ROL_2023-05-19_16k_Hr1-2.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.320]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[00:05.320 --> 00:09.320]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.320 --> 00:10.720]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:10.720 --> 00:14.720]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[00:14.720 --> 00:16.820]  your First Amendment rights.
[00:16.820 --> 00:18.400]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.400 --> 00:22.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.000 --> 00:26.800]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.800 --> 00:31.880]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:31.880 --> 00:34.560]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.560 --> 00:38.840]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[00:38.840 --> 00:42.400]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.400 --> 00:44.600]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:44.600 --> 00:47.680]  Spar, it's what fighters do.
[00:47.680 --> 00:50.720]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:50.720 --> 00:54.360]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.360 --> 01:01.480]  Spar with an extra P, S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly,
[01:01.480 --> 01:02.840]  and R for religion.
[01:02.840 --> 01:06.960]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press,
[01:06.960 --> 01:08.420]  assembly, and religion.
[01:08.420 --> 01:10.760]  But petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.760 --> 01:14.480]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.480 --> 01:18.000]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out
[01:18.000 --> 01:20.680]  the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:20.680 --> 01:22.640]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:22.640 --> 01:31.040]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31.040 --> 01:34.680]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[01:34.680 --> 01:38.140]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:38.140 --> 01:39.600]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:39.600 --> 01:43.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:43.520 --> 01:46.640]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:46.640 --> 01:48.240]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.240 --> 01:51.840]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:51.840 --> 01:56.600]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:56.600 --> 02:01.640]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:01.640 --> 02:04.360]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:04.360 --> 02:08.640]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[02:08.640 --> 02:12.200]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.200 --> 02:14.280]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:14.280 --> 02:20.120]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill
[02:20.120 --> 02:22.200]  of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[02:22.200 --> 02:26.680]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, arms
[02:26.680 --> 02:30.520]  that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[02:30.520 --> 02:31.520]  Get it?
[02:31.520 --> 02:32.520]  Two arms?
[02:32.520 --> 02:33.520]  Bear hug?
[02:33.520 --> 02:34.520]  Bear arms?
[02:34.520 --> 02:37.440]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well
[02:37.440 --> 02:38.440]  when he said,
[02:38.440 --> 02:43.600]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[02:43.600 --> 02:48.680]  one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically
[02:48.680 --> 02:50.480]  has proved to always be possible.
[02:50.480 --> 02:52.360]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[02:52.360 --> 03:21.200]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:23.280 --> 03:52.320]  the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[03:52.320 --> 04:07.960]  one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which
[04:07.960 --> 04:37.200]  now appears remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now
[04:37.200 --> 05:02.920]  appears remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now appears
[05:02.920 --> 05:17.320]  remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now appears remote
[05:17.320 --> 05:32.480]  in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now appears remote
[05:32.480 --> 05:40.320]  you up. Phones are on. Yeah, we've got four hours ahead of us for everybody that wants to call in
[05:41.200 --> 05:47.120]  and we've got all kinds of questions all over the country. Let us hear what's on your mind
[05:47.120 --> 05:54.960]  and let's see if we can work through it. Okay, we have a really, really long day today. I have
[05:54.960 --> 06:10.160]  been working on upgrading my speedy trial challenge. In working through speedy trials,
[06:10.160 --> 06:19.040]  something else reared its ugly head. Two things actually. Was it an attorney? No, issues.
[06:19.040 --> 06:29.600]  Yes. One issue was is that the thing I'm arguing is that to distinguish Barker Wingo. Barker Wingo
[06:29.600 --> 06:40.160]  is the controlling federal case that's actually cited in the preamble to the state speedy trial
[06:40.160 --> 06:52.480]  act. Barker Wingo lists a set of criteria for expressing your right to a speedy trial.
[06:54.800 --> 07:02.000]  I have a problem with those criteria, primarily in that one of the primary criteria is
[07:02.000 --> 07:11.920]  that you demanded a speedy trial. Yeah, that's bogus. Yeah. Where is it in the constitution
[07:12.880 --> 07:29.520]  or the statutes issued by the legislature? Is there any requirement that a citizen invoke a right
[07:29.520 --> 07:36.080]  before a public official who swore on their oath to protect the constitution
[07:36.960 --> 07:44.480]  and enforce it and the laws of the state take it? How does that go exactly? Enforce the constitution?
[07:44.480 --> 07:50.720]  Yeah, I think you're bringing up a very important point. This is not just that your rights be
[07:50.720 --> 07:58.080]  infringed on anybody everywhere. You're specifically saying, you're asking about the public official
[07:58.080 --> 08:04.480]  who has sworn to uphold your rights and defend your rights according to the constitution,
[08:04.480 --> 08:09.760]  which is guaranteeing those inherent rights. This public official is not just like everybody else.
[08:10.880 --> 08:19.920]  He swore that he was going to step into this position of trust. Protect the constitution
[08:19.920 --> 08:28.080]  and uphold the laws of the state of Texas. There's not anything in there about if a citizen commands
[08:28.080 --> 08:39.520]  you to do it. Exactly. It's a constitutional covenant. I stopped thinking of these as rights.
[08:41.360 --> 08:45.520]  I've said on the show before that the constitution doesn't talk to you.
[08:45.520 --> 08:53.120]  It's not about the constitution. It's about public officials and about what they can do and can't do.
[08:53.120 --> 09:00.800]  Before we would allow a public official to take office, we required that he swear only those to
[09:00.800 --> 09:08.640]  protect the constitution and uphold the laws. Well, the constitution commands public officials
[09:08.640 --> 09:24.400]  to do certain things. The legislature passed laws to enforce that all of the so-called
[09:24.400 --> 09:33.440]  constitutional rights. I'm saying the constitution grants you no rights. The constitution orders
[09:33.440 --> 09:40.240]  public officials to do certain things. It would protect you in certain circumstances. Before they
[09:40.240 --> 09:46.160]  could take that office, they had to swear that they would do this thing. There was nothing in
[09:46.160 --> 09:55.200]  there about if somebody demands it. So where did Barker Wingo come up with this? They pull it out
[09:55.200 --> 10:04.560]  of their behind. I can't find any law to that effect. In Texas specifically, we have a
[10:04.560 --> 10:14.240]  constitution that has in Article 1, Section 10, a set of rights that we're guaranteed. The first
[10:14.240 --> 10:27.120]  one is it's right to a speedy trial. Article 1, Section 28 says these rights shall, wait a minute,
[10:27.920 --> 10:35.920]  28 or 29, Brett? 29, about the inviolate? Yeah. 28 says,
[10:35.920 --> 10:50.640]  I had it a second ago. Well, the suspension of laws is 28. Yeah, there'll be no suspension of laws
[10:50.640 --> 11:00.160]  and the public shall not be disenfranchised. And then 29 says all of the rights in Section 10
[11:00.160 --> 11:14.160]  shall be held inviolate in perpetuity. So Section 10 guarantees a right to a speedy trial and the
[11:14.160 --> 11:22.240]  legislature is forbidden to ameliorate that, right? Everybody, not just the legislature,
[11:22.240 --> 11:30.960]  all branches. Well, I mean, the legislature, yeah, you're right. The legislature by 28
[11:32.640 --> 11:43.040]  is forbidden to disenfranchise us. Well, that's just no power of suspending laws in this state
[11:43.040 --> 11:47.760]  shall be exercised except by the legislature. Yeah. So they can't suspend the laws.
[11:47.760 --> 11:56.400]  My brain is not working right. Right. The legislature, there's no power given to the
[11:57.600 --> 12:09.520]  judiciary to suspend the Constitution. There's no power granted to the judiciary to add
[12:09.520 --> 12:16.880]  requirements that are not included in the Constitution. Exactly. They can't limit our
[12:16.880 --> 12:23.040]  rights, but they can give us more rights than the Constitution does, but they can't restrict
[12:23.040 --> 12:30.800]  our rights in any way. Right. It specifically says over here in 29 that it's accepted out,
[12:30.800 --> 12:34.800]  everything in the Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of the government.
[12:35.760 --> 12:41.600]  So if somebody tries to make a law contrary, it's void. Specifically says so.
[12:41.600 --> 12:51.200]  So what I'm arguing is that perhaps this is passable in the Fed, and I'm not arguing the Fed.
[12:51.200 --> 12:59.520]  I won't take that issue on at this time. But in the state of Texas, any requirement that a citizen
[12:59.520 --> 13:11.600]  take some action before a public official is commanded and acting under a contractual restriction
[13:11.600 --> 13:20.000]  to provide us with all of our rights, nothing ameliorates that. So how do they get to…
[13:20.000 --> 13:28.560]  What I'm asking the court to do is distinguish Marco Wingo as it applies to the state of Texas.
[13:31.840 --> 13:42.240]  That raised another issue, is where did the judiciary get the power
[13:42.240 --> 13:49.360]  to determine that a statute issued by the legislature is unconstitutional?
[13:53.680 --> 14:00.880]  Now, they can certainly rule that a specific application of a statute is unconstitutional.
[14:00.880 --> 14:19.040]  But in this case, Article 20A.02 was the Speedy Trial Act. And the legislature decided that the
[14:19.040 --> 14:28.480]  act was unconstitutional because of some problem with the caption. It didn't sufficiently
[14:28.480 --> 14:38.240]  explain what the law was about. What the heck is that nonsense? The title does not govern,
[14:38.240 --> 14:45.760]  and they've already ruled that. I was in a hearing with Robert Fox before he passed away,
[14:46.560 --> 14:52.560]  and he's got this motion before the court, and he's got some weird, crazy name. And the prosecutor
[14:52.560 --> 14:59.680]  and the judge are up there trying to figure out what to call it. Now, because it had a weird,
[14:59.680 --> 15:07.200]  crazy name, it did not nullify demotion because the name did not govern. But the
[15:09.200 --> 15:15.840]  courts decided that the caption was insufficient. They ruled that the statute was unconstitutional
[15:15.840 --> 15:25.840]  because of that. Just where did they get that authority? It's my position that if the courts
[15:25.840 --> 15:35.680]  feel that a statute is unconstitutional on its face, then their option is to go to the legislature,
[15:36.560 --> 15:44.480]  advise the legislature of their determination, and petition the legislature, or more specifically,
[15:44.480 --> 15:54.160]  they could petition the governor to impanel a special session of the legislature to reconsider
[15:54.160 --> 16:05.120]  the legislation. That is a provision that's in law, but there is no provision that I can find
[16:05.120 --> 16:14.320]  in law anywhere that gives the judicial branch to nullify an act by the legislative branch.
[16:18.000 --> 16:24.080]  That's one I'm working on a brief for. And if you're suing
[16:25.440 --> 16:33.280]  the government, or if you're suing a public official based on his or her service to the
[16:33.280 --> 16:41.440]  government, you want to ask questions. I guess I should adjust that. If you're suing anyone
[16:42.800 --> 16:48.560]  for anything, you want to ask questions that they don't want to answer.
[16:51.200 --> 16:57.280]  You want to ask questions that they don't want to risk getting to the vets, I'm sorry,
[16:57.280 --> 17:03.600]  getting to the supreme. Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters,
[17:03.600 --> 17:09.520]  or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method. Michael Mears
[17:09.520 --> 17:14.400]  has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too.
[17:14.400 --> 17:19.200]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[17:19.200 --> 17:24.960]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[17:24.960 --> 17:28.880]  letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[17:28.880 --> 17:34.480]  how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Mears
[17:34.480 --> 17:40.240]  proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available
[17:40.240 --> 17:45.600]  as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael
[17:45.600 --> 17:55.920]  Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s
[17:55.920 --> 18:03.440]  at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors now. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule
[18:03.440 --> 18:07.360]  of law traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we,
[18:07.360 --> 18:11.280]  the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our
[18:11.280 --> 18:15.200]  own rights. Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right
[18:15.200 --> 18:19.200]  to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[18:19.200 --> 18:23.440]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[18:23.440 --> 18:27.520]  our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of
[18:27.520 --> 18:31.200]  Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[18:31.200 --> 18:35.440]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own
[18:35.440 --> 18:40.080]  copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[18:40.080 --> 18:43.840]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law
[18:43.840 --> 18:48.480]  Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents,
[18:48.480 --> 18:52.000]  and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this
[18:52.000 --> 18:56.480]  material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together, we can have the free
[18:56.480 --> 19:05.040]  society we all want and deserve. If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network,
[19:05.040 --> 19:15.040]  logosradionetwork.com.
[19:35.360 --> 19:40.480]  Whoa, the world is spinning like it's out of control
[19:40.480 --> 19:48.160]  On the edge of a hole inside a deep dark bowl I'm always on the lookout for something to soothe my soul
[19:50.800 --> 20:00.320]  So I sit back and I watch the evidence unfold And I see justice is the door
[20:00.320 --> 20:08.320]  Oh, yeah, justice is the door
[20:09.760 --> 20:16.080]  Sometimes we sail a little too far at sea And then we gotta get back on course, queasy
[20:16.080 --> 20:23.120]  So we go under heavy advisory From the man that came all the way from Galilee
[20:23.120 --> 20:29.040]  I was looking for a safe and warm place to be Where I don't have to work so hard to be free
[20:29.040 --> 20:33.120]  Some guys are trying to rewrite history But they got caught
[20:33.680 --> 20:36.480]  Now them guys got the plea It looks like justice
[20:42.000 --> 20:48.400]  Okay, we are back, Brent Shelton with Shelton News, my radio. And for anybody listening, if anybody's
[20:48.400 --> 20:55.600]  got any input on this, what we're saying is the legislature makes the law. The legislature
[20:55.600 --> 21:03.040]  can make the law and they can change the law. Now there are some, they're restricted somewhat
[21:03.040 --> 21:10.720]  in the laws they can make. They can't make any laws that abridge article one, section 10.
