ROL_2019-01-24_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.560]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:06.560 --> 00:13.440]  Markets for Wednesday, 23 January 2019, open with precious metals gold at $1,284.49 an ounce,
[00:13.440 --> 00:20.400]  silver $15.34 an ounce, copper $2.65 an ounce, oil Texas crude $52.57 an ounce of barrel,
[00:20.400 --> 00:28.040]  Brent crude $61.50 an ounce of barrel, and cryptos in order for Market Cap, Bitcoin $3,599.64,
[00:28.040 --> 00:37.000]  triple XRP, $0.31, Ethereum $118.13, and Bitcoin cash $130.78 of CryptoCoin.
[00:42.360 --> 00:47.800]  Today in history, the year 1884, the Fabian Society is founded in London. The notorious
[00:47.800 --> 00:52.520]  socialist organization seeking to bring about socialism in England via gradualist and parliamentary
[00:52.520 --> 00:58.440]  reformist efforts instead of outright revolution, the Fabian Society founded today in history.
[01:02.760 --> 01:07.880]  In recent news, retail sales expectations in a report by the e-marketers worldwide retail
[01:07.880 --> 01:13.480]  and e-commerce forecast has a first for the year of 2019. The retail sales projected to grow to
[01:13.480 --> 01:18.760]  5.6 trillion in China. It will overtake the US for the first time since its increases will be
[01:18.760 --> 01:24.040]  slightly behind at 5.5 trillion. Monica Perk, senior forecasting director at e-marketer,
[01:24.040 --> 01:28.520]  gave some insight into the reason for this saying that quote. In recent years, consumers in China
[01:28.520 --> 01:33.720]  have experienced rising incomes, capitulating millions into the new middle class. In online
[01:33.720 --> 01:39.400]  sales, China already takes the lead with a projected 1.9 trillion in 2019, putting China at
[01:39.400 --> 01:45.720]  55.8% of the world's online retail sales alone by the end of the year, according to the same report.
[01:45.720 --> 01:50.120]  However, don't let the numbers fool you. The US is still way ahead of China in per capita
[01:50.120 --> 01:56.520]  retail spending with an annual expectation of over 16,000 compared to the little over 4,000 in China.
[02:01.000 --> 02:05.160]  Professor Jan Schroer is a mechanical engineering and material science at Yale,
[02:05.160 --> 02:10.520]  and Professor Xi Liu of Wuhan University in China have developed a method that they are calling
[02:10.520 --> 02:15.320]  thermal mechanical nano molding, which essentially allows for the molding of crystalline metals
[02:15.320 --> 02:20.680]  and alloys into particular shapes as small as 10 nanometers in diameter. That's 8,000 times
[02:20.680 --> 02:25.720]  smaller than a human hair, besides it's previously impossible to make. A breakthrough for potentials
[02:25.720 --> 02:31.320]  in microelectronics like quantum computing and nanotechnology. Professor Schroer said that quote,
[02:31.320 --> 02:36.040]  it is really a new way of nano manufacturing, which relies on a few materials that can be
[02:36.040 --> 02:41.400]  fabricated very specifically for a particular material. But our discovery suggests one technique
[02:41.400 --> 02:46.680]  for all metals and alloys. It allows us to fabricate essentially every metal in its combination
[02:46.680 --> 02:51.720]  in the periodic table in a predictable and precise manner to nanosize features.
[02:51.720 --> 03:11.320]  This was Rick Brody with Yolodion for January 23, 2019.
[03:21.960 --> 03:32.280]  What are you gonna do, bad boys, bad boys? What you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for
[03:32.280 --> 03:39.240]  you? Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you? When you were
[03:39.240 --> 03:45.320]  eight and you had bad dreams, you go to school and learn the golden rules. So why are you acting
[03:45.320 --> 03:52.040]  like a bloody fool if you get hot? Then you must get cool. Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do,
[03:52.040 --> 03:58.040]  or what you gonna do when they come for you? Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, or what you
[03:58.040 --> 04:03.880]  gonna do when they come for you? You took it on that one, you took it on that one, you took it on your
[04:03.880 --> 04:10.520]  mother and you took it on your father. Okay, howdy howdy, Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rural Law Radio
[04:10.520 --> 04:20.520]  on this Thursday, the 24th day of January 2018. And we're gonna start off talking a little bit
[04:20.520 --> 04:29.960]  about the project. I'm kind of excited. We're putting together a presentation and a product for
[04:29.960 --> 04:39.480]  investors in the securities exchange, that are regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission.
[04:41.240 --> 04:51.080]  And finally today, I spent all week going through 17 CFR 230.502, that's part of
[04:51.080 --> 05:05.640]  regulation de-exemption from registration. It was a beast. The SEC has very carefully crafted
[05:05.640 --> 05:13.000]  their Code of Federal Regulations so that no human being can read it and make sense of it.
[05:13.000 --> 05:23.160]  They really had to work to make this thing so complex and convoluted. But we're gonna take
[05:23.160 --> 05:33.240]  it to them. We have a plan. I'm gonna go to the SEC and ask them for several hundred definitions
[05:33.240 --> 05:43.800]  that can be cited in court. And they're not going to respond to me. Then I'm gonna assume in the
[05:43.800 --> 05:49.800]  federal court petition for declaratory judgment so they can't do a 12b6 and get it tossed,
[05:51.080 --> 05:58.040]  force them into discovery, bang around their lawyers for a while, and then ask the court
[05:58.040 --> 06:04.200]  to order mediation. Bring the SEC to the table. I'm gonna maintain that the Code,
[06:05.080 --> 06:16.120]  that the Code of Federal Regulations do not qualify under the Statutory Construction Act.
[06:17.720 --> 06:24.360]  However, in the Fed, there is no Statutory Construction Act. There are a set of
[06:24.360 --> 06:41.080]  guidelines by the Rehnquist Court directing judges in how to evaluate law according to a set of
[06:41.080 --> 06:47.480]  Statutory Construction Guidelines. But in the Fed, there is no Statutory Construction Act.
[06:47.480 --> 06:57.480]  However, Texas has got one and it's a good one. And under good faith and credit,
[06:58.520 --> 07:06.280]  since the federal legislature has not addressed Statutory Construction and the legislature of
[07:06.280 --> 07:12.120]  the State of Texas has addressed Statutory Construction, then under good faith and credit,
[07:12.120 --> 07:24.040]  we will bring the Statutory Construction Code from Texas into the Fed and ask the federal court
[07:24.040 --> 07:33.080]  to direct the SEC to so construct their code so that it meets the requirements of the Texas
[07:33.080 --> 07:40.120]  Statutory Construction Act. That should be an interesting endeavor. But in the meantime,
[07:40.120 --> 07:51.400]  we'll get all the, all those people in the investor space, all those people in the ICO and ISO,
[07:53.640 --> 08:01.720]  all of the ones that are developing projects that they want to launch through either an ICO
[08:01.720 --> 08:11.880]  or a security token, all of those guys will bring on board. And by the time we get to our secondary
[08:11.880 --> 08:20.280]  sale, we should have everybody in the space know who we are and have used our product to their
[08:20.280 --> 08:27.480]  benefits. So we should be able to do a really hefty public sale when we get there, or even a
[08:27.480 --> 08:34.840]  private sale when we get to that. So I'm pretty excited about the way things are going. I'm getting
[08:38.280 --> 08:51.720]  my technology honed down a lot. The SEC codes were so difficult that they forced me to upgrade
[08:51.720 --> 08:59.960]  my technology on the development of the questionnaires. And we've done that considerably. I have some
[09:01.080 --> 09:07.080]  programming issues that I need to get to my programmers to upgrade the product,
[09:07.880 --> 09:15.960]  but we're very close to a final product. With the work we've done lately, I should be able to
[09:15.960 --> 09:25.240]  give a set of specs to my programmers and they can build me a tool that we can develop these
[09:25.240 --> 09:33.640]  questionnaires with. I'm using off the shelf tools right now. They're workable, but they have their
[09:33.640 --> 09:40.840]  limitations. So one of the limitations is the program I'm using is designed for something else
[09:40.840 --> 09:49.560]  and it has lots of capability that I don't need. And that capability slows down the tool
[09:50.600 --> 09:57.720]  when it's doing what I need it to do. So as soon as we get funded, get our basic product launched,
[09:57.720 --> 10:02.760]  then we will start building a set of software for this project from scratch.
[10:02.760 --> 10:13.000]  But because of all the work we've done on it, pretty well know how to tell the programmers
[10:14.040 --> 10:20.840]  how to build this. Now, we do have our phone lines are open. Our call in number 512-646-1984.
[10:21.720 --> 10:26.600]  So if you have a question or comment, give us a call. We'll be taking your calls all night.
[10:26.600 --> 10:33.080]  And in the meantime, I'm going to go back to what we're doing with this tool.
[10:36.200 --> 10:46.840]  I'm not beginning to put together a group of crochet researchers.
[10:46.840 --> 10:57.800]  The strategy is if we get this thing funded and launched, then we will have a platform.
[10:59.080 --> 11:08.520]  And initially, we will be building tools for lawyers. I hope lawyers aren't listening because
[11:08.520 --> 11:17.240]  initially, we built tools for lawyers so that we get lawyers to use the tool, contribute to the
[11:17.240 --> 11:27.720]  research repository, and contribute their documents and pleadings. Now, lawyers are open to do this
[11:27.720 --> 11:37.320]  because right now, lawyers tend to specialize in tiny little areas. And a lot of them would like
[11:37.320 --> 11:43.480]  to expand into other areas, but they're afraid to because a lawyer, worst thing that can happen
[11:43.480 --> 11:51.160]  to him is he'll miss something. So they pretty well focus in tiny little areas. And if a lawyer
[11:51.160 --> 12:01.560]  wins a good, strong issue, then anybody else who needs a lawyer for that issue, they'll go to him
[12:01.560 --> 12:09.560]  if they can find him. So we set up this research repository where when a guy wins a good motion
[12:09.560 --> 12:18.840]  or a good case, then he can take his winning pleadings and motions and briefs and load them
[12:18.840 --> 12:26.200]  into the research repository where any other lawyer looking for studying this particular
[12:26.200 --> 12:32.760]  issue will find him and his documentation. Lawyers don't like to go into court and argue issues
[12:32.760 --> 12:41.000]  they're not familiar with. So since they didn't have clients, they will just bring this other
[12:41.000 --> 12:47.320]  lawyer in who has knowledge in that area and charge the client and everybody's happy here.
[12:47.320 --> 12:55.880]  But this gets the lawyers to contribute their information to our underlying database.
[12:57.640 --> 13:04.600]  Now, next, we're going to put together process. Proce litigants take on issues lawyers wouldn't
[13:04.600 --> 13:12.840]  touch. And that's because proce litigants, they can afford to miss some things. They can bring in
[13:12.840 --> 13:19.240]  new and unusual issues and if they screw something up, the judge gets upset at them and gripe and
[13:19.240 --> 13:23.960]  rule against them. A big deal is going to do that anyway. The only purpose of trial court anyway
[13:23.960 --> 13:29.880]  is to set record for appeal. So process can do stuff. They can experiment with things that
[13:29.880 --> 13:40.840]  lawyers can't. So we get the process together and we pull their good documentation. We load the
[13:40.840 --> 13:46.920]  tools into the engine. We load the questionnaires that go to the issues. We load the documentation
[13:46.920 --> 13:54.760]  so that when someone answers questions that goes to this remedy, the tool will produce the document
[13:54.760 --> 14:01.400]  for them. If they then download it and pay us for it, then we give an override to the researcher.
[14:02.440 --> 14:09.480]  In this way, we will produce passive income for these guys and make it easier for them to do what
[14:09.480 --> 14:20.760]  they do. But also, we will make the process remedies available to the client so the client can go to
[14:20.760 --> 14:29.480]  the lawyer and say, yo, Bubba, I got these remedies. I need you to adjudicate them. Now the lawyer's
[14:29.480 --> 14:37.960]  on the time. Now he's stuck because he doesn't adjudicate them and the client doesn't win or
[14:37.960 --> 14:44.760]  doesn't win as much as he expected to win. He's likely to sue the lawyer. So this gives the
[14:44.760 --> 14:51.640]  lawyer plausible deniability so that he can bring in arguments that he otherwise wouldn't bring in.
[14:53.480 --> 15:01.400]  And this will allow us to expand the scope of legal representation. We can force them to do that.
[15:01.400 --> 15:09.560]  Everybody wins here. The lawyers win because they get more tools they can use. The prosaic
[15:09.560 --> 15:15.000]  researchers win because they get passive income. But most of all, the individual wins because
[15:15.000 --> 15:23.880]  they get more access to remedy. Okay, that's my story. I'm sticking to it. We do have a
[15:23.880 --> 15:29.560]  couple of callers on the line. So I've only got a minute and a half, but I'm going to start out
[15:29.560 --> 15:34.760]  with Tina in California. Hello, Tina. We've got a minute and a half to give us the synopsis
[15:34.760 --> 15:39.480]  of what you want and we'll pick it up on the other side. Okay, I have one quick question
[15:40.520 --> 15:47.480]  for right now. And that is the California Supreme Court, when you're making an accusation against
[15:47.480 --> 15:54.440]  the judge or attorney, requires it to be in a certain format for them. If I'm going to find
[15:54.440 --> 16:00.200]  someone to help me write the initial complaint which I have to send to the state bar first,
[16:00.200 --> 16:07.480]  then I have to send the judicial commission. Whoa, whoa. Hold on. I think we're mixing terms up.
