ROL_2019-10-03_16k.timecode

[00:08.000 --> 00:10.000]  Today in history.
[00:10.000 --> 00:12.000]  News updates.
[00:12.000 --> 00:16.000]  And the inside scoop into the tides of the alternative.
[00:20.000 --> 00:24.000]  Markets for Wednesday the 6th of February 2019.
[00:24.000 --> 00:27.000]  Open with gold at $1,313.70 an ounce.
[00:27.000 --> 00:30.000]  Silver $15.77 an ounce.
[00:30.000 --> 00:32.000]  Copper $2.83 an ounce.
[00:32.000 --> 00:35.000]  Oil Texas Crude $53.66 a barrel.
[00:35.000 --> 00:37.000]  Brent Crude $61.98 a barrel.
[00:37.000 --> 00:40.000]  And crypto is in order of market capitalization.
[00:40.000 --> 00:43.000]  Bitcoin $3,401.64.
[00:43.000 --> 00:45.000]  Ripple SRP $0.29.
[00:45.000 --> 00:47.000]  Ethereum $103.10.
[00:47.000 --> 00:51.000]  And EOS is at $2.32 a crypto coin.
[00:51.000 --> 00:54.000]  Today in history.
[00:54.000 --> 00:56.000]  The year 1918.
[00:56.000 --> 01:01.000]  British women over the age of 30 who meet minimum property qualifications get the right to vote.
[01:01.000 --> 01:05.000]  When the representation of the people act of 1918 was passed by parliament.
[01:05.000 --> 01:07.000]  Today in history.
[01:09.000 --> 01:10.000]  And recent news.
[01:10.000 --> 01:19.000]  Several Texas based organizations filed a lawsuit today requesting that a federal court stop the state from flagging about 95,000 people as potentially illegally registered to vote.
[01:19.000 --> 01:27.000]  The list was compiled after an 11 month long investigation by the office of the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Department of Public Safety.
[01:27.000 --> 01:33.000]  Which sought to identify non-US citizens who were registered to vote when obtaining a driver's license.
[01:33.000 --> 01:37.000]  Over half of the 95,000 did indeed vote it seems.
[01:37.000 --> 01:45.000]  However further controversy was raised when it became clear that some of the names were not in fact belonging to those who were non-citizens and registered.
[01:45.000 --> 01:50.000]  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 --> 02:05.000]  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and David Whitley the Texas Secretary of State have yet to officially comment regarding this list and any updates pertaining to it.
[02:05.000 --> 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 --> 02:20.000]  It apparently happened in the parking lot of the vape shop where he got it.
[02:20.000 --> 02:24.000]  An x-ray revealed that a piece of metal was embedded in his brain stem.
[02:24.000 --> 02:28.000]  The vape store Smoke and Vape DZ has refused to comment.
[02:28.000 --> 02:47.000]  First edition anchorwoman Kristen Diaz interviewed Aislinn Campbell the executive director of Grow Local South Texas concerning the upcoming Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association conference which will be taking place at the Corpus Christi Omni Hotel from February 14th to 16th 6 to 9 p.m.
[02:47.000 --> 02:51.000]  You can find the interview at www.kiiitv.com
[02:51.000 --> 02:59.000]  This is Rick Rode with your lowdown for February 6th 2019
[03:21.000 --> 03:26.000]  What you gonna do?
[03:26.000 --> 03:29.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:29.000 --> 03:31.000]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:31.000 --> 03:34.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:34.000 --> 03:37.000]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:37.000 --> 03:40.000]  When you were 8 and you had bad traits
[03:40.000 --> 03:43.000]  You go to school and learn the golden rule
[03:43.000 --> 03:45.000]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool?
[03:45.000 --> 03:48.000]  If you get hot then you must get cool
[03:48.000 --> 03:51.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:51.000 --> 03:53.000]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:53.000 --> 03:56.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
[03:56.000 --> 03:59.000]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:59.000 --> 04:00.000]  You chuck it on that one
[04:00.000 --> 04:02.000]  You chuck it on this one
[04:02.000 --> 04:03.000]  You chuck it on your mother
[04:03.000 --> 04:04.000]  And you chuck it on your father
[04:04.000 --> 04:06.000]  You chuck it on your brother
[04:06.000 --> 04:07.000]  And you chuck it on your sister
[04:07.000 --> 04:08.000]  You chuck it on that one
[04:08.000 --> 04:10.000]  And you chuck it on me
[04:10.000 --> 04:13.000]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do
[04:13.000 --> 04:15.000]  What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:15.000 --> 04:18.760]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatchya gonna do?
[04:18.760 --> 04:21.560]  Oh whatchya gonna do when they come for you?
[04:21.560 --> 04:24.280]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, whatchya gonna do?
[04:24.280 --> 04:26.980]  Oh whatchya gonna do when they come for you?
[04:26.980 --> 04:29.840]  Bad Boys, Bad Boys, oh whatchya gonna do?
[04:29.840 --> 04:32.440]  Oh whatchya gonna do when they come for you?
[04:32.440 --> 04:35.560]  Nobody not give you no break
[04:35.560 --> 04:37.040]  Police not give you no break
[04:37.040 --> 04:39.860]  Not old soldier manna give you no break
[04:39.860 --> 04:42.340]  Not teeth on your eye, Zerme-nah give you no breaks
[04:42.340 --> 05:05.020]  Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[05:05.020 --> 05:15.860]  Good evening. This is the Rule of Law Radio. Randy Kelton, this is Brett Fountain, and
[05:15.860 --> 05:29.140]  this is the 3rd of October 2019. And we've been having a really interesting week so far.
[05:29.140 --> 05:37.220]  I had, I discovered in the last month or so, I've been seeing a new pattern with bar grievances.
[05:37.220 --> 05:46.060]  So I might just share about how these bar grievances are different. Now Randy, you have
[05:46.060 --> 05:52.860]  described to us the old pattern for a long time, and they're changing their tune a little
[05:52.860 --> 06:01.780]  bit. Probably all the bar grievances probably end up in the same round file as they always
[06:01.780 --> 06:08.740]  do. But their verbiage has changed. They no longer say, hey, we've looked into your complaint,
[06:08.740 --> 06:16.420]  doesn't rise to the level of misconduct, and no longer says, we've investigated this and
[06:16.420 --> 06:22.460]  found that there's no problem. Now they're saying some kind of pre-filtering language
[06:22.460 --> 06:30.180]  or they say, we've taken a look at this and classified it as an inquiry and dismissed
[06:30.180 --> 06:41.660]  it. So it's very interesting, inquiry. I found that they have a Texas Rules of Disciplinary
[06:41.660 --> 06:48.260]  Procedure. And this is the process that they are supposed to follow when a bar grievance
[06:48.260 --> 06:56.380]  comes in for them to review. So we know what they've been doing is they just count it and
[06:56.380 --> 07:02.340]  throw it away. They tell the lawyer, hey, you got this bar agreements. They count it,
[07:02.340 --> 07:09.660]  the risk level goes up, the insurance goes up, malpractice insurance, but we don't see
[07:09.660 --> 07:14.260]  them doing a lot of actual investigations. Well, there's a process that they're supposed
[07:14.260 --> 07:21.780]  to follow, and that's in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. And they have this
[07:21.780 --> 07:29.940]  inquiry at the very beginning that Rule 2.10 outlines what they can do at the very beginning
[07:29.940 --> 07:36.580]  before they even handle anything. It's a pre-filtering kind of a thing. And they look at it and they
[07:36.580 --> 07:49.140]  say, what's being alleged here, even if true, doesn't go to any violation of the rules.
[07:49.140 --> 07:57.300]  The rules being the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. So if what's being
[07:57.300 --> 08:03.020]  alleged doesn't go to any violation, so let's say it was one old style we would be able
[08:03.020 --> 08:08.900]  to say, or Randy, you've mentioned before that you can bar grieve somebody for parting
[08:08.900 --> 08:15.380]  his hair on the left. Well, so they're saying, all right, so we have this pre-filtering thing.
[08:15.380 --> 08:20.260]  Now we're going to be able to throw these things away. But the problem is they're still
[08:20.260 --> 08:26.780]  throwing them all away. They're still taking the ones that legitimately allege a violation
[08:26.780 --> 08:34.980]  of their rules and they're classifying it as an inquiry and tossing it.
[08:34.980 --> 08:48.560]  So how do we craft an inquiry into the methodology they used or to put it in terms of what we'd
[08:48.560 --> 08:59.400]  ask a judge, the findings of fact and conclusions at law that demonstrate that this would not
[08:59.400 --> 09:06.740]  be a violation even if it were of a standard, even if it were true?
[09:06.740 --> 09:15.940]  Well, the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure have some definitions for when they're going
[09:15.940 --> 09:20.800]  to pre-filter and they're going to take a look in that pre-filtering process of Rule
[09:20.800 --> 09:30.140]  2.10. They take the grievance and they try to decide if it's a complaint or an inquiry.
[09:30.140 --> 09:34.540]  And both of those terms are defined. It's very handy. They're going to be sorry they
[09:34.540 --> 09:40.780]  made me look it up. But it says here's what a complaint means and here's what an inquiry
[09:40.780 --> 09:49.220]  means. And those are both found in that Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 1.06.
[09:49.220 --> 09:56.660]  So it lists the definitions and complaint is one of them and inquiry is one of them.
[09:56.660 --> 10:02.380]  So if you're alleging that there's a violation of the rules, then that's a complaint. If
[10:02.380 --> 10:07.940]  what you're alleging doesn't go to a violation of rules, that's an inquiry and they get to
[10:07.940 --> 10:13.060]  filter it out. So what I've just done in a new bar grievance
[10:13.060 --> 10:21.980]  that I wrote up yesterday, I put across the top of the grievance for purposes of TRDP-210,
[10:21.980 --> 10:28.200]  this grievance is a quote complaint, not a quote inquiry as its allegations if true are
[10:28.200 --> 10:35.760]  violations of the TDRPC. So then I put the complaint and inquiry definitions right there
[10:35.760 --> 10:39.940]  and then I move on to the rest of my grievance. I don't know if that'll change my mind or
[10:39.940 --> 10:42.620]  if they will even read it.
[10:42.620 --> 10:48.260]  Have you looked at the bar grievance site that I put up?
[10:48.260 --> 10:52.860]  I did. It didn't work for me, but I imagine there's...
[10:52.860 --> 10:58.980]  Oh, why don't you just poke me in the eye with a sharp stick?
[10:58.980 --> 11:12.620]  Okay, everybody, I got it up, but I haven't worked on it yet. And this Brett character,
[11:12.620 --> 11:19.300]  he just has no sympathy for anybody. I mean, he could have said, well, it could use this.
[11:19.300 --> 11:29.780]  He said, that sucks. Okay, well, when you get to the part where the grievances, where
[11:29.780 --> 11:35.740]  I have the standards, this is what I was going to.
[11:35.740 --> 11:44.180]  The bar a long time ago complained that they didn't want you writing a grievance. In a
[11:44.180 --> 11:55.740]  grievance, they didn't want you citing statute or law. So I said, okay, instead of citing
[11:55.740 --> 12:07.760]  the statute or the standard, I crafted a sentence in the verbiage of the standard. And the standard
[12:07.760 --> 12:18.980]  says the lawyer shall not do this. And this input box starts out with the lawyer did this
[12:18.980 --> 12:30.420]  as follows. Never says the number of the standard, it just starts the language of the first paragraph
[12:30.420 --> 12:47.860]  is in the verbiage of the standard. I don't hear massive accolade. Anyway, so now if they
[12:47.860 --> 13:03.660]  are classifying these as inquiries instead of complaints, that sounds like a misuse of
[13:03.660 --> 13:12.420]  the total misconstruction of the statute. I'm not calling in saying, hey, you got this
[13:12.420 --> 13:20.380]  lawyer here, what's his bar card number? That's an inquiry. I'm not asking them for anything
[13:20.380 --> 13:28.300]  that would, so we need, we need a specific definition of inquiry.
[13:28.300 --> 13:41.620]  Okay, well, I think we'll find that in TRDP 106T. Hold on just a second. Let me see. Okay,
[13:41.620 --> 13:50.580]  we've got three minutes. So the definition is there, but they're following, they're using
[13:50.580 --> 13:55.260]  this pre-filtering process. They're abusing it, like you said. Well, I discovered that
[13:55.260 --> 14:08.780]  there is an ombudsman who reports to the Supreme Court and who is separate from the state bar,
[14:08.780 --> 14:14.060]  and who interfaces with the state bar for the purposes of investigating into how they
[14:14.060 --> 14:20.780]  handle and process these incoming grievances. So I thought that was really handy.
[14:20.780 --> 14:31.820]  Oh, Brett, if you weren't so ugly, I'd kiss you right through this microphone. An ombudsman.
[14:31.820 --> 14:37.660]  Everybody out there doesn't have indirectly in their brain what the definition of an ombudsman
[14:37.660 --> 14:47.940]  is. An ombudsman is someone hired by a large organization that is not beholden to that
[14:47.940 --> 14:56.760]  organization and is there to represent an ordinary citizen before the organization.
[14:56.760 --> 15:05.220]  He's almost like your lawyer before the organization. He knows how everything works. He understands
[15:05.220 --> 15:13.060]  the ins and outs, but he's there to be on your side when you represent yourself before
[15:13.060 --> 15:22.580]  the organization. So perfect guy. And if he reports to the Supreme, that's even better.
