ROL_2018-01-19_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:07.920]  The following news flash is brought to you by the Lowstar Lowdown.
[00:07.920 --> 00:13.000]  Markets for Monday, 8th of January, 2018, opened with gold at $1,320.00 and two cents
[00:13.000 --> 00:22.080]  an ounce, silver $17.20 an ounce, Texas Crude $61.44 a barrel, Bitcoin $16,020.30, while
[00:22.080 --> 00:34.800]  Bitcoin cash is at $2,757.56, finally dash coins at $1,284.36, a crypto coin.
[00:34.800 --> 00:40.640]  Today in history, the year 1835, the United States government national debt is zero for
[00:40.640 --> 00:45.720]  the first time and presumably only time in the government's existence. Zero government
[00:45.720 --> 00:50.440]  debt? Today in history.
[00:50.440 --> 00:54.320]  In recent news, the president will undergo a two-hour physical exam which will include
[00:54.320 --> 00:58.480]  urine blood analysis, cardiac evaluation, and some more personal prying with sleeping
[00:58.480 --> 01:02.880]  habits and even his romantic life being discussed with the multi-administration presidential
[01:02.880 --> 01:06.720]  physician. It seems the president may be wanting to later rest. The recent lineup of
[01:06.720 --> 01:11.160]  criticisms questioning his mental health and stability, apparently some of the president's
[01:11.160 --> 01:15.560]  more recent tweets directed towards North Korea's Kim Jong-un and the author of the
[01:15.560 --> 01:19.680]  book Fire and Fury, Michael Wolfe, has many thinking that the president should perhaps
[01:19.680 --> 01:23.000]  be more articulate and less rash with his tweets.
[01:23.000 --> 01:30.400]  U.S. Justice Court Judge Gloria Nambara dismissed cases against Nevada rancher Clive and Bundy
[01:30.400 --> 01:34.960]  as two sons and a Montana militiaman today. Judge ruled that the government's lawyers
[01:34.960 --> 01:40.200]  suppressed footage from several cameras that were set up by the FBI around the Bundy's
[01:40.200 --> 01:44.200]  family home that would have been favorable in the defendant's case when Mr. Bundy was
[01:44.200 --> 01:48.600]  released today Monday after leaving the courthouse. He told reporters that I've been a political
[01:48.600 --> 01:53.360]  prisoner for 700 days. He hadn't seen his wife for nearly two years due to the fact
[01:53.360 --> 01:57.480]  that he had refused any conditional release, which required him to forfeit his trial by
[01:57.480 --> 02:01.200]  jury rights.
[02:01.200 --> 02:05.560]  Former Google engineer James D'Amour filed a class action lawsuit against the Alphabet
[02:05.560 --> 02:10.280]  Corporation on Monday, claiming that it discriminates against white men and those with conservative
[02:10.280 --> 02:14.880]  leaning views. D'Amour was terminated for dismantling a memo, essentially questioning
[02:14.880 --> 02:19.560]  the company's diversity policies. The suit is basically arguing that Google employees
[02:19.560 --> 02:24.320]  who express views deviating from corporate sentiments on politics and practices like
[02:24.320 --> 02:30.880]  diversity hiring policies by a sensitivity and social justice were singled out, mistreated
[02:30.880 --> 02:35.400]  and systematically punished and terminated from Google. Google spokesman Tasha Part
[02:35.400 --> 02:40.800]  sent a response that we look forward to defending against Mr. D'Amour's lawsuit in court.
[02:40.800 --> 02:46.440]  If you'd like to help out the Lone Star Lowdown with some reporting or advertising, feel free
[02:46.440 --> 02:54.400]  to give me a call at 210-363-2257. This was brick roadie with your Lowdown for January
[02:54.400 --> 03:23.400]  8th, 2018.
[03:24.400 --> 03:35.840]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, rule of law radio on this Friday, the 19th day of
[03:35.840 --> 03:43.320]  January 2018. Did I start out by saying this is rule of law radio? Anyway, this is rule
[03:43.320 --> 03:50.160]  of law radio, our four hour info marathon. We have phone lines open, they will be open
[03:50.160 --> 03:56.000]  all night. We're starting out with an empty bridge, sometimes we start out with not so
[03:56.000 --> 04:05.440]  empty but today it is and I was actually prepared for that. I wanted to go through as much as
[04:05.440 --> 04:18.000]  I can in the time that is allotted the e-book that I have available to listeners from Lowdown
[04:18.000 --> 04:23.480]  for your network. We had someone last night who was struggling with different issues and
[04:23.480 --> 04:30.080]  I suggested that he look at the resources that we have from rule of law radio and one
[04:30.080 --> 04:41.920]  in which was the e-book, also Dr. Graves' jurisdictionary and of course E80's traffic
[04:41.920 --> 04:52.360]  seminar. Dr. Graves' jurisdictionary shows how to file motions, how to create motions,
[04:52.360 --> 04:58.520]  how to get them put on for hearing, all these details you need to know when you get into
[04:58.520 --> 05:05.720]  the out of law school and into the practice of law. Most of this stuff is not taught in
[05:05.720 --> 05:15.520]  law school so you have to kind of get out and learn it on your own. Dr. Graves speaks
[05:15.520 --> 05:28.920]  to the topic from the perspective of a lawyer. He was a lawyer for 20 years and his perspective
[05:28.920 --> 05:35.040]  is the lawyer's perspective. I go back and talk to some of the issues he doesn't address
[05:35.040 --> 05:42.920]  and I talk about them from a process perspective which is quite a bit different and one of
[05:42.920 --> 05:51.720]  the things we need to understand going in or we need to deal with are certain common
[05:51.720 --> 06:02.360]  fallacies that are held by people concerning the nature of law. Oh my goodness, looks like
[06:02.360 --> 06:11.120]  I'm not going to get very far because it looks like my caller board is full. Am I to take
[06:11.120 --> 06:23.960]  that as a commentary on my 101 e-book oratory? I guess I should. If we run out of calls later
[06:23.960 --> 06:28.720]  tonight I'll go back and go through the e-book. Let me just say the first things I wanted
[06:28.720 --> 06:38.440]  to go to is some fallacies or misconceptions. One is that the Constitution grants you certain
[06:38.440 --> 06:45.800]  immeasurable rights. It does no such thing. The system is fair. English is spoken in court.
[06:45.800 --> 06:51.400]  In your case you have the law and the facts on your side. These are some common fallacies
[06:51.400 --> 06:59.120]  that we want to dispel and the last one is that your lawyer is on your side. Then we'll
[06:59.120 --> 07:05.480]  go to how to think about court, what they don't teach in law school. Practice law is
[07:05.480 --> 07:11.760]  all about the money. Practice law is not taught in law school. Lawyers are terrified of judges
[07:11.760 --> 07:21.720]  and lawyers share experience. It's just not like you're led to believe if you watch these
[07:21.720 --> 07:29.680]  lawyer programs on TV. Okay, I've got a whole board for callers. I'm going to go ahead
[07:29.680 --> 07:37.800]  and start going to the callers. I'm not sure if my screener is screening them. I'll just
[07:37.800 --> 07:49.800]  go ahead and pick them up just as if he is. Okay, Olivier, are you there? Yeah, I'm here.
[07:49.800 --> 08:01.840]  Okay, what do you have for us today? I have. I was calling reference to the paper where
[08:01.840 --> 08:08.800]  I was going to just see if you had a chance to look at it. My first question is off. Okay,
[08:08.800 --> 08:15.800]  give us a synopsis of where you at. Remember, we're on live radio and this is not a private
[08:15.800 --> 08:23.440]  phone conversation, so we've got to give everybody a synopsis of what the situation's
[08:23.440 --> 08:35.480]  about. I had to take a plea agreement to get out of jail. Underneath that agreement, I
[08:35.480 --> 08:42.480]  guess the defendant has a right to appeal certified question of law, which would be
[08:42.480 --> 08:52.200]  dispositive of the case to the appeals court. Okay, and you took an agreement and I wanted
[08:52.200 --> 09:02.280]  to see the conditions of the agreement. He was concerned that if he filed this, you know,
[09:02.280 --> 09:08.200]  what did you call it, this question of law? Yeah, certified question of law. Certified
[09:08.200 --> 09:16.080]  question of law that it would somehow negate his plea agreement. And I saw nothing in the
[09:16.080 --> 09:21.040]  plea agreement that wasn't just standard. And there was nothing that I could find in
[09:21.040 --> 09:27.640]  there that kept you from adjudicating any rights that you may have. And I was looking
[09:27.640 --> 09:37.360]  at it because even if there were, because you're in jail and you're being coerced by
[09:37.360 --> 09:43.880]  being in jail, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you signed. If it's not consumable,
[09:43.880 --> 09:52.120]  you can challenge it. But I found nothing to challenge in there. There were no stipulations
[09:52.120 --> 10:04.240]  to this agreement at all. So it looks to me like your hands aren't tied in the least.
[10:04.240 --> 10:20.320]  Did you get the chance to look at the question? No, I didn't. But I'm going to go in there
[10:20.320 --> 10:25.360]  and look at it right now. If you want to hang on a bit, let me take another call. And while
[10:25.360 --> 10:32.440]  I'm doing that, I will pull that up and go through it. Okay. Yeah, because I had a,
[10:32.440 --> 10:38.160]  I know you told me before that the locomotion argument didn't include certain things. And
[10:38.160 --> 10:44.680]  but I have, I had time to sit down and research it. I came, I found a couple of cases, one
[10:44.680 --> 10:52.080]  case, which basically sets it out clearly, the difference between travel and locomotion.
[10:52.080 --> 10:58.360]  Okay. Recent, oh wait, I think I found it. No, I am not finding it. Will you resend that
[10:58.360 --> 11:09.600]  to me? It's buried way down in my email somewhere. All right. All right. You resend that statute
[11:09.600 --> 11:16.000]  to me. I'll send you a link to it if you can, rather than just a statute number. It's on
[11:16.000 --> 11:25.040]  there. It takes me a little bit longer to chase these. Okay. We can go ahead and talk
[11:25.040 --> 11:34.680]  about a right to travel in Tennessee. Now, there is the case that we referenced. What
[11:34.680 --> 11:40.920]  was the name of the case that laid out Tennessee's position on right to travel?
[11:40.920 --> 11:43.920]  Hey, versus Bonner?
[11:43.920 --> 11:53.840]  Bonner, yes. And in that one, they said that the requirement to get a driver's license
[11:53.840 --> 12:01.440]  did not interfere with the right to travel because the right to, they, they claimed that
[12:01.440 --> 12:12.800]  the right to travel only went to the right to freely travel from one state to another.
[12:12.800 --> 12:24.720]  What I did not get in the motion or the order was how they got to the right to travel being
[12:24.720 --> 12:33.040]  defined as the right to travel between one state and another. But even with that said,
[12:33.040 --> 12:41.240]  they went on to address the fact that even within the state, it didn't, it did not restrict
[12:41.240 --> 12:54.240]  your right to travel per se, but merely restricted how you could prosecute that travel. That
[12:54.240 --> 13:00.840]  the state had an inherent right in protecting the safety of the public. And because of that,
[13:00.840 --> 13:10.000]  they could issue this licensing requirement in order to ensure that a driver before they
[13:10.000 --> 13:19.080]  entered the roadways legally was competent and understood the traffic laws, competent
[13:19.080 --> 13:27.440]  to operate the vehicle and understood the traffic laws. That that was a, a blanket requirement
[13:27.440 --> 13:40.960]  so they didn't single anyone out for special, for a special application of the law and the,
[13:40.960 --> 13:50.080]  the law's not a place. Anyway, and it didn't restrict your right to travel or it didn't
[13:50.080 --> 13:54.760]  deny your right to travel, it just restricted specifically how you could do it. For instance,
[13:54.760 --> 14:03.280]  they'd frown on you driving down an interstate with a tank. And few people could object that
[14:03.280 --> 14:10.240]  that's a, that's not necessarily denying in your, you and your right to travel, it's
[14:10.240 --> 14:21.560]  just putting certain conditions on how you can execute that travel. Okay. Okay. What
[14:21.560 --> 14:30.200]  is your position? Okay. So this says that they can require you to have a license. And
[14:30.200 --> 14:39.000]  it doesn't restrict now. I'm taking it that in right to travel, you're going somewhere
[14:39.000 --> 14:40.000]  else.
