ROL_2023-07-13_16k.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.600]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[00:05.600 --> 00:09.040]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.040 --> 00:10.480]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:10.480 --> 00:14.420]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[00:14.420 --> 00:17.020]  one of your constitutional rights.
[00:17.020 --> 00:18.600]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.600 --> 00:22.200]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.200 --> 00:27.000]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:27.000 --> 00:28.440]  So protect your rights.
[00:28.440 --> 00:32.200]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.200 --> 00:33.200]  Privacy.
[00:33.200 --> 00:34.760]  It's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.760 --> 00:39.040]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[00:39.040 --> 00:42.600]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.600 --> 00:45.920]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:45.920 --> 00:49.920]  Most of us know that taking the fifth means you're choosing to remain silent about a criminal
[00:49.920 --> 00:50.920]  matter.
[00:50.920 --> 00:54.740]  It's a good way to remember that the Fifth Amendment spells out what can and can't happen
[00:54.740 --> 00:57.280]  to you when you're accused of a criminal offense.
[00:57.280 --> 01:01.540]  The Fifth guarantees due process, prohibits trying someone more than once for the same
[01:01.540 --> 01:04.120]  crime and lets you keep your mouth shut.
[01:04.120 --> 01:09.240]  The Founding Fathers inserted these constitutional provisions to protect citizens from torture.
[01:09.240 --> 01:13.680]  Back in the day, governments often used painful methods to extract confessions.
[01:13.680 --> 01:17.640]  The Fifth Amendment also prohibits the government from taking your house and land without paying
[01:17.640 --> 01:18.640]  you for it.
[01:18.640 --> 01:19.880]  That used to happen a lot too.
[01:19.880 --> 01:21.760]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:21.760 --> 01:31.680]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31.680 --> 01:35.440]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[01:35.440 --> 01:39.080]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:39.080 --> 01:40.560]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:40.560 --> 01:44.440]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:44.440 --> 01:47.440]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:47.440 --> 01:49.040]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:49.040 --> 01:52.640]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.640 --> 01:57.400]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:57.400 --> 02:02.560]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:02.560 --> 02:05.160]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:05.160 --> 02:09.460]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[02:09.460 --> 02:13.000]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:13.000 --> 02:14.680]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:14.680 --> 02:18.720]  The number 666 reminds me of evil.
[02:18.720 --> 02:23.000]  I also associate it with the sick feeling one might get when falsely accused of a heinous
[02:23.000 --> 02:27.920]  crime or when thinking about sickos who actually do commit acts of murder and mayhem.
[02:27.920 --> 02:33.520]  Either way, the number 666 can help you remember that the Sixth Amendment deals with the constitutionally
[02:33.520 --> 02:36.800]  guaranteed rights Americans have in a criminal trial.
[02:36.800 --> 02:41.080]  Those include the right to a speedy public trial, the right to an impartial jury, the
[02:41.080 --> 02:45.080]  right to full information about the charges, the right to an attorney, and the right to
[02:45.080 --> 02:47.680]  confront any witnesses face to face.
[02:47.680 --> 02:51.440]  666, sick, sickos, and the Sixth Amendment.
[02:51.440 --> 02:52.440]  Get it?
[02:52.440 --> 02:53.640]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[02:53.640 --> 03:22.200]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[04:23.640 --> 04:47.240]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Mandy Kelton, Brett Fountain, and Boulevard Radio.
[04:47.240 --> 04:53.320]  On this, the 13th day of July 2023.
[04:53.320 --> 05:00.640]  This Thursday, our two-hour regular show, I am turning on the phone lines.
[05:00.640 --> 05:09.440]  I call in number 512-646-1984, and I'm going to start out with a little bit about my lawsuit,
[05:09.440 --> 05:11.840]  which I'm very pleased with.
[05:11.840 --> 05:13.960]  We got it filed.
[05:13.960 --> 05:24.680]  We got the district attorney and assistant district attorney served on the 3rd, got everybody
[05:24.680 --> 05:34.880]  else served on the 5th, and when my guy went to serve the Court of Criminal Appeals, the
[05:34.880 --> 05:43.200]  clerk come back and said, we already have that suit, and I have no idea how they got
[05:43.200 --> 05:50.320]  it unless, you know, once they get sued, maybe everybody tattles and contacted them and they
[05:50.320 --> 05:55.320]  got a copy of it from the Fed.
[05:55.320 --> 06:04.320]  But they all got it, and they have until the 30th of this month, if I did my calculations
[06:04.320 --> 06:07.320]  correct.
[06:07.320 --> 06:11.280]  They got it on the 5th.
[06:11.280 --> 06:21.560]  So the Monday after the 20th day, so the 20th day will be the 25th, and the Monday after
[06:21.560 --> 06:24.880]  will be the 31st.
[06:24.880 --> 06:31.040]  So they got until the 31st, and I am so looking forward to their response.
[06:31.040 --> 06:33.560]  Are you sure it's not just 21 days straight?
[06:33.560 --> 06:35.120]  No, no.
[06:35.120 --> 06:40.440]  I looked at Arizona, not Arizona, Wisconsin.
[06:40.440 --> 06:45.520]  And Wisconsin says you have 20 days.
[06:45.520 --> 06:51.480]  So it's the only one that was different, but it's almost the same.
[06:51.480 --> 06:54.520]  It just didn't say the Monday after the 20th day.
[06:54.520 --> 06:59.720]  So they got it on a Wednesday.
[06:59.720 --> 07:12.680]  So they get, the 20th day was the 5th, will be the 25th, and the Monday after the 25th,
[07:12.680 --> 07:18.440]  that will be the Monday after the 20th day, will be the 31st.
[07:18.440 --> 07:23.840]  So around the end of the month, I should start getting some responses.
[07:23.840 --> 07:33.400]  What I'm probably going to get and what I'm looking for is a letter from the court instructing
[07:33.400 --> 07:42.480]  the plaintiff to confer with me before filing a 12b6.
[07:42.480 --> 07:49.520]  I bumped into that in Arizona, and we had someone on the show that spoke to the same
[07:49.520 --> 07:52.480]  issue somewhere else.
[07:52.480 --> 08:01.160]  So it looks like the federal courts have gotten tired of 12b6 as just a knee-jerk reaction.
[08:01.160 --> 08:10.320]  So now they're, yeah, instead of them, I haven't heard anything.
[08:10.320 --> 08:18.720]  So I don't see that they have a, this doesn't grant them any more time.
[08:18.720 --> 08:23.080]  So if they're going to do that, they have to do it quickly.
[08:23.080 --> 08:38.880]  And if they file a 12b6 and it's frivolous, I'm going to go for sanctions immediately.
[08:38.880 --> 08:42.200]  These are the highest judges in Texas.
[08:42.200 --> 08:48.440]  I don't expect BS from the highest judges in Texas.
[08:48.440 --> 08:52.600]  Well, I hope you're right.
[08:52.600 --> 09:00.960]  So far, they've had plenty of BS when it comes to they receive a habeas and they know
[09:00.960 --> 09:01.960]  what they're supposed to do.
[09:01.960 --> 09:04.960]  Are you saying they're being underwhelming?
[09:04.960 --> 09:09.760]  Yeah, you could say that.
[09:09.760 --> 09:18.520]  They come up with when they have a ministerial duty to issue that great writ.
[09:18.520 --> 09:21.000]  It doesn't say if they feel like it.
[09:21.000 --> 09:22.600]  There's no judicial discretion.
[09:22.600 --> 09:25.040]  It is their duty, D-U-T-Y duty.
[09:25.040 --> 09:27.040]  What part of that do you not understand?
[09:27.040 --> 09:32.800]  And they come back and say denied.
[09:32.800 --> 09:35.760]  That should have got criminal as well.
[09:35.760 --> 09:36.760]  It did.
[09:36.760 --> 09:41.600]  All nine of them.
[09:41.600 --> 09:46.760]  So they should get another suit in their personal capacity.
[09:46.760 --> 09:49.800]  That would be perfectly fitting.
[09:49.800 --> 09:53.120]  Well, that's what I did to them.
[09:53.120 --> 10:01.440]  And if you do it to them too, I think we may start getting their attention.
[10:01.440 --> 10:09.240]  Because when I get a response, if I get a response from the Texas Attorney General in
[10:09.240 --> 10:22.600]  my amended suit, I will name the Texas Attorney General for misappropriation of public funds.
[10:22.600 --> 10:27.480]  I suit all these guys in their personal capacity.
[10:27.480 --> 10:34.760]  The Attorney General is a lawyer for the state, not for those individual judges.
[10:34.760 --> 10:39.560]  Yeah, what's he doing spending taxpayer money on that?
[10:39.560 --> 10:40.560]  Exactly.
[10:40.560 --> 10:51.360]  Because you are acting in an administrative capacity for which you can be personally sued.
[10:51.360 --> 11:01.520]  So I'm really looking forward to what kind of response they're going to file to this
[11:01.520 --> 11:02.520]  petition.
[11:02.520 --> 11:08.800]  It's 150 pages.
[11:08.800 --> 11:11.720]  And they got, what, 25 days?
[11:11.720 --> 11:20.480]  Let's see, yeah, that'll give them about 26 days to answer from the day they got served.
[11:20.480 --> 11:24.200]  So the clock is running.
[11:24.200 --> 11:29.360]  Yeah, kind of fun, right?
[11:29.360 --> 11:38.640]  So that, I'm really looking, I'm hoping they give me a really good answer so that I can
[11:38.640 --> 11:51.920]  file, I want to be able to file an amended pleading that goes exactly to the judgment
[11:51.920 --> 11:52.920]  filed by the court.
[11:52.920 --> 11:59.320]  They're going to file whatever they file and I'm going to file a response and then I'll
[11:59.320 --> 12:03.120]  get a judgment from the court.
[12:03.120 --> 12:11.040]  And then I'll file an amended pleading based on what the judgment says.
[12:11.040 --> 12:19.200]  So I can get my, this particular plea, this suit more sophisticated because I'm going
[12:19.200 --> 12:28.760]  to file another one in Wyse County, the county I live in, along with Robert that I'm helping.
[12:28.760 --> 12:36.040]  They came after him and I'm helping him out and so I'll be filing another federal suit
[12:36.040 --> 12:42.880]  against all of them in Wyse County.
[12:42.880 --> 12:51.140]  And then I've got a client in Arizona, a guy that called me to help him and he wants me
[12:51.140 --> 13:01.700]  to write a suit for him for Arizona, but rather than write a suit for him, I'll probably go
[13:01.700 --> 13:10.320]  to Arizona and poke that bear a little bit and get them to give me grounds to file suit
[13:10.320 --> 13:11.320]  against them.
[13:11.320 --> 13:12.320]  Yeah.
[13:12.320 --> 13:21.480]  I may have to get them to arrest me for something, I hope I can do it without that.
[13:21.480 --> 13:30.680]  What I'm going to do is go in and ask to see records, see if I can get standing.
[13:30.680 --> 13:39.600]  In Arizona, the code says that if a person's arrested without a warrant, they're to be
[13:39.600 --> 13:50.480]  taken to a magistrate and the magistrate must file an order within 24 hours.
[13:50.480 --> 13:57.640]  It doesn't say discharge, it says the accused shall be released if one's not filed within
[13:57.640 --> 13:58.640]  24 hours.
[13:58.640 --> 14:02.080]  Well, they don't have them either, they're not filing orders either.
[14:02.080 --> 14:06.200]  They're doing essentially the same thing that Texas is doing.
[14:06.200 --> 14:13.400]  We're pretty well seeing that all over the country, except North Carolina.
[14:13.400 --> 14:17.800]  And North Carolina, they actually take them to a magistrate and have an examining trial.
[14:17.800 --> 14:18.800]  Excellent.
[14:18.800 --> 14:25.840]  That was great to see because we need one for precedent.
[14:25.840 --> 14:26.840]  Yeah.
[14:26.840 --> 14:32.280]  And Pennsylvania, I saw Pennsylvania doing what they call it preliminary hearing, but
[14:32.280 --> 14:33.280]  they do it.
[14:33.280 --> 14:40.040]  They schedule it, they don't take the straight from the cop to the magistrate, but they schedule
[14:40.040 --> 14:41.040]  it.
[14:41.040 --> 14:51.440]  In New York, they take them to the court and it's just like in the program night court.
