ROL_2021-10-22_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:06.800]  The following use flash is brought to you by the Lone Star Lowdown.
[00:06.800 --> 00:13.200]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold $1,429 an ounce,
[00:13.200 --> 00:21.440]  silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil Texas Crude $55.63 a barrel, Brent Crude
[00:21.440 --> 00:29.840]  $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52, Ethereum $200.00
[00:29.840 --> 00:41.440]  $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[00:45.920 --> 00:52.400]  In history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb, was detonated
[00:52.400 --> 00:57.440]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day parade,
[00:57.440 --> 01:00.320]  killing 10 and injuring 40 today in history.
[01:04.480 --> 01:09.520]  And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, legalizing hemp into
[01:09.520 --> 01:14.960]  taxes law back in June, county prosecutors around the state, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio,
[01:14.960 --> 01:18.800]  have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to file new ones,
[01:18.800 --> 01:23.200]  since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory equipment to test the
[01:23.200 --> 01:28.240]  error for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney, announced earlier this month
[01:28.240 --> 01:33.440]  that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana cases because of the law.
[01:33.440 --> 01:37.840]  Mr. Abbott and other state officials, including the Attorney General, stipulated in a letter to
[01:37.840 --> 01:42.800]  county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas
[01:42.800 --> 01:49.600]  and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities too,
[01:49.600 --> 01:56.080]  like the District Attorney in El Paso, Kymah Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month
[01:56.080 --> 02:01.760]  that the law, quote, will not have an effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso.
[02:01.760 --> 02:06.720]  However, the issue was succinctly summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender
[02:06.720 --> 02:11.200]  in Harris County, who stated that, quote, the law is constantly changing on what makes something
[02:11.200 --> 02:15.920]  illegal based on its chemical makeup. It's important that if someone is charged with something,
[02:15.920 --> 02:24.960]  the test matches what they're charged with. A paper by Tulane University identified a five
[02:24.960 --> 02:29.920]  and a half inch American pocket shark. As the first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico,
[02:29.920 --> 02:35.440]  the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever captured or recorded with the other one
[02:35.440 --> 02:40.800]  being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean. According to the university paper, the
[02:40.800 --> 02:47.920]  shark secretes a lumus fluid from a gland near its front fins for the purposes hypothesized to lure
[02:47.920 --> 03:11.040]  and prey who may be drawn into the glow. This is Book Roadie with the lowdown for July 22, 2019.
[03:17.920 --> 03:47.040]  Okay, we are back. Randy Keltland, Brett Fountain.
[03:47.040 --> 04:01.200]  And Brett tells me that it is the 21st day of October, 2000, that's what I told you yesterday.
[04:01.200 --> 04:15.360]  Oh, the second day of, and I was looking at the calendar. You read it. Anyway, you guys know,
[04:15.360 --> 04:23.360]  22nd day of October, 2021, and we're talking to John and New Jersey. Did I say that right? New
[04:23.360 --> 04:33.200]  Jersey? New Jersey, again, that's a Texas accent. Okay, where were we?
[04:35.600 --> 04:43.040]  Inspector General, okay, this cloud-based artificial intelligence software program.
[04:43.040 --> 04:53.040]  That's my impression of what this is. This company, it's a huge company and
[04:53.040 --> 05:00.320]  it seems that they seem to be the Inspector General and for everything from the Bill Gates
[05:00.320 --> 05:09.360]  Foundation to every college, every business, that's a worldwide, it appears to be a worldwide
[05:09.360 --> 05:23.440]  cloud-based, supposedly anonymous service for ethics complaints and anonymously report wrong
[05:23.440 --> 05:40.640]  doing. The software will never solve the problem because there's no interface. I don't know
[05:40.640 --> 05:47.440]  actually to tell you the truth. I asked the council for the Delaware Report, who was the
[05:47.440 --> 05:54.240]  Inspector General? I mean, who am I dealing with here? I didn't get a response back from him,
[05:55.120 --> 06:00.240]  but the next day I got another, it looked like a kind of a generated response from this ethics
[06:00.240 --> 06:07.840]  point. What they do is they'll just reconstruct my questions and then we'll use that as an answer
[06:08.640 --> 06:14.880]  because a piece of software doesn't know what you want and they're not there to solve any problem.
[06:14.880 --> 06:24.080]  Okay, wait, hold on. Back to this Inspector General. This sounds like what we normally
[06:24.080 --> 06:35.760]  call an ombudsman. Someone within the agency who's familiar with the agency but is there to
[06:35.760 --> 06:43.440]  represent people who do business with the agency or who are affected by the agency and generally,
[06:43.440 --> 06:51.520]  since this is a poor authority, most likely this Office of Inspector General is statutory.
[06:53.120 --> 06:55.360]  Have you read the statutes concerning
[06:56.640 --> 07:02.080]  a Office of Inspector General in this particular set of questions?
[07:02.080 --> 07:07.920]  At that point, probably within the last day or two, I realized that I wasn't dealing with the
[07:07.920 --> 07:18.000]  statutory entity that I was just dealing with the cloud-based service. That wasn't my focus
[07:18.000 --> 07:23.680]  because you don't know what you don't know and I didn't know that, but I know that today.
[07:24.800 --> 07:30.960]  I know that somewhere down the line they got rid of the Inspector General and the Office and
[07:30.960 --> 07:40.240]  this other service has been substituted. Are they required to have an Inspector General?
[07:41.920 --> 07:47.680]  I'm going to have to peel all that back. I still don't have enough information
[07:48.400 --> 07:53.600]  to get a clear picture of what I'm dealing with. What was this company's name again?
[07:53.600 --> 08:04.320]  Ethics Point. John, I'm going to suggest to you that this might be nothing more than
[08:05.520 --> 08:12.080]  a service that is facilitating some names of people. There really are men and women that
[08:12.080 --> 08:17.120]  are handling this but you just don't get to see them because they're looking at some admin dashboard
[08:17.120 --> 08:26.640]  on the back end and this Ethics Point thing could simply be collecting the reports and facilitating
[08:26.640 --> 08:34.240]  some automation of the responses or sort of like a ticket management system. It's not intended to
[08:34.240 --> 08:44.000]  actually answer your questions or to resolve the complaints as much as just to facilitate the reporting
[08:44.000 --> 08:53.760]  system. I see that Ethics Point is owned by the subsidiary of NavEx Global which is a Bill
[08:53.760 --> 09:01.920]  and Melinda Gates Foundation thing. That makes me think that sort of like a SharePoint,
[09:03.840 --> 09:11.280]  Microsoft Redheaded Stepchild sort of a thing where he's going to set this out there and tell
[09:11.280 --> 09:20.960]  all his government buddies to use this system. This will solve all your woes. It's even on the
[09:20.960 --> 09:27.600]  cloud and get them say a few buzzwords and get some government dollars thrown at it.
[09:29.040 --> 09:35.120]  I don't know. That's what it looks like to me. I don't have to agree that that's the most probable
[09:35.120 --> 09:43.680]  scenario for what I'm dealing with but how do I get past that and I'm getting no traction here
[09:44.960 --> 09:51.600]  with dealing with Ethics Point. I'm not getting my issue resolved because
[09:53.440 --> 10:00.240]  I don't know. There's no accountability. I can't. Let me ask you this. What is it that makes you
[10:00.240 --> 10:06.320]  feel like you have to deal with Ethics Point? Because New Jersey you've got your OPRA,
[10:06.320 --> 10:13.200]  your Public Records Act. You could go and ask for any contact information for anybody that you
[10:13.200 --> 10:20.000]  feel like you need to talk to and you could go straight to them. There's an office within the
[10:21.200 --> 10:29.600]  Attorney General's office that deals with issues of corruption within the state agencies.
[10:29.600 --> 10:33.600]  If you have an issue you can contact them and lay it out before them.
[10:41.040 --> 10:48.320]  Let me suggest in that regard, I've worked with foreclosures for a long time and the first thing
[10:48.320 --> 10:53.360]  you want to do is look at all the consumer protection laws. I came to the conclusion that
[10:53.360 --> 11:01.040]  the consumer protection laws are all a scam. All of them are because they set unrealistic
[11:02.320 --> 11:10.240]  limitations, statute of limitations on the exercise of the protection. When all of the
[11:10.240 --> 11:17.600]  protections that are in the consumer protection laws are in the uniform commercial code,
[11:17.600 --> 11:23.840]  the uniform commercial code doesn't have the unreasonably short statute of limitations.
[11:25.920 --> 11:31.600]  Since all these guys are under contract, they all fall under the uniform commercial code.
[11:33.120 --> 11:41.920]  But back to who you're talking to, you've got Open Records Act. It is the Open Records Act in
[11:41.920 --> 11:50.880]  New Jersey. I'm working on it. Is it a criminal statute or a civil statute?
[11:54.960 --> 12:03.360]  No, wait a minute. Most of them are criminal. Texas Open Records Act, right at the end,
[12:03.360 --> 12:13.280]  552.353, says a violation of this act is a class A misdemeanor. Look at your act,
[12:13.280 --> 12:19.760]  look at the end of it. It'll tell you if it's a civil or if it's criminal. I'm going to bet it's
[12:19.760 --> 12:29.040]  criminal. Well, my impression from all the open requests that I've made is that it's civil because
[12:29.040 --> 12:33.840]  your only option if you don't want to, if you disagree with their findings or you don't want to
[12:33.840 --> 12:39.360]  use, go through the government record counsel that... Okay, same in Texas. You have to go to,
[12:39.360 --> 12:43.840]  you have to go to... That's what, that's what they say. They say you can sue to get the information.
[12:43.840 --> 12:51.520]  Our code says that. But it also says a violation of this act is official misconduct and that's
[12:51.520 --> 12:58.480]  a class A misdemeanor. If yours doesn't say that, it doesn't matter. You're going to have a statute
[12:58.480 --> 13:07.280]  that reflects 18 U.S. Code 242, a Ku Klux Klan Act. Every state has it. They have to in order to keep
[13:07.280 --> 13:14.320]  their governmental instruments under control. And what that one says is that if a public official,
[13:14.320 --> 13:21.360]  and I'm paraphrasing here because the code's kind of long and convoluted, if a public official
[13:21.360 --> 13:27.680]  acting under the color or pretence of his official capacity fails to perform a duty he's required
[13:27.680 --> 13:33.120]  to perform, or exerts or purports to exert an authority he does not expressly have,
[13:33.840 --> 13:42.800]  well that's a class A misdemeanor just about in every state. So if the agency is required by
[13:42.800 --> 13:50.880]  the Open Records Act to provide you with this information and they don't provide it, you still
[13:50.880 --> 13:55.680]  have them for class A misdemeanor, official misconduct or official, in Texas it's official
[13:55.680 --> 14:02.240]  oppression. That's a catch-all. Well, that's a step to request a copy of the contract between
[14:02.240 --> 14:07.200]  this ethics point and the Delaware River Port Authority. You know, because they're a separate
[14:07.200 --> 14:11.920]  corporation. They're separate entities. So I can deal with, I should be able to deal with them.
[14:12.720 --> 14:19.200]  You know, now the attorneys... No, wait a minute. Hold on. I'm being kind of pedantic here, but
[14:19.200 --> 14:29.040]  I want to make sure you understand the issues here. If this is a private corporation and this
[14:29.040 --> 14:36.880]  private corporation is performing a governmental function, then they become quasi-governmental
[14:36.880 --> 14:42.480]  and they are subject to Open Records, the same way a public official is.
[14:42.480 --> 14:49.760]  I don't know any of this. This is only within the last two days that this has come up and I've
[14:49.760 --> 14:55.040]  been wondering why I'm not getting any traction with this. Well, I'm not dealing with the right
[14:55.040 --> 15:01.360]  people. I'm in a room full of mirrors, you know, and I see a figure in the mirrors, but when I go
[15:01.360 --> 15:06.000]  to, I break the mirror, there's a hundred other mirrors out there that... Exactly, exactly.
[15:07.280 --> 15:11.680]  That's what I'm dealing with. Look at the controlling codes. It won't be...
[15:11.680 --> 15:19.040]  It won't take too much to go through it to find out what is the nature of the Office of
[15:19.040 --> 15:25.520]  Inspector General, who created, when was it created, what was the purpose of it being created.
[15:26.880 --> 15:31.680]  What is it supposed to do? Generally, that sounds like the function of an ombudsman
[15:32.320 --> 15:36.560]  and an ombudsman has a duty to represent the public before the agency.
[15:36.560 --> 15:41.600]  Well, how is a machine going to do that?
[15:43.440 --> 15:48.000]  That's exactly my quandary. I'm dealing with lines of code.
