ROL_2016-04-07_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:07.720]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your deli
[00:07.720 --> 00:15.360]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:15.360 --> 00:23.200]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.200 --> 00:28.160]  Markets for Monday, the 4th of April, 2016, are currently treading with gold at $1,215.51
[00:28.160 --> 00:36.600]  an ounce, silver at $14.96 an ounce, Texas crude at $36.79 a barrel, and Bitcoin is
[00:36.600 --> 00:46.000]  currently sitting at about $418 U.S. currency.
[00:46.000 --> 00:52.040]  Today in history, the year 1968, African American U.S. civil rights activist and minister Martin
[00:52.040 --> 00:55.160]  Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.
[00:55.160 --> 00:58.740]  He was shot while standing on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel where he and his team
[00:58.740 --> 01:00.880]  of civil rights activists were staying at.
[01:00.880 --> 01:05.800]  A circuit court of Shelby County, Tennessee, 13th Judicial District, at Memphis in December
[01:05.800 --> 01:10.760]  of 1999, found that unspecified U.S. government agencies were complicit and guilty in the
[01:10.760 --> 01:11.760]  assassination.
[01:11.760 --> 01:19.800]  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and pronounced dead today in history.
[01:19.800 --> 01:23.400]  In recent news, New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer called on the Federal Department
[01:23.400 --> 01:27.200]  of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to investigate a
[01:27.200 --> 01:29.320]  gun that appears to look like an iPhone.
[01:29.320 --> 01:32.720]  The manufacturer, Ideal Conceal, said that the government's concern over the weapon
[01:32.720 --> 01:33.720]  is misplaced.
[01:33.720 --> 01:38.200]  CEO Kirk Jilberg said that the gun is expected to be ready for market later in the year.
[01:38.200 --> 01:42.640]  Images of the weapon on the company's Facebook page show it appears to be a regular smartphone
[01:42.640 --> 01:43.640]  case.
[01:43.640 --> 01:47.280]  However, it's just not any case since this one opens up into a.38 caliber handgun.
[01:47.280 --> 01:50.680]  List price is expected to be around $395 U.S. dollars.
[01:50.680 --> 01:54.680]  Jilberg, who has a concealed carry license himself, says he came up with the idea for
[01:54.680 --> 01:59.200]  the gun after a young child in a restaurant caught a glimpse of his more obvious weapon
[01:59.200 --> 02:01.120]  and pointed it out in public.
[02:01.120 --> 02:04.800]  Schumer is arguing that the gun, which appears like an everyday item, could violate federal
[02:04.800 --> 02:13.880]  law, which is why he requested today that the Justice Department and the ATF investigate.
[02:13.880 --> 02:17.600]  A small fire today forced the evacuation of the Internal Revenue Service's headquarters
[02:17.600 --> 02:19.000]  in Washington, D.C.
[02:19.000 --> 02:23.400]  Apparently, the building was closed around 2.45 in the afternoon due to electrical issues
[02:23.400 --> 02:25.920]  concerning the heating and air conditioning systems.
[02:25.920 --> 02:29.520]  Of the 2,000 people or so who worked in the building, many had already left before the
[02:29.520 --> 02:32.400]  fire started around 3.30 when it was reported.
[02:32.400 --> 02:35.880]  The small fire, which was apparently contained to only one room in the basement, was in fact
[02:35.880 --> 02:39.840]  related to electrical issues, though the direct cause is still under investigation.
[02:39.840 --> 02:44.220]  Luckily, the IRS assured the public that tax returns are not processed at this particular
[02:44.220 --> 02:48.320]  building and will thus have no effect on tax return processing.
[02:48.320 --> 02:52.520]  There were no reported injuries.
[02:52.520 --> 03:22.240]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 4th, 2016.
[03:53.240 --> 03:59.800]  Okay, howdy, howdy.
[03:59.800 --> 04:04.960]  This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, on this Thursday, the 7th day
[04:04.960 --> 04:07.880]  of April, 2016.
[04:07.880 --> 04:14.120]  Well, I'm going to turn the phones on, we keep the phones on all night.
[04:14.120 --> 04:18.280]  I have Jeff from Mississippi.
[04:18.280 --> 04:26.760]  Just a little bit, I was down in Weatherford in De Parker County, and surprisingly, just
[04:26.760 --> 04:33.240]  from the show, I've got two or three different people from Parker County call me about the
[04:33.240 --> 04:39.360]  horrendous crap they're pulling in Parker County, so I went down there today and only
[04:39.360 --> 04:47.520]  got threatened with the rest once, so that was pretty good in the overall scheme of things.
[04:47.520 --> 04:54.680]  But we still haven't got the problem fixed, because these guys absolutely feel like the
[04:54.680 --> 04:58.040]  law simply does not apply to them.
[04:58.040 --> 05:00.480]  We've got one caller, so I'll take that.
[05:00.480 --> 05:06.560]  If we don't have a caller after that, I'll go into what went on in Parker County today.
[05:06.560 --> 05:08.480]  Okay, we got Jeff from Mississippi.
[05:08.480 --> 05:10.200]  Hello, Mr. Jeff.
[05:10.200 --> 05:12.960]  Hi, Randy.
[05:12.960 --> 05:13.960]  How are you today?
[05:13.960 --> 05:19.520]  Well, I got some really, really strange news.
[05:19.520 --> 05:28.720]  One of the parties that I'm suing in my Title 42 1983 suit has answered my complaint and
[05:28.720 --> 05:40.900]  is accusing me of not servicing her process serving correctly, that it has been done incorrect.
[05:40.900 --> 05:48.620]  So I called the clerk and the clerk did not have a straight answer because the marshal
[05:48.620 --> 05:58.160]  has not sent the receipt that service was processed, but that the clerk thinks that
[05:58.160 --> 06:03.760]  the woman got served because she's answering in the beginning.
[06:03.760 --> 06:07.520]  That was what I was going to say, so what?
[06:07.520 --> 06:16.120]  The only time that's relevant is in the matter of objecting to a no answer default.
[06:16.120 --> 06:19.000]  Oh.
[06:19.000 --> 06:20.000]  How were you...
[06:20.000 --> 06:24.740]  Okay, you weren't served properly, so how were you harmed?
[06:24.740 --> 06:27.160]  Do you not have constructive notice that there was a suit?
[06:27.160 --> 06:30.000]  It seems like you did because you answered it.
[06:30.000 --> 06:31.960]  So what's your problem?
[06:31.960 --> 06:39.680]  Okay, now can I move against her and end this case because of a fraudulent statement?
[06:39.680 --> 06:45.560]  Well, I mean, bar grieve there, or attorney for filing the stupid pleading.
[06:45.560 --> 06:47.640]  Oh, okay.
[06:47.640 --> 06:50.000]  I can't move for summary judgment based on...
[06:50.000 --> 06:52.000]  Oh, yeah, you can, but the judge...
[06:52.000 --> 06:57.280]  You know, you got a judge up here and you got these two parties bickering back and forth
[06:57.280 --> 07:05.440]  over minor nothingness, since you're pro se, probably what you could do is dismiss that
[07:05.440 --> 07:11.920]  in passing as irrelevant as she obviously filed the suit, so therefore she had constructive
[07:11.920 --> 07:13.680]  notice.
[07:13.680 --> 07:16.800]  Since we're not...
[07:16.800 --> 07:22.400]  Since we haven't moved for default judgment, for no answer default, the complaint about
[07:22.400 --> 07:26.140]  notice is irrelevant and just go on.
[07:26.140 --> 07:32.840]  If you do anything, then bar grieve the lawyer for filing it, but leave the judge out of
[07:32.840 --> 07:33.840]  it.
[07:33.840 --> 07:35.840]  All he'll do is get annoyed at both of you.
[07:35.840 --> 07:36.840]  Oh, okay.
[07:36.840 --> 07:37.840]  Okay.
[07:37.840 --> 07:41.000]  And it'll make you sound more professional.
[07:41.000 --> 07:42.000]  Okay.
[07:42.000 --> 07:44.360]  I got it.
[07:44.360 --> 07:45.360]  Okay.
[07:45.360 --> 07:47.520]  I think that is the...
[07:47.520 --> 07:50.440]  How complete was their answer?
[07:50.440 --> 07:56.480]  Well, their answers are very, very incomplete.
[07:56.480 --> 08:01.040]  Every item is either it's just denied and it doesn't have an explanation.
[08:01.040 --> 08:06.880]  In the case where they said that service of process was incomplete, that's all they said,
[08:06.880 --> 08:14.120]  that the defendant plaintiff's claims are insufficient due to insufficient service of
[08:14.120 --> 08:19.880]  process, and then it just goes on.
[08:19.880 --> 08:28.080]  But with the other, I'm trying to get at if the answer is sufficient, if the answer doesn't
[08:28.080 --> 08:32.760]  adequately respond, then you move for default judgment.
[08:32.760 --> 08:33.760]  Oh, really?
[08:33.760 --> 08:34.760]  Okay.
[08:34.760 --> 08:40.600]  Well, then all of their answers, their answers are basically defendant denies plaintiff's
[08:40.600 --> 08:47.720]  allegation in paragraph one, then plaintiff denies plaintiff's allegation in paragraph
[08:47.720 --> 08:48.720]  two.
[08:48.720 --> 08:55.200]  And on and on and on, finally with the service of process, plaintiff denies that any complaint
[08:55.200 --> 08:56.200]  from...
[08:56.200 --> 09:02.560]  Or defendant denies any complaint from plaintiff due to insufficient process of service, and
[09:02.560 --> 09:03.560]  then it just moves on.
[09:03.560 --> 09:04.560]  That's the whole thing.
[09:04.560 --> 09:05.560]  Nobody...
[09:05.560 --> 09:06.560]  Okay.
[09:06.560 --> 09:09.800]  I have to go back and look in some...
[09:09.800 --> 09:10.800]  Okay.
[09:10.800 --> 09:11.800]  You filed in the Fed.
[09:11.800 --> 09:20.200]  I think in the Fed, they have to answer the accusations with particularity.
[09:20.200 --> 09:25.200]  And you can move for summary judgment based on insufficient answer.
[09:25.200 --> 09:33.840]  A simple recitation of deny, the statement that you deny the allegation without specifics
[09:33.840 --> 09:37.800]  as to why you deny the allegation should be insufficient.
[09:37.800 --> 09:40.800]  You should move for summary judgment.
[09:40.800 --> 09:41.800]  That's what I want to hear.
[09:41.800 --> 09:45.280]  I'm going to jump on that.
[09:45.280 --> 09:46.280]  Do the research on it.
[09:46.280 --> 09:48.160]  I haven't researched that directly.
[09:48.160 --> 09:52.400]  It's been a long time since I've looked at it because I had the claim against me one
[09:52.400 --> 09:58.400]  time and it's been so long, I don't remember how we addressed that.
[09:58.400 --> 09:59.400]  Okay.
[09:59.400 --> 10:03.160]  I will research that and get on it.
[10:03.160 --> 10:05.720]  That is my only question that I had.
[10:05.720 --> 10:09.360]  It was just such of a weird thing that I wanted to jump on it.
[10:09.360 --> 10:16.800]  Well, it sounds like they didn't have either, didn't have much of an argument because they
[10:16.800 --> 10:19.880]  may be concerned because you're pro se.
[10:19.880 --> 10:22.520]  Have you filed any grievances against them yet?
[10:22.520 --> 10:24.400]  Oh yeah, everybody.
[10:24.400 --> 10:29.040]  I've filed bar claims against everybody from here to Pittsburgh.
[10:29.040 --> 10:30.200]  That may be the problem.
[10:30.200 --> 10:38.920]  They may be afraid to try to make some horse manure claim because they may be afraid you'll
[10:38.920 --> 10:41.360]  come back after them for it.
[10:41.360 --> 10:42.520]  Well, okay.
[10:42.520 --> 10:48.560]  Here is something I had to actually shuffle through on two or three of their arguments.
[10:48.560 --> 10:51.040]  They do cite case law.
[10:51.040 --> 10:58.000]  In one case, they are citing the Rooker Speldman doctrine that I can't sue because of that.
[10:58.000 --> 11:01.880]  And then I can't sue because of the heck doc doctrine.
[11:01.880 --> 11:09.120]  Well, I looked at both of those up and that's absolute rubbish.
[11:09.120 --> 11:15.760]  Heck doctrine, explain the heck doctrine.
[11:15.760 --> 11:20.600]  Well, okay.
[11:20.600 --> 11:22.720]  One or the other, I'm getting them mixed up.
[11:22.720 --> 11:30.880]  One of them is for the poison tree and in one case, a policeman jumped on a person and
[11:30.880 --> 11:36.440]  beat him up and then the person defended himself and then so he beat the cop up.
[11:36.440 --> 11:41.280]  And so in one of these doctrines, they were saying that, well, the assault could have
[11:41.280 --> 11:47.960]  been due to unlawful arrest and vice versa that one had to do with the other.
[11:47.960 --> 11:58.680]  And then the other doctrine had to do with someone trying to sue somebody twice.
[11:58.680 --> 12:02.880]  So it's not collateral estoppel, but it's almost...
[12:02.880 --> 12:06.640]  That's a pleading, that's double jeopardy.
[12:06.640 --> 12:08.600]  Yeah.
[12:08.600 --> 12:12.880]  And so, oh, well, and either way, I trampled all over them.
[12:12.880 --> 12:20.720]  I said that the opposing party violated the law clearly and I even listed the law that
[12:20.720 --> 12:23.440]  she broke.
[12:23.440 --> 12:30.640]  So in this case, their arguments were completely rubbish and I would like to jump all over
[12:30.640 --> 12:31.640]  them.
[12:31.640 --> 12:32.640]  Okay.
[12:32.640 --> 12:37.520]  Have you looked up the heck doctrine?
[12:37.520 --> 12:40.600]  I'm looking it up now.
[12:40.600 --> 12:42.600]  Okay.
