ROL_2025-07-17_16k.timecode
Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:12.440] Bad boys? Whatcha gon' do?
[00:12.440 --> 00:18.200] When sheriff John Brown come for you
[00:18.200 --> 00:25.840] Tell me, whatcha gonna do?
[00:25.840 --> 00:31.840] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:31.840 --> 00:37.340] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:37.340 --> 00:42.840] When you were eight and you had bad traits You go to school and learn the golden rule
[00:42.840 --> 00:48.340] So why are you acting like a bloody fool? If you get hot then you must get cool
[00:48.340 --> 00:53.840] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:53.840 --> 00:59.340] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[00:59.340 --> 01:04.840] You chuck it on that one, you chuck it on this one You chuck it on your mother and you chuck it on your father
[01:04.840 --> 01:10.340] You chuck it on your brother and you chuck it on your sister You chuck it on that one and you chuck it on me
[01:10.340 --> 01:15.340] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[01:15.340 --> 01:21.340] Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
[01:21.340 --> 01:29.980] Okay. Howdy, howdy, Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio on this Thursday, the 17th
[01:29.980 --> 01:38.340] day of January 2025. And Brett had something really important he was going to start with.
[01:38.340 --> 01:43.660] He didn't tell me what it was, so it'll be a surprise to all of us.
[01:43.660 --> 01:49.940] That's one way to do it. All right. So, well, okay, so one thing that does come to mind,
[01:49.940 --> 01:58.860] that's really been particularly on my mind for the last couple of days is essential elements.
[01:58.860 --> 02:07.020] And the reason for that is there's somebody that we're trying to help right now, and she's
[02:07.020 --> 02:17.940] just beside herself. This sweet lady is frustrated with the justice system, and she's just beside
[02:17.980 --> 02:28.300] herself. How can it be that they've got everything they need to prosecute this case and go after
[02:28.300 --> 02:35.780] the bad guy, and why are they not doing it? She doesn't understand. There has to be a
[02:35.780 --> 02:43.340] complaint. The complaint has to allege facts. Those facts have to go to essential elements.
[02:43.340 --> 02:49.080] Nobody has done that yet, so she's all frustrated with the prosecutor. She's hired an attorney
[02:49.080 --> 02:57.060] to help her argue with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's duty has not been invoked.
[02:57.060 --> 03:09.340] People, listen, essential elements are essential. When we, for any cause of action, in this
[03:09.340 --> 03:17.300] case, it's criminal, but for any cause of action, if you want to have a success in there,
[03:17.300 --> 03:22.700] you have to allege facts. Of course, later, those facts can be proven. They don't have
[03:22.700 --> 03:29.300] to be proven right up front, but your complaint, your initial document, your complaint or petition
[03:29.300 --> 03:38.660] has to go to all the essential elements of that particular cause. So this poor sweet
[03:38.660 --> 03:46.620] lady, I mean, she's just as precious as can be, and she's in the right, and the offender
[03:46.620 --> 03:54.100] does need to get prosecuted, but that's going to have to happen in court. She thinks that
[03:54.100 --> 04:02.460] if she can just gather some more expert witnesses and more people that can say, I have reason
[04:02.460 --> 04:07.860] to believe and do believe, but that won't get her anywhere. She doesn't realize yet
[04:07.980 --> 04:14.340] how important it is to allege all of the facts that go to the essential elements.
[04:14.340 --> 04:20.360] Yeah, and those people who can say they have reason to believe and do believe, they need
[04:20.360 --> 04:22.860] to say that in writing.
[04:22.860 --> 04:28.380] Yes. So that's good enough. Let's draw a distinction here, because a lot of people
[04:28.380 --> 04:36.900] don't understand that distinction either about upon information and belief. So we have the
[04:36.900 --> 04:43.980] first level of getting somebody to the magistrate for a probable cause determination hearing.
[04:43.980 --> 04:49.220] In Texas, it's known as an examination trial, but in different states, they call it different
[04:49.220 --> 04:56.060] things. But it's just a place where the magistrate will make a determination of whether or not
[04:56.060 --> 05:03.080] there is probable cause to bind over that person to a certain court that's appropriate
[05:03.080 --> 05:12.320] to hear that case. Now, before that, you can have a complaint that alleges facts that
[05:12.320 --> 05:21.720] are not based on firsthand evidence or firsthand knowledge. That kind of assertion is what
[05:21.720 --> 05:27.640] we call upon information and belief. I have reason to believe and I do believe. And then
[05:27.640 --> 05:34.000] you list out those facts. You still have to allege facts that go to the essential elements,
[05:34.000 --> 05:39.200] but you don't have to have firsthand knowledge. And that's okay. That's good enough to get
[05:39.200 --> 05:47.660] the magistrate to hold that hearing and see if there's probable cause. But at that hearing,
[05:47.660 --> 05:53.340] the rules of evidence kick in. That means upon information and belief, you can use it
[05:53.340 --> 06:00.340] for toilet paper. There better be some witnesses with firsthand evidence. There better be somebody
[06:00.340 --> 06:05.140] there who can be cross-examined on the stand and say, Is this really what you saw, what
[06:05.140 --> 06:13.100] you heard? And this information and belief won't cut it anymore. And unfortunately for
[06:14.100 --> 06:26.840] sweet lady here, they had an affidavit of information and belief. And that got the perpetrator
[06:26.840 --> 06:34.660] dragged into a magistrate. The magistrate found probable cause. And now it's the prosecutor's
[06:34.740 --> 06:45.740] turn to commence a case, right? Wrong. The prosecutor does not have a sufficient complaint
[06:45.740 --> 06:56.080] on which to base an information. The prosecutor would probably be happy to go ahead and draw
[06:56.080 --> 07:04.340] up an information based on a sufficient complaint, but there's not one. Nobody has complained.
[07:04.340 --> 07:14.980] Nobody has written down these essential elements. Simple factual statements that track with
[07:14.980 --> 07:21.220] the language of the code and say, Here's what the crime is. Simple facts to state that.
[07:21.220 --> 07:23.660] And then the prosecutor could do his job.
[07:23.660 --> 07:29.260] How did the person get before a magistrate without a complaint?
[07:29.260 --> 07:36.540] They did have a complaint, but it was the complaint of an officer. So it was hearsay.
[07:36.540 --> 07:43.440] It was upon information and belief, and that's not good enough for the prosecuting attorney
[07:43.440 --> 07:45.060] to draw up an information.
[07:45.060 --> 07:50.980] The prosecutor can't get enough evidence beyond the belief.
[07:50.980 --> 07:55.180] Exactly.
[07:55.340 --> 08:05.020] It was enough to get a determination of probable cause, but that's just a magistrate's court.
[08:05.020 --> 08:09.540] And that's just, if you've got a bad guy out here, you can get him off the street. Now,
[08:09.540 --> 08:20.380] when you go to a trial court, that hearsay stuff, you've got to have best evidence witness.
[08:20.380 --> 08:24.180] You have to have more than I have reason to believe.
[08:24.180 --> 08:32.860] Right. They have to have firsthand knowledge, personal knowledge. They have to know from
[08:32.860 --> 08:39.800] what they personally saw, witnessed, heard. They have to be able to testify to what their
[08:39.800 --> 08:47.220] own senses picked up. They can't say they believe or somebody said.
[08:47.220 --> 08:53.700] There's an example that I use to talk about, okay, my next door neighbor, 90-year-old woman,
[08:53.700 --> 08:59.980] comes to me and she says she saw her next door neighbor kill somebody in the backyard.
[08:59.980 --> 09:04.180] Well, why don't you call the police? Oh, I'm terrified of them. I'm afraid you'll kill
[09:04.180 --> 09:14.420] me. If I believe her, then I have reason to believe, and I do believe that this guy did
[09:15.420 --> 09:25.340] police and I swear out a complaint and based on reasonable belief. But, and that's enough
[09:25.340 --> 09:31.160] to get an indictment and enough to get a determination of probable cause. But when the person is
[09:31.160 --> 09:38.580] arrested and brought before the court, I'm not a witness. The person who actually saw
[09:38.580 --> 09:46.500] it would have to be the witness because she's first-person witness. I'm not.
[09:46.500 --> 09:52.900] I think there are provisions for if somebody's scared for their life, they can do an in-camera.
[09:52.900 --> 09:58.420] That means they can go into the judge's chambers and they're still swearing under oath, but
[09:58.420 --> 10:03.220] it's just not before the accused, right?
[10:03.700 --> 10:12.180] Right. You have a right to be faced with your accuser sometimes, but there are exceptions.
[10:12.180 --> 10:13.180] Fearing for one's life?
[10:13.180 --> 10:22.980] Yeah. Well, yeah, if you're a five-year-old and you're accusing an adult of harming you,
[10:22.980 --> 10:30.300] being faced with that accuser is going to be really tough on the witness. So, in the
[10:30.540 --> 10:38.220] of justice, they've developed other methods. All of this is really reasonable. I should
[10:38.220 --> 10:43.340] be able to say, you know, my neighbor tells me this guy did this horrible thing, but
[10:43.340 --> 10:47.660] she's afraid to say anything about it. We should be able to get something done that
[10:47.660 --> 10:53.740] way. But on the other guy's side, once they've brought him into court, now they're going
[10:53.980 --> 11:02.980] to have to show enough reason to keep denying him in his liberty and require him to stand
[11:02.980 --> 11:03.980] and answer.
[11:03.980 --> 11:04.980] Exactly.
[11:04.980 --> 11:13.980] If you look at it objectively, it's all really reasonable. And if it seems like something
[11:13.980 --> 11:20.540] ought to be a certain way, especially in law, I bet it pretty well is. This is a matter
[11:20.540 --> 11:26.540] of finding where it is. People ask me, how do you know all this law? Most of them don't.
[11:26.540 --> 11:35.540] But I try to just be a reasonable human being. And if something seems wrong, it probably
[11:35.540 --> 11:42.380] is, and it's in the law somewhere. A jerk is just a reasonable person of ordinary prudence
[11:42.380 --> 11:43.380] digging it out.
[11:44.220 --> 12:03.060] Well, I have had essential elements on my mind. I've been wishing I could get some
[12:03.060 --> 12:12.780] sense into this sweet lady. She's really frustrated with the injustice of it all and doesn't realize
[12:13.180 --> 12:19.580] that she's got the answer right there in her own hands, and she can't quite see it yet.
[12:19.580 --> 12:28.060] Maybe I can get through to her. And just sit down, help her write a complaint, and go to
[12:28.060 --> 12:35.660] the essential elements. People, please go to the essential elements. Anything else isn't
[12:35.660 --> 12:40.060] worth mentioning. And if you don't mention all of the essential elements, you haven't
[12:40.060 --> 12:42.660] alleged a crime.
[12:43.540 --> 12:48.580] We say that about traffic. The cop gives me a ticket, and I want it dismissed for failure
[12:48.580 --> 12:57.620] to state a client because they didn't allege that I fell within the statutory scheme by
[12:57.620 --> 13:00.340] operating on the highway's incomers.
[13:00.340 --> 13:08.460] Right. I'm sure there's a fellow over in France right now named Pierre, and he also did not
[13:08.460 --> 13:17.740] have plates on his car that said Texas. They failed to say all the elements.
[13:17.740 --> 13:20.860] I got some on my car that say deadheading.
[13:22.060 --> 13:22.380] Right.
[13:23.420 --> 13:30.060] So they pull me over. They have no reason to believe that I'm operating in commerce.
[13:31.820 --> 13:36.860] They think that I must absolutely display plates.
[13:38.620 --> 13:45.340] But I only have to display those plates if I'm acting under the authority of the contract
[13:45.340 --> 13:49.820] I entered into with them when I paid the flat owed you tax.
[13:50.620 --> 13:50.860] Right.
[13:52.220 --> 13:56.380] Absent that showing that I'm under the contract, they don't have all the elements.
[13:57.260 --> 14:01.260] Okay, well, we're just about to go to sponsors. Yes, I just turned them on.
[14:02.540 --> 14:08.380] We're already starting to get them filled up. 512-646-1984. We will be right back.
[15:08.460 --> 15:11.100] And increase your income. Order now.
[15:12.780 --> 15:17.820] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word?
[15:17.820 --> 15:23.020] Then tune in to logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central time for
[15:23.020 --> 15:28.780] scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2nd Timothy 2.15.
[15:29.500 --> 15:33.980] Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
[15:33.980 --> 15:39.180] rightly dividing the word of truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the
[15:39.180 --> 15:44.700] book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. Our second hour
[15:44.700 --> 15:49.740] topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian character
[15:49.740 --> 15:55.420] development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a hearing ear.
[15:55.420 --> 16:00.060] Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness of
[16:00.060 --> 16:05.740] our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on logosradionetwork.com
[16:05.740 --> 16:10.940] Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures.
[16:30.060 --> 16:44.060] Look what we get. Who reacts? The Christian. I wonder what they are. They don't have the answer.
[16:44.060 --> 16:53.660] Open up your body. Who reacts? The Christian. Look what we get. And they don't have the answer.
[16:53.660 --> 17:08.860] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain,
[17:08.860 --> 17:17.500] ruler of our radio. And we're going to go to Joseph in Texas. Joseph, what do you have for us today?
[17:17.500 --> 17:24.540] Well, gentlemen, good evening. I'm in a loud environment. Can you hear me okay?
[17:25.580 --> 17:27.340] Yes. Well, I want people to hush.
[17:30.540 --> 17:41.740] That's fair. All right. Municipal judges, municipal attorneys. That's kind of the
[17:41.740 --> 17:49.180] realm of where my head is right now. So a municipal judge on the record said,
[17:50.060 --> 17:57.500] yes, we have an oath of office for that municipal attorney. Now let's go on and proceed and leave
[17:57.500 --> 18:06.140] that topic behind us. The only problem with that is the municipal attorney prior to that hearing
[18:06.140 --> 18:15.020] said that he did not have an oath of office on record. And a subsequent public records request,
[18:15.020 --> 18:20.780] two of them, one to the county clerk and one to the municipal, proper municipal authorities,
[18:21.500 --> 18:28.140] both came back with responses that stated there are no records responsive to your request.
[18:28.220 --> 18:37.660] All right, then. That puts all three of them in a bad looking position, right?
[18:38.380 --> 18:44.300] Well, that misstatement was not just a misstatement. It was very material.
[18:45.580 --> 18:54.060] Yes. Now, there have been additional public records requests, again, each to the county
[18:54.060 --> 18:59.020] and to the municipality in question, just to make sure all the bases are being covered.
[18:59.580 --> 19:06.220] And for these three municipal attorneys, none of them have an oath of office on file.