[15:49.760 --> 15:59.200]  I'm going to bet you don't deal with the lines of code. Skip it. There are government funds
[15:59.200 --> 16:08.240]  used to finance this. If they're government funds used to finance this and the operation of this
[16:09.200 --> 16:19.200]  falls outside the clearly defined rules of law, you can go after these people for
[16:20.640 --> 16:25.440]  criminally. The official misconduct in Texas, we have two
[16:25.440 --> 16:31.760]  statutes. One for official misconduct, one for official oppression. Official oppression is where
[16:31.760 --> 16:37.680]  they deny you an a right. Official misconduct is where they misappropriate public funds,
[16:37.680 --> 16:43.200]  and that's what this sounds like. Well, I'm sure. This agency is notoriously
[16:43.200 --> 16:48.720]  corrupt. It makes the sopranos look like a Boy Scout troop. When you start filing criminal
[16:48.720 --> 16:55.520]  charges, especially against the lowest level officials you can find that's participating in
[16:55.520 --> 17:02.160]  this, preferably someone's just hired to answer phone. Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[17:02.160 --> 17:07.360]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael
[17:07.360 --> 17:12.640]  Meyers proven method. Michael Meyers has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors,
[17:12.640 --> 17:17.920]  and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win
[17:17.920 --> 17:23.680]  in court using federal civil rights statute. What to do when contacted by phones, mail, or court
[17:23.680 --> 17:28.320]  summons. How to answer letters and phone calls. How to get debt collectors out of your credit
[17:28.320 --> 17:34.080]  report. How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael
[17:34.080 --> 17:39.760]  Meyers proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is
[17:39.760 --> 17:44.880]  available as well. For more information, please visit rule of law radio dot com and click on the
[17:44.880 --> 17:51.600]  blue Michael Meyers banner or email Michael Meyers at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com
[17:51.600 --> 17:59.520]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors next.
[18:01.600 --> 18:06.000]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America we live in
[18:06.000 --> 18:09.760]  a us against them society and if we the people are ever going to have a free society then we're
[18:09.760 --> 18:14.160]  going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely
[18:14.160 --> 18:17.920]  from place to place. The right to act in our own private capacity and most importantly the right
[18:17.920 --> 18:22.400]  to due process of law. The traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how
[18:22.400 --> 18:26.720]  to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's deputy Katie Craig in
[18:26.720 --> 18:30.640]  conjunction with rule of law radio has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[18:30.640 --> 18:34.800]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[18:34.800 --> 18:38.960]  You can get your own copy of this valuable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[18:38.960 --> 18:43.200]  ordering your copy today. By ordering now you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book The Texas Transportation
[18:43.200 --> 18:48.080]  Code, The Law vs. the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar. Hundreds of research
[18:48.080 --> 18:51.840]  documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of
[18:51.840 --> 18:56.960]  this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today and together we can have the free society
[18:56.960 --> 19:00.960]  we all want and deserve.
[19:00.960 --> 19:13.840]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[19:31.120 --> 19:42.960]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio and we're talking to John in
[19:42.960 --> 19:52.160]  New Jersey. And what I'm going to is if you can find what have the appearance of criminal
[19:52.160 --> 20:01.520]  violations, now you can get their attention. Well, I don't, until they answer my question,
[20:01.520 --> 20:07.440]  my, you know, my, of who, what, when and where, I mean, I know what, I mean, I know from dealing
[20:07.440 --> 20:13.840]  with these, just from, I know how they operate and I know that there's criminality involved, but
[20:14.800 --> 20:20.400]  it's harder now to, you know, to flush all this stuff out because they've got layers of,
[20:20.400 --> 20:26.160]  you know, they're buffered now. We're back in the days, you know, 30, 40 years ago, you can
[20:26.160 --> 20:31.760]  pretty much nail somebody, but it's harder to do that today. But I mean, I know I'm, I have no
[20:31.760 --> 20:38.000]  doubt that that's what I'm dealing with. But, you know, it's a whole different world out there
[20:38.000 --> 20:44.480]  today. It's, I mean, there's more information to go on, but it's harder to, you know, it's harder to
[20:44.480 --> 20:50.320]  deal with, with individuals. You don't deal any face to face with anybody anymore. And it's just
[20:50.320 --> 20:55.520]  emails. And it's, well, if you, if you start filing criminal complaints against the people who
[20:55.520 --> 21:00.720]  operate the machines, yeah, that's, that'll, that'll get you to real human beings.
[21:02.080 --> 21:08.240]  When I have enough info, when I have enough data, you know, that when I, when I come, you know,
[21:09.280 --> 21:15.920]  when I put this together and I have enough hard information, or at least as much circumstance
[21:15.920 --> 21:20.160]  levels as I'm going to get, that's what I intend to do. And I'm going to let them, I don't know
[21:20.160 --> 21:25.920]  whether I should just drop it on them or, or, you know, give them an easy way out or don't,
[21:25.920 --> 21:30.640]  don't give them an easy way out. Take it to the, you know, take your complaints to the police and
[21:30.640 --> 21:35.440]  let the police go talk to them. If you go talk to them, they won't pay any mind. But when the
[21:35.440 --> 21:43.600]  police come and talk to them, they will pay them mind. I got my work cut out for me. I don't
[21:43.600 --> 21:52.320]  suppose that anybody has, has contacted the inspector general office for any reason, which is why the,
[21:52.320 --> 21:58.480]  which is why I think they feel pretty confident that this is a system that will work for them.
[21:58.480 --> 22:02.960]  Because I doubt that anyone, with the exception of me, you know, within reason memory has even
[22:02.960 --> 22:10.320]  bothered to talk to the IG. So I may well be the first one, you know, to bring this to a head
[22:10.320 --> 22:17.520]  or try to formalize it or, you know, or confront them with, confront them with this. And I don't
[22:17.520 --> 22:22.320]  think they're expecting it. I don't want to give them, you know, I don't want to give them any
[22:22.320 --> 22:27.280]  advanced warning, particularly when I'm dealing with attorneys because there's snakes.
[22:28.640 --> 22:36.000]  Have you bar-greaved any of their attorneys? No, I bar-greaved the attorneys in the past.
[22:36.000 --> 22:44.320]  I bar-greaved the attorney from my township. I've been down that road. I've done it in the past.
[22:44.320 --> 22:51.680]  And I just want to see how much, how much of a nudge it will take to get them, you know,
[22:51.680 --> 22:59.680]  off the mark. If that's what it takes, I'm willing to do that. But that's kind of a diversion.
[22:59.680 --> 23:04.960]  You know, it's a diversion from a straight path. I want the information, you know,
[23:04.960 --> 23:10.400]  if I have to threaten the counsel, the attorneys, that's just going to be another
[23:10.400 --> 23:18.160]  obstacle I'm going to throw up. I'll have to deal with that. But threatening violates my rules.
[23:20.560 --> 23:29.840]  Never threaten. Do it. And actually, you cannot threaten to do what you have a statutory right
[23:29.840 --> 23:38.480]  to do. That's not threat. That's, that's fair warning. And I suggest never give fair warning.
[23:39.520 --> 23:46.640]  Get them, pick something really nitpicking. Excuse me, I have a little bit of an issue.
[23:49.680 --> 23:56.480]  Pick something nitpicking and drop a criminal complaint on them for something really crappy.
[23:56.480 --> 24:03.360]  And they're going to say, what the heck is this? And then the courts will toss it. You don't care.
[24:04.240 --> 24:08.960]  No, I mean, but you've got their attention. Don't, don't file criminal
[24:08.960 --> 24:11.920]  complaints against them over the important stuff and the stuff you want.
[24:13.760 --> 24:17.200]  Pick some crappy little thing to sting them. There's enough of that.
[24:18.320 --> 24:22.400]  Yeah. Sting them in the heart. The clerk would not tell me the fact number.
[24:22.400 --> 24:26.720]  That's my favorite one in my experience. I went and asked for a fact number and the
[24:26.720 --> 24:29.680]  clerk wouldn't tell me. So I felt criminal charges against the judge.
[24:30.480 --> 24:38.240]  And they were rude and I was offended. Okay. Well, I'll get cracking on this and
[24:39.360 --> 24:43.600]  Have I told you my hearing aid story? I know a lot of you've heard it.
[24:43.600 --> 24:47.440]  Yeah, I've heard the hearings. I've been listening to you for quite a few years now.
[24:47.440 --> 24:56.640]  So once I did that, the word got out of that. Jack asked Kelton comes to your office, look out.
[24:57.600 --> 25:02.240]  He's just trying to get you to do something. So he has a reason to call 911 and try to get
[25:02.240 --> 25:07.920]  you arrested. I'm aware of your gorilla suit. Pat, you know, it's a gorilla suit.
[25:09.360 --> 25:14.080]  That's how you want them set up. So you do that over minor stuff.
[25:14.080 --> 25:19.440]  Oh, if you're not an attorney or the accused, you can't see that.
[25:20.400 --> 25:26.720]  And when I asked to see some court records, I said, oh, you shouldn't have said that.
[25:27.440 --> 25:30.000]  And then I called the bailiff over and asked him to arrest her.
[25:31.520 --> 25:38.560]  No fair warning. I got their attention. You go to the Arlington Municipal Police Department
[25:38.560 --> 25:45.360]  at the Municipal Court and ask for records. You're not going to get any guff at all. They're going
[25:45.360 --> 25:52.400]  to go get those records. So if you're after something in particular, don't screw that up.
[25:52.960 --> 25:56.960]  Go to something really minor that's not connected with that.
[25:57.680 --> 26:00.960]  And something they're not going to want to give you and then follow them for that.
[26:02.000 --> 26:06.160]  I've had success with that little routine locally dealing with these,
[26:06.160 --> 26:12.400]  like my township on the county level. I pretty much played them. I played that,
[26:13.280 --> 26:19.520]  but I've never had a need to go beyond that until all of this came up with that.
[26:19.520 --> 26:27.200]  And the reason I'm concerned about it is that it impacts me indirectly because I'm about maybe
[26:27.840 --> 26:33.280]  a half a mile away from this proposed light rail stop. And that's a convenience for me
[26:33.280 --> 26:37.760]  and for all the other residents that support that issue. But there's also a large group out
[26:37.760 --> 26:43.280]  there who are well funded who don't support it only because it affects the real estate values
[26:43.280 --> 26:50.960]  and whatever businesses they have. So I'm more concerned. My interest in it is I'm just not
[26:50.960 --> 26:56.400]  just picking a fight because it's a fight to be picked. I want to see this project go through.
[26:56.400 --> 27:02.800]  No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. Yeah. You just pick a minor fight that you don't care about
[27:03.680 --> 27:07.840]  just to beat him up a little bit. So when you come back for the stuff you really want,
[27:08.400 --> 27:12.960]  the words are going to go out. Don't mess with this guy. He's a pain in the neck.
[27:12.960 --> 27:17.680]  He'll try to get you arrested and try to sue you and all that. Just give him whatever the heck he
[27:17.680 --> 27:23.600]  wants. So go away and leave us alone. I did that with my township here. I mess with them for almost
[27:23.600 --> 27:28.560]  three years and then took them in the federal court. And I harassed a shit out of them with
[27:28.560 --> 27:35.600]  every color of law, FBI complaints. And then when we finally got the court, boom. It wasn't even a
[27:35.600 --> 27:41.760]  court. It was not a court settlement. So that's generally what you get. But yeah, that's
[27:44.640 --> 27:50.000]  what I'm saying is you're likely to get the stuff you're looking for with less problems.
[27:50.000 --> 27:57.680]  Yeah. If you hit them somewhere else and let them have that fight all they want to just beat
[27:57.680 --> 28:02.560]  them up, use that to beat them about and soften them up with. That's what I'm doing to the
[28:02.560 --> 28:10.960]  district attorney in Austin. I don't care about the issues, the complaints. We'll take care of those.
[28:11.600 --> 28:17.920]  I just filed this to beat him up so that when I get to the real complaint some after,
[28:17.920 --> 28:24.720]  then he won't give me a problem. I want him to say, look, I don't want to get in that mess again.
[28:25.680 --> 28:30.800]  Just send it to the grand jury. Let them handle it. My district attorney in the county I live in
[28:31.760 --> 28:37.040]  brought him criminal complaints against the district judge. And he was the district attorney.
[28:37.040 --> 28:42.640]  And he was personal friends with the district judge. Actually, when he first got his bar card,
[28:42.640 --> 28:50.720]  this district judge was one of his mentors. But when I gave him the complaints, he knew who I was
[28:50.720 --> 28:56.960]  and what I would do. So he took the complaints and I was trying to get them to the grand jury.
[28:56.960 --> 29:01.280]  The bailiff was giving me a hard time. The prosecutor came out and he said,
[29:01.280 --> 29:09.600]  is there a problem, Mr. Pelton? Yes, Greg, there is. Dick here is interfering with my access to
[29:09.600 --> 29:15.120]  the grand jury. He said, pointed at the folder I had. Is that for the grand jury? I said, yes,
[29:15.120 --> 29:20.720]  it is. Here, I'll take care of it. He walked in. About five seconds later, he came out.
[29:22.000 --> 29:27.200]  He said, that didn't take long. I said, what did you do? He said, I gave it to the grand jury with
[29:27.200 --> 29:33.280]  no comment and left. It's their problem. We're not getting in the middle of it.
