ROL_2016-01-29_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:10.000]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. Providing the deli bulletins for the commodities market.
[00:10.000 --> 00:18.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:18.000 --> 00:38.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 27th of January, 2016 opened up with gold at $1,120 an ounce, silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 395 U.S. currency.
[00:38.000 --> 00:57.000]  Today in history, Thursday, January 27th, 1825, the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in what is present-day Oklahoma. This cleared the way for the forced relocation of eastern Indians, known as the Trail of Tears.
[00:57.000 --> 01:17.000]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting Sweden later this year to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of the 95 Theses on the front doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31, 1517.
[01:17.000 --> 01:30.000]  Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic theology of indulgences, essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment from sins for money, a practice still upheld by the Church.
[01:30.000 --> 01:38.000]  On October 31 of this year, Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund, where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947.
[01:38.000 --> 01:49.000]  While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches, Francis has come under criticism from traditionalists and conservatives within the Church who accuse him of sending conflicting signals about interfaith relations.
[01:49.000 --> 02:07.000]  Catholic traditionalists have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans, since both religions will be using Luther's common prayer during the 2017 Reformation commemoration services being held jointly between the two churches, which they say excessively praised Luther, who was historically condemned as a heretic and excommunicated.
[02:07.000 --> 02:28.000]  Pope Francis has made ecumenism one of the main themes of his papacy, considering he has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome, the Waldenian Protestant community in northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue, and is soon due to become the first pope to visit Rome's mosque later this year.
[02:28.000 --> 02:45.000]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88. Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose function can be studied and replicated in the computer, and he considered how machines might be endowed with common sense or artificial intelligence.
[02:45.000 --> 02:59.000]  Daniela Russ, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, said that Minsky helped create the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[03:15.000 --> 03:42.000]  Howdy, howdy, this is Randy Kelton with our radio on this Friday, the 29th day of January 2016.
[03:42.000 --> 03:50.000]  And I was going to start the show tonight with talking about preparing documents.
[03:50.000 --> 04:01.000]  We've had a number of people called in and I've had a number of people email me with documents they want me to look over.
[04:01.000 --> 04:08.000]  And some of these documents need, really needed a lot of work.
[04:08.000 --> 04:19.000]  So there are some basic understandings that will help us to produce better legal documents.
[04:19.000 --> 04:30.000]  Better writing overall, but mostly what we're doing here is in the legal realm.
[04:30.000 --> 04:37.000]  So this takes some particular preparation.
[04:37.000 --> 04:47.000]  The first thing we need to understand is that we're dealing in law and with the courts.
[04:47.000 --> 04:56.000]  And the courts don't work the way people normally believe that they do.
[04:56.000 --> 05:05.000]  When we think about going to court, we think about going to a place where we can adjudicate our issues and seek justice.
[05:05.000 --> 05:13.000]  Well, the judge is not there to give you justice.
[05:13.000 --> 05:22.000]  When a judge begins to think that it's his purpose to mete out justice, we need to get him off the bench.
[05:22.000 --> 05:26.000]  The judges that mete out justice are the common law judges.
[05:26.000 --> 05:28.000]  And we hope we don't have any more of those.
[05:28.000 --> 05:32.000]  We have a lot of groups out there that want to bring the common law back.
[05:32.000 --> 05:38.000]  But whenever I hear that, I think you guys must be out of your minds.
[05:38.000 --> 05:44.000]  In common law courts, the judges don't really follow statutes.
[05:44.000 --> 05:48.000]  They do what they believe is right.
[05:48.000 --> 05:55.000]  And the law in common law is essentially ruled by judges.
[05:55.000 --> 05:58.000]  I do not want to be ruled by judges.
[05:58.000 --> 06:07.000]  I do not want a judge on that bench that thinks it's his place to determine what is just and what is not just.
[06:07.000 --> 06:12.000]  My judge is on the bench to do two things.
[06:12.000 --> 06:16.000]  He must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence,
[06:16.000 --> 06:19.000]  then apply the laws that comes to him to the facts in the case.
[06:19.000 --> 06:23.000]  If he has another agenda,
[06:23.000 --> 06:31.000]  he needs to get down off that bench and have himself replaced with the fair and competent jurist we all have a right to in the first instance.
[06:31.000 --> 06:37.000]  Justice is the purview of the legislature.
[06:37.000 --> 06:46.000]  The legislature spends a lot of time writing law so that the law will produce justice.
[06:46.000 --> 06:57.000]  It's not our judges place to circumvent the legislature or second guess the legislature.
[06:57.000 --> 07:04.000]  Biggest problem that I believe we have with the courts is not so much that they're corrupt,
[07:04.000 --> 07:08.000]  but that they don't trust the court with jurists.
[07:08.000 --> 07:13.000]  They don't trust the very law they're there to administer.
[07:13.000 --> 07:23.000]  They come to believe that it is their place to provide justice when they don't feel as though the law is capable.
[07:23.000 --> 07:24.000]  That's not why I have them there.
[07:24.000 --> 07:28.000]  If there's a problem with the laws, the laws are not producing justice.
[07:28.000 --> 07:42.000]  We need to fix the law, not let judges rule however they want to based on whether or not they have indigestion this morning.
[07:42.000 --> 07:47.000]  Anyway, judge's job is to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence,
[07:47.000 --> 07:50.000]  then apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case.
[07:50.000 --> 08:18.000]  With that said, when you write a document for a legal forum, you must provide a set of facts and then provide law that applies to those facts that lead to the conclusion that you want the court to come to.
[08:18.000 --> 08:29.000]  If you're writing an original petition, the first place to start is always at the end.
[08:29.000 --> 08:47.000]  Get out pattern jury charges and you'll have a pattern jury charge for most every cause of action, tort or criminal statute.
[08:47.000 --> 08:58.000]  The pattern jury charge is what you want the judge to say to the jury at the end of the trial.
[08:58.000 --> 09:06.000]  What the judge is going to tell the jury that they have to determine.
[09:06.000 --> 09:21.000]  When we produce legal documents, especially if we're pro se, we tend to have an emotional component in the circumstance or situation.
[09:21.000 --> 09:45.000]  And that emotional component tends to skew our objectivity in that we enter into the documentation, our perceptions of the circumstances as we feel them rather than think them.
[09:45.000 --> 09:52.000]  We let our emotions determine our arguments and issues.
[09:52.000 --> 10:03.000]  Always get the pattern jury charge for whatever cause of action, tort or criminal statute that you want to write a document for.
[10:03.000 --> 10:16.000]  And this is for if you're filing an original petition or original complaint in a civil case or complaint in a criminal case.
[10:16.000 --> 10:22.000]  Both of those will have to go to elements.
[10:22.000 --> 10:34.000]  Each cause of action, each tort, each criminal statute has a specific set of elements that defines the cause of action, tort or statute.
[10:34.000 --> 10:40.000]  And you must prove each one of those in order to prevail.
[10:40.000 --> 10:53.000]  So if you're writing an argument, and I find these a lot of times when I'm reading someone's document, I'll have this, there'll be this argument in there and I'll look at it and say, so what?
[10:53.000 --> 10:59.000]  You're writing this argument telling these bad things that the other side has done.
[10:59.000 --> 11:02.000]  So what?
[11:02.000 --> 11:19.000]  And what so what really means is how is this a cause of action or a claim or how does this amount to an element of a cause of action or a claim for which remedy can be had?
[11:19.000 --> 11:33.000]  Anyone who has written very many legal documents and filed them in court has probably had a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which recovery can be had.
[11:33.000 --> 11:56.000]  If you file a claim, say you make a claim of a cause of action, filed by non-disclosure, and you fail to plead every element of the claim, you're going to get a motion from the other side to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
[11:56.000 --> 12:13.000]  If you make statements, assertions, and allegations that do not go to one of the elements, then you're wasting your time, the judge's time, and the jury's time because they can't consider it.
[12:13.000 --> 12:19.000]  So first thing, the first place to start is the pattern jury charges.
[12:19.000 --> 12:40.000]  If you're writing a motion as opposed to an original pleading, first sit down and write on a piece of paper what the order is that you want the judge to grant.
[12:40.000 --> 12:54.000]  A lot of people write motions and they don't include an order. You should always have an order as a separate document attached to a motion or pleading, or not a pleading, I'm sorry, but a motion.
[12:54.000 --> 13:02.000]  An original petition doesn't get an order, but everything else pretty well does. Anytime you're asking the court to do something.
[13:02.000 --> 13:14.000]  An original petition is a pleading, but there are other pleadings like a challenge on subject matter jurisdiction, a claim of double jeopardy, and there's one other pleading.
[13:14.000 --> 13:21.000]  But if you're asking the judge to rule on your document, start out with the order.
[13:21.000 --> 13:29.000]  This is what you want him to order at the end of the day. Do that first.
[13:29.000 --> 13:43.000]  Now you know where you're going. When you start putting in elements or facts and arguments, every time you put in an element or a fact or an argument,
[13:43.000 --> 13:56.000]  always keep imagining that the judge is going to be sitting there saying, so what? Why do I care about this?
[13:56.000 --> 14:07.000]  You always have to give him facts, then give him law as it applies to those facts. Don't waste your time with anything else.
[14:07.000 --> 14:22.000]  You can go in and make an cogent and convincing argument, and the judge can agree with you, and the judge can want to rule in your favor.
[14:22.000 --> 14:35.000]  But if you have not given the judge facts, and then law as it applies to those facts, the judge has no power to give you an adjudication.
[14:35.000 --> 14:47.000]  So first step, look at the pattern of jury charge, or if it's a motion, look at your order, make up the order.
[14:47.000 --> 14:56.000]  Now you have a place to start from, a gauge by which to measure anything else that you're writing.
[14:56.000 --> 15:09.000]  And there's a few do's and a few don'ts. Let me go first to some expectations you should hold.
[15:09.000 --> 15:18.000]  Let me think how best to say this. I'm trying to develop some really well-structured presentations, and I'm working with them.
[15:18.000 --> 15:30.000]  When you go into court, you should always expect that the court is going to rule against you out of hand at every turn.
[15:30.000 --> 15:40.000]  Now, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll actually rule in your favor. But when you're preparing pleadings and preparing a case,
[15:40.000 --> 15:50.000]  every time you prepare a document and ask the court to rule anything, you always have to expect that they're going to rule against you.
[15:50.000 --> 16:04.000]  So that when they rule against you, you have developed your case in such a manner that you will be able to effectively appeal the issue.
[16:04.000 --> 16:16.000]  According to jurisdictionary, Dr. Graves, your only purpose in the trial court is to set the record for appeal.
[16:16.000 --> 16:27.000]  If you go into the trial court expecting the judge to rule against you out of hand at every turn, and he does, you won't be so interrupted.
[16:27.000 --> 16:39.000]  You won't feel so betrayed, mistreated, angry, frustrated. You're not so likely to lose your perspective.
[16:39.000 --> 16:48.000]  If he rules against you and you have prepared for him ruling against you, no big deal. We'll take care of this on appeal.
[16:48.000 --> 16:54.000]  This is Randy Kelton, Real Lawyer Radio, calling number 512-646-1984.
