ROL_2023-07-07_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 --> 00:09.360]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.360 --> 00:10.800]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:10.800 --> 00:14.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[00:14.760 --> 00:16.860]  your First Amendment rights.
[00:16.860 --> 00:18.460]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.460 --> 00:22.060]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.060 --> 00:26.840]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.840 --> 00:32.000]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.000 --> 00:33.000]  Privacy.
[00:33.000 --> 00:34.600]  It's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.600 --> 00:38.880]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[00:38.880 --> 00:42.420]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.420 --> 00:44.720]  Start over with StartPage.
[00:44.720 --> 00:46.480]  Spar.
[00:46.480 --> 00:47.700]  It's what fighters do.
[00:47.700 --> 00:51.160]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:51.160 --> 00:54.400]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.400 --> 01:01.520]  Spar with an extra P. S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly,
[01:01.520 --> 01:02.880]  and R for religion.
[01:02.880 --> 01:06.960]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press,
[01:06.960 --> 01:08.480]  assembly, and religion.
[01:08.480 --> 01:10.840]  But petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.840 --> 01:14.560]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.560 --> 01:18.080]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out
[01:18.080 --> 01:20.720]  the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:20.720 --> 01:22.680]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:22.680 --> 01:30.800]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:30.800 --> 01:34.480]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[01:34.480 --> 01:37.920]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:37.920 --> 01:39.440]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:39.440 --> 01:43.300]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:43.300 --> 01:46.440]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:46.440 --> 01:48.020]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.020 --> 01:51.640]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:51.640 --> 01:56.400]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:56.400 --> 02:01.440]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:01.440 --> 02:04.160]  Privacy, it's worth hanging onto.
[02:04.160 --> 02:08.440]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[02:08.440 --> 02:12.000]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.000 --> 02:14.080]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:14.080 --> 02:19.920]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill
[02:19.920 --> 02:22.000]  of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[02:22.000 --> 02:26.480]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, arms
[02:26.480 --> 02:30.360]  that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[02:30.360 --> 02:31.360]  Get it?
[02:31.360 --> 02:32.360]  Two arms?
[02:32.360 --> 02:33.360]  Bear hug?
[02:33.360 --> 02:34.360]  Bear arms?
[02:34.360 --> 02:37.240]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well
[02:37.240 --> 02:38.480]  when he said,
[02:38.480 --> 02:43.420]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[02:43.420 --> 02:48.520]  one more safeguard against the tyranny, which now appears remote in America, but which historically
[02:48.520 --> 02:50.280]  has proved to always be possible.
[02:50.280 --> 02:52.160]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[02:52.160 --> 03:21.000]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[03:23.160 --> 03:49.760]  the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[03:49.760 --> 04:07.600]  one more safeguard against the tyranny, which now appears remote in America, but which
[04:07.600 --> 04:27.400]  now appears remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now
[04:27.400 --> 04:44.240]  appears remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now appears
[04:44.240 --> 04:58.640]  remote in America, but which now appears remote in America, but which now appears remote
[04:58.640 --> 05:03.640]  His answer was incredibly informative.
[05:05.100 --> 05:06.860]  I had read about Latches,
[05:06.860 --> 05:09.700]  but it didn't really make sense.
[05:09.700 --> 05:14.340]  I truly didn't, I thought I understood the difference,
[05:14.340 --> 05:17.460]  but his answer indicated that I didn't.
[05:19.460 --> 05:22.300]  Statute of limitations is obvious when it goes to.
[05:23.300 --> 05:27.020]  And Latches is similar, except Latches
[05:27.020 --> 05:32.020]  goes to, according to Dr. Graves, goes to equity.
[05:32.660 --> 05:34.500]  Well, actually, statute of limitations
[05:34.500 --> 05:38.780]  might not be obvious to all the listeners.
[05:38.780 --> 05:40.380]  Do you think it is?
[05:41.420 --> 05:44.720]  The statute of limitations has to be statutory.
[05:45.840 --> 05:47.860]  There has to be a statute that says,
[05:47.860 --> 05:50.840]  you must do a certain thing within a certain time.
[05:52.620 --> 05:56.780]  For instance, I have the woman in Arizona file suit
[05:56.780 --> 06:01.780]  against a lender over fraud that occurred in 2005.
[06:04.940 --> 06:07.780]  And the opposing party
[06:10.700 --> 06:14.780]  challenged based on statute of limitations.
[06:14.780 --> 06:19.080]  It said you only have five years in Arizona,
[06:19.080 --> 06:20.520]  it was four years for fraud.
[06:22.700 --> 06:25.380]  But in that case, because it was fraud,
[06:25.380 --> 06:29.540]  and I deliberately argued fraud specifically,
[06:29.540 --> 06:34.300]  because in fraud, you have equitable tolling.
[06:35.560 --> 06:37.940]  If the fraud was of a nature
[06:37.940 --> 06:41.580]  that the fraudulent behavior was deliberately hidden,
[06:42.940 --> 06:47.940]  then the statute of limitations is equitably told
[06:48.820 --> 06:53.820]  until the opposing party, until the injured party
[06:53.820 --> 06:56.780]  discovers the fraud.
[06:56.780 --> 07:01.140]  So it just means pause on that clock running.
[07:02.540 --> 07:06.140]  Right, tolling means it doesn't start running yet.
[07:06.140 --> 07:11.140]  If you're in a case and you ask for a continuance,
[07:11.140 --> 07:13.220]  you're right to a speedy trial.
[07:13.220 --> 07:17.100]  That clock will tolling for that amount of time
[07:17.100 --> 07:19.020]  that is delayed because of you.
[07:19.020 --> 07:24.020]  So if the person accused of committing the fraud
[07:27.260 --> 07:30.860]  has hidden the information from the person
[07:30.860 --> 07:35.260]  who was defrauded, that tolls the statute of limitations
[07:35.260 --> 07:39.500]  until the defrauded person discovers the fraud.
[07:40.380 --> 07:43.380]  So that was the statute of limitations.
[07:43.380 --> 07:45.020]  Or should have discovered, right?
[07:45.020 --> 07:47.380]  Yeah, or should have, yes.
[07:47.380 --> 07:49.820]  And that goes to equitable tolling.
[07:49.820 --> 07:54.820]  Okay, latches is where you could have taken an action,
[07:55.260 --> 07:58.860]  but you deliberately delayed in taking that action
[07:58.860 --> 08:02.100]  so as to injure the other party
[08:02.100 --> 08:04.940]  or to create more difficulty for the other party.
[08:04.940 --> 08:09.940]  Like filing an answer at the last possible moment
[08:11.700 --> 08:13.380]  when it was a simple answer
[08:13.380 --> 08:15.340]  and you could have filed it sooner,
[08:15.340 --> 08:17.940]  but you filed it at the last possible moment
[08:17.940 --> 08:22.940]  to give the other party less time to prepare.
[08:24.260 --> 08:27.820]  Right, or discovery at the last possible moment
[08:27.820 --> 08:29.860]  when they know that the other side
[08:29.860 --> 08:31.340]  is waiting on that discovery
[08:31.340 --> 08:34.580]  so that they can write their next document.
[08:36.660 --> 08:40.380]  And if I understood Dr. Graves right,
[08:40.380 --> 08:45.380]  that would be unequitable and therefore subject to latches.
[08:47.260 --> 08:49.620]  I'll have to research latches more.
[08:49.620 --> 08:52.220]  That was, I found that intriguing
[08:52.220 --> 08:57.220]  because I'm accusing prosecuting attorneys
[08:59.460 --> 09:04.460]  of generating delay in prosecutions for delay sake
[09:04.460 --> 09:09.460]  because the delay will cause a difficulty for the accused
[09:13.820 --> 09:17.940]  because they have this threat hanging over their head
[09:17.940 --> 09:21.620]  and it becomes very oppressive over time.
[09:22.940 --> 09:26.700]  And if the prosecutor is delaying specifically
[09:26.700 --> 09:29.140]  to cause this harm,
[09:29.140 --> 09:33.460]  then under Dr. Graves definition of latches,
[09:33.460 --> 09:35.820]  latches would fit this perfectly.
[09:37.180 --> 09:39.660]  And I like it because it's an argument
[09:39.660 --> 09:41.740]  I hadn't heard before.
[09:42.620 --> 09:45.060]  Well, lawyers don't wanna bring it to each other
[09:45.060 --> 09:46.100]  against each other
[09:46.100 --> 09:49.620]  because they do it to each other all the time.
[09:49.620 --> 09:50.460]  Right.
[09:50.460 --> 09:51.620]  It's normal life for them.
[09:52.980 --> 09:57.780]  They use that for something we call churning the case
[09:57.780 --> 10:02.540]  so they can charge their clients more money.
[10:04.220 --> 10:06.660]  But yeah, they do this all the time
[10:06.660 --> 10:08.900]  and delay is a primary tactic.
[10:08.900 --> 10:13.900]  It's most oppressive when the issue is a criminal complaint
[10:15.700 --> 10:18.420]  because the person's liberty is at risk
[10:19.380 --> 10:21.900]  and they have their liberty hanging in the air
[10:21.900 --> 10:25.780]  and they're generally on bail or bond
[10:25.780 --> 10:28.180]  and they're restricted at their liberty.
[10:30.220 --> 10:32.500]  So it causes harm over time
[10:32.500 --> 10:35.020]  and I've got some really good case law
[10:35.020 --> 10:38.060]  that speaks to the oppressiveness of delay
[10:38.060 --> 10:40.140]  and the purpose of the Speedy Trial Act.
[10:41.060 --> 10:44.900]  So I was arguing in the complaint that I filed,
[10:45.780 --> 10:50.780]  I argued that Barker Wingo should be distinguished.
[10:50.780 --> 10:55.780]  Under Barker Wingo, the federal courts said
[10:57.660 --> 11:02.660]  that in order to enjoy your right to a Speedy Trial,
[11:03.060 --> 11:05.540]  you have to demand your right to a Speedy Trial.
[11:07.060 --> 11:12.060]  And I didn't want to take on the feds on that issue.
[11:14.500 --> 11:18.140]  So I said the federal courts notwithstanding,
[11:18.140 --> 11:22.220]  there is nothing in the Texas constitution,
[11:23.500 --> 11:28.180]  the oath of office taken by public officials
[11:29.500 --> 11:34.500]  or Texas statute that gives any indication
[11:35.420 --> 11:38.660]  that a constitutional commandment
[11:39.620 --> 11:42.100]  can be waived by a citizen.
[11:42.100 --> 11:43.100]  Exactly.
[11:44.020 --> 11:47.700]  Yeah, I can't find anything about that anywhere.
[11:47.700 --> 11:51.140]  The public official when they took office
[11:51.140 --> 11:54.980]  swore on their oath that they would protect
[11:54.980 --> 11:58.740]  the constitution and uphold the law of the state of Texas.
[11:58.740 --> 12:01.260]  They didn't say I would protect the constitution
[12:01.260 --> 12:05.460]  when it was convenient or if I was commanded
[12:05.460 --> 12:08.660]  to by a public official, by a private citizen.
[12:10.340 --> 12:12.340]  They said they would protect the constitution.
[12:12.340 --> 12:16.340]  Now where on earth did somebody come up with the notion
[12:16.340 --> 12:20.860]  that they only had to abide by their oath of office
[12:20.860 --> 12:23.060]  and the commandments in the constitution
[12:25.260 --> 12:27.180]  if a citizen demanded it?
[12:28.580 --> 12:31.180]  And I'm saying commandments in the constitution
[12:31.180 --> 12:36.180]  because there's been a lot said over the internet
[12:36.380 --> 12:40.460]  and these forums about how the courts have said,
[12:40.460 --> 12:43.020]  don't bring the constitution into my courtroom.
[12:43.020 --> 12:48.020]  And that's because the constitution grants you nothing.
[12:49.380 --> 12:52.380]  The grand constitution does not speak to you.
[12:54.180 --> 12:57.060]  It speaks to public officials.
[12:57.060 --> 13:01.060]  So in this context, I could bring the constitution
[13:01.060 --> 13:03.420]  into the court judge's courtroom
[13:04.940 --> 13:07.700]  because I'm speaking to the constitution
[13:07.700 --> 13:09.540]  as it speaks to the public.
[13:09.540 --> 13:11.940]  It commanded you to do this thing.
[13:11.940 --> 13:12.780]  Yeah.
[13:14.300 --> 13:16.940]  So just where did you get the notion
[13:16.940 --> 13:18.740]  that you only have to do this thing
[13:18.740 --> 13:21.060]  if I demand that you do this thing?
[13:21.060 --> 13:24.740]  And this would, that was the argument that I made.
[13:24.740 --> 13:27.140]  But in support of that argument
[13:27.140 --> 13:29.580]  would be an argument for latches.
[13:30.700 --> 13:35.140]  And I'll be writing up and doing my best to brief out
[13:35.140 --> 13:38.700]  what the constitution is saying to the public.
