ROL_2019-05-23_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.000]  The following newsflash is brought to you by The Low Star Lowdown, providing the deli
[00:06.000 --> 00:13.000]  bulletins for the commodities market, today in history, news updates, and the inside scoop
[00:13.000 --> 00:21.000]  into the tides of the alternative.
[00:21.000 --> 00:32.000]  New markets for Wednesday 6th of February 2019 open with gold at $1,313.70 an ounce, silver $15.77 an ounce, copper $2.83 an ounce,
[00:32.000 --> 00:40.000]  oil, Texas crude $3.66 a barrel, Brent crude $61.98 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market capitalization,
[00:40.000 --> 00:54.000]  crypto coin $3,401.64, Ripple XRP $0.29, Ethereum $103.10 and EOS is at $2.32 of crypto coin.
[00:54.000 --> 01:02.000]  Today in history, the year 1918, British women over the age of 30 who meet minimum property qualifications get the right to vote when the
[01:02.000 --> 01:09.000]  representation of the People Act of 1918 was passed by Parliament. Today in history.
[01:09.000 --> 01:16.000]  In recent news, several Texas-based organizations filed a lawsuit today requesting that a federal court stop the state from flagging
[01:16.000 --> 01:23.000]  about 95,000 people as potentially illegally registered to vote. The list was compiled after an 11th month long investigation by the
[01:23.000 --> 01:29.000]  office of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Department of Public Safety, which sought to identify non-U.S.
[01:29.000 --> 01:37.000]  citizens who were registered to vote when obtaining major average license. Over half of the 95,000 did indeed vote, it seems.
[01:37.000 --> 01:43.000]  However, further controversy was raised when it became clear that some of the names were not, in fact, belonging to those who were
[01:43.000 --> 01:50.000]  non-citizens and registered. Apparently, around 25% of all Latino immigrants become naturalized, gaining the right to vote.
[01:50.000 --> 01:56.000]  Registered voters who receive letters querying their citizenship have 30 days to respond with proof of eligibility.
[01:56.000 --> 02:03.000]  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and David Whitley, the Texas Secretary of State, have yet to officially comment regarding this list
[02:03.000 --> 02:09.000]  and any updates pertaining to it.
[02:09.000 --> 02:16.000]  A Texas man of only 24 years old, William Brown, died from a severed artery in his neck after a vape pen exploded while he was using it.
[02:16.000 --> 02:23.000]  It apparently happened in the parking lot of the vape shop where he got it. An X-ray revealed that a piece of metal was embedded in his
[02:23.000 --> 02:30.000]  brainstem. The vape store's smoke and vape DZ has refused to comment.
[02:30.000 --> 02:37.000]  First edition anchorwoman, Kristen Diaz, interviewed Aislin Campbell, the executive director of Grow Local, South Texas,
[02:37.000 --> 02:43.000]  concerning the upcoming Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association Conference, which will be taking place at the Corpus Christi
[02:43.000 --> 02:53.000]  Omni Hotel from February 14th to 16th, 6 to 9 p.m. You can find the interview at kiitv.com.
[02:53.000 --> 03:01.000]  This is Rick Rody with your lowdown for February 6th, 2019.
[03:23.000 --> 03:49.000]  Okay, I screwed it up right at the start. Okay, I was supposed to finish fading down and I didn't.
[03:49.000 --> 03:59.000]  I'll get this right in a minute. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Rural Law Radio on this, the 23rd day of May, 2019,
[03:59.000 --> 04:07.000]  and Deborah will not be with us tonight. So I'll be handling the boards and everything. So if everything gets screwed up,
[04:07.000 --> 04:15.000]  I'll blame it on someone else. Okay, we have the call boards open. We'll be taking your calls all night.
[04:15.000 --> 04:37.000]  Call in number 512-646-1984. Okay, we are in the process of putting the final touches on a proof of concept for the electronic lawyer project.
[04:37.000 --> 04:58.000]  We are bringing up SECcomply.com. That will be essentially a separate entity from LeoEarth, but it is designed as a proof of concept.
[04:58.000 --> 05:10.000]  And we've taken on another member of the team and we're going to hope to very soon launch this part of the project.
[05:10.000 --> 05:16.000]  And actually may get some funding coming into the project.
[05:16.000 --> 05:32.000]  So we've gotten most of the questionnaires put together. And in doing so, it has forced us to dramatically increase our technology.
[05:32.000 --> 05:54.000]  I have a AI programmer, Lon Cherry Holmes, who is working on a project, I guess a second level project, that he should be able to teach this engine
[05:54.000 --> 06:08.000]  to read the codes and take the codes and convert them first into questionnaires, but also to literally read and understand the codes.
[06:08.000 --> 06:14.000]  I was hoping I could get him on to explain this and I may next week.
[06:14.000 --> 06:35.000]  He has already downloaded all of the federal codes and he's ran some routines on them and he has isolated 70,000 terms in the individual terms in the federal codes.
[06:35.000 --> 06:44.000]  And he's ran a routine on those to develop legal definitions for each of those terms.
[06:44.000 --> 06:58.000]  And using this tool will we will take parts of this and make it available to anyone who wants to use them so that once we get this working,
[06:58.000 --> 07:06.000]  we will be able to click on any term in a code and it will bring up a definition for the term.
[07:06.000 --> 07:26.000]  And expanding on that he is having the machine look at all of the phrases, all of the parts of speech that are used in the codes and look at how they're used in the codes.
[07:26.000 --> 07:37.000]  And we should have a tool that can actually read, understand, read and understand codes and then convert the codes to questionnaires or whatever you want to with them.
[07:37.000 --> 07:42.000]  It's getting pretty exciting. We're getting some sophisticated things coming together.
[07:42.000 --> 07:51.000]  So first thing we have to do is get this thing turning some profit and we're hoping that within a month or so we can be in a position to do that.
[07:51.000 --> 08:02.000]  Okay, we have a caller. We have Tina in California. Hello, Tina. What do you have for us today?
[08:02.000 --> 08:17.000]  Well, regarding my petition for declaratory judgment and as I said to you in that email yesterday,
[08:17.000 --> 08:24.000]  I was supposed to have this meet and compare today. They'd plucked me a message.
[08:24.000 --> 08:36.000]  She called me at 7.30 last night, but I refused to talk to her because we were in the middle of dinner and I thought it was very rude of her to call at such a time.
[08:36.000 --> 08:57.000]  But we did speak today and she, you know, reiterated that, you know, we have to have this meet and compare with Genu and they are going to file a demure to the petition and ask for what does it say here?
[08:57.000 --> 09:15.000]  A demure and ask for summary judgment. They've put in here that they are going to ask for discovery and they said they will show the judge that it's all barred by Res.
[09:15.000 --> 09:35.000]  Judicata because I filed another lawsuit that I've lost and it's the same property, you know, same property, which it is, but it's got no bearing from what I see on the fact that the code says I can have this.
[09:35.000 --> 09:54.000]  But she said today, well, we've found case law that says in foreclosure that you can't have it. And I said then, could you explain to me why the other, Mr. McGinnity said in a letter that I would be receiving this note, you know, the original.
[09:54.000 --> 10:18.000]  And then he rescinded it after filing appeal and said that I would get it when the case was finished. And now you're refusing to send it still. What are you trying to hide? And she said, well, I can't speak for him, but he's probably afraid that you're going to keep filing lawsuits.
[10:18.000 --> 10:40.000]  Are you still there? I can't hear you. Oh, somebody muted my mic. Yes. Okay. Oh, I'll keep calling lawsuits as long as you keep failing to do what you claim what you're required to do and what you stated that you would do.
[10:40.000 --> 10:53.000]  So how do I, this is supposed to be next week unless a judge grants them and this is supposed to be today. The conference is supposed to next week or a hearing. What's going to be next week?
[10:53.000 --> 11:03.000]  The hearing is next Wednesday at 9am. On his, has, have they filed a new dimmer yet? No.
[11:03.000 --> 11:17.000]  And what's this hearing for? Well, it's the hearing that the judge, you know, set for my, you know, petition.
[11:17.000 --> 11:36.000]  Well, in their statements, we have to file a statement and it's called a case management statement. Okay. Okay. Okay. So this is, this is just a, you know, what's the name of it? This is just a scheduling here conference.
[11:36.000 --> 11:49.000]  Yeah, probably. Yeah, it doesn't mean anything. If you file a scheduling order, they file a scheduling order, you talk to each other and see if you both agree on the scheduling order.
[11:49.000 --> 12:02.000]  And if you both agree on the scheduling order, then there's no point in the hearing. If you don't agree on the scheduling order, then the judge will hold a scheduling order hearing and the judge will make a determination on the scheduling order.
[12:02.000 --> 12:06.000]  But there's nothing substantive that goes on here.
[12:06.000 --> 12:17.000]  Okay. They did ask me today if I would agree to amend my complaint. And I said, there's nothing to amend.
[12:17.000 --> 12:36.000]  I said, it's, you know, it's a petition, not a complaint. It's a petition for declaratory relief. And she said, you are not agreeing to amend it. I said, I reserve any judgment until I see what you're going to file as a demure.
[12:36.000 --> 12:38.000]  That was the right thing to say.
[12:38.000 --> 12:57.000]  Okay, good. Yeah, you tell you, and you're right, there's no reason to amend. Once they filed their demure, you may say defendants arguments are well founded, and I amend.
[12:57.000 --> 13:02.000]  So she's asking stupid questions.
[13:02.000 --> 13:15.000]  They usually do. They just want me to give up. They're mad that I'm filing again. And as they put in here plaintiffs as filed for five other lawsuits, this is the sixth lawsuit she's filing.
[13:15.000 --> 13:21.000]  Not exactly a lawsuit as they're thinking. It's a petition for declaratory relief.
[13:21.000 --> 13:22.000]  It's different.
[13:22.000 --> 13:38.000]  Objection relevance. Okay, first question is how are the other lawsuits that you have filed related to this lawsuit?
[13:38.000 --> 13:39.000]  Okay.
[13:39.000 --> 13:46.000]  So what's the relevance? You're a lawyer, you probably filed a lot more lawsuits than that.
[13:46.000 --> 13:53.000]  So what do all the lawsuits you have filed have to do with this one?
[13:53.000 --> 13:56.000]  Yes.
[13:56.000 --> 14:00.000]  Okay, so this is just a schedule here. This is nothing.
[14:00.000 --> 14:04.000]  So I will obviously be there. They're appearing by telephone.
[14:04.000 --> 14:09.000]  Yes, they judge if you can appear by telephone.
[14:09.000 --> 14:13.000]  Well, it's only a few. It's only three miles from me, so.
[14:13.000 --> 14:22.000]  Oh, okay. But this is essentially a nothing here in journey. The judges like to hold these hearings with nobody present.
[14:22.000 --> 14:23.000]  Okay.
[14:23.000 --> 14:29.000]  Because the judge doesn't know, want you to know he doesn't have any pants on under the robe.
[14:29.000 --> 14:36.000]  Well, this is a lady judge. I thought I'd go in and sit in and see how she handles other cases too.
[14:36.000 --> 14:39.000]  Good, good.
[14:39.000 --> 14:43.000]  But if they call me, I would say I'm present.
[14:43.000 --> 14:51.000]  If she asked me if I have anything to say, what's my, what do I need to be ready for if anything?
[14:51.000 --> 14:58.000]  This is just a scheduling hearing. Have you filed a scheduling order?
[14:58.000 --> 15:05.000]  No, I filed, I didn't ask for a scheduling order. It just said you have to file a case management statement.
[15:05.000 --> 15:14.000]  I'm sorry. That's what I'm talking about case manager statement. You can, you should go to the website, to the courts website and you can pull down a
[15:14.000 --> 15:18.000]  generally a fill in the blanks.
[15:18.000 --> 15:24.000]  If not send me an email. I think I have one that I made up.
[15:24.000 --> 15:27.000]  As a matter of fact, I know I have some one somewhere.
[15:27.000 --> 15:31.000]  A PDF fill in the blanks.
[15:31.000 --> 15:37.000]  I mean, I've already filed my case management.
[15:37.000 --> 15:40.000]  Oh, I had to find it before I came back.
[15:40.000 --> 15:46.000]  Okay, then there won't be anything at this hearing where the judge will look at your issue.
[15:46.000 --> 15:52.000]  Have you talked to opposing counsel about case management?
[15:52.000 --> 16:08.000]  No, she just insisted that I agree to amend or they were just going to ask, they are going to ask the judge at the hearing to extend for 30 days so that they can file a
[16:08.000 --> 16:11.000]  demure and ask for summary judgment.
