ROL_2022-11-04_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.500]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[00:05.500 --> 00:09.500]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.500 --> 00:11.000]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:11.000 --> 00:16.500]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember your First Amendment rights.
[00:16.500 --> 00:18.500]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.500 --> 00:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.000 --> 00:26.500]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.500 --> 00:32.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.000 --> 00:34.500]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.500 --> 00:38.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[00:38.000 --> 00:42.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.000 --> 00:45.500]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:45.500 --> 00:47.500]  Spar, it's what fighters do.
[00:47.500 --> 00:51.000]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:51.000 --> 00:54.000]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.000 --> 00:56.500]  Spar with an extra P.
[00:56.500 --> 01:03.000]  S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly, and R for religion.
[01:03.000 --> 01:08.500]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press, assembly, and religion.
[01:08.500 --> 01:10.500]  But petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.500 --> 01:14.500]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.500 --> 01:17.500]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government,
[01:17.500 --> 01:21.000]  we can spell out the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:21.000 --> 01:30.500]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:30.500 --> 01:34.500]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:34.500 --> 01:38.000]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:38.000 --> 01:39.500]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:39.500 --> 01:43.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way
[01:43.000 --> 01:46.000]  to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:46.000 --> 01:48.000]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.000 --> 01:51.500]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:51.500 --> 01:56.500]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:56.500 --> 01:58.000]  So protect your rights.
[01:58.000 --> 02:01.500]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[02:01.500 --> 02:04.000]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:04.000 --> 02:08.000]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[02:08.000 --> 02:12.000]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.000 --> 02:15.500]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:15.500 --> 02:19.500]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms
[02:19.500 --> 02:22.000]  around the Bill of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[02:22.000 --> 02:26.000]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms,
[02:26.000 --> 02:30.000]  arms that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[02:30.000 --> 02:33.500]  Get it? Two arms, bear hug, bear arms?
[02:33.500 --> 02:37.500]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well
[02:37.500 --> 02:38.500]  when he said,
[02:38.500 --> 02:43.500]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[02:43.500 --> 02:47.500]  one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America,
[02:47.500 --> 02:51.000]  but which historically has proved to always be possible.
[02:51.000 --> 03:17.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:17.000 --> 03:21.000]  Well, I received my remedy today.
[03:21.000 --> 03:24.500]  It came in a box just like they say.
[03:24.500 --> 03:28.000]  I accepted it for value right away.
[03:28.000 --> 03:32.000]  It's not true, not later.
[03:32.000 --> 03:39.500]  We are originators and the pathway seems to get straighter every day.
[03:39.500 --> 03:46.500]  And I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use.
[03:46.500 --> 03:54.000]  While I was good for the gander, don't work for the goose.
[03:54.000 --> 04:01.000]  I know some architects, I know some engineers.
[04:01.000 --> 04:08.000]  They've seen the evidence, they know a certain seems queer.
[04:08.000 --> 04:11.000]  What's up with the blatant deception?
[04:11.000 --> 04:15.000]  What is the nature of what you might gain?
[04:15.000 --> 04:19.000]  I see something headed straight for you.
[04:19.000 --> 04:22.000]  I think it looks just like a train.
[04:22.000 --> 04:24.000]  Okay, we are back.
[04:24.000 --> 04:31.000]  Randy Kelton and Brett Fountain rule the radio on this, the 4th of November, 2022.
[04:31.000 --> 04:34.000]  And we're going to John in New York.
[04:34.000 --> 04:38.000]  John, are you still awake?
[04:38.000 --> 04:39.000]  I was going to say.
[04:39.000 --> 04:41.000]  Did you remember?
[04:41.000 --> 04:45.000]  Yep, I sure do.
[04:45.000 --> 04:47.000]  Good man.
[04:47.000 --> 04:49.000]  Can you hear me?
[04:49.000 --> 04:51.000]  Yeah, I can hear you.
[04:51.000 --> 04:52.000]  Okay, great.
[04:52.000 --> 04:54.000]  All right, here we go.
[04:54.000 --> 04:58.000]  First a question and then I've got something to tell you that might surprise you.
[04:58.000 --> 05:00.000]  And maybe you know about it already.
[05:00.000 --> 05:01.000]  We'll see.
[05:01.000 --> 05:03.000]  Maybe it's not a surprise.
[05:03.000 --> 05:05.000]  Okay, here we go.
[05:05.000 --> 05:21.000]  Because a cop in traffic court, because a cop just has an accusation and never really produces actual evidence that the radar gun had the same number,
[05:21.000 --> 05:29.000]  like you were doing 75 and a 55, doesn't have the same evidence he's entered in court.
[05:29.000 --> 05:38.000]  Does that mean the cop, his word becomes law, which is BS, which is BS?
[05:38.000 --> 05:44.000]  No, he is a first person witness.
[05:44.000 --> 05:52.000]  If he testified that he used the radar gun and it showed this number on the radar gun, that's best evidence.
[05:52.000 --> 05:54.000]  That's best evidence.
[05:54.000 --> 05:58.000]  Well, but they never bring the proof to court.
[05:58.000 --> 06:00.000]  He is the proof.
[06:00.000 --> 06:06.000]  His statement, his verified affidavit is proof, is best evidence.
[06:06.000 --> 06:12.000]  Well, supposing you have a verified affidavit that you weren't going 75 and a 55.
[06:12.000 --> 06:17.000]  Then it goes to the discretion of the court.
[06:17.000 --> 06:18.000]  Oh, sure.
[06:18.000 --> 06:22.000]  And it's always against you and the cops' favor because they need money.
[06:22.000 --> 06:24.000]  I know, I know.
[06:24.000 --> 06:29.000]  That is so negative.
[06:29.000 --> 06:31.000]  You're being negative.
[06:31.000 --> 06:33.000]  You need to be positive.
[06:33.000 --> 06:37.000]  You need to say, I'm positive they're going to rule against me.
[06:37.000 --> 06:38.000]  Yeah, yeah.
[06:38.000 --> 06:40.000]  Well, of course.
[06:40.000 --> 06:45.000]  It's not the best system, but it's the best we've been able to come up with.
[06:45.000 --> 06:48.000]  So what I'm saying does not hold water.
[06:48.000 --> 06:49.000]  Am I correct?
[06:49.000 --> 06:51.000]  You're correct.
[06:51.000 --> 06:54.000]  Okay.
[06:54.000 --> 07:00.000]  It's different, though, with a red light ticket because the camera is your accusing person,
[07:00.000 --> 07:02.000]  and that's not a person.
[07:02.000 --> 07:10.000]  You can't be faced with your witnesses, with your accuser.
[07:10.000 --> 07:15.000]  So that's the Sixth Amendment?
[07:15.000 --> 07:18.000]  You'd better like to face your accuser.
[07:18.000 --> 07:20.000]  That's the Sixth Amendment, isn't it?
[07:20.000 --> 07:22.000]  I think so, yes.
[07:22.000 --> 07:23.000]  Is it Brett?
[07:23.000 --> 07:25.000]  I don't remember.
[07:25.000 --> 07:28.000]  To face your accuser?
[07:28.000 --> 07:32.000]  Yeah, the right to face your accuser.
[07:32.000 --> 07:34.000]  That eliminates...
[07:34.000 --> 07:40.000]  See, our founding fathers knew they were going to try this crap with speeding a red light camera,
[07:40.000 --> 07:46.000]  so they accounted for that in the Constitution.
[07:46.000 --> 07:47.000]  Okay.
[07:47.000 --> 07:55.000]  In fact, I may have a system to shut down the bad guys.
[07:55.000 --> 07:56.000]  Okay.
[07:56.000 --> 07:59.000]  And here it comes.
[07:59.000 --> 08:03.000]  Keep this question in mind.
[08:03.000 --> 08:11.000]  Why do you think the government lets corporations get away with all the criminal acts against individuals
[08:11.000 --> 08:17.000]  and innocent citizens that it lets them get away with?
[08:17.000 --> 08:19.000]  Because they're paid off.
[08:19.000 --> 08:20.000]  Huh?
[08:20.000 --> 08:22.000]  Oh, that's one good reason.
[08:22.000 --> 08:24.000]  Yeah, that's one good reason.
[08:24.000 --> 08:33.000]  So why does the government let corporations get away with all their criminal acts, case in point, fraudulent foreclosures?
[08:33.000 --> 08:35.000]  That's a good example.
[08:35.000 --> 08:36.000]  So keep that in mind.
[08:36.000 --> 08:39.000]  Definitely because they're paid off.
[08:39.000 --> 08:40.000]  Oh, yeah, yeah.
[08:40.000 --> 08:41.000]  That's one very good reason.
[08:41.000 --> 08:43.000]  I got another one.
[08:43.000 --> 08:48.000]  So have you heard of CAFR?
[08:48.000 --> 08:50.000]  Not CAFE, but CAFR.
[08:50.000 --> 08:54.000]  CAFR is accounts that they keep.
[08:54.000 --> 08:55.000]  Yeah.
[08:55.000 --> 08:56.000]  Yeah, yeah.
[08:56.000 --> 08:57.000]  So you've heard it.
[08:57.000 --> 08:59.000]  See, I knew you'd know that.
[08:59.000 --> 09:06.000]  So you've heard of CAFR, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
[09:06.000 --> 09:07.000]  Okay.
[09:07.000 --> 09:09.000]  Now, do you know about the CAFR?
[09:09.000 --> 09:10.000]  Yes.
[09:10.000 --> 09:11.000]  How much do you know about it?
[09:11.000 --> 09:13.000]  I know they got a lot of money in them.
[09:13.000 --> 09:15.000]  Yes.
[09:15.000 --> 09:29.000]  Do you know that they've got, the last I knew, there's twice the amount of money per year in the CAFR than there is in the annual budget of any given locale?
[09:29.000 --> 09:32.000]  I've heard that, but it's never made any...
[09:32.000 --> 09:40.000]  Well, yeah, that's just a kind of a just-in-case account.
[09:40.000 --> 09:52.000]  But saying there's twice the amount of money, that implies that you said each year, they don't put twice the amount of the budget in there each year.
[09:52.000 --> 09:58.000]  They have that much residing in there, and it accumulates over the years, and it's accumulated quite a bit.
[09:58.000 --> 10:01.000]  It's kind of an emergency fund.
[10:01.000 --> 10:12.000]  And over the years, I've heard all kinds of accusations about it, but I've never come across anything definitive to show that there was a problem with it.
[10:12.000 --> 10:18.000]  Oh, there is a big problem with it, and I'll send you a very short video.
[10:18.000 --> 10:21.000]  It's about 10 minutes long, something like that.
[10:21.000 --> 10:25.000]  I'll send you a short video, and you watch it.
[10:25.000 --> 10:28.000]  I know you're busy, but it should shed some light.
[10:28.000 --> 10:35.000]  You have the sugar-coated explanation from what I understand.
[10:35.000 --> 10:39.000]  If this video is correct, then I think it is.
[10:39.000 --> 10:48.000]  You've got the sugar-coated version that there's a lot of money in it, and forget what else you said.
[10:48.000 --> 10:54.000]  What happens with the CAFR is, and you probably already know this.
[10:54.000 --> 11:01.000]  For example, your school board and your school budget in your local town,
[11:01.000 --> 11:06.000]  and you go to the budget meeting, and they say, oh, boy, well, we're short on money again.
[11:06.000 --> 11:09.000]  We're going to have to raise the taxes.
[11:09.000 --> 11:11.000]  Baloney.
[11:11.000 --> 11:18.000]  They've got so much money in the CAFR, they don't even need, from what I understand, I know this is a little extreme,
[11:18.000 --> 11:24.000]  but they don't even need your money in taxes to run the school.
[11:24.000 --> 11:35.000]  Where is the procedures that authorize putting money into this CAFR account, and under what conditions can they do it?
[11:35.000 --> 11:39.000]  That I don't have an answer.
[11:39.000 --> 11:48.000]  But I do know if my information is correct, you don't need to raise taxes.
[11:48.000 --> 11:51.000]  I've heard that before.
[11:51.000 --> 11:59.000]  That's a very, very powerful allegation, but I think it's correct.
[11:59.000 --> 12:04.000]  I think there's enough money, and what they're doing is they're taking your tax dollars,
[12:04.000 --> 12:13.000]  and they're investing it in the stock market and other financials that you should be putting that money in the stock market.
[12:13.000 --> 12:15.000]  They're double stealing from you.
[12:15.000 --> 12:16.000]  Okay.
[12:16.000 --> 12:20.000]  As I understand, that's an emergency fund.
[12:20.000 --> 12:24.000]  No, it's not an emergency fund.
[12:24.000 --> 12:25.000]  Okay.
[12:25.000 --> 12:26.000]  They're calling this CAFR.
[12:26.000 --> 12:28.000]  CAFR is just a report.
[12:28.000 --> 12:33.000]  In the CAFR report, you'll find evidence of these funds.
[12:33.000 --> 12:34.000]  Right.
[12:34.000 --> 12:40.000]  CAFR is not really the right term for the accounts, but you need to look and see what those accounts are.
