ROL_2019-10-17_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.800]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:06.800 --> 00:13.440]  Markets for Monday, 22 July 2019, open with Precious Metals, Gold $1,429 an ounce, Silver
[00:13.440 --> 00:21.520]  $16.45 an ounce, Copper $2.75 an ounce, Oil, Texas Crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crude
[00:21.520 --> 00:29.920]  $62.47 a barrel, and Cryptos in order of Market Cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum $200.00
[00:29.920 --> 00:41.440]  $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:45.840 --> 00:52.400]  In history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated
[00:52.400 --> 00:57.360]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade,
[00:57.360 --> 01:00.240]  killing 10 and entering 40 today in history.
[01:04.480 --> 01:09.280]  In recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing Hemp
[01:09.280 --> 01:14.080]  into taxes law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin,
[01:14.080 --> 01:18.080]  and San Antonio, have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file
[01:18.080 --> 01:22.640]  new ones, since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment
[01:22.640 --> 01:27.760]  to test the herb for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier
[01:27.760 --> 01:32.400]  this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases
[01:32.400 --> 01:36.560]  because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General,
[01:36.560 --> 01:41.040]  stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has
[01:41.040 --> 01:46.000]  not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how
[01:46.000 --> 01:53.520]  HB 1325 works, as well as other cities, too, like the District Attorney in El Paso, Caima Esparza,
[01:53.520 --> 01:58.640]  a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect
[01:58.640 --> 02:04.000]  on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue was succinctly summarized by
[02:04.000 --> 02:08.640]  Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County, who stated that, quote,
[02:08.640 --> 02:13.200]  the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[02:13.200 --> 02:18.080]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches with their charge with.
[02:22.480 --> 02:27.600]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark. As the
[02:27.600 --> 02:33.040]  first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever
[02:33.040 --> 02:39.040]  captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[02:39.040 --> 02:44.160]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its
[02:44.160 --> 02:50.400]  front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[02:50.400 --> 03:06.880]  This is Book Roadie with your lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[03:20.400 --> 03:26.880]  What do you want to do? What are you gonna do?
[03:26.880 --> 03:32.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:32.560 --> 03:38.240]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:38.240 --> 03:43.760]  When you were eight and your head back three, you go to school and learn the golden rules.
[03:43.760 --> 03:49.120]  So why are you acting like a bloody fool if you get caught in your monster's crew?
[03:49.120 --> 03:54.560]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[03:54.560 --> 04:00.240]  Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they come for you?
[04:00.240 --> 04:05.040]  The chokiton, that's one. The chokiton, this one. The chokiton, your mother and your chokiton.
[04:05.040 --> 04:10.480]  Okay, howdy, howdy. This is Randy Kelton, Deborah Stevens, Brett Fountain,
[04:10.480 --> 04:20.080]  we have a radio on this Friday, this Thursday, the 17th day of October, 2019.
[04:20.080 --> 04:27.600]  And I start out crowing a little bit about my software. I've got something I've been working
[04:27.600 --> 04:35.680]  toward for a number of years now. A whole different concept on how to build websites
[04:35.680 --> 04:45.600]  and how to structure the back ends. I have a programmer that I've been using, if you've
[04:45.600 --> 04:51.040]  been listening to our show for a long time, you've heard me complain about programmers,
[04:51.040 --> 04:59.360]  especially American programmers. They charge money, they tell me all the great things they can do,
[04:59.360 --> 05:05.840]  then I get garbage or I get nothing at all. I do have a program, lucky enough to have a programmer
[05:05.840 --> 05:17.600]  now that really is good at what he does. And he actually sits down and listens and then designs
[05:17.600 --> 05:23.360]  what you asked for. The American programmers have had a lot of trouble. They would not listen
[05:23.360 --> 05:30.240]  and they would try to sell me what they want to design rather than what I actually needed. But
[05:31.600 --> 05:36.640]  for the last couple of years I've been working with one that's very good at listening and
[05:38.080 --> 05:44.720]  if any of you need any serious programming done, if you have anything other than just
[05:45.520 --> 05:51.120]  front end website work to do, if you need some backside programming done, just send me an email.
[05:51.120 --> 05:58.160]  I'll send it to this guy. He's offshore, he's much less costly than onshore programmers
[05:59.280 --> 06:09.040]  and he actually gives you what you asked for. Okay, what I'm doing is for a long time I've been
[06:10.000 --> 06:17.760]  using mind maps to build my questionnaire tool and mind maps are a very effective method
[06:17.760 --> 06:26.880]  of organizing complex information. It doesn't appear to be a whole lot different than a horizontal
[06:26.880 --> 06:33.440]  table of contents, but it actually is quite a bit different. With a mind map, when you hover
[06:33.440 --> 06:41.280]  over an item, then we're able to put in a pop-up box that'll explain what's in that item.
[06:41.280 --> 06:50.480]  So, here I'm building a website for First Amendment auditors and with this show we've
[06:50.480 --> 06:59.200]  developed a massive amount of information over the years and I was having great difficulty
[07:00.320 --> 07:08.480]  in trying to present that information in a way that was understandable and intuitive.
[07:08.480 --> 07:18.240]  You just get into masses of information and get lost inside it. Well, I had an idea for this
[07:19.360 --> 07:31.600]  mind map tool where I map out all the information and present it as a site map instead of a
[07:31.600 --> 07:37.440]  navigation bar where you click on an item that looks like it goes where you need it to go
[07:37.440 --> 07:42.880]  and then it'll open up a bunch more items and you look at one of those and see if it looks
[07:42.880 --> 07:47.120]  like it goes in your direction you want to and you click on it yet and then it opens another one.
[07:49.360 --> 07:54.480]  I suspect all of you have gotten lost in websites, especially big complex websites,
[07:55.120 --> 07:58.000]  looking for the information you need and even when you find it,
[07:59.280 --> 08:04.160]  it's very difficult to get back there. Well, with this tool we have a map
[08:04.160 --> 08:11.520]  and the map is always in the background and you can see the whole website. You can see
[08:12.480 --> 08:19.040]  every level of the website now where all the information is and instead of having to click
[08:19.040 --> 08:28.080]  through a line of drop down or slide out menu items on an avbar, you can go through this site
[08:28.080 --> 08:34.880]  and click pretty well wherever you want to and there's something that the brain does.
[08:35.840 --> 08:43.440]  This is designed to be human-centric. Now, I could give you a map of a city you've never been in
[08:44.560 --> 08:51.360]  and you could look over that map and plot your course through the city on that map and then
[08:51.360 --> 08:57.760]  put the map down in the seat next to you and everybody's had this experience where you're
[08:57.760 --> 09:03.680]  driving and you're looking around and something tells you you're not seeing what you should be seeing.
[09:05.360 --> 09:12.160]  You looked at the map and the picture you've got in your brain tells you that the road should be
[09:12.160 --> 09:18.240]  curving to your left and it's actually curving to your right. So your brain is start sends
[09:18.240 --> 09:26.000]  up these warning signals. Something's not right here. Human beings are very good at creating
[09:26.000 --> 09:33.440]  mental images and then following those images, primarily mental maps. So the
[09:35.200 --> 09:43.120]  concept of the mind map is to build a mental image of where you're at in the overall structure
[09:44.720 --> 09:50.080]  and then say your five or six levels deep in this website and the power goes down.
[09:50.080 --> 09:56.080]  You open the website back up you got to try to figure out where you were. Well,
[09:57.120 --> 10:01.680]  with the map you take one look at it and you will know exactly where you were
[10:02.320 --> 10:08.880]  because you got a middle picture of where you were. I've been about five years trying to get
[10:08.880 --> 10:14.560]  this thing up and working and we're working on the last pieces of it now. I actually have it working
[10:14.560 --> 10:22.080]  but not quite the way I want it to. We're going to make a couple of adjustments and we will have
[10:22.080 --> 10:29.680]  this thing up and cook it. So I'm doing my happy dance and also got AutoCAD back up and working
[10:29.680 --> 10:39.280]  so I'm really doing my happy dance because that's been a major problem. So Brett, what have you
[10:39.280 --> 10:47.200]  done lately of import especially when you hear about that recording you have?
[10:48.960 --> 10:56.880]  Well, he hasn't allowed me to release that yet. He's concerned that if the lawyer were to in any
[10:56.880 --> 11:03.360]  way hear that then he would be in deeper trouble. He wants to wait and see how that goes through but
[11:03.360 --> 11:11.920]  I'll just summarize by saying that the the lawyer you can hear when the lawyer starts talking about
[11:11.920 --> 11:20.320]  a bar grievance his voice goes up a couple of octaves and he wants out of the whole thing.
[11:24.000 --> 11:31.200]  There was something about a dagger at his throat and sort of Damocles hanging over you?
[11:31.200 --> 11:37.520]  Yeah well he didn't say Damocles but yeah he said a sword over his neck he said a dagger at
[11:37.520 --> 11:46.720]  his throat and he said I can't work with a gun to my head. It was pretty comical to hear how
[11:47.840 --> 11:56.960]  intense this looked for him and also kind of satisfied because what I'm discovering right
[11:56.960 --> 12:03.280]  now about the way that the state bar handles these things and should handle these things I'm
[12:03.280 --> 12:09.440]  seeing some discrepancies there and beginning to understand how I can hold them accountable for
[12:10.160 --> 12:20.080]  their new method of when they dismiss they call it an inquiry oh it's been classified as an inquiry
[12:20.080 --> 12:27.440]  and dismissed and I'm seeing what we can do about that. I also followed a records request you know
[12:27.440 --> 12:35.840]  how they sign they have a little stamped signature that has a first initial like D Smith and you
[12:36.800 --> 12:41.600]  how are you supposed to know which lawyer that was that gave you the D signature so I followed
[12:41.600 --> 12:48.720]  a records request and got them to identify the guy complete with his bar number so you know what
[12:48.720 --> 12:56.720]  I'll be doing tomorrow. Let me guess and the three guesses and the first two don't count.