[29:33.280 --> 29:42.320]  That's what you want. We want them to say, don't mess with this guy. We don't want to get in the
[29:42.320 --> 29:51.440]  middle of a fight. But find out where the money is. Find out what is an OIG, who requires it,
[29:52.480 --> 29:58.560]  and you challenge that. If you look like you're going to get all their funding pulled,
[29:58.560 --> 30:04.160]  they do whatever you want. Everyone knows that walking is great exercise, but you might not
[30:04.160 --> 30:09.360]  know that the way you walk could predict how long you're going to live. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[30:09.360 --> 30:15.360]  and I'll be back to tell you more about walking prognostication in just a moment. Privacy is under
[30:15.360 --> 30:20.160]  attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your
[30:20.160 --> 30:26.160]  privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say
[30:26.160 --> 30:32.160]  no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:32.160 --> 30:37.040]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine
[30:37.040 --> 30:45.040]  alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. New research shows how fast
[30:45.040 --> 30:50.000]  you walk could predict how long you're going to live. The Journal of the American Medical Association
[30:50.000 --> 30:55.520]  reports that older adults who walk one meter per second or faster live longer than expected
[30:55.520 --> 31:00.800]  in case you're wondering, one meter per second is about two and a quarter miles per hour. A senior's
[31:00.800 --> 31:05.760]  age, gender, and walking speed were as good at predicting life expectancy as more traditional
[31:05.760 --> 31:11.280]  statistical measures. Generally speaking, faster walkers live longer. Measuring walking speed is
[31:11.280 --> 31:16.800]  quick and inexpensive. It only takes a stopwatch, some space to walk, and a few minutes. Researchers
[31:16.800 --> 31:22.640]  say it could help doctors identify older patients who need special care. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:22.640 --> 31:25.600]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:52.640 --> 32:05.520]  Logos Radio Network welcomes a new show to our lineup for the new year.
[32:05.520 --> 32:11.760]  Scripture Talk with Nana will begin Wednesday, January 8th from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time.
[32:11.760 --> 32:17.840]  Our goal is in accord with Matthew 516. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your
[32:17.840 --> 32:23.680]  good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. We wish to reflect God's light and be a
[32:23.680 --> 32:29.360]  blessing to all those with a hearing ear. Join Nana and guests for both verse by verse Bible
[32:29.360 --> 32:35.520]  studies and topical Bible studies designed to provoke unto love and good works. Our verse by
[32:35.520 --> 32:41.040]  verse Bible studies will begin in the book of Matthew where we will discuss one chapter per week.
[32:41.040 --> 32:46.720]  Our topical Bible studies will vary each week and will explore sound doctrine as well as Christian
[32:46.720 --> 32:53.120]  character development. So mark your calendar and join us live on LogosRadioNetwork.com
[32:53.120 --> 32:59.280]  Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. starting January 8th for an inspiring and motivating discussion of the
[32:59.280 --> 33:17.440]  Scriptures. Live free speech radio LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:29.600 --> 33:47.120]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Roodle Law Radio, and we're talking to John in
[33:47.120 --> 33:55.520]  New Jersey and you're not there. I knew you were trying to get off John if you're listening
[33:55.520 --> 34:04.160]  and what I was doing really wasn't so much for you. I wanted everybody else to hear an important
[34:04.160 --> 34:18.320]  point. It was about rabbit holes, a methodology, a way to go about this. Okay, so now we're going
[34:18.320 --> 34:29.280]  to go to Olivier in Tennessee. Hello, Olivier. Hello. I got a tremendous amount. Did you just
[34:29.280 --> 34:36.640]  flush the toilet? Can't hear me now? Yeah, I can hear you now. It sounded like your head was in the
[34:36.640 --> 34:50.240]  toilet. Okay, sounds good now. Go ahead. All right. Well, quick summary of what's going on.
[34:51.680 --> 34:58.720]  Two interesting calls. One, first attorney called me and she's representing
[34:58.720 --> 35:09.760]  the judges and the prosecutor on this declaratory judgment. And she was talking to me. She said,
[35:12.400 --> 35:19.120]  I'm the attorney for the defendant that you do and I just got the paperwork and
[35:20.400 --> 35:28.560]  I wanted to ask you, did you have a problem if we asked for extensions? You just got the paperwork
[35:28.560 --> 35:34.240]  and you wanted to make some problems. She said, I spent a couple of hours reading the complaint
[35:34.240 --> 35:46.080]  last night and I had to go do some research to get my head wrapped around it. So I can see
[35:46.080 --> 35:52.480]  what poppo answered. We just got the paperwork. I was like, okay. I said, so she was like, I was
[35:52.480 --> 36:06.080]  calling to get an extension. I was like, yeah. I said, yeah, I do have a, no, I told her,
[36:06.080 --> 36:15.280]  I was like, man, you put me in a hard spot. What do you mean? I said, well, I'm from the street
[36:15.280 --> 36:22.320]  and time limit is time limit, especially if the case like this, where we've been
[36:23.280 --> 36:36.000]  getting abused by the system. But on the other hand, I really would like an intelligent response
[36:36.000 --> 36:46.800]  to my complaint. So that's why I'm in a hard spot. I'm in a hard spot. You put me in the same spot.
[36:46.800 --> 36:54.080]  She said, oh, I'm saying it's a little bit, but you understand. But you know, that's the only thing
[36:54.080 --> 37:01.040]  I can do. So I have to do some legal research and just they have no time. And then I said,
[37:01.040 --> 37:06.720]  I said, wait a minute. I said, where's the legislature? I said, who's representing
[37:06.720 --> 37:13.600]  the legislature? She said, well, the legislature's not on the complaint. I said, what do you mean?
[37:13.600 --> 37:19.840]  The legislature's not on the complaint. You said that you're representing the prosecutors.
[37:19.840 --> 37:30.000]  She said, yeah, we're representing the prosecutor's assistant state attorney. I said, assistant state
[37:30.000 --> 37:38.000]  attorney. I said, well, they parade around like state attorney. And the statute says,
[37:39.040 --> 37:46.880]  file for the state attorney to get a legislature. So I said, well, in that case,
[37:46.880 --> 37:59.360]  who's the state attorney then? It's like, well, listen, maybe I only represent the defendants
[37:59.360 --> 38:06.000]  that are on the case. I like, so you can't tell me who the state attorney is. I said, aren't you
[38:06.000 --> 38:12.880]  going to be the attorney for the state attorneys when I, when I, when I through this? I get like,
[38:12.880 --> 38:19.600]  well, maybe, you know, maybe. I was like, so you're going to tell me about, okay, you know what?
[38:20.880 --> 38:29.440]  Maybe. I said, oh, and then she, and then she's like, when I called and got the information
[38:29.440 --> 38:33.200]  and then called back to see what the state attorney was, it went straight to her office.
[38:33.200 --> 38:42.400]  And the guy told me one time, today I'm the town prosecutor today.
[38:46.080 --> 38:50.800]  I said, I said, well, you know what? I think that answers the question right there,
[38:50.800 --> 38:57.120]  because I thought I had the legislature at the table. And, and there's actually no need for us
[38:57.120 --> 39:06.880]  to be having this conversation if the boss ain't there. So, I won't have no problems with your
[39:08.560 --> 39:11.760]  request, because I'm going to be filing a many complaints.
[39:12.880 --> 39:17.760]  If you're like, oh, yeah, I'm filing many complaints with representative officers and
[39:17.760 --> 39:27.600]  uh, actually move the state attorney. You know, oh, okay. Okay. All right. All right.
[39:27.600 --> 39:31.840]  I'll be sending you a copy of this as soon as I finish. All right. Thank you.
[39:33.600 --> 39:40.080]  So now I'm on a mission. I got a whole head game on like, okay, so I didn't even have the
[39:40.080 --> 39:47.120]  legislature at the table yet. But at least everybody's jumping around waving their hands
[39:47.120 --> 39:59.840]  going great. I'm fixing to calculate how to write this new planer. Now I called the one of the
[39:59.840 --> 40:07.520]  city attorneys, which have, which the officer arrested me, stopped arresting me on the failure
[40:07.520 --> 40:16.480]  by saying, hey, I called the city attorney and I'm trying to ask him, uh, if he wanted a complaint for
[40:16.480 --> 40:24.160]  every, for, for every individual. And the current complaint has three. I'm like, well,
[40:25.440 --> 40:31.040]  I'm about to file a many complaint. And I was wondering, do you want more complaints for each
[40:31.040 --> 40:37.280]  individual? He just won't complain. I said, yeah, I was reading documents and I found another officer
[40:37.280 --> 40:44.640]  saying, but I included him wait. I included it. I included him in the new complaint.
[40:44.640 --> 40:52.640]  He said, oh, that's just great. He was so upset. He's like, oh, that's just great. I was like, yeah.
[40:52.640 --> 40:58.880]  I said, uh, you went, well, did you read my email? I said, what email? He said, I sent you an email
[40:58.880 --> 41:08.000]  with my motion to dismiss. And I said, well, no, I didn't get your email. And, um, I don't know when
[41:08.000 --> 41:13.040]  do you want to win your motion to dismiss or learn to be heard because we got to file everything
[41:13.040 --> 41:19.680]  through the portal. And apparently I can't access the portal right now. So there ain't going to be
[41:19.680 --> 41:26.480]  a hearing date on your, on your motion. There's not going to be a hearing date on your motion or
[41:26.480 --> 41:36.800]  the, I get that, uh, dissuaded. I said, anyways, uh, he said, yeah, uh, you, you didn't,
[41:38.000 --> 41:44.960]  he's, he's literally talking about, I didn't, um, file the state attorney suit and the chance
[41:44.960 --> 41:50.160]  and the statute said that I was supposed to file her. I said, yeah, actually I'm filing the
[41:50.160 --> 41:56.560]  mental complaint right now. I have, I have all that included in that. He like, oh, I'm like, yeah,
[41:56.560 --> 42:05.360]  so, uh, your motion to dismiss is, is, uh, unwanted. And I said, I like, I don't think you
[42:05.360 --> 42:13.680]  can do that on a, on a declaratory judgment because I'm asking for a clarification of law.
[42:13.680 --> 42:23.680]  So, um, he gets upset, you know, he's saying like, this is not the popular avenue. And
[42:24.320 --> 42:28.240]  you know, he's well and I'm like, wow, this is funny. I'm like, check a child.
[42:29.120 --> 42:35.120]  He was doing like, so my nine year old could, could, could get in the car and drive. Can't
[42:35.760 --> 42:40.880]  I like, I said, listen, I'm a responsible American. I don't know about what your nine
[42:40.880 --> 42:47.040]  year old would be doing in the car. But as an American, it's my, it's my duty to be responsible
[42:47.040 --> 42:54.160]  and I don't need your license to do that. So, you're like, well, this is a day.
[42:56.480 --> 43:02.720]  I got, I have to go have a nice evening. I filed that motion and I guess it's going to get dismissed.
[43:03.680 --> 43:08.480]  But that's the motion that I filed. And so basically in the motion,
[43:08.480 --> 43:15.440]  he's requesting to get the case dismissed, stating that I have two current cases
[43:16.320 --> 43:22.880]  in the criminal court. And in those two cases, those arguments are raised.
[43:24.400 --> 43:32.160]  The same arguments in the complaint are raised. And, uh, because of that, I have a, I have a
[43:32.160 --> 43:42.720]  asset for those issues to be addressed. And so the complaint should be dismissed. Plus,
[43:42.720 --> 43:48.880]  I forgot to file the state attorney general as a defendant.
[43:53.840 --> 43:57.360]  You got a break coming up. Yep. We'll be right back.
[43:57.360 --> 43:59.360]  All right.
[44:27.360 --> 44:38.080]  We have come to trust Jungevity so much. We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones,
[44:38.080 --> 44:44.800]  Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order from logosradio network.com, your health will improve
[44:44.800 --> 44:51.120]  as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of Jungevity, you may want to join
[44:51.120 --> 44:57.600]  us as a distributor. You can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase
[44:57.600 --> 45:05.040]  your income. Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without
[45:05.040 --> 45:11.520]  an attorney with Jurisdictionary. The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show
[45:11.520 --> 45:19.040]  you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.040 --> 45:24.640]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step
[45:24.640 --> 45:32.080]  by step course. And now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years
[45:32.080 --> 45:38.080]  of case winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should
[45:38.080 --> 45:44.000]  understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our
[45:44.000 --> 45:52.160]  audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics, and much more.
[45:52.160 --> 46:14.320]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:22.880 --> 46:33.360]  Yeah, always I must be careful what I'm wishing for. When I'm hungry, I like to know just what
[46:33.360 --> 46:43.120]  I'm wishing for. I ain't asking for much, I ain't trying to be no glutton. I'm just here making my
[46:43.120 --> 46:54.320]  living pushing buttons. I get my message out when you want it, shout in distance. I hope for bravery
[46:54.320 --> 47:03.680]  and against slavery, showing resistance. First I'm crawling, then I'm walking, then I start strutting.