[12:42.600 --> 12:45.280]  A favorable termination after freedom.
[12:45.280 --> 12:51.640]  Why heck's doctrine should reign within reason?
[12:51.640 --> 12:58.320]  It looks like the heck doctrine goes to a 1983 suit.
[12:58.320 --> 13:04.280]  An alleged violation of an individual's legal rights demands an opportunity for a redress
[13:04.280 --> 13:09.920]  that can be no more equitable position than this for a right and remedy to go hand in
[13:09.920 --> 13:10.920]  hand.
[13:10.920 --> 13:18.200]  In a democratic society, however, the availability and scope of a remedy is always commensurate
[13:18.200 --> 13:23.120]  with the value society places on the right at stake.
[13:23.120 --> 13:29.080]  The significant value the American people place on protecting their rights is reflected
[13:29.080 --> 13:30.680]  in 42 U.S. Code 1983.
[13:30.680 --> 13:35.320]  The statute provides litigants an avenue by which they may pursue a civil remedy against
[13:35.320 --> 13:42.320]  actors who under color of state law violate their federal rights.
[13:42.320 --> 13:50.600]  The United States Supreme Court has described the purpose of 1983 as interposing the federal
[13:50.600 --> 13:57.360]  courts between the states and the people as guardians of the people's federal rights.
[13:57.360 --> 14:02.920]  Section 83 creates a species of tort liability to address this end.
[14:02.920 --> 14:08.640]  Particular problem situation may arise, however, when a 1983 plaintiff has a criminal conviction
[14:08.640 --> 14:13.000]  that has never been invalidated.
[14:13.000 --> 14:18.320]  Consider a scenario imagined by Justice Scalia, an individual who was convicted of resisting
[14:18.320 --> 14:20.160]  arrest and sentenced to time in jail.
[14:20.160 --> 14:24.800]  His conviction is not overturned on appeal through habeas.
[14:24.800 --> 14:29.120]  He subsequently files 1983 action against the officer who arrested him, claiming his
[14:29.120 --> 14:34.920]  fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures was violated.
[14:34.920 --> 14:41.040]  In the underlying criminal trial, the state carried its burden and demonstrated the individual
[14:41.040 --> 14:47.760]  intentionally prevented a peace officer from affecting lawful arrest.
[14:47.760 --> 14:53.720]  If the plaintiff were to succeed on his 1983 claim, he would have to demonstrate that his
[14:53.720 --> 14:56.120]  arrest was unlawful.
[14:56.120 --> 15:03.200]  The showing would necessarily imply the invalidity of the underlying conviction or sentence.
[15:03.200 --> 15:09.200]  The possibility then arises that two judicial decisions could reach diametrically opposed
[15:09.200 --> 15:17.920]  results regarding the same set of operative facts if such a collaterally attacking 1983
[15:17.920 --> 15:20.640]  claim was cognizable.
[15:20.640 --> 15:25.520]  If the true purpose of 83 is to interpose the federal courts, however, the significance
[15:25.520 --> 15:33.000]  in finding collaterally attacking 1983 claims noncognizable is magnified when the plaintiff
[15:33.000 --> 15:39.880]  is ineligible for federal habeas corpus relief and has no other access to the federal courts.
[15:39.880 --> 15:46.320]  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not settled the issue of rather a collaterally attacking
[15:46.320 --> 15:53.600]  1983 claim brought by a non-habeas eligible plaintiff is cognizable.
[15:53.600 --> 15:59.640]  As a result, the Circuit Court of Appeals are split as to the proper course of action
[15:59.640 --> 16:06.760]  with non-habeas eligible plaintiffs having the chance to succeed on their claims while
[16:06.760 --> 16:16.200]  others are categorically denied that opportunity.
[16:16.200 --> 16:22.080]  Part of this comment outlines the dictum opinions of the Supreme Court on the issues in Heck
[16:22.080 --> 16:30.360]  v. Humphrey and examines the manner in which the Federal Circuit Courts have interpreted
[16:30.360 --> 16:32.120]  and applied these cases.
[16:32.120 --> 16:36.920]  This will take too long to get to all of it.
[16:36.920 --> 16:38.600]  It gets to Heck.
[16:38.600 --> 16:46.320]  Okay, in Heck, the justices, let me see where I'm at, I'm out of time, hang on, Randy
[16:46.320 --> 17:00.600]  Kalten, Radio, we'll be right back.
[17:00.600 --> 17:05.960]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of
[17:05.960 --> 17:06.960]  nutrition.
[17:06.960 --> 17:11.320]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that.
[17:11.320 --> 17:17.040]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:17.040 --> 17:23.360]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can
[17:23.360 --> 17:25.640]  provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.640 --> 17:30.480]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[17:30.480 --> 17:31.600]  we reject.
[17:31.600 --> 17:36.840]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with
[17:36.840 --> 17:40.040]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:40.040 --> 17:45.960]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[17:45.960 --> 17:47.600]  quality radio.
[17:47.600 --> 17:51.920]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.920 --> 17:57.280]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[17:57.280 --> 17:59.120]  increase your income.
[17:59.120 --> 18:00.680]  Order now.
[18:00.680 --> 18:04.960]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network
[18:04.960 --> 18:09.480]  on top of the on-air talent, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind
[18:09.480 --> 18:10.480]  the scenes?
[18:10.480 --> 18:14.640]  Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners like you,
[18:14.640 --> 18:19.240]  and we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual fundraisers,
[18:19.240 --> 18:22.480]  which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air.
[18:22.480 --> 18:25.760]  The 2016 fundraiser has been extended to March 17th.
[18:25.760 --> 18:29.840]  Head on over to logosradionetwork.com to make your contribution.
[18:29.840 --> 18:34.800]  Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas Gunworks,
[18:34.800 --> 18:39.640]  first prize being a Spikes Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus Curve.
[18:39.640 --> 18:44.040]  And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary
[18:44.040 --> 18:46.000]  jar of My Magic Mud.
[18:46.000 --> 18:50.440]  Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions by Bitcoin.
[18:50.440 --> 18:56.020]  The Logos Radio Network fundraiser, now through March 17th, head on over to logosradionetwork.com
[18:56.020 --> 19:00.000]  for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[19:00.000 --> 19:07.000]  If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[19:30.000 --> 19:38.000]  Thank you.
[20:00.000 --> 20:07.000]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Jeff in Mississippi,
[20:07.000 --> 20:14.000]  and we have Jeff from Maryland that wanted to comment on Jeff's issue.
[20:14.000 --> 20:21.000]  Go ahead, Jeff.
[20:35.720 --> 20:42.720]  Okay, a couple of things. I do believe last week, Jeff, that I have strongly suggested
[20:42.720 --> 20:49.720]  to you that you sheath those claws of yours. And yet, first thing out of the bag on this
[20:51.640 --> 20:57.840]  call, I hear you, I want to get them. And I'm telling you, that's getting in the way
[20:57.840 --> 21:04.840]  of your judgment and your clarity of vision. Knock it off. That's one. Two, they answered
[21:04.840 --> 21:11.840]  to their complaint about not being properly served as moot. Is he there, Randy?
[21:17.720 --> 21:24.720]  Yeah, I'm here. Oh, it's Jeff. He's probably there, but he's probably there. I just got
[21:24.720 --> 21:31.720]  it. To draw or get blood, it's getting in your way. It's getting in the way of your
[21:37.560 --> 21:42.560]  clarity of vision. It's getting in the way of seeing things the way they are. You got
[21:42.560 --> 21:44.520]  to knock it off, guy.
[21:44.520 --> 21:49.520]  Okay, well, for one thing, I'm not trying to get blood in a personal sense. It's just
[21:49.520 --> 21:55.200]  a sport. I'm trying to go for the knockout in round one. It's just sport. I'm saying
[21:55.200 --> 22:02.200]  to people, if you're trying to fumble on the one-yard line and go in for the touchdown
[22:03.320 --> 22:04.320]  and win the game.
[22:04.320 --> 22:09.880]  I understand, but here's the thing. Have you ever been hunting?
[22:09.880 --> 22:10.880]  Not in a long time.
[22:10.880 --> 22:17.880]  Okay, have you ever been warned about sometimes a person that doesn't have an orange hat on
[22:17.880 --> 22:24.880]  standing amongst a bunch of lower-growing trees will look like a deer with antlers?
[22:24.880 --> 22:28.880]  Okay, yeah, I've heard that.
[22:28.880 --> 22:35.880]  A heifer with the big sign hanging over it that says, don't shoot me, I'm a cow, looks
[22:39.320 --> 22:40.320]  like a deer.
[22:40.320 --> 22:48.320]  Remember, there's the old cliche, the old saw of revenge is best served cold, but you're
[22:48.320 --> 22:55.320]  hot. Knock it off. I know you want it, but you're going to have to pick your time when
[22:56.640 --> 23:03.640]  the path is clear, the target is in the open, and you've got every opportunity to make your
[23:07.320 --> 23:08.320]  kill.
[23:08.320 --> 23:15.320]  That's a nice general platitude, but what about using an aggressive stance in order
[23:20.240 --> 23:27.240]  to make it more difficult for opposing counsel to force you to deal with frivolous pleadings?
[23:29.360 --> 23:30.360]  And that's what I'm doing.
[23:30.360 --> 23:33.360]  Hang on a second.
[23:33.360 --> 23:40.360]  You know, you have powers and abilities beyond those of immortal attorneys. Jeff, are you
[23:47.880 --> 23:54.880]  saying this will likely affect the way the judge rules in Jess's case?
[23:54.880 --> 24:01.440]  I don't know that it would necessarily affect the way he rules, but if he does something
[24:01.440 --> 24:08.440]  like this, it's definitely going to affect the way the judge sees him.
[24:12.040 --> 24:19.040]  If he gets a bad taste in his mouth, that's just favor. It's kind of like throwing somebody
[24:19.040 --> 24:26.040]  goes in for a job and their credentials and their backgrounds are virtually identical,
[24:31.760 --> 24:36.360]  and the sole difference is the way the two of them came off during the interview. Well,
[24:36.360 --> 24:41.000]  guess who's going to get the job? The guy that came off in the interview the best. And
[24:41.000 --> 24:48.000]  the guy that put a bad taste in the interviewer's mouth, he's going to lose. So don't go there.
[24:49.360 --> 24:52.360]  Wait a minute. This is not a job interview.
[24:52.360 --> 24:59.360]  I know. I'm using metaphors in order for people to be able to equate.
[25:01.360 --> 25:06.360]  But it implies what I would consider an inappropriate perspective.
[25:06.360 --> 25:09.860]  Well, maybe so.
[25:09.860 --> 25:13.240]  The judge has a duty to determine the facts in accordance with rules of evidence and apply
[25:13.240 --> 25:18.120]  the laws that come to him with the facts in the case. If he has himself another agenda,
[25:18.120 --> 25:21.120]  he needs to get himself down off that bench.
[25:21.120 --> 25:28.120]  Now I know where Jeff gets it from. You pull your claws back in.
[25:28.440 --> 25:35.440]  These judges have been ruling against us out of hand at every turn with absolutely no concern.
[25:35.800 --> 25:39.640]  And we're supposed to cater to them?
[25:39.640 --> 25:45.360]  Our group is virtually 100 percent successful. Not quite 100 percent, but almost. So maybe
[25:45.360 --> 25:48.640]  it has to do with the approach that's taken.
[25:48.640 --> 25:50.240]  Have you read my pleadings?
[25:50.240 --> 25:51.320]  Yeah.
[25:51.320 --> 25:57.640]  They have, I don't go after judges. I don't go after the other side. And it makes no difference
[25:57.640 --> 25:59.720]  what I put in a pleading.
[25:59.720 --> 26:00.880]  None.
[26:00.880 --> 26:03.080]  And you're in the Northern District of Texas, right?
[26:03.080 --> 26:04.080]  Yeah.
[26:04.080 --> 26:09.080]  Yeah. And the only way you're going to stand in the Northern District of Texas is on appeal.
[26:09.080 --> 26:15.600]  I don't care if that judge is upset with me or not.
[26:15.600 --> 26:17.400]  I know you don't.
[26:17.400 --> 26:21.320]  If he's upset with me, he's likely to make a more stupid ruling because he's going to
[26:21.320 --> 26:25.560]  rule against me in either case.
[26:25.560 --> 26:32.560]  That is a pure speculative statement.
[26:32.560 --> 26:40.960]  I have to come to the table from that perspective or I will fail to argue all of my issues.
[26:40.960 --> 26:47.960]  Well, you know, we have appeals that have been won and we're pro se. And we have court
[26:47.960 --> 26:54.160]  cases that have been won and we're pro se. And we have almost 100 percent track record.
[26:54.160 --> 26:59.920]  So maybe there's something that we're doing right that you might want to take a look at.
[26:59.920 --> 27:04.920]  What could that be? Not objecting to wrongful behavior on the part of the other side?
[27:04.920 --> 27:05.920]  No.
[27:05.920 --> 27:06.920]  Could that be what it is?
[27:06.920 --> 27:13.920]  No, no. We object. As a matter of fact, Guy, who was it to point out 37C to you last week?
[27:17.280 --> 27:20.760]  I don't understand what you're telling Jeff to do.
[27:20.760 --> 27:27.360]  I'm telling him to slow down on putting his hand on his sidearm because it's coloring
[27:27.360 --> 27:34.360]  his judgment. He doesn't really know that because they answered the damn complaint that
[27:34.480 --> 27:40.480]  the complaint about not being properly served is moot because he's too tied up with, I want
[27:40.480 --> 27:41.480]  to get sanctions.
[27:41.480 --> 27:45.480]  You seem to take that different.
[27:45.480 --> 27:50.480]  If that point is moot, that's a chance for me to go in and put a tackle on somebody's
[27:50.480 --> 27:52.480]  legs and get them.
[27:52.480 --> 27:54.480]  No, it's not.
[27:54.480 --> 27:59.480]  Because if they're lying, then I am going to put that on the record.
