ROL_2023-09-22_16k_Hr3-4.timecode

[00:00.000 --> 00:05.440]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[00:05.440 --> 00:09.400]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[00:09.400 --> 00:10.880]  Our liberty depends on it.
[00:10.880 --> 00:14.800]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[00:14.800 --> 00:16.900]  your First Amendment rights.
[00:16.900 --> 00:18.480]  Privacy is under attack.
[00:18.480 --> 00:22.080]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[00:22.080 --> 00:26.860]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[00:26.860 --> 00:32.080]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[00:32.080 --> 00:33.080]  Privacy.
[00:33.080 --> 00:34.640]  It's worth hanging on to.
[00:34.640 --> 00:38.920]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[00:38.920 --> 00:42.460]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[00:42.460 --> 00:44.880]  Start over with Startpage.
[00:44.880 --> 00:46.520]  Spar.
[00:46.520 --> 00:47.740]  It's what fighters do.
[00:47.740 --> 00:51.200]  It's also how I remember the five guarantees of the First Amendment.
[00:51.200 --> 00:54.400]  If you plan to take away my rights, I'm going to spar with you.
[00:54.400 --> 01:01.560]  Spar with an extra P. S for speech, P for press, another P for petition, A for assembly,
[01:01.560 --> 01:02.920]  and R for religion.
[01:02.920 --> 01:07.000]  Most Americans are familiar with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press,
[01:07.000 --> 01:10.840]  assembly, and religion, but petition for redress is another matter.
[01:10.840 --> 01:14.560]  We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[01:14.560 --> 01:18.080]  It means that if we're unhappy with what's going on in our government, we can spell out
[01:18.080 --> 01:20.720]  the reasons without fear of being thrown into jail.
[01:20.720 --> 01:22.720]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:22.720 --> 01:31.160]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:31.160 --> 01:34.840]  The Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments of our Constitution.
[01:34.840 --> 01:38.280]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:38.280 --> 01:39.760]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:39.760 --> 01:43.660]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:43.660 --> 01:46.800]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:46.800 --> 01:48.400]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:48.400 --> 01:52.000]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:52.000 --> 01:56.760]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:56.760 --> 02:01.800]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[02:01.800 --> 02:04.520]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[02:04.520 --> 02:08.800]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[02:08.800 --> 02:12.360]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[02:12.360 --> 02:15.920]  Start over with StartPage.
[02:15.920 --> 02:20.280]  When I think of the Second Amendment, I visualize myself wrapping my two arms around the Bill
[02:20.280 --> 02:22.360]  of Rights in a big old bear hug.
[02:22.360 --> 02:26.840]  It's how I remember that the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms, arms
[02:26.840 --> 02:30.720]  that embrace our freedoms and won't let anyone take them away without a fight.
[02:30.720 --> 02:31.720]  Get it?
[02:31.720 --> 02:32.720]  Two arms?
[02:32.720 --> 02:33.720]  Bear hug?
[02:33.720 --> 02:34.720]  Bear arms?
[02:34.720 --> 02:37.600]  The late Senator Hubert Humphrey captured the spirit of the Second Amendment so well
[02:37.600 --> 02:38.840]  when he said,
[02:38.840 --> 02:43.780]  The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government,
[02:43.780 --> 02:48.880]  one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically
[02:48.880 --> 02:50.640]  has proved to always be possible.
[02:50.640 --> 02:52.520]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[02:52.520 --> 02:54.800]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[02:54.800 --> 03:22.080]  Well, I received my remedy today, it came in a box just like they say, I'm a man of
[03:22.080 --> 03:32.640]  value right away, if not sooner, not later.
[03:32.640 --> 03:40.040]  We are originators and the pathway seems to get straighter every day.
[03:40.040 --> 03:45.040]  And I can take anything that belongs to me and put it to good use.
[03:45.040 --> 03:54.360]  Whatever's good for the gander is going to work for the goose.
[03:54.360 --> 04:06.400]  I know some architects, I know some engineers, they see the evidence, they know something
[04:06.400 --> 04:07.400]  seems queer.
[04:07.400 --> 04:15.760]  What's up with the blatant deception, what is the nature of what you might gain?
[04:15.760 --> 04:23.560]  I see something headed straight for you, I think it looks just like a train.
[04:23.560 --> 04:26.640]  It smells like a sham of sunburn.
[04:26.640 --> 04:33.560]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Root of Law Radio and we're talking to Tina
[04:33.560 --> 04:34.560]  in California.
[04:34.560 --> 04:35.560]  Okay, Tina.
[04:35.560 --> 04:44.920]  Well, we had a nice chat this guy night and he echoed some of the thing you had said before
[04:44.920 --> 04:49.480]  what everything is political and it's all local.
[04:49.480 --> 05:00.880]  And I was telling him about your show that I come on and stuff and he has an ex-wife
[05:00.880 --> 05:07.200]  and the reason he said, one of the main reasons they got divorced was because he cost her
[05:07.200 --> 05:16.640]  too many good jobs because of his job and his outspokenness on the radio and his willingness
[05:16.640 --> 05:22.080]  to air controversy on the show.
[05:22.080 --> 05:29.840]  And one of the big jobs he cost her was a major university here and when his ex-wife
[05:29.840 --> 05:38.080]  was up to the job, she was posted, she was in the big running, it went to finally the
[05:38.080 --> 05:44.240]  university president and he said, hell no, she's married to that radio guy, he is bashed
[05:44.240 --> 05:46.840]  up, she's not getting the job.
[05:46.840 --> 05:53.960]  And he said, he understands why it cost the divorce, but I said, well, you have a right
[05:53.960 --> 05:54.960]  to free speech.
[05:54.960 --> 06:01.080]  And he said, yes, but it doesn't mean that you're going to get it.
[06:01.080 --> 06:06.040]  He said, there will be detractors and they will shut you down and he said, I just want
[06:06.040 --> 06:10.920]  to give you a little bit of a warning if you're going against people, because we talked about
[06:10.920 --> 06:15.200]  what I was doing and why I was fighting still and he said, why don't you give up?
[06:15.200 --> 06:19.560]  I said, I can't, I'm fighting for the little people, those that can't fight.
[06:19.560 --> 06:26.080]  And he said, just stay away from bashing the local politicians because this is a very,
[06:26.080 --> 06:30.560]  very small town and it will absolutely get you nowhere.
[06:30.560 --> 06:36.760]  He said, stay outside of the town and you might get somewhere, but don't come in and
[06:36.760 --> 06:37.760]  bash these.
[06:37.760 --> 06:42.200]  Which I thought was very interesting because it really echoes what you always say, it's
[06:42.200 --> 06:45.480]  all politics and it's all local.
[06:45.480 --> 06:55.640]  Yeah, and the politics, he doesn't understand, I'm doing this in the county I live in.
[06:55.640 --> 07:03.000]  And he's not accustomed to people who actually know how to take them on.
[07:03.000 --> 07:09.120]  When I get done with these guys, I had a sheriff's deputy arrest me in the district attorney's
[07:09.120 --> 07:20.360]  office and the constable who had been the chief of police in the county seat, Rex Hoskins,
[07:20.360 --> 07:27.360]  I was talking to him and I mentioned that Griggs had arrested me and he said, yeah,
[07:27.360 --> 07:29.360]  I heard about that.
[07:29.360 --> 07:38.660]  And I asked him, what were you thinking, you arrested Randy Kelton, what were you thinking?
[07:38.660 --> 07:44.600]  They will get to know you and they will, you know, I live in this county, they do not want
[07:44.600 --> 07:46.160]  to have a fight with me.
[07:46.160 --> 07:51.760]  Well, I'm a long way from being where you are right now, but I'm-
[07:51.760 --> 07:54.760]  No, you're not either.
[07:54.760 --> 07:57.920]  You're not far at all.
[07:57.920 --> 08:04.680]  You're already taking on the highest courts in California and not backing down from them.
[08:04.680 --> 08:07.840]  They're gonna know about that.
[08:07.840 --> 08:13.480]  The first time they give you some crap, you land on them like a ton of bricks, then the
[08:13.480 --> 08:19.200]  words gonna be is leave her alone, she is churlish.
[08:19.200 --> 08:21.000]  Very churlish.
[08:21.000 --> 08:27.960]  Yeah, most people, they got this notion you can't fight city hall.
[08:27.960 --> 08:35.240]  It's been bred into us and drummed into us from the time we were children.
[08:35.240 --> 08:38.640]  And this is one of the things this show is about.
[08:38.640 --> 08:45.000]  Tina, you know, you can fight city hall.
[08:45.000 --> 08:48.720]  You can, it's a hard fight.
[08:48.720 --> 08:56.120]  City hall is like the guy who gets in a fight and he's got a sore shoulder.
[08:56.120 --> 09:01.760]  And what he's gonna do is stick that shoulder in their face.
[09:01.760 --> 09:07.440]  He's not gonna say, Jesus, this spot right here don't hit me here, that's a sore spot.
[09:07.440 --> 09:13.000]  He's gonna make them think that's his toughest spot.
[09:13.000 --> 09:16.640]  That's what these guys, they huff and puff.
[09:16.640 --> 09:22.720]  And it's been my experience, they're more afraid of you than you are them.
[09:22.720 --> 09:29.640]  When you start landing on them, they wanna duck and run for cover.
[09:29.640 --> 09:34.960]  The last time I was at the sheriff's department and I wanted to see a hearing.
[09:34.960 --> 09:39.040]  And this clerk said, well, you can't see that hearing.
[09:39.040 --> 09:44.320]  I said, no, no, no, ma'am, don't tell me that.
[09:44.320 --> 09:47.520]  Go get your boss to tell me that.
[09:47.520 --> 09:53.500]  Because whoever tells me that, I'm gonna call, get on the phone and call the Texas Rangers
[09:53.500 --> 09:56.600]  and ask them to arrest them.
[09:56.600 --> 10:01.240]  The high sheriff himself come out and told me I couldn't hear that hearing, couldn't
[10:01.240 --> 10:02.840]  watch that hearing.
[10:02.840 --> 10:10.320]  Now I'm gonna sue him personally and he knows it.
[10:10.320 --> 10:16.680]  But he wouldn't throw one of his people under the bus because he knew I was not kidding.
[10:16.680 --> 10:17.680]  That's what you want.
[10:17.680 --> 10:27.240]  What I'm aiming for, and he did agree, he liked your moniker for a YouTube video.
[10:27.240 --> 10:33.360]  He said, I agreed that I should start trying to do YouTube videos on my case.
[10:33.360 --> 10:36.640]  And he liked the tenacious Tina part.
[10:36.640 --> 10:39.800]  He said, that's a good moniker.
[10:39.800 --> 10:46.560]  He said, but- Tenacious Tina, yeah, tenacious Tina.
[10:46.560 --> 10:48.760]  He said we have to- Okay, I didn't come up with that.
[10:48.760 --> 10:49.760]  Somebody else did.
[10:49.760 --> 10:53.040]  I think it was someone on the Telegram channel.
[10:53.040 --> 10:55.440]  I don't know if it was Debra?
[10:55.440 --> 10:58.360]  No, it wasn't Debra.
[10:58.360 --> 11:02.320]  There's one of the guys on there.
[11:02.320 --> 11:04.000]  Put that in on the Telegram channel.
[11:04.000 --> 11:05.680]  So I don't get to claim it.
[11:05.680 --> 11:07.400]  I didn't come up with that one.
[11:07.400 --> 11:13.360]  Well, he liked it, but he said, well, we need to figure out how to monetize this for you
[11:13.360 --> 11:17.640]  so you can start earning a little bit more than your immediately social security.
[11:17.640 --> 11:24.440]  And I said, well, the problem I see with that is when you're going against the big money,
[11:24.440 --> 11:33.280]  the banks and the judges and the attorneys, how are people going to want to monetize that
[11:33.280 --> 11:35.000]  when they're getting paid?
[11:35.000 --> 11:41.920]  It's like someone was saying they tried to get the LA Times interested in their case
[11:41.920 --> 11:50.800]  because they're being evicted in 14 days by Pacific First Bank, who are trying to claim
[11:50.800 --> 11:58.720]  $1.25 million in legal fees from a 2014 illegal eviction.
[11:58.720 --> 12:05.880]  And they have a new home that is paid off, no borrowing from Pacific First Bank.
[12:05.880 --> 12:10.760]  But apparently, I don't know if it's the bankruptcy trustee or some trustee has said
[12:10.760 --> 12:16.320]  they're allowed to sell it to claim this $1.25 million in fees.
[12:16.320 --> 12:21.320]  And he tried to get the LA Times Legal Department interested, but they wouldn't answer him.
[12:21.320 --> 12:27.200]  But then he looked on the LA Times, the Pacific Bank is taking quarter-page, half-page ads
[12:27.200 --> 12:28.200]  out.
[12:28.200 --> 12:32.240]  So of course, they're not going to go against the person who is monetizing and paying all
[12:32.240 --> 12:33.240]  this money in ads.
[12:33.240 --> 12:36.240]  So how do you get around that?
[12:36.240 --> 12:43.120]  Well, right now, the papers are not very valuable anymore, the internet is.
[12:43.120 --> 12:50.000]  We're older, you and I, and we don't understand this yet.
[12:50.000 --> 12:53.840]  The kids understand it.
[12:53.840 --> 12:56.480]  Everything's on the internet.
[12:56.480 --> 12:59.200]  Have you been putting out YouTube videos?
[12:59.200 --> 13:02.720]  No, I don't even know how to start one.
[13:02.720 --> 13:10.240]  This guy is going to try to get me a Cal Poly student that might help me figure that out.
[13:10.240 --> 13:11.760]  Yeah, it's pretty easy.
[13:11.760 --> 13:18.000]  I set up a channel once, I didn't follow through on it, but you can go into YouTube and it's
[13:18.000 --> 13:20.800]  pretty simple to walk through how to set them up.
[13:20.800 --> 13:25.480]  They like you to set them up because they put advertising on your channel.
[13:25.480 --> 13:31.280]  So if you get people to watch, then you make money on each.
[13:31.280 --> 13:38.480]  Once you get a certain amount of subscribers, then you make money on each one.
[13:38.480 --> 13:45.400]  But we spoke once before about this tool I'm developing.
[13:45.400 --> 13:47.740]  We can talk about that.
[13:47.740 --> 13:58.280]  What you can do is put together a set of documents that people can use.
[13:58.280 --> 14:03.360]  Then you can build a website and they go to the website, click on a questionnaire, answer
[14:03.360 --> 14:12.000]  the questions, and it'll spit them out the documents, then you can sell them the documents.
[14:12.000 --> 14:17.360]  If you've got the knowledge that I don't have these documents, I don't know how to set a
[14:17.360 --> 14:18.360]  document up.
[14:18.360 --> 14:19.360]  I do.
[14:19.360 --> 14:31.200]  When we get this going, we'll have to collaborate because I do want to expose these crooked
[14:31.200 --> 14:38.000]  attorneys who have admitted to the fraud and the judges who refuse to recuse themselves
[14:38.000 --> 14:41.960]  or disqualify themselves even though the law says they have to.
[14:41.960 --> 14:46.600]  And I just wanna get out there and say, is this what this is?
[14:46.600 --> 14:51.280]  Would anybody consider this statement by this attorney deceit?
[14:51.280 --> 14:56.360]  Do you agree that attorneys are allowed to lie?