[12:40.000 --> 12:41.000]  That's right.
[12:41.000 --> 12:49.000]  Before you condemn the accounts as being all unnecessary and nefarious in some way,
[12:49.000 --> 12:53.000]  we need to know what accounts they are and under what conditions they can keep those accounts,
[12:53.000 --> 12:58.000]  and are they acting within the requirements of law?
[12:58.000 --> 12:59.000]  Right.
[12:59.000 --> 13:00.000]  Well, there you go.
[13:00.000 --> 13:04.000]  I mean, how do I say this?
[13:04.000 --> 13:09.000]  That's all the information that you would need to further investigate.
[13:09.000 --> 13:13.000]  I'll send you a video, and you'll see it.
[13:13.000 --> 13:14.000]  I'll send you a video.
[13:14.000 --> 13:17.000]  So that's basically it.
[13:17.000 --> 13:18.000]  Okay.
[13:18.000 --> 13:23.000]  That's not my fight.
[13:23.000 --> 13:28.000]  I have a fight, and on this show, we tend to fight one thing,
[13:28.000 --> 13:34.000]  and we get lots of folks wanting us to go off in all kinds of different directions.
[13:34.000 --> 13:42.000]  Yeah, but supposing, you know, I often tell my relatives and my friends,
[13:42.000 --> 13:44.000]  they say, oh, don't worry about that.
[13:44.000 --> 13:46.000]  That's just little stuff.
[13:46.000 --> 13:50.000]  Well, you've got like a dozen different things that's little stuff,
[13:50.000 --> 13:53.000]  and they add up to be really big things.
[13:53.000 --> 14:01.000]  Instead of dealing with the 12 little things, go to the head of the class and go for the head.
[14:01.000 --> 14:05.000]  Cut off the head, and the monster dies.
[14:05.000 --> 14:10.000]  Yeah, I've heard that a long time, but it's kind of like Medusa.
[14:10.000 --> 14:11.000]  Yeah.
[14:11.000 --> 14:16.000]  You've got a moth to grow back, her little snakey things.
[14:16.000 --> 14:17.000]  So that's basically it.
[14:17.000 --> 14:19.000]  Pick one.
[14:19.000 --> 14:24.000]  Brett and I have picked one, and we're going after it.
[14:24.000 --> 14:31.000]  You're asking us to veer away from what we're doing and go take up somebody else's mantle.
[14:31.000 --> 14:32.000]  Well, no, no.
[14:32.000 --> 14:38.000]  I just want you to be aware of it, because someday you may be in a position to take up that fight.
[14:38.000 --> 14:40.000]  Oh, you've got to know we're aware of it.
[14:40.000 --> 14:43.000]  We get this a lot.
[14:43.000 --> 14:49.000]  I just had someone today insisting that my fight wasn't the right fight.
[14:49.000 --> 14:52.000]  I should pick up her fight and fight her fight instead of my fight.
[14:52.000 --> 14:56.000]  Well, no.
[14:56.000 --> 14:58.000]  I'm not shifting gears.
[14:58.000 --> 15:00.000]  I'm not going to something else.
[15:00.000 --> 15:04.000]  I'm going to stay right with what I'm at, what I'm good at, what I know.
[15:04.000 --> 15:05.000]  Right.
[15:05.000 --> 15:07.000]  Well, someday it may evidence itself.
[15:07.000 --> 15:14.000]  You may come across it, and if you have the proper tools and attitude to go after it,
[15:14.000 --> 15:20.000]  and you've done a little bit of homework, it might take you 10 minutes to listen to a video.
[15:20.000 --> 15:25.000]  And if the information is correct, you may find it useful at some time in the future.
[15:25.000 --> 15:27.000]  I may, and I'll have a look at it.
[15:27.000 --> 15:31.000]  You've got to know I get lots of videos.
[15:31.000 --> 15:37.000]  Most of them really annoy me.
[15:37.000 --> 15:41.000]  They make allegations that they can't be substantiated, I know.
[15:41.000 --> 15:48.000]  Yes, they do this thing called hyperbole, and hyperbole makes me nuts.
[15:48.000 --> 15:52.000]  They make all these outlandish assertions and allegations,
[15:52.000 --> 15:57.000]  but never give me anything to work with, anything to back it up with.
[15:57.000 --> 16:00.000]  So I get frustrated with going through all that all the time.
[16:00.000 --> 16:05.000]  Now, I've heard of the CAFRA reports, but people like to say CAFRA accounts,
[16:05.000 --> 16:08.000]  and there are no CAFRA accounts.
[16:08.000 --> 16:10.000]  That's just a report that they issue,
[16:10.000 --> 16:15.000]  and they speak to all the different accounts that a jurisdiction keeps.
[16:15.000 --> 16:20.000]  So to say a CAFRA account and imply that all of that money is somehow secreted away somewhere,
[16:20.000 --> 16:23.000]  and they've got this big account that they're using,
[16:23.000 --> 16:28.000]  nah, that's not separate from the operating money these guys use every day.
[16:28.000 --> 16:32.000]  So it's kind of an errant distortion.
[16:32.000 --> 16:36.000]  All right, well, I hope the video will shed some light.
[16:36.000 --> 16:40.000]  I'll have a look at it, and if it's good, I'll tell you on the next show.
[16:40.000 --> 16:45.000]  If it's not, I'll say really bad and disparaging things about you.
[16:45.000 --> 16:48.000]  Okay, I hope you get rolling.
[16:48.000 --> 16:50.000]  Okay, thank you, John.
[16:50.000 --> 16:58.000]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rue de la Radio, call-in number 512-646-1984.
[16:58.000 --> 17:21.000]  You have a new wife.
[17:28.000 --> 17:51.000]  Okay, thank you.
[17:51.000 --> 18:05.000]  Rue de la Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[18:05.000 --> 18:07.000]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society,
[18:07.000 --> 18:09.000]  and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[18:09.000 --> 18:12.000]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[18:12.000 --> 18:15.000]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place,
[18:15.000 --> 18:17.000]  the right to act in our own private capacity,
[18:17.000 --> 18:19.000]  and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[18:19.000 --> 18:22.000]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn
[18:22.000 --> 18:25.000]  how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[18:25.000 --> 18:28.000]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rue de la Radio,
[18:28.000 --> 18:31.000]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available
[18:31.000 --> 18:33.000]  that will help you understand what due process is
[18:33.000 --> 18:35.000]  and how to hold the courts to the rule of law.
[18:35.000 --> 18:37.000]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[18:37.000 --> 18:40.000]  by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[18:40.000 --> 18:42.000]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[18:42.000 --> 18:45.000]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie,
[18:45.000 --> 18:47.000]  video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[18:47.000 --> 18:50.000]  hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[18:50.000 --> 18:52.000]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material
[18:52.000 --> 18:54.000]  from ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:54.000 --> 18:57.000]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society
[18:57.000 --> 18:59.000]  we all want and deserve.
[18:59.000 --> 19:24.000]  Music
[19:24.000 --> 19:29.000]  Do you know what I mean, my friend?
[19:29.000 --> 19:58.000]  Do you know what I mean, my friend?
[19:58.000 --> 20:01.000]  I'm on my knee and I pray to him
[20:01.000 --> 20:04.000]  Because he's the only one who could answer.
[20:04.000 --> 20:07.000]  Been a business what I keep my man saying
[20:07.000 --> 20:09.000]  Man can't no is this leading me
[20:09.000 --> 20:13.000]  Can you trust in God, my friend?
[20:13.000 --> 20:16.000]  Tell him your problems, say
[20:16.000 --> 20:18.000]  I've missed him once again
[20:18.000 --> 20:21.000]  When you call you know he worth the pain
[20:21.000 --> 20:24.000]  Trust in God, my friend
[20:24.000 --> 20:27.000]  Tell him your problems, say
[20:27.000 --> 20:41.560]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Wet Fountain, Move La Radio. And earlier today, I was wondering
[20:41.560 --> 20:54.120]  what has happened to Tina. She hasn't been around a while. Tina, where have you been?
[20:54.120 --> 20:58.920]  She hasn't been sleeping well enough, so she needed to call into our show so we could air
[20:58.920 --> 21:08.360]  her into unconsciousness. Tina, are you there? Hello? Hello, Tina. She's switching off her
[21:08.360 --> 21:17.000]  Bluetooth and rearranging everything. Are you with us, Tina? Okay, we do have two empty slots
[21:17.000 --> 21:29.400]  on our call board, so if you have a question or a comment, give us a call. Calling number 512-646-1984.
[21:29.400 --> 21:38.840]  And it looks like we're down to one because either Tina has, her system has, her call has
[21:38.840 --> 21:48.680]  dropped or she has lapsed into a coma. I tend to have that. Maybe she's just being suppressed.
[21:49.240 --> 21:56.920]  Are you there, Tina? Okay, I'm going to leave her unmuted for the moment and we're going to
[21:56.920 --> 22:05.640]  go to Steven, Texas. Hello, Steve. Steven, what do you have for us today? Yes, sir, can you hear me?
[22:05.640 --> 22:14.920]  Yes. All right, so I'll keep it quick in case you can get back to Tina. I just wanted to ask if it's
[22:16.440 --> 22:23.000]  under the same claim that we were talking about last night, that claim for damages
[22:23.880 --> 22:30.680]  while the subcontractor was performing that abatement on my property, was it appropriate
[22:30.680 --> 22:39.240]  to list in the listing how I was armed? Is it appropriate to list the assault, which is they
[22:39.240 --> 22:46.680]  prevented me with arrest from going in to get my own property and they also threatened my disabled
[22:46.680 --> 22:53.320]  Vietnam vet neighbor from entering on the property to stop them, to which he has my permission to be
[22:53.320 --> 22:58.600]  on the property. They told him he could get hurt and something else. I'm waiting on the recording.
[22:58.600 --> 23:07.000]  The first degree felony aggravated assault. Yeah, he had every right to protect your property.
[23:07.800 --> 23:17.480]  He could have shot them. That is, if what they have done hasn't been done
[23:18.200 --> 23:23.720]  in compliance with the letter of law. If they were within the letter of law, then they're fine.
[23:23.720 --> 23:30.360]  Yeah, good point. And they told him it was obstruction of justice.
[23:32.760 --> 23:43.320]  This was some kind of official act. This was a contractor executing a contract.
[23:45.000 --> 23:49.720]  I don't think he could have made that one up. He's not as versed in law. They said they told
[23:49.720 --> 23:55.720]  him it was obstruction of justice and to stay off, he could get hurt. And they threatened to keep him
[23:55.720 --> 24:00.920]  and his wife out of there from the public walkway right beside my property. They didn't let him get
[24:00.920 --> 24:11.480]  any further. Who is they? That is the local building official, the sergeant who responded
[24:11.480 --> 24:18.680]  to my 911 call and the guy posing as a fire marshal, who's a deputy fire marshal, if he's
[24:18.680 --> 24:25.960]  that. He's also carrying around titles that claim these two other things. Were any of them armed
[24:26.600 --> 24:31.800]  other than the deputy? Yeah, the sergeant was armed.
[24:34.360 --> 24:41.000]  Okay, if you can show that this wasn't done in accordance with code, in strict accordance with
[24:41.000 --> 24:49.000]  code, then you can charge the sergeant with first degree felony aggravated assault and suing personally.
[24:50.840 --> 24:54.840]  But we need to know more about the condemnation process.
[24:57.080 --> 25:05.640]  Did you read the state code and municipal ordinances concerning condemnation?
[25:05.640 --> 25:10.840]  Yes, sir. Did they follow all of the requirements in there?
[25:11.560 --> 25:15.720]  Well, I already know they didn't do a public notice of the hearing. I've already got that evidence.
[25:18.760 --> 25:24.520]  Not to mention, I'm not any of the persons in their ordinances nor under the local government
[25:24.520 --> 25:33.560]  code, which is tied to government code 311. Wait a minute. That didn't make sense. Okay, say that again.
[25:33.560 --> 25:41.960]  I said, I already know I'm also, they've already been given notice plenty of times that they're out
[25:41.960 --> 25:47.400]  of their, they have no personal jurisdiction because I'm not in the persons defined in their
[25:47.400 --> 25:53.400]  code of ordinances. How are you not a person as defined in their code of ordinances?
[25:54.520 --> 25:57.240]  Because it's just basically completely the legal entity,
[25:57.240 --> 26:02.520]  which also mirrors the local government code, which also mirrors the code construction act,
[26:02.520 --> 26:07.080]  which also mirrors burdens. Okay. I'm not sure what you're saying here.
[26:08.280 --> 26:13.240]  I have an argument against codes, but that's not it. You're saying that the codes only go
[26:13.240 --> 26:17.240]  to government entities? No, sir. Legal entity.
[26:19.800 --> 26:22.760]  Like a corporation? Yeah. He's saying he's not
[26:22.760 --> 26:27.160]  an inhabitant or a resident, meaning a member of the corporation.
[26:29.320 --> 26:35.720]  They like to catch everybody on them, including individuals. An individual is also a legal entity.
