[00:00.000 --> 00:04.840]  This news brief brought to you by the International Moons Net.
[00:04.840 --> 00:10.960]  Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, was heckled at the Iowa State Fair Thursday
[00:10.960 --> 00:17.480]  after saying he wouldn't raise taxes on corporations to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
[00:17.480 --> 00:23.200]  Romney explained, quote, corporations are people because everything corporations earn
[00:23.200 --> 00:25.240]  ultimately goes to people.
[00:25.240 --> 00:31.800]  A U.S. official said Friday USAID is halting humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip
[00:31.800 --> 00:34.840]  over alleged meddling by the Hamas government.
[00:34.840 --> 00:40.600]  An official accused Hamas of creating an environment which jeopardizes the ability of non-governmental
[00:40.600 --> 00:45.240]  organizations to provide assistance to Gaza's most vulnerable residents.
[00:45.240 --> 00:50.360]  Food, water, electricity and medical goods are in short supply in Gaza due to an Israeli
[00:50.360 --> 00:53.280]  imposed blockade.
[00:53.280 --> 00:57.920]  Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman said on Thursday's Iowa TV debate,
[00:57.920 --> 01:01.040]  her wifely submission means respect.
[01:01.040 --> 01:07.000]  Moderator Byron York noted Bachman had earlier taken a vow pledging submission to her husband
[01:07.000 --> 01:11.160]  and asked if she would be submissive to her husband as president.
[01:11.160 --> 01:16.400]  Bachman replied, her husband is a godly man and submission means respect.
[01:16.400 --> 01:23.680]  The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported Friday 775 civilians have been killed by U.S.
[01:23.680 --> 01:29.360]  drones in Pakistan since 2004, including 168 children.
[01:29.360 --> 01:34.520]  The drones are hated in Pakistan where families live in fear of bright specks of hover in
[01:34.520 --> 01:35.520]  the sky.
[01:35.520 --> 01:40.600]  Lead researcher Chris Wood said the database of deaths will send shock waves through Pakistan,
[01:40.600 --> 01:45.440]  where political and military leaders have repeatedly denounced drone strikes in public
[01:45.440 --> 01:48.000]  while privately allowing them to continue.
[01:48.000 --> 01:52.800]  Wood added that the secrecy surrounding drones means when things go wrong, there is simply
[01:52.800 --> 01:56.640]  no redress for the families of those who have been mistakenly killed.
[01:56.640 --> 02:01.960]  In one attack on a madrasa in 2006, up to 69 children lost their lives.
[02:01.960 --> 02:07.560]  Barack Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser John Brannon claimed recently no civilians
[02:07.560 --> 02:12.160]  had been killed in drone attacks for nearly a year.
[02:12.160 --> 02:16.800]  Huffington presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman, a sneering critic of government spending,
[02:16.800 --> 02:19.160]  has been caught like a deer in the headlights.
[02:19.160 --> 02:24.080]  A freedom of information request filed by the Huffington Post reveals that on at least
[02:24.080 --> 02:29.320]  16 occasions, Bachman petitioned the federal government for financial aid.
[02:29.320 --> 02:34.440]  Most of those requests were for funds in Barack Obama's stimulus program, which Bachman called
[02:34.440 --> 02:36.760]  quote, fantasy economics.
[02:36.760 --> 02:42.520]  Bachman made two more requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, an institution she vowed
[02:42.520 --> 02:45.160]  to eliminate if she were in the White House.
[02:45.160 --> 02:50.160]  The letters underscore a glaring disparity between her campaign oratory and her actual
[02:50.160 --> 03:11.240]  conduct as a lawmaker.
[03:20.160 --> 03:46.200]  All right folks, good evening, this is rule of law radio, this is our Friday night for
[03:46.200 --> 03:47.200]  our marathon.
[03:47.200 --> 03:54.320]  This is Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, Debra Stevens, and tonight we're going to be running for
[03:54.320 --> 03:55.320]  four hours.
[03:55.320 --> 03:59.280]  If you've got any questions or issues, until we get done with this beginning presentation,
[03:59.280 --> 04:06.000]  please feel free to give us a call, 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[04:06.000 --> 04:11.080]  What I'd like to do tonight is address an issue regarding, it is open mic night by the
[04:11.080 --> 04:15.480]  way, so whatever issue you've got, we'll deal with, Randy is here so we can even do mortgage
[04:15.480 --> 04:16.480]  stuff if you have it.
[04:16.480 --> 04:23.840]  Can you do this on the 12th Friday, the 12th day of August?
[04:23.840 --> 04:29.960]  I can possibly do that of 2011 even, even in this year we can do that.
[04:29.960 --> 04:34.400]  But that being said, what I want to go over is a motion and lemony that I've written
[04:34.400 --> 04:39.360]  up for dealing with these traffic cases in court.
[04:39.360 --> 04:44.800]  Now the purpose of this motion and lemony is to state an objection to the use of undefined
[04:44.800 --> 04:49.960]  terms and phrases, which we know the prosecution in these cases is constantly doing.
[04:49.960 --> 04:53.000]  They'll get up there, yeah, go ahead.
[04:53.000 --> 04:57.440]  Explain to our listeners what a motion in lemony is.
[04:57.440 --> 05:04.040]  It's a motion limiting one party's or both party's ability to address certain subjects
[05:04.040 --> 05:08.360]  as specified within the motion itself.
[05:08.360 --> 05:14.840]  In other words, I had a case the other day where someone sent me a copy of a motion and
[05:14.840 --> 05:21.520]  lemony that the court filed in the case, not the prosecution, the court, specifically
[05:21.520 --> 05:27.920]  stating that the defendant could not address any statutes other than the statute they were
[05:27.920 --> 05:33.320]  charged with, which completely violates chapter 311 of the government code, but that's what
[05:33.320 --> 05:35.200]  the court did.
[05:35.200 --> 05:42.000]  So what they did was they forbade the defendant to bring up or mention any statute other than
[05:42.000 --> 05:47.680]  the one under which they were being charged, which is a complete denial of due process
[05:47.680 --> 05:50.480]  in and of itself.
[05:50.480 --> 05:55.320]  But in this particular case, what we're trying to do is limit the prosecution's ability
[05:55.320 --> 06:03.120]  to use words or terms and phrases that have a special meaning in the statutes, but they
[06:03.120 --> 06:09.640]  are failing to provide that special definition and meaning to the jury and leaving it up
[06:09.640 --> 06:17.960]  to the jury to make inferences or presumptions based upon those terms, which again is also
[06:17.960 --> 06:19.640]  a lack of due process.
[06:19.640 --> 06:29.160]  Yes, and there are a lot of these terms that have a meaning in common usage and a meaning
[06:29.160 --> 06:34.640]  in law, and those two meanings are not necessarily the same.
[06:34.640 --> 06:37.480]  And in fact, I would go even further than that, Randy.
[06:37.480 --> 06:44.320]  I would put forth that the rule being that if it is defined in statute, it is in fact
[06:44.320 --> 06:49.840]  explicitly being used in a manner other than normal.
[06:49.840 --> 06:53.520]  If they defined it, then they're not using it in the common way.
[06:53.520 --> 06:54.520]  Period.
[06:54.520 --> 07:02.680]  And the problem is, is when they don't stipulate how they're using the term, the jury doesn't
[07:02.680 --> 07:10.680]  necessarily always understand these subtleties, and when we're in the listening mode when
[07:10.680 --> 07:17.760]  words are coming at us from two to three hundred words a minute, it's sometimes hard to do
[07:17.760 --> 07:22.520]  internal meta commenting on, oh, that term has another meaning.
[07:22.520 --> 07:25.480]  I wonder which meaning he's applying here.
[07:25.480 --> 07:32.400]  So that makes this an especially serious problem when you're dealing with a layperson
[07:32.400 --> 07:38.440]  jury being talked to by a learned professional.
[07:38.440 --> 07:40.080]  Correct.
[07:40.080 --> 07:47.000]  And this motion actually works hand in hand with the procedure that we use at trial.
[07:47.000 --> 07:53.200]  What we're going to be doing, hopefully, if people will take this to heart and apply it,
[07:53.200 --> 08:00.200]  anytime the prosecution or a witness uses one of the terms that are contained and asked
[08:00.200 --> 08:05.000]  to be nullified by this motion to prevent them from using it.
[08:05.000 --> 08:07.720]  We of course, this is how we see the procedure working out.
[08:07.720 --> 08:09.560]  Let me back up just a step here.
[08:09.560 --> 08:11.760]  We're going to file this motion.
[08:11.760 --> 08:16.360]  The motion will not be granted by the court for multiple reasons.
[08:16.360 --> 08:20.320]  None of which are valid, but this is how they're going to do it.
[08:20.320 --> 08:25.240]  The prosecution cannot make its case without the use of these terms.
[08:25.240 --> 08:29.680]  They absolutely cannot make their case.
[08:29.680 --> 08:35.640]  But the problem is, is like we started out with, these terms and phrases have particular
[08:35.640 --> 08:43.600]  meaning as used in the statute, and that meaning is not being made known to the jury.
[08:43.600 --> 08:52.160]  So the prosecution is using these terms and phrases in the hopes that the jury will intentionally
[08:52.160 --> 08:59.720]  misunderstand them and presume that they are being used in the way they understand in the
[08:59.720 --> 09:03.920]  argument of the facts against the defendant.
[09:03.920 --> 09:10.240]  Now that means that the defendant is being tried entirely on presumption and inference,
[09:10.240 --> 09:20.440]  not upon fact, and in a criminal prosecution that is absolutely forbidden.
[09:20.440 --> 09:27.720]  So what we're attempting to do here is to nullify their ability to create this presumption
[09:27.720 --> 09:32.920]  and inference that violates the due process rights of the defense.
[09:32.920 --> 09:40.560]  Now to do that, I've got approximately 52 terms defined in this motion that are taken
[09:40.560 --> 09:47.840]  directly from the transportation code, and they cover virtually any type of offense that
[09:47.840 --> 09:53.480]  could be done if you're operating under the transportation code.
[09:53.480 --> 09:58.120]  Our defense here is that we're not operating under the transportation code, and these words
[09:58.120 --> 10:05.000]  and terms don't apply to us to begin with nor what we were doing, hence the entire reason
[10:05.000 --> 10:08.760]  why they should not be allowed to be used.
[10:08.760 --> 10:14.160]  Now this brings us to another issue regarding the complaint, which I'll depend on Randy
[10:14.160 --> 10:18.280]  to remind me of when I get done with this part of this little presentation.
[10:18.280 --> 10:21.640]  But I just want to go through a few of these paragraphs here, and I want to show you exactly
[10:21.640 --> 10:24.520]  what we're doing and why.
[10:24.520 --> 10:28.760]  Now under the heading of objections to use of undefined terms and phrases, this is the
[10:28.760 --> 10:31.200]  body of what's in the motion.
[10:31.200 --> 10:36.280]  Craig moves the court to direct and so order whomever is purporting to act as the attorney
[10:36.280 --> 10:43.200]  for the state that, unless the prosecution is both willing and does, provide the complete
[10:43.200 --> 10:50.960]  legal definition and usage of these terms and phrases to the jury in open court, then
[10:50.960 --> 10:56.080]  the following terms and phrases are not to be used or alluded to at any point in the
[10:56.080 --> 10:58.520]  proceedings against Craig.
[10:58.520 --> 11:05.400]  Such usages would include, but not be limited to, jury voir dire, opening statements, direct
[11:05.400 --> 11:11.200]  or cross examination, closing statements, or as a response given in testimony by any
[11:11.200 --> 11:16.200]  witness for the state of Texas, here and after the state.
[11:16.200 --> 11:22.760]  Craig asserts that these terms have a specially defined meaning and use within the individual
[11:22.760 --> 11:29.360]  provisions of the Texas Transportation Code, and therefore, the use of such terms and phrases
[11:29.360 --> 11:35.840]  assumes certain facts not in evidence nor previously agreed to and require a legal conclusion to
[11:35.840 --> 11:38.440]  be drawn by a fact witness.
[11:38.440 --> 11:44.280]  Furthermore, Craig asserts that the use of such terms and phrases by the state would
[11:44.280 --> 11:51.000]  create and in fact would necessitate the prosecution's fabrication of numerous false
[11:51.000 --> 11:56.120]  and misleading presumptions and inferences of the alleged facts presented to the jury
[11:56.120 --> 12:01.720]  as to the respective legal meaning and use of these terms and phrases, which is unacceptably
[12:01.720 --> 12:04.720]  prejudicial to the defense.
[12:04.720 --> 12:09.920]  Craig in support thereof would show the court the following.
[12:09.920 --> 12:16.920]  Craig was stopped by persons identifying themselves as police officers, said term having a special
[12:16.920 --> 12:25.000]  meaning and application within the provisions of Texas Transportation Code, Section 541.002
[12:25.000 --> 12:33.800]  Sub Item 4, and the entirety of Sub Title C of that code, as well as Rule 4.13 of Title
[12:33.800 --> 12:39.000]  37 of the Texas Administrative Code.
[12:39.000 --> 12:43.960]  Craig was stopped by these persons without any probable cause as Craig was not engaged
[12:43.960 --> 12:52.280]  in causing harm to any person, property, or thing, nor did or was Craig providing these
[12:52.280 --> 12:57.960]  persons with any probable cause to believe that Craig was engaging in any commercial
[12:57.960 --> 13:03.200]  use of the highways that would make Craig subject to the regulatory provisions of the
[13:03.200 --> 13:06.280]  Texas Transportation Code.
[13:06.280 --> 13:10.880]  Craig was falsely imprisoned by these persons when they placed him or her under custodial
[13:10.880 --> 13:17.480]  arrest by initiating the alleged traffic stop pursuant Texas Transportation Code, Section
[13:17.480 --> 13:26.360]  543.001, and then these persons perpetrated the act of aggravated assault against Craig
[13:26.360 --> 13:32.000]  by forcibly placing him or her into physical restraints and detention while displaying a
[13:32.000 --> 13:37.360]  deadly weapon, without any probable cause and or evidence that Craig was engaging in
[13:37.360 --> 13:43.760]  a criminal enterprise against any persons or property and or any regulated transportation
[13:43.760 --> 13:46.840]  activities as aforementioned.
[13:46.840 --> 13:52.680]  Craig asserts that it should be self-evident to the court that a traffic stop is only lawfully
[13:52.680 --> 13:58.480]  and legally applicable to those who are actively engaging in regulated acts of transportation
[13:58.480 --> 14:03.160]  pursuant the provisions of the Texas Transportation Code.
[14:03.160 --> 14:09.640]  Craig states for the record that he or she was not actively engaging in any privileged
[14:09.640 --> 14:16.000]  activities or acts constituting transportation, especially those pertaining to any form of
[14:16.000 --> 14:21.440]  commercial use of the highways, nor is the state in possession of any evidence that could
[14:21.440 --> 14:26.000]  or would provide or prove the contrary.
[14:26.000 --> 14:30.120]  Craig was traveling biologically upon the highways in a private personal conveyance
[14:30.120 --> 14:35.000]  for personal business and or pleasure and was not engaged or engaging in any commercial
[14:35.000 --> 14:41.200]  activity whatsoever, including any and all of those activities codified within the Texas
[14:41.200 --> 14:46.640]  Transportation Code and or Title 49 of the United States Code.
[14:46.640 --> 14:51.280]  And after that in subsection 2 we go through and give the list of terms that we are asking
[14:51.280 --> 14:55.920]  the court to prevent the opposing counsel from using.
[14:55.920 --> 14:58.560]  Then we sum it up in section 3.
[14:58.560 --> 15:03.960]  This motion in limity is based upon Craig's right to be free from criminal prosecution
[15:03.960 --> 15:09.600]  based solely on the prosecution's creation and manipulation of false and or misleading
[15:09.600 --> 15:15.800]  presumptions and inferences rather than true and correct factual evidence properly introduced
[15:15.800 --> 15:19.720]  upon the record of the court during trial.
[15:19.720 --> 15:24.000]  Now that's basically all there is to this motion other than the list of terms, like
[15:24.000 --> 15:27.360]  I said of which there are 52.
[15:27.360 --> 15:34.880]  Now this Randy is one of the legal things we come to when it comes to the complaint
[15:34.880 --> 15:37.360]  and the officer.
[15:37.360 --> 15:45.920]  The complaint makes no assertion that an act of transportation was being engaged in.
[15:45.920 --> 15:53.960]  To me that would appear to be an absolutely necessary element of the offense alleged.
[15:53.960 --> 16:00.000]  Because you can't commit a violation unless you are under those rules and regulations
[16:00.000 --> 16:06.440]  and in order to do that the assertion and proving of an act of transportation would
[16:06.440 --> 16:11.880]  appear to be absolutely mandatorily required.