[19:06.940 --> 19:11.020] Now, a lot of people will say, oh, well, you shouldn't look at that. Don't go after their
[19:11.020 --> 19:19.820] oath and their bond. And that's not my point. My point is that any conviction in that municipal
[19:19.820 --> 19:27.580] courtroom where any one of those municipal attorneys was the attorney representing the state,
[19:28.700 --> 19:35.100] if they did not have an oath of office on file, then they are in violation of Texas local government
[19:35.100 --> 19:44.940] code 22.005. Subsection A basically says you are to have an oath of office signed and on file prior
[19:44.940 --> 19:51.820] to taking action in that office or that position, whether you are appointed or elected.
[19:52.380 --> 20:01.820] Texas local government code 22.071 defines the different offices of the municipality.
[20:02.460 --> 20:10.140] One of those that it specifically names is municipal attorney. In addition to not following
[20:10.140 --> 20:20.380] 22.005 and 22.071, I believe any attorney who presents himself as a city attorney or a municipal
[20:20.380 --> 20:28.300] attorney and proceeds to attempt to represent the state of Texas in a criminal matter is violating
[20:28.300 --> 20:36.300] Texas penal code 37.11. So this is... Yes. I think you're exactly right. 37.11 is impersonating
[20:36.300 --> 20:45.100] public official or public servant. And it is in my opinion that I don't care how minor,
[20:45.100 --> 20:55.180] miniscule or unimportant you think a law is. You, of all people, follow it. One of my favorite quotes
[20:55.180 --> 21:01.020] is from H.G. Wells in his outline of history on speaking to the corruption of the popes
[21:01.020 --> 21:03.980] during the Dark Ages. He very aptly observed,
[21:04.780 --> 21:12.140] The giver of the law most owes the law allegiance. He of all beings should behave as though the law
[21:12.140 --> 21:19.180] compels him. But it is the universal failing of mankind that what we are given to administer
[21:19.820 --> 21:27.340] we promptly presume be own of all people who should be taken to the letter of law.
[21:27.500 --> 21:32.700] It should not be me when I stopped at the stop sign, the guy in front of me,
[21:32.700 --> 21:34.780] run in front of it and stopped up at the intersection.
[21:37.180 --> 21:42.700] It should be that policeman. He's saying, technically, I didn't stop at the appropriate
[21:42.700 --> 21:49.260] place. Okay, that's pretty technical. So you're going to hold me to a technical point of law
[21:49.260 --> 21:54.220] you can't even define. Well, you're committing first degree felony aggravated assault.
[21:55.180 --> 21:56.380] How does that work, Bubba?
[21:58.700 --> 22:08.860] Now, there is the basis of what research, reading, public records requests have uncovered.
[22:10.300 --> 22:16.140] This is happening all the time. I don't see a question yet. This is like a very common
[22:17.100 --> 22:23.900] lawlessness. This lawlessness is easy to find. What do you want to know about it?
[22:23.900 --> 22:25.500] You're preaching to the gallery here.
[22:26.060 --> 22:32.140] No, I know. I know. I know. So stick with me. So Brett, you're right, except I have never heard,
[22:32.140 --> 22:37.980] and maybe I just missed the conversation, but I have never heard anyone cite the local government
[22:37.980 --> 22:43.820] code in that sense. I've heard plenty of people say, well, that's a crazy idea. Well, that's
[22:43.820 --> 22:48.220] nonsense. Or you're never going to get them to follow that part of what the legislature
[22:49.020 --> 22:52.300] put into law. I don't care about that. What I'm curious about is
[22:52.460 --> 23:01.820] outside of verified criminal complaints, how far up the chain could someone go to hold any municipal
[23:01.820 --> 23:09.020] judge, any acclaimed municipal attorney accountable for their actions? I don't think that's a county
[23:09.020 --> 23:13.660] court or district court issue. It might even be a federal court kind of issue, or you've got to go
[23:13.660 --> 23:20.860] to federal to get any kind of relief or remedy. And whether that is a monetary, hey, you violated
[23:20.860 --> 23:27.020] my rights, or all of the cases that have been convicted against me by these people need to be-
[23:27.020 --> 23:29.420] Oh, wait, it's not just you.
[23:30.140 --> 23:30.940] I know.
[23:31.900 --> 23:35.580] You think there might be others similarly situated?
[23:38.780 --> 23:45.340] Right. Others similarly situated. You're right, Randy. And I'm trying to figure out,
[23:45.580 --> 23:51.580] I'm trying to figure out, that's a big piece of pie. What is a reasonable bite to cake?
[23:52.140 --> 23:56.540] Because criminal complaints aren't going to do anything. Maybe they might treat one person
[23:56.540 --> 24:04.860] differently, but how do we get these people to follow the law or remove from office? Because
[24:04.860 --> 24:09.820] that basically goes up the chain at the municipality. How do you actually get them
[24:10.380 --> 24:16.780] removed from their position? It's not a JP case. I don't think it's a county case, so-
[24:17.420 --> 24:21.420] Wait, they can't be removed from their positions if they don't have a position.
[24:23.900 --> 24:24.380] Right.
[24:24.380 --> 24:28.780] You can't be simultaneously saying they don't have a position, oh, and we need to get them removed.
[24:30.220 --> 24:34.780] You can hold them accountable for pretending like they have that position. You can maybe
[24:34.780 --> 24:43.500] ask them to, or ask that they be made to give back all of their paychecks, but you can't really
[24:44.140 --> 24:50.220] say, remove them from the position that they, oh, don't have. You know what I mean?
[24:50.220 --> 24:54.780] Well, and I don't think you're splitting hairs, but you could go so far to say,
[24:54.780 --> 25:01.180] how do we remove them from this pretending that they're doing? Get them to return all the pay
[25:01.180 --> 25:07.500] they have received, and oh, by the way, let's reverse all the convictions that they have been
[25:07.500 --> 25:14.620] a part of where they have represented the state of Texas. So how would you go about accomplishing
[25:14.620 --> 25:18.380] that, Brett and Brandy? And I think that criminal complaints are a required part of it,
[25:18.380 --> 25:20.700] Bard-Reben says per se, but above-
[25:20.700 --> 25:26.780] You start out with a set of petitions for declaratory judgment.
[25:26.780 --> 25:35.580] And you ask the court to rule that the legislature passed this law, and this law applies to these
[25:35.580 --> 25:43.500] public officials. Figure out what are the essential elements, and then go for those
[25:43.500 --> 25:50.620] essential elements in petitions for declaratory judgment. Petition for declaratory judgment can't
[25:50.620 --> 26:02.060] be dismissed under Rule 12 or a state equivalent. Rule 12 goes to failure to state a claim on which
[26:02.060 --> 26:09.500] recovery can be had or to immunity, official immunity. Under declaratory judgment, you have
[26:09.500 --> 26:19.500] neither one of those. I had the federal judge in Fort Worth, Judge McBride, dismiss my suit
[26:19.500 --> 26:23.980] for failure to state a claim on which recovery can be had, dismissed with prejudice.
[26:25.580 --> 26:29.340] It was a petition for declaratory judgment. I asked for a ruling on point of law.
[26:31.180 --> 26:35.260] And when he dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim, I went straight to the
[26:36.300 --> 26:44.380] head U.S. attorney, what they call it, the SAC, this special agent in charge in Dallas, and filed
[26:44.380 --> 26:51.660] criminal charges against it. Oh, boy. I had three other people file that exact same suit,
[26:51.660 --> 26:59.580] and he didn't dismiss any of those. That got his attention. But this is how we do it. We got our
[26:59.580 --> 27:05.020] ruling zone declaratory judgment. Once we got those, then we come back in, and the civil suit,
[27:05.020 --> 27:09.020] it's a done deal. Hang on, Randy Kelvin, Brett Fountain, we'll be right back.
[27:14.380 --> 27:25.820] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back with details.
[27:44.940 --> 27:48.540] This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com,
[27:48.540 --> 27:54.460] the private search engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with StartPage.
[27:56.300 --> 28:01.420] Data privacy is a big deal, so nearly every company has a policy explaining how they handle
[28:01.420 --> 28:07.100] your personal information. But what happens if it escapes their control? It's not an idle question.
[28:07.100 --> 28:12.700] According to a recent survey, a shocking 90% of U.S. companies admit their security was
[28:12.700 --> 28:17.500] breached by hackers in the last year. That's one more reason you should trust your searches
[28:17.500 --> 28:23.500] to StartPage.com. Unlike other search engines, StartPage doesn't store any data on you. They've
[28:23.500 --> 28:28.220] never been hacked, but even if they were, there would be nothing for criminals to see. The cupboard
[28:28.220 --> 28:33.820] would be bare. Too bad other companies don't treat your data the same way. I'm Dr. Catherine
[28:33.820 --> 28:37.340] Albrecht. More news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[28:37.340 --> 28:48.140] I lost my son, my nephew, my uncle, my son on September 11, 2001. Most people don't know that
[28:48.140 --> 28:54.300] a third tower fell on September 11. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by
[28:54.300 --> 28:59.980] a plane. Although the official explanation is that fire brought down Building 7, over 1,200
[28:59.980 --> 29:04.140] architects and engineers have looked into the evidence and believe there is more to the story.
[29:04.140 --> 29:10.300] Bring justice to my son, my uncle, my nephew, my son. Go to buildingwhat.org. Why it fell,
[29:10.300 --> 29:16.060] why it matters, and what you can do. Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law
[29:16.060 --> 29:20.060] traffic seminar. In today's America, we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people
[29:20.060 --> 29:24.460] are ever going to have a free society, then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights.
[29:24.460 --> 29:28.140] Among those rights are the right to travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own
[29:28.140 --> 29:32.540] private capacity, and most importantly, the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us
[29:32.540 --> 29:37.260] the least expensive opportunity to learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process.
[29:37.260 --> 29:41.340] Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most
[29:41.340 --> 29:45.420] comprehensive teaching tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how
[29:45.420 --> 29:49.660] to hold courts to the rule of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to
[29:49.660 --> 29:54.220] ruleoflawradio.com and ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's
[29:54.220 --> 29:58.940] book, The Texas Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009
[29:58.940 --> 30:03.020] seminar, hundreds of research documents, and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight
[30:03.020 --> 30:07.260] for your rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today,
[30:07.260 --> 30:10.380] and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[30:14.140 --> 30:18.140] Live free speech radio, logosradionetwork.com.
[30:28.940 --> 30:39.100] I want you to follow the law of the land. I don't understand. Your job is to protect and
[30:39.100 --> 30:50.860] to serve. Not beat and abuse. Not be served. When you're going to stop abuse, your power.
[30:50.860 --> 30:55.420] Okay. We are back, Randy Kelbret, Brown Rule of Law Radio. Okay. So,
[30:55.820 --> 30:59.820] what is your intended strategy, Joseph?
[31:05.100 --> 31:08.780] Oh, I guess we could hear you better if I unmute you.
[31:08.780 --> 31:09.420] Can you hear me?
[31:10.140 --> 31:11.260] Now I can hear you better.
[31:12.620 --> 31:21.180] All right. One would be to, if there were any convictions to do what you just said,
[31:21.260 --> 31:25.980] do a petition for declaratory judgment, but where would that go? Because this would be a
[31:25.980 --> 31:31.260] municipal case that already convicted and done and over with. How would you get that to be undone?
[31:31.260 --> 31:34.860] Would that be at the county layer, or would that need to be a higher or a federal case?
[31:34.860 --> 31:40.700] That is a good question. Since there are no claims,
[31:42.780 --> 31:48.700] so you decide what court you go into by the level of the claim. There has to be rules
[31:49.660 --> 31:53.100] on where to file a petition for declaratory judgment.
[31:54.060 --> 31:58.780] Well, I would say start with, for the declaratory judgment, start at the district level. That's
[31:58.780 --> 32:07.980] your general level. But as for the overturning previous convictions that were invalid,
[32:09.980 --> 32:15.020] start with, I would say for that, go to the appellate court for the municipality,
[32:15.020 --> 32:20.300] which would be the county, and do a petition for rid of mandamus. So you're going to ask the
[32:20.300 --> 32:25.420] county court to mandate to the lower court that they do this and such.
[32:29.260 --> 32:35.180] And that would be a mandate that they overturn a conviction on the basis
[32:35.980 --> 32:40.140] that it was not prosecuted by anyone who had the authority to do so.
[32:40.860 --> 32:42.220] Yeah, it was ultra-various.
[32:42.220 --> 32:50.940] It's a question about declaratory judgment. If you're asking them to overturn a ruling,
[32:50.940 --> 32:53.420] that's not a petition for declaratory judgment.
[32:55.420 --> 32:55.980] Exactly.
[32:55.980 --> 33:02.220] Something that has defendants and people who can be affected by it.
[33:02.380 --> 33:08.380] And declaratory judgment, you're just asking for a rule on point of law,
[33:10.460 --> 33:12.460] like Speedy Trial.
[33:12.460 --> 33:15.580] Well, Joseph, oh, go ahead.
[33:15.580 --> 33:20.620] I argue that while the Speedy Trial Act has been overturned, the preamble to the Speedy Trial Act
[33:20.620 --> 33:29.660] stated clearly what the legislative intent was as to the definition of speedy. And they said 30
[33:29.660 --> 33:41.020] days for misdemeanor, Class C, 60B, 90A, and 120 felony. Move the court to rule on,
[33:42.060 --> 33:49.340] did the legislature intend that a person be prosecuted within 30 days on a Class C misdemeanor?
[33:50.060 --> 33:56.540] Don't accuse the other guy of not doing it. Just ask the court for a ruling on point of law.
[33:56.540 --> 34:03.580] And once you got that, then you can come back and move to overturn a decision. It's a lot more
[34:03.580 --> 34:08.460] serious decision overturned than it is just getting a rule on point of law. Now, they may know
[34:09.180 --> 34:16.620] if they rule this way, that you're going to be able to use it to get that conviction overturned,
[34:16.620 --> 34:23.820] but that's not the point. That's not what's before them. And they tend to only rule on
[34:23.820 --> 34:27.020] what's before them. And that's something important for people to understand.
[34:27.980 --> 34:35.260] When I sat as a mock judge in a trial in Massachusetts, these guys were giving me
[34:35.260 --> 34:40.140] all this legal theory and all this patriot mythology. And I'm sitting up here thinking,
[34:40.140 --> 34:46.860] facts and law, facts and law, facts and law. Give me facts and give me law that relate to those facts.
[34:46.940 --> 34:54.460] And they gave me none of that. And I'm frustrated. I know this guy, he's going to go to jail.
[34:55.660 --> 35:00.460] And we're trying to teach him how to handle himself in court. And he couldn't get it. Finally,
[35:00.460 --> 35:06.300] I called a recess and I told the guy, when we come back, if this guy helping you, if he says
[35:06.300 --> 35:13.260] anything, you have my permission to shoot him because he's going to get you put in jail.
[35:13.820 --> 35:20.620] And he did. They had two mock trials with a jury they just picked off the street.
[35:21.660 --> 35:25.580] And both of them found him guilty. He went to Pennsylvania and they threw him in jail for two
[35:25.580 --> 35:31.500] years. He didn't get it. Facts and law, that's the only thing the judge cares about. You can blab all
[35:31.500 --> 35:39.340] you want to about how horrible that other guy is and how great you are and blah, blah, blah.