[16:54.000 --> 17:00.000]  We've got phones open. We'll keep them open all night. We'll be right back.
[17:00.000 --> 17:15.000]  Non-GMOsolutions.com is now a proud sponsor of the Logos Radio Network with promo code Logos. We thank you for the opportunity to be your source for new man of foods, the leader in high quality food that you will truly enjoy.
[17:15.000 --> 17:22.000]  You'll find gluten-free options, and all products are free from high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, soy, and MSG.
[17:22.000 --> 17:35.000]  Whether you're on a tight budget, looking for options to reduce food costs without compromising health, or securing long-term 25-year storable food for an uncertain future, then Non-GMOsolutions.com is your common sense answer.
[17:35.000 --> 17:45.000]  Take advantage of a 10% discount to promo code Logos. No longer will you compromise taste and quality for full-term shelf life or eat poor quality food due to cost.
[17:45.000 --> 18:00.000]  Check out our flex pay options and design a no-contract plan to satisfy your needs. Go to Non-GMOsolutions.com today and get 10% off with promo code Logos. That's Non-GMOsolutions.com with promo code Logos.
[18:00.000 --> 18:18.000]  They took our guns! Then get them back and support the Logos Radio Network at the same time. The following sponsors have stepped up to help keep this network on air with a fundraising contest. Thanks to Central Texas Gunworks with the first prize, the Spike Skull Lower Receiver.
[18:18.000 --> 18:36.000]  The second prize, the Taurus Curve Handgun. Every $25 donation gets a chance to win. Enter as often as you like. Check out CentralTexasGunworks.com. Thanks also to MyMagicMutt.com. The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mutt valued at $25.
[18:36.000 --> 18:53.000]  Also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard. The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card. Stop smelling like a butt at AllAboutVapor.com. Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the Rule of Law traffic seminar, get 10 entries into the contest.
[18:53.000 --> 19:21.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at LogosRadioNetwork.com. Terrorists or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[19:21.000 --> 19:30.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking about preparing legal documents.
[19:30.000 --> 19:46.000]  So, always expect that the courts going to rule against you out of hand at every turn. If they don't, wonderful. If they do, you are prepared because your only purpose in the trial court is to set the record for appeal.
[19:46.000 --> 19:56.000]  Now, I'm going to spend more time today on how to think about preparing documents.
[19:56.000 --> 20:16.000]  The primary rule in preparing documents is you start out with a statement of facts. If your statement of facts is too extensive, you can put in a partial statement of facts.
[20:16.000 --> 20:28.000]  Use those facts that lead to your issue and prepare a complete statement of facts and attach it as a verified affidavit.
[20:28.000 --> 20:45.000]  You have to be able to get your facts on the record. Your purpose in the trial court is to set the record for appeal, and the way you set the record for appeal is to get your facts and your law on the record.
[20:45.000 --> 21:03.000]  Start out with a statement of facts, and when you write a statement of facts, every time you write a fact, at the end of the sentence, instead of putting the period, go to comma and write, in my opinion.
[21:03.000 --> 21:09.000]  Then go back and read the statement and see if it reads grammatically correct.
[21:09.000 --> 21:21.000]  If it does, take it out. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. If it doesn't read correct, then take in my opinion on if you've got a fact.
[21:21.000 --> 21:40.000]  One of the hardest things for process to do or non-legal professionals to do is to police themselves when they're dealing with something that they have an emotional involvement in.
[21:40.000 --> 21:58.000]  They wind up, read a document today where, as a subordinate clause to one of the sentences, he said the officer acted angrily, in my opinion.
[21:58.000 --> 22:12.000]  That needs to come out. It sounded like a statement of facts. It sounded like you're trying to say that the officer was angry, but you can't say that because that's mind reading.
[22:12.000 --> 22:21.000]  You have no way of knowing what the officer was thinking or feeling. You only know what he was actually doing.
[22:21.000 --> 22:34.000]  Now, you can speak to the fact that his face was flushed bright red, and his eyes were bugging out, and his skin was trembling, but you can't say he was angry.
[22:34.000 --> 22:38.000]  We let the other person come to that conclusion.
[22:38.000 --> 22:51.000]  Now, this goes back to the art of a statement of facts. What I suggest you do first is not write a statement of facts, but write a timeline.
[22:51.000 --> 23:11.000]  Whenever you're writing facts about something in which you are emotionally invested, you will find it is extremely difficult because in order to write a statement of facts about something that you were involved in,
[23:11.000 --> 23:30.000]  especially if it was traumatic, you have to go back internally and re-experience what occurred. If it was emotionally upsetting or stressful, you will re-experience that upset or stress.
[23:30.000 --> 23:46.000]  Most of us don't want to do that because it's very difficult. You'll notice if you listen to the show a lot, one of the first things I ask from someone is a timeline, not a statement of facts.
[23:46.000 --> 23:57.000]  I just want to know what date the first thing happened and then what day the next thing happened, just basic dates of when things happened.
[23:57.000 --> 24:17.000]  What that amounts to is a disassociation technique. I'm trying to get you away from the actual experience of what happened and just ask you to give me some technical data about what happened.
[24:17.000 --> 24:27.000]  Now once we have the statement of facts done, what that's going to do is drain quite a bit of your pent-up emotion you have about the issue.
[24:27.000 --> 24:41.000]  You need to be able to experience the issue from a disassociated state. People have bad things happen to them and then they get over that and calm down.
[24:41.000 --> 24:56.000]  They get to feel better and then somebody else says what happened to you and then they tell this person what happened and they have to go through that same emotion and again in order to be able to relate the story to someone else.
[24:56.000 --> 25:16.000]  Well, there's a tool in hypnosis and conversational induction that's called Fractionation. In Fractionation, you want to trigger a mental state in someone, then interrupt the state and go to something else and then come back and trigger that state again.
[25:16.000 --> 25:31.000]  Anger, frustration, happiness, whatever it is. Each time you trigger the mental state, move away from it and trigger the second time, they will have the experience more strongly.
[25:31.000 --> 25:49.000]  If you're trying to induce someone into a trance state, each time you trigger the trance state, back out, trigger it again, then each succeeding time, they will go deeper into trance.
[25:49.000 --> 26:05.000]  When you start telling the story of something bad that happens to you, you go into trance. Trance by definition, all a trance state is, is a change in your state of mind, a change in your focus.
[26:05.000 --> 26:15.000]  When you shift your focus from the here and now and shift your focus into a past event, that is a hypnotic phenomenon. That's a trance state.
[26:15.000 --> 26:27.000]  Most of the time, every day we go in and out of states all the time. For the most part, these states are connected to our current reality state.
[26:27.000 --> 26:38.000]  When we shift into a state that was traumatic, the more traumatic it is, the more it will tend to be disassociated from our current rational state.
[26:38.000 --> 26:45.000]  The more we're not careful when we tell these stories, the more we tend to amplify them.
[26:45.000 --> 27:01.000]  If you listen to the show very much, you've heard people on the show that have an extremely difficult time telling what happened to them because they told it over and over and it keeps getting more traumatic than what had originally happened.
[27:01.000 --> 27:13.000]  So, first thing you need to do is disassociate yourself from the event and just write a timeline and then go back and look at your timeline in pieces.
[27:13.000 --> 27:31.000]  The timeline will act as a revivification tool. It will revive your memories and allow you to take a small portion of the whole event and look at it separately.
[27:31.000 --> 27:45.000]  Look at the space between this date and this date or this hour and this hour. Now you can fill in a few of those details without having to go back in and revive the entire memory.
[27:45.000 --> 27:49.000]  That way you can begin to fill in your statement of facts.
[27:49.000 --> 27:56.000]  Once you have a very complete statement of facts, put in the facts that help you, put in the facts that don't help you, put in everything. Just get them all in there.
[27:56.000 --> 28:12.000]  This is a tool for you to work from. One of the things it does is it keeps you always moving from one place to another when you write your documentation.
[28:12.000 --> 28:29.000]  When you're emotional about an issue, you'll tend to jump from one emotional high point to the next to the next. Sometimes an emotional high point toward the end will trigger an emotional response in the middle and then at the top and then halfway down.
[28:29.000 --> 28:44.000]  When you read the document, people read the document, it doesn't make sense to them because you lose referential index. You're moving around in the document and you wind up arguing the same things two or three times.
[28:44.000 --> 28:57.000]  I have struggled with documents that I was involved in. I read it and I've got two or three arguments that are the same in different places and I'm wondering how did I do that?
[28:57.000 --> 29:05.000]  It's because I was so emotionally involved in what I was writing that I forget about everything else. I forget that I already put it in there.
[29:05.000 --> 29:22.000]  Your statement of facts becomes your structure to build from. Once you have all the facts, now look at what you want, the conclusions you want your reader to come to.
[29:22.000 --> 29:34.000]  Pull out the facts that would tend to lead a reasonable person of ordinary prudence to come to the decision that you're wanting to come to.
[29:34.000 --> 29:49.000]  You kind of lead your reader from one fact to the next to the next. You put in facts that don't go to where you need them to go only if they're material and must be in there and won't necessarily come out.
[29:49.000 --> 29:55.000]  So you don't want them to get surprised by the fact that you left out. Hang on. Be right back.
[29:55.000 --> 30:00.000]  We're ready to kill it on the radio. I did that all.
[30:00.000 --> 30:13.000]  Hold the cages and dump the crates. Burger King is improving the conditions of the animals it uses for meat. It's a victory for the animals and for BK customers.
[30:13.000 --> 30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. Back with more on this whopper of an announcement next.
[30:17.000 --> 30:28.000]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:28.000 --> 30:36.000]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[30:36.000 --> 30:46.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:46.000 --> 30:56.000]  People who care about animal welfare are crowing over Burger King's promise to phase out breeding cages and crates for its chickens and pigs by 2017.
[30:56.000 --> 31:00.000]  It's the most sweeping pledge yet in the multi-billion dollar fast food industry.
[31:00.000 --> 31:10.000]  For years, animal rights groups have called for changes in the way livestock are treated, like confining animals in tiny pens with concrete floors covered in manure.
[31:10.000 --> 31:17.000]  With mad cow disease, plus undercover investigations into these inhumane conditions, the public wants a change.
[31:17.000 --> 31:22.000]  Isn't it great that consumer pressure can have an impact, even on the king of fast food?
[31:22.000 --> 31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:31.000 --> 31:40.000]  Did you know there are 3 million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional value of the hemp plant? HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder.
[31:40.000 --> 31:52.000]  It does not contain chemicals or THC, is non-GMO, and is 100% gluten free. Hemp protein powder burns fat, builds muscle, contains 53% protein, and feeds the body the nutrients it needs.
[31:52.000 --> 31:58.000]  Call 888-910-4367 and see what our powder, seeds, and oil can do for you.
[31:58.000 --> 32:02.000]  Only at HempUSA.org.
[32:02.000 --> 32:06.000]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[32:06.000 --> 32:13.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[32:13.000 --> 32:20.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[32:20.000 --> 32:26.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:26.000 --> 32:36.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[32:36.000 --> 32:41.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[32:41.000 --> 32:51.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[32:51.000 --> 33:02.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:02.000 --> 33:13.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[33:13.000 --> 33:29.000]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna serve them, to the end government them, prosecute them. Okay.