[14:56.360 --> 15:02.680]  I want to just go to the facts so they can never come back and say, hey, you're slandering
[15:02.680 --> 15:03.680]  me.
[15:03.680 --> 15:04.680]  No, no, no.
[15:04.680 --> 15:05.680]  You said this.
[15:05.680 --> 15:06.680]  You wrote it.
[15:06.680 --> 15:07.680]  You signed it.
[15:07.680 --> 15:08.680]  Here it is.
[15:08.680 --> 15:09.680]  I'm just bringing it out to the public.
[15:09.680 --> 15:12.200]  I'm asking the public if they agree that this is attorney deceit.
[15:12.200 --> 15:19.120]  And if it's attorney deceit, then litigation privilege doesn't apply.
[15:19.120 --> 15:22.120]  And you really don't have to worry much about these guys anyway.
[15:22.120 --> 15:26.000]  It's kind of like when you get a ticket.
[15:26.000 --> 15:31.760]  You can fight the ticket, but it'll cost you more to fight the ticket than it's worth.
[15:31.760 --> 15:36.160]  You know one of these lawyers and you think they're gonna come and sue you?
[15:36.160 --> 15:38.880]  They don't want anything to do with you.
[15:38.880 --> 15:41.200]  They try to sue you, you'll cost them a fortune.
[15:41.200 --> 15:42.200]  They will.
[15:42.200 --> 15:46.920]  So it's the same as, you know, you just put the shoe on the other foot.
[15:46.920 --> 15:54.200]  As long as what you say is true, it doesn't matter if it's derogatory or demeaning.
[15:54.200 --> 15:59.520]  I mean, it's true.
[15:59.520 --> 16:06.000]  So I've been doing this show for 16 years now.
[16:06.000 --> 16:12.000]  And I said stuff about lots of officials.
[16:12.000 --> 16:15.800]  Never had one of them raise an objection.
[16:15.800 --> 16:23.000]  Never have one of them wanna talk to me.
[16:23.000 --> 16:32.240]  Once you press, once you're out there in the public, them talking to me is like them playing
[16:32.240 --> 16:36.400]  with an atomic bomb.
[16:36.400 --> 16:41.320]  They're terrified of you, and justly so.
[16:41.320 --> 16:44.680]  So let's talk about this off air and get something going.
[16:44.680 --> 16:49.960]  Okay, and I'll let you go to the next caller on the, if you come back.
[16:49.960 --> 16:54.240]  Okay, thank you, Tina, Randy Kelton-Brett found, no, just Randy Kelton-Brett didn't
[16:54.240 --> 16:55.240]  show up today.
[16:55.240 --> 16:56.240]  We'll be right back.
[16:56.240 --> 16:57.240]  Thanks everybody.
[16:57.240 --> 17:04.760]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters, or even lawsuits?
[17:04.760 --> 17:08.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears Proven Method.
[17:08.920 --> 17:13.200]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors, and now you
[17:13.200 --> 17:14.200]  can win two.
[17:14.200 --> 17:19.040]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[17:19.040 --> 17:24.920]  civil rights statutes, what to do when contacted by phone, mail, or court summons, how to answer
[17:24.920 --> 17:25.920]  letters and phone calls.
[17:25.920 --> 17:29.040]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[17:29.040 --> 17:33.680]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[17:33.680 --> 17:38.800]  The Michael Mears Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[17:38.800 --> 17:40.760]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[17:40.760 --> 17:46.560]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner,
[17:46.560 --> 17:48.880]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[17:48.880 --> 17:58.440]  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
[17:58.440 --> 18:00.440]  collectors now.
[18:00.440 --> 18:04.600]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar.
[18:04.600 --> 18:08.360]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going
[18:08.360 --> 18:12.280]  to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[18:12.280 --> 18:15.520]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[18:15.520 --> 18:19.200]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[18:19.200 --> 18:23.400]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[18:23.400 --> 18:24.760]  our rights through due process.
[18:24.760 --> 18:28.760]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[18:28.760 --> 18:32.520]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[18:32.520 --> 18:34.920]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[18:34.920 --> 18:38.920]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[18:38.920 --> 18:40.240]  ordering your copy today.
[18:40.240 --> 18:43.520]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[18:43.520 --> 18:48.040]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[18:48.040 --> 18:50.360]  documents and other useful resource material.
[18:50.360 --> 18:54.320]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[18:54.320 --> 19:24.160]  Order your copy today and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[19:24.160 --> 19:41.280]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, on this Friday, the 22nd
[19:41.280 --> 19:46.880]  day of September, 2023, and we're going to John in New York.
[19:46.880 --> 19:49.880]  Hello, John.
[19:49.880 --> 20:03.240]  John, did you, did we put you to sleep or did you go take the cats out for a walk?
[20:03.240 --> 20:06.720]  And here I thought I was going to get you in before the last, the show.
[20:06.720 --> 20:10.880]  John always calls in right at the end of the show and we wind up not getting to him.
[20:10.880 --> 20:15.880]  So this time he called in early and I guess we put him to sleep before we got to him.
[20:15.880 --> 20:22.480]  Okay, we're going to go to Ralph in, I think you're in Louisiana, I got Texas in Louisiana.
[20:22.480 --> 20:25.600]  So Ralph, you're in Louisiana, right?
[20:25.600 --> 20:29.560]  Yes, sir.
[20:29.560 --> 20:30.920]  Are you there?
[20:30.920 --> 20:31.920]  I'm here.
[20:31.920 --> 20:32.920]  Okay.
[20:32.920 --> 20:37.320]  I was wanting to ask you, I was talking to someone today and we were talking about the
[20:37.320 --> 20:42.920]  economy and, you know, a lot of people don't know what's going to happen, people suspect
[20:42.920 --> 20:43.920]  this and that and the other.
[20:43.920 --> 20:52.720]  So what I'm asking is what happens to bank loans if the economy collapses?
[20:52.720 --> 20:56.500]  Depends on how the economy collapses.
[20:56.500 --> 21:07.480]  If the economy collapses into runaway inflation, the bankers get screwed.
[21:07.480 --> 21:14.100]  Like right now, and since Biden's been in office, prices that my groceries went up by
[21:14.100 --> 21:19.480]  about a third.
[21:19.480 --> 21:23.640]  People are getting paid more because everything costs more.
[21:23.640 --> 21:30.440]  But if you've got a 30-year mortgage, your payments don't get any higher.
[21:30.440 --> 21:34.520]  Just the money gets worth less.
[21:34.520 --> 21:47.040]  And as to what will happen if the economy collapses, I'm not sure what that means.
[21:47.040 --> 21:49.360]  Economies don't collapse.
[21:49.360 --> 21:59.480]  The United States economy is supported by 330 million people.
[21:59.480 --> 22:09.720]  So buying, people selling, people manufacturing, the currency may collapse and, you know, other
[22:09.720 --> 22:16.140]  countries you have economic collapses.
[22:16.140 --> 22:22.000]  But those tend to be countries that don't have the capacity to produce the way the United
[22:22.000 --> 22:26.120]  States does.
[22:26.120 --> 22:32.760]  I can't see a scenario where our economy is gonna stop.
[22:32.760 --> 22:37.440]  It's gonna slow down, inflation may increase.
[22:37.440 --> 22:44.240]  But people are still gonna go to work, we're still gonna grind out product.
[22:44.240 --> 22:47.520]  So I don't know what collapse means.
[22:47.520 --> 22:53.920]  Well let me go back and say problems with the money, specifically then.
[22:53.920 --> 22:58.560]  And okay, so I haven't studied this a lot, so I don't want to say a whole lot.
[22:58.560 --> 23:03.560]  But could we compare it with the Great Depression of 29?
[23:03.560 --> 23:05.460]  Possibly.
[23:05.460 --> 23:14.120]  That was deliberately created using naked short selling.
[23:14.120 --> 23:19.480]  The Chinese are doing everything they can to undermine the dollar.
[23:19.480 --> 23:23.040]  We're kind of in a race with the Chinese.
[23:23.040 --> 23:29.080]  The Chinese have highly subsidized their industries.
[23:29.080 --> 23:36.600]  And they have to get their plan to work before they run out of funds.
[23:36.600 --> 23:39.680]  And they're quickly running out of funds.
[23:39.680 --> 23:47.820]  So if they can get done what they're intended, we used to be the largest trading partners
[23:47.820 --> 23:51.320]  for most countries around the world.
[23:51.320 --> 23:53.680]  We were the biggest producer.
[23:53.680 --> 23:55.920]  We're not anymore.
[23:55.920 --> 23:56.920]  China is.
[23:56.920 --> 24:01.600]  China's taken our markets dramatically.
[24:01.600 --> 24:09.000]  They made inroads into our markets all over the world.
[24:09.000 --> 24:12.200]  And this is an economic war between us and China.
[24:12.200 --> 24:22.840]  China's trying to devalue our dollar to the point that no one will want it.
[24:22.840 --> 24:28.840]  And that will push us into some serious inflation.
[24:28.840 --> 24:34.680]  And with Biden printing money as fast as he can and dumping it in the market, he's doing
[24:34.680 --> 24:37.600]  everything he can to help them.
[24:37.600 --> 24:43.120]  So I am concerned that we'll get into a serious inflationary spiral.
[24:43.120 --> 24:49.920]  But as much as I know about the economy, I expect what will happen is that we will start
[24:49.920 --> 24:56.000]  producing product for ourselves and stop importing as much.
[24:56.000 --> 25:00.320]  And that will stabilize our economy.
[25:00.320 --> 25:01.320]  But I don't know.
[25:01.320 --> 25:02.320]  I'm not an economist.
[25:02.320 --> 25:03.320]  It's not my area.
[25:03.320 --> 25:07.720]  Well, you seem to know a lot.
[25:07.720 --> 25:14.120]  I was really enjoying your discussion earlier about the well, how many different angles
[25:14.120 --> 25:16.520]  you came at it.
[25:16.520 --> 25:18.200]  I like to do that kind of stuff.
[25:18.200 --> 25:20.320]  I'm an engineer.
[25:20.320 --> 25:23.320]  And that's what we do.
[25:23.320 --> 25:27.520]  Take something, we rip it apart and stitch it back together and then tear that apart
[25:27.520 --> 25:30.000]  and stitch it together again.
[25:30.000 --> 25:34.800]  I have a piece of equipment that I designed for cleaning out the insides of refrigerated
[25:34.800 --> 25:36.800]  trailers.
[25:36.800 --> 25:40.840]  The first prototype I built cost me $60,000.
[25:40.840 --> 25:41.840]  Wow.
[25:41.840 --> 25:50.720]  I cranked it up, stuck it on a set of forklifts and fired it up, ran it for about 30 minutes
[25:50.720 --> 25:57.920]  and told the guy with me, okay, you can cut it up now.
[25:57.920 --> 26:04.280]  It worked, but it didn't work the way I wanted it to and it told me what I needed to know
[26:04.280 --> 26:07.640]  to build the next one.
[26:07.640 --> 26:14.160]  I'm on my fifth prototype and this one's just about ready for production.
[26:14.160 --> 26:15.440]  Not quite, but close.
[26:15.440 --> 26:23.320]  This one's ready to demonstrate, but it's not anything like the first one either.
[26:23.320 --> 26:24.320]  So this is what I do.
[26:24.320 --> 26:29.960]  I take things apart and stitch them back together and it's the most fun thing for me to do.
[26:29.960 --> 26:39.880]  I have been doing this all day because I got some responses from my Motion to Strike Defendants
[26:39.880 --> 26:43.120]  Rule 12 motion.
[26:43.120 --> 26:52.400]  I spent a couple of weeks figuring out how to do this and it's great fun doing this.
[26:52.400 --> 26:58.160]  You look at it and tear it apart and stitch it together.
[26:58.160 --> 27:03.760]  When they first did this, I sued all these high judges and the Attorney General answered
[27:03.760 --> 27:04.760]  for them.
[27:04.760 --> 27:12.560]  Well, I sued them in their personal capacity, accusing them of violating law and it didn't
[27:12.560 --> 27:21.600]  seem appropriate that I accused them of costing the taxpayers of the state of Texas 11.9 billion
[27:21.600 --> 27:26.560]  a year because of this alleged conspiracy.
[27:26.560 --> 27:32.760]  It didn't seem appropriate that they would then use the Attorney General who was paid
[27:32.760 --> 27:38.600]  with more tax money to defend them.
[27:38.600 --> 27:47.720]  On the face of it didn't look right, so you start digging and the law is old and sophisticated.
[27:47.720 --> 27:53.120]  If something doesn't seem right, it probably isn't.
[27:53.120 --> 27:58.680]  You dig around enough, you'll find it and I found it.
[27:58.680 --> 28:10.120]  Texas Constitution forbid the legislature for providing benefits to public officials
[28:10.120 --> 28:12.280]  beyond their contract.
[28:12.280 --> 28:21.440]  After the contract was signed and initiated, they could receive no further benefit.
[28:21.440 --> 28:29.920]  I claimed that the Attorney General representing them was a benefit.
[28:29.920 --> 28:32.640]  Their lawyer responded to this.
[28:32.640 --> 28:43.520]  I filed this, Carabella, the co-plaintiff filed this on the 14th.
[28:43.520 --> 28:53.920]  Four days later, I get a response and the guy had two cases he cited and they were district
[28:53.920 --> 28:55.760]  court cases.
[28:55.760 --> 29:01.200]  They weren't published.
[29:01.200 --> 29:06.520]  The unpublished cases have no prudential value.
[29:06.520 --> 29:09.360]  He couldn't find anything.
[29:09.360 --> 29:15.160]  I don't think this has ever been done before.
[29:15.160 --> 29:20.440]  You take it apart and put it together, you just keep tinkering with it.
[29:20.440 --> 29:24.600]  I got a motor in my head, I was a mechanic for a long time.
[29:24.600 --> 29:28.800]  You tell me what your car is doing and I'll go in my head and crank up this motor and
[29:28.800 --> 29:31.400]  screw with it until I can get it to do that.
[29:31.400 --> 29:35.800]  Do what yours is doing and then I'll pretty much know what's wrong with it.
[29:35.800 --> 29:44.360]  This is my favorite thing to do.
[29:44.360 --> 29:48.200]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, the rule of law radio.
[29:48.200 --> 29:52.760]  Let's see, we've got to foreboard callers so I'm not going to give out the calling
[29:52.760 --> 29:53.760]  number.
[29:53.760 --> 29:54.760]  We'll be right back.
[29:54.760 --> 30:05.680]  Everyone knows that walking is a great exercise but you might not know that the way you walk
[30:05.680 --> 30:07.760]  could predict how long you're going to live.
[30:07.760 --> 30:13.040]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be back to tell you more about walking prognostication
[30:13.040 --> 30:14.720]  in just a moment.
[30:14.720 --> 30:16.320]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:16.320 --> 30:19.920]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:19.920 --> 30:24.680]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:24.680 --> 30:29.760]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[30:29.760 --> 30:32.440]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[30:32.440 --> 30:36.720]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[30:36.720 --> 30:40.280]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo and Bing.
[30:40.280 --> 30:43.560]  Start over with StartPage.
[30:43.560 --> 30:47.960]  New research shows how fast you walk could predict how long you're going to live.
[30:47.960 --> 30:52.560]  The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that older adults who walk one meter
[30:52.560 --> 30:55.800]  per second or faster live longer than expected.
[30:55.800 --> 31:00.200]  In case you're wondering, one meter per second is about two and a quarter miles per hour.