[35:39.340 --> 35:43.900] The judge is going to sit there and listen to it. And he's going to wait for you to give him
[35:43.900 --> 35:47.580] facts and law. If you don't, you don't have anything to work with.
[35:48.780 --> 35:57.100] So, Jose, if I had an idea about the strategy, just something for you to consider. What if you
[35:57.100 --> 36:03.900] start with a bar grievance? You go to the state bar and you raise a stink, find whichever rule
[36:03.900 --> 36:11.420] seems a good fit and bar grieve him for pretending like he's a city attorney when he's really not.
[36:13.260 --> 36:20.380] And then taking advantage of the fact that you happen to know that 30 days,
[36:21.660 --> 36:26.940] that according to the Texas rules, their procedure requires them to triage every incoming
[36:27.740 --> 36:34.780] grievance within 30 days. They have to categorize it and do some initial triage.
[36:35.740 --> 36:42.380] So with that, armed with that information, you could let it sit there about three weeks
[36:42.940 --> 36:46.940] while you're writing your declaratory judgment and then pop that in there.
[36:48.060 --> 36:54.860] And then you claim that you first tried to go to have the state bar deal with this
[36:55.500 --> 37:03.420] but they didn't rein in the behavior. Looks like by their silence, they must be condoning this,
[37:04.140 --> 37:11.820] that just anybody can pretend that they're a city attorney. And that way, the state bar
[37:13.180 --> 37:17.820] has another week or so to scramble and do something to slap this guy.
[37:17.820 --> 37:23.500] That's devious.
[37:24.860 --> 37:27.500] Remind me to never anger you.
[37:31.660 --> 37:39.660] Brett comes off as this nice, devout Christian, turn the other cheek. Yeah, you turn the other
[37:39.660 --> 37:51.740] cheek. You are devious, but I like you. First thing is, sorry, Randy, I thought you were finished.
[37:54.140 --> 37:58.620] I'm the host. I'm never finished. You have to cut me off.
[38:00.060 --> 38:05.100] This is true. So number one, bar grievance. Number two, petition for declaratory judgment.
[38:05.100 --> 38:13.180] Number three, once you get that petition for declaratory judgment. Whoa, you missed one.
[38:17.180 --> 38:21.260] Criminal complaints. Yeah, criminal complaint for 3711.
[38:23.500 --> 38:29.260] Yeah, that's kind of an unspoken already going to do it, but I could file that. That could go
[38:29.260 --> 38:36.060] with the bar grievance. Yes, it could. It would also go to in rule eight, I think it's 804,
[38:36.060 --> 38:42.380] that they can't commit any crimes that are in the penal code, do any, what is it, moral turpitude.
[38:44.140 --> 38:50.140] Okay. All right. So now the petition for declaratory judgment comes back with
[38:51.500 --> 38:56.860] what the district court should do. They should say, well, everyone has to follow that law.
[38:56.860 --> 39:02.860] No one is exempt from it. Okay, great. Then what? Then I turn around and use that as the basis for
[39:02.860 --> 39:09.020] a suit for overturning of any convictions under that municipal... I wouldn't say you need to do
[39:09.020 --> 39:14.300] a suit. You're not going to be the plaintiff or there's not really a defendant. All of those
[39:14.300 --> 39:21.020] multiple defendants are not, you're not representing them or anything. This is simply, I would put it,
[39:21.020 --> 39:26.060] in my mind, I categorize it as a petition for writ of mandamus. So you're going to go to the higher
[39:26.060 --> 39:30.460] court and you're going to ask them to issue a writ to the lower court to follow the law.
[39:31.660 --> 39:35.980] And I like stirring things up more and getting more clout on my side.
[39:37.980 --> 39:44.700] If I get a writ of mandamus, a petition for declaratory judgment, and it states that the
[39:44.700 --> 39:52.700] officer, that the prosecutor must have an oath of office in order to represent the municipality,
[39:53.660 --> 40:00.380] then I go in and move the court to dismiss all the cases, this prosecutor prosecuted.
[40:00.380 --> 40:05.580] Now, they're not going to, but it's easy enough to file the motion
[40:07.660 --> 40:14.620] and start cranking the heat up. That's like you've done, Joseph. You ask the court to do
[40:14.620 --> 40:19.100] what the court's commanded by law to do and he doesn't. You ask the bailiff to arrest him.
[40:19.180 --> 40:23.580] If you get that ruling and the guy's still sitting there as your municipal
[40:24.380 --> 40:27.740] attorney, then you file criminal charges against him. He has to bailiff to arrest him.
[40:28.620 --> 40:32.460] Now, when the bailiff does it, then you file against the bailiff and that'll really get him
[40:32.460 --> 40:40.460] excited. Mr. Bailiff, he's innocent here. He's not doing any of this stuff. And he thinks he's just
[40:40.460 --> 40:47.740] there to keep the peace of the court when the citizen breaches it. And he don't think he's there
[40:47.740 --> 40:55.020] to keep the peace in the court when someone else breaches it, like one of his lawyers or judges
[40:55.020 --> 41:02.780] or clerks or buddies. We need to change that perspective. Remind them who we are. This is
[41:02.780 --> 41:07.020] a republic, it's not a democracy. We need to constantly remind them. Randy Kelton,
[41:07.020 --> 41:14.060] Red Falcon, Wheel of Law Radio, we'll be right back. Do you have a business with five employees
[41:14.060 --> 41:19.100] or more? How would you like to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a
[41:19.100 --> 41:25.820] major medical plan that nobody can afford to be on? Or how would you like to save in premium costs
[41:25.820 --> 41:33.260] on a current major medical plan by lowering the claims cost? The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS
[41:33.260 --> 41:39.660] approved preventative health plan that provides your employees with doctors, medications,
[41:39.740 --> 41:46.780] emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost with zero copay. If you are an employee,
[41:46.780 --> 41:52.940] you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes. As an employer, you will save
[41:52.940 --> 41:59.340] hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes. The CHAMP plan can help add working
[41:59.340 --> 42:09.020] capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit. Call Scott at 214-730-2471
[42:09.020 --> 42:16.860] or dallasmms.com. Are you wondering what this world is coming to and why God isn't stopping it?
[42:16.860 --> 42:23.500] Then tune in to logosradionetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. central time for scripture talk
[42:23.500 --> 42:27.340] where Nana and guests study God's word to find these answers and more.
[42:27.980 --> 42:33.180] Join us for both verse by verse Bible studies and topical Bible studies designed to explain
[42:33.180 --> 42:39.020] God's plan as well as to provoke unto love and good works. Our first hour studies are in the
[42:39.020 --> 42:45.180] book of Matthew. Our second hour topics vary each week exploring sound doctrine as well as Christian
[42:45.180 --> 42:52.060] character development. Our goal is in accord with Matthew 5 16. Let your light so shine before men
[42:52.060 --> 42:57.580] that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven. We wish to reflect
[42:57.580 --> 43:03.180] God's light and to be a blessing to all those who have a hearing ear. So tune in to scripture talk
[43:03.180 --> 43:09.900] live on logosradionetwork.com Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. for an inspiring and motivating study
[43:09.900 --> 43:13.740] of the scriptures.
[43:39.980 --> 43:41.740] Scuffling to keep the peace
[43:42.700 --> 43:45.740] All they're taking is a misunderstanding
[43:45.740 --> 43:47.740] If somebody calls the police
[43:47.740 --> 43:49.740] We're watching the sparks fly
[43:53.740 --> 43:55.740] We're watching the sparks fly
[43:59.740 --> 44:01.740] We're watching the sparks fly
[44:05.740 --> 44:07.740] We're watching the sparks fly
[44:10.700 --> 44:12.700] The friction is an addiction
[44:12.700 --> 44:14.700] The hard words can leave you cold as nails
[44:14.700 --> 44:16.700] Abandoned hostility
[44:16.700 --> 44:18.700] Tortured tranquility
[44:18.700 --> 44:20.700] Heavy loads of taping on scales
[44:20.700 --> 44:22.700] The time is colliding with the conflict
[44:22.700 --> 44:24.700] You find out after a while
[44:24.700 --> 44:26.700] It's not your moral standard
[44:26.700 --> 44:28.700] It's your patience that's on trial
[44:28.700 --> 44:30.700] Watching the sparks fly
[44:40.700 --> 44:42.700] Okay, Randy Kelton, Fountain Real Law Radio
[44:42.700 --> 44:44.700] and on the break we were talking about something
[44:44.700 --> 44:46.700] I had a policeman
[44:46.700 --> 44:48.700] friend of mine come by
[44:48.700 --> 44:50.700] and brought me a present
[44:52.700 --> 44:54.700] It's a fiddle about three inches long
[44:56.700 --> 44:58.700] You hold the top of it between your thumb and forefinger
[44:58.700 --> 45:00.700] and you let the base of it rest against your palm
[45:00.700 --> 45:02.700] and it's got a little bow
[45:02.700 --> 45:04.700] that you use on it
[45:04.700 --> 45:06.700] and this is what it does
[45:10.700 --> 45:14.700] There's only one problem with it
[45:14.700 --> 45:16.700] is he got me two of them
[45:16.700 --> 45:18.700] and the wife got one
[45:18.700 --> 45:20.700] and now she'll use it on me
[45:24.700 --> 45:26.700] But we can certainly play them
[45:26.700 --> 45:28.700] like a cheap fiddle for real
[45:30.700 --> 45:32.700] Okay, back to
[45:32.700 --> 45:34.700] Joseph
[45:34.700 --> 45:36.700] in Texas
[45:37.500 --> 45:39.500] All right
[45:39.500 --> 45:41.500] Okay, so I need to
[45:41.500 --> 45:43.500] clear the air and let somebody else
[45:43.500 --> 45:45.500] jump on the horn with you two
[45:45.500 --> 45:47.500] but here's my final question
[45:47.500 --> 45:49.500] declaratory judgment
[45:49.500 --> 45:51.500] bar grievance
[45:51.500 --> 45:53.500] criminal complaints
[45:53.500 --> 45:55.500] all that makes sense
[45:57.500 --> 45:59.500] and Brett, you and Randy have talked about this
[45:59.500 --> 46:01.500] to a great extent
[46:01.500 --> 46:03.500] but
[46:03.500 --> 46:05.500] having actually seen the results
[46:06.300 --> 46:08.300] of a records request come back
[46:08.300 --> 46:10.300] with no responsive records
[46:10.300 --> 46:12.300] or no records responsive
[46:12.300 --> 46:14.300] to your request
[46:14.300 --> 46:16.300] was really mind blowing
[46:16.300 --> 46:18.300] So now that that can actually be quantified
[46:18.300 --> 46:20.300] and it's not just a claim
[46:20.300 --> 46:22.300] it's not just a motion to show authority
[46:22.300 --> 46:24.300] that they ignore
[46:24.300 --> 46:26.300] there's actual factual evidence
[46:26.300 --> 46:28.300] of what's happening
[46:30.300 --> 46:32.300] Does this mean that
[46:32.300 --> 46:34.300] if crafted in the right way
[46:35.100 --> 46:37.100] someone could then turn around
[46:37.100 --> 46:39.100] and file a lawsuit against the municipality
[46:41.100 --> 46:43.100] Not yet
[46:43.100 --> 46:45.100] Hold on, hold on
[46:45.100 --> 46:47.100] It's time to buy me a yacht
[46:47.100 --> 46:49.100] That's not exactly intent
[46:49.100 --> 46:51.100] but that gets across the base of it
[46:51.100 --> 46:53.100] It's time to reach a nice settlement
[46:55.100 --> 46:57.100] But you haven't turned the heat up
[46:57.100 --> 46:59.100] enough yet
[46:59.100 --> 47:01.100] Okay
[47:01.100 --> 47:03.100] You get that response back
[47:04.300 --> 47:06.300] then that establishes
[47:06.300 --> 47:08.300] as an incontrovertible fact
[47:08.300 --> 47:10.300] by a third party
[47:10.300 --> 47:12.300] best person witness
[47:12.300 --> 47:14.300] that this
[47:14.300 --> 47:16.300] officer was impersonating
[47:16.300 --> 47:18.300] a public official