[16:11.880 --> 16:14.640]  That is an interesting point.
[16:14.640 --> 16:23.320]  If the prosecution reads the complaint to the court or the jury then that would be the
[16:23.320 --> 16:31.160]  time to raise an objection and move to strike the complaint as insufficient as a matter
[16:31.160 --> 16:33.360]  of law.
[16:33.360 --> 16:37.800]  Well we would actually move not to have it read into the record because it contains these
[16:37.800 --> 16:42.720]  words and phrases that we're asking them not to be allowed to be used.
[16:42.720 --> 16:46.800]  So we would not want the complaint read into the record because that would be waiving this
[16:46.800 --> 16:47.800]  motion and limiting.
[16:47.800 --> 16:49.920]  All right folks we're going to go to break.
[16:49.920 --> 16:51.800]  This is rule of law radio.
[16:51.800 --> 16:54.920]  We've got a little more material on the other side but we'll be right back.
[16:54.920 --> 16:57.240]  This is Eddie Craig, Randy Kelton, Debra Stephens.
[16:57.240 --> 17:01.600]  We'll be on the other side of the break, please wait for it.
[17:01.600 --> 17:05.160]  Capital Corn and Bullion is a family owned and operated business that has helped many
[17:05.160 --> 17:10.080]  families and friends in protecting their assets and we would like to do the same for you.
[17:10.080 --> 17:16.240]  In addition to Corns and Bullion we now offer Patriots Saves, Ammunition, Berkey Water Products,
[17:16.240 --> 17:22.760]  Gift Certificates, Risk Bans and our new Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver by prepaying
[17:22.760 --> 17:24.400]  at a lost price.
[17:24.400 --> 17:27.760]  We can even help you set up a metals IRA account.
[17:27.760 --> 17:33.000]  Call us at 512-646-6440 for more details.
[17:33.000 --> 17:38.520]  As always we buy, sell and trade precious metals and cater to those with all sizes of
[17:38.520 --> 17:39.520]  coin collections.
[17:39.520 --> 17:46.600]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canaan next
[17:46.600 --> 17:49.640]  to the Ikebond Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[17:49.640 --> 17:54.080]  We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-5.
[17:54.080 --> 18:00.520]  Visit us at CapitalCornandBullion.com or call 512-646-6440.
[18:00.520 --> 18:05.840]  Are you being harassed by debt collectors with phone calls, letters or even losses?
[18:05.840 --> 18:09.520]  Call debt collectors now with the Michael Mirris Proven Method.
[18:09.520 --> 18:13.680]  Michael Mirris has won six cases in federal court against debt collectors and now you
[18:13.680 --> 18:14.680]  can win two.
[18:14.680 --> 18:19.480]  You'll get step-by-step instructions in plain English on how to win in court using federal
[18:19.480 --> 18:21.120]  civil rights statutes.
[18:21.120 --> 18:24.800]  What to do when contacted by phones, mail or court summons?
[18:24.800 --> 18:26.800]  How to answer letters and phone calls?
[18:26.800 --> 18:29.440]  How to get debt collectors out of your credit reports?
[18:29.440 --> 18:34.080]  How to turn the financial tables on them and make them pay you to go away?
[18:34.080 --> 18:38.840]  The Michael Mirris Proven Method is the solution for how to stop debt collectors.
[18:38.840 --> 18:41.320]  Personal consultation is available as well.
[18:41.320 --> 18:46.840]  For more information, please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the blue Michael Mirris banner
[18:46.840 --> 18:49.840]  or email michaelmirris at yahoo.com.
[18:49.840 --> 18:57.560]  That's ruleoflawradio.com or email m-i-c-h-a-e-l-m-i-r-r-a-s at yahoo.com.
[18:57.560 --> 19:22.560]  You'll learn how to stop debt collectors now.
[19:22.560 --> 19:35.320]  Alright folks, we are back, I apologize for that tongue stumbling on the way out there.
[19:35.320 --> 19:39.240]  I couldn't hear the music to see how close I was to being out of time and I was trying
[19:39.240 --> 19:41.880]  to listen for it as well as talk.
[19:41.880 --> 19:45.960]  But the last thing I would like to address on this particular motion before we start
[19:45.960 --> 19:52.320]  taking your calls and for those of you listening, the call in number is 512-646-1984 so please
[19:52.320 --> 19:56.400]  go ahead and start calling in and getting on the boards so that we can start dealing
[19:56.400 --> 19:57.400]  with your issues.
[19:57.400 --> 20:03.720]  But while we're waiting on that to occur, there are two aspects of this motion in Lemony
[20:03.720 --> 20:05.600]  that we need to be aware of.
[20:05.600 --> 20:10.080]  The first one is that the motion we know is going to be denied by the court.
[20:10.080 --> 20:11.800]  Okay, fine.
[20:11.800 --> 20:20.000]  What you need to do is to listen intently to any attempt by the prosecution or the witness
[20:20.000 --> 20:28.720]  to use any of these terms, okay, any of these terms that are in this motion.
[20:28.720 --> 20:35.440]  Any time that you hear one of these terms, you immediately state the following.
[20:35.440 --> 20:44.040]  Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion
[20:44.040 --> 20:45.800]  by the fact witness.
[20:45.800 --> 20:51.160]  It is a three-part legal objection to the use of the term.
[20:51.160 --> 21:00.440]  Again, objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion
[21:00.440 --> 21:02.160]  by the fact witness.
[21:02.160 --> 21:08.000]  Now, the part about required or assumes facts not in evidence, they're using words and phrases
[21:08.000 --> 21:10.720]  that assume an act of transportation.
[21:10.720 --> 21:14.320]  There's no evidence in support of that before the court.
[21:14.320 --> 21:17.400]  Anything none.
[21:17.400 --> 21:20.880]  No one and facts not agreed to.
[21:20.880 --> 21:25.280]  We didn't make any stipulation agreement with the prosecution to say, well, yeah, go ahead
[21:25.280 --> 21:26.280]  and use those terms.
[21:26.280 --> 21:27.280]  They apply.
[21:27.280 --> 21:30.840]  We didn't agree to that.
[21:30.840 --> 21:37.760]  And the witness is having to make a legal conclusion in that their use of these terms
[21:37.760 --> 21:45.560]  is in fact legally applicable to the offense and to the defendant, and that they're being
[21:45.560 --> 21:51.160]  used in the proper manner and context, and they're not.
[21:51.160 --> 21:59.000]  So if the witness is not capable and competent to make a legal conclusion, which they aren't,
[21:59.000 --> 22:00.960]  then we need to be objecting to it.
[22:00.960 --> 22:06.400]  Now they tend to gloss over the fact that in order to even charge you, the witness had
[22:06.400 --> 22:12.800]  to make a legal conclusion to begin with, but they're not competent to testify to that
[22:12.800 --> 22:15.640]  legal conclusion in court.
[22:15.640 --> 22:17.760]  So that creates a problem.
[22:17.760 --> 22:24.320]  Now one of the terms that we're going to object to the use of is the term police officer.
[22:24.320 --> 22:27.400]  Here's why.
[22:27.400 --> 22:38.920]  Chapter 541 of the transportation code in section 541.002 sub-item four, the definition
[22:38.920 --> 22:47.200]  of police officer specifically applies to someone who is authorized to enforce traffic
[22:47.200 --> 22:50.840]  regulations.
[22:50.840 --> 22:55.160]  Now that is different than a peace officer.
[22:55.160 --> 23:02.840]  A police officer under this chapter is specifically defined as someone who has been authorized
[23:02.840 --> 23:07.280]  to enforce traffic regulations.
[23:07.280 --> 23:17.480]  The only place I know of where any such authorization occurs is under Title 37, Rule 4.13 of the
[23:17.480 --> 23:20.600]  Texas Administrative Code.
[23:20.600 --> 23:28.160]  So here's where we go after the police officer for perjurious testimony.
[23:28.160 --> 23:33.360]  The very first thing the prosecution ever does when they call their witness to the stand,
[23:33.360 --> 23:40.600]  which is the police officer, is ask them to identify themselves and their occupation.
[23:40.600 --> 23:48.880]  The cop invariably states that he is a police officer with such and such department.
[23:48.880 --> 23:56.360]  If he doesn't testify that he is a police officer in the employment of such and such
[23:56.360 --> 24:02.240]  department, then he is not a police officer or the presumption should be that he is not
[24:02.240 --> 24:08.720]  a police officer who was authorized to enforce these traffic regulations.
[24:08.720 --> 24:12.840]  And we should raise an objection to that.
[24:12.840 --> 24:20.840]  Now, let's presume that the officer does respond, I'm a police officer, we should immediately
[24:20.840 --> 24:25.760]  jump up and raise exactly the same objection.
[24:25.760 --> 24:32.280]  Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion
[24:32.280 --> 24:35.840]  by the fact witness.
[24:35.840 --> 24:41.480]  Now the reason we can make this objection is because, one, the cop has not produced the
[24:41.480 --> 24:48.960]  certifications that are required by Rule 4.13 of Title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code
[24:48.960 --> 24:53.920]  to show that he is authorized to enforce traffic statutes.
[24:53.920 --> 25:01.640]  If he has failed to do that, then the presumption cannot be in his favor that he is authorized.
[25:01.640 --> 25:07.680]  And if he is not authorized, he is not a police officer under the meaning of that term as
[25:07.680 --> 25:11.000]  it's defined in statute.
[25:11.000 --> 25:16.640]  Therefore his testimony to that fact is perjurious.
[25:16.640 --> 25:22.160]  And since we must presume that he is lying under oath for the intentional purpose of
[25:22.160 --> 25:28.640]  causing us harm through the prosecution of an offense that we could not possibly have
[25:28.640 --> 25:35.760]  committed, then that makes it aggravated perjury.
[25:35.760 --> 25:42.800]  And we need to already have a criminal complaint signed and sworn in hand or that we can present
[25:42.800 --> 25:51.280]  to the magistrate and have them verify on the spot as to that effect.
[25:51.280 --> 25:56.960]  Now this necessarily means that we're going to be filing motions for discovery against
[25:56.960 --> 26:04.080]  the police officer to produce these required certifications.
[26:04.080 --> 26:12.080]  If they fail to produce them under discovery, then the presumption must be they don't exist.
[26:12.080 --> 26:17.600]  And if they don't exist, again, the statement under oath is false.
[26:17.600 --> 26:25.320]  All right, Randy, if you got any disagreement with any of that, I'd love to hear it.
[26:25.320 --> 26:27.320]  No disagreement.
[26:27.320 --> 26:30.240]  I like the argument.
[26:30.240 --> 26:37.160]  I suspect it will certainly put the prosecutor off his stride.
[26:37.160 --> 26:43.160]  But I know what the court's going to do, but we don't care because we must always remember
[26:43.160 --> 26:48.520]  that in the trial court, we are merely setting the record for appeal.
[26:48.520 --> 26:54.000]  Yes, because the trial court does not believe in due process or justice.
[26:54.000 --> 26:56.200]  That's not what it's about.
[26:56.200 --> 26:57.640]  It's a revenue engine.
[26:57.640 --> 26:58.720]  We know it.
[26:58.720 --> 26:59.840]  They know it.
[26:59.840 --> 27:03.000]  They just hope that we won't bring it up in public.
[27:03.000 --> 27:12.040]  Yes, and we are working on some very powerful tools that will help everybody bring all of
[27:12.040 --> 27:15.560]  these issues to the table.
[27:15.560 --> 27:22.680]  All right, they're not ready yet, but almost.
[27:22.680 --> 27:26.840]  If I could get Eddie to write the rest of my code for me, I'd be done tomorrow.
[27:26.840 --> 27:29.920]  It's all his fault.
[27:29.920 --> 27:34.840]  As soon as I get done writing all of the new information I've been dealing with lately
[27:34.840 --> 27:38.280]  into these motions, I'll get right on that for you.
[27:38.280 --> 27:43.720]  But I am going through and updating all of the traffic seminar documents for court to
[27:43.720 --> 27:49.160]  contain some new pertinent references and information that I've gotten through some
[27:49.160 --> 27:55.520]  study with an undisclosable source, but it's a very reliable source, but we're going to
[27:55.520 --> 28:00.920]  be using this to our advantage.
[28:00.920 --> 28:04.520]  This motion in Lemony is going to be one of the ways that we make the record to prove
[28:04.520 --> 28:06.600]  that this is not about a fair trial.
[28:06.600 --> 28:10.880]  It's never been about a fair trial, and there's no hope in getting a fair trial.
[28:10.880 --> 28:13.360]  In which case, we will then take all this paperwork.
[28:13.360 --> 28:18.360]  Not only will we use it to sue the living tar out of these people later and to win on
[28:18.360 --> 28:24.320]  appeal, but then we're going to use it, hopefully, to go in front of our representatives and
[28:24.320 --> 28:28.800]  beat them to live and death with a box full of the documents we had to file just to get
[28:28.800 --> 28:32.920]  our due process.
[28:32.920 --> 28:37.520]  Then on all their headstones, we will put, here lies an idiot who couldn't understand
[28:37.520 --> 28:44.920]  the rights of the people are more important than the generation of revenue.
[28:44.920 --> 28:51.480]  We do have a caller on the board, other folks out there, 512-646-1984 is the call-in number.
[28:51.480 --> 28:54.600]  Randy, you have anything before we start taking calls?
[28:54.600 --> 28:58.560]  No, I think Dan has some interesting information for us.
[28:58.560 --> 29:01.360]  All right, well, let's go ahead and talk to Dan.
[29:01.360 --> 29:02.360]  Dan in Connecticut.
[29:02.360 --> 29:03.360]  How are you?
[29:03.360 --> 29:04.360]  And what can we do for you?
[29:04.360 --> 29:09.560]  Well, Ben Better, basically, I'm going to give you a whole rundown of this fiasco to
[29:09.560 --> 29:11.080]  happen to this guy.
[29:11.080 --> 29:14.280]  You know, spoiler alert, he did not get a fair trial.
[29:14.280 --> 29:19.720]  Yeah, that's a real spoiler, and we just wouldn't believe that if you hadn't told us.
[29:19.720 --> 29:24.240]  Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure you're just as surprised as everybody else was.
[29:24.240 --> 29:30.800]  Anyway, Guy gets accused of sexual assault, he, you know, consensual relationship with
[29:30.800 --> 29:37.040]  girlfriend who turned out to have a, you know, boyfriend-flash-husband type deal for 25 years,
[29:37.040 --> 29:38.920]  got caught, all that.
[29:38.920 --> 29:40.440]  She goes to the police.
[29:40.440 --> 29:44.440]  Okay, hang on, Dan, we're about to go to break, we'll pick this up on the other side.
[29:44.440 --> 29:49.280]  All right, folks, this is rule of law radio, 512-646-1984.
[29:49.280 --> 29:53.240]  This is our Friday night for our marathon, so please give us a call, bring your issue
[29:53.240 --> 29:54.240]  to the table.
[29:54.240 --> 29:59.960]  We'll be right back on the other side of the break.
[29:59.960 --> 30:00.960]  I lost my son.
[30:00.960 --> 30:01.960]  My uncle.
[30:01.960 --> 30:02.960]  My uncle.
[30:02.960 --> 30:07.800]  On September 11th, 2000, most people don't know that a third tower fell on September
[30:07.800 --> 30:08.800]  11th.
[30:08.800 --> 30:12.520]  World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper, was not hit by a plane.
[30:12.520 --> 30:16.240]  Well, the official explanation is that fire brought down building 7.
[30:16.240 --> 30:21.080]  Over 1,200 architects and engineers has looked into the evidence and believed there is more
[30:21.080 --> 30:22.080]  to the story.
[30:22.080 --> 30:23.480]  Bring justice to my son.
[30:23.480 --> 30:24.480]  My uncle.
[30:24.480 --> 30:25.480]  My nephew.
[30:25.480 --> 30:26.480]  My son.
[30:26.480 --> 30:27.480]  Go to building what.org.
[30:27.480 --> 30:28.480]  Why it fell.
[30:28.480 --> 30:29.480]  Why it matters.
[30:29.480 --> 30:30.480]  As what you can do.
[30:30.480 --> 30:37.760]  Hmm, this lemon slice is as sweet as lemon meringue pie, and these raw cranberries taste
[30:37.760 --> 30:38.760]  like candy.
[30:38.760 --> 30:39.760]  Am I crazy?
[30:39.760 --> 30:41.760]  No, but I do have a secret.
[30:41.760 --> 30:45.960]  I've got your Catherine Albrecht, and I'll be right back to tell you what it is.
[30:45.960 --> 30:47.960]  Privacy is under attack.
[30:47.960 --> 30:51.560]  When you give up data about yourself, you'll never get it back again.