[16:11.000 --> 16:13.000]  That is what the case management.
[16:13.000 --> 16:18.000]  Okay, and you oppose the demure the extension.
[16:18.000 --> 16:24.000]  Okay, they had plenty of time to file and they chose not to.
[16:24.000 --> 16:26.000]  Okay.
[16:26.000 --> 16:31.000]  So just get it on record that you objected to the extension.
[16:31.000 --> 16:37.000]  Yeah, what the judge asked me why did I say that, you know, there is no need for them.
[16:37.000 --> 16:49.000]  They're just stalling you. The law requires them to file their answer within a specified period of time. They elected not to do that.
[16:49.000 --> 16:54.000]  And you object to giving them more time.
[16:54.000 --> 16:56.000]  You don't need a reason.
[16:56.000 --> 17:00.000]  Other than that, they were required to file in this time.
[17:00.000 --> 17:02.000]  The judge.
[17:02.000 --> 17:07.000]  All right.
[17:07.000 --> 17:13.000]  If you're going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[17:13.000 --> 17:16.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place.
[17:16.000 --> 17:17.000]  The right to act in our own private capacity.
[17:17.000 --> 17:23.000]  And most importantly, the right to do process of law, traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[17:23.000 --> 17:25.040]  preserve our rights through due process.
[17:25.040 --> 17:28.720]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[17:28.720 --> 17:32.460]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[17:32.460 --> 17:34.840]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[17:34.840 --> 17:38.840]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[17:38.840 --> 17:40.200]  ordering your copy today.
[17:40.200 --> 17:43.520]  By ordering now, you will receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[17:43.520 --> 17:47.960]  The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[17:47.960 --> 17:50.280]  documents and other useful resource material.
[17:50.280 --> 17:54.240]  And now to find for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[17:54.240 --> 18:00.880]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[18:00.880 --> 18:06.200]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses?
[18:06.200 --> 18:09.600]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Meares Proven Method.
[18:09.600 --> 18:14.000]  Michael Meares has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[18:14.000 --> 18:15.000]  can win two.
[18:15.000 --> 18:19.800]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.800 --> 18:25.560]  civil rights statute, what to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons, how to answer
[18:25.560 --> 18:30.200]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[18:30.200 --> 18:34.400]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[18:34.400 --> 18:39.520]  The Michael Meares Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:39.520 --> 18:41.640]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.640 --> 18:47.200]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Meares banner
[18:47.200 --> 18:50.080]  or email Michael Meares at yahoo.com.
[18:50.080 --> 18:59.720]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.720 --> 19:00.720]  next.
[19:00.720 --> 19:30.640]  Thank you for listening to the Logos Radio Network from LogosRadioNetworks.com.
[19:30.640 --> 19:32.400]  Okay, we are back.
[19:32.400 --> 19:38.400]  Randy Kelsen, Deborah Stevens of Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Tina in California.
[19:38.400 --> 19:47.120]  Okay, scheduling order, I don't even know why they do that because nothing ever goes
[19:47.120 --> 19:50.920]  according to the timetable on the scheduling order.
[19:50.920 --> 19:57.880]  And for those who don't know what that is, that's just a projection of how long it will
[19:57.880 --> 20:04.080]  take for the case to be adjudicated, how long you're going to take for discovery, how long
[20:04.080 --> 20:14.320]  you'll take for trial, just basic timetable, but it never follows the timetable.
[20:14.320 --> 20:18.820]  And generally, no matter what you put in your scheduling order, no matter what the other
[20:18.820 --> 20:25.960]  side puts in their scheduling order, the judge is going to produce a scheduling order of
[20:25.960 --> 20:32.920]  her own, and that's what it'll be, and she don't care what anybody says about it.
[20:32.920 --> 20:38.160]  So if they go to this hearing, they try to do something else, object.
[20:38.160 --> 20:40.760]  Yeah, okay, objective.
[20:40.760 --> 20:47.560]  Why would they put in that they're wanting discovery and deposition?
[20:47.560 --> 20:51.320]  They can put that in, that doesn't mean anything.
[20:51.320 --> 20:58.840]  Actually, discovery is generally not filed with the court.
[20:58.840 --> 21:05.600]  The discovery is between you and the opposing party.
[21:05.600 --> 21:09.840]  So opposing party asks you for discovery.
[21:09.840 --> 21:14.480]  You either produce discovery or not.
[21:14.480 --> 21:20.200]  If you don't produce discovery, then whoever is requesting the discovery will petition
[21:20.200 --> 21:29.520]  the court for a court order of discovery, and then you go to court on, you request it,
[21:29.520 --> 21:34.120]  they object to it, then the court decides.
[21:34.120 --> 21:40.440]  So if they're going to ask for discovery, go ahead, ask for discovery, knock yourself
[21:40.440 --> 21:41.440]  out.
[21:41.440 --> 21:46.400]  Once you get the discovery, then you generally object to everything.
[21:46.400 --> 21:54.800]  It's just kind of a standard thing, and there's kind of an art to that.
[21:54.800 --> 22:04.160]  You object that something's overly broad, you object it's multifarious, like if it's
[22:04.160 --> 22:09.640]  a request for admissions, and it's a complex question, you object it's multifarious, it
[22:09.640 --> 22:16.360]  has more than one piece to the question, or if the question, if they ask, if they ask
[22:16.360 --> 22:25.720]  a question that assumes facts not in evidence, for instance.
[22:25.720 --> 22:31.080]  So when did you stop beating your wife?
[22:31.080 --> 22:36.920]  In order to ask that question, the fact that you have beat your wife would have to be in
[22:36.920 --> 22:39.080]  the record.
[22:39.080 --> 22:46.200]  So you object assumes facts not in evidence.
[22:46.200 --> 22:52.520]  Did you shoot and run over your wife for the car, objection, multifarious?
[22:52.520 --> 22:54.160]  Did you shoot your wife?
[22:54.160 --> 22:57.440]  Did you run over your wife for the car?
[22:57.440 --> 23:02.640]  Questions have to be singular, and this is a number of things.
[23:02.640 --> 23:09.320]  This goes to objections, and there's a lot of information out there on the internet on
[23:09.320 --> 23:13.200]  how to make objections, and they can be a lot of fun.
[23:13.200 --> 23:17.760]  You start looking into how to make objections, you can do some really cool objections, and
[23:17.760 --> 23:21.120]  let them dance around and try to answer to them.
[23:21.120 --> 23:22.120]  Okay, so...
[23:22.120 --> 23:28.800]  If they ask for the discovery, can I at that hearing ask for discovery and depositions
[23:28.800 --> 23:29.800]  also?
[23:29.800 --> 23:38.200]  Hold on, you say they have already asked, though the judge doesn't have anything to do with.
[23:38.200 --> 23:44.280]  Well, they put it in the scheduling order in this case management conference, it says
[23:44.280 --> 23:45.280]  discovery.
[23:45.280 --> 23:52.760]  The following discovery will be completed by the date specified and describe all anticipated
[23:52.760 --> 23:53.760]  discoveries.
[23:53.760 --> 23:59.920]  The party, the defendant, the description says written discovery per code and deductions.
[23:59.920 --> 24:04.200]  What dates did they indicate discovery which would be completed by?
[24:04.200 --> 24:07.880]  They did not indicate a date as far as I can see.
[24:07.880 --> 24:13.480]  Okay, that should be, you look in the scheduling order, they'll have a time when they project
[24:13.480 --> 24:18.120]  to the court that discovery will be completed, and generally it's six or eight months down
[24:18.120 --> 24:19.120]  the road.
[24:19.120 --> 24:22.000]  Oh, they didn't put anything like that?
[24:22.000 --> 24:24.960]  Well, I don't worry the judge will.
[24:24.960 --> 24:27.520]  Time for trial is one day, but...
[24:27.520 --> 24:32.320]  Okay, the fact that they...
[24:32.320 --> 24:35.600]  That only make any sense.
[24:35.600 --> 24:40.640]  They should have sent you discovery separate.
[24:40.640 --> 24:50.840]  If they're asking the court to order discovery, you object as the defendant has never requested
[24:50.840 --> 25:02.040]  discovery, and the court won't let them do that nonsense anyway.
[25:02.040 --> 25:10.000]  Can I, though, ask if they start making it difficult, can I as the claimant ask for discovery
[25:10.000 --> 25:12.280]  and deposition from them?
[25:12.280 --> 25:13.280]  Absolutely.
[25:13.280 --> 25:17.840]  Okay, because I've got a lot more to discover than they have.
[25:17.840 --> 25:23.960]  Yeah, you get to ask all the discovery you want to, and I was just working on an issue
[25:23.960 --> 25:33.480]  in Texas, and I come across a holy mackerel, we have spoken about pre-litigation discovery
[25:33.480 --> 25:38.800]  at other times, and this is a little bit off topic, but I wanted to touch on this while
[25:38.800 --> 25:41.040]  we're speaking to discovery.
[25:41.040 --> 25:48.720]  Recently, the courts, the legislature, or the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court makes
[25:48.720 --> 25:54.960]  the rules of civil procedure, change the rules of civil procedure.
[25:54.960 --> 26:04.240]  In every state in the union, almost, you can get pre-litigation discovery, and that's discovery
[26:04.240 --> 26:12.280]  for preserving evidence or discovery for the purpose of determining whether or not you
[26:12.280 --> 26:20.160]  actually have a claim where the evidence you need to demonstrate the claim is held exclusively
[26:20.160 --> 26:24.360]  by the person from whom you're trying to secure discovery.
[26:24.360 --> 26:35.040]  It does not have to be a potential defendant, but it only allowed depositions.
[26:35.040 --> 26:45.480]  This has allowed some discovery beyond depositions. Well, they recently changed rule 202, and
[26:45.480 --> 26:53.840]  now what rule 202 says is you can secure in pre-litigation discovery any discovery you
[26:53.840 --> 26:59.360]  could secure at trial.
[26:59.360 --> 27:08.240]  That's a holy mackerel. That completely opens up discovery so that you can do discovery
[27:08.240 --> 27:12.360]  before there is a case.
[27:12.360 --> 27:18.920]  What I was warned was the first thing the other side will try to do in this case is remove
[27:18.920 --> 27:20.760]  to the federal court.
[27:20.760 --> 27:30.280]  Yes, not going to happen. You can't remove a non-case to the federal court.
[27:30.280 --> 27:39.280]  There is no litigation. This is pre-litigation discovery.
[27:39.280 --> 27:43.840]  So the feds have nothing to say about it.
[27:43.840 --> 27:49.080]  But anyway, enough of pre-litigation discovery. If somebody wants to talk more about it later
[27:49.080 --> 27:55.400]  there, ask about it. I thought that was extremely interesting, but you're already in litigation
[27:55.400 --> 27:58.880]  so it really doesn't go to your issue.
[27:58.880 --> 28:05.320]  But how discovery is required to work, they have to ask you for discovery first. If they
[28:05.320 --> 28:09.360]  go to the judge and ask the judge to order discovery, you're checked.
[28:09.360 --> 28:14.840]  So your honor, at least they could do is give me an opportunity to be civil.
[28:14.840 --> 28:21.680]  If they had asked me for discovery, there's a good chance I'd give it to them.
[28:21.680 --> 28:30.560]  So it may be that what you're reading, you may be somewhat misconstruing it because it's
[28:30.560 --> 28:37.120]  hard to imagine a lawyer going to a judge, especially a federal judge, and asking him
[28:37.120 --> 28:42.680]  to order discovery they haven't even asked for yet.
[28:42.680 --> 28:46.320]  That's not going to make the judge happy.
[28:46.320 --> 28:59.600]  The judge wants you, an opposing counsel, to handle everything you can outside the court.
[28:59.600 --> 29:06.920]  You come to the court as a remedy of last resort, not first resort.
[29:06.920 --> 29:14.520]  So discovery, they want you to do that outside of court. That's why a tort matter is required
[29:14.520 --> 29:20.040]  if it's a civil action.
[29:20.040 --> 29:26.400]  You notify the other person that you have been harmed and give them opportunity to make
[29:26.400 --> 29:31.880]  you whole before you come to the court and ask the court to order them to make you whole.
[29:31.880 --> 29:32.880]  Make you whole.
[29:32.880 --> 29:38.840]  Now, this is declaratory judgment, so it's somewhat different. It doesn't require a tort
[29:38.840 --> 29:44.680]  letter as there is no claim.
[29:44.680 --> 29:50.240]  And it puts the lawyers in a somewhat difficult position, and this may be part of their problem.
[29:50.240 --> 29:57.160]  Well, I think you said before, I remember hearing you say that most attorneys do not
[29:57.160 --> 30:03.120]  understand what is declaratory judgment.