[13:01.040 --> 13:08.080]  Yeah he will be getting a bar grievance. You emailed me about what was going on and was it
[13:08.080 --> 13:15.520]  Hood County? Oh yeah I was just texting you about the uh I finally got I heard back from
[13:15.520 --> 13:25.280]  um it's going back down trickle down from the Chief Justice Nathan Hect regarding the
[13:26.000 --> 13:32.320]  disqualification of the presiding regional judge who was supposed to be hearing the
[13:32.320 --> 13:40.480]  motion for disqualification of the county judge but that presiding regional judge can't hear the
[13:40.480 --> 13:49.600]  case and I can't get a rule on that because Judge Charles is himself the presiding regional judge
[13:49.600 --> 13:56.080]  he it has been I've already called him out for his criminal behavior so there's no way he could be
[13:56.080 --> 14:05.600]  fair and impartial well we finally heard back from Chief Justice Hect and he could pick another
[14:05.600 --> 14:11.360]  judge to pull in the district judge from somewhere else to go ahead and hear this motion for disqualification
[14:12.480 --> 14:19.280]  and guess what it turns out that the person he he pegged for this is also a presiding regional
[14:19.280 --> 14:27.520]  judge whom I have called out for his criminal behavior so he can't hear it either and so I
[14:27.520 --> 14:32.880]  would have had him filed a motion for his disqualification and of course that'll have to go
[14:32.880 --> 14:39.680]  back up to Hect and I don't imagine that'll be very comfortable conversations so so essentially
[14:39.680 --> 14:50.640]  what you're saying is the heck with it so I'm saying that the Supreme Court and the whole pile of
[14:50.640 --> 14:57.040]  all these lawyers can't seem to find one judge that is fair and impartial or that I haven't
[14:57.040 --> 15:05.600]  already called out for crimes this shouldn't be getting everybody's attention this is not
[15:05.600 --> 15:21.360]  going to look good because the feds so what's the status of that situation didn't you mention
[15:21.360 --> 15:28.160]  something about speedy trial yes I was thinking that I could go ahead and file for speedy trial
[15:28.160 --> 15:39.840]  today an objection to a lack of speedy trial and then on Saturday will be okay so Friday is the
[15:39.840 --> 15:50.480]  end of the three business days that the second regional judge has to do his duty to file for
[15:50.480 --> 15:58.800]  self-recusal or to refer the motion to Chief Justice Hect and if he doesn't do that then on
[15:58.800 --> 16:06.480]  Saturday I will go ahead and put together a criminal complaint for him not doing his job
[16:07.040 --> 16:15.200]  performing his sworn duty somehow I suspect they're not accustomed to this kind of treatment
[16:15.200 --> 16:20.960]  but if you had a bar card they would already have it in a bonfire
[16:26.880 --> 16:35.520]  okay hang on we're about to go to our sponsors and when we do check out our our sponsors they're
[16:35.520 --> 16:42.560]  what keeps this this show in the air and we have some special projects products there
[16:42.560 --> 16:52.160]  that will help everybody be able to achieve the kind of remedies that we talk to talk about
[16:52.160 --> 16:57.600]  on the air so check it out on while we're on the break we'll be right back
[17:03.680 --> 17:09.440]  it's the 2019 logos radio network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by central
[17:09.440 --> 17:15.840]  texas gunworks go to logosradio network dot com and enter to win any amount is appreciated
[17:15.840 --> 17:21.040]  everything helps to keep us on the air from central texas gunworks the grand prize up for
[17:21.040 --> 17:28.880]  grabs is a spikes tactical ar 15 more prizes and sponsors to be announced every 25 donation is a
[17:28.880 --> 17:35.440]  chance to win when you purchase randy kelton's ebook legal 101 you get four chances to win
[17:35.440 --> 17:40.800]  purchase eddie craig's traffic seminar and get 10 chances to win if you've enjoyed the shows on
[17:40.800 --> 17:46.080]  logos radio network support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality
[17:46.080 --> 17:52.080]  programming on talk radio today we also accept bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and remember
[17:52.080 --> 17:58.320]  every 25 dollar donation is a chance to win go to logos radio network dot com for details and
[17:58.320 --> 18:05.680]  donate today are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls letters or even losses
[18:05.680 --> 18:11.360]  stop debt collectors now with the michael miras proven method michael miras has won six cases in
[18:11.360 --> 18:16.720]  federal court against debt collectors and now you can win too you'll get step by step instructions
[18:16.720 --> 18:22.000]  in plain english on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes what to do when
[18:22.000 --> 18:27.520]  contacted by phones mail or court summons how to answer letters and phone calls how to get debt
[18:27.520 --> 18:33.120]  collectors out of your credit report how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you
[18:33.120 --> 18:38.960]  to go away the michael miras proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors
[18:38.960 --> 18:44.160]  personal consultation is available as well for more information please visit rule of law radio
[18:44.160 --> 18:50.160]  dot com and click on the blue michael miras banner or email michael miras at yahoo dot com that's
[18:50.160 --> 18:59.680]  rule of law radio dot com or email michael miras at yahoo dot com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[18:59.680 --> 19:22.720]  now
[19:22.720 --> 19:38.080]  okay we are back randy helton brett fountain we have a radio and we do have our phone lines
[19:38.080 --> 19:44.000]  open we'll keep them open all night our call in number 512 646 1984
[19:45.600 --> 19:49.120]  and brett did you have something else you wanted to address we do have a car
[19:49.120 --> 19:55.440]  where well i yeah i would like to just mention that i thought it was interesting i can't say you
[19:55.440 --> 20:03.440]  know necessarily connect the dots but it i thought it was interesting that this guy who is
[20:03.440 --> 20:11.920]  stepping in now to be the new presiding regional judge right before he stepped in
[20:11.920 --> 20:20.160]  and his predecessor was giving me a lot of slack and basically refusing to follow the law
[20:20.880 --> 20:29.680]  and after several rounds of pushback that judge just flat resigned now i don't know for sure i can't
[20:29.680 --> 20:38.160]  say 100 but it was you know be cause and effect but well certainly is interesting pushback what
[20:38.160 --> 20:46.400]  did what did pushback me like she would write me something and say i can't do what you're asking
[20:46.400 --> 20:51.440]  because the law doesn't allow me to and i would write her back and i would show her the law that
[20:51.440 --> 20:56.240]  commit that commanded her to do that and then she would write back and she would say well it
[20:56.240 --> 21:01.280]  wasn't timely you didn't file such and such you know timely and i would write back to her and i
[21:01.280 --> 21:09.520]  would show her the computation time and the rules that say that it was timely and she would write
[21:09.520 --> 21:16.640]  back and say something else trying to obviously trying to find a way to squeak out of doing what
[21:16.640 --> 21:26.000]  the law commands her to do and after several of those i got back a note from from the i don't
[21:26.000 --> 21:31.280]  know if it's the court coordinator secretary somebody that was helping out there said she's no
[21:31.280 --> 21:40.640]  longer here and we have a new judge here oh okay so you weren't bar grieving and
[21:44.000 --> 21:50.240]  no i did not bar grieve that judge i did a judicial conduct complaint one i believe i'm
[21:50.240 --> 21:56.160]  sorry maybe i meant to say judicial conduct sometimes i do bar grievances as well but i think with
[21:56.160 --> 22:09.760]  her i didn't yeah the elected judges give up their bar card the municipal judges and jp's
[22:09.760 --> 22:15.840]  tend not to because they also tend to practice they keep a little side business going right
[22:15.840 --> 22:20.320]  but once you become a county judge or a district judge you can no longer have a side practice
[22:21.520 --> 22:25.120]  so they give up their bar cards dang it
[22:28.000 --> 22:35.120]  okay we have a couple callers on we're going to start with john in new york hello john
[22:35.120 --> 22:47.840]  what do you have for us today well i've got a big word of thanks and a big word of congratulations
[22:47.840 --> 22:54.480]  i hope that i hope i'm not a little too premature but i sent you an email i'm not
[22:54.480 --> 23:00.400]  going to say too much on the air but i sent you an email to explain why i'm thanking you
[23:00.400 --> 23:09.520]  here and the bottom line is from what we understand as it now stands and it certainly appears
[23:10.560 --> 23:19.360]  that we've gotten we've gotten the first date and maybe better than first date and the email
[23:19.360 --> 23:23.760]  that i sent you will explain the whole thing i won't say anything on the air right now but
[23:24.800 --> 23:27.840]  it's pretty soon i'll be able to because it'll be all in the past
[23:27.840 --> 23:37.120]  but so i want to thank you for your help you've been very patient and i noticed that you took
[23:37.120 --> 23:43.680]  my call first tonight it certainly it certainly helps a great deal when we don't try to solve
[23:43.680 --> 23:52.320]  our problems in five minutes one in the morning yes anyway i thank you and while we're on the phone
[23:52.320 --> 24:04.080]  um maybe it's good that i ask a question and that is um let's see if i got this off the
[24:04.080 --> 24:09.520]  top of my head you tell me if i'm right or wrong i've been listening to you for a long time now
[24:10.080 --> 24:17.200]  and we'll see if i get this right here we go um traffic ticket is insufficient the charge is
[24:17.200 --> 24:24.400]  impositioned on its face because in order to allege the crime you have to allege all the
[24:24.400 --> 24:29.280]  elements of the crime and if it's a traffic ticket you have to allege all the elements
[24:29.920 --> 24:40.240]  of the crime which is uh the law has been actually written for commerce transportation in commerce
[24:40.240 --> 24:50.320]  and if the ticket doesn't say that it is either private or commercial and doesn't specify
[24:51.120 --> 24:57.120]  that is what makes the charge imposition is that correct that is exactly correct that should be
[24:58.000 --> 25:04.800]  the first element absent that element none of the other elements matter
[25:04.800 --> 25:13.040]  if a crime has been committed then it would have to be prosecuted under something else
[25:13.040 --> 25:22.000]  other than a traffic code for instance reckless driving reckless driving is not in the traffic
[25:22.000 --> 25:34.000]  code that's a criminal statute or reckless endangerment we could enforce traffic safety
[25:34.000 --> 25:40.240]  with the penal laws we didn't we don't need traffic statutes to enforce safety
[25:41.120 --> 25:47.760]  we can enforce gun safety with the penal laws we can enforce hammer safety with the penal laws
[25:48.720 --> 25:54.160]  i mean if i accidentally hit you with a hammer that's one thing but if i hit you with a hammer
[25:54.160 --> 26:02.560]  on purpose i don't need a special code for that so harming another individual we don't need a
[26:02.560 --> 26:09.840]  special code for that we already got code so if they want to charge you under that special code
[26:10.880 --> 26:18.160]  well then they need to have that special element that invokes the code that's commerce
[26:18.160 --> 26:25.440]  and you said that exactly right okay well i learned that from you finally it sunk in and finally
[26:25.440 --> 26:38.480]  i think i've got that understood um um let's see what else uh rather than to sit here and waste
[26:38.480 --> 26:49.040]  time um so the other it was always my impression and i could be wrong about this one um traffic
[26:49.040 --> 27:01.680]  tickets are indecisioned on their face oh oh oh i have uh case law and i'm gonna send it to you
[27:01.680 --> 27:07.280]  you tell me if this is if this is right or if it's totally barking the wrong up the wrong tree
[27:08.640 --> 27:14.000]  i've got case law there's one case law that the next case law that the next case law i have to find
[27:14.000 --> 27:22.960]  it and i'll send it to you um it the the gist of it goes like this that traffic tickets are in
[27:22.960 --> 27:29.760]  this they're not proper charging instruments and they are just an invitation to come in
[27:30.400 --> 27:36.960]  there are there um i think they called it a summon i can't remember what they called it but
[27:36.960 --> 27:42.880]  they they said that it's not a charging instrument that it does of itself and they've got case law
[27:42.880 --> 27:48.880]  to support this and i want to see if this is all correct or somebody made this up the case law does
[27:48.880 --> 27:57.200]  not give it um uh the court does not have a jurisdiction from the traffic ticket itself
[27:58.800 --> 28:03.360]  Brett and i'll find it Brett do you want to address this
[28:03.360 --> 28:14.400]  of the traffic tickets uh charging in charging instrument side well what they like to do is
[28:14.400 --> 28:20.640]  use a complaint i use a citation in place of a complaint and then pretend like a complaint
[28:20.640 --> 28:28.480]  without an information is enough on its own they actually want to skip over that whole thing and
[28:28.480 --> 28:34.000]  not label what anything is and just go try to push you right to the place where you make a
[28:35.200 --> 28:41.920]  plea but they only want you to enter a plea from the three that are their favorites they don't
[28:41.920 --> 28:50.720]  want you to enter a plea like in texas we have in the code of criminal procedure it's a 2702 and
[28:50.720 --> 28:56.960]  number one this says what are the pleadings of a defendant and the very first one on the top of the
[28:56.960 --> 29:06.640]  list is a plea to the you're pleading an exception to the charging instrument form or substance
[29:07.280 --> 29:11.200]  you're saying there's a problem with the charging instrument that's your number one first plea
[29:11.200 --> 29:16.640]  but they don't they will like to skip that one and get you to uh excuse me to the part where they
[29:16.640 --> 29:26.880]  allow themselves any written notice to substitute for a charging instrument and that's in in texas
[29:26.880 --> 29:35.280]  that's the uh code of criminal procedure 2714 subsection d um there's a lot more to talk about
[29:35.280 --> 29:42.960]  with that i know we're we're coming close to the the sponsor time here but uh suffice it to say
[29:42.960 --> 29:49.520]  it's all trickery smoke and mirrors and if you go along with it then they're happy
[29:51.280 --> 29:56.480]  okay hang on we're going to go to our sponsors we'll be right back
[30:01.440 --> 30:06.160]  businesses ask you for a lot of personal information and you may trust them to keep it safe
[30:06.160 --> 30:10.720]  but it turns out that even the most trusted companies may be unwittingly revealing your
[30:10.720 --> 30:17.760]  secrets i'm dr kathryn albrecht and i'll be right back with details privacy is under attack when you
[30:17.760 --> 30:22.800]  give up data about yourself you'll never get it back again and once your privacy is gone
[30:22.800 --> 30:28.720]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too so protect your rights say no to surveillance
[30:28.720 --> 30:34.480]  and keep your information to yourself privacy it's worth hanging on to this public service
[30:34.480 --> 30:39.760]  announcement is brought to you by start page dot com the private search engine alternative to google
[30:39.760 --> 30:48.080]  yahoo and bin start over with start page data privacy is a big deal so nearly every company
[30:48.080 --> 30:52.640]  has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information but what happens if it
[30:52.640 --> 30:58.880]  escapes their control it's not an idle question according to a recent survey a shocking 90 percent
[30:58.880 --> 31:04.800]  of u.s companies admit their security was breached by hackers in the last year that's one more reason
[31:04.800 --> 31:10.160]  you should trust your searches to start page dot com unlike other search engines start page doesn't
[31:10.160 --> 31:15.120]  store any data on you they've never been hacked but even if they were there would be nothing for
[31:15.120 --> 31:20.640]  criminals to see the cupboard would be bare too bad other companies don't treat your data the same
[31:20.640 --> 31:26.000]  way i'm dr kathryn albrecht more news and information at kathryn albrecht dot com
[31:26.000 --> 31:37.920]  i lost my son my uncle my son on september 11 2000 most people don't know that a third tower fell
[31:37.920 --> 31:43.200]  on september 11 world trade center seven a 47 story skyscraper was not hit by a plane
[31:43.200 --> 31:49.120]  although the official explanation is that fire brought down building seven over 1200 architects
[31:49.120 --> 31:53.440]  and engineers has looked into the evidence and believed there is more to the story bring justice
[31:53.440 --> 32:00.240]  to my son my uncle my nephew my son go to building what dot org why it fell why it matters as what you
[32:00.240 --> 32:06.560]  can do rule law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar in today's america we live
[32:06.560 --> 32:10.400]  in an us against them society if we the people are ever going to have a free society then we're
[32:10.400 --> 32:14.800]  going to have to stand and defend our own rights among those rights are the right to travel freely
[32:14.800 --> 32:18.560]  from place to place the right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly the right
[32:18.560 --> 32:23.040]  to due process of law traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how
[32:23.040 --> 32:27.440]  to enforce and preserve our rights through due process former sheriff's deputy eddie craig in
[32:27.440 --> 32:31.280]  conjunction with rule law radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[32:31.280 --> 32:35.520]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law
[32:35.520 --> 32:39.520]  you can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to rule law radio dot com
[32:39.520 --> 32:43.360]  and ordering your copy today by ordering now you'll receive a copy of eddie's book the texas
[32:43.360 --> 32:47.920]  transportation code the law versus the lie video and audio of the original 2009 seminar
[32:47.920 --> 32:51.840]  hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material learn how to fight for your
[32:51.840 --> 32:56.240]  rights with the help of this material for rule law radio dot com order your copy today and together
[32:56.240 --> 33:06.560]  we can have free society we all want and deserve live free speech radio logos radio network dot com
[33:06.560 --> 33:16.320]  ah
[33:16.320 --> 33:36.160]  the
[33:46.320 --> 33:51.320]  When you're gonna stop abusing your power
[33:51.320 --> 33:56.320]  When you're gonna stop abusing your power
[33:56.320 --> 34:02.320]  So please Mr. Mack, let's teach officers not to abuse their power
[34:02.320 --> 34:07.320]  Send a request to their leaders and upvote of our officers
[34:07.320 --> 34:13.320]  Tell them to uphold the law, abuse don't abuse their power
[34:13.320 --> 34:17.320]  I'm the chief, I'm the chief, I'm the chief, I'm the chief, I'm the light
[34:17.320 --> 34:21.320]  Every hour, so Mr. Officer
[34:21.320 --> 34:27.320]  Okay, we are back, Rule of Law Radio, Radie Kelton, and Brett Fountain
[34:27.320 --> 34:32.320]  And we're talking with John in New York, we're talking about charging instruments
[34:32.320 --> 34:39.320]  And how, as John, as you mentioned, that they are just invalid, insufficient on their face
[34:39.320 --> 34:44.320]  Not necessarily invalid, because as a citation, it might be perfectly valid
[34:44.320 --> 34:49.320]  But it's not sufficient to be a charging instrument
[34:49.320 --> 34:55.320]  John, Radie, can you turn John back on? It looks like he's still muted
[34:55.320 --> 34:58.320]  Oh, I thought you had the button
[34:58.320 --> 35:01.320]  Somebody muted John
[35:01.320 --> 35:02.320]  I'm here
[35:02.320 --> 35:03.320]  Hello John
[35:03.320 --> 35:08.320]  Okay, is there something else about that that you would like to talk to?
