ROL_2017-11-02_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:07.840]  The following news flashes brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown, providing the jelly
[00:07.840 --> 00:15.600]  bulletins for the commodities market, today's history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:15.600 --> 00:23.600]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:23.600 --> 00:52.960]  Today's history, the year 1988, then President Ronald Reagan suspended construction of the
[00:52.960 --> 01:03.360]  new U.S. Embassy in Moscow due to Soviet spying devices in the structure of the building.
[01:03.360 --> 01:07.920]  In recent news, President Trump failed to comply with the secrecy law of 1992 via his
[01:07.920 --> 01:13.320]  approval of only partial declassification of some 2,800 classified files released on Thursday
[01:13.320 --> 01:16.880]  concerning the conspiratorial assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
[01:16.880 --> 01:20.840]  This particularly odd considering President Trump tweeted the day before the release
[01:20.840 --> 01:26.160]  that, quote, the long anticipated release of the JFK files will take place tomorrow.
[01:26.160 --> 01:27.160]  So interesting.
[01:27.160 --> 01:31.800]  However, it turns out that President Trump, in fact, ordered a withholding of some 300
[01:31.800 --> 01:37.240]  or so files President Trump tweeted today that, quote, JFK files are being carefully
[01:37.240 --> 01:38.240]  released.
[01:38.240 --> 01:42.400]  In the end, there will be great transparency and this might help to get just about everything
[01:42.400 --> 01:43.400]  to the public.
[01:43.400 --> 01:46.080]  It is clear, however, what is really occurring.
[01:46.080 --> 01:49.640]  The president is being threatened by the intelligentsia to redact.
[01:49.640 --> 01:53.520]  Even a presidential memorandum released the same day as the documents President Trump
[01:53.520 --> 01:58.520]  stated that the, quote, executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain
[01:58.520 --> 02:04.000]  information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement
[02:04.000 --> 02:05.920]  and foreign affairs concerns.
[02:05.920 --> 02:12.040]  I have no choice today but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible
[02:12.040 --> 02:18.680]  harm to our nation's security.
[02:18.680 --> 02:23.200]  On a lighter topic, earlier this week, a hunter in a wooded area north of Waco called police
[02:23.200 --> 02:29.120]  after he stumbled upon a lot of ganja, roughly 10,000 plants in 13 separate locales after
[02:29.120 --> 02:31.160]  police found it and stole it all.
[02:31.160 --> 02:35.600]  On a sheriff's office's Facebook post, they stated that, quote, based on the sophistication
[02:35.600 --> 02:40.000]  of the operation as well as the size of it, it was determined it may well be the largest
[02:40.000 --> 02:43.440]  operation of its kind ever located in Hill Country.
[02:43.440 --> 02:47.800]  It took three days for forensic investigators to gather evidence from the scene and to eradicate
[02:47.800 --> 02:54.800]  the plants, investigators have yet to identify the farmers.
[04:17.800 --> 04:26.320]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Debra Stephens, the rule of law radio on this Thursday, the
[04:26.320 --> 04:31.560]  second day of October, 2017.
[04:31.560 --> 04:36.560]  We have our, we'll have our call phone, call lines open all night, our call in number is
[04:36.560 --> 04:37.560]  512-646-1984.
[04:37.560 --> 04:46.000]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call and I'm having a pretty good week
[04:46.000 --> 04:54.040]  of here in Texas, I mean, in Tennessee instead of Texas, and I have secured a programmer.
[04:54.040 --> 05:02.800]  So I'm hoping that within two weeks I will have a prototype for the electronic lawyer
[05:02.800 --> 05:09.840]  and we're putting on a couple of people, we've got a plan for getting it implemented.
[05:09.840 --> 05:15.880]  So every day it gets closer, we have a caller right away, it's Scott from Texas, hello,
[05:15.880 --> 05:31.880]  howdy, howdy, how are you doing, can you hear me, hello, hello, I think you dropped me
[05:31.880 --> 05:57.880]  or you're not working, right?
[05:57.880 --> 06:27.840]  Okay, sorry about that folks.
[06:27.840 --> 06:36.360]  We had a minor little glitch, I think the government is hacking our system and he didn't
[06:36.360 --> 06:42.680]  want us, the government didn't want us to talk to Scott, Scott are you there?
[06:42.680 --> 06:52.960]  I am here, I think I got blackballed for a second, so what have you been up to?
[06:52.960 --> 07:03.040]  Well, I am busy writing some more suits and working on getting them perfected and naturally
[07:03.040 --> 07:11.960]  it's a work in progress, but as far as the structure, the structure is pretty good, now
[07:11.960 --> 07:20.160]  it's just getting to where everything is really crisp and really concise and that's
[07:20.160 --> 07:25.320]  a little bit of a struggle and I'm having to work through it.
[07:25.320 --> 07:33.680]  Let me comment here, when Scott first started writing documents, I cut him absolutely no
[07:33.680 --> 07:41.920]  slack, I just ripped him to pieces and he was not the least bit deterred, he was frustrated
[07:41.920 --> 07:50.920]  but not deterred and he kept coming back and this last set of documents, frankly I was
[07:50.920 --> 07:57.520]  surprised with how well constructed they were, they still got grammatically errors in them
[07:57.520 --> 08:04.880]  but then again mine do too, so I kind of annoyed him being pedantic and picking on the minor
[08:04.880 --> 08:11.520]  details but I need other people to do the same thing to me, but it's taken a while
[08:11.520 --> 08:18.040]  and it's taken some feedback and writing documents you think are great and have somebody else
[08:18.040 --> 08:23.200]  come along and rip it to shreds and then you come back and redo it and this last three
[08:23.200 --> 08:32.000]  sets of documents I was impressed, Scott's getting there, okay you want to address what
[08:32.000 --> 08:37.120]  the documents are, who you're suing and why?
[08:37.120 --> 08:48.400]  So I have a chief of police and where I had submitted an information request to the police
[08:48.400 --> 08:59.280]  and the chief refused to answer this information request for their authority to enforce the
[08:59.280 --> 09:06.520]  transportation code plus also there was a 911 call that I made on this particular one where
[09:06.520 --> 09:12.400]  an officer actually threatened me saying that I could be shot in the head for exercising
[09:12.400 --> 09:20.600]  my rights and so I made the information request and I really wanted that 911 tape and they
[09:20.600 --> 09:30.040]  weren't going to give me anything so I'm going after the chief of police for refusing to
[09:30.040 --> 09:37.200]  answer this information request to give me that exculpatory evidence and it's really
[09:37.200 --> 09:43.920]  a short document as far as the actual suit it goes, I mean the whole thing is really
[09:43.920 --> 09:53.600]  only about five pages, six pages including the part where you asked for the affidavit
[09:53.600 --> 09:57.560]  and the certificate of service, that's just one page on its own so the rest of it really
[09:57.560 --> 10:05.880]  is only about five pages so it's just now getting a few things really kind of finalized
[10:05.880 --> 10:17.200]  on this thing so it actually is clear and concise on what I'm stating as far as my claims
[10:17.200 --> 10:20.840]  and the codes that were violated.
[10:20.840 --> 10:29.680]  The second suit is on the actual cop collota of Mesquite that made the threat where I could
[10:29.680 --> 10:38.320]  be shot in the head and so I'm getting that put together on him and then the third one
[10:38.320 --> 10:46.120]  is a real interesting one where I made some criminal complaints against a couple of Garland
[10:46.120 --> 10:54.560]  cops and the city of Garland, the attorneys refused to take a criminal complaint where
[10:54.560 --> 11:01.400]  they're commanded by a statute, they have no discretion to take that criminal complaint
[11:01.400 --> 11:06.400]  and reduce it to an information and submit it to the foreman of the grand jury and they
[11:06.400 --> 11:16.720]  flatly refused to do their duties well since they never named which particular prosecutor
[11:16.720 --> 11:23.920]  refused to do that I'm going to name five of them and sue all five of them individually
[11:23.920 --> 11:28.440]  saying that well it must be this guy or it must be and it must be this guy and it must
[11:28.440 --> 11:36.400]  be this guy and just name them all and sue them all for it so maybe one of them will
[11:36.400 --> 11:38.720]  roll over on the other one who knows.
[11:38.720 --> 11:44.600]  Yeah, let them all get together and throw one of them under the bus and it will be almost
[11:44.600 --> 11:51.720]  certainly be whoever the head prosecutor is but I was pleased with all of these suits
[11:51.720 --> 12:01.160]  because they were so short they were very succinct to the point not hard for an individual
[12:01.160 --> 12:14.080]  to understand there was a question I had about the information request suit did the city
[12:14.080 --> 12:24.680]  police department put in a request to the attorney general for an opinion I think they
[12:24.680 --> 12:34.080]  wound up doing so and then the attorney general they wanted they kept asking for clarification
[12:34.080 --> 12:40.320]  and I said you know here you can read this just as plain as day here's the information
[12:40.320 --> 12:47.000]  request I can't tell you what to do and they wanted me to call them and the lady she was
[12:47.000 --> 12:54.440]  really kind of smart mouth about it at first and she said well I need clarification ma'am
[12:54.440 --> 13:01.920]  that's the information request and that's exactly how it reads and that's what I need
[13:01.920 --> 13:08.000]  you to provide and so she said well I'm just going to have to write the attorney general
[13:08.000 --> 13:16.600]  well I said okay I mean I can't tell you what to do that's not my job so anyhow they wound
[13:16.600 --> 13:23.680]  up putting in a request and then the attorney general wrote back saying that they did take
[13:23.680 --> 13:31.080]  it and then eventually they said they wanted clarification and you know I just said here
[13:31.080 --> 13:38.000]  that's the information you can read it just like anybody else and so they wound up on
[13:38.000 --> 13:44.640]  several of these where I did that and the attorney general was asking for clarification
[13:44.640 --> 13:50.960]  I was just like that's that's the information I don't have to clarify anything you only
[13:50.960 --> 13:53.360]  need to provide the information.
[13:53.360 --> 14:06.920]  Part of authority to enforce is hard for you to understand that's my position essentially
[14:06.920 --> 14:19.800]  your request consists of three words authority to enforce how complicated is that well that's
[14:19.800 --> 14:27.400]  where the attorney general is actually running cover for these people different departments
[14:27.400 --> 14:37.160]  or different municipalities and it's even like when I filed these Brady's request for
[14:37.160 --> 14:42.000]  district attorneys and then they would some of them would write to the attorney general
[14:42.000 --> 14:51.280]  and they will well I had the Dallas district attorney ask for clarification on every almost
[14:51.280 --> 14:58.720]  every other word in that document like what do you mean by superior core and all these
[14:58.720 --> 15:06.040]  different words that it's like they didn't understand the English okay that is a that
[15:06.040 --> 15:13.960]  is a request for the purpose of delay for delay sake and it's in the code that that's
[15:13.960 --> 15:20.840]  a violation of the code that the request is frivolous and this question this request
[15:20.840 --> 15:31.160]  should get a you should be in your complaint that the request for clarification is frivolous
[15:31.160 --> 15:39.640]  the reason they're requesting clarification is not because it's unclear but simply because
[15:39.640 --> 15:51.120]  they can't find it not being able to find something does not make the request unclear
[15:51.120 --> 15:59.320]  we do need to put in the fact that they put in this request and leave this for a jury
[15:59.320 --> 16:08.520]  to decide if the request is unclear here okay so who out here has a problem understanding
[16:08.520 --> 16:12.520]  what you're asking for anybody listening who has a problem for understanding what you're
[16:12.520 --> 16:22.280]  asking for and a jury of your peers will be asked to make that determination how's that
[16:22.280 --> 16:28.440]  going to work for them hang on about to go to break Randy Kelton the rule of Randy Kelton
[16:28.440 --> 16:36.240]  Denver Stevens rule of law radio on this Thursday the second day of October 2017 we have the
[16:36.240 --> 16:42.360]  call lines open but almost have a full board tonight oh we do have a full board tonight
[16:42.360 --> 16:46.520]  so if you try to get in and you can't get through wait till somebody drops off because
[16:46.520 --> 16:52.440]  the board will only hold five if somebody drops off then you call him you can get through
[16:52.440 --> 17:04.760]  hang on we'll be right back saying cookie cookie me love cookies oh hi cookie munchers
[17:04.760 --> 17:11.160]  no these are yucky cookie cookies yucky no no bad cookies you can't even eat these cookies
[17:11.160 --> 17:17.160]  these are cyber cookie no can't eat no they are cyber cookies and they clog up your computer
[17:17.160 --> 17:25.440]  me have apple really oh that's an actual apple yummy apple i'm going to throw away these
[17:25.440 --> 17:32.040]  yucky cookies in the trash i clicked control shift delete and then scroll down to cookies
[17:32.040 --> 17:38.280]  and clear them bye bye yucky cookies now i go to logos radio network dot com and i click
[17:38.280 --> 17:44.000]  on the amazon box on the upper right hand side book mark the link and i can go to amazon through
[17:44.000 --> 17:50.480]  this link and order you some yummy new cookie new cookies for me consider it an early christmas
[17:50.480 --> 17:55.760]  present and every time i order on amazon i go through this link and i give a little present
[17:55.760 --> 18:04.360]  to this radio network to see is for cookie see is for classified it's the 2017 logos
[18:04.360 --> 18:09.720]  radio network annual fundraiser sponsored by central texas gunworks defense distributed
[18:09.720 --> 18:14.800]  in fat sales deli go to logos radio network dot com and enter to win every twenty five
[18:14.800 --> 18:20.040]  dollar donation is a chance to win from central texas gunworks first place up for grads of
[18:20.040 --> 18:27.880]  spikes tactical ar-15 second place torus pt 111 g2 9 millimeter pistol from defense distributed
[18:27.880 --> 18:34.280]  third place the ar-308 80 percent lower fourth place the ar-15 80 percent lower from fat
[18:34.280 --> 18:39.760]  sales deli fifth place $100 gift card for fat sales deli every twenty five dollar donation
[18:39.760 --> 18:44.440]  is a chance to win that's the logos radio network dot com also if you purchase randy
[18:44.440 --> 18:50.160]  kelton's ebook legal 101 you get four chances to win purchase eddie craig's traffic seminar
[18:50.160 --> 18:54.360]  get ten chances to win and remember every twenty five dollar donation is a chance to
[18:54.360 --> 18:59.160]  win go to logos radio network dot com for details and donate today
[18:59.160 --> 19:08.440]  you are listening to the logos radio network the logos radio network dot com
[19:08.440 --> 19:33.320]  and
[19:33.320 --> 19:50.800]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Rueva Radio, and we're going to Daniel in Florida. Hello,
[19:50.800 --> 19:51.800]  Daniel.