[30:03.120 --> 30:07.760]  This performance enhancing drug shows up on drug tests, but it hasn't been banned from
[30:07.760 --> 30:08.760]  professional sports.
[30:08.760 --> 30:13.600]  I'm Dr. Catherine Alvrectin. I'll bet you are taking this drug too. I'll be back to
[30:13.600 --> 30:15.760]  tell you what it is.
[30:15.760 --> 30:20.120]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[30:20.120 --> 30:25.720]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.720 --> 30:31.880]  You'll protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[30:31.880 --> 30:33.480]  it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.480 --> 30:37.800]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:37.800 --> 30:43.800]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and VIN. Start over with StartPage.
[30:43.800 --> 30:50.560]  Caffeine, can it make you a better athlete? The verdict is as muddy as a cup of Joe. Researchers
[30:50.560 --> 30:55.400]  studying cyclist, renters, and rowers found caffeine does boost performance for short-term
[30:55.400 --> 30:59.800]  power events. Tennis players accuracy and speed improved, and they had more endurance
[30:59.800 --> 31:04.320]  to get through the match. But caffeine doesn't help in all sports, and the correct dose varies
[31:04.320 --> 31:09.600]  widely between individuals. Caffeine contributes to dehydration. Plus, it can give you the
[31:09.600 --> 31:14.240]  jitters and nervousness is the last thing you want in a competition. Athletes quickly
[31:14.240 --> 31:19.400]  build up a tolerance to caffeine and its addictive, as anyone who's ever had a caffeine headache
[31:19.400 --> 31:20.400]  can tell you.
[31:20.400 --> 31:27.400]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:50.400 --> 32:04.400]  Hey, it's Danny here for Hill Country Home Improvements. Did your home receive hail or
[32:04.400 --> 32:08.200]  wind damage from the recent storms? Come on, we all know the government caused it with
[32:08.200 --> 32:12.200]  their chemtrails, but good luck getting them to pay for it. Okay, I might be kidding about
[32:12.200 --> 32:16.160]  the chemtrails, but I'm serious about your roof. That's why you have insurance, and Hill
[32:16.160 --> 32:21.160]  Country Home Improvements can handle the claim for you with little to no out-of-pocket expense.
[32:21.160 --> 32:25.440]  And we accept Bitcoin as a multi-year A-plus member of the Better Business Bureau with
[32:25.440 --> 32:30.040]  zero complaints. You can trust Hill Country Home Improvements to handle your claim and
[32:30.040 --> 32:38.440]  your roof right the first time. Just call 512-992-8745 or go to hillcountryhomeimprovements.com.
[32:38.440 --> 32:42.880]  Mention the crypto show and get $100 off, and we'll donate another $100 to the Logos
[32:42.880 --> 32:48.280]  Radio Network to help continue this programming. So if those out-of-town roofers come knocking,
[32:48.280 --> 32:57.000]  your door should be locked in. That's 512-992-8745 or hillcountryhomeimprovements.com. Discounts
[32:57.000 --> 33:26.000]  are based on full roof replacement, meaning I actually be kidding about chemtrails.
[33:26.000 --> 33:36.240]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Real World Radio. And in two segments, I've only ran
[33:36.240 --> 33:46.800]  off the cliff twice, at least on batting 100. Okay, so last quick question. You said before
[33:46.800 --> 33:59.200]  that there is no... What is it? Yes, attorneys tend not to understand declaratory judgment.
[33:59.200 --> 34:07.920]  And it sounds like these attorneys are still acting as if they're adjudicating a cause
[34:07.920 --> 34:14.520]  of action. Yes, they are. And there is no cause of action.
[34:14.520 --> 34:21.840]  So should I say something like that when they ask for the extension to file that demure?
[34:21.840 --> 34:31.800]  Can I bring up to the judge? That's a... Wait a minute. Hold on. Good point. Just think
[34:31.800 --> 34:40.680]  about that. Okay. You have not asked for... You've not made any claims.
[34:40.680 --> 34:49.360]  No. So there are no claims to be barred by res judicata?
[34:49.360 --> 35:03.320]  Yeah. Oh, neat to look... Some of these, because it is so different and relative to you, it
[35:03.320 --> 35:09.920]  may be hard to find case law on this subject, but let's think about this reasonably. The
[35:09.920 --> 35:17.880]  hardest thing for lawyers to do and for us to do is to step outside our preconceptions.
[35:17.880 --> 35:29.320]  And even though we're not lawyers, we have preconceptions about how cases work. And they
[35:29.320 --> 35:37.000]  may be accurate, they may not. So here we have declaratory judgment.
[35:37.000 --> 35:45.120]  That bleeds over from adjudicating causes of action to declaratory judgment and what
[35:45.120 --> 35:55.880]  does not bleed over. And it appears as though res judicata would not bleed over because
[35:55.880 --> 36:08.360]  you're asking a judge merely to rule on the point of law. This would be a great question
[36:08.360 --> 36:21.080]  to raise. Raise the issue that res judicata should not apply in a petition for declaratory
[36:21.080 --> 36:31.520]  judgment. Res judicata would only apply where a party would be injured by having to relitigate
[36:31.520 --> 36:48.040]  an issue. But they're not being sued for anything, so there's no issue to litigate. Let the judge
[36:48.040 --> 36:55.120]  wrap her head around that one. That's a good way of putting it because they've said what
[36:55.120 --> 36:59.640]  they're going to say it, barred by res judicata because they filed other cases, but as you
[36:59.640 --> 37:07.240]  say, I have not made a claim except asking the judge to rule on this statute. And that
[37:07.240 --> 37:14.560]  would be when you say the court. If I had tried to relitigate this claim, then perhaps
[37:14.560 --> 37:21.560]  they would have an argument, but apparently counsel is confused. They're confusing this
[37:21.560 --> 37:32.320]  petition for declaratory judgment with a suit on a cause of action. That'll make them look
[37:32.320 --> 37:41.000]  bad. I like the way you put that because that's exactly what they're doing. This is the thing
[37:41.000 --> 37:52.760]  we find that lawyers, it's very hard for them to shift that gear. They just always are after
[37:52.760 --> 37:59.720]  the other side or defending themselves against the other side. And these guys are still running
[37:59.720 --> 38:12.800]  defense when they should be arguing point of law. So it seems real easy for us to say
[38:12.800 --> 38:23.560]  you guys are full of crapola, but is that the best strategy? When the other guy is screwing
[38:23.560 --> 38:27.320]  up and I've got this rule that says never interfere with someone when they're screwing
[38:27.320 --> 38:39.560]  up. How do you use this issue to your advantage? You tell me. I'm not sure. That wasn't a
[38:39.560 --> 38:48.480]  rhetorical question actually. It was a question for thought. I was thinking out loud. How
[38:48.480 --> 38:56.240]  do we do this? Because we're kind of new to declaratory judgment also. But if we think
[38:56.240 --> 39:03.560]  about it harder than the lawyers think about it, we can bring a more logical and reasonable
[39:03.560 --> 39:16.800]  argument to the table because we're not stuck inside that lawyer box. So main thing is they're
[39:16.800 --> 39:28.600]  arguing West Judicata. What does West Judicata really mean at the end of the day? We understand
[39:28.600 --> 39:40.800]  it means that something has already been adjudicated. But what does that mean to the issues or the
[39:40.800 --> 39:57.280]  facts around adjudication? Let's say a judge made a ruling that was improper and you somehow
[39:57.280 --> 40:06.320]  lost your ability to effectively appeal the issue. It becomes West Judicata. But if you
[40:06.320 --> 40:14.520]  could show that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, then you could
[40:14.520 --> 40:26.600]  undermine the ruling. What I'm trying to figure out here is how do we argue to the judge that
[40:26.600 --> 40:40.640]  declaratory judgment is not the same as a claim against a party and should not be just
[40:40.640 --> 40:51.440]  automatically grouped into an assertion of West Judicata?
[40:51.440 --> 41:18.760]  Hold on. Demure. What does demure mean?
[41:18.760 --> 41:36.480]  Demure is not used in most states. So an objection to an opponent's point is irrelevant or invalid
[41:36.480 --> 41:55.640]  while granting the factual basis of the point. I was hoping for something a little more direct
[41:55.640 --> 42:07.320]  because what a demure is called everywhere else is an answer and an objection. In the
[42:07.320 --> 42:18.160]  demure, they object to the arguments. But in a regular case, you're objecting to the
[42:18.160 --> 42:29.880]  claims against you. Here you're asking the court to rule on a point of law. A demure
[42:29.880 --> 42:41.640]  would seem to be inappropriate. An objection to an opponent's point, you're not making
[42:41.640 --> 42:56.680]  the point. You're asking a question concerning the application of law to facts.
[42:56.680 --> 43:07.880]  So you're not making a legal point here. You're asking the court to rule on a law as it applies
[43:07.880 --> 43:16.160]  to a fact. You should argue that that's not subject to demure.
[43:16.160 --> 43:23.520]  Okay. I'm noticing down here, he said, I am completely familiar with the case and will
[43:23.520 --> 43:30.040]  be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution
[43:30.040 --> 43:35.000]  as well as other issues raised by this statement and will possess the authority to enjoin
[43:35.000 --> 43:40.880]  the stipulation on these issues at the time of the case management conference. I can just
[43:40.880 --> 43:47.040]  say that the judge is easily solved. They send me the original note as they agreed to
[43:47.040 --> 43:52.200]  in 2016 and failed to do so. That's all I'm saying.
[43:52.200 --> 43:58.880]  Okay. In your declaratory judgment, what did you ask the court to declare?
[43:58.880 --> 44:04.960]  At Capital Coin and Bullion, our mission is to be your preferred shopping destination
[44:04.960 --> 44:09.320]  by delivering excellent customer service and outstanding value at an affordable price.
[44:09.320 --> 44:13.200]  We provide a wide assortment of favorite products featuring a great selection of high quality
[44:13.200 --> 44:18.000]  coins and precious metals. We cater to beginners in coin collecting as well as large transactions
[44:18.000 --> 44:22.680]  for investors. We believe in educating our customers with resources from top accredited
[44:22.680 --> 44:26.840]  metal stealers 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 jeffety products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine and
[44:31.600 --> 44:36.320]  Pollen Burks. We also offer one-world-way, mountain house storeable foods, Berkey water
[44:36.320 --> 44:41.280]  products, ammunition at 10% above wholesale, and more. We broker metals IRA accounts and
[44:41.280 --> 44:48.360]  we also accept big coins as payment. Call us at 512-646-6440. We're located at 7304
[44:48.360 --> 44:52.280]  Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half mile south of Anderson. We're open Monday through
[44:52.280 --> 44:59.280]  Friday, 10 to 6, Saturdays, 10 to 2. Visit us at CapitalCoinandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[44:59.280 --> 45:06.640]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris
[45:06.640 --> 45:12.560]  Dictionary. The affordable, easy-to-understand four-city course that will show you how,
[45:12.560 --> 45:18.600]  in 24 hours, you step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be
[45:18.600 --> 45:23.920]  doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have
[45:23.920 --> 45:29.800]  won with our step-by-step course, and now you can, too. Juris Dictionary was created by
[45:29.800 --> 45:36.760]  a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[45:36.760 --> 45:41.840]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[45:41.840 --> 45:48.400]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[45:48.400 --> 45:55.640]  for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click
[45:55.640 --> 46:22.200]  on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[46:22.200 --> 46:49.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law. Randy Kelton, W.C. was a rule of law radio,
[46:49.000 --> 46:56.560]  and we've got Brett up on the Skype with us as a co-host. Brett, you had a comment
[46:56.560 --> 47:00.520]  concerning the declaratory judgments.
[47:00.520 --> 47:08.720]  It just occurs to me that the very definition, at least in Texas, the definition of the declaratory
[47:08.720 --> 47:15.040]  judgment is really clear and separate from a normal cause of action, because it says
[47:15.040 --> 47:20.960]  that its purpose, it's remedial. Its purpose is to settle and afford relief from uncertainty
[47:20.960 --> 47:28.600]  and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations. So this is not
[47:28.600 --> 47:35.440]  about, hey, he broke my fence. He needs to pay for it. This is not about, no, I didn't.
[47:35.440 --> 47:41.720]  Yes, you did. This is about uncertainty and insecurity about your rights or your status,
[47:41.720 --> 47:44.280]  and that's perfect for this situation.
[47:44.280 --> 47:54.960]  If one person breaks another person's fence, is the breaker potentially liable to the break
[47:54.960 --> 48:01.480]  e? Does that sound like what we were saying?