[33:29.000 --> 33:39.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking about writing motions and pleadings.
[33:39.000 --> 33:47.000]  Now, once you have your statement of facts together, and frankly, it is an art form.
[33:47.000 --> 33:55.000]  You include, you have all the facts over here in one that's for your purpose.
[33:55.000 --> 34:02.000]  Good facts, bad facts, one that lead, that looks good for you, the ones that don't look bad for you.
[34:02.000 --> 34:10.000]  Look down that list and consider which facts are relevant to the issues at hand.
[34:10.000 --> 34:25.000]  Never leave out a material fact, because the fact will come out anyway, or never leave out a material fact that will necessarily come out.
[34:25.000 --> 34:33.000]  Not stating a material fact is not perjurious or even improper.
[34:33.000 --> 34:42.000]  If you misstate a material fact, now that's improper, that's aggravated perjury.
[34:42.000 --> 34:51.000]  If you misstate a fact that's not material, for instance, if you're pulled over for speeding and they ask you how old you are,
[34:51.000 --> 35:01.000]  you lie about your age, if you're not 103, then age is not likely to have anything to do with the citation.
[35:01.000 --> 35:09.000]  It's not a material fact, so it's irrelevant. It only matters if you lie about a material fact.
[35:09.000 --> 35:20.000]  Okay, once you have all your facts down and then you list out all the facts that must be in your document or in your affidavit.
[35:20.000 --> 35:32.000]  Now go down those facts and arrange the facts in a way and try to arrange your statement of the facts in a way
[35:32.000 --> 35:42.000]  so that the reader will take one fact and then the next fact and an ordinary person will read these facts
[35:42.000 --> 35:53.000]  and then they will go inside and look for referential index. They'll look for a way to refer these facts logically to one another
[35:53.000 --> 36:00.000]  and they will try to infer from the facts what actually occurred.
[36:00.000 --> 36:10.000]  So you determine the decisions or determinations you want your reader to come to.
[36:10.000 --> 36:17.000]  You're going to argue these issues later on, but first try to structure your statement of facts
[36:17.000 --> 36:23.000]  in a way that will lead your reader to come to the conclusions that you want them to come to,
[36:23.000 --> 36:29.000]  but do not put those conclusions in your statement of facts.
[36:29.000 --> 36:37.000]  Now a jury may not have this reaction, but a judge reading your statement of facts
[36:37.000 --> 36:43.000]  where in place of a fact you've put in an opinion, he is going to really be annoyed.
[36:43.000 --> 36:51.000]  And if in the statement of facts you try to tell the judge how he should think about these facts,
[36:51.000 --> 36:56.000]  he is not going to be an epicamper and he's not going to trust you.
[36:56.000 --> 37:04.000]  If you give him no direct indication of how he should attach these together,
[37:04.000 --> 37:12.000]  but let him make that determination, if he comes to the same conclusion that you later address,
[37:12.000 --> 37:21.000]  he's going to think you're pretty smart because he came to that same conclusion that you're arguing later.
[37:21.000 --> 37:28.000]  Now that's kind of an art form. It takes some work, but it's logically relatively straightforward.
[37:28.000 --> 37:35.000]  So then we prepare the statement of facts that's going to go in our document. We put that in there first.
[37:35.000 --> 37:44.000]  Well, actually we put it in second or third, but I'll talk about those necessary parts of the document later.
[37:44.000 --> 37:50.000]  We'll get to the statement of case kind of at the end because we really build these documents kind of backwards.
[37:50.000 --> 37:55.000]  We want the statement of facts in there and after the statement of facts,
[37:55.000 --> 38:03.000]  now we do argument and support, points and authorities, statement of factual accusation,
[38:03.000 --> 38:10.000]  whatever you want to call that section. It doesn't necessarily have a set card and stone name,
[38:10.000 --> 38:16.000]  but you give the facts first and then you go in and you restate the facts
[38:16.000 --> 38:20.000]  and then you bring in law and apply it to the facts.
[38:20.000 --> 38:28.000]  And you show how with this basic fact set, the law says you must rule in this way.
[38:28.000 --> 38:38.000]  And you want that ruling to be the same thing that the judge had already decided earlier from the facts.
[38:38.000 --> 38:46.000]  If you can get that, you can get the judge to pace your arguments
[38:46.000 --> 38:55.000]  so that he's already come to those conclusions and your facts in law are merely support the conclusions he's already come to.
[38:55.000 --> 39:02.000]  You're going to have what's called rapport. He's going to think you're smart because you think like he does.
[39:02.000 --> 39:05.000]  So you build your argument and support.
[39:05.000 --> 39:14.000]  Now another rule, never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[39:14.000 --> 39:21.000]  When you're putting in your legal arguments, never say the officer is supposed to do this
[39:21.000 --> 39:25.000]  or the law says he should do that. Never do that.
[39:25.000 --> 39:36.000]  Say the officer must do this certain thing in accordance with either this statute or this case law.
[39:36.000 --> 39:48.000]  And when I write those, if there's any way I can, I want to plagiarize the case law and use the case law to make my argument for me.
[39:48.000 --> 40:01.000]  You can almost always find case law in the orders of judges that articulate the facts that are...
[40:01.000 --> 40:10.000]  If you find a case on point, it's going to articulate the same facts and give you an incredibly well-constructed argument.
[40:10.000 --> 40:16.000]  Don't write it yourself if you can avoid it. Pull it from case law.
[40:16.000 --> 40:20.000]  Now with that said, let me take a step back.
[40:20.000 --> 40:36.000]  Before you start writing your pleading, go to local resources. You want to find the most common litigation guide used in your jurisdiction.
[40:36.000 --> 40:46.000]  In the litigation guides, you will find generally blank forms for about every motion type you can think of.
[40:46.000 --> 40:54.000]  I just wrote a quiet title action, and 80% of that quiet title action was taken right out of the code.
[40:54.000 --> 40:58.000]  For a quiet title, they actually have the form in the code.
[40:58.000 --> 41:06.000]  I just pulled it out of the book, filled in the blanks, and then added the facts that were unique to this case,
[41:06.000 --> 41:10.000]  the argument that was unique to this case, signed it, and sent it.
[41:10.000 --> 41:20.000]  The judge is going to get that form, and he will have seen that form probably 500 times.
[41:20.000 --> 41:27.000]  He will see the parties where he expects to see the parties, statement of the case where he expects to see it,
[41:27.000 --> 41:31.000]  jurisdiction where he expects to see it with jurisdiction.
[41:31.000 --> 41:38.000]  He will see the exact cases supporting jurisdiction that he's seen in 500 of these,
[41:38.000 --> 41:44.000]  so he doesn't have to think about that case law. He's very familiar with it. He can just keep going.
[41:44.000 --> 41:48.000]  It will look like a law. You wrote it if you did it right.
[41:48.000 --> 41:58.000]  The whole idea is if you're not a lawyer and you're writing a legal document, leave out all of that patriot verbiage.
[41:58.000 --> 42:08.000]  You don't want the judge to have any clue that this was written by a non-attorney until he reads the signature on the bottom.
[42:08.000 --> 42:17.000]  You want to keep any clue out of the documentation itself because no matter how fair the judge wants to be,
[42:17.000 --> 42:25.000]  he was a lawyer. He may not still have his bar card, but he's one of that group, and you're not.
[42:25.000 --> 42:32.000]  He will be prejudiced against you. He will trust you less, no matter what he would prefer to do.
[42:32.000 --> 42:36.000]  Do everything you can to sound just like a lawyer.
[42:36.000 --> 42:46.000]  The best way to do that is get the litigation guide. In Texas, it's O'Connor's litigation guide, O'Connor's civil trials.
[42:46.000 --> 42:49.000]  O'Connor's civil trial has everything in it.
[42:49.000 --> 42:56.000]  You can pull the motion out, fill in the blanks, and you select the paragraph that fits your circumstances.
[42:56.000 --> 43:01.000]  In a few places, you'll have to do your own wording, but 90% of it's done for you.
[43:01.000 --> 43:09.000]  When the judge gets it, he will look at it, and he's seen this structure over and over and over again.
[43:09.000 --> 43:20.000]  I think a lawyer wrote it. I wrote a motion for emergency restraining order for Ken Magnuson, actually.
[43:20.000 --> 43:25.000]  He gave it to the court. The court granted it. The lawyer came out and said,
[43:25.000 --> 43:30.000]  Are you a lawyer? He said, No, I'm not. Did you write this? He said, Well, I had some help.
[43:30.000 --> 43:40.000]  He said, This is very good. What the heck? I went right down the fill-in-the-blanks, and he thought it was good.
[43:40.000 --> 43:47.000]  The reason he thought it was good, he's a young lawyer, and he didn't realize their form was out of O'Connor's.
[43:47.000 --> 43:53.000]  This form was out of O'Connor's, and it looked exactly like his, so he thought, How did these guys do that?
[43:53.000 --> 44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:23.000 --> 44:30.000]  Get some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil soaps, and colloidal silver and gold.
[44:30.000 --> 44:37.000]  Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.000 --> 45:01.000]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.000 --> 45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.000 --> 45:15.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:15.000 --> 45:23.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.000 --> 45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.000 --> 45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.000 --> 45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.000 --> 45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.000 --> 46:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:23.000 --> 46:26.000]  Okay, we are back.
[46:26.000 --> 46:31.000]  Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking about how to prepare legal documents.
[46:31.000 --> 46:39.000]  Okay, statement of facts, then a statement of factual accusation, points and authorities, whatever.
[46:39.000 --> 46:46.000]  Prepare your documents from one of the local litigation guides.
[46:46.000 --> 46:57.000]  The litigation guides, for all of the common elements that must be there, the litigation guides will already have case law.
[46:57.000 --> 47:07.000]  Now, there's probably other case law that could support your issue, but you want to use the same case law all the other lawyers are using.
[47:07.000 --> 47:16.000]  You can give a judge a document with 20 cases he's never seen before.
[47:16.000 --> 47:23.000]  And he may actually be a fair and honest judge, but he's not going to read 20 cases.
[47:23.000 --> 47:28.000]  He don't have time. He's busy, denied.
[47:28.000 --> 47:35.000]  Now, that may not be right, but that's how human beings are in the world I live in.
[47:35.000 --> 47:46.000]  So, if there's any way you can, give the judge a document he's seen a hundred times so that he can scan down the document
[47:46.000 --> 47:55.000]  and get to the meaty part and spend his time on the meaty part and not waste his time on the in summary stuff.
[47:55.000 --> 47:59.000]  You want him to see everything where he expects to see it.
[47:59.000 --> 48:08.000]  Start the document out with a brief statement of the case, very brief.
[48:08.000 --> 48:16.000]  This is basically what the case is about. This is what I'm going to ask you to rule.
[48:16.000 --> 48:26.000]  Then list the parties, then list the jurisdiction, why the judge has jurisdiction.
[48:26.000 --> 48:32.000]  Most every litigation guide, the jurisdiction is going to be in there.