[47:03.680 --> 47:10.240]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Franton, the rule of law radio. And a couple of
[47:10.240 --> 47:20.800]  spots open on the caller board, our call in number 512-646-1984. Okay, Libby A, when we went out, you
[47:20.800 --> 47:48.400]  were on a roll. Right. I ended with the, what was that? Okay. Okay, yeah, the statute. Now,
[47:48.400 --> 47:55.680]  the judge, I was at the, where the attorney filed a motion to dismiss, this is just one of the,
[47:55.680 --> 48:03.120]  one of the attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment saying that
[48:06.080 --> 48:16.640]  I did, I failed to add the state attorney general and that I had two current cases pending in criminal
[48:16.640 --> 48:25.280]  court. So basically, I did not have the right to file a declaratory suit because
[48:26.080 --> 48:32.720]  the questions were already before the court. Did you ask him, where'd you come up with that?
[48:33.840 --> 48:35.120]  Did you just make that up?
[48:41.760 --> 48:44.400]  Have you seen any rules or laws on that?
[48:44.400 --> 48:51.600]  Well, the rules. Okay, let me, let me say, tell you why I'm saying that.
[48:53.040 --> 49:03.840]  The idea of a declaratory judgment was in order to address an issue without having to go through
[49:03.840 --> 49:14.240]  a whole court case on it. It's a shortcut. You think you have this claim, but you're not sure.
[49:14.240 --> 49:23.520]  And you ask the judge to clarify the claim. If you get that clarified, then you can go back into the
[49:25.200 --> 49:31.920]  criminal court and withdraw those issues. So it would still serve judicial economy
[49:32.480 --> 49:42.320]  to have these addressed. However, the court that hears the declaratory judgment, however they rule,
[49:42.320 --> 49:49.920]  that can be brought back to these two criminal trials and will shorten both of those trials,
[49:50.480 --> 49:57.040]  whichever way it's ruled. So his argument about your filing a declaratory judgment,
[49:57.600 --> 50:03.600]  when you already had cases, had the issues in civil cases, is unreasonable.
[50:05.760 --> 50:07.920]  Or it's based on specious logic.
[50:07.920 --> 50:14.560]  Exactly. So that, so now I was trying to put all this stuff together. I'm realizing,
[50:14.560 --> 50:23.120]  like, well, like, you're not educated. Number one, we're talking about a statute here.
[50:23.120 --> 50:30.320]  And it's a Florida statute. Everybody can pull it up or read it. I'm gonna, I'm gonna start reading
[50:30.320 --> 50:35.600]  for you. Just the first two sentences. This is how bad it is. There's several, you know,
[50:35.600 --> 50:41.680]  segments in the statute. But just the first segment, first two sentences.
[50:43.200 --> 50:43.680]  It says,
[50:43.680 --> 51:05.520]  it says, it says jurisdiction of trial court. The circuit court and county courts have jurisdiction
[51:05.520 --> 51:12.800]  within their respective jurisdictional amounts to declare right status and other equitable
[51:12.800 --> 51:25.840]  or legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. That's the first
[51:25.840 --> 51:42.880]  segment. The second sentence says no action or procedure is open to objection on the ground that
[51:42.880 --> 51:58.000]  a declaratory judgment is demanded. Will you read that again? The first, the second sentence
[51:58.000 --> 52:07.440]  or the first one? Yeah, the second sentence. The second sentence. No action or procedure
[52:07.440 --> 52:19.920]  is open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment is demanded.
[52:23.120 --> 52:28.000]  Okay. That seems a little backwards from the issues the lawyer brought.
[52:28.000 --> 52:41.440]  He's saying, he's objecting not because the, okay, I'm having a little trouble with that.
[52:42.960 --> 52:48.400]  He's asking that the declaratory judgment be dropped and this statute says that a
[52:49.600 --> 52:56.240]  objection can't be brought in a trial court because there is a petition for
[52:56.240 --> 53:01.360]  declaratory judgment. He's objecting to the declaratory judgment is there, doesn't mean
[53:01.360 --> 53:07.840]  you can object. Yeah, so what he's saying, he's objecting to the declaratory judgment,
[53:07.840 --> 53:13.920]  not because, not objecting to the fact that it's there, but he's objecting to it being filed. So
[53:14.480 --> 53:22.080]  that didn't seem to go exactly to this issue. I know I'm kind of stumbling there, but
[53:22.080 --> 53:25.600]  is that making sense?
[53:30.640 --> 53:33.840]  He said, does that make sense? No.
[53:35.600 --> 53:39.440]  Okay. It sounds like what he's saying is if you have a declaratory judgment
[53:40.560 --> 53:47.840]  in place and then you file a civil suit and raise the same issue, he's saying,
[53:47.840 --> 53:57.200]  the statute seems to be saying that they can't object to the issue being brought in this case
[53:58.000 --> 54:05.440]  because there is a declaratory judgment. He's saying that it's already in this case and therefore
[54:05.440 --> 54:12.080]  it's improper to bring the declaratory judgment. So it's backwards from that prohibition.
[54:12.080 --> 54:18.160]  This is the declaratory statute itself.
[54:20.240 --> 54:22.400]  Yeah, and what he's saying is, oh.
[54:24.240 --> 54:31.520]  It's saying that you cannot object to a declaratory statute because there is some other
[54:31.520 --> 54:34.000]  case or action going on somewhere else.
[54:34.000 --> 54:40.800]  Okay, then I heard that wrong. I'm probably shooting at him. For sure. Me too.
[54:42.160 --> 54:44.560]  Yeah, because it seemed like it was the other way around to me.
[54:46.160 --> 54:51.360]  Right. Yeah, I thought so too. You can't object just because there's a declaratory judgment.
[54:52.320 --> 54:58.160]  Right. Because the declaratory judgment is dealing with the question or is dealing with
[54:58.160 --> 55:07.280]  a procedure that becomes more prevalent than the case or whatever situation is going on at hand,
[55:07.840 --> 55:14.640]  you cannot object to the declaratory judgment because we have to initiate this before that is
[55:14.640 --> 55:23.680]  handled. And that may absolutely make sense because trial courts are a lot more complicated than
[55:23.680 --> 55:30.480]  declaratory judgment. And that was a whole idea of declaratory judgment. It's a shortcut to this
[55:30.480 --> 55:39.360]  ruling. If the ruling is against you, then these two cases where you have those questions of law
[55:39.360 --> 55:45.200]  in the cases, they would be disposed with. So it would go to judicial economy.
[55:45.200 --> 55:54.160]  Right. And if they ruled in your favor, then in the trial court, you don't have to adjudicate
[55:54.160 --> 55:59.040]  all this stuff because it's already done. That would also go to judicial economy.
[56:00.400 --> 56:06.320]  Right. And then if they appealed it, if they appealed it because their butt hurt,
[56:07.040 --> 56:11.200]  now my case would be case law. Well, what's it goes to the appeals court?
[56:11.200 --> 56:19.440]  And that they're not going to want to happen. So generally, they're pretty desperate to get
[56:19.440 --> 56:25.840]  it dismissed on the front end because they do not want it going to the court of appeals.
[56:26.800 --> 56:35.440]  In a case in Texas, we kind of jumped the gun on them and went for subject matter jurisdiction
[56:35.440 --> 56:44.320]  before all the issues had been heard. And all of a sudden, we had that issue in the appellate
[56:44.320 --> 56:49.520]  court. And they were terrified that if the appellate court ruled against us, then we would appeal it
[56:49.520 --> 56:57.440]  to the Supreme. They did not want that to happen. So even the court of appeals did not want that
[56:57.440 --> 57:04.880]  to happen. So they went and found a different problem with the case other than the one we raised.
[57:06.080 --> 57:16.320]  And dismissed the case on this really obscure statute. The obscure statute wasn't a constitutional
[57:16.320 --> 57:26.000]  issue, so they didn't care if you appealed that. If we had appealed based on our argument,
[57:26.000 --> 57:33.920]  all the ordinances in the state of Texas could wind up rendered void. And the judges were not
[57:33.920 --> 57:39.600]  going to let that happen. So they found another way to do it. Am I making sense, Olivier?
[57:43.600 --> 57:49.760]  You're asking exactly the kind of questions they are not going to want to get to the court of appeals
[57:49.760 --> 57:57.360]  because on the off chance, you get a ruling in your favor. Everything they're doing is
[57:57.360 --> 57:59.440]  screwed. They have to change all their policies.
[58:03.520 --> 58:09.920]  Right. And that is what you're doing because you're going over that thing. The first consensus.
[58:09.920 --> 58:12.720]  The first consensus is in talking about jurisdiction.
[58:12.720 --> 58:24.160]  Yeah, I'm thinking that you're breaking up there. I'm thinking that your petition for
[58:24.160 --> 58:31.760]  declaratory judgment, that really puts them on the legal dime. So they almost certainly
[58:31.760 --> 58:37.280]  really need that to go away because if the judge rules against you on that,
[58:37.280 --> 58:43.520]  that issue immediately goes to the appellate courts.
[58:43.520 --> 58:46.880]  We're going to have to continue this on the other side of our sponsors.
[58:50.000 --> 58:53.920]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:53.920 --> 58:59.520]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.520 --> 59:04.320]  can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study
[59:04.320 --> 59:09.280]  Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of foot
[59:09.280 --> 59:14.640]  notes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three
[59:14.640 --> 59:20.480]  volume set called basic elements of the Christian life. Chapter by chapter, basic elements of the
[59:20.480 --> 59:26.560]  Christian life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build
[59:26.560 --> 59:32.400]  up the church. To order your free New Testament recovery version and basic elements of the
[59:32.400 --> 59:44.960]  Christian life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:44.960 --> 59:48.960]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:48.960 --> 59:58.160]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at www.logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:00.480 --> 01:00:04.400]  The following news flash is brought to you by The Lowest Star Lowdowns.
[01:00:06.240 --> 01:00:12.880]  Markets for Monday the 22nd of July 2019 open with precious metals, gold at $1,429 an ounce,
[01:00:12.880 --> 01:00:20.720]  silver $16.45 an ounce, copper $2.75 an ounce, oil Texas crude $55.63 a barrel,
[01:00:20.720 --> 01:00:29.040]  Brent crude $62.47 a barrel, and cryptos in order of market cap, Bitcoin Core $10,566.52,
[01:00:29.040 --> 01:00:45.840]  Ethereum $227.26, XRP Ripple $0.33, Litecoin $100.31, and Bitcoin Cash is at $324.10 a crypto coin.
[01:00:45.840 --> 01:00:52.320]  Today in history, the year 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, a time suitcase bomb was detonated
[01:00:52.320 --> 01:00:58.000]  on Market Street in San Francisco during the World War I Preparedness Day Parade, killing 10
[01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:00.240]  and injuring 40 today in history.
[01:01:04.400 --> 01:01:09.440]  And recent news, since Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325 legalizing hemp into
[01:01:09.440 --> 01:01:14.080]  Texas law back in June, county prosecutors around the state including Houston, Austin,
[01:01:14.080 --> 01:01:17.760]  San Antonio have been dropping marijuana possession charges and even refusing to
[01:01:17.760 --> 01:01:22.240]  file new ones since they are stipulating that they do not have the time or the laboratory
[01:01:22.240 --> 01:01:27.040]  equipment to test the year for THC. Margaret Moore, the Travis County District Attorney,
[01:01:27.040 --> 01:01:31.680]  announced earlier this month that she was dismissing 32 felony possession and delivery of marijuana
[01:01:31.680 --> 01:01:36.480]  cases because of the law. Mr. Abbott and other state officials including the Attorney General
[01:01:36.480 --> 01:01:40.720]  stipulated in a letter to county district attorneys back on Thursday that marijuana
[01:01:40.720 --> 01:01:45.600]  has not been decriminalized in Texas and that these actions demonstrate a misunderstanding
[01:01:45.600 --> 01:01:52.240]  of how HB 1325 works, as well as other cities too like the District Attorney in El Paso,
[01:01:52.240 --> 01:01:57.840]  Kyma Esparza, a Democrat who also stated earlier this month that the law quote will not have an
[01:01:57.840 --> 01:02:03.280]  effect on the prosecution of marijuana cases in El Paso. However, the issue was succinctly
[01:02:03.280 --> 01:02:08.560]  summarized by Mr. Brandon Ball, an assistant public defender in Harris County who stated that quote,
[01:02:08.560 --> 01:02:13.120]  the law is constantly changing on what makes something illegal based on its chemical makeup.
[01:02:13.120 --> 01:02:22.400]  It's important that if someone is charged with something, the test matches what they're charged with.
[01:02:22.400 --> 01:02:27.520]  A paper by Tulane University identified a five and a half inch American pocket shark as the
[01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:32.960]  first of its kind in the Gulf of Mexico, the specimen being only the second pocket shark ever
[01:02:32.960 --> 01:02:38.960]  captured or recorded with the other one being found way back in 1979 in the East Pacific Ocean.