[13:38.700 --> 13:41.660]  Brief out an argument for latches.
[13:41.660 --> 13:43.780]  When you sue these guys,
[13:43.780 --> 13:47.060]  you want to ask them questions
[13:47.060 --> 13:49.260]  that haven't been asked before.
[13:50.180 --> 13:52.860]  There's this guy, if I can remember his name,
[13:52.860 --> 13:54.580]  he does a show on Monday night.
[13:54.580 --> 13:56.500]  You remember that guy?
[13:56.500 --> 14:00.060]  Brett, real grouchy old dude.
[14:02.580 --> 14:07.140]  Eddie Craig, he specializes
[14:07.140 --> 14:10.340]  in what's called first blush issues.
[14:11.620 --> 14:13.260]  He digs deep to find them.
[14:14.580 --> 14:17.940]  Yeah, asking questions no one's asked before.
[14:19.220 --> 14:22.660]  So when counsel on the other side looks at it,
[14:22.660 --> 14:25.260]  he can't go to his files
[14:25.260 --> 14:28.500]  and pull out his ready-made brief on the subject.
[14:30.060 --> 14:32.700]  Because there are no briefs on the subject.
[14:32.700 --> 14:37.380]  Now, there may be some, yeah,
[14:37.380 --> 14:41.620]  there may be some briefs on Barker and Wingo,
[14:43.060 --> 14:45.140]  but those are federal briefs.
[14:45.140 --> 14:47.820]  Yeah, and you said federal courts not withstanding.
[14:48.820 --> 14:52.060]  Yes, I'm not making this claim
[14:52.060 --> 14:54.580]  under the federal constitution.
[14:54.580 --> 14:57.460]  I'm making this case under the state constitution.
[14:57.460 --> 15:02.460]  So I'm asking where in the state constitution
[15:02.940 --> 15:06.180]  are these privileges granted to public officials?
[15:06.180 --> 15:08.460]  Because that sticker comes up a privilege.
[15:10.020 --> 15:15.020]  Not granting due process or delaying due process.
[15:16.580 --> 15:18.500]  And it would go to laches
[15:18.500 --> 15:23.220]  and is subsequently inequitable.
[15:23.220 --> 15:28.220]  That'll be an interesting issue to bring.
[15:30.500 --> 15:32.140]  You always wanna bring them issues
[15:32.140 --> 15:33.500]  that they haven't seen before
[15:33.500 --> 15:36.700]  because lawyers at this point in history
[15:36.700 --> 15:39.020]  hate doing legal research
[15:40.660 --> 15:45.660]  because West's law in 1975 ruined the practice of law.
[15:48.100 --> 15:50.700]  Before that, you could go to an illegal encyclopedia,
[15:50.700 --> 15:53.540]  look up a keyword and get 10 or 15 cases
[15:53.540 --> 15:55.940]  that everybody used on this particular issue.
[15:57.060 --> 15:58.420]  After West's law came along,
[15:58.420 --> 16:01.100]  they said, you don't have to restrict yourself
[16:01.100 --> 16:04.660]  to those 10 or 15 measly cases.
[16:04.660 --> 16:06.900]  You can use our whiz bang tool
[16:06.900 --> 16:10.620]  and find yourself 10,000 freaking cases.
[16:11.580 --> 16:14.060]  So you can be sure that no matter
[16:14.060 --> 16:16.380]  how much research you've done,
[16:16.380 --> 16:19.940]  somebody's gonna find something you missed
[16:19.940 --> 16:22.580]  is gonna wipe the floor with you.
[16:22.580 --> 16:25.260]  So after West's law came out,
[16:25.260 --> 16:30.220]  lawyers stopped doing general practice
[16:30.220 --> 16:31.660]  and started specializing.
[16:32.980 --> 16:36.780]  That's so they could focus on one small area
[16:36.780 --> 16:39.180]  and get all the case law in that one small area.
[16:40.580 --> 16:43.140]  So he gave them a real problem
[16:44.420 --> 16:49.060]  and they do not want to do legal research
[16:49.060 --> 16:51.460]  because no matter how much legal research you do
[16:51.460 --> 16:55.700]  in this environment, you always miss something.
[16:55.700 --> 16:57.340]  And that's the worst thing a lawyer can do.
[16:57.340 --> 17:00.180]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, boy found you.
[17:00.180 --> 17:02.340]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors
[17:02.340 --> 17:05.220]  with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[17:05.220 --> 17:06.860]  Stop debt collectors now
[17:06.860 --> 17:08.980]  with the Michael Mears proven method.
[17:08.980 --> 17:11.740]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court
[17:11.740 --> 17:14.580]  against debt collectors and now you can win too.
[17:14.580 --> 17:17.340]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English
[17:17.340 --> 17:20.740]  on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[17:20.740 --> 17:24.460]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons,
[17:24.460 --> 17:26.500]  how to answer letters and phone calls,
[17:26.500 --> 17:29.100]  how to get debt collectors out of your credit report,
[17:29.100 --> 17:31.020]  how to turn the financial tables on them
[17:31.020 --> 17:33.780]  and make them pay you to go away.
[17:33.780 --> 17:36.700]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution
[17:36.700 --> 17:38.620]  for how to stop debt collectors.
[17:38.620 --> 17:40.980]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[17:40.980 --> 17:44.380]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[17:44.380 --> 17:46.660]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[17:46.660 --> 17:49.420]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[17:49.420 --> 17:51.820]  That's ruleoflawradio.com
[17:51.820 --> 17:56.820]  or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com
[17:57.260 --> 17:59.820]  to learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[18:01.740 --> 18:03.340]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer
[18:03.340 --> 18:04.900]  the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[18:04.900 --> 18:07.260]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society
[18:07.260 --> 18:09.540]  and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[18:09.540 --> 18:12.420]  then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[18:12.420 --> 18:14.260]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely
[18:14.260 --> 18:15.740]  from place to place, the right to act
[18:15.740 --> 18:17.620]  in our own private capacity and most importantly,
[18:17.620 --> 18:19.420]  the right to due process of law.
[18:19.420 --> 18:21.900]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity
[18:21.900 --> 18:24.020]  to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[18:24.020 --> 18:25.260]  through due process.
[18:25.260 --> 18:26.820]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig
[18:26.820 --> 18:28.260]  in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio
[18:28.260 --> 18:30.380]  has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool
[18:30.380 --> 18:33.020]  available that will help you understand what due process is
[18:33.020 --> 18:34.980]  and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[18:34.980 --> 18:37.100]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material
[18:37.100 --> 18:38.940]  by going to ruleoflawradio.com
[18:38.940 --> 18:40.340]  and ordering your copy today.
[18:40.340 --> 18:42.340]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book,
[18:42.340 --> 18:44.900]  The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie.
[18:44.900 --> 18:47.340]  Video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[18:47.340 --> 18:48.620]  hundreds of research documents
[18:48.620 --> 18:50.300]  and other useful resource material.
[18:50.300 --> 18:51.500]  Learn how to fight for your rights
[18:51.500 --> 18:54.260]  with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:54.260 --> 18:56.380]  Order your copy today and together we can have
[18:56.380 --> 18:58.420]  the free society we all want and deserve.
[19:01.020 --> 19:06.020]  If you are listening to the Logos Radio Network,
[19:06.020 --> 19:16.020]  logosradionetwork.com.
[19:37.020 --> 19:40.020]  The world is spinning like it's out of control
[19:40.020 --> 19:44.020]  on the edge of a hole inside a deep dark dome
[19:44.020 --> 19:50.020]  I'm always on the lookout for something to soothe my soul
[19:50.020 --> 19:56.020]  So I sit back and I watch the evidence unfold
[19:56.020 --> 20:03.020]  And I see justice is the door
[20:03.020 --> 20:10.020]  Yeah, justice is the door
[20:10.020 --> 20:13.020]  Sometimes we sail a little too far at sea
[20:13.020 --> 20:16.020]  And then we got to get back on course quickly
[20:16.020 --> 20:19.020]  So we go under heavy advisory
[20:19.020 --> 20:23.020]  From the man that came all the way from Galilee
[20:23.020 --> 20:26.020]  I was looking for a safe and warm place to be
[20:26.020 --> 20:29.020]  Where I don't have to work so hard to be free
[20:29.020 --> 20:32.020]  Some guys are trying to rewrite history
[20:32.020 --> 20:35.020]  But they got caught, now them guys got the plea
[20:35.020 --> 20:41.020]  Looks like justice
[20:41.020 --> 20:45.020]  Looks like justice
[20:45.020 --> 20:49.020]  I'm supposed to wait and let the music drop down a little bit.
[20:49.020 --> 20:51.020]  Okay, we are back.
[20:51.020 --> 20:54.020]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, ruleoflawradio.
[20:54.020 --> 20:56.020]  And we'll go over the phones in a minute.
[20:56.020 --> 20:58.020]  I have the phone lines turned on.
[20:58.020 --> 21:03.020]  I call in number 512-646-1984.
[21:03.020 --> 21:10.020]  But I'm talking about generally how to go after these guys.
[21:10.020 --> 21:19.020]  I'm talking about the politics of law and not the specific rule of law.
[21:19.020 --> 21:22.020]  You know, we say you can never expect to win your case
[21:22.020 --> 21:26.020]  Simply because you have the law and the facts on your side.
[21:26.020 --> 21:28.020]  To think so is naive.
[21:28.020 --> 21:31.020]  You can expect to win your case if you have the politics on your side.
[21:31.020 --> 21:34.020]  So here we're talking about politics.
[21:34.020 --> 21:39.020]  And what gives the lawyers grief?
[21:39.020 --> 21:47.020]  And the thing that gives them the most grief are first blush issues.
[21:47.020 --> 22:00.020]  And I'm hoping that if I argue latches as a reason to require speedy trial
[22:00.020 --> 22:05.020]  That it will be an issue they have never seen before.
[22:05.020 --> 22:10.020]  And now they have to go and read the case law.
[22:10.020 --> 22:18.020]  And so far I've found that lawyers are not good at reading case law.
[22:18.020 --> 22:21.020]  They don't have time. They don't want to bother with it.
[22:21.020 --> 22:24.020]  It doesn't make them a lot of money.
[22:24.020 --> 22:27.020]  So they want to just scoot by.
[22:27.020 --> 22:33.020]  Especially if they think they have a pro se idiot on the other end.
[22:33.020 --> 22:39.020]  So they try to scoot by and then I get to go in and look at their case law.
[22:39.020 --> 22:50.020]  And even if they argued their case law properly, I'm going to argue that they didn't.
[22:50.020 --> 22:56.020]  And accuse them of shoddy work and frivolous pleadings.
[22:56.020 --> 23:00.020]  And bar grieve them.
[23:00.020 --> 23:04.020]  I like this part.
[23:04.020 --> 23:08.020]  But generally I don't have to do that because
[23:08.020 --> 23:12.020]  so far lawyers have been really good at giving me plenty of cannon fodder.
[23:12.020 --> 23:18.020]  And all you guys thinking about fighting these cases and doing the legal research.
[23:18.020 --> 23:22.020]  It is not near as hard as you think it is.
[23:22.020 --> 23:27.020]  You think of doing legal research and you look at the law library.
[23:27.020 --> 23:33.020]  I've got this photograph of a law library in Ohio that's four stories tall.
[23:33.020 --> 23:43.020]  And you're looking down this long hall and there's four stories of lines of bookshelves full of books on all these four stories.
[23:43.020 --> 23:49.020]  And you look at all these books and say, oh my goodness, how could anybody ever learn this stuff?
[23:49.020 --> 23:55.020]  They can't. Lawyers don't try to learn all that stuff.
[23:55.020 --> 24:03.020]  They take a particular issue and focus in on that one particular issue.
[24:03.020 --> 24:07.020]  And that's not so hard.
[24:07.020 --> 24:17.020]  The hardest part is learning how to focus on a singular particular issue and not get distracted and run all over the place.
[24:17.020 --> 24:23.020]  If you read these patriot pleadings, they just go all over the place.
[24:23.020 --> 24:27.020]  But lawyers don't. They tend to focus.
[24:27.020 --> 24:36.020]  So when you go and do legal research, you're looking at something finally focused on one little point.
[24:36.020 --> 24:44.020]  And when you start reading the case law around your legal point, it doesn't take long till it begins to make sense.
[24:44.020 --> 24:55.020]  The issue you're working on. And it just takes a reasonable amount of discernment.
[24:55.020 --> 24:59.020]  And also a little bit of understanding. Yeah.
[24:59.020 --> 25:04.020]  It also takes some understanding of what is controlling law.
[25:04.020 --> 25:12.020]  Like the hierarchy of from this court to its appellate court to that appellate court and what rulings have they given.
[25:12.020 --> 25:17.020]  You have to have a little bit of understanding of what you bring to the court.