[14:51.440 --> 14:56.200]  They hold them long enough to appoint counsel for them if they don't have counsel.
[14:56.200 --> 15:00.320]  Then they bring them before the court and the policeman's there.
[15:00.320 --> 15:05.960]  Just like night court, the policeman tells his side, the accused tells their side, and
[15:05.960 --> 15:06.960]  the judge decides.
[15:06.960 --> 15:09.000]  Why can't we have that, Randy?
[15:09.000 --> 15:10.000]  That's what the law demands.
[15:10.000 --> 15:13.040]  Why can't we have that?
[15:13.040 --> 15:15.120]  That's precisely what the law demands.
[15:15.120 --> 15:23.520]  And what I'm arguing in my lawsuit is because they stopped doing that, it caused this issue
[15:23.520 --> 15:27.760]  that we call mass incarceration.
[15:27.760 --> 15:30.600]  That wouldn't happen if they took everybody to your magistrate.
[15:30.600 --> 15:31.600]  Yeah.
[15:31.600 --> 15:32.600]  Among other big problems.
[15:32.600 --> 15:37.360]  Because it would start a bunch of clocks.
[15:37.360 --> 15:43.920]  Once they're taken to the magistrate, the clock starts for speedy trial.
[15:43.920 --> 15:50.040]  And they're treating this right to speedy trial as if it doesn't exist.
[15:50.040 --> 15:59.040]  And in this pleading, I argued the right to a speedy trial, not the speedy trial act.
[15:59.040 --> 16:02.400]  The speedy trial act has been overturned.
[16:02.400 --> 16:12.000]  In reading the act, it appeared the act was written so that it would be overturned.
[16:12.000 --> 16:17.400]  And they wrote it in, well, the first one was overturned.
[16:17.400 --> 16:21.600]  And they redid it, and it was overturned again.
[16:21.600 --> 16:26.640]  The first one was overturned because it said if a person wasn't brought before a magistrate
[16:26.640 --> 16:40.040]  within 30, 60, 90, 120 days, that the accused, the judge shall issue, shall dismiss the case.
[16:40.040 --> 16:49.880]  And they claimed that that ordered a judicial determination, and that violated separation
[16:49.880 --> 16:50.880]  of powers.
[16:50.880 --> 16:51.880]  Word smoothing.
[16:51.880 --> 16:54.360]  So the second one, they fixed that.
[16:54.360 --> 16:57.360]  Well, tell us about the second one after the sponsor's event.
[16:57.360 --> 17:00.360]  Tell us about how they've read it.
[17:00.360 --> 17:05.040]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area
[17:05.040 --> 17:06.360]  of nutrition.
[17:06.360 --> 17:10.200]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all
[17:10.200 --> 17:11.200]  that.
[17:11.200 --> 17:16.800]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[17:16.800 --> 17:23.120]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can
[17:23.120 --> 17:25.400]  provide the nutrients you need.
[17:25.400 --> 17:30.240]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[17:30.240 --> 17:31.360]  we reject.
[17:31.360 --> 17:36.600]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[17:36.600 --> 17:39.480]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[17:39.480 --> 17:45.720]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[17:45.720 --> 17:47.360]  quality radio.
[17:47.360 --> 17:51.720]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[17:51.720 --> 17:56.960]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[17:56.960 --> 17:58.920]  increase your income.
[17:58.920 --> 17:59.920]  Order now.
[17:59.920 --> 18:05.480]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His
[18:05.480 --> 18:06.480]  Word?
[18:06.480 --> 18:11.600]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central time for Scripture
[18:11.600 --> 18:18.000]  Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[18:18.000 --> 18:22.520]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
[18:22.520 --> 18:24.920]  dividing the word of truth.
[18:24.920 --> 18:28.560]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go
[18:28.560 --> 18:32.240]  verse by verse and discuss the true Gospel message.
[18:32.240 --> 18:36.880]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine
[18:36.880 --> 18:39.240]  and Christian character development.
[18:39.240 --> 18:43.760]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[18:43.760 --> 18:48.080]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[18:48.080 --> 18:50.360]  of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[18:50.360 --> 18:57.000]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com, Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and
[18:57.000 --> 18:59.000]  motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[19:57.000 --> 20:26.920]  Okay, howdy, howdy, Radicality Brick family, we have our radio.
[20:26.920 --> 20:34.760]  And on the break, Brad asked me a question about, asked me the question again so I get
[20:34.760 --> 20:35.760]  it right.
[20:35.760 --> 20:36.760]  Yeah, just a minute.
[20:36.760 --> 20:42.120]  I know you're just about to tell us about the second revision of this Speedy Trial
[20:42.120 --> 20:43.120]  Act.
[20:43.120 --> 20:49.680]  But just going back for a moment, you said in your federal suit, in your, you mentioned
[20:49.680 --> 20:53.960]  that you were, no, it's your state lawsuit.
[20:53.960 --> 20:58.200]  You said you were going to wait and get a judgment, and then you were going to amend
[20:58.200 --> 21:03.520]  your complaint to make it a better complaint after you got the judgment.
[21:03.520 --> 21:10.200]  And so my question is, how do you amend your original complaint after you already got your
[21:10.200 --> 21:11.200]  judgment?
[21:11.200 --> 21:14.280]  And that was really a good question.
[21:14.280 --> 21:20.160]  I already knew the answer, so it didn't occur to me to explain that.
[21:20.160 --> 21:26.560]  Because in the Fed, the word judgment is used for something else.
[21:26.560 --> 21:32.000]  It doesn't mean that it's a final ruling on the case.
[21:32.000 --> 21:38.400]  In the Fed, you get an order from the judge and you get a judgment.
[21:38.400 --> 21:46.880]  The judgment in the Fed is findings of fact and conclusions at law.
[21:46.880 --> 21:55.440]  So you're still at the spot where you can, this is actually, it is a ruling, similar
[21:55.440 --> 22:06.360]  to how a judgment, it's a judgment on whatever issue it is.
[22:06.360 --> 22:10.320]  But it, like anything else, is appealable.
[22:10.320 --> 22:18.780]  And in the Fed, you can file one appeal without permission, you get a free one.
[22:18.780 --> 22:28.640]  If you have a second appeal, you have to get permission from the court.
[22:28.640 --> 22:41.360]  And we filed this in the state because it was untimely, then we refiled it in the Fed
[22:41.360 --> 22:48.640]  and called it an amended pleading because, oh no, I'm sorry, we filed it in the Fed and
[22:48.640 --> 22:54.000]  because we were out of time, so I had to hurry up and get it in.
[22:54.000 --> 23:05.800]  And I filed an amended pleading as a, a pleading, amended pro-tac, it may have used up my first
[23:05.800 --> 23:08.400]  one.
[23:08.400 --> 23:12.560]  I filed it before anybody was served.
[23:12.560 --> 23:20.040]  So I'm saying this did not use up my first one because it had, and the filing was a non-s
[23:20.040 --> 23:29.360]  pro-tac, meaning that there were no substantive changes, just typographical changes and structural
[23:29.360 --> 23:38.200]  changes where there were some poor wording or misspelled words or nothing that went to
[23:38.200 --> 23:39.200]  the substance.
[23:39.200 --> 23:40.200]  Right.
[23:40.200 --> 23:46.320]  I had on mine, I added the word count at the end, that they require a word count, well
[23:46.320 --> 23:47.320]  in the Fed they did.
[23:47.320 --> 23:57.280]  I didn't have that in there and they raised a ruckus about it and so I, instead of resetting
[23:57.280 --> 24:05.040]  the clock by doing an amended complaint, I did a supplemental, I said, this is a supplemental
[24:05.040 --> 24:09.600]  certificate non pro-tac and they took it.
[24:09.600 --> 24:10.600]  Good.
[24:10.600 --> 24:18.400]  The judge was probably annoyed at the lawyers for bitching about nonsense.
[24:18.400 --> 24:24.280]  That's a distinction without a difference.
[24:24.280 --> 24:30.120]  And that's not for the attorneys on the other side, that is for the clerk.
[24:30.120 --> 24:32.880]  I think there's a limit on word count.
[24:32.880 --> 24:38.080]  Well, yeah, it was so clear that I was way below it.
[24:38.080 --> 24:45.680]  I mean, they have, what, 30,000 words or something and I'm sitting here at 9,000.
[24:45.680 --> 24:52.920]  Yeah, well, 30,000, yeah, that's fair appeal, yeah, because I'm thinking, in my suit I didn't
[24:52.920 --> 24:58.800]  file word count, but I do remember when I filed appeals, I had to put in word count.
[24:58.800 --> 24:59.800]  Yeah.
[24:59.800 --> 25:00.800]  Okay.
[25:00.800 --> 25:12.720]  And that was the lawyers being crappy and that's when they said, get this, the clerk
[25:12.720 --> 25:19.400]  told the lawyers, okay, it's deficient, but we're not going to give you any extension
[25:19.400 --> 25:21.920]  of time.
[25:21.920 --> 25:27.240]  You're still going to have the same time, the deadline that you had before full 30 days.
[25:27.240 --> 25:28.240]  That's it.
[25:28.240 --> 25:29.940]  You're not getting an extension.
[25:29.940 --> 25:36.040]  So as soon as I did my supplemental certificate, guess what the lawyers did, filed a motion
[25:36.040 --> 25:38.320]  for extension of time.
[25:38.320 --> 25:45.640]  They needed an extra 20 days, like six months wasn't enough in the district court.
[25:45.640 --> 25:50.120]  They still don't know what the issues are and they got their full 30 days in the appeals
[25:50.120 --> 25:53.400]  court and then last minute they throw this extra 20 days.
[25:53.400 --> 25:56.080]  Yeah, yeah, that's going to help.
[25:56.080 --> 26:04.760]  I suspect that I'm going to get a motion for extension of time with 150 pages.
[26:04.760 --> 26:09.440]  This is not just a 150 page lawsuit.
[26:09.440 --> 26:18.000]  This is a extremely detailed lawsuit, so I feel relatively certain I'll get a motion
[26:18.000 --> 26:30.720]  for extension of time and I will do the obligatory opposition because all that's in this suit
[26:30.720 --> 26:41.080]  is law, chapter and verse, constitution, statute, and case law.
[26:41.080 --> 26:50.200]  This is law of all people, the highest judge in Texas, judges in Texas should be well aware
[26:50.200 --> 26:51.200]  of.
[26:51.200 --> 26:54.200]  Oh yeah, they ought to know this forwards and backwards.
[26:54.200 --> 27:03.200]  Yeah, I didn't sue some ordinary citizen, I didn't sue the janitor, I sued the highest
[27:03.200 --> 27:04.880]  judges in Texas.
[27:04.880 --> 27:10.080]  Come on guys, you already know all this stuff.
[27:10.080 --> 27:16.360]  So they'll give them whatever extension they want, but I'll get to have my fun at their
[27:16.360 --> 27:18.360]  expense.
[27:18.360 --> 27:26.080]  But I do want them to give me a really well structured response and when I get the really
[27:26.080 --> 27:33.960]  well structured response, then I want to get a well written judgment.
[27:33.960 --> 27:39.600]  I suspect I'll get a well written judgment since I'm suing all the highest judges in
[27:39.600 --> 27:44.440]  the state of Texas for a whole lot of money.
[27:44.440 --> 27:48.680]  They're likely to pay a lot of attention to it.
[27:48.680 --> 27:53.880]  So I'm expecting I'll get really good arguments.
[27:53.880 --> 27:58.440]  I also expect I'll get trash arguments along with the good arguments.
[27:58.440 --> 28:01.960]  Yeah, they have a way to float those in there too.
[28:01.960 --> 28:07.800]  And that's, and every one of them, I'll check all their case law, take all their case law
[28:07.800 --> 28:10.760]  apart.
[28:10.760 --> 28:16.360]  If they cite a case and it cites another case, I'll go to that case and see what that case
[28:16.360 --> 28:17.360]  says.
[28:17.360 --> 28:25.280]  And if I find one of them that they miss cite, oh goody, goody, goody, then I go for sanctions.
[28:25.280 --> 28:28.000]  What if they cite something that is not controlling?
[28:28.000 --> 28:30.640]  Oh, that's even better.
[28:30.640 --> 28:32.460]  Well, not exactly.