[48:32.000 --> 48:39.000]  Then go to your statement of facts, your argument in support.
[48:39.000 --> 48:46.000]  And then always you have to ask the court for what you want.
[48:46.000 --> 48:49.000]  Well, let me take one step back.
[48:49.000 --> 48:53.000]  After you've done all this, then you put in a conclusion.
[48:53.000 --> 48:59.000]  You conclude how, give him a conclusion of how all of these facts and law fit together.
[48:59.000 --> 49:01.000]  This is what he should rule.
[49:01.000 --> 49:06.000]  Then you must ask him to rule in that way in the prayer.
[49:06.000 --> 49:11.000]  Now, a lot of these patriot guys bristle when they hear prayer.
[49:11.000 --> 49:14.000]  And that's because they didn't look up the definition of the term.
[49:14.000 --> 49:22.000]  They're using a current term that for the most part is only used in church.
[49:22.000 --> 49:29.000]  So in church, when you pray, you're asking God to do something.
[49:29.000 --> 49:33.000]  Well, they're only accustomed to asking God in this context.
[49:33.000 --> 49:43.000]  But in Older English, that was a common term to tell somebody that you're asking them to do something.
[49:43.000 --> 49:45.000]  Pray, help me out with this, sir.
[49:45.000 --> 49:49.000]  It was just common language, and that's how it got into the law.
[49:49.000 --> 49:52.000]  You're not praying to the judge.
[49:52.000 --> 49:54.000]  You're asking the judge to do something.
[49:54.000 --> 50:01.000]  So if you want something from the court, you have to ask for it specifically.
[50:01.000 --> 50:06.000]  I've got a document a while back, and somebody wanted me to read it, and I read it.
[50:06.000 --> 50:12.000]  And there's a document sent by the other side by a debt collector.
[50:12.000 --> 50:14.000]  And he said, what do you think?
[50:14.000 --> 50:17.000]  I said, they don't have a prayer.
[50:17.000 --> 50:18.000]  Well, why not?
[50:18.000 --> 50:19.000]  He said, I don't know.
[50:19.000 --> 50:20.000]  They just don't have one.
[50:20.000 --> 50:22.000]  They haven't put a prayer in there.
[50:22.000 --> 50:25.000]  They haven't asked the court to do anything.
[50:25.000 --> 50:27.000]  So it was worthless.
[50:27.000 --> 50:30.000]  You have to have a prayer in it.
[50:30.000 --> 50:32.000]  Now, that's the basic structure.
[50:32.000 --> 50:43.000]  Now we get to the hardest part, but also the most effective and powerful part, and that is flow.
[50:43.000 --> 50:49.000]  When you structure documents, avoid highlighting things.
[50:49.000 --> 50:54.000]  When you highlight something in the text, it knocks your reader out of flow.
[50:54.000 --> 51:00.000]  The reader gets to that, and he has to stop because this is different.
[51:00.000 --> 51:05.000]  And he has to mark in his mind why this is different.
[51:05.000 --> 51:11.000]  And if you have just marked something for emphasis, he's going to be annoyed
[51:11.000 --> 51:22.000]  because I can read your sentence and tell what part of the sentence carries the important stuff that I should find in it.
[51:22.000 --> 51:25.000]  I don't need you to mark it out for me.
[51:25.000 --> 51:29.000]  I'm going to feel like you're trying to lead me around by my nose.
[51:29.000 --> 51:41.000]  So absolutely do not put in parentheses, all caps, different type size, bold font.
[51:41.000 --> 51:42.000]  Don't do that.
[51:42.000 --> 51:52.000]  Use your language to emphasize the points you want to make, not external graphics.
[51:52.000 --> 52:01.000]  Next thing is this part I do because it's just stylistic.
[52:01.000 --> 52:14.000]  I don't really like footnotes, but footnotes are okay if you have a piece of information that's just for reference.
[52:14.000 --> 52:25.000]  But if you have cited a piece of case law, then don't give them a reference to the case.
[52:25.000 --> 52:34.000]  Take that section of the case that you're referring to, copy it out of the case, and drop it in your document.
[52:34.000 --> 52:45.000]  Now sometimes writers do that and they include it in the narrative so that I read a document and it's hard to tell
[52:45.000 --> 52:52.000]  when they move from their own narrative into the quotations.
[52:52.000 --> 52:57.000]  So keep that from being an issue because that will drop you out of flow.
[52:57.000 --> 53:06.000]  You read same size font, same color font, and you move into this quotation and you miss the closing quotation mark.
[53:06.000 --> 53:15.000]  So you're reading this and you're not sure if the court wrote it or if the individual is back to his argument.
[53:15.000 --> 53:19.000]  So in order to handle that, I set things out in quotes.
[53:19.000 --> 53:26.000]  I generally shrink them one font, make them single space, and reduce both margins.
[53:26.000 --> 53:34.000]  So as the reader goes down, it visually marks precisely where the quote begins, where the quote ends.
[53:34.000 --> 53:39.000]  If I've quoted something the judge has seen a hundred times, he knows what it is.
[53:39.000 --> 53:47.000]  He's going to step right over it and he knows exactly where to step to without even having to think about it.
[53:47.000 --> 53:49.000]  He stays in flow.
[53:49.000 --> 53:56.000]  If he needs to read this, he needs to know that he's reading this as the quotation separate from the narrative
[53:56.000 --> 54:01.000]  and marked out this way, he sees it separate from the narrative.
[54:01.000 --> 54:07.000]  Now, there may be other ways you can do that, but this is about flow.
[54:07.000 --> 54:12.000]  Where will the reader have to multitask?
[54:12.000 --> 54:16.000]  In the real world, humans really don't multitask well.
[54:16.000 --> 54:22.000]  If you're reading something and you have to shift gears,
[54:22.000 --> 54:31.000]  like you have to take part of your attention and figure out where the quote begins and ends,
[54:31.000 --> 54:33.000]  because you have to watch for that quotation,
[54:33.000 --> 54:39.000]  and you have to make sure that that's the right ending quotation and not a quotation within the quotation,
[54:39.000 --> 54:41.000]  which would be an apostrophe.
[54:41.000 --> 54:45.000]  So you have to separate part of your attention to get that done.
[54:45.000 --> 54:50.000]  That's going to break you out of the flow of the argument or the narrative.
[54:50.000 --> 54:52.000]  So avoid that if you can.
[54:52.000 --> 54:58.000]  Always look for a place you'll drop out of flow.
[54:58.000 --> 55:05.000]  And here's the most difficult one, referential index.
[55:05.000 --> 55:12.000]  You know all the facts because you were a part of those facts.
[55:12.000 --> 55:18.000]  The problem we have is we leave out parts, little pieces of the fact,
[55:18.000 --> 55:23.000]  because we know intuitively how everything fits together.
[55:23.000 --> 55:27.000]  When you write a document, get somebody else to read it,
[55:27.000 --> 55:34.000]  and ask the reader to tell you every time you mentally trip over something.
[55:34.000 --> 55:40.000]  If you have to read a sentence twice to make sense out of it, I need to know that.
[55:40.000 --> 55:43.000]  I need to fix that sentence.
[55:43.000 --> 55:46.000]  That's a term we call target.
[55:46.000 --> 55:48.000]  The sentence means what it means.
[55:48.000 --> 55:55.000]  It just takes a human being this extra step to extract that meaning.
[55:55.000 --> 55:59.000]  If the meaning is not clear in the sentence, rewrite it.
[55:59.000 --> 56:04.000]  Have your person tell you everywhere they had to mentally stop.
[56:04.000 --> 56:16.000]  Or most important, where did you create a question in the mind of your reader that you did not answer?
[56:16.000 --> 56:22.000]  You can answer the question before you get to the issue because you know that issue's coming.
[56:22.000 --> 56:26.000]  And when you get to the place where the question would come to mind, you've already answered it.
[56:26.000 --> 56:29.000]  Or you need to answer it right after that.
[56:29.000 --> 56:35.000]  If you don't, you've lost your reader because now the reader's not reading content.
[56:35.000 --> 56:38.000]  He's reading for that missing piece of information.
[56:38.000 --> 56:50.000]  The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first book, the Lord of the Rings, the ring bearer, the first one,
[56:50.000 --> 56:58.000]  Frodo gets stabbed by this wraith and this elf shows up to take him to Rivendale.
[56:58.000 --> 57:00.000]  Well, in the book, it was a male elf.
[57:00.000 --> 57:08.000]  And the writer spends 50 pages giving us the whole history of that elf.
[57:08.000 --> 57:10.000]  The elf never came back.
[57:10.000 --> 57:16.000]  When I finished the third book, Return of the King, I threw it across the room.
[57:16.000 --> 57:20.000]  I was furious.
[57:20.000 --> 57:26.000]  I read all three of those books with the expectation that this elf that he spent 50 pages on
[57:26.000 --> 57:30.000]  will be coming back and he never did.
[57:30.000 --> 57:34.000]  This ruined the whole thing for me.
[57:34.000 --> 57:42.000]  Above all, pay attention to where you will create a question in the mind of the reader,
[57:42.000 --> 57:44.000]  where you will stop the flow.
[57:44.000 --> 57:50.000]  I mean, everybody here has been in a seminar or something where the speaker said something
[57:50.000 --> 57:57.000]  and you didn't catch the reference or the meaning of it and he's going on with new material
[57:57.000 --> 58:01.000]  and you're trying to figure out what you just missed at that point back there.
[58:01.000 --> 58:05.000]  If he doesn't get your question answered, he's lost you.
[58:05.000 --> 58:09.000]  Same thing in a legal document.
[58:09.000 --> 58:14.000]  Another time we'll talk about assonance, consonant, alliteration, rhyme and meter
[58:14.000 --> 58:20.000]  as some other tools for creating flow in a document.
[58:20.000 --> 58:22.000]  But for here I'm going to stop for today.
[58:22.000 --> 58:25.000]  We've got a couple of callers on the board.
[58:25.000 --> 58:29.000]  If you would like to hear more on these subjects, let me know.
[58:29.000 --> 58:31.000]  Let me know what you want to hear about.
[58:31.000 --> 58:35.000]  I'd like to do this one again so I get it down a little bit better.
[58:35.000 --> 58:40.000]  I'd like to know where I don't make sense, where I have tripped you up
[58:40.000 --> 58:42.000]  so that I can fill in those spots.
[58:42.000 --> 58:47.000]  Check out Real Bar Radio or call it number 512-646-1984.
[58:47.000 --> 58:50.000]  We'll be right back.
[58:50.000 --> 58:54.000]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.000 --> 59:01.000]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.000 --> 59:06.000]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.000 --> 59:10.000]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes
[59:10.000 --> 59:13.000]  that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.000 --> 59:18.000]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.000 --> 59:24.000]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.000 --> 59:28.000]  growing in Christ, and how to build up the Church.
[59:28.000 --> 59:34.000]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:34.000 --> 59:41.000]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[59:41.000 --> 59:45.000]  That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.000 --> 59:50.000]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:50.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:07.000]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown,
[01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:10.000]  providing the daily bulletins for the commodities market.