[21:12.080 --> 21:16.240]  But otherwise, they're pretty well free to make the law and change the laws they choose.
[21:16.240 --> 21:25.360]  And I'm saying there is nothing in the verbiage of the founders who wrote the constitution
[21:26.960 --> 21:38.960]  to indicate that they intended that the executive branch be able to write or eliminate law.
[21:38.960 --> 21:45.760]  Nothing to indicate they intended that the legislative, that the executive branch should
[21:45.760 --> 21:53.920]  be able to determine that legislation properly passed by the legislature was unconstitutional.
[21:55.280 --> 22:02.560]  They can make that determination, but they can't not enforce the law because they couldn't make it.
[22:02.560 --> 22:11.440]  They can't unmake it. That if a judiciary believes that a law is somehow unconstitutional,
[22:13.040 --> 22:19.680]  they can certainly give notice to the legislature and to the governor, because the governor can
[22:19.680 --> 22:29.120]  provide a solution by ordering the legislature into session for this specific purpose, to consider
[22:29.120 --> 22:35.920]  that law and change it. And he can do that at any time. Special session. Special session.
[22:36.720 --> 22:41.680]  There, the remedy to this issue is already in the constitution.
[22:43.520 --> 22:49.680]  Nothing saying, giving the judiciary the power to render
[22:49.680 --> 22:59.040]  duly passed legislation void. Violate separation of powers. That's my story. I'm sticking to it.
[22:59.040 --> 23:04.560]  What if they don't want to do the process that's already laid out for them so nicely in the law?
[23:04.560 --> 23:08.000]  It's already written black and white. What if they would rather do something different?
[23:08.000 --> 23:14.800]  Quarantoo. Under the Texas government code,
[23:14.800 --> 23:21.600]  chapter 66, there is a torsion remedy. This is one of them. They swore on their oath.
[23:21.600 --> 23:26.160]  They had a poll of the constitution. They would protect the constitution and oppose the laws.
[23:27.680 --> 23:36.240]  We didn't grant them authority to negate law or to undo law. That's the prerogative of the
[23:36.240 --> 23:42.960]  legislature. So if they don't want to, they have to do it. They have to do it. They have to do it.
[23:42.960 --> 23:50.400]  So if they don't want to, they have a couple options. They can stand down and cause to be
[23:50.400 --> 23:59.120]  appointed someone who will abide by their oath of office. We put things back where they belong.
[23:59.120 --> 24:05.280]  This has been a judicial tradition that I can't find any statutory support for.
[24:05.280 --> 24:14.080]  Constitutional or statutory support. If anybody has any input, I'd like to hear it. I'm trying to
[24:14.080 --> 24:20.480]  develop a brief on this subject. Just imagine you filed a lawsuit and you base your lawsuit
[24:20.480 --> 24:26.560]  partially on a denial of a speedy trial and they say, well, you weren't denied a speedy trial
[24:26.560 --> 24:30.400]  because you didn't demand it. We say, where the heck did you come up with that nonsense?
[24:30.400 --> 24:35.440]  That's not in the legislation and that's not in the constitutional guarantee.
[24:37.200 --> 24:47.120]  And the opposing party is going to say, well, the judiciary determined that the speedy trial act
[24:47.120 --> 24:57.040]  was void. And where did they get power to do that? This is not something any of them, anyone in the
[24:57.040 --> 25:06.000]  judiciary is going to want to come before the Supreme. Because what if the Supreme agrees with
[25:06.000 --> 25:19.760]  us? Whoa, it undercuts their power immensely. But I can't find a rational alternative. So these
[25:19.760 --> 25:23.600]  are the kind of things you want to bring. So they write us a bigger check, get us to go away.
[25:23.600 --> 25:31.520]  Okay. Okay. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. The saga of the speedy trial dilemma.
[25:33.040 --> 25:39.120]  So let's go to our callers. We have Ms. Tina Churlish and-
[25:39.920 --> 25:41.200]  We've got a first timer too.
[25:42.080 --> 25:43.840]  Oh, we've got a first timer.
[25:43.840 --> 25:46.240]  Yeah, they don't talk, but they just popped back on.
[25:46.240 --> 25:49.760]  Hang on, Tina. We're going to take-
[25:49.760 --> 25:53.920]  Hold me to the third segment if you can, because I'm going to do something,
[25:53.920 --> 25:55.200]  but I wanted to be in the queue.
[25:56.080 --> 26:02.320]  Okay. Okay. We'll take you, let's see, Roger in Wisconsin, Chris in Colorado.
[26:03.360 --> 26:05.840]  Roger in Wisconsin, that's a traffic ticket, right?
[26:06.800 --> 26:10.960]  I don't recall what his deal was, but his first time is in 2007.
[26:11.680 --> 26:16.640]  Okay. If this takes, it doesn't take long, I will skip over you and go to Roger and then come back
[26:16.640 --> 26:21.680]  to you, Tina. Is that okay? Oh yeah, that's fine. Yeah, because I'm in the midst of something. So
[26:22.480 --> 26:27.600]  come back to me on the hour if you like. Okay. Okay. So we're going to go to,
[26:30.720 --> 26:38.320]  looks like someone in Bangor, Maine, 207 area code. If you're in the 207 area code,
[26:38.320 --> 26:46.320]  make sure we got this right. First name and state. Oh, let me unmute you. There we go.
[26:46.320 --> 26:58.960]  Dan. Okay. Say it again. Dan. Dan in Maine? Yep. Yeah. I seem to remember some comments
[26:58.960 --> 27:07.040]  on our telegram channel. Yep. And you warned us, this is about foreclosure?
[27:08.160 --> 27:14.960]  No. No, that was the guy in Texas last night. I'm sorry. Did you say Dan or Stan?
[27:14.960 --> 27:28.000]  Dan with a D. All right. And an N, not an M. Okay. What do you have for us today?
[27:29.440 --> 27:34.160]  Okay. I'm going to go down a weird path and we got to go through case law backwards to see it.
[27:35.040 --> 27:40.480]  The Americans with Disabilities Act is not about disabilities. It's about due process and so
[27:40.480 --> 27:45.600]  recognized in Tennessee v. Lane. And it was based on evil, corrupt judges violating the
[27:45.600 --> 27:50.080]  right of litigants who happened to have disabilities based on animus. And I forget the other word.
[27:52.400 --> 27:56.960]  The Supreme court earlier recognized that the legislature can neither enlarge or abridge rights
[27:56.960 --> 28:02.640]  held within the constitution. That means there are no disabilities. Whoa, whoa, hold on. You said
[28:02.640 --> 28:11.200]  enlarge or abridge? Right. They cannot increase or remove rights that are held within the constitution.
[28:11.200 --> 28:17.200]  Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said they can. You said they cannot.
[28:18.000 --> 28:24.560]  Okay. Cannot. That fits with my understanding. Yes. That's exactly what I was arguing earlier.
[28:24.560 --> 28:32.240]  Sure. Thank you. Now, because they cannot create or remove rights,
[28:32.800 --> 28:41.680]  disability rights do not exist. Due process rights exist. Hold on, hold on. Let me understand this.
[28:41.680 --> 28:55.280]  The ADA, the rights created by the Americans with Disabilities Act were rights created by legislation.
[28:58.560 --> 29:02.080]  As far as I understand, the legislature can do that.
[29:02.080 --> 29:09.680]  They can give you more rights than the constitution does. They can't give you less.
[29:11.680 --> 29:18.320]  In Tennessee v. Lane 2004, the Supreme court recognized that under article five, I forget
[29:18.320 --> 29:24.720]  the section, but that's what it was, that the legislature can take and remove problems that
[29:24.720 --> 29:30.080]  are violating the constitution. And they recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act was based
[29:30.080 --> 29:36.640]  on due process. And there was a large amount of evidence that proved that the disabled were
[29:36.640 --> 29:44.400]  discriminated against by judges. Okay. Hold on. Hold on. This is going to be a good one. Hang on.
[29:44.400 --> 29:52.160]  We're about to go to our sponsors. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain. We got a full board of callers,
[29:52.160 --> 29:57.600]  so I'm not going to get a call in number. Hang on. We'll be right back. And I'm not even diving
[29:57.600 --> 30:06.160]  all the way. It's clear cell phones have changed the way we live and work, but have they negatively
[30:06.160 --> 30:10.320]  affected our health? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be back in just a moment with new
[30:10.320 --> 30:16.960]  findings about how cell phones may actually alter our brain chemistry. Privacy is under attack.
[30:16.960 --> 30:22.400]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone,
[30:22.400 --> 30:28.320]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance
[30:28.320 --> 30:34.080]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. This public service
[30:34.080 --> 30:39.360]  announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[30:39.360 --> 30:47.760]  Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. Cell phones emit radio frequency energy. It's a fact.
[30:47.760 --> 30:51.920]  But whether it's dangerous to have a phone beaming this kind of radiation near your head has been
[30:51.920 --> 30:57.200]  disputed. Some have blamed it for brain tumors, while cell phone companies have downplayed concerns.
[30:57.200 --> 31:01.920]  Well, now the Journal of the American Medical Association is confirming that cell phones affect
[31:01.920 --> 31:07.600]  brain chemistry. A study of 47 volunteers showed that glucose metabolism in the area of the brain
[31:07.600 --> 31:12.640]  closest to the cell phone antenna increases when the cell phone is on. While researchers aren't sure
[31:12.640 --> 31:17.840]  whether this exposure causes damage, I'm not taking any chances. I always keep the phone far
[31:17.840 --> 31:23.200]  from my body, and I use a corded headset. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information
[31:23.200 --> 31:50.960]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:53.360 --> 31:59.360]  To my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son, go to buildingwhat.org. Why it felt, why it matters,
[31:59.360 --> 32:04.960]  and what you can do. Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better
[32:04.960 --> 32:10.000]  understanding of his word? Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from
[32:10.000 --> 32:15.520]  8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures
[32:15.520 --> 32:21.760]  in accord with 2nd Timothy 2.15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed
[32:21.760 --> 32:27.680]  not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies
[32:27.680 --> 32:32.720]  are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message.
[32:32.720 --> 32:37.680]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and
[32:37.680 --> 32:43.120]  Christian character development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with
[32:43.120 --> 32:48.800]  a hearing ear. Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[32:48.800 --> 32:54.640]  of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com
[32:54.640 --> 32:59.840]  Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures.
[33:03.840 --> 33:09.920]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at LogosRadioNetwork.com
[33:09.920 --> 33:25.920]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to help government them, prosecute them. Okay.
[33:25.920 --> 33:39.840]  Oh, say. Citizens arrest for mis-establishment, citizens arrest for dictating.
[33:41.280 --> 33:46.720]  Well, I need a prosecutor to come and help me prosecute them wicked leader, yeah, you see?
[33:46.720 --> 33:52.640]  Them murderers are liars, them tell weak, them a liar, not tell sweet stories. Me not believe,
[33:52.640 --> 33:57.600]  me say what them tell weak. Three percent of America vote for Bushy. So how the hell you get
[33:57.600 --> 34:04.080]  the presidency? That's why me have a warrant for him. Everybody listen carefully, listen to the
[34:04.080 --> 34:11.360]  words of the people. Okay, we are back. We're in Fountainwood Logos Radio, and we're talking to
[34:12.240 --> 34:21.360]  Dan in Maine. And, Dan, if I keep interrupting you, let me explain. I'm sitting here listening
[34:21.360 --> 34:27.760]  to this, and I'm trying to anticipate the questions that will come into the minds of my readers,
[34:28.320 --> 34:35.120]  my readers, my listeners. If you've ever sat in a seminar, and some guy's up there talking,
[34:35.680 --> 34:42.080]  and he says something that seems kind of controversial, or doesn't fit with what you
[34:42.080 --> 34:47.200]  know, you have to kind of figure it out. By the time you get it figured out, you come back,
[34:47.200 --> 34:52.160]  and the guy is gone. He's going on to other stuff, and now you're behind, you can't get caught up.
[34:53.600 --> 35:02.160]  So we have listeners that can't tell us if they don't get something. So that's my job and Brett's
[35:02.160 --> 35:08.560]  job to try to anticipate the questions in the mind of our listeners so that we can get those
[35:08.560 --> 35:16.320]  answered so everybody can keep up to speed. I hope that makes sense to you. And addressing case law
[35:16.320 --> 35:28.160]  this way is one of my favorite things to do. Okay, go ahead, Dan. Now, under 28 CFR section 35.130,
[35:28.880 --> 35:32.720]  says a public entity in providing any aid, benefit, or service may not directly
[35:33.520 --> 35:40.720]  or other arrangements on the basis of disability deny a qualified individual with a disability
[35:40.720 --> 35:48.480]  the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service. And they cannot
[35:48.480 --> 35:55.520]  provide them with something that is not effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same
[35:55.520 --> 36:01.200]  result, to gain the same benefit, and to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others.