[28:32.460 --> 28:35.200]  If it's not controlling, it's merely advisory.
[28:35.200 --> 28:38.880]  It depends on how uncontrolling it is.
[28:38.880 --> 28:50.320]  If they cite a case over 20 years old and they don't cite a later following case, then
[28:50.320 --> 28:57.000]  I will oppose that one saying it's too old to be controlling.
[28:57.000 --> 29:04.240]  Unless it's something like Barker Ringo or some, even if it's Barker Ringo, there would
[29:04.240 --> 29:09.560]  be lots of case law following it or distinguishing it.
[29:09.560 --> 29:16.680]  I just got something, a pleading from some pile of attorneys that what they put in there
[29:16.680 --> 29:24.200]  is they cited something that I've never seen that formatting before, BR.
[29:24.200 --> 29:30.520]  And I went and tried to look it up and Google pulled it right up and it's all about bankruptcy.
[29:30.520 --> 29:34.760]  This is not a bankruptcy case.
[29:34.760 --> 29:41.600]  This is a 1983 civil rights case talking about this guy committed state crimes and deprived
[29:41.600 --> 29:45.040]  me of my federal constitutionally protected rights.
[29:45.040 --> 29:47.760]  And they're quoting bankruptcy code?
[29:47.760 --> 29:51.280]  Well, it's not necessarily off point.
[29:51.280 --> 29:57.000]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Root of Love Radio, Brett was trying to push me
[29:57.000 --> 30:01.520]  off the cliff again.
[30:01.520 --> 30:05.640]  Businesses ask you for a lot of personal information and you may trust them to keep it safe.
[30:05.640 --> 30:10.360]  But it turns out that even the most trusted companies may be unwittingly revealing your
[30:10.360 --> 30:11.360]  secrets.
[30:11.360 --> 30:15.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with details.
[30:15.520 --> 30:17.120]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:17.120 --> 30:20.720]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:20.720 --> 30:25.500]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:25.500 --> 30:30.600]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:30.600 --> 30:33.280]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:33.280 --> 30:37.560]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[30:37.560 --> 30:41.080]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[30:41.080 --> 30:44.800]  Start over with Startpage.
[30:44.800 --> 30:46.440]  Data privacy is a big deal.
[30:46.440 --> 30:50.840]  So nearly every company has a policy explaining how they handle your personal information.
[30:50.840 --> 30:54.000]  But what happens if it escapes their control?
[30:54.000 --> 30:55.680]  It's not an idle question.
[30:55.680 --> 31:00.800]  According to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of U.S. companies admit their security was
[31:00.800 --> 31:03.200]  breached by hackers in the last year.
[31:03.200 --> 31:06.800]  That's one more reason you should trust your searches to Startpage.com.
[31:06.800 --> 31:11.680]  Unlike other search engines, Startpage doesn't store any data on you.
[31:11.680 --> 31:15.120]  They've never been hacked, but even if they were, there would be nothing for criminals
[31:15.120 --> 31:16.120]  to see.
[31:16.120 --> 31:17.280]  The cupboard would be bare.
[31:17.280 --> 31:20.680]  Too bad other companies don't treat your data the same way.
[31:20.680 --> 31:22.680]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[31:22.680 --> 31:25.320]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[32:22.680 --> 32:41.920]  Thank you very much, Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Albrecht
[32:41.920 --> 33:00.200]  and Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Albrecht.
[33:00.200 --> 33:07.200]  Live, free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com
[33:30.200 --> 33:33.200]  Abuse, officers
[33:34.200 --> 33:56.200]  When you gonna stop abuse, your power
[33:56.200 --> 34:01.200]  So please Mr. Macklin, teach officers not to abuse their power
[34:01.200 --> 34:07.200]  Send a request to the leader, the captain of all officers
[34:07.200 --> 34:12.200]  Tell them to uphold the law, and please don't abuse their power
[34:12.200 --> 34:17.200]  They beat and they beat and they cheat and they cheat and they lie every hour
[34:17.200 --> 34:28.200]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain with Live with Law Radio. We have a full board of callers. I'm gonna go ahead and go to the callers.
[34:28.200 --> 34:37.200]  First one, it looks like Timothy. Timothy with a 408 area code.
[34:37.200 --> 34:45.200]  Are you in a 408 area code? If you are, speak up.
[34:45.200 --> 34:51.200]  Can you hear me? Yes, are you Timothy?
[34:51.200 --> 34:56.200]  Yes, I am Timothy. Okay, so Tim, what state?
[34:56.200 --> 35:03.200]  I'm currently living in Texas, but the phone number, it was too much hassle to change my phone number.
[35:03.200 --> 35:08.200]  What state is the issue from? Texas.
[35:08.200 --> 35:13.200]  Okay, we need state just so we know what law to apply.
[35:13.200 --> 35:22.200]  So I was, I mean, I don't actually have an issue yet. Well, actually I do, but it's not tangled with the courts yet.
[35:22.200 --> 35:31.200]  I was listening to your interview with SGT Report and then also Alphonse Pagiolo's interview about tax tyranny.
[35:31.200 --> 35:36.200]  You mean Alphonse the Chomp?
[35:36.200 --> 35:42.200]  Yeah, well, okay, I'm not familiar with that nickname, but yes.
[35:42.200 --> 35:45.200]  He gets no slack.
[35:45.200 --> 35:57.200]  Yeah, I guess I've gotten, living in Texas here, I started a property last year and I've now gotten two different assessments.
[35:57.200 --> 36:03.200]  And they've been triple digit assessments and a lot of my neighbors, I don't think they've been that high,
[36:03.200 --> 36:13.200]  but they've gotten very, they've gotten a lot of, a very high assessment. And from reading the tax code and the Constitution,
[36:13.200 --> 36:17.200]  I'm not quite certain how they're able to go ahead and do that.
[36:17.200 --> 36:27.200]  And I was looking at Alphonse's case and I guess I was just wondering if you were aware of any legal activity in Texas in the past
[36:27.200 --> 36:37.200]  around these folks trying to apply property taxes to our private property?
[36:37.200 --> 36:44.200]  Not my area of knowledge. Brett, do you have any knowledge in that area?
[36:44.200 --> 36:56.200]  Yeah, actually it's something that I was digging into and I started in with records requests to the public officials that are involved with.
[36:56.200 --> 37:01.200]  They're supposed to be doing the assessments and returns.
[37:01.200 --> 37:07.200]  You've probably been hearing about returns and in Texas we don't have returns.
[37:07.200 --> 37:17.200]  It looks to me like there's something called rendition that would be parallel to that.
[37:17.200 --> 37:34.200]  But yeah, I've found out that the people who are administering these tax rolls have no idea, no idea how this is supposed to work.
[37:34.200 --> 37:41.200]  They get frustrated and angry with you if you ask questions and that's pretty much where we are right now.
[37:41.200 --> 37:47.200]  With me, I'm asking questions and they're frustrated with me.
[37:47.200 --> 37:57.200]  You know, I'm all paid up on their paperwork. They can't get after me foreclosure or whatever they want to do a sheriff sale.
[37:57.200 --> 38:03.200]  They can't do that, but they're pretty frustrated because they can't answer basic questions.
[38:03.200 --> 38:11.200]  Well, as I understand in Texas, when you're assessed, you can challenge the assessment, but you have to pay it first.
[38:11.200 --> 38:14.200]  And then you challenge it to get your money back.
[38:14.200 --> 38:20.200]  Well, that's a different layer. That's a layer of how much do I owe?
[38:20.200 --> 38:25.200]  And then there's a layer underneath that that's why are you calling me a taxpayer?
[38:25.200 --> 38:32.200]  Why are you considering my home a business that you can tax?
[38:32.200 --> 38:41.200]  Is that how the tax code is written in Texas that it can only tax business property?
[38:41.200 --> 38:52.200]  I've read that wording and it is very cleverly crafted. It doesn't exactly say this.
[38:52.200 --> 38:59.200]  And my take on it is if they went ahead and said you don't have a right to own property,
[38:59.200 --> 39:07.200]  we're just going to tax you and call everything taxable and we'll tell you how much it's worth and then how much you have to pay.
[39:07.200 --> 39:11.200]  It doesn't matter if we don't have any ownership interest. It doesn't matter anything.
[39:11.200 --> 39:18.200]  We're just going to tax whatever we want. If they would write it like that, it would get thrown out for unconstitutionality.
[39:18.200 --> 39:26.200]  But the way they wrote it, they can kind of dance around the issue and everybody looks at it just first glance.
[39:26.200 --> 39:33.200]  And they think that it means all people, all property.
[39:33.200 --> 39:43.200]  My read of the Constitution in Texas, that's Article 8, is taxation and revenue.
[39:43.200 --> 39:53.200]  And it starts off by saying something very general like all property in Texas is subject to ad valorem or taxing by value.
[39:53.200 --> 40:00.200]  But the wording in there, like Brett was saying, is pretty tricky.
[40:00.200 --> 40:11.200]  And Alphonse's argument when I quoted him that stuff in a telegram group said that that wording is deliberately crafted to be misleading.
[40:11.200 --> 40:20.200]  It's just like Brett says. So they can rope us into this commercial taxation scheme, which they can do, but it's our private property.
[40:20.200 --> 40:27.200]  I haven't gone to a law library yet to look it up because I want to actually see the case law.
[40:27.200 --> 40:40.200]  But there's one court case that Alphonse quoted that said that the Supreme Court basically says that ad valorem taxes are only for commerce and they don't apply to private property.
[40:40.200 --> 40:43.200]  Yeah, if you're not running a business on it.
[40:43.200 --> 40:55.200]  Correct, correct. Now that's one of the things that I may have, when I acquired the property, everybody said to go file a homestead exemption.
[40:55.200 --> 41:12.200]  And that, you know, if you read that thing, I'm wondering, because you requested an exemption on the rest of your homestead from the rest of your property, are you, like you were saying, are they implicitly trapping me by getting me to admit that...
[41:12.200 --> 41:23.200]  No, no. I think you did fine. Requesting a homestead exemption is fine. You get a discount. You would normally be taxed at a certain high level because you're running a business here.
[41:23.200 --> 41:32.200]  But because you're running a business here and living here, you get a discount. And I think that's a totally fine way to start.
[41:32.200 --> 41:53.200]  But what Homestead says is this is my private residence. This is my domicile. And that would, I would think, would declare that it's not a business property, that it's a private domicile.
[41:53.200 --> 41:57.200]  It's a discount. They still, yeah.
[41:57.200 --> 42:12.200]  Yeah, they still tax you on your homestead. It's just less. And the other thing that's cooling me in is that there's been some kind of change, and I don't know if it's this county that I'm living in or if it's Texas-wide, but they've did something with the timberland.
[42:12.200 --> 42:27.200]  And now suddenly my timberland, my non-ag timberland exemption or timberland value the year before was zero, and now it's almost six figures. And I don't have that many trees, and even if I did, they wouldn't be worth that much.
[42:27.200 --> 42:43.200]  So my impression, and they're also been very insistent to try to get me to file an agricultural exemption. And that's, when I read the word agriculture, that's potentially also a commerce-related activity.
[42:43.200 --> 42:51.200]  Yeah, of course it is. We have Texas Agriculture Code. It's a licensed activity. It's a regulatory scheme, and of course it's business.
[42:51.200 --> 43:05.200]  Yeah, so they're trying to, and I'm not running any business. I might someday, but right now I'm not doing anything commerce-related on that land, so I don't think I should be taxed as a commerce entity. It's private property.
[43:05.200 --> 43:12.200]  So why are they trying to tax my trees when I'm not engaged in commerce on them?
[43:12.200 --> 43:13.200]  Yeah.
[43:13.200 --> 43:19.200]  And it looks to me like by filing that exemption, it's kind of an admission that I'm in commerce, if you will.
[43:19.200 --> 43:35.200]  I think it's actually a fine place to start. You're paying less money while you work through the rest of the details, and once you get them all lined up and everything figured out, and you have them behind the eight ball, then you're in a position to say, you know what?
[43:35.200 --> 43:44.200]  I've since discovered that this is the situation, and so I should be paying zero. And in the meantime, you've paid less. I don't think it's a big deal.
[43:44.200 --> 43:59.200]  Hold on, about to go to our sponsors. I want to speak a little more to Homestead when we come back, because it's more than a tax discount. Hang on, we'll be right back.