[27:59.480 --> 28:06.480]  No, that's a function of perception. It does what I'm saying to you, is because they answered
[28:07.160 --> 28:14.160]  their complaint is moot. Not because they lied, not because they didn't get served,
[28:14.240 --> 28:16.920]  but because they answered.
[28:16.920 --> 28:23.840]  It was obviously moot when they answered. While you and I are pro-says, we can make
[28:23.840 --> 28:30.120]  these kinds of mistakes, but if a lawyer does that, he does that deliberately for the purpose
[28:30.120 --> 28:34.320]  of forcing the pro-say to answer a frivolous argument.
[28:34.320 --> 28:38.800]  If the pro-say is stupid and ignorant.
[28:38.800 --> 28:45.960]  The Bar Association standards forbid the lawyer from doing that specifically.
[28:45.960 --> 28:48.960]  And the court's not going to do anything about that.
[28:48.960 --> 28:55.960]  They certainly won't do anything about it if you just, what did Shakespeare call it,
[28:58.320 --> 28:59.680]  wink at their discords.
[28:59.680 --> 29:01.360]  Say what, please?
[29:01.360 --> 29:05.280]  If you just let them do whatever they want to without judging.
[29:05.280 --> 29:12.280]  Did I say that? No, I didn't say that. It's an issue he can raise of their inappropriate
[29:12.280 --> 29:19.280]  response in their answer. And leave it, and leave it at that.
[29:20.120 --> 29:26.480]  That does not stick his neck out in any way, shape, or form for the judge to develop any
[29:26.480 --> 29:30.200]  kind of disfavor or distaste for him.
[29:30.200 --> 29:33.480]  Okay, I have a problem with that.
[29:33.480 --> 29:36.120]  More than likely you would.
[29:36.120 --> 29:41.280]  This perception, and it's a problem I have with people going into court. They're terrified
[29:41.280 --> 29:45.280]  that the judge might not like them, or might get upset at them.
[29:45.280 --> 29:49.360]  If we don't fix that, we're not going to have fair and honest courts.
[29:49.360 --> 29:56.360]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brutal Law Radio, I'll call your number, 512-646-1984. We'll be right
[29:56.360 --> 29:57.360]  back.
[29:57.360 --> 30:10.360]  Forget the tanning booths, hours in the sun, and instant tan lotions. There's a much better
[30:10.360 --> 30:13.280]  way to boost your skin color, and it's really good for you.
[30:13.280 --> 30:18.280]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with a Skinsational Tip.
[30:18.280 --> 30:23.120]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:23.120 --> 30:28.720]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:28.720 --> 30:33.880]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[30:33.880 --> 30:38.320]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This public service announcement is brought to you by
[30:38.320 --> 30:45.040]  StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with
[30:45.040 --> 30:48.200]  StartPage.
[30:48.200 --> 30:52.120]  Humans prefer a healthy glow, but not the kind from a beach or a bottle. This kind of
[30:52.120 --> 30:57.040]  glow comes from carotenoids. Carotenoids are red and yellow antioxidants found in foods
[30:57.040 --> 31:01.400]  like carrots, spinach, and pumpkins. Researchers say that people who eat lots of fruits and
[31:01.400 --> 31:05.760]  veggies have higher levels of carotenoids in their skin and a more yellow hue to their
[31:05.760 --> 31:10.560]  face, and people like it. Study participants were shown images of a face. The original
[31:10.560 --> 31:15.600]  one mimicked a suntan, and one mimicked carotenoid coloring. The carotenoid look was judged
[31:15.600 --> 31:20.120]  most healthy. So instead of basking in the sun, hit the salad bar. It's better for you
[31:20.120 --> 31:21.520]  and you'll look healthier for it.
[31:21.520 --> 31:50.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:51.520 --> 32:14.160]  We're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right
[32:14.160 --> 32:17.480]  to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[32:17.480 --> 32:21.560]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least
[32:21.560 --> 32:25.640]  expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[32:25.640 --> 32:29.600]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[32:29.600 --> 32:33.380]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[32:33.380 --> 32:37.360]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable
[32:37.360 --> 32:41.520]  material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now
[32:41.520 --> 32:45.000]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus
[32:45.000 --> 32:49.400]  the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and
[32:49.400 --> 32:52.680]  other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of
[32:52.680 --> 32:57.120]  this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the
[32:57.120 --> 33:03.000]  free society we all want and deserve.
[33:03.000 --> 33:16.000]  Free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[33:33.000 --> 34:02.120]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio.
[34:02.120 --> 34:18.560]  Randy says that I was unfair to you by having characterized you as being so anxious to get
[34:18.560 --> 34:26.640]  sanctions as you could see the defect in their answer where their complaint about not being
[34:26.640 --> 34:33.920]  properly served was moot. And if you felt that I was unfair, I apologize. It wasn't
[34:33.920 --> 34:35.920]  intended to be that way.
[34:35.920 --> 34:44.240]  Oh, it doesn't bother me. I sat for a year in a Mississippi penitentiary and a judge
[34:44.240 --> 34:53.920]  put me there. So when I walk in the room, I've bar-grieved both attorneys about 20
[34:53.920 --> 34:58.720]  times. And then I start questioning the judge about his being unfair. So everybody's red
[34:58.720 --> 35:04.480]  in the face. So I'm a very uncomfortable person to be in the courtroom with.
[35:04.480 --> 35:12.880]  Okay, that's fine with me. But as I said, because they answered your complaint, their
[35:12.880 --> 35:17.760]  complaint about you not being properly served is moot.
[35:17.760 --> 35:18.760]  Is moot.
[35:18.760 --> 35:19.760]  It's moot.
[35:19.760 --> 35:20.760]  Well, I'm going to run with that.
[35:20.760 --> 35:26.040]  Come on, guy. Get some bigger fish to fry.
[35:26.040 --> 35:34.160]  Well, that's what we were suggesting. While it was crappy and dumb of them to do that,
[35:34.160 --> 35:42.080]  that wasn't very important. Now, if they put in a filing that was absolutely totally fabricated
[35:42.080 --> 35:47.520]  and slandered you and all kinds of other things, you might want to raise the issue. And no,
[35:47.520 --> 35:53.320]  I don't suggest that you ask for sanctions for something that's essentially frivolous
[35:53.320 --> 35:58.760]  or your request for sanctions to be deemed as frivolous.
[35:58.760 --> 35:59.760]  Or de minimis.
[35:59.760 --> 36:06.960]  De minimis, yeah. Before you came on, Jeff, that's exactly what we were saying. What we
[36:06.960 --> 36:12.040]  suggested is this is not important enough to waste any time with.
[36:12.040 --> 36:17.760]  Okay, so my answer to their answer is paragraph one is moot.
[36:17.760 --> 36:20.760]  Wait a minute. What answer?
[36:20.760 --> 36:22.760]  I'm answering their answer.
[36:22.760 --> 36:23.760]  Why?
[36:23.760 --> 36:27.400]  Just so I can have something on the record.
[36:27.400 --> 36:28.400]  Why?
[36:28.400 --> 36:32.640]  I don't know. Just so I can have something on the record.
[36:32.640 --> 36:33.640]  Why?
[36:33.640 --> 36:34.640]  It's not appropriate.
[36:34.640 --> 36:41.480]  Yeah, let me go to the point. You file a petition, they file an answer, then you address it in
[36:41.480 --> 36:47.880]  court. Unless their answer is so insufficient as to being a non-answer, then you file a
[36:47.880 --> 36:49.920]  motion for default judgment.
[36:49.920 --> 36:50.920]  Right.
[36:50.920 --> 36:56.120]  But just to challenge their answer. But you don't really answer their answer. It's always
[36:56.120 --> 37:05.120]  in court, somebody files a motion, somebody else files an answer, and the filer can respond
[37:05.120 --> 37:11.800]  to the answer if it's necessary. And then your response, if the other side doesn't like
[37:11.800 --> 37:18.680]  it, they can't answer that unless they go to the judge first and ask his permission.
[37:18.680 --> 37:21.840]  Because they don't want this back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Whatever you
[37:21.840 --> 37:28.800]  have to state, state it and be done with it. And the other side is going to state his position.
[37:28.800 --> 37:36.680]  It's not going to agree with you. But you don't have to go in and micro-examine every
[37:36.680 --> 37:42.920]  issue because you'll do that in the process of the court. Does that make sense?
[37:42.920 --> 37:47.960]  Yeah, and that's really nice because I hate going to the post office every other day.
[37:47.960 --> 37:48.960]  Okay.
[37:48.960 --> 37:51.640]  Okay, I have some questions for you.
[37:51.640 --> 37:54.560]  I have more responses to these people and it's driving me crazy.
[37:54.560 --> 38:04.240]  Yeah, I have some questions for you, Jeff. Do you know if, according to your local court
[38:04.240 --> 38:10.480]  rules, if the judge sets up 26F conference?
[38:10.480 --> 38:16.240]  I guess I've got it coming up on the 14th of April in about eight days.
[38:16.240 --> 38:17.240]  You guess.
[38:17.240 --> 38:26.000]  No, it is coming up on April 14th in, I guess, seven days.
[38:26.000 --> 38:35.960]  Has the judge sent you a schedule for review or is he going to send you an order to conduct
[38:35.960 --> 38:37.960]  your 26F?
[38:37.960 --> 38:44.400]  Yeah, he did send me an order for the 26F and then it just says telephonic conference.
[38:44.400 --> 38:51.000]  Okay, did he send you a copy of what his proposed 26F is?
[38:51.000 --> 38:52.000]  No.
[38:52.000 --> 38:53.000]  Okay.
[38:53.000 --> 38:59.760]  Did opposing counsels send you a proposed schedule order?
[38:59.760 --> 39:00.760]  No.
[39:00.760 --> 39:09.920]  Okay, here's the thing. In my particular jurisdiction, they will send you a proposed, the judge will
[39:09.920 --> 39:15.440]  send you a proposed 26F and you have to argue it.
[39:15.440 --> 39:16.440]  Okay.
[39:16.440 --> 39:21.400]  Do you know what a 26F is?
[39:21.400 --> 39:25.480]  But that's the scheduling conference or the conference report. You have to come up with
[39:25.480 --> 39:31.920]  the report saying that you met with the opposing counsel and that you're going to get the discovery
[39:31.920 --> 39:38.240]  in 30 days and get all other electronic filing in 60 days. So it's like a timing schedule
[39:38.240 --> 39:40.360]  report. Disagreeing.
[39:40.360 --> 39:45.080]  Are you committed to the 30 days and 60 days you just said?
[39:45.080 --> 39:49.080]  It doesn't matter to me because I'm already done. So I don't care.
[39:49.080 --> 39:50.080]  Okay.
[39:50.080 --> 39:53.080]  But if you think it's best, I'll do.
[39:53.080 --> 40:03.440]  Okay. Jeff, hold on. We're in the Fifth Circuit and at least here in the Northern District,
[40:03.440 --> 40:11.680]  you have to, the parties must exchange proposed scheduling orders and then they're to agree
[40:11.680 --> 40:17.280]  on a scheduling order and file that with the court. If they can't agree on the scheduling
[40:17.280 --> 40:23.320]  order, then both send a proposed scheduling order to the court and the court will rule
[40:23.320 --> 40:24.760]  on what he wants to.
[40:24.760 --> 40:33.080]  Okay. So here's what I would suggest you do, Jeff. You call up the clerk, not the judge's
[40:33.080 --> 40:41.840]  clerk, the clerk at the court and find out how they conduct their 26F conferences that
[40:41.840 --> 40:47.640]  the judge has ordered, whether everything is supposed to be worked out during that conference
[40:47.640 --> 40:52.040]  or if everything is supposed to be worked out in advance of the conference and all the
[40:52.040 --> 40:55.440]  judge does is basically take dictation.
[40:55.440 --> 40:58.200]  Got it.
[40:58.200 --> 41:03.280]  And don't overlook your 26A1 disclosures.
[41:03.280 --> 41:04.280]  Okay.
[41:04.280 --> 41:08.960]  Do you know what the disclosures are?
[41:08.960 --> 41:12.920]  No, I don't have 26A1 in front of me.
[41:12.920 --> 41:18.960]  Okay. It's all the documents that they have in their custody or control and all the witnesses
[41:18.960 --> 41:24.040]  that they have in their custody or control that they intend to use a trial.
[41:24.040 --> 41:25.040]  Okay.
[41:25.040 --> 41:33.200]  Okay, it's not the same as corporate disclosures. Okay, like, you know, if I'm General Electric
[41:33.200 --> 41:37.920]  and I have to list out all the various companies that I own so the judge knows whether or not
[41:37.920 --> 41:43.520]  he might have a conflict of interest because he owns 90% interest in some particular subsidiary
[41:43.520 --> 41:52.720]  that she owns, you know, that sort of thing. 26A1 disclosures are basically the documents
[41:52.720 --> 41:56.680]  that they intend to use and the witnesses that they tend to call.
[41:56.680 --> 42:03.320]  Yeah, and they tend to have disclaimers saying these are all that I'm aware of at the moment.
[42:03.320 --> 42:07.800]  Right. And that's not a disclaimer. That's a caveat.
[42:07.800 --> 42:13.280]  A caveat. Well, do they protect themselves in case something else comes up there?
[42:13.280 --> 42:14.280]  Oh, yeah.
[42:14.280 --> 42:20.000]  So that these disclosures are not definitive and you're not strictly bound by them.
[42:20.000 --> 42:21.000]  Okay.
[42:21.000 --> 42:23.120]  I'll do that tomorrow.
[42:23.120 --> 42:24.120]  Okay.
[42:24.120 --> 42:30.320]  Okay, one more thing before you leave, Jeff. I've got Max who wanted to make a comment
[42:30.320 --> 42:33.120]  on your issue. Max?
[42:33.120 --> 42:35.600]  Yes, sir.
[42:35.600 --> 42:38.040]  You wanted to comment on Jeff's issue?