[35:08.320 --> 35:11.320]  About the charging instrument?
[35:11.320 --> 35:15.320]  There was one thing I wanted to address about the charging instrument
[35:15.320 --> 35:20.320]  This is what I thought you were going to go to
[35:20.320 --> 35:31.320]  At least in Texas, what they try to do is get you to accept the charging instrument
[35:31.320 --> 35:36.320]  And not raise an issue, and they just move ahead as if it was okay
[35:36.320 --> 35:42.320]  But it's not okay. What are they supposed to do, Brett?
[35:42.320 --> 35:53.320]  Well, they are supposed to have a district attorney or a county attorney bring a complaint and information, sworn complaint
[35:53.320 --> 36:00.320]  And the information that the district attorney or county attorney has drawn up based on that sworn complaint
[36:00.320 --> 36:05.320]  And file both of those documents in the lower court
[36:05.320 --> 36:13.320]  So you have, by law, you have this power of commencing a criminal case against people
[36:13.320 --> 36:17.320]  You have that power restricted to only a handful of people
[36:17.320 --> 36:24.320]  You don't just get to have any city attorney or assistant city attorney stirring up trouble left and right that they're going to get paid to litigate
[36:24.320 --> 36:28.320]  No way. The people do not allow that
[36:28.320 --> 36:31.320]  According to the law, they can't do that
[36:31.320 --> 36:36.320]  What they're supposed to do is wait for the case to be brought to the court
[36:36.320 --> 36:50.320]  So the district attorney or the county attorney would file those two documents, a complaint and information, in a court that would have jurisdiction to hear that
[36:50.320 --> 36:58.320]  So with a misdemeanor like that, a small offense, they would bring that to a municipal court
[36:58.320 --> 37:03.320]  And the municipal court would have its jurisdiction invoked
[37:03.320 --> 37:06.320]  However, that's not generally what they do
[37:06.320 --> 37:19.320]  They skip that whole, whole cart and they start from a citation and they like to really just not talk about it and skip over to the part where you're automatically going to enter a plea
[37:19.320 --> 37:28.320]  And make some reference, waive the citation around and make you feel guilty like you did something wrong and then ask you how you're going to plead to that charge
[37:28.320 --> 37:30.320]  That's not a charge
[37:30.320 --> 37:34.320]  Isn't there a way they can proceed on this citation alone?
[37:34.320 --> 37:47.320]  Yes, there is. And that's what we were just mentioning right before we went to hear from the sponsors was the 27.14 subsection D in our Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
[37:47.320 --> 37:51.320]  John, for you it'll be something different in New York, I'm not sure
[37:51.320 --> 37:54.320]  I can go look that up
[37:54.320 --> 38:13.320]  But in Texas, the effect of the 27.14 D is that for issues such as parking or a manner of parking and now they've removed that section, that piece of it so that it's just nondescript
[38:13.320 --> 38:26.320]  But the idea is that if you agree as the defendant, you agree with the prosecutor, you know what, you don't need to go through all the hoops
[38:26.320 --> 38:35.320]  I know I'm guilty, I parked backwards in that area, I realize that's a big, you don't have to do all of your normal rigmarole
[38:35.320 --> 38:40.320]  Just go ahead and let's get to the part where I pay and we're done
[38:40.320 --> 38:54.320]  That's the effect of 27.14 D, it says that you have to agree with the prosecutor, you have to expressly wave your right to have charging instruments brought to you against you
[38:54.320 --> 38:58.320]  And you have to find it and file it with the court
[38:58.320 --> 39:05.320]  Well they don't really like to be reminded about that, they would love to just skip right past that
[39:05.320 --> 39:18.320]  So there are three pleas that can be entered on such a, if you go without, if you want to just proceed on written notice alone
[39:18.320 --> 39:26.320]  Oh and by the way, this proceeding on written notice alone is also perfectly acceptable when it is a code violation
[39:26.320 --> 39:36.320]  If you have municipal codes, some ordinance say your bush was more than X number of inches tall and so, you know, we're going to give you a fine for that
[39:36.320 --> 39:44.320]  Or you parked on the wrong side of the street during a day when it was supposed to be the alternate side of the street
[39:44.320 --> 39:55.320]  They may have some codes and municipal ordinances and if you violate one of those, it's not really a crime and you can proceed on written notice alone
[39:55.320 --> 40:08.320]  So what they're trying to do with this Code of Criminal Procedure 2714 D is to get you to proceed in a criminal proceeding as if you don't have to have a charging instrument
[40:08.320 --> 40:18.320]  Even though every other part of the code in the Constitution itself is so super clear, it's not ambiguous at all, they have to have a charging instrument
[40:18.320 --> 40:24.320]  And the charging instrument is not ambiguous either, it's either an indictment or an information
[40:24.320 --> 40:27.320]  And the sworn complaint on which that was based
[40:27.320 --> 40:31.320]  Let me explain the difference between those two
[40:31.320 --> 40:40.320]  A criminal complaint is intended to be filed by an ordinary person, not a legal professional
[40:40.320 --> 40:45.320]  So criminal complaints are expected to be less formal
[40:45.320 --> 40:57.320]  When a prosecutor gets a criminal complaint, then the prosecutor as learned counsel converts that into a complaint that is in proper form
[40:57.320 --> 41:00.320]  And that's called the information
[41:00.320 --> 41:06.320]  So anytime you want to know how a complaint should be structured in a given state
[41:06.320 --> 41:11.320]  Just go to the criminal courts and look in the record for an information
[41:11.320 --> 41:21.320]  If you take that document, take information off, put complaint in its place, then you have a complaint in proper form
[41:21.320 --> 41:24.320]  That's my story and I'm sticking to it
[41:24.320 --> 41:33.320]  Okay, now tell me if I'm right, because a long time ago, that was one of the first questions I asked either you or Eddie
[41:33.320 --> 41:39.320]  And it seems like you said I was incorrect in what I'm about to tell you now
[41:39.320 --> 41:44.320]  So tell me if I'm right or wrong with what I've always believed
[41:44.320 --> 41:52.320]  A traffic ticket is not a proper charging instrument because tickets are handled in criminal court
[41:52.320 --> 42:05.320]  And our New York state constitution says any crime has to be, for lack of a better word, announced to the defendant as either an indictment or an information
[42:05.320 --> 42:14.320]  And since a traffic ticket is neither one, the court loses jurisdiction because it violated your due process according to your institution
[42:14.320 --> 42:15.320]  No, you're wrong
[42:15.320 --> 42:19.320]  And you told me that you told me it was wrong because
[42:19.320 --> 42:25.320]  It might say that in New York, but I would not think so
[42:25.320 --> 42:37.320]  Because with every state, they have made a provision to be able to efficiently move ahead on the citation as a charging instrument
[42:37.320 --> 42:50.320]  Like in Texas, while we can waive the indictment or information, if you don't raise that issue, it doesn't become an issue
[42:50.320 --> 43:01.320]  And since there is a methodology for doing that, the court can't necessarily, the higher court can't necessarily say you didn't do that right
[43:01.320 --> 43:04.320]  Because there is a mechanism to do it
[43:04.320 --> 43:07.320]  They just pretend like they did it without doing it
[43:07.320 --> 43:11.320]  So you're right and you're wrong
[43:11.320 --> 43:23.320]  A lot of times people have, you look through these cases where the city attorneys will tell you, oh, well, there's this case law that supports us being able to do this
[43:23.320 --> 43:36.320]  And every one of them that I've ever looked at has something along the lines of that the person didn't raise the issue and so they waived the issue
[43:36.320 --> 43:42.320]  They didn't stick to their, they didn't hold on to their rights, complain loudly all along the way
[43:42.320 --> 43:50.320]  They waited until it was somewhere down the line and they said, hey, but it was never actually a charging instrument
[43:50.320 --> 43:52.320]  Or in New York
[43:52.320 --> 43:56.320]  Hang on, be right back
[43:56.320 --> 44:04.320]  I love Logos, without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends
[44:04.320 --> 44:08.320]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back, I need my truth pick
[44:08.320 --> 44:13.320]  I'd be lost without Logos and I really want to help keep this network on the air
[44:13.320 --> 44:20.320]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements
[44:20.320 --> 44:22.320]  How can I help Logos?
[44:22.320 --> 44:27.320]  Well, I'm glad you asked, whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos
[44:27.320 --> 44:31.320]  With ordering your supplies or holiday gifts, first thing you do is clear your cookies
[44:31.320 --> 44:37.320]  Now go to LogosRegulnetwork.com, click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it
[44:37.320 --> 44:43.320]  Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos
[44:43.320 --> 44:44.320]  Do I pay extra?
[44:44.320 --> 44:45.320]  No
[44:45.320 --> 44:47.320]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[44:47.320 --> 44:48.320]  No
[44:48.320 --> 44:49.320]  Can I use my Amazon pride?