[36:01.200 --> 36:13.680]  Now, this actually applies to everyone. Okay, 14th Amendment equal protection. Right. But although the
[36:13.680 --> 36:18.560]  Americans with Disabilities Act was based on 14th Amendment due process, there is no difference
[36:18.560 --> 36:23.040]  between that and 5th Amendment due process. It's the same process it's due. So the American
[36:23.040 --> 36:29.680]  Disabilities Act is both state and federal. Hey, Randy, is there something on your end with a
[36:29.680 --> 36:37.280]  a fan or a teapot or something? It was my teapot. I shut it off. I realized what it was. Sorry, Dan,
[36:37.280 --> 36:46.640]  go ahead. I'm getting a throat issue in that tea, Susan, my throat. Now, you cannot discriminate
[36:46.640 --> 36:56.000]  against the disabled under 28 CFR section 35.149. The facilities have to be accessible and usable by
[36:56.000 --> 37:03.200]  people with disabilities, but they have to be available and usable by everybody. An interesting
[37:03.200 --> 37:10.080]  thing under the ADA, facility single is defined. Facilities, plural, is not. When you look in
[37:10.080 --> 37:17.440]  Black's Law Dictionary, I forget which version. Facilities, quoting Cheney V. Tolliver, says,
[37:17.440 --> 37:22.880]  while it normally includes the inanimate portion, it can also include the animate portion, including
[37:22.880 --> 37:31.520]  persons, people, and groups thereof. That means every time you interact with a government employee,
[37:31.520 --> 37:36.160]  I don't care if it's the governor, if it's a judge, or if it's a street sweeper,
[37:36.880 --> 37:41.920]  you have to be able to benefit from what they're providing. But not just to the disabled, but
[37:41.920 --> 37:50.000]  everybody. Now, you're also required to receive effective communications. What it says in 28 CFR
[37:50.000 --> 37:55.680]  section 35.160, subsection A, is ensure communications with those with disabilities
[37:55.680 --> 38:00.960]  are as effective as communications with others. And this is where the court falls apart.
[38:02.000 --> 38:06.480]  The legal language, the quote Warren Tolliver, and all that bull crap that I don't have a clue
[38:06.480 --> 38:11.920]  what it means, that is not effective communications to Americans who are disabled and those who are
[38:11.920 --> 38:18.400]  not. Therefore, the legal language is in direct violation of due process, as recognized by the
[38:18.400 --> 38:25.840]  Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane 2004. Now, to do this, we go back in time. I believe it was
[38:25.840 --> 38:31.920]  Powell v. Alabama in 1932 that was quoted in Argus Inger v. Hamlin in 1972, or vice versa,
[38:32.560 --> 38:38.000]  where they said that the man of intelligence could have the perfect defense and not know how to
[38:38.000 --> 38:44.720]  present it. They said he has little or no skill in the science of law. They said that he's
[38:44.720 --> 38:50.000]  unfamiliar with the rules of court. I'm familiar with them, I just can't read them. They talk about
[38:50.000 --> 38:56.400]  how there are technical rules, technical points of law, rather, that are known to the prosecutor,
[38:56.400 --> 39:02.080]  but not himself. And they finish up by saying, if this is true of a man of intelligence, how much
[39:02.080 --> 39:09.280]  more so for the uneducated or the feeble-minded. Now, every one of those things that they mentioned,
[39:09.280 --> 39:18.800]  technical points of law, science of law, everything is a barrier to justice. In Tennessee v. Lane 2004,
[39:18.800 --> 39:24.400]  the Supreme Court stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a meaningful access to
[39:24.400 --> 39:30.080]  the courts. You do not have a meaningful access to the courts when they put barriers to justice
[39:30.080 --> 39:34.560]  through rules of court, through technical points of law, and all the other crap that makes it
[39:34.560 --> 39:40.480]  impossible to work in the court system. And this is true for literally everybody. Are you following me?
[39:43.040 --> 39:51.440]  Yes, I am. That sounds like a really novel angle. Of course, you said for the disabled,
[39:51.440 --> 39:57.600]  as well as needs to be at an equal level as the other, what if the other is zero? They're very
[39:57.600 --> 40:03.680]  bad at it. They're still meeting the law because the disabled is getting the same poor experience
[40:03.680 --> 40:14.400]  as the others. I'd have to look, but in Tennessee v. Lane, it actually says that they have to remove
[40:14.400 --> 40:19.600]  barriers to a meaningful access to the court system. Oh, good. In that case, there was a
[40:19.600 --> 40:23.040]  fellow in a wheelchair who couldn't get up to the second or third floor, whatever it was,
[40:23.760 --> 40:30.080]  because he was in a wheelchair. But they didn't limit it to physical, and it can't be limited.
[40:30.080 --> 40:36.880]  But the barriers to the court system are their language, their culture, and their lies. What
[40:36.880 --> 40:40.960]  are the big lies of the court? Sufficient evidence is entered on the record. There's nothing there,
[40:40.960 --> 40:50.880]  but I'm not going to admit it. Wait, you created a conundrum. You seem to be complaining that the law
[40:50.880 --> 41:03.600]  is technical, and that it is technical and specific somehow makes it unconstitutional
[41:03.600 --> 41:12.240]  or in violation of ADA. Okay, I will explain. Well, he's saying they need to remove barriers.
[41:13.040 --> 41:17.520]  How do you remove them? So there are barriers. The barriers don't make it unconstitutional,
[41:17.520 --> 41:22.000]  but there needs to be some way to remove those barriers. What do you have in mind, Dan?
[41:23.120 --> 41:28.640]  Okay, here's what it is. If they wish to have technical points of law and all the bull crap,
[41:28.640 --> 41:33.840]  they need to take and offer a free lawyer for everybody so that we do not have to provide a
[41:33.840 --> 41:37.440]  translator for ourselves and to translate their legalese into our understanding.
[41:38.640 --> 41:44.720]  They need to take and make sure that no point of law is ever used to deny justice. That is my
[41:44.720 --> 41:55.440]  point. Hold on. I can't get to where you just got. You are saying that they should provide
[41:57.040 --> 42:04.240]  legal counsel for free. Yes. They make it available for you to secure legal counsel.
[42:05.040 --> 42:10.000]  The Constitution doesn't guarantee that everything is free.
[42:10.000 --> 42:16.640]  No, but it does declare you have the right to a meaningful access to the court system.
[42:16.640 --> 42:22.480]  And as long as they have barriers of language, of procedure, and everything else, then you need
[42:22.480 --> 42:27.360]  to have a translator to be able to get into their system, understand what they're saying,
[42:27.360 --> 42:31.280]  and to be able to get past the barriers the court system has put.
[42:31.280 --> 42:33.920]  Yes, but you're saying it has to be free.
[42:33.920 --> 42:42.080]  Well, I'm saying they have the solution to that problem, and it's learning counsel.
[42:43.680 --> 42:48.320]  Where do you get that learning counsel must be free to the individual?
[42:48.320 --> 42:54.160]  Where do you get that I have to pay for your lawyer through my taxes?
[42:56.080 --> 43:02.160]  If I cannot go into court by myself because I cannot understand, because I have comprehension
[43:02.160 --> 43:06.080]  issues, because I have an executive functioning disorder, because—
[43:06.080 --> 43:10.880]  Hold on, hold on. You're going through a different answer. You're answering a different question.
[43:12.480 --> 43:21.760]  The fact that you have a learning disability does not mean that I have to pay for you to
[43:21.760 --> 43:27.440]  get past your disability. You have access to counsel, and that's guaranteed.
[43:27.440 --> 43:33.840]  But you're saying that that access to counsel must be free, and I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for it.
[43:35.040 --> 43:40.240]  What I'm saying is I have to have access to understandable information with a system I can
[43:40.240 --> 43:46.000]  understand, either provide me with free counsel or provide me with a usable system.
[43:46.000 --> 43:51.440]  Hang on. We're back to our sponsors. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rudy Laradio. I call it—
[43:51.440 --> 43:57.440]  No, I'm not going to call it number four, but we'll be right back.
[44:00.320 --> 44:04.240]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved,
[44:04.240 --> 44:09.200]  except in the area of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves,
[44:09.200 --> 44:15.040]  and it's time we changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic
[44:15.040 --> 44:20.240]  environment is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated,
[44:20.240 --> 44:27.040]  adulterated, and mutilated, YoungGevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets
[44:27.040 --> 44:32.560]  many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust
[44:32.560 --> 44:38.800]  YoungGevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs,
[44:38.800 --> 44:44.800]  and many others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve
[44:44.800 --> 44:51.120]  as you help support quality radio. As you realize the benefits of YoungGevity, you may want to join
[44:51.120 --> 44:57.680]  us. As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase
[44:57.680 --> 45:05.280]  your income. Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an
[45:05.280 --> 45:11.600]  attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show
[45:11.600 --> 45:19.120]  you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:19.120 --> 45:24.400]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our
[45:24.400 --> 45:30.960]  step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney
[45:30.960 --> 45:37.200]  with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what
[45:37.200 --> 45:43.280]  everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.280 --> 45:49.520]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.520 --> 46:07.440]  pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:20.480 --> 46:21.440]  Oh
[46:24.720 --> 46:28.960]  Always I must be careful what I'm wishing for
[46:30.320 --> 46:34.640]  When I'm hungry I like to know just what I'm fishing for
[46:35.280 --> 46:39.840]  I ain't asking for much I ain't trying to be no glutton
[46:41.360 --> 46:44.800]  I'm just here making my living pushing buttons
[46:44.800 --> 46:52.800]  I get my message out to anyone in shot and distance
[46:52.800 --> 46:58.560]  I vote for bravery and against slavery show resistance
[46:58.560 --> 47:05.600]  First I'm crawling then I'm walking then I start strutting I'm just so glad to make my
[47:05.600 --> 47:12.160]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to
[47:12.160 --> 47:22.320]  Dan in Maine and let me get the right one here unmuted and I'm I'm taking on the position of
[47:22.320 --> 47:32.480]  opposing counsel. And I'm saying that those things that you bring up are issues that have
[47:32.480 --> 47:40.640]  already been addressed in our Constitution. The Constitution gave you a right to counsel
[47:40.640 --> 47:48.160]  of your choice. It did not say a lawyer. It did not say legal counsel. It's a counsel of your
[47:48.160 --> 47:55.600]  choice. You have that right. What it didn't do is say that all your rights are free.
[47:57.120 --> 48:05.920]  But if you can't afford counsel of your choice, you can petition the court for inability to pay
[48:05.920 --> 48:13.520]  and the court will pay for it for you. So with that in place,
[48:15.840 --> 48:19.040]  I don't understand your issue. How do you still have an issue?
[48:23.920 --> 48:25.040]  Just a moment, please.
[48:28.560 --> 48:30.720]  That's my job to be a pain in the neck.
[48:30.720 --> 48:36.240]  No, that's fine. I'm just looking at Tennessee V Lane and I'm trying to find the right part.
[48:39.520 --> 48:45.200]  And I definitely understand the problem. I am working on and while you're looking for it,
[48:45.920 --> 48:54.400]  I'm working on what I call a legal lexicon. I've got about 56 dictionaries and different
[48:54.400 --> 49:04.080]  legal definition tools. And I'm putting together, this is the only technology I'm building that uses
[49:04.080 --> 49:14.560]  AI. And I'm trying to put together an AI that will read a document and where it finds a word
[49:14.560 --> 49:23.200]  in a document that has a special meaning, say this is a medical document, then you notice
[49:23.200 --> 49:30.080]  the software that this is a medical document and it will look through every word that you use and
[49:30.080 --> 49:37.040]  see if there is a medical definition for that term that's different than the definition of the term
[49:37.040 --> 49:43.280]  is used in the common tongue. And it will highlight the term and then if you mouse over it,
[49:43.280 --> 49:48.720]  it'll pop up all the definitions of files. If it's legal, it'll check all the legal dictionaries
[49:48.720 --> 49:57.120]  and whatever case law is relevant and pop you up the definitions. And then if counsel is using
[49:57.120 --> 50:04.720]  one of these terms, you can object and ask the court to direct counsel to clarify the term
[50:05.360 --> 50:12.560]  and tell us which definition he's intending to use. I have spoken of this to lawyers a number of
[50:12.560 --> 50:20.240]  times and they all love the idea of this. And what I got from the way they responded is the reason
[50:20.240 --> 50:26.880]  they would love the idea of all of this is they had the exact same problem you're having. Did you
[50:26.880 --> 50:35.120]  find it yet, Dan? Yep. In Tennessee V Lane, which is 541 U.S. 509, Supreme Court 2004,
[50:35.680 --> 50:40.560]  they said the Due Process Clause also requires the states to afford certain civil litigants
[50:40.560 --> 50:45.840]  to afford certain civil litigants a, quote, meaningful opportunity to be heard, unquote,
[50:45.840 --> 50:52.000]  by removing obstacles to their full participation in judicial proceedings. Quoting Body v Connecticut
[50:52.000 --> 51:02.000]  1971. Okay, how is that possible in your case? The only way that can be, how is it, is if they
[51:03.120 --> 51:08.240]  provide me with either rules of court that are in plain language without any of the jargon,
[51:08.240 --> 51:14.080]  and they take and make sure that they remove all Latin and French right in accordance with
[51:14.080 --> 51:19.760]  the 1731 Act of Four King George II C.26 that outlawed the use of Latin and French altogether
[51:19.760 --> 51:28.000]  in the courts, that was held within the colonial charters such as the 1606 Virginia and 1611 and
[51:28.000 --> 51:36.720]  1691 replacement. Has that been incorporated into U.S. or state statutory law?
[51:36.720 --> 51:40.640]  No, but it's in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. That's right, because we had before.