[16:07.480 --> 16:13.160]  You're saying a complaint. When you say complaint, do you mean a professional
[16:13.160 --> 16:23.160]  conduct complaint or criminal accusation? Well, I'm not sure. Let's say the one I'm trying to do
[16:23.160 --> 16:31.880]  now is where the attorney refuses to give me the original note and he also has submitted
[16:32.680 --> 16:43.640]  false assistance to the court. Okay. Refusing to give you the note, that would be professional
[16:43.640 --> 16:52.280]  conduct or civil. Okay. But, okay, lying or perjury or fraud, that's a different matter. Hang on.
[16:52.280 --> 16:57.960]  I'm about to go to break. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens at Rule of Law Radio, we'll be right back.
[17:01.320 --> 17:05.320]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic similar. In today's America,
[17:05.320 --> 17:09.160]  we live in an us against them society. If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[17:09.160 --> 17:13.240]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[17:13.240 --> 17:16.760]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most
[17:16.760 --> 17:21.000]  importantly, the right to do process of law. The traffic courts afford us the least expensive
[17:21.000 --> 17:25.400]  opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's
[17:25.400 --> 17:29.400]  deputy, Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive
[17:29.400 --> 17:33.240]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[17:33.240 --> 17:37.160]  courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[17:37.160 --> 17:41.720]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[17:41.720 --> 17:45.720]  book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original
[17:45.720 --> 17:50.520]  2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight
[17:50.520 --> 17:54.920]  for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and
[17:54.920 --> 18:02.680]  together we can have a free society we all want and deserve. Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[18:02.680 --> 18:09.400]  with phone calls, letters or even losses? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris Proven Method.
[18:09.400 --> 18:14.920]  Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[18:14.920 --> 18:19.720]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.720 --> 18:25.480]  civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons. How to answer
[18:25.480 --> 18:30.040]  letters and phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports. How to turn the
[18:30.040 --> 18:36.520]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mirris Proven Method is the
[18:36.520 --> 18:41.800]  solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[18:41.800 --> 18:47.720]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner or email
[18:47.720 --> 18:57.640]  michaelmirris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:57.640 --> 19:21.560]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:27.640 --> 19:40.680]  Okay, we are back. Randy Calton, David Stevens, rule of law radio. We're talking to Tina in
[19:40.680 --> 19:46.680]  California and you have a couple of issues with the lawyer. One of them sounds like
[19:46.680 --> 19:52.920]  potentially criminal. The other one sounds bar grievance or civil.
[19:52.920 --> 19:59.320]  Okay, well I'm wanting to, I'm attempting to do the bar grievance but whatever I,
[20:00.360 --> 20:05.320]  but then I have to, I know they're not going to do anything so I have to then take it to
[20:05.320 --> 20:11.480]  the Supreme Court because the state, you know, the bar won't do anything. The Supreme Court of
[20:11.480 --> 20:18.280]  California requires it to be in a certain format. Would it be okay to do it in their format right
[20:18.280 --> 20:25.320]  from the start so that I save money? I think it would be that you would be well advised to do it
[20:25.320 --> 20:33.400]  in the Supreme Court's format from the start. For one thing it will tell the bar that as far as
[20:33.400 --> 20:41.400]  you're concerned the bar is just a step on the way to the Supreme. Okay. It may encourage them to
[20:41.400 --> 20:50.760]  be somewhat more diligent. Okay. Okay. Now you said about the line, let's say,
[20:51.320 --> 20:57.080]  I'll give you one example, there's many of them, but just one example of a false statement
[20:57.960 --> 21:05.320]  is that the attorney has said all along that the deeds were recorded, these fake
[21:05.320 --> 21:12.600]  forged deeds were recorded in the recorders office. They were not. I have proven to them
[21:12.600 --> 21:18.200]  and submitted it into court, the proof that they were not. And they keep on saying that,
[21:18.200 --> 21:26.280]  including when we went to appeal, they submitted in writing that these deeds, grandees, were recorded.
[21:26.920 --> 21:32.920]  They were not recorded, but they keep saying it because it tells the judge that, oh, they were
[21:32.920 --> 21:40.200]  legitimate if they were recorded. And so that the judge doesn't know, even though the Supreme,
[21:40.200 --> 21:48.520]  the appeal court judge, we submitted a correction and the appeal court judge in their response
[21:48.520 --> 21:57.000]  when they denied my appeal said these deeds were recorded. They were not. And charged the judge
[21:57.000 --> 22:03.560]  with failing to properly apply the law to the facts. Okay.
[22:05.880 --> 22:12.680]  Because in my mind, it sways the judge's opinion, making them think those grandees were not forged
[22:12.680 --> 22:17.720]  when I proved they are, and they're claiming that I did them. And I proved to them.
[22:17.720 --> 22:22.920]  If you proved they were forged, then charge the judge with subordination
[22:22.920 --> 22:29.960]  of, or acting in concert inclusion. Concert inclusion. I like that.
[22:31.080 --> 22:35.240]  And how do I charge that? Is that a criminal complaint? Is that a criminal court?
[22:35.240 --> 22:45.000]  Yeah, that s criminal conspiracy. And go to California law, look up criminal culpability.
[22:45.000 --> 22:54.600]  Real culpability. A person is culpable if they, for the crime that another commits if they act
[22:54.600 --> 23:02.760]  in concert inclusion. Oh, okay. For the purpose of furthering the effect of the crime. And that s
[23:02.760 --> 23:08.840]  exactly what the judge is doing. They filed against him, criminally. Well, there was three,
[23:08.840 --> 23:14.520]  I think there were four judges on the appeal court. I guess all of them were supreme. That would be
[23:14.520 --> 23:20.040]  great. That will get their attention. Especially the appellate court judges. The appellate court
[23:20.040 --> 23:27.560]  judges, all of the district judges want to get on the appellate court. So the appellate court
[23:27.560 --> 23:35.000]  judges have lots of competition for their position. What you create for the appellate court judges
[23:35.000 --> 23:41.320]  is politics. You create cannon fodder for their political enemies.
[23:41.320 --> 23:48.840]  So they re much better to go after their district judge because their position is more contentious.
[23:50.280 --> 23:56.200]  So you file against them with the supreme and send it to the newspapers. You might actually
[23:56.200 --> 24:02.040]  get a newspaper to pick one up. And I just do that one incident because to me,
[24:02.040 --> 24:08.760]  it s very telling when we actually submitted a motion or a paper into the court.
[24:08.760 --> 24:16.600]  You know, basically, regarding what this attorney had submitted and he knew it was wrong.
[24:16.600 --> 24:21.480]  They just keep saying in my mind, I kept telling my attorney, you have to focus on this because
[24:21.480 --> 24:28.200]  they are doing this for a reason. And it s to mislead the judge into thinking that everything
[24:28.200 --> 24:34.200]  is okay and that I filed these documents and I signed them and I did not and I have a handwriting
[24:34.200 --> 24:41.240]  that says it s not my signature. And the judge ignored that? The judge ignored that.
[24:41.240 --> 24:50.760]  So go after the judge. The judge is the problem. He apparently bought and paid for and he needs
[24:50.760 --> 24:57.880]  these guys to give him something he can use to support his ruling he already wants to come to.
[24:57.880 --> 25:07.960]  So make it hard for him. Yeah. Am I right in thinking that when somebody said these deeds
[25:07.960 --> 25:15.080]  were recorded in the county recorders office means a totally different thing to these deeds
[25:15.960 --> 25:22.440]  probably were or might have been recorded. When they said were, it means they re saying they
[25:22.440 --> 25:29.560]  were recorded and we agree that this is legal. That s an affirmation of fact. If it s untrue,
[25:30.760 --> 25:35.400]  then it must be construed that the lawyers were aware that it was untrue.
[25:36.360 --> 25:41.000]  And they were aware because we d let them know that it was untrue in papers,
[25:41.000 --> 25:47.400]  in studio court. So then the judge knew that they weren t recorded. So the judge actually
[25:47.400 --> 25:52.360]  didn t con certain conclusion. The judge says why you can appeal my decision if you don t like it.
[25:52.360 --> 25:57.720]  And I m saying that we can appeal your decision to a grand jury and ask them to arrest you.
[25:59.240 --> 26:04.440]  Well, I like that. I d love to see that. Okay. Well, those are my two quick questions for
[26:04.440 --> 26:09.800]  tonight. Obviously, I ve got hundreds more, but I wait for the next week and the next week
[26:09.800 --> 26:17.880]  and ask one each week to get to other people. Thank you, Tina. Okay. Now we re going to
[26:17.880 --> 26:24.120]  Olivia in North Carolina. Hello, Olivia. Hi, Randy. How are you?
[26:24.840 --> 26:32.200]  I am good. What do you have for us today? Thanks for taking my call. I m going back about the
[26:32.200 --> 26:36.680]  fencing issue. And there s couple of issues in there, but that s the primary I want.
[26:36.680 --> 26:44.280]  And I have two quick questions going to you. First one is I ve got a set of interrogatories
[26:44.280 --> 26:49.880]  from the lawyer. And right away the next day, I was signed back with my set of interrogatories.
[26:49.880 --> 26:56.200]  But one of the, or two of them are pretty, just asking too much, I think. I m going to see how,
[26:56.200 --> 26:59.080]  what do you think I should, at least final, how do I object to those?
[26:59.080 --> 27:09.320]  Oh, you finally, if you look in some of the civil cases, if you re new to litigation,
[27:10.440 --> 27:17.240]  go down to the court and ask the clerk to see the biggest file they got.
[27:19.160 --> 27:26.360]  I did that in West Chinese, Texas. And I got Mitchell Energy case, three file drawers.
[27:26.360 --> 27:35.160]  When you get a large case like that, you ve got lawyers that charge a lot of money and they do
[27:35.160 --> 27:44.680]  some really cool stuff. And go through that and find the discovery and the objections to discovery.
[27:45.480 --> 27:48.760]  They ll tell you how to do all this. They ll tell you how to raise these objections.
[27:48.760 --> 27:56.760]  And there are a relatively standard set of objections. And probably the most common
[27:56.760 --> 28:07.080]  objection is that the request is overbroad and would, and dumb dumb dumb close the term,
[28:07.640 --> 28:12.760]  it s overbroad and they re fishing. They re trying to think of the right term to say
[28:12.760 --> 28:16.360]  that they re fishing for something. They re not asking for anything specific.
[28:16.360 --> 28:24.600]  And it would be unduly onerous to answer this overbroad discovery and you ask the
[28:24.600 --> 28:35.240]  court to order them to limit the discovery. It s kind of standard. Or, or, or, a lot of
[28:35.240 --> 28:45.320]  times, let me use discovery for harassment. If the lawyers ask you for anything that is in the
[28:45.320 --> 28:53.080]  record, you, you object to that because anything that is in any public record, in any court,
[28:53.080 --> 29:00.680]  in any, you know, like a tax authority or anything, the lawyer has equal access to it
[29:01.640 --> 29:07.960]  as you do. So he can t ask you to produce something that he has equal access to. Be careful and look
[29:07.960 --> 29:19.160]  for that. Okay, okay. So many possibilities. The best thing to do is get a big case where there s
[29:19.160 --> 29:24.760]  lots of discovery and then look at, look, look at the discovery questions, the interrogatories
[29:24.760 --> 29:28.600]  and the admissions and then look at how the lawyers are responding to them.
[29:29.720 --> 29:33.960]  This is nothing much simpler than that. Let me just explain what it is. Identify the name,
[29:33.960 --> 29:39.400]  address and phone number of all persons or entities plaintiffs, which is me, have
[29:39.400 --> 29:44.200]  corresponded with, in regards to their claim, the defendant s fence is in violation of
[29:44.200 --> 29:52.440]  late-ball covenants. I don t recall. Yeah, I call it the fence. It was, it, but trailing
[29:52.440 --> 29:56.200]  fence that my neighbor has put out, that s against the late-ball, the due restrictions,
[29:56.200 --> 29:59.560]  that s against the due restrictions. And I ask them to take it down that they don t.
[29:59.560 --> 30:07.880]  Look out. I ve got X-ray vision. Well, not really, but there is a new technology that
[30:07.880 --> 30:12.520]  lets people see through solid walls. I m Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I ll tell you about
[30:12.520 --> 30:18.680]  a powerful form of radar that can change our streets forever. Privacy is under attack.
[30:18.680 --> 30:22.840]  When you give up data about yourself, you ll never get it back again. And once your
[30:22.840 --> 30:28.840]  privacy is gone, you ll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights.
[30:28.840 --> 30:35.080]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it s worth hanging onto.