[26:35.720 --> 26:39.080]  Look it up. You could be one. If you go to the secretary of state and register,
[26:39.080 --> 26:42.920]  you can be an individual. It's also a legal entity. They don't read it like that.
[26:43.720 --> 26:49.000]  Wait a minute. I know that. I'm trying to, to understand what you're saying here.
[26:49.000 --> 26:56.520]  Wait a minute. I know that I'm trying to, to understand your argument as your,
[26:56.520 --> 26:59.400]  your argument saying that the codes don't apply to you.
[27:01.720 --> 27:04.360]  Yes, sir. Why don't they, why don't they apply to you?
[27:05.560 --> 27:09.800]  I'm trying to understand why they would, if I'm not in the persons that it says it has
[27:09.800 --> 27:19.320]  jurisdiction over. It gives you a specific definition. Over.
[27:22.040 --> 27:25.080]  You're doing generalities. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
[27:25.880 --> 27:30.360]  You know, ideally in statute and a chapter and verse, not in ideas.
[27:31.400 --> 27:36.200]  You've got an idea that this doesn't apply to you, but you need to give me something
[27:36.200 --> 27:39.320]  chapter and verse that says why this doesn't apply to you.
[27:40.760 --> 27:46.120]  Brandy, if it says under the definition of a person, exactly what those persons are.
[27:47.080 --> 27:48.520]  And I'm not any of them.
[27:50.120 --> 27:56.600]  In what code are you addressing? Definitions are specific to particular codes.
[27:56.600 --> 28:01.880]  I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm trying to make sure that your argument is framed so
[28:01.880 --> 28:09.880]  that they can't just toss it or dance around it. Correct. And it's specifically listed for the
[28:09.880 --> 28:16.680]  code of ordinances for the city. It's specifically listed in the government, local government code.
[28:16.680 --> 28:24.360]  List. Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You're using too many pronouns. It. What does it refer to?
[28:25.320 --> 28:26.520]  A person.
[28:26.520 --> 28:34.600]  A person. Okay. Tell me again how to get here. I'm the judge. I'm sitting here
[28:34.600 --> 28:39.880]  and you're telling me this doesn't apply to you. Give me the legal arguments to why it doesn't
[28:39.880 --> 28:47.560]  apply to you. Your code of ordinances specifically list under 1.109. Maybe it's 1.104. I'm not
[28:47.560 --> 28:55.240]  staring at it. Exactly what persons that the city has jurisdiction over. Corporations, estates,
[28:55.240 --> 29:00.920]  trusts, and individuals. Not any of those legal entities.
[29:02.040 --> 29:05.160]  Are you an individual under their definitions?
[29:06.520 --> 29:11.080]  Negative. It doesn't redefine individuals like it does in the criminal code. The criminal code
[29:11.080 --> 29:21.160]  specifically redefines individuals to include a human being up to so many weeks of unborn.
[29:21.160 --> 29:25.880]  And that's what the criminal code redefines it as. Not redefined anywhere else.
[29:29.160 --> 29:38.280]  Okay. So you're going to argue that person is when they use the term person,
[29:38.280 --> 29:44.920]  they're not using the standard English definition, but some other definition that doesn't apply.
[29:44.920 --> 29:55.400]  Okay. Hang on, hang on. We're going to our sponsors. We'll be right back.
[30:00.760 --> 30:05.640]  Everyone knows that walking is great exercise, but you might not know that the way you walk
[30:05.640 --> 30:10.280]  could predict how long you're going to live. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell
[30:10.280 --> 30:16.680]  you more about walking prognostication in just a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give
[30:16.680 --> 30:21.960]  up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find
[30:21.960 --> 30:28.040]  your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your
[30:28.040 --> 30:33.640]  information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging onto. This public service announcement
[30:33.640 --> 30:39.000]  is brought to you by startpage.com. The private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo,
[30:39.000 --> 30:46.680]  and Bing. Start over with startpage. New research shows how fast you walk could predict how long
[30:46.680 --> 30:51.720]  you're going to live. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that older adults who
[30:51.720 --> 30:57.240]  walk one meter per second or faster live longer than expected. In case you're wondering, one meter
[30:57.240 --> 31:02.600]  per second is about two and a quarter miles per hour. A senior's age, gender, and walking speed
[31:02.600 --> 31:07.640]  were as good at predicting life expectancy as more traditional statistical measures. Generally
[31:07.640 --> 31:13.240]  speaking, faster walkers live longer. Measuring walking speed is quick and inexpensive. It only
[31:13.240 --> 31:18.200]  takes a stopwatch, some space to walk, and a few minutes. Researchers say it could help doctors
[31:18.200 --> 31:24.120]  identify older patients who need special care. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information
[31:24.120 --> 31:35.480]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com. I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11, 2001. Most people
[31:35.480 --> 31:41.480]  don't know that a third tower fell on September 11. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper,
[31:41.480 --> 31:46.440]  was not hit by a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7,
[31:46.440 --> 31:51.640]  over 1,200 architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to
[31:51.640 --> 31:57.960]  the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwhat.org. Why it
[31:57.960 --> 32:04.200]  fell, why it matters, and what you can do. Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God
[32:04.200 --> 32:10.040]  and a better understanding of His Word? Then tune in to logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8
[32:10.040 --> 32:15.560]  to 10 p.m. Central Time for scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in
[32:15.560 --> 32:21.880]  accord with 2nd Timothy 2.15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need is not to
[32:21.880 --> 32:27.640]  be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies are
[32:27.640 --> 32:32.760]  in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message. Our
[32:32.760 --> 32:37.960]  second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian
[32:37.960 --> 32:43.080]  character development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a
[32:43.080 --> 32:48.680]  hearing ear. Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[32:48.680 --> 32:54.440]  of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on logosradionetwork.com
[32:54.440 --> 33:03.080]  Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures.
[33:24.440 --> 33:33.080]  Mm-hmm
[33:42.440 --> 33:49.080]  I won't let you pull the wool over my eyes
[33:49.080 --> 33:57.240]  I'm sure they must refuse your news, also love in lies
[33:57.240 --> 34:05.240]  It seems you like the face, but please take some words to the wise
[34:05.240 --> 34:07.240]  Please stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes
[34:07.240 --> 34:13.480]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio, and we're talking to Stephen in Texas.
[34:13.480 --> 34:20.280]  Okay, I sound like I'm being kind of pedantic here. That's because I'm being kind of pedantic.
[34:21.160 --> 34:25.560]  If we're going to take these guys on, we have to be very specific and precise in our language.
[34:26.600 --> 34:31.560]  Now I have an argument as to why the code doesn't apply to you,
[34:33.160 --> 34:39.080]  but it's totally different from what you're doing. You're saying that you're not a person in the legal
[34:39.080 --> 34:54.200]  sense as it is used in the codes, in the ordinances. And I don't understand how you got there yet.
[34:54.200 --> 35:01.720]  Everything so far has been a little too general. Can you explain to me as if you're in front of a
[35:01.720 --> 35:07.160]  judge explaining it to him, assuming that the judge is an eighth grader, knows nothing about law,
[35:07.160 --> 35:09.560]  how would you explain that to me so it makes sense?
[35:13.080 --> 35:25.080]  Okay. I'm sorry, I'm calling from myself. I couldn't get the site to pull up straight off hand,
[35:25.080 --> 35:31.560]  but again, the City of Hillsborough's Code of Ordinances specifically defines a person,
[35:31.560 --> 35:38.120]  which persons that it has jurisdiction over, corporations, estates, trusts, partnerships,
[35:38.120 --> 35:45.000]  associations, and including individuals. Okay. That's the key word, individual.
[35:45.720 --> 35:54.600]  In this context, what does individual mean? An individual has to mean one of these things.
[35:54.600 --> 36:01.160]  It can either mean individual actor or such, but it can't mean something that's not a legal entity.
[36:01.160 --> 36:05.320]  It's in a basket of legal entities. Okay, hold on, hold on. You're violating
[36:05.320 --> 36:11.560]  one of my rules. The rule is never make a proactive statement of law out of your own mouth.
[36:12.440 --> 36:14.920]  Who says what an individual is?
[36:18.520 --> 36:24.280]  Who says what an individual is? It's not redefined. So therefore, it has to be one of these things
[36:24.280 --> 36:34.120]  there. There are legal entities known as individuals. They're certified by the state.
[36:34.120 --> 36:38.840]  You can look them up on the Secretary of State's website. They have a license to exist.
[36:38.840 --> 36:46.440]  I was not given a license to exist. I'm a man. Are those the only individuals that are defined?
[36:46.440 --> 36:52.200]  No, they're not. Because they're not defined in this code.
[36:53.560 --> 36:57.720]  So before we can bring a definition from another code into this code,
[36:58.360 --> 37:07.240]  we have to show why it would apply. We have to show the court how they can, by law, apply
[37:07.240 --> 37:18.280]  this definition from another code into this code. Okay, the prevailing document for the
[37:18.280 --> 37:25.880]  city's Tome Rule Charter, to which it claims is Vernon's 1925 addition, and then it lists that
[37:25.880 --> 37:32.600]  code. So we go to see what the prevailing law is when this was enacted. Of course, the city's
[37:32.600 --> 37:39.080]  charter restricts it to the, nothing shall be construed to be outside of the constitutional
[37:39.080 --> 37:47.560]  restrictions, state statute. And if we go to what the city claims is, it was enacted by it,
[37:47.560 --> 37:51.560]  which again, Randy, I'm not sitting here staring at it. I'm talking to you on a phone.
[37:52.440 --> 37:54.760]  That's true. Yeah, I got that part.
[37:54.760 --> 38:03.560]  The general definition for a person, which are defined in Vernon's law, define the exact same
[38:03.560 --> 38:08.680]  thing, almost verbatim, which is, again, a corporation, a state trust, partnerships,
[38:09.240 --> 38:13.880]  political subdivisions, and any other legal entity.
[38:15.400 --> 38:19.160]  Okay, we got all the legal entity, all the legal fiction stuff. We got all that.
[38:19.160 --> 38:26.920]  A person is not a legal fiction, or apparently it's not a legal fiction. It has a different meaning.
[38:28.200 --> 38:34.680]  If we go to the website, it specifically tells you that the definition of a person
[38:35.640 --> 38:41.480]  in the legislative drafting manual specifically does state that, as Eddie has pointed out.
[38:41.480 --> 38:46.120]  I've looked at it and read verbatim. Okay, they're just saying that a person
[38:46.120 --> 38:53.720]  can be a legal fiction, but they don't say a person must be a legal fiction.
[38:56.760 --> 39:07.480]  They list the legal fictions, and all the definitions, I've seen a person, legal definitions,
[39:07.480 --> 39:15.320]  not common tongue definitions like Webster's or one of the standard dictionaries, Miriam's or
[39:15.320 --> 39:27.320]  whatever. A person is always considered a living, breathing human being and or a legal fiction,
[39:27.960 --> 39:35.800]  and that's because legal fictions, like if you start up a company, that company has
[39:35.800 --> 39:40.040]  certain rights. I can't come in and just steal everything from the company.
[39:40.040 --> 39:51.080]  The company has the legal definition of person in that it has the same rights that a person would
[39:51.080 --> 39:59.320]  have in certain circumstances. All the criminal laws apply to a legal fiction like they do to a
[39:59.320 --> 40:05.320]  living, breathing human being. A corporation can't go out here and commit murder or theft or
[40:05.320 --> 40:11.000]  all these other things, and the corporation itself can protect itself from mistreatment
[40:12.120 --> 40:21.640]  and because they are legally construed as a person, but you're implying that person is
[40:21.640 --> 40:28.760]  something different than a living, breathing human being. That I haven't ever seen anywhere,
[40:28.760 --> 40:39.560]  that I haven't ever seen anywhere, and in order to put this before the court, I'm going to have to
[40:39.560 --> 40:45.640]  prove that up. That's why I have this rule, never make a proactive statement of law out of your own
[40:45.640 --> 40:53.960]  mouth. The judge has two duties. He must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence
[40:53.960 --> 41:00.600]  that apply the law as it comes to him to the facts in the case. That's the key part.
[41:01.560 --> 41:07.400]  We have to give the judge the law that he can apply to the term person.
[41:08.440 --> 41:13.880]  If you want him to determine person to have a certain meaning, you have to show him the law
[41:13.880 --> 41:16.120]  that assigns that meaning to it. Does that make sense?
[41:16.120 --> 41:22.920]  Yes, sir. That's why I just kept telling you every one of those defines it.
[41:22.920 --> 41:29.240]  If you go back to each version, each edition of Vernon's, you go back and just expand on
[41:29.240 --> 41:37.480]  one thing. If you go back to the original Vernon's, 1878, 1879, 1889, whatever that was,
[41:37.480 --> 41:47.400]  I apologize. It gives one, one, one only thing that a person means, a corporation. A person means
[41:48.040 --> 41:54.520]  a corporation. That is the general definition for the entire book of Vernon Civil Statutes.
[41:57.640 --> 41:59.640]  Brett, have you ever seen that definition?
[42:00.520 --> 42:01.560]  No, absolutely.