[01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:23.000]  Today in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:29.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 27th of January 2016 opened up with gold at $1,120 an ounce,
[01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:34.000]  silver at $14.48 an ounce, Texas crude at $31.45 a barrel,
[01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:44.000]  and Bitcoin is currently sitting at about 395 U.S. currency.
[01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:48.000]  Today in history, Thursday, January 27th, 1825,
[01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  the U.S. Congress approves Indian territory in what is present-day Oklahoma.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:01:01.000]  It's cleared the way for the forced relocation of Eastern Indians, known as the Trail of Tears.
[01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:06.000]  In recent news, the Vatican announced over the weekend that Pope Francis will be visiting Sweden later this year
[01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:12.000]  to mark the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's writing and posting of the 95 Theses on the front doors
[01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:17.000]  of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31st, 1517.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:23.000]  Amongst other points, Luther primarily wrote argumentations against the Roman Catholic theology of indulgences,
[01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  essentially the selling of forgiveness from temporal punishment, from sins for money,
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:30.000]  a practice still upheld by the Church.
[01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:35.000]  On October 31st of this year, Francis is set to be at the southern Swedish city of Lund,
[01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:38.000]  where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947.
[01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  While his predecessors have visited Protestant churches,
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:45.000]  Francis has come under criticism from traditionalists and conservatives within the Church
[01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:49.000]  who accuse him of sending conflicting signals about interfaith relations.
[01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:53.000]  Catholic traditionalists have accused Francis of making too many concessions to Lutherans
[01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:56.000]  since both religions will be using Luther's common prayer
[01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:01.000]  during the 2017 Reformation commemoration services being held jointly between the two churches,
[01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:07.000]  which they say excessively praised Luther, who was historically condemned as a heretic and excommunicated.
[01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  Pope Francis made ecumenism one of the main themes of his papacy,
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  considering he has already visited the Lutheran Church of Rome,
[01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:19.000]  the Waldensian Protestant community in northern Italy, Rome's Jewish synagogue,
[01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:24.000]  and is soon due to become the first pope to visit Rome's mosque later this year.
[01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  Marvin Minsky, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:36.000]  at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, died Sunday at the age of 88.
[01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:40.000]  Minsky viewed the brain as a machine whose function can be studied and replicated in the computer,
[01:02:40.000 --> 01:02:45.000]  and he considered how machines might be endowed with common sense or artificial intelligence.
[01:02:45.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  Daniela Russ, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:54.000]  said that Minsky helped create the vision of artificial intelligence as we know it today.
[01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:23.000]  This was your lowdown for January 27, 2016.
[01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:25.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:28.000]  Randy Kelton, Blue Law Radio.
[01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  And we're going to start, we're going to go to our callers.
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  I'm going to go to Ralph in Texas.
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:41.000]  Ralph, if you have a comment on Alpha Davis.
[01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  Hello, Randy.
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:46.000]  There you go.
[01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:48.000]  Yes, hello, Randy. How are you?
[01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:50.000]  Yeah, yes, I am good.
[01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:57.000]  My call screener says you have a comment on or a question on affidavits.
[01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:06.000]  Yes, I was wondering about if a criminal complaint was going to be dry with just facts and law in it,
[01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  would it help to supplement that with an affidavit?
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:20.000]  A criminal complaint can have a statement of facts attached to it.
[01:04:20.000 --> 01:04:28.000]  Often a police officer, when he writes a criminal complaint, will make a statement as an affidavit,
[01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  and the statement is a statement of facts, and he attaches the affidavit to the complaint.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:40.000]  But complaints are intended to be written by ordinary citizens.
[01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:49.000]  So there are, there's not a lot of hard and fast rules on how a complaint is to be structured other than.
[01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:55.000]  It must, in Texas at least, run in the state of the, in the name and under the authority of the state of Texas.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:02.000]  So every criminal complaint will start with in the name and the authority of the state of the Texas.
[01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:08.000]  And then the first paragraph is pretty well prescribed.
[01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:11.000]  It's prescribed by the case law.
[01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  The first paragraph says, I, Randall Kelton, have reason to believe and do believe,
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:27.000]  because the case law says that in order to be an affidavit on a criminal complaint,
[01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  you have to have reason to believe and you have to actually believe what you're stating.
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:35.000]  You have to put that in the document.
[01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:46.000]  That's pretty well prescribed, and then you have to state the statute that you're accusing the person of violating.
[01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  You can't just say he did a bad thing.
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:54.000]  You have to stipulate which statute he's accused of, because that goes to Constitution.
[01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:00.000]  But the rest of it is you just explain it as best you can.
[01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  Now, with that said, there are a couple of ways of doing it.
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:16.000]  You can state the facts and then just put in a couple of basic facts in the complaint itself and then close it.
[01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:21.000]  That's the way most of the police officers do it, but I don't like to do it that way.
[01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:28.000]  I take the, what I'd like to call a factual accusation.
[01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:40.000]  I write the statement of facts since a criminal complaint is intended essentially for a grand jury.
[01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:48.000]  Every time I write a criminal complaint, I always write it for a grand juror, and the grand juror is the guy next door.
[01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  He doesn't necessarily know anything about law.
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:07:01.000]  So I do a factual accusation, a state of fact or a series of facts,
[01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:11.000]  and then I quote the law and show how the law applies to these facts to lead to a certain conclusion.
[01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  And that's all in one document.
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:18.000]  I don't care if it gets big.
[01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:24.000]  A criminal complaint doesn't have to be one page with three paragraphs on it.
[01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:30.000]  I've done criminal complaints that were 30 pages, depending on what the issue was.
[01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:37.000]  If you look on jurisimprudence.com, right at the top, I have a link to Cherokee County,
[01:07:37.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  and I have a whole bunch of complaints I wrote for Cherokee County.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  Now, in that one, I wrote a 50-page statement of factual accusation.
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:59.000]  And in that document, there are about 30 people that I made criminal accusations against.
[01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  I wrote the statement so that I would give a set of facts,
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:15.000]  and then I would state that these facts applied to this person and that by these facts, they committed this crime.
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:16.000]  And then I went to the next person.
[01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:19.000]  If there are three people involved, I did that.
[01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:26.000]  The same set of facts implicates this person in this crime and this other person in this other crime.
[01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  And that's all in one document.
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:40.000]  And then I went in and captured out the pertinent points and authorities or argument and support for a particular claim.
[01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  Then I took out the claim for that person, and I put those two in a criminal complaint.
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  When you do criminal complaints, one complaint per criminal accusation, do not stack them.
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:05.000]  If you stack them, what the criminal courts will do, and I mean the courts after my criminals,
[01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:11.000]  will pick one of them, dismiss one of them, and ignore the rest of them.
[01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:19.000]  When you put each one in a separate, verified criminal affidavit, they have to deal with each one.
[01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:24.000]  Okay. That bothers me for one reason.
[01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  If I've got seven counts or seven different complaints on multiple people and I have to verify that,
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  that's going to run into a lot of money.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  Now go to the bank, they'll verify for nothing.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:56.000]  If you're going to file criminal complaints, the amount of money it costs to get it verified is relatively small in the overall scheme of things.
[01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:01.000]  But generally the banks or title companies, they verify for nothing.
[01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:02.000]  I know the banks do.
[01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  That's where I always take mine in my bank.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:11.000]  You're breaking up a little bit. I'm not hearing everything you're saying.
[01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:15.000]  I always take mine to the bank.
[01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:17.000]  The bank does them for nothing.
[01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:21.000]  City Hall sometimes do them for nothing.
[01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:28.000]  Well, I don't have a state authorized ID card, so I can only take mine to certain people that I can bring with me.
[01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  I can bring someone with me.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  Okay. Well, in the end you can write the complaint any way you want to.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:46.000]  If the complaint is not important enough to verify individually, then stick them all together.
[01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  But if you're trying to get a positive outcome, you want to do as much as you can to achieve that positive outcome.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:11:00.000]  So at any end it's your call.
[01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:02.000]  Well, that's food for thought.
[01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:03.000]  No doubt about that.
[01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:10.000]  Okay. That's something new on me about the individual verification for each count.
[01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:14.000]  Well, look, can I comment on last night's show?
[01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:16.000]  Absolutely.
[01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:18.000]  Okay.
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  In a civil lawsuit, either in state or federal court, and you're suing for false arrest or whatever it's called, unlawful restraint is what I think it's called now.
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:37.000]  Okay. So the officer is going to get on the stand.
[01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:43.000]  He's going to say, well, I pulled him over for a traffic violation, so I had every right to do that.
[01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:47.000]  Would that be a good time to bring in the constitutionality of the transportation code?
[01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:52.000]  Well, that would be a good time to object.
[01:11:52.000 --> 01:12:01.000]  The officer made a statement that assumed facts not in evidence.
[01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:05.000]  Okay. I've heard you say that before. Right. Okay.
[01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:12.000]  What facts did he assume that were not in evidence?
[01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:17.000]  That someone was violating the transportation code.
[01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  No. He had the right to do that.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:25.000]  Okay. That contains a distortion deletion.
[01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:31.000]  You said you had the right, but you didn't stipulate the right.
[01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:36.000]  So what specifically constitutes your right to do that?
[01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:42.000]  This is law. This is court. We don't presume anything.
[01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:45.000]  Prove it up.
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:56.000]  Show me the law that specifically says in this fact circumstance, you have the right to do this.
[01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:02.000]  If you can't show it to me, you don't have it.
[01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  He would just come back with, well, section rule number says that everyone has to have a seatbelt over their shoulder, properly worn.
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  It assumes that he has authority to enforce that law.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:35.000]  He said he had authority to enforce. Where did you get it?
[01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:44.000]  While I'm a certified police officer, objection assumes facts not in evidence.
[01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  You may not make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:54.000]  You may not make a proactive statement of fact, except under oath.
[01:13:54.000 --> 01:14:00.000]  The fact that you are a certified police officer.
[01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:12.000]  Well, according to the transportation code state of Texas, any county can only have five of those.
[01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:22.000]  And depending on the city, like our next caller, Scott, he got a ticket in Addison, Texas.
[01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:40.000]  According to the Texas transportation code, Addison, Texas cannot have one of its officers, what's the term, authorized to enforce the traffic code.
[01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:43.000]  It's right there in the code.
[01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:55.000]  I said the sheriff can authorize five people in the county to be appointed as police officers to enforce the traffic code.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:57.000]  That's it.
[01:14:57.000 --> 01:15:26.000]  And the only ones who can be appointed, who can apply for appointment, are those that live, that are in a city that's a county of over three million with a international port or a city that has no state highways and has an international airport.
[01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:30.000]  Well, convoluted is unbelievable, the stipulations they have.
[01:15:30.000 --> 01:15:37.000]  But I went through all the stipulations in Addison, Texas, does not meet the requirement.
[01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:56.000]  So he says I'm a police officer and that assumes that he is a police officer who has been appointed by the sheriff to enforce the traffic code in the county. Well, let's see that appointment.
[01:15:56.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  Okay.
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:04.000]  Go back to, do you listen to Monday Night Show, to Eddie's show?
[01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:05.000]  Yes, I do.
[01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:13.000]  Also, what you're saying now about the population, I believe that's in the 2009 seminar material.