[42:38.040 --> 42:45.920]  Yes, I did. And this has been a wonderful Thursday show so far, might I add.
[42:45.920 --> 42:51.240]  You just like it because me and Jeff Sedgwick are fighting like cats and dogs.
[42:51.240 --> 42:55.840]  Oh, you know, I thought that might be blood. I was worried about that guy's butt, but
[42:55.840 --> 42:57.880]  you know what, it makes for great listeners.
[42:57.880 --> 43:03.240]  Okay. Move the mic just below your mouth a little. Your mic is kind of distorting.
[43:03.240 --> 43:07.680]  Okay. You know what, it's probably my booming voice.
[43:07.680 --> 43:08.680]  Much better.
[43:08.680 --> 43:16.560]  I had thought that Jeff in Maryland is correct for warning Jeff in Mississippi about getting
[43:16.560 --> 43:20.640]  too involved in the fight. In fact, Randy, I've heard you issue the same warning about
[43:20.640 --> 43:27.000]  knowing your intended outcome. So I thought that, you know, I mean, Jeff has been aggrieved.
[43:27.000 --> 43:33.320]  He's been harmed here. So the Jeff in Mississippi, that is, has been harmed here. So it's up
[43:33.320 --> 43:37.320]  to his discretion as to how far he wants to take this. I hear the break music. You go
[43:37.320 --> 43:40.320]  ahead and give us an outro.
[43:40.320 --> 43:50.280]  Okay. This is Randy Kelton, Rue La Radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. And okay,
[43:50.280 --> 43:55.320]  this is a short break. When we go to the next break, make sure you go to Logos Radio Network
[43:55.320 --> 44:02.480]  and look over our sponsors. We need all the help we can do.
[44:02.480 --> 44:07.920]  Hello. My name is Stuart Smith from naturespureorganics.com. And I would like to invite you to come buy
[44:07.920 --> 44:12.880]  our store at 1904 Guadalupe Street, Suite D here in Austin, Texas, behind Brave New
[44:12.880 --> 44:16.720]  Books and Chase Bank to see all our fantastic health and wellness products with your very
[44:16.720 --> 44:21.480]  own eyes. Have a look at our Miracle Healing Clay that started our adventure in alternative
[44:21.480 --> 44:25.720]  medicine. Take a peek at some of our other wonderful products, including our Australian
[44:25.720 --> 44:34.160]  emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps, and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043
[44:34.160 --> 44:43.160]  or find us online at naturespureorganics.com. That's 512-264-4043, naturespureorganics.com.
[44:43.160 --> 45:01.280]  Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information on events and our products, naturespureorganics.com.
[45:01.280 --> 45:06.640]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris
[45:06.640 --> 45:14.240]  Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[45:14.240 --> 45:19.880]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't
[45:19.880 --> 45:24.840]  have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step
[45:24.840 --> 45:31.120]  by step course, and now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:31.120 --> 45:36.920]  with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can
[45:36.920 --> 45:41.880]  learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[45:41.880 --> 45:48.320]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[45:48.320 --> 45:55.400]  for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and
[45:55.400 --> 46:02.400]  click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EASY.
[46:25.400 --> 46:38.160]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Jeff in Mississippi.
[46:38.160 --> 46:42.160]  Max, I'll get back to you. We've got two or three more call-ins ahead of you. I wanted
[46:42.160 --> 46:49.240]  to pull you in for Jeff in Mississippi. Jeff, do we have anything else for you?
[46:49.240 --> 46:51.480]  No, that's it.
[46:51.480 --> 46:54.120]  Okay, have we beat you up enough?
[46:54.120 --> 47:05.960]  Yeah, I mean, that's great. I'm a very assertive person, so I'm either gonna go for a default
[47:05.960 --> 47:10.760]  judgment or summary judgment. I'm not sure which one you told me that I could go for,
[47:10.760 --> 47:16.760]  but if these people are lying in an answer, I'm gonna put the hurt on them. And you just
[47:16.760 --> 47:18.760]  call me Hannibal Lecter.
[47:18.760 --> 47:30.360]  Okay. Thank you, Hannibal. Okay, now we're gonna go to Eric in California. Hello, Eric.
[47:30.360 --> 47:33.200]  Hi, how are you doing?
[47:33.200 --> 47:36.480]  I'm good. What do you have for us today?
[47:36.480 --> 47:44.400]  Well, I am going to court on Monday for a traffic ticket, and this is in California.
[47:44.400 --> 47:48.640]  There's two violations on the ticket. One of them is speeding and the other one is lack
[47:48.640 --> 47:55.800]  of insurance. I did actually have insurance at the time, but I didn't have current papers
[47:55.800 --> 47:57.640]  to show the cop.
[47:57.640 --> 47:59.840]  Did you ask for a jury trial?
[47:59.840 --> 48:05.280]  No, I did not at the time.
[48:05.280 --> 48:10.680]  I'd love to do that when they give me a ticket for no insurance. Make them panel the jury,
[48:10.680 --> 48:16.840]  go through all of that, let the prosecutor go through his whole spiel, and then I pull
[48:16.840 --> 48:27.960]  out my proof of insurance. The last time I tried that, the JP was ready for me and coming
[48:27.960 --> 48:33.640]  out and dismissed the case. She said, Mr. Keltley, if you have insurance, just pay $10
[48:33.640 --> 48:40.360]  and we'll dismiss the case. I'm not paying anything. I want a jury trial. She dismissed
[48:40.360 --> 48:46.600]  the case. Don't we get out of here? Okay, go ahead. Speeding and no insurance.
[48:46.600 --> 48:54.080]  Right. So the court date on Monday is for the arraignment, the first court appearance.
[48:54.080 --> 48:59.520]  And I'm wondering, how do I handle pleading? I know I've heard before you shouldn't enter
[48:59.520 --> 49:01.400]  into a plea.
[49:01.400 --> 49:14.680]  All this stuff about not pleading is the kind of thing Jeff complains about. That's a worthless
[49:14.680 --> 49:24.000]  fight. I go in and the only fight I have over entering a plea is I don't want to enter not
[49:24.000 --> 49:31.560]  guilty. I want to enter innocent as the driven snow. And they never want to accept that.
[49:31.560 --> 49:39.200]  So I wouldn't start a fight over something that doesn't matter. But a good challenge
[49:39.200 --> 49:48.440]  subject matter jurisdiction, that's something that's fun to do.
[49:48.440 --> 49:51.240]  Have you listened to Eddie's Monday night show?
[49:51.240 --> 49:57.000]  Yes, I have. Yeah.
[49:57.000 --> 50:08.320]  Like Max said earlier about, always know what your intended ultimate outcome is. Now, everything
[50:08.320 --> 50:16.560]  you do, gauge that against, is this going to give me a dismissal? Because I'm assuming
[50:16.560 --> 50:21.560]  that's what your outcome is, unless you have a different one. Some people just want to
[50:21.560 --> 50:27.680]  have a fight and learn the law by having a nice fight in traffic court. What do you want
[50:27.680 --> 50:31.640]  as an ultimate outcome in these two cases?
[50:31.640 --> 50:39.360]  Well, I want to get the violation dismissed, the charges dismissed.
[50:39.360 --> 50:46.040]  The insurance one, that's a fault or gone. Once you show the proof of insurance, that
[50:46.040 --> 50:51.760]  one will go away. You probably could have already got that one tossed just by bringing
[50:51.760 --> 50:58.600]  your proof of insurance down to them. And if you go in to the arraignment hearing and
[50:58.600 --> 51:05.720]  hand them the proof of insurance, they'll dismiss that one right off the bat. They have
[51:05.720 --> 51:17.120]  less leverage. But for the most part, if you go to the merits, then the judge has discretion
[51:17.120 --> 51:24.480]  to determine who he believes and who he doesn't believe. And he will almost always believe
[51:24.480 --> 51:32.640]  the officer, because it's to his benefit to do so. They're there to generate revenue.
[51:32.640 --> 51:37.360]  So if you go to the merits, you're likely to lose. I'm not saying you always will.
[51:37.360 --> 51:42.240]  You have to cop something really stupid. And you have a halfway honest judge, sometimes
[51:42.240 --> 51:52.680]  they'll actually dismiss. But you have a lot better shot going after the underlying law.
[51:52.680 --> 52:02.280]  And the judges seem to be getting sensitive to this right to travel issue. Do you have
[52:02.280 --> 52:16.560]  Eddie's right to travel? I've seen that before. I know mentioned the constitutional
[52:16.560 --> 52:24.720]  right to travel and the idea that a constitutional right cannot be turned into a privilege or
[52:24.720 --> 52:31.640]  cannot be turned into a crime. That's basically it. What this goes to is subject matter jurisdiction.
[52:31.640 --> 52:38.000]  And that can be problematic for the court. And my position on traffic tickets and most
[52:38.000 --> 52:42.240]  of these lower court issues is you won't win your case simply because you have the law
[52:42.240 --> 52:52.200]  and the facts on your side. This is our politics. So how do you get political pressure to get
[52:52.200 --> 53:01.040]  the courts to drop the case? Now we've got Scott from Dallas. He calls in on a regular
[53:01.040 --> 53:08.400]  case. And he gets them to drop his case because they don't want to mess with him. He had
[53:08.400 --> 53:12.520]  an officer break his window out because he wouldn't roll his window down. He wanted
[53:12.520 --> 53:20.360]  his supervisor. And the officer broke his window out. Problem. Scott had his video
[53:20.360 --> 53:29.520]  camera in his pocket, put it on eBay, got 1.8 million hits. They couldn't get him
[53:29.520 --> 53:37.080]  out of their court fast enough. So the right to travel issue is a real annoyance for the
[53:37.080 --> 53:45.840]  courts. One of the cases, Scott went in and the judge said he started the right to travel
[53:45.840 --> 53:52.760]  issue and the judge said there won't be any of that in this court and shouted him down.
[53:52.760 --> 53:57.560]  So what do you do in that case? Well, you go to the grand jury and file criminal charges
[53:57.560 --> 54:06.800]  against the judge. That's what Scott did. And all of the cases so far except one that
[54:06.800 --> 54:16.160]  he's had have been dropped. And he's filing on the judge in that one. In these lower courts
[54:16.160 --> 54:21.080]  it's all about the money. You give them enough trouble to cost them too much money to prosecute
[54:21.080 --> 54:29.160]  you. Good chance they'll dismiss the case just to get you to go anyway. But it takes
[54:29.160 --> 54:37.800]  a lot of work. You have to do your homework. There's no way around it.
[54:37.800 --> 54:47.680]  Right. Now I noticed on the court website it has a docket history for the case and I
[54:47.680 --> 54:52.400]  haven't entered into a plea. As I said, the appearance Monday is in arraignment so I haven't
[54:52.400 --> 54:57.200]  entered into any plea yet. It says on the website not guilty. Is there any significance
[54:57.200 --> 55:03.200]  to that? No. They will assume not guilty unless you
[55:03.200 --> 55:13.960]  tell them otherwise. That's the only assumption they can have because that's the only assumption
[55:13.960 --> 55:18.840]  that has no potential of harming you. Right.
[55:18.840 --> 55:24.000]  If you want to come in and correct that presumption, you're perfectly at liberty. Oh yeah, I'm
[55:24.000 --> 55:32.400]  guilty as sin. But they're not going to do that. So no, that won't have any significance.
[55:32.400 --> 55:44.360]  Okay. Now can I file a motion in court during the arraignment as far as, you know, challenge
[55:44.360 --> 55:47.200]  subject matter jurisdiction and stuff like that?
[55:47.200 --> 55:53.040]  That is the only one. There's a pleading in our motion. There's a pleading you can
[55:53.040 --> 56:01.280]  file. Well, technically subject matter jurisdiction is a pleading. You can file double jeopardy
[56:01.280 --> 56:09.320]  and you can file subject matter. There's other pleadings, but they don't apply to a ticket.
[56:09.320 --> 56:14.960]  Subject matter can be filed at any time and I really annoy these judges because I go in
[56:14.960 --> 56:23.600]  and file a 30 page challenge subject matter jurisdiction 20 minutes before trial and I've
[56:23.600 --> 56:27.880]  had judges complain about that several times. Mr. Castle, you just filed that 20 minutes
[56:27.880 --> 56:34.040]  ago. Yes you are. As a matter of fact, I did, but it is a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
[56:34.040 --> 56:41.240]  and it may be filed at any time, no matter how remote in history. So even if they rule
[56:41.240 --> 56:47.040]  against you, you can always file a challenge subject matter jurisdiction. But since your
[56:47.040 --> 56:55.360]  hearing is Monday, normally they want seven days notice on a citation.
[56:55.360 --> 57:02.320]  So if you didn't file anything within that seven day time period, you're kind of barred
[57:02.320 --> 57:10.680]  from doing it. It's not something that can be heard in this particular hearing because
[57:10.680 --> 57:20.240]  the prosecutor hasn't had time to examine the document and come up with a response.
[57:20.240 --> 57:28.600]  But this is only an arraignment and it would be nice to have one and drop it on them. You
[57:28.600 --> 57:33.220]  don't expect them to hear it now. You do ask them to hear it now, but what the judge
[57:33.220 --> 57:40.520]  can do is when you file a challenge subject matter jurisdiction, you come to the court
[57:40.520 --> 57:48.800]  at arm's length. There's a lot of pro se stuff about not entering into the jurisdiction
[57:48.800 --> 57:53.640]  of the court. Well, this one is the real deal. When you file a subject matter jurisdiction
[57:53.640 --> 58:00.880]  challenge, you're not admitted to the jurisdiction of the court. That is a, Jeff, what's the
[58:00.880 --> 58:10.120]  term for that? The threshold issue. That has to be heard before anything else can be touched.
[58:10.120 --> 58:15.280]  So if they go to anything else and you have a subject matter jurisdiction challenge, that
[58:15.280 --> 58:22.240]  gives you a due process claim against them. Now you've got something you can work with.