[31:00.200 --> 31:05.320]  A senior's age, gender and walking speed were as good at predicting life expectancy as more
[31:05.320 --> 31:07.280]  traditional statistical measures.
[31:07.280 --> 31:10.560]  Generally speaking, faster walkers live longer.
[31:10.560 --> 31:13.040]  Measuring walking speed is quick and inexpensive.
[31:13.040 --> 31:16.880]  It only takes a stopwatch, some space to walk and a few minutes.
[31:16.880 --> 31:21.040]  Researchers say it could help doctors identify older patients who need special care.
[31:21.040 --> 31:25.600]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:51.040 --> 32:06.040]  Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of His
[32:06.040 --> 32:07.040]  Word?
[32:07.040 --> 32:12.240]  Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time for Scripture
[32:12.240 --> 32:18.640]  Talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the Scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy 2.15.
[32:18.640 --> 32:23.160]  Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly
[32:23.160 --> 32:25.440]  dividing the word of truth.
[32:25.440 --> 32:29.200]  Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the Book of Mark, where we'll go
[32:29.200 --> 32:32.880]  verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message.
[32:32.880 --> 32:37.520]  Our second hour topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine
[32:37.520 --> 32:39.880]  and Christian character development.
[32:39.880 --> 32:44.400]  We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[32:44.400 --> 32:48.720]  Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[32:48.720 --> 32:51.000]  of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
[32:51.000 --> 32:57.640]  So tune in to Scripture Talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com, Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and
[32:57.640 --> 33:02.800]  motivate your studies of the Scriptures.
[33:02.800 --> 33:16.320]  Free speech radio, LogosRadioNetwork.com.
[33:16.320 --> 33:44.920]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Ralph
[33:44.920 --> 33:46.520]  in Texas.
[33:46.520 --> 33:49.600]  Okay, Ralph, no, Ralph from Louisiana.
[33:49.600 --> 33:55.160]  Well, hopefully we'll be in Texas again before too much longer.
[33:55.160 --> 34:01.760]  Okay, I'm just a little bit concerned that, you know, as crazy as things are, because,
[34:01.760 --> 34:07.280]  you know, I'm listening to the news and it's really, really weird and talk of elections
[34:07.280 --> 34:13.280]  being stolen and this and that and the other, and it just seems like if the banks wanted
[34:13.280 --> 34:21.080]  to do a land grab, then there's ways they could do it that most people would never be
[34:21.080 --> 34:22.680]  able to see.
[34:22.680 --> 34:25.120]  So that's a little bit of a concern.
[34:25.120 --> 34:33.160]  But also, a couple, about six weeks ago, I think it was, you mentioned something.
[34:33.160 --> 34:41.400]  You were talking about Walker v. Packer and the courts or the judges have the right to
[34:41.400 --> 34:43.400]  be malicious.
[34:43.400 --> 34:51.200]  No, a judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts.
[34:51.200 --> 34:55.080]  A failure to do so is an abuse of discretion.
[34:55.080 --> 34:56.880]  That's Walker v. Packer.
[34:56.880 --> 35:04.360]  I don't understand how that and Pearson v. Ray can coexist.
[35:04.360 --> 35:06.240]  Pearson v. Ray?
[35:06.240 --> 35:07.600]  Yes, sir.
[35:07.600 --> 35:16.240]  Pearson v. Ray says that judges can act maliciously, corruptly and in bad faith.
[35:16.240 --> 35:25.640]  Okay, it says you can't sue them even if they ask, act maliciously, corruptly or in bad
[35:25.640 --> 35:33.640]  faith, so long as they act within scope.
[35:33.640 --> 35:43.080]  So what I'm saying is, is that when a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts
[35:43.080 --> 35:48.000]  and in the process denies you in the full and free access to or enjoyment of right,
[35:48.000 --> 35:55.880]  well, that's a criminal act in the state of Texas, violation of 39.03 Texas Penal Code.
[35:55.880 --> 36:00.880]  And scope of their authority does not extend to crimes.
[36:00.880 --> 36:06.480]  This now suit all these judges in the federal court.
[36:06.480 --> 36:15.800]  I accused them of an ongoing criminal enterprise wherein instead of training public officials
[36:15.800 --> 36:23.440]  in the due course of law, they conspired with public officials to deny citizens in the due
[36:23.440 --> 36:35.280]  course of law and cost the state of Texas 11.9 billion a year in pretrial incarceration.
[36:35.280 --> 36:44.320]  So I accused them of violating a federal law, 1842 U.S. Code 1983.
[36:44.320 --> 36:53.640]  It's also a crime in Texas under Chapter 71.
[36:53.640 --> 37:02.440]  But I didn't, I accused them, I'm sorry, I accused them of violating 18 U.S. Code 242
[37:02.440 --> 37:06.480]  and 18 U.S. Code 15 something.
[37:06.480 --> 37:14.600]  The 15 something went to interstate commerce, interfering with interstate commerce.
[37:14.600 --> 37:23.560]  What I claimed was that they used improper procedures after arrest and they did that
[37:23.560 --> 37:29.960]  to people from the state and people passing through the state on interstate highways.
[37:29.960 --> 37:34.960]  And interstate highway is technically not part of the state.
[37:34.960 --> 37:37.920]  It's part of the Fed.
[37:37.920 --> 37:44.480]  So they interfered with people in interstate transport.
[37:44.480 --> 37:46.300]  That gets you directly in the Fed.
[37:46.300 --> 37:52.160]  And once you're in the Fed, if someone is accused of violating a federal law or the
[37:52.160 --> 37:59.800]  federal constitution, if a state official is accused of violating a federal law or a
[37:59.800 --> 38:13.600]  federal constitution under ex parte young 209 U.S. 123, the state is forbidden to immunize
[38:13.600 --> 38:16.560]  them.
[38:16.560 --> 38:22.600]  So I took all the highest judges in Texas, all the judges in the Court of Criminal Appeals
[38:22.600 --> 38:29.120]  and the Chief Justice of the Supreme and sued them in their personal capacity.
[38:29.120 --> 38:40.080]  You can't get them, but you can't sue them for what they do on the bench that's not criminal.
[38:40.080 --> 38:45.520]  It may be wrongful and malicious, but if it hasn't been designated a crime, you can't
[38:45.520 --> 38:47.560]  sue them.
[38:47.560 --> 38:58.960]  Well, I must have done something wrong, but what I did was I sued a judge who issued an
[38:58.960 --> 39:04.960]  arrest warrant on me for failure to identify.
[39:04.960 --> 39:11.880]  Okay, issuing a warrant is within the scope of the judge's authority.
[39:11.880 --> 39:19.040]  What if he issued that warrant maliciously because you annoyed him and the warrant was
[39:19.040 --> 39:22.240]  totally improper, he still can't be sued for it?
[39:22.240 --> 39:25.120]  Well, then what's the point of probable cause?
[39:25.120 --> 39:30.040]  Well, that didn't go to probable cause.
[39:30.040 --> 39:34.800]  Issuing the warrant wasn't a matter of probable cause.
[39:34.800 --> 39:44.440]  Your arrest was probably in violation of probable cause, I mean, in violation of due course,
[39:44.440 --> 39:45.640]  but the warrant wasn't.
[39:45.640 --> 39:56.480]  In Texas, 15.09 says that when a complaint is forwarded to a magistrate complete in accordance
[39:56.480 --> 40:05.880]  with 1505 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate shall issue a warrant forthwith.
[40:05.880 --> 40:10.000]  I sued a judge for not issuing a warrant.
[40:10.000 --> 40:18.880]  Now, you're talking about suing a judge because he did issue a warrant.
[40:18.880 --> 40:22.080]  If someone presented that judge with a complaint.
[40:22.080 --> 40:30.080]  Well, in a minute, I haven't looked up the prerequisites of a warrant, but I would imagine
[40:30.080 --> 40:38.680]  a warrant would have to allege an arrestable offense, but not a warrant.
[40:38.680 --> 40:40.480]  Yes, it does.
[40:40.480 --> 40:49.560]  Okay, how can a complaint allege an arrestable offense if their naming is an ancillary charge?
[40:49.560 --> 40:53.840]  Not an arrestable offense, not a primary, not a, what's that called?
[40:53.840 --> 40:57.080]  Wait, it is a what kind of charge?
[40:57.080 --> 40:58.280]  Ancillary.
[40:58.280 --> 41:03.360]  I got it from you in 2016.
[41:03.360 --> 41:06.920]  But I slept since then.
[41:06.920 --> 41:08.960]  You remember something that long ago?
[41:08.960 --> 41:13.840]  Okay, I know that I recognize the term, but I don't remember the definition.
[41:13.840 --> 41:22.160]  Well, all right, so I was talking about a person was arrested for failure to identify,
[41:22.160 --> 41:26.320]  which is not an arrestable offense, and you used the word ancillary.
[41:26.320 --> 41:28.200]  You said, well, that's an ancillary charge.
[41:28.200 --> 41:31.280]  In other words, it's dependent on something else.
[41:31.280 --> 41:36.480]  And what it's dependent on is that you are already arrested.
[41:36.480 --> 41:41.480]  You can't be arrested for not identifying because you're not required to identify unless
[41:41.480 --> 41:44.080]  you've been lawfully arrested.
[41:44.080 --> 41:45.200]  Yes.
[41:45.200 --> 41:53.120]  So how can the judge issue an arrest warrant based on a complaint that says you did something
[41:53.120 --> 41:55.260]  that's not illegal?
[41:55.260 --> 41:59.600]  So that's I guess what I'm asking is a question like, can a judge arrest somebody for drinking
[41:59.600 --> 42:01.560]  a glass of water in their own home?
[42:01.560 --> 42:11.240]  Well, that's an issue that really needs to be addressed because when I read 15.09, Texas
[42:11.240 --> 42:19.840]  Code of Criminal Procedure, unlike other states I've looked at like New York, Tennessee, Pennsylvania,
[42:19.840 --> 42:29.680]  the judge, when he is presented with a criminal affidavit, shall investigate into the sufficiency
[42:29.680 --> 42:31.200]  of the allegation.
[42:31.200 --> 42:35.680]  And if he finds probable cause, then he's to issue a warrant.
[42:35.680 --> 42:38.640]  That's not what it says in Texas.
[42:38.640 --> 42:47.960]  In Texas, it says if a magistrate is presented with a, I'm sorry, let me back up.
[42:47.960 --> 42:57.400]  If a complaint completed in accordance with 15.05 is forwarded to a magistrate, the magistrate
[42:57.400 --> 43:04.880]  shall issue a warrant forthwith.
[43:04.880 --> 43:08.240]  Doesn't say he can examine into it, he's to issue a warrant.
[43:08.240 --> 43:16.000]  And if you read a Texas warrant, the warrant says, arrest this person and bring him before
[43:16.000 --> 43:18.480]  me.
[43:18.480 --> 43:25.880]  That's because he issued the warrant based on a criminal affidavit that stated, I have
[43:25.880 --> 43:34.480]  reason to believe and do believe based on the following, that such and such a person
[43:34.480 --> 43:39.480]  committed a specific crime.
[43:39.480 --> 43:43.200]  That's enough, he's required to issue the warrant, but then he holds an examining trial
[43:43.200 --> 43:49.400]  once you're arrested, and there he would determine if the warrant's insufficient, that the complaint
[43:49.400 --> 43:50.400]  was insufficient.
[43:50.400 --> 43:56.440]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Root of Low Radio, wait a minute, no Brett Fountain,
[43:56.440 --> 44:00.520]  we'll be right back, bad Brett Fountain.
[44:00.520 --> 44:06.560]  Through advances in technology our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[44:06.560 --> 44:11.320]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[44:11.320 --> 44:16.880]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[44:16.880 --> 44:23.340]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can
[44:23.340 --> 44:25.640]  provide the nutrients you need.
[44:25.640 --> 44:30.720]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[44:30.720 --> 44:31.720]  we reject.
[44:31.720 --> 44:36.800]  We have come to trust young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[44:36.800 --> 44:40.000]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[44:40.000 --> 44:45.920]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[44:45.920 --> 44:47.560]  quality radio.
[44:47.560 --> 44:51.880]  As you realize the benefits of young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[44:51.880 --> 44:57.120]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[44:57.120 --> 44:59.080]  increase your income.
[44:59.080 --> 45:00.080]  Order now.
[45:00.080 --> 45:04.280]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.280 --> 45:11.040]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[45:11.040 --> 45:14.840]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[45:14.840 --> 45:18.760]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:18.760 --> 45:23.040]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:23.040 --> 45:28.760]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.760 --> 45:34.680]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[45:34.680 --> 45:39.160]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about
[45:39.160 --> 45:43.520]  the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.520 --> 45:49.680]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.680 --> 45:52.280]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.280 --> 46:20.840]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[46:20.840 --> 46:44.560]  Thank you.
[46:50.840 --> 46:59.760]  Okay.
[46:59.760 --> 47:00.760]  We are back.
[47:00.760 --> 47:09.400]  Ray DeKelton, Bret Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Ralph in Louisiana.
[47:09.400 --> 47:12.880]  Is this Redbone Ralph or Kunas Ralph?
[47:12.880 --> 47:17.720]  Well, this is a dislocated Texan Ralph.
[47:17.720 --> 47:20.720]  Oh, okay.
[47:20.720 --> 47:27.680]  Well, I keep thinking of more questions and I'd like to get into it deeper, but there's
[47:27.680 --> 47:33.000]  probably people that's calling with real issues or all issues are real, but it may be calling
[47:33.000 --> 47:34.960]  in with timely issues.
[47:34.960 --> 47:36.440]  So I'm going to go ahead and-
[47:36.440 --> 47:43.920]  I think that was a good question to ask because Texas is unusual.
[47:43.920 --> 47:49.080]  It's different than other states in this particular regard.
[47:49.080 --> 47:58.480]  And anytime a judge issues a warrant, a warrant is within the discretion of the judge.
[47:58.480 --> 48:02.080]  That you can't sue him for.
[48:02.080 --> 48:09.440]  So sometimes you have to be creative and that's what I did to be able to sue him.
[48:09.440 --> 48:17.160]  I had to try to figure out a way to frame this so it had the appearance of being outside
[48:17.160 --> 48:18.880]  the scope.
[48:18.880 --> 48:25.760]  That's the key in suing a public official is scope.
[48:25.760 --> 48:29.200]  A primary seminal case is out of El Paso.
[48:29.200 --> 48:37.960]  A sheriff's deputy picks up a 19-year-old girl at the municipal jail and takes her to
[48:37.960 --> 48:46.040]  the county jail and decides to have a little recreation on the way and rapes her.
[48:46.040 --> 48:51.520]  He sued and he claims official immunity.
[48:51.520 --> 49:00.080]  And the judge ruled that rape was not within scope.
[49:00.080 --> 49:04.080]  He claimed that when this happened, he was acting in his official capacity.
[49:04.080 --> 49:11.160]  And they said, yeah, you were, but even though you were in your official capacity, what you
[49:11.160 --> 49:17.320]  did wasn't within the scope of your authority in that capacity.
[49:17.320 --> 49:19.880]  That's what I did to these judges.
[49:19.880 --> 49:35.000]  I said that conspiring toward an ongoing criminal enterprise was not within scope.
[49:35.000 --> 49:45.480]  Now if I had accused them of improperly preparing training for public officials, that would
[49:45.480 --> 49:53.280]  have been in scope because they were directed and had authority to prepare this training.