[51:41.680 --> 51:50.880]  Okay. Okay, so we can use that as advisory to advise what the right action, what providing
[51:50.880 --> 51:56.720]  the right action means. Okay, do you have this written down? Can you send me a brief on this?
[51:56.720 --> 52:05.120]  Yes. I would very much like to study this. The only question I have, and I agree with your premise,
[52:05.120 --> 52:08.240]  is the only question I have is who pays for it.
[52:09.920 --> 52:15.760]  Well, see, that is not my concern. The Supreme Court in some cases, maybe it was a lower court,
[52:15.760 --> 52:21.520]  forgive me, I do read too many and get them mixed up. In one case said, the question is if it would
[52:21.520 --> 52:30.160]  be excessively expensive, I forget the correct terminology, to provide a lawyer for everybody
[52:30.160 --> 52:34.560]  who comes in with disabilities and said, but we're not concerned about that. We're concerned about
[52:34.560 --> 52:40.240]  what it would cost for this one guy in this one case. And it would be wrong not to provide him
[52:40.240 --> 52:45.680]  with the assistance he needs to get through the court system. Well, we already have provisions in
[52:45.680 --> 52:53.760]  law for that. If you're unable to afford it, or it would be an inability to pay doesn't mean that
[52:53.760 --> 53:01.040]  you're indigent. It means that it would create an undue burden. You can petition the court,
[53:01.040 --> 53:10.880]  and they have the power to grant you the status of inability to pay. So it sounds like your question
[53:10.880 --> 53:19.920]  goes more to the granting of inability to pay than provisions to establish these rights,
[53:19.920 --> 53:26.480]  because we have all the tools in place to give you your solution. The only question is who pays
[53:26.480 --> 53:37.680]  for it? There might be a toehold for Dan in the area of translator. I've actually tried
[53:38.240 --> 53:43.120]  translator before motion for an interpreter, just like what the code says as an interpreter.
[53:43.840 --> 53:51.360]  And I explained to the court that, hey, you're over here throwing around all these
[53:51.360 --> 53:57.440]  strange words and Latin and things that I think they sound like English, but you're actually
[53:57.440 --> 54:02.560]  meaning them in some sort of legalese dialect. And that doesn't mean anything to me. So I need
[54:02.560 --> 54:11.040]  a translator denied. That should get motion for continuance to grant time for an interlocutory
[54:11.040 --> 54:22.080]  appeal. Yeah. Well, I was just thinking though, in that same area of the code, we have in Texas, a
[54:22.080 --> 54:32.560]  specific provision for accommodation for the deaf, people who are unable to hear can get
[54:34.400 --> 54:40.480]  an interpreter. But it specifically says that that money to pay for the interpreter comes out
[54:40.480 --> 54:47.680]  of the county general fund. So I wonder if, either in Maine or maybe in some federal code,
[54:47.680 --> 54:55.520]  we can see that if there is a precedent that is set for taking care of the deaf in that way,
[54:55.520 --> 54:58.480]  then why would they not be able to take care of other disabilities in that way?
[54:59.600 --> 55:06.480]  Right. Now, let me pick up here. A language of limited diffusion, an LLD, a language used by a
[55:06.480 --> 55:10.720]  group that is significantly smaller in number than the rest of the population, also called
[55:10.720 --> 55:18.320]  a linguistic or language minority. Under section 420.40, use of interpreting agents is subsection C.
[55:19.040 --> 55:23.120]  For languages of limited diffusion requirements, courts may have to obtain services through
[55:23.120 --> 55:28.880]  translations or interpreting agencies. And that's from the uscourts.gov site.
[55:30.400 --> 55:34.560]  Now, the court does not use a language known by the average American.
[55:34.560 --> 55:38.960]  I have put in a request for a translator because of that, because I cannot make sense of their
[55:38.960 --> 55:45.360]  meaningless and coherent gibberish, and I use those words in the request. I do not know what
[55:45.920 --> 55:49.360]  all of this stuff is. It's not my language. I have no way to know it.
[55:50.640 --> 55:58.960]  Now, it also says under section 255.10A, under judicial conference policy, a court must provide,
[55:58.960 --> 56:04.000]  and this is federal, auxiliary aids and services to participants in federal court proceedings who
[56:04.000 --> 56:09.920]  have communications disabilities. This policy provides for services in addition to those
[56:09.920 --> 56:14.320]  required by the Court Interpreter's Act, which is 28 USC section 1827.
[56:15.440 --> 56:21.680]  Now, two of us in federal court have problems with communications disabilities. The judge has
[56:21.680 --> 56:26.400]  a disability in that he can't speak modern American English, and I have a communication
[56:26.400 --> 56:30.720]  disability in that I have cognitive disabilities that make me go, huh, what, excuse me?
[56:30.720 --> 56:37.920]  So, we need a translator for the judge because he doesn't speak modern American English.
[56:41.120 --> 56:47.120]  Okay. Have you addressed this in a court setting?
[56:48.640 --> 56:49.680]  Deny, deny, deny.
[56:50.720 --> 56:57.360]  Okay. Well, have you appealed? Everything that you're doing in the trial court is just simply
[56:57.360 --> 57:02.160]  to get you to the belly court. I can't read the damn rules of court to figure out how to appeal.
[57:04.480 --> 57:07.520]  Can you hire a counselor to show you how to appeal?
[57:08.640 --> 57:11.760]  Literally, the Bar Association told me there wasn't one lawyer in the state.
[57:14.480 --> 57:16.160]  Now, you need that in writing.
[57:17.760 --> 57:20.000]  Wow. Now, we have an issue.
[57:20.000 --> 57:28.640]  Even the lawyers can't do it, and a statement like that from the bar would be definitive.
[57:32.960 --> 57:40.000]  So, that would deny you in that right, since there's no learned counsel who could give you that.
[57:40.800 --> 57:45.840]  How about a priest who speaks Latin? That wouldn't help either because we use
[57:45.840 --> 57:52.800]  Latin terms bastardized. They don't really mean what the term says. They mean some
[57:53.360 --> 58:02.000]  legal position the courts have assigned to it. So, now we have a desiccated legal argument.
[58:04.800 --> 58:09.520]  Okay, we're back. You got my head spinning.
[58:09.520 --> 58:16.640]  The legal argument is when I file suit against an opposing lawyer for writing like a lawyer,
[58:16.640 --> 58:21.440]  violating my 28 CFR section 35.160 rights to receive effective communication because
[58:21.440 --> 58:23.520]  you wrote like a lawyer, so I couldn't understand it.
[58:25.360 --> 58:30.160]  Okay, we're about to go to our sponsors, but we'll definitely pick this up on the other side.
[58:30.160 --> 58:40.240]  When I write legal documents where I use a Latin term in parentheses, I define what I mean by that
[58:40.240 --> 58:46.160]  term. That would be an easy enough fix. Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain,
[58:46.160 --> 58:52.480]  Wheel of Law Radio. We'll be right back. Would you like to make more definite progress
[58:52.480 --> 58:58.400]  in your walk with God? Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of
[58:58.400 --> 59:03.200]  free Christian books that can really help. The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most
[59:03.200 --> 59:08.400]  comprehensive study Bibles available today. It's an accurate translation and it contains
[59:08.400 --> 59:13.200]  thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.200 --> 59:18.240]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.240 --> 59:24.160]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.160 --> 59:30.640]  growing in Christ, and how to build up the church. To order your free New Testament Recovery Version
[59:30.640 --> 59:40.320]  and Basic Elements of the Christian Life, call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102.
[59:40.320 --> 59:54.800]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org. Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:01.920 --> 01:00:05.600]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our constitution.
[01:00:05.600 --> 01:00:09.040]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:00:09.040 --> 01:00:12.000]  Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Katherine Albrecht,
[01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:16.400]  and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:16.960 --> 01:00:22.480]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:22.480 --> 01:00:27.280]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:27.280 --> 01:00:33.440]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:00:33.440 --> 01:00:38.640]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:00:38.640 --> 01:00:44.640]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:50.880]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed. They pull back the covers and find a third
[01:00:50.880 --> 01:00:55.840]  party there. He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight. That shocking image
[01:00:55.840 --> 01:01:00.640]  of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent.
[01:01:00.640 --> 01:01:05.360]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, a common demand in the days
[01:01:05.360 --> 01:01:10.320]  of our founding fathers. Third party, Third Amendment? Get it? So if you answer a knock
[01:01:10.320 --> 01:01:14.880]  at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging, tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of
[01:01:14.880 --> 01:01:19.760]  Rights and reread the Third Amendment. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information
[01:01:19.760 --> 01:01:34.480]  at CatherineAlbrecht.com. The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our
[01:01:34.480 --> 01:01:38.960]  constitution. They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:01:38.960 --> 01:01:43.040]  Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an
[01:01:43.040 --> 01:01:46.320]  unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:46.960 --> 01:01:52.480]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.480 --> 01:01:57.280]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.280 --> 01:02:03.440]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:02:03.440 --> 01:02:08.640]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:02:08.640 --> 01:02:14.640]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:02:16.240 --> 01:02:20.720]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass or a pair of
[01:02:20.720 --> 01:02:25.360]  x-ray goggles. That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans
[01:02:25.360 --> 01:02:30.240]  freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment, four eyes staring at you.
[01:02:30.240 --> 01:02:34.400]  Get it? Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of
[01:02:34.400 --> 01:02:40.400]  security. Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing. When government
[01:02:40.400 --> 01:02:45.040]  employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say it's time to sound the
[01:02:45.040 --> 01:02:50.160]  constitutional alarm bells. Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights
[01:02:50.160 --> 01:02:55.040]  and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:02:55.040 --> 01:03:00.640]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:25.040 --> 01:03:54.240]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton's Reptile.
[01:03:54.240 --> 01:04:14.960]  We're talking to Dan in Maine. Dan, we're kind of
[01:04:14.960 --> 01:04:25.520]  at an issue. Okay, we have the issue now. I was saying, well, you could just hire legal counsel
[01:04:25.520 --> 01:04:30.880]  or counselor of your choice to explain this to you. And you're saying that the state bar
[01:04:30.880 --> 01:04:40.640]  indicated that that particular expertise doesn't exist. Now we have a conundrum.
[01:04:40.640 --> 01:04:43.680]  So how do you address this?
[01:04:48.960 --> 01:04:53.280]  Well, what I'm going to do is I'm going to file suit against the opposing lawyer and the judge
[01:04:53.280 --> 01:04:58.480]  for denying my ADA statement that I couldn't understand it with my cognitive disabilities.
[01:04:59.120 --> 01:05:03.600]  And when I do, I am going to challenge the constitutionality of the constitution
[01:05:03.600 --> 01:05:07.040]  because it never received the consent of the government because it was only voted on by
[01:05:07.040 --> 01:05:14.000]  legislators in 12 states. Wait, hold on, hold on. That is a whole other animal.
[01:05:15.360 --> 01:05:22.960]  It opens up 17 cans of worms. Yeah. What does that have to do with
[01:05:22.960 --> 01:05:32.160]  your ability to understand and get an interpreter? Screw with me. I fight back.
[01:05:32.160 --> 01:05:41.920]  Yeah. Yeah. But that's, that's a whole, whole other issue. That particular argument has been
[01:05:41.920 --> 01:05:48.960]  hammered back and forth as long as I've been doing this show. Well, Dan, let me ask you something.
[01:05:49.760 --> 01:05:57.120]  Why have you chosen that kind of direction to fight back as opposed to arguing about,
[01:05:57.120 --> 01:06:02.640]  I don't know, second amendment and, and everybody should be able to defend themselves and arms is
[01:06:02.640 --> 01:06:07.840]  not the same thing as firearms or something along those lines. You've just jumped tracks
[01:06:07.840 --> 01:06:13.360]  completely to talk about constitutionality of the constitution. Yes, more than that.
[01:06:14.240 --> 01:06:19.360]  Here's the answer. In the state of Maine, I challenged the rules of court because they
[01:06:19.360 --> 01:06:24.160]  were written by the judicial branch in direct violation of separation of powers. In Maine
[01:06:24.160 --> 01:06:27.600]  constitution, article four part third, section one, it basically says, with the exceptions here
[01:06:27.600 --> 01:06:32.720]  and after stated, the legislature has sole authority to pass reasonable laws and regulations.
[01:06:34.720 --> 01:06:39.200]  But wait a second, Dan, there's no such thing as separation of powers if you don't have a
[01:06:39.200 --> 01:06:43.840]  constitution. If you've just challenged the validity of the constitution itself,
[01:06:43.840 --> 01:06:49.280]  that's where separation of powers is defined. So how can you then lean on that?
[01:06:49.280 --> 01:06:54.640]  How can you then lean on that? Now, when I did that,
[01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:59.520]  because we have separation of powers, they said it's without merit, see a statute.
[01:07:01.120 --> 01:07:07.520]  I filed suit against the state Supreme judicial court, all of them for violating my ADA rights,
[01:07:07.520 --> 01:07:12.000]  for not giving me a meaningful access to the court. And I'm told in federal court,
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:14.720]  I don't have a right to sue a judge because of immunity.
[01:07:14.720 --> 01:07:18.080]  That's true. If you're going to sue immunity at me,
[01:07:18.080 --> 01:07:20.400]  I will defend the constitution by destroying it.
[01:07:22.400 --> 01:07:24.480]  Good luck with that. I don't feel that path because
[01:07:24.480 --> 01:07:29.600]  the judges give me no other option. Well, you're choosing an impossible path.