[58:22.240 --> 58:27.560]  So hang on, pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton, we're here with our radio, here
[58:27.560 --> 58:37.880]  with our very special guest and two time radio show boxing champ, Jeff Cedric. We'll be
[58:37.880 --> 58:52.800]  right back. The Bible remains the most popular book in
[58:52.800 --> 58:58.440]  the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some
[58:58.440 --> 59:03.840]  new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:03.840 --> 59:10.880]  the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation
[59:10.880 --> 59:16.800]  is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory
[59:16.800 --> 59:22.800]  footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing
[59:22.800 --> 59:28.240]  an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before. Bibles
[59:28.240 --> 59:34.040]  for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This
[59:34.040 --> 59:43.800]  comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.800 --> 59:53.120]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com. You're listening
[59:53.120 --> 01:00:04.120]  to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com. The following news flash is brought to you
[01:00:04.120 --> 01:00:10.560]  by the Lone Star Lowdown, providing your daily bulletins for the commodities market. Today
[01:00:10.560 --> 01:00:23.360]  in history, news updates and the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative. Markets
[01:00:23.360 --> 01:00:30.280]  for Monday, the 4th of April, 2016 are currently treading with gold at $1,215.51 an ounce,
[01:00:30.280 --> 01:00:37.360]  silver $14.96 an ounce, Texas crude $36.79 a barrel, and Bitcoin is currently sitting
[01:00:37.360 --> 01:00:50.600]  at about $418 U.S. currency. Today in history, the year 1968, African American U.S. civil
[01:00:50.600 --> 01:00:55.320]  rights activist and minister Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.
[01:00:55.320 --> 01:00:58.920]  He was shot while standing on the balcony at the Lorraine Motel where he and his team
[01:00:58.920 --> 01:01:03.120]  of civil rights activists were staying at. A circuit court of Shelby County, Tennessee,
[01:01:03.120 --> 01:01:08.440]  13th Judicial District at Memphis in December of 1999 found that unspecified U.S. government
[01:01:08.440 --> 01:01:13.160]  agencies were complicit and guilty in the assassination. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[01:01:13.160 --> 01:01:21.760]  was shot and pronounced dead today in history. In recent news, New York Democratic Senator
[01:01:21.760 --> 01:01:25.760]  Charles Schumer called on the Federal Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
[01:01:25.760 --> 01:01:30.120]  Firearms and Explosives to investigate a gun that appears to look like an iPhone. The manufacturer
[01:01:30.120 --> 01:01:35.160]  Ideal Conceal said that the government's concern over the weapon is misplaced. CEO Kirk Jilberg
[01:01:35.160 --> 01:01:38.800]  said that the gun is expected to be ready for market later in the year. Images of the
[01:01:38.800 --> 01:01:43.000]  weapon on the company's Facebook page show it appears to be a regular smartphone case.
[01:01:43.000 --> 01:01:47.560]  However, it's just not any case since this one opens up into a.38 caliber handgun. List
[01:01:47.560 --> 01:01:53.640]  price is expected to be around $395 U.S. Jilberg, who has a concealed carry license himself,
[01:01:53.640 --> 01:01:56.980]  says he came up with the idea for the gun after a young child in a restaurant caught
[01:01:56.980 --> 01:02:02.120]  a glimpse of his more obvious weapon and pointed it out in public. Schumer is arguing that
[01:02:02.120 --> 01:02:06.040]  the gun, which appears like an everyday item, could violate federal law, which is why he
[01:02:06.040 --> 01:02:14.040]  requested today that the Justice Department and the ATF investigate.
[01:02:14.040 --> 01:02:17.760]  A small fire today forced the evacuation of the Internal Revenue Service's headquarters
[01:02:17.760 --> 01:02:22.600]  in Washington, D.C. Apparently, the building was closed around 2.45 in the afternoon due
[01:02:22.600 --> 01:02:26.600]  to electrical issues concerning the heating and air conditioning systems. Of the 2,000
[01:02:26.600 --> 01:02:30.560]  people or so who worked in the building, many had already left before the fire started around
[01:02:30.560 --> 01:02:34.440]  3.30 when it was reported. The small fire, which was apparently contained to only one
[01:02:34.440 --> 01:02:38.680]  room in the basement, was in fact related to electrical issues, though the direct cause
[01:02:38.680 --> 01:02:42.640]  is still under investigation. Luckily, the IRS assured the public that tax returns are
[01:02:42.640 --> 01:02:47.240]  not processed at this particular building and will thus have no effect on tax return
[01:02:47.240 --> 01:02:50.080]  processing. There were no reported injuries.
[01:02:50.080 --> 01:02:57.080]  This is Rick Roady with your Lowdown for April 4th, 2016.
[01:03:20.080 --> 01:03:36.040]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, ruler of our radio. And Eric, did you, other than
[01:03:36.040 --> 01:03:44.000]  subject matter jurisdiction, and I know you mentioned the right to travel, it's my position
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:50.880]  that the best way to bring the right to travel issue is in a subject matter jurisdiction
[01:03:50.880 --> 01:03:59.320]  challenge, because that's really where it goes. It says you don't have authority to
[01:03:59.320 --> 01:04:07.440]  interfere with me when I'm not in commerce. So, what do you plan to do Monday?
[01:04:07.440 --> 01:04:17.800]  Well, I want to either file a motion, or I don't know if I can do it verbally in front
[01:04:17.800 --> 01:04:22.840]  of a judge, but I want to file a motion doing just that, challenging the subject matter
[01:04:22.840 --> 01:04:27.840]  jurisdiction. So, any advice you have on how to do that?
[01:04:27.840 --> 01:04:41.560]  Oh, okay. Have you got Eddie's traffic seminar? No, I haven't.
[01:04:41.560 --> 01:04:46.480]  I have a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction for a traffic issue, but it's written to
[01:04:46.480 --> 01:04:57.000]  Texas law. It won't be of much value in California. If you'll send me an email, randy at rootoflawradio.com,
[01:04:57.000 --> 01:05:04.000]  I'll send you my challenge subject matter jurisdiction. The subject matter jurisdiction
[01:05:04.000 --> 01:05:14.280]  section is valid. The traffic code section is not valid, because that goes strictly to
[01:05:14.280 --> 01:05:22.500]  Texas law. You need to get the transportation code for the state of California, and see
[01:05:22.500 --> 01:05:31.000]  if you can cross-reference the citations that are in this, the Texas citations I have in
[01:05:31.000 --> 01:05:37.960]  this document. There's probably somebody out there who's
[01:05:37.960 --> 01:05:46.440]  done that, but since it's Monday, okay, Monday's not a really big deal. What's going to happen
[01:05:46.440 --> 01:05:51.720]  is they actually force you to come down there so that the prosecutor can try to make a deal
[01:05:51.720 --> 01:05:56.160]  with you. Okay.
[01:05:56.160 --> 01:06:03.560]  So you don't have to have anything in here. You go in there, then they'll set a court
[01:06:03.560 --> 01:06:08.760]  date, and now you have time to file a motion. So I would suggest you just go down there
[01:06:08.760 --> 01:06:15.960]  and plead not guilty. If you want to get rid of the insurance one, just hand them the proof
[01:06:15.960 --> 01:06:24.920]  of your insurance. That one will go away. And then set a jury trial for the other one.
[01:06:24.920 --> 01:06:29.820]  That's going to annoy them, because now they've got to pay a jury. And then you have time
[01:06:29.820 --> 01:06:37.280]  to go to Eddie's show and see if someone who's one of his listeners has a challenge
[01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:45.120]  subject matter jurisdiction for California. Okay. You don't think there's any problem
[01:06:45.120 --> 01:06:50.840]  with pleading not guilty? I mean, doesn't that mean I'm agreeing to their jurisdiction?
[01:06:50.840 --> 01:06:58.360]  No, that doesn't agree either. Okay. Here's the deal. Let's say you don't like the judge
[01:06:58.360 --> 01:07:07.560]  down there. So I tell you what, Eric, why don't you just let me be the judge? We'll
[01:07:07.560 --> 01:07:14.360]  have this trial and I'll be the judge for you. Tell me, what can you do that would give
[01:07:14.360 --> 01:07:25.120]  me jurisdiction to rule in that case? Nothing, I guess. Exactly. There's not anything you
[01:07:25.120 --> 01:07:31.200]  can do to give this judge jurisdiction if you don't have it. Right. There's a lot
[01:07:31.200 --> 01:07:37.960]  of huffing and puffing about that, but if he doesn't, we're talking subject matter.
[01:07:37.960 --> 01:07:42.880]  If he don't have it, he can't get it. You can't give it to him, period. So you don't
[01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:48.040]  have to worry about that. You've agreed to make an appearance, make the appearance, plead
[01:07:48.040 --> 01:07:56.840]  not guilty. It won't harm you in any way. It doesn't agree to anything. And part of
[01:07:56.840 --> 01:08:02.080]  your not guilty is not guilty by way of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But you just
[01:08:02.080 --> 01:08:08.160]  plead not guilty. It's not the place to start a fight. Get the insurance ticket tossed and
[01:08:08.160 --> 01:08:15.160]  all you have to deal with is the traffic. They have less leverage. They don't have as
[01:08:15.160 --> 01:08:23.600]  much money to make on you, so the fight relatively costs them more. So then get on Eddie's show.
[01:08:23.600 --> 01:08:31.720]  He's the traffic guy and I try to stay out of his area and see if someone on the show
[01:08:31.720 --> 01:08:35.120]  is from California. And I'm sure there are. There's a number of people from California.
[01:08:35.120 --> 01:08:43.680]  You can probably get one already structured for you. Just sign it and send it. Okay. Okay.
[01:08:43.680 --> 01:08:50.400]  Another question. Is there any need for me to say that I'm there by special appearance?
[01:08:50.400 --> 01:08:55.960]  I've heard the mention of that before. No, you only do that when you file the subject
[01:08:55.960 --> 01:09:04.360]  matter jurisdiction challenge. Okay. You're here at arm's length to the court. This is
[01:09:04.360 --> 01:09:12.520]  saying I'm not here to agree to the jurisdiction of the court. I'm here to challenge the subject
[01:09:12.520 --> 01:09:19.720]  matter jurisdiction of the court. But that is never necessary anyway. You don't have
[01:09:19.720 --> 01:09:26.120]  to say any of those. There's no magic incantations here. You just file the subject matter jurisdiction
[01:09:26.120 --> 01:09:34.760]  and it's before the court. It doesn't matter what you say. Okay. Okay. Good luck. Are you
[01:09:34.760 --> 01:09:43.840]  telling me to plead not guilty and then file a motion after that? Yes. Okay. Pleading not
[01:09:43.840 --> 01:09:51.480]  guilty doesn't harm, doesn't affect the jurisdiction in any way. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, thank
[01:09:51.480 --> 01:09:56.400]  you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Eric. Okay. Now we're going to go to Gary
[01:09:56.400 --> 01:10:05.120]  in Texas. Hello, Gary. Hey, Randy. What's up, my friend? Oh, it's been a long time.
[01:10:05.120 --> 01:10:12.480]  I know it. I know it. Hey, I've got an easy question for you. In helping somebody who
[01:10:12.480 --> 01:10:19.080]  got arrested, a criminal offense in another county, and filed a few Public Information
[01:10:19.080 --> 01:10:25.560]  Act requests, and when they weren't timely answered, I sent a notice to the Texas Attorney
[01:10:25.560 --> 01:10:35.200]  General to ask for intervention. And the AG came back and ordered them to supply the documents
[01:10:35.200 --> 01:10:44.680]  that had been requested originally. So anyway, the attorney that's involved with the accused
[01:10:44.680 --> 01:10:50.960]  spoke to the prosecuting attorney and said, you know, you really got a problem with this
[01:10:50.960 --> 01:10:57.280]  case, so you really think you ought to just dismiss it because the videos are really,
[01:10:57.280 --> 01:11:02.400]  really not good. They're not in your favor. And they said, there is no way that we're
[01:11:02.400 --> 01:11:09.720]  going to dismiss this case. I'm taking it all the way because I'm so angry at all those
[01:11:09.720 --> 01:11:17.920]  Public Information Act requests. I want to make him pay a price. And I thought that to
[01:11:17.920 --> 01:11:31.880]  me, that sounds like... 3606, 3605, penal code, witness tampering,
[01:11:31.880 --> 01:11:43.200]  obstruction of justice. That's the way I read it. How about official misconduct?
[01:11:43.200 --> 01:11:52.320]  Official misconduct, Texas is the only state that I know of that has two separate designations.
[01:11:52.320 --> 01:12:01.120]  Official misconduct in Texas applies to someone misappropriating public funds or government
[01:12:01.120 --> 01:12:14.400]  equipment. Official oppression goes to misfeasance or malfeasance in office. So there's one other
[01:12:14.400 --> 01:12:20.480]  place where there is an official misconduct statute and you have that available, and that
[01:12:20.480 --> 01:12:31.960]  is the 552 Government Code, the Open Records Act. And in that one, that is the one place
[01:12:31.960 --> 01:12:40.200]  where the attorney general is given original jurisdiction. When you file a complaint under
[01:12:40.200 --> 01:12:47.240]  open records accusing the district or county attorney of violating the act, that is filed
[01:12:47.240 --> 01:12:52.920]  with the attorney general directly. So I suggest you file a criminal accusation against the
[01:12:52.920 --> 01:13:00.760]  district attorney with the attorney general. That should get interesting. And then also
[01:13:00.760 --> 01:13:12.680]  attached to that, an associated accusation of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
[01:13:12.680 --> 01:13:19.040]  Suspension of justice is also the retaliation statute. Okay. I don't understand the witness
[01:13:19.040 --> 01:13:27.640]  tampering. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Because the defendant took legal action
[01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:35.080]  in order to secure evidence that he could use in court, the prosecutor retaliated against
[01:13:35.080 --> 01:13:44.040]  him in order to prevent him from using that evidence in court. That's how I get there.