[14:40.000 --> 14:49.920]  It's not a right to travel. It's a right of most travel. The reason that it falls underneath
[14:49.920 --> 14:56.120]  the right to travel, because the courts have said that it has to be some type of rule or
[14:56.120 --> 15:02.280]  regulation that they put in. The, the mode of course, hold on, hold on, hold on. You
[15:02.280 --> 15:11.720]  used a pronoun there that confused me. You said I take it it referred to travel. It has
[15:11.720 --> 15:21.280]  to be some kind of rule. It has to be a regulation or a law which restricts someone from going
[15:21.280 --> 15:28.920]  to somewhere. How you get there is your means of locomotion. Travel is actually the act
[15:28.920 --> 15:36.760]  itself. So if I say that if there's a rule that you cannot go to McDonald area after
[15:36.760 --> 15:42.960]  six o'clock and it's in writing and some type of ordinance or something, they have restricted
[15:42.960 --> 15:48.400]  your right to interstate travel. Intrastate, STD.
[15:48.400 --> 15:57.040]  Intrastate travel as opposed to inter, inter being between states. Okay.
[15:57.040 --> 16:02.960]  Right. I read, I read one case where the guy went to another state and picked up his indigent
[16:02.960 --> 16:08.680]  cousin and brought him back. When he brought him back, the state fined him and gave him
[16:08.680 --> 16:17.280]  30 days in jail because he brought an indigent defendant into the state without a, a, a, authority
[16:17.280 --> 16:24.280]  or, or, or right. He challenged that on the right to, on the right to interstate travel
[16:24.280 --> 16:31.920]  and they awarded it because there, there was a specific code which prohibited him from
[16:31.920 --> 16:38.920]  that act of going to another state and picking up a family member.
[16:38.920 --> 16:49.160]  Okay. That went to right to travel. Right. Not, not locomotion. Not locomotion. That's
[16:49.160 --> 17:00.120]  right to travel. Okay. How does locomotion, how does it sit with this particular?
[17:00.120 --> 17:06.680]  Thank cookie. Cookie? Me love cookies. Oh, hi, Cookie Muncher. No, these are yucky cookies.
[17:06.680 --> 17:11.920]  Cookies? Yucky? No, no bad cookies. You can't even eat these cookies. These are cyber
[17:11.920 --> 17:17.160]  cookies. No, can't you eat? No, they are cyber cookies and they clog up your computer.
[17:17.160 --> 17:24.640]  These have apples. Really? Oh, that's an actual apple. Hmm, yummy apple. I'm going to throw
[17:24.640 --> 17:31.040]  away these yucky cookies in the trash. I click control, shift, delete and then scroll down
[17:31.040 --> 17:38.120]  to cookies and clear them. Bye bye yucky cookies. Now I go to logosradionetwork.com and I click
[17:38.120 --> 17:43.720]  on the Amazon box on the upper right hand side, bookmark the link and I can go to Amazon
[17:43.720 --> 17:49.520]  through this link and order you some yummy new cookie. No cookies for me. Consider it
[17:49.520 --> 17:54.360]  an early Christmas present and every time I order on Amazon, I go through this link
[17:54.360 --> 18:01.200]  and I give a little present to this radio network too. These are cookies. Are you being
[18:01.200 --> 18:06.560]  harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors
[18:06.560 --> 18:11.640]  now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears has won six cases in federal
[18:11.640 --> 18:16.600]  court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step by step instructions
[18:16.600 --> 18:21.840]  in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute. What to do when
[18:21.840 --> 18:26.920]  contacted by phones, mail or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How
[18:26.920 --> 18:31.040]  to get debt collectors out of your credit report? How to turn the financial tables on
[18:31.040 --> 18:37.000]  them and make them pay you to go away? The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[18:37.000 --> 18:41.640]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[18:41.640 --> 18:46.960]  information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[18:46.960 --> 18:56.400]  or email Michael Mears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[18:56.400 --> 19:18.040]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:26.400 --> 19:56.160]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelfin, rule of law radio on this
[19:56.160 --> 20:06.760]  the 19th day of January 2018 and we're talking to Olivier in Tennessee. And Randolph Cliff
[20:06.760 --> 20:13.840]  there again. Okay, we were talking about the difference between travel and locomotion. Can
[20:13.840 --> 20:36.160]  you just explain the difference between the two? Okay, that's a restriction of a right
[20:36.160 --> 20:48.360]  to travel. What does right to travel mean? Right to travel means that you have the ability
[20:48.360 --> 21:00.040]  to leave one place and go to another and inhabit that place without any unfair restriction
[21:00.040 --> 21:07.280]  on being there or if they're coming or going from that other place. Okay, so the ability
[21:07.280 --> 21:18.440]  of the right to travel, okay, don't like calling it a right to travel because it implies it's
[21:18.440 --> 21:25.120]  something that can be granted or taken away. But then I guess that's correct. It is. Okay,
[21:25.120 --> 21:34.920]  the ability to move from place to place. Now, what is the definition of locomotion as it
[21:34.920 --> 21:47.480]  relates to travel? Locomotion is the way that you travel. If you're in locomotion by using
[21:47.480 --> 21:54.040]  your feet, you're in locomotion by using a bicycle, you're in locomotion by using a horse,
[21:54.040 --> 21:59.040]  you're in locomotion when you use a carriage, you're in locomotion when you use a wagon,
[21:59.040 --> 22:08.000]  you're in locomotion when you use a skateboard or a skate. Okay. And you're in locomotion
[22:08.000 --> 22:23.680]  when you use an automobile. Okay, now, we have case law that says the state has an
[22:23.680 --> 22:35.760]  inherent interest in how a person travels on the highways. The problem with these definitions
[22:35.760 --> 22:47.280]  is travels on the highway only goes to ingress or egress. Okay, this definition moving from
[22:47.280 --> 23:01.040]  place to place. So I don't understand the difference. Moving from place to place and
[23:01.040 --> 23:07.280]  travel is essentially the same thing, but travel appears, I mean, locomotion appears
[23:07.280 --> 23:22.080]  to have some methodology component to it. The whole thing about it is locomotion includes
[23:22.080 --> 23:29.800]  the normal use of the day of travel. That's what locomotion because they knew that the
[23:29.800 --> 23:36.680]  means of our locomotion was going to change. Okay. Underneath the definition of local
[23:36.680 --> 23:43.360]  protection of locomotion is any usual mode of means to travel that is not being used
[23:43.360 --> 23:49.840]  as business purposes because there's an extra ordinary use and there's an ordinary use.
[23:49.840 --> 23:55.800]  We have the right to use the streets and highways and it's ordinary use. It's ordinary use is
[23:55.800 --> 24:03.200]  to go from one place and locomotion to the next. And if you use your automobile for that,
[24:03.200 --> 24:08.000]  you're not underneath the driver's license agreement. The driver's license agreement
[24:08.000 --> 24:15.160]  is for the extra ordinary, which the state has the police authority to police to regulate
[24:15.160 --> 24:22.880]  underneath that police authority. So if you use the roads for profit, you fall underneath
[24:22.880 --> 24:33.720]  that driver's license requirement. So now you're required to have a driver's license
[24:33.720 --> 24:39.240]  because you're using the road in an extra ordinary sense, which you don't have the right
[24:39.240 --> 24:43.840]  to unless you go to the state's authorities and get their permission.
[24:43.840 --> 24:58.680]  This seems to conflict with, was it Bonner? Right. Bonner said, I reread Bonner and what
[24:58.680 --> 25:07.880]  Bonner said was that his argument did not match the right to travel because the state
[25:07.880 --> 25:20.600]  wrote the legislation properly. The officer enacted the offense without proper authority
[25:20.600 --> 25:26.560]  underneath that statute, but that statute was not written in a way that denied the right
[25:26.560 --> 25:31.680]  to travel. So that's why they denied it. They said that the right to travel is more than
[25:31.680 --> 25:35.920]  the right to locomotion, but they didn't explain the right to locomotion. They just threw it
[25:35.920 --> 25:41.840]  in there to say, oh, okay, we covered the basis. Your right to travel argument is more
[25:41.840 --> 25:47.600]  than the right to locomotion. You're trying to make the argument of locomotion, but you
[25:47.600 --> 25:54.360]  did not make it correctly. The state wrote the statute to regulate people who are engaged
[25:54.360 --> 26:01.080]  in commerce and profit of the roads, which is extra ordinary. Those things fall underneath
[26:01.080 --> 26:07.760]  their licensed authority. Everybody else falls underneath the rules of the road because we
[26:07.760 --> 26:15.520]  are the ones who they hold the roads and trust for. So they cannot deny us something that
[26:15.520 --> 26:27.560]  we have the right to do in the first place. While they cannot deny us the right to locomotion,
[26:27.560 --> 26:34.040]  can they impose restrictions on how we exercise the right to locomotion?
[26:34.040 --> 26:41.960]  Yes. The research that I've done is that it shows that the whole subject behind the police
[26:41.960 --> 26:50.200]  power is to regulate something for our use, which is equal and fair. So as far as how
[26:50.200 --> 26:56.560]  we run it... Okay, wait, wait, wait. Something for our use. What did something refer to?
[26:56.560 --> 27:03.520]  This is really important for the argument here. That implies that the state has some inherent
[27:03.520 --> 27:13.040]  power to regulate how we implement locomotion. Am I correct in that?
[27:13.040 --> 27:22.520]  Yes. So what are the limitations on the regulation that the state can do as concerns our right
[27:22.520 --> 27:33.600]  to locomotion? I'll see the stop signs, other things that will conflict harm during the
[27:33.600 --> 27:48.920]  traffic. So without denying the right to locomotion, the state can apply certain restrictions
[27:48.920 --> 27:58.360]  on how we exercise that right to locomotion. And is that not precisely what the transportation
[27:58.360 --> 28:08.280]  code would have the effect of doing? Right. It does. In the rules of the roads section,
[28:08.280 --> 28:15.160]  that's what everyone who uses... Because this is a common class, but it's divided into people
[28:15.160 --> 28:19.280]  who have an inherent right and people who have an extraordinary right because they're
[28:19.280 --> 28:31.640]  doing business. Okay. How are the two different as it goes to the enforcement of traffic loss?
[28:31.640 --> 28:41.800]  They're different because the rules of the road have all the requirements to keep the
[28:41.800 --> 28:51.480]  street safe so we can use it on an equal ground. Okay. And earlier you said that the legislature
[28:51.480 --> 29:03.320]  could impose regulations on locomotion, which is not extraordinary use. Right. Yes. But
[29:03.320 --> 29:13.640]  according to the use of the road... Okay. We're about to go to break. When we come
[29:13.640 --> 29:20.760]  back, I want to talk about how that's significant because at this point I don't see how it's
[29:20.760 --> 29:28.520]  significant because it appears as though the state has the right to apply traffic loss
[29:28.520 --> 29:35.320]  to locomotion. And so when we come back, I want to talk about how this restricts their
[29:35.320 --> 29:43.000]  right to apply those... The traffic code. I think I know the answer, but I want to bring
[29:43.000 --> 29:50.360]  it out here so it makes sense to everybody. Hang on. Randy Kelton, Rood of Law Radio,
[29:50.360 --> 30:05.080]  call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back. An apple a day may keep the doctor away,
[30:05.080 --> 30:09.880]  but did you know there's a candy out there that may help cure a cough and heal an ulcer?
[30:09.880 --> 30:15.160]  And Dr. Kaepernalbrecht, back to tell you about the mystery medicinal candy right after this.
[30:15.160 --> 30:21.480]  Poverty is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:21.480 --> 30:25.880]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:26.520 --> 30:31.880]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:31.880 --> 30:37.320]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[30:37.320 --> 30:45.400]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[30:45.400 --> 30:50.440]  It's licorice. For many Americans, the word conjures up the candy we lunched on at the movie
[30:50.440 --> 30:55.320]  theater as kids. But did you know that black licorice root can cure a host of illnesses?
[30:55.320 --> 31:01.400]  Get out your notebook because the list is long. Licorice alleviates heartburn, ulcers, bronchitis,
[31:01.400 --> 31:07.480]  sore throat, cough, Addison's disease, and hepatitis B. It eases the effects of menopause,
[31:07.480 --> 31:12.360]  curbs the parasites that cause malaria, and has even been prescribed for pesticide poisoning
[31:12.360 --> 31:18.200]  in China. Just remember that black licorice root is a medicinal herb, not candy. And eating too
[31:18.200 --> 31:22.920]  much can spike your blood pressure or lead to heart problems. As with most things in life,
[31:22.920 --> 31:31.880]  moderation is the key. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[31:52.920 --> 32:01.880]  888-910-4367 and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at SQSA.org.