[01:07:30.560 --> 01:07:41.120]  You're choosing a path that's absolutely certain to lose. Now, if you were one of these
[01:07:41.120 --> 01:07:49.760]  super rich individuals, you might be able to fight this issue. But even then, I can't see
[01:07:49.760 --> 01:07:55.040]  you winning this issue. So it makes me wonder, why would you choose an impossible issue?
[01:07:58.080 --> 01:08:00.240]  Because I don't see any other options left.
[01:08:01.760 --> 01:08:08.320]  Well, you're going to the people whose job and whose duties of office are defined by the
[01:08:08.320 --> 01:08:13.360]  constitution that you're asking them to cut their own legs out from under them and then they can't
[01:08:13.360 --> 01:08:20.560]  rule. How can they rule in your favor if the ruling that you're asking them to give is that
[01:08:21.120 --> 01:08:25.760]  their office doesn't exist? Then if they rule their office doesn't exist,
[01:08:25.760 --> 01:08:30.960]  then they can't do anything to me, can they? Yeah, they can do anything they want to.
[01:08:32.080 --> 01:08:35.440]  You have no control over them. You don't now.
[01:08:35.440 --> 01:08:44.080]  Of course you do. You don't have absolute, infinite control, and you can't always get
[01:08:44.080 --> 01:08:51.920]  exactly what you want. But you have very powerful tools at your disposal to secure remedy.
[01:08:52.960 --> 01:09:00.880]  Are they difficult? Yes, they're difficult. But life never promised not to be difficult.
[01:09:00.880 --> 01:09:10.960]  Well, and the difficulty comes because the 1731 act of 14 George 2C.26 that said,
[01:09:14.800 --> 01:09:23.120]  oh, just a second, an act that all proceedings in court of justice within the part of Great
[01:09:23.120 --> 01:09:27.040]  Britain called England and the court of Etchetture in Scotland shall be in the English language.
[01:09:27.040 --> 01:09:31.440]  Whereas many in great mischiefs do frequently happen in the subjects of the kingdom from the
[01:09:31.440 --> 01:09:38.000]  proceedings in courts of justice being in an unknown language. And then we've got that as well
[01:09:39.200 --> 01:09:42.960]  in that all the laws in the courts should be in English.
[01:09:44.320 --> 01:09:50.400]  Yes. And because it's not, they're in trouble. And the 1898 Spanish Treaty with Puerto Rico
[01:09:50.400 --> 01:09:54.960]  requires the courts there to be treated the same as everywhere else. And there is a statute that
[01:09:54.960 --> 01:09:58.800]  says the courts in Puerto Rico must use the English language. Per maximal law, nothing
[01:09:58.800 --> 01:10:03.280]  similar is identical. Nothing similar is the same. English and legalese are not the same,
[01:10:03.280 --> 01:10:06.640]  so they cannot use legalese in their courts. They can't use legalese in ours.
[01:10:08.080 --> 01:10:13.840]  Okay. That's an argument you can argue. And it's a reasonable argument.
[01:10:13.840 --> 01:10:18.640]  But if in the same breath, you argue that the Constitution doesn't apply, you undermine your
[01:10:18.640 --> 01:10:27.280]  own claims. Exactly. But the Constitution doesn't apply. I'm sorry, I've read too much.
[01:10:27.280 --> 01:10:33.920]  Then why are you even talking about the Constitution if it doesn't apply? It sounds like a—
[01:10:33.920 --> 01:10:39.280]  And why reference any laws that came as a result of the Constitution?
[01:10:39.280 --> 01:10:45.920]  It sounds like a— And why reference any laws that came—case laws that came out of the judiciary,
[01:10:45.920 --> 01:10:52.640]  which is defined by the Constitution? Because otherwise those are just babbling men that have
[01:10:52.640 --> 01:10:57.120]  no power. They're just— Right. They have no options. This is what I mean.
[01:10:57.120 --> 01:11:03.440]  Leave the Constitution alone. That's an option. Leave the Constitution alone. And cause your
[01:11:03.440 --> 01:11:08.000]  representatives or the people who claim to be your representatives, cause them, force them
[01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:14.160]  into compliance with the law. They don't want to. It's not easy. Nobody said it was easy,
[01:11:14.160 --> 01:11:21.920]  but you have to push them to follow the law. And every time I try to communicate,
[01:11:21.920 --> 01:11:25.040]  I get so confused, I can't even think straight because of how they talk.
[01:11:26.080 --> 01:11:29.600]  Join the club. There's no such thing as a meaningful
[01:11:29.600 --> 01:11:33.520]  access to the court system in this country. Because as soon as you talk to a judge,
[01:11:33.520 --> 01:11:38.640]  all they do is say, denied— Hold on. You're using infinite model
[01:11:38.640 --> 01:11:50.480]  operators. That's not all they do. Nobody does anything all the time. So why are they denying
[01:11:50.480 --> 01:11:56.960]  these? Okay, you're asking for findings, facts, and conclusions of the law, correct?
[01:11:57.760 --> 01:12:02.080]  Yes. And they denied that, and the Supreme Judicial Court could see no error in not providing it.
[01:12:02.080 --> 01:12:14.720]  Okay, this is going to go to you now. So you're implying that because they did that to you in
[01:12:14.720 --> 01:12:18.480]  this case, that they do that to everybody in every case?
[01:12:20.160 --> 01:12:23.280]  Well, there's a maximum of law that says, false in one thing, false in everything.
[01:12:24.960 --> 01:12:30.960]  That's bullcrap. That is absolutely bullcrap. And I've got lots of maximums of law that are
[01:12:30.960 --> 01:12:36.640]  bullcrap. If one is disqualified, all are disqualified. That's a maximum of law,
[01:12:36.640 --> 01:12:42.480]  but it's based on case law that doesn't say that at all. And to say that if one is falsified,
[01:12:42.480 --> 01:12:48.320]  all are falsified, that's an unwarranted presupposition.
[01:12:48.320 --> 01:12:57.920]  You're jumping to really base generalities.
[01:13:02.400 --> 01:13:08.800]  So you're saying that in every instance, the court rules that it's not harmful
[01:13:08.800 --> 01:13:17.840]  to refuse findings of facts and conclusions of law. Are you familiar with Walker v. Packer?
[01:13:17.840 --> 01:13:19.840]  No.
[01:13:19.840 --> 01:13:28.400]  That's right. That is a Texas case. But there's probably a main case that reflects Walker v. Packer.
[01:13:28.400 --> 01:13:36.480]  What Walker v. Packer says is that a judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the
[01:13:36.480 --> 01:13:43.920]  facts. A failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. And an abuse of discretion that has the effect of
[01:13:43.920 --> 01:13:49.440]  denying a citizen full and free access to or enjoyment of a right is a crime in every state,
[01:13:50.800 --> 01:13:56.480]  official misconduct. In Texas, it's official oppression. In the Fed, it's official misconduct
[01:13:56.480 --> 01:14:07.120]  under 18 U.S. Code 242. So while the Supreme can't find error in that, how about pursuing
[01:14:07.120 --> 01:14:12.000]  the judge criminally for denying you a procedural due process?
[01:14:15.840 --> 01:14:21.120]  I went to the attorney general, and I said, I've got legitimate court-introducible evidence here.
[01:14:21.760 --> 01:14:26.160]  And they said, our job is to protect government employees, not to prosecute them.
[01:14:26.160 --> 01:14:31.840]  That's true. He's the wrong guy. This is what we got grand juries for.
[01:14:34.320 --> 01:14:38.080]  Now, let me give you an example of the corruption in the main court,
[01:14:38.080 --> 01:14:43.360]  Conrad v. Aniskof, 1993. Looking at the issues, the Supreme Court says that...
[01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:49.120]  Wait, which Supreme? State or federal?
[01:14:50.880 --> 01:14:54.320]  Other provisions of the act are expressly conditioned on a showing of prejudice
[01:14:54.320 --> 01:14:57.840]  and a literal interpretation produces illogical and absurd results.
[01:14:58.640 --> 01:15:02.240]  Hold on, hold on. You are talking way faster than I can listen.
[01:15:02.880 --> 01:15:03.440]  I'm sorry.
[01:15:04.080 --> 01:15:08.720]  We're on radio. And on radio, you can't see the other person. You can't see the lips. You
[01:15:08.720 --> 01:15:14.960]  can't see the body. So we have to speak a little bit slower so that the listener has time to
[01:15:15.520 --> 01:15:17.920]  change your language into some kind of meaning.
[01:15:17.920 --> 01:15:26.880]  Okay. In Conrad v. Aniskof, 1993, the Supreme Court, looking at three issues,
[01:15:27.920 --> 01:15:31.680]  the three issues were the history of the act reveals an intent. I have no idea what that
[01:15:31.680 --> 01:15:35.840]  means. The other provisions of the act are expressly conditioned on a showing of prejudice,
[01:15:35.840 --> 01:15:38.880]  which makes even less sense. But the third part is the important one.
[01:15:39.520 --> 01:15:43.280]  A literal interpretation produces illogical and absurd results.
[01:15:43.280 --> 01:15:47.440]  The Supreme Court then declared, neither singulate nor in combination to these points, justify
[01:15:47.440 --> 01:15:52.320]  departure from the unambiguous statutory text. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of
[01:15:52.320 --> 01:15:59.120]  Maine is reversed. They were not reversed and they never will be because they refuse to allow it.
[01:16:01.040 --> 01:16:03.920]  Okay. What's your remedy?
[01:16:05.200 --> 01:16:10.560]  I have no idea. But in Muddy v. Department of Corrections, in 2017, they said in construing
[01:16:10.560 --> 01:16:14.720]  statutes, we first consider the plain language and we interpret statutory provisions according
[01:16:14.720 --> 01:16:18.480]  to their unambiguous meaning, unless the result is illogical or absurd.
[01:16:19.040 --> 01:16:26.480]  William, it's you're running away from me again. Are you familiar with what a white paper is?
[01:16:28.480 --> 01:16:30.640]  I've heard of it, but I'm not sure I understand it.
[01:16:31.440 --> 01:16:36.480]  That's a document you developed for your legislator when you're asking him to
[01:16:36.480 --> 01:16:44.960]  when you're asking him to introduce new law. It sounds like you need new law in Maine.
[01:16:44.960 --> 01:16:48.800]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, we live by radio.
[01:16:50.320 --> 01:16:55.520]  We've got a full voice. I won't give out the call in number. Hang on. We'll be right back.
[01:16:59.840 --> 01:17:04.400]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:04.400 --> 01:17:10.000]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Maris proven method. Michael Maris has won six cases
[01:17:10.000 --> 01:17:14.720]  in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win too. You'll get step by step
[01:17:14.720 --> 01:17:19.760]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:17:19.760 --> 01:17:25.440]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls,
[01:17:25.440 --> 01:17:30.000]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them
[01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:36.080]  and make them pay you to go away. The Michael Maris proven method is the solution for how to
[01:17:36.080 --> 01:17:40.880]  stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well. For more information,
[01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:46.000]  please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Maris banner or email
[01:17:46.000 --> 01:17:55.920]  michaelmaris at yahoo.com. That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[01:17:55.920 --> 01:18:02.320]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now. I love Logos. Without the shows on this network,
[01:18:02.320 --> 01:18:06.800]  I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going
[01:18:06.800 --> 01:18:12.400]  back. I need my truth fixed. I'd be lost without Logos, and I really want to help keep this network
[01:18:12.400 --> 01:18:16.160]  on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I
[01:18:16.160 --> 01:18:21.760]  really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos?
[01:18:21.760 --> 01:18:26.960]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos. You
[01:18:26.960 --> 01:18:31.680]  can order your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now,
[01:18:31.680 --> 01:18:38.640]  go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything
[01:18:38.640 --> 01:18:45.200]  from Amazon, you use that link and Logos gets a few pesos. Do I pay extra? No. Do you have to do
[01:18:45.200 --> 01:18:51.680]  anything different when I order? No. Can I use my Amazon Prime? No. I mean, yes. Wow, giving
[01:18:51.680 --> 01:18:58.080]  without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much. We are welcome.
[01:18:58.080 --> 01:19:22.480]  Happy holidays, Logos. This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:19:58.560 --> 01:20:04.720]  Randy Felton-Griff, we're going to have to close this out. We're using up a lot of time, but
[01:20:06.800 --> 01:20:16.000]  Dan, I suggest that you craft legislation that's assuming that we have a constitution,
[01:20:16.720 --> 01:20:24.000]  and we can just as a thought experiment, let's assume the constitution is there because
[01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:31.200]  the courts and the legislature and all, they presume that a constitution is there. At least
[01:20:31.200 --> 01:20:43.280]  they pretend there is. And assuming that it's all there, what law, what new law or what change in
[01:20:43.280 --> 01:20:54.160]  what change in existing law would you need in order to fix this problem? Simple. Number one,
[01:20:55.040 --> 01:20:58.480]  all immunity is hereby removed. It's a constitutional amendment. Can't be anything
[01:20:58.480 --> 01:21:09.840]  else. Number two, the language used by the court has to be the same as that used by
[01:21:09.840 --> 01:21:17.360]  the average American. Okay. Is that possible? And you make it simple so people can understand you.
[01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:22.080]  Wait a minute. Yes. The plain language movements made it clear. Is that possible?
[01:21:23.120 --> 01:21:30.480]  Can we speak to highly specific legal issues in vague and general common tongue language?