[44:49.320 --> 44:50.320]  No
[44:50.320 --> 44:51.320]  I mean yes
[44:51.320 --> 44:55.320]  Well, giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect
[44:55.320 --> 44:56.320]  Thank you so much
[44:56.320 --> 44:58.320]  We are Logos
[44:58.320 --> 45:27.320]  Happy Holidays Logos!
[45:28.320 --> 45:34.320]  Logos was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[45:34.320 --> 45:43.320]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts
[45:43.320 --> 45:52.320]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more
[45:52.320 --> 46:02.320]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ
[46:22.320 --> 46:37.320]  Logos was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[46:37.320 --> 47:04.320]  Logos was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience
[47:04.320 --> 47:09.320]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, ruleoflawradio
[47:09.320 --> 47:12.320]  And John, I hope we've answered all of your questions
[47:12.320 --> 47:14.320]  We do have some more callers
[47:14.320 --> 47:15.320]  Okay
[47:15.320 --> 47:17.320]  We're going to move ahead
[47:17.320 --> 47:21.320]  We're going to Tina in California
[47:21.320 --> 47:23.320]  I'll do anything
[47:23.320 --> 47:24.320]  Hello
[47:24.320 --> 47:29.320]  Hello Ms. Tina, what do you have for us today?
[47:29.320 --> 47:37.320]  Well, just to catch you up a little bit with what I did before I went on that little trip
[47:37.320 --> 47:48.320]  And what's happened since, because I didn't get a chance to tell the viewers that I pulled a Randy in court
[47:48.320 --> 47:52.320]  Well, not quite as good as a Randy, but you know, not bad
[47:52.320 --> 48:00.320]  I kind of, I just stood there and let the attorney have it, told the judge, you know, that he was a liar
[48:00.320 --> 48:08.320]  And that, you know, he misrepresented to the court and he made false promises
[48:08.320 --> 48:16.320]  And he just huffed and puffed and his face got red and he said, I'm deeply, deeply offended by this accusation
[48:16.320 --> 48:24.320]  Because I've been a lawyer and good standing for many years and I said to the judge, well, Narada, would you like me to give you some examples?
[48:24.320 --> 48:30.320]  You know, and I proceeded to give them and he was just mad mad
[48:30.320 --> 48:34.320]  But I didn't care, the judge was courteous
[48:34.320 --> 48:41.320]  I could tell she really wasn't, you know, I mean she likes the attorneys because she's a judge
[48:41.320 --> 48:47.320]  But she at least gave me the time of day to speak my piece
[48:47.320 --> 48:57.320]  And I read my notes basically and said what I wanted to say and I felt them good about it when I came out
[48:57.320 --> 49:00.320]  Good
[49:00.320 --> 49:08.320]  Yes, then she proceeded, you know, to sort of think on it
[49:08.320 --> 49:16.320]  And we'd already told third, you know, she gave a hearing date for January
[49:16.320 --> 49:25.320]  And then her ruling came the day before I was due to leave out of town with little to no internet access
[49:25.320 --> 49:31.320]  I mean, it came in the afternoon and I'm on the Saturday and I'm leaving the next morning
[49:31.320 --> 49:42.320]  And she gave me 10 days from the date of the letter being sent to respond, which gave me only eight days
[49:42.320 --> 49:49.320]  And of course I couldn't do it because I rushed off a request for an extension and was kind of polite and said
[49:49.320 --> 49:58.320]  You know, the honor may have forgotten with her busy schedule that in July we spoke about this time frame and I was going to be gone
[49:58.320 --> 50:06.320]  So October the 6th and you were going away and there's absolutely no way I can respond because I won't be even getting email
[50:06.320 --> 50:12.320]  I mean USPS mail. So I just hoped because I couldn't even access the court
[50:12.320 --> 50:17.320]  And when I got back there was a letter giving me till October the 17th
[50:17.320 --> 50:22.320]  I had asked for October the 31st knowing that they wouldn't give me that time
[50:22.320 --> 50:28.320]  But I thought if I ask for more I'll get more than they were planning to give me
[50:28.320 --> 50:33.320]  And then I was struggling to try to answer it
[50:33.320 --> 50:42.320]  But I did get some help today. I tried to get some help yesterday and it was a former attorney and that was a waste of time
[50:42.320 --> 50:49.320]  But the guy I got today I think he's not heard of your show but he thinks outside the box
[50:49.320 --> 50:56.320]  And I'll tell you all about him later but a couple of the things that I'd like to find out
[50:56.320 --> 51:08.320]  I got my answer file today. She brought up some things that, you know, obviously the way I answered
[51:08.320 --> 51:15.320]  She is going to rule for the bank on again the residue of the carter issue
[51:15.320 --> 51:24.320]  The only thing that comes down to that is the only argument they seem to have is residue of the carter
[51:24.320 --> 51:37.320]  Because as you know he had twice put in writing, that's the attorney, that he would send me the original note
[51:37.320 --> 51:45.320]  And so I relied upon that obviously to my detriment
[51:45.320 --> 51:53.320]  And when I look at the order, these are the things that are a little concerning to me
[51:53.320 --> 52:02.320]  She said, the court notes that the letter from McGinnity attached to the complaint that exhibit D states that were respondent
[52:02.320 --> 52:10.320]  They would provide petitioner with the original note and state that petitioner's obligation under the note has been satisfied
[52:10.320 --> 52:25.320]  And that's what the statute says, once the, you know, the loan is fully satisfied, the mortgage or, which was me, can request, or there is or signs can request the original note
[52:25.320 --> 52:36.320]  It says, however, the letter is clear that the obligation was considered satisfied due to the foreclosure sale and recording of the trustee's deed under sale
[52:36.320 --> 52:40.320]  Not because petitioner repaid respondent in full
[52:40.320 --> 52:49.320]  Now this is my comment here, which we haven't put in because this guy advised me to stick to some basic things
[52:49.320 --> 53:00.320]  If the total amount claimed as due and going at the sale was $516,909 and the sale price was $651,000
[53:00.320 --> 53:10.320]  My comment is therefore my equity in the property fully paid this note off as if I had paid it myself, which I tried to but the offer was refused
[53:10.320 --> 53:20.320]  And I told her that she didn't care. If there had been no equity, I would not have had this claim, but it was still sold for far less than market value
[53:20.320 --> 53:30.320]  So not only did they take out another $300,000 in equity that it would have sold for normally, but they got paid over and above
[53:30.320 --> 53:42.320]  Although I did get some of that back, but isn't your equity in the property? Isn't that paying for it? Because the statute doesn't say it must be paid by the mortgageor
[53:42.320 --> 53:53.320]  It could be paid by Gene, Uncle Bob, Randy Kelton's dear fund, the Queen of England, anybody could pay it
[53:53.320 --> 54:09.320]  It must be construed that the legislature did not concern itself with who satisfied the note, only that the note was satisfied
[54:09.320 --> 54:18.320]  If the legislature was concerned with who satisfied the note, they would have clarified
[54:18.320 --> 54:28.320]  That's what my thought was because it's my money that was in the property, not theirs
[54:28.320 --> 54:34.320]  Not as Sally, Billy, Bob Thornton or anybody else, it was my money
[54:34.320 --> 54:46.320]  Exactly, and you received some back. Now had you had more equity in it, you would have received more back
[54:46.320 --> 54:52.320]  So clearly your equity paid the bank
[54:52.320 --> 54:59.320]  So this is an improper statement by the judge
[54:59.320 --> 55:03.320]  Okay, and this would be able to go on appeal with that, right?
[55:03.320 --> 55:08.320]  Oh, absolutely
[55:08.320 --> 55:16.320]  Now then she goes on and I pulled up this, she says that the 2015 action involves the same injuries, same loans, same property
[55:16.320 --> 55:21.320]  And she goes on about the residue of the card which they always bring up
[55:21.320 --> 55:26.320]  And I wasn't sure, this is where I need your legal mind to interpret
[55:26.320 --> 55:34.320]  Petitioner also cites civil code section 2941, however that section applies to a certificate of discharge after satisfaction of a mortgage
[55:34.320 --> 55:42.320]  Well, whereas subject section B1 applies where as here the obligation was secured by the deed of trust
[55:42.320 --> 55:52.320]  Well, wasn't I the mortgageor under the deed of trust, wasn't the mortgage satisfied?
[55:52.320 --> 55:58.320]  The court makes a distinction without a difference
[55:58.320 --> 56:04.320]  Yeah, okay, distinction without a difference
[56:04.320 --> 56:13.320]  The legislature only required that the obligation be satisfied
[56:13.320 --> 56:22.320]  It made no stipulation in who satisfied it, how it was satisfied, when or where, only that it was
[56:22.320 --> 56:29.320]  Yes, and it was satisfied with my equity
[56:29.320 --> 56:39.320]  And I lost some of the equity because at foreclosure sale they don't bid a full asking price and I'd already offered the payment of what they'd said
[56:39.320 --> 56:43.320]  But everyone seems to be ignoring that
[56:43.320 --> 56:52.320]  And she just goes on on a couple of these last pages that where is it?
[56:52.320 --> 57:00.320]  Petitioner again sets forth authority related to standing but provides no analysis of the law to the facts of this case
[57:00.320 --> 57:11.320]  She simply states that because there exists a clear and active case or controversy between the parties as a better set forth in the verified petition for declaratory judgment
[57:11.320 --> 57:19.320]  The court must hold that the petitioner's response is sufficient to overrule respondent subjections
[57:19.320 --> 57:35.320]  Petitioner has, and it seems a bit contradictory here because she says petitioner has failed to make any argument showing that she has standing to seek the declaratory judgment or another remedy pursuant to civil code section 2941
[57:35.320 --> 57:44.320]  She further has offered no allegations to support the possibility of amendment and no legal authority showing the viability of new causes of action
[57:44.320 --> 57:48.320]  However, she gave me the opportunity to amend
[57:48.320 --> 57:52.320]  I have standing because I was the mortgageor
[57:52.320 --> 57:56.320]  It talks about the mortgageor
[57:56.320 --> 57:59.320]  I'm the one responsible for the payment
[57:59.320 --> 58:06.320]  I was the mortgageor under the deed of trust. Does that not give me standing?
[58:06.320 --> 58:28.320]  It sounds like the judge is not reading what the code says but is asking you to provide case law where some other judge or appellate court judge has ruled as to what the statute said
[58:28.320 --> 58:31.320]  Why do they do that, Randy?
[58:31.320 --> 58:40.320]  It's not ambiguous. If it were somehow hard to understand and somebody had to rule on it instead of pressing on it, here's what that means
[58:40.320 --> 58:43.320]  But when it's so clear, why do they do this?
[58:43.320 --> 58:49.320]  Hang on before we fall off the cliff. We'll be right back.
[58:49.320 --> 58:58.320]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it
[58:58.320 --> 59:06.320]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the Scripture
[59:06.320 --> 59:09.320]  Enter the recovery version
[59:09.320 --> 59:18.320]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9000 explanatory footnotes
[59:18.320 --> 59:28.320]  The difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the Word beyond which you've ever experienced before
[59:28.320 --> 59:33.320]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking
[59:33.320 --> 59:44.320]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[59:44.320 --> 59:49.320]  Ordering online at freestudybible.com
[59:49.320 --> 59:52.320]  That's freestudybible.com
[59:52.320 --> 01:00:00.320]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:00:00.320 --> 01:00:06.320]  The following use flash is brought to you by the low star lowdowns
[01:00:06.320 --> 01:00:17.320]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019, open with precious metals, gold $1429 an ounce, silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce,
[01:00:17.320 --> 01:00:29.320]  oil, Texas crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent crude $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52,
[01:00:29.320 --> 01:00:46.320]  Ethereum $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[01:00:46.320 --> 01:01:00.320]  Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a timed suitcase bomb, was detonated on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10 and entering 40.
[01:01:00.320 --> 01:01:04.320]  Today in history.
[01:01:04.320 --> 01:01:24.320]  And recent news, since the Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing Hepin to tax his law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including Houston, Austin, and San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment to test the Europe for THC.
[01:01:24.320 --> 01:01:33.320]  Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the law.
[01:01:33.320 --> 01:01:52.320]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials including the Attorney General stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities too like the district attorney in El Paso,
[01:01:52.320 --> 01:02:13.320]  Kyma Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[01:02:13.320 --> 01:02:22.320]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're charged with.
[01:02:22.320 --> 01:02:39.320]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark as the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[01:02:39.320 --> 01:02:51.320]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[01:02:51.320 --> 01:03:10.320]  This is Brooke Rody with the lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[01:03:10.320 --> 01:03:30.320]  Hello everybody!