[01:13:44.040 --> 01:13:52.360]  That's interesting. Let him dance with that. Let him explain that to a grand jury. Does
[01:13:52.360 --> 01:14:02.000]  abuse of authority fall in this plethora of complaints? That's 39.03. If a public official
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:08.680]  acting under the color or meeting pretense of an official capacity fails to perform a
[01:14:08.680 --> 01:14:15.440]  duty he's required to perform or exerts or purports to exert an authority he does not
[01:14:15.440 --> 01:14:22.640]  expressly have, that's official oppressions class essay misdemeanor.
[01:14:22.640 --> 01:14:30.320]  Okay. Now, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 2 talks about duties of a prosecuting
[01:14:30.320 --> 01:14:38.080]  attorney and about seeking justice and not to seek a conviction. Does any of this-
[01:14:38.080 --> 01:14:44.840]  2.01. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney not to secure conviction, but to
[01:14:44.840 --> 01:14:50.440]  ensure that justice is served. He shall not seek with evidence or witnesses that may show
[01:14:50.440 --> 01:14:54.080]  the innocence of the accused or mitigate the guilt of the accused. That's exactly the way
[01:14:54.080 --> 01:15:00.280]  it used to read. They've changed it up. It doesn't read exactly like that anymore, but
[01:15:00.280 --> 01:15:11.520]  that's a paraphrase. It goes to exactly that thing. However, it does not give the prosecutor
[01:15:11.520 --> 01:15:18.000]  a specific duty, so it's not very useful. It's just kind of high-minded rhetoric.
[01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:29.240]  Okay. Yeah. I was about to say I don't read any type of penalty associated with that declaration
[01:15:29.240 --> 01:15:30.760]  in Chapter 2.
[01:15:30.760 --> 01:15:42.840]  Well, he did have a duty to release all of the evidence that he had, but he had that
[01:15:42.840 --> 01:15:51.360]  duty under the Open Records Act as well. He has it under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[01:15:51.360 --> 01:15:56.520]  He also has it under the Open Records Act. Anything that doesn't fall under his work
[01:15:56.520 --> 01:16:06.880]  product, anything that's not considered secret, not everything that the prosecutor has is
[01:16:06.880 --> 01:16:12.880]  open records. But if you are a litigant, then there are things that would normally not be
[01:16:12.880 --> 01:16:21.040]  open records that you would have access to. And that's what he failed to give.
[01:16:21.040 --> 01:16:26.960]  What about bar grievances, Randy?
[01:16:26.960 --> 01:16:32.880]  Oh, absolutely. Is the prosecutor who did this the elected prosecutor or is he an ADA,
[01:16:32.880 --> 01:16:33.880]  an assistant?
[01:16:33.880 --> 01:16:34.880]  Elected.
[01:16:34.880 --> 01:16:42.920]  Oh, good. If he gets unelected, he's going to have a problem getting himself malpractice
[01:16:42.920 --> 01:16:45.440]  insurance.
[01:16:45.440 --> 01:17:00.200]  Hang on, Randy Kelton. We'll be right back.
[01:17:00.200 --> 01:17:04.920]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:04.920 --> 01:17:09.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[01:17:09.920 --> 01:17:15.400]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step
[01:17:15.400 --> 01:17:20.720]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:17:20.720 --> 01:17:25.440]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and
[01:17:25.440 --> 01:17:29.920]  phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[01:17:29.920 --> 01:17:35.840]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears Proven Method is the
[01:17:35.840 --> 01:17:40.680]  solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.680 --> 01:17:46.560]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:17:46.560 --> 01:17:55.960]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[01:17:55.960 --> 01:18:00.600]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:00.600 --> 01:18:04.880]  Did you know that the Logos Radio Network is a truly listener-supported radio network
[01:18:04.880 --> 01:18:09.400]  on top of the on-air talent, producers, and other hardworking individuals working behind
[01:18:09.400 --> 01:18:13.680]  the scenes? Logos Radio Network is kept on the air by the generous support of listeners
[01:18:13.680 --> 01:18:18.200]  like you, and we appreciate our loyal listeners making contributions every year on our annual
[01:18:18.200 --> 01:18:23.200]  fundraisers, which help keep the lights on and Logos Radio Network on the air. The 2016
[01:18:23.200 --> 01:18:28.640]  fundraiser has been extended to March 17th. Head on over to logosradio.com to make your
[01:18:28.640 --> 01:18:33.800]  contribution. Every $25 donation enters you for a chance to win prizes from Central Texas
[01:18:33.800 --> 01:18:39.520]  Gunworks, first prize being a Spikes Skull Lower Receiver, second prize being a Taurus
[01:18:39.520 --> 01:18:43.920]  Curve. And if you donate your $25 contribution early enough, you will also receive a complimentary
[01:18:43.920 --> 01:18:49.360]  jar of My Magic Mud. Donations by all major credit cards are accepted, as well as contributions
[01:18:49.360 --> 01:18:55.920]  by Bitcoin. The Logos Radio Network fundraiser now through March 17th. Head on over to logosradio.com
[01:18:55.920 --> 01:19:02.000]  for more information and to donate to keep the Logos Radio Network on the air.
[01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:09.000]  This is the Logos Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:54.720]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Radio. And we're talking to Gary in Texas. Okay, Gary.
[01:19:54.720 --> 01:20:08.400]  I'd like the witness tampering. It's not so much about what actually happened. It's
[01:20:08.400 --> 01:20:16.600]  about what kind of really cool story you can create about what happened. You request this
[01:20:16.600 --> 01:20:21.440]  information under open records and the prosecutor don't want to give it to you and you have
[01:20:21.440 --> 01:20:27.120]  to get the attorney general to force you to. And then when you get it, it turns out to
[01:20:27.120 --> 01:20:33.240]  be exculpatory evidence. Correct.
[01:20:33.240 --> 01:20:42.640]  So you can say he violated Article 2.01 by failing to provide voluntary, failing to provide
[01:20:42.640 --> 01:20:51.960]  exculpatory evidence. And he will say, well, I did provide it. I said, yeah, but you didn't
[01:20:51.960 --> 01:20:58.920]  provide it when you were required to. Like I went to Weatherford County, to Parker County,
[01:20:58.920 --> 01:21:03.600]  Texas today, and I brought some information requests and gave them to the receptionist.
[01:21:03.600 --> 01:21:12.600]  And then they sent these to, is it appropriate for me to say big, fat, sloppy looking lieutenants?
[01:21:12.600 --> 01:21:17.280]  No, that's not appropriate. So I won't say that. They sent these two lieutenants out
[01:21:17.280 --> 01:21:24.000]  and I asked them a couple of questions that were very pointed and they decided not to
[01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:32.960]  answer my questions. So I said, is there any question I can ask you that you will answer?
[01:21:32.960 --> 01:21:40.480]  And they said, no. Then why am I talking to you? You can go, you're dismissed. And one
[01:21:40.480 --> 01:21:49.480]  of them said, and what's your name? My name is you are dismissed. You can go. They ordered
[01:21:49.480 --> 01:22:03.040]  me to leave the jail and the receptionist refused to take my information requests.
[01:22:03.040 --> 01:22:09.360]  Now I went to the sheriff and filed criminal charges. Now if they respond to my information
[01:22:09.360 --> 01:22:22.640]  requests, sorry, bubba, that bell's already been rung, they can respond to it later. But
[01:22:22.640 --> 01:22:28.560]  when they refused to thin, they rung that bell and they can't unring it. The prosecutor
[01:22:28.560 --> 01:22:37.800]  refused to provide exculpatory evidence. The bell was rung. They can't say that you ran
[01:22:37.800 --> 01:22:45.720]  the stop sign and say, okay, okay, I'll come back and I won't run it this time. So the
[01:22:45.720 --> 01:22:55.240]  allegation should be since there was exculpatory evidence in there, that implies that he was
[01:22:55.240 --> 01:23:11.160]  deliberately attempting to hide that evidence. What is that? Hold on. Secret evidence. These
[01:23:11.160 --> 01:23:21.000]  are government documents, 3710 penal code. If you secret a government document from the
[01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:27.920]  person or office it's intended for, that's tampering. You might try tampering with a
[01:23:27.920 --> 01:23:37.440]  government document. And then violating 552 government code, violating 127 I think it is,
[01:23:37.440 --> 01:23:50.160]  code of criminal procedure, CD127 or 129 that says all courts shall be public. In court,
[01:23:50.160 --> 01:24:01.640]  public issues. The Open Records Act does not apply. 1.27, the statutory version of the
[01:24:01.640 --> 01:24:08.920]  constitutional right to a public court applies. So when you go to the court and ask for records
[01:24:08.920 --> 01:24:15.320]  and they say, ask me what I'm asking, what law I'm asking for this under. And I tell
[01:24:15.320 --> 01:24:23.000]  them any law that applies. You want legal advice, go to the prosecutor. If I say under
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:28.080]  the Open Records Act, they say, oh, the Open Records Act doesn't apply here. So I just
[01:24:28.080 --> 01:24:35.640]  tell them whatever applies. 1.27 applies. So if he fails to produce it, that's official
[01:24:35.640 --> 01:24:44.040]  oppression by misfeasance in office. Failing to perform a duty is required to perform.
[01:24:44.040 --> 01:24:53.440]  And if he does it for the purpose of denying you access to exculpatory evidence, that's
[01:24:53.440 --> 01:25:03.840]  obstruction of justice 3606. And if you take some other action in retaliation for your
[01:25:03.840 --> 01:25:13.400]  exercising a right, that's retaliation also 3606. And if he does this to prevent you from
[01:25:13.400 --> 01:25:23.320]  testifying, that's 3605. Sound like fun, Gary?
[01:25:23.320 --> 01:25:31.480]  Yeah, it does. I wanna grab hold of this retaliation against the accused. Because the prosecutor-
[01:25:31.480 --> 01:25:34.680]  That is probably the best one, yeah.
[01:25:34.680 --> 01:25:42.880]  Yeah, the prosecutor said definitely, no, we're going to take this all the way. Because
[01:25:42.880 --> 01:25:49.000]  he made me mad because he asked all those questions with the Public Information Act
[01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:54.440]  request. And I'm gonna basically saying, I'm gonna teach him a lesson, I'm gonna make an
[01:25:54.440 --> 01:26:04.000]  example. And that is clearly retaliation. And the prosecuting attorney told an officer
[01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:10.640]  of the court that that's what they're gonna do.
[01:26:10.640 --> 01:26:16.440]  The legal specification for that is an oops.
[01:26:16.440 --> 01:26:19.920]  Yeah.
[01:26:19.920 --> 01:26:30.680]  Never interfere with someone when they're screwing up. We had a woman who was in court
[01:26:30.680 --> 01:26:38.320]  over a home equity note on eviction. So that goes to the district court. And she filed
[01:26:38.320 --> 01:26:43.000]  a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Now what her claim was, is that
[01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:50.960]  the plaintiffs lack capacity to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
[01:26:50.960 --> 01:26:56.240]  But the judge gets it and he says, normally, these lawyers don't like me because normally
[01:26:56.240 --> 01:27:03.720]  I try to help borrowers to prevent eviction. But since you challenged my jurisdiction,
[01:27:03.720 --> 01:27:07.480]  I'm gonna rule against you.
[01:27:07.480 --> 01:27:20.360]  What? You did that in open court? Duh. Excuse me. So that was a good thing. We can get them
[01:27:20.360 --> 01:27:27.760]  to do something really stupid and wonderful. You've got almost precisely the same thing.
[01:27:27.760 --> 01:27:33.360]  Odd how these things come in groups.
[01:27:33.360 --> 01:27:44.960]  So does the person who is accused file the complaint? Or do you file it, Gary?
[01:27:44.960 --> 01:27:48.160]  I think anybody can file it.
[01:27:48.160 --> 01:27:49.160]  Absolutely.
[01:27:49.160 --> 01:27:54.120]  If you're made of aware that a crime has been committed, anybody can file it.
[01:27:54.120 --> 01:27:56.840]  Heck, you have a duty.
[01:27:56.840 --> 01:28:02.040]  That's right. You're actually commanded to under statute.
[01:28:02.040 --> 01:28:09.360]  And what I've been doing is taking my complaints directly to the grand jury, to the grand jury
[01:28:09.360 --> 01:28:16.000]  bailiff. And I'm about to take another set to Tarrant County because what they're doing
[01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:21.320]  is they're pretending to take them and then they're giving them to the prosecuting attorney.
[01:28:21.320 --> 01:28:30.480]  So what I'm gonna do is give a set of complaints to the bailiff and then wait two or three
[01:28:30.480 --> 01:28:36.800]  months until this grand jury is out of session. Come back and look at the minutes of the grand
[01:28:36.800 --> 01:28:46.600]  jury. And when I don't find a true bail, I'm gonna file criminal charges against the bailiff.
[01:28:46.600 --> 01:28:55.820]  Accused him of shielding from prosecution by secreting these complaints from the foreman.
[01:28:55.820 --> 01:29:04.560]  And what the defense, the bailiff will have is good faith reliance on competent authority.
[01:29:04.560 --> 01:29:14.680]  Well, prosecuting attorney told me to do this, that or the other. When the prosecuting attorney
[01:29:14.680 --> 01:29:22.240]  directs the bailiff, he's not a prosecuting attorney, he's a lawyer.
[01:29:22.240 --> 01:29:24.560]  That's right.
[01:29:24.560 --> 01:29:35.480]  Conducting legal advice, no immunity, zero. So my plan is to sue the prosecuting attorney
[01:29:35.480 --> 01:29:43.520]  for giving the bailiff. I'll sue them both and force them to stop interceding between
[01:29:43.520 --> 01:29:51.920]  us and the grand jury. Hang on, Gary, pick this up on the other side. Randy Kelton, Deborah
[01:29:51.920 --> 01:30:01.120]  Stevens, the ruler of our radio. I call it number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:30:01.120 --> 01:30:06.040]  You've heard of hairspray, but how about DNA spray? It's a high-tech way to catch robbers,
[01:30:06.040 --> 01:30:10.160]  but down the road, it could be abused. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in
[01:30:10.160 --> 01:30:14.520]  a moment with what you need to know about aerosol microdots.