[01:21:31.920 --> 01:21:36.240]  Well, if you can't, the common man can never understand and the appearance of justice can
[01:21:36.240 --> 01:21:40.880]  never appear, despite it being a stringent requirement. And why are you even bothering
[01:21:40.880 --> 01:21:45.760]  with this? You're taking on a, by your own definition, what you're asking for is impossible.
[01:21:46.640 --> 01:21:53.600]  So you're trying to create an impossibility. That doesn't make sense.
[01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:00.400]  You're complaining about this, but you're creating a set of conditions that makes it
[01:22:00.400 --> 01:22:06.320]  impossible to fix your problem. The conditions already exist.
[01:22:09.120 --> 01:22:12.240]  Then why are you bothering with this? Because it's not possible.
[01:22:13.520 --> 01:22:20.640]  Why are you taking on an impossibility? Is it impossible to be able to understand?
[01:22:20.640 --> 01:22:26.080]  You have said it was. That was a due process requirement for government to make sure we
[01:22:26.080 --> 01:22:34.800]  understand it. Yes. I think it absolutely is. Can you understand quantum physics?
[01:22:36.160 --> 01:22:38.000]  Not a bit. Right.
[01:22:38.800 --> 01:22:42.640]  But what if they need to explain it to you? Because you're ignorant of quantum physics.
[01:22:45.120 --> 01:22:50.720]  What if they needed to explain it to you? What if they needed to use regular plain English
[01:22:50.720 --> 01:22:56.640]  to explain it to you, and they can't use any of their special terms? And that's what I need.
[01:23:00.800 --> 01:23:06.080]  I'm questioning whether that's something that's actually feasible.
[01:23:09.040 --> 01:23:18.080]  We do this a lot. We take back and forth sophisticated legal issues, but we have to use
[01:23:18.080 --> 01:23:28.640]  terms that generalize some of the ideas. Otherwise, our linguistic presentation
[01:23:28.640 --> 01:23:36.880]  would become absolutely so huge that no one can keep track of it. A human being can only hold
[01:23:36.880 --> 01:23:45.360]  five plus or minus two pieces of information at a time. If we have to go into the absolute
[01:23:45.360 --> 01:23:52.720]  finite basics of every legal issue and explain every single word we use, no human being will
[01:23:52.720 --> 01:23:59.920]  ever understand it. It's too complex. We need computers to do that. Computers to do that.
[01:24:02.480 --> 01:24:06.800]  Well, the Supreme Court has said that that which is simple, orderly, and necessary to the lawyer,
[01:24:06.800 --> 01:24:11.520]  to the untrained layman, may appear intricate, complex, and mysterious. That's in Shencloth,
[01:24:11.520 --> 01:24:21.680]  V. Bustamante, 1973. Okay. How do we do that? You ever been to Small Claims Court?
[01:24:21.680 --> 01:24:28.480]  Yes. There's no rules of court. There's no legal language. People get to go in, present their case,
[01:24:28.480 --> 01:24:35.120]  and whatever happens, happens. Yeah. How's that worked out for you so far? You've been going to
[01:24:35.120 --> 01:24:41.280]  court, and whatever happens, happens, and they're sticking it to you, and you're going to go in and
[01:24:41.280 --> 01:24:46.240]  it to you. Is that what you want to go back to, where the judge is doing the damn thing he wants
[01:24:46.240 --> 01:24:53.040]  to? No, but what I'm saying is when you remove barriers to people's participation in the court
[01:24:53.040 --> 01:24:57.760]  with simple language, the court can operate much better because it is not-
[01:24:57.760 --> 01:25:00.480]  How, yeah. How do you do that?
[01:25:02.560 --> 01:25:07.200]  The plain language movement makes it pretty clear that you can remove the vast majority of all the
[01:25:07.200 --> 01:25:18.720]  problem with simplified language. Did you just say the plain language movement?
[01:25:19.600 --> 01:25:22.000]  Yeah. You've never heard of it? No.
[01:25:23.840 --> 01:25:34.480]  Look it up. Where? Online, you'll be able to find it. In 2010, the Plain Writing Act was passed
[01:25:34.480 --> 01:25:40.880]  that required the removal of all jargon for the executive branch so that people could go and look
[01:25:40.880 --> 01:25:45.680]  at the regulations from the EPA or whoever, and be able to understand it. First they said,
[01:25:45.680 --> 01:25:50.480]  it can't be done, and then they did it. Well, due process allows-
[01:25:50.480 --> 01:25:57.120]  How? In this case, you're saying it can be done, and you're wanting it to get done. How?
[01:25:57.120 --> 01:26:05.040]  How? The first thing you can do is have something set up in the court where you have
[01:26:06.160 --> 01:26:09.920]  something where people can ask questions and get answers other than that's legal advice.
[01:26:10.560 --> 01:26:15.920]  It happens in some states. It doesn't happen here. Then what is your specific proposal?
[01:26:18.320 --> 01:26:22.880]  Put in a part of the court where when somebody doesn't understand something,
[01:26:22.880 --> 01:26:29.840]  they can get answers until they do understand it. It can be what you call a help center. It
[01:26:29.840 --> 01:26:35.680]  doesn't matter. Okay. Then that is meat for a white paper.
[01:26:39.120 --> 01:26:45.120]  The white paper is for you. You're asking your legislator to do something,
[01:26:45.120 --> 01:26:52.880]  but legislators, they don't have the money or the resources to research out your issue.
[01:26:53.840 --> 01:26:59.120]  If you want the legislature to change something, you have to research the issue, give them
[01:26:59.120 --> 01:27:04.720]  everything they need. So when they present this to the Congress and they start getting questions
[01:27:04.720 --> 01:27:10.400]  from the Congress, they need answers. They need this all dressed out, and then you can get a
[01:27:10.400 --> 01:27:16.960]  legislature to propose it. Legislators love to propose new law, but they need a white paper in
[01:27:16.960 --> 01:27:22.720]  place before they can do that. So figure out specifically what you want. That does not sound
[01:27:22.720 --> 01:27:34.320]  unreasonable to have a person in the court be a lawyer or some type of learned individual
[01:27:34.320 --> 01:27:45.760]  who can act as a sounding board or as a resource. Liaison interpreter.
[01:27:45.760 --> 01:27:51.840]  Yeah. How would you write the legislation to that effect?
[01:27:57.520 --> 01:28:01.280]  Whereas everyone is entitled to a meaningful access to the court system,
[01:28:01.280 --> 01:28:07.040]  the court system will ensure- That is not an answer. That's a dodge.
[01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:11.440]  That's the first. Oh, okay.
[01:28:12.400 --> 01:28:20.720]  By putting forth a help center, which will include written material and employees who can explain
[01:28:21.440 --> 01:28:27.200]  everything to make sure everybody understands any rule. And the rules of court will be simplified
[01:28:27.200 --> 01:28:32.160]  and minimized so that they are not excessive and a bureaucratic nightmare,
[01:28:32.160 --> 01:28:34.480]  like one lawyer wrote about the federal rules of court.
[01:28:37.760 --> 01:28:44.880]  Rules are always- It's been my experience that these rules are put into place because of problems
[01:28:44.880 --> 01:28:53.840]  that we have. When we take away these rules, it is the job of the lawyer to find every weakness,
[01:28:53.840 --> 01:29:01.600]  every loophole and exploit it to his benefit. You sound like you're opening the door to horrendous
[01:29:01.600 --> 01:29:12.160]  abuse. That's an unfortunate consequence of what you're asking.
[01:29:12.160 --> 01:29:17.040]  If he only does half of what he's talking about, instead of eliminating all these rules
[01:29:17.040 --> 01:29:27.120]  and eliminating the technicality that is already in place. But if he will only implement the part of
[01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:34.320]  pause the proceedings because this fellow over here raised his hand. He needs some input from
[01:29:34.320 --> 01:29:41.120]  this help center. What the heck is he talking about? Does this mean that I'm also- Is this
[01:29:41.120 --> 01:29:47.360]  implying that I'm giving up some right of mine? And there's some conversation that can be had and
[01:29:47.360 --> 01:29:53.360]  then they can continue with the existing rules. I have a friend. We're just about to go our sponsors.
[01:29:54.560 --> 01:29:57.120]  What? Tell us about your friend in just a moment.
[01:30:00.160 --> 01:30:06.000]  Sorry, soft drink lovers. Even diet drinks can make you fat. The new study shows that diet soda
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:11.280]  drinkers gain much more weight than people who avoid the stuff. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and
[01:30:11.280 --> 01:30:17.920]  I'll be back in a moment with a scoop on supposedly skinny sodas. Privacy is under attack. When you
[01:30:17.920 --> 01:30:22.800]  give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone,
[01:30:22.800 --> 01:30:28.720]  you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too. So protect your rights, say no to surveillance
[01:30:28.720 --> 01:30:34.320]  and keep your information to yourself. Privacy, it's worth hanging on to. This public service
[01:30:34.320 --> 01:30:39.440]  announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:30:39.440 --> 01:30:46.480]  Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage. Artificial sweeteners cut the calories and
[01:30:46.480 --> 01:30:52.720]  help you lose weight, right? Wrong. Researchers at UT San Antonio followed hundreds of diet soda
[01:30:52.720 --> 01:30:57.840]  drinkers for nearly a decade. They found that regularly drinking diet soda expanded people's
[01:30:57.840 --> 01:31:03.760]  waistlines five times more than no soda at all. The study's authors say artificial sweeteners
[01:31:03.760 --> 01:31:08.800]  trigger the appetite, but unlike regular sugars, don't deliver anything to squelch it. Waking up
[01:31:08.800 --> 01:31:13.840]  hunger without satisfying it leads to cravings, which can result in a larger overall calorie
[01:31:13.840 --> 01:31:18.480]  intake. So use natural sweeteners to maintain a healthy weight, and if you need to shed some
[01:31:18.480 --> 01:31:24.320]  pounds, avoid the sweet stuff altogether and drink water instead. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More
[01:31:24.320 --> 01:31:32.000]  news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com. This is building seven, a 47-story skyscraper
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:36.160]  that fell on the afternoon of September 11th. The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:36.160 --> 01:31:42.240]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my
[01:31:42.240 --> 01:31:46.800]  fellow service members have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:46.800 --> 01:31:50.560]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:50.560 --> 01:31:55.840]  I'm an Air Force pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:55.840 --> 01:32:02.560]  Go to rememberbuildingseven.org today. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law
[01:32:02.560 --> 01:32:06.560]  traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people
[01:32:06.560 --> 01:32:11.040]  are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:11.040 --> 01:32:14.640]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[01:32:14.640 --> 01:32:19.200]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us
[01:32:19.200 --> 01:32:23.520]  the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:23.520 --> 01:32:27.520]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most
[01:32:27.520 --> 01:32:31.760]  comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how
[01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:35.920]  to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going
[01:32:35.920 --> 01:32:40.640]  to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[01:32:40.640 --> 01:32:45.200]  book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[01:32:45.200 --> 01:32:49.360]  seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for
[01:32:49.360 --> 01:32:53.680]  your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and
[01:32:53.680 --> 01:33:18.720]  together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:23.680 --> 01:33:50.720]  Music
[01:33:50.720 --> 01:33:56.160]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kaltman, Brett Fountain, we love you. You know when we're talking to Dan
[01:33:56.160 --> 01:34:02.400]  and Maine and Dan, it finally occurred to me, there was something, a problem I had with this.
[01:34:03.760 --> 01:34:11.120]  And all the time you were talking, I was trying to dig that out, and it finally occurred to me
[01:34:11.120 --> 01:34:18.480]  what the problem was. I've got an acquaintance who does exactly what you're speaking to.
[01:34:18.480 --> 01:34:28.880]  He makes them define every word. I mean every word. I had a meeting with Brett and someone else,
[01:34:28.880 --> 01:34:33.440]  and he brought this guy with him, and he kind of co-opted the meeting. Brett, will you give
[01:34:33.440 --> 01:34:41.360]  your impression of this guy? It was hilarious. I think it could become annoying, but I loved it.
[01:34:41.360 --> 01:34:48.080]  I thought it was a great approach, and it was a way to do it, and it was powerful, but I think it
[01:34:48.080 --> 01:34:54.480]  brought humor into the situation. He would have them define every little, he kind of knew up front
[01:34:54.960 --> 01:35:00.480]  what they were going to be talking about, so he didn't just start from scratch and have a dictionary,
[01:35:00.480 --> 01:35:06.880]  but he had a sheet of paper, and front and back it had some key words that he knew they were going
[01:35:06.880 --> 01:35:12.160]  to try to use, and he had his own definitions for them. They would say something, excuse me,
[01:35:12.160 --> 01:35:18.400]  that doesn't make any sense. The word that I have here for that says, I'm understanding you to say
[01:35:18.400 --> 01:35:28.320]  that the 57 Chevys are on sale, and that just doesn't make any sense. So he offered his own
[01:35:28.320 --> 01:35:34.240]  definitions for things. So when somebody would say enter a plea, you could run your finger down
[01:35:34.240 --> 01:35:39.280]  there on his document, and you could see where it says enter a plea, and it means, I think your legs
[01:35:39.280 --> 01:35:46.480]  look hot. And so he would act all offended when they asked him to enter a plea because, my goodness,
[01:35:46.480 --> 01:35:52.880]  they're hitting on me right here in the middle of this distinguished building. And so he acted all
[01:35:52.880 --> 01:35:58.560]  offended, and he played the part. He was right there on the tip of his tongue. He rolled with it.