[32:22.920 --> 32:31.880]  888-910-4367 and see what we can do for you only at SQSA.org.
[32:52.920 --> 33:01.880]  888-910-4367 and see what we can do for you only at SQSA.org.
[33:23.000 --> 33:32.520]  Randy Kelton, Rural Law Radio. On this 19th day of January 2018, and we're talking to Olivier
[33:32.520 --> 33:43.080]  in Tennessee about the difference between travel and locomotion and what authority
[33:43.080 --> 33:55.560]  the state has to regulate either. As we got to at the end of the segment, you're saying that the
[33:55.560 --> 34:06.520]  case law you're looking at does say that the state has authority to regulate how you exercise these
[34:06.520 --> 34:14.440]  rights. While they don't have the right to deny you in these rights, they can issue regulations
[34:15.240 --> 34:22.760]  to limit how you exercise the right. Would that be true from your perspective?
[34:24.520 --> 34:32.840]  Yes, that's what all the definitions are stating, the case laws are stating,
[34:32.840 --> 34:42.600]  because part of the locomotion is that you are acting in safe conduct in order to protect others'
[34:42.600 --> 34:50.760]  rights. So they cannot show that the conduct that you were supposed to do would have been a
[34:50.760 --> 34:56.920]  hazardous to someone else's rights that was used in the roads. They have no jurisdiction, Olivier.
[34:56.920 --> 35:08.680]  Okay, but that doesn't go to our primary issue, that of driver's license. And from what I read
[35:08.680 --> 35:18.120]  in Bonner, Bonner tended to indicate or specifically said the state could require a license of
[35:18.120 --> 35:27.560]  drivers for the purpose of ensuring competency and knowledge of the rules of the road.
[35:29.960 --> 35:40.200]  Okay, the state said they can do that. And now, traditionally in our arguments in this area,
[35:40.200 --> 35:48.520]  we say that rules of the road don't apply to us. So that would create an inherent contradiction.
[35:48.520 --> 35:55.560]  How do you get around that? No, the rules of the road, I never said the rules of the road
[35:55.560 --> 36:00.680]  don't apply to us. It's just the driver's license requirement doesn't apply to us.
[36:00.680 --> 36:11.480]  Okay, the courts, when I read Bonner about the license, the state merely said that you had to
[36:11.480 --> 36:19.560]  have one in order to do this right to travel and only for the purpose of ensuring competency.
[36:20.920 --> 36:29.720]  That's a safety issue. They didn't go any further than that. Now, a commercial driver,
[36:29.720 --> 36:37.080]  they have a lot of restrictions and a lot of things they must do by keeping a log for one thing.
[36:38.040 --> 36:42.840]  And they can only drive for so many hours at a stretch and we don't have those restrictions.
[36:44.120 --> 36:47.480]  So what is your issue here?
[36:51.480 --> 36:57.240]  You're saying that the states can't issue this license? I looked at it kind of like a gun license.
[36:57.240 --> 37:04.360]  The state put some, they didn't deny you in your right to own weapons, but they put some restrictions
[37:04.360 --> 37:13.720]  on how you could own those weapons. I wanted to look at that part next because from the
[37:13.720 --> 37:20.520]  understanding that I got from the research, yes, the state can require regulation for commerce. And
[37:20.520 --> 37:28.760]  it did. Now, the thing that, the problem is that it was applied incorrectly, which violates the
[37:28.760 --> 37:34.520]  Equal Potential Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Because it's
[37:34.520 --> 37:43.320]  there, it's just... Okay, it was applied. Are you speaking to the transportation code or the
[37:43.320 --> 37:52.440]  licensing requirement? The transportation code. They're right to regulate the road.
[37:53.080 --> 38:00.120]  They, I mean, the state created the transportation code correct. It was for,
[38:00.920 --> 38:08.760]  it's to regulate certain people. But their state officials or the authorities that they give the
[38:08.760 --> 38:17.720]  power to regulate that, does it discriminately and puts everyone underneath the regulation
[38:17.720 --> 38:23.400]  except the people that are, besides the people that are required to be underneath the regulation?
[38:24.680 --> 38:31.640]  Okay. Now, let me make sure I've got this right. The state has an inherent right to require the
[38:31.640 --> 38:42.520]  license. The state can apply the motor vehicle laws. They can require the license to ensure
[38:42.520 --> 38:52.120]  competency and knowledge of the motor vehicle laws. And the state can apply the motor vehicle laws
[38:52.120 --> 39:03.240]  to those exercising extraordinary use of the highways, i.e. travel. But they cannot apply
[39:03.240 --> 39:11.720]  regulation of those rules of the road to a person who is not in extraordinary travel,
[39:11.720 --> 39:17.560]  but he's just in ordinary travel. So the state can require that you know what these rules are,
[39:17.560 --> 39:27.720]  even if you're not in commerce, but they can't necessarily enforce those rules against you.
[39:27.720 --> 39:33.800]  Am I, is that correct? Would that be a? No, they could. They could have forced the rules
[39:33.800 --> 39:46.440]  against you, which are fair regulation. But if a license is considered a regulation that restricts
[39:46.440 --> 39:56.120]  your freedom or your right to do something. Okay. If I, if I secure a license to operate an automobile,
[39:56.120 --> 40:01.080]  what right of mine is restricted by securing that license?
[40:03.640 --> 40:07.560]  Well, the license is for a motor vehicle. When you read the, when you read the code,
[40:07.560 --> 40:12.840]  it's, it's state vehicle and motor vehicle. The courts have ruled that motor vehicles are
[40:12.840 --> 40:23.560]  for use for hire or commerce. Okay. So I don't answer my question. Okay. Question is
[40:24.440 --> 40:31.720]  the in securing a license. How is my right? How are my rights affected?
[40:33.720 --> 40:40.040]  Your rights are not affected because you, you acquired a right to do something else.
[40:40.040 --> 40:44.760]  You acquired a right to do business. It doesn't affect your right to emotion.
[40:45.640 --> 40:51.720]  Okay. So you would not argue then that the requirement to secure a license interferes
[40:51.720 --> 40:55.480]  with your any rights? No.
[40:57.320 --> 41:00.840]  So, okay, we've got that out of the way. They can require us to get a license. Now,
[41:03.000 --> 41:07.480]  the way I read this and the way I understand your arguments is,
[41:07.480 --> 41:14.280]  and Bonner said they could require us to get that license so that we first have to demonstrate
[41:15.480 --> 41:22.440]  competency in operating a motor vehicle and we demonstrate knowledge of the rules of road,
[41:22.440 --> 41:30.520]  of the road. So far, I don't see how any rights are interfered with.
[41:30.520 --> 41:39.480]  Okay. So what is the argument here at the end?
[41:43.240 --> 41:44.040]  Or the issue?
[41:51.880 --> 41:56.840]  Are you there? Can you hear me? Yeah, I can.
[41:56.840 --> 42:04.600]  Okay. Drivers are the category, right? There's two different categories
[42:04.600 --> 42:10.280]  underneath the category of driver. One is one who's in local motion and the other one
[42:10.280 --> 42:15.880]  is the one who's engaged in commerce. The one who's engaged in commerce
[42:18.280 --> 42:26.520]  is their vehicles are known as motor vehicles because they're used to do
[42:26.520 --> 42:32.040]  something extraordinary. So they might have different requirements that they need to know
[42:32.040 --> 42:40.280]  about in order to use their motor vehicle correctly. The other side is local motion.
[42:40.280 --> 42:46.120]  People who have a right to use the road, but we can't use the roads any way how we want to.
[42:46.120 --> 42:52.280]  I can't get on the highway and drive 200 miles down the highway just because I got the freedom
[42:52.280 --> 43:01.720]  of local motion. Okay. That seemed, I don't see what any, what issue are you bringing? What is your
[43:03.320 --> 43:06.760]  complaint or concern here? I'm not sure what it is at this point.
[43:09.000 --> 43:15.080]  The concern is that for them to require a license for you to local mode in your own property,
[43:15.080 --> 43:22.680]  which is by law lawful, restrict your right to do that thing.
[43:23.880 --> 43:32.120]  How? Because they're saying that until you go get this professional license,
[43:33.400 --> 43:39.160]  you are not able to use your your mode of transportation with this local motion.
[43:39.160 --> 43:53.640]  Okay. Now we've got an issue. But we've already, did you, if you agreed with Bonner,
[43:55.800 --> 44:03.160]  Bonner essentially said the state had it. At Capital Corn and Boolean, our mission is to
[44:03.160 --> 44:06.760]  be your preferred shopping destination by delivering excellent customer service and
[44:06.760 --> 44:11.320]  outstanding value at an affordable price. We provide a wide assortment of favorite products
[44:11.320 --> 44:15.720]  featuring a great selection of high quality coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in
[44:15.720 --> 44:20.520]  coin collecting as well as large transactions for investors. We believe in educating our customers
[44:20.520 --> 44:25.160]  with resources from top accredited metal dealers and journalists. If we don't have what you're
[44:25.160 --> 44:30.120]  looking for, we can find it. In addition, we carry popular young Jeopardy products such as
[44:30.120 --> 44:35.560]  Beyond Tangy Tangerine and Pollen Burst. We also offer one World Way, Mountain House storeable foods,
[44:35.560 --> 44:40.200]  Berkey water products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. We broke through Metal's
[44:40.200 --> 44:47.000]  IRA accounts and we also accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located
[44:47.000 --> 44:52.600]  at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through Friday,
[44:52.600 --> 44:59.480]  10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBoolean.com or call 512-646-6440.
[44:59.480 --> 45:07.480]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[45:07.480 --> 45:13.880]  the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how, in 24 hours,
[45:13.880 --> 45:19.960]  you step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have
[45:19.960 --> 45:26.040]  a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course,
[45:26.040 --> 45:33.240]  and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[45:33.240 --> 45:39.000]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:39.000 --> 45:44.600]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[45:44.600 --> 45:52.280]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro-save tactics, and much more.
[45:52.280 --> 46:08.200]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:22.520 --> 46:34.680]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton of rule of law radio, and we're talking to Olivier in Tennessee.
[46:34.680 --> 46:46.360]  Okay, Olivier, I seem to be going in a circle here. You stipulated that it was your belief that the
[46:46.360 --> 46:59.400]  state could apply the rules of the road to you. You're just saying your argument then is that
[47:02.360 --> 47:14.120]  my rights to locomotion is being restricted if I don't first get a license. So we're not talking
[47:14.120 --> 47:17.800]  about after you've got a license and you're moving on the road that your rights are restricted,
[47:17.800 --> 47:26.360]  but your right to travel is restricted until you get a license, and you're saying they don't
[47:26.360 --> 47:39.720]  have an inherent authority to do that. Am I correct? Yes. Now that is an interesting argument.
[47:39.720 --> 47:47.720]  That's the whole concept about the arbitrary invasion of governmental intrusion, because
[47:47.720 --> 47:55.960]  they mean that they have a law or regulation, but they use it improperly. The law can be valid,
[47:55.960 --> 47:59.720]  but it's invalid when it's applied to a certain group of people,
[48:01.560 --> 48:05.480]  and that's considered the equal protection clause, violating the equal protection.
[48:05.480 --> 48:12.200]  Now this would be a nice thing to take Tennessee to the Fed over.
[48:14.440 --> 48:19.800]  So I'm thinking of how to structure this.
[48:23.240 --> 48:29.320]  Going back to Harman Taylor, who teaches that everything's by contract.
[48:29.320 --> 48:36.760]  Once you secure the license, you entered into a contract with the state
[48:38.200 --> 48:45.080]  to allow them to regulate how you exercise one of your rights,
[48:46.680 --> 48:50.840]  but if you haven't gotten that license, you haven't entered into the contract with them.
[48:50.840 --> 49:03.000]  Right. Another big important thing is that that contract that you signed is for a motor vehicle.