[01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:16.000]  Yeah, look at that. That's where I got it.
[01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:23.000]  And I read it and I said, holy mackerel, how are they going to get around this?
[01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:28.000]  Yeah, that's a good thing for people to know that some of what's in that material, 2009 seminar material.
[01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  I wrote a habeas corpus for a woman that worked for me and she got a speeding ticket.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:53.000]  And I walked right down through those codes and demonstrated how it was legally impossible for this peace officer to act in the capacity of a police officer while employed by this municipality.
[01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:59.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, we'll remove our radio. I'll call it number 512-646-1984.
[01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  Enter as often as you like. Check out centraltexasgunworks.com. Thanks also to mymagicmud.com.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:35.000]  The first 40 people to donate $25 get a jar of My Magic Mud valued at $25.
[01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:39.000]  Thanks also to All About Vapor at 4631 Airport Boulevard.
[01:17:39.000 --> 01:17:46.000]  The 10 third place winners will get a $25 gift card. Stop smelling like a butt at allaboutvapor.com.
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:53.000]  Also, thanks to Eddie Craig, folks who buy the rule of law traffic seminar, get 10 entries into the contest.
[01:17:53.000 --> 01:17:57.000]  Check out the contest rules and details at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  Terrorists or hipsters may not actually be eligible to win.
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:05.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:09.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:15.000]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:34.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn your financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:39.000]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:45.000]  Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:19:01.000]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:19:01.000 --> 01:19:25.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:31.000]  And before we go back to Ralph in Texas, we do have our fundraiser going on.
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:39.000]  We have a gun giveaway this year with two weapons and some other giveaways.
[01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:53.000]  If you listen to this show and you find value, if we save you some money on your tickets or other legal issues,
[01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:58.000]  we would sure appreciate a donation to the show to help us keep this thing on the air.
[01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:06.000]  Sometimes we struggle to keep it going because the equipment we need to keep the broadcast up
[01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:14.000]  sometimes gets really expensive, especially when we start having processors and computers going down.
[01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:18.000]  We sure would appreciate any help we can get to keep this thing going.
[01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  We try not to spend much air time asking for assistance.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:31.000]  We hate to have to do that. We'd rather this thing be self-supporting, but it's not.
[01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:36.000]  So anything you have you can throw away would be greatly appreciated.
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:39.000]  Okay, now we're going to go to Ralph in Texas.
[01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:44.000]  Okay, Ralph, did we pretty well answer your questions?
[01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:47.000]  Yes, and my check is in the mail next week.
[01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:53.000]  Well, thank you. Make sure you make it out to Randy's Beer Fund.
[01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:58.000]  I'm actually going to make it out to Deborah. Sorry, Randy.
[01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  Okay, my beer fund goes into the same fund anyway. I just have fun with it.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:12.000]  I'm getting old and I'm down to half a beer. Half a beer will put me to sleep.
[01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:18.000]  But don't tell me that. I'll send you some, I don't know, some half empty bottles of wine or half full bottles of wine.
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  Oh, you're a good man.
[01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:23.000]  You'll at least have something.
[01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:30.000]  That answered my question. I'm one of those who sent you something, an email,
[01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  and I do appreciate you bringing this subject up tonight.
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:37.000]  And you actually touched on it last night. I was listening last night too.
[01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:43.000]  Yes, I got that email. You had a complaint in there?
[01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:49.000]  Yeah, and I thought it was pretty good. I thought I got something off the internet pretty good.
[01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  But you put a new light on it with these, like I'm calling, I have seven counts,
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:59.000]  and you're saying to put each one in its own complaint.
[01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:10.000]  Yes, and part of what that does, where you have the same fact set addressing more than one person,
[01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  then you get the court, the jury, or the grand jury to read the same fact set three or four times.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:28.000]  And second or third time they read it, they kind of get it down, they understand the fact set better.
[01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:35.000]  So if you've written your document well, then that will help to drum it in their brain,
[01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:42.000]  and it'll become a part of their knowledge and a lot easier for them to rule in your favor.
[01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:49.000]  But when I did the commentary, I actually had that document in mind.
[01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:54.000]  So I was kind of ripping your document to shreds.
[01:22:54.000 --> 01:23:00.000]  Yeah, no, that's good. That's what I ask people to do to mine all the time.
[01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:08.000]  And the hardest thing for me to get people to do is to read my document and tell me when I've interrupted flow.
[01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:14.000]  And in the end, for me, that is the most important thing, is not to interrupt flow.
[01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:23.000]  You want to grab the mind of your reader and lead them from where they're at to where you want them to be.
[01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:28.000]  Be careful with the terms that you use.
[01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:33.000]  I avoid terms of art like the plague.
[01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  I try to use terms that everybody on the street will understand.
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:51.000]  If I have to use a term that is a term of art, right behind it in parentheses, I explain what that term means.
[01:23:51.000 --> 01:23:58.000]  So that the reader doesn't see the term and then we wind up with a complex equivalent.
[01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:08.000]  Look at the terms used and ask yourself, can somebody else read that term and have a different meaning for it than I do?
[01:24:08.000 --> 01:24:13.000]  The officer was agitated.
[01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:18.000]  Agitated. What does agitated mean?
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  Yeah, and I'm going to look up agitated, maybe Webster's, but if I as a natural speaker of the language,
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:33.000]  someone who interacts within this culture have to look up that word,
[01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  then that means that most every other ordinary person out there is going to have to look up that word and it's going to cause a break in flow.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:51.000]  Or they're going to come up with some meaning for it that means something to them.
[01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:55.000]  It may be what I intended, it may not be.
[01:24:55.000 --> 01:24:58.000]  So the term winds up being a complex equivalent.
[01:24:58.000 --> 01:25:01.000]  Avoid complex equivalents.
[01:25:01.000 --> 01:25:12.000]  Avoid terms that people can make up their own meaning for unless you're intentionally trying to be artfully vague.
[01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:19.000]  And I only do that when I'm doing conversational induction.
[01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  I'll get into that in another program and how to use artful vagueness.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  But that's what happens when you use terms that different people may have different means for is your verbiage becomes vague.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:40.000]  If I use a term like that, I'm going to explain exactly what I mean by it.
[01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:45.000]  I'm going to explain it right there so I don't run into the complex equivalent problem.
[01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:50.000]  Does that make sense?
[01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:57.000]  I want to say yes, but I'm going to have to let that dwell on me for a while.
[01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:01.000]  Okay, well just look at the terms that you use.
[01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:08.000]  And the general ordinary everyday terms that are normally used in ordinary English are not much of a problem
[01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:12.000]  because most everybody will understand what they mean.
[01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:22.000]  But before you use a term that seems somewhat specialized, make sure you define exactly what you mean by it.
[01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:30.000]  One of the terms I try to keep out of my writing is the T-H-E.
[01:26:30.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  Sometimes I have to use it to make the verbiage flow.
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:42.000]  But I avoid it because, do you know what V means?
[01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:44.000]  Do I know what V means?
[01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:49.000]  Yeah, the T-H-E.
[01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  I use more like an introductory word instead of knowing what it is.
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:04.000]  There are a number of words that we use this way that we use them so often we never think about what they actually mean.
[01:27:04.000 --> 01:27:09.000]  V means one previously mentioned.
[01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:17.000]  So when you start a sentence with the and you're referring to something you haven't already talked about,
[01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  you have necessarily denied the reader referential index.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:28.000]  They're going to see the word the and they're going to have to go in their mind and find something to connect it to.
[01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:31.000]  The, which the.
[01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:34.000]  It may be what you want them to connect it to, it may not.
[01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:37.000]  So you have to be careful about that.
[01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:46.000]  The only time I use the is when nothing else will fit in there and have the sentence flow.
[01:27:46.000 --> 01:27:53.000]  And there are any term that can be misconstrued when you're dealing in law.
[01:27:53.000 --> 01:28:02.000]  It is the job of opposing counsel to misconstrue every word you use.
[01:28:02.000 --> 01:28:12.000]  So any time you look at a word and say, if I was a lawyer on the other side, I could twist that and pretend he meant this.
[01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:18.000]  Then you put parentheses and three or four words explaining to keep you from doing that.
[01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:21.000]  I know this seems a little bit pedantic.
[01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:27.000]  And if you read my writings, you'll find I seldom have to do that.
[01:28:27.000 --> 01:28:38.000]  The primary, the primarily the reason that I seldom have to do that is because I am aware of the need to do that.
[01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:46.000]  So it makes me more careful in my writing so that I avoid those kinds of terms.
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:51.000]  Okay. It may take some. I want to go over these.
[01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  I'll be going over these more often.
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:03.000]  If we can get a group of folks out there who are writing really powerful documents, we'll start working these guys over.
[01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:08.000]  I want you to learn how. Pardon me?
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  I would like to learn how to write a better document.
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:18.000]  I was pretty happy with this one, but you're pointing out some errors.
[01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  Frankly, it was a relatively well done document compared to a lot of stuff I see.
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  It was pretty well done compared to the first one, Scott, who's the next caller.
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:38.000]  His first two or three he sent me were absolute trash and I ripped them to shreds.
[01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  And then I sent him to jurisprudence and had him read some of the documents there.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:47.000]  There's a habeas corpus you can read on there that's an example of.
[01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  That's a document I've probably edited a hundred times.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:57.000]  Well, I did not go to jurisprudence when I did this and I should have.
[01:29:57.000 --> 01:30:03.000]  Hold on, hold on, Dr. Littlebridge.
[01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:10.000]  Children conceived through fertility treatments are more likely to suffer serious birth defects than babies conceived naturally.
[01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albracht and in a moment I'll have details on a groundbreaking study on the risks of fertility treatments.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:19.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:19.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  Protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:35.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:42.000]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  These days, childless couples are turning to fertility clinics in record numbers.
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:58.000]  But a new study finds the risk of birth defects in babies conceived through fertility treatments is significantly higher than average.
[01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  After reviewing 300,000 birth records, researchers found that 8% of fertility babies suffered from heart, genital, kidney, brain and lung problems.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:10.000]  That's 40% higher than babies conceived naturally.
[01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:17.000]  What's more, the risk of birth defects tripled when mothers use clomophene citrate, a drug that induces ovulation.
[01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:24.000]  With millions of babies born each year through fertility treatments, it's about time doctors began telling their patients about these risks.
[01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:31.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:47.000]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:47.000 --> 01:31:50.000]  And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:51.000]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:51.000 --> 01:31:52.000]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:54.000]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.000 --> 01:31:56.000]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:56.000 --> 01:31:59.000]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:02.000]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:02.000 --> 01:32:04.000]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:07.000]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms?
[01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:12.000]  Come on, we all know the government caused it with their chem trails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:15.000]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chem trails, but I'm serious about your roof.
[01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:17.000]  That's why you have insurance.
[01:32:17.000 --> 01:32:22.000]  And Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:23.000]  And we accept Bitcoin.
[01:32:23.000 --> 01:32:27.000]  As a multiyear A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints,
[01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.000]  you can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[01:32:33.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this program.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:51.000]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking.
[01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:57.000]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:32:57.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:02.000]  May not actually be kidding about chem trails.