[19:51.800 --> 19:54.800]  Hello. Can you hear me?
[19:54.800 --> 19:58.440]  I can hear you. What do you have for us today?
[19:58.440 --> 20:10.480]  Well, I have a case going down here in Florida where I'm waiting for a traffic ticket and
[20:10.480 --> 20:20.280]  got arrested. But when I got over to the jailhouse, they told me that I had other additional felonies
[20:20.280 --> 20:28.560]  for beating up officers in the courthouse. So, it was a shocking surprise to me. They
[20:28.560 --> 20:38.480]  put on these charges saying I had better than an officer. And better than an officer, this
[20:38.480 --> 20:48.120]  and the rest were violence. But yet, they basically did not have any video or any medical
[20:48.120 --> 20:53.400]  records or anything showing these allegations. And right now, they just switched my trial
[20:53.400 --> 21:04.000]  date up real well. And final pre-trial date, November 27. So, I was trying to hopefully
[21:04.000 --> 21:10.400]  come in and get some kind of help. My first time, I was on a recommended by a gentleman
[21:10.400 --> 21:18.680]  across him. And he recommended me to call him into the radio station.
[21:18.680 --> 21:30.160]  Okay. Apparently, I'm not clear on the felony battery on the officers. Did this supposedly
[21:30.160 --> 21:35.400]  occur at the time you were arrested when you appeared at the traffic court or is this another
[21:35.400 --> 21:36.400]  incident?
[21:36.400 --> 21:40.600]  No, yeah. It's happened at the traffic court.
[21:40.600 --> 21:49.280]  Okay. Was there more than one bailiff or security guy there when this supposedly happened?
[21:49.280 --> 21:54.280]  Yes, it is. There was, like, big guess three on the report.
[21:54.280 --> 22:04.040]  Okay. If you have three witnesses, is there any reason to believe that all of these officers
[22:04.040 --> 22:06.760]  were wearing body cams?
[22:06.760 --> 22:11.000]  That I don't know.
[22:11.000 --> 22:15.560]  Well, were there security tapes in the building?
[22:15.560 --> 22:22.520]  I believe there are security tapes. They have cameras everywhere in there. When they arrested
[22:22.520 --> 22:27.440]  me, they even had people in the back watching the security cam. So, I'm pretty sure that
[22:27.440 --> 22:28.440]  they...
[22:28.440 --> 22:36.880]  Have you requested the security cams for the... Hold on. How long ago did this occur?
[22:36.880 --> 22:43.400]  This... The incident occurred on February, early February, around the 7th.
[22:43.400 --> 22:45.560]  Of this year?
[22:45.560 --> 22:46.560]  Yes.
[22:46.560 --> 22:51.440]  Okay. Generally, they will keep the tapes for six months.
[22:51.440 --> 23:01.080]  Right. But we... I had my lawyer at the time follow a request to do that. And he just basically
[23:01.080 --> 23:07.640]  did a basic discovery, a standard discovery. But it's still in there. We put in there for
[23:07.640 --> 23:12.280]  the videotape. Of course, we've seen the times about the videotape. And they just said that
[23:12.280 --> 23:19.200]  the video was ran by a button that the judge is supposed to push. And he never pressed
[23:19.200 --> 23:20.200]  the button.
[23:20.200 --> 23:28.800]  So, the whole video for the entire courthouse is run by a judge in a single courtroom.
[23:28.800 --> 23:35.960]  That's the explanation they gave me from that explanation that the lawyer gave me. And the
[23:35.960 --> 23:43.160]  new PD was just came upon my case because they just got rid of my lawyer and...
[23:43.160 --> 23:45.200]  How did they get rid of your lawyer?
[23:45.200 --> 23:53.080]  Well, we basically said they was a conflict. But...
[23:53.080 --> 23:55.080]  Is this court-appointed council?
[23:55.080 --> 23:59.360]  No, it wasn't court-appointed council.
[23:59.360 --> 24:05.760]  Did the lawyer return all of your... The money that you gave to it?
[24:05.760 --> 24:07.760]  No, he didn't.
[24:07.760 --> 24:12.600]  Yeah, first thing you need to do is sue the lawyer and then now request court-appointed
[24:12.600 --> 24:20.640]  council because the lawyer stole the money you had to pay for your defense. Make sure
[24:20.640 --> 24:22.640]  you bar-grieve the lawyer.
[24:22.640 --> 24:24.640]  Yeah, he did.
[24:24.640 --> 24:29.360]  Bar-grieve them. And that was the reason why they let him off. He mentioned it in court
[24:29.360 --> 24:34.080]  saying that he wanted to get out because of a bar-grievement.
[24:34.080 --> 24:39.080]  Okay, then sue the judge. You file a complaint against the judge for interfering with a private
[24:39.080 --> 24:40.080]  contract.
[24:40.080 --> 24:41.080]  Okay, yes.
[24:41.080 --> 24:48.200]  The judge... Now you ask them to appoint you council of choice and you pick the most expensive
[24:48.200 --> 24:50.200]  lawyer in the district.
[24:50.200 --> 24:54.200]  Appoint me.
[24:54.200 --> 25:03.360]  You came in with your lawyer. You had a contract with your lawyer. And the judge allowed your
[25:03.360 --> 25:09.480]  lawyer to withdraw when you had a contract. The Constitution of every state addresses
[25:09.480 --> 25:15.200]  that. The Constitution of the United States certainly addresses that, is that the government
[25:15.200 --> 25:18.200]  cannot interfere with a private contract.
[25:18.200 --> 25:20.200]  All right.
[25:20.200 --> 25:22.200]  What do you say?
[25:22.200 --> 25:27.080]  This is outside the scope of the judge's authority and it certainly doesn't. It is that administrative
[25:27.080 --> 25:34.200]  act and it's not an adjudicative act. So he's liable. You sue the judge for the contract.
[25:34.200 --> 25:36.200]  Okay.
[25:36.200 --> 25:44.320]  Here's the rule. Here's the rule. You'll never win your case simply because you have the
[25:44.320 --> 25:51.160]  law and the facts on your side. To think so is naive. It is not that way now. Never has
[25:51.160 --> 25:56.520]  been that way since we've had human beings as judges. You win your case if you have the
[25:56.520 --> 25:59.520]  politics on your side.
[25:59.520 --> 26:04.440]  What we're talking about here is politics. Now you go after the judge. You generate a
[26:04.440 --> 26:13.840]  little politics. Now they got a reason to get you out of their courthouse. Now you have
[26:13.840 --> 26:20.720]  something to negotiate with. You came in with paid counsel. The court stole your counsel
[26:20.720 --> 26:29.880]  from you and stole your retainer that you gave to the lawyer but left you without counsel.
[26:29.880 --> 26:37.680]  So you sue the judge for interfering the private contract or at least send the judge notice
[26:37.680 --> 26:45.480]  an opportunity. In law that's called a tort letter. You send the judge notice that he
[26:45.480 --> 26:56.000]  interfered with the private contract and cost you your ability to defend yourself in court.
[26:56.000 --> 27:02.160]  Come up with a number and ask him to make you whole or be sued. That's going to give
[27:02.160 --> 27:10.400]  the judge apoplexy and it creates politics. Then you follow a request for court appointed
[27:10.400 --> 27:20.840]  counsel of your choice because the Constitution guarantees you counsel of choice and you chose
[27:20.840 --> 27:31.840]  one and the court took that counsel away from you. You bar grieve the lawyer for moving
[27:31.840 --> 27:40.920]  for taking your retainer in the first place and you bar grieve the lawyer for mentioning
[27:40.920 --> 27:48.720]  the bar grievance in court. He's not supposed to mention it. The bar grievance is between
[27:48.720 --> 27:57.480]  you, him and the bar association. Nobody else. They're forbidden to mention it so you bar
[27:57.480 --> 28:05.520]  grieve him for that. Then you sue your lawyer and then ask them to appoint you new counsel.
[28:05.520 --> 28:13.160]  What this is going to do is put whoever they appoint in a position such that he's likely
[28:13.160 --> 28:19.600]  to be sued and bar grieved and he is not going to be a happy camper. He's going to go to
[28:19.600 --> 28:27.080]  the court and say, guys, you got to help me out here. You gave me this client over here
[28:27.080 --> 28:35.720]  who's likely to ruin my career. Now your lawyer has plausible deniability. Now he can go in
[28:35.720 --> 28:43.760]  and actively adjudicate your case and not have to worry about the court getting upset
[28:43.760 --> 28:51.000]  at him. You have to understand your lawyer is always the most dangerous man in the courtroom.
[28:51.000 --> 28:57.760]  He can throw you under the bus in a heartbeat. But if your lawyer has a client that knows
[28:57.760 --> 29:03.280]  how to beat up the lawyer, now the lawyer can go to the court and get in court to cut
[29:03.280 --> 29:07.480]  him some slack in the process court use and slack. Does this make sense?
[29:07.480 --> 29:14.280]  Yeah, it does kind of make sense to me. I was trying to follow you as far as the steps
[29:14.280 --> 29:16.760]  of what I needed to take.
[29:16.760 --> 29:22.320]  Okay. When we come back, I'm going to want to get a little more information on the case
[29:22.320 --> 29:24.720]  itself. Okay.
[29:24.720 --> 29:31.320]  So I understand how to, what the nature of this supposed confrontation was so I'll better
[29:31.320 --> 29:35.800]  know how to address it in Florida law. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens. We will
[29:35.800 --> 29:43.200]  have our radio, our call in number 512-646-1984. If you have a question or comment, give us
[29:43.200 --> 30:02.320]  a call. We'll have the phone lines open all night. We'll be right back.
[30:02.320 --> 30:07.360]  We all laughed when cartoonist Scott Adams drew comics of cubicle hell, but his hero
[30:07.360 --> 30:12.040]  Dilbert now has science to back him up. I'm Dr. Catherine Albright and I'll be back to
[30:12.040 --> 30:16.560]  tell you the downsides of the dreaded office cubicle.
[30:16.560 --> 30:20.920]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:20.920 --> 30:26.520]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.520 --> 30:32.680]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:32.680 --> 30:37.800]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by startpage.com,
[30:37.800 --> 30:45.520]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with start page.
[30:45.520 --> 30:50.760]  Attention managers, a recent study found that noisy offices slash worker productivity and
[30:50.760 --> 30:56.160]  reduce their well-being by a third. Open cubicles interfere with workers' concentration and
[30:56.160 --> 31:00.680]  their privacy, leading to insecurity when others can see what they type and hear their
[31:00.680 --> 31:06.000]  phone calls. Ninety percent of research reviewed confirmed that open offices have negative
[31:06.000 --> 31:11.560]  outcomes including stress, conflict, high blood pressure and high turnover. Management
[31:11.560 --> 31:16.320]  can help by providing quiet, uninterrupted workspaces for employees whose jobs require
[31:16.320 --> 31:21.360]  focus and concentration. Now if I could just find a quiet place to think, I'll put that
[31:21.360 --> 31:26.680]  in a memo to the pointy-haired boss. I'm Dr. Catherine Albright. More news and information
[31:26.680 --> 31:28.680]  at CatherineAlbright.com.
[31:28.680 --> 31:35.120]  Did you know there are three million edible food plants on earth and none have the nutritional
[31:35.120 --> 31:40.360]  value of the hemp plant. HempUSA.org offers you hemp protein powder. It does not contain
[31:40.360 --> 31:46.760]  chemicals or THC. It's non-GMO and is 100% gluten-free. Hemp protein powder burns fat,
[31:46.760 --> 31:54.560]  builds muscle, contains 53% protein and feeds the body the nutrients it needs. Call 888-910-4367
[31:54.560 --> 32:00.400]  and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at HempUSA.org.