[30:35.080 --> 30:40.840]  This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[30:40.840 --> 30:48.040]  Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. Seeing through walls is no longer the stuff
[30:48.040 --> 30:53.960]  of comic books or Superman movies. MIT researchers have created a new machine that lets the human
[30:53.960 --> 30:59.640]  eyes see moving objects through solid, concrete walls. With an antenna, a transmitter, and a
[30:59.640 --> 31:05.080]  receiver, the device emits frequency waves on a low-power microwave signal that can penetrate
[31:05.080 --> 31:10.600]  walls up to 40 feet away. The waves reflect moving objects and transmit their image to
[31:10.600 --> 31:16.040]  receivers where they appear as red blobs. The inventors originally designed this gadget for
[31:16.040 --> 31:21.080]  urban warfare, but I wouldn t be surprised if one day it got commercialized and sold
[31:21.080 --> 31:27.400]  through the internet as a spy cam on steroids. I m Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com,
[31:27.400 --> 31:34.680]  the world s most private search engine. I lost my son, my uncle, my uncle on September 11,
[31:34.680 --> 31:40.600]  2001. Most people don t know that a third tower fell on September 11. World Trade Center 7,
[31:40.600 --> 31:46.120]  a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire
[31:46.120 --> 31:51.240]  brought down building 7. Over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence
[31:51.240 --> 31:56.280]  and believed there is more to the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son.
[31:56.280 --> 32:01.400]  Go to building what.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[32:01.400 --> 32:05.240]  Hey, it s Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive hail or wind
[32:05.240 --> 32:09.240]  damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government caused it with their Kim
[32:09.240 --> 32:13.560]  Trails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about the Kim Trails,
[32:13.560 --> 32:17.880]  but I m serious about your roof. That s why you have insurance and Hill Country Home Improvements
[32:17.880 --> 32:22.760]  can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense. And we accept Bitcoin
[32:22.760 --> 32:27.560]  as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with zero complaints. You can
[32:27.560 --> 32:32.600]  trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and your roof right the first time.
[32:32.600 --> 32:41.000]  Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Mention the crypto show and get $100
[32:41.000 --> 32:45.880]  off, and we ll donate another $100 to the Logos Radio Network to help continue this programming.
[32:45.880 --> 32:54.920]  So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking, your door should be locked in. That s 512-992-8745
[32:54.920 --> 32:59.320]  or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts are based on full roof replacement.
[32:59.320 --> 33:29.160]  Be not initially kidding about Kim Trails.
[33:29.320 --> 33:59.160]  Okay, we are back. When shall we begin?
[33:59.160 --> 34:13.560]  We re talking to Olivia North Carolina. Discovery, you can find that in the record. The easiest
[34:13.560 --> 34:22.680]  way to research discovery is to pull somebody else s file. If you can find a case where there
[34:22.680 --> 34:32.200]  was an issue over an illegal or improper offense, then you almost certainly have all your research
[34:32.200 --> 34:37.400]  and homework done for you. Have you talked to the court clerk?
[34:37.400 --> 34:44.280]  I did, and they told me to go to the computer room and use that. I don t know. The computer
[34:44.280 --> 34:48.600]  room uses mainframes, and it s pretty hard to speak to.
[34:48.600 --> 34:57.120]  Did you ask the clerk if she knew about any cases concerning improper offenses that you
[34:57.120 --> 34:58.120]  might look up?
[34:58.120 --> 35:00.120]  No, I haven t.
[35:00.120 --> 35:10.720]  Ask the clerk. They may remember them. I tell people, never screw with the clerk. Clerks
[35:10.720 --> 35:17.080]  don t have a dog in the hunt. They never have attitudes. We re almost never. They always
[35:17.080 --> 35:24.560]  tend to be really helpful. If you tell them what your issue is and you tell them you re
[35:24.560 --> 35:29.080]  going to ask them if they remember anything about an offense, if there s been an offense
[35:29.080 --> 35:36.840]  case in the last several years, somebody s been remembering it, and that will really
[35:36.840 --> 35:37.840]  save you time.
[35:37.840 --> 35:45.360]  I would just like to practice so many cases. I don t know. They asked me basically who
[35:45.360 --> 35:47.760]  or I talked to about this sort of thing.
[35:47.760 --> 35:53.000]  They process a lot of cases, but you re talking about something that doesn t come through
[35:53.000 --> 36:02.320]  there often. They got DUI, DUI, DUI, DUI, and then maybe a drug case and then a family
[36:02.320 --> 36:08.160]  law, and they get 100 of those. They get something about offense. They get something about oil
[36:08.160 --> 36:14.400]  issues. When I went down there and asked about, and we have problems with the Mitchell Energy,
[36:14.400 --> 36:21.700]  they figured out how to do fracking. That s in the news a lot. Well, Mitchell Energy
[36:21.700 --> 36:26.680]  is the ones that figured out how to do it. They destroyed our water table, figuring out
[36:26.680 --> 36:31.000]  how to do it, and they got sued about it.
[36:31.000 --> 36:38.560]  I went down there asking about any cases concerning water table. These clerks knew every one of
[36:38.560 --> 36:45.040]  them because they were unusual. A suit on the fence is kind of unusual, and the clerks
[36:45.040 --> 36:46.040]  tend to remember that.
[36:46.040 --> 36:51.040]  Do they just give you the copies of the cases, or how do I just s**t you of those cases?
[36:51.040 --> 36:55.840]  No, they ll just tell you what the case is, and then you can either pull it up on a computer
[36:55.840 --> 36:59.280]  or ask them to bring you the hard copies. If it s an older case, they may have hard
[36:59.280 --> 37:04.800]  copies. Newer cases, they tend not to have hard copies. Everything s in the computer.
[37:04.800 --> 37:10.120]  That s good because you can pull them down very quickly. If you have problems with the
[37:10.120 --> 37:13.920]  computer, you want to get the clerk over there, they ll show you how to use it. They are really
[37:13.920 --> 37:14.920]  helpful.
[37:14.920 --> 37:21.960]  Okay. I will try that tomorrow on that week, probably tomorrow. If I have answered the
[37:21.960 --> 37:25.400]  question, I have to basically remember everybody who I talk to about the fence, including the
[37:25.400 --> 37:30.400]  radio show that I m talking to right now, which I don t think is relevant to mention
[37:30.400 --> 37:35.200]  who I ve talked to about the fence, all the correspondents. It s such a broad question.
[37:35.200 --> 37:41.400]  It s like, it s trying to give me to commit perjury by mistaking something or mistaking
[37:41.400 --> 37:42.400]  something.
[37:42.400 --> 37:53.240]  Okay. You are a post-alignant. You got a lot of leeway that the lawyer doesn t have. If
[37:53.240 --> 38:05.840]  perjury is only perjury, if it is a deliberate misstatement of a material fact, it s not
[38:05.840 --> 38:11.800]  just that you have to lie, but you have to lie about something that s important that
[38:11.800 --> 38:18.760]  matters. If you go into court and ask how much you weigh and you lie about it, and the case
[38:18.760 --> 38:30.400]  is about the fence, well, that s not perjury, because it s not a relevant issue. It s only
[38:30.400 --> 38:38.360]  perjury if it is material for the case, and then only if you deliberately lied for the
[38:38.360 --> 38:46.080]  purpose of misleading. So that s not a problem. There s someone a problem if you re deliberately
[38:46.080 --> 38:52.800]  trying to deceive. Then it can be a problem. But don t worry about that. Don t worry about
[38:52.800 --> 38:56.280]  making mistakes. Your pros say they expect you to make mistakes.
[38:56.280 --> 39:04.120]  Okay. I could just say I don t remember. Oh, I just too many people. TJ Maxx people I met.
[39:04.120 --> 39:10.400]  At least do I go to just say I don t remember. Could something simple like that, or do I
[39:10.400 --> 39:14.080]  really have to go and have a rest of a well-worn objection?
[39:14.080 --> 39:21.160]  Well, one of the things you might ask the court, as you ask the court, you object to
[39:21.160 --> 39:28.520]  any oral argument, ask the court to rule on the documents, maintain that it would be patently
[39:28.520 --> 39:40.840]  unfair to pit a professional lawyer against a pros say in court. It would leave an unreasonable
[39:40.840 --> 39:48.000]  disadvantage to you, so you have time to research your paperwork and ask the court to rule on
[39:48.000 --> 39:58.360]  the documentation. At the end of the day, your only purpose in the trial court is to
[39:58.360 --> 40:07.200]  set the record for appeal. It s really important that you keep that in mind. That way, when
[40:07.200 --> 40:11.120]  the judge rules against you on something you think he should have ruled in your favor
[40:11.120 --> 40:17.760]  on, you won t feel so frustrated and upset and betrayed and it will cause you to lose
[40:17.760 --> 40:24.960]  your focus. When judge rules against me, I say, okay, got that one marked. I m just
[40:24.960 --> 40:30.640]  setting the record for appeal. When you re doing that, they will figure that out pretty
[40:30.640 --> 40:36.520]  quick. When they start ruling against you and you don t get upset, you just object to
[40:36.520 --> 40:41.560]  the ruling and you can do that in writing, ask for findings, effecting conclusions at
[40:41.560 --> 40:49.480]  law, but expect the court to rule against you out of hand at every turn. The court may
[40:49.480 --> 40:56.520]  not, but you need to act and conduct yourself as if the court is going to do that and you
[40:56.520 --> 41:04.400]  don t care. You re just there setting the record. You have to get the arguments on the
[41:04.400 --> 41:12.960]  record. You don t care how the judge rules on them. You care, but it s not that important.
[41:12.960 --> 41:19.400]  What s important is having the facts and the law on the record because when you get to
[41:19.400 --> 41:28.680]  the court of appeals, that s a whole other animal. If you are setting things up for the
[41:28.680 --> 41:35.920]  court of appeals, the lawyer will figure that out. He s dealing with a process and he figures
[41:35.920 --> 41:41.320]  he can jerk you around, but if he sees you setting him up for appeal, then he s going
[41:41.320 --> 41:47.480]  to tell his client, you need to make a deal with this person because they re setting you
[41:47.480 --> 41:52.560]  up for an appellate court and you re not going to like the amount of money that s going to
[41:52.560 --> 41:55.560]  cost you. At the end, everything s political.
[41:55.560 --> 42:00.680]  I think I m trying to do that. I m trying to do that because I already did submit the
[42:00.680 --> 42:07.600]  motion for summary judgment. The other lawyer submitted a motion for the courtary judgment
[42:07.600 --> 42:17.280]  where he just asked the judge or ruling on what the parties have, what are the, basically,
[42:17.280 --> 42:21.400]  what are the rights. There s just not much in there. I actually submitted the motion
[42:21.400 --> 42:25.000]  for summary judgment with all the details and arguments. I did a really good job of writing
[42:25.000 --> 42:32.600]  it up with cases and statues. I did that on December 18. I think I m going to try something
[42:32.600 --> 42:36.400]  online that said that you have the judge who s bound in two to three months. I think I
[42:36.400 --> 42:41.120]  m supposed to also file a motion for hearing to have the summary judgment ruled on.
[42:41.120 --> 42:42.120]  Yes.
[42:42.120 --> 42:44.160]  I think I m going to try it.
[42:44.160 --> 42:51.160]  Yes. Generally, whenever you file a motion, the first thing you do is ask the clerk when
[42:51.160 --> 42:58.120]  the judge sits for motion hearings. Generally, the courts will set aside a whole day just
[42:58.120 --> 43:05.600]  to hear motions. For the most part, motions go quickly. Lawyers come in and they have
[43:05.600 --> 43:12.560]  one or two issues in a motion, and the judge goes through them very quickly. He sets aside
[43:12.560 --> 43:19.800]  a day. He asks the court, the clerk, when the next, you have to give the other side
[43:19.800 --> 43:27.240]  time to reply. You have to give them 30 days to reply. I m filing it today. 30 days from
[43:27.240 --> 43:36.600]  today, what would be the first motion hearing after 30 days? He ll give you a date. Ask
[43:36.600 --> 43:38.600]  her for two days.
[43:38.600 --> 43:43.200]  It s not too late because I already filed a motion for hearing. I can still ask for
[43:43.200 --> 43:46.840]  a motion for hearing, even though it s been one 30 days since I filed it.
[43:46.840 --> 43:55.360]  You can set it any time. If it was 18th, it s been close to 30 days, and now you can
[43:55.360 --> 44:01.360]  set it here. You could have set it immediately, but it had to be more than 30 days.
[44:01.360 --> 44:05.040]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination by
[44:05.040 --> 44:09.320]  delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[44:09.320 --> 44:13.240]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality
[44:13.240 --> 44:17.960]  coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions
[44:17.960 --> 44:22.640]  for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited
[44:22.640 --> 44:26.840]  metals dealers and journalists. If we don t have what you re looking for, we can find
[44:26.840 --> 44:31.600]  it. In addition, we carry popular young jevity products, such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and
[44:31.600 --> 44:36.280]  Pollen Burst. We also offer one-world-way, Mountain House storeable foods, Berkey Water
[44:36.280 --> 44:41.280]  products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. We broker metals IRA accounts and
[44:41.280 --> 44:48.320]  we also accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6404. We re located at 7304
[44:48.320 --> 44:52.280]  Burnett Road, Sweet A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We re open Monday through
[44:52.280 --> 45:01.400]  Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6404.