[15:22.580 --> 15:26.720]  I think so as well. That would be really great.
[15:26.720 --> 15:36.060]  Second step is, the first step is to the bar, they trash it. Second step is to the ombudsman.
[15:36.060 --> 15:43.460]  So I've already tried the route of bar grieving the lawyer who responded for the state bar
[15:43.460 --> 15:51.740]  saying we've thrown your complaint in the trash. I've already bar grieved and that doesn't
[15:51.740 --> 15:57.060]  really do any good because they seem to have an endless supply of new lawyers to slip into
[15:57.060 --> 16:03.940]  that slot. So somebody else will throw my complaint away next time and the other lawyer
[16:03.940 --> 16:08.340]  might be gone, but it doesn't do me any good because the second lawyer throws it in the
[16:08.340 --> 16:11.700]  trash just as good as the first one.
[16:11.700 --> 16:21.260]  Does this lawyer have any immunity from civil suit in the code? That's a denial of due process.
[16:21.260 --> 16:26.460]  Hmm. I don't know how they could have any immunity if it's a denial of due process.
[16:26.460 --> 16:29.300]  He's just a lawyer here. He's not a prosecutor.
[16:29.300 --> 16:33.620]  Right. He's got to have malpractice insurance as well, right?
[16:33.620 --> 16:44.900]  Yeah. But it is a quasi official capacity. He might claim it under that. Certainly be
[16:44.900 --> 16:47.420]  something to look at. Go ahead.
[16:47.420 --> 16:51.980]  Maybe after we come back from the break, we can read some of these definitions and look
[16:51.980 --> 16:57.060]  at them together and maybe dissect some of these things. Well, we're going to go to a
[16:57.060 --> 17:03.820]  break and we'll be right back.
[17:03.820 --> 17:09.700]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by Central Texas
[17:09.700 --> 17:16.140]  Gunworks. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated. Everything
[17:16.140 --> 17:21.540]  helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gunworks, the grand prize up for grabs
[17:21.540 --> 17:28.500]  is a Spikes Tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation
[17:28.500 --> 17:34.580]  is a chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's ebook, Legal 101, you get four chances
[17:34.580 --> 17:40.100]  to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed
[17:40.100 --> 17:44.900]  the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you
[17:44.900 --> 17:51.300]  the best quality programming on talk radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[17:51.300 --> 17:58.040]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details
[17:58.040 --> 18:00.540]  and donate today.
[18:00.540 --> 18:05.860]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[18:05.860 --> 18:10.260]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Miras proven method. Michael Miras has won
[18:10.260 --> 18:15.860]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win, too. You'll get step-by-step
[18:15.860 --> 18:21.020]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[18:21.020 --> 18:26.140]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone
[18:26.140 --> 18:30.780]  calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables
[18:30.780 --> 18:36.980]  on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Miras proven method is the solution
[18:36.980 --> 18:41.580]  for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more
[18:41.580 --> 18:46.900]  information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Miras banner
[18:46.900 --> 18:55.900]  or email MichaelMiras at Yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S
[18:55.900 --> 18:59.900]  at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[18:59.900 --> 19:07.900]  If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:29.900 --> 19:36.900]  Thank you.
[19:59.900 --> 20:06.900]  Thank you.
[20:29.900 --> 20:39.540]  Okay, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio, Randy Kelton. I'm Brett Fountain and
[20:39.540 --> 20:46.580]  we're talking about bar grievances and how the process has changed slightly. The way
[20:46.580 --> 20:50.620]  that they throw them in the trash, they're throwing them in the trash from a different
[20:50.620 --> 20:57.420]  angle now. And what are we going to do about that? So Randy, did you have a comment that
[20:57.420 --> 21:00.260]  you wanted to make about that? Or should we go on into the...
[21:00.260 --> 21:10.140]  Yeah, I think we're working on a bank shot. The whole thing is to make their lives as
[21:10.140 --> 21:20.380]  easy as possible. So the fact that we have an ombudsman, that really throws a snag in
[21:20.380 --> 21:28.460]  things for them, because now we go back and start writing the complaint in the verbiage
[21:28.460 --> 21:42.700]  of the statute by citing the statute. The lawyer violated this statute as follows, and
[21:42.700 --> 21:52.900]  write out what it is. Now they cannot be... Okay, wait, something got to do first. What
[21:52.900 --> 22:04.700]  does inquiry mean? Now in regular common English, it means that someone is asking a question
[22:04.700 --> 22:05.700]  of the bar.
[22:05.700 --> 22:09.660]  Well, let me read the definition here.
[22:09.660 --> 22:11.460]  Good.
[22:11.460 --> 22:17.260]  As they've got a definition for us, that's in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
[22:17.260 --> 22:24.260]  You can find that on txcourts.gov. The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure prescribe
[22:24.260 --> 22:32.160]  the process that the grievance is supposed to go through. When the people are handling
[22:32.160 --> 22:36.300]  the grievances coming in, we say, hey, there's a problem with this lawyer. This lawyer is
[22:36.300 --> 22:41.940]  doing something wrong. And they look at that, and there's a certain process they have to
[22:41.940 --> 22:54.500]  follow. They don't get to just weigh it. So in Rule 2.10, it says classification of grievances.
[22:54.500 --> 23:01.500]  The chief disciplinary counsel shall, within 30 days, examine each grievance received to
[23:01.500 --> 23:10.940]  determine whether it constitutes an inquiry, a complaint, or discretionary referral. So
[23:10.940 --> 23:15.460]  they have three buckets they can put these in. When they're doing their pre-filtering
[23:15.460 --> 23:24.620]  process, they're classifying them in three buckets. Now the complaint, it says inquiry,
[23:24.620 --> 23:32.340]  complaint, or discretionary referral. Now in that same document, Rule 1.06, they have
[23:32.340 --> 23:40.980]  under subsection T, as in Tom, you can see here it says inquiry means any written matter
[23:40.980 --> 23:47.460]  concerning attorney conduct received by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that
[23:47.460 --> 23:57.020]  even if true does not allege professional misconduct or disability. Now contrast that
[23:57.020 --> 24:05.240]  with the definition they give, also in 1.06 with subsection G, and it says complaint means
[24:05.240 --> 24:11.900]  those written matters received by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that either
[24:11.900 --> 24:19.020]  on the face thereof, or upon screening or preliminary investigation, allege professional
[24:19.020 --> 24:25.820]  misconduct or attorney disability or both, cognizable under these rules, or the Texas
[24:25.820 --> 24:32.700]  Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. That's a complaint.
[24:32.700 --> 24:42.100]  I don't like what I heard in that definition. First sentence fragment. Read that first part
[24:42.100 --> 24:47.020]  again. Complaint or inquiry?
[24:47.020 --> 24:51.860]  Complaint. Complaint means those written matters received
[24:51.860 --> 24:58.140]  by the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel that either on the face thereof, or upon screening
[24:58.140 --> 25:06.180]  or preliminary investigation, allege professional misconduct or attorney disability or both,
[25:06.180 --> 25:12.780]  cognizable under these rules, or the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
[25:12.780 --> 25:21.420]  So it very clearly gives them the discretion to determine if they believe it is an inquiry
[25:21.420 --> 25:29.780]  or a grievance. I don't see that. Where is that discretion
[25:29.780 --> 25:37.580]  coming in? If after, I need to look it up. Either on
[25:37.580 --> 25:43.100]  the face thereof. Or the next one.
[25:43.100 --> 25:48.900]  Either on the face thereof or upon screening or preliminary investigation. So there are
[25:48.900 --> 25:54.500]  three different possibilities. If it hits on any one of those, if there are allegations
[25:54.500 --> 26:02.020]  in any one of those three, then it's a complaint. What does screening and preliminary investigation
[26:02.020 --> 26:06.800]  mean? Both of those look like it can be up to them
[26:06.800 --> 26:10.180]  and they can make it vague and fuzzy as they want to. But who cares? Because if we put
[26:10.180 --> 26:14.700]  it on the face of it, then it hits on that one.
[26:14.700 --> 26:23.740]  Well, what they're likely to say if we do that is that the fact that this states that
[26:23.740 --> 26:30.100]  it violates this certain standard does not mean that it does violate this standard. And
[26:30.100 --> 26:31.740]  we determine that it doesn't.
[26:31.740 --> 26:37.660]  Well, that's true. It doesn't necessarily mean that it does, but the allegation is there.
[26:37.660 --> 26:44.060]  Yeah. The only thing I'm thinking is, how do we tighten this up a little bit?
[26:44.060 --> 26:49.420]  Well, I'm open to ideas. Maybe we should open up the collar board and see if anybody else
[26:49.420 --> 26:52.980]  has some ideas about that.
[26:52.980 --> 26:56.980]  That'll work. Collar board is open.
[26:56.980 --> 27:07.100]  512-646-1984. Anybody want to call in and help us brainstorm about how to tighten this
[27:07.100 --> 27:14.580]  up? 512-646-1984.
[27:14.580 --> 27:21.340]  Or if you want to change the subject and somebody send me a hammer to beat this phone with.
[27:21.340 --> 27:22.340]  Sent.
[27:22.340 --> 27:31.380]  I got a new phone and I got to go through three or four windows to get this thing to
[27:31.380 --> 27:33.380]  show me how to turn the volume down.
[27:33.380 --> 27:40.060]  Well, you know, don't you have one of those neighbors? Don't you have a neighbor that's
[27:40.060 --> 27:42.700]  about nine years old to do that for you?
[27:42.700 --> 27:52.060]  No, I wish I did. I mean, you didn't explain to me how this works. Okay. Well, we ought
[27:52.060 --> 27:59.180]  to be able to, since we, I'm thinking, since we have an ombudsman there in the mix and
[27:59.180 --> 28:01.580]  he answers to the Supreme.
[28:01.580 --> 28:11.660]  Then we start writing our grievances to the Supreme, our verbiage and the structure of
[28:11.660 --> 28:19.580]  the grievance should be as if the Supreme will be the one reading it, not the bar.
[28:19.580 --> 28:25.220]  So it says here, if you read them on the ombudsman page, and the ombudsman is a lady right now,
[28:25.220 --> 28:34.460]  by the way, her name is Ms. Stephanie Lowe, L-O-W-E. But it says here, contact the ombudsman
[28:34.460 --> 28:42.900]  if you have questions about the system's operation, accessing the system, the grievance system.
[28:42.900 --> 28:48.740]  If you want information about how to file a lawyer grievance, if you have a closed,
[28:48.740 --> 28:52.980]  previously filed grievance, so once they've finally shut you down and said, we're not
[28:52.980 --> 28:56.100]  dealing with this, then you can go to the ombudsman.
[28:56.100 --> 29:00.580]  If you have a grievance closed, previously filed grievance that you would like reviewed
[29:00.580 --> 29:09.380]  to ensure the proper grievance procedures were followed, that sounds like a trigger
[29:09.380 --> 29:16.580]  point. Yes. And also you contact the ombudsman if you have a suggestion for improving the
[29:16.580 --> 29:20.900]  system that you would like to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court of Texas and
[29:20.900 --> 29:27.460]  or the State Bar Board of Directors. Oh, do we have some of those?
[29:27.460 --> 29:32.500]  Or if you would like to express concerns or constructive proposals about the attorney
[29:32.500 --> 29:37.060]  discipline system. They're just waiting to hear from us.
[29:37.060 --> 29:47.540]  Oh, I think we can construct an interesting letter to the Supreme. Hang on. About to go
[29:47.540 --> 29:54.500]  to break. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule Law Radio on this Thursday, the third day
[29:54.500 --> 30:04.100]  of October 2019. We'll be right back. Businesses ask you for a lot of personal information
[30:04.100 --> 30:08.740]  and you may trust them to keep it safe. But it turns out that even the most trusted companies
[30:08.740 --> 30:13.220]  may be unwittingly revealing your secrets. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right
[30:13.220 --> 30:17.940]  back with details. Privacy is under attack. When you give up
[30:17.940 --> 30:22.820]  data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll
[30:22.820 --> 30:28.500]  find your freedoms will start to vanish, too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance
[30:28.500 --> 30:34.260]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service
[30:34.260 --> 30:39.540]  announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[30:39.540 --> 30:47.460]  Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage. Data privacy is a big deal, so nearly every
[30:47.460 --> 30:52.180]  company has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information. But what happens
[30:52.180 --> 30:57.780]  if it escapes their control? It's not an idle question. According to a recent survey, a shocking
[30:57.780 --> 31:03.540]  90% of U.S. companies admit their security was breached by hackers in the last year.