[49:53.280 --> 49:56.240]  And I'm saying they did it wrong.
[49:56.240 --> 50:01.600]  That would be within scope, but I framed it different.
[50:01.600 --> 50:10.840]  I said they didn't train them improperly, that they conspired with them toward an ongoing
[50:10.840 --> 50:12.160]  criminal conspiracy.
[50:12.160 --> 50:26.000]  Now at the end of the day, as to whether or not I can get past a rule 12b6, if the court
[50:26.000 --> 50:34.240]  accepts my statement of facts wherein I accused them of conspiring toward a criminal enterprise.
[50:34.240 --> 50:41.440]  If that's taken as true, would I have a claim against the judges?
[50:41.440 --> 50:44.200]  And the answer is absolutely.
[50:44.200 --> 50:53.000]  Now they have to prove once we get into court, that what they were doing was a mistaken law
[50:53.000 --> 50:56.680]  and not a criminal conspiracy to commit.
[50:56.680 --> 51:00.120]  It's about how you frame your claim.
[51:00.120 --> 51:01.600]  Does that make sense?
[51:01.600 --> 51:03.600]  Yes, it does.
[51:03.600 --> 51:07.480]  Now, what this brings up, and I keep getting more questions.
[51:07.480 --> 51:15.520]  Who was the judge or who was the person and what was their standing to file a motion to
[51:15.520 --> 51:19.000]  dismiss into your lawsuit saying that you were just practicing?
[51:19.000 --> 51:23.520]  That is a good question.
[51:23.520 --> 51:32.560]  The person who did that was a attorney general lawyer.
[51:32.560 --> 51:41.200]  And I said, wait a minute, what he was responding to was a motion to strike their rule 12 motion
[51:41.200 --> 51:53.640]  to dismiss, alleging that the attorney general did not have standing to represent these judges.
[51:53.640 --> 51:58.800]  And he starts out with my argument is frivolous, of course he has standing.
[51:58.800 --> 52:07.160]  No, it's not frivolous, and there is no of course he has standing.
[52:07.160 --> 52:15.560]  I accused these individuals of acting in their individual capacity outside the scope of their
[52:15.560 --> 52:23.000]  authority toward an ongoing criminal enterprise and accused them of violating the federal
[52:23.000 --> 52:26.440]  law and federal constitution.
[52:26.440 --> 52:36.480]  Well, that's because I did my homework and read Ex Parte Young, which I referenced earlier.
[52:36.480 --> 52:42.760]  But not whether I can prove they did this or not that keeps me in the court.
[52:42.760 --> 52:46.460]  It is the nature of the claim.
[52:46.460 --> 52:53.800]  I claimed that they conspired toward the violation of federal law.
[52:53.800 --> 53:00.920]  And the young doctrine says if a state official is accused of the violation of a federal law
[53:00.920 --> 53:11.720]  in the federal court, the state is forbidden to indemnify him because it would violate
[53:11.720 --> 53:16.700]  the supremacy clause.
[53:16.700 --> 53:26.200]  So I'm claiming they indemnified these judges by providing them state paid counsel.
[53:26.200 --> 53:32.640]  And this moron, I shouldn't call him a moron.
[53:32.640 --> 53:40.240]  I think he's just a young lawyer, though he's give the young lawyers the pro se.
[53:40.240 --> 53:43.440]  And they expect you to be ignorant.
[53:43.440 --> 53:46.400]  He screwed up.
[53:46.400 --> 53:54.000]  He screwed up in his rule 12, because all they did was claim immunity.
[53:54.000 --> 53:57.760]  Rule 12B1 goes to subject matter jurisdiction.
[53:57.760 --> 54:04.520]  And they said that I didn't have subject matter jurisdiction because they had immunity.
[54:04.520 --> 54:09.320]  So wait a minute, guys.
[54:09.320 --> 54:17.280]  I bar grieved them for not notifying the court of Ex Parte Young that said they didn't have
[54:17.280 --> 54:19.640]  immunity.
[54:19.640 --> 54:21.920]  And that was his whole argument was they had immunity.
[54:21.920 --> 54:25.500]  He didn't argue an exclusion to Ex Parte Young.
[54:25.500 --> 54:32.000]  He had to show why Ex Parte Young didn't apply and he didn't.
[54:32.000 --> 54:39.480]  And then, since I accused these officials in their personal capacity of violating federal
[54:39.480 --> 54:50.600]  law, I'm saying that article three paragraph or section 53 of the Texas Constitution forbids
[54:50.600 --> 54:55.160]  what they did, specifically.
[54:55.160 --> 55:03.040]  And then he said the federal court can't address state law.
[55:03.040 --> 55:10.160]  Of course they can, where state law is intertwined with federal law and the cases in the federal
[55:10.160 --> 55:16.860]  court under pendant or ancillary jurisdiction.
[55:16.860 --> 55:17.860]  And there's ancillary.
[55:17.860 --> 55:20.720]  I think it's ancillary.
[55:20.720 --> 55:27.400]  Anyways two or three kinds of jurisdiction in this particular context, but the primary
[55:27.400 --> 55:29.320]  one is pendant.
[55:29.320 --> 55:38.080]  Under pendant jurisdiction, if the state issue is so intertwined with the federal issue that
[55:38.080 --> 55:43.720]  they can't be separated, the federal court can rule on both.
[55:43.720 --> 55:45.000]  And this is here in Pennsylvania.
[55:45.000 --> 55:49.400]  This is very well established law.
[55:49.400 --> 55:51.400]  He ignored it.
[55:51.400 --> 55:59.200]  Now, I just bar grieved him for doing that with Ex Parte Young and he does it again.
[55:59.200 --> 56:02.120]  I don't get it.
[56:02.120 --> 56:09.560]  You think you're suing these high level officials and you get the attorney general, the highest
[56:09.560 --> 56:13.560]  level lawyer in the state, you'd expect some really good pleadings.
[56:13.560 --> 56:16.200]  I got crap.
[56:16.200 --> 56:23.160]  It seems to me that they should have been doing their submission to the court under
[56:23.160 --> 56:29.880]  an amicus brief during that period of time because they don't have a standing.
[56:29.880 --> 56:31.400]  You are right.
[56:31.400 --> 56:37.520]  And I started to put in my pleading that the only way the attorney general in this matter
[56:37.520 --> 56:42.160]  could address the court was through a beacons curiae.
[56:42.160 --> 56:49.880]  But they appeared to not know what they're doing, so I didn't wanna give them a clue.
[56:49.880 --> 56:52.080]  So maybe I'm missing something.
[56:52.080 --> 56:57.320]  This is a due process claim that you're bringing against them?
[56:57.320 --> 56:59.360]  I'm bringing racketeering claim.
[56:59.360 --> 57:03.320]  Oh, them, them, pronouns, I hate pronouns.
[57:03.320 --> 57:09.360]  Are you referring to the attorneys or to the litigants, to the defendants?
[57:09.360 --> 57:10.360]  The defendants.
[57:10.360 --> 57:11.640]  Is there any due process?
[57:11.640 --> 57:15.920]  Are you making any due process violation claims against the defendants?
[57:15.920 --> 57:16.920]  No.
[57:16.920 --> 57:17.920]  Okay.
[57:17.920 --> 57:19.680]  I could have.
[57:19.680 --> 57:29.520]  Due process violations is incorporated into what they're doing, but the claim was racketeering,
[57:29.520 --> 57:31.920]  ongoing criminal enterprise.
[57:31.920 --> 57:33.400]  Okay.
[57:33.400 --> 57:36.600]  All right.
[57:36.600 --> 57:38.840]  I found a pretty good case.
[57:38.840 --> 57:44.640]  The fourth amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of liberty, life or property
[57:44.640 --> 57:46.680]  without due process of law.
[57:46.680 --> 57:52.720]  But this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen against another.
[57:52.720 --> 57:54.280]  Right.
[57:54.280 --> 58:00.900]  A citizen can't deny you due process.
[58:00.900 --> 58:04.720]  Only a government official can deny you due process, by definition.
[58:04.720 --> 58:10.440]  A government official can't deny you due process without being out of scope.
[58:10.440 --> 58:20.520]  Well, you know, a citizen can't because a citizen has no standing to provide you with
[58:20.520 --> 58:21.520]  due process.
[58:21.520 --> 58:22.520]  I'm sorry.
[58:22.520 --> 58:27.160]  Let me think about how to say this before we come back on the other side.
[58:27.160 --> 58:33.000]  Oh, a citizen's not demanded to provide you with your rights.
[58:33.000 --> 58:36.000]  Only public officials are commanded to do that.
[58:36.000 --> 58:38.000]  I can see that now.
[58:38.000 --> 58:39.000]  Okay.
[58:39.000 --> 58:40.680]  I just didn't have anybody to ask about that.
[58:40.680 --> 58:44.920]  So yeah, you're looking at from the citizen, private citizen and public servant.
[58:44.920 --> 58:45.920]  Okay.
[58:45.920 --> 58:46.920]  Hang on.
[58:46.920 --> 58:47.920]  Be right back.
[58:47.920 --> 58:48.920]  Randy Kelly.
[58:48.920 --> 58:49.920]  We'll be right back.
[58:49.920 --> 58:54.320]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[58:54.320 --> 58:59.480]  Bibles for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[58:59.480 --> 59:00.840]  can really help.
[59:00.840 --> 59:05.280]  The New Testament Recovery Version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:05.280 --> 59:06.280]  today.
[59:06.280 --> 59:10.200]  It's an accurate translation and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:10.200 --> 59:13.320]  to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:13.320 --> 59:18.560]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:18.560 --> 59:22.840]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan
[59:22.840 --> 59:27.760]  of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the Church.
[59:27.760 --> 59:32.760]  To order your free New Testament Recovery Version and Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:32.760 --> 59:45.560]  Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102, that's 888-551-0102, or visit
[59:45.560 --> 01:00:02.160]  us online at bfa.org.
[01:00:02.160 --> 01:00:05.800]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:00:05.800 --> 01:00:09.280]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect.
[01:00:09.280 --> 01:00:10.760]  Our liberty depends on it.
[01:00:10.760 --> 01:00:14.640]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:00:14.640 --> 01:00:17.520]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:00:17.520 --> 01:00:19.120]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:00:19.120 --> 01:00:22.720]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:00:22.720 --> 01:00:27.480]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:00:27.480 --> 01:00:32.560]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:00:32.560 --> 01:00:35.240]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:00:35.240 --> 01:00:39.540]  This public service announcement is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search
[01:00:39.540 --> 01:00:43.080]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:00:43.080 --> 01:00:45.160]  Start over with Startpage.
[01:00:45.160 --> 01:00:48.880]  Imagine your mom and dad are getting ready for bed.
[01:00:48.880 --> 01:00:51.960]  They pull back the covers and find a third party there.
[01:00:51.960 --> 01:00:55.160]  He announces, I'm with the military and I'm sleeping here tonight.
[01:00:55.160 --> 01:00:59.280]  That shocking image of a third party in my parents' bed reminds me what the third amendment
[01:00:59.280 --> 01:01:00.880]  was designed to prevent.
[01:01:00.880 --> 01:01:05.080]  It protects us from being forced to share our homes with soldiers, a common demand in
[01:01:05.080 --> 01:01:07.220]  the days of our founding fathers.
[01:01:07.220 --> 01:01:09.240]  Third party, third amendment, get it?
[01:01:09.240 --> 01:01:13.360]  So if you answer a knock at your door and guys in fatigues demand lodging, tell them
[01:01:13.360 --> 01:01:17.000]  to dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights and re-read the third amendment.
[01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:32.000]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:35.640]  The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of our Constitution.
[01:01:35.640 --> 01:01:40.040]  They guarantee the specific freedoms Americans should know and protect, our liberty depends
[01:01:40.040 --> 01:01:41.040]  on it.
[01:01:41.040 --> 01:01:44.460]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht and I'll be right back with an unforgettable way to remember
[01:01:44.460 --> 01:01:47.440]  one of your constitutional rights.
[01:01:47.440 --> 01:01:49.040]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:01:49.040 --> 01:01:52.640]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:01:52.640 --> 01:01:57.400]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:01:57.400 --> 01:02:02.440]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance, and keep your information to yourself.
[01:02:02.440 --> 01:02:05.180]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:02:05.180 --> 01:02:09.480]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[01:02:09.480 --> 01:02:13.000]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:16.720]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:02:16.720 --> 01:02:22.080]  Imagine four eyes staring at you through binoculars, a magnifying glass, or a pair of x-ray goggles.
[01:02:22.080 --> 01:02:26.560]  That imagery reminds me that the Fourth Amendment guarantees Americans freedom from unreasonable
[01:02:26.560 --> 01:02:28.040]  search and seizure.
[01:02:28.040 --> 01:02:31.160]  Fourth Amendment, four eyes staring at you, get it?
[01:02:31.160 --> 01:02:34.520]  Unfortunately, the government is trampling our Fourth Amendment rights in the name of
[01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:35.520]  security.
[01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:40.040]  Case in point, TSA airport scanners that peer under your clothing.
[01:02:40.040 --> 01:02:44.040]  When government employees demand a peep at your privates without probable cause, I say
[01:02:44.040 --> 01:02:46.840]  it's time to sound the constitutional alarm bells.
[01:02:46.840 --> 01:02:51.160]  Join me in asking our representatives to dust off the Bill of Rights and use their googly
[01:02:51.160 --> 01:02:53.400]  eyes to take a gander at the Fourth.
[01:02:53.400 --> 01:02:55.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht.
[01:02:55.200 --> 01:03:04.880]  More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[01:03:25.200 --> 01:03:55.120]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Mood of Love Radio, and I keep saying, I'm
[01:03:55.120 --> 01:03:57.240]  Brett Fountain.
[01:03:57.240 --> 01:03:58.240]  That guy's been gone so long.
[01:03:58.240 --> 01:03:59.240]  I don't even remember who he is.
[01:03:59.240 --> 01:04:00.240]  Do you guys remember who he is?
[01:04:00.240 --> 01:04:05.240]  He's going to remind you when he gets back.
[01:04:05.240 --> 01:04:11.720]  Well, maybe I'll remember him when he comes back, but right now, he's already forgotten.
[01:04:11.720 --> 01:04:15.960]  Okay, Ralph, we're going to go to our next caller.
[01:04:15.960 --> 01:04:18.360]  Thank you, Randy.
[01:04:18.360 --> 01:04:19.360]  You are welcome.
[01:04:19.360 --> 01:04:25.320]  Okay, we are going to this Teresa from California kicked her butts.
[01:04:25.320 --> 01:04:29.280]  Hey, Randy, how are you?
[01:04:29.280 --> 01:04:31.440]  Don't say hi to that other guy.
[01:04:31.440 --> 01:04:32.440]  He's not here.
[01:04:32.440 --> 01:04:33.440]  Okay, I won't.
[01:04:33.440 --> 01:04:34.440]  I won't.
[01:04:34.440 --> 01:04:41.720]  So I couldn't wait to tell you about this considering the way that you've been ripping
[01:04:41.720 --> 01:04:45.760]  the attorneys apart for this show.
[01:04:45.760 --> 01:04:55.640]  So as I was preparing stuff to talk with you about, I was reading one of the firm's motion,
[01:04:55.640 --> 01:04:58.480]  their most recent motion to dismiss.
[01:04:58.480 --> 01:05:07.040]  Now, in the first complaint that I submitted, I had 20 claims, and the 19th one was stuff
[01:05:07.040 --> 01:05:12.200]  about failure to train and all this other crap, right?