[45:01.400 --> 45:06.760]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris
[45:06.760 --> 45:12.640]  Dictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-city course that will show you how in
[45:12.640 --> 45:19.560]  24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If
[45:19.560 --> 45:24.600]  you don t have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our
[45:24.600 --> 45:30.560]  step-by-step course, and now you can, too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed
[45:30.560 --> 45:37.280]  attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you re not in a lawsuit, you can learn
[45:37.280 --> 45:42.120]  what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our
[45:42.120 --> 45:48.480]  American courts. You ll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[45:48.480 --> 45:55.560]  for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and
[45:55.560 --> 46:02.560]  click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-V.
[46:25.560 --> 46:36.960]  Okay, we are back. Randy Carlton, rule of law radio, and we re talking to Olivia in
[46:36.960 --> 46:46.280]  North Carolina. Okay, Olivia, where are we? I was commenting on the break that it s nice
[46:46.280 --> 46:52.800]  to work to have someone who does their homework. You re paying attention and it makes it nicer
[46:52.800 --> 46:57.000]  to work with you. Okay, what do you have for us now? Where are we at?
[46:57.000 --> 47:03.160]  I think we ve talked about it. The discovery is started for the interrogatories. You ve
[47:03.160 --> 47:07.520]  got a sent to me on Tuesday, and I ve sent it to them today. I think he s the public
[47:07.520 --> 47:12.600]  guy today. But I can still find more people hearing, and if the judge rules early, then
[47:12.600 --> 47:19.480]  we don t have to finish the interrogatory. Well, you don t have to. If you raise an
[47:19.480 --> 47:26.480]  opposition to the interrogatories, then the lawyer will have to file a motion to compel.
[47:26.480 --> 47:34.520]  Then they ll set a hearing, and then you go argue about whether or not you should have
[47:34.520 --> 47:43.240]  to produce this information they re asking for. The lawyer s going to have to show why
[47:43.240 --> 47:51.040]  the information is needed and show that it s not unduly onerous. You don t have to worry
[47:51.040 --> 47:58.520]  about producing the discovery now. If there s discovery you have no objection to, send
[47:58.520 --> 48:07.000]  it in, and that will make it look as though you are doing your best to comply and make
[48:07.000 --> 48:11.560]  it more likely that the judge will rule in your favor on those things that are unduly
[48:11.560 --> 48:17.040]  onerous. Okay. And I m trying to really just speed
[48:17.040 --> 48:21.720]  up, and I thought he was going to rule on the motion for some way judgment, because everything
[48:21.720 --> 48:28.000]  is in there. There s no questions about the facts, and it s all pretty black and white
[48:28.000 --> 48:33.840]  in the county records. On that point, I didn t talk about it on a radio show because I
[48:33.840 --> 48:40.480]  think we would sidetrack too far. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. You mentioned earlier
[48:40.480 --> 48:51.320]  that the opposing counsel had asked for declaratory judgment. Did you get that declaratory judgment?
[48:51.320 --> 48:56.400]  No. Nothing came in. I don t have anything. I don t have the ruling on a summary judgment,
[48:56.400 --> 49:00.280]  no declaratory judgment. I also didn t see a motion for discovery. Shouldn t be a motion
[49:00.280 --> 49:05.720]  to discover before he can start into a laboratory? No. No, no, no, no. There s no motion for
[49:05.720 --> 49:15.400]  discovery. Discovery is between you and opposing counsel. You send a discovery to each other.
[49:15.400 --> 49:22.480]  When one party doesn t respond to discovery the way the other party feels they should,
[49:22.480 --> 49:29.640]  then they file a motion with the court to compel discovery. Okay. So he sent something
[49:29.640 --> 49:37.480]  to you. The court doesn t know anything about that. If you object to it, then you notify
[49:37.480 --> 49:43.560]  the court of what he sent you and what your objections are. Then he will file his argument
[49:43.560 --> 49:48.000]  as to why he should get it and then the judge will make a ruling.
[49:48.000 --> 49:54.240]  But in the meantime, I could file a motion for a hearing and have the hearing on a summary
[49:54.240 --> 50:01.000]  judgment that I wrote. Correct? Absolutely. If you have, if there are no material facts
[50:01.000 --> 50:07.680]  at issue, then it s right for some judgment. Okay. Perfect. Well, there s actually, there
[50:07.680 --> 50:13.480]  s this. Is there anything that, please ask me if I m talking on the radio show that
[50:13.480 --> 50:22.640]  they can use against me? No. No. Drivers? No. Nothing on that. No. You didn t say anything
[50:22.640 --> 50:29.440]  particularly nasty about him. As long as you speak to the facts in law, you can do that
[50:29.440 --> 50:37.040]  all you want to unless there s a gag order. And I can t imagine a gag order in a dispute
[50:37.040 --> 50:49.120]  over offense. Yeah, that s true. Yeah. And you can call the lawyer a dirty rotten chester
[50:49.120 --> 50:58.080]  if you want to. Yeah. Yeah. He will say I was slender, but you ll say, yeah, but he
[50:58.080 --> 51:07.040]  is a shyster. Yeah. There s nothing you have to worry about. I get uncomfortable sometimes
[51:07.040 --> 51:15.120]  when people talk about things that scare me. I had a couple of people talking about things
[51:15.120 --> 51:24.680]  that private secret information they had, they had inside information about certain government
[51:24.680 --> 51:32.440]  operations and they terrified me. And I had to stop them. So let s not do this on the
[51:32.440 --> 51:39.280]  air or do this in private. So you ll have people shooting at you. But that s only one
[51:39.280 --> 51:46.400]  or two times in 12 years. There s nothing here that I ve any compunction about talking
[51:46.400 --> 51:52.360]  about openly. If I have a go to deposition, do I have to, if they ask me where I talk
[51:52.360 --> 51:58.320]  to and if I object it and the court says you need to tell them all those things, do I have
[51:58.320 --> 52:03.640]  to really mention I was on the drage to laptop to Sloan. So I t j maxed, I took a Sloan. So
[52:03.640 --> 52:20.520]  I m not a material witness. I have no direct knowledge of anything. So they do these overbroad
[52:20.520 --> 52:29.960]  requests, but you only have to, what they re fishing for, what they re looking for are
[52:29.960 --> 52:39.480]  people who could be called as a witness. Would she ask me a separate objection on two of them?
[52:39.480 --> 52:46.960]  And you should just do a general objection. Who I talk to about this case is not relevant
[52:46.960 --> 52:54.360]  to the case. The facts don t change because I talked about them unless the counsel is
[52:54.360 --> 53:00.840]  alleging liable to slander. But since he s not, then it s irrelevant.
[53:00.840 --> 53:06.000]  Perfect. Perfect. If you re ready.
[53:06.000 --> 53:12.600]  If they re trying to find witnesses, you can ask the other side to put in a request for
[53:12.600 --> 53:17.960]  a witness list. You ll give them a witness list, make this discovery loop.
[53:17.960 --> 53:29.560]  Okay. So that should be pretty easy. If you can find a case similar to this subject, property
[53:29.560 --> 53:37.240]  line issue, anything between two neighbors, you ll get a lot of really good information.
[53:37.240 --> 53:42.920]  Okay. Do you have anything else for us? That s all. Thank you. I ve really appreciate
[53:42.920 --> 53:48.520]  it, Randy. How do we say? Okay. Thank you. And now we re going to Ralph
[53:48.520 --> 53:57.480]  in Texas. Hello, Ralph. Hello, Randy. Hello. What do you have for us today?
[53:57.480 --> 54:06.440]  A couple of things. Let s see. I sent you a couple of emails and I did get a response
[54:06.440 --> 54:12.240]  and I thought I d let you know that I did find some properly applied law to the facts
[54:12.240 --> 54:18.120]  cases off of the Internet. Oh, good. Because I saw that I had a problem
[54:18.120 --> 54:28.960]  with Dropbox. Dropbox wiped out 65 gig of research. I opened the folder and it s just
[54:28.960 --> 54:35.560]  empty. It s gone. I don t know where it went to. And I ve lost a lot of really important
[54:35.560 --> 54:43.600]  stuff. I ve lost years worth of research. Tina s asking me about a spreadsheet that
[54:43.600 --> 54:49.680]  I use. All of that s gone. I probably got it hidden on a hard drive somewhere but I
[54:49.680 --> 54:57.520]  can t find it. So I m kind of frustrated. And I am really buried in this project trying
[54:57.520 --> 55:05.800]  to get my electronic warrior funded. So I didn t have time. I didn t see your emails
[55:05.800 --> 55:12.840]  but I just didn t have time to research that out. Have you been able to forward the email
[55:12.840 --> 55:27.440]  to Ken? Yeah, with Ken who? Federal court Ken? Yeah, that would be Ken Almond. No, I didn
[55:27.440 --> 55:34.360]  t think about that. I don t know if he had that. I might have sent that to him. I ll
[55:34.360 --> 55:39.880]  try that out. Send me another email. Ask me to send this to Ken. That s not what I wanted
[55:39.880 --> 55:45.000]  you to send to him. I wanted you to send my name to him so he could contact me back and
[55:45.000 --> 55:51.800]  let me know if he could help me with my appeal. Oh, okay. Send that to re-send it and I will
[55:51.800 --> 56:00.720]  get that out to him in the morning. Okay. Now, my list is getting shorter. If we have
[56:00.720 --> 56:07.280]  just a moment here, I want to read you what I didn t read last week. Okay? Okay. I mean
[56:07.280 --> 56:14.600]  plaintiff did not, this is a report recommendation from the judge and it makes no sense to me.
[56:14.600 --> 56:22.960]  Plaintiff did not allege in fact submit any evidence or provide any legal authority illustrating
[56:22.960 --> 56:30.960]  that a reasonable officer would not have inventoryed the vehicle s contents or impounded the vehicle
[56:30.960 --> 56:38.440]  in accordance with public safety and community care taking function. That may be a bit much
[56:38.440 --> 56:47.600]  for you. I m not sure. Okay. So, you argued that they told your vehicle and did not inventory
[56:47.600 --> 56:55.440]  it? No, I m saying that he didn t have the right to tell my vehicle or car. Okay. He
[56:55.440 --> 57:04.240]  didn t have the right to seize it. Yeah, but that wasn t the argument that you referenced.
[57:04.240 --> 57:12.840]  Read again what the judge said. Okay. Plaintiff did not allege any facts, submit any evidence
[57:12.840 --> 57:19.280]  or provide any legal authority illustrating that a reasonable officer would not have inventoryed
[57:19.280 --> 57:26.280]  or impounded the vehicle in accordance with public safety and care taking function. Okay.
[57:26.280 --> 57:33.120]  Did, how did you make that argument? Okay. The community care taking function to only
[57:33.120 --> 57:42.520]  apply under two conditions. One is that the person arrested or the car that was impounded
[57:42.520 --> 57:53.120]  was parked by the individual or if the person arrested was arrested under mandatory arrest.
[57:53.120 --> 58:02.160]  The arrest was required. The arrest was not at officer discretion. And you presented that
[58:02.160 --> 58:11.880]  law to the judge? Yeah, I presented that law. It s a case in those 545305. Then good. Charged
[58:11.880 --> 58:19.920]  the judge with official misconduct. Oh, okay. That raises some other questions. Yeah. Okay.
[58:19.920 --> 58:24.360]  I went on jurisprudence. You told me I could look at criminal complaints there. I can t
[58:24.360 --> 58:31.680]  get on jurisprudence. Is it still working? Yes, I think it is. We re about to go to break.
[58:31.680 --> 58:39.280]  Well, did you go to jurisimprudence.website? No, I did not. That was. That s why you couldn
[58:39.280 --> 58:45.680]  t get on. I lost jurisimprudence.com. Hang on. About to go to break. Randy Kelton. We
[58:45.680 --> 58:52.920]  will radio or call it number 5126461984. The Bible remains the most popular book in
[58:52.920 --> 58:58.600]  the world. Yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some
[58:58.600 --> 59:04.000]  new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise
[59:04.000 --> 59:11.000]  the profound meaning of the Scripture. Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation
[59:11.000 --> 59:16.920]  is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory
[59:16.920 --> 59:22.920]  footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing
[59:22.920 --> 59:28.360]  an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you ve ever experienced before. Bibles
[59:28.360 --> 59:34.280]  for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This
[59:34.280 --> 59:43.920]  comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:43.920 --> 59:49.880]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That s freestudybible.com.
[59:49.880 --> 59:58.680]  You re listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[59:58.680 --> 01:00:06.680]  The following is flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdowns.
[01:00:06.680 --> 01:00:13.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 23rd of January 2019 open with precious metals, gold and $1,284.49
[01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:20.500]  cents, silver, $15.34 cents, copper, $2.65 cents, oil, Texas crude, $52.57 cents of barrel,
[01:00:20.500 --> 01:00:28.160]  bright crude, $61.50 cents of barrel, and cryptos in order for market cap, bitcoin, $3,599.64,
[01:00:28.160 --> 01:00:36.320]  Ripple, XRP, $0.31 cents, ethereum, $118.13 cents, and bitcoin cashes at $130.78 cents
[01:00:36.320 --> 01:00:45.680]  of cryptocoin. Today in history, the year 1884, the Fabian
[01:00:45.680 --> 01:00:50.000]  Society is founded in London. The notorious socialist organization seeking to bring about
[01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:56.000]  socialism in England via gradualist and parliamentary reformist efforts instead of outright revolution,
[01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:05.560]  the Fabian Society founded today in history. In recent news, retail sells expectations
[01:01:05.560 --> 01:01:10.400]  in a report by the e-marketers worldwide retail and e-commerce forecast has a first for the
[01:01:10.400 --> 01:01:16.280]  year of 2019. The retail sales projected to grow to $5.6 trillion in China. It will overtake
[01:01:16.280 --> 01:01:21.560]  the U.S. for the first time since its increases will be slightly behind at $5.5 trillion.