[30:51.560 --> 30:56.360]  And once your privacy is gone, you'll find your freedoms will start to vanish too.
[30:56.360 --> 30:57.800]  So protect your rights.
[30:57.800 --> 31:01.520]  Say no to surveillance and keep your information to yourself.
[31:01.520 --> 31:04.120]  Privacy, it's worth hanging on to.
[31:04.120 --> 31:08.440]  This public service announcement is brought to you by StartPage.com, the private search
[31:08.440 --> 31:11.920]  engine alternative to Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
[31:11.920 --> 31:15.360]  Start over with StartPage.
[31:15.360 --> 31:18.360]  Have been called a hallucinogen for the tongue.
[31:18.360 --> 31:22.840]  Miracle fruit, or sensipalum dulcithicum, is a small red fruit from West Africa.
[31:22.840 --> 31:28.080]  Eating just one tiny berry makes sour things taste sweet for up to two hours.
[31:28.080 --> 31:32.680]  The secret is a substance called miraculous, a protein that binds to the taste buds to
[31:32.680 --> 31:36.000]  make the sourest of foods taste like they've been dipped in sugar.
[31:36.000 --> 31:41.000]  Food aficionados have been throwing taste-tripping parties where they eat the fruit, then sip
[31:41.000 --> 31:46.200]  vinegar, suck lemons, and crunch pickles to experience the amazing effects.
[31:46.200 --> 31:49.160]  Miracle fruit is safe, legal, and readily available by mail.
[31:49.160 --> 31:53.000]  Now all we need is a fruit to take the calories out of cheesecake.
[31:53.000 --> 31:57.840]  I'm Dr. Catherine Albrecht, more news and information at CatherineAlbrecht.com.
[31:57.840 --> 32:13.160]  Yeah, I got a warrant, and I'm gonna solve them, to the head of government them, prosecute
[32:13.160 --> 32:14.160]  them.
[32:14.160 --> 32:15.160]  Okay.
[32:15.160 --> 32:16.160]  All set.
[32:16.160 --> 32:17.160]  Hi, folks.
[32:17.160 --> 32:18.160]  We are back.
[32:18.160 --> 32:19.160]  This is rule of law radio.
[32:19.160 --> 32:30.360]  This is our show for August 12, 2011.
[32:30.360 --> 32:32.920]  Right now we have Dan from Connecticut on the board.
[32:32.920 --> 32:37.960]  All right, Dan, let's go ahead and finish up what we're dealing with here.
[32:37.960 --> 32:44.880]  Well, it's been quite the interesting story, and you could also call it a drama.
[32:44.880 --> 32:49.720]  This guy's basically been put through hell for the last two and a half years.
[32:49.720 --> 32:54.480]  So long story short, anyway, warrant gets issued.
[32:54.480 --> 33:02.920]  Police officer signs an application on July 2, 2008, sits there for about three, four
[33:02.920 --> 33:06.000]  days after the July 4 weekend.
[33:06.000 --> 33:08.320]  Prosecutor brings it to the judge.
[33:08.320 --> 33:10.320]  Judge signs the warrant.
[33:10.320 --> 33:15.520]  Just turns out it was the same judge that presided over the trial.
[33:15.520 --> 33:21.840]  Basically from day one, he starts doing that admiralty commercial stuff, for example, saying
[33:21.840 --> 33:25.280]  I'm not gonna cross the bar, I do not grant jurisdiction.
[33:25.280 --> 33:33.600]  This leads to a competency evaluation, so he had to go see some psychiatric people,
[33:33.600 --> 33:36.040]  comes back saying.
[33:36.040 --> 33:44.960]  And basically he ends up filing a $7 trillion maritime lien on the courthouse, and unfortunately,
[33:44.960 --> 33:49.320]  throughout the whole proceeding, the media covers it, and it's basically done with a
[33:49.320 --> 33:52.440]  presumption that he is, in fact, committed the crime.
[33:52.440 --> 33:58.920]  And just to skip ahead a little bit, while he was doing the jury selection, he basically
[33:58.920 --> 34:01.920]  asked the sample jurors, well, do you think I'm guilty?
[34:01.920 --> 34:07.720]  One woman jumped up and says, yes, you did it, you're guilty.
[34:07.720 --> 34:12.760]  That juror obviously didn't get picked and was actually thrown out to the judge's credit.
[34:12.760 --> 34:16.400]  Are we saying that this guy actually tried to defend himself in this case?
[34:16.400 --> 34:17.400]  Yes, we did.
[34:17.400 --> 34:20.360]  Yes, he did.
[34:20.360 --> 34:25.120]  He did file a motion for a frank's hearing, because a lot of the statements didn't quite
[34:25.120 --> 34:28.320]  add up, and he did want to challenge the warrant.
[34:28.320 --> 34:30.360]  The judge ruled against that motion.
[34:30.360 --> 34:35.720]  Of course, he's the judge that signed the warrant, he's presiding over the trial.
[34:35.720 --> 34:41.440]  Many of the statements that were in the record, they were very inconsistent concerning Jane
[34:41.440 --> 34:44.120]  Doe and the police officers, whatnot.
[34:44.120 --> 34:45.840]  So he filed the Brady motion.
[34:45.840 --> 34:48.000]  The judge ruled against that.
[34:48.000 --> 34:53.960]  He actually filed, believe it was one of those one-sentence motions for a fair trial.
[34:53.960 --> 34:59.840]  Don't believe that was ever ruled on, by the way, so he, at first, when he went to court,
[34:59.840 --> 35:07.920]  this was in 2008, he shows up on the first day, state's not there, no prosecutor there.
[35:07.920 --> 35:11.360]  They continue it, they transfer it to a different court.
[35:11.360 --> 35:15.040]  He filed a motion to request discovery.
[35:15.040 --> 35:18.240]  I'm just going through like the smart things he did, I'm going to leave out a lot of the
[35:18.240 --> 35:20.520]  commercial admiralty stuff.
[35:20.520 --> 35:24.920]  He filed a motion for discovery in Connecticut, according to the Prax book, they have 45 days
[35:24.920 --> 35:25.920]  to provide it.
[35:25.920 --> 35:31.000]  They took him about, I'd probably say, north of 120 days.
[35:31.000 --> 35:35.880]  So he files a motion in Lemony to exclude all of the witnesses that they could possibly
[35:35.880 --> 35:37.280]  present.
[35:37.280 --> 35:41.080]  The court rules against that motion.
[35:41.080 --> 35:46.200]  He also files a motion to strike information in the arrest warrant because the information
[35:46.200 --> 35:52.520]  in the arrest warrant says, get this, he believes the government caused Hurricane Katrina and
[35:52.520 --> 35:55.240]  9-11 was an inside job.
[35:55.240 --> 36:02.480]  So, obviously, he wanted that prejudicial information out and they denied that.
[36:02.480 --> 36:06.720]  He filed a motion to disqualify the police investigator because she...
[36:06.720 --> 36:08.200]  Wait a second, Dan.
[36:08.200 --> 36:09.800]  You said that's in the warrant?
[36:09.800 --> 36:12.560]  Yes, it is.
[36:12.560 --> 36:17.360]  The police investigator wrote that down.
[36:17.360 --> 36:18.360]  I'm not kidding.
[36:18.360 --> 36:19.800]  Okay, I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.
[36:19.800 --> 36:20.800]  Go ahead.
[36:20.800 --> 36:28.360]  Okay, it's just...I mean, there was about...I'd say this...I saw the redacted copy obviously
[36:28.360 --> 36:35.160]  because of the nature of the charge, but basically there was about half of a page involving this.
[36:35.160 --> 36:37.560]  They made him take a lie detector test.
[36:37.560 --> 36:39.320]  He said, you know, I got nothing to hide.
[36:39.320 --> 36:45.160]  He passed the lie detector test and then when that came up, he said, you know, I want to
[36:45.160 --> 36:47.280]  enter this into evidence.
[36:47.280 --> 36:50.600]  The judge ruled against that.
[36:50.600 --> 36:51.600]  They also...
[36:51.600 --> 36:55.120]  Well, are lie detector tests admissible in Connecticut?
[36:55.120 --> 36:57.960]  Well, according to the judge, no.
[36:57.960 --> 37:01.320]  Well, no, wait a minute.
[37:01.320 --> 37:09.560]  If he ordered the person to take the lie detector test, then since he gave that as an order,
[37:09.560 --> 37:13.760]  it should have at least been raised.
[37:13.760 --> 37:21.080]  The issue should have been brought before the jury that he questioned a witness before
[37:21.080 --> 37:25.520]  the jury to asking about the lie detector test?
[37:25.520 --> 37:31.320]  No, that was actually in the warrant that he took the lie detector test.
[37:31.320 --> 37:36.200]  So this was already in the record and he basically said, I want to put this evidence in the record
[37:36.200 --> 37:39.160]  and the judge denied it.
[37:39.160 --> 37:44.280]  But basically that was the kind of exculpatory evidence of character, if you would.
[37:44.280 --> 37:47.680]  The police pretty much said, you know, would you be willing to take this?
[37:47.680 --> 37:53.280]  He said, sure, and he passed.
[37:53.280 --> 38:00.320]  But on top of that, there was, you know, I mean, the whole thing was basically really
[38:00.320 --> 38:04.200]  focused on his political beliefs and just...
[38:04.200 --> 38:09.440]  I can't imagine why a police investigator would even write that political stuff in the
[38:09.440 --> 38:12.880]  application for the warrant.
[38:12.880 --> 38:16.960]  That is...
[38:16.960 --> 38:21.720]  I can't imagine how it could be considered relevant.
[38:21.720 --> 38:28.120]  But in the warrant, I don't know if that would be harmful or not because the jury would never
[38:28.120 --> 38:39.560]  see the warrant, not likely to see the application for the warrant because it's, I don't know.
[38:39.560 --> 38:40.560]  That's a good question.
[38:40.560 --> 38:45.480]  Well, basically, I'm going to jump forward a little bit to the trial.
[38:45.480 --> 38:50.920]  He did try to get the prosecutor who applied for the warrant on and the judge pretty much
[38:50.920 --> 38:56.080]  prevented her from testifying, you know, and he did raise that ranks issue again.
[38:56.080 --> 38:58.960]  And he said, look, I have a right to challenge this warrant.
[38:58.960 --> 39:04.160]  And basically, the first day went pretty well, believe it or not.
[39:04.160 --> 39:08.520]  Obviously, it was apparent that, you know, Jane Doe was committing at least eight counts
[39:08.520 --> 39:10.080]  of perjury that day.
[39:10.080 --> 39:12.120]  You know, I did get down there.
[39:12.120 --> 39:17.880]  I did listen to some of the testimony when it was being played back on the final day.
[39:17.880 --> 39:23.520]  But basically, what ended up happening on day two is, you know, he got to present his
[39:23.520 --> 39:28.960]  case, his defense as it were, and I said, look, you know, they're going to try to bring
[39:28.960 --> 39:29.960]  this up.
[39:29.960 --> 39:34.560]  And everybody thought, you know, no, they're not going to bring up the Republic stuff and
[39:34.560 --> 39:35.560]  all this and that.
[39:35.560 --> 39:36.560]  The other thing.
[39:36.560 --> 39:41.960]  So basically, one of his character witnesses goes up, you know, woman basically, you know,
[39:41.960 --> 39:46.720]  testifying, yeah, I've been alone with John, he's never done this, you know, and basically
[39:46.720 --> 39:49.880]  describing, you know, the good guy that he is.
[39:49.880 --> 39:52.640]  And the prosecutor asked one question, well, where did you meet him?
[39:52.640 --> 39:57.240]  Well, I met him at a tea party, you know, of course, this starts getting better.
[39:57.240 --> 40:00.960]  So the next question was, well, were you alone with him at any other point?
[40:00.960 --> 40:07.920]  Well, yeah, we went out to Utah, you know, with Tim Turner to reform the Republic.
[40:07.920 --> 40:10.680]  So this door has been opened.
[40:10.680 --> 40:15.640]  This line of questioning eventually goes to, oh, well, what do you believe?
[40:15.640 --> 40:20.720]  You know, so they start talking about how, allegedly, the United States stopped existing
[40:20.720 --> 40:24.880]  around 1860.
[40:24.880 --> 40:29.880]  And again, this exchange lasted for about 10 minutes.
[40:29.880 --> 40:32.800]  Judge didn't stop it, he didn't stop it.
[40:32.800 --> 40:39.560]  But essentially, he ended up asking a question that kind of went to the effect of, well,
[40:39.560 --> 40:43.000]  is the state accusing me of sexually assaulting the state?
[40:43.000 --> 40:46.640]  And the witness said, no, there's no injured party.
[40:46.640 --> 40:50.840]  But you can kind of see how this did not work in his favor.
[40:50.840 --> 40:55.240]  So the jury, you know, toward the end, I mean, he almost had them.
[40:55.240 --> 40:59.040]  I mean, they seemed like they were really intent on listening.
[40:59.040 --> 41:04.920]  But the jury did come back, and they did ask to rehear the first day's testimony.
[41:04.920 --> 41:11.760]  And then about after an hour after they heard it, they all voted guilty.
[41:11.760 --> 41:23.960]  Well, so much for using Tim Turner's, didn't he have a rather hefty lien?
[41:23.960 --> 41:27.640]  He had $7 trillion.
[41:27.640 --> 41:31.560]  You know, my first question to him was, John, well, if you went to a victim, where would
[41:31.560 --> 41:35.200]  you file the eviction papers?
[41:35.200 --> 41:43.320]  I mean, sometimes people have to use good judgments.
[41:43.320 --> 41:53.160]  And whether he was guilty or not, he had the burden of proving to the jury that he was
[41:53.160 --> 41:54.160]  not guilty.
[41:54.160 --> 42:01.760]  And if the jury thinks you're crazy as a bedbug, it doesn't matter if all of your conclusions
[42:01.760 --> 42:05.400]  are based on sound reasoning.
[42:05.400 --> 42:11.160]  If you cannot convey that sound reasoning to the jury, they don't think you're crazy
[42:11.160 --> 42:12.160]  as a bedbug.
[42:12.160 --> 42:16.920]  Yeah, and the prosecutor actually did use that in his closing argument.
[42:16.920 --> 42:22.800]  He basically gave a statement to the effective, well, he doesn't even believe in our laws.
[42:22.800 --> 42:26.240]  And now he's throwing himself at the mercy of our laws.
[42:26.240 --> 42:29.120]  This guy's a monster.
[42:29.120 --> 42:34.320]  He's crazy.
[42:34.320 --> 42:39.400]  So anybody else who wants to go in with the commercial process, you might look at what's
[42:39.400 --> 42:43.160]  going on here, whether it's valid or not.
[42:43.160 --> 42:53.680]  And I don't know because I've looked at it and I have gotten a lot of very finely structured
[42:53.680 --> 43:04.000]  opinion, but all of the proactive statements of law came out of the mouth of the speaker.
[43:04.000 --> 43:10.160]  I got no proactive statements of law out of the mouth of the court.
[43:10.160 --> 43:12.800]  And that is the problem.
[43:12.800 --> 43:16.160]  We can't go into court with what we believe.
[43:16.160 --> 43:18.320]  We must go into court with law.
[43:18.320 --> 43:21.040]  You've got anything else for us?
[43:21.040 --> 43:28.160]  Well, I mean, to his credit, he did at least somewhat get that out of the system, so he
[43:28.160 --> 43:36.000]  could at least prepare some appealable issues, so he could at least make his record.
[43:36.000 --> 43:40.280]  There are only about 14 of them, so hopefully.
[43:40.280 --> 43:43.680]  Well, maybe he'll get this overturned on appeal.
[43:43.680 --> 43:45.280]  Okay, thank you, Dan.
[43:45.280 --> 43:48.040]  We're going to go to Guy in Arkansas when we come back.
[43:48.040 --> 43:55.040]  This is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig, we'll be right back on the other side.
[43:55.040 --> 44:01.360]  Hey, did you hear?
[44:01.360 --> 44:03.760]  Ron Paul has announced he's running for president in 2012.
[44:03.760 --> 44:04.760]  Who's Ron Paul?
[44:04.760 --> 44:05.760]  Really?
[44:05.760 --> 44:07.320]  Okay, put down the cell phone for one minute.
[44:07.320 --> 44:10.320]  Your friends really don't care about your Twitter updates on what you had for breakfast.
[44:10.320 --> 44:13.720]  Oh, but I love to make those little smiley faces as punctuation marks.
[44:13.720 --> 44:14.720]  Of course you do.
[44:14.720 --> 44:18.040]  Now, listen closely, you need to go down to Brave New Books and learn as much as you can
[44:18.040 --> 44:20.640]  about Ron Paul and his message before it's too late.
[44:20.640 --> 44:23.360]  They have all of his books and many of the books he talks about.