[32:00.400 --> 32:06.080]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic similar. In today's America
[32:06.080 --> 32:09.440]  we live in an us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free
[32:09.440 --> 32:13.520]  society then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights
[32:13.520 --> 32:16.760]  are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private
[32:16.760 --> 32:20.720]  capacity and most importantly the right to due process of law. The traffic courts afford
[32:20.720 --> 32:24.600]  us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through
[32:24.600 --> 32:28.560]  due process. Former sheriff's deputy Eddie Craig in conjunction with rule of law radio
[32:28.560 --> 32:32.280]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand
[32:32.280 --> 32:36.280]  what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy
[32:36.280 --> 32:41.160]  of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering
[32:41.160 --> 32:44.760]  now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus
[32:44.760 --> 32:49.040]  the Lie. Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents
[32:49.040 --> 32:52.320]  and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help
[32:52.320 --> 32:56.520]  of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can
[32:56.520 --> 33:03.520]  have free society we all want and deserve.
[33:26.520 --> 33:52.040]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, rule of law radio and we're talking to Daniel
[33:52.040 --> 34:01.800]  in Florida. Okay, Daniel, what was the nature of this incident? Was it related to the traffic
[34:01.800 --> 34:08.520]  citation or was the arrest related to something else? No, it was related to the traffic citation.
[34:08.520 --> 34:19.320]  Okay, what was the reason they arrested you? Well, because of a capis. They had a capis
[34:19.320 --> 34:24.600]  for my arrest. Okay, capis. So did you fail to appear or something? I failed to set a
[34:24.600 --> 34:36.200]  court date and time. Oh, okay. So did you resist arrest? To them, they say I did. I
[34:36.200 --> 34:40.680]  didn't ever resisted or fought anything like that. I just stood there and continued to
[34:40.680 --> 34:45.680]  talk to the judge, which I wasn't realized that the whole thing was over with. So we
[34:45.680 --> 34:52.840]  continued to talk and then when I felt the officers say you put the stun gun on my shoulder
[34:52.840 --> 34:57.480]  and say if you don't get your A down, then I'm going to stun you. So I got down on the
[34:57.480 --> 35:08.000]  ground and they arrested me. Oh, okay. Now they're claiming there is no video. Right.
[35:08.000 --> 35:12.840]  And they claim there is no videos because I'm supposed to alter the citation. Were there
[35:12.840 --> 35:18.200]  any other people in the courtroom? There was one other person in the courtroom that ended
[35:18.200 --> 35:23.480]  up walking in with me because they had basically like two of the courtrooms, only two of us
[35:23.480 --> 35:28.560]  that walked in and she was sitting on the other side. And I didn't get a name or anything
[35:28.560 --> 35:34.000]  like that, but it was another person that was in there. Okay, you should be able to
[35:34.000 --> 35:43.400]  go back and get the docket sheet for that day and find out who was called to be there
[35:43.400 --> 35:52.680]  that day. Okay. And see if you can find another witness. So they're claiming battery on an
[35:52.680 --> 35:59.600]  officer. How did they get to that? I really don't have no idea, but going through the
[35:59.600 --> 36:06.120]  process with the lawyer that I had, he wanted to do informal depositions with one of the
[36:06.120 --> 36:12.000]  cops because the first day I did it against supposedly three officers, but they ended
[36:12.000 --> 36:21.480]  up dropping it down to just one, seemingly. And we went and did like an informal deposition
[36:21.480 --> 36:28.320]  where he said that I was tugging my arms and swinging my elbows, he stated, and hitting
[36:28.320 --> 36:34.200]  the officers and I need him in the groin area and almost dislocated his hip. So we had to
[36:34.200 --> 36:41.000]  be rushed to the hospital for a possible dislocation over the hill. Okay, there will have to be
[36:41.000 --> 36:51.800]  the records of that. And if there are records of that, you had a problem. Because in Florida,
[36:51.800 --> 36:59.120]  if you simply stiffen up when you're being arrested, they call that resisting arrest
[36:59.120 --> 37:06.400]  without violence. It's a criminal act. You cannot resist arrest in Florida, period. Even
[37:06.400 --> 37:14.000]  if the arrest is totally improper and invalid, you cannot resist arrest in Florida. But if
[37:14.000 --> 37:23.120]  you move at all, then they'll call a battery. Well, that was the, that was, I think that
[37:23.120 --> 37:29.720]  was... If a police officer had to go to the hospital, that's what I'm telling you. That's
[37:29.720 --> 37:38.720]  pretty serious. Yes, pretty, I would imagine so too, but I'm telling you, I did not like
[37:38.720 --> 37:44.120]  an explainer. They were like grabbing at me and I was just standing there. It was like
[37:44.120 --> 37:50.920]  trying to tug and pull on me, but they couldn't move me. Oh, man, I was still continuing to
[37:50.920 --> 37:57.320]  the judge. And now they have the tape of it, the audio tape, but they don't have the videotape
[37:57.320 --> 38:03.360]  of it. Okay, the audio tape ought to be good enough. Have you, were you able to get the
[38:03.360 --> 38:14.200]  audio tape? I don't have a copy of it, but my lawyer, my old lawyer does. Okay, you can,
[38:14.200 --> 38:24.600]  you need to request all your records from your old lawyer and get a new lawyer. I don't
[38:24.600 --> 38:30.120]  know what actually happened, but if they have a good case, best thing you can hope for is
[38:30.120 --> 38:40.720]  to make a deal. I can suggest all kinds of honorous things you can do, but that may not,
[38:40.720 --> 38:52.560]  if you don't have a case you can win, then you need to find a way to make a deal. Now
[38:52.560 --> 38:58.960]  we do legal reform and we want to help people, but when somebody's liberty is at stake, I
[38:58.960 --> 39:04.800]  don't suggest that people take on the system. There's enough of us out here to take on the
[39:04.800 --> 39:14.880]  system that doesn't have our liberty at risk. So before I can give you any further direction,
[39:14.880 --> 39:21.200]  I would need to see a timeline. Write me out a list of events of what happened and the
[39:21.200 --> 39:33.920]  order it happened and email it to me at randy or andy at ruleoflawradio.com. Frankly, I'm
[39:33.920 --> 39:41.640]  afraid to say much more because your liberty is at serious risk here and when that's the
[39:41.640 --> 39:48.120]  case, I want to be very careful. But if you'll make me up a timeline and send it to me, then
[39:48.120 --> 39:52.040]  I can give you some recommendations and these are probably recommendations I wouldn't want to
[39:52.040 --> 40:00.360]  give on the air anyway. Hey Randy, can I jump in here for a second? Certainly. I have a question
[40:00.360 --> 40:11.040]  about this hospital visit that allegedly the police officer had to go to the hospital. Okay,
[40:11.040 --> 40:20.880]  this, I smell something fishy here possibly because how many times do people get in car
[40:20.880 --> 40:29.400]  accidents and they feign, you know, being hurt and they call 911 and ask for an ambulance to
[40:29.400 --> 40:37.040]  try to pump up a lawsuit claim. You know what I'm saying? And so I've seen this kind of thing
[40:37.040 --> 40:43.880]  happen with police officers as well. I actually know someone personally that, well, he did
[40:43.880 --> 40:49.520]  something he shouldn't have done. He was mouthing off to one of the guards when he was in jail.
[40:49.520 --> 40:56.640]  He got arrested for something stupid and the police, the guard like pushed him and the guard
[40:56.640 --> 41:06.400]  slipped and fell in the process and twisted his ankle because he was, you know, not very agile,
[41:06.400 --> 41:16.120]  I suppose and ended up, my friend ended up getting charged with a felony assault because of this.
[41:16.120 --> 41:26.080]  But anyway, the point being, is Daniel entitled to the medical records from the hospital or any
[41:26.080 --> 41:32.080]  and all medical records associated with this alleged injury because he could have gotten a
[41:32.080 --> 41:39.360]  boo-boo on his knee and had to go to the hospital if you know what I mean to try to trump up some
[41:39.360 --> 41:45.600]  charge against Daniel. I would think that if he's getting charged for some kind of assault on a
[41:45.600 --> 41:51.640]  police officer that he's entitled to see those medical records for his defense. Absolutely,
[41:51.640 --> 41:57.640]  he's entitled to see the medical records. Well, the thing is, as far as a timeline,
[41:57.640 --> 42:08.680]  I mean, when is he entitled to have access to those medical records because what I'm afraid
[42:08.680 --> 42:13.640]  is going to happen is they're just going to delay, his lawyer would demand them and they're just
[42:13.640 --> 42:18.960]  going to delay and drag their feet, giving them to him so that they can try to squeeze him for a
[42:18.960 --> 42:25.400]  deal and if he doesn't agree to the deal, he may not know what he's getting into. He may say,
[42:25.400 --> 42:31.560]  no, I want a trial and then after it's like, then he can't do the deal anymore, then he gets the
[42:31.560 --> 42:37.280]  medical records afterwards and then he gets in trouble because maybe there is a problem. I mean,
[42:37.280 --> 42:44.800]  what is the timeline as far as when is he entitled to get those medical records? 30 days
[42:44.800 --> 42:50.440]  before trial, at least here in Texas, I'm not sure exactly what it says in Florida, but it's
[42:50.440 --> 42:59.480]  going to be similar. You're entitled to discovery before trial. In a sufficient time before trial,
[42:59.480 --> 43:05.600]  so that you have opportunity to investigate the discovery. Okay, and so what if he gets these
[43:05.600 --> 43:11.600]  medical records and it turns out to be like, oh no, I'm in big trouble here. This guy really did
[43:11.600 --> 43:17.040]  get hurt. Would it be too late to go to the prosecutor and ask for a deal at that point?
[43:17.040 --> 43:25.800]  No. No, okay. Well, that's what I wanted to know. I mean, discovery is not obnoxious. Soon as a judge,
[43:25.800 --> 43:31.960]  that's pretty obnoxious. Well, Daniel is having trouble with his lawyer right now, right? I mean,
[43:31.960 --> 43:37.440]  you're saying something about telling him to get a divorce. The judge removed his, allowed his
[43:37.440 --> 43:46.200]  lawyer to withdraw because the lawyer claimed he had a conflict. Okay, we just said, all right,
[43:46.200 --> 43:49.160]  well, we have to go to break. I want to ask a couple more questions when we get back on the air,
[43:49.160 --> 43:54.600]  but then we need to go back to Scott because Scott accidentally got left behind here. So
[43:54.600 --> 44:04.680]  we'll be right back, folks. This is the rule of law. Hello, my name is Stuart Smith from
[44:04.680 --> 44:10.240]  naturespureorganics.com, and I would like to invite you to come by our store at 1904 Waterloo
[44:10.240 --> 44:14.840]  Street Sweet D here in Austin, Texas, find brave new books and chase things to see all our
[44:14.840 --> 44:19.800]  fantastic health and wellness products with your very own eyes. Have a look at our miracle healing
[44:19.800 --> 44:23.720]  clay that started our adventure in alternative medicine. Take a peek at some of our other
[44:23.720 --> 44:28.520]  wonderful products, including our Australian Emu oil, lotion candles, olive oil, soaps,
[44:28.520 --> 44:37.120]  and colloidal silver and gold. Call 512-264-4043 or find us online at naturespureorganics.com.
[44:37.120 --> 44:45.240]  That's 512-264-4043 naturespureorganics.com. Don't forget to like us on Facebook for information
[44:45.240 --> 45:03.680]  on events and our products naturespureorganics.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:03.680 --> 45:11.280]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand 4-CD course
[45:11.280 --> 45:17.960]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer
[45:17.960 --> 45:23.800]  should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands
[45:23.800 --> 45:29.720]  have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[45:29.720 --> 45:36.760]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[45:36.760 --> 45:41.800]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[45:41.800 --> 45:48.400]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[45:48.400 --> 45:55.480]  for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflongradio.com and
[45:55.480 --> 46:02.480]  click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:25.480 --> 46:43.480]  Okay, we are back. This is the rule of law, Randy Kelton and Deborah Stevens, and we
[46:43.480 --> 46:47.360]  are speaking with Daniel in Florida, first-time caller. Thank you for calling in, Daniel.
[46:47.360 --> 46:53.560]  Okay, so yeah, I agree with Randy. There's a lot of stuff going on here. We need a timeline
[46:53.560 --> 47:01.440]  to try to put all the pieces together so that we can better address your situation here.
[47:01.440 --> 47:07.720]  I think getting access to those medical records is a big deal, and so at this point, I guess
[47:07.720 --> 47:15.800]  the next step is you have to have an attorney so in order to file for discovery for these
[47:15.800 --> 47:21.080]  medical records, so Randy is the court, where are we at? Is he about to get another court
[47:21.080 --> 47:26.800]  appointed attorney, or did he hire an attorney, or where are we at with this?
[47:26.800 --> 47:34.080]  We didn't quite get to that. Daniel paid for this attorney.
[47:34.080 --> 47:35.800]  Oh, he did, okay.
[47:35.800 --> 47:41.960]  Yeah, so this was a paid attorney, and the attorney's got his money.
[47:41.960 --> 47:47.000]  So I was suggesting that Daniel asked for court appointed counsel.
