 --> 01:53:50.300]  manager is looking based on not transferring to my debt validation, is that right?
[01:53:50.300 --> 01:53:55.700]  The way that you're talking too fast, say that again.
[01:53:55.700 --> 01:54:04.140]  So I can use in a subject manager jurisdiction, not responding by playing this to my validation
[01:54:04.140 --> 01:54:05.140]  letter.
[01:54:05.140 --> 01:54:13.980]  You're saying you have been using that claim?
[01:54:13.980 --> 01:54:23.340]  I said, I say that I sent a validation letter, but they didn't respond to me.
[01:54:23.340 --> 01:54:30.740]  Okay, then that's the argument you need to bring, that not responding to the debt validation
[01:54:30.740 --> 01:54:39.100]  letter affects statutory a stopple, the plaintiff is forbidden to pursue collection, and this
[01:54:39.100 --> 01:54:47.700]  judge has no power to overrule the legislature when they pass the Fair Debt Collections Practices
[01:54:47.700 --> 01:54:48.700]  Act.
[01:54:48.700 --> 01:54:54.380]  Okay, Randy, because we don't have much time left, you know, can I ask you another question
[01:54:54.380 --> 01:55:03.660]  regarding my suit, which is declaratory judgment?
[01:55:03.660 --> 01:55:12.340]  And I filed pretty good pleading, you know, and for all pretty good facts, but the judge,
[01:55:12.340 --> 01:55:15.820]  you know, is trying to dismiss it.
[01:55:15.820 --> 01:55:19.500]  So what would you do to just prevent it?
[01:55:19.500 --> 01:55:22.380]  Wait a minute.
[01:55:22.380 --> 01:55:26.180]  They ask, the other side asked for declaratory judgment, right?
[01:55:26.180 --> 01:55:31.820]  Yes, I was asking for a judgment, right?
[01:55:31.820 --> 01:55:35.220]  To void the security instrument.
[01:55:35.220 --> 01:55:43.220]  Okay, you asked for a declaratory judgment, did you, okay, did the judge hear your motion?
[01:55:43.220 --> 01:55:53.900]  Yes, I basically right now, I'm in there, and at the stage that...
[01:55:53.900 --> 01:55:54.900]  Wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:55:54.900 --> 01:55:58.300]  I can't do this unless you answer my question.
[01:55:58.300 --> 01:56:04.980]  First, yes or no, did the judge hear your motion for declaratory judgment?
[01:56:04.980 --> 01:56:07.740]  Oh, he did, yes.
[01:56:07.740 --> 01:56:08.740]  Okay.
[01:56:08.740 --> 01:56:10.780]  Yes, he did hear it.
[01:56:10.780 --> 01:56:11.780]  Yes.
[01:56:11.780 --> 01:56:12.780]  Is that correct?
[01:56:12.780 --> 01:56:13.780]  Okay.
[01:56:13.780 --> 01:56:20.580]  And did he deny it?
[01:56:20.580 --> 01:56:26.100]  The other side denied it, the other side wants to deny it, wants to dismiss it, and, you
[01:56:26.100 --> 01:56:32.460]  know, I heard that, you know, from one lawyer told me that, you know, my law, my motion
[01:56:32.460 --> 01:56:38.620]  started to survive because, you know, there is already summary judgment.
[01:56:38.620 --> 01:56:42.580]  So my motion doesn't make a sense, you know.
[01:56:42.580 --> 01:56:43.580]  Is it correct?
[01:56:43.580 --> 01:56:51.420]  Yeah, I'm struggling trying to understand what you're saying.
[01:56:51.420 --> 01:56:53.620]  You say there's a summary judgment now.
[01:56:53.620 --> 01:56:58.220]  Yeah, summary judgment is good, it's good, it's good, it's going on, you know, different
[01:56:58.220 --> 01:56:59.220]  case, but...
[01:56:59.220 --> 01:57:05.220]  Stop, you're running so fast, I have no idea what you're talking about.
[01:57:05.220 --> 01:57:10.380]  There's a declaratory judgment and a summary judgment motion in the court.
[01:57:10.380 --> 01:57:20.020]  Did the court, okay, who filed the summary judgment when?
[01:57:20.020 --> 01:57:28.060]  Summary judgment is for projected, but motion for declaratory judgment, I filed, I implanted.
[01:57:28.060 --> 01:57:29.060]  Okay.
[01:57:29.060 --> 01:57:34.660]  When did the other side file a motion for summary judgment, before your motion or after?
[01:57:34.660 --> 01:57:38.980]  Oh, before, long before me, because it's been a few days.
[01:57:38.980 --> 01:57:45.260]  Did you get a ruling on the motion for summary judgment?
[01:57:45.260 --> 01:57:51.980]  Oh, I got the, I got the judgment right now.
[01:57:51.980 --> 01:57:55.020]  Did you get a ruling on the summary judgment?
[01:57:55.020 --> 01:57:56.020]  Yes.
[01:57:56.020 --> 01:57:57.020]  Yes or no?
[01:57:57.020 --> 01:57:58.020]  Yes or no?
[01:57:58.020 --> 01:57:59.020]  Yes, yes.
[01:57:59.020 --> 01:58:00.020]  Okay.
[01:58:00.020 --> 01:58:09.020]  Did the summary judgment dismiss, grant them their claim and dispose of the case?
[01:58:09.020 --> 01:58:13.260]  They didn't even consider on my motion for summary judgment.
[01:58:13.260 --> 01:58:14.820]  You're not answering my question.
[01:58:14.820 --> 01:58:20.860]  If it's a dispositive motion, they don't have to hear your declaratory judgment, the case
[01:58:20.860 --> 01:58:21.860]  is over.
[01:58:21.860 --> 01:58:22.860]  Okay.
[01:58:22.860 --> 01:58:30.660]  I'm trying to define, determine if it's dispositive or not, so if it's dispositive, they won't
[01:58:30.660 --> 01:58:36.140]  get to your declaratory judgment because now you have to overturn the summary judgment.
[01:58:36.140 --> 01:58:37.140]  Okay.
[01:58:37.140 --> 01:58:39.540]  We are out of time.
[01:58:39.540 --> 01:58:45.460]  This is Randy Kelton, Rue of La Radio, we'll be back next week, Thursday, eight o'clock
[01:58:45.460 --> 01:58:50.300]  and then eight to 10 and Friday, eight to 12, thank you for this.
[01:58:50.300 --> 01:58:56.660]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.660 --> 01:58:57.860]  Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.860 --> 01:59:02.860]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:59:02.860 --> 01:59:08.500]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.500 --> 01:59:11.820]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.820 --> 01:59:20.780]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.780 --> 01:59:26.300]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references plus
[01:59:26.300 --> 01:59:30.340]  charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.340 --> 01:59:32.880]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.880 --> 01:59:41.260]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.260 --> 01:59:52.020]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:52.020 --> 01:59:53.020]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:53.020 --> 02:00:13.020]  You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.