[31:03.540 --> 31:08.500]  That's one more reason you should trust your searches to Startpage.com. Unlike other search
[31:08.500 --> 31:13.220]  engines, Startpage doesn't store any data on you. They've never been hacked, but even
[31:13.220 --> 31:18.180]  if they were, there would be nothing for criminals to see. The cupboard would be bare. Too bad
[31:18.180 --> 31:22.980]  other companies don't treat your data the same way. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More
[31:22.980 --> 31:38.900]  news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:52.980 --> 31:58.820]  Justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwhat.org. Why it fell,
[31:58.820 --> 32:04.020]  why it matters, and what you can do. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule
[32:04.020 --> 32:07.940]  of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America, we live in an us against them society. If
[32:07.940 --> 32:11.220]  we the people are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand
[32:11.220 --> 32:14.980]  and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place
[32:14.980 --> 32:18.340]  to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right
[32:18.340 --> 32:22.700]  to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn
[32:22.700 --> 32:26.780]  how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie
[32:26.780 --> 32:30.500]  Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching
[32:30.500 --> 32:34.340]  tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold the courts
[32:34.340 --> 32:39.260]  to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com
[32:39.260 --> 32:42.700]  and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[32:42.700 --> 32:47.180]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[32:47.180 --> 32:50.980]  seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how
[32:50.980 --> 32:54.860]  to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order
[32:54.860 --> 33:21.420]  your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[33:24.860 --> 33:48.700]  When you're gonna stop abuse, your power. When you're gonna stop abuse, your power.
[33:48.700 --> 34:04.500]  So please, Mr. Mack, let each officer have to abuse their power. Send a request to the
[34:04.500 --> 34:09.220]  leader. Okay, we are back. Rule of Law Radio, Randy
[34:09.220 --> 34:15.660]  Kelton. I'm Brett Fountain and we're talking about bar grievances and the process, the
[34:15.660 --> 34:23.220]  slight changes to the process, the ombudsman and what we can do about this. We've got some
[34:23.220 --> 34:31.060]  callers coming in. Let's take Scott from Texas. He's our first caller this evening. Scott,
[34:31.060 --> 34:35.620]  how are you today? I'm doing well. How are you doing, Brett?
[34:35.620 --> 34:41.540]  Yes, sir. I'm doing well as I am as well. I'm doing well.
[34:41.540 --> 34:47.420]  What do you have for us? What I was thinking is the ombudsman, I didn't
[34:47.420 --> 34:55.020]  know what that was until Randy broke it down and it seems to me to just go straight to
[34:55.020 --> 35:02.700]  the ombudsman and start making complaints to him but establish a pattern like three
[35:02.700 --> 35:09.780]  or four different people bring complaints and people that have complaints from the past.
[35:09.780 --> 35:15.300]  Yeah, I've got a whole stack of the doggone thing and just start bringing the complaints
[35:15.300 --> 35:21.820]  to the ombuds and say, look, it doesn't matter if they say we can't sign a fact or a law
[35:21.820 --> 35:29.380]  or anything in our complaint. I've got criminal complaints. We'll criminal after David. Everything
[35:29.380 --> 35:35.860]  just gets tossed in the trash. You're our representative. You need to address this and
[35:35.860 --> 35:41.820]  it's not just one person sitting out there crying. There's quite a few people that have
[35:41.820 --> 35:47.380]  done this so we can establish a fact pattern of what's going on. What do you all think
[35:47.380 --> 35:53.180]  about that? I think that is a great idea.
[35:53.180 --> 36:02.620]  Scott once sent me a stack of bar grievances three inches high. So he definitely has enough
[36:02.620 --> 36:09.300]  to establish the fact pattern. Does it look like they're cookie cutter responses or did
[36:09.300 --> 36:12.300]  they take the time to really pay attention to each one?
[36:12.300 --> 36:20.660]  Oh, heck no. Every one of them is cookie cutter, which proves the point. That's even better
[36:20.660 --> 36:27.540]  than just an individual respond. No, no. These are cookie cutter. This establishes a fact
[36:27.540 --> 36:34.300]  pattern. This is an audit. We're doing basically a forensic audit of these people. We have
[36:34.300 --> 36:36.660]  the evidence to show it.
[36:36.660 --> 36:39.900]  Excellent. I love that idea.
[36:39.900 --> 36:49.500]  Scott, you personally have enough in your pile to demonstrate what Brett and I were
[36:49.500 --> 36:57.540]  talking about on the bright. Since we have access to the Supreme, we go to the Supreme
[36:57.540 --> 37:03.020]  and say, hey, we've got this radio station here and we've been telling people that if
[37:03.020 --> 37:09.340]  you file a bar agreements, they're going to throw in the trash. What the heck? Just file
[37:09.340 --> 37:14.420]  them at the drop of a hat because their insurance company is not going to throw them in the
[37:14.420 --> 37:20.580]  trash. So you could make up for what the bar doesn't do by using their insurance companies
[37:20.580 --> 37:22.280]  against them.
[37:22.280 --> 37:27.660]  So how's this working out for you guys? You don't do your job. You get hammered from the
[37:27.660 --> 37:33.500]  insurance companies. And we asked the Supreme, what are you going to do to give us reason
[37:33.500 --> 37:41.500]  to tell our listeners something else? Take Scott Richardson, for example. What do we
[37:41.500 --> 37:47.540]  tell him? Should you stop filing bar grievances after you filed a couple hundred and the bar
[37:47.540 --> 37:51.720]  called you and asked you to stop filing them by mail because they had to hire an extra
[37:51.720 --> 37:57.220]  person to handle them? What should we tell him to get him to quit doing that?
[37:57.220 --> 38:03.940]  Those are all electronic. You can do them all electronic now. It's so beautiful. You
[38:03.940 --> 38:08.900]  can just attach your little criminal complaint and just let it just run right up the flag
[38:08.900 --> 38:16.980]  pole on them. But you know, like I say, if we start going to the ombudsman and start
[38:16.980 --> 38:23.060]  showing him, but we need to approach it in a different direction. They look at the liability
[38:23.060 --> 38:28.900]  that the prosecutors are hanging out on the counties for not doing their job correctly.
[38:28.900 --> 38:33.980]  This opens them up to lawsuits. I mean, if we had a justice system that would delve out
[38:33.980 --> 38:43.780]  some justice, there'd be a lot of prosecutors going to jail, you know, so I think we can
[38:43.780 --> 38:54.160]  construct a convincing letter to the Supreme on exactly what you're saying. This is what
[38:54.160 --> 39:03.700]  you're creating by allowing the bar to regulate the bar. Now, every other licensed agency
[39:03.700 --> 39:13.540]  has someone other than those licensed people regulating their agency.
[39:13.540 --> 39:20.540]  You have the classic fox and hen house, and this is the result of it. No one trusts lawyers.
[39:20.540 --> 39:31.060]  The bar put out a statement a couple of years ago that two years before the 20% of all,
[39:31.060 --> 39:37.340]  I'm sorry, 15% of all pro se, of all cases were handled pro se because people didn't
[39:37.340 --> 39:38.340]  trust lawyers.
[39:38.340 --> 39:45.940]  And this year it was up to 20%. You guys have created this problem. What are you going to
[39:45.940 --> 39:52.020]  do to fix it? Because we have a solution now. We'll take those lawyers that are taking advantage
[39:52.020 --> 39:58.900]  of the fact that the bar does not regulate them. And we can go into the whole spiel about
[39:58.900 --> 40:05.660]  how the lawyer's only purpose is to get the original retainer. And because they use
[40:05.660 --> 40:11.140]  the retainer by sending these standard motions back and forth until they've used up the
[40:11.140 --> 40:14.500]  retainer and then they come back and ask for three times the amount because they really
[40:14.500 --> 40:19.540]  don't want the client anymore because now they'll have to start doing real work and
[40:19.540 --> 40:25.060]  it's less profitable when they actually have to start researching pleadings and doing
[40:25.060 --> 40:34.900]  figuring. It's more profitable just to get more retainers. So how do we fix it? Well,
[40:34.900 --> 40:40.220]  we've got this site here. We're putting together cookie cutter lawsuits. Somebody
[40:40.220 --> 40:45.020]  can just go in. The lawyer's doing the same thing every time. So we just put in a few
[40:45.020 --> 40:49.620]  questions. They fill out the questions. They spit out a lawsuit. How does that work for
[40:49.620 --> 41:00.100]  you guys? I think we could come up with something really convincing. What do you think, Scott?
[41:00.100 --> 41:08.660]  If you want to get really convincing, start attacking them on fraud, waste, and abuse.
[41:08.660 --> 41:15.040]  And that's where we get into legal liability insurance terms and their heads start to snap
[41:15.040 --> 41:25.580]  back. Then we start addressing them from that state. Say that again. Fraud, waste, and abuse,
[41:25.580 --> 41:32.540]  fraud, waste, and abuse. Those are legal liability terms. I should know. I take them as a test
[41:32.540 --> 41:45.100]  all the time. Oh yeah. And those are legal liability insurance terms. Okay. Since you
[41:45.100 --> 41:58.940]  are working in that area, could you construct a preamble to a complaint that a insurance
[41:58.940 --> 42:06.260]  agent would look at and it would say all of the things that would address all of the red
[42:06.260 --> 42:10.980]  flags that he's looking for? Ring all of his bells.
[42:10.980 --> 42:19.580]  What do you say, Scott? It's not very hard. I mean, because all you have to do is just
[42:19.580 --> 42:25.220]  start pointing at their actions and then start. What we do is craft the document pointing
[42:25.220 --> 42:33.980]  at the liabilities that they're causing by creating these actions that they do establishing
[42:33.980 --> 42:40.660]  this fact pattern, run this up the flagpole and say, here is your problem. We better fix
[42:40.660 --> 42:46.100]  it or we're going to fix it for you in the form of lawsuit and start interesting. Do
[42:46.100 --> 42:54.700]  we even have the opportunity to have law in this country anymore and do it by a declaratory
[42:54.700 --> 43:04.820]  judgment GL? Fraud, waste and abuse. Okay. Say you have
[43:04.820 --> 43:18.720]  a client that has a complaint about a lawyer and you specialize in crafting letters that
[43:18.720 --> 43:28.780]  address what the lawyer is doing for the purpose of sending a tort letter or a notice to an
[43:28.780 --> 43:38.660]  insurance company. Now, we know how to talk to judges and push their buttons and other
[43:38.660 --> 43:46.940]  people, but how do we talk to an insurance agent and press his buttons? Hang on. We're
[43:46.940 --> 43:52.820]  about to go to break. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain. We will radio our call in number
[43:52.820 --> 43:57.900]  512-646-1984, but the call bridge is full. Apparently, we've got a lot of people like
[43:57.900 --> 44:02.580]  this subject. We'll be right back. I love logos. Without the shows on this network,
[44:02.580 --> 44:06.380]  I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's
[44:06.380 --> 44:11.340]  no going back. I need my truth fixed. I'd be lost without logos and I really want to
[44:11.340 --> 44:15.060]  help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a
[44:15.060 --> 44:20.220]  bit of a luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spend it all on supplements.
[44:20.220 --> 44:25.820]  How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you
[44:25.820 --> 44:30.460]  can help logos. You can order new supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear
[44:30.460 --> 44:38.020]  your cookies. Now, go to logosradionetwork.com. Pick on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now,
[44:38.020 --> 44:43.380]  when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I
[44:43.380 --> 44:48.860]  pay extra? No. Do I have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[44:48.860 --> 44:55.700]  No. I mean, yes. Wow, giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect.
[44:55.700 --> 45:02.740]  Thank you so much. You're welcome. Happy Holidays, Logos. Are you the plaintiff or defendant
[45:02.740 --> 45:08.620]  in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy
[45:08.620 --> 45:15.980]  to understand, 4CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have
[45:15.980 --> 45:21.020]  a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what
[45:21.020 --> 45:26.700]  you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you
[45:26.700 --> 45:32.980]  can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[45:32.980 --> 45:38.940]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[45:38.940 --> 45:44.420]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[45:44.420 --> 45:51.440]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much
[45:51.440 --> 45:59.140]  more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866
[45:59.140 --> 46:06.140]  law easy.
[46:29.140 --> 46:48.900]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio on this Thursday, the third
[46:48.900 --> 47:01.900]  day of October 2019. When we went out, I was talking about how to craft a preamble to whatever
[47:01.900 --> 47:09.060]  our complaint is going to be that will speak to the insurance carrier. We talk on the show
[47:09.060 --> 47:16.100]  about behind every lawyer is generally, not absolutely always, but generally an errors
[47:16.100 --> 47:23.260]  and omissions policy. Behind that errors and omissions policy is Scott. He's the guy that
[47:23.260 --> 47:30.380]  sold him the policy. He wants to get as much premium from them as he can, so he wants to
[47:30.380 --> 47:41.660]  be able to have reason to increase their level of risk and he wants to avoid all claims.
[47:41.660 --> 47:46.620]  So how do we speak to Scott in a way that says, you need to raise your risk level on
[47:46.620 --> 47:54.740]  this guy because he's going to cause you a claim. And Scott, you're saying key words,
[47:54.740 --> 48:01.740]  fraud, waste, and abuse. And then once we get that done, then we take that same preamble
[48:01.740 --> 48:11.180]  and ask ourselves, how would we speak to the Supreme to get them to have reason to change
[48:11.180 --> 48:17.660]  something? And this, we mentioned earlier about, we tell everybody to file a grievance
[48:17.660 --> 48:22.660]  for anything. It don't make any difference. They're going to throw them all in the trash,
[48:22.660 --> 48:25.780]  but their insurance carrier, he won't throw them in the trash. He'll use them to raise
[48:25.780 --> 48:35.100]  his rates. So what are you going to do to give the bar reason to adequately discipline
[48:35.100 --> 48:42.300]  their members? What do you think, Scott? You got that all worked out already?