[01:01:21.560 --> 01:01:25.720]  Monica Perk, senior forecasting director at e-marketers, gave some insight into the reason
[01:01:25.720 --> 01:01:29.880]  for this, saying that, quote, in recent years, consumers in China have experienced rising
[01:01:29.880 --> 01:01:34.800]  incomes capitulating millions into the new middle class. In online sales, China already
[01:01:34.800 --> 01:01:41.040]  takes the lead with a projected $1.9 trillion in 2019, putting China at 55.8 percent of
[01:01:41.040 --> 01:01:46.000]  the world's online retail sales alone by the end of the year, according to the same report.
[01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:50.320]  However, don't let the numbers fool you. The U.S. is still way ahead of China in per capita
[01:01:50.320 --> 01:01:55.600]  retail spending with an annual expectation of over $16,000, compared to the little over
[01:01:55.600 --> 01:02:04.840]  $14,000 in China. Professor Jan Schroer, a mechanical engineering and material science
[01:02:04.840 --> 01:02:10.200]  at Yale and Professor Xi Liu of Wuhan University in China, have developed a method that they
[01:02:10.200 --> 01:02:14.600]  are calling thermo-mechanical nanomolding, which essentially allows for the molding of
[01:02:14.600 --> 01:02:19.560]  crystalline metals and alloys into particular shapes as small as 10 nanometers in diameter
[01:02:19.560 --> 01:02:24.720]  – that's 8,000 times smaller than a human hair – sizes previously impossible to make,
[01:02:24.720 --> 01:02:30.000]  a breakthrough for potentials in macro-electronics like quantum computing and nanotechnology.
[01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:34.280]  Professor Schroer said that, quote, it is really a new way of nanomanufacturing, which
[01:02:34.280 --> 01:02:39.600]  relies on a few materials that can be fabricated very specifically for a particular material,
[01:02:39.600 --> 01:02:44.360]  but our discovery suggests one technique for all metals and alloys. It allows us to fabricate
[01:02:44.360 --> 01:02:49.480]  essentially every metal in its combination in the periodic table in a predictable and
[01:02:49.480 --> 01:02:55.440]  precise manner to nanosize features. This was Rick Brody with your lowdown for January
[01:03:19.480 --> 01:03:32.120]  1, 2020.
[01:03:32.120 --> 01:03:38.680]  Okay, we are back. Randy Charlton, Deborah Stevens, Rural Law Radio, and we're talking
[01:03:38.680 --> 01:03:43.640]  to Ralph in Texas. Okay, go ahead, Ralph.
[01:03:43.640 --> 01:03:50.280]  Yes, sir, I recognize this website. I have been here before, but the reason it wasn't
[01:03:50.280 --> 01:03:55.800]  on is computers to that hard drive that was on crash. So we all got computer problems.
[01:03:55.800 --> 01:04:01.200]  Mine not as bad as yours, but I do recognize this, and I'm looking at the complaints. I
[01:04:01.200 --> 01:04:09.600]  can use several of these forms to help. You've got a lot of them on here. Pursuit attorney,
[01:04:09.600 --> 01:04:14.760]  kidnapping, tampering, lots of criminal complaints. That's great, Randy.
[01:04:14.760 --> 01:04:24.680]  If I had another question, can you say anything to constitutional challenges of case law?
[01:04:24.680 --> 01:04:31.160]  Like when should they be done just in a timely manner, at appeal, or of what?
[01:04:31.160 --> 01:04:40.280]  Wait a minute. Constitutional challenges of case law?
[01:04:40.280 --> 01:04:43.840]  You can't do a constitutional challenge of case law.
[01:04:43.840 --> 01:04:48.640]  Oh, okay. I guess I wasn't thinking clearly, because I just now thought of it. I'm looking
[01:04:48.640 --> 01:04:54.960]  at another case which says, in essence, the same thing I just read to you, but it's shorter.
[01:04:54.960 --> 01:04:59.440]  It says, essentially, a plaintiff must allege fact, sufficient to illustrate that no reasonable
[01:04:59.440 --> 01:05:05.360]  officer could have believed his actions were proper. That sounds like lunacy.
[01:05:05.360 --> 01:05:06.360]  Yes.
[01:05:06.360 --> 01:05:11.960]  Essentially, essentially, a plaintiff must, okay? Essentially, I did that. Essentially,
[01:05:11.960 --> 01:05:18.280]  I did that. They say, and I didn't. Also, no reasonable officer could have believed
[01:05:18.280 --> 01:05:23.440]  his actions were proper. That's vague and ambiguous, and also, you know, radically if
[01:05:23.440 --> 01:05:29.600]  not reality, impossible. That's like Captain Grahame just saying, isn't it? No reasonable
[01:05:29.600 --> 01:05:33.520]  officer, you have to look at every reasonable officer in the country and ask them if they
[01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:35.720]  would have done that, and they say no.
[01:05:35.720 --> 01:05:40.120]  Yeah. It's the likelihood of that.
[01:05:40.120 --> 01:05:46.840]  Yeah, this is Earth frustrating that because I've got them pretty good now, they're just
[01:05:46.840 --> 01:05:50.000]  going berserk with insane words.
[01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:55.600]  Yeah, and you're in Texas, so that's good, because we're both on the same code. And,
[01:05:55.600 --> 01:06:05.800]  you know, the way I'm seeing it, judges, you can appeal their decision to a court of appeals,
[01:06:05.800 --> 01:06:09.840]  but if they have failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you can also appeal
[01:06:09.840 --> 01:06:21.200]  to a grand jury, just as legally viable, but nobody's been doing it.
[01:06:21.200 --> 01:06:28.880]  Okay. Well, this case, just read, is done by the appeals court. I will appeal to court
[01:06:28.880 --> 01:06:33.120]  right here, because I'm in the federal court. That's what the federal courts have done.
[01:06:33.120 --> 01:06:37.040]  This is a new one on me that's just, I don't think that's possible.
[01:06:37.040 --> 01:06:46.720]  Then charge the magistrate in the state court. Charge him in the state with criminal actions.
[01:06:46.720 --> 01:06:54.320]  Well, yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to, I haven't done it yet, because
[01:06:54.320 --> 01:06:58.240]  I didn't have your criminal complaints, and I've been working on this case. I'm working
[01:06:58.240 --> 01:07:02.560]  on it, but yeah, I'm fixing to hit everybody with as many criminal complaints as I can,
[01:07:02.560 --> 01:07:09.200]  but I'm fixing to be in the appeals court. The judges are going to adopt this recommendation.
[01:07:09.200 --> 01:07:15.760]  Why not? They always do. I'm going to have to do an appeal, which I'm not looking forward
[01:07:15.760 --> 01:07:21.200]  to, but I was trying to do it myself, but you mentioned Ken a couple of weeks ago, and
[01:07:21.200 --> 01:07:24.880]  I thought, okay, well, great. At least I can talk to somebody and get a little bit of feedback
[01:07:24.880 --> 01:07:33.600]  on the appeal. I don't remember. Every email I got this direct, every time I get an email
[01:07:33.600 --> 01:07:40.720]  directed to somebody else, I forward that immediately. Send me another one. It may be
[01:07:40.720 --> 01:07:48.080]  that Ken didn't get it, or didn't see it, or hasn't had time to respond, or it's possible
[01:07:48.080 --> 01:07:58.080]  I missed it. Send me another one. I'll send it to him. Well, I think that's all for me.
[01:07:58.080 --> 01:08:02.480]  I think I'm just going to need to work on this some more, but yeah, I'm going to do a lot with
[01:08:02.480 --> 01:08:06.480]  your criminal complaints, but I may not, I don't know how soon I'm going to do it, because
[01:08:07.520 --> 01:08:12.960]  they're going to throw an appeal at me pretty quick. Although I think I'm ready for it,
[01:08:12.960 --> 01:08:16.720]  I still want to do all the form right is what I'm going to have trouble with.
[01:08:16.720 --> 01:08:22.720]  I've been looking at when is the best time to file criminal complaints?
[01:08:24.160 --> 01:08:28.560]  And the more I look at it, it appears the quicker the better.
[01:08:31.280 --> 01:08:39.600]  They are so accustomed to just running over people. What they're not accustomed to is someone
[01:08:39.600 --> 01:08:46.640]  laying in wait for them. And this is the tool I'm trying to produce.
[01:08:48.480 --> 01:08:54.240]  The traffic site, I'm not ready to launch it yet. I won't launch it until I launch my entire
[01:08:54.240 --> 01:09:04.960]  project, because the traffic site will simply shut them down. They will not be able to enforce
[01:09:04.960 --> 01:09:10.640]  for a number of reasons. One is that the police, when they start getting professional
[01:09:10.640 --> 01:09:18.240]  conduct complaints against them, they write a ticket and then the next day, the person they
[01:09:18.240 --> 01:09:23.760]  wrote the ticket against can come into court with 150 pages of documentation, drop it off on them.
[01:09:24.880 --> 01:09:29.280]  One of which is a professional conduct complaint against the officer.
[01:09:29.280 --> 01:09:38.880]  He's going to get apoplexy. Six of those and he's toast. He can't be a police officer anymore,
[01:09:38.880 --> 01:09:44.240]  because nobody can hire him. Bargreeves is against the lawyers. Judicial conduct
[01:09:44.240 --> 01:09:50.720]  complaints against the judge will make up all these documents. The purpose of the documents
[01:09:50.720 --> 01:10:01.760]  are to ensure that the judge does not read them. The reason for that is, it goes through a rule,
[01:10:01.760 --> 01:10:06.880]  never ask the public official to do anything you actually want them to do.
[01:10:08.800 --> 01:10:14.080]  Because you never do ask them to do anything, the law does not compel them to do.
[01:10:14.080 --> 01:10:26.400]  So, what cases, Ralph, did you find that required the court to properly apply the law to the facts?
[01:10:30.640 --> 01:10:33.840]  Well, I didn't.
[01:10:34.800 --> 01:10:36.480]  Oh, oh, I thought you did. Okay.
[01:10:36.480 --> 01:10:46.480]  No, I relied on statutory law. Ask me in that email for those cases. I'll try to find them.
[01:10:48.720 --> 01:10:56.800]  Matter of fact, I know who can find them for me. I was quoting Joklin v. Chambers,
[01:10:57.920 --> 01:11:03.120]  but it turned out when I went through it, Joklin wasn't the right case, but Joklin v. Chambers
[01:11:03.120 --> 01:11:11.360]  referenced the right case. So, from that one, I can re-find it. But once we get that established,
[01:11:12.480 --> 01:11:21.920]  then the case law says that the judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the
[01:11:21.920 --> 01:11:27.600]  facts. So, when we show that the judge did not properly apply the law to the facts,
[01:11:27.600 --> 01:11:34.320]  he abused his discretion and then the process denied us in the full and free access to our
[01:11:34.320 --> 01:11:39.760]  enjoyment of the ride. That's the class they missed in the stage, Texas. We file all these
[01:11:39.760 --> 01:11:45.360]  documents in a ticket site set up, so you file all these documents, 150 pages. They got a couple
[01:11:45.360 --> 01:11:50.400]  hundred dollar ticket against you. This lawyer is going to cost them a hundred bucks an hour
[01:11:50.400 --> 01:11:56.640]  and you'll drop them off 150 pages of documents. He's not going to read those.
[01:11:57.680 --> 01:12:03.040]  Traffic court lawyers never read anything until they get to court. They don't even look at any
[01:12:03.040 --> 01:12:12.240]  files until they get to court. There's a problem that they have. If they have associated with the
[01:12:12.240 --> 01:12:19.600]  cases that require a judge to properly apply the law to the facts, we have case law that says that
[01:12:19.600 --> 01:12:30.960]  any assertions in active pleadings not opposed by opposing counsel are presumed to have to be
[01:12:33.680 --> 01:12:43.120]  judicial admission. And if a opposing counsel fails to respond to a motion or pleading,
[01:12:43.120 --> 01:12:52.880]  they are barred from arguing that motion of pleading in court. So, and one more.
[01:12:55.120 --> 01:13:06.320]  The Michael Morton Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure 3914. I believe it's 14. It says that
[01:13:06.320 --> 01:13:16.880]  the prosecutor must provide discovery at least 20 days before trial. I was in court in Highland Park
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:25.360]  and I said, Your Honor, I filed some discovery with the court and I didn't receive any response to
[01:13:25.360 --> 01:13:34.560]  that discovery. Therefore, and since this is the day of trial, the prosecutor did not provide that
[01:13:34.560 --> 01:13:39.600]  discovery 20 days before trial as required by the Michael Morton Act. Therefore, he failed to perform
[01:13:39.600 --> 01:13:44.800]  duty. He was required to perform the process to not be full free access to enjoyment. Right,
[01:13:44.800 --> 01:13:55.600]  I want you to have him arrested for official oppression. The look on the prosecutor's face
[01:13:55.600 --> 01:14:05.040]  was priceless. He clearly didn't see that one coming. They're not used to people holding them
[01:14:05.040 --> 01:14:14.080]  to law the way they hold us to law. Randy? Yes. One more. This is kind of troubling here.