[42:01.560 --> 42:10.920]  I haven't either. I've seen a corporation, always when I see the definition, legal definition of
[42:10.920 --> 42:19.160]  person includes legal fictions and a living human being, always a living human being.
[42:20.040 --> 42:25.240]  I've never seen and a living human being once anytime I looked up and I've looked back until
[42:25.240 --> 42:31.160]  you get to the criminal code. If you go to the criminal code, it redefines an individual as
[42:31.160 --> 42:38.200]  a human being. That is an interesting argument. It does not do that anywhere in civil code.
[42:41.720 --> 42:47.560]  However, if my remedy against something that is illegal, I've got to play in the civil world,
[42:47.560 --> 42:52.760]  I get that. But if you go all the way and follow back, I'll even send it to, I've downloaded the
[42:52.760 --> 42:58.520]  original of each one of them. Vernon's goes back to the original definition from the legislature
[42:58.520 --> 43:07.640]  after our last constitution, one and one thing only, nothing else, a corporation. Person means
[43:07.640 --> 43:14.200]  a corporation. In the second edition after that, I think it's 1895, off a year, excuse me,
[43:15.160 --> 43:22.040]  it expands on that. It goes corporation and a partnership. By the third revision of Vernon's,
[43:22.040 --> 43:26.680]  they expand upon that one. Then they add a couple more things in there. And by the fourth,
[43:26.680 --> 43:32.920]  with everybody, as Eddie has stated, that's where they stopped certifying it in 1924.
[43:33.720 --> 43:38.920]  It includes all those things and any other legal entities from the government.
[43:40.520 --> 43:46.440]  Okay. Hang on. We're going to our sponsors. I'm looking up Person and you've gotten real
[43:46.440 --> 43:51.640]  muffled there right at the end. Hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Google Law Radio.
[43:51.640 --> 43:56.840]  We've got a couple of empty spots on the call board. So give us a call. 512-646-1984.
[44:22.200 --> 44:28.360]  Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse
[44:28.360 --> 44:34.200]  all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young Jevity so much.
[44:34.200 --> 44:40.280]  We became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs and many others. When you
[44:40.280 --> 44:47.400]  order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[44:47.400 --> 44:52.920]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor,
[44:52.920 --> 44:58.840]  you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[44:58.840 --> 45:05.800]  Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney
[45:05.800 --> 45:11.800]  with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, four CD course that will show you
[45:11.800 --> 45:19.080]  how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.080 --> 45:24.360]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our
[45:24.360 --> 45:30.280]  step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed
[45:30.280 --> 45:36.360]  attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[45:36.360 --> 45:40.920]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices
[45:40.920 --> 45:46.600]  that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar,
[45:46.600 --> 45:55.000]  tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit lulavlawradio.com
[45:55.000 --> 46:11.480]  and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:25.000 --> 46:41.960]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and over the break,
[46:42.680 --> 46:50.760]  did a search for case law definitions of persons. I was going through them and everyone was almost
[46:50.760 --> 46:58.680]  exactly the same. It said individual, corporation, or other legal entity,
[47:00.680 --> 47:05.960]  one after the other after the other. And that's the way I've always seen them. I haven't seen
[47:05.960 --> 47:15.480]  definitions that did not include individual. Steven? Yes, sir, I was listening.
[47:15.480 --> 47:24.360]  Again, when you go to, I'm sorry, even up to 1895, the only thing that was included was the
[47:24.360 --> 47:31.720]  corporation. That was it, sorry. This doesn't make sense. Why didn't they say corporation
[47:31.720 --> 47:38.440]  if it only means corporation? Why would they say individual if it only means corporation?
[47:38.440 --> 47:44.520]  That's inconsistent with use of language. Because when you go to the legislative
[47:44.520 --> 47:48.280]  drafting manual, it tells you the person has an entirely fictional meaning.
[47:50.440 --> 47:56.360]  I have never in all these 30 years of legal research, never ever have I seen that,
[47:56.920 --> 48:03.320]  or even anything that alluded to that. Everything about persons started with individual.
[48:04.440 --> 48:12.760]  And in 1911, it expanded further. Hang on. Okay, can you give me a link to one of those?
[48:12.760 --> 48:21.800]  Yes, sir. So I booted up the computer. But there's one thing that's definite,
[48:21.800 --> 48:28.760]  the original meaning in Article 3140, Texas Vernon Civil Law is given, and that's straight
[48:28.760 --> 48:33.960]  out of the first legislature session after the last Constitution, which is where it comes from,
[48:33.960 --> 48:38.200]  meaning a person includes a corporation. And that's it?
[48:38.200 --> 48:44.440]  Period. I have to see
[48:44.440 --> 48:48.920]  the context of that because I have never, ever seen that. I'm looking, okay.
[48:50.360 --> 48:55.560]  In 1890, what? Dang it. Now, I got too many screens open. Which one is this? There's a
[48:55.560 --> 49:04.440]  second version, second revision, 1895. Article 3270, they moved it to 3270,
[49:04.440 --> 49:09.800]  still noting the original definition in 3140, person includes a corporation, period.
[49:11.000 --> 49:18.120]  Okay. Vernon's 1895. That was the second edition.
[49:18.120 --> 49:33.320]  Vernon's 1895. Definition.
[49:33.320 --> 49:49.480]  Go to 1911. Hey, sorry. All the way up to 1925. Yeah, 1925, Article 23.
[49:50.760 --> 49:57.720]  Previous article was 5504. It still says only one thing. That's the general definitions in Article
[49:57.720 --> 50:07.160]  23. Number two is person includes a corporation. I'm missing something here.
[50:09.400 --> 50:13.400]  There has to be a context for this because it's inconsistent with reason.
[50:15.240 --> 50:23.320]  The English language was, in the English language, person has always meant a human being.
[50:23.320 --> 50:29.640]  And now, all of a sudden, it doesn't mean a human being anymore. It only means something's wrong.
[50:29.640 --> 50:34.520]  Something's wrong with context. I'm not having much luck with Vernon's.
[50:35.960 --> 50:43.800]  I'll send you the... Well, Brett doesn't have a real long address, sorry. But I'll send you
[50:43.800 --> 50:50.120]  all three of these. They're pretty small. Good. Send them to me and then call back next week.
[50:50.120 --> 50:54.280]  I'll do some research on that. This is an interesting point.
[50:55.480 --> 51:01.240]  You want to know? Okay. And the point of origin is it references straight out of Gamble's laws.
[51:01.240 --> 51:06.440]  This goes back to their immediate definition that they got from... This exact comes from the
[51:07.480 --> 51:13.640]  first meeting in Congress after the last Constitution, 1876, 1879. Anyway, sorry.
[51:13.640 --> 51:21.320]  All right. I'll get out and we're chasing... Anyway, it only gets elaborated on once you
[51:21.320 --> 51:30.920]  alleviate and leave the last 1925 of this when you go into... Is it chapter 311 of the government
[51:30.920 --> 51:37.960]  code where it expands on that with all these extra wonderful things and any other legal entity?
[51:37.960 --> 51:45.880]  Anyways, I'll send these to you and I'll call back in next week. I've got a panel open. It
[51:45.880 --> 51:49.560]  won't take me a few minutes. Okay. This is a good point. And next
[51:49.560 --> 52:01.480]  week we'll talk about another claim you have concerning the ordinances. I'll go through it
[52:01.480 --> 52:09.080]  briefly. The legislature is authorized to write law. The legislature is also authorized to
[52:10.440 --> 52:19.080]  delegate certain of its authorities. Writing law is not one of them. They don't call ordinances
[52:20.920 --> 52:26.360]  by chance. They call them ordinances because the legislature did not create them.
[52:26.360 --> 52:34.760]  If they attempt to enforce an ordinance against the general public, that has the effect of law
[52:34.760 --> 52:41.720]  and that application of a ordinance would be unconstitutional. We'll talk about that next
[52:41.720 --> 52:47.000]  week when you call in. 10-4-3. I appreciate y'all. And I have no
[52:47.000 --> 52:54.280]  problem with you making me prove a point. You're on my game. Even when I'm stuck in a truck on a
[52:54.280 --> 52:59.480]  cell phone, you make me think so. Okay. Thank you, Stephen.
[52:59.480 --> 53:05.000]  Appreciate it. Good night. Now we're going to go back to Tina.
[53:05.000 --> 53:18.120]  Oops. Tina, are you there with us? Hello? It looks like we've lost her altogether. I
[53:18.120 --> 53:28.040]  don't hear any snoring, but that may mean she has her Bluetooth on. Do you reckon Tina snores?
[53:29.000 --> 53:37.080]  No, that wouldn't be ladylike. Ladies don't snore. Just like they don't sweat. They glisten.
[53:37.080 --> 53:40.120]  They don't sweat. They glisten. Yeah. And they don't get churlish.
[53:40.120 --> 53:50.600]  Okay. Enough picking on Tina when she can't respond. Now we're going to go to Chris in Colorado.
[53:51.240 --> 53:54.360]  Hello, Chris. Hey, Randy.
[53:56.520 --> 54:00.600]  What do you have for us today? Well, you just talked to me not too long
[54:00.600 --> 54:05.640]  ago, but I've been looking online. Just a quick one. Is entrapment the right
[54:05.640 --> 54:12.200]  definition if the cops or whatever, even through their negligence, set up a situation where they
[54:13.000 --> 54:17.960]  can just harass people, false arrests, all that kind of stuff? Or is it another term I should look
[54:17.960 --> 54:26.040]  for? False imprisonment. No, they didn't imprison you.
[54:27.400 --> 54:34.200]  Well, it was a false arrest, but the whole premise of how they got me was they said there was chains
[54:34.200 --> 54:39.080]  that I broke through, which they lied about. That was their excuse for a trespass. And then
[54:39.080 --> 54:43.160]  I might have left trash. They had no reason. They had no probable cause for a crime. I'm
[54:43.160 --> 54:49.560]  looking up the Colorado stuff, but I want to add to this. There's no signs and they're bugging
[54:49.560 --> 54:55.800]  people in this place. There should be signs up and the police are doing what they did to me,
[54:55.800 --> 54:59.320]  essentially. So I've been looking for the right definition for that.
[54:59.320 --> 55:08.120]  Brett? Yeah, I don't know. I was thinking about harassment.
[55:08.680 --> 55:15.400]  Harassment, it tends to be the way it reads in Texas anyway, is it seems like it's focused on
[55:15.400 --> 55:23.880]  one person and yet it could be used for that. Your situation seems like you're trying to paint it as
[55:23.880 --> 55:29.880]  something that they are routinely doing to bother everybody and that just comes to that parking lot.
[55:29.880 --> 55:40.120]  To me, it goes to oppression. We have official oppression in Texas, but in most states it's called
[55:40.120 --> 55:52.040]  official misconduct, not official oppression. And that goes to a person exerting or purporting to
[55:52.040 --> 55:58.920]  exert an authority they do not expressly have, and in the process denying a citizen full and free
[55:58.920 --> 56:06.360]  access to or enjoyment of a right. And you had a right to be free from false arrest.
[56:08.360 --> 56:16.200]  That's true. I'm going to use that actually. I have that on the corporal who was there,
[56:16.200 --> 56:22.520]  the corporal who was there, official misconduct for sure, because she had a duty to deescalate
[56:22.520 --> 56:25.880]  that situation and she actually just became a spectator. She enjoyed it.
[56:25.880 --> 56:32.280]  Stood there. Yeah, she stood there. But let's say there's actually some militia. I'm going to go
[56:32.280 --> 56:36.360]  the extreme. Let's say there's a park and there's a sign that says you're not supposed to be there
[56:36.360 --> 56:42.440]  after 5 or 6 p.m. And then the police come in and they take down the sign. And then when somebody
[56:42.440 --> 56:48.040]  comes in there after 5 or 6 p.m., they come in and they say you're trespassing, you're breaking
[56:48.040 --> 56:54.360]  the law. So that's setting somebody up to get a false arrest. Entrapment.
[56:54.360 --> 57:00.440]  Yeah, that would be entrapment. But you can't say that they spread trash so that they could blame
[57:00.440 --> 57:07.240]  you for trash. Or you can't say that they took the chains down. You don't know.
[57:07.240 --> 57:18.680]  Actually, you can say that. Put the onus on them. When you came in, you didn't see any trash.
[57:20.360 --> 57:24.520]  And then when they came along, there was trash all of a sudden. And the only people on the
[57:25.080 --> 57:28.680]  property other than you were the police. So who else could have put the trash there?
[57:28.680 --> 57:33.960]  Charge them for littering. It's what they do.
[57:33.960 --> 57:39.400]  Yeah. But what about the trespass? That's the main thing they tried to use. They said there was
[57:39.400 --> 57:45.160]  chains, there were signs that said no trespassing. They were thrown aside in the bushes. The sergeant
[57:45.160 --> 57:49.640]  later confirmed that that wasn't true. The signs had been down for quite a while. They didn't know
[57:49.640 --> 57:57.240]  why. The signs still aren't up. So that's my idea. That's my answer to the question.
[57:57.240 --> 58:03.880]  That's my argument. The sergeant, if he confirmed, then they knew.