[01:05:12.200 --> 01:05:19.160]  And I was just reading in their motion to dismiss, they write, Furthermore, with respect
[01:05:19.160 --> 01:05:24.760]  to the failure to train aspect of the 19th count, this likewise fails.
[01:05:24.760 --> 01:05:29.840]  Moreover, for liability you attach, the identified deficiency in a city's training program must
[01:05:29.840 --> 01:05:32.040]  be closely related to the...
[01:05:32.040 --> 01:05:39.200]  They're arguing, they take a whole page to argue against the claim that is not in the
[01:05:39.200 --> 01:05:44.560]  amended complaint.
[01:05:44.560 --> 01:05:46.080]  Wait a minute.
[01:05:46.080 --> 01:05:47.560]  The claim is not...
[01:05:47.560 --> 01:05:52.320]  Oh, they're arguing a claim that is not in the amended complaint.
[01:05:52.320 --> 01:05:53.800]  Oops.
[01:05:53.800 --> 01:06:05.200]  For everybody who don't get that, when you file a suit and if they really rule against
[01:06:05.200 --> 01:06:10.400]  failure, a lot of times the courts will dismiss without prejudice.
[01:06:10.400 --> 01:06:16.560]  And what that means is, without prejudice means you're giving the opportunity to refile.
[01:06:16.560 --> 01:06:23.320]  The judge believes that your complaint, although it's defective, can be fixed.
[01:06:23.320 --> 01:06:27.800]  So within the federal courts, they'll tell you what's wrong with it and tell you how
[01:06:27.800 --> 01:06:32.400]  to fix it, and then dismiss it without prejudice.
[01:06:32.400 --> 01:06:38.440]  If they dismiss it with prejudice, they're saying, we can't see any way you can fix this
[01:06:38.440 --> 01:06:40.580]  suit.
[01:06:40.580 --> 01:06:45.760]  You have sued this lawyer for parting his hair on the left.
[01:06:45.760 --> 01:06:49.440]  There's no way you can fix this.
[01:06:49.440 --> 01:06:53.880]  But if they can see a way to fix it, they'll tell you what it is and then dismiss it without
[01:06:53.880 --> 01:06:55.080]  prejudice.
[01:06:55.080 --> 01:07:04.360]  So when you file an amended complaint, everything has to be in that complaint because the original
[01:07:04.360 --> 01:07:10.040]  petition now becomes null and void.
[01:07:10.040 --> 01:07:17.400]  If you forget to put anything in the amended complaint, it is not before the court.
[01:07:17.400 --> 01:07:24.800]  So she's saying this lawyer is arguing something in the original complaint that's not in the
[01:07:24.800 --> 01:07:25.800]  amended.
[01:07:25.800 --> 01:07:27.800]  That's right.
[01:07:27.800 --> 01:07:31.100]  So you ought to really take him on on that.
[01:07:31.100 --> 01:07:36.760]  This is what lawyers do, especially in proceeds.
[01:07:36.760 --> 01:07:41.640]  They want to get you to argue an irrelevant issue.
[01:07:41.640 --> 01:07:46.200]  Then you ought to ask for sanctions.
[01:07:46.200 --> 01:07:51.240]  I was hoping you would say that.
[01:07:51.240 --> 01:07:58.200]  This lawyer would like for you to spend all your time arguing against this issue.
[01:07:58.200 --> 01:07:59.200]  It's not before the court.
[01:07:59.200 --> 01:08:00.200]  It doesn't matter.
[01:08:00.200 --> 01:08:01.200]  Yeah.
[01:08:01.200 --> 01:08:05.120]  I'm not sure if I, oh, sorry, go ahead.
[01:08:05.120 --> 01:08:06.120]  Yeah.
[01:08:06.120 --> 01:08:11.920]  He will fight you like a tiger, huffing, puffing, railing righteous indignation about the inequity
[01:08:11.920 --> 01:08:12.920]  of it all.
[01:08:12.920 --> 01:08:14.280]  But he don't care.
[01:08:14.280 --> 01:08:15.520]  He's just distracting you.
[01:08:15.520 --> 01:08:17.320]  This is a red herring.
[01:08:17.320 --> 01:08:21.160]  Oh, is that, is that what he's doing?
[01:08:21.160 --> 01:08:24.840]  That's exactly what he's doing.
[01:08:24.840 --> 01:08:27.760]  He wants you to dance with him.
[01:08:27.760 --> 01:08:36.240]  Oh, so, but I can file a motion for sanction for this, correct?
[01:08:36.240 --> 01:08:37.840]  Yeah.
[01:08:37.840 --> 01:08:43.800]  But generally, you know that he's going to say they just made a mistake.
[01:08:43.800 --> 01:08:46.800]  Sanctions need to be for something that's really obviously improper.
[01:08:46.800 --> 01:08:53.480]  Yeah, I was going to ask if it was, if it would be considered to be an excusable error.
[01:08:53.480 --> 01:08:58.600]  Yes, it will be because it causes no harm.
[01:08:58.600 --> 01:08:59.600]  Okay.
[01:08:59.600 --> 01:09:00.600]  Yeah.
[01:09:00.600 --> 01:09:06.120]  And the best thing you could do is ignore it.
[01:09:06.120 --> 01:09:14.360]  Just a quick statement to say this particular issue is not included in the amended complaint
[01:09:14.360 --> 01:09:16.360]  and then just go on.
[01:09:16.360 --> 01:09:19.320]  The judge will see that.
[01:09:19.320 --> 01:09:24.320]  The judge will look at it and say, hmm, she didn't take the bait.
[01:09:24.320 --> 01:09:25.320]  Okay.
[01:09:25.320 --> 01:09:26.320]  Okay.
[01:09:26.320 --> 01:09:35.240]  All right, so the main issue that I wanted to speak with you tonight, I'm still struggling
[01:09:35.240 --> 01:09:40.320]  with this Monell liability.
[01:09:40.320 --> 01:09:48.720]  And briefly, you know, both times that I was arrested, they forced me to wear a mask.
[01:09:48.720 --> 01:09:54.960]  And I say that in the chronology of facts, I say, well, this deputy and that deputy forced
[01:09:54.960 --> 01:09:57.200]  me to wear a mask.
[01:09:57.200 --> 01:10:02.760]  And then I include it in one of the causes of action for freedom of religion.
[01:10:02.760 --> 01:10:05.600]  It was a violation of my freedom of religion.
[01:10:05.600 --> 01:10:08.680]  And I want to read you what they wrote.
[01:10:08.680 --> 01:10:16.760]  So plaintiffs, a sole allegation in our first claim in support of the county is that county's
[01:10:16.760 --> 01:10:21.880]  deputies, Jane Doe and those numbers three through seven, forced plaintiffs to bail her
[01:10:21.880 --> 01:10:27.120]  face against plaintiff's will and in violation of plaintiff's religious freedoms.
[01:10:27.120 --> 01:10:33.680]  Even if this conduct somehow violated plaintiff's rights, plaintiff fails to identify any county
[01:10:33.680 --> 01:10:38.120]  policy leading to the alleged violation.
[01:10:38.120 --> 01:10:41.360]  And they say the same thing about the unlawful search.
[01:10:41.360 --> 01:10:47.240]  Fifth claim in support of her fifth claim, plaintiff makes conclusory allegations while
[01:10:47.240 --> 01:10:48.240]  failing to...
[01:10:48.240 --> 01:10:52.560]  Okay, wait, wait, stop, stop, before we get too far away from this question, fails to
[01:10:52.560 --> 01:10:57.440]  make a Monell allegation.
[01:10:57.440 --> 01:11:06.280]  You're claiming these officers acted improperly, violated your rights.
[01:11:06.280 --> 01:11:20.480]  And does the lawyer argue that the, oh, wait, hold on, let me take a step back.
[01:11:20.480 --> 01:11:29.120]  Your claim, is your claim against the jurisdiction or is it against the individuals?
[01:11:29.120 --> 01:11:36.520]  It's against both the officers and their private capacities, as well as the public entities.
[01:11:36.520 --> 01:11:39.440]  And this is part of my question.
[01:11:39.440 --> 01:11:47.960]  I know that in 2020 and 2021, that all the prisoners that were brought to the jail had
[01:11:47.960 --> 01:11:48.960]  to wear masks.
[01:11:48.960 --> 01:11:52.920]  Okay, that's okay, that was what I was thinking.
[01:11:52.920 --> 01:11:56.240]  This goes to an implied policy.
[01:11:56.240 --> 01:12:03.680]  It is unreasonable to believe that all of these officers decided on their own to force
[01:12:03.680 --> 01:12:11.720]  people to wear masks, goes to a reasonable ordinary person of, I'm sorry, reasonable
[01:12:11.720 --> 01:12:17.120]  person of ordinary prudent standard.
[01:12:17.120 --> 01:12:24.400]  That for the lawyer to say there is no written policy.
[01:12:24.400 --> 01:12:28.960]  I don't remember anything in Monell that required a written policy.
[01:12:28.960 --> 01:12:35.840]  Well, they don't say in this objection or in their motion to dismiss, they don't say
[01:12:35.840 --> 01:12:37.460]  written policy.
[01:12:37.460 --> 01:12:43.320]  What they said was, even if this conduct somehow violated plaintiff's rights, plaintiff fails
[01:12:43.320 --> 01:12:48.920]  to identify any county policy leading to the alleged violation.
[01:12:48.920 --> 01:12:52.600]  But I know they had a policy during that time.
[01:12:52.600 --> 01:12:55.880]  But I've only had experience with them twice.
[01:12:55.880 --> 01:13:01.200]  Okay, this is an implied policy.
[01:13:01.200 --> 01:13:09.360]  You can respond that there is a policy and you don't have that policy yet.
[01:13:09.360 --> 01:13:12.000]  Is this a motion to dismiss under rule 12?
[01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:16.120]  Yes, that's what I'm gonna be applying to.
[01:13:16.120 --> 01:13:22.320]  Okay, then he's, okay, council is litigating the case in a rule 12 motion.
[01:13:22.320 --> 01:13:27.520]  His arguments are misplaced.
[01:13:27.520 --> 01:13:38.080]  Council is arguing that plaintiff did not prove up her assertive, her accusation.
[01:13:38.080 --> 01:13:41.240]  And such is improper for a rule 12 motion.
[01:13:41.240 --> 01:13:48.720]  The statements of plaintiff in a rule 12 motion must be taken as true.
[01:13:48.720 --> 01:13:55.920]  And if they are true, would plaintiff have a claim against defendant?
[01:13:55.920 --> 01:13:58.360]  That's what's required in a rule 12.
[01:13:58.360 --> 01:14:05.360]  Here council is attempting to adjudicate the case in a rule 12 motion.
[01:14:05.360 --> 01:14:11.380]  They always do that and one of my answers in this case, I put in there, council must
[01:14:11.380 --> 01:14:13.960]  be confused.
[01:14:13.960 --> 01:14:21.360]  Council seems to think this is a motion to dismiss in the trial at bar, but it's not.
[01:14:21.360 --> 01:14:24.360]  This is a rule 12 motion.
[01:14:24.360 --> 01:14:30.480]  Council is attempting to adjudicate the case in a rule 12 motion.
[01:14:30.480 --> 01:14:31.480]  That's what's going on.
[01:14:31.480 --> 01:14:39.640]  Okay, okay, and also they gave me the same responses when I said that I was subjected
[01:14:39.640 --> 01:14:46.120]  to unlawful searches before I had been brought before the magistrate.
[01:14:46.120 --> 01:14:51.080]  And they said in support of her fifth claim, plaintiff makes, oh, here's the other kind
[01:14:51.080 --> 01:14:54.000]  of there like a catch phrase.
[01:14:54.000 --> 01:15:00.560]  Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations while failing to differentiate between the alleged
[01:15:00.560 --> 01:15:04.320]  conduct of the individual city and county defendants.
[01:15:04.320 --> 01:15:11.480]  Plaintiff again fails to identify any specific county policy resulting in the allegedly unconstitutional
[01:15:11.480 --> 01:15:15.280]  conduct.
[01:15:15.280 --> 01:15:16.280]  Plaintiff has not proffered-
[01:15:16.280 --> 01:15:21.280]  Okay, he's going to the same place.
[01:15:21.280 --> 01:15:23.960]  This is a rule 12 motion.
[01:15:23.960 --> 01:15:25.080]  Yes.
[01:15:25.080 --> 01:15:33.920]  So it doesn't matter if you have shown policy, if you've alleged policy, that's sufficient
[01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:35.680]  for a rule 12 motion.
[01:15:35.680 --> 01:15:42.440]  Again, council's trying to adjudicate the case in a rule 12 motion.
[01:15:42.440 --> 01:15:51.920]  The actual policy which is required will be secured subject to discovery as the policy
[01:15:51.920 --> 01:16:07.240]  is in the possession and control of defendant and policy will be secured subsequent to discovery.
[01:16:07.240 --> 01:16:08.240]  Okay.
[01:16:08.240 --> 01:16:12.640]  But as to a rule 12 motion, it's improper.
[01:16:12.640 --> 01:16:15.560]  That you should ask for sanctions for.
[01:16:15.560 --> 01:16:16.560]  Okay.
[01:16:16.560 --> 01:16:17.560]  Okay.
[01:16:17.560 --> 01:16:22.840]  So when they also wrote Plaintiff has not proffered any specific factual allegations
[01:16:22.840 --> 01:16:28.800]  relating to the other incidents involving the city, that would show a practice, custom
[01:16:28.800 --> 01:16:34.600]  or policy that led to the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
[01:16:34.600 --> 01:16:38.480]  Again, improper in the rule 12.
[01:16:38.480 --> 01:16:42.480]  He's trying to adjudicate the case in the rule 12 motion.
[01:16:42.480 --> 01:16:43.480]  Okay.
[01:16:43.480 --> 01:16:49.120]  Then it's improper because you won't have the information necessary to prove up your
[01:16:49.120 --> 01:16:51.120]  case until after discovery.
[01:16:51.120 --> 01:17:00.100]  Hang on, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, rule of our radio, we'll be right back.
[01:17:00.100 --> 01:17:04.680]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even lawsuits?
[01:17:04.680 --> 01:17:08.920]  Stop debt collectors now with the Michael Mears proven method.
[01:17:08.920 --> 01:17:13.520]  Michael Mears has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[01:17:13.520 --> 01:17:14.520]  can win too.
[01:17:14.520 --> 01:17:19.040]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[01:17:19.040 --> 01:17:20.720]  civil rights statutes.
[01:17:20.720 --> 01:17:24.360]  What to do when contacted by phone, mail or court summons.
[01:17:24.360 --> 01:17:26.400]  How to answer letters and phone calls.
[01:17:26.400 --> 01:17:29.000]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit report.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:33.640]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away.
[01:17:33.640 --> 01:17:38.760]  The Michael Mears proven method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[01:17:38.760 --> 01:17:40.920]  Financial consultation is available as well.
[01:17:40.920 --> 01:17:46.440]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mears banner
[01:17:46.440 --> 01:17:49.440]  or email michaelmears at yahoo.com.
[01:17:49.440 --> 01:17:58.400]  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
[01:17:58.400 --> 01:18:00.160]  collectors now.
[01:18:00.160 --> 01:18:01.160]  I love logos.
[01:18:01.160 --> 01:18:04.520]  Without the shows on this network, I'd be almost as ignorant as my friends.