[44:23.360 --> 44:27.000]  They also have t-shirts, bumper stickers, and yard signs so that you can show your support
[44:27.000 --> 44:28.000]  for him during the campaign.
[44:28.000 --> 44:29.000]  Brave New Books?
[44:29.000 --> 44:31.000]  Did they have Harry Potter and Twilight?
[44:31.000 --> 44:35.240]  No, but they do carry a large selection of survival and preparedness books to protect
[44:35.240 --> 44:36.760]  your family in time of emergency.
[44:36.760 --> 44:39.440]  Oh, that sounds like that show in the Discovery Channel.
[44:39.440 --> 44:43.400]  Yeah, there's even a wilderness survival expert that teaches classes called Earth Skills
[44:43.400 --> 44:47.280]  School that you can sign up for on the website BraveNewBookStore.com.
[44:47.280 --> 44:48.280]  What are you doing?
[44:48.280 --> 44:51.920]  I'm tweeting all my friends that they should go to BraveNewBookStore.com or down to the
[44:51.920 --> 44:52.920]  bookstore in person.
[44:52.920 --> 44:53.920]  Where's it located?
[44:53.920 --> 44:54.920]  1904 Guadalupe Street.
[44:54.920 --> 44:55.920]  There, it's sent.
[44:55.920 --> 44:57.920]  I even made a smiley face.
[44:57.920 --> 44:58.920]  Great.
[44:58.920 --> 45:04.160]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit?
[45:04.160 --> 45:10.120]  Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four-CD
[45:10.120 --> 45:13.640]  course that will show you how in 24 hours, step-by-step.
[45:13.640 --> 45:18.640]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing.
[45:18.640 --> 45:22.840]  If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself.
[45:22.840 --> 45:28.040]  Thousands have won with our step-by-step course, and now you can too.
[45:28.040 --> 45:34.520]  Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case-winning experience.
[45:34.520 --> 45:38.960]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about
[45:38.960 --> 45:43.360]  the principles and practices that control our American courts.
[45:43.360 --> 45:49.400]  You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases,
[45:49.400 --> 45:52.080]  pro se tactics, and much more.
[45:52.080 --> 46:17.080]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-E-Z.
[46:17.080 --> 46:46.600]  Well, good evening all you beautiful people.
[46:46.600 --> 46:47.600]  Okay.
[46:47.600 --> 46:54.680]  Well, some good news here about that moped incident that I was involved in helping this
[46:54.680 --> 46:55.680]  guy.
[46:55.680 --> 47:02.520]  I served an answer, I developed the paperwork for him, and I served an answer, well, he
[47:02.520 --> 47:10.120]  served the answer to the court clerk, and the answer contained the proof of claim.
[47:10.120 --> 47:16.280]  I had four proofs of claim in there, or I generated the paperwork for him to present
[47:16.280 --> 47:25.080]  to the clerk and to the court, proof of claim that the city municipal and the police department
[47:25.080 --> 47:33.680]  here had justification to, number one, arrest this guy under the statutes that state, and
[47:33.680 --> 47:38.640]  I put the statute, listed the statutes in there, that state that he did not need a
[47:38.640 --> 47:47.240]  license to drive a moped for 49 C.C. and under, and also I had proof of claim that they can
[47:47.240 --> 47:51.360]  take an administrative court and turn it into a criminal court without due process.
[47:51.360 --> 47:55.800]  And there was a couple of others that I just can't think of off the top of my head here.
[47:55.800 --> 48:00.480]  It's been a couple of weeks now, but anyway, a couple of days later, he gets a call from
[48:00.480 --> 48:06.360]  the public defender and says, oh, well, you know, we're going to have these, we're going
[48:06.360 --> 48:11.320]  to have these thrown out real quick here, you know, so there was a positive reaction
[48:11.320 --> 48:12.320]  there.
[48:12.320 --> 48:16.880]  I know that the guy, the guy skipped town here for a while seeing his family, so I don't
[48:16.880 --> 48:22.080]  know what the developments after that had happened, except that he told me that he didn't
[48:22.080 --> 48:25.320]  get a call from the public defender and that they're going to get these charges dropped
[48:25.320 --> 48:26.320]  and everything.
[48:26.320 --> 48:31.720]  So as it stands right now, based on that, good news, perhaps some people out there can
[48:31.720 --> 48:32.720]  use that.
[48:32.720 --> 48:36.720]  Of course, you know, you have to have an answer in before you can put motions in, so that's
[48:36.720 --> 48:40.400]  one of the reasons why I put the answer in first, and looks like we've got some positive
[48:40.400 --> 48:41.640]  results on that.
[48:41.640 --> 48:47.200]  Now, the other issue I have tonight for all those people who are dealing with unemployment,
[48:47.200 --> 48:51.360]  as you know, in the past, I'm still dealing with the unemployment situations here, and
[48:51.360 --> 48:55.080]  I'm getting really learned it really quick here.
[48:55.080 --> 49:02.320]  First off, anybody who's going through an unemployment benefits case for wrongful dismissal
[49:02.320 --> 49:09.280]  or they're fired and they're fighting for unemployment claim and they're being denied
[49:09.280 --> 49:13.880]  and they go through the hearing process, the phone hearing process.
[49:13.880 --> 49:18.880]  One thing is, is they got to do their research and make sure that they provide the evidence
[49:18.880 --> 49:27.360]  in that phone hearing that sets the record, and all the evidence that they can provide
[49:27.360 --> 49:34.000]  in their favor to set the record, that is the main, that's the main stone that everything
[49:34.000 --> 49:35.000]  rests upon.
[49:35.000 --> 49:37.000]  That's the foundation.
[49:37.000 --> 49:46.520]  However, I did an FOA on my Arkansas tribunal that oversees the hearing, because I could
[49:46.520 --> 49:54.640]  not find the hearing officer's handbook on there, so I called, I wrote an FOA, I got
[49:54.640 --> 49:58.640]  a call from the chief hearing officer and he says, well guys, I'm not sure what you're
[49:58.640 --> 50:03.000]  asking for, so let me backtrack a little bit.
[50:03.000 --> 50:12.040]  I did try to get it through phone conversations with the lower bureaucrats, so I put in a formal
[50:12.040 --> 50:16.800]  complaint to the Department of Labor, and a couple days later, I get a call back from
[50:16.800 --> 50:20.720]  the chief hearing officer, and this guy was just, he was like my best buddy, man.
[50:20.720 --> 50:26.720]  He was really congenial and outgoing for me and everything, and I told him what I wanted,
[50:26.720 --> 50:29.160]  and he provided me with everything.
[50:29.160 --> 50:35.400]  I mean, boom, got it in the mail the next day, very impressed, called him back, told
[50:35.400 --> 50:40.920]  him I appreciated his diligence in this, and his professionalism, gave him a compliment
[50:40.920 --> 50:41.920]  and everything.
[50:41.920 --> 50:50.040]  Well anyway, when I'm going through the handbook here, they got these blocks, okay, they're
[50:50.040 --> 50:53.120]  just blocks of information that comes from the DOD.
[50:53.120 --> 51:01.480]  They're kind of like tactoids through the DOD references that filter down into the state.
[51:01.480 --> 51:07.360]  These are like ironclad regulations that the states have to abide by.
[51:07.360 --> 51:13.000]  Well in there, and this is very important information for people who are fighting appeals,
[51:13.000 --> 51:19.200]  and they're going to take their appeals into the court of appeals of their state.
[51:19.200 --> 51:31.560]  Now the court of appeals can only, can only rule on misconduct or out of process within
[51:31.560 --> 51:32.560]  the agency.
[51:32.560 --> 51:39.520]  In other words, when an agency does not do their job prescribed through their handbook,
[51:39.520 --> 51:46.280]  then that's the only time that you can raise these issues into the court of appeals of
[51:46.280 --> 51:53.760]  the state to have that case re-heard, because I don't believe that the court of appeals
[51:53.760 --> 52:00.280]  can reverse, they can reverse certain things under certain conditions, but basically they
[52:00.280 --> 52:06.720]  remand it back to get it re-heard because of say lack of evidence, and the way the hearing
[52:06.720 --> 52:12.480]  officer has conducted their evaluation in order to determine whether you're going to
[52:12.480 --> 52:16.440]  get your unemployment benefit or you're not.
[52:16.440 --> 52:19.640]  Okay, hang on just a second guy, I'm going to interject something here.
[52:19.640 --> 52:24.200]  What you stated about the court of appeals is not exactly true and correct.
[52:24.200 --> 52:32.920]  The court of appeals can rule on a case based on multiple issues, one of which is error
[52:32.920 --> 52:39.480]  in the record that shows that a due process violation in accordance with the laws themselves
[52:39.480 --> 52:40.480]  did occur.
[52:40.480 --> 52:41.480]  Okay?
[52:41.480 --> 52:42.480]  Exactly.
[52:42.480 --> 52:50.960]  The other is when the decision of that court contradicts standing rulings by the higher
[52:50.960 --> 52:58.760]  courts of that state or the Supreme Court of the United States, that seemed kind of
[52:58.760 --> 53:05.160]  where he was going is the certain things that the court could rule on would almost certainly
[53:05.160 --> 53:06.480]  go to due process.
[53:06.480 --> 53:07.480]  Exactly.
[53:07.480 --> 53:15.000]  Even if they're following the rules, if the rules of the way they're applied created
[53:15.000 --> 53:20.800]  a substantive violation of due process, the court could certainly overrule that.
[53:20.800 --> 53:26.640]  You said it more eloquent, Willie, than I did, but that's pretty much exactly what I was
[53:26.640 --> 53:27.640]  trying to say.
[53:27.640 --> 53:32.520]  Okay, I just wanted to clarify that because the way you said it kind of left me going,
[53:32.520 --> 53:36.520]  well, no, that's not exactly right, so I just wanted to clarify that for everybody,
[53:36.520 --> 53:39.520]  Randy, thank you for getting that the way we need it.
[53:39.520 --> 53:40.520]  Absolutely.
[53:40.520 --> 53:44.240]  That's exactly my point, and really that's all I needed to bring to the table tonight
[53:44.240 --> 53:50.400]  was just let people know who are fighting unemployment claims that they really need
[53:50.400 --> 53:51.400]  to get this handbook.
[53:51.400 --> 54:00.040]  And this is where I'm going now, is I just sent out an FOIA for the hearing officer's
[54:00.040 --> 54:04.680]  written evaluation based on these checklists.
[54:04.680 --> 54:08.800]  They got these checklists that they had to check off on, and quite honestly, this is
[54:08.800 --> 54:09.800]  really interesting.
[54:09.800 --> 54:15.640]  I talked to the chief hearing officer yesterday about this, is that with all the information
[54:15.640 --> 54:24.160]  that he had sent me, there is no check list off, a check off list for my dismissal from
[54:24.160 --> 54:26.880]  or my discharge from my employer.
[54:26.880 --> 54:30.480]  So I'm sitting there saying, I just sent the FOIA to say, well, gee, what criteria
[54:30.480 --> 54:35.960]  did they make the determination of if there was not a check off list for the exact situation
[54:35.960 --> 54:37.840]  that I was under?
[54:37.840 --> 54:41.640]  So I'm waiting, I just sent that out, so I won't get that back until probably next
[54:41.640 --> 54:43.640]  week should be interesting what happens with that.
[54:43.640 --> 54:45.680]  But this is where people need to go.
[54:45.680 --> 54:46.680]  They need to get the handbook.
[54:46.680 --> 54:55.720]  Wait, is there any requirement that the checklist be made a part of the record?
[54:55.720 --> 55:00.960]  Not that I have read, however, there is a little passage in there that says that more
[55:00.960 --> 55:08.760]  seasoned in rough language here, the more seasoned hearing officers can more or less
[55:08.760 --> 55:20.080]  deviate from the checklist and create their own basis for the examination, which is probably
[55:20.080 --> 55:26.400]  what happened here with me because there's no checklist off saying that I was fired for
[55:26.400 --> 55:29.400]  misconduct.
[55:29.400 --> 55:36.880]  There is no checklist here in this handbook that specifically handles misconduct.
[55:36.880 --> 55:45.560]  So in my FOIA, I'm asking for whatever hearing officer had created to determine the facts
[55:45.560 --> 55:49.960]  in my case, I want copies of that.
[55:49.960 --> 55:58.080]  And now this is what I will use to prove fair misconduct to the court of appeals so that
[55:58.080 --> 56:05.840]  we can either get the case re-heard with the evidence that was maybe not considered versus
[56:05.840 --> 56:07.840]  maybe a total reversal.
[56:07.840 --> 56:12.840]  Well, that would be great if you can.
[56:12.840 --> 56:18.040]  And this is where we always get them, that devil is always in the details.
[56:18.040 --> 56:19.040]  Absolutely.
[56:19.040 --> 56:28.000]  These guys get in these positions, they're used to dealing with employees who are mechanics
[56:28.000 --> 56:35.520]  and cooks and various other things and do not have legal sophistication in these issues.
[56:35.520 --> 56:39.280]  So they can do whatever they want to, and they get used to doing whatever they want
[56:39.280 --> 56:40.280]  to.
[56:40.280 --> 56:46.800]  And they deviate farther and farther from what the rules require, and then somebody like
[56:46.800 --> 56:50.120]  you comes along and steps on them.
[56:50.120 --> 56:56.480]  Well, and you know, we're all here to help benefit each other through our efforts.
[56:56.480 --> 57:01.880]  And that's my point tonight was just to let those people know that there is a fight out
[57:01.880 --> 57:07.080]  there, and like you said, the devil is in the details, and you pin them on the details,
[57:07.080 --> 57:13.960]  you pin them on the malpractice of lack of due process or however you want to term it,
[57:13.960 --> 57:21.240]  and you put your brief in the right about that, and you should hopefully prevail.
[57:21.240 --> 57:24.280]  And I thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen, you have a good night, and I hope
[57:24.280 --> 57:26.280]  that was all useful to you.
[57:26.280 --> 57:31.640]  Thank you, Guy, and I appreciate your input, and I appreciate your work in the area.
[57:31.640 --> 57:35.920]  We get more people doing this, we'll get this system straightened out.
[57:35.920 --> 57:43.040]  Now our next caller is absolutely one of those people who are up on the details.
[57:43.040 --> 57:45.280]  Wendy, how are you?
[57:45.280 --> 57:47.960]  I'm doing well.
[57:47.960 --> 57:53.040]  And the reason why I called in tonight is because after we're doing some research, okay, and
[57:53.040 --> 58:04.360]  during my friend Buddy's fight and air fight, these attorneys are not answering their complaints.
[58:04.360 --> 58:12.520]  Okay, what they're doing is they're filing a motion to dismiss right off the bat, okay.
[58:12.520 --> 58:15.960]  That's in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11.
[58:15.960 --> 58:22.040]  Okay, hold on, we're about to go to break, and Chris and I have done a lot of work on
[58:22.040 --> 58:29.400]  the Rule 12 motion to dismiss, it's just a knee-jerk motion every attorney files it,
[58:29.400 --> 58:36.400]  and when we come back from the break, we'll talk about motion for sanctions and motion
[58:36.400 --> 58:39.520]  to dismiss and bar grievance for filing these.
[58:39.520 --> 58:48.400]  We'll get to that too, if you know the Rule 12 stops the need to answer, we'll address
[58:48.400 --> 58:49.400]  that on the other side.
[58:49.400 --> 58:50.400]  Okay.
[58:50.400 --> 58:57.200]  This is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stephens, Eddie Craig, Real Bar Radio, call in number 512-646-1984.
[58:57.200 --> 59:00.120]  We'll be right back.
[59:00.120 --> 59:04.240]  Would you like to make more definite progress in your walk with God?
[59:04.240 --> 59:09.480]  Rules for America is offering a free study Bible and a set of free Christian books that
[59:09.480 --> 59:10.800]  can really help.
[59:10.800 --> 59:15.120]  The New Testament recovery version is one of the most comprehensive study Bibles available
[59:15.120 --> 59:16.120]  today.
[59:16.120 --> 59:20.160]  It's an accurate translation, and it contains thousands of footnotes that will help you
[59:20.160 --> 59:23.280]  to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[59:23.280 --> 59:28.520]  The free books are a three-volume set called Basic Elements of the Christian Life.
[59:28.520 --> 59:32.800]  Chapter by chapter, Basic Elements of the Christian Life clearly presents God's plan
[59:32.800 --> 59:37.720]  of salvation, growing in Christ and how to build up the church.
[59:37.720 --> 59:42.760]  To order your free New Testament recovery version and Basic Elements of the Christian
[59:42.760 --> 59:55.520]  Life, call Bibles for America toll-free at 888-551-0102, that's 888-551-0102, or visit
[59:55.520 --> 59:58.520]  us online at bfa.org.