[49:04.440 --> 49:10.520]  So if you're not on the road using a motor vehicle, they cannot get you for suspended
[49:10.520 --> 49:18.280]  violations because you're not trying to tackle, you know, only the capacity. Okay, well, okay, that's
[49:18.280 --> 49:31.400]  essentially where we were going. Okay, hold on. That kind of contradicts your own argument
[49:31.400 --> 49:41.800]  that once you enter into the license agreement, then the law has an inherent
[49:41.800 --> 49:51.560]  right to regulate how you locomote. So you're saying they only have the inherent right to
[49:51.560 --> 50:00.440]  regulate how you travel and not how you locomote. So if you're locomoting down the highway at 90
[50:00.440 --> 50:09.080]  miles an hour in heavy traffic, would the rules of the road apply to you?
[50:10.920 --> 50:15.400]  Yes, because there's other people on the road. The rules of the road.
[50:15.400 --> 50:18.840]  No, no, no, no, no, wait, that's a logical argument. I understand a logical argument.
[50:18.840 --> 50:23.560]  We're not talking about logical arguments here. We started talking about law and how it's written.
[50:23.560 --> 50:31.160]  These laws do not specifically apply to me just because they're rational and reasonable.
[50:33.320 --> 50:39.080]  They apply to me because they fit within some kind of structure,
[50:40.440 --> 50:50.200]  some kind of agreed upon restriction. I don't see how they apply. I see how the state can
[50:50.200 --> 51:00.280]  require me to get a license, but that just is in order to get the license, you must
[51:00.280 --> 51:08.520]  demonstrate a certain competency in operating a vehicle and knowledge of the rules of road.
[51:08.520 --> 51:15.640]  Okay, they can require me to have that knowledge before I go into locomotion.
[51:15.640 --> 51:23.800]  No, no, no, not locomotion. Before you use a motor vehicle, there's a difference between the
[51:23.800 --> 51:29.720]  automobile and the motor vehicle. I got that, but you're mixing these things up.
[51:31.240 --> 51:36.280]  I understand the difference between an automobile, a vehicle, and a motor vehicle.
[51:36.280 --> 51:45.880]  Commers, not commerce. Travel, locomotion. I'm saying locomotion, not travel.
[51:46.760 --> 51:51.400]  I'm saying ordinary use of the highways, not extraordinary use of the highways.
[51:52.760 --> 52:03.080]  And as I read the codes, the rules of the road are codes that apply to extraordinary use,
[52:03.080 --> 52:07.240]  not ordinary use. How do they apply to me?
[52:15.560 --> 52:19.480]  Did I lose you? How do they? How do they apply to you?
[52:20.760 --> 52:24.280]  Yeah, I'm not in travel. I'm in locomotion.
[52:24.280 --> 52:32.760]  Right. So the transportation code applies to travel, not locomotion.
[52:34.920 --> 52:41.720]  No, we are traveling though. The way you're traveling is the locomotion. You can travel by
[52:41.720 --> 52:47.480]  whole. I got that part. I got that part. Okay, hold on, hold on. Now, so you're not saying that
[52:47.480 --> 52:54.120]  travel, you said earlier that travel was extraordinary use, and locomotion was ordinary use.
[52:56.120 --> 52:59.800]  So now you're not making this distinction, or I misunderstood it.
[53:01.000 --> 53:05.400]  Yeah, you misunderstood it. I said the right to travel is something different. That is different
[53:05.400 --> 53:10.200]  than what we're talking about, locomotion. The right to travel, the phrase, the right to travel,
[53:10.200 --> 53:17.480]  means there's codes and restrictions, which make something that is lawfully done,
[53:18.680 --> 53:20.440]  makes you, makes it unlawful.
[53:27.400 --> 53:34.120]  One of the cases was that if a person got caught in the area in a neighborhood with drugs,
[53:34.120 --> 53:40.920]  and got convicted, some part of the convictions, they were mandatory not to go in that area.
[53:41.960 --> 53:47.320]  They restrict them from going back into that area. Okay, that comes under the black ball
[53:47.320 --> 53:55.800]  statute. You can't be black ball. Right. So they rule that it interfered with their right to interest
[53:55.800 --> 54:01.960]  they travel, because they're restricted from them from an area, not how they get there.
[54:01.960 --> 54:08.680]  They are so you cannot come in that area anymore. That's your right to travel being
[54:08.680 --> 54:17.240]  convicted. So then the application of the commercial transportation code
[54:19.000 --> 54:26.280]  is not implicated in the right to travel, because nothing in the code inherently restricts you from
[54:26.280 --> 54:35.320]  going to any place, to or from any place, only regulates how you go to and from that place.
[54:36.040 --> 54:44.920]  So the right to travel is not implicated. Okay. So the only implication is the right to locomotion.
[54:46.680 --> 54:55.640]  And your argument is not that, or at least your position is that the motor vehicle laws
[54:55.640 --> 55:04.520]  apply to you when you're in locomotion, regardless of whether or not you're using your locomoting
[55:04.520 --> 55:13.080]  in commerce in ordinary or extraordinary manner. Is that correct? Right. Yes, that's correct.
[55:13.080 --> 55:22.680]  There I tend to disagree, but for the purpose of this argument,
[55:27.240 --> 55:31.240]  you were charged with operating without a license.
[55:33.000 --> 55:37.240]  Right. How do these distinctions apply to you specifically?
[55:37.240 --> 55:47.800]  How do they apply to me? Because the one that qualification is applied is that I was engaged
[55:47.800 --> 55:57.240]  in business. Now, wait a minute. We can't, this is, that does not follow us an unsecretor.
[55:57.880 --> 56:05.560]  You've just stipulated that the transportation code applies to you, whether you're in ordinary or
[56:05.560 --> 56:11.960]  extraordinary. Now you're saying it only applies if you're in extraordinary. No, no, no, no,
[56:11.960 --> 56:18.840]  the licensing part, the licensing qualifications. There's an answer in statute and they are allowed
[56:18.840 --> 56:26.360]  to write statutes. Okay. You're using a general term there, the licensing part.
[56:26.360 --> 56:36.760]  Are you speaking to the requirement to have a license or something else or the operation
[56:36.760 --> 56:43.560]  and function under that license? Right. No, no, that was a question.
[56:45.640 --> 56:53.240]  He said, well, that requirement, the occupation, the requirement for a driver's license
[56:53.240 --> 56:59.320]  is an occupational requirement. Yes. So we got that. Extraordinary use.
[57:00.920 --> 57:09.560]  Right. But you've stipulated that the rules of the road is encapsulated in the transportation
[57:09.560 --> 57:17.320]  code applied to you, even if you're not in extraordinary use of the highway.
[57:17.320 --> 57:25.400]  Right. And they consider those as reasonable regulations to protect
[57:25.400 --> 57:32.280]  other citizens, other citizens' rights. I got that. Where are they,
[57:33.640 --> 57:40.600]  just because I'm required to secure a license before I can use the highways?
[57:40.600 --> 57:50.520]  How does that necessarily apply a commercial statute to non-commercial action?
[57:51.400 --> 57:55.240]  You've stipulated that it does and I don't see where the law does that.
[57:57.000 --> 57:59.720]  I didn't stipulate that. I guess that's what you...
[58:01.560 --> 58:05.080]  So that's the point I was trying to make. You're saying that even if I'm not in
[58:05.080 --> 58:13.000]  extraordinary operation, that those commercial statute apply to me,
[58:15.320 --> 58:17.400]  I can't run 200 miles an hour down the road.
[58:24.280 --> 58:25.160]  I'm losing you there.
[58:27.080 --> 58:31.720]  That's the thing that reasonably nets make other people safe on the roads.
[58:31.720 --> 58:40.440]  And that's the presumption. Yeah, I understand it's reasonable to have those restrictions.
[58:42.200 --> 58:47.880]  But now I'm asking, where does the legislation apply those restrictions to me?
[58:50.120 --> 58:54.040]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.040 --> 58:59.640]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.640 --> 59:04.440]  can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study
[59:04.440 --> 59:09.800]  Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that
[59:09.800 --> 59:15.560]  will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three-volume set
[59:15.560 --> 59:20.600]  called basic elements of the Christian life. Chapter by chapter, basic elements of the
[59:20.600 --> 59:26.680]  Christian life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build
[59:26.680 --> 59:32.520]  up the church. To order your free New Testament recovery version and basic elements of the
[59:32.520 --> 59:45.080]  Christian life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.080 --> 59:58.920]  Or visit us online at bfa.org. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.600 --> 01:00:06.440]  The following is flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[01:00:07.560 --> 01:00:13.640]  Markets for Monday the 8th of January 2018 open with gold at $1,320 and two cents an ounce,
[01:00:13.640 --> 01:00:22.520]  silver $17.20 an ounce, Texas Crude $61.44 a barrel, Bitcoin $16,020.30, while Bitcoin
[01:00:22.520 --> 01:00:31.160]  cashes at $2,757.56. Finally, dash coins at $1,284.36, a crypto coin.
[01:00:34.680 --> 01:00:40.840]  Today in history, the year 1835, the United States government national debt is zero for the
[01:00:40.840 --> 01:00:46.600]  first time and presumably only time in the government's existence. Zero government debt?
[01:00:46.600 --> 01:00:53.800]  Today in history. In recent news, the president will undergo a two-hour physical exam which
[01:00:53.800 --> 01:00:58.200]  will include urine blood analysis, cardiac evaluation, and some more personal prying with
[01:00:58.200 --> 01:01:02.440]  sleeping habits and even his romantic life being discussed with the multi-administration
[01:01:02.440 --> 01:01:06.840]  presidential physician. It seems the president may be wanting to later rest the recent lineup of
[01:01:06.840 --> 01:01:11.240]  criticisms questioning his mental health and stability. Apparently, some of the president's
[01:01:11.240 --> 01:01:16.440]  more recent tweets directed towards North Korea's Kim Jong-un and the author of the book Fire and
[01:01:16.440 --> 01:01:21.000]  Fury, Michael Wolfe has many thinking that the president should perhaps be more articulate
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:22.760]  and less rash with his tweets.
[01:01:25.800 --> 01:01:29.800]  U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed cases against Nevada Rancher
[01:01:29.800 --> 01:01:35.160]  Cliven Bundy, two sons and a Montana militiaman today. Judge ruled that the government's lawyers
[01:01:35.160 --> 01:01:41.080]  suppressed footage from several cameras that were set up by the FBI around the Bundy's family home
[01:01:41.080 --> 01:01:45.560]  that would have been favorable in the defendant's case. When Mr. Bundy was released today Monday
[01:01:45.560 --> 01:01:50.760]  after leaving the courthouse, he told reporters that I've been a political prisoner for 700 days.
[01:01:50.760 --> 01:01:55.000]  He hadn't seen his wife for nearly two years due to the fact that he had refused any conditional
[01:01:55.000 --> 01:01:58.280]  release which required him to forfeit his trial by jury rights.
[01:01:58.280 --> 01:02:05.560]  Former Google engineer James D'Amore filed a class action lawsuit against the Alphabet
[01:02:05.560 --> 01:02:10.360]  Corporation on Monday claiming that it discriminates against white men and those with conservative
[01:02:10.360 --> 01:02:15.080]  leaning views. D'Amore was terminated for dismantling a memo essentially questioning the
[01:02:15.080 --> 01:02:20.600]  company's diversity policies. The suit is basically arguing that Google employees who express views
[01:02:20.600 --> 01:02:26.360]  deviating from corporate sentiments on politics and practices like diversity hiring policies
[01:02:26.360 --> 01:02:32.600]  bias sensitivity and social justice were singled out mistreated and systematically punished and
[01:02:32.600 --> 01:02:37.480]  terminated from Google. Google spokesman Tasha Parr sent a response that we look forward to
[01:02:37.480 --> 01:02:43.480]  defending against Mr. D'Amore's lawsuit in court. If you'd like to help out the Lone Star
[01:02:43.480 --> 01:02:51.080]  Lowdown with some reporting or advertising feel free to give me call it 210-363-2257.
[01:02:51.080 --> 01:02:56.680]  This was quick learning with your Lowdown for January 8th, 2018.