[47:47.000 --> 47:52.480]  The court appointed counsel when he obviously has money to hire a lawyer. He already did
[47:52.480 --> 47:53.480]  that.
[47:53.480 --> 47:56.080]  Oh, and now he's out of money, gotcha.
[47:56.080 --> 48:04.440]  And the court took his lawyer away from him, so now he has a right to counsel of choice.
[48:04.440 --> 48:11.720]  Once the court removes your counsel, now you have a right to choose counsel. So I suggested
[48:11.720 --> 48:15.840]  he picked the most expensive lawyer in the district.
[48:15.840 --> 48:21.160]  So what would Daniel need to do? Would he need to file some document or ask for a hearing
[48:21.160 --> 48:26.560]  to ask the judge for court appointed counsel? What procedure would he go about to make that
[48:26.560 --> 48:28.440]  happen?
[48:28.440 --> 48:38.160]  The court will have a standard form for inability to pay. You get that and claim that you were
[48:38.160 --> 48:46.960]  unable to pay because the original lawyer took all your money to pay for counsel with
[48:46.960 --> 48:54.360]  and the judge allowed your lawyer to withdraw, so you have a right to counsel of your choice
[48:54.360 --> 49:00.480]  and ask the court to appoint you counsel of your choice by the most expensive lawyer
[49:00.480 --> 49:05.240]  in the district. This sets you up for appeal.
[49:05.240 --> 49:09.400]  They're not likely to appoint you the most expensive lawyer in the district, but they'll
[49:09.400 --> 49:17.080]  certainly get you another lawyer and you'll have a point of appeal. If you want them to
[49:17.080 --> 49:23.480]  come to the table to make you the best deal, you've got to make it look like this is not
[49:23.480 --> 49:29.800]  going to be in a slam dunk form. It's going to cost them a lot of pain in the neck and
[49:29.800 --> 49:34.600]  trouble in costs and give them a reason to make you a better deal to get you out of their
[49:34.600 --> 49:35.600]  hands.
[49:35.600 --> 49:46.520]  Yes, but here's the problem. They set a timeline saying and telling me that whatever lawyer
[49:46.520 --> 49:58.120]  I get must understand that we're going to final pre-trial this November 27. He just
[49:58.120 --> 50:01.440]  told me that today. We just had court today on that.
[50:01.440 --> 50:12.720]  It doesn't matter what they say. It's either not carved in stone or it's appealable. They're
[50:12.720 --> 50:20.160]  giving a new lawyer less than 26 days. It's going to be way less than that to prepare
[50:20.160 --> 50:25.240]  for trial and that's insufficient. At the end of the day, that doesn't matter.
[50:25.240 --> 50:29.000]  It doesn't matter because what's going to happen is once you get another lawyer, your
[50:29.000 --> 50:34.840]  lawyer is just going to file a motion for continuance to delay the pre-trial and any
[50:34.840 --> 50:40.920]  other subsequent hearings because there's a legitimate reason he has to have time to
[50:40.920 --> 50:41.920]  prepare.
[50:41.920 --> 50:47.200]  The reason that I don't know when you say they is at the prosecutor or the judge, they're
[50:47.200 --> 50:51.160]  always in collusion with each other, but when they say this and that, you've got to keep
[50:51.160 --> 50:56.520]  in mind that it's intimidation tactics because what they want to do is they want to squeeze
[50:56.520 --> 51:00.200]  you for a deal. That's the name of the game.
[51:00.200 --> 51:04.880]  The other thing is if you haven't been able to find another lawyer by the pre-trial or
[51:04.880 --> 51:09.520]  if you're having trouble getting the court to appoint you a lawyer, they're not going
[51:09.520 --> 51:13.200]  to just proceed with a pre-trial if you don't have a lawyer. They're not going to let you
[51:13.200 --> 51:19.440]  go into that court with a lawyer unless you are adamant that you want to be prosa. Since
[51:19.440 --> 51:26.680]  you are probably not adamant that you want to be prosa, they can't proceed until that
[51:26.680 --> 51:28.560]  situation is dealt with.
[51:28.560 --> 51:35.600]  I think Randy's right. Don't listen to these intimidation tactics. Don't worry about that.
[51:35.600 --> 51:39.920]  Your next lawyer will just file a motion for continuance. It's no big deal. They're just
[51:39.920 --> 51:47.160]  trying to intimidate you. Like Randy said, go to the court, get the form to file to ask
[51:47.160 --> 51:50.840]  for a court appointed attorney because the other attorney took all your money. You don't
[51:50.840 --> 51:55.480]  have any more money. The judge let them go. Now you need court appointed counsel. I think
[51:55.480 --> 52:01.640]  that's the next best step for you to do right away as well as write a timeline for us. Daniel?
[52:01.640 --> 52:02.640]  Okay.
[52:02.640 --> 52:04.760]  All right. Very good.
[52:04.760 --> 52:12.320]  Okay. About inability to pay. Inability to pay does not mean that you are destitute.
[52:12.320 --> 52:19.760]  It merely means that it would cause you unreasonable difficulty. The fact that you already paid
[52:19.760 --> 52:25.320]  for counsel, it would be unreasonably difficult to have to pay for another counsel when it
[52:25.320 --> 52:27.720]  was the court that took counsel away from you.
[52:27.720 --> 52:34.320]  That's right. That's right. As far as suing the judge and going back after them for torturous
[52:34.320 --> 52:39.560]  interference of a contract, there's a two-year statute of limitations on that. There's time
[52:39.560 --> 52:45.800]  to deal with that. Right now, we've got to get you out of harm's way. Just get that document
[52:45.800 --> 52:53.200]  filed to get another lawyer and then proceed from there. You want to get discovery of the
[52:53.200 --> 52:59.960]  medical records and stuff like that. That's the next step.
[52:59.960 --> 53:01.680]  Make sure you write us a timeline.
[53:01.680 --> 53:09.800]  Okay. That's the only evidence that they say they had was just audio. That's the only
[53:09.800 --> 53:11.600]  thing that they put into the discovery.
[53:11.600 --> 53:17.440]  Well, no, that's not the point. You are entitled to discovery. You are entitled to those medical
[53:17.440 --> 53:27.560]  records because it could be a bump on the knee. You are entitled to all kinds of discovery.
[53:27.560 --> 53:30.160]  Your next lawyer will know all about that.
[53:30.160 --> 53:36.120]  They claim serious injury. They have to support the claim of serious injury.
[53:36.120 --> 53:44.560]  They have to prove that up. They can't just, you know, the cop calls an ambulance and pretends
[53:44.560 --> 53:49.480]  to be seriously injured and then not give you any medical records and then try to pen
[53:49.480 --> 53:54.240]  felony assault on you. It doesn't work that way. They have to prove it. They have to prove
[53:54.240 --> 54:01.200]  the crime was committed. They can't just slip on a banana peel and pretend to fall and say
[54:01.200 --> 54:05.400]  you assaulted me. It doesn't work that way. They have to prove it up. You are entitled
[54:05.400 --> 54:07.800]  to all kinds of discovery. Okay.
[54:07.800 --> 54:14.360]  So don't be intimidated. Don't let them make you think that you don't have any rights here.
[54:14.360 --> 54:18.640]  You're entitled to all kinds of stuff. You're probably entitled to that police officer's
[54:18.640 --> 54:28.080]  past medical history because what if he got injured before from something else? He may
[54:28.080 --> 54:35.640]  already have a bad hip from playing golf or something. Who knows? He had a car accident
[54:35.640 --> 54:42.160]  and he had to have a hip replacement. He may have previous medical conditions regarding
[54:42.160 --> 54:48.720]  his hip. I'm just using hip, for example, and now he's saying that he hurt his hip
[54:48.720 --> 54:55.520]  because of this alleged assault. There could be previous injury there. You're probably
[54:55.520 --> 55:02.240]  entitled to that police officer's entire medical history from his whole life. You have a lot
[55:02.240 --> 55:08.480]  more rights than you think here. If they're going to go to medical issues, they are opening
[55:08.480 --> 55:15.280]  themselves wide open. He would probably have to come up with his entire medical history.
[55:15.280 --> 55:20.720]  Any good lawyer would know that. So just file the document to get your court appointed attorney
[55:20.720 --> 55:27.400]  for the inability to pay and keep all that in mind and then write up Timeline Force.
[55:27.400 --> 55:28.400]  Okay?
[55:28.400 --> 55:29.400]  Okay.
[55:29.400 --> 55:35.040]  Okay, Daniel. We need to go now. We have some other callers on the line. All right. Thank
[55:35.040 --> 55:36.040]  you, Daniel.
[55:36.040 --> 55:44.720]  Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Now we're going to go to Scott in Texas. I inadvertently chomped
[55:44.720 --> 55:45.720]  Scott.
[55:45.720 --> 55:46.720]  Hello, Scott.
[55:46.720 --> 55:53.840]  Hello. I know that you like to take first time callers and that guy really did need
[55:53.840 --> 55:58.920]  your help and advice. So I'm okay with all that.
[55:58.920 --> 56:00.400]  Do you feel disrespected?
[56:00.400 --> 56:04.920]  Well, you disrespected me all the time, so I'm used to it.
[56:04.920 --> 56:11.520]  Well, I was going to say if you did not try harder. Okay. Where were we? We had got three
[56:11.520 --> 56:20.600]  lawsuits. We got the information request lawsuit and that one should absolutely get
[56:20.600 --> 56:25.480]  criminal charges against the custodian of the record.
[56:25.480 --> 56:26.480]  Right.
[56:26.480 --> 56:36.760]  Which I'm naming the chief of police and they wanted to get the attorney general to
[56:36.760 --> 56:42.680]  ask the attorney general for an exemption and the attorney general was notified and
[56:42.680 --> 56:52.760]  he sent a response back to me saying that they got it and they pretty much just let
[56:52.760 --> 56:56.520]  them do whatever they did.
[56:56.520 --> 56:58.360]  Got it. Got it. Exemption?
[56:58.360 --> 57:05.520]  No, they didn't get it. Well, technically, I'll have to go back and look for it, but
[57:05.520 --> 57:13.560]  if they say that since I didn't clarify, they just dismissed the request.
[57:13.560 --> 57:18.040]  Then you need to sue the attorney general as well.
[57:18.040 --> 57:23.960]  Well, that's where it was kind of seeming to want to go towards because the attorney
[57:23.960 --> 57:29.880]  general was just giving them cover and then because I'm not sitting there cowtowing to
[57:29.880 --> 57:37.440]  them and clarifying because it was clear already. I mean, we already went over that,
[57:37.440 --> 57:42.120]  you know, authority to enforce. What is that so hard to understand, especially when other
[57:42.120 --> 57:49.400]  cities have responded to the exact same request stating they didn't have the authority. Rockwall
[57:49.400 --> 57:58.120]  and Lake Dallas and City of Addison, they all replied saying that they didn't have records
[57:58.120 --> 58:03.240]  responsive to that request and so they didn't have the authority to pull flat out.
[58:03.240 --> 58:10.520]  This should get sued the attorney general and also file criminally against the lawyer
[58:10.520 --> 58:18.240]  who wrote the exemption and bar grieve the lawyer who wrote the exemption.
[58:18.240 --> 58:23.200]  I probably did. I was pretty good about bar grieve and all of these guys back to the
[58:23.200 --> 58:30.760]  stone age. The lawyer who wrote the exemption is if he's working for the attorney general's
[58:30.760 --> 58:36.680]  office, it's because when he got out of law school, he didn't get picked up by a major
[58:36.680 --> 58:45.600]  law firm. So he had to find a way to practice so he, good chance he had some political connections
[58:45.600 --> 58:50.560]  and he gets appointed to work for the attorney general.
[58:50.560 --> 58:56.000]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:56.000 --> 59:01.200]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[59:01.200 --> 59:07.400]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture.
[59:07.400 --> 59:13.760]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[59:13.760 --> 59:20.200]  but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[59:20.200 --> 59:25.640]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond
[59:25.640 --> 59:30.800]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:30.800 --> 59:36.440]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is
[59:36.440 --> 59:48.080]  yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:48.080 --> 59:50.080]  That's freestudybible.com.
[59:50.080 --> 01:00:02.960]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.960 --> 01:00:08.760]  The following news flashes brought to you by the low-star lowdown, providing reggae bulletins
[01:00:08.760 --> 01:00:16.080]  for the commodity market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop into the
[01:00:16.080 --> 01:00:23.600]  tides of the alternative.
[01:00:23.600 --> 01:00:30.160]  Markets for Wednesday, 13 September 2017, closed with gold at $1,323.24 an ounce, silver
[01:00:30.160 --> 01:00:38.800]  $17.78 an ounce, Texas crude $48.23 a barrel, bitcoin is about $3,876, and dashcoins it's
[01:00:38.800 --> 01:00:46.680]  about $300 US currency.
[01:00:46.680 --> 01:00:52.200]  Today in history, the year 1541, after three years in exile, John Calvin returns to Geneva
[01:00:52.200 --> 01:01:01.400]  to reform the church under a body of doctrine known as Calvinism. Today in history.