[48:42.300 --> 48:52.180]  Oh yeah. Well, I'm just sitting here thinking, you know, but like I say, addressing the ombudsman
[48:52.180 --> 48:58.060]  and bringing the problem to him. I mean, we could sit there and swing bar grievance at
[48:58.060 --> 49:03.500]  these guys all day long. Bar grievance is so nice, like I used to say. But we need to
[49:03.500 --> 49:10.780]  take the problem to the ombudsman and address it in this format to show that we're, you
[49:10.780 --> 49:19.860]  know, we're wanting to correct this problem and help them before we just go straight and
[49:19.860 --> 49:25.500]  just attack them. Okay, look, we're coming at you bringing the, we got a problem here.
[49:25.500 --> 49:30.500]  How do we fix it? You know, the problem is these guys just throw everything away, even
[49:30.500 --> 49:37.060]  when we bring credible complaints. And that's your problem. Y'all aren't policing yourself.
[49:37.060 --> 49:42.700]  So we're having to step in, but we're coming to you first because it's your job to address
[49:42.700 --> 49:48.000]  this. So we want you to wait, wait, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You can't do that.
[49:48.000 --> 49:54.980]  You already did the other. So yours is perfect. You're not saying we're coming to you first.
[49:54.980 --> 50:00.820]  You're saying I'm kicking your behind every way from Sunday. You're not saying I'm going
[50:00.820 --> 50:06.580]  to. You're saying I am. Look what I've done. Check me out. How many of your lawyers have
[50:06.580 --> 50:14.140]  I ruined their careers that no law firm will hire them on a bet because they got so many
[50:14.140 --> 50:16.820]  bar grievances against them.
[50:16.820 --> 50:22.040]  I'm gonna keep doing this. I'm gonna teach other people how to do this. So now what are
[50:22.040 --> 50:30.860]  you going to do to give me reason not to keep doing this? Whenever I write a letter to anyone,
[50:30.860 --> 50:40.300]  I'm always trying to think who does this person answer to? So I write my letter to the person
[50:40.300 --> 50:46.940]  I write it to, but I always want to write it to someone up the line from this person.
[50:46.940 --> 50:52.760]  And I guess that's why you were saying when we would contact the ombudsman, we know that
[50:52.760 --> 50:59.540]  she reports to the Texas Supreme. So when you were saying we go to the Supreme, that's
[50:59.540 --> 51:00.740]  why you were saying that, right?
[51:00.740 --> 51:07.940]  Yeah. We're really talking to the Supreme when we're writing the letter to the ombudsman.
[51:07.940 --> 51:15.100]  And the ombudsman will read our document and they will, the ombudsman will know for certain
[51:15.100 --> 51:20.180]  that they're preparing for the Supreme because of the way we craft our writing. And it goes
[51:20.180 --> 51:28.220]  to this idea that, Scott, you could go in there and say, if you don't do this, this
[51:28.220 --> 51:32.820]  is what I'm going to do. And they're not going to believe it. This is the nature of
[51:32.820 --> 51:41.980]  the human animal. But if you go to them and craft what you're saying in a way such that
[51:41.980 --> 51:50.020]  they think, this guy's going to kick our behinds. If you say it, they could disbelieve
[51:50.020 --> 51:58.340]  it. But if they think it, then it's true. So instead of being direct, we'd be somewhat
[51:58.340 --> 52:06.060]  indirect and lead them to the conclusion we want them to come to. If we write our letter
[52:06.060 --> 52:13.100]  to the ombudsman, as if we expect the ombudsman to take that letter and put it in the hand
[52:13.100 --> 52:19.780]  of the Chief Justice, it'll change the way we write that letter. And the ombudsman will
[52:19.780 --> 52:26.580]  get that immediately. And he will say, this guy's fixing to take what I do to the Chief.
[52:26.580 --> 52:30.700]  So I need to be more careful. That make sense?
[52:30.700 --> 52:34.540]  Oh, that's beautiful, actually.
[52:34.540 --> 52:42.620]  I'd like to put that in the category of sneaking, rotten and lowdown.
[52:42.620 --> 52:43.620]  I love it.
[52:43.620 --> 52:48.820]  And I'd like to see it.
[52:48.820 --> 52:56.300]  This whole thing about the ombudsman, frankly, I had seen that before, Brett. But I was focusing
[52:56.300 --> 53:03.100]  on other things and it didn't click. And that's why we need to go back and read all
[53:03.100 --> 53:08.420]  of these rules and codes again, because it depends on where your head's at. When you're
[53:08.420 --> 53:14.780]  reading it will kind of determine what you pull out of it. Had I read it two or three
[53:14.780 --> 53:22.620]  times that might have come out sooner. But I'm thrilled. They will not see this coming.
[53:22.620 --> 53:30.900]  It's so rotten and lowdown and sophisticated. This is what they don't like is sophisticated.
[53:30.900 --> 53:41.140]  So OK, we need to talk. Scott, you're the one that's already positioned himself to have
[53:41.140 --> 53:48.920]  influence with the Supreme. How would it feel if you were able to influence the Supreme
[53:48.920 --> 53:54.020]  to change the way the bar is done?
[53:54.020 --> 53:59.020]  Even if nobody knew you did it.
[53:59.020 --> 54:07.460]  We would know. Yeah, we live in Boyd, Texas, and we were having 24 people a year killed
[54:07.460 --> 54:15.420]  on Highway 114 between Dallas and Bridgeport. My brother was in Chicago. He was planning
[54:15.420 --> 54:21.540]  to come down to Texas and he's listening to the radio. They came on the radio in Chicago.
[54:21.540 --> 54:31.180]  They said, if you're going to Texas, stay off of 114. So I sent a letter to the president
[54:31.180 --> 54:36.180]  of the Katie Railroad. Now I had a business partner who is a mechanical foreman for the
[54:36.180 --> 54:37.180]  Katie.
[54:37.180 --> 54:41.700]  And if you mentioned Gasler, Gasler was the president. Everybody cringed. Everybody's
[54:41.700 --> 54:46.060]  terrified of this guy. I went down to his office and told his secretary that I wanted
[54:46.060 --> 54:50.980]  to talk to Gasler. Do you have an appointment? No, I don't. Well, he can't talk to you. He's
[54:50.980 --> 54:56.220]  going to want to talk to me. Give him this. They understood that. That's how the railroad
[54:56.220 --> 55:02.260]  did things. She took it to Gasler. She got a call in a few minutes. Mr. Gasler will see
[55:02.260 --> 55:03.260]  you.
[55:03.260 --> 55:09.420]  I put in this letter how many people were being killed on these highways and that the
[55:09.420 --> 55:15.460]  Railroad Commission was required before issuing a permit to haul anything on these highways
[55:15.460 --> 55:21.540]  to ensure that the issue of the permits did not overtax the highways, did not damage the
[55:21.540 --> 55:27.100]  highways and did not restrict the use of the highways by the general public and accused
[55:27.100 --> 55:30.260]  him of violating all three of those.
[55:30.260 --> 55:38.500]  You have a railroad passing through that area. You should be hauling these rocks on your
[55:38.500 --> 55:44.780]  railroad for which you have special permits and are able to have special easements through
[55:44.780 --> 55:49.180]  our country and you're not using it. And because of that, all these people are getting killed
[55:49.180 --> 55:51.580]  on the highway.
[55:51.580 --> 55:57.020]  And you know, he said, well, he didn't want to take on the Teamsters. I showed him exactly
[55:57.020 --> 56:03.620]  how to take on the Teamsters. They upgraded the amount a justice of the peace could handle
[56:03.620 --> 56:09.860]  from $200 to $2,000. But they didn't upgrade the automatic appeal kicker. If you had a
[56:09.860 --> 56:18.020]  fine in excess of $25 exclusive of cost, an appeal to the county court was automatic.
[56:18.020 --> 56:26.900]  Go back and have the legislature upgrade that automatic appeal kicker. Then the driver can't
[56:26.900 --> 56:33.460]  automatically appeal because they go to the county prosecutor and went to mine and he
[56:33.460 --> 56:39.740]  had 3,000 of them. He said, I can't process all these. I don't have time. I got criminal
[56:39.740 --> 56:44.900]  to prosecute. So all the driver had to do was appeal the case. He went to the county
[56:44.900 --> 56:53.140]  and disappeared. I gave them to him and left. Six months later, I'm driving into town and
[56:53.140 --> 56:56.820]  there are guys all over that railroad.
[56:56.820 --> 57:02.540]  They completely reworked all the railroads. Now I pull into town sometimes and I'll sit
[57:02.540 --> 57:11.260]  there 30 minutes waiting for a train hauling rock to pass me. I sit there and grin and
[57:11.260 --> 57:20.940]  chuckle. Nobody knows I did that. We don't have 24 people a year killed on the highways,
[57:20.940 --> 57:29.380]  but I get to know that. There's nothing. I'm not particularly religious, but the Bible
[57:29.380 --> 57:36.060]  is a very wise document. Therefore, when thou doest on arms be not like the scribes and
[57:36.060 --> 57:44.500]  Pharisees who pray in the streets and synagogues to have glory of men, that glory passes quickly.
[57:44.500 --> 57:49.660]  When you get to do something that's the right thing for the right reason that people benefit
[57:49.660 --> 57:58.540]  by it and nobody knows it but you, there is something so satisfying about that that makes
[57:58.540 --> 58:04.660]  all this trouble worth it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Scott, you're in a
[58:04.660 --> 58:06.660]  position to kick their behinds.
[58:06.660 --> 58:14.020]  All right. Well, I'll let you get to the next caller.
[58:14.020 --> 58:22.220]  Okay. Thank you, Scott. I was hoping for you to say something really profound. Okay. Thank
[58:22.220 --> 58:29.940]  you, Scott. I'll be in touch over this. Okay. We are about to go to break. Randy Kelton,
[58:29.940 --> 58:35.500]  Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, our call-in number. Yeah, we're going to have one slot
[58:35.500 --> 58:43.180]  open as soon as Scott clears it. Our call-in number, 512-646-1984. Give us a call. We'll
[58:43.180 --> 58:50.140]  be taking your calls all night. We'll be right back.
[58:50.140 --> 58:55.580]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[58:55.580 --> 59:00.780]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[59:00.780 --> 59:07.280]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter
[59:07.280 --> 59:13.460]  the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the
[59:13.460 --> 59:19.820]  real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[59:19.820 --> 59:25.300]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond
[59:25.300 --> 59:30.420]  which you've ever experienced before. Bibles for America would like to give you a free
[59:30.420 --> 59:36.440]  recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours
[59:36.440 --> 59:47.780]  just by calling us toll-free at 1-888-551-0102 or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[59:47.780 --> 01:00:00.580]  That's freestudybible.com. You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.580 --> 01:00:07.220]  The following newsflash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown. Markets for Monday,
[01:00:07.220 --> 01:00:14.620]  the 22nd of July, 2019, open with precious metals, gold at $1,429 an ounce, silver, $16.45
[01:00:14.620 --> 01:00:22.580]  an ounce, copper, $2.75 an ounce, oil, Texas crude, $55.63 a barrel, Brent crude, $62.47
[01:00:22.580 --> 01:00:31.180]  a barrel, and crypto is an order of market cap, Bitcoin Core, $10,566.52, Ethereum, $227.26,
[01:00:31.180 --> 01:00:45.980]  XRP, Ripple, $0.33, Litecoin, $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[01:00:45.980 --> 01:00:52.260]  Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a timed suitcase bomb was detonated
[01:00:52.260 --> 01:00:57.580]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day parade, killing
[01:00:57.580 --> 01:01:04.540]  10 and injuring 40. Today in history.
[01:01:04.540 --> 01:01:09.220]  In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing hemp and
[01:01:09.220 --> 01:01:13.860]  a Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin,
[01:01:13.860 --> 01:01:17.860]  and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file
[01:01:17.860 --> 01:01:22.540]  new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment
[01:01:22.540 --> 01:01:27.340]  to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney announced
[01:01:27.340 --> 01:01:31.540]  earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana
[01:01:31.540 --> 01:01:33.480]  cases because of the law.
[01:01:33.480 --> 01:01:37.420]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter
[01:01:37.420 --> 01:01:41.900]  to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized
[01:01:41.900 --> 01:01:48.060]  in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as
[01:01:48.060 --> 01:01:54.300]  well as other cities too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Jaime Esparza, a Democrat,
[01:01:54.300 --> 01:01:58.780]  who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the
[01:01:58.780 --> 01:02:03.740]  prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue was succinctly summarized
[01:02:03.740 --> 01:02:08.660]  by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County, who stated that, quote,
[01:02:08.660 --> 01:02:13.260]  the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[01:02:13.260 --> 01:02:17.180]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're
[01:02:17.180 --> 01:02:22.380]  charged with.
[01:02:22.380 --> 01:02:27.700]  A paper by Tulane University identified a 5.5-inch American pocket shark as the first
[01:02:27.700 --> 01:02:33.380]  of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured
[01:02:33.380 --> 01:02:39.260]  or recorded, with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[01:02:39.260 --> 01:02:43.580]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near
[01:02:43.580 --> 01:02:54.940]  its front fins. For the purpose, it is hypothesized to lure and prey, who may be drawn into the
[01:02:54.940 --> 01:03:17.740]  ground for July 22, 2019.