[01:18:04.520 --> 01:18:07.320]  I'm so addicted to the truth now that there's no going back.
[01:18:07.320 --> 01:18:08.320]  I need my truth fixed.
[01:18:08.320 --> 01:18:13.200]  I'd be lost without logos, and I really want to help keep this network on the air.
[01:18:13.200 --> 01:18:17.000]  I'd love to volunteer as a show producer, but I'm a bit of a Luddite and I really don't
[01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:20.360]  have any money to give because I spent it all on supplements.
[01:18:20.360 --> 01:18:21.840]  How can I help logos?
[01:18:21.840 --> 01:18:23.920]  Well, I'm glad you asked.
[01:18:23.920 --> 01:18:26.720]  Whenever you order anything from Amazon, you can help logos.
[01:18:26.720 --> 01:18:29.280]  You can order them your supplies or holiday gifts.
[01:18:29.280 --> 01:18:31.400]  First thing you do is clear your cookies.
[01:18:31.400 --> 01:18:37.760]  Now go to logosradionetwork.com, click on the Amazon logo and bookmark it.
[01:18:37.760 --> 01:18:43.440]  Now when you order anything from Amazon, you use that link and logos gets a few pesos.
[01:18:43.440 --> 01:18:44.440]  Do I pay extra?
[01:18:44.440 --> 01:18:45.440]  No.
[01:18:45.440 --> 01:18:47.000]  Do you have to do anything different when I order?
[01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:48.000]  No.
[01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  Can I use my Amazon Prime?
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:50.000]  No.
[01:18:50.000 --> 01:18:51.000]  I mean, yes.
[01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:52.000]  Wow.
[01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:55.880]  Giving without doing anything or spending any money, this is perfect.
[01:18:55.880 --> 01:18:56.880]  Thank you so much.
[01:18:56.880 --> 01:18:58.600]  We are welcome.
[01:18:58.600 --> 01:19:00.600]  Happy holidays, logos.
[01:19:00.600 --> 01:19:07.600]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:20:00.600 --> 01:20:08.160]  This is the Logos Radio Network.
[01:20:30.600 --> 01:20:37.600]  Thank you so much.
[01:21:00.600 --> 01:21:23.600]  Okay, we are back, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Teresa
[01:21:23.600 --> 01:21:24.600]  in California.
[01:21:24.600 --> 01:21:26.560]  Okay, Teresa, this has been a good show.
[01:21:26.560 --> 01:21:30.040]  This is the kind of stuff I like to do.
[01:21:30.040 --> 01:21:36.600]  You read these pleadings and once you've read a few of them, you'll start seeing patterns
[01:21:36.600 --> 01:21:37.600]  emerge.
[01:21:37.600 --> 01:21:44.360]  When you were reading this pleading, I had something gnawing at me the back of my brain
[01:21:44.360 --> 01:21:50.000]  asking me what is wrong with this picture.
[01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:57.800]  These guys are not going to expect you to catch that and accuse them of adjudicating
[01:21:57.800 --> 01:21:59.560]  the case in Rule 12.
[01:21:59.560 --> 01:22:11.760]  They're not going to expect to be schooled on Rule 12 motions by a pro se.
[01:22:11.760 --> 01:22:19.520]  When they filed their Rule 12 motion to dismiss, they cited some case law.
[01:22:19.520 --> 01:22:20.520]  Take that case law.
[01:22:20.520 --> 01:22:24.120]  I generally use case text.
[01:22:24.120 --> 01:22:31.400]  Take the case law citation, go into Google and type case text space, drop that name in
[01:22:31.400 --> 01:22:41.040]  there, and then once it pops up, then take a key phrase out of what they're arguing and
[01:22:41.040 --> 01:22:42.040]  hit Control-F.
[01:22:42.040 --> 01:22:46.060]  You'll get a little search box at the bottom, drop it in there, and it will take you down
[01:22:46.060 --> 01:22:50.920]  to that section in the case and read it.
[01:22:50.920 --> 01:22:54.760]  These guys don't read the case.
[01:22:54.760 --> 01:23:06.860]  Got a guy that cited an unpublished case and he took a sentence out of the case, one sentence.
[01:23:06.860 --> 01:23:10.820]  So I did a search for part of that sentence and I found it.
[01:23:10.820 --> 01:23:15.080]  The sentence was in the middle of a large paragraph.
[01:23:15.080 --> 01:23:25.640]  When you read the whole paragraph, it demonstrated that what he pulled out of there gave an impression
[01:23:25.640 --> 01:23:33.080]  of one thing, but reading the whole paragraph gave a whole different circumstance.
[01:23:33.080 --> 01:23:38.040]  So he clearly went in and pulled a sentence out of context.
[01:23:38.040 --> 01:23:43.640]  So I caught him at it and he cited this.
[01:23:43.640 --> 01:23:46.240]  That cited such and such.
[01:23:46.240 --> 01:23:50.640]  It would have been better had he read the case as he would have cited the rest of the
[01:23:50.640 --> 01:23:55.760]  paragraph, which I dropped in there.
[01:23:55.760 --> 01:24:01.440]  That's going to make him look like such a chump.
[01:24:01.440 --> 01:24:08.360]  And to have a pro se do it to him, I go through these cases, you'll be surprised how quickly
[01:24:08.360 --> 01:24:11.800]  you can go through them.
[01:24:11.800 --> 01:24:22.020]  And I got one case that had a quotation and it said as cited from another case.
[01:24:22.020 --> 01:24:26.880]  So I went to that other case to find this quotation.
[01:24:26.880 --> 01:24:30.120]  It wasn't in there.
[01:24:30.120 --> 01:24:33.040]  And that I find a lot.
[01:24:33.040 --> 01:24:39.560]  They don't expect you to go down their chain of cases.
[01:24:39.560 --> 01:24:45.480]  As a matter of practice, I hyperlink every case that's cited.
[01:24:45.480 --> 01:24:49.480]  In order to hyperlink it, I have to find it.
[01:24:49.480 --> 01:24:54.800]  And when I find it, I always open it up and do a quick search for whatever they're referring
[01:24:54.800 --> 01:24:58.400]  to to make sure it shows up.
[01:24:58.400 --> 01:25:09.400]  You may have heard the statement or the adage that if all are disqualified, none are disqualified.
[01:25:09.400 --> 01:25:13.120]  I'd heard that and quoted that for years.
[01:25:13.120 --> 01:25:19.400]  And I put it in a case and I said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
[01:25:19.400 --> 01:25:25.800]  I went to case text and typed in, if all are disqualified, none are disqualified.
[01:25:25.800 --> 01:25:28.480]  And I found a case.
[01:25:28.480 --> 01:25:33.000]  And that case cited two other cases.
[01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:38.760]  It put in a quotation from these other two cases.
[01:25:38.760 --> 01:25:48.200]  I went to those two cases and they had nothing on point at all.
[01:25:48.200 --> 01:25:54.560]  This is something that was to the point of being an accepted adage.
[01:25:54.560 --> 01:25:58.600]  Everybody accepted this without question.
[01:25:58.600 --> 01:26:02.080]  And it was trash.
[01:26:02.080 --> 01:26:10.200]  If you spend much time around the legal reform community, you will hear rights belong to
[01:26:10.200 --> 01:26:12.200]  the belligerent litigant.
[01:26:12.200 --> 01:26:21.400]  I quoted that for years, Johnson v. State, it's right there in Johnson v. State.
[01:26:21.400 --> 01:26:29.240]  But the quotation says rights belong to the belligerent litigant as cited from and it
[01:26:29.240 --> 01:26:33.560]  states two cases.
[01:26:33.560 --> 01:26:39.000]  There is nothing about that in those two cases.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:40.720]  It was crap.
[01:26:40.720 --> 01:26:44.080]  They made it up.
[01:26:44.080 --> 01:26:49.680]  You'll be surprised how often you find that and you catch them doing that.
[01:26:49.680 --> 01:26:59.800]  That's about the worst thing a lawyer can do, is cite bad case law to a judge.
[01:26:59.800 --> 01:27:05.600]  That'll get the judge really unhappy.
[01:27:05.600 --> 01:27:13.560]  Eddie Craig kept citing Hernandez v. State in traffic context and he called me one day.
[01:27:13.560 --> 01:27:15.600]  He said, remember Hernandez v. State?
[01:27:15.600 --> 01:27:16.920]  I said, yeah, I do.
[01:27:16.920 --> 01:27:18.680]  He said, well, have you ever read it?
[01:27:18.680 --> 01:27:22.560]  Well, no, I just use the citations.
[01:27:22.560 --> 01:27:25.260]  He said, you should read it.
[01:27:25.260 --> 01:27:29.360]  It has nothing to do with traffic.
[01:27:29.360 --> 01:27:35.080]  And Hernandez v. State was cited by the Texas Supreme Court.
[01:27:35.080 --> 01:27:37.520]  So how the heck does that happen?
[01:27:37.520 --> 01:27:40.800]  I thought about it.
[01:27:40.800 --> 01:27:50.600]  I bet some well known successful lawyer gave some stuff to his paralegal to write up in
[01:27:50.600 --> 01:27:55.600]  a pleading and the paralegal got the wrong citation.
[01:27:55.600 --> 01:28:00.700]  The court gets the pleading, he sees the citation and this is a well respected lawyer.
[01:28:00.700 --> 01:28:03.680]  So he accepts it on his face.
[01:28:03.680 --> 01:28:05.080]  It goes to the court of appeals.
[01:28:05.080 --> 01:28:06.400]  They know this lawyer as well.
[01:28:06.400 --> 01:28:08.160]  They accept it on his face.
[01:28:08.160 --> 01:28:12.960]  It comes from the court of appeals to the supreme and they expect the law to be good.
[01:28:12.960 --> 01:28:14.840]  So they accept it on his face.
[01:28:14.840 --> 01:28:17.040]  Now it becomes law.
[01:28:17.040 --> 01:28:21.880]  But it's crap.
[01:28:21.880 --> 01:28:25.400]  You find one of those as a pro se?
[01:28:25.400 --> 01:28:32.800]  Oh, that would be wonderful.
[01:28:32.800 --> 01:28:39.240]  And it will be an extremely good exercise.
[01:28:39.240 --> 01:28:47.240]  Most of the case law I need to refute their pleadings, I find either in the cases they
[01:28:47.240 --> 01:28:55.080]  cite or the citations within those cases.
[01:28:55.080 --> 01:28:58.680]  Their case gives me first case on point.
[01:28:58.680 --> 01:29:04.240]  I go in that case and they will give me the other cases that I need.
[01:29:04.240 --> 01:29:09.920]  Well speaking of case law, do you have any that you can give me to support the council
[01:29:09.920 --> 01:29:16.520]  is adjudicating the case prior to discovery being completed or they're improperly pleading
[01:29:16.520 --> 01:29:19.440]  or what is it pleading the 12b6?
[01:29:19.440 --> 01:29:20.440]  Do you know any?
[01:29:20.440 --> 01:29:26.360]  No, no, no, that's not that's not something subject to case law.
[01:29:26.360 --> 01:29:30.280]  That's a comment on the nature of the argument.
[01:29:30.280 --> 01:29:31.280]  Okay.
[01:29:31.280 --> 01:29:39.920]  That's why I had you when they do the rule 12, they give a list of cases and that tells
[01:29:39.920 --> 01:29:43.960]  you how a rule 12 is to be handled.
[01:29:43.960 --> 01:29:45.280]  That's the case law you need.
[01:29:45.280 --> 01:29:51.480]  Once you've read that, then you go in to read their pleadings and show how the cases
[01:29:51.480 --> 01:29:56.440]  they cited inside the rule 12, they're violating it, so they'll be in the front of the pleading.
[01:29:56.440 --> 01:30:01.360]  Hang on Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, we'll be right back.
[01:30:01.360 --> 01:30:04.640]  A top cybersecurity expert has a warning for America.
[01:30:04.640 --> 01:30:10.400]  If you build an electrical smart grid, the hackers will come and they could cause a catastrophic
[01:30:10.400 --> 01:30:11.400]  blackout.
[01:30:11.400 --> 01:30:16.200]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, back with the shocking details in a moment.
[01:30:16.200 --> 01:30:17.920]  Privacy is under attack.
[01:30:17.920 --> 01:30:22.320]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again and once your privacy
[01:30:22.320 --> 01:30:26.520]  is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:30:26.520 --> 01:30:31.760]  So protect your rights, say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:30:31.760 --> 01:30:34.280]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[01:30:34.280 --> 01:30:39.920]  This message is brought to you by startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:30:39.920 --> 01:30:41.640]  Yahoo and Bing.
[01:30:41.640 --> 01:30:45.760]  Start over with StartPage.
[01:30:45.760 --> 01:30:49.720]  Hackers love power, so it's only natural they'd want to control the power going into
[01:30:49.720 --> 01:30:52.280]  your home too with a smart grid.
[01:30:52.280 --> 01:30:56.480]  So they're installing a national network of smart meters to remotely monitor electric
[01:30:56.480 --> 01:30:59.240]  use for efficiency and avoid grid failure.
[01:30:59.240 --> 01:31:03.080]  But cybersecurity expert David Chalk says not so fast.
[01:31:03.080 --> 01:31:07.600]  If we make the national power grid controllable through the web, hackers will have a field
[01:31:07.600 --> 01:31:08.600]  day.
[01:31:08.600 --> 01:31:13.360]  Working remotely, they could tap in and black out the entire nation, leaving us vulnerable
[01:31:13.360 --> 01:31:14.360]  to our enemies.
[01:31:14.360 --> 01:31:20.160]  I've long opposed smart meters for privacy and health reasons, but catastrophic failures
[01:31:20.160 --> 01:31:21.720]  caused by hackers?
[01:31:21.720 --> 01:31:23.280]  There's nothing smart about that.
[01:31:23.280 --> 01:31:31.280]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:31:31.280 --> 01:31:36.640]  This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11.
[01:31:36.640 --> 01:31:38.840]  The government says that fire brought it down.
[01:31:38.840 --> 01:31:43.720]  However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded it was a controlled demolition.
[01:31:43.720 --> 01:31:47.680]  Over 6,000 of my fellow service members have given their lives, and thousands of my fellow
[01:31:47.680 --> 01:31:49.160]  first responders are dying.
[01:31:49.160 --> 01:31:50.520]  I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
[01:31:50.520 --> 01:31:51.520]  I'm a structural engineer.
[01:31:51.520 --> 01:31:52.960]  I'm a New York City correction officer.
[01:31:52.960 --> 01:31:53.960]  I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:31:53.960 --> 01:31:55.640]  I'm a father who lost his son.
[01:31:55.640 --> 01:31:58.240]  We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:31:58.240 --> 01:32:02.920]  Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:32:02.920 --> 01:32:05.680]  Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the Rule of Law traffic seminar.
[01:32:05.680 --> 01:32:09.560]  In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we, the people, are ever going
[01:32:09.560 --> 01:32:13.440]  to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[01:32:13.440 --> 01:32:16.720]  Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act
[01:32:16.720 --> 01:32:20.760]  in our own private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law.
[01:32:20.760 --> 01:32:24.600]  Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve
[01:32:24.600 --> 01:32:26.040]  our rights through due process.
[01:32:26.040 --> 01:32:29.960]  Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the
[01:32:29.960 --> 01:32:33.720]  most comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process
[01:32:33.720 --> 01:32:36.120]  is and how to hold courts to the rule of law.