[58:05.000 --> 58:12.360]  This is perjury. This is false imprisonment. This is official oppression. Hang on.
[58:13.240 --> 58:21.560]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Voodoo Blow Radio. We've got a couple empty spaces,
[58:21.560 --> 58:30.760]  slots on the call board. So if you have a question or comment, give us a call 512-646-1984.
[58:31.480 --> 58:35.000]  If you don't, then me and Brett are going to talk about Brett
[58:35.880 --> 58:43.480]  going to the federal court and having way too much fun. So hang on. We'll pick this up on the
[58:43.480 --> 58:54.040]  other side. We'll be right back. Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.040 --> 58:59.640]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.640 --> 59:04.360]  can really help. The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study
[59:04.360 --> 59:09.640]  Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes
[59:09.640 --> 59:15.240]  that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life. The free books are a three volume
[59:15.240 --> 59:21.000]  set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life. Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:21.000 --> 59:27.720]  Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation, growing in Christ, and how to build up the church.
[59:27.720 --> 59:33.240]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:33.240 --> 59:48.120]  call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102. Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:48.120 --> 59:58.280]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:02.120 --> 01:00:06.440]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. They guarantee
[01:00:06.440 --> 01:00:11.080]  the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm
[01:00:11.080 --> 01:00:15.320]  Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your
[01:00:15.320 --> 01:00:21.480]  constitutional rights. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never
[01:00:21.480 --> 01:00:27.480]  get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:27.480 --> 01:00:33.640]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:00:33.640 --> 01:00:38.840]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:00:38.840 --> 01:00:45.640]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:46.200 --> 01:00:51.080]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed. They pull back the covers and find a third
[01:00:51.080 --> 01:00:56.040]  party there. He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight. That shocking image
[01:00:56.040 --> 01:01:00.840]  of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent.
[01:01:00.840 --> 01:01:05.560]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, a common demand in the days
[01:01:05.560 --> 01:01:10.520]  of our founding fathers. Third party, Third Amendment? Get it? So if you answer a knock
[01:01:10.520 --> 01:01:15.080]  at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging, tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of
[01:01:15.080 --> 01:01:19.960]  Rights and reread the Third Amendment. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information
[01:01:19.960 --> 01:01:34.600]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com. The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our
[01:01:34.600 --> 01:01:39.000]  Constitution. They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:43.080]  Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an
[01:01:43.080 --> 01:01:46.360]  unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:47.000 --> 01:01:52.520]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.520 --> 01:01:57.320]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.320 --> 01:02:03.480]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:02:03.480 --> 01:02:08.680]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:02:08.680 --> 01:02:14.680]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:02:16.280 --> 01:02:20.760]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass or a pair of
[01:02:20.760 --> 01:02:25.400]  X-ray goggles. That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans
[01:02:25.400 --> 01:02:30.280]  freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment, four eyes staring at you.
[01:02:30.280 --> 01:02:34.520]  Get it? Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of
[01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:40.440]  security. Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing. When government
[01:02:40.440 --> 01:02:45.080]  employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say it's time to sound the
[01:02:45.080 --> 01:02:50.200]  constitutional alarm bells. Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights
[01:02:50.200 --> 01:02:55.160]  and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:02:55.160 --> 01:03:00.600]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:55.160 --> 01:04:09.880]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rue LaRoy Radio on this, the fourth day of November
[01:04:09.880 --> 01:04:20.760]  2022. And we're talking to Chris in Colorado. Okay, Chris, where were we? We were trying to
[01:04:20.760 --> 01:04:28.200]  figure out a way to go after these policemen. I'm sure you've considered a post-complaint against
[01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:34.760]  them, a professional conduct complaint. Have you done that? Yeah, Brett's got me down there
[01:04:34.760 --> 01:04:40.360]  doing all that or trying to get that organized. But I'm going to get to it sooner, at some point,
[01:04:40.360 --> 01:04:46.680]  but I'm just structuring all this stuff in my head right now. And, you know, they essentially
[01:04:46.680 --> 01:04:51.720]  are setting a trap there for people. That's really what they're doing. If they're just
[01:04:51.720 --> 01:04:56.600]  monitoring for trespass and they need to take an account, there's no chance. There's something
[01:04:56.600 --> 01:05:03.800]  wrong here. There's something sinister here. The sergeant said that he knew that the signs had
[01:05:03.800 --> 01:05:14.040]  been down. So they knew full well you were not committing criminal trespass. Yes. So what was
[01:05:14.040 --> 01:05:25.000]  really going on here? They got nothing better to do. They're bored. And that could be exactly
[01:05:25.000 --> 01:05:31.000]  what it is. They need to show their boss that they're actually doing something to earn their pay.
[01:05:33.880 --> 01:05:39.640]  So it needs a good lawsuit. The professional conduct complaints will help,
[01:05:39.640 --> 01:05:49.320]  but in the time, okay, look at the criminal procedure code. That'll tell you a whole lot
[01:05:49.320 --> 01:05:53.720]  about what you can do to them. I'm looking at it right now. I've been reading through it.
[01:05:55.400 --> 01:06:00.920]  Have you found any goodies? Well, here's two that I pulled off to the side. So a
[01:06:00.920 --> 01:06:07.000]  peace officer may arrest when he has a warrant, A, any crime has been or is being committed,
[01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:13.320]  or C, I'm paraphrasing here, but C, he has probable cause to believe that an offense was
[01:06:13.320 --> 01:06:17.800]  committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be
[01:06:17.800 --> 01:06:23.000]  arrested. Okay. That's pretty darn clear. All right. And then there's another section.
[01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:28.440]  The next section, a peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing,
[01:06:28.440 --> 01:06:33.000]  has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give him his name, address,
[01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:38.040]  identification, if available, and an explanation of his actions. They had none of this.
[01:06:39.160 --> 01:06:44.840]  So they stopped you and asked for your name and such, but they didn't have evidence, they didn't
[01:06:44.840 --> 01:06:50.840]  have reasonable belief that you had committed a crime or were about to commit a crime.
[01:06:51.800 --> 01:06:59.640]  Correct. They probably thought you were a drug addict and was passed out and they were going
[01:06:59.640 --> 01:07:05.000]  to get their own easy drug bust. And then when they didn't get it, they were embarrassed and
[01:07:05.720 --> 01:07:09.560]  didn't want to lose face. So they made up a reason to arrest you.
[01:07:10.520 --> 01:07:15.880]  Agreed. Now they put on, they put on the ticket homeless. They never said I was homeless.
[01:07:16.600 --> 01:07:19.960]  They asked me for my address. They told me to use the one on my driver's license.
[01:07:20.760 --> 01:07:27.000]  And so I think they thought they had a belligerent homeless dude. And how would you know when you
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:30.360]  wake somebody up and they could just abuse it and get some practice, right?
[01:07:30.360 --> 01:07:36.760]  Yeah. I think that's what they thought. And they're probably accustomed to doing that to people.
[01:07:38.920 --> 01:07:45.720]  The policemen on their side, they deal with about 6% of the population
[01:07:47.320 --> 01:07:54.360]  over and over and over. And then every once in a while, they run into one of the other 94%.
[01:07:54.360 --> 01:07:59.640]  And they just don't know how to shift that gear.
[01:08:02.280 --> 01:08:06.040]  We're learning how to teach them. Brett has certainly learned how to teach
[01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:17.080]  the federal marshals by his behavior. But the policemen on the street, they got this
[01:08:17.080 --> 01:08:24.200]  adrenaline thing going on. And they're just used to people who are easily abused
[01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:34.600]  and have no way to assert remedy. So they kind of get in this routine. And you're expecting them
[01:08:34.600 --> 01:08:40.920]  to break up that routine. And you feel surprised and betrayed when they don't.
[01:08:40.920 --> 01:08:50.840]  So we need a way to sting them good. So they come away and say, I don't want that to happen
[01:08:50.840 --> 01:09:03.320]  to me again. And a really good hefty lawsuit. You might calculate the number of people who
[01:09:03.320 --> 01:09:14.760]  are arrested and the cases are dismissed. Calculate how much that costs the city and the
[01:09:14.760 --> 01:09:23.960]  county. And sue them for three times that amount. It doesn't matter what the amount is. You just
[01:09:23.960 --> 01:09:31.160]  have to be able to say, this is how I got there. And the other guy's side is going to say, oh,
[01:09:31.160 --> 01:09:35.560]  that's a bunch of crap. You can't do this and you can't do that. Well, yeah, we'll see what
[01:09:35.560 --> 01:09:43.400]  a jury says about it. At the end of the day, there's only one number they're going to remember.
[01:09:45.400 --> 01:09:53.560]  And that's the number you walked in the door with. So they arrested me in the courthouse,
[01:09:53.560 --> 01:09:58.680]  having a private conversation with a prosecuting attorney, took me to jail, held me overnight,
[01:09:58.680 --> 01:10:07.080]  let me out. I filed a motion to dismiss. They did it dismissed. Okay. 400 million.
[01:10:07.080 --> 01:10:16.120]  They're going to say, why are you getting 400 million? Well, they arrested me and took me
[01:10:16.120 --> 01:10:27.000]  to jail instead of to a magistrate. How much does that cost? It costs Texas in October 2019,
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:41.000]  $990 million in pretrial confinement, incarceration, and another $245 million for
[01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:47.560]  court appointed counsel. That was half the Texas budget. So I'm saying they did this impropriety
[01:10:47.560 --> 01:10:52.280]  and this is a standard procedure. You can't consider that the police came and arrested you
[01:10:52.280 --> 01:10:57.400]  with no standing, no grounds, no anything. You can't consider that's the first time
[01:10:58.920 --> 01:11:06.040]  or that this is some kind of isolated incident. You have to assume they're doing this all the
[01:11:06.040 --> 01:11:15.080]  time. So accuse them of doing it all the time. Make up this huge number. Let them disprove it.
[01:11:15.080 --> 01:11:21.640]  All you have to do is have some kind of explanation of how you got to that number and looking at the
[01:11:21.640 --> 01:11:27.720]  people that are falsely arrested and falsely held in prison, if they arrest someone and they violate
[01:11:27.720 --> 01:11:34.440]  one provision of that code of criminal procedure, you can claim those arrests are all illegal.
[01:11:36.200 --> 01:11:39.640]  And I guarantee you, if you go through that code, you'll find more than one.
[01:11:39.640 --> 01:11:47.560]  You'll find lots of them. I'm going to read all weekend. I just wanted to ask to keep that on
[01:11:47.560 --> 01:11:56.920]  track. They're setting traps to arrest people. That's a big deal too. And you have the experience.
[01:11:58.520 --> 01:12:05.560]  That case you took on in Chicago, you have the experience you need. This is not going to be so
[01:12:05.560 --> 01:12:11.800]  hard for you. This is likely to be a lot easier for you then. When you took on that other case,
[01:12:13.240 --> 01:12:19.960]  this could be a lot more money. And then once you start the adjudication process,
[01:12:20.840 --> 01:12:30.040]  oh, you have so many more ways to beat them up. They screw up everything. I went into court in
[01:12:30.040 --> 01:12:36.440]  Victoria County where I sued a magistrate because he wouldn't read my criminal complaints.
[01:12:37.320 --> 01:12:45.880]  We go into court, I give this judge a set of criminal complaints against the guy I sued
[01:12:45.880 --> 01:13:00.600]  and the county sheriff, and he refused to read them. So what do you think I'm going to do to him?
[01:13:00.600 --> 01:13:07.800]  Except I'm going to sue him for a lot more money. They will give you more stuff to go after them with
[01:13:07.800 --> 01:13:15.240]  than you can count. I'm also going to sue the bailiff. I asked the bailiff to arrest the judge.
[01:13:15.240 --> 01:13:25.560]  Actually, I ordered him to arrest the judge twice and he didn't move. So I'm going to sue him
[01:13:25.560 --> 01:13:32.760]  personally. And what are all the other bailiffs going to say when I sue this guy personally?
[01:13:34.360 --> 01:13:42.920]  What? What'd I do? You didn't do your job. It's easy to stack these up on them.
[01:13:42.920 --> 01:13:48.280]  And the way I'm doing it, I've already told them what I'm doing.
[01:13:49.720 --> 01:13:55.000]  I said the state does everything wrong, but everybody in the state does everything wrong.
[01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:00.440]  So I'm just setting the state up so I can file a RICO suit against the state in the Fed.
[01:14:02.440 --> 01:14:09.080]  And you know, when you sue the state in the Fed, you sue them in the Supreme.
[01:14:09.080 --> 01:14:12.120]  I think it was last night we were talking about that, weren't we?
[01:14:12.120 --> 01:14:16.920]  I remember you were saying that, but I haven't looked at that, but I don't know what about that.
[01:14:16.920 --> 01:14:25.080]  I know I've read that. That was real definitive. Because it is a state, only the Supreme can hear
[01:14:25.080 --> 01:14:35.480]  the case. Well, she was talking about can they refuse to hear it because they refused to hear
[01:14:35.480 --> 01:14:45.000]  some 98% of all of the bits of certiorari presented to them? No, this is an original petition.