[01:14:15.920 --> 01:14:19.520]  It's hard to tell. Are they making sense or are they just lying all over again?
[01:14:19.520 --> 01:14:26.480]  It's because some of it is just overdone. All right. As a preliminary matter, the Constitution 1983
[01:14:26.480 --> 01:14:32.640]  is only a remedy for violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights. A state
[01:14:32.640 --> 01:14:39.120]  act of violation of state law alone is not cognizable in a Section 1983 claim.
[01:14:40.080 --> 01:14:45.360]  Did he provide case law in support of that proactive statement of law?
[01:14:45.360 --> 01:14:54.160]  What would be a watered be and rude? And that's again, that's okay with me.
[01:14:54.960 --> 01:15:01.760]  Did you read that case? No, I have not. Okay. Take the phone, beat yourself around the eyes
[01:15:01.760 --> 01:15:15.920]  and ears. Read that case because it does not go to the body of law. He's probably misquoting the case.
[01:15:16.720 --> 01:15:23.280]  You have a constitutional right to the due course of the law. If a state
[01:15:23.280 --> 01:15:33.920]  act or denies you in the due course of the laws, you can take him to the Fed. So the magistrate is
[01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:39.520]  either lying deliberately or he's simply misquoting and misunderstanding the code.
[01:15:42.160 --> 01:15:45.600]  All right. So when he does either one of those two things,
[01:15:45.600 --> 01:15:54.800]  that's what I'm leaving my mind here. Official oppression? Official oppression, Texas.
[01:15:55.840 --> 01:16:03.120]  The problem the magistrate has is he is in a federal courthouse. That federal courthouse
[01:16:03.120 --> 01:16:10.720]  is not a federal enclave. If the judge punches out a lawyer in the courtroom,
[01:16:10.720 --> 01:16:18.000]  he's not prosecuted in the Fed. He's prosecuted in the state because that courthouse is in this
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:25.040]  state. So he's subject to the common law of the state of Texas. If he commits official oppression,
[01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:32.800]  he commits it in this state and you can go after him for it. However, if he denies you in the due
[01:16:32.800 --> 01:16:38.240]  course of the laws, that's a federal requirement. You can sue him and you can sue him in the federal
[01:16:38.240 --> 01:16:46.560]  court. That is a gross misstatement of the law. The judge had to have deliberately misstated
[01:16:46.560 --> 01:16:54.560]  law. Hang on. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rule of Law Radio, a call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:16:54.560 --> 01:17:03.680]  We'll be right back. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters,
[01:17:03.680 --> 01:17:09.600]  or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mearris proven method. Michael Mearris
[01:17:09.600 --> 01:17:14.880]  has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get
[01:17:14.880 --> 01:17:19.920]  step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights
[01:17:19.920 --> 01:17:25.600]  statutes. What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court summons? How to answer letters and
[01:17:25.600 --> 01:17:30.080]  phone calls? How to get debt collectors out of your credit report? How to turn the financial
[01:17:30.080 --> 01:17:36.640]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away? The Michael Mearris proven method is the solution
[01:17:36.640 --> 01:17:41.360]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[01:17:41.360 --> 01:17:46.560]  information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner,
[01:17:46.560 --> 01:17:56.000]  or email MichaelMearris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[01:17:56.000 --> 01:18:00.160]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:26.960 --> 01:18:33.840]  I clicked control, shift, delete, and then scroll down to cookies and clear them. Bye bye yuck
[01:18:34.560 --> 01:18:40.800]  Now I go to logosradionetwork.com and I click on the Amazon box on the upper right hand side,
[01:18:40.800 --> 01:18:47.360]  bookmark the link, and I can go to Amazon through this link and order you some yummy new cookie.
[01:18:47.360 --> 01:18:53.600]  No cookies for me! Consider it an early Christmas present and every time I order on Amazon I go
[01:18:53.600 --> 01:18:58.400]  through this link and I give a little present to this radio network too. These are cookies.
[01:19:23.600 --> 01:19:43.120]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelvin, Debra Stevens, rule of law radio, and we're talking to Ralph
[01:19:43.120 --> 01:19:50.720]  in Texas. Okay, Ralph, go ahead. Well, I believe that this paper I got from this magistrate judge
[01:19:50.720 --> 01:19:56.960]  is just full of oppression because there is no, they have no defense and they're just protecting
[01:19:56.960 --> 01:20:02.720]  each other just like, you know, just what they normally do is just as it's shopping how low
[01:20:02.720 --> 01:20:09.600]  this guy is going coming up with some of the strange stuff. But I believe I'm done. I'm going
[01:20:09.600 --> 01:20:15.840]  to send you an email to forward to Ken tonight before you're off there, I guess, you know,
[01:20:15.840 --> 01:20:22.880]  sometime, right? Okay, I will do that. Well, I appreciate all your help and rule of law radio,
[01:20:22.880 --> 01:20:28.720]  Randy, you have a good evening. Okay, thank you, Ralph. Okay, we don't have any callers. If you
[01:20:28.720 --> 01:20:36.240]  have a question or comment, give us a call, 512-646-1984. But since we don't have any callers,
[01:20:36.240 --> 01:20:48.240]  then I'm going to go back to traffic, back to the tool that we're developing. We have recently
[01:20:49.520 --> 01:20:59.120]  made some major strides. We are putting together a set of algorithms that we can run on the entire
[01:20:59.120 --> 01:21:09.120]  code and realign the code of, you know, I had my father-in-law told me years ago
[01:21:10.480 --> 01:21:14.560]  that just about everything that can be thought of had been thought of.
[01:21:16.640 --> 01:21:26.400]  And I didn't buy that. I remembered the story of in 1911, the head of the patent office,
[01:21:26.400 --> 01:21:33.040]  what did the government and told them that they could disband the patent office because
[01:21:33.040 --> 01:21:39.840]  everything that could be invented had been invented. That was a pretty serious understatement.
[01:21:42.320 --> 01:21:50.160]  But I'm working on research and I came up ahead of kind of an epiphany.
[01:21:50.160 --> 01:21:59.760]  We, you know, Lexus and Westlaw, they essentially ruined the practice of law.
[01:22:01.760 --> 01:22:07.120]  I know, lawyers don't understand that, but, and that's because they're caught up
[01:22:08.320 --> 01:22:15.440]  in the process. They seem to be unable to step back and look at things from a distance.
[01:22:15.440 --> 01:22:23.040]  Prior to Westlaw, Westlaw was the first one that came out. Prior to that time, all the way back
[01:22:24.160 --> 01:22:31.280]  to the Magna Carta, you go into court and there would be a scribe there. Now they call them court
[01:22:31.280 --> 01:22:37.840]  reporters. They would take down what went on in the court and when they addressed issues,
[01:22:37.840 --> 01:22:45.520]  they would give the issues keywords and then they would accumulate those keywords into a
[01:22:45.520 --> 01:22:53.520]  legal encyclopedia. You know, corpus, just corpus juris secundum,
[01:22:56.240 --> 01:23:02.560]  what's the other one, American jurisprudence, and there were two or three others.
[01:23:02.560 --> 01:23:10.560]  And they would publish these about every two years and you go to a keyword and they would have
[01:23:10.560 --> 01:23:18.960]  15 or 20 controlling cases. So for this two-year period, everybody would use these 15 or 20 cases
[01:23:18.960 --> 01:23:28.080]  for this particular keyword or this particular issue. And at the time, there were a lot of
[01:23:28.080 --> 01:23:34.000]  lawyers in general practice. You know, they would just go hang out their bar or their
[01:23:36.400 --> 01:23:45.360]  sign and they pretty well handled anything. You don't find that anymore. Lawyers are all
[01:23:45.360 --> 01:23:54.960]  specialized. This happened when we went to Westlaw and then to Lexus and these other search engines
[01:23:54.960 --> 01:24:05.440]  because Westlaw come along and said you don't have to depend on this 15 or 20 controlling cases
[01:24:05.440 --> 01:24:15.680]  in the encyclopedia. You can go to our search engine and you can find 10,000 cases. So you
[01:24:15.680 --> 01:24:21.440]  ask a lawyer now, approximately how many cases do they have to go through to find the first case
[01:24:21.440 --> 01:24:29.280]  on point and every one I've asked is said between 50 and 100. Now, they don't have to read the whole
[01:24:29.280 --> 01:24:34.800]  case but they have to go through the points and issues in the case and then read some of the
[01:24:34.800 --> 01:24:42.400]  argument to see if it goes to their issue. I ask the second in command of the North Carolina
[01:24:42.400 --> 01:24:53.520]  Bar Association if she had ever written a motion or pleading. No matter how much research she had
[01:24:53.520 --> 01:24:59.040]  done on it, that she was comfortable that when she filed that the lawyer on the other side was not
[01:24:59.040 --> 01:25:05.520]  going to find the case that she missed and come into court and wipe the floor with her. And she
[01:25:05.520 --> 01:25:14.960]  said never. The lawyer's biggest fear is missing something. When we were working from legal encyclopedias
[01:25:14.960 --> 01:25:24.880]  up to the mid-70s, it was relatively easy to be sure that you had everything that was essentially
[01:25:24.880 --> 01:25:31.040]  available on a particular issue. That's why lawyers could do general practice. But once the
[01:25:31.040 --> 01:25:39.600]  search engines came along, now you've got thousands and thousands of cases. You've got no way to
[01:25:39.600 --> 01:25:47.200]  know if you've got everything. So they ruined the practice of law. Everybody had to specialize
[01:25:47.760 --> 01:25:53.440]  so that they could be sure they pretty well had all the law on this focused issue.
[01:25:53.440 --> 01:26:00.400]  The tools that we're building will allow lawyers to go back to general practice.
[01:26:02.640 --> 01:26:07.600]  Lawyers get out of law school and they don't know how to practice any particular
[01:26:08.480 --> 01:26:12.720]  area of law. What they learn in law school is how to argue legal issues.
[01:26:13.920 --> 01:26:18.400]  They go to the encyclopedias and find all the cases and they can go through the cases and
[01:26:18.400 --> 01:26:24.160]  then argue the legal issues. Well, now there's so many cases that they can never get all of them.
[01:26:25.440 --> 01:26:32.000]  And they have to really know their subject or they'll go to court and get the floor wiped with
[01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:38.560]  them. And the worst thing a lawyer can do is miss something. So I'm doing case law research.
[01:26:38.560 --> 01:26:46.960]  And anybody who's ever done research, they'll understand this part. You go to the search engine
[01:26:48.640 --> 01:26:53.040]  and it gives you the option of putting in a keyword.
[01:26:54.880 --> 01:27:02.880]  You put in a keyword, you try to come up with a set of terms or a string of words
[01:27:02.880 --> 01:27:10.560]  that would appear in a case that goes to the particular focused issue you're interested in
[01:27:10.560 --> 01:27:20.560]  but wouldn't appear in any other cases. Good luck with that. So you run a search and the first one
[01:27:20.560 --> 01:27:28.800]  you, if it's a common issue, you'll get probably 20,000 hits and that's all Lexis will produce at
[01:27:28.800 --> 01:27:38.640]  one time. And then you look through some of those and see if you can focus down your keywords to
[01:27:38.640 --> 01:27:48.320]  something more specific and hope that you happen to land on a case that goes kind of close to what
[01:27:48.320 --> 01:27:55.440]  you're looking for. Then you can take the cases that this case references and work your way down
[01:27:55.440 --> 01:28:04.880]  to your first case on point. But it is a beast. So I'm looking at how can we organize the code
[01:28:04.880 --> 01:28:16.160]  so that they're easier to search. Well, it occurred to me that case law are cases about law.
[01:28:16.160 --> 01:28:27.760]  So first thing we should do is take the law that we're dealing with. Say it's DUI and we do a search
[01:28:28.480 --> 01:28:37.600]  for cases that reference not just driving while under the influence but one of the particular
[01:28:37.600 --> 01:28:49.840]  elements under driving while under the influence. So we can go to a relatively specific place
[01:28:51.040 --> 01:28:59.520]  and then find all the cases that reference that paragraphs or subparagraph. Now we have a much,
[01:28:59.520 --> 01:29:08.000]  much smaller case. We don't have 150,000 cases to look through. Now we've got a much smaller set and
[01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:15.440]  then run our keywords on that. Not one search engine will allow you to do that. You can search
[01:29:15.440 --> 01:29:25.200]  for the statutes but then you can't save that search and then search in that set.
[01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:32.640]  That seems pretty straightforward. Why did nobody ever think of that?
[01:29:34.960 --> 01:29:42.400]  This is Randy Kelton. They receive us root of our radio. Our call in number 512-646-1984.
[01:29:42.400 --> 01:29:48.240]  We're going to break. I'll pick this up on the other side. We don't have any callers right now.
[01:29:48.240 --> 01:29:57.520]  So if you have a question or comment, we can bring you on right away. We'll be right back.