[01:02:56.680 --> 01:03:24.600]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and we're talking to Olivier in Tennessee
[01:03:24.600 --> 01:03:32.840]  and Olivier there's places trying to get to and we're kind of going in a circle here and
[01:03:32.840 --> 01:03:38.040]  for everybody else I know we spent a long time on this but if you pay much attention to the
[01:03:38.040 --> 01:03:49.000]  legal reform movement there is a lot of energy out there applied to this travel issue and it has
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:56.280]  been a difficult argument. It's especially difficult to make this argument in a court because
[01:03:56.280 --> 01:04:04.200]  they have an inherent interest in being able to apply their laws to you and what we're trying to
[01:04:04.200 --> 01:04:13.480]  get to is some very specific ideas on how to approach this but in your case Olivier
[01:04:13.480 --> 01:04:22.760]  we've touched on this and I was trying to get back to it you're saying that the restriction
[01:04:22.760 --> 01:04:32.760]  on your right occurs before you enter into a contract with the state to have put yourself
[01:04:32.760 --> 01:04:39.960]  in a position to where you are authorized to operate in commerce or authorized to use
[01:04:39.960 --> 01:04:49.960]  the public thoroughfares in an extraordinary manner. Until you enter into that contract
[01:04:51.480 --> 01:04:57.400]  any restriction on your right would be in violation of constitution.
[01:04:59.480 --> 01:05:05.000]  Right but not only when you enter in that contract because the constitution says that you have the
[01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:11.960]  right to enjoy your right and your privileges that license is a privilege to use a motor vehicle
[01:05:11.960 --> 01:05:19.160]  and extraordinary use on the highway so that right does not interfere with your right to use
[01:05:19.160 --> 01:05:26.680]  an automobile on the highway because the right is inherent and you wait wait wait you're mixing
[01:05:26.680 --> 01:05:40.120]  up terms I think the the right to use the highways in an extraordinary manner doesn't
[01:05:40.120 --> 01:05:48.440]  interfere with what? It doesn't interfere with your right to use an automobile because the right
[01:05:48.440 --> 01:05:56.280]  though the privilege is. No wait wait wait that didn't make sense uh
[01:05:59.080 --> 01:06:02.920]  the select saying the sky doesn't interfere with the ground they don't have anything to do with
[01:06:02.920 --> 01:06:15.160]  each other or are you saying the restrictions on your right to use a automobile and extraordinary
[01:06:15.160 --> 01:06:23.480]  travel doesn't interfere doesn't affect your right to use an automobile in ordinary travel.
[01:06:25.880 --> 01:06:34.920]  Yes but extraordinary is always considered a motor vehicle. Okay I'm not understanding what
[01:06:34.920 --> 01:06:43.240]  your point here is I don't know where you're going. My point here is that you even though
[01:06:43.240 --> 01:06:50.360]  you signed the contract the contract does not relieve you of your inherent right the right
[01:06:50.360 --> 01:07:00.200]  that you had before you signed that contract. Okay then how would that right be implicated by a
[01:07:00.200 --> 01:07:09.640]  traffic stop? By on the traffic stop it would be implicated if at the time that they stopped you
[01:07:09.640 --> 01:07:15.000]  you were not in big engaged in business and they gave you a ticket before they're driving on
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:24.520]  suspending. Okay earlier you stipulated that these motor vehicles these rules of the road
[01:07:25.560 --> 01:07:35.000]  applied to you even though you were in ordinary use of the highway you couldn't drive 200 miles an
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:40.360]  hour down the highway and there's certain things you couldn't do. Now you're saying they don't
[01:07:40.360 --> 01:07:48.840]  apply. The rules of the road well the rules of the road is how we use them. Okay wait a minute
[01:07:48.840 --> 01:07:56.840]  wait a minute then you need to define rules of road I'm defining rules of road as those rules
[01:07:56.840 --> 01:08:02.680]  codified into the transportation code are you talking about something else? Yes I'm talking
[01:08:02.680 --> 01:08:08.120]  about something else just the rules the rules of the road date the courts have considered them
[01:08:08.120 --> 01:08:15.720]  as the as in the manner that we use the road for safety. Okay where would I find the rules of the
[01:08:15.720 --> 01:08:24.600]  road as opposed to the transportation code restrictions? It would be in in my in Tennessee
[01:08:24.600 --> 01:08:30.600]  where I found the rules of road it was in a regulations section just for the road it had
[01:08:30.600 --> 01:08:37.400]  nothing to do with drivers for compensation or licensing it was in a whole different section.
[01:08:38.760 --> 01:08:48.360]  Was it in the transportation code? Yes. Then that's the commercial statutory scheme you can't
[01:08:48.360 --> 01:08:56.920]  extract it out unless there's something some specific language that states that these rules
[01:08:56.920 --> 01:09:07.400]  apply to everyone regardless of whether or not they're operating in extraordinary use because
[01:09:07.400 --> 01:09:14.200]  transportation code was specifically in enacted for to regulate extraordinary use.
[01:09:15.560 --> 01:09:19.720]  So now you're generally applying them to ordinary use where is that in the code?
[01:09:19.720 --> 01:09:25.320]  Well okay nice way where you're trying to what you're trying to add.
[01:09:27.960 --> 01:09:33.000]  Yeah well let me let me back up and do a synopsis on where I'm going where I'm coming from.
[01:09:35.160 --> 01:09:39.960]  I can see where the state could require me to secure this license
[01:09:39.960 --> 01:09:50.120]  in order to ensure competency in operating the vehicle and knowledge of the rules of the road
[01:09:50.120 --> 01:09:56.600]  so that I know how to operate the vehicle safely. Okay got that. What I don't see is how they
[01:09:56.600 --> 01:10:05.960]  apply these commercial rules of the roads to me when I'm not operating in an extraordinary
[01:10:05.960 --> 01:10:13.640]  manner on the highways. I can't find that part. Now the Bonner case said they could
[01:10:14.920 --> 01:10:23.560]  pass laws to restrict how I use how I exercise the right but they didn't.
[01:10:25.240 --> 01:10:33.880]  I'm sorry how I exercise the right when not in commerce but they did not do that. I can't find
[01:10:33.880 --> 01:10:39.880]  where they did that and I can't find where they applied these rules of the road generally to me.
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:45.960]  You can't just assume they're applied the statute would have to stipulate how they're
[01:10:45.960 --> 01:10:54.760]  applied and I can't find it. Have you found it? I haven't found it where I've from through research
[01:10:55.640 --> 01:10:59.320]  I've come to find the justification that the courts have given to it.
[01:10:59.320 --> 01:11:06.520]  Yeah I understand the justification and they would be just, it's my position,
[01:11:06.520 --> 01:11:13.640]  they would be justified in doing that but our public officials do not get to apply a statutory
[01:11:13.640 --> 01:11:19.160]  scheme to us just because they think it's a good idea. That's what we got a legislature for.
[01:11:19.160 --> 01:11:29.720]  Legislature decides if it applies to us not some judge in Potom, Tennessee.
[01:11:31.320 --> 01:11:38.120]  That's one of my issues and I understand your issue about driving without a valid
[01:11:38.120 --> 01:11:43.640]  driver's license. That takes you outside the contract all together and if you haven't entered
[01:11:43.640 --> 01:11:51.640]  into a contract wherein you've waived certain aspects of your rights with for instance you've
[01:11:51.640 --> 01:11:56.600]  waived the right to operate a vehicle on the highways without a valid license
[01:11:58.920 --> 01:12:04.440]  then if you've agreed to have being restricted then that's one thing but when you haven't entered
[01:12:04.440 --> 01:12:07.480]  into the contract you haven't agreed to the restriction on your right.
[01:12:07.480 --> 01:12:16.200]  Okay we spent a lot of time on this. I've got a whole board full of callers and
[01:12:16.200 --> 01:12:22.600]  they're going to get annoyed at me. I'd like this to gel a little bit. Frankly I like this
[01:12:22.600 --> 01:12:33.320]  argument. I think this argument is very much needed in the legal reform area and let me apologize
[01:12:33.320 --> 01:12:41.080]  for everybody for using all your time to help me organize how to make this argument the next time
[01:12:41.080 --> 01:12:45.640]  I would come up against it. Go ahead Mayor, go all the way over here.
[01:12:50.680 --> 01:12:56.600]  Are you there? Yes. Okay you started to say something. I interrupted.
[01:12:56.600 --> 01:13:05.960]  Yeah I said all this information is in the early 1900s, 1898 cases where they speak
[01:13:05.960 --> 01:13:13.960]  and talk about the case more in depth than they do now. I think it's like a hidden thing that
[01:13:13.960 --> 01:13:20.920]  they try to keep hidden but they'll speak about it but won't explain it. But when you go to these
[01:13:20.920 --> 01:13:28.760]  later cases they explain what legal modes of local motion is. Whatever the means of
[01:13:28.760 --> 01:13:34.840]  whatever the ordinary means of transportation at the time is a right of local motion.
[01:13:35.880 --> 01:13:40.120]  So they explained it real good in detail which I wrote and I've written them down
[01:13:40.120 --> 01:13:45.880]  and that's how I come to realize like I can't be I can't be incorrect because these cases
[01:13:45.880 --> 01:13:51.320]  hasn't been an overturned. Okay we need a good brief on this subject.
[01:13:55.400 --> 01:13:57.160]  Can you brief this out?
[01:14:01.240 --> 01:14:06.520]  Okay. We'll work on briefing and how to get that down. That's a skill you need to
[01:14:08.680 --> 01:14:13.400]  upgrade. Okay I really need to move on Olivier. I've got a whole stack of callers and they've
[01:14:13.400 --> 01:14:19.400]  been real patient with me but then I've got I've got a muted can't do can't do anything else but
[01:14:19.400 --> 01:14:26.520]  they didn't hang up. Okay I do need to move on. All right let's talk let's talk next week.
[01:14:27.320 --> 01:14:31.960]  Thank you Olivier. Okay now we're going to Mark in Wisconsin. Hello Mark.
[01:14:33.880 --> 01:14:38.520]  Hello Mr. Kelton. How are you? Oh God I didn't put you to sleep
[01:14:38.520 --> 01:14:45.160]  with that pedantic argument but I really liked that pedantic argument. Okay go ahead.
[01:14:46.680 --> 01:14:55.880]  And you know there's a pendant, pendant, pendant, pendant, pendant. I'm all for a pendant argument
[01:14:55.880 --> 01:15:04.760]  there. What I wanted to point out now or make an observation that I had in my little small
[01:15:04.760 --> 01:15:12.840]  claims court case versus an attorney who may or may not be a death collector. Every document the
[01:15:12.840 --> 01:15:19.160]  attorney sent me that was originated from the attorney in some way shape or form and may or
[01:15:19.160 --> 01:15:27.640]  may not have been a purchase document as part of a buying of a death. They had the account number
[01:15:27.640 --> 01:15:34.600]  blacked out with the exception of the last four digits. The attorney made a point of never giving
[01:15:34.600 --> 01:15:42.520]  me full account number and when I whipped out a credit report he jumped up and down and wanted
[01:15:42.520 --> 01:15:49.720]  to make sure that he didn't see it and he wanted to make sure that the court made sure he didn't
[01:15:49.720 --> 01:15:59.000]  see it. I'm just curious as to what magic is out there about the full account number that makes
[01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:08.120]  a death collector so worried. That is a good question. So he wasn't, he didn't have a problem
[01:16:08.120 --> 01:16:17.160]  with the jury seeing it. He just didn't want to see it. Right we weren't actually at a jury
[01:16:17.160 --> 01:16:26.440]  point. This was the a hearing for the in front of the quote finder of fact which was a no record
[01:16:26.440 --> 01:16:34.120]  hearing. So you know most again low-stakes bingo at this point but he wanted to make sure that
[01:16:34.120 --> 01:16:41.640]  he didn't see the break coming. Okay I'm glad he somebody saw the break coming.
[01:16:42.760 --> 01:16:51.160]  Randy Kelton we will our radio our call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:16:51.160 --> 01:17:04.520]  All right I love logos without the shows on this network I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:17:04.520 --> 01:17:09.160]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fix. I'd be lost
[01:17:09.160 --> 01:17:14.200]  without logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a
[01:17:14.200 --> 01:17:18.600]  show producer but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I
[01:17:18.600 --> 01:17:24.440]  spend it all on supplements. How can I help logos? Well I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order
[01:17:24.440 --> 01:17:29.320]  anything from Amazon you can help logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First
[01:17:29.320 --> 01:17:36.440]  thing you do is clear your cookies. Now go to logosradionetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo
[01:17:36.440 --> 01:17:42.360]  and bookmark it. Now when you order anything from Amazon you use that link and logos gets a few
[01:17:42.360 --> 01:17:47.960]  pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use
[01:17:47.960 --> 01:17:54.680]  my Amazon Prime? No. I mean yes. Wow giving without doing anything or spending any money this is
[01:17:54.680 --> 01:18:02.040]  perfect. Thank you so much. We are welcome. Happy holidays logos. Are you being harassed by debt
[01:18:02.040 --> 01:18:07.400]  collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the
[01:18:07.400 --> 01:18:13.080]  Michael Miras proven method. Michael Miras has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors
[01:18:13.080 --> 01:18:18.440]  and now you can win two. You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in
[01:18:18.440 --> 01:18:24.680]  court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons.