[48:01.480 --> 48:15.360]  I think I understand what Brett's saying, and I think I found something earlier before
[48:15.360 --> 48:21.800]  states here in California, civil procedure states that the Supreme Court has stated in
[48:21.800 --> 48:30.400]  a published decision that the declaratory relief applies to all employment contracts.
[48:30.400 --> 48:38.480]  What does it mean? A judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering
[48:38.480 --> 48:44.480]  anything to be done or awarding damages, while the board is on the prohibited advisory opinion,
[48:44.480 --> 48:51.600]  it is allowed to knit controversies in the bud. And what I asked for in the prayer which
[48:51.600 --> 48:56.960]  we discussed before I filed it, I asked for three things. Petitioner requests that the
[48:56.960 --> 49:02.760]  court rule that respondent had a duty to return the original note and the lunges in accordance
[49:02.760 --> 49:09.640]  with the law California civil code 2941. Two, for declaratory judgment that respondent
[49:09.640 --> 49:16.080]  had a duty to act in accordance with California civil code 2941 and return the original note
[49:16.080 --> 49:21.880]  and the lunges to petitioner within 30 days of written request. Number three, for declaratory
[49:21.880 --> 49:26.840]  judgment that respondent failed to perform a duty that was required by law California
[49:26.840 --> 49:38.120]  civil code 2941, that's all we asked for. Okay, I see a problem. Uh-oh. You're essentially
[49:38.120 --> 49:50.200]  asking the court to rule against the defendant. I would suggest that you do file an amended
[49:50.200 --> 50:02.760]  pleading. Then instead of saying that the defendant has a duty or the defendant is required to
[50:02.760 --> 50:15.760]  do a certain thing, rewrite it as in the term of third parties. If a person breaks another
[50:15.760 --> 50:28.200]  person's fence, is that person potentially liable for the damage to the fence without
[50:28.200 --> 50:35.440]  speaking to another party? Because it sounds like you're asking the judge to rule against
[50:35.440 --> 50:46.680]  opposing counsel, opposing party. Well, that's what we've discussed before. So we're kind
[50:46.680 --> 50:53.600]  of on a learning curve, both of us here. So it might clean it up a little, but I wouldn't
[50:53.600 --> 51:03.520]  do it yet. Yeah. Let them come in and file a demurrer claiming that because of the way
[51:03.520 --> 51:11.880]  this is written, you're trying to re-adjudicate these issues. And then after they filed a demurrer,
[51:11.880 --> 51:21.920]  then you file an amended saying, counsel's arguments are well taken. You rewrite those
[51:21.920 --> 51:35.240]  in third party questions. Yeah. Is a lender required to return the original instrument
[51:35.240 --> 51:44.600]  to the borrower without mentioning actual parties? Does that make sense, Tina? Yeah,
[51:44.600 --> 51:48.640]  that makes sense. So we just wait till we see what they file. And I go there next week
[51:48.640 --> 52:01.480]  and I can say that I will file an amended reading when I read the meal. And if I get
[52:01.480 --> 52:11.920]  it before next week, I will let you know. That will, and this kind of drags them along.
[52:11.920 --> 52:16.680]  You let them make their argument and then you come back and you change your position.
[52:16.680 --> 52:24.480]  And this is actually how the courts were intended. One makes an argument, the other raises an
[52:24.480 --> 52:32.080]  objection. And the other party instead of attacking that objection, it's intended by
[52:32.080 --> 52:42.720]  the courts that you look at that objection and analyze it objectively. And if necessary,
[52:42.720 --> 52:52.360]  you're positioned based on the information they've given you. And in this way, you focus
[52:52.360 --> 53:01.640]  the case down to only those issues in contention. So when they complain that you're still coming
[53:01.640 --> 53:09.160]  after them or things that are re-educated, you tell them, oh my goodness, you are right,
[53:09.160 --> 53:18.040]  my bad. Then you can come back and walk them. If you're careful, you might be able to walk
[53:18.040 --> 53:25.360]  them right up into a corner that they can't get out of. Get them to a point where they
[53:25.360 --> 53:33.560]  have a demurrer that you can get the court to just simply trash.
[53:33.560 --> 53:42.320]  That would be great. And I will do that. We will wait and see what they file. I will
[53:42.320 --> 53:47.600]  send you a copy when it comes. And in the meantime, I will thank you, Brett, for coming
[53:47.600 --> 53:54.280]  in there. I appreciate it. And we'll let you go to someone else. And I'll just sit in
[53:54.280 --> 53:57.440]  and listen to the next question. Then we'll...
[53:57.440 --> 53:59.680]  Okay. Thank you, Tina.
[53:59.680 --> 54:00.680]  Thank you for the input.
[54:00.680 --> 54:05.720]  It has been an interesting examination. We don't get to address declaratory judgment
[54:05.720 --> 54:06.720]  often enough.
[54:06.720 --> 54:07.720]  Okay.
[54:07.720 --> 54:08.720]  Well, at least trying...
[54:08.720 --> 54:09.720]  Okay.
[54:09.720 --> 54:11.720] ...and other people will learn.
[54:11.720 --> 54:18.240]  Okay. Thank you, Tina. Now we're going to go to Jerry in Pennsylvania. Hello, Jerry.
[54:18.240 --> 54:20.240]  What do you have for us today?
[54:20.240 --> 54:29.920]  Oh, yes, Andy. I'm trying to do an appellate brief. I did it about two, three times. They
[54:29.920 --> 54:36.680]  didn't like it. So I was wondering if you could help me out with it. It's on the six-side
[54:36.680 --> 54:46.440]  pages I got, like the trash, weed, lawn mowers, inoperable vehicles here, stuff like that.
[54:46.440 --> 54:55.680]  They start out as all pages, must be numbered, cover sheet, table of contents. And then there's
[54:55.680 --> 55:03.360]  about six of them here. And the one starts off with a statement of jurisdiction. How
[55:03.360 --> 55:10.360]  would I write that in ad?
[55:10.360 --> 55:11.360]  Andy?
[55:11.360 --> 55:26.600]  Let me see if this is correct. Brett, did you hear what I heard?
[55:26.600 --> 55:32.000]  Yeah. He was asking for some help with the...to write the appeal, and he was wondering how
[55:32.000 --> 55:37.080]  would he write his...those six things he just mentioned.
[55:37.080 --> 55:45.160]  He's a defendant. And the other...okay, wait a minute. Maybe I missed part of it at the
[55:45.160 --> 55:49.960]  front. I had Mom in here banging around. I had to kind of show her out.
[55:49.960 --> 55:51.960]  Yeah, he's not wanting to appeal.
[55:51.960 --> 56:00.440]  Wait a minute. Jerry, aren't you the one...I have you in Pennsylvania. Okay, I'm making
[56:00.440 --> 56:08.240]  you up with someone else. I had someone in Texas that filed documents with the municipal
[56:08.240 --> 56:16.360]  court, and they objected to spacing and how the documents were written, and so...
[56:16.360 --> 56:21.880]  Really? That might have been me. They did that with me, too. I've had two judges complain
[56:21.880 --> 56:26.600]  about that with me. My spacing is better than your spacing.
[56:26.600 --> 56:36.200]  And those who were done...okay, so I...my mistake. I got distracted while you were talking.
[56:36.200 --> 56:39.800]  Okay. Can you answer that one, Brett?
[56:39.800 --> 56:46.200]  No, I can't. I don't really know too much about appeals.
[56:46.200 --> 56:48.200]  Well, you...
[56:48.200 --> 56:49.440]  Yeah, but...
[56:49.440 --> 56:57.080]  You don't have to write a jurisdiction statement for the court of appeals. If you are whatever
[56:57.080 --> 57:09.360]  jurisdiction you're in, there is one court to which you must file, and the fact of the...that
[57:09.360 --> 57:16.280]  you were in a particular court and you appealed from a particular court to another court,
[57:16.280 --> 57:22.040]  only one court has jurisdiction. So I don't think they're going to argue jurisdiction.
[57:22.040 --> 57:29.280]  Can you go back over quickly what the issues are, what your issues with the appeal is?
[57:29.280 --> 57:34.680]  The statement of jurisdiction is like number three here.
[57:34.680 --> 57:39.520]  No, no, okay. You don't have to worry about jurisdiction.
[57:39.520 --> 57:46.520]  There's only one that one court can have jurisdiction.
[57:46.520 --> 57:53.040]  Okay, so then I would put in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That's the court that is
[57:53.040 --> 57:55.680]  in. So I'll write that in on number three.
[57:55.680 --> 58:02.120]  Wait a minute. I'm having trouble understanding you. Say that last part again.
[58:02.120 --> 58:09.800]  Where there's number three on here, a statement of jurisdiction. So while it was right in,
[58:09.800 --> 58:18.360]  the jurisdiction is of the commonwealth court of Pennsylvania. That's where that...
[58:18.360 --> 58:25.240]  What are you reading from? Are you reading from some directions from the appellate court?
[58:25.240 --> 58:42.680]  Okay, they're asking for a jurisdiction section. That doesn't make sense. But it's simply enough.
[58:42.680 --> 58:50.320]  You can say that you are appealing from this court. Are you appealing?
[58:50.320 --> 58:55.760]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world. Yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.760 --> 59:00.960]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[59:00.960 --> 59:07.200]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:07.200 --> 59:13.560]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate.
[59:13.560 --> 59:20.000]  But the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[59:20.000 --> 59:25.440]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[59:25.440 --> 59:30.560]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:30.560 --> 59:36.600]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours
[59:36.600 --> 59:47.840]  just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.840 --> 59:54.840]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:00:17.840 --> 01:00:30.240]  Markets for Wednesday 6 February 2019 Open with gold at $1,313.70. Silver $15.77. Copper
[01:00:30.240 --> 01:00:39.680]  $2.83. Oil Texas Crude $3.66. Brand Crude $61.98. Crypto is in order of market capitalization
[01:00:39.680 --> 01:00:51.440]  Bitcoin $3,401.64. Ripple XRP $0.29. Ethereum $103.10. Eos is at $2.32 of crypto coin.
[01:00:51.440 --> 01:00:59.720]  Today in History, the year 1918, British women over the age of 30 who meet minimum property
[01:00:59.720 --> 01:01:04.680]  qualifications get the right to vote when the Representation of the People Act of 1918
[01:01:04.680 --> 01:01:13.000]  was passed by parliament. In recent news, several Texas-based organizations filed a lawsuit
[01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:17.480]  today requesting that a federal court stop the state from flagging about 95,000 people
[01:01:17.480 --> 01:01:22.120]  as potentially illegally registered to vote. The list was compiled after an 11 month long
[01:01:22.120 --> 01:01:26.760]  investigation by the office of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Department of Public
[01:01:26.760 --> 01:01:32.080]  Safety which sought to identify non-U.S. citizens who were registered to vote when obtaining
[01:01:32.080 --> 01:01:37.880]  age average license. Over half of the 95,000 didn't indeed vote, it seems. However, further
[01:01:37.880 --> 01:01:42.640]  controversy was raised when it became clear that some of the names were not in fact belonging
[01:01:42.640 --> 01:01:47.920]  to those who were non-citizens and registered. Apparently around 25% of all Latino immigrants
[01:01:47.920 --> 01:01:53.080]  become naturalized, gaining the right to vote. Registered voters who receive letters querying
[01:01:53.080 --> 01:01:57.880]  their citizenship have 30 days to respond with proof of eligibility. Texas Attorney General
[01:01:57.880 --> 01:02:03.120]  Ken Paxton and David Whitley, the Texas Secretary of State, have yet to officially comment regarding
[01:02:03.120 --> 01:02:12.080]  this list and any updates pertaining to it. A Texas man of only 24 years old, William Brown,
[01:02:12.080 --> 01:02:17.040]  died from a severed artery in his neck after a vape pen exploded while he was using it.
[01:02:17.040 --> 01:02:21.120]  It apparently happened in the parking lot of the vape shop where he got it. An X-ray
[01:02:21.120 --> 01:02:25.720]  revealed that a piece of metal was embedded in his brainstem. The vape store, Smoke and
[01:02:25.720 --> 01:02:32.800]  Vape DZ, has refused to comment. First edition anchorwoman, Kristen Diaz, interviewed
[01:02:32.800 --> 01:02:37.800]  Aislin Campbell, the executive director of Grow Local, South Texas, concerning the upcoming
[01:02:37.800 --> 01:02:42.240]  Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association conference, which will be taking place at
[01:02:42.240 --> 01:02:48.080]  the Corpus Christi Omni Hotel from February 14th to 16th, 6 to 9 p.m. You can find the
[01:02:48.080 --> 01:02:58.080]  interview at kiiitv.com. This is Rick Rodeo with your lowdown for February 6th, 2019.