[59:58.520 --> 01:00:10.360]  11 people were killed in Syria Friday by security forces in raids near the Lebanon border and
[01:00:10.360 --> 01:00:13.200]  in the country's Sunni tribal heartland.
[01:00:13.200 --> 01:00:18.760]  Security forces also fired at protesters in Deir ez-Zor, Idlib, and Daraa after prayers
[01:00:18.760 --> 01:00:19.760]  Friday.
[01:00:19.760 --> 01:00:26.560]  There were also demonstrations in the central city of Homs and the western city of Latakia.
[01:00:26.560 --> 01:00:31.320]  Rich organic farmer, Pierre Kung, paid the equivalent of $4,300 this week for billboard
[01:00:31.320 --> 01:00:33.520]  ads that denounced the evils of advertising.
[01:00:33.520 --> 01:00:38.160]  25 of the giant ads went up this week across the town of Ajin.
[01:00:38.160 --> 01:00:43.240]  The ads showed a human brain stuffed with advertising images, with the slogan, Advertising
[01:00:43.240 --> 01:00:47.520]  is Manipulating You, React.
[01:00:47.520 --> 01:00:53.240]  Chilean President, Sebastian Panera criticized student protesters who staged mass demonstrations
[01:00:53.240 --> 01:00:56.800]  this week, calling for free education for all.
[01:00:56.800 --> 01:01:02.560]  Panera said, quote, we all want education, health care, and many more things for free,
[01:01:02.560 --> 01:01:05.640]  but nothing is free in this life.
[01:01:05.640 --> 01:01:06.800]  Someone has to pay.
[01:01:06.800 --> 01:01:12.040]  The protest movement, which has attracted widespread public support, has knocked Panera's
[01:01:12.040 --> 01:01:16.560]  popularity to 26 percent.
[01:01:16.560 --> 01:01:21.280]  The British government is planning draconian powers to shut down or disrupt mobile phone
[01:01:21.280 --> 01:01:25.360]  services and social networks in times of civil disorder.
[01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:29.560]  Downing Street sources said they were considering the moral and technical questions of how to
[01:01:29.560 --> 01:01:35.320]  block mobile communications in order to prevent rioters organizing through websites such as
[01:01:35.320 --> 01:01:36.320]  Twitter.
[01:01:36.320 --> 01:01:40.720]  UK Prime Minister David Cameron said nothing should be off the table in efforts to prevent
[01:01:40.720 --> 01:01:43.360]  a repeat of this week's countrywide rioting.
[01:01:43.360 --> 01:01:48.560]  The new powers prompted politicians, social media companies, and civil liberties campaigners
[01:01:48.560 --> 01:01:53.720]  to warn against a knee-jerk response which could infringe the freedom of expression and
[01:01:53.720 --> 01:01:55.960]  business of law-abiding web users.
[01:01:55.960 --> 01:02:01.360]  Cameron outlined possible new security measures, which included extending curfews, calling
[01:02:01.360 --> 01:02:06.320]  in the army, giving police the power to force people to remove masks, banning teenagers
[01:02:06.320 --> 01:02:12.360]  and adults from associating with each other or visiting designated areas.
[01:02:12.360 --> 01:02:17.520]  The US Financial Times reported Friday the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating
[01:02:17.520 --> 01:02:21.000]  standard and pours for insider trading.
[01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:27.520]  The SEC has asked the ratings agency to disclose which employees knew of its decision to downgrade
[01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:30.560]  US debt before it was announced last week.
[01:02:30.560 --> 01:02:35.200]  The US Senate Banking Committee has begun looking into the S&P downgrade.
[01:02:35.200 --> 01:02:42.080]  S&P has come under fire in the past for giving AAA ratings to subprime loan bundlers, which
[01:02:42.080 --> 01:02:44.840]  sparked the financial crash in 2008.
[01:02:44.840 --> 01:02:50.800]  In its report, S&P cited political ineptitude in the Republican Party as a key reason for
[01:02:50.800 --> 01:02:51.920]  the downgrade.
[01:02:51.920 --> 01:02:57.000]  The report also pointed out the deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling failed to raise
[01:02:57.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  revenue.
[01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:16.440]  For details on these stories, visit INS.org before.net.
[01:03:16.440 --> 01:03:27.440]  You are listening to the Rule of Law Radio Network at ruleoflawradio.com.
[01:03:27.440 --> 01:03:53.840]  We are talking to Wendy in Tennessee, and let's see...Wendy?
[01:03:53.840 --> 01:03:54.840]  Yes!
[01:03:54.840 --> 01:03:58.160]  Okay, where were we?
[01:03:58.160 --> 01:04:00.800]  We was talking about Rule 7.
[01:04:00.800 --> 01:04:07.720]  Rule 7A actually is on the federal rules of civil procedure, which is pleadings allowed
[01:04:07.720 --> 01:04:10.200]  in forms that are not motions.
[01:04:10.200 --> 01:04:11.200]  Pleadings are not motions.
[01:04:11.200 --> 01:04:18.200]  A motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is not a pleading, as defined by Rule 7A.
[01:04:18.200 --> 01:04:28.880]  Right, it's not an answer, but when a Rule 12 motion is filed, it delays the requirement
[01:04:28.880 --> 01:04:34.840]  of the defendant to file an answer.
[01:04:34.840 --> 01:04:41.000]  Once the Rule 12 is denied, because the Rule 12 would render an answer unnecessary.
[01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:48.920]  If the Rule 12 is granted, then the motion, then the suit is dismissed and there's no
[01:04:48.920 --> 01:04:49.920]  need to answer.
[01:04:49.920 --> 01:04:52.080]  Yeah, I understand that.
[01:04:52.080 --> 01:04:57.160]  But why did the attorney doesn't make a Rule 12 motion?
[01:04:57.160 --> 01:05:01.800]  They just made a motion to dismiss, okay, even on airs.
[01:05:01.800 --> 01:05:06.840]  All she wrote, she didn't give no legal foundation while she filed a motion to dismiss.
[01:05:06.840 --> 01:05:12.840]  But she didn't state that you failed to state a claim of which recovery can be had?
[01:05:12.840 --> 01:05:13.840]  No.
[01:05:13.840 --> 01:05:15.840]  That it's not a Rule 12 motion?
[01:05:15.840 --> 01:05:16.840]  Exactly.
[01:05:16.840 --> 01:05:28.920]  Then you should move to treat the filing as an answer, and then move for summary judgment.
[01:05:28.920 --> 01:05:34.040]  Would you do a default judgment, which would be Rule 55?
[01:05:34.040 --> 01:05:35.040]  Yes.
[01:05:35.040 --> 01:05:38.000]  If you move for no answer, do well.
[01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:49.920]  If you ask them to treat the Rule 12, the Rule 12 will be considered a responsive pleading.
[01:05:49.920 --> 01:05:56.480]  If they rule that it's not a Rule 12, then they'll rule that it's an answer.
[01:05:56.480 --> 01:06:04.760]  That would be okay if they fail to specifically deny all of your accusations in the accusation
[01:06:04.760 --> 01:06:12.840]  that they failed to deny, you move the court to a rule as admitted, and rule for summary
[01:06:12.840 --> 01:06:17.600]  judgment based on the lack of denial.
[01:06:17.600 --> 01:06:21.160]  What was the nature of the Rule 12?
[01:06:21.160 --> 01:06:23.400]  Excuse me?
[01:06:23.400 --> 01:06:25.520]  What was the nature of the Rule 12 motion?
[01:06:25.520 --> 01:06:28.840]  What did she claim as grounds for dismissal?
[01:06:28.840 --> 01:06:36.640]  Okay, its stage was that lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations in the claim
[01:06:36.640 --> 01:06:43.640]  and the statute of limitation bars the claim, but it doesn't.
[01:06:43.640 --> 01:06:51.840]  Under Title 28-3-110, action on public officers and fiduciary bonds action not otherwise covered,
[01:06:51.840 --> 01:06:58.560]  the action shall be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has occurred.
[01:06:58.560 --> 01:07:00.680]  So you're within the statute of limitations?
[01:07:00.680 --> 01:07:01.680]  Absolutely.
[01:07:01.680 --> 01:07:04.600]  What's the other one?
[01:07:04.600 --> 01:07:09.160]  Subject matter jurisdiction, were they going to subject matter jurisdiction because of
[01:07:09.160 --> 01:07:12.160]  statute of limitations?
[01:07:12.160 --> 01:07:16.520]  I reckon, I mean she didn't give no legal foundation, that's just what she said.
[01:07:16.520 --> 01:07:21.320]  I mean she didn't give me a quote, no law, no case law, no nothing.
[01:07:21.320 --> 01:07:27.080]  So the only ground she gave then was statute of limitations?
[01:07:27.080 --> 01:07:28.080]  Pretty much.
[01:07:28.080 --> 01:07:36.160]  Okay, you have to assume that counsel on the other side is learning counsel.
[01:07:36.160 --> 01:07:44.040]  I don't have barbed grievance quite working yet, but if you go to barbed grievance.net
[01:07:44.040 --> 01:07:50.680]  and kind of click through that input page, I've got a registration page, you can put
[01:07:50.680 --> 01:07:56.920]  anything in it and log in page and once you get past that, you'll see a grievance form,
[01:07:56.920 --> 01:08:03.280]  go down to the bottom of the grievance form and there's a link just before the signature
[01:08:03.280 --> 01:08:05.720]  section, just click here, click that.
[01:08:05.720 --> 01:08:15.200]  That will take you to the American Bar Association model standards in question or format.
[01:08:15.200 --> 01:08:19.880]  And in that format, you can walk through the code very quickly.
[01:08:19.880 --> 01:08:25.880]  Did the attorney do this, no, this, no, this, no, until you see the one that he did and
[01:08:25.880 --> 01:08:31.800]  then it'll show you the actual code so you'll tell you exactly how to write the bar grievance
[01:08:31.800 --> 01:08:35.480]  against him in terms of the standards.
[01:08:35.480 --> 01:08:41.320]  This should get a motion for sanctions and it should get a bar grievance.
[01:08:41.320 --> 01:08:46.080]  They're forbidden to write frivolous pleadings.
[01:08:46.080 --> 01:08:53.000]  So the attorney wrote a frivolous, stupid pleading for the purpose of billing their client.
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:58.480]  She's the attorney general.
[01:08:58.480 --> 01:09:00.640]  She was, oh, she's the attorney general?
[01:09:00.640 --> 01:09:01.640]  Yes.
[01:09:01.640 --> 01:09:05.640]  Then you should move criminally against her for official oppression.
[01:09:05.640 --> 01:09:06.640]  Yes.
[01:09:06.640 --> 01:09:09.120]  Just for the heck of it.
[01:09:09.120 --> 01:09:11.120]  All right.
[01:09:11.120 --> 01:09:17.880]  Since you can sell bar grievance to the attorney general attorney, one of the good things about
[01:09:17.880 --> 01:09:26.040]  attorney general attorneys is that the really sharp attorneys, they get picked up by law
[01:09:26.040 --> 01:09:32.800]  firms immediately out of law school and they're not quite so sharp attorneys.
[01:09:32.800 --> 01:09:37.400]  They go into their own practice, they'll go down to the court and get appointed as court
[01:09:37.400 --> 01:09:45.800]  appointing counsel, but the really dumb attorneys go to work for the government because there
[01:09:45.800 --> 01:09:51.720]  they don't really have to function, so we tend to get some pretty lousy attorneys in
[01:09:51.720 --> 01:10:00.280]  government service, which in your case appears to be indicating that if she filed a rule 12
[01:10:00.280 --> 01:10:07.800]  and failed to show that you failed to state a claim on which recovery can be had, if she
[01:10:07.800 --> 01:10:13.960]  made an assertion of statute of limitations.
[01:10:13.960 --> 01:10:22.600]  She had to have included enough facts and law so that the judge could make a determination
[01:10:22.600 --> 01:10:29.640]  from the four corners of the pleading, and if she didn't do that, then you would move
[01:10:29.640 --> 01:10:37.080]  for, I'm not sure if it was summary judgment or directed verdict here, now it's not directed
[01:10:37.080 --> 01:10:48.560]  verdict, but not summary judgment really, you would just move, if there's nothing in
[01:10:48.560 --> 01:10:54.400]  there, you should just move the judge to, did you, I'm sorry, did you answer the rule
[01:10:54.400 --> 01:10:55.400]  12?
[01:10:55.400 --> 01:11:00.520]  No, I'm not yet, that's why I'm in the process, I'm trying to figure out which way you go
[01:11:00.520 --> 01:11:01.520]  with it.
[01:11:01.520 --> 01:11:07.040]  Yeah, and I would just, I wouldn't ask for summary judgment or anything else, just ask
[01:11:07.040 --> 01:11:14.400]  for them to deny the motion, and they don't say anything about the answers, a good chance
[01:11:14.400 --> 01:11:23.040]  they'll forget about it, since it is the attorney general, they certainly cannot claim
[01:11:23.040 --> 01:11:33.840]  honest error, so can you sue them, can you give us a little background on the case so
[01:11:33.840 --> 01:11:35.440]  I can understand what it is?
[01:11:35.440 --> 01:11:43.240]  Okay, well on errors, okay, is of course, it's about the flowers, okay, with a-
[01:11:43.240 --> 01:11:46.240]  The felonious flower flotter?
[01:11:46.240 --> 01:11:53.000]  Yes, and what it is, they failed to comply with the uniformed commercial code, I mean
[01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:00.080]  commercial code, Procedure Act actually, and so we're shooting them on that ground, okay,
[01:12:00.080 --> 01:12:07.360]  they violated the uniformed, we were supposed to have a private hearing before any civil
[01:12:07.360 --> 01:12:13.640]  penalties or anything was brought, we never was accessed as civil penalty, we went, they
[01:12:13.640 --> 01:12:16.080]  took us straight to criminal.
[01:12:16.080 --> 01:12:19.240]  So they denied the process?
[01:12:19.240 --> 01:12:20.240]  Yes.
[01:12:20.240 --> 01:12:26.240]  So- How long have you been fighting this one?
[01:12:26.240 --> 01:12:35.680]  Oh my gosh, it started, I guess we're really going to fight about 2006, yeah.
[01:12:35.680 --> 01:12:41.200]  Now Wendy, you know everything he was saying about the attorneys, the crappy ones going
[01:12:41.200 --> 01:12:45.000]  into government is absolutely true, I mean all we have to do is look at past and current
[01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:46.000]  presidents.
[01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:56.400]  Absolutely, yeah, this crazy attorney, she did make a reference, I don't want her papers
[01:12:56.400 --> 01:13:05.240]  about the apparatus who came down, okay, an apparatus is a bee inspector, okay, and they
[01:13:05.240 --> 01:13:11.680]  speak for diseases on bees, now we have flowers, okay, and this man came down under the cloak
[01:13:11.680 --> 01:13:19.120]  of darkness, okay, as the customer to buy a flower, okay, and what he did, we were charged
[01:13:19.120 --> 01:13:23.160]  criminally because he actually purchased a flower, but that's not in the scope of his
[01:13:23.160 --> 01:13:30.600]  duties, okay, he ain't supposed to be buying flowers, and there wasn't no bees, and she
[01:13:30.600 --> 01:13:37.640]  said, well, that Mr. Rosberg didn't say there wasn't no bees down there.
[01:13:37.640 --> 01:13:44.320]  That was her, that was her legal argument, yes, yeah, I liked that one, I thought that
[01:13:44.320 --> 01:13:46.640]  was funny, okay, well he didn't say there wasn't no bees.
[01:13:46.640 --> 01:13:53.000]  What if there were bees down there, what responsibility would you have for bees?
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:14:01.960]  I wouldn't have nothing to do with bees, but, they should charge God, he'd get those bees
[01:14:01.960 --> 01:14:02.960]  there.
[01:14:02.960 --> 01:14:08.240]  Well, it's the same thing with the flowers, you know, I mean, we actually can't grow them
[01:14:08.240 --> 01:14:14.520]  without his help, we're not going to go into that argument either, okay, so maybe you better
[01:14:14.520 --> 01:14:21.000]  not sick of him on God, because we actually said that to them, okay, we grow them, God
[01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:28.240]  did, you know, so, no, we can't do that without himself anyway, so, okay, so now we're to
[01:14:28.240 --> 01:14:33.720]  the Rule 12 motion, which apparently is not a Rule 12 motion.
[01:14:33.720 --> 01:14:40.880]  No, she don't give no legal reason for her motion to dismiss, other than, I'm saying
[01:14:40.880 --> 01:14:45.480]  she's trying to have immunity, I don't know, she doesn't quote that in her, her motion
[01:14:45.480 --> 01:14:50.600]  to dismiss immunity, she just quotes those statute of limitations, and the lack of subject
[01:14:50.600 --> 01:14:55.120]  marriage jurisdiction, and they had no subject marriage jurisdiction over us.