[01:03:30.320 --> 01:03:56.480]  Okay, we are back. This is the rule of law radio, 17th of October, 2019. And we are
[01:03:56.480 --> 01:04:07.320]  talking with Tina in California. Tina? Hello, Tina. Oh, Tina. Somebody did not
[01:04:07.320 --> 01:04:14.680]  unmute your mic. I don't know who that was. I take no responsibility for my behavior.
[01:04:14.680 --> 01:04:22.640]  I'm a guy. Yes. I've got one other thing she brought up that I'd like to bring to
[01:04:22.640 --> 01:04:29.960]  you to see what you guys think. And maybe if you want to look at the actual code and
[01:04:29.960 --> 01:04:35.720]  study it and see, you know, sometime and see what you think for when I have the hearing,
[01:04:35.720 --> 01:04:40.640]  it says the loan and property was subject to a foreclosure sale. The respondent,
[01:04:40.640 --> 01:04:50.280]  the beneficiary under the deed of trust, that's the bank, substituted in, I'll shorten it, BDFTW,
[01:04:50.280 --> 01:04:56.960]  you know, those people in Texas, as trustee under the deed of trust. It is undisputed
[01:04:56.960 --> 01:05:05.600]  that petitioner is neither the beneficiary nor trustee. And as such, civil code section
[01:05:05.600 --> 01:05:12.800]  2941 is by its terms inapplicable to her. That section provides that the original note
[01:05:12.800 --> 01:05:17.560]  and deed of trust and request for a full recondition are to be sent to the trustee,
[01:05:17.560 --> 01:05:23.920]  not to the trustor. But I believe I've seen that it says once it's sent to the trustee,
[01:05:23.920 --> 01:05:31.360]  then the original, the mortgage or can request it from the trustee or the bank, whatever.
[01:05:31.360 --> 01:05:38.600]  And how can they take away my rights? They want me to pay, but they say I'm not the beneficiary
[01:05:38.600 --> 01:05:45.920]  of the trustee. I never was a trustee under the trust, under the note. I was the mortgage or,
[01:05:45.920 --> 01:05:54.320]  and that's what it says, the mortgage or. How can they tell me I'm not entitled to it because
[01:05:54.320 --> 01:06:10.120]  I'm not the trustee or the beneficiary? You've disappeared. Are you thinking or what's happening?
[01:06:10.120 --> 01:06:21.520]  I was jacking away and somebody had muted my mic. Mortgage or mortgagee. Mortgage or,
[01:06:21.520 --> 01:06:31.400]  is that the one who secures the mortgage or the one who grants the mortgage? And the mortgagee,
[01:06:31.400 --> 01:06:41.480]  is that the one who receives the mortgage or is that the one who lets the mortgage? My understanding
[01:06:41.480 --> 01:06:46.320]  is the mortgagee or is the one who pays the mortgage. The mortgagee is the one who gives you
[01:06:46.320 --> 01:06:53.760]  the mortgage. Okay. And what statute was that you read? It was a little too long and complex for me
[01:06:53.760 --> 01:07:07.880]  to understand just from reading. 20, 941. Okay. I would have to read that too. Yeah,
[01:07:07.880 --> 01:07:14.920]  because if they talk about the mortgage or being able to get the note and they don't make the
[01:07:14.920 --> 01:07:21.120]  distinction, they don't say once the loan is fully satisfied only by the mortgage or it doesn't say
[01:07:21.120 --> 01:07:30.120]  the mortgage has to be satisfied except in foreclosure cases. It doesn't mention the foreclosure
[01:07:30.120 --> 01:07:37.200]  as such with the mortgage or it just says, as you claim, it just says it has to be paid. Now,
[01:07:37.200 --> 01:07:45.680]  if Randy decided to be really nice to me and came and paid off my note because he got this
[01:07:45.680 --> 01:07:51.960]  sudden wing fall and he said, you know, I'm going to pay your mortgage. They wouldn't give the original
[01:07:51.960 --> 01:08:00.080]  note to Randy Kelton. They would send it to me, right? Even if you paid it off. Yes. While you were
[01:08:00.080 --> 01:08:11.680]  speaking, I had a question. But you kept speaking and I think I lost it. He'll come back in a
[01:08:11.680 --> 01:08:21.400]  second. It was a really pertinent question. Okay. Go ahead. I'll have to dig that back out of my
[01:08:21.400 --> 01:08:40.360]  rusty brain. I'm thinking here. I can send you the judges. Oh, I got it. Oh, did the judge in her
[01:08:40.360 --> 01:08:53.120]  ruling parent the arguments made by opposing counsel or did the judge rule based on issues
[01:08:53.120 --> 01:09:03.960]  that opposing counsel had not brought? No, the issue where it says it is indisputed that petitioners
[01:09:03.960 --> 01:09:11.040]  neither the beneficiary nor the trustee. That is exactly what the other side put in their response.
[01:09:11.040 --> 01:09:20.600]  Did the other side bring case law to support that assertion? Not that I recall. I would have to look
[01:09:20.600 --> 01:09:27.400]  back at that, but I don't recall there was case law about it. In fact, I'm pretty certain there
[01:09:27.400 --> 01:09:36.760]  was no case law. Okay. Back to the rule. The judge must determine the facts in accordance with the
[01:09:36.760 --> 01:09:48.400]  rules of evidence, then apply the law as it comes to her to the facts in the case. So if the lawyer
[01:09:48.400 --> 01:09:57.720]  on the other side made an assertion of law out of his own mouth, he brought nothing before the
[01:09:57.720 --> 01:10:06.800]  court because there is no law in that assertion for the judge to apply to the facts. And it sounds
[01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:15.320]  like she applied proactive statements of law out of the mouth of the attorney as if they were actually
[01:10:15.320 --> 01:10:26.960]  cited law. That would be a good question to ask. And a good question to brief out is the kind of
[01:10:26.960 --> 01:10:35.160]  thing that the Supreme will look at. Randy, is it your impression that a lot of judges do this?
[01:10:35.160 --> 01:10:42.240]  That they seem to maybe not know the law themselves, but if the prosecutor rattles on about something,
[01:10:42.240 --> 01:10:45.920]  or not just the prosecutor, it could be any attorney rattles on about something, why they've
[01:10:45.920 --> 01:10:55.720]  been to law school. Exactly. They do that all the time. They almost never cross-check other
[01:10:55.720 --> 01:11:01.840]  lawyers. And this is even worse than that. This is where the lawyer simpsily makes a
[01:11:01.840 --> 01:11:09.520]  statement of law. And I see this in pleadings all the time. But they're not allowed to make
[01:11:09.520 --> 01:11:15.120]  proactive statements of law out of their own mouth. Exactly. But instead of the judge calling them out
[01:11:15.120 --> 01:11:21.120]  for that, they go along with it. That she goes along with it. And this is what gets the law in such
[01:11:21.120 --> 01:11:27.240]  a mess. You know, Eddie Craig called me once and asked me about, I think, this Rodriguez V. Stata
[01:11:27.240 --> 01:11:36.160]  traffic issue case that had been to the Supreme. And he said, have you ever read that case? I said,
[01:11:36.160 --> 01:11:41.840]  no, haven't. He said he read it. Didn't have anything to do with traffic. Didn't have anything to
[01:11:41.840 --> 01:11:49.720]  do with what it was cited for. So how does it get cited all the way up to the Supreme when it
[01:11:49.720 --> 01:11:59.280]  doesn't go to the issue at all? Took a while to think about that one. Right. What I think happened
[01:11:59.280 --> 01:12:08.640]  is a well-known, well-respected lawyer went to his paralegal and gave him an argument. And the
[01:12:08.640 --> 01:12:18.120]  paralegal in typing up the motion or pleading juxtaposed some letters or something and got
[01:12:18.120 --> 01:12:24.960]  all guns, all this and they put the wrong thing in there guns, all this. And it put the wrong
[01:12:24.960 --> 01:12:32.040]  citation in. Nobody checked. The judge trusted the citation by the lawyer. And then the court of
[01:12:32.040 --> 01:12:38.680]  appeals gets it and they trusted the lawyer and they trusted the judge. So nobody looked it up
[01:12:38.680 --> 01:12:47.120]  and read it. And it went on with the Supreme. And it was simply a bummer case. Somebody made a
[01:12:47.120 --> 01:12:55.960]  mistake. Nobody checked it. These things do happen. Ben Drum hammered the IRS because they cited
[01:12:55.960 --> 01:13:03.280]  two cases that said exactly what they needed them to say. Ben back to read the cases and he
[01:13:03.280 --> 01:13:10.040]  called back laughing. He said, you're not going to believe this. Both of those cases had a section
[01:13:10.040 --> 01:13:18.400]  that said what the lawyer wanted it to say. But this was what the law used to be. This case
[01:13:18.400 --> 01:13:25.040]  changed it to something else. They just read the keynotes. They didn't read the old case. So he
[01:13:25.040 --> 01:13:29.800]  took both of those cases and brought them back to court and crammed them down the IRS's throat.
[01:13:29.800 --> 01:13:39.480]  The judge was so furious at the IRS lawyers that he granted his petition to remove an IRS
[01:13:39.480 --> 01:13:47.440]  lien. And that almost never happens. Another judge put it back. But this judge was just spanking
[01:13:47.440 --> 01:13:55.920]  these lawyers for giving him bad case law. Tina, this sounds like what's going on here. Go back
[01:13:55.920 --> 01:14:05.600]  and read the pleading. Read her what she's stating. And go back and find where there's law supporting
[01:14:05.600 --> 01:14:15.320]  what she said in the opponent's pleadings. This judge doesn't go out, get to go out and look
[01:14:15.320 --> 01:14:25.520]  up the law herself. She must address the law as it comes to her. So if she hasn't, it sounds like
[01:14:25.520 --> 01:14:31.720]  she's, these guys have got the courts paid off and she's doing everything she can to give them
[01:14:31.720 --> 01:14:37.640]  a ruling they want. Now is a good time to hammer her on these details. I doubt she'll see that
[01:14:37.640 --> 01:14:43.920]  coming. I've got it right here. It says the complaint failed under the doctrine of verse
[01:14:43.920 --> 01:14:52.640]  due to Carter. And then it gives, okay, just my previous cases. And it says the complaint failed
[01:14:52.640 --> 01:14:59.040]  as a matter of law because plaintiff is neither a beneficiary nor trustee under the deed of trust
[01:14:59.040 --> 01:15:07.000]  code of civil procedure 430.10e. Accordingly, the demure to the complaint must be sustained in
[01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:11.720]  its entire tree. Further, since the doctrine of verse due to Carter bars this litigation all
[01:15:11.720 --> 01:15:16.440]  together and because plaintiff is not entitled to the territory release, the demure must be
[01:15:16.440 --> 01:15:22.480]  sustained, sustained without leave to amend. That's what they say when they bring that in. No case
[01:15:22.480 --> 01:15:29.760]  law, just a civil code of procedure. And he's the one that actually put in writing that he was
[01:15:29.760 --> 01:15:40.080]  going to send me a note. That's a promissory board by an attorney. That would go to collateral
[01:15:40.080 --> 01:15:48.160]  estoppel. Yes. But, and I said that to the judge in the hearing, he has a stop from doing this
[01:15:48.160 --> 01:15:55.600]  under California evidence code. He can't change his mind, you know, and contradict himself in any
[01:15:55.600 --> 01:16:01.880]  further litigation once you've put something in writing that you're, you know, making a promise.
[01:16:01.880 --> 01:16:09.920]  And look at your pleadings. Look for any issues in the, that you raised in the pleadings that the
[01:16:09.920 --> 01:16:17.440]  judge did not address. You mentioned one they completely ignored. That should get a criminal
[01:16:17.440 --> 01:16:25.320]  complaint against the judge. That's a denial or due process. One of the things they do is they get
[01:16:25.320 --> 01:16:31.520]  something they can't answer the way they want it answered. They just ignore it. Well, the judge
[01:16:31.520 --> 01:16:38.360]  failed by ignoring that issue and not ruling on it. Then she denied you and your right to petition
[01:16:38.360 --> 01:16:51.160]  the court for redressing grievance. That's a client. Okay. Okay. Hang on. Going to our sponsors. This
[01:16:51.160 --> 01:16:58.800]  is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, and over the break, check out our sponsors. We'll be right back.