[43:59.200 --> 44:21.200]  I love Logos. Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends. I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back. I need my truth fixed. I'd be lost without Logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air. I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite, and I really don't have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements. How can I help Logos?
[44:21.200 --> 44:42.200]  Well, I'm glad you asked. Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help Logos. You can order your supplies or holiday gifts. First thing you do is clear your cookies. Now, go to LogosRadioNetwork.com. Click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it. Now, when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link, and Logos gets a few pesos.
[44:42.200 --> 44:43.200]  Do I pay extra?
[44:43.200 --> 44:44.200]  No.
[44:44.200 --> 44:46.200]  Do I have to do anything different when I order?
[44:46.200 --> 44:47.200]  No.
[44:47.200 --> 44:48.200]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[44:48.200 --> 44:49.200]  No.
[44:49.200 --> 44:50.200]  I mean, yes.
[44:50.200 --> 44:56.200]  Wow. Giving without doing anything or spending any money. This is perfect. Thank you so much.
[44:56.200 --> 44:57.200]  We are welcome.
[44:57.200 --> 45:21.200]  Happy Holidays, Logos.
[45:27.200 --> 45:42.200]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience. 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.
[45:42.200 --> 46:01.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit RuleOfLawRadio.com and click on the banner or call toll free, 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:12.200 --> 46:31.200]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not wage any battle, would your purpose be done? Such a sentimental soldier, a warrior of love, scuffling to keep the peace.
[46:31.200 --> 46:42.200]  All they're taking is a misunderstanding. Somebody calls the police, watching the sparks fly.
[46:42.200 --> 46:56.200]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Timothy in Texas about property tax. And I wanted to mention about homesteading.
[46:56.200 --> 47:08.200]  John Connolly, I think he was the governor or a senator. He was in the car and got shot at the same time John Kennedy did.
[47:08.200 --> 47:27.200]  Later on in his life, he bankrupted. And they took everything except the house he lived in, which was a huge mansion, and the 25 acres it was sitting on, because he had it homesteaded.
[47:27.200 --> 47:35.200]  Homesteading declares that property as his personal residence.
[47:35.200 --> 47:49.200]  Tim, have you looked, is the property with the trees on it, does it adjoin the property your house is on?
[47:49.200 --> 48:01.200]  As far as I can tell, the way it's done is I have the entire piece of property, and then the homestead is the one acre thing inside it.
[48:01.200 --> 48:10.200]  You need to re-homestead it and homestead all the adjoining property.
[48:10.200 --> 48:13.200]  That's what Connolly did, and they couldn't touch it.
[48:13.200 --> 48:19.200]  Whatever part is marked out as homestead is the part they can't touch.
[48:19.200 --> 48:26.200]  I didn't know you could do something called re-homesteading. That's interesting.
[48:26.200 --> 48:31.200]  But the amount, the number of acres will be different depending on where your property is.
[48:31.200 --> 48:41.200]  If you're right in town, in the middle of a big town, it's in a lot of a neighborhood, then your maximum number of acres is going to be something small like 10.
[48:41.200 --> 48:47.200]  I'm out in the county.
[48:47.200 --> 48:50.200]  So you might have up to 200.
[48:50.200 --> 49:02.200]  Okay, yeah, I don't have that much. I have a one acre homestead and a little over 20 is the total, but that one acre is part of the 20.
[49:02.200 --> 49:10.200]  If it's attached, you could probably change the homestead and include it all.
[49:10.200 --> 49:17.200]  That declares it as your residence and not a business property. That might fix your problem.
[49:17.200 --> 49:26.200]  Well, I'm not sure that marks it as not business. I think it might be marking it as business plus residence.
[49:26.200 --> 49:38.200]  Yeah, they're still charging me, I mean, they charge property tax on both the homestead, the one acre thing, and the rest of the 20 acres. They do them both.
[49:38.200 --> 49:51.200]  It's a little weird that the one acre is inside the 20, but they tax me. They claim that the larger lot, the larger piece, they tax that differently.
[49:51.200 --> 50:02.200]  It's completely different tax accounts, but the one acre is inside it. It's kind of, you know, it's just like a whole other thing about that one account.
[50:02.200 --> 50:14.200]  Okay, then you're fighting this issue of the property not being taxable is going to be one heck of a fight.
[50:14.200 --> 50:33.200]  I have had people claim, and I had someone, Rod Klaas' brother, Don Klaas. No, I'm not sure who this guy was. There were two brothers. Yeah, I think it was Rod Klaas' brother.
[50:33.200 --> 50:46.200]  And he claimed that if you send a letter to the tax assessor collector and ask the collector if the state has any claim on your property,
[50:46.200 --> 50:53.200]  and if your taxes are all paid up, they'll send you back a letter saying they have no claim on your property.
[50:53.200 --> 51:03.200]  Then you take that letter and send it back to them stating that since the state has no claim on your property, you want your taxes,
[51:03.200 --> 51:13.200]  your property removed from the public rolls and put on the private rolls. And that takes it out of taxation.
[51:13.200 --> 51:19.200]  The idea was is that you have a title on your property.
[51:19.200 --> 51:29.200]  Originally, when property was granted from the state to an individual, they did that with an allotment title.
[51:29.200 --> 51:40.200]  They gave ownership from the state to the individual. Well, they didn't give land to everybody, but they had all this land.
[51:40.200 --> 51:51.200]  You get it out there and get something done with it. So they offered to sell the property and they'll sell it to you on time.
[51:51.200 --> 52:00.200]  And as collateral, they would take a title on the property, the title from the state.
[52:00.200 --> 52:14.200]  It was like a deed of trust or mortgage from a bank. And that title gave the state a claim against your property.
[52:14.200 --> 52:27.200]  So getting an allotment title should bring you off the tax rolls. And that's what people have said, but the state will fight you like crazy.
[52:27.200 --> 52:37.200]  You might try asking them if they have a claim, get them to state that they don't have a claim and then request that it be removed from the tax rolls.
[52:37.200 --> 52:44.200]  Apparently, some people got it done this way. They may have figured that out and fixed it, but it's certainly worth looking into.
[52:44.200 --> 52:52.200]  I did try that. I did that, let's see, about a year and a half ago. And all I did was make them mad.
[52:52.200 --> 52:59.200]  I ain't taking you off the tax rolls. You ain't no church, you ain't no nobody. You're not coming off the tax rolls.
[52:59.200 --> 53:03.200]  So that's that.
[53:03.200 --> 53:08.200]  We need to look at it and see if we can sue them for it.
[53:08.200 --> 53:16.200]  Yeah, well, Alphonse's lawsuit that he filed, he's got a copy of it on his Telegram channel and that's exactly what he's doing.
[53:16.200 --> 53:25.200]  He's suing them for various kinds of fraud about having him on the tax roll when it's a private property and it's not a commercial enterprise.
[53:25.200 --> 53:28.200]  That seems to be one of his main tenants.
[53:28.200 --> 53:33.200]  Right. And I think he's dead on. I think he's exactly right.
[53:33.200 --> 53:37.200]  I mean, the other option, like you say, they're going to fight you like tooth and nail.
[53:37.200 --> 53:49.200]  When I read, you know, assuming we go with the notion that property taxes on our property is actually our private property is something that they can do, which I'm not sure.
[53:49.200 --> 53:51.200]  I'm sure it's not.
[53:51.200 --> 53:56.200]  You have to consider the tax assessor's position.
[53:56.200 --> 54:10.200]  If he allows a ruling against him that says he can't tax private property, that's going to decimate his tax collection.
[54:10.200 --> 54:13.200]  So this is why I'm calling you.
[54:13.200 --> 54:16.200]  Yeah, so they will fight you like a tiger.
[54:16.200 --> 54:24.200]  What you might be able to do is beat them up a while and then drag them to the table.
[54:24.200 --> 54:27.200]  Make me a deal.
[54:27.200 --> 54:32.200]  I won't pursue getting all of the taxes overturned.
[54:32.200 --> 54:39.200]  If you will lower my taxes to a dollar and a half.
[54:39.200 --> 54:41.200]  Well, there's something of that nature.
[54:41.200 --> 54:49.200]  Because, you know, when I don't remember if it's the tax code or the Constitution itself, but there's all kinds of stuff in there about like one.
[54:49.200 --> 55:00.200]  There's one line that is in any biennium, which I guess means a two year period, they can't raise the property taxes more than the growth of the state economy.
[55:00.200 --> 55:14.200]  So if the state economy grows five percent in each of two years, then your effective property tax after two years should be about ten point one percent more than it was before the two period two year period started.
[55:14.200 --> 55:21.200]  But again, there's so much, you know, it depends on the definitions of the word they use in each one of those things.
[55:21.200 --> 55:25.200]  Right. When they say property, are they talking about real property or do they mean something else?
[55:25.200 --> 55:32.200]  Right. It's all you have to know what the definition is of the word that they used when they put it in the statute.
[55:32.200 --> 55:43.200]  Well, but you have to also realize that no matter what they meant, if they put it in the statute and they're trying to apply it in a way that takes away your rights,
[55:43.200 --> 55:48.200]  then that's not legit. I don't care what word they meant.
[55:48.200 --> 55:59.200]  If they're trying to, whether the legislature intended to deprive us of a right or not, whether it's just being construed that way, we have a right to own property.
[55:59.200 --> 56:09.200]  It's an inherent right. It didn't come from statutes. It didn't get created by legislature. We have that right. We can own property without them.
[56:09.200 --> 56:21.200]  So when they come along and want to do taxing stuff, it has to be on some licensed activity, some of this business income stuff that they license.
[56:21.200 --> 56:30.200]  And that seems like a perfectly legit way to do it. If they want to take taxes, then they can get it from that. Totally fine.
[56:30.200 --> 56:40.200]  If they try to apply it to something where they're taking away a right, trying to convert it to a privilege and charge you a tax for it, no, not okay.
[56:40.200 --> 56:47.200]  Yeah, no. Alphonse makes the point when he's talking about his case is that they can't tax our right to speech, right?
[56:47.200 --> 56:59.200]  So if they can't tax our right to speech and we have a right to private property and the right to private property is fundamental to our republic, then they can't tax the private property.
[56:59.200 --> 57:07.200]  If you're running a business on it, like if I decide to raise cows and I'm selling the cows and that's commerce, then that's a completely different question.
[57:07.200 --> 57:21.200]  But that's not what's happening, at least in my case. But I agree with what Randy said that, yeah, if you start poking the bear, right, it's going to upend everything that they're doing and they're going to freak out, right?
[57:21.200 --> 57:37.200]  Yeah, of course. Yeah, there's no amount of money they won't spend to beat you. Unless you can never back a bulldog in a corner, unless you give him a way out.
[57:37.200 --> 57:50.200]  Well, that's why I mentioned these other elements of the statute, right? I mean, I wouldn't be having this conversation if they had raised my taxes 5%, right? But they didn't, right? They raised them triple digits two years in a row.
[57:50.200 --> 58:02.200]  And it got my attention because if we keep doing inflation, right, and they decide that my property's worth, you know, then suddenly I'm paying $100,000 a year in property taxes.
[58:02.200 --> 58:05.200]  Wow.
[58:05.200 --> 58:07.200]  Okay.
[58:07.200 --> 58:28.200]  Yeah, if we keep doing inflation and suddenly my land is worth $5 million, you know, they claim it's worth $5 million, you know, because the Chinese and BlackRock and whoever else bought up everything around me, then they hit me with a $75,000 or $100,000 a year tax bill.
[58:28.200 --> 58:37.200]  And that's really why I'm concerned about fighting this. It's not this particular amount, or it's even not the amount, you know, two years from now. It's more like, what's going to happen five years from now?
[58:37.200 --> 58:49.200]  Okay, hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rue de la Radio. We'll be right back.
[58:49.200 --> 59:06.200]  The Bible remains the most popular book in the world, yet countless readers are frustrated because they struggle to understand it. Some new translations try to help by simplifying the text, but in the process can compromise the profound meaning of the scripture.
[59:06.200 --> 59:27.200]  Enter the recovery version. First, this new translation is extremely faithful and accurate, but the real story is the more than 9,000 explanatory footnotes. Difficult and profound passages are opened up in a marvelous way, providing an entrance into the riches of the word beyond which you've ever experienced before.