[47:18.300 --> 47:20.300] You take that
[47:20.300 --> 47:22.300] to the judge
[47:22.300 --> 47:24.300] Well, I would say
[47:24.300 --> 47:26.300] take it to a different judge
[47:26.300 --> 47:28.300] and name the judge who
[47:28.300 --> 47:30.300] lied
[47:30.300 --> 47:32.300] as he was
[47:32.300 --> 47:34.300] collaborating and corroborating
[47:34.300 --> 47:36.300] a story that he knew
[47:36.300 --> 47:38.300] to be false
[47:38.300 --> 47:40.300] Committed aggravated perjury
[47:40.300 --> 47:42.300] in order to further
[47:42.300 --> 47:44.300] this criminal
[47:44.300 --> 47:46.300] interpress
[47:46.300 --> 47:48.300] Right, because Joseph went to the
[47:48.300 --> 47:50.300] judge already and he raised the issue
[47:50.300 --> 47:52.300] and the judge says, ah,
[47:52.300 --> 47:54.300] pooh pooh that
[47:54.300 --> 47:56.300] He's got one, no worries
[47:56.300 --> 47:58.300] AT US code
[47:58.300 --> 48:00.300] 241
[48:00.300 --> 48:02.300] And that one's a felony
[48:04.300 --> 48:06.300] Yeah, so I would go to a different
[48:06.300 --> 48:08.300] judge and name the
[48:08.300 --> 48:10.300] judge and the fake city attorney
[48:10.300 --> 48:12.300] together
[48:12.300 --> 48:14.300] And the judge will absolutely
[48:14.300 --> 48:16.300] refuse to issue a warrant and now
[48:16.300 --> 48:18.300] you got him and this judge is
[48:18.300 --> 48:20.300] absolutely innocent and that's
[48:20.300 --> 48:22.300] the one you want
[48:22.300 --> 48:24.300] He's going to rise up and rail
[48:24.300 --> 48:26.300] in righteous indignation
[48:26.300 --> 48:28.300] What in the heck you guys get
[48:28.300 --> 48:30.300] me into
[48:30.300 --> 48:32.300] Increases the heat on everybody
[48:34.300 --> 48:36.300] And then when you file
[48:36.300 --> 48:38.300] I've already got the suit made up
[48:38.300 --> 48:40.300] against the judge for not
[48:40.300 --> 48:42.300] issuing the warrant
[48:42.300 --> 48:44.300] He's really going to be unhappy
[48:44.300 --> 48:46.300] Yeah, and to your
[48:46.300 --> 48:48.300] other point you were saying that
[48:48.300 --> 48:50.300] criminal complaints don't really
[48:50.300 --> 48:52.300] They haven't had an effect
[48:52.300 --> 48:54.300] Well, I would suggest that
[48:54.300 --> 48:56.300] they do have an effect
[48:56.300 --> 48:58.300] It would have a greater effect
[48:58.300 --> 49:00.300] It's just that we
[49:00.300 --> 49:02.300] are mere humans
[49:02.300 --> 49:04.300] and we run out of resources
[49:04.300 --> 49:06.300] and we've got to go to sleep, we've got to go
[49:06.300 --> 49:08.300] to work, we've got other things to do
[49:08.300 --> 49:10.300] and we
[49:10.300 --> 49:12.300] are
[49:12.300 --> 49:14.300] It's difficult to
[49:14.300 --> 49:16.300] stay
[49:16.300 --> 49:18.300] in
[49:18.300 --> 49:20.300] just to keep the pressure
[49:20.300 --> 49:22.300] on them and to keep going to the next
[49:22.300 --> 49:24.300] level and go to another magistrate
[49:24.300 --> 49:26.300] So
[49:28.300 --> 49:30.300] In the times when I have done that
[49:30.300 --> 49:32.300] when I have really stayed after them
[49:32.300 --> 49:34.300] with the criminal complaints and keep going up
[49:34.300 --> 49:36.300] the chain and go find other people to
[49:36.300 --> 49:38.300] report crime to and
[49:38.300 --> 49:40.300] just let it grow exponentially
[49:40.300 --> 49:42.300] It has had
[49:42.300 --> 49:44.300] an extreme effect
[49:44.300 --> 49:46.300] Now, I've never been
[49:46.300 --> 49:48.300] called in as a witness
[49:48.300 --> 49:50.300] to, you know, for their prosecution
[49:50.300 --> 49:52.300] They've probably
[49:52.300 --> 49:54.300] never been dragged in anywhere
[49:54.300 --> 49:56.300] I'm sure they get phone calls because
[49:58.300 --> 50:00.300] the original problem
[50:00.300 --> 50:02.300] goes away
[50:02.300 --> 50:04.300] Poof! The original problem
[50:04.300 --> 50:06.300] gets somehow
[50:06.300 --> 50:08.300] just handled
[50:08.300 --> 50:10.300] After I asked the judge
[50:10.300 --> 50:12.300] to arrest the prosecutor
[50:12.300 --> 50:14.300] for not giving my
[50:14.300 --> 50:16.300] criminal complaints against the clerk to the grand
[50:16.300 --> 50:18.300] jury, the next time I come
[50:18.300 --> 50:20.300] in to find out when my court hearing was
[50:20.300 --> 50:22.300] Well, they dismissed that two weeks ago
[50:22.300 --> 50:24.300] What? What? They can't
[50:24.300 --> 50:26.300] do that! You
[50:26.300 --> 50:28.300] can't tell them to put that back on
[50:28.300 --> 50:30.300] I didn't want it dismissed
[50:32.300 --> 50:34.300] That's what happens
[50:34.300 --> 50:36.300] I had one dismissed
[50:36.300 --> 50:38.300] They were accusing me of driving
[50:38.300 --> 50:40.300] with a defective headlight
[50:46.300 --> 50:48.300] I had called them out on
[50:48.300 --> 50:50.300] due process issues and it went up the chain
[50:52.300 --> 50:54.300] Before long, I was doing the same thing
[50:54.300 --> 50:56.300] that you're talking about
[50:56.300 --> 50:58.300] I carried it all the way up through
[50:58.300 --> 51:00.300] I disqualified the
[51:00.300 --> 51:02.300] judge, had criminal complaints against
[51:02.300 --> 51:04.300] the admin judge for not doing his
[51:04.300 --> 51:06.300] duty when there was a disqualification
[51:06.300 --> 51:08.300] and on up to the
[51:08.300 --> 51:10.300] Court of Appeals and
[51:10.300 --> 51:12.300] then finally to the Texas Supreme
[51:12.300 --> 51:14.300] Court, the Chief Justice of the Texas
[51:14.300 --> 51:16.300] Supreme, Nathan Hecht
[51:16.300 --> 51:18.300] is now getting criminal
[51:18.300 --> 51:20.300] charges against him
[51:20.300 --> 51:22.300] and next thing
[51:22.300 --> 51:24.300] you know, the
[51:24.300 --> 51:26.300] way back down on the bottom of the
[51:26.300 --> 51:28.300] totem pole, they dismissed
[51:28.300 --> 51:30.300] in the interest of justice
[51:34.300 --> 51:36.300] In the interest of justice
[51:36.300 --> 51:38.300] We're not going to say anything about how
[51:38.300 --> 51:40.300] much trouble you caused, but
[51:40.300 --> 51:42.300] This Supreme Court has put the kibosh
[51:42.300 --> 51:44.300] on that
[51:44.300 --> 51:46.300] and they've said
[51:46.300 --> 51:48.300] that if the court dismisses
[51:48.300 --> 51:50.300] that is
[51:50.300 --> 51:52.300] tantamount to a
[51:52.300 --> 51:54.300] admission of harm
[51:54.300 --> 51:56.300] that the prosecution was malicious
[51:56.300 --> 51:58.300] and gives you grounds for suit
[52:00.300 --> 52:02.300] Even if you were guilty
[52:02.300 --> 52:04.300] of sin
[52:04.300 --> 52:06.300] if they start prosecuting
[52:06.300 --> 52:08.300] you and you beat them up really good
[52:08.300 --> 52:10.300] if they dismiss it
[52:10.300 --> 52:12.300] then you want
[52:12.300 --> 52:14.300] You want your civil suit
[52:14.300 --> 52:16.300] Now you have a civil claim
[52:16.300 --> 52:18.300] That's what the Supreme Court ruled
[52:20.300 --> 52:22.300] So I'm going to jump on that, Randy
[52:22.300 --> 52:24.300] Right there
[52:24.300 --> 52:26.300] Back to what I was saying a minute ago
[52:26.300 --> 52:28.300] This is now
[52:28.300 --> 52:30.300] provable
[52:30.300 --> 52:32.300] It's not just like I said
[52:32.300 --> 52:34.300] a motion to assure authority
[52:34.300 --> 52:36.300] that it's ignored
[52:36.300 --> 52:38.300] It's not just some guy
[52:38.300 --> 52:40.300] raising the issue during a hearing
[52:40.300 --> 52:42.300] There is actual proof
[52:42.300 --> 52:44.300] that can be put on the record
[52:44.300 --> 52:46.300] Now, when you go back
[52:46.300 --> 52:48.300] and you get it dismissed
[52:48.300 --> 52:50.300] or you have it, I don't know
[52:50.300 --> 52:52.300] reversed or whatever it would be
[52:52.300 --> 52:54.300] but once all that's done
[52:54.300 --> 52:56.300] then they didn't
[52:56.300 --> 52:58.300] just mess up on one case
[52:58.300 --> 53:00.300] They prosecuted you from beginning to end
[53:00.300 --> 53:02.300] wholly incorrectly
[53:02.300 --> 53:04.300] This doesn't even include the due process violations
[53:04.300 --> 53:06.300] but at that point
[53:06.300 --> 53:08.300] it's that much bigger of an issue
[53:08.300 --> 53:10.300] Because they did this wrong beginning to end
[53:10.300 --> 53:12.300] You can prove it
[53:12.300 --> 53:14.300] So is that grounds for a civil suit
[53:14.300 --> 53:16.300] against what?
[53:16.300 --> 53:18.300] The municipality, just them on their individual
[53:18.300 --> 53:20.300] capacity, or against the
[53:20.300 --> 53:22.300] actual whole municipality
[53:22.300 --> 53:24.300] and the court
[53:24.300 --> 53:26.300] That was the definitive
[53:26.300 --> 53:28.300] ruling of
[53:28.300 --> 53:30.300] SCOTUS, US Supreme
[53:32.300 --> 53:34.300] So yes, they don't get to just
[53:34.300 --> 53:36.300] dismiss it now
[53:36.300 --> 53:38.300] and go on and screw the next guy
[53:40.300 --> 53:42.300] If you and I
[53:42.300 --> 53:44.300] will stand up and take them on
[53:44.300 --> 53:46.300] and that's what I'm
[53:46.300 --> 53:48.300] hoping to get put together
[53:48.300 --> 53:50.300] You know, Brett, you were talking about all the
[53:50.300 --> 53:52.300] work and difficulties
[53:52.300 --> 53:54.300] and all the stuff you've got to do
[53:54.300 --> 53:56.300] It's my intent
[53:56.300 --> 53:58.300] to get all that automated
[53:58.300 --> 54:00.300] So you just go in
[54:00.300 --> 54:02.300] and answer the questions, boom, it spits out
[54:02.300 --> 54:04.300] the next set of documents
[54:04.300 --> 54:06.300] You don't have to do any research, you don't have to do anything
[54:06.300 --> 54:08.300] Just sign them and file them
[54:10.300 --> 54:12.300] We get that going
[54:12.300 --> 54:14.300] We'll get this legal system
[54:14.300 --> 54:16.300] back
[54:16.300 --> 54:18.300] It's actually pretty easy
[54:18.300 --> 54:20.300] even without automation
[54:20.300 --> 54:22.300] You can take one criminal complaint
[54:22.300 --> 54:24.300] that you've already done for say
[54:24.300 --> 54:26.300] Texas Penal Code 39.03
[54:26.300 --> 54:28.300] and anybody
[54:28.300 --> 54:30.300] else who's done that same thing
[54:30.300 --> 54:32.300] You just drag across the part where it's
[54:32.300 --> 54:34.300] described his acts
[54:34.300 --> 54:36.300] and you stick the other person's acts
[54:36.300 --> 54:38.300] Drag across the name, stick that person's name
[54:38.300 --> 54:40.300] date, there's very little to change
[54:40.300 --> 54:42.300] It's easy for us
[54:42.300 --> 54:44.300] because we've done this a lot
[54:44.300 --> 54:46.300] Well, I've also gone through the whole automation
[54:46.300 --> 54:48.300] process and done a lot of
[54:48.300 --> 54:50.300] automation, but I'm saying for people
[54:50.300 --> 54:52.300] who haven't, and all they've got
[54:52.300 --> 54:54.300] is, they can see an
[54:54.300 --> 54:56.300] example of somebody else did a
[54:56.300 --> 54:58.300] criminal complaint, 39.03
[54:58.300 --> 55:00.300] Copy and paste, people
[55:02.300 --> 55:04.300] That's why I built a lawsuit
[55:04.300 --> 55:06.300] against a
[55:06.300 --> 55:08.300] magistrate who didn't issue a warrant
[55:08.300 --> 55:10.300] and I had it all filled out and I went to
[55:10.300 --> 55:12.300] file it and I looked at it and I said, heck with this
[55:12.300 --> 55:14.300] I went back and took my name
[55:14.300 --> 55:16.300] and the judge's name out
[55:16.300 --> 55:18.300] and put in lines
[55:18.300 --> 55:20.300] and then I filled it all in by hand
[55:20.300 --> 55:22.300] There you go
[55:22.300 --> 55:24.300] It's a psychological
[55:24.300 --> 55:26.300] effect
[55:26.300 --> 55:28.300] The first thing he sees is the header that says
[55:28.300 --> 55:30.300] prosayfromhell.com
[55:30.300 --> 55:32.300] slash templates
[55:32.300 --> 55:34.300] Are you
[55:34.300 --> 55:36.300] this prosay from hell?