[25:17.020 --> 25:20.020]  Is it going to be controlling or is it only going to be advisory?
[25:20.020 --> 25:26.020]  Like, well, in France, they do this. Who cares? Yeah.
[25:26.020 --> 25:33.020]  And in the district court, the district court said this or the county court said that.
[25:33.020 --> 25:53.020]  Well, if it's a first plus issue, the courts are going to look at what the lower courts did and they're going to look at the case law they brought and see if and compare their reasoning to the understanding that the judge has.
[25:53.020 --> 25:57.020]  So in that regard, it's advisory.
[25:57.020 --> 26:03.020]  They say in the lower courts, we've looked at this, we've examined this issue and these are the conclusions that I came to.
[26:03.020 --> 26:12.020]  So if the judge has never seen it before, he wants to see what the lower courts determined, but it is not controlling.
[26:12.020 --> 26:18.020]  When the appellate court makes a ruling, that's controlling.
[26:18.020 --> 26:27.020]  All the district courts, all the lower courts are compelled to abide by that ruling.
[26:27.020 --> 26:42.020]  And then when the Supreme Court or in Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals, when they render a ruling, they render a ruling based on what the appellate court said.
[26:42.020 --> 26:48.020]  Then the Supreme Court's rulings become controlling.
[26:48.020 --> 26:52.020]  So it's important to know who you're citing.
[26:52.020 --> 27:07.020]  Yeah, this morning I had somebody in a state criminal case trying to cite some federal military court marshalling procedure, a document that was written for that.
[27:07.020 --> 27:12.020]  Yeah, some of the terms might be the same. Yeah, they say this many days before that has to happen.
[27:12.020 --> 27:18.020]  But no, you can't use that in a Texas case. Sorry.
[27:18.020 --> 27:33.020]  Texas judges will tell you that you can, like a Judge Shipman told me about an attorney general's opinion, that as far as he was concerned, I could use that for toilet paper.
[27:33.020 --> 27:43.020]  It was Judge Shipman, it didn't. And I told him that I hope you don't find the underlying story decisive quite so versatile.
[27:43.020 --> 27:52.020]  And there are a bunch of lawyers in the courtroom and you could hear them back there snickering.
[27:52.020 --> 27:59.020]  But yeah, that's how the judges think. So yeah, it's important that you pay close attention to who you're citing.
[27:59.020 --> 28:20.020]  Like in this case, I'm arguing the speedy trial. And the speedy trial act, even though it was overturned in the preamble to the speedy trial act, it cites Barker Ringo.
[28:20.020 --> 28:36.020]  And I'm saying that Barker Ringo notwithstanding, that Barker Ringo is a federal case and that it being cited by the legislature is an error on part of the legislature.
[28:36.020 --> 28:50.020]  They're giving Barker Ringo standing in a state court where it's not appropriate. That's why I say Barker Ringo notwithstanding.
[28:50.020 --> 29:01.020]  That there's nothing in Texas law that grants this. There's actually nothing in federal law either.
[29:01.020 --> 29:11.020]  And I did that deliberately so that the ruling would be restricted to Texas.
[29:11.020 --> 29:20.020]  So the feds can rule on my pleading strictly based on what Texas law is.
[29:20.020 --> 29:43.020]  And that's really important that you keep in mind where you're at and what rules apply. If you are in a state court and you bring a federal claim and the opposing side doesn't remove to the federal court,
[29:43.020 --> 30:02.020]  then the state court can rule on both the state law and the federal law. If it's removed to the fed and there are state issues, the fed can rule on federal law and state law. Hang on. We'll be right back.
[30:02.020 --> 30:15.020]  It's clear cell phones have changed the way we live and work, but have they negatively affected our health? I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back in just a moment with new findings about how cell phones may actually alter our brain chemistry.
[30:15.020 --> 30:25.020]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.020 --> 30:33.020]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself. Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.020 --> 30:44.020]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.020 --> 30:53.020]  Cell phones emit radio frequency energy. It's a fact. But whether it's dangerous to have a phone beaming this kind of radiation near your head has been disputed.
[30:53.020 --> 31:03.020]  Some have blamed it for brain tumors, while cell phone companies have downplayed concerns. Well, now the Journal of the American Medical Association is confirming that cell phones affect brain chemistry.
[31:03.020 --> 31:12.020]  A study of 47 volunteers showed that glucose metabolism in the area of the brain closest to the cell phone antenna increases when the cell phone is on.
[31:12.020 --> 31:21.020]  While researchers aren't sure whether this exposure causes damage, I'm not taking any chances. I always keep the phone far from my body and I use a corded headset.
[31:21.020 --> 31:25.020]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:51.020 --> 32:01.020]  There is more to the story. Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwatt.org. Why it fell, why it matters, and what you can do.
[32:01.020 --> 32:06.020]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His Word?
[32:06.020 --> 32:18.020]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[32:18.020 --> 32:25.020]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
[32:25.020 --> 32:32.020]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message.
[32:32.020 --> 32:39.020]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development.
[32:39.020 --> 32:44.020]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[32:44.020 --> 32:51.020]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[32:51.020 --> 33:15.020]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[33:21.020 --> 33:25.020]  To the head of government them, prosecute them.
[33:25.020 --> 33:29.020]  Okay.
[33:29.020 --> 33:32.020]  Who's that?
[33:32.020 --> 33:37.020]  Citizens are raised from distribution.
[33:37.020 --> 33:41.020]  Citizens are raised for dictation.
[33:41.020 --> 33:44.020]  Well I need a prosecutor to come and help me.
[33:44.020 --> 33:47.020]  Prosecute them wicked leaders, you see.
[33:47.020 --> 34:07.020]  Okay, we are back.
[34:07.020 --> 34:10.020]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Ruth La Radio.
[34:10.020 --> 34:21.020]  The call in lines are open. The call in number is 512-646-9884. We got Mark from Florida on the board, but I'm going to talk about this a little bit more.
[34:21.020 --> 34:24.020]  Maybe we'll get a couple more callers.
[34:24.020 --> 34:34.020]  But I'm not really so much talking specifically about latches or about speedy trial.
[34:34.020 --> 34:40.020]  I'm talking about how to formulate legal arguments.
[34:40.020 --> 34:43.020]  It's not so difficult.
[34:43.020 --> 34:52.020]  And once you get your focus down, you don't look at all of the law.
[34:52.020 --> 34:57.020]  And if you look in the library, you see these thousands of books, that's pretty daunting.
[34:57.020 --> 34:59.020]  But lawyers never do that.
[34:59.020 --> 35:09.020]  They focus down on one book, one case, and one shelf, and look at that, and they don't look at all the rest of this stuff.
[35:09.020 --> 35:21.020]  And when you get to that point, then you read the different arguments and logically compare them.
[35:21.020 --> 35:27.020]  Which ones lead toward the outcome you're looking for and which ones don't.
[35:27.020 --> 35:31.020]  I'm telling you guys, it is not that difficult.
[35:31.020 --> 35:39.020]  I've had people ask about templates for motions.
[35:39.020 --> 35:45.020]  And it always kind of takes me, causes me to be taken aback a little bit.
[35:45.020 --> 35:56.020]  It's frustrating that someone would ask me that question because it tells me there's something basic they don't understand about how the courts work and how motions pleadings work.
[35:56.020 --> 36:04.020]  Emotion is like a business letter.
[36:04.020 --> 36:12.020]  In a business letter, when you write a letter, you generally tell your reader what the letter is going to be about.
[36:12.020 --> 36:16.020]  You give them a little bit of an introduction.
[36:16.020 --> 36:21.020]  Now comes Randall Kelton and will show the court as follows.
[36:21.020 --> 36:24.020]  That's what mine always start with.
[36:24.020 --> 36:30.020]  Now comes Randall Kelton here to have to refer to as plaintiff or defendant and will show the court as follows.
[36:30.020 --> 36:34.020]  And then they do a brief introduction.
[36:34.020 --> 36:37.020]  And then there are some standard things.
[36:37.020 --> 36:39.020]  You list the parties.
[36:39.020 --> 36:49.020]  You list why this court has jurisdiction to be hearing your letter if it's an original petition.
[36:49.020 --> 36:52.020]  If it's a motion, you don't have to do any of that stuff.
[36:52.020 --> 36:57.020]  You just tell them, Judge, this is what I'm going to be talking about.
[36:57.020 --> 37:02.020]  Here are the facts relevant to whatever this issue is.
[37:02.020 --> 37:07.020]  Here is the law as it applies to those facts.
[37:07.020 --> 37:10.020]  Here's what I want you to do.
[37:10.020 --> 37:14.020]  And generally, here's what I want you to do.
[37:14.020 --> 37:18.020]  And here's the law that allows you to do that.
[37:18.020 --> 37:24.020]  And then you specifically ask them to do what you want them to do.
[37:24.020 --> 37:27.020]  That's my template for a motion.
[37:27.020 --> 37:31.020]  Doesn't make any difference what the content is.
[37:31.020 --> 37:34.020]  The template, the structure is always the same.
[37:34.020 --> 37:38.020]  It's just like a business letter with a different heading on it.
[37:38.020 --> 37:45.020]  Yeah, but what they're asking you for is something that they can just take your document and fill their name into a blank, sign it, and be done.
[37:45.020 --> 37:56.020]  They don't understand that they're going to have to translate from a fact set that's in their situation to put some content in there.
[37:56.020 --> 37:58.020]  And it's not hard.
[37:58.020 --> 38:05.020]  It's just like you get on the radio show and you explain to me what happened.
[38:05.020 --> 38:08.020]  That's the fact set.
[38:08.020 --> 38:15.020]  Then you tell me, well, these laws, when they did this, they violated this law and this law and this law.
[38:15.020 --> 38:19.020]  Okay, that's how you do a motion.
[38:19.020 --> 38:20.020]  Here are the facts.
[38:20.020 --> 38:23.020]  Here's the law they violated.
[38:23.020 --> 38:26.020]  Here's what they should have done.
[38:26.020 --> 38:29.020]  And Judge, you order them to do this thing.
[38:29.020 --> 38:32.020]  That's how you do motions and petitions.
[38:32.020 --> 38:43.020]  But in this conversation, I was talking about something past those basics.
[38:43.020 --> 38:46.020]  I'm talking about the politics.
[38:46.020 --> 38:50.020]  The judge is a living, breathing human being.
[38:50.020 --> 38:53.020]  He is not a machine.
[38:53.020 --> 38:58.020]  And we get people on here and say, well, the judge is supposed to do this and supposed to do that.
[38:58.020 --> 39:01.020]  And it should be like this and it ought to be like that.
[39:01.020 --> 39:04.020]  Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've got all that stuff.
[39:04.020 --> 39:10.020]  But at the end of the day, you're dealing with a human being.
[39:10.020 --> 39:22.020]  And no matter how impartial or justice minded this judge is, he may have heartburn today.
[39:22.020 --> 39:29.020]  His wife may have chewed him out this morning and he's in a bad mood.
[39:29.020 --> 39:35.020]  He may have an unreasonable expectation of you.
[39:35.020 --> 39:45.020]  He may think you're one of those patron nuts who's going to waste his time with a lot of patriot mythology.
[39:45.020 --> 39:54.020]  Guys, I can't tell you how much trouble I go to to make sure I don't use any verbage
[39:54.020 --> 40:04.020]  or any linguistic structures that will cause the judge to think I'm one of these patriot guys.
[40:04.020 --> 40:11.020]  I don't want the judge to realize that this was not written by an attorney
[40:11.020 --> 40:17.020]  until he sees at the bottom it's not signed by an attorney.
[40:17.020 --> 40:25.020]  If he realizes this wasn't written by an attorney before he gets to the bottom, I screwed up.
[40:25.020 --> 40:35.020]  And I have invoked those prejudices every lawyer has against non-lawyers.
[40:35.020 --> 40:39.020]  Anybody out there a machinist?
[40:39.020 --> 40:54.020]  I have a lathe I'm going to give to my son-in-law and I can give it to him and it's a really nice little six inch south bend tool lathe.
[40:54.020 --> 41:01.020]  But it will be of no value to him because he has no clue as to how to use it.
[41:01.020 --> 41:12.020]  That's my opinion of someone who's not a machinist because I know how complex operating a lathe is.
[41:12.020 --> 41:15.020]  There are all kinds of factors that have to be included.
[41:15.020 --> 41:21.020]  When a lawyer looks at a non-lawyer, he does the same thing.
[41:21.020 --> 41:34.020]  Even if that lawyer is a judge, probably more so if that lawyer is a judge, he realizes how much pro se individuals don't know about law.
[41:34.020 --> 41:42.020]  And whether he means to be prejudiced or not, it will invoke that prejudice.
[41:42.020 --> 41:46.020]  So do your best not to.
[41:46.020 --> 41:58.020]  If you're writing your own pleading and you're not copying what some judge has said, then you haven't done enough homework.