[01:33:02.000 --> 01:33:05.000]  Looking for some truth?
[01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:09.000]  You found it, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:38.000]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:38.000 --> 01:33:40.000]  Randy Kelton, Louisville Radio.
[01:33:40.000 --> 01:33:44.000]  And we're talking to Ralph in Texas.
[01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:50.000]  I do have to do a disclaimer.
[01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:58.000]  When I accused Scott of sending me trash documents, the first two were crap.
[01:33:58.000 --> 01:34:02.000]  The third one was excellent.
[01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:05.000]  So it's not as hard to pick up as it sounds.
[01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:11.000]  There's just a few basic rules that once you kind of get them down.
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:22.000]  I think the hardest thing for Scott was getting down the difference between a fact and an opinion.
[01:34:22.000 --> 01:34:33.000]  So if you take your sentences and put, in my opinion, behind it, if the sentence reads grammatically well-founded, then it's an opinion and not a fact.
[01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:38.000]  But other than that, it's not so difficult.
[01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:43.000]  It's just a matter of getting down the keys to what I've put here.
[01:34:43.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  What I presented this first hour, I'm trying to get structured out.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  I'm going to write it out into an e-book and put it up online so people can go in and go through it.
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:35:04.000]  And then give me feedback so I can fix what I've got that's garbage and improve the product so that we can get more people out there hammering these guys.
[01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:06.000]  Okay.
[01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:09.000]  Anything else, Ralph?
[01:35:09.000 --> 01:35:12.000]  That's all for me.
[01:35:12.000 --> 01:35:14.000]  Okay. Thank you, Ralph.
[01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:17.000]  Now we're going to go to Scott in Texas.
[01:35:17.000 --> 01:35:19.000]  Hello, Scott.
[01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:20.000]  Hey, Randy.
[01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  How are you doing this evening?
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:22.000]  Oh, I'm doing good.
[01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  I've been disparaging you on the air and having great fun doing this.
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:27.000]  Well, guess what?
[01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:31.000]  I have my son listening to it, and he's just cracking up.
[01:35:31.000 --> 01:35:37.000]  And I think it's as funny as all get-out, so I'm glad.
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:49.000]  In fact, he just got his first ticket yesterday, and before he could even complete Driver's Ed, he already got a ticket for not even having a driver's license.
[01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:52.000]  And he kind of got set up by the cops, but we'll go into that later.
[01:35:52.000 --> 01:36:05.000]  And then on my way home from picking him up, I get pulled over because my tags are out on my car in Garland, and it was a black lady cop.
[01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  And she kind of cheated, too.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  And anyway, she comes up, and my son is like, you're not going to go all crazy or something.
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:14.000]  I'm like, I never go crazy.
[01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:16.000]  What are you talking about?
[01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:19.000]  So anyhow, I was like, just give her my license.
[01:36:19.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  And I already know she's going to come back and be all mad because I'm driving with an invalid license.
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:33.000]  I'm going to hear all kinds of stuff, but I pulled in a parking lot because everybody should know you always want to pull in a private parking lot
[01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:36.000]  so they can't tell you just in case you do have a problem.
[01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:38.000]  So FYI on that, y'all.
[01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:44.000]  But anyhow, I pulled in a jack-in-the-box, and we were fixing to pull in there anyway, so it was just kind of good timing.
[01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  But she come back, and she didn't even write me a ticket for invalid license.
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:37:00.000]  Of course, since I have invalid license tickets going in Rockwell County, Dallas County, and Benton County, I guess she didn't want to get into the fight.
[01:37:00.000 --> 01:37:03.000]  So she just gave me a ticket for my tags and said, have a nice day.
[01:37:03.000 --> 01:37:06.000]  And I was like, you have a nice day, too. See you later.
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:15.000]  So anyhow, one of the things, I was just kind of giving you that, I didn't get a ticket for invalid license.
[01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:17.000]  That was what was kind of amazing.
[01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  She just didn't even want to deal with it, I guess.
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:23.000]  So I thought that was kind of a good...
[01:37:23.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  I had a similar experience in Austin.
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:31.000]  The police didn't pull me over. I don't even remember for what.
[01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:33.000]  And he asked for a license and proof of insurance.
[01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:37.000]  I gave him proof of insurance, and I texted his ID.
[01:37:37.000 --> 01:37:46.000]  It looks just like a license, except instead of TX or DL, it's got ID and then the number.
[01:37:46.000 --> 01:37:53.000]  He came back, and he said, Mr. Kelton, this is a Texas ID. Do you have a driver's license?
[01:37:53.000 --> 01:37:59.000]  I said, yes, I do, but I'm not using it right now.
[01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:05.000]  And he kind of stepped back and he said, Mr. Kelton, are you one of those guys?
[01:38:05.000 --> 01:38:11.000]  And I said, yes, I am. Have a nice day.
[01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:18.000]  Probably been in that fight, didn't want to go back.
[01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  This is what we need to do.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:30.000]  And there is a very good chance that there is a mark on your record showing that you're fighting these tickets.
[01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:33.000]  And cost them too much to fight the tickets.
[01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:39.000]  So if I was the jurisdiction, I would want to do that.
[01:38:39.000 --> 01:38:47.000]  I'd put something in the computer return that the guy gets that says, this guy's a problem.
[01:38:47.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  You write him a ticket, he's going to fight you.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:54.000]  So I hope so. I hope that's what they do.
[01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:02.000]  No, I'm pretty sure that's what it is because, I mean, you know, at first she was kind of acting all kind of really nervous,
[01:39:02.000 --> 01:39:04.000]  had her hand on her gun and stuff.
[01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:08.000]  And she was telling me kind of be still and all this stuff.
[01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  And when I noticed she was kind of acting really antsy about stuff.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:15.000]  And I mean, it's not like, you know, she had any real reason to.
[01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:21.000]  I just turned to her, I thought, look, man, there's no reason for you to be antsy or feeling, you know, threatened.
[01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:26.000]  I said, there is no reason to feel threatened whatsoever.
[01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:28.000]  You know, we're not going to harm you.
[01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:31.000]  Wait a minute. You're using the wrong term.
[01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:32.000]  Sure.
[01:39:32.000 --> 01:39:39.000]  Tell her you appear to be agitated.
[01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:43.000]  Agitated is a term of art.
[01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  The officer is going to look for something that he can claim as cause for reason to believe you are agitated.
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:39:58.000]  That's a key word for them.
[01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  So I always accuse them of being agitated and they hate that.
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:10.000]  It makes them nuts when I use their terms on them.
[01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:17.000]  When I was in Mansfield and I called this officer to take my complaint against the J.P.
[01:40:17.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  And he's one of these tight skinned, real gruff and grouchy dudes.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:34.000]  And when I asked him to arrest the judge and he said he wasn't going to take a complaint, I told him to take his chicken suit off.
[01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:40.000]  He got agitated.
[01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:47.000]  And I accused him of being agitated, but later he accused me of being agitated.
[01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:53.000]  Kidd Magnuson was the brother of the city attorney from Mansfield.
[01:40:53.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  And Kidd called me later and said, what were you doing in Mansfield?
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:40:59.000]  I said, mind my own business, Kidd.
[01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:04.000]  Well, my brother called and that officer said you were agitated.
[01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  I said, Ken, ask Craig to ask that officer if I got agitated before I told him to take his chicken suit off or after.
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:20.000]  That's why I always ask him to take the chicken suit off so they can't accuse me of being agitated.
[01:41:20.000 --> 01:41:29.000]  But agitation is their key word. And I'm concerned the officer put her hand on her pistol.
[01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:33.000]  I take that as aggravated assault.
[01:41:33.000 --> 01:41:38.000]  I was in Bowie and had an officer put his hand on his pistol.
[01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  And I told him, you need to get your hand away from that pistol.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:44.000]  And he reached down and grabbed the handle.
[01:41:44.000 --> 01:41:53.000]  I reached in my car and he acted like he was going to pull his pistol and I come out with my cell phone and dial 9-1-1
[01:41:53.000 --> 01:41:59.000]  and told the dispatcher where I was at and you've got an officer down here who is terrified of me.
[01:41:59.000 --> 01:42:04.000]  He's standing here with his hand on his pistol and I'm afraid he's going to shoot me.
[01:42:04.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  I'm concerned he's likely to wet his doors first because he's scared.
[01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:12.000]  Get somebody out here to take control of him.
[01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:22.000]  And a guy was standing there looking at me with this look that said, I don't believe you said that to my dispatcher.
[01:42:22.000 --> 01:42:26.000]  But he was clearly terrified of me.
[01:42:26.000 --> 01:42:29.000]  And this is their training.
[01:42:29.000 --> 01:42:41.000]  If you do anything that's not absolute, total, unquestioning compliance, it terrifies these policemen.
[01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:43.000]  And right away their hand goes for the gun.
[01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  I had a friend who was a 20-year police officer in Azalea, Texas.
[01:42:49.000 --> 01:42:58.000]  And he said during his entire career he never had to pull his weapon a single time.
[01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:02.000]  And now first reaction is to go for their pistol.
[01:43:02.000 --> 01:43:07.000]  Well, the way I consider to see that, that's aggravated assault.
[01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  They put their hand on that pistol.
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:14.000]  They see they're preparing to pull that pistol and shoot me with it.
[01:43:14.000 --> 01:43:18.000]  And frankly, I have spent time on the sharp end of those things.
[01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:22.000]  I take that incredibly serious.
[01:43:22.000 --> 01:43:28.000]  That could get a professional conduct complaint.
[01:43:28.000 --> 01:43:30.000]  Anyway, time to go to break.
[01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:32.000]  Randy Kelton, Louisville Radio.
[01:43:32.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  I called in number 512-646-1984.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:40.000]  When we come back, I'm sure you're going to have a question and a comment.
[01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:42.000]  I kind of bushwhacked you starting in.
[01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:45.000]  So when we come back, I'll let you get to it.
[01:43:45.000 --> 01:43:48.000]  And get your son on.
[01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:50.000]  We'll make him famous.
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:54.000]  We'll be right back.
[01:43:54.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  Do you have a question?
[01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:00.000]  Let someone ask them.
[01:44:00.000 --> 01:44:04.000]  Do you feel tired when talking about important topics like money and politics?
[01:44:04.000 --> 01:44:05.000]  Sorry.
[01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:08.000]  It's used by words like the Constitution or the Federal Reserve.
[01:44:08.000 --> 01:44:09.000]  What?
[01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000]  If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest disease known today, stupidity.
[01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:15.000]  Hi, my name is Steve Holt.
[01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:19.000]  And like millions of other Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age.
[01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:25.000]  I had no idea that the number one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television.
[01:44:25.000 --> 01:44:29.000]  Unfortunately, that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity.
[01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:30.000]  But there is hope.
[01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:36.000]  The staff at Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports zombieism recover.
[01:44:36.000 --> 01:44:43.000]  And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested.
[01:44:43.000 --> 01:44:55.000]  So if you or anybody you know suffers from stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them at 1904Guadalupe or bravenewbookstore.com.
[01:44:55.000 --> 01:45:01.000]  Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning.