[01:32:36.120 --> 01:32:40.120]  You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[01:32:40.120 --> 01:32:41.440]  ordering your copy today.
[01:32:41.440 --> 01:32:44.720]  By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas Transportation Code,
[01:32:44.720 --> 01:32:49.160]  The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar, hundreds of research
[01:32:49.160 --> 01:32:51.480]  documents and other useful resource material.
[01:32:51.480 --> 01:32:55.440]  Learn how to fight for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:32:55.440 --> 01:33:00.440]  Order your copy today, and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:33:00.440 --> 01:33:12.440]  You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:33:12.440 --> 01:33:40.960]  Okay, we are back.
[01:33:40.960 --> 01:33:47.480]  Andy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Teresa in California.
[01:33:47.480 --> 01:33:57.480]  Okay, Rule 12 is peculiar and specific, and I've yet to come across a lawyer who understood
[01:33:57.480 --> 01:33:58.920]  it.
[01:33:58.920 --> 01:34:07.360]  But Ashcroft v Twombly and Bell Atlantic, there's a number of cases that will be cited
[01:34:07.360 --> 01:34:13.400]  in the front of the Rule 12, and they all explain how the Rule 12 is supposed to be
[01:34:13.400 --> 01:34:16.200]  done and what its purpose is.
[01:34:16.200 --> 01:34:22.880]  And probably everything you need will be either in there directly or with cases that these
[01:34:22.880 --> 01:34:25.080]  cases cite.
[01:34:25.080 --> 01:34:26.520]  Okay.
[01:34:26.520 --> 01:34:30.400]  Okay, let me ask you another question.
[01:34:30.400 --> 01:34:40.040]  You suggested last week that I file a motion to strike their 12b6 because the public entity
[01:34:40.040 --> 01:34:46.920]  is still paying the firm for the officers in their private capacities, right?
[01:34:46.920 --> 01:34:47.920]  Now...
[01:34:47.920 --> 01:34:56.520]  Send me an email and ask for that, and I'll send you my argument on that issue.
[01:34:56.520 --> 01:35:00.720]  Okay, but I have an additional question for that.
[01:35:00.720 --> 01:35:07.960]  There are other deficiencies in their 12b6 that I also want to call them on.
[01:35:07.960 --> 01:35:10.120]  So how does that work?
[01:35:10.120 --> 01:35:11.120]  Do I file...
[01:35:11.120 --> 01:35:12.120]  Okay, hold on.
[01:35:12.120 --> 01:35:14.920]  Let me take one step back.
[01:35:14.920 --> 01:35:17.920]  Did they include 12b1?
[01:35:17.920 --> 01:35:19.920]  No.
[01:35:19.920 --> 01:35:21.920]  Oh.
[01:35:21.920 --> 01:35:27.880]  So they didn't claim any immunity at all?
[01:35:27.880 --> 01:35:28.880]  I don't...
[01:35:28.880 --> 01:35:37.000]  Okay, 12b1 has to be argued first because if they have claim immunity, they must argue
[01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:40.960]  it in the 12b motion.
[01:35:40.960 --> 01:35:41.960]  That would be 12b1.
[01:35:41.960 --> 01:35:46.840]  Is it separate from the 12b6?
[01:35:46.840 --> 01:35:57.480]  Well, it's a 12b motion, and generally they argue 12b1 and 12b6.
[01:35:57.480 --> 01:35:58.840]  I don't think so.
[01:35:58.840 --> 01:36:01.280]  I think all I got was a 12b6.
[01:36:01.280 --> 01:36:05.640]  Okay, so they didn't argue that they had immunity?
[01:36:05.640 --> 01:36:07.240]  No.
[01:36:07.240 --> 01:36:10.760]  Okay, then they've waived it.
[01:36:10.760 --> 01:36:12.720]  Okay, good.
[01:36:12.720 --> 01:36:19.760]  Okay, so when I filed the motion to strike because it's like misappropriation of funds
[01:36:19.760 --> 01:36:26.920]  and all that stuff, and then am I going to separately file like a reply to their motion
[01:36:26.920 --> 01:36:32.120]  to dismiss which calls out the additional deficiencies?
[01:36:32.120 --> 01:36:34.520]  Are they two separate documents?
[01:36:34.520 --> 01:36:43.160]  Yes, you file an opposition to the Rule 12.
[01:36:43.160 --> 01:36:44.160]  Right.
[01:36:44.160 --> 01:36:45.160]  Have you done that?
[01:36:45.160 --> 01:36:47.920]  No, I'm in the middle of writing it.
[01:36:47.920 --> 01:36:51.760]  It's due next, not this Monday, but the following Monday.
[01:36:51.760 --> 01:36:59.160]  Okay, so the motion to strike is separate, and you will ask the court to hear the motion
[01:36:59.160 --> 01:37:07.680]  to strike before they hear your answer, as if they rule in your favor and strike the
[01:37:07.680 --> 01:37:12.280]  12b6, your answer will become moot.
[01:37:12.280 --> 01:37:21.880]  Okay, so in other words, I should get that motion to strike in by like Monday or Tuesday?
[01:37:21.880 --> 01:37:25.600]  Yes, in the motion to strike.
[01:37:25.600 --> 01:37:36.680]  And you ask for an order to strike the motion and rule that because the motion to dismiss
[01:37:36.680 --> 01:37:45.440]  was not properly filed, it did not toll the answer clock.
[01:37:45.440 --> 01:37:55.520]  So defendant failed to file an answer within the time limit, the 21-day time limit, and
[01:37:55.520 --> 01:38:01.240]  therefore you have a right, ask the court to rule that you have a right to default judgment.
[01:38:01.240 --> 01:38:11.880]  Okay, now does this go, so it was the public entity and all the officers in the 112b6.
[01:38:11.880 --> 01:38:19.720]  Am I asking for them to strike that entire 12b6 or just the officers portion and then
[01:38:19.720 --> 01:38:24.160]  the entire, including the public entity and the officer, the whole thing should get thrown
[01:38:24.160 --> 01:38:25.160]  in the garbage?
[01:38:25.160 --> 01:38:35.360]  No, you only ask them to strike that portion of the 12b6 that goes to the defendant sued
[01:38:35.360 --> 01:38:37.160]  in their personal capacity.
[01:38:37.160 --> 01:38:41.520]  So the one against the public entity will stand?
[01:38:41.520 --> 01:38:42.520]  Yes.
[01:38:42.520 --> 01:38:43.520]  Okay.
[01:38:43.520 --> 01:38:50.320]  Well, it's not amenable to a motion to strike.
[01:38:50.320 --> 01:38:58.520]  It may not stand because the 12b6 might not be any good anyway, but it's not amenable
[01:38:58.520 --> 01:39:00.240]  to motion to strike.
[01:39:00.240 --> 01:39:09.120]  Okay, so I would say motion to strike the officer's portion of the 12b6.
[01:39:09.120 --> 01:39:10.840]  Exactly.
[01:39:10.840 --> 01:39:16.240]  The individual officer's portion of the 12b6 and then hopefully what happens is that they
[01:39:16.240 --> 01:39:24.480]  all get cast out on their own and then I just have to respond to the public entities portion.
[01:39:24.480 --> 01:39:25.480]  Yeah.
[01:39:25.480 --> 01:39:30.560]  Well, you need to respond anyway in case the court rules against you.
[01:39:30.560 --> 01:39:37.280]  If you don't have a response, then court rules against you, then you're screwed.
[01:39:37.280 --> 01:39:38.720]  Right, right.
[01:39:38.720 --> 01:39:39.720]  Okay.
[01:39:39.720 --> 01:39:42.320]  So I have one last question.
[01:39:42.320 --> 01:39:50.680]  The attorney said in order to plead a prima facie case under section 1983.
[01:39:50.680 --> 01:39:56.080]  Now I saw some case law today, which says that that's proper, but I've heard you say
[01:39:56.080 --> 01:39:59.560]  that it's not prima facie at this stage.
[01:39:59.560 --> 01:40:04.080]  So can you kind of flesh that out?
[01:40:04.080 --> 01:40:07.880]  Was that inside the 12b6 motion?
[01:40:07.880 --> 01:40:10.400]  Yes.
[01:40:10.400 --> 01:40:14.040]  That is improper for a 12b6 motion.
[01:40:14.040 --> 01:40:17.040]  Okay.
[01:40:17.040 --> 01:40:20.040]  Oh, wait a minute.
[01:40:20.040 --> 01:40:29.080]  Is he saying that if all of your facts were taken as true, that you would not have a claim
[01:40:29.080 --> 01:40:33.320]  against the parties?
[01:40:33.320 --> 01:40:39.800]  He says in order to plead a prima facie case under 1983, the plaintiff must meet two essential
[01:40:39.800 --> 01:40:40.800]  elements.
[01:40:40.800 --> 01:40:45.240]  First, it must be established that the conduct complaint of was committed by a person acting
[01:40:45.240 --> 01:40:47.520]  under color of law.
[01:40:47.520 --> 01:40:54.120]  Second, the conduct must have actually deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities
[01:40:54.120 --> 01:40:57.840]  secured under the constitution and blah, blah, blah.
[01:40:57.840 --> 01:41:08.320]  Law courts have construed this decision narrowly even at the pleading stage.
[01:41:08.320 --> 01:41:11.360]  That is an appropriate argument.
[01:41:11.360 --> 01:41:22.200]  What he's saying is your complaint would be insufficient on its face to state a claim.
[01:41:22.200 --> 01:41:28.360]  Okay, so that's improper then?
[01:41:28.360 --> 01:41:31.960]  No, it's proper for him to raise that issue.
[01:41:31.960 --> 01:41:33.960]  Oh, it is proper.
[01:41:33.960 --> 01:41:43.240]  Yeah, and it's okay because based on that, if they dismiss based on that, then you just
[01:41:43.240 --> 01:41:46.240]  file an amended.
[01:41:46.240 --> 01:41:52.160]  But I would have to see the pleading to be sure what the context is.
[01:41:52.160 --> 01:41:56.960]  It's hard to do it just here from the little bit I get on the show.
[01:41:56.960 --> 01:41:57.960]  Right.
[01:41:57.960 --> 01:42:02.920]  Okay, so I'm going to sign off and let the other callers get on.
[01:42:02.920 --> 01:42:09.440]  And if I could request again, the motion to strike that you submitted.
[01:42:09.440 --> 01:42:12.080]  Send me an email and ask for it.
[01:42:12.080 --> 01:42:13.080]  Okay.
[01:42:13.080 --> 01:42:14.080]  Okay, thank you.
[01:42:14.080 --> 01:42:16.120]  All right, I think that's it, Randy.
[01:42:16.120 --> 01:42:17.120]  God bless.
[01:42:17.120 --> 01:42:18.120]  Have a great time.
[01:42:18.120 --> 01:42:19.120]  Okay, you too.
[01:42:19.120 --> 01:42:23.880]  Okay, now we're going to Eric in Massachusetts.
[01:42:23.880 --> 01:42:25.880]  Did I say that right, Eric?
[01:42:25.880 --> 01:42:29.160]  Close enough for a southerner, that's for sure.
[01:42:29.160 --> 01:42:35.840]  Well, I also know how to say Worcester.
[01:42:35.840 --> 01:42:40.440]  It took Pastor Massad a month to teach me how to say Worcester.
[01:42:40.440 --> 01:42:43.760]  How about Peabody?
[01:42:43.760 --> 01:42:44.760]  Never been there.
[01:42:44.760 --> 01:42:49.120]  It would take a month for that one.
[01:42:49.120 --> 01:42:57.080]  Massachusetts has some of the most beautiful architecture I've ever seen.
[01:42:57.080 --> 01:43:03.280]  You drive down the street in Massachusetts, all of these wood frame buildings, all very
[01:43:03.280 --> 01:43:07.120]  old, no two alike.
[01:43:07.120 --> 01:43:09.720]  Everyone is absolutely unique.
[01:43:09.720 --> 01:43:15.120]  It was beautiful, at least that was in Worcester.
[01:43:15.120 --> 01:43:18.600]  Anyway, okay.
[01:43:18.600 --> 01:43:19.600]  What do you have for us?
[01:43:19.600 --> 01:43:22.280]  This is an interesting one and hopefully a pretty quick one.
[01:43:22.280 --> 01:43:25.920]  So I think I called a week or so ago.
[01:43:25.920 --> 01:43:35.440]  I filed a 118A interlocutory appeal asking a judge to recuse himself slash disqualify
[01:43:35.440 --> 01:43:36.440]  himself.
[01:43:36.440 --> 01:43:39.080]  Actually, I didn't put the disqualify in.
[01:43:39.080 --> 01:43:45.160]  He's disqualified because under the Massachusetts Constitution, he's too old to be a judge.
[01:43:45.160 --> 01:43:46.160]  Okay.
[01:43:46.160 --> 01:43:47.160]  Okay, hold on.
[01:43:47.160 --> 01:43:48.160]  Yeah, I remember that.
[01:43:48.160 --> 01:43:49.160]  Hang on.
[01:43:49.160 --> 01:43:50.160]  Randy Kelton?
[01:43:50.160 --> 01:43:51.160]  Yep.
[01:43:51.160 --> 01:43:52.160]  Brett Felton?
[01:43:52.160 --> 01:43:53.160]  No, not Brett Felton.
[01:43:53.160 --> 01:43:54.160]  Who's Brett Felton?
[01:43:54.160 --> 01:43:56.360]  I'm not all about him because he didn't show up.
[01:43:56.360 --> 01:44:00.560]  Randy Kelton, Google All Radio, we'll be right back.
[01:44:00.560 --> 01:44:06.120]  Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved except in the area of
[01:44:06.120 --> 01:44:07.120]  nutrition.
[01:44:07.120 --> 01:44:11.320]  People feed their pets better than they feed themselves and it's time we changed all that.
[01:44:11.320 --> 01:44:17.000]  Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:23.360]  In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated, young Jevity can
[01:44:23.360 --> 01:44:25.560]  provide the nutrients you need.
[01:44:25.560 --> 01:44:30.440]  Logos Radio Network gets many requests to endorse all sorts of products, most of which
[01:44:30.440 --> 01:44:31.440]  we reject.
[01:44:31.440 --> 01:44:36.800]  We have come to trust Young Jevity so much, we became a marketing distributor along with
[01:44:36.800 --> 01:44:39.640]  Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others.
[01:44:39.640 --> 01:44:46.000]  When you order from logosradionetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support
[01:44:46.000 --> 01:44:47.000]  quality radio.
[01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:51.880]  As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us.
[01:44:51.880 --> 01:44:57.120]  As a distributor, you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and
[01:44:57.120 --> 01:44:59.080]  increase your income.
[01:44:59.080 --> 01:45:03.480]  Order now.
[01:45:03.480 --> 01:45:06.680]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:45:06.680 --> 01:45:13.440]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand, 4-CD course
[01:45:13.440 --> 01:45:17.360]  that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:17.360 --> 01:45:21.640]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[01:45:21.640 --> 01:45:25.440]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[01:45:25.440 --> 01:45:31.160]  Thousands have won with our step by step course, and now you can too.
[01:45:31.160 --> 01:45:37.080]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:37.080 --> 01:45:41.640]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the
[01:45:41.640 --> 01:45:45.920]  principles and practices that control our American courts.
[01:45:45.920 --> 01:45:52.120]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[01:45:52.120 --> 01:45:54.680]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:45:54.680 --> 01:46:19.320]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:25.680 --> 01:46:29.640]  Okay, we are back.