[41:58.020 --> 42:05.020]  Mostly in my pleadings, the only thing that I want to write are intros and outros.
[42:05.020 --> 42:10.020]  I want to introduce what a judge is going to say.
[42:10.020 --> 42:19.020]  And I want to do an outro, I want to exit one paragraph, one topic and smoothly move into the next topic
[42:19.020 --> 42:26.020]  and then fill that topic with what judges have said in cases.
[42:26.020 --> 42:31.020]  If you're writing your own pleads, you haven't done enough homework.
[42:31.020 --> 42:39.020]  And I'm an old guy. I've been studying how to write well for a very long time.
[42:39.020 --> 42:48.020]  And my library on how to write well is two eight-foot shelves of books.
[42:48.020 --> 43:01.020]  And I can tell you judges and judges clerks who write these opinions write extremely well.
[43:01.020 --> 43:09.020]  I read these case opinions and I would that I could write that well.
[43:09.020 --> 43:19.020]  So most of it's homework and your content should be content from cases.
[43:19.020 --> 43:25.020]  Now, you'll get into cases where they have some really great quotes.
[43:25.020 --> 43:34.020]  And in those places, I quote the sections like the preamble to the Open Records Act.
[43:34.020 --> 43:39.020]  Hang on.
[43:39.020 --> 43:45.020]  Gret, these breaks are coming too fast. You're going to have to do something about that.
[43:45.020 --> 43:55.020]  Hang on. See what she can do. Yeah, you tell her. I'm not going to tell her anything.
[43:55.020 --> 44:00.020]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Faust, Wheel of Love Radio.
[44:00.020 --> 44:06.020]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[44:06.020 --> 44:11.020]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we changed all that.
[44:11.020 --> 44:17.020]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[44:17.020 --> 44:22.020]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[44:22.020 --> 44:25.020]  Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[44:25.020 --> 44:31.020]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[44:31.020 --> 44:40.020]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[44:40.020 --> 44:47.020]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[44:47.020 --> 44:52.020]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[44:52.020 --> 44:59.020]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[44:59.020 --> 45:01.020]  Order now.
[45:01.020 --> 45:04.020]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.020 --> 45:15.020]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy-to-understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:15.020 --> 45:23.020]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.020 --> 45:28.020]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.020 --> 45:34.020]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.020 --> 45:43.020]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.020 --> 45:52.020]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.020 --> 46:01.020]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:22.020 --> 46:27.020]  Thank you for watching.
[46:52.020 --> 46:58.020]  OK, we are back.
[46:58.020 --> 47:09.020]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking about how to craft motions in Phoenix and how to write legal documents.
[47:09.020 --> 47:12.020]  There's no mystery to it.
[47:12.020 --> 47:24.020]  You're just trying to write a convincing letter. There are some requirements in a motion, and the most important requirement is the prayer.
[47:24.020 --> 47:34.020]  And when I use the word prayer, a lot of the patriot guys start hopping up and down and saying that that's sacrilegious.
[47:34.020 --> 47:39.020]  Some judges say, no, no, no, guys, wrong definition of prayer.
[47:39.020 --> 47:44.020]  This is old. This is taken from old English.
[47:44.020 --> 47:49.020]  And in old English, prayer means to ask.
[47:49.020 --> 47:53.020]  I pray thee. I ask thee.
[47:53.020 --> 47:57.020]  And actually, when it's used in religion, it's the same thing.
[47:57.020 --> 48:02.020]  You're praying to God. You're asking God for something.
[48:02.020 --> 48:12.020]  So in this case, you're not praying to God. You're praying to the judge and you're simply asking him to do something.
[48:12.020 --> 48:17.020]  In legal parlance, it's called moving the court.
[48:17.020 --> 48:23.020]  I had someone give me a lawsuit that was filed against him over a credit card issue.
[48:23.020 --> 48:28.020]  And I read it over and I told him, well, they don't have a prayer.
[48:28.020 --> 48:31.020]  He said, well, why not?
[48:31.020 --> 48:35.020]  I told him, I don't know. They don't have one.
[48:35.020 --> 48:41.020]  They wrote this suit telling you what a dirty, rotten, deadbeat scoundrel you are.
[48:41.020 --> 48:47.020]  But they didn't enter a prayer. They didn't ask the judge to do anything.
[48:47.020 --> 48:57.020]  And in emotion or pleading, the judge cannot generally act on his own.
[48:57.020 --> 49:09.020]  You must ask him to do something. By asking him to do something, you invoke his authority to do that.
[49:09.020 --> 49:12.020]  It's not his place to act on his own.
[49:12.020 --> 49:22.020]  So these guys told the court what a deadbeat this guy was, but they didn't ask the court to do anything, so they didn't have a prayer.
[49:22.020 --> 49:27.020]  So you gotta have a prayer. That's the one thing that always must be in there.
[49:27.020 --> 49:38.020]  You do all of your explanation as to why the law says he can do this and why it's equitable for him to do this.
[49:38.020 --> 49:44.020]  And then you have to specifically ask him to do that. That gives you emotion or plea.
[49:44.020 --> 49:56.020]  One thing that I was noticing that I didn't really pick up on at first is that some motions need to be sworn, and others don't.
[49:56.020 --> 50:05.020]  Now, the general rule, I guess, rule of thumb, if you're bringing facts to the court that are not already before the court,
[50:05.020 --> 50:19.020]  you can't just say a judicial notice, hey, such-and-such a hearing was held, or you can't give the court judicial notice that the other side is unrepresented,
[50:19.020 --> 50:22.020]  or whatever it is that's really obvious like that, indisputable.
[50:22.020 --> 50:28.020]  You're bringing some new fact to the court, and you're asking the court to believe you, and you need to swear it.
[50:28.020 --> 50:39.020]  You need to put that under penalty of perjury, go to a notary public, and instead of having just a regular verification or acknowledgement of your signature at the bottom,
[50:39.020 --> 50:49.020]  you're going to have a jurat, a little chunk down there that says that you swore to this when you signed your name before the notary public.
[50:49.020 --> 50:54.020]  So just pay attention to that, too, with your motions and pleadings. It might need to be one that's sworn.
[50:54.020 --> 51:04.020]  And sometimes it says in the statute or in the rules, it'll say that upon sworn motion. So go ahead and do that.
[51:04.020 --> 51:10.020]  Motion for continuance must always be sworn. It's in the statute.
[51:10.020 --> 51:23.020]  Rule of thumb, if you file a motion with a jurat that doesn't need to be sworn, doesn't hurt anything.
[51:23.020 --> 51:25.020]  Yeah.
[51:25.020 --> 51:38.020]  So if there's any question at all, get it notarized or get it sworn to. It's more than a notary, a verification.
[51:38.020 --> 51:48.020]  Verification is where the notary says, I know who this guy is. I identified him using this identification.
[51:48.020 --> 52:02.020]  A jurat, a sworn testimony, is where the jurat says, I swear on my oath that all facts are of my personal knowledge,
[52:02.020 --> 52:11.020]  and they're true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. And you swear that under oath.
[52:11.020 --> 52:21.020]  Like when you file documents, like government documents or stuff, when you sign a contract, that needs to be verified.
[52:21.020 --> 52:32.020]  And that's just so the notary makes sure that you are the person you're claiming to be.
[52:32.020 --> 52:38.020]  But if you're giving facts to the court, you need that extra step of sworn under oath.
[52:38.020 --> 52:44.020]  So if there's any questions, put in the jurat and you'll never have a problem.
[52:44.020 --> 52:51.020]  But the whole point of this whole thing was it's not that hard to write a motion or pleading.
[52:51.020 --> 53:00.020]  I was thinking of what are things that doesn't have to be sworn. If I asked for sanctions against the other side,
[53:00.020 --> 53:06.020]  and I complained that he did things in court and those things he did were improper, that doesn't need to be sworn.
[53:06.020 --> 53:14.020]  Because all the facts that I'm speaking to are already before the court. So that wouldn't need to be sworn.
[53:14.020 --> 53:24.020]  But anyway, I guess I'll finish this up on how to write legal pleadings. Just tell the court what you want.
[53:24.020 --> 53:34.020]  Tell the court what the facts are relating to what you want, what the law is as it relates to those facts
[53:34.020 --> 53:46.020]  that gives the judge the power to give you what you want. Then ask him, ask the judge to give you what you want.
[53:46.020 --> 53:58.020]  That's basically how it's done. But the politics is you want to ask the lawyer on the other side questions
[53:58.020 --> 54:05.020]  that he's not going to want to answer or she's not going to want to answer. You want to force the lawyer
[54:05.020 --> 54:16.020]  on the other side to do legal research. Because the nature of legal research now is like Russian roulette.
[54:16.020 --> 54:25.020]  I was talking to the second in command North Carolina bar about how Westlaw had ruined the practice of law.
[54:25.020 --> 54:33.020]  And I asked her, generally, how many cases do you have to go through to find that first case on point?
[54:33.020 --> 54:40.020]  And she said, like every other lawyer did, 50 to 100. They don't have to read the whole case,
[54:40.020 --> 54:46.020]  but they do some word searches on it to see if it hits on their particular issues.
[54:46.020 --> 54:53.020]  Have you ever sworn a motion or pleading, no matter how much research you've done, that you were comfortable
[54:53.020 --> 55:01.020]  that Jack Legg on the other side didn't find a case that you missed and is going to wipe the floor with you?
[55:01.020 --> 55:12.020]  She said the same thing every other lawyer said, never. That's the reality in the legal profession today.
[55:12.020 --> 55:23.020]  Now, proceeds and ordinary people don't realize what is most concerning to lawyers.
[55:23.020 --> 55:36.020]  The worst thing a lawyer can do is misquote law. The second worst thing a lawyer can do is miss something.
[55:36.020 --> 55:41.020]  But worse than missing something is misquoting law.
[55:41.020 --> 55:49.020]  So lawyers have got to the point to where they don't want to do legal research. It's too dangerous.
[55:49.020 --> 55:56.020]  It can cause them all kinds of grief. And there is so much case law out there.
[55:56.020 --> 56:06.020]  And this ready access to an absolute bottomless pit of case law, they can never be certain that they haven't missed something.
[56:06.020 --> 56:15.020]  So if they go in there and the lawyer on the other side found something this lawyer missed and wipes the floor with the lawyer,
[56:15.020 --> 56:22.020]  then he's likely to get hammered not only by his client, but also the judge.
[56:22.020 --> 56:32.020]  Being a lawyer is hard. And I don't blame lawyers for not wanting to do research.
[56:32.020 --> 56:40.020]  But since I'm a pro se, I get leeway that the lawyer doesn't.
[56:40.020 --> 56:50.020]  I can misquote law and it may annoy the judge. But since I'm pro se, too bad. All he can do is rule against me.
[56:50.020 --> 56:55.020]  The lawyer on the other side, underhand, he can get sanctioned.
[56:55.020 --> 57:06.020]  And lawyers think that judges will sanction them at the drop of the hat. They don't, but lawyers are afraid they will.
[57:06.020 --> 57:14.020]  So lawyers, when they're in law school, the law school doesn't teach them that when you get out of law school,
[57:14.020 --> 57:22.020]  get into practice, you're going to spend the rest of your professional career kissing some arrogant judges' behinds.
[57:22.020 --> 57:32.020]  They don't tell them that part, but that is the reality. You don't see lawyers going in there risking annoying the judge.
[57:32.020 --> 57:42.020]  Me, I don't care if I annoy the judge because I have powers and abilities that a lawyer doesn't have.
[57:42.020 --> 57:50.020]  I can hammer that judge all I want to. I'm not in here dangling by my bar card.
[57:50.020 --> 57:59.020]  So we have fun. Yeah, I have a great time, especially when I pick the fight.
[57:59.020 --> 58:08.020]  So don't be afraid of legal research. It's not that hard. It just it takes a bit of mental discipline.
[58:08.020 --> 58:15.020]  You have to get your your accusatory terms.
[58:15.020 --> 58:22.020]  I want to say, Judge, not that you be not judged. Get those judgmental terms out of there.
[58:22.020 --> 58:27.020]  And only give the law, the judge, facts and law.
[58:27.020 --> 58:33.020]  Don't tell the judge what a scoundrel the opponent is. Show him what a scoundrel he is.
[58:33.020 --> 58:38.020]  Let the judge come to that conclusion. Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio.
[58:38.020 --> 58:46.020]  Our call in number 512-646-1984. We've only got one caller on the board, so we've got a lot of room.
[58:46.020 --> 58:50.020]  If you have a question or comment, give us a call. We'll be right there.
[58:50.020 --> 58:54.020]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.020 --> 59:01.020]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that can really help.
[59:01.020 --> 59:06.020]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available today.
[59:06.020 --> 59:13.020]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.020 --> 59:18.020]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.020 --> 59:24.020]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan of salvation,
[59:24.020 --> 59:28.020]  growing in Christ and how to build up the Church.