[01:18:24.680 --> 01:18:29.320]  How to answer letters and phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:18:29.320 --> 01:18:35.240]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Miras proven
[01:18:35.240 --> 01:18:40.680]  method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available
[01:18:40.680 --> 01:18:45.960]  as well. For more information please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael
[01:18:45.960 --> 01:18:56.360]  Miras banner or email michaelmiras at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[01:18:56.360 --> 01:19:14.840]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. This is the logos, logos, radio, net, radio, net, radio.
[01:19:14.840 --> 01:19:29.080]  I ain't gonna fly me, don't fool me. Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio and we're
[01:19:29.080 --> 01:19:37.000]  talking to Mark in Wisconsin and I have an idea, Mark. If the lawyer is attempting to collect
[01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:49.160]  on a account then it's the wrong account. He can claim ignorance and plausible deniability as he
[01:19:49.160 --> 01:19:55.800]  acted in good faith thinking he was collecting on the correct account but he must have had the wrong
[01:19:55.800 --> 01:20:04.200]  account number. If he has been advised of the correct account number in court and he's attempted
[01:20:04.200 --> 01:20:12.280]  to collect on the wrong one then he can be, he don't have the plausible deniability argument.
[01:20:14.040 --> 01:20:22.520]  Okay, that is, that is an interesting position for him to take because he claims that he had,
[01:20:22.520 --> 01:20:30.760]  remember this is the same individual who went to the court and said that he looked upon the
[01:20:30.760 --> 01:20:37.480]  paper records and the data records and he has true accurate and complete information. And I
[01:20:37.480 --> 01:20:43.720]  just, and he did that in an affidavit, in a verified affidavit. He did it in an affidavit,
[01:20:43.720 --> 01:20:51.320]  Nye challenged it and the judge went ahead. The judge may or may not have denied my challenge
[01:20:51.320 --> 01:20:59.080]  explicitly but what the attorney did after the judge wrote down in the formal record that
[01:20:59.080 --> 01:21:07.320]  discoveries do by the 19th. Sometime after the 20th is when I started kicking paperwork which
[01:21:07.320 --> 01:21:12.920]  told the attorney, oh, I was supposed to do something on that account. Oh, I forgot to write
[01:21:12.920 --> 01:21:21.320]  up the order so he wrote up an order that said all my motions were denied when the reality is not
[01:21:21.320 --> 01:21:26.760]  all of my motions were denied. And of course the judge went ahead and signed the attorney's
[01:21:26.760 --> 01:21:37.080]  motion which means of order which means that's considered the order but the order is a retroactive
[01:21:37.080 --> 01:21:44.440]  change because the judge said discovery do by and the attorney said in his order that the judge
[01:21:44.440 --> 01:21:53.080]  signed the only thing I have to do is produce billing. So there's some discrepancies as to what
[01:21:53.080 --> 01:21:59.160]  the case. So you need to pull the transcript and go back and move for non-sproton.
[01:22:01.240 --> 01:22:10.600]  Non-sproton, huh? Yeah. The judge issued the order in court and when the
[01:22:11.560 --> 01:22:17.560]  requested that the lawyer produce an order for the judge to sign, the judge presumed the order
[01:22:17.560 --> 01:22:25.880]  was the same order that he produced in court and so that was a technical error of substance
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:36.680]  and it needs to be corrected. Well, I did ask for it to be corrected. I filed an objection
[01:22:36.680 --> 01:22:45.560]  within the five days once it hit and as an added twist what we have is a recording. I asked for
[01:22:45.560 --> 01:22:50.840]  copy of the recording and the judge was going to review the recording before he released it
[01:22:50.840 --> 01:22:57.560]  and that review time is contemporaneous with his signature in this order. So the
[01:22:59.080 --> 01:23:04.840]  window for objecting the five-day windows passed, I'll look at non-sproton, thank you.
[01:23:04.840 --> 01:23:12.280]  But the judge, it isn't like he didn't have some other form of notice and just signed this thing
[01:23:12.280 --> 01:23:20.760]  anyway. So this will be fun. This will be fun. The other little tidbit in talking with the local
[01:23:20.760 --> 01:23:25.880]  bank, a local bank had a sign out said, hey, show up, get your credit report pulled, we'll hand
[01:23:25.880 --> 01:23:31.640]  your $10 gas card and we want to talk to you about your credit report. So I said that would be fun.
[01:23:32.280 --> 01:23:38.920]  So I've been having a nice conversation with the bank. One of the documents from the credit card
[01:23:38.920 --> 01:23:46.360]  company listed a business on this whole thing that was listed as an LLC when there was never
[01:23:46.360 --> 01:23:52.840]  an LLC business. It was an ink. And apparently this is the kind of thing that can really get
[01:23:52.840 --> 01:23:58.120]  you in trouble with the FDIC, according to the local banker, who said, oh, we would never
[01:23:58.120 --> 01:24:04.440]  would have approved this credit card, business card, because we've got to have documentation
[01:24:04.440 --> 01:24:12.520]  and to confuse an ink with an LLC upfront. And that's a problem. The other little problem in the
[01:24:12.520 --> 01:24:16.520]  bank, of course, the credit card company is saying, we've got these electronic records,
[01:24:16.520 --> 01:24:23.160]  but we're not giving you a copy. So under your premise that you will not win your case based
[01:24:23.160 --> 01:24:30.360]  on law and the facts will win your case based on the politics. Other than now contacting the FDIC
[01:24:30.360 --> 01:24:37.400]  and the senators and congressmen who oversee the FDIC, what else you've got for me to create
[01:24:37.400 --> 01:24:54.040]  in politics? Okay. What's the most recently created regulatory agency on credit?
[01:24:54.040 --> 01:25:03.560]  Protection Bureau. My contacting this has been the fun part in the whole thing. I have attempted
[01:25:03.560 --> 01:25:10.040]  to use discovery to get information. In discovery, of course, the attorney has not answered. And the
[01:25:10.040 --> 01:25:17.320]  judge, we have, of course, the discrepancy between discovery by and only produced the billing as
[01:25:17.320 --> 01:25:24.680]  a discrepancy. The only reason I know about the LLC versus ink issue is because the credit card
[01:25:24.680 --> 01:25:31.400]  company can respond to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requests that I made.
[01:25:32.200 --> 01:25:36.520]  So the only reason I have this information is because the federal government
[01:25:36.520 --> 01:25:44.040]  provided out of the guy's hands. So I've got that as a stick. I intend to swing
[01:25:44.040 --> 01:25:48.280]  when I write my representative, my and other people's representatives.
[01:25:50.600 --> 01:25:58.760]  So I've got that one done and I reached out to the state's Bureau that overwatches the credit
[01:25:58.760 --> 01:26:05.880]  and banking in Wisconsin, Texas, and Delaware. Wisconsin because that's the state of confusion
[01:26:05.880 --> 01:26:15.080]  I'm in. Texas because that's where the central location for all of the businesses are. And
[01:26:15.080 --> 01:26:22.840]  in the unit that's generating paperwork, that's where the registered Wisconsin, Texas, and Delaware
[01:26:22.840 --> 01:26:28.200]  all wrote back and said, oh, we no longer do that. That is the Consumer Financial Protection
[01:26:28.200 --> 01:26:34.120]  Bureau's responsibility. So the state government is waiving their regulatory right for banking
[01:26:34.120 --> 01:26:40.200]  stuff going on in the state when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau apparently could
[01:26:40.200 --> 01:26:49.240]  touch it. What authority does the state have to refuse to enforce its own statutes?
[01:26:51.800 --> 01:26:59.720]  That's a good question to ask. I appreciate that question too. Thank you. This is why I call.
[01:26:59.720 --> 01:27:09.480]  That's why I get the big bucks. Hey, hey, this is this is why that was a subtle
[01:27:09.480 --> 01:27:17.480]  reference to Randy's beer fund. And you know, you know very well that I sent a check to Randy's
[01:27:17.480 --> 01:27:21.880]  beer fund and somebody got very upset that there was a check to Randy's beer fund.
[01:27:21.880 --> 01:27:30.520]  I don't know who would get upset. It certainly wouldn't be me.
[01:27:35.080 --> 01:27:44.120]  Part of your mantra of the politics in that there is a slight. Hold on. You broke up right there.
[01:27:45.320 --> 01:27:50.920]  Okay, there's a slight modification to the mantra of the old wind based on the politics.
[01:27:50.920 --> 01:27:58.920]  The amount of money is a proxy for time. The more time you're willing to spend on your case,
[01:27:59.960 --> 01:28:04.040]  the more likely you are to end up with a better outcome. And that really doesn't
[01:28:04.040 --> 01:28:08.120]  matter if you're an attorney, you're paying for an attorney or you're doing it yourself.
[01:28:09.480 --> 01:28:19.080]  Just as an observation that I have on this process. So I think that's a very accurate
[01:28:19.080 --> 01:28:26.360]  observation because this does take time. And if you don't treat it as a learning experience,
[01:28:27.320 --> 01:28:33.160]  then economically, it will appear not to be viable.
[01:28:35.480 --> 01:28:43.000]  Correct. The next time you get into one of these, you'll land on them heavier earlier
[01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:50.440]  and you won't have to spend as much time. But from my perspective, it's worth the time.
[01:28:51.880 --> 01:28:55.640]  Well, and the other thing that has happened in my particular case,
[01:28:55.640 --> 01:29:00.200]  I have called railing and righteous indignation again with an attorney and said,
[01:29:00.200 --> 01:29:05.720]  this is the situation. This is the case. And you know, I want this blah, blah, blah.
[01:29:05.720 --> 01:29:10.840]  And then I dropped that said, why don't you give a call to this attorney and this attorney and talk
[01:29:10.840 --> 01:29:18.520]  to them. And there were attorneys that I hadn't landed on with as many cleats as I could strap
[01:29:18.520 --> 01:29:25.000]  to my feet. And in both cases, I landed on them on a Friday and on Monday morning,
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:32.440]  they had removed themselves from the case. They either, by Wednesday, they found another client
[01:29:32.440 --> 01:29:37.320]  or on Monday, they said, I don't know why this guy's been signing the attorney. I'm not his attorney.
[01:29:37.320 --> 01:29:45.160]  There's no sign contract. So you can create the situation where you're less than palatable
[01:29:45.160 --> 01:29:58.040]  as a possible subject for digestion. Very good. Okay. The only other thing that I have
[01:29:58.040 --> 01:30:08.040]  to tell you. Can reality TV make you dumber? New research suggests watching people do stupid
[01:30:08.040 --> 01:30:13.400]  things can dumb you down more than you realize. And Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with the details
[01:30:13.400 --> 01:30:19.720]  on the mind numbing effects of reality TV in a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give
[01:30:19.720 --> 01:30:24.520]  up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone,
[01:30:24.520 --> 01:30:30.760]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance
[01:30:30.760 --> 01:30:36.600]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought
[01:30:36.600 --> 01:30:43.560]  to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over
[01:30:43.560 --> 01:30:51.080]  with Start Page. 20-somethings drunk in nightclubs, teenage girls having babies with no husbands
[01:30:51.080 --> 01:30:56.520]  or money. Catty drama queens sniping at their families. Every night, Americans tune into the
[01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:02.600]  mindless universe of reality TV. But does watching such nonsense do more than just entertain us?
[01:31:02.600 --> 01:31:07.720]  Researchers in Australia say yes. They had volunteers watch a soccer hooligan get drunk
[01:31:07.720 --> 01:31:12.680]  with friends, get into a fight, and spend the whole next day sleeping. Then they took a knowledge
[01:31:12.680 --> 01:31:18.280]  test on an unrelated topic. They scored well below people would not watch the show. So the next time
[01:31:18.280 --> 01:31:23.080]  Jersey Shore comes on, switch it off. Your brain will like you better for it. And Dr.