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:51.800]  They can't deny you your right to petition the court for redress agreements. So you drag the state
[01:14:52.440 --> 01:14:57.080]  in front of the federal court, and you do it for a tremendous amount of money.
[01:14:58.520 --> 01:15:03.720]  And then you use all these tools to beat up their lawyers, beat up their lawyers,
[01:15:03.720 --> 01:15:13.480]  beat up the judges. Just make yourself a pain in the rear until the judges order these guys
[01:15:13.480 --> 01:15:20.040]  to make you a deal, get you the heck out of their court. You can do this, Chris.
[01:15:22.760 --> 01:15:24.200]  You've already done the hard part.
[01:15:24.200 --> 01:15:30.200]  Well, in that, you know the right questions to ask.
[01:15:30.200 --> 01:15:34.200]  I'm getting there. I'm definitely learning as I go. I'm getting there.
[01:15:34.200 --> 01:15:41.240]  Yeah, you've got a lot of experience in this. And here, you're not suing another individual.
[01:15:41.240 --> 01:15:48.600]  Here, you're suing a state. And another lawyer, he's going to be more diligent.
[01:15:48.600 --> 01:15:55.000]  The state, they screw up everything because they're confident that all these judges are
[01:15:55.000 --> 01:16:03.000]  going to rule in their favor until they realize that you're setting them up for a RICO suit.
[01:16:05.720 --> 01:16:10.840]  Then you're likely to get a judge to order these guys to come to the table and make a deal.
[01:16:10.840 --> 01:16:16.520]  And at some point, once you beat them up really good, you're going to get a judge to come to the
[01:16:16.520 --> 01:16:22.600]  court. And at some point, once you beat them up really good, you ask the court to order mediation.
[01:16:24.600 --> 01:16:28.120]  When you ask them to order mediation, then the lawyers from the other side,
[01:16:30.200 --> 01:16:33.720]  they can come to the table and not lose face.
[01:16:36.200 --> 01:16:41.160]  Make you a deal, write you a check. At the end of the day, it's all about the money.
[01:16:41.160 --> 01:16:48.280]  I know people, oh, we'll do the right thing. Well, when you're dealing with public officials,
[01:16:48.920 --> 01:16:54.840]  get in their pockets. That's how you get their attention. Hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain,
[01:16:54.840 --> 01:17:22.440]  it was our radio. We'll be right back.
[01:17:54.840 --> 01:18:05.080]  I love logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so
[01:18:05.080 --> 01:18:09.720]  addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth pick. I'd be lost without
[01:18:09.720 --> 01:18:15.000]  logos. And I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer,
[01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:19.560]  but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on
[01:18:19.560 --> 01:18:25.880]  supplements. How can I help logos? Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon,
[01:18:25.880 --> 01:18:30.920]  you can help logos with ordering your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your
[01:18:30.920 --> 01:18:38.360]  cookies. Now go to logosradionetwork.com, click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when you
[01:18:38.360 --> 01:18:45.000]  order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do
[01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:50.920]  you have to do anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes.
[01:18:50.920 --> 01:18:56.920]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:56.920 --> 01:19:06.760]  We are welcome. Happy holidays, logos. This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:06.760 --> 01:19:08.760]  The Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:36.760 --> 01:19:54.920]  Okay. We are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio. And we're going to see it.
[01:19:54.920 --> 01:19:58.520]  Before I go back to Chris, Chris, hang on. Let me see if Tina's woke up yet.
[01:19:58.520 --> 01:20:07.160]  Oh, I muted her. Okay. Tina, are you there? Talk to us.
[01:20:09.160 --> 01:20:10.920]  I'm here. You just keep muting me.
[01:20:11.960 --> 01:20:23.240]  Oh, hang on, Chris. We got Ms. Tina back. What do you have? Well, let me finish with Chris
[01:20:23.240 --> 01:20:30.920]  and then we'll come back to you. This means we can't make any funny jokes about you anymore?
[01:20:32.360 --> 01:20:33.880]  Well, you always do.
[01:20:37.080 --> 01:20:41.800]  We unmuted you a long time ago and couldn't get you. So we were saying all kinds of stuff
[01:20:41.800 --> 01:20:46.600]  about you and having great fun at your expense. I hear everything.
[01:20:46.600 --> 01:20:53.480]  Oops. Brett instigated all of this. Blame it all on Brett.
[01:20:58.200 --> 01:21:05.480]  Okay, Chris. Are you there, Chris?
[01:21:06.440 --> 01:21:11.720]  I'm here, yeah. Okay. So are you motivated?
[01:21:11.720 --> 01:21:22.280]  I'm getting there. So since you brought the topic up, I'll make it real quick. But Jesus
[01:21:22.280 --> 01:21:29.000]  wouldn't. No, my mind's blown blank. Oh, wait, wait. You shouldn't call me Jesus.
[01:21:30.200 --> 01:21:36.680]  My wife, she thinks I'm Jesus. Yeah, she's always saying, Jesus Christ,
[01:21:36.680 --> 01:21:42.840]  Randy. I tell her, I know, I know. It's an honest mistake and it's a burden, but
[01:21:42.840 --> 01:21:52.120]  I'll deal with it. And she never thinks I'm funny. I know Tina's listening and she's not laughing
[01:21:52.120 --> 01:22:03.880]  either. Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Chris. So since this is probably going to turn into an
[01:22:03.880 --> 01:22:09.880]  excessive force claim, should I do that separate from this other lawsuit against
[01:22:09.880 --> 01:22:12.440]  the policeman's conduct or would it all be wrapped up in one?
[01:22:13.160 --> 01:22:19.240]  No, it'd all be in one. If it occurred out of the same set of facts, they would all
[01:22:20.200 --> 01:22:24.600]  need to be in one suit. Okay. So this could turn into a pretty
[01:22:24.600 --> 01:22:29.080]  big suit. The excessive force and I've got all the video. Well, hopefully I can get the video.
[01:22:29.080 --> 01:22:33.720]  We're still waiting on it from the police. Oh, wait a minute. These guys put you in the
[01:22:33.720 --> 01:22:45.800]  hospital. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's a big deal. Here's an adage. Here's something you need to
[01:22:47.240 --> 01:22:55.400]  know about. If somebody walks out of a doorway and I jump in front of them and say, boo,
[01:22:55.400 --> 01:23:03.000]  and they drop dead of a heart attack, I'm responsible. No, I can say, well, this guy
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:08.120]  with heart was about to fail and he was dancing on the head of the pin. And the court's going to say,
[01:23:08.840 --> 01:23:19.080]  you take him like you find him. Your problem. So if you already had issues and they exacerbated
[01:23:19.080 --> 01:23:26.120]  those issues, not realizing that you had these issues, their problem, not your problem.
[01:23:26.120 --> 01:23:37.160]  So they can't address any pre-existing conditions as causing this harm. They acted outside of scope.
[01:23:37.960 --> 01:23:45.160]  That makes them totally liable. Agreed. It's something they will bring up.
[01:23:47.160 --> 01:23:51.560]  And you need to need to know about that. So you'll have a great suit.
[01:23:51.560 --> 01:23:55.960]  You'll have a great suit. And then I'm looking up entrapment
[01:23:55.960 --> 01:24:03.720]  right here. This might actually squeeze. If the person would not have conceived or engaged in the
[01:24:03.720 --> 01:24:08.600]  contact before the inducement, they use methods to create a substantial risk of criminal acts
[01:24:08.600 --> 01:24:14.680]  would be committed by a person. I got some of this. It might work. It might not stick,
[01:24:14.680 --> 01:24:22.280]  but it might work. Oh, you know, the thing is, it's not about sticking. It's not when you go
[01:24:22.280 --> 01:24:28.840]  into this suit, you don't expect to win a decision in your favor at the end of the day.
[01:24:30.200 --> 01:24:35.960]  Oh, it would be nice if you could. But what you really want to do is put enough pressure on them.
[01:24:36.600 --> 01:24:39.880]  So it's not worth fighting you. They'll come to the table and make a deal.
[01:24:39.880 --> 01:24:49.000]  It changes how you do things. And it changes how you feel when the court betrays you and rules
[01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:55.480]  against you. Because they're going to do that at every opportunity. So you throw everything at them
[01:24:55.480 --> 01:25:07.240]  you can. And when they start throwing it out, you know, if they render a ruling that would
[01:25:07.240 --> 01:25:17.960]  tend to inhibit your ability to adjudicate the case, then you can file a mandamus or a
[01:25:17.960 --> 01:25:25.880]  interlocutory appeal and stop them. Now, when it goes to the court of appeals, they got to get
[01:25:25.880 --> 01:25:33.080]  generally a different set of attorneys, attorneys that specialize in appeal. And you get these guys
[01:25:33.080 --> 01:25:37.640]  in court, and they will tell you all the stuff you need to beat them up with.
[01:25:39.480 --> 01:25:46.360]  And one of the things I find the most fun is to take the case law they use
[01:25:47.560 --> 01:25:55.720]  and read it. It doesn't take long. I pull up the case, and then I take the verbiage that they
[01:25:55.720 --> 01:26:03.800]  used in their pleadings, put the verbiage in a search window, and then go down and find what
[01:26:03.800 --> 01:26:15.800]  they're referring to. And more times than not, they're simply wrong. Or they've taken it out of
[01:26:15.800 --> 01:26:26.600]  context. You take their case law and you rip their case law to shreds. That is so much fun. And for
[01:26:26.600 --> 01:26:36.440]  attorneys, that is a big, big deal. Attorneys tend not to do that to each other because the worst
[01:26:36.440 --> 01:26:46.360]  thing an attorney can do is cite bad law before a court. Judges get really, really unhappy
[01:26:47.160 --> 01:26:56.120]  when lawyers cite bad case law, and they do it all the time. Eddie Craig called me once and asked me
[01:26:56.120 --> 01:27:03.320]  about, I think it was Hernandez v. State. This is a case that everybody used in traffic law.
[01:27:03.320 --> 01:27:10.600]  It was even cited in the Supreme. He read it. There was nothing in there about traffic.
[01:27:12.120 --> 01:27:20.840]  It was a bogus citing, a bogus claim, more appropriate. I'm sure you've heard on this show
[01:27:20.840 --> 01:27:28.360]  and other shows that rights belong to the belligerent litigant. You remember hearing that?
[01:27:28.360 --> 01:27:38.920]  Yeah. Well, Johnson v. something, I looked up the case. And in there, when they made that quotation,
[01:27:38.920 --> 01:27:47.960]  they cited two other cases. I looked up those cases. It wasn't in there, either one of them.
[01:27:49.480 --> 01:27:52.920]  Nothing about a belligerent litigant was in there at all.
[01:27:52.920 --> 01:27:59.160]  It was absolutely a bogus reference. And I put in belligerent litigant, and I got the hit on,
[01:28:00.280 --> 01:28:07.480]  you know, was it case text? One of these big engines. And I pulled up the cases and it was bogus.
[01:28:10.200 --> 01:28:17.400]  They made it up. What could it be a different Johnson? No, I looked there to see if it was
[01:28:17.400 --> 01:28:25.000]  they made it up. What could it be a different Johnson? No, they had the exact citation.
[01:28:25.000 --> 01:28:32.120]  I opened up Johnson and that paragraph they cited was there. So I went to the two cases
[01:28:32.120 --> 01:28:40.280]  that that paragraph referenced. And it wasn't in there. Oh, I see what you're saying. It was cited
[01:28:40.280 --> 01:28:49.160]  in one case. Yeah, they cited Johnson and they cited Johnson correctly. But Johnson was citing
[01:28:49.160 --> 01:28:59.000]  these other two cases and wasn't in there. One of the things I'm doing now as a just a matter of
[01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:07.480]  discipline is I take the cases. And when one case cites another and I first thing I hyperlink it,
[01:29:07.480 --> 01:29:14.040]  then I open the case and do a search to find the section in the case that would be referring to.
[01:29:14.600 --> 01:29:21.160]  And then I copy that section out and drop it in as a quote. So I've got the original case and I've
[01:29:21.160 --> 01:29:29.560]  got this the sub cases. So I'm sure everything fits and also got more law in the in the document.
[01:29:29.560 --> 01:29:38.840]  But I'm amazed at how many I'm finding are bogus. The case law is riddled with errors.
[01:29:40.600 --> 01:29:49.080]  If you catch a lawyer quoting bad law, oh, the judge is gonna cut a button off of his shirt.
[01:29:49.080 --> 01:30:01.960]  Okay, hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio. We'll be right back. A top
[01:30:01.960 --> 01:30:07.880]  cybersecurity expert has a warning for America. If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers
[01:30:07.880 --> 01:30:13.240]  will come and they could cause a catastrophic blackout. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht back with
[01:30:13.240 --> 01:30:19.800]  the shocking details in a moment. Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself,
[01:30:19.800 --> 01:30:24.840]  you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will
[01:30:24.840 --> 01:30:31.000]  start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to
[01:30:31.000 --> 01:30:37.320]  yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This message is brought to you by startpage.com,
[01:30:37.320 --> 01:30:43.320]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with startpage.