[59:27.200 --> 59:52.200]  Bibles for America would like to give you a free recovery version simply for the asking. This comprehensive yet compact study Bible is yours just by calling us toll free at 1-888-551-0102, or by ordering online at freestudybible.com. That's freestudybible.com.
[59:52.200 --> 01:00:01.200]  You're listening to the Logos Radio Network at logosradionetwork.com.
[01:00:01.200 --> 01:00:16.200]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution. They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:16.200 --> 01:00:32.200]  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. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:32.200 --> 01:00:45.200]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. 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.
[01:00:45.200 --> 01:01:00.200]  Most people think of seven as a more civilized number than six. Think of how the number six is implicated in evil, as in the biblical 666. So it would fit right in that the Seventh Amendment would be about civil trials. Civil seven, civil trials, get it?
[01:01:00.200 --> 01:01:19.200]  Civil trials are ones where people sue instead of beating each other up over a dispute, like the dividing line between properties. They take their dispute to a courthouse and settle matters civilly without the fisticuffs. The Seventh Amendment guarantees that Americans have the right to a jury in certain civil matters instead of having a lone judge rule on the case.
[01:01:19.200 --> 01:01:31.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:31.200 --> 01:01:47.200]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution. They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect. Our liberty depends on it. I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:47.200 --> 01:02:02.200]  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. So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.200 --> 01:02:16.200]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to. 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.
[01:02:16.200 --> 01:02:33.200]  Remember the scene in George Orwell's novel, 1984, when Winston is threatened with his worst fear? That fear was having a cage of hungry rats unleashed on his face. But what if his worst fear was spiders? Eight-legged spiders, to be exact. Getting a faceful of spiders would be pretty cruel and unusual.
[01:02:33.200 --> 01:02:47.200]  That image of eight-legged spiders will help you remember the Eighth Amendment. Our founding fathers added the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect us from creepy-crawly eight-legged punishments and other cruel and unusual prison practices that were common in their day.
[01:02:47.200 --> 01:03:04.200]  The Eighth Amendment also prohibits the government from requiring excessive bail and charging excessive fines.
[01:03:17.200 --> 01:03:45.200]  OK, we are back.
[01:03:45.200 --> 01:03:58.200]  We're talking to Timothy in Texas. Do we have anything else on that therapy? Pretty well exhausted that, Timothy.
[01:03:58.200 --> 01:04:03.200]  I think I've got enough to chew on for a while, that's for sure.
[01:04:03.200 --> 01:04:08.200]  Keep us up to speed on your research.
[01:04:08.200 --> 01:04:11.200]  Yes, sir. All right, thank you.
[01:04:11.200 --> 01:04:21.200]  OK, thank you, Timothy. OK, now we're going to go to Jeff in Texas. Hello, Jeff.
[01:04:21.200 --> 01:04:25.200]  Hey, Randy, Jeff here in West Texas.
[01:04:25.200 --> 01:04:31.200]  How in West Texas? Just north of Waco.
[01:04:31.200 --> 01:04:35.200]  No, I'm out here in West Texas, just...
[01:04:35.200 --> 01:04:39.200]  West Texas is about five miles north of Waco.
[01:04:39.200 --> 01:04:43.200]  Oh, I understand. West.
[01:04:43.200 --> 01:04:46.200]  I was wondering what you meant.
[01:04:46.200 --> 01:04:49.200]  I'm talking the far west.
[01:04:49.200 --> 01:04:52.200]  Oh, OK. Yeah. The real west.
[01:04:52.200 --> 01:04:56.200]  We're out here in oil patch.
[01:04:56.200 --> 01:05:01.200]  Well, I've got myself into a little conundrum.
[01:05:01.200 --> 01:05:18.200]  I made a mistake. I was going after an attorney in small claims court and appealed it up to the county court and was really looking forward to going in there and boxing his ears off.
[01:05:18.200 --> 01:05:34.200]  And my claim was that he never sent me any kind of notification through email. And he claimed he did. And so I called him a liar, perjury, and took him up on appeal.
[01:05:34.200 --> 01:05:44.200]  And what has happened is that he did email me. Unfortunately, I've got two emails.
[01:05:44.200 --> 01:05:55.200]  Oops. I did not tell him my other email, but I think what happened is that the clerk probably asked me for an alternate email.
[01:05:55.200 --> 01:06:03.200]  And when I gave it to her, that must have popped up on his e-filing system.
[01:06:03.200 --> 01:06:12.200]  And so when I looked in the other email, it's a junk bin is what it is. I actually found it. And he was right.
[01:06:12.200 --> 01:06:20.200]  So what I want to do or what I'm thinking I want to do, I don't want to go to court and have him prove me wrong.
[01:06:20.200 --> 01:06:33.200]  I'm just I'm just thinking about non suiting the case, but I want to non suit in a way that he won't come after me.
[01:06:33.200 --> 01:06:40.200]  If you shoot him in small claims, you're pretty well protected.
[01:06:40.200 --> 01:06:53.200]  OK. He can't, you know, if if you acted in from honest error,
[01:06:53.200 --> 01:07:01.200]  he's not supposed to bring a lawyer into small claims, so he can't claim his lawyer fees.
[01:07:01.200 --> 01:07:06.200]  OK. His time is worth about the same as yours. Yes.
[01:07:06.200 --> 01:07:15.200]  So just tell him just to non suit because you just tell him it wasn't worth messing with.
[01:07:15.200 --> 01:07:19.200]  OK. So when I don't suit, I don't have to put a reason.
[01:07:19.200 --> 01:07:25.200]  I can just use a general non suit sample off the Internet and just say I'm non suiting the case.
[01:07:25.200 --> 01:07:29.200]  See you later. Yes. OK.
[01:07:29.200 --> 01:07:37.200]  And very, very likely he will say good riddance and it'll be done. OK.
[01:07:37.200 --> 01:07:39.200]  I'll turn that in tomorrow. Yes.
[01:07:39.200 --> 01:07:49.200]  I was afraid if I if I mentioned, oh, it's the wrong email and blah, blah, blah, that he come back and and claim that I was being deceitful.
[01:07:49.200 --> 01:07:52.200]  Right. So you don't have to do any of that. Just don't mention it.
[01:07:52.200 --> 01:07:56.200]  Tell him that you decided it wasn't worth fighting over.
[01:07:56.200 --> 01:08:00.200]  So just non suit. OK. And that's only if he asked.
[01:08:00.200 --> 01:08:05.200]  Just just say I'm non suiting and he probably won't happen. He'll probably never email.
[01:08:05.200 --> 01:08:10.200]  OK. Right. We'll let you go and I'll be up there at the courthouse tomorrow.
[01:08:10.200 --> 01:08:13.200]  OK. All right. Thank you.
[01:08:13.200 --> 01:08:20.200]  Thank you, Jeff. Now we're going to go to Miss Sweet Tina.
[01:08:20.200 --> 01:08:28.200]  Not to be confused with that other Tina, whose name we're not going to mention.
[01:08:28.200 --> 01:08:31.200]  You mean like the begins with C.
[01:08:31.200 --> 01:08:35.200]  They're like the last letter of my name. Yes, I'm like that.
[01:08:35.200 --> 01:08:40.200]  No, no, no. The one that begins with that.
[01:08:40.200 --> 01:08:52.200]  Yes. Well, of course, you can't do that because you've been truly lately because you didn't respond to my tech, my message.
[01:08:52.200 --> 01:08:58.200]  You were going to send me write me an affidavit and you didn't.
[01:08:58.200 --> 01:09:03.200]  Yes, you're right. I didn't. Yeah. My bad.
[01:09:03.200 --> 01:09:05.200]  Your bad.
[01:09:05.200 --> 01:09:11.200]  Something. Pardon. Was I going to send you something?
[01:09:11.200 --> 01:09:14.200]  Now that you're mentioning that, it seems like it was it was Brett.
[01:09:14.200 --> 01:09:19.200]  It wasn't me. It was Brett.
[01:09:19.200 --> 01:09:23.200]  I believe it was both of you.
[01:09:23.200 --> 01:09:28.200]  But that's OK. I know you can make it up to me by getting it in.
[01:09:28.200 --> 01:09:38.200]  I wanted to let you guys know that I did file for notice of disqualification of the judge.
[01:09:38.200 --> 01:09:42.200]  Well, actually, two judges. I know they're going to deny it, but that's OK.
[01:09:42.200 --> 01:09:47.200]  We just know what they do. It's the way they act.
[01:09:47.200 --> 01:09:54.200]  But what do you see? What is the disqualification rule in California?
[01:09:54.200 --> 01:10:00.200]  Well, it's very clear for one seventy point six for a trial judge.
[01:10:00.200 --> 01:10:07.200]  You just have to say that you don't believe that you will get a fair hearing.
[01:10:07.200 --> 01:10:14.200]  That's what you have to say and have to remove that judge.
[01:10:14.200 --> 01:10:20.200]  OK, and put someone else in. Now, with an appellate judge, it's a little different.
[01:10:20.200 --> 01:10:28.200]  I can't find exact rulings on it, but I'm just doing it anyway because they clearly were biased,
[01:10:28.200 --> 01:10:37.200]  especially based on the judge's writings from 2006 and another one that it doesn't state,
[01:10:37.200 --> 01:10:47.200]  where he says that, you know, the judges have an obligation to explain their rulings in detail with non-legally.
[01:10:47.200 --> 01:10:51.200]  And it really irritates him that when they don't.
[01:10:51.200 --> 01:10:57.200]  So you've irritated yourself because you just didn't explain your ruling in my case.
[01:10:57.200 --> 01:10:59.200]  Well, you just blankly denied it.
[01:10:59.200 --> 01:11:06.200]  That means that means he singled you out for special mistreatment.
[01:11:06.200 --> 01:11:12.200]  More like that wording. Yes. Yes, he did single me up a special mistreatment
[01:11:12.200 --> 01:11:20.200]  because him and his little pal that he said, oh, you know, basically I love you and you love me.
[01:11:20.200 --> 01:11:24.200]  And we sit on the same panel and we've been buddies forever.
[01:11:24.200 --> 01:11:27.200]  I mean, he's like in the interview.
[01:11:27.200 --> 01:11:35.200]  So really, is that other judge going to go against what you say because you're so such good friends and such good.
[01:11:35.200 --> 01:11:42.200]  I like I like the term they both got their snouts in the same trough.
[01:11:42.200 --> 01:11:45.200]  I like that, too. Yeah.
[01:11:45.200 --> 01:11:50.200]  The image, the mental image is just perfect.
[01:11:50.200 --> 01:11:54.200]  It is he's not well, he's already going to be mad at me for what I put,
[01:11:54.200 --> 01:12:02.200]  but I thought that he's unfit to serve and should be removed because, you know, he's violating his own.
[01:12:02.200 --> 01:12:11.200]  What he states is his own obligation, his own personal code of conduct or like that, his own personal code of conduct.
[01:12:11.200 --> 01:12:19.200]  That's that's good, too. His words are going to come back to haunt him.
[01:12:19.200 --> 01:12:29.200]  And, you know, I've quoted it and I've given the link in there to show where his words were memorialized.
[01:12:29.200 --> 01:12:37.200]  So we will see what happens. But he also this I found to be quite interesting.
[01:12:37.200 --> 01:12:41.200]  He talks about this one of his first cases.
[01:12:41.200 --> 01:12:49.200]  And I'm really bringing this into my, you know, my disqualification papers.
[01:12:49.200 --> 01:12:59.200]  Oh, here here is what he says on the infuriating judges who make decisions and then leave the bench without explaining their rulings infuriate Gilbert.
[01:12:59.200 --> 01:13:09.200]  And so I put so Judge Gilbert infuriates himself and is of unlawful double minded on the issues against his very own personal standards.
[01:13:09.200 --> 01:13:18.200]  Yet in this instance, he ignored his own stated obligations to this unrepresented litigant and the court, again showing his bias and prejudice.
[01:13:18.200 --> 01:13:28.200]  Perhaps, as he is famously quoted as saying, it's just the two of us in a room, me and my brain, only often I'm alone.
[01:13:28.200 --> 01:13:33.200]  Appellant respectfully asked, was he alone in the room when he made this decision?
[01:13:33.200 --> 01:13:43.200]  He's not going like that one, but I don't care because what are they going to do to me?