[01:35:58.560 --> 01:36:08.000]  It really made him crazy. But the problem was you couldn't have a normal conversation with this guy
[01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:10.400]  because he couldn't stop doing it.
[01:36:10.400 --> 01:36:12.400]  Unless you like his legs.
[01:36:12.400 --> 01:36:24.480]  Unless you like his legs. So how do we do this so it's not to this extreme, and how do we codify
[01:36:24.480 --> 01:36:40.560]  this into some kind of legislation? If you look on uscourts.gov, they have an article,
[01:36:40.560 --> 01:36:46.080]  Prose Centers Help Even the Odds for Litigants Without Lawyers, published August 20th, 2015.
[01:36:47.040 --> 01:36:52.000]  And they talk about how in Brooklyn, they had an innovative program that provided legal help to
[01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:59.920]  more than 150 low-income prose litigants. And they offered the assistance of what I'm talking about.
[01:37:01.280 --> 01:37:06.000]  But everywhere else you ever go, everything is always its legal advice. You want fun?
[01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:07.040]  Ask them what legal advice.
[01:37:07.040 --> 01:37:14.000]  Okay, okay. Hold on, hold on. How did they get this implemented, and who did it?
[01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:24.560]  Um, if you can write this down, it's your Prose Centers Help Even the Odds for Litigants Without
[01:37:24.560 --> 01:37:28.000]  Lawyers. Oh, there's a space in the prose, though, for some stupid reason.
[01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:33.520]  Wait a minute. I got Prose Centers as part of the name. Is that all of the name?
[01:37:34.880 --> 01:37:41.600]  The title of the article is Your Centers Help Even the Odds for Litigants Without Lawyers.
[01:37:41.600 --> 01:37:47.760]  And you'll find it on uscourts.gov under news from 2015.
[01:37:50.240 --> 01:37:56.880]  Help Even the what? Court Centers Help Even the what?
[01:37:57.920 --> 01:38:01.200]  The Odds for Litigants Without Lawyers.
[01:38:04.640 --> 01:38:05.840]  O-D-D-S?
[01:38:05.840 --> 01:38:13.440]  Yep. Litigants Without Lawyers.
[01:38:15.840 --> 01:38:21.920]  So, have you, you might want to talk to them and find out how they define what they're doing,
[01:38:22.560 --> 01:38:29.440]  how they managed to get it accepted by the courts, and they may give you a blueprint to what you need.
[01:38:29.440 --> 01:38:38.800]  Yeah. But the thing they say is when litigants come to a federal court without a lawyer,
[01:38:38.800 --> 01:38:42.480]  they're at a disadvantage. Well, that's not equal justice, is it?
[01:38:42.480 --> 01:38:46.320]  When I'm at a disadvantage, you don't speak. Nothing in life is ever equal.
[01:38:49.280 --> 01:38:55.760]  I mean, you're asking for essentially an impossibility. So how do we implement something
[01:38:55.760 --> 01:39:01.600]  that will bring us as close to this as we can? It sounds like you have the blueprint here.
[01:39:03.120 --> 01:39:06.160]  Yeah. I mean, the first thing literally is you got to get rid of Latin.
[01:39:08.960 --> 01:39:12.880]  You keep jumping away from the issue. Have you talked to these people to
[01:39:12.880 --> 01:39:20.240]  figure out how they got this accepted? Or am I missing something?
[01:39:20.240 --> 01:39:25.040]  It's a news article on the uscourts.gov site.
[01:39:27.040 --> 01:39:32.160]  Well, you said that they have these people in some courts in Brooklyn.
[01:39:33.280 --> 01:39:41.520]  Yep. How they do it. That sounds like your solution to this problem.
[01:39:41.520 --> 01:39:50.480]  Is it your purpose to institute a solution?
[01:39:52.560 --> 01:39:57.040]  Yeah. My solution would be simple. Start communicating so people understand you.
[01:39:58.800 --> 01:40:04.320]  Wait a minute. Hold on. Start communicating so people could understand you.
[01:40:04.320 --> 01:40:12.160]  Well, my father-in-law only speaks Russian or Lithuanian. No, not Lithuanian. Bulgarian.
[01:40:12.800 --> 01:40:16.880]  So we have to speak in Bulgarian in court?
[01:40:18.080 --> 01:40:21.280]  They've already got translators for that. Why don't they have translators from Latin,
[01:40:21.280 --> 01:40:24.400]  French, and legalese into modern English?
[01:40:25.440 --> 01:40:28.480]  So every court has to have all these translators. Who pays for it?
[01:40:30.080 --> 01:40:31.120]  What would be the cost?
[01:40:31.120 --> 01:40:34.160]  The same guys that pay for the translators for Spanish.
[01:40:37.120 --> 01:40:41.360]  You're just complaining. I'm trying to get you to speak to a solution,
[01:40:41.360 --> 01:40:46.080]  and all you're doing is complaining and proposing impossibilities.
[01:40:46.080 --> 01:40:48.960]  Nothing to facilitate your outcome. It's getting frustrating.
[01:40:53.040 --> 01:40:53.440]  I can't.
[01:40:53.440 --> 01:40:56.880]  How do you fix this? Are you interested in fixing it?
[01:40:57.520 --> 01:40:58.800]  Oh, I'd love to fix it.
[01:40:58.800 --> 01:41:02.240]  Okay. Then you have someone here who's fixed it.
[01:41:04.560 --> 01:41:10.560]  How did they do it? How did they get it past legislation? How did they get it past the courts?
[01:41:12.640 --> 01:41:15.120]  From the sounds of the article, they got together with a bunch of
[01:41:15.120 --> 01:41:17.680]  local lawyers who were willing to volunteer some time.
[01:41:20.720 --> 01:41:22.080]  And they worked together.
[01:41:22.080 --> 01:41:29.360]  I suggest you see what you can do in Maine in that regard.
[01:41:32.480 --> 01:41:35.680]  But if you just go to the courts and ask them to fix it,
[01:41:35.680 --> 01:41:37.440]  they're going to tell you they don't have the funds.
[01:41:42.480 --> 01:41:44.800]  How do you demonstrate to them that they can fix it?
[01:41:46.560 --> 01:41:51.360]  They can start using normal everyday language instead of a specialty.
[01:41:51.360 --> 01:41:56.640]  That is so simple for you to say. Normal everyday language.
[01:41:57.440 --> 01:42:00.560]  And in addition to the rules of court,
[01:42:00.560 --> 01:42:04.000]  you write in plain language what they're writing in their legalese.
[01:42:10.560 --> 01:42:16.720]  Okay. I'm trying to get to some solution and you're just throwing out vague generalities.
[01:42:16.720 --> 01:42:21.920]  Yeah. Do this general thing. How on earth are you going to do that general thing?
[01:42:25.040 --> 01:42:27.520]  When the rule of court starts going technical jargon,
[01:42:28.320 --> 01:42:31.600]  remove the technical jargon and put it in simple language.
[01:42:32.240 --> 01:42:35.200]  What constitutes technical jargon?
[01:42:37.680 --> 01:42:39.520]  Is that technical jargon?
[01:42:40.400 --> 01:42:42.320]  Yeah, that's Latin. That's not English.
[01:42:42.320 --> 01:42:48.800]  It is exquisitely defined in statute. Is it still technical jargon?
[01:42:50.240 --> 01:42:52.560]  Absolutely. It's not known to the high school graduate.
[01:42:54.080 --> 01:42:56.880]  There's a whole lot that's not known to a high school graduate.
[01:42:57.520 --> 01:42:59.120]  They don't even know if they're a boy or a girl.
[01:43:00.720 --> 01:43:02.640]  Okay. High school graduate 40 years ago.
[01:43:02.640 --> 01:43:12.080]  No, it's as if you're deliberately asking for something that can't be done.
[01:43:12.720 --> 01:43:16.000]  And I'm asking you for some solutions to get there and you're just
[01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:18.720]  jumping back to these vague generalities. This is going nowhere.
[01:43:19.520 --> 01:43:24.880]  And I suspect that your issue that you're trying to get is going to go nowhere
[01:43:26.160 --> 01:43:28.960]  because you seem unable to be specific.
[01:43:28.960 --> 01:43:34.400]  Okay. Okay. We do need to move on.
[01:43:34.400 --> 01:43:37.280]  138 words long. Cut it down into small sentences.
[01:43:38.240 --> 01:43:40.320]  Cut it down into small sentences.
[01:43:44.080 --> 01:43:47.840]  Okay. It's Randy Kelton. I'm getting frustrated. I sound frustrated.
[01:43:50.720 --> 01:43:51.760]  You're doing better than me.
[01:43:51.760 --> 01:43:57.840]  Okay. We're going to have to move on. We've kind of got to an impasse there.
[01:43:57.840 --> 01:43:58.560]  We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.160 --> 01:44:04.080]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved,
[01:44:04.080 --> 01:44:06.080]  except in the area of nutrition.
[01:44:06.080 --> 01:44:09.040]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves.
[01:44:09.040 --> 01:44:10.960]  And it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:10.960 --> 01:44:17.280]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.280 --> 01:44:22.000]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[01:44:22.000 --> 01:44:25.280]  young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.280 --> 01:44:29.680]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products,
[01:44:29.680 --> 01:44:31.200]  most of which we reject.
[01:44:31.200 --> 01:44:34.000]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much,
[01:44:34.000 --> 01:44:39.600]  we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.600 --> 01:44:42.960]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com,
[01:44:42.960 --> 01:44:47.200]  your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:44:47.200 --> 01:44:51.520]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.520 --> 01:44:54.960]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health,
[01:44:54.960 --> 01:44:58.640]  help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:44:58.640 --> 01:44:59.440]  Order now.
[01:45:00.800 --> 01:45:03.280]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:03.920 --> 01:45:07.200]  Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary,
[01:45:07.200 --> 01:45:14.560]  the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:15.200 --> 01:45:18.960]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:18.960 --> 01:45:22.080]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.880 --> 01:45:27.680]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:27.680 --> 01:45:33.600]  Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[01:45:33.600 --> 01:45:38.080]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand
[01:45:38.080 --> 01:45:42.320]  about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.320 --> 01:45:48.560]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:48.560 --> 01:45:51.120]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:51.120 --> 01:46:04.000]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:21.200 --> 01:46:24.000]  Sing reality.
[01:46:31.440 --> 01:46:38.800]  As we sow, so shall we reap.
[01:46:38.800 --> 01:46:46.400]  So many crucial words to put on all that we see.
[01:46:46.400 --> 01:46:53.920]  Try as we win, just very small steps to the giant leap.
[01:46:53.920 --> 01:47:02.560]  As we sow, so shall we reap.
[01:47:02.560 --> 01:47:20.640]  Okay, we are back with Brent Fountain, rule of law radio, and I got a headache.
[01:47:21.840 --> 01:47:26.080]  Tina, what can I do for my headache?
[01:47:26.080 --> 01:47:35.920]  Well, you need to be really nice to your wife and let her rub your fevered brow for about 10 minutes.
[01:47:35.920 --> 01:47:36.800]  No, wait a minute.
[01:47:36.800 --> 01:47:41.360]  My wife never gets headaches because she's a carrier.
[01:47:47.280 --> 01:47:50.960]  Anyway, okay, what do you have for us today?
[01:47:50.960 --> 01:47:59.120]  Well, I have some interesting news that came up in the last two days.
[01:48:00.720 --> 01:48:10.240]  And just a brief background, you might remember that back in 2015, I was advised to go to the
[01:48:10.240 --> 01:48:16.960]  National Association of Asian Americans who helped supposedly hundreds of thousands of people
[01:48:16.960 --> 01:48:25.600]  with modifications, and the person who referred me said that the CEO, Faith Bautista, had an
[01:48:25.600 --> 01:48:30.400]  inside track with Joseph Otting and Steven Mnuchin of Long With Think.
[01:48:31.280 --> 01:48:32.640]  So I approached them.
[01:48:32.640 --> 01:48:37.440]  They did stop the Christmas Eve sale on 2014.
[01:48:37.440 --> 01:48:38.320]  Then I fell down.
[01:48:38.320 --> 01:48:42.480]  Wait a minute, Tina, I'm having some problems understanding you.
[01:48:42.480 --> 01:48:43.840]  Are you on that Bluetooth?
[01:48:44.880 --> 01:48:45.600]  No, I'm not.
[01:48:45.600 --> 01:48:46.640]  I took it off.
[01:48:46.640 --> 01:48:47.840]  I'm on speakerphone.
[01:48:49.280 --> 01:48:52.320]  Try moving the, oh, speakerphone.
[01:48:53.200 --> 01:48:54.480]  Do you have a handset?
[01:48:56.480 --> 01:48:58.240]  That's why you sound so muffled.
[01:48:59.280 --> 01:49:00.000]  Is this better?
[01:49:01.920 --> 01:49:02.640]  I'm not sure.
[01:49:02.640 --> 01:49:03.200]  Talk some more.
[01:49:04.320 --> 01:49:05.040]  Okay.
[01:49:05.040 --> 01:49:07.760]  So this deal, I approached the company.
[01:49:07.760 --> 01:49:08.960]  I filled out the forms.
[01:49:08.960 --> 01:49:10.640]  We were going, moving forward.
[01:49:10.640 --> 01:49:15.920]  And they told me that Ms. Bautista had a really good inside track with Joseph Otting,
[01:49:15.920 --> 01:49:20.320]  and they were sure that they couldn't guarantee, but they were sure they could help get me
[01:49:20.320 --> 01:49:22.960]  a modification instead of a foreclosure.