[55:36.300 --> 55:38.300] No, that's just a website where I downloaded this
[55:38.300 --> 55:40.300] template
[55:40.300 --> 55:42.300] He's thinking, holy crap
[55:44.300 --> 55:46.300] That's one of the things I'm trying
[55:46.300 --> 55:48.300] to get to. I want everything
[55:48.300 --> 55:50.300] automated
[55:50.300 --> 55:52.300] Well, there is one point before you get off, Joseph
[55:52.300 --> 55:54.300] We're about to go to sponsors, but I wanted to touch
[55:54.300 --> 55:56.300] on one thing you mentioned earlier
[55:56.300 --> 55:58.300] about proof
[55:58.300 --> 56:00.300] Now you have positive proof
[56:00.300 --> 56:02.300] Let's talk about that
[56:28.300 --> 56:30.300] Let's talk about that
[56:30.300 --> 56:32.300] Let's talk about that
[56:32.300 --> 56:34.300] Let's talk about that
[56:34.300 --> 56:36.300] Let's talk about that
[56:36.300 --> 56:38.300] Let's talk about that
[56:38.300 --> 56:40.300] Let's talk about that
[56:40.300 --> 56:42.300] Let's talk about that
[56:42.300 --> 56:44.300] Let's talk about that
[56:44.300 --> 56:46.300] Let's talk about that
[56:46.300 --> 56:48.300] Let's talk about that
[56:48.300 --> 56:50.300] Let's talk about that
[56:50.300 --> 56:52.300] Let's talk about that
[56:54.300 --> 56:56.300] Let's talk about that
[56:56.300 --> 56:58.300] Let's talk about that
[56:58.300 --> 57:00.300] Let's talk about that
[57:00.300 --> 57:02.300] Let's talk about that
[57:02.300 --> 57:04.300] Let's talk about that
[57:04.300 --> 57:06.300] Let's talk about that
[57:06.300 --> 57:08.300] Let's talk about that
[57:08.300 --> 57:10.300] Let's talk about that
[57:10.300 --> 57:12.300] Let's talk about that
[57:12.300 --> 57:14.300] Let's talk about that
[57:14.300 --> 57:16.300] Let's talk about that
[57:16.300 --> 57:18.300] Let's talk about that
[57:18.300 --> 57:20.300] Let's talk about that
[57:22.300 --> 57:24.300] Let's talk about that
[57:24.300 --> 57:26.300] Let's talk about that
[57:26.300 --> 57:28.300] Let's talk about that
[57:28.300 --> 57:30.300] Let's talk about that
[57:30.300 --> 57:32.300] Let's talk about that
[57:32.300 --> 57:34.300] Let's talk about that
[57:34.300 --> 57:36.300] Let's talk about that
[57:36.300 --> 57:38.300] Let's talk about that
[57:38.300 --> 57:40.300] Let's talk about that
[57:40.300 --> 57:42.300] Let's talk about that
[57:42.300 --> 57:44.300] Let's talk about that
[57:44.300 --> 57:46.300] Let's talk about that
[57:48.300 --> 57:50.300] Let's talk about that
[57:50.300 --> 57:52.300] Let's talk about that
[57:52.300 --> 57:54.300] Let's talk about that
[57:54.300 --> 57:56.300] Let's talk about that
[57:56.300 --> 57:58.300] Let's talk about that
[57:58.300 --> 58:00.300] Let's talk about that
[58:00.300 --> 58:02.300] Let's talk about that
[58:02.300 --> 58:04.300] Let's talk about that
[58:04.300 --> 58:06.300] Let's talk about that
[58:06.300 --> 58:08.300] Let's talk about that
[58:08.300 --> 58:10.300] Let's talk about that
[58:10.300 --> 58:12.300] Let's talk about that
[58:12.300 --> 58:14.300] Let's talk about that
[58:14.300 --> 58:16.300] Let's talk about that
[58:16.300 --> 58:18.300] Let's talk about that
[58:18.300 --> 58:20.300] Let's talk about that
[58:20.300 --> 58:22.300] Let's talk about that
[58:22.300 --> 58:24.300] Let's talk about that
[58:24.300 --> 58:26.300] Let's talk about that
[58:26.300 --> 58:28.300] Let's talk about that
[58:28.300 --> 58:30.300] Let's talk about that
[58:30.300 --> 58:32.300] Let's talk about that
[58:32.300 --> 58:34.300] Let's talk about that
[58:34.300 --> 58:36.300] Let's talk about that
[58:36.300 --> 58:38.300] Let's talk about that
[58:38.300 --> 58:40.300] Let's talk about that
[58:42.300 --> 58:44.300] Let's talk about that
[58:44.300 --> 58:46.300] Let's talk about that
[58:46.300 --> 58:48.300] Let's talk about that
[58:50.300 --> 58:52.300] Let's talk about that
[58:52.300 --> 58:54.300] Let's talk about that
[58:54.300 --> 58:56.300] Let's talk about that
[58:56.300 --> 58:58.300] Let's talk about that
[58:58.300 --> 59:00.300] Let's talk about that
[59:00.300 --> 59:02.300] Let's talk about that
[59:02.300 --> 59:04.300] Let's talk about that
[59:04.300 --> 59:06.300] Let's talk about that
[59:06.300 --> 59:08.300] Let's talk about that
[59:08.300 --> 59:10.300] Let's talk about that
[59:10.300 --> 59:12.300] Let's talk about that
[59:12.300 --> 59:14.300] Let's talk about that
[59:14.300 --> 59:16.300] Let's talk about that
[59:16.300 --> 59:18.300] Let's talk about that
[59:18.300 --> 59:20.300] Let's talk about that
[59:20.300 --> 59:22.300] Let's talk about that
[59:22.300 --> 59:24.300] Let's talk about that
[59:24.300 --> 59:26.300] Let's talk about that
[59:26.300 --> 59:28.300] Let's talk about that
[59:28.300 --> 59:30.300] Let's talk about that
[59:30.300 --> 59:32.300] Let's talk about that
[59:32.300 --> 59:34.300] Let's talk about that
[59:34.300 --> 59:36.300] Let's talk about that
[59:36.300 --> 59:38.300] Let's talk about that
[59:38.300 --> 59:40.300] Let's talk about that
[59:40.300 --> 59:42.300] Let's talk about that
[59:42.300 --> 59:44.300] Let's talk about that
[59:44.300 --> 59:46.300] Let's talk about that
[59:46.300 --> 59:48.300] Let's talk about that
[59:48.300 --> 59:50.300] Let's talk about that
[59:50.300 --> 59:52.300] Let's talk about that
[59:52.300 --> 59:54.300] Let's talk about that
[59:54.300 --> 59:56.300] Let's talk about that
[59:56.300 --> 59:58.300] Let's talk about that
[59:58.300 --> 01:00:00.300] Let's talk about that
[01:00:00.300 --> 01:00:02.300] Let's talk about that
[01:00:02.300 --> 01:00:04.300] Let's talk about that
[01:00:04.300 --> 01:00:06.300] Let's talk about that
[01:00:06.300 --> 01:00:10.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com
[01:00:36.300 --> 01:00:38.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:38.300 --> 01:00:40.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:40.300 --> 01:00:42.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:42.300 --> 01:00:44.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:44.300 --> 01:00:46.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:46.300 --> 01:00:48.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:48.300 --> 01:00:50.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:50.300 --> 01:00:52.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:52.300 --> 01:00:54.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:54.300 --> 01:00:56.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:56.300 --> 01:00:58.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:00:58.300 --> 01:01:00.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:00.300 --> 01:01:02.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:02.300 --> 01:01:04.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:04.300 --> 01:01:06.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:08.300 --> 01:01:10.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:12.300 --> 01:01:14.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:14.300 --> 01:01:16.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:18.300 --> 01:01:20.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:20.300 --> 01:01:22.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:22.300 --> 01:01:24.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:24.300 --> 01:01:26.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:26.300 --> 01:01:28.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:28.300 --> 01:01:30.300] Dr. Catherine Albrecht
[01:01:30.300 --> 01:01:35.340] Radio, Brett never tells me what day it is. And he knows I'm old and I forget those things.
[01:01:37.580 --> 01:01:45.580] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rubella Radio on this, the 17th day of July, Thursday the 17th day
[01:01:45.580 --> 01:01:54.620] of July, 2025. We're over halfway through the year. We're in the middle of July in Texas,
[01:01:55.580 --> 01:02:03.180] and we haven't hit 100 yet. It's global warming, I tell you. I just listened to a program where
[01:02:03.180 --> 01:02:12.540] Argentina is having the coldest winter in their recorded history. And there was PBS,
[01:02:13.420 --> 01:02:18.460] and the commentator was kind of dancing on the head of a pin when he said,
[01:02:19.420 --> 01:02:29.260] do you think this has to do with climate change? He did not say global warming.
[01:02:30.700 --> 01:02:35.180] Okay, Joseph, where were we?
[01:02:35.180 --> 01:02:39.260] Pete Slauson All right. When we went out, there was one point about
[01:02:40.220 --> 01:02:44.540] our conversation with Joseph that stood out to me that I think may be good to just touch real
[01:02:44.540 --> 01:02:50.540] quickly. Joseph, you mentioned that now you have conclusive proof
[01:02:52.620 --> 01:03:01.260] of there not being an oath on file. And while you have evidence, I don't think that you can say that
[01:03:01.260 --> 01:03:07.420] that's proof. What you're really going after is a negative here. And you can't really prove a
[01:03:07.420 --> 01:03:15.420] negative. Who knows? Maybe the lady did her best to research it, and she ended up, she didn't
[01:03:15.420 --> 01:03:22.220] realize that one of her assistants had a certain folder on her desk, and she was as diligent as
[01:03:22.220 --> 01:03:27.980] she could be, but she didn't realize that they had all the ems over there on that other desk.
[01:03:29.020 --> 01:03:32.940] You know, things could turn up later, or they could be falsified later, obviously. But
[01:03:32.940 --> 01:03:39.900] to be able to say that it's absolute proof that he didn't have an oath,
[01:03:41.100 --> 01:03:46.060] I don't think that's what you've got. You've got good evidence, really good evidence.
[01:03:46.060 --> 01:03:49.820] And in fact, it's evidence that's good enough for a judicial notice, which is pretty strong,
[01:03:50.380 --> 01:03:55.740] because it's coming from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,
[01:03:57.260 --> 01:04:02.700] the court clerk. However, what if you were to find out later from the Secretary of State
[01:04:03.340 --> 01:04:09.980] that they had received a copy of that on, you know, whatever, years ago. And for some reason,
[01:04:10.540 --> 01:04:15.820] the city didn't have the original, but the Secretary of State still had a copy of it from
[01:04:15.820 --> 01:04:23.180] way back when. You know what I mean? I don't know if you can appreciate the difference there.
[01:04:24.140 --> 01:04:32.540] All you need is a reasonable cause to believe that you have ample, absent,
[01:04:34.540 --> 01:04:38.780] controverting evidence, sufficient evidence for a conviction.
[01:04:39.420 --> 01:04:45.740] Yes, that you've got good evidence, really good evidence, strong evidence, just not quite proof.
[01:04:46.060 --> 01:04:52.300] Okay, so hold on a minute. First of all, municipal oaths of office,
[01:04:52.300 --> 01:04:58.300] go to the Secretary of the Municipality, not the Attorney General. Second of all.
[01:05:01.180 --> 01:05:08.940] Okay, so second of all, these record requests have gone out to the municipality
[01:05:09.020 --> 01:05:15.660] and the county clerk for three separate claimed or alleged municipal attorneys.
[01:05:16.220 --> 01:05:19.180] All three of them have come back with the same response.
[01:05:20.860 --> 01:05:24.300] It's looking pretty bad for them. The future looks bleak.
[01:05:25.580 --> 01:05:30.940] Yep. And I'm going to run through the rest of the roster of their municipal attorneys
[01:05:30.940 --> 01:05:33.340] and see if I get the same response for all of them too.
[01:05:34.300 --> 01:05:40.460] There's a term that comes to mind here, preponderance.
[01:05:41.580 --> 01:05:46.220] Yes, in the standards of proof, that's one of them, the preponderance of the evidence.
[01:05:47.340 --> 01:05:53.340] Right. So duly noted, Brett, thank you for pointing that out. So my last question I've
[01:05:53.340 --> 01:06:00.380] been trying to get at is, if someone had all of this information already proved out,
[01:06:00.380 --> 01:06:06.300] they had it all documented, they had all the results of the records request,
[01:06:06.860 --> 01:06:13.740] if they wanted to go after the municipality for a comfortable monetary settlement,
[01:06:15.820 --> 01:06:17.100] what would that look like?
[01:06:20.540 --> 01:06:25.740] I don't know. You have to ask somebody who's actually gotten some money out of this lawlessness.
[01:06:26.140 --> 01:06:34.860] I have not yet done that. I've tried, but it hasn't happened yet. So I won't venture to give
[01:06:34.860 --> 01:06:40.140] any advice on that point. That's fair. Randy, how about you?
[01:06:42.140 --> 01:06:46.940] This is something, a direction I've just recently started to take.
[01:06:47.020 --> 01:06:57.020] I've just recently started to take. And I sued a magistrate, but I let it go. I just did not have
[01:06:57.020 --> 01:07:03.980] time to follow up. I've got three or four more I can sue. I'm just buried with something more
[01:07:03.980 --> 01:07:11.100] important right now, the electronic lawyer project. So I'm spending my time on that.
[01:07:11.100 --> 01:07:14.780] It's been 18 years coming. It's time I got it working.
[01:07:15.980 --> 01:07:20.700] So I set aside everything else, and I'm getting this project put together.
[01:07:20.700 --> 01:07:22.380] It's the most important thing I can do.
[01:07:26.380 --> 01:07:28.540] That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
[01:07:30.460 --> 01:07:34.700] With that, I will bid you farewell. Thanks again for all that you do, Brett and Randy.
[01:07:35.260 --> 01:07:38.940] I'll catch the rest of everything online. Goodbye, gentlemen.
[01:07:39.660 --> 01:07:40.220] Thank you.
[01:07:41.100 --> 01:07:47.420] Okay. Now we're going to Chris in Colorado. Hello, Chris. What do you have for us today?
[01:07:49.580 --> 01:07:57.100] Hey, guys. I have, hopefully, just a couple quick questions. I'm digging deep into everything I'm
[01:07:57.100 --> 01:08:02.380] doing here, finding whatever. I just want to get into it. It's pretty dramatic.
[01:08:03.180 --> 01:08:07.660] But one of my first questions is this. If the federal court
[01:08:07.660 --> 01:08:17.500] misquotes state Supreme Court law, is that an issue for the state? And have you ever,
[01:08:17.500 --> 01:08:19.900] you got any ideas or have you ever heard of anything like that?
[01:08:21.500 --> 01:08:27.020] If the federal court violates law? It depends.
[01:08:27.020 --> 01:08:28.940] They say misstates the law.
[01:08:28.940 --> 01:08:35.740] Misstates. Not if the federal court is misstating federal law.
[01:08:37.500 --> 01:08:43.020] If the federal court is misstating state law, then that may be something you can address with
[01:08:43.020 --> 01:08:51.740] the state. But I would need more information, more about what you're, you know, I don't have
[01:08:51.740 --> 01:08:58.700] enough context. Well, it's pretty simple. The Supreme Court, and this is in Wyoming,
[01:08:58.700 --> 01:09:01.500] Supreme Court has made a couple of rulings in their case law that says
[01:09:02.300 --> 01:09:08.140] a couple things, you know, one thing or the other. And just in January, which is interesting
[01:09:08.140 --> 01:09:14.060] because in my federal case, the defense tried to use this case that came out of nowhere in January
[01:09:14.060 --> 01:09:22.140] where the Supreme Court made another statement about one of their laws. Now, in a perfect world,
[01:09:22.140 --> 01:09:26.620] this would have burned the defense because I guess they didn't read far enough into the case
[01:09:26.620 --> 01:09:31.020] to find out that what they said actually helped me. I think, I think Harmon's talked about this,
[01:09:31.020 --> 01:09:36.060] but anyway, but in my case, they didn't even read it up in 10th Circuit. Okay. So
[01:09:42.380 --> 01:09:47.500] they can make an exception, basically a tolling exception, equitable topple, sorry,
[01:09:47.500 --> 01:09:55.340] equitable tolling, et cetera, et cetera. The federal court said there is nothing in the
[01:09:55.340 --> 01:10:01.740] Wyoming Governmental Claims Act that allows for tolling. When the Supreme Court of Wyoming just
[01:10:01.740 --> 01:10:07.340] ruled, we would allow for tolling if a proper argument came up, but nobody's argued it.
[01:10:09.260 --> 01:10:15.020] I'm the guy who argued it. All right. So that's a misstating of Supreme Court law.
[01:10:16.460 --> 01:10:22.140] And they did it in another instance. I won't get off on a tangent, but they also misquoted another
[01:10:22.780 --> 01:10:29.260] equitable relief. These are two cases within Wyoming, the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
[01:10:29.260 --> 01:10:33.100] I have more from across the nation, but those are two cases right from Wyoming. So
[01:10:34.060 --> 01:10:37.420] the only idea I came up with was why don't I call the Supreme Court of Wyoming and talk to them and
[01:10:37.420 --> 01:10:41.180] say, hey, do you have any issues with this? But I don't know if that's a smart idea or not.
[01:10:44.940 --> 01:10:45.740] To call them up?
[01:10:47.660 --> 01:10:48.540] Well, I don't know how to call.
[01:10:48.540 --> 01:10:53.980] Are you talking about just call and get ahold of a clerk and
[01:10:55.980 --> 01:10:59.100] try to make your case with a clerk? I wouldn't think that'd get you anywhere.
[01:11:00.380 --> 01:11:04.300] It ain't going to get me nowhere. But I mean, somewhere in the judiciary up in the Supreme
[01:11:04.300 --> 01:11:10.940] Court, there's got to be something. Because the federal court's a misrepresenting law,
[01:11:10.940 --> 01:11:13.980] and I don't know how to address that. That's a pretty crazy one to me.
[01:11:18.540 --> 01:11:24.780] They've misrepresented. Which law did they misrepresent?