[01:03:18.080 --> 01:03:47.920]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, rule of law radio.
[01:03:47.920 --> 01:03:58.200]  We are talking to, let me give out a calling number, 512-646-1984. We are talking to Jerry
[01:03:58.200 --> 01:04:04.120]  in Pennsylvania and Jerry, I talked to Brad on the break. We are both having trouble understanding
[01:04:04.120 --> 01:04:16.400]  you. But let's step back. If you are in an inferior court, and an inferior court is a
[01:04:16.400 --> 01:04:24.720]  court that can be presided over by a non-lawyer. That doesn't mean it is provided over by a
[01:04:24.720 --> 01:04:31.000]  non-lawyer, but it can be, and that is a municipal court or generally a justice of the peace
[01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:41.400]  court. Now you are in Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania is a different animal than most states. Jerry
[01:04:41.400 --> 01:04:50.640]  does Pennsylvania have justices of the peace? Yes. Oh good, I thought they did. In Pennsylvania
[01:04:50.640 --> 01:04:55.720]  you have got municipal J.P., and then you have got the court of common police, and then you
[01:04:55.720 --> 01:05:01.600]  have a superior court, and the court of appeals and supreme. Is that correct? Yes, I am in
[01:05:01.600 --> 01:05:09.000]  the superior court of commonwealth Pennsylvania up in Harrisburg. Okay, let me explain to
[01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:15.400]  everybody else so they understand why we were doing a little digging here to find out about
[01:05:15.400 --> 01:05:24.640]  jurisdiction. If you are appealing from an inferior court, that does not generally appeal
[01:05:24.640 --> 01:05:31.880]  to the court of appeals. If you appeal from an inferior court, that generally appeals
[01:05:31.880 --> 01:05:39.320]  to the next higher court where there is a judge who is learned counsel, and in this
[01:05:39.320 --> 01:05:46.160]  case an appeal from a traffic ticket or any class C misdemeanor would appeal to the court
[01:05:46.160 --> 01:05:55.120]  of common police. But if you have been to the court of common police on a class C misdemeanor
[01:05:55.120 --> 01:06:00.600]  and you appeal from that, you generally jump over the superior court and go straight to
[01:06:00.600 --> 01:06:09.400]  the court of appeals because the judge in the case would have been a lawyer. Or if your
[01:06:09.400 --> 01:06:19.000]  case originated in a court that is presided over by a lawyer, court of common police or
[01:06:19.000 --> 01:06:25.720]  superior court, then you would appeal to the court of appeals. That would be a circumstance
[01:06:25.720 --> 01:06:31.960]  where you would have to tell the court, I got tickets, but you're the court of appeals
[01:06:31.960 --> 01:06:38.440]  and you have jurisdiction because I appealed the tickets to the court of common police,
[01:06:38.440 --> 01:06:45.840]  now I'm appealing the tickets to you. In that case, you'd have to explain that. Or I'm
[01:06:45.840 --> 01:06:52.040]  in a county court or district court, I wouldn't imagine why you would have to explain that
[01:06:52.040 --> 01:06:59.040]  but they may want you to explain just in case there's something curious. So in your case,
[01:06:59.040 --> 01:07:07.000]  Jerry, did your issues originate in an inferior court?
[01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:17.640]  Yes. When I filled it out, I put in the court of common wealth Pennsylvania. That's where
[01:07:17.640 --> 01:07:23.520]  it is and that's where it should be. Wait a minute, all courts are common wealth
[01:07:23.520 --> 01:07:33.000]  courts in Pennsylvania. No, the one up in Harrisburg, they go by common wealth up there.
[01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:42.560]  Is it a superior court? Is it a court of common police? No, it went to the court of common
[01:07:42.560 --> 01:07:49.480]  police, went to the superior court, now it's in the common wealth of Pennsylvania. The
[01:07:49.480 --> 01:07:53.800]  next court will be the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
[01:07:53.800 --> 01:08:00.120]  Okay, so then now you're in what we and most every other state. Most of the states west
[01:08:00.120 --> 01:08:07.920]  of the 13 colonies are based on Spanish law. The 13 colonies are based on earlier common
[01:08:07.920 --> 01:08:15.000]  law and they're mostly common wealths. So they're a little bit different. But the structure
[01:08:15.000 --> 01:08:21.960]  is mostly the same. What you're speaking to if you were in one of the western states
[01:08:21.960 --> 01:08:29.120]  would be the court of appeals because here we have county court, district court, court
[01:08:29.120 --> 01:08:39.680]  of appeals, supreme. So you have been, you were originated in a lower court. You went
[01:08:39.680 --> 01:08:47.040]  to the, did you go to the court of common police or did you go to the superior court?
[01:08:47.040 --> 01:08:56.680]  I went through them. This is what I put down when they asked me the statement of jurisdiction.
[01:08:56.680 --> 01:09:05.400]  I put down the common wealth of Pennsylvania. That's what it said in the statement of jurisdiction
[01:09:05.400 --> 01:09:14.480]  on the rule for Pennsylvania for violence on an appellate of grief. So that could have
[01:09:14.480 --> 01:09:22.720]  been right. Now the next one to hear is number four. They want statement of both the soap
[01:09:22.720 --> 01:09:29.800]  and the standard review. Okay. Having trouble understanding your statement
[01:09:29.800 --> 01:09:38.640]  of what? They want me to answer statement of both the
[01:09:38.640 --> 01:09:48.040]  soap and the standard review. Brett, did you get that first part statement
[01:09:48.040 --> 01:09:53.880]  of fault? I couldn't tell the first part, but then he said a standard of review.
[01:09:53.880 --> 01:09:59.600]  A gut standard of review, but the first part, Jerry, I could not quite understand. We're
[01:09:59.600 --> 01:10:07.280]  having a little trouble with your fidelity. Are you using a Bluetooth or a hands-free
[01:10:07.280 --> 01:10:23.720]  piece, the headset or something? It was scope. He said scope or standard review. Okay. Yeah.
[01:10:23.720 --> 01:10:30.480]  And this is a problem because I've even got my hearing aid in. I even remembered where
[01:10:30.480 --> 01:10:36.360]  I put the batteries. You know you're getting old when you forget
[01:10:36.360 --> 01:10:43.440]  where you put your hearing aid batteries. Okay. Scope and standard of review. Okay. Now
[01:10:43.440 --> 01:10:53.520]  they're asking you for your, I guess, that's an odd way of saying things. Scope. Scope
[01:10:53.520 --> 01:11:03.480]  would almost always be an adjective. And here they're using scope as a noun. Scope
[01:11:03.480 --> 01:11:18.000]  of what? Scope of jurisdiction, scope of your claim. I'm not sure what that means. Well,
[01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:24.760]  what I did, I wrote in, one subject matter jurisdiction is raised, the court must prove
[01:11:24.760 --> 01:11:35.160]  it. Okay. Okay. Hold on. I'm going to make a quick objection to that. Objection assumes
[01:11:35.160 --> 01:11:49.600]  facts not in evidence. Is it clear why I made that argument? I don't know. First you have
[01:11:49.600 --> 01:12:03.960]  to tell them that subject matter jurisdiction was raised. I did that. Okay. Hold on. Sit
[01:12:03.960 --> 01:12:11.160]  down. Then you have to give us complete sentences so we can analyze this and understand what
[01:12:11.160 --> 01:12:18.800]  you're saying. You want to give them the basic facts of how these pieces fit together. Did
[01:12:18.800 --> 01:12:34.120]  you do all that? Can the appellate court look at what you filed with them and follow specifically
[01:12:34.120 --> 01:12:41.240]  how you get to where you're at? And when I say specifically, I mean that we can't make
[01:12:41.240 --> 01:12:49.480]  a statement and expect the court to extrapolate information like saying when subject matter
[01:12:49.480 --> 01:12:54.320]  jurisdiction is challenged. Well, in order for that to make any sense, subject matter
[01:12:54.320 --> 01:13:01.920]  jurisdiction would have had to have been challenged. You actually have to say subject matter jurisdiction
[01:13:01.920 --> 01:13:08.720]  has been challenged. Therefore, when it has been challenged, you have to somewhat be
[01:13:08.720 --> 01:13:16.240]  pedantic. You may have been in your documents just you weren't with us. So give that to us
[01:13:16.240 --> 01:13:31.600]  again so it's all in context. Did I lose you? Can I put you to sleep? I have that effect
[01:13:31.600 --> 01:13:40.040]  on people. Did I misunderstand him, Brett? Well, it's hard for me to say. I'm having
[01:13:40.040 --> 01:13:45.320]  a really difficult time getting hit. I've got it maxed out on the audio and it's still
[01:13:45.320 --> 01:13:51.960]  sounds like he's very distant. Okay, Jerry, we're not hearing you at all now. Can you
[01:13:51.960 --> 01:14:00.520]  try hanging up and calling back? You might get a better connection. I heard that. I heard
[01:14:00.520 --> 01:14:06.520]  that. But hang up and call back. You might get it as soon as I finish with looks like
[01:14:06.520 --> 01:14:15.520]  we may have a new caller. Then we'll come right back to you. Thank you. Okay, now we're
[01:14:15.520 --> 01:14:26.840]  going to someone in California. 617 area code. I don't have a producer here. So right now
[01:14:26.840 --> 01:14:33.200]  we can't screen our calls. And this is the kind of thing that makes Deborah crazy. But
[01:14:33.200 --> 01:14:43.720]  I have someone on the line that I don't know who you are. So give us a first name and state.
[01:14:43.720 --> 01:14:48.800]  If you can hand me Mark from Massachusetts. Mark from Massachusetts. You come up on my
[01:14:48.800 --> 01:14:57.480]  system as someone from California. Okay, Mark from Massachusetts. Are you very far from
[01:14:57.480 --> 01:15:09.600]  Worcester? I'm half an hour. You notice I said Worcester. It took Pastor Massad three
[01:15:09.600 --> 01:15:20.360]  months to teach me how to say that. Anybody here who's ever used any Worcestershire sauce,
[01:15:20.360 --> 01:15:28.440]  we tend to pronounce it Worchester. But it's Worcester. And I was proud to learn how to
[01:15:28.440 --> 01:15:41.080]  pronounce that. And in that area in Pennsylvania, you have to go there sometimes. The architecture,
[01:15:41.080 --> 01:15:51.200]  the buildings are absolutely incredible. You can go all over the United States and see
[01:15:51.200 --> 01:15:59.280]  buildings that all look exactly alike. You cannot tell where you're at in the United
[01:15:59.280 --> 01:16:10.200]  States by looking at the buildings. Unless you're in Massachusetts or the states on the
[01:16:10.200 --> 01:16:18.000]  eastern seaboard. The architecture there is incredible. We drove through Worcester.
[01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:26.080]  These ordinary houses and most of them were two or three story buildings with incredibly
[01:16:26.080 --> 01:16:38.560]  ornate wood carved fringes on all the houses. No two houses looked the same. And each house
[01:16:38.560 --> 01:16:49.960]  looked like a carefully crafted work of art. It was incredible. Anyway, okay. Mark, what
[01:16:49.960 --> 01:17:01.800]  do you have for us today? I hear music. Say that again. Are you being harassed by debt
[01:17:01.800 --> 01:17:07.080]  collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the
[01:17:07.080 --> 01:17:12.080]  Michael Mearris proven method. Michael Mearris has won six cases in federal court against
[01:17:12.080 --> 01:17:17.360]  debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step by step instructions in plain English
[01:17:17.360 --> 01:17:22.160]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes. What to do when contacted
[01:17:22.160 --> 01:17:27.720]  by phone, mail or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors
[01:17:27.720 --> 01:17:32.200]  out of your credit report? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay
[01:17:32.200 --> 01:17:37.720]  you to go away? The Michael Mearris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt
[01:17:37.720 --> 01:17:42.720]  collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit
[01:17:42.720 --> 01:17:48.320]  ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mearris banner or email Michael Mearris at
[01:17:48.320 --> 01:17:57.640]  yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn
[01:17:57.640 --> 01:18:04.640]  how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:27.640 --> 01:18:40.440]  Now, I go to logosradionetwork.com and I click on the Amazon box on the upper right-hand
[01:18:40.440 --> 01:18:46.440]  side, bookmark the link and I can go to Amazon through this link and order you some yummy
[01:18:46.440 --> 01:18:53.440]  new cookie. Consider it an early Christmas present and every time I order on Amazon,
[01:18:53.440 --> 01:18:58.000]  I go through this link and I give a little present to this radio network too. See you
[01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:24.120]  next time.