[01:16:58.800 --> 01:17:06.000]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt
[01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:11.800]  collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method. Michael Maris has won six cases in federal court
[01:17:11.800 --> 01:17:16.880]  against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain
[01:17:16.880 --> 01:17:22.400]  English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statute. What to do when contacted by
[01:17:22.400 --> 01:17:27.920]  phone, mail, or court summons? How to answer letters and phone calls? How to get debt collectors out
[01:17:27.920 --> 01:17:33.560]  of your credit report? How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[01:17:33.560 --> 01:17:39.840]  The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation
[01:17:39.840 --> 01:17:45.400]  is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue
[01:17:45.400 --> 01:17:52.480]  Michael Maris banner or email Michael Maris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email
[01:17:52.480 --> 01:18:05.240]  M-I-C-H-A-E-L-M-I-R-R-A-S at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. It's the 2019
[01:18:05.240 --> 01:18:10.680]  Logos Radio Network annual fundraiser and gun giveaway sponsored by Central Texas Gun Works.
[01:18:10.680 --> 01:18:17.040]  Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com and enter to win. Any amount is appreciated. Everything helps to
[01:18:17.040 --> 01:18:23.320]  keep us on the air. From Central Texas Gun Works, the grand prize up for grabs is the Spikes Tactical
[01:18:23.320 --> 01:18:30.800]  AR-15. More prizes and sponsors to be announced. Every $25 donation is a chance to win. When you
[01:18:30.800 --> 01:18:36.800]  purchase Randy Kelton's ebook, Legal 101, you get four chances to win. Purchase Eddie Craig's
[01:18:36.800 --> 01:18:42.320]  Traffic Seminar and get 10 chances to win. If you've enjoyed the shows on Logos Radio Network,
[01:18:42.320 --> 01:18:47.960]  support our fundraiser so we can keep bringing you the best quality programming on talk radio
[01:18:47.960 --> 01:18:54.880]  today. We also accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. And remember, every $25 donation is a chance
[01:18:54.880 --> 01:19:13.280]  to win. Go to LogosRadioNetwork.com for details and donate today.
[01:19:24.880 --> 01:19:40.080]  Well, it ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again. I was blindsided but now I can see your
[01:19:40.080 --> 01:19:48.480]  back. You put the fear in my pockets, took the money from my head. Ain't gonna fool me with that
[01:19:48.480 --> 01:19:59.840]  same old trick again. I ain't gonna fool me with that same old trick again.
[01:20:11.120 --> 01:20:16.000]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain with Logo Radio, and we're talking to Tina in
[01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:24.560]  California. And Tina, we do need to move along. We've got a whole board full of callers. I lost
[01:20:24.560 --> 01:20:30.640]  that word. I had to dig it out of my cobwebs. But I thought that was a really important point to
[01:20:30.640 --> 01:20:38.160]  make. It's something we forget. We read these pleadings and the lawyer says something and
[01:20:38.160 --> 01:20:47.840]  we get caught up in the content and sometimes we don't take a step back and look at the structure.
[01:20:49.120 --> 01:20:57.200]  So look close at your pleadings to find where the lawyer's making arguments out of his own mouth
[01:20:57.200 --> 01:21:04.720]  as opposed to out of the mouth of the courts. Does that make sense, Tina? Yes, it makes sense.
[01:21:04.720 --> 01:21:12.880]  And then if anyone is in need of another person to help write things, I do have a very good
[01:21:12.880 --> 01:21:20.080]  paralegal that I can recommend if they want to contact me. He is outside of the box thinker,
[01:21:21.360 --> 01:21:26.720]  much more affordable than an attorney. And, you know, kind of makes you think about it.
[01:21:26.720 --> 01:21:35.040]  So and he's very quick to respond and get things written. Good, good. Okay, we do need to move
[01:21:35.040 --> 01:21:41.520]  along. We've got a whole board full of callers tonight. If you have more, Tina, call us back
[01:21:41.520 --> 01:21:49.680]  tomorrow night. We'll have more time. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Tina. Now we're going to James in Texas.
[01:21:49.680 --> 01:21:59.280]  Hello, James. Hello. What do you have for us today? Well, a couple of different things.
[01:22:00.960 --> 01:22:07.760]  Last month, I do have to say that I signed up for recurring payment logos radio. So
[01:22:09.120 --> 01:22:15.120]  this should be the second month y'all been getting some donations from me. Wonderful.
[01:22:15.120 --> 01:22:26.480]  Did you also sign up for Randy's Pure Fund? I did not do that yet. Oh my goodness. I guess
[01:22:26.480 --> 01:22:33.920]  it's a good thing I quit drinking beer. But no, I had a trial last Wednesday. And of course,
[01:22:33.920 --> 01:22:39.120]  I got my rearing handed to me. It's kind of hard to win when it's four on one.
[01:22:39.120 --> 01:22:50.560]  Two speeding charges and one failure to display ID. Of course, judge wouldn't let me get anything in.
[01:22:51.200 --> 01:22:59.120]  Overruled absolutely every objection I made sustained every objection possibly you're made.
[01:22:59.120 --> 01:23:09.840]  Sounds like far for the course. Yeah. And honestly, I didn't think I wasn't as prepared as I should
[01:23:09.840 --> 01:23:19.600]  have been because I wasn't thinking it would get a trial. I forgot about the JPs. There was
[01:23:19.600 --> 01:23:25.280]  disqualification motion in there. The first JP recused himself when I filed a disqualification
[01:23:25.280 --> 01:23:32.480]  motion against him along with criminal complaint for denying my motion for a fair and impartial
[01:23:32.480 --> 01:23:45.840]  trial. Yeah, I couldn't believe that happened. But anyway, so and I forgot that JPs don't have
[01:23:45.840 --> 01:23:54.800]  to deal with it with a disqualification. They can just say no. Wait, did you say you filed a
[01:23:54.800 --> 01:24:02.000]  disqualification on the second judge or not? Yes, yes. And what did the second judge do?
[01:24:03.200 --> 01:24:11.360]  He denied me access to the record. I went in to view the record and filed a couple of new motions
[01:24:12.160 --> 01:24:19.200]  and talking to the court court judge is sitting right there 10 feet away listening to the conversation.
[01:24:19.200 --> 01:24:25.200]  And she said, well, there's nothing new been added. And I said, well, you know, I would like to
[01:24:25.200 --> 01:24:31.040]  physically expect record. I fully expected the first judge put a lot of nasty notes in there.
[01:24:32.400 --> 01:24:38.720]  He and I kind of butted heads. And she just said, well, there's nothing in there. And I just,
[01:24:38.720 --> 01:24:42.480]  I'm kind of looking at the judge going, is he going to tell her to give me the record or not?
[01:24:42.480 --> 01:24:50.560]  And he did. So that's why he got a disqualification motion. And then, you know, when
[01:24:51.600 --> 01:24:55.200]  Hold on, did you file criminally against the clerk?
[01:24:57.600 --> 01:25:04.560]  Yes, I did. Good for you. Everything, everything has been, I mean, I filed against
[01:25:04.560 --> 01:25:09.680]  a couple of clerks 123 between Angelina County and Nacogdoches County.
[01:25:09.680 --> 01:25:23.920]  Three law enforcement officers, five judges, three prosecutors, the district attorney in both counties
[01:25:23.920 --> 01:25:30.560]  because they're hiding my criminal complaints from the grand jury. So I guess next step is
[01:25:30.560 --> 01:25:40.480]  either. Wait, wait, wait, where did you file the complaints against the district attorneys?
[01:25:41.440 --> 01:25:50.080]  Well, in Nacogdoches County, I went in and they just, the clerk there just told me,
[01:25:50.800 --> 01:25:56.240]  you got to file those with you, the police department or sheriff's department, we don't
[01:25:56.240 --> 01:26:05.520]  do that here. And I went, well, okay. And so I mailed them to the grand jury in care of the
[01:26:05.520 --> 01:26:12.320]  district attorney. Never got that letter back. Okay, now file.
[01:26:12.320 --> 01:26:16.000]  Same thing in Angelina. With, go ahead.
[01:26:17.280 --> 01:26:24.160]  I said, and I did the same thing with the DA. Now, the investigator for the DA in Angelina
[01:26:24.160 --> 01:26:28.880]  County, to her credit, she took my criminal complaint and told me she would get them to the
[01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:34.320]  district attorney. I never heard anything from them. So I did the same thing, mailed them
[01:26:34.880 --> 01:26:43.920]  to the grand jury foreman in care of the district attorney. Okay. Okay. Did you mail criminal charges
[01:26:43.920 --> 01:26:50.160]  against the district attorney to the grand jury? Yes, sir. Good. Now, both of them.
[01:26:50.160 --> 01:26:58.480]  Now, mail criminal charges against the district attorney, accusing him of shielding himself
[01:26:58.480 --> 01:27:02.880]  from prosecution and file that with the local Texas Ranger.
[01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:12.640]  Okay, that's what I was thinking. Yeah, what they did is, Ronald got this
[01:27:12.640 --> 01:27:21.520]  public integrity unit financed by the legislature, and then he misused it horribly. And they took
[01:27:21.520 --> 01:27:27.840]  it away from him and gave it to the Rangers. They made it the duty of the Rangers to investigate
[01:27:27.840 --> 01:27:35.200]  public officials and asked the Rangers to set up their own protocols. Prior to this,
[01:27:35.200 --> 01:27:40.160]  a Ranger had to have written permission from the director of the Department of Public Safety
[01:27:40.160 --> 01:27:46.720]  himself in order to investigate a public official. Well, that power was taken away because they were
[01:27:46.720 --> 01:27:53.760]  given this specific authority. So they set up a protocol requiring the Ranger to ask permission
[01:27:54.560 --> 01:28:01.280]  from the prosecuting attorney. So we want to set up the prosecuting attorney
[01:28:02.240 --> 01:28:06.480]  so that you have criminal charges against him that you filed with the Ranger.
[01:28:06.480 --> 01:28:15.600]  Then when the Ranger doesn't act, you accuse him of requesting permission from the U.S.
[01:28:15.600 --> 01:28:21.920]  from the prosecuting attorney to investigate the prosecuting attorney in accordance with
[01:28:21.920 --> 01:28:28.560]  the improper protocols set up by the Texas Rangers and named the director himself
[01:28:29.600 --> 01:28:33.280]  in a complaint as well. We've had several people do that already.
[01:28:33.280 --> 01:28:41.920]  I was, one of my questions was going to be, do I go that route or do I go to the district judge
[01:28:41.920 --> 01:28:49.440]  here one day when he's having motions hearing? I would go to the Ranger first. He is actually
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:56.160]  in line because the Rangers are put in place to investigate public officials.
[01:28:57.280 --> 01:29:02.880]  Okay. And then you get to go to the district judge with complaints against the director of
[01:29:02.880 --> 01:29:11.120]  the DPS. And then the district judge gets to watch his whole career pass before his eyes.
[01:29:16.240 --> 01:29:24.720]  But anyway, I had a good post going in my file box there on the table and of course the bailiff.
[01:29:25.520 --> 01:29:29.680]  Okay, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. We're getting close to the end of this segment.
[01:29:29.680 --> 01:29:38.880]  This is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain. We have our radio and make sure you check out our sponsors.
[01:29:38.880 --> 01:29:45.680]  We still have our fundraiser going and James has kind of set the example.
[01:29:47.680 --> 01:29:55.440]  Go on, just pledge a dollar or two a month. It will go a long way. It adds up and will help
[01:29:55.440 --> 01:29:59.440]  keep this show on the air. We'll be right back.
[01:30:02.880 --> 01:30:07.920]  Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us
[01:30:07.920 --> 01:30:13.040]  dumber just keeps on growing. But now researchers say we can add stress to the list.
[01:30:13.040 --> 01:30:15.920]  I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht. Back with details in a moment.
[01:30:16.640 --> 01:30:22.240]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:30:22.240 --> 01:30:26.640]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.280 --> 01:30:32.640]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.640 --> 01:30:38.080]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:30:38.080 --> 01:30:44.160]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.920 --> 01:30:48.960]  Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects?
[01:30:48.960 --> 01:30:53.600]  If so, you might think that multitasking proves you're smart. But think again,
[01:30:53.600 --> 01:30:58.880]  all that stress might be eating your brain. A new study, Find Stress, reduces the number
[01:30:58.880 --> 01:31:03.760]  of connections between neurons, which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems.