[01:30:14.520 --> 01:30:18.880]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:30:18.880 --> 01:30:24.480]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:24.480 --> 01:30:30.640]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:30.640 --> 01:30:35.800]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:30:35.800 --> 01:30:43.840]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:30:43.840 --> 01:30:48.120]  Exploding ink can cover thieves in a profusion of purple, but nowadays they need to look
[01:30:48.120 --> 01:30:53.720]  out for spray on polka dots the size of pinheads too. The SelectiMark security system uses
[01:30:53.720 --> 01:30:58.840]  DNA spray on robbers as they make a getaway. The coating glows under ultraviolet light
[01:30:58.840 --> 01:31:04.960]  for weeks, and police can identify the crime scene because the spray contains unique microdots.
[01:31:04.960 --> 01:31:09.320]  While it's currently used to nab criminals, the spray could be turned to other purposes.
[01:31:09.320 --> 01:31:14.880]  Imagine attending a political rally and later glowing under ultraviolet light at the airport.
[01:31:14.880 --> 01:31:19.840]  It could give a whole new meaning to the no-fly list. Maybe we should all be wary of DNA spray.
[01:31:19.840 --> 01:31:30.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.840 --> 01:31:36.200]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.200 --> 01:31:41.640]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:41.640 --> 01:31:45.680]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:45.680 --> 01:31:50.080]  lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.080 --> 01:31:53.240]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force
[01:31:53.240 --> 01:31:58.280]  pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.280 --> 01:32:03.400]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did
[01:32:03.400 --> 01:32:07.260]  your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the
[01:32:07.260 --> 01:32:11.040]  government caused it with their chem trails, but good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.040 --> 01:32:14.760]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chem trails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why
[01:32:14.760 --> 01:32:19.360]  you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to
[01:32:19.360 --> 01:32:24.420]  no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept Bitcoin. As a multi-year A-plus member of the Better
[01:32:24.420 --> 01:32:28.760]  Business Bureau with zero complaints, you can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to
[01:32:28.760 --> 01:32:36.560]  handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to
[01:32:36.560 --> 01:32:41.320]  hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate
[01:32:41.320 --> 01:32:46.040]  another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. So if those
[01:32:46.040 --> 01:32:54.520]  out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locking. That's 512-992-8745 or
[01:32:54.520 --> 01:32:59.040]  hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. May not
[01:32:59.040 --> 01:33:05.040]  actually be kidding about chem trails. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[01:33:05.040 --> 01:33:06.760]  Logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:06.760 --> 01:33:33.640]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton with Radio. It looks like we lost Gary over the break.
[01:33:33.640 --> 01:33:38.320]  So we're going to go to Ralph in Texas. Hello, Ralph. What do you have for us today?
[01:33:38.320 --> 01:33:43.000]  Hello, Randy. How are you?
[01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:46.520]  I am good. I don't care what everybody says.
[01:33:46.520 --> 01:33:52.160]  Yeah, you sounded pretty good the earlier talking to Jeff.
[01:33:52.160 --> 01:33:57.920]  Well, Jeff beat me up over the break. There's still blood all over the studio.
[01:33:57.920 --> 01:34:03.960]  Well, I was surprised to hear him talk like that, but he did say he was doing some good
[01:34:03.960 --> 01:34:06.200]  up there in Maryland, so.
[01:34:06.200 --> 01:34:09.800]  Jeff, they are really doing well up there.
[01:34:09.800 --> 01:34:18.280]  Is he still there? Because I wanted to get you and him both discussing in agreement my
[01:34:18.280 --> 01:34:25.400]  question. Is Jeff still there?
[01:34:25.400 --> 01:34:27.400]  Go ahead.
[01:34:27.400 --> 01:34:38.720]  Okay. I heard on your show last week, I believe, that common law is case law. Is that correct?
[01:34:38.720 --> 01:34:46.280]  That is correct. That's the only common law we have now. Prior to the statutory codes,
[01:34:46.280 --> 01:34:57.760]  they impaneled judges or elected judges and expected those judges to dispense common sense
[01:34:57.760 --> 01:35:08.120]  law. So the law essentially was what the judge believed was fair and equitable. And then
[01:35:08.120 --> 01:35:20.800]  when we put in statutory law, the only remnant of common law was the way that the judges
[01:35:20.800 --> 01:35:29.080]  interpreted the intent of the statutory law. So yes, the only common law existing now that
[01:35:29.080 --> 01:35:34.760]  I can find after years of looking is case law.
[01:35:34.760 --> 01:35:40.120]  Right. And that's what all of our laws are today, unless it's something like Admiralty
[01:35:40.120 --> 01:35:41.560]  Maritime or?
[01:35:41.560 --> 01:35:50.120]  Well, the Maritime really doesn't exist when it exists, but not by itself. In 1965, Maritime
[01:35:50.120 --> 01:35:57.880]  law was merged with federal civil law. So if you go look for Maritime law, you won't
[01:35:57.880 --> 01:36:02.160]  find it. You'll find it in the Civil Code.
[01:36:02.160 --> 01:36:10.040]  So federal civil lawsuits would be considered common law, AKA case law?
[01:36:10.040 --> 01:36:21.160]  Well, no, they would be statutory law. There's no court system that we have that doesn't
[01:36:21.160 --> 01:36:28.920]  act under the dictates of a statutory code. And I once did a presentment to the Republic
[01:36:28.920 --> 01:36:34.160]  of Texas, and they're advocating the common law. And I addressed that with them. Are you
[01:36:34.160 --> 01:36:44.880]  kidding me? Right now, you can't get judges to enforce a very strict statutory code. And
[01:36:44.880 --> 01:36:53.840]  you want to take away that code and let judges rule any way they want to? I don't like that
[01:36:53.840 --> 01:37:02.600]  idea. I want a very strict statutory code. I can hold a judge too. I was just in Weatherford,
[01:37:02.600 --> 01:37:09.920]  Parker County, Texas. And this is a case on the right to travel, and this judge is doing
[01:37:09.920 --> 01:37:18.080]  everything he can to stamp that out. I have a motion in Lemony filed by the prosecuting
[01:37:18.080 --> 01:37:25.560]  attorney that asks the judge to forbid the defendant from bringing up anything related
[01:37:25.560 --> 01:37:34.240]  to the right to travel. And the judge granted that. Now I'm going to go to a grand jury
[01:37:34.240 --> 01:37:41.720]  and ask a grand jury to indict that judge for granting that, because it flies in the
[01:37:41.720 --> 01:37:48.560]  face of constitution and statutory law. If we were in the common law, I couldn't do
[01:37:48.560 --> 01:37:56.520]  this. I'm stuck with whatever the judge says. So I'm not much in one for common law.
[01:37:56.520 --> 01:38:05.280]  Okay. It makes sense to me. Early on, years ago, I heard that case law was not good because
[01:38:05.280 --> 01:38:11.640]  it just lets the judge queat the law the way he wants to. And then other judges come by
[01:38:11.640 --> 01:38:15.080]  and say, okay, well, I'm going to use that. And then I'm going to tweak it a little bit.
[01:38:15.080 --> 01:38:19.520]  And so before long, the law is just what anybody says it is.
[01:38:19.520 --> 01:38:27.440]  Okay. Well, it's not quite that simple. And we have a lot of people making those complaints,
[01:38:27.440 --> 01:38:36.560]  but those are generally the ones that haven't researched the law closely. A trial judge,
[01:38:36.560 --> 01:38:41.840]  the only purpose of the trial court is to set the record for appeal. It doesn't make any
[01:38:41.840 --> 01:38:48.440]  difference. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the judge rules. What matters
[01:38:48.440 --> 01:38:53.720]  is that you get the facts and the law on the record, because when you get it to the appeals
[01:38:53.720 --> 01:39:01.440]  court, they live in a whole different world than the trial judge does. The appeals court
[01:39:01.440 --> 01:39:08.560]  makes these rulings. And once this ruling is made, all of these Shisra lawyers out here
[01:39:08.560 --> 01:39:15.600]  can take these rulings and run with them. So if the appeals court issues bad law, then
[01:39:15.600 --> 01:39:23.400]  they undermine the corpus juris, the body of law. A trial judge can rule against you because
[01:39:23.400 --> 01:39:28.880]  he got paid or he went out and played golf with the other attorney and the other attorney
[01:39:28.880 --> 01:39:34.920]  lost 500 bucks to him in a golf game. The judge come in and rule against you. Well,
[01:39:34.920 --> 01:39:42.000]  in the end, you don't care. And the dumber he's ruling is the better, the more likely
[01:39:42.000 --> 01:39:49.000]  the court of appeals is to overturn it. So we used to have a lot of people making these
[01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:54.240]  complaints and that's because they didn't understand that the trial court is not that
[01:39:54.240 --> 01:40:02.320]  important. Appeals court is what's important. And because they live in this other house,
[01:40:02.320 --> 01:40:09.040]  they're responsible for the corpus juris. So when they issue a ruling, everybody starts
[01:40:09.040 --> 01:40:17.040]  using it and you'll find where they come back and change a ruling. They issued this ruling
[01:40:17.040 --> 01:40:23.440]  and they find that lawyers used it in a way they didn't anticipate. So they got to come
[01:40:23.440 --> 01:40:33.280]  back and fix it. We really do have a good system. And the problems we're having in
[01:40:33.280 --> 01:40:41.600]  the lower courts is that you and I are not taking these judges to task. Thus, my difference
[01:40:41.600 --> 01:40:48.200]  with Jeff at the beginning, he's apparently having a whole lot better luck than me because
[01:40:48.200 --> 01:40:54.440]  I'm not winning 100% of my cases. And I've had a lot of lawyers look at my pleadings.
[01:40:54.440 --> 01:41:03.440]  They like my work. And I really struggled to get well crafted documents, but the judges
[01:41:03.440 --> 01:41:13.080]  just don't care in the lower courts. I just had a ruling out of New York and the issues
[01:41:13.080 --> 01:41:18.440]  they didn't want to look at, they just ignored. Didn't respond to them at all. So I'm filing
[01:41:18.440 --> 01:41:26.200]  against the judge for official official oppression. He denied me in my right to petition the court
[01:41:26.200 --> 01:41:32.440]  for redress of grievance. Well, actually not me, this was someone else I'm helping. But
[01:41:32.440 --> 01:41:36.400]  he denied denied this guy and his right to petition the court for redress of grievance
[01:41:36.400 --> 01:41:41.600]  because he didn't hear the issue that he brought before the court. And most of the time lawyers
[01:41:41.600 --> 01:41:48.000]  don't take that on. And that's because lawyers are dangling before that judge by their bar
[01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:55.640]  card. I'm not. So I don't have to put up with this nonsense. So if you don't want to do
[01:41:55.640 --> 01:42:01.760]  your job, get on off that bench and we'll have you replaced by somebody who will. You
[01:42:01.760 --> 01:42:07.640]  don't like me? I don't care. You just determine the facts in accordance with the rules of
[01:42:07.640 --> 01:42:12.760]  evidence. Apply the laws, it comes to you the facts in the case you failed to do that.
[01:42:12.760 --> 01:42:21.520]  Then you as the servant are subject to me as the master. That's what I see is the real
[01:42:21.520 --> 01:42:26.600]  problem. And it don't make any difference how we change laws. If you and I, the individuals
[01:42:26.600 --> 01:42:34.440]  don't start policing our public officials, it will make a difference what the law is.
[01:42:34.440 --> 01:42:43.080]  So back to you. I think you had a more specific question. I've been kind of going over really
[01:42:43.080 --> 01:42:52.960]  general stuff. Okay. Well, throw a couple of things out here. Paraphrasing a quote,
[01:42:52.960 --> 01:43:02.600]  no law shall be written that the common man cannot understand. Right. It goes to the reasonable
[01:43:02.600 --> 01:43:13.120]  person of ordinary prudent standard. Okay. Okay. Now I read this in a civil complaint.
[01:43:13.120 --> 01:43:19.960]  It was item number 17, which is irrelevant really. It says plaintiff required the services
[01:43:19.960 --> 01:43:29.600]  of an attorney to bring this action and is obligated to compensate his attorney reasonably.
[01:43:29.600 --> 01:43:38.240]  Now I have a problem with that. Okay. What is reasonable? Wait, wait, wait, hang on.
[01:43:38.240 --> 01:43:43.960]  We're about to go to break. This is Randy Kelp, Deborah Stevens, the ruler of our radio.