[01:30:45.320 --> 01:30:49.880]  Governments love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into
[01:30:49.880 --> 01:30:55.080]  your home too with a smart grid. So they're installing a national network of smart meters
[01:30:55.080 --> 01:31:01.000]  to remotely monitor electric use for efficiency and avoid grid failure. But cybersecurity expert
[01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:06.440]  David Chalk says not so fast. If we make the national power grid controllable through the web,
[01:31:06.440 --> 01:31:12.440]  hackers will have a field day. Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the entire nation,
[01:31:12.440 --> 01:31:18.040]  leaving us vulnerable to our enemies. I've long opposed smart meters for privacy and health
[01:31:18.040 --> 01:31:23.160]  reasons. The catastrophic failures caused by hackers, there's nothing smart about that.
[01:31:23.720 --> 01:31:28.600]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:28.600 --> 01:31:34.280]  This is building seven, a 47 story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. The
[01:31:34.280 --> 01:31:40.040]  government says that fire brought it down. However, 1500 architects and engineers concluded it was a
[01:31:40.040 --> 01:31:44.600]  controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives. Thousands
[01:31:44.600 --> 01:31:48.920]  of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:48.920 --> 01:31:53.000]  I'm a New York City correction office. I'm an air force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:53.000 --> 01:31:59.320]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to rememberbuildingseven.org today.
[01:31:59.320 --> 01:32:03.640]  Rule of law radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[01:32:03.640 --> 01:32:07.640]  we live in an us against them society. If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society,
[01:32:07.640 --> 01:32:11.640]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[01:32:11.640 --> 01:32:15.640]  travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[01:32:15.640 --> 01:32:20.120]  the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunities
[01:32:20.120 --> 01:32:24.440]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former sheriff's deputy,
[01:32:24.440 --> 01:32:27.960]  Eddie Craig, in conjunction with rule of law radio, has put together the most comprehensive
[01:32:27.960 --> 01:32:31.720]  teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold
[01:32:31.720 --> 01:32:35.560]  the courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[01:32:35.560 --> 01:32:40.120]  ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[01:32:40.120 --> 01:32:44.200]  book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original
[01:32:44.200 --> 01:32:48.280]  2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents and other materials, and a copy of the book.
[01:32:48.280 --> 01:32:51.880]  There are hundreds of research documents and other useful resource materials. Learn how to
[01:32:51.880 --> 01:32:55.800]  fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your
[01:32:55.800 --> 01:32:59.400]  copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:32:59.400 --> 01:33:15.400]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:30.360 --> 01:33:33.160]  Do the math of capability,
[01:33:33.160 --> 01:33:39.000]  the pain of over all eternity. They come from natural divinity,
[01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:45.400]  with steadfast roots in authenticity. The tools of rigged eagerness,
[01:33:45.400 --> 01:33:54.280]  the rebuild of crime and obesity. And I say, truth and nature must be justice, I believe.
[01:33:54.280 --> 01:34:05.880]  Truth and nature must be justice, I know it's a daunting task. At least I got to Jesus,
[01:34:05.880 --> 01:34:09.880]  and I said them all to just take off the silly mask.
[01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:17.080]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and I hope everybody listening
[01:34:18.200 --> 01:34:22.120]  takes heed to what we were just talking about, about the bad case law.
[01:34:22.120 --> 01:34:26.520]  It went on break, and I'm talking to Brett about it, and he's finding the same thing.
[01:34:27.400 --> 01:34:28.920]  Tell them about what you found, Brett.
[01:34:31.560 --> 01:34:41.080]  Well, there was a guy, he's a city prosecutor, and he wanted to talk about traffic. So he brought
[01:34:42.680 --> 01:34:48.920]  one case law, and I said, well, that's not on point. He brought up another one, I said, well,
[01:34:48.920 --> 01:34:52.600]  that's not on point either, for this reason and that reason. He brought up a third one,
[01:34:52.600 --> 01:34:58.120]  that's not on point. Plus, all three of these are based on a repealed statute.
[01:35:01.560 --> 01:35:02.760]  And that lawyer disappeared.
[01:35:04.760 --> 01:35:13.080]  We get this all the time. And as to lawyers, about the work, there's two really, really bad
[01:35:13.080 --> 01:35:21.720]  things they can do. The first one is cite bad case law. The second one is to miss something.
[01:35:23.400 --> 01:35:27.400]  But bad case law, before a judge, oh, that is a big deal.
[01:35:29.720 --> 01:35:33.960]  And it's not that hard to find. I mean, they bring it up, so you just go look it up. You find,
[01:35:33.960 --> 01:35:38.840]  take their, whatever they brought, go look it up and read it. It's not a big deal.
[01:35:38.840 --> 01:35:46.520]  Yeah, and Chris, you make these claims, even if you can't find all the case law to support it,
[01:35:46.520 --> 01:35:54.200]  who cares? You got lawyers who will help you out here. You make the claim, then the lawyers
[01:35:54.200 --> 01:35:59.800]  have to file an opposition. And they'll give you all this case law when they file the opposition.
[01:36:01.080 --> 01:36:06.680]  So you take their opposition, their answer to your suit, and you look at all their case law
[01:36:06.680 --> 01:36:13.480]  and stuff and use that, your first thing you do is go take apart their case law. And in doing that,
[01:36:14.280 --> 01:36:22.920]  you'll get the case law you need because they always talk about cases on each side of an issue.
[01:36:25.320 --> 01:36:29.400]  So you have a particular issue, they talk about cases close to it,
[01:36:29.400 --> 01:36:34.520]  and you use those cases and you can find cases that refute what they say.
[01:36:34.520 --> 01:36:40.680]  The first case on point is the hardest part. Get the other side to do that. And then they file their
[01:36:40.680 --> 01:36:48.120]  opposition and then you create an amended pleading and say, oh my goodness, the criticisms of
[01:36:48.120 --> 01:36:57.160]  opposing counsel are well taken. And because of that, I filed this amended pleading. That's
[01:36:57.160 --> 01:37:05.480]  their real one. So you get them to do most of the homework for you. Does that make sense, Chris?
[01:37:06.680 --> 01:37:11.160]  Yeah. That's part of the fun of this is that they do tell you what you need to do. And sometimes
[01:37:11.160 --> 01:37:13.720]  they make some stupid, stupid mistakes. I'm learning that.
[01:37:15.320 --> 01:37:20.840]  I love their stupid mistakes because we do our best never to miss one of those
[01:37:20.840 --> 01:37:31.560]  and always rub it in their faces with bar grievances. Okay, Chris, are you motivated?
[01:37:32.440 --> 01:37:36.040]  Yeah, I'm getting there. I mean, I don't know why I'm up so late reading, but I'm doing it.
[01:37:36.040 --> 01:37:42.200]  I'm doing it tonight. Thank you so much, guys. Okay. Thank you, Chris. And keep us up to speed
[01:37:42.200 --> 01:37:49.960]  on how this goes. Okay, I will. Okay. Now we're going to go to Ms.
[01:37:49.960 --> 01:37:57.320]  Ms. Sweet Tina. Well, finally, Randy, you addressed me correctly.
[01:38:03.720 --> 01:38:07.400]  So what do you have for us today? It's been a while. We haven't talked to you in a while.
[01:38:08.360 --> 01:38:13.080]  Well, because you've been so busy on these calls, I haven't been able to get in, but I've been
[01:38:13.080 --> 01:38:20.920]  listening. Trust me, I've been listening to you all. You've heard all those things I said, huh?
[01:38:21.720 --> 01:38:25.880]  I did. I was always just joking. You know that.
[01:38:30.280 --> 01:38:36.200]  Did you get the tool I sent you? I did, and I sent you a text saying I got it,
[01:38:36.200 --> 01:38:41.880]  but I need to know how to use it. Okay, I didn't see your text. We'll have to
[01:38:41.880 --> 01:38:45.720]  do a Zoom hearing or something, and I'll show you how to use it.
[01:38:46.840 --> 01:38:54.440]  We will, because last week I had such a setback. I thought, I mean, I was in so much pain on Friday,
[01:38:54.440 --> 01:39:02.920]  last Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. I literally couldn't even do my pickups from the grocery
[01:39:02.920 --> 01:39:12.280]  stores. I had to call in my friends and said I couldn't get in the car. I was in so much pain.
[01:39:12.280 --> 01:39:19.400]  I couldn't do anything. I was that bad. It was awful, but I'm sort of doing better now,
[01:39:20.600 --> 01:39:28.200]  but unfortunately I'm still on those ibuprofen, which I absolutely hate to take, but I have to.
[01:39:28.200 --> 01:39:33.320]  I can't move without it. Okay, call me tomorrow. On that one.
[01:39:33.960 --> 01:39:38.200]  Yes. Probably late in the day,
[01:39:38.920 --> 01:39:42.120]  because I'm going to be running around all day, four or five this tomorrow evening.
[01:39:43.400 --> 01:39:46.440]  That'd be three or four your time, and I'll explain how to use it.
[01:39:47.400 --> 01:39:51.000]  Okay. Sounds good, because I need it. What do you have for us today?
[01:39:51.000 --> 01:40:00.600]  Well, I'm asking you a question here. This last lawsuit I'm in, you remember the
[01:40:00.600 --> 01:40:05.160]  declaratory judgment where they just ignored it and moved-
[01:40:05.160 --> 01:40:07.160]  Wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you on that Bluetooth?
[01:40:08.440 --> 01:40:13.720]  No, I'm on a speakerphone because my Bluetooth doesn't work properly.
[01:40:14.600 --> 01:40:18.920]  Can you take off the speakerphone? You're muted. I'm having trouble understanding you.
[01:40:18.920 --> 01:40:23.000]  It's hard to hear the speakerphone, but I'll try it. How's this?
[01:40:24.040 --> 01:40:26.280]  Much better, much better. Okay.
[01:40:26.280 --> 01:40:29.320]  Sounds cleaner. Yeah, you lose all the high tones,
[01:40:30.200 --> 01:40:35.800]  and when guys get old like me and our hearing goes bad, the first thing we lose are the high tones.
[01:40:37.080 --> 01:40:39.720]  So all we hear is mumbling. Okay.
[01:40:39.720 --> 01:40:43.720]  Well, I have to get something that works, but anyway, we'll try it this way.
[01:40:43.720 --> 01:40:49.640]  Remember the declaratory judgment I filed, and the courts had no idea, and they ruled against me and
[01:40:49.640 --> 01:40:54.600]  said everything's brought by residue to Carter, which is the only thing the other side ever comes
[01:40:54.600 --> 01:41:03.080]  up with. And then I filed their lawsuit against the attorney and the firm for lying to me deliberately,
[01:41:03.080 --> 01:41:10.440]  which as you saw in the letter, they admitted that they had no intention of following through
[01:41:10.440 --> 01:41:16.200]  with what they said they would do, and that I absolutely knew they did that, because of course,
[01:41:16.200 --> 01:41:26.760]  I have psychic powers. You knew that, Randy. And everything I filed, it fitted the parameters
[01:41:26.760 --> 01:41:31.880]  of fraud. It fitted every single one of them. I pointed it out, and the judge, same judge,
[01:41:31.880 --> 01:41:39.000]  ruled against me again. So now I'm in the appeal court with the same judges that said,
[01:41:39.000 --> 01:41:46.120]  if I continue to litigate against these parties, that the appeal court would sanction me, which
[01:41:46.120 --> 01:41:53.640]  I'm so afraid. I'm terrified. I'm really nervous about it, and you can tell, because I'd already
[01:41:53.640 --> 01:41:59.960]  filed a suit before they made that ruling, so I wasn't going to change it. Yesterday, I got the
[01:41:59.960 --> 01:42:11.000]  word that the lower court had sent the file and everything they had to the appeal court. They
[01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:19.640]  sent me a copy of it, which I had to request a copy. The other side, if they wanted it, had to
[01:42:19.640 --> 01:42:28.280]  pay $173 for it, because I filed the informal porpoise, I didn't have to pay. It's only about
[01:42:28.280 --> 01:42:37.880]  three or four inches thick. So my appeal brief is due in 35 days. I've got most of it written.
[01:42:37.880 --> 01:42:45.800]  I'm working with Ms. Flojo, Ms. Florence, on making it even stronger. We're talking about
[01:42:46.600 --> 01:42:54.280]  recusing the judges that I'm going to be against and the judge in my case, and we're talking about
[01:42:54.280 --> 01:42:58.440]  not just recusing them, but filing a criminal complaint against them, because I think Brett
[01:42:58.440 --> 01:43:08.360]  remembers being on the call where the prior appeal court judges were twiddling their thumbs,
[01:43:09.000 --> 01:43:14.920]  looking up in the air, not paying attention, and they'd already made up their mind that
[01:43:14.920 --> 01:43:20.520]  they were going to rule against me, because everything is going to be in my hands.
[01:43:20.520 --> 01:43:25.880]  They were going to rule against me, because everything is barred by residue of the carda.
[01:43:25.880 --> 01:43:31.560]  It's the same party, according to them, the same nucleus of facts.
[01:43:34.040 --> 01:43:36.360]  You're running me off the cliff, and that's not fair, Randy.