[01:13:43.200 --> 01:13:49.200]  Have his brain departed at that time? Well, he's the one who said it in this interview.
[01:13:49.200 --> 01:13:54.200]  He's that's his most famous quote, according to this interview.
[01:13:54.200 --> 01:13:57.200]  So let it come back to haunt him.
[01:13:57.200 --> 01:14:06.200]  And then he talks about this one case, this first case that he one of the first cases he had,
[01:14:06.200 --> 01:14:16.200]  where he said that these two attorneys, you know, one of them was deceiving the other attorney by letting time run out,
[01:14:16.200 --> 01:14:23.200]  by not explaining that he represented both parties because they changed the name and something like that.
[01:14:23.200 --> 01:14:29.200]  And so then he said, that's not how justice is and how it works.
[01:14:29.200 --> 01:14:36.200]  And even though it was time barred, we ruled for the attorney that was deceived.
[01:14:36.200 --> 01:14:42.200]  And well, it's really interesting because I've just pointed out that him.
[01:14:42.200 --> 01:14:45.200]  Well, this is exactly what my case is about.
[01:14:45.200 --> 01:14:50.200]  An attorney that deceived another attorney and their client deliberately.
[01:14:50.200 --> 01:14:57.200]  And yet you didn't apply the same ruling and thought process to my case.
[01:14:57.200 --> 01:15:03.200]  Well, because I'm just a pro se litigant and I don't matter.
[01:15:03.200 --> 01:15:12.200]  I mean, that's what is clearly is actually his actual words is this lawyer actually went out of his way to deceive the other lawyer.
[01:15:12.200 --> 01:15:16.200]  That's not what the law practice of law is about.
[01:15:16.200 --> 01:15:19.200]  That's not what justice is about.
[01:15:19.200 --> 01:15:23.200]  That's his spoken words quoted.
[01:15:23.200 --> 01:15:27.200]  Oh, that is come up.
[01:15:27.200 --> 01:15:31.200]  That's going to be hard for him to argue against.
[01:15:31.200 --> 01:15:37.200]  Yes, because mine's the same case. The attorney deliberately deceived me and my attorney.
[01:15:37.200 --> 01:15:43.200]  And if that's not what justice is about, why are you letting them get away with it?
[01:15:43.200 --> 01:15:51.200]  I brought it up in the last hearing, you and your buddy presided, but you didn't rule for the person who was deceived.
[01:15:51.200 --> 01:15:59.200]  You let that attorney, your buddy, your because of dear friendship, familiarity, colleagues, whatever it is.
[01:15:59.200 --> 01:16:05.200]  You're allowing them to win when they deliberately deceived.
[01:16:05.200 --> 01:16:11.200]  So I send a copy to the judicial counsel.
[01:16:11.200 --> 01:16:18.200]  You know, when you find their words that come back to haunt them, it's kind of it's really interesting.
[01:16:18.200 --> 01:16:27.200]  And I've put here no judge is free to misinterpret, fail to take notice or ignore the law and violate their play.
[01:16:27.200 --> 01:16:30.200]  And so anyway, we'll see what's going to happen.
[01:16:30.200 --> 01:16:34.200]  I'm going to file a supplemental and you're trying to run me off the cliff, Randy.
[01:16:34.200 --> 01:16:37.200]  And it's not going to work. It's all your fault.
[01:16:37.200 --> 01:16:52.200]  OK, OK, I'm not going to call you churlish, but I think that other judge will think this is pretty churlish and appropriately so.
[01:16:52.200 --> 01:16:59.200]  Randy Kelton, Brett Batson, Root Law Radio, we'll be right back.
[01:16:59.200 --> 01:17:05.200]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word?
[01:17:05.200 --> 01:17:11.200]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture Talk,
[01:17:11.200 --> 01:17:16.200]  where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[01:17:16.200 --> 01:17:23.200]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
[01:17:23.200 --> 01:17:31.200]  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.
[01:17:31.200 --> 01:17:38.200]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character development.
[01:17:38.200 --> 01:17:43.200]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[01:17:43.200 --> 01:17:49.200]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[01:17:49.200 --> 01:18:00.200]  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.
[01:18:00.200 --> 01:18:06.200]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:18:06.200 --> 01:18:11.200]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:18:11.200 --> 01:18:17.200]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:18:17.200 --> 01:18:25.200]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need.
[01:18:25.200 --> 01:18:31.200]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which we reject.
[01:18:31.200 --> 01:18:39.200]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:18:39.200 --> 01:18:47.200]  When you order from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:18:47.200 --> 01:18:51.200]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:18:51.200 --> 01:18:58.200]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income.
[01:18:58.200 --> 01:19:21.200]  Order now.
[01:19:28.200 --> 01:19:41.200]  Okay, we are back.
[01:19:41.200 --> 01:19:51.200]  And we're going, we're talking to Tina in California, sweet Tina.
[01:19:51.200 --> 01:20:00.200]  Well, I've got a couple of things, one short, I want to read one sentence that they put in their reply brief.
[01:20:00.200 --> 01:20:06.200]  And because I'm getting ready to, you know, write my response and file it.
[01:20:06.200 --> 01:20:10.200]  And I want to see what you think to what they stated.
[01:20:10.200 --> 01:20:20.200]  Appellant, me, knew of the true intent of the fraud.
[01:20:20.200 --> 01:20:22.200]  What?
[01:20:22.200 --> 01:20:27.200]  Appellant knew of the true intent of the fraud.
[01:20:27.200 --> 01:20:29.200]  The true intent of the fraud.
[01:20:29.200 --> 01:20:33.200]  Wait a minute, he said the fraud?
[01:20:33.200 --> 01:20:35.200]  The fraud.
[01:20:35.200 --> 01:20:40.200]  So he's essentially admitting that they were doing fraud?
[01:20:40.200 --> 01:20:47.200]  That's what I take this as, I mean, that's what it says.
[01:20:47.200 --> 01:20:50.200]  This guy doesn't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer.
[01:20:50.200 --> 01:20:59.200]  For people that are supposed to be careful about words, that doesn't seem like a very smart thing to put in writing.
[01:20:59.200 --> 01:21:13.200]  I just wanted to see if I'm reading this correctly, or if I'm just, you know, because I'm so close to it, I can't see what they're trying to say, or am I reading the wrong intent into that sentence?
[01:21:13.200 --> 01:21:17.200]  Go ahead.
[01:21:17.200 --> 01:21:25.200]  Had you previously labeled that as fraud, or just as lying?
[01:21:25.200 --> 01:21:40.200]  That's what I filed the suit on, was on fraud, and it fitted all the elements based on him saying that CIT would send me the original note, and he said that, writing it twice.
[01:21:40.200 --> 01:21:59.200]  And another one he said, you know, a little bit later, which I find is very interesting, he said that, you know, I'm trying to find the exact one here.
[01:21:59.200 --> 01:22:10.200]  He's trying to say that, you know, I knew ahead of time that they were intending to do fraud.
[01:22:10.200 --> 01:22:28.200]  So if he can't get around any of the elements, all of the essential elements are just rock solid, and he can't get around anything, then he's hoping that he can say that, well, it's been too long, because you knew about it at the time, and so now you're past the four years, or whatever California says.
[01:22:28.200 --> 01:22:39.200]  That's exactly what he's trying to say here. It is even assuming respondents made a false statement that CIT would return the loan documents, again, which is not true.
[01:22:39.200 --> 01:22:47.200]  Boy, you put those statements in writing and signed them. So how would you say it's not true?
[01:22:47.200 --> 01:22:59.200]  Wait a minute, let's go back to the fraud thing. He's saying you knew about the fraud, and therefore, statute of limitations has.
[01:22:59.200 --> 01:23:24.200]  Haven't you been adjudicating the fraud the whole time? Not this particular part of fraud, not his fraud in telling me that they were going to do it, because I didn't know that he didn't intend to do it until I didn't get the documents, because he kept saying after this case is over, we will send it to you.
[01:23:24.200 --> 01:23:30.200]  After the appeal is over, we will send it to you. The appeal didn't finish until 2018.
[01:23:30.200 --> 01:23:59.200]  Okay, then look up equitable estoppel. Fraud generally goes to equitable estoppel, and by his proactive statements, stating that he would send it to you at some time, he's relying on the fact, the alleged fact that you knew he was lying to you when he told you he would give you the money.
[01:23:59.200 --> 01:24:03.200]  He told you he would give you the documents.
[01:24:03.200 --> 01:24:09.200]  That's exactly what his counsel said, but I'm not psychic. I don't know how I could know that.
[01:24:09.200 --> 01:24:14.200]  Yeah, so that's nice thing that you knew the intent of the fraud.
[01:24:14.200 --> 01:24:23.200]  So, you might not have known the details of the fraud, but you sure knew he wanted to defraud you and so therefore you should have done something earlier.
[01:24:23.200 --> 01:24:33.200]  That's not what he said. He said that you knew that his act was fraudulent.
[01:24:33.200 --> 01:24:39.200]  Okay, I think we're saying the same thing, but yeah, the intent of the fraud.
[01:24:39.200 --> 01:24:45.200]  He's saying you knew that he was lying to you.
[01:24:45.200 --> 01:24:54.200]  And so that would bar equitable estoppel. I'm sorry, equitable tolling.
[01:24:54.200 --> 01:25:03.200]  And you're saying when he told you he would do a certain thing, you are naive enough to believe him.
[01:25:03.200 --> 01:25:10.200]  Well, that's what my former attorney said. He's a licensed attorney. He will do what he says he's going to do.
[01:25:10.200 --> 01:25:20.200]  Yeah, so that goes to equitable tolling. That'll be easy enough to establish. Look up equitable tolling in California.
[01:25:20.200 --> 01:25:28.200]  I will, equitable tolling. And they have gone against this, but I'm going to do some more and I'll come on next week to talk about it.
[01:25:28.200 --> 01:25:37.200]  But I want to know, I mean, I put something on Telegram about Catherine Cryer, a former Texas judge and prosecutor.
[01:25:37.200 --> 01:25:44.200]  She has a book out that says, and I put a quote in here in my disqualification of the judge,
[01:25:44.200 --> 01:25:58.200]  our legal system that is profoundly unfair, that it produces results and profits for the few and paralysis, frustration and injustice for many.
[01:25:58.200 --> 01:26:03.200]  Lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats have taken the palace without firing a shot.
[01:26:03.200 --> 01:26:13.200]  These groups control the creation and enforcement of law. Their ability to write rules and manipulate them at will has established a new tyranny in America.
[01:26:13.200 --> 01:26:21.200]  A great cornerstone of democracy, the rule of law has become a court of power and influence, not liberty and justice.
[01:26:21.200 --> 01:26:26.200]  And somebody downloaded the book that she wrote, and I'm reading through it.
[01:26:26.200 --> 01:26:37.200]  This person was a former Texas judge and prosecutor who's coming out against attorneys. I thought it was interesting it was coming from Texas.
[01:26:37.200 --> 01:26:41.200]  That is interesting. You should quote some of that in your pleadings.
[01:26:41.200 --> 01:26:44.200]  I have.
[01:26:44.200 --> 01:26:47.200]  I just read you, I quoted it.
[01:26:47.200 --> 01:26:49.200]  Okay, wonderful.
[01:26:49.200 --> 01:27:00.200]  But okay, we'll help some other people in Texas and you might want to look this lady up and maybe see if she will, you know, talk to you about the cases you're going after right now.
[01:27:00.200 --> 01:27:10.200]  Yeah, she might. That'll be I got her name down. I'll look into that. We need to move on. We got three callers in two segments left.
[01:27:10.200 --> 01:27:13.200]  I'll talk to you. Thanks for everything. Talk to you later.
[01:27:13.200 --> 01:27:21.200]  Thank you. Okay, now we're going to go to Eric in Massachusetts. Hello, Eric.
[01:27:21.200 --> 01:27:23.200]  Hello, gentlemen. How you doing?
[01:27:23.200 --> 01:27:27.200]  Doing good. What do you have for us today?
[01:27:27.200 --> 01:27:37.200]  I'm having fun in, I guess I'm in district court now, but I started in small flames. I'm hoping to go federal with it.
[01:27:37.200 --> 01:27:39.200]  But I'm still having fun.
[01:27:39.200 --> 01:27:55.200]  So my question is, I filed a request for default rule fifty five, fifty five a here in Massachusetts under using one of their forms.