[01:31:04.320 --> 01:31:08.560]  Researchers at Yale University found that stressed out people have less grain
[01:31:08.560 --> 01:31:12.720]  matter in their prefrontal cortex. That's the part of the brain that helps us wake
[01:31:12.720 --> 01:31:18.560]  inflicting ideas and regulate our emotions. So take a deep breath and chill out. It'll
[01:31:18.560 --> 01:31:24.320]  help keep your mind as sharp as a tack. I'm Dr. Cameron Albrecht for StartPage.com,
[01:31:24.320 --> 01:31:26.240]  the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.360 --> 01:31:36.800]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.800 --> 01:31:41.600]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1500 architects and engineers have
[01:31:41.600 --> 01:31:46.160]  concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given
[01:31:46.160 --> 01:31:50.480]  their lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders have died. I'm not a conspiracy
[01:31:50.480 --> 01:31:53.520]  theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an
[01:31:53.520 --> 01:31:58.400]  Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We are Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.400 --> 01:32:01.200]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:02.880 --> 01:32:06.880]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law Traffic Seminar. In today's America,
[01:32:06.880 --> 01:32:10.240]  we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people, are ever going to have a free
[01:32:10.240 --> 01:32:14.400]  society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are
[01:32:14.400 --> 01:32:18.000]  the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:22.080]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least
[01:32:22.080 --> 01:32:26.400]  expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.400 --> 01:32:30.160]  Former Sheriff's Deputy A. Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[01:32:30.160 --> 01:32:34.240]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is
[01:32:34.240 --> 01:32:37.920]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable
[01:32:37.920 --> 01:32:42.160]  material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now,
[01:32:42.160 --> 01:32:46.080]  you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law versus the Lie,
[01:32:46.080 --> 01:32:50.240]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research documents and other
[01:32:50.240 --> 01:32:53.760]  useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material
[01:32:53.760 --> 01:32:58.640]  from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all
[01:32:58.640 --> 01:33:12.720]  want and deserve. You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:29.360 --> 01:33:40.560]  Okay, we are back. This is the rule of law radio. Randy Tilton. I'm Brett Fountain.
[01:33:41.200 --> 01:33:46.400]  We're talking with James in Texas. James, one thing that came to my mind about your
[01:33:46.400 --> 01:33:52.000]  situation there is just in case you are ever really, you do want to take a look at the record.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:56.240]  I understand in this case that they prevented you from looking at the record.
[01:33:56.240 --> 01:34:04.160]  One thing that I think is interesting to ask for is comments and notes on the case because they
[01:34:04.160 --> 01:34:10.880]  keep little internal records of when the prosecutor reached out to the judge and they made some little
[01:34:10.880 --> 01:34:15.360]  ex parte agreement back and forth and on such and such a date at such and such a time,
[01:34:16.080 --> 01:34:21.280]  the judge responded back to the prosecutor ex parte and it's really interesting to be able
[01:34:21.280 --> 01:34:25.200]  to see all that stuff. Oh, they made their little decision of what they were going to do and then
[01:34:25.200 --> 01:34:32.240]  three days later they finally sent a notice about it. Oh, interesting. Yeah, that's kind of what I
[01:34:32.240 --> 01:34:40.640]  was wanting to look at. But you know, when we got ready to go, we got ready to go in the courtroom.
[01:34:43.440 --> 01:34:47.520]  The basis asked me if I was recording and I said, well, actually, yeah, I've got a GoPro
[01:34:47.520 --> 01:34:55.600]  going here in my phone box. And he said, oh, we can't record. I said, well, but here he had the right to.
[01:34:55.600 --> 01:35:05.840]  He said, okay, here, come on, we walked over to the box, turned the GoPro off and pulled the battery
[01:35:05.840 --> 01:35:10.720]  out and dropped the camera in my box and I said, do you want me to put the battery in here or would
[01:35:10.720 --> 01:35:16.480]  you like to hold on to it? And he said, well, I'll hold it and I'll give it back to you when we're
[01:35:16.480 --> 01:35:22.160]  done. Okay. And so then I take my phone and I showed him my turn powered my phone off. So I'm not
[01:35:22.160 --> 01:35:27.040]  recording anything. He's going, well, this is a, you know, not a quarter record. I said, well,
[01:35:27.040 --> 01:35:33.920]  I understand that I want to make my own record. That's policy can't do it. So, but what?
[01:35:35.920 --> 01:35:40.880]  I'm sure I can file a criminal charge against it for that. But what would it be?
[01:35:40.880 --> 01:35:50.000]  Randy, you had recently, you said that there was a recent ruling about that, right? Where
[01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:56.160]  people are allowed to record. Turner driver. Turner driver. Now, Fort Worth case.
[01:35:58.720 --> 01:36:02.880]  The Fifth Circuit finally ruled that we have the right to record our public officials in
[01:36:02.880 --> 01:36:11.280]  the performance of their duty. And the, the bailiff saying that this is not a court of record.
[01:36:12.640 --> 01:36:16.640]  That's probably the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Well,
[01:36:17.600 --> 01:36:24.800]  not a court of record merely means that the court itself is not required to keep a record.
[01:36:24.800 --> 01:36:32.000]  Got it. And I understood that. But is the criminal charge a file against him?
[01:36:33.120 --> 01:36:41.840]  Yeah, file against him for denying you due process, 3903. And he's going to say that the judge told
[01:36:41.840 --> 01:36:48.800]  him to. This is what I did in Wheatley County. They had two things. It wouldn't let me take
[01:36:48.800 --> 01:36:55.440]  a cell phone in. And once the court started, they locked the door. You could only go in
[01:36:55.440 --> 01:37:03.520]  if they took a break or something. And I filed against the bailiff. And he assured me that
[01:37:04.560 --> 01:37:13.120]  they were following the rules of the court. And I assured him I didn't care that you're the one
[01:37:13.120 --> 01:37:21.600]  that did not let me into the courtroom. I don't care who told you that. You're the one that did
[01:37:21.600 --> 01:37:27.360]  it. And he said, well, it's the judge's rules. Well, that's what you're telling me. But I checked
[01:37:27.360 --> 01:37:33.440]  the rules of court put out by the Tennessee Supreme Court. And that was not in there.
[01:37:35.440 --> 01:37:38.560]  So somebody made this one up. And I don't care who it was.
[01:37:38.560 --> 01:37:47.280]  You're the one keeping me from going into the court. You're the one I charge. If the bailiff,
[01:37:47.280 --> 01:37:52.480]  if the judge is the one that, and I just told him a couple of days ago that I was going to be
[01:37:52.480 --> 01:37:58.240]  challenging that, that I would come back to challenges. We'll make sure you get here before
[01:37:58.240 --> 01:38:03.440]  nine o'clock. Oh, no, I'm going to get here after nine o'clock and say, well, we won't let you in.
[01:38:03.440 --> 01:38:10.080]  That's what I hope. I need you to not let me in so that I have standing to bring a claim.
[01:38:11.440 --> 01:38:19.280]  He said, you bring claim against me? Yeah. Then you got the option of asking the judge to throw
[01:38:19.280 --> 01:38:24.800]  himself under the bus. And one of the other bailiff says, well, that's not going to happen.
[01:38:24.800 --> 01:38:34.800]  And I said, that's pitiful. That's pitiful that, that you guys have to labor under that condition
[01:38:34.800 --> 01:38:44.000]  that you think that the judge would not take you off the dime. So I will take you off the dime
[01:38:44.000 --> 01:38:51.280]  because I'll go after the judge and I'll accuse the judge of setting you up. He said, oh, you're
[01:38:51.280 --> 01:38:56.400]  going to get us in trouble. Oh, God, that's going to be great fun. But the bailiffs have got to know
[01:38:56.400 --> 01:39:05.680]  me and they do everything they can to be nice after I hammered their captain. But yeah, I would
[01:39:05.680 --> 01:39:11.440]  file against the bailiff. Yeah. And the bailiff was like you were talking about. He was very
[01:39:11.440 --> 01:39:18.080]  professional, very polite. We never had a crossword to say to each other. So he can't
[01:39:18.080 --> 01:39:24.720]  say that I'm being vindictive or anything. Yeah. And you know, like I did to this,
[01:39:25.600 --> 01:39:30.320]  when I filed against this particular bailiff, everybody I filed with, I said,
[01:39:30.320 --> 01:39:34.720]  now I want you to understand this bailiff was absolutely a consummate professional.
[01:39:35.520 --> 01:39:41.920]  That's why I filed against him because he was so good. So nobody will say that I filed this
[01:39:41.920 --> 01:39:49.120]  because I was angry or some other reason other than to address the issue. So it sounds like you got
[01:39:49.120 --> 01:39:55.520]  that. And this, while you're filing against the bailiff, it gives you an opportunity to continually
[01:39:55.520 --> 01:40:00.160]  say good things about the bailiff. Yeah. And that makes that makes them crazy.
[01:40:02.480 --> 01:40:04.960]  It makes them real hard for them not to like you.
[01:40:04.960 --> 01:40:12.720]  But, you know, we, like I said, I had five of disqualification motions. And again,
[01:40:12.720 --> 01:40:19.600]  I had read it before, but I forgot that basically it doesn't apply to JP. And
[01:40:24.240 --> 01:40:30.320]  the judge, we'd actually had a trial scheduled for, I can know, November last year, maybe sometime.
[01:40:30.320 --> 01:40:38.480]  And he continued, I got two letters, two days in a row, first saying, you know,
[01:40:38.480 --> 01:40:41.760]  we're going to have this trial. And then the very next day, I guess, which was,
[01:40:42.560 --> 01:40:47.040]  that must have been this couple of days after I filed that disqualification motion.
[01:40:48.080 --> 01:40:53.440]  He sent me a letter of continuance. So I'm thinking we're just waiting to hear from the
[01:40:53.440 --> 01:41:02.400]  administrative judge. I brought that up before we got started. And I need to ask this, I was,
[01:41:02.400 --> 01:41:09.920]  I brought it up with the prosecuting attorney. He went back to talk to the judge in chambers.
[01:41:10.480 --> 01:41:17.200]  They called the head administrative judge. Whoa, whoa, hold on. Me in the room.
[01:41:17.200 --> 01:41:24.320]  Talk to the judge in chambers? Yes.
[01:41:25.200 --> 01:41:29.760]  And that should get a motion to disqualify and charge both of them criminally.
[01:41:30.800 --> 01:41:36.080]  And then the two of them called the head administrative judge and had a conversation
[01:41:36.080 --> 01:41:42.240]  with him without me present. And then they, after they hung up the phone with him,
[01:41:42.240 --> 01:41:49.040]  they brought me into the judge's chamber and he explained, you know, what the head administrative
[01:41:49.040 --> 01:41:55.600]  judge had told him and showed me the statute in the government code and just said, we're having the
[01:41:55.600 --> 01:42:04.400]  trial. Oh, this should get criminal against all three of them, including the head administrative
[01:42:04.400 --> 01:42:14.080]  judge. I'll call. For official oppression thing thing? Absolutely. Okay. He, that judge had to
[01:42:14.080 --> 01:42:20.720]  know better and surely prosecuting this judge knew better. As they were clearly working together,
[01:42:21.680 --> 01:42:27.200]  this should get criminal conspiracy against all three of them, conspiring to deny you due process.
[01:42:27.200 --> 01:42:40.000]  Oh, that ought to be fun for him. So I've got some more work to do. But anyway,
[01:42:42.720 --> 01:42:55.840]  it's funny, the fines that the jury charged me was $243.80. The court costs are $250.20.
[01:42:55.840 --> 01:43:00.960]  Did the jury assess court costs? No.
[01:43:03.440 --> 01:43:09.440]  Did you have the jury? Okay, during when you have a jury, they have to assess both. The last time
[01:43:09.440 --> 01:43:14.880]  that happened to me, they wanted me to pay the court costs and I told them screw you.
[01:43:16.400 --> 01:43:20.480]  Jury did not assess the court costs. They're the ones that assessed fine.
[01:43:20.480 --> 01:43:27.280]  And they tried to say that, well, the court assesses that and all the court doesn't assess anything
[01:43:27.280 --> 01:43:33.120]  when there's a jury. The jury doesn't. So we have another fight about that one if you want to,
[01:43:33.120 --> 01:43:40.080]  and they just dropped it. Well, or yeah, hang on, hang on about to go to sponsors.