[01:03:17.740 --> 01:03:47.580]  OK, we are back. This is the Rule of Law radio on Thursday. This is the third day of the
[01:03:47.580 --> 01:03:56.500]  third of October 2019. And we are going to go ahead and go to Ralph in Texas. He's our
[01:03:56.500 --> 01:04:01.500]  next caller up. Ralph, what do you have for us this evening?
[01:04:01.500 --> 01:04:13.980]  Hello. Hello, Ralph. Hello, Randall. I mailed my appeal for my bar grievance this morning.
[01:04:13.980 --> 01:04:18.900]  And so that one's done, but I'm getting a lot of good information for the next one.
[01:04:18.900 --> 01:04:23.540]  I did notice the wording in it, inquiry, and I thought that I don't remember that being
[01:04:23.540 --> 01:04:29.340]  there before, but I wanted to get that appeal mailed in. I was running out of time on it.
[01:04:29.340 --> 01:04:34.780]  So I have something that's a little bit different than the bar grievance, but it's in the same
[01:04:34.780 --> 01:04:43.540]  token it's related. I'm having trouble getting grand jury minutes, and they're not covered
[01:04:43.540 --> 01:04:55.420]  by the Open Records Act as best as I can tell. So how are you guys getting grand jury minutes?
[01:04:55.420 --> 01:05:02.220]  So you think that it is excluded by the Open Record Act? I don't recall seeing it mentioned,
[01:05:02.220 --> 01:05:11.660]  but it's not excluded. I get them in Austin. Well, that's what I've kind of, you know,
[01:05:11.660 --> 01:05:16.500]  been hearing without taking any notes on it. I thought you guys were saying you were getting
[01:05:16.500 --> 01:05:26.220]  them, but I requested the grand jury minutes from the District Court Clerk, and she sent
[01:05:26.220 --> 01:05:41.300]  a letter to the Attorney General for an opinion, and he wrote back, and this is ORL 2011 10-5
[01:05:41.300 --> 01:05:56.700]  505. Wait a minute, ORL? Yes. Open Records Letter? Yes. You know what that means? That
[01:05:56.700 --> 01:06:03.780]  means that there were pre-existing determinations. Okay, go ahead. What did it say? Well, it
[01:06:03.780 --> 01:06:09.500]  said, let's see, it's three pages long, and I don't have anything highlighted. All it
[01:06:09.500 --> 01:06:21.980]  says is that the grand jury is as, if they create something and somebody's holding it
[01:06:21.980 --> 01:06:28.300]  for them, then it's in the constructive possession of the grand jury, meaning the prosecutor
[01:06:28.300 --> 01:06:34.500]  is holding the papers for them if they originate it, and it's a little bit confusing to me.
[01:06:34.500 --> 01:06:45.020]  Wait, wait, this is not confusing. I think it's 20.22 says the grand jury, after they
[01:06:45.020 --> 01:06:52.680]  have met, shall convene with a quorum of the grand jury present. They'll read the fact
[01:06:52.680 --> 01:07:01.820]  of an indictment to the court, and the clerk shall keep records in the minutes of the court.
[01:07:01.820 --> 01:07:06.460]  That's not created for the grand jury. That's created for the courts, and that is a court
[01:07:06.460 --> 01:07:12.940]  record. Does not fall under Open Records Act. That's what I was listening for in the answer
[01:07:12.940 --> 01:07:20.820]  for the attorney general to say, this is not my business, does not fall under open records,
[01:07:20.820 --> 01:07:29.820]  falls under public court. Grand jury did not create this record. It was not created for
[01:07:29.820 --> 01:07:35.380]  the grand jury. It was created by the clerk for the court. It is open record.
[01:07:35.380 --> 01:07:41.940]  It's covered, so, well, all right, it's going to take me a while to wrap my mind around
[01:07:41.940 --> 01:07:42.940]  it.
[01:07:42.940 --> 01:07:47.340]  Well, there's just a different rule that applies. What he's saying is, even if it's not an open
[01:07:47.340 --> 01:07:52.740]  records that's giving you access, there's a different method by which you're given access,
[01:07:52.740 --> 01:07:58.860]  and I believe that would be the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration, TRJA, and it's
[01:07:58.860 --> 01:08:02.300]  rule 12, public access to judicial records.
[01:08:02.300 --> 01:08:11.700]  Okay, okay, I must have missed that before, okay. I'll try that. That should give me something
[01:08:11.700 --> 01:08:13.500]  to work on.
[01:08:13.500 --> 01:08:19.020]  You should, the way to address that is to file criminal charges against the clerk.
[01:08:19.020 --> 01:08:25.700]  I did. I filed a bunch of criminal charges, and that's why I'm going for the grand jury
[01:08:25.700 --> 01:08:30.340]  menace to see if the prosecutor is intercepted in the mail.
[01:08:30.340 --> 01:08:36.140]  Okay, here's the problem that I have, and it's, there's a, I don't like changing law,
[01:08:36.140 --> 01:08:43.980]  but there are two tiny little pieces that need to be changed. 2022, is it 2021? I forget
[01:08:43.980 --> 01:08:53.580]  which one. The last one in section 20 says the jury, the grand jury shall read the indictments
[01:08:53.580 --> 01:09:02.340]  into the record. It should say, I think it doesn't say indictments shall read the true
[01:09:02.340 --> 01:09:10.800]  bill into the record. It should say the grand jury shall read all the true bill and no bill
[01:09:10.800 --> 01:09:13.740]  into the record.
[01:09:13.740 --> 01:09:19.820]  Because if you file a criminal complaint with the grand jury, and there is a no bill, there
[01:09:19.820 --> 01:09:25.660]  is no record. It just falls into this black hole.
[01:09:25.660 --> 01:09:27.340]  Exactly.
[01:09:27.340 --> 01:09:35.100]  You have no idea if the grand jury has seen it or not. So you might send a letter to the
[01:09:35.100 --> 01:09:46.260]  foreman asking the foreman, if the foreman presented your complaint to the body of the
[01:09:46.260 --> 01:09:53.780]  grand jury, send it register restricted, so only he can sign for it. You can find his
[01:09:53.780 --> 01:09:59.780]  name just by looking at indictments, he signs it. And you don't have to be able to read
[01:09:59.780 --> 01:10:01.500]  his signature.
[01:10:01.500 --> 01:10:08.900]  I have in that kind of request, I did this in Wise County, is I copied his signature
[01:10:08.900 --> 01:10:15.100]  off an indictment and dropped it in as his name. I couldn't read it, but I didn't need
[01:10:15.100 --> 01:10:23.300]  to. It was his mark, that is his name. And the thing I didn't do is insure it, and that's
[01:10:23.300 --> 01:10:29.260]  what I'll do next time. So then when you don't get a response to it, you can call the postal
[01:10:29.260 --> 01:10:35.560]  inspectors or you go down and ask for your 500 bucks. And then you get the postal inspectors
[01:10:35.560 --> 01:10:37.820]  to go down and find out where that went to.
[01:10:37.820 --> 01:10:42.460]  Okay, all this is great. And I'm gonna let you move on to another call or just one more
[01:10:42.460 --> 01:10:46.300]  question. What do I get a copy of the indictment from the district clerk?
[01:10:46.300 --> 01:10:53.060]  Oh, yeah, that's the public record always. Just go to the clerk and ask, what day does
[01:10:53.060 --> 01:10:59.740]  the grand jury meet? And you go in the next day and ask to see all the indictments issued
[01:10:59.740 --> 01:11:07.300]  on this date range. Or you can go in there anytime and ask to see. What they generally
[01:11:07.300 --> 01:11:15.180]  want is they want a cause number. So before they figure out what I'm doing, I asked them,
[01:11:15.180 --> 01:11:20.980]  what is the last case that was filed in this court?
[01:11:20.980 --> 01:11:26.020]  I'm looking for someone that's filed some complaints and I wanna see if the police have
[01:11:26.020 --> 01:11:31.460]  actually filed it into the court yet. They said they were going to. Can you tell me what
[01:11:31.460 --> 01:11:37.580]  the last cause number was so I can ask to see maybe eight or 10 to find the one I'm
[01:11:37.580 --> 01:11:42.780]  looking for? And they'll say, oh, sure, we can do that. But if you come in there and
[01:11:42.780 --> 01:11:50.100]  ask them for a cause number for complaints from this date to this date, big hassle with
[01:11:50.100 --> 01:11:55.620]  Denton County, well, we have to have a cause number. And I said, no, you don't. Yes, we
[01:11:55.620 --> 01:12:01.540]  do. And they sent out this sergeant on their security. And I asked him for a sheriff's
[01:12:01.540 --> 01:12:07.260]  deputy to arrest the clerk. And we went through the whole routine. And if you've ever heard
[01:12:07.260 --> 01:12:14.900]  me talk about Mr. Cox, he was their investigator for the prosecuting attorney's office. When
[01:12:14.900 --> 01:12:19.300]  I asked John West that he had just been over, I'd pull that wild hair out of his behind
[01:12:19.300 --> 01:12:25.380]  for him. He came by while I was talking to this sergeant and as he walked by, he got
[01:12:25.380 --> 01:12:28.980]  the sergeant by the arm and drug him with him a few feet.
[01:12:28.980 --> 01:12:33.020]  The sergeant came back and said, Mr. Kelton, we have a deputy coming. If you need us, we'll
[01:12:33.020 --> 01:12:37.700]  be in our office. And poof, they're gone. I don't know what Mr. Cox told him, but he
[01:12:37.700 --> 01:12:45.940]  got his attention. Anyway, I'll stop. They all have a suggestion. Good, I need it. A
[01:12:45.940 --> 01:12:51.740]  suggestion would be that you can ask first when you don't know the cause numbers yet,
[01:12:51.740 --> 01:12:57.580]  ask first for today's docket sheet. They always have a docket sheet that they can produce
[01:12:57.580 --> 01:12:58.580]  for the...
[01:12:58.580 --> 01:13:02.980]  Hey, hey, hey. Brett, I was just about to say that.
[01:13:02.980 --> 01:13:03.980]  Okay.
[01:13:03.980 --> 01:13:14.700]  Yes, that's a great idea. And all you need is a docket, is a number. Then you can ask
[01:13:14.700 --> 01:13:22.020]  for these by number. You just back up 20 numbers. I want to see all 20 of these.
[01:13:22.020 --> 01:13:26.420]  Now I've got two ways of doing it. Okay. All right. Well, look, I'm going to get off the
[01:13:26.420 --> 01:13:30.620]  phone here and let you get on to somebody else, but I really appreciate what you guys
[01:13:30.620 --> 01:13:34.980]  are doing. And it's a great topic, bar grievances, because like I said, when I got this last
[01:13:34.980 --> 01:13:41.140]  one in, it said inquiry. I did not check into it, but I thought that sounded different.
[01:13:41.140 --> 01:13:47.100]  And I broke out my weekend support book today and Brett is reading and I'm reading along
[01:13:47.100 --> 01:13:53.420]  and I'm going, uh-oh, they changed that one. So I need to get a good copy of that.
[01:13:53.420 --> 01:13:56.940]  So good. Now maybe we can sting them for it.
[01:13:56.940 --> 01:13:57.940]  Well.
[01:13:57.940 --> 01:14:05.980]  Okay. Thank you very much, Ralph, and keep up to date. We have some stuff coming that
[01:14:05.980 --> 01:14:10.700]  I'm going to want to be getting back in touch with you and bringing you on board. We got
[01:14:10.700 --> 01:14:16.020]  some butt kicking coming here. Okay. Thank you, Ralph. Now we're going to go to Jerry
[01:14:16.020 --> 01:14:20.540]  in Pennsylvania. Hello, Jerry. What do you have for us today?
[01:14:20.540 --> 01:14:31.940]  Yeah. Hello, Randy. Yeah. I have a case that's up in the appellate court and I did a reconsideration
[01:14:31.940 --> 01:14:38.420]  on it and they designed it. I was wondering what would be the next step? Like a written
[01:14:38.420 --> 01:14:40.940]  scam?
[01:14:40.940 --> 01:14:52.920]  To the Supreme. Okay. I had a guy in just outside of Harrisburg. He was a good researcher,
[01:14:52.920 --> 01:15:01.900]  but he was kind of stuck in this Patriot mythology stuff. And he wrote a cert to the Pennsylvania
[01:15:01.900 --> 01:15:16.420]  Supreme over a traffic ticket. And they sent him back a 35 page response. I was astounded.
[01:15:16.420 --> 01:15:18.460]  Wow.
[01:15:18.460 --> 01:15:26.300]  They went over that thing with a fine tooth comb. They showed him every place where he
[01:15:26.300 --> 01:15:38.060]  made an error. What we expect the courts to do is tell us what's wrong. Harmon Taylor
[01:15:38.060 --> 01:15:42.860]  used to say, you should pay a close attention to what the judge is ruling. They're trying
[01:15:42.860 --> 01:15:48.780]  to tell you how to win your case. They'll do that with both sides. So read pleadings
[01:15:48.780 --> 01:15:56.380]  carefully. And when I read this pleading, it was absolutely clear. They were saying,
[01:15:56.380 --> 01:16:03.220]  this is how you need to redo this so we can give you a ruling on your side. Best response
[01:16:03.220 --> 01:16:09.660]  I ever saw it. It was Pennsylvania Supreme. I was surprised. Next place, Jerry.
[01:16:09.660 --> 01:16:14.340]  Yeah. What was the name of the case?