[01:30:03.360 --> 01:30:09.360]  A judge has imposed a lifetime driving ban on a 17-year-old boy after a serious accident
[01:30:09.360 --> 01:30:14.320]  to send a message about reckless driving. I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht and I'll be back with more
[01:30:14.320 --> 01:30:20.960]  on this unusually harsh punishment in a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data
[01:30:20.960 --> 01:30:26.000]  about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:31.840]  freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep
[01:30:31.840 --> 01:30:37.600]  your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you
[01:30:37.600 --> 01:30:44.240]  by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over
[01:30:44.240 --> 01:30:52.720]  with StartPage. 17-year-old Lyle Topo was cruising with three buddies and texting while driving.
[01:30:52.720 --> 01:30:59.040]  He crashed into a tree, badly injuring all four boys. One was in a coma for weeks. The judge gave
[01:30:59.040 --> 01:31:03.760]  him a lecture about how the roads are littered with broken futures. Then he revoked the boy's
[01:31:03.760 --> 01:31:10.240]  driver's license for life. What Lyle did was wrong, but at age 17, we all make mistakes.
[01:31:10.240 --> 01:31:15.360]  By revoking his license for life, the judge issued a virtual death sentence to his career
[01:31:15.360 --> 01:31:22.000]  and future. In 20 years, he'll be a husband and a dad unable to even drive his son to a soccer game.
[01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:27.600]  Now that's cruel and unusual. I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most
[01:31:27.600 --> 01:31:35.680]  private search engine. This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon
[01:31:35.680 --> 01:31:40.640]  of September 11. The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects
[01:31:40.640 --> 01:31:45.280]  and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service
[01:31:45.280 --> 01:31:49.600]  members have given their lives. And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying. I'm not a
[01:31:49.600 --> 01:31:53.280]  conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correctional officer. I'm an
[01:31:53.280 --> 01:31:58.720]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.720 --> 01:32:05.760]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[01:32:05.760 --> 01:32:09.440]  In today's America, we live in and us against them society. If we, the people, are ever going
[01:32:09.440 --> 01:32:13.760]  to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those
[01:32:13.760 --> 01:32:16.960]  rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[01:32:16.960 --> 01:32:21.280]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. The traffic courts afford
[01:32:21.280 --> 01:32:25.440]  us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due
[01:32:25.440 --> 01:32:29.440]  process. Former sheriff's deputy, A. Craig, in conjunction with rule of law radio, has put
[01:32:29.440 --> 01:32:33.040]  together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what
[01:32:33.040 --> 01:32:37.680]  due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable
[01:32:37.680 --> 01:32:41.840]  material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now,
[01:32:41.840 --> 01:32:45.840]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[01:32:45.840 --> 01:32:50.320]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other useful
[01:32:50.320 --> 01:32:53.600]  resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from
[01:32:53.600 --> 01:32:58.560]  ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have a free society we all want
[01:32:58.560 --> 01:33:07.520]  and deserve. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:07.520 --> 01:33:17.680]  Yeah, who you want to check? Who you take me for? Free toilet? Who you want to check?
[01:33:17.680 --> 01:33:23.440]  Me, no free toilet. You can't check me. Almost there. Don't let them check you in the morning,
[01:33:23.440 --> 01:33:29.040]  check you in the evening, but they're checking on your buddy. And anyway, you go computer reading,
[01:33:29.040 --> 01:33:34.240]  you can't hide me, check on nobody. What mistake? Checking on your mom, checking on your daddy,
[01:33:34.240 --> 01:33:43.120]  checking on your grandpa. Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, rule of law radio,
[01:33:43.120 --> 01:33:50.400]  and Tina's call back in. Tina, you got more questions? Yes, I think there's no one
[01:33:50.400 --> 01:33:57.440]  that's there. I'll ask them a question, save one for next week. As far as going after the
[01:33:57.440 --> 01:34:05.280]  atonism and judges and stuff, another thing I want to do, and I'm trying to kind of stack them up,
[01:34:07.440 --> 01:34:17.840]  when they sent me, or when they allegedly sent me the notice of a hearing for an imran,
[01:34:17.840 --> 01:34:25.840]  which is, you know, emergency relief school stopping me from having bankruptcy protection,
[01:34:25.840 --> 01:34:35.680]  and when they allegedly mailed it to me, they mailed one copy and one copy only by regular mail
[01:34:35.680 --> 01:34:44.880]  to my principal resident, which I was not at, and I had informed them of a correct mailing
[01:34:44.880 --> 01:34:52.960]  address. This very same attorney from for the bank had sent me prior mail to my correct mailing
[01:34:52.960 --> 01:34:59.280]  address, but on this occasion, they did not. They only sent it to the property address.
[01:35:00.080 --> 01:35:07.040]  Now, to me, that is deliberate action so that they knew I wouldn't get it,
[01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:12.640]  and that they could get a default judgment, and they were not even at the hearing themselves,
[01:35:13.680 --> 01:35:20.640]  which is very telling to me. They did not inform the judge and my bankruptcy attorney
[01:35:20.640 --> 01:35:25.520]  of this related case, which they are required to do in California.
[01:35:27.600 --> 01:35:34.400]  If I go, obviously I want to go after them. Do I, and I want to go after the judges who said,
[01:35:35.120 --> 01:35:42.240]  well, you claim this is your principal resident, so therefore they mailed it to the correct address,
[01:35:42.240 --> 01:35:46.720]  and you have to prove with clear and convincing evidence they didn't, and they would not take
[01:35:46.720 --> 01:35:54.880]  my school in affidavit. There is no law that says you must live at your principal resident's 365
[01:35:54.880 --> 01:36:01.920]  days a year. There is no law that says you must receive mail then. As long as you let the bank
[01:36:01.920 --> 01:36:08.800]  know that you have a different mailing address, they are required to send it there according to
[01:36:08.800 --> 01:36:17.280]  the contract. So let's go after the judges and the attorney. I feel that it deliberately because
[01:36:17.920 --> 01:36:23.040]  they knew they could get a default judgment because I was already in another case with the bank,
[01:36:23.040 --> 01:36:33.120]  and they didn't let that judge know of that related case. Do I submit a copy of an Excel
[01:36:33.120 --> 01:36:42.400]  spreadsheet that I made, which delineates every time, every date, and how many copies of what
[01:36:42.400 --> 01:36:50.640]  they sent me, whether it was a notice of default, a notice of trustee sale, to every computation
[01:36:50.640 --> 01:36:57.120]  of my name and address that they could think of, and to three different mailing addresses,
[01:36:57.120 --> 01:37:05.920]  both certified and regular, which they billed me over $2,000 form and took the money out of my
[01:37:05.920 --> 01:37:13.920]  equity. And I sort of went through everything and I put it into a spreadsheet. I mean, I literally
[01:37:13.920 --> 01:37:22.240]  typed in the actual address they put, the number of the notices each time. One of them was 97
[01:37:22.240 --> 01:37:29.840]  notices in one day, another was 84, another was 36, another was 67. Is that something I would
[01:37:29.840 --> 01:37:36.080]  put in? And how would I frame this? Wait a minute. That's, have you considered suing the
[01:37:36.080 --> 01:37:48.880]  lawyers for malpractice? No. How would I do that? And what would I say? How would I call it malpractice?
[01:37:48.880 --> 01:37:57.600]  You sue the lawyers for fraud. They conspired to deny you access to the court.
[01:37:59.360 --> 01:38:05.600]  By deliberately sending documents to an address, they knew you did not receive mail at.
[01:38:07.760 --> 01:38:14.080]  Okay. Conspiring to commit fraud. Okay. Take this before a jury.
[01:38:14.080 --> 01:38:20.560]  A jury of your peers, not their peers. Who do you get to a jury? We kind of get to one in
[01:38:20.560 --> 01:38:30.800]  California. It's like putting teeth. Okay. They don't make it easy. No. But then I can't help it.
[01:38:31.360 --> 01:38:34.960]  California is so corrupt. I don't know why anyone would live in that state.
[01:38:36.080 --> 01:38:40.640]  But you have another friend from Texas who says the same thing. You need to move. You need to move
[01:38:40.640 --> 01:38:48.880]  to Texas. I don't even like to go to California. It's so nuts there. I would move if I could,
[01:38:48.880 --> 01:38:55.120]  but my partner does not want to move and he grew up in Texas right on the border.
[01:38:56.720 --> 01:39:02.160]  And he doesn't want to go back and I have no funds to go back. So right now I'm kind of stuck,
[01:39:02.160 --> 01:39:07.760]  so I have to fight for within and I will fight for within. Okay. Well, malpractice suit.
[01:39:07.760 --> 01:39:15.280]  Here's the problem the lawyers have. They have errors in emissions policies.
[01:39:17.680 --> 01:39:23.280]  And the one who pays the bills is not the lawyer. It's their insurance carrier.
[01:39:24.480 --> 01:39:30.160]  So when you file a malpractice suit against the lawyer accusing them of knowing an intentional
[01:39:30.160 --> 01:39:40.640]  fraud, then the one who really cares about that is the insurance carrier. If they're concerned you
[01:39:40.640 --> 01:39:46.240]  might win the case, they're going to want to make a deal and the lawyers don't have anything to say
[01:39:46.240 --> 01:40:01.280]  about it. Okay. The insurance carrier can deal them out. Now, do I, okay, or do I file something in
[01:40:01.280 --> 01:40:09.680]  federal or state court? That's a good question. You were in the, you were in a federal court,
[01:40:09.680 --> 01:40:18.480]  so you have either one. Actually, you were in bankruptcy. I don't know which is more corrupt.
[01:40:18.480 --> 01:40:27.200]  I suspect the state is more corrupt than the Fed. Yeah. In California, I think you might be right.
[01:40:28.160 --> 01:40:36.080]  And you're likely to be, likely to be a lot easier to get a jury in the federal court.
[01:40:36.080 --> 01:40:44.080]  You won't have any problems with that, that's absolutely guaranteed. Okay. Now, do I file again?
[01:40:47.440 --> 01:40:56.080]  If I go back and look at who submitted the motion into the bankruptcy court in this other person,
[01:40:56.080 --> 01:41:01.040]  it was submitted into another party's bankruptcy who they claim I spent,
[01:41:01.040 --> 01:41:06.640]  and I transferred my property to which I didn't. Somebody did, but I didn't,
[01:41:07.520 --> 01:41:12.480]  and that was where the forged grant leads came in. Do I file against the individual attorney
[01:41:12.480 --> 01:41:19.760]  or the attorney's firm or both, the attorney and the attorney? You're going to charge them with
[01:41:19.760 --> 01:41:26.480]  acting deliberately, you charge the lawyer. The firm becomes liable, but you charge the lawyer
[01:41:26.480 --> 01:41:36.320]  himself or her stuff. Well, who signed the document? Yes. Okay. They, how do I get by
[01:41:37.760 --> 01:41:46.560]  the fact that they had a proof of service, you know, we all know they can fabricate and
[01:41:46.560 --> 01:41:56.560]  forge a proof of services, but we know the one and it, they made on it. Well, what address was
[01:41:56.560 --> 01:42:05.280]  the proof of service at? To my principal residence, which I was at that time. Okay. If they sent it
[01:42:05.280 --> 01:42:11.120]  deliberately to the address what they knew you didn't live at, it doesn't matter if they got proof
[01:42:11.120 --> 01:42:18.000]  of service. That just proves they sent it in the wrong place. Yeah, but they claim that because
[01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:23.920]  I claimed it in another case as my principal residence, that means they can send me a letter,
[01:42:23.920 --> 01:42:31.840]  but my argument is no, that whether I live there or not doesn't mean I have to be there 365,
[01:42:32.480 --> 01:42:36.640]  and if I give you an alternate meeting addressing them with me.
[01:42:36.640 --> 01:42:41.920]  Indeed. Had you advised them of a different mailing address?
[01:42:43.200 --> 01:42:49.440]  They had advised the bank of a different mailing address, which they accepted this
[01:42:50.240 --> 01:42:59.360]  in March. Okay. And they had sent you correspondence at that address? The attorney firm for the bank
[01:42:59.360 --> 01:43:09.360]  that was dealing with this had in more private, more attorneys for part of the bank that I was,
[01:43:09.360 --> 01:43:16.640]  myself was in, and they had sent me mail to the correct mailing address four months earlier.
[01:43:17.520 --> 01:43:21.840]  So they can't claim they didn't know the correct mailing address.
[01:43:21.840 --> 01:43:29.680]  So you're going to be, this goes before a jury, jury of your peers, not their peers.