[01:43:41.040 --> 01:43:48.320]  This is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, we'll radio. Won't give out the call in number. We've only
[01:43:48.320 --> 01:43:54.640]  got one more segment. Tim, I see you there and we will get to you before this is over. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.480 --> 01:44:06.400]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.400 --> 01:44:11.280]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.280 --> 01:44:17.600]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.600 --> 01:44:22.400]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated,
[01:44:22.400 --> 01:44:28.560]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse
[01:44:28.560 --> 01:44:35.120]  all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Jevity so much. We became a
[01:44:35.120 --> 01:44:41.040]  marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others. When you order from
[01:44:41.040 --> 01:44:48.400]  Logos Radio Network.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you realize
[01:44:48.400 --> 01:44:54.080]  the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience
[01:44:54.080 --> 01:45:01.680]  improved health, help your friends and family and increase your income. Order now. Are you the
[01:45:01.680 --> 01:45:07.520]  plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary,
[01:45:07.520 --> 01:45:13.920]  the affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:13.920 --> 01:45:20.080]  step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a
[01:45:20.080 --> 01:45:26.080]  lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course,
[01:45:26.080 --> 01:45:32.800]  and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case
[01:45:32.800 --> 01:45:38.320]  winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[01:45:38.320 --> 01:45:44.000]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive
[01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:52.320]  our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics and much more.
[01:45:52.320 --> 01:46:03.840]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EV.
[01:46:23.040 --> 01:46:30.240]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:46:31.600 --> 01:46:38.320]  Somebody's on a police, that police mind. Somebody's on a police, police.
[01:46:40.080 --> 01:46:48.000]  There's always a room at the top of the head. I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely left
[01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:55.440]  to do. They're wishing it was more than I positioned to fail. They know that if they don't do it,
[01:46:55.440 --> 01:47:04.480]  somebody will. Some things in this world will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:47:07.920 --> 01:47:14.720]  Okay, we are back at the last segment on this Thursday the 17th of October 2019.
[01:47:14.720 --> 01:47:19.600]  This is the rule of law radio, Randy Kelton. I'm Brett Fountain and we're here talking with
[01:47:19.600 --> 01:47:29.840]  James in Texas. James? Oh, somebody did push the button. There you go.
[01:47:33.120 --> 01:47:38.400]  My thought also, I was thinking about sending because they just give you a blanket court cost
[01:47:38.400 --> 01:47:44.800]  amount, sending them, you know, going in and telling them I want an itemized list of each cost I'm
[01:47:44.800 --> 01:47:52.640]  being charged for and I want to know the amount that I'm being charged for that cost. Because
[01:47:53.520 --> 01:47:59.520]  you know they way overcharge you and then I could send it to the Texas Attorney General and say,
[01:47:59.520 --> 01:48:05.440]  hey, look, this judge is committing fraud against me. What are you going to do about it?
[01:48:05.440 --> 01:48:10.000]  That would open the door to a private attorney general seat.
[01:48:12.800 --> 01:48:18.560]  If you can show that they overcharge you in court costs, then the presumption must be that
[01:48:18.560 --> 01:48:24.640]  they overcharged everybody in court costs. Then you run a calculation on the number of tickets
[01:48:24.640 --> 01:48:32.880]  that go through the the cards, do a calculation on how much that is, and sue them for three times
[01:48:32.880 --> 01:48:38.800]  that amount. Okay. And you get to collect it. And I'm not doing it that way too.
[01:48:42.080 --> 01:48:53.680]  So, but and I only have a couple other things. Randy, I have read Walker v. Packer and I don't
[01:48:53.680 --> 01:49:03.840]  and it could be I don't understand how to understand case law. But to me, it looks
[01:49:03.840 --> 01:49:11.600]  like it's talking about you can't use a rid of mandamus to compel discovery from a non-party
[01:49:11.600 --> 01:49:25.520]  to a case. So, I'm not sure when I know you say that's the one that says if you have the judge
[01:49:25.520 --> 01:49:31.760]  has no discretion in properly applying law to the facts. No, no, no, this is the one where you
[01:49:31.760 --> 01:49:40.800]  talk about the that are saying that when opposition fails to rebut the live pleadings in the case,
[01:49:40.800 --> 01:49:49.680]  those amount to judicial admissions. Oh, I've got that in the case. We've got Tim on the line and
[01:49:49.680 --> 01:49:59.920]  it's that's in a pleading on in his case. Okay. I have to go back and look at that.
[01:50:01.200 --> 01:50:07.040]  But I read it three once kind of quick and then I read it a second time slower.
[01:50:07.040 --> 01:50:14.480]  And it may be that I'm looking for that exact verbiage and don't see it. And so I'm not catching
[01:50:14.480 --> 01:50:20.560]  it. Then if it doesn't have that exact verbiage, then I've cited the wrong case.
[01:50:21.680 --> 01:50:30.160]  Okay, that may because you sent me Walker v. Packer and I've read it through it twice and I
[01:50:30.160 --> 01:50:38.560]  cannot find it. Yeah, I may have sent you the wrong citation. But anyway, that was on the other
[01:50:38.560 --> 01:50:46.000]  thing. I can send you an email or something later and ask about that or yeah, send me an email
[01:50:46.000 --> 01:50:54.720]  specifically for that. And I will look that up. Okay. And the only other really well, I got two
[01:50:54.720 --> 01:51:02.800]  little quick thing. I got another ticket at the municipal court here. Two days before we were
[01:51:02.800 --> 01:51:09.040]  supposed to have trial, I got a letter from the head administrative judge that he had assigned
[01:51:09.040 --> 01:51:19.920]  the disqualification motion for that judge to JP in Huntington. And so I just and I probably dropped
[01:51:19.920 --> 01:51:27.520]  the ball because I did not the letter I got from the court telling me when the when the trial was
[01:51:28.400 --> 01:51:34.720]  the day I picked it up from the post office, lost the transmission in my car,
[01:51:35.680 --> 01:51:41.760]  and left that that gum letter in there until two weeks ago. And just finally I went, oh my goodness,
[01:51:41.760 --> 01:51:48.400]  I missed the trial. But I had gotten this notice from the head administrative judge two days
[01:51:48.400 --> 01:51:56.880]  before the trial date. And I'm sure they sent it to the court too. I've never heard anything from
[01:51:56.880 --> 01:52:03.280]  the court or which I just got I wouldn't until I get pulled over again and you know, got a letter
[01:52:03.280 --> 01:52:09.520]  for me. But I feel like I probably have a warrant. But because they can't move forward,
[01:52:10.080 --> 01:52:15.520]  my thinking is the warrant shouldn't have issued until that disqualification motion.
[01:52:15.520 --> 01:52:24.000]  Yeah, the court would have had no jurisdiction. Exactly. So you might go down there and check
[01:52:24.000 --> 01:52:27.760]  if you got a warrant, they're going to want to arrest you. If they're going to arrest you,
[01:52:27.760 --> 01:52:34.640]  they need to do it in the JP's office because the warrant commands them to take you directly to the
[01:52:34.640 --> 01:52:41.200]  JP. So if they arrest you there and take you somewhere else, then you've got a nice false
[01:52:41.200 --> 01:52:46.960]  imprisonment suit. Yeah, this is exactly what Wood County did to me. I was there to see the judge
[01:52:46.960 --> 01:52:55.760]  that issued the bogus warrant. Whether it was bogus or not, I was right there. They came to
[01:52:55.760 --> 01:53:00.560]  drag me out of there and take me out of the courthouse and down the road to the jailhouse.
[01:53:01.680 --> 01:53:06.720]  I had been in that courthouse three times. I had still not seen the judge.
[01:53:06.720 --> 01:53:13.920]  And I've been in there three times. It only matters that you're in the building.
[01:53:16.240 --> 01:53:24.800]  You're at the judge's office and they need to get the judge. If it's normal business hours,
[01:53:24.800 --> 01:53:30.080]  he's supposed to be there. So that would get you the false imprisonment in any case.
[01:53:30.080 --> 01:53:36.880]  Yeah, this is actually a sheet. Unfortunately, I've got to work six days next week. I won't
[01:53:36.880 --> 01:53:43.840]  have a day off during the week, but I'm hoping I have a day off the following week and I will be
[01:53:43.840 --> 01:53:51.520]  able to go by and take care of that. And I'll take you with me emotionally to quash the warrant.
[01:53:51.520 --> 01:54:00.560]  But other than that, the only other thing is I've been listening to some of the archives from
[01:54:01.200 --> 01:54:10.080]  September and August. Just curious as to do you have any idea when your traffic ticket
[01:54:10.640 --> 01:54:18.240]  website is going to have the new stuff added? No, not right away, but in a month or two,
[01:54:18.240 --> 01:54:23.200]  I hope to have it up there. Okay. That's the only other thing I got.
[01:54:25.120 --> 01:54:31.440]  I'm sure I will be calling y'all back. And Brett, someday I'd like to get your email address.
[01:54:33.520 --> 01:54:41.040]  Want to get that case from Randy? Maybe if you don't mind, get him to forward it to you so I can
[01:54:41.040 --> 01:54:49.120]  get your email address. I've talked to Richard Center a few times. He sent me some of his PIRs
[01:54:49.120 --> 01:54:55.920]  and stuff that he uses, and I greatly appreciate him doing that. But he lives up there in Garland
[01:54:55.920 --> 01:55:00.000]  where my mom lives. I'll talk to him next time I get up there and we may have to get together.
[01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:16.400]  Okay. Thank you, James. Thank you. Now we're going to go to Tim. Hello, Tim.
[01:55:17.440 --> 01:55:22.080]  Hello. Can you hear me? I can hear you. What do you have for us today?
[01:55:22.080 --> 01:55:31.040]  Well, all I wanted was just to hear more about the information's complaint.
[01:55:31.040 --> 01:55:40.480]  Brett? To hear more about it? Well, yeah. I think so. A complaint? I'm sorry?
[01:55:41.440 --> 01:55:43.680]  I think you could do a whole show on that.
[01:55:43.680 --> 01:55:56.080]  Well, maybe so. But the complaint is the part that is supposed to be used as a basis
[01:55:57.200 --> 01:56:04.960]  for the proper authorized individual to create an information. And if they don't have a complaint,
[01:56:04.960 --> 01:56:10.480]  they can't get an information. You have to start with the complaint. But the information is what
[01:56:10.480 --> 01:56:15.840]  is considered the charging instrument or the primary pleadings in a criminal case.
[01:56:15.840 --> 01:56:26.480]  Yes. Wilma Kennedy v. State. In order to avoid the obvious evils of the accumulation of power
[01:56:26.480 --> 01:56:33.920]  in any one office, for the purpose of initiating a criminal prosecution, a prosecuting attorney
[01:56:33.920 --> 01:56:43.840]  is not a credible person. There must be a criminal complaint before the prosecutor can create an
[01:56:43.840 --> 01:56:50.240]  information. Oh, shut up now. Yeah. So that's the credible person somebody else has to bring
[01:56:50.240 --> 01:56:56.240]  a complaint. They have to swear to it. And then the county attorney or district attorney will
[01:56:56.240 --> 01:57:03.200]  create the information. And once it's filed into the proper court, then they can commence a criminal
[01:57:03.200 --> 01:57:11.360]  case. Okay. So like in an ordinance when you've got a code enforcement officer,
[01:57:12.720 --> 01:57:20.800]  and he's the one that brings the complaint against you. But it has to be ordinance.
[01:57:22.080 --> 01:57:29.760]  That's not necessarily going to be criminal, right? No, it's a criminal. It is in my town.
[01:57:29.760 --> 01:57:37.840]  Randy, how do they get from ordinances to crimes? That was the first part of
[01:57:38.640 --> 01:57:45.520]  the response that we filed in the case was a challenged subject matter jurisdiction
[01:57:46.800 --> 01:57:59.600]  in that we alleged that an ordinance can only apply to city employees or someone in contractual
[01:57:59.600 --> 01:58:06.320]  privity with the city, right? Because if the ordinance was applied to the general public,
[01:58:06.320 --> 01:58:14.160]  then that made it a law. And while the legislature can legislate can delegate
[01:58:16.080 --> 01:58:22.960]  corporate policy to the corporation, we cannot delegate its lawmaking power.
[01:58:22.960 --> 01:58:29.360]  Okay. So that is a good question. How do they get there?
[01:58:30.720 --> 01:58:36.960]  Yeah. Okay. Maybe y'all can speak more about it tomorrow night.
[01:58:37.680 --> 01:58:44.320]  Yeah, we are out of time. Thank you, Tim. And you got to quit taking up the whole show, Tim.
[01:58:45.280 --> 01:58:48.160]  We'll be back tomorrow night. Good night.
[01:58:48.160 --> 01:58:50.960]  Thank you.
[01:59:18.320 --> 01:59:26.160]  BFA.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references,
[01:59:26.160 --> 01:59:31.920]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly a Bible you can
[01:59:31.920 --> 01:59:37.120]  understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version, call us toll free
[01:59:37.120 --> 01:59:49.120]  at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at BFA.org.
[01:59:49.120 --> 02:00:05.120]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com