[01:43:43.960 --> 01:43:48.680]  We'll give out the call number of this. This is the last segment, but make sure you go
[01:43:48.680 --> 01:44:00.840]  to our sponsors and help us support this radio network. We'll be right back. You feel tired
[01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:05.560]  when talking about important topics like money and politics. Are you confused by words like
[01:44:05.560 --> 01:44:10.100]  the constitution or the federal reserve? If so, you may be diagnosed with the deadliest
[01:44:10.100 --> 01:44:15.560]  disease known today. Stupidity. Hi, my name is Steve Holt. And like millions of other
[01:44:15.560 --> 01:44:20.600]  Americans, I was diagnosed with stupidity at an early age. I had no idea that the number
[01:44:20.600 --> 01:44:26.080]  one cause of the disease is found in almost every home in America, the television. Unfortunately,
[01:44:26.080 --> 01:44:30.760]  that puts most Americans at risk of catching stupidity, but there is hope. The staff at
[01:44:30.760 --> 01:44:34.640]  Brave New Books have helped me and thousands of other Foxaholics suffering from sports
[01:44:34.640 --> 01:44:39.880]  zombieism recover. And because of Brave New Books, I now enjoy reading and watching educational
[01:44:39.880 --> 01:44:45.240]  documentaries without feeling tired or uninterested. So if you or anybody you know suffers from
[01:44:45.240 --> 01:44:53.320]  stupidity, then you need to call 512-480-2503 or visit them in 1904 Guadalupe or Brave New
[01:44:53.320 --> 01:44:57.040]  Bookstore.com. Side effects from using Brave New Books products may include discernment
[01:44:57.040 --> 01:45:02.120]  and enlarged vocabulary and an overall increase in mental functioning. Are you the plaintiff
[01:45:02.120 --> 01:45:08.400]  or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable,
[01:45:08.400 --> 01:45:15.720]  easy to understand, four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If
[01:45:15.720 --> 01:45:20.920]  you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know
[01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:26.240]  what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course and
[01:45:26.240 --> 01:45:32.720]  now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[01:45:32.720 --> 01:45:38.160]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:38.160 --> 01:45:43.960]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[01:45:43.960 --> 01:45:51.320]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and
[01:45:51.320 --> 01:45:57.480]  much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free
[01:45:57.480 --> 01:46:08.960]  866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:08.960 --> 01:46:23.880]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rule of Law Radio. We're talking to Ralph in Texas. Okay,
[01:46:23.880 --> 01:46:32.880]  go ahead, Ralph. Well, what I'm trying to figure out is how to put what I believe is
[01:46:32.880 --> 01:46:42.640]  a novel argument into a civil lawsuit. I cannot find references on the internet as of yet
[01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:53.000]  and I have spent some time trying to find any reference to pro se compensation. Attorneys
[01:46:53.000 --> 01:47:01.400]  are paid for, well, clients are paid, reimbursed for their attorney. Just like this article
[01:47:01.400 --> 01:47:05.160]  I just read, I think it required the services of an attorney to bring this action and to
[01:47:05.160 --> 01:47:11.760]  obligate it to compensate his attorney reasonably. So those are attorney's fees. But if ignorance
[01:47:11.760 --> 01:47:16.120]  of the law is no excuse for violating it, then no law should be written that the problem
[01:47:16.120 --> 01:47:24.960]  a man cannot understand. Why is it that people who choose, freely choose to go to work, make
[01:47:24.960 --> 01:47:31.200]  a bunch of money, give some of that to the attorney, and then get reimbursed and whenever
[01:47:31.200 --> 01:47:37.880]  they get paid, attorneys get paid. They're getting paid so much money that it covers
[01:47:37.880 --> 01:47:41.680]  their paper, their ink, their printers, their copiers, their internet connection, their
[01:47:41.680 --> 01:47:49.800]  books, whereas a pro se goes in, he gets cost. He doesn't get, you know, hey, I had to buy
[01:47:49.800 --> 01:47:57.040]  a small package of paper clips, forget it, you can't get it, you know. Pro se is only
[01:47:57.040 --> 01:48:05.880]  getting his fees and cost. So this really, you know, this has been a problem for years.
[01:48:05.880 --> 01:48:15.920]  Let me address that. Ordinarily, it wasn't intended that litigants be reimbursed for
[01:48:15.920 --> 01:48:23.840]  their cost of litigating a case. And then we get lawyers that help people litigate case.
[01:48:23.840 --> 01:48:33.240]  Now you don't have to hire a lawyer. So you can litigate the case yourself. But if you
[01:48:33.240 --> 01:48:42.760]  choose to hire a lawyer, the legislature put in a special authorization for the courts
[01:48:42.760 --> 01:48:52.240]  to allow for fees to that hired counsel. There was no provision for allowing a litigant to
[01:48:52.240 --> 01:49:00.240]  collect fees for litigating his own case. And the courts have consistently held that.
[01:49:00.240 --> 01:49:12.920]  Okay, hold on. Can you hear me? Yes. What if we change that word from fees to time compensated?
[01:49:12.920 --> 01:49:24.280]  That would, okay, restate the code with that adjustment in it. Well, I don't have the
[01:49:24.280 --> 01:49:32.560]  code. I need to find it. Okay, okay, okay. Then that would make it so that whoever loses
[01:49:32.560 --> 01:49:46.200]  the case pays for the whole case. And that is problematic from my perspective, because
[01:49:46.200 --> 01:49:57.720]  nobody's ever 100% guilty. And it would have a strong detrimental effect on an ordinary
[01:49:57.720 --> 01:50:08.120]  person's ability to fight these cases. Because if you don't have the personal funds to keep
[01:50:08.120 --> 01:50:16.760]  up with the other guy, these guys with deep pockets, they can hire lawyers and drive you
[01:50:16.760 --> 01:50:25.440]  in the dirt. And we have this now where they can hire lawyers and just beat you by attrition.
[01:50:25.440 --> 01:50:34.080]  This is what the banks do. If we allow not only the lawyer to be paid, but the litigant
[01:50:34.080 --> 01:50:39.280]  to be paid, it would be much easier for them to swallow us.
[01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:47.200]  Sorry, I don't see it. I thought that's what was happening now.
[01:50:47.200 --> 01:50:53.320]  It is happening now. They're doing that now, but I'm afraid that if we made it so that
[01:50:53.320 --> 01:51:01.480]  the litigant could claim his cost for litigating the case as well as his lawyer's cost, it
[01:51:01.480 --> 01:51:10.320]  would only exacerbate the problem. The thing that would fix the problem is if they couldn't
[01:51:10.320 --> 01:51:12.320]  get attorney fees.
[01:51:12.320 --> 01:51:16.320]  Yeah, but I...
[01:51:16.320 --> 01:51:20.920]  Yeah, that wouldn't fix it either, really.
[01:51:20.920 --> 01:51:24.800]  That sounds like a pretty big goal there.
[01:51:24.800 --> 01:51:31.600]  For the most part, if you're a pro se litigant, the other side doesn't get fees from you.
[01:51:31.600 --> 01:51:37.800]  We almost never have the court allow fees against a pro se litigant.
[01:51:37.800 --> 01:51:42.600]  Okay, I was not thinking of that.
[01:51:42.600 --> 01:51:49.320]  I mean, it can happen and I'm sure it has, but we never run into it. Hey, well, they
[01:51:49.320 --> 01:51:52.320]  always ask for it, but they don't get it.
[01:51:52.320 --> 01:52:01.320]  Well, that just threw the biggest wrench in my argument right there. I am going to still
[01:52:01.320 --> 01:52:08.600]  consider how to put this in the wherefore clause of an argument to be compensated for
[01:52:08.600 --> 01:52:19.520]  my time. And for them to compensate attorneys is just sanctioning a...
[01:52:19.520 --> 01:52:26.600]  Oh, maybe I misunderstood. I think maybe I understand your position better. You're saying
[01:52:26.600 --> 01:52:33.000]  don't compensate the attorneys, compensate the litigants. And if the litigant wants to
[01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:38.480]  hire an attorney, he takes it out of his compensation. Instead of him keeping the compensation, he
[01:52:38.480 --> 01:52:41.840]  gives it to the lawyer. Is that where you're going?
[01:52:41.840 --> 01:52:46.720]  No, but that sounds better than where I was going.
[01:52:46.720 --> 01:52:55.560]  So if I'm a litigant now and I win, I have a right to get the time that I spent defending
[01:52:55.560 --> 01:52:56.560]  this.
[01:52:56.560 --> 01:53:04.040]  Well, so you're taking my argument and just tweaking it a little bit to all litigants
[01:53:04.040 --> 01:53:10.440]  instead of pro se litigants. And I like it better. But what I had started with was if
[01:53:10.440 --> 01:53:17.400]  the clients can be reimbursed for the money they spent on their attorney, why can't pro
[01:53:17.400 --> 01:53:23.840]  se be reimbursed? They're going to spend twice the amount of time that an experienced
[01:53:23.840 --> 01:53:31.280]  lawyer will. And in many cases, they achieve the same, if not better results. The ADA in
[01:53:31.280 --> 01:53:40.280]  2007 or 2008 said that 50%, over 50% of all court-appointed attorneys were incompetent.
[01:53:40.280 --> 01:53:44.480]  I think it's way over 50%.
[01:53:44.480 --> 01:53:51.320]  Well, I heard that on NTR News. I haven't been able to get a copy of it in the archives,
[01:53:51.320 --> 01:53:53.720]  but that's good to hear now.
[01:53:53.720 --> 01:54:04.800]  And in the lawyer's defense, they are incompetent because they're forced to be by the judges.
[01:54:04.800 --> 01:54:08.760]  They're afraid to adequately adjudicate your case, afraid those judges have kicked their
[01:54:08.760 --> 01:54:14.840]  behinds. Anyway, that's a different issue.
[01:54:14.840 --> 01:54:18.960]  But that's what they get for having a bar card, huh?
[01:54:18.960 --> 01:54:28.000]  You just can't get a lawyer who will actively adjudicate your case if there's any chance
[01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:34.120]  it may annoy the judge. Because when your case is gone, he's going to be back before
[01:54:34.120 --> 01:54:42.800]  this judge with another client. And the lawyer is in business. He's not Perry Mason. He's
[01:54:42.800 --> 01:54:51.520]  not independently wealthy. He has to make money. And if the judge will rule against
[01:54:51.520 --> 01:54:56.760]  his next client to get back at him over this client, he's not going to actively adjudicate
[01:54:56.760 --> 01:55:04.680]  your issue, not near as aggressively as you would yourself.
[01:55:04.680 --> 01:55:13.800]  Randy, what if I put this in my wherefore clause that I want to be re-accomplished for
[01:55:13.800 --> 01:55:24.920]  my time spent and I use, say, about 300 words, a couple of big paragraphs, and it goes into
[01:55:24.920 --> 01:55:29.320]  things like, no law shall be written if combatant cannot understand. Ignorance of the law is
[01:55:29.320 --> 01:55:40.560]  no excuse. And there is no one required to hire an attorney. It's done by free choice.
[01:55:40.560 --> 01:55:45.440]  What would you think of that? Just imagine it written best possible light. I'm not going
[01:55:45.440 --> 01:55:50.220]  to try to read all of it right now. But what would you think of that? I mean, we were talking
[01:55:50.220 --> 01:55:53.960]  on it. We were touching on it. Can you kind of recap? What do you think they would do
[01:55:53.960 --> 01:56:03.080]  with it? Do you think it's a silly idea? The problem with that is we're graduating
[01:56:03.080 --> 01:56:13.960]  40,000 lawyers a year. We've got way more lawyers than are needed. Per capita, we have,
[01:56:13.960 --> 01:56:21.440]  I forget how many magnitudes of times more lawyers than any other country. And you're
[01:56:21.440 --> 01:56:27.760]  going to have all of those lawyers rising up in arms to prevent any legislation of that
[01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:40.880]  nature. That's going to be a large hill to get over. These lawyers have a fit at any
[01:56:40.880 --> 01:56:46.800]  time you do. Lawyers are trying to get it so that no private citizen can adjudicate
[01:56:46.800 --> 01:56:51.400]  their own case. They're struggling to get that. They're just bumping up against the
[01:56:51.400 --> 01:57:00.320]  constitution, but they're doing everything they can to get there anyway. Would that fall
[01:57:00.320 --> 01:57:05.200]  into a Supreme Court challenge, constitutional Supreme Court challenge? Hey, if these people
[01:57:05.200 --> 01:57:09.920]  can be reimbursed for their attorney, why can't I be reimbursed for my time?
[01:57:09.920 --> 01:57:15.800]  Randy, can I jump in here, Randy? Absolutely. Yeah. I just wanted to make a quick comment.
[01:57:15.800 --> 01:57:22.600]  Yeah. We should be able to be compensated for our time as pro se litigants, but here's
[01:57:22.600 --> 01:57:28.440]  why it's never going to fly besides the political reasons that Randy's saying that the lawyers
[01:57:28.440 --> 01:57:35.600]  run the legislature and they're not going to allow it. It's because when there's compensation
[01:57:35.600 --> 01:57:42.720]  for attorney's fees, that's considered damages. That's considered an out of pocket expense
[01:57:42.720 --> 01:57:48.520]  that you're being reimbursed for. And if it's your own time, that's not damages because
[01:57:48.520 --> 01:57:52.940]  you're not out any federal reserve notes. And the reason they're not going to compensate
[01:57:52.940 --> 01:57:58.600]  you for your time is because you're not licensed to practice law and so you're not allowed
[01:57:58.600 --> 01:58:06.560]  to bill for your time. Now, maybe if you had some kind of paralegal certification, maybe
[01:58:06.560 --> 01:58:13.240]  you could bill paralegal fees, but probably not. It's because you can't bill for your
[01:58:13.240 --> 01:58:19.280]  time for legal services. If you could bill for your time for legal services under a license,
[01:58:19.280 --> 01:58:24.960]  then they would let you do it. But just some random person, I mean, what's the standard?
[01:58:24.960 --> 01:58:29.680]  What are you going to bill? I mean, $500 an hour, $10 an hour. There's no standard. There's
[01:58:29.680 --> 01:58:34.920]  no profession like that. So that's why it's never going to happen. Okay.
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:38.920]  Well, that's really, really good point. I hadn't considered that.
[01:58:38.920 --> 01:58:42.560]  Okay. Listen, folks, we are out of time. Randy, bring us out.
[01:58:42.560 --> 01:58:47.040]  Okay. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio. We'll be back tomorrow night
[01:58:47.040 --> 01:58:50.600]  on our four hour informer.
[01:58:50.600 --> 01:58:56.680]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.680 --> 01:59:02.120]  Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.120 --> 01:59:07.720]  what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of
[01:59:07.720 --> 01:59:16.720]  life. Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:16.720 --> 01:59:23.880]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over
[01:59:23.880 --> 01:59:30.340]  13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.340 --> 01:59:34.920]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament
[01:59:34.920 --> 01:59:46.640]  Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at
[01:59:46.640 --> 01:59:59.560]  bfa.org.