[01:43:31.600 --> 01:43:35.520]  And you might look at some other cases where, see if you can find other cases where they've
[01:43:35.520 --> 01:43:42.960]  done the same thing. This is, this is a common practice. Oh, yeah. And what the insurance
[01:43:42.960 --> 01:43:50.000]  carriers are likely to look at is that we're about to run off the cliff. This is Franti
[01:43:50.000 --> 01:43:54.240]  Kelton, Devin Stevens, Rural Law Radio. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.400 --> 01:44:04.320]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved,
[01:44:04.320 --> 01:44:09.280]  except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:44:09.280 --> 01:44:15.040]  And it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic
[01:44:15.040 --> 01:44:20.320]  environment is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated,
[01:44:20.320 --> 01:44:26.800]  adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network
[01:44:26.800 --> 01:44:32.640]  gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust
[01:44:32.640 --> 01:44:39.840]  Jevity so much. We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.840 --> 01:44:46.640]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality
[01:44:46.640 --> 01:44:52.960]  radio. As you realize the benefits of Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor,
[01:44:52.960 --> 01:44:59.680]  you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:45:00.960 --> 01:45:03.520]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.520 --> 01:45:10.400]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD
[01:45:10.400 --> 01:45:17.520]  course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your
[01:45:17.520 --> 01:45:22.320]  lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:23.040 --> 01:45:29.440]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[01:45:29.440 --> 01:45:36.320]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[01:45:36.320 --> 01:45:41.680]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[01:45:41.680 --> 01:45:48.400]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for
[01:45:48.400 --> 01:45:56.320]  civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:56.320 --> 01:46:00.160]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:26.720 --> 01:46:33.600]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens,
[01:46:33.600 --> 01:46:39.760]  rule of law radio, and we're talking to Tina in California. And the more I think about it,
[01:46:40.480 --> 01:46:42.800]  the more I like the idea of suing attorneys.
[01:46:44.480 --> 01:46:45.360]  I'll listen to.
[01:46:46.480 --> 01:46:51.360]  Yeah, I think they're easy marks. You know, it's like you get an accident,
[01:46:51.360 --> 01:46:57.680]  and you don't think you were at fault, but your insurance company goes ahead and pays the other side.
[01:46:59.120 --> 01:47:03.360]  They don't care what you think. They don't want to have to go through a lot of litigation.
[01:47:03.360 --> 01:47:10.000]  They're going to save money by paying early. Good chance we can get the, or you can get the
[01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:17.200]  insurance company to make a deal with you. It gets you to go away and save them a lot of money and
[01:47:17.200 --> 01:47:21.280]  How will they find out? Say that again.
[01:47:22.400 --> 01:47:26.800]  How will they find out about the case? Do the attorneys have to let them know about the case?
[01:47:27.600 --> 01:47:31.600]  No, you sue the attorneys. Yeah, the attorneys have to let them know they're required to.
[01:47:36.160 --> 01:47:43.680]  It's actually the insurance company that will want to use its attorneys to adjudicate the case.
[01:47:43.680 --> 01:47:49.440]  Ah, okay. And they're the ones that'll make the deal.
[01:47:52.160 --> 01:47:57.920]  Okay. And the lawyers, they won't like it. There's nothing to do about it. So this kind of takes
[01:47:57.920 --> 01:48:05.040]  it out of their hands. Okay. And do I go after the judges too in the bankruptcy course? You said,
[01:48:05.040 --> 01:48:10.800]  oh, it's no big deal. You can do. No, no, don't go after the judges. Suing judges is a beast.
[01:48:10.800 --> 01:48:20.480]  Lawyers, they're the soft underbelly. If you want to go after the judges, you can try that later,
[01:48:20.480 --> 01:48:26.400]  but first go after the lawyers. They're the ones that easy marks. They're the ones you can get
[01:48:26.400 --> 01:48:32.320]  the insurance company to pay off. So you sue them for three times the value of the property.
[01:48:32.320 --> 01:48:41.200]  Okay. Say, I want to get this in front of a grand jury of my peers. They make you be more than
[01:48:41.200 --> 01:48:50.640]  that. Let's see what you can get the insurance company to do. Now, do I mention in my work
[01:48:50.640 --> 01:48:56.960]  past attorney who was good at writing but a total boss in front of the judge and wouldn't bring in
[01:48:56.960 --> 01:49:05.120]  and some of what you said earlier really resonates with me because they don't want to argue that
[01:49:05.120 --> 01:49:10.080]  you want to argue. They keep coming up with excuses that judges don't like this and you'll
[01:49:10.080 --> 01:49:15.120]  become across as a sovereign and they don't need to throw it out. I don't care. I want you to bring
[01:49:15.120 --> 01:49:25.600]  this up and he wouldn't. But one of the things, you know, I wanted to bring up was the proof of
[01:49:25.600 --> 01:49:34.320]  service where it says on the left side it says printed name and on the right side it says
[01:49:34.320 --> 01:49:43.360]  signature. On this particular proof of service, both sides have the same block capital, capital
[01:49:43.360 --> 01:49:50.400]  letter stamp. It was a stamp, rubber stamp and it was exactly the same for the signature and the
[01:49:50.400 --> 01:49:55.920]  printed name. That's not a signature. He said, oh, that's accepted. You know, it's the signature.
[01:49:57.200 --> 01:50:01.840]  We accept that and the court's accepted. I don't care, you know, whether the court's accepted.
[01:50:01.840 --> 01:50:09.120]  It's not a signature. Okay. Did you check the post office and get a copy of that from the post
[01:50:09.120 --> 01:50:17.840]  office? Copy of what? You're talking about a green card? No, they didn't send a green card.
[01:50:17.840 --> 01:50:24.160]  It was just first-class mail, regular mail. According to them and according to Mailbook
[01:50:24.160 --> 01:50:28.800]  through, they only have to claim they put it in first-class mail and you are deemed to have
[01:50:28.800 --> 01:50:42.800]  received it. So there is no green card. Oh, they have it. They sue them and send notice of the
[01:50:42.800 --> 01:50:51.840]  sue in first-class mail or claim that you sent it in first-class mail. They're asked for summary
[01:50:51.840 --> 01:50:59.360]  judgment. And you know what? They did not turn up at the hearing. The other side did not. Now,
[01:50:59.360 --> 01:51:06.800]  why didn't they turn up? Let me see. A, B, C. Good chance. They knew they got a good idea. You
[01:51:06.800 --> 01:51:13.200]  wouldn't show up. Yeah, because they knew they haven't mailed it or they haven't received it.
[01:51:13.200 --> 01:51:21.200]  Oh, duh. You know, it doesn't take a... Look up these... Look up this law firm and look up
[01:51:21.200 --> 01:51:27.440]  default judgment. If they're foreclosure law firm, look up default judgments. Go through their
[01:51:27.440 --> 01:51:33.440]  cases and pull out default judgments. See how many they got this way? Establish a pattern.
[01:51:33.440 --> 01:51:41.520]  Yeah, but it is a signature to you. If it has printed name and signature,
[01:51:41.520 --> 01:51:46.320]  shouldn't they be different than one stamp? Because couldn't the janitor, let's say...
[01:51:47.120 --> 01:51:50.800]  Could you stamp that name on there? And they don't even know I've stamped it,
[01:51:50.800 --> 01:51:56.880]  but I'm stamping it that you mailed it. You know, if you don't sign it, literally sign it.
[01:51:56.880 --> 01:52:05.200]  It could come from anyone. Exactly. But the court approved it.
[01:52:06.240 --> 01:52:08.960]  The court approved it. Okay, okay. You can get around that.
[01:52:10.960 --> 01:52:15.280]  You're talking about making this argument to a jury. Yes.
[01:52:17.200 --> 01:52:22.800]  If they pull this garbage on you and I've heard of this a lot, this is a common practice.
[01:52:22.800 --> 01:52:27.360]  You got Pacer. Do you have Pacer?
[01:52:28.880 --> 01:52:32.640]  No, but I could pay for it for a short period of time.
[01:52:40.240 --> 01:52:45.760]  There are sites out there that take everything that people download from Pacer
[01:52:45.760 --> 01:52:54.800]  and put it on their site, so I didn't have to pay for it. But you could also file a notice
[01:52:54.800 --> 01:53:01.200]  of inability to pay to Pacer. Oh, okay. I didn't know that. I've done it for the court.
[01:53:02.000 --> 01:53:10.960]  Yeah, you can do that with Pacer. And go in and search. And if you're in San Diego,
[01:53:10.960 --> 01:53:16.160]  these guys are working out of San Diego. If Pacer is a problem, you can go down to the court and get
[01:53:16.160 --> 01:53:26.800]  it. You look at all of the cases. It costs you about $0.10 to run a search. And you
[01:53:28.960 --> 01:53:36.080]  look at these cases and look for some judgment or default judgment.
[01:53:36.080 --> 01:53:45.680]  See how many of those you find. See how many of those go to them sending out a mailing
[01:53:46.480 --> 01:53:51.840]  and then the person never appears in court. And then look in the documentation and see
[01:53:51.840 --> 01:53:54.640]  if you can find a notice of a change of address.
[01:53:57.760 --> 01:54:03.120]  You've been in a change of address there. The change of address goes to the bank.
[01:54:03.120 --> 01:54:12.080]  Okay, hang on. Debra's talking to me in the producer side. And he's saying Pacer doesn't
[01:54:12.080 --> 01:54:17.360]  charge you if you don't use more than $20 worth. And the only search is about $0.10.
[01:54:18.640 --> 01:54:27.360]  Okay. Okay, good. Oh, okay. Debra's saying they don't charge you if you don't download.
[01:54:27.360 --> 01:54:34.960]  Just a search. This is a Texas phone, by the way.
[01:54:37.520 --> 01:54:44.320]  Okay, but anyway, find out if this is a pattern or if you can find default judgments
[01:54:45.840 --> 01:54:55.040]  and make it look like a pattern. You're going to go to a law, a grant, a jury,
[01:54:55.040 --> 01:55:02.000]  and you're going to be bringing lawyers to a jury of your peers.
[01:55:03.200 --> 01:55:07.680]  They are not going to want to get in front of a jury when you're telling them these guys are
[01:55:07.680 --> 01:55:15.280]  dirty rotten shysters, especially foreclosure mills. They're out there taking people's houses.
[01:55:15.280 --> 01:55:25.920]  So, look at SUM for three times the amount of the property, SUM for fraud, or Fawcyn misleading
[01:55:25.920 --> 01:55:34.800]  statements. I like that. You said something, some lady that I would, and I voted Dan.
[01:55:36.480 --> 01:55:41.680]  Fawcyn misleading doesn't have the proof requirements that fraud does.
[01:55:41.680 --> 01:55:51.360]  Then SUM for punitive damages three times the property, and if you can bring some evidence
[01:55:51.360 --> 01:56:00.000]  that looks like a pattern of conduct, the insurance company will almost certainly make a deal.
[01:56:01.280 --> 01:56:05.680]  I'm sure I can find something. I think I already found something on that from different
[01:56:05.680 --> 01:56:12.880]  stuff on the Internet. By the way, I loved your statement about it's only perjury
[01:56:13.600 --> 01:56:20.480]  if it is a deliberate misstatement of facts. So, when that prior attorney deliberately
[01:56:20.480 --> 01:56:26.000]  misstated a fact that he knew was wrong, that counts as perjury based on what you said. I love
[01:56:28.480 --> 01:56:29.920]  it. It's great.
[01:56:29.920 --> 01:56:35.840]  You had to consider they are not going to want to get in front of a jury. Do you ever see the
[01:56:35.840 --> 01:56:47.600]  program bull? No. He's a jury expert, and there was one where they had a lawyer and they said
[01:56:47.600 --> 01:56:57.840]  juries hate lawyers. Lawyers don't want to get in front of a jury. Nobody trusts lawyers.
[01:56:57.840 --> 01:57:07.840]  So, I suggest let's start putting together a malpractice suit. As it moves my project along,
[01:57:07.840 --> 01:57:19.600]  I want to build a malpractice suit into the project, and not just that. I like to set them up.
[01:57:19.600 --> 01:57:29.520]  So, we need to look for things that lawyers do and see if we can set them up to do things
[01:57:30.320 --> 01:57:36.400]  so that we can at least make it look like they acted deliberately and properly. Whether
[01:57:36.400 --> 01:57:41.440]  they did or not, we don't care. We just make it look like it, and then sue them and get their
[01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:43.360]  insurance carrier to pay us.
[01:57:43.360 --> 01:57:50.800]  I like that. That's so stinkin' rotten lowdown. I love it.
[01:57:54.800 --> 01:58:01.520]  It's time we did a little payback. We're building them. We're getting the tools built to do that
[01:58:01.520 --> 01:58:09.280]  with. Now, when we file things like this, like I filed in the Supreme Court of California against
[01:58:09.280 --> 01:58:15.040]  the judge, do you want us to send you the... Absolutely. Absolutely. Send me copies of
[01:58:15.040 --> 01:58:21.120]  everything. I want to start putting together a collection. We are out of time. Thank you,
[01:58:21.120 --> 01:58:27.520]  Tina. You saved my voice. This is Randy Kelton. They receive his rule of law radio. We'll be
[01:58:27.520 --> 01:58:33.920]  back tomorrow night on our four-hour info marathon. And I'll see if I can't get something to
[01:58:33.920 --> 01:58:40.320]  fix this voice. It's getting a little harsh here lately. Thank you all for listening and good night.
[01:58:50.320 --> 01:58:56.800]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.800 --> 01:59:02.240]  Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.240 --> 01:59:08.320]  what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.320 --> 01:59:16.640]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:16.640 --> 01:59:23.840]  or visit us online at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over
[01:59:23.840 --> 01:59:30.240]  13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.240 --> 01:59:34.960]  This is truly a Bible you can understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament
[01:59:34.960 --> 01:59:49.120]  Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:49.120 --> 02:00:00.000]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.