[01:02:38.960 --> 01:02:44.080]  According to the university paper, the shark secretes a luminous fluid from a gland near its
[01:02:44.080 --> 01:02:50.240]  front fins for the purpose it is hypothesized to lure and prey who may be drawn into the glow.
[01:02:50.240 --> 01:03:06.240]  This is Book Roadie with your lowdown for July 22nd, 2019.
[01:03:21.200 --> 01:03:28.240]  I will lie by my father's house until he returns.
[01:03:28.240 --> 01:03:32.240]  I will lie by my father's house until he returns.
[01:03:32.240 --> 01:03:36.240]  He has nothing with his faith and with God.
[01:03:36.240 --> 01:03:40.240]  I will aid my concern.
[01:03:40.240 --> 01:03:44.240]  I will lie by my father's house until I return.
[01:03:44.240 --> 01:03:50.240]  I will lie by my father's house until I return.
[01:03:50.240 --> 01:03:54.240]  I will lie by my father's house until I return.
[01:03:54.240 --> 01:04:02.240]  I will guard these walls and fences until they come to take his place.
[01:04:02.240 --> 01:04:06.240]  I will lie by my father's house until I return.
[01:04:06.240 --> 01:04:16.240]  I will guard these walls and fences until they come to take his place.
[01:04:16.240 --> 01:04:20.240]  Okay, I'm practicing here.
[01:04:20.240 --> 01:04:24.240]  This time I didn't bring up the calendar so I won't be looking at it and not reading it.
[01:04:24.240 --> 01:04:30.240]  And Brett said I needed to take another shot at this to see if I could get it right.
[01:04:30.240 --> 01:04:38.240]  It was at the top of the hour and October 22nd, 2021, Friday.
[01:04:38.240 --> 01:04:40.240]  Nailed it.
[01:04:40.240 --> 01:04:43.240]  That's right. That's why I get the big bucks.
[01:04:43.240 --> 01:04:48.240]  Okay, back to Olivier.
[01:04:48.240 --> 01:04:51.240]  Okay, I'll stop talking about that.
[01:04:51.240 --> 01:05:02.240]  I was concerned about we're still evaluating the effect that a declaratory judgment has.
[01:05:02.240 --> 01:05:13.240]  Clearly, you're seeing it now and Tina has saw that I've never had a lawyer who understood declaratory judgment.
[01:05:13.240 --> 01:05:21.240]  And in your case, I'm looking at, you got two criminal cases in place with these arguments in it.
[01:05:21.240 --> 01:05:24.240]  You filed a declaratory judgment.
[01:05:24.240 --> 01:05:34.240]  And the lawyer, what was his original reason for dismissal?
[01:05:34.240 --> 01:05:48.240]  They were put in the same motion, but one, I failed to name the general, the state attorney general in the complaint.
[01:05:48.240 --> 01:05:55.240]  Basically, I guess he wants the legislature to answer because he won't...
[01:05:55.240 --> 01:06:03.240]  Wait, you only have to do that when you bring a constitutional challenge as a rule.
[01:06:03.240 --> 01:06:09.240]  Right. It is a constitutional challenge.
[01:06:09.240 --> 01:06:11.240]  No, no, no, you're not...
[01:06:11.240 --> 01:06:24.240]  If I file a motion that challenges the constitutionality of a law, that I would notice the attorney general.
[01:06:24.240 --> 01:06:37.240]  But that's not what you're doing in this particular issue. You're asking the judge to rule on what the meaning of the statute is.
[01:06:37.240 --> 01:06:45.240]  You're not challenging the statute as unconstitutional in your petition for declaratory judgment.
[01:06:45.240 --> 01:06:49.240]  Yes, I am.
[01:06:49.240 --> 01:06:57.240]  Or did you ask the court to rule that the statute was unconstitutionally vague?
[01:06:57.240 --> 01:06:59.240]  Yeah, vague.
[01:06:59.240 --> 01:07:01.240]  In that case, he's right.
[01:07:01.240 --> 01:07:05.240]  Unconstitutional, vague and overbroad.
[01:07:05.240 --> 01:07:17.240]  Okay, in that case, since you're making a constitutional challenge, if Florida is anything like Texas, then yes, you have to notice the attorney for the state.
[01:07:17.240 --> 01:07:23.240]  Yes, I thought I was doing that when I sued the prosecutors because they go...
[01:07:23.240 --> 01:07:27.240]  No, the attorney general...
[01:07:27.240 --> 01:07:34.240]  The prosecutor is just prosecuting this one case for the state.
[01:07:34.240 --> 01:07:39.240]  The attorney general is the civil lawyer for the state.
[01:07:39.240 --> 01:07:43.240]  He's the state's attorney that represents the state.
[01:07:43.240 --> 01:07:49.240]  The prosecutor is prosecuting a criminal violation.
[01:07:49.240 --> 01:08:05.240]  So yes, every time you bring a constitutional challenge, you have to include the attorney general in the suit because he's ultimately the one to answer it.
[01:08:05.240 --> 01:08:10.240]  Oh, so everybody else is the don't have to answer?
[01:08:10.240 --> 01:08:17.240]  Yeah, no, yeah, they have to answer, but the other ones, you only need one answer.
[01:08:17.240 --> 01:08:36.240]  So if he's named in the suit, well, actually, if you sue a civil suit and you got a number of litigants with different issues for each of those litigants, then each of the litigants have to answer to their peculiar issues.
[01:08:36.240 --> 01:08:53.240]  Here you have one issue and all of the defendants in the issue, the two prosecutors and the attorney general are all derivatives of the same client, which is the state.
[01:08:53.240 --> 01:09:01.240]  So one answer would be the answer for the state.
[01:09:01.240 --> 01:09:09.240]  You're not, you're not suing these lawyers in their official capacity.
[01:09:09.240 --> 01:09:13.240]  No, but how about the city and the offices?
[01:09:13.240 --> 01:09:17.240]  They're being brought in in their official capacities.
[01:09:17.240 --> 01:09:21.240]  The city is different.
[01:09:21.240 --> 01:09:32.240]  The county, you know, county is a state office or agency. The municipality is not.
[01:09:32.240 --> 01:09:36.240]  So they would have to be served separately or noticed separately.
[01:09:36.240 --> 01:09:42.240]  I'm sorry, they would have to answer separately.
[01:09:42.240 --> 01:09:58.240]  Now, I want a quick assessment of one, the complaint is probably only a 15-minute read. This attorney told me that she spent several hours reading the complaint.
[01:09:58.240 --> 01:10:04.240]  And I'm sitting there like, you feel comfortable telling me that?
[01:10:04.240 --> 01:10:10.240]  You should ask him, are you familiar with Evelyn Wood?
[01:10:10.240 --> 01:10:23.240]  Well, I asked him, Evelyn Wood was a very famous and a speed reading course.
[01:10:23.240 --> 01:10:27.240]  So obviously he doesn't read very fast.
[01:10:27.240 --> 01:10:36.240]  Or she's got to go and look up every little thing because nobody's ever brought up these points and she doesn't ever have to try to follow the law until he puts it in her face.
[01:10:36.240 --> 01:10:40.240]  Now she's got to go look it up.
[01:10:40.240 --> 01:10:48.240]  I thought about that, but we don't want to give her credit for that.
[01:10:48.240 --> 01:10:53.240]  It's not as demeaning and insulting.
[01:10:53.240 --> 01:11:07.240]  To me, I was kind of like shocked because I was like, wait a minute, okay, you spent hours reading your speech and attorney and you still have to go do research on this.
[01:11:07.240 --> 01:11:13.240]  And you don't sound like you want to be on the other side.
[01:11:13.240 --> 01:11:23.240]  She probably doesn't. We had a guy in Florida in South Florida on a property tax issue.
[01:11:23.240 --> 01:11:27.240]  He was calling in for a time and we were helping him.
[01:11:27.240 --> 01:11:32.240]  And at the end of the case, he said he had bargained the lawyer about five times.
[01:11:32.240 --> 01:11:36.240]  He got in the elevator and the lawyer got in the same elevator with him.
[01:11:36.240 --> 01:11:40.240]  And he was concerned because he'd really worked this lawyer over.
[01:11:40.240 --> 01:11:47.240]  And I asked him if he was an attorney and he said, no, he said, I've been an attorney for 15 years.
[01:11:47.240 --> 01:12:00.240]  I've been across from the best and I've been across from the worst, but I have never had anyone take me to the books the way you have.
[01:12:00.240 --> 01:12:08.240]  And that may be explained why it took her so long because you sent her to the books.
[01:12:08.240 --> 01:12:13.240]  She almost certainly went in and checked all of your citations.
[01:12:13.240 --> 01:12:17.240]  And that would account for four hours.
[01:12:17.240 --> 01:12:28.240]  That's what I, so now I'm, so I say that question because you need to understand what type of response am I supposed to get back?
[01:12:28.240 --> 01:12:40.240]  Because if I'm declaring that we have the right of locomotion, we have that the statutes are overbroad, the terms are not clarified,
[01:12:40.240 --> 01:12:50.240]  that they don't fly proper procedures for the common intelligent officer to understand how to apply the statute,
[01:12:50.240 --> 01:12:54.240]  what type of answers am I supposed to be receiving?
[01:12:54.240 --> 01:12:57.240]  That raises a good question.
[01:12:57.240 --> 01:13:08.240]  Okay, I'm the prosecutor and I'm going to claim that these statutes are not overly broad,
[01:13:08.240 --> 01:13:22.240]  that there are plenty well written so that a reasonable officer of ordinary prudence reading it would come to the same conclusion as another reasonable officer of ordinary prudence.
[01:13:22.240 --> 01:13:32.240]  And you can say, well, if that's the case, then why are they not acting in accordance with this law?
[01:13:32.240 --> 01:13:45.240]  That's going to be a hard position to rebut when you can show that different officers are reading these different and enforcing them differently.
[01:13:45.240 --> 01:14:01.240]  And that's essentially absolute proof that they are either unconstitutionally vague or the officers are intentionally misapplying the law.
[01:14:01.240 --> 01:14:03.240]  Does that make sense?
[01:14:03.240 --> 01:14:08.240]  Right, correct.
[01:14:08.240 --> 01:14:18.240]  And the fact that she read your entire pleading, and it took her four hours, that almost certainly means that she checked your case law.
[01:14:18.240 --> 01:14:21.240]  She didn't criticize your pleading.
[01:14:21.240 --> 01:14:26.240]  And called me to ask me for more research time.
[01:14:26.240 --> 01:14:30.240]  I hope you told her no.
[01:14:30.240 --> 01:14:37.240]  Because I guarantee you, if you ask her for research time, she's going to object.
[01:14:37.240 --> 01:14:44.240]  Yeah, I told her, I told her, I want to object, but I want an intelligent response.
[01:14:44.240 --> 01:14:50.240]  And then I questioned her about who represents the legislature.
[01:14:50.240 --> 01:14:52.240]  She said, oh, the legislature is not honest.
[01:14:52.240 --> 01:14:53.240]  I said, what do you mean?
[01:14:53.240 --> 01:14:55.240]  I sued two attorneys.
[01:14:55.240 --> 01:14:59.240]  I mean, I sued two prosecutors, so state attorneys.
[01:14:59.240 --> 01:15:01.240]  How come the legislature's not there?
[01:15:01.240 --> 01:15:03.240]  She's like, oh, they're prosecutors.
[01:15:03.240 --> 01:15:05.240]  I said, they walk around like state attorneys.
[01:15:05.240 --> 01:15:14.240]  They should have appointed the attorney general to address the suit.
[01:15:14.240 --> 01:15:26.240]  I haven't seen Florida law, but you actually have no defendants.
[01:15:26.240 --> 01:15:28.240]  The attorneys are not the defendant.
[01:15:28.240 --> 01:15:36.240]  The defendant is the state itself, and they're only academically a defendant.
[01:15:36.240 --> 01:15:40.240]  Because you're not asking for anything from anyone.
[01:15:40.240 --> 01:15:42.240]  Nobody's being sued here.
[01:15:42.240 --> 01:15:52.240]  So all that civil law about lawsuits don't really apply the attorney to declare for adjustment suits.
[01:15:52.240 --> 01:16:01.240]  And I would think that if a suit is filed that implicates the interests of the state,
[01:16:01.240 --> 01:16:06.240]  that there's no need to include the attorney general.
[01:16:06.240 --> 01:16:13.240]  Any defendant who's included could, if they need the attorney general, they can ask for him.
[01:16:13.240 --> 01:16:24.240]  And he can enter as amicus curiae, or they can bring him on as the lawyer for the state.
[01:16:24.240 --> 01:16:34.240]  That would not seem to be an issue for which you would dismiss the case.
[01:16:34.240 --> 01:16:41.240]  All I had to do is call attorney general and ask him for a brief.
[01:16:41.240 --> 01:16:48.240]  Why would you dismiss and otherwise perfectly good pleading?
[01:16:48.240 --> 01:16:52.240]  For that reason.
[01:16:52.240 --> 01:16:55.240]  So you've got to go over the bridge.