[01:27:55.200 --> 01:28:02.200]  And I actually handed it to a clerk and I said, hey, you have the power to sign this. Will you sign this right now?
[01:28:02.200 --> 01:28:17.200]  And he declined and it still hasn't done anything with it. So I was going to go to the Supreme Court, which is how it works in here in Massachusetts, or the Supreme Court and ask for a writ of mandamus.
[01:28:17.200 --> 01:28:20.200]  Is that the correct thing to do?
[01:28:20.200 --> 01:28:28.200]  Is it something that he has discretion to sign or it's something that he has a duty to sign?
[01:28:28.200 --> 01:28:39.200]  I believe he has a duty to sign it. I feel like you guys have said that he has a duty to sign it.
[01:28:39.200 --> 01:28:41.200]  What is it that you brought to him?
[01:28:41.200 --> 01:28:53.200]  My question would be, do you have a statutory right to the default judgment?
[01:28:53.200 --> 01:29:06.200]  If you have a statutory right and the clerk exercises discretion in a way that denies you in a right.
[01:29:06.200 --> 01:29:15.200]  But that would be official misconduct. In Texas, it would be called official oppression.
[01:29:15.200 --> 01:29:21.200]  OK, but I want to I want to say writ done first rather than.
[01:29:21.200 --> 01:29:34.200]  Well, what I'm saying is in answer to your question, it's you have the clerk would have a duty to sign that as failing to do it would deny you in a right.
[01:29:34.200 --> 01:29:41.200]  OK. Again, I'm you know, I'm not I'm not trying to slap him.
[01:29:41.200 --> 01:29:45.200]  I'm not going to beat him up. I want to get I want to get this done.
[01:29:45.200 --> 01:29:50.200]  He's not going to do it. So now I got to go to the Supreme Supreme Court.
[01:29:50.200 --> 01:29:53.200]  OK, hang on.
[01:29:53.200 --> 01:30:02.200]  Rule of law radio will be right back.
[01:30:02.200 --> 01:30:09.200]  Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us dumber just keeps on growing.
[01:30:09.200 --> 01:30:12.200]  But now researchers say we can add stress to the list.
[01:30:12.200 --> 01:30:16.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with details in a moment.
[01:30:16.200 --> 01:30:20.200]  Privacy is under attack when you give up data about yourself.
[01:30:20.200 --> 01:30:26.200]  You'll never get it back again. And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish, too.
[01:30:26.200 --> 01:30:32.200]  So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:32.200 --> 01:30:34.200]  Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.200 --> 01:30:41.200]  This message is brought to you by start page dot com, the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:41.200 --> 01:30:45.200]  Start over with start page.
[01:30:45.200 --> 01:30:48.200]  Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects?
[01:30:48.200 --> 01:30:52.200]  If so, you might think that multitasking proves you're smart.
[01:30:52.200 --> 01:30:56.200]  But think again. All that stress might be eating your brain.
[01:30:56.200 --> 01:31:03.200]  A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons, which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems.
[01:31:03.200 --> 01:31:10.200]  Researchers at Yale University found that stressed out people have less gray matter in their prefrontal cortex.
[01:31:10.200 --> 01:31:15.200]  That's the part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting ideas and regulate our emotions.
[01:31:15.200 --> 01:31:21.200]  So take a deep breath and chill out. It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack.
[01:31:21.200 --> 01:31:31.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for start page dot com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.200 --> 01:31:36.200]  This is building seven, a forty seven story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.200 --> 01:31:43.200]  The government says that fire brought it down. However, fifteen hundred architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.200 --> 01:31:46.200]  Over six thousand of my fellow service members have given their lives.
[01:31:46.200 --> 01:31:48.200]  Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:31:48.200 --> 01:31:50.200]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.200 --> 01:31:51.200]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.200 --> 01:31:52.200]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.200 --> 01:31:53.200]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.200 --> 01:31:55.200]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.200 --> 01:31:58.200]  We're Americans and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.200 --> 01:32:02.200]  Go to remember building seven dot org today.
[01:32:02.200 --> 01:32:06.200]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar in today's America.
[01:32:06.200 --> 01:32:08.200]  We live in an us against them society.
[01:32:08.200 --> 01:32:13.200]  If we, the people, are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.200 --> 01:32:20.200]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.200 --> 01:32:26.200]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.200 --> 01:32:36.200]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.200 --> 01:32:41.200]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.200 --> 01:32:51.200]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material.
[01:32:51.200 --> 01:32:55.200]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:55.200 --> 01:32:59.200]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:25.200 --> 01:33:29.200]  The Texas Transportation Code
[01:33:55.200 --> 01:34:15.200]  Okay, we are back from the county out in Rule of Law Radio.
[01:34:15.200 --> 01:34:23.200]  We're talking to Eric in Massachusetts, and yeah, Eric, mandamus seems like exactly the same thing to do, and that'd be great fun.
[01:34:23.200 --> 01:34:26.200]  Have you ever done a mandamus?
[01:34:26.200 --> 01:34:38.200]  No, I have a couple samples. They're kind of, you know, especially, yeah, writamandamus, they're kind of hard to come by, but I have a good one from the Supreme Court that was written by a lawyer.
[01:34:38.200 --> 01:34:41.200]  Ah, good.
[01:34:41.200 --> 01:34:53.200]  I was going to say, when you get into the appellate court, their form and structure is generally very carefully defined.
[01:34:53.200 --> 01:35:15.200]  Like in Texas, you have to have a table of contents and you have to have a table of authorities, and the first section with the table of contents and table of authorities has to be numbered with Roman numerals.
[01:35:15.200 --> 01:35:22.200]  And then the content of the document is numbered with Arabic numerals.
[01:35:22.200 --> 01:35:28.200]  I had to do that with sections. That was really hard to get done.
[01:35:28.200 --> 01:35:41.200]  And you have a limited number of words and you have to have a word count at the bottom. You check your rules because they get real particular in the appellate courts that everything be done just right.
[01:35:41.200 --> 01:35:50.200]  In Massachusetts, it goes to a writamandamus, only goes to the Supreme Court. It does not go to the appeals court.
[01:35:50.200 --> 01:36:00.200]  And I was reading the statute, this will excite you. It has your favorite word in there, shall. The clerk shall enter his default.
[01:36:00.200 --> 01:36:08.200]  Make sure you put in, it does not say may, might, or can if he wants to.
[01:36:08.200 --> 01:36:24.200]  And the fact that if you said you have a right to this default, if the clerk were allowed to refuse to sign the default, it would deny you in this right.
[01:36:24.200 --> 01:36:32.200]  That should get you there.
[01:36:32.200 --> 01:36:42.200]  Okay, so I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to require the clerk to sign this.
[01:36:42.200 --> 01:36:49.200]  Yes, that's exactly what you should get. That's what the mandamus is.
[01:36:49.200 --> 01:36:57.200]  Okay. Yeah, I was trying to think of how I wanted to word it, but I didn't want to ask them to ask.
[01:36:57.200 --> 01:37:02.200]  So I wanted to require them to require.
[01:37:02.200 --> 01:37:10.200]  You move them to order the clerk to sign the default.
[01:37:10.200 --> 01:37:13.200]  Okay.
[01:37:13.200 --> 01:37:15.200]  Okay.
[01:37:15.200 --> 01:37:19.200]  And cite what it is that says that she shall.
[01:37:19.200 --> 01:37:21.200]  Say that again.
[01:37:21.200 --> 01:37:31.200]  And cite what it is, whichever is your legal support that you found that says the word shall, cite that.
[01:37:31.200 --> 01:37:38.200]  Now, you don't have to be mean to the clerk. You can say that the clerk was apparently unsure of her duty.
[01:37:38.200 --> 01:37:42.200]  So perhaps this is a matter of proper training.
[01:37:42.200 --> 01:37:54.200]  And the clerk needs guidance from the Supreme, because that's what the Supreme is there for, is to give guidance to the lower courts.
[01:37:54.200 --> 01:37:56.200]  Okay.
[01:37:56.200 --> 01:37:58.200]  Okay. Anything else?
[01:37:58.200 --> 01:38:01.200]  Sounds good. Thanks so much. No, that's it.
[01:38:01.200 --> 01:38:08.200]  Thank you, Eric. Okay, now we're going to go to John in Kansas. Mike, I see you there.
[01:38:08.200 --> 01:38:20.200]  Let's see. We've got, I've got a segment, segment and a half we may get to you, but if we don't call back tomorrow and we'll pick you up early.
[01:38:20.200 --> 01:38:22.200]  Okay.
[01:38:22.200 --> 01:38:25.200]  John in Kansas.
[01:38:25.200 --> 01:38:28.200]  Hello, John. Did you get through the codes?
[01:38:28.200 --> 01:38:31.200]  I did. How are you doing?
[01:38:31.200 --> 01:38:33.200]  I'm doing good.
[01:38:33.200 --> 01:38:35.200]  Okay, that's great.
[01:38:35.200 --> 01:38:41.200]  Well, I've called in before and I'll just kind of give you, I'll give you a little update.
[01:38:41.200 --> 01:38:50.200]  I called in before. I'm helping Chris from Missouri. We had a trespass case in Kansas City and then we ended up filing a...
[01:38:50.200 --> 01:38:55.200]  Oh, okay. Now I know who you are.
[01:38:55.200 --> 01:38:56.200]  So...
[01:38:56.200 --> 01:38:59.200]  Something about a junkyard?
[01:38:59.200 --> 01:39:01.200]  No, no junkyard.
[01:39:01.200 --> 01:39:08.200]  No, you're not the guy on Telegram channel, the junkyard lawyer or something like that?
[01:39:08.200 --> 01:39:11.200]  Yeah, junkyard law. That's me.
[01:39:11.200 --> 01:39:14.200]  Okay, okay. That was you. Okay.
[01:39:14.200 --> 01:39:21.200]  Yeah, so I'm John. I'm John and my handle deal on Telegram is junkyard law.
[01:39:21.200 --> 01:39:24.200]  Okay, now I know who you are.
[01:39:24.200 --> 01:39:40.200]  Yeah, so I'm helping Chris from Missouri and we've filed the lawsuit. We've amended our complaint once and we have a motion to dismiss that hand.
[01:39:40.200 --> 01:39:52.200]  We've responded to it and then we have a motion for judgment on the pleadings that we've responded to, which in our situation is improper.
[01:39:52.200 --> 01:40:08.200]  I believe it's improper because the pleadings aren't closed and the lawyer for...we're suing the police department and the Salvation Army.
[01:40:08.200 --> 01:40:19.200]  So he went to the Salvation Army. They wanted to wear a mask. He refused to wear the mask. He got into an argument with the employees and the customers.
[01:40:19.200 --> 01:40:26.200]  He left within five minutes. Cops showed up, arrested him. And so that's what the lawsuit is about.
[01:40:26.200 --> 01:40:28.200]  Okay.
[01:40:28.200 --> 01:40:51.200]  Let me...I got an email from Harmon Taylor today and he had an interesting issue in there he was addressing. He was saying that the legislature can restrict you from doing certain things.
[01:40:51.200 --> 01:41:02.200]  But there's nothing in law that authorizes the legislature to direct you to do anything.
[01:41:02.200 --> 01:41:11.200]  They can't tell you you have to do something. They can only tell you that you can't do something.
[01:41:11.200 --> 01:41:21.200]  Now, I don't know if I'll find... It's not specific to you. They have to say that nobody can do this thing. Yeah.
[01:41:21.200 --> 01:41:38.200]  When I filed the criminal complaint against the governor, I argued that the director of the executive branch can only speak to members of the executive branch.
[01:41:38.200 --> 01:41:46.200]  Can't say anything to a private citizen, has no power over a private citizen of any kind.
[01:41:46.200 --> 01:41:56.200]  And this argument about the legislature, I want to study it more, but it sounds correct.
[01:41:56.200 --> 01:42:12.200]  I don't remember anything in the Constitution that gave power to the legislature to direct a citizen in a republic to do anything.
[01:42:12.200 --> 01:42:21.200]  It does allow them to restrict our behaviors in certain circumstances, but nothing grants them the power to order us to do anything.
[01:42:21.200 --> 01:42:29.200]  That would go to enslavement. If they tell us to do something, then they have to pay us.