[01:01:01.400 --> 01:01:05.000]  In recent news, Hillary Clinton's new already on discount book would happen officially hit
[01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:09.240]  store shelves Tuesday of the many things she blamed for her loss in the 2016 presidential
[01:01:09.240 --> 01:01:13.280]  race. She mentioned Russia in the election within the first few pages, quote, the press
[01:01:13.280 --> 01:01:17.080]  treated our warnings about Russia like it was spin we'd cooked up in order to distract
[01:01:17.080 --> 01:01:21.080]  from embarrassing revelations. She blamed President Trump saying that listening to Trump
[01:01:21.080 --> 01:01:25.080]  it almost felt like there was no such thing as truth anymore, that his strategy consisted
[01:01:25.080 --> 01:01:29.360]  of an appeal to the ugliest impulses of our national character. She blamed Wall Street.
[01:01:29.360 --> 01:01:32.720]  I didn't think many Americans would believe that I'd sell a lifetime of principle and
[01:01:32.720 --> 01:01:36.480]  advocacy for any price. I should have stayed away from anything having to do with Wall
[01:01:36.480 --> 01:01:41.320]  Street. I didn't. That's all me. Yeah, right, Hillary. Closed door meetings with Wall Street
[01:01:41.320 --> 01:01:45.760]  corporate donors could have had no foreseeable problems. She blamed the scandal over State
[01:01:45.760 --> 01:01:50.080]  Department emails on her private server. It was a dumb mistake, she said, but even a
[01:01:50.080 --> 01:01:54.520]  dumber scandal. It was like quicksand. The more you struggle, the deeper you sink. She
[01:01:54.520 --> 01:01:58.800]  blamed former FBI Director James Comey saying that quote, Comey made the choice to extricate
[01:01:58.800 --> 01:02:04.080]  me in public in July and then dramatically re-open the investigation on October 28th,
[01:02:04.080 --> 01:02:08.120]  all while refusing to say a word about Trump and Russia. Not for those decisions, everything
[01:02:08.120 --> 01:02:12.640]  would have been different. And she even blamed patriarchy, stating that sexism and misogyny
[01:02:12.640 --> 01:02:18.640]  played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is the flagrantly sexist candidate
[01:02:18.640 --> 01:02:27.520]  won. Days after Hurricane Harvey's onslaught across the Lone Star State, the coast was
[01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:31.480]  still very much littered with dead fish and other sea creatures. Pretied to say of the
[01:02:31.480 --> 01:02:36.440]  National Auburn Society discovered a strange-looking sea animal posting a photo of it on Twitter
[01:02:36.440 --> 01:02:40.720]  to see if anyone knew what it was. Experts responded with guesses that it was some sort
[01:02:40.720 --> 01:02:45.920]  of eel, possibly a fangtooth snake eel. Harvey was the longest hurricane that remained a
[01:02:45.920 --> 01:02:51.360]  name stormed after landfall in Texas. It killed at least 70 people and dumped at least 51
[01:02:51.360 --> 01:02:58.360]  inches of rain. This was Brooklody with your lowdown for September 13, 2017.
[01:03:21.360 --> 01:03:49.860]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio, and Randy Kelton. And we're Stevens,
[01:03:49.860 --> 01:03:55.600]  rule of law radio, and we're talking to Scott in Texas. Okay, go ahead, Scott.
[01:03:55.600 --> 01:04:02.760]  Okay, you know, funny, I just dug out the letters from the Attorney General, and I got
[01:04:02.760 --> 01:04:08.880]  a couple of different letters here. So, and one of them was where they were asking the
[01:04:08.880 --> 01:04:20.160]  city to provide a written response to the notification within 10 days. And then later
[01:04:20.160 --> 01:04:29.560]  on, it was the Attorney General, or here's the mesquite letter asking for an exemption,
[01:04:29.560 --> 01:04:39.340]  looks like, and clarification is what they're asking for from me. And then after a while,
[01:04:39.340 --> 01:04:50.860]  the Attorney General said that I didn't clarify, and so they withdrew it. And so basically,
[01:04:50.860 --> 01:04:55.300]  the city of Mesquite withdrew the request, and the Attorney General said, you can go
[01:04:55.300 --> 01:05:01.020]  ahead and we'll close this out type deal. So, yeah, I got all my letters right here.
[01:05:01.020 --> 01:05:08.260]  So, I'm going to have to go over all this stuff again, because that makes a lot of sense
[01:05:08.260 --> 01:05:19.020]  that what you're saying to bring these points up. Are you there?
[01:05:19.020 --> 01:05:29.220]  Yes, it was the Attorney General who authorized them, but it was to clarify.
[01:05:29.220 --> 01:05:37.340]  Exactly. And it says right here from the Mesquite letter, it says, the requester failed to
[01:05:37.340 --> 01:05:42.180]  provide a written clarification of the request. Therefore, at the end of 61 days, this request
[01:05:42.180 --> 01:05:48.980]  was considered withdrawn by operation of law, and the Attorney General said, we are closing
[01:05:48.980 --> 01:05:56.540]  our file on this matter. So, yeah, I got all kinds of nice little information right here.
[01:05:56.540 --> 01:06:03.980]  You might send them another request and word it slightly different.
[01:06:03.980 --> 01:06:05.980]  To the city of Mesquite?
[01:06:05.980 --> 01:06:13.340]  Yeah. Send in a request, see, how could we word this, for the specific authorization
[01:06:13.340 --> 01:06:20.340]  of this officer, to enforce the commercial transportation code?
[01:06:20.340 --> 01:06:22.340]  Okay.
[01:06:22.340 --> 01:06:26.340]  What's hard about that?
[01:06:26.340 --> 01:06:31.340]  Well, what was hard about the original one? Like I said, others?
[01:06:31.340 --> 01:06:37.140]  Well, then when they send you a request for clarification, then you send in one saying
[01:06:37.140 --> 01:06:44.140]  that the Highway Patrol is authorized by the Texas Transportation Code to enforce the
[01:06:44.140 --> 01:06:52.380]  Transportation Code. The Sheriff's Department, through the county commissioners' court,
[01:06:52.380 --> 01:06:59.220]  is authorized to appoint five officers if there are county less than a billion, or more
[01:06:59.220 --> 01:07:03.580]  officers if there are county greater than a million. They must be paid for by the county
[01:07:03.580 --> 01:07:12.180]  commissioners' court and have to road motorcycles under 701.001, under what authority is a municipal
[01:07:12.180 --> 01:07:20.060]  police officer authorized to enforce the Transportation Code. Give them something that looks like
[01:07:20.060 --> 01:07:26.580]  clarification. Their request is stupid, so give them a stupid response.
[01:07:26.580 --> 01:07:34.460]  Well, all right, then I guess I'll just have to wait on that one, or I was really hoping
[01:07:34.460 --> 01:07:37.580]  to get him underneath the gun, but that's all right.
[01:07:37.580 --> 01:07:43.580]  Go ahead and file that one, and then send in another request.
[01:07:43.580 --> 01:07:46.580]  Yeah, well, I'm waiting.
[01:07:46.580 --> 01:07:48.580]  Yeah.
[01:07:48.580 --> 01:07:56.060]  Why not? Okay, and then the other one, like I say, is on the top, and so a pretty will
[01:07:56.060 --> 01:08:05.420]  just need to do a little verbiage tightening on that, and then get the one on the attorneys
[01:08:05.420 --> 01:08:07.820]  for the city of Garland. Now, that's pretty cutting.
[01:08:07.820 --> 01:08:17.340]  That's a good one. Give it, go over for the city of Garland again. This one I especially
[01:08:17.340 --> 01:08:30.220]  like because it sure looks like violation of 3805 penal code, shielding from prosecution.
[01:08:30.220 --> 01:08:39.620]  2.03 says that when a prosecuting attorney, now, when a prosecuting attorney, this is
[01:08:39.620 --> 01:08:50.180]  in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 starts out by speaking to district attorneys 2.01, or prosecuting
[01:08:50.180 --> 01:09:03.620]  attorneys in general, 2.01. 2.02 says a county attorney, turns on hand list of, then 2.03.
[01:09:03.620 --> 01:09:11.620]  2.03 does not address a county attorney or district attorney or municipal court attorney.
[01:09:11.620 --> 01:09:21.940]  It says when a prosecutor is made known, and have to presume that the legislature picked
[01:09:21.940 --> 01:09:30.620]  their words carefully. They did not say when a county or district attorney has it made
[01:09:30.620 --> 01:09:36.300]  known to them that a crime has been committed. It says when a prosecuting attorney has it
[01:09:36.300 --> 01:09:43.180]  made known that they're to reduce the complaint from the information forwarded to the grand
[01:09:43.180 --> 01:09:50.220]  jury. So, even though these guys are municipal attorneys, municipal prosecutors, they think
[01:09:50.220 --> 01:10:01.580]  they don't fall under. And what Scott's saying, yeah, you do. There's no exclusion for chump
[01:10:01.580 --> 01:10:10.260]  attorneys to be, chump prosecutors to be excluded from this statutory requirement. If the legislature
[01:10:10.260 --> 01:10:19.740]  had intended that municipal attorneys be excluded, they would have said so. So, they failed to
[01:10:19.740 --> 01:10:24.820]  perform a duty they were required to perform in the process, shielded the accused from
[01:10:24.820 --> 01:10:38.820]  prosecution. 3805 makes that a felony in Texas. This is exactly what they're doing. They're
[01:10:38.820 --> 01:10:46.580]  scooching up behind that thin blue line and protecting their buddies. So, we need to take
[01:10:46.580 --> 01:10:54.780]  them to task for that. But the prosecutor explained why he's ignoring law. So, I really
[01:10:54.780 --> 01:11:02.300]  like that one when I read it. Yeah. Now, almost certainly that one would get tossed. They're
[01:11:02.300 --> 01:11:12.300]  going to say you can't sue the prosecutor. And that goes to a great appeal. The appeal
[01:11:12.300 --> 01:11:25.380]  is, does a prosecutor have immunity when he commits crimes in office? And let's ask the
[01:11:25.380 --> 01:11:32.300]  Court of Appeals to rule on that. It doesn't matter whether you can prove the crime was
[01:11:32.300 --> 01:11:41.660]  committed. When you file the suit and allege the crime was committed, the question is, is
[01:11:41.660 --> 01:11:52.860]  the suit sufficient on its face? So, if it goes to your claim, if your claim is sufficient,
[01:11:52.860 --> 01:12:00.940]  and if the courts have to say that no public official is not immune from suit when he commits
[01:12:00.940 --> 01:12:08.220]  crimes in office, then your suit's sufficient. And how are they going to say that public
[01:12:08.220 --> 01:12:15.700]  officials are exempted from the penal code? That would undermine the whole system. It's
[01:12:15.700 --> 01:12:23.380]  a real good question to ask. They get that in the appeal courts, they rule against you,
[01:12:23.380 --> 01:12:29.260]  then any public official, and violently, they need all they want to. How's that going to
[01:12:29.260 --> 01:12:38.820]  work for them? Now, they can't go after public officials when they commit crimes in office.
[01:12:38.820 --> 01:12:43.420]  Or they can't sue them. They can only file against them criminally. But the whole point
[01:12:43.420 --> 01:12:48.420]  is, you can't go after them criminally when it is the prosecuting attorney committing crimes
[01:12:48.420 --> 01:12:56.700]  in office to shield them from prosecution. So, it creates a catch-22. That is not something
[01:12:56.700 --> 01:13:01.620]  they're going to want to get to the Supreme or the Court of Criminal Appeals. That's my
[01:13:01.620 --> 01:13:08.220]  story and I was thinking to it. Okay. Well, I'll let you get to the rest of the
[01:13:08.220 --> 01:13:14.300]  callers. I found five, or, yeah, five letters going back and forth between Mesquite and
[01:13:14.300 --> 01:13:22.100]  the Attorney General all on this information request. So, I saved all my letters. Yep,
[01:13:22.100 --> 01:13:27.580]  this kind of is going to help some, a lot of stuff up right here. But anyhow, I'll
[01:13:27.580 --> 01:13:32.780]  let you get back, get to the next caller and thank you for your help and I will talk
[01:13:32.780 --> 01:13:36.780]  to you tomorrow. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Okay. Now, we're
[01:13:36.780 --> 01:13:45.660]  going to go to Ralph in Texas. Hello, Ralph. Hello, Ralph. There you go. What do you have
[01:13:45.660 --> 01:13:57.740]  for us today? I was arrested for failure to identify, which is not arrestable. I think
[01:13:57.740 --> 01:14:15.860]  we may have lost you. Is it again? Hello.
[01:14:15.860 --> 01:14:44.860]  If I can't believe my eyes, I've got to believe my heart.
[01:14:44.860 --> 01:15:09.860]  Yeah, if I can't believe the newspapers, I've got to believe my heart.
[01:15:09.860 --> 01:15:36.180]  Okay. Sorry, folks. I'm back. It seems my system dropped off. Okay. Back to Ralph in
[01:15:36.180 --> 01:15:44.020]  Texas. Hello, Ralph. Are you there? Yes, sir. I am. I appreciate your help in all this.