[01:19:24.120 --> 01:19:38.800]  Well, you ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again. I was blindsided but now
[01:19:38.800 --> 01:19:46.800]  I can see your land. You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my land. Ain't
[01:19:46.800 --> 01:20:10.800]  gonna fool me with that same old trick again. I ain't gonna fool me.
[01:20:10.800 --> 01:20:21.800]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens here with Brett on the board with us and
[01:20:21.800 --> 01:20:30.800]  we're talking to Mark in Massachusetts. Did I say that right, Mark?
[01:20:30.800 --> 01:20:40.800]  You got it muted? I got it unmuted, Mark. I can hear you better now that you're unmuted.
[01:20:40.800 --> 01:20:50.800]  Yeah, that was a good pronunciation. What about his Worcester? Did he get that part
[01:20:50.800 --> 01:21:00.800]  right? I know I can't. Worcester, it's Worcester. It's Worcester sauce. We all call it Worcestershire
[01:21:00.800 --> 01:21:07.520]  sauce, but it's really Worcester. Worcester sauce. The pastor just was incredibly frustrated
[01:21:07.520 --> 01:21:12.800]  with me. It took him months to get me to pronounce that right, but he was from, Pastor
[01:21:12.800 --> 01:21:20.800]  Massities, from Worcester. Okay, on the break we were talking about the Mechanics Hall in Worcester.
[01:21:20.800 --> 01:21:28.800]  One day before I die, I want to do a seminar in the Mechanics Hall in Worcester. Okay,
[01:21:28.800 --> 01:21:32.800]  where were we, Mark, before I ran off to Cliff again?
[01:21:32.800 --> 01:21:44.800]  Well, I just have a couple of short small things. I had my car excise tax. I got a so-called bill
[01:21:44.800 --> 01:21:54.800]  for that. I thought I would ask the town, the city where I live, what authority gives them,
[01:21:54.800 --> 01:22:04.800]  what gives them the authority to bill me? And they came back and they sent me something,
[01:22:04.800 --> 01:22:12.800]  and it was a printout from the Department of Revenue's code saying that they had the
[01:22:12.800 --> 01:22:18.800]  right to bill the estate. So I wrote them back, and I said, well, I'm the beneficiary of
[01:22:18.800 --> 01:22:27.800]  the estate. And then they sent me a notice of warrant. So they're going to send me a warrant
[01:22:27.800 --> 01:22:31.800]  soon. And so I was wondering, what if I...
[01:22:31.800 --> 01:22:38.800]  Okay, hold on, hold on. You're the beneficiary of the estate. Is the estate in a trust?
[01:22:38.800 --> 01:22:45.800]  Well, they don't say. I'm just going by what they're...
[01:22:45.800 --> 01:22:51.800]  No, no, no, no, no. That was a question. You said you were the beneficiary of the estate.
[01:22:51.800 --> 01:22:57.800]  You didn't say you were the owner of the estate. So what we're speaking to here is a term of
[01:22:57.800 --> 01:23:08.800]  art. The beneficiary of an estate will normally have that reference because the estate is
[01:23:08.800 --> 01:23:17.800]  in a trust where there is a benefactor, a trustee, and a beneficiary. Is there another reason
[01:23:17.800 --> 01:23:22.800]  you use the term beneficiary?
[01:23:22.800 --> 01:23:29.800]  Well, the only reason why I use it, because they brought the idea up that they have the
[01:23:29.800 --> 01:23:34.800]  right to bill me because of my estate. They were...
[01:23:34.800 --> 01:23:39.800]  Okay. Are you the owner of the estate?
[01:23:39.800 --> 01:23:47.800]  Well, you know, it's the whole, you know, it's the name. It's, you know, everybody knows that
[01:23:47.800 --> 01:23:54.800]  everybody who calls him knows that everybody has an estate when they're born. And that's
[01:23:54.800 --> 01:24:01.800]  why they're billing us because our name is our estate.
[01:24:01.800 --> 01:24:05.800]  Okay, sorry.
[01:24:05.800 --> 01:24:21.800]  What we're having here is a difficulty with the definitions of terms. If you are the sole
[01:24:21.800 --> 01:24:31.800]  owner of the estate and there are no interested third parties, you would be responsible for
[01:24:31.800 --> 01:24:41.800]  any liabilities of the estate. Are you responsible for any liabilities of the estate?
[01:24:41.800 --> 01:24:49.800]  Well, I guess that's a good question. I like to think that I'm not a surety.
[01:24:49.800 --> 01:25:01.800]  Okay. We don't get to like to think. We have to state our position in terms of code.
[01:25:01.800 --> 01:25:06.800]  If you can't state your position in terms of code, you can't state your position.
[01:25:06.800 --> 01:25:12.800]  And I'm not trying to be difficult or pedantic.
[01:25:12.800 --> 01:25:22.800]  There's a lot of patriot mythologists out there that preach a lot of ideas. Winston Shrout
[01:25:22.800 --> 01:25:30.800]  was one of them. And Pastor Massage set me up. Pastor Massage used to host a show by Winston
[01:25:30.800 --> 01:25:39.800]  Shrout. And I do a show with him on Mondays. And he set me up to be on Winston Shrout's
[01:25:39.800 --> 01:25:46.800]  show once. I didn't realize at the time that I was being set up. But I talked to Winston
[01:25:46.800 --> 01:25:52.800]  and he told me all about the bankruptcy and how you could no longer pay your debts. You
[01:25:52.800 --> 01:25:58.800]  could only discharge your debts. And he went through a lot of stuff. And when he finished,
[01:25:58.800 --> 01:26:07.800]  I said, well, Winston, where is the law, the statute, and the case law to support your
[01:26:07.800 --> 01:26:18.800]  position? He said, well, I don't know if there is any. I said, well, where did you come up
[01:26:18.800 --> 01:26:29.800]  with all this? He said, I figured it out. I said, you figured it out. I said, Winston,
[01:26:29.800 --> 01:26:38.800]  I am a creature of statute. I can't go into court. I'm sorry. What I said first was you
[01:26:38.800 --> 01:26:47.800]  figured it out. So essentially what you're saying is you made all this up. Long pause.
[01:26:47.800 --> 01:26:56.800]  And to Winston's credit, he said, well, I guess you could say that. And I said, Winston, I'm
[01:26:56.800 --> 01:27:06.800]  a creature of statute. I can't go into court and say I made it up. I need statute and law.
[01:27:06.800 --> 01:27:14.800]  You cannot go into court with anything but statute and law in what I do. I have a set
[01:27:14.800 --> 01:27:21.800]  of rules and one of the rules is never make a proactive statement of law out of your own
[01:27:21.800 --> 01:27:29.800]  health. You got to do this and you're supposed to do that. What you have to do is say that
[01:27:29.800 --> 01:27:37.800]  the courts have said or the legislature have said in this instance that you must do this.
[01:27:37.800 --> 01:27:45.800]  So Winston's given me some really interesting analogies and explanations of how things work,
[01:27:45.800 --> 01:27:55.800]  but it gave me no law. Now when you go before court, a court has a duty to determine the
[01:27:55.800 --> 01:28:03.800]  facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the law as it comes to him to the
[01:28:03.800 --> 01:28:10.800]  facts in the case. You can give the judge the most convincing arguments as to why he should
[01:28:10.800 --> 01:28:20.800]  ruin your favor. And he can agree with you. But if you haven't given him facts and law
[01:28:20.800 --> 01:28:27.800]  as they relate to those facts, you have given him nothing from which he can rule in your
[01:28:27.800 --> 01:28:34.800]  favor. Does that make sense to you? No, you're Mark. I've got you.
[01:28:34.800 --> 01:28:41.800]  I'm looking at my screen here and Jerry pop back up. We'll get back to Jerry in a minute.
[01:28:41.800 --> 01:28:48.800]  Does that make sense? Yes, it does. And so I was thinking, you know, I haven't said anything
[01:28:48.800 --> 01:28:53.800]  and I just asked them. I just told them because they brought the facts up that they were billing
[01:28:53.800 --> 01:28:59.800]  me because of the estate, I just wanted to know why. And so I wanted to ask you would
[01:28:59.800 --> 01:29:10.800]  a quote Warrantoe be helpful in this situation? Okay, let's speak to quote Warrantoe. Generally,
[01:29:10.800 --> 01:29:21.800]  quote Warrantoe is not relevant here. What quote Warrantoe generally means is the removal
[01:29:21.800 --> 01:29:32.800]  of a public official from a public position. For some reason, saying, if they know that
[01:29:32.800 --> 01:29:46.800]  I'm speaking to Texas in Spanish law, not to the Commonwealth's in Texas, if a public
[01:29:46.800 --> 01:29:53.800]  official is indicted, then they are subject to removal from office. And that removal from
[01:29:53.800 --> 01:29:59.800]  office is called quote Warrantoe. Hang on, about to go to break. We'll be right back.
[01:29:59.800 --> 01:30:06.800]  Thousands of Florida motorists convicted of DUI may very well have been driving under
[01:30:06.800 --> 01:30:10.800]  the blood alcohol limit. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back with a tale of
[01:30:10.800 --> 01:30:17.800]  bad breathalysers and a government cover up in a moment.
[01:30:41.800 --> 01:30:49.800]  Ever hear the term fine farming? It's when cops find innocent people to bring in revenue
[01:30:49.800 --> 01:30:54.800]  and it's apparently big business in the Sunshine State of Florida. This case involves
[01:30:54.800 --> 01:30:59.800]  breathalysers used to convict thousands of Florida motorists for DUI violations.
[01:30:59.800 --> 01:31:04.800]  Recently, reporters discovered that the devices were improperly calibrated. State officials
[01:31:04.800 --> 01:31:09.800]  knew about it for two and a half years but did nothing. In fact, the head of Florida's
[01:31:09.800 --> 01:31:14.800]  testing program ordered inspectors not to document the problem. A DUI conviction can
[01:31:14.800 --> 01:31:19.800]  ruin somebody's life but now that the cover up has been exposed, perhaps Florida drivers
[01:31:19.800 --> 01:31:24.800]  can breathe a bit easier. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at
[01:31:24.800 --> 01:31:29.800]  CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:29.800 --> 01:31:35.800]  This is Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:35.800 --> 01:31:40.800]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers
[01:31:40.800 --> 01:31:44.800]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have
[01:31:44.800 --> 01:31:49.800]  given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders have died. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:49.800 --> 01:31:53.800]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.800 --> 01:31:58.800]  I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.800 --> 01:32:05.800]  Building7.org today.
[01:32:28.800 --> 01:32:31.800]  Put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand
[01:32:31.800 --> 01:32:35.800]  what DUI process is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy
[01:32:35.800 --> 01:32:40.800]  of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By
[01:32:40.800 --> 01:32:43.800]  ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law
[01:32:43.800 --> 01:32:47.800]  Versus the Lies, a video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research
[01:32:47.800 --> 01:32:51.800]  documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the
[01:32:51.800 --> 01:32:55.800]  help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and, together, we can
[01:32:55.800 --> 01:32:58.800]  Together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:01.800 --> 01:33:03.800]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[01:33:03.800 --> 01:33:29.800]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:33:33.800 --> 01:33:50.800]  LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:34:03.800 --> 01:34:13.800]  Hello, Mark and Massachusetts.
[01:34:14.800 --> 01:34:19.800]  I actually did not run off the cliff that time, first time, the whole show.
[01:34:20.800 --> 01:34:22.800]  That was an accident.
[01:34:23.800 --> 01:34:26.800]  Yeah, it was. I'll do better next time.
[01:34:26.800 --> 01:34:32.800]  Okay, we're having just fun on the break. I lost track of where we were at.
[01:34:33.800 --> 01:34:38.800]  Brett, you brought up a hierarchy chart for Pennsylvania.
[01:34:39.800 --> 01:34:44.800]  Yes, but that would be to come in useful when we're talking to Jerry.
[01:34:45.800 --> 01:34:49.800]  When you go back to Jerry for this, this is Mark. He's in Massachusetts.
[01:34:49.800 --> 01:34:55.800]  Oh, okay. Okay. My bad. My bad. My bad. Remember that, Mark? I'm confused.
[01:34:56.800 --> 01:34:58.800]  Okay.
[01:34:59.800 --> 01:35:06.800]  One thing that I am considering, you are facing a joggernaut.
[01:35:07.800 --> 01:35:13.800]  When it comes to taxes, it doesn't matter if you're right or not.