[01:11:27.740 --> 01:11:31.180] The federal, okay, there's a Governmental Claims Act, which
[01:11:32.940 --> 01:11:36.780] institutions have a requirement that if you're going to sue the government,
[01:11:36.780 --> 01:11:41.420] you have to get the government notice. But there are exceptions across the nation where,
[01:11:42.140 --> 01:11:50.700] okay, for one, the government hid their status, mainly hospitals, but a government entity or a
[01:11:50.700 --> 01:11:58.140] breakoff, they hid their status. A government entity hid their status, like a doctor or something
[01:11:58.140 --> 01:12:02.380] like that. Which is really pretty close to your situation.
[01:12:03.740 --> 01:12:11.180] Exactly my situation, yeah. But there's two more. Another government agency misleads a citizen
[01:12:11.180 --> 01:12:15.660] as to government status or et cetera, et cetera. There's case law from Texas.
[01:12:15.660 --> 01:12:21.900] That one's dead on. Yep. And then three, if you were disabled
[01:12:22.620 --> 01:12:28.380] or incapacitated or in the hospital for 11 months, there's a case out of New York,
[01:12:28.380 --> 01:12:34.140] the district of New York, where this woman was literally in the hospital for 11 months,
[01:12:34.140 --> 01:12:39.500] passed the statute of limitations. She filed the government notice, but didn't file for leave
[01:12:39.500 --> 01:12:44.140] because of being incapacitated. And so the court said, you could have asked for leave,
[01:12:44.140 --> 01:12:47.180] you could have asked for a delay and filed because of what you are, but you didn't,
[01:12:47.180 --> 01:12:54.220] so now we're going to ding you for the government notice. So those are all remedies that are
[01:12:54.220 --> 01:13:01.820] available to people. And then in Wyoming, they just stated in January, I think verbatim pretty
[01:13:01.820 --> 01:13:08.620] much the statement is, we decide without deciding that tolling can apply to the Wyoming Governmental
[01:13:08.620 --> 01:13:16.620] Claims Act. But in this specific case, they didn't argue, there is no argument for that.
[01:13:16.620 --> 01:13:20.780] They're trying to argue something else, but they literally just said tolling can apply
[01:13:20.780 --> 01:13:29.820] to the governmental act. And the 10th circuit in the Governmental Claims Act allows for tolling.
[01:13:32.620 --> 01:13:34.940] They decide without deciding. That's weird.
[01:13:35.500 --> 01:13:41.100] It's a weird phrasing, but basically they reiterated it later on, basically stating,
[01:13:41.100 --> 01:13:47.740] we will, tolling can apply to the statute, that equitable tolling can apply to the statute.
[01:13:47.740 --> 01:13:55.580] The most statute, unless they say specifically that you cannot have tolling, that this deadline,
[01:13:55.580 --> 01:14:01.500] you know, five, 10 years, whatever it is, is written in law, equitable rest apply to the statute.
[01:14:02.060 --> 01:14:05.980] Yeah, and that makes sense. All right, hold that thought.
[01:14:05.980 --> 01:14:09.580] We're going to go to our sponsors. We'll be right back.
[01:14:12.300 --> 01:14:17.340] Are you looking to have a closer relationship with God and a better understanding of his word?
[01:14:17.340 --> 01:14:22.380] Then tune in to LogosRadioNetwork.com on Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. Central Time
[01:14:22.380 --> 01:14:27.660] for scripture talk, where Nana and her guests discuss the scriptures in accord with 2 Timothy
[01:14:27.820 --> 01:14:33.500] 2.15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
[01:14:33.500 --> 01:14:38.700] rightly dividing the word of truth. Starting in January, our first hour studies are in the
[01:14:38.700 --> 01:14:44.220] Book of Mark, where we'll go verse by verse and discuss the true gospel message. Our second hour
[01:14:44.220 --> 01:14:48.780] topical studies will vary each week with discussions on sound doctrine and Christian
[01:14:48.780 --> 01:14:53.900] character development. We wish to reflect God's light and be a blessing to all those with a
[01:14:53.900 --> 01:14:59.420] hearing ear. Our goal is to strengthen our faith and to transform ourselves more into the likeness
[01:14:59.420 --> 01:15:05.260] of our Lord and Savior Jesus. So tune in to scripture talk live on LogosRadioNetwork.com
[01:15:05.260 --> 01:15:10.460] Wednesdays from 8 to 10 p.m. to inspire and motivate your studies of the scriptures.
[01:15:12.220 --> 01:15:18.140] Through advances in technology, our lives have greatly improved, except in the area of nutrition.
[01:15:18.140 --> 01:15:23.020] People feed their pets better than they feed themselves, and it's time we changed all that.
[01:15:23.100 --> 01:15:29.420] Our primary defense against aging and disease in this toxic environment is good nutrition.
[01:15:29.420 --> 01:15:34.140] In a world where natural foods have been irradiated, adulterated, and mutilated,
[01:15:34.140 --> 01:15:40.300] Young Jevity can provide the nutrients you need. LogosRadioNetwork gets many requests to endorse
[01:15:40.300 --> 01:15:46.140] all sorts of products, most of which we reject. We have come to trust Young Jevity so much,
[01:15:46.140 --> 01:15:52.540] we became a marketing distributor along with Alex Jones, Ben Fuchs, and many others. When you order
[01:15:52.540 --> 01:15:59.340] from LogosRadioNetwork.com, your health will improve as you help support quality radio.
[01:15:59.340 --> 01:16:04.860] As you realize the benefits of Young Jevity, you may want to join us. As a distributor,
[01:16:04.860 --> 01:16:11.260] you can experience improved health, help your friends and family, and increase your income. Order
[01:17:11.260 --> 01:17:15.980] now.
[01:17:15.980 --> 01:17:19.260] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain,
[01:17:19.260 --> 01:17:23.820] Wheel of Life Radio, and we're talking to Chris in Colorado. Okay, Chris, where were we?
[01:17:28.140 --> 01:17:33.660] Oh, I guess we can tell better if we unmute you. Ah, now we can hear you better.
[01:17:33.660 --> 01:17:47.260] I'm wondering, another cord missed. I don't know if it is anymore, but...
[01:17:47.900 --> 01:17:51.500] Wait, wait, I'm having trouble hearing you. Are you having trouble, Brett?
[01:17:51.500 --> 01:17:52.540] Yeah, it's not just you.
[01:17:54.220 --> 01:17:54.460] Yeah.
[01:17:54.460 --> 01:17:56.460] Is it a speakerphone or something?
[01:17:57.420 --> 01:18:01.180] It's sounding really, you're cutting out a lot. I don't know if you have a noisy environment and
[01:18:02.060 --> 01:18:05.740] I don't know what's going on there, but are you able to make any adjustments?
[01:18:07.340 --> 01:18:12.300] Well, I got bad service where I am, I'm sorry. If it gets bad, I'll hang up.
[01:18:12.860 --> 01:18:14.060] That's a lot better.
[01:18:14.060 --> 01:18:15.340] That's much better.
[01:18:15.340 --> 01:18:21.100] Okay. Okay. I'm holding the phone right next to my head, so you're contributing to my health
[01:18:21.100 --> 01:18:22.700] decline, just so you know. All right.
[01:18:23.740 --> 01:18:25.340] Tell him to use wired earbuds.
[01:18:25.740 --> 01:18:27.020] Wired earbuds?
[01:18:29.820 --> 01:18:32.220] Yeah, Deborah's saying wired earbuds.
[01:18:36.060 --> 01:18:38.860] Yeah, I've got them, but they're hiding in the suitcase somewhere. I'm sorry.
[01:18:41.980 --> 01:18:47.340] Anyway, I'm just wondering if a state is, if their law is being misused other places,
[01:18:49.420 --> 01:18:50.380] what do I do about that?
[01:18:53.420 --> 01:18:54.380] That's interesting.
[01:18:55.340 --> 01:19:01.900] Well, I think where we left off, you were saying...
[01:19:02.860 --> 01:19:09.660] When the Fed improperly, the Fed in a case where the state and the Fed laws are implicated,
[01:19:09.660 --> 01:19:17.340] the Fed can rule on the state laws. However, if the Fed's in the Fed ruling on state laws
[01:19:17.340 --> 01:19:22.300] and they're ruling improperly, we should have a remedy for that.
[01:19:26.220 --> 01:19:26.700] Bivens?
[01:19:29.980 --> 01:19:34.300] Not exactly Bivens. Bivens goes to something more intentional.
[01:19:36.300 --> 01:19:42.540] There should be something in law that would allow a state
[01:19:44.380 --> 01:19:49.180] to overrule a Fed when the Fed is ruling on state law.
[01:19:50.540 --> 01:19:54.540] Right. Well, it's like you said earlier,
[01:19:54.540 --> 01:19:57.980] when you figure out something should be something that way, probably it is.
[01:20:00.140 --> 01:20:01.180] We just got to find it.
[01:20:06.700 --> 01:20:11.500] And I don't know, I don't have that answer for you, Chris. That is an interesting question.
[01:20:13.660 --> 01:20:15.900] You guys were talking about declaratory judgment earlier.
[01:20:16.860 --> 01:20:26.140] I think that would be the tool, but the Fed's think when they rule, it carries. But
[01:20:27.180 --> 01:20:33.820] this is like two different jurisdictions. If you got one jurisdiction ruling on law that goes to
[01:20:33.820 --> 01:20:39.660] another jurisdiction, and the Fed's want to say, if we rule on law that goes to your jurisdiction,
[01:20:39.660 --> 01:20:45.420] you're stuck with it. And the other jurisdiction should be able to say, no, no, no.
[01:20:46.060 --> 01:20:54.620] You're a foreign jurisdiction. We should be able to overturn your rulings on our law.
[01:20:55.420 --> 01:20:57.900] Yeah, because we know what our legislature meant.
[01:21:01.580 --> 01:21:06.460] I don't know. That's an interesting question, not one I've had to deal with before.
[01:21:06.460 --> 01:21:15.900] Well, I was thinking naively as a child to walk into the Supreme Court and just start crying
[01:21:15.900 --> 01:21:27.980] about it. I'm sure there's better remedies. Okay. Do you have anything else for us?
[01:21:28.620 --> 01:21:37.260] Look at the chat. State legislatures ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings and federal statutes all
[01:21:37.260 --> 01:21:48.060] the time. Okay. Our producer's telling us that the state legislatures ignore federal rulings
[01:21:48.060 --> 01:21:59.660] in state court. That sounds like kind of a court carved out remedy. If they feel like the Feds have
[01:21:59.660 --> 01:22:06.540] ruled wrong on state law, they tell the Feds to go scratch. But that's a pretty crappy remedy.
[01:22:06.540 --> 01:22:12.140] We need something with more standing than just a judge thumbing their nose at the Feds.
[01:22:12.780 --> 01:22:17.340] Yeah, it's got to go both ways in some ways, because if they have linked jurisdictions, meaning,
[01:22:17.900 --> 01:22:18.300] well...
[01:22:18.300 --> 01:22:24.380] Yeah, if we're bound, if the state is bound to federal law in a federal circumstance,
[01:22:25.420 --> 01:22:28.380] the Feds should be bound to state law in a state circumstance.
[01:22:33.260 --> 01:22:34.780] Turnabout's fair play.
[01:22:35.340 --> 01:22:37.820] But I don't know. I don't know how to answer that.
[01:22:43.020 --> 01:22:46.700] Okay. I'll dig a little deeper. And then the last question I have, pretty brief.
[01:22:47.420 --> 01:22:49.740] Have you ever had a judge consolidate cases?
[01:22:51.100 --> 01:22:52.700] Yeah, they do that all the time.
[01:22:52.700 --> 01:23:06.940] Judicial economy, if you have the same issues based on the same fact set,
[01:23:07.820 --> 01:23:09.740] then they can consolidate the cases.
[01:23:09.740 --> 01:23:11.580] On the same parties.
[01:23:11.580 --> 01:23:20.060] No, not the same issues. I got robbed. I got robbed, and the thieves are one case,
[01:23:20.060 --> 01:23:25.980] and then the storage unit who refused to hold a contract, which is protect my stuff,
[01:23:25.980 --> 01:23:28.860] it's a whole separate unit, and the judge is like, nah, we're going to throw them together.
[01:23:29.820 --> 01:23:32.460] Well, they're both kind of based on the same fact set.
[01:23:34.300 --> 01:23:36.220] Did you get robbed from the storage unit?
[01:23:37.660 --> 01:23:39.980] Yeah, but they didn't work in collusion.
[01:23:41.500 --> 01:23:47.500] Yeah, but the storage unit has its level of complicity along with the thieves.
[01:23:48.380 --> 01:23:52.220] Claiming that the storage unit did not provide sufficient security.
[01:23:53.420 --> 01:23:56.700] So these two cases are in fact combined.
[01:24:02.460 --> 01:24:06.700] Well, I'll look into that more, but that's going to cause a headache because
[01:24:07.420 --> 01:24:10.700] storage units are going to say it's all the thieves' fault, and the thieves aren't going
[01:24:10.700 --> 01:24:14.540] to pay a single dime, and the thieves are going to say, well, whatever, I'm not paying, and then
[01:24:15.100 --> 01:24:16.060] they're both off the hook.
[01:24:17.900 --> 01:24:24.460] It depends on a jury. But no, that's not how it works. It's not how it works in the Fed.
[01:24:26.140 --> 01:24:29.980] Whoever got the money pays. If they're both in the same lawsuit,
[01:24:31.980 --> 01:24:41.660] it doesn't matter who or what the jury assigns damages to. The seminal case on that is a 17-story
[01:24:41.660 --> 01:24:47.820] building in New York. A guy in the basement had a restaurant. His stove went out on Saturday night.
[01:24:49.500 --> 01:24:53.740] The only plumber he could find was his brother-in-law who didn't have a license. He
[01:24:53.740 --> 01:24:58.220] came down. He fixed the stove. They called the city. They called the water department,
[01:24:58.220 --> 01:25:06.780] the gas and the city. They both came down and approved it. Sunday morning, the building blew
[01:25:06.780 --> 01:25:12.700] up, killed a bunch of people. Well, they sued. The people who were injured sued.
[01:25:13.500 --> 01:25:18.540] The plumber didn't have anything to start with. The restaurant owner lost everything in the fire.
[01:25:18.540 --> 01:25:25.900] The building owner lost everything in the fire. They held the city and the gas company 1% responsible.
[01:25:27.500 --> 01:25:32.220] But since they had the money, they had to pay, and it was up to them to get their money back
[01:25:32.220 --> 01:25:36.940] from the other litigants. So I don't think you have the problem you think you do.
[01:25:38.780 --> 01:25:46.140] Oh, okay. Well, all right. I'll look into it. I'll sit on it.
[01:25:49.500 --> 01:25:51.660] I guess that's not a bad idea.
[01:25:51.660 --> 01:25:56.860] Yeah. Brett referenced deep pockets. A lawyer, when he's looking at a lawsuit,
[01:25:56.860 --> 01:26:04.380] he's always looking for who's got deep pockets, no matter how little they may be tied to the case,
[01:26:06.540 --> 01:26:08.700] because he can always get in the deep pockets.
[01:26:11.020 --> 01:26:13.340] Okay. Okay.