[01:15:44.020 --> 01:15:51.220]  What I have is Title 42 in federal court, Title 42, 1983. In federal court, I was arrested
[01:15:51.220 --> 01:16:01.460]  for failure to identify, which is not an arrestable offense and the defendants are now claiming
[01:16:01.460 --> 01:16:07.460]  that actually they've been claiming it all along that they could have arrested me for
[01:16:07.460 --> 01:16:15.140]  seat belt violation. So it was still a lawful arrest is what they're saying. So what I'm
[01:16:15.140 --> 01:16:20.580]  trying to do is put together an argument that says that the transportation code does not
[01:16:20.580 --> 01:16:26.780]  apply to me. And part of that argument says that it doesn't apply to me because unlike
[01:16:26.780 --> 01:16:34.460]  the penal code, the transportation code is only enforceable by entities or law enforcement
[01:16:34.460 --> 01:16:45.340]  that specifically authorized within the transportation code, which goes to show that it is limited
[01:16:45.340 --> 01:17:00.620]  to commercial and for hire traffic. So what do you think of that? Hello, Randy. I love
[01:17:00.620 --> 01:17:04.900]  Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm
[01:17:04.900 --> 01:17:08.900]  so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be
[01:17:08.900 --> 01:17:13.820]  lost without Logos. And I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to
[01:17:13.820 --> 01:17:17.660]  volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money
[01:17:17.660 --> 01:17:24.020]  to give because I spent it all on supplement. How can I help Logos? Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:17:24.020 --> 01:17:28.340]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos with ordering your supplies
[01:17:28.340 --> 01:17:34.140]  or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:17:34.140 --> 01:17:40.060]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon,
[01:17:40.060 --> 01:17:45.900]  you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything
[01:17:45.900 --> 01:17:52.380]  different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes. Wow. Giving without
[01:17:52.380 --> 01:17:58.500]  doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect. Thank you so much. We are Logos.
[01:17:58.500 --> 01:18:06.900]  Happy holidays, Logos. It's the 2017 Logos Radio Network Annual Fundraiser, sponsored
[01:18:06.900 --> 01:18:13.100]  by Central Texas Gun Works, Defense Distributed, and Fat Sal's Deli. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:18:13.100 --> 01:18:18.500]  and enter to win. Every $25 donation is a chance to win. From Central Texas Gun Works,
[01:18:18.500 --> 01:18:26.700]  first place, up for grabs, a Spikes Tactical AR-15. Second place, Taurus PT-111 G29mm Pistol.
[01:18:26.700 --> 01:18:32.620]  From Defense Distributed, third place, the AR-308, 80% lower. Fourth place, the AR-15,
[01:18:32.620 --> 01:18:38.500]  80% lower. From Fat Sal's Deli, fifth place, $100 gift card. From Fat Sal's Deli, every
[01:18:38.500 --> 01:18:44.820]  $25 donation is a chance to win. That's LogosRadioNetwork.com. Also, if you purchase Randy Kelton's
[01:18:44.820 --> 01:18:50.220]  e-book, Legal101, you get four chances to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar,
[01:18:50.220 --> 01:18:57.180]  get 10 chances to win. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:18:57.180 --> 01:19:04.180]  for details and donate today. This is the LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:19:27.180 --> 01:19:44.780]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, RUVA Radio. I'm having a little bit of issue, technical
[01:19:44.780 --> 01:20:02.780]  issues here today. Okay, Ralph in Texas. Hello, Ralph. There we go, okay. We're back. Okay,
[01:20:02.780 --> 01:20:12.780]  go ahead. So, Eddie and yourself have talked a lot about how the Transportation Code can
[01:20:12.780 --> 01:20:19.380]  not be enforced by certain authorized persons or law enforcement within the Transportation
[01:20:19.380 --> 01:20:24.820]  Code. But it's a little bit confusing yet for me, especially since it's 1,643 pages
[01:20:24.820 --> 01:20:29.780]  long and I've looked through it. And if you try to word search it, you're just going to
[01:20:29.780 --> 01:20:33.420]  come up with, you know, a thousand of hits for each word you try.
[01:20:33.420 --> 01:20:42.740]  Okay, here's where you want to start looking. 701.001. We don't care about the state law
[01:20:42.740 --> 01:20:48.580]  or state police. State police were created for the purpose of enforcing the Transportation
[01:20:48.580 --> 01:20:55.900]  Code. So, if it's a highway patrol, you can't argue with that point. Then you have to go
[01:20:55.900 --> 01:21:03.020]  to the application of the code to you. But if it's not a highway patrol, if it's a sheriff
[01:21:03.020 --> 01:21:13.780]  or a municipal, now you have the argument was the sheriff on a motorcycle. 701.001 authorizes
[01:21:13.780 --> 01:21:22.020]  the County Commissioner's Court to appoint up to five deputies if the county is less
[01:21:22.020 --> 01:21:28.020]  than a million population. If it's more than a million in population, they can appoint as
[01:21:28.020 --> 01:21:35.420]  many as they want to deputies who are authorized to enforce the penal code. So, they have to
[01:21:35.420 --> 01:21:42.940]  be certified peace officers. The Commissioner's Court can appoint them to enforce the Transportation
[01:21:42.940 --> 01:21:48.020]  Code, but the Commissioner's Court has to pay them. So, they have to get their own funds.
[01:21:48.020 --> 01:21:53.580]  It doesn't come out of the sheriff's funds. So, even in a large county, that restricts
[01:21:53.580 --> 01:22:01.420]  the number that they can put on by how much it costs. And 701.003 says they have to ride
[01:22:01.420 --> 01:22:10.980]  motorcycles unless it's in climate weather. And then, Chapter 37 of the Texas Administrative
[01:22:10.980 --> 01:22:23.460]  Code, Chapter 37, Section 4.13 and 4.14, they specifically authorize a municipality to appoint
[01:22:23.460 --> 01:22:31.860]  one officer to do DOT inspections. There's a whole bunch of junk they have to do. In
[01:22:31.860 --> 01:22:41.780]  order to do that, I think it's 644.001, they're required to, and it'll be referenced in 4.14,
[01:22:41.780 --> 01:22:48.620]  what this other code's linked in there. But they can appoint one and all he can do is
[01:22:48.620 --> 01:23:02.060]  do DOT inspections. So, the question is, what statute since, according to Eddie, what is
[01:23:02.060 --> 01:23:13.620]  not included is excluded. In the penal code, as concerns the penal code, certified peace
[01:23:13.620 --> 01:23:22.180]  officers have a blanket authorization to enforce the penal code. Unless you are a DPS officer
[01:23:22.180 --> 01:23:27.180]  and then you're forbidden to enforce the penal code, except as the request of and under the
[01:23:27.180 --> 01:23:36.540]  direction of local law enforcement. The transportation code, there is no general authority to enforce.
[01:23:36.540 --> 01:23:43.860]  The highway patrol was created for the purpose of enforcing the transportation code. And
[01:23:43.860 --> 01:23:50.860]  they're named as having authority to enforce it. And then the legislature specifically
[01:23:50.860 --> 01:23:59.460]  authorized certain officers to enforce, and that means whoever is not included is excluded.
[01:23:59.460 --> 01:24:09.860]  So, we have specific officers included. So, our position is, if you're not included, you're
[01:24:09.860 --> 01:24:16.700]  excluded. I was just in court in Highland Park a couple weeks ago and made this argument
[01:24:16.700 --> 01:24:24.780]  to the judge. I said, I have a challenge subject matter jurisdiction here. I have no evidence
[01:24:24.780 --> 01:24:30.060]  to indicate that your officers are authorized to enforce the transportation code. And the
[01:24:30.060 --> 01:24:37.260]  prosecutor, oh, blah, blah, blah. There are certified peace officers. And I said, so what?
[01:24:37.260 --> 01:24:45.060]  This is not the penal code violation. This is a transportation code violation. And while
[01:24:45.060 --> 01:24:51.900]  I have no opposition to their authority to enforce the penal code, I wasn't charged
[01:24:51.900 --> 01:25:00.500]  under the penal code. And since the legislature has specifically authorized certain officers
[01:25:00.500 --> 01:25:07.260]  to enforce the transportation code, and I've lined these out for the judges, I can't find
[01:25:07.260 --> 01:25:15.580]  anything authorizing your officers to enforce the transportation code. And the prosecutor
[01:25:15.580 --> 01:25:21.020]  said, well, all of our officers are authorized to enforce the transportation code if you're
[01:25:21.020 --> 01:25:29.740]  on her. Ask counsel to prove it. And the judge said, yes, counselor, I'd like to know the
[01:25:29.740 --> 01:25:42.020]  answer to that. I've had two judges do that. I gave them specific, specific authorizations.
[01:25:42.020 --> 01:25:47.700]  So I asked them for the same thing. It's a problem that Skeet had, why they didn't want
[01:25:47.700 --> 01:25:53.660]  to answer that information request and wanted an exemption is because they couldn't answer
[01:25:53.660 --> 01:25:58.340]  it. Ralph, does that make sense?
[01:25:58.340 --> 01:26:05.100]  Well, yeah, it's not really what I need right now, but yeah, I'm going to be going back
[01:26:05.100 --> 01:26:06.580]  to the recording.
[01:26:06.580 --> 01:26:13.500]  Okay, hold on. Let's take a step back to where I believe you need to be. I think you're going
[01:26:13.500 --> 01:26:23.980]  to the transportation code prematurely. You were arrested for failure to identify. Correct.
[01:26:23.980 --> 01:26:29.940]  And they said that they could have arrested you for seat belt belt violation. Go back
[01:26:29.940 --> 01:26:39.540]  and read the code on failure to identify. It not only says that you must be arrested.
[01:26:39.540 --> 01:26:47.500]  You must have been given notice that you are arrested. So the fact that they could have
[01:26:47.500 --> 01:26:54.740]  arrested you does not count as being arrested. You would have had to have been noticed that
[01:26:54.740 --> 01:27:03.620]  you were arrested for some criminal act. Did they write you a ticket for no seat belt violation?
[01:27:03.620 --> 01:27:13.780]  No, no. Did they write you a ticket for driving 100 miles an hour in a 20 mile Arizona? For
[01:27:13.780 --> 01:27:18.500]  standing on your head squawking like a chicken? It don't make any difference what they could
[01:27:18.500 --> 01:27:25.820]  have done if they had had evidence that you had committed that crime. They had a duty
[01:27:25.820 --> 01:27:33.980]  under law to cite you, but they didn't. That imputes that they were lying.
[01:27:33.980 --> 01:27:40.380]  I'll send you the case that they're using then because it's a fairly recent case. I
[01:27:40.380 --> 01:27:47.620]  don't have it on the tip of my tongue, but it's one that has been in... This one where
[01:27:47.620 --> 01:27:57.500]  a man was arrested for... He was on Greyhound property, Greyhound Bus Line's property, and
[01:27:57.500 --> 01:28:03.540]  they thought he was stealing, so they're arresting him for that. He hadn't stolen anything. There
[01:28:03.540 --> 01:28:07.700]  was no reason to believe he's stolen anything. He was just all this person I think. I don't
[01:28:07.700 --> 01:28:12.700]  know for sure. But anyway, they later came back and said, well, it doesn't matter. It
[01:28:12.700 --> 01:28:18.860]  was not an unlawful arrest because he could have been arrested for trespassing. It does
[01:28:18.860 --> 01:28:24.660]  not matter what the officer charges in the complaint because a mistake in the complaining
[01:28:24.660 --> 01:28:35.020]  instrument is not a valid reason for not being legal, whatever, for not having a proper
[01:28:35.020 --> 01:28:45.500]  law. Gotta ask the right question to get the right answer. Under the failure to identify
[01:28:45.500 --> 01:28:55.100]  law, you have to be given notice that you're arrested. If they didn't give him notice that
[01:28:55.100 --> 01:29:03.580]  he was arrested for criminal trespass, then that law should be distinguished in that it
[01:29:03.580 --> 01:29:15.140]  creates the effect of it is to nullify the restriction in the failure to identify law.
[01:29:15.140 --> 01:29:21.980]  It allows the... Actually, wait a minute. He's on Greyhound property. He can't be arrested
[01:29:21.980 --> 01:29:35.540]  for criminal trespass unless he has been given a trespassing warning and returned to the
[01:29:35.540 --> 01:29:38.420]  property. So no, they couldn't arrest him for trespass.
[01:29:38.420 --> 01:29:47.700]  Well, no, they're saying that he was, that the manager had told him to leave. That was
[01:29:47.700 --> 01:29:56.820]  actually a contested fact. But that's what they're claiming. So I'm fine to argue that
[01:29:56.820 --> 01:29:59.460]  the Transportation Code does not apply to them.
[01:29:59.460 --> 01:30:06.660]  I'm not a mind reader, but there's a good chance I can guess your password. Most people
[01:30:06.660 --> 01:30:11.660]  choose passwords from a limited repertoire, so hacking in is a piece of cake. I'm Dr.
[01:30:11.660 --> 01:30:40.660]  Catherine Albright, and I'll be right back with the solution.
[01:30:40.660 --> 01:30:49.420]  It's hard to remember a complicated password, but that's no excuse for a pathetic one. Recent
[01:30:49.420 --> 01:30:54.140]  security breaches have exposed millions of passwords, so we know what people are choosing.