[01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:04.000]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.000 --> 01:45:16.000]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:19.000]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:19.000 --> 01:45:23.000]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.000]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.000 --> 01:45:34.000]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:43.000]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:52.000]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:01.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:50.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Scott in Texas.
[01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:54.000]  Scott, you had a question or comment?
[01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:55.000]  Yes, sir.
[01:46:55.000 --> 01:47:05.000]  Hey, on that criminal complaint on the comment, Madison, I know now that I know more about how you do the margins and all the other stuff,
[01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:14.000]  but just on just the reading, how did the flow appear to you and how I stated the facts in the law to back it up?
[01:47:14.000 --> 01:47:22.000]  Well, the last one I wasn't happy with, but mostly from stylistic issues.
[01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:30.000]  Other than that, I mean, that's why I was just kind of getting to the verbiage of it, how the flow and transition was.
[01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:33.000]  I mean, did it seem like it went pretty well?
[01:47:33.000 --> 01:47:50.000]  Yes, it went pretty well. And it turns out, if Ralph's still listening, it turns out it's not very difficult to produce this kind of document when you have flow in mind.
[01:47:50.000 --> 01:47:57.000]  If you look at lawyers' documents, you'll find they never have flow in mind.
[01:47:57.000 --> 01:48:03.000]  Most of the lawyer-produced documents I come across are absolute trash.
[01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:14.000]  I had someone reference me to a treatment of MERS, a 50-page document.
[01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:19.000]  I started reading through that document, and the guy, he made some really good arguments.
[01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:30.000]  He had done some serious research into MERS, but he made the same arguments three or four times in different places.
[01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:34.000]  What he had never done, he didn't outline his document.
[01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:43.000]  I use a mind map. If anybody's ever used one, you'll come to really appreciate them.
[01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:51.000]  They're like a table of contents laid out laterally or horizontally instead of vertically.
[01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:57.000]  And you attach your headings together just like you would a table of contents.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:06.000]  But the mind really doesn't work well up and down because mentally, up is better than down.
[01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:09.000]  And we just don't visualize it as well.
[01:49:09.000 --> 01:49:14.000]  When we look around, we look from side to side, and this mind map does that for us.
[01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:25.000]  I know that sounds kind of like a minor issue, but as far as the way the mind organizes itself, that works really well.
[01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:32.000]  So I organize my documents into a mind map so I have them categorized.
[01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:45.000]  When I write a document, especially a long and complex document, I tend to put a heading on every paragraph as I move down the document.
[01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:50.000]  Now, when I'm finished, I may come back and take out some of those headings.
[01:49:50.000 --> 01:49:59.000]  But you can look at the document and know very quickly what each paragraph is about.
[01:49:59.000 --> 01:50:08.000]  If I wind up with the same headings, because if you're doing a 50-page document and you're 40 pages down,
[01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:14.000]  and you write this paragraph, you think of what headings fits best with it, you put it up there,
[01:50:14.000 --> 01:50:19.000]  and then you look at your table of contents, and there it is again.
[01:50:19.000 --> 01:50:24.000]  And you'll catch yourself re-arguing the same issues.
[01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:32.000]  So it turned out to be a very effective tool for getting my arguments in line.
[01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:42.000]  What I was presenting earlier today, I have a map up in front of me, and I followed that map through this presentation.
[01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:51.000]  Well, I noticed as I gave the presentation that there were places where I didn't follow the map.
[01:50:51.000 --> 01:51:03.000]  So I'll go in and redo the map to match how the arguments flow in that actual conversation.
[01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:17.000]  And another thing, Ken Magnuson, one of his tricks for preparing well-structured documents is he always reads them out loud.
[01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:22.000]  And I find that to be extremely effective.
[01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:29.000]  When we read something without reading it out loud, we hear it in our mind.
[01:51:29.000 --> 01:51:35.000]  But when we read it out loud, it goes out of our mouth and comes back in our ears,
[01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:44.000]  and a lot of times that's quite a bit different than what you thought it would sound like when you were reading it.
[01:51:44.000 --> 01:51:49.000]  It is a very effective tool for improving your documents.
[01:51:49.000 --> 01:51:53.000]  But for the most part, your document is pretty good.
[01:51:53.000 --> 01:51:59.000]  I'd have to go back and reread it because it's been a few days since I read it.
[01:51:59.000 --> 01:52:10.000]  Primarily the thing I noticed were stylistic issues, lots of highlighted, lots of change in font size.
[01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:18.000]  And sometimes when you copy from one document to another, the formatting changes.
[01:52:18.000 --> 01:52:22.000]  You bring in formatting from the other document.
[01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:27.000]  There is a way to avoid that, but that would take a show on Microsoft Word,
[01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:37.000]  and I probably should do that sometime soon on how to use headings and how to style your document.
[01:52:37.000 --> 01:52:46.000]  Microsoft Word has a set of styling conventions where you would select numbering.
[01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:52.000]  There's ones for numbers, and then there's one next to it.
[01:52:52.000 --> 01:53:01.000]  There's one for bullets, then numbers, and then there's a third one that has different styles of numbering paragraphs.
[01:53:01.000 --> 01:53:08.000]  I use one of those that gives me a very consistent styling.
[01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:14.000]  But I could, if somebody wants a couple hours on Microsoft Word,
[01:53:14.000 --> 01:53:24.000]  there are a lot of tools in Word that's very useful when we're writing legal documents, especially large legal documents.
[01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:34.000]  There is a tool for marking case law, statutes, case law, and treatises.
[01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:40.000]  Any references that you use in the document, there's a tool that you can use to mark them.
[01:53:40.000 --> 01:53:43.000]  Now normally those markings don't show.
[01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:45.000]  They're in the background.
[01:53:45.000 --> 01:53:51.000]  But once you have all those in, then you can go in and create a table of authorities.
[01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:57.000]  And it will read those markings and create your table of authorities from it.
[01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:06.000]  And in large legal documents, if you're doing a certiorari to the supreme or generally an appeal document,
[01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:09.000]  you need a table of authorities and a table of contents.
[01:54:09.000 --> 01:54:25.000]  If you use the, on the home key in Microsoft Word, there is a styles section.
[01:54:25.000 --> 01:54:34.000]  If you hit the home tab on the top ribbon, then about two-thirds of the way over there is a set of boxes for styles.
[01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:39.000]  Normal is for normal paragraphs, and then you have different headings.
[01:54:39.000 --> 01:54:51.000]  If you use those styles, primarily the headings, Microsoft Word uses the headings to create a table of contents.
[01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:58.000]  And once you've created a table of contents, if you use the headings, I'm sorry, you don't have to have a table of contents yet.
[01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:07.000]  If you use headings in a large document, then you can click the view tab and there is a navigation pane.
[01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:15.000]  You click navigation pane and it pops up the same box you get if you're doing a search and find.
[01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:23.000]  But there's one of those you can click, the very first one, will show you a table of contents.
[01:55:23.000 --> 01:55:31.000]  And in that box, any of those styles that are listed there, you click on it and it will take you to that spot in the document.
[01:55:31.000 --> 01:55:37.000]  So it allows you to jump around a big document really easily.
[01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:43.000]  Okay, that's enough on Word for tonight. I don't want to get off on that other subject.
[01:55:43.000 --> 01:55:46.000]  There's a whole lot we can do on Word.
[01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:58.000]  Yeah, let's get into more juicy stuff like court. So I was in Rothwall the other day and there was another guy that happened to be before me.
[01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:06.000]  It was a motion hearing, had the same exact motion and he was art challenging subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:16.000]  He also had a criminal complaint against the pop. And he was questioning the judge about being a magistrate because she wouldn't take the criminal complaint.
[01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:21.000]  And so she stalled him out basically by saying, what is your version of a magistrate?
[01:56:21.000 --> 01:56:28.000]  Because I can't tell you what a magistrate is because you may not have the same version and it might complicate things.
[01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:32.000]  So that was a good way she danced around that one.
[01:56:32.000 --> 01:56:38.000]  And then when she got to me, oh yeah, it was pretty clever and she's really good about twists and stuff.
[01:56:38.000 --> 01:56:44.000]  You know, I'll give her credit and pretty cute too.
[01:56:44.000 --> 01:57:00.000]  But anyhow, she got to me and because it was the same, same thing coming right at her, except this time I was going at her, you know, the way we kind of pretty much had already, we already knew was going to happen anyway.
[01:57:00.000 --> 01:57:12.000]  So, but when I got in there, when I got up there, I just asked her, I said, you have read the motion and she danced around it and didn't want to answer it.
[01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:21.000]  And then had the little city attorney sit there and wave his CD and how he had me on a CD and how they had a piece of paper and all this other stuff.
[01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:25.000]  And I just said, Judge, you have no proof that it's engaged in commerce.
[01:57:25.000 --> 01:57:31.000]  I stand on the motion and I asked her again, I said, you did read the motion.
[01:57:31.000 --> 01:57:34.000]  And she was kind of trying not to answer it.
[01:57:34.000 --> 01:57:38.000]  And finally, I had forced her to answer.
[01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:40.000]  I said, you did read the motion.
[01:57:40.000 --> 01:57:42.000]  She said, yes, I read the motion.
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:44.000]  And I said, you're going to deny my motion.
[01:57:44.000 --> 01:57:46.000]  Yes, I'm going to deny your motion.
[01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:48.000]  I said, on what grounds?
[01:57:48.000 --> 01:57:50.000]  She goes, so long.
[01:57:50.000 --> 01:57:52.000]  I said, we're done here, Judge.
[01:57:52.000 --> 01:57:55.000]  And she goes, what?
[01:57:55.000 --> 01:57:57.000]  I was like, we're done?
[01:57:57.000 --> 01:57:59.000]  I said, defense exception.
[01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:02.000]  And so she goes, I thought you were going to argue your motions.
[01:58:02.000 --> 01:58:04.000]  I said, we're done, Judge.
[01:58:04.000 --> 01:58:05.000]  I said, you read them?
[01:58:05.000 --> 01:58:07.000]  We're done.
[01:58:07.000 --> 01:58:09.000]  And she just couldn't believe it.
[01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:14.000]  It just took her by surprise on that whole deal.
[01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:20.000]  And when it got to the end, she was like, you know, you didn't really like my ruling.
[01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:23.000]  I said, no.
[01:58:23.000 --> 01:58:24.000]  What did I say?
[01:58:24.000 --> 01:58:27.000]  With all due respect.
[01:58:27.000 --> 01:58:29.000]  With all due respect.
[01:58:29.000 --> 01:58:30.000]  And thank you.
[01:58:30.000 --> 01:58:36.000]  And just had a little salty, but you just had to take it.
[01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:37.000]  Well, that's what we need to do.
[01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:42.000]  We need to make these judges nervous.
[01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:48.000]  And now she needs a judicial conduct complaint.
[01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:50.000]  Let's wonder if you can get her written.
[01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:22.000]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[01:59:22.000 --> 01:59:28.000]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:33.000]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.000 --> 01:59:44.000]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:44.000 --> 01:59:48.000]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:48.000 --> 01:59:51.000]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:51.000 --> 02:00:14.000]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.