[59:28.020 --> 59:34.020]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian Life,
[59:34.020 --> 59:45.020]  call Bibles for America toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102.
[59:45.020 --> 59:49.020]  Or visit us online at bfa.org.
[59:49.020 --> 59:54.020]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:01.020 --> 01:00:05.020]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:00:05.020 --> 01:00:10.020]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:00:10.020 --> 01:00:16.020]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:16.020 --> 01:00:22.020]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:22.020 --> 01:00:27.020]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:27.020 --> 01:00:32.020]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:32.020 --> 01:00:35.020]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:00:35.020 --> 01:00:38.020]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:00:38.020 --> 01:00:42.020]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:00:42.020 --> 01:00:46.020]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:46.020 --> 01:00:51.020]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed. They pull back the covers and find a third party there.
[01:00:51.020 --> 01:00:54.020]  He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight.
[01:00:54.020 --> 01:01:00.020]  That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the Third Amendment was designed to prevent.
[01:01:00.020 --> 01:01:06.020]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, a common demand in the days of our founding fathers.
[01:01:06.020 --> 01:01:09.020]  Third party? Third Amendment? Get it?
[01:01:09.020 --> 01:01:13.020]  So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging,
[01:01:13.020 --> 01:01:17.020]  tell them to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and re-read the Third Amendment.
[01:01:17.020 --> 01:01:31.020]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:31.020 --> 01:01:35.020]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:01:35.020 --> 01:01:40.020]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it.
[01:01:40.020 --> 01:01:46.020]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:46.020 --> 01:01:52.020]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.020 --> 01:01:57.020]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.020 --> 01:02:02.020]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.020 --> 01:02:05.020]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:05.020 --> 01:02:08.020]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[01:02:08.020 --> 01:02:12.020]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:02:12.020 --> 01:02:16.020]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:16.020 --> 01:02:22.020]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of x-ray goggles.
[01:02:22.020 --> 01:02:27.020]  That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
[01:02:27.020 --> 01:02:31.020]  Fourth Amendment? Four eyes staring at you? Get it?
[01:02:31.020 --> 01:02:35.020]  Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of security.
[01:02:35.020 --> 01:02:40.020]  Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing.
[01:02:40.020 --> 01:02:44.020]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause,
[01:02:44.020 --> 01:02:47.020]  I say it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells.
[01:02:47.020 --> 01:02:54.020]  Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights and use their googly eyes to take a gander at the Fourth.
[01:02:54.020 --> 01:03:01.020]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:24.020 --> 01:03:29.020]  Thank you for watching!
[01:03:54.020 --> 01:03:59.020]  Thank you for watching!
[01:04:24.020 --> 01:04:29.020]  Thank you for watching!
[01:04:29.020 --> 01:04:54.780]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Randy Carlton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio on the seventh day of July
[01:04:54.780 --> 01:05:05.500]  2023. And we're going to Mark in Florida. Mark, what do you have for us today?
[01:05:05.500 --> 01:05:10.260]  Hi, Randy. Hi, Brett. Good evening.
[01:05:10.260 --> 01:05:23.340]  Hi. So my case is the case against, we started it, I filed it in state against three of my
[01:05:23.340 --> 01:05:30.700]  employers or the people, three of the men and women of my employer who fired me and my union
[01:05:30.700 --> 01:05:38.320]  representative for implementing this policy that I did not agree with and I refused to
[01:05:38.320 --> 01:05:47.500]  comply with. They immediately removed federal court and you said, oh, they're going to file
[01:05:47.500 --> 01:05:57.620]  12b6. They filed 12b6 or they sent the judge a letter, which is required by this judge
[01:05:57.620 --> 01:06:05.460]  with their reasoning for this 12b6 motion. And that was very, very helpful to me. And
[01:06:05.460 --> 01:06:11.540]  then we had a phone conference on Wednesday about it and I ordered these very extensive
[01:06:11.540 --> 01:06:19.140]  transcripts, but I'm glad I did because that was very helpful. It's like you said, in their
[01:06:19.140 --> 01:06:27.180]  motion they're telling me what's wrong with my complaint. And that's been really, really
[01:06:27.180 --> 01:06:34.460]  helpful. But it's, and I was planning on filing a motion to remand and the judge worked out
[01:06:34.460 --> 01:06:42.020]  a schedule for all that when they're due. He extended the time in between for opposing
[01:06:42.020 --> 01:06:46.940]  motions and all that. So it's, I think maybe partially because it's summer and partially
[01:06:46.940 --> 01:06:56.460]  because I'm pro se, but in any event, I've realized for all this that I'm leaning towards
[01:06:56.460 --> 01:07:05.300]  amending my complaint after my opponent filed their 12b6 motion. So I have some questions
[01:07:05.300 --> 01:07:10.940]  surrounding that because I never expected to find myself in federal court. And the reasons
[01:07:10.940 --> 01:07:20.340]  why they removed it are pretty tight. They're pretty tough. Unlike, I think what I've read
[01:07:20.340 --> 01:07:29.220]  about a lot of 12b6 motions not working, there are three areas of federal law where it seems
[01:07:29.220 --> 01:07:34.900]  that the defendants can not only remove it to federal court, but then pretty easily get
[01:07:34.900 --> 01:07:44.900]  to complain the causes of action dismissed because on their face, if they were supposed
[01:07:44.900 --> 01:07:53.420]  to be federal issues to begin with, on their face, they don't state a cause of action.
[01:07:53.420 --> 01:07:55.060]  Because they should have been federal claims-
[01:07:55.060 --> 01:08:05.260]  Hold on, hold on, hold on. Do the claims go to things that the party was required to do
[01:08:05.260 --> 01:08:16.020]  and did not do? What I'm speaking to is due process.
[01:08:16.020 --> 01:08:24.220]  My claims were state law, state tort law claims, interference with a contract, a concert of
[01:08:24.220 --> 01:08:25.220]  action-
[01:08:25.220 --> 01:08:31.100]  Yeah. Well, it sounds like you brought all the claims, all the elements that you needed
[01:08:31.100 --> 01:08:35.780]  to for those claims, but they're trying to con you into calling it a different kind
[01:08:35.780 --> 01:08:42.140]  of claim, which you didn't properly bring. Because if they try to shift it over and call
[01:08:42.140 --> 01:08:47.620]  it, what was it, APA or something for your, I don't know, you had an acronym you were
[01:08:47.620 --> 01:08:57.460]  telling us about that was, oh, collective bargaining agreement, CBA. So if you let them
[01:08:57.460 --> 01:09:06.180]  force it into that mold, then yeah, it makes sense that you didn't state the claim sufficiently.
[01:09:06.180 --> 01:09:07.180]  So yeah.
[01:09:07.180 --> 01:09:11.020]  And I see the con game. I see what they're doing.
[01:09:11.020 --> 01:09:12.020]  Exactly.
[01:09:12.020 --> 01:09:20.580]  So what you want to do is force them to lay all their cards on the table. And that's what
[01:09:20.580 --> 01:09:25.420]  these motions and pleadings are about. You make all of your arguments, even if you don't
[01:09:25.420 --> 01:09:33.340]  think they will stand and let them argue against them, let them do their homework, let them
[01:09:33.340 --> 01:09:39.980]  craft the pleadings. They will tell you everything you need to know to beat them.
[01:09:39.980 --> 01:09:42.020]  Yeah.
[01:09:42.020 --> 01:09:51.060]  It has been my experience that these lawyers do a horrible job. They're so accustomed to
[01:09:51.060 --> 01:10:02.420]  lawyers granting other lawyers the leeway. There are things lawyers don't do to lawyers.
[01:10:02.420 --> 01:10:08.100]  Because they're all part of the, today they're against each other. Tomorrow they'll be together
[01:10:08.100 --> 01:10:16.380]  on a case against somebody else. So they're not gonna alienate themselves from one another.
[01:10:16.380 --> 01:10:26.420]  You are on a whole different playing field. You get them to tell you how to beat them.
[01:10:26.420 --> 01:10:30.940]  I like the idea of it going to federal court. I helped a woman file in the state court and
[01:10:30.940 --> 01:10:35.620]  I told her, as soon as we file this, they're gonna remove it to the Fed.
[01:10:35.620 --> 01:10:41.860]  And if you file pro se in the Fed, I like to do that, because then the federal court
[01:10:41.860 --> 01:10:50.380]  is gonna critique your pleading for you. Brett, you remember Martichet calling in complaining
[01:10:50.380 --> 01:10:58.420]  about the federal court throwing out and dismissing his claim. And we told him, read that judgment
[01:10:58.420 --> 01:11:05.180]  carefully. And he came back and he said, you were right. They told me exactly what was
[01:11:05.180 --> 01:11:08.380]  wrong with my suit and what I needed to do to fix it.
[01:11:08.380 --> 01:11:14.380]  Well, that's what I want them to do. When the Fed itself tells you what's wrong with
[01:11:14.380 --> 01:11:22.300]  your suit and what you need to do to fix it, and you do that, then you're not gonna have
[01:11:22.300 --> 01:11:29.340]  a problem from the Feds because you're only addressing what they told you needed to be
[01:11:29.340 --> 01:11:34.100]  addressed and you're addressing exactly what they want you to.
[01:11:34.100 --> 01:11:38.620]  So that makes your job a lot easier. When the other side files a motion or a pleading,
[01:11:38.620 --> 01:11:46.420]  the first thing you wanna do is look at their case law. Call up each case and then check
[01:11:46.420 --> 01:11:57.380]  it careful. Invariably, they misapply cases. They misstate the rulings. They try to twist
[01:11:57.380 --> 01:12:00.260]  the rulings to say what they wanted to say.
[01:12:00.260 --> 01:12:11.100]  They would never. I know, that's a scurrilous lie. Shame on me, bad Randy, bad Randy. But
[01:12:11.100 --> 01:12:18.780]  that's their job. They're word crafters. It's their job to take that case and try to twist
[01:12:18.780 --> 01:12:21.460]  it to say what they wanted to say.
[01:12:21.460 --> 01:12:31.540]  Well, lawyers don't beat up other lawyers for that, but you're not a lawyer. You can
[01:12:31.540 --> 01:12:39.620]  beat them up for that all you want to. And like I was saying in the last hour, the worst
[01:12:39.620 --> 01:12:48.660]  thing a lawyer could do is misstate case law. That gets judges real excited real fast. And
[01:12:48.660 --> 01:12:54.740]  if you accuse them of misapplying the case law, you're gonna get the judge's attention.
[01:12:54.740 --> 01:13:01.880]  Because he does not wanna make a ruling on this lawyer's explanation of the case law
[01:13:01.880 --> 01:13:06.900]  and have the court of appeals tell the judge, what were you thinking?
[01:13:06.900 --> 01:13:12.640]  That case doesn't say this at all. Now the judge is embarrassed. You do not want the
[01:13:12.640 --> 01:13:21.500]  judge embarrassed. So you wanna attack their case law first. Ben Drumm gets called us.
[01:13:21.500 --> 01:13:31.380]  He's got two cases cited by the IRS that obliterated his position. And we told him, read the cases.
[01:13:31.380 --> 01:13:38.620]  He called back two weeks later, chuckling. And he said that the sections they quoted
[01:13:38.620 --> 01:13:46.780]  was in the headnote. And it made this statement. And then in the case it said, this is what
[01:13:46.780 --> 01:13:52.900]  the law used to say. And the case we were reading distinguished the law and changed
[01:13:52.900 --> 01:14:01.980]  it to the opposite. He used those same two cases and came back and filed a motion showing
[01:14:01.980 --> 01:14:10.500]  how they misstated the case law and a district judge struck down an IRS lien.
[01:14:10.500 --> 01:14:19.620]  That almost never happens. But the judge was absolutely furious at them for giving him
[01:14:19.620 --> 01:14:26.620]  bad case law. Another judge reinstated the lien later. But the judge cut some buttons
[01:14:26.620 --> 01:14:32.140]  off these lawyer's shirts for giving him bad case law. That's the worst thing they can
[01:14:32.140 --> 01:14:38.740]  do. So you wanna accuse them of it, whether they did it or not. This is all politics at
[01:14:38.740 --> 01:14:42.720]  this point.
[01:14:42.720 --> 01:14:48.140]  You want the judge upset at them. You want them, you wanna bar-grieve both of them, any
[01:14:48.140 --> 01:14:53.940]  lawyers just over there bar-grieve them. Bar-grieve the whole law firm. Just start laying it on
[01:14:53.940 --> 01:15:01.700]  thick. At some point, they're gonna have to come to a settlement conference. Make me a
[01:15:01.700 --> 01:15:03.580]  deal, guys.
[01:15:03.580 --> 01:15:10.940]  Even in this pre-conference, that pre-motion conference, which was on the record, one of
[01:15:10.940 --> 01:15:23.260]  the attorneys for the second time misstated a critical line item from the part of my contract.