[01:14:55.120 --> 01:15:02.400]  Well, okay, then, the only conclusion that can be drawn is, if the statute of limitations
[01:15:02.400 --> 01:15:08.080]  had run, then the court would lack subject marriage jurisdiction, so she's raising one
[01:15:08.080 --> 01:15:19.880]  issue, that should be, if you've got 10 years, then that's easy enough to overcome.
[01:15:19.880 --> 01:15:27.960]  Do you have a read on your local federal judge?
[01:15:27.960 --> 01:15:32.080]  Is he as corrupt as the local Yokel judges?
[01:15:32.080 --> 01:15:41.600]  Yes, he is, he is, and we have tried to disqualify him, and he keeps on ruling on it, but I figured
[01:15:41.600 --> 01:15:50.320]  out that one, I'm not asking the clerk to send that out as his chief presiding judge,
[01:15:50.320 --> 01:15:55.600]  so he's actually ruling on his own disqualification, because why?
[01:15:55.600 --> 01:16:01.520]  He dismissed the air fight one time, all together, he already ruled in our favor once before,
[01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:08.600]  and then because the buddy got his little gun problem going on, in his case, he dismissed
[01:16:08.600 --> 01:16:12.360]  all the claims.
[01:16:12.360 --> 01:16:17.280]  Wait a minute, I didn't understand that, all of these claims, what claims?
[01:16:17.280 --> 01:16:22.080]  Are you talking about he dismissed claims in two different actions?
[01:16:22.080 --> 01:16:28.520]  In Buddy's case, you know, in that judge, he ruled in Buddy's favor and denied the
[01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:33.080]  summary judgment of these individuals, of the defendants, right?
[01:16:33.080 --> 01:16:39.000]  Yes, when Buddy and one of the defendants got into that little castle with the gun stuff,
[01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:43.520]  he dismissed everyone in the defendants at that time, but we're going back in.
[01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:47.520]  Okay, wait, hold on, we're about to do the break.
[01:16:47.520 --> 01:16:51.360]  This is Randy Kelton, Debbie Stevens, Eddie Craig, Little Girl Radio, phone lines are
[01:16:51.360 --> 01:17:01.480]  open, 512-646-1984, we'll be right back.
[01:17:01.480 --> 01:17:05.000]  Little Corn and Bullion is a family owned and operated business that has helped many
[01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:09.920]  families and friends in protecting their assets, and we would like to do the same for you.
[01:17:09.920 --> 01:17:16.240]  In addition to Corns and Bullion, we now offer Patriot Saves, Ammunition, Berky Water Products,
[01:17:16.240 --> 01:17:21.640]  Gift Certificates, Risk Bands, and our new Silver Pool, a new way to guarantee silver
[01:17:21.640 --> 01:17:24.280]  by prepaying at a locked price.
[01:17:24.280 --> 01:17:31.440]  We can even help you set up a metals IRA account, call us at 512-646-640 for more information
[01:17:31.440 --> 01:17:32.440]  and more details.
[01:17:32.440 --> 01:17:38.360]  As always, we buy, sell, and trade precious metals and cater to those with all sizes of
[01:17:38.360 --> 01:17:39.360]  coin collections.
[01:17:39.360 --> 01:17:46.480]  We're located at 7304 Burnett Road, Suite A, about a half a mile north of Canig, next
[01:17:46.480 --> 01:17:49.480]  to the Ikebon Sushi and the Genie Car Wash.
[01:17:49.480 --> 01:17:56.160]  We're open Monday through Friday 10-6, Saturdays 10-5, visit us at CapitalCornandBullion.com
[01:17:56.160 --> 01:18:00.920]  or call 512-646-640.
[01:18:00.920 --> 01:18:06.520]  If you entered into a mortgage agreement after the year 2000, you were subjected to the largest
[01:18:06.520 --> 01:18:09.520]  fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.
[01:18:09.520 --> 01:18:14.720]  The banks plotted not only to steal the equity in your home, they also planned to scam you
[01:18:14.720 --> 01:18:18.720]  out of your retirement funds and leave you homeless and penniless.
[01:18:18.720 --> 01:18:23.280]  The money changers have used what they stole from you to buy your legislators, government
[01:18:23.280 --> 01:18:27.480]  oversight agencies, and most unfortunately, the courts.
[01:18:27.480 --> 01:18:33.040]  If you have been foreclosed on, are facing foreclosure, or are up to date on your payments,
[01:18:33.040 --> 01:18:36.680]  there is something you can do to set things to right.
[01:18:36.680 --> 01:18:45.920]  Call 855-588-8501 and we will show you how to force the corrupt courts to do their jobs.
[01:18:45.920 --> 01:18:51.120]  You can stop these thieving bankers from destroying this country and from forcing your children
[01:18:51.120 --> 01:18:55.640]  and grandchildren onto the streets as slaves to them.
[01:18:55.640 --> 01:18:59.640]  Call 855-588-8501 now.
[01:19:25.640 --> 01:19:40.240]  We were talking about the fact that a judge in one, didn't like apparently how things
[01:19:40.240 --> 01:19:46.440]  went in one case, so he ruled against everything in two cases.
[01:19:46.440 --> 01:19:47.440]  Exactly.
[01:19:47.440 --> 01:19:55.480]  He ruled on his own disqualification, which we know is not allowed.
[01:19:55.480 --> 01:20:01.640]  He was prejudiced by us, so I think...
[01:20:01.640 --> 01:20:04.640]  Have you filed criminally against him for that?
[01:20:04.640 --> 01:20:05.640]  I'm working on that.
[01:20:05.640 --> 01:20:06.640]  Oh, good.
[01:20:06.640 --> 01:20:13.440]  Yeah, there is just so much to do because I'm working on several cases, you know, and
[01:20:13.440 --> 01:20:17.000]  I've got to do another disqualification.
[01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:25.000]  Tell the clerk to send it up there to the main chief judge and then he rule on disqualification.
[01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:31.560]  That is, he's ruling on his own disqualification because the other judge ain't seen it.
[01:20:31.560 --> 01:20:36.000]  So you're saying that the clerk didn't send it to the judge, the clerk was supposed to
[01:20:36.000 --> 01:20:37.000]  send it to?
[01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:38.000]  Exactly.
[01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:40.720]  Did you file against the clerk?
[01:20:40.720 --> 01:20:41.720]  Exactly.
[01:20:41.720 --> 01:20:48.840]  Well, I think, you know, I mean, I asked you to file it on my cover letter, but I think
[01:20:48.840 --> 01:20:52.440]  I read or saw somewhere where you have to tell them exactly what they did because they're
[01:20:52.440 --> 01:20:54.600]  not smart enough to figure it out.
[01:20:54.600 --> 01:20:55.600]  Yes.
[01:20:55.600 --> 01:20:59.760]  So do you have reason to believe that she failed to do that?
[01:20:59.760 --> 01:21:01.560]  Yes, I do.
[01:21:01.560 --> 01:21:02.560]  Because...
[01:21:02.560 --> 01:21:08.200]  Is she required by statute rule or regulation to do that?
[01:21:08.200 --> 01:21:09.200]  Yes, she is.
[01:21:09.200 --> 01:21:16.800]  As to if the disqualification comes or a complaint on a judge, right, and now when I do a bar
[01:21:16.800 --> 01:21:23.240]  agreement, the complaint will be filed and it goes straight up to that presiding judge.
[01:21:23.240 --> 01:21:29.800]  So guess what I'm going to work on, complaint, send it up to disqualification, send it out.
[01:21:29.800 --> 01:21:33.640]  So are you filing complaints against the clerk?
[01:21:33.640 --> 01:21:36.640]  I'm going to eat to, don't I?
[01:21:36.640 --> 01:21:37.640]  Yes.
[01:21:37.640 --> 01:21:43.680]  A clerk is a really good one to go after because when you start going after the clerk for doing
[01:21:43.680 --> 01:21:50.720]  what the judge told him to, the clerk will squeal like a stuck pig because they're essentially
[01:21:50.720 --> 01:21:56.280]  an innocent party, and now you start coming after the clerk, the clerk is not going to
[01:21:56.280 --> 01:22:01.960]  be happy, and judicial conduct complaints against judges are lots of fun.
[01:22:01.960 --> 01:22:02.960]  Right.
[01:22:02.960 --> 01:22:08.920]  I'm working on that, and I said there were motions I'm working on, and answers, and I
[01:22:08.920 --> 01:22:14.400]  just got a few days to finish them, but I am working on it.
[01:22:14.400 --> 01:22:17.960]  You understand what we've been through as you stay.
[01:22:17.960 --> 01:22:24.160]  Once you get started in this, it gets real busy, but then again, then again, on the other
[01:22:24.160 --> 01:22:30.720]  side, it's costing them a couple hundred bucks an hour at best.
[01:22:30.720 --> 01:22:35.800]  So when they get done with you, they're not ever going to want anything to do with you
[01:22:35.800 --> 01:22:36.800]  again.
[01:22:36.800 --> 01:22:38.800]  Well, we sure hope that, you know.
[01:22:38.800 --> 01:22:39.800]  I'm not through yet.
[01:22:39.800 --> 01:22:42.800]  I'll keep on learning something else to do.
[01:22:42.800 --> 01:22:48.360]  Well, hopefully, you know, we'll get it done.
[01:22:48.360 --> 01:22:49.360]  Good for you.
[01:22:49.360 --> 01:22:56.040]  Now, in Buddy's case, now we sent, in the state of Tennessee, okay, the Department of
[01:22:56.040 --> 01:23:03.360]  Health regulates marriages, okay, Buddy's wife lied on her marriage application.
[01:23:03.360 --> 01:23:05.360]  She says you're going to be married two times.
[01:23:05.360 --> 01:23:09.760]  That was her second marriage, but she had me married four times.
[01:23:09.760 --> 01:23:18.560]  So we asked them for a ministry of hearing and asked for the marriage to be no and void.
[01:23:18.560 --> 01:23:24.320]  Is there, is that a legal remedy for a lie of that nature?
[01:23:24.320 --> 01:23:25.320]  Yes.
[01:23:25.320 --> 01:23:26.320]  Yes.
[01:23:26.320 --> 01:23:30.360]  There's actually was a Tennessee cop and player who lied on his driver's license application
[01:23:30.360 --> 01:23:35.800]  and was indicted just a couple of weeks ago, so she should go jail.
[01:23:35.800 --> 01:23:36.800]  Okay.
[01:23:36.800 --> 01:23:41.520]  What I'm getting to, is it a material fact?
[01:23:41.520 --> 01:23:42.520]  Yes.
[01:23:42.520 --> 01:23:45.680]  How does it matter how many times you've been married?
[01:23:45.680 --> 01:23:47.560]  Oh, I know.
[01:23:47.560 --> 01:23:51.480]  I have a niece in Tennessee who was married seven times.
[01:23:51.480 --> 01:23:57.400]  And on the seventh divorce, they said, that's the last one.
[01:23:57.400 --> 01:24:01.880]  You cannot get married in Tennessee again.
[01:24:01.880 --> 01:24:04.880]  That's why it's material.
[01:24:04.880 --> 01:24:07.480]  How would she even lie on her application anyway?
[01:24:07.480 --> 01:24:12.400]  Maybe she didn't want Buddy to know about her other exes.
[01:24:12.400 --> 01:24:16.720]  They dated for four years and they were still married.
[01:24:16.720 --> 01:24:23.520]  You know, he was, she was married still and just right before the marriage, she got divorced.
[01:24:23.520 --> 01:24:27.240]  She was still playing house with both of them.
[01:24:27.240 --> 01:24:29.960]  That's it, yes.
[01:24:29.960 --> 01:24:33.080]  But is that reason for annulment?
[01:24:33.080 --> 01:24:39.720]  The fact that she lied on the application, is there the legal remedy in annulment?
[01:24:39.720 --> 01:24:42.000]  Yes, it is.
[01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:48.320]  Because they taken all this property and all this stuff for that legal justification because
[01:24:48.320 --> 01:24:51.200]  the marriage never existed.
[01:24:51.200 --> 01:24:57.280]  If it was void ab initio from the very beginning, he didn't find that out until after the complaint
[01:24:57.280 --> 01:24:58.280]  for divorce was filed.
[01:24:58.280 --> 01:25:03.240]  Yeah, like if he had been paying her alimony or things of that nature, then she wasn't
[01:25:03.240 --> 01:25:06.280]  entitled to any of that and she got it through fraud.
[01:25:06.280 --> 01:25:07.280]  Exactly.
[01:25:07.280 --> 01:25:11.600]  And they, they, they had all this property and she never worked during the marriage.
[01:25:11.600 --> 01:25:16.680]  So he's all based, she got all this money and all this property and all this shit, sorry,
[01:25:16.680 --> 01:25:18.760]  all this stuff and she wasn't entitled to it.
[01:25:18.760 --> 01:25:19.760]  She never worked.
[01:25:19.760 --> 01:25:20.760]  She never brought anything.
[01:25:20.760 --> 01:25:21.760]  It was only on his retirement.
[01:25:21.760 --> 01:25:22.760]  So he had to pay.
[01:25:22.760 --> 01:25:23.760]  Okay, I take it.
[01:25:23.760 --> 01:25:32.280]  Tennessee is a community property state.
[01:25:32.280 --> 01:25:33.480]  Exactly.
[01:25:33.480 --> 01:25:36.480]  Was this property accumulated after the marriage?
[01:25:36.480 --> 01:25:37.480]  No.
[01:25:37.480 --> 01:25:38.480]  He had it before the marriage.
[01:25:38.480 --> 01:25:39.480]  It was all here.
[01:25:39.480 --> 01:25:48.880]  And even if they were legally married, it still shouldn't apply to community property.
[01:25:48.880 --> 01:25:49.880]  Yeah.
[01:25:49.880 --> 01:25:57.080]  So, so we, we heard from them and their attorneys is looking in on this on that, on the Department
[01:25:57.080 --> 01:25:59.280]  of Health, the one regulates marriages.
[01:25:59.280 --> 01:26:05.120]  If the marriage gets rendered null and void, what does that do to all that theft of that
[01:26:05.120 --> 01:26:06.120]  sheriff's department theft?
[01:26:06.120 --> 01:26:07.120]  Way to do.
[01:26:07.120 --> 01:26:08.120]  Thank you much, John.
[01:26:08.120 --> 01:26:19.440]  You jumped past what's, you mean in the foreclosure on the house and the eviction?
[01:26:19.440 --> 01:26:20.440]  Yeah.
[01:26:20.440 --> 01:26:22.440]  So what happens to that?
[01:26:22.440 --> 01:26:23.440]  Okay.
[01:26:23.440 --> 01:26:29.640]  It won't have any effect on the sheriff himself if he was acting under what appeared to be
[01:26:29.640 --> 01:26:31.120]  force of law.
[01:26:31.120 --> 01:26:34.280]  In that case, he acted in good faith.
[01:26:34.280 --> 01:26:41.320]  Now, the way he carried out his duty may have been improper, but if he had what appeared
[01:26:41.320 --> 01:26:48.880]  to be legal process, he can't be held responsible if there was some reason why that legal process
[01:26:48.880 --> 01:26:56.000]  shouldn't have been there because we can't, you know, the sheriff couldn't give a follow
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:00.760]  process if he's responsible for what the other people did in creating it.
[01:27:00.760 --> 01:27:06.760]  So you probably wouldn't have a shot at the sheriff, but you certainly have a shot at
[01:27:06.760 --> 01:27:10.400]  her if she has anything.
[01:27:10.400 --> 01:27:14.880]  Well, I don't know if she has anything or not.
[01:27:14.880 --> 01:27:15.880]  Okay.
[01:27:15.880 --> 01:27:17.880]  What do you have anything else for us?
[01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:18.880]  No, that's it.
[01:27:18.880 --> 01:27:21.880]  I'm going to let you go so you can go to other callers, but I appreciate it.
[01:27:21.880 --> 01:27:22.880]  Thank you.
[01:27:22.880 --> 01:27:23.880]  Thank you for calling in.
[01:27:23.880 --> 01:27:24.880]  I've been missing you.
[01:27:24.880 --> 01:27:25.880]  Okay.
[01:27:25.880 --> 01:27:26.880]  I'm missing you too.
[01:27:26.880 --> 01:27:27.880]  Talk to you later.
[01:27:27.880 --> 01:27:28.880]  Bye.
[01:27:28.880 --> 01:27:29.880]  Okay.
[01:27:29.880 --> 01:27:30.880]  Bye-bye.
[01:27:30.880 --> 01:27:31.880]  Okay.
[01:27:31.880 --> 01:27:32.880]  Now we're going to go from Tobrien in Minnesota.