[01:16:14.340 --> 01:16:25.620]  You got the appeal. Now you look at the appeal and those issues where the court, did you
[01:16:25.620 --> 01:16:34.380]  get a findings of, I'm sorry, a judgment where they explained their answer. Wait, wait, hold
[01:16:34.380 --> 01:16:39.180]  on. We've got 25 seconds to go to break. But when we come back on the other side, generally
[01:16:39.180 --> 01:16:43.300]  they'll issue an order like the feds will issue an order, but a case has not done that.
[01:16:43.300 --> 01:16:48.480]  They have to issue a judgment and the judgment says, these are the facts. This is the law.
[01:16:48.480 --> 01:16:54.340]  This is why we ruled the way we did. On break, see if we have something similar. We'll be
[01:16:54.340 --> 01:17:14.460]  right back.
[01:17:14.460 --> 01:17:30.180]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:17:30.180 --> 01:17:31.180]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[01:17:31.180 --> 01:17:32.180]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the
[01:17:32.180 --> 01:17:35.180]  financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Meris proven method
[01:17:35.180 --> 01:17:40.820]  is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.820 --> 01:17:46.420]  For more information, please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the blue Michael Meris banner
[01:17:46.420 --> 01:17:55.860]  or email MichaelMeris at Yahoo.com. That's RuleOfLawRadio.com or email M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S
[01:17:55.860 --> 01:18:03.940]  at Yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:03.940 --> 01:18:09.860]  It's the 2019 Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway, sponsored by Central Texas
[01:18:09.860 --> 01:18:16.300]  Gunworks. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated. Everything
[01:18:16.300 --> 01:18:21.700]  helps to keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gunworks, the grand prize up for grabs
[01:18:21.700 --> 01:18:28.660]  is a Spikes Tactical AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation
[01:18:28.660 --> 01:18:34.740]  is a chance to win. When you purchase Randy Kelton's eBook, Legal 101, you get four chances
[01:18:34.740 --> 01:18:40.260]  to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed
[01:18:40.260 --> 01:18:44.940]  the shows on Logos Radio Network, support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you
[01:18:44.940 --> 01:18:51.440]  the best quality programming on talk radio today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
[01:18:51.440 --> 01:18:58.180]  And remember, every $25 donation is a chance to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details
[01:18:58.180 --> 01:19:05.180]  and donate today.
[01:19:28.180 --> 01:19:43.540]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Roo Law Radio, and we're talking to Jerry
[01:19:43.540 --> 01:19:49.100]  in Pennsylvania. And Jerry, I didn't hear you asking me who that was, and Brett told
[01:19:49.100 --> 01:19:56.740]  me over the break. I don't remember. I can see his face in my mind, but it's been so
[01:19:56.740 --> 01:20:04.660]  long. I've lost his name. I'll pull it out. His wife is on Facebook and every once in
[01:20:04.660 --> 01:20:11.260]  a great while I get something from them. I'll try to pull that out and get it to you. But
[01:20:11.260 --> 01:20:17.180]  when we went out, we were talking about what did the Court of Appeals give you? Did they
[01:20:17.180 --> 01:20:22.860]  just give you a denial or did they tell you why they denied it?
[01:20:22.860 --> 01:20:31.980]  No, they gave me a denial. They just wrote one sentence and said, we denied your reconsideration.
[01:20:31.980 --> 01:20:37.020]  No, no. You filed the appeal when they...
[01:20:37.020 --> 01:20:39.020]  Oh, the original appeal.
[01:20:39.020 --> 01:20:44.340]  Yeah. What did they say about why they denied your appeal?
[01:20:44.340 --> 01:20:55.500]  Oh, because they said that I was late on the filing and I had all the certifications, mail
[01:20:55.500 --> 01:21:03.540]  certifications. I sent them along and told them that there was no way that I missed a
[01:21:03.540 --> 01:21:04.540]  date.
[01:21:04.540 --> 01:21:07.820]  Okay. Then appeal that to the Supreme.
[01:21:07.820 --> 01:21:09.820]  That's what I'm saying, John.
[01:21:09.820 --> 01:21:17.940]  And that's all. Once you've done this a time or two, you kind of get it. When you're in
[01:21:17.940 --> 01:21:25.540]  court, you write your pleadings, you're always looking at the next document. The next document
[01:21:25.540 --> 01:21:31.660]  is going to be findings of facts and conclusions at law. So you set up what your facts are
[01:21:31.660 --> 01:21:38.780]  and what law they go to. And we talk about how to write a pleading that you can... We
[01:21:38.780 --> 01:21:43.880]  have this rule, never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth because the court
[01:21:43.880 --> 01:21:48.220]  can't pay attention to that. You can make the most convincing arguments and give the
[01:21:48.220 --> 01:21:54.660]  judge compelling reasons why he should rule in your favor. But if you don't give him facts
[01:21:54.660 --> 01:22:00.740]  and law as it applies to those facts, he has no power to rule in your favor.
[01:22:00.740 --> 01:22:07.380]  So when you're writing your pleadings, you construct your facts and then you generally
[01:22:07.380 --> 01:22:13.740]  construct your facts so that they fit the law you want to apply to it. It's kind of
[01:22:13.740 --> 01:22:20.900]  an art form to statement of facts. And then when you file it and they rule against you,
[01:22:20.900 --> 01:22:26.620]  now you've already got facts and law. Now you want to walk down what the judge ruled
[01:22:26.620 --> 01:22:32.740]  on and those things where you don't think he applied the facts to the law, you put in
[01:22:32.740 --> 01:22:38.700]  a request for findings of fact and conclusions at law and include these facts at law and
[01:22:38.700 --> 01:22:44.020]  say, this is how I believe you should have ruled and this is how you actually ruled.
[01:22:44.020 --> 01:22:50.420]  And then ask the court to accept your findings of fact or prepare his own. And when they
[01:22:50.420 --> 01:22:56.820]  turn that down, now you take your request for findings of fact, you have half your appeal
[01:22:56.820 --> 01:23:04.660]  already done already. And you just adjust that for your appeal. And you appeal all of
[01:23:04.660 --> 01:23:08.660]  the issues where you don't think they properly applied the facts to the law. And then when
[01:23:08.660 --> 01:23:13.860]  the court of appeals turns you down, then you take the ruling by the court of appeals
[01:23:13.860 --> 01:23:21.100]  and compare that to your appeal and you extract from those the places where you think the
[01:23:21.100 --> 01:23:28.140]  court ruled improperly. So, each document builds on the next. So, people talk about
[01:23:28.140 --> 01:23:34.540]  how hard it is to file a certiorari with the Supreme. That's just because the first time
[01:23:34.540 --> 01:23:43.560]  you do it, getting everything formatted right is a beast. And when you get down to the arguments
[01:23:43.560 --> 01:23:50.920]  you bring before the Supreme, those few arguments need to be very well researched. You need
[01:23:50.920 --> 01:23:57.760]  to spend a lot of time digging out cool case law that go to those issues. But every step
[01:23:57.760 --> 01:24:04.420]  along the way should build towards your end result. Does that make sense, Jerry?
[01:24:04.420 --> 01:24:09.900]  Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about. Okay, well.
[01:24:09.900 --> 01:24:15.820]  Here you don't have a final ruling on any of your issues. You've only got one minor
[01:24:15.820 --> 01:24:23.060]  focused point and I suspect it's going to go to the mailbox rule. You're saying you
[01:24:23.060 --> 01:24:29.340]  sent them in in time, they're saying they didn't get them in time. So, you argue with
[01:24:29.340 --> 01:24:37.540]  the Supreme that because the mails over which you have no control were delayed should not
[01:24:37.540 --> 01:24:47.140]  cost you your remedy. And generally the Supreme is generous about that kind of thing. Then
[01:24:47.140 --> 01:24:52.180]  if they rule in your favor, they kick it right back to the Court of Appeals and it's back
[01:24:52.180 --> 01:24:59.300]  on again. Okay, does that make sense?
[01:24:59.300 --> 01:25:06.180]  Oh yeah, I'll just mail the thing like directly to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then
[01:25:06.180 --> 01:25:09.620]  and wait and see what they get back from them then, huh?
[01:25:09.620 --> 01:25:15.540]  And I'll try to remember this guy's name. I'm thinking his first name was Randall. I'll
[01:25:15.540 --> 01:25:19.900]  see if I can dig him out. And when I find it, I'll send him to you.
[01:25:19.900 --> 01:25:29.620]  All right. Can I ask you one more thing? This new case that I have just came out of Fort
[01:25:29.620 --> 01:25:36.260]  Franklin, please. And I sent a few over to the Superior Court over there in Philadelphia.
[01:25:36.260 --> 01:25:44.620]  They just automatically denied it. Well, did you find these in fact? If they
[01:25:44.620 --> 01:25:49.540]  denied it and you think they denied it in property, file a bar grievance against them.
[01:25:49.540 --> 01:25:55.540]  Yeah. And then just put the thing together again and send it up to the State Court.
[01:25:55.540 --> 01:25:59.780]  Yeah, and that's what you're doing. I said bar grievance, I should have said judicial
[01:25:59.780 --> 01:26:06.420]  counter complaint. Each court you go to, you take your same document and just rework it
[01:26:06.420 --> 01:26:14.660]  for the next court. So once you have the original suit constructed, if you've constructed it
[01:26:14.660 --> 01:26:18.180]  with the consideration that you're going to be walking up the line with it, you've got
[01:26:18.180 --> 01:26:26.260]  80 percent of your document done. And then each step helps you add another little piece
[01:26:26.260 --> 01:26:31.380]  to it. So when it comes like when it comes to appeal, it's not that gosh, awful difficult
[01:26:31.380 --> 01:26:37.620]  to do your appeal. If the last time Superior Court has automatically
[01:26:37.620 --> 01:26:42.020]  sent it up to the State Court, they don't do that all the time?
[01:26:42.020 --> 01:26:46.940]  I couldn't hear that. You're distorting. Can you move the mic a little way from your mouth?
[01:26:46.940 --> 01:26:52.740]  Oh, the last time the Superior Court just automatically sent it up to the State Court,
[01:26:52.740 --> 01:26:57.540]  or don't they do that all the time? Oh, it might be. I don't know how they do
[01:26:57.540 --> 01:27:03.220]  that in Pennsylvania. Like I said, Pennsylvania is a different animal.
[01:27:03.220 --> 01:27:10.660]  Yeah. All right. Well, I'll see how far I get. Oh, I want to ask you one more thing.
[01:27:10.660 --> 01:27:20.020]  The city attorney's been prosecuting me on all these cases and on the one court record,
[01:27:20.020 --> 01:27:27.140]  it lists him as a special prosecutor. Is he allowed to be a special prosecutor?
[01:27:27.140 --> 01:27:40.580]  I would think so. So he is probably not the standard city attorney. And it's what's likely
[01:27:40.580 --> 01:27:46.780]  going on here is you're throwing more sophisticated issues at him. So they brought in somebody
[01:27:46.780 --> 01:27:51.400]  who knows more about what's going on. And that means it's probably costing the city
[01:27:51.400 --> 01:27:57.060]  a lot more for this guy. Have you bar grieved him into the Stone Age?
[01:27:57.060 --> 01:28:04.700]  Oh, yeah. He's got quite, I'm sitting here writing up a malefacto against him now. But
[01:28:04.700 --> 01:28:13.340]  I pulled up everything on the government, the district attorney, and I found one clause
[01:28:13.340 --> 01:28:21.740]  in there that they just passed that said that the DEA can't hire an outside, like a hired
[01:28:21.740 --> 01:28:34.820]  gun, a regular attorney, if they want to. Oh, that's good. Because those guys are chumps.
[01:28:34.820 --> 01:28:46.000]  They're easy marks. A prosecutor has, if he stays a prosecutor, the venue he works for
[01:28:46.000 --> 01:28:52.580]  pays for his insurance. So they can't cancel it. An outside lawyer, a couple of bar grievances
[01:28:52.580 --> 01:28:59.340]  and he'll get canceled. Well, what would this malefacto lawsuit against
[01:28:59.340 --> 01:29:06.400]  them do to him? If he's a special prosecutor, he's going to be protected unless you accuse
[01:29:06.400 --> 01:29:13.380]  him of violating state law. Well, I thought because he was prosecuting
[01:29:13.380 --> 01:29:19.980]  me and he wasn't elected or he didn't never take the oath of office for the DA that he
[01:29:19.980 --> 01:29:25.380]  was acting outside of law. No, he's probably, they almost certainly
[01:29:25.380 --> 01:29:34.900]  have the discretion to hire supplemental counsel and that will bring him under their umbrella.