[01:16:55.240 --> 01:16:57.240]  Okay, hang on.
[01:16:57.240 --> 01:17:00.240]  I can't see my time.
[01:17:00.240 --> 01:17:05.240]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:05.240 --> 01:17:09.240]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris proven method.
[01:17:09.240 --> 01:17:14.240]  Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two.
[01:17:14.240 --> 01:17:20.240]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:17:20.240 --> 01:17:24.240]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons.
[01:17:24.240 --> 01:17:26.240]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:17:26.240 --> 01:17:29.240]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:17:29.240 --> 01:17:33.240]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.240 --> 01:17:38.240]  The Michael Mirris proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.240 --> 01:17:40.240]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.240 --> 01:17:46.240]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner.
[01:17:46.240 --> 01:17:49.240]  Or email Michaelmirris at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.240 --> 01:17:57.240]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[01:17:57.240 --> 01:18:00.240]  To learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[01:18:00.240 --> 01:18:01.240]  I love logos.
[01:18:01.240 --> 01:18:04.240]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:18:04.240 --> 01:18:07.240]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:18:07.240 --> 01:18:08.240]  I need my truths fixed.
[01:18:08.240 --> 01:18:10.240]  I'd be lost without logos.
[01:18:10.240 --> 01:18:13.240]  And I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:13.240 --> 01:18:16.240]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite.
[01:18:16.240 --> 01:18:20.240]  And I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:20.240 --> 01:18:22.240]  How can I help logos?
[01:18:22.240 --> 01:18:24.240]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:18:24.240 --> 01:18:27.240]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:18:27.240 --> 01:18:29.240]  You can order in your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:29.240 --> 01:18:31.240]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:18:31.240 --> 01:18:34.240]  Now, go to www.logosregulatework.com.
[01:18:34.240 --> 01:18:37.240]  Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:18:37.240 --> 01:18:43.240]  Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:43.240 --> 01:18:44.240]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.240 --> 01:18:45.240]  No.
[01:18:45.240 --> 01:18:47.240]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:47.240 --> 01:18:48.240]  No.
[01:18:48.240 --> 01:18:49.240]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:49.240 --> 01:18:50.240]  No.
[01:18:50.240 --> 01:18:51.240]  I mean, yes.
[01:18:51.240 --> 01:18:52.240]  Wow.
[01:18:52.240 --> 01:18:54.240]  Giving without doing anything or spending any money.
[01:18:54.240 --> 01:18:55.240]  This is perfect.
[01:18:55.240 --> 01:18:57.240]  Thank you so much.
[01:18:57.240 --> 01:18:58.240]  We are welcome.
[01:18:58.240 --> 01:19:00.240]  Happy holidays, logos.
[01:19:00.240 --> 01:19:10.240]  This is the Logos, Logos Radio, Net Video, and Network.
[01:19:11.240 --> 01:19:13.240]  Oh, come on.
[01:19:13.240 --> 01:19:39.240]  If I can't get everything I want, yeah, we get a range, yeah, we get a range, yeah,
[01:19:39.240 --> 01:19:47.240]  we get a range, yeah, we get a range, yeah, we get a range, yeah, we get a range, yeah,
[01:19:47.240 --> 01:19:48.240]  we get a range, yeah.
[01:19:48.240 --> 01:19:49.240]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:49.240 --> 01:19:50.240]  Randy Caldwell and Brett Fountain.
[01:19:50.240 --> 01:19:51.240]  We live on radio.
[01:19:51.240 --> 01:19:52.240]  We're talking to Olivier.
[01:19:52.240 --> 01:20:00.240]  And Olivier, you took me to a place that I haven't addressed a bunch of times.
[01:20:00.240 --> 01:20:06.360]  So the problem at the end of that last segment was I was thinking and talking at the same
[01:20:06.360 --> 01:20:07.360]  time.
[01:20:07.360 --> 01:20:09.360]  And that never works out well.
[01:20:09.360 --> 01:20:13.360]  I told him he's going to cut that out.
[01:20:13.360 --> 01:20:17.360]  On the break, we're kind of sorted out.
[01:20:17.360 --> 01:20:24.360]  You raise this issue and you raise it with the state and you named two state attorneys.
[01:20:24.360 --> 01:20:30.360]  If the state wants to bring in their own lawyer, and that's what the attorney general is, he's
[01:20:30.360 --> 01:20:36.360]  the lawyer for the state, they're perfectly all right in doing that.
[01:20:36.360 --> 01:20:44.360]  There is no reason to dismiss a case because you didn't add a lawyer, they can add themselves.
[01:20:44.360 --> 01:20:48.360]  Does that make sense, Olivier?
[01:20:48.360 --> 01:20:49.360]  Right.
[01:20:49.360 --> 01:20:54.360]  That's what I was struggling trying to get sorted out at the end there.
[01:20:54.360 --> 01:20:55.360]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:20:55.360 --> 01:20:57.360]  I'm going to shut up now.
[01:20:57.360 --> 01:20:58.360]  Okay.
[01:20:58.360 --> 01:21:13.360]  So as far as me saying that the statute is overbroad, they will have to counter that
[01:21:13.360 --> 01:21:15.360]  assertion, right?
[01:21:15.360 --> 01:21:16.360]  Yeah.
[01:21:16.360 --> 01:21:27.360]  And when you were saying that, if the statute is not overbroad, then they would have to
[01:21:27.360 --> 01:21:34.360]  justify why their officers are reading it and interpreting it differently.
[01:21:34.360 --> 01:21:40.360]  If it's not overbroad, it must be presumed that the officers know and understand what
[01:21:40.360 --> 01:21:42.360]  that statute means.
[01:21:42.360 --> 01:21:48.360]  So if they act differently, then it must be presumed they did that on purpose.
[01:21:48.360 --> 01:21:50.360]  They're all criminals.
[01:21:50.360 --> 01:21:52.360]  They're all criminals.
[01:21:52.360 --> 01:21:59.360]  But here's the thing, they're saying that they're acting properly because the automobile
[01:21:59.360 --> 01:22:05.360]  sits in that scheme to be regulated.
[01:22:05.360 --> 01:22:10.360]  Well, you've got people able to interpret that in different ways.
[01:22:10.360 --> 01:22:12.360]  So obviously...
[01:22:12.360 --> 01:22:25.360]  Did they brief out how the transportation code applies to a motorized conveyance that's
[01:22:25.360 --> 01:22:26.360]  not in commerce?
[01:22:26.360 --> 01:22:30.360]  Or did they just make that as a general statement?
[01:22:30.360 --> 01:22:31.360]  Yeah.
[01:22:31.360 --> 01:22:35.360]  He made it as a general statement.
[01:22:35.360 --> 01:22:38.360]  I haven't got the other responses yet.
[01:22:38.360 --> 01:22:45.360]  So I'm trying to wrap my head around what type of response I should begin because all
[01:22:45.360 --> 01:22:49.360]  I could do is agree with it.
[01:22:49.360 --> 01:22:50.360]  Okay.
[01:22:50.360 --> 01:22:54.360]  A little piece of something to pay attention to.
[01:22:54.360 --> 01:23:00.360]  Just because they say something is the case doesn't mean it is.
[01:23:00.360 --> 01:23:08.360]  When they're making the statement out of their own mouth, you've heard me raise that issue
[01:23:08.360 --> 01:23:09.360]  before.
[01:23:09.360 --> 01:23:12.360]  Never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[01:23:12.360 --> 01:23:17.360]  And this prosecutor saying that it's well-settled law...
[01:23:17.360 --> 01:23:19.360]  No, no, no.
[01:23:19.360 --> 01:23:23.360]  Well, saying it's well-settled law means nothing.
[01:23:23.360 --> 01:23:25.360]  Find a law.
[01:23:25.360 --> 01:23:27.360]  See if you can fight one.
[01:23:27.360 --> 01:23:30.360]  Bring me that law that's settled at Bubba.
[01:23:30.360 --> 01:23:35.360]  Otherwise, you're making proactive statements to law out of your own mouth.
[01:23:35.360 --> 01:23:40.360]  And anytime they make that kind of an argument, when you get in court, you can move to have
[01:23:40.360 --> 01:23:43.360]  it stricken.
[01:23:43.360 --> 01:23:44.360]  Okay.
[01:23:44.360 --> 01:23:52.360]  Well, so I should be safe because the federal courts have ruled automobile to be a household
[01:23:52.360 --> 01:24:00.360]  item protected by all the constitutional rights that household items have.
[01:24:00.360 --> 01:24:02.360]  I'm glad you said that.
[01:24:02.360 --> 01:24:06.360]  Because the last time you said that, I told myself, you've got to stop calling these
[01:24:06.360 --> 01:24:13.360]  conveyances and start calling them household items.
[01:24:13.360 --> 01:24:16.360]  Well, yes, they're household items.
[01:24:16.360 --> 01:24:20.360]  Household items, but they also call it an automobile.
[01:24:20.360 --> 01:24:22.360]  This is an automobile.
[01:24:22.360 --> 01:24:24.360]  It's a household item.
[01:24:24.360 --> 01:24:26.360]  It belongs to the home.
[01:24:26.360 --> 01:24:33.360]  You use it to bring pleasure to the home and convenience to the home.
[01:24:33.360 --> 01:24:37.360]  So we already know that that is well-settled law.
[01:24:37.360 --> 01:24:39.360]  It's written.
[01:24:39.360 --> 01:24:46.360]  So that means they would have to bring something that would overturn that somehow.
[01:24:46.360 --> 01:24:55.360]  There's no set of reasoning that they could argument, that they could bring in Trump
[01:24:55.360 --> 01:25:00.360]  that, hey, on this other side, the federal court had ruled that the automobile is a
[01:25:00.360 --> 01:25:05.360]  personal item belonging to your home and protected by all the constitutional rights.
[01:25:05.360 --> 01:25:06.360]  Yeah.
[01:25:06.360 --> 01:25:12.360]  And the term you were looking for a moment ago was distinguish.
[01:25:12.360 --> 01:25:17.360]  You either distinguish or you overrule.
[01:25:17.360 --> 01:25:26.360]  If you don't overrule it, you don't say it's totally no good, but distinguish it saying
[01:25:26.360 --> 01:25:34.360]  that in this particular circumstance, this ruling that was given doesn't apply.
[01:25:34.360 --> 01:25:38.360]  Does that make sense?
[01:25:38.360 --> 01:25:46.360]  So that's the terminology is either overrule or distinguish or follow.
[01:25:46.360 --> 01:25:56.360]  But if they say that in this focused set of facts, this case won't apply, then that's
[01:25:56.360 --> 01:25:57.360]  distinguish.
[01:25:57.360 --> 01:25:58.360]  Okay.
[01:25:58.360 --> 01:26:00.360]  Go ahead.
[01:26:00.360 --> 01:26:01.360]  Okay.
[01:26:01.360 --> 01:26:07.360]  So Devin, can you see any type of argument that they can bring against that?
[01:26:07.360 --> 01:26:09.360]  I didn't write.
[01:26:09.360 --> 01:26:14.360]  It's like I wanted to set them up, so I didn't write those cases in.
[01:26:14.360 --> 01:26:21.360]  I just wrote all the laws and how they're violating, and I got those cases in backup
[01:26:21.360 --> 01:26:25.360]  to spring on them when they start making stupid arguments about the automobile.
[01:26:25.360 --> 01:26:28.360]  Good strategy.
[01:26:28.360 --> 01:26:36.360]  So yeah, so now I'm thinking like, I can't see no type of argument that you could bring
[01:26:36.360 --> 01:26:40.360]  to the table that I'm not.
[01:26:40.360 --> 01:26:45.360]  Have you started playing chess yet?
[01:26:45.360 --> 01:26:47.360]  Yeah.
[01:26:47.360 --> 01:26:54.360]  Play six moves in, even if you play both sides, it doesn't matter.
[01:26:54.360 --> 01:27:00.360]  But sit on one side of the table and play both sides for six moves, then turn to keep
[01:27:00.360 --> 01:27:03.360]  the board around.
[01:27:03.360 --> 01:27:10.360]  You will be surprised at how different it looks from the other side.
[01:27:10.360 --> 01:27:17.360]  I once said as a judge in a mock trial, and I was amazed at how different it was when
[01:27:17.360 --> 01:27:23.360]  I was sitting up there in the capacity of the judge, because then when these guys made
[01:27:23.360 --> 01:27:29.360]  these irrelevant arguments, instantly I was aware that it was, you know, it popped right
[01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:34.360]  in my head when other times I'm listening to the arguments and it doesn't click that
[01:27:34.360 --> 01:27:36.360]  it's the wrong argument.
[01:27:36.360 --> 01:27:42.360]  But when you get on the other side of that fence, you see it from a whole different perspective.
[01:27:42.360 --> 01:27:46.360]  So imagine you are the prosecutor.
[01:27:46.360 --> 01:27:53.360]  How are you going to rebut your pleadings?
[01:27:53.360 --> 01:27:55.360]  I couldn't.