[01:27:32.880 --> 01:27:39.880]  Well, before we go to Brian, all of our phone lines are open, 512-646-1984.
[01:27:39.880 --> 01:27:42.880]  If you have any questions or comments, call in.
[01:27:42.880 --> 01:27:45.880]  We're moving to the second hour.
[01:27:45.880 --> 01:27:51.880]  It generally starts to pick up about this time and gets pretty busy toward the end, so
[01:27:51.880 --> 01:27:54.880]  call in quickly so you can get your place in line.
[01:27:54.880 --> 01:27:55.880]  Okay.
[01:27:55.880 --> 01:28:00.880]  Brian, what have you got for us?
[01:28:00.880 --> 01:28:05.880]  Brian, did I put you to sleep?
[01:28:05.880 --> 01:28:07.880]  I have that effect on people.
[01:28:07.880 --> 01:28:13.880]  It looks like Brian dropped off, so I suspect he'll call back in.
[01:28:13.880 --> 01:28:16.880]  We have one more caller who's on screen.
[01:28:16.880 --> 01:28:19.880]  He should be up in a moment.
[01:28:19.880 --> 01:28:22.880]  I'll go ahead and take the on screen.
[01:28:22.880 --> 01:28:23.880]  Okay.
[01:28:23.880 --> 01:28:28.880]  I'm going to get chewed out for messing up the board.
[01:28:28.880 --> 01:28:29.880]  Okay.
[01:28:29.880 --> 01:28:40.880]  For those of you who don't know about Wendy, Wendy called in a long time ago, not too long
[01:28:40.880 --> 01:28:45.880]  after we started doing the show, and started talking.
[01:28:45.880 --> 01:28:47.880]  She said, she listened to me.
[01:28:47.880 --> 01:28:54.880]  She said that she was having this problem with these flower issue, and she said, I did what
[01:28:54.880 --> 01:29:01.880]  you said about filing criminal charges, and I went down and filed criminal charges against
[01:29:01.880 --> 01:29:09.880]  all of them, and she has been fighting them for about four years now, about almost as long
[01:29:09.880 --> 01:29:11.880]  as we've been doing the radio.
[01:29:11.880 --> 01:29:18.380]  And I can assure you, when they get done with Wendy, they're not ever going to want anything
[01:29:18.380 --> 01:29:22.380]  to do with her again, because she has given them a fit.
[01:29:22.380 --> 01:29:26.880]  I have no idea how much money she must have caused these people.
[01:29:26.880 --> 01:29:27.880]  Okay.
[01:29:27.880 --> 01:29:33.880]  We've got Brian's back up, and Brian, I will take you just on the other side of the break.
[01:29:33.880 --> 01:29:35.880]  We're about to go to break.
[01:29:35.880 --> 01:29:43.880]  So, call in, get in line, 512-646-1984.
[01:29:43.880 --> 01:29:47.880]  Randy Kelton, Debbie Stephen, Debbie Craig, Rule Law Radio.
[01:29:47.880 --> 01:29:54.880]  Tonight is our four-hour info marathon, and we'll take all your questions and comments.
[01:29:54.880 --> 01:30:20.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:24.880 --> 01:30:50.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:30:50.880 --> 01:31:14.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:31:14.880 --> 01:31:42.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:31:42.880 --> 01:31:49.880]  We'll be right back.
[01:32:12.880 --> 01:32:22.880]  Okay, we're back.
[01:32:22.880 --> 01:32:37.880]  Brian, I think the cat got your tongue last time, or I put you to sleep.
[01:32:37.880 --> 01:32:42.880]  Don't cut out just as you probably picked me up, I think.
[01:32:42.880 --> 01:32:45.880]  Okay, what's up, Brian?
[01:32:45.880 --> 01:32:47.880]  Well, I got an interesting situation.
[01:32:47.880 --> 01:32:52.880]  I was hoping y'all could give me some direction on which way to go.
[01:32:52.880 --> 01:33:03.880]  I was just up against the defendants I'm against for a false imprisonment case in civil trial.
[01:33:03.880 --> 01:33:10.880]  I filed against them, and I was listening to your old Ken Magnuson stuff from 2009,
[01:33:10.880 --> 01:33:16.880]  and I had sent you an email, and as soon as I listened to that stuff from 2009,
[01:33:16.880 --> 01:33:18.880]  I was like, oh, that's what I need to do.
[01:33:18.880 --> 01:33:24.880]  So, I kind of filed all my stuff opposing their summary judgment motion.
[01:33:24.880 --> 01:33:31.880]  My understanding was that the municipalities, this is kind of something they just file.
[01:33:31.880 --> 01:33:36.880]  It's normal procedures to file a summary judgment motion like they did.
[01:33:36.880 --> 01:33:41.880]  So, we went before the courts.
[01:33:41.880 --> 01:33:50.880]  In my opposing their motion papers, I had a affidavit accusing the opposing attorney of perjury
[01:33:50.880 --> 01:33:58.880]  and also accusing the other officer of perjury.
[01:33:58.880 --> 01:34:03.880]  So, my issues now, I lost the summary judgment motion.
[01:34:03.880 --> 01:34:08.880]  But the way it happened, I guess, was very interesting.
[01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:16.880]  Now, I believe there's some conduct of the judge issues, and I want to move to disqualify the judge.
[01:34:16.880 --> 01:34:30.880]  But the way the proceeding went down was, I don't know how to describe it, but the judge was very...
[01:34:30.880 --> 01:34:35.880]  He danced around the subjects, and he danced around my accusations of perjury,
[01:34:35.880 --> 01:34:40.880]  and he was very quick to kind of conclude the hearing, and it was over,
[01:34:40.880 --> 01:34:46.880]  and he made his decision, and he was very, like, deceptive and kind of acting like he was going to take my side,
[01:34:46.880 --> 01:34:51.880]  and then he quickly ruled against me and did his findings of fact on the record.
[01:34:51.880 --> 01:34:53.880]  So, that's where I'm at now.
[01:34:53.880 --> 01:34:57.880]  Okay, what was the nature of his findings of fact?
[01:34:57.880 --> 01:35:00.880]  Oh, and that's the big thing here.
[01:35:00.880 --> 01:35:06.880]  I mean, and you all are probably familiar with how corrupt our Minnesota courts are.
[01:35:06.880 --> 01:35:16.880]  You know, just more affirming it for me, but defining the fact that they're basically claiming immunity for the false imprisonment
[01:35:16.880 --> 01:35:20.880]  on the basis of discretionary function.
[01:35:20.880 --> 01:35:24.880]  And so, that was my biggest question, is the officers...
[01:35:24.880 --> 01:35:31.880]  My question specifically for you today was, like, I didn't know whether to go into a peer or a motion for a new trial.
[01:35:31.880 --> 01:35:39.880]  That was my... That's like my difficult thing I'm having, but they're finding the fact that they're basically saying that
[01:35:39.880 --> 01:35:45.880]  since it was a discretionary function that he is entitled to immunity,
[01:35:45.880 --> 01:35:51.880]  and it basically subverting all my argument in the Constitution.
[01:35:51.880 --> 01:35:52.880]  Okay, hold on.
[01:35:52.880 --> 01:35:59.880]  They're in Texas law, and I suspect it'll be similar in Minnesota law.
[01:35:59.880 --> 01:36:04.880]  That there are a couple of things for which they don't have immunity,
[01:36:04.880 --> 01:36:12.880]  and for which the municipality, for one thing, the governmental agency waves its sovereign immunity,
[01:36:12.880 --> 01:36:17.880]  and false imprisonment is one of them.
[01:36:17.880 --> 01:36:21.880]  You need to check the law in that matter, but...
[01:36:21.880 --> 01:36:30.880]  Well, also, as far as the discretionary act goes, that presumes the act was within the scope of authority that the officer had.
[01:36:30.880 --> 01:36:37.880]  If this was a civil situation in which an arrest was not ever authorized in the first place,
[01:36:37.880 --> 01:36:42.880]  then it's not within his scope and purview to make an arrest.
[01:36:42.880 --> 01:36:46.880]  Well, let me... I probably should go over the facts quickly.
[01:36:46.880 --> 01:36:52.880]  I was pulled over for speeding, and I don't dispute that fact.
[01:36:52.880 --> 01:36:58.880]  I admittedly was passing somebody, and I brought that up on the speeding trial.
[01:36:58.880 --> 01:37:00.880]  I was admittedly passing somebody.
[01:37:00.880 --> 01:37:05.880]  They gave me... But the issue of probable cause...
[01:37:05.880 --> 01:37:10.880]  I raised all those issues at the summary judgment and in my paperwork,
[01:37:10.880 --> 01:37:17.880]  and what I was stating was that the officer, he lied to basically make up his probable cause.
[01:37:17.880 --> 01:37:23.880]  The argument for the court now is that I'm saying he lied to make up his probable cause.
[01:37:23.880 --> 01:37:29.880]  Okay, two things here, Brian. Hang on. How are you saying he lied to establish probable cause?
[01:37:29.880 --> 01:37:37.880]  Well, he accused me of having... He said I wasn't answering the questions, which was untrue.
[01:37:37.880 --> 01:37:43.880]  Is your driver's license correct? I said that's me. That was my answer to him.
[01:37:43.880 --> 01:37:48.880]  They claim that that was being evasive in answering questions.
[01:37:48.880 --> 01:37:54.880]  Okay, question. Are traffic offenses in Minnesota similar criminal in nature?
[01:37:54.880 --> 01:37:56.880]  Criminal.
[01:37:56.880 --> 01:38:01.880]  Okay, then he had probable cause the moment you admitted you were speeding. End of story.
[01:38:01.880 --> 01:38:05.880]  Well, I didn't admit to him anything.
[01:38:05.880 --> 01:38:10.880]  Wait a minute. Not in this story.
[01:38:10.880 --> 01:38:20.880]  In the Texas... I mean, Transportation Code, there are two things you can't be arrested for.
[01:38:20.880 --> 01:38:22.880]  Eddie?
[01:38:22.880 --> 01:38:25.880]  Yeah, speeding an open container.
[01:38:25.880 --> 01:38:26.880]  Right.
[01:38:26.880 --> 01:38:32.880]  But that's not exactly a correct statement. You are arrested for the purpose of getting the citation.
[01:38:32.880 --> 01:38:38.880]  The objective thing is they can't hold you. They must release you on a signature.
[01:38:38.880 --> 01:38:42.880]  You are arrested, but they must release you.
[01:38:42.880 --> 01:38:48.880]  What was the arrest... What was the charge under which you were arrested?
[01:38:48.880 --> 01:38:51.880]  All right, so he asked me... He goes into his car.
[01:38:51.880 --> 01:38:53.880]  No, no, wait, wait. No, no, no.
[01:38:53.880 --> 01:38:54.880]  Okay, sorry.
[01:38:54.880 --> 01:39:00.880]  Don't put a lot of explanation. What was the criminal charge under which he arrested you?
[01:39:00.880 --> 01:39:05.880]  Okay, he claims...
[01:39:05.880 --> 01:39:07.880]  What did he charge you with?
[01:39:07.880 --> 01:39:11.880]  I have to explain this a little bit, because the charge only thing was speeding.
[01:39:11.880 --> 01:39:21.880]  But in the video, he quoted it was for narcotics. Later on, in the civil trial, he's come up and he says now it was car theft.
[01:39:21.880 --> 01:39:25.880]  So he keeps changing his story, and I have a whole ton of inconsistent statements.
[01:39:25.880 --> 01:39:31.880]  It's involved about... I was detained for over an hour, probably an hour and 20 minutes or so, and it's involved...
[01:39:31.880 --> 01:39:36.880]  They brought a dog in and all this stuff and accused me of having narcotics.
[01:39:36.880 --> 01:39:40.880]  The first thing they did when they asked me to step out of my car was I said,
[01:39:40.880 --> 01:39:46.880]  I don't consent to any searches, and then immediately he runs into my car, starts going through all my personal clothes, bags and stuff,
[01:39:46.880 --> 01:39:50.880]  finds the first thing he finds, which was popcorn, and he goes...
[01:39:50.880 --> 01:39:55.880]  Then they jump over and arrest me, and they basically got him, and they thought I had meth or something,
[01:39:55.880 --> 01:39:59.880]  and then he goes back and he goes, oh, it's popcorn, that was wrong.
[01:39:59.880 --> 01:40:05.880]  And then they searched the car for another 45 minutes of just taking apart all my stuff,
[01:40:05.880 --> 01:40:08.880]  and making jokes while they're searching through my stuff,
[01:40:08.880 --> 01:40:12.880]  and then there was a point where they turned off their microphone while they were going...
[01:40:12.880 --> 01:40:18.880]  Where they kind of conspired, because there was a big issue, they kept talking about how I didn't consent,
[01:40:18.880 --> 01:40:24.880]  and they were like, oh, did we do something wrong, you know, almost, or implications to that.
[01:40:24.880 --> 01:40:30.880]  But you still didn't go... they arrested you only for speeding?
[01:40:36.880 --> 01:40:41.880]  Well, I guess we go to the...
[01:40:41.880 --> 01:40:44.880]  This is real important.
[01:40:44.880 --> 01:40:52.880]  You have to know what... do you have the statements by the officers?
[01:40:52.880 --> 01:40:54.880]  Yes.
[01:40:54.880 --> 01:40:59.880]  What do they state as the reason for the arrest?
[01:40:59.880 --> 01:41:02.880]  It's the problem that calls for arrest.
[01:41:02.880 --> 01:41:04.880]  In the video they stated as narcotics.
[01:41:04.880 --> 01:41:09.880]  And that's the thing, all my whole case is based on inconsistent statements.
[01:41:09.880 --> 01:41:14.880]  Here's the thing about an inconsistent statement. Were you not charged with narcotics?
[01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:17.880]  No, I was not.
[01:41:17.880 --> 01:41:26.880]  These other things, okay, did they take you... did they just hold you, give you a ticket and release you, or did they take you to jail?
[01:41:26.880 --> 01:41:29.880]  No, they just gave me a ticket and released me.
[01:41:29.880 --> 01:41:31.880]  Okay, so this is for the detention?
[01:41:31.880 --> 01:41:33.880]  Yeah.
[01:41:33.880 --> 01:41:38.880]  Okay, and you questioned the popcorn that you had?
[01:41:38.880 --> 01:41:39.880]  Yeah.
[01:41:39.880 --> 01:41:44.880]  Did you have a prescription for it?
[01:41:44.880 --> 01:42:05.880]  Okay, when we go to inconsistent statements, if the statements are material and they are inconsistent, you don't have to prove which one was true and which one was false, or rather both were false.
[01:42:05.880 --> 01:42:13.880]  It's enough that there are two inconsistent statements, both of which cannot be true.
[01:42:13.880 --> 01:42:24.880]  That's sufficient to charge them with aggravated perjury. Have you filed criminal charges against them?
[01:42:24.880 --> 01:42:30.880]  Pregnant pause. You still there? Did I lose you?
[01:42:30.880 --> 01:42:34.880]  Okay, we might have lost Brian again.
[01:42:34.880 --> 01:42:44.880]  But first thing I would want to do is file criminally against these guys and run the standard routine on the prosecutor.
[01:42:44.880 --> 01:43:00.880]  They're trying to... you know, police have gotten to where tests are lying is a... I think it's a part of their criteria is they do this just... they must be training them in it.
[01:43:00.880 --> 01:43:14.880]  We need to take the fight back to them. If they want to start lying, we as citizens have a duty to report those crimes and we have a whole routine of how to go about doing that.
[01:43:14.880 --> 01:43:25.880]  If we get more people doing it, we'll have the police messing with less people and coming to respect us more and they'll wind up better policemen to do their jobs better.
[01:43:25.880 --> 01:43:30.880]  Like we've lost Brian again, so...
[01:43:30.880 --> 01:43:37.880]  Okay, we'll pick him up on the other side and finish up with him and then go to Jeannie in Georgia.
[01:43:37.880 --> 01:43:43.880]  You see Gary and Sarah in Texas. We'll get to you when we get back on the other side.
[01:43:43.880 --> 01:43:59.880]  This is Gary DeKalb from Debra Steve and Jeannie Craig with Law Radio. A call in number is 512-646-1984. We'll be right back.
[01:43:59.880 --> 01:44:17.880]  Warning for all Gulf Coast disaster survivors. Be aware that dangerous gases are in the air you breathe, benzene, hydrogen sulfide, methylene chloride and caraxid 9500. Keep your body clean with micro plant powder for all Gulf Coast residents and all who want to be healthy.
[01:44:17.880 --> 01:44:32.880]  HempUSA.org brings you a new formulation of micro plant powder with lactobacillus acidophilus, rebuilding your immune system while detoxing the rest of your body, pulling out positive toxins, heavy metals, viruses, fungus, bacteria and parasites.