[01:29:34.900 --> 01:29:47.940]  Oh, okay. Well, I still have the support record here where they didn't have information that
[01:29:47.940 --> 01:29:51.300]  after David. Okay. Okay. We got to go to break. We got
[01:29:51.300 --> 01:29:57.420]  to work. Okay. Thank you, Jerry. Now, Randy, we'll be
[01:29:57.420 --> 01:30:06.780]  right back. Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list
[01:30:06.780 --> 01:30:11.380]  of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing. But now researchers say we can
[01:30:11.380 --> 01:30:17.000]  add stress to the list. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:21.500]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:30:21.500 --> 01:30:27.300]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.300 --> 01:30:33.540]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:33.540 --> 01:30:38.620]  it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private
[01:30:38.620 --> 01:30:44.300]  search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:44.300 --> 01:30:51.200]  Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects? If so, you might think that multitasking
[01:30:51.200 --> 01:30:56.660]  proves you're smart, but think again, all that stress might be eating your brain. A
[01:30:56.660 --> 01:31:01.140]  new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons, which actually
[01:31:01.140 --> 01:31:06.180]  makes it harder for people to manage problems. Researchers at Yale University found that
[01:31:06.180 --> 01:31:11.280]  stressed out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex. That's the part
[01:31:11.280 --> 01:31:16.660]  of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions. So take a
[01:31:16.660 --> 01:31:22.260]  deep breath and chill out. It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack. I'm Dr. Catherine
[01:31:22.260 --> 01:31:31.380]  Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.380 --> 01:31:36.780]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:36.780 --> 01:31:42.180]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:42.180 --> 01:31:46.100]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:46.100 --> 01:31:50.740]  lives. But thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.740 --> 01:31:53.820]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force
[01:31:53.820 --> 01:31:58.860]  pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:58.860 --> 01:32:05.340]  RememberBuilding7.org today. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic
[01:32:05.340 --> 01:32:09.020]  Seminar. In today's America, we live in an us against them society, and if we the people
[01:32:09.020 --> 01:32:12.540]  are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our
[01:32:12.540 --> 01:32:16.500]  own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the
[01:32:16.500 --> 01:32:19.900]  right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process
[01:32:19.900 --> 01:32:24.140]  of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce
[01:32:24.140 --> 01:32:28.420]  and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction
[01:32:28.420 --> 01:32:31.860]  with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[01:32:31.860 --> 01:32:36.180]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.180 --> 01:32:40.220]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleOfLawRadio.com and
[01:32:40.220 --> 01:32:43.540]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The
[01:32:43.540 --> 01:32:47.900]  Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[01:32:47.900 --> 01:32:51.580]  Freedom Seminar, hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn
[01:32:51.580 --> 01:32:54.860]  how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleOfLawRadio.com.
[01:32:54.860 --> 01:33:01.860]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:02.860 --> 01:33:09.860]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:09.860 --> 01:33:16.860]  Yeah, who you want to chip? Well, you take me for free, Tully. Who you want to chip?
[01:33:17.860 --> 01:33:23.860]  Me no free, Tully. You can't chip me. All me say, don't let them chip you in the morning,
[01:33:23.860 --> 01:33:28.860]  chip you in the evening. Put a chip in a your body. And anyway, you go computer reading.
[01:33:28.860 --> 01:33:34.860]  You can't hide me from nobody. Well, me say, chip in a your mom, chip in a your daddy,
[01:33:34.860 --> 01:33:39.860]  chip in a your grandpa, and the grand me. Chip in a me, chip in a your daddy, chip in
[01:33:39.860 --> 01:33:40.860]  a your grandma.
[01:33:40.860 --> 01:33:44.860]  OK, we are back. This is the Rule of Law Radio with Randy Kelton and I'm Brett Fountain.
[01:33:44.860 --> 01:33:55.860]  And we're going to go to our next caller here, Tim in Texas. Good evening, Tim. Tim?
[01:33:56.860 --> 01:33:57.860]  I'm here.
[01:33:58.860 --> 01:33:59.860]  All right.
[01:33:59.860 --> 01:34:04.860]  I thought Tim sounded so much more articulate when he was muted.
[01:34:05.860 --> 01:34:08.860]  Yeah, I know. I know you are.
[01:34:11.860 --> 01:34:18.860]  OK, I want to talk about the ombudsman and I have a couple of things.
[01:34:18.860 --> 01:34:28.860]  The reason that we would want to report to an ombudsman is to try to gain an advantage
[01:34:28.860 --> 01:34:34.860]  for our present case, the one we have. Otherwise, it would just be stern of dust.
[01:34:34.860 --> 01:34:36.860]  OK, that's my opinion.
[01:34:37.860 --> 01:34:43.860]  Because when you look up, it says, what can an ombudsman help you with?
[01:34:43.860 --> 01:34:48.860]  And it says, you know, if you have any questions about the system's operation, assessing the
[01:34:48.860 --> 01:34:54.860]  system or the availability of other state bar disciplinary programs, or you want information
[01:34:54.860 --> 01:35:00.860]  about how to file a lawyer grievance, have a closed, previously filed grievance that
[01:35:00.860 --> 01:35:06.860]  you would like reviewed to ensure the proper grievance procedures were followed, or have
[01:35:06.860 --> 01:35:11.860]  a suggestion for improving the system that you would like to bring to the attention of
[01:35:11.860 --> 01:35:17.860]  the Supreme Court of Texas and or the State Bar Board of Directors, or would like to express
[01:35:17.860 --> 01:35:22.860]  concerns or constructive proposals about the attorney discipline system.
[01:35:23.860 --> 01:35:32.860]  So, when you see wording like that, and you see that it is the ombudsman and her name
[01:35:32.860 --> 01:35:39.860]  and that she is with the State Bar of Texas, even though she's separate from the State
[01:35:39.860 --> 01:35:42.860]  Bar, she reports to the Supreme.
[01:35:42.860 --> 01:35:47.860]  Yeah, I understand that. But the Supreme Court does not write law.
[01:35:48.860 --> 01:35:51.860]  And she also has a bar card.
[01:35:51.860 --> 01:35:52.860]  Yes.
[01:35:52.860 --> 01:35:54.860]  So she has her phone.
[01:35:54.860 --> 01:36:01.860]  So, you know, I'm not trying to crash anything here. I'm just bringing up just some things
[01:36:01.860 --> 01:36:08.860]  that I see. But it's specifically because of my present or past, we'll call it my past
[01:36:08.860 --> 01:36:22.860]  case, where a prosecuting attorney for a Type A general law city started this entire fiasco
[01:36:22.860 --> 01:36:33.860]  that I went through by taking me to a back room and suggesting a procedure, a legal procedure,
[01:36:33.860 --> 01:36:42.860]  that was not adopted into the ordinances of the city, which made it void. Okay. So, so
[01:36:42.860 --> 01:36:43.860]  you're
[01:36:43.860 --> 01:36:52.860]  Kim, that was probably the most articulate and absolutely accurate statement I've heard
[01:36:52.860 --> 01:36:54.860]  you make. I am impressed.
[01:36:54.860 --> 01:37:06.860]  Okay. Well, don't interrupt me because I'm on a roll. Here's my point. My point is that
[01:37:06.860 --> 01:37:12.860]  I've been told by someone else with as much legal authority as you, Randy, that
[01:37:12.860 --> 01:37:14.860]  You've been talking to God?
[01:37:14.860 --> 01:37:24.860]  No, sir. No, sir. I have not talked to him. Not like this. Here's what was said. I'm
[01:37:24.860 --> 01:37:31.860]  going to read this to you. Pay attention. You'll probably guess who it is. You cannot
[01:37:31.860 --> 01:37:38.860]  sue any attorney for official acts as a state prosecutor, which is what the city was claiming
[01:37:38.860 --> 01:37:46.860]  it was doing by prosecuting you. Yes. So I have a question mark about that when she's
[01:37:46.860 --> 01:37:54.860]  transferred it from a criminal class C misdemeanor to a civil administrative hearing. Okay.
[01:37:55.860 --> 01:37:57.860]  Dead on.
[01:37:57.860 --> 01:38:05.860]  Okay. But was it under a state law or was it under an ordinance, which is not a state
[01:38:05.860 --> 01:38:15.860]  law in any way, shape or form? When she changed it, she changed it to an administrative procedure,
[01:38:15.860 --> 01:38:23.860]  not a prosecution. Right. So my point is here is says he's saying that an ordinance is not
[01:38:23.860 --> 01:38:30.860]  a state law in any way, shape or form. Do you have anything that I can read concerning
[01:38:30.860 --> 01:38:32.860]  that that pops up in your mind?
[01:38:32.860 --> 01:38:38.860]  I have a brief by a guy named Eddie Craig.
[01:38:39.860 --> 01:38:44.860]  Okay. Is it on his Facebook page or his? Yeah.
[01:38:45.860 --> 01:38:51.860]  No, I have to. Well, I used it, actually used it in your suit.
[01:38:52.860 --> 01:38:53.860]  You did?
[01:38:53.860 --> 01:39:02.860]  Yes, I did. In your suit, there is a claim and that is a claim against the actors.
[01:39:03.860 --> 01:39:12.860]  But prior to the claim, there is a constitutional challenge to the applicability of the ordinance.
[01:39:13.860 --> 01:39:17.860]  Okay. That was the first challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.
[01:39:17.860 --> 01:39:25.860]  Exactly. And I made exactly the challenge you're going to. That ordinance may be out there,
[01:39:25.860 --> 01:39:33.860]  but it cannot apply to me because if it applied to me, it would not be an ordinance. It would be a law.
[01:39:34.860 --> 01:39:44.860]  Okay. So here's my question. We did that before the 30 days was up after the illegal administrative
[01:39:44.860 --> 01:39:53.860]  hearing, which the court ignored. And then when we, when they called us into this civil
[01:39:53.860 --> 01:40:00.860]  court district court, they ignored it there. So it's never been heard by any court because
[01:40:00.860 --> 01:40:05.860]  they ignored it. And we've never been able to get any of the courts to listen to that.
[01:40:06.860 --> 01:40:12.860]  Okay. So would you like to refile that as a petition for declaratory judgment?
[01:40:12.860 --> 01:40:18.860]  Well, I'm making a note what you just said. Okay.
[01:40:19.860 --> 01:40:27.860]  Okay. Hold on. In the suit, that argument was crafted as a petition for declaratory judgment.
[01:40:28.860 --> 01:40:35.860]  That could be extracted out of the suit and filed just like it is. We're asking the court
[01:40:35.860 --> 01:40:42.860]  to give a ruling on the rights of the parties. That's the purpose of declaratory judgment.
[01:40:43.860 --> 01:40:52.860]  And we're asking the court to say, when the, the constitution authorized the legislature
[01:40:52.860 --> 01:41:01.860]  to write law, did the constitution authorize the legislature to delegate that authority?
[01:41:01.860 --> 01:41:04.860]  And, and of course the answer is no.
[01:41:04.860 --> 01:41:14.860]  Yeah. So, or is the reason that a ordinance is called an ordinance and not a law because
[01:41:14.860 --> 01:41:21.860]  the ordinance is restricted in that it only applies to those in contractual privity with
[01:41:21.860 --> 01:41:27.860]  the city. If I'm not in contract with the city and I have not agreed to the statutory
[01:41:27.860 --> 01:41:34.860]  scheme, then the ordinance would not apply to me. If it would apply to me generally,
[01:41:34.860 --> 01:41:38.860]  then it must be a law. That was the argument.
[01:41:39.860 --> 01:41:49.860]  Okay. So here's what else was said here. However, I never said anything about not being
[01:41:49.860 --> 01:41:58.860]  able to sue her firm for employing a blankety blank moron for legal malpractice. So.
[01:41:59.860 --> 01:42:04.860]  No, I think blank, blankety blank doesn't apply in this, this particular context.
[01:42:05.860 --> 01:42:07.860]  Okay.
[01:42:07.860 --> 01:42:19.860]  Okay. And you made exactly the right distinction. She was a prosecutor until she advised you
[01:42:19.860 --> 01:42:22.860]  to move this to an administrative procedure.
[01:42:22.860 --> 01:42:23.860]  Yes.
[01:42:23.860 --> 01:42:26.860]  At that point, it was no longer a prosecution. So she.
[01:42:27.860 --> 01:42:31.860]  That's what she, that's what he says. Now let me read this. The problem you have to
[01:42:31.860 --> 01:42:39.860]  figure out how to overcome is to separate her acts on behalf of her firm from her acts
[01:42:39.860 --> 01:42:41.860]  as a prosecutor for the city.
[01:42:41.860 --> 01:42:49.860]  For example, did her farm bill the city separately from an existing contract as a prosecutor
[01:42:49.860 --> 01:42:56.860]  for acting as legal counsel in the matter against you? Not sure if he means legal counsel
[01:42:56.860 --> 01:42:57.860]  for.
[01:42:57.860 --> 01:43:07.860]  No, no, no. That can't be, I can't, I can't do something improper as a lawyer and get
[01:43:07.860 --> 01:43:15.860]  immunity simply because I didn't bill separately for it. How I build on it is irrelevant.
[01:43:16.860 --> 01:43:24.860]  Well, okay. So I've got, I think after they, after they dismiss the appeal, the appeal
[01:43:24.860 --> 01:43:32.860]  came back, they didn't tell us anything except that our, this was our countersuit. Okay.