[01:27:55.360 --> 01:28:02.360]  If I said early, I couldn't, I would have to agree with it.
[01:28:02.360 --> 01:28:07.360]  The lawyer will never do that if it loses him in his case.
[01:28:07.360 --> 01:28:12.360]  He will die before you agree with it.
[01:28:12.360 --> 01:28:19.360]  He'll invent something that you didn't actually say and argue against that.
[01:28:19.360 --> 01:28:28.360]  Okay, I got one more question so I can get everybody else to get on.
[01:28:28.360 --> 01:28:40.360]  The fact of, I'm not sure the federal judge didn't mention it in the response to me, but
[01:28:40.360 --> 01:28:48.360]  do we have to file one in the state and wait until it plays out until we file one in the federal?
[01:28:48.360 --> 01:28:49.360]  No.
[01:28:49.360 --> 01:28:57.360]  Does it play out into the state and then if the state supreme court doesn't take it,
[01:28:57.360 --> 01:29:03.360]  then we'll peel it from the state supreme to the federal?
[01:29:03.360 --> 01:29:07.360]  You can go directly to the fed if you wanted to.
[01:29:07.360 --> 01:29:13.360]  Is he talking about like Rick or Felden saying that if you have one that's pending?
[01:29:13.360 --> 01:29:18.360]  No, right.
[01:29:18.360 --> 01:29:19.360]  Did I get this right?
[01:29:19.360 --> 01:29:26.360]  You were saying when you file initially, do you have to file it in the state or can you file it in the fed?
[01:29:26.360 --> 01:29:36.360]  That will depend on whether or not the void for vagueness statute is state or federal.
[01:29:36.360 --> 01:29:42.360]  If you're addressing a Florida state statute, the only way you could get to the fed is
[01:29:42.360 --> 01:29:47.360]  if the state statute violated federal law.
[01:29:47.360 --> 01:29:57.360]  If it violates state law and federal law, then you have a choice of venues or a choice of forum.
[01:29:57.360 --> 01:30:00.360]  And you do because.
[01:30:00.360 --> 01:30:04.360]  A top cybersecurity expert has a warning for America.
[01:30:04.360 --> 01:30:11.360]  If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers will come and they could cause a catastrophic blackout.
[01:30:11.360 --> 01:30:15.360]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with the shocking details in a moment.
[01:30:41.360 --> 01:30:45.360]  Start Over with Start Page.
[01:30:45.360 --> 01:30:52.360]  Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into your home too with a smart grid.
[01:30:52.360 --> 01:30:59.360]  So they're installing a national network of smart meters to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and avoid grid failure.
[01:30:59.360 --> 01:31:08.360]  But cybersecurity expert David Chalk says not so fast if we make the national power grid controllable through the web, hackers will have a field day.
[01:31:08.360 --> 01:31:15.360]  Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the entire nation, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies.
[01:31:15.360 --> 01:31:19.360]  I've long opposed smart meters for privacy and health reasons.
[01:31:19.360 --> 01:31:24.360]  The catastrophic failures caused by hackers? There's nothing smart about that.
[01:31:24.360 --> 01:31:31.360]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for StartPage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.360 --> 01:31:37.360]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:37.360 --> 01:31:44.360]  It says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers have concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:44.360 --> 01:31:47.360]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:47.360 --> 01:31:49.360]  And thousands of my fellow force responders are dying.
[01:31:49.360 --> 01:31:51.360]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:51.360 --> 01:31:52.360]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:52.360 --> 01:31:53.360]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:53.360 --> 01:31:54.360]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:54.360 --> 01:31:56.360]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:56.360 --> 01:31:58.360]  We are Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.360 --> 01:32:01.360]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:01.360 --> 01:32:08.360]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society.
[01:32:08.360 --> 01:32:13.360]  And if we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.360 --> 01:32:18.360]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity,
[01:32:18.360 --> 01:32:20.360]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.360 --> 01:32:26.360]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.360 --> 01:32:31.360]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[01:32:31.360 --> 01:32:35.360]  that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the Rule of Law.
[01:32:35.360 --> 01:32:41.360]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to RuleofLawRadio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.360 --> 01:32:45.360]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[01:32:45.360 --> 01:32:51.360]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[01:32:51.360 --> 01:32:55.360]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from RuleofLawRadio.com.
[01:32:55.360 --> 01:33:02.360]  Order your copy today and together we can have free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:02.360 --> 01:33:29.360]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:32.360 --> 01:33:39.360]  Logos Radio Network.
[01:34:02.360 --> 01:34:11.360]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio.
[01:34:11.360 --> 01:34:18.360]  And we took a little time over the break because Brett and I were kicking around Rooker Feldman.
[01:34:18.360 --> 01:34:32.360]  The Rooker Feldman doctrine forbids a federal court from hearing issues that belong in the state.
[01:34:32.360 --> 01:34:38.360]  And so that was the Rooker Feldman doctrine.
[01:34:38.360 --> 01:34:45.360]  If you're being tried in the state and you don't think you're doing it right, you appeal to the state and they ignore you.
[01:34:45.360 --> 01:34:50.360]  They don't take it and they appeal to the state supreme. They don't take it.
[01:34:50.360 --> 01:34:53.360]  Then you want to go appeal to the federal.
[01:34:53.360 --> 01:35:03.360]  Well, if the claim doesn't have any federal issues in it and you're trying to appeal the federal issue,
[01:35:03.360 --> 01:35:15.360]  the feds are going to tell you we can't touch it. Northwest Mall and Fort Worth.
[01:35:15.360 --> 01:35:18.360]  I forget the town for the second. It'll come to me in a minute.
[01:35:18.360 --> 01:35:25.360]  But there was a big mall there and they wanted to extend the mall to the south where there's housing development.
[01:35:25.360 --> 01:35:31.360]  And they went to the city and told them how we could get you more tax revenue if you turn this into commercial.
[01:35:31.360 --> 01:35:39.360]  So the city went in and condemned all this whole neighborhood of houses and forced the people to move out.
[01:35:39.360 --> 01:35:42.360]  Well, they appealed all the way to the supreme.
[01:35:42.360 --> 01:35:47.360]  And when it got to the U.S. Supreme, the U.S. Supreme struck it down.
[01:35:47.360 --> 01:35:56.360]  I'm sorry. The plaintiffs were the homeowners and they dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.
[01:35:56.360 --> 01:36:07.360]  And what they said was we agree this looks like a very difficult and oppressive use of law.
[01:36:07.360 --> 01:36:12.360]  However, this is state law, not federal law.
[01:36:12.360 --> 01:36:18.360]  If you don't want this to happen in your state, you need to change state law.
[01:36:18.360 --> 01:36:22.360]  We have no power to intervene.
[01:36:22.360 --> 01:36:28.360]  And we had a lot of the patriots moving their jumping up and down and railing a right-wing syndignation
[01:36:28.360 --> 01:36:34.360]  because the city took these properties away from these people that has been there 20 and 30 years.
[01:36:34.360 --> 01:36:43.360]  And the Supreme Court agreed that was an egregious mess, but it's state law, not federal law.
[01:36:43.360 --> 01:36:45.360]  We don't have anything to say about it.
[01:36:45.360 --> 01:36:52.360]  That was based on the Rooker-Fellman document.
[01:36:52.360 --> 01:36:54.360]  Does that make sense?
[01:36:54.360 --> 01:36:56.360]  Yeah, it makes sense.
[01:36:56.360 --> 01:37:03.360]  So I can bring up the same argument.
[01:37:03.360 --> 01:37:12.360]  Just stay concentrated on the federal violations and the federal applications that is harming.
[01:37:12.360 --> 01:37:17.360]  Yes, and that will keep you in the federal court.
[01:37:17.360 --> 01:37:22.360]  And that would hurt their assurance more.
[01:37:22.360 --> 01:37:33.360]  I'm thinking of driving crazy there because they'll understand that this guy is going to go all the way.
[01:37:33.360 --> 01:37:43.360]  Exactly, and I'd like to use language that lays breadcrumbs, like when I'm soon in the state,
[01:37:43.360 --> 01:37:55.360]  the suit I filed here in the state, I accused the perpetrators of engaging in an ongoing criminal conspiracy
[01:37:55.360 --> 01:38:07.360]  by predicate acts, I'm sorry, I accused them of predicate acts toward an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
[01:38:07.360 --> 01:38:10.360]  That's very special wording.
[01:38:10.360 --> 01:38:15.360]  Alarm bells are going to be going off on all the lawyers' ears.
[01:38:15.360 --> 01:38:31.360]  You threw under RICO, you accused them of two or more acts, two or more predicate acts toward an ongoing criminal conspiracy.
[01:38:31.360 --> 01:38:37.360]  So I'm using the language of RICO without ever saying RICO.
[01:38:37.360 --> 01:38:51.360]  And do you think that I'm thinking they might be more pressed to act right once they know that the federal court is moving against them?
[01:38:51.360 --> 01:38:53.360]  Exactly.
[01:38:53.360 --> 01:38:58.360]  The federal judge is the one who actually put the words together.
[01:38:58.360 --> 01:39:05.360]  I wrote a complaint and none of the words that he wrote as an issue was in my complaint.
[01:39:05.360 --> 01:39:10.360]  It matched exactly what I was saying, but they were not the same words.
[01:39:10.360 --> 01:39:22.360]  So I'm figuring if I rewrite, if I get it back in front of him, in their own words, there's no way because he's the one who identified that it was commercial.
[01:39:22.360 --> 01:39:25.360]  I never once said it was commercial.
[01:39:25.360 --> 01:39:30.360]  Let me make a little comment about what you did in that case.
[01:39:30.360 --> 01:39:41.360]  We were talking about it and they dismissed your first petition and Olivier was upset and I told him, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[01:39:41.360 --> 01:39:48.360]  In the feds, they always have a judgment and the judge tries to tell you what's wrong with your suit.
[01:39:48.360 --> 01:39:57.360]  When he throws out your suit, he's not necessarily beating you up because if you look at the judgment,
[01:39:57.360 --> 01:40:04.360]  all federal cases end with an order and a judgment.
[01:40:04.360 --> 01:40:09.360]  One without the other is not a complete ruling in the case.
[01:40:09.360 --> 01:40:20.360]  And the judgment will explain how the court applied the law to the facts because they're required to do that.
[01:40:20.360 --> 01:40:27.360]  And they take back the house. If you got something wrong with your case, they'll tell you and Olivier did that.
[01:40:27.360 --> 01:40:40.360]  And I asked him to include in there in the amended complaint that the court's criticisms were well taken.
[01:40:40.360 --> 01:40:45.360]  Will you explain what happened after that, Olivier?
[01:40:45.360 --> 01:40:51.360]  What happened after that? It finally got to the sitting judge.
[01:40:51.360 --> 01:41:00.360]  The sitting judge read it and responded back with everything that I did wrong.
[01:41:00.360 --> 01:41:14.360]  He mentioned several times that I even addressed certain issues which they already addressed as far as agreeing with the judge.
[01:41:14.360 --> 01:41:27.360]  In a hidden language, it basically dismissed my case but said that I have an issue. I just wrote it wrong.
[01:41:27.360 --> 01:41:40.360]  Well, I was talking about the part where you put in the amended petition that the judge's criticisms were well taken.
[01:41:40.360 --> 01:41:46.360]  Right. And how the judge responded to that in the next dismissal?
[01:41:46.360 --> 01:41:58.360]  In the next dismissal, he mentioned the fact that I took all their considerations as true.
[01:41:58.360 --> 01:42:03.360]  Then he said because of that he has to dismiss it.
[01:42:03.360 --> 01:42:17.360]  But after he dismissed it, he basically re-wrote, he reiterated all the issues in a proper form.
[01:42:17.360 --> 01:42:27.360]  The part I was going to is Olivier started out his response with the criticisms of the court are well taken.
[01:42:27.360 --> 01:42:39.360]  And in the response in two or three places, the judge mentioned that Mr. Olivier considered our criticisms as well taken.
[01:42:39.360 --> 01:42:45.360]  And we hope these criticisms are as well taken as the ones before.
[01:42:45.360 --> 01:42:49.360]  We had someone else do that in Michigan.
[01:42:49.360 --> 01:43:09.360]  And we had Tina in California did that. And every time the judge responded much more positively to it and remarked on the fact that the litigants indicated that the judge's remarks were criticisms were well taken.
[01:43:09.360 --> 01:43:21.360]  It seems like the judges get lots of criticisms. You give them a compliment or two, it's not supposed to affect their behavior, but it sure appeared as though it did.
[01:43:21.360 --> 01:43:25.360]  Did you get that impression, Olivier?
[01:43:25.360 --> 01:43:38.360]  Yes, it did because I wrote 20 different rights and the judge wrote two words, which encompass all those rights.
[01:43:38.360 --> 01:43:44.360]  So yes, it did. He wrote it out and that's what I was saying. Maybe I should just go ahead and put it in front of them now.
[01:43:44.360 --> 01:43:53.360]  That's why I asked the question, am I allowed to at the same time or do I have to wait?