[01:26:15.500 --> 01:26:23.260] Okay. Thank you, Chris. Okay. Now we're going to go to Mary in Texas. Hello, Ms. Mary.
[01:26:24.220 --> 01:26:27.980] Hi, guys. I'm just calling to say hi. How are y'all?
[01:26:29.180 --> 01:26:29.740] Doing great.
[01:26:31.100 --> 01:26:34.620] How's your Republican Party going in Austin?
[01:26:35.660 --> 01:26:37.340] I don't know if I can talk about it.
[01:26:39.020 --> 01:26:41.820] Well, how's the part you can talk about going?
[01:26:43.580 --> 01:26:49.820] We have a lot of people that want to do something and that want to do the right thing. We really do.
[01:26:49.820 --> 01:26:53.260] We have a lot of people that really want to do the right thing. We really do.
[01:26:56.700 --> 01:26:58.860] What do they consider the right thing?
[01:27:00.620 --> 01:27:03.580] Hang on. We'll talk about that when we get back on the other side.
[01:27:04.300 --> 01:27:10.860] Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, we'll have our radio. Call in number 512-646-9084.
[01:27:14.140 --> 01:27:19.580] Reality TV, sugar, obesity, jet lag, the list of things that makes us dumber,
[01:27:19.580 --> 01:27:24.300] just keeps on growing. But now researchers say we can add stress to the list.
[01:27:24.300 --> 01:27:27.180] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht. Back with details in a moment.
[01:27:27.900 --> 01:27:33.500] Privacy is under attack. When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[01:27:33.500 --> 01:27:37.900] And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[01:27:38.540 --> 01:27:43.900] So protect your rights. Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[01:27:43.900 --> 01:27:46.300] Privacy. It's worth hanging on to.
[01:27:46.380 --> 01:27:52.140] This message is brought to you by Startpage.com, the private search engine alternative to Google,
[01:27:52.140 --> 01:27:55.420] Yahoo, and Bing. Start over with Startpage.
[01:27:57.260 --> 01:28:02.700] Are you always on the go and juggling multiple projects? If so, you might think that multitasking
[01:28:02.700 --> 01:28:07.340] proves you're smart. But think again, all that stress might be eating your brain.
[01:28:07.900 --> 01:28:11.980] A new study finds stress reduces the number of connections between neurons,
[01:28:11.980 --> 01:28:15.020] which actually makes it harder for people to manage problems.
[01:28:15.580 --> 01:28:20.060] Researchers at Yale University found that stressed-out people have less gray matter
[01:28:20.060 --> 01:28:24.620] in their prefrontal cortex. That's the part of the brain that helps us weigh conflicting
[01:28:24.620 --> 01:28:29.580] ideas and regulate our emotions. So take a deep breath and chill out.
[01:28:29.580 --> 01:28:32.140] It'll help keep your mind as sharp as a tack.
[01:28:32.780 --> 01:28:37.500] I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht for Startpage.com, the world's most private search engine.
[01:28:37.500 --> 01:28:48.140] This is Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell on the afternoon of September 11th.
[01:28:48.140 --> 01:28:53.660] The government says that fire brought it down. However, 1,500 architects and engineers concluded
[01:28:53.660 --> 01:28:57.100] it was a controlled demolition. Over 6,000 of my fellow service members
[01:28:57.100 --> 01:29:00.700] have given their lives. Thousands of my fellow first responders are dying.
[01:29:00.700 --> 01:29:03.020] I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a structural engineer.
[01:29:03.020 --> 01:29:05.500] I'm a New York City correction officer. I'm an Air Force pilot.
[01:29:05.500 --> 01:29:09.740] I'm a father who lost his son. We're Americans, and we deserve the truth.
[01:29:09.740 --> 01:29:12.460] Go to RememberBuilding7.org today.
[01:29:14.220 --> 01:29:18.220] Rule of Law Radio is proud to offer the rule of law traffic seminar. In today's America,
[01:29:18.220 --> 01:29:22.060] we live in an us-against-them society, and if we the people are ever going to have a free society,
[01:29:22.060 --> 01:29:26.220] then we're going to have to stand and defend our own rights. Among those rights are the right to
[01:29:26.220 --> 01:29:30.220] travel freely from place to place, the right to act in our own private capacity, and most importantly,
[01:29:30.220 --> 01:29:34.620] the right to due process of law. Traffic courts afford us the least expensive opportunity to
[01:29:34.620 --> 01:29:39.020] learn how to enforce and preserve our rights through due process. Former Sheriff's Deputy Eddie
[01:29:39.020 --> 01:29:42.700] Craig, in conjunction with Rule of Law Radio, has put together the most comprehensive teaching
[01:29:42.700 --> 01:29:46.940] tool available that will help you understand what due process is and how to hold courts to the rule
[01:29:46.940 --> 01:29:51.660] of law. You can get your own copy of this invaluable material by going to ruleoflawradio.com and
[01:29:51.660 --> 01:29:55.340] ordering your copy today. By ordering now, you'll receive a copy of Eddie's book, The Texas
[01:29:55.340 --> 01:29:59.900] Transportation Code, The Law Versus the Lie, video and audio of the original 2009 seminar,
[01:29:59.900 --> 01:30:03.820] hundreds of research documents and other useful resource material. Learn how to fight for your
[01:30:03.820 --> 01:30:07.740] rights with the help of this material from ruleoflawradio.com. Order your copy today,
[01:30:07.740 --> 01:30:10.860] and together we can have the free society we all want and deserve.
[01:30:14.140 --> 01:30:19.100] You are listening to the Logos Radio Network, logosradionetwork.com.
[01:31:03.820 --> 01:31:16.380] Okay, we are back. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Rule of Law Radio, and we're talking to Mary
[01:31:16.380 --> 01:31:27.340] in Texas. Mary, we were talking on the break about these issues and I'm mixing them up with
[01:31:27.340 --> 01:31:34.140] Chris before you were there. She was saying that there are a lot of people that are wanting to do
[01:31:34.140 --> 01:31:39.100] the right thing and you were asking her what that is. And I think you got to the part that
[01:31:39.100 --> 01:31:45.660] she can't talk about. Did I get to the point you can't talk about? I started with the point I can't
[01:31:45.660 --> 01:31:58.540] talk about. Okay, I would like to talk to your people. I can give them some tools they may not
[01:31:58.540 --> 01:32:05.340] have realized they had. Well, I need a book or something, like a website or a book or something.
[01:32:07.580 --> 01:32:12.860] I got Legal 101. This is this guy. Yeah, I need that with the magistrate section
[01:32:13.420 --> 01:32:18.300] and what is the grand jury? No, Legal 101 is really not about that. I've got another
[01:32:18.300 --> 01:32:26.780] document about the magistrates. Legal 101 is how the system really works as opposed to the stuff
[01:32:26.780 --> 01:32:33.660] they teach you in law school. Out here in the real world, this is how it really works. Lawyers,
[01:32:34.300 --> 01:32:40.460] they're not out there to win your case. They want to get your retainer. And then they do this flurry
[01:32:40.460 --> 01:32:44.940] of motions and use up your retainer and they want to get rid of you and get another client.
[01:32:44.940 --> 01:32:49.820] Because if they get past the flurry of motions in the front, now they have to actually start doing
[01:32:49.820 --> 01:32:59.260] legal research. Oh my goodness. Profitable. So it ain't like you think it is. Your lawyer is not
[01:32:59.260 --> 01:33:07.020] on your side. He's not going to do anything to annoy that judge. Because he's legitimately
[01:33:07.020 --> 01:33:12.700] concerned that the judge will screw his next client to get back at him. And unfortunately,
[01:33:13.580 --> 01:33:23.500] that's true. This is how it really works. But that's really not what your clients,
[01:33:24.700 --> 01:33:30.460] these Republicans need to hear. They need to hear the power of the criminal system.
[01:33:31.180 --> 01:33:36.060] They're complaining about these public officials doing things and I'm looking at it and say,
[01:33:36.060 --> 01:33:41.500] heck, those are crimes for crying out loud. Report the crime already.
[01:33:42.220 --> 01:33:49.980] So if I'm a court watcher and I'm down here watching the vote counters and stuff and I see
[01:33:49.980 --> 01:33:55.180] something that I think is improper, I'm not going to go in there and huff and puff and
[01:33:55.900 --> 01:33:59.900] rail in righteous indignation. I'm going to call 911.
[01:33:59.900 --> 01:34:11.340] I think, I believe that I see actions in here that are criminal. These actions are wrongful.
[01:34:11.340 --> 01:34:16.780] You need to go in there and investigate. And whether the policeman finds any criminal wrongdoing
[01:34:16.780 --> 01:34:26.620] or not is not so important. But you got these precinct court judges and these people who work
[01:34:26.620 --> 01:34:32.620] in the precincts and doing what they're told to do, and they get a cop down there asking them
[01:34:32.620 --> 01:34:39.900] questions because somebody thinks they were committing crimes. All these people, especially
[01:34:39.900 --> 01:34:44.300] the volunteers, are going to say, holy crap, I'm not going to go to jail.
[01:34:45.260 --> 01:34:48.300] Yeah, they're not impressed with you stomping around asking questions, but
[01:34:49.260 --> 01:34:52.620] when a cop goes in there, that's different or sheriff.
[01:34:52.780 --> 01:34:56.700] And the cop is going to go in there and do everything he can to make peace.
[01:34:58.620 --> 01:35:03.180] He's going to try to bring both sides together so there is no problem. And that's exactly how it
[01:35:03.180 --> 01:35:08.620] should be. But you got somebody in there that those people have to pay attention to.
[01:35:10.220 --> 01:35:14.780] You go in there and they'll just blow you off as a reactionary. They're not going to do that to a
[01:35:14.780 --> 01:35:22.380] certified peace officer. You got their attention. This will get them to start doing the right
[01:35:22.380 --> 01:35:30.220] thing because you can't risk not. And nobody needs to be arrested. Nobody needs to have
[01:35:30.220 --> 01:35:35.820] charges against them. You just call in a third-party arbiter, and the policeman is the
[01:35:35.820 --> 01:35:47.340] third-party arbiter. What do you think, Mary? When did the policeman start dispensing legal advice?
[01:35:47.500 --> 01:35:53.900] No, he doesn't mean for like a judgment. He's just saying,
[01:35:54.540 --> 01:36:00.460] get a third party in there, and this third party is one that they are bound to respect.
[01:36:01.740 --> 01:36:07.340] They can't blow off the—I would say get the sheriff in there, but whoever it is, they're
[01:36:08.460 --> 01:36:13.980] an executive officer, they're in uniform, and they're there to perform their job,
[01:36:13.980 --> 01:36:16.540] which is to investigate a report of crime.
[01:36:18.860 --> 01:36:28.700] Mary, consider you're in the—you're working a voting deal, and people are out there watching,
[01:36:28.700 --> 01:36:32.940] and they think you're not doing it right. And if they come down there huffing and puffing,
[01:36:32.940 --> 01:36:36.380] you'll get security to throw them out, and you go back about what you were doing.
[01:36:37.500 --> 01:36:43.260] Consider them just reactionaries. But if a certified peace officer comes down there
[01:36:43.260 --> 01:36:47.980] and starts asking you questions, all of a sudden he's got your attention.
[01:36:49.180 --> 01:36:53.500] Now, since you're a public official, he's going to do everything he can
[01:36:54.300 --> 01:36:59.260] to make sure you don't have any problem. But he's got these citizens out here that called him
[01:36:59.980 --> 01:37:05.100] that he's got to answer to, so he's walking this tightrope in between the two of you.
[01:37:06.860 --> 01:37:10.700] And he will be motivated to find a middle ground for everybody
[01:37:10.700 --> 01:37:18.060] to make sure that there's no nefarious stuff going on in here, so that these people out here
[01:37:18.060 --> 01:37:25.180] won't be too excited and give him a lot. This is the perfect solution. Don't think about calling
[01:37:25.180 --> 01:37:31.500] the police to get him to arrest somebody. Call the police to act as that third-party arbiter and
[01:37:31.500 --> 01:37:37.340] make sure to make sure everybody does things right. Does that make sense, Mary?
[01:37:38.140 --> 01:37:42.300] Oh, wow. Well, this is a three-hour conversation.
[01:37:46.700 --> 01:37:50.620] Yeah, but what I'm trying to do is craft a metaphor,
[01:37:51.980 --> 01:38:03.340] craft a story that we can tell these people so that it fits within their rules of behavior.
[01:38:03.340 --> 01:38:12.860] No, I mean, plain constitutional law is not really taught, and the use of criminal
[01:38:12.860 --> 01:38:18.620] procedure is not taught. And so teaching people... No, no, no. You don't want any criminal stuff.
[01:38:18.620 --> 01:38:24.220] With this, you don't want criminal. All you want is a neutral third-party arbiter.
[01:38:25.820 --> 01:38:30.300] Well, that's a challenge of finding one. Now, if I wanted criminal,
[01:38:30.300 --> 01:38:34.540] now you just call a policeman. This guy don't have a dog in this hunt,
[01:38:35.980 --> 01:38:41.740] and he's been called up on a dime. He does not want to be on. This is political,
[01:38:41.740 --> 01:38:47.420] and he don't want to be here. You don't ask the policeman to arrest anybody. Now,
[01:38:47.420 --> 01:38:54.780] I do that all the time, just that's what I do. But in your case, if you have something that you
[01:38:54.780 --> 01:39:01.820] think is not being done properly, don't go in there and huff and puff and rail rights indignation
[01:39:01.820 --> 01:39:05.900] because they're just going to demonize you. Two are going to fight back and forth. It's
[01:39:05.900 --> 01:39:14.380] going to just go downhill. Call in a third-party arbiter, a policeman who knows nothing about all
[01:39:14.380 --> 01:39:23.820] this stuff, who has no investment in either side whatsoever. He's got a job to do.
[01:39:24.780 --> 01:39:29.180] And you drug him up here in the middle of this, and he's dancing on his tippy toes
[01:39:29.820 --> 01:39:35.900] between public officials and high-level political officials on both sides. He wants
[01:39:35.900 --> 01:39:41.500] to find an equitable solution for everyone. Well, I'll tell you this. In the large cities,
[01:39:41.500 --> 01:39:44.940] we have defunded the police. They frequently don't show Randy.
[01:39:46.620 --> 01:39:52.780] If they're called to a voting machine or something, politically charged, they'll show.
[01:39:53.420 --> 01:39:58.140] When I called 911 at the courthouse, they didn't show because they were defunded.
[01:39:59.500 --> 01:40:06.620] But if they're called to something that's politically charged, they're going to show.