[01:43:32.860 --> 01:43:35.860]  So they just said, you know,
[01:43:37.860 --> 01:43:44.860]  Okay, hang on. We're about to go to break. Brett's there waving a clock at me. Randy
[01:43:44.860 --> 01:43:50.860]  Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule Law Radio. I call in number five one two six. I won't give
[01:43:50.860 --> 01:43:56.860]  that up. We're going to our last segment. Hang on. We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.860 --> 01:44:04.860]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of
[01:44:04.860 --> 01:44:09.860]  nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed
[01:44:09.860 --> 01:44:15.860]  all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good
[01:44:15.860 --> 01:44:21.860]  nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated,
[01:44:21.860 --> 01:44:27.860]  Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests
[01:44:27.860 --> 01:44:32.860]  to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young
[01:44:32.860 --> 01:44:38.860]  Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many
[01:44:38.860 --> 01:44:45.860]  others. When you order from Logos Radio Network com, your health will improve as you help
[01:44:45.860 --> 01:44:50.860]  support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to
[01:44:50.860 --> 01:44:56.860]  join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family
[01:44:56.860 --> 01:45:03.860]  and increase your income. Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win
[01:45:03.860 --> 01:45:10.860]  your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand 4CD course
[01:45:10.860 --> 01:45:16.860]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your
[01:45:16.860 --> 01:45:22.860]  lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.860 --> 01:45:28.860]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[01:45:28.860 --> 01:45:34.860]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. Even if you're not in
[01:45:34.860 --> 01:45:40.860]  a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[01:45:40.860 --> 01:45:47.860]  that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials,
[01:45:47.860 --> 01:45:54.860]  forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com
[01:45:54.860 --> 01:45:59.860]  and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EASY.
[01:46:24.860 --> 01:46:42.860]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio and I didn't want to say
[01:46:42.860 --> 01:46:48.860]  something to him. You know, for quite a while I have been asking Laura to give you a wrap
[01:46:48.860 --> 01:46:56.860]  upside the head and knock some sense into you. She must have done that. I am surprised
[01:46:56.860 --> 01:47:07.860]  you're framing these arguments extremely well. You've been doing your homework, but I've
[01:47:07.860 --> 01:47:13.860]  got you muted so you can't comment. Okay, go ahead.
[01:47:13.860 --> 01:47:22.860]  What throws me off of this is that, number one, they dismissed the case against me without
[01:47:22.860 --> 01:47:33.860]  prejudice that they won in the district court. The original administrative case was overthrown
[01:47:33.860 --> 01:47:41.860]  by mandamus after they won the case against me for the 80 grand, so they had to drop the
[01:47:41.860 --> 01:47:49.860]  original 8 grand. So people are saying, well, why are you even worried with that case? It's
[01:47:49.860 --> 01:47:54.860]  because it's without prejudice they could bring that back on me. But the things that
[01:47:54.860 --> 01:48:03.860]  they took me in court for were things that I had been doing in my place of business long
[01:48:03.860 --> 01:48:14.860]  before they wrote the law. And what I'm trying to figure out is if a gas station garage where
[01:48:14.860 --> 01:48:24.860]  they've been doing big trucks and tires and pumping gas and everything for 65 years never
[01:48:24.860 --> 01:48:32.860]  stops doing that. It just changes ownership, okay? I think you can still do it. I think
[01:48:32.860 --> 01:48:36.860]  it's still zoned that way where you can do it.
[01:48:36.860 --> 01:48:40.860]  There are certain things that grandfather and certain things that don't.
[01:48:40.860 --> 01:48:48.860]  Okay, well, what they said that mine was that I only could park so many cars, then they
[01:48:48.860 --> 01:48:53.860]  brought up, well, you can't park in the church parking lot next door, but I'd been doing
[01:48:53.860 --> 01:49:00.860]  that for 24 years, long before they came up with that ordinance. And so what I'm trying
[01:49:00.860 --> 01:49:09.860]  to say is that can I, because I didn't bring it up in the original case in my defense,
[01:49:09.860 --> 01:49:13.860]  never brought it up. And so they just rolled over me with it.
[01:49:13.860 --> 01:49:20.860]  Another thing is that the lead attorney for this law firm that represents the city that
[01:49:20.860 --> 01:49:28.860]  I live in, he, I've got it in writing, the code enforcement officer was instructed by
[01:49:28.860 --> 01:49:35.860]  him to write me a ticket for one of the original vehicles I was cited for because it was still
[01:49:35.860 --> 01:49:42.860]  on my property. But the problem was, is that it was running and it had antique license
[01:49:42.860 --> 01:49:50.860]  plates and it was parked properly. So I think he was doing that to just intimidate me during
[01:49:50.860 --> 01:49:53.860]  the case because it was.
[01:49:53.860 --> 01:49:55.860]  Clearly that's what we said at the time.
[01:49:55.860 --> 01:50:02.860]  Right. Well, they eventually, eventually dropped that case because it was a separate case that
[01:50:02.860 --> 01:50:09.860]  I was fighting in the municipal court. And it says for the, you know, for seeking justice
[01:50:09.860 --> 01:50:12.860]  or whatever, however they write that. But.
[01:50:12.860 --> 01:50:17.860]  In, in the interest of justice, that means we screwed up when we filed it.
[01:50:17.860 --> 01:50:22.860]  Well, but that was after they got the $80,000 judgment.
[01:50:22.860 --> 01:50:25.860]  Yeah, but that, okay.
[01:50:25.860 --> 01:50:30.860]  You don't think they have anything to do with one another. My point is, is that I want to
[01:50:30.860 --> 01:50:35.860]  be able to, instead of going to the Supreme court with this, which I'm running out of
[01:50:35.860 --> 01:50:42.860]  time, I think I have another week. I don't think that I could take anything in my counter
[01:50:42.860 --> 01:50:52.860]  suit and do anything with it that would set the record any straighter than it already
[01:50:52.860 --> 01:50:58.860]  is. And they've already ruled on it twice that it's, you know, it's messed up because
[01:50:58.860 --> 01:51:03.860]  I was, I think it was had to do with jurisdiction or something.
[01:51:03.860 --> 01:51:07.860]  Yes. The whole case was jurisdiction.
[01:51:07.860 --> 01:51:16.860]  Yeah. And you know how that's something that is way over my head. So would it be better
[01:51:16.860 --> 01:51:26.860]  in my interest to file a completely different suit using, and you, you had mentioned going
[01:51:26.860 --> 01:51:32.860]  federal, but I don't know that I would even have to do that.
[01:51:32.860 --> 01:51:40.860]  To keep it in the state and just go after them civilly for how they.
[01:51:40.860 --> 01:51:49.860]  What we can, the argument that can be brought is that the court of appeals ruled that the
[01:51:49.860 --> 01:51:57.860]  city did not have jurisdiction to prosecute you. That's thrown out. What the court didn't
[01:51:57.860 --> 01:52:06.860]  rule is that this city did not have jurisdiction to seek remedy from the district court. It
[01:52:06.860 --> 01:52:10.860]  left that to the district court and the district court just ruled against you out of hand at
[01:52:10.860 --> 01:52:12.860]  every turn, no matter what.
[01:52:12.860 --> 01:52:13.860]  Okay.
[01:52:13.860 --> 01:52:20.860]  So back to the original prosecution by the lawyers being outside scope, that is not a
[01:52:20.860 --> 01:52:22.860]  question that's res judicata.
[01:52:22.860 --> 01:52:25.860]  Res judicata.
[01:52:25.860 --> 01:52:32.860]  It's already been adjudicated. The court of appeals said they did not have jurisdiction
[01:52:32.860 --> 01:52:36.860]  period. That means no immunity.
[01:52:36.860 --> 01:52:47.860]  Okay. So I would go after the prosecutor and the law firm, but I have to leave the city's
[01:52:47.860 --> 01:52:49.860]  name completely out of it. That correct?
[01:52:49.860 --> 01:53:00.860]  Yes. You don't have to, you could go after the members of the committee, but that would
[01:53:00.860 --> 01:53:07.860]  violate your agreement, your personal agreement with the city. So you don't need to, in order
[01:53:07.860 --> 01:53:12.860]  to sue the lawyers, you don't need to sue those people who acted in good faith reliance
[01:53:12.860 --> 01:53:20.860]  on competent authority. And that being the lawyers, they're not necessary for the case.
[01:53:20.860 --> 01:53:25.860]  Your argument is, is that the lawyer acted improperly and caused all this problem.
[01:53:25.860 --> 01:53:32.860]  Could he maybe even bring in the people that were on that administrative board, bring them
[01:53:32.860 --> 01:53:34.860]  in as witnesses?
[01:53:34.860 --> 01:53:37.860]  Absolutely. You could absolutely do that.
[01:53:37.860 --> 01:53:38.860]  Yeah, hostile witness.
[01:53:38.860 --> 01:53:42.860]  No, they wouldn't even have to be, I don't think they'd have to be hostile. The last
[01:53:42.860 --> 01:53:47.860]  thing they want to be hostile right now, the last thing they would want is to get you upset
[01:53:47.860 --> 01:53:53.860]  and have you amend the suit and bring them in. If they come in hostile, that indicates
[01:53:53.860 --> 01:53:56.860]  they weren't acting in good faith reliance on competent authority or acting on their
[01:53:56.860 --> 01:53:57.860]  own.
[01:53:57.860 --> 01:54:03.860]  Well, one is, she was our mortal enemy till all of this happened. She's now a good, I
[01:54:03.860 --> 01:54:11.860]  say a good friend, you know. And then one of them is a council member. And then another
[01:54:11.860 --> 01:54:17.860]  one is now the city secretary who took the place of city administrator after she left
[01:54:17.860 --> 01:54:19.860]  for medical reasons.
[01:54:19.860 --> 01:54:27.860]  So all of these, they have to be very careful. You're coming to the table after the lawyers
[01:54:27.860 --> 01:54:35.860]  under the presumption of all of these members that acted against you without jurisdiction
[01:54:35.860 --> 01:54:40.860]  were acting in good faith reliance on competent authority, being in the lawyer.
[01:54:40.860 --> 01:54:41.860]  Okay, now.
[01:54:41.860 --> 01:54:51.860]  Now they have to be careful not to give indication that they were acting with more than simple
[01:54:51.860 --> 01:54:53.860]  good faith reliance.
[01:54:53.860 --> 01:55:06.860]  Okay. Instead of going after them next step with a lawsuit, why couldn't you send some
[01:55:06.860 --> 01:55:17.860]  sort of affidavit or a letter stating to them where they messed up and how we have proof
[01:55:17.860 --> 01:55:20.860]  because the appeals court says so?
[01:55:20.860 --> 01:55:30.860]  I would say bad strategy, but that's just me. Once you have a lawsuit against the lawyers,
[01:55:30.860 --> 01:55:39.860]  then if you subpoena these people as witnesses, now you've got them on the head of a pen.
[01:55:39.860 --> 01:55:43.860]  You're coming after the lawyers for what these guys did, but you're not coming after
[01:55:43.860 --> 01:55:50.860]  them. Now they're in a position to where they don't want to give you reason to amend
[01:55:50.860 --> 01:55:52.860]  your suit and name one of them.
[01:55:52.860 --> 01:55:59.860]  If one of them says, well, I felt like I owed it to him or he's been a pain in the neck
[01:55:59.860 --> 01:56:07.860]  this whole time. Bad move, Bubba. That gets an amended lawsuit. Now they get brought in.
[01:56:07.860 --> 01:56:11.860]  Yeah, they're in a really tight spot. They've got to throw the lawyers under the bus or
[01:56:11.860 --> 01:56:13.860]  else it's them.
[01:56:13.860 --> 01:56:20.860]  Well, and see also, I have a friend of mine who was on council at that time who heard
[01:56:20.860 --> 01:56:27.860]  the mayor at the time say, we're going to make an example out of Tim. Now that's only
[01:56:27.860 --> 01:56:31.860]  if it comes to that because I really don't want to do that. I don't want to pull him
[01:56:31.860 --> 01:56:38.860]  in and get him to testify, even though he probably would. I really don't want to do
[01:56:38.860 --> 01:56:44.860]  that. I just want to leave the town settled and then go after the attorney.
[01:56:44.860 --> 01:56:50.860]  Yeah, that was the idea. That's how we crafted things is so we could go after them. You leave
[01:56:50.860 --> 01:56:55.860]  the town out of it, you leave these individuals out of it knowing they will know you could
[01:56:55.860 --> 01:56:57.860]  have sued them just as well.
[01:56:57.860 --> 01:57:00.860]  So where would I, what court would I take it to?
[01:57:00.860 --> 01:57:02.860]  District.
[01:57:02.860 --> 01:57:08.860]  Take it to the district court before the judge that I filed?
[01:57:08.860 --> 01:57:15.860]  That's why I would go to the Fed and name the district judge.
[01:57:15.860 --> 01:57:18.860]  Why couldn't you take it before a jury?
[01:57:18.860 --> 01:57:23.860]  You could if you could ever get it to a jury, but if the judge just dismisses everything
[01:57:23.860 --> 01:57:28.860]  out of hand, you don't get to a jury. You have to make that argument.
[01:57:28.860 --> 01:57:31.860]  That's what he did in this case.
[01:57:31.860 --> 01:57:39.860]  Well, if the appeals court, if the appeals court, I don't know, the thing with the federal
[01:57:39.860 --> 01:58:01.860]  lawsuit, is that something that you just send in and wait for a reply?
[01:58:09.860 --> 01:58:10.860]  Yes.
[01:58:10.860 --> 01:58:11.860]  Okay.
[01:58:11.860 --> 01:58:40.860]  Thank you.
[01:58:41.860 --> 01:58:48.860]  Thank you.
[01:58:48.860 --> 01:59:17.860]  Thank you.
[01:59:17.860 --> 01:59:27.860]  Thank you.
[01:59:47.860 --> 01:59:59.860]  Thank you.