[01:43:53.360 --> 01:43:57.360]  Okay, I'm not sure what the context of that question was exactly.
[01:43:57.360 --> 01:44:09.360]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:44:09.360 --> 01:44:17.360]  And it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.360 --> 01:44:27.360]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:27.360 --> 01:44:31.360]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.360 --> 01:44:39.360]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others.
[01:44:39.360 --> 01:44:47.360]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.360 --> 01:44:51.360]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.360 --> 01:45:02.360]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family and increase your income. Order now.
[01:45:02.360 --> 01:45:09.360]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary.
[01:45:09.360 --> 01:45:17.360]  The affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:17.360 --> 01:45:24.360]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:24.360 --> 01:45:36.360]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:36.360 --> 01:45:45.360]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:45.360 --> 01:45:54.360]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosa tactics and much more.
[01:45:54.360 --> 01:46:16.360]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EV.
[01:46:25.360 --> 01:46:35.360]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of law radio and Olivier. I need to move on.
[01:46:35.360 --> 01:46:43.360]  I spent way too much time with you, but I really like these kinds of back and forth.
[01:46:43.360 --> 01:46:56.360]  It means that in the best of ways. When I have to think so hard my head hurts, it's always valuable.
[01:46:56.360 --> 01:47:04.360]  But we've got two callers and E.J. called in yesterday and I didn't get her on. I really need to give her some time.
[01:47:04.360 --> 01:47:09.360]  Can you call back in next week, Olivier? Yes, sir.
[01:47:09.360 --> 01:47:16.360]  Thank you very much. You've done really good. That's why we used up so much time.
[01:47:16.360 --> 01:47:19.360]  So call in next week.
[01:47:19.360 --> 01:47:21.360]  All right.
[01:47:21.360 --> 01:47:33.360]  Okay, we are going to E.J. in California. E.J., I'm sorry we used up so much time, but those are some difficult issues that we're struggling with and it made my brain hurt.
[01:47:33.360 --> 01:47:36.360]  What do you have for us today?
[01:47:36.360 --> 01:47:51.360]  Well, thank you for tonight's call again. I have a question with my public request, records request to the chief of police.
[01:47:51.360 --> 01:48:09.360]  So they sent like taking four pages of confidential information, my birthday. Isn't that all that specifically redacted? No, no, no, no, not only that's your personal information.
[01:48:09.360 --> 01:48:16.360]  So they're not really revealing anything. They don't have to hide your information from you.
[01:48:16.360 --> 01:48:24.360]  But even if I had asked for it, you know, if I had gone and asked them for it, they would have to block all that out.
[01:48:24.360 --> 01:48:33.360]  But it was sent to the interloper. So the interloper sent it to me and they all saw it.
[01:48:33.360 --> 01:48:43.360]  Okay, I don't know if your address is restricted. Your social security number definitely is.
[01:48:43.360 --> 01:48:56.360]  But when you put your information on a public document, it becomes public unless the law has specifically exempted some of it from public.
[01:48:56.360 --> 01:49:06.360]  And the police do this all the time. They create documents and add information to the document that's restricted.
[01:49:06.360 --> 01:49:16.360]  So that if you try to request that document, they have a reason to withhold it.
[01:49:16.360 --> 01:49:33.360]  And then they want to charge you for redacting. And the last time they did that to me, I told them, no, if you are deliberately putting secret information on the same page with public information, you redacted.
[01:49:33.360 --> 01:49:49.360]  And they did. They didn't charge me. So the only information they can't release is information the act specifically forbids them to release.
[01:49:49.360 --> 01:50:00.360]  And there's a section in the act on what must be withheld. Have you looked at your local Open Government Act to see what that was?
[01:50:00.360 --> 01:50:13.360]  No, I will. This is helpful information. I think it's like four or five pages long with seven point type.
[01:50:13.360 --> 01:50:33.360]  Yeah, I'll go through all that. I just kind of putting it out there. I thought it was kind of weird that they would send that to the lawyer's office and then the lawyer's office sending all that personal information on me with my birthday.
[01:50:33.360 --> 01:50:49.360]  Okay, I had an issue with seven point font once. Years ago, I had sued the couple of public officials, the sheriff and the prosecuting attorney and someone else.
[01:50:49.360 --> 01:50:53.360]  And I'm sorry, this one was just the sheriff. I sued the county sheriff.
[01:50:53.360 --> 01:51:04.360]  And they always give the young lawyers the pro se litigants and judges and prosecutors and other lawyers help mentor the new lawyers.
[01:51:04.360 --> 01:51:09.360]  So he gave me a stack of discovery about a half inch tall.
[01:51:09.360 --> 01:51:14.360]  And when I opened it up, it was about 10 point font.
[01:51:14.360 --> 01:51:22.360]  He had opened two pages open and laid the book down on the copier and copied two pages on one.
[01:51:22.360 --> 01:51:31.360]  And I looked up at the judge and as he was laying a set on the judges bench and I said your honor does and then that judge hated me.
[01:51:31.360 --> 01:51:34.360]  He hated me.
[01:51:34.360 --> 01:51:49.360]  I said your honor, does the court have a magnifying glass and the judge gave me a strange look and he picked up this discovery and looked at it and then grabbed it by the corner and flung it out into the courtroom.
[01:51:49.360 --> 01:51:55.360]  There were papers going everywhere and just railed on this lawyer about trying to blind him.
[01:51:55.360 --> 01:52:00.360]  Don't you know how many motions I have to read every day? What are you doing? Bring this in.
[01:52:00.360 --> 01:52:07.360]  And I watched him and it was clear that he was just training this lawyer.
[01:52:07.360 --> 01:52:15.360]  I looked up at him and he looked down at me and I kind of smiled and nodded and he smiled and nodded back.
[01:52:15.360 --> 01:52:25.360]  We were two older guys and I was indicating to him that I understood what was going on and this did not create an advantage for me.
[01:52:25.360 --> 01:52:29.360]  And even though he didn't like me, he acknowledged it.
[01:52:29.360 --> 01:52:38.360]  But yeah, if you want your documents read, don't use any seven font font.
[01:52:38.360 --> 01:52:42.360]  Okay, go ahead. Enough of my stories.
[01:52:42.360 --> 01:52:56.360]  A second is there was that warrant out from my arrest by the lying, fleeing detectives, female detectives.
[01:52:56.360 --> 01:52:59.360]  They gave me a female detective. I trusted her.
[01:52:59.360 --> 01:53:03.360]  This is how, you know, so naive I am.
[01:53:03.360 --> 01:53:07.360]  I told her this story, my story, and she twisted the story.
[01:53:07.360 --> 01:53:13.360]  So anyway, there's a warrant out, but I don't see her signature on the warrant.
[01:53:13.360 --> 01:53:23.360]  So if it was a digitized or they do things about what it is, like an F sign, you know.
[01:53:23.360 --> 01:53:25.360]  Well, it shouldn't be her signature anyway.
[01:53:25.360 --> 01:53:32.360]  Her signature ought to be on the affidavit of probable cause if there's a warrant issued it should come from a magistrate.
[01:53:32.360 --> 01:53:42.360]  There should be a magistrate signature on the warrant and there should be the affidavit that shows some statements that the magistrate would look at and say,
[01:53:42.360 --> 01:53:46.360]  oh, that's definitely a crime. We got to drag that lady in here.
[01:53:46.360 --> 01:53:56.360]  Yes, there will be a statement, an attached statement, if the statement is not included inside the complaint.
[01:53:56.360 --> 01:54:03.360]  You're on the telegram with us. Did you see the complaints that I filed?
[01:54:03.360 --> 01:54:09.360]  I loaded up there against the district attorney.
[01:54:09.360 --> 01:54:11.360]  The file?
[01:54:11.360 --> 01:54:18.360]  Yeah, I loaded up a whole stack of criminal complaints I filed against the district attorney.
[01:54:18.360 --> 01:54:27.360]  And in those, my affidavit was included inside the complaint because it was relatively short.
[01:54:27.360 --> 01:54:37.360]  Had it been long, I would have made a separate document as an affidavit and attached it to the complaint.
[01:54:37.360 --> 01:54:48.360]  May I attach everything, like the whole report that was done by the...
[01:54:48.360 --> 01:55:02.360]  Oh, absolutely. If you do that, if you're going to demonstrate where the officer lied, like if you want to highlight or somehow add emphasis to it,
[01:55:02.360 --> 01:55:07.360]  attach the original and then attach the one with the markings on it.
[01:55:07.360 --> 01:55:18.360]  Give the court one that is pristine and then you can give her a second one to show her where the issues are.
[01:55:18.360 --> 01:55:20.360]  Show who the...
[01:55:20.360 --> 01:55:22.360]  Judge.
[01:55:22.360 --> 01:55:24.360]  Oh, the judge. I'm sorry.
[01:55:24.360 --> 01:55:28.360]  When you go to court, you only talk to the judge.
[01:55:28.360 --> 01:55:33.360]  If the attorney on the other side says anything to you, you ignore him.
[01:55:33.360 --> 01:55:45.360]  If a prosecutor says anything to you, you ask the judge to direct the prosecutor to direct his communications to the court.
[01:55:45.360 --> 01:55:54.360]  The last time I did that, I told the court and the prosecutor that I did not come here to bandy words with a shoush to lawyer.
[01:55:54.360 --> 01:55:58.360]  The judge said, well, Mr. Kelton, isn't that a little harsh?
[01:55:58.360 --> 01:56:02.360]  Yeah, I guess it is, but I didn't come to talk to him.
[01:56:02.360 --> 01:56:08.360]  So, yeah, you don't argue with that lawyer.
[01:56:08.360 --> 01:56:11.360]  Everything you do is directed towards the judge.
[01:56:11.360 --> 01:56:20.360]  And I suggest if you're writing criminal complaints from any other documents, write them to a grand jury of eighth graders.
[01:56:20.360 --> 01:56:22.360]  Okay.
[01:56:22.360 --> 01:56:27.360]  To whom they know anything other than the language.
[01:56:27.360 --> 01:56:31.360]  So, go back on Telegram and look in the files section.
[01:56:31.360 --> 01:56:35.360]  You'll see a whole bunch of files that I filed.
[01:56:35.360 --> 01:56:42.360]  The mask side I filed them today, the law society I filed them yesterday.
[01:56:42.360 --> 01:56:45.360]  So, they're on both sides.
[01:56:45.360 --> 01:56:51.360]  And that will demonstrate how to write a criminal complaint, at least in taxes.
[01:56:51.360 --> 01:56:53.360]  What state are you in?
[01:56:53.360 --> 01:56:55.360]  California.
[01:56:55.360 --> 01:56:56.360]  California.
[01:56:56.360 --> 01:56:57.360]  California.
[01:56:57.360 --> 01:57:03.360]  You use the same heading style that you would use on a motion or a pleading.
[01:57:03.360 --> 01:57:20.360]  Except this heading style will be styled with the state of California versus whoever, whoever you're filing the complaint against.
[01:57:20.360 --> 01:57:24.360]  And then you build your claim under it.
[01:57:24.360 --> 01:57:44.360]  Texas is somewhat different in that there's statutes that say all complaints must, all criminal affidavits, must run in the name of the state of Texas and must state that the complainant has reason to believe and does believe.
[01:57:44.360 --> 01:57:46.360]  Those words have to be in it.
[01:57:46.360 --> 01:57:49.360]  That's the only state I've ever seen that has that requirement.
[01:57:49.360 --> 01:57:54.360]  Otherwise, you build the document just like it was a motion.
[01:57:54.360 --> 01:57:59.360]  Except the heading is complaint instead of motion to do this, that or the other.
[01:57:59.360 --> 01:58:01.360]  And then you put your affidavit below that.
[01:58:01.360 --> 01:58:03.360]  Am I making sense?
[01:58:03.360 --> 01:58:04.360]  Yes.
[01:58:04.360 --> 01:58:05.360]  Yes.
[01:58:05.360 --> 01:58:06.360]  Okay.
[01:58:06.360 --> 01:58:07.360]  Look on the side.
[01:58:07.360 --> 01:58:10.360]  Look at the bottom of it.
[01:58:10.360 --> 01:58:23.360]  Where I put in the statement, the affidavit portion, I shrunk the margins in and shrunk the font two points.
[01:58:23.360 --> 01:58:33.360]  And then where I have quotations, I shrunk the margins a little bit more and went down another two points.
[01:58:33.360 --> 01:58:41.360]  So you can scan down the document and tell what the statement of facts is because it doesn't go all the way out to the outside margins.
[01:58:41.360 --> 01:58:49.360]  And then at the very bottom, it says, based on the above, I have reason to believe and do believe that so-and-so.
[01:58:49.360 --> 01:59:08.360]  Bible for America is offering absolutely free, a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:59:08.360 --> 01:59:20.360]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.360 --> 01:59:30.360]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.360 --> 01:59:32.360]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.360 --> 01:59:40.360]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:40.360 --> 01:59:59.360]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.