[01:44:32.880 --> 01:44:47.880]  Cleanse and purifies the blood, lungs, stomach and colon. Micro plant powder will help eliminate these dangerous chemicals from the body used in the Gulf cleaned up. At HempUSA.org we want you to try our number one selling detox product, micro plant powder.
[01:44:47.880 --> 01:44:58.880]  Call and order at 1-908-69, 1-2608, 1-908-69, 1-2608 or visit us at HempUSA.org today.
[01:44:58.880 --> 01:45:13.880]  Are you the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit? Win your case without an attorney with Jurisdictionary, the affordable, easy to understand four CD course that will show you how in 24 hours, step by step.
[01:45:13.880 --> 01:45:32.880]  If you have a lawyer, know what your lawyer should be doing. If you don't have a lawyer, know what you should do for yourself. Thousands have won with our step by step course and now you can too. Jurisdictionary was created by a licensed attorney with 22 years of case winning experience.
[01:45:32.880 --> 01:45:50.880]  Even if you're not in a lawsuit, you can learn what everyone should understand about the principles and practices that control our American courts. You'll receive our audio classroom, video seminar, tutorials, forms for civil cases, prosay tactics and much more.
[01:45:50.880 --> 01:46:03.880]  Please visit ruleoflawradio.com and click on the banner or call toll-free 866-LAW-EZ.
[01:46:20.880 --> 01:46:49.880]  Look at me, we're back. I'm going to tell you that Stephen Steeve is a great leader of our radio. It looks like he lost a call in his shoes.
[01:46:49.880 --> 01:46:59.880]  Brian is back. We're going to finish up with Brian and then we'll go to Sarah in Texas.
[01:46:59.880 --> 01:47:18.880]  Brian, they stopped you. They played their little song and dance and self-serve down your pants and jerked you around and illegally searched your car. When you got back to the car, was that $1,000 in mad money you keep under the seat still there?
[01:47:18.880 --> 01:47:25.880]  I'm starting to believe in these little claims you make like that. Maybe I should instill some of that.
[01:47:25.880 --> 01:47:40.880]  Another important detail that I need to mention is that I had a defamation claim also on my complaint. The reason for that was after they had searched my car and they didn't find anything, they came back to me in the car and they said,
[01:47:40.880 --> 01:47:51.880]  I found some stems and seeds and leaves in your car and you're not in trouble or anything. We just want to know if somebody was smoking some weed in there and they just came up with something to cover their butts, which is what I suspected.
[01:47:51.880 --> 01:47:58.880]  I included that on a defamation claim and I'm kind of like trying to amend it to libel and slander.
[01:47:58.880 --> 01:48:11.880]  You should answer them with, you're so full of crap your eyes are brown and you realize this of course.
[01:48:11.880 --> 01:48:14.880]  Did they make these claims in their documentation?
[01:48:14.880 --> 01:48:16.880]  Yes.
[01:48:16.880 --> 01:48:19.880]  Oh, okay, good.
[01:48:19.880 --> 01:48:22.880]  Their documentation is open record.
[01:48:22.880 --> 01:48:34.880]  That was my whole claim and they're claiming that that's immunity too. The bigger issue now is I got this lawyer that he has fighting his side, I got him lying for him now.
[01:48:34.880 --> 01:48:38.880]  Good. Sue the lawyer, he doesn't have any immunity.
[01:48:38.880 --> 01:48:45.880]  He wrote, nada, forget those guys. Sue the lawyer for malpractice.
[01:48:45.880 --> 01:48:57.880]  The judge at the proceeding for the summary judgment hearing was basically answering for the lawyer protecting, I mean, it seemed like, you know, I don't know, I've been...
[01:48:57.880 --> 01:49:02.880]  Amidst your pleading and Sue the lawyer.
[01:49:02.880 --> 01:49:05.880]  And have you filed judicial conduct complaints against the judge?
[01:49:05.880 --> 01:49:10.880]  I'm working on that. I'm working on a criminal complaint against the judge and the lawyer.
[01:49:10.880 --> 01:49:23.880]  The judge never, and the first thing that happened at this proceeding for the summary judgment was, you know, he starts letting the other lawyer talk, which I think that's typical procedure the person bringing the motion gets to talk first.
[01:49:23.880 --> 01:49:30.880]  And I'm like, you know, I tried to object and say, you know, I need to talk, I need to, you know, I'm accusing this guy of perjury, don't let him talk.
[01:49:30.880 --> 01:49:33.880]  But the judge stopped me and he said, no, we're going to let him talk first.
[01:49:33.880 --> 01:49:40.880]  And I was like, okay, whatever. And when he was done, I was like, fine, I'll wait till he's done. I said, why are we listening to this guy?
[01:49:40.880 --> 01:49:44.880]  He's lying to the court and I'm accusing him of perjury.
[01:49:44.880 --> 01:49:53.880]  But now they said, if I appeal the summary judgment motion, he's going to file a sanction motion against me and he moved to...
[01:49:53.880 --> 01:49:55.880]  Wait a minute, who said that?
[01:49:55.880 --> 01:49:57.880]  This is the opposing lawyer. And he moved to...
[01:49:57.880 --> 01:49:59.880]  Oh, file a far grievance against him for that.
[01:49:59.880 --> 01:50:06.880]  Well, definitely. And definitely will to that. But he also moved, he's like, I moved to strike the pleading for perjury.
[01:50:06.880 --> 01:50:13.880]  And it was never addressed. Like I said, the judge really never addressed it. I mean, to me, that's...
[01:50:13.880 --> 01:50:15.880]  I mean, if somebody...
[01:50:15.880 --> 01:50:21.880]  Well, the thing is, Brian, is when you have the guy on the stand that committed the perjury, let him talk.
[01:50:21.880 --> 01:50:26.880]  Because you get to cross-examine him on that perjury and show that he committed it.
[01:50:26.880 --> 01:50:29.880]  No, this was the attorney on the other side, he's saying.
[01:50:29.880 --> 01:50:31.880]  Yeah.
[01:50:31.880 --> 01:50:35.880]  So he wouldn't get to... unless you called the attorney to the stand.
[01:50:35.880 --> 01:50:39.880]  And surely the judge is going to deny you that.
[01:50:39.880 --> 01:50:44.880]  But men, you're pleading and sue the attorney.
[01:50:44.880 --> 01:50:46.880]  In the same case.
[01:50:46.880 --> 01:50:48.880]  Yeah.
[01:50:48.880 --> 01:50:52.880]  He's aiding and embedding in a cover-up of that case.
[01:50:52.880 --> 01:50:54.880]  You can sue him for malpractice.
[01:50:54.880 --> 01:50:59.880]  I spent a lot of time in Monal today, reading Monal.
[01:50:59.880 --> 01:51:02.880]  Does that apply here?
[01:51:02.880 --> 01:51:08.880]  Okay, Monal. I've spent a long time since I've looked at Monal.
[01:51:08.880 --> 01:51:11.880]  Remind me what Monal is.
[01:51:11.880 --> 01:51:17.880]  Well, this is where they overruled, I think it was tape versus Monroe or something.
[01:51:17.880 --> 01:51:24.880]  And it had a lot to do with school board and immunity.
[01:51:24.880 --> 01:51:27.880]  Well, you keep talking about things in the Monal sense, Randy.
[01:51:27.880 --> 01:51:30.880]  Yeah, I know. I know I've lost Monal.
[01:51:30.880 --> 01:51:37.880]  I'm brain dead at the moment. I'm old, I sleep, therefore I forgets.
[01:51:37.880 --> 01:51:43.880]  Yes, I'm always talking about in the Monal sense, and now I've lost one of these.
[01:51:43.880 --> 01:51:49.880]  Well, it had a lot to do with the Federal Police, the Cookup Plan Act.
[01:51:49.880 --> 01:51:54.880]  Well, one of the things my pleading doesn't contain is a civil rights violation,
[01:51:54.880 --> 01:51:59.880]  which is ultimately what I want to go after them for. I mean, this is, to me, this is like...
[01:51:59.880 --> 01:52:02.880]  Okay, wait a minute. What court are you in?
[01:52:02.880 --> 01:52:06.880]  I'm in the First Level District Court.
[01:52:06.880 --> 01:52:08.880]  Minnesota District Court?
[01:52:08.880 --> 01:52:09.880]  Yeah.
[01:52:09.880 --> 01:52:12.880]  You understand, they've got to be the most corrupt court in the country.
[01:52:12.880 --> 01:52:17.880]  Why did you not file this in Federal Court under 242 and 1983?
[01:52:17.880 --> 01:52:21.880]  I don't know. I don't know.
[01:52:21.880 --> 01:52:23.880]  Okay, then a suggestion.
[01:52:23.880 --> 01:52:33.880]  Amid your pleading, include a claim against the attorney for denying you in due process
[01:52:33.880 --> 01:52:45.880]  by lying to the court, committing perjury before the court, or it may be more appropriate to go after the attorney in the civil sense
[01:52:45.880 --> 01:52:50.880]  for failure to speak with candor to the court.
[01:52:50.880 --> 01:52:59.880]  The attorney has an enforceable duty of speaking with candor to the court.
[01:52:59.880 --> 01:53:07.880]  Do ask him for that and maintain that it denied you in your right to a fair trial.
[01:53:07.880 --> 01:53:11.880]  Well, I've already lost the summary judgment motion, right?
[01:53:11.880 --> 01:53:14.880]  So, do I do a new motion?
[01:53:14.880 --> 01:53:16.880]  Okay, no, no.
[01:53:16.880 --> 01:53:19.880]  That doesn't have anything to do with taking it to Federal Court.
[01:53:19.880 --> 01:53:30.880]  What the thing to do on the summary judgment is the first thing is always request a new trial, and that requires points and authorities.
[01:53:30.880 --> 01:53:43.880]  If you file an answer to their motion, you can use the points and authorities you have in there that go to the issues where you maintain the judge was an error.
[01:53:43.880 --> 01:53:48.880]  File that first, he's clearly going to deny it.
[01:53:48.880 --> 01:53:54.880]  And then you put in a notice to appeal.
[01:53:54.880 --> 01:54:06.880]  But anytime in the interim, you might want to build a little more on this other attorney and give him a chance to answer the motion for new trial.
[01:54:06.880 --> 01:54:16.880]  And go ahead and file criminal charges against the attorney for aggravated perjury and against the judge.
[01:54:16.880 --> 01:54:30.880]  If a conduct complains against all of them, then file a amended pleading, make federal claims in the amended pleading, and file a removal to the Federal Court.
[01:54:30.880 --> 01:54:40.880]  Oh, I didn't know where you were going to go with this.
[01:54:40.880 --> 01:54:51.880]  Yeah, if you make the federal claim against the attorney, then it's a new claim that didn't exist when you originally chose your venue.
[01:54:51.880 --> 01:54:55.880]  You chose your venue when you filed in this court.
[01:54:55.880 --> 01:55:04.880]  And generally they'll say you're stuck with the venue you chose, but there were new torts committed against you subsequent to filing.
[01:55:04.880 --> 01:55:05.880]  Right.
[01:55:05.880 --> 01:55:08.880]  Oh, don't you usually think through the judge too?
[01:55:08.880 --> 01:55:15.880]  Well, yeah, you can, but they'll throw out the one on the judge no matter what.
[01:55:15.880 --> 01:55:23.880]  But if you say the attorney, he doesn't have any immunity whatsoever. Absolutely zero.
[01:55:23.880 --> 01:55:30.880]  Even if he is a prosecutor, in this instance, he's not acting in his capacity as a prosecutor.
[01:55:30.880 --> 01:55:37.880]  He's acting in his capacity as defense counsel, and he doesn't have any immunity here.
[01:55:37.880 --> 01:55:42.880]  So in this case, it wouldn't matter about disqualifying the judge anymore, because I'm going to remove it.
[01:55:42.880 --> 01:55:44.880]  Right, remove it to the federal court.
[01:55:44.880 --> 01:55:48.880]  In that case, I would have to still get all the record and send that up?
[01:55:48.880 --> 01:55:51.880]  No, they have to do all that.
[01:55:51.880 --> 01:55:52.880]  Really?
[01:55:52.880 --> 01:55:58.880]  Yep, and removal, you don't, this is not a motion for removal.
[01:55:58.880 --> 01:55:59.880]  Okay.
[01:55:59.880 --> 01:56:04.880]  You actually, under your authority, remove it to the federal court.
[01:56:04.880 --> 01:56:08.880]  When you file the removal, it is removed.
[01:56:08.880 --> 01:56:18.880]  Controlling case, black guy in South Carolina goes into white bar, gets in fight with white guy, kills white guy.
[01:56:18.880 --> 01:56:23.880]  Prosecuted.
[01:56:23.880 --> 01:56:27.880]  Picked a jury, he files a removal.
[01:56:27.880 --> 01:56:33.880]  Since the jury's already picked, the state court moves ahead with the prosecution.
[01:56:33.880 --> 01:56:35.880]  The removal goes to the federal court.
[01:56:35.880 --> 01:56:48.880]  The federal court gets it, looks at it, and says, you have absolutely no grounds for removal, and remands it within three days.
[01:56:48.880 --> 01:56:51.880]  They finished the trial, sound him guilty.
[01:56:51.880 --> 01:57:01.880]  He appealed to the federal court on the removal issue, and they said, you proceeded after removal.
[01:57:01.880 --> 01:57:04.880]  Everything is trash.
[01:57:04.880 --> 01:57:09.880]  They had to retry him, and they found him guilty again, because he was.
[01:57:09.880 --> 01:57:19.880]  But once that removal is in, the state court loses subject matter jurisdiction, period, and the state court is not going to mess with the feds.
[01:57:19.880 --> 01:57:31.880]  Listen to this. The judge admonished me pretty much. He said, if you appeal this, you're going to lose anyway, because the Supreme Court already ruled that these are discretionary acts.
[01:57:31.880 --> 01:57:41.880]  To me, it's like if the officer, what the court is saying, doesn't matter if the officer lied to make up his probable cause, because it's a discretionary act.
[01:57:41.880 --> 01:57:49.880]  And to me, our state court in Minnesota, our Supreme Court has ruled that way, and I'm also the bad precedent.
[01:57:49.880 --> 01:57:54.880]  Make a federal claim on that.
[01:57:54.880 --> 01:58:07.880]  That the judge acted to deny you in your right to seek remit by lying to you in court, and attempted to deny you remit.
[01:58:07.880 --> 01:58:11.880]  That one won't fly, but it's a nice one to make.
[01:58:11.880 --> 01:58:16.880]  But make one against the other attorney, he has no immunity.
[01:58:16.880 --> 01:58:19.880]  Put him in the federal court to get his attention.
[01:58:19.880 --> 01:58:25.880]  Don't forget to bar grievances and judicial conduct complaints. That's what hurts them the most.
[01:58:25.880 --> 01:58:30.880]  Okay. Do you have anything else for us? We're about to go to break.
[01:58:30.880 --> 01:58:34.880]  Just one on the other side.
[01:58:34.880 --> 01:58:38.880]  Okay. We'll finish you up quickly on the other side.
[01:58:38.880 --> 01:58:42.880]  We've got Brian and Sarah and Mark on the other side.
[01:58:42.880 --> 01:58:46.880]  This is Randy Kelton, Deb. Stephen, J.D. Craig. We have low radio.
[01:58:46.880 --> 01:58:52.880]  Our call-in number is 512-646-1984.
[01:58:52.880 --> 01:58:59.880]  We'll be right back on the other side.
[01:58:59.880 --> 01:59:06.880]  Bibles for America is offering absolutely free a unique study Bible called the New Testament Recovery Version.
[01:59:06.880 --> 01:59:13.880]  The New Testament Recovery Version has over 9,000 footnotes that explain what the Bible says, verse by verse,
[01:59:13.880 --> 01:59:17.880]  helping you to know God and to know the meaning of life.
[01:59:17.880 --> 01:59:20.880]  Order your free copy today from Bibles for America.
[01:59:20.880 --> 01:59:25.880]  Call us toll-free at 888-551-0102,
[01:59:25.880 --> 01:59:29.880]  or visit us online at bfa.org.
[01:59:29.880 --> 01:59:34.880]  This translation is highly accurate and it comes with over 13,000 cross-references,
[01:59:34.880 --> 01:59:38.880]  plus charts and maps and an outline for every book of the Bible.
[01:59:38.880 --> 01:59:41.880]  This is truly a Bible you can understand.
[01:59:41.880 --> 01:59:49.880]  To get your free copy of the New Testament Recovery Version, call us toll-free at 888-551-0102.
[01:59:49.880 --> 01:59:58.880]  That's 888-551-0102, or visit us online at bfa.org.