[01:40:08.380 --> 01:40:12.940] Everything's political. They didn't show for me because I wasn't political enough,
[01:40:12.940 --> 01:40:19.900] or at least at the time. But they didn't know that at the time I was in the process filing
[01:40:19.900 --> 01:40:27.020] criminal charges against everybody in Texas. The guy I called against, I sued for $20 million and
[01:40:27.020 --> 01:40:32.460] the sheriff for $20 million because of what they did there. I go down there. The next time,
[01:40:32.460 --> 01:40:39.340] I won't have that problem. But if I'm a political official or this is a politically
[01:40:39.340 --> 01:40:43.900] charged circumstance, the police are going to get it. They don't have a dog in the hunt.
[01:40:44.780 --> 01:40:51.580] They're the best ones to find a solution. And if you think some bad stuff's going on
[01:40:51.580 --> 01:40:57.260] in the voting stuff, this cop will make sure it's not. You put everybody on the dime,
[01:40:57.260 --> 01:41:03.420] say, you guys got to be careful. And the problem goes away without any major difficulty.
[01:41:06.220 --> 01:41:09.500] Hang on. Randy Kelton, Brett Fountain, Reveal Our Radio. We'll be right back.
[01:41:10.140 --> 01:41:16.620] Do you have a business with five employees or more? How would you like to save hundreds of
[01:41:16.620 --> 01:41:22.140] thousands of dollars in FICA taxes? Do you have a major medical plan that nobody can afford to be
[01:41:22.140 --> 01:41:28.780] on? Or how would you like to save in premium costs on a current major medical plan by lowering the
[01:41:28.780 --> 01:41:36.540] claims cost? The CHAMP plan is a section 125 IRS approved preventative health plan that provides
[01:41:36.540 --> 01:41:43.420] your employees with doctors, medications, emergency care, and Teladoc all at zero cost,
[01:41:43.420 --> 01:41:50.780] with zero copay. If you are an employee, you also will get a pay raise by paying less in FICA taxes.
[01:41:50.780 --> 01:41:57.020] As an employer, you will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in matching FICA taxes.
[01:41:57.020 --> 01:42:03.340] The CHAMP plan can help add working capital, market resale value, or pay down lines of credit.
[01:42:03.420 --> 01:42:15.020] Call Scott at 214-730-2471 or dallasmms.com. Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[01:42:15.580 --> 01:42:21.100] Win your case without an attorney with Juris Dictionary, the affordable, easy to understand,
[01:42:21.100 --> 01:42:28.380] four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step. If you have a lawyer,
[01:42:28.380 --> 01:42:32.220] know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer,
[01:42:32.220 --> 01:42:37.500] know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course,
[01:42:37.500 --> 01:42:44.620] and now you can too. Juris Dictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning
[01:42:44.620 --> 01:42:50.620] experience. Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about
[01:42:50.620 --> 01:42:56.940] the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom,
[01:42:56.940 --> 01:43:03.660] video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, pro se tactics, and much more.
[01:43:03.660 --> 01:43:11.660] Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:43:27.100 --> 01:43:27.660] Oh
[01:43:34.380 --> 01:43:41.660] Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:43:43.020 --> 01:43:49.660] Somebody's gonna police that policeman. Somebody's gonna police the police.
[01:43:50.540 --> 01:43:51.580] Oh
[01:43:51.580 --> 01:43:58.860] There's always a room at the top of the hill. I hear through the grapevine and it's lonely
[01:43:58.860 --> 01:44:06.540] there still. They're wishing it was more than a position to fill. They know that if they don't do
[01:44:06.540 --> 01:44:15.900] it, somebody will. Some things in this world I will never understand. Some things I realize fully.
[01:44:16.620 --> 01:44:21.020] Somebody's gonna police that policeman.
[01:44:21.020 --> 01:44:28.940] Okay, we are back. Randy Dalton from Rule of Law Radio and we're talking to Mary in Texas. Mary,
[01:44:31.820 --> 01:44:39.980] this is a tool that the Republican Party in Austin in a highly democratic area,
[01:44:40.700 --> 01:44:48.460] this is a really powerful tool they can use. The policemen are almost universally Republican.
[01:44:50.860 --> 01:44:59.820] They are not bleeding heart liberals. And anytime you call them to something that's
[01:44:59.820 --> 01:45:05.420] politically charged, you know, if they pull you over on the side of the street, you know,
[01:45:05.500 --> 01:45:12.380] they're not very diplomatic. And most of us have very little experience with the police being
[01:45:12.380 --> 01:45:20.220] diplomatic. But they certainly can be. And with what you're dealing with, where you're calling
[01:45:20.220 --> 01:45:26.140] them into a politically charged circumstance, they get-
[01:45:26.140 --> 01:45:33.820] Yeah, now all of a sudden they want to be, they want to de-escalate. They want to keep everybody
[01:45:33.820 --> 01:45:43.740] calm and make everybody happy. And Mary, from what I know of you, you really need some de-escalation.
[01:45:47.100 --> 01:45:51.020] People listening here, you're wondering why I said that. Well, if you were at the
[01:45:51.020 --> 01:45:55.660] Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice when she was, I thought I was gonna have to pull her off
[01:45:55.660 --> 01:46:01.020] the sergeant at arms. And I got all these guys around us with scars on their knuckles,
[01:46:01.020 --> 01:46:05.740] just cracking their knuckles, waiting to get a shot at us. Yeah, that's very critic.
[01:46:09.100 --> 01:46:16.940] Well, it helps when you're, what, 5'10", with the hair four inches and heels four inches.
[01:46:21.420 --> 01:46:26.540] Well, we didn't go to jail that day. But it wasn't Mary's fault.
[01:46:27.420 --> 01:46:33.900] We first went to the DPS office. We didn't stand there like sitting ducks. We went to the DPS
[01:46:33.900 --> 01:46:38.700] office. We went to the journalist's office. They told us we had to press pass to record.
[01:46:39.260 --> 01:46:45.980] They were violating Open Meetings Act. I asked one of your friends to take the case. He said he was
[01:46:45.980 --> 01:46:53.980] gonna go to China instead. And some weird- So, I mean, you know what I'm saying? But a good lobbyist
[01:46:53.980 --> 01:46:58.540] told us in the cigarette area outside that, you know, he's not necessarily on our side,
[01:46:58.540 --> 01:47:04.140] but they were strictly violating the Open Meetings Act. They shut down our journalistic outfit
[01:47:04.700 --> 01:47:10.220] that day and shut off Randy's camera that was in my possession and one of the committees there.
[01:47:10.220 --> 01:47:16.060] And it was what? A prudence committee. And I think that day I was wearing all black dressed
[01:47:16.060 --> 01:47:22.540] as a journalist or something. Yes, she was dressed like a ninja who was ready to kick everybody's
[01:47:22.620 --> 01:47:31.340] behind. She's in the face of the sergeant at arms and I'm telling all these DPS guys here,
[01:47:31.340 --> 01:47:40.300] I don't know this woman. But think about it, Mary. By us going to the captain of the
[01:47:42.300 --> 01:47:50.540] guards there, the DPS there, and asking him to arrest these senators, all of a sudden,
[01:47:51.100 --> 01:47:57.260] when we came back to that hearing, all of these DPS guys, these security guys,
[01:47:57.820 --> 01:48:05.980] they were on their tippy toes. They had been warned. I had a redheaded sergeant come up to
[01:48:05.980 --> 01:48:13.740] me and I looked at him and I said, you look familiar. I had a redheaded sergeant on the
[01:48:13.740 --> 01:48:20.540] security for the Capitol building. He slammed me up against a wall at the
[01:48:21.660 --> 01:48:24.780] Secretary of State's building and knocked one of my teeth out. Was that you?
[01:48:29.260 --> 01:48:35.340] And they're all ducking and dodging. Now, Mary's in the face of the sergeant at arms big time
[01:48:36.300 --> 01:48:39.260] and all of these guys are standing here and they're not saying anything
[01:48:39.420 --> 01:48:44.940] about it. Because we just came back from their captain and asked their captain to come and arrest
[01:48:44.940 --> 01:48:51.020] the sergeant at arms. Is that what you asked him to do? Because we hadn't met him yet, I don't think.
[01:48:51.020 --> 01:48:57.820] We surprised them on the way back, I thought. No, as soon as they wouldn't do that, we left and
[01:48:57.820 --> 01:49:02.380] went for somebody to arrest them. And then we come back and the sergeant at arms comes out and you
[01:49:02.380 --> 01:49:08.860] get in his face and you've got all these guards here. And I'm watching them, they're all standing
[01:49:08.860 --> 01:49:16.380] back. And this is the point. We got somebody higher than them on the dime. We went and asked
[01:49:16.380 --> 01:49:23.900] this captain to arrest the sergeant at arms. Man, he does not want to do that. So he contacted these
[01:49:23.900 --> 01:49:31.420] guys and told them, don't give these people any crap. They're likely to cause us some serious
[01:49:31.420 --> 01:49:38.460] difficulty. We need to find the middle ground. And a couple of the DPS guys, they got to go
[01:49:38.460 --> 01:49:44.220] between the two and kind of calm. They worked to calm things down. That's how you want to use the
[01:49:44.220 --> 01:49:52.940] police in these highly charged political situations. Don't use them to beat anybody up. You don't want
[01:49:52.940 --> 01:50:02.620] anybody arrested. But you want them to think they can be. And you reasonably without excitement or
[01:50:02.620 --> 01:50:11.660] anger, make your case. And then he's going to, you call, if you call 911 and ask for somebody to
[01:50:11.660 --> 01:50:19.500] come out, you have a problem here. He's going to come out, but he's your arbiter. He's forced to
[01:50:19.500 --> 01:50:25.980] be your arbiter because you're the victim. And he's got to go talk to these people to determine
[01:50:25.980 --> 01:50:29.980] if they, you know, I have this person here who believes you guys are committing crimes.
[01:50:30.780 --> 01:50:35.340] You want to explain what's going on here? And if you're the guy on the other side,
[01:50:35.340 --> 01:50:38.620] all of a sudden you're going to get a case of anal restrictor.
[01:50:40.940 --> 01:50:46.380] These people are accusing me of a crime. And they got a cop here with a badge and a gun
[01:50:47.420 --> 01:50:54.380] asking me about it. And now you're going to do a song and dance and tippy toe around to try to
[01:50:54.380 --> 01:50:59.740] find a way to get these people on the other side, not to want you arrested.
[01:51:01.900 --> 01:51:08.780] This is a strategy. You need to help these people understand how powerful the police are
[01:51:09.980 --> 01:51:20.300] in curbing excess, political excess. Don't want anybody arrested. You know, I make up criminal
[01:51:20.300 --> 01:51:26.060] complaints, but I don't really want anybody arrested. I want to get their attention.
[01:51:28.780 --> 01:51:36.140] And sometimes it takes a criminal complaint. In your case, probably not. So Mary, think about it.
[01:51:37.100 --> 01:51:43.180] In these politically charged circumstances you're having, how could you use the police
[01:51:43.900 --> 01:51:51.820] as an arbiter where things are getting ugly and out of hand? How could you use the police to defuse
[01:51:51.820 --> 01:52:02.140] things? I have no desire to use the police. It's not about your desire. It's about being
[01:52:02.140 --> 01:52:09.340] politically correct. And it's about getting a positive outcome. We use whatever tool we have
[01:52:09.900 --> 01:52:17.020] available. You probably haven't been beaten up and thrown in jail as many times as I have. You've
[01:52:17.020 --> 01:52:23.020] probably had that a few times, but not as many as I have. And I have reason to be really PO'd at
[01:52:23.020 --> 01:52:36.300] them. But that just doesn't work well. It doesn't allow me to use the advantages, the tools that I
[01:52:36.300 --> 01:52:42.940] have available to me. Now, if I get a policeman down that has attitude and starts acting injured,
[01:52:42.940 --> 01:52:52.780] I'll call 911 on him. But I've worn against calling 911 the third time. That got me carried
[01:52:52.780 --> 01:53:01.500] out of the courthouse by the two guys I'd carried 911 on and picked up and thrown down in such a way
[01:53:01.500 --> 01:53:09.660] that my face hit the concrete first. So I'll try not to do that again. But it calms things down.
[01:53:10.460 --> 01:53:20.140] It gets everybody's attention. When I had a clerk in Victoria County refuse to provide some records
[01:53:20.140 --> 01:53:25.260] that I asked for, I come out and I had been joking with the baits earlier and I said,
[01:53:25.260 --> 01:53:30.540] hey guys. And they said, well, hello, Mr. Kelton. How's it going? I said, it's going great. But
[01:53:30.540 --> 01:53:34.220] look, you guys standing around here doing nothing all day, you got to be getting bored.
[01:53:35.020 --> 01:53:39.980] I got something for you to do that'll be kind of exciting. Well, what is that? I need you to go
[01:53:39.980 --> 01:53:46.140] in there and arrest the clerk. What? We can't arrest the clerk. Sure can, sure can. Just go in
[01:53:46.140 --> 01:53:50.380] there and throw the custom owner and drag her off the jail. You don't have far to go. It's right next
[01:53:50.380 --> 01:53:58.940] door. And the clerk is inside listening to me joking with the bailiffs while I'm asking them
[01:53:58.940 --> 01:54:06.380] to arrest her. And lo and behold, she all of a sudden got real easy to deal with.
[01:54:07.420 --> 01:54:13.500] And I told the bailiffs, darn it. Now she's ruined all my fun. And they said, well, what was that?
[01:54:13.580 --> 01:54:15.820] Well, now I don't have grounds to have her arrested.
[01:54:18.940 --> 01:54:25.020] You use whatever power you have available. And especially the kind of things you've been
[01:54:25.020 --> 01:54:30.780] running into between the Democrats and Republicans where the Republicans, I mean, Democrats are kind
[01:54:30.780 --> 01:54:37.340] of more in power in Austin and they take advantage of that. You're calling the police to kind of
[01:54:37.340 --> 01:54:47.020] nullify that advantage. Okay. And not to arrest them, just to, you say, I got this problem and
[01:54:47.020 --> 01:54:51.340] we need it fixed. Can you help us out? And they'll go over to these other guys and say, hey, these
[01:54:51.340 --> 01:54:59.420] guys think they got a problem here. Do you want to tell me why I shouldn't arrest you? See you,
[01:54:59.500 --> 01:55:08.860] influence it has. I know you don't like the police, but we're grownups. We don't get to
[01:55:08.860 --> 01:55:15.260] have those likes and dislikes. We use the tools available. How would you like to use the police
[01:55:16.380 --> 01:55:23.740] to play them like a cheap fiddle? Yeah, I got one. A cop friend of mine gave me one. It's about three
[01:55:23.740 --> 01:55:29.180] inches long and I hold it through my thumb and forefinger and I take the little bowl that goes
[01:55:29.180 --> 01:55:44.140] with it and I lay on my sad song. I'll get you one of these. That's how you do it. You play them all
[01:55:44.140 --> 01:55:50.700] like a cheap fiddle. It doesn't matter what you like or don't like. It's about getting the outcomes
[01:55:50.700 --> 01:55:55.820] you intend. Thank you, Mary. Call in tomorrow night. We'll have more time to talk.