[01:42:29.200 --> 01:42:43.200]  So they're telling you that you have to wear a mask, and they're doing that because did the governor of Missouri issue some executive orders?
[01:42:43.200 --> 01:42:48.200]  Well, in this situation, he was in Kansas. He lives in Missouri.
[01:42:48.200 --> 01:42:59.200]  Okay, well, then in Kansas. Right, so in Kansas, but the issue was the Salvation Army decided they had a policy that they could make somebody wear a mask.
[01:42:59.200 --> 01:43:04.200]  Well, he actually didn't argue with them. He ended up leaving.
[01:43:04.200 --> 01:43:21.200]  And so the lawsuit is false imprisonment is basically we have a lawsuit for false imprisonment, conspiracy for false imprisonment and discrimination.
[01:43:21.200 --> 01:43:25.200]  How did you get the discrimination?
[01:43:25.200 --> 01:43:36.200]  Well, the Salvation Army, they were serving people that had masks, but they were not serving people that did not.
[01:43:36.200 --> 01:43:45.200]  Oh, okay. That'll probably work. It's an interesting take.
[01:43:45.200 --> 01:43:59.200]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Wheel of Law Radio. Not going to give out the call in number. We've got one segment left and two callers. Hang on. We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.200 --> 01:44:08.200]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits? Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:44:08.200 --> 01:44:20.200]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you can win two. You'll get step by step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal civil rights statutes.
[01:44:20.200 --> 01:44:33.200]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons, how to answer letters and phone calls, how to get debt collectors out of your credit report, how to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:44:33.200 --> 01:44:40.200]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors. Personal consultation is available as well.
[01:44:40.200 --> 01:44:48.200]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:44:48.200 --> 01:45:00.200]  That's 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 now.
[01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:14.200]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:14.200 --> 01:45:22.200]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:22.200 --> 01:45:33.200]  Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:33.200 --> 01:45:42.200]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:42.200 --> 01:46:00.200]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more. Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:12.200 --> 01:46:16.200]  You got busted, man? Aw, man, I'm gross, dude.
[01:46:16.200 --> 01:46:38.200]  Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully. Somebody's on a police, a policeman. Somebody's on a police, a policeman.
[01:46:38.200 --> 01:46:46.200]  Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio. We're talking to John in Kansas.
[01:46:46.200 --> 01:46:54.200]  Discrimination. Now, I kind of tripped over that.
[01:46:54.200 --> 01:47:07.200]  Discrimination. If you go to a restaurant, you see no shoes, no shirt, no service. That's not discrimination.
[01:47:07.200 --> 01:47:15.200]  Discrimination in the federal law is very specifically defined.
[01:47:15.200 --> 01:47:25.200]  You have to discriminate against someone because of race, religion, race creed, religion.
[01:47:25.200 --> 01:47:28.200]  And what's the other one, Brett?
[01:47:28.200 --> 01:47:34.200]  Well, gender, but that's got to be really weird these days.
[01:47:34.200 --> 01:47:46.200]  It's kind of hard to figure that one out. But mask, no mask. How did you get to discrimination there?
[01:47:46.200 --> 01:48:02.200]  Well, the discrimination we can prove, and it's obvious. However, the Salvation Army, because they are classified as a church, they are actually immune from discrimination.
[01:48:02.200 --> 01:48:09.200]  They are not liable for the American for Disabilities Act.
[01:48:09.200 --> 01:48:13.200]  Oh, that's an interesting exclusion.
[01:48:13.200 --> 01:48:41.200]  Yes. So any church, they have full immunity to discriminate. Now, even though they're running a retail store, because they are technically a religious, basically a church, that they are immune to the American Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act.
[01:48:41.200 --> 01:49:03.200]  But my main question is actually, I have a procedural question with what we're going on, because discrimination, even though they discriminate against them, that's not my issue that I have and the question that I have is I believe that we will defeat this motion for judgment on the pleading.
[01:49:03.200 --> 01:49:22.200]  Even if the first one gets dismissed and they do another one, I think we can defeat it. However, we have amendments that we could do, but if we beat this motion for judgment on the pleading, then we have to meet the discovery.
[01:49:22.200 --> 01:49:41.200]  And so my question really is more of if we win the motion for judgment on the pleadings, then we get to discovery, which I think we can destroy this police department and there's no way they could possibly win.
[01:49:41.200 --> 01:49:53.200]  But at the same time, if we amend the amendments we want to make, we have a couple claims. We have some tort claims to add and negligent claims to add.
[01:49:53.200 --> 01:50:17.200]  But it's like, if we amend them, they get to start over. Yes, they do get to start over. So judgment on the pleadings, is that like a Rule 12? Are they moving to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
[01:50:17.200 --> 01:50:29.200]  No, no. Judgment on the pleadings is, they're moving for judgment on the pleadings, but it's decided on as the same as a 12B6.
[01:50:29.200 --> 01:50:39.200]  Okay, that's what I was thinking. They're stating that even if your facts are true, it does not amount to a claim. Is that correct?
[01:50:39.200 --> 01:50:49.200]  At the same time, yes, but there can't be any material, they can't be any disagreements and material facts, kind of like the summary judgment.
[01:50:49.200 --> 01:51:01.200]  Well, we have too many material facts that are, they can't do summary judgment. They actually made a mistake. They should have did a motion, they should have did summary judgment, but they didn't.
[01:51:01.200 --> 01:51:11.200]  I think they thought they were going to trip us up on this motion for judgment on the pleadings. Well, we caught it. There's no way they can win the first motion for judgment on the pleadings.
[01:51:11.200 --> 01:51:17.200]  They can't win, procedurally, because the pleadings are still open. They're not closed.
[01:51:17.200 --> 01:51:26.200]  That was why I had that question, the judgment on the pleadings. That's something you generally do after discovers.
[01:51:26.200 --> 01:51:35.200]  Well, it's against the police department, and then they seem to think because of qualified immunity that they have some superpowers.
[01:51:35.200 --> 01:51:41.200]  Well, they don't have any superpowers. I think they made a mistake.
[01:51:41.200 --> 01:51:56.200]  And so that's my question is, do we- A judgment on the pleading, they're asking the court to adjudicate the case without you ever being granted discovery.
[01:51:56.200 --> 01:52:07.200]  Yes, sir. Yes. But especially without, but they have, since it's against the police department, they have qualified immunity as an issue.
[01:52:07.200 --> 01:52:20.200]  However, we're in Kansas in the 10th district, and there's case law to where people have done the same thing in the 10th district that said, hey, you guys messed up.
[01:52:20.200 --> 01:52:26.200]  Now, if you want to bring this up, you have to do it in summary judgment after discovery.
[01:52:26.200 --> 01:52:36.200]  Yeah, because this should get a motion to dismiss because it's not right. The case is not right.
[01:52:36.200 --> 01:52:45.200]  It's untimely. Yeah, that's not right is the term. You're not saying they can't file this particular motion.
[01:52:45.200 --> 01:52:56.200]  Yes. But now it's not right for the filing of this motion and won't be until after a full hearing on the case.
[01:52:56.200 --> 01:53:06.200]  Right. But at the same time though, they're making statements of material fact of the case that we disagree with.
[01:53:06.200 --> 01:53:14.200]  And so even then, even if they come back and do another one, because we have another party, we have the Salvation Army.
[01:53:14.200 --> 01:53:19.200]  They filed a motion to dismiss. They didn't file an answer, so it's open.
[01:53:19.200 --> 01:53:27.200]  And then these police officers, the mission police officers, filed an answer with a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
[01:53:27.200 --> 01:53:32.200]  However, because they filed the motion for judgment, they filed an answer.
[01:53:32.200 --> 01:53:39.200]  Well, that even in that situation, you still have an opportunity to reply. It's a pleading.
[01:53:39.200 --> 01:53:47.200]  Even though it's very rare, you don't reply to an answer. It's still a pleading.
[01:53:47.200 --> 01:53:55.200]  Yeah, wait, wait. How the courts are set up, you file the original pleading.
[01:53:55.200 --> 01:54:04.200]  Defendant files a response. You get an answer to the response and then it stops.
[01:54:04.200 --> 01:54:12.200]  For them to respond to your response, then they would have to get permission of the courts.
[01:54:12.200 --> 01:54:18.200]  So they always expect you to have a response to their answer.
[01:54:18.200 --> 01:54:26.200]  But I think they're trying to trip you up on summary judgment.
[01:54:26.200 --> 01:54:33.200]  A motion on the pleadings, that's not a form of summary judgment.
[01:54:33.200 --> 01:54:43.200]  That's something that can only be done after all of the issues have been resolved in the court.
[01:54:43.200 --> 01:54:52.200]  The court has nothing before it now to rule on because there are issues as to material facts.
[01:54:52.200 --> 01:55:04.200]  So they can't do summary judgment and they can't do a motion on the pleadings because you have a right to discovery to prove up your pleadings.
[01:55:04.200 --> 01:55:07.200]  This is premature.
[01:55:07.200 --> 01:55:16.200]  Exactly. So that is my question. So that is something that leads to my question because we figured this out.
[01:55:16.200 --> 01:55:23.200]  So even though they did this, and the lawyer that wrote this has been a lawyer for 41 years in Kansas City.
[01:55:23.200 --> 01:55:28.200]  He's one of the biggest civil rights lawyers in Kansas City.
[01:55:28.200 --> 01:55:37.200]  And we actually, on our reply, said we cannot believe that somebody with such experience would make such a stupid mistake.
[01:55:37.200 --> 01:55:45.200]  This motion on the pleadings is not only improper, the rules do not allow it.
[01:55:45.200 --> 01:56:00.200]  And so my question is, if we win this motion for judgment on the pleadings, which I think we will, even if we have to do it a second time, we have amendments that we can make.
[01:56:00.200 --> 01:56:07.200]  But if we do the reset, my question is, is it worth the reset? Because we already have them in 1983.
[01:56:07.200 --> 01:56:13.200]  No, no, no. You can do an appeal, but it's not timely.
[01:56:13.200 --> 01:56:19.200]  You still have a summary judgment motion before the court.
[01:56:19.200 --> 01:56:33.200]  You object to the motion on the pleadings, it's not timely, and request a hearing on your summary judgment.
[01:56:33.200 --> 01:56:44.200]  Well, right now— Do not file an amended pleading until you have a ruling on the summary judgment ruling.
[01:56:44.200 --> 01:56:51.200]  Well, we don't. We don't have a summary judgment before us, with just the motion for judgment on the pleading.
[01:56:51.200 --> 01:56:57.200]  Okay, then you need to put a motion for summary judgment in.
[01:56:57.200 --> 01:57:05.200]  Well, my ultimate goal was to have a summary judgment.
[01:57:05.200 --> 01:57:10.200]  Wait, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You were talking about summary judgment.
[01:57:10.200 --> 01:57:21.200]  I don't think summary judgment is even proper either, because you have facts in dispute.
[01:57:21.200 --> 01:57:31.200]  Yes. So you need to move it for discovery. You can't get to a motion on the pleadings until you finish discovery.
[01:57:31.200 --> 01:57:48.200]  And since they didn't do a motion to dismiss, a timely motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, then you move to discovery.
[01:57:48.200 --> 01:57:51.200]  I think they screwed themselves out of motion.
[01:57:51.200 --> 01:58:03.200]  Yeah, I think they did, too. They did the wrong pleading. Now they can't do a summary judgment, like a Rule 12 motion to dismiss based on a claim.
[01:58:03.200 --> 01:58:22.200]  They've essentially bypassed that. And you should move to strike the pleading and the motion as untimely and move for discovery, petition for discovery.
[01:58:22.200 --> 01:58:29.200]  That's my story, and I'll dig into it.
[01:58:29.200 --> 01:58:40.200]  Okay, we are out of time. This is Randy Kelkin, Bret Fountain, Bluewill Radio. If you've got more, John, call us back tomorrow night.
[01:58:40.200 --> 01:58:49.200]  We'll be back tomorrow night with our 8-hour, 4-hour info marathon. Thank you all for listening, and good night.
[01:58:49.200 --> 01:59:07.200]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version. The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:07.200 --> 01:59:20.200]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America. Call us toll free at 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.200 --> 01:59:32.200]  This translation is highly accurate, and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible. This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.200 --> 01:59:49.200]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102. That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.