[01:49:23.760 --> 01:49:26.320]  So all was moving smoothly.
[01:49:26.320 --> 01:49:33.760]  And then I was asked by a San Francisco coalition who monitored banks for community lending
[01:49:33.760 --> 01:49:41.920]  and such like to speak at the special federal reserve hearing that was called, because
[01:49:41.920 --> 01:49:49.360]  One West Bank was trying to sell the bank to Sit Bank, who had taken 3.2 million in
[01:49:49.360 --> 01:49:53.040]  top funds and filed bankruptcy, so they didn't have to pay it back.
[01:49:53.040 --> 01:49:56.320]  But 18 months later, they have the money to buy this bank.
[01:49:57.040 --> 01:50:03.120]  And this coalition was concerned that it was shutting out all kinds of borrowers.
[01:50:03.120 --> 01:50:05.760]  So the federal reserve hearing was called.
[01:50:05.760 --> 01:50:09.760]  I was asked to speak along with a few other victims of One West Bank.
[01:50:11.120 --> 01:50:13.200]  I was told it went very well.
[01:50:14.160 --> 01:50:25.760]  But before I made my pitch, I went up to Ms. Bautista, the CEO of this non-profit, and
[01:50:25.760 --> 01:50:29.040]  thanked her for offering to help and for her staff.
[01:50:29.040 --> 01:50:35.360]  And I said, I'm really looking forward to you helping me get this modification or,
[01:50:35.360 --> 01:50:38.160]  in fact, a sale because I have a lender ready.
[01:50:38.720 --> 01:50:40.160]  And she said, oh, that's great.
[01:50:40.160 --> 01:50:41.680]  Yes, we're looking forward to working with you.
[01:50:41.680 --> 01:50:43.200]  Do we have your signed forms?
[01:50:43.200 --> 01:50:44.560]  I said, yes, you do.
[01:50:44.560 --> 01:50:51.280]  But I will contact Ms. Soriano tomorrow and make sure she has everything she needs.
[01:50:51.280 --> 01:50:52.240]  And she said, great.
[01:50:52.240 --> 01:50:56.000]  We smiled, shook hands, and walked off in our own direction.
[01:50:56.000 --> 01:50:58.800]  But then I gave my spiel.
[01:50:58.800 --> 01:51:03.600]  And at the end of it, you know, and I had all my documents where they'd sent me hundreds
[01:51:03.600 --> 01:51:09.600]  and hundreds of notices and billed me $2,000 plus for them.
[01:51:10.320 --> 01:51:14.560]  So I just spoke about my experience and how bad it was.
[01:51:14.560 --> 01:51:20.240]  And at the end of it, I said, it should be jail time, not sale time for One West Bank.
[01:51:20.240 --> 01:51:27.360]  Apparently, that went down very well with most of the audience, but not, you know,
[01:51:27.360 --> 01:51:28.640]  not the bank or other people.
[01:51:29.440 --> 01:51:35.280]  So I thought everything was good, spoke to, you know, one of their helpers later,
[01:51:35.280 --> 01:51:36.880]  and said I would be in touch the next day.
[01:51:37.600 --> 01:51:38.160]  And I was.
[01:51:38.720 --> 01:51:46.160]  Yes, seven days later, I got an email, a letter from their council, the, you know,
[01:51:46.160 --> 01:51:50.800]  NAAC's council, saying Ms. Bautista is far too busy now to help you,
[01:51:51.440 --> 01:51:55.680]  but you seem to be getting help from the San Francisco coalition, so you should go to them.
[01:51:56.400 --> 01:51:58.480]  Didn't refer me to another counselor.
[01:51:58.480 --> 01:52:00.960]  We didn't expect the CEO to do it herself.
[01:52:01.920 --> 01:52:08.720]  So the, you know, association that had me go to this Federal Reserve hearing,
[01:52:08.720 --> 01:52:12.400]  which we learned later was a sham, and most people there were being paid
[01:52:12.400 --> 01:52:17.120]  to promote the sale, including Ms. Bautista.
[01:52:17.120 --> 01:52:23.120]  They sent a letter saying this appeared to be retaliation and fraud and all kinds of things,
[01:52:23.120 --> 01:52:24.960]  but they refused to answer.
[01:52:24.960 --> 01:52:29.040]  So that was where it ended, because obviously three months later, they foreclosed on me.
[01:52:30.400 --> 01:52:38.160]  Well, just recently, there was a lawsuit filed by the NAAC
[01:52:38.160 --> 01:52:47.200]  against its founder and former CEO, Faith Bautista, and it details how she led a fraudulent
[01:52:47.200 --> 01:52:53.040]  conspiracy to enrich herself at the expense of the state of California.
[01:52:53.040 --> 01:52:58.880]  It charges her with fraud, receiving stolen property, breach of fiduciary duty,
[01:52:58.880 --> 01:53:03.600]  aiding the bedding breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, constructive fraud,
[01:53:03.600 --> 01:53:06.000]  negligent misrepresentation and conversion.
[01:53:06.000 --> 01:53:17.680]  And in addition, the names, they name her sister, sister's husband, and who is Faith
[01:53:17.680 --> 01:53:18.720]  Bautista's brother.
[01:53:19.360 --> 01:53:26.160]  And it says, as the complaint alleges, the fraudulent conspiracy stems from NAAC's
[01:53:26.160 --> 01:53:29.200]  participation in the National Mortgage Settlement Program.
[01:53:30.160 --> 01:53:35.600]  It provides nonprofit housing counseling agencies 750 for every counseling session
[01:53:35.600 --> 01:53:44.160]  they provide, and she caused NAAC to submit approximately 15,672 counseling sessions to
[01:53:44.160 --> 01:53:51.200]  the state of California's NMS program, plus other related expenses resulting in payments
[01:53:51.200 --> 01:53:54.880]  to NAAC totaling 12,356,000.
[01:53:56.080 --> 01:54:00.560]  And it says the number of counseling sessions Bautista and her team submitted were
[01:54:00.560 --> 01:54:07.680]  absurdly impossible because they generally took at least one hour, and the records claim
[01:54:07.680 --> 01:54:14.560]  that one counselor conducted 35 sessions in a day and another credited with 45 sessions.
[01:54:15.280 --> 01:54:20.560]  It says that the defendants used the names of California residents from unrelated caller
[01:54:20.560 --> 01:54:25.920]  and voting lists to submit fraudulent claims for reimbursement, including a Filipino under
[01:54:25.920 --> 01:54:31.040]  50 list where defendants used nearly 200 names to support false submission.
[01:54:32.560 --> 01:54:38.160]  So it goes on and on, and I haven't read the whole thing, but it says the defendants'
[01:54:38.160 --> 01:54:45.120]  actions grossly violated their strict fiduciary duties owed to NAAC and at a more basic level
[01:54:45.120 --> 01:54:49.680]  violated the trust of the Asian American and other marginalized communities that they
[01:54:49.680 --> 01:54:50.720]  were supposed to be serving.
[01:54:50.720 --> 01:54:58.560]  So it says it's embarking on the shameless conspiracy to defraud NAAC and the state of
[01:54:58.560 --> 01:54:59.520]  California.
[01:54:59.520 --> 01:55:05.920]  The defendants profited handsomely at the expense of NNAC and the expense of California's
[01:55:05.920 --> 01:55:06.560]  taxpayers.
[01:55:07.840 --> 01:55:15.680]  So I'm wondering, you know, and hoping and thinking on how I can utilize this to my benefit
[01:55:15.680 --> 01:55:21.200]  because this is new news about her fraud, and if she was doing it in 2019, she was doing
[01:55:21.200 --> 01:55:27.600]  it from the start based on what I found, and she got handsomely rewarded for promoting
[01:55:27.600 --> 01:55:34.320]  that sale because she got an advisory position on the board of both banks plus another bank,
[01:55:34.320 --> 01:55:40.000]  and then she got a position under Mnuchin when he became Treasury Secretary.
[01:55:40.000 --> 01:55:47.520]  So she was rewarded for promoting that sale and for retaliating against those who went
[01:55:47.520 --> 01:55:48.160]  against it.
[01:55:49.440 --> 01:55:56.960]  I did contact one of the attorneys involved, but he said, well, you know, yours was in
[01:55:56.960 --> 01:56:04.880]  2015, and I'm only focused on 2019 to 2022, and I don't know that we can help because
[01:56:04.880 --> 01:56:05.600]  it's too long.
[01:56:06.240 --> 01:56:08.720]  And he said, you should consult an attorney.
[01:56:08.720 --> 01:56:11.920]  I said, well, I am, and I'm consulting you.
[01:56:11.920 --> 01:56:14.880]  I said, well, no, you should consult your own attorney.
[01:56:15.440 --> 01:56:18.240]  I said, well, I find them pretty useless most of the time.
[01:56:18.240 --> 01:56:22.320]  I'm better off doing it myself, and he laughed at that.
[01:56:22.320 --> 01:56:28.880]  So then I, you know, went away, and I contacted the NAAC directly, and one of them couldn't
[01:56:28.880 --> 01:56:33.040]  talk about it, directed me to someone else who said, oh, this is very interesting.
[01:56:33.040 --> 01:56:35.200]  Oh, yes, you could be helpful.
[01:56:35.200 --> 01:56:37.280]  Yes, I'm taking notes.
[01:56:37.280 --> 01:56:38.800]  Send me your email.
[01:56:38.800 --> 01:56:39.760]  Well, I did.
[01:56:39.760 --> 01:56:41.360]  I haven't heard a thing back.
[01:56:41.360 --> 01:56:43.680]  Sent him a reminder, nothing.
[01:56:43.680 --> 01:56:49.920]  Sent him another reminder, no response, because I did ask him for my file and all the notes
[01:56:49.920 --> 01:56:53.920]  that went back and forth between Ms. Bautista and the bank.
[01:56:54.960 --> 01:57:02.000]  So I'm thinking that the NAAC was complicit in defrauding the clients that they were
[01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:02.880]  supposed to serve.
[01:57:02.880 --> 01:57:10.800]  So what do you think?
[01:57:10.800 --> 01:57:11.760]  You've gone silent.
[01:57:12.880 --> 01:57:13.920]  Randy, are you muted?
[01:57:14.720 --> 01:57:15.920]  Yes, I was muted.
[01:57:16.560 --> 01:57:17.840]  Are you one of those clients?
[01:57:19.280 --> 01:57:20.240]  I'm still having trouble.
[01:57:20.240 --> 01:57:21.360]  You're still muffled.
[01:57:22.880 --> 01:57:28.880]  Yeah, I was one of those clients who was retaliated against because I went against what she
[01:57:28.880 --> 01:57:34.800]  wanted the sale to go through of one was the sit bank and I and other victims did not.
[01:57:35.760 --> 01:57:38.320]  So you have discovered fraud.
[01:57:39.600 --> 01:57:43.520]  Statute of limitation for fraud starts when it's discovered.
[01:57:45.120 --> 01:57:52.080]  And this is a discovery that you could not reasonably have made prior to this expose.
[01:57:53.520 --> 01:57:54.020]  Correct.
[01:57:54.020 --> 01:57:59.380]  Do you have grounds to go back in for fraud?
[01:57:59.380 --> 01:58:02.100]  I think it's awesome that they are doing this.
[01:58:02.100 --> 01:58:07.540]  But I'm trying to figure out how to, you know, bring in the NAAC or not just her.
[01:58:08.740 --> 01:58:10.500]  And maybe they have insurance.
[01:58:10.500 --> 01:58:12.820]  The NAAC would have had insurance, correct?
[01:58:13.620 --> 01:58:14.100]  Correct.
[01:58:17.380 --> 01:58:22.260]  I'm thinking about this in terms of this project I've been working on a long time,
[01:58:22.260 --> 01:58:28.180]  building questionnaires. This would be a great tool to build a questionnaire
[01:58:28.180 --> 01:58:31.220]  with for people who think they may have been defrauded in this way.
[01:58:32.900 --> 01:58:35.460]  That it would evaluate their situation.
[01:58:35.460 --> 01:58:36.020]  Hang on.
[01:58:36.020 --> 01:58:38.660]  Raina Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rudolpho Radio.
[01:58:39.700 --> 01:58:40.820]  Let's see.
[01:58:40.820 --> 01:58:43.140]  We've got one year to slot on the calling board.
[01:58:43.140 --> 01:58:46.100]  512-646-1984.
[01:58:46.100 --> 01:58:47.380]  We'll be right back.
[01:58:47.380 --> 01:58:50.820]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world,
[01:58:50.820 --> 01:58:54.820]  yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it.
[01:58:55.460 --> 01:58:59.060]  Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text,
[01:58:59.060 --> 01:59:03.140]  but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[01:59:04.020 --> 01:59:05.860]  Enter the recovery version.
[01:59:06.420 --> 01:59:10.500]  First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate,
[01:59:10.500 --> 01:59:14.900]  but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes.
[01:59:14.900 --> 01:59:18.900]  Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way,
[01:59:18.900 --> 01:59:24.180]  providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:24.820 --> 01:59:29.620]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:30.100 --> 01:59:35.620]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free
[01:59:35.620 --> 01:59:44.900]  at 1-888-551-0102, or by ordering online at freestudybible.com.
[01:59:44.900 --> 01:59:47.140]  That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:48.340 --> 01:59:50.740]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network.
[01:59:50.740 --> 02:00:06.740]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network. logosradionetwork.com