[01:30:54.140 --> 01:31:02.380]  The most common password is 123456, followed by 12345. I love you is also in the top 10.
[01:31:02.380 --> 01:31:07.180]  If your password is too easy, beef it up. It takes just a few seconds to guess a password
[01:31:07.180 --> 01:31:12.660]  with 7 lowercase letters, but add capital letters and numbers and things get much harder. Add
[01:31:12.660 --> 01:31:17.780]  some other character like a dollar sign and increase the length to 10 characters, and suddenly
[01:31:17.780 --> 01:31:23.460]  cracking your password is virtually impossible, and that's good security. I'm Dr. Catherine
[01:31:23.460 --> 01:31:31.140]  Albright. More news and information at CatherineAlbright.com.
[01:31:31.140 --> 01:31:36.540]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.540 --> 01:31:41.220]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:41.220 --> 01:31:45.500]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[01:31:45.500 --> 01:31:50.060]  given their lives. Thousands of my fellow force responders have died. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:50.060 --> 01:31:53.100]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an
[01:31:53.100 --> 01:31:58.100]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.100 --> 01:32:03.660]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements.
[01:32:03.660 --> 01:32:07.380]  Did your home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know
[01:32:07.380 --> 01:32:11.300]  the government caused it with their chemtrails. But good luck getting them to pay for it.
[01:32:11.300 --> 01:32:15.060]  Okay, I might be kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why
[01:32:15.060 --> 01:32:19.500]  you have insurance, and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little
[01:32:19.500 --> 01:32:24.500]  to no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the
[01:32:24.500 --> 01:32:28.980]  Better Business Bureau with zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements
[01:32:28.980 --> 01:32:36.860]  to handle your claim and your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to
[01:32:36.860 --> 01:32:41.620]  hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate
[01:32:41.620 --> 01:32:46.340]  another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming. So if those
[01:32:46.340 --> 01:32:54.820]  out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745
[01:32:54.820 --> 01:32:59.780]  or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement. I actually
[01:32:59.780 --> 01:33:25.780]  might be kidding about chemtrails.
[01:33:25.780 --> 01:33:54.100]  That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[01:33:54.100 --> 01:34:21.660]  Okay, we are back. We're in Felton, real world radio. We're talking to Ralph in Texas, and
[01:34:21.660 --> 01:34:36.660]  I'm glad you're not arguing the right to travel. I've been researching that, and for
[01:34:36.660 --> 01:34:43.700]  the most part, the right to travel is the wrong argument because the license doesn't
[01:34:43.700 --> 01:34:49.060]  inhibit your right to travel. And for the most part, what the feds say is the right to travel
[01:34:49.060 --> 01:34:56.260]  only applies to the right to travel from one state to another. And the feds have consistently said
[01:34:56.260 --> 01:35:05.860]  that a state has legitimate interest in regulating the use of the highways. And they can require
[01:35:05.860 --> 01:35:12.980]  you to have a driver's license and say, okay, I can deal with that. I have a driver's license.
[01:35:13.940 --> 01:35:20.740]  But when I get a traffic citation and I look at this traffic citation, it doesn't have all the
[01:35:20.740 --> 01:35:29.780]  elements of the crime listed in it. First element in order to hold me responsible for violation of
[01:35:29.780 --> 01:35:39.060]  the statutory scheme is the claim that I fall the claim of facts that establish that I fall within
[01:35:39.060 --> 01:35:48.980]  the statutory scheme. If I'm a truck driver, and I'm empty at one warehouse and I jump in the truck
[01:35:48.980 --> 01:35:54.660]  and I have to go across town to load up to another warehouse, I'm not within the statutory scheme.
[01:35:54.660 --> 01:36:00.260]  I'm deadheading. Okay. And all these guys know what deadheading is.
[01:36:02.180 --> 01:36:07.300]  I'm on my own right now. I'm not being paid for this. So I'm on my clock downstairs. You don't
[01:36:07.300 --> 01:36:14.740]  have to put that in your love book because you're not on the clock. That makes sense, Ralph.
[01:36:16.180 --> 01:36:21.460]  Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You argue that subject better jurisdiction challenge,
[01:36:21.460 --> 01:36:27.060]  that the complaint was insufficient to invoke subject better jurisdiction of the court.
[01:36:29.460 --> 01:36:33.220]  Go to trafficticket.website. I got that argument in there.
[01:36:34.500 --> 01:36:39.060]  Okay, great. And the challenge subject better jurisdiction.
[01:36:41.860 --> 01:36:47.300]  I think I do. I don't know, put it in. Oh, actually, I don't think I have it in that one,
[01:36:47.300 --> 01:36:55.380]  but I'll make the argument. Okay. When I go after them, the subject better jurisdiction challenge,
[01:36:56.340 --> 01:37:01.620]  I go after the authority of the officer to enforce. When you were cited, were you cited,
[01:37:01.620 --> 01:37:11.780]  or decided by a DPS, Sheriff's Deputy or municipal? I was stopped by a DPS officer.
[01:37:11.780 --> 01:37:18.020]  Okay, then he can stop. Now, okay, this is the right argument. I was
[01:37:18.020 --> 01:37:26.340]  arrested by the DPS officer for failure to identify. And a second charge was added at the jail,
[01:37:26.980 --> 01:37:36.340]  which was felony evading. And I got a quarter point attorney in the misdemeanor failure to
[01:37:36.340 --> 01:37:43.140]  identify. He said, well, I just don't see where they're getting the felony evading.
[01:37:43.140 --> 01:37:49.780]  You were just sitting in your car with the engine off. I said, yeah. And so he
[01:37:51.700 --> 01:38:00.340]  helped the prosecutor maliciously prosecute me for a year in an attempt to get me to pre-bargain
[01:38:00.340 --> 01:38:09.540]  to dispense of the arresting officer's responsibility for arresting me for a non-correstable offense.
[01:38:10.980 --> 01:38:19.300]  And I didn't go for it. So he withdrew. And the week after he withdrew, the prosecutor dismissed
[01:38:19.300 --> 01:38:25.220]  the case against me. The prosecutor said, well, the grand jury no billed you on the felony,
[01:38:25.220 --> 01:38:29.940]  which I don't believe the prosecutor even took it to the grand jury. There was nothing there to
[01:38:29.940 --> 01:38:38.340]  pay. Okay, here's what you do there. You find out, you go in and look in the criminal records,
[01:38:38.340 --> 01:38:48.100]  in the district court criminal records, for cases in the timeframe of when this grand jury would
[01:38:48.100 --> 01:38:55.140]  have met. Are you in a large county or small county? Small. Okay, small county. They probably got
[01:38:55.140 --> 01:39:02.980]  one grand jury and it probably meets for three to six months. So you find out, you pull some indictments
[01:39:04.260 --> 01:39:11.380]  and see who the foreman of the grand jury is, look him up and ask him about this one.
[01:39:11.380 --> 01:39:25.860]  And then you request from the county the voucher for the court reporter
[01:39:27.380 --> 01:39:36.500]  for the grand jury, the pay voucher for the date. Do you have a date when this was supposedly
[01:39:36.500 --> 01:39:42.820]  presented to a grand jury? Yes, I did. Then ask for a pay voucher for that day
[01:39:43.940 --> 01:39:46.260]  and find out if the grand jury actually met that day.
[01:39:48.420 --> 01:39:53.700]  And then contact the foreman of the grand jury if the grand jury's already been disbanded
[01:39:55.140 --> 01:40:03.620]  and ask the foreman if he remembers seeing this one. Okay. And you can subpoena the grand
[01:40:03.620 --> 01:40:08.500]  the foreman, but you're not asking about anything that went on in deliberations.
[01:40:09.940 --> 01:40:16.580]  You're asking, did you hear this, did you see this particular complaint?
[01:40:17.860 --> 01:40:19.540]  Well, could I do that in discovery?
[01:40:22.020 --> 01:40:29.220]  There's a problem, a weakness here in the grand jury's portion of this.
[01:40:29.220 --> 01:40:35.860]  If, okay, the code says the grand jury shall examine into all criminal accusations,
[01:40:35.860 --> 01:40:39.140]  comes their knowledge by way of a member of the grand jury, a prosecutor's attorney,
[01:40:39.140 --> 01:40:43.300]  or any other credible person. And then once the grand jury meets,
[01:40:44.500 --> 01:40:52.420]  they're required to come before the, and once they vote, then they're required to come before
[01:40:52.420 --> 01:41:00.660]  the court or the clerk with the quorum of the grand jury present and read the fact of the
[01:41:00.660 --> 01:41:10.500]  indictment into the record. Doesn't say anything about a no bill. Now in Johnson County, they read
[01:41:10.500 --> 01:41:15.860]  in true bills and no bills. So you'd have a record. In Travis County, they read in true
[01:41:15.860 --> 01:41:22.500]  bills and no bills. But in the county I live in, they don't. And in a lot of counties, they don't. And
[01:41:22.500 --> 01:41:27.780]  that causes a no bill to kind of disappear into the ether. So you really can't tell if there was
[01:41:29.300 --> 01:41:34.980]  actually a no bill or not. But at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter much.
[01:41:34.980 --> 01:41:44.420]  If the prosecutor says there was a no bill, how long did it take him to get it to a grand jury?
[01:41:48.020 --> 01:41:59.060]  11 months and a week. Okay, that's way too long. So, okay, what about the
[01:41:59.060 --> 01:42:03.700]  arrest for failure to identify?
[01:42:05.940 --> 01:42:10.580]  Well, that was dismissed and that's why I've got a title 42 in my federal court.
[01:42:10.580 --> 01:42:15.860]  Oh, okay. So the felony and the failure to identify were both dismissed?
[01:42:17.700 --> 01:42:20.500]  Well, technically, the felony was no billed.
[01:42:20.500 --> 01:42:30.580]  Well, in either case, they're essentially dismissed. So you don't have any charges against you. So,
[01:42:31.460 --> 01:42:37.300]  okay, this is great. Now you sue the, I take it you sued the arresting officer.
[01:42:38.900 --> 01:42:40.340]  How about 17 people?
[01:42:42.420 --> 01:42:43.300]  Wait, say that again?
[01:42:44.900 --> 01:42:47.380]  I said, how about you and 17 people?
[01:42:47.380 --> 01:42:54.740]  Oh, did you? Have you looked at my habeas corpus that's on the jurorsimprudence.website?
[01:42:54.740 --> 01:43:00.580]  No, I think I've heard you talk about it. I need to get one of those done and have
[01:43:00.580 --> 01:43:03.060]  it set aside because there's no sense what they're going to do to me tomorrow.
[01:43:04.900 --> 01:43:13.060]  I will give you about 19 felony and misdemeanor accusations against everybody involved in the
[01:43:13.060 --> 01:43:20.180]  arrest that don't make the difference what you're arrested for. A walk right down due process.
[01:43:21.940 --> 01:43:27.060]  And the biggest deal when you were arrested, were you taken directly to the nearest magistrate?
[01:43:28.340 --> 01:43:30.740]  No, and that's in my, that's in, that's one of my claims.
[01:43:31.860 --> 01:43:36.740]  Okay, they're going to claim that you're originally arrested for a misdemeanor.
[01:43:36.740 --> 01:43:38.580]  Were you originally arrested for a felony?
[01:43:38.580 --> 01:43:45.700]  No. Okay, so in misdemeanor, they're going to say that you don't have a right to a
[01:43:47.780 --> 01:43:51.700]  examining trial in a misdemeanor case. And as soon as you come back from break,
[01:43:51.700 --> 01:43:56.660]  I'll explain why that doesn't matter. And I want to move quickly because I've got
[01:43:56.660 --> 01:43:58.740]  one more caller that I definitely want to get to.
[01:44:00.340 --> 01:44:06.100]  Nutritious food is real body armor. It builds muscle, burns fat, improves digestion,
[01:44:06.100 --> 01:44:10.820]  and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs. Did you know the US government banned
[01:44:10.820 --> 01:44:15.700]  the hemp plant from growing in the United States and classified it as a schedule one drug to hide
[01:44:15.700 --> 01:44:20.740]  it behind the marijuana plant? People have been confused about this plant for over 80 years,
[01:44:20.740 --> 01:44:25.620]  and many still don't know what hemp is. So now you know hemp is not marijuana,
[01:44:25.620 --> 01:44:30.020]  and marijuana is not hemp. They are different varieties of the same species.
[01:44:30.020 --> 01:44:34.980]  Hempusa.org wants the world to know these basic facts and to help people understand
[01:44:34.980 --> 01:44:39.940]  that hemp protein powder is the best kept health secret you need to know about. Remember,
[01:44:39.940 --> 01:44:46.580]  hemp protein powder contains 53% protein, is gluten free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO,
[01:44:46.580 --> 01:44:54.740]  and is loaded with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367-888-910-4367 and see what our
[01:44:54.740 --> 01:44:59.780]  powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempusa.org.