[01:15:23.260 --> 01:15:34.940]  Okay, hold on, on the break. Dr. Joe, he's on the collar bridge. He asked me to explain
[01:15:34.940 --> 01:15:44.220]  sanctions, how to get sanctions. This is how to get sanctions. Catch the lawyer lying
[01:15:44.220 --> 01:15:45.220]  to the judge.
[01:15:45.220 --> 01:15:48.180]  Yeah, that's a big one.
[01:15:48.180 --> 01:16:02.140]  You said misstate. That's too wishy-washy. This is a professional legal word crafter.
[01:16:02.140 --> 01:16:09.460]  Yeah, that's what he says about his buddy. He'll say, oh, he misstated.
[01:16:09.460 --> 01:16:19.220]  Yeah, like it was an oops. It was no oops. It was intentional. He didn't misstate. He
[01:16:19.220 --> 01:16:20.940]  lied like a dog.
[01:16:20.940 --> 01:16:26.740]  Yeah, so what I did when an attorney was doing that in court, I turned around and sued him
[01:16:26.740 --> 01:16:35.260]  in federal court for 15 counts of aggravated perjury, depriving me of my right to due process.
[01:16:35.260 --> 01:16:40.260]  I have an inherent right to due process. The Constitution's protected, and he's over here
[01:16:40.260 --> 01:16:48.940]  committing crimes to deprive me of my right. Well, I know he didn't see that coming. Now
[01:16:48.940 --> 01:16:55.980]  he's having to not only do his little silly dance in one court, but two. Hold on just
[01:16:55.980 --> 01:17:00.100]  a second. We have to go to sponsors and we'll be right back.
[01:17:00.100 --> 01:17:05.420]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[01:17:05.420 --> 01:17:09.820]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method. Michael Mears has won
[01:17:09.820 --> 01:17:15.420]  six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you can win two. You'll get step-by-step
[01:17:15.420 --> 01:17:20.700]  instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes,
[01:17:20.700 --> 01:17:25.420]  what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer letters and
[01:17:25.420 --> 01:17:29.900]  phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial
[01:17:29.900 --> 01:17:33.620]  tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.620 --> 01:17:38.740]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal
[01:17:38.740 --> 01:17:44.140]  consultation is available as well. For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com
[01:17:44.140 --> 01:17:49.420]  and click on the blue Michael Mears banner, or email michaelmears at yahoo.com. That's
[01:17:49.420 --> 01:17:58.940]  ruleoflawradio.com, or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com to learn how to stop debt collectors
[01:17:58.940 --> 01:17:59.940]  now.
[01:17:59.940 --> 01:18:04.780]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm
[01:18:04.780 --> 01:18:08.660]  so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fixed. I'd
[01:18:08.660 --> 01:18:13.580]  be lost without Logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love
[01:18:13.580 --> 01:18:17.060]  to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't have
[01:18:17.060 --> 01:18:21.740]  any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos?
[01:18:21.740 --> 01:18:26.740]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos.
[01:18:26.740 --> 01:18:31.340]  When ordering your supplies or holiday gifts, the first thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:18:31.340 --> 01:18:38.140]  Now go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now when
[01:18:38.140 --> 01:18:43.420]  you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, and Logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:43.420 --> 01:18:44.420]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.420 --> 01:18:45.420]  No.
[01:18:45.420 --> 01:18:47.020]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:47.020 --> 01:18:48.020]  No.
[01:18:48.020 --> 01:18:49.020]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:49.020 --> 01:18:50.020]  No.
[01:18:50.020 --> 01:18:51.020]  I mean, yes.
[01:18:51.020 --> 01:18:56.660]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[01:18:56.660 --> 01:18:58.540]  We are welcome.
[01:18:58.540 --> 01:19:27.660]  Happy Holidays, Logos.
[01:19:28.540 --> 01:19:58.460]  Okay. We are back in the Celtic. Brett's out in the wheeler's road.
[01:19:58.460 --> 01:20:05.380]  We're talking to Mark in Florida about sanctions. Dr. Joe had asked me for examples of when
[01:20:05.380 --> 01:20:11.900]  you get sanctions. The best thing that will get you sanctions is something that will embarrass
[01:20:11.900 --> 01:20:21.220]  the judge. What will embarrass the judge is relying on case law or relying on statements
[01:20:21.220 --> 01:20:31.220]  of fact or law from a lawyer that are incorrect or off point, so that if it gets appealed,
[01:20:31.220 --> 01:20:37.140]  the appellate court checks his pleadings and says, what are you bringing me this crap for?
[01:20:37.140 --> 01:20:45.540]  This is all wrong. The judge gets overturned, and that goes on his record. They keep a record
[01:20:45.540 --> 01:20:53.540]  of how often he's overturned. And if you're a lawyer and you spout some bad case law and
[01:20:53.540 --> 01:21:02.020]  the judge relies on your case law and he gets overturned, he is not gonna be a happy camper.
[01:21:02.020 --> 01:21:08.540]  Or if you do something that could potentially put him in that place, he is not gonna be
[01:21:08.540 --> 01:21:16.700]  a happy camper. And depending on how egregious it is, or how much you have got the judge
[01:21:16.700 --> 01:21:21.460]  annoyed already, he may give sanctions.
[01:21:21.460 --> 01:21:26.500]  But it's all politics. You have to get the judge PO'd at the lawyer. You have to get
[01:21:26.500 --> 01:21:34.540]  past this camaraderie that they have. And case law, attacking the case law is the best
[01:21:34.540 --> 01:21:39.380]  way to get at them. Does that make sense, Mark?
[01:21:39.380 --> 01:21:47.220]  Okay, yes, it does. And I looked into bar grieving her. And then I saw that Dr. Graves
[01:21:47.220 --> 01:21:52.260]  had a cautionary note about it because you don't wanna get a, I didn't know how bad this
[01:21:52.260 --> 01:21:59.700]  was. Although I was shocked when it happened because she had already written that in her
[01:21:59.700 --> 01:22:06.940]  letter, her pre-motion conference letter to the judge. And I had already corrected it
[01:22:06.940 --> 01:22:12.460]  in my pre-motion letter to the judge, which the judge hadn't received yet, but the lawyers
[01:22:12.460 --> 01:22:18.900]  had. They had big audits five days before the conference. So I knew that she should
[01:22:18.900 --> 01:22:25.340]  have read my letter and she should have known. So then she said it on the record in the conference.
[01:22:25.340 --> 01:22:31.540]  I was amazed, but I think that maybe sanctioning her is a better way to go because even though
[01:22:31.540 --> 01:22:39.740]  the judge was as cool as a cucumber, I could sense that he was not happy about that.
[01:22:39.740 --> 01:22:52.980]  Good. So as soon as you get there any pleadings from him, read them carefully, take them apart
[01:22:52.980 --> 01:23:01.420]  piece by piece. And I go, you don't have to read the whole case. I like case text. Case
[01:23:01.420 --> 01:23:09.260]  text works best for me. I'll go in there and put in my keywords and it'll drop you in the
[01:23:09.260 --> 01:23:14.540]  case to where they're talking about the issue you wanna talk about. So you don't have to
[01:23:14.540 --> 01:23:21.580]  read the whole case. You can pretty well go to the points that you're looking for. And
[01:23:21.580 --> 01:23:31.540]  when they cite a case and the case is ruling depends on other cases, go check those other
[01:23:31.540 --> 01:23:38.900]  cases. Have you ever heard the term rights belong to the belligerent litigant?
[01:23:38.900 --> 01:23:41.580]  No, I haven't.
[01:23:41.580 --> 01:23:48.860]  Okay. In legal reform, that's been a real common saying and it's Johnson v. State. And
[01:23:48.860 --> 01:23:53.820]  it says that, but it attributes that to two other cases. I don't remember what their
[01:23:53.820 --> 01:23:58.980]  names were, but I pulled up Johnson v. State and I looked up belligerent litigant and it
[01:23:58.980 --> 01:24:05.420]  dropped right down and I found it. And it said rights belong to the belligerent litigant
[01:24:05.420 --> 01:24:12.620]  C and it had two cases. So I looked at those two cases. There wasn't anything about belligerent
[01:24:12.620 --> 01:24:21.300]  litigant in either one of them.
[01:24:21.300 --> 01:24:31.700]  And then there's a max legal maxim that says when all judges are disqualified, none are
[01:24:31.700 --> 01:24:40.460]  disqualified. And that's what I'd heard for years. I looked that up and I found a case
[01:24:40.460 --> 01:24:52.860]  and it cited a case in 1910. And I went to that case and it did not say anything about
[01:24:52.860 --> 01:24:53.860]  that.
[01:24:53.860 --> 01:25:00.580]  Actually, I found three cases that referenced the maximum when all are disqualified, none
[01:25:00.580 --> 01:25:07.740]  are disqualified. And they all cited that exact same case. So I went to that case, didn't
[01:25:07.740 --> 01:25:14.940]  say anything about it. If they have cited the case and you find something like that,
[01:25:14.940 --> 01:25:24.020]  oh, the judge is not going to be a happy camper. And these lawyers never dig past the first
[01:25:24.020 --> 01:25:34.660]  sightings. So check them carefully. And with the internet now, you can pull up a case and
[01:25:34.660 --> 01:25:46.180]  check it very quickly. Lawyers, they seem to have not learned to do that yet. If you
[01:25:46.180 --> 01:25:54.340]  read my pleadings, when I cite a case, I go to that case and find the section that it's
[01:25:54.340 --> 01:26:01.580]  referring to and I quote it right underneath where I cite the case. In this suit I just
[01:26:01.580 --> 01:26:11.020]  filed, I've got some places where the citation referenced the case. And so I always make
[01:26:11.020 --> 01:26:18.740]  my quotations, I shrink the margins a half inch on each side and shrink the font two
[01:26:18.740 --> 01:26:28.020]  points, set it in italics and no spacing between the lines so it packs it together. So visually,
[01:26:28.020 --> 01:26:33.380]  you can see where the quotation starts and ends. But when one of those cases cites another
[01:26:33.380 --> 01:26:40.660]  case, then I quote it right underneath it, except I end in at an extra half inch.
[01:26:40.660 --> 01:26:45.140]  So I've got a quotation and then I've got a quotation and a quotation. And visually,
[01:26:45.140 --> 01:26:53.820]  it's really easy to separate those. So I've got a couple of arguments on speedy trial
[01:26:53.820 --> 01:27:01.420]  where I go about six cases back. This case cites this case, cites this case, cites this
[01:27:01.420 --> 01:27:09.060]  case, cites this case. And this is the last case. After this case, it cites a case from
[01:27:09.060 --> 01:27:18.580]  England. So I stopped there. And that case was horse manure. It didn't address the issue
[01:27:18.580 --> 01:27:26.860]  at all. And all these other cases depended on that case. But it was trash. So the whole
[01:27:26.860 --> 01:27:34.580]  argument goes in the trash. And you can do this to them. They will not see that coming.
[01:27:34.580 --> 01:27:44.860]  Okay. Okay. So what else you got for us? Got some questions. So one stumbling block
[01:27:44.860 --> 01:27:54.140]  so far is that for me anyway, is that my employer is claiming that all of my, their lawyers
[01:27:54.140 --> 01:28:00.740]  are saying that all of my claims are preempted under the Labor Management Relations Act
[01:28:00.740 --> 01:28:06.460]  because I have a CBA, have a collective bargaining agreement. Okay. I can see through that. I
[01:28:06.460 --> 01:28:13.460]  kind of know what their game is. I have strategies. I have case law. I feel like I can handle
[01:28:13.460 --> 01:28:21.060]  that. The other part of it is that my union representative is being represented by a different
[01:28:21.060 --> 01:28:33.780]  law firm. And she brought up this federal duty of fair representation and saying that
[01:28:33.780 --> 01:28:38.820]  it just preempts all of my claims because they should have been federal claims, which
[01:28:38.820 --> 01:28:45.820]  I know sounds preposterous, but I cannot find any... I haven't looked real hard yet, but
[01:28:45.820 --> 01:28:53.460]  so far I haven't found a single case in my district or in the appellate court that ruled
[01:28:53.460 --> 01:28:59.140]  against that. It seems kind of lock solid federal. And so I'm thinking that-
[01:28:59.140 --> 01:29:04.500]  What do you mean you can't find anything to rule against that? Doesn't she need to say
[01:29:04.500 --> 01:29:11.020]  something that supports her position? She's the one making the assertion. She should be
[01:29:11.020 --> 01:29:14.540]  the one that has to go and find some reasons for it, right?
[01:29:14.540 --> 01:29:21.220]  Oh yeah, yeah. She's got case law and stuff, and I haven't looked into it a whole lot,
[01:29:21.220 --> 01:29:27.540]  but I'm starting to understand that because he represented me and that's the only relationship
[01:29:27.540 --> 01:29:33.540]  I have with him, that it's hard to get around my collective bargaining agreement with him.