[01:35:13.800 --> 01:35:18.800]  These guys are going to give you a fight you will not believe.
[01:35:19.800 --> 01:35:30.800]  Because the last thing they want to happen is to get a ruling against them that will undermine their ability to generate revenue.
[01:35:31.800 --> 01:35:32.800]  Right.
[01:35:33.800 --> 01:35:39.800]  So before you get into this fight, make sure it's a fight you want to have.
[01:35:40.800 --> 01:35:41.800]  Right.
[01:35:41.800 --> 01:35:53.800]  And I can tell you from personal experience, it is, you should not be ashamed of dodging a fight.
[01:35:54.800 --> 01:35:59.800]  I have learned to pick my fights very, very carefully.
[01:36:00.800 --> 01:36:08.800]  In Texas, removing yourself, getting in a loyal title is relatively easy.
[01:36:08.800 --> 01:36:15.800]  Texas, unlike all the other states, has its own land management system.
[01:36:16.800 --> 01:36:20.800]  Everybody else uses the Bureau of Land Management.
[01:36:21.800 --> 01:36:24.800]  One, everybody else uses the federal government.
[01:36:25.800 --> 01:36:26.800]  Texas has its own.
[01:36:27.800 --> 01:36:32.800]  You can go down to Austin and these people down there, they have to be there, but they have almost nothing to do.
[01:36:32.800 --> 01:36:40.800]  And when you come down there, they just, they're just thrilled. They get to do something and they bend over backwards to help you.
[01:36:42.800 --> 01:36:51.800]  But when you get that loyal title and you take your property off the tax rolls, you've got yourself a fight.
[01:36:52.800 --> 01:36:54.800]  Makes no difference that you're right.
[01:36:54.800 --> 01:37:02.800]  The taxing authorities do not want anything to undermine their taxing authority.
[01:37:03.800 --> 01:37:05.800]  They will fight you like a tiger.
[01:37:06.800 --> 01:37:08.800]  So be sure you want this fight.
[01:37:09.800 --> 01:37:11.800]  Now do everything they can to take your property from you.
[01:37:12.800 --> 01:37:13.800]  Right.
[01:37:14.800 --> 01:37:20.800]  If you want to have this fight, pay them up first and then sue them to get your money back.
[01:37:20.800 --> 01:37:24.800]  Now they got nothing to gain and only can lose.
[01:37:25.800 --> 01:37:31.800]  So then you can go, you can go to the court and ask the court for court order mediation.
[01:37:32.800 --> 01:37:34.800]  They force them to the table.
[01:37:35.800 --> 01:37:39.800]  And when they don't mediate in good faith, you go to the court and ask for sanctions against them.
[01:37:40.800 --> 01:37:43.800]  They'll only want to have one of these fights with you.
[01:37:43.800 --> 01:37:49.800]  They won't ever want to have another one.
[01:37:50.800 --> 01:37:56.800]  So they will fight you like a tiger through the first case you bring against them.
[01:37:57.800 --> 01:38:02.800]  But when you come back to them next year, they're not going to have this fight.
[01:38:03.800 --> 01:38:07.800]  Then you go to them and say, look guys, are we going to have another fight?
[01:38:08.800 --> 01:38:09.800]  How about let's make a deal.
[01:38:09.800 --> 01:38:12.800]  And they're very likely to make a deal.
[01:38:13.800 --> 01:38:16.800]  But getting out of paying taxes altogether.
[01:38:17.800 --> 01:38:19.800]  Haven't seen that happen to anyone yet.
[01:38:20.800 --> 01:38:26.800]  I've had people make those claims, but I never have been able to support those claims with underlying facts.
[01:38:27.800 --> 01:38:28.800]  I'm just concerned.
[01:38:29.800 --> 01:38:31.800]  This is a really tough battle to have.
[01:38:33.800 --> 01:38:34.800]  Right.
[01:38:35.800 --> 01:38:36.800]  I agree.
[01:38:36.800 --> 01:38:40.800]  Yeah, there are other fights we can have and have more fun with them.
[01:38:41.800 --> 01:38:45.800]  Tickets? Oh, you could have so much fun with tickets.
[01:38:47.800 --> 01:38:52.800]  And other things we can take on, but the taxing authority, they're tough.
[01:38:53.800 --> 01:38:55.800]  Yeah, I think I'll take your advice.
[01:38:56.800 --> 01:38:58.800]  Yeah, do not lose your property over this fight.
[01:38:59.800 --> 01:39:00.800]  No.
[01:39:00.800 --> 01:39:07.800]  And besides, you know, I live in Texas and I could get my property.
[01:39:08.800 --> 01:39:13.800]  I could get a loyal title easy enough and stop paying taxes.
[01:39:14.800 --> 01:39:17.800]  But I'm not sure I want to.
[01:39:19.800 --> 01:39:21.800]  I want to support my schools.
[01:39:22.800 --> 01:39:27.800]  I want the children educated, not just my children, but all the children educated.
[01:39:27.800 --> 01:39:29.800]  And I'm willing to pay for that.
[01:39:30.800 --> 01:39:32.800]  I want fire protection.
[01:39:33.800 --> 01:39:35.800]  I want police protection.
[01:39:36.800 --> 01:39:42.800]  I want my police environment to be paid and I'm willing to pay that.
[01:39:43.800 --> 01:39:51.800]  Now, if my taxing authority is squandering my money, I'm fixing to kick their behinds.
[01:39:51.800 --> 01:39:57.800]  And that you can do with relative impunity.
[01:39:58.800 --> 01:40:06.800]  But when you start taking them on to not pay them, they're going to do everything they can take your property from you and use you as a example to everybody else.
[01:40:07.800 --> 01:40:12.800]  I don't know of any authority that's more lucid than the taxing authority.
[01:40:12.800 --> 01:40:20.800]  Then I have taken deals in court because the fight was too difficult.
[01:40:21.800 --> 01:40:23.800]  And I did not feel bad about it.
[01:40:24.800 --> 01:40:27.800]  So be careful of the fight you pick.
[01:40:28.800 --> 01:40:30.800]  I was almost flooring and sticking to it.
[01:40:31.800 --> 01:40:34.800]  So I'll take your advice.
[01:40:35.800 --> 01:40:37.800]  I just have one more short question.
[01:40:37.800 --> 01:40:56.800]  So I was in a car accident like 15 years ago or 20 years ago and I fired the law firm that was representing me because they failed to do what they were supposed to do.
[01:40:57.800 --> 01:41:00.800]  And so he actually sued me and I counter sued.
[01:41:00.800 --> 01:41:06.800]  And so I lost that. I got a lot of experience, but I lost that case.
[01:41:07.800 --> 01:41:22.800]  But he sued me in his, the lawyer who owns the law firm sued me with his own legal name or some derivative theory of and not the law firm's name.
[01:41:23.800 --> 01:41:27.800]  He signed the contract with the law firm. Does that make a difference?
[01:41:27.800 --> 01:41:30.800]  No, it depends.
[01:41:31.800 --> 01:41:38.800]  Well, okay, I've said no, but it depends on the nature of the business.
[01:41:39.800 --> 01:41:51.800]  If he was the owner of the business and everybody else were his employees, then he is the alter ego of the business.
[01:41:52.800 --> 01:41:54.800]  So he's the same as the business.
[01:41:54.800 --> 01:41:56.800]  All right.
[01:41:57.800 --> 01:42:08.800]  Yeah, but if a lawyer ever comes up with any such notion like that again, we can show you how to kick their behinds every way from Sunday.
[01:42:09.800 --> 01:42:11.800]  Yeah, it was a long time ago.
[01:42:12.800 --> 01:42:14.800]  Yeah, unfortunately, it's too far back.
[01:42:15.800 --> 01:42:22.800]  But one of the things we can do, you know, what we try to do in this show is help people find liberty.
[01:42:22.800 --> 01:42:30.800]  And we sometimes promote some pretty radical behaviors.
[01:42:31.800 --> 01:42:34.800]  And Brett is a perfect example of that.
[01:42:35.800 --> 01:42:38.800]  His issues were traffic that came after him.
[01:42:39.800 --> 01:42:47.800]  And he was justifiably concerned because he's married, he's got children, he's got a job.
[01:42:47.800 --> 01:42:51.800]  He has to curve and these guys are trying to ruin everything for him.
[01:42:52.800 --> 01:42:55.800]  And we said, Brett, do this outrageous stuff.
[01:42:56.800 --> 01:42:59.800]  Just go in and kick their butts every way from Sunday.
[01:43:00.800 --> 01:43:02.800]  And he did.
[01:43:03.800 --> 01:43:06.800]  And he was terrified the whole time.
[01:43:07.800 --> 01:43:12.800]  And at the end of the day, he won the whole deal.
[01:43:12.800 --> 01:43:16.800]  But it was difficult.
[01:43:17.800 --> 01:43:20.800]  Brett, who would you recommend?
[01:43:21.800 --> 01:43:24.800]  Follow your path.
[01:43:26.800 --> 01:43:30.800]  Well, I wouldn't recommend anybody step into it.
[01:43:30.800 --> 01:43:42.800]  But if it lands on somebody, I would recommend that the part of my path that's the most worth following is the part where you cry out to the Lord.
[01:43:43.800 --> 01:43:44.800]  Bail me out.
[01:43:45.800 --> 01:43:57.800]  My point here is, it's good to take on the system, but you don't own your life to the system.
[01:43:57.800 --> 01:44:05.800]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.800 --> 01:44:08.800]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:44:09.800 --> 01:44:10.800]  And it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.800 --> 01:44:16.800]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.800 --> 01:44:24.800]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young jeopardy can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:24.800 --> 01:44:30.800]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.800 --> 01:44:38.800]  We have come to trust young jeopardy so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.800 --> 01:44:46.800]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.800 --> 01:44:50.800]  As you realize the benefits of young jeopardy, you may want to join us.
[01:44:50.800 --> 01:44:58.800]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:44:59.800 --> 01:45:02.800]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.800 --> 01:45:13.800]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand four-CD course that will show you how, in 24 hours, you step by step.
[01:45:13.800 --> 01:45:21.800]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.800 --> 01:45:26.800]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.800 --> 01:45:32.800]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.800 --> 01:45:41.800]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:41.800 --> 01:45:50.800]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosay tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.800 --> 01:45:54.800]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner.
[01:45:54.800 --> 01:46:21.800]  Or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[01:46:21.800 --> 01:46:29.800]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:46:30.800 --> 01:46:37.800]  Somebody's on a police, that police man. Somebody's on a police, a police.
[01:46:38.800 --> 01:46:47.800]  There's always room at the top of the head. I hear things are great fine and it's lonely left too.
[01:46:47.800 --> 01:46:55.800]  They're wishing it was more than I positioned to fail. They know that if they don't do it somehow.
[01:46:56.800 --> 01:47:10.800]  Okay, fade out. Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens with Radio here with Brett, and we're talking to Mark in Massachusetts.
[01:47:10.800 --> 01:47:16.800]  I was talking on the break how I was glad about what you said, Mark.
[01:47:17.800 --> 01:47:20.800]  I do this show. We've been doing this show a long time.
[01:47:21.800 --> 01:47:25.800]  And over the years we've had a lot of patriot mythology come along.
[01:47:26.800 --> 01:47:37.800]  And I have been called all over the country to get people out of jail for things these supposed gurus have told them.
[01:47:37.800 --> 01:47:50.800]  And I once had someone call me and tell me why I heard you do the bravest thing I've ever heard on the radio.
[01:47:51.800 --> 01:47:56.800]  And I said, well, what was that? You admitted you were wrong.
[01:47:57.800 --> 01:48:00.800]  Huh? Are you kidding me?
[01:48:00.800 --> 01:48:10.800]  I said, I'd like that. That's wonderful. The last thing I want anybody to think is that I'm some kind of a guru.
[01:48:11.800 --> 01:48:17.800]  Because that implies that I have some special ability that everybody else doesn't have.
[01:48:18.800 --> 01:48:22.800]  No, I don't. I have some knowledge in a very focused area.
[01:48:22.800 --> 01:48:29.800]  Get me out of that area and I know nothing, nada.
[01:48:30.800 --> 01:48:37.800]  I don't want people to think that only I can do this because I'm this guru guy.
[01:48:38.800 --> 01:48:43.800]  You've got to listen to everything I say. No, no, no, no, no. Anybody can do what I'm doing.
[01:48:44.800 --> 01:48:47.800]  And I want them to feel like anybody can do what I'm doing.
[01:48:47.800 --> 01:48:52.800]  And do not misunderstand and think that I have a special knowledge or ability.