[01:31:23.080 --> 01:31:27.240]  Kaepernalbrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.400 --> 01:31:37.000]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. The
[01:31:37.000 --> 01:31:41.640]  government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:41.640 --> 01:31:46.200]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given
[01:31:46.200 --> 01:31:50.520]  their lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:50.520 --> 01:31:53.560]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an
[01:31:53.560 --> 01:31:59.000]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We are Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:04.280]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your
[01:32:04.280 --> 01:32:08.440]  home receive hail or wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government
[01:32:08.440 --> 01:32:12.440]  caused it with their chemtrails. But good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be
[01:32:12.440 --> 01:32:16.680]  kidding about the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance
[01:32:16.680 --> 01:32:21.160]  and Hill Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket
[01:32:21.160 --> 01:32:26.040]  expense. And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau
[01:32:26.040 --> 01:32:31.000]  with zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your
[01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:39.480]  roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention
[01:32:39.480 --> 01:32:44.840]  the crypto show and get $100 off and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help
[01:32:44.840 --> 01:32:50.200]  continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be
[01:32:50.200 --> 01:32:58.920]  locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof
[01:32:58.920 --> 01:33:06.040]  replacement. I mean, I actually be kidding about chemtrails. Looking for some truth? You found it.
[01:33:06.040 --> 01:33:11.080]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:33:11.080 --> 01:33:38.440]  Okay, we are back. We survived falling off the cliff there. Mark, what came over you? You didn't
[01:33:38.440 --> 01:33:47.960]  keep me from running off the cliff. I helped drive you right off the cliff. Apparently,
[01:33:47.960 --> 01:33:55.240]  both of us are not state licensed for cliff drives, but in your cliffs. Very unsafe.
[01:33:56.120 --> 01:34:04.120]  Now, the last question that I have is, if you remember, there was the unpleasant discussion
[01:34:04.120 --> 01:34:11.880]  about the attorney and the accusation of him molesting his own child and taking his own life
[01:34:11.880 --> 01:34:18.840]  with his shotgun. That particular thing is rearing its head again. The grandparents are
[01:34:18.840 --> 01:34:28.280]  trying to sue for grandparents access to the grandchildren plus some form of custody placement
[01:34:28.280 --> 01:34:34.360]  rights. But what's an interesting situation here that's developing this kind of...
[01:34:35.080 --> 01:34:42.600]  Wait, wait, wait. You left us kind of in the dark there. Was there a mother to these children?
[01:34:43.560 --> 01:34:46.680]  Oh, yes. And she's the one being apparently sued.
[01:34:47.560 --> 01:34:50.200]  So they're trying to take the children away from the mother?
[01:34:50.200 --> 01:34:57.480]  Either on a permanent or we want at least visitation rights. It's unclear
[01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:02.920]  the paperwork is because I can't find a file case yet.
[01:35:03.800 --> 01:35:09.640]  Okay, I thought that case had been settled that grandparents' rights don't exist.
[01:35:11.240 --> 01:35:19.240]  Apparently, not in Wisconsin. There are limited grandparent rights. I don't know how much they're
[01:35:19.240 --> 01:35:29.800]  looking for rights or such. I apologize if you heard me breathe. I drank some hot apple cider in it.
[01:35:30.360 --> 01:35:36.520]  Ouch. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. A little bit of brandy, you know, it's all good.
[01:35:37.480 --> 01:35:42.360]  Now, I had to get off the booze all together and I discovered something very interesting.
[01:35:42.360 --> 01:35:50.040]  Tea toddlers, non-drinkers do not live longer. It only seemed longer.
[01:35:52.760 --> 01:35:58.120]  Yes. Well, I would have liked a little raw minute, but I had to kind of give that up.
[01:35:59.320 --> 01:36:05.080]  I like it too much. Well, the liver is evil and must be punished.
[01:36:05.080 --> 01:36:13.560]  I think God did that to us just to punish us. If there is anything that you like to the point
[01:36:13.560 --> 01:36:21.720]  you crave it, that is an indication that you're allergic to it. I look up in the sky and say,
[01:36:21.720 --> 01:36:27.960]  God, that's a dirty trick. Anyway, I'm sorry. I interrupted. Go ahead.
[01:36:27.960 --> 01:36:35.560]  That's all right. This was really a disturbing case with this lawyer.
[01:36:38.200 --> 01:36:49.720]  So the parents having sat at family gatherings, I know what the grandparents position is on
[01:36:49.720 --> 01:36:58.440]  using their money and a law to take swipes at this ex-wife and their position on her being
[01:36:58.440 --> 01:37:05.400]  the ex-wife. So I know some of what's in their heart. Of course, what's in their heart is not
[01:37:05.400 --> 01:37:11.000]  provable and all of that. But we do have going on right now, and this is where I'm looking for
[01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.520]  your guidance. What's going on right now in Wisconsin is a bunch of people jumping up and
[01:37:16.520 --> 01:37:24.760]  down saying we need to expand the cash that we pay to attorneys who are public defenders because we
[01:37:24.760 --> 01:37:30.520]  can't go ahead and get good lawyering done because there's just not enough money at it.
[01:37:31.080 --> 01:37:37.400]  We have a situation where this woman who's spearheading this lawsuit about children,
[01:37:37.400 --> 01:37:42.440]  of course, has a whole lot of money and the person they're suing doesn't.
[01:37:42.440 --> 01:37:49.400]  But there's anything else in other states that you're aware of to go, hey,
[01:37:51.000 --> 01:37:57.320]  this party versus a non-wealth funded party judge, make that other party pay for our defense against
[01:37:57.320 --> 01:38:01.800]  their fat wallet. So that way, this isn't a one-sided
[01:38:03.000 --> 01:38:10.440]  and making the present state debate about where I'm seeing the public defenders.
[01:38:10.440 --> 01:38:18.840]  But I'm not sure if there's anything else that can back that very flimsy thing with, oh, here's
[01:38:18.840 --> 01:38:29.080]  other stuff. Okay. I've heard that argument before from lawyers, and I think it is a false argument
[01:38:29.080 --> 01:38:39.160]  that her law, her public defender can't defend her case because the other side hasn't more money.
[01:38:41.080 --> 01:38:48.760]  Simply a false argument. And we have tools for encouraging the public defender
[01:38:48.760 --> 01:39:00.440]  to defend this case effectively. All lawyers are required to provide a certain amount of pro bono
[01:39:00.440 --> 01:39:08.040]  work. So either let them pro bono up or get a bar grievance for malpractice.
[01:39:08.040 --> 01:39:19.320]  Okay. But to say just because we have a rich client on one side that we need to make their pro bono
[01:39:19.320 --> 01:39:26.680]  lawyer rich is, I mean, the public defender's rich as well is a very slippery slope.
[01:39:28.360 --> 01:39:37.720]  Okay. I've never seen that argument being flying, but right now the state of Wisconsin
[01:39:37.720 --> 01:39:43.720]  is explicitly talking about how they've got to raise the rate for criminal because, of course,
[01:39:43.720 --> 01:39:53.560]  this case isn't about criminal. It's a civil issue. So the pro bono type stuff isn't in play,
[01:39:53.560 --> 01:40:01.080]  but certainly... No, pro bono only means that they're taking a case and not charging.
[01:40:01.080 --> 01:40:09.480]  It doesn't necessarily go to criminal or civil. Correct. Correct. And you'd stated public defender,
[01:40:09.480 --> 01:40:13.240]  and I'd only mentioned... I mentioned public defender because that's what the debate and the
[01:40:13.240 --> 01:40:20.040]  state is about, is paying those public defenders more because it's creating this disparity. But
[01:40:20.040 --> 01:40:33.800]  okay. Your position is not unreasonable either. Certainly if the public's assertion, and I like
[01:40:33.800 --> 01:40:40.840]  that framing, the public's assertion that money equals law and representation, that I can use
[01:40:40.840 --> 01:40:49.800]  in my battles versus the system. I like that. I can use that argument for myself. So I like that.
[01:40:51.160 --> 01:40:58.760]  Good. Good. Okay. Do we have anything else for you? No, no. You had a full board of callers,
[01:40:58.760 --> 01:41:06.360]  and Olivia, in the philosophical arguments, took some time. I do appreciate the time you
[01:41:06.360 --> 01:41:13.640]  spent talking with me because you do help me refine my arguments. And yes, being able to write
[01:41:13.640 --> 01:41:21.800]  better briefs would be a wonderful thing at some point because as the federal district attorney
[01:41:22.520 --> 01:41:29.400]  said to me that perhaps my pleadings are a little too glib. You know, having some guidance on
[01:41:29.400 --> 01:41:40.360]  better legal writing is a good thing. I've got a section in the legal 101 e-book
[01:41:41.560 --> 01:41:49.400]  on methods for writing effective pleadings. We've got a couple minutes. Let me do an overview.
[01:41:49.400 --> 01:41:57.720]  All right. Always start out with a brief description of what you're going to talk about.
[01:41:59.480 --> 01:42:06.680]  Then put in a statement of facts. Then follow that with an argument in support of those facts.
[01:42:08.440 --> 01:42:14.600]  And then put in at the end of it the conclusions, or if you have causes of action,
[01:42:14.600 --> 01:42:20.120]  then put in your causes of action. Then a conclusion and your prayer.
[01:42:22.040 --> 01:42:29.240]  Few rules. First rule, never make a proactive statement out of your own mouth.
[01:42:31.480 --> 01:42:38.120]  Never write a paragraph without putting a heading on it. Let me back up. Never make a proactive
[01:42:38.120 --> 01:42:45.960]  statement of law out of your own mouth. And that goes to if you are writing the pleading as opposed
[01:42:45.960 --> 01:42:56.600]  to stitching together sections of case law or judges rulings, then you haven't done enough homework.
[01:42:59.080 --> 01:43:05.240]  If you are actually writing the brief, you haven't done your homework. The way I like to write
[01:43:05.240 --> 01:43:15.480]  briefs is I lay out my points and issues in headings. I'll go down the document and put a list
[01:43:15.480 --> 01:43:21.880]  of headings of things I want to address. Then you look at those headings and kind of work them
[01:43:21.880 --> 01:43:28.680]  around in your mind so you have them in a logical order. Then once you have each of the headings,
[01:43:28.680 --> 01:43:36.600]  then you go to the first heading and put a sentence or two in there descriptive of what
[01:43:36.600 --> 01:43:45.240]  you want to present in this section. Then go to the case law. If you look hard enough, you will
[01:43:45.240 --> 01:43:56.840]  almost always find a ruling by a court that says exactly what you want to say. Then all I do is
[01:43:56.840 --> 01:44:03.800]  change the intro and outro and some of it. Nutritious food is real body armor. It builds muscle,
[01:44:03.800 --> 01:44:09.880]  burns fat, improves digestion and feeds the entire body the nutrients it needs. Did you know the U.S.
[01:44:09.880 --> 01:44:14.520]  government banned the hemp plant from growing in the United States and classified it as a schedule
[01:44:14.520 --> 01:44:19.320]  one drug to hide it behind the marijuana plant? People have been confused about this plant for
[01:44:19.320 --> 01:44:25.560]  over 80 years and many still don't know what hemp is. So now you know hemp is not marijuana and
[01:44:25.560 --> 01:44:31.880]  marijuana is not hemp. They are different varieties of the same species. Hempusa.org wants the world
[01:44:31.880 --> 01:44:36.360]  to know these basic facts and to help people understand that hemp protein powder is the
[01:44:36.360 --> 01:44:42.920]  best kept health secret you need to know about. Remember, hemp protein powder contains 53% protein,
[01:44:42.920 --> 01:44:51.000]  is gluten free, anti-inflammatory, non-GMO and is loaded with nutrients. Call 888-910-4367,
[01:44:51.000 --> 01:44:59.640]  888-910-4367 and see what our powder seeds and oil can do for you only at hempusa.org.
[01:45:01.640 --> 01:45:06.760]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with
[01:45:06.760 --> 01:45:14.440]  jurisdictionary. The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:14.440 --> 01:45:20.520]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have
[01:45:20.520 --> 01:45:26.600]  a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course
[01:45:26.600 --> 01:45:33.400]  and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[01:45:33.400 --> 01:45:38.840]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:38.840 --> 01:45:44.760]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our
[01:45:44.760 --> 01:45:52.840]  audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:52.840 --> 01:46:16.760]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:16.760 --> 01:46:18.680]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton,
[01:46:18.680 --> 01:46:24.840]  rule of law radio and Mark, you let me run off the cliff there. I'm a guy and guys never take
[01:46:24.840 --> 01:46:33.480]  responsibility. Okay, back to a brief overview. Never write anything if you plagiarize it from
[01:46:33.480 --> 01:46:42.520]  somebody else and you should just be stitching ideas together. But probably the single most
[01:46:42.520 --> 01:46:53.160]  effective tool you can have is the style section in Microsoft Word because it has a heading
[01:46:53.160 --> 01:47:02.360]  section in there. Write a physically wider heading on every single paragraph. It takes some
[01:47:02.360 --> 01:47:12.120]  discipline to do that. But if you use Microsoft's heading section and set a Microsoft heading on
[01:47:12.120 --> 01:47:20.600]  each one, if you go to view navigation bar or if you control left like you're going to do a search
[01:47:21.720 --> 01:47:26.840]  in the search box, there's three under the where you put in what you're searching for.