[01:43:38.440 --> 01:43:41.800]  I was just giving you ample opportunity.
[01:43:41.800 --> 01:43:55.720]  I do remember that hearing, and I've got a recording of the audio too, so take a look at
[01:43:55.720 --> 01:44:03.480]  that after we get back to the sponsors. Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly
[01:44:03.480 --> 01:44:09.240]  improved, except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves,
[01:44:09.240 --> 01:44:15.080]  and it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic
[01:44:15.080 --> 01:44:20.280]  environment is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated,
[01:44:20.280 --> 01:44:26.440]  adulterated, and mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio
[01:44:26.440 --> 01:44:31.480]  Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.480 --> 01:44:36.920]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[01:44:36.920 --> 01:44:43.240]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com,
[01:44:43.240 --> 01:44:49.160]  your health will improve as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of
[01:44:49.160 --> 01:44:55.240]  Young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health,
[01:44:55.240 --> 01:44:59.720]  help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order now.
[01:44:59.720 --> 01:45:09.720]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with JurisDictionary,
[01:45:09.720 --> 01:45:16.120]  the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours,
[01:45:16.120 --> 01:45:23.000]  step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:28.280]  know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step-by-step course,
[01:45:28.280 --> 01:45:35.480]  and now you can too. JurisDictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning
[01:45:35.480 --> 01:45:41.240]  experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:41.240 --> 01:45:46.840]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio
[01:45:46.840 --> 01:45:54.520]  classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:54.520 --> 01:46:03.880]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:55.400 --> 01:47:03.000]  Fountain Rule of Law Radio, and this is our last segment, and we're talking to Tina in California.
[01:47:03.000 --> 01:47:10.840]  Okay, Tina, we were talking about Res Judicata, and are they ruling Res Judicata in this case,
[01:47:10.840 --> 01:47:13.720]  in the case against the lawyers? Yes.
[01:47:15.960 --> 01:47:18.200]  The case against the lawyer is a whole different case.
[01:47:19.320 --> 01:47:21.080]  I know that. It's never been heard.
[01:47:21.080 --> 01:47:26.520]  It's never heard. There are no issues before this court that have been before any other court.
[01:47:27.960 --> 01:47:34.200]  Well, they say it's the same nucleus of facts and the same parties. No, it isn't the same parties.
[01:47:35.320 --> 01:47:43.240]  Before this, it was the bank. I've never filed against the attorneys who actually
[01:47:43.240 --> 01:47:50.440]  deliberately lied to me and committed promissory fraud. I've never filed against them for that.
[01:47:50.440 --> 01:47:56.840]  And then they filed the anti-SLAPP, which stopped me from getting discovery. They filed the,
[01:47:58.920 --> 01:48:06.360]  what is it, anti-SLAPP and litigation privilege that says they're allowed to lie.
[01:48:07.480 --> 01:48:14.680]  And I've addressed that, I think, quite well. That is one that absolutely needs to go
[01:48:14.680 --> 01:48:21.400]  to the federal supreme. I wonder what the feds are going to say about that.
[01:48:23.720 --> 01:48:29.960]  Well, if I get the chance, should I do that while I'm filing this?
[01:48:29.960 --> 01:48:37.240]  No, no, you need to follow the steps. You need to, okay, you just got it turned down by the
[01:48:37.240 --> 01:48:45.480]  appellate court. No, I'm about, I have to file my appeal brief with the appellate court.
[01:48:45.480 --> 01:48:51.960]  Oh, okay. So, file it with the appellate court and if they turn it down, file it with the
[01:48:53.080 --> 01:49:00.200]  supreme. It won't take much more. I've done a search in California. It won't take much to
[01:49:00.200 --> 01:49:03.480]  go from the appellate court to the supreme. No.
[01:49:03.480 --> 01:49:11.240]  The only thing you do is address what you believe the appellate court ruled incorrectly on.
[01:49:11.240 --> 01:49:17.640]  So, the assert won't be that difficult. And then if the supreme turns it down,
[01:49:18.360 --> 01:49:29.400]  then you file it in the fed. Okay. Now, do we try to file criminal
[01:49:29.400 --> 01:49:37.000]  against the attorneys that were dismissive in my last appeal, which is related to this,
[01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:44.920]  which Brett has a recording on? I'm working on filing a criminal complaint against the
[01:49:45.800 --> 01:49:52.760]  lower court judge for not following the rule of law and just, you know, ruling for the attorneys
[01:49:52.760 --> 01:50:02.440]  just because she just wants to. And I'm trying to sort of fit it all together in the right pieces.
[01:50:04.600 --> 01:50:08.520]  Okay. There's one thing I need to counsel you on.
[01:50:11.880 --> 01:50:15.160]  You've been in this fight a long time. A long time.
[01:50:15.160 --> 01:50:24.520]  And sometimes that's a problem. It makes it difficult for you to see clearly because
[01:50:25.320 --> 01:50:32.120]  if you take this, when you start taking it higher up, a lot of the things that
[01:50:33.320 --> 01:50:43.160]  made you feel betrayed and mistreated, you won't bring with you. And it's hard not to do that.
[01:50:43.160 --> 01:50:53.880]  You need to sit back and look at this and extract from your case those issues that go to
[01:50:55.160 --> 01:51:03.000]  constitutional deprivations, that go to issues the courts are not going to want to risk
[01:51:03.800 --> 01:51:08.520]  having ruled against, or the players are not going to want to risk ruled against them. Like
[01:51:08.520 --> 01:51:17.080]  the judges not properly applying the law to the facts. You want issues they're not going to want
[01:51:17.080 --> 01:51:28.200]  to take a risk on. So you have to get past all the things they did to you and get to what's going to
[01:51:28.200 --> 01:51:38.120]  be hardest for them to defend when I get into the higher courts and what would give them the most
[01:51:38.120 --> 01:51:50.360]  grief if I get a ruling in my favor. I keep going back to this petition for mandamus we filed in a
[01:51:51.000 --> 01:52:01.640]  appellate court in Fort Worth. We alleged that a municipal court could not apply city ordinances
[01:52:01.640 --> 01:52:13.880]  to the public because the legislature was authorized to write law. The municipalities were
[01:52:13.880 --> 01:52:22.040]  not authorized to write law and the legislature cannot delegate that power. So the legislature
[01:52:22.040 --> 01:52:30.680]  allowed municipalities to write ordinances. But if they applied those ordinances to the public
[01:52:30.680 --> 01:52:38.920]  at large then they have the effect of law and that would be an unconstitutional application.
[01:52:38.920 --> 01:52:46.520]  Well the court of appeals looked at this and said holy crap if they get this to the supreme and the
[01:52:46.520 --> 01:52:54.200]  supreme rules in their favor all the ordinances in the state of Texas are trash. They said we can't
[01:52:54.200 --> 01:53:01.080]  do this. We can't let this happen. And they went into the codes and found a separate reason
[01:53:01.080 --> 01:53:09.080]  to give us a ruling in our favor so that we can't appeal. They didn't give us a ruling on
[01:53:09.080 --> 01:53:15.000]  what we asked for. They gave us the ruling we wanted but for a different reason so we can't appeal.
[01:53:15.960 --> 01:53:19.480]  And I know they went to the city and said you better not appeal this.
[01:53:19.480 --> 01:53:25.160]  That's the kind of stuff you want to look for. What are the things they did that if you get a
[01:53:25.160 --> 01:53:33.960]  ruling in your favor will screw up everything for them? Okay. That's what's likely to get them to
[01:53:33.960 --> 01:53:44.280]  come to the table. It's very hard when you see that California has an absolute litigation privilege
[01:53:44.280 --> 01:53:51.480]  which appears on the face of it to say that attorneys can lie like dogs.
[01:53:51.480 --> 01:53:57.880]  Oh that is so that is good. What do you think the federal supreme is going to say about that
[01:53:59.240 --> 01:54:06.840]  and how it goes to constitutional protections? There's no way that'll get past the federal supreme.
[01:54:06.840 --> 01:54:13.400]  So if I try to file a federal case while I'm in this appeal, would that be the best
[01:54:14.920 --> 01:54:22.040]  course of action to file a case against the state for allowing attorneys to violate their oath of
[01:54:22.040 --> 01:54:29.960]  office and you know the business and professional laws of conduct and say oh even remotely related
[01:54:29.960 --> 01:54:38.840]  to litigation they can lie and claim litigation privilege and deliberately say oh we have no
[01:54:38.840 --> 01:54:45.880]  intention of saying what uh doing what we promised you would do. You even have admission.
[01:54:46.680 --> 01:54:51.720]  Yeah I have an admission yes. Yeah so what's the federal court going to think of this
[01:54:51.720 --> 01:55:00.600]  and your right to a fair trial? Yeah. They are not going to want this to get to the supreme,
[01:55:00.600 --> 01:55:07.320]  the fed supreme. So I should file in the federal court while I'm doing this appeal
[01:55:10.040 --> 01:55:17.400]  in state court? Yes I think so. There's nothing to keep you from it. Well no
[01:55:17.400 --> 01:55:26.280]  uh you got to you got to exercise all your remedies in the state. So get your brief and you'll have all
[01:55:26.280 --> 01:55:33.560]  the work done for the federal court. Yeah I've got a lot of brief done. I'm working on making
[01:55:33.560 --> 01:55:41.240]  it even stronger because the judge just ruled for the attorneys because their attorneys is what I
[01:55:41.240 --> 01:55:47.480]  see. She just like oh you don't get this discovery, you don't get this, you don't get that. No you
[01:55:47.480 --> 01:55:53.880]  haven't proven to me uh I'm going to rule uh that it's all Rosario de Carter because the attorney
[01:55:53.880 --> 01:56:01.240]  said it's all Rosario de Carter. It's not this is a completely separate uh case and with completely
[01:56:01.240 --> 01:56:07.480]  separate facts and I've never filed against these attorneys. Okay you're in you're in real good
[01:56:07.480 --> 01:56:15.480]  shape going to the feds. The state is corrupt. Okay uh we're just we're just finishing up an
[01:56:15.480 --> 01:56:24.440]  election that's going to stack the legislature with republicans. The climate is changing.
[01:56:25.480 --> 01:56:32.920]  Republican judges will be more prone to rule in your favor especially against California
[01:56:32.920 --> 01:56:42.120]  and this is so outrageous. The federal you may not need to go to the supreme. The feds may rule in
[01:56:42.120 --> 01:56:49.400]  your favor and the original court may rule in your favor to keep this from being appealed on up.
[01:56:50.360 --> 01:56:59.560]  So everything's in your favor. So my guess against the in the feds is uh saying basically the um
[01:56:59.560 --> 01:57:10.040]  the um the state is corrupt for allowing uh you know um this uh for allowing the fact that uh it's
[01:57:11.160 --> 01:57:18.600]  saying lawyers can lie with impunity. Impunity yeah. Where does fair trial enter into that?
[01:57:20.440 --> 01:57:27.400]  Yeah that's what I've been asking and they just say no no no you know you're wrong because you
[01:57:27.400 --> 01:57:35.080]  I mean I really believe it's because I'm a pro se litigant and they just against pro se
[01:57:35.080 --> 01:57:40.760]  litigants they want you to buy into their court appointed attorneys and even half for one they
[01:57:40.760 --> 01:57:46.520]  deny it. I'd like to say that that that's the reason and I wish it was but it's not.
[01:57:47.880 --> 01:57:53.320]  They do the same thing to lawyers. If you go in with a lawyer it's not going to make any difference.
[01:57:53.320 --> 01:57:58.280]  These judges are bought and paid for and they're going to earn their money.
[01:57:59.880 --> 01:58:07.080]  You get out of there into the fed then everything in the feds politics and the politics is in the
[01:58:07.080 --> 01:58:14.680]  process of turning against the democrats and the bastion of the of democrats is california.
[01:58:18.280 --> 01:58:22.120]  You know I keep telling them the boy worse they screw up the better for you it just takes stamina
[01:58:22.120 --> 01:58:30.040]  to hang in there and you have the stamina. If the courts try to sanction you you take
[01:58:30.040 --> 01:58:38.200]  that to the fed immediately. Oh I will. You're doing good okay thank you for calling
[01:58:39.560 --> 01:58:45.800]  don't be a stranger thank you everybody for listening we'll be back next week good night.
[01:58:45.800 --> 01:58:56.600]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.600 --> 01:59:02.040]  recovery version. The New Testament recovery version has over 9 000 footnotes that explain
[01:59:02.040 --> 01:59:08.440]  what the bible says verse by verse helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life. Order
[01:59:08.440 --> 01:59:17.800]  your free copy today from Bibles for America call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online
[01:59:17.800 --> 01:59:25.960]  at bfa.org. This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13 000 cross references
[01:59:25.960 --> 01:59:31.720]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the bible. This is truly a bible you can
[01:59:31.720 --> 01:59:36.920]  understand. To get your free copy of the New Testament recovery version call us toll free
[01:59:36.920 --> 01:59:48.920]  at 888-551-0102 that's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:48.920 --> 02:00:04.920]  Be looking for some truth you found it logosradio network.com