[01:48:53.800 --> 01:48:57.800]  I'd like to fact that bread is on because breath for me.
[01:48:58.800 --> 01:49:01.800]  He was a vindication of why I do this show.
[01:49:01.800 --> 01:49:16.800]  These guys came after him and he fought them back for years and never gave up and wound up winning in the end.
[01:49:17.800 --> 01:49:24.800]  And breath now is a force to be dealt with. We don't need too many of those.
[01:49:24.800 --> 01:49:31.800]  We don't need everybody to be that force to be dealt with and to be dealt with.
[01:49:32.800 --> 01:49:44.800]  And we certainly don't want someone to lose his family, his life, his property in order to prove a point.
[01:49:45.800 --> 01:49:49.800]  We should pick our battles very carefully.
[01:49:49.800 --> 01:50:01.800]  And I'm hoping that Mark, if you get a ticket or something, or if you see that the taxing authority is doing something improperly.
[01:50:02.800 --> 01:50:05.800]  Well, they would never squander your taxes.
[01:50:06.800 --> 01:50:12.800]  Excuse me, I did not mean to disparage those working in the tax office.
[01:50:12.800 --> 01:50:18.800]  But the best fight to have is the one you pick.
[01:50:19.800 --> 01:50:28.800]  So if you decide not to risk your property by fighting this battle, go back and look at how they're collecting taxes.
[01:50:29.800 --> 01:50:35.800]  Or maybe even pay them their taxes and then go sue them to get the taxes back.
[01:50:36.800 --> 01:50:40.800]  That you can do and that you can do without putting yourself in jeopardy.
[01:50:40.800 --> 01:50:43.800]  Does that make sense, Mark?
[01:50:44.800 --> 01:50:45.800]  Yeah, I like that.
[01:50:46.800 --> 01:50:48.800]  And I'm not asking you to join this fight.
[01:50:50.800 --> 01:50:53.800]  Not everybody has the time, the resources.
[01:50:54.800 --> 01:50:58.800]  People have family, they have children, they have responsibilities.
[01:50:59.800 --> 01:51:00.800]  I'm an old guy.
[01:51:01.800 --> 01:51:06.800]  I just went to my son's graduation where he got his PhD.
[01:51:06.800 --> 01:51:09.800]  My daughter has a CPA.
[01:51:10.800 --> 01:51:14.800]  I have fulfilled my contract with life.
[01:51:15.800 --> 01:51:18.800]  I can fight these guys if I want to.
[01:51:19.800 --> 01:51:22.800]  If they throw me in jail, who cares?
[01:51:23.800 --> 01:51:24.800]  My house is paid for.
[01:51:25.800 --> 01:51:26.800]  My car is paid for.
[01:51:27.800 --> 01:51:29.800]  I don't owe anything to anybody.
[01:51:30.800 --> 01:51:32.800]  I'm open to have this fight.
[01:51:32.800 --> 01:51:35.800]  But if you have lots of responsibilities,
[01:51:36.800 --> 01:51:42.800]  you don't get to pick up this metal just because you're PO'd at these guys.
[01:51:43.800 --> 01:51:46.800]  You need to be real careful about the fight you pick.
[01:51:47.800 --> 01:51:52.800]  If you pick the fight and you're not prepared for it and you likely lose
[01:51:53.800 --> 01:52:00.800]  and that does the whole area of endeavor or harm.
[01:52:00.800 --> 01:52:01.800]  So pick a fight.
[01:52:02.800 --> 01:52:03.800]  You can win.
[01:52:04.800 --> 01:52:06.800]  Even if you can't win, pick a fight.
[01:52:07.800 --> 01:52:09.800]  We can beat them up and have great fun.
[01:52:10.800 --> 01:52:15.800]  Because Mark, I can tell you, you won't believe how much fun this is.
[01:52:16.800 --> 01:52:19.800]  I've had a number of people, I've had to say, you've got to be careful.
[01:52:20.800 --> 01:52:21.800]  You're having way too much fun.
[01:52:22.800 --> 01:52:23.800]  Okay.
[01:52:24.800 --> 01:52:26.800]  I've probably said enough on this subject,
[01:52:26.800 --> 01:52:29.800]  but Mark, don't be a stranger.
[01:52:30.800 --> 01:52:32.800]  If you find another fight, let us know.
[01:52:33.800 --> 01:52:34.800]  I will.
[01:52:35.800 --> 01:52:36.800]  I'll let you know.
[01:52:37.800 --> 01:52:38.800]  Okay.
[01:52:39.800 --> 01:52:40.800]  Thank you.
[01:52:41.800 --> 01:52:44.800]  Now we're going to go back to Jerry in Pennsylvania.
[01:52:45.800 --> 01:52:48.800]  Jerry, let's see if we can hear you better this time.
[01:52:49.800 --> 01:52:50.800]  Yeah, Randy.
[01:52:50.800 --> 01:52:57.800]  Here you are, Brett, can you guide me to some place where I can read a little more on the appellate phrase?
[01:52:58.800 --> 01:53:00.800]  Or maybe you can send me something, I don't know.
[01:53:01.800 --> 01:53:04.800]  Well, okay, you're in Pennsylvania.
[01:53:05.800 --> 01:53:09.800]  Oh, oh, send me an email.
[01:53:10.800 --> 01:53:15.800]  You want to know about appellate procedure in Pennsylvania?
[01:53:15.800 --> 01:53:19.800]  Pennsylvania, I have just the person for you.
[01:53:20.800 --> 01:53:24.800]  We very affectionately call her bad grandma.
[01:53:26.800 --> 01:53:30.800]  She's in UM Arizona right now, but she was in Pennsylvania.
[01:53:32.800 --> 01:53:35.800]  And she can go ahead.
[01:53:39.800 --> 01:53:40.800]  Okay.
[01:53:40.800 --> 01:53:45.800]  She can tell you everything you need to know about Pennsylvania law,
[01:53:46.800 --> 01:53:49.800]  and we don't call her bad grandma for nothing.
[01:53:50.800 --> 01:53:53.800]  If you're a public official or a banker in Pennsylvania,
[01:53:54.800 --> 01:53:58.800]  you do not want Leslie on your case.
[01:53:59.800 --> 01:54:06.800]  And I envy Leslie, her ability to create legal documents
[01:54:06.800 --> 01:54:10.800]  with the style and elegance that she does.
[01:54:11.800 --> 01:54:15.800]  A wood that I could create such beautiful documents.
[01:54:16.800 --> 01:54:17.800]  So send me an email.
[01:54:18.800 --> 01:54:24.800]  I will send it to Leslie and she will show you how to wind these guys clocks.
[01:54:26.800 --> 01:54:27.800]  Oh, okay.
[01:54:28.800 --> 01:54:30.800]  She could probably help me with the appellate phrase then too.
[01:54:31.800 --> 01:54:33.800]  Oh, definitely she can help you with the appellate phrase.
[01:54:33.800 --> 01:54:37.800]  She has done a lot of work in Pennsylvania law.
[01:54:38.800 --> 01:54:44.800]  I think she has a $360 million lawsuit against some lawyers.
[01:54:45.800 --> 01:54:49.800]  I'm trying to think of the something Nellie suit.
[01:54:50.800 --> 01:54:57.800]  There's a special kind of suit you can file in Pennsylvania against lawyers.
[01:54:57.800 --> 01:55:05.800]  Oh, this woman, hey, no one, no judge or lawyer in Pennsylvania
[01:55:06.800 --> 01:55:08.800]  wants anything to do with this person.
[01:55:09.800 --> 01:55:16.800]  Not only is she bad news, but she has such great fun in the process.
[01:55:18.800 --> 01:55:19.800]  Okay.
[01:55:20.800 --> 01:55:23.800]  Send me an email to Randy at Ruderville Radio
[01:55:23.800 --> 01:55:29.800]  and ask for an introduction to Leslie bad grandma.
[01:55:30.800 --> 01:55:34.800]  And I will forward it to her and she will contact you
[01:55:35.800 --> 01:55:36.800]  and she will show you how to go after these guys.
[01:55:39.800 --> 01:55:40.800]  Okay.
[01:55:41.800 --> 01:55:42.800]  All right.
[01:55:43.800 --> 01:55:44.800]  Okay.
[01:55:45.800 --> 01:55:46.800]  Anything else, jury?
[01:55:48.800 --> 01:55:50.800]  No, that was about it.
[01:55:50.800 --> 01:55:55.800]  When I was at the clerk's set there yesterday,
[01:55:56.800 --> 01:56:00.800]  there was a suit standing next to me and I asked the clerk where the grand jury was
[01:56:01.800 --> 01:56:05.800]  and the suit says, oh, no, you can't talk to the grand jury.
[01:56:06.800 --> 01:56:07.800]  They're super excited.
[01:56:08.800 --> 01:56:09.800]  Okay.
[01:56:10.800 --> 01:56:11.800]  They're right.
[01:56:12.800 --> 01:56:13.800]  You can't talk to the grand jury in Pennsylvania.
[01:56:14.800 --> 01:56:15.800]  Pennsylvania is unique.
[01:56:16.800 --> 01:56:18.800]  Only the district judge can go to the grand jury.
[01:56:18.800 --> 01:56:23.800]  And if you file a complaint against the public official,
[01:56:24.800 --> 01:56:28.800]  it goes to the prosecuting attorney and the prosecuting attorney is given first blush.
[01:56:29.800 --> 01:56:35.800]  He is given discretion to determine whether or not he has,
[01:56:36.800 --> 01:56:41.800]  he believes that there is probable cause to pursue a prosecution.
[01:56:41.800 --> 01:56:46.800]  Now, it seems like you would be disenfranchised by these procedures.
[01:56:47.800 --> 01:56:50.800]  However, Pennsylvania is unique.
[01:56:51.800 --> 01:56:56.800]  In every other state, you have the duty to report crime.
[01:56:57.800 --> 01:57:00.800]  But once you have reported crime,
[01:57:01.800 --> 01:57:06.800]  you have no standing as concerns the prosecution of the crime.
[01:57:06.800 --> 01:57:10.800]  Since in the 1860s, they created public prosecutors.
[01:57:11.800 --> 01:57:16.800]  Public prosecutors were giving the exclusive authority to enforce law,
[01:57:18.800 --> 01:57:20.800]  except in Pennsylvania.
[01:57:21.800 --> 01:57:26.800]  They prosecuting attorney gets first blush.
[01:57:27.800 --> 01:57:32.800]  But if he elects not to prosecute, you have standing.
[01:57:32.800 --> 01:57:36.800]  You can appeal to the court of common police.
[01:57:37.800 --> 01:57:41.800]  At the same time, you can file a criminal charge against the prosecuting attorney,
[01:57:42.800 --> 01:57:45.800]  accusing him not of exercising prosecutorial discretion,
[01:57:46.800 --> 01:57:52.800]  but of exercising caprice in that he decided who he wants to prosecute
[01:57:53.800 --> 01:57:56.800]  and who he does not, and that is not an authority.
[01:57:56.800 --> 01:58:02.800]  He has, he filed shielding from prosecution with the Pennsylvania attorney general
[01:58:03.800 --> 01:58:05.800]  who has prosecutorial powers.
[01:58:06.800 --> 01:58:10.800]  And when he refuses to prosecute, you appeal his decision to the court of common police.
[01:58:11.800 --> 01:58:16.800]  If the court of common police refuses to act, you work your way all the way up to the Supreme.
[01:58:17.800 --> 01:58:23.800]  Only in Pennsylvania can you take them all to the cleaners.
[01:58:23.800 --> 01:58:30.800]  So the fact that you, that the prosecutor has discretion
[01:58:31.800 --> 01:58:37.800]  is way outweighed by the fact that you can wind all their clocks all the way up to the top.
[01:58:38.800 --> 01:58:40.800]  Okay, we are out of time for today.
[01:58:41.800 --> 01:58:44.800]  Be back tomorrow on our four hour info marathon.
[01:58:45.800 --> 01:58:46.800]  Thank you all for listening.
[01:58:47.800 --> 01:58:48.800]  Thank you, Brett, for being here.
[01:58:48.800 --> 01:58:56.800]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.800 --> 01:59:03.800]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says verse by verse,
[01:59:04.800 --> 01:59:07.800]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.800 --> 01:59:10.800]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.800 --> 01:59:15.800]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102
[01:59:15.800 --> 01:59:19.800]  or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.800 --> 01:59:24.800]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13000 cross references,
[01:59:25.800 --> 01:59:28.800]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:29.800 --> 01:59:31.800]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.800 --> 01:59:39.800]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:39.800 --> 01:59:48.800]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:48.800 --> 02:00:09.800]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.