[01:44:59.780 --> 01:45:04.340]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.900 --> 01:45:10.420]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand,
[01:45:10.420 --> 01:45:17.700]  four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[01:45:17.700 --> 01:45:22.420]  know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do
[01:45:22.420 --> 01:45:28.660]  for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:28.660 --> 01:45:34.580]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:35.140 --> 01:45:40.740]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles
[01:45:40.740 --> 01:45:46.260]  and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom,
[01:45:46.260 --> 01:45:53.780]  video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro-save tactics, and much more. Please visit
[01:45:53.780 --> 01:46:00.900]  ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:23.780 --> 01:46:30.900]  Some things in this world I'll never understand. Some things I realize foolish.
[01:46:32.260 --> 01:46:38.900]  Somebody's on a police, that police man. Somebody's on a police, a police.
[01:46:40.660 --> 01:46:48.100]  There's always room at the top of the head. I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely
[01:46:48.100 --> 01:46:55.460]  there too. They're wishing it with more than I position the bill. They know that if they don't
[01:46:55.460 --> 01:47:01.700]  do it, somebody will. Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio, and Ralph.
[01:47:03.780 --> 01:47:07.300]  My producer's kind of chewing me out because I'm spending so much time. We're running out of time,
[01:47:07.300 --> 01:47:14.180]  but this is good information. Can you call back tomorrow night? I would like to address this
[01:47:14.180 --> 01:47:20.180]  in more detail. Okay, yes. Can I just say one thing before I go? It's short. Sure.
[01:47:22.500 --> 01:47:28.500]  The court appoint attorney is in this lawsuit for malicious prosecution because he filed no
[01:47:28.500 --> 01:47:34.740]  paperwork into my lawsuit, and he told me one thing, and then he turned around and said something
[01:47:34.740 --> 01:47:42.340]  else in court at his motion withdrawal. So, I got him on fraud. Now, I've sued him a second lawsuit
[01:47:42.340 --> 01:47:49.220]  for legal malpractice. We're not telling you about the court claims act. He's in default.
[01:47:50.500 --> 01:47:56.900]  They want to cut off the wall. Wonderful. Yeah, as well as writing to jail line is waiting. If
[01:47:56.900 --> 01:48:03.700]  he's in default, we're not answering the complaint. All of my factual allegations are admitted.
[01:48:04.580 --> 01:48:08.340]  Okay, you know about how to do a default judgment?
[01:48:08.340 --> 01:48:13.620]  No, I don't, but I got plenty of time. I haven't even done an interest in default yet.
[01:48:13.620 --> 01:48:17.300]  We'll talk about that tomorrow. You just take a default judgment down to the clerk. The clerk
[01:48:17.300 --> 01:48:23.300]  looks at the date. She looks in the record to see if there's an answer. Within Monday after the 20th
[01:48:23.300 --> 01:48:28.180]  day, if there's not an answer, she signs it. It takes you to the judge and the judge signs it.
[01:48:28.180 --> 01:48:33.300]  Boom, done deal. You don't even have to notify the other side. Let's talk about that tomorrow night.
[01:48:33.300 --> 01:48:39.860]  I've got a caller I really want to get to. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Randy. Thank you, Ralph. Okay.
[01:48:39.860 --> 01:48:46.820]  Now we're going to Tom in Maryland. Hello, Tom. Hi, Mr. Kelton. I spoke to you about
[01:48:47.460 --> 01:48:53.540]  month, maybe a month and a half ago. I'm the retired cop. You asked me to get in touch with you.
[01:48:53.540 --> 01:48:57.940]  I've been dealing with some health issues. I wanted to let you know I have not forgotten about you.
[01:48:57.940 --> 01:49:05.860]  I very much enjoy your program and I spoke with Ms. Stevens while I was on hold and I will be
[01:49:05.860 --> 01:49:12.740]  getting in touch with you so you can pick my brain as much as you'd like. What I was hoping that you
[01:49:12.740 --> 01:49:20.020]  might be able to feel this evening and it's actually a lot to unpack and it probably wouldn't
[01:49:20.020 --> 01:49:26.180]  want to tackle all of it, but an issue came up. Someone asked me about standing and
[01:49:26.180 --> 01:49:33.380]  courts of equity versus courts of law. When I say standing, I'm talking about
[01:49:35.300 --> 01:49:42.500]  the person asked me about whether or not or what the deal was with so often folks being told that
[01:49:42.500 --> 01:49:49.860]  they don't have standing, especially by federal court. I know of a case here in Baltimore in
[01:49:49.860 --> 01:49:58.260]  Maryland where it was clearly stated in the court ruling that the United States code
[01:49:59.140 --> 01:50:08.740]  didn't apply to the state. In another case in Georgia, Judd clearly stated that the Constitution
[01:50:10.820 --> 01:50:18.260]  was applied to the state and not to individuals and therefore individual people could not
[01:50:18.260 --> 01:50:25.140]  have standing, but only states could complain and have standing. I know the two separate issues
[01:50:25.140 --> 01:50:30.900]  relative to the courts of law and equity, but if you get what I'm coming from, I don't know.
[01:50:30.900 --> 01:50:41.940]  This doesn't go law and equity. There used to be a lot of patriot argument on these issues.
[01:50:41.940 --> 01:50:54.420]  I can't find a court of equity as opposed to a court of law. It's not that it's a different court.
[01:50:54.420 --> 01:51:00.420]  That court of equity was considered like, I guess in England, like the church court and the court of
[01:51:00.420 --> 01:51:07.140]  law was the king's court. I know they've been combined. In other words, I don't think you have
[01:51:07.140 --> 01:51:12.980]  two different feelings, but as I was explaining to Stevens, I've heard, while sitting in the
[01:51:12.980 --> 01:51:20.980]  civil court, I've heard judges talk about being a court of equity and I've also seen them act
[01:51:20.980 --> 01:51:28.340]  like they're a court of law. Now, in a court of law, I've seen them stick strictly to the Black
[01:51:28.340 --> 01:51:35.380]  Letter law, regardless of circumstances. When I've heard them mention equity, I've seen them
[01:51:35.380 --> 01:51:42.020]  basically act like an arbiter and take all sorts of circumstances into consideration when making
[01:51:42.020 --> 01:51:47.860]  their decisions, regardless of what the law says. It's a little confusing and I've never really
[01:51:47.860 --> 01:51:52.340]  been able to figure it out. I've questioned judges about it. Not only do you think they know for sure.
[01:51:53.860 --> 01:52:01.220]  The only difference between equity and law that I can find is as it stands right now,
[01:52:01.220 --> 01:52:09.460]  there really isn't a difference. A court of equity is defined as a court where you ask for
[01:52:09.460 --> 01:52:17.140]  an injunction. You ask for a ruling from the court that doesn't involve money, doesn't involve any
[01:52:17.140 --> 01:52:25.140]  damages. That's considered a claim in equity. If you file a claim in law, then you file a claim
[01:52:25.140 --> 01:52:31.540]  under a cause of action. That's the only thing I can find right now. There may have been
[01:52:33.780 --> 01:52:36.580]  courts of equity in the past, but I can't find them.
[01:52:37.860 --> 01:52:47.220]  Well, it seems to me that family courts, bankruptcy courts and sometimes when a court hears a case
[01:52:47.220 --> 01:52:56.100]  where there's no clear written contract, it seems that they're acting as a court of equity.
[01:52:56.100 --> 01:53:07.220]  In that case, it goes to a declaratory judgment in that the court is making a determination
[01:53:07.220 --> 01:53:19.140]  based on the rights of the parties. That's essentially what a declaratory judgment case is.
[01:53:19.140 --> 01:53:26.580]  You ask the court to declare the rights of the parties. If you're in a court where you don't
[01:53:26.580 --> 01:53:34.980]  have a clear defined law, then you have two individuals with issues. The court makes a
[01:53:34.980 --> 01:53:42.500]  determination of the rights of the parties and then based on those determinations, then you
[01:53:42.500 --> 01:53:49.940]  can go back and sue for damages. But just according to equity, I've heard the term a lot.
[01:53:49.940 --> 01:53:57.540]  It's like common law courts. I hear that term thrown around. I cannot find anything to support it
[01:53:57.540 --> 01:54:05.780]  as a separate type of adjudication other than references to declaratory judgments.
[01:54:07.300 --> 01:54:14.500]  I'll give you an example. I've heard a judge in a case regarding transfer of title where
[01:54:14.500 --> 01:54:23.220]  one owner transferred the title for a nominal fee to a family member. Another family member
[01:54:23.220 --> 01:54:29.300]  complained. They were in the court. I heard the judge say, you know, I don't know whether to go
[01:54:29.300 --> 01:54:36.180]  in equity or strictly go by the law. That was a little confusing to me. He seemed to be debating
[01:54:36.180 --> 01:54:44.980]  in his own mind, am I going to decide this case based strictly on the law? The party who transferred
[01:54:44.980 --> 01:54:56.900]  the title had not admitted that they did so unlawfully or in an attempt to hide any facts.
[01:54:56.900 --> 01:55:03.060]  They stuck to their story that the nominal fee was actually paid. There was no admitting that
[01:55:03.060 --> 01:55:09.060]  they had done anything illegally. However, I think the judge believed that the transfer probably was
[01:55:09.060 --> 01:55:16.420]  a little hanky. He was debating. It seemed to me about these two jurisdictions. How was he going
[01:55:16.420 --> 01:55:25.140]  to rule? I thought to myself, you know, that's just really odd to me. Now, a judge can basically
[01:55:25.140 --> 01:55:30.500]  flip back and forth in his own mind how he's going to rule based on, but seems to me, two separate
[01:55:30.500 --> 01:55:38.020]  types of jurisdiction. Can I jump in here, Randy? Absolutely. Okay. Tom, I understand what you're
[01:55:38.020 --> 01:55:46.180]  saying. Okay. This doesn't have to do with two different types of jurisdictions. This has to do
[01:55:46.180 --> 01:55:59.460]  with different canons of law, as far as equity, law, and there's also tort. There is trust.
[01:55:59.460 --> 01:56:10.500]  Okay. When legal questions get raised in cases, there has to be a determination as far as does
[01:56:10.500 --> 01:56:19.220]  this issue, it's called sounding. Does it sound in trust? Does it sound in equity? Does it sound
[01:56:19.220 --> 01:56:29.140]  in tort? Does it sound in law, which is more maybe strict, rigid, or damages? This has to do
[01:56:29.140 --> 01:56:38.420]  with different canons of law. It's not a jurisdictional issue. I have been involved in cases before
[01:56:38.420 --> 01:56:49.620]  where apparently on the surface an issue may at first glance appear to sound in equity, for
[01:56:49.620 --> 01:56:57.460]  example, which would be something where you're being ordered to do something. Well, as it turns
[01:56:57.460 --> 01:57:05.460]  out, it may actually sound in trust. It may appear at first glance that it sounds in some kind of
[01:57:05.460 --> 01:57:11.060]  tort damage, but then it turns out that, well, actually when you really look into it, it actually
[01:57:11.060 --> 01:57:18.020]  sounds in trust where there's a breach of fiduciary duty. Okay. It's not really a tort claim. It's a
[01:57:18.020 --> 01:57:24.580]  breach of fiduciary duty where a fiduciary had an obligation to do something and didn't do it, or
[01:57:24.580 --> 01:57:30.900]  there was it caused damage to the beneficiary. That's not a tort claim. That sounds in breach
[01:57:30.900 --> 01:57:36.100]  of fiduciary duty. It sounds in trust. Okay. So the different areas of law, there's different
[01:57:36.100 --> 01:57:42.020]  canons of law. It's not a jurisdictional issue. So when the judge is saying, I don't know whether to
[01:57:42.020 --> 01:57:47.700]  rule in equity or to rule in law, it's not a jurisdiction. He's trying to determine does the
[01:57:47.700 --> 01:57:55.780]  situation at hand sound in equity or does it sound in law? It has to do with the canons or the
[01:57:55.780 --> 01:58:02.900]  different areas of law that the situation would apply, the law would apply to. What's the proper
[01:58:02.900 --> 01:58:12.100]  canon of law to apply to the facts? Remember, the judge applies the law to the facts. Okay.
[01:58:12.100 --> 01:58:16.580]  Not the other way around. So that's what it has to do with. It's not a jurisdictional issue.
[01:58:16.580 --> 01:58:22.820]  It's about different canons of law. Does that make sense? Randy, am I explaining this correctly?
[01:58:22.820 --> 01:58:29.460]  Yes. And Tom, can you call back tomorrow night because you touched on something that I really
[01:58:29.460 --> 01:58:37.140]  want to address. What you implied is equity really concerns me. Okay. We're out of time. I've only
[01:58:37.140 --> 01:58:41.540]  got about 10 seconds and I've got a bunch of callers. I'm sorry guys. Can you call back tomorrow
[01:58:41.540 --> 01:58:46.740]  night? We've got a four-hour show. We'll be able to get to everybody. Sorry, we were out of time.
[01:58:46.740 --> 01:58:49.140]  Randy Kelton. David Stevens? Yeah.
[01:58:50.420 --> 01:58:56.900]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.900 --> 01:59:02.340]  Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.340 --> 01:59:08.420]  what the Bible says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.420 --> 01:59:16.740]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:16.740 --> 01:59:25.060]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000
[01:59:25.060 --> 01:59:30.820]  cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is
[01:59:30.820 --> 01:59:35.940]  truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version,
[01:59:35.940 --> 01:59:49.220]  call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.220 --> 02:00:04.500]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.