[01:29:33.540 --> 01:29:40.460]  With my employers, that's different. I don't have that relationship with them, but he only
[01:29:40.460 --> 01:29:44.100]  represented me. That's all he did. And he did it.
[01:29:44.100 --> 01:29:50.340]  Okay. Let's speak to representation when we come back. What are the conditions of his
[01:29:50.340 --> 01:29:56.780]  representation of you? Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. We'll be
[01:29:56.780 --> 01:30:01.940]  right back.
[01:30:01.940 --> 01:30:07.180]  Very soft drink lovers, even diet drinks can make you fat. A new study shows that diet
[01:30:07.180 --> 01:30:12.100]  soda drinkers gain much more weight than people who avoid the stuff. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht,
[01:30:12.100 --> 01:30:17.140]  and I'll be back in a moment with a scoop on supposedly skinny sodas.
[01:30:17.140 --> 01:30:21.500]  Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back
[01:30:21.500 --> 01:30:27.100]  again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:27.100 --> 01:30:32.700]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself. Privacy,
[01:30:32.700 --> 01:30:38.380]  it's worth hanging on to. This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com,
[01:30:38.380 --> 01:30:46.220]  the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:30:46.220 --> 01:30:51.220]  Artificial sweeteners cut the calories and help you lose weight, right? Wrong. Researchers
[01:30:51.220 --> 01:30:56.260]  at UT San Antonio followed hundreds of diet soda drinkers for nearly a decade. They found
[01:30:56.260 --> 01:31:01.140]  that regularly drinking diet soda expanded people's waistlines five times more than
[01:31:01.140 --> 01:31:06.460]  no soda at all. The study's authors say artificial sweeteners trigger the appetite, but unlike
[01:31:06.460 --> 01:31:11.620]  regular sugars don't deliver anything to squelch it. Waking up hunger without satisfying it
[01:31:11.620 --> 01:31:17.340]  leads to cravings, which can result in a larger overall calorie intake. So use natural sweeteners
[01:31:17.340 --> 01:31:21.340]  to maintain a healthy weight, and if you need to shed some pounds, avoid the sweet stuff
[01:31:21.340 --> 01:31:23.540]  altogether and drink water instead.
[01:31:23.540 --> 01:31:30.460]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31:30.460 --> 01:31:35.820]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:31:35.820 --> 01:31:41.260]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:31:41.260 --> 01:31:45.180]  it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their
[01:31:45.180 --> 01:31:49.740]  lives. And thousands of my fellow first responders are dying. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:49.740 --> 01:31:52.860]  I'm a structural engineer. I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force
[01:31:52.860 --> 01:31:57.940]  pilot. I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth. Go to
[01:31:57.940 --> 01:31:59.980]  RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:31:59.980 --> 01:32:05.940]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[01:32:05.940 --> 01:32:08.940]  we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a
[01:32:08.940 --> 01:32:12.940]  free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those
[01:32:12.940 --> 01:32:16.140]  rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[01:32:16.140 --> 01:32:20.140]  private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts
[01:32:20.140 --> 01:32:24.100]  afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights
[01:32:24.100 --> 01:32:27.940]  through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law
[01:32:27.940 --> 01:32:31.440]  Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you
[01:32:31.440 --> 01:32:35.460]  understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get
[01:32:35.460 --> 01:32:39.540]  your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering
[01:32:39.540 --> 01:32:43.500]  your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation
[01:32:43.500 --> 01:32:47.940]  Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of
[01:32:47.940 --> 01:32:51.620]  research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your rights
[01:32:51.620 --> 01:32:56.300]  with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today, and together we can
[01:32:56.300 --> 01:33:01.300]  have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:01.300 --> 01:33:30.060]  Looking for some truth? You found it. LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[01:33:32.060 --> 01:33:48.060]  The wicked come with temptations. They're trying to buy the whole place. They want to
[01:33:48.060 --> 01:34:03.060]  poison the nation. Because they've fallen from grace. I will not drink from that cup.
[01:34:03.060 --> 01:34:12.420]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and let's talk about the
[01:34:12.420 --> 01:34:29.380]  contract between you and your union rep. These requirements by the company, based on COVID,
[01:34:29.380 --> 01:34:36.700]  were they part of your negotiations with the company, or with the union's negotiations
[01:34:36.700 --> 01:34:39.700]  with the company?
[01:34:39.700 --> 01:34:52.780]  The new collective bargaining agreement was ratified on June 8th, 2021.
[01:34:52.780 --> 01:34:59.180]  I'm hearing an echo or some like serious reverb.
[01:34:59.180 --> 01:35:13.300]  I'm not hearing it. I hear it. Okay, 2021. June 8th, ratified, put the vote by the shop,
[01:35:13.300 --> 01:35:30.940]  agreed upon. Then, and in there, in that CBA, it says the parties will meet to discuss a
[01:35:30.940 --> 01:35:43.820]  mandatory vaccine policy. The employer's mandatory vaccine policy. They will meet to discuss.
[01:35:43.820 --> 01:35:56.060]  So, collectively, as part of ratifying the agreement, we gave them the power to discuss
[01:35:56.060 --> 01:35:59.060]  the employer's policy.
[01:35:59.060 --> 01:36:14.500]  Okay, did you give them the power to enact a policy without a vote of their members?
[01:36:14.500 --> 01:36:16.100]  That's a pretty big difference.
[01:36:16.100 --> 01:36:26.820]  Well, you know, that seems clear to me. But not only that, but we also never even learned
[01:36:26.820 --> 01:36:32.900]  that our union had agreed to this at a meeting. We weren't told about the meeting. We weren't
[01:36:32.900 --> 01:36:38.820]  told that the union representative agreed.
[01:36:38.820 --> 01:36:47.860]  Where is the union given authority to agree to covenants that aren't voted on by the members?
[01:36:47.860 --> 01:36:56.320]  Well, according to my opposition lawyers, it's all in the CBA. So, we absolutely, positively
[01:36:56.320 --> 01:37:02.540]  have to open up an exam in the CBA, which, of course, then justifies them removing it
[01:37:02.540 --> 01:37:08.500]  to federal court and then dismissing my claim because they don't state a cause of action
[01:37:08.500 --> 01:37:09.500]  anymore.
[01:37:09.500 --> 01:37:13.900]  Okay, have you looked at the collective bargaining agreement?
[01:37:13.900 --> 01:37:18.420]  I've read it probably 15 times.
[01:37:18.420 --> 01:37:28.020]  Does it give them power to do this? No. Then it's not grounds for removal.
[01:37:28.020 --> 01:37:38.420]  Right. That's what I think, and I feel like I have a strong argument against the employer.
[01:37:38.420 --> 01:37:46.900]  But now my union rep, what their lawyer, what his lawyer is saying is that, no, what you're
[01:37:46.900 --> 01:37:51.740]  alleging is that he breached his duty of fair representation because he represents you,
[01:37:51.740 --> 01:37:56.260]  and you're saying that he breached that duty.
[01:37:56.260 --> 01:38:02.460]  And so, and I'll keep looking into it and keep looking at case law, but so far, that
[01:38:02.460 --> 01:38:07.940]  really seems to stick. That one for the union representative really seems to stick.
[01:38:07.940 --> 01:38:16.220]  Okay, be careful. His lawyer fed you the argument he wants you to bring.
[01:38:16.220 --> 01:38:17.580]  That's true.
[01:38:17.580 --> 01:38:31.980]  That's what I would do. So that I'm sitting back here with the rebuttal in my hand. How
[01:38:31.980 --> 01:38:34.580]  else can you go after him?
[01:38:34.580 --> 01:38:40.340]  Well, so another way to do this, and this is where I have all these questions for you
[01:38:40.340 --> 01:38:49.740]  guys because I can, the due date that the judge set for my remand motion is the same
[01:38:49.740 --> 01:38:58.660]  as the opposition's due date to file the 12B6.
[01:38:58.660 --> 01:39:07.620]  So if you file a remand, the remand will have to be heard first. And if they rule on your,
[01:39:07.620 --> 01:39:11.260]  once you remand the 12B6 becomes moot.
[01:39:11.260 --> 01:39:25.420]  Right. But, so this is where I have questions because if the union rep, if his motion sticks,
[01:39:25.420 --> 01:39:32.420]  because it's a separate motion from his lawyer because of this duty of fair representation,
[01:39:32.420 --> 01:39:40.340]  if that one sticks, then does it kill all of my claims because he's in them?
[01:39:40.340 --> 01:39:49.500]  Wait a minute. That implies some knowledge I don't think I have.
[01:39:49.500 --> 01:39:57.500]  So if I've filed tort claims and three out of the four tort claims, name all four defendants
[01:39:57.500 --> 01:40:08.820]  from the employer and from the union. So if I file a motion for a man, but the union,
[01:40:08.820 --> 01:40:17.660]  the union's motion is upheld, then do I lose all of my tort claims because he's involved
[01:40:17.660 --> 01:40:20.460]  with them? Like, should I mention them so he's not in them?
[01:40:20.460 --> 01:40:27.620]  No, they're different. They're different parties. Okay.
[01:40:27.620 --> 01:40:34.860]  Just because one may have a defense against your claim doesn't mean the other does.
[01:40:34.860 --> 01:40:40.660]  So the judge could, the judge could remand the claim with the three employer defendants
[01:40:40.660 --> 01:40:43.900]  and just dismiss it for the union defendant?
[01:40:43.900 --> 01:40:44.900]  Yes.
[01:40:44.900 --> 01:40:45.900]  Okay.
[01:40:45.900 --> 01:40:53.180]  Bifurcation. Dr. Graves talked about bifurcation last night. He could separate it into two
[01:40:53.180 --> 01:40:59.260]  separate issues and rule on them separately.
[01:40:59.260 --> 01:41:09.300]  Okay. Great. Okay. The other idea I had was that what I could do is amend the complaint
[01:41:09.300 --> 01:41:17.740]  instead of filing a remand, get their motion, learn as much as I can from it, although they've
[01:41:17.740 --> 01:41:26.540]  already given me a lot of information, then file an amended complaint separating the union
[01:41:26.540 --> 01:41:33.260]  representative out of those claims and into, or at least one of them anyway, and into a
[01:41:33.260 --> 01:41:37.340]  new federal claim. Or do you think that's kind of what, right?
[01:41:37.340 --> 01:41:42.780]  This is what Dr. Graves was talking or speaking to last night, is that you can bifurcate the
[01:41:42.780 --> 01:41:54.460]  case that way and argue these two, these two are two separate entities. So it would be
[01:41:54.460 --> 01:42:00.860]  reasonable that they're subject to bifurcation because your claims against them are based
[01:42:00.860 --> 01:42:11.860]  on different aspects of your contracts. So it should be easy to bifurcate them.
[01:42:11.860 --> 01:42:23.260]  Okay. The remaining claims that I have, if I were to separate, you know, if I were to
[01:42:23.260 --> 01:42:32.340]  amend my complaint and I were to add a new federal claim for this union guy, so the remaining
[01:42:32.340 --> 01:42:37.020]  claims I can keep as state tort law claims, correct? Federal judge, I think you just said
[01:42:37.020 --> 01:42:41.580]  this before I got on, federal judge can still rule on the state tort law claims, correct?
[01:42:41.580 --> 01:42:52.580]  Well, if you are in a contract with the union and the union rep breached the contract, that
[01:42:52.580 --> 01:42:59.460]  will be a claim in, that will be a cause of action and not a tort.
[01:42:59.460 --> 01:43:15.340]  Well, right. I misspoke. My claims, my causes of action are state tort law causes of action.
[01:43:15.340 --> 01:43:22.140]  How do you get a tort claim against your union rep? Because your only relationship with the
[01:43:22.140 --> 01:43:27.660]  union is contractual. Did he do something ultra by race?
[01:43:27.660 --> 01:43:37.140]  Well, I feel like he did by agreeing to the policy without telling anyone, but it's-
[01:43:37.140 --> 01:43:44.900]  And do you have contract that prohibits him from agreeing to covenants without referendum
[01:43:44.900 --> 01:43:52.660]  and initiative, initiative, referendum? Hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of
[01:43:52.660 --> 01:44:00.420]  Law Radio, call in number 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:44:00.420 --> 01:44:05.020]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area
[01:44:05.020 --> 01:44:09.740]  of nutrition. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves. And it's time we
[01:44:09.740 --> 01:44:15.820]  changed all that. Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment
[01:44:15.820 --> 01:44:20.980]  is good nutrition. In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and
[01:44:20.980 --> 01:44:27.620]  mutilated, Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. Logos Radio Network gets many requests
[01:44:27.620 --> 01:44:32.620]  to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young
[01:44:32.620 --> 01:44:39.020]  Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many
[01:44:39.020 --> 01:44:45.820]  others. When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[01:44:45.820 --> 01:44:51.780]  quality radio. As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.780 --> 01:44:57.020]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[01:44:57.020 --> 01:45:04.140]  increase your income. Order now. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:04.140 --> 01:45:10.860]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[01:45:10.860 --> 01:45:17.540]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step. If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer
[01:45:17.540 --> 01:45:23.340]  should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands
[01:45:23.340 --> 01:45:29.300]  have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created
[01:45:29.300 --> 01:45:36.300]  by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit,
[01:45:36.300 --> 01:45:41.500]  you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control
[01:45:41.500 --> 01:45:47.940]  our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms
[01:45:47.940 --> 01:45:55.020]  for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and
[01:45:55.020 --> 01:46:02.020]  click on the banner, or call toll-free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:25.020 --> 01:46:47.020]  As we sow, so shall we reap. So many crucial works yet put on hold while we see. Try as
[01:46:47.020 --> 01:46:54.020]  we will to serve small steps to the giant bee. Remember what goes around comes around.