[01:46:29.640 --> 01:46:39.240]  Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Eric in Massachusetts.
[01:46:39.240 --> 01:46:43.280]  Okay, where were we?
[01:46:43.280 --> 01:46:51.680]  Okay, so I filed a interlocutory appeal to have a judge recuse himself and it also it
[01:46:51.680 --> 01:46:56.960]  would be disqualification because the constitution doesn't allow a judge to work past a certain
[01:46:56.960 --> 01:46:57.960]  age.
[01:46:57.960 --> 01:47:06.680]  Oh, wait a minute, hold on, interlocutory instead of mandamus?
[01:47:06.680 --> 01:47:14.520]  Well, what I did is I filed it, I did, you know, I asked the judge to recuse himself
[01:47:14.520 --> 01:47:15.520]  and he refused.
[01:47:15.520 --> 01:47:21.000]  Oh, okay, hold on, let me address something that the lawyer will probably throw out at
[01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:23.680]  you.
[01:47:23.680 --> 01:47:33.200]  If you title this a interlocutory appeal and in the pleading you ask the judge to, the
[01:47:33.200 --> 01:47:39.320]  appellate court to order a judge to do something, that is a writ of mandamus and what they're
[01:47:39.320 --> 01:47:45.440]  going to do is jump up and down and wave their arms and rail in righteous indignation.
[01:47:45.440 --> 01:47:51.320]  And you're going to say, no harm, no foul, the title of the document does not govern
[01:47:51.320 --> 01:47:56.960]  the document, the document must be construed for what it is.
[01:47:56.960 --> 01:48:02.240]  If it is a writ of mandamus, you can call it anything you want to, it's still a writ
[01:48:02.240 --> 01:48:05.240]  of mandamus.
[01:48:05.240 --> 01:48:09.360]  So in case you get that argument, we've run into that before.
[01:48:09.360 --> 01:48:10.360]  Yeah.
[01:48:10.360 --> 01:48:12.360]  Okay, go ahead.
[01:48:12.360 --> 01:48:19.320]  Okay, well, again, I wasn't 100% clear if I should be filing an interlocutory appeal
[01:48:19.320 --> 01:48:20.880]  or not.
[01:48:20.880 --> 01:48:24.800]  So I just, I figured I'd try it out, I'd try out.
[01:48:24.800 --> 01:48:27.440]  So anyway, my issue is-
[01:48:27.440 --> 01:48:34.960]  This is how I got where I'm at, exactly this way, screw it all up.
[01:48:34.960 --> 01:48:37.320]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:48:37.320 --> 01:48:45.400]  So I had 10 days to file this interlocutory appeal after the judge's decision, after the
[01:48:45.400 --> 01:48:47.880]  entry date, right?
[01:48:47.880 --> 01:48:53.440]  It was never entered on the docket after 21 days, I filed it, okay?
[01:48:53.440 --> 01:49:00.160]  I get the reply pretty quickly and it says, oh, you filed this too late.
[01:49:00.160 --> 01:49:07.560]  I look at the docket and they entered the date as the date that he made the decision.
[01:49:07.560 --> 01:49:15.080]  They backdated it and in my interlocutory appeal, I specifically wrote, as of this day
[01:49:15.080 --> 01:49:23.740]  of filing, there is no entry in the docket and it appears that they're not going to enter
[01:49:23.740 --> 01:49:30.880]  this decision and I included a copy of the docket with it not on there.
[01:49:30.880 --> 01:49:31.880]  This is-
[01:49:31.880 --> 01:49:32.880]  Okay.
[01:49:32.880 --> 01:49:35.720]  Okay, they ruled against you?
[01:49:35.720 --> 01:49:48.840]  Now you appeal the ruling because, and ask the court to order the clerk to correct the
[01:49:48.840 --> 01:49:51.240]  filing date.
[01:49:51.240 --> 01:50:02.520]  Okay, but they didn't have the order filed and you might ask for sanctions against the
[01:50:02.520 --> 01:50:09.640]  judge or better to ask for sanctions against the clerk because if the judge told the clerk
[01:50:09.640 --> 01:50:15.520]  to do this, then you want to land on the clerk and then the clerk's going to want the judge
[01:50:15.520 --> 01:50:18.440]  to bail the clerk out.
[01:50:18.440 --> 01:50:23.680]  But this certainly looks like a criminal conspiracy between the judge and the clerk to deny you
[01:50:23.680 --> 01:50:24.680]  due process.
[01:50:24.680 --> 01:50:33.160]  Yeah, it just seems like a big crime per se.
[01:50:33.160 --> 01:50:38.520]  So you might consider a professional conduct complaint against the clerk and the judge
[01:50:38.520 --> 01:50:50.640]  and what does Massachusetts law say about to whom a criminal complaint is presented?
[01:50:50.640 --> 01:50:54.600]  Let me explain why I asked that question that way.
[01:50:54.600 --> 01:51:06.120]  In Texas, all criminal complaints are directed to some magistrate and all judges are magistrates.
[01:51:06.120 --> 01:51:10.800]  If it's the same in Massachusetts, you can file a criminal complaint against the judge
[01:51:10.800 --> 01:51:19.520]  and the clerk with the appellate court judge in his capacity as a magistrate.
[01:51:19.520 --> 01:51:21.560]  Okay.
[01:51:21.560 --> 01:51:26.600]  That'll put them on the dive.
[01:51:26.600 --> 01:51:36.560]  That'll remind them that you're a citizen in a republic and not some chump lawyer.
[01:51:36.560 --> 01:51:38.720]  Yeah.
[01:51:38.720 --> 01:51:48.280]  Okay, that's really what I wanted to figure out is how much of a crime is this and what
[01:51:48.280 --> 01:51:50.880]  action should I take?
[01:51:50.880 --> 01:51:55.160]  Should I go back and file a writ of mandamus?
[01:51:55.160 --> 01:51:57.640]  Yes.
[01:51:57.640 --> 01:52:04.240]  A mandamus ordering the clerk to correct the filing date because...
[01:52:04.240 --> 01:52:12.840]  But also ordering the judge to disqualify himself, he's too old to be being a judge.
[01:52:12.840 --> 01:52:14.160]  Yes.
[01:52:14.160 --> 01:52:24.160]  And when they rule against you on the mandamus, okay, did the judge issue a final order in
[01:52:24.160 --> 01:52:28.960]  the case?
[01:52:28.960 --> 01:52:31.200]  The appellate judge or the...
[01:52:31.200 --> 01:52:37.320]  No, no, the trial judge, the one you're trying to get disqualified.
[01:52:37.320 --> 01:52:39.640]  I'm going back to interlocutory.
[01:52:39.640 --> 01:52:42.680]  Did he render a ruling against you of some kind?
[01:52:42.680 --> 01:52:44.280]  No, it's not.
[01:52:44.280 --> 01:52:46.760]  There's no final judgment on this.
[01:52:46.760 --> 01:52:58.320]  Is there a ruling on a motion that will eliminate a claim or issue you can bring?
[01:52:58.320 --> 01:52:59.320]  Explain that.
[01:52:59.320 --> 01:53:00.320]  What are you looking for?
[01:53:00.320 --> 01:53:02.320]  Well, I'm looking for interlocutory.
[01:53:02.320 --> 01:53:11.520]  If the judge renders a ruling that strikes down one of your claims, and you feel the
[01:53:11.520 --> 01:53:18.280]  ruling is improper, you can file an interlocutory for that claim because you'd be forced to
[01:53:18.280 --> 01:53:23.720]  adjudicate the whole case without having access to this claim.
[01:53:23.720 --> 01:53:28.320]  So that's ripe for interlocutory.
[01:53:28.320 --> 01:53:37.240]  I'm looking to see if your original pleading was a mandamus or it actually was an interlocutory.
[01:53:37.240 --> 01:53:43.880]  So did the judge render any ruling against you?
[01:53:43.880 --> 01:53:45.880]  Only on motion.
[01:53:45.880 --> 01:53:49.720]  Wait, say that again?
[01:53:49.720 --> 01:53:55.560]  He's only ruled against me on motion.
[01:53:55.560 --> 01:54:01.960]  So like a couple of motions, he's ruled against me.
[01:54:01.960 --> 01:54:08.360]  This is summary process to evict a tenant.
[01:54:08.360 --> 01:54:13.960]  It's too complex for me to figure this out on the phone.
[01:54:13.960 --> 01:54:22.040]  But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you called it an interlocutory and it wasn't,
[01:54:22.040 --> 01:54:27.740]  it was a mandamus if you're asking the court, the appellate court to order the trial judge
[01:54:27.740 --> 01:54:34.480]  to do something and disqualify himself, that makes it a mandamus.
[01:54:34.480 --> 01:54:38.920]  So another mandamus is appropriate.
[01:54:38.920 --> 01:54:40.680]  Okay.
[01:54:40.680 --> 01:54:47.920]  But in Massachusetts, only the Supreme Court can do a mandamus.
[01:54:47.920 --> 01:54:50.200]  Oh, okay.
[01:54:50.200 --> 01:54:53.600]  So a trial court or an appeals court can't do it.
[01:54:53.600 --> 01:54:54.600]  Oh, that's great.
[01:54:54.600 --> 01:54:59.400]  Then you get to notice the Supreme Court that this guy's overage.
[01:54:59.400 --> 01:55:08.000]  Have you checked to see if there has been passed some authorization or something that
[01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:15.560]  allows an older judge to sit in the case because of a lack of judicial officers?
[01:55:15.560 --> 01:55:20.280]  Yeah, so they basically have rules called recall.
[01:55:20.280 --> 01:55:25.560]  They can recall a judge, but it's for only 90 days and this guy's been in there for two
[01:55:25.560 --> 01:55:27.360]  and a half years.
[01:55:27.360 --> 01:55:28.760]  Oh, okay.
[01:55:28.760 --> 01:55:34.600]  So you got a good claim against him.
[01:55:34.600 --> 01:55:40.760]  I know in Texas, they rendered some kind of ruling that let judges who would otherwise
[01:55:40.760 --> 01:55:45.480]  not be qualified come back and sit because they were short on judges.
[01:55:45.480 --> 01:55:50.680]  I was wondering if there was something similar in Massachusetts.
[01:55:50.680 --> 01:55:55.720]  But can a law override the state constitution?
[01:55:55.720 --> 01:55:56.720]  No.
[01:55:56.720 --> 01:56:00.680]  Retirement is retirement.
[01:56:00.680 --> 01:56:07.640]  That's the short answer and the long answer is no.
[01:56:07.640 --> 01:56:09.600]  But isn't retire, retire?
[01:56:09.600 --> 01:56:15.440]  Retire doesn't mean you get to get a second paycheck?
[01:56:15.440 --> 01:56:19.120]  I would think that's what it means.
[01:56:19.120 --> 01:56:20.120]  I don't know.
[01:56:20.120 --> 01:56:21.120]  I don't know that.
[01:56:21.120 --> 01:56:22.120]  I don't know that.
[01:56:22.120 --> 01:56:26.440]  There may be conditions where they can bring back a retired judge.
[01:56:26.440 --> 01:56:43.060]  But if a judge is normally retired, 65, does the law forbid the judge to sit on the bench
[01:56:43.060 --> 01:56:50.440]  after 70 or is he just required to retire at 70?
[01:56:50.440 --> 01:56:52.800]  He's required to retire.
[01:56:52.800 --> 01:56:53.800]  Okay.
[01:56:53.800 --> 01:57:00.160]  Is there a provision in Massachusetts law for bringing back, okay, you've already said
[01:57:00.160 --> 01:57:02.600]  there is, they can bring him back for 90 days.
[01:57:02.600 --> 01:57:03.600]  90 days.
[01:57:03.600 --> 01:57:08.760]  One, there should be 90 days in one location.
[01:57:08.760 --> 01:57:13.680]  And that, they're only authorized to do that once?
[01:57:13.680 --> 01:57:17.880]  Not necessarily once, but they have to go to a different place where they have, you
[01:57:17.880 --> 01:57:18.880]  know what I mean?
[01:57:18.880 --> 01:57:19.880]  Oh, okay.
[01:57:19.880 --> 01:57:20.880]  Okay.
[01:57:20.880 --> 01:57:21.880]  So he has to move around.
[01:57:21.880 --> 01:57:22.880]  Okay.
[01:57:22.880 --> 01:57:27.880]  Sounds like you've got this pretty well, Pat.
[01:57:27.880 --> 01:57:31.800]  So, but I'm just trying to get rid of them.
[01:57:31.800 --> 01:57:34.520]  I can't get rid of them.
[01:57:34.520 --> 01:57:36.560]  Well this might, this might do it.
[01:57:36.560 --> 01:57:40.200]  If they rule against you, then you're doing a locatory.
[01:57:40.200 --> 01:57:45.000]  Oh, you're already in the supreme.
[01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:48.880]  So there's nowhere to go to.
[01:57:48.880 --> 01:57:52.560]  Is a way to move this up to the feds, denying you due process.
[01:57:52.560 --> 01:57:54.960]  Yeah, I got it.
[01:57:54.960 --> 01:57:55.960]  Oh yeah.
[01:57:55.960 --> 01:58:01.640]  If they rule against you, consider moving it to the feds for denial of procedural due
[01:58:01.640 --> 01:58:02.640]  process.
[01:58:02.640 --> 01:58:03.640]  Yeah.
[01:58:03.640 --> 01:58:11.160]  Yeah, I'm going to take him there anyway, so whatever.
[01:58:11.160 --> 01:58:13.160]  Good.
[01:58:13.160 --> 01:58:15.880]  State doesn't like to go to the feds.
[01:58:15.880 --> 01:58:21.160]  They all got their schnauts in a trough, but it's not the same trough.
[01:58:21.160 --> 01:58:22.160]  Okay.
[01:58:22.160 --> 01:58:23.920]  We are out of time.
[01:58:23.920 --> 01:58:27.080]  This is Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Root of La Radio.
[01:58:27.080 --> 01:58:31.000]  John, if you're listening, we tried to get to you and couldn't reach you.
[01:58:31.000 --> 01:58:32.560]  I think you fell asleep.
[01:58:32.560 --> 01:58:34.920]  Mary, I'm sorry we didn't get to you.
[01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:37.280]  It was a bit late.
[01:58:37.280 --> 01:58:38.280]  Thank you all for listening.
[01:58:38.280 --> 01:58:44.560]  We'll be back next week at our regular time on Thursday and Friday.
[01:58:44.560 --> 01:58:50.560]  Thank you all for listening and good night.
[01:58:50.560 --> 01:58:56.640]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament
[01:58:56.640 --> 01:58:57.840]  Recovery Version.
[01:58:57.840 --> 01:59:02.800]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible
[01:59:02.800 --> 01:59:08.440]  says verse by verse, helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:08.440 --> 01:59:11.760]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:11.760 --> 01:59:20.720]  Call us toll free at 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:20.720 --> 01:59:26.240]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross references, plus
[01:59:26.240 --> 01:59:30.280]  charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:30.280 --> 01:59:32.820]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:32.820 --> 01:59:41.200]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:41.200 --> 01:59:51.400]  That's 888-551-0102 or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:51.400 --> 01:59:52.400]  Looking for some truth?
[01:59:52.400 --> 01:59:54.400]  You found it.
[01:59:54.400 --> 01:59:56.640]  Go to grossradionetwork.com.