[01:47:26.840 --> 01:47:32.360]  There are three icons. The last one is search. The first one is navigation pane. You click
[01:47:32.360 --> 01:47:42.600]  navigation pane and it gives you an outline of your document. So I write these large briefs that
[01:47:42.600 --> 01:47:50.280]  have lots of subjects in them and every paragraph has a heading on it. So I can go down the brief
[01:47:50.280 --> 01:47:57.160]  and see what I've talked about. And inevitably, I find where I've argued the same issue a couple
[01:47:57.160 --> 01:48:05.400]  of times. And you'll catch that very quickly with your headings. You use that to adjust and
[01:48:05.400 --> 01:48:11.560]  reorganize your document. You get a document that flows very well that way. And then the last thing
[01:48:11.560 --> 01:48:18.360]  you do is you go out and go in and take out the unnecessary headings. I always write for an eighth
[01:48:18.360 --> 01:48:24.040]  grader. I just talked to someone a couple days ago and a friend of hers was a judge and she said
[01:48:24.040 --> 01:48:31.480]  how these judges are getting fed up with these legal documents crammed with legal ease and
[01:48:31.480 --> 01:48:37.560]  wherefores and thouarts. It's just making them furious. I wish they would just write in English.
[01:48:38.760 --> 01:48:50.360]  And a book I read years ago on legal writing, it said, do not use legal ease right in English.
[01:48:50.360 --> 01:48:56.040]  It's not that the judge is right for an eighth grader. It's not because the judge is stupid.
[01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:04.040]  Because he's busy. Never write your own document if you can avoid it. Go on the internet.
[01:49:04.040 --> 01:49:10.760]  I don't use Lexus or Westlaw anymore. I waste a time. Go on the internet. You've got lawyers out
[01:49:10.760 --> 01:49:18.440]  there all over who want to get more business. And I've heard that up to 50% of lawyers'
[01:49:18.440 --> 01:49:23.880]  business is referral from other lawyers. Where this lawyer is good at something, other lawyers
[01:49:23.880 --> 01:49:30.680]  will either bring him in in second chair for his specialty or they'll refer clients to him.
[01:49:30.680 --> 01:49:36.840]  So to get this, these lawyers put their best briefs, treatises and pleadings on the internet
[01:49:36.840 --> 01:49:43.160]  so other lawyers can see them. They put them in blogs and such. So the first thing I want to find
[01:49:43.160 --> 01:49:51.480]  is a brief treatise or just a treatment of this subject that some lawyers put up there
[01:49:51.480 --> 01:49:58.200]  to try to gain more business. And then I pull out my most valuable skills. I'm an accomplished
[01:49:58.200 --> 01:50:05.960]  plagiarist. I plagiarize his work. Then I crack it apart and simplify it so it doesn't confuse.
[01:50:05.960 --> 01:50:11.960]  And a lot of times these lawyers want to show how legally sophisticated they are in the right
[01:50:11.960 --> 01:50:17.000]  trash you can hardly read. But it gives you all your case law and do 90% of your work for you.
[01:50:18.680 --> 01:50:22.120]  So I'm not going to spend most of my time on that. I've got more of this in the e-book.
[01:50:23.240 --> 01:50:28.840]  A whole section about mental flow that is a little more probably too sophisticated for this.
[01:50:28.840 --> 01:50:38.840]  But that sounds like something you can use, Mark. Well, it's on my agenda to go ahead and support
[01:50:38.840 --> 01:50:45.720]  the network and get your e-book there. The biggest issue that I have is while some of the things that
[01:50:45.720 --> 01:50:53.320]  I've wanted to raise, there's no case law on it. I go searching for the specific statute in Google's
[01:50:54.520 --> 01:51:01.160]  scholar.google.com. None of the issues was raised in 1955. And that's the case law. But of course
[01:51:01.160 --> 01:51:08.760]  that has changed. The judge ruled against me and the case law and ruled against one of the
[01:51:09.400 --> 01:51:16.840]  Supreme Court judges agreeing with me on the case law. The other two issues of whether or not with
[01:51:16.840 --> 01:51:23.480]  Wisconsin's thing that says if there's this electronic document and no copies available,
[01:51:23.480 --> 01:51:30.120]  it's void or, you know, it's not enforceable, there's that and there's no case law. Nobody's
[01:51:30.120 --> 01:51:38.200]  ever brought it up before. And there's no case law on the WDFI reference, which is referenced by
[01:51:38.760 --> 01:51:45.160]  as the things that you need from documents to have a valid nonvoidable debt. There's no reference
[01:51:45.160 --> 01:51:53.960]  to the WDFI stuff. Now, my guess is this is because how cases flow is by the time things would go to
[01:51:53.960 --> 01:51:59.960]  the appellate court, the other side drops out, because nobody bothers with attempting to get it to
[01:51:59.960 --> 01:52:06.200]  the appellate court. But I'm going to try with the supervisory writ. And that sample supervisory
[01:52:06.200 --> 01:52:11.320]  writ that I sent you a link to where you went, oh, supervisory writ, maybe I could use it. And
[01:52:11.320 --> 01:52:17.720]  you went, no, this is just nothing more than a rid of mandamus, a modified rid of mandamus.
[01:52:17.720 --> 01:52:25.320]  This actually goes through exactly the major flow that you gave just before you went off the cliff.
[01:52:26.360 --> 01:52:34.200]  So I've been using that as a template, but I still, you know, I'm still looking for
[01:52:35.160 --> 01:52:46.360]  things that will help me better write my paperwork. And, you know, it's, I don't know how to get
[01:52:46.360 --> 01:52:51.320]  passed. There's no case law on a few of the things that I'm wanting to make case law about.
[01:52:53.880 --> 01:53:01.480]  Then now you have to do your work. Now you have to do the hard part. You have to write the brief
[01:53:01.480 --> 01:53:09.720]  from scratch. And that I would suggest the ebook. I've got a lot of information on how to do that
[01:53:09.720 --> 01:53:18.680]  in there. Okay. Well, again, in the one particular case, it's the case law's old, ancient, and I
[01:53:18.680 --> 01:53:27.080]  went ahead and used the judges, the Supreme Court judges own word and saying, no, this is necessary.
[01:53:27.080 --> 01:53:35.160]  And, yeah, of course I didn't get anywhere because I'm pro-save versus attorney. And it's not even
[01:53:35.160 --> 01:53:44.200]  going to, you know, at this point, everything is up for grabs at a, at the appeal or even before
[01:53:44.200 --> 01:53:53.240]  they get to appeal and have a trial on the record. So, of course, again, I was looking for a case.
[01:53:53.240 --> 01:54:02.280]  I found it. A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the
[01:54:02.280 --> 01:54:08.120]  law to the facts. Thus, clear failure with the trial court to analyze or apply the law
[01:54:08.120 --> 01:54:13.160]  correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion and may result in appellate reversal and
[01:54:14.360 --> 01:54:21.960]  by extraordinary writ. Jokwin v. Chambers, if you send me an email, I'll send this to you.
[01:54:21.960 --> 01:54:34.920]  You use this citation in a notice in your motion. This is the last paragraph in a motion for summary
[01:54:34.920 --> 01:54:44.840]  judgment. Defendant counter-claimant may only be ignorant, may only be an ignorant pro-save,
[01:54:44.840 --> 01:54:50.200]  but defendant counter-claimant knows better than to make a proactive statement of law out of his
[01:54:50.200 --> 01:54:56.040]  own mouth. Defendant counter-claimant charges the court with its duty to determine the facts in
[01:54:56.040 --> 01:55:02.440]  accordance with the rules of evidence that apply the laws that comes to the court, to the facts.
[01:55:02.440 --> 01:55:08.840]  And then I quote this. So, I'm demanding that the court apply the law to the facts. Now,
[01:55:08.840 --> 01:55:18.120]  when I, after the hearing on this motion, then I'll come back with a motion for findings of fact
[01:55:18.120 --> 01:55:24.920]  and conclusions of law. When I don't get a findings of fact and conclusions of law,
[01:55:25.560 --> 01:55:33.880]  then I'll move to dismiss for a abuse of discretion for due process violation on part of the judge.
[01:55:36.600 --> 01:55:42.600]  That's the plan. Okay. Well, and again, in my particular case, we have
[01:55:42.600 --> 01:55:54.680]  and we've got the me asking for a counter-claim and the attorney objecting to the counter-claim
[01:55:54.680 --> 01:56:00.280]  that's going to raise his insurance and affect the contract that he has and the judge going,
[01:56:00.280 --> 01:56:06.840]  okay, I'm going with what the attorney said. So, now I have a door open for getting contracts,
[01:56:06.840 --> 01:56:15.320]  et cetera, and that sounds like this case that you're courting. I can use that.
[01:56:17.240 --> 01:56:23.560]  Then you file, you know, the way I read this, the judge has a duty
[01:56:25.080 --> 01:56:32.360]  to perform this act. If the judge fails to perform this act, fails to perform a duty he
[01:56:32.360 --> 01:56:37.960]  is required to perform it in the process denies me in a full and free access to or enjoying
[01:56:37.960 --> 01:56:47.240]  of a right. Does that sound familiar? Yeah. This is a crime in Texas. It's a class A misdemeanor.
[01:56:48.520 --> 01:56:53.080]  If he won't explain it to me in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law,
[01:56:53.080 --> 01:57:00.440]  maybe he'll explain it to a grand jury. Yeah. Well, the only other thing and I
[01:57:00.440 --> 01:57:06.520]  forgot to put this on the agenda, I wanted to remind everybody that lo and behold,
[01:57:06.520 --> 01:57:14.040]  we're going to have a national day week in the first week in March where we're going to go ahead
[01:57:14.040 --> 01:57:21.320]  and have judicial outreach week, March 4th through 10th. They're encouraging judges,
[01:57:21.320 --> 01:57:28.120]  ex-judges to sit around the courthouse and tell us all about how important the rule of law is.
[01:57:28.120 --> 01:57:34.680]  And it strikes me as it'd be a wonderful opportunity for the listeners to go ahead,
[01:57:34.680 --> 01:57:41.720]  go down there and bring whatever issues they've got and say, hey, guy, how is this
[01:57:41.720 --> 01:57:47.880]  current square quarters with the rule of law? Certainly getting off notices or
[01:57:47.880 --> 01:57:54.840]  things to your chief judge saying, hey, who's going to be there and what times? That strikes
[01:57:54.840 --> 01:58:07.320]  me as a bit of fun. And make sure you videotape. Certainly it is not an actual judicial function.
[01:58:07.320 --> 01:58:13.400]  So yeah, yeah, you would have the right to videotape. It'd be great if you had some
[01:58:14.120 --> 01:58:19.240]  smaller recorders and a couple, three people and one with a very obnoxious recorder.
[01:58:19.240 --> 01:58:27.720]  Just some good documentation about it. But for the listeners to consider,
[01:58:27.720 --> 01:58:31.480]  the 4th, the 10th, 2018 is National Judicial Outreach Week.
[01:58:32.520 --> 01:58:38.520]  Wonderful. Okay, hang on. About to go to break. We're going to move ahead on the other side.
[01:58:38.520 --> 01:58:50.200]  Mark, thank you for calling Randy Kelton. We'll be right back.
[01:58:50.200 --> 01:58:55.800]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. Yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.800 --> 01:59:01.800]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[01:59:01.800 --> 01:59:08.680]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture. Enter the recovery version.
[01:59:09.320 --> 01:59:15.240]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than
[01:59:15.240 --> 01:59:22.360]  9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[01:59:22.360 --> 01:59:27.320]  providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:27.320 --> 01:59:32.760]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.320 --> 01:59:43.720]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:43.720 --> 02:00:00.120]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.