[01:46:54.020 --> 01:47:04.020]  As we sow, so shall we reap. And everybody listen, listen to this song.
[01:47:04.020 --> 01:47:26.180]  Okay. We are back. Randy Kelton, Fountain Rule of Law Radio. We're talking to Mark
[01:47:26.180 --> 01:47:32.220]  in Florida. I mentioned going out and initiating a referendum. That's what they call it when.
[01:47:32.220 --> 01:47:39.220]  Like in some states in Maine, we had someone on the Telegram channel talking about that
[01:47:39.220 --> 01:47:48.540]  the people could vote on a law. And if the people voted for the law, it became law without
[01:47:48.540 --> 01:47:53.020]  the legislature. That's called initiative and referendum.
[01:47:53.020 --> 01:48:03.020]  So essentially that's what you have in the union contract, is what are the limits on
[01:48:03.020 --> 01:48:13.540]  what the union itself can agree to without permission of the members?
[01:48:13.540 --> 01:48:19.860]  So it's a little tricky because it doesn't outline that necessarily in the collective
[01:48:19.860 --> 01:48:26.140]  bargaining agreement. It may in the union's charter, which I haven't even looked at, which
[01:48:26.140 --> 01:48:31.220]  I know is a huge mistake. I should dig it up wherever it is, probably on the union's
[01:48:31.220 --> 01:48:39.820]  website and look at it. But so far the opposing council has made basically just kind of generalities
[01:48:39.820 --> 01:48:46.540]  about how collective bargaining continues after ratification and verbal agreements are
[01:48:46.540 --> 01:48:47.540]  okay.
[01:48:47.540 --> 01:48:54.700]  Okay, hold on, hold on. Did the lawyer on the other side make these statements based
[01:48:54.700 --> 01:49:01.300]  on references to the contract or did he just state this generally?
[01:49:01.300 --> 01:49:10.460]  In the conference on the phone the other day, he made generalized statements and his letter
[01:49:10.460 --> 01:49:13.740]  to the judge, I believe he had case law reference.
[01:49:13.740 --> 01:49:19.140]  No, no, no, wait, wait, wait. Case law reference is not good enough.
[01:49:19.140 --> 01:49:20.140]  Case law?
[01:49:20.140 --> 01:49:22.940]  Yeah, he needs to reference the contract.
[01:49:22.940 --> 01:49:29.780]  Yeah, this is not about what do judges think in general. This is about a specific contract.
[01:49:29.780 --> 01:49:40.420]  What does this contract say? And where does it allow for the union to act unilaterally?
[01:49:40.420 --> 01:49:50.700]  And because I've been asking that via notices and emails for the last year and a half, what
[01:49:50.700 --> 01:49:58.660]  I told the judge and also put in my letter to the judge was that because I've already
[01:49:58.660 --> 01:50:03.940]  asked them for this information over and over and they haven't ever responded to me once
[01:50:03.940 --> 01:50:09.100]  with where their authority comes from within the contract, within the collective bargaining
[01:50:09.100 --> 01:50:16.620]  agreement that stands as their tacit acknowledgement that the answer has to be found.
[01:50:16.620 --> 01:50:24.020]  Wait, no, it doesn't. You have to ask them, you have to make the claim that they don't
[01:50:24.020 --> 01:50:30.340]  have this authority, that it does not exist in the contract and therefore this should
[01:50:30.340 --> 01:50:36.140]  be remanded back to the state. Now they're put on the dime where they have to prove up
[01:50:36.140 --> 01:50:37.140]  their position.
[01:50:37.140 --> 01:50:41.300]  Yeah, you don't want to do this tacit agreement stuff.
[01:50:41.300 --> 01:50:43.500]  Yeah, okay.
[01:50:43.500 --> 01:50:51.020]  Yeah. So you take the position that they absolutely are not authorized by the contract to do this,
[01:50:51.020 --> 01:50:58.940]  period. And because you're stating a negative, you don't have to cite the contract because
[01:50:58.940 --> 01:51:06.260]  it's not in the contract. And if it is in the contract, they got to find it.
[01:51:06.260 --> 01:51:12.780]  And this would go into my motion at this point, obviously, right?
[01:51:12.780 --> 01:51:16.780]  You don't have to admit to anything, even if it is in the contract, you can argue that
[01:51:16.780 --> 01:51:21.260]  it's not. Make them find it.
[01:51:21.260 --> 01:51:31.180]  Well, I'm quite sure they aren't authorized in the contract to unilaterally decide to
[01:51:31.180 --> 01:51:36.940]  impose mandatory measures that affect my body permanently outside of the workplace.
[01:51:36.940 --> 01:51:50.340]  Yeah, I'm relatively certain they're going to run into the ADA. And this is privacy of
[01:51:50.340 --> 01:52:01.020]  your property and your person. And which would go to that, Brett?
[01:52:01.020 --> 01:52:06.820]  Something like Section 2000 or 360 AAA or all that?
[01:52:06.820 --> 01:52:08.820]  I'm thinking constitution.
[01:52:08.820 --> 01:52:15.260]  Oh, well, I would think the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution covers it nicely.
[01:52:15.260 --> 01:52:20.660]  People have a right to be secure in their persons.
[01:52:20.660 --> 01:52:29.060]  Property and your person. So you make that claim that even if there is a provision in
[01:52:29.060 --> 01:52:36.060]  the contract, the provision is unconscionable because it would have the effect of denying
[01:52:36.060 --> 01:52:43.300]  you in a constitutional right. Let them argue that it doesn't.
[01:52:43.300 --> 01:52:45.340]  Okay.
[01:52:45.340 --> 01:52:53.260]  I'm talking to a state of mind here. Make them prove up everything they say. You don't
[01:52:53.260 --> 01:53:01.020]  have to agree to anything. I got a guy all the way to the California Supreme. And the
[01:53:01.020 --> 01:53:11.020]  mortgage, the foreclosure was based on a loan by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo was the servicer.
[01:53:11.020 --> 01:53:18.940]  Wells Fargo did the foreclosure. And we filed a suit that said, who the heck are you? We
[01:53:18.940 --> 01:53:23.100]  don't know who you are. We never entered into a contract with you, never entered into a
[01:53:23.100 --> 01:53:29.740]  contract with your alleged principal. Prove it up. We didn't have to prove anything. We
[01:53:29.740 --> 01:53:36.100]  didn't have to admit to anything. They had to prove up everything. So they're making
[01:53:36.100 --> 01:53:43.660]  these statements. You deny the statements and demand that they produce proof.
[01:53:43.660 --> 01:53:48.100]  Per the contract, not per irrelevant case law.
[01:53:48.100 --> 01:53:49.100]  Okay.
[01:53:49.100 --> 01:53:50.100]  Okay.
[01:53:50.100 --> 01:53:51.100]  Okay.
[01:53:51.100 --> 01:53:57.020]  I really like, Randy, the way you put that about it's not in the contract. That's strong
[01:53:57.020 --> 01:54:01.780]  enough already, but it's not in the contract. And even if it were, it would be unconscionable
[01:54:01.780 --> 01:54:07.740]  because it violates the constitutional right. So I think that's a great one-two punch.
[01:54:07.740 --> 01:54:15.660]  Okay. Okay. And that's where my focus has been on those threshold questions anyway.
[01:54:15.660 --> 01:54:26.220]  I said, this is great. Another question. If I file an amended complaint, there are a couple
[01:54:26.220 --> 01:54:34.580]  of little things too that are not great about my complaint. So if I file an amended complaint,
[01:54:34.580 --> 01:54:37.700]  I can add in a federal claim if I want.
[01:54:37.700 --> 01:54:42.220]  Okay. Hold on. Understand about an amended complaint.
[01:54:42.220 --> 01:54:43.220]  Yeah.
[01:54:43.220 --> 01:54:52.740]  When you file an amended complaint, the original complaint disappears. Nothing that's in that
[01:54:52.740 --> 01:54:59.860]  original complaint is before the court anymore. It's not just an amended. It's a whole new
[01:54:59.860 --> 01:55:07.580]  complaint. Everything you want must be in that complaint. You can't depend on the original
[01:55:07.580 --> 01:55:14.420]  for anything. It's gone. So make sure you get everything in there. And on the same hand,
[01:55:14.420 --> 01:55:17.180]  you can add anything you want to.
[01:55:17.180 --> 01:55:28.940]  Okay. Okay. And also, after I file an amended complaint, I can still file a motion for remand
[01:55:28.940 --> 01:55:32.860]  based on jurisdiction, right?
[01:55:32.860 --> 01:55:39.260]  Yes. You can definitely do it based on your amended complaint.
[01:55:39.260 --> 01:55:53.420]  Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think I understand. So just one...
[01:55:53.420 --> 01:55:58.700]  Let me touch on that a little further. If you're in the federal court and there is a
[01:55:58.700 --> 01:56:08.860]  federal claim, and it's removed to the Fed, and you file an amended complaint and you
[01:56:08.860 --> 01:56:15.680]  drop the federal claim, it's automatically remandable back to the... When you drop the
[01:56:15.680 --> 01:56:23.580]  federal claim, the federal court loses jurisdiction. It must be remanded.
[01:56:23.580 --> 01:56:30.860]  So if you write your amended complaint and you state it only in terms of state law and
[01:56:30.860 --> 01:56:38.060]  state issues, then you can challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court,
[01:56:38.060 --> 01:56:42.340]  even if you're beyond your time to remand.
[01:56:42.340 --> 01:56:53.740]  Oh, okay. But my understanding is that I can file... If I amend the complaint, it becomes
[01:56:53.740 --> 01:57:01.220]  a brand new complaint. It's basically as if it were just removed, like backing up the
[01:57:01.220 --> 01:57:12.580]  clock, their motion, the 1226 motion is removed. I can put them in whatever I want. If I put
[01:57:12.580 --> 01:57:19.380]  in a federal claim, I can still file a motion to remand the state claims back to state court.
[01:57:19.380 --> 01:57:29.100]  No, no. If there is a federal claim and a state claim, then it goes to the federal court.
[01:57:29.100 --> 01:57:38.220]  If there is a motion to remove. If there is no motion to remove, then the state can hear
[01:57:38.220 --> 01:57:45.060]  both the federal and the state claims. And the state must rule based on federal law for
[01:57:45.060 --> 01:57:51.420]  the federal claims. If there is a federal claim, it is removable, but it's not automatically
[01:57:51.420 --> 01:57:58.740]  removed. The other party has to remove it. Once they remove it, then the federal court
[01:57:58.740 --> 01:58:08.100]  rules on the federal claims and the state claims. Unless you bifurcate. If one party
[01:58:08.100 --> 01:58:15.180]  has a federal claim and the other one doesn't, then you can bifurcate, separate the two cases
[01:58:15.180 --> 01:58:24.820]  and remand the one that doesn't have a federal claim. Does that make sense?
[01:58:24.820 --> 01:58:28.620]  Kind of.
[01:58:28.620 --> 01:58:39.700]  Okay. Well, think about it over the break, and we'll address this when we come back.
[01:58:39.700 --> 01:58:44.140]  We do have a full board of callers, so I'm not going to give out the caller number. This
[01:58:44.140 --> 01:58:50.140]  is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. We'll be right back.
[01:58:50.140 --> 01:58:55.540]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated
[01:58:55.540 --> 01:59:00.780]  because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying
[01:59:00.780 --> 01:59:07.260]  the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture. Enter
[01:59:07.260 --> 01:59:13.460]  the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the
[01:59:13.460 --> 01:59:19.780]  real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages
[01:59:19.780 --> 01:59:25.220]  are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond
[01:59:25.220 --> 01:59:28.100]  which you've ever experienced before.
[01:59:28.100 --> 01:59:33.260]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking.
[01:59:33.260 --> 01:59:43.700]  This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102
[01:59:43.700 --> 01:59:49.740]  or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[01:59:49.740 --> 01:59:55.740]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.